# Sticky  The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) – Check out post 1 first



## markus767

Official Dolby Atmos at home website

Dolby on Atmos for the home
Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup
Ceiling-firing speakers ("Atmos-enabled speakers")
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
Speaker installation guidelines
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
If you're more the visual type of guy here's a good video explaining the basics of placing your Atmos speakers: 



Technical specification for studios wishing to employ a 7.1.4 home entertainment Dolby Atmos monitoring setup


https://www.proaudio.de/de/documents/3d-audio-forum-2019/9-dolby-atmos-home-entertainment-studio-certification-guide/file.html



Blog posts
Dolby Atmos: Coming soon to a living room near you - Lab Notes
Dolby Atmos for home theaters: FAQ - Lab Notes


Dolby Patent Application
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014036085A1.html


Dolby on Atmos for movie theaters
Wayback Machine

Specifications for movie theaters
Wayback Machine


How Atmos content is created
Wayback Machine


How Atmos is encoded into TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus
https://professional.dolby.com/site...on/dolby-atmos/dolby_atmos_renderer_guide.pdf


avsforum.com Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet (at Google Docs, maintained by user kokishin)


Atmos test tone downloads (E-AC-3 audio in .mp4 container)
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

Other Dolby trailer downloads
Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


I'll update this post with news as we go along.


----------



## KLee

markus767 said:


> Mods are already getting annoyed by the numerous discussions about the upcoming Atmos feature in AVRs. So lets give this new format a home of its own in this thread.
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.
> 
> First, here's some general information about Atmos so everybody is up to speed:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf


Looking forward to Monday when the Atmos NDAs expire


----------



## ss9001

Good idea, Markus


----------



## KLee

For those wondering, there is some juicy atmos info in the 2014 Denon S/X thread:

Denon (and by extension, Marantz) will have a whole lineup of recievers(X4100/X5200/X7200) with onboard Atmos processing included, not in an optional firmware upgrade, as was previously suggested.


----------



## markus767

News from Dolby:

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/

Dolby Atmos-enabled add-on speakers and Dolby Atmos content conforms to the existing Blu-ray specification. Clear as mud


----------



## markus767

Here's the current Blu-ray specs for audio (page 18/19):
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM-AV-WhitePaper_100423-17830.pdf

Max. 8 channels of audio. Dolby Digital Plus could deliver 16 channels max.
Atmos is 10 channels + 118 objects max. So this would leave room for only 6 simultaneous objects?


----------



## zuluwalker

markus767 said:


> Mods are already getting annoyed by the numerous discussions about the upcoming Atmos feature in AVRs. So lets give this new format a home of its own in this thread.
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.
> 
> First, here's some general information about Atmos so everybody is up to speed:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf



It has been my experience that the Mods recently have been way too easily annoyed, and the character of AVS is prescribed to us users.

Atmos is very exciting to me. Though I own a Marantz AV8801 and have no real issues with using Neo:X, I find the topic of surround sound for the Home Theater to be very engaging and enjoyable.

Thanks for pulling this together!


----------



## KidHorn

Can atmos work properly in a room with a cathedral ceiling?


----------



## zuluwalker

When made available on Blu-ray with the new specs, there are plenty of movies for Atmos at home:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/content/movie/release/dolby-atmos-movies.html


----------



## bootman_head_fi

KidHorn said:


> Can atmos work properly in a room with a cathedral ceiling?


Will the add on modules work with planars and other non rectangular box shaped speakers?

And I'm guessing timbre matching is out the window now with these? 

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/


Audioholics article talking about these modules (and more) back in Feb.

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater


----------



## KLee

Being backwards compatible with existing Blu Ray players is nice


----------



## DaJoJo

any news on when other avr are comming with Atmos and/or auro-3D ? onkyo got some now and denon/marantz comming with some and i wonder if anyone knows if yamaha will come with a new avr to replace the a3030. initially i wanted to buy that one but since this new surround technology and hmdi2.0 are going to be a step-up in ht it be more the worth to wait for a newer model from yammie


----------



## Goatse

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater

great article on the otherside of atmos


----------



## Scott Simonian

DaJoJo said:


> any news on when other avr are comming with Atmos and/or auro-3D ? onkyo got some now and denon/marantz comming with some and i wonder if anyone knows if yamaha will come with a new avr to replace the a3030. initially i wanted to buy that one but since this new surround technology and hmdi2.0 are going to be a step-up in ht it be more the worth to wait for a newer model from yammie


Pioneer has also announced some AVR's coming out.

Definitely want to know what Yamaha is going to do. Omg. Perfect processor for me would be something like their 5000 pre/pro but with Atmos. CinemaDSP+Atmos!


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> Can atmos work properly in a room with a cathedral ceiling?


Probably as good or bad as any other format. Will it sound like what the mixing engineer heard? Probably not if your room doesn't conform to the acoustics of a dubbing stage.


----------



## markus767

bootman_head_fi said:


> Will the add on modules work with planars and other non rectangular box shaped speakers?
> 
> And I'm guessing timbre matching is out the window now with these?
> 
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/
> 
> 
> Audioholics article talking about these modules (and more) back in Feb.
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater


Most living rooms have reverberation times that are a bit high. Now they want us to place speakers on top of existing speakers that fire at the ceiling?
The sound from those speakers will first reach the listener(s) from where they are located. Then the reflected sound will reach the listener. That reflection will be spectrally distorted (because of speaker radiation patterns and acoustic properties of the reflecting boundary). After that late reflected sound will arrive.
All in all this sounds like a bad idea and not like something that will make movie mixes translate well to home theaters or living rooms.


----------



## Schwa

JD at AVS said that Atmos is the home wouldn't measure the precise locations of your speakers:

_As the Atmos focus will be on the "ceiling speakers", there will be no additional angle information at all ... rather simply that the speakers will be identified as either "top front", "top middle", or "top rear" (based on the previously posted 4 configurations) and then Audyssey will do its thing just as it does with the traditional 5.1/7.1 setup._

All along I thought that half the point of Atmos was to allow for some speaker placement flexibility while simultaneously allowing for far more accurate placement of audio objects. If the home Atmos processor doesn't know the precise locations of your speakers, and just assumes their positions based on your generic layout, then other than the ceiling speakers, what makes home Atmos better than theatrical Atmos down-mixed to a channel-based mix for HT?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Well .. the ceiling speakers are a new element in the mix.


----------



## M Code

Scott Simonian said:


> Pioneer has also announced some AVR's coming out.
> 
> Definitely want to know what Yamaha is going to do. Omg. Perfect processor for me would be something like their 5000 pre/pro but with Atmos. CinemaDSP+Atmos!


Yamaha will have (3) AVRs with Dolby Atmos...
Will be shown @IFA and CEDIA, ship late-September....

Just my $0.05...


----------



## Scott Simonian

M Code said:


> Yamaha will have (3) AVRs with Dolby Atmos...
> Will be shown @IFA and CEDIA, ship late-September....
> 
> Just my $0.05...


Nice! Then the question is if they are of the Aventage quality or if these three are in the


----------



## esappy

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice! Then the question is if they are of the Aventage quality or if these three are in the


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well actually by far most of all the Dolby Atmos AVR's announced this far are in the sub $1k market. Just a couple 'high end' and 11.1ch or greater so yeah...

I guess we'll see. I'm hoping for something like a 3030-ish but with Atmos. At least. Their a5000 with Atmos (and an XLR for sub) would be sweet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Schwa said:


> JD at AVS said that Atmos is the home wouldn't measure the precise locations of your speakers:
> 
> _As the Atmos focus will be on the "ceiling speakers", there will be no additional angle information at all ... rather simply that the speakers will be identified as either "top front", "top middle", or "top rear" (based on the previously posted 4 configurations) and then Audyssey will do its thing just as it does with the traditional 5.1/7.1 setup._
> 
> All along I thought that half the point of Atmos was to allow for some speaker placement flexibility while simultaneously allowing for far more accurate placement of audio objects. *If the home Atmos processor doesn't know the precise locations of your speakers, and just assumes their positions based on your generic layout, then other than the ceiling speakers, what makes home Atmos better than theatrical Atmos down-mixed to a channel-based mix for HT?*


Really, that's the big question. If Dolby had to dumb Atmos down to 1) squeeze it onto a normal Blu-ray and 2) Appease the cheap-ass manufacturers who didn't want to spend the money on new hardware designs, the faster processors and software to implement object surround properly... then what are its sonic advantages to any old 7.1 channel based system besides the in-ceiling add on speakers? 

"Gravity" in Atmos was absolutely spectacular, but it took a heck of a lot of speakers to make it happen. Many of the press demos for at home Dolby Atmos and DTS-UHD had a lot more speakers than the 7.1+4 we're seeing. More like 20 some.

I've been saying this in other threads and I'll say it here: I'd like to know what these Dolby Atmos enabled soundtracks coming to Blu-ray are actually capable of doing besides what we're seeing in these almost rushed to market first gen products.


----------



## Schwa

Scott Simonian said:


> Well actually by far most of all the Dolby Atmos AVR's announced this far are in the sub $1k market. Just a couple 'high end' and 11.1ch or greater so yeah...
> 
> I guess we'll see. I'm hoping for something like a 3030-ish but with Atmos. At least. Their a5000 with Atmos (and an XLR for sub) would be sweet.


Huh? Every single one of the Atmos-enabled products announced today by Onkyo, Integra, Marantz and Denon were $1000 and higher. Pioneer didn't provide prices for their Atmos models, but it's very likely those will also start at $1000+. The only sub-$1000 Atmos receivers are the previously announced Onkyo models that will get Atmos through a future firmware update, but there are only two of those (at $699 and $899).

So, if you replace "by far most of all" with "very few of" in your quote above, then yeah, you're right.


----------



## DaJoJo

Scott Simonian said:


> Well actually by far most of all the Dolby Atmos AVR's announced this far are in the sub $1k market. Just a couple 'high end' and 11.1ch or greater so yeah...
> I guess we'll see. I'm hoping for something like a 3030-ish but with Atmos. At least. Their a5000 with Atmos (and an XLR for sub) would be sweet.


yeah i'm hoping the same. considered a a5000 pre but the pro amp is not that great and buying some other brand amps would cost a lot with not that much gain for the money in better sound over a a3030. if they come up with a a3040 or so with atmos/auro-3D i jump right in. or maybe a firmware upgrade for the a3030 would even be better costwise


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> yeah i'm hoping the same. considered a a5000 pre but the pro amp is not that great and buying some other brand amps would cost a lot with not that much gain for the money in better sound over a a3030. if they come up with a a3040 or so with atmos/auro-3D i jump right in. or maybe a firmware upgrade for the a3030 would even be better costwise


I have a hunch that Auro3D is a non-starter. DTS-UHD on the other hand...


----------



## wse

Did DTS MDA drop off the surface of the earth


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Did DTS MDA drop off the surface of the earth


No, I think they wanted to see what Dolby came up with first. It's always a game of oneupmanship.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a hunch that Auro3D is a non-starter. DTS-UHD on the other hand...


AURO 3D is dead in the US! Unless you have $20,000 and get a DATASAT

Remember Betamax vs VHS; HD DVD vs Blu Ray; SACD vs DVD Audio well that one is not a good comparison except for classical music


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a hunch that Auro3D is a non-starter.


not perse, the disney studio's allready have adopted auro-3D and some other studio's as well. the avr supporting this are going to be a bit more expensive then atmos i'm afraid. i've heard both and i favor the auro-3D.
edit: didn't see the added text.. but yes i like dts too. especially the higher bitrate and clearer sound of it.


----------



## wse

DaJoJo said:


> not perse, the disney studio's allready have adopted auro-3D and some other studio's as well. the avr supporting this are going to be a bit more expensive then atmos i'm afraid. i've heard both and i favor the auro-3D.


Never heard AURO 3D I have multiple cinemas around my house where ATMOS is playing no AURO 3Ds! I am looking to hear both at home before I judge which one is best to my ears


----------



## DaJoJo

wse said:


> AURO 3D is dead in the US! Unless you have $20,000 and get a DATASAT
> Remember Betamax vs VHS; HD DVD vs Blu Ray; SACD vs DVD Audio well that one is not a good comparison except for classical music


lol
no they are going to implement it in new avr in the next year.. thing is atmos and auro-3D are allready in a device where i haven't seen a dts uhd yet.. they probably going to coexist and we see one going to go out of the market.. then again its all mostly based on what content is comming to the consumer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> not perse, the disney studio's allready have adopted auro-3D and some other studio's as well. the avr supporting this are going to be a bit more expensive then atmos i'm afraid. i've heard both and i favor the auro-3D.
> edit: didn't see the added text.. but yes i like dts too. especially the higher bitrate and clearer sound of it.


Dolby and DTS both have more clout and the SMPTE seems more interested in object based surround.

Auro3D doesn't have the greatest audio resolution either. Some of their add on channels are only 8 bit.


----------



## DaJoJo

oh we don't even have theaters with atmos or auro-3D here but we have stassen hifi and they have a really nice state of the art listening room. both atmos and auro-3D is for me like going from a 5.1 dolby pro logic to a dts hd setup, it's mindblowing what they did with the surroundsound.
well it might be that it has 8bit channels but it has 3 layer sound and this makes a little difference. i also wonder in how far the speakermanufacturers are comming with these atmos settop speakers which are used instead of a ceiling one. the atmos has 64 or more speaker ability but only 16 channel can be used on bluray. the auro-3D has a standard 11.1 setup . so there are pro's and cons for both systems but they gonna change movie watching to a higher level then we used to. allready looking for a way to put a RS-62II on the ceiling


----------



## wse

DaJoJo said:


> lol
> no they are going to implement it in new avr in the next year.. thing is atmos and auro-3D are allready in a device where i haven't seen a dts uhd yet.. they probably going to coexist and we see one going to go out of the market.. then again its all mostly based on what content is comming to the consumer.


To date DTS Master HD rules for Blu Ray, but if Dolby is out this year with ATMOS, DTS will have to play catch-up! Not a good thing plus DTS will have to compete with this list

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer...tm_source=multi&utm_content=redir-atmosmovies


----------



## DRaven72

I get to cut holes in the ceiling justifiably! Oh I was looking for a reason to put a couple of ML Helos 12's and upgrade my receiver. Thank you Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> To date DTS Master HD rules for Blu Ray, but if Dolby is out this year with ATMOS, DTS will have to play catch-up! Not a good thing plus DTS will have to compete with this list
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer...tm_source=multi&utm_content=redir-atmosmovies


Not really, it's the same idea as a movie coming out on Blu-ray encoded as TrueHD or Master Audio. Both companies probably have converter software that will go from Atmos to MDA or vice versa. Most of these files are PCM to start with anyway. It's the object and metadata files that have to be fixed.

Then they downconvert the master track as necessary.


----------



## Schwa

In a way I'm surprised DTS-UHD wasn't announced at the same time as Atmos; DTS was demoing a single chip-based decoder at CES. Maybe they're waiting on more studio support or next-gen optical discs to make their move...


----------



## DaJoJo

wse said:


> To date DTS Master HD rules for Blu Ray, but if Dolby is out this year with ATMOS, DTS will have to play catch-up! Not a good thing plus DTS will have to compete with this list http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer...tm_source=multi&utm_content=redir-atmosmovies


yup it does. i wonder in how far they going to keep the 5.1 base for this new dts uhd so it can still be played on a older avr with only dts. that was imho one of the good things of it. i hope they come up with something nice as most movies i watch have dts sound. it's why i want to wait to buy a new avr so i can get one which does all the formats and be done with it for the next 10 years at least.


----------



## DaJoJo

Schwa said:


> In a way I'm surprised DTS-UHD wasn't announced at the same time as Atmos; DTS was demoing a single chip-based decoder at CES. Maybe they're waiting on more studio support or next-gen optical discs to make their move...


there are 100GB bluray discs comming within a couple of years, but it requires a new bluray player. then there are endless possibilities and they can put more audiotracks on it as well. i don't think dts is going to wait for that though. being early adopter isn't allways the wisest thing to do and there is not yet a big market for dts uhd/atmos/auro-3D formats.


----------



## markus767

Schwa said:


> JD at AVS said that Atmos is the home wouldn't measure the precise locations of your speakers:
> 
> _As the Atmos focus will be on the "ceiling speakers", there will be no additional angle information at all ... rather simply that the speakers will be identified as either "top front", "top middle", or "top rear" (based on the previously posted 4 configurations) and then Audyssey will do its thing just as it does with the traditional 5.1/7.1 setup._
> 
> All along I thought that half the point of Atmos was to allow for some speaker placement flexibility while simultaneously allowing for far more accurate placement of audio objects. If the home Atmos processor doesn't know the precise locations of your speakers, and just assumes their positions based on your generic layout, then other than the ceiling speakers, what makes home Atmos better than theatrical Atmos down-mixed to a channel-based mix for HT?


If we don't get any objects then Atmos for the home isn't ready for prime time yet. It will be just another industry attempt to sell new and more gear.


----------



## Schwa

markus767 said:


> If we don't get any objects then Atmos for the home isn't ready for prime time yet. It will be just another industry attempt to sell new and more gear.


We might be (and probably are) getting some objects, but what we're not getting is a setup routine that allows the receiver/processor to calculate precisely where the speakers are located (besides their straight-line distance from the MLP). So, the receiver/processor must therefore use a pre-defined set of locations based on the generic positions you tell it your speakers are in (i.e. "7.2.2 with side and rear surrounds and middle in-ceiling speakers"). If your actual speaker locations correspond to the pre-defined locations (and I doubt we'll ever know what those are with a significant degree of precision), you're all set. But if not, then you're not getting all that object-based audio has to offer since the audio objects' positions as defined by the film mixer won't map properly to the physical space in your room because your speakers are in the "wrong" locations. Maybe if you get your speakers close to the recommended locations it won't matter much, but it seems this wouldn't be a big improvement (at least in playback, mixing might be easier) compared to the channel-based systems we already have.

At least this is the way I understand it.

And maybe the only objects we're getting will be those that involve overhead locations because it's been reported that Atmos will be of zero benefit for legacy 5.x/7.x systems. After all, the only thing that today's blog post from Dolby really highlights is the height aspect of Atmos. There's much more to theatrical Atmos than height. Maybe that's not so true with Atmos at home.

FWIW all my comments are based on what's been said about Denon's Atmos units. I assume that the Onkyo, Integra, and Pioneer models will function similarly.

Hopefully Dolby will publish something soon that explains what home Atmos does and doesn't do. Right now we're just guessing based on the very limited info that's been released. But based on what we do know, one of the promises of object-based audio...namely, the ability of the processor to precisely and accurately position audio objects in 3D space despite non-traditional/non-standard speaker layouts...won't be realized.


----------



## Otium

M Code said:


> Yamaha will have (3) AVRs with Dolby Atmos...
> Will be shown @IFA and CEDIA, ship late-September....
> 
> Just my $0.05...


Great! My HT is 15 years old. So, I decided to upgrade the sound and the projector. A month ago I bought Yamaha A3030 receiver thinking that Atmos will not happen for home use any time soon. Should have waited a little longer. Now I am afraid to get a new PJ for the fear that someone will come up with the 21:9 chip as soon as I buy a 16:9 unit.


----------



## markus767

Schwa said:


> Hopefully Dolby will publish something soon that explains what home Atmos does and doesn't do.


I hope so too. Current information suggests that Atmos for consumers will be a channel-based downmixed version. Height information might even be matrixed into other channels *shudder* so it would fit into 8 channels of the current Blu-ray specs.


----------



## joerod

I guess I will obviously A/B but I am stuck between doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. eek

I have 4 in my ceiling actually positioned nicely. Two for heights and two for sides/surrounds. So wonder which will be optimal? Treat the room as 7 then just add two Atmos heights or treat it as a traditional 5 speaker set up then add 4???


----------



## JediFonger

joerod said:


> I guess I will obviously A/B but I am stuck between doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. eek)
> 
> I have 4 in my ceiling actually positioned nicely. Two for heights and two for sides/surrounds. So wonder which will be optimal? Treat the room as 7 then just add two Atmos heights or treat it as a traditional 5 speaker set up then add 4???


re: mixdowns.

i'm hoping that Dolby partners with audyssey/similar tech or Dolby rolls out their own microphone measuring system. that way they will know exactly where the speaker is in relation to the screen. if it's not in the 1st generation, it will surely be coming in future generations.

secondly, i posted this elsewhere... but i guess this is the thread where all atmos discussions are. with atmos coming home, it doesn't make sense to sell AVRs anymore. think about it. you buy this new AVR and you will be limited by what you can do. say you move and your room no longer accepts your previous house's speaker arrangements. it's time to "decouple" amps from preamp/processors.

it's time to make a processor that'll take the atmos signal allow that processor to daisy chain to unlimited amount of speakers. so if a rich guy at home wants 24speakers anywhere he wants, he will get it and atmos will work beautifully just like in the commercial theaters. i dont know how the physically connection works... but the hw mfr will need to figure that out,. whether the control is at the processor level or maybe output that entirely to a 'primary steering logic amp controller' then that thing controls however many speakers you want installed.

this is exciting times for home movie viewing! that's for sure, i haven't seen this type of buzz since Dolby Digital 5.1 discrete first came home!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> I hope so too. Current information suggests that Atmos for consumers will be a channel-based downmixed version. Height information might even be matrixed into other channels *shudder* so it would fit into 8 channels of the current Blu-ray specs.


It's possible that there aren't any real objects, just an extension of two more channels. Making it effectively a 9.1 channel format. Remember, both TrueHD and Master Audio use a core + extension model. That's probably why they can add it to existing Blu-ray's. Atmos' channel beds can be 7.1 or 9.1. 7.1 + 2 overheads.

I hope that's not the case and there is more to it than that, but you never know.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JediFonger said:


> re: mixdowns.
> 
> i'm hoping that Dolby partners with audyssey/similar tech or Dolby rolls out their own microphone measuring system. that way they will know exactly where the speaker is in relation to the screen. if it's not in the 1st generation, it will surely be coming in future generations.
> 
> secondly, i posted this elsewhere... but i guess this is the thread where all atmos discussions are. with atmos coming home, it doesn't make sense to sell AVRs anymore. think about it. you buy this new AVR and you will be limited by what you can do. say you move and your room no longer accepts your previous house's speaker arrangements. it's time to "decouple" amps from preamp/processors.
> 
> it's time to make a processor that'll take the atmos signal allow that processor to daisy chain to unlimited amount of speakers. so if a rich guy at home wants 24speakers anywhere he wants, he will get it and atmos will work beautifully just like in the commercial theaters. i dont know how the physically connection works... but the hw mfr will need to figure that out,. whether the control is at the processor level or maybe output that entirely to a 'primary steering logic amp controller' then that thing controls however many speakers you want installed.
> 
> this is exciting times for home movie viewing! that's for sure, i haven't seen this type of buzz since Dolby Digital 5.1 discrete first came home!


I've said this too. Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA need to usher in a more modular approach to home theater equipment design. However, the data has to be on the soundtrack for expandability or this is all moot.


----------



## JediFonger

let's hope we get all the objects... otherwise they shouldn't call this atmos... but "mood" ;P


----------



## markus767

^
We won't get 118 simultaneous objects, that's for sure - way too much data.


----------



## SoundChex

markus767 said:


> We won't get 118 simultaneous objects, that's for sure - way too much data.



Perhaps something similar to the *7.1 + 4 Height Channels + 4 Objects* _format_ supported by the new "*Fraunhofer Interactive 3D Audio System for Television Broadcasting*" (_link_) . . . which it appears has been chosen as the "*channels-based & hybrid channels|objects-based*" component of the forthcoming *MPEG-H 3D Audio* standard (_which itself will presumably be a finalist for the_ *ATSC 3.0 TV* _audio codec...?_)
_


----------



## SoundChex

M Code said:


> Yamaha will have (3) AVRs with Dolby Atmos. Will be shown @IFA and CEDIA, ship late-September.



Since *Yamaha* will likely try to upsell its existing base of *AVR* owners who (_like me_) already employ *Front* or *Front+Rear Presence* (height) speakers, I'm hoping they will have a _height speaker strategy_ that differs from Pioneer's (_which seems to be "dump your existing on-wall height speakers and replace them with on-ceiling speakers!"_)

At of now, I will make no plans to change my AV system until I see what speaker layout options are available from the *DTS-UHD* _promised benefit_ *"Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"* (_link_) ...!

_Before the advent of *Home Dolby Atmos*, I had not thought of my existing *5.x + 2x FrontPresence* speaker layouts as "arbitrary" . . . but I see no reason to change my long-held position that "if speakers were supposed to be located on my ceiling, gravity would have pointed UP!"_
_


----------



## markus767

SoundChex said:


> "Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"


That equals to objects-only mixes or sophisticated speaker remapping of channel-based content. The former doesn't exist and the latter is a less-than-ideal solution currently only available in Trinnov (-enabled) processors.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

From 128 simultaneous objects down to... *4*???? That seems like we're wasting our time here with "object" surround. Why not just stick with channel based audio while we're at it since things have been so completely stripped down? 

There are huge benefits and surround placement potential with objects over strictly channels and this just seems like a pointless exercise right now.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> From 128 simultaneous objects down to... *4*???? That seems like we're wasting our time here with "object" surround. Why not just stick with channel based audio while we're at it since things have been so completely stripped down?
> 
> There are huge benefits and surround placement potential with objects over strictly channels and this just seems like a pointless exercise right now.


Dan. Where on Earth did you get the idea that *objects* are limited to just four?

Maybe take a moment and re-read ALL this stuff about home Atmos, bro. 


Four ceiling heights =/= four 'objects'


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Dan. Where on Earth did you get the idea that *objects* are limited to just four?


He's conflating the professional version of Atmos (128 objects) with the proposed Fraunhofer broadcast TV audio format (4 objects) that soundchex mentioned. Any excuse to complain.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So in other words, absolutely nothing to worry about being limited to four objects.

Lol hope everyone else is paying attention.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> So in other words, absolutely nothing to worry about being limited to four objects.
> 
> Lol hope everyone else is paying attention.


How would you get 118 simultaneous objects in a stream that is only a couple of MBit/s max?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Because _you_ know exactly how much data all these objects consume?


----------



## Archaea

Scott Simonian said:


> Pioneer has also announced some AVR's coming out.
> 
> Definitely want to know what Yamaha is going to do. Omg. Perfect processor for me would be something like their 5000 pre/pro but with Atmos. CinemaDSP+Atmos!


 
Not until they put a darn balanced XLR output on the sub out.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Archaea said:


> Not until they put a darn XLR output on the sub out.


Haha! I actually said just that in one of these _other_ Atmos threads. 

Probably the Yamaha one, maybe.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Because _you_ know exactly how much data all these objects consume?



The audio info contained in an object is presumably equivalent to 'one channel' regardless of whether the object is STATIC or DYNAMIC (and likely relatively unaffected by whether it is INTERACTIVE or NON-INTERACTIVE) . . . but a DYNAMIC object must require a lot more _positional_ metadata than a STATIC object.
_


----------



## Archaea

markus767 said:


> ^
> We won't get 118 simultaneous objects, that's for sure - way too much data.


 
I'd pay $300 extra to put the top of the line Intel processor (non extreme) in my pre-amp. Your telling me an Intel 4770k or equivalent processor from any chosen vendor couldn't process 118 simultaneous objects?

Baloney...

Instead we are still getting these onboard low heat, low speed processing chips that rival computer chips that were top of the line in the 1980's. C'mon. Why does my Onkyo GUI on my 5508 look like something that might appear on my late 1980's Tandy 1000 from Radio Shack? I take that back. My Tandy 1000 had better graphics capability than my relatively current gen Onkyo. I'm pretty sure my album art for pandora streaming through the Onkyo is 8 bit and probably 320x200 resolution.

News that Atmos for home isn't really object based audio is a real devastating blow to my enthusiasm over this release. WORST NEWS FOR AN AV ENTHUSIAST ALL YEAR --- well besides perhaps the news that popalock is moving out of country before he can setup his 32 SI subwoofers and four SI 24" subwoofers to achieve absolutely glorious LFE overkill in his 1500 cubic foot basement theater room!


----------



## blackoper

So are any of these Atmos equipped receivers going to be able to do 9.1.4 so you can keep the front wides as well as have four ceiling channels? (aka 13.1 with a separate amp?)


----------



## Schwa

blackoper said:


> So are any of these Atmos equipped receivers going to be able to do 9.1.4 so you can keep the front wides as well as have four ceiling channels? (aka 13.1 with a separate amp?)


Nope. So far the maximum number of channels any of them are able to process is 11.


----------



## esappy

joerod said:


> I guess I will obviously A/B but I am stuck between doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. eek
> 
> I have 4 in my ceiling actually positioned nicely. Two for heights and two for sides/surrounds. So wonder which will be optimal? Treat the room as 7 then just add two Atmos heights or treat it as a traditional 5 speaker set up then add 4???


Without knowing exactly how ATMOS processing is going to work in the home, it makes sense (to me at least ) that if you go with using 4 in ceiling speakers vice 2, you will be able to get greater benefit from ATMOS. Since the big argument for ATMOS is all the height information possible, and the whole X, Y, Z coordinate thing, using 4 ceiling/height speakers could give ATMOS more possible coordinates to use to render all those object based sounds. I guess it will depend really if the "ATMOS encoded" blu-ray discs will still only use the core 5.1 setup that the majority of blu-rays are today, or will they bump up to making all soundtracks with "ATMOS encoding", or whatever they will call it, start out at 7.1. I'm not even going to start another 5.1 vs. 7.1 benefits argument.


----------



## joerod

I spoke with engineers at both Dolby and Onkyo today. Both said trying both would be the best suggestion but both agreed the 4 ceiling speakers would most likely be optimal as Atmos speakers. So both predict 5.1.4 would be the winner. We shall see I guess.


----------



## DaJoJo

well if the atmos is going to do only 9.1.2 (or 11.1) , i still favour the auro-3D which has 13.1 channel capability.. seriously wonder why they don't make use of the full channel capability of atmos. it could be like 5.1.5.1 or so, so it has 5 speakers below and 5 on top and a voice of god ceiling speaker. would be easy to align speakers also. donno which dolby people invented the atmos soundwave-to-ceiling-bouncing speaker but don't these people think of that most people dont have a nice flat ceiling or one with multilevel or some roomtreatment there and what about the reflection of sound to the side-walls ? who made this notation for speakersetups actually ? makes no sense since it has speaker at earlevel ,then the sub and then the heights/vog speakers. should be like 1.5.5.1 or something similar.. and virtual rears for 7.1.. its confusing allready.. more then 8 channel requires hdmi2.0 spec and there are 8 channel 24bit/192khz on bluray disc and they gonna make it so that it can be played with a current bluray player so that there is 11.1 and 4 additional speakers for objects or object streams possible. current usage is 24bit/48khz zo that leaves some space for additional sound info. its like dts-hd with a standard core and additional channel info incorporated. it can probably do some 16 channels on bluray so that it leaves 4 additional channels for objectbased sounds. might sound a bit low value this 4 channels at same time but there is a lot one can do with those channels and some creative mixing.
if you have enough money to spare you could get one of these http://www.stormaudio.com/en/products/auro-3d-integrated-surround-sound-processor/7804-auriga.html still wonder though why it has 16 channel support and only 13.1 auro-3D.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

esappy said:


> Without knowing exactly how ATMOS processing is going to work in the home, it makes sense (to me at least ) that if you go with using 4 in ceiling speakers vice 2, you will be able to get greater benefit from ATMOS. Since the big argument for ATMOS is all the height information possible, and the whole X, Y, Z coordinate thing, using 4 ceiling/height speakers could give ATMOS more possible coordinates to use to render all those object based sounds. I guess it will depend really if the "ATMOS encoded" blu-ray discs will still only use the core 5.1 setup that the majority of blu-rays are today, or will they bump up to making all soundtracks with "ATMOS encoding", or whatever they will call it, start out at 7.1. I'm not even going to start another 5.1 vs. 7.1 benefits argument.


It's possible it's 7.1 plus whatever amount of objects they were able to add. Then again, it could just be 9.1 and that's it. 

However, Roger Dressler seemed to hint in his reply to me that 7.1+4 was not the maximum these Atmos consumer soundtracks could do, and that this layout was only due to current DSP limitations. 

Still want to know the real nitty gritty. I think a lot of us do, so we can plan our theaters accordingly.


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's possible it's 7.1 plus whatever amount of objects they were able to add. Then again, it could just be 9.1 and that's it.
> 
> However, Roger Dressler seemed to hint in his reply to me that 7.1+4 was not maximum these Atmos consumer soundtracks could do, and that this layout was only due to current DSP limitations.
> 
> Still want to know the real nitty gritty. I think a lot of us do, so we can plan our theaters accordingly.


well for the objects thingy it doesn't mean that 4 channels have only 4 objects. there can be a lot of objects rendered combined to a wave soundoutput on these 4 channels. in fact there is only the limit of the dsp ic's used, the more processing power it has the more objects it can render.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> well for the objects thingy it doesn't mean that 4 channels have only 4 objects. there can be a lot of objects rendered combined to a wave soundoutput on these 4 channels. in fact there is only the limit of the dsp ic's used, the more processing power it has the more objects it can render.


I'm not saying the four ceiling outputs equate to four objects, I'm saying that they probably used the core + extension data model of Dolby TrueHD since it works similarly to Atmos' structure. Dolby Atmos (commercially speaking) is either 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds + objects. 

There is no way in heck there are 128 objects plus 64 speaker positional data in consumer Atmos, but I would like to know what the consumer version DID get. 

I hope there are more than 4 objects like one of the proposed formats for UHD television broadcasting. Otherwise, it's awfully close to what we already have. There needs to be a clear distinction in surround capability between the current formats and Atmos and DTS-UHD.


----------



## DS-21

Schwa said:


> ***But based on what we do know, one of the promises of object-based audio...namely, the ability of the processor to precisely and accurately position audio objects in 3D space despite non-traditional/non-standard speaker layouts***


IMO, and IME based on playing with Trinnov, there's a key phrase missing there: _over a fairly small listening area._

As David L. Clark wrote a long time ago, decided where you want the images to be, and place speakers there. Anything else will not work except sometimes in a very small area.



markus767 said:


> ***Height information might even be matrixed into other channels *shudder* so it would fit into 8 channels of the current Blu-ray specs.


What's wrong with that?


----------



## esappy

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not saying the four ceiling outputs equate to four objects, I'm saying that they probably used the core + extension data model of Dolby TrueHD since it works similarly to Atmos' structure. Dolby Atmos (commercially speaking) is either 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds + objects.
> 
> There is no way in heck there are 128 objects plus 64 speaker positional data in consumer Atmos, but I would like to know what the consumer version DID get.
> 
> I hope there are more than 4 objects like one of the proposed formats for UHD television broadcasting. Otherwise, it's awfully close to what we already have. There needs to be a clear distinction in surround capability between the current formats and Atmos and DTS-UHD.


I am very curious as to how many 'objects' are going to be available in the consumer version. Since Dolby has already said consumer Atmos is compatible with current blu-ray players, I am making the assumption that Atmos information is not a discrete channel and if thats true then you should be able to encode in really any number of objects. You dont need 64 height speakers to play back all these objects in the home because that would be ridiculous in a home environment but with 4 ceiling speakers, you can pretty accurately place the objects all over with various combos of heights and fronts and surrounds working together (the X, Y, Z coordinates). Did that make sense? I think the bullet scene from 'The Matrix' would be an amazing demo for Atmos.


----------



## JediFonger

i agree why not retain the same info as the theatrical atmos then allow hw mfr to catchup to the information.

to me... it was crazy hdtv didnt start with 4k or 8k and relented fo 2k instead.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

esappy said:


> I am very curious as to how many 'objects' are going to be available in the consumer version. Since Dolby has already said consumer Atmos is compatible with current blu-ray players, I am making the assumption that Atmos information is not a discrete channel and if thats true then you should be able to encode in really any number of objects. You dont need 64 height speakers to play back all these objects in the home because that would be ridiculous in a home environment but with 4 ceiling speakers, you can pretty accurately place the objects all over with various combos of heights and fronts and surrounds working together (the X, Y, Z coordinates). Did that make sense? I think the bullet scene from 'The Matrix' would be an amazing demo for Atmos.


I don't think consumer Atmos uses matrixed information, just like the commercial version. Objects are discrete "packets" of computer controlled information just like channels. They're just more flexible and scalable in their placement around the room and how many speakers they can move through (that's determined by how detailed the positional metadata is). However, you need more speakers in order to have more coordinates to pan through. Except for the height speakers, there are no other pan-through arrays... in this iteration of at-home Atmos (that's a mouthful). That was a key selling point of Dolby's when they sold people on the 3D nature of Atmos.


----------



## markus767

DS-21 said:


> What's wrong with that?


Is it possible to mix two uncorrelated audio channels and separate them without any degradation?


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't think consumer Atmos uses matrixed information, just like the commercial version. Objects are discrete "packets" of computer controlled information just like channels. They're just more flexible and scalable in their placement around the room and how many speakers they can move through (that's determined by how detailed the positional metadata is). However, you need more speakers in order to have more coordinates to pan through. Except for the height speakers, there are no other pan-through arrays... in this iteration of at-home Atmos (that's a mouthful). That was a key selling point of Dolby's when they sold people on the 3D nature of Atmos.


more room too.. and it probably is based on 7.1 beds + objects as there 8 channel for hdmi , more channel requires hmdi2.0.


----------



## DaJoJo

markus767 said:


> Is it possible to mix two uncorrelated audio channels and separate them without any degradation?


yes but it doesn't work that way for dolby hd or atmos or dts. they have a basic channel layout and a extra feed for the additional audioquality and channels


----------



## markus767

DaJoJo said:


> yes


If that would be true then we could just matrix all 128 Atmos channels into a single channel, transport it and extract all 128 channels at the receiving end without any loss. Why has nobody else thought of this yet


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> more room too.. and it probably is based on 7.1 beds + objects as there 8 channel for hdmi , more channel requires hmdi2.0.


I believe that's 8 channels of PCM uncompressed audio. HDMI chipsets only have to recognize and pass the Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio flags. Core+extension is the root of both Dolby and DTS's codecs. As long as Atmos and DTS-UHD have TrueHD and Master Audio flagging... it'll never know the difference.

Any current Dolby/DTS lossless decoder will just ignore the extra "junk" and Atmos and DTS-UHD decoders will combine the data together.


----------



## esappy

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't think consumer Atmos uses matrixed information, just like the commercial version. Objects are discrete "packets" of computer controlled information just like channels. They're just more flexible and scalable in their placement around the room and how many speakers they can move through (that's determined by how detailed the positional metadata is). However, you need more speakers in order to have more coordinates to pan through. Except for the height speakers, there are no other pan-through arrays... in this iteration of at-home Atmos (that's a mouthful). That was a key selling point of Dolby's when they sold people on the 3D nature of Atmos.


Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that Atmos is using matrixing. I must be in my own little world as it made sense to me  I guess that's what happens when you start guessing about something that you don't know much about.  They just need to get the information out ASAP.


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> I believe that's 8 channels of PCM uncompressed audio. HDMI chipsets only have to recognize and pass the Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio flags. Core+extension is the root of both Dolby and DTS's codecs. As long as Atmos and DTS-UHD have TrueHD and Master Audio flagging... it'll never know the difference.
> Any current Dolby/DTS lossless decoder will just ignore the extra "junk" and Atmos and DTS-UHD decoders will combine the data together.


yup, it is probably done like u say. hdmi just passes along and based on 5.1+extension


----------



## stephenbr

DaJoJo said:


> if you have enough money to spare you could get one of these http://www.stormaudio.com/en/products/auro-3d-integrated-surround-sound-processor/7804-auriga.html still wonder though why it has 16 channel support and only 13.1 auro-3D.


The Storm Audio channel count includes support for up to 4 subwoofers.


----------



## anubis05

Here is a lot more on Dolby Atmos, the 2014 models of Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Onkyo and Integra to support it.

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Denon-Marantz-Pioneer-Onkyo-Integra-Reveal-Dolby-Atmos-Equipped-Home-Theater-Gear.shtml


----------



## esappy

anubis05 said:


> Here is a lot more on Dolby Atmos, the 2014 models of Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Onkyo and Integra to support it.
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Denon-Marantz-Pioneer-Onkyo-Integra-Reveal-Dolby-Atmos-Equipped-Home-Theater-Gear.shtml


Nice read! I can't wait to get to hear about the Pioneer press release today and see if they got to hear some good demos.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Scott Simonian said:


> Well actually by far most of all the Dolby Atmos AVR's announced this far are in the sub $1k market. Just a couple 'high end' and 11.1ch or greater so yeah...
> 
> I guess we'll see. I'm hoping for something like a 3030-ish but with Atmos. At least. Their a5000 with Atmos (and an XLR for sub) would be sweet.


I think it is the HDMI 2.0 chips that will be in the higher priced AVR's that are delaying them.


----------



## markus767

esappy said:


> Nice read! I can't wait to get to hear about the Pioneer press release today and see if they got to hear some good demos.


Still no press release and the white paper Mr. Walker was talking about?


----------



## JediFonger

i wish atmos would have been though of in the 80s and given to us consumers in the 90s the way Dolby Digital arrived to us. that would have saved us 20+ yrs of stupid in between progress.


----------



## HitchcockBirds

Some questions. Please answer:

1) Is there a receiver that possesses both Atmos AND DTS-UHD?

2) Why is 7.1.4 considered the gold standard? Why not 11.4.4?

3) Out of the Atmos-capable receivers that have been revealed, which is the better receiver? 

4) Off-topic, but what's the difference between a preamp and a receiver? Which is better? I ask this because there are 2 onkyo products that both have 11.2 channels but one of them is a preamp (SC5530) and the other a receiver (NR3030).

5) Why is Audyssey looked up to and which Atmos-capable product has it?

6) Does the Marantz AV8802 possess Atmos?


----------



## Schwa

HitchcockBirds said:


> Some questions. Please answer:
> 
> 1) Is there a receiver that possesses both Atmos AND DTS-UHD?
> 
> 2) Why is 7.1.4 considered the gold standard? Why not 11.4.4?
> 
> 3) Out of the Atmos-capable receivers that have been revealed, which is the better receiver?
> 
> 4) Off-topic, but what's the difference between a preamp and a receiver? Which is better? I ask this because there are 2 onkyo products that both have 11.2 channels but one of them is a preamp (SC5530) and the other a receiver (NR3030).
> 
> 5) Why is Audyssey looked up to and which Atmos-capable product has it?
> 
> 6) Does the Marantz AV8802 possess Atmos?


1. No. DTS-UHD might be available in a future firmware update but that's just pure speculation at this point.

2. 7.1.4 (well, maybe 7.2.4) is considered the gold standard because it uses the maximum number of height speakers that any current Atmos product can drive. Nothing released to date can drive more than 11 speakers so 11.4.4 is a non-starter.

3. That's impossible to say without anyone actually getting their hands on production units...and even then might still be impossible to objectively say.

4. A receiver is basically a pre-amp plus built-in power amplifiers. If you buy a pre-amp, you'll also need outboard power amplifiers to actually power your speakers. A receiver already has the amps included.

5. Audyssey is a proven, flexible room eq solution and has been demonstrated (objectively and subjectively) to deliver good results. Only the Denon and Marantz products have Audyssey.

6. Yes.


----------



## HitchcockBirds

Schwa said:


> 1. No. DTS-UHD might be available in a future firmware update but that's just pure speculation at this point.
> 
> 2. 7.1.4 is considered the gold standard because it uses the maximum number of height speakers that any current Atmos product can drive. Nothing released to date can drive more than 11 speakers so 11.4.4 is a non-starter.
> 
> 3. That's impossible to say without anyone actually getting their hands on production units...and even then might still be impossible to objectively say.
> 
> 4. A receiver is basically a pre-amp plus built-in power amplifiers. If you buy a pre-amp, you'll also need outboard power amplifiers to actually power your speakers. A receiver already has the amps included.
> 
> 5. Audyssey is a proven, flexible room eq solution and has been demonstrated (objectively and subjectively) to deliver good results. Only the Denon and Marantz products have Audyssey.
> 
> 6. Yes.


Thank you for answering. Sorry for adding more but is there any news that confirms that the 8802 has Atmos? Built in or via firmware?

And is it possible to get in-ceiling speakers that are from a different brand than the other loudspeakers? If 7.1.4 is the standard, I want things to not blow up. I'm thinking about getting the Sasha W/P Series 2, but I'm not sure if I can make that into a 7.1 surround sound.

Plus, do you see DTS-UHD lasting? Or is Atmos the bigger thing?


----------



## DaJoJo

stephenbr said:


> The Storm Audio channel count includes support for up to 4 subwoofers.


13.4 = 17 channels ?


----------



## bargervais

Keeping up with all this new stuff first it was 3D TV then I had to replace AVR Blu-ray player that cost me a bundle to replace everything, and that was after I just set up everything for a high definition set up. it just seems that every year what I bought last year is out dated I have replaced my AVR and finally settled on TX-MR818 running 9.2 center, fronts, wides, highs, and surrounds and I had to buy an amp to drive the wides. I was very close to buying a TX-NR 929 to add backs for 11.2, Thank goodness I didn't pull the trigger now I'll try to be content and stick with what I have till the dust settles with this atmos. My back speakers are in the ceiling 4 feet behind my listening position so I'm hoping they will be an OK position to run 9.2.2??????? 
I'll wait till the end of this year once things settle down and what people experience once they are actually in people's homes and being used. With everything new there comes bugs, firmware fixes and a bunch of unhappy or should I say buyer's remorse.
I am looking forward to being one that will most likely jump right in.


----------



## stephenbr

DaJoJo said:


> 13.4 = 17 channels ?


Nope, not quite. It's a compromise I expect - 12.4 or 13.3.


----------



## Mike Garrett

HitchcockBirds said:


> Thank you for answering. Sorry for adding more but is there any news that confirms that the 8802 has Atmos? Built in or via firmware?
> 
> And is it possible to get in-ceiling speakers that are from a different brand than the other loudspeakers? If 7.1.4 is the standard, I want things to not blow up. I'm thinking about getting the Sasha W/P Series 2, but I'm not sure if I can make that into a 7.1 surround sound.
> 
> Plus, do you see DTS-UHD lasting? Or is Atmos the bigger thing?


Yes the AV8802 has Atmos.

No, you do not have to use the same brand of speakers. 

Can't answer the third question.


----------



## KidHorn

Yamaha atmos receivers


http://usa.yamaha.com/news_events/audio_visual/yamaha_elevates_premium_aventage_av_receivers/


----------



## Skylinestar

Will Atmos soundtrack greatly increase the file size of a movie/video clip?


----------



## DaJoJo

KidHorn said:


> Yamaha atmos receivers
> http://usa.yamaha.com/news_events/audio_visual/yamaha_elevates_premium_aventage_av_receivers/


hallelujah ! thank you, thank you, thank you :kiss:


----------



## KidHorn

Archaea said:


> I'd pay $300 extra to put the top of the line Intel processor (non extreme) in my pre-amp. Your telling me an Intel 4770k or equivalent processor from any chosen vendor couldn't process 118 simultaneous objects?
> 
> Baloney...
> 
> Instead we are still getting these onboard low heat, low speed processing chips that rival computer chips that were top of the line in the 1980's. C'mon. Why does my Onkyo GUI on my 5508 look like something that might appear on my late 1980's Tandy 1000 from Radio Shack? I take that back. My Tandy 1000 had better graphics capability than my relatively current gen Onkyo. I'm pretty sure my album art for pandora streaming through the Onkyo is 8 bit and probably 320x200 resolution.
> 
> News that Atmos for home isn't really object based audio is a real devastating blow to my enthusiasm over this release. WORST NEWS FOR AN AV ENTHUSIAST ALL YEAR --- well besides perhaps the news that popalock is moving out of country before he can setup his 32 SI subwoofers and four SI 24" subwoofers to achieve absolutely glorious LFE overkill in his 1500 cubic foot basement theater room!



Along with the top of the line Intel processor you would need liquid cooling for the processor and have to install cooling fins and a fan on the back of the receiver.


----------



## DaJoJo

KidHorn said:


> Along with the top of the line Intel processor you would need liquid cooling for the processor and have to install cooling fins and a fan on the back of the receiver.











so i can finally start using this after 4 years lol


----------



## DaJoJo

Skylinestar said:


> Will Atmos soundtrack greatly increase the file size of a movie/video clip?


not near as much as 4K increases it


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HitchcockBirds said:


> Thank you for answering. Sorry for adding more but is there any news that confirms that the 8802 has Atmos? Built in or via firmware?
> 
> And is it possible to get in-ceiling speakers that are from a different brand than the other loudspeakers? If 7.1.4 is the standard, I want things to not blow up. I'm thinking about getting the Sasha W/P Series 2, but I'm not sure if I can make that into a 7.1 surround sound.
> 
> Plus, do you see DTS-UHD lasting? Or is Atmos the bigger thing?


You could use different ones, but I wouldn't if at all possible. The optimal setup, especially for 3D audio, uses timbre matched speakers.

As for DTS-UHD... it hasn't even been announced yet. Don't jump the gun.


----------



## mastermaybe

I'd like to say my most sincere wish would be for a 33.16.12 avr or pre pro to be introduced for the spec-crowd, but then we'd just hear about how it really should have been 45.32.24

Hilarious to read the angst and rhetoric over something no one (at least as far as I can tell) has even heard yet.

Thread should be locked until some substance can be provided.

James


----------



## Scott Simonian

Or just don't read these threads.  

At this point I am on Standby until I hear what the deal is with content.


----------



## ahmedreda

Planning to go 7.1.4 if the reviews are good and I can get the equivalent of the avr-x5200 for


----------



## mastermaybe

It's a audio/video forum...I'm going to read the threads but that doesn't mean they should be infiltrated with the identical speculatory nonsense post after post.

With virtually everyone seemingly knowing everything with CEM engineers in their back pocket to boot, it's a winder why we even require the thread to begin with

Enthusiasm is one thing, baseless criticism and pointless conjecture is quite another.

James


----------



## audiovideoholic

Didn't you mean 34.24.36? 

I'm just excited to have tops and don't care about anything else at this point. It will be an improvement that's not available so look forward to it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Agreed. You can skim every single Atmos related thread on AVS and you will see that I usually the one that is getting sick of the same stuff being regurgitated over and over and over.

But... now we sort of have something new and legitimate to talk about.


----------



## wse

I would never buy a receiver that says: Atmos firmware upgrades will be available later!

Too many problems I will buy one when all is in it plus I really want DTS UHD


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> I would never buy a receiver that says: Atmos firmware upgrades will be available later!
> 
> Too many problems I will buy one when all is in it plus I really want DTS UHD


Agreed although I am really fighting the urge with the announcement of the Yammy 3040 (of which they are saying now will have Atmos with FW). Oye.


----------



## KidHorn

wse said:


> I would never buy a receiver that says: Atmos firmware upgrades will be available later!
> 
> Too many problems I will buy one when all is in it plus I really want DTS UHD



You probably shouldn't buy any of the new atmos receivers. I invision a lot of firmware updates no matter which one you buy.


I want to get an atmos receiver eventually, but unless one of my current receivers dies, I don't plan on getting one for a few years. Too many things that need to be ironed out.


----------



## wse

KidHorn said:


> You probably shouldn't buy any of the new atmos receivers. I invision a lot of firmware updates no matter which one you buy. I want to get an atmos receiver eventually, but unless one of my current receivers dies, I don't plan on getting one for a few years. Too many things that need to be ironed out.


Yes plus I want DTS UD that will be maybe CEDIA 2015!


----------



## smurraybhm

Let's start a thread so we can have some more speculation 
I agree 100% though and for me putting speakers in my ceiling are not an option. Still not convinced that heights at ceiling height can achieve the same sound effect. I am going to sit back and watch what happens this Fall, and most likely be happy with a 7.2 or 9.2 setup until the urge to replace my 4311 is a lot stronger than it is based on what I haven't read so far.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> I would never buy a receiver that says: Atmos firmware upgrades will be available later!
> 
> Too many problems I will buy one when all is in it plus I really want DTS UHD


I too am very tempted but no I will wait till the bugs get out of them before I upgraded once again and cutting in ceiling speakers and running wires I may just settle on the TX-NR 929 to add backs to my present set up. If the price of the 929 drops to around $700 I'll do that then wait till 2016 for atmos when the dust settles.


----------



## jdsmoothie

HitchcockBirds said:


> 6) Does the Marantz AV8802 possess Atmos?


Marantz will be releasing the AV7702 and SR7009 in Sep with Atmos on board followed by the AV8802 with Atmos on board in January. Denon will be releasing the X4100W and X5200W in Aug/Sep with Atmos on board followed by the flagship X7200W in December with Atmos on board. All three Marantz models will be capable of 11CH Atmos while all but the X4100W Denon models will be capable of 11CH Atmos. Once DTS finalizes how DTS UHD will be incorporated on AVRs, it "may" be firmware updated to these same AVRs in 2015.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed although I am really fighting the urge with the announcement of the Yammy 3040 (of which they are saying now will have Atmos with FW). Oye.



It will be hard to start the _30 day in-home trial_ of some new *Dolby Atmos & DTS-UHD* capable *AVR* until all promised firmware for both technologies are available to download . . . _*and *_you have a handful of *BD*s authored in both *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS-UHD* with which to test the AVR's new features!
_


----------



## audiovideoholic

SoundChex said:


> It will be hard to start the _30 day in-home trial_ of some new *Dolby Atmos & DTS-UHD* capable *AVR* until all promised firmware for both technologies are available to download . . . _*and *_you have a handful of *BD*s authored in both *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS-UHD* with which to test the AVR's new features!
> _


Then, wait?


----------



## Rumble Devo

*Height Vs Ceiling*

I am interested to know if in the upcoming Receiver implementations whether or not Dolby ATMOS will work with the Pllz height layouts. (ATMOS + Pllz). I currently have a Pllz layout and am not totally enthused by the thought of having to remove the Height speakers for Ceiling ones. 

I seem to recall someone from Dolby saying that ATMOS could theoretically work in any layout. This may only applied to the Commercial version though. 


Thoughts?...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rumble Devo said:


> I am interested to know if in the upcoming Receiver implementations whether or not Dolby ATMOS will work with the Pllz height layouts. (ATMOS + Pllz). I currently have a Pllz layout and am not totally enthused by the thought of having to remove the Height speakers for Ceiling ones.
> 
> I seem to recall someone from Dolby saying that ATMOS could theoretically work in any layout. This may only applied to the Commercial version though.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?...


It doesn't have the remapping feature yet. Put the added speakers in the wrong spot outside the pre-determined layout schemes and you won't get an optimal presentation. In fact, some manufacturers like Onkyo are dumbing their calibration features down even further (like no Audyssey in favor of a very stripped down in-house design) in order to put Atmos decoding on their less powerful DSP chips.

You may not see really advanced Atmos on anything but the priciest pre-amps.


----------



## DaJoJo

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed although I am really fighting the urge with the announcement of the Yammy 3040 (of which they are saying now will have Atmos with FW). Oye.


i was fighting my urge to buy a new a3030 , but now that yammy announced the a3040 for the same price i just can't resist.. at first my thoughts where that the 3030 will be cheaper when the 3040 is released, but i just can't live with the idea that i have to do without all new technology like hdmi2.0 and atmos later in fall. i only have a dts and dd avr now, so i'm sure it will be a lot of avance on what i have now. the second it comes available i'm most surely gonna buy the a3040 and some klipsches.


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> It will be hard to start the _30 day in-home trial_ of some new *Dolby Atmos & DTS-UHD* capable *AVR* until all promised firmware for both technologies are available to download . . . _*and *_you have a handful of *BD*s authored in both *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS-UHD* with which to test the AVR's new features!
> _


Preach it, my man!



audiovideoholic said:


> Then, wait?


*sigh*

...yes. 



DaJoJo said:


> i was fighting my urge to buy a new a3030 , but now that yammy announced the a3040 for the same price i just can't resist.. at first my thoughts where that the 3030 will be cheaper when the 3040 is released, but i just can't live with the idea that i have to do without all new technology like hdmi2.0 and atmos later in fall. i only have a dts and dd avr now, so i'm sure it will be a lot of avance on what i have now. the second it comes available i'm most surely gonna buy the a3040 and some klipsches.


Been itching for the 3030 all year. It's easier to resist but now the 3040? Ugh.  

Must... wait... for .... content.

And then there's DTS. G'damnit!

Must... hold.... out.


----------



## DaJoJo

Scott Simonian said:


> Preach it, my man!
> *sigh*
> ...yes.
> Been itching for the 3030 all year. It's easier to resist but now the 3040? Ugh.
> Must... wait... for .... content.
> And then there's DTS. G'damnit!
> Must... hold.... out.


lol dude !
there is allready content for atmos as well as for auro-3D albeit not that much though, but there will be more by the end of the year. none of which are going to stop me from buying a a3040 with new hdmi2.0 60fps spec and atmos incorporated with new firmware comming in the fall. the reason for atmos not being implemented directly is probably related to certification and licences needed and not so much by the capability to do so. in the meanwhile it does neo:x and dolby IIz anyways and im sure for atmos it will have some dsp stuff to play with that too. yammies dsp chips are very capable of doing so with probably even processing power to spare.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No. There is no Atmos consumer content. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## wse

I can imagine buying a Dolby Atmos ready with out DTS UHD where is DTS


----------



## Scott Simonian

Taking their sweet ass time.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Taking their sweet ass time.


Like I mentioned before, I think DTS wanted Dolby to tip their hand first. Then they can make a counter offer, so to speak. Their rivalry is not over yet.


----------



## esappy

So this isn't consumer Atmos, but here is an article on a Sony theater that just made some upgrades including Atmos and Auro 3D and how they can convert one into the other. I thought it was interesting and others might like it too. Maybe whet your appetites a little more 

http://m.prosoundnetwork.com/article/sony-pictures-upgrades-for-immersive-sound/17940

It's cool if you want to wait awhile before deciding if Atmos is a worthy upgrade for you, but I haven't been this excited in quite a while about home theater and I am soooo ready to upgrade my old (but still quite good) Denon AVR-3808ci that I will board this train as soon as I have the cash to buy in. Now its just a matter of deciding on which model I want.  Besides, I am actually having fun with this topic and I don't know why some people are so bent out of shape but lighten up about it and enjoy the ride.


----------



## esappy

Just finished reading the press release on the Yamaha receivers and I gotta say I am intrigued by this statement: "YPAO™ - R.S.C. (Reflected Sound Control) with 3D, multipoint and angle measurement corrects for imperfect room conditions and non-standard speaker placement for the best sounding results."

Could this mean that only Yamaha will be able to truly "know" your speakers location and make Atmos more effective? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## esappy

Well this didn't take long  

http://www.electronichouse.com/arti...odule_adds_dolby_atmos_to_bp-8060st_speakers/


----------



## cwt

esappy said:


> Just finished reading the press release on the Yamaha receivers and I gotta say I am intrigued by this statement: "YPAO™ - R.S.C. (Reflected Sound Control) with 3D, multipoint and angle measurement corrects for imperfect room conditions and non-standard speaker placement for the best sounding results."
> 
> Could this mean that only Yamaha will be able to truly "know" your speakers location and make Atmos more effective? Inquiring minds want to know.


I would be more convinced if that statement was linked to dolby atmos and not ypao somehow 
This sounds more like proper rendering should 



> DTS-UHD Benefits:
> Environmentally compensated audio rendering allows consumers to hear audio directionality and dimensionality more precise than ever before possible
> Object control enables consumers to interact with key objects within the audio mix and adjust them to preference
> Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts


http://www.dts.com/corporate/press-...p-audio-dsp-at-consumer-electronics-show.aspx


----------



## sdurani

esappy said:


> Could this mean that only Yamaha will be able to truly "know" your speakers location and make Atmos more effective?


It will know where your speakers are (current Yamaha models already do this), but the info won't be used for Atmos rendering.


----------



## jdsmoothie

esappy said:


> Just finished reading the press release on the Yamaha receivers and I gotta say I am intrigued by this statement: "YPAO™ - R.S.C. (Reflected Sound Control) with 3D, multipoint and angle measurement corrects for imperfect room conditions and non-standard speaker placement for the best sounding results."
> 
> Could this mean that only Yamaha will be able to truly "know" your speakers location and make Atmos more effective? Inquiring minds want to know.


Nope. It will only be used for the YPAO EQ. None of the mfr's will be using angle measurement in the Atmos implementation.


----------



## Craig Mecak

DaJoJo said:


> lol dude !
> there is allready content for atmos as well as for auro-3D albeit not that much though, but there will be more by the end of the year. none of which are going to stop me from buying a a3040 with new hdmi2.0 60fps spec and atmos incorporated with new firmware comming in the fall. the reason for atmos not being implemented directly is probably related to certification and licences needed and not so much by the capability to do so. in the meanwhile it does neo:x and dolby IIz anyways and im sure for atmos it will have some dsp stuff to play with that too. yammies dsp chips are very capable of doing so with probably even processing power to spare.


Where does it say anywhere that the a3040 will do Dolby PLIIz or Neo:X?

No Yamaha model currently does these surround modes.


----------



## Gorilla83

It will be interesting to see real world HT implementation and practical use of this stuff. My first concern would be availability of content over the next year or two after these receivers are released in Q4. I will not be an early adopter, but it sure will be fun to read impressions from those who are.  I'll wait for the "rev 2" receivers and expanded content.


----------



## HitchcockBirds

Cost issues aside, is it a smart idea to purchase the RS20i for my DTS needs, like Neo X and Aura 3D, and the Marantz 8802 for my Dolby needs, like IIz and Atmos? 

I'm aware that the RS20i is a sound processor and not a receiver, but is it possible I could connect that to the 8802?


----------



## bmaiers

Hello All - 


I'm in the wiring phase of my theater and am looking for ideas/recommendations as to how to wire for Atmos. So far, this is the best piece of info I found:


http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-surround-sound-coming-home-theaters/#/7


I am wired now for traditional 7.2 and my room is the typical "rectangle" (20x40) with 9' ceilings. I will _*happily*_ wire for more... I have 3 weeks before the drywall goes up!


I was going to pull cable for the 4 ceiling speakers - which I believe makes my system 7.2.4. Is this correct?


I see no mention on the website linked above in my post for "height" speakers. What is the general consensus on those?


If anybody has other recommend "general" speaker layouts, I'd appreciate the info. All I can seem to find is info pertaining to commercial theaters.


----------



## audiovideoholic

esappy said:


> Just finished reading the press release on the Yamaha receivers and I gotta say I am intrigued by this statement: "YPAO™ - R.S.C. (Reflected Sound Control) with 3D, multipoint and angle measurement corrects for imperfect room conditions and non-standard speaker placement for the best sounding results."
> 
> Could this mean that only Yamaha will be able to truly "know" your speakers location and make Atmos more effective? Inquiring minds want to know.


Edit. Posted too quick before read follow up to this. Oops! Sounded good for a minute.


----------



## J_P_A

My first thought after the ATMOS announcement was the adoption of this would be abysmal. The more I think about it, however, the more I think having overhead speakers is going to "sound" interesting, even to people that don't know much about it. 

I know several people that bought into 5.1 not really knowing what to expect. They just liked the idea of having speakers around them. 7.1 wasn't interesting because it was more of the same. Now we're talking about speakers overhead, and I think that's going to drive interest in a larger group of people than 7.1 did, even if this group doesn't really know what they're getting into. You know, the same group that puts all the surround speakers on top of their TV  

I can already hear the conversations at BB about how awesome the plane flyover will sound when it goes over your head instead of just beside you. Whether or not the mixers can actually make it sound better is irrelevant. It's the idea that I think people *may* latch onto.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bmaiers said:


> Hello All -
> 
> 
> I'm in the wiring phase of my theater and am looking for ideas/recommendations as to how to wire for Atmos. So far, this is the best piece of info I found:
> 
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-surround-sound-coming-home-theaters/#/7
> 
> 
> I am wired now for traditional 7.2 and my room is the typical "rectangle" (20x40) with 9' ceilings. I will _*happily*_ wire for more... I have 3 weeks before the drywall goes up!
> 
> 
> I was going to pull cable for the 4 ceiling speakers - which I believe makes my system 7.2.4. Is this correct?
> 
> 
> I see no mention on the website linked above in my post for "height" speakers. What is the general consensus on those?
> 
> 
> If anybody has other recommend "general" speaker layouts, I'd appreciate the info. All I can seem to find is info pertaining to commercial theaters.



I would delay that drywall job a little bit. There is *no* information on optimal speaker placement yet for home Atmos or even DTS-UHD. It's all just speculation and generic pictures to go off right now. Though, I would also wire for front wide side surrounds while you're at it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_P_A said:


> My first thought after the ATMOS announcement was the adoption of this would be abysmal. The more I think about it, however, the more I think having overhead speakers is going to "sound" interesting, even to people that don't know much about it.
> 
> I know several people that bought into 5.1 not really knowing what to expect. They just liked the idea of having speakers around them. 7.1 wasn't interesting because it was more of the same. Now we're talking about speakers overhead, and I think that's going to drive interest in a larger group of people than 7.1 did, even if this group doesn't really know what they're getting into. You know, the same group that puts all the surround speakers on top of their TV
> 
> I can already hear the conversations at BB about how awesome the plane flyover will sound when it goes over your head instead of just beside you. Whether or not the mixers can actually make it sound better is irrelevant. It's the idea that I think people *may* latch onto.


I, on the other hand, would like it to be a marked improvement in the surround experience. No may. It _will_... or else!!


----------



## J_P_A

Dan Hitchman said:


> I, on the other hand, would like it to be a marked improvement in the surround experience. No may. It _will_... or else!!


I'm hoping for the best as well. We'll just have to wait and see. That said, it occurred to me that ATMOS may see better adoption than I first expected just due to the idea of having these overhead effects. We'll see


----------



## esappy

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would delay that drywall job a little bit. There is *no* information on optimal speaker placement yet for home Atmos or even DTS-UHD. It's all just speculation and generic pictures to go off right now. Though, I would also wire for front wide side surrounds while you're at it.





bmaiers said:


> Hello All -
> 
> 
> I'm in the wiring phase of my theater and am looking for ideas/recommendations as to how to wire for Atmos. So far, this is the best piece of info I found:
> 
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-surround-sound-coming-home-theaters/#/7
> 
> 
> I am wired now for traditional 7.2 and my room is the typical "rectangle" (20x40) with 9' ceilings. I will _*happily*_ wire for more... I have 3 weeks before the drywall goes up!
> 
> 
> I was going to pull cable for the 4 ceiling speakers - which I believe makes my system 7.2.4. Is this correct?
> 
> 
> I see no mention on the website linked above in my post for "height" speakers. What is the general consensus on those?
> 
> 
> If anybody has other recommend "general" speaker layouts, I'd appreciate the info. All I can seem to find is info pertaining to commercial theaters.


+1. If possible, hold off on the drywalling. Current product announcements have been maxing out with 4 in ceiling speakers but nobody knows if that is just a first gen limitation or not. We also dont know what positions are recommended yet for in ceiling speakers other than if doing all 4, you will have two in front and two in back of the MLP. Too many unknowns at this point for any meaningful advice to be given. But if you cant delay the drywalling then make sure you put extra speaker cable up there and set yourself up now to be able to fish the cable where you need it more easily. Good luck and I'm envious. I'm not quite there yet but hope to be soon with the same layout and about the same size room.


----------



## bmaiers

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would delay that drywall job a little bit. There is *no* information on optimal speaker placement yet for home Atmos or even DTS-UHD. It's all just speculation and generic pictures to go off right now. Though, I would also wire for front wide side surrounds while you're at it.


 

Unfortunately, I have a signed contract with the contractor.... I cannot delay the drywall. I'm spending every night in the basement pulling cables into walls he built just that day. I'm having a hard time keeping up as it is!!!


I guess I will wire for 4 speakers in the ceiling and two speakers high above the front left and right channels. I've already wired for 4 subs - one in each corner of the room.


The nature of the room will make it VERY hard to fish cables after the fact, so I guess I am using what little info is available to me today and hope it covers MOST of what I MIGHT need in the future. Thanks to all for the input!


----------



## Selden Ball

I trust you're aware that subs sound better (produce the most accurate sound) when they're in the middle of a wall or at a 1/4 point. When they're in a corner the frequencies which correspond to the dimensions of the room get the most energy. Subs placed there sound louder but not better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bmaiers said:


> Unfortunately, I have a signed contract with the contractor.... I cannot delay the drywall. I'm spending every night in the basement pulling cables into walls he built just that day. I'm having a hard time keeping up as it is!!!
> 
> 
> I guess I will wire for 4 speakers in the ceiling and two speakers high above the front left and right channels. I've already wired for 4 subs - one in each corner of the room.
> 
> 
> The nature of the room will make it VERY hard to fish cables after the fact, so I guess I am using what little info is available to me today and hope it covers MOST of what I MIGHT need in the future.


I would also wire for the front wide side surrounds (probably more useful than height speakers just above the left/right speakers). I wouldn't worry about the extra screen speakers (green) unless you have a really BIG front projection screen. But do look at the additions to the standard 7.1 spread: front wides (dark purple) and the top layer (lavender). That should cover the basics.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> I trust you're aware that subs sound better (produce the most accurate sound) when they're in the middle of a wall or at a 1/4 point. When they're in a corner the frequencies which correspond to the dimensions of the room get the most energy. Subs placed there sound louder but not better.


+1 

Bass loading in corners is bad. It sets you up for bloated, boomy bass. You normally want bass traps in the corners of the room where walls and walls/ceilings intersect.


----------



## bmaiers

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would also wire for the front wide side surrounds. I wouldn't worry about the extra screen speakers (green) unless you have a really BIG front projection screen. But do look at the additions to the standard 7.1 spread: front wides (dark purple) and the top layer (lavender). That should cover the basics.




This is fantastic! Thank you!


So if I'm reading this correctly, I will place the "front wide" (dark purple) speakers on the left/right walls toward the *front* of my room - in front of my first row of seating?


----------



## ahmedreda

This is a rough layout of my room. Does the blue circles location sound about right or the .4 ceiling speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bmaiers said:


> This is fantastic! Thank you!
> 
> 
> So if I'm reading this correctly, I will place the "front wide" (dark purple) speakers on the left/right walls toward the *front* of my room - in front of my first row of seating?


Correct. They're designed to fill in the gap between the screen speakers and the traditional surround locations. They're angled towards the listening sweet spot in the room.


----------



## markus767

bmaiers said:


> This is fantastic! Thank you!
> 
> 
> So if I'm reading this correctly, I will place the "front wide" (dark purple) speakers on the left/right walls toward the *front* of my room - in front of my first row of seating?


Maybe. That diagram is for movie theaters. We don't know how theater mixes will be packaged for Atmos at home and what speaker locations are best.

Specific speaker setup recommendations for theaters can be found in http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ahmedreda said:


> This is a rough layout of my room. Does the blue circles location sound about right or the .4 ceiling speakers?


Given the rough approximation of this graphic, I'd say you're about right. The side walls would be about 90 degrees to the listener. Monopole surrounds, which are recommended, should be aimed down towards the listeners. And you want wide front side surrounds. At least be ready for them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Maybe. That diagram is for movie theaters. We don't know how theater mixes will be packaged for Atmos at home and what speaker locations are best.
> 
> Specific speaker setup recommendations for theaters can be found in http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf


If Dolby doesn't at least follow their own Atmos guidelines for a home setup, at least the basics, which would be 13.1, then they sure didn't think things through. One of their layouts, 9.1.2, does have the front wide surrounds, but drops one set of top surrounds. I would think, given this data, that there are object positions mapped for front wides as well as tops embedded in the soundtracks. 

It may very well be that this configuration of _either_ four tops and no wides _or_ two tops and two wides is showing us a limitation of the DSP engines in first generation products. If manufacturers are smart (but still want to sell receiver based products), they'll beef up their chips and at least allow for pre-amp outs beyond the 11 channel amp limitation now.

Even their 7.1 and 9.1 receivers should have a full set of pre-amp outs and the rendering engines to do at least the basic Atmos 13.1 layout.


----------



## audiovideoholic

The theater top speakers look to be located at the 1/4 widths of the room but as for the length locations nobody really knows if 4 (front and rear pairs) will be the extent of it or if more will be added later. I wouldn't see any reason why adding a pair of wires for middle tops wouldn't be out of the question for you since can do it before the drywall goes up. Just staple a coiled up length of wire and write down its location way in the future if they add middle tops the wire will be in place. Middle tops will provide more panning capabilities so I'd bet they will be added as well as other surrounds in the future.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ahmedreda said:


> This is a rough layout of my room. Does the blue circles location sound about right or the .4 ceiling speakers?


Huge gap between your left and right front and left and right surrounds. I'd move them forward of the couch (ahead of the rear heights) to fill in that side wall imaging.

But that's just a suggestion. 

Or you could possibly do wides as Dan suggested.


----------



## audiovideoholic

Scott Simonian said:


> Huge gap between your left and right front and left and right surrounds. I'd move them forward of the couch (ahead of the rear heights) to fill in that side wall imaging.
> 
> But that's just a suggestion.
> 
> Or you could possibly do wides as Dan suggested.



Lol. I didn't even look at his regular speaker placements. Yes move your side surrounds forward for sure!


----------



## KidHorn

audiovideoholic said:


> The theater top speakers look to be located at the 1/4 widths of the room but as for the length locations nobody really knows if 4 (front and rear pairs) will be the extent of it or if more will be added later. I wouldn't see any reason why adding a pair of wires for middle tops wouldn't be out of the question for you since can do it before the drywall goes up. Just staple a coiled up length of wire and write down its location way in the future if they add middle tops the wire will be in place. Middle tops will provide more panning capabilities so I'd bet they will be added as well as other surrounds in the future.



I agree it would be a good idea to wire for middle ceiling speakers, but if the wiring needs to be done according to code, it will almost certainly need to run into an electrical box. You can't coil it up and staple it to a ceiling joist. I would run it into a electrical box and the drywall guys will cut out an opening for it. You can place a paintable blank plate over it until it gets used.


----------



## audiovideoholic

Ok. If need a blank plate for code yes do that. I know nothing about low voltage code (I assume that's what it would fall under?).

My inspector didn't give a flip about any of my speaker wires/audio cables at all. He just asked what they were. I did use in-wall types of both though.


----------



## HitchcockBirds

Anyone read this about Auro 11.1 vs object based systems:

http://www.barco.com/en/Auro11-1/~/media/48FD91C7F9574A4280E49AA8C4CCA90E.ashx

Granted, it's from Barco so they're just trying to sell it but they raise up good points. Atmos only adds speakers to ceilings while Auro adds both height and ceiling, creating a dome of sound.


----------



## Schwa

Dan Hitchman said:


> Given the rough approximation of this graphic, I'd say you're about right. The side walls would be about 90 degrees to the listener. Monopole surrounds, which are recommended, should be aimed down towards the listeners. And you want wide front side surrounds. At least be ready for them.


 @ahmedreda: Look in the Denon receiver thread where JD posted a picture of the Denon-recommended in-ceiling speaker locations. The .4 speakers need to go in front of and behind the MLP; what you've posted shows more of a front-top and middle-top configuration which won't work properly. I'm going with a .2 middle-top-only arrangement precisely because I can't place in-ceiling speakers behind my MLP.


----------



## ahmedreda

That makes sense. I always felt like the side imaging was a little bit lacking. I may give it a try and see how it looks. If it doesn't look distracting in front of the couch, I may go for it.



Scott Simonian said:


> Huge gap between your left and right front and left and right surrounds. I'd move them forward of the couch (ahead of the rear heights) to fill in that side wall imaging.
> 
> But that's just a suggestion.
> 
> Or you could possibly do wides as Dan suggested.


----------



## ahmedreda

Thank you for that link. So for a .4, it needs to be top front and top back and for .2 it needs to be bop middle. Did I understand that correctly?


Schwa said:


> @ahmedreda: Look in the Denon receiver thread where JD posted a picture of the Denon-recommended in-ceiling speaker locations. The .4 speakers need to go in front of and behind the MLP; what you've posted shows more of a front-top and middle-top configuration which won't work properly. I'm going with a .2 middle-top-only arrangement precisely because I can't place in-ceiling speakers behind my MLP.


----------



## sdurani

ahmedreda said:


> Does the blue circles location sound about right or the .4 ceiling speakers?


Don't know if you can place Top speakers asymmetrically from front to back.


----------



## Lickety

I have read every post re: Atmos in the various threads spread throughout the forums and have yet to find a post that detailed out someones first hand experience with Home Atmos. Has anyone had a demo yet?


----------



## ahmedreda

The graph does not mention anything about it being symmetric. I can't say for sure but I think as long as it is within the specified ranges, it would be fine. 


sdurani said:


> Don't know if you can place Top speakers asymmetrically from front to back.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lickety said:


> I have read every post re: Atmos in the various threads spread throughout the forums and have yet to find a post that detailed out someones first hand experience with Home Atmos. Has anyone had a demo yet?


Unless they went to a convention with Dolby and its licensees holding a demo, then no, no one has.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> I trust you're aware that subs sound better (produce the most accurate sound) when they're in the middle of a wall or at a 1/4 point. When they're in a corner the frequencies which correspond to the dimensions of the room get the most energy. Subs placed there sound louder but not better.


Quarter points of room width would be my first choice as well, whether just at the front wall or at front & back walls. Still, 4 subs in 4 corners do help with seat to seat consistency (see below). 

*1 sub in 1 corner measured at 16 seats (blue traces).* 










*4 subs in 4 corners measured at 16 seats (blue traces).* 









OK, looking at the average (red trace), there is a small improvement in frequency response when using 4 subs in 4 corners. But look at that consistency! After EQing the second graph, every seat could have response as smooth as we might get with placement at quarter points. Except corner placement will have more output (more headroom). 


[graphs courtesy Todd Welti]


----------



## sdurani

ahmedreda said:


> The graph does not mention anything about it being symmetric. I can't say for sure but I think as long as it is within the specified ranges, it would be fine.


I would wait to see the instruction manual to find out whether placement directly above the seating area is for a single pair of Top speakers.


----------



## wse

Lickety said:


> I have read every post re: Atmos in the various threads spread throughout the forums and have yet to find a post that detailed out someones first hand experience with Home Atmos. Has anyone had a demo yet?


Not in home not available yet


----------



## wse

sdurani said:


> Don't know if you can place Top speakers asymmetrically from front to back.


15 speakers! No AV receiver has that except for DATASAT


----------



## Schwa

ahmedreda said:


> The graph does not mention anything about it being symmetric. I can't say for sure but I think as long as it is within the specified ranges, it would be fine.


Yup, that's the way I interpret it.



wse said:


> 15 speakers! No AV receiver has that except for DATASAT


Clearly all of those speakers can't be used at once. For example, the front heights/front wide would be used exclusively for DTS Neo:X/DSX/DPLIIz where as the "top" speakers would be used for Atmos and whatever up-mixing modes Atmos comes with. One would hope Denon provides an easy way to switch between multiple speaker configurations, but that remains to be seen.

My configuration will have two front height bookshelf speakers and two top-middle in-ceiling speakers that I don't ever expect will be used at the same time.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

*Okay, listen up folks! 

Brett Crockett of Dolby Labs has just replied to answer some of our concerns. Current consumer Atmos can accommodate up to 24 front and surround speakers plus 10 on-ceiling speakers. There are products planned that will output the full array of speaker locations.
*
http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, folks!
> 
> Brett Crockett of Dolby Labs has just replied to some of our concerns. Current consumer Atmos can accommodate 24 front and surround speakers plus 10 on-ceiling speakers. There are products planned that will output the full array of speaker locations.
> 
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/





> *If Dolby Atmos allows me to add more speakers, why do I see AV receivers with just 11 channels?*
> There are many hardware partners building or planning to build Dolby Atmos-enabled AV receivers and speakers. Those partners decide what product configurations make the most sense for their customers. But the Dolby Atmos system itself is almost unlimited – If you have the space and budget, you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers. _*One of our hardware partners is planning to release an AV receiver with 32 channels.*_


----------



## SoundChex

wse said:


> 15 speakers! No AV receiver has that except for DATASAT


If you have *no* self control, the *Illusonic IAP 16 Immersive Audio Processor* (_link_) (16-channel preamp-processor-DAC): _"Its 16 output channels can be configured for almost any loudspeaker setup (2 to 16 channels, up to 2 subwoofers, 247 possibilities)."_

If *Illusonic* updates the *IAP 16* to *HDMI 2.0* and includes 32 channel LPCM input support, this might make an interesting _MVC & postprocessor_ for the output from a _stand-alone_ *Atmos* _decoder|renderer_...?!
_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


>


Smithers, release the hounds! 

Um, er... I mean: EXCELLENT!!


----------



## GermanMan

Schwa said:


> JD at AVS said that Atmos is the home wouldn't measure the precise locations of your speakers:
> 
> _As the Atmos focus will be on the "ceiling speakers", there will be no additional angle information at all ... rather simply that the speakers will be identified as either "top front", "top middle", or "top rear" (based on the previously posted 4 configurations) and then Audyssey will do its thing just as it does with the traditional 5.1/7.1 setup._


Well this will be interesting to follow. Due to the organic (lazy?) nature my audio setup grew into its current form, I have a 5.1.2-ish setup I run with a 6.1 amp. The front 3 are where they traditionally are (well, beside and below the LCD screen), and the L and R surround sit pointing inward at the 4 seater couch from just to the back outside corners of the couch, and the subwoofer is in the corner doing its thing.. all very 5.1 typical.

But then I've got 2 speakers the prior owner installed in the ceiling that are effectively just ever so behind the couch and up in the ceiling firing down. So those 2 are currently driven by the rear channel (of the 6.1 amp), but because of their location above the listener, in an amp that can know they are above, could well work, in conjunction with the slightly back surrounds at ear level, as a combo of LS+RS+ L-Rear-Top + R-Rear-Top.

I don't see myself doing anything to the speaker layout short of maybe, just maybe, adding 2 more in-ceiling speakers, if they can work in conjunction with the existing setup.


----------



## David Susilo

markus767 said:


> Mods are already getting annoyed by the numerous discussions about the upcoming Atmos feature in AVRs. So lets give this new format a home of its own in this thread.
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.
> 
> First, here's some general information about Atmos so everybody is up to speed:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf
> 
> Some information from Onkyo:
> http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com


I see issues 2 and 3. Is there issue 1 somewhere?

Thanks beforehand.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> "*One of our hardware partners is planning to release an AV receiver with 32 channels.* "


Is someone coming out with a 32-channel home theatre pre-pro, maybe with "32" in the name?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Is someone coming out with a 32-channel home theatre pre-pro, maybe with "32" in the name?


Perhaps that's what Mr. Crockett meant. I don't see how a receiver can handle 32 amplifiers in one box.


----------



## Keenan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Perhaps that's what Mr. Crockett meant. I don't see how a receiver can handle 32 amplifiers in one box.


Class D? But even that seems a stretch.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh I wasn't thinking 32 channels of amplification built in. Lol did you guys really think that?


----------



## DaJoJo

9.1 atmos has 2 front-heights/2 on top of front floors in addition to 7.1 setup
11.1 atmos has 2 front-height and 2 rear height speakers in addition to 7.1 setup
13.1 atmos adds 2 height side speakers/ceiling speakers to that.
9.1 auro-3D has 5.1 and 2 front and rear height speakers
11.1 auro-3D has 5.1 and 5 height speakers above the floor speakers and a ceiling speaker. 
13.1 auro-3D has 7.1 with 5 speaker above the other speakers and a ceiling speaker 
100% sure about the auro 11.1 and 13.1 courtesy of stassen hifi netherlands http://www.stassen.nl/auro-3d and not sure about the atmos version but i guess im not far off..
additonal info on auro-3D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auro_11.1


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Perhaps that's what Mr. Crockett meant. I don't see how a receiver can handle 32 amplifiers in one box.


Me neither. He might have been using the term generically to mean AV device with 32 outputs.


----------



## Keenan

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh I wasn't thinking 32 channels of amplification built in. Lol did you guys really think that?


More likely an AVR with the normal compliment of amplifiers with an expanded amount of pre-outs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Keenan said:


> More likely an AVR with the normal compliment of amplifiers with an expanded amount of pre-outs.


Definitely seems more likely.

I just hope the DSP horsepower is sufficient to also include full renderer calibration setup with proper mic... unlike these pared down products from Onkyo, Denon, and the like.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh I wasn't thinking 32 channels of amplification built in. Lol did you guys really think that?


Actually, my first thought was that he probably meant it would have a _starting configuration price_ of *$32,000* . . . ?!    
_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Me neither. He might have been using the term generically to mean AV device with 32 outputs.


Time to save up for one of these new fangled 32 output processors! Though, it will definitely take me until Atmos v. 2.0 with 1,000 outputs. 

Now, all that's left is for DTS to come clean.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> Actually, my first thought was that he probably meant it would have a _starting configuration price_ of *$32,000* . . . ?!
> _


Shhh!!!!!!! Don't give them any ideas!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> 9.1 atmos has 2 front-heights/2 on top of front floors in addition to 7.1 setup
> 11.1 atmos has 2 front-height and 2 rear height speakers in addition to 7.1 setup
> 13.1 atmos adds 2 height side speakers/ceiling speakers to that.
> 9.1 auro-3D has 5.1 and 2 front and rear height speakers
> 11.1 auro-3D has 5.1 and 5 height speakers above the floor speakers and a ceiling speaker.
> 13.1 auro-3D has 7.1 with 5 speaker above the other speakers and a ceiling speaker
> 100% sure about the auro 11.1 and 13.1 courtesy of stassen hifi netherlands http://www.stassen.nl/auro-3d and not sure about the atmos version but i guess im not far off..
> additonal info on auro-3D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auro_11.1


Well, now we can add 24.1.10 (or 23.1.10 or... hmmm... they didn't really clearly designate how many of the 24 mains were speakers and how many were subs, but there were definitely 10 ceiling speakers mentioned) to the Atmos column.


----------



## sdurani

It's speakers, not subs (that's the domain of bass management, not Atmos).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> It's speakers, not subs (that's the domain of bass management, not Atmos).


We still don't know how those 24 outputs are divied up (just that an additional 10 are ceiling speakers). It's possible that some of those 24 outputs _are_ bass management controlled sub outs. Hopefully, more details about these new details will be forthcoming.


----------



## SoundChex

If you want to make sure you can sell movie content to the luxury home and business segment in Japan, South Korea, and China in the next decade, it probably makes sense to give the *Atmos* _algorithm_ the capability to render for an _already in-place_ speaker setup "consistent with" *Hamasaki 22.2*...?!  
_


----------



## esappy

DaJoJo said:


> 9.1 atmos has 2 front-heights/2 on top of front floors in addition to 7.1 setup
> 11.1 atmos has 2 front-height and 2 rear height speakers in addition to 7.1 setup
> 13.1 atmos adds 2 height side speakers/ceiling speakers to that.
> 9.1 auro-3D has 5.1 and 2 front and rear height speakers
> 11.1 auro-3D has 5.1 and 5 height speakers above the floor speakers and a ceiling speaker.
> 13.1 auro-3D has 7.1 with 5 speaker above the other speakers and a ceiling speaker
> 100% sure about the auro 11.1 and 13.1 courtesy of stassen hifi netherlands http://www.stassen.nl/auro-3d and not sure about the atmos version but i guess im not far off..
> additonal info on auro-3D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auro_11.1


Dude, that is so yesterday! We gots at least 34 speakers to play with now.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> If you want to make sure you can sell movie content to the luxury home and business segment in Japan, South Korea, and China in the next decade, it probably makes sense to give the *Atmos* _algorithm_ the capability to render for an _already in-place_ speaker setup "consistent with" *Hamasaki 22.2*...?!
> _


If they get the correct Atmos renderer calibration system in place, then I'm sure it could map out to that layout, if you so chose. But Atmos, supposedly does 34 (or maybe it's 32 with two sub outs... who knows?).

The Hamasaki format has a single VOG speaker. Atmos has 10...


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's possible that some of those 24 outputs _are_ bass management controlled sub outs.


The FAQ was talking about speaker locations in the context of Atmos. Sub outs have nothing to do with Atmos. They're a result of bass management, with the number of outputs decided by manufacturers.


----------



## esappy

sdurani said:


> Me neither. He might have been using the term generically to mean AV device with 32 outputs.


Oooh! Shiny.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> The FAQ was talking about speaker locations in the context of Atmos. Sub outs have nothing to do with Atmos. They're a result of bass management, with the number of outputs decided by manufacturers.


There's still the LFE channel. I think we'll know more about what is what once a white paper is released. They'll have to have something like that for home theater, near-field sound mixers and other packaged content for consumer media designers wanting to use Atmos DAW plug-in's anyway. There's always an optimal layout because the audio post dubbing stages need to be set up properly.


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, now we can add 24.1.10 (or 23.1.10 or... hmmm... they didn't really clearly designate how many of the 24 mains were speakers and how many were subs, but there were definitely 10 ceiling speakers mentioned) to the Atmos column.


it's getting beyond what a normal household can handle speakerwise. i predict we gonna see in 10 years that we get houses prebuilt with holes for in-wall speakers and that car-speaker manifacturers going to sell their speakers for home theaters as we need too many and they seem fit for the job. 
in about 20 years i will have a house with walls build of speakers instead of concrete, covered with sound-transparant projector screens to project my omni-3D image on 4 walls for the ultimate movie experience and special 3D googles so you can choose to see from the perspective of ur favourite actor in the movie lol


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> it's getting beyond what a normal household can handle speakerwise. i predict we gonna see in 10 years that we get houses prebuilt with holes for in-wall speakers and that car-speaker manifacturers going to sell their speakers for home theaters as we need too many and they seem fit for the job.
> in about 20 years i will have a house with walls build of speakers instead of concrete, covered with sound-transparant projector screens to project my omni-3D image on 4 walls for the ultimate movie experience and special 3D googles so you can choose to see from the perspective of ur favourite actor in the movie lol


It's a mad house, a mad house!!!


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a mad house, a mad house!!!


hehehe totally mad !
imagine urself a movie like blair witch project but then ur actually walking on a tredmil, the screen advances based on how fast u walk or run, in the livingroom and u get this feel ur really in the forest and all this scary stuff comming towards u while u start ducking to avoid things that scare the crap out of u while you not even aware u doing excercises in the same time XD
comming soon in a livingroom near you.is gonna be the slogan :-D


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> If they get the correct Atmos renderer calibration system in place, then I'm sure it could map out to that layout, if you so chose. But Atmos, supposedly does 34 (or maybe it's 32 with two sub outs... who knows?).
> 
> The Hamasaki format has a single VOG speaker. Atmos has 10...


OK, if you really want to use all 32 output channels . . . For the home theater that has _literally_ everything else: _How about the *ETRI 30.2* speaker configuration!_











_


----------



## DaJoJo

SoundChex said:


> OK, if you really want to use all 32 output channels . . . For the home theater that has _literally_ everything else: _How about the *ETRI 30.2* speaker configuration!_


thats 30.4 !
i think it needs more LFE to give this real sense of windy day in the stormchasers documentary.
with all the heat comming from all these amps you can provide the whole block central heating as a side-effect.
i think u gonna make the electric company and monoprice as well very happy.
waf gone below zero lol


----------



## SoundChex

DaJoJo said:


> thats 30.4 !
> i think it needs more LFE to give this real sense of windy day in the stormchasers documentary


I'm assuming ETRI settled on only two LFE channels to be consistent with the HDMI 2.0 M.Ch LPCM max channel count of 32!

_...which may also have influenced the max rendered channel count for the Home Theater Atmos algorithm...?!_

_


----------



## DaJoJo

SoundChex said:


> I'm assuming ETRI settled on only two LFE channels to be consistent with the HDMI 2.0 M.Ch LPCM max channel count of 32!
> _...which may also have influenced the max rendered channel count for the Home Theater Atmos algorithm...?!_
> _


probably did. can allways daisy chain them , at least something female sounding in the house lol.i wonder who made up such specs... they must have a freakin huge HT at their home and a huge cliffside house with no neighbours. maybe they planned some soundbars for a 5.2 system with 6 separete controlled drivers each.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> I'm assuming ETRI settled on only two LFE channels to be consistent with the HDMI 2.0 M.Ch LPCM max channel count of 32!
> 
> _...which may also have influenced the max rendered channel count for the Home Theater Atmos algorithm...?!_
> 
> _


Bingo! We (probably) have a winner. 

Commercial Atmos can do 62.2 outs, so it stands to reason that consumer Atmos does about half of that. Now, how may objects do you suppose the consumer version allows to fly through those 34 outs?


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Bingo! We (probably) have a winner.
> 
> Commercial Atmos can do 62.2 outs, so it stands to reason that consumer Atmos does about half of that. Now, how may objects do you suppose the consumer version allows to fly through those 34 outs?


wasnt that 128 ?


----------



## TwuaregFS

Please enlighten me on this...
If most Atmos equipped avrs/ processors will need up to 4 dsp chips to run the processing, how much heat will these generate? It would seem to me that a contributing factor to most equipment failures is excessive heat and inadequate cooling. Just sayin'..........


----------



## DaJoJo

TwuaregFS said:


> Please enlighten me on this...
> If most Atmos equipped avrs/ processors will need up to 4 dsp chips to run the processing, how much heat will these generate? It would seem to me that a contributing factor to most equipment failures is excessive heat and inadequate cooling. Just sayin'..........


not that much.. nowadays processors are running pretty cool, the amount of heat generated by these is little compared to the endstage amps required to drive all these speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> wasnt that 128 ?


Commercially, yes. But I doubt 128 would fit even on a losslessly compressed track that can fit on a Blu-ray with video.


----------



## TwuaregFS

That's goood to know. I've read that some manufacturers avr's tend to run pretty hot (Onkyo for example).. Probably due to the video chips?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TwuaregFS said:


> That's goood to know. I've read that some manufacturers avr's tend to run pretty hot (Onkyo for example).. Probably due to the video chips?


Due to _everything_ crammed into a tight package. I say it's time to pretty much move away from the idea of receivers. I'd rather have a $1,200 pre-amp with most of Atmos' capabilities with the cost savings of having no amps included, than one that sacrifices a lot just to cram a bunch of amps into the box.


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Commercially, yes. But I doubt 128 would fit even on a losslessly compressed track that can fit on a Blu-ray with video.


why not ? it's just a bunch of sounds that can fit in one channel data and a lot of positional data that can fit in the higher frequency range, sampling rates higher than about 50 khz cannot supply more usable information for human ears and can't be heard anyways.


----------



## DaJoJo

TwuaregFS said:


> That's goood to know. I've read that some manufacturers avr's tend to run pretty hot (Onkyo for example).. Probably due to the video chips?


probably due to the crappy design and cooling solution used.


----------



## TwuaregFS

Agreed. IMO a dedicated Atmos "lite" equipped pre/pro would be the way to go as long at is priced sensablibly. Shelling out 6 to10K for a pre/pro is a little too pricey for most folks.......


----------



## steveting99

Guys,

32 channels + subs in the home is a bit too much for me. Think I'll be sitting this one out and be happy with the legacy 5.1/7.1 channel based system and Dobly TrueHD/DTS-MA sound tracks - there's plenty choice on blu-ray discs.

Not yet convinced that Atmos is the correct path I should all be taking. It's not making much sense right now in terms of sound quality improvements. With all those additional speakers, how is the interference in a small room handled? Maybe one has to have a 'dead room' (i.e. significant sound treatment) so that when multiple speakers are playing to place the object in the correct space/time, the direct and indirect reflections wont cause the sound object to distort / disappear.


----------



## Keenan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Definitely seems more likely.
> 
> I just hope the DSP horsepower is sufficient to also include full renderer calibration setup with proper mic... unlike these pared down products from Onkyo, Denon, and the like.


Yes, when the news of the 2014 Denons having Atmos was released I was seriously considering selling last year's model I just picked up 8 months ago and getting the 2014 model, but not now as they appear to be "crippled" with regard to Atmos functionality. Better to wait a year and see some maturity in the Atmos- equipped product line develop.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

steveting99 said:


> Guys,
> 
> 32 channels + subs in the home is a bit too much for me. Think I'll be sitting this one out and be happy with the legacy 5.1/7.1 channel based system and Dolby TrueHD/DTS-MA sound tracks - there's plenty choice on blu-ray discs.
> 
> Not yet convinced that Atmos is the correct path I should all be taking. It's not making much sense right now in terms of sound quality improvements. With all those additional speakers, how is the interference in a small room handled? Maybe one has to have a 'dead room' (i.e. significant sound treatment) so that when multiple speakers are playing to place the object in the correct space/time, the direct and indirect reflections wont cause the sound object to distort / disappear.


Just because it can do 30+ outputs, doesn't mean you have to install the entire bloody thing.  The whole point is that the format is scalable. All you need to do is install two to four top speakers and count yourself ahead of the game.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Keenan said:


> Yes, when the news of the 2014 Denons having Atmos was released I was seriously considering selling last year's model I just picked up 8 months ago and getting the 2014 model, but not now as they appear to be "crippled" with regard to Atmos functionality. Better to wait a year and see some maturity in the Atmos- equipped product line develop.


Sounds like a completely reasonable idea. I think I'll join you in sitting this round out.


----------



## DaJoJo

i was allready going to buy a a3030, so for me it is a huge step up to get the a3040 and atmos. it's only be a few years that i have 5.1 dts/dd and i wanted to go 7.1 and hd sound , so it wouldn't hurt to go a additional step up to atmos and be ready for new technology that is going to be there for a while. also considering a new 4K tv in the next year or so.


----------



## esappy

*First impression by S&V's Rob Sabin*

Sound and Vision has an article posted by Rob Sabin on his first impression of home Atmos at CE week. Interesting comments. 

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/first-listen-dolby-atmos-right-home

Overall he seems to like it and appeared to be impressed with how well the Andrew Jones Atmos speakers played, but he discusses his reservations too.


----------



## markus767

And again Dolby is doing its best to keep things as clear as mud:
http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/

"you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers"

Why the distinction between 24 on the floor and 10 overhead?

"Because the Dolby Atmos object-based audio system is so adaptable, you can use many other speaker configurations."

No, you can't as long as Dolby Atmos allows channel-based mixes.


----------



## markus767

David Susilo said:


> I see issues 2 and 3. Is there issue 1 somewhere?
> 
> Thanks beforehand.


"Issue" probably just means "version".


----------



## SoundChex

esappy said:


> Sound and Vision has an article posted by Rob Sabin on his first impression of home Atmos at CE week. Interesting comments.
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/first-listen-dolby-atmos-right-home
> Overall he seems to like it and appeared to be impressed with how well the Andrew Jones Atmos speakers played, but he discusses his reservations too.



_In his *SOUND&VISION* article (link), *Rob Sabin* says: _


_"More critically, I was a bit troubled by some of the subtleties of what I heard in both demo rooms, namely, the tendency for surround effects to be more localizable to the rear speakers than what I'm used to hearing in a well adjusted 5.1 or 7.1 system, particularly those that use dipole surrounds precisely to counter this common phenomenon. A lot of action seemed to be jumping at me from right off the speaker baffles behind me, and I soon realized why. In placing the Atmos surround speakers immediately behind the listening area, they were apparently optimized to best achieve an enveloping height effect. But that speaker position no longer best served the primary surround channels as well as a traditional side-wall arrangement might." And it also seemed to me to make the experience somewhat more dependent on listening position."_


This appears to raise a number of interesting issues both with HT setup for Atmos (_surround speaker placement|type, 'sweet spot' location|size_) and with the *Atmos* movie content theatrical-to-HT 'down conversion' process (_is a home theater just a theatrical venue in miniature, or are the rear surround sound delivery expectations somewhat different?_)
_


----------



## audiovideoholic

DaJoJo said:


> i was allready going to buy a a3030, so for me it is a huge step up to get the a3040 and atmos. it's only be a few years that i have 5.1 dts/dd and i wanted to go 7.1 and hd sound , so it wouldn't hurt to go a additional step up to atmos and be ready for new technology that is going to be there for a while. also considering a new 4K tv in the next year or so.



You do realize 4K cannot be differentiated between 1080P unless are extremely close to the screen. I'm not against it (have a sony vw1100es) but just don't see how tv panels can take advantage of the technology. I have to get within a couple of feet of a 13' wide screen to appreciate the difference. Other improvements may draw customers towards 4k too so....rant over and back to this 32 channel of goodness that will envelope the viewers like no other surround format at an affordable price (hopefully). 

I would like the pre-pro or stand alone components to directly feed amps. I still have plenty of rack space to do it this way and said long ago that if could get content I would have sourced a theater atmos system even at the 20k+ price. So a little over a year ago the 20k price seemed worth it if was possible to use it and now can get a lite version for same price I'd have to spend on my new AVR for hdmi 2 pass through, I feel like Dolby really listened to us more so than many many other technologies in bringing this to our homes so quickly. Rant two- over lol


----------



## esappy

SoundChex said:


> _In his *SOUND&VISION* article (link), *Rob Sabin* says: _
> 
> 
> _"More critically, I was a bit troubled by some of the subtleties of what I heard in both demo rooms, namely, the tendency for surround effects to be more localizable to the rear speakers than what I'm used to hearing in a well adjusted 5.1 or 7.1 system, particularly those that use dipole surrounds precisely to counter this common phenomenon. A lot of action seemed to be jumping at me from right off the speaker baffles behind me, and I soon realized why. In placing the Atmos surround speakers immediately behind the listening area, they were apparently optimized to best achieve an enveloping height effect. But that speaker position no longer best served the primary surround channels as well as a traditional side-wall arrangement might." And it also seemed to me to make the experience somewhat more dependent on listening position."_
> 
> 
> This appears to raise a number of interesting issues both with HT setup for Atmos (_surround speaker placement|type, 'sweet spot' location|size_) and with the *Atmos* movie content theatrical-to-HT 'down conversion' process (_is a home theater just a theatrical venue in miniature, or are the rear surround sound delivery expectations somewhat different?_)
> _


So he said that he was hearing more localization than he is used to with dipole surrounds. Isn't that kind of the whole point of Atmos and object based audio? To be able to get the sound from a specific point in the 3D space? If that is his "critical" issue then I'm totally ok with this. Lets not lose sight of the fact that this is a new system and there is no doubt going to be a learning curve from the manufacturers on how to implement this and for the movie studios on how to more effectively mix this for the home. 

But Rob started out his article stating this:

"And I wasn't let down. Atmos in the home environment seems to work—surprisingly well, in fact. Caveats? Yeah, there are a few worth watching out for that I'll get to later. But overall, I'll go on record that this is probably the most discernable advance in home theater sound since the introduction of lossless digital audio in the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio formats on Blu-ray. And it's one that leaves all the pre-existing height- and width-channel surround formats— including Dolby Pro Logic IIz and DTS Neo:X—in the dust. Finally, this may be one that will truly make it worth the trouble of adding those extra speakers. Maybe..."

Even with the 'maybe' at the end, this is a pretty positive statement.  Hey I'm still excited for this, don't deflate by balloon just yet


----------



## esappy

markus767 said:


> And again Dolby is doing its best to keep things as clear as mud:
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> 
> "you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers"
> 
> Why the distinction between 24 on the floor and 10 overhead?
> 
> "Because the Dolby Atmos object-based audio system is so adaptable, you can use many other speaker configurations."
> 
> No, you can't as long as Dolby Atmos allows channel-based mixes.


So do you know this to be fact? You are arguing with an 'official' press release from Dolby. What would they honestly have to gain by straight up lying to us on paper? You can infer in the blog that the reason they put out that second piece is because of people like us on these forums wanting to know more. Yes, it still leaves questions to be answered and created a couple more, but we should get these questions answered soon, my friend. Just give it time.


----------



## markus767

^
Not sure what you're referring to when asking if I would "know this to be fact"? That Atmos mixes contain beds which are channel-based (i.e. speaker position based)? Yes, this is a fact.


----------



## esappy

markus767 said:


> ^
> What do you think I would "know this to be fact"? That Atmos mixes contain beds which are channel-based (i.e. speaker position based)? Yes, this is a fact.


Not that, its that you said no to Dolby's claim of being adaptable to different configurations. We all know that they will still be using a 5.1/7.1 bed on bluray, but why do you say they wont be able to adapt to other configurations. I'm not following you here. If Dolby says they can why are you saying they can't? I don't know so I was just asking for clarification. That's all.


----------



## Kressilac

*So my question is this...*

Atmos/DTS/Auro aside, if I am ready to wire a newly framed basement with speaker wire and I want more than 7.1, what's going to somewhat future proof me with respect to speakers? For more than a decade now, we've been able to assume 5.1 or 7.1 setups in the home were going to keep your theater viable for a number of years. For the most part, that's still the case today. However, what if you're building today?


7.1, I'm good for everything current.
7.1.2 (ceiling middle) - budget minded Atmos expansion to me.
7.1.4 (ceiling front and back) - Not sure the extra 2 speakers overcomes the loss of ceiling middle


Beyond this we're getting into AVRs that need many more channels
7.1.6 (ceiling front, middle, back) - Is this even a configuration? 
9.1.2 (ceiling middle) - Probably a clear upgrade from 7.1.2 considering the speakers in the gap between screen and side surrounds.
9.1.4 (ceiling font and back) - Leaning towards this as I read more though again, I am not sure if it is a decided upgrade over 9.1.2 (ceiling middle).
9.1.6 (ceiling front, middle, back) - This is probably out of my budget so I am not considering it.


So then as I keep reading, I'm finding that Dolby makes a compromise by keeping the 7.1 part of the setup. Is the traditional 7.1 setup not even recommended with an Atmos receiver? Or is it a compromise we'll have to live with for the sake of everyone else not being as into Home Theater as we are? As you can see, there's a pile of questions. For me, as I am looking to buy speaker wires in the coming week to prewire my framed basement, what do I do seems to be the question. I don't have an unlimited budget but I can be flexible with speakers. They're the one component of any setup that tends to last decades instead of two years. Just want to do it right so that my next purchase lasts as long as possible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

esappy said:


> Not that, its that you said no to Dolby's claim of being adaptable to different configurations. We all know that they will still be using a 5.1/7.1 bed on bluray, but why do you say they wont be able to adapt to other configurations. I'm not following you here. If Dolby says they can why are you saying they can't? I don't know so I was just asking for clarification. That's all.


Only the objects (however many Dolby added to the home version) are adaptable given a fully implemented renderer. If there's a very limited amount of objects, then there's still a pretty fixed location for the channel beds. The fewer the amount of objects, the less arbitrary your theater's configuration can be. 

If this had been a straight object bitstream... the sky could have been the limit based on the metadata contained within, but because of the downscaled nature of Atmos for the home, you're still limited in your choices.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kressilac said:


> Atmos/DTS/Auro aside, if I am ready to wire a newly framed basement with speaker wire and I want more than 7.1, what's going to somewhat future proof me with respect to speakers? For more than a decade now, we've been able to assume 5.1 or 7.1 setups in the home were going to keep your theater viable for a number of years. For the most part, that's still the case today. However, what if you're building today?
> 
> 
> 7.1, I'm good for everything current.
> 7.1.2 (ceiling middle) - budget minded Atmos expansion to me.
> 7.1.4 (ceiling front and back) - Not sure the extra 2 speakers overcomes the loss of ceiling middle
> 
> 
> Beyond this we're getting into AVRs that need many more channels
> 7.1.6 (ceiling front, middle, back) - Is this even a configuration?
> 9.1.2 (ceiling middle) - Probably a clear upgrade from 7.1.2 considering the speakers in the gap between screen and side surrounds.
> 9.1.4 (ceiling font and back) - Leaning towards this as I read more though again, I am not sure if it is a decided upgrade over 9.1.2 (ceiling middle).
> 9.1.6 (ceiling front, middle, back) - This is probably out of my budget so I am not considering it.
> 
> 
> So then as I keep reading, I'm finding that Dolby makes a compromise by keeping the 7.1 part of the setup. Is the traditional 7.1 setup not even recommended with an Atmos receiver? Or is it a compromise we'll have to live with for the sake of everyone else not being as into Home Theater as we are? As you can see, there's a pile of questions. For me, as I am looking to buy speaker wires in the coming week to prewire my framed basement, what do I do seems to be the question. I don't have an unlimited budget but I can be flexible with speakers. They're the one component of any setup that tends to last decades instead of two years. Just want to do it right so that my next purchase lasts as long as possible.



You're asking a lot about still unanswered questions. All we know, as of yet, is that the bare recommended minimum is 7.1.4. Then we know home Atmos can do 24 mains + 10 overheads and some brand is coming out with a processor that can do pretty much the whole Atmos "thing." It's either a little or a lot in the price and feature structure. No in-between as of right now. 

We don't even know where those 24 or extra 10 are supposed to go outside of the standard speaker layout with just more of them for bigger rooms, or is Dolby considering something like this* ETRI 30.2* layout:










There has been no white paper released that goes through the optimal setup configurations and speaker placements for various layouts up to the maximum allowable. And yes, there are always recommended optimal speaker placements or all of a sudden there is no industry standard dubbing stage and you get wildly variant soundtracks. The industry is always trying to simplify and make things more uniform or the theater owners will continue to balk at installing the latest and greatest... as will we.

What are your room's dimensions?


----------



## Kressilac

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're asking a lot about still unanswered questions. All we know, as of yet, is that the bare recommended minimum is 7.1.4. Then we know home Atmos can do 24 mains + 10 overheads and some brand is coming out with a processor that can do pretty much the whole Atmos "thing." It's either a little or a lot in the price and feature structure. No in-between as of right now.
> 
> We don't even know where those 24 or extra 10 are supposed to go outside of the standard speaker layout with just more of them for bigger rooms, or is Dolby considering something like this* ETRI 30.2* layout:
> 
> [snipped picture - see post above]
> 
> There has been no white paper released that goes through the optimal setup configurations and speaker placements for various layouts up to the maximum allowable. And yes, there are always recommended optimal speaker placements or all of a sudden there is no industry standard dubbing stage and you get wildly variant soundtracks. The industry is always trying to simplify and make things more uniform or the theater owners will continue to balk at installing the latest and greatest... as will we.
> 
> What are your room's dimensions?



My room is 24x15 with 8.5' ceilings after RSIC channel and double drywall. Room is open on one of the 24' lengths with only two basement poles as the places I could put speakers. Easy enough to do with a 9.1.4 setup and the poles actually line up very well with traditional 7.1 speaker placement. I'm pretty much free to do whatever I need to without closing off the room so that's where my thought process has been. This will be my third home theater setup from framing to final product. This time, I would like more than 7.1 audio and with Atmos coming to the HT, even if I can't get the proper AVR for two years, I want to know that I don't have to tear out walls to get it right later on. That's the critical piece for me, what goes in the walls before I seal it all up.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kressilac said:


> My room is 24x15 with 8.5' ceilings after RSIC channel and double drywall. Room is open on one of the 24' lengths with only two basement poles as the places I could put speakers. Easy enough to do with a 9.1.4 setup and the poles actually line up very well with traditional 7.1 speaker placement. I'm pretty much free to do whatever I need to without closing off the room so that's where my thought process has been. This will be my third home theater setup from framing to final product. This time, I would like more than 7.1 audio and with Atmos coming to the HT, even if I can't get the proper AVR for two years, I want to know that I don't have to tear out walls to get it right later on. That's the critical piece for me, what goes in the walls before I seal it all up.


Do you intend to close the room off completely, or leave part of it open?


----------



## esappy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Only the objects (however many Dolby added to the home version) are adaptable given a fully implemented renderer. If there's a very limited amount of objects, then there's still a pretty fixed location for the channel beds. The fewer the amount of objects, the less arbitrary your theater's configuration can be.
> 
> If this had been a straight object bitstream... the sky could have been the limit based on the metadata contained within, but because of the downscaled nature of Atmos for the home, you're still limited in your choices.


This is kind of what I was thinking. We have to live with a hybrid system to coincide with current surround sound setups. It's not a limitation of Atmos itself. Hell Dolby could just make their own stand alone Atmos processor with 34, 64, 128 'channels' of pure discreet audio and have a source that can supply all those objects for perfect rendering and have the ultimate object based audio system. Now only like 100 people could actually afford this to start with, and the majority of the consumer base wont upgrade to that size of a system anyway so this realistically wont work in the consumer realm at anything remotely affordable. I get that starting off with channel based audio beds limits the size and scalability of object based audio but we dont even have that in the home yet so I think anything is a good start and as long as people start buying in then it is bound to get even better.


----------



## markus767

esappy said:


> Not that, its that you said no to Dolby's claim of being adaptable to different configurations. We all know that they will still be using a 5.1/7.1 bed on bluray, but why do you say they wont be able to adapt to other configurations. I'm not following you here. If Dolby says they can why are you saying they can't? I don't know so I was just asking for clarification. That's all.


Channel-based is equal to fixed speaker positions which is NOT equal to "being adaptable to different configurations".


----------



## Kressilac

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you intend to close the room off completely, or leave part of it open?



WAF dictates that the room be left open. With speakers on each pole, I can still accomplish 9.1.4 or even 9.2.4. Just going to have to live with the open room and hope I can still get the wow factor out of the audio.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kressilac said:


> WAF dictates that the room be left open. With speakers on each pole, I can still accomplish 9.1.4 or even 9.2.4. Just going to have to live with the open room and hope I can still get the wow factor out of the audio.


Ah, the dreaded WAF.  

Yeah, it won't be as a good as if you had a totally dedicated space, but I could see a 9.4.4 setup. You'll need more subs and a more capable speaker package because the sound waves "see" a much larger volume of space than your theater's dimensions, so you have to compensate. Tell your wife that, and maybe you can close off the room!


----------



## esappy

markus767 said:


> Channel-based is equal to fixed speaker positions which is NOT equal to "being adaptable to different configurations".


So how do you interpret this FAQ from Dolby?

How is Dolby Atmos different than typical channel-based home theater systems?

Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects. What is an audio object? Any sound heard in a movie scene—a child yelling, a helicopter taking off, a car horn blaring—is an audio object. Filmmakers using Dolby Atmos can decide exactly where those sounds should originate and precisely where they move as the scene develops.
Thinking about sound in this way eliminates many of the limitations of channel-based audio. In a channel-based system, filmmakers have to think about the speaker setup: Should this sound come from the left rear surrounds or the left side surrounds? With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers just have to think about the story: Where is that yelling child going to run? The Dolby Atmos system, whether in the cinema or a home theater, has the intelligence to determine what speakers to use to precisely recreate the child’s movement in the way the filmmakers intend.
Dolby Atmos is also far more flexible and adaptable than channel-based home theater. In a channel-based system with channel-based content, the number of speakers is fixed—a 7.1 system always consists of seven speakers and one subwoofer. With Dolby Atmos, in contrast, you have amazing flexibility: you can get the full experience with just seven speakers or get an even richer, more detailed sound by adding more speakers. As you add speakers, a Dolby Atmos enabled receiver will automatically determine how to use them to create fantastic, immersive audio.

To me this is saying that there is possibly a shift in deployment of audio in the future but it can still start with the familiar 5.1/7.1 layout that we are used to and that you will be able to add on as you see fit. So start with 5.1 channel based audio then become 5.1 object based audio. Then expand to 5.1.2, then 7.1.4, then 11.1.4, then 24.1.10 and the processor will do the work based on number of speakers. But to do this will a new source device be required? But before we get to a pure object based audio system, we will have to live with a hybrid system based on 5.1/7.1 channel based audio and the expand it to 7.1.4 with the 4 object based ceiling speakers. Now I get the feeling that some are equating 4 ceiling speakers as 'objects' and therefore only 1 object sound will be playable per speaker for a total of 4 objects. This doesn't make sense to me. If you place sounds in a 3D space using xyz coordinates then doesnt that mean that you will use a combination of 3 speakers to place the 'object'? If you can do this for 1 sound why couldn't you also do it for 10 sounds at the same time using the same 3 speakers? Its all plotted on a grid in a computer then encoded into the bitstream as metadata and extracted by the renderer anyway. So maybe we are talking apples and oranges here but I still don't follow your argument. Sorry.


----------



## markus767

esappy said:


> I still don't follow your argument. Sorry.


As long as movies are mixed with fixed loudspeaker locations that directly correlate to specific channels, those mixes are not "adaptable to different configurations". The speaker configuration of such a playback system is fixed and predetermined by the speaker layout of the dubbing stage. This is what we know as stereo, 5.1, 7.1, etc.

It would be different if all sounds were mixed as objects but they are not and they won't be in the foreseeable future because of established production workflows and limitations in the Atmos object metadata (objects carry only positional information and no information about the virtual auditory space they are placed in).


----------



## DaJoJo

audiovideoholic said:


> You do realize 4K cannot be differentiated between 1080P unless are extremely close to the screen. I'm not against it (have a sony vw1100es) but just don't see how tv panels can take advantage of the technology. I have to get within a couple of feet of a 13' wide screen to appreciate the difference. Other improvements may draw customers towards 4k too so....rant over and back to this 32 channel of goodness that will envelope the viewers like no other surround format at an affordable price (hopefully).
> 
> I would like the pre-pro or stand alone components to directly feed amps. I still have plenty of rack space to do it this way and said long ago that if could get content I would have sourced a theater atmos system even at the 20k+ price. So a little over a year ago the 20k price seemed worth it if was possible to use it and now can get a lite version for same price I'd have to spend on my new AVR for hdmi 2 pass through, I feel like Dolby really listened to us more so than many many other technologies in bringing this to our homes so quickly. Rant two- over lol


i sit only 2,5 meter from my es8000 tv and i looked at 4k tv's in the mediamarkt in amsterdam at about the same distance and it definatly looks better to me then my current tv. i have considered buying a a5000 but it would require me to buy additional amps which bring also more electrical bill costs with it and it need more room in my console and it doesn't have atmos, so i chose the a3040 for this reasons. i feel that i'm missing some high tones with dolby vs dts, i like dts more. quick isn't allways better and probably some issues need to be solved too, doing this too fast is not gonna bring us a better experience and it's probably why it takes dts longer to come up with their new dts-uhd. nowadays they come with devices with updatable firmware so fast that it takes sometimes a half year or longer to fix all the bugs in it.


----------



## DaJoJo

markus767 said:


> As long as movies are mixed with fixed loudspeaker locations that directly correlate to specific channels, those mixes are not "adaptable to different configurations". The speaker configuration of such a playback system is fixed and predetermined by the speaker layout of the dubbing stage. This is what we know as stereo, 5.1, 7.1, etc.
> It would be different if all sounds were mixed as objects but they are not and they won't be in the foreseeable future because of established production workflows and limitations in the Atmos object metadata (objects carry only positional information and no information about the virtual auditory space they are placed in).


its the avr that decides where the objects are placed in this virtual auditory space whatever speaker-layout one may have. thats the great thing about it. speakers must be placed at the right spots but they do not need to be at an exact place though. minimum setup for auro is 5.1.2 and these 2 speakers are on top of the front speakers and this works too according to dolby.


----------



## Orbitron

Even if I could add ceiling speakers to a finished 11.5' x 26' home theater, not sure it would work correctly.

As the theater was being built we opened the ceiling and did blocking for diffusion over the center part of the room. A large area, approx. (95) 2" x 10" wood blocks.


----------



## sdurani

Put one pair of Top speakers forward of the diffusion and another pair rearward of the diffusion.


----------



## Schwa

Dan Hitchman said:


> If this had been a straight object bitstream... the sky could have been the limit based on the metadata contained within, but because of the downscaled nature of Atmos for the home, you're still limited in your choices.


Theatrical Atmos is also comprised of a channel bed plus object mix. It's certainly not a "straight object bitstream." See page 9 of the Dolby Atmos for cinema white paper.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Schwa said:


> Theatrical Atmos is also comprised of a channel bed plus object mix. It's certainly not a "straight object bitstream." See page 9 of the Dolby Atmos for cinema white paper.


I understand it's a hybrid too... and here's the thing... Dolby Atmos' speaker layout conforms to the standard industry placement of speakers with additional front wides, a L/R ceiling grid, surround sub outs (created via bass management), and possibly two more behind the screen speakers for extra wide screens. They can't go willy-nilly with their room designs because of the very nature of having fixed channel beds as the foundation of their respective "object" formats.

They and DTS are layering new "toys" on top of older technology instead of doing a stem-to-stern revamp for object based audio.


----------



## Snafu55

*Dolby Pro Logic IIz*

Most receivers have DLPIIz or X in place. There should be a way that Atmose utilizes theses channels on older receivers. It would be nice if there was a way to make use of something that has been around for awhile. 
Will Atmos be worth the upgrade??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Snafu55 said:


> Most receivers have DLPIIz or X in place. There should be a way that Atmos utilizes theses channels on older receivers. It would be nice if there was a way to make use of something that has been around for awhile.
> Will Atmos be worth the upgrade??


Once Atmos renderers can be calibrated and the soundtracks mapped to the specific speaker locations of a particular home theater arrangement, you could possibly not have to move your current layout and then just add more speakers from there. 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works right now due to limitations in the chips being used in first generation products by the major manufacturers. 

It will be better if you moved your height speakers to overheads. 

If you have the room and place your (timbre matched) speakers properly... Atmos is definitely worth getting. 

New versions of DTS Neo:X will upscale to your object format based system's speaker positions. Dolby is also working on new upscaling algorithms for legacy 5.1 or 7.1 tracks that work in concert with the Atmos speaker layouts.


----------



## Snafu55

Dan Hitchman said:


> Once Atmos renderers can be calibrated and the soundtracks mapped to the specific speaker locations of a particular home theater arrangement, you could possibly not have to move your current layout and then just add more speakers from there.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's not how it works right now due to limitations in the chips being used in first generation products by the major manufacturers.
> 
> It will be better if you moved your height speakers to overheads.
> 
> If you have the room and place your (timbre matched) speakers properly... Atmos is definitely worth getting.
> 
> New versions of DTS Neo:X will upscale to your object format based system's speaker positions. Dolby is also working on new upscaling algorithms for legacy 5.1 or 7.1 tracks that work in concert with the Atmos speaker layouts.


Thank you Dan. That is exactly the information I was looking for. Adding speakers is not a problem.


----------



## esappy

Snafu55 said:


> Most receivers have DLPIIz or X in place. There should be a way that Atmose utilizes theses channels on older receivers. It would be nice if there was a way to make use of something that has been around for awhile.
> Will Atmos be worth the upgrade??


This is from the Dolby Atmos blog. It's a bit vague but suggests that Atmos will play nice with all. 

What if I build a Dolby Atmos system but want to play content that isn’t in Dolby Atmos?

A Dolby Atmos home theater can play any stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 content. You can choose to have our technology automatically adapt that channel-based signal to use the full capabilities of your new system, including your overhead speakers, ensuring that you hear realistic and immersive sound.


----------



## markus767

DaJoJo said:


> its the avr that decides where the objects are placed in this virtual auditory space whatever speaker-layout one may have. thats the great thing about it. speakers must be placed at the right spots but they do not need to be at an exact place though. minimum setup for auro is 5.1.2 and these 2 speakers are on top of the front speakers and this works too according to dolby.


Yes, but I was NOT talking about objects but about Atmos bed...


----------



## dannut

markus767 said:


> ....
> It would be different if all sounds were mixed as objects but they are not and they won't be in the foreseeable future because of established production workflows and limitations in the Atmos object metadata (objects carry only positional information and no information about the virtual auditory space they are placed in).


Is this confirmed? 'Objects' are only panned across speakers without environment info? At least I hope the panning algorithm is more advanced than a regular panpot - ie. uses all the (imaging)speakers with psychoacoustically correct signals for all of them. If the algorithm just places a sound source to 1 or 2 speakers we are back in the stone-age.


----------



## markus767

dannut said:


> Is this confirmed? 'Objects' are only panned across speakers without environment info? At least I hope the panning algorithm is more advanced than a regular panpot - ie. uses all the (imaging)speakers with psychoacoustically correct signals for all of them. If the algorithm just places a sound source to 1 or 2 speakers we are back in the stone-age.


Yes, it's just level-panning. Of course a sound can be recorded with reverberation but that would just pan with the object.
Realistic spatial information would require reflections to be calculated in real time which could be handled by a playback renderer. A dumbed down approach would be to mix reverberation into beds just how it has been done in the past.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> They and DTS are layering new "toys" on top of older technology instead of doing a stem-to-stern revamp for object based audio.


It's not about objects vs channels. 

Think of a channel as a stationary object. That's what it is, with like minded elements married together. 

However in the cinema we still rely on arrays for the surrounds. When you have an object, even when adding size to it, it's not always desirable over using the bed to get the intended effect. Objects become very point source... And when you add size to it (which make the object larger than one speaker) it can bleed in undesirable ways.)

That's only one of the production considerations. 

Reproduction bandwidth is another concern. 

There are surely going to be cases in the future where having objects will add flexibility in sound manipulation for the user.... We will see how Dolby adapts Atmos to add in some of those benefits. 

Iosono offered something truly different in the way sound was reproduced through speakers (wave field synthesis) and used an object based approach while still allowing for channel beds. 

The reproduction change was the advance, not objects sb channels IMO. 

Dolby Elevation is going to allow most users the ability to add something miles above what DSX and PLIIz has done in the recent past. 

You can't throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Atmos is just the start of big things coming down the pile. I'm excited about MDA and AC4... 

As long as we're creating soundtracks to match images to a flat 2D projection I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel.

Just my .02.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> It's not about objects vs channels.
> 
> Think of a channel as a stationary object. That's what it is, with like minded elements married together.
> 
> However in the cinema we still rely on arrays for the surrounds. When you have an object, even when adding size to it, it's not always desirable over using the bed to get the intended effect. Objects become very point source... And when you add size to it (which make the object larger than one speaker) it can bleed in undesirable ways.)
> 
> That's only one of the production considerations.
> 
> Reproduction bandwidth is another concern.
> 
> There are surely going to be cases in the future where having objects will add flexibility in sound manipulation for the user.... We will see how Dolby adapts Atmos to add in some of those benefits.
> 
> Iosono offered something truly different in the way sound was reproduced through speakers (wave field synthesis) and used an object based approach while still allowing for channel beds.
> 
> The reproduction change was the advance, not objects sb channels IMO.
> 
> Dolby Elevation is going to allow most users the ability to add something miles above what DSX and PLIIz has done in the recent past.
> 
> You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> Atmos is just the start of big things coming down the pile. I'm excited about MDA and AC4...
> 
> As long as we're creating soundtracks to match images to a flat 2D projection I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel.
> 
> Just my .02.


Thanks for your perspective.

How would environmental reverberation and other "effects" of an object traveling in simulated space (that conforms to various scenes up on the screen) be recreated with something like Atmos? The object is the "dry" sound and the reverb or echo or what have you is in the channel bed? 

How about phase and frequency shifting of a sound as it travels past you or around you, etc. as in real life? Or do mixers steer clear of that because you're not dealing with binaural surround (like in a headphone mix) but having to deal with an audience sitting all over a large auditorium?

Do you have an idea of the differences between mixing with Dolby Atmos' commercial version vs. mixing with Dolby Atmos for the home (or is the latter only in "beta" testing where Dolby has to do the home mix since it's so new)?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for your perspective.
> 
> How would environmental reverberation and other "effects" of an object traveling in simulated space (that conforms to various scenes up on the screen) be recreated with something like Atmos? The object is the "dry" sound and the reverb or echo or what have you is in the channel bed?
> 
> How about phase and frequency shifting of a sound as it travels past you or around you, etc. as in real life? Or do mixers steer clear of that because you're not dealing with binaural surround (like in a headphone mix) but having to deal with an audience sitting all over a large auditorium?


As I mentioned Iososo did just what you are suggesting. (phase and frequency shifting) to achieve a way to do something different. 

One of the amazing things about that system was that there was a huge sweet spot. If you used an objects to playback a sound it would localize from where you were sitting. If you put the object in "planar" mode it would reproduce as if it was a bed channel. So no matter where you at for instance a background of birds, it would always sound like it was coming out if the side walls no matter where you sat. You could walk up the sides of the theater and the sound would travel would travel with you. It was awesome. 

So that's wholly different from the discussion about objects vs channels. 

I don't think in this generation (i.e. Atmos, Auro, MDA etc.) that we see that kind of innovation in speaker playback systems and dsp. 

"Do you have an idea of the differences between mixing with Dolby Atmos' commercial version vs. mixing with Dolby Atmos for the home (or is the latter only in "beta" testing where Dolby has to do the home mix since it's so new)?"

At this point there is no difference in how the master is created (i.e. the RMU.)

But how that master gets "ported" for home use I'm not at liberty to discuss.

What I can say is that they have created a software rendering engine that doesn't require the RMU for sound design rooms, etc. 

It is going to vastly expand the environments in which content can be created.... Both in number and type.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> As I mentioned Iososo did just what you are suggesting. (phase and frequency shifting) to achieve a way to do something different.
> 
> One of the amazing things about that system was that there was a huge sweet spot. If you used an objects to playback a sound it would localize from where you were sitting. If you put the object in "planar" mode it would reproduce as if it was a bed channel. So no matter where you at for instance a background of birds, it would always sound like it was coming out if the side walls no matter where you sat. You could walk up the sides of the theater and the sound would travel would travel with you. It was awesome.
> 
> So that's wholly different from the discussion about objects vs channels.
> 
> I don't think in this generation (i.e. Atmos, Auro, MDA etc.) that we see that kind of innovation in speaker playback systems and dsp.
> 
> "Do you have an idea of the differences between mixing with Dolby Atmos' commercial version vs. mixing with Dolby Atmos for the home (or is the latter only in "beta" testing where Dolby has to do the home mix since it's so new)?"
> 
> At this point there is no difference in how the master is created (i.e. the RMU.)
> 
> But how that master gets "ported" for home use I'm not at liberty to discuss.
> 
> What I can say is that they have created a software rendering engine that doesn't require the RMU for sound design rooms, etc.
> 
> It is going to vastly expand the environments in which content can be created.... Both in number and type.


Iososo sounds pretty darn cool! Maybe some day...

So, are you saying (in a round about sort of way) that the home version of Atmos can be every bit as convincing as the theatrical version? It isn't "dumbed down" to the point where it might as well be channel based? For instance, in Star Trek: Edge of Darkness they used aggressive directionalized dialog (jut like Gravity did) that seemed to put the dialog tracks into objects, so the mixers could track the position of the actors (much better than mono-centric dialog as in most movies)... would the home version be able to do that as well?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Iososo sounds pretty darn cool! Maybe some day...
> 
> So, are you saying (in a round about sort of way) that the home version of Atmos can be every bit as convincing as the theatrical version? It isn't "dumbed down" to the point where it might as well be channel based? For instance, in Star Trek: Edge of Darkness they used aggressive directionalized dialog (jut like Gravity did) that seemed to put the dialog tracks into objects, so the mixers could track the position of the actors (much better than mono-centric dialog as in most movies)... would the home version be able to do that as well?


I think the addition of 4 overhead speakers and 7.1 is very convincing.... I have heard multiple demos with both discrete and a Elevation speakers. 

It really is a step up... 

However I can't say with certainty that it would make a difference with 11 channels (7.1.4) if it were renders or played back as objects... If you could playback 11 discrete channels on 11 speakers there should be no difference. 

With these first generation of products you are essentially doubling the amount of "atmospheric" speakers. 4 surrounds to 8 speakers making a sphere. 

As more products come down the pipeline the benefits of objects will reveal itself much more readily. 

This is just a first step. 

Roger Dressler has pointed out some of the great things that can be done with object based audio. Since we are at the beginning of this change I think it's safe to say it will evolve as it goes. 

Being able to label objects as dialog, or having multiple beds with independent level control, expanding object size on the fly, adding dsp to objects to create spaciousness... Not to mention virtualization for headphones, etc. 

This 1.0 release is just the beginning. 

I've said it before. But I'm really excited. 

I'm jumping in ASAP. Starting with 5.1.4 as soon as Denon releases the X5200.


----------



## smurraybhm

^ if I may ask - why Denon? Did you not have an Elite at one time or is my memory of the SC-05/SC-07 thread wrong? Just curious given the two seem to offer unique abilities outside of Atmos. Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I think the addition of 4 overhead speakers and 7.1 is very convincing.... I have heard multiple demos with both discrete and a Elevation speakers.
> 
> It really is a step up...
> 
> However I can't say with certainty that it would make a difference with 11 channels (7.1.4) if it were renders or played back as objects... If you could playback 11 discrete channels on 11 speakers there should be no difference.
> 
> With these first generation of products you are essentially doubling the amount of "atmospheric" speakers. 4 surrounds to 8 speakers making a sphere.
> 
> As more products come down the pipeline the benefits of objects will reveal itself much more readily.
> 
> This is just a first step.
> 
> Roger Dressler has pointed out some of the great things that can be done with object based audio. Since we are at the beginning of this change I think it's safe to say it will evolve as it goes.
> 
> Being able to label objects as dialog, or having multiple beds with independent level control, expanding object size on the fly, adding dsp to objects to create spaciousness... Not to mention virtualization for headphones, etc.
> 
> This 1.0 release is just the beginning.
> 
> I've said it before. But I'm really excited.
> 
> I'm jumping in ASAP. Starting with 5.1.4 as soon as Denon releases the X5200.


Jumping in the deep end with both feet! 

I'm really hoping that mid-level pre-amps start getting released that have more speaker flexibility and better object friendly calibration rather than sacrificing renderer power, features, and speaker outputs, so they can waste money and internal circuitry space on built in amps. I don't want to have to by a $6,000 processor just to get a more capable renderer and a few more Atmos layout choices. Even better: a pre-amp with data-linked add-on module like Dolby's theatrical Atmos processor. That way you can start small and then build up. Right now it's 7.1.4 or some uber expensive product that does the entire 24+10 home system: a little or A LOT, no in-between.


----------



## Rgb

My $.02-

With the number of speakers, speaker design specifics, placement specifics, and authoring and playback processing needed for Atmos, why not throw in the towel and just give everyone wireless headphones, or add a headphone jack to every seat in a theater, and use Dolby Headphone and/or HRTF + Atmos object oriented processing in the loop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Headphone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function

and have a VASTLY simpler hardware system with more consistent results at every seat location.

Since you're giving everyone 3D glasses, just build (wireless) headphones into the glasses.

You would then be sure everyone hears a holosonic sound field without the speaker/room complexity and seating location issues.

I think this is the cost effective way to go in the home, i.e. a mass market opportunity for wireless headphones in home theaters, applying Atmos+DHP. Throw in a shaker in every seat, and you're golden 

If AV receivers supported a standard wireless headphone (and speaker, FWIW) protocol (with wireless sub/shaker support), things could get REALLY interesting again in HT.


----------



## FilmMixer

smurraybhm said:


> ^ if I may ask - why Denon? Did you not have an Elite at one time or is my memory of the SC-05/SC-07 thread wrong? Just curious given the two seem to offer unique abilities outside of Atmos. Thanks.


I've owned 5 different SC models.

I love them. 

Two reasons. 

One is that Pioneer states before end of year for Atmos and not at launch. 

Secondly. Pioneer sold it's AVR division to Onkyo last week.

We will see how that goes.


----------



## Rgb

> Woody Woodhall took a tour of the Dolby booth at NAB and talked the the folks there about how Dolby is and will be changing the way we think about audio. First, he talked with Robert France about a Personalized Audio Experience that will change the way people experience their entertainment. Later, he talks with Michael Demeyer about the brand new codec, AC4, which is a new format that Dolby is bringing to market that will eventually be the successor to AC3.


http://provideocoalition.com/pvcexc...introduces-us-to-the-next-generation-of-audio

AC4 is the new Dolby codec, serving as the carrier of channel + object code and metadata.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rgb said:


> http://provideocoalition.com/pvcexc...introduces-us-to-the-next-generation-of-audio
> 
> AC4 is the new Dolby codec, serving as the carrier of channel + object code and metadata.


AC4 is probably their lossy streaming and broadcast version of Atmos whereas the premium version (like on Blu-ray and probably UHD media) would be delivered losslessly. I definitely don't want to go backwards just for the sake of more "channels" where all you get is lossy audio.

Though, I suspect Netflix will find a way to screw even AC4 up. They deliver with DD Plus now, but at a MUCH lower bitrate (with dynamic compression applied to help with the drastic data compression) than even DVD, and it can sometimes sound like a bad MP3 encoding from my experience. One reason I dropped Netflix streaming.


----------



## SteveCallas

So there will be a library of media released up to now that doesn't make use of overhead channels, and with those channels in place, the sound systems will take data from the existing mixes and attempt to use them, the same way that front wides, front highs, or rear surrounds do on most mixes today. With that in mind, has anyone split their surround and rear surround channels, amplified them externally, and attempted to create overhead channels for even more of a surround effect?


----------



## Tasdom

I wonder if my ceiling will be compatible with Atmos?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=141658&stc=1&d=1404084480
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=141666&stc=1&d=1404084480


----------



## ggsantafe

Tasdom said:


> I wonder if my ceiling will be compatible with Atmos?
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=141658&stc=1&d=1404084480
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=141666&stc=1&d=1404084480


Nice latillas and vigas! - have a similar setup in my listening area - suspect you'd need to mount speaker brackets on the vigas - but hiding the speaker wires will be problematical - some of the Atmos configurations will utilize Atmos speakers that sit on top of existing speakers and have enclosures designed to reflect off of the ceiling, minimizing the need for ceiling mounted speakers, but I'd like to get some real time feedback from early adopters before considering implementation.


----------



## Tasdom

ggsantafe said:


> Nice latillas and vigas! - have a similar setup in my listening area - suspect you'd need to mount speaker brackets on the vigas - but hiding the speaker wires will be problematical - some of the Atmos configurations will utilize Atmos speakers that sit on top of existing speakers and have enclosures designed to reflect off of the ceiling, minimizing the need for ceiling mounted speakers, but I'd like to get some real time feedback from early adopters before considering implementation.


Ha thanks, someone from Santa Fe would def recognize the construction. I'm happy with my current set up but just curious how the beams would affect the intended reflections for Atmos ceiling speakers.


----------



## cfraser

Not to be a jerk, but so far I have always preferred the DTS versions of encoding vs the "corresponding" Dolby ones. On DVD and BD at least. The DTS one has always come a short step later. I can wait.

Hopefully I'll have the chance to compare offerings using the same device. Sure wouldn't want to end up with one of those lame duck pre-pros/AVRs/players that only did Dolby and not DTS. Remember them?

Generally speaking, I find that Dolby sets the bar too low, presumably to increase their marketing success at initial product launch. The lowness becomes readily apparent when the next notch (DTS) is so generally easily discerned as superior, and comes very quickly after. Again, not trying to be a jerk, just reminding those who have been on the journey, and may have momentarily forgotten the scenery passed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cfraser said:


> Not to be a jerk, but so far I have always preferred the DTS versions of encoding vs the "corresponding" Dolby ones. On DVD and BD at least. The DTS one has always come a short step later. I can wait.
> 
> Hopefully I'll have the chance to compare offerings using the same device. Sure wouldn't want to end up with one of those lame duck pre-pros/AVRs/players that only did Dolby and not DTS. Remember them?
> 
> Generally speaking, I find that Dolby sets the bar too low, presumably to increase their marketing success at initial product launch. The lowness becomes readily apparent when the next notch (DTS) is so generally easily discerned as superior, and comes very quickly after. Again, not trying to be a jerk, just reminding those who have been on the journey, and may have momentarily forgotten the scenery passed.


It's hard to say. They both use hybrid channel + metadata object formats and both can be encoded losslessly or lossy. It will all come down to how many objects and how many speaker/sub outputs DTS-UHD can control vs. Dolby Atmos.


----------



## David Susilo

I would not say DTS codec to be better than Dolby. The DTS MIX tend to be better than Dolby with (usually) boosted rear channels, hotter LFE and different EQ.

Warner have done tests (DTS vs DD) using the exact same master, no one had a preference between one and another. Back in '98, Sony Indonesia also did a test of both codecs using identical master, from about 200 respondents, there was also no preference between on codec to another.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> I would not say DTS codec to be better than Dolby. The DTS MIX tend to be better than Dolby with (usually) boosted rear channels, hotter LFE and different EQ.
> 
> Warner have done tests (DTS vs DD) using the exact same master, no one had a preference between one and another. Back in '98, Sony Indonesia also did a test of both codecs using identical master, from about 200 respondents, there was also no preference between on codec to another.


A lot of it is moot now since both premium codecs, TrueHD and Master Audio, are supposed to be lossless. Again, it comes down to how both of their object formats work and what differentiates one from another in performance and features.


----------



## esappy

Dan Hitchman said:


> A lot of it is moot now since both premium codecs, TrueHD and Master Audio, are supposed to be lossless. Again, it comes down to how both of their object formats work and what differentiates one from another in performance and features.


Very true. Back in the days when DVD was the best we had, the DD soundtracks were encoded at something like 384-448 kbps with the codec maxing out at 640 kbps. DTS I believe was encoded at about 1500 kbps or over triple the amount of DD. You can argue (and that has been done exhaustively) that DTS was better than DD back then but now both use Lossless compression. I dont really notice any difference between the two and they both can sound awesome when done right.


----------



## hometheaterguy

esappy said:


> Very true. Back in the days when DVD was the best we had, the DD soundtracks were encoded at something like 384-448 kbps with the codec maxing out at 640 kbps. DTS I believe was encoded at about 1500 kbps or over triple the amount of DD. You can argue (and that has been done exhaustively) that DTS was better than DD back then but now both use Lossless compression. I dont really notice any difference between the two and they both can sound awesome when done right.


i agree


----------



## Ethan Ong

http://www.twice.com/blog/reporters-notebook/dolby-atmos-and-blu-ray-details-emerge/45804?utm_source=MESA+Email+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2535c60fa3-my_google_analytics_key&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f57b24d15f-2535c60fa3-86828485

Dolby Atmos And Blu-ray: Details Emerge
Dolby Laboratories has left it up to audio suppliers to fill in a lot of blanks about the forthcoming Dolby Atmos launch in the home theater market. - See more at: http://www.twice.com/blog/reporters...d15f-2535c60fa3-86828485#sthash.BYpD0sCi.dpuf

Dolby Laboratories has left it up to audio suppliers to fill in a lot of blanks about the forthcoming Dolby Atmos launch in the home theater market.

Dolby provided some good high-level information about the technology’s promise on its website, but you have to go to Onkyo’s website to find out, for example, that Atmos supports 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 9.1.2 speaker configurations.

As I roamed the booths at CES Week yesterday, I also learned some other key details. One is an explanation of how Atmos soundtracks will appear on Blu-ray discs without, apparently, undergoing the drawn-out process of changing the Blu-ray spec.

On its website, Dolby has promised that “existing players that fully conform to the Blu-ray specification will be able to support Dolby Atmos content on a Blu-ray disc.” Previously, Dolby told me that Blu-ray players will spit out the Atmos bitstream through their HDMI outputs to A/V receivers and preamp processors with embedded Atmos decoders.

So is there a separate Atmos soundtrack on discs, and wouldn’t that require a Blu-ray spec change?

The answer came when I watched (and listened) to a Dolby-approved Atmos demo. A menu popped up on the screen. It offered a choice: “Atmos in TrueHD” and “Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus.”

TrueHD is already approved for use on Blu-ray discs, and Dolby Digital Plus is already used for online video streaming. So it sounds like Atmos metadata, which assigns XYZ coordinates to individual sounds, will be embedded in Dolby TrueHD bitstreams much like chapter ID metadata. The Atmos metadata will place sounds in a 360-degree space with more precision than today’s channel-based surround technologies do.

The metadata and soundtrack will pass through the HDMI output of current Blu-ray players to an Atmos-equipped AVR for decoding. And for consumers who haven’t stepped up to an Atmos AVR, existing AVRs with standard TrueHD decoders will play back the TrueHD soundtrack just fine.

If that’s how the technology works, Dolby scored a coup that will put TrueHD surround technology on many more Blu-ray discs than today.

I also learned this:
--Blu-ray disc packaging will carry such designations as 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 to indicate the number of speakers that the soundtrack is optimized for.
-- An Atmos AVR will improve the sound quality of non-Atmos discs because of the AVR’s higher processing power, which is required to interpret Atmos metadata. I don’t know yet whether an Atmos AVR will generate some degree of more localized placement of sounds from a standard soundtrack.
--Dialog will be intelligible at home at listening levels lower than what you’d normally hear during a retail demonstration.
--Atmos-optimized speakers with an angled top-firing driver are optimized for rooms with 8- to 14-foot ceilings. The drivers reflect sound off the ceiling to deliver overhead sound effects.
--And, to optimize overhead sound effects, consumers who go the in-ceiling speaker route will have to place two to four in-ceiling speakers about a quarter way from the side walls.

Many of these details will likely be addressed by Dolby on August 15, when the company is said to be planning a follow-up announcement as we all prepare for the CEDIA Expo. Most likely, the announcements will also include details on the release of Atmos-encoded Blu-ray discs and movie streams and perhaps on Dolby’s own promotional plans.

So far, Dolby has said only that Atmos surround sound will begin appearing on Blu-ray discs and streaming services this fall, with more titles to come in 2015.

Dolby itself is saying only so much, but we wouldn’t have heard anything at all unless audio suppliers pushed Dolby to let them release their Atmos product plans this week. Suppliers wanted to get the word out so they could generate retail excitement and give retailers time to set up demonstrations in time for the fourth-quarter selling seasons.

Demos will be instrumental in promoting Dolby Atmos, which could lift component-audio sales because of the striking improvement it brings to home theater audio. It gives consumers a clearly audible reason to replace their existing AVRs and speakers, and it does so without requiring the installation of on-wall height speakers that clutter up walls.

At the very least, Atmos will encourage sales of new AVRs and Atmos-enabled speaker modules, which could be placed on top of existing speakers to deliver overhead effects.

Atmos offers a more compelling reason to replace existing audio components than just about anything else that has come along in years.
Installers and A/V specialists, rejoice!

- See more at: http://www.twice.com/blog/reporters...d15f-2535c60fa3-86828485#sthash.BYpD0sCi.dpuf


----------



## Cal68

I'm sorry if I missed the answer to this question when reading this thread, but will the current generation of BluRay players like the Oppo 103 and 105 be able to decode the Dolby Atmos audio information and send it to the AV receiver/processor? Or will we have to purchase new BluRay players as well?

Thanks.


----------



## Cal68

Cal68 said:


> I'm sorry if I missed the answer to this question when reading this thread, but will the current generation of BluRay players like the Oppo 103 and 105 be able to decode the Dolby Atmos audio information and send it to the AV receiver/processor? Or will we have to purchase new BluRay players as well?
> 
> Thanks.


"On its website, Dolby has promised that “existing players that fully conform to the Blu-ray specification will be able to support Dolby Atmos content on a Blu-ray disc.” Previously, Dolby told me that Blu-ray players will spit out the Atmos bitstream through their HDMI outputs to A/V receivers and preamp processors with embedded Atmos decoders."

Ah, ha, I found the answer to my own question. I should have read the previous post more carefully!


----------



## JonFo

I get how the Dolby True HD format is capable of handling the Atmos Meta-data in a fully backward compatible way. That's the beauty of extensible container formats.

What I am wondering about is whether new 'Atmos' BluRays will have one or two TrueHD soundtracks, as an Atmos soundtrack will necessarily have certain sounds in the objects and not in the 5.1 channel bed, so playing just the TrueHD 5.1 channel bed (in a legacy AVR) would be missing key sounds. 

An example would be some dialog in a Spiderman movie where Spidy is swinging around overhead and his dialog is in an Atmos object and not in the 5.1 channel bed. If that Atmos TrueHD bitstream is played back by a legacy decoder that only renders the channel bed, we'd be missing the critical dialog.
Now, the default Dolby Digital mix would have it mixed in of course.

I'm guessing that they will give us one Dolby TrueHD with Atmos stream, and depend on the required DolbyDigital track for backwards compatibility with non-Atmos playback gear. So pretty soon, if you want high-rez soundtracks from your BluRays, you might need to upgrade to an Atmos-capable AVR/Pre, even if you don't set up a ceiling array.
I don't see the industry including two TrueHD soundtracks (too much room consumed), nor producing 2 editions (a la 3D, which is an inventory nightmare).


----------



## FirstReflect

JonFo said:


> I get how the Dolby True HD format is capable of handling the Atmos Meta-data in a fully backward compatible way. That's the beauty of extensible container formats.
> 
> What I am wondering about is whether new 'Atmos' BluRays will have one or two TrueHD soundtracks, as an Atmos soundtrack will necessarily have certain sounds in the objects and not in the 5.1 channel bed, so playing just the TrueHD 5.1 channel bed (in a legacy AVR) would be missing key sounds.
> 
> An example would be some dialog in a Spiderman movie where Spidy is swinging around overhead and his dialog is in an Atmos object and not in the 5.1 channel bed. If that Atmos TrueHD bitstream is played back by a legacy decoder that only renders the channel bed, we'd be missing the critical dialog.
> Now, the default Dolby Digital mix would have it mixed in of course.
> 
> I'm guessing that they will give us one Dolby TrueHD with Atmos stream, and depend on the required DolbyDigital track for backwards compatibility with non-Atmos playback gear. So pretty soon, if you want high-rez soundtracks from your BluRays, you might need to upgrade to an Atmos-capable AVR/Pre, even if you don't set up a ceiling array.
> I don't see the industry including two TrueHD soundtracks (too much room consumed), nor producing 2 editions (a la 3D, which is an inventory nightmare).





That's an interesting question. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's the case that two separate soundtracks would be necessary. All of the sounds should be contained within the 5.1 or 7.1 channel "bed". It's just that some of those sounds will also have object meta-data associated with them. If you have the Dolby Atmos decoder, it will use that meta-data to "pull" those particular sounds out of the "bed" and do its best to position those particular sounds in xyz coordinate space using the speakers the Atmos decoder has to work with, but if you do not have the Atmos decoder, then all of the sounds still exist within the channel "bed".


So I think there's a little bit of similarity to, say, DTS Neo:X. In that format, there's additional flag data that will "pull" certain sounds out of the 7.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack and place those particular sounds into the Front Wide or Front Height channels if you have the Neo:X decoder and speakers in those positions. But if you lack the Neo:X decoder, or you don't have Front Wide speakers or Front Height speakers, then those sounds still exist within the regular 7.1 channels.


So...yeah, I _think_ that's how it works -- haha. I could definitely be wrong about that. But they've stressed that Dolby Atmos soundtracks will be backwards compatible with regular 5.1 and 7.1 systems.


----------



## markus767

^
It's impossible to "pull" sounds out of a channel-based mix. Objects have to be discrete single sounds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> ^
> It's impossible to "pull" sounds out of a channel-based mix. Objects have to be discrete single sounds.


That leaves me to wonder just how many actual objects there really are. Seems like a lot of heavy lifting, especially if the sounds are in the 5.1/7.1 backwards compatible track _and _in an object. Could it be possible that these will be separate special releases like 3D with an Atmos enabled track? 

I just hope Atmos doesn't only show up on 3D titles. I would rather have Atmos than 3D. Not a fan of 3D.


----------



## Selden Ball

markus767 said:


> ^
> It's impossible to "pull" sounds out of a channel-based mix. Objects have to be discrete single sounds.


Fortunately, this is incorrect. Dolby's ProLogic matrix decoders have been removing sounds from one channel and putting them in another for a long time, as have their DTS equivalents.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> That leaves me to wonder just how many actual objects there really are.


FilmMixer could tell us.


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> Fortunately, this is incorrect. Dolby's ProLogic matrix decoders have been removing sounds from one channel and putting them in another for a long time, as have their DTS equivalents.


Yes, but how many can be interwoven and how is the quality of those tracks? Do you really want to go back there?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> FilmMixer could tell us.


From one "cagey" response he's given us, I don't think he can yet. They may still be under NDA's. Perhaps Dolby doesn't want DTS to find out and then they can release DTS-UHD with a better "formula." It's like the Coke and Pepsi battles.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't think he can yet. They may still be under NDA's. Perhaps Dolby doesn't want DTS to find out.


It's not a secret that the format allows 118 objects (see Dolby's specs), so why wouldn't he be allowed to tell us how many objects he's using?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> It's not a secret that the format allows 118 objects (see Dolby's specs), so why wouldn't he be allowed to tell us how many objects he's using?


Because the home version is designed differently. He also had mentioned it contained something new and I take it that there might be something proprietary involved.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Because the home version is designed differently. He also had mentioned it contained something new and I take it that there might be something proprietary involved.


I thought you wanted to know how many objects theatrical mixes commonly utilize. This would define the requirements for the home version, wouldn't it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> I thought you wanted to know how many objects theatrical mixes commonly utilize. This would define the requirements for the home version, wouldn't it?


I would like to know some of the in's and outs of _consumer_ Atmos, besides the optimal speaker positions and locations (we don't even know how to design our theaters properly yet). We already know a lot about commercial Atmos. I guess Dolby might be more forthcoming once DTS-UHD is finally released.


----------



## FilmMixer

JonFo said:


> I get how the Dolby True HD format is capable of handling the Atmos Meta-data in a fully backward compatible way. That's the beauty of extensible container formats.
> 
> What I am wondering about is whether new 'Atmos' BluRays will have one or two TrueHD soundtracks, as an Atmos soundtrack will necessarily have certain sounds in the objects and not in the 5.1 channel bed, so playing just the TrueHD 5.1 channel bed (in a legacy AVR) would be missing key sounds.
> 
> An example would be some dialog in a Spiderman movie where Spidy is swinging around overhead and his dialog is in an Atmos object and not in the 5.1 channel bed. If that Atmos TrueHD bitstream is played back by a legacy decoder that only renders the channel bed, we'd be missing the critical dialog.
> Now, the default Dolby Digital mix would have it mixed in of course.
> 
> I'm guessing that they will give us one Dolby TrueHD with Atmos stream, and depend on the required DolbyDigital track for backwards compatibility with non-Atmos playback gear. So pretty soon, if you want high-rez soundtracks from your BluRays, you might need to upgrade to an Atmos-capable AVR/Pre, even if you don't set up a ceiling array.
> I don't see the industry including two TrueHD soundtracks (too much room consumed), nor producing 2 editions (a la 3D, which is an inventory nightmare).


You will get one TrueHD track for 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos... There will be no need for going to the DD companion track for 5.1 on systems that can decode TrueHD.

Older AVRs won't see the extension and will decode as usual. 

It was the first thing we talked about when I got my second demo and one of the things I like about how they decided to go about it. 

No new BR players... HDMI 1.3 and above I believe.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> We already know a lot about commercial Atmos.


So it's probably just me that wants to know how many objects are commonly used in film mixes


----------



## Sevenfeet

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're asking a lot about still unanswered questions. All we know, as of yet, is that the bare recommended minimum is 7.1.4. Then we know home Atmos can do 24 mains + 10 overheads and some brand is coming out with a processor that can do pretty much the whole Atmos "thing." It's either a little or a lot in the price and feature structure. No in-between as of right now.
> 
> We don't even know where those 24 or extra 10 are supposed to go outside of the standard speaker layout with just more of them for bigger rooms, or is Dolby considering something like this* ETRI 30.2* layout:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been no white paper released that goes through the optimal setup configurations and speaker placements for various layouts up to the maximum allowable. And yes, there are always recommended optimal speaker placements or all of a sudden there is no industry standard dubbing stage and you get wildly variant soundtracks. The industry is always trying to simplify and make things more uniform or the theater owners will continue to balk at installing the latest and greatest... as will we.
> 
> What are your room's dimensions?


Well, Dolby has since released the Atmos white papers, at least for professional installations. And I think we can make some inferences on just what a residential 32 speaker system might look like for someone looking to spend that kind of budget.

If we look at what Dolby has said about Atmos, both in commercial and residential theaters, both had to live in the reality that despite the new object features, that Atmos must live within established theater standards, specifically 5.1 or 7.1 environments in either case. In the case of residential, overhead speakers are initially specified for either 2 or 4 speakers, either direct or reflective. But the practical limits are more than that and you can look at the commercial white paper to imagine what a 10 speaker residential ceiling would look like...mainly because it would begin mirroring what Dolby as already specified for small commercial theaters. Everyone has been to one of those "micro-theaters" in the local cineplex. Outside of the height of the ceiling, the square footage is often not much different than the home theaters in many McMansions. So if the Dolby commercial recommendation for a room up to 30'x30' is 10 speakers above in two five speakers arrays, then the home design won't be much different.

Since commercial environments match the equivalent number of rows of surround speakers to ceiling speaker, two rows of five speakers will also specify five speakers on each surround wall. And let's just make it five speakers on the surround back wall as well for the sake of argument. Lastly, you'd have 5 speakers in front to match the spec. So that's a total of 30 speakers right there. Add left and right subs and you have the 32 speakers that the spokesman from Dolby alluded to.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> So it's probably just me that wants to know how many objects are commonly used in film mixes


No, that's a legitimate query.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sevenfeet said:


> Well, Dolby has since released the Atmos white papers, at least for professional installations. And I think we can make some inferences on just what a residential 32 speaker system might look like for someone looking to spend that kind of budget.
> 
> If we look at what Dolby has said about Atmos, both in commercial and residential theaters, both had to live in the reality that despite the new object features, that Atmos must live within established theater standards, specifically 5.1 or 7.1 environments in either case. In the case of residential, overhead speakers are initially specified for either 2 or 4 speakers, either direct or reflective. But the practical limits are more than that and you can look at the commercial white paper to imagine what a 10 speaker residential ceiling would look like...mainly because it would begin mirroring what Dolby as already specified for small commercial theaters. Everyone has been to one of those "micro-theaters" in the local cineplex. Outside of the height of the ceiling, the square footage is often not much different than the home theaters in many McMansions. So if the Dolby commercial recommendation for a room up to 30'x30' is 10 speakers above in two five speakers arrays, then the home design won't be much different.
> 
> Since commercial environments match the equivalent number of rows of surround speakers to ceiling speaker, two rows of five speakers will also specify five speakers on each surround wall. And let's just make it five speakers on the surround back wall as well for the sake of argument. Lastly, you'd have 5 speakers in front to match the spec. So that's a total of 30 speakers right there. Add left and right subs and you have the 32 speakers that the spokesman from Dolby alluded to.


You're probably on to something there! Good points.


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> I think the addition of 4 overhead speakers and 7.1 is very convincing.... I have heard multiple demos with both discrete and a Elevation speakers.
> 
> It really is a step up...
> 
> However I can't say with certainty that it would make a difference with 11 channels (7.1.4) if it were renders or played back as objects... If you could playback 11 discrete channels on 11 speakers there should be no difference.
> 
> With these first generation of products you are essentially doubling the amount of "atmospheric" speakers. 4 surrounds to 8 speakers making a sphere.
> 
> As more products come down the pipeline the benefits of objects will reveal itself much more readily.
> 
> This is just a first step.
> 
> Roger Dressler has pointed out some of the great things that can be done with object based audio. Since we are at the beginning of this change I think it's safe to say it will evolve as it goes.
> 
> Being able to label objects as dialog, or having multiple beds with independent level control, expanding object size on the fly, adding dsp to objects to create spaciousness... Not to mention virtualization for headphones, etc.
> 
> This 1.0 release is just the beginning.
> 
> I've said it before. But I'm really excited.
> 
> I'm jumping in ASAP. Starting with 5.1.4 as soon as Denon releases the X5200.


Hi FilmMixer:

What speakers are you planning to use for your home Atmos setup?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> FilmMixer could tell us.


No I can't...


----------



## cembros

I’m getting ready to install in celling surrounds for a 7.2 setup. I plan on purchasing one of the new Atmos enabled denon or Marantz receivers when they are released. Can I take advantage of Atmos with no side speakers? Will adding in celling heights above the mains along with traditionally positioned in celling side and rear surrounds work?


----------



## ahmedreda

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you looking to install a 7.1.2 system and you currently have your surrounds in ceiling? 


cembros said:


> I’m getting ready to install in celling surrounds for a 7.2 setup. I plan on purchasing one of the new Atmos enabled denon or Marantz receivers when they are released. Can I take advantage of Atmos with no side speakers? Will adding in celling heights above the mains along with traditionally positioned in celling side and rear surrounds work?


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> No I can't...


Dolby bars mixers from telling about production workflows? Wow


----------



## markus767

Sevenfeet said:


> So if the Dolby commercial recommendation for a room up to 30'x30' is 10 speakers above in two five speakers arrays, then the home design won't be much different.


The minimum recommendation is

3 fronts
2 x 3 side surrounds
2 x 3 top surrounds
4 back surrounds

= 19


----------



## cembros

ahmedreda said:


> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you looking to install a 7.1.2 system and you currently have your surrounds in ceiling?



Sorry, I shouldn’t have used 7.2. I was referring to the fact that I have 2subwoofers. I currently have nosurrounds but I bought 2 in ceiling speakers to be used as traditionalsurrounds. With the addition of an Atmosenabled received I would like to go to 7.1.2 and add 2 additional speakers(Isuppose they would be heights or wides).


----------



## ahmedreda

Wouldn't that be a 9.1.2? Your .2 atmos speakers should be installed as Top - Middle which means they should go right above the listening position. They should be about 1/4 of the way from the side walls.


cembros said:


> Sorry, I shouldn’t have used 7.2. I was referring to the fact that I have 2subwoofers. I currently have nosurrounds but I bought 2 in ceiling speakers to be used as traditionalsurrounds. With the addition of an Atmosenabled received I would like to go to 7.1.2 and add 2 additional speakers(Isuppose they would be heights or wides).


----------



## Sevenfeet

markus767 said:


> The minimum recommendation is
> 
> 3 fronts
> 2 x 3 side surrounds
> 2 x 3 top surrounds
> 4 back surrounds
> 
> = 19


True, but Dolby also specifies what the "recommended" configuration is for commercial environments versus "minimum" So a theater might have a recommendation speaker number of 30 points while having a number of 19 speakers you could conceivably get away with. And I'm sure we'll see some residential processors before too long that go for the 19 number that will certainly be cheaper than a high end one that allows 32.

One other thing about Atmos I've been thinking about. The system will obviously be a boon to customer installers. But not everyone is going to have a setup that will allow Atmos. There's an assumption in every diagram I've seen that says that people all have flat ceilings in their theater rooms. Many of us have vaulted ceilings. That would pose problems for most in-ceiling speaker designs, even for ones that allow some manual direction of the drivers. And reflective speakers on the ground wouldn't work at all.

And I've seen theaters in a couple of friends' McMansions that are located at the top of the house, underneath the main roof gable. The problem here is that often the ceilings are designed to be a pointed gable system too, which is just like having a vaulted ceiling, except you have 2 or 4 vaults to deal with. A solution might be to add a flat ceiling to the design at some point....a barn style ceiling as it were. My bonus room where my theater is has such a ceiling which would make installing ceiling mounted speakers possible. It would be a larger construction job, but if you have the budget, it may make sense for some people.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Dolby bars mixers from telling about production workflows? Wow


No. I don't know the answer. 

And it doesn't matter. The process for translating cinema masters to the home works perfectly fine.


----------



## JonFo

FilmMixer said:


> You will get one TrueHD track for 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos... There will be no need for going to the DD companion track for 5.1 on systems that can decode TrueHD.
> 
> Older AVRs won't see the extension and will decode as usual.
> 
> It was the first thing we talked about when I got my second demo and one of the things I like about how they decided to go about it.
> 
> No new BR players... HDMI 1.3 and above I believe.


Thanks for the reply FilmMixer, and I get that the older decoders won't see the extensions yet still play the bed, which is why I'm wondering if watching a movie that way results in missing potentially key info (e.g. dialog if placed in an object).
I'm guessing the mixes are done in such a way that only non-critical stuff is in the object set, right?

The backwards compatibility is nice, but if it results in loss of information, then perfectionists like those of us reading this thread might object


----------



## cembros

ahmedreda said:


> Wouldn't that be a 9.1.2? Your .2 atmos speakers should be installed as Top - Middle which means they should go right above the listening position. They should be about 1/4 of the way from the side walls.


As I understand it, 7.1.2 is 3 fronts 4 surrounds 1 sub and 2 height/wide/atmos speakers. I plan on installing 2 speakers to the left and right of the seating position and 2 behind. I wonder if I could leave it at that and have it function as either a 7.1 system for non atmos content or 5.1.2 for atmos content.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> No I can't...


Or be cursed by breaking the ol' "spit in the palm, double blind, pinky swear"!  Just kidding...

I think a lot of us here like to know the sausage making aspect of surround as much as listening to it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sevenfeet said:


> True, but Dolby also specifies what the "recommended" configuration is for commercial environments versus "minimum" So a theater might have a recommendation speaker number of 30 points while having a number of 19 speakers you could conceivably get away with. And I'm sure we'll see some residential processors before too long that go for the 19 number that will certainly be cheaper than a high end one that allows 32.
> 
> One other thing about Atmos I've been thinking about. The system will obviously be a boon to customer installers. But not everyone is going to have a setup that will allow Atmos. There's an assumption in every diagram I've seen that says that people all have flat ceilings in their theater rooms. Many of us have vaulted ceilings. That would pose problems for most in-ceiling speaker designs, even for ones that allow some manual direction of the drivers. And reflective speakers on the ground wouldn't work at all.
> 
> And I've seen theaters in a couple of friends' McMansions that are located at the top of the house, underneath the main roof gable. The problem here is that often the ceilings are designed to be a pointed gable system too, which is just like having a vaulted ceiling, except you have 2 or 4 vaults to deal with. A solution might be to add a flat ceiling to the design at some point....a barn style ceiling as it were. My bonus room where my theater is has such a ceiling which would make installing ceiling mounted speakers possible. It would be a larger construction job, but if you have the budget, it may make sense for some people.


Time to break out the metal ceiling grid span like in some retro-fit Atmos commercial theaters!


----------



## cembros

Here's a diagram of my room. The surround backs will be placed at approx 130 degrees. I wonder if I can acheive atmos with just this or will I need to had heights above my main speakers.


----------



## FilmMixer

JonFo said:


> Thanks for the reply FilmMixer, and I get that the older decoders won't see the extensions yet still play the bed, which is why I'm wondering if watching a movie that way results in missing potentially key info (e.g. dialog if placed in an object).
> I'm guessing the mixes are done in such a way that only non-critical stuff is in the object set, right?
> 
> The backwards compatibility is nice, but if it results in loss of information, then perfectionists like those of us reading this thread might object


There will be nothing missing. 

The 5.1 and 7.1 will be complete...

And no the objects contain whatever we put there. Including dialog

For instance, in Gravity, all if the dialog elements are objects.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cembros said:


> Here's a diagram of my room. The surround backs will be placed at approx 130 degrees. I wonder if I can acheive atmos with just this or will I need to had heights above my main speakers.


Any particular reason why the surround backs are spaced so far apart? They should be closer to 150 degrees.

Absolutely add ceiling "heights," but not right above your main speakers (this doesn't work like Neo:X)... or you won't get some of that 3D effect. They're usually placed farther out into the room as a left and right pair.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> There will be nothing missing.
> 
> The 5.1 and 7.1 will be complete...
> 
> And no the objects contain whatever we put there. Including dialog
> 
> For instance, in Gravity, all if the dialog elements are objects.


Would you then assume that the home version will also work the same way... dialog tracks as objects to keep the same kind of directionalized effect as at the cinema?


----------



## Sevenfeet

Dan Hitchman said:


> Time to break out the metal ceiling grid span like in some retro-fit Atmos commercial theaters!


You laugh... 

One solution I could see is having an Atmos ceiling speaker design that would attach to a track lighting system. So let's say your ceiling has a metal bar running across it for track lighting in a horizontal fashion. If the bar is configured properly, you could also hang small speakers from it...heck if you were really creative you could design a speaker that had LED lights built into it for double duty as room lighting. Of course, it would have to be stable enough to handle the extra weight and the vibrations.


----------



## cembros

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any particular reason why the surround backs are spaced so far apart? They should be closer to 150 degrees.
> 
> Absolutely add ceiling "heights," but not right above your main speakers (this doesn't work like Neo:X)... or you won't get some of that 3D effect. They're usually placed farther out into the room as a left and right pair.


Someone made the diagram for me, I just assumed they would be placed at 130. I'm sure you're right and they will go there. I'm waiting on an updated diagram with the rears. 

So would you suggest I place the heights approx half way between the listening position and the front wall? Also, should they be placed parralel with the side surrounds or with the rear surrounds?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sevenfeet said:


> You laugh...
> 
> One solution I could see is having an Atmos ceiling speaker design that would attach to a track lighting system. So let's say your ceiling has a metal bar running across it for track lighting in a horizontal fashion. If the bar is configured properly, you could also hang small speakers from it...heck if you were really creative you could design a speaker that had LED lights built into it for double duty as room lighting. Of course, it would have to be stable enough to handle the extra weight and the vibrations.


Again, that's a great idea. No laughing involved. It would help alleviate upgrades by allowing you to slide the height speakers back and forth to conform with your side surrounds (and add more heights... as long as the weight is kept under the ceiling's capacity)... or if you make a mistake and need to adjust them slightly... as long as you gave yourself enough wire slack.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cembros said:


> Someone made the diagram for me, I just assumed they would be placed at 130. I'm sure you're right and they will go there. I'm waiting on an updated diagram with the rears.
> 
> So would you suggest I place the heights approx half way between the listening position and the front wall? Also, should they be placed parralel with the side surrounds or with the rear surrounds?


Outside of a Dolby insider... I don't think we quite know yet. If someone actually in the know says to look at the commercial Atmos white papers on the Dolby website and use their recommendations because home Atmos is optimized and rendered the same way... then that would be a great help. Likewise, if someone knows anything different... then by all means they should let us know that too.


----------



## CARTmen

I know that anybody here likes virtual surround on headphones, and I don't like it very much either, but I saw some of the Atmos demos with my headphones and they seemed pretty good. So please don't kill me for asking this question, but are we going to have any option to hear Atmos 3D audio with headphones?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CARTmen said:


> I know that anybody here likes virtual surround on headphones, and I don't like it very much either, but I saw some of the Atmos demos with my headphones and they seemed pretty good. So please don't kill me for asking this question, but are we going to have any option to hear Atmos 3D audio with headphones?


It might have to be a separate psychoacoustically rendered binaural mix like with DTS Headphones.


----------



## cembros

Dan Hitchman said:


> Outside of a Dolby insider... I don't think we quite know yet. If someone actually in the know says to look at the commercial Atmos white papers on the Dolby website and use their recommendations because home Atmos will work the same... then that would be a great help. Likewise, if someone knows anything different... then by all means they should let us know that too.


Ya,there really isn’t enough info out there. The Dolby diagrams don’t exactly apply to me since I’m using all incelling speakers. I just don’t want toinstall the surrounds and then realize down the line that I should have donesomething different for atmos. HopefullyI can install the 4 surrounds now and be ok when I decided to add 2 additionalspeakers for atmos. I wonder if there isanyone at Dolby I can contact.


----------



## Sevenfeet

Dan Hitchman said:


> Would you then assume that the home version will also work the same way... dialog tracks as objects to keep the same kind of directionalized effect as at the cinema?


There has been some debate over whether an Atmos Blu Ray would have a separate Atmos track or just be the same TrueHD track with object/metadata additions. For commercial theaters, the Dolby white paper describes this as separate tracks...one for the Atmos theater, a second for Dolby 7.1/5.1 theaters and a final analog track (Dolby SR, which was state of the art in the 80s) if all else fails. As I read it, the Dolby 7.1 track is generated from the Atmos production process so the engineer doesn't have to spend too much time on two different sound mixes.

So does this mean that a Blu Ray gets a separate Atmos track? I would bet so, since you're going to want to have sounds that aren't in the "bed" as it were, but played depending on the where the Atmos processor should say it should be played.


----------



## CARTmen

Dan Hitchman said:


> It might have to be a separate psychoacoustically rendered binaural mix like with DTS Headphones.


Thanks for the answer. 
But it would have to be something that simulates the 11 channels, and right now there's nothing like that in the market, right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cembros said:


> Ya,there really isn’t enough info out there. The Dolby diagrams don’t exactly apply to me since I’m using* all in-ceiling speakers*. I just don’t want to install the surrounds and then realize down the line that I should have done something different for atmos. Hopefully, I can install the 4 surrounds now and be ok when I decided to add 2 additiona lspeakers for atmos. I wonder if there is anyone at Dolby I can contact.


Oooh ouch! Didn't see that part. Why are the speakers all in-ceilings? Is there any reason why the main, side, and back speakers (for the 7.1 part of the equation) can't be in-wall's instead??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sevenfeet said:


> There has been some debate over whether an Atmos Blu Ray would have a separate Atmos track or just be the same TrueHD track with object/metadata additions. For commercial theaters, the Dolby white paper describes this as separate tracks...one for the Atmos theater, a second for Dolby 7.1/5.1 theaters and a final analog track (Dolby SR, which was state of the art in the 80s) if all else fails. As I read it, the Dolby 7.1 track is generated from the Atmos production process so the engineer doesn't have to spend too much time on two different sound mixes.
> 
> So does this mean that a Blu Ray gets a separate Atmos track? I would bet so, since you're going to want to have sounds that aren't in the "bed" as it were, but played depending on the where the Atmos processor should say it should be played.


But then that flies in the face of what Filmmixer stated: it's one _core + extension_ TrueHD track. Hmmm...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CARTmen said:


> Thanks for the answer.
> But it would have to be something that simulates the 11 channels, and right now there's nothing like that in the market, right?


SRS was working on something like that when DTS bought them.


----------



## cembros

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oooh ouch! Didn't see that part. Why are the speakers all in-ceilings? Is there any reason why the main, side, and back speakers (for the 7.1 part of the equation) can't be in-wall's instead??


The room is an open space so there is no wall close enough on one side and the other side has a sliding glass door. It would be possible to put side speakers on stands but the wife insists that I use in celing speakers.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> No. I don't know the answer.


Huh? You don't do Atmos mixes?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cembros said:


> The room is an open space so there is no wall close enough on one side and the other side has a sliding glass door. It would be possible to put side speakers on stands but the wife insists that I use in ceiling speakers.


Any other room you can dedicate to a home theater... do something quid pro quo to appease the wife, so you can have a "man cave"? I just don't see how Atmos (as designed to work) is right for your system as planned. It's already compromised as it is, sorry to say.


----------



## cembros

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any other room you can dedicate to a home theater? I just don't see how Atmos (as designed to work) is right for your system as planned. It's already compromised as it is, sorry to say.


No, it is what it is. If it doesn't work, that's fine. I'll have 7.1 which will work great. The speakers are angled which will help with localization. I was planing on upgrading my receive before atmos was announced so it won't change anything.


----------



## markus767

Sevenfeet said:


> True, but Dolby also specifies what the "recommended" configuration is for commercial environments versus "minimum"


19 speakers is the recommended number. Please see their specs linked in post 1.


----------



## esappy

Dan Hitchman said:


> It might have to be a separate psychoacoustically rendered binaural mix like with DTS Headphones.


 WTF!








 

That just sounds awesome!


----------



## Sevenfeet

markus767 said:


> 19 speakers is the recommended number. Please see their specs linked in post 1.


I was referring to the charts in the white paper for commercial installations, where there are "minimum" and "recommended" numbers of speakers for surround and height. My thesis was once you started upgrading a high end residential theater that had few limits on budget and the space to rival a small commercial theater, the differences in specs between commercial and residential designs begin to blur. So if you had a high end vendor willing to put a 32 channel Atmos processor on the market, I could easily see an scenario that specifies rows of five speakers for the sides, front, back and two on the ceiling for a total of 30 outputs. Add two subs and you're at 32.


----------



## ahmedreda

+1 In ceiling speakers tend to create a hot spot in the area right below them. This is not supposed to be the way for the 7.1 configuration. At the least the fronts should not be that way.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Oooh ouch! Didn't see that part. Why are the speakers all in-ceilings? Is there any reason why the main, side, and back speakers (for the 7.1 part of the equation) can't be in-wall's instead??


----------



## Deckard97

Dan Hitchman said:


> Outside of a Dolby insider... I don't think we quite know yet. If someone actually in the know says to look at the commercial Atmos white papers on the Dolby website and use their recommendations because home Atmos is optimized and rendered the same way... then that would be a great help. Likewise, if someone knows anything different... then by all means they should let *us know* that too.



So I was right Dan, you do work for Dolby Atmos......LOL. Enjoy!


----------



## cembros

ahmedreda said:


> +1 In ceiling speakers tend to create a hot spot in the area right below them. This is not supposed to be the way for the 7.1 configuration. At the least the fronts should not be that way.


The fronts are not in celling, they are standard speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Deckard97 said:


> So I was right Dan, you do work for Dolby Atmos......LOL. Enjoy!


I could only wish.


----------



## ahmedreda

I would think if you use top speakers, it will be better if your surrounds are in wall otherwise there won't be a whole lot of distinction between the sound coming from the surrounds and the atmos top speakers.


cembros said:


> The fronts are not in celling, they are standard speakers.


----------



## ambesolman

Sevenfeet said:


> You laugh...
> 
> One solution I could see is having an Atmos ceiling speaker design that would attach to a track lighting system. So let's say your ceiling has a metal bar running across it for track lighting in a horizontal fashion. If the bar is configured properly, you could also hang small speakers from it...heck if you were really creative you could design a speaker that had LED lights built into it for double duty as room lighting. Of course, it would have to be stable enough to handle the extra weight and the vibrations.



Like this? It was originally designed by klipsch but seems to have been sold to this company. Maybe it could be utilized as a wired design but don't know.

http://www.iavlightspeaker.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59&product_id=50


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## cwt

FirstReflect said:


> That's an interesting question. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that's the case that two separate soundtracks would be necessary. All of the sounds should be contained within the 5.1 or 7.1 channel "bed". It's just that some of those sounds will also have object meta-data associated with them. If you have the Dolby Atmos decoder, it will use that meta-data to "pull" those particular sounds out of the "bed" and do its best to position those particular sounds in xyz coordinate space using the speakers the Atmos decoder has to work with, but if you do not have the Atmos decoder, then all of the sounds still exist within the channel "bed".
> So...yeah, I _think_ that's how it works -- haha. I could definitely be wrong about that. But they've stressed that Dolby Atmos soundtracks will be backwards compatible with regular 5.1 and 7.1 systems.


Sounds logical ;what Ime having trouble with / intrigued by is the separate lossy dd track we have now and [assuming this pop up mentioned below was on a disc naturally ] why a dd+ option ? Is it maybe to do with dd+'s capability ie


> E-AC-3 supports up to 15 full-bandwidth audio channels at a maximum bitrate of 6.144 Mbit/s.


Wonder if this may become an option to increase channels as atmos favors . And dolbytruehd uses mlp [meridian lossless packing ] ;a totally different codec from dd+ ; what does that say about deriving a dd+ option in terms of a separate track as sevenfeet said ; any thoughts welcome .. 



> So is there a separate Atmos soundtrack on discs, and wouldn’t that require a Blu-ray spec change?
> 
> The answer came when I watched (and listened) to a Dolby-approved Atmos demo. A menu popped up on the screen. It offered a choice: “Atmos in TrueHD” and “Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus.”


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cembros said:


> The fronts are not in ceiling, they are standard speakers.


Well, you can't do separate height speakers (that's out), but you could wire for more "lateral" surround locations for better pan-through effects (though, they'll all sound like VOG speakers). Atmos is capable of 34 outputs... and we've just started with 1st generation equipment that is severely limited. You could potentially have more than just the standard 7.1 configuration.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cwt said:


> Sounds logical ;what Ime having trouble with / intrigued by is the separate lossy dd track we have now and [assuming this pop up mentioned below was on a disc naturally ] why a dd+ option ? Is it maybe to do with dd+'s capability ie
> Wonder if this may become an option to increase channels as atmos favors . And dolbytruehd uses mlp [meridian lossless packing ] ;a totally different codec from dd+ ; what does that say about deriving a dd+ option in terms of a separate track as sevenfeet said ; any thoughts welcome ..


They're demoing in one press DEMO disc the premium lossless disc version and the broadcast/streaming version using the new lossy AC4 codec.


----------



## action_jackson

My current surround speakers are mounted about 6 1/2 feet from the floor to allow people to walk under them. I wonder if this will be suitable to use with an Atmos system because all the images I see show the surrounds being at ear level. I was under the impression that surrounds should be placed above ear level. Can anyone elaborate on this? Thanks.


----------



## audiovideoholic

Dan Hitchman said:


> Time to break out the metal ceiling grid span like in some retro-fit Atmos commercial theaters!


No need to worry about vaulted or any other non flat ceiling. Can use pole type speaker mounts to place the tops wherever one chooses. Getting creative with running the wire is another story


----------



## CARTmen

Dan Hitchman said:


> SRS was working on something like that when DTS bought them.


So we have to wait and see if Dolby releases something to headphones. I was interested in headphone X, but the technology doesn't seem that's going to be used in headphones any time soon.


----------



## noah katz

Sevenfeet said:


> So if the Dolby commercial recommendation for a room up to 30'x30' is 10 speakers above in two five speakers arrays, then the home design won't be much different.


True if the home theater had as many rows of seating, but in the more typical case of one to three rows so many less surrounds would suffice.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Huh? You don't do Atmos mixes?


Markus. What are you talking about... 

You said that I could give you the answer to how many objects home Atmos supports. 

I said I couldn't and you then intimated that Dolby was barring me from giving you the answer. 

I don't know what the number is. 

Is it clear now?


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Markus. What are you talking about...
> 
> You said that I could give you the answer to how many objects home Atmos supports.
> 
> I said I couldn't and you then intimated that Dolby was barring me from giving you the answer.
> 
> I don't know what the number is.
> 
> Is it clear now?


Err, no. I've never said that you "could give you the answer to how many objects home Atmos supports". The Dolby specs I have linked in post 1 answers that already.

I've asked how many objects are commonly used in mixes. English is not my first language so my apologies if my question wasn't more clear.
So let me rephrase, how many objects do you use in your mixes? And how many sounds go to beds instead?


----------



## FilmMixer

Markus. Let's start over.

Then answer is thee is no easy answer..

Sometimes the beds work better for certain sounds... When you want an object to increase its size, it will leak in am undesirable way. 

It can bloom into the overheads and fronts for example.... Sometimes you want the spread but don't want it to go there, so the bed works..

I've only done one film so far, and it was an up mix from 5.1. The decision was made after we finished and I would have prepped it differently it I had known. 

But still used between 10-12 objects on that show...

Doing a film natively later this year.... We will split up the objects between mixers and I imagine for this show I will allocate 14 for dialog and 16 for music.


----------



## JonFo

FilmMixer, can you please clarify something for us, as it sounds like at mix/edit time, you are (or can) be working in an entirely object-centric way with the various assets.

But even commercial cinema distribution seems to require a 5.1 or 7.1 fixed channel bed + objects. So I'm guessing there is a rendering step in the production sequence where once the mix is finalized, all the objects that wind up rendering to locations that map to the base channels are collapsed into those said channels, and any that don't 'fit' (typically overhead stuff, or uniquely tagged for discreet) gets output as objects, right?

I'm also going to guess that there is a separate rendering step to output a Dolby TrueHD stream where the majority of objects are collapsed and rendered into the 5.1/7.1 bed, leaving just the objects whose z-axis position requires them to be output through the height channels.

So it seems the main master edit can have a boatload (well, 118) objects, but that number gets dramatically reduced through the pre-rendering steps prior to distribution.


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer, any talk of this Atmos tech crossing over into TV?


----------



## wse

*Dolby Fills In The Blanks On Atmos Surround*

San Francisco — Dolby Labs revealed more details about the home-theater version of its Dolby Atmos surround technology, pointing out that Atmos will support as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers. 6/30/2014 09:00:00 










San Francisco — Dolby Labs revealed more details about the home-theater version of its Dolby Atmos surround technology, pointing out that Atmos will support as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers.
*“One of our hardware partners is planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels,”* _*Probably DATASAT!*_ said Brett Crockett, Dolby’s sound research director, in a Friday post on the company’s website.


Saying the company is responding to demand for more information, Crockett also revealed that traditional stereo, 5.1-channel and 7.1-channel content played back through an Atmos-enabled home theater will automatically be adapted “to use the full capabilities of your new system, including your overhead speakers, ensuring that you hear realistic and immersive sound.”

Consumers who add speakers with angled, upward-firing height drivers will get the best overhead sound effects with flat, not vaulted, ceilings made of acoustically reflective material, such as drywall, plaster, concrete or wood, Crockett said. Although the technology was designed for rooms with ceiling heights of 8 to 9 feet, Crockett said testing shows users would “still hear incredible Dolby Atmos sound in rooms with ceilings as high as 14 feet, though the effect may become more diffuse in rooms with higher ceilings.”

Recessed lighting fixtures, chandeliers, crown molding, and heating or AC vents in the ceiling “do not noticeably interfere with the Dolby Atmos experience,” he added.
Upward-firing speakers, which fire sound upward to reflect off the ceiling, can be built into traditional front-firing in-room speakers or added to an existing speaker system, the company previously disclosed. Alternately, the upward-firing speakers can be built into standalone modules that consumers would add “on top of your current speakers or on another nearby surface,” said Crockett.

*For the best Atmos experience, Dolby recommends four in-ceiling overhead speakers for most homes, “but you can get great sound with just two,” he said.
*
Crockett also pointed out that Atmos is adaptable to a wide variety of speaker configurations other than the predefined configurations that Dolby licensees have talked up. “Because Dolby Atmos is new to home theater, we defined a few ‘reference’ speaker configurations to ensure that early customers could have a great experience while having the option to keep most of the equipment they already have,” Crockett said. They include a 5.1.2 configuration, which adds two ceiling or Atmos-enabled in-room speakers to a traditional 5.1 system, and a 7.1.4 configuration, which takes a traditional 7.1 system and adds four ceiling or Atmos-enabled speakers.

However, Crockett noted, “because the Dolby Atmos object-based audio system is so adaptable, you can use many other speaker configurations. No matter what system you build, the Dolby Atmos format and system will adapt itself to output the best audio experience possible.”

The company also explained how Dolby Atmos soundtracks will be made available on Blu-ray discs playable on existing Blu-ray players. “We wanted to ensure that entertainment fans could get Dolby Atmos movies in the same ways they get movies now, on Blu-ray Disc or through streaming video services,” Crockett said. “We invented new scalable algorithms and extensions to Dolby TrueHD, our Blu-ray format, and Dolby Digital Plus, which is used by leading streaming video providers. Both formats now support Dolby Atmos sound, meaning that you’ll be able to play Dolby Atmos movies from your Blu-ray player or through your favorite streaming service.”

Any Blu-ray player that conforms to the Blu-ray specification can play a Dolby Atmos movie without a firmware update, he said, as long as the player’s HDMI audio output is set to audio bitstream output mode.
There’s no need to buy new HDMI cables, he added.

Last week, multiple audio suppliers announced plans for Dolby Atmos-decoding A/V receivers and preamp processors, but Dolby initially disclosed limited information about how the technology would work in the home


----------



## joerod

Where do I sign up?


----------



## SoundChex

Orbitron said:


> [A]ny talk of this Atmos tech crossing over into TV?


Interesting May 1, 2014, *Sports Video Group* article: "*Object-Based Audio Mixing Seeks Traction in Sports Broadcasting*" (_link_).
_


----------



## wse

So when will we see these movies on BLU RAY ATMOS?

These were released in theaters!

*2014 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases*

_The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies _ (December 17, 2014)
_Skammerens Datter_ _(The Shamer's Daughter)_ (October 2, 2014)
_The Maze Runner _(September 19, 2014)
_Dolphin Tale 2_ (September 12, 2014)
_The Expendables 3_ (August 15, 2014)
_Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ (August 8, 2014)
_Guardians of the Galaxy_ (August 1, 2014)
_Hercules_ (July 25, 2014)
_Lucy_ (July 25, 2014)
_Kundo: Age of the Rampant_ (July 15, 2014)
_Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ (July 11, 2014)
_Transformers: Age of Extinction_ (June 27, 2014)
_Jersey Boys_ (June 20, 2014)
_How to Train Your Dragon 2_ (June 13, 2014)
_Edge of Tomorrow_ (June 6, 2014)
_Enchanted Kingdom_ _3D_ (June 3, 2014)
_Open Windows_ (June 1, 2014)
_Farewell My Concubine_ (May 30, 2014)
_Maleficent_ (May 30, 2014)
_Overheard 3_ (May 29, 2014)
_X-Men: Days of Future Past_ (May 23, 2014)
_Coming Home_ (May 16, 2014)
_Godzilla_ (May 16, 2014)
_The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ (May 2, 2014)
_The Great Hypnotist_ (April 29, 2014)
_Iceman 3D_ (April 25, 2014)
_Transcendence_ (April 17, 2014)
_Rio 2_ (April 11, 2014)
_Captain America: The Winter Soldier_ (April 4, 2014)
_Noah_ (March 28, 2014)
_300: Rise of an Empire_ (March 7, 2014)
_Mr. Peabody and Sherman_ (March 7, 2014)
_Kano_ (March 1, 2014)
_Tarzan 3D_ (February 20, 2014)
_Gunday_ (February 14, 2014)
_The Monkey King_ (January 31, 2014)
_I, Frankenstein_ (January 24, 2014)
_Jai Ho_ (January 24, 2014)
_1-Nenokkadine_ (January 10, 2014)
_Jilla_ (January 10, 2014)
_Veeram_ (January 10, 2014)
_Mindscape _(January 1, 2014)
_El Niño_ (January 1, 2014)


*2013 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases*

_Vizha _(December 27, 2013) 
_Mahabharat_ (December 25, 2013)
_The Secret Life of Walter Mitty_ (December 25, 2013)
_Police Story _(December 24, 2013)
_Biriyani_ (December 20, 2013)
_Dhoom: 3 _(December 20, 2013)
_The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ (December 13, 2013)
_The White Storm _(December 5, 2013)
_Frozen _(November 27, 2013)
_The Hunger Games: Catching Fire_ (November 22, 2013)
_Thor: The Dark World _(November 8, 2013)
_En Solitaire (Turning Tide) _(November 6, 2013)
_Ender's Game_ (October 25, 2013)
_Guadalquivir_ (November 8, 2013)
_Vanakkam Chennai_ (October 11, 2013)
_Metallica Through the Never_ (October 4, 2013)
_Gravity _(October 4, 2013)
_Young Detective Dee: Rise of the Sea Dragon _(September 28, 2013)
_Las Brujas de Zugarramurdi (Witching and Bitching)_ (September 27, 2013)
_Warning_ (September 27, 2013)
_Kvinden I Buret_ _(The Keeper of Lost Causes) _(September 25, 2013)
_Lost Place _(September 19, 2013)
_ Pizza II:__Villa_ (September 15, 2013)
_Insidious: Chapter 2 _(September 13, 2013)
_Zanjeer_ (September 6, 2013)
_Sholay_ _3D _(September 2013)
_The Grandmaster _(August 23, 2013)
_Madras Cafe_ (August 23, 2013)
_Elysium _(August 9, 2013)
_Planes_ (August 9, 2013)
_Thalaivaa_ (August 9, 2013)
_Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters _(August 7, 2013)
_The Wolverine _(July 26, 2013)
_D-Day_ (July 19, 2013)
_Mr. Go _(July 17, 2013)
_Turbo _(July 17, 2013)
_Bhaag Milkha Bhaag_ (July 12, 2013)
_Pacific Rim (_July 12, 2013)
_The Congress _(July 3, 2013)
_The Heat _(June 28, 2013)
_Ghanchakkar _(June 25, 2013)
_Monsters University _(June 21, 2013)
_Man of Steel _(June 14, 2013)
_Kuiba 2 _(May 31, 2013)
_Epic _(May 24, 2013)
_Star Trek into Darkness _(May 17, 2013)
_Iron Man 3 _(May 3, 2013)
_Shootout at Wadala_ (May 3, 2013)
_Napa Valley Dreams_ (May, 2013)
_Oblivion _(April 19, 2013)
_Nautanki Saala! _(April 12, 2013)
_Commando _(April 12, 2013)
_Trance _(April 5, 2013)
_G.I. Joe: Retaliation _(March 29, 2013)
_The Croods _(March 22, 2013)
_Aatma _(March 22, 2013)
_Oz the Great and Powerful _(March 8, 2013)
_A Good Day to Die Hard _(February 14, 2013)
_Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons _(February 10, 2013)
_ABCD—Any Body Can Dance_ (February 8, 2013)
_Ah Boys to Men 2 _(February 7, 2013)
_Race 2 _(January 25, 2013)
_Mama _(January 18, 2013)


*2012 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases*

_The Last Tycoon _(December 22, 2012)
_The Guillotines _(December 20, 2012)
_Chinese Zodiac (CZ12) _(December 20, 2012)
_The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey _(December 14, 2012)
_Sivaji 3D _(December 12, 2012)
_Back to 1942 _(November 29, 2012)
_Rise of the Guardians _(November 21, 2012)
_Life of Pi _(November 21, 2012)
_Ah Boys to Men _(November 8, 2012)
_Chasing Mavericks _(October 26, 2012)
_Taken 2 _(October 5, 2012)
_Brave _(June 22, 2012)


----------



## wse

My favorites are 

*2014 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases*

_The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies _ (December 17, 2014)
_The Maze Runner _(September 19, 2014)
_The Expendables 3_ (August 15, 2014)
_Guardians of the Galaxy_ (August 1, 2014)
_Hercules_ (July 25, 2014)
_Lucy_ (July 25, 2014)
_Kundo: Age of the Rampant_ (July 15, 2014)
_Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ (July 11, 2014)
_Transformers: Age of Extinction_ (June 27, 2014)
_How to Train Your Dragon 2_ (June 13, 2014)
_Edge of Tomorrow_ (June 6, 2014)
_Maleficent_ (May 30, 2014)
_X-Men: Days of Future Past_ (May 23, 2014)
_Godzilla_ (May 16, 2014)
_The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ (May 2, 2014)
_Transcendence_ (April 17, 2014)
_Rio 2_ (April 11, 2014)
_Captain America: The Winter Soldier_ (April 4, 2014)
_Noah_ (March 28, 2014)
_300: Rise of an Empire_ (March 7, 2014)


*2013 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases*

_The Secret Life of Walter Mitty_ (December 25, 2013)
_The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ (December 13, 2013)
_The Hunger Games: Catching Fire_ (November 22, 2013)
_Thor: The Dark World _(November 8, 2013)
_Ender's Game_ (October 25, 2013)
_Elysium _(August 9, 2013)
_Planes_ (August 9, 2013)
_Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters _(August 7, 2013)
_The Wolverine _(July 26, 2013)
_Turbo _(July 17, 2013)
_Pacific Rim (_July 12, 2013)
_Monsters University _(June 21, 2013)
_Man of Steel _(June 14, 2013)
_Star Trek into Darkness _(May 17, 2013)
_Iron Man 3 _(May 3, 2013)
_Oblivion _(April 19, 2013)
_Trance _(April 5, 2013)
_G.I. Joe: Retaliation _(March 29, 2013)
_The Croods _(March 22, 2013)
_Oz the Great and Powerful _(March 8, 2013)
_A Good Day to Die Hard _(February 14, 2013)
_Race 2 _(January 25, 2013)
_Mama _(January 18, 2013)


*2012 Dolby Atmos Movie Releases*

_The Guillotines _(December 20, 2012)
_The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey _(December 14, 2012)
_Life of Pi _(November 21, 2012)
_Chasing Mavericks _(October 26, 2012)
_Taken 2 _(October 5, 2012)
_Brave _(June 22, 2012)


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> FilmMixer, any talk of this Atmos tech crossing over into TV?


Maybe.


----------



## wse

Any one for AURO 3D does any AV Receiver except DATASAT even considers AURO 3D or is it DOA

*Auro 11.1 movies*

*2016 Auro 11.1 movie releases*



Trolls (4 November 2016)
How to Train Your Dragon 3 (17 June 2016)
Mumbai Musical (18 March 2016)
 *2015 Auro 11.1 movie releases*



Kung Fu Panda 3 (23 December 2015)
B.O.O.: Bureau of Otherwordly Operations (5 June 2015)
The Penguins of Madagascar (27 March 2015)
 *2014 Auro 11.1 movie releases*



Ramanujan
Onnumae Puriyalai
Kadhai Thiraikkadhai Vasanam Iyakkam
Kappal
Golu Pappu
The house that never dies
Home (a.k.a. Happy Smekday!) (26 November 2014)
Wir waren Köninge (a.k.a. Und morgen leben wir wieder) (Summer 2014)
The Expendables 3 (13 August 2014)
Into the Storm (8 August 2014)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (8 August 2014)
Vishwaroopam 2 (August 2014)
Lucy (25 July 2014)
Amara Kaaviyam (July 2014)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (25 June 2014)
Fugly (13 June 2014)
How to Train Your Dragon 2 (12 June 2014)
Arimaa Nambi (June 2014)
Ramanajum (June 2014)
Ra - Yutham (June 2014)
Aaah (June 2014)
Fool Cool Rock! ONE OK ROCK Documentary Film (16 May 2014)
Kochadaiiyaan (9 May 2014)
Kanchi (25 April 2014)
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (16 April 2014)
Oculus (11 April 2014)
Mr. Peabody & Sherman (7 March 2014)
D-day - Normandy 1944 (March 2014)
JK ennum Nanbanin Vaazhkai (14 February 2014)
Damaal Dumeel (6 February 2014)
I, Frankenstein (23 January 2014)
1 - Nenokkadine (10 January 2014)
Jilla (10 January 2014)
The Adventurer: The Curse of the Midas Box (10 January 2014)
Race Gurram (1 January 2014)
 *2013 Auro 11.1 movie releases *



Vidiyum Munn (29 November 2013)
Ender's Game (1 November 2013)
Sutta Kadhai (25 October 2013)
Stalingrad (10 October 2013)
Young Detective Dee: Rise of the Sea Dragon (28 september 2013)
Diana (20 September 2013)
Elysium (9 August 2013)
Maryan (19 July 2013)
Mr. Go (17 July 2013)
Turbo (17 July 2013)
Shadow (26 April 2013)
The Croods (22 March 2013)
Oz The Great and Powerful (8 March 2013)
Aadhi Bhagavan (22 February 2013)
Vishwaroopam (25 January 2013)
 *2012 Auro 11.1 movie releases*



The Blitz (19 December 2012)
Rise of the Guardians (21 November 2012)
Madame Butterfly 3D (5 March 2012)
Red Tails (20 January 2012)


----------



## wse

I find interesting that many movies are supposidely mastered in both ATMOS and AURO3D?

For example 

AURO 3D


Elysium

The Croods

Oz The Great and Powerful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWkbNXBKA0A&list=PLU05RGyUgvL-T-9SMRmcs5ji82crrug9d&index=3


ATMOS



_Elysium _
_The Croods_
_Oz the Great and Powerful_


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> Maybe.


Right, "Atmos TV"


----------



## FilmMixer

JonFo said:


> FilmMixer, can you please clarify something for us, as it sounds like at mix/edit time, you are (or can) be working in an entirely object-centric way with the various assets.
> 
> But even commercial cinema distribution seems to require a 5.1 or 7.1 fixed channel bed + objects. So I'm guessing there is a rendering step in the production sequence where once the mix is finalized, all the objects that wind up rendering to locations that map to the base channels are collapsed into those said channels, and any that don't 'fit' (typically overhead stuff, or uniquely tagged for discreet) gets output as objects, right?


No. 

The Atmos master contains the 9.1 channel bed plus all the objects. 

The objects are always rendered in real time upon playback.. Each theater is setup with a configuration file which contains the dimensions and speaker layout for said venue. 



> --------"I'm also going to guess that there is a separate rendering step to output a Dolby TrueHD stream where the majority of objects are collapsed and rendered into the 5.1/7.1 bed, leaving just the objects whose z-axis position requires them to be output through the height channels.
> 
> So it seems the main master edit can have a boatload (well, 118) objects, but that number gets dramatically reduced through the pre-rendering steps prior to distribution.----------"




I can't speak to the specific on how they are converting the theatrical masters for home use.

My understanding is that the objects will still remain as such. 

But there will most definitely be some common encoding/summing of like sounds in the same space, etc. 

If there are going to be 24 output processors down the road they will need to expand the surrounds into arrays and rendering the objects into the surround channels wouldn't work. 

Again.... I'm not in the know about that process or the flexibility of system in cases where there are large numbers of objects present at once.


----------



## simon_templar_32

FilmMixer said:


> Doing a film natively later this year.... We will split up the objects between mixers and I imagine for this show I will allocate 14 for dialog and 16 for music.


Will music objects ever use the overheads? If so, I would have real concerns about sound-bouncing speakers, especially if floor speakers are being used for that object at the same time.

I asked the Pioneer rep about that and never got an answer.


----------



## sdurani

simon_templar_32 said:


> Will music objects ever use the overheads?


When I saw 'Oblivion' in an Atmos-equipped theatre, the first thing I noticed was that the music was around AND above me. Don't know if that was done using objects or overhead channel beds, but it should have the same directionality when that Atmos mix comes to home video.


----------



## simon_templar_32

sdurani said:


> When I saw 'Oblivion' in an Atmos-equipped theatre, the first thing I noticed was that the music was around AND above me. Don't know if that was done using objects or overhead channel beds, but it should have the same directionality when that Atmos mix comes to home video.



My concern is not directionality, but sound quality.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

It would have been great if home Atmos had 9.1 channel beds... audiophile 24/96 music mixes with better hall ambiance and even other genres would have been cool with the added height element.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> It would have been great if home Atmos had 9.1 channel beds... audiophile 24/96 music mixes with better hall ambiance and even other genres would have been cool with the added height element.


I assume that the overhead bed arrays will be translated as objects to the overhead outputs. 

Doing it that way should have no adverse effect on how they are reproduced. 

Redesigning the codecs being adapted at this time for Atmos (TrueHD and DD+) would lead to multiple encodes and would complicate backwards compatibility.


----------



## sdurani

simon_templar_32 said:


> My concern is not directionality, but sound quality.


Sound quality shouldn't change whether it is an object or channel, whether coming from a surround speaker or overhead speaker.


----------



## simon_templar_32

sdurani said:


> Sound quality shouldn't change whether it is an object or channel, whether coming from a surround speaker or overhead speaker.


I guess I am still not making myself clear. My concern is about the quality of sound when one reflects music off a ceiling with a sound-bouncing speaker.


----------



## ambesolman

My hope is that Atmos really becomes as adaptive as the info suggests. Adding ceiling speakers is fine, but I don't want to lose my wides. I feel they've added more than the heights have by a wide margin. So hopefully Atmos will be able to adapt to whatever you already have plus ceiling speakers if you choose to do so. I've had my x4000 less than a year so I'll probably wait a year or two to see what kind of improvements are made and what folks say about the home version. 

Fwiw, I saw the latest xmen in Atmos. While the picture and sound was great, I didn't notice anything different about it. Maybe I just don't really know what to be listening for


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Sometimes the beds work better for certain sounds... When you want an object to increase its size, it will leak in am undesirable way.
> 
> It can bloom into the overheads and fronts for example.... Sometimes you want the spread but don't want it to go there, so the bed works..


Are you referring to surrounds only?



FilmMixer said:


> I've only done one film so far, and it was an up mix from 5.1. The decision was made after we finished and I would have prepped it differently it I had known.
> 
> But still used between 10-12 objects on that show...
> 
> Doing a film natively later this year.... We will split up the objects between mixers and I imagine for this show I will allocate 14 for dialog and 16 for music.


Thanks, this is what I've been asking.

Another question, when you're using objects for music, how do you handle stereo stems?


----------



## tenthplanet

Goatse said:


> http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater
> 
> great article on the otherside of atmos


 Doom and gloom from the cranky audiophile segment.


----------



## Ethan Ong

Spoke with a guy who works for a company that installs Dolby Atmos in local cinemas here. 

He commented that Atmos is scalable fr 64 speakers in cinema to fewer speakers in a smaller space by re-calculating based on the volume of the viewing space. In addition, the number of speakers that can be deployed depends on the DSP processing power. 

I guess everyone else knows about the above except me, hence decided to reply in this thread.


----------



## Ethan Ong

Hi, FilmMixer

For the 9.1, it contains 7.1 + which 2? Height, wide or overhead?
Or it contains 5.1 + which 4?

Thanks. 



FilmMixer said:


> No.
> 
> The Atmos master contains the 9.1 channel bed plus all the objects.
> 
> The objects are always rendered in real time upon playback.. Each theater is setup with a configuration file which contains the dimensions and speaker layout for said venue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak to the specific on how they are converting the theatrical masters for home use.
> 
> My understanding is that the objects will still remain as such.
> 
> But there will most definitely be some common encoding/summing of like sounds in the same space, etc.
> 
> If there are going to be 24 output processors down the road they will need to expand the surrounds into arrays and rendering the objects into the surround channels wouldn't work.
> 
> Again.... I'm not in the know about that process or the flexibility of system in cases where there are large numbers of objects present at once.


----------



## tenthplanet

ambesolman said:


> My hope is that Atmos really becomes as adaptive as the info suggests. Adding ceiling speakers is fine, but I don't want to lose my wides. I feel they've added more than the heights have by a wide margin. So hopefully Atmos will be able to adapt to whatever you already have plus ceiling speakers if you choose to do so. I've had my x4000 less than a year so I'll probably wait a year or two to see what kind of improvements are made and what folks say about the home version.
> 
> Fwiw, I saw the latest xmen in Atmos. While the picture and sound was great, I didn't notice anything different about it. Maybe I just don't really know what to be listening for
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


 I felt the same with X-Men, it was a totally different with Pacific Rim, I've heard Atmos worked well with Oblivion as well as Brave also.


----------



## markus767

Ethan Ong said:


> Hi, FilmMixer
> 
> For the 9.1, it contains 7.1 + which 2? Height, wide or overhead?
> Or it contains 5.1 + which 4?
> 
> Thanks.


Not FilmMixer but it's 2 top surrounds. Please see post 1.


----------



## cwt

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're demoing in one press DEMO disc the premium lossless disc version and the broadcast/streaming version using the new lossy AC4 codec.


That explains things ; thanks Dan ; 4 or 5gbs for lossless audio per disc is more than enough as it is


----------



## wse

Now we are talking

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1587026-trinnov-altitude32.html


----------



## markus767

^
Nice


----------



## lexiconthx

wse said:


> Now we are talking
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1587026-trinnov-altitude32.html



This looks sick. Bet it will cost big bucks!!! Really sour that Onkyo no longer has Auddusy... Curious how good the amps are in the new Denon's and Marantz, Onkyo always had good power supplies. Will need to upgrade my integra AVR when atmos comes but concerned about no more Audussy. Really like the xt32 I have now.


----------



## wse

lexiconthx said:


> ...... Really sour that Onkyo no longer has Auddusy...


Seriously is that true no more Audyssey for Onkyo / Integra?


----------



## wse

*"Early Atmos Adopter? Dolby Wants You!
*









_We are hearing that Dolby Atmos will start working its way into AV receivers starting at around $1k this fall. Are you ready to jump on the 9.1 or 11.1 surround bandwagon? 

Or, do you think this will be another forced technology push like 3D and UltraHD have been, from an industry desperate to promote a shiny new product or feature rather than educating the consumers on how to better set up existing technologies to maximize their home theater experience? 

It will be interesting to see if consumers will identify a need and benefit for adding more speakers in their existing home theaters and if they will be willing to allocate both budget and space to accommodate. 

While contemplating Dolby Atmos, let’s also not forget that DTS is working on their own competing Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA) format. "
_

No sign of DTS MDA on the horizon in 2014 maybe 2015 or 2016?


----------



## lexiconthx

wse said:


> Seriously is that true no more Audyssey for Onkyo / Integra?


Yes looks like they are using there own room correction that only measures from a single point seems like a big step backwards. Real disappointment because I really like my integra avr but think Audussy is one of the best features on it. Makes a big difference in sound quality.


----------



## wse

lexiconthx said:


> Yes looks like they are using there own room correction that only measures from a single point seems like a big step backwards. Real disappointment because I really like my integra avr but think Audussy is one of the best features on it. Makes a big difference in sound quality.


Where did you read this? Link please


----------



## zeus33

wse said:


> Seriously is that true no more Audyssey for Onkyo / Integra?



Yes, it's true. They replaced it with AccuEQ.


----------



## lexiconthx

wse said:


> *"Early Atmos Adopter? Dolby Wants You!
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _We are hearing that Dolby Atmos will start working its way into AV receivers starting at around $1k this fall. Are you ready to jump on the 9.1 or 11.1 surround bandwagon?
> 
> Or, do you think this will be another forced technology push like 3D and UltraHD have been, from an industry desperate to promote a shiny new product or feature rather than educating the consumers on how to better set up existing technologies to maximize their home theater experience?
> 
> It will be interesting to see if consumers will identify a need and benefit for adding more speakers in their existing home theaters and if they will be willing to allocate both budget and space to accommodate.
> 
> While contemplating Dolby Atmos, let’s also not forget that DTS is working on their own competing Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA) format. "
> _
> 
> No sign of DTS MDA on the horizon in 2014 maybe 2015 or 2016?


I have been waiting for a home version of Atmos for a while. Want to be on the bleeding edge but thinking I will wait to see what DTS comes out with before jumping in. Extra speakers will be a bit of a challenge in my HT because I have a fairly small room with a projector. Want to mount speakers on the ceiling over using atmos speakers. Think to get the true effect you will want 4 speakers so going to be a challenge both on my wallet and installing. Will wait for a reciever with ATmos built in though over getting a AVR and installing firmware...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. I think Denon is the only player with Audyssey now.


----------



## MichaelJHuman

Does Audyssey need to lower their per unit license price? I suppose there's a real problem with selling AVRs lately, not offering anything new and crazy tight margins. If I am right, I can see a manuf. trying to reduce every possible cost.


----------



## lexiconthx

wse said:


> Where did you read this? Link please


http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=DTR-50.6&class=Receiver&p=i Also those your b&w speakers in your pic. If so totally jealous


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. I think Denon is the only player with Audyssey now.


There are other companies selling receivers with Audyssey, although not Audyssey XT32. _E.g._ NAD has a modified version of XT, while Cambridge provides 2EQ. Neither of them has been mentioned in the Atmos rollout, though.


----------



## wse

Selden Ball said:


> There are other companies selling receivers with Audyssey, although not Audyssey XT32. _E.g._ NAD has a modified version of XT, while Cambridge provides 2EQ. Neither of them has been mentioned in the Atmos rollout, though.


Marantz and Denon still have XT32

*Marantz SR7009: 11.2 amp, DLNA, MultEQ XT32 Pro, HDMI 2.0, HDAM, ISF, AirPlay *

Posted by Nicolas Bécuwe in Amplifiers , HDnews | 24 comments 

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services1
 
*Here is the flagship of the range 2014 manufacturer, Marantz SR7009, a superb 11.2 amplifier with an output of 200 Watts into 6 ohms per channel.* *It has all new with 8 inputs and outputs HDMI 2.0, Wi-Fi, integrated Bluetooth, components audiophile high-end, high-precision master clock, the HDAM modules, a 4K/60 upscaling, a 13.2 preout output a 7.1 analog input, the Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro with a new, more precise micro, management of DSD native gapless playback, compatibility with future 3D codecs, etc..* *Marantz Announces sound quality much higher than its other amplifiers ...* 
* Marantz SR7009: 11.2 amp, DLNA, MultEQ XT32 Pro, HDMI 2.0, HDAM, ISF, AirPlay *

SR7009 Marantz, flagship model of the range 2014 11 manufacturer embeds discrete power amplifiers with advertised power 200 watts into 6 ohms. It obviously supports all HD audio formats like DTS-HD, TrueHD and Prologic IIz offers modes, DTS-Neo: X, Audyssey DSX and MultiCh Stereo. As Denon and Pioneer, this model will be updated soon to manage new 3D audio codecs (everyone understood what it was, but the names of these codecs is embargoed). 
This amp would have a rigorous construction with high precision master clock, internal dampers against interference and vibrations, HDAM modules (Hyper Dynamic Amplifier Module) circuit and Curent Feedback, high quality PDO MOSFET transistor, a DAC 192 / 24 and three 32-bit DSP, a lot of copper to assemble the elements, modules and components, connectors and screws. It is obviously the Audyssey automatic calibration MulEQ XT32 Audyssey Pro compatible derivatives Audyssey LFC Pro, Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume. with a more precise micro before. It also embeds a linear power supply with toroidal transformer. 
This amp includes, too, a video scaler ADV8003 (upscaling 1080p Ultra HD), but here the upscaling UHD is possible until 60 im / s and offers configurable video postprocessing (sharpening and reducing noise). Finally, another novelty, we can now calibrate the signal through the ISF certification, rarely useful on an amp, but interesting for the limited color settings broadcasters.


This model manages the DSD Super Audio CD with native filter the DSD. Its connectivity is complete with ultra high quality connectors, and (on rare models that porix nowadays) 7.1 analog input with Pure Audio Mode therefore not (re) scanned. There is also a 13.2 PREOUT, 8 inputs (have a front) and 2 HDMI 2.0 compatible ARC, CEC, Deep Color, 3D and Ultra HD 1080/24p (Passthrough 2160p/60 and 2160p/24 upscaling, 30, 50 im and 60 / s). There are also 2 inputs Coaxial, 2 Optical, 2 inputs / 1 output YUV, 2 inputs / 1 output Composite, 4 RCA stereo, FM / AM antenna, Ethernet and USB, RS-232C ports, and 11 pairs of terminals including six assignable . And so, the little novelty in 2014, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth integrated through two antennas placed behind.


The network support is present with access to radios, multimedia and a little more sophisticated management than last year with the ability to play MP3, WMA, AAC, ALAC, FLAC 192 kHz / 24 bit DSD64 and 128 and AIFF via USB and streaming from a NAS, PC or MAC (UPnP) with management Gapless playback. It offers Windows 7 and 8 compatibility, access to vTuner, Spotify and Flickr Connect, and especially AirPlay to stream music and audio from movies from your PC, tablet or iPad iPhone. We can even connect its USB port directly to iDevices to play music (no composite to display photos or videos). Also note that a new Marantz Remote app App will be available there as well more advanced than before.


 
* Technical characteristics of the Marantz SR7009: *



 11.2 amplifier compatible 3D and 4K
 *11 channels of discrete amplification:*
 11 x 200W (6ohm, 1kHz, 1% THD, 1ch driven)
 11 x 165W (6ohm, 1kHz, 0.7% THD, 2ch driven)
 11 x 125W (8ohm, 20Hz-20kHz, THD 0.08%)
 
 DTS HD Master, DTS 5.1, DTS ES, DTS 96/24, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Pro Logic IIz, All Stereo, Auddysey DSX, DTS-NEO-X 11.2, and future 3D audio codecs
 MDAX2: improving lossy compressed audio streams
 8 HDMI 2.0 and HDMI 2.0 inputs 3: ARC, Zone 2, 3D, Deep Color, xvColor, 1080/24p, CEC, & 4K Quad HD Passthrough (2160p/60 4:4:4 and 10-bit, or 2160p / 24 and 12 bit 4:4:4)
 Pure Color: UHD 12-bit 4:4:4 and 24p (4:4:4 10-bit and 60 im / s)
 Sources 3/3 areas: ability to stream different connected via HDMI HDMI HDMI out + Zone 2 sources
 Compatible Remote Marantz bus
 *Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Audyssey Pro compatible), Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ, and CFL Pro*
 New micro more accurate calibration
 HDMI Standby Pass through consistent 4K/60
 Video processor V8003 Analog Device AD: 1080p upscaling & Ultra HD 2160p/60, post-video processing customizable ISF Certification &
 Build quality and audio revised upwards
 High precision clock master, shocks and shield against interference
 3 32-bit DSP, DAC 192/24, HDAM modules, circuit against current feedback
 Linear power supply with toroidal transformer and MOSFET transistor
 DLNA, AirPlay, Windows 7 and 8, UPnP
 With graphic OSD Setup Wizard HDMI output 1
 Management of DSD
 USB & UPnP: 192 khz FLAC, DSD128, AIFF, WAV 96 kHz, WMA, MP3, AAC, ALAC and Gapless playback
 DLNA 1.5: Network Streaming, Automatic Update, vTuner Internet Radio, Flickr, Spotify
 Made for iPad / iPod / iPhone: Direct connection via USB, Denon Remote App
 IP / RS232 control Control / network / app control Control
 Pure Audio Mode, and Direct MDAX2
 Wi-Fi and integrated Bluetooth (2 antennas to the rear): codec aptX
 7.1 analog input and output PREOUT 13.2
 Optimization bass for the front speakers if used without subwoofer
 Front with two buttons (source volume)
 Consumption: 710W
 Programmable remote control with backlit digital display
 Available in October 2014 at the RRP of € 1,699.

*Marantz Dolby Atmos Receivers SR7009 and AV7702*

The new *Marantz SR7009* receiver and the *Marantz AV7702* preprocessor (preamp) will be the first Marantz products to feature Dolby Atmos. The SR7009 AV receiver will be available in September and the AV7702 will be available in October. Both Marantz Dolby Atmos receivers will deliver the multi-dimensional sound promised by the new Dolby Atmos technology. Dolby Atmos is designed to produce sound from all directions—even overhead. It also, unlike conventional surround formats, has the capability to produce point-source surround effects from any location within the room. This type of expandable DSP surround configuration is literally changing the way rerecording mixers are creating film soundtracks.
*Marantz Dolby Atmos Receivers*

These new *Marantz Dolby Atmos receivers* have a whole new way of calibrating and reproducing Atmos-compatible soundtracks. For one, they have the processing power to run a 9 channel Dolby Atmos layout with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibration. This can be run in either a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration. Dolby Atmos configuration will utilize either ceiling mounted or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 5.1.4 speaker configuration adds 4 overhead speakers to a traditional 5.1 speaker layout. Alternatively, a Dolby Atmos-enabled 7.1.2 speaker system is based on a 7.1 speaker layout, but with 2 overhead (or Dolby Atmos-enabled) speakers.
“Only Dolby Atmos delivers multi-dimensional sound that fills the room to make every detail come alive, whether it is the roar of a racecar speeding around the track, the whisper of wind, or an arrow shot across the room. It’s a ground-breaking achievement for home theaters”
Don Freeman, Vice President Global Marketing at D+M​ ​ *Marantz AV7702 Preamp Processor*

The AV7702 preamp will have the processing capability to support a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos setup; taking advantage of 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configurations. A 7.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 7.1 speaker layout complemented by 4 overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers.


----------



## wse

lexiconthx said:


> http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=DTR-50.6&class=Receiver&p=i Also those your b&w speakers in your pic. If so totally jealous


Thank you, yes it looks like even their top end Pre/pro DHC-80.6 I wonder what's with that "AccuEQ Room Correction & Calibration" ? They probably didn't want to pay the licensing fees!

http://integraworldwide.com/za/products/dhc806/index.htm

http://integraworldwide.com/product_data/ot/dhc-80_6_au.pdf


----------



## lexiconthx

wse said:


> Thank you, yes it looks like even their top end Pre/pro DHC-80.6 I wonder what's with that "AccuEQ Room Correction & Calibration" ? They probably didn't want to pay the licensing fees!
> 
> http://integraworldwide.com/za/products/dhc806/index.htm
> 
> http://integraworldwide.com/product_data/ot/dhc-80_6_au.pdf


I think it is a licensing fee issue also. There AccuEQ seems years behind Audussy also based on these docs. Guess I shouldn't pass judgement without hearing but really seems that way on paper. Real bummer as I'm not sure the new Denon's and Marantz have the same quality amplifiers and they lack THX (yes I know some see this as a gimick but I still like the post processing in the THX modes). Going to be a hard decision when I move to Atmos for sure.


----------



## Selden Ball

wse said:


> Marantz and Denon still have XT32


 Right. I didn't mention them since Scott had mentioned Denon. Denon and Marantz are divisions of D+M Group (previously D&M Holding) and their products use the same digital processing boards. Their primary differences are in their analog circuits and mechanical design.


----------



## wse

*Denon Dolby Atmos Receivers*

There are two new Denon receivers that feature the new Dolby Atmos Surround DSP system. The new Denon Dolby Atmos receivers include the Denon AVR-X4100W and Denon AVR-X5200W and both will be available in September. The AVR-X4100W replaces the Denon AVR-X4000 receiver but adds a lot of new features like built-in WiFi, Bluetooth and Dolby Atmos. The AVR-X4100W and the AVR-X5200W receivers are the first Denon AVRs to feature Dolby Atmos. Dolby Atmos is unique because it, for the first time, allows a single surround mix to be reproduced in various formats and it can include point source sound that can come from nearly any and all directions—particularly overhead. Dolby Atmos is gaining in popularity in commercial movie theaters and now it seems to be infiltrating the home theater realm as well.
“It is a testament to the unique sound experience Dolby Atmos delivers that some of the world’s leading filmmakers have embraced it as a storytelling tool. Every detail comes alive, making the audience feel as if they are in the middle of the movie action. The experience is unmatched in the home theater today.”
Yoshinori Yamada, Global Business Team Leader for Denon Audio and Video Products​ *Denon Dolby Atmos Receivers and Configurability*

The new Denon Dolby Atmos receivers come with enough processing power to run Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and calibrate 9 channels for the Dolby Atmos surround DSP. The receivers can calibrate for a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration and incorporate ceiling mounted, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 5.1.4 speaker configuration is basically a standard 5.1 speaker layout that also employs 4 additional overhead or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. The Denon AVR-X4100W can also enable a 7.1.2 configuration—a 7.1 speaker layout with 2 overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers.


The AVR-X5200W will have the additional processing capability to support a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos setup. It will do this by taking advantage of a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration. A 7.1.4 speaker configuration uses a traditional 7.1 speaker layout, but adds an additional 4 overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers.


The Denon AVR-X4100W receiver features 8 HDMI inputs and three HDMI outputs plus Dolby Atmos DSP surround processing.

*Denon AVR-X4100W Specifications*



Power: 125 watts x 7 channels
Phono input
8 HDMI inputs
3 HDMI outputs
13.2 pre-amp outputs
WiFi-enabled
Bluetooth streaming
Denon Link HD
2 component video inputs, 1 component video output
11.2 processing (Dolby Atmos)
_AL24 Processing Plus_ 
Two subwoofer outputs
Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Room Correction with Audyssey LFC
Three independent zones
 The Denon AVR-X5200W receiver features 8 HDMI inputs and three HDMI outputs plus Dolby Atmos DSP surround processing.

*Denon AVR-X5200W Specifications*



Power: 140 watts x 7 channels
Phono input
8 HDMI inputs
3 HDMI outputs
2 component video inputs, 1 component video output
13.2 pre-amp outputs
WiFi-enabled
Bluetooth streaming
Denon Link HD
11.2 processing (Dolby Atmos)
_AL24 Processing Plus_ 
Two subwoofer outputs
Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Room Correction with Audyssey LFC
Three independent zones
 These Denon Dolby Atmos receivers look really hot. The Denon AVR X4100W will sell for $1399 and the Denon AVR-X5200W will sell for $1999.


----------



## Selden Ball

wse said:


> Thank you, yes it looks like even their top end Pre/pro DHC-80.6 I wonder what's with that "AccuEQ Room Correction & Calibration" ? They probably didn't want to pay the licensing fees!
> 
> http://integraworldwide.com/za/products/dhc806/index.htm
> 
> http://integraworldwide.com/product_data/ot/dhc-80_6_au.pdf


This has been discussed extensively in other threads. Onkyo is keeping costs (and prices) down by forgoing (repurposing?) the high-powered DSPs that Audyssey requires and thus can provide Atmos in their lower-priced 2014 models. D+M are keeping Audyssey, but this means using 4 DSPs instead of just 2, and thus Atmos is provided only in their higher-end models.


----------



## wse

lexiconthx said:


> I think it is a licensing fee issue also. There AccuEQ seems years behind Audussy also based on these docs. Guess I shouldn't pass judgement without hearing but really seems that way on paper. Real bummer as I'm not sure the new Denon's and Marantz have the same quality amplifiers and they lack THX (yes I know some see this as a gimick but I still like the post processing in the THX modes). Going to be a hard decision when I move to Atmos for sure.


So is there any one left with THX Ultra2 and Audyssey XT32 and Atmos 

- Pionner : Elite SC-89 has been certified at London’s legendary AIR Studios, SABRE32 DAC (ES9016+ES9016) for 9.2ch, and has MCACC® (Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration) is taken to a new level of performance with MCACC Pro.
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Elite+Receivers/SC-89

- Yamaha: Aventage RX 3040 has YPAO™ - R.S.C. with 3D, multipoint and angle measuremen, certified by no one but has ESS Technology ES9016 SABRE32™ Ultra DAC.
http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3040_black_u/?mode=model


----------



## lexiconthx

wse said:


> So is there any one left with THX Ultra2 and Audyssey XT32 and Atmos
> 
> - Pionner : Elite SC-89 has been certified at London’s legendary AIR Studios, SABRE32 DAC (ES9016+ES9016) for 9.2ch, and has MCACC® (Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration) is taken to a new level of performance with MCACC Pro.
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Elite+Receivers/SC-89
> 
> - Yamaha: Aventage RX 3040 has YPAO™ - R.S.C. with 3D, multipoint and angle measuremen, certified by no one but has ESS Technology ES9016 SABRE32™ Ultra DAC.
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3040_black_u/?mode=model


Isn't looking that way as of now. I know Onkyo/ Integra build there own receivers and D+M outsources production to manufacturing firms. May have to look at Denon or Marantz because Audussy is worth more to me then THX. I used Yamaha's reoom correction and it was Awful. Maybe Onkyo's is better but seems awfully scaled back to me...


----------



## lemonslush

http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/electronics/surround-receivers/denon-dolby-atmos-receivers/1598

How did I miss that the x4100 would have atmos?


----------



## cembros

Selden Ball said:


> This has been discussed extensively in other threads. Onkyo is keeping costs (and prices) down by forgoing (repurposing?) the high-powered DSPs that Audyssey requires and thus can provide Atmos in their lower-priced 2014 models. D+M are keeping Audyssey, but this means using 4 DSPs instead of just 2, and thus Atmos is provided only in their higher-end models.



I suspect they are just using a repackaged MCACC. It's toomuch of a coincidence that right when the pioneer acquisition is announced theymagically go to a newly developed system that shares a number of key characteristicswith pioneers system. That said, I’ll bepicking up the X4100 with XT32 as soon as it becomes available.


----------



## sdurani

cembros said:


> I suspect they are just using a repackaged MCACC. It's toomuch of a coincidence that right when the pioneer acquisition is announced theymagically go to a newly developed system that shares a number of key characteristicswith pioneers system.


What key characteristics?


----------



## mp5475

*In ceiling speakers*

Hi guys. Question 

If I want to add the four in ceiling speakers, what kind do you guys recommend ?
I have axiom m80 speakers. Currently 7.4. I get that it should be timbre matched. 

Can I put these in wall m3 speakers? In the ceiling?

http://www.axiomaudio.com/m3-in-wall-speakers

Appreciate any advise


----------



## ahmedreda

From the product page:
"Easy to Install
The speaker has an efficient built-in clamping mechanism that anchors the speaker firmly to the wall or ceiling when the screws are tightened. *Mount it in the wall or the ceiling – it's your choice.*"



mp5475 said:


> Hi guys. Question
> 
> If I want to add the four in ceiling speakers, what kind do you guys recommend ?
> I have axiom m80 speakers. Currently 7.4. I get that it should be timbre matched.
> 
> Can I put these in wall m3 speakers? In the ceiling?
> 
> http://www.axiomaudio.com/m3-in-wall-speakers
> 
> Appreciate any advise


----------



## mp5475

ahmedreda said:


> From the product page:
> "Easy to Install
> The speaker has an efficient built-in clamping mechanism that anchors the speaker firmly to the wall or ceiling when the screws are tightened. *Mount it in the wall or the ceiling – it's your choice.*"


To clarify, my question is will these speakers do a adequate job?


----------



## J.P

Can the Denon`s with 13.2 preout do 7 "basic/bed" channels + 2"wide/side" channels + 4 ceiling atmos channels ?


----------



## bkeeler10

^ Apparently not simultaneously. Only 11 channels can be processed at a time.

I'm pretty bummed about that too. The layout you suggest seems pretty ideal to me for an Atmos system in a small to medium room. I'm sure we will get there though, perhaps in the second generation of Atmos receivers by the Japanese brands.

Just read about the Trinnov unit that will have 32 channels


----------



## jdsmoothie

lemonslush said:


> http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/electronics/surround-receivers/denon-dolby-atmos-receivers/1598
> 
> How did I miss that the x4100 would have atmos?


Not sure. There's almost as much Atmos discussion going on in the 2014 Denon S/X Series thread as there is in this one. My comparison post below shows the addition from the X4000.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...vr-model-owner-s-thread-faq.html#post24721988


----------



## JonFo

wse said:


> Now we are talking
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1587026-trinnov-altitude32.html


Sweet, my next preamp. Seriously.


----------



## cembros

sdurani said:


> What key characteristics?


Single point calibration with no front or sub eq.


----------



## sdurani

cembros said:


> Single point calibration with no front or sub eq.


Pioneer uses multi-point calibation (needed for standing wave correction), fronts are automatically EQ'd and subs have manual EQ. How could the new Onkyo EQ be a repackage of that if it doesn't do any of those things?


----------



## David Susilo

cembros said:


> Single point calibration with no front or sub eq.


Please, can we have just ONE thread without a wildly misinformed post?


----------



## sdurani

^^^ Thank you.


----------



## wse

JonFo said:


> Sweet, my next preamp. Seriously.


Very nice room you have, let me know when you buy it!


----------



## petetherock

wse said:


> Marantz and Denon still have XT32
> 
> *Marantz SR7009: 11.2 amp, DLNA, MultEQ XT32 Pro, HDMI 2.0, HDAM, ISF, AirPlay *
> 
> Posted by Nicolas Bécuwe in Amplifiers , HDnews | 24 comments
> 
> Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services1
> 
> *Here is the flagship of the range 2014 manufacturer, Marantz SR7009, a superb 11.2 amplifier with an output of 200 Watts into 6 ohms per channel.* *It has all new with 8 inputs and outputs HDMI 2.0, Wi-Fi, integrated Bluetooth, components audiophile high-end, high-precision master clock, the HDAM modules, a 4K/60 upscaling, a 13.2 preout output a 7.1 analog input, the Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro with a new, more precise micro, management of DSD native gapless playback, compatibility with future 3D codecs, etc..* *Marantz Announces sound quality much higher than its other amplifiers ...*
> *Marantz SR7009: 11.2 amp, DLNA, MultEQ XT32 Pro, HDMI 2.0, HDAM, ISF, AirPlay *
> 
> SR7009 Marantz, flagship model of the range 2014 11 manufacturer embeds discrete power amplifiers with advertised power 200 watts into 6 ohms. It obviously supports all HD audio formats like DTS-HD, TrueHD and Prologic IIz offers modes, DTS-Neo: X, Audyssey DSX and MultiCh Stereo. As Denon and Pioneer, this model will be updated soon to manage new 3D audio codecs (everyone understood what it was, but the names of these codecs is embargoed).
> This amp would have a rigorous construction with high precision master clock, internal dampers against interference and vibrations, HDAM modules (Hyper Dynamic Amplifier Module) circuit and Curent Feedback, high quality PDO MOSFET transistor, a DAC 192 / 24 and three 32-bit DSP, a lot of copper to assemble the elements, modules and components, connectors and screws. It is obviously the Audyssey automatic calibration MulEQ XT32 Audyssey Pro compatible derivatives Audyssey LFC Pro, Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume. with a more precise micro before. It also embeds a linear power supply with toroidal transformer.
> This amp includes, too, a video scaler ADV8003 (upscaling 1080p Ultra HD), but here the upscaling UHD is possible until 60 im / s and offers configurable video postprocessing (sharpening and reducing noise). Finally, another novelty, we can now calibrate the signal through the ISF certification, rarely useful on an amp, but interesting for the limited color settings broadcasters.
> 
> 
> This model manages the DSD Super Audio CD with native filter the DSD. Its connectivity is complete with ultra high quality connectors, and (on rare models that porix nowadays) 7.1 analog input with Pure Audio Mode therefore not (re) scanned. There is also a 13.2 PREOUT, 8 inputs (have a front) and 2 HDMI 2.0 compatible ARC, CEC, Deep Color, 3D and Ultra HD 1080/24p (Passthrough 2160p/60 and 2160p/24 upscaling, 30, 50 im and 60 / s). There are also 2 inputs Coaxial, 2 Optical, 2 inputs / 1 output YUV, 2 inputs / 1 output Composite, 4 RCA stereo, FM / AM antenna, Ethernet and USB, RS-232C ports, and 11 pairs of terminals including six assignable . And so, the little novelty in 2014, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth integrated through two antennas placed behind.
> 
> 
> The network support is present with access to radios, multimedia and a little more sophisticated management than last year with the ability to play MP3, WMA, AAC, ALAC, FLAC 192 kHz / 24 bit DSD64 and 128 and AIFF via USB and streaming from a NAS, PC or MAC (UPnP) with management Gapless playback. It offers Windows 7 and 8 compatibility, access to vTuner, Spotify and Flickr Connect, and especially AirPlay to stream music and audio from movies from your PC, tablet or iPad iPhone. We can even connect its USB port directly to iDevices to play music (no composite to display photos or videos). Also note that a new Marantz Remote app App will be available there as well more advanced than before.
> 
> 
> 
> *Technical characteristics of the Marantz SR7009: *
> 
> 
> 
> 11.2 amplifier compatible 3D and 4K
> *11 channels of discrete amplification:*
> 11 x 200W (6ohm, 1kHz, 1% THD, 1ch driven)
> 11 x 165W (6ohm, 1kHz, 0.7% THD, 2ch driven)
> 11 x 125W (8ohm, 20Hz-20kHz, THD 0.08%)
> 
> DTS HD Master, DTS 5.1, DTS ES, DTS 96/24, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Pro Logic IIz, All Stereo, Auddysey DSX, DTS-NEO-X 11.2, and future 3D audio codecs
> MDAX2: improving lossy compressed audio streams
> 8 HDMI 2.0 and HDMI 2.0 inputs 3: ARC, Zone 2, 3D, Deep Color, xvColor, 1080/24p, CEC, & 4K Quad HD Passthrough (2160p/60 4:4:4 and 10-bit, or 2160p / 24 and 12 bit 4:4:4)
> Pure Color: UHD 12-bit 4:4:4 and 24p (4:4:4 10-bit and 60 im / s)
> Sources 3/3 areas: ability to stream different connected via HDMI HDMI HDMI out + Zone 2 sources
> Compatible Remote Marantz bus
> *Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Audyssey Pro compatible), Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ, and CFL Pro*
> New micro more accurate calibration
> HDMI Standby Pass through consistent 4K/60
> Video processor V8003 Analog Device AD: 1080p upscaling & Ultra HD 2160p/60, post-video processing customizable ISF Certification &
> Build quality and audio revised upwards
> High precision clock master, shocks and shield against interference
> 3 32-bit DSP, DAC 192/24, HDAM modules, circuit against current feedback
> Linear power supply with toroidal transformer and MOSFET transistor
> DLNA, AirPlay, Windows 7 and 8, UPnP
> With graphic OSD Setup Wizard HDMI output 1
> Management of DSD
> USB & UPnP: 192 khz FLAC, DSD128, AIFF, WAV 96 kHz, WMA, MP3, AAC, ALAC and Gapless playback
> DLNA 1.5: Network Streaming, Automatic Update, vTuner Internet Radio, Flickr, Spotify
> Made for iPad / iPod / iPhone: Direct connection via USB, Denon Remote App
> IP / RS232 control Control / network / app control Control
> Pure Audio Mode, and Direct MDAX2
> Wi-Fi and integrated Bluetooth (2 antennas to the rear): codec aptX
> 7.1 analog input and output PREOUT 13.2
> Optimization bass for the front speakers if used without subwoofer
> Front with two buttons (source volume)
> Consumption: 710W
> Programmable remote control with backlit digital display
> Available in October 2014 at the RRP of € 1,699.
> 
> *Marantz Dolby Atmos Receivers SR7009 and AV7702*
> 
> The new *Marantz SR7009* receiver and the *Marantz AV7702* preprocessor (preamp) will be the first Marantz products to feature Dolby Atmos. The SR7009 AV receiver will be available in September and the AV7702 will be available in October. Both Marantz Dolby Atmos receivers will deliver the multi-dimensional sound promised by the new Dolby Atmos technology. Dolby Atmos is designed to produce sound from all directions—even overhead. It also, unlike conventional surround formats, has the capability to produce point-source surround effects from any location within the room. This type of expandable DSP surround configuration is literally changing the way rerecording mixers are creating film soundtracks.
> *Marantz Dolby Atmos Receivers*
> 
> These new *Marantz Dolby Atmos receivers* have a whole new way of calibrating and reproducing Atmos-compatible soundtracks. For one, they have the processing power to run a 9 channel Dolby Atmos layout with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibration. This can be run in either a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration. Dolby Atmos configuration will utilize either ceiling mounted or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 5.1.4 speaker configuration adds 4 overhead speakers to a traditional 5.1 speaker layout. Alternatively, a Dolby Atmos-enabled 7.1.2 speaker system is based on a 7.1 speaker layout, but with 2 overhead (or Dolby Atmos-enabled) speakers.
> “Only Dolby Atmos delivers multi-dimensional sound that fills the room to make every detail come alive, whether it is the roar of a racecar speeding around the track, the whisper of wind, or an arrow shot across the room. It’s a ground-breaking achievement for home theaters”
> Don Freeman, Vice President Global Marketing at D+M​​
> *Marantz AV7702 Preamp Processor*
> 
> The AV7702 preamp will have the processing capability to support a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos setup; taking advantage of 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configurations. A 7.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 7.1 speaker layout complemented by 4 overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers.


Mate 
I don't think your info on the specs of the 7009 are correct?


----------



## Skylinestar

cwt said:


> That explains things ; thanks Dan ; 4 or 5gbs for lossless audio per disc is more than enough as it is


That is still big if compared with ~600MB of AC3 sound. AC3 has become the norm in online video distribution due to the small size. If AC4 has better audio quality, yet maintain the size of AC3, it will be a true winner.


----------



## Schwa

David Susilo said:


> Please, can we have just ONE thread without a wildly misinformed post?


Onkyo's own website brags about the simplicity of the single measuring position and also touts the fact that the mains aren't eq'd as somehow being an advantage. I haven't looked into whether the new Onkyos have sub eq, but aside from that, how's the post mildly misinformed? In other words, one could be forgiven by assuming the info Onkyo posts on their website is correct. 

So, do the new Onkyos eq the mains? Do they use more than one measuring position? Do they eq the sub? If so, please provide links besides claiming you have insider knowledge that contradicts the manufacturer's own website.

This blurb is from the TX-NR838's product page:

_AccuEQ Room Calibration

Effective Correction for Dynamic Multichannel and Stereo Sound

Onkyo developed AccuEQ to simplify the initial home theater setup process, and to make both surround-sound and two-channel audio sound clean and clear in your listening space. _

_To showcase the unique acoustical characteristics of your front loudspeakers, AccuEQ bypasses the front two channels so you can enjoy authentic hi-fi audio quality for stereo music, with no DSP correction applied.

Instead, the included microphone measures the distances, crossovers, and output levels of the surround and center speakers from one easy listening position, which speeds up and simplifies the calibration process. With room correction complete, you can enjoy perfect clarity and three-dimensional cohesion when playing multichannel movie soundtracks, and natural high-fidelity performance for stereo listening._


----------



## sdurani

Schwa said:


> Onkyo's own website brags about the simplicity of the single measuring position and also touts the fact that the mains aren't eq'd as somehow being an advantage. I haven't looked into whether the new Onkyos have sub eq, but aside from that, how's the post mildly misinformed?


Because the poster was saying that those key features are common to Onkyo's room correction AND Pioneer's room correction, in order to bolster his claim that AccuEQ is "repackaged" MCACC.


----------



## Steve*MH

Just to see if I understand this correctly; the Onkyo series (1030, 3030) have eliminated Audyssey and gone with the AccuEQ whereas the Denon series has maintained Audyssey. Because Onkyo eliminated Audyssey; it has additional processing power to allow the Atmos configuration of 9.1.2 to be possible on their models that is not possible with the Denon receivers (top configuration is 7.1.4). So if running a 9.1.2 Atmos configuration is very important to you; Onkyo is the way to go. Otherwise, if Audyssey is important to you and you don't care about running a 9 channel bed system; then Denon is the way to go. For me; already having a 11.1 speaker configuration for DTS Neo:X and two heights/two wides, being able to run a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos system with the same speaker configuration as the DTS Neo:X 11.1 is very important. For many of us with finished theaters; cutting drywall and running additional wires for ceiling speakers is not an easy task. 
So to be clear; if I want to run a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration; I need to look at the Onkyo 1030 or 3030 receivers - Correct? (With the 1030 - an additional 2 channel amp is needed for the eleven powered channels)


----------



## chi_guy50

Steve*MH said:


> Just to see if I understand this correctly; the Onkyo series (1030, 3030) have eliminated Audyssey and gone with the AccuEQ whereas the Denon series has maintained Audyssey. Because Onkyo eliminated Audyssey; it has additional processing power to allow the Atmos configuration of 9.1.2 to be possible on their models that is not possible with the Denon receivers (top configuration is 7.1.4). So if running a 9.1.2 Atmos configuration is very important to you; Onkyo is the way to go. Otherwise, if Audyssey is important to you and you don't care about running a 9 channel bed system; then Denon is the way to go. For me; already having a 11.1 speaker configuration for DTS Neo:X and two heights/two wides, being able to run a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos system with the same speaker configuration as the DTS Neo:X 11.1 is very important.


Based on the preliminary information available to date, the height speaker placement for Atmos is quite different than that for DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX or Dolby PLIIz, so it is unlikely you will be able to utilize your current configuration for Atmos without significant compromise. As I understand it, not only must the front heights be ceiling-mounted, but their location is supposed to be forward of the front speakers. Again, there is no publicly available information yet on exactly how Denon or the other manufacturers will be implementing Atmos on their upcoming line-ups so nothing is definitive at this date. (Someone please correct me if any of this is off the mark.)



Steve*MH said:


> For many of us with finished theaters; cutting drywall and running additional wires for ceiling speakers is not an easy task.


I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. This year I expanded from 7.1 to 11.1 with front heights wall-mounted just below ceiling level over my fronts. I was planning to upgrade my receiver from the Denon AVR-3311CI to either the 4520 or this year's X5200/X7200, and one of my incentives for holding off for the release of the newer models was the addition of Atmos. But, for logistical reasons, my side surrounds are already in-ceiling and--even if that in itself is not a "deal-killer" for prescribed Atmos rendering--I cannot add another four ceiling speakers in my living room set-up. While it would be relatively easy for me to use the existing wiring to switch out my wall-mounted FH's for in-ceiling speakers, I would not want to compromise my ability to utilize other surround-sound formats until/unless Atmos becomes the all-purpose music/cinema codec.

Ideally, I was hoping to be able to add a pair of rear heights to my existing layout for an Atmos-ready 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 set-up. Maybe that will be an option for the forthcoming DTS-UHD if it proves a worthy contender with Dolby Atmos.



Steve*MH said:


> So to be clear; if I want to run a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration; I need to look at the Onkyo 1030 or 3030 receivers - Correct?


I think it's too early to answer this question definitively; for one thing, I believe I read that Denon could possibly allow a 9.1.2 configuration on the X7200 or even the X5200 with a future firmware update.


----------



## Mastiff

I'm about to replace the ceiling in the media room part of my cabin (11.2 surround system at the moment), and I would like to futureproof it. I consider buying the Yamaha 4030 when that comes out, but I may wait for the next generation, in 2015. But the speakers has to go up now so I won't have to tear down the ceiling again. I only use hidden wiring, running a visible speaker wire across the ceiling is not an option. I have a few B&W ceiling speakers that I can put up there. Is there a definite room plan somwhere that tells me where to put the ceiling speakers for the 3D surround audio systems?


----------



## thebland

So much so fast. I've been redoing my room over the last few monthsn and I'm now redesigning my baffle wall, and height speaker placement SINCE THE ATMOS news. 

I had all planned and designed for front heights in the baffle wall behind the screen but now, in my readings and consulting with my designer, going to bring those front heights forward of my screen and point down to main listening area. 

Fun times but a headache as things are still getting sorted out and few have any experience with these new surround codecs. 

And I see no SSPs coming out soon with ATMOS. 

I've committed to LCRS AND FRONT HEIGHT speakers doing at least 110 db at the main listening area as the front heights will get full, LCR like signals at times rather than 100% ambient sounds.


----------



## Steve*MH

chi_guy50 said:


> Based on the preliminary information available to date, the height speaker placement for Atmos is quite different than that for DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX or Dolby PLIIz, so it is unlikely you will be able to utilize your current configuration for Atmos without significant compromise. As I understand it, not only must the front heights be ceiling-mounted, but their location is supposed to be forward of the front speakers. Again, there is no publicly available information yet on exactly how Denon or the other manufacturers will be implementing Atmos on their upcoming line-ups so nothing is definitive at this date. (Someone please correct me if any of this is off the mark.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. This year I expanded from 7.1 to 11.1 with front heights wall-mounted just below ceiling level over my fronts. I was planning to upgrade my receiver from the Denon AVR-3311CI to either the 4520 or this year's X5200/X7200, and one of my incentives for holding off for the release of the newer models was the addition of Atmos. But, for logistical reasons, my side surrounds are already in-ceiling and--even if that in itself is not a "deal-killer" for prescribed Atmos rendering--I cannot add another four ceiling speakers in my living room set-up. While it would be relatively easy for me to use the existing wiring to switch out my wall-mounted FH's for in-ceiling speakers, I would not want to compromise my ability to utilize other surround-sound formats until/unless Atmos becomes the all-purpose music/cinema codec.
> 
> Ideally, I was hoping to be able to add a pair of rear heights to my existing layout for an Atmos-ready 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 set-up. Maybe that will be an option for the forthcoming DTS-UHD if it proves a worthy contender with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's too early to answer this question definitively; for one thing, I believe I read that Denon could possibly allow a 9.1.2 configuration on the X7200 or even the X5200 with a future firmware update.


I also had some logistical issues with speaker placement in my theater. Due to a theater curtain; I could not place the height channels in the front wall above the main speakers, so they were placed in the ceiling above the main speakers and angled toward the viewing area. It was a compromise for the Neo:X setup, but seems to lend itself now very nicely to the Atmos 9.1.2 setup. I am also very hesitant to add more ceiling channels to my theater (I have a star ceiling for one and can't add them directly above the seating area), but if I can use the front ceiling speakers for a 9.1.2 setup; I would feel confident it may be the best I can do in my theater without some major work to be done. I agree, perhaps Denon will come out with 9.1.2 capability, but I also wanted to confirm that Onkyo DOES have this ability now and it could conceivably work with my current speaker layout and be a "dual" Neo:X and Atmos system. Maybe not "ideal", but still support the basics of each format. To me; this is a major plus for Onkyo if it is the only one to formally support the 9.1.2 configuration for Atmos (at this point anyway).


----------



## helvetica bold

I know I'm in the minority who actually likes Sony's AVRs (1040 owner). However, I wonder when Sony will announce something Atmos capable???


----------



## lexiconthx

helvetica bold said:


> I know I'm in the minority who actually likes Sony's AVRs (1040 owner). However, I wonder when Sony will announce something Atmos capable???


I'm sure they will jump on board also waiting to hear if ARCAM will announce a AVR with Atmos. Really want to jump to Atmos but starting to think it may be a good idea to wait one generation so they can work out the bugs. Biggest challange for me is going to be ceiling speakers. Sure the installation on those will be big bucks. If I got with a traditional speaker and use a mount I will have the sight of speakers on the ceiling... Wiring will be ticky since my home theater is on my first floor not sure how they fish the wires for that.


----------



## Orbitron

Dolby Atmos HTiB discussion will be massive as product comes to market.

Would it be a good idea to start a new thread specific to Atmos HTiB?


----------



## steveting99

^Orbitron.

Pioneer has a solution that bounces the front L+R and back surround L+R off the ceiling with their speakers here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1577345-official-pioneer-dolby-atmos-speaker-thread.html

Requires the ceiling to be flat and height between 8' to 14'. Not sure how well it's going to work as it's very new and not many have heard it. With existing setups, there is potential from other speaker manufacturers to offer something similar.

This new Atmos thingy has created a cloud of confusion for me. Not sure what to do, jump in or wait a few years for the dust to settle? Emotionally, my heart is asking me to jump right in, but my brain is telling me wait...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

steveting99 said:


> ^Orbitron.
> 
> Pioneer has a solution that bounces the front L+R and back surround L+R off the ceiling with their speakers here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1577345-official-pioneer-dolby-atmos-speaker-thread.html
> 
> Requires the ceiling to be flat and height between 8' to 14'. Not sure how well it's going to work as it's very new and not many have heard it. With existing setups, there is potential from other speaker manufacturers to offer something similar.
> 
> This new Atmos thingy has created a cloud of confusion for me. Not sure what to do, jump in or wait a few years for the dust to settle? Emotionally, my heart is asking me to jump right in, but my brain is telling me wait...


Wait. These 1st gen products are quite gimped for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Orbitron

Speculating - 1st gen with firmware updates results in same 2nd gen peformance?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Speculating - 1st gen with firmware updates results in same 2nd gen performance?


No. They're limited because of the lack of DSP horsepower. They need better chips.


----------



## Orbitron

Dan, for improved spatial allocation or is this too simplistic?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Dan, for improved spatial allocation or is this too simplistic?


Everyone has been eluding the fact that in order to stay within a certain price point the major consumer electronics manufacturers decided to skimp on the processor power. So, that's why you have some features dumbed down or dropped entirely. The Denon and Marantz models that stuck with Audyssey dropped some features of the "basic" Atmos renderers. Onkyo cut their calibration software down to the bare minimum, which allowed for a couple of Atmos speaker layouts. It's all a bunch of either/or scenarios. Add this, cut that. Cut that, add this. 

The DSP's they're using are stretched to the limit and something is going to have to be done next time around so spatial room calibration and renderer programming can occur... besides having more outputs and more options. 

They need to focus less on receivers and more on modular/scalable pre/pro's so there's some freedom to maneuver because the cost of adding amps isn't there and the boxes can be loaded with other circuitry.


----------



## Orbitron

All this takes me back to my Quad days when I mounted an overhead speaker in each corner of the room.


----------



## DaJoJo

the yamaha a3040 works with 4 overhead speakers in each ceiling corner or 2 front height+2 rear height doing 9.1.2 atmos with an additional external 2 channel amp.
somehow i like the auro-3D idea better with its VOG ceiling speaker in the middle of ceiling.


----------



## mastermaybe

David Susilo said:


> Please, can we have just ONE thread without a wildly misinformed post?


No, lol, I'm afraid not. Just as we cannot have one that doesn't have 1-2 guys in their Thursday armchairs making calls and critiques on equipment they've never used and technology they know infinitely little about.

This whole "the sky is falling, wait 3 years, they didn't want to spend $38 on another dsp chip to do it right" from this clique is already played out and unnecessarily throwing people into the 'war of the worlds' mode.

Enough already. Can we just wait 'x' weeks until the gear arrives and is properly run through its course before continuing with this speculatory nonsense...or is that really asking too much? 

Even better: ok, we all now KNOW this stuff is irreparably "gimped" "hamstringed" fill-in-the-new-adjective here: _______.

Now can we just wait a month or so to hear how it sounds?

Good grief.

James


----------



## chi_guy50

*A Different (But Equally Valid) Opinion*



mastermaybe said:


> Just as we cannot have one that doesn't have 1-2 guys in their Thursday armchairs making calls and critiques on equipment they've never used and *technology they know infinitely little about*.


Wow, that's pretty harsh; do you care to name any names? I don't believe this forum uses any sort of vetting process, so anyone is free to offer his opinion--well-founded or not. As with most open-source material, it is up to the reader to evaluate the reliability of the information. But if you would like to correct any misinformation that has been posted, I for one would be grateful for the edification.



mastermaybe said:


> Enough already. Can we just wait 'x' weeks until the gear arrives and is properly run through its course before continuing with this speculatory nonsense...or is that really asking too much?


(1) No . . .. and (2) yes. Half the fun of a new toy is in the anticipation.



mastermaybe said:


> Even better: ok, we all now KNOW this stuff is irreparably "gimped" "hamstringed" fill-in-the-new-adjective here: _______. Now can we just wait a month or so to hear how it sounds?


Then there would have been no point in creating or following this thread until now.

Some of us do not feel "hamstringed"; rather we are enjoying the discussion and hope that it will continue.


----------



## lexiconthx

Dan Hitchman said:


> Everyone has been eluding the fact that in order to stay within a certain price point the major consumer electronics manufacturers decided to skimp on the processor power. So, that's why you have some features dumbed down or dropped entirely. The Denon and Marantz models that stuck with Audyssey dropped some features of the "basic" Atmos renderers. Onkyo cut their calibration software down to the bare minimum, which allowed for a couple of Atmos speaker layouts. It's all a bunch of either/or scenarios. Add this, cut that. Cut that, add this.
> 
> The DSP's they're using are stretched to the limit and something is going to have to be done next time around so spatial room calibration and renderer programming can occur... besides having more outputs and more options.
> 
> They need to focus less on receivers and more on modular/scalable pre/pro's so there's some freedom to maneuver because the cost of adding amps isn't there and the boxes can be loaded with other circuitry.


What did Denon and Marantz cut of basic Atmos processing? I was under the impression they were using a extra dsp for the audussy processing. I could be wrong though...


----------



## wse

Interesting article. Who will win? * ATMOS OR AURO 3D

TOWARD AN OPEN-STANDARD SURROUND-SOUND FORMAT*

*04/08/2014* 









_Within Theatre 8 at AMC 16, Burbank, a total of six QSC SC-424 four-way screen channel loudspeakers — LCR screen channel and LCR height screen channels — are augmented by 42 SR-1030 two-way surround loudspeakers, arrayed as 12 (six per side) side-lower, eight (four per side) side-upper, six rear wall, six top-left and six top-right, and four top-center. Low frequencies are handled by an array of four SB-7218 floor subwoofers; two GP 118sw subwoofers suspended from the ceiling are fed from a derived LFE feed for the surround arrays low-passed at 60 Hz. A rack of QSC DCA Series amplifiers powers the loudspeakers. All signal processing, including EQ, time alignment and crossovers, plus routing, monitoring, control and calibration, is handled by a QSC Q-Sys Core 500i processor, using a series of FIR filters to correct loudspeaker performance. The Q-Sys Core also serves as the rendering engine for MDA object-based soundtracks._


*Towards a SMPTE Standard*

*MDA Cinema Proponents Demo Open-Standard Surround-Sound Format*

*by Mel Lambert*

It will come as no surprise to anybody involved in film and TV post that our industry is rapidly embracing immersive surround-sound technologies. With several hundred movie theatres around the world now capable of replaying Dolby Atmos and/or Barco Auro-3D soundtracks, Digital Cinema Initiative — a joint venture of Disney, Fox, Paramount,  Sony Pictures, Universal and Warner Bros. motion-picture studios — has turned to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers to help develop an open-format, object-based playback standard for immersive surround. The financial and operational benefits are immediately obvious. The same Digital Cinema Package/DCP media carrying an object-based soundtrack could play back in any immersive sound-equipped theatre located anywhere in the world.

“Our goal is to develop a single, interoperable distribution file format for immersive sound, which will be an object-based audio essence that can be used within the D-cinema architecture,” explains Brian Vessa, chairman of the SMPTE Technical Committee 25CSS, and executive director of Digital Audio Mastering at Sony Pictures Entertainment. “We are developing a common standardized method of delivering immersive audio to cinema systems regardless of the playback configuration.” Vessa also serves this year as DCI technical chairman, representing Sony Pictures.

A special TC-25CSS Working Group, chaired by Peter Lude, a consultant with Mission Rock Digital, is examining the interoperability of immersive sound systems for digital cinema, and a deliverable file format for the DCP, which is a collection of digital files used to store and convey audio, image and data streams to a theatre. “We need to provide the standardized tools for post-production facilities to prepare a single soundtrack and not a number of discrete mixes,” Lude says. “Film studios and exhibitors want a _single_ format, and to date we have had tremendous support for the standardization process. The working group intends to have a draft standard for immersive sound available in draft form within 12 months.”

Two organizations are contributing input on object-based formats to SMPTE: Dolby Laboratories, whose proposal is based on Atmos; and MDA Cinema Proponents Group, which includes DTS, Doremi Laboratories, Ultra-Stereo Laboratories, QSC, Barco and Auro Technologies. The MDA Group’s immersive-surround proposal is based on Multi-Dimensional Audio, an uncompressed PCM sound format that derives from research initiated at SRS Labs and refined by DTS.










_The Fairlight 3DAW MDA mixing environment is based on the firm’s Crystal Core Media processor, and provides on-screen 3D panning via a DAW plug-in, as well as comprehensive monitoring functions. A separate tablet control application allows for easy previewing and demonstration of audio output to verify and display the creative results._


To date, the MDA Cinema Proponents Group has held two demonstrations of its proposed format for working group members and other industry professionals at the AMC 16-theatre complex in Burbank. Theatre 8 has been outfitted by QSC Audio Products with a total of 54 behind-the-screen, surround and ceiling loudspeakers, plus subwoofers to create an audio test bed for replaying various surround-sound configurations. All signal processing, including EQ, time alignment and crossovers, is handled by a QSC Q-Sys Core 500i processor; replay is from a Doremi cinema server. Playback material for the special demonstrations comprised a short video produced by DTS, entitled _The Escape_, accompanied by replay of a single MDA object-based soundtrack that was rendered in real-time through the Q-Sys processor to produce outputs appropriate to targeted loudspeaker channels.

According to John Kellogg, senior director of corporate strategy and development at DTS, “The soundtrack mix for our demonstrations was made by Marti Humphrey and Chris Jacobson at The Dub Stage, Burbank [via a 35-speaker/26.1-channel system], using MDA Creator, a Pro Tools plug-in that facilitates the mixing and creation [on the facility’s Avid D-Control console] of an MDA interoperable file. That single mix as an MDA object-based audio file was wrapped into a DCP file, and played back on the Q-Sys cinema system in the AMC theatre. A major advantage for film studios and post facilities is that a single mix can service many different theatres and loudspeaker configurations.”

Like other object-based immersive surround formats, Multi-Dimensional Audio effectively models a variable number of sound objects located in three-dimensional space, rather than sounds that are assigned to a specific channel or loudspeaker configuration. For MDA, each object — or group of objects — is assigned its own identity, allowing them to be addressed individually during the re-recording process. Conventional PCM-format files are used to re-record and deliver the soundtrack, with metadata that contains information about where in 3D space each object is located.

During these specially staged presentations, the MDA Group first replayed the object-based mix mapped to all of the AMC theatre’s 48.1 channels. “We then mapped the same mix to the two immersive speaker configurations currently in use [Atmos and Auro-3D],” Kellogg continues, “then to a 7.1-speaker arrangement with four height speakers — 11.1 — and lastly in conventional 7.1. This capability shows that MDA is fully scalable, meaning that the same mix maps up and down with excellent results to all speaker arrangements; it is also affordable and available from multiple vendors. Unlike ‘fixed’ immersive speaker systems, we used the same MDA mix and the same file mapping via Q-Sys to all of those different speaker arrangements to illustrate that MDA is flexible; it does not matter how many speakers are in the room or where they are located.”

The cost of the AMC16 test-bed installation has been underwritten jointly by DTS, Barco, Doremi, QSC and AMC. “In exchange, the MDA Cinema Proponents Group can use the facility outside normal exhibition hours two days per week for internal testing and on-site demonstrations,” explains Paul Brink, QSC’s cinema sales engineer.










_To date, Dolby Atmos immersive sound systems have been installed or are planned for over 450 movie theaters worldwide, as well as more than 55 post facilities. Recent Academy Awards include sound mixing and editing Oscars for _Gravity_, which was re-recorded in Atmos immersive soundtrack at Warner Bros.’ Burbank facility, and the Oscar-winning animated feature _Frozen_, which was dubbed in native Dolby Atmos at Disney Digital Studio Services’ Stage A, Burbank._


Other organizations are pursuing alternate ways of carrying immersive surround to consumers. Founded in 2007, Iosono was the first company to offer an object-based playback format based on wave-field synthesis using up to 128 data tracks to relay encoded sound to movie theatres. “To date, we have installed multiple systems in Europe and more recently in China,” says CEO Olaf Stepputat. “The next Iosono cinema multiplex will open in August this year.” In the UK, the Higher Order Ambisonics Group is extending the original full-sphere Ambisonics surround-sound technique that is said to enable rotation, reflection, movement and upmixing from legacy formats such as 5.1-channel mixes. NHK, Japan’s state broadcaster, has been developing a 22.2-channel system, consisting of nine ceiling speakers, including a center overhead channel, 10 surround speakers and three channels across the foot of the screen to reproduce footsteps, car noises and falling objects — with a matrix for downmixing to legacy loudspeaker layouts.

Once the current immersive audio standards effort concludes, the SMPTE technical committee will consider the future ability to combine conventional channel-based mixes with object-based immersive mixes. In this way, a legacy 5.1/7.1 cinema processor could be retrofitted with new firmware to accept an immersive soundtrack and render it to appropriate loudspeaker channels. In this scenario, techniques would need to be developed for mixing natively in an immersive format and then, while collapsing that mix to 5.1 or 7.1, capturing the appropriate vector-based metadata for the various object-based elements. The same metadata could be used by a suitably equipped cinema processor to re-render the original immersive mix in real time to any channel-based playback system. “But we need to take that process one step at a time,” Vessa advises, “rather than boil the ocean.”

*Post-Production Tools for MDA Mixes*

Several manufacturers are working on post-production tools for native MDA mixing. In addition to the DTS’ MDA Creator plug-in for Avid Pro Tools, MOTU Digital Performer, Apple Logic Pro, Steinberg Cubase and Nuendo workstations, Fairlight’s 3DAW audio production platform enables sound designers to mix object-based audio in three-dimensional space and monitor the result on any MDA playback configuration. 3DAW is based on the firm’s Crystal Core Media processor, with on-screen 3D panning via a DAW plug-in available in RTAS, AU and VST formats, as well as monitoring functions. MDA Creator is also said to be backwards compatible with legacy systems, allowing post facilities to export into any number of channel-based configurations, including stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1+2 and DTS Neo:X. “Fairlight is also heavily involved in NHK's 22.2 vision, and can produce audio in this advanced format,” adds Tino Fibaek, Fairlight’s chief technology officer. “At NAB 2014, we will unveil support for additional 3D/object-based formats.”

Auro Technologies’ Auro-3D Authoring Tools is a set of plug-ins offering panning and simultaneous mixing to multiple formats, including an MDA-compatible export mode. “Our 3D mixing tools [use] vector-based panning and internal virtual bussing, which made the addition of MDA, or any format SMPTE decides upon, a simple effort,” says CTO Bert Van Daele. The plug-ins are available in AAX2 (64-bit), VST and AU format.










_Barco reports that currently there are 150 Auro-3D systems in theatres — and 270 committed — together with 23 post facilities worldwide._


USL also is working on an extension of MDA playback. “Our implementation is unique in that the object-based audio is rendered, using patent-pending techniques, to channel-based [outputs] within the media block,” states company president Jack Cashin. This technique is said to offer three advantages: No outboard rendering system is needed (in many cases, a theatre’s existing sound processor can be used); the audio remains encrypted or forensically marked when outside the media block to prevent pirating; and existing systems can be updated to render object-based soundtracks. Since current hardware is limited to 16 audio output channels, of which two are used for visually- and hearing-impaired material, USL’s demonstrations render the MDA material to 13.1 outputs. It is reported that USL will be able to adapt its in-development system to the new SMPTE standard when it is finalized.

But the SMPTE process is not a contest between two competing technology companies. As Dean Bullock, director of Cinema Technology Strategy at Dolby Laboratories, explains: “Although the details of the work, by SMPTE rule, are not public, it is very clear from the active participation of several members with differing perspectives that this process will require very deliberate consideration of technologies from all of the 25CSS members. Inputs to the SMPTE group inform the result, but do not define its final output.”

“Our target for the SMPTE TC-25CSS inter-operability of immersive sound systems in digital cinema is three-fold,” Vessa concludes. “First, we want to develop a common, standardized file format, where one immersive audio mix made on any dub stage can be replayed through any immersive sound system with any number of playback channels. Secondly, we are developing an updated architecture for digital cinema, with standardized connectors and pipelines to facilitate immersive sound systems. Finally, we are looking at the calibration of playback systems to ensure consistency between the re-recording stage and a movie theatre.

“The development of a single interoperable standard for immersive audio soundtrack delivery with corresponding standards to insure interoperability between immersive sound systems is a noble and challenging goal,” he concedes. “But I absolutely believe we can get there.”

_Mel Lambert has been intimately involved with production industries on both sides of the Atlantic for more years than he cares to remember. He is a principal of Media&Marketing, a Los Angeles-based consulting service, and can be reached at_ [email protected].


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lexiconthx said:


> What did Denon and Marantz cut of basic Atmos processing? I was under the impression they were using a extra dsp for the audussy processing. I could be wrong though...


From the information I'm reading, they can't do the 9.1.2 configuration if you happen to have front wide surrounds. The Onkyo's can because they dropped Audyssey and went with a very limited in-house solution.


----------



## lexiconthx

Dan Hitchman said:


> From the information I'm reading, they can't do the 9.1.2 configuration if you happen to have front wide surrounds. The Onkyo's can because they dropped Audyssey and went with a very limited in-house solution.


Kind of seems like these first gen receivers are all cutting some place... Kind of a bummer. I'm planning on doing a 7.2.4 7 speakers, 2 subs and 4 ceiling so this may be ok for me... More concerned with amplifier quality in Marantz and Denon... My current integra (50.4) is a heavy beast and has great amps. I notice a big improvement with Audussy also. Use a similar Yamaha and returned it the same day because it sounded awful which I think was mostly because of it's poor room correction. Bass was extremely weak on that receiver. Will be interesting to see how these sound when they come out.


----------



## wse

Does any one knows the DSP chip they use and how they compare? Texas Instruments, Cirrus, Freescale

http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/dsp/overview.page

http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/cs4970xx_family.html?prodKey=CS4970xx

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=DSP56720


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> From the information I'm reading, they can't do the 9.1.2 configuration if you happen to have front wide surrounds. The Onkyo's can because they dropped Audyssey and went with a very limited in-house solution.


Do you have a reliable source for that claim or is that speculation on your part?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Do you have a reliable source for that claim or is that speculation on your part?


According to the Twice article: "Presumably, the Denon AVR and Marantz preamp processor will also drive the 9.1.2 configuration supported by Dolby Atmos, but D+M was verifying compatibility at post time." 

Unless I overlooked some new information, I haven't read that D+M has confirmed its implementation of Atmos can do 9.1.2.

There seems to be some correlation between processor power, software coding, and which features can be implemented on each piece of gear. I would assume that having a full Audyssey calibration system engaged (even if it is channel based) with Dolby Atmos rendering (like on Denon/Marantz's gear) really puts a strain on current chips for consumer grade gear at a certain price point.


----------



## Scott Simonian

This s**t can't get here fast enough.


----------



## mastermaybe

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, that's pretty harsh; do you care to name any names? I don't believe this forum uses any sort of vetting process, so anyone is free to offer his opinion--well-founded or not. As with most open-source material, it is up to the reader to evaluate the reliability of the information. But if you would like to correct any misinformation that has been posted, I for one would be grateful for the edification.
> 
> 
> 
> (1) No . . .. and (2) yes. Half the fun of a new toy is in the anticipation.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there would have been no point in creating or following this thread until now.
> 
> Some of us do not feel "hamstringed"; rather we are enjoying the discussion and hope that it will continue.


1. No, I'm not naming names because that would be childish and more importantly, unnecessary- besides cornering the market on the obvious.

2. Yeah, everyone can say what they want to a degree- precisely the point: but are there no limits to useful dialog or is everything on the table? Wait, don't answer that.

3. 90+% of the discussion has been fine and that is not the issue- complete straw-man, there. I made it plain what is getting tiring to read in this thread and others: the point has been made dozens of times, let it lie.

4. Anticipation and discussion is one thing, baseless speculation, heresay, and bashing yet-to-exist products on a sliver of knowledge and experience is quite another and doesn't enrich the conversation-- I'm confident almost everyone here would agree.

But I guess it's foolish of me to continue as I know it won't stop the pi$$-party.

So then, carry on: after all, we can basically say whatever we want, right?

Rock on.

James


----------



## mastermaybe

FilmMixer said:


> Do you have a reliable source for that claim or is that speculation on your part?


Take a wild guess.

"Well, I haven't heard anything to the contrary so it must be correct."

Something like the teapot orbiting the earth syndrome.

James


----------



## chi_guy50

Steve*MH said:


> So to be clear; if I want to run a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration; I need to look at the Onkyo 1030 or 3030 receivers - Correct? (With the 1030 - an additional 2 channel amp is needed for the eleven powered channels)





chi_guy50 said:


> I think it's too early to answer this question definitively; for one thing, I believe I read that Denon could possibly allow a 9.1.2 configuration on the X7200 or even the X5200 with a future firmware update.





Dan Hitchman said:


> According to the Twice article: "Presumably, the Denon AVR and Marantz preamp processor will also drive the 9.1.2 configuration supported by Dolby Atmos, but D+M was verifying compatibility at post time."
> 
> Unless I overlooked some new information, I haven't read that D+M has confirmed its implementation of Atmos can do 9.1.2.


I knew that I had read of the potential for a 9.1.2 Atmos configuration on Denon's new models somewhere but couldn't remember the source. It was this article published on June 23, from which you draw your quote.

I wouldn't infer too much from D+M's lack of confirmation at this point; they really haven't officially released diddly yet regarding detailed specs on the X5200/X7200. Which allows us to continue to deliberate the possibilities, to the exquisite chagrin of some.


----------



## mp5475

Do you guys have opinion on what type of speakers to use for the ceiling speakers? Any will do? Dipole or quadpole? Or just wait to see what manufactures come up with for Atmos?


----------



## lexiconthx

mp5475 said:


> Do you guys have opinion on what type of speakers to use for the ceiling speakers? Any will do? Dipole or quadpole? Or just wait to see what manufactures come up with for Atmos?


I would like to get speakers from the same family as the rest of my speakers. I am running B&W so plan on going with something they make that is timber matched although this may not be 100% necessary I would imagine it would have some benefit. Would think standard front firing speakers would be best as you want to push the sound down from the Ceiling. Notice the speakers in the Atmos theater I go to are regular speakers they are just mounted to the ceiling.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Simple. Just stick with monopole. Same as your mains.

Coax is even better choice if you have the option.


----------



## J_P_A

Do we have enough information to make any decisions about where the ceiling speakers should go in relation to the seating? Should they go 1/3 of the way from the sides? Any information on multiple rows? What about multiple rows of side surrounds? Do we mach the ceiling speakers with the side surrounds plus two more ceiling speakers forward of the seating?

I've seen the few block diagrams floating around, but they are not particularly detailed. I've also read the Dolby ATMOS specifications white paper for commercial theaters, but I'm not sure how that will translate to smaller home theater space.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Simple. Just stick with monopole. Same as your mains.
> 
> Coax is even better choice if you have the option.


Some of the literature for the newer Atmos "friendly" professional speakers talk about "wide dispersal" patterns. Models like the Klipsch surrounds use a kind of dual driver/bipolar configured tweeter assembly with a single woofer.


----------



## asarose247

if we're patient . .
maybe there will be "suggested" min/max spacing for L/R in each row of ceiling speakers from front to back based of criteria of speaker (monopole/ FR and SPL) , for which there will also be a suggested min/max spacing between a yet to be determined number of rows (based on suggested min/max room sizes) and suggested angles wrt to MLP or rows of seating and the chip can be smart enough to unify and do what we want. (which is WE WANT IT ALL and WE WANT IT NOW!)
the block diagrams are a bare start for the possibilities but as previously stated, 
what type of CE driven econo mode/implementtion are we going to get?


when and where is this CEDA (?) going to be? exactly . . .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asarose247 said:


> when and where is this CEDA (?) going to be? exactly . . .


Sept. 10-13th in Denver, Colorado. 

Anyone know if someone outside the industry, like me, can sign up to attend? I would LOOOOVE to go this time.


----------



## ahmedreda

Received my .4 speakers today. Going to wait for more details before installing them.


----------



## J_P_A

Patient???? September???? I don't have the first, and I hope I'm past being able to run anymore wire by the second.


----------



## chi_guy50

ahmedreda said:


> Received my .4 speakers today. Going to wait for more details before installing them.


Nice choice. I'm using the 80F/X-RT's (from the same series) as surrounds and they are fabulous.


----------



## Orbitron

New Blu-ray titles will have the Dolby Atmos. Can the studios also remaster older titles to include Atmos?


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Some of the literature for the newer Atmos "friendly" professional speakers talk about "wide dispersal" patterns. Models like the Klipsch surrounds use a kind of dual driver/bipolar configured tweeter assembly with a single woofer.


only the rs-42(II) use 1 woofer, the 52 and 62 use 2 woofers. wide dispersion patterns doesn't neccesarily mean wide radiating. besides that, the placement is in the corners and from bi-polar speakers you get sounds bouncing to the side-walls which to me doesn't benefit the soundfield for atmos and the positional soundfield they need to create.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> New Blu-ray titles will have the Dolby Atmos. Can the studios also remaster older titles to include Atmos?


If the original audio stems and individual sound elements are still available, sure they can. It's just like a fancier remix. Dolby experimented with the original (and best) "Die Hard" using Atmos.


----------



## DaJoJo

Orbitron said:


> New Blu-ray titles will have the Dolby Atmos. Can the studios also remaster older titles to include Atmos?


they can but probably won't as it involves a redo of the audio tracks. i think movies that have been in a atmos theater and have a object based master allready will be re-issued in blu-ray format atmos though, ther is a soon to come huge market for them. you can also use the avr's surroundprocessors to create a atmos alike soundfield for older movies.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> only the rs-42(II) use 1 woofer, the 52 and 62 use 2 woofers. wide dispersion patterns doesn't neccesarily mean wide radiating. besides that, the placement is in the corners and from bi-polar speakers you get sounds bouncing to the side-walls which to me doesn't benefit the soundfield for atmos and the positional soundfield they need to create.


From Klipsch's pro website, the VBAT surround models KPT-8-VB and KPT-12-VB have bipolar-_like_ tweeters that fire in different directions (maybe not as wide a swath as a true bipole) with a single woofer. They say they're designed for the new audio formats like Atmos. There is, however, a much larger three-way KPT-4350-MS for really large auditoriums with dual woofers and dual tweeters.


----------



## Ethan Ong

I'm just wondering.
Currently my set-up is 9.2 (i.e. 7.2 + front height).

If I were to use 5.2.4, does it mean that in future when playing a blu ray movie encoded with 7.1, I'll lose the rear surround effect?

Thanks.


----------



## markus767

Ethan Ong said:


> If I were to use 5.2.4, does it mean that in future when playing a blu ray movie encoded with 7.1, I'll lose the rear surround effect?


Yes. It will be redirected to the side surrounds.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Sevenfeet said:


> True, but Dolby also specifies what the "recommended" configuration is for commercial environments versus "minimum" So a theater might have a recommendation speaker number of 30 points while having a number of 19 speakers you could conceivably get away with. And I'm sure we'll see some residential processors before too long that go for the 19 number that will certainly be cheaper than a high end one that allows 32.
> 
> One other thing about Atmos I've been thinking about. The system will obviously be a boon to customer installers. But not everyone is going to have a setup that will allow Atmos. There's an assumption in every diagram I've seen that says that people all have flat ceilings in their theater rooms. Many of us have vaulted ceilings. That would pose problems for most in-ceiling speaker designs, even for ones that allow some manual direction of the drivers. And reflective speakers on the ground wouldn't work at all.
> 
> And I've seen theaters in a couple of friends' McMansions that are located at the top of the house, underneath the main roof gable. The problem here is that often the ceilings are designed to be a pointed gable system too, which is just like having a vaulted ceiling, except you have 2 or 4 vaults to deal with. A solution might be to add a flat ceiling to the design at some point....a barn style ceiling as it were. My bonus room where my theater is has such a ceiling which would make installing ceiling mounted speakers possible. It would be a larger construction job, but if you have the budget, it may make sense for some people.


Speakers mounted on drop tubes, so that the speakers are in the correct position.


----------



## Schwa

Ethan Ong said:


> I'm just wondering.
> Currently my set-up is 9.2 (i.e. 7.2 + front height).
> 
> If I were to use 5.2.4, does it mean that in future when playing a blu ray movie encoded with 7.1, I'll lose the rear surround effect?
> 
> Thanks.


That's the way I understand it. However, per Denon's speaker positioning documents, front height speakers (assuming you're using bookshelves or in-walls on or close to the front wall aimed at the listening position) aren't in the proper location or configuration for Atmos.

I also have a 7.2 setup with two traditional front height speakers. I'm going to install an additional two in-ceiling speakers directly above the MLP. I'll then essentially have two speaker configurations to choose from -- one that uses the traditional 7.2 + front height speakers for DPLIIz/DSX/Neo:X, and one that uses the traditional 7.2 + in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Schwa said:


> However, per Denon's speaker positioning documents, front height speakers (assuming you're using bookshelves or in-walls on or close to the front wall aimed at the listening position) aren't in the proper location or configuration for Atmos.


Denon's speaker positioning documents don't make sense when it comes to separating Height speakers (for Neo:X) from Top speakers (for Atmos). 

For example: Height speakers can have anywhere from 30° elevation to 45° elevation while Top speakers can have anywhere from 30° elevation to 55° elevation. That's some overlap! 

If the Denon document is to be believed, Atmos won't use a Height speaker mounted 45° up but will use a Top speaker mounted 45° up. Same speaker, same location.


----------



## Schwa

sdurani said:


> Denon's speaker positioning documents don't make sense when it comes to separating Height speakers (for Neo:X) from Top speakers (for Atmos).
> 
> For example: Height speakers can have anywhere from 30° elevation to 45° elevation while Top speakers can have anywhere from 30° elevation to 55° elevation. That's some overlap!
> 
> If the Denon document is to be believed, Atmos won't use a Height speaker mounted 45° up but will use a Top speaker mounted 45° up. Same speaker, same location.


They make sense to me because I assume that height speakers and top speakers won't be used (maybe installed, but not used) at the same time. I think this is a reasonable assumption to make because Denon's document shows more than 11 speaker positions but we know that even the top-of-the-line Denon can't control more than 11 speakers at a time. Plus, Atmos "top" speakers are supposed to be in-ceiling, down-firing whereas height speakers are more traditional on-wall, in-wall, or bookshelf speakers. Nor could you since height speakers are typically mounted on-wall/in-wall whereas top speakers are in-ceiling.

IMO the overlap in the recommended speaker locations allows for more placement flexibility while preserving acceptable performance. Just because there's an overlap doesn't mean that their recommendations aren't valid. Some common sense has to be applied when installing speakers. If you want to use both heights and top speakers, clearly you can't install them both in the same location.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thebland said:


> So much so fast. I've been redoing my room over the last few monthsn and I'm now redesigning my baffle wall, and height speaker placement SINCE THE ATMOS news.
> 
> I had all planned and designed for front heights in the baffle wall behind the screen but now, in my readings and consulting with my designer, going to bring those front heights forward of my screen and point down to main listening area.
> 
> Fun times but a headache as things are still getting sorted out and few have any experience with these new surround codecs.
> 
> And I see no SSPs coming out soon with ATMOS.
> 
> I've committed to LCRS AND FRONT HEIGHT speakers doing at least 110 db at the main listening area as the front heights will get full, LCR like signals at times rather than 100% ambient sounds.


I have been building new LCR's and planning the rebuilding of my front baffle wall. I also was going to install front height speakers, but like you, will now use the speakers ceiling mounted for Atmos. I have a small room and have to decide if I want 5.1.4 or 7.1.2.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sept. 10-13th in Denver, Colorado.
> 
> Anyone know if someone outside the industry, like me, can sign up to attend? I would LOOOOVE to go this time.


Info here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/1535239-forum-members-going-cedia-expo.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Info here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...p/1535239-forum-members-going-cedia-expo.html


Thanks! Happy 4th!


----------



## sdurani

Schwa said:


> They make sense to me because I assume that height speakers and top speakers won't be used (maybe installed, but not used) at the same time. I think this is a reasonable assumption to make because Denon's document shows more than 11 speaker positions but we know that even the top-of-the-line Denon can't control more than 11 speakers at a time.


Since Denon doesn't provide separate outputs for Heights and Tops, how would you switch between them?


Schwa said:


> Just because there's an overlap doesn't mean that their recommendations aren't valid.


It does mean that the distinction they're trying to make between Heights and Tops doesn't exist from 30° elevation to 45° elevation .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Since Denon doesn't provide separate outputs for Heights and Tops, how would you switch between them? It does mean that the distinction they're trying to make between Heights and Tops doesn't exist from 30° elevation to 45° elevation .


Why not just have top speakers that comply with Atmos? There are upscaling modes coming out that work with Atmos' speaker layout. Whether or not they will be included in these first gen products, is up for debate I guess. I just don't see the need for doubling up on ceiling speaker locations for Atmos and a post-processing sound format that is probably now outdated.


----------



## FilmMixer

DaJoJo said:


> they can but probably won't as it involves a redo of the audio tracks. i think movies that have been in a atmos theater and have a object based master allready will be re-issued in blu-ray format atmos though, ther is a soon to come huge market for them. you can also use the avr's surroundprocessors to create a atmos alike soundfield for older movies.


Almost no studio wants to go in and remix with out the creatives being involved..

Home Atmos also adds up mixing (like PLIIx...) 

From what I've heard of it, it's very impressive.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> *Almost no studio wants to go in and remix with out the creatives being involved*..
> 
> Home Atmos also adds up mixing (like PLIIx...)
> 
> From what I've heard of it, it's very impressive.


It's weird that they would think this about audio, but seem to have no problem doing unsupervised video transfers. In many instances the original intent is screwed up... especially with new color timings, contrast boosting, etc.


----------



## Kris Deering

FilmMixer said:


> Almost no studio wants to go in and remix with out the creatives being involved..
> 
> Home Atmos also adds up mixing (like PLIIx...)
> 
> From what I've heard of it, it's very impressive.


Are you planning on attending CEDIA this year?


----------



## FilmMixer

Kris Deering said:


> Are you planning on attending CEDIA this year?


Nope...

I'll be mixing away.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why not just have top speakers that comply with Atmos?


That's fine by me. A pair of speakers at 45° elevation would comply with placement for both Atmos and Neo:X (for those want to continue using DTS' surround processing).


----------



## Schwa

sdurani said:


> Since Denon doesn't provide separate outputs for Heights and Tops, how would you switch between them?


I asked JD about this since I want to run two different height/top speaker configurations: one 7.2 + middle tops for Atmos, and one 7.2 + front heights for DPLIIz/Neo:X/DSX. I'll be connecting a total of 11 speakers to my receiver but only using 9 at any given time. Here's what he told me:

_The actual configuration selection will be handled by the AMP ASSIGN setting as is currently done._

What is unclear at this point is whether the X7200W will be able to remember two separate speaker configurations at the same time; otherwise, in order to switch between the two configurations I intend to use, I'd have to change the AMP ASSIGN setting every time I want to switch speaker configurations. I can connect all 11 speakers to the receiver at the same time, but there are only 9 amplifiers, hence the need to use AMP ASSIGN every time I switch active speaker configurations. If I have to change the AMP ASSIGN setting, then I assume I'd have to re-run Audyssey, and that's a huge pain. The other alternative would be to use an external amp and provide power to all 11 speakers at once....this way I'd only have to run Audyssey once and it could measure all 11 speakers in one pass. Presumably the receiver would then be smart enough to use the proper speakers depending on the sound mode that's engaged. I'm guessing this is the way this will work, but I won't know for sure until the manuals are published.


----------



## joehonest

How well will Atmos work/sound with vaulted ceilings, the right side is about 10ft and the left is about 16ft ?
Would I need to in some way hang the needed speakers on the left side, do all speakers need to be the same height?


----------



## sdurani

Schwa said:


> What is unclear at this point is whether the X7200W will be able to remember two separate speaker configurations at the same time; otherwise, in order to switch between the two configurations I intend to use, I'd have to change the AMP ASSIGN setting every time I want to switch speaker configurations.


Even if Amp Assign worked the way you wanted, how are you going to switch between Height speakers and Top speakers when the X7200W only has connections (speaker level or pre-out) for a single pair of heights up front and a single pair of heights behind? Or are you going to forego doing 4 heights?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

joehonest said:


> How well will Atmos work/sound with vaulted ceilings, the right side is about 10ft and the left is about 16ft ?
> Would I need to in some way hang the needed speakers on the left side, do all speakers need to be the same height?


You need to use posts mounted to the ceiling to equalize the height of the speakers.


----------



## Schwa

sdurani said:


> Even if Amp Assign worked the way you wanted, how are you going to switch between Height speakers and Top speakers when the X7200W only has connections (speaker level or pre-out) for a single pair of heights up front and a single pair of heights behind? Or are you going to forego doing 4 heights?


I'm only going with two front heights and two in-ceiling (Atmos) tops. But I did ask JD how this would work, and this is what he said.


----------



## joehonest

Dan Hitchman said:


> You need to use posts mounted to the ceiling to equalize the height of the speakers.


That's what i thought, and running the wiring and in this case the worse part , man thats a alot of work for me!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

joehonest said:


> That's what i thought, and running the wiring and in this case the worse part , man thats a alot of work for me!


But probably oh, so worth it!


----------



## Tom Grooms

Dan Hitchman said:


> You need to use posts mounted to the ceiling to equalize the height of the speakers.


That would look ridiculous (imo). I'd try in-ceiling speakers and let the AVR adjust the distance.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tom Grooms said:


> That would look ridiculous (imo). I'd try in-ceiling speakers and let the AVR adjust the distance.


Not necessarily. The distance (and probably the angles) seem too severe for the AVR to adjust it. It would be very hard to aim the in-ceilings as well (plus, they wouldn't have the proper dispersion). Digital calibration software is notoriously bad at calculating sloped ceilings (that's why no commercial theaters have them... besides them being a ***** at getting good acoustics).


----------



## Tom Grooms

Oh I agree, it's less than ideal but I can't imagine how bad it would look. Not sure the cost would justify the results. Im sure Atmos is good but it can't be good enough to hang boxes from poles on a vaulted ceiling.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tom Grooms said:


> Oh I agree, it's less than ideal but I can't imagine how bad it would look. Not sure the cost would justify the results. In sure Atmos is good but it can't be good enough to hang boxes from poles on a vaulted ceiling.


I guess if you want object surround bad enough and this is the only room you have to work with. The posts and speakers can always be painted white, if the theater system is in a multi-use room.

You often times have to get creative with vaulted ceilings when you hang ceiling fans, for instance.


----------



## SoundChex

_Perhaps I missed a post somewhere...?_ but as I look at this (_unattributed, but *Denon*-ish in appearance_) graphic, am I correct in thinking that the five pairs of elevated speakers shown constitute the complete *10* *Atmos* ceiling locations to which Dolby has made reference, even though two pairs are show at the intersection of wall and ceiling? While it seems like the *Atmos* _mass market_ implementation is "limited" to max *four* height speakers (designated pairs *H1* and *H2*) there appears to be some flexibility in the algorithm as to where they are placed, and perhaps different elections made by each CEM. For example, this is what would have allowed *Yamaha* to _retask_ the existing _on-wall_ *Front and Rear Presence* speaker pairs on the *RX-A2040|RX-A3040* as *Atmos Front and Rear Height* speaker pairs...?!


----------



## JediFonger

i just read that twoce article sounds like this
iteration atmos is merely a stop gap with more evolution to arrive later on


----------



## Schwa

SoundChex said:


> _Perhaps I missed a post somewhere...?_ but as I look at this (_unattributed, but *Denon*-ish in appearance_) graphic, am I correct in thinking that the five pairs of elevated speakers shown constitute the complete *10* *Atmos* ceiling locations to which Dolby has made reference, even though two pairs are show at the intersection of wall and ceiling? While it seems like the *Atmos* _mass market_ implementation is "limited" to max *four* height speakers (designated pairs *H1* and *H2*) there appears to be some flexibility in the algorithm as to where they are placed, and perhaps different elections made by each CEM. For example, this is what would have allowed *Yamaha* to _retask_ the existing _on-wall_ *Front and Rear Presence* speaker pairs on the *RX-A2040|RX-A3040* as *Atmos Front and Rear Height* speaker pairs...?!


In the Denon thread JD explains that there are only six possible Atmos "height" speakers and those are in "top" positions. If you choose to use 4 ceiling speakers, you'd place them in the top-front and top-rear positions. If you choose to use 2 ceiling speakers, you'd place them in the top-middle position. The other height speakers in the diagram would be used for other sound modes like DSX, DPLIIz, or DTS Neo:X and not Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> ...am I correct in thinking that the five pairs of elevated speakers shown constitute the complete *10* *Atmos* ceiling locations to which Dolby has made reference...?


Seems that way to me, even if initial AVRs are only acknowledging three of the five pairs.


----------



## DoDaLeCa

Onkyo has the Atmos speaker module (sitting on top of existing speaker) to bounce sound off of the ceiling, no specs and not sure if price stated is each or per pair. They were on the Canadian Onkyo site but now the picture has disappeared.

If I get a Dolby Atmos receiver in the near future then I may try these.

http://www.eiki.com/usa/products/onkyo/speakers/skh-410


----------



## action_jackson

Sevenfeet said:


> And I've seen theaters in a couple of friends' McMansions that are located at the top of the house, underneath the main roof gable. The problem here is that often the ceilings are designed to be a pointed gable system too, which is just like having a vaulted ceiling, except you have 2 or 4 vaults to deal with. A solution might be to add a flat ceiling to the design at some point....a barn style ceiling as it were. My bonus room where my theater is has such a ceiling which would make installing ceiling mounted speakers possible. It would be a larger construction job, but if you have the budget, it may make sense for some people.


Soundtube makes some speakers that are hung by wire. These may be ideal for vailted ceilings and such. I'm not sure how well they will match up to other speakers in the system though. 

Has anybody had any experience with these?


----------



## DaJoJo

i still don't get the idea of atmos having ceiling speakers in the middle of ceiling in the home version... only auro-3D has a VOG (voice of god) middle of ceiling speaker in hometheater setup. only pro setups have ceiling speakers for atmos coz of the large room they are going to be in. that avr like denon and yamaha have the option to put the heights in the ceiling downfacing in the corners doesn't mean they do the ceiling middle speaker output for atmos like in a theater. atmos is 2 layer vs auro-3D 3 layer sound. auro-3D for the home does support the middle VOG ceilingspeaker, home atmos does not.


----------



## DaJoJo

action_jackson said:


> Soundtube makes some speakers that are hung by wire. These may be ideal for vailted ceilings and such. I'm not sure how well they will match up to other speakers in the system though.
> Has anybody had any experience with these?


you be wanting the same speakers as the rears , timbre matched. you can hang any speaker on a wire or pole from the ceiling, so that can't be an issue.


----------



## bkeeler10

action_jackson said:


> Soundtube makes some speakers that are hung by wire. These may be ideal for vailted ceilings and such. I'm not sure how well they will match up to other speakers in the system though.
> 
> Has anybody had any experience with these?


I work for SoundTube. Just in case you have any questions 

I have to agree though that ideally you would have timbre-matched speakers all around. While SoundTube's premium line of pendant speakers is a good-sounding speaker, it probably wouldn't be ideal except in an all-SoundTube system.


----------



## Skylinestar

FilmMixer said:


> Almost no studio wants to go in and remix with out the creatives being involved..
> 
> Home Atmos also adds up mixing (like PLIIx...)
> 
> From what I've heard of it, it's very impressive.


I think James Cameron will release Titanic and Avatar with Atmos in order to get more sales.


----------



## Skylinestar

DaJoJo said:


> i still don't get the idea of atmos having ceiling speakers in the middle of ceiling in the home version... only auro-3D has a VOG (voice of god) middle of ceiling speaker in hometheater setup. only pro setups have ceiling speakers for atmos coz of the large room they are going to be in. that avr like denon and yamaha have the option to put the heights in the ceiling downfacing in the corners doesn't mean they do the ceiling middle speaker output for atmos like in a theater. atmos is 2 layer vs auro-3D 3 layer sound. auro-3D for the home does support the middle VOG ceilingspeaker, home atmos does not.


This reminds me of IMAX center height speaker. What does it do?


----------



## Orbitron

Existing Blu-rays in Dolby True HD can be played in Atmos mode, a derived upmixing. Not applicable to DTS-HD MA?


----------



## plissken99

This may have been mentioned already, but this is an epic massive thread. I'm actually in the position of designing a theater room from scratch, I'll be doing pre-wiring next month or month after. I understand Atmos is scalable between as few as 5 speakers to 32 depending on room size. 


*I need to know how many speakers to wire for a 15x22ft room and where to put them.*


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Existing Blu-rays in Dolby True HD can be played in Atmos mode, a derived upmixing. Not applicable to DTS-HD MA?


If it's like Dolby ProLogic then of course it is. I'm sure it will be format agnostic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

plissken99 said:


> This may have been mentioned already, but this is an epic massive thread. I'm actually in the position of designing a theater room from scratch, I'll be doing pre-wiring next month or month after. I understand Atmos is scalable between as few as 5 speakers to 32 depending on room size.
> 
> 
> *I need to know how many speakers to wire for a 15x22ft room and where to put them.*


This will seem like a terse reply, but you're in the same boat as practically everyone else who doesn't work for Dolby. You'll have to wait for more information from the people who designed the format. We're only at the preliminary guessing stage right now. 

There was supposed to be more announcements prior to CEDIA in September. Maybe we'll get more details without yet another bout of wondering, and you'll be able to start planning and wiring.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. Smart move for any Atmos fan would be to wait.


----------



## plissken99

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. Smart move for any Atmos fan would be to wait.


Not terse at all, I get it. I'm actually thankful there's no hard timeline for building the room yet. Actually I'm in Denver, someone who works for AVS offered to get me into Cedia this year, now I've got all the more reason to go!


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> This will seem like a terse reply, but you're in the same boat as practically everyone else who doesn't work for Dolby. You'll have to wait for more information from the people who designed the format. We're only at the preliminary guessing stage right now.
> 
> There was supposed to be more announcements prior to CEDIA in September. Maybe we'll get more details without yet another bout of wondering, and you'll be able to start planning and wiring.


Hey Snake, wouldn't hurt to have an acoustic analysis of the room done before you build the room. With the inclusion of Atmos, getting everything from 2 channel and beyond just got a wee bit more complicated. I used Rives Audio for my home theater, worked out great.


----------



## plissken99

Orbitron said:


> Hey Snake, wouldn't hurt to have an acoustic analysis of the room done before you build the room. With the inclusion of Atmos, getting everything from 2 channel and beyond just got a wee bit more complicated. I used Rives Audio for my home theater, worked out great.


Good call, do it right from the get go. I went to rivesaudio.com and they do have "dealers" in Colorado. The basement will be the theater room, so they can analyze before the room even gets framed?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

plissken99 said:


> Not terse at all, I get it. I'm actually thankful there's no hard timeline for building the room yet. Actually I'm in Denver, someone who works for AVS offered to get me into Cedia this year, now I've got all the more reason to go!


I'm just north of you. I'm thinking of going myself, though it will probably have to be on Saturday, the last day of the event. Too bad they don't do these conventions over the weekend.


----------



## Orbitron

plissken99 said:


> Good call, do it right from the get go. I went to rivesaudio.com and they do have "dealers" in Colorado. The basement will be the theater room, so they can analyze before the room even gets framed?


Yes, every inch of the room gets looked at from the dimensions of your chair to the depth of a window ledge.

I'll add this nugget since we're talking about Atmos and ceiling sound - while i only have a 5.1 set up in the den, there is a scene in Master and Commander where i hear footsteps running across the ceiling, very clear, very strong. Point being, a well built room to an acoustic analysis, highly rewarding.


----------



## DaJoJo

Skylinestar said:


> This reminds me of IMAX center height speaker. What does it do?


IMAX is using a phantom speaker idea that create a wide soundstage and is equal for all seats. they use a lot of fullrange speakers with a huge amps section and a special post-production with bigger bandwidth and calibrated speaker timings so u can hear exactly where a sound is. it gets a daily finetune of all equipment and is monitored by imax to make sure it performs at their standards.the center height speaker is used to get center sounds to the public in the rear. it is using a acoustic model that is still from 1 layer. atmos heights is sorta doing the same, but has 2 layers and helps enhance the sides like the 2 rears do for 7.1 a phantom sound that is actually played to a real speaker. auro-3D ceiling speaker has a separate channel (3th layer) to add to the whole soundfield and makes u hear sounds from above (hence the VOG voice of god name) or in case of some music-performance it re-creates the sound bounced to and from the ceiling. sorta like the sound u hear in a church. all have their own way of creating a 3D soundstage.


----------



## yadfgp

Quick question...........!!!!!!!!

Has anyone here actually heard Atmos in use?

I'm digging through post after post just trying to find someone that has and I can't find anyone after like 10 pages and I'm getting sick of looking. Tons and tons of posts on setups and everything else. But it doesn't seem as though anyone has actually experienced Atmos.

So please for the love of God, has anyone here actually watched a movie in Atmos anywhere and can share their experience?

I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks.


----------



## plissken99

Orbitron said:


> Yes, every inch of the room gets looked at from the dimensions of your chair to the depth of a window ledge.
> 
> I'll add this nugget since we're talking about Atmos and ceiling sound - while i only have a 5.1 set up in the den, there is a scene in Master and Commander where i hear footsteps running across the ceiling, very clear, very strong. Point being, a well built room to an acoustic analysis, highly rewarding.


 I've always wanted to do that. I've had several theater rooms, all in rent houses, so I make do. This will be my 1st opportunity for acoustic perfection.  Did it cost an arm and a leg?


----------



## plissken99

yadfgp said:


> Quick question...........!!!!!!!!
> 
> Has anyone here actually heard Atmos in use?
> 
> I'm digging through post after post just trying to find someone that has and I can't find anyone after like 10 pages and I'm getting sick of looking. Tons and tons of posts on setups and everything else. But it doesn't seem as though anyone has actually experienced Atmos.
> 
> So please for the love of God, has anyone here actually watched a movie in Atmos anywhere and can share their experience?
> 
> I'd really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks.


I saw The Hobbit and Live Free or Die Hard in theaters with Atmos. The Hobbit was especially impressive, definitely the most immersive experience I've ever had. Die Hard had good effects, the helicopter circling in the last scene was particularly good, sadly the theater had the volume too low, a common offense these days.


----------



## marky301067

yadfgp said:


> Quick question...........!!!!!!!!
> 
> Has anyone here actually heard Atmos in use?
> 
> I'm digging through post after post just trying to find someone that has and I can't find anyone after like 10 pages and I'm getting sick of looking. Tons and tons of posts on setups and everything else. But it doesn't seem as though anyone has actually experienced Atmos.
> 
> So please for the love of God, has anyone here actually watched a movie in Atmos anywhere and can share their experience?
> 
> I'd really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks.


I'm off to see Transformers later on this afternoon in my local Atmos theatre, here's hoping it lives up to the hype! 



This is pretty cool below, if you want an insight on how they implemented Atmos with Transformers: Age of Extinction.

http://www.soundworkscollection.com/videos/the-sound-of-transformers-age-of-extinction?utm_source=July+2014+-+Transformers+4&utm_campaign=July+2014+Newsletter+-+Transformers+4&utm_medium=email


----------



## nucky

yadfgp said:


> Quick question...........!!!!!!!!
> 
> Has anyone here actually heard Atmos in use?
> 
> I'm digging through post after post just trying to find someone that has and I can't find anyone after like 10 pages and I'm getting sick of looking. Tons and tons of posts on setups and everything else. But it doesn't seem as though anyone has actually experienced Atmos.
> 
> So please for the love of God, has anyone here actually watched a movie in Atmos anywhere and can share their experience?
> 
> I'd really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks.


I heard it yesterday, it was the new transformers it sounded ok, but not that impressed. It's not in the same league as my 5.1 home set up.


----------



## Mastiff

nucky said:


> I heard it yesterday, it was the new transformers it sounded ok, but not that impressed. It's not in the same league as my 5.1 home set up.


And here they say the irony generation has gone out of fashion...but one man just won't give up!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why not just have top speakers that comply with Atmos? There are upscaling modes coming out that work with Atmos' speaker layout. Whether or not they will be included in these first gen products, is up for debate I guess. I just don't see the need for doubling up on ceiling speaker locations for Atmos and a post-processing sound format that is probably now outdated.


That's my thinking too. I am repurposing my existing height speakers, which I use all the time with PLIIz and sometimes Neo:X, to Atmos top speakers. My feeling is that once I have Atmos, I won't find PLIIz and/or Neo:X very fulfilling. And in any event, Atmos upmixing will, I am sure, be at least as good as the current PLIIz/Neo:X upmixing. In fact, I can't really see why Dolby would even continue with PLIIz once Atmos becomes widely available.


----------



## Orbitron

plissken99 said:


> I've always wanted to do that. I've had several theater rooms, all in rent houses, so I make do. This will be my 1st opportunity for acoustic perfection.  Did it cost an arm and a leg?


You can do entry level or kick it up, let us know how it works out with Atmos.
http://www.rivesaudio.com/services/servframe1.html


----------



## sdurani

yadfgp said:


> So please for the love of God, has anyone here actually watched a movie in Atmos anywhere and can share their experience?


Here around the Los Angeles area there are about 15 Atmos-equipped theatres within driving distance. I've seen over two dozen movies in Atmos over the last couple years, which isn't a lot considering some months have 4-5 Atmos releases. 

It still comes down to the mix. A handful of the movies I've seen really highlighted the unique capabilities of Atmos (smoother panning, precise placement, overhead imaging). The rest sound like something that could have been done as discrete 9.1 or 11.1 mixes. But that's still a step up from 5.1 or 7.1 mixes. 

There's no mistaking an immersive 3D bubble of sound compared to a 2D ring of sound around you. Even on mediocre mixes, Atmos still starts from that advantage.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

yadfgp said:


> Quick question...........!!!!!!!!
> 
> Has anyone here actually heard Atmos in use?
> 
> I'm digging through post after post just trying to find someone that has and I can't find anyone after like 10 pages and I'm getting sick of looking. Tons and tons of posts on setups and everything else. But it doesn't seem as though anyone has actually experienced Atmos.
> 
> So please for the love of God, has anyone here actually watched a movie in Atmos anywhere and can share their experience?
> 
> I'd really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks.


The best mix I've heard so far is "Gravity." A really, really impressive example of what you _cannot_ do with typical channel based surround formats. Every speaker in the auditorium was utilized.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nucky said:


> I heard it yesterday, it was the new transformers it sounded ok, but not that impressed. It's not in the same league as my 5.1 home set up.


You probably went to a theater that was playing the wrong track or played it too loud, so that the horn speakers started getting screechy. Everyone who has gone to see Transformers 4 has mentioned how awesome it sounded in Atmos (though, they can't all say the same for the movie itself).


----------



## Schwa

Hey guys, there is a theatrical Atmos thread FWIW. I don't mind the slight derailment here, but there's a WEALTH of useful information and insight over there.


----------



## nucky

Dan Hitchman said:


> You probably went to a theater that was playing the wrong track or played it too loud, so that the horn speakers started getting screechy. Everyone who has gone to see Transformers 4 has mentioned how awesome it sounded in Atmos (though, they can't all say the same for the movie itself).


I said it sounded ok but compared to my set up it has not got a look in. And it was the right sound format, if I had to compare it to any other cinema well yes it was very good, but it did not blow me away.


----------



## action_jackson

DaJoJo said:


> you be wanting the same speakers as the rears , timbre matched. you can hang any speaker on a wire or pole from the ceiling, so that can't be an issue.


I was just suggesting these based on looks and ease of mounting because they are designed to be hung like those pendant lights. They would have a much higher WAF as well compared to a hanging box.



bkeeler10 said:


> I work for SoundTube. Just in case you have any questions
> 
> I have to agree though that ideally you would have timbre-matched speakers all around. While SoundTube's premium line of pendant speakers is a good-sounding speaker, it probably wouldn't be ideal except in an all-SoundTube system.


Cool, thanks for chiming in! I don't have vaulted ceilings myself, just trying to come up with a solution for those that do. Does Soundtube have in-wall or on-wall speakers that are timber matched to the pendants?


----------



## plissken99

Orbitron said:


> You can do entry level or kick it up, let us know how it works out with Atmos.
> http://www.rivesaudio.com/services/servframe1.html


Hmm, not as cheap as I'd hoped, not as bad as I'd feared, perfect. 


Another headache inducing thought about Dolby Atmos, I was so proud when I added the Emotiva XPA-5 amp a few years ago, the thought of buying amps for up to 32 speakers... yikes.


----------



## Orbitron

plissken99 said:


> Hmm, not as cheap as I'd hoped, not as bad as I'd feared, perfect.
> 
> 
> Another headache inducing thought about Dolby Atmos, I was so proud when I added the Emotiva XPA-5 amp a few years ago, the thought of buying amps for up to 32 speakers... yikes.


4 of these and you're covered.
https://www.nuforce.com/index.php?o...=category&id=51:multi-channel-amps&Itemid=342


----------



## kbarnes701

plissken99 said:


> Hmm, not as cheap as I'd hoped, not as bad as I'd feared, perfect.
> 
> 
> Another headache inducing thought about Dolby Atmos, I was so proud when I added the Emotiva XPA-5 amp a few years ago, the thought of buying amps for up to 32 speakers... yikes.


You can't use 32 speakers (unless you have a real cinema)


----------



## kbarnes701

Orbitron said:


> 4 of these and you're covered.
> https://www.nuforce.com/index.php?o...=category&id=51:multi-channel-amps&Itemid=342


Wow. They are cheap!


----------



## asarose247

re post #514 
Last Wednesday I went to the Kirkorian ATMOS in Buena Park for T4 in 3D. all for $8.50.
there were only 3 other people there.
I got my favorite geometrically oriented' viewing position
Visually, that is transfixing stuff, the passive glasses very user friendly.
I've also seen AVATAR in a 2D to 3D "up-vert? using my Panasonic BR on the Mitsy, using active glasses. (Dimensioanl optics) and i tried other 2D flicks as well. 
I need a copy of Gravity to play around with.
The passive 3d seems to work better with my trifocals. also lighter (no rechargeable batteries)
But the SOUND ! THAT'S what i want . . . .
who knew (?) that adding speakers on the ceiling would "elevate" the audio experience to a whole new dimension . . .
oh yeah, DOLBY did . . ., 
So let's hope for a good full bodied, adaptive, and SMART HT AVR implementation
I've already got the geometry and speakers for the ceiling layout

Wait for it . . . .


----------



## antoniobiz1

kbarnes701 said:


> You can't use 32 speakers (unless you have a real cinema)


Why do you say so? Dolby says you can, and Trinnov introduced a 32 channel processor.


----------



## kbarnes701

antoniobiz1 said:


> Why do you say so? Dolby says you can, and Trinnov introduced a 32 channel processor.


Ah yes - I had forgotten about the Trinnov - good catch. I was thinking of the 'lesser' Denons, Onkyos, Pioneers etc.


----------



## plissken99

Yeah I think 32 would be overkill for anyone without a crazy massive room, 11.2 should be an elegant sufficiency. Considering Atmos isn't really 32 discrete channels, it just uses however many speakers you have to create a 3D soundscape. That's for the links to those amps Orbitron, I'll keep that in favorites! I'm thinking the Emotiva powering the 5 main channels and the NuForce MCA-18 for the rest.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

plissken99 said:


> Yeah I think 32 would be overkill for anyone without a crazy massive room, 11.2 should be an elegant sufficiency. Considering Atmos isn't really 32 discrete channels, it just uses however many speakers you have to create a 3D soundscape. That's for the links to those amps Orbitron, I'll keep that in favorites! I'm thinking the Emotiva powering the 5 main channels and the NuForce MCA-18 for the rest.


Ah, but the three-axis coordinate object metadata makes them equivalent to channels, and they sound the same too. 

I would rather have 13.2.  That way you can have a feature of the Atmos commercial layout, the front wide surrounds, and have the four top surrounds operate at the same time.


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ah, but the three-axis coordinate object metadata makes them equivalent to channels, and they sound the same too.
> 
> I would rather have 13.2.  That way you can have a feature of the Atmos commercial layout, the front wide surrounds, and have the four top surrounds operate at the same time.


Let him have his 32.


----------



## bkeeler10

action_jackson said:


> Cool, thanks for chiming in! I don't have vaulted ceilings myself, just trying to come up with a solution for those that do. Does Soundtube have in-wall or on-wall speakers that are timber matched to the pendants?


Yeah, if you matched the RS500i pendant with the IW500b in-wall speakers, you'd have a pretty good match. They are 5.25" two way speakers using the same driver set. But the IW500b isn't exactly a barnstormer in the bass department (-3 dB at 72 Hz). 

You have to remember that SoundTube makes speakers designed for the commercial audio world. So you're paying for things that you don't need in the residential realm, such as a (bypassable) 70 volt transformer and UL certifications. I'm not sure I would call them hifi either, although they are some of the best sounding speakers of their type in the commercial world.


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would rather have 13.2.  That way you can have a feature of the Atmos commercial layout, the front wide surrounds, and have the four top surrounds operate at the same time.


Yes, that layout seems ideal to me as well. I can envision a few more positions for a typical ~3000 cu ft room (like three pairs of overhead speakers, an additional set of wides between the first wides and the side surrounds, and maybe an additional pair of surround backs, so maybe 19 channels), but something tells me that diminishing returns is quickly kicking in after the 13-channel layout.

It just seems to me that, without the wides, there is a gaping hole between the left and right front channels and their corresponding side surrounds. If one's room is very deep, the same could be said of the gap between the back surrounds and side surrounds too. It's probably easier to create images in that space with wides, especially for those not seated right in the middle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just put your side surrounds slightly ahead of you instead of behind you and that gap is suddenly filled with glorious sound.


----------



## bkeeler10

Scott Simonian said:


> Just put your side surrounds slightly ahead of you instead of behind you and that gap is suddenly filled with glorious sound.


True for an Atmos soundtrack where (presumably) the processor knows where your speakers are. Perhaps not so ideal for what will be legacy 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks though. Plus then you've increased the gap between side surrounds and rear surrounds. 

Course, I suppose you could just apply any "Atmos-like" post-processing that they come up with to those legacy soundtracks and perhaps that would ameliorate the problem.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No it is quite ideal for legacy content. Just try it for yourself.

Also. Have you been in a movie theater before? All those surrounds.... they go quite a bit ahead of you (unless you like the front row) and that's how film mixers do it. All those surrounds? Just one channel, aside from Atmos.


Been working pretty good for decades now. It's too bad all the CE manufactures have to put up these diagrams of an unrealistic room geometry fooling users into thinking it's required to put them exactly as shown. 

It's no wonder people often say, "I don't see any benefit going beyond 5.1" when they keep putting their side surrounds only slightly behind them and then the rear surrounds just even more slightly behind them.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> True for an Atmos soundtrack where (presumably) the processor knows where your speakers are. Perhaps not so ideal for what will be legacy 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks though. Plus then you've increased the gap between side surrounds and rear surrounds.
> 
> Course, I suppose you could just apply any "Atmos-like" post-processing that they come up with to those legacy soundtracks and perhaps that would ameliorate the problem.


I think Scott is thinking of the arrangement shown in the diagram - an ITU suggested setup for 7.1. This layout creates a good sense of envelopment.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Pretty much but in a perfect diagram it looks much worse than in reality. Obviously one should approach a layout that works for their room. Some can not pull this off but if wides work, this will all while saving you the trouble of more speakers, more amps, the reliance on soon-to-be out-of-date post processing which is also the reason they may have wides to begin with.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I think Scott is thinking of the arrangement shown in the diagram - an ITU suggested setup for 7.1. This layout creates a good sense of envelopment.


One reason I think a good compromise between having the limited 7.1.4 layout in 1st generation (consumer) Atmos renderers from Onkyo, Pioneer, Denon, and the like and the full 34 outs as in a super expensive processor is something like 13.1 (or 9.1.4) that has the front wide surrounds as well as the four ceiling speakers. Receivers that can't cram that amount of amps in should have active pre-amp outs for the extras (the same renderer, just a variety of built-in amp amounts). It would still be a good number for pre-amps. Then the upper tier models can have even more sophisticated renderers and add the option of a plug in module to increase the individually addressable speaker count.

As it stands it's either a limited Atmos feature set or big bucks premium units that cost more than most cars. There is no "in between" solution.


----------



## bkeeler10

Hmmm, I guess I have some experimenting to do at home. I rarely get to the theater any more (Atmos now being the only draw for me).

I am aware that in the commercial theater, all those side surrounds, starting perhaps a third of the way back from the screen wall and going all the way to the back wall, all play the same content (except in Atmos of course). I always thought of that as a necessary compromise to adequately cover such a large listening area. So you're telling me that film mixing studios are mixing soundtracks intended for home release using such an array? I find that rather surprising.

I have always assumed that mixers were designing soundtracks for blu-ray/DVD release using an actual 5.1 or 7.1 setup, with the presumption that the five or seven channels will be located in a particular place relative to the listening position. This only makes sense to me. Perhaps I am misinformed (not the first time ). Are mixes intended for home not different from mixes designed for commercial theaters then?


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's where things get difficult, at least for those of us playing the home game. 

Yes. Some movies ARE mixed for the home. You've probably seen a Disney movie with a "Enhanced for Home Theater" mix. Or something to that effect. This is just an example but many other studios will do what is called a 'nearfield' mix for home video. The next difficult part is to follow the trail back to the studio mixing room where they may or may not have done the nearfield mix. It may have just been some alterations to the original theatrical track or a whole new mix done on conventional speakers that you or I would have and in a home theater type layout.

This is why I don't take these countless 'speaker layout' diagrams as *literal*. Lol only do that if you are just experiencing owning speakers or surround for your first time. 

Generally I like to think of speaker position as a proper vector point for the audio soundfield I want to generate. For me, it means replicating the cinema experience. So with 7.1 sound I think: left, center and right first. Those go where they need to be. Now surrounds... I've got four channels. I want the side surrounds to generate the side imaging. That doesn't necessarily mean it HAS to be directly to my side. It just needs to anchor information to my side wall. Same goes for the rears. Think of the rears in the position we all would put our surrounds at if we just had 5.1 audio. I think most of us would agree that we want those behind us but also separated. So what I do is position the side surrounds to fill in the space between the front left and right and the rear left and right. Awash in awesome surround sound-ness. 

Here. I made a really s**tacular paint photo for you to illustrate a more realistic room shape.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> That's where things get difficult, at least for those of us playing the home game.
> 
> Yes. Some movies ARE mixed for the home. You've probably seen a Disney movie with a "Enhanced for Home Theater" mix. Or something to that effect. This is just an example but many other studios will do what is called a 'nearfield' mix for home video. The next difficult part is to follow the trail back to the studio mixing room where they may or may not have done the nearfield mix. It may have just been some alterations to the original theatrical track or a whole new mix done on conventional speakers that you or I would have and in a home theater type layout.
> 
> This is why I don't take these countless 'speaker layout' diagrams as *literal*. Lol only do that if you are just experiencing owning speakers or surround for your first time.
> 
> Generally I like to think of speaker position as a proper vector point for the audio soundfield I want to generate. For me, it means replicating the cinema experience. So with 7.1 sound I think: left, center and right first. Those go where they need to be. Now surrounds... I've got four channels. I want the side surrounds to generate the side imaging. That doesn't necessarily mean it HAS to be directly to my side. It just needs to anchor information to my side wall. Same goes for the rears. Think of the rears in the position we all would put our surrounds at if we just had 5.1 audio. I think most of us would agree that we want those behind us but also separated. So what I do is position the side surrounds to fill in the space between the front left and right and the rear left and right. Awash in awesome surround sound-ness.
> 
> Here. I made a really s**tacular paint photo for you to illustrate a more realistic room shape.



Yep, s**tacular sums it up


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> So what I do is position the side surrounds to fill in the space between the front left and right and the rear left and right. Awash in awesome surround sound-ness.


Most people with 7.1 set-ups start the surround field directly at their sides or slightly behind them, but you're using the 4 surround speakers to literally place your listening position inside the surround field. BTW, you're in good company, since that's how Floyd Toole lays out his 4 surround speakers.


----------



## bkeeler10

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Some movies ARE mixed for the home. You've probably seen a Disney movie with a "Enhanced for Home Theater" mix. Or something to that effect. This is just an example but many other studios will do what is called a 'nearfield' mix for home video. The next difficult part is to follow the trail back to the studio mixing room where they may or may not have done the nearfield mix. It may have just been some alterations to the original theatrical track or a whole new mix done on conventional speakers that you or I would have and in a home theater type layout.


And here I thought there were standards for such things. Oh well.

In my mind this makes object-based audio even more appealing. The precise location of all your speakers is not very relevant (within reason) as long as the decoder knows exactly where they all are. This was great before, and now it's even better and makes even more sense.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bkeeler10 said:


> And here I thought there were standards for such things. Oh well.
> 
> In my mind this makes object-based audio even more appealing. The precise location of all your speakers is not very relevant (within reason) *as long as the decoder knows exactly where they all are*. This was great before, and now it's even better and makes even more sense.


As of yet, there doesn't seem to be any "reasonably" priced Atmos renderers that do this. It's all based on various fixed speaker locations due to limitations in the software and DSP chips being used.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Most people with 7.1 set-ups start the surround field directly at their sides or slightly behind them, but you're using the 4 surround speakers to literally place your listening position inside the surround field. BTW, you're in good company, since that's how Floyd Toole lays out his 4 surround speakers.


Well thanks, bud! I got the idea from you.  

Makes tons of sense when you think of it that way, to sit 'inside the surround field'. It works very well as long as surround use is not abysmal in the mix. Much more envelopment and less reliance for those highly tempting 'wides'.  




bkeeler10 said:


> And here I thought there were standards for such things. Oh well.
> 
> In my mind this makes object-based audio even more appealing. The precise location of all your speakers is not very relevant (within reason) as long as the decoder knows exactly where they all are. This was great before, and now it's even better and makes even more sense.


Yes things will only sound better with time as more and more object audio tracks are released and as audio mixers get more adept at using these objects.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Much more envelopment and less reliance for those highly tempting 'wides'.


I wouldn't turn down wides, but they are low on my priority list. Adding speaker pairs to the initial 5.1 layout, I would start with surround-back speakers, followed by front tops, then rear tops, finally wides. 

I don't know whether I would place a pair of speakers between the L/C/R speakers up front, unless placing them at the edges of my TV did something useful related to screen size. 

Bringing up wide speakers makes me wonder how Atmos will use them. Around ear level, Atmos has 7 bed channels that will be sent to 7 speakers. Are the wides only going to be there to smoothen object pan-throughs? Or is there some upmixing that will send channel information to the wides? 

I've wondered the same thing about the optional Atmos layout with 5 speakers behind the screen in commercial theatres. Since there's only 3 channels up front, are the inbetween speakers only for the occasional object to pan through?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> I wouldn't turn down wides, but they are low on my priority list. Adding speaker pairs to the initial 5.1 layout, I would start with surround-back speakers, followed by front tops, then rear tops, finally wides.
> 
> I don't know whether I would place a pair of speakers between the L/C/R speakers up front, unless placing them at the edges of my TV did something useful related to screen size.
> 
> Bringing up wide speakers makes me wonder how Atmos will use them. Around ear level, Atmos has 7 bed channels that will be sent to 7 speakers. Are the wides only going to be there to smoothen object pan-throughs? Or is there some upmixing that will send channel information to the wides?
> 
> I've wondered the same thing about the optional Atmos layout with 5 speakers behind the screen in commercial theatres. Since there's only 3 channels up front, are the inbetween speakers only for the occasional object to pan through?


They can either anchor or pan objects with the front wides and extra left/right screen speakers. Objects don't just pan, they can be stationary. Gravity's mixers put the dialog into objects so they could track it to where the characters were in the environment of a scene.


----------



## thebland

*I've posted around but are there any good links or diagrams for ideal Atmos speaker set up?*


----------



## asarose247

An "ideal" ATMOS set-ups/possibilities is only coming over the horizon but there is no shortage of speculation, 
looks like CE are aiming for 7.1.4 so there is a need for not only geometry wrt placement but have no doubt that there will be quite a few new speakers "recommended" for those "tops" wrt to dispersion and FR.
I had a good read over at "audioguru".


and its looks like an early contender out of the gate is a Marantz AV7702 as a pre/pro


you just need to amp 11 channels


ow NP!


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> *I've posted around but are there any good links or diagrams for ideal Atmos speaker set up?*


For cinema: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/do...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf


For home: Up for speculation. Subject to change.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> I wouldn't turn down wides, but they are low on my priority list. Adding speaker pairs to the initial 5.1 layout, I would start with surround-back speakers, followed by front tops, then rear tops, finally wides.


Curious if by front tops you mean above L/R, or above the forward pair of surrounds.


----------



## Maestro J

So I'm wanting to change my current 7.2 setup to a 7.2.4 Atmos configuration with the 4 ceiling speakers.
My questions are...is Marantz my only choice for this many speakers or will the top of the line Pioneer work?
Also, best positioning for the 4 ceilings - 2 in front of center stage and 2 behind? 2 in front and 2 right over head? Any advice there?
Also, should the ceiling speakers be firing at a certain angle or straight down?


----------



## asarose247

the front tops would be the 'on the ceiling" mol and in front of the MLP and rear tops would be behind


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Curious if by front tops you mean above L/R, or above the forward pair of surrounds.


The ones highlighted in yellow:


----------



## ambesolman

What if the mlp is against the back wall?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## sdurani

ambesolman said:


> What if the mlp is against the back wall?


According to the diagram you can do a single pair of top middle speakers anywhere from directly above you to 25 degrees forward of the MLP.


----------



## Roger Dressler

This is one other exchange removed from the XMC-1 thread. 



FilmMixer said:


> Regardless you can count on the fact that they have figured out how to get from the cinema to the home without throwing anything away.


It can be said that a 5.1 presentation of an Atmos mix does not throw anything away, as every sound in the original soundtrack remains present. Is that how you mean it here? I would agree with that statement.

However, some folks playing the 5.1 version might say having no objects would be throwing something (undefined) away.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> This is one other exchange removed from the XMC-1 thread.
> 
> It can be said that a 5.1 presentation of an Atmos mix does not throw anything away, as every sound in the original soundtrack remains present. Is that how you mean it here? I would agree with that statement.


No... that is not what I mean.

People are getting caught up in the maximum number of objects the codec will support.

There are other ways to whittle down the sheer number of objects outside of rendering them into a bed while still maintaining the intended artistic presentation.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> People are getting caught up in the maximum number of objects the codec will support.
> 
> There are other ways to whittle down the sheer number of objects outside of rendering them into a bed while still maintaining the intended artistic presentation.


I was hoping your answer would be in that vein!


----------



## noah katz

I like that answer, as the recommended elevation of 45 deg DSX heights falls within that range, and is where I have them.

Am I correct that so far none of the mainstream receivers or pre/pro's discussed so far have provisions for Atmos 13.x with Wides?



sdurani said:


> The ones highlighted in yellow:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> I like that answer, as the recommended elevation of 45 deg DSX heights falls within that range, and is where I have them.
> 
> Am I correct that so far none of the mainstream receivers or pre/pro's discussed so far have provisions for Atmos 13.x with Wides?


Unless there are more announcements... none that I know of outside of some super-duper expensive hot rod pre-amp.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Am I correct that so far none of the mainstream receivers or pre/pro's discussed so far have provisions for Atmos 13.x with Wides?


Not 13.1 but Onkyo's dedicated Atmos page does mention an 11.1 set-up that includes wides. However, they are the only manufacturer mentioning a 9.1.2 configuration, making me wonder if they are mistaken about wides.


----------



## Orbitron

http://www.twice.com/dolby-atmos-av-receivers-speakers-tap/45846


----------



## Skylinestar

Is there a need to timber match the height speakers?


----------



## sdurani

Skylinestar said:


> Is there a need to timber match the height speakers?


Only if you want sounds to remain consistent when they pan up.


----------



## jdsmoothie

sdurani said:


> Not 13.1 but Onkyo's dedicated Atmos page does mention an 11.1 set-up that includes wides. However, they are the only manufacturer mentioning a 9.1.2 configuration, making me wonder if they are mistaken about wides.


D&M has now confirmed that a 9.1.2 (w/Front Wides + top middle) will be an available Atmos configuration on the Denon X5200W/X7200W and Marantz AV7702/SR7009/AV8802.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

Am I the only one thinking that we should wait until object based processing is finally available before we jump in headfirst and regret buying something that is obsolete in 6 months?


----------



## bkeeler10

^ Nope. 

I will probably wait to see what the second generation of Atmos receivers/pre-pros are equipped with. And to see how the first generation goes and what people think of it.


----------



## Selden Ball

It depends on whether you're the kind of person who clings obsessively to the same hardware for a decade, or if you fritter away your money on a new model every year.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> And here I thought there were standards for such things. Oh well.
> 
> In my mind this makes object-based audio even more appealing. The precise location of all your speakers is not very relevant (within reason) as long as the decoder knows exactly where they all are. This was great before, and now it's even better and makes even more sense.


Unfortunately, in the current list of Atmos-enabled AVRs announced, they will not have any way of knowing where the speakers are. That is, they will not be measuring azimuth and elevation angles and do not have any way to input the info manually. You just have to put the speakers in the 'right' places, as we have always done.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately, in the current list of Atmos-enabled AVRs announced, they will not have any way of knowing where the speakers are. That is, they will not be measuring azimuth and elevation angles and do not have any way to input the info manually. You just have to put the speakers in the 'right' places, as we have always done.


Yet isn't DTS claiming they can do object based audio with much less processing power?

I was all excited about the new Pioneer AVRs with Atmos until I found out like the rest they won't be object based.
No worries, I'll just sit back and read about the early adopter's trials and tribulations.


----------



## markus767

bootman_head_fi said:


> I was all excited about the new Pioneer AVRs with Atmos until I found out like the rest they won't be object based.


Who said they won't be?


----------



## kbarnes701

bootman_head_fi said:


> Yet isn't DTS claiming they can do object based audio with much less processing power?
> 
> I was all excited about the new Pioneer AVRs with Atmos until I found out like the rest they won't be object based.


They are still object-based. The bit that is missing is that there is no way for the AVR to know the exact locations of the speakers (because there is no way for this information to be entered either manually or automatically). If you put the speakers where the AVR 'expects' them to be, then all is fine.

Don't know anything at all about what DTS are doing at this time wrt to the home market.


----------



## batpig

bootman_head_fi said:


> I was all excited about the new Pioneer AVRs with Atmos until I found out like the rest they won't be object based.


They are object based. It's just (at least with these first gen Atmos receivers) rendered based on a small subset of fixed speaker location options, as opposed to actually measuring where your speakers are. As Keith noted above, if your speakers are located well, it will still likely work very well.

And potentially sometime in the near future the full remapping/rendering capabilities will be unleashed in affordable AVR's, and then you can upgrade your receiver and keep using the BDP / content you already have with actual measurements instead of "default" locations.

If I was somebody who was super itchy to get Atmos at home (I'm not at this point) I wouldn't let that stop me from trying the first gen, unless I was in a situation where it was basically impossible to get my speakers placed at approximately correct positions. 

Plenty of people (myself included) can't put their surrounds at the ideal location in their rooms, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying 5.1 audio. If I could install 2 or 4 in-ceiling speakers I'd happily jump on board Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> They are object based. It's just (at least with these first gen Atmos receivers) rendered based on a small subset of fixed speaker location options, as opposed to actually measuring where your speakers are. As Keith noted above, if your speakers are located well, it will still likely work very well.
> 
> And potentially sometime in the near future the full remapping/rendering capabilities will be unleashed in affordable AVR's, and then you can upgrade your receiver and keep using the BDP / content you already have with actual measurements instead of "default" locations.
> 
> If I was somebody who was super itchy to get Atmos at home (I'm not at this point) I wouldn't let that stop me from trying the first gen, unless I was in a situation where it was basically impossible to get my speakers placed at approximately correct positions.
> 
> Plenty of people (myself included) can't put their surrounds at the ideal location in their rooms, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying 5.1 audio. If I could install 2 or 4 in-ceiling speakers I'd happily jump on board Atmos.


Agreed all round. I am super-itchy as you know and I am able to put my speakers where Atmos wants them, so I should be all set. However, due to limited room behind the MLP, at this stage I will only be able to do 5.1.2, with the two 'middle top' speakers for Atmos. Once second gen is here, I will be able to do 5.1.4 as the rendering engine will 'know' that my rear top speakers are somewhat forward of their ideal placement. For now, I am happy with that.

The upside is that I will only need the Denon X4100W at this time, which is relatively cheap. I may even cover its cost with the sale of my flagship Onkyo processor.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

batpig said:


> They are object based. It's just (at least with these first gen Atmos receivers) rendered based on a small subset of fixed speaker location options, as opposed to actually measuring where your speakers are. As Keith noted above, if your speakers are located well, it will still likely work very well.
> 
> And potentially sometime in the near future the full remapping/rendering capabilities will be unleashed in affordable AVR's, and then you can upgrade your receiver and keep using the BDP / content you already have with actual measurements instead of "default" locations.
> 
> If I was somebody who was super itchy to get Atmos at home (I'm not at this point) I wouldn't let that stop me from trying the first gen, unless I was in a situation where it was basically impossible to get my speakers placed at approximately correct positions.
> 
> Plenty of people (myself included) can't put their surrounds at the ideal location in their rooms, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying 5.1 audio. If I could install 2 or 4 in-ceiling speakers I'd happily jump on board Atmos.


That is exactly my situation.
But now I'm revisiting the Pioneer thread to make sure I didn't miss something.
Maybe for us these new Atmos enabled speakers is the way to go vs ceiling ones. 
Either way I'm waiting for some actual reviews before I spend any capital.


----------



## Orbitron

bootman_head_fi said:


> Yet isn't DTS claiming they can do object based audio with much less processing power?
> 
> I was all excited about the new Pioneer AVRs with Atmos until I found out like the rest they won't be object based.
> No worries, I'll just sit back and read about the early adopter's trials and tribulations.


I'm a recovering Early Adopter and attend weekly EA meetings.


----------



## batpig

bootman_head_fi said:


> That is exactly my situation.
> But now I'm revisiting the Pioneer thread to make sure I didn't miss something.
> Maybe for us these new Atmos enabled speakers is the way to go vs ceiling ones.


Why would any of this impact your decision to use Atmos enabled speakers vs. installing actual in-ceiling speakers? I don't think that should change the calculus at all. If you CAN install in-ceiling speakers, that is obviously preferred regardless of any "handicaps" of 1st gen home Atmos; the Atmos enabled speakers exist for those who can't or won't install in-ceiling speakers but still want to experience Atmos.

I can't think of any piece of information we have heard which would make the Atmos enabled speakers preferred over an actual in-ceiling top speaker. When would a reflected "virtual" speaker ever be better than an actual speaker in that spot?


----------



## kbarnes701

Posted today at the Emotiva Lounge, by Andrew Robinson.

_"At present the XMC-1 is not Atmos enabled. I cannot speak for the future, but as of this moment in time (8:02am CST)the XMC-1 does not support Atmos. For the record, if everything Dolby says about Atmos in the home is true, THE ONLY difference between an existing 5.1/7.1 setup now versus one with Atmos, is the inclusion of ceiling channels. Minus 2 or 4 ceiling speakers you are NOT getting anything new or different than what you already have with Dolby TrueHD via Dolby Atmos.

"The second caveat to all of this is in fact DTS. DTS has their version of Atmos coming soon -likely around the same time Atmos products actually start selling. The DTS format, as I understand it, IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not -okay maybe the ceiling channels are "technically" objects, but your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not. Also, the DTS format is proving to be far less processor intensive, meaning its adoption could be more widespread and easier to accommodate than Atmos (speculation based on early reports). Regardless, it's too early to jump aboard the "XMC-1 is obsolete" train at this time. Sure there are products that have been announced with Atmos support, however they're not for sale yet, DTS hasn't lowered the boom, and frankly, a lot of those products said they were HDMI 2.0/2.2/4K/UHD ready and, well, the CEA just modified the UHD standard last week making many of those claims no longer 100% accurate.

"In other words, the sky isn't falling, nor should anyone be losing any sleep over all of this. "_

Sigh.....


----------



## bootman_head_fi

batpig said:


> Why would any of this impact your decision to use Atmos enabled speakers vs. installing actual in-ceiling speakers? I don't think that should change the calculus at all. If you CAN install in-ceiling speakers, that is obviously preferred regardless of any "handicaps" of 1st gen home Atmos; the Atmos enabled speakers exist for those who can't or won't install in-ceiling speakers but still want to experience Atmos.
> 
> I can't think of any piece of information we have heard which would make the Atmos enabled speakers preferred over an actual in-ceiling top speaker. When would a reflected "virtual" speaker ever be better than an actual speaker in that spot?


Sorry for not being clear, I can't install ceiling speakers easily.
I suspect many are in the same situation, no? 
(or does everyone here have a custom built HT room?)

It appears Pioneer (and now Onkyo) is banking on this with their approach.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

kbarnes701 said:


> Posted today at the Emotiva Lounge, by Andrew Robinson.
> 
> _"At present the XMC-1 is not Atmos enabled. I cannot speak for the future, but as of this moment in time (8:02am CST)the XMC-1 does not support Atmos. For the record, if everything Dolby says about Atmos in the home is true, THE ONLY difference between an existing 5.1/7.1 setup now versus one with Atmos, is the inclusion of ceiling channels. Minus 2 or 4 ceiling speakers you are NOT getting anything new or different than what you already have with Dolby TrueHD via Dolby Atmos.
> 
> "The second caveat to all of this is in fact DTS. DTS has their version of Atmos coming soon -likely around the same time Atmos products actually start selling. The DTS format, as I understand it, IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not -okay maybe the ceiling channels are "technically" objects, but your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not. Also, the DTS format is proving to be far less processor intensive, meaning its adoption could be more widespread and easier to accommodate than Atmos (speculation based on early reports). Regardless, it's too early to jump aboard the "XMC-1 is obsolete" train at this time. Sure there are products that have been announced with Atmos support, however they're not for sale yet, DTS hasn't lowered the boom, and frankly, a lot of those products said they were HDMI 2.0/2.2/4K/UHD ready and, well, the CEA just modified the UHD standard last week making many of those claims no longer 100% accurate.
> 
> "In other words, the sky isn't falling, nor should anyone be losing any sleep over all of this. "_
> 
> Sigh.....



Why a sigh? Did they finally break your heart and that is it you are not buying their product? Geesh.
what said here isn't a valid point or concern?

Everyone knows Atmos is going to be a big OEM via AVRs driven market.
Smaller manufactures (like they always do) follow much slowly afterwards if at all.
Now if you posted that one of the big boys said this, that would be "sigh" material.
But that isn't going to happen becasue come hell or high water the OEMs will put out competing products for your fall dollars.
(got to make 4Q forecast!)

No big surprize here other than to try and drum up drama. 

Can we stick to manufactures that are actually trying to release a Atmos product this year to this thread?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Posted today at the Emotiva Lounge, by Andrew Robinson.
> 
> _
> 
> *"In other words, the sky isn't falling, nor should anyone be losing any sleep over all of this. "*_
> 
> Sigh.....


Nor will I be purchasing any of their products. 

Attitude. 
Satisfaction. 
Products that exist.

Work on it, Emotiva.


----------



## Romans828

batpig said:


> Why would any of this impact your decision to use Atmos enabled speakers vs. installing actual in-ceiling speakers? I don't think that should change the calculus at all. If you CAN install in-ceiling speakers, that is obviously preferred regardless of any "handicaps" of 1st gen home Atmos; the Atmos enabled speakers exist for those who can't or won't install in-ceiling speakers but still want to experience Atmos.
> 
> I can't think of any piece of information we have heard which would make the Atmos enabled speakers preferred over an actual in-ceiling top speaker. When would a reflected "virtual" speaker ever be better than an actual speaker in that spot?


Yes. Due to the infinite number of ceiling designs, shapes, and materials, it seems like the performance of the Atmos enabled speakers will be variable as well. In-ceiling speakers *should *be able to provide much better consistency.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Posted today at the Emotiva Lounge, by Andrew Robinson.
> 
> _"At present the XMC-1 is not Atmos enabled. I cannot speak for the future, but as of this moment in time (8:02am CST)the XMC-1 does not support Atmos. For the record, if everything Dolby says about Atmos in the home is true, THE ONLY difference between an existing 5.1/7.1 setup now versus one with Atmos, is the inclusion of ceiling channels. Minus 2 or 4 ceiling speakers you are NOT getting anything new or different than what you already have with Dolby TrueHD via Dolby Atmos.
> 
> "The second caveat to all of this is in fact DTS. DTS has their version of Atmos coming soon -likely around the same time Atmos products actually start selling. The DTS format, as I understand it, IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not -okay maybe the ceiling channels are "technically" objects, but your main 5.1/7.1 setup is decidedly not. Also, the DTS format is proving to be far less processor intensive, meaning its adoption could be more widespread and easier to accommodate than Atmos (speculation based on early reports). Regardless, it's too early to jump aboard the "XMC-1 is obsolete" train at this time. Sure there are products that have been announced with Atmos support, however they're not for sale yet, DTS hasn't lowered the boom, and frankly, a lot of those products said they were HDMI 2.0/2.2/4K/UHD ready and, well, the CEA just modified the UHD standard last week making many of those claims no longer 100% accurate.
> 
> "In other words, the sky isn't falling, nor should anyone be losing any sleep over all of this. "_
> 
> Sigh.....


_CEA Updates Characteristics for Ultra High-Definition Displays_: 
http://www.ce.org/News/News-Release...s-Characteristics-for-Ultra-High-Definit.aspx

Outake from the CEA update:
_Digital Input – Has one or more HDMI inputs supporting at least 3840x2160 native content resolution at 24p, 30p and 60p frames per second. At least one of the 3840x2160 HDMI inputs shall support HDCP revision 2.2 or equivalent content protection._

Is there is an announced AVR or pre-pro that meets this spec in total (3840x2160 native content resolution at 60p with HDCP 2.2) and supports Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

bootman_head_fi said:


> I was all excited about the new Pioneer AVRs with Atmos until I found out like the rest they won't be object based.


What do you mean "won't be object based"? You don't think Pioneer AVRs will decode the objects in Atmos soundtracks?


----------



## bootman_head_fi

sdurani said:


> What do you mean "won't be object based"? You don't think Pioneer AVRs will decode the objects in Atmos soundtracks?


Didn't say that.
What I should have said will these 1st gen AVRs know exactly where in space the speakers are? (like in Cinema Atmos?)
It looks like Pioneer's MCACC might be the first to do that. It just isn't that clear to me even with the info I found out so far.
So until we know for sure, this is all I can assume from the information that is out there.


..or maybe I'm way off base and this isn't even important to home Atmos and this is the best we can get.


----------



## sdurani

bootman_head_fi said:


> Why a sigh?


Because of their continued misinformation, in this case saying that DTS-MDA _"IS object based opposed to Atmos in the home which is not"_. 

Also for their 'if it's not in our pre-pro, it's not important' attitude. Robinson did something similar previously on his blog when they were backpeddling on their HDMI 2.0 announcement. 

http://www.andrew-robinson-online.c...about-4k-hdmi-2-0-and-why-you-shouldnt-panic/


----------



## sdurani

bootman_head_fi said:


> It looks like Pioneer's MCACC might be the first to do that.


Yamaha already does that. But in both cases, the speaker location info won't be used by the Atmos rendering engine in 1st gen Atmos products. As more outputs and more features are added by AVR manufacturers in the future, the object-based nature of Atmos will become more evident as you see the same soundtracks on Blu-ray adapt to different speaker layouts.


----------



## RichB

kokishin said:


> _CEA Updates Characteristics for Ultra High-Definition Displays_:
> http://www.ce.org/News/News-Release...s-Characteristics-for-Ultra-High-Definit.aspx
> 
> Outake from the CEA update:
> _Digital Input – Has one or more HDMI inputs supporting at least 3840x2160 native content resolution at 24p, 30p and 60p frames per second. At least one of the 3840x2160 HDMI inputs shall support HDCP revision 2.2 or equivalent content protection._
> 
> Is there is an announced AVR or pre-pro that meets this spec in total (3840x2160 native content resolution at 60p with HDCP 2.2) and supports Atmos?



Onkyo/Integra but they dropped Audyssey.


- Rich


----------



## bootman_head_fi

sdurani said:


> Yamaha already does that. But in both cases, the speaker location info won't be used by the Atmos rendering engine in 1st gen Atmos products. As more outputs and more features are added by AVR manufacturers in the future, the object-based nature of Atmos will become more evident as you see the same soundtracks on Blu-ray adapt to different speaker layouts.


Ok, so then in effect what these 1st gen products are doing is taking object based audio and turning it to discrete channels that we define in the initial layout?

Trying to make sense of what is really going on in the home version vs the cinema version.


----------



## batpig

Basically yes. But that's what any object based rendering does, it processes the positional data of the objects and renders them in real time to the speakers that are present in the layout. 

The distinction is that instead of MEASURING where your speakers actually are, it just ASSUMES where they are based on the layout you choose in the processor.


----------



## Scott Simonian

This is how surround sound has worked for ages.

I don't quite get why people are suddenly threatened by this same practice once objects are introduced. Those objects will all still go to their intended position *within the mix*.

Yes, yes. I get it. People want to put their speakers in specific places. There will always be compromise in ANY system. How speaker remapping will completely negate compromise is an unrealistic expectation.


I don't know. I must be missing something. We all got along just fine but then words like 'Atmos', 'objects' and 'ceiling speakers' gets thrown around and the whole A/V world head explodes.


----------



## noah katz

Scott Simonian said:


> This is how surround sound has worked for ages.
> 
> I don't quite get why people are suddenly threatened by this same practice once objects are introduced. Those objects will all still go to their intended position *within the mix*


Because it gives up what is essentially the same functionality as Trinnov's lauded remapping.


----------



## batpig

*



How speaker remapping will completely negate compromise is an unrealistic expectation.

Click to expand...

*

I think that's a bit of a strawman as phrased. I think "mitigate" would be more fair than "completely negate".

I do understand the disappointment with the lack of measuring/remapping, as it WOULD help those who have suboptimal layouts. And it's exciting to think about how the same soundtrack could easily scale to a variety of layouts. I do agree (and have said before elsewhere) that the backlash based on the lack of this feature seems too extreme.


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> Because it gives up what is essentially the same functionality as Trinnov's lauded remapping.


Giving up a feature that almost nobody has? It's in practically nothing, this Trinnov.

Noah, you certainly get by just fine without any speaker remapping.


----------



## sdurani

bootman_head_fi said:


> Ok, so then in effect what these 1st gen products are doing is taking object based audio and turning it to discrete channels that we define in the initial layout?


In order to get 1st gen AVRs to market quickly, looks like Dolby has made it as easy on manufacturers as possible. Number of max outputs has stayed the same (11.2). And even on those models, number of amp channels has stayed the same (9), except the top o'the line Onkyo or Integra. So basically, this was a decoder swap. 

However, the new DSP allows for decoding of Atmos soundtracks. But they haven't yet taken advantage of some capabilities of object-based rendering, like mapping the sound to your actual speaker locations. Until then, it will feel like a channel-based soundtrack for all intents and purposes, sending the sound from each channel to its respective speaker based on assumed placement and able to downmix from 7.1.4 speakers to 5.1.2 speakers. Could have done that with a discrete 11.1 mix. 

Last week, people got a whiff of the Trinnov Altitude 32 (guess what that number stands for) that is due out near the end of the year. At that point, the object-based nature of Atmos will be obvious, since it will adapt to 32 outputs in ways that a discrete 11.1 soundtrack couldn't.


----------



## RichB

batpig said:


> I think that's a bit of a strawman as phrased. I think "mitigate" would be more fair than "completely negate".
> 
> I do understand the disappointment with the lack of measuring/remapping, as it WOULD help those who have suboptimal layouts. And it's exciting to think about how the same soundtrack could easily scale to a variety of layouts. I do agree (and have said before elsewhere) that the backlash based on the lack of this feature seems too extreme.



What it negates is any advantage for a first gen home Atmos product to be of any benefit to those without ceiling speakers or ceiling reflective speakers.
I was intrigued by the positional processing as a potential enhancement for my 5.1 system.


- Rich


----------



## J.P

jdsmoothie said:


> D&M has now confirmed that a 9.1.2 (w/Front Wides + top middle) will be an available Atmos configuration on the Denon X5200W/X7200W and Marantz AV7702/SR7009/AV8802.



Can Marantz AV8802 do 9.1.4 (w/Front Wides + 4 ceiling channels) ?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't quite get why people are suddenly threatened by this same practice once objects are introduced.


Threatened? Where did that word come from? People are understandably disappointed that the introduction of object-based audio is no different than if it had been discrete 11.1 mixes. Of course that will change in the future, but that means having to wait AND then find out if you can afford the devices that render using measured speaker locations.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well the same can be said about anything new or upcoming in the world of technology.

If this wasn't Atmos and this was just, "hey! TrueHD and DTS-MA now support 11.1ch discrete" I'd be just as excited.


----------



## sdurani

jdsmoothie said:


> D&M has now confirmed that a 9.1.2 (w/Front Wides + top middle) will be an available Atmos configuration on the Denon X5200W/X7200W and Marantz AV7702/SR7009/AV8802.


Nice to have the additional flexibility. Do you know if 7.1.4 can be configured to include a single pair of surrounds and a pair of wides?


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> I think that's a bit of a strawman as phrased. I think "mitigate" would be more fair than "completely negate".


It sure is; nothing completely negates compromise, nor does anyone expect such.



Scott Simonian said:


> Giving up a feature that almost nobody has? It's in practically nothing, this Trinnov.
> 
> Noah, you certainly get by just fine without any speaker remapping.


Right, just like people got by just fine with mono, then stereo, then Dolby surround, etc.

Seems out of character for you to be poo-pooing a known advance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I wasn't. I am flabberghasted by all the fits people are throwing about anything they can wrt [email protected]

It's not enough channels
It's not enough speakers
Where's the remapping
Why can't I use wides
I'm not putting speakers on my ceiling
I have to move my heights now


It's always something and when have I poo-poo'd _any_ of this? C'mon. I down for this even in it's 'limited/neutered' form. 

If it's anything.... I don't get what all the fuss is about Trinnov or Dirac.... but let's not go OT.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> If this wasn't Atmos and this was just, "hey! TrueHD and DTS-MA now support 11.1ch discrete" I'd be just as excited.


There wouldn't have been any disappointment, since there wouldn't have any expectation based on what object-based audio could do.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So do you expect to get that 'object audio dream' fulfilled any time soon? We were talking about how mixers would now put sound and render it in a bubble. That is not the case, as we have discussed. It could be but it isn't. There is a lot of talk, not a lot of walk so far in the industry.


There is a difference between a dream technology and then professionals actually implementing it. You know I'm with you on this.

I can sit around forever and wait for that perfect object-audio product..... that still doesn't exist. I was going to say I'd like you to give me a call when you hear about this fantasy product but I'd like to see you again before I die. 

Expectations create disappointments.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Agh! You guys! 

Alright. Just.... Noah.... come down to Clovis. I'll drive you the rest of the way to LA. I'll buy you both lunch and/or dinner and a movie. We can go to the AMC Prime and then Barney's!


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> It's not enough channels
> It's not enough speakers
> Where's the remapping
> Why can't I use wides
> I'm not putting speakers on my ceiling
> I have to move my heights now


Those are all legitimate concerns, evidenced by the fact that they are all being addressed rather than ignored. 

Dolby addressed the first two and last two in their FAQ, assuring consumers that Atmos can go beyond the 11-speaker limit of 1st gen products and pointing out alternatives to putting speakers on the ceiling. The first 3 points will also be addressed by the Trinnov Altitude. The situation with wides just got addressed. 

These concerns wouldn't have been addressed if they were mere whines. Dolby even had a FAQ question to reassure folks that Atmos is indeed object based. Why did they feel the need to do that? Even they knew that 1st gen Atmos comes across as channel-based.


----------



## kbarnes701

bootman_head_fi said:


> Why a sigh? Did they finally break your heart and that is it you are not buying their product? Geesh.
> what said here isn't a valid point or concern?
> 
> Everyone knows Atmos is going to be a big OEM via AVRs driven market.
> Smaller manufactures (like they always do) follow much slowly afterwards if at all.
> Now if you posted that one of the big boys said this, that would be "sigh" material.
> But that isn't going to happen becasue come hell or high water the OEMs will put out competing products for your fall dollars.
> (got to make 4Q forecast!)
> 
> No big surprize here other than to try and drum up drama.
> 
> Can we stick to manufactures that are actually trying to release a Atmos product this year to this thread?


The sigh was at the sheer lack of understanding displayed in that post.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> What do you mean "won't be object based"? You don't think Pioneer AVRs will decode the objects in Atmos soundtracks?


Andrew Robinson doesn't. Well, he thinks it will only happen in the ceiling speakers....


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> I was intrigued by the positional processing as a potential enhancement for my 5.1 system.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Yes, it is a disappointment that that wasn't included from the get-go, I agree. But if you can place your speakers in the recommended positions, it is of no consequence.


----------



## tjenkins95

Scott Simonian said:


> I wasn't. I am flabberghasted by all the fits people are throwing about anything they can wrt [email protected]
> 
> It's not enough channels
> It's not enough speakers
> Where's the remapping
> Why can't I use wides
> I'm not putting speakers on my ceiling
> I have to move my heights now
> 
> 
> It's always something and when have I poo-poo'd _any_ of this? C'mon. I down for this even in it's 'limited/neutered' form.
> 
> If it's anything.... I don't get what all the fuss is about Trinnov or Dirac.... but let's not go OT.


 

I totally agree with your comment. The new ATMOS tech is giving us the option of utilizing up to 4 height speakers and new sound fields and I think that is cool! And of course new things will be added down the road as the tech develops because that is the normal flow. And some of us will buy it now and some will wait until there are more bells and whistles - which is also how it goes.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Threatened? Where did that word come from? People are understandably disappointed that the introduction of object-based audio is no different than if it had been discrete 11.1 mixes. Of course that will change in the future, but that means having to wait AND then find out if you can afford the devices that render using measured speaker locations.


Ye, I was disappointed as you know. But even a discrete 11.1 mix is way better than what is currently available. Not perfect, but still better.


----------



## sdurani

J.P said:


> Can Marantz AV8802 do 9.1.4 (w/Front Wides + 4 ceiling channels) ?


Doesn't seem to be, but it would be nice.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> So do you expect to get that 'object audio dream' fulfilled any time soon? We were talking about how mixers would now put sound and render it in a bubble. That is not the case, as we have discussed. It could be but it isn't. There is a lot of talk, not a lot of walk so far in the industry.
> 
> 
> There is a difference between a dream technology and then professionals actually implementing it. You know I'm with you on this.
> 
> I can sit around forever and wait for that perfect object-audio product..... that still doesn't exist. I was going to say I'd like you to give me a call when you hear about this fantasy product but I'd like to see you again before I die.
> 
> Expectations create disappointments.


This may be way off base and I am happy to be shot down, but I think we are already benefiting in a limited way from Atmos mixes. For example, I understand that the dialogue in 'Gravity' was created as objects so that the characters' voices could follow their movement around the environment with great precision. And in the Bluray version of the movie that I have, this works very, very well indeed even in a standard 5.1 layout. If people disagree, note that I will not attempt to defend this post - it is just a subjective feeling I had after watching that movie.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

kbarnes701 said:


> The sigh was at the sheer lack of understanding displayed in that post.


That is part I don't quite get.
Can you explain?


----------



## J.P

sdurani said:


> Doesn't seem to be, but it would be nice.











Well, it has two sets of "ceiling" pre-output, "height-1" and "height-2" + "front wide"


----------



## sdurani

J.P said:


> Well, it has two sets of "ceiling" pre-output, "height-1" and "height-2" + "front wide"


Remains to be seen if all 13 outputs can be used together.


----------



## kbarnes701

bootman_head_fi said:


> That is part I don't quite get.
> Can you explain?


Well the most obvious was that he clearly said that Atmos was not object-based, but DTS-UHD was. That is incorrect.

In addition there is a lot of confusion about channels, speakers and what Atmos is and how it works.

And his statement that DTS-UHD will 'likely' arrive at the same time as Atmos (ie this fall) when they don't even have a theatrical version yet is just off the scale IMO.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

kbarnes701 said:


> Well the most obvious was that he clearly said that Atmos was not object-based, but DTS-UHD was. That is incorrect.
> 
> In addition there is a lot of confusion about channels, speakers and what Atmos is and how it works.
> 
> And his statement that DTS-UHD will 'likely' arrive at the same time as Atmos (ie this fall) when they don't even have a theatrical version yet is just off the scale IMO.


Someone should start a DTS-UHD thread.
they did have a booth at CES.
http://www.dts.com/corporate/press-...p-audio-dsp-at-consumer-electronics-show.aspx
While not in theaters, does that matter?
I don't recall that many DTS only theaters now yet the majority of my blurays have DTS-HD on them.
Not sure how not being in theaters is that big of a deal.
As to the objects vs discrete I think we are talking in circles here.
i asked here if these new AVRs take object based audio and creates discrete channels.
The answer is yes so again I don't see the big deal.

Now I'll give you the confusion around speakers, heck I'm still sorting through that myself and will have to make some hard choices if I want to jump on this bandwagon.

Right now as it stands I like the idea very much just not the current sacrifices I will need to make to play in the game at this point.
I think the best course for ME is to wait and see how this sorts itself out.
It would be silly to think that Dolby will be the only object based toy in town just like I can't buy a Dolby only AVR.
(and its a good thing since for the most part I tend to prefer DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD mixes)


----------



## jdsmoothie

J.P said:


> Can Marantz AV8802 do 9.1.4 (w/Front Wides + 4 ceiling channels) ?


Specs not confirmed yet, but extra outputs (beyond speaker processing capability) on current/past models are provided to allow for different configurations without having to rewire speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Those are all legitimate concerns, evidenced by the fact that they are all being addressed rather than ignored.
> 
> Dolby addressed the first two and last two in their FAQ, assuring consumers that Atmos can go beyond the 11-speaker limit of 1st gen products and pointing out alternatives to putting speakers on the ceiling. The first 3 points will also be addressed by the Trinnov Altitude. The situation with wides just got addressed.
> 
> These concerns wouldn't have been addressed if they were mere whines. Dolby even had a FAQ question to reassure folks that Atmos is indeed object based. Why did they feel the need to do that? Even they knew that 1st gen Atmos comes across as channel-based.


Well said. The issue isn't that I don't understand these parts though. It's .... others that don't.  

I know what I'm in for and I think it's great! 



tjenkins95 said:


> I totally agree with your comment. The new ATMOS tech is giving us the option of utilizing up to 4 height speakers and new sound fields and I think that is cool! And of course new things will be added down the road as the tech develops because that is the normal flow. And some of us will buy it now and some will wait until there are more bells and whistles - which is also how it goes.


Hell yeah! Can't sit around forever. 



sdurani said:


> Doesn't seem to be, but it would be nice.


Yes it would. 



kbarnes701 said:


> This may be way off base and I am happy to be shot down, but I think we are already benefiting in a limited way from Atmos mixes. For example, I understand that the dialogue in 'Gravity' was created as objects so that the characters' voices could follow their movement around the environment with great precision. And in the Bluray version of the movie that I have, this works very, very well indeed even in a standard 5.1 layout. If people disagree, note that I will not attempt to defend this post - it is just a subjective feeling I had after watching that movie.


It was an excellent mix, for sure. 

Though what you are hearing on BD is not objects. You do not own any software or hardware that is object aware.

Unless you're holding out on me.


----------



## noah katz

Scott Simonian said:


> ...I down for this even in it's 'limited/neutered' form.
> 
> If it's anything.... I don't get what all the fuss is about Trinnov or Dirac.... but let's not go OT.


Oh OK, I misconstrued your comments.

Have you heard Dirac or Trinnov?


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> Oh OK, I misconstrued your comments.
> 
> Have you heard Dirac or Trinnov?


Yeah sorry. 

No I have not heard either of these though I am interested in hearing a full setup. To me they just sound like the 'latest greatest' in room correction until the next 'latest greatest' comes around.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like to think of them in a cynical way. A lot of people that I respect seem to think either of these are great. I just don't get it, myself. Though I've heard similar comments about Audyssey and such which I have not been very impressed with.


----------



## sdurani

bootman_head_fi said:


> i asked here if these new AVRs take object based audio and creates discrete channels.


What do you mean by "create discrete channels"? Bass management creates a subwoofer output, but that's not a "discrete channel" since it is a combination of signals from the LFE and other channels. Likewise, objects have to be output from somewhere. Are you calling those outputs "discrete channels"?


bootman_head_fi said:


> for the most part I tend to prefer DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD mixes


Well, that explains things.


----------



## IA_Hi_Fi_Guy

sdurani said:


> What do you mean by "create discrete channels"? Bass management creates a subwoofer output, but that's not a "discrete channel" since it is a combination of signals from the LFE and other channels. Likewise, objects have to be output from somewhere. Are you calling those outputs "discrete channels"? Well, that explains things.


Has Dolby specified what type (direct radiators or BiPoles) will be preferred for the ceiling speakers? it seems to me that BiPoles might be a bit more forgiving with speaker placement, especially when there are two rows of seating.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

sdurani said:


> Well, that explains things.


It may only explain that DTS has the lion's share of bluray titles currently?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=159814

Quite a list and most are DTS so just by pure statistics my statement is true. 

By a factor of 6:1 BTW.

But we digress.


----------



## sdurani

IA_Hi_Fi_Guy said:


> Has Dolby specified what type (direct radiators or BiPoles) will be preferred for the ceiling speakers? it seems to me that BiPoles might be a bit more forgiving with speaker placement, especially when there are two rows of seating.


Dolby hasn't specified. If you can find direct radiators with wide enough dispersion to cover both rows, then that would work well (everybody hears overhead sounds without those sounds being sprayed on the side walls). If you can't find wide dispersion speakers that you like, then try bipoles, though they will spread height information in every direction and possibly soften directionality.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bootman_head_fi said:


> It may only explain that DTS has the lion's share of bluray titles currently?
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=159814
> 
> Quite a list and most are DTS so just by pure statistics my statement is true.
> 
> By a factor of 6:1 BTW.
> 
> But we digress.


That just means you liked the mix for whatever movie it was that you were watching. Being either PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA has no bearing on what you heard.

If all the movies you enjoyed were presented in DTS-MA is purely coincidence.


----------



## sdurani

bootman_head_fi said:


> It may only explain that DTS has the lion's share of bluray titles currently?


No, that has to do with DTS authoring tools taking less time and effort than Dolby's. It's not like one lossless codec is somehow 'more identical' to the original than another lossless codec. The fact that you prefer one to the other explains your understanding of the technology and puts some of your comments in context.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Dolby hasn't specified. If you can find direct radiators with wide enough dispersion to cover both rows, then that would work well (everybody hears overhead sounds without those sounds being sprayed on the side walls). If you can't find wide dispersion speakers that you like, then try bipoles, though they will spread height information in every direction and possibly soften directionality.


Or use CD (controlled directivity) coaxials that do a better job of maintaining full freq response off-axis and allow more even coverage by proper orientation.

This would be by roughly pointing them at the opposite side of the listening area to put farther listeners on-axis, while nearer ones would not be blasted with high SPL by virtue of being off-axis.

This is similar to toeing in the L/R's and works with any direct radiator, but more effectively with ones that have CD characteristics.


----------



## sdurani

^^^ Agreed about the energy trading approach (cross toe-ing), whether using coaxials or otherwise.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

sdurani said:


> No, that has to do with DTS authoring tools taking less time and effort than Dolby's. It's not like one lossless codec is somehow 'more identical' to the original than another lossless codec. The fact that you prefer one to the other explains your understanding of the technology and puts some of your comments in context.


You are correct. it is all in the mix.
Funny how many in bold on that list are Atmos releases in theaters but uses DTS for home release.
Well funny how the contracts works. Everyone gets a piece of the pie I guess.

...and you are correct. I'm a complete noob when it comes to this, so please pardon my ignorance and my silly comments.
I'll go back to lurking.


----------



## Orbitron

DTS-UHD-Dolby Atmos receivers next year? or not.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> ^^^ Agreed about the energy trading approach (cross toe-ing), whether using coaxials or otherwise.


Coaxials are particularly suited to surrounds because of their compactness and not needing the distance that 2-ways require for integration of woofer and tweeter wavefronts.

For anyone interested, look at pro audio models like B&C, BMS, etc., which have CD's (compression drivers this time) with horns blended into the woofer cone profile; IOW not the same as just concentrically mounting the tweeter.


----------



## lgreis

Orbitron said:


> DTS-UHD-Dolby Atmos receivers next year? or not.


I hope so, this year Atmos decoding and mixing replaces the prologic2z, DTS UHD will replace DTS Neox in 2015 thats the logic of evolution, Next year will be THE Year to replace my AVR!With finals specs of 4k and next gen UHD sound! This year is too risky to buy only with Atmos! If the future of bluray 4k will have DTS UHD like now it has DTS HD Master áudio, who buys this first ones will be not happy! Well this is for me that replaces an avr in every 4 to 7 years when comes new tecnology. Having the first dolby prologic processor, the first dolby digital/ DTS ES receiver/ the first dolby true hd/ DTS HD master áudio receiver, and hopping to have the first Dolby Atmos/DTS UHD receiver!!! I dont know what will hapend to Auro 3d in the home, its an all diferent tecnology, not object base like atmos and UHD, so diferent number of speaker and placements than the other two that have the same specs, so i think it will be not too comercial, will see... soon there will be light...!


----------



## Orbitron

We need a motorized mounting system for the speakers...


----------



## NorthSky

The new Blu-ray movies; are they going to be mixed in Dolby Atmos TrueHD 9.1 surround, or dts Atmos HD Master Audio 9.1 surround sound?


----------



## asarose247

This Klipsch SLX, without the stand oc, on the ceiling, horizontally about 8-10" down from the ceiling on the corners of a 7 foot square, cross-fired on the MLP, since I already have 4, xo 80 , awaiting mounting on security camera arms and ,of course, some hardware and playable content.


standing by . .


----------



## Skylinestar

kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately, in the current list of Atmos-enabled AVRs announced, they will not have any way of knowing where the speakers are. That is, they will not be measuring azimuth and elevation angles and do not have any way to input the info manually. You just have to put the speakers in the 'right' places, as we have always done.


How about Yamaha's 3D YPAO ? 
http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3040_black_u/?mode=model


> YPAO™ - R.S.C. with 3D, multipoint and angle measurement


----------



## asarose247

*Holding Pattern*

my yammy 775WA stand-in while the onkyo 818 "maybe" gets repaired, from newegg about late april. ,
running LCR and Surrounds thru an Emotiva UPA 7 and 1 Submaximus sub off one channel of an Inuke6oooDSP. the rears and "2 presence run with the 775
The YPAO did an interesting set up, made my Klipsch F-3's"small" and an xo of 100 (changed that) and when the 3d kicks in, it is tough to find much to complain about except for lack of room treatment.
Does 5.1 music, as in the LOVE Beatles just fine, clean and complete.
It KNOWS where the speakers are wrt to using the mike for set up. at least the distances. it may know more, but it isn't talking about it . . . 
In a previous life, there was a WAF factor that said the "right' locations didn't actually exist.
Fixed THAT!
"Right" would try to let each speakers be able to be heard almost independently of the others until content says otherwise, just need "enough" space so they 're not crowding each other but transition smoothly.


we can only hope . . .


----------



## steveting99

Question regarding Dolby Atmos blu-ray source movies. Are any available now? If not, how does one know if the source disc contains object based metadata? Is there a symbol to let purchasers know that there is object based metadata in the soundtrack?

Take for example the movie Brave that was originally in mixed for Atmos and released in theaters. Its currently available on blu-ray disc with Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. Does the disc contain Atmos object based metadata such that if bit streamed from the blu-ray player to at Atmos equipped AVR, one can test the difference between standard channel mix and object audio?

Or does the customer have to "re-purchase" a new Atmos Brave blu-ray disc? I.e. be out of pocket twice?

If being an early adopter means having to pay again get Atmos object based audio source soundtracks on the disc, my enthusiasm for Atmos is starting to wane.


----------



## asarose247

Roll over image to zoom Click for larger image







*Lanzar MX693 6"x9" 600 Watt 3-Way Coaxial Speaker Pair*


Brand:Lanzar
| Model: MX693

 ★★★★★ ★★★★★   Be the first to review this product  


Write a review . This action will open a modal dialog. 
Ask a question 









Overview
Standard 6" x 9" size of the MX693 fits OEM locations. Specifications: • Power handling: 300 watts RMS/600 watts peak • Frequency response: 40 - 22 kHz.


Highlights

High quality injection cone
Non-fatiguing butyl rubber surround
Glossy black steel basket
2.5" Polymer cone midrange
1" Titanium dome tweeter
1.25" High temperature aluminum voice coil
36 oz. magnet structure


Part # 267-7168

Weight: 7.65 lbs. 


mounting depth < 3.5"
from PE.
Adequate?


----------



## asarose247

depending on the room size, 4 10 foot unistrut rails on the ceiling would allow for "a lot" of front to back and side to side placement experimentation ( in my room) . make sure you have "enough" speaker wire to accommodate 
"MAYBE" some firmware will be able to "measure" x,y,z, placement and either tell us how to re-adjust placement or re-adjust the objects to fit.
Sounds so simple . . .
so who is holding out on this capacity?


----------



## asarose247

A speaker set-up algorithm(?) using 3 microphones simultaneously in (a) pre-determined pattern(s) would be able to triangulate your speakers positioning exactly, or so it would seem.
Something like that makes me think the new Onkyo "accu-EQ" "1 position fits all" would be . . . nevermind
I don't think this is that crowd. 
So where are the programmers?
or WHY NOT?


----------



## sdurani

steveting99 said:


> Or does the customer have to "re-purchase" a new Atmos Brave blu-ray disc?


When Brave was released to home video in 2012, I doubt the authoring tools existed to put a backwards compatible Atmos soundtrack on Blu-ray. If you want an Atmos version of the movie, you'll have to buy the title again. If you're averse to duplicating titles you already own, stick to newer movies that have Atmos soundtracks upon initial release.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

steveting99 said:


> Question regarding Dolby Atmos blu-ray source movies. Are any available now? If not, how does one know if the source disc contains object based metadata? Is there a symbol to let purchasers know that there is object based metadata in the soundtrack?
> 
> Take for example the movie Brave that was originally in mixed for Atmos and released in theaters. Its currently available on blu-ray disc with Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. Does the disc contain Atmos object based metadata such that if bit streamed from the blu-ray player to at Atmos equipped AVR, one can test the difference between standard channel mix and object audio?
> 
> Or does the customer have to "re-purchase" a new Atmos Brave blu-ray disc? I.e. be out of pocket twice?
> 
> If being an early adopter means having to pay again get Atmos object based audio source soundtracks on the disc, my enthusiasm for Atmos is starting to wane.


No Atmos discs are available now. Dolby says they'll roll out starting this fall and they will be having some sort of big press announcement about Atmos in August before CEDIA. 

You can bet they will splash *Dolby Atmos *on the cover somewhere. They may even put a banner on the front like 3D Blu-ray's.


----------



## NorthSky

But the new Blu-ray movies; encoded with (Atmos) Dolby or dts (high-res audio - lossless)? 

...And how many channels; nine, eleven?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> But the new Blu-ray movies; encoded with (Atmos) Dolby or dts (high-res audio - lossless)?
> 
> ...And how many channels; nine, eleven?


5.1 to 7.1 channel beds with Atmos objects and placement metadata tacked on as an extension file (for backwards compatibility with current Dolby TrueHD decoders). It works similarly to Atmos for the cinema (though, it's 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds in the theatrical version). However, three-axis positional metadata will be limited to 24 mains/subs + 10 overheads. Each output can be addressed individually and act similarly to a discrete channel via an Atmos renderer.

Obviously, the first gen Atmos products (that mere mortals can afford) are limited to 7.1.4 (but the metadata is still there on the soundtrack for the full "effect").


----------



## NorthSky

Only 24 mains/subs + 10 overheads! 

* Are the movie studios going to switch to Dolby from dts audio soundtracks encoding for most of their Blu-ray movies? ...In order to get that higher surround sound experience from Dolby Atmos.

Right now Dolby is in the very low minority (Dolby TrueHD), compared to the vast majority of Blu-ray movies encoded with DTS-HD Master Audio.

Compatibility?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Only 24 mains/subs + 10 overheads!
> 
> * Are the movie studios going to switch to Dolby from dts audio soundtracks encoding for most of their Blu-ray movies? ...In order to get that higher surround sound experience from Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Right now Dolby is in the very low minority (Dolby TrueHD), compared to the vast majority of Blu-ray movies encoded with DTS-HD Master Audio.
> 
> Compatibility?


It has nothing to do with it. Some studios will switch from one to the other depending on the authoring software the video post house they hired is using at the time. Lossless is lossless. It shouldn't matter.

If DTS-UHD comes out all guns a-blazin' and is superior (and cheaper) to implement than Dolby Atmos... then DTS-UHD wins the day in the end. 

It's mostly about whether one or the other is cheaper.


----------



## NorthSky

Thank you.


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> It has nothing to do with it. Some studios will switch from one to the other depending on the authoring software the video post house they hired is using at the time. Lossless is lossless. It shouldn't matter.
> 
> If DTS-UHD comes out all guns a-blazin' and is superior (and cheaper) to implement than Dolby Atmos... then DTS-UHD wins the day in the end.
> 
> It's mostly about whether one or the other is cheaper.


Cheaper chip or cheaper licensing?


----------



## Roger Dressler

It takes no more DSP horsepower to calculate the signal for a speaker in position A than position B. So why the inability of these first AVRs to adapt to specific speaker positions? My speculation is that Dolby made that optional for the AVR makers to decide. And just as they are sticking with existing 11.1 platforms, they may also be sticking with as much of the current menu structure as possible. Reduces design time and minimizes consumer shock. Think about what would happen if a consumer were asked to input the azimuth and elevation for 11 speakers. Azi-who? Until there are handy tools available, like the 4-element Trinnov mic and the analysis software seen in the Sherwood 976, the AVR boys may have simply decided to play it safe to minimize the number of distress calls.

Just adding one more dimension to this remapping issue, it requires some fairly serious "departure from the standard speaker setup" before custom object rendering is of value. And as has been noted already, if the speakers are too far afield, there's no processing that will fix it. The #1 goal of object audio is to break the linkage between content channels and playback speakers. Having 7, 9, 11, 13, 22 or 32 speakers no longer requires special content. One mix will play in all such systems, theatrical or consumer. That puts the decision about how many speakers to use in the hands of the system designer.

Speaking of Trinnov, the "remapping" we are talking about in object audio rendering has nothing in common with the Trinnov process. Rather, it is much more like the remapping found in DTS-HD where a 5.1 program will split the 2 surrounds across the 4 surround speakers in a 7.1 system. Basic panning. They both work, but quite differently.

Lastly, I agree that in many respects object playback on an 11.1 system will sound a lot like an 11.1-channel mix. But the 11.1 mix does not give 3 options for the height speaker positions.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I agree that in many respects object playback on an 11.1 system will sound a lot like an 11.1-channel mix. But the 11.1 mix does not give 3 options for the height speaker positions.


Isn't it only 2 options: 4 heights or 2 heights? That could be handled by downmixing 4 overhead channels, especially since the 2-height option has the speakers placed at the middle of the 4-height option.


----------



## noah katz

asarose247 said:


> A speaker set-up algorithm(?) using 3 microphones simultaneously in (a) pre-determined pattern(s) would be able to triangulate your speakers positioning exactly, or so it would seem.





Roger Dressler said:


> ...Until there are handy tools available, like the 3-element Trinnov mic and the analysis software seen in the Sherwood 976, the AVR boys may have simply decided to play it safe to minimize the number of distress calls.
> 
> ...Speaking of Trinnov, the "remapping" we are talking about in object audio rendering has nothing in common with the Trinnov process.


The Trinnov mic is an array of four; three define only a plane (2D).

While the s/w implementations may be different, it seems to me that the process procedure is essentially the same - a sound is placed where there is no speaker by phantom imaging it between the two nearest speakers.

I'd guess Trinnov does a better job since it corrects for speaker phase as well as freq resp.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Isn't it only 2 options: 4 heights or 2 heights? That could be handled by downmixing 4 overhead channels, especially since the 2-height option has the speakers placed at the middle of the 4-height option.


I was thinking of just 2 height speakers in 3 places: front, middle, rear. Those would presumably all be different sets of signals. If they are not different, it makes no sense to ask which are being used.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> The Trinnov mic is an array of four; three define only a plane (2D).


And so it is!












noah katz said:


> While the s/w implementations may be different, it seems to me that the process procedure is essentially the same - a sound is placed where there is no speaker by phantom imaging it between the two nearest speakers.


Trinnov uses all the speakers to create the remapping effect. It is like Higher Order Ambisonics in that respect. Not at all like phantom panning between a pair of speakers.


----------



## petetherock

I am confused, can someone post a link to the info on that the first generation of Atmos amp won't be object based?


----------



## steveting99

sdurani said:


> When Brave was released to home video in 2012, I doubt the authoring tools existed to put a backwards compatible Atmos soundtrack on Blu-ray. If you want an Atmos version of the movie, you'll have to buy the title again. If you're averse to duplicating titles you already own, stick to newer movies that have Atmos soundtracks upon initial release.





Dan Hitchman said:


> No Atmos discs are available now. Dolby says they'll roll out starting this fall and they will be having some sort of big press announcement about Atmos in August before CEDIA.
> 
> You can bet they will splash *Dolby Atmos *on the cover somewhere. They may even put a banner on the front like 3D Blu-ray's.


What's the chance that hollywood is going to "re-lease" some of the older titles in Dolby Atmos? If these guys can up-sell existing titles with a new coat of paint, I'm thinking hollywood is going to milk the Atmos hype as much as possible.

Wasn't the idea of ultraviolet meant to prevent this?


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I was thinking of just 2 height speakers in 3 places: front, middle, rear. Those would presumably all be different sets of signals. If they are not different, it makes no sense to ask which are being used.


If using a single pair of heights, you put them in the top middle position. If you're using 2 pairs of heights, you put them in the top front and top rear positions. 

There is a little flexibility, in that each position has a 35 degree range: e.g., top middle can be anywhere from 25 degrees forward of your listening position to 10 degrees rearward of your listening position (65 degrees elevation to 110 degrees elevation).


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> ...
> 
> *Speaking of Trinnov, the "remapping" we are talking about in object audio rendering has nothing in common with the Trinnov process. Rather, it is much more like the remapping found in DTS-HD where a 5.1 program will split the 2 surrounds across the 4 surround speakers in a 7.1 system. Basic panning. They both work, but quite differently.*
> 
> Lastly, I agree that in many respects object playback on an 11.1 system will sound a lot like an 11.1-channel mix. But the 11.1 mix does not give 3 options for the height speaker positions.


Trinnov Optimizer or Dolby Atmos? ...Underlined.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> Trinnov Optimizer or Dolby Atmos? ...Underlined.


I am saying that object audio remapping is like DTS remapping. Not like Trinnov.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Cheaper chip or cheaper licensing?


Cheaper rendering and authoring software and cheaper licensing. Hollywood is always looking for the cheap route if they can help it. If it's superior, that's probably a secondary motivation.


----------



## sdurani

steveting99 said:


> What's the chance that hollywood is going to "re-lease" some of the older titles in Dolby Atmos?


There used to be a thread in the surround music section of the forum discussing which albums folks would like to have remixed to multi-channel. I'm sure there would be a similar wishlist for older movies some of us would like remixed to Atmos. Off the top of my head: Towering Inferno, Star Wars, Raiders, Top Gun, Twister, Die Hard, Independence Day, Rocketeer, Matrix, Tora Tora Tora. Don't know if the studios are thinking the same thing, but I hope so.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> If using a single pair of heights, you put them in the top middle position. If you're using 2 pairs of heights, you put them in the top front and top rear positions.
> 
> There is a little flexibility, in that each position has a 35 degree range: e.g., top middle can be anywhere from 25 degrees forward of your listening position to 10 degrees rearward of your listening position (65 degrees elevation to 110 degrees elevation).


I agree that the limitations of which you speak may well be true for this first generation, but it will not always be the case.


----------



## asarose247

_A speaker set-up algorithm(?) using 3 microphones simultaneously in (a) pre-determined pattern(s) would be able to triangulate your speakers positioning exactly, or so it would seem._
Being retired can be tougher than you might imagine, however, one last nobody really cares, time . . .
as an expositon of my original, if somewhat lacking in geometric exactness, idea
yes, 3 mikes laid out in a pattern of known distances and angles wrt to each other do indeed create a plane, THEN you add a fourth point i.e. the tone coming from the speaker.
That 4th point now creates 3 intersecting planes from the known base plane (think pyramid).The time delay of the tone to each of the known points is converted into distance which, along with the know angles and distances of the base plane, creates the 3 intersecting planes and determine the location of the 4th point, the speaker . maybe
And we should be able to compound the geometric input
Even my $400 yammy 775 can calculate D and it goes by 1/10 ft. or something small I know.
So the first measurement is 1 mike at the mlp, that creates a data set of speaker distance. perceptually in one plane, no elevation but separation angles/distances 
Like it says my high presence speakers are 12.whatever feet from the MLP but it doesn't know that they are 7 feet in the air, about 4 feet above the mlp as part of that distance.
So if a map could be set up that wrt to a known, say the MLP at a height of 36" and the measured input, by the user of the horizontal distance from the MLP to that speaker, the few simple trig calcs later and we will be able to calculate height wrt to the MLP
Then we use the 3 mike set-up, intersecting triangles and the distance stuff and the chip does the spatial placement being able to include in the calculation the known horizontal distance to the MLP, which comes out to 4 interesting planes. if we cannot figure out where the speaker is by now, who cares, turn it up . . LOL


no illumination or rebuttal expected or needed, I'm done thinking about it anyway but it seems like there's something there (delusion?)


now the separation of mikes on the Trinnov 4way as shown doesn't seem to be able to get much of a signal delay so no doubt there are greater minds than mine already at work on this. apparently THAT'S not too hard to do JSS
So the real question we all ask remains, 
when do I get my bonafide unwatered-down 7.2.4?


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I agree that the limitations of which you speak may well be true for this first generation, but it will not always be the case.


Oh sure, didn't mean to imply it was a permanent condition. But since the Dolby FAQ has already mentioned up to 10 speakers overhead, the future might bring 5 options (not 3) for placing a pair of heights.


----------



## abrxx

sdurani said:


> Oh sure, didn't mean to imply it was a permanent condition. But since the Dolby FAQ has already mentioned up to 10 speakers overhead, the future might bring 5 options (not 3) for placing a pair of heights.


Total speculation on my part, but I can see 10 speakers overhead breaking down into:

Front Heights
Front Top
Center Top
Rear Top
Rear Heights

Certainly if I was wiring for home cinema that would be my best bet if I wanted to put in 10 overhead speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> It was an excellent mix, for sure.
> 
> Though what you are hearing on BD is not objects. You do not own any software or hardware that is object aware.


That was my point, Scott - that the benefits of the Atmos mix seemed to be trickling down.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> There used to be a thread in the surround music section of the forum discussing which albums folks would like to have remixed to multi-channel. I'm sure there would be a similar wishlist for older movies some of us would like remixed to Atmos. Off the top of my head: Towering Inferno, Star Wars, Raiders, Top Gun, Twister, Die Hard, Independence Day, Rocketeer, Matrix, Tora Tora Tora. Don't know if the studios are thinking the same thing, but I hope so.


Top Gun with an Atmos mix.... oh, oh, oh, ooooooooh! And all the others you mention too would probably see my credit card start glowing with the heat...


----------



## kbarnes701

Skylinestar said:


> How about Yamaha's 3D YPAO ?
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3040_black_u/?mode=model


YPAO can measure the angles but the information is not being fed back into the Atmos engine unfortunately.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> Trinnov uses all the speakers to create the remapping effect. It is like Higher Order Ambisonics in that respect. Not at all like phantom panning between a pair of speakers.


My understanding is that Trinnov uses all of the speakers as necessary for its best effort at recreating a phase-correct soundfield.

I believe that if the correct speaker location is exactly between two physical speakers that they will pretty much receive the same signal to create a phantom image between them.

IIRC in one of the Trinnov reviews I saw the reviewer had a speaker layout very close to the ITU locations and said that with remapping on and with single-channel test tones there was barely any sound coming from the other speakers.



asarose247 said:


> ...3 mikes laid out in a pattern of known distances and angles wrt to each other do indeed create a plane, THEN you add a fourth point i.e. the tone coming from the speaker.


That's circular, since the algorithm is trying to locate the speaker and therefore can't use knowledge of its location to find it.

With 3 mic's time delays can only be determined in a 2D plane; the 4th mic is needed to determine delays in directions perpendicular to that plane.


----------



## ss9001

abrxx said:


> Total speculation on my part, but I can see 10 speakers overhead breaking down into:
> 
> Front Heights
> Front Top
> Center Top
> Rear Top
> Rear Heights
> 
> Certainly if I was wiring for home cinema that would be my best bet if I wanted to put in 10 overhead speakers.


the problem is finding a receiver or *affordable* prepro that will have the terminals, preamp outs, built-in speaker configurations or speaker switching capability to accommodate them.

I'm not sure what Pioneer's AVR's will allow but the photo shows their Atmos AVRs no longer have dedicated terminals for front heights. It's possible their Top connection could be used for IIz heights but no answers yet on the speaker configurations to be supported. For D&M that have all the connections, leaked manual pages seem to indicate switching between heights & overheads is at least theoretically possible.

the only prepro I know of that *could* handle your idea is the new $30-40K Trinnov Altitude with up to 32 channels.

if you are *constructing* a dedicated room, you certainly could pre-wire all these positions, knowing not all of them can be used, at least you'd be prepared for anything  but those of us with existing rooms are kind of in holding pattern planning for anything until manuals are forthcoming that show supported speaker layouts. even for atmos speakers & add-on modules, no way to tell where to put them until you know what the AVR is going to allow.

the good news is it should all be clear in several months


----------



## BillFree

*Definitive Tech. speakers / Dolby Atmos upgrade?*

My sound system is Definitive Tech BP3000,C/L/R3000,BPVXsides, BPVX/P rears. 
My Bluray player is OPPO 105. Amplifier is Sony AV receiver DN-1010

What will I need to use the new incorporate Dolby Atmos sound system for complete Atmos surround sound?

Appreciate your suggessions.


----------



## RichB

BillFree said:


> My sound system is Definitive Tech BP3000,C/L/R3000,BPVXsides, BPVX/P rears.
> My Bluray player is OPPO 105. Amplifier is Sony AV receiver DN-1010
> 
> What will I need to use the new incorporate Dolby Atmos sound system for complete Atmos surround sound?
> 
> Appreciate your suggessions.


 
From what I have read:




An Atmos enabled AVR,
2 or 4 ceiling channels, either directly mounted in the ceiling or bouncing off the ceiling
Atmos encoded source material.

- Rich


----------



## ss9001

BillFree said:


> My sound system is Definitive Tech BP3000,C/L/R3000,BPVXsides, BPVX/P rears.
> My Bluray player is OPPO 105. Amplifier is Sony AV receiver DN-1010
> 
> What will I need to use the new incorporate Dolby Atmos sound system for complete Atmos surround sound?
> 
> Appreciate your suggessions.


you could also go with an Atmos add-on module speaker to use with existing speakers, like this from DefTech:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/D...ers-Dolby-Atmos-with-A60-Speaker-Module.shtml


----------



## bootman_head_fi

ss9001 said:


> you could also go with an Atmos add-on module speaker to use with existing speakers, like this from DefTech:
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/D...ers-Dolby-Atmos-with-A60-Speaker-Module.shtml


They only mention the BP-8060ST model as being compatible.
Maybe more units are to be announced at a later date?


----------



## Sunny44

My current setup is 6.2, will I be able to
do a 6.2.2 or a 6.2.4?


----------



## RichB

Sunny44 said:


> My current setup is 6.2, will I be able to
> do a 6.2.2 or a 6.2.4?


I do not see why center-back should not be supported, but you need to check the AVR/Processor for configuration information.


- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> I do not see why center-back should not be supported, but you need to check the AVR/Processor for configuration information.
> 
> 
> - Rich


One of the problems with a centre back speaker, IIRC, is that the way pyscho-acoustics works, any sound placed right behind your head images as though it came from in front of you. How this would affect an Atmos setup, I have no idea, but it does seem like the centre back is best avoided. Even when the source is mono, I understand that ideally two rear speakers will be used, one at either side of the MLP.


----------



## JediFonger

Atmos for the home will not retain the full # of objects the commercial version will have. is the reason due to disk space of blu-rays or is it something else?

if this new surround sound schema is truly object-oriented, in theory, there should no LONGER be separate 'optimization' or mixes directed at varying sizes of commercial auditoriums, IMAX sized, homes or any size. 

that particular optimization should not be handled by the AVR/processor or audyssey like mechanism. when optimized correctly, it should re-product ANY object-oriented sound whether from DTS or Dolby or anyone else in the future. otherwise... going half way in between (as it is currently spec'd) means there in 2 or 3 generation we will have to upgrade one more time to get the *FULL* benefit everything.

i will be sitting the market out until content is here and new gear is here. meanwhile, i betchya a lot of people will be on an upgrade freeze until all of this is sorted out in the marketplace.

if done, well this truly is the "final frontier" of surround sound format for films. i can't imagine anything else beyond this except additional objects.


----------



## chi_guy50

ss9001 said:


> For D&M that have all the connections, *leaked manual pages seem to indicate switching between heights & overheads is at least theoretically possible.*


Would you care to share your source with the rest of us? Or at least with a compadre in the ATL?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cheaper rendering and authoring software and cheaper licensing. Hollywood is always looking for the cheap route if they can help it. If it's superior, that's probably a secondary motivation.


There is no licensing fee.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> There is no licensing fee.


Even better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JediFonger said:


> Atmos for the home will not retain the full # of objects the commercial version will have. is the reason due to disk space of blu-rays or is it something else?
> 
> if this new surround sound schema is truly object-oriented, in theory, there should no LONGER be separate 'optimization' or mixes directed at varying sizes of commercial auditoriums, IMAX sized, homes or any size.
> 
> that particular optimization should not be handled by the AVR/processor or audyssey like mechanism. when optimized correctly, it should re-product ANY object-oriented sound whether from DTS or Dolby or anyone else in the future. otherwise... going half way in between (as it is currently spec'd) means there in 2 or 3 generation we will have to upgrade one more time to get the *FULL* benefit everything.
> 
> i will be sitting the market out until content is here and new gear is here. meanwhile, i betchya a lot of people will be on an upgrade freeze until all of this is sorted out in the marketplace.
> 
> if done, well this truly is the "final frontier" of surround sound format for films. i can't imagine anything else beyond this except additional objects.



We don't yet know how many objects the consumer version vs. the cinema version has or can have. All we know for certain is that the positional metadata can work with a 24 + 10 configuration. 

The only way to get absolute customization is to go with a purely object based bitstream format. As of now, it's a hybrid of channel beds plus so many positional objects due to backwards compatibility in the cinema and the home electronics environment. 

I'm sure whatever limitations were built-in to consumer Atmos had much to do with consumer chip horsepower and the space and bitrate available on a regular Blu-ray disc without having the picture quality suffer too much.


----------



## JediFonger

why bother with that when TrueHD+DTS-HD MA didn't have a lot of backwards compatibility. either your AVR/BD player had it or you couldn't enjoy it.

let's get over that hump and pull the trigger.




Dan Hitchman said:


> We don't yet know how many objects the consumer version vs. the cinema version has or can have. All we know for certain is that the positional metadata can work with a 24 + 10 configuration.
> 
> The only way to get absolute customization is to go with a purely object based bitstream format. As of now, it's a hybrid of channel beds plus so many positional objects due to backwards compatibility in the cinema and the home electronics environment.
> 
> I'm sure whatever limitations were built-in to consumer Atmos had much to do with consumer chip horsepower and the space and bitrate available on a regular Blu-ray disc without having the picture quality suffer too much.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's funny...

DTS-MA was supposed to issue a feature (speaker remapping) when it debuted nearly 10 years ago. It's looking like speaker remapping will have another 5-10 years. It probably won't really ever be a *mainstream* thing until we have 100% object mixes. And even then we would still have to deal with it working with legacy channel-based sound.

Just my prediction. Nevermind that they are almost always accurate.


----------



## batpig

JediFonger said:


> why bother with that when TrueHD+DTS-HD MA didn't have a lot of backwards compatibility.



What are you talking about? Of course DTS/Dolby hi-rez formats were backwards compatible, they were designed to work with "legacy" decoders that didn't support them. For example DTS-HD has a "core plus extension" structure with the legacy lossy DTS track and the lossless info separately as an extension. So if you were outputting a BD with DTS-HD/MA to a decoder that only supported standard DTS surround, it would just decode the lossy "core". See this whitepaper: http://www.opusproductions.com/pdfs/DTS_HD_WhitePaper.pdf

Roger or someone else can correct me but I'm pretty sure Dolby True-HD authored BD's included a lossy 5.1 track as well for legacy support.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JediFonger said:


> why bother with that when TrueHD+DTS-HD MA didn't have a lot of backwards compatibility. either your AVR/BD player had it or you couldn't enjoy it.
> 
> let's get over that hump and pull the trigger.


Actually, they do. Both have lossy fall back tracks (either contained within the codec's core or as separate tracks) with a core + extension codec model for additional data and channels. 

This is how we're getting Atmos and presumably DTS-UHD on Blu-ray: core + object extensions. The core can be read by any Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio decoder and the Atmos or UHD renderers will combine both together for the complete "experience" in more sophisticated home theaters.


----------



## MichaelJHuman

Batpig is 100% correct to the best of my knowledge. That's why there were never issues playing BR movies with any receiver. Either the player decoded to M-PCM, or it sent a compatible stream to older players.

I presume EDID info from HDMI allowed players to do the right thing


----------



## JediFonger

thanks everyone.

i think what i mean to communicate is different. what i'm trying to say is this:
Before TrueHD/DTS-HD MA was available and you only had a AVR capable of DD or DTS lossy and a DVD player. When BD/HD DVD came along it brought about the lossless formats. you *HAD* to purchase a new equipment to enjoy lossless surround sound. and yes i'm aware of the all backward compatibility. you had BD/HD DVD players with 5.1 RCA analog outs for AVRs that could receive them to enjoy lossless.

i think that's what we are seeing here with the 1st gen Atmos.

but what i'm trying to communicate is, eventually many of the HT enthusiasts purchased new AVRs that could decode bitstream lossless TrueHD/DTS-HD MA and BD players. so where we should be going is straight out of the gate new AVRs/BD players that can do that Atmos straight out of the gate instead of going with the in between solutions.

we're always trying to play stop-gap instead of just going full on ahead and doing it right the first time.

let's say we did this in 1991, create a spec cappable of handling 4k, 8k, 16k XYZ color space with object oriented then allow technology to catch up to the realization of that. the business side of technology doesn't allow that of course lolz...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JediFonger said:


> thanks everyone.
> 
> i think what i mean to communicate is different. what i'm trying to say is this:
> Before TrueHD/DTS-HD MA was available and you only had a AVR capable of DD or DTS lossy and a DVD player. When BD/HD DVD came along it brought about the lossless formats. you *HAD* to purchase a new equipment to enjoy lossless surround sound. and yes i'm aware of the all backward compatibility. you had BD/HD DVD players with 5.1 RCA analog outs for AVRs that could receive them to enjoy lossless.
> 
> i think that's what we are seeing here with the 1st gen Atmos.
> 
> but what i'm trying to communicate is, eventually many of the HT enthusiasts purchased new AVRs that could decode bitstream lossless TrueHD/DTS-HD MA and BD players. so where we should be going is straight out of the gate new AVRs/BD players that can do that Atmos straight out of the gate instead of going with the in between solutions.
> 
> we're always trying to play stop-gap instead of just going full on ahead and doing it right the first time.
> 
> let's say we did this in 1991, create a spec cappable of handling 4k, 8k, 16k XYZ color space with object oriented then allow technology to catch up to the realization of that. the business side of technology doesn't allow that of course lolz...


But to one of your points... Blu-ray players don't have to be updated to bitstream an Atmos track (at least in this iteration of it). It thinks you're sending a Dolby TrueHD track instead.

Yes, you will need a new decoder to derive any extra benefits from said track.


----------



## JediFonger

from what i read (of what little info there is currently). Atmos will "piggy-back" off of LPCM or TrueHD while the actual steering logic will be done on player side... which means you'll need a upgrade the player, no? that's one of the more confusing aspects now. get Atmos without spending any $ currently...

i'm skeptical.


----------



## batpig

No, that's exactly the opposite of how it works. The Atmos data is encoded within the existing TrueHD codec, utilizing the "core" for the fixed channel based bed and the extensions to carry the object metadata. The player just needs to bitstream TrueHD -- the player has no idea whether the actual soundtrack has Atmos data or not.

The PROCESSOR is what is doing the decoding and rendering. If the AVR doesn't support Atmos, it will simply decode like a standard TrueHD track. If the AVR has Atmos, it will decode the TrueHD and incorporate the object metadata and render the sound the appropriate channels.

So any BDP which can bitstream TrueHD can deliver any Atmos soundtrack. The only thing that needs to be upgraded is the receiver/processor (and of course adding extra speakers up top).


----------



## JonFo

^^^ No, no need for new players.

The existing players ability to bitstream the DolbyTrue HD track (which is a container with variable meta-data driven contents) is all that's required. The new Atmos-enhanced TrueHD track will be indistinguishable from today's TrueHD, at least to the player.


----------



## Selden Ball

JediFonger said:


> from what i read (of what little info there is currently). Atmos will "piggy-back" off of LPCM or TrueHD while the actual steering logic will be done on player side... which means you'll need a upgrade the player, no? that's one of the more confusing aspects now. get Atmos without spending any $ currently...
> 
> i'm skeptical.


Atmos objects are only available as "metadata" added to a TrueHD or DD+ bitstream, not LPCM. No current BD players can decode Atmos, so they can't send it as LPCM, either. (Maybe the next generation of Oppo players might.) For Atmos objects to get to a receiver or pre/pro, the Dolby audio tracks have to be "bitstreamed" from the player to a decoding device. In other words, Atmos is "compatible" with any BD pleyer which can bitstream TrueHD or DD+ audio tracks. As a result, the original "Fat" PS3 can't pass Atmos objects, but all other Blu-ray disc players that I'm aware of can.

If you don't have an Atmos decoder (in a receiver or pre/pro) you'll hear just the "bed" lossless 5.1 or 7.1 audio tracks, so to that extent you don't need to upgrade. I dunno if the audio that Atmos objects would have sent to the overhead speakers are folded into the bed audio in a way that PLIIz could redirect them to front height speakers. 

See http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Atmos objects are only available as "metadata" added to a TrueHD or DD+ bitstream, not LPCM. No current BD players can decode Atmos, so they can't send it as LPCM, either. (Maybe the next generation of Oppo players might.) For Atmos objects to get to a receiver or pre/pro, the Dolby audio tracks have to be "bitstreamed" from the player to a decoding device. In other words, Atmos is "compatible" with any BD pleyer which can bitstream TrueHD or DD+ audio tracks. As a result, the original "Fat" PS3 can't pass Atmos objects, but all other Blu-ray disc players that I'm aware of can.
> 
> If you don't have an Atmos decoder (in a receiver or pre/pro) you'll hear just the "bed" lossless 5.1 or 7.1 audio tracks, so to that extent you don't need to upgrade. I dunno if the audio that Atmos objects would have sent to the overhead speakers are folded into the bed audio in a way that PLIIz could redirect them to front height speakers.
> 
> See http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


Any object sounds that are in the extension files are also in the channel bed "core." When the core + extension files are combined via an Atmos renderer, the sounds from the objects are also inverted out of phase with that of the sounds in the channel beds and that "cancels" them out of the channel beds. You cannot hear them. All you hear are the 3D positional object versions of those sounds laid on top of the channel beds. 

It works the same way in commercial theaters for backwards compatibility with older processors. You lose nothing from the soundtrack by only playing the 7.1 version and not the full Atmos track.

I'm taking an audio class right now and the instructor did a similar thing in Protools: took two exact sounds and played them back with their sound waves inverted and to your ears... no sound was played. Even though two sound waves _were_ generated. Pretty cool. Gotta love physics.


----------



## JediFonger

thanks all. i haven't gotten to that level of detail yet  let's hope for the best!


----------



## bootman_head_fi

The flip side opinion wise.


----------



## sdurani

^^^ I love when the guy in blue says "we're not trying to dis Atmos _too hard_". 

They ran an article on their website a few months ago explaining how Atmos speakers could not possibly work and would result in an acoustic mess. 

The video continues to push their agenda, but not too hard.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm taking an audio class right now and the instructor did a similar thing in Protools: took two exact sounds and played them back with their sound waves inverted and to your ears... no sound was played. Even though two sound waves _were_ generated. Pretty cool. Gotta love physics.


Did he play them back over two different loudspeakers or the same speaker?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> ^^^ I love when the guy in blue says "we're not trying to dis Atmos _too hard_".
> 
> They ran an article on their website a few months ago explaining how Atmos speakers could not possibly work and would result in an acoustic mess.
> 
> The video continues to push their agenda, but not too hard.


While I agree that the principle of these Dolby Atmos "speakers" is kind of screwy and not the best way to recreate the Atmos "experience," their attitude is basically to laugh it off without having heard a demo themselves. 

That's why I hope to make it to CEDIA this year.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Did he play them back over two different loudspeakers or the same speaker?


The same set of speakers. It was a surround array. Two equally timed and inverse sound waves will cancel each other out. Move these out of phase sound waves a fraction of a second apart and you will start to make them out ever so slightly.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> While I agree that the principle of these Dolby Atmos "speakers" is kind of screwy and not the best way to recreate the Atmos "experience," their attitude is basically to laugh it off without having heard a demo themselves.


Actual experience with these speakers might interfere with their dissing of Atmos


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Actual experience with these speakers might interfere with their dissing of Atmos


True that.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> The same set of speakers. It was a surround array. Two equally timed and inverse sound waves will cancel each other out. Move these out of phase sound waves a fraction of a second apart and you will start to make them out ever so slightly.


Still don't know what exactly he was doing or trying to demonstrate. Of course two identical signals will cancel each other if one has its polarity reversed ("out of phase"). But once you play each sound from different loudspeakers you will hear something. So what's the point of this test?


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any object sounds that are in the extension files are also in the channel bed "core." When the core + extension files are combined via an Atmos renderer, the sounds from the objects are also inverted out of phase with that of the sounds in the channel beds and that "cancels" them out of the channel beds. You cannot hear them. All you hear are the 3D positional object versions of those sounds laid on top of the channel beds.


Where did you get that information from?


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> Actual experience with these speakers might interfere with their dissing of Atmos


 
Bank shot off the ceiling is something that cannot work for everyone. That does not mean that it cannot work for some.
If work means add sound, then it will always work. 

I haven't seen it yet, but I expect Atmos sound bars. Sorry, but that makes me chuckle. 

- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Where did you get that information from?


It's the basic tenant of Dolby and DTS's codecs. DTS started using this feature back in the DVD days with DTS-ES Discrete 6.1. The left and right surround speakers in the 5.1 "core" contained the same sound information that was included in the extra discrete back channel. So, if you played the track with a regular DTS 5.1 decoder, you didn't automatically lose the audio information by losing the back surround channel in the extension file. However, once you ran the track through a DTS-ES decoder it would combine the 5.1 core plus the sixth discrete back channel. In order to get rid of the duplicated audio in the left and right surrounds, the sounds from the sixth channel were run inversely and were knocked out of the left and right surrounds... and you only heard them out of the added back surround channel. 

Dolby also does this with TrueHD when adding back surround channels to their 5.1 core to make it 7.1. There are basically two mixes in one, so the same inverse sound wave technique is implemented.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Still don't know what exactly he was doing or trying to demonstrate. Of course two identical signals will cancel each other if one has its polarity reversed ("out of phase"). But once you play each sound from different loudspeakers you will hear something. So what's the point of this test?


To show how this channel signal negation is implemented in various audio codecs.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> To show how this channel signal negation is implemented in various audio codecs.


It's just not how it's done. You can't just add two signals and separate them without knowing one of the signals which in return defeats the purpose.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's the basic tenant of Dolby and DTS's codecs. DTS started using this feature back in the DVD days with DTS-ES Discrete 6.1. The left and right surround speakers in the 5.1 "core" contained the same sound information that was included in the extra discrete back channel. So, if you played the track with a regular DTS 5.1 decoder, you didn't automatically lose the audio information by losing the back surround channel in the extension file. However, once you ran the track through a DTS-ES decoder it would combine the 5.1 core plus the sixth discrete back channel. In order to get rid of the duplicated audio in the left and right surrounds, the sounds from the sixth channel were run inversely and were knocked out of the left and right surrounds... and you only heard them out of the added back surround channel.
> 
> Dolby also does this with TrueHD when adding back surround channels to their 5.1 core to make it 7.1. There are basically two mixes in one, so the same inverse sound wave technique is implemented.


But we're talking about Atmos here and not about older formats. So was your initial comment just how you wish or think how Atmos for the home will work or do you know more than everybody else at this point in time?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> But we're talking about Atmos here and not about older formats. So was your initial comment just how you wish or think how Atmos for the home will work or do you know more than everybody else at this point in time?


Since Dolby Atmos is piggybacked on top of Dolby TrueHD and the TrueHD core is backwards compatible just like in previous iterations... I am inferring that they'll use the same "trick" to eliminate sound duplication of the channel bed and the added metadata controlled objects. They're only using one track, not a "regular" track and an Atmos track on the same disc.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since Dolby Atmos is piggybacked on top of Dolby TrueHD and the TrueHD core is backwards compatible just like in previous iterations... I am inferring that they'll use the same "trick" to eliminate sound duplication of the channel bed and the added metadata controlled objects. They're only using one track, not a "regular" track and an Atmos track on the same disc.


We're talking about max. 118 simultaneous objects and not just two matrixed surround channels...


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> Bank shot off the ceiling is something that cannot work for everyone. That does not mean that it cannot work for some.


The actual bank shot wasn't the issue but their belief that you would hear the off-axis sound of the upward firing driver, and hearing that would obscure the overhead reflection. In other words, it can't work.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> We're talking about max. 118 simultaneous objects and not just two matrixed surround channels...


There is some doubt that consumer Atmos allows for 118 simultaneous objects. Most commercial mixes don't use 118 objects either, but they could.


----------



## wse

bootman_head_fi said:


> The flip side opinion wise. http://youtu.be/OXLQ4mIwyAk



It is true that you need more processing power for ATMOS and DTS True HD MDA no questions.

I would also agree that these speakers are probably not that great, but I keep my opinion until I hear them with my own ears rather than speculating! Andrew Jones knows what he is doing.

To me the only ATMOS will be with in ceiling speakers which I have 

These guys are talking about genetics


----------



## bootman_head_fi

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is some doubt that consumer Atmos allows for 118 simultaneous objects. Most commercial mixes don't use 118 objects either, but they could.


So does anyone know up to how many objects can be in the home version?
Is this info available?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bootman_head_fi said:


> So does anyone know up to how many objects can be in the home version?
> Is this info available?


I'm planning to attend CEDIA and Dolby will be having a 90 minute talk on home audio formats like Atmos, which I signed up for. Perhaps they'll have more information available.


----------



## tjenkins95

sdurani said:


> Actual experience with these speakers might interfere with their dissing of Atmos


 

After watching that video my high opinion of those guys just dropped several notches.
How can someone who reviews products say some of those things when not having even seen any of the product nor heard the product? They couldn't even get the "known" facts published at the Dolby website correct. 

And don't forget to buy our E-books!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> After watching that video my high opinion of those guys just dropped several notches.
> How can someone who reviews products say some of those things when not having even seen any of the product nor heard the product? They couldn't even get the "known" facts published at the Dolby website correct.
> 
> And don't forget to buy our E-books!!!


They're 2 channel guys. Probably think LP's are the be-all, end-all of audio fidelity as well.


----------



## Orbitron

wse said:


> It is true that you need more processing power for ATMOS and DTS True HD MDA no questions.
> 
> I would also agree that these speakers are probably not that great, but I keep my opinion until I hear them with my own ears rather than speculating! Andrew Jones knows what he is doing.
> 
> To me the only ATMOS will be with in ceiling speakers which I have
> 
> These guys are talking about genetics


Andrew Jones TAD Atmos speakers for the high end? - not likely.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Damn those two Audioholics guys for attempting to dampen our pre Atmos hysteria! 

And what's the deal with that Lou Ferrigno guy in the red shirt? 

Sheesh!


...Glenn


----------



## Orbitron

Glenn Baumann said:


> Damn those two Audioholics guys for attempting to dampen our pre Atmos hysteria!
> 
> And what's the deal with that Lou Ferrigno guy in the red shirt?
> 
> Sheesh!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Audioholics video pretty funny actually. No mention of concentric drivers but a good point near the end, a really good 5.1 home theater is quite immersive. 

Then there is the question of absorbtion and diffusion already in place in custom built dedicated home theaters. The analysis for my room did not account for ceiling speakers or ceiling reflections off front floorstanders that come within 2 feet of the ceiling.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any object sounds that are in the extension files are also in the channel bed "core." When the core + extension files are combined via an Atmos renderer, the sounds from the objects are also inverted out of phase with that of the sounds in the channel beds and that "cancels" them out of the channel beds. You cannot hear them. All you hear are the 3D positional object versions of those sounds laid on top of the channel beds.
> 
> It works the same way in commercial theaters for backwards compatibility with older processors. You lose nothing from the soundtrack by only playing the 7.1 version and not the full Atmos track.
> 
> I'm taking an audio class right now and the instructor did a similar thing in Protools: took two exact sounds and played them back with their sound waves inverted and to your ears... no sound was played. Even though two sound waves _were_ generated. Pretty cool. Gotta love physics.


Dan. 


That isn't how it work for commercial cinemas at all.

And it's not going to work that way for the home.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.
> 
> 
> That isn't how it work for commercial cinemas at all.
> 
> And it's not going to work that way for the home.


Then I got some bad information. How does it work then? I mean, seriously, who am I to trust that I'm getting accurate data from?


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then I got some bad information. How does it work then? I mean, seriously, who am I to trust that I'm getting accurate data from?


We don't know (yet). It's interesing to see that some people are already starting to become overly confident about their opinion how Atmos for the home would work. Guess that's just human nature. We're built to believe. Marketing works, facts are secondary


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> ^^^ I love when the guy in blue says "we're not trying to dis Atmos _too hard_".
> 
> They ran an article on their website a few months ago explaining how Atmos speakers could not possibly work and would result in an acoustic mess.
> 
> The video continues to push their agenda, but not too hard.


For me, the most revealing part of the whole video was when the guy in blue says "I have not heard an Atmos speaker yet". Those who _have_, have all made comments about how good the result is, even when they were skeptical before hearing the Atmos speakers. I can't see the Atmos speakers being as good as in or on ceiling speakers, but then they aren't intended to be. They are for providing an Atmos experience to those who can't accommodate in/on ceiling speakers. I like the Audioholics site and have learned a lot there, so I am surprised that they are taking this very subjective approach without actually having tested the speakers they are dissing. I wonder if they will make a video like this soon....?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g8JC_TxPEjM


----------



## Ethan Ong

Dear All,

This may be irrelevant & I may be too paranoid.

I have a small dedicated HT room with ceiling-mounted PJ. My ceiling height meets the min height requirement for Atmos. I sit directly below the PJ & there's min gap between the ceiling & the PJ base mount plate. PJ distance to screen is 3.1 metres for 100" screen size.

Based on the attached pic (which I inverted the projector installation to show ceiling mount), my concern is that if I were to place ceiling height speakers for Atmos, the pic projection may be obstructed by the ceiling height speakers.

On the other hand, if I were to use those Atmos-enabled speaker modules that are placed on top of my main L/R speakers, my concern is whether the reflection off the ceiling will really produce significant "ceiling height surround" effect or not.

Thanks.


----------



## jevans64

bootman_head_fi said:


> The flip side opinion wise.
> 
> http://youtu.be/OXLQ4mIwyAk


Is it just me, or was anyone else hoping Kirk would spring into action and STUN them both? Either with a Type-1 phaser or with his patented karate chop to the back of the neck.

I'm just hoping Dolby does Atmos-for-the-Home right and doesn't skimp. I can't remember the last time a BD I bought had a TrueHD track on it.


----------



## jevans64

Ethan Ong said:


> Dear All,
> 
> This may be irrelevant & I may be too paranoid.
> 
> I have a small dedicated HT room with ceiling-mounted PJ. My ceiling height meets the min height requirement for Atmos. I sit directly below the PJ & there's min gap between the ceiling & the PJ base mount plate. PJ distance to screen is 3.1 metres for 100" screen size.
> 
> Based on the attached pic (which I inverted the projector installation to show ceiling mount), my concern is that if I were to place ceiling height speakers for Atmos, the pic projection may be obstructed by the ceiling height speakers.
> 
> On the other hand, if I were to use those Atmos-enabled speaker modules that are placed on top of my main L/R speakers, my concern is whether the reflection off the ceiling will really produce significant "ceiling height surround" effect or not.
> 
> Thanks.


I don't know what speakers you have or whether you have an attic above your ceiling, but I would just use in-wall speakers for the ceiling instead of hanging boxes from the ceiling. I have Definitive Technology speakers and they have quite a few choices as far as in-wall speakers go. I plan to mount in-wall speakers on the ceiling and box them in using MDF.


----------



## Ethan Ong

jevans64 said:


> I don't know what speakers you have or whether you have an attic above your ceiling, but I would just use in-wall speakers for the ceiling instead of hanging boxes from the ceiling. I have Definitive Technology speakers and they have quite a few choices as far as in-wall speakers go. I plan to mount in-wall speakers on the ceiling and box them in using MDF.


Thanks for your reply.

I don't have an attic above ceiling (>80% of people living in my country don't have the luxury of this) & in-wall speakers are out.


----------



## markus767

bootman_head_fi said:


> The flip side opinion wise.
> 
> http://youtu.be/OXLQ4mIwyAk


Not sure why people are jumping on these guys. What DellaSala says is perfectly true.

Regarding ceiling firing speakers, they are a compromise to speakers on/in the ceiling and they will cause acoustical interference because speakers don't radiate like lasers, they radiate in all directions at lower frequencies and become more directional only at higher frequencies.


----------



## tenthplanet

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're 2 channel guys. Probably think LP's are the be-all, end-all of audio fidelity as well.


 Two channel can sound good, but multi-channel can build a sound field more akin to how we really hear things. Years ago J. Gordon Holt was talking about 2 channel limitations for music playback. He would have loved Atmos is he were still alive.
I made it through about 4 min of the video of these snide tin eared fools


----------



## markus767

tenthplanet said:


> Two channel can sound good, but multi-channel can build a sound field more akin to how we really hear things.


Not more "like we hear things" but more "like where sounds can come from". Multichannel does NOT try to recreate a real wave field (like wave field synthesis tries to). It's an extension to stereo with warts and all. It's largely based on an artifact of our hearing, also known as summing localization. It's highly fragile and the reason why stereo and even multichannel is really just a single seat solution.

Good read: Stanley P. Lipshitz, "Stereo Microphone Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?", J. Audio Engineering Society, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 716-744 (Sept. 1986)


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then I got some bad information. How does it work then? I mean, seriously, who am I to trust that I'm getting accurate data from?


Dan, while Dolby has not publicly disclosed how their consumer codecs work, the concept you describe is solid. And it is in fact how DTS described the process for supporting a compatible core with object extensions in several industry presentations, one of which is *this AES paper*. The paper goes into a lot of detail, but these figures describe the concept. 

Start with a bed (say, 7.1) and however many objects are available, there is no limit imposed by the process. Map the objects into the bed with a 7.1 renderer. Now the 7.1 core is a complete soundtrack anyone can use, and ignore the extra objects.

In an object-aware decoder, the objects are subjected to the identical 7.1 renderer, but subtracted, thus cancelling. Now the bed is restored, and can be presented with the same objects rendered to whatever speaker system is in use.

In a lossless audio system, the sound is unblemished by this process. So it only makes sense that in a bitrate constrained medium (and BD is such in its own way), a lossless codec would use such a technique as it cuts the bitrate almost in half.


----------



## markus767

^
Would that process reduce bandwidth requirements for the max. 118 simultaneous objects?
From the graphic it looks like objects have to be transmitted in 1...n separate transmission channels in order to be removable from the downmix.


----------



## Ricoflashback

(From the Emotiva thread - better discussed here per the Moderators)

O.K. - regarding "No need for a new Bluray player. Atmos comes as a TrueHD track and the player bitstreams it to the AVR where the Atmos info is decoded."

If you do not need a new Bluray player, aren't you limited to what you AVR can process? In other words, if it is a 5.1 AVR or even Preamp, your are limited to 5.1 channels, correct? Same for a 9.2 AVR - - max channels is 9.2? So, in my case, I could add LH and RH and that would be it? Which I might consider but ONLY if it is a discrete channel. I'm not interested in matrixed sound. That's why I backed down to a 7.1 setup. 

"WRT to studios - the takeup of Atmos by the movie industry in the first year of its introduction significantly surpassed the takeup of 5.1 in the first year of the latter's introduction. Bodes well."

I'm not so sure that Dolby Atmos is a real game changer for the HT Enthusiast. Sure, big spenders might outfit themselves with the max. 34 speakers in their high end theater but the average Joe is trying to find room for a 7.1 setup. 

Hey, be the first one on your block with the all new XXX 34.2 Channel "Dolby Atmos" Certified AVR. Only 18" Wide by 16" Deep and 24" High. Gonna sell a lot of new cabinets with that setup! 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...t-34-speakers-high-end-home-theaters/#!bcdzxt


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Dan, while Dolby has not publicly disclosed how their consumer codecs work, the concept you describe is solid. And it is in fact how DTS described the process for supporting a compatible core with object extensions in several industry presentations, one of which is *this AES paper*. The paper goes into a lot of detail, but these figures describe the concept.
> 
> Start with a bed (say, 7.1) and however many objects are available, there is no limit imposed by the process. Map the objects into the bed with a 7.1 renderer. Now the 7.1 core is a complete soundtrack anyone can use, and ignore the extra objects.
> 
> In an object-aware decoder, the objects are subjected to the identical 7.1 renderer, but subtracted, thus cancelling. Now the bed is restored, and can be presented with the same objects rendered to whatever speaker system is in use.
> 
> In a lossless audio system, the sound is unblemished by this process. So it only makes sense that in a bitrate constrained medium (and BD is such in its own way), a lossless codec would use such a technique as it cuts the bitrate almost in half.


Roger, 

Thanks a bunch for providing some insight on the "sausage making" that many of of us like to delve into!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> (From the Emotiva thread - better discussed here per the Moderators)
> 
> O.K. - regarding "No need for a new Bluray player. Atmos comes as a TrueHD track and the player bitstreams it to the AVR where the Atmos info is decoded."
> 
> If you do not need a new Bluray player, aren't you limited to what you AVR can process? In other words, if it is a 5.1 AVR or even Preamp, your are limited to 5.1 channels, correct? Same for a 9.2 AVR - - max channels is 9.2? So, in my case, I could add LH and RH and that would be it? Which I might consider but ONLY if it is a discrete channel. I'm not interested in matrixed sound. That's why I backed down to a 7.1 setup.


The player only "thinks" it's bitstreaming a Dolby TrueHD track. It is not doing any decoding and doesn't determine how many speaker outputs you ultimately get. An Atmos receiver or pre-amp, however, is limited by the manufacturer. The current offerings from the major electronics companies priced for mere mortals can only do up to 11.1 (plus extra sub outs via bass management). However, there is metadata that can help instruct a renderer to position objects in up to 34 "positions" (they may or may not be including sub outs in that count) in top-of-the-line Atmos gear. 

Bottom line is that a particular piece of hardware is your limiting factor here (besides your room size and overall theater budget).


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> (From the Emotiva thread - better discussed here per the Moderators)
> 
> O.K. - regarding "No need for a new Bluray player. Atmos comes as a TrueHD track and the player bitstreams it to the AVR where the Atmos info is decoded."
> 
> If you do not need a new Bluray player, aren't you limited to what you AVR can process? In other words, if it is a 5.1 AVR or even Preamp, your are limited to 5.1 channels, correct? Same for a 9.2 AVR - - max channels is 9.2? So, in my case, I could add LH and RH and that would be it? Which I might consider but ONLY if it is a discrete channel. I'm not interested in matrixed sound. That's why I backed down to a 7.1 setup.


The Atmos AVR will process what it processes. Some will be limited to 5.1.2, some will handle 7.1.4 and so on, depending on their spec. Not sure what you mean by "your case". It depends which Atmos AVR you decide to buy when they become available later this year. The top speaker channels in Atmos will be discrete.



Ricoflashback said:


> "WRT to studios - the takeup of Atmos by the movie industry in the first year of its introduction significantly surpassed the takeup of 5.1 in the first year of the latter's introduction. Bodes well."
> 
> I'm not so sure that Dolby Atmos is a real game changer for the HT Enthusiast. Sure, big spenders might outfit themselves with the max. 34 speakers in their high end theater but the average Joe is trying to find room for a 7.1 setup.
> 
> Hey, be the first one on your block with the all new XXX 34.2 Channel "Dolby Atmos" Certified AVR. Only 18" Wide by 16" Deep and 24" High. Gonna sell a lot of new cabinets with that setup!
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...t-34-speakers-high-end-home-theaters/#!bcdzxt


You don't need to use 32 speakers. One of the nice things about Atmos is that it breaks the link between channels and playback speakers. Atmos scales to the number of speakers in the playback system. If you have 5.1.2 it works with 2 top speakers. If you have 5.1.4, it works with 4 top speakers and so on. One assumes that the experience is better as you add more speakers but it isn't necessary. And to date there is only the Trinnov Altitude that caters for 32 speakers, and it costs megabucks.

I agree it isn’t for the 'average Joe'. But then neither is 5.1 given that Joe uses a soundbar at best. It is for people like AVS members - enthusiasts. If you can't add two ceiling speakers, then consider the Atmos-enabled speaker modules or add-ons as a WAF-friendly alternative.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> The player only "thinks" it's bitstreaming a Dolby TrueHD track. It is not doing any decoding and doesn't determine how many speaker outputs you ultimately get. An Atmos receiver or pre-amp, however, is limited by the manufacturer. The current offerings from the major electronics companies priced for mere mortals can only do up to 11.1 (plus extra sub outs via bass management). However, there is metadata that can help instruct a renderer to position objects in up to 34 positions (they may or may not be including sub outs in that count) in top-of-the-line Atmos gear.



Is the 34 number based on the number of output channels or to the number of objects that can be processed?


- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> (From the Emotiva thread - better discussed here per the Moderators)


Good call - I was banned from the XMC-1 thread. I posted some Atmos stuff there after Mike's warning. I forgot which thread I was in - thought it was the Atmos thread. Fair enough, my bad for not taking more care.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> If you do not need a new Bluray player, aren't you limited to what you AVR can process?


Hasn't that always been the case? If you feed a 7.1 soundtrack to a 5.1 receiver, you'll get 5.1 playback. The player has nothing to do with it.


Ricoflashback said:


> Sure, big spenders might outfit themselves with the max. 34 speakers in their high end theater but the average Joe is trying to find room for a 7.1 setup.


Then the "average Joe" is in luck, because he can do Atmos with a 7.1 set-up.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> Is the 34 number based on the number of output channels or to the number of objects that can be processed?
> 
> 
> - Rich


Number of output "channels." No word yet on the ultimate number of objects available.


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> Is the 34 number based on the number of output channels or to the number of objects that can be processed?


Number of max output channels: 24 possible locations around you and 10 possible locations above you. I say possible locations because you don't have to use all of them, just whatever you're comfortable with.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> Dan, while Dolby has not publicly disclosed how their consumer codecs work, the concept you describe is solid. And it is in fact how DTS described the process for supporting a compatible core with object extensions in several industry presentations, one of which is *this AES paper*. The paper goes into a lot of detail, but these figures describe the concept.
> 
> Start with a bed (say, 7.1) and however many objects are available, there is no limit imposed by the process. Map the objects into the bed with a 7.1 renderer. Now the 7.1 core is a complete soundtrack anyone can use, and ignore the extra objects.
> 
> In an object-aware decoder, the objects are subjected to the identical 7.1 renderer, but subtracted, thus cancelling. Now the bed is restored, and can be presented with the same objects rendered to whatever speaker system is in use.
> 
> In a lossless audio system, the sound is unblemished by this process. So it only makes sense that in a bitrate constrained medium (and BD is such in its own way), a lossless codec would use such a technique as it cuts the bitrate almost in half.


Roger... assuming Dolby did something similar for Home Atmos, how would the TrueHD and DD+ also handle the 5.1?

From what I have been told they are doing something different... they also have to account for the overhead bed which is absent in the home version.. however, converting it to an object and encoding as described in your post may be their way around it... my info is a couple of months old and I will try and get some clarity on it.

Dan... the theatrical Atmos payload is separate from the 7.1 and 5.1 mixes contained on the DCP. 

At this point in time almost all of the mixes are being done "natively" (Atmos from the start, not the 7.1 first and Atmos after...) 

When it comes time to make the 7.1 and 5.1 (and stereo LtRt) the RMU provides a channel based down mix of the objects... 

You can make changes at this point in real time to "correct" unwanted results (maybe something in the overhead bleeds into the surrounds and you want it only in the main LCR, etc...)


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> they also have to account for the overhead bed which is absent in the home version.


Overhead is "absent"? That would mean content of two channels is simply omitted. Don't think they will do this.



FilmMixer said:


> At this point in time almost all of the mixes are being done "natively" (Atmos from the start, not the 7.1 first and Atmos after...)


Don't think this distinction makes sense. Atmos is a hybrid format. It's a 9.1 channel-based system with fixed speaker locations that adds objects into the mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Roger... assuming Dolby did something similar for Home Atmos, how would the TrueHD and DD+ also handle the 5.1?
> 
> From what I have been told they are doing something different... they also have to account for the overhead bed which is absent in the home version.. however, converting it to an object and encoding as described in your post may be their way around it... my info is a couple of months old and I will try and get some *clarity *on it.
> 
> Dan... the theatrical Atmos payload is separate from the 7.1 and 5.1 mixes contained on the DCP.
> 
> At this point in time almost all of the mixes are being done "natively" (Atmos from the start, not the 7.1 first and Atmos after...)
> 
> When it comes time to make the 7.1 and 5.1 (and stereo LtRt) the RMU provides a channel based down mix of the objects...
> 
> You can make changes at this point in real time to "correct" unwanted results (maybe something in the overhead bleeds into the surrounds and you want it only in the main LCR, etc...)



Thanks for the clarifications and addendum. Hoping for more information as you gain further "clarity."


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Overhead is "absent"? That would mean two channels are simply deleted. Don't think they will do this.
> 
> Don't think this distinction makes sense. Atmos is a hybrid format. It's a 9.1 channel-based system with fixed speaker locations that adds objects into the mix.


First point... of corse they won't do this.. I never said they would... I'm not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home.

Second point.... the distinction is important in how the 7.1 and 5.1 mixes are created.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Overhead is "absent"? That would mean two channels are simply deleted. Don't think they will do this.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think this distinction makes sense. Atmos is a hybrid format. It's a 9.1 channel-based system with fixed speaker locations that adds objects into the mix.


Pro-grade Atmos, from my limited understanding, can have 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds. I guess the consumer version dropped the height channel bed to save space. Though, objects can be placed in the height speakers to make them seem like channels.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> First point... of corse they won't do this.. I never said they would... I'm not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home.


Then why did you say that overhead beds would be "absent in the home version"?



FilmMixer said:


> Second point.... the distinction is important in how the 7.1 and 5.1 mixes are created.


Why? Where's the difference in the production process if you follow Dolby's guidelines and simply don't use top surrounds and objects. The result is a standard 7.1 mix. No?


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Pro-grade Atmos, from my limited understanding, can have 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds. I guess the consumer version dropped the height channel bed to save space. Though, objects can be placed in the height speakers to make them seem like channels.


So what? "Drop height channels" is like "drop front channels". Makes no sense.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I've got a fever!

And the only prescription.... is software with Atmos.

I gotta have more Atmos, baby!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> So what? "Drop height channels" is like "drop front channels". Makes no sense.


I think not waiting for media with higher capacity than Blu-ray made no sense IMHO. There's a limited amount of space to work with. Corners have to be cut.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> I've got a fever!
> 
> And the only prescription.... is software with Atmos.
> 
> I gotta have more Atmos, baby!


Hard to believe that Walken is a song and dance man.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think not waiting for media with higher capacity than Blu-ray made no sense IMHO. There's a limited amount of space to work with. Corners have to be cut.


Makes no sense. The one feature that makes Atmos for the home stand out is top surrounds. What is left of Atmos when they "drop top surrounds"? Nothing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Makes no sense. The one feature that makes Atmos for the home stand out is top surrounds. What is left of Atmos when they "drop top surrounds"? Nothing.


But they can still place objects in the top surrounds and pan them about due to the metadata instructions, they just don't have channel anchor points for other sounds (if what I'm reading is correct).


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Pro-grade Atmos, from my limited understanding, can have 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds. I guess the consumer version dropped the height channel bed to save space. Though, objects can be placed in the height speakers to make them seem like channels.


It's not about space...

TrueHD and DD+ max out at 8 channels.. the overhead bed channels from the theatrical version will get encoded... I'm not clear on if they will be doing it with an object or by some other means in the extension, or matrixed into the surrounds channels
in a manner similar to what Roger detailed above, or??????

The cinema bed is always 9.1, regardless if the overhead array channels contain any information or not... even if they were "silent" you can't allocate those resources as objects..

On the RMU:

Inputs 1-10 9.1 Bed
Inputs 11-128 Objects...


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> But they can still place objects in the top surrounds and pan them about due to the metadata instructions, they just don't have channel anchor points for other sounds (if what I'm reading is correct).


Still makes no sense. Will any mixer use top surround channels if he knows that those channels will be "dropped" before the mix reaches the consumer's home?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Then why did you say that overhead beds would be "absent in the home version"?
> 
> Why? Where's the difference in the production process if you follow Dolby's guidelines and simply don't use top surrounds and objects. The result is a standard 7.1 mix. No?


Markus.. come on now....

Now you're just confusing every one..

In my first response to you I said "I'm not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home." 

See my response to Dan...

Regarding your second point, it's a distinction for us sound professionals in work flow, budgeting, etc..... not going to argue with your understanding of the process or why the distinction exists.


----------



## KidHorn

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then I got some bad information. How does it work then? I mean, seriously, who am I to trust that I'm getting accurate data from?



It might work the way you describe but I think you're missing an important point. More likely the sound is cancelled during the DSP phase and not cancelled by the speakers. The cancellation occurs in the signals going to the speakers, not by the speakers themselves. Otherwise the cancellation would only work if you were exactly in between the speakers. If you were a little closer to one, the cancellation wouldn't work. It probably does a FFT that includes the inverse of the object sound.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Now you're just confusing every one..
> 
> In my first response to you I said "I'm not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home."


And I've said "why did you say that overhead beds would be "absent in the home version"?" You're the one "just confusing every one..".



FilmMixer said:


> Regarding your second point, it's a distinction for us sound professionals in work flow, budgeting, etc..... not going to argue with your understanding of the process or why the distinction exists.


No need to argue with me you simply could explain what the distinction is. Again, I don't see any difference when you set up your console for Atmos and don't use objects or top surrounds. You waste a couple of feet of faders for sure but the end result is a standard 7.1 mix. No difference to 7.1 mixes from the past.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> That would mean content of two channels is simply omitted.


When you see a 2-channel version of a soundtrack that was originally 5.1, do you believe the content in the centre and surround channels is "simply omitted"?


----------



## KidHorn

Glenn Baumann said:


> And what's the deal with that Lou Ferrigno guy in the red shirt?



I would be careful what you write. I wouldn't want that guy angry at me.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> When you see a 2-channel version of a soundtrack that was originally 5.1, do you believe the content in the centre and surround channels is "simply omitted"?


No, it's downmixed. That is very different to "absent".


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> No, it's downmixed. That is very different to "absent".


Marc said the overhead bed is absent; he didn't say that the content carried within is discarded.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> No, it's downmixed. That is very different to "absent".


Markus.. again, the codecs used to deliver Home Atmos don't do more than 8 channels.... the theatrical Atmos bed is 10 channels...

I don't know how it will get encoded and/or translated...

I think everyone else is clear on what I said and meant...

Do you really think I'd intimate they would throw out content? 

You know perfectly well what I meant....


----------



## batpig

Jesus Markus, nobody else seems to be confused by this. It's simple arithmetic.

The cinema mix has a 9.1 channel bed. TrueHD allows for 7.1 channels (8 total). So by definition two of the channels of the bed WILL be "absent" in the home mix in the sense that they won't come in as two discrete channels. Thus FM commenting that they have to "account for" it.

The CONTENT isn't absent, just the discrete channels. I have to imagine you understand this distinction, which means you are just trying to be difficult.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Marc said the overhead bed is absent; he didn't say that the content carried within is discarded.


Semantics. Anyway he also said that he's "not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home.". I take it as "I don't know" and bow out of this "discussion".


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> No need to argue with me you simply could explain what the distinction is. Again, I don't see any difference when you set up your console for Atmos and don't use objects or top surrounds. You waste a couple of feet of faders for sure but the end result is a standard 7.1 mix. No difference to 7.1 mixes from the past.


That's why you'll never setup my console for me..

It's really a moot point at this time... all of the consoles now have object mixing tools, so there is no reason not to go "native"

But the setup is completely different, the allocation of console DSP resources (busses, available channels, recorder tracks, bi-directional metadata setup, etc) how you pre dub... the list goes on and on...

And again, it doesn't matter to consumers...

It just matter to those who work in these rooms everyday.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> That's why you'll never setup my console for me..
> 
> It's really a moot point at this time... all of the consoles now have object mixing tools, so there is no reason not to go "native"
> 
> But the setup is completely different, the allocation of console DSP resources (busses, available channels, recorder tracks, bi-directional metadata setup, etc) how you pre dub... the list goes on and on...
> 
> And again, it doesn't matter to consumers...
> 
> It just matter to those who work in these rooms everyday.


Sure but my question is still not answered. Is the end result just a standard 7.1 mix if no objects and top surround beds are used? I didn't ask if the process is different, I asked about the resulting mix.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> I take it as "I don't know" and bow out of this "discussion".


Not knowing the details of Atmos encoding for home video in particular doesn't mean we don't know whether content will be thrown out in general. We do know the answer to that: content is never thrown out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Not knowing the details of Atmos encoding for home video in particular doesn't mean we don't know whether content will be thrown out in general. We do know the answer to that: content is never thrown out.


It's just re-arranged.  The "how's" of the re-arranging part is still TBD and whether it's as good as the cinema version and just "different" or actually inferior. 

I guess that scene from _Transformers 4_ with the space ship placed in the top speakers and the giant "vortex" sound of effects moving "up" into the air will be an interesting comparison between the two versions if T4 is ever released in Atmos on Blu-ray.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> It might work the way you describe but I think you're missing an important point. More likely the sound is cancelled during the DSP phase and not cancelled by the speakers. The cancellation occurs in the signals going to the speakers, not by the speakers themselves. Otherwise the cancellation would only work if you were exactly in between the speakers. If you were a little closer to one, the cancellation wouldn't work. It probably does a FFT that includes the inverse of the object sound.


The instructor was using speakers, but yes I understand that the audio cancelling for some of these codecs is done internally.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Sure but my question is still not answered. Is the end result just a standard 7.1 mix if no objects and top surround beds are used? I didn't ask if the process is different, I asked about the resulting mix.


Who is going to setup for Atmos and not use objects?

Are you asking if the resulting 7.1 mix will be different if you start out in 7.1 and then up mix later?

I'm not sure what resulting mix you are talking about...

Are you asking if you are setup for Atmos and only mix using 7.1 channels in the bed and no objects is the mix any different?

The answer is maybe...

The Atmos room tune is different that the 7.1 room tune (plus baas managed surrounds.....) you might make different choices ..

In the end I don't understand the point of your question... you wouldn't setup the room for an Atmos mix and then only deliver in 7.1 or 5.1...


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Is the end result just a standard 7.1 mix if no objects and top surround beds are used? I didn't ask if the process is different, I asked about the resulting mix.


Should be a standard 7.1 mix if no part of Atmos (no objects, no height beds) were used. 

Likewise, it is a standard 5.1 mix if no surround-back channels are used. Also, it is a standard 2D picture if no second-eye image is used. FYI, it is a standard mono mix if no other channel is used.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> In the end I don't understand the point of your question...


If you mix using only 7.1 channels (no objects, no overhead beds) will the end result be a 7.1 mix? 

Tougher question: if you mix using only 2 channels (no objects, no overhead beds, no centre nor surround channels) will the end result be a 2.0 mix.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> Pro-grade Atmos, from my limited understanding, can have 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds. I guess the consumer version dropped the height channel bed to save space. Though, objects can be placed in the height speakers to make them seem like channels.


I'm not sure if I have this right, but my current AVR (9.2 Pioneer SC65) will let me use front wide left/right or front left/right "height" speakers, but not at the same time (no simultaneous sound from each at the same time). There are extra "binding posts" on the back (unused) for each pair. 

I was wondering if this is an AVR limitation or a Bluray limitation on the mix. (9 distinct (not matrixed) channels).

I've been thrilled with 7.1 and I would definitely add two height speakers if I knew the mix was truly a 9 channel mix. I only have a 7.1 amplifier, but I think I could use the Pioneer SC65 for the surround channels.

But for true Dolby Atmos and adding speakers, I suspect that I will need a new "Preamp" and I'm not sure if there is a way to push multiple Atmos speakers via one channel. (Current 7.1 Wyred 4 Sound 221 X 7 wpc Amplifier).

When I first bought the system, I went hog wild and had eleven speakers connected not knowing there wasn't any content out there plus there are AVR limitations on how all the channels work. So I stepped back down to 7.1.

Net-net - - I'd certainly look at ceiling speakers and front height speakers and believe my smaller man cave could comfortably accommodate up to four more speakers (maybe six (how about 7 - 13 unlucky number?) to add to the depth of the sound. 

So - I'm not adverse to Dolby Atmos and believe if they can find a sweet spot for smaller HT setups, people will buy.


----------



## FilmMixer

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm not sure if I have this right, but my current AVR (9.2 Pioneer SC65) will let me use front wide left/right or front left/right "height" speakers, but not at the same time (no simultaneous sound from each at the same time). There are extra "binding posts" on the back (unused) for each pair.
> 
> I was wondering if this is an AVR limitation or a Bluray limitation on the mix. (9 distinct (not matrixed) channels).
> 
> I've been thrilled with 7.1 and I would definitely add two height speakers if I knew the mix was truly a 9 channel mix. I only have a 7.1 amplifier, but I think I could use the Pioneer SC65 for the surround channels.
> 
> But for true Dolby Atmos and adding speakers, I suspect that I will need a new "Preamp" and I'm not sure if there is a way to push multiple Atmos speakers via one channel. (Current 7.1 Wyred 4 Sound 221 X 7 wpc Amplifier).
> 
> When I first bought the system, I went hog wild and had eleven speakers connected not knowing there wasn't any content out there plus there are AVR limitations on how all the channels work. So I stepped back down to 7.1.
> 
> Net-net - - I'd certainly look at ceiling speakers and front height speakers and believe my smaller man cave could comfortably accommodate up to four more speakers (maybe six (how about 7 - 13 unlucky number?) to add to the depth of the sound.
> 
> So - I'm not adverse to Dolby Atmos and believe if they can find a sweet spot for smaller HT setups, people will buy.


It's a processing/AVR issue..

The codec is scalable... 

I think 5.1.2 is the sweet spot for smaller spaces... if the ceiling will allow for the add on of speaker modules...


----------



## mastermaybe

FilmMixer said:


> Markus.. come on now....
> 
> Now you're just confusing every one..
> 
> In my first response to you I said "I'm not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home."
> 
> See my response to Dan...
> 
> Regarding your second point, it's a distinction for us sound professionals in work flow, budgeting, etc..... not going to argue with your understanding of the process or why the distinction exists.


Nor do you have to- thanks for the most sensible information on the matter thus far.

James


----------



## jima4a

FilmMixer said:


> It's a processing/AVR issue..
> 
> The codec is scalable...
> 
> I think 5.1.2 is the sweet spot for smaller spaces... if the ceiling will allow for the add on of speaker modules...


I currently have ceiling surrounds and standard heights that are not being used. Will I be able to use all four with ATMOS or just the ceilings? Running 5.1 at moment. 

Jim


----------



## batpig

jima4a said:


> I currently have ceiling surrounds and standard heights that are not being used. Will I be able to use all four with ATMOS or just the ceilings? Running 5.1 at moment.
> 
> Jim


A lot up in the air right now in terms of specific receiver configuration options. From most of what we've seen an Atmos mix won't (at least initially) be able to utilize traditional "height" channels, i.e. as installed for PLIIz or DSX/Neo:X. 

The big problem is that if you use your in-ceiling surrounds as Atmos "top" speakers.... then you don't have surround speakers. To really get Atmos to work well with the core 5.1.2 configuration, you would need to get more traditional surrounds (to the sides, closer to ear level, not in the ceiling) and then what you currently use as the surrounds in ceiling would become the Atmos "top" speakers. 

Could you relocate the current height speakers to the sides for surround duty? That would put you in place for a 5.1.2 setup without any additional speaker purchases.


----------



## jima4a

batpig said:


> A lot up in the air right now in terms of specific receiver configuration options. From most of what we've seen an Atmos mix won't (at least initially) be able to utilize traditional "height" channels, i.e. as installed for PLIIz or DSX/Neo:X.
> 
> The big problem is that if you use your in-ceiling surrounds as Atmos "top" speakers.... then you don't have surround speakers. To really get Atmos to work well with the core 5.1.2 configuration, you would need to get more traditional surrounds (to the sides, closer to ear level, not in the ceiling) and then what you currently use as the surrounds in ceiling would become the Atmos "top" speakers.
> 
> Could you relocate the current height speakers to the sides for surround duty? That would put you in place for a 5.1.2 setup without any additional speaker purchases.


I have towers currently as side surrounds. The ceilings are not currently in use.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> If you mix using only 7.1 channels (no objects, no overhead beds) will the end result be a 7.1 mix?
> 
> Tougher question: if you mix using only 2 channels (no objects, no overhead beds, no centre nor surround channels) will the end result be a 2.0 mix.


No need to act condescending. Go back and read the "discussion" in context: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-25.html#post25635385


----------



## batpig

Ah. I see, you were asking if you could go to 5.1.4. 

Like I said above, it remains to be seen if the first gen of professors will allow traditional "heights" to be used in an Atmos mix. 

You can definitely do 5.1.2 as a minimum. And worst case you could always "lie" to the receiver and tell it the heights are front tops and the in ceiling speakers are top rears. There is a wide latitude for placement if you note the diagrams that have been posted, but the efficacy of the above will depend on how close your speakers are located to the "ideal".


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> ^
> Would that process reduce bandwidth requirements for the max. 118 simultaneous objects?
> From the graphic it looks like objects have to be transmitted in 1...n separate transmission channels in order to be removable from the downmix.


Correct. This "compatibility core" process has no bearing on the number of objects. The number of objects in consumer media is limited only by bitrate.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Roger... assuming Dolby did something similar for Home Atmos, how would the TrueHD and DD+ also handle the 5.1?


Exactly the same as they do today. In TrueHD a 7.1 mix carries an embedded 5.1 mix and adds a 2-ch extension that is subtracted out. DD+ 7.1 (on Blu-ray only) starts with a standard 5.1 DD core, then adds a 4-ch extension to replace the surrounds so as to avoid subtraction of lossy audio. 



FilmMixer said:


> From what I have been told they are doing something different... they also have to account for the overhead bed which is absent in the home version.. however, converting it to an object and encoding as described in your post may be their way around it... my info is a couple of months old and I will try and get some clarity on it.


A channel is nothing more than a stationary object pointed to a defined speaker (or array), so that would work perfectly.


----------



## wse

Auro has a postprocessing mode for legacy material. 

*Does any one know if ATMOS allows you to upmix anything from a mono source all the way to a 9.2.4 source?*

Look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjP-TDMxjA&feature=youtu.be

I want one of these too bad DATASAT left DIRAC out!






I didn't know that DTS's Multi-Dimensional Audio (MDA) format that is not only objects based, as well, but also open and royalty-free; no doubt to rain on Dolby's parade. So why is it that all the manufacturers only have ATMOS?


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> No need to act condescending.


Relax, just having a little fun, since you asked a tautological question (is it a standard channel-based mix if you don't use Atmos).


----------



## Okv

There seems to be a lot of focus on ceiling speakers and speaker configurations. 

But I believe the greatest benefit is that it is easier to produce better soundtracks, and they are independent of speaker configurations. 
This should be a huge improvement even if there are no ceiling speakers. 

Today I find that many, if not most, of the movies I have are only 5.1. 
If it were not for Dolby Pro-Logic the back surrounds would be silent on most of my movies. 
If movies were encoded and produced using object-based audio the decoder should be able to utilize the speaker configuration much better, so that it will be a real improvement to have 4 surrounds instead of the 2 used in a 5.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I think 5.1.2 is the sweet spot for smaller spaces... if the ceiling will allow for the add on of speaker modules...


Music (movies!) to my ears. My small space will accommodate 5.1.2 nicely.


----------



## sdurani

Okv said:


> If it were not for Dolby Pro-Logic the back surrounds would be silent on most of my movies.
> If movies were encoded and produced using object-based audio the decoder should be able to utilize the speaker configuration much better, so that it will be a real improvement to have 4 surrounds instead of the 2 used in a 5.1.


Indeed, if upmixing fewer channels to more speakers sounds good to you, then having soundtracks that map/render themselves to your speaker layout will be even better.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Exactly the same as they do today. In TrueHD a 7.1 mix carries an embedded 5.1 mix and adds a 2-ch extension that is subtracted out. DD+ 7.1 (on Blu-ray only) starts with a standard 5.1 DD core, then adds a 4-ch extension to replace the surrounds so as to avoid subtraction of lossy audio.


So the question is what is Atmos based upon. Both TrueHD and DD+ are optional on Blu-ray. DD is mandatory...


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> So the question is what is Atmos based upon. Both TrueHD and DD+ are optional on Blu-ray. DD is mandatory...


I expect we will see both, again following current practice. TrueHD for main language, DD+ for others.


----------



## Orbitron

Is there enough space on Blu-ray for Dolby Atmos and also DTS-HD MA?


----------



## wse

Okv said:


> There seems to be a lot of focus on ceiling speakers and speaker configurations. But I believe the greatest benefit is that it is easier to produce better soundtracks, and they are independent of speaker configurations. This should be a huge improvement even if there are no ceiling speakers. Today I find that many, if not most, of the movies I have are only 5.1. If it were not for Dolby Pro-Logic the back surrounds would be silent on most of my movies. If movies were encoded and produced using object-based audio the decoder should be able to utilize the speaker configuration much better, so that it will be a real improvement to have 4 surrounds instead of the 2 used in a 5.1.


I love the idea of 9.2.4! Then I am done 

Yes there are only:

- *813 movies in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1* (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search)

- *176 in Dolby TrueHD 7.1* (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search)

- *120 in ATMOS* (http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html) of course none on Blu Ray yet 

- *31 in AURO 3D * (http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/)

- None in DTS UHD MDA!! 

When DTS demoed DTS MDA They used a quad core Cirrus Logic chip!!! 

I am sure the studios will release them again at a major premium just like 3D!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> I love the idea of 9.2.4! Then I am done
> 
> Yes there are only:
> 
> - *813 movies in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1* (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search)
> 
> - *176 in Dolby TrueHD 7.1* (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search)
> 
> - *120 in ATMOS* (http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html) of course none on Blu Ray yet
> 
> - *31 in AURO 3D * (http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/)
> 
> - None in DTS UHD MDA!!
> 
> When DTS demoed DTS MDA They used a quad core Cirrus Logic chip!!!
> 
> I am sure the studios will release them again at a major premium just like 3D!!!



DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD don't mean the soundtrack was IN anything. They're lossless packed files of uncompressed, multi-channel LPCM (Linear Pulse Code Modulation) master tracks. The idea is to "unzip" the audio data and recreate the same LPCM track once more without throwing away data. If anything, the soundtracks were "in" LPCM to begin with. 

Semantics, yes, but DTS MA and Dolby TrueHD are _deliverable_ codecs. Might as well lump your 7.1 audio list into one pile. 

When engineers work with Atmos and DTS MDA mixes they're also originally dealing with the LPCM domain. Those are also, in a way, deliverable formats, though with differences in their DAW software and implementation of object language.


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Is there enough space on Blu-ray for Dolby Atmos and also DTS-HD MA?


Why? What's would be the point? 

Do you think that DTS-HD MA sounds better than TrueHD? 

There would be no sense in doing so.


----------



## David Susilo

markus767 said:


> Semantics. Anyway he also said that he's "not clear on how they will integrate it into the package for the home.". I take it as "I don't know" and bow out of this "discussion".


It is not semantics. It seems like you just want to be right for the sake of being right.


----------



## David Susilo

FilmMixer said:


> Why? What's would be the point?
> 
> Do you think that DTS-HD MA sounds better than TrueHD?
> 
> There would be no sense in doing so.


Unfortunately too many people don't grasp the meaning of "lossless". Not too long ago I had a discussion with a person who asked why there is no BD that comes with 5.1 LPCM, 5.1 TrueHD and 5.1 DTS-MA. He is adamant that all three of them sound different. When I mentioned that the only way the three of them can only sound different IF they each use different master or something is erroneous in the encoding process, he got angry and told me that I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Rumble Devo

*Audiohuh...?*



bootman_head_fi said:


> The flip side opinion wise.
> 
> http://youtu.be/OXLQ4mIwyAk


What was the point of Audioholics producing this 16 minute video?

To me it seems that they were only interested in expanding upon the negative possibilities of atmos products that do not yet exist.


----------



## David Susilo

Don't forget that Audioholics is a "very good friend" of Emotiva...which XMC-1 will not have Dolby Atmos. Emotiva thus far have been dissing the potential of Dolby Atmos. You get my drift?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> Don't forget that Audioholics is a "very good friend" of Emotiva...which XMC-1 will not have Dolby Atmos. Emotiva thus far have been dissing the potential of Dolby Atmos. You get my drift?


Seems pretty unprofessional to me. Hell, that video was downright childish in some instances.


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> Why? What's would be the point?
> 
> Do you think that DTS-HD MA sounds better than TrueHD?
> 
> There would be no sense in doing so.


Gravity was released in DTS-HD MA but Atmos in theaters. Let's assume it is reissued with Atmos - for those of us who are not Atmos ready, DTS-HD MA is no longer an audio option? Just trying to get a handle on all of this.


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Gravity was released in DTS-HD MA but Atmos in theaters. Let's assume it is reissued with Atmos - for those of us who are not Atmos ready, DTS-HD MA is no longer an audio option? Just trying to get a handle on all of this.


If they release it you will have the 7.1 TrueHD track as your option. 

The masters for films not mixed in Atmos are straight LPCM. How it gets home (DTS-HD MA or TureHD) is inconsequential.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Seems pretty unprofessional to me. Hell, that video was downright childish in some instances.


There is a lot of misinformation in it. And in Andrew Robinsons video as well. 

The same can be said of the Emotiva Lounge.... 

They keep intimating how there really are no objects, how it really won't gain any kind of meaningful traction, how Dolby is withholding information because the system can't possibly be like the cinematic counterpart, how reflective sound can't possibly work. 

On the last point I agree it doesn't work as well as direct firing speakers. 

But I've heard it. 

But at least Dolby invented something for those that can't install ceiling speakers. But they just want to mock it. 

IMO it's the last time I'll visit their site and I've lost all respect for Gene as a reviewer. He prefers 2.0 anyways (he says so in the video) so why should I seek his opinion on MC. 

Keith of Emotiva tried to opine on how object based mixing makes life so much easier for us know twirlers.

If Emotiva employees spent as much time finishing the XMC-1 as they did posting misguided information about Atmos maybe we'd be able to buy one this year. 

Misinformed are both sites, and neither has heard even a demo.


----------



## tenthplanet

markus767 said:


> Not more "like we hear things" but more "like where sounds can come from". Multichannel does NOT try to recreate a real wave field (like wave field synthesis tries to). It's an extension to stereo with warts and all. It's largely based on an artifact of our hearing, also known as summing localization. It's highly fragile and the reason why stereo and even multichannel is really just a single seat solution.
> 
> Good read: Stanley P. Lipshitz, "Stereo Microphone Techniques - Are the Purists Wrong?", J. Audio Engineering Society, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 716-744 (Sept. 1986)


 Not if you do multi-channel right. While stereo may not have the biggest sweet spot, if it's a one seat solution, get different speakers.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

FilmMixer said:


> There is a lot of misinformation in it. And in Andrew Robinsons video as well.
> 
> The same can be said of the Emotiva Lounge....
> 
> They keep intimating how there really are no objects, how it really won't gain any kind of meaningful traction, how Dolby is withholding information because the system can't possibly be like the cinematic counterpart, how reflective sound can't possibly work.
> 
> On the last point I agree it doesn't work as well as direct firing speakers.
> 
> But I've heard it.
> 
> But at least Dolby invented something for those that can't install ceiling speakers. But they just want to mock it.
> 
> IMO it's the last time I'll visit their site and I've lost all respect for Gene as a reviewer. He prefers 2.0 anyways (he says so in the video) so why should I seek his opinion on MC.
> 
> Keith of Emotiva tried to opine on how object based mixing makes life so much easier for us know twirlers.
> 
> If Emotiva employees spent as much time finishing the XMC-1 as they did posting misguided information about Atmos maybe we'd be able to buy one this year.
> 
> Misinformed are both sites, and neither has heard even a demo.


Andrew maned up and took his video down and issued an apology.
I have to tip my had to someone that admits when they were wrong.

Let's see if Audioholics does the same.....


----------



## David Susilo

The problem is that he intentionally issued false information. Only when under attack he admit his wrongdoing. I can not believe that he is THAT clueless about Atmos. He didn't have internet to go to Dolby.com to learn the very basis of Atmos? 

Didn't he said that XMC-1 will be the only pre-pro people need for the next 15 years?...yet he knows nothing about Atmos? He then made false claim about DTS UHD release date...the list goes on.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> There is a lot of misinformation in it. And in Andrew Robinsons video as well.


That video has been taken down and an apology video has been put up instead: 





 
Fair enough.


----------



## FilmMixer

Absolutely fair enough. ^^^

And I'll eat crow..... Looks like the XMC is shipping in the next couple months.


----------



## sdurani

David Susilo said:


> Don't forget that Audioholics is a "very good friend" of Emotiva.


Indeed, they gave Product of the Year to the UMC-200 _before_ it was released.


----------



## David Susilo

I guess XMC-1 is "product of the decade"


----------



## David Susilo

FilmMixer said:


> Absolutely fair enough. ^^^
> 
> And I'll eat crow..... Looks like the XMC is shipping in the next couple months.


After so many years waiting, Atmos in the horizon, and the XMC-1 will never have Atmos (although Emo claimed that this product is future-proof). I have now lost any respect left for Emotiva. In a couple of months they'll delay it again anyway.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

Hi Guys;

I'm sorry that our Dolby Atmos video has caused some of you offense. That was not our intent. We did our best to produce a fun and informative basic overview video of Dolby Atmos and how it relates to the Home Theater market based on the little information that is currently available. WE go into more depth in the three most recent articles we've written on the Audioholics site which I won't link up here to avoid being accused of spamming this forum. It's obvious some of you missed our tongue in cheek humor that we often inject into our Youtube videos to make them more entertaining for a broader audience. 1k views on our video in 1 day isn't bad IMO for such a small niche topic as audio that is often perceived as dry and geeky by the general public.

That being said, I am quite dumbfounded about the Emotiva / Atmos conspiracy theory being spread here but hey there are still people that believe 9/11 was an inside job and that we never walked on the moon 

In any event, I stand by what we have said in the video. We expressed our opinions based on the limited info available and also our experiences so far listening to Atmos in the local Cinema's. I won't be recanting the video BUT when I do get to listen to "Atmos" speakers such as the Pioneers, I will certainly do a followup Video to share our experiences good or bad. I have a lot of respect for Andrew Jones and I really liked the last Pioneer speakers he designed as you could see by my very favorable review on my site.

I, like many of you, am looking forward to experiencing Atmos in my own theater room. While I did say I'm a two-channel guy at heart, I still love a phenomenal multi-channel experience, especially for music. Heck I can't go a week without listening to one of Steve Wilson's Blu-ray masterpieces. I do however take the basic 5 or 7 speaker layout VERY seriously in an upscale theater room and don't like the idea of muddying up the front or rear channels by throwing top mounted drivers on them to add additional channels. In any event, everybody has their own preferences and more power to you.

Thanks for watching the video and for such an informative Atmos discussion here. We look forward to doing further videos on this topic and many more.

BTW, the Lou Ferrigno comment about Hugo is very amusing especially since Hugo is a highly successful published fitness author and former competitor that has met Lou and many of the other greats like Arnold and Franco. I am sure Hugo will consider that a compliment.


----------



## RichB

Andrew said it was not that the information was wrong but it was conjecture.
That is clear as mud..

So what in the Audioholics video or Andrew's video was incorrect?

- Rich


----------



## David Susilo

1. There is nothing tongue-in-cheek about your YouTube video. If that's the intent, then your video failed to convey that miserably.

2. About the conspiracy theory. Can you please explain how the UMC-1 was crowned product of the year BEFORE the product was released?

3. Is it yet another coincidence when Emotiva was bashing Atmos you were also bashing Atmos? (Tongue in cheek or otherwise)

4. Is it yet YET another coincidence when Emotiva apologized for the misinformation you suddenly claimed "tongue in cheek"?

5. If you never listened to AJ top firing Atmos speakers, how can you claim that it will be "muddying up" the sound? Or is this another "tongue-in-cheek" statement?

6. Do you even know that the the AJ Atmos speakers top firing section is powered separately than the front firing part? If you don't know, how can you have an opinion about the "muddying up" the sound? If you do know, then how two separately powered speakers can me "muddying up" the sound? Or did I miss yet another "tongue-in-cheek" statement that you've made?

I don't think I am THAT stupid to miss all of those "tongue-in-cheek" statements, or am I?


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Is there enough space on Blu-ray for Dolby Atmos and also DTS-HD MA?





FilmMixer said:


> Why? What's would be the point?
> 
> Do you think that DTS-HD MA sounds better than TrueHD?
> 
> There would be no sense in doing so.





Orbitron said:


> Gravity was released in DTS-HD MA but Atmos in theaters. Let's assume it is reissued with Atmos - for those of us who are not Atmos ready, DTS-HD MA is no longer an audio option? Just trying to get a handle on all of this.





FilmMixer said:


> If they release it you will have the 7.1 TrueHD track as your option.
> 
> The masters for films not mixed in Atmos are straight LPCM. How it gets home (DTS-HD MA or TureHD) is inconsequential.


I thought this was a fair and smart question (first quote) and I wonder now what is going to happen with *'Gravity'* tomorrow on its new re-release Blu-ray version for people equipped with the latest and greatest Dolby Atmos surround sound experience 'object' system.

____________________

P.S. Mr. DellaSala, thx for your explanation above (post #815 ); to me you just shade some more light to what was already obscure.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

> _1. There is nothing tongue-in-cheek about your YouTube video. If that's the intent, then your video failed to convey that miserably.
> 
> 2. About the conspiracy theory. Can you please explain how the UMC-1 was crowned product of the year BEFORE the product was released?
> 
> 3. Is it yet another coincidence when Emotiva was bashing Atmos you were also bashing Atmos? (Tongue in cheek or otherwise)
> 
> 4. Is it yet YET another coincidence when Emotiva apologized for the misinformation you suddenly claimed "tongue in cheek"?
> 
> 5. If you never listened to AJ top firing Atmos speakers, how can you claim that it will be "muddying up" the sound? Or is this another "tongue-in-cheek" statement?
> 
> 6. Do you even know that the the AJ Atmos speakers top firing section is powered separately than the front firing part? If you don't know, how can you have an opinion about the "muddying up" the sound? If you do know, then how two separately powered speakers can me "muddying up" the sound? Or did I miss yet another "tongue-in-cheek" statement that you've made?
> 
> I don't think I am THAT stupid to miss all of those "tongue-in-cheek" statements, or am I? _


I don't recall Audioholics awarding the Emotiva UMC-1 Product of the Year. However we did give the UMC-200 Budget Product of the Year for 2012 at the end of that year (Dec). I beta tested the processor months prior to releasing the review in January of 2013. I often have access to gear far earlier than it's released to the public b/c I am a degreed Electrical Engineer that often beta-tests equipment for manufacturers.

I had no idea Emotiva was "bashing" Atmos until you even brought it up here. I don't follow their forum and honestly I could give a rats ass about their opinion of it. I formed my own opinion based on the info that is currently available and I did NOT bash Atmos as much as show concern about how it's implementation is being proposed thus far. I had similar concerns about DVD-A and SACD when those formats came out. I wrote similar articles LONG before Emotiva existed and also took some criticism like what you're doing now. Ironically and sadly all of the issues I brought up on those formats were largely responsible for their demise. I hope Atmos will fair better as well as the eventual DTS counterpart.

Hmm I see in your signature your a Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine. Perhaps I should raise a conspiracy that your trying to fabricate an Audioholics/Emotiva conspiracy since you work for a competitor  

Yes I am well aware the AJ top mounted speakers are discrete channels. I don't think that's even an issue of conjecture by anyone so I'm again not sure why your bringing that up. 

I can't speak of your intelligence level but your posts don't leave a very positive impression with me.


----------



## SteveCallas

I agree with Gene's points in that video - I see this primarily as a new technology akin to 3D video - more hype than actual benefit. The concept of bouncing sound waves off the ceiling from top mounted drivers.....yeesh, that is a pretty weak compromise. I'll sit this one out for a few years and stick with my 11.2.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Gene DellaSala said:


> I don't recall Audioholics awarding the Emotiva UMC-1 Product of the Year. However we did give the UMC-200 Budget Product of the Year for 2012 at the end of that year (Dec). I beta tested the processor months prior to releasing the review in January of 2013. I often have access to gear far earlier than it's released to the public b/c I am a degreed Electrical Engineer that often beta-tests equipment for manufacturers.
> 
> I had no idea Emotiva was "bashing" Atmos until you even brought it up here. I don't follow their forum and honestly I could give a rats ass about their opinion of it. I formed my own opinion based on the info that is currently available and I did NOT bash Atmos as much as show concern about how it's implementation is being proposed thus far. I had similar concerns about DVD-A and SACD when those formats came out. I wrote similar articles LONG before Emotiva existed and also took some criticism like what you're doing now. Ironically and sadly all of the issues I brought up on those formats were largely responsible for their demise. I hope Atmos will fair better as well as the eventual DTS counterpart.
> 
> Hmm I see in your signature your a Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine. Perhaps I should raise a conspiracy that your trying to fabricate an Audioholics/Emotiva conspiracy since you work for a competitor
> 
> Yes I am well aware the AJ top mounted speakers are discrete channels. I don't think that's even an issue of conjecture by anyone so I'm again not sure why your bringing that up.
> 
> I can't speak of your intelligence level but your posts don't leave a very positive impression with me.


The trouble I have with your video, Gene, is that it seems like you two were laughing off consumer Atmos and the products surrounding it with disdain without having actually experienced them for yourself. Andrew Robinson was quite right in retracting what he said previously because he too was "conjecturing." 

Yes, I also think that Dolby's compromise for those consumers who cannot or will not install proper ceiling speakers is a bit much and will probably not convey a superior Atmos experience... but I haven't heard them and am conjecturing that this might be a correct assumption on my part. And yet here's the distinction, I am not a home theater reporter or reviewer trying to sway the public, nor do I claim to be one either. 

I will be attending CEDIA and hope to hear Atmos for myself and then _judge it on the merits_. If it's as good or at least almost as good as the theatrical version then I'll want Atmos discs, both new titles and quality remixed catalog titles, PRONTO!! I'll also start saving up for an Atmos receiver or pre-amp, though I'll probably wait to see what the 2nd generation adds to the mix.

If it's a joke and a bunch of hype to sell new equipment... then I will state that too. But only _after_ I've experienced it. 

You should do the same... or not call yourself an honest broker.


----------



## NorthSky

Gene DellaSala said:


> Hmm I see in your signature your a Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine. Perhaps I should raise a conspiracy that your trying to fabricate an Audioholics/Emotiva conspiracy since you work for a competitor
> 
> I can't speak of your intelligence level but your posts don't leave a very positive impression with me.


Some to do with Dolby Atmos here sir? ... _"Intelligence level ..."_


----------



## NorthSky

SteveCallas said:


> I agree with Gene's points *in that video* - I see this primarily as a new technology akin to 3D video - *more hype than actual benefit*. The concept of bouncing sound waves off the ceiling from top mounted drivers.....yeesh, that is a pretty weak compromise. I'll sit this one out for a few years and stick with my 11.2.


The video right?


----------



## markus767

tenthplanet said:


> Not if you do multi-channel right. While stereo may not have the biggest sweet spot, if it's a one seat solution, get different speakers.


Not sure why you advise getting different speakers. "Snapping" of phantom source to the nearest speaker is inevitable once the listener is off axis. That's why the guys at Bell labs proposed a center channel back in the 1930s (!).

As to toe-in and trading for sweet spot widening, it doesn't work. I don't know any speaker that would have the required radiation pattern. See papers by Aarts, Bauer, Kates, Rodenas and others.

What does work is something like this: http://www.sebastianmerchel.de/sweetspotter.html
But again, that's also just a single seat solution.


----------



## KidHorn

SteveCallas said:


> I agree with Gene's points in that video - I see this primarily as a new technology akin to 3D video - more hype than actual benefit. The concept of bouncing sound waves off the ceiling from top mounted drivers.....yeesh, that is a pretty weak compromise. I'll sit this one out for a few years and stick with my 11.2.



I'm glad I'm not the only one. The reflection speakers are a no go for me. Not only will you almost certainly get inferior sound, you also have to run an extra set of wires to the speakers and you need to replace your existing speakers from a limited selection.


I'm going to stick with my 11.4 setup until things get ironed out. I'm not convinced that replacing height and wides with ceilings is a good trade off.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Unfortunately too many people don't grasp the meaning of "lossless". Not too long ago I had a discussion with a person who asked why there is no BD that comes with 5.1 LPCM, 5.1 TrueHD and 5.1 DTS-MA. He is adamant that all three of them sound different. When I mentioned that the only way the three of them can only sound different IF they each use different master or something is erroneous in the encoding process, he got angry and told me that I don't know what I'm talking about.


I bet he also gets mad if you send him a Word document that you've compressed with ZIP instead of RAR or ARC.  Different document each time when they're uncompressed .... LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Don't forget that Audioholics is a "very good friend" of Emotiva...which XMC-1 will not have Dolby Atmos. Emotiva thus far have been dissing the potential of Dolby Atmos. You get my drift?





FilmMixer said:


> There is a lot of misinformation in it. And in Andrew Robinsons video as well.


You may have seen Andrew Robinson's mea culpa in his latest video (posted on the Emotiva Lounge) where he admits to being wrong about what he said wrt to Atmos in an earlier video. The earlier video, now taken down, did contain a lot of inaccuracies unfortunately.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> They keep intimating how there really are no objects, how it really won't gain any kind of meaningful traction, how Dolby is withholding information because the system can't possibly be like the cinematic counterpart, how reflective sound can't possibly work.


If I was about to launch a six-year-delayed 'flagship' processor that lacked the most exciting audio innovation in a decade, I guess I'd be tempted to say the same too  Their stance is fairly transparent IMO: if the XMC-1 doesn’t have it, it's unimportant.


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> Andrew said it was not that the information was wrong but it was conjecture.
> That is clear as mud..
> 
> So what in the Audioholics video or Andrew's video was incorrect?
> 
> - Rich


Andrew (eventually) apologised directly to my post on the Lounge where I pointed out that what he had said was just 100% wrong. He had said that Atmos was not object-based but that DTS UHD was. It is clearly incorrect to say that Atmos is not object-based, and Andrew apologised and corrected himself (saying he didn't express it very well). He also said that DYS UHD was "likely" to be introduced around the same time as Atmos. I challenged him in this too and asked for any evidence he had to support the claim, but he didn't reply to that. In the AR video, there were many other misunderstandings and/or misinformations about how Atmos will work in the home environment, which AR now admits, apologises for and he has removed the video from the net as a result.


----------



## Ricoflashback

FilmMixer said:


> Absolutely fair enough. ^^^
> 
> And I'll eat crow..... Looks like the XMC is shipping in the next couple months.


WARNING!!! Please keep all comments and references to the Emotiva XMC-1 to the Emotiva thread with NO references to Dolby Atmos. And, vice versa. Always take the middle road and be kind to your fellow poster. 

Have a great weekend!


----------



## David Susilo

Thank you for the reminder. We really should go back to talk about Atmos and its merits. Any pre-pro such as Emotiva that doesn't have Atmos should not be discussed at all as they are not even worthy to be discussed.

Going back to topic, in one of the forums someone mentioned about requesting Denon to upgrade their pre-pro via firmware upgrade as Onkyo, Integra and Pioneer can do it. Please be clear that the firmware upgrade is just to UNLOCK Atmos capability and NOT to upgrade existing chip with Atmos software. Therefore if the receiver/pre-pro doesn't have the Atmos chip to begin with, it can NOT be upgraded metely via firmware/software.


----------



## ClemsonJeeper

I'm at the point of my dedicated HT build (right before drywall) that the Atmos announcement is both exciting and annoying. Its early enough that I can plan properly but its right at the point where it has completely stopped my build because of the planning portion.

I'm soundproofing my room (clips+channel+dd+gg), so if I want to do in-ceiling speakers I need to build backer boxes and plan for it right now. 

Do you all think that something like the UIW RSS III would be appropriate for 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers? I have DIY'd the rest of my speakers in the system (3x Fusion Tempest 12, 4x Volt 10 Angled). Basically just looking for some speakers that would be good for this application that I can design for right now. 400$ or less each would be a good price point.

Thanks


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> As to toe-in and trading for sweet spot widening, it doesn't work. I don't know any speaker that would have the required radiation pattern.


There are many CD speakers available and many accounts that they effectively widen the sweet spot; as counterpoint to your unlinked references see Gedddes' white papers on the topic at http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Papers/papers.aspx

CD/WG (waveguide) speakers have become popular in the DIY Speaker forum here and many, including myself, have experienced this benefit.


----------



## smurraybhm

Gene DellaSala said:


> I don't recall Audioholics awarding the Emotiva UMC-1 Product of the Year. However we did give the UMC-200 Budget Product of the Year for 2012 at the end of that year (Dec). I beta tested the processor months prior to releasing the review in January of 2013. I often have access to gear far earlier than it's released to the public b/c I am a degreed Electrical Engineer that often beta-tests equipment for manufacturers.
> 
> I had no idea Emotiva was "bashing" Atmos until you even brought it up here. I don't follow their forum and honestly I could give a rats ass about their opinion of it. I formed my own opinion based on the info that is currently available and I did NOT bash Atmos as much as show concern about how it's implementation is being proposed thus far. I had similar concerns about DVD-A and SACD when those formats came out. I wrote similar articles LONG before Emotiva existed and also took some criticism like what you're doing now. Ironically and sadly all of the issues I brought up on those formats were largely responsible for their demise. I hope Atmos will fair better as well as the eventual DTS counterpart.
> 
> Hmm I see in your signature your a Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine. Perhaps I should raise a conspiracy that your trying to fabricate an Audioholics/Emotiva conspiracy since you work for a competitor
> 
> Yes I am well aware the AJ top mounted speakers are discrete channels. I don't think that's even an issue of conjecture by anyone so I'm again not sure why your bringing that up.
> 
> I can't speak of your intelligence level but your posts don't leave a very positive impression with me.


Gene - sometimes the best response is no response and making things personal with that kind of response (last sentence) on a public forum, it doesn't help one's reputation even though it may help you feel better. You of all people should know that people can get passionate/fired up sometimes on a forum. I would direct you to the Pioneer Atmos speaker thread where more than a few folks tried to stir things up and AJ managed to respond in a professional manner, stick to the facts and avoid making it personal. 

By the way your video is very unprofessional and not what I expected from a site or reviewer that I had found useful/informative in the past. Not all of us are on the Atmos bus yet, but at the same time I believe none of us are passing it off as a joke or gimmick until we have had the opportunity to hear it and read reviews/tests about products that have this feature. Sorry for the rant, but I can't stand it when people say something in a factual manner without having actually heard or tested what they are commenting on. You and your site are better than that - you've lost me as a visitor.

P.S. While I've never read David's work or met him, based on reading a lot of his posts on AVS he seems knowledgeable/intelligent and spends a lot of time helping others on this forum. Someone in the industry doing that on this forum or any AV forum is a positive.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> There are many CD speakers available and many accounts that they effectively widen the sweet spot; as counterpoint to your unlinked references see Gedddes' white papers on the topic at http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Papers/papers.aspx
> 
> CD/WG (waveguide) speakers have become popular in the DIY Speaker forum here and many, including myself, have experienced this benefit.


Noah, you know I'm very familiar with that topic. You will get SOME trading with speakers crossing in front of the listener (Bauer showed this in the 60's) but it will never completely compensate for someone sitting next to you. There's simply no speaker that has the necessary directivity pattern. I wish it would exist but it doesn't.
And even if such a speaker would exist, it wouldn't sound natural because our brain gets confusing listening cues.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Gene - sometimes the best response is no response and making things personal with that kind of response (last sentence) on a public forum and it doesn't help one's reputation even though it may help you feel better. You of all people should know that people can get passionate/fired up sometimes on a forum. I would direct you to the Pioneer Atmos speaker thread where more than a few folks tried to stir things up and AJ managed to respond in a professional manner, stick to the facts and avoid making it personal.
> 
> By the way your video is very unprofessional and not what I expected from a site or reviewer that I had found useful/informative in the past. Not all of us are on the Atmos bus yet, but at the same time I believe none of us are passing it off as a joke or gimmick until we have had the opportunity to hear it and read reviews/tests about products that have this feature. Sorry for the rant, but I can't stand it when people say something in a factual manner without having actually heard or tested what they are commenting on. You and your site are better than that - you've lost me as a visitor.
> 
> P.S. While I've never read David's work or met him, based on reading a lot of his posts on AVS he seems knowledgeable/intelligent and spends a lot of time helping others on this forum. Someone in the industry doing that on this forum or any AV forum is a positive.


+1. Thoughtful and considered post. I too have found the Audioholics website very helpful in the past and they have many articles that have helped me a great deal in my audio journey. I have also often recommended their site to others. I won't go as far as you in that they have lost me as a visitor but I will agree that their credibility with me has been weakened. I also agree that it is entirely wrong to question the intelligence of a fellow member simply because he disagrees with something said and I am of the opinion that such a comment should be removed, with an apology. I haven't read anything of David's, other than his contributions here, but nothing I have seen would draw me to the scurrilous conclusion that Gene has drawn wrt to his intelligence. It is a great shame to see the owner of a renowned AV site descending to such crude ad-hominem attacks.


----------



## KidHorn

ClemsonJeeper said:


> I'm at the point of my dedicated HT build (right before drywall) that the Atmos announcement is both exciting and annoying. Its early enough that I can plan properly but its right at the point where it has completely stopped my build because of the planning portion.
> 
> I'm soundproofing my room (clips+channel+dd+gg), so if I want to do in-ceiling speakers I need to build backer boxes and plan for it right now.
> 
> Do you all think that something like the UIW RSS III would be appropriate for 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers? I have DIY'd the rest of my speakers in the system (3x Fusion Tempest 12, 4x Volt 10 Angled). Basically just looking for some speakers that would be good for this application that I can design for right now. 400$ or less each would be a good price point.
> 
> Thanks



I suggest just running the wires for the ceiling speakers for now. Terminate them in an electrical box and put a blank covering on them for now. You can always install the speakers later with ease once the wires are there. Otherwise you may install speakers you'll never use or kick yourself for picking the wrong speakers.


----------



## ClemsonJeeper

KidHorn said:


> I suggest just running the wires for the ceiling speakers for now. Terminate them in an electrical box and put a blank covering on them for now. You can always install the speakers later with ease once the wires are there. Otherwise you may install speakers you'll never use or kick yourself for picking the wrong speakers.


Yeah, that's what I'm leaning towards right now. I imagine retrofitting a backer box wouldn't be TOO difficult after the fact. I'll likely just leave the wires up in the ceiling behind drywall so as not to punch extra holes in my soundproofing that I may or may not use.


----------



## noah katz

David Susilo said:


> Please be clear that the firmware upgrade is just to UNLOCK Atmos capability and NOT to upgrade existing chip with Atmos software.


Why wouldn't they just ship it unlocked?

Unless they haven't nailed down different speaker layout options or something.



smurraybhm said:


> Gene - sometimes the best response is no response and making things personal with that kind of response (last sentence) on a public forum, it doesn't help one's reputation even though it may help you feel better.


I'll say; ad hominem attack, and groundless to boot.



markus767 said:


> Noah, you know I'm very familiar with that topic. You will get SOME trading with speakers crossing in front of the listener (Bauer showed this in the 60's) but it will never completely compensate for someone sitting next to you. There's simply no speaker that has the necessary directivity pattern. I wish it would exist but it doesn't. And even if such a speaker would exist, it wouldn't sound natural because our brain gets confusing listening cues.


I didn't know that and judging by your comments I assumed you weren't, as your opinion/experience is counter to mine and others', as well as much published data of polar responses showing very close to the required directivity patterns.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> I didn't know that and judging by your comments I assumed you weren't, as your opinion/experience is counter to mine and others', as well as much published data of polar responses showing very close to the required directivity patterns.


Which is simply not true:

Derivation of an optimal directivity pattern for sweet spot
widening in stereo sound reproduction
Josep A. Ro´denas,a) Ronald M. Aarts,b) and A. J. E. M. Janssen
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113 (1), January 2003

Optimum Loudspeaker Directional Patterns
JAMES M. KATES
JOURNAL OF THEAUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY, 1980NOVEMBER, VOLUME 28, NUMBER 11


----------



## Ricoflashback

I think the reason most folks are here is their common love of home theater, music, video - - everything that helps them learn about new technologies and use this knowledge to improve their home system & experience - - whatever that may be. 

It's a hobby, a passion and sometimes a curse. It can get heated at times but for the most part, the AVS Forum provides a great resource and site to exchange ideas and learn from each other. Most posters are passionate about their hobby and it usually doesn't become too personal. There can be disagreements but at the end of the day, this should be about enjoying and getting the most out of your equipment - - and learning from other members who have a lot more knowledge than you (speaking from my perspective!) 

Back to Dolby Atmos - - I've been an early adopter on the audio/video front. That's hurt me sometimes but I'm always looking for ways to improve my HT & music experience - - wallet withstanding. It's a great joy and I can remember setting up my first HT about five years ago. It was fun from start to finish. And I'm always tinkering/tweaking to see if I can improve what I have. 

What resonates for me with Dolby Atmos is the ability to increase the experience - - the soundtrack to immerse you more in a movie, to make you feel like you are there - - as much as possible. 

The concept of subtle sounds like rain cascading from high above across the room (directionally) and the ability to use additional speakers to heighten the experience is fascinating. Sure, it always takes time for any technology to take hold and become mainstream. But it's the striving, not the arriving (the journey) that makes it fun as well. 

So - - I'll be following Dolby Atmos to see the improvements. Business travel pending, I plan on attending CEDIA Expo 2014 here in Denver (September). Dolby will be here so that will be the highlight of the show for me.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> Which is simply not true:
> 
> ...


I don't know what optimal pattern those references contain, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and available patterns are effective for many of us.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. Thoughtful and considered post. I too have found the Audioholics website very helpful in the past and they have many articles that have helped me a great deal in my audio journey. I have also often recommended their site to others. I won't go as far as you in that they have lost me as a visitor but I will agree that their credibility with me has been weakened. I also agree that it is entirely wrong to question the intelligence of a fellow member simply because he disagrees with something said and I am of the opinion that such a comment should be removed, with an apology. I haven't read anything of David's, other than his contributions here, but nothing I have seen would draw me to the scurrilous conclusion that Gene has drawn wrt to his intelligence. It is a great shame to see the owner of a renowned AV site descending to such crude ad-hominem attacks.


Sorry but I don't take kindly to being accused of a conspiracy especially by someone that is apparently a writer for other AV magazines in the industry. I am sure David can defend himself and he did pose the question of intelligence not I.

If you regularly read Audioholics.com then you would know we are skeptical in nature about any marketing claims. We've been debunking marketing nonsense for over 15+ years, especially on the topic of exotic cables. This understandably doesn't make us popular at times but we do try to keep things real using provable and valid science. Just b/c one doesn't "hear" something doesn't dismiss the fact that the product or premise is flawed in nature. 

I do look forward to hearing the Atmos Ready speakers but until I hear them, I will remain a skeptic about their merit like many of my colleagues, including top level PHD Acousticians that I've consulted with, on this very topic that aren't as publicly vocal as I am.


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> Andrew (eventually) apologised directly to my post on the Lounge where I pointed out that what he had said was just 100% wrong. He had said that Atmos was not object-based but that DTS UHD was. It is clearly incorrect to say that Atmos is not object-based, and Andrew apologised and corrected himself (saying he didn't express it very well). He also said that DYS UHD was "likely" to be introduced around the same time as Atmos. I challenged him in this too and asked for any evidence he had to support the claim, but he didn't reply to that. In the AR video, there were many other misunderstandings and/or misinformations about how Atmos will work in the home environment, which AR now admits, apologises for and he has removed the video from the net as a result.



I did not see that post, but a claim that Atmos is not object based is incorrect (from what I have read).
Was that claimed in the Andrew's video?


The capability of Atmos Gen-1 appears to be less than initially thought by many on this forum.
Please correct the record, but if a post stating that information is "incorrect" or "false", should be specific about what is incorrect and explain what is correct.


- Rich


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> I don't know what optimal pattern those references contain, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and available patterns are effective for many of us.


So what you're saying is that phantom source location in your system are the very same regardless whether you're sitting in the center, 80cm or 160cm to the left/right?

You could do a listening test. Start with listening off axis and mark perceived locations for different phantom sources. Then listen to the same piece from the center and compare phantom source locations.
Don't start listening in the center because our hearing will stick to plausible locations even if the soundfield provides differing cues (Franssen effect).


----------



## Orbitron

KidHorn said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one. The reflection speakers are a no go for me. Not only will you almost certainly get inferior sound, you also have to run an extra set of wires to the speakers and you need to replace your existing speakers from a limited selection.
> 
> 
> I'm going to stick with my 11.4 setup until things get ironed out. I'm not convinced that replacing height and wides with ceilings is a good trade off.


What i found most interesting was AJs comment that he preferred the reflection speakers over the ceiling speakers. 
http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/214


----------



## markus767

Orbitron said:


> What i found most interesting was AJs comment that he preferred the reflection speakers over the ceiling speakers.
> http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/214


Psychoacoustic studies have found that reflections can increase perceived spaciousness which is something humans tend to like. But make no mistake this has nothing to do with faithful reproduction or "director's intend".


----------



## Deckard97

Gene DellaSala said:


> I do look forward to hearing the Atmos Ready speakers but until I hear them, I will remain a skeptic about their merit like many of my colleagues, including top level PHD Acousticians that I've consulted with, on this very topic that aren't as publicly vocal as I am.






Hi Gene,


I will remain a skeptic as well until I give it a good listen. But from what I've heard so far, the Atmos experience will be* most* enjoyed in the theater. This is only what I have heard, not what I necessarily think. PM me if you want some more details...




Enjoy..


----------



## Gene DellaSala

Deckard97 said:


> Hi Gene,
> 
> 
> I will remain a skeptic as well until I give it a good listen. But from what I've heard so far, the Atmos experience will be* most* enjoyed in the theater. This is only what I have heard, not what I necessarily think. PM me if you want some more details...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy..


Thanks Deckard. I actually heard Atmos twice in a local theater and we shot a short video about our experiences with it which will go live on Monday. It certainly has a LOT of potential provided the producers don't abuse the format.


----------



## FilmMixer

SteveCallas said:


> The concept of bouncing sound waves off the ceiling from top mounted drivers.....yeesh, that is a pretty weak compromise.


As opposed to no solution for those who can't put speakers in their ceiling? 

It is by no means the ideal setup, but will work for a very large % of people who want to upgrade with a minimum of fuss.


----------



## FilmMixer

Gene DellaSala said:


> Thanks Deckard. I actually heard Atmos twice in a local theater and we shot a short video about our experiences with it which will go live on Monday. It certainly has a LOT of potential provided the producers don't abuse the format.


Gene... I'm unclear about "a lot of potential" since there are more than a handful of titles that have been mixed in the format...

In the last two months there have been 9 films released in the format... it's gaining a lot of traction...

And can you explain what "abusing the format" means? Abuse it how?

Producers aren't responsible for the sound mix... the director and sound crews are.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

FilmMixer said:


> Gene... I'm unclear about "a lot of potential" since there are more than a handful of titles that have been mixed in the format...
> 
> In the last two months there have been 9 films released in the format... it's gaining a lot of traction...
> 
> And can you explain what "abusing the format" means? Abuse it how?
> 
> Producers aren't responsible for the sound mix... the director and sound crews are.


Over usage. In the Atmos Theater I watched the movie Gravity in for example, we all felt the height channels were WAY too loud and often distracting. My wife was covering her ears for a majority of the movie and she NEVER does this when we attend non-Atmos movies in the same Cineplex. It reminded me of the early days of DTS DVD's that over did the rear channels or to some extent the first Beatles records that had an unnatural stereo effect.


----------



## FilmMixer

Gene DellaSala said:


> Over usage. In the Atmos Theater I watched the movie Gravity in for example, we all felt the height channels were WAY too loud and often distracting. My wife was covering her ears for a majority of the movie and she NEVER does this when we attend non-Atmos movies in the same Cineplex. It reminded me of the early days of DTS DVD's that over did the rear channels or to some extent the first Beatles records that had an unnatural stereo effect.


Gene.. just curious what theater that was.... that doesn't sound right (I saw "Gravity" twice in two different Atmos rooms and while it was dynamic, it was never punishing..) 

Sorry you had that kind of experience... it truly was deserving of the awards it got and an excellent example of what the format is capable of.

As a mixing community, we have actually found Atmos helps alleviate the issue of going over the top.. when you have other areas to put music and effects, you can do so without muddying up the track... it's been a big help in going big without going into obnoxious land...


----------



## Gene DellaSala

FilmMixer said:


> Gene.. just curious what theater that was.... that doesn't sound right (I saw "Gravity" twice in two different Atmos rooms and while it was dynamic, it was never punishing..)
> 
> Sorry you had that kind of experience... it truly was deserving of the awards it got and an excellent example of what the format is capable of.
> 
> As a mixing community, we have actually found Atmos helps alleviate the issue of going over the top.. when you have other areas to put music and effects, you can do so without muddying up the track... it's been a big help in going big without going into obnoxious land...


The theater was the Regal in Pinellas Park Florida. 

Here is my write up on the experience which I hope the mods don't mind me linking to:
http://www.audioholics.com/blu-ray-movie-reviews/gravity-dolby-atmos

That being said I'd be happy to publish a perspective from your side of the industry if you're interested in writing one up.


----------



## KidHorn

Gene DellaSala said:


> Sorry but I don't take kindly to being accused of a conspiracy especially by someone that is apparently a writer for other AV magazines in the industry. I am sure David can defend himself and he did pose the question of intelligence not I.
> 
> If you regularly read Audioholics.com then you would know we are skeptical in nature about any marketing claims. We've been debunking marketing nonsense for over 15+ years, especially on the topic of exotic cables. This understandably doesn't make us popular at times but we do try to keep things real using provable and valid science. Just b/c one doesn't "hear" something doesn't dismiss the fact that the product or premise is flawed in nature.
> 
> I do look forward to hearing the Atmos Ready speakers but until I hear them, I will remain a skeptic about their merit like many of my colleagues, including top level PHD Acousticians that I've consulted with, on this very topic that aren't as publicly vocal as I am.



I'm on your side. I don't have an issue with your video or anything you posted. It seems like people are being hyper critical towards you and your responses have been appropriate.


----------



## markus767

^
I agree. Do I now have to click the "Like" button to demonstrate which camp I belong to?


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> I did not see that post, but a claim that Atmos is not object based is incorrect (from what I have read).
> Was that claimed in the Andrew's video?
> 
> 
> The capability of Atmos Gen-1 appears to be less than initially thought by many on this forum.
> Please correct the record, but if a post stating that information is "incorrect" or "false", should be specific about what is incorrect and explain what is correct.
> 
> 
> - Rich


I've told you. He said Atmos is not object-based. That is incorrect. He corrected it when he apologised for the error. It's all available on the Lounge - go there and read it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol. 

I love how in this hobby people feel the need to 'take sides'.

Don't we all love audio and stuff?


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> I've told you. He said Atmos is not object-based. That is incorrect. He corrected it when he apologised for the error. It's all available on the Lounge - go there and read it.


I saw that and I believe you.
However, the original video did not make the claim (unless I missed it) Atmos was not object based.

If the video did not make that claim, then perhaps it was just a bad career move 

- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Gene DellaSala said:


> I do look forward to hearing the Atmos Ready speakers but until I hear them, I will remain a skeptic about their merit like many of my colleagues, including top level PHD Acousticians that I've consulted with, on this very topic that aren't as publicly vocal as I am.


Healthy skepticism is one thing, but that video came across as premature and mocking _criticism_. You haven't even heard the products, nor does it seem like you've heard the consumer version of Atmos either. 

Snake oil-like audiophile products are one thing to slam (and I say slam away), but a product yet to be released let alone something you have no personal knowledge of (like most of us outside of an audio post house or Dolby Labs) is something else entirely.

Unlike you, I had a really great experience with "Gravity" in a Harkins Atmos theater outside of Stapleton in Denver. Very balanced and very 3D... the movie left much to be desired IMHO, but the sound mix was spectacular and like nothing I had come across before in terms of surround sound.

If home Atmos, with proper speaker models and good positioning, is anything like the theatrical version... I am sold.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> So what you're saying is that phantom source location in your system are the very same regardless whether you're sitting in the center, 80cm or 160cm to the left/right?


No, I didn't say that, and I'm not going to get into a tedious back-and-forth based on you misconstruing what I've said and will say next.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gene DellaSala said:


> Sorry but I don't take kindly to being accused of a conspiracy especially by someone that is apparently a writer for other AV magazines in the industry. I am sure David can defend himself and he did pose the question of intelligence not I.
> 
> If you regularly read Audioholics.com then you would know we are skeptical in nature about any marketing claims. We've been debunking marketing nonsense for over 15+ years, especially on the topic of exotic cables. This understandably doesn't make us popular at times but we do try to keep things real using provable and valid science. Just b/c one doesn't "hear" something doesn't dismiss the fact that the product or premise is flawed in nature.
> 
> I do look forward to hearing the Atmos Ready speakers but until I hear them, I will remain a skeptic about their merit like many of my colleagues, including top level PHD Acousticians that I've consulted with, on this very topic that aren't as publicly vocal as I am.


It's my opinion that the ad hominem attack demeaned you and damaged your reputation, but that's just my opinion. No point dwelling on it.

I have always been a fan of the Audioholics website and have learned a lot from your numerous educational articles. I especially like the way you take an objective stance, usually, and debunk all the silly claims from people who make 'magic wires' and so on. I like the fact that you believe in measuring to confirm hearing impressions. I like your emphasis on a scientific approach. So I was even more disappointed to watch your Atmos video because it was just a bunch of subjective impressions, based on not even having heard what you were subjectively discussing.

WRT to the Atmos ready speakers, you admit you haven't heard them. This makes, with respect, a subjective opinion of what they might sound like irrelevant and pointless. OTOH, there are people with impeccable credentials who *have *heard them. These include FilmMixer, who is going to install such speakers in his own system, so impressed was he when he heard them. And he cites another Mixer, who mixed one of the best Atmos mixes and who has heard them and he says that he prefers them to actual in/on-ceiling speakers. In the Pioneer thread, albeit potentially biased, we have Andrew Jones, a speaker design on international renown, who says he was sceptical about the concept of reflective modules but who now says that his designs give a truly wonderful experience (and I believe him). And next week I will hear them myself and will then feel qualified to pass an opinion of their effectiveness. So on balance, we have you and your sidekick who haven't heard these speakers and three people whose opinions are hugely respected who have. One side says they are terrific, based on actual listening experience - the other side says... well, you know.

Gene, wouldn't it have made more sense to hold back on that video until you had had some hands-on experience of the speaker type you were so readily criticising, mocking even? 

I won't stop checking out your site regularly because there is a lot of great content there. But that video was hardly your finest hour.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> You will get SOME trading with speakers crossing in front of the listener (Bauer showed this in the 60's) but it will never *completely* compensate for someone sitting next to you.


Why does it have to be completely? What's wrong with having SOME compensation?


markus767 said:


> So what you're saying is that phantom source location in your system are the *very same* regardless whether you're sitting in the center, 80cm or 160cm to the left/right?


Where did he say very same? Does the notion of incremental improvement not exist in your world?


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> No, I didn't say that


Then I don't understand why you objected to one of my posts in the first place.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Why does it have to be completely? What's wrong with having SOME compensation?


Nothing's wrong with "some". But "some" still isn't enough for multiple seats. "Completely" would be enough.



sdurani said:


> Where did he say very same? Does the notion of incremental improvement not exist in your world?


It does and guess what, my speakers ARE crossed in front of my listening location and they ARE Geddes speakers (Noah referred to Geddes) and this is why I felt entitled to post my opinion and reasoning.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> Then I don't understand why you objected to one of my posts in the first place.


There you go again; because of this categorical statement:


markus767 said:


> As to toe-in and trading for sweet spot widening, it doesn't work.


No, it won't give 100% of the sweetness at dead center (which no one ever claimed) but will improve it greatly compared to no toe-in and/or non-CD speakers.

I won't respond any further to this.


----------



## sdurani

Gene DellaSala said:


> Sorry but I don't take kindly to being accused of a conspiracy especially by someone that is apparently a writer for other AV magazines in the industry.


Not an isolated view at the time you gave the award to the UMC-200. 

http://www.hometheaterequipment.com...mp-official-thread-3421/index2.html#post19947


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> But "some" still isn't enough for multiple seats.


Isn't enough for multiple seats or isn't enough for _you_? People make do with what they have, so some improvement is better than none at all, even if it isn't enough for you personally.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> There you go again; because of this categorical statement:
> 
> 
> No, it won't give 100% of the sweetness at dead center (which no one ever claimed) but will improve it greatly compared to no toe-in and/or non-CD speakers.
> 
> I won't respond any further to this.


You probably read one of my posts out of context which was multichannel...


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Isn't enough for multiple seats or isn't enough for _you_? People make do with what they have, so some improvement is better than none at all, even if it isn't enough for you personally.


"Isn't enough for multiple seats" means just that, it isn't enough for multiple seats. Try it for yourself instead of building up a straw man.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

kbarnes701 said:


> It's my opinion that the ad hominem attack demeaned you and damaged your reputation, but that's just my opinion. No point dwelling on it.
> 
> I have always been a fan of the Audioholics website and have learned a lot from your numerous educational articles. I especially like the way you take an objective stance, usually, and debunk all the silly claims from people who make 'magic wires' and so on. I like the fact that you believe in measuring to confirm hearing impressions. I like your emphasis on a scientific approach. So I was even more disappointed to watch your Atmos video because it was just a bunch of subjective impressions, based on not even having heard what you were subjectively discussing.
> 
> WRT to the Atmos ready speakers, you admit you haven't heard them. This makes, with respect, a subjective opinion of what they might sound like irrelevant and pointless. OTOH, there are people with impeccable credentials who *have *heard them. These include FilmMixer, who is going to install such speakers in his own system, so impressed was he when he heard them. And he cites another Mixer, who mixed one of the best Atmos mixes and who has heard them and he says that he prefers them to actual in/on-ceiling speakers. In the Pioneer thread, albeit potentially biased, we have Andrew Jones, a speaker design on international renown, who says he was sceptical about the concept of reflective modules but who now says that his designs give a truly wonderful experience (and I believe him). And next week I will hear them myself and will then feel qualified to pass an opinion of their effectiveness. So on balance, we have you and your sidekick who haven't heard these speakers and three people whose opinions are hugely respected who have. One side says they are terrific, based on actual listening experience - the other side says... well, you know.
> 
> Gene, wouldn't it have made more sense to hold back on that video until you had had some hands-on experience of the speaker type you were so readily criticising, mocking even?
> 
> I won't stop checking out your site regularly because there is a lot of great content there. But that video was hardly your finest hour.


I appreciate your viewpoint. However my "sidekick" and I really enjoyed making this video. I have no regrets. It was well received on Youtube and on our site too. I received a ton of positive comments from industry insiders that also don't buy into the physics of the "Atmos Speaker" concept. 

Our Youtube Channel has plenty of space for us to add more Atmos related videos in the coming months when we're able to test the products. It's great that there is such a variety of opinions starting to come out now on this topic so consumers can look at all sides and determine for themselves what they want to do.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> It does and guess what, my speakers ARE crossed in front of my listening location and they ARE Geddes speakers (Noah referred to Geddes) and this is why I felt entitled to post my opinion and reasoning.


Oh, you're *that* Markus; it's been a few years since those Geddes threads.

Which makes your remarks all the more perplexing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gene DellaSala said:


> I appreciate your viewpoint. However my "sidekick" and I really enjoyed making this video. I have no regrets. It was well received on Youtube and on our site too. I received a ton of positive comments from industry insiders that also don't buy into the physics of the "Atmos Speaker" concept.
> 
> Our Youtube Channel has plenty of space for us to add more Atmos related videos in the coming months when we're able to test the products. It's great that there is such a variety of opinions starting to come out now on this topic so consumers can look at all sides and determine for themselves what they want to do.


Apologies for referring to your colleague as your sidekick. I was too lazy to go and check out his real name - my bad. I'll look forward to seeing if you revise your view once you have heard the Atmos-enabled speaker designs.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

kbarnes701 said:


> Apologies for referring to your colleague as your sidekick. I was too lazy to go and check out his real name - my bad. I'll look forward to seeing if you revise your view once you have heard the Atmos-enabled speaker designs.


Thank you for that. Hugo is one of the nicest people I've ever known and is quite accomplished in the fitness field. 

I look forward to eating my own hat when and if I get blown away by an "Atmos Speaker" demo in my listening space. At the very minimum I am quite confident the AJ speakers will rock just as normal speakers based on AJ's past accomplishments and the apparent great part quality that are in Pioneer's new speakers.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Try it for yourself instead of building up a straw man.


I have, hence my comments about some improvement vs complete compensation.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Gene DellaSala said:


> Hi Guys;
> 
> I'm sorry that our Dolby Atmos video has caused some of you offense. That was not our intent. We did our best to produce a fun and informative basic overview video of Dolby Atmos and how it relates to the Home Theater market based on the little information that is currently available. WE go into more depth in the three most recent articles we've written on the Audioholics site which I won't link up here to avoid being accused of spamming this forum. It's obvious some of you missed our tongue in cheek humor that we often inject into our Youtube videos to make them more entertaining for a broader audience. 1k views on our video in 1 day isn't bad IMO for such a small niche topic as audio that is often perceived as dry and geeky by the general public.
> 
> That being said, I am quite dumbfounded about the Emotiva / Atmos conspiracy theory being spread here but hey there are still people that believe 9/11 was an inside job and that we never walked on the moon
> 
> In any event, I stand by what we have said in the video. We expressed our opinions based on the limited info available and also our experiences so far listening to Atmos in the local Cinema's. I won't be recanting the video BUT when I do get to listen to "Atmos" speakers such as the Pioneers, I will certainly do a followup Video to share our experiences good or bad. I have a lot of respect for Andrew Jones and I really liked the last Pioneer speakers he designed as you could see by my very favorable review on my site.
> 
> I, like many of you, am looking forward to experiencing Atmos in my own theater room. While I did say I'm a two-channel guy at heart, I still love a phenomenal multi-channel experience, especially for music. Heck I can't go a week without listening to one of Steve Wilson's Blu-ray masterpieces. I do however take the basic 5 or 7 speaker layout VERY seriously in an upscale theater room and don't like the idea of muddying up the front or rear channels by throwing top mounted drivers on them to add additional channels. In any event, everybody has their own preferences and more power to you.
> 
> Thanks for watching the video and for such an informative Atmos discussion here. We look forward to doing further videos on this topic and many more.
> 
> BTW, the Lou Ferrigno comment about Hugo is very amusing especially since Hugo is a highly successful published fitness author and former competitor that has met Lou and many of the other greats like Arnold and Franco. I am sure Hugo will consider that a compliment.



"BTW, the Lou Ferrigno comment about Hugo is very amusing especially since Hugo is a highly successful published fitness author and former competitor that has met Lou and many of the other greats like Arnold and Franco. I am sure Hugo will consider that a compliment."


Gene,

I am sure that you realize that my post was Tongue in Cheek and Sarcastic in nature on both sides of the aisle. Hugo is so "ripped to the nines" that he added a certain "you better agree with my partner" air to the conversation. He is certainly an imposing figure and you would have to be dedicated beyond belief to get to that level.

I am by nature, always skeptical of any new hyped format and the industries quest for "new and creative ways to seperate us from our wallets". I really do hope that Atmos pans out and the hysteria surrounding this new technolgy is to me amusing.

Your comment about the importance of a properly executed basic 5.1 system can not be understated... I have been touting this for years!


...Glenn


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Gene DellaSala said:


> I appreciate your viewpoint. However my "sidekick" and I really enjoyed making this video. I have no regrets. It was well received on Youtube and on our site too. I received a ton of positive comments from industry insiders that also don't buy into the physics of the "Atmos Speaker" concept.
> 
> Our Youtube Channel has plenty of space for us to add more Atmos related videos in the coming months when we're able to test the products. It's great that there is such a variety of opinions starting to come out now on this topic so consumers can look at all sides and determine for themselves what they want to do.


Positive feedback or not... mocking and denigrating and pre-judging or casting doubt on products from legitimate (not snake-oil) companies (like Dolby or otherwise) without having done a thorough hands-on with said product smacks of unprofessional behavior on your part. Especially with technology along the lines of Atmos (not necessarily the speakers) that _might_ revolutionize the audio experience for home theaters. That goes for those who gave you positive feedback as well. If they haven't seen it, touched it, heard it, smelt it, whatever... then they're just as in the dark as any other lay person here (sans those in the industry who actually have demoed it) and are shouting into an echo chamber. Their feedback, in terms of a "professional" review or recommendation, means squat. 

I hope you do a better job in the future.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> Healthy skepticism is one thing, but that video came across as premature and mocking _criticism_. You haven't even heard the products, nor does it seem like you've heard the consumer version of Atmos either.


There have been many AVS posts claiming that Atmos is a revolution without any direct experience with these products.

Unhealthy skepticism or unhealthy exuberance, take your pick  

- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> There have been many AVS posts claiming that Atmos is a revolution without any direct experience with these products.
> 
> 
> Unhealthy skepticism or unhealthy exuberance, take your pick
> 
> 
> - Rich


The difference is that Gene is supposed to be an "unbiased" resource. He's not just an internet forum member who happens to love home theater as a hobby.


----------



## antoniobiz1

All this skepticism about Atmos is really puzzling.

Dolby has already proven the technology works. As it is, it is quite easy to do (after all, it is nothing more than an on-the-fly mix), and their processor is the usual pc, so nothing special there. Processing power will go up, prices will go down.

Still, the possibilities are mind boggling to say the least, and its use will certainly not be limited to movies. As a live music tool (object audio, not necessarily Dolby) it will prove itself as the next big thing.

And yet, this thread has turned into a challenge named "say the most preposterous and unfounded thing you can think". Why?


----------



## ss9001

antoniobiz1 said:


> All this skepticism about Atmos is really puzzling...And yet, this thread has turned into a challenge named "say the most preposterous and unfounded thing you can think". Why?


+1


----------



## sdurani

antoniobiz1 said:


> And yet, this thread has turned into a challenge named "say the most preposterous and unfounded thing you can think". Why?


For the same reason reality TV shows are so popular: drama. _'You can't force me to buy 34 speakers for Atmos!'_


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup.

Not a fantastic SNR going on in these. Ya just gotta know who is worth listening to.


----------



## NorthSky

Can't wait for trying it out myself (Dolby Atmos) in the comfort of my own home. 
...*Object*ively and subjectively wise.


----------



## joerod

I have an Onkyo 3030 on the way and will definitely report back my ear's findings. After I spend a considerable amount of time with it. Perhaps some "negative" or "unsure" comments are coming from the majority of people who don't plan to jump in this fall or late summer? Either way I have spoke with a couple engineers who have helped develop Atmos and I am very curious and excited.


----------



## Orbitron

Dolby Atmos Panel - Sound Designer Perspective
http://www.cinetechgeek.com/2014/05...th-hollywood-content-creators-and-exhibitors/


----------



## David Susilo

joerod said:


> I have an Onkyo 3030 on the way and will definitely report back my ear's findings. After I spend a considerable amount of time with it. Perhaps some "negative" or "unsure" comments are coming from the majority of people who don't plan to jump in this fall or late summer? Either way I have spoke with a couple engineers who have helped develop Atmos and I am very curious and excited.


Knowing what Atmos can do, I'm one of the non-buyers for its first iteration. Having listened to Onkyo's Atmos during the product training (using 5.1.2), I can say that the upgrade in sonic three dimensionality is akin to the upgrade from matrixed surround to discrete surround. Again, that's merely from 5.1.2 setup. I can only imagine how much better the 5.1.4 setup will be. However, as Atmos is scalable, I want to wait so I can have at the very least the remapping capability is introduced.


----------



## brwsaw

I need a larger room


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> Knowing what Atmos can do, I'm one of the non-buyers for its first iteration. Having listened to Onkyo's Atmos during the product training (using 5.1.2), I can say that the upgrade in sonic three dimensionality is akin to the upgrade from matrixed surround to discrete surround. Again, that's merely from 5.1.2 setup. I can only imagine how much better the 5.1.4 setup will be. However, as Atmos is scalable, I want to wait so I can have at the very least the remapping capability is introduced.



Of course, if enough people wait til the next iteration of Atmos... Hollywood might take it that no one is interested and therefore little to no product will be made utilizing the technology. It's a no-win situation because they rarely _ask_ for our input... they would rather _take_ our money.


----------



## David Susilo

True. However, as most receiver brands will have Atmos, it's not like new buyers will have an option to not go with Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

If they put something new in our AV receivers and SSPs it better be something useful. ...Good for us, good for them, good for everyone.


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course, if enough people wait til the next iteration of Atmos... Hollywood might take it that no one is interested and therefore little to no product will be made utilizing the technology. It's a no-win situation because they rarely _ask_ for our input... they would rather _take_ our money.


+1

There is little concrete info, and if the first generation DSP chips are crippled, then it makes more sense to adopt a fully developed format.

I feel that this generation is not well thought out, and the marketing folks have dropped the ball.

Those with amps may watch and see. It's a huge move to add ceiling speakers for those who have already setup their rooms, and I can't see the majority of users using more than 5.1 channels anyway..

I would prefer a more mature product with HDMI, HDCP, and Atmos fullu sorted out.


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> There is little concrete info, and if the first generation DSP chips are crippled, then it makes more sense to adopt a fully developed format.
> 
> I feel that this generation is not well thought out, and the marketing folks have dropped the ball.


The product cycle for manufacturers wasn't going to change for the introduction of Atmos..

All of the announced products were existing on the road map for the big four companies (Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha and Pioneer) when Dolby was finalizing the requirements..

The DSP isn't crippled... however, all of the initial products were obviously not designed from the ground up for the codec.. they are all repurposed for the addition of 4 overhead speakers...

IMO it's very well thought out... adding in 4 overheads to existing setups and adding an option for those who can't install in the ceiling, as well as HDMI 1.3> compatibility, and no new codec (TrueHD and DD+) is smart for a great deal of consumers..

Coming out of the gate with expensive (and >11 channel pre/pros and AVR'S aren't going to be cheap at first.) gear might please the AVS faithful, but would alienate the mass consumer base needed to gain mass adoption..

Again, IMO, it is the smartest way to bring the product to market.. don't ask consumers to replace everything they have, or to redo their rooms, and give them an experience that is a good deal more immersive than anything they have access to today..

I just saw Apes in Atmos... it reminded me again why I'm so excited about the format...

Just my .02


----------



## cwt

Skylinestar said:


> That is still big if compared with ~600MB of AC3 sound. AC3 has become the norm in online video distribution due to the small size. If AC4 has better audio quality, yet maintain the size of AC3, it will be a true winner.


Absolutely ;read that h265 compression rates are getting more refined as well ;should help the bandwidth allocated to audio for next generation delivery hopefully


----------



## Kees de Visser

Newbie question: is Atmos only used for sound for picture, or are there plans for music-only releases as well ?


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> I just saw Apes in Atmos... it reminded me again why I'm so excited about the format...


Saw it tonight as well. Stunning mix, especially in scenes with crowds (humans or apes).


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> The product cycle for manufacturers wasn't going to change for the introduction of Atmos..
> 
> All of the announced products were existing on the road map for the big four companies (Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha and Pioneer) when Dolby was finalizing the requirements..
> 
> The DSP isn't crippled... however, all of the initial products were obviously not designed from the ground up for the codec.. they are all repurposed for the addition of 4 overhead speakers...
> 
> IMO it's very well thought out... adding in 4 overheads to existing setups and adding an option for those who can't install in the ceiling, as well as HDMI 1.3> compatibility, and no new codec (TrueHD and DD+) is smart for a great deal of consumers..
> 
> Coming out of the gate with expensive (and >11 channel pre/pros and AVR'S aren't going to be cheap at first.) gear might please the AVS faithful, but would alienate the mass consumer base needed to gain mass adoption..
> 
> Again, IMO, it is the smartest way to bring the product to market.. don't ask consumers to replace everything they have, or to redo their rooms, and give them an experience that is a good deal more immersive than anything they have access to today..
> 
> I just saw Apes in Atmos... it reminded me again why I'm so excited about the format...
> 
> Just my .02


 
Atmos in theaters is a very elegant and powerful solution. 

Gen-1 home Atmos benefits users with ceiling channels that targets the sales pitch but narrows the market.

Atmos processing with vector/position has the potential to improve existing 5.1 / 7.1 systems with Atmos and conventional sound tracks.
Perhaps there was not enough DSP power, but that would have been a much better introduction.

The video side of the industry is pushing 4K and the exclusion of a HDCP 2.2 in most home Atmos AVR/processors makes them obsolete in the a year.
That is not Atmos's fault but it is a reality.

Cutting edge users may upgrade but many may decide to wait another year before upgrading their AVR.

- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

All I can say is that Dolby *must* have concrete Atmos titles announced during the hardware debut or everyone will cry "vaporware!!" and the technology will die before it even makes its way out of the starting gate. 

If there's a good selection of releases from various studios at a fair price to start this format off right then it might be smoother sailing. Disney re-releasing Frozen with a deluxe edition including an amazing Atmos track, would be a boon.

I would also hope that Dolby and other "partners" will have demos at CEDIA with _actual_ retail Blu-ray Atmos discs using both "Atmos speakers" _and_ optimal speaker arrays. That would be a very, very smart move on their part.


----------



## rlhaudio

I think Atmos is here to stay along with 3D and 4K. They will make it and you will eventually buy it. As always it starts slow, just a few AVR's with Atmos then 2nd gen will include darn near ALL AVR's with Atmos. I think the harder part is consumers upgrading their speakers. I can't see many people selling their speakers just to buy at Atmos ready speaker. As far as the add on speaker, I'm not confident in that either. Best solution for Home Theater users is to install ceiling speakers or perhaps a wall mounted speaker at ceiling height that can be angled. I'm so glad I sold my HT B&W 800 speakers when I did... lol


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rlhaudio said:


> I think Atmos is here to stay along with 3D. They will make it and you will eventually buy it. Its hard to find Blu Ray players now that are not 3D. As always it starts slow, just a few AVR's with Atmos then 2nd gen will include darn near ALL AVR's with Atmos. I think the harder part is consumers upgrading their speakers. I can't see many people selling their speakers just to buy at Atmos ready speaker. As far as the add on speaker, I'm not confident in that either. Best solution for Home Theater users is to install ceiling speakers
> or perhaps a wall mounted speaker at ceiling height that can be angled. I'm so glad I sold my HT B&W 800 speakers when I did... lol


3D is no longer getting the consumer industry support it once did. It's being considered pretty much a flop in the electronics world.


----------



## rlhaudio

True, the biggest problem with 3D movies, unless it was filmed in 3D it pretty much sucked. IMAX 3D titles are good along with animated titles. The problem was remaking movies into 3D. Where most the movie is standard with a few 3D scenes added. That soured quite a few people. I hope Atmos does NOT follow in those footsteps.


----------



## brwsaw

I'm hoping for (at least) 5.1.6 in the first AVR's released.

3D needs more attention not less. There must be millions of people who would purchase it if they could afford it, I'd say its short sighted to suggest its done when so many haven't bought into it.

You'd be correct in saying 3D needs more love from all sides of the equation. Myself I feel with good filming, using intentional cues and good screens, some/good depth is already present. We need to find the happy middle ground where its unobtrusive and a feature you can't live with out.

I'm not sure if Atmos will win my money or DTS. Now that a DTS equivellent has been suggested for consumer release I'm leaning and waiting for it to be officially anounced from a AVR manufacturer.

The RX-A3040 had my attention, I might have to wait.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> I'm hoping for (at least) 5.1.6 in the first AVR's released.
> 
> 3D needs more attention not less. There must be millions of people who would purchase it if they could afford it, I'd say its short sighted to suggest its done when so many haven't bought into it.
> 
> You'd be correct in saying 3D needs more love from all sides of the equation. Myself I feel with good filming, using intentional cues and good screens, some/good depth is already present. We need to find the happy middle ground where its unobtrusive and a feature you can't live with out.
> 
> I'm not sure if Atmos will win my money or DTS. Now that a DTS equivellent has been suggested for consumer release I'm leaning and waiting for it to be officially anounced from a AVR manufacturer.
> 
> The RX-A3040 had my attention, I might have to wait.


The lowest configuration of Atmos is 5.1.2. Then you can move to 5.1.4, then 7.1.2, then 9.1.2, then 7.1.4. It's all fixed speaker positions right now since these mainstream consumer products don't use the full Atmos remapping feature yet.


----------



## SteveCallas

KidHorn said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one. The reflection speakers are a no go for me. Not only will you almost certainly get inferior sound, you also have to run an extra set of wires to the speakers and you need to replace your existing speakers from a limited selection.


It's not even the need to run new wires, buy new speakers, or redo the theater - that doesn't bother me and I would do all of that. But shooting sound out of the top of the speaker to attempt to reflect it off the ceiling and have it come to the listening position just seems like such a bad solution. Only the high frequencies are going to reflect very well if at all, and trying to line that up to achieve a coherent surround effect just seems like a mess. There will be stray frequencies that don't reflect well or directionally, and all that is doing is adding noise to the room. With 11.2, 9.2, or even 7.2, the surrounds can place sounds in a very particular position. GF wanted to watch Little Mermaid blu ray the other day - scene near the beginning where the crab is chasing Ariel and he very clearly scuttles from behind us on the left, overhead, across the ceiling. That is a very specific sound effect that I don't see how could be pulled off as clearly with diffuse surrounds. 

In a few years when things standardize, I'm sure I will go with in ceiling speakers to take advantage of this, if only because I like as many surrounds as possible, but I'd be very suspect of this ceiling bouncing concept.


----------



## David Susilo

Dan Hitchman said:


> All I can say is that Dolby *must* have concrete Atmos titles announced during the hardware debut or everyone will cry "vaporware!!" and the technology will die before it even makes its way out of the starting gate.
> 
> If there's a good selection of releases from various studios at a fair price to start this format off right then it might be smoother sailing. Disney re-releasing Frozen with a deluxe edition including an amazing Atmos track, would be a boon.
> 
> I would also hope that Dolby and other "partners" will have demos at CEDIA with _actual_ retail Blu-ray Atmos discs using both "Atmos speakers" _and_ optimal speaker arrays. That would be a very, very smart move on their part.


There will be a bunch of titles to be announced when the time comes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> There will be a bunch of titles to be announced when the time comes.


The operative words are: _when the time comes_. When will that be exactly?


----------



## rlhaudio

Since they are releasing Atmos why are we stuck with the standard configuration? ie. 5ch, 7ch, 11ch receivers? Why not add more channels now since a new avr is required. I run 11 channels now. If I purchase a new 11ch avr I am removing my front height/wide and replacing them with 4 ceiling speakers.(7.4) Is 4 the correct amount for in ceiling speakers? It seems like a choice between dolby height/wide or atmos ceiling. Why not incorporate both? Leave the current 11 ch configuration alone and add 4 or even 6 options for ceiling speakers. Maybe that will be an option for future releases. I prefer not to purchase "bleeding end" electronics. IMO I'll wait a year or so until the dust settles. My current 11.4 channels is perfect for now. (although, the more the better). While I am ranting, why not add 4 subwoofer outputs? If your introducing a new receiver lets make some changes instead of rearranging some channels. I realize adding more channels requires more amplification, just add outputs for external amps. 
We should create a quick pole of our choice. 5.2,5.4, 7.2,7.4, 7.6, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6,11.2,11.4,11.6 


I like 9.6 or 11.6. I can leave my existing configuration alone and allow for 6 in ceilings. (I don't really need both wide and height). Anyone else with setup option/suggestions?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rlhaudio said:


> Since they are releasing Atmos why are we stuck with the standard configuration? ie. 5ch, 7ch, 11ch receivers? Why not add more channels now since a new avr is required. I run 11 channels now. If I purchase a new 11ch avr I am removing my front height/wide and replacing them with 4 ceiling speakers.(7.4) Is 4 the correct amount for in ceiling speakers? It seems like a choice between dolby height/wide or atmos ceiling. Why not incorporate both? Leave the current 11 ch configuration alone and add 4 or even 6 options for ceiling speakers. Maybe that will be an option for future releases. I prefer not to purchase "bleeding end" electronics. IMO I'll wait a year or so until the dust settles. My current 11.4 channels is perfect for now. (although, the more the better). While I am ranting, why not add 4 subwoofer outputs? If your introducing a new receiver lets make some changes instead of rearranging some channels. I realize adding more channels requires more amplification, just add outputs for external amps.
> We should create a quick pole of our choice. 5.2,5.4, 7.2,7.4, 7.6, 9.2, 9.4, 9.6,11.2,11.4,11.6
> 
> 
> I like 9.6 or 11.6. I can leave my existing configuration alone and allow for 6 in ceilings. (I don't really need both wide and height). Anyone else with setup option/suggestions?


We're stuck because of the slower CPU's being utilized and the fact that receivers can't be jammed with a bunch of amplifiers. Why aren't there pre-amp outs for more audio pathways? Because that would require more powerful chips to render an increasingly complex and varied speaker layout.

If you had enough money to burn at your disposal, you could get a Trinnov Altitude processor. 

I too will be sitting this generation out until the manufacturers can get their act together and start producing Atmos (and perhaps DTS-UHD) products from the ground up that utilize more of the benefits of this technology.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> The operative words are: _when the time comes_. When will that be exactly?


Cedia.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Cedia.


Cool! That's what I was wondering. Seemed liked the best time. I'll be there.  

It'll be interesting to know if they needed the original sound engineers behind the theatrical Atmos tracks to convert their work to consumer Atmos. 

And whether Dolby's work on Die Hard's original soundtrack was just for a demo clip or if the entire movie was remixed in Atmos. That's one classic I would LOVE in Atmos!


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cool! That's what I was wondering. Seemed liked the best time. I'll be there.
> 
> It'll be interesting to know if they needed the original sound engineers behind the theatrical Atmos tracks to convert their work to consumer Atmos.
> 
> And whether Dolby's work on Die Hard's original soundtrack was just for a demo clip or if the entire movie was remixed in Atmos. That's one classic I would LOVE in Atmos!


I can't speak about Die Hard.. however before I left ToddAO they just completed an Atmos mix of "Chicago..."

However, even being a much more recent film, the access and availability of the original elements really left the mixers hands tied...


----------



## FilmMixer

brwsaw said:


> I'm not sure if Atmos will win my money or DTS. Now that a DTS equivellent has been suggested for consumer release I'm leaning and waiting for it to be officially anounced from a AVR manufacturer.


Just remember this..

Atmos is a proprietary format... studios aren't going to have the choice of what codec to use for films already mixed in Atmos but not MDA.

In the end a big part of the success of either format will come down to the software and titles available for each one..


----------



## FilmMixer

joerod said:


> I have an Onkyo 3030 on the way and will definitely report back my ear's findings. After I spend a considerable amount of time with it. Perhaps some "negative" or "unsure" comments are coming from the majority of people who don't plan to jump in this fall or late summer? Either way I have spoke with a couple engineers who have helped develop Atmos and I am very curious and excited.


I hope you can give us some impressions regarding AccuuEQ..

No LR or Sub eq? Am I misinterpreting the literature? I know you have contacts and access at Onkyo but the ditching of audyssey makes this a no go for me.... 

Maybe you can talk to your insiders for some insight into their new solution. Timbre marching will be more important with Atmos and not correcting the mains or sub seems like heresy.

EDIT..

Did some digging on AccuEQ..

I wasn't wrong...

Straight from the horses mouth...

http://forums.onkyousa.com/viewtopic.php?t=5753&p=21276

"AccuEQ: There are advantages and disadvantages to any room calibration system. 

Many calibration systems apply equalization to all channels. This in turn results in your speaker producing an “Equalized Sound” not necessarily the natural sound of your speakers.

*The main benefit of AccuEQ is that it does not apply an Equalized effect to Front channels and Subwoofer*. This allows the natural sound of your speakers to be heard while taking into consideration things such as room furnishings, speaker distance and speaker type.

We will continue to refine AccEQ as we move forward to make it the best calibration system available.
"


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> Atmos in theaters is a very elegant and powerful solution.
> 
> Gen-1 home Atmos benefits users with ceiling channels that targets the sales pitch but narrows the market.
> 
> Atmos processing with vector/position has the potential to improve existing 5.1 / 7.1 systems with Atmos and conventional sound tracks.
> Perhaps there was not enough DSP power, but that would have been a much better introduction.
> 
> The video side of the industry is pushing 4K and the exclusion of a HDCP 2.2 in most home Atmos AVR/processors makes them obsolete in the a year.
> That is not Atmos's fault but it is a reality.
> 
> Cutting edge users may upgrade but many may decide to wait another year before upgrading their AVR.
> 
> - Rich


Rich. A counterpoint and some clarification 

Atmos for the theater works incredibly well because Dolby approves and certifies all installations. While this adds cost, it makes for a better consistency of the product. 

But they don't do any kind of speaker remapping...

It isn't part of the feature set for theatrical Atmos today. 

So to imply it will be an omission isn't factual... It doesn't exist in the theatrical world, so it's not being left out. (I might be misinterpreting your comment...)

I don't see how translating Atmos soundtracks for home users in a 7.1.4 to start with narrows the market. 

What I think will be the next step after this initial launch is a product with 9.1.4. Front wides will really enhance the way objects move off the screen and into the room. I think one of the manufactures confirmed they will have a 9.1.2 setup at launch however. 

I agree there are those around here who are just the types who might want to install 34 speakers and amps. However for this to succeed and make the studios get behind the format requires a large user base, not the niche enthusiasts crowd. 

Again, just my .02, but I think this is the perfect way to launch and to test the waters. 

You'll have to excuse me but I'm not an expert on what we need 2.2 for. 

Regardless, as a beta tester for Oppo you could elaborate on this, I would guess two HDMI outputs will work just as it has for those without 3D AVR support.... One to AVR for bitstream and one to display for video. 

Again you'll have to educate me as to what sources will need 2.2 and what it can add.


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> Rich. A counterpoint and some clarification
> 
> Atmos for the theater works incredibly well because Dolby approves and certifies all installations. While this adds cost, it makes for a better consistency of the product.
> 
> But they don't do any kind of speaker remapping...
> 
> It isn't part of the feature set for theatrical Atmos today.
> 
> So to imply it will be an omission isn't factual... It doesn't exist in the theatrical world, so it's not being left out. (I might be misinterpreting your comment...)
> 
> I don't see how translating Atmos soundtracks for home users in a 7.1.4 to start with narrows the market.
> 
> What I think will be the next step after this initial launch is a product with 9.1.4. Front wides will really enhance the way objects move off the screen and into the room. I think one of the manufactures confirmed they will have a 9.1.2 setup at launch however.
> 
> I agree there are those around here who are just the types who might want to install 34 speakers and amps. However for this to succeed and make the studios get behind the format requires a large user base, not the niche enthusiasts crowd.
> 
> Again, just my .02, but I think this is the perfect way to launch and to test the waters.
> 
> You'll have to excuse me but I'm not an expert on what we need 2.2 for.
> 
> Regardless, as a beta tester for Oppo you could elaborate on this, I would guess two HDMI outputs will work just as it has for those without 3D AVR support.... One to AVR for bitstream and one to display for video.
> 
> Again you'll have to educate me as to what sources will need 2.2 and what it can add.


This is probably my unartful wording, but the benefit of is that audio objects are encoded with position information.
When played back in a particular theater, the sounds using the speakers and positions present the sounds in the proper locations.

Initially, I and others thought that the home Atmos would know the speaker layout in the home and perform the same function for the X.1 channels present.
Some home theaters diverge from ideal placement, so it might be possible, to use positional information improve existing sound tracks as well. 

Concerning HDCP 2.2, I have no specific information, but it has been reported that 4K Blu-Ray will require the new copy protection. Lord knows why, it never stop piracy but does a pretty good job of inconveniencing (incompatibility, slow switching, handshake errors, etc.) the paying customers 

Here is a post my the HDGuru:



> *HDCP 2.2* (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) is the latest version of the encryption/decryption scheme used by HDMI to prevent copying of audio/video content as it travels from a source through additional devices (an A/V receiver, for example). At present, there is no content containing HDCP 2.2 encryption, though we expect that next-generation 4K Blu-ray discs and players will use it.


http://hdguru.com/three-must-have-4k-tv-features/

The streaming 4K solutions appear to be implemented within the display, thereby bypassing any need for a particular HDCP level.
Dual output form a 4K player can definitely accommodate a 4K display with HDCP using dual output (as it did with 3D).

There is little doubt the 4K will be a big deal at the next CES and as more sources come online, switching is desirable.


Unfortunately, the timing of new Audio features like Atmos and 4K are not occurring together as they did with say Blu-Ray and True-HD.


- Rich


----------



## petetherock

RichB said:


> This is probably my unartful wording, but the benefit of is that audio objects are encoded with position information.
> When played back in a particular theater, the sounds using the speakers and positions present the sounds in the proper locations.
> 
> Initially, I and others thought that the home Atmos would know the speaker layout in the home and perform the same function for the X.1 channels present.
> Some home theaters diverge from ideal placement, so it might be possible, to use positional information improve existing sound tracks as well.
> 
> *Concerning HDCP 2.2, I have no specific information, but it has been reported that 4K Blu-Ray will require the new copy protection. *Lord knows why, it never stop piracy but does a pretty good job of inconveniencing (incompatibility, slow switching, handshake errors, etc.) the paying customers
> 
> Here is a post by the HDGuru:
> 
> 
> 
> http://hdguru.com/three-must-have-4k-tv-features/
> 
> The streaming 4K solutions appear to be implemented within the display, thereby bypassing any need for a particular HDCP level.
> Dual output form a 4K player can definitely accommodate a 4K display with HDCP using dual output (as it did with 3D).
> 
> There is little doubt the 4K will be a big deal at the next CES and as more sources come online, switching is desirable.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the timing of new Audio features like Atmos and 4K are not occurring together as they did with say Blu-Ray and True-HD.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Actually this is my main concern too, and I don't wish to commit to a new amp that is crippled from the start?

Perhaps those in the know, like filmmixer / JD can comment on this ?

It's like the first HDMI 1.0 Marantz SR 9600, a flagship model, which became outdated within less than a year of it's introduction, all the audiophile bits not withstanding...

I rue to climb on board the HDMI 2 / non HDCP 2.2 bandwagon for this reason?


----------



## Orbitron

An early adopter trade-in program would make it easier to jump in.


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> Actually this is my main concern too, and I don't wish to commit to a new amp that is crippled from the start?
> 
> Perhaps those in the know, like filmmixer / JD can comment on this ?
> 
> It's like the first HDMI 1.0 Marantz SR 9600, a flagship model, which became outdated within less than a year of it's introduction, all the audiophile bits not withstanding...
> 
> I rue to climb on board the HDMI 2 / non HDCP 2.2 bandwagon for this reason?


I guess the real question for anyone debating this is what is the real timetable for a true 4K UHD standard, and also the availability of content...

Just like Atmos, CEDIA should have plenty of answers for us all in regards to UHD..


----------



## NorthSky

When is CEDIA?


----------



## dschulz

September 11-13, in Denver.


----------



## NorthSky

Thank you sir.


----------



## simon_templar_32

FilmMixer said:


> Rich. A counterpoint and some clarification
> 
> Atmos for the theater works incredibly well because Dolby approves and certifies all installations. While this adds cost, it makes for a better consistency of the product.
> 
> But they don't do any kind of speaker remapping...
> 
> It isn't part of the feature set for theatrical Atmos today.
> 
> So to imply it will be an omission isn't factual... It doesn't exist in the theatrical world, so it's not being left out. (I might be misinterpreting your comment...)





RichB said:


> This is probably my unartful wording, but the benefit of is that audio objects are encoded with position information.
> When played back in a particular theater, the sounds using the speakers and positions present the sounds in the proper locations.
> 
> Initially, I and others thought that the home Atmos would know the speaker layout in the home and perform the same function for the X.1 channels present.
> Some home theaters diverge from ideal placement, so it might be possible, to use positional information improve existing sound tracks as well.


Now I'm confused!


----------



## joerod

FilmMixer said:


> I hope you can give us some impressions regarding AccuuEQ..
> 
> No LR or Sub eq? Am I misinterpreting the literature? I know you have contacts and access at Onkyo but the ditching of audyssey makes this a no go for me....
> 
> Maybe you can talk to your insiders for some insight into their new solution. Timbre marching will be more important with Atmos and not correcting the mains or sub seems like heresy.
> 
> EDIT..
> 
> Did some digging on AccuEQ..
> 
> I wasn't wrong...
> 
> Straight from the horses mouth...
> 
> http://forums.onkyousa.com/viewtopic.php?t=5753&p=21276
> 
> "AccuEQ: There are advantages and disadvantages to any room calibration system.
> 
> Many calibration systems apply equalization to all channels. This in turn results in your speaker producing an “Equalized Sound” not necessarily the natural sound of your speakers.
> 
> *The main benefit of AccuEQ is that it does not apply an Equalized effect to Front channels and Subwoofer*. This allows the natural sound of your speakers to be heard while taking into consideration things such as room furnishings, speaker distance and speaker type.
> 
> We will continue to refine AccEQ as we move forward to make it the best calibration system available.
> "


Trust me. I am not happy with the loss of Audyssey. To me it would be like having a McIntosh MX151 without Room Perfect. Of course I am very curious how Atmos will work. Of course no matter what I will be wondering if it could have sounded better with XT32 or a newer version. Most likely.


----------



## dschulz

simon_templar_32 said:


> Now I'm confused!


Let me take a stab at this.

The Atmos format is object-based, and the objects do contain metadata that positions the objects in 3-dimensional space. The rendering engine knows what your speaker layout is, because you told it so when you set it up, and maps the objects to the best combination of speakers to render that object in your home theatre. But the rendering engine is *approximating* your speaker layout based on Dolby's guidelines - if you tell it you have a 5.1.2 system, it is assuming L,C,R, Left Surround, Right Surround, Left Top, Right Top (or Atmos-enabled reflective speakers to simulate those last two). It does not know if your Left Surround is at 90 degrees or 110 degrees, how high up the wall you've placed your surrounds, or where exactly on your ceiling your height speakers are.

What we've learned from FilmMixer is that Atmos in the cinema environment works much the same way - the rendering engine is making assumptions about speaker placement, assumptions based on Dolby guidelines. Presumably if a theater designed an Atmos auditorium with 64 speakers, but scattered them randomly around the room, Dolby would simply say no, not gonna certify that as an Atmos system.

In other words, the speaker remapping that many people are lamenting the absence of was never a part of the system to begin with.


----------



## batpig

No need to wonder. Just make your next tester one of the high end D&M produces which DO include both XT32 and Atmos.


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> Rich. A counterpoint and some clarification
> 
> 
> 
> What I think will be the next step after this initial launch is a product with 9.1.4. Front wides will really enhance the way objects move off the screen and into the room. I think one of the manufactures confirmed they will have a 9.1.2 setup at launch however.


I am interested in Dolby's approach to the front wides, since they've never been utilized by Dolby in a home theater environment (the only home theater use for wides to date is with DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX and probably some other up mixing algorithms I'm not familiar with).

In the theatrical implementation of Atmos are the side surround speakers up near the screen toed back towards the audience? Hypothetically speaking do you think additional side surround speakers in an Atmos home theater would be in the same spot as the wides in a Neo:X setup?

And an unrelated question, but one that I think will be beneficial to all reading - can you confirm what the 9.1 channel beds are for theatrical Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> I am interested in Dolby's approach to the front wides, since they've never been utilized by Dolby in a home theater environment (the only home theater use for wides to date is with DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX and probably some other up mixing algorithms I'm not familiar with).
> 
> In the theatrical implementation of Atmos are the side surround speakers up near the screen toed back towards the audience? Hypothetically speaking do you think additional side surround speakers in an Atmos home theater would be in the same spot as the wides in a Neo:X setup?
> 
> And an unrelated question, but one that I think will be beneficial to all reading - can you confirm what the 9.1 channel beds are for theatrical Atmos?


Last one first: it's the 7.1 configuration just like before with two additional channels for the top left/right.

It's hard to know yet if the front wides will need to be positioned like the cinema white papers suggest or more like DTS Neo:X (what little we have to go on seems to focus on the top surrounds). In the cinema, they're _side wall _speakers that are placed between the regular side surround arrays and the front screen speakers to fill in the gap. They're aimed towards the main listening area of the theater.


----------



## SoundChex

FilmMixer said:


> Just remember this.. Atmos is a proprietary format... studios aren't going to have the choice of what codec to use for films already mixed in Atmos but not MDA. In the end a big part of the success of either format will come down to the software and titles available for each one..


The producers of TV shows like *Game of Thrones* presumably face an _interesting and on-going_ question about _how and when_ to add immersive audio to their product production (_but not yet broadcast!_) so as to maximize potential rerun revenue once *ATSC 3.0* TV is deployed. The problem would seem to be complicated by the fact that_--so far as I know--_there is as yet no decision as to which immersive audio 'codec' will be implemented with *ATSC 3.0*. That might suggest that they should mix 'now' with an open vs closed platform to maximize flexibility once real *ATSC 3.0* audio format decisions are made.

In the meantime, there remains the opportunity to use any TV content mixed with immersive audio to boost post season *BD* sales: _*"Watch the last season again at home, this time with improved, immersive audio NOT AVAILABLE IN THE BROADCAST VERSION!"*_

*I'm sold!* 
_


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> I am interested in Dolby's approach to the front wides, since they've never been utilized by Dolby in a home theater environment (the only home theater use for wides to date is with DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX and probably some other up mixing algorithms I'm not familiar with).
> 
> In the theatrical implementation of Atmos are the side surround speakers up near the screen toed back towards the audience? Hypothetically speaking do you think additional side surround speakers in an Atmos home theater would be in the same spot as the wides in a Neo:X setup?
> 
> And an unrelated question, but one that I think will be beneficial to all reading - can you confirm what the 9.1 channel beds are for theatrical Atmos?


Yes the front surrounds are toed towards the center of the theater. 

The 9.1 is standard 7.1 (L C R LSS RSS LSB RSB ARRAYS) + two overhead arrays (OH L AMD R). 

If you want access to the now available Left and Right Extra screen channels, you have to use an object.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> In the theatrical implementation of Atmos are the side surround speakers up near the screen toed back towards the audience? Hypothetically speaking do you think additional side surround speakers in an Atmos home theater would be in the same spot as the wides in a Neo:X setup?


Like the additional screen speakers, the first two or three surround speakers just outside the screen (added for Atmos) are for objects. Rearward of these speakers is where the side surround array starts and those are the speakers that playback the surround channel beds. 

The speakers just outside the screen correlate with wides at home. Maybe not in precise angle, but they're outside the screen and located between the fronts and surrounds, just like wide speakers are.


----------



## simon_templar_32

dschulz said:


> Let me take a stab at this.
> 
> The Atmos format is object-based, and the objects do contain metadata that positions the objects in 3-dimensional space. The rendering engine knows what your speaker layout is, because you told it so when you set it up, and maps the objects to the best combination of speakers to render that object in your home theatre. But the rendering engine is *approximating* your speaker layout based on Dolby's guidelines - if you tell it you have a 5.1.2 system, it is assuming L,C,R, Left Surround, Right Surround, Left Top, Right Top (or Atmos-enabled reflective speakers to simulate those last two). It does not know if your Left Surround is at 90 degrees or 110 degrees, how high up the wall you've placed your surrounds, or where exactly on your ceiling your height speakers are.
> 
> What we've learned from FilmMixer is that Atmos in the cinema environment works much the same way - the rendering engine is making assumptions about speaker placement, assumptions based on Dolby guidelines. Presumably if a theater designed an Atmos auditorium with 64 speakers, but scattered them randomly around the room, Dolby would simply say no, not gonna certify that as an Atmos system.
> 
> In other words, the speaker remapping that many people are lamenting the absence of was never a part of the system to begin with.


That's what I was afraid was being said by FilmMixer. Looking back at his posts I can see he was trying to tell people this all along. Doesn't seem probable, to me at least, that future generations would include a whole new set of code aimed at actual "remapping." Frankly, I had gotten the impression from some here that such a "feature" was missing only because of processing limitations of current chips. Seems there was a lot of misunderstanding about Atmos all around.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> In other words, the speaker remapping that many people are lamenting the absence of was never a part of the system to begin with.


Not speaker *re-*mapping, like what Trinnov does, just mapping channels and objects to actual speaker locations. Are you saying that the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't render to measured speaker locations but instead has pre-defined locations that theatre owners have to conform the speakers placement to? And here I thought that was a limitation of the initial home version.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Not speaker *re-*mapping, like what Trinnov does, just mapping channels and objects to actual speaker locations.


Do we know how mapping for channel-based content will work?



sdurani said:


> Are you saying that the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't render to measured speaker locations but instead has pre-defined locations that theatre owners have to conform the speakers placement to? And here I thought that was a limitation of the initial home version.


Not dschulz but from what I've read, yes channel-based audio post Atmos still has the same requirements as channel-based audio pre Atmos


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Do we know how mapping for channel-based content will work?


Don't know about how the home version will address more speakers than channel beds, but the theatrical system apparently maps channels to only some speakers on the front and side walls, not all speakers (some are for objects only). 


markus767 said:


> Not dschulz but from what I've read, yes channel-based audio post Atmos still has the same requirements as channel-based audio pre Atmos


My question wasn't limited to channels.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Don't know about how the home version will address more speakers than channel beds, but the theatrical system apparently maps channels to only some speakers on the front and side walls, not all speakers (some are for objects only).


Yes. You define what speakers to use for the bed arrays on the walls and back... and it is adjustable.


----------



## noah katz

simon_templar_32 said:


> That's what I was afraid was being said by FilmMixer. Looking back at his posts I can see he was trying to tell people this all along. Doesn't seem probable, to me at least, that future generations would include a whole new set of code aimed at actual "remapping." Frankly, I had gotten the impression from some here that such a "feature" was missing only because of processing limitations of current chips. Seems there was a lot of misunderstanding about Atmos all around.


Interesting; since in the end the sound, object-based or not, is still reproduced by speakers in fixed locations, I suppose there's no reason to have expected Dolby to be more demanding of actual vs. recommended speaker locations.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Not speaker *re-*mapping, like what Trinnov does, just mapping channels and objects to actual speaker locations. Are you saying that the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't render to measured speaker locations.....


No... it does... the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room. 



sdurani said:


> .... but instead has pre-defined locations that theatre owners have to conform the speakers placement to?


Yes.. Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers in a theater for what they consider optimal playback of an Atmos mix... and won't certify the theater, or sell you a CP-850, unless they approve the design and installation. For better or worse that's the model they chose... 

I appreciate it because I've now heard Atmos in 11 different venues and the experience has been fairly consistent. 

Realistically in a majority of situations, the variance in theater design is low.... Some are wider, taller or longer... but almost all are rectangular or squarish in shape and can be counted on to conform to the proper playback of 5.1 and 7.1 channel based mixes.

It's a fairly common denominator.

So when you rely on 5 or 7 speakers to create a 360 degree sound field from both channels and object, I don't know how much flexibility can be expected to still get really stable imaging without creating a tiny sweet spot... 

The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers _actually are_ does appear to be absent in these first products... is that true for all of these upcoming AVR's? I don't know.

If it is, is that coming down the road for 5.1 and 7.1 setups? 

That's the question... and when >7.1 processors become available and the number of available speakers exceeds the number of channels in the bed (7 in this case) they are going to have to have tools to properly calibrate multiple speakers being used as surrounds (i.e. playback of beds vs. objects...) 

For us, and because you have many more array speakers in a theater setting, you can adjust how you want to present the bed arrays in the 850/RMU.

We will also have to wait and see how this is integrated into these first avr's that support 9.1.2....

Even without it today in the home, I can assume that level trims and delays will compensate for a great deal of variance in most rooms...

This might be something Dan and Roger would have much more insight into... I'm purely thinking of it coming from "my world..." 

Not an expert on these matters, and definitely not as well versed as you on acoustics and the like.


----------



## thestoneman

I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.


----------



## brwsaw

I still can't believe we don't have real time monitoring from any avr manufacturer.
I'd happily throw in 2/3/4 mic's to gain that last 1% of SQ.

I'd also like to use it to controll an absolute volume cap. I dread turning down the kids movies when I leave the room, if there was a cap I'd be all over it.

Guess its time to turn/adjust the dynamic range to normal. Might be for the best anyways.


----------



## AidenL

thestoneman said:


> I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.


Definitely! 

Way easier to do it now than later - I'd even think of 11.2.4, just in case......


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers in a theater for what they consider optimal playback of an Atmos mix... and won't certify the theater, or sell you a CP-850, unless they approve the design and installation.


Sounds like a distinction without a difference: Atmos will render to measured speaker locations as long as those measurements match pre-determined locations? Comes in your choice of colour as long as you choose red.


FilmMixer said:


> The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers _actually are_ does appear to be absent in these first products...


And from the theatrical Atmos spec, since they are also using predetermined locations.


----------



## thestoneman

AidenL said:


> Definitely!
> 
> Way easier to do it now than later - I'd even think of 11.2.4, just in case......


Good, because I just bought 250' of additional wire! 

The fronts and wides be be so close based on my room dimensions I was thinking they would be all that necessary. I will likely run the wire regardless.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thestoneman said:


> I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.


Yes. If you're room cannot handle much more than that, this is a _very _prudent idea. 

Also wire for surround subwoofers that would go towards the rear of the room. Object based surround formats can have full frequency, full throttle audio in_ all_ speakers.

At least in a commercial Atmos setting as per the Dolby white papers, the wide surrounds are front side surrounds, angled toward the primary listening space to fill in a sonic "hole"... and they are addressed by objects.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Yes. You define what speakers to use for the bed arrays on the walls and back... and it is adjustable.


I'd like to see that for the home version too, when using a 9.1 set for the mains. One of the limitations of typical 7.1 with surrounds at the sides is that it is not quite as enveloping as it could be. Toole and others advocate shifting the sides a wee bit forward of 90-deg, say 80-deg, to address this. In a 9.1 setup the surrounds could remain at 90-deg while allowing some use of the new wide speakers at 60-deg to fill the array sounds forward (just as happens in a cinema). Then of course all the speakers remain individually addressable for objects.

If I were to go to the trouble to add wides, that would be my requirement to make best use of them. In my current 7.1 system, surrounds at 90-deg, I get excellent "wide" imaging (phantom) so objects panned there already sound like there's a real speaker. So I'm not concerned about object imaging to those locations as much as the bed envelopment aspect. Heck, if the surrounds were placed at 80-deg, that would make the wide phantoms that much more solid. 

In contrast, adding new wide speakers in cinemas is essential because it is not possible to rely on phantom imaging there. And that brings me to a final thought. Some folks are pining for 20-channel Atmos processors. But as we know, home-scale systems with 7.1 well-matched speakers can create seamless lateral imaging. In that respect cinemas are catching up with the performance we've had at home since 7.1 was introduced (5.1 and 7.1 from cinema arrays were just never as spatially clean and precise as at home). 

Adding 4 more overhead will extend that spatial capability vertically, up the walls an over the top, side-to-side and front-to-back. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with just what can be portrayed by the 7.1.4 layout.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> If I were to go to the trouble to add wides, that would be my requirement to make best use of them.


I'd prefer it go one step further: if I pick up an Atmos soundtrack with a 5.1 or 7.1 bed, I'd like the channels upmixed to all 9 speakers (rather than the wides and rears be for objects only).


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> No... it does... the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room.


Sound positions are not referenced to the center of the room, but to the room's walls. If sounds are placed across the back wall, they will stay on the back wall regardless of the form factor of the cinema. That means the sound in the rear corner of the mixing room at 135 deg (relative to the mixer) could be heard at 120 deg in a wider room or at 150 deg in a longer "shoebox" room. And that is as intended.



FilmMixer said:


> Realistically in a majority of situations, the variance in theater design is low.... Some are wider, taller or longer... but almost all are rectangular or squarish in shape and can be counted on to conform to the proper playback of 5.1 and 7.1 channel based mixes.


Yes, it is the consistency in cinemas that is very helpful in this regard. The question arises more at home where room shapes and certainly speaker positioning is less well controlled. Should the soundfield be reshaped to fit, or should it try to adapt to maintain what was heard on the stage?



FilmMixer said:


> So when you rely on 5 or 7 speakers to create a 360 degree sound field from both channels and object, I don't know how much flexibility can be expected to still get really stable imaging without creating a tiny sweet spot...
> The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers _actually are_ does appear to be absent in these first products... is that true for all of these upcoming AVR's? I don't know.


Such position processing is no universal cure, but is can do some useful things especially across the front if the screen is rather narrower than the L/R speaker width, by rendering the on-screen sounds to the zone nearer the screen, while leaving the ambiance/music beds full width. 



FilmMixer said:


> That's the question... and when >7.1 processors become available and the number of available speakers exceeds the number of channels in the bed (7 in this case) they are going to have to have tools to properly calibrate multiple speakers being used as surrounds (i.e. playback of beds vs. objects...) We will also have to wait and see how this is integrated into these first avr's that support 9.1.2....


I look forward to that!


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> I'd prefer it go one step further: if I pick up an Atmos soundtrack with a 5.1 or 7.1 bed, I'd like the channels upmixed to all 9 speakers (rather than the wides and rears be for objects only).


Absolutely! I'll see you and raise you: Not just static remapping, but active surround processing should also be an option for the bed channels. 

(Maybe that's what you meant!)


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> The kind of processing to move the audio into the proper positions based on measured information about where the speakers _actually are_ does appear to be absent in these first products... is that true for all of these upcoming AVR's? I don't know.


But not too important if we can put our speakers where Atmos expects them to be? The part of that puzzle which is currently missing is that home Atmos is using fixed speaker positions but we don't know to what angles the Atmos engine is rendering. The published speaker layout diagrams show a reasonable degree of flexibility in speaker placement, but the rendering engine must be rendering to specific azimuth and elevation angles. If they told us what those angles are, those of us with the ability to place our speakers in the exact right place, could do so. Maybe this info will be revealed later?


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Sound positions are not referenced to the center of the room, but to the room's walls.


So when I see the oft-posted image of an Atmos mix that shows a wire-frame shoe-box with yellow spheres (objects) floating around, the surfaces of the shoe-box are the reference for rendering, not absolute azimuth angles? Middle of the left wall means middle of the left wall, irrespective of where the listener is in the auditorium? 

Makes sense in the commercial world, where theatres conform to industry standards and the back corner of the dubbing stage translates to the back corner of my local cinema (irrespective of the size and shape of the shoe-box). Wonder how they will reconcile this for the consumer version, where a living room in a semi-open floor plan might not have a back corner.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Not just static remapping, but active surround processing should also be an option for the bed channels.


Yup, that's what I meant. It occurred to me after reading the TWICE article that mentioned consumer packaging having labels like 5.1.4 or 7.1.4. Made me wonder how a 5.1 bed would play back on my 7.1 speakers.


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> No... it does... the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room.


Does the room configuration file contain precise location and angle measurements for each speaker?


----------



## simon_templar_32

sdurani said:


> So when I see the oft-posted image of an Atmos mix that shows a wire-frame shoe-box with yellow spheres (objects) floating around, the surfaces of the shoe-box are the reference for rendering, not absolute azimuth angles? Middle of the left wall means middle of the left wall, irrespective of where the listener is in the auditorium?
> 
> Makes sense in the commercial world, where theatres conform to industry standards and the back corner of the dubbing stage translates to the back corner of my local cinema (irrespective of the size and shape of the shoe-box). Wonder how they will reconcile this for the consumer version, where a living room in a semi-open floor plan might not have a back corner.


Stuff like this makes me wonder about the real value of these upcoming demos where you know that the operators of said demo will optimize everything knowing about all the sorts of issues that are now coming to light.

Beware the Mad Men.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Does the room configuration file contain precise location and angle measurements for each speaker?


Or maybe not angles but some other system of identifying locations on a wall, like a number line (zero is the middle of the wall, negative numbers in one direction, positive numbers in another direction)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Like the song says: 

"Things that make you go _hmmmm..._"


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Sounds like a distinction without a difference: Atmos will render to measured speaker locations as long as those measurements match pre-determined locations? Comes in your choice of colour as long as you choose red. And from the theatrical Atmos spec, since they are also using predetermined locations.


Sanjay... the difference is that there will always be multiple speakers, with a minimum amount of which they determine as necessary to properly play back a track, in theaters for reproduction rather than 1 or 2 point sources in the home.. 

You can try it to say they are predetermined, but it's really a nit pick... 

The measurements match the actual locations...

There is no secret what they have been doing here..

This has never been a totally object based format that renders all of the information....

I feel that you and others are trying to make it seem like it's been sold as something it never was....


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Does the room configuration file contain precise location and angle measurements for each speaker?


I don't know the answer to the question..

It does know the location for sure.. 

Angle adjustments are done when installation occurs.. i.e. they physically align the speakers to get them where they need to be. To this point I'm not sure how helpful, or needed, such a measurement would be..


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> Sound positions are not referenced to the center of the room, but to the room's walls. If sounds are placed across the back wall, they will stay on the back wall regardless of the form factor of the cinema. That means the sound in the rear corner of the mixing room at 135 deg (relative to the mixer) could be heard at 120 deg in a wider room or at 150 deg in a longer "shoebox" room. And that is as intended.


Roger... I'm always thinking about it from the production side, where I know the middle of my panner is the middle of the dub stage in relation to where the room was calibrated, and where I sit regardless of the rooms shape.. all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case... )

For me the sound moves outwards from that zero point... 

Thanks for the clarification for others...


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> So when I see the oft-posted image of an Atmos mix that shows a wire-frame shoe-box with yellow spheres (objects) floating around, the surfaces of the shoe-box are the reference for rendering, not absolute azimuth angles? Middle of the left wall means middle of the left wall, irrespective of where the listener is in the auditorium?


Yes. Just like 5.1/7.1 channel systems.

I'd like to add that the matter of "irrespective of where the listener is" is the true regardless of the rendering frame of reference being the walls or the angles relative to the MLP (main listening position). If the playback room has the same proportions as the dubbing stage, the sound is identical with either rendering reference. And however the soundfield shifts when one sits away from the MLP also remains identical in either case. 



sdurani said:


> Makes sense in the commercial world, where theatres conform to industry standards and the back corner of the dubbing stage translates to the back corner of my local cinema (irrespective of the size and shape of the shoe-box). Wonder how they will reconcile this for the consumer version, where a living room in a semi-open floor plan might not have a back corner.


Physical walls do not matter if the necessary speakers are still present. But if by "no corner" you mean no rear speakers, then indeed it's a challenge. 

Once we start talking about different room shapes the frame of reference issue come into play. Two distinct rendering options exist, but definitive answers as to which is "correct" do not. Technologically, it is in fact quite easy to leave the choice up to the end user (system installer) as it is simple change to the renderer setup, but I do not expect such flexibility right away. The same content can easily work in either scenario.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Roger... I'm always thinking about it from the production side, where I know the middle of my panner is the middle of the dub stage in relation to where the room was calibrated, and where I sit regardless of the rooms shape.. all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case... )
> 
> For me the sound moves outwards from that zero point...


And therein lies the crux of the very interesting question. What was your (the mixer's) intent? Is it that the sounds anchor to the walls/corners regardless of room shape, or that they emanate from the apparent directions you experienced? Within the context of your mixing session, there is no distinction -- so the question is meaningless. In chatting with some mixers, they allege that all sounds start life referenced to walls so must remain that way regardless of a cinema's shape. Ok, that obviously works, as that's where we've been for 100 years of cinema sound. 

And of course object audio can follow that paradigm perfectly. 



FilmMixer said:


> all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case...


Not in a room of a different shape or with a screen of a different size. The sounds emanate from different angles to track the shape of the room/screen. For onscreen sounds, we know this must always be the case in order to maintain the sound match with images. How different would the off-screen soundfield shape have to be before it mattered to you, the mixer? Only you know what you really intended, even though many folks like to talk about "artist intent" as if they somehow could read minds.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. Just like 5.1/7.1 channel systems.
> 
> I'd like to add that the matter of "irrespective of where the listener is" is the true regardless of the rendering frame of reference being the walls or the angles relative to the MLP (main listening position). If the playback room has the same proportions as the dubbing stage, the sound is identical with either rendering reference. And however the soundfield shifts when one sits away from the MLP also remains identical in either case.
> 
> Physical walls do not matter if the necessary speakers are still present. But if by "no corner" you mean no rear speakers, then indeed it's a challenge.
> 
> Once we start talking about different room shapes the frame of reference issue come into play. Two distinct rendering options exist, but definitive answers as to which is "correct" do not. Technologically, it is in fact quite easy to leave the choice up to the end user (system installer) as it is simple change to the renderer setup, but I do not expect such flexibility right away. The same content can easily work in either scenario.


Roger.. I can only assume that AVR manufacturers will start to look at implementing their own "solution" regardless of what Dolby does... such a rendering "engine" doesn't need to be tied to a codec... the AVR could apply a render independent of what is feeding it's input (Atmos, MDA, 5.1, etc...)

While the new discussion of object based audio certainly sheds a light on it/shows the need for those with less than ideal setups, no one has really produced a product that remedies the issue outside of what you and MDA are proposing/developing, and Trinnov I guess.

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet... and I honestly don't know if it is something Dolby is planning on doing or not.... we know the Trinnov Altitude will do so... but I'm talking about products us mere mortals can afford.


----------



## audiovideoholic

thestoneman said:


> I am in the middle of wiring my HT in a 9.2 set up. Considering the room is wide open, would you wire the room for 9.2.4? The wire is no big deal. (4) more backer boxes is really the only work involved.


I would at minimum! It's just too easy not to.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Roger.. I can only assume that AVR manufacturers will start to look at implementing their own "solution" regardless of what Dolby does... such a rendering "engine" doesn't need to be tied to a codec... the AVR could apply a render independent of what is feeding it's input (Atmos, MDA, 5.1, etc...)


I'd like to think so, too. But again this is probably one of the many facets we'll see evolve as object audio matures over the years.



FilmMixer said:


> While the new discussion of object based audio certainly sheds a light on it/shows the need for those with less than ideal setups, no one has really produced a product that remedies the issue outside of what you and MDA are proposing/developing, and Trinnov I guess.
> 
> I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet... and I honestly don't know if it is something Dolby is planning on doing or not.... we know the Trinnov Altitude will do so... but I'm talking about products us mere mortals can afford.


 

Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> This has never been a totally object based format that renders all of the information....


So would you agree that this re-mapping feature for channel-based Atmos content a poster came up with has been a fantasy all along?


----------



## ambesolman

FilmMixer said:


> Roger... I'm always thinking about it from the production side, where I know the middle of my panner is the middle of the dub stage in relation to where the room was calibrated, and where I sit regardless of the rooms shape.. all moves from that point are indeed relative to me (isn't that always the case... )
> 
> 
> 
> For me the sound moves outwards from that zero point...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification for others...



Guessing you sit at the zero point when you go see a movie? About where is that in the theater?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## FilmMixer

ambesolman said:


> Guessing you sit at the zero point when you go see a movie? About where is that in the theater?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


Usually one or two rows behind dead center in a bigger room, dead center in a smaller one... or I should say try... I'm a big fan of reserved seating.


----------



## NorthSky

I like your line of thinking Roger...

And true, manufacturers like Onkyo/Integra like to have some freeway to maneuver around; sometimes to not the best and other times to a respectable level.
Yamaha and Pioneer are two true troubadours in the pioneering of their own DRC with a twist of theirs.

As for TRINNOV, did you ever try it in your own home, Roger? ...Me, no.

* In time (this winter and later, next year) we'll discover more about Atmos in our homes, and other stuff too.
Right now everyone loves to talk, and have ideas, think about what should make sense, and not, and all the jazz that is in the theaters and not yet @ home. ,,,Us, humans, are a funny species walking in the footsteps of Albert Einstein, more or less, and all the universe that is inside it.

Cheers, and good luck.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> You can try it to say they are predetermined, but it's really a nit pick...


What I meant by "pre-determined" is what you were describing: _"Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers"_. 

I don't know if you see the contradiction in a system that is supposed to adapt to where your speakers are but requires you place speakers where they tell you. 

Apparently I must not be the only one to ask this, since one of the questions in the Dolby FAQ is: "*If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?*"


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> So would you agree that this re-mapping feature for channel-based Atmos content a poster came up with has been a fantasy all along?


Markus.. you know you have a tendency to rub me the wrong way with some of your posts... but it bears repeating..

Atmos is a hybrid channel and object based format... 7.1 "traditional" channels with the addition of two overhead arrays, supported by 118 object playable through up to 62 discrete outputs, plus full range surrounds and overheads, bass management, real time object renders, auto eq support, fairly predicable backwards compatibility, etc..

If you want to categorize it as "channel based" go ahead.. I think from your posts' tone over the last two years you've disparaged Dolby since they introduced the format.. let it go... we all know what it is... 

A "fantasy?"

*Fantasy* - _noun_ - "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable."

Imagination is a good thing.. many truly useful things in the world has come from such.

Impossible or improbable? No, but I don't know what Dolby has planned and neither do you. CEDIA should reveal many details.

*Fantasy* - _verb_ - "imagine the occurrence of; fantasize about."

What his fantasies may or may not be aren't for me to comment on.. 

It's no more a fantasy than your suggestion the other day that we should replace all of our speakers with omni directional ones and get rid of all the acoustic treatments in our studios...

He's allowed to fantasize... so are you. 

Is it imminent? I don't believe so, but that is pure speculation on my part.


----------



## tenthplanet

markus767 said:


> Not sure why you advise getting different speakers. "Snapping" of phantom source to the nearest speaker is inevitable once the listener is off axis. That's why the guys at Bell labs proposed a center channel back in the 1930s (!).
> 
> As to toe-in and trading for sweet spot widening, it doesn't work. I don't know any speaker that would have the required radiation pattern. See papers by Aarts, Bauer, Kates, Rodenas and others.
> 
> What does work is something like this: http://www.sebastianmerchel.de/sweetspotter.html
> But again, that's also just a single seat solution.


Different speakers if it's stereo, multichannel lets you have a lot more leeway.


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> Markus.. you know you have a tendency to rub me the wrong way with some of your posts... but it bears repeating..
> 
> Atmos is a hybrid channel and object based format... 7.1 "traditional" channels with the addition of two overhead arrays, supported by 118 object playable through up to 62 discrete outputs, plus full range surrounds and overheads, bass management, real time object renders, auto eq support, fairly predicable backwards compatibility, etc..


Thanks for this information.

It seems that generation-1 Home Atmos in mainstream AVRs is boiling down the objects mapped onto 2 to 4 ceiling channels.
Will this AVRs be firmware upgradable to have more capabilities?

Aren't the current 7.1/5.1 lossless sound-tracks already full range?

The new Pioneer Atmos speakers are crossed at 180Hz so clearly not much bass there and I suspect that most ceiling speakers are not full range.
This is an interesting video with Pioneers chief speaker designer, Andrew Jones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3c295SyGQag

- Rich


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Impossible or improbable?


Good way to separate it. Improbable? Depends on what Dolby decides to do with the bed channels: map to speaker locations or upmix to number of speakers or nothing at all. Impossible? Six years ago you had a consumer AVR at your home that could remap the contents of entire channels to where your speakers _weren't_ located.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> What I meant by "pre-determined" is what you were describing: _"Dolby has specifications for where you should place and install speakers"_.
> 
> I don't know if you see the contradiction _*in a system that is supposed to adapt to where your speakers are*_ but requires you place speakers where they tell you.
> 
> Apparently I must not be the only one to ask this, since one of the questions in the Dolby FAQ is: "*If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?*"


Atmos for the cinema was never built to adapt to "where your speakers are..." So you're starting from a flawed [re,ose.

It was designed as a system which is installed in a known environment.... 

The idea behind the rendering engine and Dolby's use of objects was to be able to _*scale*_ the movement of sounds based on the available number of speakers, which will be located in optimal positions to maximize translation of the mix from dub stage to theater..

In a cinema with Atmos, it's impossible to use a single surround speaker at 150 and another at 90... 

If the theater can't accommodate the recommend setup, it won't be certified... 

I think it's ok to demand a standard for playback.

The fact that optimal placement isn't always possible in the home doesn't change the fact that for a great majority of cinemas, it's not only possible, but almost always setup properly from the beginning..

You're creating the contradiction IMO.


----------



## dschulz

RichB said:


> Thanks for this information.
> 
> 
> It seems that generation-1 Home Atmos in mainstream AVRs is boiling down the objects mapped onto 2 to 4 ceiling channels.
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich


Close. The objects will be rendered into the room using all of the speakers. The ceiling channels are needed to be able to to render in x, y and z axes, but all of the speakers (5.1.2, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 etc.) will be in use to render the objects.


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> Thanks for this information.
> 
> It seems that generation-1 Home Atmos in mainstream AVRs is boiling down the objects mapped onto 2 to 4 ceiling channels.
> Will this AVRs be firmware upgradable to have more capabilities?


Rich.. as I've speculated on many times, these imminent (August Sept) AVR's are simply updates to the current lineup, which I would infer means that they have limited upgrade potential..

It also takes DAC's, updated room correction, additional rendering DSP... so I think the answer is safely "no."



RichB said:


> Aren't the current 7.1/5.1 lossless sound-tracks already full range?
> The new Pioneer Atmos speakers are crossed at 180Hz so clearly not much bass there and I suspect that most ceiling speakers are not full range.


The soundtracks have always been full range.. the cinema surround systems not.

Atmos added bass management and a new lineup of speaker choices which were much more capable than what was used in the past (for the most part.)

To clarify your last point about the Pioneers..

They cross over to the mains (either the floor standing mains or surrounds) at 180.... that information isn't lost...

Then those speakers are subject to the bass management setup in the AVR...


----------



## fookoo_2010

Will have to wait and see what the first generation of Dolby Atmos capable receivers actually do and require. If they anticipate a specific location and angular arrangements of speakers, then I would pass, waiting for the second generation version that is capable of utilizing the speakers, wherever they happen to sit. Dumping or radically altering an existing 9.2 setup is not in my near term future.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> the RMU and 850 will accurately render objects to the available speakers based on the room configuration file for each room, and the uses the positional metadata to accuracy place the sound where intended in relation to the center of the room.





FilmMixer said:


> It does know the location for sure..





FilmMixer said:


> Atmos for the cinema was never built to adapt to "where your speakers are..."


I know you don't see the contradiction, but I hope you understand why comments about knowing speaker locations and placing sounds based on positional data can give the impression that it does adapt to where the speakers are. For us non-technical types, when you say "in relation to the centre of the room", that's describing angles (whether you intend to or not). 

Anyway, the question in the Dolby FAQ shows they're at least aware of the misconception.


----------



## FilmMixer

fookoo_2010 said:


> Will have to wait and see what the first generation of Dolby Atmos capable receivers actually do and require. If they anticipate a specific location and angular arrangements of speakers, then I would pass, waiting for the second generation version that is capable of utilizing the speakers, wherever they happen to sit. Dumping or radically altering an existing 9.2 setup is not in my near term future.


I understand the sentiment...

However, if you current system is _so_ far off what is recommend for proper Atmos playback, you can't really consider it _ideal_ for _proper reproduction_ of the current formats either....

I share Roger's thoughts.....

"Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me_* the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, *_and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that."

Adding object is only going to magnify the "issues" one might have if they are unable, or unwilling, to adjust their setup that is far off from what they specify.

I will add this... 

Just because you have a 9.1 setup now that doesn't conform to their "requirements" (loose quotes) do you need to keep running it as such? Surely you have at least two surround channels that can be used in a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup.. or maybe 7.1.4 with wides and one pair of surrounds...

I'd much rather have that than upmixed matrix decoding.. 

I'm just saying'...


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> I know you don't see the contradiction, but I hope you understand why comments about knowing speaker locations and placing sounds based on positional data can give the impression that it does adapt to where the speakers are. For us non-technical types, when you say "in relation to the centre of the room", that's describing angles (whether you intend to or not).
> 
> Anyway, the question in the Dolby FAQ shows they're at least aware of the misconception.


The tone of you posts/point as I understand it is that the lack of free will (i.e. the fact that Dolby specifies where the speakers need to be installed in a said location) undermines the ability for it to adapt to where the speakers are... 

Adapting to where the speakers are, even if they must be placed where they told you, isn't a contradiction in my mind...

Some theaters will have 6 overheads, some 10 on each array... Dolby will specify where they must be placed, the toe angle, etc... however it still adapts/renders to them on playback...

It's not giving a false impression...


----------



## simon_templar_32

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that.


So what are the problems/set of complaints that home-theater Atmos is meant to address?


----------



## RichB

dschulz said:


> Close. The objects will be rendered into the room using all of the speakers. The ceiling channels are needed to be able to to render in x, y and z axes, but all of the speakers (5.1.2, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 etc.) will be in use to render the objects.


 
That makes sense.

If you have no ceiling channels is there any Atmos processing of objects ? 

- Rich


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> The tone of you posts/point as I understand it is that the lack of free will (i.e. the fact that Dolby specifies where the speakers need to be installed in a said location) undermines the ability for it to adapt to where the speakers are...
> 
> Adapting to where the speakers are, even if they must be placed where they told you, isn't a contradiction in my mind...
> 
> Some theaters will have 6 overheads, some 10 on each array... Dolby will specify where they must be placed, the toe angle, etc... however it still adapts/renders to them on playback...
> 
> It's not giving a false impression...


FilmMixer, i for one, am glad you posted what you have. I am on the construction/remodeling side of commercial cinema and i know well what Dolby as well as Auro have told me about the number of speakers and speaker placement and toe angle. JBL also has it's guidelines as well. I can see years of progress washed away in HT by not having the speakers in the right place. I kind of hate to see Atmos appearing on the consumer side, as there will be plenty of threads hating Atmos over something as simple as poor speaker placement. Dolby's own "white Paper" and set up guides should be referenced material before even considering Atmos. I have posted the links countless times.


----------



## fookoo_2010

FilmMixer said:


> I understand the sentiment...
> 
> However, if you current system is _so_ far off what is recommend for proper Atmos playback, you can't really consider it _ideal_ for _proper reproduction_ of the current formats either....
> 
> I share Roger's thoughts.....
> 
> "Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me_* the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, *_and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that."
> 
> Adding object is only going to magnify the "issues" one might have if they are unable, or unwilling, to adjust their setup that is far off from what they specify.
> 
> I will add this...
> 
> Just because you have a 9.1 setup now that doesn't conform to their "requirements" (loose quotes) do you need to keep running it as such? Surely you have at least two surround channels that can be used in a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup.. or maybe 7.1.4 with wides and one pair of surrounds...
> 
> I'd much rather have that than upmixed matrix decoding..
> 
> I'm just saying'...


The hope with Dolby Atmos was that it would do as well as it could, given any speaker setup, ala Dolby Vision and the next generation of high definition displays. Radically altering a setup just to accommodate Dolby Atmos or buying new speakers that allow for Dolby Atmos is simply not in the cards. There is always the possibility of running two different audio systems, utilizing different speakers is a possibility; i.e., separate banks of ceiling speaker and separate height speakers, but that is not likely to occur in the first generation of home Dolby Atmos. The promise of Dolby Atmos in home theaters is certainly alluring, for those who can conform to Dolby specifications. However, I would state that I have heard a lot of mediocre Dolby Atmos mixes in theaters and if the same thing should occur at home, that would be too bad.


----------



## CinemaAndy

fookoo_2010 said:


> However, I would state that I have heard a lot of mediocre Dolby Atmos mixes in theaters and if the same thing should occur at home, that would be too bad.


PM me with the Theater and Movie, please.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd like to see that for the home version too, when using a 9.1 set for the mains. One of the limitations of typical 7.1 with surrounds at the sides is that it is not quite as enveloping as it could be. Toole and others advocate shifting the sides a wee bit forward of 90-deg, say 80-deg, to address this. In a 9.1 setup the surrounds could remain at 90-deg while allowing some use of the new wide speakers at 60-deg to fill the array sounds forward (just as happens in a cinema). Then of course all the speakers remain individually addressable for objects.
> 
> If I were to go to the trouble to add wides, that would be my requirement to make best use of them. In my current 7.1 system, surrounds at 90-deg, I get excellent "wide" imaging (phantom) so objects panned there already sound like there's a real speaker. So I'm not concerned about object imaging to those locations as much as the bed envelopment aspect. Heck, if the surrounds were placed at 80-deg, that would make the wide phantoms that much more solid.
> 
> In contrast, adding new wide speakers in cinemas is essential because it is not possible to rely on phantom imaging there. And that brings me to a final thought. Some folks are pining for 20-channel Atmos processors. But as we know, home-scale systems with 7.1 well-matched speakers can create seamless lateral imaging. In that respect cinemas are catching up with the performance we've had at home since 7.1 was introduced (5.1 and 7.1 from cinema arrays were just never as spatially clean and precise as at home).
> 
> Adding 4 more overhead will extend that spatial capability vertically, up the walls an over the top, side-to-side and front-to-back. I think people will be pleasantly surprised with just what can be portrayed by the 7.1.4 layout.



Roger,

When Toole is advocating that the Side Surrounds be shifted a bit forward of 90 degrees, is that recommendation assuming one is utilizing Monopole (point source) or Dipole (diffuse) speakers? 

Also what type of Side Surrounds do you utilize with your 7.1 System?

Thanks!

...Glenn


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> The tone of you posts/point as I understand it is that the lack of free will (i.e. the fact that Dolby specifies where the speakers need to be installed in a said location) undermines the ability for it to adapt to where the speakers are...


Right, it's adapting to its own predefined locations (Dolby's words, not mine) not actual speaker placement. It will be interesting to see what the Trinnov Altitude does when it is finally released, whether it feeds positional data to the Atmos engine for rendering to actual speaker locations or whether it needs its remapping algorithm to accomplish that.


----------



## FilmMixer

fookoo_2010 said:


> Radically altering a setup just to accommodate Dolby Atmos or _buying new speakers that allow for Dolby Atmos is simply not in the cards._


New speakers are a requirement for home theater setups.. that's kind of the point... the format, at a minimum (5.1.2), adds at least 50% more speakers to the surround field..

This isn't something that is all upside with no investment on your part... 

And if you have to "radically" alter your setup to conform with the suggested placements of the surrounds, then again I say your system isn't close to reproducing soundtracks as intended by their creators.. which has always been my goal in my setups..

To this point, in your 9.1 setup, how far off the mark can your surrounds be?



fookoo_2010 said:


> However, I would state that I have heard a lot of mediocre Dolby Atmos mixes in theaters and if the same thing should occur at home, that would be too bad.


How is reproducing said tracks in your home going to change your subjective opinion of the quality of the mix?

It's obvious that the quantity of Atmos mixes is increasing, and with the announcement that they can also deliver it via DD+ has surely increased interest from broadcast content providers..


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Right, it's adapting to its own predefined locations (Dolby's words, not mine) not actual speaker placement.


Absolutely... there is still latitude on the number of total speakers available.. and as Roger so eloquently explained, the RMU/850 does compensate for not only that, but differences in the shape and sizes of rooms....

I think there has been a general misconception from people that "object rendering" as it applies to Atmos means re-mapping based on any speaker setup and their placements, and that is a part of the system for theaters.

In the end the general take away is that it's going to require some effort on the end users part to implement it properly, 

I think the end result is well worth it...



sdurani said:


> It will be interesting to see what the Trinnov Altitude does when it is finally released, whether it feeds positional data to the Atmos engine for rendering to actual speaker locations or whether it needs its remapping algorithm to accomplish that.


I will try and get that answer for you... give me a couple of weeks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Glenn Baumann said:


> Roger,
> 
> When Toole is advocating that the Side Surrounds be shifted a bit forward of 90 degrees, is that recommendation assuming one is utilizing Monopole (point source) or Dipole (diffuse) speakers?
> 
> Also what type of Side Surrounds do you utilize with your 7.1 System?


Both Dr. Toole and I prefer monopoles.


----------



## Roger Dressler

simon_templar_32 said:


> So what are the problems/set of complaints that home-theater Atmos is meant to address?


Allow me to quote my quote from your quote: >>the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race."


----------



## simon_templar_32

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, there's nothing worse than solving a problem that does not exist. Do people really complain about distorted soundfields and lust for remapping? To me the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race." That is quite different from achieving unified soundfields on random speaker systems, and I do not think either MDA or Trinnov can do much about that.





simon_templar_32 said:


> So what are the problems/set of complaints that home-theater Atmos is meant to address?





Roger Dressler said:


> Allow me to quote my quote from your quote: >>the big issue that object audio solves is the "channels race."


----------



## FilmMixer

As we've gotten into detailed discussion on how Atmos is setup for a cinema setting, I felt that it might have overshadowed the fact that Dolby has promised things will change in the future, and indeed, these upcoming Gen 1 AVR's aren't indicative of the breadth of what _may_ come down the pike...

Getting ready to jump into a busy week... cowabunga!!! Hope everyone has a good one..

I don't agree with Simon's categorization that this is all smoke and no fire...

But thats just me..

Dolby Atmos Home Theater Questions Answered

======================================

"*How is Dolby Atmos different than typical channel-based home theater systems?
*
Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects. What is an audio object? Any sound heard in a movie scene—a child yelling, a helicopter taking off, a car horn blaring—is an audio object. Filmmakers using Dolby Atmos can decide exactly where those sounds should originate and precisely where they move as the scene develops.

Thinking about sound in this way eliminates many of the limitations of channel-based audio. In a channel-based system, filmmakers have to think about the speaker setup: Should this sound come from the left rear surrounds or the left side surrounds? With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers just have to think about the story: Where is that yelling child going to run? The Dolby Atmos system, whether in the cinema or a home theater, has the intelligence to determine what speakers to use to precisely recreate the child’s movement in the way the filmmakers intend.

Dolby Atmos is also far more flexible and adaptable than channel-based home theater. In a channel-based system with channel-based content, the number of speakers is fixed—a 7.1 system always consists of seven speakers and one subwoofer. With Dolby Atmos, in contrast, you have amazing flexibility: you can get the full experience with just seven speakers or get an even richer, more detailed sound by adding more speakers. _As you add speakers, a Dolby Atmos enabled receiver will automatically determine how to use them to create fantastic, immersive audio.
_

*If Dolby Atmos allows me to add more speakers, why do I see A/V receivers with just 11 channels?
*
Many hardware partners are building or planning to build Dolby Atmos enabled A/V receivers and speakers. _Those partners decide what product configurations make the most sense for their customers._ But the Dolby Atmos system itself is almost unlimited. If you have the space and budget, you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers. One of our hardware partners is planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels.

*If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?*

*Because Dolby Atmos is new to home theater*, we _defined a few “reference” speaker configurations_ _*to ensure that early customers*_ could have a great experience while_* having the option to keep most of the equipment they already have.
*_
Among those reference setups are the 5.1.2 configuration, which involves adding two ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to a traditional 5.1 system, and the 7.1.4 configuration, which starts with a traditional 7.1 system and adds four ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers.

But we believe this is just the beginning*. Because the Dolby Atmos object-based audio system is so adaptable, you can use many other speaker configurations.* No matter what system you build, the Dolby Atmos format and system will adapt itself to output the best audio experience possible."

======================================

It's not that Dolby is stringently requiring certain locations for Home Atmos... it's how the first manufacturers have chosen to implement their initial iterations of the codec in their 2014 AVR lineup...

The last point definitely shows that there are other things to come down the pike in regards to the recent discussions here...

Again, I am sure there will be much more clarity about the system at CEDIA.. and again want to reiterate that our back and forth toady was regarding the realities of the cinema system... as many of us stated repeatedly we don't know exactly how that will fully translate as it makes its way into the home.


----------



## NorthSky

It's all fire and no smoke.


----------



## Roger Dressler

simon_templar_32 said:


> My statement refers to home-theater Dolby Atmos, not object-based audio in general.


I covered three topics: Number of speakers, sound/image scaling, and dynamic range control. All of these are well within the bounds of Atmos, even if not on the initial rollout talking points or first-gen AVRs. 



simon_templar_32 said:


> My points, I guess too hidden under the tongue in my cheek, are twofold. First, that the sorts of laudable things you mention largely can be done without having people drill holes in their ceiling, buy new speakers and new speaker modules, and boldly spend money like no one has spent before.


I agree (see Case 1, 3). But they cannot be done nearly as well without object-based audio.


----------



## simon_templar_32

FilmMixer said:


> I don't agree with Simon's categorization that this is all smoke and no fire...


Don't think that, didn't mean that, didn't say that. 

With respect to "this," my sentiments are, to continue with your proverb-like starting point, closer to "there is no smoke without fire." Put in those terms, I'm trying to point out that we need to separate the (Mad-Men) smoke from the (AVScience) fire. 

But, in fact, I've exhausted my interest. So I'll bow out.


----------



## fookoo_2010

CinemaAndy said:


> PM me with the Theater and Movie, please.


Here's one: Taken 2 at Sherman Oaks Arclight Cinema 1.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Atmos is a hybrid channel and object based format... [...] we all know what it is...


Really don't want to rub you the wrong way, but I think it is a stretch to claim everybody would know what it is (and what the implications are). The discussion following your post showed just that.

In Atmos there is channel-based content and it has the same requirements for speaker locations as it had in the past. Remapping isn't part of the package though it can be done as Trinnov showed.

In Atmos there's also objects that are panned in realtime based on speaker locations that are known to the AVR. These speaker locations don't necessarily need to conform to a specific speaker layout (but they have to in the first incarnation of Atmos enabled AVRs) as long as there's some useful speaker distribution throughout the room.
This type of object panning does NOT loosen the requirements for channel-based speaker placement.


----------



## Marc Wielage

NorthSky said:


> It's all fire and no smoke.


I think the manufacturers are desperately trying to flog more interest in people upgrading their systems. To me, this is the real point of the emphasis on 4K video and greater than 7.1 surround sound systems. 3D flopped as a mass-market format, so the TV and electronics manufacturers are desperately hoping that 4K and Atmos/Auro will be the next big thing.

My gut feeling is that unless and until the economy drastically improves, we're not going to see widespread adoption of new standards like this, especially on a mass-market scale. I don't think the amount of disposable income is there yet. And I also don't think the mass-market retailers are doing well at all. They're struggling to sell one-box 5.1 surround systems; I can just imagine how Best Buy and the others are going to sell 11.1+ surround.

I'm reminded of the old Steve Martin 1970s routine about how he was rejecting "quadraphonic" sound in favor of "milliphonic" sound, where you have a million speakers completely surrounding the walls, floor, and ceiling of your living room. Forty years later, we're pretty much getting to that point.

BTW, don't get me wrong: I've heard 64-channel Atmos here at theaters in LA and it sounds fantastic. I'm just very dubious on how well-suited it is for average homes.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Marc Wielage said:


> I think the manufacturers are desperately trying to flog more interest in people upgrading their systems. To me, this is the real point of the emphasis on 4K video and greater than 7.1 surround sound systems. 3D flopped as a mass-market format, so the TV and electronics manufacturers are desperately hoping that 4K and Atmos/Auro will be the next big thing.
> 
> My gut feeling is that unless and until the economy drastically improves, we're not going to see widespread adoption of new standards like this, especially on a mass-market scale. I don't think the amount of disposable income is there yet. And I also don't think the mass-market retailers are doing well at all. They're struggling to sell one-box 5.1 surround systems; I can just imagine how Best Buy and the others are going to sell 11.1+ surround.
> 
> I'm reminded of the old Steve Martin 1970s routine about how he was rejecting "quadraphonic" sound in favor of "milliphonic" sound, where you have a million speakers completely surrounding the walls, floor, and ceiling of your living room. Forty years later, we're pretty much getting to that point.
> 
> BTW, don't get me wrong: I've heard 64-channel Atmos here at theaters in LA and it sounds fantastic. I'm just very dubious on how well-suited it is for average homes.


Pretty much everything that goes from commercial to consumer flops. Even if the money was spent to do it right, the customer would not pay the price. I think it's a pretty slim market for a $7,500.00 AVR, don't you? And who makes one that price you might be asking, Denon.


----------



## markus767

CinemaAndy said:


> I can see years of progress washed away in HT by not having the speakers in the right place.


Exactly my sentiments when people express fantasies about how Atmos for the home would suddenly allow the masses to place their speakers anywhere they want to.


----------



## markus767

RichB said:


> The new Pioneer Atmos speakers are crossed at 180Hz so clearly not much bass there


Mr. Jones claimed the AVR would redirect frequencies below the reflecting-speaker's high pass filter to the front speaker.


----------



## CinemaAndy

markus767 said:


> Exactly my sentiments when people express fantasies about how Atmos for the home would suddenly allow the masses to place their speakers anywhere they want to.


For me it is the bouncing the sound off the ceiling that hangs me up. All the years and years of controlling the sound bounce, now it is OK. I'm sure $$$ was spent to achieve this effect, but oh well, i guess if you aim the speakers to bounce the sound off the ceiling fan, the helicopter on the movie will sound very real.


----------



## markus767

^
Well, I took a good beating (from the usual fanboy crowd one encounters in threads that have a brand name in their title) for being critical about these ceiling-reflecting speakers but I have to say that IF someone can't install ceiling speakers it is a solution that will give a sense of height. It's a compromise though. Time will tell how good or bad it works.
I hope people do listening tests comparing the cinema experience to home theater with speakers on the ceiling and those reflecting speakers. But marketing is already pushing "listen for yourself" as opposed to "compare for yourself". And hey, if it sounds-good-to-me™ then ceiling reflecting speakers might be even better than the real thing - of course NOT.


----------



## CinemaAndy

markus767 said:


> ^
> Well, I took a good beating (from the usual fanboy crowd one encounters in threads that have a brand name in their title) for being critical about these ceiling-reflecting speakers but I have to say that IF someone can't install ceiling speakers it is a solution that will give a sense of height. It's a compromise though. Time will tell how good or bad it works.
> I hope people do listening tests comparing the cinema experience to home theater with speakers on the ceiling and those reflecting speakers. But marketing is already pushing "listen for yourself" as opposed to "compare for yourself". And hey, if it sounds-good-to-me™ then ceiling reflecting speakers might be even better than the real thing - of course NOT.


LOL. Yes i have the same views and experiences. A few weeks ago i was talked into "visiting" a HT. Actually i was dragged there. This guy had a 4K Barco, Dormei showvault, JSD-100 audio processor, Pyle pro Amps(yes, Pyle) pushing JBL pros. A $15 walmart table with a OPPO BDP-105D sitting on it with a HDMI cable to the Dormei and a TosLink cable to the JSD. I lost count of the UPS he had hooked up, 6 i think. All of this was in a room 20 foot by 22 foot, the projection booth was a closet, with a rack, and hangers on the rack, with shirts on the hangers. A 12 foot wide screen. I really couldn't believe what i was seeing. The walls, ceiling, and carpeting was some kind of florescent orange, right up by the screen, with a Barco 4K projector. By the screen he had it painted a florescent orange, and some kind of glass globes under the screen. This whole set up was so wrong on so many levels. I stopped him when he started talking about the three JBL pro 4645 subs he had behind the screen. I'm sure he did not like what i told him when i said you like watching your movies wearing sunglasses and cracking gypsum board in your house. For a room this size you need a something 4K and something AVR to match the Oppo, and sell your current set up and get a Ferrari. There are somethings i should not ever have to see, and that guys HT is in that group.

OK back on the subject, if it was me, even in a rented house or apartment or whatever, i would make some kind of speaker box and mount it to the ceiling for the over heads, even if i had to have the wires showing, no way would i want to "bounce" any sound off the ceiling. And more to the point if i had to do any of the above, i would completely rule Atmos out of the picture for a 5.1 or 7.1 set up.


----------



## esappy

FilmMixer said:


> Absolutely... there is still latitude on the number of total speakers available.. and as Roger so eloquently explained, the RMU/850 does compensate for not only that, but differences in the shape and sizes of rooms....
> 
> I think there has been a general misconception from people that "object rendering" as it applies to Atmos means re-mapping based on any speaker setup and their placements, and that is a part of the system for theaters.
> 
> In the end the general take away is that it's going to require some effort on the end users part to implement it properly,
> 
> I think the end result is well worth it...
> 
> 
> 
> I will try and get that answer for you... give me a couple of weeks.


Maybe you can help clear up some of my confusion with regards to the 'latitude' to be offered by the home version of ATMOS. So we all pretty much know that home ATMOS is capable of having up to 10 overhead speakers and we also know that the upcoming 'Gen-1' ATMOS receivers will allow only 2 or 4 overhead speakers. So if the system is scalable as already stated, then what is the advantage of doing 4 overhead speakers vs. 2? Or 10 vs. 4 vs. 2? This is what I am not quite grasping the benefits of and am hoping you can shed some light on this for me. Does it simply boil down to how precisely an object will be placed in the 3D soundscape which would imply that you would only need to increase the number of ceiling speakers as the size (length?) of your HT increases? So there could become some kind of standard for the home like for example: home theater spaces that are 10 ft and shorter only need 2 ceiling speakers, 10-15 ft long space needs 4, 15-20 needs 6 ceiling speakers, etc.? 

Now don't get me wrong, I am very excited about this tech, but I'm just not grasping the benefit or reason of this being scalable. Why the hell would I need 34 channels in my home theater? What is the point at which the law of diminishing returns kicks in? Maybe I don't understand ATMOS as well as I think I do.


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby Atmos Home Theater Questions Answered
> 
> ======================================
> 
> "*How is Dolby Atmos different than typical channel-based home theater systems?*
> 
> Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects. What is an audio object? Any sound heard in a movie scene—a child yelling, a helicopter taking off, a car horn blaring—is an audio object. Filmmakers using Dolby Atmos can decide exactly where those sounds should originate and precisely where they move as the scene develops.
> 
> Thinking about sound in this way eliminates many of the limitations of channel-based audio. In a channel-based system, filmmakers have to think about the speaker setup: Should this sound come from the left rear surrounds or the left side surrounds? With Dolby Atmos, filmmakers just have to think about the story: Where is that yelling child going to run? The Dolby Atmos system, whether in the cinema or a home theater, has the intelligence to determine what speakers to use to precisely recreate the child’s movement in the way the filmmakers intend.
> 
> Dolby Atmos is also far more flexible and adaptable than channel-based home theater. In a channel-based system with channel-based content, the number of speakers is fixed—a 7.1 system always consists of seven speakers and one subwoofer. With Dolby Atmos, in contrast, you have amazing flexibility: you can get the full experience with just seven speakers or get an even richer, more detailed sound by adding more speakers. _As you add speakers, a Dolby Atmos enabled receiver will automatically determine how to use them to create fantastic, immersive audio._



But doesn't home Atmos contain a 7.1 channel based tracks and the objects are added on top using the ceiling speakers and others?
If that is true, then home Atmos is channel and object based.


- Rich


----------



## markus767

esappy said:


> Does it simply boil down to how precisely an object will be placed in the 3D soundscape [...] ?


Yes, that's what it boils down to. Furthermore phantom imaging (i.e. placement of a sound by playing it from two or more speakers) highly depends on the location of the listener. Hence the more speakers, the more accurately sounds will be placed for listeners sitting off-center.


----------



## markus767

RichB said:


> home Atmos is channel and object based.


Yes, that's what it is.


----------



## KidHorn

Marc Wielage said:


> 3D flopped as a mass-market format, so the TV and electronics manufacturers are desperately hoping that 4K and Atmos/Auro will be the next big thing.


 
I wouldn't say 3D flopped since there were (and still are) a lot of 3D TVs and blu-rays sold. Maybe it hasn't done as well as some expected, but to say it flopped is an exaggeration. It's being offered on almost all UHD TVs.


3D is an entirely video thing and Atmos is entirely audio so I don't get how AVR manufacturers are offering Atmos because 3D flopped. AVR sales by and large weren't driven by adoption of 3D.


----------



## RichB

markus767 said:


> Yes, that's what it boils down to. Furthermore phantom imaging (i.e. placement of a sound by playing it from two or more speakers) highly depends on the location of the listener. Hence the more speakers, the more accurately sounds will be placed for listener that are sitting off-center.





markus767 said:


> Yes, that's what it is.


 
If that is the case, then this statement:




> _"How is Dolby Atmos different than typical channel-based home theater systems?_
> 
> _*Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels,* but on audio objects._


 
... is misleading.


Perhaps this is the first step toward an object oriented system, but over-selling Atmos could backfire in the marketplace.


- Rich


----------



## KidHorn

esappy said:


> Maybe you can help clear up some of my confusion with regards to the 'latitude' to be offered by the home version of ATMOS. So we all pretty much know that home ATMOS is capable of having up to 10 overhead speakers and we also know that the upcoming 'Gen-1' ATMOS receivers will allow only 2 or 4 overhead speakers. So if the system is scalable as already stated, then what is the advantage of doing 4 overhead speakers vs. 2? Or 10 vs. 4 vs. 2? This is what I am not quite grasping the benefits of and am hoping you can shed some light on this for me. Does it simply boil down to how precisely an object will be placed in the 3D soundscape which would imply that you would only need to increase the number of ceiling speakers as the size (length?) of your HT increases? So there could become some kind of standard for the home like for example: home theater spaces that are 10 ft and shorter only need 2 ceiling speakers, 10-15 ft long space needs 4, 15-20 needs 6 ceiling speakers, etc.?
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I am very excited about this tech, but I'm just not grasping the benefit or reason of this being scalable. Why the hell would I need 34 channels in my home theater? What is the point at which the law of diminishing returns kicks in? Maybe I don't understand ATMOS as well as I think I do.



I would think the returns start to diminish after 4 speakers. Theoretically with 4 speakers you can position a sound at any point inside the 4 speakers. If you have a huge ceiling, you may benefit more with 6 or 8 speakers than you would if you had a small ceiling.


----------



## markus767

RichB said:


> misleading.



Well, we don't know how they package Atmos for the home. It could be solely object-based because a fixed 7.1 speaker layout is assumed. Channel-based beds could be funneled through objects, rendered at specific locations and end up in L, R, C, LS, RS, LS or RS speakers just like a channel-based 7.1 mix would.

Of course this is just semantics but would allow them to make the caim that "Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects". Marketing verbiage.


----------



## RichB

markus767 said:


> Well, we don't know how they package Atmos for the home. It could be solely object-based because a fixed 7.1 speaker layout is assumed. Channel-based beds could be funneled through objects, rendered at specific locations and end up in L, R, C, LS, RS, LS or RS speakers just like a channel-based 7.1 mix would.
> 
> Of course this is just semantics but would allow them to make the caim that "Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects". Marketing verbiage.


Atmos is backward compatible so the base 5.1/7.1 sound track must be present.
Metadata could exist identify objects within the source. 


If there are benefits from an Atmos enabled soundtrack on an Atmos AVR for a 5.1 system, what are they?


- Rich


----------



## KidHorn

Dan Hitchman said:


> Also wire for surround subwoofers that would go towards the rear of the room. Object based surround formats can have full frequency, full throttle audio in_ all_ speakers.


 
Humans hear subwoofer frequencies in mono no matter how many subs you have spaced around the room. Pre-wring for multiple subs make sense if you want an even room response, but it won't add any surround effects to subwoofer frequencies.


----------



## markus767

RichB said:


> Atmos is backward compatible so the base 5.1/7.1 sound track must be present.
> Metadata could exist identify objects within the source.


Roger has shown how a downmix could be converted back to objects and rendered from that state. Of course this would not make much sense because the end result would be the same as the downmix (if the object extraction process is lossless).



RichB said:


> If there are benefits from an Atmos enabled soundtrack on an Atmos AVR for a 5.1 system, what are they?
> 
> 
> - Rich


Height channels/objects that allow for elevated sounds IF top surround speakers are present. If those speakers aren't there then there's no benefit from having an Atmos enabled AVR.


----------



## thebland

I'm in the midst of a speaker upgrade when all this was announced. So, as I am redesigning my baffle wall and adding speakers, in addition to the 7.1 bed, I am doing two front heights above the screen and a bit forward of the LCRs and pointing to the main listening position and side heights and rear heights above the rear and side speakers pointing down to the main listening position. Worst case, I'll have to move them...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Roger has shown how a downmix could be converted back to objects and rendered from that state. Of course this would not make much sense because the end result would be the same as the downmix (if the object extraction process is lossless).
> 
> 
> 
> Height channels/objects that allow for elevated sounds IF top surround speakers are present. If those speakers aren't there then there's no benefit from having an Atmos enabled AVR.


However, Atmos for the home is being funneled through Dolby TrueHD as one backwards compatible package, not two separate tracks. So, that leads me to the conclusion that the 7.1 bed is the "normal" channel-based TrueHD track and the objects (how many there actually are) plus metadata are contained in extension files.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> Humans hear subwoofer frequencies in mono no matter how many subs you have spaced around the room. Pre-wring for multiple subs make sense if you want an even room response, but it won't add any surround effects to subwoofer frequencies.


I'm sure that's true, but Dolby _has_ recommended separate subwoofers for the surrounds in case you don't have massive speakers in those locations that can rock a full frequency sound. Many can't.


----------



## asarose247

from the above post 1016: I am doing two front heights above the screen and a bit forward of the LCRs and pointing to the main listening position and side heights and rear heights above the rear and side speakers pointing down to the main listening position. Worst case, I'll have to move them... 


How are you getting the signal to run the added side and rear heights?
Are you splitting a pre-amp output?


----------



## thebland

asarose247 said:


> from the above post 1016: I am doing two front heights above the screen and a bit forward of the LCRs and pointing to the main listening position and side heights and rear heights above the rear and side speakers pointing down to the main listening position. Worst case, I'll have to move them...
> 
> 
> How are you getting the signal to run the added side and rear heights?
> Are you splitting a pre-amp output?


I will be using the Datasat with Auro 3-D (which will up-mix the 5.1/7/1 bed).


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, Atmos for the home is being funneled through Dolby TrueHD as one backwards compatible package, not two separate tracks. So, that leads me to the conclusion that the 7.1 bed is the "normal" channel-based TrueHD track and the objects (how many there actually are) plus metadata are contained in extension files.


Likely. In that case the statement in Dolby's FAQ would indeed be misleading.


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> Humans hear subwoofer frequencies in mono no matter how many subs you have spaced around the room.


That is true to about 80Hz. The problem is not that our hearing wouldn't be able to extract spatial information from frequencies >80Hz, the problem is that our acoustically small home theater rooms heavily distort that information. This is why I don't think stereo and/or surround subwoofers would make much sense. In larger rooms like a theater things might be different.


----------



## KidHorn

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm sure that's true, but Dolby _has_ recommended separate subwoofers for the surrounds in case you don't have massive speakers in those locations that can rock a full frequency sound. Many can't.



Having a dedicated subwoofer for a surround makes absolutely no sense. The only way it would work is if you wired the surrounds through the subwoofer. Like the way they were wired in stereo systems with the fronts 20 years ago. Even then you would only benefit a narrow range of frequencies between the lfe crossover and what the surround could handle. It would make far more sense to replace the surrounds with something that can dig deeper.Am I missing something?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> Having a dedicated subwoofer for a surround makes absolutely no sense. The only way it would work is if you wired the surrounds through the subwoofer. Like the way they were wired in stereo systems with the fronts 20 years ago. Even then you would only benefit a narrow range of frequencies between the lfe crossover and what the surround could handle. It would make far more sense to replace the surrounds with something that can dig deeper.Am I missing something?


You don't have to wire the surrounds through the subwoofer. Surround channels run through separate bass management via the Atmos processor and are output through sub pre-amp outs. Some products will include this feature, some will not and just sum all speakers to one or two mono outputs along with the LFE channel as before.


----------



## KidHorn

Dan Hitchman said:


> You don't have to wire the surrounds through the subwoofer. Surround channels run through separate bass management via the Atmos processor and are output through sub pre-amp outs. Some products will include this feature, some will not and just sum all speakers to one or two mono outputs along with the LFE channel as before.



I hope offering this is way down on the AVR manufacturers priority list.


----------



## Rod#S

So much information, I'm trying to keep my head from exploding. So I have a question about the heights. Are the only real acceptable speakers actual in ceiling speakers or these new top firing speakers (providing one has flat ceilings)? Are wall mounted speakers that can be pointed to the main listening position an alternative or is this now a no no, perhaps simply because they can not be placed directly above say the mains and surrounds, they would more often than not be behind the mains and possibly outside/beyond the surrounds? I would think the processor could compensate for this though via setting apprpriate delays, etc so it wouldn't be an issue. In a lot of cases it would be far easier for people to install bookshelves high up on the walls via the appropriate mounting hardware vs installing actual ceiling speakers. But if wall mounted speakers do not conform to the guidelines I think this greatly reduces potential customers and the acceptance/adoption of Atmos in the home.


----------



## Wellywell

markus767 said:


> Mods are already getting annoyed by the numerous discussions about the upcoming Atmos feature in AVRs. So lets give this new format a home of its own in this thread.
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.
> 
> First, here's some general information about Atmos so everybody is up to speed:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf
> 
> Dolby on Atmos for the home:
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> 
> Information from Onkyo:
> http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com


Just a quick question... I recently purchased the Onkyo TX-NR838 which will be Atmos compatible come the Fall. The question I have is about the height speakers, my 838 only has one set of height channels and I need to know if I should use these in the front or the rear of the room and does it matter? I would like to use them in the rear of the room but only if that will work. Can anyone answer this for me? Thank you for your time, I look forward to reading a response if possible!!


----------



## markus767

^
Good question and no normative answer from Dolby yet. You'll probably want them above the main listening position.


----------



## joerod

I am actually doing another set of Vanquish in my ceiling. That will give me two height, two in the middle and two towards the back of the room. This will give perfect coverage for Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rod#S said:


> So much information, I'm trying to keep my head from exploding. So I have a question about the heights. Are the only real acceptable speakers actual in ceiling speakers or these new top firing speakers (providing one has flat ceilings)? Are wall mounted speakers that can be pointed to the main listening position an alternative or is this now a no no, perhaps simply because they can not be placed directly above say the mains and surrounds, they would more often than not be behind the mains and possibly outside/beyond the surrounds? I would think the processor could compensate for this though via setting apprpriate delays, etc so it wouldn't be an issue. In a lot of cases it would be far easier for people to install bookshelves high up on the walls via the appropriate mounting hardware vs installing actual ceiling speakers. But if wall mounted speakers do not conform to the guidelines I think this greatly reduces potential customers and the acceptance/adoption of Atmos in the home.


According to one leaked layout... the front wall heights (like with DTS Neo:X) are only utilized when using those older post processing modes. The first gen processors use the ceiling overheads for Atmos object information. The basic four overheads are spaced further out into the room in front of and in back of the main listening positions. 

More data should come out of CEDIA.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Wellywell said:


> Just a quick question... I recently purchased the Onkyo TX-NR838 which will be Atmos compatible come the Fall. The question I have is about the height speakers, my 838 only has one set of height channels and I need to know if I should use these in the front or the rear of the room and does it matter? I would like to use them in the rear of the room but only if that will work. Can anyone answer this for me? Thank you for your time, I look forward to reading a response if possible!!


I've been watching Scott Wilkonsen's home theater geeks podcast and they just did an episode where they covered this. If memory serves correct, if you only have 2 of then I think they go on top of your front L/R speakers (if you buy the modular upward firing speakers). The second set would go in the rear I believe. 

I could have sworn the Onkyo has support for 4 speaker drivers though (on further inspection it does indeed seem like in only supports 2 heights unless if you get Onkyo's 1030? am I reading this right?)... I was thinking about getting the cheap onkyo NR636 for Atmos... but when reading people's impressions of NR 636 I'm a bit scared off. My deal is that I'm using extremely outdated gear... An 11 year old Yamaha HTR-5830 and a tiny 720 p tv... what I'm hoping to do is get atmos ready by fall and then buy a 65" 4k High dynamic range tv in winter sometime (possibly with 3D support)... I worry that the Onkyo NR636 wouldn't beable to handle it as the HDR will be a new technology by that time. If it worked though I'd imagine it would be a huge upgrade for me. 

I also worry because I'm using 4x klipsch chorus II speakers... they are insanely loud... I'm wondering if the over heads would even be audible? (haha)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Rod#S said:


> So much information, I'm trying to keep my head from exploding. So I have a question about the heights. Are the only real acceptable speakers actual in ceiling speakers or these new top firing speakers (providing one has flat ceilings)? Are wall mounted speakers that can be pointed to the main listening position an alternative or is this now a no no, perhaps simply because they can not be placed directly above say the mains and surrounds, they would more often than not be behind the mains and possibly outside/beyond the surrounds? I would think the processor could compensate for this though via setting apprpriate delays, etc so it wouldn't be an issue. In a lot of cases it would be far easier for people to install bookshelves high up on the walls via the appropriate mounting hardware vs installing actual ceiling speakers. But if wall mounted speakers do not conform to the guidelines I think this greatly reduces potential customers and the acceptance/adoption of Atmos in the home.


I just posted a comment where I said home theater geeks covered this in their latest podcast... I think the same answer applies to your question as well. The height speakers, if you buy modular, go on top of your existing main front L/R speakers and rear L/R speakers. I think they were designed for that purpose to give them the proper range, so like when the sound shoots out of them the sound bounces off the center top of the ceiling then back down to the listening position. I don't think you want them too high for that very reason, something like 3 1/2' to 4' up? 

The guy who film theater geeks interviewed said he preferred the sound of top firing speakers as opposed to ceiling mounted... though take with a grain of salt because I think he's the one who built Pioneer's top firing speakers. His rationale was that since the sound being delivered from ceiling mounted comes from a "direct" source, that you lose a bit of the ambient effect that Atmos intends to deliver, just because it's so close if you have an 8' ceiling. In a movie theater I think it's a little different since those speakers are so high up.


----------



## Rod#S

Dan Hitchman said:


> According to one leaked layout... the front wall heights (like with DTS Neo:X) are only utilized when using those older post processing modes. The first gen processors use the ceiling overheads for Atmos object information. The basic four overheads are spaced further out into the room in front of and in back of the main listening positions.
> 
> More data should come out of CEDIA.


Thanks, wow if that's the case talk about a short lived format i.e. PLIIz. To bad dts wouldn't weigh in on any plans they have for possibly bringing MDA to the consumer market. It would be intersting if they also would look to move away from the heights as defined in Neo:X

Hoefully then CEDIA will lay everything out and remove all confusion.


----------



## sdurani

Marc Wielage said:


> I'm just very dubious on how well-suited it is for average homes.


Even with a simple 5.1.2 set-up, if you can tell that sounds are coming from above you, then it is well suited for the home.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rod#S said:


> Thanks, wow if that's the case talk about a short lived format i.e. PLIIz. To bad dts wouldn't weigh in on any plans they have for possibly bringing MDA to the consumer market. It would be intersting if they also would look to move away from the heights as defined in Neo:X
> 
> Hopefully then CEDIA will lay everything out and remove all confusion.


I see no DTS presentations listed at CEDIA. Unless they fly under the radar.


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> I see no DTS presentations listed at CEDIA. Unless they fly under the radar.


DTS will be in the small backroom, the password to enter is SWORDFISH


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> DTS will be in the small backroom, the password to enter is SWORDFISH


In fact, you have to go to a designated below ground maintenance elevator at street level by the convention center, and they have a "cellar dweller" DTS-UHD home theater system all set up. Just don't mind the rats.


----------



## fookoo_2010

FilmMixer said:


> How is reproducing said tracks in your home going to change your subjective opinion of the quality of the mix?


It won't, but there is no point in buying a *BR* encoded with Dolby Atmos if it is the same mediocre mix in a theater, if one already has the previously released *BR*. That would amount to double dipping for not much benefit.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fookoo_2010 said:


> It won't, but there is no point in buying a *BR* encoded with Dolby Atmos if it is the same mediocre mix in a theater, if one already has the previously released *BR*. That would amount to double dipping for not much benefit.


It's possibly that a consumer Atmos track could be "corrected" or "enhanced" after the fact. Remember, soundtracks for movies are usually done at the last minute. Many times when a near-field mix is prepared for video they'll go back and fix errors in the original tracks (if the studio gives them enough lead time).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I see no DTS presentations listed at CEDIA. Unless they fly under the radar.


Probably will be at CES hocking that boring headphone stuff for another couple years. 

"Hey guys! We have 11.1 surround in headphones."

Yay, awesome. It sounds exactly like my PL2 derived "7.1" surround headphones from Logitech. 

It does. Really.


----------



## ambesolman

CinemaAndy said:


> LOL. Yes i have the same views and experiences. A few weeks ago i was talked into "visiting" a HT. Actually i was dragged there. This guy had a 4K Barco, Dormei showvault, JSD-100 audio processor, Pyle pro Amps(yes, Pyle) pushing JBL pros. A $15 walmart table with a OPPO BDP-105D sitting on it with a HDMI cable to the Dormei and a TosLink cable to the JSD. I lost count of the UPS he had hooked up, 6 i think. All of this was in a room 20 foot by 22 foot, the projection booth was a closet, with a rack, and hangers on the rack, with shirts on the hangers. A 12 foot wide screen. I really couldn't believe what i was seeing. The walls, ceiling, and carpeting was some kind of florescent orange, right up by the screen, with a Barco 4K projector. By the screen he had it painted a florescent orange, and some kind of glass globes under the screen. This whole set up was so wrong on so many levels. I stopped him when he started talking about the three JBL pro 4645 subs he had behind the screen. I'm sure he did not like what i told him when i said you like watching your movies wearing sunglasses and cracking gypsum board in your house. For a room this size you need a something 4K and something AVR to match the Oppo, and sell your current set up and get a Ferrari. There are somethings i should not ever have to see, and that guys HT is in that group.
> 
> OK back on the subject, if it was me, even in a rented house or apartment or whatever, i would make some kind of speaker box and mount it to the ceiling for the over heads, even if i had to have the wires showing, no way would i want to "bounce" any sound off the ceiling. And more to the point if i had to do any of the above, i would completely rule Atmos out of the picture for a 5.1 or 7.1 set up.



Please tell me you have pics to share!


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ambesolman said:


> Please tell me you have pics to share!


Pics please!!


----------



## Roger Dressler

thebland said:


> I'm in the midst of a speaker upgrade when all this was announced. So, as I am redesigning my baffle wall and adding speakers, in addition to the 7.1 bed, I am doing two front heights above the screen and a bit forward of the LCRs and pointing to the main listening position and side heights and rear heights above the rear and side speakers pointing down to the main listening position. Worst case, I'll have to move them...


I'd be interested to see more detail on where your height speakers will go. 

In my theater, I'm planning on 4 speakers that hang on yokes so I can rotate and tilt them as shown. The front heights would tilt down 30 deg, and the rear heights tilt down 50 deg.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, Atmos for the home is being funneled through Dolby TrueHD as one backwards compatible package, not two separate tracks. So, that leads me to the conclusion that the 7.1 bed is the "normal" channel-based TrueHD track and the objects (how many there actually are) plus metadata are contained in extension files.


Yes. 

But when 7.1 (or 5.1) channels are present, they have implied positions. So if a 5.1 surround channel wants to come from 110 deg in a 7.1 speaker system with surrounds at 90 and 150 deg, the signal can be split across them to create a phantom around 110. This process has been triggered by very basic assumptions of the speaker layouts. But if the system has a little better positional info, on all the speakers, it could apply similar "remappings" to the signals. 

It is not nearly as robust to variable listener position as real speakers, but it might still be useful as long as all the desired image locations reside between pairs of speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Well, we don't know how they package Atmos for the home. It could be solely object-based because a fixed 7.1 speaker layout is assumed. Channel-based beds could be funneled through objects, rendered at specific locations and end up in L, R, C, LS, RS, LS or RS speakers just like a channel-based 7.1 mix would.
> 
> Of course this is just semantics but would allow them to make the caim that "Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on audio objects".
> * Marketing verbiage*.


No; marketing distinction.

__________

Roger is a sound explorer (surround), and a sound artist. We are lucky to have people like him and Chris (Audyssey) in our surrounding environment.

It is very simple; Dolby Atmos is aimed at EVERYONE. ...From the guy with a modest home theater system to the guy with a state-of-the-art one. 
"Object" is as good as "sound directivity", "space delineation", "phantom imaging", "channel specificity", ...and more. ...It's a just a word, not a channel. 

Anyway, some of you here have already tasted it (Atmos) in some of your local theaters, but not many here yet in their own homes. 

__________

* By the way, I love QSound, but it is for one listener only. ...Would be cool if they could make it sound as good as it does for more listeners, in the same room.  

Last, me I personally applaud Roger Dressler and Marc Fishman (FilmMixer) for their sound (surround) exploration and contribution for all of us; not just for the high heeled ones but also for the less fortunate ones. 

And that, is the real work! ...It is constantly evolving @ 'atmost' the speed of light ("c").


----------



## thebland

Code:







Roger Dressler said:


> I'd be interested to see more detail on where your height speakers will go.
> 
> In my theater, I'm planning on 4 speakers that hang on yokes so I can rotate and tilt them as shown. (The side view does not correctly show the speaker rotation, just the downward angle.)



Hi Roger,

Actually, almost identical to your set up but with additional Side Height Surrounds to satisfy Auro (and my rear surrounds are along the back wall rather than the corners).. Really, almost identical (though subs will be scattered around - 4 up front and one in rear)

Your set up plan gives about the most reliable information I've seen as to what type of placement scheme to follow. 

Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

Roger's setup above is succulent. ...A 7.4.4 surround sound hound system. ...I love his configuration, a lot.

- 7 mains
- 4 subs
- 4 overheads


----------



## CinemaAndy

ambesolman said:


> Please tell me you have pics to share!
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


No i have no pics of that room. I was in to much shock to take any pics.


----------



## Roger Dressler

thebland said:


> Actually, almost identical to your set up but with additional Side Height Surrounds to satisfy Auro (and my rear surrounds are along the back wall rather than the corners).


Just a thought, but if you do not really want the extra side height speakers, those signals could be "phantomed" into the front/rear heights on each side (in Auro cinemas, they use height arrays, not single speakers). But if you have room for them, go for it!

Have you decided what speakers to use? I'm planning on the Tannoy Di 6DC chiefly due to their dispersion, among other specs.


----------



## joerod

I think I will plan to use the 5.2.4 (6) configuration. I could use the two middle ceiling speakers as sides until we get official Atmos 6 speakers. Unless magically we sorta do out of the gate.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd be interested to see more detail on where your height speakers will go.
> 
> In my theater, I'm planning on 4 speakers that hang on yokes so I can rotate and tilt them as shown. (The side view does not correctly show the speaker rotation, just the downward angle.)


If it was me i would designate the "sweet seat" and use it as a reference point to point all speakers to your sweet seat ear level. I am sure this is no different for a Home Theater, than the commercial side. Of course, you might have to get to your seat before anyone else does


----------



## Marc Wielage

KidHorn said:


> I wouldn't say 3D flopped since there were (and still are) a lot of 3D TVs and blu-rays sold. Maybe it hasn't done as well as some expected, but to say it flopped is an exaggeration.


I'd say 3D for consumer video failed spectacularly:

http://techland.time.com/2012/07/13/the-3d-hype-bubble-is-now-completely-busted/

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9856/3d-a-proven-failure-4k-unlikely-to-succeed-hbo

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead

http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/can-we-agree-that-3d-tv-has-failed-spectacularly/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...cially-dead-for-now-and-this-is-why-it-failed

Sony essentially fired CEO Howard Stringer because he had staked their entire business on 3D, and it failed miserably. I feel bad for him, because in a better economy, I think it might have had a chance.

I'm not opposed to 3D video per se, but I do have a lot of concerns about the major compromises in image brightness and picture quality. But that's a subject for another thread.

I draw comparisons to Atmos only because to me, this is another hype/frenzy being created by a manufacturer to desperately try to flog sales. In the case of Dolby, a lot of their proprietary technology (like Dolby noise-reduction, Dolby surround and so on) have all fallen by the wayside, to the point where none are really needed for theaters anymore, and I think the Dolby licensing business is at a standstill. They have to come up with new technology like Dolby Vision and Atmos in order to keep the company going.

I'm just dubious as to whether either has any practical applications for home use. I only see the glass as half-empty in this case.

Bear in mind I'm of the opinion that almost nobody has ever seen a really great uncompressed HD picture at home, along with really good 5.1 surround in perfect acoustics. I think 90% of the real problems with home audio in general lie in acoustics more than number of channels. More is not always better; sometimes, more is just _more. _ I'd rather have 5 great channels than 64 mediocre channels.


----------



## NorthSky

Too bad about 3D, because I like it a lot myself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Too bad about 3D, because I like it a lot myself.


I'd rather have great 3D audio than 3D video any day.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Why not both? 3D is dying right now but it will make a comeback. Avatard 2 & 3 paired with *effective* glasses free displays will bite back. 

I think Atmos at home will be the next big thing for the home audio world, everyone who hears the demo units seem to be impressed.


----------



## joerod

We have over 150 3D titles and when people come over many times they prefer the 3D version. I keep the majority of glasses always charged.


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> If it was me i would designate the "sweet seat" and use it as a reference point to point all speakers to your sweet seat ear level. I am sure this is no different for a Home Theater, than the commercial side. Of course, you might have to get to your seat before anyone else does


The degree of difference between the two concepts is rather minimal to insignificant for most of my speakers.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Wielage said:


> Bear in mind I'm of the opinion that almost nobody has ever seen a really great uncompressed HD picture at home


It's simple, since no one sees uncompressed video at home except from their own video camera. And no one sees uncompressed video in a cinema either. But does this matter?



Marc Wielage said:


> I think 90% of the real problems with home audio in general lie in acoustics more than number of channels. More is not always better; sometimes, more is just _more. _ I'd rather have 5 great channels than 64 mediocre channels.


The fact that acoustics is a challenge has no bearing on the number of channels. Sometimes, more good channels is just better than fewer good channels. 2 vs 1; 5 vs 2; 7 vs 5; and now 11 vs 7.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm planning on the Tannoy Di 6DC chiefly due to their dispersion, among other specs.


Do you know if this design compensates for the inevitable low frequency dip caused by near-wall mounting?


----------



## CinemaAndy

Marc Wielage said:


> I'd say 3D for consumer video failed spectacularly:
> 
> http://techland.time.com/2012/07/13/the-3d-hype-bubble-is-now-completely-busted/
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/9856/3d-a-proven-failure-4k-unlikely-to-succeed-hbo
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead
> 
> http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/can-we-agree-that-3d-tv-has-failed-spectacularly/
> 
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...cially-dead-for-now-and-this-is-why-it-failed
> 
> Sony essentially fired CEO Howard Stringer because he had staked their entire business on 3D, and it failed miserably. I feel bad for him, because in a better economy, I think it might have had a chance.
> 
> I'm not opposed to 3D video per se, but I do have a lot of concerns about the major compromises in image brightness and picture quality. But that's a subject for another thread.
> 
> I draw comparisons to Atmos only because to me, this is another hype/frenzy being created by a manufacturer to desperately try to flog sales. In the case of Dolby, a lot of their proprietary technology (like Dolby noise-reduction, Dolby surround and so on) have all fallen by the wayside, to the point where none are really needed for theaters anymore, and I think the Dolby licensing business is at a standstill. They have to come up with new technology like Dolby Vision and Atmos in order to keep the company going.
> 
> I'm just dubious as to whether either has any practical applications for home use. I only see the glass as half-empty in this case.
> 
> Bear in mind I'm of the opinion that almost nobody has ever seen a really great uncompressed HD picture at home, along with really good 5.1 surround in perfect acoustics. I think 90% of the real problems with home audio in general lie in acoustics more than number of channels. More is not always better; sometimes, more is just _more. _ I'd rather have 5 great channels than 64 mediocre channels.


Your absolutely right there. I see it as a way for profit expansion, there is only so many Theater owners who have and and are going to spend the coin for Atmos or Auro-3D audio.

The consumer version of 3D killed it for everyone involved. I think only Vizio with there "Theater 3D" was the only company who got it(3D) right. I mean $3,500 for a TV plus $150 for glasses times 6, give me a break. And i should also add the consumer projectors to this as well, 3D ready $1,599 projector after you purchase a $400 converter, plus $150 glasses(6 or what ever you need) to have 3D.

I see the same thing with 4K/UHD Atmos and Auro. Auro by the way has released it's on consumer AVR for it's Auro-3D, have to see how that works. More to the point since Blu-Ray has become the HD standard for disk, and since DTS is on the BDA, I do not see DTS playing well with Atmos or Auro. I'm sure i will read all about it here.


----------



## Marc Wielage

Roger Dressler said:


> It's simple, since no one sees uncompressed video at home except from their own video camera. And no one sees uncompressed video in a cinema either. But does this matter?


I see it all the time, and I'm sad that by the time most people get to see a broadcast show or a feature film at home, it's been stepped on pretty hard. When you know and understand the potential is there, it makes it that much harder to live without it.



Roger Dressler said:


> The fact that acoustics is a challenge has no bearing on the number of channels. Sometimes, more good channels is just better than fewer good channels. 2 vs 1; 5 vs 2; 7 vs 5; and now 11 vs 7.


I think there is a limit on how many more channels makes an audible difference. The quote from Steve Martin on "Milliphonic" sound is kind of appropos. But I'm a fan of Atmos and Auro in general for theaters, and when it's done well, I have no problem paying more to hear movies mixed in this format. But I'm leery of the compromises inherent in bringing something this complicated into the home. I lived through a lot of bad quadraphonic and pro-logic disasters in the 1970s and 1980s, and multi-channel sound has been a very messy battleground for a long time. As far as I'm concerned, it only really started sounding reasonable with discrete-track DVD in 1997, and better still with Blu-ray. But I'm not that knocked out by a couple of height channels unless they're truly separate, full-range speakers mounted correctly in a room with decent acoustics.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Do you know if this design compensates for the inevitable low frequency dip caused by near-wall mounting?


I saw no mention of it, but I doubt it since it can be mounted in various relationships to the surface (yoke or ball mount at various angles). In my case the front pair first reflection will be intercepted by the "cloud" panel (2" fiberglass with 4" air gap). FWIW.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Wielage said:


> I see it all the time, and I'm sad that by the time most people get to see a broadcast show or a feature film at home, it's been stepped on pretty hard.


I was referring to your statement that "almost nobody has ever seen a really great uncompressed HD picture at home." It's not almost nobody. It's nobody. Not at home. Not in a cinema. 



Marc Wielage said:


> I think there is a limit on how many more channels makes an audible difference. The quote from Steve Martin on "Milliphonic" sound is kind of appropos.


It was a joke, and offers no insight to the real question before us: Can additional speakers enhance the spatial effect?



Marc Wielage said:


> But I'm a fan of Atmos and Auro in general for theaters, and when it's done well, I have no problem paying more to hear movies mixed in this format. But I'm leery of the compromises inherent in bringing something this complicated into the home.


What exactly is so complicated, in your opinion? 



Marc Wielage said:


> But I'm not that knocked out by a couple of height channels unless they're truly separate, full-range speakers mounted correctly in a room with decent acoustics.


If I understand correctly, if you have a couple of decent height speakers properly installed in a well treated room, you'll be knocked out? Then just think how much better you'll like having 4 height speakers! So why all the doom and gloom?

BTW, since they do not use full range speakers in cinemas, you hardly need to use them for a home system.


----------



## pmanyon

*Dolby Atmos Question*

So, I'm looking to upgrade to an Onkyo 737 receiver, which is 5.2.2. I was wondering if having atmos speakers as my rear channels only would work? Or, to get the right effect, do you have to have atmos speakers as the front channel? I know having front and rears as atmos speakers works, but this receiver won't be able to accommodate that.


----------



## ahmedreda

For a .2 configuration, the atmos top speakers should be in the middle. For a .4 configuration they should be in the fronts and rears.











pmanyon said:


> So, I'm looking to upgrade to an Onkyo 737 receiver, which is 5.2.2. I was wondering if having atmos speakers as my rear channels only would work? Or, to get the right effect, do you have to have atmos speakers as the front channel? I know having front and rears as atmos speakers works, but this receiver won't be able to accommodate that.


----------



## KidHorn

Marc Wielage said:


> I'd say 3D for consumer video failed spectacularly:
> 
> http://techland.time.com/2012/07/13/the-3d-hype-bubble-is-now-completely-busted/
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/9856/3d-a-proven-failure-4k-unlikely-to-succeed-hbo
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead
> 
> http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/can-we-agree-that-3d-tv-has-failed-spectacularly/
> 
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...cially-dead-for-now-and-this-is-why-it-failed
> 
> Sony essentially fired CEO Howard Stringer because he had staked their entire business on 3D, and it failed miserably. I feel bad for him, because in a better economy, I think it might have had a chance.
> 
> I'm not opposed to 3D video per se, but I do have a lot of concerns about the major compromises in image brightness and picture quality. But that's a subject for another thread.
> 
> I draw comparisons to Atmos only because to me, this is another hype/frenzy being created by a manufacturer to desperately try to flog sales. In the case of Dolby, a lot of their proprietary technology (like Dolby noise-reduction, Dolby surround and so on) have all fallen by the wayside, to the point where none are really needed for theaters anymore, and I think the Dolby licensing business is at a standstill. They have to come up with new technology like Dolby Vision and Atmos in order to keep the company going.
> 
> I'm just dubious as to whether either has any practical applications for home use. I only see the glass as half-empty in this case.
> 
> Bear in mind I'm of the opinion that almost nobody has ever seen a really great uncompressed HD picture at home, along with really good 5.1 surround in perfect acoustics. I think 90% of the real problems with home audio in general lie in acoustics more than number of channels. More is not always better; sometimes, more is just _more. _ I'd rather have 5 great channels than 64 mediocre channels.



Providing links to old articles about someone's opinion is all well and good but in order for 3D to have failed, it would have to no longer be offered in new products. Laser Disk, Betamax and HD-DVD are examples of failed products. Since 3D is being offered for just about every new movie and every new TV, it is far from failed. For some unknown reason many believe that 3D was to replace 2D in every way and since it hasn't, it's failed. I don't think it was ever intended to completely replace 2D viewing. I think it was always something that would be used periodically for movie viewing and it's succeeded in that regard.


----------



## KidHorn

ahmedreda said:


> For a .2 configuration, the atmos top speakers should be in the middle. For a .4 configuration they should be in the fronts and rears.



I'm a little confused. I thought Atmos didn't use height speakers. It uses ceiling speakers in lieu of heights (even though ceiling speakers are logically heights that are really high up). Is this setup for something that my be offered in future AVRs? Or is this something that can be used within this calendar year?


----------



## ahmedreda

My understanding is that the first iteration will just use the top speakers (front/rear or middle). Can't say for sure if second gen atmos receivers will use more than that. The diagram I believe came from one of the user manuals. I already bought 4 speakers for my ceiling but I am not planning on installing anything until the final details are revealed.



KidHorn said:


> I'm a little confused. I thought Atmos didn't use height speakers. It uses ceiling speakers in lieu of heights (even though ceiling speakers are logically heights that are really high up). Is this setup for something that my be offered in future AVRs? Or is this something that can be used within this calendar year?


----------



## redjr

According to an interview with Andrew Jones that Scott Wilkinson had, won't Atmos be able to take advantage of whatever speakers you have (including Atmos enabled). And through the use of advanced DSP processing create a virtual sound environment that expands the traditional horizontal plane into one with height information too? While more discrete channels are clearly used with the Atmos system, there's equally as much - if not more - DSP trickery going on to virtualize the soundscape into a 3D enveloping experience. Does anyone remember the dramatic effect that SRS had on a simple stereo signal by spreading out the stereo image? And that was nearly ~20 yrs ago! DSP processing has come a long way since, so it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Dolby Labs can further build upon this virtualization technique with the Atmos system. Andrew Jones was very positive about the possibility of the Atmos system and has designed a set of speakers to be used with it.

Just for grins, I'm presently in the process of finishing up my new media/TV/office man-cave, and I think I'll install the wiring and speakers for 4 additional ones in the ceiling. Should I decide to upgrade my AVR down the road for an Atmos enabled Pioneer SC Elite model, I'll be ready.  Yeah, I'm a fan of the B&O ICEpower, class D amp modules used in certain models of the SC line up.


----------



## FilmMixer

Marc Wielage said:


> I'd say 3D for consumer video failed spectacularly:
> 
> http://techland.time.com/2012/07/13/the-3d-hype-bubble-is-now-completely-busted/
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/9856/3d-a-proven-failure-4k-unlikely-to-succeed-hbo
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead
> 
> http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/can-we-agree-that-3d-tv-has-failed-spectacularly/
> 
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...cially-dead-for-now-and-this-is-why-it-failed
> 
> Sony essentially fired CEO Howard Stringer because he had staked their entire business on 3D, and it failed miserably. I feel bad for him, because in a better economy, I think it might have had a chance.
> 
> I'm not opposed to 3D video per se, but I do have a lot of concerns about the major compromises in image brightness and picture quality. But that's a subject for another thread.
> I draw comparisons to Atmos only because to me, this is another hype/frenzy being created by a manufacturer to desperately try to flog sales. In the case of Dolby, a lot of their proprietary technology (like Dolby noise-reduction, Dolby surround and so on) have all fallen by the wayside, to the point where none are really needed for theaters anymore, and I think the Dolby licensing business is at a standstill. They have to come up with new technology like Dolby Vision and Atmos in order to keep the company going.


Have had no time to post.
Mixing mixing mixing...

But I disagree that their licensing business is at a standstill. 

Every HDTV, set top box, BR player and now streaming devices support Dolby codecs.

That's there the money is. 

That they are developing new products to grow the business is kind if the point isn't it?

Atmos was born out of a desire to expand our palette, and the tools to do so have finally come into a mature enough state to do so.

It's surely not revolutionary. But a huge step in moving us forward.....


----------



## NorthSky

Is it important to have a good Room EQ & Correction system in conjunction with Dolby Atmos?


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Is it important to have a good Room EQ & Correction system in conjunction with Dolby Atmos?


IMO it's imperative.


----------



## KidHorn

redjr said:


> According to an interview with Andrew Jones that Scott Wilkinson had, won't Atmos be able to take advantage of whatever speakers you have (including Atmos enabled). And through the use of advanced DSP processing create a virtual sound environment that expands the traditional horizontal plane into one with height information too? While more discrete channels are clearly used with the Atmos system, there's equally as much - if not more - DSP trickery going on to virtualize the soundscape into a 3D enveloping experience. Does anyone remember the dramatic effect that SRS had on a simple stereo signal by spreading out the stereo image? And that was nearly ~20 yrs ago! DSP processing has come a long way since, so it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Dolby Labs can further build upon this virtualization technique with the Atmos system. Andrew Jones was very positive about the possibility of the Atmos system and has designed a set of speakers to be used with it.
> 
> Just for grins, I'm presently in the process of finishing up my new media/TV/office man-cave, and I think I'll install the wiring and speakers for 4 additional ones in the ceiling. Should I decide to upgrade my AVR down the road for an Atmos enabled Pioneer SC Elite model, I'll be ready.  Yeah, I'm a fan of the B&O ICEpower, class D amp modules used in certain models of the SC line up.


 
I don't know exactly how Atmos works but in theory as long as a sound source is inside a triangular area created with 3 speakers, it should be able to create the sound in the correct spot. If the speakers are too far apart, it may have trouble producing enough volume, but it should be able to pinpoint the location. Of course the current AVR offerings don't do this, but if Atmos knows the coordinates of each speaker in terms of horizontal and vertical angle, it should be able to create a sound as long as it falls with a triangle. All of this assumes you're sitting in the primary spot. For everyone else, the locations will be off. It won't work for things like sounds from the floor because the sounds wouldn't fit within any triangle. Or at least it won't work until floor speakers are added.


If I were writing the algorithm to do this, I would first split the room into triangles and store this data in persistent memory. For every discrete sound, I would first determine which triangle it falls into and then adjust the relative volumes on each of the 3 speakers. Whether or not this can be done in real time is something I don't know. If timing is an issue, then it may be possible to pre-process the soundtrack into the discrete channels prior to playback.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> Is it important to have a good Room EQ & Correction system in conjunction with Dolby Atmos?


Not according to Onkyo 

(Seriously, yes - the room is the room regardless of what is playing in it).


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> IMO it's imperative.


Good Room EQ for overhead reflections. ...Call me at the most (atmost) dueling with my conscience.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Not according to Onkyo
> 
> (Seriously, yes - the room is the room regardless of what is playing in it).


Onkyo is saying that? ...'Bout Marantz, Sherwood Newcastle, Classe, Krell, McIntosh, Emotiva, Anthem, Theta, ...?

The room is certainly the room; that is not outside the track. 

EQuing and Correcting room reflections coming from overhead must be good for the overall height impact. 
Interesting though; because first you create those reflections, and some rooms are better than others @ reflecting (eg.; lower ceilings, material/texture, ...) and then you correct them by EQuing them so that they are in harmony with the direct sound "objects". ...And the music score of course.


----------



## batpig

NorthSky said:


> Is it important to have a good Room EQ & Correction system in conjunction with Dolby Atmos?


Of course. Why would adding more speakers alter the importance of correcting for room acoustics?


----------



## batpig

NorthSky said:


> Onkyo is saying that?


He is poking fun at Onkyo's decision to drop Audyssey in favor of a rudimentary house brand auto EQ program that doesn't even EQ the front speakers or the subwoofers(!!). They did this rather than add additional DSP horsepower, so they basically sacrificed good room correction to shoehorn in Atmos at a lower price point.


----------



## batpig

redjr said:


> According to an interview with Andrew Jones that Scott Wilkinson had, won't Atmos be able to take advantage of whatever speakers you have (including Atmos enabled).


Yes, one of the misconceptions about Atmos-for-home is that the "objects" are JUST the "top" speakers, and the standard 5.1/7.1ch array is only using fixed channel info. The idea being that Atmos just takes a "normal" 5.1/7.1 soundtrack and then adds some discrete height information to enhance it.

The truth is that with Atmos there is a fixed channel-based "bed" but the objects will render to ALL the speakers in the system to place them correctly. So, yes, in theory, Atmos would take advantage of all your speakers, not just the top speakers.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Why would adding more speakers alter the importance of correcting for room acoustics?


I don't get the connection either.


NorthSky said:


> Good Room EQ for overhead reflections.


Is reflected sound immune to peaks & dips?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Obviously, Sanjay.

Don't you know that overhead surround have a base +2 Reflect mana attribute? They do and that's why they are very effective against mages, Erm I mean without treatment.


----------



## BillFree

joerod said:


> We have over 150 3D titles and when people come over many times they prefer the 3D version. I keep the majority of glasses always charged.


I totally agree. I look forward to each and every 3D release. If I have it and 3D version comes out I replace. I have a huge collection too. There are crummy 3D titles but thats expected. I enjoy 3D music bluray videos as they are released. Most of the people I know that complain about 3D always complain about the glasses. Been there dun it! Passive 3D solved that problem for us.


----------



## kokishin

BillFree said:


> I totally agree. I look forward to each and every 3D release. If I have it and 3D version comes out I replace. I have a huge collection too. There are crummy 3D titles but thats expected. I enjoy 3D music bluray videos as they are released. Most of the people I know that complain about 3D always complain about the glasses. Been there dun it! Passive 3D solved that problem for us.


BillFree aka FreeWill? [j/k] :wink:


----------



## Chucka

I wonder what effect that Audyssey XT32 will have on Atmos Ceiling or reflected speakers and I wonder if adjustments in delay and EQ by XT32 could make up for a mild cathedral ceiling to make it work even slightly acceptable. Most of us cannot convert our Cathedral or slanted ceilings to flat surfaces (and moving may not be an option for the sake of Atmos) so we will be trying to figure out how to make this work for these situations - though admittedly not as good as for a flat ceiling. I am sure we are all going to learn a lot about this in the next year once some hardware is actually out there. But many of us are anxiously thinking ahead...


----------



## Roger Dressler

KidHorn said:


> I don't know exactly how Atmos works but in theory as long as a sound source is inside a triangular area created with 3 speakers, it should be able to create the sound in the correct spot.


That exactly how VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) works. MDA and Atmos support VBAP.



KidHorn said:


> If the speakers are too far apart, it may have trouble producing enough volume, but it should be able to pinpoint the location.


 If there's enough volume when driving one speaker (e.g., today's 7.1 home systems), then there's enough when driving 2 or 3 speakers (VBAP can use 1, 2, or 3 speakers, and possibly 4).



KidHorn said:


> Of course the current AVR offerings don't do this, but if Atmos knows the coordinates of each speaker in terms of horizontal and vertical angle, it should be able to create a sound as long as it falls with a triangle. All of this assumes you're sitting in the primary spot. For everyone else, the locations will be off. It won't work for things like sounds from the floor because the sounds wouldn't fit within any triangle. Or at least it won't work until floor speakers are added.


You have a very good understanding of these things. The question of how much the imaging degrades as one leaves the MLP will vary with the speaker density. Just think, if someone must find a way to improve things, they might someday be able to add another set of speakers. 



KidHorn said:


> If I were writing the algorithm to do this, I would first split the room into triangles and store this data in persistent memory. For every discrete sound, I would first determine which triangle it falls into and then adjust the relative volumes on each of the 3 speakers. Whether or not this can be done in real time is something I don't know. If timing is an issue, then it may be possible to pre-process the soundtrack into the discrete channels prior to playback.


I cannot speak for Atmos, but this is exactly how MDA works, and while the tessellation process (defining the triangle patches) is done as part of the initial calibration process, the rendering runs in real time.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> Is reflected sound immune to peaks & dips?


Touche!


----------



## NorthSky

Chucka said:


> I wonder what effect that Audyssey XT32 will have on Atmos Ceiling or reflected speakers and I wonder if adjustments in delay and EQ by XT32 could make up for a mild cathedral ceiling to make it work even slightly acceptable. Most of us cannot convert our Cathedral or slanted ceilings to flat surfaces (and moving may not be an option for the sake of Atmos) so we will be trying to figure out how to make this work for these situations - though admittedly not as good as for a flat ceiling. I am sure we are all going to learn a lot about this in the next year once some hardware is actually out there. But many of us are anxiously thinking ahead...


That, is a very interesting perspective. ...And I am looking forward to it with a passion.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> That exactly how VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) works. MDA and Atmos support VBAP.


Onkyo and Integra have some AV receivers and separates with Vector Linear Shaping Circuitry (VLSC).


----------



## Glenn Baumann

KidHorn said:


> Providing links to old articles about someone's opinion is all well and good but in order for 3D to have failed, it would have to no longer be offered in new products. Laser Disk, Betamax and HD-DVD are examples of failed products. Since 3D is being offered for just about every new movie and every new TV, it is far from failed. For some unknown reason many believe that 3D was to replace 2D in every way and since it hasn't, it's failed. I don't think it was ever intended to completely replace 2D viewing. I think it was always something that would be used periodically for movie viewing and it's succeeded in that regard.




"Laser Disk, Betamax and HD-DVD are examples of failed products."


I have to diagree about "Laser Disc" being a failed product! But I guess it depends on your definition of failed.

Laserdisc was the "defacto" High End, High Quality, Audiophile/Videophile way to see and hear the best for a number of years!

In fact, when DVD and Laserdisc coexisted for a time, the Dolby Digital and especially some of the DTS soundtacks were absolutely stunning! Actually better then some of the best dvd's... in the sound department anyway.

Betamax and HD-DVD OK, maybe those were failed products, however Betamax was actually heralded as being better than VCR. 

Another example is CRT technology. It did not fail, it was just replaced with a new and superior (in most ways) technology... time and technology marches on!

One thing I can say is that those pesky 3D glasses just got to go!

Sorry for getting off track... back to our regularly scheduled programming! 


...Glenn


----------



## D.Theater

cinemaandy said:


> for me it is the bouncing the sound off the ceiling that hangs me up. All the years and years of controlling the sound bounce, now it is ok. I'm sure $$$ was spent to achieve this effect, but oh well, i guess if you aim the speakers to bounce the sound off the ceiling fan, the helicopter on the movie will sound very real.


+1


----------



## Marc Wielage

FilmMixer said:


> But I disagree that their


I don't know if "standstill" is the word I would use, but I think Dolby is concerned enough about their long-term viability and profits that they're desperately trying to carve out new businesses they can get into. If you ask me, DTS is in a much worse position. It doesn't help that upstarts like Barco have gotten into multichannel sound with Auro, and it's doing relatively well for theaters that are happy with "only" having 11.2 channels.


----------



## Marc Wielage

Glenn Baumann said:


> "Laser Disk, Betamax and HD-DVD are examples of failed products."
> I have to diagree about "Laser Disc" being a failed product! But I guess it depends on your definition of failed.


Whenever I mentioned Betamax in conversation with Sony execs in the 1980s, they'd quickly correct me and insist that they made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits on Betamax. It was pure gravy for several years, a huge part of Sony's revenues. From their point of view, it wasn't a failure; it just ran out of steam, and they went on to making new things. (And they were the #3 VHS manufacturer by 1989-1990, as I recall.)

Laserdisc, on the other hand, was never more than a breakeven product at best, and I think Pioneer and the others were stunned when it sank so quickly upon the release of DVD in mid-1997. As a long-time observer of consumer electronics -- literally 45 years -- I've never seen a format get jettisoned as quickly as I did Laserdisc. And I had many, many thousands of Laserdiscs in my time.

It's always sad when superior technology comes along and stomps the crap out of the old stuff, and people abandon the old and jump on the new bandwagon. We saw it happen with Dolby Pro-Logic, and it happened big-time when HDMI came in and rendered many receivers and surround processors obsolete. I accept that some of that is just a fact of life.

But Atmos makes me wince a little bit, because at some point, you gotta kinda say, "enough already. We don't really need _this_ much at home." In a cost-no-object system, sure. But many average people I see can't even figure out a way to deal with 5 or 7 speakers in a regular living room. Enthusiasts... sure, there's always a market there. But I don't see this being a huge success at Best Buy, Costco, and Walmart. It's a niche of a niche market.


----------



## FilmMixer

Marc Wielage said:


> I don't know if "standstill" is the word I would use, but I think Dolby is concerned enough about their long-term viability and profits that they're desperately trying to carve out new businesses they can get into. If you ask me, DTS is in a much worse position. It doesn't help that upstarts like Barco have gotten into multichannel sound with Auro, and it's doing relatively well for theaters that are happy with "only" having 11.2 channels.


Marc, with a "c" like me, I again don't agree with the situation as "desperate" or being "concerned enough" that these new avenues are responses to that..

Were they supposed to wait around and develop nothing new? 

As far as where DTS and Barco are... I don't disagree that both have work to do with the upcoming changes happening..

If Atmos is moderately successful, and DTS doesn't have a compelling, competing codec for broadcast/streaming, then I'm not sure how they are competitive without a ton of exclusive content.... 

Interesting times.. and maybe I'm just reading too much into your choice of words, but I think where Dolby is heading makes sense for a company trying to move on with the times and innovate.... whether or not there is a consumer based Atmos, Dolby Vision, etc will we all have to wait and see.


----------



## sdurani

Marc Wielage said:


> I think Dolby is concerned enough about their long-term viability and profits that they're desperately trying to carve out new businesses they can get into.


No more desperate than surround sound. The introduction of Atmos was an eventual next step in sound mixing that overcame channel-based limitations. Once that happened on the professional side, it was a matter of time before it migrated to the consumer side.


----------



## fookoo_2010

Marc Wielage said:


> But Atmos makes me wince a little bit, because at some point, you gotta kinda say, "enough already. We don't really need _this_ much at home." In a cost-no-object system, sure. But many average people I see can't even figure out a way to deal with 5 or 7 speakers in a regular living room. Enthusiasts... sure, there's always a market there. But I don't see this being a huge success at Best Buy, Costco, and Walmart. It's a niche of a niche market.


Yes, just like the niche market for color tv's following black & white tv's, followed by plasma screens, followed by......

Bottom line is no one forces anyone to buy it. As to figuring out 5 or 7 speakers, that can be an adventure with great rewards. It would not be too surprising to find Dolby Atmos to be as common as Dolby PLII-X in the not too distant future amongst new generation AVR's.


----------



## petetherock

Re: LDs vs DVDs.
IMHO, the LDs are much bigger, and the machines need that RF adaptor, and the newer DVD players were smaller, and about the same cost. No brainer.


----------



## Marc Wielage

KidHorn said:


> Providing links to old articles about someone's opinion is all well and good but in order for 3D to have failed, it would have to no longer be offered in new products.


When it's on the front page of _Forbes_ and _Business Week,_ and when Sony fires their CEO (back in 2012) mainly because he invested the entire future of the consumer electronics division in 3D, then you get the impression it was a failure. And when the new 3D models at CES go from 200 one year to a dozen the next, you start realizing the trend has slowed to a snail's crawl. 

Maybe we have different ideas of what a failure is. I have no personal investment in 3D, so I can speak from a distance. I have worked on quite a few 3D titles in mastering over the years, and I think 3D can work very well in theaters, under very controlled circumstances. But I don't think it's practical at the moment for home use. Please feel free to disagree. 

Bear this in mind: there's an important business principle called *Post-Purchase Rationalization*, and it basically says that once you commit to buying something -- especially something expensive and complicated -- you're going to be compelled to defend it, just to justify your expense. The problem is, you can no longer be objective; you're in a state of cognitive dissonance, where you reject anybody telling you the truth (or at least a contrary opinion), because you're locked into your decision. And that also means you reject lots of evidence that flies in the face of your belief.

I'm not saying 3D can't make people happy, or it can't perform well. What I am saying is that it was pretty much a definitive flop as a mass-market product in North America. I think it's a niche market at best, I don't think it works very well for most people, and I think it's very difficult to pull off. When it works well, it's fantastic. But I think it's extremely impractical for most people. Most manufacturers are looking at 4K as the new gee-whiz format to promote, but in all honesty, I'm not convinced this is really going to add much for people having screen sunder 65". But 4K at least works anywhere you sit in the room, you don't have to wear glasses to see it, you can watch it lying down, slumped over, or sitting up, it looks OK when you walk around the room, and it's something you can do casually while eating a meal or on the phone. 3D commands 100% of your attention, so it's not quite the passive experience regular TV is. For that alone, I don't think it works for most people.


----------



## Marc Wielage

Roger Dressler said:


> I was referring to your statement that "almost nobody has ever seen a really great uncompressed HD picture at home." It's not almost nobody. It's nobody. Not at home. Not in a cinema.


Eh, I've seen it. I can even accept people seeing a very high-bitrate HD picture. My point is that the industry is jumping to higher-res standards at a point where we never perfected the old standard. I find this sad. 



Roger Dressler said:


> It was a joke, and offers no insight to the real question before us: Can additional speakers enhance the spatial effect?


Sure. But are 20 junky, cheap low-powered speakers really an enhancement, or are they just a gimmick? This is the reality of how Atmos is going to be sold. I'd have no problem with large, full-range speakers... which are not practical in the real world. 



Roger Dressler said:


> What exactly is so complicated, in your opinion?


Doing surround right, without massive acoustic or aural compromises. And what I hear in dealers' showrooms is massively compromised. I particularly find it sad when you see $799 receivers claiming to add features like Atmos, when you know it takes more than that to even do something relatively simple and straightforward like 5.1.



Roger Dressler said:


> If I understand correctly, if you have a couple of decent height speakers properly installed in a well treated room, you'll be knocked out? Then just think how much better you'll like having 4 height speakers! So why all the doom and gloom?


If I'm knocked out, how will I enjoy the movie? I could take an overdose and get the same effect.

If you mean _impressed,_ I don't think height alone is enough. I need reasonable levels, very low distortion, no reflections, good off-axis response, no bass nodes, wide frequency response, all the things that they figured out make up good sound more than 50 years ago. Done well, Atmos can sound fantastic; I just think what I'm seeing in the initial Atmos announcements are glitzy features added to cheap receivers designed to hype the model -- not something really useful. I'd have no problem with high-end surround decoders and dedicated speakers used in an Atmos setup... but you can't do that for $799.



Roger Dressler said:


> BTW, since they do not use full range speakers in cinemas, you hardly need to use them for a home system.


Eh, it's a high enough range for me, at least at the better theaters. I just went to a screening of _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ today, and was really impressed by how terrific it sounded. When you have a guy like Andy Nelson at the helm doing the mix, there's a good chance it's going to sound good -- and this was among the best-sounding films I've heard all year. What I heard sounded full enough; this particular screening room used JBL Screen Arrays, and I've always liked how they sounded (though like everything else, it's very much a room-dependent experience).


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Wielage said:


> Eh, I've seen it. I can even accept people seeing a very high-bitrate HD picture. My point is that the industry is jumping to higher-res standards at a point where we never perfected the old standard. I find this sad.


You remind me of the venerable Yves Faroudja, who said the same of analog video when he was perfecting Super NTSC when digital video was coming on. Anyway, how does going to higher res prevent further perfection? Wouldn't it be nice to have more than 8-bit video?



Marc Wielage said:


> Sure. But are 20 junky, cheap low-powered speakers really an enhancement, or are they just a gimmick? This is the reality of how Atmos is going to be sold. I'd have no problem with large, full-range speakers... which are not practical in the real world.


Junky is in the ear of the beholder. You'd ban McDonald's too? No one is stopping you from using large, full range speakers, but it's not smart engineering to go that route. The alternative by no means has to be junk. The user gets to choose. 



Marc Wielage said:


> Doing surround right, without massive acoustic or aural compromises.


Oh. I thought you were saying there was something particularly complicated about Atmos. If you mean all surround sound is complicated, well, that's why we have this great AVS Forum. We're here to learn from each other the make things easier to understand. Welcome aboard. 



Marc Wielage said:


> And what I hear in dealers' showrooms is massively compromised. I particularly find it sad when you see $799 receivers claiming to add features like Atmos, when you know it takes more than that to even do something relatively simple and straightforward like 5.1.


Really? What is it these AVR's are not doing for a proper 5.1 presentation? 



Marc Wielage said:


> If I'm *knocked out*, how will I enjoy the movie? I could take an overdose and get the same effect.


Your choice of words, not mine. 



Marc Wielage said:


> If you mean _impressed,_ I don't think height alone is enough. I need reasonable levels, very low distortion, no reflections, good off-axis response, no bass nodes, wide frequency response, all the things that they figured out make up good sound more than 50 years ago. Done well, Atmos can sound fantastic; I just think what I'm seeing in the initial Atmos announcements are glitzy features added to cheap receivers designed to hype the model -- not something really useful. I'd have no problem with high-end surround decoders and dedicated speakers used in an Atmos setup... but you can't do that for $799.


No AVR includes speakers, so you can hardly criticize them on that basis.


----------



## noah katz

Marc Wielage said:


> But are 20 junky, cheap low-powered speakers really an enhancement, or are they just a gimmick? This is the reality of how Atmos is going to be sold. I'd have no problem with large, full-range speakers... which are not practical in the real world.
> ... but you can't do that for $799.


What's the point of continually lamenting compromised executions of Atmos?

As has been alluded to, you could say the same about any previous format; there will always be people who don't care or can't afford to do it right, regardless of channel count.


----------



## brwsaw

I hate how the biggest announcements have the longest wait times.


----------



## steveting99

I'm looking forward to Keith Barnes impressions and write-up of Atmos for the home. Keith has recently attended a listening session offered by Dolby using Onkyo gear. 

How is the write-up coming along Keith?


----------



## JonStatt

The Onkyo 838 (and 636) models only have 7 channels of amplification. They have binding posts separate for the height/ceiling connections however. But what this means is either you run 7.1, or 5.1.2. Typically the optimal speaker placement for 5.1 is with the rear speakers just behind the sides of the listening seats. But for 7.1, they are nearer to the actual sides of the seating with the additional speakers directly behind. This means no set-up with these models will be optimal I believe. Onkyo should have put 9 channels into the 838 I feel. In the UK the Onkyo retails for 1000, and its next nearest model in price is the Denon X4100 which DOES have 9 channels of amplication and is cheaper than the Onkyo 1030 at nearly 2000 pounds.


----------



## KidHorn

Marc Wielage said:


> Maybe we have different ideas of what a failure is.



That's the crux of my gripe. What exactly did 3D fail at? Was there some specific goal it was supposed to obtain that it failed to obtain?


----------



## KidHorn

Glenn Baumann said:


> "Laser Disk, Betamax and HD-DVD are examples of failed products."
> 
> I have to diagree about "Laser Disc" being a failed product! But I guess it depends on your definition of failed.
> 
> Laserdisc was the "defacto" High End, High Quality, Audiophile/Videophile way to see and hear the best for a number of years!



You're probably right about Laser Disc. I honestly don't know much about it other than it was a product that used to exist and no longer exists. I remember the discs were big and shiny.


I spent maybe 5 seconds coming up with examples of failed products and didn't do enough fact checking


----------



## tjenkins95

KidHorn said:


> That's the crux of my gripe. What exactly did 3D fail at? Was there some specific goal it was supposed to obtain that it failed to obtain?


 

3D blu-rays haven't failed in my neighborhood. Anybody who comes to watch a movie on my system always asks if I have it in 3D!


----------



## KidHorn

Roger Dressler said:


> You have a very good understanding of these things.



I don't know how to respond. No one on these forums ever compliments another forum member.  Thanks, I guess.


A while back I developed and maintained a graphics package for a major financial institution. The user clicks their mouse on something and you have to figure out what they clicked on. Basically the same logic but fortunately I had more than a few milliseconds to figure it out.


----------



## ss9001

KidHorn said:


> You're probably right about Laser Disc. I honestly don't know much about it other than it was a product that used to exist and no longer exists. I remember the discs were big and shiny.
> 
> 
> I spent maybe 5 seconds coming up with examples of failed products and didn't do enough fact checking


as one who embraced LaserDisc early on, it existed from the late 70's through the early day's of DVD in late 90's. It was still a viable format while DVD was gaining acceptance as the superior format for consumers. There are still some movies that were on laserdisc that have never made to DVD, let alone BD.

A 20+ yr run for a "niche" format is hardly a failed one  

DVD used 480i while laserdisc had about 425 lines resolution. But when VHS had 240-250 lines, Beta 300 lines or so, the only format close to LD was SuperVHS at 400 lines and AKAIK, there were no commercial releases on S-VHS tape so LD was the go-to format for videophiles until DVD's came along. With respect to audio, Dolby Stereo, Dolby Surround, ProLogic and AC-3 (Dolby Digital) all appeared on laserdisc *long* before DVD's ever came out. And movies with digital PCM audio got launched on laserdisc in the 80's, when DVD wasn't even a concept 

now you know...

and you could still buy laserdisc players up until about 2008 or 2009. Pioneer still had one you could buy in the US.


----------



## kbarnes701

steveting99 said:


> I'm looking forward to Keith Barnes impressions and write-up of Atmos for the home. Keith has recently attended a listening session offered by Dolby using Onkyo gear.
> 
> How is the write-up coming along Keith?


Almost ready. Once I've written something like that, I like to stand back from it for a little while to see if it still comes across as intended when published. Look out for it in this thread tomorrow (or even later tonight, UK time).

EDIT: see below.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> The Onkyo 838 (and 636) models only have 7 channels of amplification. They have binding posts separate for the height/ceiling connections however. But what this means is either you run 7.1, or 5.1.2. Typically the optimal speaker placement for 5.1 is with the rear speakers just behind the sides of the listening seats. But for 7.1, they are nearer to the actual sides of the seating with the additional speakers directly behind. This means no set-up with these models will be optimal I believe. Onkyo should have put 9 channels into the 838 I feel. In the UK the Onkyo retails for 1000, and its next nearest model in price is the Denon X4100 which DOES have 9 channels of amplication and is cheaper than the Onkyo 1030 at nearly 2000 pounds.


Not to mention that the Denons also have a form of room EQ which EQs the front speakers and the subwoofer...  And the X5200 can do 7.1.4 as well, for less than $2,000.


----------



## sdurani

ss9001 said:


> DVD used 480i while laserdisc had about 425 lines resolution. But when VHS had 240-250 lines, Beta 300 lines or so, the only format close to LD was SuperVHS at 400 lines


All those delivery media were 480i vertically The "lines of resolution" was a horizontal measurement (how many dots could each scan line resolve). But they were all NTSC, so they all had the same number of scan lines (480i).


----------



## kbarnes701

*'Ears on' experience of Atmos in a home theater, using Atmos-enabled speakers*

This review can now be seen *here*.


----------



## 04rex

Good read.

Which Atmos speakers were they using exactly?

So from my understanding, they had in ceiling speakers installed, but they were not in use? It was only the Atmos speakers them selves?


----------



## sdurani

Nice write-up Keith. Will hopefully get a similar demo at the Pioneer open house at the end of the month.


----------



## kbarnes701

04rex said:


> Good read.
> 
> Which Atmos speakers were they using exactly?
> 
> So from my understanding, they had in ceiling speakers installed, but they were not in use? It was only the Atmos speakers them selves?


The Atmos speakers were a small, unbranded speaker. They called it a 'prototype'.

They did demo the in-ceiling speakers for us but only for two clips. All the rest was demoed on the Atmos speakers.


----------



## sdurani

04rex said:


> So from my understanding, they had in ceiling speakers installed, but they were not in use? It was only the Atmos speakers them selves?


No, both types of speakers were demonstrated.


kbarnes701 said:


> This demo, it was explained, was using the physical in-ceiling speakers, but all of the subsequent demos would use the Atmos-enabled speakers.


----------



## ss9001

sdurani said:


> All those delivery media were 480i vertically The "lines of resolution" was a horizontal measurement (how many dots could each scan line resolve). But they were all NTSC, so they all had the same number of scan lines (480i).


true. I poorly phrased my sentence. how many actual lines of resolution each format was capable of was what I was referring to.


----------



## ss9001

Keith,
Thanks for sharing the details of your experience. Excellent review!

We'd all like to have been there & heard what you heard


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Nice write-up Keith. Will hopefully get a similar demo at the Pioneer open house at the end of the month.


Thanks, Sanjay. Yes, I am sure you will be as equally impressed as I was. And maybe more so - I expect Andrew Jones's Atmos speakers may be even better than the ones I heard.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Keith,
> Thanks for sharing the details of your experience. Excellent review!
> 
> We'd all like to have been there & heard what you heard


I know you would, Steve! You surely would.  I was grinning from ear to ear for about an hour afterwards...


----------



## JediFonger

looks like you guys will have to re-buy all those titles with ATMOS now ;P



BillFree said:


> I totally agree. I look forward to each and every 3D release. If I have it and 3D version comes out I replace. I have a huge collection too. There are crummy 3D titles but thats expected. I enjoy 3D music bluray videos as they are released. Most of the people I know that complain about 3D always complain about the glasses. Been there dun it! Passive 3D solved that problem for us.


----------



## NorthSky

Keith,
Excellent write up! ...Reading it is transforming, invigorating, catapulting.

Wow! I'm all in. I am going to change my habits and get on with the new program; cinema is 50% sound of the total movie experience.
{Imagine...what it can do for ultra high-end music listening experience; in multichannel surround sound!}

1. How come you waited a month to rely your Atmos experience?
2. What are you going to do in a very near future, to your own home theater room?
3. Are you as happy as I am? 

Bests,
R §


----------



## Ethan Ong

Dear All,

I wonder for a 5.2.4 set-up, can I use 1 pair of Atmos add-on speaker modules + 1 pair of in-ceiling height speakers?

Thanks.


----------



## brwsaw

7.1.4

Gimme gimme


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> You're probably right about Laser Disc. I honestly don't know much about it other than it was a product that used to exist and no longer exists. I remember the discs were big and shiny.
> 
> 
> I spent maybe 5 seconds coming up with examples of failed products and didn't do enough fact checking



Laserdiscs lasted (in various forms) from the early 80's until (and a little after) DVD debuted. There were non-laser, needle on spindle versions in the 70's.


----------



## scarabaeus

CinemaAndy said:


> ...
> The consumer version of 3D killed it for everyone involved. I think only Vizio with there "Theater 3D" was the only company who got it(3D) right. I mean $3,500 for a TV plus $150 for glasses times 6, give me a break. And i should also add the consumer projectors to this as well, 3D ready $1,599 projector after you purchase a $400 converter, plus $150 glasses(6 or what ever you need) to have 3D.
> ...


Yes, and LG, and Philips, etc. who are all doing the passive 3D. So much better. That makes it so hard for me to understand Vizio, dropping Theater 3D from their high-end UHD TVs. That would be the ideal panel, since it allows for the full line count per eye of 1080p 3D content.

I guess we'll have to see if a decent glasses-free version of 3D comes out that will get people to finally use it.


----------



## Cam Man

Keith, thanks indeed for sharing your impressions.


Given that Onkyo has given up MultEQ to enable Atmos, what was your take on the spectral balance and timbre matching of the speakers in the room? Are these acoustic/electronic qualities still valuable ... or are we headed down a questionable path on that subject? Maybe some detail of the treatments in the room will affect that impression, too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> The demonstration was split into two parts. The first was held in Dolby’s amazing screening room. We were told that this room represents _“probably the finest Atmos experience in Europe”_ and I can easily believe that, having heard what we did.
> 
> The room seated, at a guess, for I failed to count, about 130 seats and the rows of speakers on the side walls, down to the screen, on the rear walls and in two rows above our heads were pointed out to us. All in all I counted 32 speakers, more or less, including two huge subwoofers mounted in the rear corners
> 
> 
> We were split into groups of six and taken into a small, 6 seater ‘home theatre’ on the first floor of the Dolby facility. Immediately on entering the room, I noticed that it was treated, including treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling, and that the 7.2.4 Atmos system which they were running consisted of two decently sized subs and 7 fairly modest looking bookshelf satellite speakers. In the ceiling I could see 4 modest in-ceiling speakers. I’d say the room was about 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot ceiling, so the sort of space that many people could easily replicate at home. I would say that the system components in this room were of the sort that most people could afford - there was nothing that seemed in any way ‘over the top’, so Dolby had gone to lengths to make this room typical of what we could recreate for ourselves at home.
> 
> The first demo up were the specially created Dolby ‘sound logos’ we had heard in the main room so that we could compare the two experiences. As before, they were excellent but expected. What impressed was, again, the three dimensionality of the sound. This demo, it was explained, was using the physical in-ceiling speakers, but all of the subsequent demos would use the Atmos-enabled speakers. This is where it started to get interesting.
> 
> When the operator played the Dolby demo clip again, using this time the Atmos speakers, I noticed a small, but definite, diminution of the precision with which the sounds were placed, especially overhead. But it was surprisingly small. One of the audience members I spoke to afterwards said he couldn’t hear any difference at all. I stress that the difference was unexpectedly small.



Thank you for the write up, Keith!  Hopefully, they'll have actual retail Blu-ray discs being played and not carefully selected and "tweaked" clips at CEDIA along with more extensive comparisons of on ceiling speakers that comply to Atmos specifications vs. Atmos-module speakers. If Dolby doesn't do this themselves, then perhaps other speaker manufacturers hawking their wares to the attendees will. 

The next comparison Dolby should have in their Lab theaters is a commercial Atmos decoder playing a genuine theatrical Atmos clip and then play back that same clip from the genuine retail Atmos Blu-ray of the same movie through a Trinnov Altitude processor, since it can handle the same speaker amount as in their labs. I'm crossing my fingers that Trinnov will be able to demo working Atmos processors at CEDIA.

That's IMHO the _real_ test... how does the at-home Atmos mix hold up to its theatrical counterpart given a comparable screening room system. Are the inevitable compromises acceptable enough... or are there virtually no appreciable differences.

If Dolby thinks their consumer Atmos codec is as wonderful as they're touting it to be... they shouldn't be afraid of doing this head-to-head match up.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> On June 15th I was invited to a demonstration of Atmos For The Home at Dolby Labs in London. This was a wonderful opportunity for me to be one of the very first AV enthusiasts to hear at first hand just how well — or not of course — the theatrical Atmos experience translates to the confines of the typical home cinema. What follows is a report of my experience that day and the impressions gained from it.
> 
> The demonstration was split into two parts. The first was held in Dolby’s amazing screening room. We were told that this room represents _“probably the finest Atmos experience in Europe”_ and I can easily believe that, having heard what we did.
> 
> The room seated, at a guess, for I failed to count, about 130 seats and the rows of speakers on the side walls, down to the screen, on the rear walls and in two rows above our heads were pointed out to us. All in all I counted 32 speakers, more or less, including two huge subwoofers mounted in the rear corners.
> 
> *Opening demo in Dolby’s main screening room.*
> 
> After an explanation of the broad principles of object-based audio, we were treated to a couple of Dolby’s own short demo clips. While these did indeed display the amazing sense of 3D immersion in a sound field, my feeling was that this was to be ‘expected’. After all, Dolby themselves are not going to create special demo material that fails to deliver a good Atmos experience, especially in their own screening room. Sounds zipped around us, over us, even passing ‘through’ us. The precision and definition was startling, the bass was the best I have heard, anywhere, ever.
> 
> But what the small group of audience members was craving were some actual movie clips. And here, Dolby did not fall short. As we may have expected, the most awesome was the Academy Award Winning sound of Gravity. The clip chosen was close to the beginning of the movie, where Clooney and Bullock are space-walking, apparently repairing a failed component. Those who have seen this movie (including me, who has seen it four times) will remember the way the voices of the two actors pan around the room as the camera angle angle changes, all the while accompanied by the ceaseless chatter of radio comms, both from the characters in space and those on the ground at Mission Control. Even in 5.1 this is impressively done, but nothing can prepare you for the way that it is handled via Atmos. And then, the story starts. _“Mission abort! Mission abort!”_ shouts Ed Harris from ground control, and all hell breaks loose, culminating in Bullock’s character cutting loose and being catapulted into space. So effective was the sound track at putting me “right there” that I felt my pulse rate quicken and my elevated heart rate left me a little short of breath. I was “there”, out in space, with them. It was an amazing experience and I have never felt anywhere near as immersed in a movie as I did during that sequence.
> 
> But in some ways, this was as expected as it was amazing. We were sitting in “probably the finest Atmos facility in Europe”. What we all wanted to know now was “how does this translate to the home?”, and this was next up on the agenda.
> *
> Atmos in the home theater.*
> 
> We were split into groups of six and taken into a small, 6 seater ‘home theatre’ on the first floor of the Dolby facility. Immediately on entering the room, I noticed that it was treated, including treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling, and that the 7.2.4 Atmos system which they were running consisted of two decently sized subs and 7 fairly modest looking bookshelf satellite speakers. In the ceiling I could see 4 modest in-ceiling speakers. I’d say the room was about 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot ceiling, so the sort of space that many people could easily replicate at home. I would say that the system components in this room were of the sort that most people could afford - there was nothing that seemed in any way ‘over the top’, so Dolby had gone to lengths to make this room typical of what we could recreate for ourselves at home.
> 
> The first demo up were the specially created Dolby ‘sound logos’ we had heard in the main room so that we could compare the two experiences. As before, they were excellent but expected. What impressed was, again, the three dimensionality of the sound. This demo, it was explained, was using the physical in-ceiling speakers, but all of the subsequent demos would use the Atmos-enabled speakers. This is where it started to get interesting.
> 
> When the operator played the Dolby demo clip again, using this time the Atmos speakers, I noticed a small, but definite, diminution of the precision with which the sounds were placed, especially overhead. But it was surprisingly small. One of the audience members I spoke to afterwards said he couldn’t hear any difference at all. I stress that the difference was unexpectedly small.
> *
> Watch out - Gollum is above you… behind you… in front of you… to the side of you…*
> 
> But again, what I wanted to hear was not specially created Dolby clips but some real movie content and I was not disappointed. Let me try to describe what I heard when they played a clip from The Hobbit. It is the clip, for those of you who have seen the movie (twice for me at home and once in a SOTA cinema) where Gollum encounters Bilbo in a huge cave. Gollum is playing a malevolent game with Bilbo where he darts from shadow to shadow, rock to rock, taunting Bilbo as he moves around. I am very familiar with this clip and I have used it myself to demonstrate how a good system can ‘lose the walls of the room’ making the space of the HT sound much bigger than it really is.
> 
> But nothing, nothing I have heard before prepared me for this Atmos mix. And remember, I was hearing this now only on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The sound of Gollum’s voice came from above, from the left, from the centre, from the above left, from the left-centre, from everywhere that Gollum jumped to in the scene. The precision of the placement of his voice to reflect his physical location on the screen was excellent. I found myself moving my head towards his voice. In some parts of the scene we can’t see Gollum as he is obscured by shadows. But each time he spoke, before we could see him, we knew exactly where he was. Exactly. And when he came out of the shadows to reveal himself, he was exactly where we knew he would be.
> 
> Amazing though this was, and amazed as I was at the way the Atmos-enabled speakers ‘just worked’, this was not actually the most impressive part of this scene.
> 
> *Much, much more than ‘height effects’.*
> 
> No, the most impressive part was the sheer scale of the space we were now ’sitting in’. The walls and ceiling of the room had gone. They had just _vanished_. In their place instead were the confines of a massive cave, hundreds of feet wide and high. There is a lot of ambient sound and echoes in this scene and Atmos’s ability to add a height dimension was just breathtaking. I don’t want to ‘gush’ over this, but there is no other way to describe what I was hearing. I had been transported to a huge, echoing cave with an evil little creature taunting me as he hid and revealed himself over and over in this huge space. I closed my eyes. Yes, I was sitting in a massive cave, not a small demo room in central London. If Dolby had blown a cold blast of aircon into then room, the illusion would have been total. And I repeat, this was from the Atmos speakers not the physical in-ceiling speakers. Remember I said that I heard a little more precision in the sound with the physical speakers playing? I can only imagine how much better this clip would sound when using the physical speakers because, sadly, we had run out of time and had to make way for the next six attendees.
> 
> My overall impressions? OK - first off, Atmos is much, much more than ‘height effects’. This is one of the great misconceptions about Atmos in my opinion - that is only for ‘height effects’. Forget all about it only being of value when helicopters fly over or rain is coming down. Sure, these things are vastly better when heard via Atmos, but in my view, that is not what Atmos is about. What Atmos truly does is use those ceiling speakers, or the Atmos ‘modules’ in an Atmos speaker, to enable the sound to be precisely located in three dimensional space. The ‘top’ speakers have just as much of an important role in helping place a sound ‘just slightly above your head and to the right’ as they do in flyovers and so on. There is no doubt of the role of top speakers in creating that huge cave space in The Hobbit clip of course - without the ability to put sound ‘over our head’ that scene can never be as impressive as it was in Atmos. But ‘height effects’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> *
> A genuine revelation - Atmos-enabled speakers.*
> 
> If you haven’t actually heard Atmos-enabled speakers for yourself, you cannot begin to understand how effective they are. They are not just ‘a bit’ effective. They are not a ‘real compromise’. They are just stunning in a way that can’t really be believed until you have heard them. For anyone who cannot or does not want to install physical speakers on or in the ceiling, Atmos-enabled speakers are not some sort of ‘poor man’s alternative’. Having heard both, ‘side by side’ I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that if you go with Atmos speakers for your Atmos system, you will not, in any way, be disappointed.
> 
> Dolby seem to have achieved the impossible here - they have found a way to deliver the Atmos experience in a small home theatre, or in a living room, without the _apparent _addition of a single extra speaker. To look at the Atmos system I saw and heard this week, it looks no different to any other 7.1 system already out there. If you are comfortable with a 5.1 or 7.1 system in your home, then you can enjoy Atmos without any visible change to the room at all. Note the use of the word ‘visible’. The audible change is of a magnitude I have not heard before.
> 
> *Acknowledgements.*
> 
> I would like to thank Dolby, Onkyo (the co-hosts of the demo) and my good friend Allan of Ideal AV in Yorkshire, England for making this day possible. For anyone living within travelling distance of Allan’s great demo room, he will soon be having a full Atmos demo facility up and running. I urge everyone who can to go and hear this and especially anyone who feels that he cannot ‘accommodate’ an Atmos system. You can! And from what I heard this week, you will most definitely want to.


Thank you for sharing your impressions. 

Since Onkyo was the co-host, I presume they would have used some Onkyo products in the HT. You mentioned unbranded speakers, did any of them look like the pics below I grabbed from the Onkyo website? Or could they have been the AJ Atmos speakers with the Pioneer insignia removed (seriously)? 

What AVR or pre-pro/amps were they using?

Someday, consumers will purchase a BD with Atmos content and play it back on a BD player. For the demo, what was the container for the content and what equipment did they use for playback ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> Thank you for sharing your impressions.
> 
> Since Onkyo was the co-host, I presume they would have used some Onkyo products in the HT. You mentioned unbranded speakers, did any of them look like the pics below I grabbed from the Onkyo website? Or could they have been the AJ Atomos speakers with the Pioneer insignia removed (seriously)?
> 
> What AVR or pre-pro/amps were they using?
> 
> Someday, consumers will purchase a BD with Atmos content and play it back on a BD player. For the demo, what was the container for the content and what equipment did they use for playback ?


More than likely it was behind a veiled curtain like in The Wizard of Oz.  If they did that, they're probably not using retail products. The Tokyo press were treated to a similar demo and the actual units being used were seemingly not revealed.


----------



## kokishin

This is the _*The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)*_. 

Could those that wish to discuss the merits of LD, 3D, Howard Stringer, etc. discuss it in the appropriate forum/thread?


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> On June 15th I was invited to a demonstration of Atmos For The Home at Dolby Labs in London. This was a wonderful opportunity for me to be one of the very first AV enthusiasts to hear at first hand just how well — or not of course — the theatrical Atmos experience translates to the confines of the typical home cinema. What follows is a report of my experience that day and the impressions gained from it.
> 
> The demonstration was split into two parts. The first was held in Dolby’s amazing screening room. We were told that this room represents _“probably the finest Atmos experience in Europe”_ and I can easily believe that, having heard what we did.
> 
> The room seated, at a guess, for I failed to count, about 130 seats and the rows of speakers on the side walls, down to the screen, on the rear walls and in two rows above our heads were pointed out to us. All in all I counted 32 speakers, more or less, including two huge subwoofers mounted in the rear corners.
> 
> *Opening demo in Dolby’s main screening room.*
> 
> After an explanation of the broad principles of object-based audio, we were treated to a couple of Dolby’s own short demo clips. While these did indeed display the amazing sense of 3D immersion in a sound field, my feeling was that this was to be ‘expected’. After all, Dolby themselves are not going to create special demo material that fails to deliver a good Atmos experience, especially in their own screening room. Sounds zipped around us, over us, even passing ‘through’ us. The precision and definition was startling, the bass was the best I have heard, anywhere, ever.
> 
> But what the small group of audience members was craving were some actual movie clips. And here, Dolby did not fall short. As we may have expected, the most awesome was the Academy Award Winning sound of Gravity. The clip chosen was close to the beginning of the movie, where Clooney and Bullock are space-walking, apparently repairing a failed component. Those who have seen this movie (including me, who has seen it four times) will remember the way the voices of the two actors pan around the room as the camera angle angle changes, all the while accompanied by the ceaseless chatter of radio comms, both from the characters in space and those on the ground at Mission Control. Even in 5.1 this is impressively done, but nothing can prepare you for the way that it is handled via Atmos. And then, the story starts. _“Mission abort! Mission abort!”_ shouts Ed Harris from ground control, and all hell breaks loose, culminating in Bullock’s character cutting loose and being catapulted into space. So effective was the sound track at putting me “right there” that I felt my pulse rate quicken and my elevated heart rate left me a little short of breath. I was “there”, out in space, with them. It was an amazing experience and I have never felt anywhere near as immersed in a movie as I did during that sequence.
> 
> But in some ways, this was as expected as it was amazing. We were sitting in “probably the finest Atmos facility in Europe”. What we all wanted to know now was “how does this translate to the home?”, and this was next up on the agenda.
> *
> Atmos in the home theater.*
> 
> We were split into groups of six and taken into a small, 6 seater ‘home theatre’ on the first floor of the Dolby facility. Immediately on entering the room, I noticed that it was treated, including treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling, and that the 7.2.4 Atmos system which they were running consisted of two decently sized subs and 7 fairly modest looking bookshelf satellite speakers. In the ceiling I could see 4 modest in-ceiling speakers. I’d say the room was about 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot ceiling, so the sort of space that many people could easily replicate at home. I would say that the system components in this room were of the sort that most people could afford - there was nothing that seemed in any way ‘over the top’, so Dolby had gone to lengths to make this room typical of what we could recreate for ourselves at home.
> 
> The first demo up were the specially created Dolby ‘sound logos’ we had heard in the main room so that we could compare the two experiences. As before, they were excellent but expected. What impressed was, again, the three dimensionality of the sound. This demo, it was explained, was using the physical in-ceiling speakers, but all of the subsequent demos would use the Atmos-enabled speakers. This is where it started to get interesting.
> 
> When the operator played the Dolby demo clip again, using this time the Atmos speakers, I noticed a small, but definite, diminution of the precision with which the sounds were placed, especially overhead. But it was surprisingly small. One of the audience members I spoke to afterwards said he couldn’t hear any difference at all. I stress that the difference was unexpectedly small.
> *
> Watch out - Gollum is above you… behind you… in front of you… to the side of you…*
> 
> But again, what I wanted to hear was not specially created Dolby clips but some real movie content and I was not disappointed. Let me try to describe what I heard when they played a clip from The Hobbit. It is the clip, for those of you who have seen the movie (twice for me at home and once in a SOTA cinema) where Gollum encounters Bilbo in a huge cave. Gollum is playing a malevolent game with Bilbo where he darts from shadow to shadow, rock to rock, taunting Bilbo as he moves around. I am very familiar with this clip and I have used it myself to demonstrate how a good system can ‘lose the walls of the room’ making the space of the HT sound much bigger than it really is.
> 
> But nothing, nothing I have heard before prepared me for this Atmos mix. And remember, I was hearing this now only on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The sound of Gollum’s voice came from above, from the left, from the centre, from the above left, from the left-centre, from everywhere that Gollum jumped to in the scene. The precision of the placement of his voice to reflect his physical location on the screen was excellent. I found myself moving my head towards his voice. In some parts of the scene we can’t see Gollum as he is obscured by shadows. But each time he spoke, before we could see him, we knew exactly where he was. Exactly. And when he came out of the shadows to reveal himself, he was exactly where we knew he would be.
> 
> Amazing though this was, and amazed as I was at the way the Atmos-enabled speakers ‘just worked’, this was not actually the most impressive part of this scene.
> 
> *Much, much more than ‘height effects’.*
> 
> No, the most impressive part was the sheer scale of the space we were now ’sitting in’. The walls and ceiling of the room had gone. They had just _vanished_. In their place instead were the confines of a massive cave, hundreds of feet wide and high. There is a lot of ambient sound and echoes in this scene and Atmos’s ability to add a height dimension was just breathtaking. I don’t want to ‘gush’ over this, but there is no other way to describe what I was hearing. I had been transported to a huge, echoing cave with an evil little creature taunting me as he hid and revealed himself over and over in this huge space. I closed my eyes. Yes, I was sitting in a massive cave, not a small demo room in central London. If Dolby had blown a cold blast of aircon into then room, the illusion would have been total. And I repeat, this was from the Atmos speakers not the physical in-ceiling speakers. Remember I said that I heard a little more precision in the sound with the physical speakers playing? I can only imagine how much better this clip would sound when using the physical speakers because, sadly, we had run out of time and had to make way for the next six attendees.
> 
> My overall impressions? OK - first off, Atmos is much, much more than ‘height effects’. This is one of the great misconceptions about Atmos in my opinion - that is only for ‘height effects’. Forget all about it only being of value when helicopters fly over or rain is coming down. Sure, these things are vastly better when heard via Atmos, but in my view, that is not what Atmos is about. What Atmos truly does is use those ceiling speakers, or the Atmos ‘modules’ in an Atmos speaker, to enable the sound to be precisely located in three dimensional space. The ‘top’ speakers have just as much of an important role in helping place a sound ‘just slightly above your head and to the right’ as they do in flyovers and so on. There is no doubt of the role of top speakers in creating that huge cave space in The Hobbit clip of course - without the ability to put sound ‘over our head’ that scene can never be as impressive as it was in Atmos. But ‘height effects’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> *
> A genuine revelation - Atmos-enabled speakers.*
> 
> If you haven’t actually heard Atmos-enabled speakers for yourself, you cannot begin to understand how effective they are. They are not just ‘a bit’ effective. They are not a ‘real compromise’. They are just stunning in a way that can’t really be believed until you have heard them. For anyone who cannot or does not want to install physical speakers on or in the ceiling, Atmos-enabled speakers are not some sort of ‘poor man’s alternative’. Having heard both, ‘side by side’ I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that if you go with Atmos speakers for your Atmos system, you will not, in any way, be disappointed.
> 
> Dolby seem to have achieved the impossible here - they have found a way to deliver the Atmos experience in a small home theatre, or in a living room, without the _apparent _addition of a single extra speaker. To look at the Atmos system I saw and heard this week, it looks no different to any other 7.1 system already out there. If you are comfortable with a 5.1 or 7.1 system in your home, then you can enjoy Atmos without any visible change to the room at all. Note the use of the word ‘visible’. The audible change is of a magnitude I have not heard before.
> 
> *Acknowledgements.*
> 
> I would like to thank Dolby, Onkyo (the co-hosts of the demo) and my good friend Allan of Ideal AV in Yorkshire, England for making this day possible. For anyone living within travelling distance of Allan’s great demo room, he will soon be having a full Atmos demo facility up and running. I urge everyone who can to go and hear this and especially anyone who feels that he cannot ‘accommodate’ an Atmos system. You can! And from what I heard this week, you will most definitely want to.


After reading that, I would say you just gave Atmos (and Dolby Labs) a huge endorsement!  Few things in life leave that much of an impression - especially in the world of audio/video we all love so much, but your enthusiasm about Atmos is undeniable. Your comments certainly left me wanting to hear a demo and plan my space for a future upgrade.  I'm sure the naysayers and purists will complain about something, but when it comes to movies, don't we all want as much realism as possible? There are no rules, so I'd say Dolby with Atmos has achieved the 'next' big thing in reproduction on a scale that obviously has to be heard to be truly appreciated.

Great review! Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

If someone else quote Keith's post again in full I will torture him!


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> This is the _*The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)*_.
> 
> Could those that wish to discuss the merits of LD, 3D, Howard Stringer, etc. discuss it in the appropriate forum/thread?


Right on right on right on!


----------



## bkeeler10

Wow, I gotta say that's a huge ringing endorsement from a guy who is probably quite jaded and hard to impress when it comes to home theater. I am hoping a proper demo in a quiet room can be had somewhere at CEDIA this year as I am looking forward very much to hearing this.

Edit: Keith, can you elaborate more on the room treatments involved? What kind of treatments were running down the middle of the ceiling?

I'm thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that the more sound sources (speakers) you have in a theater, the more acoustically dead the theater wants to be. Ambience can be created by the mix and realized by the speakers, and the room should be contributing very little to it.


----------



## Nightlord

Guess I'll have to change my designation from 19.6 to 15.6.4 or 13.6.6 - depending on what the 11.2 front high will be counted as. (4 overheads planned)


----------



## asarose247

Kbarnes, thanks for the time well spent wrt a communicative write-up for some (many?) of us "seekers".
It's exciting!
I was cleaning up some old unistrut to put up a (almost) 10' x 10' positioning grip on the ceiling giving me a max of about 58" front and rear and to the sides of the MLP, adjustable wrt to good angles/ and "crossfire" at the MLP bubble. and of course, if needed a 3rd bar available for Top centers. Current target angle is based on a 7foot square centered around the MLP.
I want to hear the demo . . .


thank you


----------



## batpig

JonStatt said:


> The Onkyo 838 (and 636) models only have 7 channels of amplification. They have binding posts separate for the height/ceiling connections however. But what this means is either you run 7.1, or 5.1.2. Typically the optimal speaker placement for 5.1 is with the rear speakers just behind the sides of the listening seats. But for 7.1, they are nearer to the actual sides of the seating with the additional speakers directly behind. This means no set-up with these models will be optimal I believe. Onkyo should have put 9 channels into the 838 I feel. In the UK the Onkyo retails for 1000, and its next nearest model in price is the Denon X4100 which DOES have 9 channels of amplication and is cheaper than the Onkyo 1030 at nearly 2000 pounds.


FYI - the X4100 has SEVEN channels of amplification but can expand to 9 channels simultaneously with the addition of at least 2 channels of external amplification. Plus it has the super advanced XT32 room calibration whereas the Onkyo has... um.... 

I'm not sure you can criticize the Onkyo model for not including 9 amps, it is what it is, you pay more for more features. Onkyo decided to forego certain things (good room EQ and in this case the extra amps) to shoehorn Atmos into lower price points. One of the compromises was maxing out at 7ch (so 5.1.2 for Atmos) which is still plenty for a lot of typical home theaters (most people are probably still running 5.1 setups). Your argument about surround placement for 5.1 vs. 7.1 seems to be irrelevant to Atmos, I'm not sure I follow the criticism.


----------



## Rod#S

redjr said:


> ...but when it comes to movies, don't we all want as much realism as possible? ...


Depends on what you mean by realism. If by realism you simly mean that sound is coming at you from all the appropriate angles then fair enough, that sure seems awesome. However if it's the absolute best audio quality from all sources you mean you certainly aren't going to get that from speakers costing less than a $1000 a pair with say sub $1000 or $2000 receivers. I'm sure you don't think that all speakers that cost tens of thousands or hunderds of thousnds aren't just for show and sound no better than those costing sub $1000 even after factoring in diminishing returns. For that I say we need separate in ceiling speakers in order to preserve the best audio fidelity of the main plain by continuing to use great speakers if and when we can afford/justify them or at least until we see high end speakers offer top firing drivers which is highly unlikely. If a top firing driver was something that contributed to getting us closer to perfect music reproduction it wouldn't have taken Dolby Atmos to make people aware of it it would have been incorporated decades ago, just saying 

Keep in mind this harshness I present towards the hardware going to be offered for the initial wave of Atmos has nothing to do with how cool of an experience Atmos is going to be.


----------



## kbarnes701

JediFonger said:


> looks like you guys will have to re-buy all those titles with ATMOS now ;P


You know, that was my thought too after the demo. But you know what - it will be worth it. For some of them at least.


----------



## GoCaboNow

kbarnes701 said:


> On June 15th I was invited to a demonstration of Atmos For The Home at Dolby Labs in London...


Thanks for this. I really do not want to replace my AVR but really like the thought of Atmos at home...


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> On June 15th I was invited to a demonstration of Atmos For The Home at Dolby Labs in London. ...
> 
> I urge everyone who can to go and hear this and especially anyone who feels that he cannot ‘accommodate’ an Atmos system. You can! And from what I heard this week, you will most definitely want to.


Superbe, merci...

... then as I should be attending to something of the same kind tomorrow in Paris, the waiting now becomes even more difficult... 

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> Keith, thanks indeed for sharing your impressions.
> 
> 
> Given that Onkyo has given up MultEQ to enable Atmos, what was your take on the spectral balance and timbre matching of the speakers in the room? Are these acoustic/electronic qualities still valuable ... or are we headed down a questionable path on that subject? Maybe some detail of the treatments in the room will affect that impression, too.


The satellite speakers were all identical so timbre matching wasn't an issue. Actually, that's not quite true - the centre speaker was a standard unit from another manufacturer. I didn’t notice any timbre matching issues during pans. Not to say there weren't any, but they didn’t spring to my mind. 

The room was nicely treated. Both side walls, centre of ceiling front to back, bass traps in soffits.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> Keith,
> Excellent write up! ...Reading it is transforming, invigorating, catapulting.
> 
> Wow! I'm all in. I am going to change my habits and get on with the new program; cinema is 50% sound of the total movie experience.
> {Imagine...what it can do for ultra high-end music listening experience; in multichannel surround sound!}
> 
> 1. How come you waited a month to rely your Atmos experience?
> 2. What are you going to do in a very near future, to your own home theater room?
> 3. Are you as happy as I am?
> 
> Bests,
> R §


Ooops - I was so excited I entered a time warp. 15th July of course - yesterday.

I am adding ceiling mounted speakers shortly ahead of buying the first Atrmos-enabled Denon I can get my hands on. I'd be just as happy with Atmos speakers now, but in my room it is actually easier for me to use physical speakers than the Atmos add-on modules that are coming.

I am very, very happy


----------



## kbarnes701

Ethan Ong said:


> Dear All,
> 
> I wonder for a 5.2.4 set-up, can I use 1 pair of Atmos add-on speaker modules + 1 pair of in-ceiling height speakers?
> 
> Thanks.


I see no reason why not, but I am no expert on it.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Thank you for sharing your impressions.
> 
> Since Onkyo was the co-host, I presume they would have used some Onkyo products in the HT. You mentioned unbranded speakers, did any of them look like the pics below I grabbed from the Onkyo website? Or could they have been the AJ Atmos speakers with the Pioneer insignia removed (seriously)?


Don't think so. They were smallish bookshelf speakers with no branding. We asked what the make was and they said "prototypes". IOW, they didn't want to say.



kokishin said:


> What AVR or pre-pro/amps were they using?


Also don't know. There was no hardware on show. Nobody thought to ask what they were using. Might have even been their own.



kokishin said:


> Someday, consumers will purchase a BD with Atmos content and play it back on a BD player. For the demo, what was the container for the content and what equipment did they use for playback ?


The clips were all played back via a laptop. They said this was to facilitate the switching of the speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> Superbe, merci...
> 
> ... then as I should be attending to something of the same kind tomorrow in Paris, the waiting now becomes even more difficult...
> 
> Hugo


I’d love to hear your take in it. Bonne chance!


----------



## sdurani

JediFonger said:


> looks like you guys will have to re-buy all those titles with ATMOS now ;P


Not all. I re-bought some laserdisc titles when DVD came out, re-bought some of those titles on Blu-ray. Par for the course in this hobby.


----------



## JediFonger

i've stopped purchasing new action-movies like into darkness or anything newer. classic films i probably wont see any benefits to atmos.

it would be strange for me to watch casablanca and hear the nuance of the plane flying over my head in various scenes lolz... 



kbarnes701 said:


> You know, that was my thought too after the demo. But you know what - it will be worth it. For some of them at least.


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> After reading that, I would say you just gave Atmos (and Dolby Labs) a huge endorsement!  Few things in life leave that much of an impression - especially in the world of audio/video we all love so much, but your enthusiasm about Atmos is undeniable. Your comments certainly left me wanting to hear a demo and plan my space for a future upgrade.  I'm sure the naysayers and purists will complain about something, but when it comes to movies, don't we all want as much realism as possible? There are no rules, so I'd say Dolby with Atmos has achieved the 'next' big thing in reproduction on a scale that obviously has to be heard to be truly appreciated.
> 
> Great review! Thanks.


You’re welcome. I have heard many, many AV demos over many years. I can’t recall any that left this impression and left me so pumped up to go spend my money! I would urge you to get a good demo as soon as you can!


----------



## KidHorn

Keith,
Glad you were impressed. It's nice to have useful new options.




> they have found a way to deliver the Atmos experience in a small home theatre, or in a living room, without the _apparent _addition of a single extra speaker


 
I have to question this. It seems like you have two options. One it to install 4 ceiling speakers. The other is to replace your fronts and rears with new atmos speakers and run another set of wires to the fronts and rears.


Either option is a huge change to the setup in my opinion and both essentially add 4 new speakers since each atmos speaker is really 2 speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Wow, I gotta say that's a huge ringing endorsement from a guy who is probably quite jaded and hard to impress when it comes to home theater. I am hoping a proper demo in a quiet room can be had somewhere at CEDIA this year as I am looking forward very much to hearing this.
> 
> Edit: Keith, can you elaborate more on the room treatments involved? What kind of treatments were running down the middle of the ceiling?
> 
> I'm thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that the more sound sources (speakers) you have in a theater, the more acoustically dead the theater wants to be. Ambience can be created by the mix and realized by the speakers, and the room should be contributing very little to it.



They had most of both side walls treated with some sort of absorbers. They had soffit-mounted bass traps. The ceiling in the centre of the speaker, front to back occupied a width of about 5 feet (in a maybe 12 foot room) and ran almost the full length of the room. I couldn't be sure what it was - I tried poking it with my finger but I drew a funny look from an Onkyo guy so I gave up on that. It was an absorber of some sort. No way to tell how thick. There was certainly no requirement for room-generated ambiance, as that Gollum cave sequence showed so convincingly. The room became a hundred feet high and a hundred feet wide. The room felt about as 'dead' as my own room, although my treatments are much more 'obvious' than theirs were.


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> The other is to replace your fronts and rears with new atmos speakers and run another set of wires to the fronts and rears.


But it doesn't appear to add any more speakers to your system. If you currently have 5 speakers, your new Atmos set-up will still have the footprint of those 5 speakers. The additional 4 speakers aren't apparent.


----------



## Cam Man

Rod#S said:


> Depends on what you mean by realism. If by realism you simly mean that sound is coming at you from all the appropriate angles then fair enough, that sure seems awesome. However if it's the absolute best audio quality from all sources you mean you certainly aren't going to get that from speakers costing less than a $1000 a pair with say sub $1000 or $2000 receivers. I'm sure you don't think that all speakers that cost tens of thousands or hunderds of thousnds aren't just for show and sound no better than those costing sub $1000 even after factoring in diminishing returns. For that I say we need separate in ceiling speakers in order to preserve the best audio fidelity of the main plain by continuing to use great speakers if and when we can afford/justify them or at least until we see high end speakers offer top firing drivers which is highly unlikely. If a top firing driver was something that contributed to getting us closer to perfect music reproduction it wouldn't have taken Dolby Atmos to make people aware of it it would have been incorporated decades ago, just saying
> 
> Keep in mind this harshness I present towards the hardware going to be offered for the initial wave of Atmos has nothing to do with how cool of an experience Atmos is going to be.


I certainly appreciate this angle on the discussion. Solid hi-fi and acoustic principles should remain a priority as we progress.

I would think that size and volumes of rooms are going to greatly affect hardware and the final experience. I would also predict that larger rooms will particularly benefit Atmos.


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> Keith,
> Glad you were impressed. It's nice to have useful new options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question this. It seems like you have two options. One it to install 4 ceiling speakers. The other is to replace your fronts and rears with new atmos speakers and run another set of wires to the fronts and rears.
> 
> 
> Either option is a huge change to the setup in my opinion and both essentially add 4 new speakers since each atmos speaker is really 2 speakers.


You can also add a separate box on top of your existing fronts (for 2 top surrounds - add two more boxes in the back for 4 top surrounds). Dolby's reference design uses a single fullrange driver. There are several cheap drivers available for DIY.

That way you can get the angle to the ceiling perfectly right for your specific listening distance and ceiling height. That's something no "Atmos speaker" I've seen so far can do.


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d love to hear your take in it. Bonne chance!


Merci Keith. 

And I have a question for you : with the sound coming from "above" in this Dolby Atmos context, when calibrating with Audyssey MultEQ XTxx singularly Pro, it has always been said that the mic shouldn't be pointed towards the speaker, but rather vertically towards the ceiling...

... so when there are speakers in/on the ceiling what would be the best option, when calibrating with Audyssey (Pro) ?

In my case with the standard DSX type of 11 speakers configuration that we use at home, the mic has always been pointed to the ceiling the recommended way, and for both Height channels I'm manually creating in Pro a slight -3dB slope starting at 2kHz -> 16kHz. 

But these Height speakers are positioned at a 45° elevation, when in Dolby Atmos the Top/ceiling speakers are optimally @ 55° and more...

So any idea? Merci.

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> Keith,
> Glad you were impressed. It's nice to have useful new options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question this. It seems like you have two options. One it to install 4 ceiling speakers. The other is to replace your fronts and rears with new atmos speakers and run another set of wires to the fronts and rears.
> 
> 
> Either option is a huge change to the setup in my opinion and both essentially add 4 new speakers since each atmos speaker is really 2 speakers.


Yes indeed - but there will be no *apparent* additional new speakers in the room. I mean if you already have 5.1 then you have 5 speakers in the room now. Changing them for Atmos speakers still leaves you with 5 speakers in the room, as before. It will look just the same. Or you could use the add-on modules if the tops of your current speakers are flat. I bet most speaker manufacturers bring out add-ons.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Merci Keith.
> 
> And I have a question for you : with the sound coming from "above" in this Dolby Atmos context, when calibrating with Audyssey MultEQ XTxx singularly Pro, it has always been said that the mic shouldn't be pointed towards the speaker, but rather vertically towards the ceiling...
> 
> ... so when there are speakers in/on the ceiling what would be the best option, when calibrating with Audyssey (Pro) ?
> 
> In my case with the standard DSX type of 11 speakers configuration that we use at home, the mic has always been pointed to the ceiling the recommended way, and for both Height channels I'm manually creating in Pro a slight -3dB slope starting at 2kHz -> 16kHz.
> 
> But these Height speakers are positioned at a 45° elevation, when in Dolby Atmos the Top/ceiling speakers are optimally @ 55° and more...
> 
> So any idea? Merci.
> 
> Hugo


Good question Hugo and the answer is "I have no idea". I am assuming for now that the mic will continue to be pointed up. Maybe Audyssey will issue some guidelines later for us. It is next to impossible to change the mic orientation during a calibration, so the ceiling speakers will be firing right down into the mic, more or less. How important this is, I don't know at this stage. Maybe a good question to ask Chris K?


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> Good question Hugo and the answer is "I have no idea". ... Maybe a good question to ask Chris K?


A question for the Master, will do.

Concerning my Dolby Atmos feed-back, I'll post it on HCFR, hopefully somewhere next week, as our eldest Daughter is getting married this WE... so I'll be _slightly_ "out of order" for a couple of days... 

Hugo


----------



## NorthSky

Cam Man said:


> I certainly appreciate this angle on the discussion.
> Solid hi-fi and acoustic principles should remain a priority as we progress.
> 
> I would think that size and volumes of rooms are going to greatly affect hardware and the final experience. *I would also predict that larger rooms will particularly benefit Atmos.*


I certainly agree with you that solid hi-fi still remains the basic foundation (Sound recordings, and Sound propagation in our own room). ...Quality in, quality out.

As for room's size I disagree with your line of thinking. Me I think that Dolby Atmos will benefit EVERYONE.
...People with nice and larger theater rooms, and also people with smaller and regular room's size; just like Keith mentioned it in its superb post. 

And the beauty is that we have several choices according to our room's size and audacity in experimenting with either new speakers on our ceiling or new Atmos speakers in the four or six corners of our rooms (eg.; 16' x 14' x 8'). ...Average size (mine is 19' x 16' x 11'). 

And as discussed extensively in this thread (and others):
a 5.1.2 - 5.1.4 - 5.2.2 - 5.2.4 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 - 7.2.2 - 7.2.4 - 7.4.2 - 7.4.4 - 9.1.2 - 9.1.4 - 9.2.2 - 9.2.4 - 9.4.2 - 9.4.4 - 11.1.2 - 11.1.4 - 11.2.2 - 11.2.4 - 11.4.2 - 11.4.4 - 13.*.* and so on ......-channel home theater sound system, up to 24 (or 32?) speakers, plus 10 more overhead, and an infinity of subwoofers. 

This Dolby Atmos proposition is for EVERYONE, no matter the room size.  

That's the way I understand it myself; if I'm wrong please someone correct me.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> On July 15th I was invited to a demonstration of Atmos For The Home at Dolby Labs in London. This was a wonderful opportunity for me to be one of the very first AV enthusiasts to hear at first hand just how well — or not of course — the theatrical Atmos experience translates to the confines of the typical home cinema. What follows is a report of my experience that day and the impressions gained from it.
> 
> The demonstration was split into two parts. The first was held in Dolby’s amazing screening room. We were told that this room represents _“probably the finest Atmos experience in Europe”_ and I can easily believe that, having heard what we did.
> 
> The room seated, at a guess, for I failed to count, about 130 seats and the rows of speakers on the side walls, down to the screen, on the rear walls and in two rows above our heads were pointed out to us. All in all I counted 32 speakers, more or less, including two huge subwoofers mounted in the rear corners.
> 
> *Opening demo in Dolby’s main screening room.*
> 
> After an explanation of the broad principles of object-based audio, we were treated to a couple of Dolby’s own short demo clips. While these did indeed display the amazing sense of 3D immersion in a sound field, my feeling was that this was to be ‘expected’. After all, Dolby themselves are not going to create special demo material that fails to deliver a good Atmos experience, especially in their own screening room. Sounds zipped around us, over us, even passing ‘through’ us. The precision and definition was startling, the bass was the best I have heard, anywhere, ever.
> 
> But what the small group of audience members was craving were some actual movie clips. And here, Dolby did not fall short. As we may have expected, the most awesome was the Academy Award Winning sound of Gravity. The clip chosen was close to the beginning of the movie, where Clooney and Bullock are space-walking, apparently repairing a failed component. Those who have seen this movie (including me, who has seen it four times) will remember the way the voices of the two actors pan around the room as the camera angle angle changes, all the while accompanied by the ceaseless chatter of radio comms, both from the characters in space and those on the ground at Mission Control. Even in 5.1 this is impressively done, but nothing can prepare you for the way that it is handled via Atmos. And then, the story starts. _“Mission abort! Mission abort!”_ shouts Ed Harris from ground control, and all hell breaks loose, culminating in Bullock’s character cutting loose and being catapulted into space. So effective was the sound track at putting me “right there” that I felt my pulse rate quicken and my elevated heart rate left me a little short of breath. I was “there”, out in space, with them. It was an amazing experience and I have never felt anywhere near as immersed in a movie as I did during that sequence.
> 
> But in some ways, this was as expected as it was amazing. We were sitting in “probably the finest Atmos facility in Europe”. What we all wanted to know now was “how does this translate to the home?”, and this was next up on the agenda.
> *
> Atmos in the home theater.*
> 
> We were split into groups of six and taken into a small, 6 seater ‘home theatre’ on the first floor of the Dolby facility. Immediately on entering the room, I noticed that it was treated, including treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling, and that the 7.2.4 Atmos system which they were running consisted of two decently sized subs and 7 fairly modest looking bookshelf satellite speakers. In the ceiling I could see 4 modest in-ceiling speakers. I’d say the room was about 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot ceiling, so the sort of space that many people could easily replicate at home. I would say that the system components in this room were of the sort that most people could afford - there was nothing that seemed in any way ‘over the top’, so Dolby had gone to lengths to make this room typical of what we could recreate for ourselves at home.
> 
> The first demo up were the specially created Dolby ‘sound logos’ we had heard in the main room so that we could compare the two experiences. As before, they were excellent but expected. What impressed was, again, the three dimensionality of the sound. This demo, it was explained, was using the physical in-ceiling speakers, but all of the subsequent demos would use the Atmos-enabled speakers. This is where it started to get interesting.
> 
> When the operator played the Dolby demo clip again, using this time the Atmos speakers, I noticed a small, but definite, diminution of the precision with which the sounds were placed, especially overhead. But it was surprisingly small. One of the audience members I spoke to afterwards said he couldn’t hear any difference at all. I stress that the difference was unexpectedly small.
> *
> Watch out - Gollum is above you… behind you… in front of you… to the side of you…*
> 
> But again, what I wanted to hear was not specially created Dolby clips but some real movie content and I was not disappointed. Let me try to describe what I heard when they played a clip from The Hobbit. It is the clip, for those of you who have seen the movie (twice for me at home and once in a SOTA cinema) where Gollum encounters Bilbo in a huge cave. Gollum is playing a malevolent game with Bilbo where he darts from shadow to shadow, rock to rock, taunting Bilbo as he moves around. I am very familiar with this clip and I have used it myself to demonstrate how a good system can ‘lose the walls of the room’ making the space of the HT sound much bigger than it really is.
> 
> But nothing, nothing I have heard before prepared me for this Atmos mix. And remember, I was hearing this now only on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The sound of Gollum’s voice came from above, from the left, from the centre, from the above left, from the left-centre, from everywhere that Gollum jumped to in the scene. The precision of the placement of his voice to reflect his physical location on the screen was excellent. I found myself moving my head towards his voice. In some parts of the scene we can’t see Gollum as he is obscured by shadows. But each time he spoke, before we could see him, we knew exactly where he was. Exactly. And when he came out of the shadows to reveal himself, he was exactly where we knew he would be.
> 
> Amazing though this was, and amazed as I was at the way the Atmos-enabled speakers ‘just worked’, this was not actually the most impressive part of this scene.
> 
> *Much, much more than ‘height effects’.*
> 
> No, the most impressive part was the sheer scale of the space we were now ’sitting in’. The walls and ceiling of the room had gone. They had just _vanished_. In their place instead were the confines of a massive cave, hundreds of feet wide and high. There is a lot of ambient sound and echoes in this scene and Atmos’s ability to add a height dimension was just breathtaking. I don’t want to ‘gush’ over this, but there is no other way to describe what I was hearing. I had been transported to a huge, echoing cave with an evil little creature taunting me as he hid and revealed himself over and over in this huge space. I closed my eyes. Yes, I was sitting in a massive cave, not a small demo room in central London. If Dolby had blown a cold blast of aircon into then room, the illusion would have been total. And I repeat, this was from the Atmos speakers not the physical in-ceiling speakers. Remember I said that I heard a little more precision in the sound with the physical speakers playing? I can only imagine how much better this clip would sound when using the physical speakers because, sadly, we had run out of time and had to make way for the next six attendees.
> 
> My overall impressions? OK - first off, Atmos is much, much more than ‘height effects’. This is one of the great misconceptions about Atmos in my opinion - that is only for ‘height effects’. Forget all about it only being of value when helicopters fly over or rain is coming down. Sure, these things are vastly better when heard via Atmos, but in my view, that is not what Atmos is about. What Atmos truly does is use those ceiling speakers, or the Atmos ‘modules’ in an Atmos speaker, to enable the sound to be precisely located in three dimensional space. The ‘top’ speakers have just as much of an important role in helping place a sound ‘just slightly above your head and to the right’ as they do in flyovers and so on. There is no doubt of the role of top speakers in creating that huge cave space in The Hobbit clip of course - without the ability to put sound ‘over our head’ that scene can never be as impressive as it was in Atmos. But ‘height effects’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> *
> A genuine revelation - Atmos-enabled speakers.*
> 
> If you haven’t actually heard Atmos-enabled speakers for yourself, you cannot begin to understand how effective they are. They are not just ‘a bit’ effective. They are not a ‘real compromise’. They are just stunning in a way that can’t really be believed until you have heard them. For anyone who cannot or does not want to install physical speakers on or in the ceiling, Atmos-enabled speakers are not some sort of ‘poor man’s alternative’. Having heard both, ‘side by side’ I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that if you go with Atmos speakers for your Atmos system, you will not, in any way, be disappointed.
> 
> Dolby seem to have achieved the impossible here - they have found a way to deliver the Atmos experience in a small home theatre, or in a living room, without the _apparent _addition of a single extra speaker. To look at the Atmos system I saw and heard this week, it looks no different to any other 7.1 system already out there. If you are comfortable with a 5.1 or 7.1 system in your home, then you can enjoy Atmos without any visible change to the room at all. Note the use of the word ‘visible’. The audible change is of a magnitude I have not heard before.
> 
> *Acknowledgements.*
> 
> I would like to thank Dolby, Onkyo (the co-hosts of the demo) and my good friend Allan of Ideal AV in Yorkshire, England for making this day possible. For anyone living within travelling distance of Allan’s great demo room, he will soon be having a full Atmos demo facility up and running. I urge everyone who can to go and hear this and especially anyone who feels that he cannot ‘accommodate’ an Atmos system. You can! And from what I heard this week, you will most definitely want to.


So did you get to see the speakers or were they hidden like at the Dolby Labs in CA?


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> Merci Keith.
> 
> And I have a question for you : with the sound coming from "above" in this Dolby Atmos context, when calibrating with Audyssey MultEQ XTxx singularly Pro, it has always been said that the mic shouldn't be pointed towards the speaker, but rather vertically towards the ceiling...
> 
> ... so when there are speakers in/on the ceiling what would be the best option, when calibrating with Audyssey (Pro) ?
> 
> In my case with the standard DSX type of 11 speakers configuration that we use at home, the mic has always been pointed to the ceiling the recommended way, and for both Height channels I'm manually creating in Pro a slight -3dB slope starting at 2kHz -> 16kHz.
> 
> But these Height speakers are positioned at a 45° elevation, when in Dolby Atmos the Top/ceiling speakers are optimally @ 55° and more...
> 
> So any idea? Merci.
> 
> Hugo


That, is my largest dilemma, as me too I am using Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and I realize that with Dolby Atmos surround sound improvement in our room comes also an improvement (financial one) for manufacturers of AV receivers and multichannel pre/pros (SSP). ...It'll cost us to improve our lifestyle for the better; that's what they've been telling us @ school when we were young, fresh, and ready to go. 

Now, the question: Onkyo/Integra or Denon/Marantz or Pioneer Elite or Emotiva/Dirac or NAD or Arcam or Krell or Classe or Trinnov (separate) or all them other audio manufacturers of the whole world, which one? ...And when is the good time to take the plunge; this fall, this winter, next spring, next summer, when?

But that is our job to decide; nobody else can but for themselves. ...Me, I'll wait till next week. 
...After CEDIA.

P.S. I feel to torture someone right now.


----------



## ahmedreda

If I buy a 7.1.4 capable receiver like the x5200, will I be able to use the internal amplification for the .4 speakers? I currently have external amps for the 7 speakers so I would like to use the internal amplification for the top speakers if possible.

Second question , I have a Rotel 5x125 amplifier laying around, would it hurt anything to use 4 channels out of the 5?


----------



## Cam Man

NorthSky said:


> I certainly agree with you that solid hi-fi still remains the basic foundation (Sound recordings, and Sound propagation in our own room). ...Quality in, quality out.
> 
> As for room's size I disagree with your line of thinking. Me I think that Dolby Atmos will be benefit EVERYONE.


You infer too much from my post. Everyone will benefit, but not all home Atmos rooms will sound alike, just as current 5.1/7.1 systems do not. Larger rooms provide volume which is acoustic space that surround speaker arrays use to their benefit. Maybe the way to put it is larger rooms will have more flexibility in layout and rendering of effects over a larger listening area. I just happen to call that a benefit, but I don't regard smaller size/volume or even a single seat room at a disadvantage. Scaling is a good thing.


----------



## Bumper

Just (pre) ordered the avr-x5200w with an option to change it when the 7200 model hits the market. So Denon will replace my current Onkyo NR5009 because Onkyo dropped Audyssey!

Couple of questions and hopefully I can find some answers here:

- I will change my current 9.2 setup to 7.2.4 thus putting my front Heights on the ceiling while adding another pair (height 2) to get the 4 ceiling speakers. -> Would it be possible to drive Atmos over a DTS movie like PLIIz can be combined with DTS? Most of my movies are in DTS format and I would hate to fall back to NEO:X if it only handles 9.2 again with the Height 1 speakers in the wrong position.

- What is my Darbee Darblet going to do on this HDMI 2.0 output? I assume it would work but I read issues on backward compatibilities...

Can't wait to find out


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> A question for the Master, will do.
> 
> Concerning my Dolby Atmos feed-back, I'll post it on HCFR, hopefully somewhere next week, as our eldest Daughter is getting married this WE... so I'll be _slightly_ "out of order" for a couple of days...
> 
> Hugo


Congratulations to you and your family, Hugo. A major life event for sure. Both of my (twin) daughters are still single but I expect that one day soon we will be hearing some wedding bells.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> This Dolby Atmos proposition is for EVERYONE, no matter the room size.


The HT room at Dolby was about 15 feet x 12 feet x 8 feet. Sort of room most people could manage I think.


----------



## KidHorn

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes indeed - but there will be no *apparent* additional new speakers in the room. I mean if you already have 5.1 then you have 5 speakers in the room now. Changing them for Atmos speakers still leaves you with 5 speakers in the room, as before. It will look just the same. Or you could use the add-on modules if the tops of your current speakers are flat. I bet most speaker manufacturers bring out add-ons.


 
So your point is aesthetically it will look the same. Maybe if you're building from scratch but plopping an extra set of speakers on top of speakers that were never designed for this will look funny in most cases. I think almost all of my speakers are discontinued so I doubt any add on will be available. Maybe there will be generic suction cup coaxial speakers for this. Anyway for me, it's moot since I have a cathedral ceiling and I doubt reflections would work properly anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> So did you get to see the speakers or were they hidden like at the Dolby Labs in CA?


In the screening room we could see all the surrounds and ceiling speakers. They were all matching JBLs of some size. I’d guess about 30 inches x 12 inches or thereabouts. Substantial speakers anyway and, of course, all identical.

In the HT room, we could also see all the Atmos speakers - they were small-ish bookshelf designs, maybe 10-12 inches tall and about 8 inches wide. The top speakers weren't so easy to see but they appeared to be small two-way designs.


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmedreda said:


> If I buy a 7.1.4 capable receiver like the x5200, will I be able to use the internal amplification for the .4 speakers? I currently have external amps for the 7 speakers so I would like to use the internal amplification for the top speakers if possible.
> 
> Second question , I have a Rotel 5x125 amplifier laying around, would it hurt anything to use 4 channels out of the 5?


Yes and no.


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> So your point is aesthetically it will look the same. Maybe if you're building from scratch but plopping an extra set of speakers on top of speakers that were never designed for this will look funny in most cases. I think almost all of my speakers are discontinued so I doubt any add on will be available. Maybe there will be generic suction cup coaxial speakers for this. Anyway for me, it's moot since I have a cathedral ceiling and I doubt reflections would work properly anyway.


Yes - my point was that Atmos speakers will easily integrate into most rooms, especially if the AWF has already sanctioned 5.1 anyway 

I don't think Atmos speakers will work with your ceiling as they assume the ceiling will be flat. Physical speakers for you!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> In the screening room we could see all the surrounds and ceiling speakers.


The local Dolby facility (Burbank, CA) has exposed surrounds and heights as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The local Dolby facility (Burbank, CA) has exposed surrounds and heights as well.


They look like the same, or similar speakers they were using in London. The ceiling speakers in London were interspersed between acoustic panels - it looked a very neat arrangement.


----------



## NorthSky

Cam Man said:


> You infer too much from my post. Everyone will benefit, but not all home Atmos rooms will sound alike, just as current 5.1/7.1 systems do not. Larger rooms provide volume which is acoustic space that surround speaker arrays use to their benefit. Maybe the way to put it is larger rooms will have more flexibility in layout and rendering of effects over a larger listening area. I just happen to call that a benefit, but I don't regard smaller size/volume or even a single seat room at a disadvantage. Scaling is a good thing.


Obviously Camera Man, no two rooms sound alike. ...No inference from my part, rest assured. 
And sorry if it came out that way from me; then my fault. 

Bigger is no necessarily better than smaller. ...Rooms, Home Theater rooms. 
But I know, you did not mean that. ...Larger volume is simply that, but not not the end of all ends.
The universe is very large, and the space we occupy in it is very tiny. 

Scaling is a good thing. We're both on the same wavelength ... _reminds me of a Van Morrison's song_.

* If you could live in a home so large that your theater room would be the size of a full IMAX Theater,
how would you feel? ...Please consider all the very high expenditures, monthly payments, maintenance, clean up of your entire house, electric power bills, hot water (for showering all your guests and laundry and dishes), swimming pools, gardening, ...I don't think Bill Gates has even that, or the late Steve Jobs.
...Perhaps some Arab billionaire somewhere stationed in a high comfort zone? ...Even then it is still all relative, and scaling is a good thing indeed.


----------



## jtenn

Is Atmos something that can be added via a firmware update? From Yamaha's website "Yamaha will enable Dolby Atmos playback through a firmware update later this fall." Will other manufactures be able to do this or is specific hardware required in order for this to work. It would be nice if Sherwood would be able to add this to their R-972 to work with their Trinnov processing!!


----------



## NorthSky

The film industry (with Cinema Theaters) is a lucrative business right? ...And in larger cities around the world right?

But some of us we life in forests, in jungles, up in the mountains, down by deserted beaches of the ocean, and we cannot afford to take a plane or an helicopter each time we want to watch a movie in a Dolby Atmos theater. 

It's a compromise to live away from the 'urbanisation', from the dense civilisation, the large cities, and it's a heck of a great compromise too. So yes, bring Dolby Atmos right inside our modest 14 by 11 by 8 feet living rooms so that we too can taste the big city life (Cineplex 4K - 3D - Curved - 10 stories high big screen - dts-UHD, bing-bang-boum).  

- By the way, with a ceiling of 11 feet high in my home theater room I would need at least four separate overhead speakers; Dolby Atmos speakers won't do in my room.


----------



## Cam Man

NorthSky said:


> Obviously Camera Man, no two rooms sound alike. ...No inference from my part, rest assured.
> And sorry if it came out that way from me; then my fault.
> 
> Bigger is no necessarily better than smaller. ...Rooms, Home Theater rooms.
> But I know, you did not mean that. ...Larger volume is simply that, but not not the end of all ends.
> The universe is very large, and the space we occupy in it is very tiny.
> 
> Scaling is a good thing. We're both on the same wavelength ... _reminds me of a Van Morrison's song_.
> 
> * If you could live in a home so large that your theater room would be the size of a full IMAX Theater,
> how would you feel? ...Please consider all the very high expenditures, monthly payments, maintenance, clean up of your entire house, electric power bills, hot water (for showering all your guests and laundry and dishes), swimming pools, gardening, ...I don't think Bill Gates has even that, or the late Steve Jobs.
> ...Perhaps some Arab billionaire somewhere stationed in a high comfort zone? ...Even then it is still all relative, and scaling is a good thing indeed.


No worries. By "infer" I meant you might have read judgment in my comment.


The JBL speakers visible in the Burbank stage look like the AM5212 or 7212. Probably the 7212 because of its smoother response (also considerably more expensive). http://jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/ae-series/am5212#.U8bgJGcg_mQ Notice on the description the different coverage that can be selected (by model). I wonder if they were chosen in this smaller-than-a-cinema room so that they could choose the model that would render nominal coverage in there. I love the way JBL Pro publishes performance specs. http://jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_AM7212_95.v1.pdf


----------



## batpig

jtenn said:


> Is Atmos something that can be added via a firmware update? From Yamaha's website "Yamaha will enable Dolby Atmos playback through a firmware update later this fall." Will other manufactures be able to do this or is specific hardware required in order for this to work. It would be nice if Sherwood would be able to add this to their R-972 to work with their Trinnov processing!!


Almost certainly not, unless it's a powerful PC based solution with processing power to spare. For consumer AVR's the Atmos processing is done via specific hardware (a DSP chip) so you can't just piggyback Atmos rendering on an older model, it will lack the overall processing horsepower as well as the specific DSP chip.


----------



## asarose247

* If you could live in a home so large that your theater room would be the size of a full IMAX Theater,
how would you feel? ...


I think if I could get that far, I'd also have the lawyers to figure out how to have my multi-billion/million $ profit making business turn it into a tax deduction . . .


we now return you to the program in progress . . .


its good to see the waters calmed a bit


----------



## sdurani

asarose247 said:


> If you could live in a home so large that your theater room would be the size of a full IMAX Theater, how would you feel?


Small.


----------



## dan webster

I am very intrigued by the idea of trying dolby atmos in my theater. My room is appx 15X24 with a 7 ft drop ceiling. I realize i would first have to get a new atmos enabled receiver. I have a full set of emotiva speakers including 6 of their bi/di pole onwall surrounds. My thoughts are that i could install the 2 front wide onwall speakers in my ceiling by cutting the right size opening in my black ceiling tiles and facing the drivers towards the floor. I could easily figure out a way to mount the speakers that way using some piping and wood to the floor joists aboce the drop down ceiling. I could take the 2 rear surrounds and install them in the ceiling in the back of the room the same way. That would give me a 5.2.4 system for atmos. Does anyone have any idea if this would be acceptable. The idea of having other non timber matching speakers does not really appeal to me.


----------



## dennisb92649

*ATMOS Ceiling Speaker Position*



kbarnes701 said:


> In the ceiling I could see 4 modest in-ceiling speakers. I’d say the room was about 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot ceiling, so the sort of space that many people could easily replicate at home. I would say that the system components in this room were of the sort that most people could afford - there was nothing that seemed in any way ‘over the top’, so Dolby had gone to lengths to make this room typical of what we could recreate for ourselves at home.


Thank you for all the details you provided. I am in the framing stage of a new addition to my home. As it turns out my HT space is also 15x12. I decided after the ATMOS announcement to install ceiling speakers. I need to decide by next week where to place them. Can you tell me approximately where the ceiling speakers were installed in the demo room?


----------



## kbarnes701

dennisb92649 said:


> Thank you for all the details you provided. I am in the framing stage of a new addition to my home. As it turns out my HT space is also 15x12. I decided after the ATMOS announcement to install ceiling speakers. I need to decide by next week where to place them. Can you tell me approximately where the ceiling speakers were installed in the demo room?


I can tell you exactly because I asked the question. They are one third of the room dimensions in, from the front, and the same from the back. So in a room 15 feet long, they would be at 5 feet from the front wall and 5 feet from the back wall. The Onkyo people said this was their recommended placement. 

Also see this diagram which, IIRCm originated with Denon:


----------



## noah katz

Keith, thanks for the great writeup, very exciting.

I'm especially happy to hear about the efficacy of creating a sense of being in the space of the action.

Re the objections to the Atmos reflecting height speakers, I just watched Scott W's interview with Andrew Jones.

When first exposed to the idea, he was also skeptical, but he said that when demo'd he actually preferred the reflecting ones because it gave a more integrated/cohesive (can't remember his exact words) soundfield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3c295SyGQag


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Too bad Dolby didn't give a time approximation of their upcoming home Atmos installer White Paper. On their blog they recently posted it's coming "soon." 

Hopefully, some of you can hold off a bit longer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dan webster said:


> I am very intrigued by the idea of trying dolby atmos in my theater. My room is appx 15X24 with a 7 ft drop ceiling. I realize i would first have to get a new atmos enabled receiver. I have a full set of emotiva speakers including 6 of their bi/di pole onwall surrounds. My thoughts are that i could install the 2 front wide onwall speakers in my ceiling by cutting the right size opening in my black ceiling tiles and facing the drivers towards the floor. I could easily figure out a way to mount the speakers that way using some piping and wood to the floor joists aboce the drop down ceiling. I could take the 2 rear surrounds and install them in the ceiling in the back of the room the same way. That would give me a 5.2.4 system for atmos. Does anyone have any idea if this would be acceptable. The idea of having other non timber matching speakers does not really appeal to me.


Can you look around to see if any used or like-new ERD-1's are being sold and get two more pairs? I would hate for you to get rid of your front wide and back surrounds just to do overheads. You'll really want what you have now _plus_ the on-ceilings to get the best Atmos experience. 7.1.4 is only the beginning.

If you can attach the ERD's to the ceiling with short swivel mounts or angle brackets then you can more precisely aim them at the correct positions, not just firing straight down. Atmos ceiling speakers are angled towards the listening space in their white papers.

Also, I would make sure all those ERD's are switched into bipole mode when you add Atmos.

Update:

Check out this deal on Ebay for new ERD-1's.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Emotiva-ERD...27?pt=Speakers_Subwoofers&hash=item3a93ca3ea3


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> In the screening room we could see all the surrounds and ceiling speakers. They were all matching JBLs of some size. I’d guess about 30 inches x 12 inches or thereabouts. Substantial speakers anyway and, of course, all identical.
> 
> In the HT room, we could also see all the Atmos speakers - they were small-ish bookshelf designs, maybe 10-12 inches tall and about 8 inches wide. The top speakers weren't so easy to see but they appeared to be small two-way designs.


Yeah i'm sure it was JBL's 9320's for the surrounds. I was more interested in what they were using for there home version. When i heard it at the Labs in CA, everything was hidden. So i am curious if they made there own, had them made, or just off the shelf.


----------



## dan webster

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can you look around to see if any used or like-new ERD-1's are being sold and get two more pairs? I would hate for you to get rid of your front wide and back surrounds just to do overheads. You'll really want what you have now _plus_ the on-ceilings to get the best Atmos experience. 7.1.4 is only the beginning.
> 
> If you can attach the ERD's to the ceiling with short swivel mounts or angle brackets then you can more precisely aim them at the correct positions, not just firing straight down. Atmos ceiling speakers are angled towards the listening space in their white papers.
> 
> Also, I would make sure all those ERD's are switched into bipole mode when you add Atmos.
> 
> Update:
> 
> Check out this deal on Ebay for new ERD-1's.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Emotiva-ERD...27?pt=Speakers_Subwoofers&hash=item3a93ca3ea3


Great idea for the mounting, i can certainly do that thanks. Just to clarify, Are you saying to keep my 9.2 system and then add 2 pairs or the ERD-1 in ceiling. That would require 13 channels from the receiver. I have extrenal amps but do the next generation have 13 channels ? My thought was to use the current erd-1 speakers i have for my front wides and mount them on them on the ceiling. Then as you said buy 1 more pair for the back in ceiling speakers for a total of 11 channels. . 7.2.4 4 in ceiling, rear surrounds, side surrounds FR C FL and2 subs.
Another question. Would i be better off getting 2 pairs of good in ceiling speakers instead of using the ERD-1 speakers?


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I can tell you exactly because I asked the question. They are one third of the room dimensions in, from the front, and the same from the back. So in a room 15 feet long, they would be at 5 feet from the front wall and 5 feet from the back wall. The Onkyo people said this was their recommended placement.
> 
> Also see this diagram which, IIRCm originated with Denon:


I thought there were only 4 Atmos ceiling speakers. The diagrams show 6.
Did I miss something?


Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

tjenkins95 said:


> I thought there were only 4 Atmos ceiling speakers. The diagrams show 6. Did I miss something?


If you're doing a single pair, use the Top Middle location. If you're doing two pairs, use the Top Front and Top Rear locations.


----------



## Cam Man

tjenkins95 said:


> I thought there were only 4 Atmos ceiling speakers. The diagrams show 6.
> Did I miss something?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


I don't think this is Atmos. 

Keith, in your description of Atmos four ceiling speaker layout (1/3 from front and back), where was seating for the primary row in the room? 2/3rds back (directly under the back Atmos ceiling speakers)?


----------



## CinemaAndy

Cam Man said:


> No worries. By "infer" I meant you might have read judgment in my comment.
> 
> 
> The JBL speakers visible in the Burbank stage look like the AM5212 or 7212. Probably the 7212 because of its smoother response (also considerably more expensive). http://jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/ae-series/am5212#.U8bgJGcg_mQ Notice on the description the different coverage that can be selected (by model). I wonder if they were chosen in this smaller-than-a-cinema room so that they could choose the model that would render nominal coverage in there. I love the way JBL Pro publishes performance specs. http://jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_AM7212_95.v1.pdf


So they are using JBL's 5212's instead of JBL's 9320's? Other than being a grand difference in price, i did not know the 5212's were Atmos certified. Were the 5212's ceiling or wall mounted? I know the 5212/7212's is mostly large concert hall that sort of thing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dan webster said:


> Great idea for the mounting, i can certainly do that thanks. Just to clarify, Are you saying to keep my 9.2 system and then add 2 pairs or the ERD-1 in ceiling. That would require 13 channels from the receiver. I have extrenal amps but do the next generation have 13 channels ? My thought was to use the current erd-1 speakers i have for my front wides and mount them on them on the ceiling. Then as you said buy 1 more pair for the back in ceiling speakers for a total of 11 channels. . 7.2.4 4 in ceiling, rear surrounds, side surrounds FR C FL and2 subs.
> Another question. Would i be better off getting 2 pairs of good in ceiling speakers instead of using the ERD-1 speakers?


I would definitely keep what you have in place and then get the additional four ERD-1's for the ceiling. 7.1.4 is a limitation of current consumer hardware and not a limitation of the Atmos codec itself. Always have some avenue of future proofing. You can also use the front wide side surrounds (also used in commercial Atmos installations), for the time being, with other sound modes such as DTS Neo:X. 

Marantz, I believe, is coming out with a pre-amp that has 13.1 outputs. Even if it doesn't address all 13.1 at once... it is definitely on their mind. And I'm sure Trinnov will not be the only ones taking advantage of the up to 34 outputs capability of the consumer Atmos codec.

Unless you are itching to replace your Emotiva's with another brand and model line, I wouldn't necessarily get mismatched in-ceiling's. Timbre matching is really a must in order to keep a seamless soundfield. The ERD-1's in bipole mode will probably be the best choice until you get the speaker upgrade bug.


----------



## CinemaAndy

sdurani said:


> The local Dolby facility (Burbank, CA) has exposed surrounds and heights as well.


I'm am curious as to how those JBL Pro 5212's as arrays and those JBL Pro 7212's on the ceiling in the mixing room convey over to the JBL Pro 9320's comparison. Since the 9320's is what 60 percent, +/-, of all people will hear it on, unless they stay at home.

And hey, Chris got a haircut. I didn't think the lights in there went that high


----------



## Cam Man

CinemaAndy said:


> So they are using JBL's 5212's instead of JBL's 9320's? Other than being a grand difference in price, i did not know the 5212's were Atmos certified. Were the 5212's ceiling or wall mounted? I know the 5212/7212's is mostly large concert hall that sort of thing.


I don't think so. I took a wild ass guess based on what I could see in the photo. On your cue, I looked at the 9320, and I bet that's what those are. Take a look at the FR on the spec sheet; strong LF, but pretty wild above that. http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_9320.v9.pdf


----------



## Orbitron

Question for Chris, if i were to purchase the SC-85 later this year, will it be firmware upgradeable to Gen 2 or will it be necessary to purchase a new reciever?


----------



## dan webster

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would definitely keep what you have in place and then get the additional four ERD-1's for the ceiling. 7.1.4 is a limitation of current consumer hardware and not a limitation of the Atmos codec itself. Always have some avenue of future proofing. You can also use the front wide side surrounds (also used in commercial Atmos installations), for the time being, with other sound modes such as DTS Neo:X.
> 
> Marantz, I believe, is coming out with a pre-amp that has 13.1 outputs. Even if it doesn't address all 13.1 at once... it is definitely on their mind. And I'm sure Trinnov will not be the only ones taking advantage of the up to 34 outputs capability of the consumer Atmos codec.
> 
> Unless you are itching to replace your Emotiva's with another brand and model line, I wouldn't necessarily get mismatched in-ceiling's. Timbre matching is really a must in order to keep a seamless soundfield. The ERD-1's in bipole mode will probably be the best choice until you get the speaker upgrade bug.


The Marantz 13 channel will be out of my budget. I currently have a denon 4250 which will be up for sale this fall. If i stick with an 11 channel system i will keep the front wides and eliminate the rear surrounds. To me in my room that is a no brainer as i have tried it both ways. That way i only have to buy one pair or erd-1 speakers and then another ??? for a new receiver. Too bad current flagship receivers cannot be upgraded. This hobby is expensive, but worth it.


----------



## dan webster

Orbitron said:


> Question for Chris, if i were to purchase the SC-85 later this year, will it be firmware upgradeable to Gen 2 or will it be necessary to purchase a new reciever?


That is a great question. I would hate to spend 2k on a receiver just to have it obsolete again in a year or two. Now i cant wait to try this in my theater.


----------



## Marc Wielage

KidHorn said:


> That's the crux of my gripe. What exactly did 3D fail at? Was there some specific goal it was supposed to obtain that it failed to obtain?


It didn't achieve critical mass, it didn't make enough of a profit to sustain it, and many, many studio execs and electronics execs lost their jobs over it.

Step back and look at this objectively from the industry point of view, rather than as a fan. At this point, I don't even think regular Blu-ray discs are selling well, mainly because so few stores carry them nowadays. The few that do -- Costco, Walmart, Target, Best Buy -- only carry maybe 150 titles at best. Which percentage are 3D? 2% 5% I would bet that today, it's not even that high.


----------



## Marc Wielage

noah katz said:


> As has been alluded to, you could say the same about any previous format; there will always be people who don't care or can't afford to do it right, regardless of channel count.


This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.

There will always be high-end users who will spare to expense to get it done really well. But I don't see those people buying $799 receivers. I also think there are ways they could be making those $799 receivers better, rather than cutting back on the watts per channel and cheapening on the available circuitry being used. You can build a 5.1 receiver far better for $799 than you could build an 11.2-channel receiver for that same price.


----------



## tjenkins95

sdurani said:


> If you're doing a single pair, use the Top Middle location. If you're doing two pairs, use the Top Front and Top Rear locations.




Thanks Sanjay! I remember reading about that previously.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dan webster said:


> That is a great question. I would hate to spend 2k on a receiver just to have it obsolete again in a year or two. Now i cant wait to try this in my theater.


It all depends on how much reserve memory space and processor power is left in these 1st gen products. The Onkyo's are already tapped out since they had to drop Audyssey in order to add Atmos.

Some of the more expensive Denon/Marantz models put in four chips rather than three, but it remains to be seen if that extra kick was used up by keeping Audyssey onboard. 

Also, if they don't have the speaker outputs or pre-amp outputs built-in already, no firmware upgrade in the world could allow for more Atmos surround channels. 

With the bugaboo surrounding high speed HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 in today's chips (as in non-existant), it might be better to sit out a generation anyway. 

Enough time to buy those two pairs of ERD's and not sacrifice your speaker layout too much and have the pocketbook recover a bit. The demo that kbarnes gushed over was using a 7.2.4 layout. They didn't drop the back surrounds.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Cam Man said:


> I don't think so. I took a wild ass guess based on what I could see in the photo. On your cue, I looked at the 9320, and I bet that's what those are. Take a look at the FR on the spec sheet; strong LF, but pretty wild above that. http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_9320.v9.pdf


My bad, i didn't get back to you soon enough, those speakers in the picture are indeed JBL Pro 5212 wall and 7212 ceiling as far as i can tell.

sanjay will know the truth.


----------



## Cam Man

Marc Wielage said:


> This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.
> 
> There will always be high-end users who will spare to expense to get it done really well. But I don't see those people buying $799 receivers. I also think there are ways they could be making those $799 receivers better, rather than cutting back on the watts per channel and cheapening on the available circuitry being used. You can build a 5.1 receiver far better for $799 than you could build an 11.2-channel receiver for that same price.


Hi Marc, I've followed some of your posts here and empathized with your perspective coming from the pro production world ... and translating to the home environment. But I must say that you should keep your chin up! There are those (DIY and designer/installers) who will do it right. The glass is half full.


That said, I know you worry about this, as we all should. 
http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/the-dumbing-down-of-audio


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Marc Wielage said:


> This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.
> 
> There will always be high-end users who will spare to expense to get it done really well. But I don't see those people buying $799 receivers. I also think there are ways they could be making those $799 receivers better, rather than cutting back on the watts per channel and cheapening on the available circuitry being used. You can build a 5.1 receiver far better for $799 than you could build an 11.2-channel receiver for that same price.


Did you read the Dolby Atmos review just published? It sure didn't sound like any cheap gimmick to me.


----------



## Marc Wielage

Roger Dressler said:


> You remind me of the venerable Yves Faroudja, who said the same of analog video when he was perfecting Super NTSC when digital video was coming on. Anyway, how does going to higher res prevent further perfection? Wouldn't it be nice to have more than 8-bit video?


I consider that high praise! I thank you. Faroudja was a very bright man. 

I don't mind anybody going to a higher-res format provided _there are no compromises_ and they're actually providing something real to the market. Any $250 speaker is going to have a lot of compromises. Measure the frequency content over 20kHz and tell me what you hear. I would bet there will be some interesting reviews coming in the future when these things hit the market.



Roger Dressler said:


> Junky is in the ear of the beholder. You'd ban McDonald's too?


Not at all -- but McDonald's isn't promising any better a $1 toadburger today than they did 20 years ago. If they suddenly said, "our $1 toadburgers now have 50% more flavor!", then I'd have a problem with it. For Sony to claim that their $250 speakers suddenly have vastly greater bandwidth than before is a sham. 



Roger Dressler said:


> Really? What is it these AVR's are not doing for a proper 5.1 presentation?


I think if they've upgraded a receiver to 11.2 Atmos, then I suspect they're naturally going to have to cut the wattage in half compared to a 5.1 receiver.

You seem to be quite the apologist for Sony. Do you have any connection to Sony as a company or as a dealer? I have no connection at all beyond just being a longtime observer and customer. As a journalist, I've been to Sony HQ in Japan several times, I knew some of their executives in the 1980s and 1990s, and I saw many, many mistakes made by the corporation in the last 20 years, particularly in the aftermath of founder Akio Morita's illness and death. I think Sony has been on the wrong path for a long time, and I feel nothing but sadness at trying to relate the Sony we have today with the great and rich history of the company in the 1970s and 1980s. 

In general, I have absolutely no problem with genuine innovation when it's done well. I was the first person I knew to have an HD projector in my home in 1998. I was maybe the the third person I knew who had a home theater in 1984. I was the first person I knew who bought a home VCR, in March of 1976. All three things eventually had massive impact on the consumer market, and also changed my life in many ways. (Mike Heiss knows my history and can validate what I say.) I've been there/done that so many thousands of times over, you have no idea.

But a cheap crappy receiver is a cheap crappy receiver. My observation is that adding bells and whistles like Atmos is just another sticker they put on the side of the cabinet. It's hype and fripperies. And I'm sad to see Sony descend to this level. 

I really look forward to hearing Dolby Atmos done well at home, but my opinion is that it's not gonna happen in products this cheap.


----------



## noah katz

Marc Wielage said:


> This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.


Again, yes, that's true.

And again, what value is there in bitching about it here?


----------



## NorthSky

jtenn said:


> Is Atmos something that can be added via a firmware update? From Yamaha's website "Yamaha will enable Dolby Atmos playback through a firmware update later this fall." Will other manufactures be able to do this or is specific hardware required in order for this to work.
> * It would be nice if Sherwood would be able to add this to their R-972 to work with their Trinnov processing!!*


Yes, Trinnov with Dolby Atmos, together as one. 

* But my guess is that it won't happen in a million light years with the Sherwood Newcastle R-972 A/V receiver. 
For one you need more DSP processing power, and two I don't believe you can add more in that particular AV receiver. 
{By the way, @ $600 what a great deal to experiment with surround sound!} 

And I also like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with the Pro Action kit. 

One last thing, when using an HDMI connection for audio (and video), we are living in a digital world (Trinnov, Audyssey, and Dolby). ...Unless doing the DAC & ADC dance of course. 

Personally, I see the future as a bright place to live; audio and video wise.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Added a few "SweetHome3D" renderings to my *previous post* showing my plan for adding 4 height speakers. Like this one:


----------



## NorthSky

Marc Wielage said:


> This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.
> 
> There will always be high-end users who will spare to expense to get it done really well. But I don't see those people buying $799 receivers. I also think there are ways they could be making those $799 receivers better, rather than cutting back on the watts per channel and cheapening on the available circuitry being used. You can build a 5.1 receiver far better for $799 than you could build an 11.2-channel receiver for that same price.


The thing is this: We are a bunch of audio explorers here @ AVS and @ other places in the world/
We are a hardcore bunch, unique pioneers and testers of all new sound hound frontiers.
We all work together; with Dolby people, with Audyssey people, with Trinnov people, with studio executives, entrepreneurs, investors, music/movie sound mixing/recording engineers, acousticians, ...we are the very first analyzers, testers, purchasers of the latest and greatest of all audio/video top beneficial technologies related. And nobody is going to stop us of exploring deeper, and we don't care if the masses embark in that journey or not, but we sure are happy to be in it ourselves and if we like it we sure are going to promote it. ...No matter the cost, at any level of it; low, and high.


----------



## Tom Grooms

Nice write up kbarnes701, how could you not be excited after reading that. Nice work!


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Wielage said:


> I don't mind anybody going to a higher-res format provided _there are no compromises_ and they're actually providing something real to the market.
> 
> Any $250 speaker is going to have a lot of compromises.


I think it would help if you could delineate your meaning of "compromise" since there are no consumer products that do not have compromises, regardless of price. "No compromise" is a marketing concept, not engineering reality.

IMHO it looks to me like Atmos is providing some real value to the market, both pro and consumer.



Marc Wielage said:


> Measure the frequency content over 20kHz and tell me what you hear.


I freely admit I hear nothing above 20 kHz.  



Marc Wielage said:


> I think if they've upgraded a receiver to 11.2 Atmos, then I suspect they're naturally going to have to cut the wattage in half compared to a 5.1 receiver.


Since several AVR makers are using the very same 9.1 amplifier platforms for their first Atmos models, there is nary a hair's difference in power from the previous models. 



Marc Wielage said:


> For Sony to claim that their $250 speakers suddenly have vastly greater bandwidth than before is a sham.
> 
> You seem to be quite the apologist for Sony. Do you have any connection to Sony as a company or as a dealer?


I believe you're confused. I never mentioned Sony, nor speaker HF bandwidth in any respect. 



Marc Wielage said:


> But a cheap crappy receiver is a cheap crappy receiver. My observation is that adding bells and whistles like Atmos is just another sticker they put on the side of the cabinet. It's hype and fripperies. And I'm sad to see Sony descend to this level.


And a cheap shot is still a cheap shot. You are condemning a strawman. I am not aware of any Sony Atmos AVRs.


----------



## NorthSky

Marc Wielage said:


> ... But a cheap crappy receiver is a cheap crappy receiver. My observation is that adding bells and whistles like Atmos is just another sticker they put on the side of the cabinet. It's hype and fripperies. And I'm sad to see Sony descend to this level.
> 
> I really look forward to hearing Dolby Atmos done well at home, but my opinion is that it's not gonna happen in products this cheap.


The Sherwood Newcastle R-972 (Trinnov) for $600 (sale), the Onkyo TX-NR818 (Audyssey MultEQ XT32) for $600 (sale), some Pioneer Elite models, Yamaha models, Marantz models, all in that range of less than $800 (sale), are all cheap crappy (inexpensive, lighweight) receivers, but I bet when matched with the right speakers in the right room give you 90% or so of the total immersion from the big guns (SSPs with power amps). 

Just add couple great subs @ $800 each to them "cheap crappy" receivers from above and the term if it still applies it might just be on the surface. 

* Sony ain't anymore what they used to be; and they screwed (sued and get more sued) and stole from everybody else.
They made so many monumental mistakes over and over that it is totally logical to where they are @ now.
They still do very good I believe in the front projector business, I'm not sure about their flat (curved?) panels, smartphones, cameras, professional video cameras, film/movie 3D/4K cameras, zillions of accessories that mainly/only work with their own products, ...zig zag boom. 

Me, I bet we'll hit Dolby Atmos satisfaction for a fraction of what's in the theaters. ...Meaning less than two grands all together when all that surround mayhem hits you from all angles and above from the sky with all objects flying all over your brain's directions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I'd like to know how many studios are actually going to jump on the home Atmos train... or if some will continue to gimp even their 7.1 tracks down to 5.1 as some are doing right now (Warner Brothers and Sony... I'm looking at you SOB's). 

We can have all this wonderful audio technology, but if the titles are few and far between (new and remixed catalog classics), then what good is it?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Added a few "SweetHome3D" renderings to my *previous post* showing my plan for adding 4 height speakers. Like this one:


Roger, is this room equipped as is for sale right now?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Roger, is this room equipped as is for sale right now?


You're in the market to buy Roger's house?


----------



## petetherock

Tom Grooms said:


> Nice write up kbarnes701, how could you not be excited after reading that. Nice work!


More importantly, how can anyone want to own a Atmos-less XMC after this


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd like to know how many studios are actually going to jump on the home Atmos train... or if some will continue to gimp even their 7.1 tracks down to 5.1 as some are doing right now (Warner Brothers and Sony... I'm looking at you SOB's).
> 
> We can have all this wonderful audio technology, but if the titles are few and far between (new and remixed catalog classics), then what good is it?


Dan, bingo; we can have a $225,000 surround sound system (Dolby Atmos @ 24/10) but if we don't have a decent 4K Blu-ray movie with smart Dolby Atmos embedded in it by an intelligent recording/mixing movie sound engineer, we're f*cked! ...It's all a big pile of wasted money blowing to the four corners of the globe.
...Movie studios first, and the right hired people to work on them movie soundtracks.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're in the market to buy Roger's house?


That's my plan; I like his already well done plan all finished. 
Why bother working and do the same when you can simply buy from the best already done for you. ...Because it is the JOURNEY, and Roger's journey is not for sale, but for sharing so that we can have our own similar surround sound hound journey ourselves. ...In all that Dolby Atmos glory (Keith said it). 

And besides, scaling down a bit is good for me actual situation.


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> More ..., how can anyone want to own a Atmos-less XMC after this


You thought of that too...and you said it. And you are totally right to say it too, because it's the truth.

* And why the early push to release it without Dirac operational/implemented now? 
Without Dirac, do you need a mic?


----------



## brwsaw

I'm sure I read it somewhere that an atmos capable receiver will work with any content.

Please feel free to correct me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> I'm sure I read it somewhere that an atmos capable receiver will work with any content.
> 
> Please feel free to correct me.


In that case it will work like a modified DTS Neo:X or Dolby ProLogic IIz post processing matrix. No discrete information other than the base channels.


----------



## noah katz

NorthSky said:


> The Sherwood Newcastle R-972 (Trinnov) for $600 (sale)...


Not really a valid comparison; the 972 when current (it failed due to various HDMI and operational glitches and was discontinued some time ago) was $1800 MSRP/$1300 street, and was large and heavy.


----------



## ahmedreda

The 1/3rd of room placement guideline does not make sense to me because it doesn't take the mlp into consideration. If for instance the listening position was in the back third of the room, that would make both top pairs in front of it? 


kbarnes701 said:


> I can tell you exactly because I asked the question. They are one third of the room dimensions in, from the front, and the same from the back. So in a room 15 feet long, they would be at 5 feet from the front wall and 5 feet from the back wall. The Onkyo people said this was their recommended placement.
> 
> Also see this diagram which, IIRCm originated with Denon:


----------



## David Susilo

Just a reminder, any receiver that claim to be able Atmos capable after firmware update only means that the Atmos capability is unlocked via firmware. You can NOT reprogram current or older processor to have Atmos merely via firmware upgrade.


----------



## Cam Man

ahmedreda said:


> The 1/3rd of room placement guideline does not make sense to me because it doesn't take the mlp into consideration. If for instance the listening position was in the back third of the room, that would make both top pairs in front of it?


Let's hope nobody is sitting in the seat in the room depicted in the Denon graphic. That room is close to square, and the seat is in the middle of the room; the worst possible position for low frequency acoustic response. 

Sitting at either side of half-way back (fore or aft) will have smoother LF response. Typical mixing facilities have the board at two-thirds back, I think those in that field will confirm.

I'm just curious where you sit in relation to those back two Atmos ceiling speaker to be nominal (aft/or right under).

I'm betting that you design the nominal seating position like always ... based on screen width (desired viewing angle) and nominal low frequency acoustic response (basic essentials), then position all the surrounds, including the four Atmos ceiling speakers, to render the nominal effects for the center of that primary seating row.


----------



## brwsaw

From Dolby's blog

"What if I build a Dolby Atmos system but want to play content that isn’t in Dolby Atmos?

A Dolby Atmos home theater can play any stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 content. You can choose to have our technology automatically adapt that channel-based signal to use the full capabilities of your new system, including your overhead speakers, ensuring that you hear realistic and immersive sound."


http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/

It doesn't say it will be equivellent but...

I'm pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread but I'm too lazy to confirm.


----------



## NorthSky

In reply to Noah's post (#1222):

It was @ $600 for quite a while with a free extended warranty (3 years). 

It received some firmware updates (HDMI and Trinnov); when well executed by the owner (setup) it was a blast! ...Meaning awesome. 
Yes the MSRP was $1,800 (about $1,200 street), and yes some issues with HDMI handshake. Kal Rubinson reviewed it too. 
...But with some fixes and eventually a very low price of $600 that was there for I believe a year or so, it was something very special.
And several members here still use it today. * The weight is 41 pounds.
{I read a lot in that official thread, and many online reviews, plus in audio/video mags.}

Anyway it was just one example, among others (Onkyo 818, Onkyo 805, 875, 905, 876, 906, ...), that you can get a powerful receiver for less than roughly $800 (street). ...*Because Marc mentioned $799 and a cheap crappy receiver, and that people will miss the bigger boat - that wasn't a comparison per se but an illumination.* ... "Valid" ...What is valid in today's world? ...Do you know? 

Us, the people here @ AVS we know that we can get a Yamaha, Pioneer Elite, Marantz, Denon, Onkyo, Integra, ...receiver for cheap (inexpensive) but it won't be more crappy than what its price (the one we pay) reflects. ...Quite sophisticated as a matter of fact (Trinnov, Audyssey MultEQ XT, and XT32, YPAO with Parametric EQ, Advanced MCACC with Phase control ASR, choice of curves, and more...).

So, I am quite certain that for roughly a grand ($1,000 street) we'll be able to get what we want within a year or so. 
For others that would be two grands, and others five hundred bucks. ...But all with Dolby Atmos. 

Times marches on, and what was yesterday is today's reflection in a more advanced world; improved surround sound wise. 
I believe Keith what he said. And I also believe in a bright future, for everyone; money no object for all. 
Time will tell if my optimism and my readings are accurate enough...


----------



## noah katz

brwsaw said:


> From Dolby's blog
> 
> "A Dolby Atmos home theater can play any stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 content. You can choose to have our technology automatically adapt that channel-based signal to use the full capabilities of your new system, including your overhead speakers, ensuring that you hear realistic and immersive sound."
> 
> It doesn't say it will be equivellent but...


This highlights a very important and as yet unanswered question - how will non-Atmos soundtracks be processed and how effective will it be.

Anyone attending Atmos demo's, please ask if they can play non-Atmos material.


----------



## NorthSky

ahmedreda said:


> The 1/3rd of room placement guideline does not make sense to me because it doesn't take the mlp into consideration. *If for instance the listening position was in the back third of the room, that would make both top pairs in front of it?*


It's only a recommended calculation (making total sense) for a centrally seated listener (in the middle of the room). 
...From that particular graph shown earlier. 

* Let say your couch is against the back wall?!? Where would you (could you) positioned four overhead Atmos speakers? 

By cutting the back wall with a chainsaw?  Nope, by using only two overhead Atmos speakers? ...Maybe, ahead of your head. ...By moving your couch forward? Yes! ...Total common sense. 

In your particular case, as mentioned in your quote? ...Bend the rules a little. 

The dead center of a room (width and length, and height too) is one of the very worst position to sit down at and listen to sounds from music mediums and movie mediums. 
So there is no way that I would follow that graph to the letter myself; I'll bend the Atmos guideline to suit my own guidelines on hi-fi sound first. ...I sit at 3/5th in my room (from the front wall), so I would slightly play with them four overhead Atmos speakers positioning (experiment). 

Keith, Roger, Marc, Markus, anyone?


----------



## sdurani

Bumper said:


> Would it be possible to drive Atmos over a DTS movie like PLIIz can be combined with DTS?


According to a recent Dolby FAQ, Atmos equipped receivers will include new upmixing (surround processing) for legacy 5.1 and 7.1 material. You should be able to apply the upmixing to any codec (DTS-HD MA or TrueHD), like you currently do with Neo:X or PLIIz.


----------



## ahmedreda

NorthSky said:


> It's only a recommended calculation (making total sense) for a centrally seated listener (in the middle of the room).
> 
> ...From that particular graph shown earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> * Let say your couch is against the back wall?!? Where would you (could you) positioned four overhead Atmos speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> By cutting the back wall with a chainsaw?  Nope, by using only two overhead Atmos speakers? ...Maybe, ahead of your head. ...By moving your couch forward? Yes! ...Total common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> In your particular case, as mentioned in your quote? ...Bend the rules a little.
> 
> 
> 
> The dead center of a room (width and length, and height too) is one of the very worst position to sit down at and listen to sounds from music mediums and movie mediums.
> 
> So there is no way that I would follow that graph to the letter myself; I'll bend the Atmos guideline to suit my own guidelines on hi-fi sound first. ...I sit at 3/5th in my room (from the front wall), so I would slightly play with them four overhead Atmos speakers positioning (experiment).
> 
> 
> 
> Keith, Roger, Marc, Marcus, anyone?



My room is 20 feet long. Couch is at about 13 feet away. Using the 1/3rd rule would make two speakers right above the listening position and the other 6 feet to the front.In my case i think the dolby recommendation makes more sense however the top rears would be only 2-3 feet from the back wall (right in front if the surround backs).


----------



## NorthSky

Cam Man said:


> *Let's hope nobody is sitting in the seat in the room depicted in the Denon graphic. That room is close to square, and the seat is in the middle of the room; the worst possible position for low frequency acoustic response.
> 
> Sitting at either side of half-way back (fore or aft) will have smoother LF response. Typical mixing facilities have the board at two-thirds back, I think those in that field will confirm.
> 
> I'm just curious where you sit in relation to those back two Atmos ceiling speaker to be nominal (aft/or right under).
> 
> I'm betting that you design the nominal seating position like always ... based on screen width (desired viewing angle) and nominal low frequency acoustic response (basic essentials), then position all the surrounds, including the four Atmos ceiling speakers, to render the nominal effects for the center of that primary seating row.*


Your post is impeccable Camera Man. ...Valuable info all across the board.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Added a few "SweetHome3D" renderings to my *previous post* showing my plan for adding 4 height speakers. Like this one:





ahmedreda said:


> My room is 20 feet long. Couch is at about 13 feet away. Using the 1/3rd rule would make two speakers right above the listening position and the other 6 feet to the front.In my case i think the dolby recommendation makes more sense however the top rears would be only 2-3 feet from the back wall (right in front if the surround backs).


If you are using Roger's own room's plan above as your guideline (that's my own guideline now), you'd be aiming for a safe zone and effective dose of Dolby Atmos 'Southern Comfort'. 
That way nobody is going to get overdosed. 

And that Denon's graph, forget it about sitting in the room's center position! Whoever is doing the drawings for Denon is not taking the time to analyse room's acoustics. ...Most likely just a kid from college and on weeds.


----------



## ahmedreda

The Denon diagram is NOT indicating that the listening position is in the center. Not sure how that idea came about. The angle ranges are what should be used as a guideline. For example, if *1=30 and *5=135 which is an allowed combination, the listening position will not be in the center.



NorthSky said:


> If you are using Roger's own room's plan above as your guideline (that's my own guideline now), you'd be aiming for a safe zone and effective dose of Dolby Atmos 'Southern Comfort'.
> That way nobody is going to get overdosed.
> 
> And that Denon's graph, forget it about sitting in the room's center position! Whoever is doing the drawings for Denon is not taking the time to analyse room's acoustics. ...Most likely just a kid from college and on weeds.


----------



## Cam Man

ahmedreda said:


> The Denon diagram is NOT indicating that the listening position is in the center. Not sure how that idea came about. The angle ranges are what should be used as a guideline. For example, if *1=30 and *5=135 which is an allowed combination, the listening position will not be in the center.


 
Far be it from me to expect the visible image of the person who appears to be in the center of the room to be faithful to the intended position ... which you determine once you check the angle values of the arcs. Of course, they reveal that he's not really sitting in the middle ... like he looks like he is.  Crummy graphic.


----------



## NorthSky

*Diagram; IIRCm originated from Denon:*










*Looks dead center to me ^ *


----------



## Jim S.

NorthSky said:


> If you are using Roger's own room's plan above as your guideline (that's my own guideline now), you'd be aiming for a safe zone and effective dose of Dolby Atmos 'Southern Comfort'.
> That way nobody is going to get overdosed.
> 
> And that Denon's graph, forget it about sitting in the room's center position! Whoever is doing the drawings for Denon is not taking the time to analyse room's acoustics. ...Most likely just a kid from college and on weeds.


Regarding the Kbarnes701 and Roger Dressler posts:

Barnes Dolby test room for 20 foot home theater had the ceiling speakers pointing down. Roger Dresseler has them pointed inward to the main listening. Is there a spec on this somewhere on this? I can't find it at the Dolby site or definitvely anywhere else. I'm now at the stage of wiring and building flush mounts for the ceiling. The speakers will be fixed, so I'd like to get it right the first time as to position and angle for a 22 foot deep room. 

I just saw Planet of the Apes in Atmos. Theater had 10 rows, the aisle, and back 10 rows of stadium seating. 5 surrounds on each side. It had a total of 12 atmos speakers. Two rows of 6, each row was a quarter of the way in from each side wall.

Starting at the screen, the first 2 atmos speakers in each row were within the first 25% of the ceiling coming back. They were angled back and down toward to the center of the theater (not angled in to the MLP). The next 50% of the ceiling had 3 speakers each side, pointing straight down. The back 25% of the ceiling had 1 speaker on each side angled to the center of the theater (again not angled in to the MLP)

I know the home set up is likely differernt, but I have yet to see the definitive word on ceiling positioning and angle. 

The sound is as advertised. I sat 13 rows back. Absolutely impressive. I'm all in for going atmos with 4 on ceiling speakers. 

The object sounds above and around blended very well and is a really nice feature. What struck as more impressive after
a while was the totality of sound coming straight at me from the front. The movie had a ton of sound coming from above, below and the side. Those damn apes were everywhere. At times it seemed the front most surrounds were width speakers. The soundstage was huge up/down and to the sides. Really impressive coming at you.


Jim


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler is your best man here for the correct answer.

P.S. You are not _Jim Shaw_ by any chance?


----------



## Jim S.

NorthSky said:


> Roger Dressler is your best man here for the correct answer.
> 
> P.S. You are not _Jim Shaw_ by any chance?


No..I'm not him.


----------



## steveting99

NorthSky said:


> *Diagram; IIRCm originated from Denon:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Looks dead center to me ^ *


I note that the Atmos ceiling speakers are in line with the front, front height, rear height and surround back speakers.

By the way, what's the acronym for 'SSP'? I.e. does it mean Supplemental Sensor Processor according to this website: http://www.acronymfinder.com/Supplemental-Sensor-Processor/Processing-(SSP).html


----------



## Marc Wielage

NorthSky said:


> Dan, bingo; we can have a $225,000 surround sound system (Dolby Atmos @ 24/10) ...


That I suspect would have far fewer compromises.


----------



## Marc Wielage

noah katz said:


> Again, yes, that's true. And again, what value is there in bitching about it here?


Just a general observation that when press releases are made, I think users -- especially people seriously interested in picture and sound quality -- have to have a healthy skepticism and understand that new and different features doesn't always improve products. I think it's important to stay objective and not swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker. 

I will eagerly await the reports of how "Home Atmos" (or whatever they call it) sounds at CEDIA in September.


----------



## noah katz

steveting99 said:


> By the way, what's the acronym for 'SSP'?


surround sound processor


----------



## JonStatt

sdurani said:


> According to a recent Dolby FAQ, Atmos equipped receivers will include new upmixing (surround processing) for legacy 5.1 and 7.1 material. You should be able to apply the upmixing to any codec (DTS-HD MA or TrueHD), like you currently do with Neo:X or PLIIz.


 

Which makes it even more of a challenge to decide what you would do with only 7 channels of amplification. If you already have a 7.1 set-up with surround backs, and then a pair of atmos speakers or ceiling speakers....receivers like the Onkyo can switch to using the surround backs OR the ceiling speakers using their speaker switch relay. Would you want to use IIz and get the rear backs added, or would you sacrifice the rear backs for ceiling speakers? As there is no "object definition" with Atmos in an upmixing scenario, I would have thought you might be better sticking with IIz


----------



## Roger Dressler

David Susilo said:


> Just a reminder, any receiver that claim to be able Atmos capable after firmware update only means that the Atmos capability is unlocked via firmware. You can NOT reprogram current or older processor to have Atmos merely via firmware upgrade.


They added Dolby Volume to my processor 3 years after it was made. There was no code for that in the original DSPs. What would be the reason that Atmos firmware could not, theoretically, be loaded into an existing DSP, assuming it had the prerequisite performance?


----------



## Roger Dressler

ahmedreda said:


> The 1/3rd of room placement guideline does not make sense to me because it doesn't take the mlp into consideration. If for instance the listening position was in the back third of the room, that would make both top pairs in front of it?


Quite right. I suspect that "rule of thumb" assumes is the listener is in the middle of the room, which as you rightly point out, is not always the case. I would not fret about it. It is not a critical factor. Move the heights where they do the best relative to the MLP.



Cam Man said:


> Let's hope nobody is sitting in the seat in the room depicted in the Denon graphic. That room is close to square, and the seat is in the middle of the room; the worst possible position for low frequency acoustic response.


Happily, that is no longer a problem with proper use of 2-4 subwoofers, thanks to Welti and the rest of the Harman crew.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> They added Dolby Volume to my processor 3 years after it was made. There was no code for that in the original DSPs. What would be the reason that Atmos firmware could not, theoretically, be loaded into an existing DSP, assuming it had the prerequisite performance?


Besides that they've doubled DSP capability for the receivers for the next gen, which seems to indicate that (close to?) no existing ones would have the performance needed - none.


----------



## sdurani

JonStatt said:


> Would you want to use IIz and get the rear backs added, or would you sacrifice the rear backs for ceiling speakers?


I'm more music than movies, so I would not sacrifice my traditional (3/4.1) 7.1 set-up for an Atmos 7.1 (5.1.2) set-up.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Jim S. said:


> Regarding the Kbarnes701 and Roger Dressler posts:
> 
> Barnes Dolby test room for 20 foot home theater had the ceiling speakers pointing down. Roger Dressler has them pointed inward to the main listening. Is there a spec on this somewhere on this? I can't find it at the Dolby site or definitively anywhere else. I'm now at the stage of wiring and building flush mounts for the ceiling. The speakers will be fixed, so I'd like to get it right the first time as to position and angle for a 22 foot deep room.


There's no specs yet for consumer side, but I am sure there will be -- that's what the Dolby CEDIA installer sessions are slated to cover. 

Note that my rear surrounds point almost straight down, close enough that it would work just fine if they were. But my cinema is also a bit of a lab for testing, so I wanted the ability to change the aim of the speakers and see what happens. No matter what, the rear seats will get a different perspective than the fronts, and that’s as it has always been in my small room. Unavoidable.

For the record, Keith reported the Dolby room was ~15', if that matters. I’m not sure where they had the height speakers placed, exactly, but the downfiring speakers have some advantages. A) The installation looks clean and easy. (My install might scare people, but I don't have to worry about that. ) B) Lots of homes already have 5 ceiling speakers in the media room courtesy of the builder. C) Perhaps because this room is also used to demonstrate the efficacy of the Atmos upfiring speakers, the comparison to real speakers is most favorable when the ceiling speakers point mostly down, best mimicking the return bounce. How's that for some wild speculation? 

Also, unlike the Dolby room, my surrounds are not on the same plane as the L/R speakers. From the MLP (ears), my 4 surrounds are elevated 20 deg, while the L/R are 0 deg. To make sure the rear height sounds will present an obvious directional difference, I was shooting for a 30 deg elevation offset. For the front heights, even though they are not elevated as much on an absolute basis, there is actually a wider offset relative to the front speakers (40 deg). My point is that I think one must take a holistic view (all the speakers and their relationships to each other and to the intended audience) rather than some isolated concept of where the heights ought to go per an AVR manual. 



Jim S. said:


> Starting at the screen, the first 2 atmos speakers in each row were within the first 25% of the ceiling coming back. They were angled back and down toward to the center of the theater (not angled in to the MLP). The next 50% of the ceiling had 3 speakers each side, pointing straight down. The back 25% of the ceiling had 1 speaker on each side angled to the center of the theater (again not angled in to the MLP)


Dolby's cinema guidelines aim to spread the love across the largest portion of the audience possible, and that implies a focus toward the center of the area. However, the uniformity of the off-axis performance of those speakers means the MLP is not at all disenfranchised even if every speaker does not aim there like a laser. We benefit from the same thing at home, assuming the off-axis performance is sufficient.

Do you have a diagram of what you have in mind for your room?


----------



## Roger Dressler

JonStatt said:


> Would you want to use IIz and get the rear backs added, or would you sacrifice the rear backs for ceiling speakers? As there is no "object definition" with Atmos in an upmixing scenario, I would have thought you might be better sticking with IIz


You can look at the upmixing process bundled with Atmos as being an extension of the PLIIz concept. Does the same thing, but supports more speaker options. If you need backs, wides, or heights, it will presumably do the trick.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Keith, thanks for the great writeup, very exciting.
> 
> I'm especially happy to hear about the efficacy of creating a sense of being in the space of the action.
> 
> Re the objections to the Atmos reflecting height speakers, I just watched Scott W's interview with Andrew Jones.
> 
> When first exposed to the idea, he was also skeptical, but he said that when demo'd he actually preferred the reflecting ones because it gave a more integrated/cohesive (can't remember his exact words) soundfield.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3c295SyGQag


Thanks Noah. Yes - the only way to appreciate what these Atmos speakers can really do is to hear them. I too was skeptical when I first heard the idea, but when you hear them for yourself, I am sure you will be amazed, as I was, at just how little they give away to physical ceiling speakers.

That sense of space I described was scarily real. And when I say my heart rate increased during one of the clips, that wasn't hyperbole - I work out in the gym regularly and am conscious of my resting heart rate and it did actually increase during that clip. That's how involved I was in the on-screen action. Amazing.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Marc Wielage said:


> This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.
> 
> There will always be high-end users who will spare to expense to get it done really well. But I don't see those people buying $799 receivers. I also think there are ways they could be making those $799 receivers better, rather than cutting back on the watts per channel and cheapening on the available circuitry being used. You can build a 5.1 receiver far better for $799 than you could build an 11.2-channel receiver for that same price.


The biggest gripe i have with most of the so called high end AVR's, complete lack of bi or tri-amping. Or the ones that do offer it, it's more of a gimmick than the real thing. That really limits, and adds significant cost to what you can do with a large room.


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> Yeah i'm sure it was JBL's 9320's for the surrounds. I was more interested in what they were using for there home version. When i heard it at the Labs in CA, everything was hidden. So i am curious if they made there own, had them made, or just off the shelf.


They were anonymous - I asked and they coyly said "they're prototypes"


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I thought there were only 4 Atmos ceiling speakers. The diagrams show 6.
> Did I miss something?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


The 'height' speakers are for legacy system use. Just focus on the 4 'top' speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> I don't think this is Atmos.
> 
> Keith, in your description of Atmos four ceiling speaker layout (1/3 from front and back), where was seating for the primary row in the room? 2/3rds back (directly under the back Atmos ceiling speakers)?


Not sure which row they would describe as their primary row. I sat in the front row and the ceiling speakers were in front of me (by a little) and behind me (by more). The guys in the second row had the front tops quite a way in front of them and just slightly behind them for the rear tops. Everyone seemed to get a good Atmos experience but unfortunately, due to time constraints, I didn't have the chance to try both rows to see if there was a difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Did you read the Dolby Atmos review just published? It sure didn't sound like any cheap gimmick to me.


It is a huge step forward in home audio from where we are right now. It may not totally replicate the Atmos cinema experience - AFAIK Dolby haven't said it would - but it is still a huge step forward. I’d say that everyone who hears it, in comparison with 5.1/7.1, would want it if they can.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> They were anonymous - I asked and they coyly said "they're prototypes"


AH, "prototypes" in the cinema world is one word to describe, "Were using what works."


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> I'm sure I read it somewhere that an atmos capable receiver will work with any content.
> 
> Please feel free to correct me.


At the demo I specifically asked about their upmixing for legacy content. They said it was "very good". I’d expect them to say that of course  Unfortunately, there was no demo of legacy content played back via an Atmos AVR. It is something I too very much want to hear as I have a substantial Bluray collection, 100% of which right now is Atmos-less.


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmedreda said:


> The 1/3rd of room placement guideline does not make sense to me because it doesn't take the mlp into consideration. If for instance the listening position was in the back third of the room, that would make both top pairs in front of it?


I'm just relaying what Onkyo told me. They also said it wasn't "critical". I think you have to assume a reasonably correct seating position in relation to all the speakers, just as has always been the case. If your MLP is such that both pairs of top speakers are in front of you, it isn't going to work very well IMO. Take a look at Roger's diagram a few posts back for a good idea of how to do it.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> If you are using Roger's own room's plan above as your guideline (that's my own guideline now), you'd be aiming for a safe zone and effective dose of Dolby Atmos 'Southern Comfort'.
> That way nobody is going to get overdosed.
> 
> And that Denon's graph, forget it about sitting in the room's center position! Whoever is doing the drawings for Denon is not taking the time to analyse room's acoustics. ...Most likely just a kid from college and on weeds.


I would not want to sit in that room and listen to anything, to many subs for one, if your sitting on the right side of the back row, you have the LF pointed at you and if your sitting on the left side you have the RF pointed at you, that always sounds good. Anyone in the back row will surfer from "bass reflex fatigue" a third of the way through the movie, the side speakers are up to high, the center speaker is to low, and the overheads look like there bouncing off the opposite wall, fine for a large venue, not good for a small room.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> In reply to Noah's post (#1222):
> 
> 
> *I believe Keith what he said*. And I also believe in a bright future, for everyone; money no object for all.
> Time will tell if my optimism and my readings are accurate enough...


I actually played it down so that I didn't come across as too "gushing". In reality I was more excited than comes across in my short report.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> This highlights a very important and as yet unanswered question - how will non-Atmos soundtracks be processed and how effective will it be.
> 
> Anyone attending Atmos demo's, please ask if they can play non-Atmos material.


I may be invited to another demo soon. If I am, I will ask that specific question. I'd love to hear how that works. What would be great would be to hear a movie

1. In straight 5.1/7.1
2. Then in Atmos 5.1.2
3. Then in Atmos 5.1.4
4. Then in Atmos 7.1.4
5. Then upmixed to 7.14 etc.

I doubt if there would be time though. They try to pack as many people through the demo as they can, understandably. And, of course, the demo room for the HT side can only be, by definition, fairly small. I think they got it right with 6 seats, but you can see how long it takes to get 60 people through...


----------



## Gary J

Marc Wielage said:


> This is sadly true. Which is why I say the consumer Atmos -- call it "Atmos Lite" -- is just another cheap gimmick to flog receiver sales. I'd predict that not even 90% of its sales will be to people who really know how to implement it correctly at home.
> 
> There will always be high-end users who will spare to expense to get it done really well. But I don't see those people buying $799 receivers. I also think there are ways they could be making those $799 receivers better, rather than cutting back on the watts per channel and cheapening on the available circuitry being used. You can build a 5.1 receiver far better for $799 than you could build an 11.2-channel receiver for that same price.


You forgot, speakers, cables, labor etc. for incremental benefit over 7.1 and its variations. It is a niche for those who want to have it and that is fine but overall and industry money grab IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gary J said:


> You forgot, speakers, cables, labor etc. for* incremental benefit over 7.1* and its variations. It is a niche for those who want to have it and that is fine but overall and industry money grab IMO.


I’d be interested to compare your experience with mine because mine couldn’t be described as 'incremental benefit'.

What kind of HT setup was it where you heard Atmos? Was it 7.1.4 or 5.1.2 or what? How many top speakers were in use - 2 or 4? Did they use physical speakers or just the Atmos-enabled speakers?


----------



## Cam Man

Roger Dressler said:


> Happily, that is no longer a problem with proper use of 2-4 subwoofers, thanks to Welti and the rest of the Harman crew.


You are exactly right, but ... four subs, especially in a larger room can push many a budget too far, not to mention take up real estate or require very good in-wall subs. Of course, Todd's models are solely for a rectangular room. All bets are off on placement in odd-shaped or open floor plans. But sorting that out is part of the fun, huh?


----------



## action_jackson

I currently have my 4 surround speakers mounted just 5 inches below my 8 foot ceilings. I can't really lower them much because we have a walkway behind the seats and don't want people bumping into them. 

Do you think the speaker height will have a detrimental effect on the Atmos experience?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

action_jackson said:


> I currently have my 4 surround speakers mounted just 5 inches below my 8 foot ceilings. I can't really lower them much because we have a walkway behind the seats and don't want people bumping into them.
> 
> Do you think the speaker height will have a detrimental effect on the Atmos experience?


It probably won't be quite as dramatic 3D-wise since there wouldn't be as much of a location differential between the wall surround and the ceiling surround "zones." They're all height speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

action_jackson said:


> I currently have my 4 surround speakers mounted just 5 inches below my 8 foot ceilings. I can't really lower them much because we have a walkway behind the seats and don't want people bumping into them.


Lower them mechanically into position once everyone is seated? Would be sooo geeky!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> Lower them mechanically into position once everyone is seated? Would be sooo geeky!


That could be a solution, though I don't know the OP's budget. Either that or manually when you want to use the theater. I'm sure there are solutions available to lower their surrounds into position.


----------



## thebland

Good review!

Did they demo Atmos UP-MIXING for standard 5.1 / 7.1 tracks?

Thanks!


----------



## batpig

No, that was already covered.


----------



## thebland

thebland said:


> Good review!
> 
> Did they demo Atmos UP-MIXING for standard 5.1 / 7.1 tracks?
> 
> Thanks!





batpig said:


> No, that was already covered.



???


----------



## action_jackson

Nightlord said:


> Lower them mechanically into position once everyone is seated? Would be sooo geeky!


That would be pretty slick! I don't think it's within my budget though, lol. My next purchase will be new speakers, planning to go with 8 JBL Pro Cinema 8320, 4 for surround and 4 for height. They are wedge shaped so maybe I can get away with them being a bit lower than the bookshelf speakers that I am currently using. Now I just have to convince my wife that we need to upgrade...


----------



## sdurani

action_jackson said:


> Do you think the speaker height will have a detrimental effect on the Atmos experience?


Yes, but mostly for the height speakers behind you (in the surround field), since your front speakers are (hopefully) closer to ear level. 

To compensate for the lack of difference in physical height, you can exploit azimuth and proximity. For example, if your sides & rears are at the typical ±90° and ±150° angles, respectively, then put your rear heights at an angle in between. If your sides & rears are mounted on the walls, then mount your rear heights on the ceiling, inward from the walls. 

Wouldn't be a bad idea to do this for the front heights as well. This keeps the contributions of the rear heights unique compared to the surrounds mounted high up.


----------



## KidHorn

Cam Man said:


> That room is close to square, and the seat is in the middle of the room; the worst possible position for low frequency acoustic response.



That's not correct. The center of the room is no different than any other seating location with regards to low frequency response. People think this is the case because people publish papers of how nulls form and they typically pick a single frequency that evenly fits in the room dimensions to demonstrate the problem and the frequency they pick forms a null in the middle of the room. This is done for ease of explanation, not because there's anything special about the center of the room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

action_jackson said:


> That would be pretty slick! I don't think it's within my budget though, lol. My next purchase will be new speakers, planning to go with 8 JBL Pro Cinema 8320, 4 for surround and 4 for height. They are wedge shaped so maybe I can get away with them being a bit lower than the bookshelf speakers that I am currently using. Now I just have to convince my wife that we need to upgrade...


What speakers will you be using in the front? JTR's? The JBL's you're thinking of purchasing seem to match well with the JTR Noesis speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

thebland said:


> Good review!
> 
> Did they demo Atmos UP-MIXING for standard 5.1 / 7.1 tracks?
> 
> Thanks!


There was no time. I may be attending another demo, and if so I will try to see if I can get a demo of the upmixing capabilities.


----------



## batpig

thebland said:


> ???


Eight posts above yours this topic was most recently covered, and if you've been reading Keith's comments and subsequent discussion it was clear they didn't demo the upmixing.


----------



## action_jackson

Dan Hitchman said:


> What speakers will you be using in the front? JTR's? The JBL's you're thinking of purchasing seem to match well with the JTR Noesis speakers.


Most likely three JBL 3677s accross the front. I'm going to try three of the 8320s in the front first before I ceiling mount them and see how they sound. If I am satisfied I will just order some more of them, that way all speakers are matching. If I am not satisfied, I will go with the 3677s.


----------



## Guinness77

Keith,
Great review, I am really excited. Thank you for taking the time to put together a detailed review. 
Hopefully you (or someone) can hear a demo with an actual retail Blu-ray. Hopefully the mixes we get that are created from the cinema versions are as spectacular as the demo you heard.


----------



## Nightlord

action_jackson said:


> That would be pretty slick! I don't think it's within my budget though, lol.


LEGO?


----------



## Cam Man

KidHorn said:


> That's not correct. The center of the room is no different than any other seating location with regards to low frequency response. People think this is the case because people publish papers of how nulls form and they typically pick a single frequency that evenly fits in the room dimensions to demonstrate the problem and the frequency they pick forms a null in the middle of the room. This is done for ease of explanation, not because there's anything special about the center of the room.


And some of us have actually participated in those demonstrations. Yes, a dramatic demonstration will make the concept very obvious, as you describe. But it's an issue of math. The middle can certainly be bad if the room proportions render a first harmonic node at a frequency that is strongly used in the media content you are using. In smaller rooms, that's pretty low, I'll grant you. 

No offense, but my comment was meant as a conversational aside, not to start an off-topic debate or even discussion on this thread.


----------



## KidHorn

Cam Man said:


> But it's an issue of math. The middle can certainly be bad if the room proportions render a first harmonic node at a frequency that is strongly used in the media content you are using.



Yes, but that's equally true for every seating location. Nothing specific to the middle of the room.


----------



## batpig

brwsaw said:


> From Dolby's blog
> 
> "What if I build a Dolby Atmos system but want to play content that isn’t in Dolby Atmos?
> 
> A Dolby Atmos home theater can play any stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 content. You can choose to have our technology automatically adapt that channel-based signal to use the full capabilities of your new system, including your overhead speakers, ensuring that you hear realistic and immersive sound."
> 
> 
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> 
> It doesn't say it will be equivellent but...
> 
> I'm pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread but I'm too lazy to confirm.


Back to Atmos -- JD and I had it confirmed today that the upcoming Atmos-capable D&M models WILL include Atmos upmixing. 

We were told that upmixing is part of the Atmos platform, so my assumption is the same will be true for models from other brands as well.


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> The center of the room is no different than any other seating location with regards to low frequency response.


The centre of any room dimension is where low frequency response variations are greatest (modes are either peaking or nulling). By comparison, the 1/3 divisions of room dimensions are where frequency response variations are smallest (no nulls, much smaller peaks & dips). So the centre of the room is very different from other seating locations.


----------



## kbarnes701

Guinness77 said:


> Keith,
> Great review, I am really excited. Thank you for taking the time to put together a detailed review.
> Hopefully you (or someone) can hear a demo with an actual retail Blu-ray. Hopefully the mixes we get that are created from the cinema versions are as spectacular as the demo you heard.


This was one of the questions someone asked. The answer was that the demo material we heard was "identical" to a commercial Bluray release of the same content. I guess it would be as it is just a TrueHD bitstream to the decoder.

Thanks for the comment on the review BTW.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> This was one of the questions someone asked. The answer was that the demo material we heard was "identical" to a commercial Bluray release of the same content. I guess it would be as it is just a TrueHD bitstream to the decoder.
> 
> Thanks for the comment on the review BTW.


If "identical", then it would have no Atmos content in the mix?


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> If "identical", then it would have no Atmos content in the mix?


??? A TrueHD bitstream of Atmos content will be the sxame if it comes off a BD disc via BD player or off a laptop bitstreaming it. Not sure what you mean.


----------



## action_jackson

kbarnes701 said:


> ??? A TrueHD bitstream of Atmos content will be the sxame if it comes off a BD disc via BD player or off a laptop bitstreaming it. Not sure what you mean.


He probably thought you were talking about a BD disk that you can currently purchase, when you were actually talking about the new ones that have not yet been released.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> This was one of the questions someone asked. The answer was that the demo material we heard was "identical" to a commercial Bluray release of the same content. I guess it would be as it is just a TrueHD bitstream to the decoder.
> 
> Thanks for the comment on the review BTW.





kokishin said:


> If "identical", then it would have no Atmos content in the mix?





kbarnes701 said:


> ??? A TrueHD bitstream of Atmos content will be the sxame if it comes off a BD disc via BD player or off a laptop bitstreaming it. Not sure what you mean.


I thought there was no Atmos content currently available on BD?


----------



## action_jackson

When the new BD disks come out with the Atmos mix it will be the same as what was being played during his demo that Keith was listening to in the dolby Atmos presentation.


----------



## kbarnes701

action_jackson said:


> He probably thought you were talking about a BD disk that you can currently purchase, when you were actually talking about the new ones that have not yet been released.


Ah right, thanks. It isn’t what I said, but yes, that makes sense.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I thought there was no Atmos content currently available on BD?


I didn’t say there was. This is what I said:

"The answer was that the demo material we heard was "identical" to a commercial Bluray release *of the same content*."


----------



## kbarnes701

action_jackson said:


> When the new BD disks come out with the Atmos mix it will be the same as what was being played during his demo that Keith was listening to in the dolby Atmos presentation.


Yep - that is what we were told.


----------



## Tech5635

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep - that is what we were told.


Two questions

Does anyone have an atmos diagram on where to place the 4 ceiling speakers?

And

If using ceiling speakers and not virtual speakers placed ontop of the 5 surround speakers firing up can u use any ceiling speakers to get the effect or do they need to be a certain type?


----------



## kokishin

action_jackson said:


> He probably thought you were talking about a BD disk that you can currently purchase, when you were actually talking about the new ones that have not yet been released.


Correct! And I still don't understand what he meant by "identical". It can't be identical to a current BD if it has Atmos content. 

If it was from a commercial movie release with Atmos content on DCP, then I understand.

If he said "similar to", then I understand.


----------



## batpig

It's the latter. It seemed pretty clear from what he said. He never used the word "current".


----------



## batpig

Tech5635 said:


> Two questions
> 
> Does anyone have an atmos diagram on where to place the 4 ceiling speakers?
> 
> And
> 
> If using ceiling speakers and not virtual speakers placed ontop of the 5 surround speakers firing up can u use any ceiling speakers to get the effect or do they need to be a certain type?


This diagram (which will be in upcoming Denon/Marantz manuals) has been posted several times in this thread already:










We haven't seen any "official" whitepaper detailing the "ideal" locations, but this diagram allows for a decent amount of latitude in placement. The basic idea is that the ceiling speakers should be approximately in line with the front L/R speakers, and if you are going with four there should be two in front of you, and two behind you.

(Note that the "height" speakers in the diagram reference speakers for non-Atmos surround modes like DTS Neo:X. This is a multi-purpose speaker layout diagram)

The ceiling speakers should ideally be (1) a good tonal match to your other speakers to maintain the seamlessless of the 3D bubble, so preferably speakers from the same manufacturer if possible, and (2) have decent dispersion characteristics so that the sound effects from above don't "beam" too much and restrict the size of the sweet spot. The latter factor is probably less of a concern the higher your ceilings are.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It's the latter. It seemed pretty clear from what he said. He never used the word "current".


In fact, I specifically said "the same content". IE the same being the same as what I was talking about - Atmos content.


----------



## Cam Man

KidHorn said:


> Yes, but that's equally true for every seating location. Nothing specific to the middle of the room.


There can be specific issues, again depending on media content. Consider the LF sweep at Sauron's demise early in FOTR. I wouldn't want a "hole" in that.


This may all be a moot point because multiple subs will have mitigated the issue, if used.


I enjoy the chat, but it's off topic. Another forum?


----------



## NorthSky

Nightlord said:


> Lower them mechanically into position once everyone is seated? Would be sooo geeky!


That's where scientists hang, in labs.


----------



## action_jackson

kokishin said:


> Correct! And I still don't understand what he meant by "identical". It can't be identical to a current BD if it has Atmos content.
> 
> If it was from a commercial movie release with Atmos content on DCP, then I understand.
> 
> If he said "similar to", then I understand.


This fall there will be new blu rays released that have Atmos content for you to purchase at retail.

If you happen to buy one of these "NEW" Atmos mastered BDs and it happens to be the same movie that Keith was watching in the demo, you will be listening to the exact same Atmos content that he previewed.


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> We haven't seen any "official" whitepaper detailing the "ideal" locations, but this diagram allows for a decent amount of latitude in placement. The basic idea is that the ceiling speakers should be approximately in line with the front L/R speakers...



I can't think of any reason why heights in line with L/R would be an advantage.

In any case, I think that may be reading too much into the diagram which seems rather schematic in nature, with only a single listener shown; another next to him would be directly under the speaker. 



Cam Man said:


> This may all be a moot point because multiple subs will have mitigated the issue, if used.


Perhaps not completely though; IIRC the opposite wall cancellation is only for those of odd order, i.e. would not apply to modes 2, 4, 6 etc.


----------



## batpig

Which part is "reading too much" into it? My comments seemed fairly broad and nonspecific.

EDIT: looks like you edited and clarified after the fact. Yeah, you're probably right about that.


----------



## Cam Man

noah katz said:


> I can't think of any reason why heights in line with L/R would be an advantage.
> 
> In any case, I think that may be reading too much into the diagram which seems rather schematic in nature, with only a single listener shown; another next to him would be directly under the speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not completely though; IIRC the opposite wall cancellation is only for those of odd order, i.e. would not apply to modes 2, 4, 6 etc.


I'll get back to you via PM so as to not hijack.


----------



## thebland

I do wonder if UPMIXING will be worth it or if it is any better DTS Neo X?

Also, TRUE HD is on so few Blu Rays relative to DTS... I just can't see that changing because of ATMOS.

When DTS comes, I think ATMOS will be relegated to TRUE HD status.

Who knows...


----------



## kbarnes701

thebland said:


> I do wonder if UPMIXING will be worth it or if it is any better DTS Neo X?


I am told it is better. And PLIIz is dead. Gone. An ex-surround mode.



thebland said:


> Also, TRUE HD is on so few Blu Rays relative to DTS... I just can't see that changing because of ATMOS.


It will change for the obvious reason that Atmos is delivered by TrueHD. Studios use DTS-HD because it is easier for them to work with, not because it has any inherent benefits as such. 



thebland said:


> When DTS comes, I think ATMOS will be relegated to TRUE HD status.


When. They don't even have a commercial version yet - they are miles behind Dolby. Dolby have so much first mover advantage I personally wonder if DTS will every catch them now.


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> It's the latter. It seemed pretty clear from what he said. He never used the word "current".


Understood. The 7.1.x and 5.1.x Atmos mix BD will not be "identical" to the DCP that I expect the Dolby demo was using. Hopefully it will be near enough. FWIW, I was not trying to bust his chops. I am very interested in setting up an Atmos system at home. Maybe some think I am being too literal, but the devil is in the details.


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> And that Denon's graph, forget it about sitting in the room's center position! Whoever is doing the drawings for Denon is not taking the time to analyse room's acoustics. ...Most likely just a kid from college and on weeds.



Weeds plural?



Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## NorthSky

KidHorn said:


> That's not correct. *The center of the room is no different than any other seating location with regards to low frequency response*. People think this is the case because people publish papers of how nulls form and they typically pick a single frequency that evenly fits in the room dimensions to demonstrate the problem and the frequency they pick forms a null in the middle of the room. This is done for ease of explanation, not because there's anything special about the center of the room.


* http://www.hometoys.com/emagazine/2012/02/what-are-the-characteristics-of-a-good-sounding-room/1511

-> Section 3 - *3.1.1 - The '38% rule'* & *3.3 - Rear Wall* 

_______

* http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html

* http://www.uaudio.com/blog/studio-monitor-placement/

* http://courses.physics.illinois.edu...406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect10_part2.pdf


----------



## NorthSky

KidHorn said:


> Yes, but that's equally true for every seating location. *Nothing specific to the middle of the room.*


It's only the worst position to be sitting @ and listening to. ... ♫


----------



## SubSolar

joerod said:


> I am actually doing another set of Vanquish in my ceiling. That will give me two height, two in the middle and two towards the back of the room. This will give perfect coverage for Atmos.


Do you think Vanquish are overkill for ambient sounds like rain and stuff? Do you think there'd be much difference over say EM-R's?


----------



## NorthSky

ambesolman said:


> Weeds plural?


You'll have to excuse me once in a while; it's my French accent, sorry.


----------



## Cam Man

NorthSky said:


> * http://www.hometoys.com/emagazine/2012/02/what-are-the-characteristics-of-a-good-sounding-room/1511
> 
> -> Section 3 - *3.1.1 - The '38% rule'* & *3.3 - Rear Wall*
> 
> _______
> 
> * http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html
> 
> * http://www.uaudio.com/blog/studio-monitor-placement/
> 
> * http://courses.physics.illinois.edu...406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect10_part2.pdf


Nice. See PM.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> It's only the worst position to be sitting @ and listening to. ... ♫


Depends on the room and where the source(s) is/are located. General assumptions about modal distribution patterns seldomly help. Acoustic measurements do.


----------



## joerod

SubSolar said:


> Do you think Vanquish are overkill for ambient sounds like rain and stuff? Do you think there'd be much difference over say EM-R's?


Possibly yes. But I already have 4 up there so I may as well finish it off with two more. Of course that rain, apes hollering, crowd cheering, voices and bullets flying will sound unbelievablely real. 

Not sure how much difference than EM-Rs.


----------



## NorthSky

Of curse Markus.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> IIRC the opposite wall cancellation is only for those of odd order, i.e. would not apply to modes 2, 4, 6 etc.


If you move the subs away from opposite walls, symmetrically, then you can start cancelling certain even-order modes (while still cancelling all odd-order modes).


----------



## NorthSky

I wonder...what will be the very first Blu-ray movie encoded (embedded, integrated, immersed, ...) with Dolby Atmos? ...Released to the general public (for sale).


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Of curse Markus.


Then why the claim the middle of the room would be the worst location for music listening?


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Then why the claim the middle of the room would be the worst location for music listening?


90% + generally? ...Nulls are the strongest in the middle (@ the center) of a room (small, large, square, rectangle, ...). No?

It's not my claim, just goggle around for thousands of links.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> 90% + generally? ...Nulls are the strongest in the middle (@ the center) of a room (small, large, square, rectangle, ...). No?
> 
> It's not my claim, just goggle around for thousands of links.


Download REW, open the room simulator and play with it. More educational than reading "thousands of links". If you want to get the real truth then do measurements in a real room.
You'll find that the hard rules commonly found on the internet are counterproductive. There are tons of good papers though. One example: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15044

Furthermore there are many tradeoffs when it comes to setting up a listening room. Having the listening location at the center of the room might even turn out to be the best location. My listening position for example is in the middle of the room and I doubt many have better bass than I do.


----------



## NorthSky

Thank you.


----------



## GoCaboNow

batpig said:


> This diagram (which will be in upcoming Denon/Marantz manuals) has been posted several times in this thread already:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't seen any "official" whitepaper detailing the "ideal" locations, but this diagram allows for a decent amount of latitude in placement. The basic idea is that the ceiling speakers should be approximately in line with the front L/R speakers, and if you are going with four there should be two in front of you, and two behind you.
> 
> (Note that the "height" speakers in the diagram reference speakers for non-Atmos surround modes like DTS Neo:X. This is a multi-purpose speaker layout diagram)
> 
> The ceiling speakers should ideally be (1) a good tonal match to your other speakers to maintain the seamlessless of the 3D bubble, so preferably speakers from the same manufacturer if possible, and (2) have decent dispersion characteristics so that the sound effects from above don't "beam" too much and restrict the size of the sweet spot. The latter factor is probably less of a concern the higher your ceilings are.


Hey Batpig, thanks for all your help in the Denon AVR threads.

I know there is no white paper yet, but if we are specifically talking about ATMOS, front heights and rear heights will not be utilized that are in this diagram?

All I see listed are two and four ceiling speaker configs? There are six in this diagram, is it the top, middle speaker that goes away? 

Thanks again!


----------



## batpig

Yes, as I noted above in the parenthetical those front/rear heights are ostensibly NOT part of the Atmos layouts. We have had some teasers that Atmos processing may accomodate these locations but the "Atmos speakers" should be considered the TOP speakers (i.e. on or in the ceiling).

The six locations work like this:

- If you have two top speakers, put them above you (top middle)
- If you have four top speakers, put two in front, two in back

As of now, none of the upcoming AVR's will support all six at once (leaving out the uber expensive 32 channel processor that has been discussed).


----------



## Cam Man

Cam Man said:


> Let's hope nobody is sitting in the seat in the room depicted in the Denon graphic. That room is close to square, and the seat is in the middle of the room; the worst possible position for low frequency acoustic response.


My apologies to everyone for this comment which seems to have started a snowball off-topic discussion debate on room modes. I meant it as a humorous aside in the conversation. Didn't think it would attract so much comment.  I have since steered to PMs to respond on that subject.


----------



## batpig

Since we're taking that graphic so literally, let's also point out that this poor chap in the worst possible location also is apparently lonely and friendless, since he has only one chair in his room.


----------



## Cam Man

sdurani said:


> The centre of any room dimension is where low frequency response variations are greatest (modes are either peaking or nulling). By comparison, the 1/3 divisions of room dimensions are where frequency response variations are smallest (no nulls, much smaller peaks & dips). So the centre of the room is very different from other seating locations.


Yeah, what Sanjay said! 


How are you, Sanjay? Cheers.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Yes, as I noted above in the parenthetical those front/rear heights are ostensibly NOT part of the Atmos layouts. We have had some teasers that Atmos processing may accommodate these locations but the "Atmos speakers" should be considered the TOP speakers (i.e. on or in the ceiling).


I find the distinction rather perplexing. If I have a front effect speaker elevated anywhere between 30-45 deg, how can Atmos tell, or care, if the name of the speaker is Front Height or Front Top?


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> If you move the subs away from opposite walls, symmetrically, then you can start cancelling certain even-order modes (while still cancelling all odd-order modes).


Didn't know that, thanks, though the odd-order cancellation effect would diminish with distance from the walls.

Also less practical to have subs out in the room.

Those very committed and who have attic space could put in all the ceiling surrounds they want along with a bunch of distributed subwoofer drivers and cover the whole ceiling with acoustically transparent material.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Since we're taking that graphic so literally, let's also point out that this *poor chap in the worst possible location* also is apparently lonely and friendless, since he has only one chair in his room.


...And he's probably stoned on acid.


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> I find the distinction rather perplexing. If I have a front effect speaker elevated anywhere between 30-45 deg, how can Atmos tell, or care, if the name of the speaker is Front Height or Front Top?


Yeah, Sanjay has noted the overlap as well. Obviously, if you wanted to you could certainly "tell" the processor that your front heights are in fact the Atmos "top front" speakers and it would probably work decently well.

I think the diagram is not implying that ALL the speakers should be there, it's a multipurpose diagram showing the variety of possible options. For example, IF you use a front height speaker (i.e. for DTS Neo:X or Audyssey DSX) it should be placed high on the front wall, ideally within this range of angular elevations. And IF you want to use a top front Atmos speaker, is should be placed on the ceiling forward of the listening position, ideally within this other range of angular elevations. I don't think there is necessarily a conflict there, although I concede it's potentially confusing as diagrammed.


----------



## action_jackson

I remember when I was single and used to party a lot I noticed a difference in the sound of the bass when I was in different areas of the room. For instance when I was cranking some music that had a lot of bass and was grinding with a hotty in the middle of the room the bass was not very pronounced. Now, when I was on the couch, and a hotty was giving me a lap dance, the base was hitting hard! 

I did not take any scientific measurements, but the couch at the back at the room was the much better listening position.


----------



## Cam Man

action_jackson said:


> I remember when I was single and used to party a lot I noticed a difference in the sound of the bass when I was in different areas of the room. For instance when I was cranking some music that had a lot of bass and was grinding with a hotty in the middle of the room the bass was not very pronounced. Now, when I was on the couch, and a hotty was giving me a lap dance, the base was hitting hard!
> 
> I did not take any scientific measurements, but the couch at the back at the room was the much better listening position.


I'd say you have the perfect moniker.


----------



## Orbitron

batpig said:


> Since we're taking that graphic so literally, let's also point out that this poor chap in the worst possible location also is apparently lonely and friendless, since he has only one chair in his room.


I have 1 chair in my room too. Best seat in the house and no distractions. Now back to the Atmos Channel.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Since we're taking that graphic so literally, let's also point out that this poor chap in the worst possible location also is apparently lonely and friendless, since he has only one chair in his room.


And he has no arms. Or feet.


----------



## NorthSky

I don't want Dolby Atmos anymore.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Yeah, Sanjay has noted the overlap as well. Obviously, if you wanted to you could certainly "tell" the processor that your front heights are in fact the Atmos "top front" speakers and it would probably work decently well.


I do not think they would work decently, they would work perfectly -- exactly the same! 



batpig said:


> I think the diagram is not implying that ALL the speakers should be there, it's a multipurpose diagram showing the variety of possible options. For example, IF you use a front height speaker (i.e. for DTS Neo:X or Audyssey DSX) it should be placed high on the front wall, ideally within this range of angular elevations. And IF you want to use a top front Atmos speaker, is should be placed on the ceiling forward of the listening position, ideally within this other range of angular elevations. I don't think there is necessarily a conflict there, although I concede it's potentially confusing as diagrammed.


I agree there is no conflict -- that's why it is confusing. I can understand this is a byproduct of having to accommodate the slightly different ranges (45 vs. 55 deg). If we could forget about the 45 deg max of PLIIz, then we could entertain the front top speakers range of 30-55 degrees independently of the particular room surface employed to mount the speakers. In spite of Dolby's "rule of thirds", our brains could care less what physical means is used to mount the speakers, as long as they create the proper sound source location.

In addition, Dolby could simply have said: "If you already have front height speakers at 30-45 deg, they can be used for Atmos front top speakers. No need to move them."


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> I do not think they would work decently, they would work perfectly -- exactly the same!


Even if they were mounted on the front wall above the main speakers? That's what I meant -- specifically referring to the situation where somebody already had existing front height speakers installed for a PLIIz type of layout and didn't want to physically relocate them for Atmos. 

Obviously they would "work the same" in the sense that they would receive the same content either way (the processor doesn't know the difference) but would the soundtrack convey as effectively?


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Even if they were mounted on the front wall above the main speakers?


Yes. 40 deg on a wall sounds the same as 40 deg on a ceiling, from a sound localization perspective.



batpig said:


> Obviously they would "work the same" in the sense that they would receive the same content either way (the processor doesn't know the difference) but would the soundtrack convey as effectively?


How could it not?


----------



## SoundChex

batpig said:


> Even if they were mounted on the front wall above the main speakers? That's what I meant -- specifically referring to the situation where somebody already had existing front height speakers installed for a PLIIz type of layout and didn't want to physically relocate them for Atmos.
> 
> Obviously they would "work the same" in the sense that they would receive the same content either way (the processor doesn't know the difference) but would the soundtrack convey as effectively?



I'm expecting that *Atmos AVR*s will require user entry of _configuration parameters_, e.g., SET *H1* value to "*FHL|R*" or "*TFL|R*" or "*TML|R*", and SET *H2* value to "*NONE*" or "*TML|R*" or "*TRL|R*" or "*RHL|R*" to match your actual height|ceiling speaker configuration.

This information would allow the rendering engine to create (_here, 11_) different tessellation polytopes specific to individual _height layer_ speaker configurations. (If the *Atmos* _main layer_ continues to support *5|6|7* speakers and to use them all in VBAP processing, the combination would allow for 33 different three-dimensional audio renderings from one soundtrack encode.)
_


----------



## joerod

I am planning 6 in the ceiling. Two front heights, two back heights and two middle room. All in line with each other and the fronts. I bet 6 will eventually be part of Atmos (sooner than later)....


----------



## Rod#S

thebland said:


> I do wonder if UPMIXING will be worth it or if it is any better DTS Neo X?
> 
> Also, TRUE HD is on so few Blu Rays relative to DTS... I just can't see that changing because of ATMOS.
> 
> When DTS comes, I think ATMOS will be relegated to TRUE HD status.
> 
> Who knows...



These are very interesting thoughts, especially the pint about dts dominating the Blu-ray audio market. You might be right that Atmos will only show up on TrueHD titles. Time will tell I guess.


----------



## sdurani

Cam Man said:


> My apologies to everyone for this comment which seems to have started a snowball off-topic discussion debate on room modes.


No need, since the short posts about modes are not interfering with the general discussion of Atmos. We've learned to multi-task in the 21st century.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep - that is what we were told.


OK let us clear this up. I was told, by Dolby, that i would not have purchase "new" disks that Atmos firmware would do it's thing on older BD's. No i am not talking about new release BD like Godzilla or what is playing in theaters now, as that will feature a Atmos mix on the sound track as part of the master audio. With all that being said if you want 100 percent Atmos sound, you have to get the BD that will be labeled as Atmos.

Is the above correct or did something change near launch?????


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. 40 deg on a wall sounds the same as 40 deg on a ceiling, from a sound localization perspective.How could it not?



Interestingly, I note that the *Yamaha RX-A2040|RX-A3040* now include a user entered "*on-wall|on-ceiling*" parameter associated with Presence channel speakers.
_


----------



## Rod#S

Question, I haven't heard much skepticism about the proposed top firing add on modules for speakers with flat tops. Does it not bother anyone that putting such a silly thing on the top of your speakers is going to have a negative impact on the speaker's performance? I mean the speaker wasn't designed to have a sizeable object protruding out of the top. Is it because these things are going to be cheap and the module manufacturers assume these will be purchased by people who give no thought to the effect it will have on the existing setup and place more value or priority on gaining access to the newest tech thing that everything else becomes irrelevant???

I know I'm starting to come off as an old prude who is scared of change with all of my posts  but I'm just seeing items here that seem to fly in the face of preserving audio quality.


----------



## Rod#S

kbarnes701 said:


> It will change for the obvious reason that Atmos is delivered by TrueHD. Studios use DTS-HD because it is easier for them to work with, not because it has any inherent benefits as such.



Wanna bet?  I see 0 reason for the industry to suddenly switch to TrueHD as the mainstream audio soundtrack if that is what you are implying.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> though the odd-order cancellation effect would diminish with distance from the walls


So would the strength (SPL) of the modes, proportionately.


noah katz said:


> Also less practical to have subs out in the room.


They don't have to be. For example, placing a pair of subs on the front wall at the quarter points of room width will cancel the first 3 width modes, resulting in smoother bass and greater seat-to-seat consistency across the seating area.


----------



## thebland

S late 2014, Early 2015 for these receivers?


----------



## Roger Dressler

SoundChex said:


> Interestingly, I note that the *Yamaha RX-A2040|RX-A3040* now include a user entered "*on-wall|on-ceiling*" parameter associated with Presence channel speakers.


Yes. That is their means for crudely inferring the direction from the speaker to the listener, which alters the soundfield signals it generates. It's less precise than elevation angle, but presumably sufficient.


----------



## CinemaAndy

I'm really trying to figure out how to incorporate a Dolby Atmos AVR into my current set up. Any ideals?


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> OK let us clear this up. I was told, by Dolby, that i would not have purchase "new" disks that Atmos firmware would do it's thing on older BD's. No i am not talking about new release BD like Godzilla or what is playing in theaters now, as that will feature a Atmos mix on the sound track as part of the master audio. With all that being said if you want 100 percent Atmos sound, you have to get the BD that will be labeled as Atmos.
> 
> Is the above correct or did something change near launch?????


Atmos upmixing with work with any existing audio. But it will not present object audio unless the disc has that encoded.


----------



## Roger Dressler

joerod said:


> I am planning 6 in the ceiling. Two front heights, two back heights and two middle room. All in line with each other and the fronts. I bet 6 will eventually be part of Atmos (sooner than later)....


Already is. Witness the Trinnov Altitude with 10 height speaker capability.


----------



## ss9001

Roger Dressler said:


> I do not think they would work decently, they would work perfectly -- exactly the same!
> 
> I agree there is no conflict -- that's why it is confusing. I can understand this is a byproduct of having to accommodate the slightly different ranges (45 vs. 55 deg). If we could forget about the 45 deg max of PLIIz, then we could entertain the front top speakers range of 30-55 degrees independently of the particular room surface employed to mount the speakers. In spite of Dolby's "rule of thirds", our brains could care less what physical means is used to mount the speakers, as long as they create the proper sound source location.
> 
> In addition, Dolby could simply have said: "If you already have front height speakers at 30-45 deg, they can be used for Atmos front top speakers. No need to move them."


Roger, your comments are quite interesting because some are saying existing front heights won't work properly, presumably because of location difference & angle of sound to the listening position. I must admit to being very confused on this issue. Do you think it might be due to providing or not providing speaker angle measurement during calibration? 

Based on your comments, you seem to think it won't make a big difference.


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> I'm really trying to figure out how to incorporate a Dolby Atmos AVR into my current set up. Any ideals?


First you need to get the acoustics sorted out. Lots of OSB to make reflective ceilings for a start:


----------



## ambesolman

Rod#S said:


> Question, I haven't heard much skepticism about the proposed top firing add on modules for speakers with flat tops. Does it not bother anyone that putting such a silly thing on the top of your speakers is going to have a negative impact on the speaker's performance? I mean the speaker wasn't designed to have a sizeable object protruding out of the top. Is it because these things are going to be cheap and the module manufacturers assume these will be purchased by people who give no thought to the effect it will have on the existing setup and place more value or priority on gaining access to the newest tech thing that everything else becomes irrelevant???
> 
> I know I'm starting to come off as an old prude who is scared of change with all of my posts  but I'm just seeing items here that seem to fly in the face of preserving audio quality.



Welcome to the conversation. Read post #1111 by someone who's heard them.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## Orbitron

Rod#S said:


> Question, I haven't heard much skepticism about the proposed top firing add on modules for speakers with flat tops. Does it not bother anyone that putting such a silly thing on the top of your speakers is going to have a negative impact on the speaker's performance? I mean the speaker wasn't designed to have a sizeable object protruding out of the top. Is it because these things are going to be cheap and the module manufacturers assume these will be purchased by people who give no thought to the effect it will have on the existing setup and place more value or priority on gaining access to the newest tech thing that everything else becomes irrelevant???
> 
> I know I'm starting to come off as an old prude who is scared of change with all of my posts  but I'm just seeing items here that seem to fly in the face of preserving audio quality.


Rod, you raise a great question, especially in my case. I have Dynaudio Confidence C2 Signatures for my LF and RF. They have 2 tweeters and 2 woofers and have something called "Dynaudio Directivity Control" (DDC). The DDC concept arrays the drivers symmetrrically on the vertical axis but uses the 2 tweeters differently. 

The C2 crosses over to the tweeters at 2200Hz, the upper tweeter, via filtering, operates only from 3kHz to 8kHz. The goal is to minimize the reflections off the ceiling and floor boundaries by narrowing vertical dispersion in that range. As a result, the actual response in the listening position includes less of the reflected energy - and with it fewer drop-offs and fewer cancellations.


----------



## Roger Dressler

ss9001 said:


> Roger, your comments are quite interesting because at least person from 1 mfg has posted that existing front heights won't work properly, presumably because of location difference & angle of sound to the listening position. I must admit to being very confused on this issue. Do you think it might be due to providing or not providing speaker angle measurement during calibration? Based on your comments, you seem to think it won't make a big difference.


I suspect that mgf is assuming the speakers do not present the correct angle to the listener. But who knows what's really behind such a comment. 

If the speakers are in the right place (desired elevation angle acceptable to Atmos -- 30-55 deg) then the Atmos AVR should just be told they are Front Top (instead of Front Height) and it all works fine. 

I'd be happy to be proven wrong...


----------



## thebland

I wonder if Neo X would do better on Atmos encoded sound tracks (could something like Neo X better improvise height cues from an ATMOS Blu Ray soundtrack than a non- Atmos encoded soundtrack)?? Curious as to how us folks with Neo X (and no Atmos) will fare with Atmos encoded discs?? Any advantage?


----------



## Tech5635

If setting up a 7.1.4 system would the ceiling speakers be mounted directly above the Front Left and Right and Surround Left and Right speakers, or would they be mounted equidistant between the Front left and surround left, and front right and surround right making sure that they are in in-line with those speakers?


----------



## joerod

Roger Dressler said:


> Already is. Witness the Trinnov Altitude with 10 height speaker capability.


I mean available in more mainstream products from Onkyo/Integra, Pioneer and Marantz/Denon. Maybe next gen or possibly this one with a firmware update.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

action_jackson said:


> Most likely three JBL 3677s accross the front. I'm going to try three of the 8320s in the front first before I ceiling mount them and see how they sound. If I am satisfied I will just order some more of them, that way all speakers are matching. If I am not satisfied, I will go with the 3677s.


I don't think the 8320's can hack it as more than surround speakers. That's what they're primarily designed for. The 3677's would definitely be the better choice for the front three.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> So would the strength (SPL) of the modes, proportionately.


Good point!



sdurani said:


> They don't have to be. For example, placing a pair of subs on the front wall at the quarter points of room width will cancel the first 3 width modes, resulting in smoother bass and greater seat-to-seat consistency across the seating area.


Didn't know that either (the best I can practically do is front and back wall subs, so I haven't paid attention to the other possibilities).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ambesolman said:


> Weeds plural?


This is your home theater... 
*
ON WEEDS!!!!!!!!*


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> 40 deg on a wall sounds the same as 40 deg on a ceiling, from a sound localization perspective.


True, but I don't know if that's what's being discussed. Seems the placement diagram allows a wide range for each speaker location and, depending on which end of the range the speaker is placed, the experience can vary. 

For example: speakers above the mains, at 30 degrees elevation, will sound more like a taller soundstage. Those same speakers above you, at 55 degrees elevation, will image sounds overhead. 

If you look at placement for a single pair of tops, it ranges from 25 degrees forward of the listening position to 10 degrees rearward of the listening position. Don't you think that makes a difference? Or do you feel it doesn't matter, as long as those sounds localize above you?


----------



## Tom Grooms

I think alot of you are reading too much into those charts. 40 degrees could be a traditional height speaker location with an 8' ceiling and a 8' listening position or they could be 6 feet in front of the mains @ the same 40 degrees with a 16' main listening position.

Trying to bend the numbers or use fuzzy math to make height location speakers into Atmos top speakers is not what was intended. Will it work, sure. But we all know that guy who has all 5 of his HTIB speakers lined up on his entertainment center and it works too.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> True, but I don't know if that's what's being discussed. Seems the placement diagram allows a wide range for each speaker location and, depending on which end of the range the speaker is placed, the experience can vary.
> 
> For example: speakers above the mains, at 30 degrees elevation, will sound more like a taller soundstage. Those same speakers above you, at 55 degrees elevation, will image sounds overhead.
> 
> If you look at placement for a single pair of tops, it ranges from 25 degrees forward of the listening position to 10 degrees rearward of the listening position. Don't you think that makes a difference? Or do you feel it doesn't matter, as long as those sounds localize above you?


Absolutely agree the issues you mention will change the sound. The angle changes the sound. And I further assert that the same angles means the sound is the same. I am merely decoupling the discussion of sound presentation from a) the name of the speaker, and b) the surface upon which the speaker is affixed.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I am merely decoupling the discussion of sound presentation from a) the name of the speaker, and b) the surface upon which the speaker is affixed.


OK, complete agreement there. Others on the same page? 

However, I can understand manufacturers resorting to separate names in order to differentiate between speaker locations for height processing (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X) and speaker locations for Atmos. The former tried to make the front soundstage taller while the latter is trying to localize sounds above the listener. How to get consumers to grok this distinction? 

Of course they undermine this by having such a huge placement overlap between "heights" and "tops", making the separate names pretty much pointless. In the end, maybe it's not worth getting consumers to understand the difference, _especially_ if all 10 height locations end up being used for Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Atmos upmixing will work with any existing audio.
> But it will not present object audio *unless the disc has that encoded*.


And the disc with such encoding, will it have a Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (or 7.1) audio soundtrack?
And! The discs encoded with DTS-HD MA 5.1 (or 7.1), will some of them have Dolby Atmos encoding? ...No.
...That would be the dts-UHD department at this stage, with their own algorithm?


----------



## noah katz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler 
I am merely decoupling the discussion of sound presentation from a) the name of the speaker, and b) the surface upon which the speaker is affixed.



sdurani said:


> OK, complete agreement there. Others on the same page?



yesiree


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> *
> It has come to my attention that there was some studio content that was showcased in error during the event I attended this week. I had posted a review that described the Dolby Atmos experience that talked in detail about these film clips. These clips were provided by the studio to help test the Dolby Atmos home capabilities during development and had not yet been approved to show during public demos. I have been kindly asked by Dolby to remove references to these movies in my review. I have been invited back to do another demo with approved cinematic studio content and will look to post a follow up review as soon as I can.
> 
> The deleted sections have been replaced by 'spoilers' explaining the reason for their deletion. *
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> *'Ears on' experience of Atmos in a home theater, using Atmos-enabled speakers
> *
> On July 15th I was invited to a demonstration of Atmos For The Home at Dolby Labs in London. This was a wonderful opportunity for me to be one of the very first AV enthusiasts to hear at first hand just how well — or not of course — the theatrical Atmos experience translates to the confines of the typical home cinema. What follows is a report of my experience that day and the impressions gained from it.
> 
> The demonstration was split into two parts. The first was held in Dolby’s amazing screening room. We were told that this room represents _“probably the finest Atmos experience in Europe”_ and I can easily believe that, having heard what we did.
> 
> The room seated, at a guess, for I failed to count, about 130 seats and the rows of speakers on the side walls, down to the screen, on the rear walls and in two rows above our heads were pointed out to us. All in all I counted 32 speakers, more or less, including two huge subwoofers mounted in the rear corners.
> 
> *Opening demo in Dolby’s main screening room.*
> 
> After an explanation of the broad principles of object-based audio, we were treated to a couple of Dolby’s own short demo clips. While these did indeed display the amazing sense of 3D immersion in a sound field, my feeling was that this was to be ‘expected’. After all, Dolby themselves are not going to create special demo material that fails to deliver a good Atmos experience, especially in their own screening room. Sounds zipped around us, over us, even passing ‘through’ us. The precision and definition was startling, the bass was the best I have heard, anywhere, ever.
> 
> But what the small group of audience members was craving were some actual movie clips. And here, Dolby did not fall short. As we may have expected, the most awesome was the Academy Award Winning sound of
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Content removed at Dolby's request, as explained at beginning of this review.
> 
> 
> So effective was the sound track at putting me “right there” that I felt my pulse rate quicken and my elevated heart rate left me a little short of breath. I was “there”, out in the open, with them. It was an amazing experience and I have never felt anywhere near as immersed in a movie as I did during that sequence.
> 
> But in some ways, this was as expected as it was amazing. We were sitting in “probably the finest Atmos facility in Europe”. What we all wanted to know now was “how does this translate to the home?”, and this was next up on the agenda.
> *
> Atmos in the home theater.*
> 
> We were split into groups of six and taken into a small, 6 seater ‘home theatre’ on the first floor of the Dolby facility. Immediately on entering the room, I noticed that it was treated, including treatments running front to back down the centre of the ceiling, and that the 7.2.4 Atmos system which they were running consisted of two decently sized subs and 7 fairly modest looking bookshelf satellite speakers. In the ceiling I could see 4 modest in-ceiling speakers. I’d say the room was about 15 feet long and 12 feet wide, with an 8 foot ceiling, so the sort of space that many people could easily replicate at home. I would say that the system components in this room were of the sort that most people could afford - there was nothing that seemed in any way ‘over the top’, so Dolby had gone to lengths to make this room typical of what we could recreate for ourselves at home.
> 
> The first demo up were the specially created Dolby ‘sound logos’ we had heard in the main room so that we could compare the two experiences. As before, they were excellent but expected. What impressed was, again, the three dimensionality of the sound. This demo, it was explained, was using the physical in-ceiling speakers, but all of the subsequent demos would use the Atmos-enabled speakers. This is where it started to get interesting.
> 
> When the operator played the Dolby demo clip again, using this time the Atmos speakers, I noticed a small, but definite, diminution of the precision with which the sounds were placed, especially overhead. But it was surprisingly small. One of the audience members I spoke to afterwards said he couldn’t hear any difference at all. I stress that the difference was unexpectedly small.
> *
> Watch out - he's above you… behind you… in front of you… to the side of you…*
> 
> But again, what I wanted to hear was not specially created Dolby clips but some real movie content and I was not disappointed. Let me try to describe what I heard when they played a clip from
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Content removed at request of Dolby.
> 
> 
> I am very familiar with this clip and I have used it myself to demonstrate how a good system can ‘lose the walls of the room’ making the space of the HT sound much bigger than it really is.
> 
> But nothing, nothing I have heard before prepared me for this Atmos mix. And remember, I was hearing this now only on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The sound came from above, from the left, from the centre, from the above left, from the left-centre, from everywhere that the character jumped to in the scene. The precision of the placement of his voice to reflect his physical location on the screen was excellent. I found myself moving my head towards his voice. In some parts of the scene we can’t see the character as he is obscured by shadows. But each time he spoke, before we could see him, we knew exactly where he was. Exactly. And when he came out of the shadows to reveal himself, he was exactly where we knew he would be.
> 
> Amazing though this was, and amazed as I was at the way the Atmos-enabled speakers ‘just worked’, this was not actually the most impressive part of this scene.
> 
> *Much, much more than ‘height effects’.*
> 
> No, the most impressive part was the sheer scale of the space we were now ’sitting in’. The walls and ceiling of the room had gone. They had just _vanished_. In their place instead were the confines of a massive cave, hundreds of feet wide and high. There is a lot of ambient sound and echoes in this scene and Atmos’s ability to add a height dimension was just breathtaking. I don’t want to ‘gush’ over this, but there is no other way to describe what I was hearing. I had been transported to a huge, echoing cave with an evil little creature taunting me as he hid and revealed himself over and over in this huge space. I closed my eyes. Yes, I was sitting in a massive cave, not a small demo room in central London. If Dolby had blown a cold blast of aircon into then room, the illusion would have been total. And I repeat, this was from the Atmos speakers not the physical in-ceiling speakers. Remember I said that I heard a little more precision in the sound with the physical speakers playing? I can only imagine how much better this clip would sound when using the physical speakers because, sadly, we had run out of time and had to make way for the next six attendees.
> 
> My overall impressions? OK - first off, Atmos is much, much more than ‘height effects’. This is one of the great misconceptions about Atmos in my opinion - that is only for ‘height effects’. Forget all about it only being of value when helicopters fly over or rain is coming down. Sure, these things are vastly better when heard via Atmos, but in my view, that is not what Atmos is about. What Atmos truly does is use those ceiling speakers, or the Atmos ‘modules’ in an Atmos speaker, to enable the sound to be precisely located in three dimensional space. The ‘top’ speakers have just as much of an important role in helping place a sound ‘just slightly above your head and to the right’ as they do in flyovers and so on. There is no doubt of the role of top speakers in creating that huge cave space in the clip mentioned above of course - without the ability to put sound ‘over our head’ that scene can never be as impressive as it was in Atmos. But ‘height effects’ doesn’t even begin to cover it.
> *
> A genuine revelation - Atmos-enabled speakers.*
> 
> If you haven’t actually heard Atmos-enabled speakers for yourself, you cannot begin to understand how effective they are. They are not just ‘a bit’ effective. They are not a ‘real compromise’. They are just stunning in a way that can’t really be believed until you have heard them. For anyone who cannot or does not want to install physical speakers on or in the ceiling, Atmos-enabled speakers are not some sort of ‘poor man’s alternative’. Having heard both, ‘side by side’ I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that if you go with Atmos speakers for your Atmos system, you will not, in any way, be disappointed.
> 
> Dolby seem to have achieved the impossible here - they have found a way to deliver the Atmos experience in a small home theatre, or in a living room, without the _apparent _addition of a single extra speaker. To look at the Atmos system I saw and heard this week, it looks no different to any other 7.1 system already out there. If you are comfortable with a 5.1 or 7.1 system in your home, then you can enjoy Atmos without any visible change to the room at all. Note the use of the word ‘visible’. The audible change is of a magnitude I have not heard before.
> 
> *Acknowledgements.*
> 
> I would like to thank Dolby, Onkyo (the co-hosts of the demo) and my good friend Allan of Ideal AV in Yorkshire, England for making this day possible. For anyone living within travelling distance of Allan’s great demo room, he will soon be having a full Atmos demo facility up and running. I urge everyone who can to go and hear this and especially anyone who feels that he cannot ‘accommodate’ an Atmos system. You can! And from what I heard this week, you will most definitely want to.





CinemaAndy said:


> I'm really trying to figure out how to incorporate a Dolby Atmos AVR into my current set up. Any ideals?





Rod#S said:


> *Question*, I haven't heard much skepticism about the proposed top firing add on modules for speakers with flat tops. Does it not bother anyone that putting such a silly thing on the top of your speakers is going to have a negative impact on the speaker's performance?
> I mean the speaker wasn't designed to have a sizeable object protruding out of the top. Is it because these things are going to be cheap and the module manufacturers assume these will be purchased by people who give no thought to the effect it will have on the existing setup and place more value or priority on gaining access to the newest tech thing that everything else becomes irrelevant???
> 
> I know I'm starting to come off as an old prude who is scared of change with all of my posts  but I'm just seeing items here that seem to fly in the face of preserving audio quality.


Take your pick (from the two quotes above yours).


----------



## Cam Man

sdurani said:


> So would the strength (SPL) of the modes, proportionately. They don't have to be. For example, placing a pair of subs on the front wall at the quarter points of room width will cancel the first 3 width modes, resulting in smoother bass and greater seat-to-seat consistency across the seating area.


And subs to do precise work like this in ceiling, in wall, or on wall are now rather easy. 


http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/icb10sub.html#tab2


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> This is your home theater...
> *
> ON WEEDS!!!!!!!!*


So I was right then? ...I knew it, I just knew it!


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> OK, complete agreement there. *Others on the same page?*


I am totally on the same page; what Roger just said is clear as crystal - name of them PLIIz, dts Neo:X, Audyssey DSX front height speakers (rear height?) and differentiated by the overhead (top ceiling) Atmos speakers. 

*QUOTE:* "However, I can understand manufacturers resorting to separate names in order to differentiate between speaker locations for height processing (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X) and speaker locations for Atmos. The former tried to make the front soundstage taller while the latter is trying to localize sounds above the listener. How to get consumers to grok this distinction? 

Of course they undermine this by having such a huge placement overlap between "heights" and "tops", making the separate names pretty much pointless. In the end, maybe it's not worth getting consumers to understand the difference, _especially_ if all 10 height locations end up being used for Atmos." *CLOSING QUOTE*

Oh but it is important to make a clear distinction here; each speaker positioning has its own intended impact, its own targeted "object" in space. ...And their algorithm from their various brands are also different. 
* Without clear distinction the world would be in total chaos. ...Just look @ it right now!


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> And the disc with such encoding, will it have a Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (or 7.1) audio soundtrack?


They are one in the same. The Atmos goodies are an extension to the compatible 5.1/7.1 core.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> So I was right then? ...I knew it, I just knew it!



Just a little fun at your expense. 

It's _weed_ not weeds. Unless you're into smoking ground up dandelions. Hey! I'm not one to judge...


----------



## NorthSky

Ok Roger. Now, because there aren't that many Blu-ray discs encoded with Dolby TrueHD (the vast majority now are in DTS-HD MA), then there won't be many Blu-ray movies encoded (extended) with "object" stems from Dolby Atmos.
Am I right or am I wrong? 

This is just the beginning, and very similar to Dolby Pro Logic IIz versus DTS Neo:X (or Neo:6 ?).

And of course the studios won't be switching side just like that.

My guess: It will take time till we get real content, and in fair quantity (and quality as well).
And without too much content (proper quality software), ...


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just a little fun at your expense.
> 
> It's _weed_ not weeds. Unless you're into smoking ground up dandelions. Hey! I'm not one to judge...


Jeez, you got me going for a sec here Dan. :serious: --------------------- jk


----------



## NorthSky

By the way Roger, what is that new Room EQ system that Onkyo/Integra is putting in them new 2014-15 receivers/SSPs instead of Audyssey? 

What is it called, ACU... something?

EDIT: AccuEQ room calibration. ...Using only one mic position (for simplicity sake, not necessarily better). 

My gut feeling: Some people are going to switch from Onkyo/Integra over to Denon/Marantz (Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in combination with Dolby Atmos of course). But who knows, I might be wrong in that gut feeling.
Only time will truly tell (financial figures from them manufacturers). 
And lets not forget Audyssey MultEQ Pro Ready from some of them products (in combination with XT32). 

The times they are a-changin'


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> I'm expecting that *Atmos AVR*s will require user entry of _configuration parameters_, e.g., SET *H1* value to "*FHL|R*" or "*TFL|R*" or "*TML|R*", and SET *H2* value to "*NONE*" or "*TML|R*" or "*TRL|R*" or "*RHL|R*" to match your actual height|ceiling speaker configuration.
> 
> This information would allow the rendering engine to create (_here, 11_) different tessellation polytopes specific to individual _height layer_ speaker configurations. (If the *Atmos* _main layer_ continues to support *5|6|7* speakers and to use them all in VBAP processing, the combination would allow for 33 different three-dimensional audio renderings from one soundtrack encode.)
> _


Not in the units coming this fall, unfortunately.


----------



## kbarnes701

Rod#S said:


> These are very interesting thoughts, especially the pint about dts dominating the Blu-ray audio market. You might be right that Atmos will only show up on TrueHD titles. Time will tell I guess.


*Dolby* Atmos will definitely only show up on *Dolby* TrueHD.


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> OK let us clear this up. I was told, by Dolby, that i would not have purchase "new" disks that Atmos firmware would do it's thing on older BD's. No i am not talking about new release BD like Godzilla or what is playing in theaters now, as that will feature a Atmos mix on the sound track as part of the master audio. With all that being said if you want 100 percent Atmos sound, you have to get the BD that will be labeled as Atmos.
> 
> Is the above correct or did something change near launch?????


I think you might be conflating upmixing with proper Atmos-encoded content.

Only Blurays that are marked as ATMOS will be true Atmos mixes. 

However, Dolby have created an upmixing algorithm which will upmix legacy content so that it uses the full array of speakers. This will be similar to the way PLIIx upmixes a 2 channel source to use all your speakers. As you may know if you have done this, PLIIx is remarkably effective at 'turning 2.0' into a multichannel experience, but it is not as good as a real, discrete 5.1 track. It will be similar, IMO, with legacy content upmixed to Atmos.

So yes, if I have understood you correctly, you are right in your thinking.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> Interestingly, I note that the *Yamaha RX-A2040|RX-A3040* now include a user entered "*on-wall|on-ceiling*" parameter associated with Presence channel speakers.
> _


But not for Atmos unfortunately.


----------



## kbarnes701

Rod#S said:


> Question, I haven't heard much skepticism about the proposed top firing add on modules for speakers with flat tops. Does it not bother anyone that putting such a silly thing on the top of your speakers is going to have a negative impact on the speaker's performance? I mean the speaker wasn't designed to have a sizeable object protruding out of the top. Is it because these things are going to be cheap and the module manufacturers assume these will be purchased by people who give no thought to the effect it will have on the existing setup and place more value or priority on gaining access to the newest tech thing that everything else becomes irrelevant???
> 
> I know I'm starting to come off as an old prude who is scared of change with all of my posts  but I'm just seeing items here that seem to fly in the face of preserving audio quality.


Everyone who has heard them, including me, has been hugely impressed by the Atmos-enabled speakers. You are right to be skeptical, as I was, but when you hear them your worries will evaporate.

Incidentally, to describe it as a "silly thing" denies the considerable skill, amount of time, money and technical expertise that went into designing and making Atmos speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Rod#S said:


> Wanna bet?  I see 0 reason for the industry to suddenly switch to TrueHD as the mainstream audio soundtrack if that is what you are implying.


I'm not implying it, I am telling you out loud. The 'industry' doesn't care at all about which codec it uses. FilmMixer has already confirmed that the studios are under no contracts with DTS or Dolby for their BD codec format choice, and Roger Dressler (IIRC) has confirmed that the studios don't pay license fees for the use of these codecs. FilmMixer (IIRC) has also said that the studios use DTS-HD MA simply because it makes their workflow somewhat easier, under the status quo. Once they are faced with a choice of releasing content that includes the latest format (Atmos) and thus using TrueHD, or releasing content mastered in DTS-HD MA and therefore NOT being able to release Atmos content at all, it will be a pretty straightforward choice. 

So yes, there is a huge reason for them to switch: unless they do they won't be able to release Atmos content.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> OK, complete agreement there. Others on the same page?
> 
> However, I can understand manufacturers resorting to separate names in order to differentiate between speaker locations for height processing (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X) and speaker locations for Atmos. The former tried to make the front soundstage taller while the latter is trying to localize sounds above the listener. How to get consumers to grok this distinction?
> 
> Of course they undermine this by having such a huge placement overlap between "heights" and "tops", making the separate names pretty much pointless. In the end, maybe it's not worth getting consumers to understand the difference, _especially_ if all 10 height locations end up being used for Atmos.


I was told this week that PLIIz is dead. Gone. Ex...


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> Now, because there aren't that many Blu-ray discs encoded with Dolby TrueHD (the vast majority now are in DTS-HD MA), then there won't be many Blu-ray movies encoded (extended) with "object" stems from Dolby Atmos.
> Am I right or am I wrong?


Wrong. Studios will want to release Atmos encodes and for that they have to use TrueHD. You can guarantee that every movie mixed in Atmos will find its way onto a Bluray at some point.



NorthSky said:


> This is just the beginning, and very similar to Dolby Pro Logic IIz versus DTS Neo:X (or Neo:6 ?).


Can't see the similarity you mention.



NorthSky said:


> And of course the studios won't be switching side just like that.


Yes, they will - see my earlier response. 



NorthSky said:


> My guess: It will take time till we get real content, and in fair quantity (and quality as well).
> And without too much content (proper quality software), ...


Content is being released at the same time as the hardware in the fall, with more to come in 2015. Dolby have already confirmed all this.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> By the way Roger, what is that new Room EQ system that Onkyo/Integra is putting in them new 2014-15 receivers/SSPs instead of Audyssey?
> 
> What is it called, ACU... something?
> 
> EDIT: AccuEQ room calibration. ...Using only one mic position (for simplicity sake, not necessarily better).
> 
> My gut feeling: Some people are going to switch from Onkyo/Integra over to Denon/Marantz (Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in combination with Dolby Atmos of course). But who knows, I might be wrong in that gut feeling.
> Only time will truly tell (financial figures from them manufacturers).
> And lets not forget Audyssey MultEQ Pro Ready from some of them products (in combination with XT32).
> 
> The times they are a-changin'


AccuEQ. It doesn’t EQ the front speakers or the subwoofers. I’ll leave it to you to imagine how well that's going to work.

Here’s a story direct from a respected Onkyo source. The 818, which featured Audyssey's flasghip XT32, for less than $1,000, simply flew off the shelves. They couldn’t sell them fast enough. Its replacement, the 828, is sitting in warehouses on shelves groaning under their weight. Take a guess at one of the main differences between the two...


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> AccuEQ. It doesn’t EQ the front speakers or the subwoofers. I’ll leave it to you to imagine how well that's going to work.


I know quite a few people who have to run totally EQ-less because they don't want Audyssey mucking with their fronts, I think they might very well be lined up for Onkyo then.


----------



## steveting99

kbarnes701 said:


> AccuEQ. It doesn’t EQ the front speakers or the subwoofers. I’ll leave it to you to imagine how well that's going to work...


Those who get the Onkyo AVR and want to REQ the missing front speakers + sub will have to spend a few more dollars and get one of these: http://www.minidsp.com/dirac-series/ddrc-22a

Not cheap but a better EQ than what Onkyo offer.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you might be conflating upmixing with proper Atmos-encoded content.
> 
> Only Blurays that are marked as ATMOS will be true Atmos mixes.
> 
> However, Dolby have created an upmixing algorithm which will upmix legacy content so that it uses the full array of speakers. This will be similar to the way PLIIx upmixes a 2 channel source to use all your speakers. As you may know if you have done this, PLIIx is remarkably effective at 'turning 2.0' into a multichannel experience, but it is not as good as a real, discrete 5.1 track. It will be similar, IMO, with legacy content upmixed to Atmos.
> 
> So yes, if I have understood you correctly, you are right in your thinking.


I hate it when i'm right. I like to be wrong so it doesn't cost me money. So in effect Atmos AVR on none Atmos sources will be a form of up mixing like PL or the old Dolby digital 5.1 that would make your 5.1 "stereo"(2.0, 2.1 or whatever) if no 5.1 source was on the content so you got some "sound" from all you speakers. Some will frown, but i kind of like that ideal so your $$$ overheads will be doing something, instead of being $$$ ceiling conversation pieces. I am not for sure, but i do believe Dolby pioneered the up-mixing algorithm's anyway, so i should soud great.

I have felt a tremor in the force that tells me DTS and BDA, is being well, the DTS and BDA as far as Atmos and Dolby is concerned. Sorry i could not word that better, but this is a public form with sometimes prying eyes reading it. I think you know what i speak of.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not implying it, I am telling you out loud. The 'industry' doesn't care at all about which codec it uses. FilmMixer has already confirmed that the studios are under no contracts with DTS or Dolby for their BD codec format choice, and Roger Dressler (IIRC) has confirmed that the studios don't pay license fees for the use of these codecs. FilmMixer (IIRC) has also said that the studios use DTS-HD MA simply because it makes their workflow somewhat easier, under the status quo. Once they are faced with a choice of releasing content that includes the latest format (Atmos) and thus using TrueHD, or releasing content mastered in DTS-HD MA and therefore NOT being able to release Atmos content at all, it will be a pretty straightforward choice.
> 
> So yes, there is a huge reason for them to switch: unless they do they won't be able to release Atmos content.


From my time at Universal Studios distribution dept, i will tell you, and back up Kbarnes701, they use the cheapest, fastest, 1 person method they can use, DTS fits that bill. Actually they would use no person if such a method was there. Universal released to home video(VHS,DVD,BD,whatever) was both DTS and Dolby(However, they experiment wildly with the PC side until DTS and Dolby became the norm), and that was dictated by $$$ and what kind of contract the content was done under.

I don't know about Auro, but i do know all the studios listen when Dolby talks.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I know quite a few people who have to run totally EQ-less because they don't want Audyssey mucking with their fronts, I think they might very well be lined up for Onkyo then.


There's a huge difference between having it and being able to turn it off if you prefer, to not having a choice. If you have Audyssey and don't want it 'mucking with' your front speakers, turn it off. Some people turn it off for music and on for movies.

Why room distortions suddenly seem to disappear when playing music and reappear when playing movies, and thus only need correcting for the latter, is, of course, anyone's guess


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> I hate it when i'm right. I like to be wrong so it doesn't cost me money. So in effect Atmos AVR on none Atmos sources will be a form of up mixing like PL or the old Dolby digital 5.1 that would make your 5.1 "stereo"(2.0, 2.1 or whatever) if no 5.1 source was on the content so you got some "sound" from all you speakers. Some will frown, but i kind of like that ideal so your $$$ overheads will be doing something, instead of being $$$ ceiling conversation pieces. I am not for sure, but i do believe Dolby pioneered the up-mixing algorithm's anyway, so i should soud great.


Yep. Upmixing will probably be better than no upmixing. Remains to be seen how good it is. I find that PLII works very well at upmixing 2.0 into multichannel, so I am optimistic...


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> There's a huge difference between having it and being able to turn it off if you prefer, to not having a choice. If you have Audyssey and don't want it 'mucking with' your front speakers, turn it off. Some people turn it off for music and on for movies.
> 
> Why room distortions suddenly seem to disappear when playing music and reappear when playing movies, and thus only need correcting for the latter, is, of course, anyone's guess


Best would be to be able to instruct the EQ system which channels you want it to work with, so if you'd want to leave the fronts alone you could do that... always.

Probably your need to adjust for the other speakers outweigh what you lose on the fronts for movies, I guess?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Best would be to be able to instruct the EQ system which channels you want it to work with, so if you'd want to leave the fronts alone you could do that... always.
> 
> Probably your need to adjust for the other speakers outweigh what you lose on the fronts for movies, I guess?


I don't know. Personally I find it incomprehensible that people do not want to use some form of room EQ, either manual, automated or a combination of the two. Even the best-treated rooms still fall short of perfection and EQ can usually help. Multimillion dollar studios and mixing suites, purpose-designed and stuffed with cost-no-object gear still use EQ for the finishing touch. And for the untreated rooms, with imperfect speaker and sub placement, which I suspect is most of them, surely some form of EQ is mandatory not optional if one wants the best possible SQ?


----------



## bargervais

So let me ask is atmos like the 3D frenzy when we had to upgrade and buy all new gear to 3D. Now after I spent all that money upgrading my gear, my 3D glasses gathers more dust then being used. So is upgrading to atmos going to be the same. I'm going to upgrade my gear once more just to hear some rain fall or that one time in a movie that a helicopter flies overhead. I can't replace things every year wish l could. I get all excited with new stuff but my pockets are only so deep. It's going to cost I'll haven't upgraded to 4K as there isn't much content, let's hope I can resist the need or urge to jump in to atmos let's see what happens in October once these receivers are out there and people are using them.


----------



## JonStatt

kbarnes701 said:


> AccuEQ. It doesn’t EQ the front speakers or the subwoofers. I’ll leave it to you to imagine how well that's going to work.
> 
> Here’s a story direct from a respected Onkyo source. The 818, which featured Audyssey's flasghip XT32, for less than $1,000, simply flew off the shelves. They couldn’t sell them fast enough. Its replacement, the 828, is sitting in warehouses on shelves groaning under their weight. Take a guess at one of the main differences between the two...




Please see my post here
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ve-announced-new-tx-nr838-6.html#post25810337


on this topic. While it would be nice to have a system that gave users the choice, leaving out the fronts is not totally stupid. I could not find an official reference for the sub being left out though....Onkyo's website talks about the fronts....I can't see the mention of the sub. Could you point me to that?


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> So let me ask is this atmos like the 3D frenzy when we had to upgrade all our gear to 3D. Now after I spent all that money upgrading my gear my 3D glasses gathers more dust then being used. So is upgrading to atmos going to be the same. I'm going to upgrade my gear once more just to hear some rain fall or that one time in a movie that a helicopter flies overhead. I can't replace things every year wish l could


Read my review a few posts back - especially the part under the subhead of why it is much, more more than 'height effects'. Forget helicopters and rain for now...


----------



## Franin

kbarnes701 said:


> I was told this week that PLIIz is dead. Gone. Ex...


Moving mine soon and getting ready for Atmos


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't know. Personally I find it incomprehensible that people do not want to use some form of room EQ, either manual, automated or a combination of the two. Even the best-treated rooms still fall short of perfection and EQ can usually help. Multimillion dollar studios and mixing suites, purpose-designed and stuffed with cost-no-object gear still use EQ for the finishing touch. And for the untreated rooms, with imperfect speaker and sub placement, which I suspect is most of them, surely some form of EQ is mandatory not optional if one wants the best possible SQ?


Well, if you're sitting with speakers with a frequency response that's been finetuned by the maker in certain areas by as little as a few tenths of a dB to achieve a psychoacoustically flat curve, then you would not want any automated EQ system that knows nothing about it to manhandle it, do you? Some of us also have our rooms designed by the same company as the speakers too.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Well, if you're sitting with speakers with a frequency response that's been finetuned by the maker in certain areas by as little as a few tenths of a dB to achieve a psychoacoustically flat curve, then you would not want any automated EQ system that knows nothing about it to manhandle it, do you? Some of us also have our rooms designed by the same company as the speakers too.


It matters not one jot what the speaker manufacturer has 'fine tuned' in an anechoic chamber. Put that speaker in a room and the room has modes, reflections and so on which all interact with the speakers. All different for different rooms. There is no escaping that. Of course, it is possible to treat the room acoustically and even to purpose-build it. Like they do in Hollywood. And then they add EQ to get rid of the remaining room-induced distortions. It is *room* EQ, not *speaker* EQ we are discussing.


----------



## Michael Sargent

I don't think anyone has asked this, so I'll lead off.


My home is typical stick built construction. I have a projector mounted from the ceiling. If I add Atmos top speakers, and mount them from the ceiling, will the vibrations from the speakers cause the projector to vibrate? Any shake would be noticeable (I guess).


This comes up because in my old days I had a 40" RPTV and the sub would (occasionally) cause the screen to flex. You could see it move, but it didn't make the picture much worse. But a projector moving even a fraction of an inch will cause the image to move considerably more.


So, will I need to do structural re-enforcing at the same time?


Thanks,
Mike


----------



## KidHorn

NorthSky said:


> * http://www.hometoys.com/emagazine/2012/02/what-are-the-characteristics-of-a-good-sounding-room/1511
> 
> -> Section 3 - *3.1.1 - The '38% rule'* & *3.3 - Rear Wall*
> 
> _______
> 
> * http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Room_acoustics.html
> 
> * http://www.uaudio.com/blog/studio-monitor-placement/
> 
> * http://courses.physics.illinois.edu...406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect10_part2.pdf



The article is for the best place to put traps. I don't disagree with that part. Bass traps primary goal is to eliminate room/boundary gain so it would make most sense to place them in corners and along walls. It wouldn't make sense to put them in the middle of the room. Room gain will be at a minimum in the middle of a room. I don't argue that. But, when I read...


"second is that the rear wall usually has a strong bass buildup audible when you listen from the rear wall. Often, the bass buildup is correlated to a null in the middle of the room."


It's clear to me the author doesn't really understand the physics involved. First of all, room gain doesn't correlate with a null anywhere in the room. They have nothing to do with each other. Room gain is caused by a sound wave trying to reflect off a boundary and it can't because the same wave is pushing it back into the boundary. This is why room gain is strongly a function of wavelength. Longer wavelengths will push for a longer period of time and hence produce a larger amplitude before the wave can bounce.


Also, low frequencies travel in all directions from their source. There's nothing special about the back wall. it's no different than any other wall.


Nulls are caused by waves travelling in opposite directions cancelling each other out. Typically when they meet at or near the peak of their wave. You'll get different cancellations at different locations within the room since the peaks will meet at different locations depending on their specific wavelengths. So the middle of the room may have a cancellation at say 40 Hz, while 2 feet to the left may have one at say 55 Hz. The reality is if you have a single sub, you're almost guaranteed to have nulls at different frequencies all over the room. The middle of the room is no more susceptible to this than any other listening spot. Saying the middle of the room is always a null would be like saying the middle of a swimming pool is always calm.


I'm not familiar with the 38% rule and I don't doubt it, but it seems to be primarily applicable to the non-subwoofer speakers. Long wavelengths and short wavelengths behave very differently in a small room.


----------



## Rod#S

NorthSky said:


> Take your pick (from the two quotes above yours).


I don't see how those address my question. That Dolby demo was with speakers with top firing drivers built in by the sounds of things. Unless I misread things somewhere, perhaps earlier in the thread that an option to purchase separate top firing drivers for existing speakers will be made available, it's those items I'm questioning, those weren't used in that demo. Also Dolby wouldn't even give him the name of the speakers so we are supposed to take their word these are the affordable options soon to be made available to the public? They may have looked modest but could have costed thousands of dollars a pair or even each, we just don't know, but that's besides the point as that's not what I'm asking about.

What I'm getting at is if these separate modules will exist, not everyone has large towers as main L/R speakers with flat tops let alone similarly sized surround speakers. So lets assume smaller sized bookshelf speakers for mains and surrounds for the mment. What if these modules have a larger base than the tops of the mains and surrounds? When placed on top of the speakers the module will potentially stick out over all 4 edges and this will compromise the speakers performance, that is the mains and surrounds. This is what I am thinking about. Again if I misread things and there will be no such thing as top firing Atmos add on modules then ignore my question as it's irrelevant.


----------



## KidHorn

Cam Man said:


> My apologies to everyone for this comment which seems to have started a snowball off-topic discussion debate on room modes. I meant it as a humorous aside in the conversation. Didn't think it would attract so much comment.  I have since steered to PMs to respond on that subject.



You may think it's off topic, but it's not. Many people have inquired about room setup and where you should sit within a room is just as important as where you should put your speakers.


----------



## JonStatt

kbarnes701 said:


> It matters not one jot what the speaker manufacturer has 'fine tuned' in an anechoic chamber. Put that speaker in a room and the room has modes, reflections and so on which all interact with the speakers. All different for different rooms. There is no escaping that. Of course, it is possible to treat the room acoustically and even to purpose-build it. Like they do in Hollywood. And then they add EQ to get rid of the remaining room-induced distortions. It is *room* EQ, not *speaker* EQ we are discussing.




Yes and as per my text I pointed you to earlier, I am not convinced the Onkyo AccuEQ has ANY kind of Room EQ for any speaker. I think it is all about harmonising the surrounds with the fronts so that sounds move seamlessly without timbre changes. Inherently doing this kind of speaker EQ is likely to fix room modes for those speakers at the same time assuming the front speakers are not afflicted by the same modes due to the different position.


At the end of the day I am a strong believer in room EQ as far as removing bass modes is concerned....and definitely not mid/highs. I am actually quite against speaker EQ for front speakers but don't have any particular aversion to timbre matching the surrounds to the fronts.


However you are always left with the concern, even with room EQ for modes, that you have unintentionally modified the natural and intentional *by design* humps and bumps on the frequency response of your speakers which give it, its unique character. I did see a theoretical design years ago, where a speaker manufacturer would provide the intended frequency response that you would upload to your receiver and the receiver would then attempt to match this designed response. Without a specific reference to match against, you cannot be sure if you are deviating from the original intention or not. I have not been convinced by any attempt at ruler flat responses, or SMPTE curves


----------



## KidHorn

Michael Sargent said:


> If I add Atmos top speakers, and mount them from the ceiling, will the vibrations from the speakers cause the projector to vibrate?



Not likely. I would assume the speakers you put of the ceiling would be small and lightweight and crossed over at around 120. Not likely to vibrate at all. If you plan of using full range towers on the your ceiling than you may need to be concerned.


----------



## Rod#S

kbarnes701 said:


> *Dolby* Atmos will definitely only show up on *Dolby* TrueHD.


Agreed, no argument there as that is how I understand it's transmission as well.



kbarnes701 said:


> Everyone who has heard them, including me, has been hugely impressed by the Atmos-enabled speakers. You are right to be skeptical, as I was, but when you hear them your worries will evaporate.
> 
> Incidentally, to describe it as a "silly thing" denies the considerable skill, amount of time, money and technical expertise that went into designing and making Atmos speakers.


Apologies if I come across as needing to be sold on Atmos because I don't. I haven't heard it but I know I want it  just like I wanted PLIIz and dts Neo:X I have no doubt there will be any denying the experience it brings. All skepticisim just relates to some of the hardware being introduced to the market. Not everyne can afford to toss out their existing speakers in order to get these new top firing speakers and not everyone can install ceiling speakers. This is why in my post last evening I was asking about Atmos modules and I was once again skeptical as I'm always thinking about preserving the quailty of the existing setup and how purchasing Atmos modules may interfere with what we already have.



kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not implying it, I am telling you out loud. The 'industry' doesn't care at all about which codec it uses. FilmMixer has already confirmed that the studios are under no contracts with DTS or Dolby for their BD codec format choice, and Roger Dressler (IIRC) has confirmed that the studios don't pay license fees for the use of these codecs. FilmMixer (IIRC) has also said that the studios use DTS-HD MA simply because it makes their workflow somewhat easier, under the status quo. Once they are faced with a choice of releasing content that includes the latest format (Atmos) and thus using TrueHD, or releasing content mastered in DTS-HD MA and therefore NOT being able to release Atmos content at all, it will be a pretty straightforward choice.
> 
> So yes, there is a huge reason for them to switch: unless they do they won't be able to release Atmos content.


I suppsoe that assumes everything going to the theater will have an Amos soundtrack and/or Atmos sundtracks will be made available on Blu-rays even if the theatrical version did not include it. That's the only way I could see a need to shift things to TrueHD from Master Audio and I just don't see that happening, at least not any time soon. This also assumes dts does not alter the lossless Master Audio codec to somehow embed the Atmos mix or simply come out of the gate with their object based format for the home. They obviously have it for cinema. I suspect Atmos soundtracks in theaters will continue to be the minority for quite some time to come, perhaps long enough until we need to rethink the existing Blu-ray format in the event 4K starts to happen. I suppsoe then it might become a decision of do the studios continue to offer physical media or move to downloads but I may be jumping the gun on that, no argument there. Until that happens Atmos may end up being used primarily as a matrix system as you point out PLIIz is now dead.


----------



## jtenn

SoundChex said:


> Interestingly, I note that the *Yamaha RX-A2040|RX-A3040* now include a user entered "*on-wall|on-ceiling*" parameter associated with Presence channel speakers.
> _


I think that might be used when they enable Atmos later this year. From a Yamaha press release... "Yamaha will enable Dolby Atmos playback through a firmware update later this fall."


----------



## Selden Ball

Rod,

You seem to have overlooked FilmMixer's explanation. The studios just contract for the use of the cheapest/easiest-to-use codec which provides the functionality that they need. Without the need for Atmos, that's currently DTS. When Atmos is needed, they'll contact the mixing to be done using Dolby. 

Previously (probably not in this thread) Keith has mentioned two titles which he knows are being remixed in Atmos for home release. Unfortunately, I don't recall what they are.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> AccuEQ. It doesn’t EQ the front speakers or the subwoofers. I’ll leave it to you to imagine how well that's going to work.
> 
> Here’s a story direct from a respected Onkyo source. The 818, which featured Audyssey's flasghip XT32, for less than $1,000, simply flew off the shelves. They couldn’t sell them fast enough. Its replacement, the 828, is sitting in warehouses on shelves groaning under their weight. Take a guess at one of the main differences between the two...


I think the TX-NR 838 will have the same fait at a little over $1,000 for 7.1 and without audyssey XT32.. I know once the TX-NR 1030 comes out the price may drop some but still no audyssey.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Nightlord said:


> I know quite a few people who have to run totally EQ-less because they don't want Audyssey mucking with their fronts, I think they might very well be lined up for Onkyo then.


Audyssey has a setting called "Bypass L/R" which gives you the option of bypassing the fronts.

So I found it hard to believe that someone would pass up the choice to bypass vs the need to bypass.

Add to that the multiple mic positions and subwoofer calibration and it's a no brainer. I love my XT32.


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> The middle of the room is no more susceptible to this than any other listening spot. Saying the middle of the room is always a null would be like saying the middle of a swimming pool is always calm.


The middle of the room is where odd-order modes (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc) always null and even-order modes (2nd, 4th, etc) always peak. The frequency response variation is worse here than anywhere else in the room because modes are always at extremes, either peaking or nulling. 













KidHorn said:


> I'm not familiar with the 38% rule and I don't doubt it, but it seems to be primarily applicable to the non-subwoofer speakers.


Odd divisions (thirds, fifths, etc) of room dimensions avoid nulls and most peaks. For example: around 1/3rd of room length, modes are much closer to each other in level (less variation) than elsewhere in the room, making it a good location for a row of seating.


----------



## brwsaw

While we're on the subject (off topic) how are room modes effected by speaker placement? My previous attempt at mapping them suggests you don’t need to adjust for speaker placement(not considering subs here) just put them where they sound best.


----------



## Romans828

In the classic "soffit" design like the Cinemar theater, would the ceiling Atmos speakers be in the soffit area or more in the raised area of the room for a 7.1.4 setup?


----------



## Cam Man

JonStatt said:


> I did see a theoretical design years ago, where a speaker manufacturer would provide the intended frequency response that you would upload to your receiver and the receiver would then attempt to match this designed response. Without a specific reference to match against, you cannot be sure if you are deviating from the original intention or not. I have not been convinced by any attempt at ruler flat responses, or SMPTE curves


I think that the closest to come to that is probably the Harman Arcos system in which you actually indicate the speaker model (a Synthesis model) in the room and the unique properties of that speaker are part of the calculations for the corrections toward the target curve which is not flat, as you probably know.

Arcos description: http://www.jblsynthesis.com/Info/Story/87

Thread with target curve graphics: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1331266-target-curves.html#post20356669


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I was told this week that PLIIz is dead. Gone. Ex...


Keith, You have mentioned this previously, but it is my interpretation that neither you nor the Dolby rep(s) mean this to be taken literally. Rather, and most logically, I assume that PLIIz will be obviated by Atmos once the latter becomes fully implemented in CE equipment. (Or, as you yourself have said: "I can't really see why Dolby would even continue with PLIIz *once Atmos becomes widely available*." [my emphasis]) In the meantime--and for the near term--PLIIz will still be very much functional, especially (but not only) for anyone who is not using an Atmos-enabled system. 

Furthermore, I note that Onkyo's upcoming TX-NR3030 includes Dolby PLIIz processing in addition to Atmos. My guess is that Onkyo is allowing purchasers the option of Atmos top speakers or "traditional" PLIIz FH's as a transitional model. I am most interested in seeing what D&M's forthcoming Atmos-enabled AVR's will offer regarding use of the Height1L/R speaker connections since I have an 11.1 layout and hope to get either the X5200 or X7200 within the next year. My current plan, however, is to leave my FH's in place until I have convinced myself (through first-hand experimentation and feedback from other users) that it is worth my while to cut additional holes in my living room ceiling to accommodate the Atmos top speaker configuration--in addition to repurposing or shedding my FW's and/or SB's. For home theaters, this might be a no-brainer given the promise of Atmos enhancements, but for those of us who have to make do with a multi-purpose room for our main listening area it can be a major commitment once we start installing in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> It matters not one jot what the speaker manufacturer has 'fine tuned' in an anechoic chamber. Put that speaker in a room and the room has modes, reflections and so on which all interact with the speakers. All different for different rooms. There is no escaping that. Of course, it is possible to treat the room acoustically and even to purpose-build it. Like they do in Hollywood. And then they add EQ to get rid of the remaining room-induced distortions. It is *room* EQ, not *speaker* EQ we are discussing.


It will be speaker EQ, you sacrifice the first arriving on-axis sound to correct room behavior. Which satisfies a microphone more than the ear. 

I didn't say anechoic chamber, you made that up.


----------



## noah katz

Michael Sargent said:


> ...My home is typical stick built construction. I have a projector mounted from the ceiling. If I add Atmos top speakers, and mount them from the ceiling, will the vibrations from the speakers cause the projector to vibrate? Any shake would be noticeable (I guess).
> 
> So, will I need to do structural re-enforcing at the same time?


It's possible but not likely.

If it is an issue I'd tackle it by isolating the speakers and/or projector (the former likely being easier) by using an elastomer (rubber, neoprene, etc) in the mounting scheme to prevent hard contact between the speaker and the wall/ceiling.



KidHorn said:


> Room gain is caused by a sound wave trying to reflect off a boundary and it can't because the same wave is pushing it back into the boundary. This is why room gain is strongly a function of wavelength. Longer wavelengths will push for a longer period of time and hence produce a larger amplitude before the wave can bounce.


I don't think I agree with that explanation.

Nothing stops the reflection, as sound waves traveling at 600+ mph are still hitting the walls.

The wavelength is long compared to the room dimensions so that the phase is similar everywhere in the room at once, or in the extreme of a sealed room and close to 0 Hz, the room pressure rises and falls with driver excursion. 



sdurani said:


>



Nice pic's.

Any idea where the line of flat response is?


----------



## Nightlord

PoshFrosh said:


> Audyssey has a setting called "Bypass L/R" which gives you the option of bypassing the fronts.
> 
> So I found it hard to believe that someone would pass up the choice to bypass vs the need to bypass.
> 
> Add to that the multiple mic positions and subwoofer calibration and it's a no brainer. I love my XT32.


Great.

Also for stereo music?


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, You have mentioned this previously, but it is my interpretation that neither you nor the Dolby rep(s) mean this to be taken literally. Rather, and most logically, I assume that PLIIz will be obviated by Atmos once the latter becomes fully implemented in CE equipment. (Or, as you yourself have said: "I can't really see why Dolby would even continue with PLIIz *once Atmos becomes widely available*." [my emphasis]) In the meantime--and for the near term--PLIIz will still be very much functional, especially (but not only) for anyone who is not using an Atmos-enabled system.


The way I read it is that saying "PLIIz is gone" doesn't imply that you can't get upmixing just because you don't have Atmos speaker locations. Rather, it's that instead of offering separate products like PLIIx for surr.backs and PLIIz for front heights, it will be an "integrated" upmix algorithm that is scalable. I think Roger said you can view it as the next step in the evolution of PLII.

As an example, DTS used to have Neo:6 which competed with PLII for upmixing to 5.1/6.1/7.1 layouts. When Neo:X came out with the ability to scale up to 11 channels (as implemented, my understanding is that it's scalable to mix even more than that) they didn't keep Neo:6 on the receivers. It was all just called Neo:X. I have a 5.1 setup and when I engage the DTS upmix for a 2ch source, it still says "DTS Neo:X" on my display, not "Neo:6". 

So in that regard, I theorize that Dolby XXXX (whatever it's called) will appropriately scale to your speaker locations. If you have a traditional 7.1 setup, it will scale a 2ch or 5.1ch source to add surr.backs just like PLIIx did. If you have front heights, it will operate like PLIIz did. And if you have top speakers, it will scale appropriately for that. So it's not that current PLIIz users will be kicked to the curb with a couple of paperweights mounted high on the front wall, but the new Dolby XXXX will just supercede the previous PLIIz.

That's just my theory, I have nothing concrete to back it up.


----------



## RUR

Nightlord said:


> ...Which satisfies a microphone more than the ear.


Not necessarily.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> Great.
> 
> Also for stereo music?


Audyssey doesn't care how many speakers you have. If you engage the "Bypass" EQ setting it will EQ all the speakers EXCEPT the front L/R mains, regardless of whether you are listening to stereo, 5.1 or 11.1 output.

Note that Audyssey doesn't "approve" of this setting, it was a concession to the mfgr (I believe only D&M products offer this?) so obviously there IS a market for people who don't want the EQ to "touch" their precious front mains.


----------



## kbarnes701

Michael Sargent said:


> I don't think anyone has asked this, so I'll lead off.
> 
> 
> My home is typical stick built construction. I have a projector mounted from the ceiling. If I add Atmos top speakers, and mount them from the ceiling, will the vibrations from the speakers cause the projector to vibrate? Any shake would be noticeable (I guess).
> 
> 
> This comes up because in my old days I had a 40" RPTV and the sub would (occasionally) cause the screen to flex. You could see it move, but it didn't make the picture much worse. But a projector moving even a fraction of an inch will cause the image to move considerably more.
> 
> 
> So, will I need to do structural re-enforcing at the same time?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike


Doubt it. The auxiliary speakers don't dig deep enough IMO to cause your room to shake!


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> The middle of the room is where odd-order modes (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc) always null and even-order modes (2nd, 4th, etc) always peak. The frequency response variation is worse here than anywhere else in the room because modes are always at extremes, either peaking or nulling.


Something I'm curious about -- is that modal pattern irrespective of subwoofer position. Or does it assume the subwoofer is at a boundary? It would seem to me (without having thought it through completely) that the location from which the bass waves propogate would affect the distribution of modes relative to the room boundaries.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> However you are always left with the concern, even with room EQ for modes, that you have unintentionally modified the natural and intentional *by design* humps and bumps on the frequency response of your speakers which give it, its unique character.


I’d hate to have a speaker that had a 'unique character'. I want total neutrality and transparency not any sort of added 'character'. I realise this is probably an unattainable goal, but to deliberately choose a speaker that has had 'humps and bumps' added, on purpose, to the FR, is anathema to me.


----------



## batpig

Rod#S said:


> I don't see how those address my question. That Dolby demo was with speakers with top firing drivers built in by the sounds of things. Unless I misread things somewhere, perhaps earlier in the thread that an option to purchase separate top firing drivers for existing speakers will be made available, it's those items I'm questioning, those weren't used in that demo. Also Dolby wouldn't even give him the name of the speakers so we are supposed to take their word these are the affordable options soon to be made available to the public? They may have looked modest but could have costed thousands of dollars a pair or even each, we just don't know, but that's besides the point as that's not what I'm asking about.
> 
> What I'm getting at is if these separate modules will exist, not everyone has large towers as main L/R speakers with flat tops let alone similarly sized surround speakers. So lets assume smaller sized bookshelf speakers for mains and surrounds for the mment. What if these modules have a larger base than the tops of the mains and surrounds? When placed on top of the speakers the module will potentially stick out over all 4 edges and this will compromise the speakers performance, that is the mains and surrounds. This is what I am thinking about. Again if I misread things and there will be no such thing as top firing Atmos add on modules then ignore my question as it's irrelevant.


My gut feeling is that these up-firing modules will have so little bass response that they shouldn't adversely affect the performance of the speaker on which they are sitting. If they cross over in the 120-200Hz range, is it going to be any more detrimental to the speaker below them than putting a decorative flower pot or candle on top for aesthetics?

Or are you referring less to vibration and more to "interference" between the lower frequency parts which will propogate more directly towards the listener?


----------



## kbarnes701

Rod#S said:


> I suppsoe that assumes everything going to the theater will have an Amos soundtrack and/or Atmos sundtracks will be made available on Blu-rays even if the theatrical version did not include it. That's the only way I could see a need to shift things to TrueHD from Master Audio and I just don't see that happening, at least not any time soon.


I understand that you believe there will be no shift to TrueHD, despite everything that has been posted by industry insiders who believe the exact opposite, and for the reasons I have given you. As you can’t be shifted, all I can say is we’ll have to wait and see who turns out to be right.




Rod#S said:


> This also assumes dts does not alter the lossless Master Audio codec to somehow embed the Atmos mix..


You think Dolby will allow their competitors to do this? Really?



Rod#S said:


> or simply come out of the gate with their object based format for the home.


Yes, they may do this eventually. Eventually being the word. Armos is here and now.




Rod#S said:


> They obviously have it for cinema.


Can you name some of the movies that have been released so far with a DTS object-based mix?



Rod#S said:


> I suspect Atmos soundtracks in theaters will continue to be the minority for quite some time to come,


Atmos takeup surpassed Dolby 5.1'sa takeup in the first year of both. So there is every reason to believe that it will actually succeed even more rapidly than 5.1 did. Stats on Dolby's website.



Rod#S said:


> perhaps long enough until we need to rethink the existing Blu-ray format in the event 4K starts to happen.


Most people seem to believe that there will never be 4k Blurays - that 4k content will be delivered by other means.



Rod#S said:


> I suppsoe then it might become a decision of do the studios continue to offer physical media or move to downloads but I may be jumping the gun on that, no argument there. Until that happens Atmos may end up being used primarily as a matrix system as you point out PLIIz is now dead.


Atmos upmixing will obviously, initially at least, be used more than pure Atmos, simply for the reason that most of us have far more legacy Blurays than we have Atmos blurays. So what?


----------



## bargervais

this is all making my head spin I may just upgrade to the TX-NR929 and run 11.2 with the aid of my external amp to run wides, once all the atmos stuff is released and the bugs fixed i'll retink it then but atmos looks to be a great thing. like when 3D first started to hit the market back in 2010 TV's were not as nice as the more recent models, even though 3D has kind of taken a back seat check out this article 
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145168-3d-tv-is-dead 

I think Atmos will have a greater impact on the veiwing enviroment. i can't wait to be enveloped in 7.4.4 I think 3D sound will be more pleasing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Rod,
> 
> You seem to have overlooked FilmMixer's explanation. The studios just contract for the use of the cheapest/easiest-to-use codec which provides the functionality that they need. Without the need for Atmos, that's currently DTS. When Atmos is needed, they'll contact the mixing to be done using Dolby.
> 
> Previously (probably not in this thread) Keith has mentioned two titles which he knows are being remixed in Atmos for home release. Unfortunately, I don't recall what they are.


Chicago and Die Hard. Nobody can surely believe that these will be released theatrically, so it seems that they are being remixed for Bluray release.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, You have mentioned this previously, but it is my interpretation that neither you nor the Dolby rep(s) mean this to be taken literally. Rather, and most logically, I assume that PLIIz will be obviated by Atmos once the latter becomes fully implemented in CE equipment. (Or, as you yourself have said: "I can't really see why Dolby would even continue with PLIIz *once Atmos becomes widely available*." [my emphasis]) In the meantime--and for the near term--PLIIz will still be very much functional, especially (but not only) for anyone who is not using an Atmos-enabled system.


I can only say what I was told. I was told, with no equivocation, that PLIIz would no longer be offered. I assume that upmixing to Atmos will be a better option.



chi_guy50 said:


> Furthermore, I note that Onkyo's upcoming TX-NR3030 includes Dolby PLIIz processing in addition to Atmos. My guess is that Onkyo is allowing purchasers the option of Atmos top speakers or "traditional" PLIIz FH's as a transitional model. I am most interested in seeing what D&M's forthcoming Atmos-enabled AVR's will offer regarding use of the Height1L/R speaker connections since I have an 11.1 layout and hope to get either the X5200 or X7200 within the next year. My current plan, however, is to leave my FH's in place until I have convinced myself (through first-hand experimentation and feedback from other users) that it is worth my while to cut additional holes in my living room ceiling to accommodate the Atmos top speaker configuration--in addition to repurposing or shedding my FW's and/or SB's. For home theaters, this might be a no-brainer given the promise of Atmos enhancements, but for those of us who have to make do with a multi-purpose room for our main listening area it can be a major commitment once we start installing in-ceiling speakers.


No arguing with that spec you pointed to. It is the direct opposite though of what Onkyo themselves told me this week. I wish I'd had the info you posted when I was with them!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> It will be speaker EQ, you sacrifice the first arriving on-axis sound to correct room behavior. Which satisfies a microphone more than the ear.
> 
> I didn't say anechoic chamber, you made that up.


It's where most speaker manufacturers tune their designs. Regardless, once any speaker is placed in a room, you can forget the FR the manufacturers were looking at in whatever room they used, anechoic or not. The EQ we are discussing as useful or not is room EQ not speaker EQ.


----------



## JonStatt

kbarnes701 said:


> JonStatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> However you are always left with the concern, even with room EQ for modes, that you have unintentionally modified the natural and intentional *by design* humps and bumps on the frequency response of your speakers which give it, its unique character. /QUOTE]
> 
> I’d hate to have a speaker that had a 'unique character'. I want total neutrality and transparency not any sort of added 'character'. I realise this is probably an unattainable goal, but to deliberately choose a speaker that has had 'humps and bumps' added, on purpose, to the FR, is anathema to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I fully respect that viewpoint but I don't think it's a common one. Well think of it this way. "Most" people go to a Hi-Fi store and demo various speakers before choosing them. You would normally take a batch of CDs to audition with. Even if you are spending 10,000 dollars on the higher end Kef models and compare to other 10,000 speakers, they will all sound different. Normally one would choose the one you like the sound of. You don't go there with measuring equipment and see which one is flattest! People used to say Tannoy were warmer, Kef was brighter etc ...as if there was a "house" sound that manufacturers aim for. So if you want to "delete" that and flatten it all out, of course that is perfectly good thing to do. All I was getting at, was that it sounds a bit odd, to audition speakers, choose the one we like the best, then go home and turn it into something different...and that's what the default Audyssey calibration will do.
> 
> 
> We see perhaps even more violent sound signatures with headphones. Compare the Audeze warm hugging sound vs the Sennheiser HD800 bright and clean signature. Both are very expensive, both are very highly regarded, yet neither are neutral.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Regardless, once any speaker is placed in a room, you can forget the FR the manufacturers were looking at in whatever room they used, anechoic or not. The EQ we are discussing as useful or not is room EQ not speaker EQ.


I reserve the right to have a difference in opinion about that.


----------



## KidHorn

sdurani said:


> The middle of the room is where odd-order modes (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc) always null and even-order modes (2nd, 4th, etc) always peak. The frequency response variation is worse here than anywhere else in the room because modes are always at extremes, either peaking or nulling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd divisions (thirds, fifths, etc) of room dimensions avoid nulls and most peaks. For example: around 1/3rd of room length, modes are much closer to each other in level (less variation) than elsewhere in the room, making it a good location for a row of seating.



In my original post of why the misunderstanding about the middle of the room occurs, I noted that writers pick wavelengths that fit evenly within a rooms dimension for illustrative purposes. This is an example of what I was referring to. Notice how every wavelength can perfectly fit within the room dimension. Notice how all the wavelengths peak against the boundary. This done for ease of understanding. This is not a real world situation.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Odd divisions (thirds, fifths, etc) of room dimensions avoid nulls and most peaks. For example: around 1/3rd of room length, modes are much closer to each other in level (less variation) than elsewhere in the room, making it a good location for a row of seating.


That's where my false back wall filled with insulations stands. Very good illustration. Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Nice pic's.


You can generate your own by downloading Harman's room mode calculator for free. 

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Pages/Calculators.aspx?CategoryID=Calculators 



noah katz said:


> Any idea where the line of flat response is?


Outdoors. If you're indoors, room boundaries are going to result in modal problems. The best you can hope to do is use placement (subs AND seating) to minimize as many problems as you can, leaving as little as possible for equalization to do later on. 










Imagine the example above is a SPL map of the modes for your room's length. If your couch (outlined in green) is 2/3rds room length from the front wall, then the 1st, 2nd and 4th length modes will all be around the same level. The 3rd length mode (in red) will be peaking. 

But, since everybody on the couch is the same distance from the front wall, the peak will be the same in all seats. If you move an Audyssey mic around your couch, it will see the same peak in all seats. A single band of PEQ can pull down that peak, fixing the problem in all seats. 

A simple example of how placement can make things much easier for equalization (automated or manual).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not implying it, I am telling you out loud. The 'industry' doesn't care at all about which codec it uses. FilmMixer has already confirmed that the studios are under no contracts with DTS or Dolby for their BD codec format choice, and Roger Dressler (IIRC) has confirmed that the studios don't pay license fees for the use of these codecs. FilmMixer (IIRC) has also said that the studios use DTS-HD MA simply because it makes their workflow somewhat easier, under the status quo. Once they are faced with a choice of releasing content that includes the latest format (Atmos) and thus using TrueHD, or releasing content mastered in DTS-HD MA and therefore NOT being able to release Atmos content at all, it will be a pretty straightforward choice.
> 
> So yes, there is a huge reason for them to switch: unless they do they won't be able to release Atmos content.


The potential problem I see coming is that some studios may not give a rat's ass if they deliver Atmos content or not. They're even happy to take a 7.1 native track and dumb it down to 5.1. Two are Warner Brothers and Sony. 

Little to no content... and these Atmos enabled devices just sit there like bricks except for status quo releases.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Nightlord said:


> It will be speaker EQ, you sacrifice the first arriving on-axis sound to correct room behavior.


Uh, room behavior itesef is what "sacrifices" the sound coming directly from the speaker, not the software EQ adjustments. That's the whole purpose of EQ in the first place.

If there were no room reflections, the sound coming from the speaker would be all that you hear. With room reflections (in a typically small home theater room), the reflections arrive so quickly after the direct sound from the speaker, that the human auditory system cannot differentiate between them, which muddies the perceived location of the original sound.

I don't see any purity in the first arriving sound if it is being corrupted by other reflected sounds in the room. What arrives at the MLP in total is all that matters. EQ is an attempt to create a more even/accurate response at the MLP. Obviously there are limits; using some room treatment *and* some EQ software will yield better results than either alone.

What I think is interesting about all this (_and on topic_) is that if the sound from the speaker reaches the MLP first (before the reflection), *will Audyssey MultEQ try to "erase" the (now desired) reflected sounds bouncing off the ceiling with these Atmos modules* that some will be using?


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> Something I'm curious about -- is that modal pattern irrespective of subwoofer position. Or does it assume the subwoofer is at a boundary?


I'm pretty sure that's for sub at the boundary.



kbarnes701 said:


> It's where most speaker manufacturers tune their designs. Regardless, once any speaker is placed in a room, you can forget the FR the manufacturers were looking at in whatever room they used, anechoic or not. The EQ we are discussing as useful or not is room EQ not speaker EQ.


To be fair, many feel the on-axis response has a greater contribution to perceived response, and will probably be the case oftener than not.



KidHorn said:


> In my original post of why the misunderstanding about the middle of the room occurs, I noted that writers pick wavelengths that fit evenly within a rooms dimension for illustrative purposes. This is an example of what I was referring to. Notice how every wavelength can perfectly fit within the room dimension. Notice how all the wavelengths peak against the boundary. This done for ease of understanding. This is not a real world situation.


The real situation is that in the range of frequencies around the relatively few room modes, the freq response variations are huge.



sdurani said:


> You can generate your own by downloading Harman's room mode calculator for free.


Thanks, Sanjay!



sdurani said:


> Outdoors.


I meant where on the graphs would the line for flat response be.


----------



## Rod#S

kbarnes701 said:


> I understand that you believe there will be no shift to TrueHD, despite everything that has been posted by industry insiders who believe the exact opposite, and for the reasons I have given you. As you can’t be shifted, all I can say is we’ll have to wait and see who turns out to be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Dolby will allow their competitors to do this? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they may do this eventually. Eventually being the word. Armos is here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name some of the movies that have been released so far with a DTS object-based mix?
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos takeup surpassed Dolby 5.1'sa takeup in the first year of both. So there is every reason to believe that it will actually succeed even more rapidly than 5.1 did. Stats on Dolby's website.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people seem to believe that there will never be 4k Blurays - that 4k content will be delivered by other means.
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos upmixing will obviously, initially at least, be used more than pure Atmos, simply for the reason that most of us have far more legacy Blurays than we have Atmos blurays. So what?


I just don't see dts, Dolby's main competitor sit on the sidelines is all. You are obviously correct, here, today dts doesn't have a delivery method so all the excitement, press, etc. is naturally about Dolby. If dts were to conceed to Dolby on this tech in the home market I suppose they may look into paying for the tech to be embedded in there codec. As to whether Dolby would do that, who knows, but money talks I guess  so it could never be ruled out.

Unfortunately I don't even have a local theater that has Atmos so I have no cluse about what/if dts has done anything as I don't know what Dolby even has unless I go to their website or check back in this or the Pioneer Atmos thread where I think the movie list has been posted.

As to the long term success as you say the inital wave supports encouraging prospects for the tech but it's really going to come down to how many theaters worldwide are willing to make the conversion and for new ones going up if they choose to go that direction. I have new theaters in my area and they obviously choose for what ever reason not to equip at least one of their rooms with the technology. Maybe it's quite expensive.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Something I'm curious about -- is that modal pattern irrespective of subwoofer position. Or does it assume the subwoofer is at a boundary?


The latter. A subwoofer or speaker at a boundary is going to excite every mode between that boundary and the opposite wall. This can help you measure where and at what frequencies the peaks & nulls are across your seating area. As you already guessed, moving the subwoofer will change the intensity of the modes (reduce nulls to small dips, minimize peaks, etc).


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I meant where on the graphs would the line for flat response be.


That's my point, nowhere. Even when modal frequencies are the same level as each other, it doesn't mean that they are the same level as non-modal frequencies. There will always be peaks & dips. 

That graph couldn't exist outdoors, where there are no room boundaries. That's the only place you'll find a flat response.


----------



## Rod#S

batpig said:


> My gut feeling is that these up-firing modules will have so little bass response that they shouldn't adversely affect the performance of the speaker on which they are sitting. If they cross over in the 120-200Hz range, is it going to be any more detrimental to the speaker below them than putting a decorative flower pot or candle on top for aesthetics?
> 
> Or are you referring less to vibration and more to "interference" between the lower frequency parts which will propogate more directly towards the listener?


Both. If the module is small enough to fit within the confines of the top surface area and is crossed over high enough you are correct there shouldn't be much if any impact but for the vibration alone that would be user controlable I guess and one just has to remember during setup to set the crossover high enough to avoid vibration. But my biggest concern is interference of the sound being produced from the main forward firing speaker drivers. For example having never seen any of these module designs, what if it was to extend say 6 inches over the front edge. That's certainly going to have an effect on the performance of the tweeter and perhaps even the mid range depending on the vertical driver orientation of the speaker the module is sitting on.


----------



## sdurani

brwsaw said:


> While we're on the subject (off topic) how are room modes effected by speaker placement?


Modes are a result of room dimensions and speaker placement. Change either one of those and the modes change. Place the speaker at a peak and that mode will ring like a bell. Place the speaker in a null and that mode will not be excited.


----------



## noah katz

I mean the SPL at freq between modes where there is no constructive or destructive interference.



sdurani said:


> That's my point, nowhere. Even when modal frequencies are the same level as each other, it doesn't mean that they are the same level as non-modal frequencies. There will always be peaks & dips.
> 
> That graph couldn't exist outdoors, where there are no room boundaries. That's the only place you'll find a flat response.


----------



## brwsaw

sdurani said:


> Modes are a result of room dimensions and speaker placement. Change either one of those and the modes change. Place the speaker at a peak and that mode will ring like a bell. Place the speaker in a null and that mode will not be excited.


With this I'm done...I would enjoy a PM if you're willing.

My room rocks.
Front speakers are 1/5 into the room, set up on 1/7 cross the room and my MLP is 1/3 off the back wall.
It is odd for me to want to leave everything alone, I'm now scared to wreck it.

I was just curious, your reply confirms my previous understanding. Thank you.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Modes are a result of room dimensions and speaker placement. Change either one of those and the modes change. Place the speaker at a peak and that mode will ring like a bell. Place the speaker in a null and that mode will not be excited.


Maybe either or both of us is confused about the difference between a node and null.

I thought a node is a speaker location which will not excite a mode, and a null is an SPL minimum caused by destructive interference; elsewhere in the room the same mode will have peak(s).

But maybe nodes, and nulls and/or peaks are in the same places.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I mean the SPL at freq between modes where there is no constructive or destructive interference.


Ah, OK, finally understood. The mode calculator graphic just shows the general pattern of modal distribution, not SLP levels relative to non-modal frequencies.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Ah, OK, finally understood. The mode calculator graphic just shows the general pattern of modal distribution, not SLP levels relative to non-modal frequencies.


I could have better explained my intent, which was to be able to eyeball the graphs for where subs would be placed to get modal responses closest to reference SPL.


----------



## Nightlord

PoshFrosh said:


> If there were no room reflections, the sound coming from the speaker would be all that you hear. With room reflections (in a typically small home theater room), the reflections arrive so quickly after the direct sound from the speaker, that the human auditory system cannot differentiate between them, which muddies the perceived location of the original sound.
> 
> I don't see any purity in the first arriving sound if it is being corrupted by other reflected sounds in the room.


That's why you treat the room in regards to those early reflexes, right? Either scatter them with diffusion or absorb them in 'gill' traps.

Direct sound will never be all you hear, but the first arriving weighs in quite heavily in how it's percieved. Later arriving sound will still make up 80% or so and the acoustic task with that is to try and maintain the sonic signature as close to the original as possible. For stereo music, we're well aware what size room we're in so the modes the brain can cope with quite well. For movies - we're not expecting to be still in our room, so the room cues must be handled more eifficiently - thus EQ.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> The way I read it is that saying "PLIIz is gone" doesn't imply that you can't get upmixing just because you don't have Atmos speaker locations. Rather, it's that instead of offering separate products like PLIIx for surr.backs and PLIIz for front heights, it will be an "integrated" upmix algorithm that is scalable. I think Roger said you can view it as the next step in the evolution of PLII.
> 
> As an example, DTS used to have Neo:6 which competed with PLII for upmixing to 5.1/6.1/7.1 layouts. When Neo:X came out with the ability to scale up to 11 channels (as implemented, my understanding is that it's scalable to mix even more than that) they didn't keep Neo:6 on the receivers. It was all just called Neo:X. I have a 5.1 setup and when I engage the DTS upmix for a 2ch source, it still says "DTS Neo:X" on my display, not "Neo:6".
> 
> So in that regard, I theorize that Dolby XXXX (whatever it's called) will appropriately scale to your speaker locations. If you have a traditional 7.1 setup, it will scale a 2ch or 5.1ch source to add surr.backs just like PLIIx did. If you have front heights, it will operate like PLIIz did. And if you have top speakers, it will scale appropriately for that. So it's not that current PLIIz users will be kicked to the curb with a couple of paperweights mounted high on the front wall, but the new Dolby XXXX will just supercede the previous PLIIz.
> 
> That's just my theory, I have nothing concrete to back it up.


That explanation makes sense to me. FWIW, My AVR-3311 has the old NEO:6 and one of the principal reasons I originally wanted to upgrade to the 4520/5200/7200 was for NEO:X 11.1 processing--Atmos aside.



kbarnes701 said:


> I can only say what I was told. I was told, with no equivocation, that PLIIz would no longer be offered. I assume that upmixing to Atmos will be a better option.


Except that, if you have an Atmos-enabled AVR but no Atmos top speakers, then you will presumably need something else along the lines of batpig's theorized Dolby XXXX processing.



kbarnes701 said:


> No arguing with that spec you pointed to. It is the direct opposite though of what Onkyo themselves told me this week. I wish I'd had the info you posted when I was with them!


I should also have pointed out the the (unofficial and unsubstantiated) specs on the AVR-X5200/7200 list them as offering Dolby True HD, DTS-HD, Prologic IIz, and DTS Neo:X 11.1 in addition to Dolby Atmos (cf. here and here).


----------



## mogorf

noah katz said:


> I could have better explained my intent, which was to be able to eyeball the graphs for where subs would be placed to get modal responses closest to reference SPL.


The Harman calculator knows nothing about sub(s) placed in the room. The only 3 data needed to be input is nothing else but room dimensions. The pattern will be calculated as the "modal fingerprint" of the room itself regardless of having sub(s) or not. Should you have a deep deep deep voice while talking to wifey the same pattern will apply.  Anyone like to see how sub placement affects bass SQ then there is the RoomSIM in REW where dragging sub(s) and MLP all around will give a pretty fine picture of what is to be expected. Try it, its fun!


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Maybe either or both of us is confused about the difference between a node and null.


I'm not confused about that difference, just confused why you're introducing *n*odes into a discussion of room *m*odes.


noah katz said:


> But maybe nodes, and nulls and/or peaks are in the same places.


If you're talking SPL (not displacement), then nodes are half-way between peaks & nulls while anti-nodes are the peaks & nulls.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully respect that viewpoint but I don't think it's a common one. Well think of it this way. "Most" people go to a Hi-Fi store and demo various speakers before choosing them. You would normally take a batch of CDs to audition with. Even if you are spending 10,000 dollars on the higher end Kef models and compare to other 10,000 speakers, they will all sound different. Normally one would choose the one you like the sound of. You don't go there with measuring equipment and see which one is flattest! People used to say Tannoy were warmer, Kef was brighter etc ...as if there was a "house" sound that manufacturers aim for. So if you want to "delete" that and flatten it all out, of course that is perfectly good thing to do. All I was getting at, was that it sounds a bit odd, to audition speakers, choose the one we like the best, then go home and turn it into something different...and that's what the default Audyssey calibration will do.
> 
> 
> We see perhaps even more violent sound signatures with headphones. Compare the Audeze warm hugging sound vs the Sennheiser HD800 bright and clean signature. Both are very expensive, both are very highly regarded, yet neither are neutral.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is definitely true for the so-called 'audiophile' brands such as Kef and B&W toi name just two that I am very familiar with. They are designed to have a 'house voice'. But I'd never use brands like that in my HT. There I want neutrality and transparency above all.
> 
> You keep insisting that EQ-ing the room does something 'detrimental' to the speaker. It doesn't. It corrects for the inevitable distortions that the room imposes on the sound of the speakers. You have two choices it seems to me: you can totally not EQ the room and then you are definitely not hearing the same speaker that the manufacturer heard, because he has no knowledge at all of your room and acoustic conditions. Or you can EQ the room to enable the speaker to stand some sort of chance of playing the way the manufacturer intended. What isn't an option is to have no EQ (or acoustic treatment) and somehow expect that the room will add no distortions to the sound.
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I reserve the right to have a difference in opinion about that.


That is fine. But it isn’t an opinion. It's a fact.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Outdoors. If you're indoors, room boundaries are going to result in modal problems. The best you can hope to do is use placement (subs AND seating) to minimize as many problems as you can, leaving as little as possible for equalization to do later on.


You and I are in a sort of parallel discussion here. You have this discussion about room modes going on, showing clearly how the room influences the sound we hear, and with suggestions on how to ameliorate it. And I have a discussion going on about how no speaker can be heard in isolation of distortions caused by the room. If 'my' guys would read _your_ posts, they'd perhaps get a better idea of what I am trying to say


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> You keep insisting that EQ-ing the room does something 'detrimental' to the speaker. It doesn't.


Not to nit-pick, but I do think that room EQ done POORLY can definitely do more harm than good. It's not an absolute that applying EQ will NOT do something "detrimental".


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The potential problem I see coming is that some studios may not give a rat's ass if they deliver Atmos content or not. They're even happy to take a 7.1 native track and dumb it down to 5.1. Two are Warner Brothers and Sony.



That is because they have to do a lot of work to translate a soundtrack from movie theater version to home theater version. Much of that will disappear with Atmos where the soundtrack is much more scalable. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Little to no content... and these Atmos enabled devices just sit there like bricks except for status quo releases.


Do you think Dolby are mistaken when they tell us there will be plenty of content available on release of the AVRs this fall, with more to come in 2015?

Why do you think some older, non-Atmos mixes are being remixed as Atmos - eg Chicago and Die Hard? Do you believe they are about to re-releases these movies in theaters?


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Uh, room behavior itesef is what "sacrifices" the sound coming directly from the speaker, not the software EQ adjustments. That's the whole purpose of EQ in the first place.
> 
> If there were no room reflections, the sound coming from the speaker would be all that you hear. With room reflections (in a typically small home theater room), the reflections arrive so quickly after the direct sound from the speaker, that the human auditory system cannot differentiate between them, which muddies the perceived location of the original sound.
> 
> I don't see any purity in the first arriving sound if it is being corrupted by other reflected sounds in the room. What arrives at the MLP in total is all that matters. EQ is an attempt to create a more even/accurate response at the MLP. Obviously there are limits; using some room treatment *and* some EQ software will yield better results than either alone.
> 
> What I think is interesting about all this (_and on topic_) is that if the sound from the speaker reaches the MLP first (before the reflection), *will Audyssey MultEQ try to "erase" the (now desired) reflected sounds bouncing off the ceiling with these Atmos modules* that some will be using?


+1 on all your post. WRT to the last paragraph, it is an interesting question. I suspect that the answer is 'no' because I am fairly sure that Dolby and Denon would have asked the same question. And if the answer was 'yes' then they'd have a serious problem in making the thing work.


----------



## sdurani

PoshFrosh said:


> I don't see any purity in the first arriving sound if it is being corrupted by other reflected sounds in the room. What arrives at the MLP in total is all that matters. EQ is an attempt to create a more even/accurate response at the MLP.


Exactly. EVERY room is an equalizer. The main reason to use EQ is to attempt to undo the room's unwanted contributions to the overall sound, letting you hear less of your room and more of what is in the recording. In that respect, the purists often have it backwards.


----------



## kbarnes701

Rod#S said:


> I just don't see dts, Dolby's main competitor sit on the sidelines is all. You are obviously correct, here, today dts doesn't have a delivery method so all the excitement, press, etc. is naturally about Dolby. If dts were to conceed to Dolby on this tech in the home market I suppose they may look into paying for the tech to be embedded in there codec. As to whether Dolby would do that, who knows, but money talks I guess  so it could never be ruled out.


What would be the point of that? There is zero difference between DTS-HD MA and TrueHD. They are both *lossless *codecs. Nobody gives a hoot which one is used on their Bluray, so it's not as if people are going to be sitting around bemoaning the fact that Atmos comes as TrueHD and not as DTS-HD MA.




Rod#S said:


> As to the long term success as you say the inital wave supports encouraging prospects for the tech but it's really going to come down to how many theaters worldwide are willing to make the conversion and for new ones going up if they choose to go that direction. I have new theaters in my area and they obviously choose for what ever reason not to equip at least one of their rooms with the technology. Maybe it's quite expensive.


This is true. The uptake of Atmos in theaters has exceeded the comparable uptake of 5.1 when that was launched. 5.1 is now universal in theaters, so there seems to be no reason why object-based audio would not do as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think Dolby are mistaken when they tell us there will be plenty of content available on release of the AVRs this fall, with more to come in 2015?
> 
> Why do you think some older, non-Atmos mixes are being remixed as Atmos - eg Chicago and Die Hard? Do you believe they are about to re-releases these movies in theaters?



I do think that Dolby, like any large corporation, can be prone to _slight_ exaggerations in order to hawk their wares to the public even if they have full faith in said product and the product is indeed sound (as in solid) technology and not half-baked fluff. 

What does "plenty" mean? Three? Four? Ten titles? Only from two studios? Are all the studios on board? Etc. Etc. 

Was _Die Hard_ completely remixed or just a demo clip? Are the studios clamoring to remix their back catalog with full bore object surround, let alone with skill and care? Or are these isolated test cases? 

Truly, I'd love to know this because I'm just as excited as you are. I want Atmos to be great, I want 2nd generation devices to be superior to this year's lot, and I want a large selection of new and catalog titles released to disc. I could care less about streaming.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Not to nit-pick, but I do think that room EQ done POORLY can definitely do more harm than good. It's not an absolute that applying EQ will NOT do something "detrimental".


Agreed. I am assuming, for the purposes of the discussion, that everything is being done 'properly'. I could just as validly say "not to nit pick, but I do think that really crap speakers can definitely do more harm than good" 

But I agree - poor room EQ, like poor acoustic treatment, poor speakers and poor placement can all do something detrimental.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I do think that Dolby, like any large corporation, can be prone to _slight_ exaggerations in order to hawk their wares to the public even if they have full faith in said product and the product is indeed sound (as in solid) technology and not half-baked fluff.
> 
> What does "plenty" mean? Three? Four? Ten titles? Only from two studios? Are all the studios on board? Etc. Etc.
> 
> Was _Die Hard_ completely remixed or just a demo clip? Are the studios clamoring to remix their back catalog with full bore object surround, let alone with skill and care? Or are these isolated test cases?
> 
> Truly, I'd love to know this because I'm just as excited as you are. I want Atmos to be great, I want 2nd generation devices to be superior to this year's lot, and I want a large selection of new and catalog titles released to disc. I could care less about streaming.


I agree - all we can do is wait and see. Not too long now...


----------



## noah katz

mogorf said:


> The Harman calculator knows nothing about sub(s) placed in the room.


Now that you mention it the SPL line I was asking for is useless w/o modal plots of the actual room where the modal SPL is dependent on modal damping and the particular room geometry.



sdurani said:


> I'm not confused about that difference, just confused why you're introducing *n*odes into a discussion of room *m*odes.


I re-read and I see I misread "modes" as "nodes".



kbarnes701 said:


> JonStatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insisting that EQ-ing the room...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if I'm misconstruing what I think you're saying, but the only way to EQ the room's response (as opposed to room response which is the net response of speaker + room) is with treatments; what has been discussed is electronic EQ which changes speaker response.
Click to expand...


----------



## batpig

PoshFrosh said:


> What I think is interesting about all this (_and on topic_) is that if the sound from the speaker reaches the MLP first (before the reflection), *will Audyssey MultEQ try to "erase" the (now desired) reflected sounds bouncing off the ceiling with these Atmos modules* that some will be using?





kbarnes701 said:


> +1 on all your post. WRT to the last paragraph, it is an interesting question. I suspect that the answer is 'no' because I am fairly sure that Dolby and Denon would have asked the same question. And if the answer was 'yes' then they'd have a serious problem in making the thing work.


I've posed this question and am waiting for a response on this. I believe Feri asked Chris K about it on Facebook (Audyssey Tech Talk) and he hedged a bit about how Audyssey would "need to do some trigonometry" to deal with the upward firing modules. I'm wondering if he was being coy due to NDAs from the licensees on something that hasn't yet been released to the public.

To me there are two separate but key questions with how MultEQ will be implemented on these Atmos D&M models:

1) The mic of course is designed for "grazing" incidence, whereas speakers physically in the ceiling would be firing basically straight down into the mic

2) And for the "Atmos enabled" upward firing speakers, there is (ostensibly) going to be some conflict between the reflected and direct portions of the sound. Andrew Jones' discussion in the Pio Atmos speaker thread about our PERCEPTION of directional cues is one thing, but the mic isn't going to care about that. Audyssey claims that MultEQ examines the impulse and attempts to "clean" reflections to restore more direct sound... but the upward-firing module will have an initial wave of direct sound at the lower frequencies followed by the reflected "beam" from the high frequency portion.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> That is fine. But it isn’t an opinion. It's a fact.


Right; mine is fact yours is opinion.


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> 2) And for the "Atmos enabled" upward firing speakers, there is (ostensibly) going to be some conflict between the reflected and direct portions of the sound. ... Audyssey claims that MultEQ examines the impulse and attempts to "clean" reflections to restore more direct sound... but the upward-firing module will have an initial wave of direct sound at the lower frequencies followed by the reflected "beam" from the high frequency portion.


What really starts to worry me is that some will have the upward firing speakers and some will have "true" ceiling-mounted down firing speakers. Unless the AVR has a setting for which are being used, Audyssey would have to make some sort of compromise to it's "trigonometry" calculations. There has already been mention that first-gen products will not have speaker placement configuration settings in the Atmos software... let's certainly hope that Audyssey has a setting about where your "ceiling" speakers are... :serious:


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> ... Having the listening location at the center of the room might even turn out to be the best location. *My listening position for example is in the middle of the room and I doubt many have better bass than I do*.


Markus, do you have some pics of your room?



Rod#S said:


> I don't see how those address my question. That Dolby demo was with speakers with top firing drivers built in by the sounds of things. Unless I misread things somewhere, perhaps earlier in the thread that an option to purchase separate top firing drivers for existing speakers will be made available, it's those items I'm questioning, those weren't used in that demo. Also Dolby wouldn't even give him the name of the speakers so we are supposed to take their word these are the affordable options soon to be made available to the public? They may have looked modest but could have costed thousands of dollars a pair or even each, we just don't know, but that's besides the point as that's not what I'm asking about.
> 
> What I'm getting at is if these separate modules will exist, not everyone has large towers as main L/R speakers with flat tops let alone similarly sized surround speakers. So lets assume smaller sized bookshelf speakers for mains and surrounds for the moment. What if these modules have a larger base than the tops of the mains and surrounds? When placed on top of the speakers the module will potentially stick out over all 4 edges and this will compromise the speakers performance, that is the mains and surrounds. This is what I am thinking about. Again if I misread things and there will be no such thing as top firing Atmos add on modules then ignore my question as it's irrelevant.


Rod, I was simply quoting Keith's excellent review because it was already few pages back (always a good thing to bring back the best stuff for a more up-to-date of newer members like me, today), and nothing "silly" appeared to me with the alternative of using front Dolby Atmos speakers, or some small ceiling firing satellites (modules) on top of your existing ones (most cheap speakers are flat on top), and the second quote was only because. 
So kind of it's your choice.  



kbarnes701 said:


> Wrong. Studios will want to release Atmos encodes and for that they have to use TrueHD. You can guarantee that every movie mixed in Atmos will find its way onto a Bluray at some point.


Then the studios who are mixing their BDs in DTS-HD MA would have to switch to Dolby TrueHD in order to do the Dolby Atmos encoding. ...Check!


*|QUOTE|*"Can't see the similarity you mention."*|CLOSING QUOTE|*

What I meant is that when Dolby PLIIx came to the scene, dts came back up with their own codec: dts Neo:6
...Then DPLIIz, and right back after, dts Neo:X (but adding more, a la Audyssey DSX, but instead of Wide...was it Rear Height?)

Now with Dolby Atmos ===> dts-UHD?

You see now what I meant; Dolby versus dts and each time that Dolby comes up with something new.
DTS simply could not rest, ever, not as long that Dolby is awake.

_______________

* And it is similar with all the Auto/Manual Room Calibration & EQ systems out there (no need to mention them as you are well calibrated in that knowledge department Keith). 

*|QUOTE|*Content is being released at the same time as the hardware in the fall, with more to come in 2015. Dolby have already confirmed all this.*|CLOSING QUOTE|*

I see/saw.

_______________
_______________

Regarding not Equing your two front mains and your subwoofers; a la AccuEQ room calibration from Onkyo/Integra and a Dolby trademark? ...: In tandem with Dolby Atmos I think that it seems to work pretty well. And actually better than any other stratagems right now; even better than Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Dirac Live. 

* People who have ultra high-end main front speakers in their room $100,000-$500,000): Some of them know for fact the advantage of digitally EQuing them with DSP and DRC in direct relation with their room's acoustics (heavily treated or not).
And other people who abso!utely refuse this type on "impure" solution in order to improve the sound in their room are simply doing exactly that; refusing any sound improvement on the believe (not experience) that their sound is above any reproach. Them purist audiophiles are just that; believers and not true explorers, so they are less audiophiles than other music lovers who don't have prejudices and are always willing to explore further.

Yes, that is a bad idea to not Equing your two front mains; in regards to Audyssey implementation of that option on them Denon/Marantz products.
* Onkyo/Integra did not have that option; smarter! 

_______________
_______________
_______________

Now, here's what I further think: I think that many of us (regular people) are going to benefit immensely from Dolby Atmos, more and more as time goes by, and without investing all our eggs, while other very high heeled people will still be stuck in an inferior audio surround experience. = 

This is the world we live in, and we adapt as we go along with newer and better life's experiences; audio, video wise and all the rest.
And some people are perfectly fine with that (I'm the first one in line), while others need to save a little for few months or so, and others will NEVER contemplate of improving their lifestyle which they consider already at the top of the tops. ...The purist audio aficionados (gear lovers) with deep belief that any type of DSP/DRC/EQ is the devil himself :devil: comin' straight from the burning hell deep inside the coffin of Earth's core.
And NEVER they would even contemplate to give it a try, unless they happen to walk down by a BestBuy store by pure coincidental accident (chance of that is ZERO). 

Anyway, we all know, here, that a good digital Room Calibration and EQ system is beneficial @ the end.
Because room's acoustics is reality; or you accept, or you don't.

And Dolby Atmos; well, just read Keith's post, that should give you a good dose of reality right there. ...I want it! ...But not if I'm going to miss both arms and feet! :kiss:


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Something I'm curious about -- is that modal pattern irrespective of subwoofer position. Or does it assume the subwoofer is at a boundary? It would seem to me (without having thought it through completely) that the location from which the bass waves propogate would affect the distribution of modes relative to the room boundaries.


No assumption, just plain scientific acoustics. ...No subwoofer(s) were harmed during that test. 

* The art of sound: Walk into an empty room and clap your hands, and keep clapping while walking all around. 
Then measure, if you're up to it, and curious.


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> In my original post of why the misunderstanding about the middle of the room occurs, I noted that writers pick wavelengths that fit evenly within a rooms dimension for illustrative purposes. This is an example of what I was referring to. Notice how every wavelength can perfectly fit within the room dimension. Notice how all the wavelengths peak against the boundary. This done for ease of understanding. This is not a real world situation.


Modes/resonances/standing waves occur when frequency wavelengths match room dimensions. Those that don't fit room dimensions are not room modes. 

When writers discuss room modes, they have no choice but to discuss wavelengths that fit room dimensions. By definition, that's what a room mode is. They're not doing it out of convenience or for illustrative purposes, that's what modes/resonances are in a real world situation. 

As for peaking against a boundary, this is true for all sound, not just modal frequencies. When sound waves hit a wall, the pressure (SPL) is greatest at the wall. That's why sounds peak at a boundary. Not for ease of understanding but because the air molecules are piled up like a car crash.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> The potential problem I see coming is that some studios may not give a rat's ass if they deliver Atmos content or not. They're even happy to take a 7.1 native track and dumb it down to 5.1. Two are Warner Brothers and Sony.
> 
> Little to no content... and these Atmos enabled devices just sit there like bricks except for status quo releases.



I'm with Dan here on that one.

Here's my take: We will have "few" Blu-rays with Dolby Atmos encoding, "few" (not a whole lot).
And then, six months or so from now we will have AV receivers and SSPs with dts-UHD decoders, and Blu-ray movies with dts-UHD encoding (a la flying "objects" in all over the sky and even coming from underneath your floor).

And, 4K Blu-rays will start to appear. ...And with 3D. ...WoW! 

And! Eventually all will fade away to the four winds of the planet to make place for better and much improved surround sound technologies, Dolby included. 

Right now I am reading this thread, posting few, and waiting for things to materialize in the future.
I'm going up, I'm going down a bit, I'm going all over in my emotions, transitions, imagination, and anticipation.


----------



## NorthSky

RUR said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html


Always an educative pleasure to read Mr. Sean Olive's writings on everything sound and acoustic related.


----------



## NorthSky

*First Blu-ray "Dolby Atmos" encoding/remixed releases?*



kbarnes701 said:


> *Chicago and Die Hard*. Nobody can surely believe that these will be released theatrically, so it seems that they are being remixed for Bluray release.


*'Chicago'* the musical? ...Disney studios. 

And *'Die Hard'* the first original one? ...FOX studios.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> *'Chicago'* the musical? ...Disney studios.
> 
> And *'Die Hard'* the first original one? ...FOX studios.


Fox and Disney audio engineers have been as thick as thieves with Dolby when they go around selling the benefits of Atmos, so no surprise there. What about the _other_ studios?


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> ...
> 
> What I think is interesting about all this (_and on topic_) is that if the sound from the speaker reaches the MLP first (before the reflection), *will Audyssey MultEQ try to "erase" the (now desired) reflected sounds bouncing off the ceiling with these Atmos modules* that some will be using?


I thought of that too.

Here; Audyssey is EQuing eleven speakers and two subwoofers right now (Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and DSX). ...With them two Front Width & Height speakers (channels). ...Your full 7.1-channel regular setup (with them two Side and Rear surrounds), plus them four Audyssey DSX speakers, and one more sub - 11.2-channel setup but we know that the .2 is still one LFE channel (just two subs Equed separately to form one LFE channel). ...Phase corrected and separate distance compensated.
...In the Frequency Range (up to 120Hz) and Time Domain. ...Using over 10,000 tap FIR filters (Finite Impulse Response).

Now, with Dolby Atmos on them new Denon/Marantz AV receivers and multichannel surround sound processors, what Audyssey is going to do? ...Compensate for room reflections on them four new Dolby Atmos speakers by letting them freely reflect? 
..Interesting indeed.


----------



## PoshFrosh

NorthSky said:


> Audyssey is EQuing eleven speakers and two subwoofers right now (Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and DSX). ...With them two Front Width & Height speakers


Yes. What's even crazier is that _MultEQ is trying to erase reflections_ that are already there, while _DSX is trying to add "reflections"_ that are not. Check out this quote from the DSX FAQ:


_"For years Audyssey has been talking about reducing the effect of unwanted sound reflections in the room with MultEQ. But with Audyssey DSX we are adding reflections? What’s all this about? The key word is “unwanted.” Sound reflections from certain directions are desirable because they improve our perception of the soundstage. But, in our home listening room, these reflections rarely come from the optimal directions. As a result they degrade the playback quality and that's why MultEQ tries to minimize their effect. But, what if we could recreate the desirable reflections? Then, we can really feel more immersed in the scene."​_
source: http://www.audyssey.com/blog/practical-guide-audyssey-dsx

So these guys are self-claimed experts on room reflections. Makes one more confident that they will come up with a good way to handle Atmos's additional speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Not to nit-pick, but I do think that room EQ done POORLY can definitely do more harm than good. It's not an absolute that applying EQ will NOT do something "detrimental".


We all assume a good Room Correction & EQ system; like Dirac Live, Audyssey, Trinnov, and other professional ones (expensive too). 

The time taken to properly set the mic positioning, the speakers emplacement, the listener ears, some acoustical room treatments, etc., is the magic secret of a good result. 
Experimenting, and measuring too, of course. ...Still, our ears are always the ultimate tool from our toolbox; when comparing and listening. 

Is Dolby Atmos sophisticated? ...Or more like simply effective from good thinking, smart algorithm and application into a a DSP chip and well recorded first by a sound mixing/recording engineer working for a Hollywood movie studio? 

It's an audio codec for sure, not an automatic room calibration and EQ system. 
Things are changing, and ...


----------



## mogorf

NorthSky said:


> No assumption, just plain scientific acoustics. ...No subwoofer(s) were harmed during that test.
> 
> * The art of sound: Walk into an empty room and clap your hands, and keep clapping while walking all around.
> Then measure, if you're up to it, and curious.


A clap test is fine for above Schroeder, but doesn't reveal room behavior in the Bass Department. Clap doesn't go down that low.


----------



## Audionaut

*Just a Thought*

Sitting on the sidelines reading this Atmos thread, I had to share this bit of info that I didn't know and haven't seen discussed. (forgive me if it has been discused)

Datasat/DTS, has processors (AP20) in over 30,000 Theaters, worldwide. Datasat/DTS seem to have future proofed themselves, hence the silence on their part?!?

http://www.datasatdigital.com/cinema/products/product-comparison.php

Me thinks Dolby/Atmos, will eventually have to answer to Datasat/DTS.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Something I'm curious about -- is that modal pattern irrespective of subwoofer position. Or does it assume the subwoofer is at a boundary? It would seem to me (without having thought it through completely) that the location from which the bass waves propogate would affect the distribution of modes relative to the room boundaries.


Such a modal pattern is only found in rooms that are perfectly rectangular, have perfectly rigid walls, no furniture and one low frequency source in a corner. I've never been in such a room


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> Yes. What's even crazier is that _MultEQ is trying to erase reflections_ that are already there, while _DSX is trying to add "reflections"_ that are not. Check out this quote from the DSX FAQ:
> 
> 
> _"For years Audyssey has been talking about reducing the effect of unwanted sound reflections in the room with MultEQ. But with Audyssey DSX we are adding reflections? What’s all this about? The key word is “unwanted.” Sound reflections from certain directions are desirable because they improve our perception of the soundstage. But, in our home listening room, these reflections rarely come from the optimal directions. As a result they degrade the playback quality and that's why MultEQ tries to minimize their effect. But, what if we could recreate the desirable reflections? Then, we can really feel more immersed in the scene."​_
> source: http://www.audyssey.com/blog/practical-guide-audyssey-dsx
> 
> So these guys are self-claimed experts on room reflections. Makes one more confident that they will come up with a good way to handle Atmos's additional speakers.


Excellent reply. ...Audyssey DSX (Width and Height front speakers) is a combination of all the other five or seven channels in the soundtrack. They add by extrapolating directional clues. ...Adding virtual heightened and widened space, based on all the other channels of that movie soundtrack.
...Something like that?

Dolby Atmos projects "sound objects" from specific spatial direction using the 'reflectivity coefficient' of our room's ceiling. ...Something like that?

Both are different and using different algorithm to add spaciousness in a three-dimensional space, with "clues", 'object' delineation. 

Some' would have to be re-calibrated here in Audyssey to distance or re-approach the two different audio codecs effectively in our rooms.
Can Audyssey EQ four more channels to make it fifteen channels all together in addition to them two subs (15.2)? 
How many very powerful DSP chips are we going to need if we want to use 24 speakers, 10 more overhead ones, and 8 subwoofers? ...Six, eight, ten very fast DSP chips?
Don't forget that all them speakers and subs need to be time aligned, phase corrected, frequency range compensated and timbre matched, and EQued properly in good order.

Ok, forget all that because it's more for the public theater venues.
@ home I bet that Onkyo/Integra AV receiver would do just fine; perhaps not the first 2014 batch, but starting with the second series in 2015. ...With AccuEQ of course.
And/but we'll watch even more seriously (for most of us, not all) what Denon/Marantz will come up with, in letting Audyssey taking care of Dolby Atmos new speakers intelligently and effectively and perhaps as good as or better than Onkyo/Integra (AccuEQ), Yamaha (Advanced YPAO), Pioneer Elite (Advanced MCACC Pro), ...AV receivers (and SSPs). 

So many chips, so little time to play...


----------



## mogorf

markus767 said:


> Such a modal pattern is only found in rooms that have perfectly rigid walls, no furniture and an infinitely small low frequency source in a corner. I've never been in such a room


Such a modal pattern is only found in rooms that are calculated by the Harman calculator. As you might have also noticed the Harman calculator only needs input of 3 room dimensions (W&H&D). Nothing else. Doesn't ask about furniture, nor does it ask about low frequency sources and their location.


----------



## NorthSky

mogorf said:


> A clap test is fine for above Schroeder, but doesn't reveal room behavior in the Bass Department. Clap doesn't go down that low.


Use your foot, and bring a "tambour". ...In your arsenal. ...You can even bring a shotgun! ...And shoot with it from everywhere!


----------



## NorthSky

Audionaut said:


> Sitting on the sidelines reading this Atmos thread, I had to share this bit of info that I didn't know and haven't seen discussed. (forgive me if it has been discused)
> 
> Datasat/DTS, has processors (AP20) in over 30,000 Theaters, worldwide. Datasat/DTS seem to have future proofed themselves, hence the silence on their part?!?
> 
> http://www.datasatdigital.com/cinema/products/product-comparison.php
> 
> *Me thinks Dolby/Atmos, will eventually have to answer to Datasat/DTS*.


Dat! *^* ...Is inevitable. * I was just going to say the exact same thing, honest to god.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Not to nit-pick, but I do think that room EQ done POORLY can definitely do more harm than good. It's not an absolute that applying EQ will NOT do something "detrimental".


I agree. Like equalizing single speaker responses when what we hear is NOT just a single speaker (but phantom sources, sub to satellite splice).


----------



## NorthSky

mogorf said:


> Such a modal pattern is only found in rooms that are calculated by the Harman calculator. As you might have also noticed the Harman calculator only needs input of 3 room dimensions (W&H&D). Nothing else. Doesn't ask about furniture, nor does it ask about low frequency sources and their location.


That's right; simple/logical acoustics science.


----------



## mogorf

NorthSky said:


> Use your foot, and bring a "tambour". ...In your arsenal. ...You can even bring a shotgun! ...And shoot with it from everywhere!


How'bout TNT to test LFE penetration in the living room. And measure just out of curiosity! Can only do it once! Friday humor, indeed. Have a nice weekend!


----------



## markus767

mogorf said:


> A clap test is fine for above Schroeder, but doesn't reveal room behavior in the Bass Department. Clap doesn't go down that low.


A perfect clap, i.e. dirac impulse goes down to DC.


----------



## dschulz

Audionaut said:


> Sitting on the sidelines reading this Atmos thread, I had to share this bit of info that I didn't know and haven't seen discussed. (forgive me if it has been discused)
> 
> Datasat/DTS, has processors (AP20) in over 30,000 Theaters, worldwide. Datasat/DTS seem to have future proofed themselves, hence the silence on their part?!?
> 
> http://www.datasatdigital.com/cinema/products/product-comparison.php
> 
> Me thinks Dolby/Atmos, will eventually have to answer to Datasat/DTS.


Just to clarify something here: DTS *sold* their cinema division to Datasat in 2008, in order to focus on their home theater codec business (DTS-HD Master Audio, Neo:X, Play-Fi, etc.) The sound format in cinemas formerly known as DTS Digital Sound is now known as Datasat Digital Sound (you may have noticed that if you sit through to the end of a film produced after 2008 the billing block has a Datasat logo but no DTS logo).

Datasat manufactures the AP20 audio processor for cinemas, as well as the RS20i and LS10 home theater processors. 

DTS has proposed MDA as a file format to support object-based mixing for cinemas, but DTS does not manufacture playback devices for cinemas or home theater.


----------



## mogorf

markus767 said:


> A perfect clap, i.e. dirac impulse goes down to DC.


Washington, D.C, or just simply DC? Love FH (Friday Humor).LOL


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Audionaut said:


> Sitting on the sidelines reading this Atmos thread, I had to share this bit of info that I didn't know and haven't seen discussed. (forgive me if it has been discused)
> 
> Datasat/DTS, has processors (AP20) in over 30,000 Theaters, worldwide. Datasat/DTS seem to have future proofed themselves, hence the silence on their part?!?
> 
> http://www.datasatdigital.com/cinema/products/product-comparison.php
> 
> Me thinks Dolby/Atmos, will eventually have to answer to Datasat/DTS.


DTS sold their theatrical hardware business to Datasat. I don't know if they have a financial stake in the company. 

They've teamed with Barco (of Auro3D fame). Though, we haven't heard more than a peep since CES on the consumer front.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS sold their theatrical hardware business to Datasat. I don't know if they have a financial stake in the company.
> .


They do not; the cinema division was sold in its entirety to Datasat. We do have a business relationship in that Datasat licenses the DTS codecs for our home theater processors.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> They do not; the cinema division was sold in its entirety to Datasat. We do have a business relationship in that Datasat licenses the DTS codecs for our home theater processors.


Thanks for the clarification. Any idea when DTS will make a move with DTS-UHD? They seem to be a no-show at CEDIA. I hope Dolby hasn't rocked DTS back on their heels with all this at home Atmos hoopla.


----------



## Audionaut

*Partner List*

http://www.datasatdigital.com/consumer/partners/partner-list.php

Under the link "featured technology", a "working" relationship remains with DTS and the Commercial Datasat products have a clear bias toward DTS....as they should?!?


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Any idea when DTS will make a move with DTS-UHD? They seem to be a no-show at CEDIA. I hope Dolby hasn't rocked DTS back on their heels with all this at home Atmos hoopla.


I have no inside information I can share on when DTS-UHD will be launched, no.


----------



## Rod#S

kbarnes701 said:


> What would be the point of that? There is zero difference between DTS-HD MA and TrueHD. They are both *lossless *codecs. Nobody gives a hoot which one is used on their Bluray, so it's not as if people are going to be sitting around bemoaning the fact that Atmos comes as TrueHD and not as DTS-HD MA.



Yep you are correct, both the same, I was just thinking from the dts side and consumer side. A lot of people still prefer to see that dts logo on their movie, they are still locked into the DVD era of thinking, there are probably more than you would think. Silly I know but some people are like that.


Also dts may see it in their best interest to somehow get object based audio into their codec even if that means some sort of weird licensing from Dolby else risk market share loss, they must be getting paid for each disc that uses their codecs so if a swing to Dolby occurs they would stand to lose a bundle.


----------



## Rod#S

NorthSky said:


> Rod, I was simply quoting Keith's excellent review because it was already few pages back (always a good thing to bring back the best stuff for a more up-to-date of newer members like me, today), and nothing "silly" appeared to me with the alternative of using front Dolby Atmos speakers, or some small ceiling firing satellites (modules) on top of your existing ones (most cheap speakers are flat on top), and the second quote was only because.
> So kind of it's your choice.



Gotcha


----------



## dschulz

Rod#S said:


> Also dts may see it in their best interest to somehow get object based audio into their codec even if that means some sort of weird licensing from Dolby else risk market share loss, they must be getting paid for each disc that uses their codecs so if a swing to Dolby occurs they would stand to lose a bundle.


DTS has an object-based format. The file format is called MDA (Multi-Dimensional Audio), and they are working towards getting it adopted by the movie industry as a file format for object-based mixes. Their consumer implementation of MDA decoding is DTS-UHD, which was previewed this past CES.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rod#S said:


> Yep you are correct, both the same, I was just thinking from the dts side and consumer side. A lot of people still prefer to see that dts logo on their movie, they are still locked into the DVD era of thinking, there are probably more than you would think. Silly I know but some people are like that.
> 
> 
> Also dts may see it in their best interest to somehow get object based audio into their codec even if that means some sort of weird licensing from Dolby else risk market share loss, they must be getting paid for each disc that uses their codecs so if a swing to Dolby occurs they would stand to lose a bundle.



Oh, I very much doubt DTS would partner with Dolby. No way, no how. They're in a fierce battle over who will be king. DTS wants MDA (aka DTS-UHD) to succeed because it complies with SMPTE wishes for an open and universal object audio language. Dolby wants Atmos, as far as I can tell, to remain proprietary so they get all the fees. 

I don't know if DTS has been able to procure studio support like Dolby has with Atmos whereas you end up with a scenario where studios not releasing Atmos titles will soon start releasing with DTS-UHD instead. Then next year DTS-UHD shows up in new products.


----------



## Rod#S

dschulz said:


> DTS has an object-based format. The file format is called MDA (Multi-Dimensional Audio), and they are working towards getting it adopted by the movie industry as a file format for object-based mixes. Their consumer implementation of MDA decoding is DTS-UHD, which was previewed this past CES.



Yep I was just thinking in the event they stumble, like has been mentioned they have been quiet as of late so it's possible they are a ways out before getting this to market. I'm just theorizing if they felt compelled to get something out fast i.e. they start panicking  they could possibly do something with Dolby. I know true enemies and all but you never know


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> There's a huge difference between having it and being able to turn it off if you prefer, to not having a choice. If you have Audyssey and don't want it 'mucking with' your front speakers, turn it off. Some people turn it off for music and on for movies.
> 
> Why room distortions suddenly seem to disappear when playing music and reappear when playing movies, and thus only need correcting for the latter, is, of course, anyone's guess


+1


IIRC, MultEQxt32 keeps a pretty light touch on EQ above the mids. Correct? It does just enough to create the gentle room roll-off (or what is selected in Pro) ... plus the crossover zone correction (unless disabled in Pro). I thought that they don't mess much above 1K so as to not induce issues.


Those of who have speakers installed in cabinets (even very well deadened cavities) still have the influence of the boundary to correct, and xt32 does an excellent job of that. I think Onkyo has screwed the pooch on this one. Marant/Denon ... I'm back.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Sorry if I'm misconstruing what I think you're saying, but the only way to EQ the room's response (as opposed to room response which is the net response of speaker + room) is with treatments; *what has been discussed is electronic EQ which changes speaker response*.


I disagree. The electronic room EQ creates filters which modify the signal which is sent to the speakers. The frequency response of the speaker itself is not, and cannot, be changed by external software. This may be a semantical difference


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> I disagree. The electronic room EQ creates filters which modify the signal which is sent to the speakers. The frequency response of the speaker itself is not, and cannot, be changed by external software. This may be a semantical difference


I think your last sentence says it best. The "speaker response" is designed and accomplished with its components, cabinet, and crossover working in synergy to achieve a given performance in the chamber; certainly smooth response being one goal. Electronic EQ (commonly called room correction EQ) _at home or in the cinema_ is applied for two reasons: to try to mitigate coloration and/or effects that room acoustic properties impart to the perceived/measured performance of the speaker _at the listening location(s);_ and to affect any "global" correction created for a psychoacoustic effect (room roll-off such as Audyssey, SMPTE House Curve, etc., even Dynamic EQ).

That's my shot at it, anyway.  What say you?


----------



## Rod#S

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, I very much doubt DTS would partner with Dolby. No way, no how. They're in a fierce battle over who will be king. DTS wants MDA (aka DTS-UHD) to succeed because it complies with SMPTE wishes for an open and universal object audio language. Dolby wants Atmos, as far as I can tell, to remain proprietary so they get all the fees.
> 
> I don't know if DTS has been able to procure studio support like Dolby has with Atmos whereas you end up with a scenario where studios not releasing Atmos titles will soon start releasing with DTS-UHD instead. Then next year DTS-UHD shows up in new products.



Thanks


So do you think dts is fairly close to getting UDA to market?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rod#S said:


> Thanks
> 
> 
> So do you think dts is fairly close to getting UDA to market?


They had January CES demos that seemed to show a working DTS-UHD codec on a real consumer-grade quad core Cirrus Logic chip. A little later in 2014 the MDA Cinema Proponents Group (that includes Barco/Auro, QSC, and others) had a demonstration of open-source MDA at a Burbank AMC 16 theater for a SMPTE committee where they showcased its ability to automatically render out an object soundtrack to any and all speaker configurations from Dolby Atmos' to Auro3D's to a more home cinema like 11.1 setup. The theater had both sets of speaker layouts in this one medium-sized auditorium, so they could switch back and forth. 

And then... Nada. 

What happened between then and now is anyone's guess. 

Maybe with the announcement of home Dolby Atmos, they decided DTS-UHD needed further revisions. Maybe they thought they could improve on what Dolby was attempting to do. Maybe some partnerships dissolved. Maybe Dolby got to some of the MDA members with an offer they couldn't refuse.

Who knows?


----------



## SoundChex

*DTS* had said "*AVR, HTiB and soundbar licensee partners of DTS that utilize Cirrus Logic quad-core audio DSPs will be able to license the DTS-UHD decoder into their product designs beginning Q2 2014.*" That is (_at most_) less than 4 months ago . . . add in some NDAs and it's not likely we would have heard much yet. _Maybe something at *CEDIA* and *IFA Berlin*...? (Synchronized with *Auro-3D *updates...?)
__


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> I disagree. The electronic room EQ creates filters which modify the signal which is sent to the speakers. The frequency response of the speaker itself is not, and cannot, be changed by external software. This may be a semantical difference


Yes, that is semantic; my point is that electronic EQ changes the direct sound emitted by the speaker.


----------



## SubSolar

Any diagram yet of where to place four speakers overhead instead of six? I'm thinking of putting two above the main seating position and maybe the other two halfway between the main seating position and the front speakers? I'm also forced to put the rear surrounds in ceiling also (as far back as possible) which is why I don't want to put any of the Atmos speakers behind the main seating position as they may be too close the back surrounds. Thoughts?



batpig said:


> This diagram (which will be in upcoming Denon/Marantz manuals) has been posted several times in this thread already:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't seen any "official" whitepaper detailing the "ideal" locations, but this diagram allows for a decent amount of latitude in placement. The basic idea is that the ceiling speakers should be approximately in line with the front L/R speakers, and if you are going with four there should be two in front of you, and two behind you.
> 
> (Note that the "height" speakers in the diagram reference speakers for non-Atmos surround modes like DTS Neo:X. This is a multi-purpose speaker layout diagram)
> 
> The ceiling speakers should ideally be (1) a good tonal match to your other speakers to maintain the seamlessless of the 3D bubble, so preferably speakers from the same manufacturer if possible, and (2) have decent dispersion characteristics so that the sound effects from above don't "beam" too much and restrict the size of the sweet spot. The latter factor is probably less of a concern the higher your ceilings are.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> Just to clarify something here: DTS *sold* their cinema division to Datasat in 2008, in order to focus on their home theater codec business (DTS-HD Master Audio, Neo:X, Play-Fi, etc.) The sound format in cinemas formerly known as DTS Digital Sound is now known as *D*a*t*a*s*at Digital Sound (you may have noticed that if you sit through to the end of a film produced after 2008 the billing block has a Datasat logo but no DTS logo).
> 
> Datasat manufactures the AP20 audio processor for cinemas, as well as the RS20i and LS10 home theater processors.
> 
> DTS has proposed MDA as a file format to support object-based mixing for cinemas, but DTS does not manufacture playback devices for cinemas or home theater.


I did not know that, now I do. Thank you very much sir.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> *DTS has an object-based format. The file format is called MDA (Multi-Dimensional Audio)*, and they are working towards getting it adopted by the movie industry as a file format for object-based mixes. *Their consumer implementation of MDA decoding is DTS-UHD*, which was previewed this past CES.


The more I read the more I learn. Again, thank you sir.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> *DTS* had said "*AVR, HTiB and soundbar licensee partners of DTS that utilize Cirrus Logic quad-core audio DSPs will be able to license the DTS-UHD decoder into their product designs beginning Q2 2014.*" That is (_at most_) less than 4 months ago . . . add in some NDAs and it's not likely we would have heard much yet. _Maybe something at *CEDIA* and *IFA Berlin*...? (Synchronized with *Auro-3D *updates...?)
> __


Now that Dolby Atmos is in, ...Q2 2015 (DTS-UHD). ...A very plausible scenario.

Dolby people are dts people's friends: Dolby always starts the engine first, then dts roars it soon afterwards.
...Simple business' partnership. Everyone wins. 

I don't know of any product with Dolby or dts alone all by themselves. ...They always go mutually together.


----------



## Skylinestar

NorthSky said:


> Now that Dolby Atmos is in, ...Q2 2015 (DTS-UHD). ...A very plausible scenario.
> 
> Dolby people are dts people's friends: Dolby always starts the engine first, then dts roars it soon afterwards.
> ...*Simple business' partnership. Everyone wins. *
> 
> I don't know of any product with Dolby or dts alone all by themselves. ...They always go mutually together.


Dolby wins at cinema presentation via ticket sales. 
DTS wins at home presentation via bluray/DVD/etc
I think it has always been like this.


----------



## Bumper

*Speaker placement*

As you all can see I couldn't wait for Dolby to release their white paper on proper placement. I read all previous posts about the 1/3 Dolby rule and interpreted the Denon picture.
The front ceiling speakers are placed at 36 degrees while the rear ones are on top to slightly behind. They are all 1/3 to the inside and the front ones are right between the Front LCR and the Mid surrounds. I guess I averaged out all wisdom here. I can still adjust the speaker angles if needed. The current front height speakers are still in place for future use. In september after the Denon 5200 arrives I will be able to tell you guys how it sounds. In January I will replace the unit for the 7200. Hopefully in the future I will be able to use 9.2 with FHeights for Neo:X and PLIIz and 7.2.4 with Atmos and obviously some extra amps. The wait begins


----------



## Michael Sargent

KidHorn said:


> Not likely. I would assume the speakers you put of the ceiling would be small and lightweight and crossed over at around 120. Not likely to vibrate at all. If you plan of using full range towers on the your ceiling than you may need to be concerned.



Thanks to the Kid (and several others who responded). I'll probably try hanging the speakers with some good bungie cord (from all 4 corners so by changing the lengths, the speaker can be aimed).


And maybe one steel cable just in case the bungies wear out. 


Thanks,
Mike


----------



## chi_guy50

SubSolar said:


> Any diagram yet of where to place four speakers overhead instead of six? I'm thinking of putting two above the main seating position and maybe the other two halfway between the main seating position and the front speakers? I'm also forced to put the rear surrounds in ceiling also (as far back as possible) which is why I don't want to put any of the Atmos speakers behind the main seating position as they may be too close the back surrounds. Thoughts?


It's mostly conjecture at this point until we get more definitive guidance from Dolby and/or the AVR manufacturers, but it's my guess that having other speakers at the same elevation as the Atmos tops will be strongly discouraged. Otherwise, as you are probably already aware, the recommended front-to-back positioning for the tops seems to have the FH's slightly forward of the mains and the RH's behind the MLP.

I'm in an even more compromised position because my L/R *surrounds *are currently in-ceiling speakers (necessitated by the fact that I can't run speaker wire to the middle of the living room); OTOH, they happen to be pretty much ideally placed for Atmos RH's at about 110° from, and slightly to the L/R of, the MLP. If I want to switch to an Atmos configuration (7.1.4) I currently anticipate having to repurpose the aforementioned surrounds as Atmos RH's, my SB's as surrounds, and replacing my wall-mounted FH's with in-ceiling speakers identical to the RH's. My current SB bookies would then have to serve as surrounds although not ideally placed just behind and slightly above ear level of the MLP. I would probably have to forfeit any SB's, but I'm hoping the Denon X5200/7200 will allow me to keep my floorstanding FW's in lieu of the SB's in the 7.1.4--otherwise I would be down to 5.1.4.


----------



## Rod#S

Dan Hitchman said:


> They had January CES demos that seemed to show a working DTS-UHD codec on a real consumer-grade quad core Cirrus Logic chip. A little later in 2014 the MDA Cinema Proponents Group (that includes Barco/Auro, QSC, and others) had a demonstration of open-source MDA at a Burbank AMC 16 theater for a SMPTE committee where they showcased its ability to automatically render out an object soundtrack to any and all speaker configurations from Dolby Atmos' to Auro3D's to a more home cinema like 11.1 setup. The theater had both sets of speaker layouts in this one medium-sized auditorium, so they could switch back and forth.
> 
> And then... Nada.
> 
> What happened between then and now is anyone's guess.
> 
> Maybe with the announcement of home Dolby Atmos, they decided DTS-UHD needed further revisions. Maybe they thought they could improve on what Dolby was attempting to do. Maybe some partnerships dissolved. Maybe Dolby got to some of the MDA members with an offer they couldn't refuse.
> 
> Who knows?


Thanks Dan


----------



## rlhaudio

Will anyone offer a Atmos Processor only? ie, A separate box I can connect to my existing receiver or processor? Lets assume I have a Classe, McIntosh, Krell $10,000 plus receiver and Im not willing to sell it or swap for a $2k atmos receiver. Am I screwed or will their be other options? What about an Atmos processor Blu Ray player which I could connect to the back of my receiver or active speakers? I guess im wondering if their is a work-around or will anyone wanting Atmos be forced to purchase a cheaper receiver? 
Will Krell, Classe, etc be required to upgrade all of their processors to Atmos ready as well? Currently if your receiver does not support the newer codecs odd are your blu ray player does which can be connected using Analog and/or digital outputs giving you more codecs. Ugh, now I sound confused.. lol


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rlhaudio said:


> Will anyone offer a Atmos Processor only? ie, A separate box I can connect to my existing receiver or processor? Lets assume I have a Classe, McIntosh, Krell $10,000 plus receiver and Im not willing to sell it or swap for a $2k atmos receiver. Am I screwed or will their be other options? What about an Atmos processor Blu Ray player which I could connect to the back of my receiver or active speakers? I guess im wondering if their is a work-around or will anyone wanting Atmos be forced to purchase a cheaper receiver?
> Will Krell, Classe, etc be required to upgrade all of their processors to Atmos ready as well? Currently if your receiver does not support the newer codecs odd are your blu ray player does which can be connected using Analog and/or digital outputs giving you more codecs. Ugh, now I sound confused.. lol


The short answer is probably not. 

You have to have a receiver or pre-amp with a Dolby Atmos rendering engine built-in. And a Blu-ray player that has Atmos decoding on board would have to be either attached to a receiver or pre-amp that accepts 11 or more channels of PCM audio or the player would have to have a ton of pre-amp connectors (RCA or XLR) on the back of the player making it basically a pre-amp/disc player unit. 

No such animal exists.

You can, however, use your current Blu-ray player to bitstream an Atmos soundtrack via HDMI to a new processor with it included.


----------



## mogorf

rlhaudio said:


> Will anyone offer a Atmos Processor only? ie, A separate box I can connect to my existing receiver or processor? Lets assume I have a Classe, McIntosh, Krell $10,000 plus receiver and Im not willing to sell it or swap for a $2k atmos receiver. Am I screwed or will their be other options? What about an Atmos processor Blu Ray player which I could connect to the back of my receiver or active speakers? I guess im wondering if their is a work-around or will anyone wanting Atmos be forced to purchase a cheaper receiver?
> Will Krell, Classe, etc be required to upgrade all of their processors to Atmos ready as well? Currently if your receiver does not support the newer codecs odd are your blu ray player does which can be connected using Analog and/or digital outputs giving you more codecs. Ugh, now I sound confused.. lol


I'm also expecting something like "ffdshow" to be able to decode Dolby Atmos and send it to the receiver as PCM (LPCM). Ripping Dolby Atmos coded Blu-ray discs to PC or laptop may be a solution for those who don't want to upgrade to a Dolby Atmos AVR.

Or is it just my wishful thinking?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mogorf said:


> I'm also expecting something like "ffdshow" to be able to decode Dolby Atmos and send it to the receiver as PCM (LPCM). Ripping Dolby Atmos coded Blu-ray discs to PC or laptop may be a solution for those who don't want to upgrade to a Dolby Atmos AVR.
> 
> Or is it just my wishful thinking?


Just wishful thinking. A receiver like that must be able to accept at least 11 channels of PCM audio to get any real, appreciable benefit from Atmos. The industry does not make them.

You must send the raw bitstream to an Atmos capable decoder.


----------



## nucky

That's me been to the cinema twice now to see Dolby Atmos, the first one was transformers age of extinction and the other one Dawn of the planet of the apes. It sounds better than any of the other cinemas I've been to, but I am still not convinced, yes you hear sound above your head, but my 5.1 system has done that for years. I am trying to convince myself that it will sound better in my own home. The way other people are talking about the sound,it is as if its the best thing that they have heard for years, for me it has not given me that wow factor yet. So will it sound better in my room or would i be better just keeping the system i have now. Or maybe i am just harder to please than other people.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nucky said:


> That's me been to the cinema twice now to see Dolby Atmos, the first one was transformers age of extinction and the other one Dawn of the planet of the apes. It sounds better than any of the other cinemas I've been to, but I am still not convinced, yes you hear sound above your head, but my 5.1 system has done that for years. I am trying to convince myself that it will sound better in my own home. The way other people are talking about the sound,it is as if its the best thing that they have heard for years, for me it has not given me that wow factor yet. So will it sound better in my room or would i be better just keeping the system i have now. Or maybe i am just harder to please than other people.


I don't know what kind of magic your system has... but there is no way a normal 5.1 system can recreate point-source overhead effects the same way Atmos can. My Paradigm Studio system is pretty darn good, but it cannot recreate something like Gravity's Atmos mix right now. It's impossible. 

Best wait until you can hear home Atmos for yourself in a decent demo.


----------



## rlhaudio

I was thinking about something like this that could be connected to an existing processor in your home. I have no idea how much this costs. I guess I was hoping for a scaled down version for your existing 5ch to 11ch receiver. http://www.dolby.com/in/en/professional/hardware/cinema/audio-processor/cp850.html
IF they made a cheap version.. perhaps a $1,000 - $3,000 receiver is the cheap version.


----------



## mogorf

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just wishful thinking. A receiver like that must be able to accept at least 11 channels of PCM audio to get any real, appreciable benefit from Atmos. The industry does not make them.
> 
> You must send the raw bitstream to an Atmos capable decoder.


I hear you Dan, but isn't a 5.1.2 system a minimal criteria for a Dolby Atmos setup (actually 7.1)?

Here's what Onkyo says: 

"FOR 5.1 CHANNEL USERS:

If you already have 5.1 channel system, you can upgrade to a Dolby Atmos system with the Onkyo TX-NR636 and a pair of Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled add-on speaker modules. (TX-NR636 Dolby Atmos Firmware Upgradable targeted for September.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rlhaudio said:


> I was thinking about something like this that could be connected to an existing processor in your home. I have no idea how much this costs. I guess I was hoping for a scaled down version for your existing 5ch to 11ch receiver. http://www.dolby.com/in/en/professional/hardware/cinema/audio-processor/cp850.html


It's basically a pre-amp/processor without the necessary line level outputs. You need an additional plug-in unit for that. 

Again, you need a receiver or pre-amp with Dolby Atmos built-in.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mogorf said:


> I hear you Dan, but isn't a 5.1.2 system a minimal criteria for a Dolby Atmos setup (actually 7.1)?
> 
> Here's what Onkyo says:
> 
> "FOR 5.1 CHANNEL USERS:
> 
> If you already have 5.1 channel system, you can upgrade to a Dolby Atmos system with the Onkyo TX-NR636 and a pair of Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled add-on speaker modules. (TX-NR636 Dolby Atmos Firmware Upgradable targeted for September.)



It really is the absolute bare minimum, but even Dolby recommends at least 7.1.4. (11.1).

Since the industry wants to buy new gear based on existing platforms (for various cost cutting reasons) I just don't see them supporting low end outboard Atmos processors that plug into your current receiver or pre-amp via HDMI. 

Maybe Oppo will jury rig something into their newer players. Who knows?


----------



## nucky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know what kind of magic your system has... but there is no way a normal 5.1 system can recreate point-source overhead effects the same way Atmos can. My Paradigm Studio system is pretty darn good, but it cannot recreate something like Gravity's Atmos mix right now. It's impossible.
> 
> Best wait until you can hear home Atmos for yourself in a decent demo.


It's a damn good 5.1 system. I get the rain falling down from the ceiling and over head fly overs. So nothing new there.


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know what kind of magic your system has... but there is no way a normal 5.1 system can recreate point-source overhead effects the same way Atmos can. My Paradigm Studio system is pretty darn good, but it cannot recreate something like Gravity's Atmos mix right now. It's impossible.
> 
> Best wait until you can hear home Atmos for yourself in a decent demo.


 My local newly built cinema has the full Atmos gamut and I've commented before that yes its the best sound I've heard in a cinema ( not just the mix, which was great but the bass was the more noticeable improvement) but its still a better experience at home with my now plane Jane vanilla 5.1 . My dipole/bi-poles are mounted high and directly to the sides and gravity sounded just fine if not spectacular, not to mention other well done mixes the likes of rain ,over head fly by's and other effects. I'm sure Atmos will be great once properly setup but the jury is indeed still out as to the benefits at home in the various rooms it will be in baring proper setup of course.

but to say there is noway a 5.1 system can create a point source effect has more to do with *proper system setup* than anything else. There is a good reason why 2/ch is still around


----------



## simon_templar_32

nucky said:


> It's a damn good 5.1 system. I get the rain falling down from the ceiling and over head fly overs. So nothing new there.





audiofan1 said:


> My local newly built cinema has the full Atmos gamut and I've commented before that yes its the best sound I've heard in a cinema ( not just the mix, which was great but the bass was the more noticeable improvement) but its still a better experience at home with my now plane Jane vanilla 5.1 . My dipole/bi-poles are mounted high and directly to the sides and gravity sounded just fine if not spectacular, not to mention other well done mixes the likes of rain ,over head fly by's and other effects. I'm sure Atmos will be great once properly setup but the jury is indeed still out as to the benefits at home in the various rooms it will be in baring proper setup of course.
> 
> but to say there is noway a 5.1 system can create a point source effect has more to do with *proper system setup* than anything else. There is a good reason why 2/ch is still around


Also, don't discount the brain's ability to steer the (perception of) sound to where you expect it to come from (e.g. the "ventriloquist effect").


----------



## jamesvicky

The BEST example in my collection I can go straight to in my collection is prison break series 3 when they are digging upwards out of a tunnel and the prop breaks I don't know how my system does it but it really sounds like there is VOG speakers installed 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jamesvicky said:


> The BEST example in my collection I can go straight to in my collection is prison break series 3 when they are digging upwards out of a tunnel and the prop breaks I don't know how my system does it but it really sounds like there is VOG speakers installed


A phantom image can be good, no doubt, but it cannot replace having a physical speaker where the sound is supposed to come from. Hence the superiority of a format like Atmos. 

If they keep the spirit of some of these newer Disney films' Atmos mixes in the home versions then when someone speaks above you it will come out of the ceiling speakers, for instance. 

Or in Transformers 4 (cruddy movie that it is) when they have sound effects literally fly upward into the ceiling, you'll be glad you have real ceiling speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Skylinestar said:


> Dolby wins at cinema presentation via ticket sales.
> DTS wins at home presentation via bluray/DVD/etc
> I think it has always been like this.


Interesting. Thx for sharing.


----------



## bargervais

jamesvicky said:


> The BEST example in my collection I can go straight to in my collection is prison break series 3 when they are digging upwards out of a tunnel and the prop breaks I don't know how my system does it but it really sounds like there is VOG speakers installed
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree get out your Predator blu-ray when they are being dropped into the jungle you can clearly hear the helicopter overhead and listen as it flies off into the distance you would swear it hovers over head circles and flies off into the distance. Not sure if my brain presived it because i don't have over head speakers. I have onkyo Tx-nr 818 running FRONTS, CENTER, FRONT highs, wides, and surrounds with an onkyo m-5010 amp driving my wides.


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> Thx for sharing.


:laugh::laugh:


----------



## Orbitron

bargervais said:


> I agree get out your Predator blu-ray when they are being dropped into the jungle you can clearly hear the helicopter overhead and listen as it flies off into the distance you would swear it hovers over head circles and flies off into the distance. Not sure if my brain presived it because i don't have over head speakers. I have onkyo Tx-nr 818 running FRONTS, CENTER, FRONT highs, wides, and surrounds with an onkyo m-5010 amp driving my wides.


Another example, overhead footsteps clomping above deck in Master & Commander. If you don't hear this effect, work on room set-up and treatments before kicking it up to Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

Orbitron said:


> Another example, overhead footsteps clomping above deck in Master & Commander. If you don't hear this effect, work on room set-up and treatments before kicking it up to Atmos.


+1


----------



## bargervais

I'm hoping atmos will be a bigger jump then what I have when I added highs and wides to my 5.2 set-up running highs and wides it does add fullness when listening in audyssey DSX Mode, but it wasn't a dramatic change but it does fill the front sound stage nicely.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> I'm hoping atmos will be a bigger jump then what I have when I added highs and wides to my 5.2 set-up running highs and wides does add fullness when listening in audyssey DSX Mode, but it wasn't a dramatic change but it does fill the front sound stage nicely.


Of course it will.  Atmos uses discrete audio information with both channel beds and metadata infused audio object files. DTS Neo:X, DSX, and Prologic IIz are matrix derived post-processing algorithms and do not create new channels. They just artificially expand what's already there.

Some of this posturing that you don't need Atmos (or object audio) to create this or that effect seems to show a lack of understanding of how Atmos works.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course it will.  Atmos uses discrete audio information with both channel beds and metadata infused audio object files. DTS Neo:X, DSX, and Prologic IIz are matrix derived post-processing algorithms and do not create new channels. They just artificially expand what's already there.
> 
> Some of this posturing that you don't need Atmos (or object audio) to create this or that effect seems to show a lack of understanding of how Atmos works.


Ouch thanks for pointing that out. I do understand.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Ouch thanks for pointing that out. I do understand.


When you mentioned you were "hoping" it will be an improvement over those current sound modes, it seemed to me like maybe there was some doubt on your part. Sorry to misread into it.


----------



## markus767

Cam Man said:


> IIRC, MultEQxt32 keeps a pretty light touch on EQ above the mids. Correct?


No, XT32 does also equalize heavily at higher frequencies. I probably still have old measurements that show just that. Let me know if you're interested and I'll check.


----------



## markus767

Bumper said:


> As you all can see I couldn't wait for Dolby to release their white paper on proper placement. I read all previous posts about the 1/3 Dolby rule and interpreted the Denon picture.
> The front ceiling speakers are placed at 36 degrees while the rear ones are on top to slightly behind. They are all 1/3 to the inside and the front ones are right between the Front LCR and the Mid surrounds. I guess I averaged out all wisdom here. I can still adjust the speaker angles if needed. The current front height speakers are still in place for future use. In september after the Denon 5200 arrives I will be able to tell you guys how it sounds. In January I will replace the unit for the 7200. Hopefully in the future I will be able to use 9.2 with FHeights for Neo:X and PLIIz and 7.2.4 with Atmos and obviously some extra amps. The wait begins


Uuh, mounting the top surround like this in that kind of ceiling is probably not a good idea. Did you measure the in-room response?
By the way, is there no seat in the sweet spot??


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> No, XT32 does also equalize heavily at higher frequencies. I probably still have old measurements that show just that. Let me know if you're interested and I'll check.


Question for you Markus: Sound wise (listening/watching to a great Blu-ray movie, or a well recorded CD - ECM record label or Channel Classics), Audyssey MultEQ XT32 versus Audyssey MultEQ XT - In percentage, roughly, your own evaluation; one over the other?

I.e.; XT32 is 90% great (sound quality), and XT is 80% great. ...Overall, all across the range, full audio spectrum.

* Everything else being the exact same: Room, speakers, subwoofers, ...all that jazz.

_____________


And! What brand of AV receiver (or SSP) are you going to get for Dolby Atmos?


----------



## SubSolar

Are you planning on putting your overheads in line with the front and left main speakers like in the diagram?



chi_guy50 said:


> It's mostly conjecture at this point until we get more definitive guidance from Dolby and/or the AVR manufacturers, but it's my guess that having other speakers at the same elevation as the Atmos tops will be strongly discouraged. Otherwise, as you are probably already aware, the recommended front-to-back positioning for the tops seems to have the FH's slightly forward of the mains and the RH's behind the MLP.
> 
> I'm in an even more compromised position because my L/R *surrounds *are currently in-ceiling speakers (necessitated by the fact that I can't run speaker wire to the middle of the living room); OTOH, they happen to be pretty much ideally placed for Atmos RH's at about 110° from, and slightly to the L/R of, the MLP. If I want to switch to an Atmos configuration (7.1.4) I currently anticipate having to repurpose the aforementioned surrounds as Atmos RH's, my SB's as surrounds, and replacing my wall-mounted FH's with in-ceiling speakers identical to the RH's. My current SB bookies would then have to serve as surrounds although not ideally placed just behind and slightly above ear level of the MLP. I would probably have to forfeit any SB's, but I'm hoping the Denon X5200/7200 will allow me to keep my floorstanding FW's in lieu of the SB's in the 7.1.4--otherwise I would be down to 5.1.4.


----------



## chi_guy50

SubSolar said:


> Are you planning on putting your overheads in line with the front and left main speakers like in the diagram?


Short answer: Yes, roughly two to three feet forward of the fronts.

Long answer: I will line them up with the current in-ceiling SL/R (to be repurposed as RH's) which are roughly (within a few inches) in line with the fronts (they are symmetrical to the loveseat just in front of them which represents the MLP and which in turn is in line with the fireplace behind it). For room layout reasons the fronts are slightly akilter from that reference point.

Once I get the X5200 or X7200, and if I decide to utilize Atmos (most likely) over 11.1, I plan to swap out my current wall-mounted front heights for in-ceilings identical to those in the rear. At least that's my thinking at this juncture, but I don't plan on cutting any more holes in my living room ceiling until there is more definitive information available and I have had a chance to test out various configurations in my home with at least a 5.1.2 set-up. I'm also a bit leery of jumping the gun before DTS has unveiled what we can expect in the way of competing MDA technology. It's one thing to move around or swap out speakers or add to the mix; it's quite another to do intrusive installs in the home that may be obviated by something newer and better within one year or so. I want to wait as long as I can hold out before jumping in with both feet. 

Aw hell, who am I kidding? I'll probably be chopping up my ceiling the day after my new AVR is delivered.


----------



## Orbitron

Don't you want to have all the speakers mounted so you're good to go the day your AVR arrives? C'mon, get to it.


----------



## brwsaw

Will/should voices follow the actors movement on screen better/more specific to the location of their mouths with object based audio?


----------



## Bumper

markus767 said:


> Uuh, mounting the top surround like this in that kind of ceiling is probably not a good idea. Did you measure the in-room response?
> By the way, is there no seat in the sweet spot??



After the eight point Audyssey run, all positions sound the same. Those two feet don't make a difference to my ears.


Why would this not be a good idea?
The speakers are direct beam and they are below the lowest ceiling surface.


Time will tell. Obviously Atmos speakers wouldn't work with this celing.


----------



## JonStatt

Regarding receivers and room/speaker EQ.....


Onkyo say clearly on their website that they bypass the front speakers for AccuEQ. There are references in this thread that it also bypasses the sub. Where is this information coming from as I can't find a reference. Also, it was mentioned on the NR838 thread that there is some kind of user adjustment possible after EQ. On an 838 at least, there is no such obvious adjustment available....does it require pro software and a USB/RS-232 link?


With regards to future receivers this September from Denon etc that have Audyssey, am I right to understand that although they will have Atmos onboard they will not have a new version of Audssey thus rendering them potentially limited in use (e.g. not EQ atmos speakers) for Atmos deployments?


I don't know what it is with technology releases lately, but they feel very poorly coordinated. For example the number of people who have bought 4K televisions without HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2 who do not realise when Blu-ray 4K comes out they will be useless other than for camcorders (or the Sony media player if it's a Sony TV and you are in the US).


----------



## Nightlord

brwsaw said:


> Will/should voices follow the actors movement on screen better/more specific to the location of their mouths with object based audio?


Not sure that's a good idea.... They won't know where the actor is in your room, if he's on a small tv or a very large screen.


----------



## chi_guy50

JonStatt said:


> Regarding receivers and room/speaker EQ.....
> 
> With regards to future receivers this September from Denon etc that have Audyssey, am I right to understand that although they will have Atmos onboard they will not have a new version of Audssey thus rendering them potentially limited in use (e.g. not EQ atmos speakers) for Atmos deployments?


I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. Without specific information from the AVR manufacturers we don't know yet exactly how Atmos at home will operate, but Audyssey MultEQ already detects and EQ's each speaker connected to the receiver's main zone speaker posts. Since the Atmos speakers would be fed through the AVR's Height1 and Height2 posts, my assumption is that those speakers would be EQ'd in similar fashion to any others. If not, then it would presumably be an omission by design for whatever reason. My $0.02.


----------



## jdsmoothie

JonStatt said:


> With regards to future receivers this September from Denon etc that have Audyssey, am I right to understand that although they will have Atmos onboard they will not have a new version of Audssey thus rendering them potentially limited in use (e.g. not EQ atmos speakers) for Atmos deployments?


Audyssey has always been able to measure any speakers used in the main zone from 2-13 depending on the model of AVR being used as will continue to be the case with the D&M 2014 models as well. D&M has specifically added 2 additional processors (4 total) to accommodate the additional processing power required to use Audyssey MultEQ XT32 + Atmos.


----------



## FilmMixer

brwsaw said:


> Will/should voices follow the actors movement on screen better/more specific to the location of their mouths with object based audio?


Channel based audio has allowed for that up to this point.... the amount of front speakers doesn't automatically increase when using an object based solution in the home...

It's also sometimes harder to do properly since the location of the LCR speakers can vary so widely from setup to setup.... not to mention when the aspect ration changes (in a properly setup cinema the LR are on the edges or just outside the edges, in scope they are on the LR side..

Regardless, there are many things that dictate whether or not panning dialog is a good idea, or warranted.

Many times when dealing with location recordings, the amount of ambient noise, overlapping dialog, movement, etc. makes it impossible to do so without creating other issues.

Sometimes the way the picture is edited doesn't allow for it even when the quality of the recordings would allow for such things...

All that being said, I'm hearing more and more films with panned dialog.... however, as I said, it's not based on the new availability of objects to do so.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Question for you Markus: Sound wise (listening/watching to a great Blu-ray movie, or a well recorded CD - ECM record label or Channel Classics), Audyssey MultEQ XT32 versus Audyssey MultEQ XT - In percentage, roughly, your own evaluation; one over the other?
> 
> I.e.; XT32 is 90% great (sound quality), and XT is 80% great. ...Overall, all across the range, full audio spectrum.
> 
> * Everything else being the exact same: Room, speakers, subwoofers, ...all that jazz.
> 
> _____________
> 
> 
> And! What brand of AV receiver (or SSP) are you going to get for Dolby Atmos?


I think neither XT32 nor XT do it right. Sure they work as designed but in my opinion they do things that shouldn't be done. Audyssey room correction even may sound good but "a false premise implies any proposition, false or true".
XT32 might work reasonably good in larger rooms but not so much in smaller ones. XT overcorrects at higher frequencies but doesn't have enough frequency resolution at low frequencies.
My recommendation: Use XT32 if you're looking for an easy to use, fully automated tool, stay away from XT and lower versions of Audyssey.

Regarding Atmos, I haven't decided yet. The cheapest one with useful PEQ (or better*) that can do 5.x.4 will suffice.

* If Pioneer would allow the use of user generated FIR filters, this would be a dream come true.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course it will.  Atmos uses discrete audio information with both channel beds and metadata infused audio object files. DTS Neo:X, DSX, and Prologic IIz are matrix derived post-processing algorithms and do not create new channels. They just artificially expand what's already there.
> 
> Some of this posturing that you don't need Atmos (or object audio) to create this or that effect seems to show a lack of understanding of how Atmos works.


All I was trying to say about atmos is that i totally understand how it works, and I'm excited as well, let's hope things move faster then past upgrades. like blu-ray verses HD that went on for what seemed forever.....
Then came 3D I upgraded everything and jumped right in but 3D content was lacking and it seemed again forever before you could start buying maybe 3 New blue-ray discs a year...
Then 4K comes along I'm not jumping in there yet....
So I'm excited that Atmos is coming and Dolby Atmos discs are coming late this year but how many will there be????? So these new Atmos receivers will they simulate high ceiling content ???? Till we have a big enough collection of atmos discs. I'm hoping that there will maybe be like a cloud that you'll be able to stream from. Forget broadcast getting on board fast look how long it took for them to broadcast in HD once alot of us had a HD TV which seemed for years and you know the rest of the story.


----------



## markus767

JonStatt said:


> Onkyo say clearly on their website that they bypass the front speakers for AccuEQ. There are references in this thread that it also bypasses the sub.


So Onkyo thinks that digital room correction isn't desirable anymore with the advent of Atmos? Reminds me of another company that likes to turn hardware/software limitations into "deliberate design choices". That company's name starts with E and ends in motiva.


----------



## FilmMixer

bargervais said:


> So I'm excited that Atmos is coming and Dolby Atmos discs are coming late this year but how many will there be????? So these new Atmos receivers will they simulate high ceiling content ????


I think it's safe to assume that as the fall approaches, and studios are releasing their summer films, there should be no reason to exclude Atmos...

As far as studios going back into their catalogs, I'm sure CEDIA will hold the answer for that.

I've heard the up mixing.. it's quite good.



bargervais said:


> Till we have a big enough collection of atmos discs. I'm hoping that there will maybe be like a cloud that you'll be able to stream from. Forget broadcast getting on board fast look how long it took for them to broadcast in HD once alot of us had a HD TV which seemed for years and you know the rest of the story.


Netflix has shown a penchant for moving forward with 4k... since they support DD+, I suspect they will also be one of the first to stream Atmos.. same goes for the consoles and other streaming solutions that support the codec.. 

I don't think it's going to be such a long wait...


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> So these new Atmos receivers will they simulate high ceiling content ????


There will be upmixing for legacy content.


bargervais said:


> I'm hoping that there will maybe be like a cloud that you'll be able to stream from.


Dolby mentioned a month ago that Atmos soundtracks would be available via streaming.


----------



## NorthSky

JonStatt said:


> Regarding receivers and room/speaker EQ.....
> 
> 
> 1. Onkyo say clearly on their website that they bypass the front speakers for AccuEQ. There are references in this thread that it also bypasses the sub. Where is this information coming from as I can't find a reference. Also, it was mentioned on the NR838 thread that there is some kind of user adjustment possible after EQ. On an 838 at least, there is no such obvious adjustment available....does it require pro software and a USB/RS-232 link?
> 
> 
> 2. With regards to future receivers this September from Denon etc that have Audyssey, am I right to understand that although they will have Atmos onboard they will not have a new version of Audyssey thus rendering them potentially limited in use (e.g. not EQ Atmos speakers) for Atmos deployments?
> 
> 
> 3. I don't know what it is with technology releases lately, but they feel very poorly coordinated. For example the number of people who have bought 4K televisions without HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2 who do not realize when Blu-ray 4K comes out they will be useless other than for camcorders (or the Sony media player if it's a Sony TV and you are in the US).


All very good points Jon.

1. The two front mains are not EQued (with AccuEQ). And the subwoofer; I just don't know for sure, just like you.

2. Perhaps Dolby Atmos speakers don't need to be EQued as they are already designed to provide a certain special sound 'object'. ...Directivity and reflectivity based from their encoding, and discrete too. 

3. Excellent point here; without HDMI version 2.0 you will *not* be getting the full Ultra High Definition (4K) picture. And no magic trick will fix that. ...HDMI 2.0 all the way; from the source to the receiver (SSP) to the display. ...Or from the source directly to the TV (Oppo BD players with two HDMI outputs).
* Are they really selling 4K TVs without HDMI version 2.0?


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> Audyssey has always been able to measure any speakers used in the main zone from 2-13 depending on the model of AVR being used as will continue to be the case with the D&M 2014 models as well. D&M has specifically added 2 additional processors (4 total) to accommodate the additional processing power required to use Audyssey MultEQ XT32 + Atmos.


Wow, Audyssey was already ahead of the curve, and now they simply add that extra processing power (DSP chips) for them four additional Atmos speakers.

And I assume that if you want to add more Atmos speakers (up to 24 plus 10 overhead ones), they'll simply add more DSP chips; perhaps up to a dozen of them? 
- And them extra DSP chips for more processing and fast power response; they cost more money too.
{Dolby Atmos is good business for the manufacturers.}


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Channel based audio has allowed for that up to this point.... the amount of front speakers doesn't automatically increase when using an object based solution in the home...
> 
> It's also sometimes harder to do properly since the location of the LCR speakers can vary so widely from setup to setup.... not to mention when the aspect ration changes (in a properly setup cinema the LR are on the edges or just outside the edges, in scope they are on the LR side..
> 
> Regardless, there are many things that dictate whether or not panning dialog is a good idea, or warranted.
> 
> Many times when dealing with location recordings, the amount of ambient noise, overlapping dialog, movement, etc. makes it impossible to do so without creating other issues.
> 
> Sometimes the way the picture is edited doesn't allow for it even when the quality of the recordings would allow for such things...
> 
> All that being said, I'm hearing more and more films with panned dialog.... however, as I said, it's not based on the new availability of objects to do so.


Good point Marc.

* Methinks that the best would be to have two film mixing audio soundtracks; one for large theaters (large theater Dolby Atmos sound mix) and the other for regular living rooms (small studio Dolby Atmos sound mix).
...See what I mean...paradise surround sound hound for everybody. ...We just select the perfect one to suit our theater room (large dedicated home theater room, or smaller normal living room style home theater, _a-la-maison_ regular type, modest, ...). ...From the Blu-ray's (4K) audio select menu. ...100Gb capacity.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> I think neither XT32 nor XT do it right. Sure they work as designed but in my opinion they do things that shouldn't be done. Audyssey room correction even may sound good but "a false premise implies any proposition, false or true".
> XT32 might work reasonably good in larger rooms but not so much in smaller ones. XT overcorrects at higher frequencies but doesn't have enough frequency resolution at low frequencies.
> My recommendation: Use XT32 if you're looking for an easy to use, fully automated tool, stay away from XT and lower versions of Audyssey.
> 
> Regarding Atmos, I haven't decided yet. The cheapest one with useful PEQ (or better*) that can do 5.x.4 will suffice.
> 
> * If Pioneer would allow the use of user generated FIR filters, this would be a dream come true.


Thanx a big bunch Markus; I highly value your opinion. 
And Roger also likes a flexible PEQ. * The Emotiva XMC-1 SSP has one of them...

Pioneer Elite, Yamaha...they are both in that boat as well. 

_______________


I love it when you say _"stay away from XT, and lower..."_
- "XT32 is reasonably preferable for larger rooms, and not so much for smaller ones" - that's very good too.
- "XT over-corrects in the high frequencies, and not enough in the lower audio registers" - that too I like.
* Audyssey MultEQ XT Pro (based on XT32)? ...You made no mention on that, but I did not ask either. ...Now I do. 

_______________

By the way, parametric EQ filters; they don't use time (impulse) response (delay), but only frequency range based.


----------



## Roger Dressler

brwsaw said:


> Will/should voices follow the actors movement on screen better/more specific to the location of their mouths with object based audio?


Probably not. The current 3 screen speakers are already very capable of aligning sounds with images. And it is sometimes used for voice positioning. But it was determined long ago that such capability needs to be used with caution, as it can be distracting. Object audio does not change that.



Nightlord said:


> Not sure that's a good idea.... They won't know where the actor is in your room, if he's on a small tv or a very large screen.


When it comes to small rooms, it is entirely possible to adapt the sound to improve the result. This is Case 1 from another post.

Let's say your TV screen is small, and that it would improve the enjoyment of the presentation if the onscreen sounds (sounds associated with a visible source) were to remain better tied to the screen size, thus avoiding exaggerated lateral cues for sources near the sides of the screen. This can be achieved with object rendering that is informed about the screen size. Then it will know how to map "screen edge" sounds to the phantom locations accordingly. As with any phantom image, it can shift depending on the location of the viewer. However, these phantoms are not built between L and R, but with L/C and C/R, so the error is cut in half. Furthermore, the error is never worse (and usually better) than the displacement error with standard L/C/R playback around a small screen.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger, a la *'Gravity'* style audio mix? ...The Blu-ray as it stands right now is pretty efficient in that regard.  
And actually it works for both small and large home theater rooms. ...As I noticed @ both my local IMAX theater (3D) and @ home (3D).


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> Furthermore, the error is never worse (and usually better) than the displacement error with standard L/C/R playback around a small screen.


Not so sure that the diffuse placement of today is worse to live with than a perfect placement that's permanently a foot next to the actors.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> Roger, a la *'Gravity'* style audio mix? ...


I was only referring to on-screen voices, per the O/P's question.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> By the way, parametric EQ filters; they don't use time (impulse) response (delay), but only frequency range based.


No, PEQ will change frequency and time behavior.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I was only referring to on-screen voices, per the O/P's question.


Me too.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> No, PEQ will change frequency and time behavior.


I agree. ...That's what I meant; it won't *correct* for the time decay.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> I agree. ...That's what I meant; it won't *correct* for the time decay.


It does if the response was minimum phase.


----------



## brwsaw

Nightlord said:


> Not sure that's a good idea.... They won't know where the actor is in your room, if he's on a small tv or a very large screen.


I'm exited to read the first set up and calibration manual.


----------



## westmd

FilmMixer said:


> I've heard the up mixing..


The question is how will the up-mixing of non native mazerial by processors/receivers at home?


----------



## mogorf

westmd said:


> The question is how will the up-mixing of non native mazerial by processors/receivers at home?


Care to make a clear sentence?


----------



## Schwa

NorthSky said:


> 3. Excellent point here; without HDMI version 2.0 you will *not* be getting the full Ultra High Definition (4K) picture. And no magic trick will fix that. ...HDMI 2.0 all the way; from the source to the receiver (SSP) to the display. ...Or from the source directly to the TV (Oppo BD players with two HDMI outputs)


Not true. You can get 8-bit color 4K at 24Hz/30Hz using HDMI 1.4. Some devices will also allow 4K60 at 60Hz at the 4:2:0 colorspace. I've had my HDMI 1.4 Denon 4520 upscale to 4K and pass that signal to my HDMI 1.4 JVC RS4910 over an HDBaseT connection (also HDMI 1.4 connection) and it works fine.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> I've heard the up mixing.. it's quite good.


Could you elaborate, i.e. ambient and/or discrete effects?

I'd think that having top speakers would greatly improve the former, but did it seem to create any of the latter?


----------



## Tnedator

NorthSky said:


> All very good points Jon.
> 
> 1. The two front mains are not EQued (with AccuEQ). And the subwoofer; I just don't know for sure, just like you.


I posted this in another thread. The Onkyo marketing people have described AccuEQ different ways in different places. This is from the PR-SC5530 datasheet, and in this description, it makes it look like there may be full 7.1 EQ for non-stereo playback (movies, DD, DTS, etc.), but then bypass the EQ on the fronts for stereo playback. 

*Onkyo introduces the powerful AccuEQ room calibration system. AccuEQ measures and corrects speaker distances, levels, crossovers, and frequency response from one convenient listening position to ensure clear and cohesive surround-sound while enabling playback of 7.1-channel formats at 96 kHz (no down-sampling). For the ultimate in pure stereo performance, AccuEQ bypasses the front channels so the unique characteristics of your loudspeakers can be enjoyed without DSP correction to potentially alter the sound.
*

It's really hard to tell from these marketing blurbs whether the fronts are always bypassed or just in stereo playback. 

I'm as interested to figure out what's going on as anyone, which is why I've been digging around to get a more complete explanation of AccuEQ.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Could you elaborate, i.e. ambient and/or discrete effects?


It would be weird if the did the latter, since legacy soundtracks don't contain any intended height content.


----------



## Roger Dressler

westmd said:


> The question is how will the up-mixing of non native material by processors/receivers at home?


If by "non-native" you mean Atmos content, I think upmixing only operates on non-Atmos content. Regular stereo, 5.1, 7.1 stuff.


----------



## NorthSky

Schwa said:


> Not true. You can get 8-bit color 4K at 24Hz/30Hz using HDMI 1.4. Some devices will also allow 4K60 at 60Hz at the 4:2:0 colorspace. I've had my HDMI 1.4 Denon 4520 upscale to 4K and pass that signal to my HDMI 1.4 JVC RS4910 over an HDBaseT connection (also HDMI 1.4 connection) and it works fine.


I did not know that. ...And what about if later on we get 60fps (or 48fps) down the HDMI convoy? 
...Without using them separate special devices. ...And also about more than 8-bit color?

* 'Upscaling' to 4K isn't the same as passing it straight. 

Isn't it preferable to have HDMI version 2.0 now that we are in a more advanced world, ultra hi-def picture and ultra hi-res audio wise? Why not simply adapt to our times without much complication? ...To save money? ...And remain behind the curve tomorrow?

When I'll get my first true 4K Blu-ray movies, I want HDMI v.2.0 in all my components' chain (4K display, not pseudo, 4K true BD player, and 4K true SSP (or AV receiver), and true 4K HDMI cables.
...And true Dolby Atmos, with minimum of four overhead Atmos speakers, in addition to the other seven main channel speakers (7.2.4 @ minimun). ...Eleven speakers and no less than two subwoofers.
For some people that would be seventeen speakers total plus four subs (11.4.6).


----------



## rlhaudio

My understanding so far is that you will have to choose between Atmos and PLIIZ. You can't have both. example: 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 (for arguments sake). We know the 5. or 7. is our current L,C,R, Side & Surround. We all know the .4 is Atmos ceiling speakers. I don't see it listed anywhere yet a 9.1.2? which would allow for 2 heights or wides and 2 atmos ceiling speakers unless I missed something. The Atmos receiver would require 13 outputs to cover a 9.1.4 speaker setup. What about those that want 4 ceiling speakers? They would need 15 outputs to cover every speaker combination 11.1.4. As far as I know, they don't have the processing power yet. 
So are we basically exchanging our height and wide speakers (4 speakers) for Atmos ceiling (4 speakers)?


----------



## sdurani

rlhaudio said:


> I don't see it listed anywhere yet a 9.1.2? which would allow for 2 heights or wides and 2 atmos ceiling speakers unless I missed something.


Onkyo mentioned support for that configuration initially. Seems Denon will be supporting it as one of the Atmos configurations too.


----------



## Schwa

NorthSky said:


> I did not know that. ...And what about if later on we get 60fps (or 48fps) down the HDMI convoy?
> ...Without using them separate special devices. ...And also about more than 8-bit color?
> 
> * 'Upscaling' to 4K isn't the same as passing it straight.
> 
> Isn't it preferable to have HDMI version 2.0 now that we are in a more advanced world, ultra hi-def picture and ultra hi-res audio wise? Why not simply adapt to our times without much complication? ...To save money? ...And remain behind the curve tomorrow?
> 
> When I'll get my first true 4K Blu-ray movies, I want HDMI v.2.0 in all my components' chain (4K display, not pseudo, 4K true BD player, and 4K true SSP (or AV receiver), and true 4K HDMI cables.
> ...And true Dolby Atmos, with minimum of four overhead Atmos speakers, in addition to the other seven main channel speakers (7.2.4 @ minimun). ...Eleven speakers and no less than two subwoofers.
> For some people that would be seventeen speakers total plus four subs (11.4.6).


In terms of a given HDMI chain's ability to pass a 4K signal, upscaling is _exactly_ the same as "passing it straight."

Of course HDMI 2.0 is preferable. Higher-than-8-bit color content is certainly a possibility, as is 4K60 (although that'll likely be just as common as native 1080p60 content, which is to say "not very"). You make some valid points. However, I was only responding to your statement:



NorthSky said:


> without HDMI version 2.0 you will not be getting the full Ultra High Definition (4K) picture. And no magic trick will fix that


*which isn't true*.

Have fun waiting for every single standard (HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2, Dolby Atmos, etc) to be fully fleshed out before you make a move. Me? I'll enjoy my "pseudo 4K" JVC projector and Denon 4520 with 9.2 surround sound today, and when Atmos comes along, I'll install some in-ceiling speakers (the wiring's just been completed!), get a new receiver, and be good to go. And once 4K is firmly entrenched, it'll be display upgrade time too.

Besides, I'm not sure what place an HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 discussion has in a Dolby Atmos thread. The presence or absence of HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 has no bearing at all on whether Atmos will work.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> Could you elaborate, i.e. ambient and/or discrete effects?
> 
> I'd think that having top speakers would greatly improve the former, but did it seem to create any of the latter?


I agree with your conclusion, and is how I would describe it. 

It was a brief demo. But definitely created a dome effect.


----------



## rlhaudio

sdurani said:


> Onkyo mentioned support for that configuration initially. Seems Denon will be supporting it as one of the Atmos configurations too.


I guess if your indecisive or don't want to completely commit to atmos, you can have the best of both worlds albeit only 2 atmos speakers but 2 are better than none.


----------



## NorthSky

Schwa said:


> In terms of a given HDMI chain's ability to pass a 4K signal, upscaling is _exactly_ the same as "passing it straight."
> 
> Of course HDMI 2.0 is preferable. Higher-than-8-bit color content is certainly a possibility, as is 4K60 (although that'll likely be just as common as native 1080p60 content, which is to say "not very"). You make some valid points. However, I was only responding to your statement:
> 
> 
> 
> *which isn't true*.
> 
> Have fun waiting for every single standard (HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2, Dolby Atmos, etc) to be fully fleshed out before you make a move. Me? I'll enjoy my "pseudo 4K" JVC projector and Denon 4520 with 9.2 surround sound today, and when Atmos comes along, I'll install some in-ceiling speakers (the wiring's just been completed!), get a new receiver, and be good to go. And once 4K is firmly entrenched, it'll be display upgrade time too.
> 
> Besides, I'm not sure what place an HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 discussion has in a Dolby Atmos thread. The presence or absence of HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 has no bearing at all on whether Atmos will work.


Alright, you got me good; I'm learning from you.


----------



## Marc Wielage

NorthSky said:


> Methinks that the best would be to have two film mixing audio soundtracks; one for large theaters (large theater Dolby Atmos sound mix) and the other for regular living rooms (small studio Dolby Atmos sound mix).


In effect, they should be doing this now: the original theatrical mix, made for a large room (say, 7000+ square feet), done at an operating level of 85dB; and a "TV/home video mix," made for a much smaller room (say, 400 square feet), done at an operating level of 79dB. This is widely recommended by SMPTE, the AES, and several other industry groups.

One huge, huge problem for theatrical mixes is that their dynamic ranges are way too intense for an average living room. I'm sure all of you have encountered situations where you inch up the volume in order to hear low-level dialogue in a feature film, and then *WHAM*... you get hit by a massive orchestral peak or a big explosion, you get knocked out of your seat, and you have to quickly dial the level back by 4 or 5 dB. This is that problem. 

The problem is that studios are cheap and most directors are ignorant of this, so too often, the theatrical mix winds up getting plopped on Blu-rays, and that's what we get. They rarely translate well to home video, in my experience. When the sound supervisor has the time (and budget), they can go through in a single day and make minor adjustments to the existing mix and make it work at the 79dB level, and which also generally will work with the ITU R128 loudness specs required for TV mixes around the world.

My fear with Home Atmos is that if they jam 5 or 10 or 20 more channels in there, even with the metadata, there's a chance we're either going to miss important channel information we need to hear, or we're going to wind up with phase issues when multiple channels are combined. I think this can work under ideal situations, but again, it'll require the studios to spend more money and do multiple passes of different mixes in different rooms. A THX PM-3-style room -- a small-to-medium-size mix bay, essentially what they used for TV -- would work fine, provided they had enough loudspeakers.


----------



## sdurani

rlhaudio said:


> I guess if your indecisive or don't want to completely commit to atmos, you can have the best of both worlds albeit only 2 atmos speakers but 2 are better than none.


If limited to 11 speakers, I would do a 7.1.4 configuration first, then add wides later (as 13-channel receivers show up) to fill the gap between the fronts and sides.


----------



## cxr369

What would be best for the atoms in ceiling, monopole or bipole?


----------



## westmd

mogorf said:


> Care to make a clear sentence?


Sorry not to be precise enough. What I meant is that there are two ways to upmix legacy content to Atmos. One is by the studio itself if they take a legacy soundtrack and release an Atmos Blz Ray whilst the other possibility is an upmix from my processor/receiver at home by playing a non Atmos Blu Ray (or even DVD). Especially looking at the fact that studios sometimes just want to make a quick buck and do upmixing without special care I wonder how one or the other method sounds?


----------



## westmd

cxr369 said:


> What would be best for the atoms in ceiling, monopole or bipole?


From what I read so far the ceiling speakers are gold standard.i have THX speakers at home and I have bought four additional LCR's and will attach these to the ceiling. If the upcoming Yamaha processor will be able to drive 15 channels I also will go for front and rear presence speakers additionally by the same method?


----------



## Franin

cxr369 said:


> What would be best for the atoms in ceiling, monopole or bipole?


I believe there monopole.


----------



## NorthSky

You are right Frank; coaxial monopole.


----------



## JonStatt

My point about incomplete standards and implementations was that earlier in this thread it was theorised that Audyssey XT32 may not do well in calibrating downward firing speakers and may need a revision to be optimal for Atmos. As of today this revision has not been announced and the receivers indicate the same current versions of Audyssey in the September releases. Perhaps there will be a firmware update or maybe it will be another iteration of receivers. The mention of HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 was not to off track the thread but to give an example of a recent technology rollout in the AV world that is so severely flawed and to point out the mess that this has caused. For example Blu-ray can quite happily give the maximum your display is capable of whether it be a 720p. 1080i, or 1080p display. Whereas Blu-ray 4K will likely not display anything above 1080p on most current 4K TVs when released. Why is this relevant? Just to illustrate that for any new technology to be successful in my opinion, instead of rushing things out, it is better to get your "standards" in order cross-vendor before releasing product. If EQ is considered a vital feature, I hope that proper consideration to Atmos has been given rather than just stuffing Atmos in at the last minute of a design without end-to-end cohesion in the receivers capabilities.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Wielage said:


> One huge, huge problem for theatrical mixes is that their dynamic ranges are way too intense for an average living room. I'm sure all of you have encountered situations where you inch up the volume in order to hear low-level dialogue in a feature film, and then *WHAM*... you get hit by a massive orchestral peak or a big explosion, you get knocked out of your seat, and you have to quickly dial the level back by 4 or 5 dB. This is that problem.


Totally agree. (How's that for a change of pace? ) DVD content had a useful solution: DRC. Dolby's bitstreams default with embedded DRC (dynamic range control) metadata. If played through a stereo TV, it would kick in automatically and drop the LFE. And in an AVR this can be activated via the "night mode" or whatever it may be called, so it can work in 5.1 mode. Often it allows a choice of normal and heavy effect, as the DD bitstream carries two degrees of DRC. The heavy mode is great at keeping your hand off the remote when the loud stuff comes along.

As folks shifted to Blu-ray they essentially lost that feature because DTS does not use it. TrueHD soundtracks still have a DRC option, but I'm not sure people realize it. Presumably that will be retained for Atmos discs. 



Marc Wielage said:


> My fear with Home Atmos is that if they jam 5 or 10 or 20 more channels in there, even with the metadata, there's a chance we're either going to miss important channel information we need to hear, or we're going to wind up with phase issues when multiple channels are combined.


Fear not. All these extra "channels" (objects) are entirely downmixed to make the standard 7.1 mix in the disc. By definition, it will sound correct, with no phase issues. That means there can be no unexpected phase or occlusion issues. 

Prior to Atmos, all those same signals, and hundreds more, existed individually in the mixing console, and were all combined into the 5.1 mix of the day. In Atmos, the combining process (simple mixing) for some select sounds is just being moved downstream to the consumer's home. The moving part is hard, the mixing part is easy.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Yes, that is semantic; my point is that electronic EQ changes the direct sound emitted by the speaker.


Sure does, Noah - it wouldn’t be much use if it didn't  But it's as you said - it changes the sound emitted by the speaker. It doesn't change the frequency response of the speaker.

What I mean is this: if a manufacturer managed to make a hypothetical speaker with an entirely flat FR from 20Hz to 20kHz, when the speaker was placed in a normal room, the measured in-room response of that speaker would be nowhere near flat. Electronic EQ could then bring the measured in-room response back to flat. But nothing has changed the FR of the speaker. 

I think we both agree with each other, but, for me, it's an important distinction to make because so many people seem to believe (based on what they say here on AVS) that the room doesn't really affect the measured in-room FR of their system (ie room and speaker combined).


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> +1
> 
> 
> IIRC, MultEQxt32 keeps a pretty light touch on EQ above the mids. Correct? It does just enough to create the gentle room roll-off (or what is selected in Pro) ... plus the crossover zone correction (unless disabled in Pro). I thought that they don't mess much above 1K so as to not induce issues.


That's right - here's an *in-depth look* at it:


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It really is the absolute bare minimum, but even Dolby recommends at least 7.1.4. (11.1).
> 
> Since the industry wants to buy new gear based on existing platforms (for various cost cutting reasons) I just don't see them supporting low end outboard Atmos processors that plug into your current receiver or pre-amp via HDMI.
> 
> Maybe Oppo will jury rig something into their newer players. Who knows?


He didn’t understand that the upgradeable units have been specially designed _in anticipation_ of Atmos and is perhaps thinking that any unit can be upgraded if the manufacturer so decides. As we know, there is no way for that top happen, for the reasons you have already stated.


----------



## kbarnes701

nucky said:


> It's a damn good 5.1 system. I get the rain falling down from the ceiling and over head fly overs. So nothing new there.


Atmos isn't really about that. Sure, that is one of the benefits. But the main benefit is the ability to locate sounds in three dimensional space on precise x,y, z coordinates. No 5.1 system can do that.


----------



## JonStatt

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure does, Noah - it wouldn’t be much use if it didn't  But it's as you said - it changes the sound emitted by the speaker. It doesn't change the frequency response of the speaker.
> 
> What I mean is this: if a manufacturer managed to make a hypothetical speaker with an entirely flat FR from 20Hz to 20kHz, when the speaker was placed in a normal room, the measured in-room response of that speaker would be nowhere near flat. Electronic EQ could then bring the measured in-room response back to flat. But nothing has changed the FR of the speaker.
> 
> I think we both agree with each other, but, for me, it's an important distinction to make because so many people seem to believe (based on what they say here on AVS) that the room doesn't really affect the measured in-room FR of their system (ie room and speaker combined).




I think there is one warning here though. If you are aiming to remove modes by inserting a negative PEQ filter, then that's fine. But if the natural speaker response is 40-20k with a -6dB at 30Hz...and then you start inserting a +6dB PEQ to try and boost it....you could be affecting the speaker in all sorts of ways particularly if it is only a 2-way or 3-way design. I have seen references here where people have indicated Audssey has boosted their LF responses achieving a flatter response lower than the speakers natural frequency roll-off point. This could be resulting in low level strain to that driver (not at a level to damage it) which can result in reduction in fidelity at the other frequencies it is responsible for producing. This is why I firmly believe in Room EQ for the reduction of room modes only...much less convinced about attempting to deal with troughs/dips during room EQ and very cautious about the ideas and ramifications of speaker EQ for fronts.


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> I'm sure Atmos will be great once properly setup but the jury is indeed still out as to the benefits at home in the various rooms it will be in baring proper setup of course.


The jury isn’t still out for me. I've heard it, in a HT setup, and the benefits for a home system are colossal. 



audiofan1 said:


> but to say there is noway a 5.1 system can create a point source effect has more to do with *proper system setup* than anything else. There is a good reason why 2/ch is still around


No 5.1 system can place sound precisely on x,y, z coordinates. Yes of course a 2 channel system can image pretty well in front of you. And a 5.1 channel system can image pretty well in front of you and to the sides (and rear sometimes) as well. But neither can place a sound just above you, to your right and slightly in front of you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Orbitron said:


> Another example, overhead footsteps clomping above deck in Master & Commander. If you don't hear this effect, work on room set-up and treatments before kicking it up to Atmos.


Yes, all the examples given, including yours, are correct and most of us have been hearing this for years. It has nothing at all to do with Atmos and what it can do. Maybe some more in-depth reading of how object-based sound works would help clarify the differences. Atmos is not just about "height effects".


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I'm hoping atmos will be a bigger jump then what I have when I added highs and wides to my 5.2 set-up running highs and wides it does add fullness when listening in audyssey DSX Mode, but it wasn't a dramatic change but it does fill the front sound stage nicely.


I've used PLIIz since it first came out. Atmos is to PLIIz what 5.1 is to mono.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course it will.  Atmos uses discrete audio information with both channel beds and metadata infused audio object files. DTS Neo:X, DSX, and Prologic IIz are matrix derived post-processing algorithms and do not create new channels. They just artificially expand what's already there.
> 
> *Some of this posturing that you don't need Atmos (or object audio) to create this or that effect seems to show a lack of understanding of how Atmos works.*


Just made the same point. A lot of people still think it is all about "height effects".


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. Without specific information from the AVR manufacturers we don't know yet exactly how Atmos at home will operate, but Audyssey MultEQ already detects and EQ's each speaker connected to the receiver's main zone speaker posts. Since the Atmos speakers would be fed through the AVR's Height1 and Height2 posts, my assumption is that those speakers would be EQ'd in similar fashion to any others. If not, then it would presumably be an omission by design for whatever reason. My $0.02.


Yes - Audyssey can already EQ 11 speakers, so 11 for an Atmos 7.1.4 setup or 11 for a 5.1 + Wides and Heights setup is the same to Audyssey. It is 11 speakers.

The only question some of us have is about the grazing angle of the mic. Audyssey requires the mic to point up to the ceiling - that is a grazing angle close to 90 degrees for a conventional 7.1 setup. But with Atmos, the mic will be pointing more or less directly at the ceiling speakers. Whether this will matter and how it works will have to be seen.


----------



## J_P_A

Has a date been given as to when we should expect more details about optimum speaker placements, or are we just waiting for CEDIA?


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Wielage said:


> One huge, huge problem for theatrical mixes is that their dynamic ranges are way too intense for an average living room. I'm sure all of you have encountered situations where you inch up the volume in order to hear low-level dialogue in a feature film, and then *WHAM*... you get hit by a massive orchestral peak or a big explosion, you get knocked out of your seat, and you have to quickly dial the level back by 4 or 5 dB. This is that problem.


That does happen - but not so much when a system has been carefully set up at home and the room is treated and/or electronic EQ is usefully deployed. For example, it never happens here in my HT. And there are already electronic modes which are designed to deal with it.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the content producers deliberately dumb down Bluray mixes so that they play satisfactorily on poor or low quality home systems. No thanks!


----------



## Tnedator

NorthSky said:


> You are right Frank; coaxial monopole.


I think the spec says timbre matched monopoles. Nothing about coaxial. As far as I know, the Coaxial aspect came from people saying they would be good options, probably mostly due to cost and partially due to small mounting footprint.


----------



## kbarnes701

Tnedator said:


> I think the spec says timbre matched monopoles. Nothing about coaxial. As far as I know, the Coaxial aspect came from people saying they would be good options, probably mostly due to cost and partially due to small mounting footprint.


And the Andrew Jones designed Atmos speakers are coaxial drivers too, so maybe people are thinking of those. AJ is very enthusiastic about coaxial drivers.


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Orbitron*  
_Another example, overhead footsteps clomping above deck in Master & Commander. If you don't hear this effect, work on room set-up and treatments before kicking it up to Atmos._




kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, all the examples given, including yours, are correct and most of us have been hearing this for years. It has nothing at all to do with Atmos and what it can do. Maybe some more in-depth reading of how object-based sound works would help clarify the differences. Atmos is not just about "height effects".


 



I own Master and Commander. Where are these "overhead footsteps clomping above the deck?" Is this throughout the movie or during a specific scene?


Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I own Master and Commander. Where are these "overhead footsteps clomping above the deck?" Is this throughout the movie or during a specific scene?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


It's near the beginning of the movie, just after the captain spots the French ship through his telescope. The enemy launch an attack on the ship and the captain gives the order to 'beat to quarters'. Following that, there is a scene where the action shifts to below decks and in that scene you can clearly hear crew members running about above decks. In a good system, you will hear their footsteps clattering on the wooden deck and the sound is clearly coming from 'above' you, even in a 5.1 system. The effect is exaggerated if you have Height speakers and use one of the upmixing algorithms such as PLIIz, DSX or Neo:X. 

However, good though this is, and as I have said ad nauseam, Atmos is about much, much more than 'height effects'.

If you have Master and Commander, try the scene and see how it plays for you.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> I think there is one warning here though. If you are aiming to remove modes by inserting a negative PEQ filter, then that's fine. But if the natural speaker response is 40-20k with a -6dB at 30Hz...and then you start inserting a +6dB PEQ to try and boost it....you could be affecting the speaker in all sorts of ways particularly if it is only a 2-way or 3-way design. I have seen references here where people have indicated Audssey has boosted their LF responses achieving a flatter response lower than the speakers natural frequency roll-off point. This could be resulting in low level strain to that driver (not at a level to damage it) which can result in reduction in fidelity at the other frequencies it is responsible for producing. This is why I firmly believe in Room EQ for the reduction of room modes only...much less convinced about attempting to deal with troughs/dips during room EQ ...


Agreed. Using EQ to boost must always be done with caution and with an understanding of the ramifications of doing so.


----------



## Tnedator

kbarnes701 said:


> And the Andrew Jones designed Atmos speakers are coaxial drivers too, so maybe people are thinking of those. AJ is very enthusiastic about coaxial drivers.


The question that we don't now is whether that is due to the physics of bouncing the signal off the ceiling by mounting a speaker on top of the existing speaker or a factor of price, or because coax is an ideal choice. 

That should become more clear when we see true ceiling mount Atmos dedicated speakers join the product lines and see if they are traditional or coax. 

I'm not very familiar with coax speakers. Any issue getting a timbre match (Atmos states this is important) between traditional LCR and surrounds and coax Atmos ceiling (bounce or ceiling mounted) speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

Tnedator said:


> The question that we don't now is whether that is due to the physics of bouncing the signal off the ceiling by mounting a speaker on top of the existing speaker or a factor of price, or because coax is an ideal choice.
> 
> That should become more clear when we see true ceiling mount Atmos dedicated speakers join the product lines and see if they are traditional or coax.
> 
> I'm not very familiar with coax speakers. Any issue getting a timbre match (Atmos states this is important) between traditional LCR and surrounds and coax Atmos ceiling (bounce or ceiling mounted) speakers?


IIRC, AJ says he wanted to use a coaxial driver for various reasons, not least of which is that it would be an identical match to the driver used in the main section of his Atmos speakers. This is what seems most important to me - to get a good timbre match among all the speakers in a system. I would venture that it is more important to get a good timbral match than to use a coaxial driver per se (unless one's main speakers have those drivers of course and are from the same manufacturer). I am not going to switch to a different manufacturer for my top speakers simply because the former do not offer a coaxial design in their range. I want matching speakers above all.


----------



## petetherock

JonStatt said:


> My point about incomplete standards and implementations ...
> 
> The mention of HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 was not to off track the thread but to give an example of a recent technology rollout in the AV world that is so severely flawed and to point out the mess that this has caused. For example Blu-ray can quite happily give the maximum your display is capable of whether it be a 720p. 1080i, or 1080p display. Whereas Blu-ray 4K will likely not display anything above 1080p on most current 4K TVs when released. Why is this relevant? Just to illustrate that for any new technology to be successful in my opinion, instead of rushing things out, it is better to get your "standards" in order cross-vendor before releasing product..


+1000 !!

Isn't it a big snafu if we have Gen 1 amps that are HDMI 2.0 but Not HDCP 2.2?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> It's near the beginning of the movie, just after the captain spots the French ship through his telescope. The enemy launch an attack on the ship and the captain gives the order to 'beat to quarters'. Following that, there is a scene where the action shifts to below decks and in that scene you can clearly hear crew members running about above decks. In a good system, you will hear their footsteps clattering on the wooden deck and the sound is clearly coming from 'above' you, even in a 5.1 system. The effect is exaggerated if you have Height speakers and use one of the upmixing algorithms such as PLIIz, DSX or Neo:X.
> 
> However, good though this is, and as I have said ad nauseam, Atmos is about much, much more than 'height effects'.
> 
> If you have Master and Commander, try the scene and see how it plays for you.


And for those who don't have the movie - for soundtrack purposes get the DVD not the BluRay... the bass is clipped on the latter.

( First 15 mins is my most used 'demo' for my small tvroom theater so far  )


----------



## chi_guy50

I am a bit befuddled by this discussion of the proper type of speaker for Atmos tops. I haven't seen any authoritative prescription yet, but is there any guidance to this point for in-ceiling speakers? 

Assuming I will want a timbre-match with the rest of my system--and unless my manufacturer (Polk Audio) comes out with an Atmos-specific in-ceiling speaker in the next few months(!)--my options are going to be very limited.

Edit: Keith, I just saw your post 1617 above, which at least partially answers my concerns. Do you have any further guidance to offer?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I am a bit befuddled by this discussion of the proper type of speaker for Atmos tops. I haven't seen any authoritative prescription yet, but is there any guidance to this point for in-ceiling speakers?
> 
> Assuming I will want a timbre-match with the rest of my system--and unless my manufacturer (Polk Audio) comes out with an Atmos-specific in-ceiling speaker in the next few months(!)--my options are going to be very limited.


Remember that good room EQ such as XT32 will help timbrally match the speakers, so long as they aren't miles apart in the first place. Might be worth asking Polk what they would recommend if they don't currently offer anything suitable.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> And for those who don't have the movie - for soundtrack purposes get the DVD not the BluRay... the bass is clipped on the latter.
> 
> ( First 15 mins is my most used 'demo' for my small tvroom theater so far  )


Good point about the DVD. Those cannon shots are way better on the DVD.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> It's near the beginning of the movie, just after the captain spots the French ship through his telescope. The enemy launch an attack on the ship and the captain gives the order to 'beat to quarters'. Following that, there is a scene where the action shifts to below decks and in that scene you can clearly hear crew members running about above decks. In a good system, you will hear their footsteps clattering on the wooden deck and the sound is clearly coming from 'above' you, even in a 5.1 system. The effect is exaggerated if you have Height speakers and use one of the upmixing algorithms such as PLIIz, DSX or Neo:X.
> 
> However, good though this is, and as I have said ad nauseam, Atmos is about much, much more than 'height effects'.
> 
> If you have Master and Commander, try the scene and see how it plays for you.


 

Thanks. I just played the scene and I do hear the footsteps overhead.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks. I just played the scene and I do hear the footsteps overhead.


Great effect isn't it? But don't think that effects like that mean that you won't benefit from Atmos.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> The moving part is hard, the mixing part is easy.


As long as the sounds in question are "dry", i.e. without any additional spatial information like reverberation, I would agree. If such spatial information requires more than one channel (angle of incidence) then up/downmixing and panning isn't simple anymore. Atmos doesn't offer a solution to this.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> As long as the sounds in question are "dry", i.e. without any additional spatial information like reverberation, I would agree. If such spatial information requires more than one channel (angle of incidence) then up/downmixing and panning isn't simple anymore. Atmos doesn't offer a solution to this.


Mixing reverb is handled the same as mixing direct sounds, in that there's no reverb processing in the renderer, just speaker mapping, which adds no phase/delays. In that sense, reverb is handled "dry."


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> I am a bit befuddled by this discussion of the proper type of speaker for Atmos tops. I haven't seen any authoritative prescription yet, but is there any guidance to this point for in-ceiling speakers?
> 
> Assuming I will want a timbre-match with the rest of my system--and unless my manufacturer (Polk Audio) comes out with an Atmos-specific in-ceiling speaker in the next few months(!)--my options are going to be very limited.
> 
> Edit: Keith, I just saw your post 1617 above, which at least partially answers my concerns. Do you have any further guidance to offer?


I'm no expert but I haven't seen anything to make me think we need anything "special", i.e. waiting for the manufacturer to come out with "an Atmos-specific speaker". The "Atmos speakers" we are talking about are the upward-firing modules that use reflected sound. They are "special" in the sense of having specific dispersion characteristics so they "beam" properly and the reflection isn't too diffuse, so you can't just take any old bookshelf speaker and point it up at the ceiling and have a good Atmos effect.0

But if you are going to actually install physical in-ceiling speakers, I don't there is any special requirement beyond the standard credo of trying to get a good timbral match to your other speakers. And perhaps trying to aim for a speaker with good dispersion characteristics. It's just another channel producing audio along with the rest of your speakers. I think you are overthinking it in this respect.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Mixing reverb is handled the same as mixing direct sounds, in that there's no reverb processing in the renderer, just speaker mapping, which adds no phase/delays. In that sense, reverb is handled "dry."


Maybe I'm misinterpreting your former post but mixing reverberation does most likely add "phase/delays". Just like mixing the same sound with a slight delay into one channel will create a highly audible comb filter while playing those delayed sounds from two different locations (speakers) does not.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> It would be weird if the did the latter, since legacy soundtracks don't contain any intended height content.


There's the much-mentioned M&C footsteps, which by accident or design image overhead.

Speaking of the latter, why don't they just apply height cue processing like Atmos (see below) to 5.1 and 7.1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
There's nothing I can see about the Atmos speakers that tries to get around the physics of speaker directivity, and all Andrew said in response to Scott's question about what prevents listeners from hearing the direct sound from the increasingly omnidirectional lower frequencies was that there's a "secret sauce" that NDA prohibited him from sharing.

My guess that this is processing yhe signal electronically with HRTF and/or the type of processing SRS and similar use to fool our ear/brains into hearing sounds come from directions other than where the speaker is.

If that's the case any speaker may work, but a coaxial would be best, the bigger the better to increase directivity down to lower freq.



Roger Dressler said:


> You have very good sense of the processing required. Here's how Dolby describes it in their *patent application*:
> 
> Quote:
> In an embodiment, the adaptive audio system utilizes upward-firing drivers to provide the height element. In general, it has been shown that incorporating signal processing to introduce perceptual height cues into the audio signal being fed to the upward-firing drivers improves the positioning and perceived quality of the virtual height signal. For example, a parametric perceptual binaural hearing model has been developed to create a height cue filter, which when used to process audio being reproduced by an upward-firing driver, improves that perceived quality of the reproduction. In an embodiment, the height cue filter is derived from the both the physical speaker location (approximately level with the listener) and the reflected speaker location (above the listener). For the physical speaker location, a directional filter is determined based on a model of the outer ear (or pinna). An inverse of this filter is next determined and used to remove the height cues from the physical speaker. Next, for the reflected speaker location, a second directional filter is determined, using the same model of the outer ear. This filter is applied directly, essentially reproducing the cues the ear would receive if the sound were above the listener. In practice, these filters may be combined in a way that allows for a single filter that both (1) removes the height cue from the physical speaker location, and (2) inserts the height cue from the reflected speaker location.


----------



## noah katz

OK, maybe it is semantic, but I'm distinguishing between the acoustic differences between EQ'ng the speaker electronically and EQ'ing the room physically, which differences I'm sure you understand.



kbarnes701 said:


> Sure does, Noah - it wouldn’t be much use if it didn't  But it's as you said - it changes the sound emitted by the speaker. It doesn't change the frequency response of the speaker.
> 
> What I mean is this: if a manufacturer managed to make a hypothetical speaker with an entirely flat FR from 20Hz to 20kHz, when the speaker was placed in a normal room, the measured in-room response of that speaker would be nowhere near flat. Electronic EQ could then bring the measured in-room response back to flat. But nothing has changed the FR of the speaker.
> 
> I think we both agree with each other, but, for me, it's an important distinction to make because so many people seem to believe (based on what they say here on AVS) that the room doesn't really affect the measured in-room FR of their system (ie room and speaker combined).


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Maybe I'm misinterpreting your former post but mixing reverberation does most likely add "phase/delays". Just like mixing the same sound with a slight delay into one channel will create a highly audible comb filter while playing those delayed sounds from two different locations (speakers) does not.


The reverb is already baked into the essence before the sound leaves the mixing session. Just like when a sound is mixed into any other delivery format, stereo, 5.1... And since part of the mixing process is to confirm the 5.1/7.1 complete mix sounds correct, by definition whatever it sounds like in that form is deemed acceptable. Were there problems, they would be fixed. And indeed sometimes mixers want to adjust the balance or positioning of sounds in these derivative configurations. Both Atmos and MDA have such ability as the issue does exist. 

When that 7.1 track arrives to a consumer, in parallel with the specific object and its embeded reverb, it will be subtracted from the mix inits entirety to reveal the "bed." Now the sound can be rendererd to whatever speakers. There will be no opportunity for some form of downmixing to cause any unintended phase issues.

If what you are concerned about is stereo compatibility, these racks will have the same compatibility as any current 5.1/7.1 soundtrack. Do they suffer phase issues? I've never noticed it from movies, but I have two 5.1 music discs where the stereo downmix has vocal combing due to a slight offset in the center channel. But those discs also carry a separate stereo mix, so downmixing isn't required.


----------



## noah katz

Tnedator said:


> I think the spec says timbre matched monopoles. Nothing about coaxial. As far as I know, the Coaxial aspect came from people saying they would be good options, probably mostly due to cost and partially due to small mounting footprint.


Well-executed coaxials have a significant advantage over conventional 2-ways, which is an absence of lobes in off-axis response due to constructive/destructive interference in the overlapping freq ranges of two sdrivers spaced apart.

An additional important advantage for surrounds, which are often much closer to the listeners than the L/C/R, is that much less distance is required for the sound from the two drivers to integrate.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> But if you are going to actually install physical in-ceiling speakers, I don't there is any special requirement beyond the standard credo of trying to get a good timbral match to your other speakers. And perhaps trying to aim for a speaker with good dispersion characteristics. It's just another channel producing audio along with the rest of your speakers. I think you are overthinking it in this respect.


Many thanks for that feedback which pretty much coincides with my initial feelings. I wasn't overthinking, but rather trying to extrapolate from the recent discussion of desirable characteristics for the ceiling speakers (e.g., this and the following).


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> stereo compatibility


Not only that but what if Marc suddenly starts to use this new fancy Atmos 9-channel IR-based reverb plugin and we want to play that on standard 7/5.1?


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Well-executed coaxials have a significant advantage over conventional 2-ways, which is an absence of lobes in off-axis response due to constructive/destructive interference in the overlapping freq ranges of two sdrivers spaced apart.


That's why I am using coax's for my heights. Kef and Tannoy (and it appears Pioneer) make 2-way coax speakers. Tannoy has some that easily *mount on pivots* or *in-ceiling* or *in-wall*. They even have some that install* liked a lighting can*. I bought 4 of the Di6 DC. Rather industrial looking (invisible in the dark ), but good specs for response and power.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> There's the much-mentioned M&C footsteps, which by accident or design image overhead.


So you're claiming that current non-Atmos soundtracks are mixed with sounds intended to image overhead at a movie theatre and you're offering M&C as your counter-example to what I said (legacy soundtracks don't contain any intended height content)?


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Not only that but what if Marc suddenly starts to use this new fancy Atmos 9-channel IR-based reverb plugin and we want to play that on standard 7/5.1?


The mixers will make sure whatever they do sounds right. Don't you trust them?


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That's why I am using coax's for my heights. Kef and Tannoy (and it appears Pioneer) make 2-way coax speakers. Tannoy has some that easily *mount on pivots* or *in-ceiling* or *in-wall*. They even have some that install* liked a lighting can*. I bought 4 of the Di6 DC. Rather industrial looking (invisible in the dark ), but good specs for response and power.


How important do you think it is to use speakers from the same manufacturer as the mains, Roger? Or how unimportant if you will? I am assuming your mains aren't Tannoys though - ICBW there. I haven’t made any decision wrt to my top speakers yet. I have M&Ks for all the others.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> The mixers will make sure whatever they do sounds right. Don't you trust them?


They mix something that sounds right in their dubbing stage, yes sure, but do they check for compatibility with 7/5.1?


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> How important do you think it is to use speakers from the same manufacturer as the mains, Roger? Or how unimportant if you will? I am assuming your mains aren't Tannoys though - ICBW there. I haven’t made any decision wrt to my top speakers yet. I have M&Ks for all the others.


When I installed the main speakers, I needed in-walls for the 4 surrounds, but Aerial does not do those, and I was not about to change the L/C/R over that! I went with B&W and while the driver complement looks similar, a 3-way with same sizes and crossovers, the voicing is quite different. All that was corrected with a healthy dose of PEQ, and the blend is now seamless.

The advice to use speakers from the same manufacturer was born before EQ was prevalent. Now it is. So I think the "matching" issue is much less of a concern these days.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> That's why I am using coax's for my heights. Kef and Tannoy (and it appears Pioneer) make 2-way coax speakers. Tannoy has some that easily *mount on pivots* or *in-ceiling* or *in-wall*. They even have some that install* liked a lighting can*. I bought 4 of the Di6 DC. Rather industrial looking (invisible in the dark ), but good specs for response and power.


Yes, those look very nice and would be tempting except that I already have eight B&C 8" coax surrounds.



sdurani said:


> So you're claiming that current non-Atmos soundtracks are mixed with sounds intended to image overhead at a movie theatre and you're offering M&C as your counter-example to what I said (legacy soundtracks don't contain any intended height content)?


No, I said "by accident or design", which I believe makes it clear that I was only speculating.

The more important thing is, why haven't they used height cue processing before now to make it intentional?


----------



## Cam Man

Roger Dressler said:


> The reverb is already baked into the essence before the sound leaves the mixing session. Just like when a sound is mixed into any other delivery format, stereo, 5.1... And since part of the mixing process is to confirm the 5.1/7.1 complete mix sounds correct, by definition whatever it sounds like in that form is deemed acceptable. Were there problems, they would be fixed. And indeed sometimes mixers want to adjust the balance or positioning of sounds in these derivative configurations. Both Atmos and MDA have such ability as the issue does exist.
> 
> When that 7.1 track arrives to a consumer, in parallel with the specific object and its embeded reverb, it will be subtracted from the mix inits entirety to reveal the "bed." Now the sound can be rendererd to whatever speakers. There will be no opportunity for some form of downmixing to cause any unintended phase issues.
> 
> If what you are concerned about is stereo compatibility, these racks will have the same compatibility as any current 5.1/7.1 soundtrack. Do they suffer phase issues? I've never noticed it from movies, but I have two 5.1 music discs where the stereo downmix has vocal combing due to a slight offset in the center channel. But those discs also carry a separate stereo mix, so downmixing isn't required.


Roger, what percentage of theatrical releases get re-mixed for their BD release these days? A friend close to JBL told me that one of the post houses uses one of the smaller JBL Synthesis systems for this purpose.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> They mix something that sounds right in their dubbing stage, yes sure, but do they check for compatibility with 7/5.1?


Absolutely. That's what pays the bills. The whole world is 5.1, and will remain so. When stereo goes away, then I will worry about 5.1 viability.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> When I installed the main speakers, I needed in-walls for the 4 surrounds, but Aerial does not do those, and I was not about to change the L/C/R over that! I went with B&W and while the driver complement looks similar, a 3-way with same sizes and crossovers, the voicing is quite different. All that was corrected with a healthy dose of PEQ, and the blend is now seamless.
> 
> The advice to use speakers from the same manufacturer was born before EQ was prevalent. Now it is. So I think the "matching" issue is much less of a concern these days.


Thanks for that. As you know I am a firm believer in EQ. In which case, I could be tempted by those Tannoys. I’d go for the smaller version in my room (Di5 DC). I like the idea of the 90 degree conical dispersion.

(This exchange between us reminds me I was intending to send you a diagram. Clean forgot - will do it after dinner (it's 7pm here now)).


----------



## Roger Dressler

Cam Man said:


> Roger, what percentage of theatrical releases get re-mixed for their BD release these days? A friend close to JBL told me that one of the post houses uses one of the smaller JBL Synthesis systems for this purpose.


"Remixed" is a strong term. That has happened on some Disney titles, where the balances and spatial positioning was changed quite a lot (especially for the music). That is the exception. Usually it is a pass to correct for errors missed on the theatrical, re-conforming to the video transfer, some EQ and dynamics and even low-level compression tweaks to work better at home. That happens regularly these days. Yes, they need a decent playback system to make such subjective judgments. If only they could detect when some errant high-pass filter was left active in the LFE channel!


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Yes, those look very nice and would be tempting except that I already have eight B&C 8" coax surrounds.


4 for main, 4 for height? Are any of them in operation, or still in boxes?


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Great effect isn't it? But don't think that effects like that mean that you won't benefit from Atmos.


 

Trust me - I will be a day one user of Atmos in my home theater using a Denon X5200W and 4 ceiling speakers. I have experienced Dolby Atmos in the theater with two movies - *Dawn of the Planet of the Apes* and the *Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug*.


----------



## grtuck

kbarnes701 said:


> I've used PLIIz since it first came out. Atmos is to PLIIz what 5.1 is to mono.


That is a bold statement, and since you have heard "Home Atmos" already, it makes me very excited.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> 4 for main, 4 for height? Are any of them in operation, or still in boxes?


They're installed in DSX layout back from when I had a Denon 4810.

Four are now inactive since I moved to a JBL AV1 (Lex MC-4), intended to be fed by a Trinnov Optimizer.

I haven't yet succeeded in configuring the inputs/outputs, but will be calling Curt Hoyt for help after I finish up new L/C/R's and bass trap panels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> ....after I finish up new L/C/R's and bass trap panels.


Go on.


----------



## kbarnes701

grtuck said:


> That is a bold statement, and since you have heard "Home Atmos" already, it makes me very excited.


I mean it too. I am very familiar with what PLIIz can do. And, for what it is, I have been pleased with it. But it is way, way, way different to what Atmos can do. You excitement is justified IMO.


----------



## AidenL

tjenkins95 said:


> Trust me - I will be a day one user of Atmos in my home theater using a Denon X5200W and 4 ceiling speakers. I have experienced Dolby Atmos in the theater with two movies - *Dawn of the Planet of the Apes* and the *Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug*.


And you found it that impressive?

I think i'd be the same, haven't heard Atmos yet - I'd gladly try the Denon too, but i hate the thought of not being fully HDMI 2.0 capable and having to change AVRS again in 2016.......


----------



## noah katz

Scott Simonian said:


> Go on.


I'll post a build thread in the DIY Speaker forum when I finish.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> The whole world is 5.1


Cinema or home theater?


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> *Well-executed coaxials have a significant advantage over conventional 2-ways, which is an absence of lobes in off-axis response due to constructive/destructive interference in the overlapping freq ranges of two drivers spaced apart*.
> 
> An additional important advantage for surrounds, which are often much closer to the listeners than the L/C/R, is that much less distance is required for the sound from the two drivers to integrate.





Roger Dressler said:


> *That's why I am using coax's for my heights*. Kef and Tannoy (and it appears Pioneer) make 2-way coax speakers. Tannoy has some that easily *mount on pivots* or *in-ceiling* or *in-wall*. They even have some that install* liked a lighting can*. I bought 4 of the Di6 DC. Rather industrial looking (invisible in the dark ), but good specs for response and power.


Like I said before; coaxial monopole (in reaffirming Frank's post). ...Dolby Atmos overhead (ceiling) speakers.
...Or on top of the two front mains and the two back surrounds. 
...Point source, coherence, uniformity, phase balanced, ...


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> The jury isn’t still out for me. I've heard it, in a HT setup, and the benefits for a home system are colossal.
> 
> *Trust me I'm all in but keep in mind you heard a dedicated professional small theater setup! I'm sure once the dust settles and mixers get a firm handle on Atmos and other object based formats we will win. to bad for me at this point in the game I'm a sucker for "high fidelity" which means I'll have to wait for the stars to align for pre/pro (or a maybe! just maybe good enough receiver worth its salt) with all the formats and enough chips for full resolution playback along with DRC and all at a sane price of course. Till then I'm gonna exercise a little patience and but may explore heights and wides .
> 
> But who knows *
> 
> 
> 
> *No 5.1 system can place sound precisely on x,y, z coordinates. Yes of course a 2 channel system can image pretty well in front of you. And a 5.1 channel system can image pretty well in front of you and to the sides (and rear sometimes) as well. But neither can place a sound just above you, to your right and slightly in front of you.*


*


*
Its all smoke and mirrors


----------



## NorthSky

I'm a firm believer.  ...I'm all *object*ive to it; to that heightened elevation.


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> I'm a firm believer.  ...I'm all *object*ive to it; to that heightened elevation.



You talkin bout weeds again?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## zoetmb

kbarnes701 said:


> In a good system, you will hear their footsteps clattering on the wooden deck and the sound is clearly coming from 'above' you, even in a 5.1 system.


What??!!!

You want to explain the physics behind how a 5.1 outputs height effects? Not happening - it's all in your head.

Phantom channels between the fronts and surrounds are possible. Phantom channel between the surrounds are possible. But it's not possible to generate a sound from the ceiling unless you've got some really strange reflections in your room. And that would be a coincidence, not something that was built into the mix.


----------



## tjenkins95

AidenL said:


> And you found it that impressive?
> 
> I think i'd be the same, haven't heard Atmos yet - I'd gladly try the Denon too, but i hate the thought of not being fully HDMI 2.0 capable and having to change AVRS again in 2016.......


 



Yes, it is very impressive in the theater and adding 4 ceiling speakers at home and playing blu-rays with Atmos sound tracks should be a great experience at home. As far as HDMI 2.0, I would also need a 4K projector so I am not in a hurry. I don't think I would have any problems selling the Denon.


----------



## bargervais

What is a realistic time line for atmos to be mainstream I want it now. Giving birth takes nine months from conception. I can't wait for a long pregnancy I want it now. I'll start with preparing my speaker lay out. Does anyone know if two or four overhead speakers will work like say if I only use two like let's say front highs will the front and back highs be sent to the front highs. Or will I lose the rear high objects???? does that make sense.


----------



## Stereojeff

EQ using HRTF's either purposely or inadvertently could lead to the perception of sounds coming from above the listening plane. I, too, hear the Master and Commander footfalls coming from above and am convinced HRTF EQ is the reason.

Jeff


----------



## NorthSky

ambesolman said:


> You talkin bout weeds again?


It's "weed", singular.

* What do you really think?


----------



## NorthSky

zoetmb said:


> What??!!!
> 
> You want to explain the physics behind how a 5.1 outputs height effects? Not happening - it's all in your head.
> 
> Phantom channels between the fronts and surrounds are possible. Phantom channel between the surrounds are possible. But it's not possible to generate a sound from the ceiling unless you've got some really strange reflections in your room. And that would be a coincidence, not something that was built into the mix.


Not to rain on your belief regarding sound coming from overhead,
and from that *'Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World'* Blu-ray flick,
but it's all there, just like you posting that post. 
* Do you have that Blu-ray title?

http://filmsound.org/master/

http://mixonline.com/sound4picture/film_tv/audio_master_commander_far/


----------



## bargervais

What sucks is I just upgraded my my receiver last April and I bought a TX-NR 818 and speakers and two subs without a clue that Atmos was on its way.... Now I want atmos go figure this seems to always happen to me LOL.... Cry... Cry some more. What the heck it's only money and you can't take it with you...


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> What sucks is I just upgraded my my receiver last April and I bought a TX-NR 818 and speakers and two subs without a clue that Atmos was on its way.... Now I want Atmos go figure this seems to always happen to me LOL.... Cry... Cry some more. What the heck it's only money and you can't take it with you...


I understand exactly your feeling; don't feel lonely because you are not alone.

* Methinks that Dolby Atmos should have a separate unit for them four new Dolby Atmos speakers, at least. 
...And, firmware 'upgradeable' too. ...They can even add the four internal amps required, it don't really matter to me.

But yes, a separate Dolby Atmos processing box.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> No, I said "by accident or design", which I believe makes it clear that I was only speculating.


In that case, I'll stand by what I said earlier about the surround processing not putting distinct content overhead, since current non-Atmos mixes don't contain distinct height content.


noah katz said:


> The more important thing is, why haven't they used height cue processing before now to make it intentional?


Because there haven't been soundtracks with height content before now (before Atmos).


----------



## Marc Wielage

kbarnes701 said:


> What you seem to be suggesting is that the content producers deliberately dumb down Bluray mixes so that they play satisfactorily on poor or low quality home systems. No thanks!


That is *exactly* what they have to do. The good home video departments do this as a matter of course. I would argue that the picture also has to be slightly changed between color-correction on a 20' screen vs. a 50" screen, but that's a different subject. (Surprisingly, the big screen is easier in some ways.)

There's a huge difference between a mix intended to be played in a giant theater with 500-1000 seats and a mix intended to be played in a living room with 5 seats. If you can't grasp the difference, I don't know what to say. 

Dolby and THX both have very good standards on reference levels based on room size and other factors. I can refer you to several AES reference papers on the subject if you want them. 

Note that the adjustments are not drastic -- it's merely constricting the dynamic range another 5dB so as to make the low-level dialogue more audible. Otherwise, trust me, you're going to blown out of the room (and not in a good way).


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> In that case, I'll stand by what I said earlier about the surround processing not putting distinct content overhead, since current non-Atmos mixes don't contain distinct height content. Because there haven't been soundtracks with height content before now (before Atmos).


They could if HRTF processing was applied; how do we know the mixers for M&C didn't say to themselves "These footsteps are on the deck above, wouldn't it be cool to add HRTF processing for those few seconds of the soundtrack?"?

If Jeff is right and they did in fact do this, perhaps someone with the disc on hand could verify by listening to see if other sounds besides the footsteps also sound like they're over head.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> They could if HRTF processing was applied; how do we know the mixers for M&C didn't say to themselves "These footsteps are on the deck above, wouldn't it be cool to add HRTF processing for those few seconds of the soundtrack?"?


They didn't.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> They didn't.


OK, that settles that.

Any thoughts on why the sounds seem to come from overhead?

In any case, any reason it isn't done?


----------



## SoundChex

For _academic_ interest, I look forward to sometime reading a comparison of the differences in the "surround impression delivered" between playback of a _Neo:X matrix encoded movie _(e.g., *Expendables 2*, _nominally_ *DTS-HDMA 7.1 | Neo:X 11.1*) with _native Neo:X post-processing_, versus with _Dolby Atmos upmix_.
_


----------



## Tnedator

kbarnes701 said:


> And the Andrew Jones designed Atmos speakers are coaxial drivers too, so maybe people are thinking of those. AJ is very enthusiastic about coaxial drivers.


Yea, I see that in the Atmos speakers he's using coax for both the upfiring as well as forward firing. At least it's consistent, which is good. The Dolby spec emphasizes having timbre matched speakers all around. So, if your forward firing speakers are coax, then getting similar coax for the ceiling or up-firing speakers makes sense.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Cinema or home theater?


Content.


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that. As you know I am a firm believer in EQ. In which case, I could be tempted by those Tannoys. I’d go for the smaller version in my room (Di5 DC). I like the idea of the 90 degree conical dispersion.
> 
> (This exchange between us reminds me I was intending to send you a diagram. Clean forgot - will do it after dinner (it's 7pm here now)).


 
I agree with this and your general opinion that staying in the same family of speakers is going to be very beneficial in Atmos upgrades/transitions. I'm sure everyone is doing the same thing as me; researching what is available to use from the manufacturer of your other speakers. My system at home is a THX Ultra 2 system for all but subs. The logical go-to in that line would be the KL-7502-THX which really do sound terrific. http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker.


My issue is that the ceiling is beams/millwork, so no built-ins will help. That ceiling is up there at 12.5 feet, so getting KL-650s-THX (LCRs) or KL-525-THXs up there is not such a realistic alternative for several reasons. First, they are really heavy, and they are boxy looking. Maybe more importantly in this application, they have a rather high directivity index.


So, I'm thinking that the classic outdoor work horse, the AW-650 may be a good choice. It is friendly to the installation situation (with its C-bracket), it sounds excellent (had them outside for ten years), and they are not high on directivity, having a 90 x 90 horn. These are easily custom finished as well to conceal. http://www.klipsch.com/aw-650-outdoor-speaker. I bet with EQ these will fit in beautifully.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> All I was trying to say about atmos is that i totally understand how it works, and I'm excited as well, let's hope things move faster then past upgrades. like blu-ray verses HD that went on for what seemed forever.....
> Then came 3D I upgraded everything and jumped right in but 3D content was lacking and it seemed again forever before you could start buying maybe 3 New blue-ray discs a year...
> Then 4K comes along I'm not jumping in there yet....
> So I'm excited that Atmos is coming and Dolby Atmos discs are coming late this year but how many will there be????? So these new Atmos receivers will they simulate high ceiling content ???? Till we have a big enough collection of atmos discs. I'm hoping that there will maybe be like a cloud that you'll be able to stream from. Forget broadcast getting on board fast look how long it took for them to broadcast in HD once alot of us had a HD TV which seemed for years and you know the rest of the story.


Dolby is adding a newer "upmixing" feature using the Atmos speaker layout that will help flesh out 5.1 and 7.1 tracks into a more enveloping experience. They threw away Prologic IIz and are coming out with a newer format to go along with regular Atmos discs. I don't know which Atmos products will include this new Prologic-like feature.

Hopefully, we'll have some idea of how big of a roll out Atmos will have on disc by CEDIA at the latest.


----------



## FilmMixer

Marc Wielage said:


> That is *exactly* what they have to do. The good home video departments do this as a matter of course. I would argue that the picture also has to be slightly changed between color-correction on a 20' screen vs. a 50" screen, but that's a different subject. (Surprisingly, the big screen is easier in some ways.)
> 
> There's a huge difference between a mix intended to be played in a giant theater with 500-1000 seats and a mix intended to be played in a living room with 5 seats. If you can't grasp the difference, I don't know what to say.
> 
> Dolby and THX both have very good standards on reference levels based on room size and other factors. I can refer you to several AES reference papers on the subject if you want them.
> 
> Note that the adjustments are not drastic -- it's merely constricting the dynamic range another 5dB so as to make the low-level dialogue more audible. Otherwise, trust me, you're going to blown out of the room (and not in a good way).


Marc. 

I disagree with most of your specific points. 

Don't have time tonight but will try and post a reply tomorrow. 

Most studios rely on the original mixers to do the near field. 

But to suggest that a dynamic range "constriction" of 5db will solve low level dialog issues is a simplistic explanation and not at all how I would describe the way in which a near field should be properly produced.


----------



## Marc Wielage

FilmMixer said:


> Most studios rely on the original mixers to do the near field. But to suggest that a dynamic range "constriction" of 5db will solve low level dialog issues is a simplistic explanation and not at all how I would describe the way in which a near field should be properly produced.


I think we are actually in agreement, and I provided a superficial explanation just to make people understand that the traditional 85dB theatrical mix is not going to translate well to Blu-ray. Do you at least agree with the premise?

I have no problem with the original re-recording mixers doing the home video mix, but they'll most likely have to move out of their existing stages and move into a much smaller room in order to gauge how it's going to play on TV. Although... there are a few major TV shows that mix in pretty big rooms, depending on the facility. I almost never have a problem with loud/soft dynamic range issues and conventional network dramatic series. Blu-rays... yes.


----------



## Kressilac

What are the odds we get a re-mastered Master and Commander? Holy ****, I'd watch that movie again in Atmos just for the sound. I wonder if the original source could be leveraged or if Atmos is a new movie only technology.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kressilac said:


> What are the odds we get a re-mastered Master and Commander? Holy ****, I'd watch that movie again in Atmos just for the sound. I wonder if the original source could be leveraged or if Atmos is a new movie only technology.



If original sound elements were still available you could easily remix most any surround-era film with Atmos, using objects to create a far more seamless 3D sound scape.

M&C is a title that was tailor made for object surround. I would buy that version in a heartbeat! It's a great film too.

An early 90's classic that comes to mind that also would really go well with this kind of remix would be _The Fugitive_.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Content.


But Atmos is 9 channels or do you think the new possibilities Atmos offers don't get used by content creators? I'm not talking about objects here but about effects like reverbs utilizing all channels.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> But Atmos is 9 channels or do you think the new possibilities Atmos offers don't get used by content creators? I'm not talking about objects here but about effects like reverbs utilizing all channels.


Channels (beds) are indeed a good way to handle multi-channel reverbs efficiently. But with respect to scaling many signals to fewer speakers, it makes no difference electrically (the phase issue) whether an x-channel reverb is delivered by channels or objects.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> In any case, any reason it isn't done?


Because it would be difficult to impossible to pull off phantom height imaging in a commercial cinema without height speakers.


----------



## CinemaAndy

I, for one am going to have to "stand corrected" on the upward firing Atmos speakers that i have made countless jokes about. And here is why. I was in LA this weekend visiting the in laws and was invited to a private showing of planet of the apes. A name brand AVR/Speaker CE was there with there home Atmos set up. The room we viewed the movie in serves as both post and pre-release screenings. It has all the bells, whistles, you name it, this room has it. All the gear was in plain sight, laid out just like any HT end user would do it, there was four overheads, and the fronts and rears had the upward firing speakers. We were told that sometime during the movie, the switch from the over heads to the upward firing speakers would be made.

This switch, as we were later told, happened during a scene in the movie were it was extremely quite, around half way through the movie, and me, as well as 21 other people, never noticed it at all. This viewing room, however is around a $3 million dollar room, so it has what the rest of us, probably never will have, as it gets remodeled yearly it seems like. The first thing i noticed was the removal of the over head sound deadening material(duh) in the room, other than that it looked the same(except the wall paintings). For those who are asking, it was a DCI projector, Christie Digital, however it was a MKV file encoded with Dolby TrueHD sound, played from a laptop, same thing that will be planet of the apes when it shows up on BR disk. The sound was sent VIA HDMI to a Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year(they said that) as will the speakers.

So i will say Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right".

I really wish i had been allowed to take some pictures and video, but the answer to that was a big, fat "NO". And also since all the equipment i saw, was still in it's prototype condition i am not able to answer any who, what, or were's i can tell you when, Sunday.

I was told top electronics stores were going to have a similar mock up, Best Buy, Fry's electronics, etc. So i guess you can hear the same demo at one of them near you, this year.


----------



## ss9001

^^
Your experience with Dolby enabled speakers seems identical to Keith Barnes'. This bodes very well for folks who can't do ceilings. Besides installation issues, another obvious advantage of the Dolby enabled speakers is they would allow some experimentation with placement.


----------



## TomFord

Do you believe they will sell the upward firing drivers for Pioneer separately? Have always been able to find any replacement part I looked for with Pioneer befire, yet this seems like they may stray from that approach


----------



## kbarnes701

zoetmb said:


> What??!!!
> 
> You want to explain the physics behind how a 5.1 outputs height effects? Not happening - it's all in your head.
> 
> Phantom channels between the fronts and surrounds are possible. Phantom channel between the surrounds are possible. But it's not possible to generate a sound from the ceiling unless you've got some really strange reflections in your room. And that would be a coincidence, not something that was built into the mix.


Have you tried it? Yes, it may well be psychoacoustic but that doesn’t make it any less real. I agree it is not built into the mix, but then I didn't say it was.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> What is a realistic time line for atmos to be mainstream I want it now. Giving birth takes nine months from conception. I can't wait for a long pregnancy I want it now. I'll start with preparing my speaker lay out. Does anyone know if two or four overhead speakers will work like say if I only use two like let's say front highs will the front and back highs be sent to the front highs. Or will I lose the rear high objects???? does that make sense.


I think all those questions have been answered in this thread already.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> For _academic_ interest, I look forward to sometime reading a comparison of the differences in the "surround impression delivered" between playback of a _Neo:X matrix encoded movie _(e.g., *Expendables 2*, _nominally_ *DTS-HDMA 7.1 | Neo:X 11.1*) with _native Neo:X post-processing_, versus with _Dolby Atmos upmix_.
> _


I have that disc, and I have also heard Atmos for the home in a 'typical' HT. There is no comparison between the two experiences. Of course, the Atmos demo did not use the Expendables 2 disc, but the difference between Atmos and anything else I have ever heard tells me that a Neo:X processed disc and an Atmos disc would be miles apart. And so it should be - one is using objects and precise x, y, z co-ordinates to place sounds in three dimensional space and the other is upmixing regular 7.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> I agree with this and your general opinion that staying in the same family of speakers is going to be very beneficial in Atmos upgrades/transitions. I'm sure everyone is doing the same thing as me; researching what is available to use from the manufacturer of your other speakers. My system at home is a THX Ultra 2 system for all but subs. The logical go-to in that line would be the KL-7502-THX which really do sound terrific. http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker.
> 
> 
> My issue is that the ceiling is beams/millwork, so no built-ins will help. That ceiling is up there at 12.5 feet, so getting KL-650s-THX (LCRs) or KL-525-THXs up there is not such a realistic alternative for several reasons. First, they are really heavy, and they are boxy looking. Maybe more importantly in this application, they have a rather high directivity index.
> 
> 
> So, I'm thinking that the classic outdoor work horse, the AW-650 may be a good choice. It is friendly to the installation situation (with its C-bracket), it sounds excellent (had them outside for ten years), and they are not high on directivity, having a 90 x 90 horn. These are easily custom finished as well to conceal. http://www.klipsch.com/aw-650-outdoor-speaker. I bet with EQ these will fit in beautifully.


Seems reasonable. And the wide dispersion is apparently beneficial. Combine that with Roger's remarks on timbre matching being less important now we have electronic EQ and I am tending myself towards the Tannoy dual concentrics Roger mentioned, even though all my other speakers are by M&K.


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Wielage said:


> That is *exactly* what they have to do. The good home video departments do this as a matter of course. I would argue that the picture also has to be slightly changed between color-correction on a 20' screen vs. a 50" screen, but that's a different subject. (Surprisingly, the big screen is easier in some ways.)
> 
> There's a huge difference between a mix intended to be played in a giant theater with 500-1000 seats and a mix intended to be played in a living room with 5 seats. If you can't grasp the difference, I don't know what to say.
> 
> Dolby and THX both have very good standards on reference levels based on room size and other factors. I can refer you to several AES reference papers on the subject if you want them.
> 
> Note that the adjustments are not drastic -- it's merely constricting the dynamic range another 5dB so as to make the low-level dialogue more audible. Otherwise, trust me, you're going to blown out of the room (and not in a good way).


What you seem to be experiencing at home is not what I am experiencing, so we will have to agree to disagree. And it's OT anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> ^^
> Your experience with Dolby enabled speakers seems identical to Keith Barnes'. This bodes very well for folks who can't do ceilings. Besides installation issues, another obvious advantage of the Dolby enabled speakers is they would allow some experimentation with placement.


Yes - while I could hear a small difference in precision with the on-ceiling speakers, it was indeed small. Other people at the demo could not hear any difference at all. One thing I would have liked to have heard, but there was no time, was that 'cave scene' from the movie I have agreed with Dolby not to mention by name, played through Atmos speakers and on-ceiling speakers. Some have said that the Atmos speakers actually give a _better_ impression because the sound has to travel to the ceiling and then to the listener and this gives the impression of a taller ceiling than is there in reality. In the cave scene the most impressive aspect of it, for me, was the sheer size of the space that was conveyed, truly making the room's walls and ceiling just 'disappear'. I would have liked to compare that effect with the Atmos and the physical speakers, to see what, if any, difference there was. I may get another demo in the not too distant future and if there is more time, that is something I would like to explore. Imagine if the Atmos speakers, or add-on modules, are actually _better_ than real, physical speakers!


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Channels (beds) are indeed a good way to handle multi-channel reverbs efficiently. But with respect to scaling many signals to fewer speakers, it makes no difference electrically (the phase issue) whether an x-channel reverb is delivered by channels or objects.


Yes but my point was that you will get "phase issues" once the number of speakers available to the playback system is less than the number of channels/objects used by the hypothetical x-channel reverb.


----------



## markus767

CinemaAndy said:


> I, for one am going to have to "stand corrected" on the upward firing Atmos speakers


Good to hear that they seem to work well. Did you sit in the sweet spot? Did they also play discrete sounds that would allow comparison of how good localization is with ceiling speakers vs. ceiling-firing speakers?


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> ...imaging overhead are those footsteps we are discussing. There's no doubt at all that they image overhead, although 'overhead' is a slight misnomer as they actually image above the screen, but that reflects the on-screen action nicely anyway.


agreed. the footsteps on the deck above very clearly image above the plane of one's head. phantom or psychoacoustic, the illusion of overhead is there in M&C.


----------



## ss9001

Keith, w/o going thru your whole review  did they by chance demo using the Atmos engine to upmix 5.1 material vs using PLIIx?


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Good to hear that they seem to work well. Did you sit in the sweet spot? *Did they also play discrete sounds that would allow comparison of how good localization is* with ceiling speakers vs. ceiling-firing speakers?


Covered in my review.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Keith, w/o going thru your whole review  did they by chance demo using the Atmos engine to upmix 5.1 material vs using PLIIx?


No. I asked about upmixing and they said it "worked very well" or similar phrase. Because the HT room only had 6 seats, and there were a lot of people to get through, there wasn't time to explore many of the things I would have liked to explore. I may get another opportunity and if so, I will try to cover what wasn't covered last time.


----------



## Marc Wielage

kbarnes701 said:


> What you seem to be experiencing at home is not what I am experiencing, so we will have to agree to disagree. And it's OT anyway.


You've never heard a film on DVD or Blu-ray where the dialogue level in low-level scenes isn't way too low, and the peaks are way too loud? Wow, either I'm very sensitive to the problem, or we watch very different films.

Check out the post sound section of the Gearslutz Forum, where quite a few re-recording mixers hang out. There's many, many, many conversations about this, particularly on the issue of different reference levels for different venues and different-size rooms.


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Wielage said:


> You've never heard a film on DVD or Blu-ray where the dialogue level in low-level scenes isn't way too low, and the peaks are way too loud? Wow, either I'm very sensitive to the problem, or we watch very different films.


Maybe very, very rarely on poor mixes. I listen at, typically, -6dB. Dialog is almost always, especially these days, perfectly reproduced and I expect explosions and stuff to be loud. Occasionally I check my SPL meter and seem to typically hit about 103dB on peaks. It all seems perfectly balanced to me. I know that a lot of people complain about poor dialog intelligibility but I put this down to a poorly optimized system, or inferior speakers or bad setup etc. Certainly, here, I almost never have a problem with dialog either being too soft, too loud or unintelligible. I can’t remember the last time I even noticed this as a problem. Not saying nobody has a problem - just that I don't.

EDIT: if you can give me the names of a few recent movies that cause you the problem, I may well have those titles and I can specifically check to see how they play for me, here.


----------



## Tnedator

Marc Wielage said:


> You've never heard a film on DVD or Blu-ray where the dialogue level in low-level scenes isn't way too low, and the peaks are way too loud? Wow, either I'm very sensitive to the problem, or we watch very different films.
> 
> Check out the post sound section of the Gearslutz Forum, where quite a few re-recording mixers hang out. There's many, many, many conversations about this, particularly on the issue of different reference levels for different venues and different-size rooms.


I have that happen in my "living room" home theater, but when I've watched movies in my buddies purpose built, acoustically treated theater, dialog is always crystal clear and no playing volume jockey like I do at home.


----------



## kbarnes701

Tnedator said:


> I have that happen in my "living room" home theater, but when I've watched movies in my buddies purpose built, acoustically treated theater, dialog is always crystal clear and no playing volume jockey like I do at home.


Yes, perhaps I should have mentioned that I have a dedicated room, acoustically measured with REW, then treated accordingly, with good quality speakers (M&K S150s LCR and M&K for surrounds too), with plenty of amplification, terrific subs (dual Submersives) and so on. I assumed Marc had a high quality system, which is why I am surprised he has dialog issues. 

My view is that if anyone has problems with dialog on modern movies on disc, then something is wrong. And I can't see how it is the disc which is causing the problem or we would *all* have the same problem. And, clearly, we don't.

And we are getting more and more OT....


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> Seems reasonable. And the wide dispersion is apparently beneficial. Combine that with Roger's remarks on timbre matching being less important now we have electronic EQ and I am tending myself towards the Tannoy dual concentrics Roger mentioned, even though all my other speakers are by M&K.


I love the Tannoys, and researched them but I run into the same problem of difficulty of installation in my room.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I think all those questions have been answered in this thread already.


thanks i will reread all the post again. i'm just a bit worried that i'll purchase a new 1st generation atmos receiver and then come to find out it will need to be replaced when a second or third generation AVR comes out next year or the year after, lets hope they built it to be upgradable as it looks right now it just Dolby what will happen when DTS comes along.
i'm not looking to find an excuse to not jump on board i just want to be smart, by spending 2 grand and then to find out i should have waited another year......any thoughts


----------



## Scott Simonian

Thanks for the writeup, Andy.

This part was particularly interesting.



CinemaAndy said:


> it was a MKV file encoded with DTS-HDMA sound, played from a laptop, same thing that will be planet of the apes when it shows up on BR disk. The sound was sent VIA HDMI to a Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year(they said that) as will the speakers.
> 
> So i will say Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right".


----------



## bargervais

ss9001 said:


> agreed. the footsteps on the deck above very clearly image above the plane of one's head. phantom or psychoacoustic, the illusion of overhead is there in M&C.


i don't have M&C but i put in Life of PI and that storm when the ship sinks and the rain is pouring down you would swear it's coming from the ceiling mind you my set up right now is, front mains, center, front highs, wides and surrounds with two subs with listening mode in _DTS Neo_:_X _


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> ...
> 
> This switch, as we were later told, happened during a scene in the movie were it was extremely quite, around half way through the movie, and me, as well as 21 other people, never noticed it at all. This viewing room, however is around a $3 million dollar room, so it has what the rest of us, probably never will have, as it gets remodeled yearly it seems like. The first thing i noticed was the removal of the over head sound deadening material(duh) in the room, other than that it looked the same(except the wall paintings). For those who are asking, it was a DCI projector, Christie Digital, however it was a MKV file encoded with DTS-HDMA sound, played from a laptop, same thing that will be planet of the apes when it shows up on BR disk. The sound was sent VIA HDMI to a Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year(they said that) as will the speakers.
> 
> So i will say Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right".


Given it was an Atmos demo, I believe you meant: Dolby TrueHD.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> I love the Tannoys, and researched them but I run into the same problem of difficulty of installation in my room.


For me the Tannoys solve a few installation issues - their 'c-bracket' type of mount is perfect for me. I think I will go with them...


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> ...My view is that if anyone has problems with dialog on modern movies on disc, then something is wrong. And I can't see how it is the disc which is causing the problem or we would *all* have the same problem. And, clearly, we don't..


keith - Maybe in my 'older' years I'm slowly hearing less and less.  But, i've always had issues with dialog and have attempted to calibrate my system and even boosted the center-channel to compensate. However, I don't alway think it's me. Some micing is just done poorly I think and some diction by actor/actresses is simply not clear leading to unclear words and mumbled text - especially true on soft passages. Boosting the overall volume is not an issue for me, but moreso when my wife is watching too. She can't stand the loud explosions, so I'm constantly moving the volume up and down depending upon the scene.

I'm in the process of completing my new media/TV and office space, but I have not 'moved in' yet. I've taken measures during the construction to lower the noise-floor and will treat the room as well. I'm now even adding 4 ceiling speakers in anticipation of future Atmos. I hope the over dynamics of my new space will help reveal softer dialog passages more clearly once I get my system tuned for the room. Rick


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> thanks i will reread all the post again. i'm just a bit worried that i'll purchase a new 1st generation atmos receiver and then come to find out it will need to be replaced when a second or third generation AVR comes out next year or the year after, lets hope they built it to be upgradable as it looks right now it just Dolby what will happen when DTS comes along.
> i'm not looking to find an excuse to not jump on board i just want to be smart, by spending 2 grand and then to find out i should have waited another year......any thoughts


It is possible that a Gen 2 unit may come along sooner or later, with added features. But your Gen 1 unit will still work. I am starting with the cheapest Atmos AVR that meets my immediate needs, for that very reason. Probably the Denon X4100W.


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> keith - Maybe in my 'older' years I'm slowly hearing less and less.  But, i've always had issues with dialog and have attempted to calibrate my system and even boosted the center-channel to compensate. However, I don't alway think it's me. Some micing is just done poorly I think and some diction by actor/actresses is simply not clear leading to unclear words and mumbled text - especially true on soft passages. Boosting the overall volume is not an issue for me, but moreso when my wife is watching too. She can't stand the loud explosions, so I'm constantly moving the volume up and down depending upon the scene.
> 
> I'm in the process of completing my new media/TV and office space, but I have not 'moved in' yet. I've taken measures during the construction to lower the noise-floor and will treat the room as well. I'm now even adding 4 ceiling speakers in anticipation of future Atmos. I hope the over dynamics of my new space will help reveal softer dialog passages more clearly once I get my system tuned for the room. Rick


Yes, I know some people have difficulties with dialog. But equally, some (me included, don't) which tends to make me think that the problem does not lie on the disc.

Do you have some movies in mind which cause you a problem? If you could post a few titles, I'd be happy to try them here, if I have them, and report back. I have an extensive collection so I am sure we have some in common.

You can see some of my titles here:

http://doghouse.bruji.com/library/kbarnes70

Use the search box top right to find titles we have in common.

EDIT - wait an hour or two - I am refreshing my entire database and so far only 490 movies have been added.


----------



## KidHorn

Can you mix ceiling and reflected speakers? For example use ceilings for the rear ceilings and put reflection speakers on top of the fronts?


----------



## markus767

TomFord said:


> Do you believe they will sell the upward firing drivers for Pioneer separately? Have always been able to find any replacement part I looked for with Pioneer befire, yet this seems like they may stray from that approach


Dolby's prototypes were simple 4" fullrange drivers in a box. Should be easy to DIY. Just put them on top of your existing speakers and angle them.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Dolby's prototypes were simple 4" fullrange drivers in a box. Should be easy to DIY. Just put them on top of your existing speakers and angle them.


Based on what Andrew Jones has said, that would not work.


----------



## PeterTHX

CinemaAndy said:


> For those who are asking, it was a DCI projector, Christie Digital, however it was a *MKV file encoded with DTS-HDMA* sound, played from a laptop, same thing that will be planet of the apes when it shows up on BR disk. The sound was sent VIA HDMI to a Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year(they said that) as will the speakers.


 
DTS-HD MA and not Dolby TrueHD? With Dolby Atmos encoded inside? 


Especially confusing since DTS is pushing their own solution.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Yes but my point was that you will get "phase issues" once the number of speakers available to the playback system is less than the number of channels/objects used by the hypothetical x-channel reverb.


If they use the same reverbs as in current use, the results will be as good (or bad) as with current content.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> If they use the same reverbs as in current use, the results will be as good (or bad) as with current content.


IF, yes but I doubt that the great benefits that can be had with reverberation from more speakers than currently used won't be exploited by upcoming plugins and used by mixers and sound designers. Why add channels if they aren't used?


----------



## Roger Dressler

redjr said:


> Some micing is just done poorly I think and some diction by actor/actresses is simply not clear leading to unclear words and mumbled text - especially true on soft passages. Boosting the overall volume is not an issue for me, but moreso when my wife is watching too. She can't stand the loud explosions, so I'm constantly moving the volume up and down depending upon the scene.


No question that there's a lot of poorly recorded dialog out there. As for the loud explosions, I'd like to know if you have explored any of the DRC options. Even if the soundtrack (DTS) does not have it, some AVRs (like Yamaha IIRC) have such a feature that works even if the content has no DRC encoded. Or, for the sake of testing content DRC, play the DVD version of any movie you may have, or try a TrueHD disc, and activate DRC in the AVR. See what you think.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> DTS-HD MA and not Dolby TrueHD? With Dolby Atmos encoded inside?


And seamless speaker switching mid-movie, and video in a .mkv file feeding a DCI projector, and a consumer AVR with Atmos already up and running, etc.


----------



## batpig

KidHorn said:


> Can you mix ceiling and reflected speakers? For example use ceilings for the rear ceilings and put reflection speakers on top of the fronts?


That's a really interesting question. I assume a lot depends on some open questions about whether there is special DSP processing for the upward firing speakers, and how the AVR's are set up (i.e. is there a special setting where you tell the receiver you have Atmos enabled speakers).


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> IF, yes but I doubt that the great benefits that can be had with reverberation from more speakers than currently used won't be exploited by upcoming plugins and used by mixers and sound designers. Why add channels if they aren't used?


They obviously are using the additional speakers. And I am sure reverbs are utilizing them. Consider that in a 5.1 mix there are no more than 5 potentially different reverb signals. Maybe the source element has only mono or stereo reverb. And if the reverbs are in the surrounds, many speakers are playing the same signal. 

There's a good chance the same reverb tools used today will continue to be use for Atmos. Spreading those returns to alternate or additional speakers makes them no more vulnerable to phase issues as they are already. 

Were the content tools expanded to create new forms of reverb with more discrete returns or some different flavor of returns with allegedly improved qualities, and they caused problems with compatibility for, say, 5.1 or stereo playback, that might result in their use being curtailed. Case in point, the Madonna Immaculate Collection CD was disqualified for BBC broadcast because the QSound processing ruined mono playback compatibility (comb filtering).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> And seamless speaker switching mid-movie, and video in a .mkv file feeding a DCI projector, and a consumer AVR with Atmos already up and running, etc.


I thought that was pretty interesting as well.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Wielage said:


> Dolby and THX both have very good standards on reference levels based on room size and other factors. I can refer you to several AES reference papers on the subject if you want them.


Yes, please! This debate i still going on in SMPTE, where new measurement and calibration standards are being created. The AES papers may prove useful. Thanks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

KidHorn said:


> Can you mix ceiling and reflected speakers? For example use ceilings for the rear ceilings and put reflection speakers on top of the fronts?


Technically, yes. Whether first gen products support that, TBD. I hope so.


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> Can you mix ceiling and reflected speakers? For example use ceilings for the rear ceilings and put reflection speakers on top of the fronts?


We don't know yet. All we know is that ceiling-firing speakers will get additional processing in the AVR (see this thread). Guess it's the manufacturers decision to implement mixed use of ceiling-mounted and ceiling-firing speakers.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> They obviously are using the additional speakers. And I am sure reverbs are utilizing them. Consider that in a 5.1 mix there are no more than 5 potentially different reverb signals. Maybe the source element has only mono or stereo reverb. And if the reverbs are in the surrounds, many speakers are playing the same signal.
> 
> There's a good chance the same reverb tools used today will continue to be use for Atmos. Spreading those returns to alternate or additional speakers makes them no more vulnerable to phase issues as they are already.
> 
> Were the content tools expanded to create new forms of reverb with more discrete returns or some different flavor of returns with allegedly improved qualities, and they caused problems with compatibility for, say, 5.1 or stereo playback, that might result in their use being curtailed. Case in point, the Madonna Immaculate Collection CD was disqualified for BBC broadcast because the QSound processing ruined mono playback compatibility (comb filtering).


But here we're not talking about binaural processing effects, the BBC and mono compatibility but about studios taking advantage of movie theater technology finally being ahead of everything else again. Will they invest in necessary downmixes for home delivery? I don't know.


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> For me the Tannoys solve a few installation issues - their 'c-bracket' type of mount is perfect for me. I think I will go with them...


What Tannoy model is that?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> ... Case in point, the Madonna Immaculate Collection CD was disqualified for BBC broadcast *because the QSound processing ruined mono playback compatibility (comb filtering)*.


Interesting that you mentioned that Roger.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> What Tannoy model is that?


Roger is using Di6 DC models and I am thinking of the Di5 DC model (as the former is too big for my small HT).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> That's a really interesting question. I assume a lot depends on some open questions about whether there is special DSP processing for the upward firing speakers, and how the AVR's are set up (i.e. is there a special setting where you tell the receiver you have Atmos enabled speakers).


Andrew Jones confirmed that there is special DSP processing in the AVR for the Atmos speakers. It may have been the HTG interview with Scott Wilkinson. If not, it was the Pioneer Atmos thread.


----------



## bargervais

*Dolby Atmos-Enabled Speakers *

The SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers add multidimensional audio to a standard surround sound set-up. To reproduce these sound objects that originate from overhead —a helicopter, raindrops, the flight of an arrow, for example- these two front speaker modules each have an upwardly angled speaker housed in the cabinet.  These speakers, which are powered by the receiver's height channels, bounce individually separate and distinctly coded sound effects off the ceiling and to your ears and create an overhead sonic plane, moving the sound around and above you in multidimensional space.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Because it would be difficult to impossible to pull off phantom height imaging in a commercial cinema without height speakers.


Not sure that phantom imaging is relevant, as I thought HRTF applies to single speakers as well.

Either way, what would be the harm if it works only at home and not the theater?


----------



## CinemaAndy

PeterTHX said:


> DTS-HD MA and not Dolby TrueHD? With Dolby Atmos encoded inside?
> 
> 
> Especially confusing since DTS is pushing their own solution.


Yes Dolby TrueHD...What i get for posting anything after 4:00am

From what i gathered, DTS is wanting to play with Atmos and Auro-3D, so they don't get left out. I do believe for Atmos to be perfect, it has to be a Dolby track.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> *Andrew Jones confirmed that there is special DSP processing in the AVR for the Atmos speakers*. It may have been the HTG interview with Scott Wilkinson. If not, it was the Pioneer Atmos thread.


Some' to do with "Phase" manipulation?


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> *Yes Dolby TrueHD*...What i get for posting anything after 4:00am
> 
> From what i gathered, DTS is wanting to play with Atmos and Auro-3D, so they don't get left out.
> I do believe for Atmos to be perfect, it has to be a Dolby track.


That, I knew it was a typing error.


----------



## CinemaAndy

ss9001 said:


> ^^
> Your experience with Dolby enabled speakers seems identical to Keith Barnes'. This bodes very well for folks who can't do ceilings. Besides installation issues, another obvious advantage of the Dolby enabled speakers is they would allow some experimentation with placement.


I was making more cracks about the upward firing speakers than anyone. I knew no bounds, for i would say how dumb it looked to anyone, including Dolby.

And that was probably why i was even asked to show up. I spent the whole movie, all of us there did, expecting something to happen and it was switched and we never knew it. I can't remember much of the movie, because i spent most of it wanting to jump up and say "that's it"! And i never got to do that.

In all fairness, it has to be a very clean profile ceiling for the up firing to work.


----------



## mogorf

bargervais said:


> *Dolby Atmos-Enabled Speakers *
> 
> The SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers add multidimensional audio to a standard surround sound set-up. To reproduce these sound objects that originate from overhead —a helicopter, raindrops, the flight of an arrow, for example- these two front speaker modules each have an upwardly angled speaker housed in the cabinet.  These speakers, which are powered by the receiver's height channels, bounce individually separate and distinctly coded sound effects off the ceiling and to your ears and create an overhead sonic plane, moving the sound around and above you in multidimensional space.


The link in your post brings us to a standard (5.1) configuration where Onkyo claims the two SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled (up-firing add-on) speakers will convert the system into a real Atmos set-up. Some deny it by saying a minimum of 4 up-firing or ceiling mounted speakers are the minimum, while others having a standard 5.1 sys would be happy with this minimum investment solution. This time let's follow what the maker says and let's not pretend we know more about the product than it's creators. Happens many times on AVS.


----------



## kokishin

mogorf said:


> The link in your post brings us to a standard (5.1) configuration where Onkyo claims the two SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled (up-firing add-on) speakers will convert the system into a real Atmos set-up. Some deny it by saying a minimum of 4 up-firing or ceiling mounted speakers are the minimum, while others having a standard 5.1 sys would be happy with this minimum investment solution. This time let's follow what the maker says and let's not pretend we know more about the product than it's creators. Happens many times on AVS.


For comparison, the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers provide a 5.x.4 solution.


----------



## mogorf

kokishin said:


> For comparison, the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers provide a 5.x.4 solution.


Good comparison. Onkyo knows something. 

How about the "Dolby Atmos for home theaters: FAQ": http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/

Qte

"If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker positions?

Because Dolby Atmos is new to home theater, we defined a few “reference” speaker configurations to ensure that early customers could have a great experience while having the option to keep most of the equipment they already have.

Among those reference setups are the 5.1.2 configuration, which involves adding two ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to a traditional 5.1 system, and the 7.1.4 configuration, which starts with a traditional 7.1 system and adds four ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers.

But we believe this is just the beginning. Because the Dolby Atmos object-based audio system is so adaptable, you can use many other speaker configurations. No matter what system you build, the Dolby Atmos format and system will adapt itself to output the best audio experience possible.

Unqte


----------



## CinemaAndy

sdurani said:


> And seamless speaker switching mid-movie, and video in a .mkv file feeding a DCI projector, and a consumer AVR with Atmos already up and running, etc.


Yes. Like i said the switch was done during a quite moment in the movie, as the switch was done in probably .00001 of a second or less. As for the switching, 4 overheads were disabled and 4 upward firing speakers were enabled. How? Don't know. The projection booth had 4 guys in it from Dolby and the manufacture, as well as the rest of us coming in to see how it was set up.

The whole point of the MKV and Dolby audio track files was to show it was strictly consumer geared, this is what some one could buy in a store or order online and that it was not a DCP master we were seeing or hearing. It was Dolby's own software running on the HP laptop. 

Because playing a DCP master of the film would have proved nothing to me, or anybody else there.


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> I, for one am going to have to "stand corrected" on the upward firing Atmos speakers that i have made countless jokes about. And here is why. I was in LA this weekend visiting the in laws and was invited to a private showing of planet of the apes. A name brand AVR/Speaker CE was there with there home Atmos set up. The room we viewed the movie in serves as both post and pre-release screenings. It has all the bells, whistles, you name it, this room has it. All the gear was in plain sight, laid out just like any HT end user would do it, there was four overheads, and the fronts and rears had the upward firing speakers. We were told that sometime during the movie, the switch from the over heads to the upward firing speakers would be made.
> 
> This switch, as we were later told, happened during a scene in the movie were it was extremely quite, around half way through the movie, and me, as well as 21 other people, never noticed it at all. This viewing room, however is around a $3 million dollar room, so it has what the rest of us, probably never will have, as it gets remodeled yearly it seems like. The first thing i noticed was the removal of the over head sound deadening material(duh) in the room, other than that it looked the same(except the wall paintings). For those who are asking, it was a DCI projector, Christie Digital, however it was a MKV file encoded with Dolby TrueHD sound, played from a laptop, same thing that will be planet of the apes when it shows up on BR disk. The sound was sent VIA HDMI to a Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year(they said that) as will the speakers.
> 
> So i will say Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right".
> 
> I really wish i had been allowed to take some pictures and video, but the answer to that was a big, fat "NO". And also since all the equipment i saw, was still in it's prototype condition i am not able to answer any who, what, or were's i can tell you when, Sunday.
> 
> I was told top electronics stores were going to have a similar mock up, Best Buy, Fry's electronics, etc. So i guess you can hear the same demo at one of them near you, this year.


Based on the info provided, I would guess this was a Pioneer demo although Yamaha has not announced an Atmos speaker solution to date; so possibly Yamaha. Look forward to your disclosure on Sunday.

Besides the seamless transition from ceiling overheads to the up firing Atmos speakers, did the Atmos demo in-itself knock your socks off, blow you away, etc.? IOW, your impressions please.

Also, thanks for correcting your post re: Dolby TrueHD.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Some' to do with "Phase" manipulation?


Probably more with simple magnitude response filtering. In the Pioneer thread I had linked above you'll find a post by Andrew Jones where he links a paper by Rogers which goes into more details.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, please! This debate i still going on in SMPTE, where new measurement and calibration standards are being created. The AES papers may prove useful. Thanks.


And there is also the unofficial IATSE "can you hear a diffrence?" debate about this as well.


----------



## NorthSky

mogorf said:


> Good comparison. Onkyo knows something.
> 
> Unqte


And Onkyo works closely with Dolby. ...AccuEQ is a Dolby scheme. ...Onkyo is first with Dolby Atmos.
...Then Pioneer right beside. 

The future looks interesting... ...Alternatives within Dolby Atmos world are slowly surfacing overhead. 
It's a new world, an "elevated" one. ...And that we have yet to adapt (or not) to in our own homes.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Not sure that phantom imaging is relevant, as I thought HRTF applies to single speakers as well.


By phantom, I meant at a location where there is no speaker (irrespective of method used).


noah katz said:


> Either way, what would be the harm if it works only at home and not the theater?


No harm, just not done because there was no height content in soundtracks until recently.


----------



## mogorf

NorthSky said:


> And Onkyo works closely with Dolby. ...AccuEQ is a Dolby scheme. ...Onkyo is first with Dolby Atmos.
> ...Then Pioneer right beside.
> 
> The future looks interesting... ...Alternatives within Dolby Atmos world are slowly surfacing overhead.
> It's a new world, an "elevated" one. ...And that we have yet to adapt (or not) to in our own homes.


Fully agree. Meantime, let's not discourage folks with 5.1 setups saying for them their is no chance.


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> Yes. Like i said the switch was done during a quite moment in the movie, as the switch was done in probably .00001 of a second or less. As for the switching, 4 overheads were disabled and 4 upward firing speakers were enabled. How? Don't know. The projection booth had 4 guys in it from Dolby and the manufacture, as well as the rest of us coming in to see how it was set up.
> 
> The whole point of the MKV and Dolby audio track files was to show it was strictly consumer geared, this is what some one could buy in a store or order online and that it was not a DCP master we were seeing or hearing. It was Dolby's own software running on the HP laptop.
> 
> Because playing a DCP master of the film would have proved nothing to me, or anybody else there.


It sounds very much like the way they did it at the demo I attended at Dolby in London.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kokishin said:


> Based on the info provided, I would guess this was a Pioneer demo. Look forward to your disclosure on Sunday.
> 
> Besides the seamless transition from ceiling overheads to the up firing Atmos speakers, did the Atmos demo in-itself knock your socks off, blow you away, etc.? IOW, your impressions please.
> 
> Also, thanks for correcting your post re: Dolby TrueHD.


The forest scene with the apes in the trees and there screams and sounds seemed, very unnerving and very real and it did sound like there was apes above you, both in front and behind. So it was some great 3D sound field rendering.

After the movie, they played both the Dolby Atmos cinema trailer and for grins, the new THX trailer. They both sounded Fantastic. We saw these twice, once on the overheads and once on the up firing speakers. I could not detect a difference. Either way it was an impressive showing. As one industry insider said to me, "Last time i was this excited, Dolby 2.0 stereo was released to home."


----------



## redjr

Roger Dressler said:


> No question that there's a lot of poorly recorded dialog out there. As for the loud explosions, I'd like to know if you have explored any of the DRC options. Even if the soundtrack (DTS) does not have it, some AVRs (like Yamaha IIRC) have such a feature that works even if the content has no DRC encoded. Or, for the sake of testing content DRC, play the DVD version of any movie you may have, or try a TrueHD disc, and activate DRC in the AVR. See what you think.


Roger - I normally try to leave those kinds of audio processing options turned off. It's not that explosions are abnormally loud for a typical action type movie, it's just she prefers not to have them loud at all! Even in a commercial theater - where she has no control.  At home we don't listen anywhere near reference. When I increase the volume so that I can hear 'softer' passages, the explosions or gunfire is just louder than she likes, so I keep the remote in my lap. 

I can't cite any particular scene, but one of my favorite miniseries is HBO - John Adams which I have on blu ray. We've been watching since the weekend, and there are numerous soft passages that had me jumping for the remote because you simply could not understand them - by both Jefferson and Adams. In particular, Adams late at night where he's in bed mumbling something to Abigail. In fairness, we only have a simple 3.1 system in our family room since my media room is not completed yet. And, at best it's nothing even mid-level, so it may not be a fair criticism of the series, or the micing. And the noise floor is variable and nothing like a true HT, or dedicated media room. But still, those type of passages are almost impossible to understand. We found ourselves skipping back to hear the scene over (and louder) just to make it out. I do however, think the character of Adams is a gruff, mumbling man in many scenes, while in many others his diction is distinct, clear and forceful. Jefferson, OTOH, is made to be a quieter, and more gentle man, and therefore purposely speaks softer without specific emphasis on diction. Both of these example - seem like by design - to challenge the micing and audio engineer in post production to get it just right. In any event it's frustrating and diminishes the enjoyment of the movie..


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Probably more with simple magnitude response filtering. In the Pioneer thread I had linked above you'll find a post by Andrew Jones where he links a paper by Rogers which goes into more details.


Could you not have simply provided that link right in your above post (quote) Markus? 

Because now I need to find that "Pioneer thread" link, the post by _Andrew Jones_ and his link on a paper by Roger.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> now I need to find that "Pioneer thread" link, the post by _Andrew Jones_ and his link on a paper by Roger.


That's exactly the same I would have to do


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> The forest scene with the apes in the trees and there screams and sounds seemed, very unnerving and very real and it did sound like there was apes above you, both in front and behind. So it was some great 3D sound field rendering.
> 
> After the movie, they played both the Dolby Atmos cinema trailer and for grins, the new THX trailer. They both sounded Fantastic. We saw these twice, once on the overheads and once on the up firing speakers. I could not detect a difference. Either way it was an impressive showing. As one industry insider said to me, "Last time i was this excited, Dolby 2.0 stereo was released to home."


Thanks for your impressions.

Was the AVR or pre-pro THX certified?


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> "Last time i was this excited, Dolby 2.0 stereo was released to home."


Kinda sums up how I feel too, having heard it.


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> Roger - I normally try to leave those kinds of audio processing options turned off. It's not that explosions are abnormally loud for a typical action type movie, it's just she prefers not to have them loud at all! Even in a commercial theater - where she has no control.  At home we don't listen anywhere near reference. When I increase the volume so that I can hear 'softer' passages, the explosions or gunfire is just louder than she likes, so I keep the remote in my lap.
> 
> I can't cite any particular scene, but one of my favorite miniseries is HBO - John Adams which I have on blu ray. We've been watching since the weekend, and there are numerous soft passages that had me jumping for the remote because you simply could not understand them - by both Jefferson and Adams. In particular, Adams late at night where he's in bed mumbling something to Abigail. In fairness, we only have a simple 3.1 system in our family room since my media room is not completed yet. And, at best it's nothing even mid-level, so it may not be a fair criticism of the series, or the micing. And the noise floor is variable and nothing like a true HT, or dedicated media room. But still, those type of passages are almost impossible to understand. We found ourselves skipping back to hear the scene over (and louder) just to make it out. I do however, think the character of Adams is a gruff, mumbling man in many scenes, while in many others his diction is distinct, clear and forceful. Jefferson, OTOH, is made to be a quieter, and more gentle man, and therefore purposely speaks softer without specific emphasis on diction. Both of these example - seem like by design - to challenge the micing and audio engineer in post production to get it just right. In any event it's frustrating and diminishes the enjoyment of the movie..


I don't want to sound flippant, but you're listening with the volume turned down too low. That's why you struggle to hear dialog. When they mix the movie they assume it will be played at reference, so the dialog is set at the appropiate level for that. And then, as you have discovered, the explosions and stuff are really loud. But by turning the MV down so that the explosions are OK, you are dropping the dialog to a below-intelligible level.

Fortunately, as Roger has hinted, there are electronic compensations you can make in most AVRs. If you have Audyssey, for example, you can select Dynamic Volume. This will 'even out' the sound levels and dialog will again be intelligible but the explosions won't be nearly so loud. 

This isn't a problem with the disc or media as such - it's just that you have reduced the volume so that the level of loud sounds seems OK for you. If you set the MV so that dialog was just right, then the explosions will be very loud, as they are intended to be. The solution is a technology such as Dynamic Volume.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks for the writeup, Andy.
> 
> This part was particularly interesting.


I think CinemaAndy meant _Dolby TrueHD_. I don't think Dolby put Atmos in a DTS codec container.


----------



## bargervais

mogorf said:


> The link in your post brings us to a standard (5.1) configuration where Onkyo claims the two SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-enabled (up-firing add-on) speakers will convert the system into a real Atmos set-up. Some deny it by saying a minimum of 4 up-firing or ceiling mounted speakers are the minimum, while others having a standard 5.1 sys would be happy with this minimum investment solution. This time let's follow what the maker says and let's not pretend we know more about the product than it's creators. Happens many times on AVS.


 What are you talking about these speakers need an Atmos AVR , these were designed to go along with the new receivers with atmos that are soon to be released the way I understand it. So get four of these speakers two for the front two for the back these speakers come from the Creator.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> That's exactly the same I would have to do


Ha!


----------



## CinemaAndy

kokishin said:


> Thanks for your impressions.
> 
> Was the AVR or pre-pro THX certified?


It will be once THX finishes it's final, as delivered, testing. It will be THX Ultra 2, THX Select 2, and THX I/S plus certified.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't want to sound flippant, but you're listening with the volume turned down too low. That's why you struggle to hear dialog. When they mix the movie they assume it will be played at reference, so the dialog is set at the appropiate level for that. And then, as you have discovered, the explosions and stuff are really loud. But by turning the MV down so that the explosions are OK, you are dropping the dialog to a below-intelligible level.
> 
> Fortunately, as Roger has hinted, there are electronic compensations you can make in most AVRs. If you have Audyssey, for example, you can select Dynamic Volume. This will 'even out' the sound levels and dialog will again be intelligible but the explosions won't be nearly so loud.
> 
> This isn't a problem with the disc or media as such - it's just that you have reduced the volume so that the level of loud sounds seems OK for you. If you set the MV so that dialog was just right, then the explosions will be very loud, as they are intended to be. The solution is a technology such as Dynamic Volume.


Not to sound like rain falling from overhead, but we are bifurcating from our main entry. 

* That "dialog" scheme, that is deserving its own dedicated thread. ...I would have a lot to say about that; I probably could write an encyclopedia just on that subject of "dialogue" alone (parlez vous Francais?) 

Crank the center channel level up by 2dB or so.


----------



## mogorf

bargervais said:


> What are you talking about these speakers need an Atmos AVR , these were designed to go along with the new receivers with atmos that are soon to be released the way I understand it. So get four of these speakers two for the front two for the back these speakers come from the Creator.


We were talking speaker set up, not AVR. Onkyo and Dolby have both made reference to 5.1 setups with add-on speakers to make it 5.x.2. Nobody said an Atmos enabled AVR is not needed.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think CinemaAndy meant _Dolby TrueHD_. I don't think Dolby put Atmos in a DTS codec container.


That's right Dan. ...Andy already corrected his "typing" error.  ...If you are reading all the posts (following the overhead Dolby Atmos flow).


----------



## bargervais

mogorf said:


> We were talking speaker set up, not AVR. Onkyo and Dolby have both made reference to 5.1 setups with add-on speakers to make it 5.x.2. Nobody said an Atmos enabled AVR is not needed.


What is your speaker set up proposal? I was just saying that you could get four of these and add them to your existing speakers. Was I misunderstanding??? why these can't be part of a speaker set up if that's what we are talking about.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> By phantom, I meant at a location where there is no speaker (irrespective of method used).


I know, but my question remains, what does that have to do with creating perception of height via HRTF?



sdurani said:


> No harm, just not done because there was no height content in soundtracks until recently.


But sounds could be made into height info by applying HRTF at the discretion of the mixer.

Maybe the workflow logistics dictate against that, but I don't see why it wouldn't work in principle.


----------



## mogorf

bargervais said:


> What is your speaker set up proposal? I was just saying that you could get four of these and add them to your existing speakers. Was I misunderstanding??? why these can't be part of a speaker set up if that's what we are talking about.


Onkyo is adding only 2 (two) Dolby enabled Atmos speakers to a standard 5.1 setup to make it Atmos enabled (5.1.2). In post #1732 you provided a link to Onkyo's 5.1 setup upgrade:









Sorry if I misunderstood you.


----------



## FilmMixer

redjr said:


> Roger - I normally try to leave those kinds of audio processing options turned off. It's not that explosions are abnormally loud for a typical action type movie, it's just she prefers not to have them loud at all! Even in a commercial theater - where she has no control.  At home we don't listen anywhere near reference. When I increase the volume so that I can hear 'softer' passages, the explosions or gunfire is just louder than she likes, so I keep the remote in my lap.
> 
> I can't cite any particular scene, but one of my favorite miniseries is HBO - John Adams which I have on blu ray. We've been watching since the weekend, and there are numerous soft passages that had me jumping for the remote because you simply could not understand them - by both Jefferson and Adams. In particular, Adams late at night where he's in bed mumbling something to Abigail. In fairness, we only have a simple 3.1 system in our family room since my media room is not completed yet. And, at best it's nothing even mid-level, so it may not be a fair criticism of the series, or the micing. And the noise floor is variable and nothing like a true HT, or dedicated media room. But still, those type of passages are almost impossible to understand. We found ourselves skipping back to hear the scene over (and louder) just to make it out. I do however, think the character of Adams is a gruff, mumbling man in many scenes, while in many others his diction is distinct, clear and forceful. Jefferson, OTOH, is made to be a quieter, and more gentle man, and therefore purposely speaks softer without specific emphasis on diction. Both of these example - seem like by design - to challenge the micing and audio engineer in post production to get it just right. In any event it's frustrating and diminishes the enjoyment of the movie..


It was definitely the intention to make it intimate.... I mixed 4 of the 7 episodes of John Adams. (3-6.). 

I happened to watch Ep. 3 as it was broadcast on July 4 (which starts with Abigail and John in bed) and played as intended on Directv.

It shouldn't be frustrating and I would definitely try to use a bit of DRC in the future. 

Low end build up will do a lot to diminish dialog intelligibility. Have you run any room correction? 

Just curious.


----------



## Orbitron

I raise center speaker volume 4 dB, usually all that is needed.


----------



## mogorf

FilmMixer said:


> It was definitely the intention to make it intimate.... I mixed 4 of the 7 episodes of John Adams. (3-6.).
> 
> I happened to watch Ep. 3 as it was broadcast on July 4 (which starts with Abigail and John in bed) and played as intended on Directv.
> 
> It shouldn't be frustrating and I would definitely try to use a bit of DRC in the future.
> 
> Low end build up will do a lot to diminish dialog intelligibility. Have you run any room correction?
> 
> Just curious.


As a non-native English speaker for the same above reason I usually watch films with subtitles ON. May also be a good solution for you natives. JK!


----------



## bargervais

mogorf said:


> Onkyo is adding only 2 (two) Dolby enabled Atmos speakers to a standard 5.1 setup to make it Atmos enabled (5.1.2). In post #1732 you provided a link to Onkyo's 5.1 setup upgrade:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood you.


What I was thinking of doing was getting these speakers two for the front highs two for back highs adding them to my 7.2 existing set up so I would have center, fronts, wides, surrounds front high and back high..... with my two subs.. why wouldn't this work???


----------



## mogorf

bargervais said:


> What I was thinking of doing was getting these speakers two for the front highs so for back highs sending them to my 7.2 existing set up I would have center fronts wides surrounds front high and back high..... with my two subs.. why wouldn't this work???


As I said in a previous post I'm not a native English speaker, but bargervais, heck with it man, honestly I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Take care.


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> I raise center speaker volume 4 dB, usually all that is needed.


With DRC on? ...Which receiver (or SSP) are you using? ...Your room; treated or not? 
Your center channel speaker; a two-way or a three-way (with midrange and tweeter vertically arrayed)?


----------



## batpig

redjr said:


> Roger - I normally try to leave those kinds of audio processing options turned off. It's not that explosions are abnormally loud for a typical action type movie, it's just she prefers not to have them loud at all! Even in a commercial theater - where she has no control.  At home we don't listen anywhere near reference. When I increase the volume so that I can hear 'softer' passages, the explosions or gunfire is just louder than she likes, so I keep the remote in my lap.


You don't use these options.... but instead you are experiencing the exact symptoms for which these options were designed. What is the benefit of not just turning on DRC or Dynamic Volume or whatever and instead having to sit there yo-yoing the volume so your wife doesn't yell at you?


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Feri - I'm very confused. Who are these "some" you are correcting with this post? Who has been "discouraged" on this thread (or elsewhere)? Where has it been said that the minimum Atmos configuration is NOT a 5.x.2 setup?


Thank you


----------



## batpig

I reread your post trying to figure out what/who he was responding to, but I couldn't figure it out.


----------



## Orbitron

NorthSky said:


> With DRC on? ...Which receiver (or SSP) are you using? ...Your room; treated or not?
> Your center channel speaker; a two-way or a three-way (with midrange and tweeter vertically arrayed)?


Room is treated, Dynaudio Confidence center with 2 vertical Esotar2 tweeters and Anthem Statement with ARC, Moon 400M amp for center speaker. Raising the center volume a few dB is simple and effective. I find it useful in M&C when they whisper just before shouting "we shall beat to quarters".


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> I reread your post trying to figure out what/who he was responding to, but I couldn't figure it out.


He was responding to me. When I shared that onkyo will be selling up firing speakers, I was thinking of adding to my existing set up to make it 5.1.2 or if I got four of them and add them to make it a 7.1.4 two up firing speakers for the front and/or two more for the backs.


----------



## Marc Wielage

kbarnes701 said:


> if you can give me the names of a few recent movies that cause you the problem, I may well have those titles and I can specifically check to see how they play for me, here.


Sure: the _Bad Boys_ Blu-ray from Sony Pictures. Volume all over the place. (Horrible movie, great cinematography.)

Interestingly, the HD transfer of _Bad Boys 2_ has no problem. Clearly a different mix by different people years later.


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't want to sound flippant, but you're listening with the volume turned down too low. That's why you struggle to hear dialog. When they mix the movie they assume it will be played at reference, so the dialog is set at the appropiate level for that. And then, as you have discovered, the explosions and stuff are really loud. But by turning the MV down so that the explosions are OK, you are dropping the dialog to a below-intelligible level.
> 
> Fortunately, as Roger has hinted, there are electronic compensations you can make in most AVRs. If you have Audyssey, for example, you can select Dynamic Volume. This will 'even out' the sound levels and dialog will again be intelligible but the explosions won't be nearly so loud.
> 
> This isn't a problem with the disc or media as such - it's just that you have reduced the volume so that the level of loud sounds seems OK for you. If you set the MV so that dialog was just right, then the explosions will be very loud, as they are intended to be. The solution is a technology such as Dynamic Volume.


I think you also have to take into account the ambient noise floor or your room compared to where room was mixed. The mixing stage is certainly below NC-30, and very possibly in the NC-20 range since it is an engineered environment. This is challenging for any room, but only a very well engineered dedicated home theater will reach Home THXs target of NC-20 for average home theaters, or NC-15 or top of the line rooms. Most residential rooms are in the territory of NC-50. 


Straight from the THX manual, circa 2002: "Background Noise: 1.) Interferes with loudness perception. 2.) Masks low level signals and detail. 3.) Noise that is transient is distracting.


Finally, the type of LCR speakers used relative to the acoustic character of your room and listening distance can certainly account for this complaint. Critical distance is a very important factor that I've rarely seen anyone here at AVS address. Tony Grimani was the source for my education on the subject. http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/04_acoustics_2.html


----------



## ambesolman

Marc Wielage said:


> Sure: the _Bad Boys_ Blu-ray from Sony Pictures. Volume all over the place. (Horrible movie, great cinematography.)
> 
> Interestingly, the HD transfer of _Bad Boys 2_ has no problem. Clearly a different mix by different people years later.



Not to mention a scene in the second one where they cut a 180 in the Ferrari and you can plainly see an old white guy driving


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## ahmedreda

KidHorn said:


> Can you mix ceiling and reflected speakers? For example use ceilings for the rear ceilings and put reflection speakers on top of the fronts?


I dont't think you can at least with the first gen receivers. In the interview Scott did, it was mentioned that the speaker type needs to be specified before calibration so that the receiver can treat them differently based on their type.


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> It will be once THX finishes it's final, as delivered, testing. It will be THX Ultra 2, THX Select 2, and THX I/S plus certified.


Points to Onkyo/Integra.


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Room is treated, Dynaudio Confidence center with 2 vertical Esotar2 tweeters and Anthem Statement with ARC, Moon 400M amp for center speaker. Raising the center volume a few dB is simple and effective. I find it useful in M&C when they whisper just before shouting "we shall beat to quarters".


Thank you, and an excellent solution (to add 4dB level to that center channel). 

By the way, I cannot stand any type of Dynamic Range (EQ or Volume); it screws everything good on a movie soundtrack, and in music listening. 

* And sorry for the small interlude, at most.


----------



## Roger Dressler

redjr said:


> Roger - I normally try to leave those kinds of audio processing options turned off. It's not that explosions are abnormally loud for a typical action type movie, it's just she prefers not to have them loud at all! Even in a commercial theater - where she has no control.  At home we don't listen anywhere near reference. When I increase the volume so that I can hear 'softer' passages, the explosions or gunfire is just louder than she likes, so I keep the remote in my lap.


Yes, that's exactly the issue DRC addresses. Unfortunately, John Adams is in DTS, so there's no DRC facility. 

Your future home theater will use the Pioneer SC-05? That offers a Midnight mode. I cannot tell by the manual if it is a global function, or only works with encoded metadata. If you are lucky, it is the former. I'd encourage giving that a try. Perhaps also the dialog enhancement mode. What could it hurt to see what they do. 

I realize that none of this helps your smaller system, and that's the unfortunate thing about the loss of access to bitstream DRC. I've not seen any decent outboard device to address this.


----------



## FilmMixer

kokishin said:


> That should rule out Pioneer, Onkyo, Integra, Yamaha, and probably Denon.



No. 

It singles out Onkyo.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> But here we're not talking about binaural processing effects, the BBC and mono compatibility but about studios taking advantage of movie theater technology finally being ahead of everything else again. Will they invest in necessary downmixes for home delivery? I don't know.


We are talking about signal processors that might not downmix without phase effects. I allege that they will have to play nice or they will not be used because the mass of the market uses these more basic presentations. The BBC was just such an example.

I am optimistic that the ability to deliver greater spatial detail to cinemas will spur development of more interesting spatial signal processors -- reverbs. And they will be designed to work well within the greater ecosystem where that content may go. If it breaks when rendered to 5.1 or stereo, even if it sounds great in the cinema, there will be an alternative processor to take its place that avoids such problems.


----------



## chi_guy50

CinemaAndy said:


> It will be once THX finishes it's final, as delivered, testing. It will be THX Ultra 2, THX Select 2, and THX I/S plus certified.





kokishin said:


> That should rule out Pioneer, Onkyo, Integra, Yamaha, *and probably Denon*.



I don't know about that. My first reaction when I read Andy's original post ("Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year") was: "Ooooh, I wonder if that could be the mythical AVR-X7200W." Those certifications might help to explain the big price bump over the X5200W.


----------



## Marc Wielage

ambesolman said:


> Not to mention a scene in the second one where they cut a 180 in the Ferrari and you can plainly see an old white guy driving...


I believe that was Michael Bay's personal Ferrari in the movie, though he was in a different scene...

Surprised they didn't fix this with CG. There's quite a bit of CG in _Bad Boys 2._


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Andrew Jones confirmed that there is special DSP processing in the AVR for the Atmos speakers. It may have been the HTG interview with Scott Wilkinson. If not, it was the Pioneer Atmos thread.


I posted *more detail on the processing* used in the Atmos Blu-ray thread.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> Could you not have simply provided that link right in your above post (quote) Markus?
> 
> Because now I need to find that "Pioneer thread" link, the post by _Andrew Jones_ and his link on a paper by Roger.


Here it is:


AndrewJ said:


> I'll conclude with a quote from a paper published by Gary Kendall and C.A Puddie Rodgers at Northwestern University, on "The Simulation Of Three Dimensional Localization Cues for Headphone Listening":
> http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod...ion-cues-for.pdf?c=icmc;idno=bbp2372.1981.023
> "The most surprising finding of this project though came when the simulated pinna functions were played back over speakers. The spectral shaping of the sounds displayed an amazing ability to dominate over the speakers and to create the same locational images as were made over headphones. _Elevation is very easy to synthesize over speakers_, but it is also possible to create illusions in the horizontal plane, even with front to back distinctions!"
> The italics are mine, to emphasize the point.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Andrew


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> I know, but my question remains, what does that have to do with creating perception of height via HRTF?
> 
> But sounds could be made into height info by applying HRTF at the discretion of the mixer.
> 
> Maybe the workflow logistics dictate against that, but I don't see why it wouldn't work in principle.


The problem with HRTFs is that they do not work well unless they are well matched to one's personal "H." The Dolby method uses a generalized HRTF in combination with other factors, the bounce and other details, that together are apparently pretty effective. The bounce alone or the HRTF alone, not so much.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> I happened to watch Ep. 3 as it was broadcast on July 4 (which starts with Abigail and John in bed) and played as intended on Directv.


PPV? HBO? Other? Even HBO applies some dynamic range compression, so it's not exactly the same ad the BD track. At least they used to do so. I have not confirmed that recently.


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> No.
> 
> It singles out Onkyo.


FM,

I agree along with Integra too. I originally looked at their announced Atmos AVRs without checking their pre-pros. THX ;-)


----------



## Tnedator

Tnedator said:


> I posted this in another thread. The Onkyo marketing people have described AccuEQ different ways in different places. This is from the PR-SC5530 datasheet, and in this description, it makes it look like there may be full 7.1 EQ for non-stereo playback (movies, DD, DTS, etc.), but then bypass the EQ on the fronts for stereo playback.
> 
> *Onkyo introduces the powerful AccuEQ room calibration system. AccuEQ measures and corrects speaker distances, levels, crossovers, and frequency response from one convenient listening position to ensure clear and cohesive surround-sound while enabling playback of 7.1-channel formats at 96 kHz (no down-sampling). For the ultimate in pure stereo performance, AccuEQ bypasses the front channels so the unique characteristics of your loudspeakers can be enjoyed without DSP correction to potentially alter the sound.
> *
> 
> It's really hard to tell from these marketing blurbs whether the fronts are always bypassed or just in stereo playback.
> 
> I'm as interested to figure out what's going on as anyone, which is why I've been digging around to get a more complete explanation of AccuEQ.


Ok, I'm going to post this in the two places where I posted that maybe it was their marketing department misstating things. I just received confirmation from Integra that the front LR are bypassed. 

In essence:

-It works like Audyssey and others, except that it bypasses the front left and right speakers. 

-They consider this a feature, since many people choose those speakers for how they sound. 

-Other room adjustment systems equalize all speakers to the same curve, which changes the sound of the main LR speakers and they think people prefer to have their LR's tone non adjusted. 

-The left and right speaker will be time aligned, but not otherwise adjusted.


----------



## sdurani

Tnedator said:


> I just received confirmation from Integra that the front LR are bypassed.


Hasn't that been in the description from the moment it was announced? "*AccuEQ bypasses the front channels*"


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> The problem with HRTFs is that they do not work well unless they are well matched to one's personal "H." The Dolby method uses a generalized HRTF in combination with other factors, the bounce and other details, that together are apparently pretty effective. The bounce alone or the HRTF alone, not so much.


I see, thanks.


----------



## CinemaAndy

I have to clear up my post. "Sunday" is a running joke/saying inside the industry that means a "product or production" will happen, when it happens. "Sunday" is used to tell someone who repeatedly asks "when". So by saying "sunday" i was telling it will happens when it happens, it will not be this Sunday. But, do look for a much informed product roll out in around 3 to 4 months.


----------



## SMHarman

audiovideoholic said:


> I would at minimum! It's just too easy not to.


I just did similar. I had 14/4 going to FR FL RR RL so strung some 14/2 whips up the wall to the ceiling (13' up  ). 

Mine would be ceiling height not in the ceiling.

Thing I am not getting is what is the difference between 7.1.2 and 9.1 with the extra 2 being front height?


----------



## sdurani

Orbitron said:


> I raise center speaker volume 4 dB


That throws the front soundstage out of calibration.


----------



## petetherock

sdurani said:


> That throws the front soundstage out of calibration.


 Actually IMHO, when I raise the centre channel by 3db, there are no issues with panning or the soundstage. YMMV.
Cheers


----------



## Orbitron

Well, if you want a little more volume than in the mix, you raise it a little bit and enjoy a "non-calibrated" center. We tweak to please ourselves.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Here it is: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod...ion-cues-for.pdf?c=icmc;idno=bbp2372.1981.023


Roger, my man!


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> That throws the front soundstage out of calibration.


Manual calibration in this case beats auto correction: We don't always have to abide by the wrong laws created by men, we can bifurcate from them to improve our listening pleasure.

And besides, no two mixing/recording film movie soundtrack engineers are the same. Plus humans are less than perfect. ...It's up to us to balance our own life equilibrium, and not to less than perfect sound technician engineer scientist. 

* I myself raise my center channel by 2 or 3dB, and it is much better that way than what Audyssey MultEQ XT32 has chosen. ...My sound stage sounds more improved too. ...It's my room, my ears, and my life's enjoyment. And that, is my scientific satisfaction, mine. ...For everyone else it is his own, when relating to surround sound @ home. ...And 'atmos' importantly the film's dialog.

...Flexibility, in the name of liberation.


----------



## sdurani

Orbitron said:


> Well, if you want a little more volume than in the mix, you raise it a little bit and enjoy a "non-calibrated" center. We tweak to please ourselves.


Not standing in the way of you pleasing yourself, just pointing out the downside.


----------



## NorthSky

No downside Sanjay, to the contrary; a benefit. ...Ask Marc (FilmMixer); dialog @ home from various movie soundtracks.


----------



## Orbitron

sdurani said:


> Not standing in the way of you pleasing yourself, just pointing out the downside.


Totally understand. In fact, because i wanted more oomph in my home theater, rather than raising the LFE and changing calibrated settings, we added an infinite baffle subwoofer and calibrated with the IB for movies and without the IB for concerts.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> What I was thinking of doing was getting these speakers two for the front highs two for back highs adding them to my 7.2 existing set up so I would have center, fronts, wides, surrounds front high and back high..... with my two subs.. why wouldn't this work???


You want to use two Atmos modules for the top front and another two for the top height? Yes, of course you can do that. That would make a 7.1.4 system with the following array of speakers:



Front Left
Front Right
Centre
Surround Left
Surround Right
Rear Surround left
Rear Surround Right
Front Top Left
Front Top Right
Rear Top Left
Rear Top Right


If you want to use Wides instead of rear surrounds, AFAIK this has not been confirmed at this time by any manufacturer, but it may well be a possible configuration. It is also one I might be interested in too. Unless anyone knows different, we'll have to wait and see if this becomes possible.

English IS my native language, so I hope that answers your question


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Wielage said:


> Sure: the _Bad Boys_ Blu-ray from Sony Pictures. Volume all over the place. (Horrible movie, great cinematography.)
> 
> Interestingly, the HD transfer of _Bad Boys 2_ has no problem. Clearly a different mix by different people years later.


I've only got Bad Boys on DVD and it is a bit old. Some older movies did have problems with poor mixing I agree. But I did say 'modern' movies - OK BB is a modern movie... maybe I should have said 'recent' - say the last 14 years. HST, when I watched it, I don't recall any problems with dialog.

What setting of your MV do you usually use? I listen at what I call 'home reference', which is about 5dB below true reference.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cam Man said:


> I think you also have to take into account the ambient noise floor or your room compared to where room was mixed. The mixing stage is certainly below NC-30, and very possibly in the NC-20 range since it is an engineered environment. This is challenging for any room, but only a very well engineered dedicated home theater will reach Home THXs target of NC-20 for average home theaters, or NC-15 or top of the line rooms. Most residential rooms are in the territory of NC-50.
> 
> 
> Straight from the THX manual, circa 2002: "Background Noise: 1.) Interferes with loudness perception. 2.) Masks low level signals and detail. 3.) Noise that is transient is distracting.
> 
> 
> Finally, the type of LCR speakers used relative to the acoustic character of your room and listening distance can certainly account for this complaint. Critical distance is a very important factor that I've rarely seen anyone here at AVS address. Tony Grimani was the source for my education on the subject. http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/04_acoustics_2.html


I agree with you, and my own noise floor at night, when I usually watch a movie, is about 35-40dB. But it goes back to my earlier point - if he is listening at levels so low that some of the soundtrack is descending into the noise floor, then it isn't surprising to me that he can't hear the quieter parts of the track. The solution seems simple to me (assuming proper setup etc): turn up the MV. Or, if his wife doesn’t like loud noises, use some form of dynamic range compression such as Audyssey's Dynamic Volume, or whatever his unit has. As batpig points out, he is in the exact circumstances for which DRC was invented, but he isn’t using it.


----------



## Marc Wielage

kbarnes701 said:


> I've only got Bad Boys on DVD and it is a bit old. Some older movies did have problems with poor mixing I agree.


This was the Blu-ray. I just cranked it until it sounded about right, then rode the level when the Bayhem explosions got too overwhelming. But as I always say, it's more a question of the quiet dialogue scenes being _too quiet_.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I posted *more detail on the processing* used in the Atmos Blu-ray thread.


Thanks Roger.


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Wielage said:


> This was the Blu-ray. I just cranked it until it sounded about right, then rode the level when the Bayhem explosions got too overwhelming. But as I always say, it's more a question of the quiet dialogue scenes being _too quiet_.


Where is your MV, typically, when watching a movie?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> *If you want to use Wides instead of rear surrounds*, AFAIK this has not been confirmed at this time by any manufacturer, but it may well be a possible configuration. It is also one I might be interested in too. Unless anyone knows different, we'll have to wait and see if this becomes possible.
> 
> English IS my native language, so I hope that answers your question


That will undoubtedly be my desired approach if I convert to an Atmos configuration from my current 11.1. I will probably have to forgo my rear surrounds but would dearly like to keep the front wides in the mix for 7.1.4.

And American English is MY native language.  
"England and America are two countries separated by a common language.*" -George Bernard Shaw
*


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I posted *more detail on the processing* used in the Atmos Blu-ray thread.


Looks like we even don't need side surrounds anymore 

"[...] an upward-firing driver configured to project sound waves toward one or more upper surfaces of the listening environment for reflection down to a listening area within the listening environment, and *a side-firing driver configured to project sound waves toward one or more surfaces side surfaces of the listening environment for reflection into the listening area*."

A complete 9.x.4 system with only 4 speaker (boxes):










WAF has won


----------



## Bumper

*Onkyo just called me*

Interestingly I just got a call from my AV dealer who was chatting with the Onkyo importer and told my story about me leaving Onkyo for Denon because of AccuEQ vs Audyssey. Finally I got to talk to the Onkyo importer myself and he told me that lots of internal discussions were going on about AccuEQ vs Audyssey but he assured me that AccuEQ was not going to be a disappointment. Therefore he suggested to come to my home theater and install the Onkyo 3030 as soon as it got the Atmos firmware upgrade. The 1010 and 3030 are already in stock but they still lack the certification. So about in september Onkyo will come to visit and bring the NR3030 with which we will do an AccuEQ calibration and test against my current NR5009 to see what the new EQ can do. If I don't like it I can Always switch to Denon
Cudos to Onkyo for taking this seriously! So seriously that I can listen to it using my own theater room.
Can't wait


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> Interestingly I just got a call from my AV dealer who was chatting with the Onkyo importer and told my story about me leaving Onkyo for Denon because of AccuEQ vs Audyssey. Finally I got to talk to the Onkyo importer myself and he told me that lots of internal discussions were going on about AccuEQ vs Audyssey but he assured me that AccuEQ was not going to be a disappointment. Therefore he suggested to come to my home theater and install the Onkyo 3030 as soon as it got the Atmos firmware upgrade. The 1010 and 3030 are already in stock but they still lack the certification. So about in september Onkyo will come to visit and bring the NR3030 with which we will do an AccuEQ calibration and test against my current NR5009 to see what the new EQ can do. If I don't like it I can Always switch to Denon
> Cudos to Onkyo for taking this seriously! So seriously that I can listen to it using my own theater room.
> Can't wait


Very good service. It will be interesting to hear your views once you have heard AccuEQ and Audyssey. I still can’t see myself wanting to use EQ that doesn't EQ the front left and right speakers - why did they not just make that an option for people who believe their front speakers are somehow not influenced by the room? Also, maybe you could clarify with your dealer if AccuEQ does or does not EQ the subwoofer. There are reports that it does not, but this is not confirmed by any Onkyo website I have looked at. I find it hard to believe it does not EQ the sub.

When they install the unit in your HT, I assume they will also make some independent measurements of the results of XT32 and AccuEQ so that we have some objective way of assessing the value of each and comparing them.


----------



## markus767

Bumper said:


> AccuEQ vs Audyssey


From the patent document it looks like "Automatic Configuration and System Calibration" is part of Atmos for the home. So why pay Audyssey licensing fees if Atmos already comes with level/delay/EQ?


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> Very good service. It will be interesting to hear your views once you have heard AccuEQ and Audyssey. I still can’t see myself wanting to use EQ that doesn't EQ the front left and right speakers - why did they not just make that an option for people who believe their front speakers are somehow not influenced by the room? Also, maybe you could clarify with your dealer if AccuEQ does or does not EQ the subwoofer. There are reports that it does not, but this is not confirmed by any Onkyo website I have looked at. I find it hard to believe it does not EQ the sub.
> 
> When they install the unit in your HT, I assume they will also make some independent measurements of the results of XT32 and AccuEQ so that we have some objective way of assessing the value of each and comparing them.


I will for sure ask all those questions. Funny thing is that it appears to me we could already test all of this right now because there is no need for Atmos to test AccuEQ and the receivers are already in stock just waiting to be certified. At least there is a good connection now and there seems to be nothing better than to just do a live comparison.


----------



## Bumper

markus767 said:


> From the patent document it looks like "Automatic Configuration and System Calibration" is part of Atmos for the home. So why pay Audyssey licensing fees if Atmos already comes with level/delay/EQ?


The one thing I like most about Audyssey is the Dynamic EQ function so not just the XT32. I don't see AccuEQ doing this. Plus I don't like just one measuring position vs the 8 I get with Audyssey. It simply doesn't feel right but time will tell!


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> I will for sure ask all those questions. Funny thing is that it appears to me we could already test all of this right now because there is no need for Atmos to test AccuEQ and the receivers are already in stock just waiting to be certified. At least there is a good connection now and there seems to be nothing better than to just do a live comparison.


Good point. Maybe one of the main review sites like Audioholics will do just that?


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> The one thing I like most about Audyssey is the Dynamic EQ function so not just the XT32. I don't see AccuEQ doing this. Plus I don't just one measuring position vs the 8 I get with Audyssey. It simply doesn't feel right but time will tell!


Another good point. But if the AVR is THX-spec then it has THX Loudness Plus which can be used as a good alternative to DEQ. 

It doesn't seem that a single mic position will give as good a calibration for multiple seats as the 8 positions of XT32. A single mic position is OK for assessing the beneficial effect of EQ post-calibration, where only the MLP is critical, but for automated EQ for multiple seats, multiple mic positions seems to make more sense. If some preparatory work is done with a view to minimising seat to seat variations prior to running EQ (eg with additional subs and placement) then one mic position should work fine because the EQ calculated for one seat will apply to all seats, but most people don't have the time or knowledge or even desire to do it that way and seek a simple, automated solution.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> Very good service. It will be interesting to hear your views once you have heard AccuEQ and Audyssey. I still can’t see myself wanting to use EQ that doesn't EQ the front left and right speakers - why did they not just make that an option for people who believe their front speakers are somehow not influenced by the room? Also, maybe you could clarify with your dealer if AccuEQ does or does not EQ the subwoofer. There are reports that it does not, but this is not confirmed by any Onkyo website I have looked at. I find it hard to believe it does not EQ the sub.
> 
> When they install the unit in your HT, I assume they will also make some independent measurements of the results of XT32 and AccuEQ so that we have some objective way of assessing the value of each and comparing them.


There is a comparison of accueq vs xt32 on a german site, it has frequency response graphs & the google translation is pretty readable - https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...-forum.de/viewthread-101-1645.html&edit-text=

It looks predictably rubbish basically


----------



## markus767

Bumper said:


> The one thing I like most about Audyssey is the Dynamic EQ function so not just the XT32. I don't see AccuEQ doing this.


True but Dolby has a similar solution, Dolby Volume.



Bumper said:


> Plus I don't just one measuring position vs the 8 I get with Audyssey. It simply doesn't feel right but time will tell!


From the patent document: "As shown in FIG. 4C, the functionality of the adaptive audio system includes a
calibration function 462. [...] If the
listening environment and playback conditions warrant a more refined analysis, *multiple
microphones* can be used instead. [...] An alternative
to this topology is to use multiple omni-directional measurement *microphones positioned in
likely listener locations* in the listening environment.
The microphone(s) are used to enable the automatic configuration and calibration of
the renderer and post-processing algorithms. [...] The post-processing component may include: delay, *equalization*, gain, speaker
virtualization, and upmixing."

I'm not saying upcoming Atmos AVRs will work that way or AccuEQ is Dolby technology but the patent shows that Dolby is thinking about certain features.


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> Another good point. But if the AVR is THX-spec then it has THX Loudness Plus which can be used as a good alternative to DEQ.
> 
> It doesn't seem that a single mic position will give as good a calibration for multiple seats as the 8 positions of XT32. A single mic position is OK for assessing the beneficial effect of EQ post-calibration, where only the MLP is critical, but for automated EQ for multiple seats, multiple mic positions seems to make more sense. If some preparatory work is done with a view to minimising seat to seat variations prior to running EQ (eg with additional subs and placement) then one mic position should work fine because the EQ calculated for one seat will apply to all seats, but most people don't have the time or knowledge or even desire to do it that way and seek a simple, automated solution.


Onkyo does have the THX Select 2 vs my current Ultra 2. No big deal at all. Denon meets the specs but doesn't carry the label and thus doesn't hold the THX modes. Dynamic EQ is what changed everything in my setup. It boosts my rather small dipole surrounds to meet the same reference as my large F-LCR whit the volume set much lower than the 0dB ref level. And for that reason the complete sound stage opens up again. I am very afraid AccuEQ doesn't or cannot do that but who knows Onkyo might surprise me. It is not going to be a very difficult hearing test to notice DEQ


----------



## Bumper

markus767 said:


> From the patent document: "As shown in FIG. 4C, the functionality of the adaptive audio system includes a
> calibration function 462. [...] If the
> listening environment and playback conditions warrant a more refined analysis, *multiple*
> *microphones* can be used instead. [...] An alternative
> to this topology is to use multiple omni-directional measurement *microphones positioned in*
> *likely listener locations* in the listening environment.
> The microphone(s) are used to enable the automatic configuration and calibration of
> the renderer and post-processing algorithms. [...] The post-processing component may include: delay, *equalization*, gain, speaker
> virtualization, and upmixing."


Makes me wonder how to connect multiple mics. I just hope you are right on all of this. I am an Onkyo fan meaning I would love to stay with Onkyo but my eyes and ears will be the Judge. Video quality is as important to as is audio but Denon seems to be doing right at that point as well.
If Atmos holds all of these features I guess we won't be able to test AccuEQ in that perspective right now since the currect 3030's aren't certified (or firmware upgraded) yet which makes it september again..


----------



## Bumper

markus767 said:


> True but Dolby has a similar solution, Dolby Volume.


Since I am heavy into home automation I completely wrote the rs232 command set into my system and put buttons to every function the Onkyo has. I can see:
Audyssey Volume -> Light, Medium, Heavy, Off
Dolby Volume -> Low, Off
Late Night -> Low, High, Auto, Off

All of the above seem to help improve the WAF since they all have their way to decrease penetrating LFE frequencies thus making it possible to still get the dialogue but decrease the nasty Bass effects. I never use these and they do in no way what Audyssey Dynamic EQ does.
My 5009 doesn't support the Audyssey SubEQ function but the Denon does and I have two subs going in my room. Also something I miss on AccuEQ.
I guess this is getting a bit OT..


----------



## markus767

Bumper said:


> I never use these and they do in no way what Audyssey Dynamic EQ does.


Dolby Volume does: "Loudness Domain Signal Processing", Alan Seefeldt, Audio Engineering Society, Convention Paper 7180


----------



## Michael Sargent

Regarding Master and Commander:


I put it on last night to hear whether I was getting phantom "top" sounds on my 7.1 system. My rears are mounted fairly high, so that might have helped (along with PLx), but I could certainly "hear" sounds above me.


But most of all I wanted to say "thanks" for this discussion. I watched the whole movie again and enjoyed it very much. I guess we aren't going to get a sequel (it's been 10 years).


While I look forward to Atmos, and will certainly upgrade to it, I'd like to remind people to enjoy the movie, rather than the sound or visuals. Casablanca is still a much more enjoyable 2 hours than any Transformers movie, and Casablanca is 4:3, black & white, and mono.


Mike


----------



## Bumper

3ll3d00d said:


> There is a comparison of accueq vs xt32 on a german site, it has frequency response graphs & the google translation is pretty readable - https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...-forum.de/viewthread-101-1645.html&edit-text=
> 
> It looks predictably rubbish basically


Good find. Many thanks. Not very promising as expected but luckily I can be the Judge of that in my own room.


----------



## Bumper

markus767 said:


> Dolby Volume does: "Loudness Domain Signal Processing", Alan Seefeldt, Audio Engineering Society, Convention Paper 7180


So, with this knowledge how would you link my DEQ comment to Dolby Volume in the first place?


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> There is a comparison of accueq vs xt32 on a german site, it has frequency response graphs & the google translation is pretty readable - https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...-forum.de/viewthread-101-1645.html&edit-text=
> 
> It looks predictably rubbish basically


Wow. Thanks for that. The comparison lower down the page with XT32 in the Denon is instructive. Just look at the difference XT32 makes compared with AccuEQ. 

I'll reproduce below a couple of his comparisons, just for the centre and sub...

No need to say which is which! If you let the thumbnails load up you can then switch instantly between each one, back and forth, and get a great look at the differences.


----------



## grtuck

Bumper said:


> Interestingly I just got a call from my AV dealer who was chatting with the Onkyo importer and told my story about me leaving Onkyo for Denon because of AccuEQ vs Audyssey. Finally I got to talk to the Onkyo importer myself and he told me that lots of internal discussions were going on about AccuEQ vs Audyssey but he assured me that AccuEQ was not going to be a disappointment. Therefore he suggested to come to my home theater and install the Onkyo 3030 as soon as it got the Atmos firmware upgrade. The 1010 and 3030 are already in stock but they still lack the certification. So about in september Onkyo will come to visit and bring the NR3030 with which we will do an AccuEQ calibration and test against my current NR5009 to see what the new EQ can do. If I don't like it I can Always switch to Denon
> Cudos to Onkyo for taking this seriously! So seriously that I can listen to it using my own theater room.
> Can't wait


That is impressive that they would do that for you. I would also be VERY interested to hear about your experience with them. I am holding off buying another Onkyo AVR till I get some objective feedback about this new system too.


----------



## ss9001

Michael Sargent said:


> enjoy the movie, rather than the sound or visuals. Casablanca is still a much more enjoyable 2 hours than any Transformers movie, and Casablanca is 4:3, black & white, and mono.


Hey, Mike. You nailed that one!

Sometimes I think we forget about that, unfortunately along with Hollywood studios & writers 

Some movies are timeless. Special effects & reference soundtracks are supposed to enhance a movie not just *be* the movie


----------



## chi_guy50

ss9001 said:


> Hey, Mike. You nailed that one!
> 
> Sometimes I think we forget about that, unfortunately along with Hollywood studios & writers
> 
> Some movies are timeless. Special effects & reference soundtracks are supposed to enhance a movie not just *be* the movie


+1

And speaking of "Casablanca," I just have to give a shout-out to one of my favorite flicks of all time: "The Big Sleep" (1946). Story by Raymond Chandler, screenplay by William Faulkner, directed by Howard Hawks, and starring Bogie and Bacall; it just doesn't get any better than that once-in-a-lifetime collaboration of talent. And don't forget two of Hawks's comedic masterpieces: "Bringing Up Baby" (1938) and "His Girl Friday" (1940). No need for audio or video remastering here.


----------



## kbarnes701

grtuck said:


> That is impressive that they would do that for you. I would also be VERY interested to hear about your experience with them. I am holding off buying another Onkyo AVR till I get some objective feedback about this new system too.


I'm not holding off. I already made up my mind. Denon for me when Atmos arrives.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Hey, Mike. You nailed that one!
> 
> Sometimes I think we forget about that, unfortunately along with Hollywood studios & writers
> 
> Some movies are timeless. Special effects & reference soundtracks are supposed to enhance a movie not just *be* the movie


It's true but kinda irrelevant. The real comparison would be how an Atmos version of Casablanca compared with an Atmos version of Transformers. Some would prefer one movie, some the other.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It's true but kinda irrelevant. The real comparison would be how an Atmos version of Casablanca compared with an Atmos version of Transformers. Some would prefer one movie, some the other.


Well, I'm going to disagree. I think his point was very well taken and relevant to this discussion inasmuch as we are narrowly focused on the delivery technology and tending to forget that it's the content that should matter most. IMO Mike's comment helps to put the rest of the thread in a better perspective.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, I'm going to disagree. I think his point was very well taken and relevant to this discussion inasmuch as we are narrowly focused on the delivery technology and tending to forget that it's the content that should matter most. IMO Mike's comment helps to put the rest of the thread in a better perspective.


Of course the content is the most important thing. But it is an apples/oranges comparison, in the context of this thread, to compare a non-Atmos movie with an Atmos movie IMO. I'd 100% agree that Casablanca is a superior movie to Transformers 4.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd 100% agree that Casablanca is a superior movie to Transformers 4.


I certainly hope so, Keith 

but your point is well taken since this is an Atmos discussion. I have no problem with that. It's just that I sometimes find it ironic that sometimes it's true that the best soundtracks are on the weakest movies


----------



## petetherock

A little OT, but I only have the Bad Boy II on DVD, is it on BR now?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> A little OT, but I only have the Bad Boy II on DVD, is it on BR now?


Not yet... at least not here in the states.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I certainly hope so, Keith
> 
> but your point is well taken since this is an Atmos discussion. I have no problem with that. It's just that I sometimes find it ironic that sometimes it's true that the best soundtracks are on the weakest movies


Couldn't agree more. Michael Bay has much to answer for. But bad sound isn't one of them


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> A little OT, but I only have the Bad Boy II on DVD, is it on BR now?


Good point. No. But the first one is.


----------



## redjr

FilmMixer said:


> It was definitely the intention to make it intimate.... I mixed 4 of the 7 episodes of John Adams. (3-6.).
> 
> I happened to watch Ep. 3 as it was broadcast on July 4 (which starts with Abigail and John in bed) and played as intended on Directv.
> 
> It shouldn't be frustrating and I would definitely try to use a bit of DRC in the future.
> 
> Low end build up will do a lot to diminish dialog intelligibility. Have you run any room correction?
> 
> Just curious.


I admitted in the post my setup is far from optimal and therefore recognize the system's current limitations. My new media room will be much better with all channels being used with room correction being done. By design the noise floor will be quieter too, so I expect better results. In my previous setup, I had boosted the center channel, but apparently not enough, since softer passages were still hard to make out in many movies. Perhaps it is the MVL I'm watching at that needs a little correction too!  I will check out DRC in the future.


----------



## Tnedator

sdurani said:


> Hasn't that been in the description from the moment it was announced? "*AccuEQ bypasses the front channels*"


Based on different places describing it slightly differently (spec sheets vs web pages, for instance), I was hoping it was misinformation from their marketing department. It isn't. 

Also, some of have said it isn't EQ'ng the sub. Does anyone know for sure about the subs?


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with you, and my own noise floor at night, when I usually watch a movie, is about 35-40dB. But it goes back to my earlier point - if he is listening at levels so low that some of the soundtrack is descending into the noise floor, then it isn't surprising to me that he can't hear the quieter parts of the track. The solution seems simple to me (assuming proper setup etc): turn up the MV. Or, if his wife doesn’t like loud noises, use some form of dynamic range compression such as Audyssey's Dynamic Volume, or whatever his unit has. As batpig points out, he is in the exact circumstances for which DRC was invented, but he isn’t using it.





Marc Wielage said:


> This was the Blu-ray. I just cranked it until it sounded about right, then rode the level when the Bayhem explosions got too overwhelming. But as I always say, it's more a question of the quiet dialogue scenes being _too quiet_.


 
If the noise floor can't be lowered, then compression is the only alternative left. Many of my clients are older and affluent ... who often are particularly sensitive to dynamic range and dialogue intelligibility. I always make sure that they are comfortably inside critical distance, and often have to engage compression for movies in the BD player.



Bumper said:


> The one thing I like most about Audyssey is the Dynamic EQ function so not just the XT32. I don't see AccuEQ doing this. Plus I don't like just one measuring position vs the 8 I get with Audyssey. It simply doesn't feel right but time will tell!


 
Big time! I love this feature for movies and multi-channel music listening because I never watch/listen at Reference. I don't use it for TV. I can't imagine doing without Dynamic EQ. With all due respect to creator John Dahl, THX Loudness Plus is not as sophisticated a utility.


----------



## Cam Man

FWIW, here is the Dolby pdf for Atmos Cinema specifications. If someone else has posted this, my apologies; I missed it, if so. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


This document defines a Central Listening Area. It also specifies speaker coverage angles, elevation angles, and speaker aiming. It is probably worthwhile to study how the top surround speakers span and are placed in relation to the CLA. We will be doing some kind of translation of the same with four top surround speakers.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> I think his point was very well taken and relevant to this discussion inasmuch as we are narrowly focused on the delivery technology and tending to forget that it's the content that should matter most.


Who in this thread was arguing that delivery technology matters more than content? This is a thread about delivery technology, so that is what is being discussed. It's a strawman argument to remind people that content matters most, since no one was claiming otherwise. 

Should posters in the DIY section be likewise reminded that content is more important than the measurements of their home-built subwoofers? How about in AV receiver threads? Or HT computer threads? If not, then I don't see what it is about consumer Atmos that requires posters to be reminded that content matters most.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> You want to use two Atmos modules for the top front and another two for the top height? Yes, of course you can do that. That would make a 7.1.4 system with the following array of speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> Front Left
> Front Right
> Centre
> Surround Left
> Surround Right
> Rear Surround left
> Rear Surround Right
> Front Top Left
> Front Top Right
> Rear Top Left
> Rear Top Right
> 
> 
> If you want to use Wides instead of rear surrounds, AFAIK this has not been confirmed at this time by any manufacturer, but it may well be a possible configuration. It is also one I might be interested in too. Unless anyone knows different, we'll have to wait and see if this becomes possible.
> 
> English IS my native language, so I hope that answers your question


thank you
lets hope wides will work as well


----------



## grtuck

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not holding off. I already made up my mind. Denon for me when Atmos arrives.


Now that I just read the link that *3ll3d00d*  posted, I've made up my mind too. I am sitting out this year and waiting for next years models. Too bad really, I have always liked Onkyo a lot.

Worst part for me is that I am in the middle of my new build out with Triad Silver LCR's all around in preparation for Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Who in this thread was arguing that delivery technology matters more than content? This is a thread about delivery technology, so that is what is being discussed. It's a strawman argument to remind people that content matters most, since no one was claiming otherwise.
> 
> Should posters in the DIY section be likewise reminded that content is more important than the measurements of their home-built subwoofers? How about in AV receiver threads? Or HT computer threads? If not, then I don't see what it is about consumer Atmos that requires posters to be reminded that content matters most.


It's a matter of perspective. It's easy to get wrapped up in the abstract technology, and to be reminded occasionally of what matters most can be grounding. After all, I'm assuming this is not a professional thread (although some participants are obviously active in related fields) but rather one for enthusiasts interested in how Atmos will apply to their home A/V environment.

That's my argument. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> That's my argument.


Argument against whom? Who in this thread was claiming that delivery technology mattered more than content?


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Argument against whom? Who in this thread was claiming that delivery technology mattered more than content?


Argument in the sense of proponency; I'm not contesting anyone's point of view. I simply wanted to reinforce Michael Sargent's earlier message regarding the value of content and have no wish to start a debate. I enjoy the purely technological discourse here--not the least of all your contributions--but I think we can get lost in the weeds sometimes and need to regain our bearings. Thanks again, Mike, for the reminder!


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> It's a matter of perspective. It's easy to get wrapped up in the abstract technology, and to be reminded occasionally of what matters most can be grounding. After all, I'm assuming this is not a professional thread (although some participants are obviously active in related fields) but rather one for enthusiasts interested in how Atmos will apply to their home A/V environment.
> 
> That's my argument. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


so is there a professional thread that can clear up some of our questions. so i'm assuming your saying that we are all just guessing on how Atmos will apply to our home A/V environment. i guess i can agree as there are no AV atmos Receiver in our homes yet. i want it so bad that i should look before i leep into somthing i will or may regret. I'm enjoying the speculation So September is going to be the firmware update and we will start seeing real experiences.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks again, Mike, for the reminder!


In that case, I should thank Keith for pointing out how irrelevant the reminder is.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> In that case, I should thank Keith for pointing out how irrelevant the reminder is.


We all have much to thank Keith for. Thank you, Keith, for your many insightful and edifying posts!


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> We all have much to thank Keith for. Thank you, Keith, for your many insightful and edifying posts!


Thank you Keith


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> Thank you Keith


Agreed!


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> so is there a professional thread that can clear up some of our questions. so i'm assuming your saying that we are all just guessing on how Atmos will apply to our home A/V environment. i guess i can agree as there are no AV atmos Receiver in our homes yet. i want it so bad that i should look before i leep into somthing i will or may regret. I'm enjoying the speculation So September is going to be the firmware update and we will start seeing real experiences.


It depends what your questions are. Quite a lot of what we can expect in September is known already and some is still uncertain.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> It depends what your questions are. Quite a lot of what we can expect in September is known already and some is still uncertain.


I'm very clear on what atmos will bring and I'm excited to dive right in my apprehension is what AVR would suit my needs. I just don't want to purchase something and then regret it. That's why I want to see and hear it first hand but that may not be realistic till the end of the year????? When there will be an atmos blu-ray to demo somewhere.....


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> I'm very clear on what atmos will bring and I'm excited to dive right in my apprehension is what AVR would suit my needs. I just don't want to purchase something and then regret it. That's why I want to see and hear it first hand but that may not be realistic till the end of the year????? When there will be an atmos blu-ray to demo somewhere.....


 

It's been mentioned before. Nobody knows exactly. Everyone is waiting to see and hear what happens at the CEDIA Expo in September.


Actually Denon just announced two new receivers available in October:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/23/denon-dolby-atmos-receivers/


And here: 
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/press/home-theater-news/denon-introduces-avr-x4100w-and-avr-x5200w/


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> my apprehension is what AVR would suit my needs


What speaker configuration can you accommodate? 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 or something in between?


----------



## Nabs17

grtuck said:


> Now that I just read the link that *3ll3d00d*  posted, I've made up my mind too. I am sitting out this year and waiting for next years models. Too bad really, I have always liked Onkyo a lot.
> 
> Worst part for me is that I am in the middle of my new build out with Triad Silver LCR's all around in preparation for Atmos.


Same here and I just bought (in March) a Yamaha CX-A5000 so when I do take the plunge I think it will be Yamaha but that could change as I don't know what their plans are beyond the receiver's coming out this fall. I just think there's lots to be learned here with Atmos in the home but when I do go..it's 7.1.4 for me or more.


----------



## awblackmon

I was watching Transedence last night that was amazing me how much sound was coming from the wide speakers during playback with DTS Neo:X The film was done with an Atmos soundtrack. The soundtrack on the Blu-ray with DTS MA sounded pretty amazing with decoding being done with Neo:x. I had selected the front hight and wide for playback duty. At times the high channels were pretty busy with music. Didn't notice any effects though. Not saying effects weren't there, I just didn't notice them. During the credits I did notice music was spread out into the wides. Even placing my head to listen to the left and left wide or the right and right wide speakers reveled strong channel separation. I know they are matrixed but wow the separation was very obvious. 

What I am getting at is it seems the audio mix for these Atmos films carry over well to the Blu-ray Neo:x playback. I also wonder if the the audio mixers are having some fun and filling these channels with intentional effects for Blu-rays? 

I am looking forward to Atmos. I didn't think it would be transitioning to the home theater so fast. Glad it is though. I wonder though how much I may end up missing my wide channels if they don't carry over into the new equipment?


----------



## batpig

Denon X4100 and X5200 officially announced: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/press/home-theater-news/denon-introduces-avr-x4100w-and-avr-x5200w/

The X5200 blurb mentions 9.x.2 support:

*The AVR-X5200W supports a 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and even a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos setup; taking advantage of 7.1.4* or 9.1.2* Dolby Atmos configurations (* with additional 2-channel power amplifier). A 7.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 7.1 speaker layout complemented by four overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 9.1.2 configuration is based on a 9.1 speaker layout with two overhead speakers.*


----------



## NorthSky

Are those links old and obsolete and/or have already been mentioned? 

1. http://www.areadvd.de/tests/special-onkyo-dolby-atmos-event-in-muenchen/

2. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re.../1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html#post25974290

* How's my French? ... http://www.hdfever.fr/2014/07/03/onkyo-pr-sc5530 ... Onkyo new SSP


----------



## sdurani

Since wides are being supported as an Atmos configuration, I wonder if 7.1.4 can be done with wides and a single pair of surrounds (as opposed to the typical sides and rears). Same number of speakers, just wides instead of rears.


----------



## NorthSky

Where's Roger?


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> What speaker configuration can you accommodate? 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 or something in between?


My wish list fronts, center, wides, surrounds, two subs and four ceiling speakers....
But my pockets may not be that deep. I have 11 speakers and two subs right now and switch back and forth between audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X which I like the best. I very rarely use the back surrounds.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Since wides are being supported as an Atmos configuration, I wonder if 7.1.4 can be done with wides and a single pair of surrounds (as opposed to the typical sides and rears). Same number of speakers, just wides instead of rears.


That's my thinking I like wides much better then the rears, then to add either two or four ceiling speakers that would be sweet.....


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> My wish list fronts, center, wides, surrounds, two subs and four ceiling speakers....


That's 11 speakers, which upcoming receivers will support, but it is not clear whether they can be configured for a version of 7.1.4 that has wides instead of back surrounds. Since you're not in a rush, wait till the instruction manuals are posted on-line.


----------



## CinemaAndy

I really hate to do this, but i just can't help it!


----------



## CinemaAndy

That sure is a lot of connections.


----------



## brwsaw

CinemaAndy said:


> I really hate to do this, but i just can't help it!


That aluminium says's Yamaha...Come on tell...


Edit: I guess it could be anyone...


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> That's 11 speakers, which upcoming receivers will support, but it is not clear whether they can be configured for a version of 7.1.4 that has wides instead of back surrounds. Since you're not in a rush, wait till the instruction manuals are posted on-line.


TX-NR 3030 but I will never spend that much on a first generation atmos receiver..... I will wait a year or so till the second generations come along before I get the big boys. it will most likely be Denon because I want an audyssey AVR, this Accu-EQ room calibration I'm not too sure about it may be fine but I have my doubts.


----------



## doublewing11

What's a guy gotta do with 9.4.6?

Datastat?

Atmos is already traveling North with cost.....


----------



## action_jackson

My room is 22 x 15 x 8. I wonder which of these two modes would be better to go with, the 5.1.4 or the 7.1.2 that the Denon *AVR-X4100W* is capable of?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

doublewing11 said:


> What's a guy gotta do with 9.4.6?
> 
> Datasat?
> 
> Atmos is already traveling North with cost.....


There's the Trinnov, but that too is extremely expensive.


----------



## doublewing11

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's the Trinnov, but that too is extremely expensive.


Saved my pennies and almost purchased an ADA Trinnov TEQ-12........but with Atmos, 12 input/outputs is not enough. TEQ-12 was pushing budget........so is Datastat.......32 input/output Trinnov is definitely too much of a pill to swallow.


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> I really hate to do this, but i just can't help it!



Onkyo PR-SC5530


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> That sure is a lot of connections.


Marantz AV8801


----------



## CinemaAndy

kokishin said:


> Onkyo TX-NR1030


If it just came in silver. Your in the right name, wrong price level.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kokishin said:


> Marantz AV8801
> View attachment 177802


Wouldn't that be crazy in Atmos?


----------



## NorthSky

Onkyo (AV receivers) come in silver and black. ...Integra (b).

Marantz (SSPs) come in champagne and black.

Am I right?

* Denon (b&s), Yamaha (b), Pioneer (b). ...North America.


----------



## kokishin

CinemaAndy said:


> If it just came in silver. Your in the right name, wrong price level.


Look again: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-38.html#post25997586


----------



## CinemaAndy

kokishin said:


> Look again: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-38.html#post25997586


What you see on there site, as of now, is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Onkyo (AV receivers) come in silver and black. ...Integra (b).
> 
> Marantz (SSPs) come in champagne and black.
> 
> Am I right?
> 
> * Denon (b&s), Yamaha (b), Pioneer (b). ...North America.


Tip of the iceberg.


----------



## NorthSky

Do those float?


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Do those float?


Until they melt.


----------



## markus767

Alternative viewpoint about importance of top surrounds vs. height surrounds - starts at 4:30:


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Alternative viewpoint about importance of top surrounds vs. height surrounds:


Auro? Really?


----------



## NorthSky

The future theaters will be spheres, and the sound coming from everywhere; @ 360 degrees, horizontally, vertically, above and below.

We are sensitive to sound from all around.

And we won't need 66 speakers @ home, but only 6 (3D rectangle) . ...And 2 subs. ...Through intelligent DSP manipulation we'll be transported anywhere, in any type of environment, space and illusion. ...And all in a realistic way as we know it.


----------



## KidHorn

batpig said:


> Denon X4100 and X5200 officially announced: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/press/home-theater-news/denon-introduces-avr-x4100w-and-avr-x5200w/
> 
> The X5200 blurb mentions 9.x.2 support:
> 
> *The AVR-X5200W supports a 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and even a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos setup; taking advantage of 7.1.4* or 9.1.2* Dolby Atmos configurations (* with additional 2-channel power amplifier). A 7.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 7.1 speaker layout complemented by four overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 9.1.2 configuration is based on a 9.1 speaker layout with two overhead speakers.*



I want 9.1.4. They're almost there. Maybe next year.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> I want *9.1.4.* They're almost there. Maybe next year.


That's the minimum layout I would want to start with.


----------



## KidHorn

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's the minimum layout I would want to start with.


 
http://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/p...theatre&subid=avreceivers&productid=avrx5200w


"*the AVR-X5200W is a powerful 9 channel amplifier with 11.2 channel processing and 13.2 preout*"


I think it may support 9.1.4. On page 43 of the manual it shows a 7.1 setup with wides and 4 top speakers. 13 speakers. You need an external amp for the last 2. I'm not sure if it will play all 13 or it will switch tops/wides if you go from atmos to neo:x or vice versa.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Seeing how they explicitly mention 11.2 channel *processing* I'd venture to guess that it will not do 4ch heights along with 7.1+wides all at the same time.

It may very well allow you to hook up a full 7.1.4+2 wides but you'll have to switch between doing 9.1 sound or 7.1.4 sound.

That's my educated guess on _that_. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> That's the minimum layout I would want to start with.


That sounds like the most fun, for sure but I'd be more than happy with a good 7.1 layout with that being supplemented with quad heights. Though I have a rather small room and a ceiling fan. Especially since there is absolutely ZERO information on how decoding will really work (either with new Atmos content or legacy 5/7.1) and how all the various post-processing stuff will jive with Atmos or if any of them will at all at first.

At this point Atmos is completely on standby until all this gets ironed out and detailed.


----------



## Patrick Collins

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro? Really?


Keith, Marcus' reference to the Auro clip is relevant. The discussion after 4:30 deals with human hearing in general and how we perceive sounds. The point about tipping your head so one ear is low and the other high, points out the difference in our abilities left and right as opposed to up and down. This is relevant to the application of Atmos.
BTW, you get a 10 on your bio.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> The future theaters will be spheres, and the sound coming from everywhere; @ 360 degrees, horizontally, vertically, above and below.
> 
> We are sensitive to sound from all around.
> 
> And we won't need 66 speakers @ home, but only 6 (3D cube) . ...And 2 subs. ...Through intelligent DSP manipulation we'll be transported anywhere, in any type of environment, space and illusion. ...And all in a realistic way as we know it.


Our hearing is more sensitive to sounds from certain directions than sounds from other directions. The video I've linked has some information about that. There are also psychoacoustic studies supporting such a claim (see Toole "Sound Reproduction"). Atmos focusing solely on top speakers might be too limiting.

For realistic reproduction all we would need are 2 channels and a pair of headphones.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> http://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/p...theatre&subid=avreceivers&productid=avrx5200w
> 
> 
> "*the AVR-X5200W is a powerful 9 channel amplifier with 11.2 channel processing and 13.2 preout*"
> 
> 
> Maybe it can support 9.1.4. I tried looking at the manual online but it hangs.


I looked at the manual and it only does up to 7.1.4 in Dolby Atmos mode (no 9.1.2 configuration is listed), so Scott's guess is correct. The additional outputs are to switch between Atmos and other sound modes (like DTS Neo:X) that can utilize height and/or wide speakers. 

It looks like only the top tier models can support 9.1.2 because the DSP chips can handle another pre-assigned mode of rendering the soundtrack's beds and objects.

I would definitely bring up 9.1.4 to the various manufacturers at CEDIA. If no one talks about what consumers are looking for, the manufacturers won't get the message.


----------



## NorthSky

Are we going to see (eventually) receivers with eleven and thirteen channels of amplification, internally? ...Yamaha?


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> Atmos focusing solely on top speakers might be too limiting.


It focuses on those because they're what's been missing.

What do you mean by too limiting - is three dimensions not enough?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Are we going to see (eventually) receivers with eleven and thirteen channels of amplification, internally? ...Yamaha?


There is only so much cramming they can do in one receiver box. That's why they have extra pre-amp outputs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> It focuses on those because they're what's been missing.
> 
> What do you mean by too limiting - is three dimensions not enough?



Lol!

It's all about the 4D now, Noah.


----------



## KidHorn

Scott Simonian said:


> Seeing how they explicitly mention 11.2 channel *processing* I'd venture to guess that it will not do 4ch heights along with 7.1+wides all at the same time.
> 
> It may very well allow you to hook up a full 7.1.4+2 wides but you'll have to switch between doing 9.1 sound or 7.1.4 sound.
> 
> That's my educated guess on _that_.


 
That would be my educated guess too.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> It focuses on those because they're what's been missing.
> 
> What do you mean by too limiting - is three dimensions not enough?


For a realistic perception of spaciousness sounds from the top aren't the most effective. Sounds from lower elevations and from the sides are. Of course, the more discrete locations the better but I would swap locatedness for realism any time.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Our hearing is more sensitive to sounds from certain directions than sounds from other directions. The video I've linked has some information about that. There are also psychoacoustic studies supporting such a claim (see Toole "Sound Reproduction"). Atmos focusing solely on top speakers might be too limiting.
> 
> For realistic reproduction all we would need are 2 channels and a pair of headphones.


I've watched the entire video (Auro 3D). I am sensitive to jet planes flying right over my head; I live right under such traffic corridor. My hearing is fairly good, and my sense of sound directions is excellent.
When there is a tremor right under my feet I can feel it, right there vibrating over my entire body.

'Psychoacoustic' studies are incomplete. ...Head's shifting is not taken into consideration, and the ear canal from various individuals varied.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is only so much cramming they can do in one receiver box. That's why they have extra pre-amp outputs.


We already got nine (Onkyo/Integra, Denon/Marantz, Pioneer), and eleven (Yamaha) channels of amplification. ...Adding two or for more is nothing, nowadays.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> I looked at the manual and it only does up to 7.1.4 in Dolby Atmos mode (no 9.1.2 configuration is listed), so Scott's guess is correct. The additional outputs are to switch between Atmos and other sound modes (like DTS Neo:X) that can utilize height and/or wide speakers.
> 
> It looks like only the top tier models can support 9.1.2 because the DSP chips can handle another pre-assigned mode of rendering the soundtrack's beds and objects.
> 
> I would definitely bring up 9.1.4 to the various manufacturers at CEDIA. If no one talks about what consumers are looking for, the manufacturers won't get the message.



From page 210 of the (European) manual:

_"When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, *a maximum 11.1-channel audio *can
be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back. Furthermore,
when two sets of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
be output when Audyssey DSX® or Neo:X are played back in addition to when
Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back."_

At first glance, it appears to me that "Dolby Surround" supplants the various ProLogic formats:

_"Dolby surround is a next generation surround technology that intelligently
up mixes stereo; 5.1 and 7.1 content for playback through your surround
speaker system. Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker
layouts, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ in-ceiling
speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology."_


----------



## KidHorn

noah katz said:


> It focuses on those because they're what's been missing.
> 
> What do you mean by too limiting - is three dimensions not enough?



It's not an issue of number of dimensions. It's an issue of being able to recreate a sound where it should be. At least being able to once atmos delivers on the ability to place sounds based on your speaker placement. Having more speakers and/or having them more spread out increases the ability of atmos to do this.


In theory atmos should be able to work with 8 speakers. One in each corner of the room, but it will work better with more than 8.


----------



## Patrick Collins

FUTURE HARDWARE?

I started with an AM radio and I don't think I missed adopting any format changes along the way. I still remember hearing what stereo could do.

Many of these iterations were quickly followed with adapter type add ons allowing you to continue using your previous state of the art equipment but hearing the latest and greatest, albeit at varying levels of correctness. Some were frauds, some were indistinguishable from the all in one box. I still have a few around the house.

Like many here, I didn't see Atmos arriving this soon. Then I found out that my Onkyo TX-NR929 eleven channel AVR doesn't have the horsepower for Atmos as an update because it's all used up by Audyssey XT32. Well I'm not willing to give up all forms of Audyssey and an otherwise great AVR, just to get Amos.

And that leads to my big question. Does anyone see a technical solution for those with existing multi-channel AVRs? I already have everything it would take to implement Atmos except one stinkin' chip or processors or whatever.

I bring this up because the geniuses come out of the closet when they see a huge market for something. I'm guessing I'm not the only one in this boat.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> From page 210 of the (European) manual:
> 
> _"When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, *a maximum 11.1-channel audio *can
> be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back. Furthermore,
> when two sets of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
> be output when Audyssey DSX® or Neo:X are played back in addition to when
> Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back."_
> 
> At first glance, it appears to me that "Dolby Surround" supplants the various ProLogic formats:
> 
> _"Dolby surround is a next generation surround technology that intelligently
> up mixes stereo; 5.1 and 7.1 content for playback through your surround
> speaker system. Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker
> layouts, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ in-ceiling
> speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology."_


7.1.4 _is_ 11.1 channels (or "outputs" for object rendering). The* AVR-X5200W* just can't do anything more than that, nor does it look like it can render an Atmos track with two tops and the additional pair of front wide surrounds. The front wides are side wall pan-through array and anchor positions for objects.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> The future theaters will be spheres, and the sound coming from everywhere; @ 360 degrees, horizontally, vertically, above and below.
> 
> We are sensitive to sound from all around.
> 
> And we won't need 66 speakers @ home, but only 6 (3D rectangle) . ...And 2 subs. ...Through intelligent DSP manipulation we'll be transported anywhere, in any type of environment, space and illusion. ...And all in a realistic way as we know it.


then we can add to atmos smell, wind , and vibrations in your chair or couch at your favorite listening position....


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> I've watched the entire video (Auro 3D). I am sensitive to jet planes flying right over my head; I live right under such traffic corridor. My hearing is fairly good, and my sense of sound directions is excellent.
> When there is a tremor right under my feet I can feel it, right there vibrating over my entire body.


Not sure what you're trying to say.



NorthSky said:


> 'Psychoacoustic' studies are incomplete. ...Head's shifting is not taken into consideration, and the ear canal from various individuals varied.


Are you now talking about binaural reproduction?

Psychoacoustic studies will never be complete.

The ear canal resonance has probably no impact on localization at all.
Directional cues are formed by the outer ear, head and torso. Those features vary a great deal from person to person although psychoacoustic studies have found that there might be an underlying general set of head related distortions that work for a larger group of people. Some people show better localization performance when they listen through the ears of someone else.
Head movement does indeed contribute to localization. So head tracking is definitely desirable (my Smyth Realiser for example has it).
A headphone-based Atmos renderer with individualized HRTFs and head tracking would be a dream come true. The reproduction quality of such a system could probably never be matched with a speaker based system, especially a speaker based system in an acoustically untreated room. Putting speakers in a room for sound reproduction is generally an ill-defined idea


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Patrick Collins said:


> FUTURE HARDWARE?
> 
> I started with an AM radio and I don't think I missed adopting any format changes along the way. I still remember hearing what stereo could do.
> 
> Many of these iterations were quickly followed with adapter type add ons allowing you to continue using your previous state of the art equipment but hearing the latest and greatest, albeit at varying levels of correctness. Some were frauds, some were indistinguishable from the all in one box. I still have a few around the house.
> 
> Like many here, I didn't see Atmos arriving this soon. Then I found out that my Onkyo TX-NR929 eleven channel AVR doesn't have the horsepower for Atmos as an update because it's all used up by Audyssey XT32. Well I'm not willing to give up all forms of Audyssey and an otherwise great AVR, just to get Amos.
> 
> And that leads to my big question. Does anyone see a technical solution for those with existing multi-channel AVRs? I already have everything it would take to implement Atmos except one stinkin' chip or processors or whatever.
> 
> I bring this up because the geniuses come out of the closet when they see a huge market for something. I'm guessing I'm not the only one in this boat.


The short answer is: NO. This time around, there doesn't seem to be a player that can decode an Atmos track and spit out multiple channels of PCM, nor is there a receiver or pre-amp that can handle that kind of PCM channel configuration. 

It looks like you need an entirely new receiver or pre-amp for Atmos decoding.


----------



## redjr

markus767 said:


> ...For realistic reproduction all we would need are 2 channels and a pair of headphones.


Yeah, binaural recordings with headphones is almost freaky. I well remember when I first heard it way back when - early 80's sometime. Maybe even late 70s. Even with all our highly sophisticated DSP processing of today, there's nothing that even comes close with speakers. Just plain ole simple in-ear recording using a mocked up head and you're set.  Sorry, OT.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> For a realistic perception of spaciousness sounds from the top aren't the most effective. Sounds from lower elevations and from the sides are.


Yes, and Atmos supplies those.

I guess that exposes a wrinkle; many have their surrounds well above ear level and will need to lower their side surrounds for optimal Atmos reproduction.


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick Collins said:


> Keith, Marcus' reference to the Auro clip is relevant. The discussion after 4:30 deals with human hearing in general and how we perceive sounds. The point about tipping your head so one ear is low and the other high, points out the difference in our abilities left and right as opposed to up and down. This is relevant to the application of Atmos.
> BTW, you get a 10 on your bio.


Ah right - good call. I thought, mistakenly it turns out, that Markus was pushing Auro, as he seems very unimpressed by Atmos, judging by his posts at least. I just don't see Auro gaining traction. Now that object audio is here, who wants to go back to channels?

Thanks for the 10  I'd forgotten all about that!


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> http://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/p...theatre&subid=avreceivers&productid=avrx5200w
> 
> 
> "*the AVR-X5200W is a powerful 9 channel amplifier with 11.2 channel processing and 13.2 preout*"
> 
> 
> I think it may support 9.1.4. On page 43 of the manual it shows a 7.1 setup with wides and 4 top speakers. 13 speakers. You need an external amp for the last 2. *I'm not sure if it will play all 13 or it will switch tops/wides if you go from atmos to neo:x or vice versa.*


That's the info I'm waiting for too. I'd like to know of a 7.1.4 layout could take the rear surrounds and repurpose them to wides. So far, nobody seems to know.

It's also interesting that both the X4100W and the X5200W sport 13.2 preouts. But I am suspecting that 13 speakers could be connected but definitely not used all at the same time.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> Yes, and Atmos supplies those.


No. Atmos is standard 7.1 with top surrounds.



noah katz said:


> I guess that exposes a wrinkle; many have their surrounds well above ear level and will need to lower their side surrounds for optimal Atmos reproduction.


Will be interesting to hear what Dolby has to say about that.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> For a realistic perception of spaciousness sounds from the top aren't the most effective. Sounds from lower elevations and from the sides are. Of course, the more discrete locations the better but I would swap locatedness for realism any time.


The demo I heard, of the movie whose name I have promised Dolby not to mention, but which scene takes place in a cave certainly lacked no spaciousness. In fact, if you read the review I posted, one of the most impressive aspects of the Atmos demo, for me, was the sheer scale and spaciousness of the cave the action was set in. The small HT room became hundreds of feet in all directions. It was jaw-dropping.


----------



## NorthSky

Patrick Collins said:


> FUTURE HARDWARE?
> 
> I started with an AM radio and I don't think I missed adopting any format changes along the way. I still remember hearing what stereo could do.
> 
> Many of these iterations were quickly followed with adapter type add ons allowing you to continue using your previous state of the art equipment but hearing the latest and greatest, albeit at varying levels of correctness. Some were frauds, some were indistinguishable from the all in one box. I still have a few around the house.
> 
> Like many here, I didn't see Atmos arriving this soon. Then I found out that my Onkyo TX-NR929 eleven channel AVR doesn't have the horsepower for Atmos as an update because it's all used up by Audyssey XT32. Well I'm not willing to give up all forms of Audyssey and an otherwise great AVR, just to get Amos.
> 
> And that leads to my big question. Does anyone see a technical solution for those with existing multi-channel AVRs? I already have everything it would take to implement Atmos except one stinkin' chip or processors or whatever.
> 
> I bring this up because the geniuses come out of the closet when they see a huge market for something. I'm guessing I'm not the only one in this boat.


We own nothing that we haven't got. 
True life's exploration is to let go of the past, and free ourselves into the open space of the mind, into today's and tomorrow's ultimate pursuit, without any restriction, full ahead, non-stop.
...Into the sound hound.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The short answer is: NO. This time around, there doesn't seem to be a player that can decode an Atmos track and spit out multiple channels of PCM, nor is there a receiver or pre-amp that can handle that kind of PCM channel configuration.
> 
> It looks like you need an entirely new receiver or pre-amp for Atmos decoding.


I think everyone is hoping that Oppo add some form of Atmos decoding to one of their Bluray players. They have the reputation for innovation...


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Yes, and Atmos supplies those.
> 
> I guess that exposes a wrinkle; many have their surrounds well above ear level and will need to lower their side surrounds for optimal Atmos reproduction.


I am doing just that - mainly for greater angular separation from the top speakers, but from what you say I will benefit in other ways too


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> 7.1.4 _is_ 11.1 channels (or "outputs" for object rendering). The* AVR-X5200W* just can't do anything more than that . ..


Right, I was quoting from the manual to substantiate what you and Scott had already posted about the maximum of an 11 (total) channel output in the main zone.

BTW, this was (unofficially) confirmed by jdsmoothie more than one month ago (at least).


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> It's true but kinda irrelevant. The real comparison would be how an Atmos version of Casablanca compared with an Atmos version of Transformers. Some would prefer one movie, some the other.


The robots in Casablanca are pretty lame.


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd like to know of a 7.1.4 layout could take the rear surrounds and repurpose them to wides



I didn't see any indication in the manual that the *5200* can deliver *Atmos* using a *7.1.4* speaker setup--where the *7.1* main layer is *5.1 Standard + 2x Front Wides*--either _with or without_ the use of an external amp. _Unfortunately!_
_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> That's the info I'm waiting for too. I'd like to know of a 7.1.4 layout could take the rear surrounds and repurpose them to wides. So far, nobody seems to know.
> 
> It's also interesting that both the X4100W and the X5200W sport 13.2 preouts. But I am suspecting that 13 speakers could be connected but definitely not used all at the same time.


Did you look at the manual for the 5200W? I did and it looks to be limited to the standard 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and 7.1.4 Atmos configurations. All 13 speaker outputs *cannot* be used at the same time. They are switched depending on the sound mode being used.

It looks like only one other mode is supported in some of the top tier models with quad processors: 9.1.2, but no odd configurations (like dropping the back surrounds and allowing for the front wides instead along with four ceiling speakers) seem to be supported.

DSP chip horsepower in these mere mortal consumer products is probably the likely culprit. The Atmos rendering software is being limited to fixed object positions to allow these lower cost chips to work without being stressed. Datasat and Trinnov can get away with the entire Atmos layout configuration due to their cost is no object approach.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> I didn't see any indication in the manual that the *5200* can deliver *Atmos* using a *7.1.4* speaker setup--where the *7.1* main layer is *5.1 Standard + 2x Front Wides*--either _with or without_ the use of an external amp. _Unfortunately!_
> _


That's my take too. It's a great pity because there is no way I can do rear surrounds but I could (just) do Wides. Maybe one for Gen 2...


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Did you look at the manual for the 5200W? I did and it does the standard 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and 7.1.4 Atmos configurations. All 13 speaker outputs *cannot* be used at the same time. They are switched depending on the sound mode being used.
> 
> It looks like only one other mode is supported in some of the top tier models with quad processors: 9.1.2, but no odd configurations (like dropping the back surrounds and allowing for the front wides instead along with four ceiling speakers) seem to be supported.
> 
> DSP chip horsepower in these mere mortal consumer products is probably the likely culprit. The Atmos rendering software is being limited to fixed object positions.


Thanks Dan. The manual is downloading as I type....


----------



## batpig

Patrick Collins said:


> Like many here, I didn't see Atmos arriving this soon. Then I found out that my Onkyo TX-NR929 eleven channel AVR doesn't have the horsepower for Atmos as an update because it's all used up by Audyssey XT32. Well I'm not willing to give up all forms of Audyssey and an otherwise great AVR, just to get Amos.
> 
> And that leads to my big question. Does anyone see a technical solution for those with existing multi-channel AVRs? I already have everything it would take to implement Atmos except one stinkin' chip or processors or whatever.
> 
> I bring this up because the geniuses come out of the closet when they see a huge market for something. I'm guessing I'm not the only one in this boat.


Let's say you COULD get some fancy external decoder box that would allow you to add Atmos processing and "top" speakers to your layout. What's the chance that is actually any cheaper than simply selling your receiver and buying a newer Atmos enabled model? Not to mention the additional complication.


----------



## batpig

Here is the manual page that shows "11.1 channel playback" setting with 13 speakers connected. The 13 speaker layout is 7.1 + 2 wides + four ceiling speakers, but it clearly notes that you can only play 11 at once and the output will "switch according to the input signal and sound mode".


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Here is the manual page that shows "11.1 channel playback" setting with 13 speakers connected. The 13 speaker layout is 7.1 + 2 wides + four ceiling speakers, but it clearly notes that you can only play 11 at once and the output will "switch according to the input signal and sound mode".



That's what I read as well. It's topped out at 7.1.4. We'll have to see if the higher models from the various manufacturers (besides Trinnov and Datasat) with 13.1 outputs can deliver 9.1.4 now or via a firmware upgrade since they have more higher level chips and more oomph.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> That's my take too. It's a great pity because there is no way I can do rear surrounds but I could (just) do Wides. Maybe one for Gen 2...


Same here, but I'm still going to hold out hope that either (1) it is/will be possible (7.1.4 w/FW) although not expressly addressed for now in the manual and/or (2) the U.S. model will offer this configuration. If not, perhaps the X7200?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> Same here, but I'm still going to hold out hope that either (1) it is/will be possible (7.1.4 w/FW) although not expressly addressed for now in the manual and/or (2) the U.S. model will offer this configuration. If not, perhaps the X7200?


The 5200 can do 7.1.4, but just not in the configuration Keith wants.


----------



## batpig

We've had it confirmed that the X7200 will also top out at 11ch simultaneous processing. No current model AVR is going to support 13ch simultanous AFAIK.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> We've had it confirmed that the X7200 will also top out at 11ch simultaneous processing. No current model AVR is going to support 13ch simultanous AFAIK.


I hope that extra layout flexibility and at least 13.1 simultaneous rendering will be supported in next year's models. I don't want to have to spend the price of a car to get what some of us are looking for.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 5200 can do 7.1.4, but just not in the configuration Keith wants.


I understand; he and I are in the exact same boat in this regard. However, I don't see anything in the (European) manual so far that expressly rules it out (caveat: I'm still in the initial browsing stage) or that implies it could never be accomplished in this model.

At the same time, I note on page 287 that the Front Wide L/R are included among the Dolby Atmos output channels. What can be inferred from this?


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Not sure what you're trying to say.


Markus, in real life, when a jet plane is directly above your head, you can feel it all around.
The real location is 180 degree straight above you, but the sound is coming from all over, enveloping you, surrounding you from all over your body, and depending of the distance (jet plane in the sky) that sensation will vary in its intensity, more pronounced the closer it is. ...Roughly between 2,000 and 5,000 feet above.

And this is outside in the sky with mountains, trees, fields, or buildings and skyscrapers and streets surrounding you. ...In real life.

Where I live, everyday there are few big jet planes flying exactly above my head, while outside sitting on my front lawn, reading a book, playing with the dogs, watering my plants and flowers, etc.
Plus, there is a small private airport for people into the sport, the hobby, ,,, and every day (pretty much) there is a small plane flying making several passes right straight above my head, and roughly between 100 and 600 feet up. And that private airport is only few hundred feet (600-800) from where my roof is. 

I am in touch with my surrounding sounds in real life. Also I live near a bird sanctuary, and my place is packed with birds of all species; from bald eagles flying right above my head (30-100 feet) which I can hear the wind through their wings, to howls howling, to hummingbirds humming, to crows, to etc., etc., etc. 

* Thunderstorms, ground tremors, we have them where I live. Rain, downpour, winds, violent winds on the island where I live. We are surrounded 360 degrees (foot steps, tractors wheels, toilet flushing, ...) by day-to-day sounds from all directions and all with specific locations, and we can hear them, we can localize them, everywhere.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> I understand; he and I are in the exact same boat in this regard. However, I don't see anything in the (European) manual so far that expressly rules it out (caveat: I'm still in the initial browsing stage) or that implies it could never be accomplished in this model.
> 
> At the same time, I note on page 287 that the Front Wide L/R are included among the Dolby Atmos output channels. What can be inferred from this?


That's a good question. Maybe they wrote the manual before adding a diagram and explanation for 9.1.2, or knowing if it could handle this layout. Who knows? But it still could mean that you can't delete the rear surrounds and gain anything else in the process.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Markus, in real life, when a jet plane is directly above your head, you can feel it all around. [...]


Still don't understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Are you now talking about binaural reproduction?


Did I mention "binaural"? ...Then I wasn't talking about it.

* Head shifting, in real life; outside, inside, when listening to music, when watching movies.
{Nobody lives inside a vise-grip, inside a pair of headphones, locked.} ...We live free, moving human bodies, from head to toe.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Did I mention "binaural"? ...Then I wasn't talking about it.


But about what were you taking then


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Head shifting, in real life; outside, inside, when listening to music, when watching movies.
> {Nobody lives inside a vise-grip, inside a pair of headphones, locked.} ...We live free, moving human bodies, from head to toe.


Yes, but "vise-grip, inside a pair of headphones, locked" are the limitations of sound reproduction as we know it and it won't change any time soon.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 5200 can do 7.1.4, but just not in the configuration Keith wants.


Not so fast. I am running the manual through my Denon-to-English translator and I'm not convinced it won't support 11ch Atmos layouts that aren't the traditional 7.1.4.

From what I can tell, setting Amp Assign mode to "Dolby Atmos" locks you into the traditional layouts. See pg 219 for sub-setting when assign mode is set to "Dolby Atmos". You select between 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and 7.1.4.

HOWEVER.... look at the sub-setting options for other assign modes (starting on pg 208). They include "Height Speakers" and "Height Layout" settings allowing you to select the layout of the extra speakers. One of the "Height Speakers" settings is "Using Dolby Speakers" which is used to tell the receiver you are using upward-firing Dolby enabled speakers. This implies that Atmos processing WILL be available even if assign mode is NOT set to "Dobly Atmos".

On the right side of pg 208 the options for "4 Height Speakers" include a MIX of "height" and "top" speakers, e.g. Top Front + Rear Height. So this implies Atmos processing won't be limited to the traditonal "top" locations.

Then check out pg 209. When "Height Speakers" setting is set to "Using Dolby Speakers" YOU CAN MIX the Dolby enabled speakers and non Dolby enabeld speakers. For example there is a setting for "Top Front and Surround Dolby". 

Then on the right of pg 209 -- you can set the output of the Wide/Height2 pre-out and choose between Front Wide and Top Rear output. Implying that you CAN run a 9.1.2 setup with wides.

My conclusion is that these Denons are a lot more flexible with respect to speaker layout than some were/are fearing. If you have a "standard" Atmos layout (i.e. 5.1 or 7.1 + top speakers) you just use the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign setting and call it a day. But if you want to use a "non standard" Atmos layout, you can get there via the 9ch or 11ch mode amp assign settings combined with the sub-settings.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> I am running the manual through my Denon-to-English translator.


Love it!

Batpig, what do you make of the chart I referred to earlier? Tech writer glitch or significant? Or confirmation of your aforementioned layout flexibility hypothesis?



chi_guy50 said:


> I note on page 287 that the Front Wide L/R are included among the Dolby Atmos output channels. What can be inferred from this?


----------



## J_P_A

I wonder what the upper limit on the number of channels that is reasonable in a home theater is? At some point it makes more sense to have an external decoder that is expandable rather than a single AVR doing all the work.


----------



## Patrick Collins

batpig said:


> Let's say you COULD get some fancy external decoder box that would allow you to add Atmos processing and "top" speakers to your layout. What's the chance that is actually any cheaper than simply selling your receiver and buying a newer Atmos enabled model? Not to mention the additional complication.


First, I think you should get credit for giving the device a name: FED box or EDB.

Second, back in the day such boxes would cost no more than half of the full box. I see this device appealing to those with AVRs costing upwards of $1200.

Third, to implement, the EDB would have to be outputting an already decoded Atmos signal in PCM over HDMI to your AVR as atleast 9.1 separate channels. Hmm.
Or the EDB sends the standard bed channels (5.1,7.1,9.1) to the AVR and the decoded Atmos channels out from the built in DAC to your separate power amp.

Fourth, since we've been talking, (typing) has anyone already brought the first one to market?


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Love it!
> 
> Batpig, what do you make of the chart I referred to earlier? Tech writer glitch or significant? Or confirmation of your aforementioned layout flexibility hypothesis?


That is always one of the meatiest charts in any Denon manual -- the relationship between surround mode and what speakers make noise.

That chart to me supports my assertion above that the layouts options are far more flexible. Note that ANY of the potential speaker outputs are potentially active with Dolby Atmos surround mode, and the note indicates the output channels (for double circles) are set according to the Speaker Config settings I was discussing above. 

So, in other words, I beleive you could have (for example) an 11ch setup with Front Wides and two Atmos top speakers and all 11 speaker would make noise in Dolby Atmos surround mode.

Also note that "Dolby Surround" can scale to any speaker option EXCEPT Front Wides. This supports the idea that it's sort of an extension of PLII since no Dolby upmix previously supported Front Wides (just PLIIx for back surrounds or PLIIz for front heights).


----------



## batpig

J_P_A said:


> I wonder what the upper limit on the number of channels that is reasonable in a home theater is? At some point it makes more sense to have an external decoder that is expandable rather than a single AVR doing all the work.


I think like anything this is going to depend on the specifics of your room and budget. "Reasonable" means a lot of things to a lot of people. If you have a fairly basic, medium sized living room setup a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup will probably be awesome and perfectly reasonable. If you have a high end dedicated home theater in a huge room with plenty of spending money, a fancy 32ch processor and a 15 speaker layout (9.1.6) might be "reasonable". 

What we know is that for the current gen of AVR's, 11 channels is the max.


----------



## steven13

I read in an "Auro 3D-FAQ" (http://www.grobi-shop.tv/seiten/Auro3D_FAQ.pdf) that we will soon see an Auro 3D capable Receiver from Denon (and Marantz and some others). This statement is obviousely from the owner/inventor of the Auro system. So wht Denon could that be? And what about DTS UHD?


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro? Really?


Unlike Dolby, Auro-3D has released there own AVR. However, Atmos is still the best for home use.


----------



## NorthSky

Remember this: @ the movie theaters we are always (most of the time) sitting in different chairs, and within that confinement we don't move much, only slightly up and down mainly, and sometimes few inches to the left and to the right. And we are surrounded by many other human bodies.

@ home it varies quite a lot depending of our home theater rooms and living rooms. 
Some in their main dedicated theater chair, and treated room (best), others in their couch laying down one side and the other, in their living rooms, untreated acoustically. ...And all the rest in between.

No two Dolby Atmos systems are for two Dolby Atmos people having different rooms in size, in acoustic, in overall space with furniture, in fifferent audio gear and speakers, with different set of ears, and add anything and everything else that you can find 'parametrically' (other various parameters of importance and relate to sound reproduction and propagation). 

And I'm not talking about head transfer per se here. ...But almost everything else that we know so far and don't.
--> There is a lot more still to discover about sound. ...And not just about sound manipulation (processing). ...And loudspeaker designs, drivers, crossovers, electrical properties, dispersion, etc., etc., etc.

______________

Dolby Atmos seems (I did not experienced it yet) to be a great right step into an elevated direction, and so far, with Roger's and Keith's and few other members' feedback here @ AVS, I want in. ...Right in that good spot where heightened sound is improving the experience to a new, interesting, pleasant, satisfying, higher level. ...Abso!utely. ...Beam me up Scotty.


----------



## batpig

Patrick Collins said:


> Third, to implement, the EDB would have to be outputting an already decoded Atmos signal in PCM over HDMI to your AVR as atleast 9.1 separate channels. Hmm.
> Or the EDB sends the standard bed channels (5.1,7.1,9.1) to the AVR and the decoded Atmos channels out from the built in DAC to your separate power amp.


That's exactly what I mean by added complexity. Most (all?) of the current HDMI receivers can't support more than 7.1 (8 channels) of uncompressed PCM input. So any extra speakers (Atmos tops) would have to run via a separate path to a separate amplifier. So you are going to have to worry about matching levels and delays for these extra speakers that bypass the main AVR. 

At that point, again, why not just sell the receiver and buy an Atmos enabled model and call it a day? How much money could you possibly save going the EDB route vs sell-and-upgrade? And then factor in all the connectivity complexity.... just doesn't seem worth it to me.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> *Not* that ANY of the potential speaker outputs are potentially active with Dolby Atmos surround mode . . .


I believe you meant to write "note" vice "not." Correct?


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> The future theaters will be spheres, and the sound coming from everywhere; @ 360 degrees, horizontally, vertically, above and below.
> 
> We are sensitive to sound from all around.
> 
> And we won't need 66 speakers @ home, but only 6 (3D rectangle) . ...And 2 subs. ...Through intelligent DSP manipulation we'll be transported anywhere, in any type of environment, space and illusion. ...And all in a realistic way as we know it.


Actually, your comment about "sphere theaters" is more of a reality than you think it is. A rectangular room has been what has worked for a century and a half. The envelope is being pushed for future theater design and rendering, and the whole ideal, is as close to a 100 percent feeling of being in the movie as technology will allow.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Not so fast. I am running the manual through my Denon-to-English translator and I'm not convinced it won't support 11ch Atmos layouts that aren't the traditional 7.1.4.
> 
> From what I can tell, setting Amp Assign mode to "Dolby Atmos" locks you into the traditional layouts. See pg 219 for sub-setting when assign mode is set to "Dolby Atmos". You select between 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and 7.1.4.
> 
> HOWEVER.... look at the sub-setting options for other assign modes (starting on pg 208). They include "Height Speakers" and "Height Layout" settings allowing you to select the layout of the extra speakers. One of the "Height Speakers" settings is "Using Dolby Speakers" which is used to tell the receiver you are using upward-firing Dolby enabled speakers. This implies that Atmos processing WILL be available even if assign mode is NOT set to "Dobly Atmos".
> 
> On the right side of pg 208 the options for "4 Height Speakers" include a MIX of "height" and "top" speakers, e.g. Top Front + Rear Height. So this implies Atmos processing won't be limited to the traditonal "top" locations.
> 
> Then check out pg 209. When "Height Speakers" setting is set to "Using Dolby Speakers" YOU CAN MIX the Dolby enabled speakers and non Dolby enabeld speakers. For example there is a setting for "Top Front and Surround Dolby".
> 
> Then on the right of pg 209 -- you can set the output of the Wide/Height2 pre-out and choose between Front Wide and Top Rear output. Implying that you CAN run a 9.1.2 setup with wides.
> 
> My conclusion is that these Denons are a lot more flexible with respect to speaker layout than some were/are fearing. If you have a "standard" Atmos layout (i.e. 5.1 or 7.1 + top speakers) you just use the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign setting and call it a day. But if you want to use a "non standard" Atmos layout, you can get there via the 9ch or 11ch mode amp assign settings combined with the sub-settings.


Bloody hell, batpig... when I switch to Denon, you'll be in constant demand from me  Thanks for all that BTW - very impressive translation. I will need much help I think - switching from Onkyo to Denon is a task in itself, then add Atmos on top, then add the fact that I barely speak Denon (yet).... oh boy...


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> I guess that exposes a wrinkle; many have their surrounds well above ear level and will need to lower their side surrounds for optimal Atmos reproduction.





markus767 said:


> Will be interesting to hear what Dolby has to say about that.


Just raise the floor.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe you meant to write "note" vice "not." Correct?


Yeah, good catch


----------



## PoshFrosh

chi_guy50 said:


> From page 210 of the (European) manual:
> 
> _"When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, *a maximum 11.1-channel audio *can
> be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back. Furthermore,
> when two sets of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
> be output when Audyssey DSX® or Neo:X are played back in addition to when
> Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back."_


Yes, this is very interesting. I've been pouring over the X5200W European manual (found here) this morning intently. It is even more complicated than my 4311 manual.
I have come to the following conclusions, which I thought might be helpful to mention here, since they were not at first obvious to me.

First some background info:

What we have been calling *"upmixed ATOMS" is labelled* in the manual as *"Dolby Surround"* (looks like PLIIz is indeed gone). This *will upmix to any number of speakers except front wides* (see table on page 287)
ATMOS (or Dolby Surround upmixed) "height" speakers can be any of the overhead speakers: front height and top middle, front height and top rear, front right and rear height, top front and top rear (default), top front and rear height, top middle and rear height, or one of these pairs alone for x.x.2 configurations (see page 208) *Previously it was assumed* (I think) *that you could not use front heights* or rear heights. Additionally, it was assumed that if you used only two they would be top-centers. But all of this appears to not be true (again page 208)
One can indeed *hook up 13 speakers* (see page 43) and switch between different configurations of *up to 11 at a time* but only when using ATMOS (you need two outboard amps to switch between ATMOS and Neo:X/DSX... see page 210)

Now, onto the thing it took me a while to discover:

With the 5200's 9 amps alone (see page 42) one can achieve a maximum of 9.2 surround using:


Neo:X or DSX using a *standard 7.2 setup* plus front heights *or* front wides
Dolby ATMOS content using a standard 7.2 setup plus any combination of additional speakers: front heights or *front wides* or top fronts or top rears or rear heights
Dolby Surround (what we have been referring to as "ATMOS" upmixing) using a standard 7.2 setup plus any pair of height speakers *BUT NOT front wides*(see table on page 287)

With *one* outboard amp (i.e. one set of height speakers hooked to pre-outs) a maximum of 11.2 can be achieved only via:


Dolby ATMOS content using standard 7.2 plus and two of the following: front heights or *front wides* or top fronts or top rears or rear heights
Dolby Surround (what we have been referring to as "ATMOS" upmixing) using standard 7.2 plus any combination of speakers *BUT NOT front wides* (see table on page 287)
 *BUT NOT* via Neo:X/DSX (not with the full 11.2 anyway)

With *two* outboard amps (i.e. two sets of height speakers hooked to pre-outs) and thirteen speakers, a maximum of 11.2 can be achieved using:

11.2 Neo:X or DSX using 7.2 plus front heights and front wides
Dolby ATMOS content using standard 7.2 plus two additional pairs of speakers: any combination of front heights / *front wides* / top fronts / top rears / rear heights
Dolby Surround (what we have been referring to as "ATMOS" upmixing) using standard 7.2 plus any combination of two sets of height speakers *BUT NOT front wides*(see table on page 287)

So, in short, not only do we not get 9.2.4 but also we will need *two outboard stereo amplifiers* in order to have full access to 11.2 *and also* 7.2.4 (I find this to be a very strange limitation)
Also, even with all this, wides still cannot be used with "ATMOS upmixing"
In addition, in order to get full access to 11.2 and 7.2.4, it seems one set of you height speakers must be front heights (in order to access 11.2 Neo:X and DSX)

*tl;dr version:* So in order to have full access to 11.2 (DSX&Neo:X) and 7.2.4 (ATMOS&DolbySurround["ATMOS" upmixing]) you will have to do the following:

have 13 speakers (see page 43)
have 2 outboard stereo amps (see page 210)
one pair of height speakers must be front heights (see page 287) [this is for Neo:X/DSX 11.2] (the setting for this is discussed on page 208)
must have front wide speakers [again, this is for Neo:X/DSX 11.2] (see page 287)
must have "Wide/Height2" setting set to "Front Wide" (this using the internal amp to power the front wide speakers and is the default setting) see pages 210 and 209
must have "Height Speakers" setting set to "4 Height Speakers" (see pages 210 and 208)
The manual makes it appear that DSX strictly requires a more than 2 channel source, see page 293 and 174 (although on my 4311 I can using stereo + DPLIIz + DSX, so not sure about this) 

Given all of this, I (and I suspect others) may just opt for choosing only between the following (requiring only one outboard amp):

7.2.4 ATMOS & upmixing (with four overhead speakers: top fronts, top rears) {which I figure I would use most of the time}
9.2 Neo:X (or DSX) using standard 7.2 layout plus wides {and hopefully in the future use these wides when a receiver capable of 9.2.4 is released}

Sorry for this long post, but this is as clearly and concisely as I can state it. Please suggest corrections if you think you see anything wrong. Discuss.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Markus, in real life, when a jet plane is directly above your head, you can feel it all around.
> The real location is 180 degree straight above you, but the sound is coming from all over, enveloping you, surrounding you from all over your body, and depending of the distance (jet plane in the sky) that sensation will vary in its intensity, more pronounced the closer it is. ...Roughly between 2,000 and 5,000 feet above.
> 
> And this is outside in the sky with mountains, trees, fields, or buildings and skyscrapers and streets surrounding you. ...In real life.
> 
> Where I live, everyday there are few big jet planes flying exactly above my head, while outside sitting on my front lawn, reading a book, playing with the dogs, watering my plants and flowers, etc.
> Plus, there is a small private airport for people into the sport, the hobby, ,,, and every day (pretty much) there is a small plane flying making several passes right straight above my head, and roughly between 100 and 600 feet up. And that private airport is only few hundred feet (600-800) from where my roof is.
> 
> I am in touch with my surrounding sounds in real life. Also I live near a bird sanctuary, and my place is packed with birds of all species; from bald eagles flying right above my head (30-100) feet which I can hear the wind through their wings, to howls howling, to hummingbirds humming, to crows, to etc., etc., etc.
> 
> * Thunderstorms, ground tremors, we have them where I live. Rain, downpour, winds, violent winds on the island where I live. We are surrounded 360 degrees (foot steps, tractors wheels, toilet flushing, ...) by day-to-day sounds from all directions and all with specific locations, and we can hear them, we can localize them, everywhere.


Man what are you smoking


----------



## zoetmb

Tnedator said:


> Ok, I'm going to post this in the two places where I posted that maybe it was their marketing department misstating things. I just received confirmation from Integra that the front LR are bypassed.
> 
> In essence:
> 
> -It works like Audyssey and others, except that it bypasses the front left and right speakers.
> 
> -They consider this a feature, since many people choose those speakers for how they sound.
> 
> -Other room adjustment systems equalize all speakers to the same curve, which changes the sound of the main LR speakers and they think people prefer to have their LR's tone non adjusted.
> 
> -The left and right speaker will be time aligned, but not otherwise adjusted.


That's very interesting because I've always felt that one of the faults of the home A/V receiver alignment systems is that in an attempt to EQ the room, they're killing the sound of the speaker by making it flat and thereby destroying its personality and the sound that was purposely engineered into the speaker by its designers.

Another way around it might be that the alignment system would first take a close-field measurement of each speaker individually, perhaps 1 to 3 feet from the speaker. Then it would do the normal measurements. Instead of trying to make everything flat, it would EQ the room to match the close-field measurement of the speaker, but taking the normal fall-off of high frequencies over distance into account. 

Not EQing the L-R front speakers might be a big advantage to people who also use their systems for stereo music listening. I've never been a fan of Onkyo, but I might have to give this Integra a try. 

I've never really been happy with the sound my A/V receiver for music listening - I've always feared that these alignment system do more harm than good. Even in terms of phase alignment, who knows if these systems are doing a good job?


----------



## Snowmanick

A couple quick questions about Atmos and bass management for any who may know. 

Are all the new channels considered full range? If so, how likely is it that a mixer would add deep bass objects to ceiling speakers?

Second, again if full range, what would this potentially add to the peak summed bass response sent to subs? I remember the theoretical max summed response for a 7.x system with all speakers bass managed could be something like 121 or 123. If we are talking about crazy set-ups like the DataSat, what kind if figures would we be looking at?


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> No. Atmos is standard 7.1 with top surrounds.


What do you think the elevations are for the fronts and regular surrounds?

I guess perhaps the channel beds are defined only in azimuth, and only objects can be located in all three axes.


----------



## Patrick Collins

batpig said:


> That's exactly what I mean by added complexity. Most (all?) of the current HDMI receivers can't support more than 7.1 (8 channels) of uncompressed PCM input. So any extra speakers (Atmos tops) would have to run via a separate path to a separate amplifier. So you are going to have to worry about matching levels and delays for these extra speakers that bypass the main AVR.
> 
> At that point, again, why not just sell the receiver and buy an Atmos enabled model and call it a day? How much money could you possibly save going the EDB route vs sell-and-upgrade? And then factor in all the connectivity complexity.... just doesn't seem worth it to me.


After having 4 Integra/Onkyo pre-pro/AVRs I would stay with the brand, BUT no XT32 in the current models and no sign of a 939 or 5030. That's a no sale. So I would have to go over to the dark side. JUST KIDDING.

As to the levels and delay, in the case of analog out to an amp you would have to have volume control built in. As to the delay, I'm still trying to understand how that's dealt with when using Atmos enabled up firing speakers. So I don't have a handle on the Atmos speaker delays.

You make good points but I wonder what Vegas would say about the odds of an EDB within a year?


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> Here is the manual page that shows "11.1 channel playback" setting with 13 speakers connected. The 13 speaker layout is 7.1 + 2 wides + four ceiling speakers, but it clearly notes that you can only play 11 at once and the output will "switch according to the input signal and sound mode".


batpig, see the long post i just made. i want your opinion of my conclusion.

as for the statement i have quoted from you right here here, it seems that in that configuration (page 43) you options would be only one of the following:

Dolby surround using 7 regular speakers plus the four overheads, or
DOLBY ATMOS mode which will include a flag denoting which 11 speakers the sound plays out of (wides or not wides)

*Doesn't that seem correct?* It seems to be the only possibility if on page 210 it states that only ATMOS and Dolby surround modes support 11.1 with one outboard amp (which is what seems to be pictured on page 43), no? Otherwise, without "wides", what would "output speakers [would be] automatically [switching] accordingly" as stated on page 43?

I'm a little confused, batpig, and I'm hoping you can clear this up a bit.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Still don't understand what you're trying to say.


Dolby Atmos (overhead) preferred speakers location; above your head, on the ceiling (flat ceiling).
Jesus Christ man!

You were talking about Auro 3D, and I was putting a different perspective with them overhead speakers, which I consider a very intelligent and solid acoustic sound directivity (object) move from Dolby's part based on their smart studies.
The ceiling is a better spot to put speakers than the front Height ones from Audyssey DSX, DTS Neo:X, Dolby Pro Logic IIz. ...In my intelligent and calculated opinion. 

Wake up Markus! 

Did you ever experience Auro 3D? ...Any type of sound manipulation on them above ear level speakers, in front, side, and rear? 
Me neither. And I would love too; who knows, maybe it is much better than Dolby Atmos?


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Yes, but "vise-grip, inside a pair of headphones, locked" are the limitations of sound reproduction as we know it and it won't change any time soon.


That's true; we are slave of our positions. 

* Audyssey tried to free us. ...And they did too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

steven13 said:


> I read in an "Auro 3D-FAQ" (http://www.grobi-shop.tv/seiten/Auro3D_FAQ.pdf) that we will soon see an Auro 3D capable Receiver from Denon (and Marantz and some others). This statement is obviously from the owner/inventor of the Auro system. So what Denon could that be? And what about DTS UHD?


I think there are complications surrounding the Barco/DTS partnership. I think DTS would want Barco to "stand down" Auro and allow DTS UHD to compete head-to-head with Atmos since they both use object based approaches. 

You probably won't see DTS-UHD until next year's models. I don't think the studios would jump on board, like some are with Atmos, with only one super-expensive Datasat processor with DTS-UHD rendering. All the majors have to support it.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> That is always one of the meatiest charts in any Denon manual -- the relationship between surround mode and what speakers make noise.
> 
> That chart to me supports my assertion above that the layouts options are far more flexible. Note that ANY of the potential speaker outputs are potentially active with Dolby Atmos surround mode, and the note indicates the output channels (for double circles) are set according to the Speaker Config settings I was discussing above.
> 
> So, in other words, I beleive you could have (for example) an 11ch setup with Front Wides and two Atmos top speakers and all 11 speaker would make noise in Dolby Atmos surround mode.
> 
> Also note that "Dolby Surround" can scale to any speaker option EXCEPT Front Wides. This supports the idea that it's sort of an extension of PLII since no Dolby upmix previously supported Front Wides (just PLIIx for back surrounds or PLIIz for front heights).


Do you write them instruction manuals for Denon?


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Dolby Atmos (overhead) preferred speakers location; above your head, on the ceiling (flat ceiling).
> Jesus Christ man!
> 
> You were talking about Auro 3D, and I was putting a different perspective with them overhead speakers, which I consider a very intelligent and solid acoustic sound directivity (object) move from Dolby's part based on their smart studies.
> The ceiling is a better spot to put speakers than the front Height ones from Audyssey DSX, DTS Neo:X, Dolby Pro Logic IIz. ...In my intelligent and calculated opinion.
> 
> Wake up Markus!
> 
> Did you ever experience Auro 3D? ...Any type of sound manipulation on them above ear level speakers, in front, side, and rear?
> Me neither. And I would love too; who knows, maybe it is much better than Dolby Atmos?


Auro also has top surrounds. If you want to place sounds there then top surrounds are mandatory. My point was that Atmos doesn't specify mandatory speakers in locations where the most benefit in terms of spaciousness (i.e. realism) can be had.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Man what are you smoking


That's between me and someone else.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> That's true; we are slave of our positions.
> 
> * Audyssey tried to free us. ...And they did too.


Not really. Current multichannel implementations are single seat solutions. Spatial fidelty quickly degrades outside the sweet spot. Atmos with lots of speakers will be better.


----------



## mogorf

Snowmanick said:


> A couple quick questions about Atmos and bass management for any who may know.
> 
> Are all the new channels considered full range? If so, how likely is it that a mixer would add deep bass objects to ceiling speakers?
> 
> Second, again if full range, what would this potentially add to the peak summed bass response sent to subs? I remember the theoretical max summed response for a 7.x system with all speakers bass managed could be something like 121 or 123. If we are talking about crazy set-ups like the DataSat, what kind if figures would we be looking at?


1. As far as I u'stand even though mixers would add deep bass objects, it won't change the way we hear deep sounds, i.e. we won't be able to localize them, so an 80 Hz or so crossover should still work fine with objects. Should we hear them would mean the harmonic contents of such deep objects fall into the range where localization of our ears starts to work again.

2. No immediate reply to this Q, but I do hope the engineers took care of planning the overall gain structure of the AVRs (no clipping!). BTW, what exactly do you mean by "something like 121 or 123"? Is it SLP at the MLP expressed in dB?


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Sorry for this long post, but this is as clearly and concisely as I can state it. Please suggest corrections if you think you see anything wrong. Discuss.


Very helpful post - thanks. I won’t bother with wides on reflection. Until I have a lot of Atmos discs, I will be using upmixing (Dolby Surround) for my thousands of legacy discs and if DS can’t handle wides then they won't get much use. Maybe best to wait for Gen 2 and see what that brings before I try to squeeze in a pair of wides.


----------



## NorthSky

steven13 said:


> I read in an "Auro 3D-FAQ" (http://www.grobi-shop.tv/seiten/Auro3D_FAQ.pdf) that we will soon see an Auro 3D capable Receiver from Denon (and Marantz and some others). This statement is obviously from the owner/inventor of the Auro system. So what Denon could that be? And what about DTS UHD?


I think I'd better wait few years till Dirac shows up in our receivers, in tandem with all three; Dolby Atmos, Auro 3D, and DTS-UHD. ...I'm sure we'll see receivers with all that decoding stuff inside, plus thirteen internal amplifier channels. ...By say, 2016-17? If I buy a Dolby Atmos receiver or SSP this fall, I would probably need to replace it (upgrade) in about 2-3 years? 

Yeah, I'll wait @ least till 2015, some season ...
And meanwhile I'll keep @ it with Audyssey, remaining Atmosless till then. ...I won't cry, but I might get scared, from reading reviews of new owners. I'm already scared, from Keith's own experience.


----------



## J_P_A

batpig said:


> I think like anything this is going to depend on the specifics of your room and budget. "Reasonable" means a lot of things to a lot of people. If you have a fairly basic, medium sized living room setup a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup will probably be awesome and perfectly reasonable. If you have a high end dedicated home theater in a huge room with plenty of spending money, a fancy 32ch processor and a 15 speaker layout (9.1.6) might be "reasonable".
> 
> What we know is that for the current gen of AVR's, 11 channels is the max.


There's a pretty big cost differential between the units that support 32ch and the ones that support 11. My impressions so far is that most people are falling in-between those extremes. 11 channels is not enough, and 32 is just too many. The 32 channel processors also seem to offer a lot of functionality that isn't necessary. It feels like there should be a way to step up to 9.1.6 or maybe even 11.1.6 without that huge cost differential. Am I asking to have my cake and eat it too?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> That's between me and someone else.


LOL Just in fun....


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Auro also has top surrounds. If you want to place sounds there then top surrounds are mandatory. My point was that Atmos doesn't specify mandatory speakers in locations where the most benefit in terms of spaciousness (i.e. realism) can be had.


True; Auro has overhead speakers too. ...They simply have that additional array of speakers higher than ear level (more speakers), like Audyssey DSX Front Height speakers. ...But a center front height one too, and height sides, and height rears. ...That's a lot of speakers Markus for our living rooms (many of us). That's probably why Dolby doesn't want to irritate too much the customers at the beginning; smooth transition. 

But we can see where it's going... Our local theaters (Canadian country side) have about twelve speakers total, and we'll have eighteen in our own home theaters. We'll stay home for sure. ...And smoke weed.


----------



## batpig

PoshFrosh said:


> batpig, see the long post i just made. i want your opinion of my conclusion.
> 
> as for the statement i have quoted from you right here here, it seems that in that configuration (page 43) you options would be only one of the following:
> 
> Dolby surround using 7 regular speakers plus the four overheads, or
> DOLBY ATMOS mode which will include a flag denoting which 11 speakers the sound plays out of (wides or not wides)
> 
> *Doesn't that seem correct?* It seems to be the only possibility if on page 210 it states that only ATMOS and Dolby surround modes support 11.1 with one outboard amp (which is what seems to be pictured on page 43), no? Otherwise, without "wides", what would "output speakers [would be] automatically [switching] accordingly" as stated on page 43?
> 
> I'm a little confused, batpig, and I'm hoping you can clear this up a bit.


Young Padawan, you have come far since the days of sitting your back surrounds on the washing machine 

I'm not 100% clear yet either. Still trying to slice through the pages you noted (see my earlier post in which I attempted to decode some of it).

This is what I think is clear:

1) Dolby Surround will NOT matrix to Front Wide speakers (we both agree, clearly indicated in chart on pg 287)
2) Regardless of your layout, you can only have up to FOUR "high" speakers, but they can be virtually any combination of heights / tops / Atmos-enabled speakers

So for people running a fairly "standard" Atmos layout (no Front Wides, standard 7 speakers + 4 height/top type speakers) it's straightforward. Set Amp Assign to "Dolby Atmos" and choose your layout. Native Atmos content will play to all 11 speakers, and for any non Atmos content you turn on "Dolby Surround" and it scales up to your 11 speaker layout. 

Now, the chart on pg 287 indicates that the "legacy" surround expansion modes (DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX) support Front Height and Front Wide but NOT the "Top" or "Dolby Enabled" speakers. So, in other words (again leaving out Front Wides for now) if you want to switch between Neo:X/DSX and Dolby Surround for surround expansion of 5.1/7.1 sources, you need to designate the first pair of elevated speakers (HEIGHT1) as "Front Height" speakers. 

So, Neo:X/DSX will likely be unavailable if Amp Assign is set to "Dolby Atmos" since the elevated speakers will default to "Top" speakers. Of course there is enough placement latitude between Front Height and Top Front that a single pair of speakers would cover both purposes (legacy expansion and Atmos / Dolby Surround). But it seems clear that you CANNOT have Front Height speakers (used for Neo:X/DSX) and ALSO have four "Top" speakers (for Atmos) and switch as needed (i.e. six total elevated speakers). Four elevated speakers, max. 

No, on to Front Wide speakers. Let's take the most complex case of a full 13ch connection with 7.1 + front wides + 4 elevated speakers. I think you are absolutely correct that you would need 4 channels of external amplification to accomodate all the possibilities (which makes sense to me, because each speaker is connected to only one output). 

For example, one option would be to set "Height Speakers" to "4 Height Speakers", then set "Wide/Height2" to power the Top Rear speakers. To get 13 speakers connected as optional output you would then need to select the "Front & Front Wide" Pre-out setting. With this combo of settings, the nine internal amps will power center + four surrunds + four elevated speakers, and the four external amps will power front + front wides. Dolby Surround or Dolby Atmos mode will use the 7.1.4 speakers (wides are silent). In order to get the wides to play you would need to switch to Neo:X or DSX. Furthermore, in order to get the front wides AND the front heights playing (full 11ch Neo:X/DSX) the first two height speakers must have been designated as "Front Height" in the Height Layout menu.

(deep breath)


----------



## batpig

J_P_A said:


> There's a pretty big cost differential between the units that support 32ch and the ones that support 11. My impressions so far is that most people are falling in-between those extremes. 11 channels is not enough, and 32 is just too many. The 32 channel processors also seem to offer a lot of functionality that isn't necessary. It feels like there should be a way to step up to 9.1.6 or maybe even 11.1.6 without that huge cost differential. Am I asking to have my cake and eat it too?


Yes, it's a huge price gap. And there is no in between right now. But, honestly, I do not agree with your impression that most people want more than 11 channels. Perhaps in the uber-enthusiast, well heeled circle, but I think a lot of people would be fine with a 7.1.4 layout in a home environment. 

That said, I'm sure as we move forward some "in between" models at more reasonable price points will appear. I wouldn't be surprised to see a $5k type of processor with 13ch (7.1.6) or even 15ch (9.1.6) processing come down the pipe in a year or three.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Not really. Current multichannel implementations are single seat solutions. Spatial fidelty quickly degrades outside the sweet spot. Atmos with lots of speakers will be better.


With AccuEQ? 

...Better than Audyssey MultEQ XT32 which takes up to 8 mic measurement positioning (up to 32 with XT32 Pro)? ...From them Denon/Marantz products. 

So which one really will sound more accurate* with Dolby Atmos; Audyssey or AccuEQ or YPAO or MCACC or ...?

* Satisfyingly enveloping.


----------



## J_P_A

batpig said:


> ….. But, honestly, I do not agree with your impression that most people want more than 11 channels. Perhaps in the uber-enthusiast, well heeled circle, but I think a lot of people would be fine with a 7.1.4 layout in a home environment.
> ...


Fair enough. I made the mistake of counting all the posts asking for something in between and assuming that was all the votes. That's a rookie internet mistake on my part


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> LOL Just in fun....


I did not see any smiley. ...It's all good man.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I think I'd better wait few years till Dirac shows up in our receivers, in tandem with all three; Dolby Atmos, Auro 3D, and DTS-UHD. ...I'm sure we'll see receivers with all that decoding stuff inside, plus thirteen internal amplifier channels. ...By say, 2016-17? If I buy a Dolby Atmos receiver or SSP this fall, I would probably need to replace it (upgrade) in about 2-3 years?
> 
> Yeah, I'll wait @ least till 2015, some season ...
> And meanwhile I'll keep @ it with Audyssey, remaining Atmosless till then. ...I won't cry, but I might get scared, from reading reviews of new owners. I'm already scared, from Keith's own experience.


I was thinking the same thing, but for now without breaking the bank, I thought I would just get a tx-nr 636 for my den, I call it a den it's my little hide away room at the other end of the house. It's only a 10 feet X 15 foot room I don't need a high powered one in there. I think that a 5.2.2 would be good enough for that little room. Then I could save up for a 2nd or 3rd generation AVR down the road for my living room. That way I can play till then..... let's break this down firmware maybe September??? A couple Dolby Atmos blu-ray dics by the end of this year or the beginning of 2015 etc...etc.. so by getting the TX-NR 636 I can play without going broke... then I can choose what I really want later.


----------



## J_P_A

NorthSky said:


> I did not see any smiley, did you? ...It's all good man.


Awkward!


----------



## SOWK

Why stop at ceiling speakers, why no floor speakers aiming up? 

you could hear the lava from down inside a volcano like in lord of the rings?

I would do two floor speakers and 4 ceiling speakers 


My final setup would probably be: 
3 front L/C/R
10 wall 
4 ceiling
2 floor


----------



## Snowmanick

mogorf said:


> 2. No immediate reply to this Q, but I do hope the engineers took care of planning the overall gain structure of the AVRs (no clipping!). BTW, what exactly do you mean by "something like 121 or 123"? Is it SLP at the MLP expressed in dB?


Yes. I meant SPL in db at the the MLP.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> I think everyone is hoping that Oppo add some form of Atmos decoding to one of their Bluray players. They have the reputation for innovation...


But how would you get all those decoded channels into an AVR? Can't do it PCM via HDMI without an as-yet non-existent new AVR. It would have to be analog out to the AVR's multichannel inputs (which are rare, and AFAIK never more than 8 channels -- never needed more than 8 before now).

Related to this, I have been pondering how one might implement an outboard room EQ solution on an Atmos setup, if one did not want to use the EQ facilities in his AVR. Dirac Live, for example. The issue of getting all those channels out of a player, through a digital EQ, and to the amplifiers is tricky. The only way I can think of to do so would be to place a (again, non-existent) box with sufficient input and output channels between the AVR and external amps. This would of course require another A/D -> D/A conversion, which is probably not ideal.
.
What would be awesome is if Oppo developed a basic multichannel preamp with silver disc spinner built in and with room EQ (Dirac Live perhaps). Again, something basic like the Emotiva UMC-200 or Outlaw Model 975, but digital-based only, with only a few inputs like they have now and plenty of pre-amp outputs for formats such as Atmos. 

IOW, just take the 103 and add more sophisticated bass management and speaker setup options, room EQ, Atmos decoding and a handful more preamp outputs. And do it for around $1k, give or take. No problem, right . . .


----------



## NorthSky

J_P_A said:


> Awkward!


I posted my take (useless) in reply to Markus. I have been made aware of it, and the embarrassment is all mine. ...Twice been made aware of it, thank you.


----------



## mogorf

Snowmanick said:


> Yes. I meant SPL in db at the the MLP.


I doubt any HT system calibrated to reference level would do 123 dB in the Bass Department even with capable array of a subwoofer army. Someone please correct me on this.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> With AccuEQ?
> 
> ...Better than Audyssey MultEQ XT32 which takes up to 8 mic measurement positioning (up to 32 with XT32 Pro)? ...From them Denon/Marantz products.
> 
> So which one really will sound more accurate* with Dolby Atmos; Audyssey or AccuEQ or YPAO or MCACC or ...?
> 
> * Satisfyingly enveloping.


Audyssey won't improve phantom imaging in any way when the listener is outside the sweet spot. No EQ will.


----------



## mogorf

SOWK said:


> Why stop at ceiling speakers, why no floor speakers aiming up?
> 
> you could hear the lava from down inside a volcano like in lord of the rings?
> 
> I would do two floor speakers and 4 ceiling speakers
> 
> 
> My final setup would probably be:
> 3 front L/C/R
> 10 wall
> 4 ceiling
> 2 floor


Don't forget, this is just the 1st generation of Dolby Atmos. Just wait and see. 

Kind regards. Marketing Department


----------



## PoshFrosh

steven13 said:


> I read in an "Auro 3D-FAQ" (http://www.grobi-shop.tv/seiten/Auro3D_FAQ.pdf) that we will soon see an Auro 3D capable Receiver from Denon (and Marantz and some others). This statement is obviousely from the owner/inventor of the Auro system. So wht Denon could that be?


If one were really optimistic, it is possible (though not likely) that Auro 3D could be introduced to the new Denons (e.g. x5200w) via the upgrade/"add-new-feature" process detailed on page 247 of the manual. Besides the simple fact that this is extremely unlikely, there is also the issue of slightly different layouts (e.g. Auro has Center Height and VOG speakers that Atmos/DolbySurround/Neo:X/DSX don't support and I don't see how they could be implemented using the current pre-outs/speaker-terminals. So, probably a future model. The 5300 mayhaps? 



kbarnes701 said:


> Very helpful post - thanks. I won’t bother with wides on reflection. Until I have a lot of Atmos discs, I will be using upmixing (Dolby Surround) for my thousands of legacy discs and if DS can’t handle wides then they won't get much use. Maybe best to wait for Gen 2 and see what that brings before I try to squeeze in a pair of wides.


Now I'm starting to get worried about this. Installing all this stuff on the ceiling is going to be no small task and with little Atmos content at the beginning early adoption may not be wise. My experience with height channels (using the Denon 4311, which incidentally does not have Neo:X) is that DSX can be pretty cool but sometimes detrimental to the point where I have to turn it off (usually with poorly mixed material). PLIIz is usually harmless, so it has been my go to set-it-and-forget-it setting because I can leave it on all the time (except for music), but on the other hand is so subtle I hardly notice a difference most of the time. Therefore,* I assume the new "Dolby Surround" will be "good" like PLIIz was, however, the effect will probably be pretty subtle because it can be difficult to tease out meaningful height information from standard soundtracks. (I would guess, because the more aggressively you apply your upmixing, the more likely you are to have a detrimental effect that would make a user turn the upmixing off. And the less agressive you are with your upmixing, the more likely the user is to say "meh", not use it, and write on the forums that it "isn't worth it"... so a catch 22).* However, I may just go for 7.2.4 with the 5200 anyway and use Dolby Surround until I get some Atmos content (as you have stated), just because I'm crazy like that... and it will be awesome once ATMOS content arrives.



batpig said:


> Young Padawan, you have come far since the days of sitting your back surrounds on the washing machine
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, on to Front Wide speakers. Let's take the most complex case of a full 13ch connection with 7.1 + front wides + 4 elevated speakers. I think you are absolutely correct that you would need 4 channels of external amplification to accomodate all the possibilities (which makes sense to me, because each speaker is connected to only one output).
> 
> For example, one option would be to set "Height Speakers" to "4 Height Speakers", then set "Wide/Height2" to power the Top Rear speakers. To get 13 speakers connected as optional output you would then need to select the "Front & Front Wide" Pre-out setting. With this combo of settings, the nine internal amps will power center + four surrunds + four elevated speakers, and the four external amps will power front + front wides. Dolby Surround or Dolby Atmos mode will use the 7.1.4 speakers (wides are silent). In order to get the wides to play you would need to switch to Neo:X or DSX. Furthermore, in order to get the front wides AND the front heights playing (full 11ch Neo:X/DSX) the first two height speakers must have been designated as "Front Height" in the Height Layout menu.
> 
> (deep breath)


Thanks batpig. I learned how to read these Denon manuals after extensive training from your tutorials and expertise. 

*The one thing I still am not clear on is this*:


On page 287, there is a double circle next to "Front Wide L/R" on the line labelled "Dolby Atmos" *which implies that under some set of circumstances, sound can come out of the Wide channels when playing native Atmos content*.

On page 43, it says "You can connect speakers for up to 13-channels for MAIN ZONE by using an external power amplifier. When you connect speakers for 12 or more channels, the output speakers automatically switch according to the input signal and sound mode."

On page 210 under the section "When “Height Speakers” is set to “4 Height Speakers” and “Wide/Height2” is set to “Front Wide”, it states that "When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back."

*My question is, under what circumstance would sound come out of the Wide speakers when playing true ATMOS content?*

*The only answer I can think of is if you have ONLY have one pair of heights and a pair of wides (i.e. 9.2.2) and you are playing native ATMOS content, it will map "object" data to the wides.* However if you have four ceiling speakers *and* wides, it will always play to the four ceiling speakers and never the wides.

Hey, this is all mega confusing, but at least we are talking about actual things from the manual instead of speculation, like before.


----------



## Scott Simonian

mogorf said:


> I doubt any HT system calibrated to reference level would do 123 dB in the Bass Department even with capable array of a subwoofer army. Someone please correct me on this.


Ummm....


----------



## NorthSky

No mater what Dolby Atmos is going to cost us. ...Me, in my own room, I can handle 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
But I don't know for how long till the higher temptation: 7.1.4
And 9.1.4 is becoming too much, but great for people with larger rooms. 

I'll stick with nine, and two subs. ...Smart for most people. And even 5.1.2 is a great jump into Atmos world.


----------



## mogorf

Scott Simonian said:


> Ummm....


Is this a correction Scott?


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Audyssey won't improve phantom imaging in any way when the listener is outside the sweet spot. No EQ will.


You told me before that you would love to have control over Pioneer's PEQ (MCACC). Could you please elaborate on that, and I know that right now it is not feasible. 

We're all over the place with this new Dolby Atmos, and with Onkyo/Integra ditching Audyssey for AccuEQ.
...And people switching ships over to Denon/Marantz. 
...And Yamaha (YPAO) also with a PEQ onboard.


----------



## batpig

PoshFrosh said:


> *My question is, under what circumstance would sound come out of the Wide speakers when playing true ATMOS content?*
> 
> *The only answer I can think of is if you have ONLY have one pair of heights and a pair of wides (i.e. 9.2.2) and you are playing native ATMOS content, it will map "object" data to the wides.* However if you have four ceiling speakers *and* wides, it will always play to the four ceiling speakers and never the wides.
> 
> Hey, this is all mega confusing, but at least we are talking about actual things from the manual instead of speculation, like before.


I would tend to agree with your conclusion. IF you have FOUR elevated speakers, they will be the ones that will make noise when you play Atmos content. With four elevated speakers indicated in the speaker config, there is no way to switch Atmos from 7.1.4 to 9.1.2 playback on the fly. You could only get 9.1.2 output (7.1+wides+tops) if only TWO elevated speakers (HEIGHT1) are present in the config.

I'm still unclear as to a question Sanjay posed about a 7.1.4 setup with Front Wides instead of Surr.Backs. I think, theoretically, it could be possible. There is no special setting for this mode but if the speaker config is set right I wonder if it would work.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> You told me before that you would love to have control over Pioneer's PEQ (MCACC). Could you please elaborate on that, and I know that right now it is not feasible.
> 
> We're all over the place with this new Dolby Atmos, and with Onkyo/Integra ditching Audyssey for AccuEQ.
> ...And people switching ships over to Denon/Marantz.
> ...And Yamaha (YPAO) also with a PEQ onboard.


From documents provided by Chris Walker it seems that Pioneer has implemented a multichannel convolution engine in their AVRs. I've said I would like to be able to load my own FIR filters into such an AVR. FIR filters are different from PEQ filters although a FIR filter can be made to work exactly the same as a PEQ filter (but not the other way around).


----------



## 3ll3d00d

markus767 said:


> From documents provided by Chris Walker it seems that Pioneer has implemented a multichannel convolution engine in their AVRs. I've said I would like to be able to load my own FIR filters into such an AVR. FIR filters are different from PEQ filters although a FIR filter can be made to work exactly the same as a PEQ filter (but not the other way around).


It would be great if a (hdcp etc) licenced product offered that sort of flexibility. Consumer electronics products don't seem to have that much horsepower though, was there any indication of the processing power it has available?


----------



## Snowmanick

mogorf said:


> I doubt any HT system calibrated to reference level would do 123 dB in the Bass Department even with capable array of a subwoofer army. Someone please correct me on this.


I was referring to the theoretical max for summed speakers in a bass managed system. Whether this ever happens or not is beside my point. 

This sums up what I was referring to.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1402484-subwoofer-spl-requirement-reference-117-34db-123-45db.html

This is more if a technical curiousity for me as, well I'm a bit of a bass head in training (only running dual commercial subs ATM and haven't done a DIY in years) and geek out in this. Thanks for responding though.


----------



## CinemaAndy

batpig said:


> Here is the manual page that shows "11.1 channel playback" setting with 13 speakers connected. The 13 speaker layout is 7.1 + 2 wides + four ceiling speakers, but it clearly notes that you can only play 11 at once and the output will "switch according to the input signal and sound mode".





batpig said:


> Here is the manual page that shows "11.1 channel playback" setting with 13 speakers connected. The 13 speaker layout is 7.1 + 2 wides + four ceiling speakers, but it clearly notes that you can only play 11 at once and the output will "switch according to the input signal and sound mode".


The other two speakers would be used for a zone, aka in your bedroom playing another source. 11.1 is top's for Atmos on this receiver.

I wasn't told this, but i do suspect the limit on speakers is the internal amp on a CE AVR. Then again a 7.1.4 is a theoretically correct number that is used in commercial theaters. What gets all fuzzed up when it come's to the commercial side, is that the audio processor is processing pure audio, it is not taxed with HDCP, up scaling, down scaling, it process pure audio in either digital or analog form. It further processes the audio so you can again, theoretically, end up with 64 discrete channels, if the master has been encoded that way. There the speaker's can become "what you can afford" and up to 64 channels, or "objects". All commercial theaters are wired for what is termed as "Home Run" wiring for the speakers. However in certain large, or what i call "Huge Azz place's" Daisy chaining speakers, a maximum of two per home run, for the surrounds, can be done without distortion, and both speakers essentially submit the same sounds to cover a larger area. To do this, much planning and preparation has to be done, as well the amp for that channel has to be sized for the additional speaker load.

So, theoretically, this is were the cost starts to drastically increase, by using the pre-amp out's of the AVR you could have say, a 7.1.8 or any combination for a large room. Yes daisy chaining speakers is a hot topic, it can be done without loss of audio quality. But no, this is not a cheap way to do it by any means. With the processing required by a AVR, speaker out's has always been limited by design.


----------



## markus767

3ll3d00d said:


> It would be great if a (hdcp etc) licenced product offered that sort of flexibility. Consumer electronics products don't seem to have that much horsepower though, was there any indication of the processing power it has available?


The document didn't go into too much details. I asked him specifically about filter taps but never got an answer.


----------



## batpig

CinemaAndy said:


> The other two speakers would be used for a zone, aka in your bedroom playing another source. 11.1 is top's for Atmos on this receiver.



No. The page I referenced in the manual has nothing to do with other zones. Did you look at the image? It clearly shows 13 speakers hooked up in the MAIN ZONE -- standard 7ch + front wides + 4 in-ceiling speakers. See the posts above in which we are theorizing about how it would actually be hooked up and what you could potentially switch between in use.

Everyone agrees that they can't do more than 11 channels of OUTPUT simultaneously ... but the max number of channels output doesn't necessarily correlate to the max number of speakers that can be hooked up (and then switched depending on surround mode). For example a stock Denon AVR-X4000 has 7 amps built in, but you can hook up a full 11ch DSX/Neo:X layout with wides and heights and surround backs and then switch between various 5.1+2 (either surr.backs, front wides, or front heights) modes on the fly by selecting different surround modes.

Once you had nine (let alone 11 or 13) speakers hooked up in main zone you wouldn't have any internal amps left for other zones, so they would have to be fed via Zone 2/3 pre-out to external amps. So, again, other zones are not relevant to what was being discussed.


----------



## Selden Ball

CinemaAndy,

Sorry, I know almost nothing about the audio systems in commercial cinemas.

Am I correct that the amps are located at or very close to the speakers?

Don't some cinemas use "Dolby Connect" for their speaker systems? I have the (perhaps mistaken) impression that it's a networking solution, perhaps based on ethernet. Is that a "home run" system, too?


----------



## mogorf

Snowmanick said:


> I was referring to the theoretical max for summed speakers in a bass managed system. Whether this ever happens or not is beside my point.
> 
> This sums up what I was referring to.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...-requirement-reference-117-34db-123-45db.html
> 
> This is more if a technical curiousity for me as, well I'm a bit of a bass head in training (only running dual commercial subs ATM and haven't done a DIY in years) and geek out in this. Thanks for responding though.


Not at all. Although I think the topic became a bit OT in the Atmos thread. Apologies to all.


----------



## CinemaAndy

PoshFrosh said:


> If one were really optimistic, it is possible (though not likely) that Auro 3D could be introduced to the new Denons...
> 
> Auro has developed there own AVR, they will not be launching on other brand AVR's for the foreseeable future. There Auriga AVR will be ultra-high end priced. You can read about it here,
> http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/auriga
> 
> There words,
> "the Auriga™ combines in a single unit the best technologies in an elegant form designed for the discerning eye of the luxury residential customer."
> 
> Now back to the thread title, The Official Dolby Atmos Thread(home theater version).


----------



## Cam Man

batpig said:


> I think like anything this is going to depend on the specifics of your room and budget. "Reasonable" means a lot of things to a lot of people. If you have a fairly basic, medium sized living room setup a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup will probably be awesome and perfectly reasonable. If you have a high end dedicated home theater in a huge room with plenty of spending money, a fancy 32ch processor and a 15 speaker layout (9.1.6) might be "reasonable".
> 
> What we know is that for the current gen of AVR's, 11 channels is the max.


I have stuck to separates for a while now, but this appears to show the potential benefit of running both; an AVR plus a multichannel separate amp to power the additional four (for now) top channels. I think Emotiva is going to be getting more business thanks to Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> You could only get 9.1.2 output (7.1+wides+tops) if only TWO elevated speakers (HEIGHT1) are present in the config.


That's how I read it, and I find this very encouraging. Going back to your earlier observation that the X5200 appears to allow much more layout flexibility than we may have initially presumed, it seems I would be able to plug the X5200 into my conventional 11.1 speaker configuration and benefit from the Atmos codec (7.1 + FW + FH) without having to install new ceiling speakers (default 11.1ch Amp Assign mode, p. 208). Granted, it won't be the full .4 Atmos experience, but it might suit me well enough--or else whet my appetite for the full Monty. And I get to keep my wides! Pls feel free to correct me if I'm reading this wrong.

As you say, it still isn't clear whether--if I go ahead and install four ceiling speakers--I could then use my wides in lieu of surround backs.

Still waiting to see the manual for the U.S. model--which I assume will be *much *more feature-rich.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

CinemaAndy said:


> Auro has developed there own AVR, they will not be launching on other brand AVR's for the foreseeable future. There Auriga AVR will be ultra-high end priced. You can read about it here,
> http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/auriga
> 
> There words,
> "the Auriga™ combines in a single unit the best technologies in an elegant form designed for the discerning eye of the luxury residential customer."


FWIW that's made by storm - http://www.stormaudio.com/en/products/auro-3d-integrated-surround-sound-processor/ - as a combination of their SSP & hypex based amps


----------



## CinemaAndy

batpig said:


> No. The page I referenced in the manual has nothing to do with other zones. Did you look at the image?
> 
> No i looked at the manual. 2 channels for zone(d) use.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> That's how I read it, and I find this very encouraging. Going back to your earlier observation that the X5200 appears to allow much more layout flexibility than we may have initially presumed, it seems I would be able to plug the X5200 into my conventional 11.1 speaker configuration and benefit from the Atmos codec (7.1 + FW + FH) without having to install new ceiling speakers (default 11.1ch Amp Assign mode, p. 208). Granted, it won't be the full .4 Atmos experience, but it might suit me well enough--or else whet my appetite for the full Monty. And I get to keep my wides! Pls feel free to correct me if I'm reading this wrong.
> 
> As you say, it still isn't clear whether--if I go ahead and install four ceiling speakers--I could then use my wides in lieu of surround backs.
> 
> Still waiting to see the manual for the U.S. model--which I assume will be *much *more feature-rich.


Yeah, that's how I'm reading it. Set Amp Assign to 11ch mode and designate the first (HEIGHT1) output as Front Height and the second (HEIGHT2/Wide) output as Front Wide. Then you can still use DSX or Neo:X, and also hear Atmos "mapped" to this "nonstandard" layout if available on the incoming bitstream. If you enabled "Dolby Surround" upmixing the Front Wides would be silent in this config.

If you wanted to switch between your current 11ch config and the 7.1.4 Atmos config, you could theoretically go it with the addition of only TWO ceiling speakers (designated as either Top Middle or Top Rear). That would maintain the current layout for Neo:X/DSX, and when in Atmos or Dolby Surround modes the wides would be silent and the four "top" speakers would be Front Height + Top Middle/Rear.


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> No. The page I referenced in the manual has nothing to do with other zones. Did you look at the image?





CinemaAndy said:


> No i looked at the manual. 2 channels for zone(d) use.



Can you please provide a page reference for what you think you are looking at? Because I am referring to the page I clipped, which is pg 43 of the manual, showing an 11.1 ch playback setup with 13 speakes connected in the MAIN ZONE and has absolutely nothing to do with any other zones.

If you are talking about something else, that's cool, but that's not what we are talking about.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> In fact, if you read the review I posted, one of the most impressive aspects of the Atmos demo, for me, was the sheer scale and spaciousness of the cave the action was set in.


I'm sure it was good. Question is, can it be better? 

The inventor of Auro thinks that height speakers aren't as effective above 20-30 degrees elevation because our ability to hear height cues starts diminishing above that. Atmos goes for almost double that elevation in order to have meaningful separation between the surrounds and heights. 

There's a legitimate discussion to be had regarding which locations work better for height, irrespective of content.


----------



## CinemaAndy

3ll3d00d said:


> FWIW that's made by storm - http://www.stormaudio.com/en/products/auro-3d-integrated-surround-sound-processor/ - as a combination of their SSP & hypex based amps


About Auro Technologies
Auro Technologies (www.Auro-3D.com; www.auro-technologies.com) is a spin-off of the Galaxy Studios Group and owner of the Auro-3D® Technology Suite. The Auro-3D® Concept and Listening Formats are designed by Wilfried Van Baelen, founder and CEO of Galaxy Studios and Auro Technologies. Galaxy Studios is renowned worldwide for its state-of-the-art leadership in audio innovation for music and sound for film. The Auro-3D® suite offers groundbreaking, easy-to-use and unprecedented levels of sound reproduction capabilities to the professional, automotive, broadcast and consumer electronics (such as gaming, smartphones, multimedia PC, notebooks, tablets, audio players, digital TV, media libraries and packaged media) markets.

We are addressing Residential markets such as Home Residences, luxury Hotels and Yachting, through products especially designed for high profile System Integrators.
Our offer include solutions for Home Theater, Multi-room Audio distribution, available through a worldwide distributor's network.

StormAudio is a brand of Digital Media Solution Group also involved in professional electronics for Cinemas and Studio.
Our processing and audio platform are also used in specific high profile products that we design for prestigious partners as AURO TECHNOLOGIES (AURIGA Product Line).

Call it what you want. That is a STRONG partnership that leaves little wiggle room for other brands.

Back to Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> From documents provided by Chris Walker it seems that Pioneer has implemented a multichannel convolution engine in their AVRs. I've said I would like to be able to load my own FIR filters into such an AVR. FIR filters are different from PEQ filters although a FIR filter can be made to work exactly the same as a PEQ filter (but not the other way around).


Can you do that with Dirac Live multichannel downloaded program software from your PC (Mac)?
...And in conjunction with REW for the measurements?

Thank you Markus for the precision; you corrected me in my vagueness.


----------



## Cam Man

sdurani said:


> I'm sure it was good. Question is, can it be better?
> 
> The inventor of Auro thinks that height speakers aren't as effective above 20-30 degrees elevation because our ability to hear height cues starts diminishing above that. Atmos goes for almost double that elevation in order to have meaningful separation between the surrounds and heights.
> 
> There's a legitimate discussion to be had regarding which locations work better for height, irrespective of content.


I think we are all going to be using our rooms as labs soon. I can see ladders with suspension rigs coming to test/find the nominal positions before making permanent installations. Should make for some fun photos.


----------



## sdurani

Reading posts over the last couple pages, I just want to make sure I've got the newly discovered info correct about the height speakers. 

IF you're doing a X.x.4 set-up, then you can use any 2 out of the 5 height locations: front height, front top, middle top, rear top, rear heights?


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> Reading posts over the last couple pages, I just want to make sure I've got the newly discovered info correct about the height speakers.
> IF you're doing a X.x.4 set-up, then you can use any 2 out of the 5 height locations: front height, front top, middle top, rear top, rear heights?


Page 208 of the 5200 manual seems to allow six *H1*+*H2* speaker pair combinations:

Front Height & Top Middle
Front Height & Top Rear
Front Height & Rear Height
Top Front & Top Rear (Default)
Top Front & Rear Height
Top Middle & Rear Height

_


----------



## sdurani

Cam Man said:


> I think we are all going to be using our rooms as labs soon.


Some of us already do. Minus the while lab coats, of course. Part of the fun of being in this hobby.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Markus seems to get confused a lot. In too many posts a poster will post "A" then he will either twist the meaning and/or ask the poster which answers are already clearly posted by the poster. I don't know whether it is intentional or he really is confused.
> 
> I'm truly confused by his confusion.
> 
> I read back what you wrote and nothing in your post says "binaural"


I was quite vague David in some of my posts because I wasn't taking into consideration that Aureo 3D has also overhead (ceiling speakers), @ the time. So it was natural for Markus to be confused; and my fault.
Markus is a very precise interlocutor and we better stay on our attention.

I saw my accidental delivery and which was due cause for confusion; I apologize.
I was late in seeing it, and Markus helped me @ realizing it. 

Also, it is very generous from his part to be sharing with us who are much less knowledgeable in these subjects where all his heart and true dedication are deeply invested. ...Markus is the real deal when talking about room acoustics, sound dispersion, proper bass management, phase, impulse response, sound reflections, crossovers, DRC, DSP, implementation, Audyssey (all flavors), etc. ...With correct measurements/graphs and all.

I don't smoke weed (I'm too old for this), I don't drink (I'm too young for this); now we move forward, best place to go.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

CinemaAndy said:


> Call it what you want. That is a STRONG partnership that leaves little wiggle room for other brands.
> 
> Back to Atmos.


well fwiw the storm processor range will reportedly support Atmos in Q1 2015


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I'm sure it was good. Question is, can it be better?


Hey, what happened to "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good"? 



sdurani said:


> The inventor of Auro thinks that height speakers aren't as effective above 20-30 degrees elevation because our ability to hear height cues starts diminishing above that. Atmos goes for almost double that elevation in order to have meaningful separation between the surrounds and heights.
> 
> There's a legitimate discussion to be had regarding which locations work better for height, irrespective of content.


In my opinion the issue is two-fold: we want more spaciousness (i.e. realism) and we also want precise placement of sounds (although in the past mixers claimed that discrete off-screen sounds would be a distraction). Atmos certainly covers more area around the listener but spaciousness requires speakers at distinct locations that Atmos for the home does not cover.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Reading posts over the last couple pages, I just want to make sure I've got the newly discovered info correct about the height speakers.
> 
> IF you're doing a X.x.4 set-up, then you can use any 2 out of the 5 height locations: front height, front top, middle top, rear top, rear heights?


Yes, according to pp 208-209 of the X5200 manual (screen caps attached) that is correct.

If you are in 11ch mode and set "Height Speakers" to 4, then you can choose between:

Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height

Then on pg 209 it shows that if you select "Dolby Speakers" as the Height mode, you have even more options to mix Atmos-enabled speakers and the various height locations.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> No. The page I referenced in the manual has nothing to do with other zones. Did you look at the image? *It clearly shows 13 speakers hooked up in the MAIN ZONE -- standard 7ch + front wides + 4 in-ceiling speakers*. See the posts above in which we are theorizing about how it would actually be hooked up and what you could potentially switch between in use.


But *13* is an unlucky number.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/auriga
> 
> There words,
> "the Auriga™ combines in a single unit the best technologies in an elegant form designed for the discerning eye of the luxury residential customer."
> 
> Now back to the thread title, The Official Dolby Atmos Thread(home theater version).


Andy, this almos sounds better than Dolby Atmos?

* I noticed HDMI V1.4a - no problem passing true 4K content?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Hey, what happened to "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good"?
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the issue is two-fold: we want more spaciousness (i.e. realism) and we also want precise placement of sounds (although in the past mixers claimed that discrete off-screen sounds would be a distraction). Atmos certainly covers more area around the listener but spaciousness requires speakers at distinct locations that Atmos for the home does not cover.


I would say that 24 + 10 should cover most users nicely, don't you?


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> Page 208 of the 5200 manual seems to allow six *H1*+*H2* speaker pair combinations:


Thanx. Looks like you can't use adjacent pairs (e.g., Top Front and Top Middle).


----------



## Cam Man

sdurani said:


> Some of us already do. Minus the while lab coats, of course. Part of the fun of being in this hobby.


Ha, indeed! I meant anew, in pursuit of Atmos performance.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> Thanx. Looks like you can't use adjacent pairs (e.g., Top Front and Top Middle).



Examination of the elevation angle ranges shown in the graphic on page 31 of the 5200 manual suggests that "worst case" placements of adjacent height speaker pairs (if such adjacency were allowed) could produce insufficient angular separation between the two height speaker pairs such that the (specified) _4 height speaker setup_ might deliver no better performance that a 'similar' positioning of an (only) _2 height speaker setup_...?!
_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Cam Man said:


> Ha, indeed! I meant anew, in pursuit of Atmos performance.


And then a total of five Atmos titles will end up getting released. Seriously, that's my worry. The studios don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality... so neither will they. It's cheaper that way. You spend all this money upgrading equipment and speakers and your theater room... and then the titles just trickle out. 

Some may even be sitting this round out in anticipation of DTS-UHD.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Hey, what happened to "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good"?


Wow, that one line of mine really got under your skin. I was questioning which of the two speaker placements, Auro or Atmos, was more effective for height. As for perfection, you're the only one bringing it up, feel free to debate it with yourself.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Thanx. Looks like you can't use adjacent pairs (e.g., Top Front and Top Middle).


What remains to be seen is how (if?) the rendering will change based on the layout designated.

For example, the Front Height range is 30-45 degrees elevation, whereas Top Front is 30-55 degrees. The midpoint of the former is 37.5 degrees elevation, for the latter it's 42.5 degrees. So if someone choose to use Front Height for the first pair (HEIGHT1) to preserve the option of DSX or Neo:X processing, does it assume that the pair of speakers is 5 degrees farther forward and adjust the rendering appropriately? Or does it just send the same signal regardless?


----------



## CinemaAndy

Selden Ball said:


> CinemaAndy,
> 
> Sorry, I know almost nothing about the audio systems in commercial cinemas.
> 
> Am I correct that the amps are located at or very close to the speakers?
> 
> Don't some cinemas use "Dolby Connect" for their speaker systems? I have the (perhaps mistaken) impression that it's a networking solution, perhaps based on ethernet. Is that a "home run" system, too?


I think by what you mean as far as amps located by the speakers, is what is termed 70 volt speaker's. A 24-36 volt signal is sent to the speaker, or i should say speaker drivers in the speaker array, correct term, there is a transformer on each driver that steps the 24-36 volts up to 70 volts to drive the voice coil. Most of this is concert, large venue, not very cost effective for a "average" theater. Or, you were referencing to one amp per speaker driver, and that is a correct and incorrect depending on the house(auditorium) size. "Average" is one amp per speaker driver/voice coil. Front (behind)screen array speakers come in 2-way, 3-way, 4-way, surrounds, including overheads, come in 2-way and 3-way, and 4-way in the near future.

In a average theater the amps are housed in equipment racks. Since the amps will deliver over long wire runs with little to no drop, this centralizes all the components of that theater(screen) in the projection booth, for easy trouble shooting assessment and maintenance. And as you are probably aware "home run" means the wire starts at the amp and terminates at the speaker input nut. There is a whole lot of compliance that must be adhered to, too "daisy chain" speakers. Front arrays are a no, no for daisy chaining, as are subs. Only surrounds can be daisy chained, and the limit is two, to remain in both DCI/Dolby/Auro/THX/DTS/JBL/Klipsch, etc, etc certified. Even though it will still get the owner his certificates, it is a gray area, but in use at hundreds of cinemas. The Dolby Atmos CP850 cinema audio processor can support up to 64 channels or 61.3 direct outputs.

I'm a little bit lost by what you refer to as Dolby Connect, all that comes to my mind is Dolby Secure Content Creator, and that is part of the mastering process of the DCP. The established norms for connecting projectors to video processors is BNC connections, audio processor has the normal DB-25 type connector, with balanced analog 8 channel or 16 channel digital DCI-AES connections, amps are all mostly class D with NL2(2-wire), NL4(4-wire) 4 pole twist lock output connector per channel, inputs 3-wire XLR connections, speaker wiring from 12 to 6 gauge, depending on the run and the power. Majority of the speakers are either JBL Pro's or Klipsch's , there are other brand's,but not as well used and adopted. Ethernet is used for NAS type local storage, DCP deliver from the NAS, KDM(security title/format) storage, as well as house(auditorium) automation controls, Digital cinema server/Pre-show/advertising as well as both audio and video monitors, were you you can monitor the auditorium remotely, if needed, as well as microphone for presentation's is all over ethernet, with cat5e or cat6, and for those who can afford it, direct studio connections for content delivery via ethernet, there is satellite delivery, despite groans from the studio's over piracy, however, no owner i know has expressed any interest in satellite delivery, so i can't talk about it.

Pic 1, is what is termed "projector hallway" Pic 2 Atmos/rack, pic 3, is what i prefer.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> What remains to be seen is how (if?) the rendering will change based on the layout designated.


That's a good point, especially in light of the overlap between some of the speaker placement ranges. Out of curiosity, it would be interesting to disconnect all speakers except one pair of heights and see how (if?) the sound changes as the configuration is switched to each of the 5 locations. 

BTW, considering my disappointment a month ago (almost to the day), it is a relief to see greater flexibility in first gen Atmos products than initially reported.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Dan Hitchman said:


> And then a total of five Atmos titles will end up getting released. Seriously, that's my worry. The studios don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality... so neither will they. It's cheaper that way. You spend all this money upgrading equipment and speakers and your theater room... and then the titles just trickle out.
> 
> Some may even be sitting this round out in anticipation of DTS-UHD.


Everything a studio does, is done under contract. The contract could very well have said "this will not show up on a TV."


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Andy, this almos sounds better than Dolby Atmos?
> 
> * I noticed HDMI V1.4a - no problem passing true 4K content?


That's up for debate. Actually i would want 2.0 spec HDMI. Atmos AVR's will have that on the high end units. Have you got to experience either Atmos or Auroa-3D?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> The studios don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality... so neither will they.


IF studios thought that way, then how did we consumers end up with high def video and lossless audio at home?


----------



## dragonleepenn

Check out the ceiling subs in this Atmos dubbing stage. The screen is 34'x14', the room dimensions are 59' long by 34' wide and 31' high. 





PeterV


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CinemaAndy said:


> Everything a studio does, is done under contract. The contract could very well have said "this will not show up on a TV."


What do you mean? 

All I'm getting at is that it takes extra prep time (one would assume) to get a track ready for consumer Atmos... if they think consumers don't care about 3D audio, they're not going to spend the time or the money except perhaps on really special editions. 

We need this to a widely adopted way of mixing and re-mixing movies and scripted and nature TV shows. 

The other thing that could kill object audio before it even begins is if they decide to charge a premium just like 3D releases. 

Another point is that some studios could be in a holding pattern to see what DTS has to offer. All I can say is they better move quickly.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> I was quite vague David in some of my posts because I wasn't taking into consideration that Aureo 3D has also overhead (ceiling speakers),
> 
> OK your dragging my off thread subject again,
> 
> Auro-3D has "layers of speakers" for it's 3D audio effect, Atmos utilizes "overheads" for it's 3D effect.
> 
> DTS-UHD is left out and is n active talks for using a combination Atmos/Auro-3D for it's 3D audio. And from what i hear, DTS does not have a lot of support for it.
> 
> The overhead use of speakers is "patented" to the roof by Dolby and Auro.
> 
> Pic 1, Auro-3D. Pic 2 Atmos. Pic 3 Atmos best! DTS-NEO. Atmos wins.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> IF studios thought that way, then how did we consumers end up with high def video and lossless audio at home?


Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are not formats for mixing soundtracks, they're compression codecs to pack PCM into a smaller container. Atmos and DTS-UHD and Auro3D _are_. 

These sophisticated 3D audio tracks take extra time and money to produce until such time as one or two or all three are common place as singular mastering formats.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are not formats for mixing soundtracks, they're compression codecs to pack PCM into a smaller container.


Exactly. Those codecs don't offer anything new mix-wise, just the same soundtrack that was on DVD, with the only differentiator being better sound quality. 

IF studios _"don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality",_ why did they start using those codecs for home video rather than sticking with Dolby Digital?


----------



## Patrick Collins

WEATHER REPORT INDICATES POSSIBLE RAIN ON THIS PARADE!

At one time I used to build 14'x7' control panels for multi million dollar industrial machines. My hobby has been A/V since the early sixties. So it dawned on me that if I find this newest technology confusing and complex, what does Joe Six Pack think, let alone his SO? Unfortunately we need JSP and his SO. These companies can't just rely on sales numbers from a nitch group as small as a part of the AVS Forum. That's including the fact that we might be the premier group on this planet regarding this topic.

Me thinks, this time, adopting theater technology for use in the home might have too small of an audience. While I've enjoyed leading edge and sometimes bleeding edge technology in my home, I can't say it is widely appreciated. That's based on infrequent comments from others about how good it is. The lone exception is my wife, who after all these years is finally into it, really into it.

It makes you wonder about the decision making process in some of these companies. Onkyo for example has tried to be price sensitive by adding the latest tech, Atmos while removing some already established features. If Onkyo wanted to replace my TX-NR929 with a logical replacement 939, it would probably be prohibitively expensive in that category. Lets say they added Atmos, bumped the 11 preouts to 13, maybe added two more amps, the necessary processor upgrade and a beefier power supply, without deletions, that's over two grand. That's not the top of their mid range, that's out of their mid range.

Maybe it's a marketing problem. Maybe they should revert back to putting the latest and greatest in their high end products first like they used to do, like Tesla is doing. Starting out at a commodity level this time might not cut it.

For JSP to do it right with his Onkyo TX-NR636, that's including speakers, any outboard amps, room considerations, possible wall or ceiling speaker installation, setup and source material, he might need a pro installation that he never considered but will warn his buddies about. Oh and lest we forget, software update.

I love what technology can do, but in this case it may have been bungled from the start. Unfortunately it arrived at a time when they're inundating us with 4K.

That scream you just heard was JSP asking for his iPod.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Dan Hitchman said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> All I'm getting at is that it takes extra prep time (one would assume) to get a track ready for consumer Atmos... if they think consumers don't care about 3D audio, they're not going to spend the time or the money except perhaps on really special editions.
> 
> We need this to a widely adopted way of mixing and re-mixing movies and scripted and nature TV shows.
> 
> The other thing that could kill object audio before it even begins is if they decide to charge a premium just like 3D releases.
> 
> Another point is that some studios could be in a holding pattern to see what DTS has to offer. All I can say is they better move quickly.


No, the extra prep time is included in the final budget for the production. It is set and sighed off once casting is complete. To make it easy, commercial audio and home viewing audio is decided in post production. This only changes if, after the fact, they want to switch from say Dolby to DTS for DVD/Blu-ray. This seldom happens, and as i said everything is done under contract, working outside the contract or changes to the contract cost time and money and very well may involve lawyers.

Studio management is very well aware of the revenue stream for home use. It is not a ignored market, like you claim it to be. If it was a ignored market, home videos would still be showing up on VHS. There is just as much a buzz when a movie goes from last run on screen to home viewing. The same people counting box office receipts are also counting disk sales and licenses sold to VUDU, Amazon, etc. Screen to TV has been well established and considered as secondary income. The theater is the bread and butter and box office sales are considered primary sales and are used to judge the health of the movie, namely the first 3 weeks.

Dolby and Auro entered into two year agreements with the studios that they would not offer there Atmos or Auro-3D to consumer use until after that two years expired. What you are reading about here, Atmos for the home, has been two years in the making.

Your comparison for premium charges is biased towards the fact 3D video required a 2nd or 3rd disk to be included. That adds "premium" price for the extra disk's, ads weight and increased tariff and shipping&handling charges. Price setting point for disk sales has always been what the market will bear. No one complained over the price of Blu-Ray, so they had no intention of lowering it's price.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> That's up for debate. Actually i would want 2.0 spec HDMI. Atmos AVR's will have that on the high end units. *Have you got to experience either Atmos or Auroa-3D?*


No I haven't.
Here in the Great White North we love our Oreo cake cookies (the white cream inside the sandwich) and our aurorae borealis. ...Almos equally.

Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D are not in our local IMAX 3D Theaters, that I am aware of.
California, Los Angeles, Hollywood (New York) are the central destination of new Movie technologies and moviements. ...Sound and Picture wise.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> No I haven't.
> Here in the Great White North we love our Oreo cake cookies (the white cream inside the sandwich) and our aurorae borealis. ...Almos equally.
> 
> Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D are not in our local IMAX 3D Theaters, that I am aware of.
> California, Los Angeles, Hollywood (New York) are the central destination of new Movie technologies and moviements. ...Sound and Picture wise.


I know of a few places in the Great White North that has them, what's your nearest big city?

Oh you forgot to mention fire, can't have Oreo cake cookies without a fire.

IMAX has there own audio rendering, they do not have either Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D, but they got Quested amps and speakers and 15,000 plus watts.

You do know that IMAX is a Great White North company, right? And all of Christie Digital projectors are made up there.

"aurorae borealis. ...Almos" Since you didn't copyright that, im'a gonna use it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> IF studios _"don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality",_ why did they start using those codecs for home video rather than sticking with Dolby Digital?


Lol and when everyone keeps telling me that I can't or shouldn't notice the difference (between lossy and lossless) I sorta wonder why.


----------



## David Susilo

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol and when everyone keeps telling me that I can't or shouldn't notice the difference (between lossy and lossless) I sorta wonder why.


I wonder that too. Just because I can accurately tell between lossy vs lossless audio, the same group of people who always push whatever skewed agenda they have and claim that nobody can tell the difference (this is the same group of people who claims that all amps sound the same, all DAC sound the same, all cables sound the same, streaming and blu-ray look exactly the same...the list goes on)


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> In my opinion the issue is two-fold: we want more spaciousness (i.e. realism) and we also want precise placement of sounds (although in the past mixers claimed that discrete off-screen sounds would be a distraction). Atmos certainly covers more area around the listener but spaciousness requires speakers at distinct locations that Atmos for the home does not cover.


I would be keen to have your thoughts on best locations for speakers.

Re the FIR, is there a common protocol for exporting FIR filter parameters, such as Matlab, that a general convolution engine can ingest? Or would there need to be some de-facto standard created for that? Maybe the convolution engine simply informs what it can accept? 

And it's one FIR for each output channel?


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> No, the extra prep time is included in the final budget for the production. It is set and sighed off once casting is complete. To make it easy, commercial audio and home viewing audio is decided in post production.


Seriously? 

Neither of those statements are remotely close to being accurate.


----------



## NorthSky

dragonleepenn said:


> Check out the ceiling subs in this Atmos dubbing stage. The screen is 34'x14', the room dimensions are 59' long by 34' wide and 31' high.
> 
> PeterV



Subwoofers in the ceiling too. ...Post #2040


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> And then a total of five Atmos titles will end up getting released. Seriously, that's my worry. _*The studios don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality... so neither will they.*_ It's cheaper that way. You spend all this money upgrading equipment and speakers and your theater room... and then the titles just trickle out.


Maybe you guys should wait until August 12th before you post all of this useless speculation.

The studios have been very pro-active in regards to Atmos, both "versions.."

2 more Atmos mixing stages just went online in the last four weeks.. 

We are adding 2 more early next year... 

The only reason this is happening because of our clients (i.e. the studios) demand...

It isn't cheap for us to do, so that should say something about the support we get from the studios to do so..



Dan Hitchman said:


> Some may even be sitting this round out in anticipation of DTS-UHD


Remember.... these aren't just delivery codecs like TrueHD or HD-MA..

Studios won't have a choice to release an Atmos track in DTS-UHD without a remix at this point..


----------



## FilmMixer

If I missed this, sorry..

The information is slowly coming out...

Denon and Dolby Atmos Explanation

Shows the 9.1.2 config (7.1.2 + wides)


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> I know of a few places in the Great White North that has them, what's your nearest big city?
> Oh you forgot to mention fire, can't have Oreo cake cookies without a fire.
> IMAX has there own audio rendering, they do not have either Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D, but they got Quested amps and speakers and 15,000 plus watts.
> You do know that IMAX is a Great White North company, right? And all of Christie Digital projectors are made up there.
> 
> "aurorae borealis. ...Almos" Since you didn't copyright that, im'a gonna use it.


Victoria, on Vancouver Island.

* Auro 3D - ceiling speakers (Top layer): Voice Of God.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> Auro-3D has "layers of speakers" for it's 3D audio effect, Atmos utilizes "overheads" for it's 3D effect.
> 
> DTS-UHD is left out and is n active talks for using a combination Atmos/Auro-3D for it's 3D audio. And from what i hear, DTS does not have a lot of support for it.
> 
> The overhead use of speakers is "patented" to the roof by Dolby and Auro.
> 
> Pic 1, Auro-3D. Pic 2 Atmos. Pic 3 Atmos best! *DTS-NEO*. Atmos wins.


DTS Neo:X


----------



## dragonleepenn

NorthSky said:


> Subwoofers in the ceiling too. ...Post #2040


Wonder what subs and top speakers those are...?
I like how they sorta blackout the ceiling speakers .







PeterV


----------



## FilmMixer

dragonleepenn said:


> Wonder what subs and top speakers those are...?
> I like how they sorta blackout the ceiling speakers .
> 
> PeterV


SUBS: http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/subwoofers/4642a#.U9HPjVboa2w

ATMOS SURROUNDS: http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/surround-systems/9320#.U9HP0Vboa2w

We use the same speakers...

Three subs overhead (1 over the mixers, 2 over the client credenza)


----------



## Snowmanick

mogorf said:


> Not at all. Although I think the topic became a bit OT in the Atmos thread. Apologies to all.


I don't think it's off topic. I am asking a question about how bass management works with Atmos. How is talking about how Atmos works off topic in the Atmos thead?

Again, does anyone know if all the channels in Atmos are full range (I assume they are) and if so how are tracks with 9/11/32 etc channels going to impact the max SPL with redirected bass?


----------



## FilmMixer

Snowmanick said:


> I don't think it's off topic. I am asking a question about how bass management works with Atmos. How is talking about how Atmos works off topic in the Atmos thead?
> 
> Again, does anyone know if all the channels in Atmos are full range (I assume they are) and if so how are tracks with 9/11/32 etc channels going to impact the max SPL with redirected bass?


Yes.. the beds and all objects are full range.

They have processing in the cinema workflow that prevents overloaded clipping of the sub output..

While it would seem quite easy to increase the chances of having a problem, it's fairly easy to detect any future issues during the final mix because the Atmos must be down mixed for 5.1, 7.1 and LtRt..

It's really no different that what we do know.. we clip, we reduce...


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> I wasn't told this, but i do suspect the limit on speakers is the internal amp on a CE AVR.


Andy.. I've no doubt you have cinema experience, but your posts are really misguided..

The limit on speakers is the has nothing to do with internal amps.... both Denon and Onkyo support 11 channels on the 9 amp products..



CinemaAndy said:


> Then again a 7.1.4 is a theoretically correct number that is used in commercial theaters. What gets all fuzzed up when it come's to the commercial side, is that the audio processor is processing pure audio, it is not taxed with HDCP, up scaling, down scaling, it process pure audio in either digital or analog form. It further processes the audio so you can again, theoretically, end up with 64 discrete channels, if the master has been encoded that way. There the speaker's can become "what you can afford" and up to 64 channels, or "objects".


First off, commercial Atmos supports 62 discrete channels, in addition to two sub outputs (one for the LFE mixed optionally with redirected bass, the other for auditorium redirected bass.) Not 64.

It has nothing at all to do with how the "master has been encoded..."

That's the point of using objects.. it scales to the number of available speakers, not some arbitrary restriction during encoding.

7.1.4 is not a "*theoretically correct* number that is used in *commercial* theaters."

I don't even know what that is...

Not to get personal, but I'm also a little suspicious about your post claiming you heard Apes in Atmos on a consumer AVR/pre-pro..

You won't tell us what the venue was, yet you tell us the name of the film.

And to just happen onto an invitation when you were briefly in town?

To claim they switched seamlessly to Atmos Enabled speakers in the middle of a rain sequence, which is 5 minutes into the film, with no drop out doesn't ring true.

You must change many parameters on the AVR to do so, and the Onkyo system you claim was at the screening is only 11 channels... certainly not optimal for a screening room you claim costs 3 million dollars... if it exists, it would take a bunch of engineering work to redo all of the surrounds for 7.1 + 4 ceiling speakers..

Studios don't screen current releases on MKV files for anyone, and I'm not sure Dolby wouldn't have made you sign an NDA if you were at such a "secret" screening.. and D-Cinema projectors don't play copy protected content..

If you want to elaborate, that would be appreciated.

If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance..

Something just isn't ringing true, so in addition to you having a 2 month posting history, my 24 years in the business leaves me a bit curious, and highly suspicious..


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> SUBS: http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/subwoofers/4642a#.U9HPjVboa2w
> 
> ATMOS SURROUNDS: http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/surround-systems/9320#.U9HP0Vboa2w
> 
> We use the same speakers...
> 
> Three subs overhead (1 over the mixers, 2 over the client credenza)


Wow, wouldn't use those @ home in my small living room, my rat (cute little hamster living in my ceiling) would kill me! 

Did you see the movie *'Ratatouille'*?


----------



## Snowmanick

FilmMixer said:


> Yes.. the beds and all objects are full range.
> 
> They have processing in the cinema workflow that prevents overloaded clipping of the sub output..
> 
> While it would seem quite easy to increase the chances of having a problem, it's fairly easy to detect any future issues during the final mix because the Atmos must be down mixed for 5.1, 7.1 and LtRt..
> 
> It's really no different that what we do know.. we clip, we reduce...


Excellent. Thank you.


----------



## sdurani

Snowmanick said:


> Again, does anyone know if all the channels in Atmos are full range (I assume they are) and if so how are tracks with 9/11/32 etc channels going to impact the max SPL with redirected bass?


Don't see why bass management for the consumer version of Atmos would need to be any different for 9/11/32 outputs than what we currently have for 2/5/7 outputs. Upon decoding/unpacking the bitstream to PCM, channels and objects have content below the crossover point (as well as .1/LFE content) sent to the subwoofer output. Content above the crossover point is rendered to your speaker layout.


----------



## brwsaw

Dan Hitchman said:


> The other thing that could kill object audio before it even begins is if they decide to charge a premium just like 3D releases.





CinemaAndy said:


> Your comparison for premium charges is biased towards the fact 3D video required a 2nd or 3rd disk to be included. That adds "premium" price for the extra disk's, ads weight and increased tariff and shipping&handling charges. Price setting point for disk sales has always been what the market will bear. No one complained over the price of Blu-Ray, so they had no intention of lowering it's price.



I can't see them selling enough to make it worth while, charging a big premium, especially if new AVR's will up mix to (more) Atmos/heights/ceiling speakers. The extra channels and the codec was all that was really missing.
I think its a pride thing, these guys need a way to fund their passions and their lifestyles. We're the beneficiaries and they make a good income in the mean time.
Just picked up Gravity 3D with the 2D Bluray for $20.00 (no ultra violet or DVD). I've already heard/viewed it on my system, and for $20 its an easy "Yoink".

Hopefully $20 price points will become common, boost sales and in turn overall sales margins.


----------



## Snowmanick

sdurani said:


> Don't see why bass management for the consumer version of Atmos would need to be any different for 9/11/32 outputs than what we currently have for 2/5/7 outputs. Upon decoding/unpacking the bitstream to PCM, channels and objects have content below the crossover point (as well as .1/LFE content) sent to the subwoofer output. Content above the crossover point is rendered to your speaker layout.


I'm not referring to how a crossover or bass management works. I am referring to max potential SPL from redirected bass to the subwoofer and the potential for overload clipping. 

In a 7.1 set up, while the 115db at the MLP spec is oft refereed to as "Reference" for 0db with the sub, with the redirected bass from the 7 speakers the sub, if given a full-tilt signal where all speakers and sub are given a simultaneous, in-phase signal, potentially is looking at 123db due to the summed response (see my previous post with a link to a thread that discusses this more fully, along with the math. Posting from a phone so cribbing others work is much easier). As the number of speakers in this scenario increases, so does the summed response. So 32 channels would have a greater amount of redirected bass theoretically than 2/5/7. This creates (at least in my mind) the possibility for clipping and other issues. Hence why I asked. FilmMixer gave a tidy answer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> The studios have been very pro-active in regards to Atmos, both "versions.."
> 
> 2 more Atmos mixing stages just went online in the last four weeks..
> 
> We are adding 2 more early next year...
> 
> The only reason this is happening because of our clients (i.e. the studios) demand...
> 
> It isn't cheap for us to do, so that should say something about the support we get from the studios to do so...



Speaking of studio support, is Sony going to get on board the object surround train, I wonder? It doesn't look like they've been as proactive in that regard as some of the other studios, unless they're ramping up for future releases. Heck, even many of their Blu-ray tracks are still 16 bit. Hard to believe they're the same studio that is really going gangbusters over 4k.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> SUBS: http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/subwoofers/4642a#.U9HPjVboa2w
> 
> ATMOS SURROUNDS: http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/surround-systems/9320#.U9HP0Vboa2w
> 
> We use the same speakers...
> 
> Three subs overhead (*1 over the mixers*, 2 over the client credenza)


Hope those subs are secured really, really well. Yikes!


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Three subs overhead (1 over the mixers, 2 over the client credenza)


Are all 3 subs playing the same signal? Or are the L/R subs bass managed to the nearer surrounds? Would it matter either way?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Speaking of studio support, is Sony going to get on board the object surround train, I wonder? It doesn't look like they've been as proactive in that regard as some of the other studios, unless they're ramping up for future releases. Heck, even many of their Blu-ray tracks are still 16 bit. Hard to believe they're the same studio that is really going gangbusters over 4k.


Culver City has Atmos/Auro speaker capability. And I am pretty sure also Atmos production tools.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> To claim they switched seamlessly to Atmos Enabled speakers in the middle of a rain sequence, which is 5 minutes into the film, with no drop out doesn't ring true.


Dunno about all the other stuff, but if there were 2 AVRs, they could feed them the same signal, set one for the ceiling speakers and the other for the upfiring speakers, then switch between the 2 sets of 4 height speakers. Instantaneous.


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Neither of those statements are remotely close to being accurate.


That's the way Universal worked. Don't know about about the rest.


----------



## sdurani

Snowmanick said:


> As the number of speakers in this scenario increases, so does the summed response.


That might be true in a commercial theatre, where one bed channel is sent to lots of speakers (level will vary by number of speakers reproducing the same sound). But for home video, there will be 5 or 7 bed channels, with each one only going to a single speaker. Keeping bass from that many channels from clipping is already done in current gear. 

The variable will be the max number of objects, not speakers. One object being panned through 20 speakers won't be louder than the same object panned through 7 speakers. But with each object that is added, more filtered bass ends up at the subwoofer output (irrespective of number of speakers). 

As consumer audio went from 2.0 channels (during the Pro Logic era) to 5.1 channels to today's 7.1 channels, bass management compensated by padding down the subwoofer output. That will continue to happen as the number of discrete sources (objects) increases. Nothing new, just a continuation of what was already happening.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Victoria, on Vancouver Island.
> 
> * Auro 3D - ceiling speakers (Top layer): Voice Of God.


Grande Strawberry Hill 12 Atmos
12161 72 Ave
Surrey BC V3W 2M1


Landmark Grand 10 Cinemas Aur0-3D
948 mcCurdy Road
West Kelowna BC V1X 2P7
British Columbia, Canada
(screen 8)


Looks like Atmos is a ferry ride away, Auro-3D, that's a road trip for you.


----------



## CinemaAndy

dragonleepenn said:


> Wonder what subs and top speakers those are...?
> I like how they sorta blackout the ceiling speakers .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeterV


https://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/subwoofers#.U9IBLfnHN8E

All of Dolby Labs facilities use JBL Pro's, for now. Next year maybe Klipsch, it changes, sometimes yearly.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> The variable will be the max number of objects, not speakers. One object being panned through 20 speakers won't be louder than the same object panned through 7 speakers. But with each object that is added, more filtered bass ends up at the subwoofer output (irrespective of number of speakers).


I do not think objects have any bearing on bass management. The final speaker feeds, after all the rendering/mapping/up/down/allaround-mixing is done, will go to the same bass management process used now. As you said, the scaling in the digital process will need to shift to prevent clipping when more speakers are involved, as happened already when we went from 5.1 to 7.1, but that's trivial. That shift is offset in the analog stages anyway, so no one feels it.


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> Andy.. I've no doubt you have cinema experience, but your posts are really misguided..
> 
> The limit on speakers is the has nothing to do with internal amps.... both Denon and Onkyo support 11 channels on the 9 amp products..
> 
> 
> 
> First off, commercial Atmos supports 62 discrete channels, in addition to two sub outputs (one for the LFE mixed optionally with redirected bass, the other for auditorium redirected bass.) Not 64.
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with how the "master has been encoded..."
> 
> That's the point of using objects.. it scales to the number of available speakers, not some arbitrary restriction during encoding.
> 
> 7.1.4 is not a "*theoretically correct* number that is used in *commercial* theaters."
> 
> I don't even know what that is...
> 
> Not to get personal, but I'm also a little suspicious about your post claiming you heard Apes in Atmos on a consumer AVR/pre-pro..
> 
> You won't tell us what the venue was, yet you tell us the name of the film.
> 
> And to just happen onto an invitation when you were briefly in town?
> 
> To claim they switched seamlessly to Atmos Enabled speakers in the middle of a rain sequence, which is 5 minutes into the film, with no drop out doesn't ring true.
> 
> You must change many parameters on the AVR to do so, and the Onkyo system you claim was at the screening is only 11 channels... certainly not optimal for a screening room you claim costs 3 million dollars... if it exists, it would take a bunch of engineering work to redo all of the surrounds for 7.1 + 4 ceiling speakers..
> 
> Studios don't screen current releases on MKV files for anyone, and I'm not sure Dolby wouldn't have made you sign an NDA if you were at such a "secret" screening.. and D-Cinema projectors don't play copy protected content..
> 
> If you want to elaborate, that would be appreciated.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance..
> 
> Something just isn't ringing true, so in addition to you having a 2 month posting history, my 24 years in the business leaves me a bit curious, and highly suspicious..


1984 projectionist assist(first job) 1986 projectionist and card holding union member, 17 theater pool. 1987 became member of IATSE(The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada) for continuing work and experience in other than a projection booth. 1989 went to work for Universal Studios, LA distribution department. Left Universal in 2002 as head of distribution and went into partnership with my brother in law(Who by the way, is the son of a well known director) building cinemas, nation wide, now just state wide and maintenance.

Do i get the job?

Or do you NEED me to post pictures of me with people you call BOSS?

Now mister, show me what you know.

More to the point, if you don't like my post, don't read them.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I do not think objects have any bearing on bass management.


Just as adding channels required a shift to prevent clipping, you don't think adding more simultaneous objects (each potentially full scale) will require a similar shift? Not saying it is any more complicated than the current approach, but 1 object vs 20 objects will load the subwoofer output differently.


----------



## Berland

sdurani said:


> Just as adding channels required a shift to prevent clipping, you don't think adding more simultaneous objects (each potentially full scale) will require a similar shift? Not saying it is any more complicated than the current approach, but 1 object vs 20 objects will load the subwoofer output differently.


I would guess output level (percentage?) is part of object-metadata. This will tell the processor how to mix in each individual object relative to the rest of the objects/embedded sound). The same way amount of speakers will indicate the output level of each indivdual speaker to get end-result at reference level (for viewer).

Hence, speaker output is controlled by amount of speakers in total to control output level of each individual channels mix-result. The object is controlled during mix of each channel.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would say that 24 + 10 should cover most users nicely, don't you?


Yes but how many mixers will rely on speaker locations that aren't guaranteed to be available in any playback environment?


----------



## markus767

CinemaAndy said:


> pic 3, is what i prefer.


Nice! I used to work as a projectionist when I was a teenager. The theater had a twin Bauer projector. From time to time the film strip popped out of the guiding roller and 20 minutes of film on the floor created something that looked like a little ocean


----------



## sdurani

Berland said:


> I would guess output level (percentage?) is part of object-metadata.


Sure, but we were talking about filtering the low frequencies the subwoofer output. If there is only one object, that won't require adjusting the subwoofer output. But filtering bass from 20 objects and summing all that to the subwoofer will require an adjustment to keep that output from clipping.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Just as adding channels required a shift to prevent clipping, you don't think adding more simultaneous objects (each potentially full scale) will require a similar shift? Not saying it is any more complicated than the current approach, but 1 object vs 20 objects will load the subwoofer output differently.


Even though there's more speakers, they cannot all go to full scale at the same time anymore. If there's 100 objects, the loudness of the soundtrack still has to correlate with the 7.1 core version -- that defines the max loudness. Unpacking the objects and rendering them around the room does not change their individual loudness. And any bass associated with an overhead object is first removed from the main 7.1, so it just enters the bass manager from a different path.

So, technically, there's no more bass in the Atmos rendered version than the 7.1. 

Yes, there are some variables that may creep in, but only when an object is spread across more speakers than it occupied in the 7.1 mix, as the spreading uses a constant power law, but the bass summing does not. So there may be some electrical buildup, but really that only begins to be an issue when larger numbers of speakers exist, like a cinema. In a 7.1.4 system, it will rarely be an issue for any given object, and even less for the several objects that may exist simultaneously.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> If there's 100 objects, the loudness of the soundtrack has to correlate with the 7.1 core version -- that defines the max loudness.


Ah right, forgot that the entire consumer Atmos soundtrack is delivered in core/downmix. Since the sound from ALL the objects is already in there, separating them out cannot make their combined total any louder. In that case, wouldn't low passing the backwards compatible 7.1 core (plus LFE) give you the subwoofer output, inclusive of all bed channels and objects?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I would be keen to have your thoughts on best locations for speakers.


Side surrounds at ±60° and heights similar to Audyssey's DSX speaker location recommendation.



Roger Dressler said:


> Re the FIR, is there a common protocol for exporting FIR filter parameters, such as Matlab, that a general convolution engine can ingest? Or would there need to be some de-facto standard created for that? Maybe the convolution engine simply informs what it can accept?


A convolution engine ingests the IR of the filter as a sound sample, i.e. the "filter" is just an ordinary sound file.



Roger Dressler said:


> And it's one FIR for each output channel?


I'd hope so but the discussion is moot if Pioneer doesn't open up their AVR or the available filter length is too short.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Ah right, forgot that the entire consumer Atmos soundtrack is delivered in core/downmix. Since the sound from ALL the objects is already in there, separating them out cannot make their combined total any louder. In that case, wouldn't low passing the backwards compatible 7.1 core (plus LFE) give you the subwoofer output, inclusive of all bed channels and objects?


Yes, that would be perfect IF the desire was to run all the height speakers as crossed over -- which should just be the only option. I mean, really, full range heights??  

But the manual for the Denon shows every pair having the large/small option, so that dictates doing it the hard way.


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> We already got nine (Onkyo/Integra, Denon/Marantz, Pioneer), and eleven (Yamaha) channels of amplification. ...Adding two or for more is nothing, nowadays.


I don't see it in the near future, as the majority of users don't even use 7 channels...


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> But how would you get all those decoded channels into an AVR? Can't do it PCM via HDMI without an as-yet non-existent new AVR. It would have to be analog out to the AVR's multichannel inputs (which are rare, and AFAIK never more than 8 channels -- never needed more than 8 before now).


I was thinking directly out from the Oppo to my power amps. 



bkeeler10 said:


> What would be awesome is if Oppo developed a basic multichannel preamp with silver disc spinner built in and with room EQ (Dirac Live perhaps). Again, something basic like the Emotiva UMC-200 or Outlaw Model 975, but digital-based only, with only a few inputs like they have now and plenty of pre-amp outputs for formats such as Atmos.


Well, so long as it wasn't _too_ much like the UMC-200, yes 



bkeeler10 said:


> IOW, just take the 103 and add more sophisticated bass management and speaker setup options, room EQ, Atmos decoding and a handful more preamp outputs. And do it for around $1k, give or take. No problem, right . . .


That's what I was thinking - they are halfway there right now and it is possible to use the 103 instead of an AVR, hooked directly to power amps.

But as batpig said earlier, it's just way too much trouble really and for $1k it's possible to buy an Atmos AVR, all set and ready to rock.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Now I'm starting to get worried about this. Installing all this stuff on the ceiling is going to be no small task and with little Atmos content at the beginning early adoption may not be wise. My experience with height channels (using the Denon 4311, which incidentally does not have Neo:X) is that DSX can be pretty cool but sometimes detrimental to the point where I have to turn it off (usually with poorly mixed material). PLIIz is usually harmless, so it has been my go to set-it-and-forget-it setting because I can leave it on all the time (except for music), but on the other hand is so subtle I hardly notice a difference most of the time. Therefore,* I assume the new "Dolby Surround" will be "good" like PLIIz was, however, the effect will probably be pretty subtle because it can be difficult to tease out meaningful height information from standard soundtracks. (I would guess, because the more aggressively you apply your upmixing, the more likely you are to have a detrimental effect that would make a user turn the upmixing off. And the less agressive you are with your upmixing, the more likely the user is to say "meh", not use it, and write on the forums that it "isn't worth it"... so a catch 22).* However, I may just go for 7.2.4 with the 5200 anyway and use Dolby Surround until I get some Atmos content (as you have stated), just because I'm crazy like that... and it will be awesome once ATMOS content arrives.


I tend to use PLIIz all the time too. I found DSX created a way too front-centric soundstage for my taste and pretty much destroyed the 'bubble'. I mostly notice PLIIz if I switch it off IYKWIM. I am wiring my ceiling for every possible potential combination of speakers I can think of - wire is cheap  But I will go, initially at least, with 5.1.4 (no room for rear surrounds).


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ummm....


He might be forgetting that Reference Level is applied to *each speaker*.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> I tend to use PLIIz all the time too. I found DSX created a way too front-centric soundstage for my taste and pretty much destroyed the 'bubble'.


I do the same - either IIz or IIx for 5.1. I don't have DSX using Pioneer, but I tend to view NeoX the same way: too front-centric with more of the front stage being shunted to the heights.

I haven't decided yet on which arrangement or ceiling vs Dolby enabled. But if I go ceiling, I'd also try to put in for all positions, 4 of them anyway. Might as well get it all if going to the trouble. Switching cables on the AVR is the EZ part


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> He might be forgetting that Reference Level is applied to *each speaker*.


He might be forgetting that the subwoofer channel is one single channel when it comes to setting it up for Reference Level regardless of the number of subwoofers connected to it. Also he might be forgetting that the purpose of increasing the number of subwoofers connected to the subwoofer output is not to make that channel louder.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I'm sure it was good. Question is, can it be better?
> 
> The inventor of Auro thinks that height speakers aren't as effective above 20-30 degrees elevation because our ability to hear height cues starts diminishing above that. Atmos goes for almost double that elevation in order to have meaningful separation between the surrounds and heights.
> 
> There's a legitimate discussion to be had regarding which locations work better for height, irrespective of content.


It could be better, of course. But, honestly, I am struggling as to how _much_ better it could be in reality, having heard that scene. Of course, it was just one scene. It might be the only one for all I know that plays that way (hence their reason for choosing it). 

As to which locations work better for height, surely if a speaker is placed, for example, on the ceiling almost directly above my head, won't that give a better impression of height than a speaker located much lower? Won’t the physical location of the speaker, high above me, automatically mean that I will hear sounds coming from that location? If this is taking us OT, we can discuss it elsewhere if you wish.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Reading posts over the last couple pages, I just want to make sure I've got the newly discovered info correct about the height speakers.
> 
> IF you're doing a X.x.4 set-up, then you can use any 2 out of the 5 height locations: front height, front top, middle top, rear top, rear heights?


This is very, very relevant to my own situation, so I have a supplementary: assuming the above is correct, which is the best option to shoot for, all else being equal?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> And then a total of five Atmos titles will end up getting released. Seriously, that's my worry. The studios don't think the average Joe cares about A/V quality... so neither will they. It's cheaper that way. You spend all this money upgrading equipment and speakers and your theater room... and then the titles just trickle out.
> 
> Some may even be sitting this round out in anticipation of DTS-UHD.


Isn’t the point that it takes no more effort for the studios to release an Atmos-mixed movie on Bluray than it did to already make the mix for the theatrical release? If that is the case, why would they _not_ release every Atmos movie on Bluray? It's the easiest option for them.

You are surely not _seriously_ worried, Dan, that all of this co-ordinated effort on the part of AVR manufactuers, speaker designers and manufacturers, Dolby themselves, the studios and so on would all have taken place and yet they would have overlooked content? Seriously?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> What remains to be seen is how (if?) the rendering will change based on the layout designated.
> 
> For example, the Front Height range is 30-45 degrees elevation, whereas Top Front is 30-55 degrees. The midpoint of the former is 37.5 degrees elevation, for the latter it's 42.5 degrees. So if someone choose to use Front Height for the first pair (HEIGHT1) to preserve the option of DSX or Neo:X processing, does it assume that the pair of speakers is 5 degrees farther forward and adjust the rendering appropriately? Or does it just send the same signal regardless?


But isn’t it great that we have a _range_ of potential speaker placements! Presumably, as they have specified a range, a good effect will be achieved anywhere within that range. I did ask Onkyo directly about this - I asked them what, within the range, would be considered as 'optimum placement' as, presumably, the rendering engine renders to one (specified but unknown (to us)) angle. Their answer was 'unsatisfactory' (aka 'we don't really know').


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> All I'm getting at is that it takes extra prep time (one would assume) to get a track ready for consumer Atmos... if they think consumers don't care about 3D audio, they're not going to spend the time or the money except perhaps on really special editions.
> 
> We need this to a widely adopted way of mixing and re-mixing movies and scripted and nature TV shows.
> 
> *The other thing that could kill object audio before it even begins is if they decide to charge a premium just like 3D releases.
> *
> Another point is that some studios could be in a holding pattern to see what DTS has to offer. All I can say is they better move quickly.


That is exactly what they are doing here in the UK. It doesn't seem to be killing it though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick Collins said:


> WEATHER REPORT INDICATES POSSIBLE RAIN ON THIS PARADE!
> 
> At one time I used to build 14'x7' control panels for multi million dollar industrial machines. My hobby has been A/V since the early sixties. So it dawned on me that if I find this newest technology confusing and complex, what does Joe Six Pack think, let alone his SO? Unfortunately we need JSP and his SO. These companies can't just rely on sales numbers from a nitch group as small as a part of the AVS Forum. That's including the fact that we might be the premier group on this planet regarding this topic.
> 
> Me thinks, this time, adopting theater technology for use in the home might have too small of an audience. While I've enjoyed leading edge and sometimes bleeding edge technology in my home, I can't say it is widely appreciated. That's based on infrequent comments from others about how good it is. The lone exception is my wife, who after all these years is finally into it, really into it.
> 
> It makes you wonder about the decision making process in some of these companies. Onkyo for example has tried to be price sensitive by adding the latest tech, Atmos while removing some already established features. If Onkyo wanted to replace my TX-NR929 with a logical replacement 939, it would probably be prohibitively expensive in that category. Lets say they added Atmos, bumped the 11 preouts to 13, maybe added two more amps, the necessary processor upgrade and a beefier power supply, without deletions, that's over two grand. That's not the top of their mid range, that's out of their mid range.
> 
> Maybe it's a marketing problem. Maybe they should revert back to putting the latest and greatest in their high end products first like they used to do, like Tesla is doing. Starting out at a commodity level this time might not cut it.
> 
> For JSP to do it right with his Onkyo TX-NR636, that's including speakers, any outboard amps, room considerations, possible wall or ceiling speaker installation, setup and source material, he might need a pro installation that he never considered but will warn his buddies about. Oh and lest we forget, software update.
> 
> I love what technology can do, but in this case it may have been bungled from the start. Unfortunately it arrived at a time when they're inundating us with 4K.
> 
> That scream you just heard was JSP asking for his iPod.


JSP doesn't have 5.1 either. He has a soundbar. So it seems everything you say, which is a reasonable hypothesis, could have similarly been said about the move from mono to 5.1. Yet here we are with an entire and huge international dedicated forum, with hundreds of thousands of members, all avidly discussing where to go next with our hobby. I never quite see the relevance of JSP. JSP has never even heard of 5.1 and he isn't the target market for Atmos, or anything remotely like it. He doesn't even own a Bluray player - well most of the JSPs don't.

Same argument with music. JSP listens to MP3s on 5 dollar earbuds. But that doesn't seem to have killed the high-end reproduction potential for the rest of us. 

Arguing that a product is 'niche' isn’t the same as arguing that there is no market for it. Rolls-Royce is niche in the automobile world. So is Ferrari. So is Lamborghini. Are those marques likely to disappear any time soon because Mr and Mrs Sixpack and their buddies will never be in the market for one? I don't think so. Niche is usually where the biggest profit margins lie too. Volume may be smaller, but margins are way higher. And companies often cater for both markets too. For example, Ferrari and Fiat. One overall company, two very different markets. And what is invented and used for one often trickles down to another.

JSP is important, but he is not the only player in town. And he is the one with the shallowest pockets


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> JSP is important, but he is not the only player in town. And he is the one with the shallowest pockets



 I like that!


----------



## KidHorn

J_P_A said:


> I wonder what the upper limit on the number of channels that is reasonable in a home theater is? At some point it makes more sense to have an external decoder that is expandable rather than a single AVR doing all the work.


 
After 13 you won't get much benefit. I envision the ideal setup having 8 in each corner and 1 centered on the 4 side walls and ceiling. Where the center channel currently is will probably suffice for the front wall center. You could put one in the center of the floor also, but that would be bordering on ridiculous. I doubt this setup would ever be adopted since it deviates too much from the standard 5.1 setup we have now and you need to would have clear sight of each corner from the MLP.


----------



## fatbottom

I'd like to see a chart comparing divorce rate with the number of channels in a home theatre.


----------



## markus767

fatbottom said:


> I'd like to see a chart comparing divorce rate with the number of channels in a home theatre.


Probably pretty low. It's more of a miracle how we got married in the first place considering our severe handicap we tend to call our hobby


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn’t the point that it takes no more effort for the studios to release an Atmos-mixed movie on Bluray than it did to already make the mix for the theatrical release? If that is the case, why would they _not_ release every Atmos movie on Bluray? It's the easiest option for them.
> 
> You are surely not _seriously_ worried, Dan, that all of this co-ordinated effort on the part of AVR manufactuers, speaker designers and manufacturers, Dolby themselves, the studios and so on would all have taken place and yet they would have overlooked content? Seriously?


This is indeed a fickle industry. They seem to careen from one tech flavor of the year to another in an increasingly desperate grab for ever shrinking ticket and consumer electronics revenue. One day it's 3D then 4k then Atmos then who knows... Though, I would much rather they stick to real improvements like 4k and high fidelity 3D surround (and better stories than a lot of the forgettable digital special-effects laden tripe they focus on now). 3D video is far more gimmicky than increasing imagery and audio detail and fidelity and, to me, lessens the art of great cinematography as it has whenever it pops up in cinema history (namely the 50's and the 80's). 

Even though they can place a (hopefully) credible Atmos track on a Blu-ray, there seems to be a tendency to look at HD, 3D video, and now object audio as some sort of _premium_ experience. And whenever the industry sees this technology as such, they price it accordingly. The same goes for high fidelity music files and discs. That always dampens adoption by more of the masses.

I just hope they don't start releasing Dolby Atmos (or DTS-UHD) discs like 3D Blu-ray as "special" versions with a bloated price. That wouldn't help things one bit. We enthusiasts know a single TrueHD or Master Audio track can contain both a regular and 3D soundtrack, but a lot of consumers do not. 

If Atmos and 3D audio become a niche of a niche (for various reasons), they may look it as just another failed attempt (like consumer 3D video) and move on to something else. 

My mistrust of today's corporate mindset has a lot to do with these worries, I will admit.


----------



## Selden Ball

CinemaAndy said:


> I think by what you mean as far as amps located by the speakers, is what is termed 70 volt speaker's. ...


Thanks a lot for the descriptions! And my apologies to everyone else, since this probably would be better in the theatrical Atmos thread.

WRT "Dolby Connect" I came across a mention of it while looking for info on Dolby's CP850 theatrical Atmos decoder (which is comparable in cost to Trinnov's upcoming Atmos processor). Specifically, http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjour...echnology/e3ief191aff8cf9bd6ee06bab2cc44e5517 claims that

(quote)
To facilitate ease for those very same installations, the CP850 processor features Dolby Connect. “This technology allows plug-and-play for installers,” Bowling explains. “All they do is route Ethernet cables out of the processor into our Dolby Connect switch and from there all can be routed to Dolby Connect-enabled amplifiers. We are working with Harman, who will be first to market, and other manufacturers like QSC. Without custom cabling and wiring, the time it takes to put together a theatre can be cut down effectively. We are also working with speaker manufacturers to help them modify their planning to build products that are Dolby Atmos-aware, if you will, and designed according to specific performance requirements that are expected in a Dolby Atmos system.”
(end quote)

Edited to add:
I was investigating the 850 just because it initially looked like it might compete to some extent with Trinnov's product, if Dolby could be persuaded to let it be used in home theater environments. Both devices include on-site installation assistance in the price. However, the commercial Dolby "solution" looks like it might require additional equipment that Trinnov wouldn't. Both are way out of my price range, though!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> This is indeed a fickle industry. They seem to careen from one tech flavor of the year to another in an increasingly desperate grab for ever shrinking ticket and consumer electronics revenue. One day it's 3D then 4k then Atmos then who knows... Though, I would much rather they stick to real improvements like 4k and high fidelity 3D surround (and better stories than a lot of the forgettable digital special-effects laden tripe they focus on now). 3D video is far more gimmicky than increasing imagery and audio detail and fidelity and, to me, lessens the art of great cinematography as it has whenever it pops up in cinema history (namely the 50's and the 80's).
> 
> Even though they can place a (hopefully) credible Atmos track on a Blu-ray, there seems to be a tendency to look at HD, 3D video, and now object audio as some sort of _premium_ experience. And whenever the industry sees this technology as such, they price it accordingly. The same goes for high fidelity music files and discs. That always dampens adoption by more of the masses.
> 
> I just hope they don't start releasing Dolby Atmos (or DTS-UHD) discs like 3D Blu-ray as "special" versions with a bloated price. That wouldn't help things one bit. We enthusiasts know a single TrueHD or Master Audio track can contain both a regular and 3D soundtrack, but a lot of consumers do not.
> 
> If Atmos and 3D audio become a niche of a niche (for various reasons), they may look it as just another failed attempt (like consumer 3D video) and move on to something else.
> 
> My mistrust of today's corporate mindset has a lot to do with these worries, I will admit.


I agree with much of what you say, especially with regard to the cost of the discs. I suspect we will pay more but I hope not. We didn't specifically pay more for TrueHD than DD 5.1 but then again, the former only appeared on Blurays which we do pay more for (than DVDs). I agree that if Bds were priced the same as DVD then they would penetrate the market much quicker, but they often have extra content and, of course, a superior picture an be argued to be a better product and therefore cost more. If I was running the Bluray world, I'd start phasing out DVDs and release new movies solely on Bluray. A Bluray player these days can be picked up with the groceries for next to nothing so there is no barrier to entry there.

HST, I have several friends, intelligent, educated types, who still are unaware (till I straightened then out) that they could play their DVDs on a Bluray player and were using the argument of "I don't want two players under my TV thanks'.


----------



## ambesolman

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with much of what you say, especially with regard to the cost of the discs. I suspect we will pay more but I hope not. We didn't specifically pay more for TrueHD than DD 5.1 but then again, the former only appeared on Blurays which we do pay more for (than DVDs). I agree that if Bds were priced the same as DVD then they would penetrate the market much quicker, but they often have extra content and, of course, a superior picture an be argued to be a better product and therefore cost more. If I was running the Bluray world, I'd start phasing out DVDs and release new movies solely on Bluray. A Bluray player these days can be picked up with the groceries for next to nothing so there is no barrier to entry there.
> 
> 
> 
> HST, I have several friends, intelligent, educated types, who still are unaware (till I straightened then out) that they could play their DVDs on a Bluray player and were using the argument of "I don't want two players under my TV thanks'.



+1000000

DVD needs to go the way of the dodo. All it's doing is keeping people from moving on to better technology because they don't know better. Kill DVD and BR prices come down, 4k disks could be the price of current BRs. Though, I don't think any movie should be costing me more than $20 for 4k/3d. Kill DVD and force people to adopt the better tech at the same price. Win-win


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^^

I still do the 'g-damnit' face when I hear people justify why they bought the dvd instead of the BD for a movie purchase. It has to be some form of visual spectacle or something for a movie to be worthy of Blu-ray. 


EVERYTHING IS BETTER ON BLU-RAY!


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> That's what I was thinking - they are halfway there right now and it is possible to use the 103 instead of an AVR, hooked directly to power amps.
> 
> But as batpig said earlier, it's just way too much trouble really and for $1k it's possible to buy an Atmos AVR, all set and ready to rock.


True, you can get an Atmos AVR for $1k. But with how many channels? And do you get a $500 disc spinner included? Of course, with the AVR you do get the amp channels (at least most of them) included.

IMO, if Oppo could do 13 - 17 channels for around $1k I think they might have something. It's Oppo after all, who can practically do no wrong it seems. I think there's a group of people out there that would be falling over each other to buy one. I know I'd be interested. And with the sale Outlaw is having right now on amplifiers, you could be in a 13 channel Atmos "AVR" and player for under $2k.

How big that group of interested people is, and whether it is enough for such a product to be economically viable for Oppo, are fair questions though.


----------



## JohnAV

bkeeler10 said:


> True, you can get an Atmos AVR for $1k. But with how many channels? And do you get a $500 disc spinner included? Of course, with the AVR you do get the amp channels (at least most of them) included.
> 
> *IMO, if Oppo could do 13 - 17 channels for around $1k I think they might have something. It's Oppo after all, who can practically do no wrong it seems*. I think there's a group of people out there that would be falling over each other to buy one. I know I'd be interested. And with the sale Outlaw is having right now on amplifiers, you could be in a 13 channel Atmos "AVR" and player for under $2k.
> 
> How big that group of interested people is, and whether it is enough for such a product to be economically viable for Oppo, are fair questions though.


 Sure sure, like any fool would need a 13 to 17 channel pre/pro normally. Just think how big the player would become!  

For now any BD player can bitstream the Atmos encoded autio track to a pre/pro or AVR capable of decoding it, up to you to spend the money on what you need.


----------



## bkeeler10

JohnAV said:


> Sure sure, like any fool would need a 13 to 17 channel pre/pro normally. Just think how big the player would become!
> 
> For now any BD player can bitstream the Atmos encoded autio track to a pre/pro or AVR capable of decoding it, up to you to spend the money on what you need.


I think you missed part of the point. Perhaps you didn't catch the initial conversation a few pages back (this thread is incredibly active). The question was asked whether there was a player that can decode the Atmos bitstream before sending it out. Even if there was, there would be no way to get it into any existing AVR. And then the idea was mentioned that Oppo could be the one to innovate by offering such a piece. It would have to output each channel via analog directly to the amplifiers, which would require volume control and bass management and speaker setup in the player. Oh wait, Oppo already has something like that, which would just need some more channels and ideally room correction. And maybe more flexibility in bass management and speaker setup options. True it would probably be bigger than the current 103. But perhaps it would all fit in the current 105 chassis. There's certainly enough real estate on the back . . .

Short of a $30k piece, there's no AVR or pre/pro that will do more than 11 channels. And even those that will do 11 channels are pushing $2k. And some (most?) of them don't have respectable room correction (presumably at least). Many of us (myself included) have expressed that we would like to have an option for at least 9.1.4 (13 channels) before moving to Atmos. There isn't an option available for less than new car money, and who knows whether the mainstream AVR companies will do that on the next generation of AVRs or not (or what it will cost). There's a potential gap for Oppo to fill. Maybe. 

Either way, the affordable pre/pro market seems like a good place for Oppo to go next. Okay, enough of Oppo -- back OT!


----------



## JohnAV

bkeeler10 said:


> I think you missed part of the point. Perhaps you didn't catch the initial conversation a few pages back (this thread is incredibly active). The question was asked whether there was a player that can decode the Atmos bitstream before sending it out. Even if there was, there would be no way to get it into any existing AVR. And then the idea was mentioned that Oppo could be the one to innovate by offering such a piece. It would have to output each channel via analog directly to the amplifiers, which would require volume control and bass management and speaker setup in the player. Oh wait, Oppo already has something like that, which would just need some more channels and ideally room correction. And maybe more flexibility in bass management and speaker setup options. True it would probably be bigger than the current 103. But perhaps it would all fit in the current 105 chassis. There's certainly enough real estate on the back . . .
> 
> Short of a $30k piece, there's no AVR or pre/pro that will do more than 11 channels. And even those that will do 11 channels are pushing $2k. And some (most?) of them don't have respectable room correction (presumably at least). Many of us (myself included) have expressed that we would like to have an option for at least 9.1.4 (13 channels) before moving to Atmos. There isn't an option available for less than new car money, and who knows whether the mainstream AVR companies will do that on the next generation of AVRs or not (or what it will cost). There's a potential gap for Oppo to fill. Maybe.
> 
> Either way, the affordable pre/pro market seems like a good place for Oppo to go next. Okay, enough of Oppo -- back OT!


 For any smaller vendor the affordable pre/pro market is a minefield. For example pre-pro involving Emotiva, Outlaw didn't go so well. Leave it for the big vendors to work out all the technology/DSP bugs with room correction and of course involving Dolby Atmos.


----------



## bkeeler10

^^^ True enough -- many have tried and either failed to release a product or released a sub-par product.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Selden Ball said:


> Thanks a lot for the descriptions! And my apologies to everyone else, since this probably would be better in the theatrical Atmos thread.
> 
> WRT "Dolby Connect" I came across a mention of it while looking for info on Dolby's CP850 theatrical Atmos decoder (which is comparable in cost to Trinnov's upcoming Atmos processor). Specifically, http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjour...echnology/e3ief191aff8cf9bd6ee06bab2cc44e5517 claims that
> 
> (quote)
> To facilitate ease for those very same installations, the CP850 processor features Dolby Connect. “This technology allows plug-and-play for installers,” Bowling explains. “All they do is route Ethernet cables out of the processor into our Dolby Connect switch and from there all can be routed to Dolby Connect-enabled amplifiers. We are working with Harman, who will be first to market, and other manufacturers like QSC. Without custom cabling and wiring, the time it takes to put together a theatre can be cut down effectively. We are also working with speaker manufacturers to help them modify their planning to build products that are Dolby Atmos-aware, if you will, and designed according to specific performance requirements that are expected in a Dolby Atmos system.”
> (end quote)
> 
> Edited to add:
> I was investigating the 850 just because it initially looked like it might compete to some extent with Trinnov's product, if Dolby could be persuaded to let it be used in home theater environments. Both devices include on-site installation assistance in the price. However, the commercial Dolby "solution" looks like it might require additional equipment that Trinnov wouldn't. Both are way out of my price range, though!


Some days i'm to preoccupied. Atmos connect is a way for Dolby to monitor the processor in real time via the internet, roughly same platform as IMAX use. Just the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Nothing fancy, standard ethernet cable RJ45 plugs.

Same with any connect system from any manufacture. All the components, if so equipped, is connected with ethernet cables, same RJ45 plugs via a gig a bit switch to the media server. It is protocol sharing and the handshake. Like when you buy a new monitor and plug it in the computer automatically adjust the resolution for you once it discovers the monitor. Same with all the components of commercial cinema, IF, the owners have updated to newer equipment.

If you are not aware the Dolby CP850 list is about 35K. I do not know of anyone who has paid that price, but when you order 20 or more at a time they usual give a discount or agree on a set price. As you read the CP850 does come with there commissioning service, and that is 8 hours of a Dolby tech at your place making sure it will perform at it's peak.

I do not know of any CP850 installed in any home environment. Not that it could not be done, it is the simple fact the CP850 does not decode DTS DVD/Blu-ray audio formats. So DTS is probably 80 percent of your video library. There is, adding more cost, systems such as Doremi, QSC, and Christie Digital's SKA-3D for alternative content, aka Blu-Ray, that will decode DTS and send it to the CP850 for processing.

If your doing all the above, to get it to work, it kind of defeats the purpose of having commercial products in your home. And if you are not a member of the Bel Air Circuit, your chances of getting DCP(what the theater shows) material is practically, none.

More to the point Blu-Ray and DCP are worlds apart on picture quality.

This is the guy you want to search the threads for and ask the home theater questions to, CINERAMAX, if you can pull him away from those million dollar home theater's he's doing for some billionaire.


----------



## plissken99

For me the most encouraging thing for Atmos at home taking off is that the receivers already announced can create the Atmos effect almost with a current 7.1 or even 5.1 set up. They need to advertise that heavily, as people get nauseated quickly when they consider having to add 4-6 speakers to their living rooms, or modest media rooms. I know from my 8 months at Best Buy selling HT products, 9 out of 10 people there for sound systems ignored my advice to consider Klipsch or JBL speakers and walked out with a nice easy(and crappy) HTIB.


I for one will be taking it slow, construction on my house starts next month, and I plan to pre-wire it for 15 channels, not including subs, and adding speakers gradually. I'm also upgrading my sound system, getting Klipsch kpt-904's for my mains and center, here are the surrounds for them, already designed for commercial Dolby Atmos! http://www.klipsch.com/kpt-12-vb


----------



## kokishin

JohnAV said:


> For any smaller vendor the affordable pre/pro market is a *mindfield*. For example pre-pro involving Emotiva, Outlaw didn't go so well. Leave it for the big vendors to work out all the technology/DSP bugs with room correction and of course involving Dolby Atmos.


*Mindfield* :laugh:


----------



## 3ll3d00d

markus767 said:


> I'd hope so but the discussion is moot if Pioneer doesn't open up their AVR or the available filter length is too short.


As far as I can see the amount of processing power available in a DSP is pretty small. 

To give an example, the latest (released early this year) dedicated audio processor from analog devices can do 24k taps max, the sharc processors (that seem to be quite commonly used, e.g. in the datasat) can do 10-12k. You obviously then have decoding and other duties on top of this to deal with.

i.e. you'd need quite a few of these to be able to do a decent set of filters for a multichannel setup. Lets say 6k taps is sufficient for an effective filter, you'd need at least 3 just for DRC in a 5.1 setup + at least 1-2 more for decoding. Consumer grade AVRs seem to have 1-3 such chips and it's rare to find a 5.1 only AVR. At best you could count on 1 such chip for say 11 channels which gives you well under 1k taps per channel and hence a rather coarse frequency (>=480Hz) resolution even at 48kHz.

I realise that sticking an intel cpu in a consumer grade piece of kit is unlikely (trinnov seem to be the only ones to take this approach) but it makes me wonder why ARM isn't making inroads here. If your phone has more processing power than AVRs costing a few grand then surely something is wrong.


----------



## JohnAV

kokishin said:


> *Mindfield* :laugh:


inspirational isn't it, fixed.:wink:


----------



## kokishin

JohnAV said:


> inspirational isn't it, fixed.


Very. Reminded me of comedian Norm Crosby:


----------



## markus767

3ll3d00d said:


> If your phone has more processing power than AVRs costing a few grand then surely something is wrong.


Yep, sad but true. But that situation also opens up possibilities for new players.


----------



## batpig

bkeeler10 said:


> True, you can get an Atmos AVR for $1k. But with how many channels? And do you get a $500 disc spinner included? Of course, with the AVR you do get the amp channels (at least most of them) included.
> 
> IMO, if Oppo could do 13 - 17 channels for around $1k I think they might have something. It's Oppo after all, who can practically do no wrong it seems. I think there's a group of people out there that would be falling over each other to buy one. I know I'd be interested. And with the sale Outlaw is having right now on amplifiers, you could be in a 13 channel Atmos "AVR" and player for under $2k.
> 
> It would have to output each channel via analog directly to the amplifiers, which would require volume control and bass management and speaker setup in the player. Oh wait, Oppo already has something like that, which would just need some more channels and ideally room correction. And maybe more flexibility in bass management and speaker setup options.


While the idea is nice, I think your proposed price point is fantasy. The base Oppo 105 lists for $1,199 msrp! And you think they can do a full 13 ch pre-pro version with Atmos decoding, 13ch pre-outs, upgraded bass management AND room correction, for $1k?

A full Atmos decoding 13ch+ output pre-pro / universal player is going to be $2k+ easy.


----------



## sdurani

3ll3d00d said:


> I realise that sticking an intel cpu in a consumer grade piece of kit is unlikely (trinnov seem to be the only ones to take this approach) but it makes me wonder why ARM isn't making inroads here.


That approach worked very well with the PS3, as the CPU was updated to have features like DTS-HD MA decoding and 3D video, while the rest of us had to buy new players. 

An app-based receiver with a CPU would be awesome. Want Dirac room correction? Download it. You wouldn't need to buy a new receiver for a looooong time. 

Maybe that explains why consumer electronics manufacturers don't do it.


----------



## NorthSky

Dolby Atmos in our smartphones and iPhones? ...Laptops, tablets, PCs, Macs, ...

* Receivers and SSPs that are software programs upgradeable/downloadable. ...With the requisite memory processing capacity/capability.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> An app-based receiver with a CPU would be awesome. Want Dirac room correction? Download it. You wouldn't need to buy a new receiver for a looooong time.
> 
> Maybe that explains why consumer electronics manufacturers don't do it.


That would be the end of the 'capitalistist' system as we know it.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Dolby Atmos in our smartphones and iPhones?


Yes, with headphones and BINAURAL processing you can have Atmos with an infinite number of object locations in any room you like to. In-app purchase might be required of course


----------



## Cam Man

FWIW, here's a post I made upon seeing Gravity in a large, state of the art Atmos theater. I thought you might find the photos interesting.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-907.html#post23838850


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Yes, with headphones and BINAURAL processing you can have Atmos with an infinite number of object locations in any room you like to. In-app purchase might be required of course


...With a wireless pair of quality Sennheiser headphones...that is cool.  ...And the headphones only cost hundred dollars or so.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

sdurani said:


> That approach worked very well with the PS3, as the CPU was updated to have features like DTS-HD MA decoding and 3D video, while the rest of us had to buy new players.
> 
> An app-based receiver with a CPU would be awesome. Want Dirac room correction? Download it. You wouldn't need to buy a new receiver for a looooong time.
> 
> Maybe that explains why consumer electronics manufacturers don't do it.


the current annual refresh model is pretty silly, even more so when the feature set changes so randomly (c.f. Onkyo). It's difficult to see who will offer such a solution though, multichannel is so laden with DRM and this acts against user controlled processing of the signal.


----------



## bargervais

I think I'm over dreaming about atmos. Going to a theatre that has atmos won't convince me no matter how cool it is, it's not my living room and couldn't come close to what I perceive it will sound in my room with only two or four ceiling speakers....I will have to hear it first hand in a room similar to my living room. With a low end atmos to a high end AVR and hopefully with similar speakers, for me to judge. I'm not going to buy something and hope it will be what all the hype is and I get let down.... I want it to sound better then my perception of what I think it will sound like.
So here I am going to wait till they have been out in the market for a while before choosing.


----------



## CinemaAndy

A little off subject information on the Dolby cinema processor, CP850,

Versatile Audio Processing Plus Comprehensive Tech Support

The Dolby Atmos Cinema Processor CP850 offers a wide range of powerful capabilities to meet the audio needs of your digital cinema.

Technical Features

Dolby Surround 7.1 and 5.1 playback


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> 1984 projectionist assist(first job) 1986 projectionist and card holding union member, 17 theater pool. 1987 became member of IATSE(The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada) for continuing work and experience in other than a projection booth. 1989 went to work for Universal Studios, LA distribution department. Left Universal in 2002 as head of distribution and went into partnership with my brother in law(Who by the way, is the son of a well known director) building cinemas, nation wide, now just state wide and maintenance.
> 
> Do i get the job?
> 
> Or do you NEED me to post pictures of me with people you call BOSS?
> 
> Now mister, show me what you know.
> 
> More to the point, if you don't like my post, don't read them.


Andy...

I didn't ask for a bio or resume... I've no doubt your credentials as a theater builder, background at Universal, etc.. I think I know what IATSE stands for (I 'm a Y-1)

Some of your posts say one thing, then you respond later with another... it's confusing for most here at AVS, and my comments were meant to help clarify some of the back and forth..

That was my intention..

This isn't a discussion about commercial theater setup or building.. there are other threads for that.

I think my almost 15 years on AVS are full of "what I know.."

Unlike you, I still work in Hollywood, and have been actively involved over the years with many new home theater technologies...

While, as some have posted, my experience in feature post sound doesn't make me an expert on home theater technologies, I'm much more involved than a great majority of my peers...

Your writing style leaves much room for confusion, and I don't think it helps others here better understand what this particular thread is all about.

It's not personal..


----------



## bkeeler10

Yeah I've been wondering about Atmos on an HTPC as well. But you still run into the problem of getting all those channels out of the PC. The only way to do it currently would be to have the HTPC act as preamp, doing D/A conversion and sending analog directly to the amplifiers. Isn't it still difficult to keep analog signals clean inside a computer?


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> Dunno about all the other stuff, but if there were 2 AVRs, they could feed them the same signal, set one for the ceiling speakers and the other for the upfiring speakers, then switch between the 2 sets of 4 height speakers. Instantaneous.


I just wanted some clarity.. his OP contained many specifics, but was missing others..

He didn't state there were two whole setups, just one (an Onkyo being fed by a laptop via HDMI..)

The only other thing that rang false for me is the fact that Dolby has gone to great lengths to be very specific about what they can and can't show ..

They have asked other posters to remove the names of clips they saw, and almost every demo they've had required small groups of people (6 or less) in demos of the Elevation speakers..

That they didn't request at the screening to not divulge the title of such a film also seems off to me.

He didn't name the screening room, but it seated 22 for this presentation... again, that Dolby would show a first run, in theater film off an MKV file is rather bizarre... and then to run a whole feature with consumer Atmos in such a room seems like something Fox wouldn't allow for at this point in time.. 

I'm surprised that Dolby would also demo Elevation in such a large room.. not really sure it was designed to work in such a large space (if this was an Onkyo processor, it only allows for 4 OH/Elevation speakers...) 

Since he stated they were using home theater speakers in such a room, I'm curious as to which one they were using.. such a large room would seem quite large to fill with most of the offerings that we know are coming down the pike..

Again, since we only have certain information but not others I was hoping for some clarity..

I'm not saying it didn't happen, it just isn't in line with anything else Dolby has done up to this point....

I just wanted some clarity... 

I'm setup to have a meeting with Dolby next week... hope I can shed some light on the details...


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> Andy...
> 
> I think I know what IATSE stands for (I 'm a Y-1)
> 
> .


There, yet again, you assume it is for you. Not everyone who reads these post have experience in or around Hollywood or electronics. For those who have never heard of the IATSE, are very certain to wonder what it stands for. Those same people don't care what SBL means, they want to know how loud it is.

And why do i want to post in a language, that only professionals understand? I save that for work and dealing with manufactures.


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> I do not know of any CP850 installed in any home environment. Not that it could not be done, it is the simple fact the CP850 does not decode DTS DVD/Blu-ray audio formats.


No need. The BD player can do the decoding.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Roger Dressler said:


> No need. The BD player can do the decoding.


So that will work with the 850? I know you can do that with the 750/650.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> That approach worked very well with the PS3, as the CPU was updated to have features like DTS-HD MA decoding and 3D video, while the rest of us had to buy new players.
> 
> An app-based receiver with a CPU would be awesome. Want Dirac room correction? Download it. You wouldn't need to buy a new receiver for a looooong time.
> 
> Maybe that explains why consumer electronics manufacturers don't do it.


Looks like that's the approach Emotiva went with the XMC-1.


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> So that will work with the 850? I know you can do that with the 750/650.


If it has an HDMI input, yes. Why not?


----------



## CinemaAndy

Roger Dressler said:


> If it has an HDMI input, yes. Why not?


Yes the 850 has two HDMI inputs, i think. I know it has the Toslink, that always works. Problem is, 1 It's never that easy, 2 i don't know of anyone using a $30,000 850 to play Blu-Ray sound on.

So i have been curious if it has been done.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

bkeeler10 said:


> Yeah I've been wondering about Atmos on an HTPC as well. But you still run into the problem of getting all those channels out of the PC. The only way to do it currently would be to have the HTPC act as preamp, doing D/A conversion and sending analog directly to the amplifiers. Isn't it still difficult to keep analog signals clean inside a computer?


you're into the pro audio interface world here which will allow you to produce lots of output channels with great flexibility around how you handle them. It's not cheap though, you'll easily get into 4 figures for the no of channels required here.



markus767 said:


> Looks like that's the approach Emotiva went with the XMC-1.


they appear to use the same TI (DA710) chips as various other AVR makers, nothing special there by the looks of it.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> That approach worked very well with the PS3, as the CPU was updated to have features like DTS-HD MA decoding and 3D video, while the rest of us had to buy new players.
> 
> An app-based receiver with a CPU would be awesome. Want Dirac room correction? Download it. You wouldn't need to buy a new receiver for a looooong time.
> 
> Maybe that explains why consumer electronics manufacturers don't do it.





markus767 said:


> Looks like that's the approach Emotiva went with the XMC-1.


 
Am I the only one that remembers the Onkyo TX-NR1000? The first receiver you could "upgrade" like a computer?


That was kind of a disaster as I recall...


----------



## markus767

3ll3d00d said:


> they appear to use the same TI (DA710) chips as various other AVR makers, nothing special there by the looks of it.


They said something about "custom Linux software" and there's a TI AM-1808 in there. Even an old iPhone 4 has more power. We'll see.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

markus767 said:


> They said something about "custom Linux software" and there's a TI AM-1808 in there. Even an old iPhone 4 has more power. We'll see.


I think that will just run the OS, I believe the datasat ls10 uses the same class of arm chip for that same purpose.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I think I'm over dreaming about atmos. Going to a theatre that has atmos won't convince me no matter how cool it is, it's not my living room and couldn't come close to what I perceive it will sound in my room with only two or four ceiling speakers....I will have to hear it first hand in a room similar to my living room. With a low end atmos to a high end AVR and hopefully with similar speakers, for me to judge. I'm not going to buy something and hope it will be what all the hype is and I get let down.... I want it to sound better then my perception of what I think it will sound like.
> So here I am going to wait till they have been out in the market for a while before choosing.


What would be a good idea would be to get a demo in a proper HT room. On the recent Dolby demo I attended, we started in a regular cinema sized room and then moved to the 6 seater HT room, deliberately so that we could get a comparison. Dolby told us that the cinema room gave what they described as the best Atmos experience in Europe, so it was very good, as expected. But moving to the HT room was even more impressive in a way. By that I mean I kinda expected Atmos to sound amazing in a multi-million dollar room designed for the purpose and I too wondered how it would translate to a small 6 seater HT with pretty ordinary looking speakers and subs etc. The result was breathtaking. It has to be experienced to be believed. And this was for the most part with Atmos-enabled speakers not physical ceiling speakers. I agree totally with you that it is always a good idea to get a good demo before buying. I had mine, and I can't wait to get the new AVR and install the 4 ceiling speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I just wanted some clarity.. his OP contained many specifics, but was missing others..
> 
> He didn't state there were two whole setups, just one (an Onkyo being fed by a laptop via HDMI..)
> 
> The only other thing that rang false for me is the fact that Dolby has gone to great lengths to be very specific about what they can and can't show ..
> 
> *They have asked other posters to remove the names of clips they saw, and almost every demo they've had required small groups of people (6 or less) in demos of the Elevation speakers..*
> 
> That they didn't request at the screening to not divulge the title of such a film also seems off to me.
> 
> He didn't name the screening room, but it seated 22 for this presentation... again, that Dolby would show a first run, in theater film off an MKV file is rather bizarre... and then to run a whole feature with consumer Atmos in such a room seems like something Fox wouldn't allow for at this point in time..
> 
> I'm surprised that Dolby would also demo Elevation in such a large room.. not really sure it was designed to work in such a large space (if this was an Onkyo processor, it only allows for 4 OH/Elevation speakers...)
> 
> Since he stated they were using home theater speakers in such a room, I'm curious as to which one they were using.. such a large room would seem quite large to fill with most of the offerings that we know are coming down the pike..
> 
> Again, since we only have certain information but not others I was hoping for some clarity..
> 
> I'm not saying it didn't happen, it just isn't in line with anything else Dolby has done up to this point....
> 
> I just wanted some clarity...
> 
> I'm setup to have a meeting with Dolby next week... hope I can shed some light on the details...


That's exactly what happened with me - Dolby asked nicely if I'd remove all details of the two clips I saw because the studios hadn't licensed them for public viewing at this time. I am guessing someone at Dolby in London didn't get the memo  It was also a 6 seater demo room just as you say it always is. 

I wonder what clips they would have showed us instead of the two we saw? No way of knowing, for me anyway, but the demo I saw totally convinced me that Atmos is as much for the home as it is for the commercial Atmos theater (of which one has now opened just 20 miles from where I live - off to see Apes on Monday morning).

Like you, I can’t see how a demo of home Atmos would work in a cinema-sized room - with just 4 ceiling speakers or upfiring Atmos speakers, so I'd be interested too in the clarification you are asking Andy to provide.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> I’d love to hear your take in it. Bonne chance!


The link to my impressions and analysis (in French) after I assisted to a (small) Dolby Atmos presentation made by Onkyo last week in Paris. 

Have a nice WE and/or holidays,

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Again,



Hugo S said:


> Merci Keith.
> 
> And I have a question for you : with the sound coming from "above" in this Dolby Atmos context, when calibrating with Audyssey MultEQ XTxx singularly Pro, it has always been said that the mic shouldn't be pointed towards the speaker, but rather vertically towards the ceiling...
> 
> ... so when there are speakers in/on the ceiling what would be the best option, when calibrating with Audyssey (Pro) ?
> 
> In my case with the standard DSX type of 11 speakers configuration that we use at home, the mic has always been pointed to the ceiling the recommended way, and for both Height channels I'm manually creating in Pro a slight -3dB slope starting at 2kHz -> 16kHz.
> 
> But these Height speakers are positioned at a 45° elevation, when in Dolby Atmos the Top/ceiling speakers are optimally @ 55° and more...
> 
> So any idea? Merci.
> 
> Hugo





kbarnes701 said:


> Good question Hugo and the answer is "I have no idea". I am assuming for now that the mic will continue to be pointed up. Maybe Audyssey will issue some guidelines later for us. It is next to impossible to change the mic orientation during a calibration, so the ceiling speakers will be firing right down into the mic, more or less. How important this is, I don't know at this stage. Maybe a good question to ask Chris K?



Chris K's answer :



> Hello Hugo,
> 
> The only time this would matter would be when a speaker is directly above the microphone. I suppose this can happen with some of the ceiling speakers, but in reality the difference will be very small and concentrated in the very high frequencies. A slight tilt back of the mic could achieve the same purpose.
> 
> Best,
> Chris


This solves the matter in my case. 

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> The link to my impressions and analysis (in French) after I assisted to a (small) Dolby Atmos presentation made by Onkyo last week in Paris.
> 
> Have a nice WE and/or holidays,
> 
> Hugo


Nice report, Hugo. And I learned a new proverb: _"l'habit ne fait pas le moine"_! And a new colloquialism too: _"calibrée "aux petits oignons""_ 

The demo room was more basic than the demo room I had my demo in at Dolby in London. In London the room was a 6 seater and it was acoustically treated. Otherwise, it seems very similar to what you saw and heard in Paris.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Hi Again,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris K's answer :
> 
> 
> 
> This solves the matter in my case.
> 
> Hugo


Merci bien pour ça.

I shall add this to the FAQ when we know the full Atmos for home specs etc. Meanwhile, none of my ceiling speakers will be directly overhead, so I am good to go. Thanks again.


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice report, Hugo. And I learned a new proverb: _"l'habit ne fait pas le moine"_! And a new colloquialism too: _"calibrée "aux petits oignons""_
> ...


... and I'll add : _"et l'habit aide toujours dans le cas d'un moine calibré aux petits oignons"_...

Sorry I couldn't resist... 

Amclt,

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> ... and I'll add : _"et l'habit aide toujours dans le cas d'un moine calibré aux petits oignons"_...
> 
> Sorry I couldn't resist...
> 
> Amclt,
> 
> Hugo


LOL. Too much information, as they say


----------



## xcapri79

Perhaps this has been asked before. 
I haven't followed all the posts.
Are there a set of guidelines available for Atmos speaker placement in a home theater? 
Any word on Pioneer AVR firmware upgrades to allow for Atmos and for which models? Thanks.


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> Tell Chris, Andy is still waiting for his bag of popcorn.


Chris who? 

It wasn't Chris Walker, because you said the processor was THX certified, which leaves only Onkyo..

Don't know a Chris at Dolby...



CinemaAndy said:


> Oh and Apes was mastered for what speaker configuration?


Huh? 

But the actual answer is it was mastered in Atmos, 7.1, 5.1 5.0 IMAX and LtRt... 



CinemaAndy said:


> Something that rimes with Atmosphere. And who again holds that patent? And how did Fox come to use it?


Ummmm.. it's their standard for most Fox branded films..

The last film I mixed for them was done in Atmos, which we did in the Zanuck.

Andy.. again, both replies to me answered none of the loose ends I think are pertinent to this thread, and your tone says enough for me to bow out of the dissuasion..


----------



## FilmMixer

xcapri79 said:


> Perhaps this has been asked before.
> I haven't followed all the posts.
> Are there a set of guidelines available for Atmos speaker placement in a home theater?
> Any word on Pioneer AVR firmware upgrades to allow for Atmos and for which models? Thanks.


I'm not sure what guidelines you are looking for..

I think the standard recommended placement for 5.1 and 7.1 is what has been suggested based on the diagrams seen in some of the manuals..

Pioneer models SC-85, 87 and 89's will support Atmos... coming in September I believe.

Firmware promised by "end of year."

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/P...e+Speakers/Turn+your+Home+into+a+Home+Theater


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> Yes the 850 has two HDMI inputs, i think. I know it has the Toslink, that always works. Problem is, 1 It's never that easy, 2 i don't know of anyone using a $30,000 850 to play Blu-Ray sound on.
> 
> So i have been curious if it has been done.


Their brochure says it can play TrueHD "alternative content," so that implies Blu-ray, as that's the only alternative content format that has TrueHD. It would take extra effort to block PCM playback from HDMI, considering it is happy to take in 16-ch AES.


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> The link to my impressions and analysis (in French) after I assisted to a (small) Dolby Atmos presentation made by Onkyo last week in Paris.
> 
> Have a nice WE and/or holidays,
> 
> Hugo


Hugo,

Salut d'Atlanta! Je ne suis pas Keith, mais je voulais vous remercier de ma part pour l'hyperlien ci-dessus. Et j'espère que vous passez vous-même un bon weekend!

That's a very interesting write-up on several fronts--regarding your highly favorable impression of an Atmos demo under decidedly sub-par acoustical conditions, your (subjective) thoughts on the viability and future development of HT Atmos, and your ruminations on speaker placement presumably adequate for a variety of processing formats (Atmos/DSX/NEO:X/DTS-UHD).

You made a number of comments about DTS-UHD that drew my attention. Inter alia, you stated your conviction that DTS-UHD, when it emerges, will be able to process Dolby Atmos-encoded recordings. You also said elsewhere (I can't recall the exact post) that the Marantz AV8802 will "very probably" feature DTS-UHD processing (last I heard on this score was that it "might" be added as a FW update in 2015 on certain D&M models). Could you perhaps elaborate on your basis for these statements and also share your thoughts on how you feel the possibility of DTS-UHD should influence our decision to purchase one of these first-generation Atmos AVR's?

Bien amicalement, Jeff


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Their brochure says it can play TrueHD "alternative content," so that implies Blu-ray, as that's the only alternative content format that has TrueHD.


Does anyone know if the MKV container can support TrueHD audio?


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> The link to my impressions and analysis (in French) after I assisted to a (small) Dolby Atmos presentation made by Onkyo last week in Paris.
> 
> Have a nice WE and/or holidays,
> 
> Hugo


Hugo, merci pour cette "link". 

Mon impression: Mickey mouse room.  
...And! I think that Onkyo ditched Audyssey because exactly that: You cannot EQ *intended* room (ceiling) reflections.
And to not EQ your two front mains (AccuEQ) means that when you put them two small Atmos satellites on their top (main's top), aiming @ the ceiling, Onkyo has probably experimented/deducted, with Dolby partnership, that it emphasises/simplifies the Dolby Atmos overhead effect more. ...Perhaps (remains to be seen, versus Audyssey MultEQ XT32), and for financial reason? Also, if you put them overhead speakers @/in your ceiling, what a digital DSP/DRC system like Audyssey is going to do with them speaker channels/object/bed/reflection/allthatjazzstuff?

This fall (September and October), a bunch of receivers and some pre/pros (SSPs) are going to be released with Dolby Atmos, and with their DRC approaches (AccuEQ, Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC - ARC in the future, perhaps), and Mid-September is the last date for Dirac Live LE downloaded inside the Emotiva XMC-1 by the way, Dolby Atmosless though (interesting coincidence nonetheless; and we are open to that future), ...so it will be very interesting to compare some units like the *Onkyo PR-SC5530* surround sound processor with the *Marantz AV8802* (or AV7702) SSP for example. ...And then some Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha AV receivers; later on from astute reviewers making them elaborate comparisons. 

I have no clue which one (product) or/and which manufacturer's own approach would do the best job, and for who.
So far I am inclined towards the Marantz AV7702 SSP myself (11 channels - 7.1.4 - October), but I am still 100% open mind. ...Audyssey XT32, Atmos 9.2.4, and solid sound engineering for the money...my heart and mind are drifting...above my soul, overhead. 
And tomorrow, ...Auro 3D, DTS-UHD, Datasat filtering (infiltring) down our modest homes, ...this all entire surround sound hound affair ain't over yet; it is just beginning, and life is way too short to hear it all through... 

http://www.audiotechnology.com.au/wp/index.php/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-to-a-home-theatre-near-you/

P.S. L'habit ne fait pas le moine, sans aucun doute; nous restons tous en touche... 
Nice meeting you Hugo and have a splendid weekend,
R §


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Does anyone know if the MKV container can support TrueHD audio?


Yes it can.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> EVERYTHING IS BETTER ON BLU-RAY!


Guess you don't have any subwoofers if you prefer basscrippled bd-releases of for instance Master&Commander over the DVD release...


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> That's exactly what happened with me - Dolby asked nicely if I'd remove all details of the two clips I saw because the studios hadn't licensed them for public viewing at this time. I am guessing someone at Dolby in London didn't get the memo  It was also a 6 seater demo room just as you say it always is.
> 
> I wonder what clips they would have showed us instead of the two we saw? No way of knowing, for me anyway, but the demo I saw totally convinced me that Atmos is as much for the home as it is for the commercial Atmos theater (of which one has now opened just 20 miles from where I live - off to see Apes on Monday morning).
> 
> Like you, I can’t see how a demo of home Atmos would work in a cinema-sized room - with just 4 ceiling speakers or upfiring Atmos speakers, so I'd be interested too in the clarification you are asking Andy to provide.


Now you are asking me for information, i can't provide. The executives that were there knew some couldn't keep there flaps shut, and the executive that said that was who invited me. I can't name people, places, or products. The product pictures i posted are well known. The one showing the display was in answer to my request about how the display would look, as i had not seen a close up of it.

The whole point was that Atmos for home, would work in larger room's, and as i said the prototypes were geared for Ultra-High end buyers. The price i heard for one front speaker started at $3,500. I'm 6 foot 2 inches, the front speaker's came up to my chest. Having 8 inch subs, 6 inch mids and i think the up firing speaker was 8 inch with a 4 inch mid. Nothing there was what i would consider small, not like Bose or somebody else.

This was geared for large private/home theaters. That was the whole point of the presentation. And it worked.

To clear up other ingested confusion. Studios break down into two groups, production and distribution. Everything else supports one or the other. The so called "end user" license apply to those who are other than a studio. Unless you are one of the top 10 producers/directors the studio has 100 percent control of the content.

As odd as some might think it is, a in box office movie played on alternative devices(Blu-Ray) for private screenings is not that rare in the digital age. As it takes time for distribution to get to a plus stage of content for release of private viewing material, film/DCP. Because distribution faces many issues internal and external getting the content out, namely production delays from outside sources. I have had to tell Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg no to there request for there own movies, there is nothing here i can let you use right now, it's all going to Booker/Buyers for the box office, check back in a few days. There are some movie's that i literately had to raid the executive theater content and take there content to Booker/Buyers. Distribution is the craziest, most stressful job thing to do in all of Hollywood.

Apollo 13 and Fast and Furious(1st) became the biggest home release, snafu shortage in the history of Universal. We were all caught off guard by such an unrepresented demand for consumer content on these two movies. We though Apollo 13, 1995, being a Ron Howard film was a one off, then came FF in 2001. Retail demand for both Apollo 13 and Fast and Furious, tripled and quadrupled with in the first week of release, causing severe shortages and distribution nightmares. And executive order's changed the entire process of when content was set for releasing to home, it was no longer the norm to wait for the box office to play out and begin home versions, once box office release and content was finalized, it goes to home versions, with in weeks so adequate supply can be warehoused for shipment on the release date. This process predates theatrical release, so for those who can and want it, can get a movie in alternative content for private showings screenings on other than DCP material. With film it took months for the conversions to home, with digital it takes weeks, a non heavy effects movie can be done in days.

Knowing Fox, the Apes master was probably collecting dust on the shelf since may of last year.


----------



## NorthSky

Andy, I would love to work with you. ...You fit/fill the full picture.


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> _*The whole point was that Atmos for home, would work in larger room'*_s, and as i said the prototypes were _*geared for Ultra-High end buyers.*_ *The price i heard for one front speaker started at $3,500. *I'm 6 foot 2 inches, the front speaker's came up to my chest. Having 8 inch subs, 6 inch mids and i think the up firing speaker was 8 inch with a 4 inch mid. Nothing there was what i would consider small, not like Bose or somebody else.
> _*
> This was geared for large private/home theaters. That was the whole point of the presentation.*_ And it worked.


Can you explain this discrepancy from your other post?



CinemaAndy said:


> The sound was sent VIA HDMI to a Atmos _*consumer model AVR*_ that will be available end of year(they said that) as will the speakers.
> 
> So i will say Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right".
> 
> *I was told top electronics stores were going to have a similar mock up, Best Buy, Fry's electronics, etc. So i guess you can hear the same demo at one of them near you, this year.*


To me those are contradictory... ultra high end and Fry's?

Also your comment that "Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right" reads like it was one manufacturer...

Since you say it's a current model "consumer" AVR, that leaves the choices of Pioneer, Denon and Onkyo.... and none of them cater to the "high end" HT market, nor do any of them sell $3.5k speakers..

Also, I'm not an expert in speakers but one with both an 8" and 4" driver for an Elevation speaker seems contrary to what Dolby is specifying for such systems... anyone with contrary information and knowledge correct me if I'm wrong.

It's those kind of things that confuse me Andy.. instead of name dropping and posting your history in the distribution department at Universal 12 years ago it would be helpful to keep on subject and clarify contention information that _you_ posted... 

If you were asked to keep it secret then you've already divulged more than enough to get you in hot water with your contacts..

I'm simple trying to keep the information accurate, and I've found many discrepancies in some of your posts..

Let's keep this thread on topic and on point.


----------



## blazar

Ok so as of this moment, what is the highest channel count version of Atmos released thusfar? Anything in the 13 to 24 channel range yet? I know I keep harping on this, but as an early adopter with 19 channels in place NOW, I want a REAL version of Atmos... not this watered down crap they are offering so far.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blazar said:


> Ok so as of this moment, what is the highest channel count version of Atmos released thusfar? Anything in the 13 to 24 channel range yet? I know I keep harping on this, but as an early adopter with 19 channels in place NOW, I want a REAL version of Atmos... not this watered down crap they are offering so far.


All I know of for sure is Trinnov's Altitude processor.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, *13* (7.2.4) ...September/October. ...Kids stuff. 

Eleven main channels and two subs (LFE).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Yes, *13* (9.2.4) ...September/October.



Just that nothing in the less than a new luxury car range is allowing for 9.1.4 or above rendering. All the consumer oriented gear is seemingly locked at 11.1.


----------



## NorthSky

...Or you can check in the pro level of Dolby Atmos, and Auro 3D. ...For a higher (elevated) experience, with more "objects" and speakers to help out (like 24 main speakers and 10 overhead ones and 8 subwoofers). ...Then 32 main speakers, 64, 128...


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just that nothing in the less than a new luxury car range is allowing for 9.1.4 or above rendering. All the consumer oriented gear is seemingly locked at 11.1.


Marantz AV8802 won't do 9.2.4? ...Onkyo PR-SC5530 won't do 9.2.4?

EDIT: Both are *7.2.4* Dolby Atmos SSPs.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just that nothing in the less than a new luxury car range is allowing for 9.1.4 or above rendering. All the consumer oriented gear is seemingly locked at 11.1.


Dan.. comments like this keep getting brought up like it's some kind of huge detriment..

What do you think the realistic maximum speaker output will be for 99% of Atmos/Auro/UHD users?

It's hard enough to get people into the mindset of expanding past 5.1... which is why I find Elevation to be such a good alternative to ceiling speakers.

I most definitely think the sweet spot for many around here is 13-15... adding on top of their DSX/HD3 Yamaha/Neo:X setups..

There is definitely a market for high end decoders... and they are coming.

As someone who has a modest sized room (16x18 in my new house) 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 is going to be fantastic.. and I won't be paying for something I will never use...

While theatrical Atmos doesn't utilize (at this time) some of the great benefits of what object based audio has to offer (such as object categorization, re-mapping, independent object level control,) I expect we will see them in due time...

As Roger has pointed out many times, more speakers aren't the end all goal of object based solutions... it isn't a channel race.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Marantz AV8802 won't do 9.2.4? ...Onkyo PR-SC5530 won't do 9.2.4?


With the current information released so far, it appears they will do either 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 ( I'm adverse to the term .2 for a sub output that only gets summed mono information. )


----------



## NorthSky

You're right Marc; 7.1.4 in real parlance. ...Or 9.1.2

* Two separated/equalized subs are still only one LFE channel. 

And I agree with you; for most people 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 is going to be fabulous.
And 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 would fit most larger rooms (say 22' by 16' by 10').


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> Can you explain this discrepancy from your other post?
> 
> 
> 
> To me those are contradictory... ultra high end and Fry's?
> 
> Also your comment that "Dolby and --------- did a fine job on a joint effort to "get it right" reads like it was one manufacturer...
> 
> Since you say it's a current model "consumer" AVR, that leaves the choices of Pioneer, Denon and Onkyo.... and none of them cater to the "high end" HT market, nor do any of them sell $3.5k speakers..
> 
> Also, I'm not an expert in speakers but one with both an 8" and 4" driver for an Elevation speaker seems contrary to what Dolby is specifying for such systems... anyone with contrary information and knowledge correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> It's those kind of things that confuse me Andy.. instead of name dropping and posting your history in the distribution department at Universal 12 years ago it would be helpful to keep on subject and clarify contention information that _you_ posted...
> 
> If you were asked to keep it secret then you've already divulged more than enough to get you in hot water with your contacts..
> 
> I'm simple trying to keep the information accurate, and I've found many discrepancies in some of your posts..
> 
> Let's keep this thread on topic and on point.


I stay in hot water. Cold water doesn't do it for me.

Fry's, Best buy was in reference to how they were going to show case CE Atmos, when they ship them. Everyone has seen the Bose set's there doing, esp fry's with it's designated rooms.

Dolby and --------- I can not divulge the manufacture. It's prototype. It's new. It is subject to changes before deployment. I never said it was a current model CE AVR. It is kind of hard to be a current model, when it's still a 1 of 1 prototype, that has yet to be produced.

Since this is about Atmos, why should Dolby Labs, inc, not be mentioned? They hold the patents. It's there tech.

You keep asking me for specifics. They will come in future press release from the ------------ equipment manufacture.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.. comments like this keep getting brought up like it's some kind of huge detriment..
> 
> What do you think the realistic maximum speaker output will be for 99% of Atmos/Auro/UHD users?
> 
> It's hard enough to get people into the mindset of expanding past 5.1... which is why I find Elevation to be such a good alternative to ceiling speakers.
> 
> I most definitely think the sweet spot for many around here is 13-15... adding on top of their DSX/HD3 Yamaha/Neo:X setups..
> 
> There is definitely a market for high end decoders... and they are coming.
> 
> As someone who has a modest sized room (16x18 in my new house) 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 is going to be fantastic.. and I won't be paying for something I will never use...
> 
> While theatrical Atmos doesn't utilize (at this time) some of the great benefits of what object based audio has to offer (such as object categorization, re-mapping, independent object level control,) I expect we will see them in due time...
> 
> As Roger has pointed out many times, more speakers aren't the end all goal of object based solutions... it isn't a channel race.


All I'm looking for is *9.x.4*. in a price range that is not _hugely_ expensive. I know it probably won't be south of $2,500, but jeez I hope not something like $10,000. There are Atmos receivers and pre-amps in the "normal" range that have 13.x outputs right now... but the rendering software can only handle 11.1 at one time. 

I definitely will be sitting this generation out until I know for sure DTS-UHD and other enhancements are not going to be added soon. Sometimes it does not pay to be on the bleeding edge.


----------



## ambesolman

Dan Hitchman said:


> All I'm looking for is *9.x.4*. in a price range that is not _hugely_ expensive. I know it probably won't be south of $2,500, but jeez I hope not something like $10,000. There are Atmos receivers and pre-amps in the "normal" range that have 13.x outputs right now... but the rendering software can only handle 11.1 at one time.
> 
> I definitely will be sitting this generation out until I know for sure DTS-UHD and other enhancements are not going to be added soon. Sometimes it does not pay to be on the bleeding edge.



+1 I don't see why adding wides seems to throw everything out of whack. I'd give up my regular height channels before my wides so I'll definitely wait until that's an option. Plus my x4000 is less than a yr old.


----------



## J_P_A

This is a tough decision for me because I'm laying out my surrounds now. If I can use wides, then I can use the typical Dolby layout, but if I'm going to go with sides and back surrounds, then I need to use the ITU layout for two rows instead. I really wish there was a way to pick up those two extra channels without spending an extra $10,000.


----------



## ambesolman

Why is it not just another amp assign option?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still 👎


----------



## NorthSky

...Or you can wait for generation2 Dolby Atmos (2015-16).


----------



## J_P_A

I think I saw a post that suggested this earlier, but now I can't find it, and the idea is just now starting to sink in. Would it be as simple as keeping your old AVR when you get that 1st gen ATMOS receiver and using the ATMOS receiver to run the 7.2.4 and the old receiver to do the decoding and drive the last two rear channels (or whichever you choose). You'll have to have a media player that will output to two AVRs, or an AVR that will pass the signal

I realize the better approach is just to be patient and wait another year, but I'm sure there are a few of us with extra AVRs laying around. I might be willing to buy the cheapest AVR I can find that will allow an X.X.4 ATMOS mix and use my existing AVR to handle the last couple few channels.


----------



## sdurani

ambesolman said:


> I don't see why adding wides seems to throw everything out of whack.


Dolby doesn't seem to fond of wides. Their new upmixer will steer legacy content to every speaker except wides.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dolby doesn't seem to fond of wides. Their new upmixer will steer legacy content to every speaker except wides.



Except Dolby has front wide surrounds in commercial Atmos and advertise them as a big additional feature of the format. 

I think it is still an issue of processor power in some of these consumer models, otherwise there wouldn't be a few that can do 9.1.2 _with_ _wides_ in Atmos mode. They just need ones that can do the four tops and the wides at the same time.


----------



## audiovideoholic

Nightlord said:


> Guess you don't have any subwoofers if you prefer basscrippled bd-releases of for instance Master&Commander over the DVD release...


Huh? What's this about? I have no clue in all honesty.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Except Dolby has front wide surrounds in commercial Atmos and advertise them as a big additional feature of the format.


Those aren't wides in the same sense we have on consumer systems. Those 2 or 3 pairs of speakers are around ±30° in commercial cinemas while wides are ±55-60° at home.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Those aren't wides in the same sense we have on consumer systems. Those 2 or 3 pairs of speakers are around ±30° in commercial cinemas while wides are ±55-60° at home.


Atmos wides are not the same as DTS Neo:X wides... and Dolby Prologic IIz has been scrapped. But yes, Dolby still supports front wides in a different location (though they may allow for some flexibility of placement) as do some of the upcoming upper tier models... just at the expense of one pair of ceiling speakers (unless you get a Trinnov).


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos wides are not the same as DTS Neo:X wides...


You're switching from talking about _"front wide surrounds in commercial Atmos"_ to suddenly talking about wide speakers in consumer applications, like Neo:X. 

In the commercial version of Atmos, those two or three pairs of speakers just outside the screen are not "wides". They're filling the gap that has always existed between L/R screen speakers and the start of the L/R surround arrays, in order to keep pans smooth. 

Wides in consumer set-ups are at almost twice the width/separation as those fill-in speakers in commercial Atmos. Audyssey started it by placing a pair of speakers where spaciousness is maximized (±55-60°). There is no similar counterpart in commercial Atmos.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos wides are not the same as DTS Neo:X wides... and Dolby Prologic IIz has been scrapped. But yes, Dolby still supports front wides in a different location (though they may allow for some flexibility of placement) as do some of the upcoming upper tier models... just at the expense of one pair of ceiling speakers (unless you get a Trinnov).


I think a pair of ceiling speakers is all that most small room sizes will need.

Or you can do like this guy did and take a small room over the top.


----------



## abrxx

But surely Neo/Audessey Front Wide's are exactly the same? They fill in the sound between Front L/R and Surround L/R. Doesn't Neo even derive content for them in exactly the same way i.e. sounds that are present on both e.g. Surround L and Front L are sent also to Wide L?



sdurani said:


> You're switching from talking about _"front wide surrounds in commercial Atmos"_ to suddenly talking about wide speakers in consumer applications, like Neo:X.
> 
> In the commercial version of Atmos, those two or three pairs of speakers just outside the screen are not "wides". They're filling the gap that has always existed between L/R screen speakers and the start of the L/R surround arrays, in order to keep pans smooth.
> 
> Wides in consumer set-ups are at almost twice the width/separation as those fill-in speakers in commercial Atmos. Audyssey started it by placing a pair of speakers where spaciousness is maximized (±55-60°). There is no similar counterpart in commercial Atmos.


----------



## Lesmor

Been following this thread for a while, pretty exhausting stuff.

I thought the whole point is that Atmos is backwards compatible, so if your 11.1 DSX/ PL11z heights and wide's are defunct then it obviously isn't.

Having built up an existing 11.1 system and added wides and heights at an immense cost I would not be happy to find they are obsolete.

I see no reason why the wide's wont be suitable, as Dolby have now added them in commercial applications.
The same applies with my existing front heights, although not in ceiling, they are on the front wall and at the wall ceiling junction, 10' from the LP
If indeed Atmos is backwards compatable I see no reason why they are not suitable for Atmos front heights, the only thing I should need to add is in ceiling rear heights for a 9.1.4 setup


----------



## kbarnes701

xcapri79 said:


> Perhaps this has been asked before.
> I haven't followed all the posts.
> Are there a set of guidelines available for Atmos speaker placement in a home theater?
> Any word on Pioneer AVR firmware upgrades to allow for Atmos and for which models? Thanks.


This is the diagram that has been used a few times showing suggested speaker positions:


----------



## Nightlord

audiovideoholic said:


> Huh? What's this about? I have no clue in all honesty.



If, as per the post, BluRay is superior in all respects, then the poster must prefer all those BD's that have been remastered with all the nice low frequency content removed. Example given - Master&Commander. There's no LF-punch left in the cannon duels on the BD.  

So, I gave it a bit of a twist.


----------



## marky301067

kbarnes701 said:


> I kinda expected Atmos to sound amazing in a multi-million dollar room designed for the purpose and I too wondered how it would translate to a small 6 seater HT with pretty ordinary looking speakers and subs etc. The result was breathtaking. It has to be experienced to be believed. And this was for the most part with Atmos-enabled speakers not physical ceiling speakers. I agree totally with you that it is always a good idea to get a good demo before buying. I had mine, and I can't wait to get the new AVR and install the 4 ceiling speakers.




What amplification and processing was used in the 6 seater HT Atmos demo?


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> Now you are asking me for information, i can't provide. The executives that were there knew some couldn't keep there flaps shut, and the executive that said that was who invited me. I can't name people, places, or products. The product pictures i posted are well known. The one showing the display was in answer to my request about how the display would look, as i had not seen a close up of it.
> 
> The whole point was that Atmos for home, would work in larger room's, and as i said the prototypes were geared for Ultra-High end buyers. The price i heard for one front speaker started at $3,500. I'm 6 foot 2 inches, the front speaker's came up to my chest. Having 8 inch subs, 6 inch mids and i think the up firing speaker was 8 inch with a 4 inch mid. Nothing there was what i would consider small, not like Bose or somebody else.
> 
> This was geared for large private/home theaters. That was the whole point of the presentation. And it worked.


Andy, thanks for your reply, but I am still not clear. You didn't mention before, AFAICR, 'ultra-high-end'. I thought you were describing 'normal' HT gear that more or less anyone could afford - you mentioned getting "the same demo" as you had, but at some of the standard US retail outlets.

My question was straightforward I think - how would a home Atmos setup with 4 ceiling speakers work in a large, commercial-sized space? 

I'm not asking you to break any confidentialities or anything and there is no need to name any names, but was the demo you mentioned using normal HT gear of the sort they sell at BB and Frys or was it ultra-high-end?




CinemaAndy said:


> The whole point was that Atmos for home, would work in larger room's, *and as i said the prototypes were geared for Ultra-High end buyers.*


I can't see where you said anything about the prototypes being for ultra-high-end buyers.

You said that the AVR being used was an _"Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year..._"

And, as far as I can see from your original post, this is all you said about prototypes: _"I really wish i had been allowed to take some pictures and video, but the answer to that was a big, fat "NO". And also since all the equipment i saw, was still in it's prototype condition i am not able to answer any who, what, or were's i can tell you when, Sunday."_

No mention of ultra-high-end.

And I was right, I just checked, you did say that anyone could get a similar experience at BB etc, which is most definitely not the place for ultra-high-end 

_"I was told top electronics stores were going to have a similar mock up, Best Buy, Fry's electronics, etc. So i guess you can hear the same demo at one of them near you, this year. "
_

I'm sure you can see why some of us are confused.

I'm not sure where all that stuff about distribution came from! I could care less about how movies get distributed


----------



## Ethan Ong

In a recent soundandvision.com poll, the majority is still having 5.1 HT set-up. 
I guess Dolby may have got it right with 5.1.2/5.1.4/7.1.2/7.1.4 to start with in consumer AVRs.

But then for some of us, we already have more than 5.1 or 7.1 set-up (I currently have 9.1).


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Been following this thread for a while, pretty exhausting stuff.
> 
> I thought the whole point is that Atmos is backwards compatible, so if your 11.1 DSX/ PL11z heights and wide's are defunct then it obviously isn't.


PLIIz has been wrapped up into 'Dolby Surround' - the upmixing algorithm for Atmos units. You're not 'losing' it, you are replacing it with something (allegedly) better. I say 'allegedly' because I haven't yet heard the upmixer working.



Lesmor said:


> Having built up an existing 11.1 system and added wides and heights at an immense cost I would not be happy to find they are obsolete.


They aren't. The heights can fulfil the Atmos function of 'Front heights' and the wides can still be used with Audyssey DSX, Neo:X etc if your unit has them, for legacy content for example.



Lesmor said:


> I see no reason why the wide's wont be suitable, as Dolby have now added them in commercial applications.


As Sanjay has been explaining, they haven't added Wides. They have added some additional speakers to fill the gap between the 'edges' of the screen and the start of the surrounds, to create a seamless 'all around the room' effect. They are also not placed at anything like the positions of the 'wide' speakers you refer to in your home setup. And they fulfill a different function too: your current 'wides' are designed to create 'spaciousness', the speakers you are calling 'wides' for Atmos are designed to fill a gap so that 'round the room' effects are seamless.



Lesmor said:


> The same applies with my existing front heights, although not in ceiling, they are on the front wall and at the wall ceiling junction, 10' from the LP
> If indeed Atmos is backwards compatable I see no reason why they are not suitable for Atmos front heights, the only thing I should need to add is in ceiling rear heights for a 9.1.4 setup


Your front heights can be used with Atmos (assuming the angles work - see the diagram I just posted) for an Atmos setup which utilises Front Heights as below:

Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height


----------



## kbarnes701

marky301067 said:


> What amplification and processing was used in the 6 seater HT Atmos demo?


We were told that they were Onkyo units but they were not visible in the demo room. They had to use a laptop to deliver the content because they wanted the ability to switch at will between Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers. Not sure what you mean by 'processing' - the processing that was done was Atmos. No other processing was used AFAIK, if that is what you meant.


----------



## Ethan Ong

Hi, batpig

Firstly, my apologies. I didn't read the X5200 manual but I've read your related posts. 

I currently have a 7.1 set-up + a pair of Front Heights. Will I be able to use my current set-up with a pair of Atmos add-on speaker modules on top of my front main L/R speakers? (That is, 9.1.2)

Thanks.



batpig said:


> Yes, according to pp 208-209 of the X5200 manual (screen caps attached) that is correct.
> 
> If you are in 11ch mode and set "Height Speakers" to 4, then you can choose between:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height
> 
> Then on pg 209 it shows that if you select "Dolby Speakers" as the Height mode, you have even more options to mix Atmos-enabled speakers and the various height locations.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ethan Ong said:


> In a recent whathifi.com poll, the majority is still having 5.1 HT set-up.
> I guess Dolby may have got it right with 5.1.2/5.1.4/7.1.2/7.1.4 to start with in consumer AVRs.


I think that is exactly why they started the way they did with Atmos - to stay within the bounds of familiarity for current users and also to be able to offer an Atmos experience that works with just the 5.1 setups we are all familiar with (but with the substitution of Atmos speakers or modules for FL, FR and Surrounds). A setup like that will _look_ exactly the same as a current 5.1 system, so anyone who has managed to get that past the Aesthetics Committee (aka 'wife') will be all set for Atmos too. Clever IMO.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> Andy, thanks for your reply, but I am still not clear. You didn't mention before, AFAICR, 'ultra-high-end'. I thought you were describing 'normal' HT gear that more or less anyone could afford - you mentioned getting "the same demo" as you had, but at some of the standard US retail outlets.
> 
> My question was straightforward I think - how would a home Atmos setup with 4 ceiling speakers work in a large, commercial-sized space?
> 
> I'm not asking you to break any confidentialities or anything and there is no need to name any names, but was the demo you mentioned using normal HT gear of the sort they sell at BB and Frys or was it ultra-high-end?


I guess, i didn't word it right. The products we heard were indeed Ultra-High-End stuff. However, this same manufacture is releasing a high, middle and low price product line. The equipment they used was very clear, excellent quality sound and room size was compensated for by a increase in volume, as i was told, over a smaller room. Now, i took that at face value. Bigger the room, the higher you set the volume, there maybe something else to it, i can't say.

The setup i saw, once finalized, will be similar to what you see at a BB or Fry's or whoever with the separate room and i guess a minute or so of content for demo. Kind of like they are or were doing with the Bose set up's BB had. Now my local Fry's store in Webster, TX, being close to NASA's JSC it's set up to resemble the ISS. So it's has three or four good sized rooms probably 15 by 20 or so, those rooms would make excellent demo rooms and i'm sure they will.

We were also told, that sound quality does not suffer from high to low price, that speakers and power output is what changes. Like every other AVR.

I think not only the CE's, but Dolby, has a lot riding on Atmos and they want to cover as much with it as possible for numerous configurations and room sizes.

It may start off with small systems, to some, but it will end up across a very broad platform once fully released.

And the above, is about as close to details, that i can get on this subject.


----------



## CinemaAndy

kbarnes701 said:


> Andy, thanks for your reply, but I am still not clear. You didn't mention before, AFAICR, 'ultra-high-end'. I thought you were describing 'normal' HT gear that more or less anyone could afford - you mentioned getting "the same demo" as you had, but at some of the standard US retail outlets.
> 
> My question was straightforward I think - how would a home Atmos setup with 4 ceiling speakers work in a large, commercial-sized space?
> 
> I'm not asking you to break any confidentialities or anything and there is no need to name any names, but was the demo you mentioned using normal HT gear of the sort they sell at BB and Frys or was it ultra-high-end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see where you said anything about the prototypes being for ultra-high-end buyers.
> 
> You said that the AVR being used was an _"Atmos consumer model AVR that will be available end of year..._"
> 
> And, as far as I can see from your original post, this is all you said about prototypes: _"I really wish i had been allowed to take some pictures and video, but the answer to that was a big, fat "NO". And also since all the equipment i saw, was still in it's prototype condition i am not able to answer any who, what, or were's i can tell you when, Sunday."_
> 
> No mention of ultra-high-end.
> 
> And I was right, I just checked, you did say that anyone could get a similar experience at BB etc, which is most definitely not the place for ultra-high-end
> 
> _"I was told top electronics stores were going to have a similar mock up, Best Buy, Fry's electronics, etc. So i guess you can hear the same demo at one of them near you, this year. "
> _
> 
> I'm sure you can see why some of us are confused.
> 
> I'm not sure where all that stuff about distribution came from! I could care less about how movies get distributed


I see the problem now.

I, consider Ultra-High-End as consumer. Might be out of many's price range, but still consumer based, not commercial based.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Lesmor said:


> Been following this thread for a while, pretty exhausting stuff.
> I thought the whole point is that Atmos is backwards compatible, so if your 11.1 DSX/ PL11z heights and wide's are defunct then it obviously isn't.


How will I get Dolby Atmos movies?

We wanted to ensure that entertainment fans could get Dolby Atmos movies in the same ways they get movies now, on Blu-ray Disc™ or through streaming video services.

We invented new scalable algorithms and extensions to Dolby® TrueHD, our Blu-ray™ format, and Dolby Digital Plus™, which is used by leading streaming video providers. Both formats now support Dolby Atmos sound, meaning that you’ll be able to play Dolby Atmos movies from your Blu-ray player or through your favorite streaming service.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Will Dolby Atmos enabled speakers work in my room?

Dolby Atmos enabled speakers can produce an incredibly accurate Dolby Atmos experience in many kinds of rooms. You’ll get the best sound if your ceiling is flat (not vaulted or angled) and made of an acoustically reflective material, such as standard drywall, plaster, concrete, or wood. While we designed the technology for rooms with ceiling heights of 8 to 9 feet (2.4 m to 2.7 m), our testing indicates that you can still hear incredible Dolby Atmos sound in rooms with ceilings as high as 14 feet (4.3 m), though the effect may become more diffuse in rooms with higher ceilings.

Recessed lighting fixtures, chandeliers, crown molding, and heating or air conditioning vents in your ceiling do not noticeably interfere with the Dolby Atmos experience.


----------



## CinemaAndy

If Dolby Atmos allows me to add more speakers, why do I see A/V receivers with just 11 channels?

Many hardware partners are building or planning to build Dolby Atmos enabled A/V receivers and speakers. Those partners decide what product configurations make the most sense for their customers. But the Dolby Atmos system itself is almost unlimited. If you have the space and budget, you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers. One of our hardware partners is planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels.


----------



## CinemaAndy

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> PLIIz has been wrapped up into 'Dolby Surround' - the upmixing algorithm for Atmos units. You're not 'losing' it, you are replacing it with something (allegedly) better. I say 'allegedly' because I haven't yet heard the upmixer working.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't. The heights can fulfil the Atmos function of 'Front heights' and the wides can still be used with Audyssey DSX, Neo:X etc if your unit has them, for legacy content for example.
> 
> 
> 
> As Sanjay has been explaining, they haven't added Wides. They have added some additional speakers to fill the gap between the 'edges' of the screen and the start of the surrounds, to create a seamless 'all around the room' effect. They are also not placed at anything like the positions of the 'wide' speakers you refer to in your home setup. And they fulfill a different function too: your current 'wides' are designed to create 'spaciousness', the speakers you are calling 'wides' for Atmos are designed to fill a gap so that 'round the room' effects are seamless.
> 
> 
> 
> Your front heights can be used with Atmos (assuming the angles work - see the diagram I just posted) for an Atmos setup which utilises Front Heights as below:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height


Thanks for your reply and insight Keith
I don't think I am that far off with my existing speaker layout.

I must say I enjoyed your Atmos demo review.
I do think we are on the brink of a new era in Home Cinema and looking forward to embracing it, probably in a second generation AVR or better still some form of stand alone processor which would enable existing AVR's to utilise Atmos.
Early days yet.


----------



## ggsantafe

CinemaAndy said:


> Knowing Fox, the Apes master was probably collecting dust on the shelf since may of last year.


Well, not quite - my son & his partner worked on the "Apes" production in New Orleans at an old NASA facility and they were on site through November, and I'm sure there was a lot of post production work done after the main sets shut down. Still - as you mentioned - the digital process has certainly decreased the time it takes to move a theatrical release to home distribution.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for your reply and insight Keith
> I don't think I am that far off with my existing speaker layout.
> 
> I must say I enjoyed your Atmos demo review.
> I do think we are on the brink of a new era in Home Cinema and looking forward to embracing it, probably in a second generation AVR or better still some form of stand alone processor which would enable existing AVR's to utilise Atmos.
> Early days yet.


You’re welcome! There seems to be a lot of flexibility wrt to speaker placement and the various options. Some of this information has only just come to light (thanks batpig!) wrt to the use of existing Height speaker setups for example. Chances are your existing Front Heights will be fine and will meet the specified angles. All you'd then need is an additional pair for Top Middle, Top Rear or Rear Height. This is based on current understanding of the Denon user manual and the config options below. 

You could leave your Wides in place and bring them into use on legacy content, using DTS Neo:X or Audyssey DSX to drive them. After all, most of everyone's content for some time to come is likely to be legacy!


Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height


----------



## kbarnes701

ggsantafe said:


> Well, not quite - my son & his partner worked on the "Apes" production in New Orleans at an old NASA facility and they were on site through November, and I'm sure there was a lot of post production work done after the main sets shut down. Still - as you mentioned - the digital process has certainly decreased the time it takes to move a theatrical release to home distribution.


It's great to see a movie and to have some connection with the people who made it, even if it just via a 'third party' connection through AVS. I shall be popping my (commercial cinema) Atmos cherry tomorrow, watching Apes in the new, local Atmos theater. Great to know that your family members worked on it!


----------



## sdurani

abrxx said:


> But surely Neo/Audessey Front Wide's are exactly the same?


Neo uses upmixing to extract a centre output from the front and side channels while Audyssey generates early reflections based on concert hall acoustics. 

Neither one of those processes is used in commercial Atmos, nor are those fill-in speakers in a commercial cinema at the same locations that Neo and Audyssey have their wide speakers. 

The consumer version of Atmos does render to wides, though for objects only, not channel beds. And Dolby's new upmixer apparently steers legacy content to all speakers except wides.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Audyssey generates early reflections based on concert hall acoustics.


Does it? From reading http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dsx I'd think it extracts information from the recording.



sdurani said:


> Neither one of those processes is used in commercial Atmos, nor are those fill-in speakers in a commercial cinema at the same locations that Neo and Audyssey have their wide speakers.


That's unfortunately true. Great benefits could have been had from making wides mandatory speaker locations.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> That's unfortunately true. Great benefits could have been had from making wides _mandatory_ speaker locations.


Thus limiting the user base don't you think?

You said it recently... don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Does it?


From the Audyssey Blog: 



> For years Audyssey has been talking about reducing the effect of unwanted sound reflections in the room with MultEQ. *But with Audyssey DSX we are adding reflections?* What’s all this about? The key word is “unwanted.” Sound reflections from certain directions are desirable because they improve our perception of the soundstage. But, in our home listening room, these reflections rarely come from the optimal directions. As a result they degrade the playback quality and that's why MultEQ tries to minimize their effect.
> 
> *But, what if we could recreate the desirable reflections?* Then, we can really feel more immersed in the scene. The most important direction for these reflections is from the sides and that’s what the Audyssey DSX Wide channels are designed to do. The algorithm looks at the content in real time and extracts from it the cues that we perceive from optimal side wall reflections. This information combines with the direct sound from the front and gives us an enhanced sense of soundstage width.


http://www.audyssey.com/blog/practical-guide-audyssey-dsx


markus767 said:


> From reading http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dsx I'd think it extracts information from the recording.


So those side wall early reflections and proscenium early reflections are already in the recording itself?


----------



## markus767

^
They extracts spatial information from the recording and route it to new/other speaker locations but they don't generate them. Same applies to other up mixing processing.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Thus limiting the user base don't you think?


More realistic sound reproduction would limit the user base? I don't agree.



FilmMixer said:


> You said it recently... don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


Not me, Sanjay likes to use that straw man. I'm more attracted by this phrase:

*"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."* - Vince Lombardi


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> They extracts spatial information from the recording and route it to new/other speaker locations but they don't generate them. Same applies to other up mixing processing.


So you're claiming that when DSX is "adding reflections", they were in the recording to begin with? If I turn off DSX, those reflections will still be there, just coming from other speakers than the wides and heights? Even if I'm watching an outdoor scene from _'Lawrence of Arabia'_, those side wall and proscenium reflections were already in the recording?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> So you're claiming that when DSX is "adding reflections", they were in the recording to begin with? If I turn off DSX, those reflections will still be there, just coming from other speakers than the wides and heights? Even if I'm watching an outdoor scene from _'Lawrence of Arabia'_, those side wall and proscenium reflections were already in the recording?


How much ouput do you get from DSX wides and heights when listening to a recording without reverberation, e.g. outdoor scene?

P.S. I didn't claim 'DSX is "adding reflections"' - you did.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Does it? From reading http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dsx I'd think it extracts information from the recording.
> 
> 
> 
> That's unfortunately true. Great benefits could have been had from making wides mandatory speaker locations.


No benefit to those, like me, who can't easily accommodate Wides. In fact, if they were mandatory I might not be able to even consider Atmos at all. Some 'benefit'! Markus, you often seem to conflate what _you_ want personally with what _everyone_ wants. Not so.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> So you're claiming that when DSX is "adding reflections", they were in the recording to begin with? If I turn off DSX, those reflections will still be there, just coming from other speakers than the wides and heights? Even if I'm watching an outdoor scene from _'Lawrence of Arabia'_, those side wall and proscenium reflections were already in the recording?


"Adding reflections" (Audyssey's words) doesn’t seem to me to be remotely similar to "creating or generating" reflections. They would have said, surely, "extracting reflections" if they meant what Markus is saying they meant?


----------



## audiovideoholic

Nightlord said:


> If, as per the post, BluRay is superior in all respects, then the poster must prefer all those BD's that have been remastered with all the nice low frequency content removed. Example given - Master&Commander. There's no LF-punch left in the cannon duels on the BD.
> 
> So, I gave it a bit of a twist.


Oh. Dang. I didn't know that and only buy bds myself since only watch them on 13' wide screen with Sony vw1100es. But would have atleast let a few different sources upscale the picture for a test since I think audio is just as important as the video. 

I know off topic but what's the best way to upscale a DVD? Multiple stages normally? Like oppo bd player to xxxxp, then AVR to xxxxp, then Sony pj to 4k (last scale to 4k might not even be possible may only upscale from 1080p?) Or all in one step to that devices greatest scaling ability? I'll have to try it. I haven't watched a DVD on a pj in well over 5-6 years and haven't bought a DVD since bds were released.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> How much ouput do you get from DSX wides and heights when listening to a recording without reverberation, e.g. outdoor scene?


With DSX, more than you'd think. Various people using DSX Wides have reported inappropriate reflections when watching movies.



markus767 said:


> P.S. I didn't claim 'DSX is "adding reflections"' - you did.


Actually, Audyssey did.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> How much ouput do you get from DSX wides and heights when listening to a recording without reverberation, e.g. outdoor scene?


It is adjustable, depending on AVR. Rather than take my word for it, anyone reading this thread can try it for themselves. My favourite example is the opening few seconds of the movie _'Cliffhanger'_, where you hear the sound of a helicopter before it is seen on-screen (flying over mountains). With DSX on, it sounds indoors, like it's in a large hanger. Again, no one should simply take my word for it; try it for yourself. Then turn off DSX and see if those reflections are in the recording.


markus767 said:


> P.S. I didn't claim 'DSX is "adding reflections"' - you did.


I never said you did. Why do you keep making this stuff up? I quoted Audyssey saying they were "adding reflections" because you were saying the opposite.


----------



## kbarnes701

Incidentally, this talk about DSX (which isn’t really on topic for this thread) raises an interesting point which IS on topic (just).

Chris Kyriakakis has always said that sounds emanating from behind us are not as noticeable or perceptible as sounds emanating from in front of us - hence the DSX concentration on two additional sets of speakers, Heights and Wides, in front of us. Setting aside the strange logic of that - if it is true then one would have thought that Audyssey would have concentrated on beefing up the sounds_ behind_ the listener not swamping them totally with sounds from two additional sets of speakers at the front - it has also been called into question by many experienced listeners.

Interestingly, Wilfrid Van Baelen (inventor of Auro) is adamant in his recent interview with WSR's Gary Reber, that the _exact opposite _is the case, and that human beings are _more_ sensitive, by about 2dB, to sounds coming from _behind_. He says that this has been reinforced by neural science experts, and the reason given for the phenomenon is that our survival in the past was dependent on us being acutely aware of sound from behind us, as we don't have eyes in the back of our head to warn us of approaching danger. 

If this is so, and it seems more plausible, then maybe it makes sense that Dolby seem to be less keen on Wides and more keen on other sound source locations, including behind us, with Atmos?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> More realistic sound reproduction would limit the user base? I don't agree.


You said.... "Great benefits could have been had from _*making wides mandatory*_ speaker locations."

To make wides mandatory would, yes.

How can you not see that...


----------



## Lesmor

Personally I far prefer Neo:X to DSX
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that wide's were made mandatory either.
The majority have 5.1 systems, but if the minority with 11.1 can gain some extra benefit with their wide's then hopefully they will be able to do that.

Edit: Totally agree with what's being said about sounds from behind being important, its primeval to mans survival


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> You said.... "Great benefits could have been had from _*making wides mandatory*_ speaker locations."
> 
> To make wides mandatory would, yes.
> 
> How can you not see that...


It would definitely limit the market by one - *me*! And I can't be alone in finding it hard to accommodate Wides surely? 

Not to mention that, as home Atmos stands, the only mandatory additions required are at least two top speakers, which can also be accommodated by Atmos Speakers or modules, thus not changing the in-home appearance of a 5.1.2 setup at all, if the latter option is used. It seems pretty obvious that they would _not limit the market at all_ if Atmos can be achieved with a 5.1.2 system that looks absolutely no different at all to a legacy 5.1 system. Forcing people to add Wides would dramatically change the (WAF) look of the system, even if they could be physically accommodated in the room. And given that we read all the time that many have difficulty in persuading their SO's to accommodate even 5 speakers, then clearly it is going to be a heck of a lot more difficult to persuade them to accommodate seven speakers. Or, IOW, limiting the market 

As I just said in a reply to Markus, he does sometimes seem to have difficulty in separating what _he personally_ wants, from what _everyone, or most people_ want(s).


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> They would have said, surely, "extracting reflections" if they meant what Markus is saying they meant?


Some quotes from Chris: 


audyssey said:


> I guess it all comes down to the definition of "adds". Yes, Audyssey DSX is adding content for the Wide and Height channels. This content is derived from the 5.1 mix and is sent to the Wide and Height speakers after time and frequency processing. Steering has particular connotations that are associated with 2-to-5 upmixing algorithms. In that sense, DSX doesn't do steering.





audyssey said:


> I would say that the current thinking by the majority of acousticians is that lateral reflections are good. There was a period 20+ years ago when this was in dispute, but I don't think is the case anymore. Even some of the old "die hards" have written books recently (I won't mention names) extolling the virtues of lateral reflections and the benefit they bring to auditory source width perception. However, it can't be any random reflection. The time of arrival, angle, and frequency response of the reflected sound has to be very carefully controlled to match the expectations of human perception. A lot of that thinking went into what DSX Wides do. In a typical small room the required time, angle, and spectrum conditions are not met.





audyssey said:


> Human hearing uses information from reflections and combines them with the direct sound to perceive what is called Auditory Source Width (ASW). So, DSX monitors the signals in all channels continuously and synthesizes signals for the wide and height channels based on the content. The purpose is to deliver the right acoustical and perceptual cues that expand the sense of soundstage envelopment. Furthermore, it applies Surround Envelopment Processing to better blend the surround channels with the fronts.





audyssey said:


> Yes, DSX SEP changes the content of the surrounds. It processes their signals to achieve a better blend with the front soundstage. If Surround Backs are present it also processes those signals to achieve a better blend with the main surrounds.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> You said.... "Great benefits could have been had from _*making wides mandatory*_ speaker locations."
> 
> To make wides mandatory would, yes.
> 
> How can you not see that...


I can see that if I would need to think in terms of short term marketability but I have the luxury NOT to think within those constraints. You have a vested interest in Atmos being successful, I have a vested interest in realistic sound reproduction. So please allow me to express my disappointment that I have to wait longer than necessary for certain ideas to come to market.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> I can see that if I would need to think in terms of short term marketability but I have the luxury NOT to think within those constraints. _*You have a vested interest in Atmos being successful*_, I have a vested interest in realistic sound reproduction. So please allow me to express my disappointment that I have to wait longer than necessary for certain ideas to come to market.


Oh give me a break....

Now you've gone too far...

How do I have any vested interest in Atmos being successful..

It has no bearing on me or my career... please explain your self or delete the post.

And where is your personal stake? AFAIK you don't even work in the industry in any way..

Is this another one of your language barrier issues... 

"vested interest: a personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, _*especially one with an expectation of financial gain.*_"

And you aren't the singular arbiter of what is the end all be all of realistic sound reproduction.. if you were, your ideas would be common practice today... you spend more time telling everyone else how they could do better, but I can't think of any recent example of you being complimentary of any new developments..


----------



## markus767

^
Marc,

Do I really need to explain how your work as a re-recording engineer is connected to Dolby being successful with Atmos? Seriously?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> ^
> Marc,
> 
> Do I really need to explain how your work as a re-recording engineer is connected to Dolby being successful with Atmos? Seriously?


Yes... seriously.. explain yourself...

How is my work tied to how successful Dolby is with Atmos?


----------



## markus767

^
You don't see a connection between Dolby being successful with Atmos, studios making more money (or at least not less) because of it and those studios investing in new productions that are mixed in facilities that employ re-recording mixers like yourself?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Wilfrid Van Baelen (inventor of Auro) is adamant in his recent interview with WSR's Gary Reber, that the _exact opposite _is the case, and that human beings are _more_ sensitive, by about 2dB, to sounds coming from _behind_.


I don't know if I'd go that far, claiming our hearing is better behind us than in front.


kbarnes701 said:


> If this is so, and it seems more plausible, then maybe it makes sense that Dolby seem to be less keen on Wides and more keen on other sound source locations, including behind us, with Atmos?


Historically, Dolby seems to have been adding channels around us rather than in front of us, going from one surround channel (Dolby Stereo) to 2 surround channels (discrete 5.1) to 3 surround channels (Surround EX) to 4 surround channels (discrete 7.1), all while keeping the number of front channels the same (3). They've done this in commercial cinemas and then brought those technologies to home video. 

Maybe they want to shore up directions where our hearing is not as good. By comparison, Audyssey wants to add channels where our hearing is better (in front). To me, that makes about as much sense as giving crutches to people with stronger legs or prescribing glasses to people with better vision. I'd rather put additional channels/speakers where our hearing needs help with imaging and stability (around us and above us).


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Maybe they want to shore up directions where our hearing is not as good. By comparison, Audyssey wants to add channels where our hearing is better (in front). To me, that makes about as much sense as giving crutches to people with stronger legs or prescribing glasses to people with better vision. I'd rather put additional channels/speakers where our hearing needs help with imaging and stability (around us and above us).


True for increasing the number of possible locations for auditory events, not true for increasing spaciousness.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> With DSX, more than you'd think.


Right, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the front L/R speakers are reduced by 3dB when DSX is activated, making the wides louder than the main L/R speakers.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> ^
> You don't see a connection between Dolby being successful with Atmos, studios making more money (or at least not less) because of it, those studios investing in new productions that are mixed in facilities that employ re-recording engineers?


No... that's quite a stretch.. that studios will green light production because of Atmos.. (I've used up my allotment of roll eyes today, so I can only say "oh brother!!!)

They were coming before and that won't change if Dolby isn't successful in the long term.. 

It has no bearing on the overall success of the company I work for, or the amount of films being made, or the health of the audio post community.. 

You really think that the availability of object based solutions would drive any studio to green light a project? You don't know much about the business..

If we are talking about theatrical, the studios don't make any money on it... neither do exhibitors.. their focus is on up charge for 3D and "large format" rooms, with the new trend being alcohol and premium food items... exhibs have never charged for audio upgrades, and studios don't either..

One of the reasons we have seen adoption slow down is the cost issue.. who's going to pay for the retrofit and how will it be recouped...

Do you really think studios sell more BR's because they have 7.1 on them? Have any data to back that up?

While this initial batch of Atmos titles may induce some double dipping, I assure you that consumers will buy desirable content regardless of Atmos, MDA, UHD, etc...

It will drive CE gear sales, and IMO is a great step up in terms of immersive audio in the home over what we've had up until now.. 

One final note... almost every one has starting mixing in Atmos from the start on projects releasing in it... the tools have matured, the workflow established, etc...

At this point, mixing in Atmos requires an extra day on the stage for the process as a general rule..

I just finished the 5.1, 7.1 and IMAX mixes for a film releasing soon in Atmos and Auro (6 deliveries in all).. so while both the immersive mixes added around 3 days to the post mixing schedule on this particular show, it is hardly a necessity in what makes us able to stay profitable and open.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> ^
> You don't see a connection between Dolby being successful with Atmos, studios making more money (or at least not less) because of it and those studios investing in new productions that are mixed in facilities that employ re-recording mixers like yourself?


Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but didn't FM have a successful career before Atmos was even thought of?


----------



## Keenan

kbarnes701 said:


> Interestingly, Wilfrid Van Baelen (inventor of Auro) is adamant in his recent interview with WSR's Gary Reber, that the _exact opposite _is the case, and that human beings are _more_ sensitive, by about 2dB, to sounds coming from _behind_.





sdurani said:


> I don't know if I'd go that far, claiming our hearing is better behind us than in front.


I think it's more a case of we are sensitive to sounds from behind us because we don't expect them, our eyes are focused forward and in turn our ears are "focused" in the same direction, so when we sense a sound behind us it stands out as something other than the norm that we're getting from the front.

Actual hearing sensitivity can be tested, but I think it's case of conscious awareness more than physical hearing ability.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I don't know if I'd go that far, claiming our hearing is better behind us than in front.


Sure - I'm just the messenger though  The interview, or half of it, is in the current issue of WSR and that was what Van Baelen claimed. Said he had researched it with all manner of 'men in white coats'. The concept is plausible - millennia ago it would have been important to know if stuff was creeping up behind you... 



sdurani said:


> Historically, Dolby seems to have been adding channels around us rather than in front of us, going from one surround channel (Dolby Stereo) to 2 surround channels (discrete 5.1) to 3 surround channels (Surround EX) to 4 surround channels (discrete 7.1), all while keeping the number of front channels the same (3). They've done this in commercial cinemas and then brought those technologies to home video.
> 
> Maybe they want to shore up directions where our hearing is not as good. By comparison, Audyssey wants to add channels where our hearing is better (in front). To me, that makes about as much sense as giving crutches to people with stronger legs or prescribing glasses to people with better vision. I'd rather put additional channels/speakers where our hearing needs help with imaging and stability (around us and above us).


Yes, total agreement. And even worse, they FUBARed (to some extent) XT32 because of their, apparently mistaken, notion about perception of sound from behind. It's interesting how two credible sources (Audyssey and Van Baelen I mean) seem to have such diametrically opposed views about this. He does actually claim a 2dB 'superiority' of sounds from the rear, which I agree seems to be stretching it. But it makes sense historically - we have eyes and ears to protect us from danger from the front, but ears alone to protect us from the rear. Logically then, our hearing should work better with sounds from behind. But then again, our pinnae face forwards. Logically, they should face backwards  Anyway, it's taking us OT, but I thought it was an interesting claim.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> True for increasing the number of possible locations for auditory events, not true for increasing spaciousness.


Increasing spaciousness of what? Whether it Peter O'Toole in the middle of an open desert or Jürgen Prochnow inside a confined submarine, what spaciousness in those scenes do you want to increase that the mixer hasn't already put into the soundtrack?


----------



## JHAz

Keenan said:


> I think it's more a case of we are sensitive to sounds from behind us because we don't expect them, our eyes are focused forward and in turn our ears are "focused" in the same direction, so when we sense a sound behind us it stands out as something other than the norm that we're getting from the front.
> 
> Actual hearing sensitivity can be tested, but I think it's case of conscious awareness more than physical hearing ability.


Given the pace of evolution, it is highly unlikely the human hearing mechanism has changed since the development of, first, moves, and then TV. If there is a diference in sensitivity it is not consciously mediated, at least as I understand the concept os hearing sensitivity. It just won't mattet what I am thinking if a sound is below my hearing threshold.


----------



## kbarnes701

Keenan said:


> I think it's more a case of we are sensitive to sounds from behind us because we don't expect them, our eyes are focused forward and in turn our ears are "focused" in the same direction, so when we sense a sound behind us it stands out as something other than the norm that we're getting from the front.
> 
> Actual hearing sensitivity can be tested, but I think it's case of conscious awareness more than physical hearing ability.


Van Baelen actually goes on to say something similar, concluding that it is a _fault_ or flaw with Atmos and that a sound object appearing off screen, behind us, will take us out of the movie. I can say that this didn't happen with Gravity, where the sounds from all around and behind me immersed me even more in the movie, leading to an almost total suspension of disbelief which resulted in a noticeable quickening of my heart rate and temperature, so much was I 'part of the action' out there, 'in space' along with Clooney and Bullock. For someone who sees 350 or more movies a year, it takes something special to do that to me!


----------



## sdurani

Keenan said:


> Actual hearing sensitivity can be tested, but I think it's case of conscious awareness more than physical hearing ability.


That makes sense: even if we're not more sensitive (hearing acuity) behind us we might still be more sensitive (easily startled) by sounds behind us.


----------



## mtbdudex

markus767 said:


> Mods are already getting annoyed by the numerous discussions about the upcoming Atmos feature in AVRs. So lets give this new format a home of its own in this thread.
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.
> 
> First, here's some general information about Atmos so everybody is up to speed:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf
> 
> Dolby on Atmos for the home:
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> 
> Information from Onkyo:
> http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com
> 
> Dolby Patent Application:
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014036085A1.html


Wow - this thread sure has exploded and what not.
Marcus, can you add graphic visuals that explain Atmos to your 1st post?
Makes things easier to grasp.
I've added these to my "moving-past-7-1-into-9-1-11-x-3d-objectaudio" thread, not sure if there are other "better" ones, which are "official" Dolby issued vs AVR Manuals, etc.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...udysseydsx-dolbypliiz-dts-neo-xa-auro-3d.html

via jdsmoothie post








via Denon eu pdf file


----------



## Keenan

JHAz said:


> Given the pace of evolution, it is highly unlikely the human hearing mechanism has changed since the development of, first, moves, and then TV. If there is a diference in sensitivity it is not consciously mediated, at least as I understand the concept os hearing sensitivity. It just won't mattet what I am thinking if a sound is below my hearing threshold.


I wasn't really speaking in turns of amplitude, if it's not loud enough we simply won't hear it, but more that we don't expect, or listen for, sounds from behind us as we are genetically programmed to focus our brain power toward what's in front of us being the predator species than we are.


----------



## Keenan

sdurani said:


> That makes sense: even if we're not more sensitive (hearing acuity) behind us we might still be more sensitive (easily startled) by sounds behind us.


Exactly. See my later post.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Van Baelen actually goes on to say something similar, concluding that it is a _fault_ or flaw with Atmos and that a sound object appearing off screen, behind us, will take us out of the movie.


I'd be curious if you any more sympathetic to his point of view after seeing 'Planet of the Apes' tomorrow. There are some distinct overhead effects, like a scene when some humans are hiding under a log and, during a close up shot of them, you can hear apes walking on the log above you. Don't know if you'll feel that sort of mixing decision distracts from the movie or reinforces the on-screen action. Or a little of both: 'I noticed it but I liked it'.


----------



## Keenan

kbarnes701 said:


> Van Baelen actually goes on to say something similar, concluding that it is a _fault_ or flaw with Atmos and that a sound object appearing off screen, behind us, will take us out of the movie. I can say that this didn't happen with Gravity, where the sounds from all around and behind me immersed me even more in the movie, leading to an almost total suspension of disbelief which resulted in a noticeable quickening of my heart rate and temperature, so much was I 'part of the action' out there, 'in space' along with Clooney and Bullock. For someone who sees 350 or more movies a year, it takes something special to do that to me!


I think it's _very_ dependent on the content and the viewing environment, especially the environment. A living room viewing environment would be much more susceptible to a "taking you out of it" scenario than say a darkened closed door theater.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

sdurani said:


> By comparison, Audyssey wants to add channels where our hearing is better (in front). To me, that makes about as much sense as giving crutches to people with stronger legs or prescribing glasses to people with better vision. I'd rather put additional channels/speakers where our hearing needs help with imaging and stability (around us and above us).


Above/behind vs wider don't seem mutually exclusive so does that statement assume a fixed channel budget? i.e. given a limited channel count then you would prioritise rear/height over wide.


----------



## Davefromuk

kbarnes701 said:


> Your front heights can be used with Atmos (assuming the angles work - see the diagram I just posted) for an Atmos setup which utilises Front Heights as below:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height


Hi,

I've been following the thread with great interest having recently invested in a 11.1 setup but I'm not quite as confident as some around the scope of utilising front heights in conjunction with Atmos on the 5200w or indeed any other receiver.

Page 205 lists the Amp Assign settings with 11.1 and Dolby Atmos listed separately with references to pages 208 and 219 respectively. I think the fact that they are listed separately could be significant.

The page 208 11.1 configuration describes a front height and top middle combination sure, but the page 219 which is the Dolby Atmos page still only refers to combinations of top front and top rear or top middle.

I can't see anything which says front heights can be used with Atmos.

Am I just bring paranoid ?


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> No... that's quite a stretch.. that studios will green light production because of Atmos.. (I've used up my allotment of roll eyes today, so I can only say "oh brother!!!)
> 
> They were coming before and that won't change if Dolby isn't successful in the long term..
> 
> It has no bearing on the overall success of the company I work for, or the amount of films being made, or the health of the audio post community..
> 
> You really think that the availability of object based solutions would drive any studio to green light a project? You don't know much about the business..
> 
> If we are talking about theatrical, the studios don't make any money on it... neither do exhibitors.. their focus is on up charge for 3D and "large format" rooms, with the new trend being alcohol and premium food items... exhibs have never charged for audio upgrades, and studios don't either..
> 
> One of the reasons we have seen adoption slow down is the cost issue.. who's going to pay for the retrofit and how will it be recouped...
> 
> Do you really think studios sell more BR's because they have 7.1 on them? Have any data to back that up?
> 
> While this initial batch of Atmos titles may induce some double dipping, I assure you that consumers will buy desirable content regardless of Atmos, MDA, UHD, etc...
> 
> It will drive CE gear sales, and IMO is a great step up in terms of immersive audio in the home over what we've had up until now..
> 
> One final note... almost every one has starting mixing in Atmos from the start on projects releasing in it... the tools have matured, the workflow established, etc...
> 
> At this point, mixing in Atmos requires an extra day on the stage for the process as a general rule..
> 
> I just finished the 5.1, 7.1 and IMAX mixes for a film releasing soon in Atmos and Auro (6 deliveries in all).. so while both the immersive mixes added around 3 days to the post mixing schedule on this particular show, it is hardly a necessity in what makes us able to stay profitable and open.


Did I read that right? Nobody makes any money in those businesses and none of them are remotely connected


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Increasing spaciousness of what? Whether it Peter O'Toole in the middle of an open desert or Jürgen Prochnow inside a confined submarine, what spaciousness in those scenes do you want to increase that the mixer hasn't already put into the soundtrack?


Spaciousness depends on reverberation coming from SPECIFIC locations...


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Spaciousness depends on reverberation coming from SPECIFIC locations...


Which needs to be present in, and created for, the content, not the playback system.


----------



## JHAz

Keenan said:


> I wasn't really speaking in turns of amplitude, if it's not loud enough we simply won't hear it, but more that we don't expect, or listen for, sounds from behind us as we are genetically programmed to focus our brain power toward what's in front of us being the predator species than we are.


So you aren't talking about sensitivity. Near as I can tell sounds have come from 360 degrees from the beginning of hearing. Either we are physically more sensitive to sounds from behind or not, but our emotional/physical/ fight or flight reaction to those sounds is simply something different than sensitivity to the sound.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Which needs to be present in, and created for, the content, not the playback system.


They are not mutually exclusive, how could they?










http://seanolive.blogspot.ch/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Did I read that right? Nobody makes any money in those businesses and none of them are remotely connected


Markus...

No.. you didn't read that right, which seems to be an common problem for you.

You are getting more ridiculous with every post.

Where did I say that nobody makes money in these businesses..

You are the one who keeps tying it to a codec/platform.. 

You stated without any lack of clarity that:

"You don't see a connection between *Dolby being successful with Atmos*, _studios making more money_ (or at least not less) because of it, those studios investing in new productions that are mixed in facilities that employ re-recording"

Yes.. I am saying that studios don't make any more money by mixing a film in Atmos... they spend more on the production side to do so, and we see a marginal increase in dubbing time... how did we all survive without it before it's introduction.  If it was such a boon, they would be mixing everything in the format, and we'd have more than 2 stages up and running at this time..

What part of that don't you understand? I work for a successful company whose overall financial health is in no way tied to the success of Dolby and their products.

You insinuated that I had a vested interest in the success of Atmos... That I would substantially benefit both economically and personally. 

Again, you ignored my question back to you to explain how I personally gain, and again how realistic sound reproduction would do the same for you..

If you don't know what a term means you should stop using it..

As with most conversation between you and I, I won't prolong the agony everyone else must suffer over your points you always insist your are right over..


----------



## Keenan

JHAz said:


> So you aren't talking about sensitivity. Near as I can tell sounds have come from 360 degrees from the beginning of hearing. Either we are physically more sensitive to sounds from behind or not, but our emotional/physical/ fight or flight reaction to those sounds is simply something different than sensitivity to the sound.


Right, I wasn't talking about our physical ability to hear those sounds but how we react to them when we do hear them.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> They are not mutually exclusive, how could they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://seanolive.blogspot.ch/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html


If it's not there in the original recording, no playback system will be able to create it.

I never stated they were mutually exclusive.. 

IMO, Toole's circle of confusion doesn't apply to the this discussion.. 

I know you'll say of course it does, so it's not really something I want to debate.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I'd be curious if you any more sympathetic to his point of view after seeing 'Planet of the Apes' tomorrow. There are some distinct overhead effects, like a scene when some humans are hiding under a log and, during a close up shot of them, you can hear apes walking on the log above you. Don't know if you'll feel that sort of mixing decision distracts from the movie or reinforces the on-screen action. Or a little of both: 'I noticed it but I liked it'.


I'll look out for it - thanks. I suspect I will both notice it and like it. I don't personally find that off-screen sounds, properly done, with relevance to the story and the on-screen action, take me out of the movie at all. In fact, generally I find that they enhance the experience for me. And the extra immersion I have experienced so far with Atmos really blew me away.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> *If Dolby Atmos allows me to add more speakers, why do I see A/V receivers with just 11 channels?*
> 
> Many hardware partners are building or planning to build Dolby Atmos enabled A/V receivers and speakers. Those partners decide what product configurations make the most sense for their customers. But the Dolby Atmos system itself is almost unlimited. If you have the space and budget, you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers.
> * One of our hardware partners is planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels*.


That would be a premier in the world of AV receivers Andy.
Do you have more info in how them 32 channels would be distributed; like with a bunch of preouts? 
...I'm trying to imagine and ... what are they; like 20 mains (floor and walls) and 8 overheard (top/ceiling) and 4 subwoofer channels (summed up for the .1 LFE)?


----------



## kbarnes701

Davefromuk said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been following the thread with great interest having recently invested in a 11.1 setup but I'm not quite as confident as some around the scope of utilising front heights in conjunction with Atmos on the 5200w or indeed any other receiver.
> 
> Page 205 lists the Amp Assign settings with 11.1 and Dolby Atmos listed separately with references to pages 208 and 219 respectively. I think the fact that they are listed separately could be significant.
> 
> The page 208 11.1 configuration describes a front height and top middle combination sure, but the page 219 which is the Dolby Atmos page still only refers to combinations of top front and top rear or top middle.
> 
> I can't see anything which says front heights can be used with Atmos.
> 
> Am I just bring paranoid ?


I don't know. I am going by batpig's remarks. batpig is the acknowledged master of Denon-English translation and he seemed fairly sure that a combination of Front height and top middle/top rear was possible. I hope so as it is a configuration I may want to use myself. Best to double check with batpig - certainly don't take my word for it.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> As with most conversation between you and I, I won't prolong the agony everyone else must suffer over your points you always insist your are right over..





FilmMixer said:


> I know you'll say of course it does, so it's not really something I want to debate.


Nobody forces you to participate  Can we get back to the actual topic?


----------



## Schwa

Davefromuk said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been following the thread with great interest having recently invested in a 11.1 setup but I'm not quite as confident as some around the scope of utilising front heights in conjunction with Atmos on the 5200w or indeed any other receiver.
> 
> Page 205 lists the Amp Assign settings with 11.1 and Dolby Atmos listed separately with references to pages 208 and 219 respectively. I think the fact that they are listed separately could be significant.
> 
> The page 208 11.1 configuration describes a front height and top middle combination sure, but the page 219 which is the Dolby Atmos page still only refers to combinations of top front and top rear or top middle.
> 
> I can't see anything which says front heights can be used with Atmos.
> 
> Am I just bring paranoid ?


If you look on page 287 of the manual you'll see that front heights are active when Dolby Atmos is engaged.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally, this talk about DSX (which isn’t really on topic for this thread) raises an interesting point which IS on topic (just).
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis has always said that sounds emanating from behind us are not as noticeable or perceptible as sounds emanating from in front of us - hence the DSX concentration on two additional sets of speakers, Heights and Wides, in front of us. Setting aside the strange logic of that - if it is true then one would have thought that Audyssey would have concentrated on beefing up the sounds_ behind_ the listener not swamping them totally with sounds from two additional sets of speakers at the front - it has also been called into question by many experienced listeners.
> 
> Interestingly, Wilfrid Van Baelen (inventor of Auro) is adamant in his recent interview with WSR's Gary Reber, that the _exact opposite _is the case, and that human beings are _more_ sensitive, by about 2dB, to sounds coming from _behind_. He says that this has been reinforced by neural science experts, and the reason given for the phenomenon is that our survival in the past was dependent on us being acutely aware of sound from behind us, as we don't have eyes in the back of our head to warn us of approaching danger.
> 
> If this is so, and it seems more plausible, then maybe it makes sense that Dolby seem to be less keen on Wides and more keen on other sound source locations, including behind us, with Atmos?


That makes a lot of common sense. Good post Keith.
And don't complain to me because I quoted you entirely instead of giving you a chiclet gum (Like/click). 
You have your way, I got mine. Besides it is not my usual custom. ...I do when I find a smart post that I consider a good read, not just for me, but for you too, and others.  ...You're one of my favorite posters here @ AVS.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Spaciousness depends on reverberation coming from SPECIFIC locations...


I'll ask again: you want to increase the spaciousness of what specifically? When playing back a soundtrack mixed in Atmos, do you want to create the impression of hearing it played back in a more spacious room? If not, then what do you want increase the spaciousness of?


----------



## NorthSky

Methinks that Marc (FilmMixer) and Markus should work together.
...In making/mixing great Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks for our Blu-ray movies @ home.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but didn't FM have a successful career before Atmos was even thought of?


FM Stereo r.a.d.i.o.?


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - I'm just the messenger though  The interview, or half of it, is in the current issue of WSR and that was what Van Baelen claimed. Said he had researched it with all manner of 'men in white coats'. The concept is plausible - millennia ago it would have been important to know if stuff was creeping up behind you...


I really like Widescreen Review, and Gary Reber...with great articles and reviews and interviews easily accessible to the general public. ...Chapeau to him and his entire staff over all the years of its existence.
...Starting in the Laser Disc years to DVD and now Blu-ray. 

Gary is always surrounded by some of the best writers and minds in the audio/video industry.
And all the great reviews and articles and interviews are made public so that we can all greatly benefit, like we do from Stereophile & HomeTheater Mag (Sound&Vision).


----------



## Davefromuk

Schwa said:


> If you look on page 287 of the manual you'll see that front heights are active when Dolby Atmos is engaged.


You're right though now I'm more confused as that page lists every possible channel as being output in Atmos mode and also suggests wides can work with Atmos which hasn't been suggested anywhere so far as I know.

Just wondering why you have to select Atmos as the Amp Assign settings if it's so flexible.

I've had bad experiences with receivers not being as flexible as you'd expect/hope.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Interestingly, Wilfrid Van Baelen (inventor of Auro) is adamant in his recent interview with WSR's Gary Reber, that the _exact opposite _is the case, and that human beings are _more_ sensitive, by about 2dB, to sounds coming from _behind_. He says that this has been reinforced by neural science experts, and the reason given for the phenomenon is that our survival in the past was dependent on us being acutely aware of sound from behind us, as we don't have eyes in the back of our head to warn us of approaching danger.


Sensitivity is one thing, but I severely doubt it also applies to localization as we're missing the nose at the back of our heads to help by shadowing... The normal reaction to a sound behind us would be to turn around to look for it... Not remain with the back against it listening to where it is....

(Sorry if this has already been brought up in the posts I have yet not caught up with)

Edit: now that I have caught up it does seem that you the issue was addressed.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Nobody forces you to participate  Can we get back to the actual topic?


Markus.. you insinuated that I gain both professionally and financially from Atmos.. that required a response.


----------



## sdurani

3ll3d00d said:


> Above/behind vs wider don't seem mutually exclusive so does that statement assume a fixed channel budget? i.e. given a limited channel count then you would prioritise rear/height over wide.


Yes. IF I've added the rears and all the heights I would want, then I would add wides. But if limited to 11 speakers, then no wides for me.


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> Markus...
> 
> No.. you didn't read that right, which seems to be an common problem for you.
> 
> You are getting more ridiculous with every post.
> 
> Where did I say that nobody makes money in these businesses..
> 
> You are the one who keeps tying it to a codec/platform..
> 
> You stated without any lack of clarity that:
> 
> "You don't see a connection between *Dolby being successful with Atmos*, _studios making more money_ (or at least not less) because of it, those studios investing in new productions that are mixed in facilities that employ re-recording"
> 
> Yes.. I am saying that studios don't make any more money by mixing a film in Atmos... they spend more on the production side to do so, and we see a marginal increase in dubbing time... how did we all survive without it before it's introduction.  If it was such a boon, they would be mixing everything in the format, and we'd have more than 2 stages up and running at this time..
> 
> What part of that don't you understand? I work for a successful company whose overall financial health is in no way tied to the success of Dolby and their products.
> 
> You insinuated that I had a vested interest in the success of Atmos... That I would substantially benefit both economically and personally.
> 
> Again, you ignored my question back to you to explain how I personally gain, and again how realistic sound reproduction would do the same for you..
> 
> If you don't know what a term means you should stop using it..
> 
> As with most conversation between you and I, I won't prolong the agony everyone else must suffer over your points you always insist your are right over..


Unlike video 3D, there is no additional cost for Atmos. The sole cost of Atmos rests squarely on the shoulders of the theater owner. Unlike DCI, Atmos is not being forced down any owners throat, they upgrade, or they don't upgrade.

The average Atmos upgrade can start at $70,000 and go way up. The owner bears this cost. And for that cost he gets to hang a "spiffy sign" out front, and over the house door, that say" "Dolby Atmos Theater." So Atmos has been heard and discussed and like Dolby it's self, needs no introduction, as most are aware of what it is.

Atmos for the theater, was a way to get you to hit power on the remote and see the movie at the theater. The Studios and the theater owners liked that. Same as they like laser projection, as it increases the gap between Cinema and HT.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I'll ask again: you want to increase the spaciousness of what specifically? When playing back a soundtrack mixed in Atmos, do you want to create the impression of hearing it played back in a more spacious room? If not, then what do you want increase the spaciousness of?


I would like to have realistic sounding spaciousness. I find there's a great lack of it. And no, it's not because of my setup.


----------



## NorthSky

Keenan said:


> I wasn't really speaking in turns of amplitude, if it's not loud enough we simply won't hear it, but more that we don't expect, or listen for, sounds from behind us as we are genetically programmed to focus our brain power toward what's in front of *us being the predator species than we are*.


*'Predator'*, with Arnold; perfect example of sounds emanating from behind and above and all around us.
And the DVD(s) is in plain compressed (highly Lossy) DD or dts 5.1 surround sound vanilla flavor (both versions are avail - got them both too).
While the Blu-rays (got them both too - 2D & 3D versions) with its High-Resolution Lossless DTS-HD MA multichannel 5.1 surround sound track is not that much better than the ones from their DVD counterparts (highly compressed multich audio tracks).

Now, Dolby Atmos for Arnold?


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> Unlike video 3D, there is no additional cost for Atmos. The sole cost of Atmos rests squarely on the shoulders of the theater owner. Unlike DCI, Atmos is not being forced down any owners throat, they upgrade, or they don't upgrade.
> 
> The average Atmos upgrade can start at $70,000 and go way up. The owner bears this cost. And for that cost he gets to hang a "spiffy sign" out front, and over the house door, that say" "Dolby Atmos Theater." So Atmos has been heard and discussed and like Dolby it's self, needs no introduction, as most are aware of what it is.
> 
> Atmos for the theater, was a way to get you to hit power on the remote and see the movie at the theater. The Studios and the theater owners liked that. Same as they like laser projection, as it increases the gap between Cinema and HT.


All good points, but I think a couple of them are debatable.

I don't think there is any huge amount of consumer awareness about Atmos.

And I don't think there is any viable data to support the notion that it helps sell tickets in a meaningful way..

I only know of a few of us geeks that will go out of their way to hear it.

Luckily, it has been packaged with other upgrades, like reserved seating, large screen presentations, etc... I'm not sure if and of itself it would be a draw.. that is what I think keeps people coming.

Of course I'm a huge fan of it (and any other tools that give us more freedom in telling stories through sound...) But I understand the realistic nature of show "business."

I will say that it has been a great tool for exhibitors to help them create their own IMAX like experience (digital, not film, based IMAX...) Look at AMC's ETX and Prime as, well, prime examples of upgrades that justify the ticket price... and the exhibs don't have to pay a royalty to IMAX nor pay the additional concession "tax" IMAX gets...


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> you insinuated that I gain both professionally and financially from Atmos.. .


All the above rings true for me. No complaints from me.


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> All the above rings true for me. No complaints from me.


Consider me confused...


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Spaciousness depends on reverberation coming from SPECIFIC locations...





FilmMixer said:


> Which needs to be present in, and created for, the content, not the playback system.


...Or by the room itself. ...Like @ a concert hall.


----------



## Keenan

NorthSky said:


> *'Predator'*, with Arnold; perfect example of sounds emanating from behind and above and all around us.
> And the DVD(s) is in plain compressed (highly Lossy) DD or dts 5.1 surround sound vanilla flavor (both versions are avail - got them both too).
> While the Blu-rays (got them both too - 2D & 3D versions) with its High-Resolution Lossless DTS-HD MA multichannel 5.1 surround sound track is not that much better than the ones from their DVD counterparts (highly compressed multich audio tracks).
> 
> Now, Dolby Atmos for Arnold?


Sure, I think that would be a very good soundtrack to have a Dolby Atmos treatment.


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> All good points, but I think a couple of them are debatable.
> 
> I don't think there is any huge amount of consumer awareness about Atmos.
> 
> And I don't think there is any viable data to support the notion that it helps sell tickets in a meaningful way..
> 
> I only know of a few of us geeks that will go out of their way to hear it.
> 
> Luckily, it has been packaged with other upgrades, like reserved seating, large screen presentations, etc... I'm not sure if and of itself it would be a draw.. that is what I think keeps people coming.
> 
> Of course I'm a huge fan of it (and any other tools that give us more freedom in telling stories through sound...) But I understand the realistic nature of show "business."
> 
> I will say that it has been a great tool for exhibitors to help them create their own IMAX like experience (digital, not film, based IMAX...) Look at AMC's ETX and Prime as, well, prime examples of upgrades that justify the ticket price... and the exhibs don't have to pay a royalty to IMAX nor pay the additional concession "tax" IMAX gets...


One of the things that i do, that really erases all the "bullsh&&" during the construction/redesign process, is to be at a theater(s) opening night. To be with the people and hear there comments. A Hollywood executive suggested this to me.

When you hear a bunch of excited 11 year old's at the box office window with there parents shouting "Get Atmos tickets, Get Atmos tickets!" That pretty much tells me, it's a home run for Dolby and all those involved in the process. And when you are in the house and the action is going on screen and you see people look up and comment's like "Oh my God! I thought the roof was falling down!" It makes you smile to be apart of that, even if it was not your ideal.

Atmos, Auro-3D, IMAX, and other IMAX encroaching large screen's. Is a way to sell thickets. It is what separates Commercial cinema from Home Theater.

IMAX, as it's own format, has always charged for it's use. The Hollywood studios approached IMAX, not the other way around. That gave, and still does give IMAX leverage in contracts.

For example, a theater without a large over head, there matinee price is $5.50. The theater keeps $0.50 of every ticket sold the first three weeks of the film and relies solely on concession sales. Week 4 see's the theater getting $1.50 per ticket. Week 5 $2.50 per ticket. Week 6 $3.50 per ticket. And before the film leaves the theater it is getting $5.00 from every ticket sale. By that time people are seeing other new releases, so that film is not drawing a huge profit to still being showed.

Now take a premium Atmos, large screen, 4K, Laser, whatever. There ticket price for the same movie at there matinee price is $12.50 per ticket. All the other mechanisms still apply, however this theater is getting $7.50 from every ticket sale. But, unlike the other theater, the premium theater offers more screens, mover food choices, lobby and auditorium ushers, projectionist on site, etc. But, still this extra money is going back into services offered, so in effect the premium theater is making no more than the cheaper theater on ticket sales. But, on the concession sales it is tripling the cheaper theater because it offers a fry grill or whatever.

Not advancing with the times has shut down plenty of cinemas in this country. There is plenty of pools and research to back that statement up. The head of the theater owners association made a statement awhile back, "If your not going Digital, your going out of business." I think this can be applied to all the new products coming out, including Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Davefromuk said:


> You're right though now I'm more confused as that page lists every possible channel as being output in Atmos mode and also suggests wides can work with Atmos which hasn't been suggested anywhere so far as I know.
> 
> Just wondering why you have to select Atmos as the Amp Assign settings if it's so flexible.
> 
> *I've had bad experiences with receivers not being as flexible as you'd expect/hope*.


Hi Dave, & Welcome! 

We all had. But to me the most important thing in this all "surround sound" affair is; the *intelligent audio mix in the Blu-ray disc itself.* ...Like *'Gravity' - 'Master and Commander' - 'Predator' - 'Once Upon a Time in the West'* (Sergio & Ennio - The opening scene) for just few good examples.

You can have a Super Master Receiver with 11.2 channels of Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X and perfectly well executed (perfection is in ...) and distributed and corrected and acoustically equalized to your own personal room and with all the best room treatments and cables and wires and surge purificators, ...but if the film soundtrack sucks it will remain as such, always and forever. 

And, when you do a remastering/mixing of a movie audio soundtrack, you'll never get the exact location sounds from where them moving pictures were shot. ...But recreated on stage, in a studio. ...With DSP processing, and dynamic range compressing, and reverberations recreated (fiction), and all that movie business and audio home theater that is in our rooms in the year 2014, and before. 

Methinks that a Dolby Atmos with a 7.1.4 speaker system will kick ass! ...And a simple well executed AV receiver will get us right there. ...Denon/Marantz, Onkyo/Integra, Yamaha, Pioneer. 
Eleven channels, plus the .1 LFE channel (single or multi subs). 

I just can't wait to make my room kicking ass all over my ears, brain, head, mind, heart, and all soul's senses.
{By the way my room is 19 by 16 by 11 feet. - I personally intend a 7.1.4 configuration using dual subwoofers.}

Right now I have a SSP with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Pro Ready) and Audyssey DSX decoding//processing/ calibrating/equalizing/self-subscribing to high DSP and DRC chip computing/analysing, and I just want more, like over my head speakers from Dolby Atmos.
{My SSP is an Integra DHC-80.3 unit - I'm thinking now of a Marantz AV7702 SSP.}

That's me, and my room. ...Tomorrow who knows...


----------



## CinemaAndy

I for one will be glad when Dolby releases it's Home Atmos "whitepaper". I would like to now how big a room a xx.xx.xx can cover with CE equipment.


----------



## Schwa

Davefromuk said:


> You're right though now I'm more confused as that page lists every possible channel as being output in Atmos mode and also suggests wides can work with Atmos which hasn't been suggested anywhere so far as I know.
> 
> Just wondering why you have to select Atmos as the Amp Assign settings if it's so flexible.
> 
> I've had bad experiences with receivers not being as flexible as you'd expect/hope.


Wides work with Atmos (9.1.2)...look at the possible Dolby Atmos speaker layouts posted elsewhere in this thread.

If you have a 5.1 or 7.1 system plus a "standard" Atmos ceiling speaker layout you'd select Atmos as the Amp Assign setting. Otherwise you'd need to use something more customizable. A standard Atmos ceiling layout won't work with DSX or DTS Neo:X though, so I'm very glad there's additional flexibility.

FWIW the 4520 has an even more flexible Amp Assign function than the X5200W and I'd be surprised if the X7200W doesn't follow suit.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> I would like to have realistic sounding spaciousness. I find there's a great lack of it.


What does that have to do with consumer Atmos and wides? Adding a pair of speakers at ±55-60° doesn't mean a soundtrack will suddenly contain _"reverberation coming from SPECIFIC locations"_.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> All good points, but I think a couple of them are debatable.
> 
> I don't think there is any huge amount of consumer awareness about Atmos.
> 
> And I don't think there is any viable data to support the notion that it helps sell tickets in a meaningful way..
> 
> I only know of a few of us geeks that will go out of their way to hear it.



I thought that I read that ticket sales are down 5% this year as compared with last year. Obviously that must be caused by the availability of Atmos sound tracks.

I know about Atmos, but I must admit I don't care about Atmos at all relative to its availability in a theater. As far as home use is concerned, I will leave the Atmos implementation to the extreme fringe elements of the home theater crowd.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> That would be a premier in the world of AV receivers Andy.
> Do you have more info in how them 32 channels would be distributed; like with a bunch of preouts?
> ...I'm trying to imagine and ... what are they; like 20 mains (floor and walls) and 8 overheard (top/ceiling) and 4 subwoofer channels (summed up for the .1 LFE)?


I would consider that Ultra-High-End and not to mention a room size of at least 30x40x15 for a Atmos xx.4.xx configuration.

Yes that would be many preouts, a wiring nightmare, certainly a rack mount system.


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> When you hear a bunch of excited 11 year old's at the box office window with there parents shouting "Get Atmos tickets, Get Atmos tickets!" That pretty much tells me, it's a home run for Dolby and all those involved in the process. And when you are in the house and the action is going on screen and you see people look up and comment's like "Oh my God! I thought the roof was falling down!" It makes you smile to be apart of that, even if it was not your ideal.


My point is that they would still be going to see the film, Atmos or not... that they prefer to seek it out when available is a different conceit.



> IMAX, as it's own format, has always charged for it's use. The Hollywood studios approached IMAX, not the other way around. *That gave, and still does give IMAX leverage in contracts.*
> 
> For example, a theater without a large over head, there matinee price is $5.50. The theater keeps $0.50 of every ticket sold the first three weeks of the film and relies solely on concession sales. Week 4 see's the theater getting $1.50 per ticket. Week 5 $2.50 per ticket. Week 6 $3.50 per ticket. And before the film leaves the theater it is getting $5.00 from every ticket sale. By that time people are seeing other new releases, so that film is not drawing a huge profit to still being showed.


Which is why exhibitors have chosen to spend money on their own solutions..

Why give any money to IMAX when you can pocket it all yourself... and again, why would they give away any concession sales profit, to IMAX, if they didn't have to?

Wasn't that the impetus for the creation of RPX, ETX, XD, etc?

I'm not disparaging IMAX.. it's a great format, and as you state it has huge market visibility and consumer recognition.

It's just a fact that it costs exhibitors in more ways than straight ticket sales.


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I thought that I read that ticket sales are down 5% this year as compared with last year. Obviously that must be caused by the availability of Atmos sound tracks.
> 
> I know about Atmos, but I must admit I don't care about Atmos at all relative to its availability in a theater. As far as home use is concerned, I will leave the Atmos implementation to the extreme fringe elements of the home theater crowd.


I'm inclined to believe this won't be a fringe product, like 11 channel Neo:X simply because the options available for existing 5.1 setups.


----------



## sdurani

Davefromuk said:


> I'm more confused as that page lists every possible channel as being output in Atmos mode and also suggests wides can work with Atmos which hasn't been suggested anywhere so far as I know.


Onkyo has always maintained from the moment they announced Atmos receivers that wides were supported by Atmos. A few weeks later Denon did the same. More recently, the Denon 5200 manual showed that all 5 height locations were supported by Atmos, as long as you didn't pick adjacent locations (e.g. top front & top middle).


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> I for one will be glad when Dolby releases it's Home Atmos "whitepaper". I would like to now how big a room a xx.xx.xx can cover with CE equipment.


There is fundamentally no limit to room size once we separate out the issues of speaker SPL capability, amplifier power, and arrival time delay range. With the right delays and amps/speakers, the room can be extremely large, but only if you accept that the sweet spot will not fill the room. The reason cinemas use lots more speakers for the surrounds is to distribute the sound more evenly over a seating area that's almost wall-to-wall. 

In a way, Atmos violates this concept in that now, rather than using the entire array for a surround effect, it can focus that effect to few or even a single loudspeaker on the wall. Persons seated near the edges of the audience can, in that case, experience a significantly less balance presentation (ratio of surround effect vs rest of mix) than they would hear in a 7.1 presentation, due to the "hot spot" surround speaker. Even though such use of the surrounds is infrequent and of short duration, the issue has not gone unnoticed. So, ironically, the use of additional speakers normally used to increase the usable listening area (sweet spot, if you like), is not so effective when the array speakers are individually driven. Perhaps CBT's are the salvation?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Yes. IF I've added the rears and all the heights I would want, then I would add wides. But if limited to 11 speakers, then no wides for me.


I agree. 

Were I able/willing to install 9.1.4, I'd like to place the 9 something like this. I think it will give the best immersion and directional coverage.


----------



## audiovideoholic

Davefromuk said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been following the thread with great interest having recently invested in a 11.1 setup but I'm not quite as confident as some around the scope of utilising front heights in conjunction with Atmos on the 5200w or indeed any other receiver.
> 
> Page 205 lists the Amp Assign settings with 11.1 and Dolby Atmos listed separately with references to pages 208 and 219 respectively. I think the fact that they are listed separately could be significant.
> 
> The page 208 11.1 configuration describes a front height and top middle combination sure, but the page 219 which is the Dolby Atmos page still only refers to combinations of top front and top rear or top middle.
> 
> I can't see anything which says front heights can be used with Atmos.
> 
> Am I just bring paranoid ?


No, you're not being paranoid. I don't think there will be many if any avrs that allow both heights/widths along with 4/2 tops with the first release versions of atmos enabled avrs. I was reading all the threads on the various avrs and prepros when these threads first started and Onkyo was the only one that made it seem like this option would be a possibility but haven't looked into it any further since then. I'm just going to wait until solid info is available from testers and first adopters then decide if waiting for the next version will be my ultimate decision. My reasoning is only because I already have 11.2 and would want to be able to use all of or as many of the speakers at "once" rather than having to use certain ones with atmos and others without atmos material. And I would like 3 rows of tops which isn't very important right now but being able to use 4 tops along with as many bed/surround/other atmos located speakers at the same time.

Edit. Well now after reading posts that were typed while I took forever to make my post it seems as if others will use widths/heights in atmos mode but if they do they will still be limited in the total number of speakers making 2 tops the only option while using all the other bed/atmos channels at the same time. But I've been asking and digging for the correct answer to this question since day one of the announcement and will just wait it out. I hope that an 11.x.4 avr/pre at minimal is released before the second version though. In time we will have options for as many speakers as one would ever want to cram into a home theater and it won't be long.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Were I able/willing to install 9.1.4, I'd like to place the 9 something like this.


Nice. Not too far from what Toole recommends. 










I'd still like a pair of speakers directly to my sides since the ability to create phantom images is worst in those directions.


----------



## NorthSky

*Right on!*



CinemaAndy said:


> Unlike video 3D, there is no additional cost for Atmos. The sole cost of Atmos rests squarely on the shoulders of the theater owner. Unlike DCI, Atmos is not being forced down any owners throat, they upgrade, or they don't upgrade.
> 
> The average Atmos upgrade can start at $70,000 and go way up. The owner bears this cost. And for that cost he gets to hang a "spiffy sign" out front, and over the house door, that say" "Dolby Atmos Theater." So Atmos has been heard and discussed and like Dolby it's self, needs no introduction, as most are aware of what it is.
> 
> Atmos for the theater, was a way to get you to hit power on the remote and see the movie at the theater. The Studios and the theater owners liked that. Same as they like laser projection, as it increases the gap between Cinema and HT.


Amen.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> I would like to have *realistic sounding spaciousness*.
> I find there's a great lack of it. And no, it's not because of my setup.


QSound? ...For multichannel setups.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> Not advancing with the times has shut down plenty of cinemas in this country. There is plenty of pools and research to back that statement up.
> The head of the theater owners association made a statement awhile back, *"If your not going Digital, your going out of business."* I think this can be applied to all the new products coming out, including Atmos.


Including turntables?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> ... So, ironically, the use of additional speakers normally used to increase the usable listening area (sweet spot, if you like), is not so effective when the array speakers are individually driven.
> Perhaps *CBT*'s are the salvation?


What is CBT Roger?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Nice. Not too far from what Toole recommends.
> I'd still like a pair of speakers directly to my sides since the ability to create phantom images is worst in those directions.


He almost got it right.  

I wonder if the side phantoms wouldn't be sufficiently presented from the much narrower pair of S1 and S2 speakers spanning 40 deg, compared with 80 deg in a normal 5.1 setup.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> What is CBT Roger?


*CBT link*. Constant Beamwidth Technology. 


> The CBT 70J exhibits true ASYMMETRICAL VERTICAL COVERAGE. In other words, it sends more sound in the direction of the far area of the room than to the near area of the room. This is analogous to the popular “progressive” or “J-shaped” vertical line arrays where the cabinets at the top of the array are almost straight, with the bottom cabinet being more highly splayed. They, too, send more sound in the direction of the far seats than toward the close seats. In this way, CBT 70J can, in many rooms, send enough sound to those in the back without blowing away those in the front with too much sound. The 70J can be thought of as having a long-throw and short-throw sections built into the same speaker.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> He almost got it right.


Maybe for his next edition (update for object audio). 

BTW, I'm guessing it isn't a coincidence that ideal ITU 5.1 is in your layout. 











Roger Dressler said:


> I wonder if the side phantoms wouldn't be sufficiently presented from the much narrower pair of S1 and S2 speakers spanning 40 deg, compared with 80 deg in a normal 5.1 setup.


Should be more stable than the larger spread, though I don't know if it will be as stable as a speaker at 90. 

Which of the two, S1 or S2 would get the bed channel? S1 for 7.1 and S2 for 5.1? Or do they both get the beds?


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> That makes a lot of common sense. Good post Keith.
> And don't complain to me because I quoted you entirely instead of giving you a chiclet gum (Like/click).
> You have your way, I got mine. Besides it is not my usual custom. ...I do when I find a smart post that I consider a good read, not just for me, but for you too, and others.  ...You're one of my favorite posters here @ AVS.


Don't worry NS. Never seen Barnes gripe about anyone fully quoting his posts (as opposed to: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...chnical-talk-only-please-10.html#post26029594). I and some others fully quoted him and there was never a peep (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-23.html#post25789241 or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-23.html#post25789641 or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-24.html#post25794425, etc).


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> He almost got it right.


Is he a smoker (pipe)?



Roger said:


> I wonder if the side phantoms wouldn't be sufficiently presented from the much narrower pair of S1 and S2 speakers spanning 40 deg, compared with 80 deg in a normal 5.1 setup.


You never experimented? ...A man like you, atmos above Floyd.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> Don't worry NS. Never seen Barnes gripe about anyone fully quoting his posts (as opposed to: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...chnical-talk-only-please-10.html#post26029594). I and some others fully quoted him and there was never a peep (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-23.html#post25789241 or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-23.html#post25789641 or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-24.html#post25794425, etc).


Thank you for the warm zone of comfort.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> BTW, I'm guessing it isn't a coincidence that ideal ITU 5.1 is in your layout.


Just a happy coincidence. My main goals were to leave L/R at ±30°, the rears at ±150°, and equally space others in between. 



> Should be more stable than the larger spread, though I don't know if it will be as stable as a speaker at 90.


How stable does it need to be, is the question. One can keep adding speakers, though, so no one has to succumb to anyone else's taste in such matters anymore. Of course, only once the next-gen Atmos products support more than 7.1.4. 



> Which of the two, S1 or S2 would get the bed channel? S1 for 7.1 and S2 for 5.1? Or do they both get the beds?


For 7.1, the Lss channel would come from Ls1 and Ls2 speakers equally, and Lsr just from the Lsr speaker.
For 5.1, Ls channel will come from Ls2 alone. 

Turn on the upmixer, and I'd expect all the speakers to jump in the pool.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> You never experimented? ...A man like you, atmos above Floyd?


I have, but I cannot know whether it will be sufficient for Sanjay.


----------



## H8nXTC

So I just want to get this straight. The two upcoming Atmos enabled receivers I'm looking at are the Denon X5200W or the Onkyo NR1030 and with these I will only be able to do a 7.1.2 / 7.2.2 Atmos system, unless I purchase a separate amplifier to do 7.1.4 / 7.2.4. I wanted to only do 2 ceiling speakers anyway but this seals it as me not even considering the additional 2 ceiling speakers (and I think that 2 ceiling speakers will be more common that what Dolby is hoping for a standard 4 anyway). I'm looking at the Polk LS line of in ceiling speakers, but even if I had the money to do an additional 2 in the front ceiling, I think I would prefer to put the money into higher quality middle/rear ceiling pair like the KEF Ci200RR-THX than going with 4 of the other ones. I don't see people wanting to give up 2 of their 7.1 system for a 5.1 to add 4 in the ceilings over going with their current 7.1 and adding a pair of ceiling speakers to add Atmos. That's a big investment for the additional amplifier to make it from .2 to .4 and the additional pair of speakers in the ceiling and the labor to do it...


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Including turntables?


I remember nothing of turntables. I have been vinyl free since 1985.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Roger Dressler said:


> There is fundamentally no limit to room size once we separate out the issues of speaker SPL capability, amplifier power, and arrival time delay range. With the right delays and amps/speakers, the room can be extremely large, but only if you accept that the sweet spot will not fill the room. The reason cinemas use lots more speakers for the surrounds is to distribute the sound more evenly over a seating area that's almost wall-to-wall.
> 
> In a way, Atmos violates this concept in that now, rather than using the entire array for a surround effect, it can focus that effect to few or even a single loudspeaker on the wall. Persons seated near the edges of the audience can, in that case, experience a significantly less balance presentation (ratio of surround effect vs rest of mix) than they would hear in a 7.1 presentation, due to the "hot spot" surround speaker. Even though such use of the surrounds is infrequent and of short duration, the issue has not gone unnoticed. So, ironically, the use of additional speakers normally used to increase the usable listening area (sweet spot, if you like), is not so effective when the array speakers are individually driven. Perhaps CBT's are the salvation?


Well yes, but there is still ambient noise that is produced through the sound track, on the screen arrays as well as the side and rear arrays, and the speaker location gives the sound guys better effect at 3d audio and more importantly to mimic natural sound better.

There is a term that was used to describe what you just said, i think it was hot firing the speaker or something like that.

But, that is the benefit of Atmos, like you said, being more object driven compared to regular sound driven channels. So that "object" can come to this or that speaker. I like that, it's more of an illusion of immersion.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> My main goals were to leave L/R at ±30°, the rears at ±150°, and equally space others in between.


Understood. Guess I'm less concerned with even spacing, since our hearing doesn't follow. Like you, I'd start with fronts at ±30° (or maybe a bit less) and rears at ±150°. For 7.1, sides slightly forward of the listening position. For 9.1, sides directly to the sides and wides around ±55-60° (more for listening to 2-channel music in surround than for movie playback). 

Also, since I like to sit 2/3rds or 3/5ths room length from the front wall, there is more space in front of me than behind. For a 7.1 set-up, I'd do a pair of heights on the ceiling between the rears & sides and another pair between the sides & fronts. With 9.1 on the floor, I'd like the heights split the rears & sides, sides and wides, and wides & fronts.


Roger Dressler said:


> Turn on the upmixer, and I'd expect all the speakers to jump in the pool.


Not with the new "Dolby Surround", unfortunately. Who knew they would go back 30 years for a name.


----------



## Nightlord

The ±22.5° for the fronts that Toole suggests makes the setup compatible with usage for normal stereo music. If you plan on ever listening to music in your rooms, this is what you should go for. If on the other hand that never happens, by all means go for ±30°.

Personally I set up for ±23°, but that's based on the same data as Toole's, just a slightly different choice made from it. Ken [email protected] went for ±21° in his days and even angled the baffles to make it easier to get it right. I'm definitely going to be listening to a LOT of stereo music in my theater, so there's absolutely no choice in this matter for me. But it also points me in the direction of definitely wanting to use front wides for cinema.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nightlord said:


> The ±22.5° for the fronts that Toole suggests makes the setup compatible with usage for normal stereo music. If you plan on ever listening to music in your rooms, this is what you should go for. If on the other hand that never happens, by all means go for ±30°.


I'd say 90% of my room's use is with CD music. But rarely with just 2 speakers. It's PLIIx Music for me.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> What does that have to do with consumer Atmos and wides? Adding a pair of speakers at ±55-60° doesn't mean a soundtrack will suddenly contain _"reverberation coming from SPECIFIC locations"_.


But they COULD and this WOULD increase the level of realism. If those speaker locations aren't mandatory then there will be no effect plugin and no recording technique exploiting what's possible.

By the way, stereo recordings DO contain reflections from those locations but they are lumped together with reflections from other angles. There are techniques to fan out directional information from stereo recordings to more than two speakers:
http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisoni...for Multispeaker Stereo (TRIFIELD)_Gerzon.pdf

There's also a software that can perform such matrixing:
http://www.audiovero.de/en/acourateconvolver.html
I had it running in my room for 2 channel playback for quite a while.

P.S. The patents of Gerzon have expired, so anybody interested can implement Gerzon's matrix.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd say 90% of my room's use is with CD music. But rarely with just 2 speakers. It's PLIIx Music for me.


Ok, that's a first for me - never heard anyone doing sincere music listening in that 'transcoding' before. But great that it works for you! 

(8 speakers for me... 6 bass modules handling everything below 80Hz, but I'm not having the receiver handle the filtering - it hasn't got the correct slopes)


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nightlord said:


> Ok, that's a first for me - never heard anyone doing sincere music listening in that 'transcoding' before. But great that it works for you!


There's a few of us around. gbaby, sdurani. I got hooked when I was using a Meridian 861 with Trifield and Music mode. Around that time, I worked with Jim Fosgate to bring Pro Logic II to market, so that's been my drug of choice these many years (14). Hard to go back now. 

I still have the Illusonic processor on hand, so I'm looking forward to using it in a 7+4 mode once I install the 4 ceiling speakers. 



> (8 speakers for me... 6 bass modules handling everything below 80Hz, but I'm not having the receiver handle the filtering - it hasn't got the correct slopes)


What slopes do you prefer?


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> What slopes do you prefer?


30db/octave. I don't KNOW the filter topology of the filter I have, but I'd hazard a guess about it being Bessel(ish).


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Jeff,

Sorry for my delayed answering, but I didn't have enough time this WE.  



chi_guy50 said:


> Hugo,
> 
> Salut d'Atlanta! Je ne suis pas Keith, mais je voulais vous remercier de ma part pour l'hyperlien ci-dessus. Et j'espère que vous passez vous-même un bon weekend!
> 
> That's a very interesting write-up on several fronts--regarding your highly favorable impression of an Atmos demo under decidedly sub-par acoustical conditions, your (subjective) thoughts on the viability and future development of HT Atmos, and your ruminations on speaker placement presumably adequate for a variety of processing formats (Atmos/DSX/NEO:X/DTS-UHD).
> 
> You made a number of comments about DTS-UHD that drew my attention. Inter alia, you stated your conviction that DTS-UHD, when it emerges, will be able to process Dolby Atmos-encoded recordings. You also said elsewhere (I can't recall the exact post) that the Marantz AV8802 will "very probably" feature DTS-UHD processing (last I heard on this score was that it "might" be added as a FW update in 2015 on certain D&M models). Could you perhaps elaborate on your basis for these statements and also share your thoughts on how you feel the possibility of DTS-UHD should influence our decision to purchase one of these first-generation Atmos AVR's?
> 
> Bien amicalement, Jeff


Now before anything else let me reproduce the sentence that preceded all the analysis that I wrote in the above link :

_"Alors merci de bien vouloir garder en mémoire que tout ce qui va suivre correspond à ma propre analyse personnelle et que ceci n'engage que moi."_ (meaning : Now please bear in mind that that will follow corresponds to my own analysis and that it only engages myself.) and being a pure amateur - but audio/video being a real Passion (among several others  ) -, I try to keep my own understanding in this AV field the best I can, as to be able to anticipate the technological evolutions and rightly include them into our own (today 11.2) constantly evolving environment. The reason I'm not "innocent" in this matter, but definitively not an "insider"... linked with NDAs.  

Now _my opinion_ is that what summarizes best the Dolby Atmos _concept_ in a HT environment is the attached _"Dolby Atmos speakers configuration scheme"_. Does it officially represent Dolby's requirements concerning speakers possible positionings in HTs? We will obviously have to wait @ Aug 15th for the official Dolby announcement prior to IFA and Cedia editions.

But it still remains that what can be seen in this leaked scheme is that there are angles overlap between speakers designated as Height speakers (1 30° -> 45°) and Top speakers (2 30° -> 55°). What can (but "_could_" may be more appropriate...  ) this indicate?

_My opinion_ is that in the case of a Dolby Atmos processor in a x.1.4 speakers configuration, if the speakers are declared as Tops and if they are physically located between 30° -> 45°, it will be equally possible to adequately use them either as Heights - in DSX (2?) and DTS Neo X contexts - or as Tops - in Dolby Atmos contexts -. All which means (IMHO  ) that what _seems_ to be important in the "overhead" Dolby Atmos proposed reproduction, are not speakers locations - on wall or on/in ceiling - but the angle *versus a specific reference* that those "overhead" speakers create with the ears.

So if the "reference" speakers are at ear level, it _seems_ that creating a 30° -> 45° angle difference to this reference, is adequate. 

And to illustrate this let's have a look at the bellow attached "enceintes au plafond" example (initially posted here), where the "reference" speakers are located very high above ear level. But where an Dolby Atmos effect will still be _probably_ perceived as the Top speakers are located on the ceiling, creating the mentioned angle difference. And this is precisely what happens in Cinemas, and why in Cinemas including Top speakers in the ceiling is un-avoidable... . 

But does this mean that in our HT contexts, we all need to (re)place our speakers on/in the ceiling? Obviously (IMHO), no! And which also means (IMHO) that this new Dolby Atmos concept can still perfectly co-exist with the previous Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo X processings.


Now concerning my DTS-UHD assumption:

it is now known the the Dolby Atmos concept also includes a specific processing which "batpig" has called here on AVS : Dolby Surround if my memory is correct. A specific Dolby processing which will adequately "render" 5.1,(6.1) and 7.1 (and IMHO also 2.0...) recordings, on the new from 5.1.2 to 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configurations. And the later 9.1.2 Atmos processing being probably IMHO the most interesting, as far as future developments, evolutions into 13.x/15.x processings are concerned. 

But then if we look a bit closer into what is the real difference of this new processing compared to what we used to have with DPL IIz previously in 9.1, and/or isn't this new Dolby Surround processing just a slight evolution of the DPL IIz diving it a DPL IIz² 11.1 capacity?

An 11.1 capacity that the DTS Neo X 11 processing already has... And a DTS Neo X processing that (as initially advertised) has been built from scratch, with the capacity to _possibly_ evolve, into processing as many channels as "needed"... IMHO (again) all this indicates not an opposition, but only a real world DTS-Dolby compatibility, even in the new Dolby Atmos concept context. But a Dolby Atmos context, which also introduces Atmos recordings. 

Though my assumption that DTS, to adapt itself to this new reality should _at least_ make an evolution of their DTS Neo X processing as to make it compatible with Atmos. So IMHO the new DTS-UHD _must_ inevitably be Atmos compatible, the same way Neo X is compatible with DD & Dolby True HD processings. 

But a DTS-UHD as announced here in Jan 2014, that is supposed to be far more powerful through its' Cirrus logic dedicated specific chip. Now nobody has claimed its' presence in the Onkyo xx3x series. Will it be present in the future D&M products and singularly the Marantz 8802? *I* sincerely _hope_ so!

Amicalement et bonne semaine ou vacances,

Hugo


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo,

Thank you very much indeed for that amplification of your thought process. I didn't quite follow you on every point, but I will assume that that is at least in part due to a vagueness necessitated by the NDA you referenced.

I look forward to your further analyses on these issues as more official announcements are made available to us. Jeff

P.S.: IRT Dolby Surround (the apparent successor to PLII)



Hugo S said:


> . . .it is now known the the Dolby Atmos concept also includes *a specific processing which "batpig" has called here on AVS : Dolby Surround if my memory is correct*.


Quoting from p. 297 of the AVR-X5200W Owner's Manual (European Edition):
Dolby surround is a next generation surround technology that intelligently
up mixes stereo; 5.1 and 7.1 content for playback through your surround
speaker system. Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker
layouts, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ in-ceiling
speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Illusonic processor


Guess that's not the same processor Swiss guy is talking about in this video?
http://www.illusonic.com/iap-16/movie/


----------



## CinemaAndy

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Jeff,
> 
> Sorry for my delayed answering, but I didn't have enough time this WE.
> 
> 
> 
> Now before anything else let me reproduce the sentence that preceded all the analysis that I wrote in the above link :
> 
> _"Alors merci de bien vouloir garder en mémoire que tout ce qui va suivre correspond à ma propre analyse personnelle et que ceci n'engage que moi."_ (meaning : Now please bear in mind that that will follow corresponds to my own analysis and that it only engages myself.) and being a pure amateur - but audio/video being a real Passion (among several others  ) -, I try to keep my own understanding in this AV field the best I can, as to be able to anticipate the technological evolutions and rightly include them into our own (today 11.2) constantly evolving environment. The reason I'm not "innocent" in this matter, but definitively not an "insider"... linked with NDAs.
> 
> Now _my opinion_ is that what summarizes best the Dolby Atmos _concept_ in a HT environment is the attached _"Dolby Atmos speakers configuration scheme"_. Does it officially represent Dolby's requirements concerning speakers possible positionings in HTs? We will obviously have to wait @ Aug 15th for the official Dolby announcement prior to IFA and Cedia editions.
> 
> But it still remains that what can be seen in this leaked scheme is that there are angles overlap between speakers designated as Height speakers (1 30° -> 45°) and Top speakers (2 30° -> 55°). What can (but "_could_" may be more appropriate...  ) this indicate?
> 
> _My opinion_ is that in the case of a Dolby Atmos processor in a x.1.4 speakers configuration, if the speakers are declared as Tops and if they are physically located between 30° -> 45°, it will be equally possible to adequately use them either as Heights - in DSX (2?) and DTS Neo X contexts - or as Tops - in Dolby Atmos contexts -. All which means (IMHO  ) that what _seems_ to be important in the "overhead" Dolby Atmos proposed reproduction, are not speakers locations - on wall or on/in ceiling - but the angle *versus a specific reference* that those "overhead" speakers create with the ears.
> 
> So if the "reference" speakers are at ear level, it _seems_ that creating a 30° -> 45° angle difference to this reference, is adequate.
> 
> And to illustrate this let's have a look at the bellow attached "enceintes au plafond" example (initially posted here), where the "reference" speakers are located very high above ear level. But where an Dolby Atmos effect will still be _probably_ perceived as the Top speakers are located on the ceiling, creating the mentioned angle difference. And this is precisely what happens in Cinemas, and why in Cinemas including Top speakers in the ceiling is un-avoidable... .
> 
> But does this mean that in our HT contexts, we all need to (re)place our speakers on/in the ceiling? Obviously (IMHO), no! And which also means (IMHO) that this new Dolby Atmos concept can still perfectly co-exist with the previous Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo X processings.
> 
> 
> Now concerning my DTS-UHD assumption:
> 
> it is now known the the Dolby Atmos concept also includes a specific processing which "batpig" has called here on AVS : Dolby Surround if my memory is correct. A specific Dolby processing which will adequately "render" 5.1,(6.1) and 7.1 (and IMHO also 2.0...) recordings, on the new from 5.1.2 to 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configurations. And the later 9.1.2 Atmos processing being probably IMHO the most interesting, as far as future developments, evolutions into 13.x/15.x processings are concerned.
> 
> But then if we look a bit closer into what is the real difference of this new processing compared to what we used to have with DPL IIz previously in 9.1, and/or isn't this new Dolby Surround processing just a slight evolution of the DPL IIz diving it a DPL IIz² 11.1 capacity?
> 
> An 11.1 capacity that the DTS Neo X 11 processing already has... And a DTS Neo X processing that (as initially advertised) has been built from scratch, with the capacity to _possibly_ evolve, into processing as many channels as "needed"... IMHO (again) all this indicates not an opposition, but only a real world DTS-Dolby compatibility, even in the new Dolby Atmos concept context. But a Dolby Atmos context, which also introduces Atmos recordings.
> 
> Though my assumption that DTS, to adapt itself to this new reality should _at least_ make an evolution of their DTS Neo X processing as to make it compatible with Atmos. So IMHO the new DTS-UHD _must_ inevitably be Atmos compatible, the same way Neo X is compatible with DD & Dolby True HD processings.
> 
> But a DTS-UHD as announced here in Jan 2014, that is supposed to be far more powerful through its' Cirrus logic dedicated specific chip. Now nobody has claimed its' presence in the Onkyo xx3x series. Will it be present in the future D&M products and singularly the Marantz 8802? *I* sincerely _hope_ so!
> 
> Amicalement et bonne semaine ou vacances,
> 
> Hugo


Many good points.

However, Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D have already grabbed the sky. That does not leave DTS much to work with. They are going to have to play with one(Atmos) or the other(Auro), even if there major supporter, Sony, likes it or not.


----------



## chi_guy50

CinemaAndy said:


> Many good points.
> 
> However, Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D have already grabbed the sky. That does not leave DTS much to work with. *They are going to have to play with one(Atmos) or the other(Auro)*, even if there major supporter, Sony, likes it or not.


I think that's pretty much in line with what Hugo is saying. QUOTE: _. . . Tout ce qui fait que par corrélation et à l'image du DTS Neo X qui sait traiter tous les actuels encodages Dolby, je suis personnellement persuadé que le futur *processing* DTS-UHD aura certainement une capacité à traiter les pressages comportant un encodage Dolby Atmos, qu'il saura parfaitement traiter, non dans la version basique 5.1/7.1, mais dans toute sa plénitude "objets"._ END QUOTE

(TRANSLATION: . . . All of which means that, just as DTS NEO:X is able to process all the current Dolby codecs, it is my personal conviction that the forthcoming DTS-UHD will undoubtedly be capable of processing Dolby Atmos-encoded recordings--not only with respect to the basic 5.1/7.1 format but to include the totality of "object" audio.)

(Excuse-moi, Hugo, si je t'interprète mal.)


----------



## helvetica bold

Sony has been mum on the Atmos subject correct?


----------



## PoshFrosh

*Questions about top speaker placement*

I've attached a plan for my top speakers for Atmos / Dolby Surround. They will be *on-ceiling mounted mini-bookshelf speakers*. I have three questions:


*Does the placement look good?* (they will all be 45 degrees elevation to the MLP)
*Should I aim the top speakers directly at the ground*, or toe them in to aim at the MLP? (like all the other speakers)
The four gray lines surrounding the couch and attached to the top speakers is *a support structure I plan to build. Does this seem like a reasonable plan?* (It will basically be four 8' studs (with bracing), two 11.3' two-by-fours and two 10' two-by-fours in an arch over the couch to which I will attach the speakers (to avoid drilling any mounting holes in the ceiling, at least for now).


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I don't think there is any huge amount of consumer awareness about Atmos.
> 
> And I don't think there is any viable data to support the notion that it helps sell tickets in a meaningful way..
> 
> I only know of a few of us geeks that will go out of their way to hear it.
> 
> Luckily, it has been packaged with other upgrades, like reserved seating, large screen presentations, etc... I'm not sure if and of itself it would be a draw.. that is what I think keeps people coming.


This is exactly what has happened at my own local Atmos theater. They have packaged it with a proprietary screen format called XPLUS, which is like a sort of small IMAX but is in the usual widescreen ratios as well. Everyone can understand "huge screen" and I'd guess that would be how I would market it if Showcase Cinema chain was my client. Atmos would be an added benefit, along with reserve seating simply because it is harder to explain to Joe Public. I think it is a smart move to emphasize the big screen. The combined benefits of the package enable the chain to charge more for the Atmos presentation than their regular sound/screen shows, but I am sure it is the big screen that will bring the public in. Hopefully, they will also be blown away by the sound.

*This is how they are marketing it* - image benefits first, sound benefits second.

My first experience, today, of XPLUS was less than brilliant. Not because of the Atmos sound which was fabulous (the movie was Apes) but because of the image quality, which was lower than I'd tolerate at home, with poor contrast ratio/blacks and a slightly 'not sharp' look. But worse was the fact that the screen seems to lack and form of masking, so the entire movie was shown with 'black bars' (grey bars in reality) down each side of the 1.85:1 format of the movie. And worse still, whoever had designed the auditorium had used some form of tile ceiling, with the tile separators in bright aluminum! With the screen going right to the ceiling, this meant that in any moderately bright scene, the ceiling above the screen was lit up like Disneyworld. I found the constant appearing and disappearing of the ceiling very distracting.

The 3D system in use was RealD and I did find that to be very good.


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> Atmos, Auro-3D, IMAX, and other IMAX encroaching large screen's. *Is a way to sell thickets.*


Stop beating about the bush


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Don't worry NS. Never seen Barnes gripe about anyone fully quoting his posts (as opposed to: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...chnical-talk-only-please-10.html#post26029594). I and some others fully quoted him and there was never a peep (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-23.html#post25789241 or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-23.html#post25789641 or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-24.html#post25794425, etc).


It's one thing to do it now and again, and another to do it with relatively short posts. But to do it all the time can be wearing for everyone. It's nothing to worry about though and why you bring it up again is a mystery to me.

But it is especially ironic that NS himself seems to deplore the idea of people quoting fully very long posts:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-38.html#post25789777


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> The ±22.5° for the fronts that Toole suggests makes the setup compatible with usage for normal stereo music. If you plan on ever listening to music in your rooms, this is what you should go for. If on the other hand that never happens, by all means go for ±30°.


Other way 'round. From Toole's book:


> In this example, the center of the front row is almost perfect for listening to stereo through LF and RF loudspeakers. If this were important to the customer, a small positional adjustment to the seating or loudspeakers would yield the ideal ±30° listening angle.





> The ±30° arrangement is a widespread standard for music recording and reproduction, although many setups employ a smaller separation, especially those associated with video playback.





> Looking at the evidence just discussed, a front soundstage of 0° center and left and right loudspeakers at ±30° is a solid beginning.





> The five-channel arrangement described in ITU-R BS.775-2 (2006) with loudspeakers at 0°, ±30° and ±120° performed about as well as any other configuration that was tested. This is obviously good news because this is the arrangement promoted almost universally within the industry.


Toole describes the ±30° placement as "ideal" for listening to 2-speaker stereo and a "widespread standard" for music recording, while noting that a smaller angle is associated with video playback. The exact opposite of what you were saying.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Van Baelen actually goes on to say something similar, concluding that it is a _fault_ or flaw with Atmos and that a sound object appearing off screen, behind us, will take us out of the movie. I can say that this didn't happen with Gravity, where the sounds from all around and behind me immersed me even more in the movie, leading to an almost total suspension of disbelief which resulted in a noticeable quickening of my heart rate and temperature, so much was I 'part of the action' out there, 'in space' along with Clooney and Bullock. For someone who sees 350 or more movies a year, it takes something special to do that to me!


Yes, I got quite the opposite reaction than what sound engineers always complain about: distracting the audience with aggressive and highly positional surround sound. Gravity's approach to audio improved a rather lackluster (IMHO) movie, it didn't detract from it.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> But they COULD and this WOULD increase the level of realism. If those speaker locations aren't mandatory then there will be no effect plugin and no recording technique exploiting what's possible.


Real vs reel. The movie industry doesn't seem interested in increasing the level of realism to whatever amount you want but instead creating an aural illusion that supports the picture on screen. Therefore, no specific support for speakers at ±55-60° locations (those speakers are part of an array that starts forward of them and extends well rearward of them). 

You're barking up the wrong tree with the movie business. You might be better off arguing this with content creators of multi-channel music. Their 7.1 mixes could incorporate surrounds and wides, and they're not tied to a specific picture.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> That would be a premier in the world of AV receivers Andy.
> Do you have more info in how those 32 channels would be distributed; like with a bunch of preouts?
> ...I'm trying to imagine and ... what are they; like 20 mains (floor and walls) and 8 overheard (top/ceiling) and 4 subwoofer channels (summed up for the .1 LFE)?


If it's anything like the cinema version, it's something like 22 mains, 10 overheads, and two sub outputs (LFE and summed bass from all other speakers). 

The 22 mains would probably be like five front screen speakers (left, left extra, center, right extra, right), multiple front wides, multiple side walls, multiple rear walls.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Methinks that Marc (FilmMixer) and Markus should work together.
> ...In making/mixing great Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks for our Blu-ray movies @ home.


If they don't kill each other first.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I thought that I read that ticket sales are down 5% this year as compared with last year. Obviously that must be caused by the availability of Atmos sound tracks.
> 
> I know about Atmos, but I must admit I don't care about Atmos at all relative to its availability in a theater. As far as home use is concerned, I will leave the Atmos implementation to the extreme fringe elements of the home theater crowd.


To hear Atmos is to love Atmos.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. From Toole's book: Toole describes the ±30° placement as "ideal" for listening to 2-speaker stereo and a "widespread standard" for music recording, while noting that a smaller angle is associated with video playback. The exact opposite of what you were saying.


Ok, I take it back. Toole just got lucky on that graph then, otherwise he was wrong too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> My point is that they would still be going to see the film, Atmos or not... that they prefer to seek it out when available is a different conceit.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why exhibitors have chosen to spend money on their own solutions..
> 
> Why give any money to IMAX when you can pocket it all yourself... and again, why would they give away any concession sales profit, to IMAX, if they didn't have to?
> 
> Wasn't that the impetus for the creation of RPX, ETX, XD, etc?
> 
> I'm not disparaging IMAX.. it's a great format, and as you state it has huge market visibility and consumer recognition.
> 
> It's just a fact that it costs exhibitors in more ways than straight ticket sales.


I always wondered why exhibitors haven't combined forces en masse and strong-armed Hollywood to back off their front loading scheme. It's a studio con game that has theater owners sucking air during the most profitable time of a movie's "life" and a big reason why concessions are so damned expensive. No wonder some can't keep up with the maintenance of their auditoriums, pay their know-nothing employees minimum wage, and only have one or two premium houses in their complexes. The studios don't care about the film surviving in the theater long enough for the theaters to get a higher profit from ticket sales... they have home video to look forward to. 

The whole thing is messed up and also help perpetuate making movies with throw-away stories rather than long-term classics with staying power. It reminds me of our broken governmental institutions.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> This is exactly what has happened at my own local Atmos theater. They have packaged it with a proprietary screen format called XPLUS, which is like a sort of small IMAX but is in the usual widescreen ratios as well.


All the local Atmos installs are in the "premium" auditorium of the multiplex. They charge for the premium experience, but not specifically for Atmos (i.e,, the ticket price doesn't change if the movie is not in Atmos). However, they do charge extra for 3D. Cinema owners must be thinking twice about installing Atmos or Auro, knowing they can't charge specifically for it.


kbarnes701 said:


> ...the Atmos sound which was fabulous (the movie was Apes)...


Do tell.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> I agree.
> 
> Were I able/willing to install 9.1.4, I'd like to place the 9 something like this. I think it will give the best immersion and directional coverage.


[Strokes chin while speaking with a German scientist's accent] Interesting... _very_ interesting.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> All the local Atmos installs are in the "premium" auditorium of the multiplex. They charge for the premium experience, but not specifically for Atmos (i.e,, the ticket price doesn't change if the movie is not in Atmos). However, they do charge extra for 3D. Cinema owners must be thinking twice about installing Atmos or Auro, knowing they can't charge specifically for it. Do tell.


OK... As expected I had the auditorium more or less to myself. There were five of us in total - it is always the same at the 11am Monday showing. So it was easy for me to sit dead-centre, in line with the surround speaker that had no toe-in. That put me about 1.5-2 screen heights back so it was visually perfect as well.

First thing I noticed was they had 4 huge in-ceiling subwoofers, two at the front and two at the rear. The auditorium wasn't huge and I counted 7 surround speakers on each side, front to back. It was too dark on the back wall for me to count the number of speakers there. The ceiling array was 6 speakers each side that I could see.

First up was the Atmos 'triangles' trailer and it did sound fabulous, although the bass was not as good as at Dolby's demo room in London. I very much enjoyed the movie sound and noticed after a while I had stopped 'listening' for the sound and was just enjoying it as part of the movie. Good sign.

Very obvious to me was the way that voices followed actors on the screen. This was noticeable right from the beginning when they are doing those TV and radio clips setting up the story. I have never experienced this before and I think it added to my enjoyment quite a lot - making the presentation more 'believable'. I’d like to see a Scope format movie do this - it must be even better.

In the scene where the young man helps teach Maurice the Orang Utan to read, there is rain falling gently and this was reproduced all around me with amazing realism. More so than the storm a few moments into the movie, although that was perhaps better to demonstrate height effects. I looked out for the scene you mentioned where the humans were hiding under the logs and the apes ride over above them and that was just fantastic IMO. Added greatly to the 'being there' feeling. Only snag to it was that I had to look up towards the ceiling and then could see those damn aluminum strips I mentioned - crazy choice. But that isn't Atmos's fault.

For me, the subtle 'presence' effects are as good as the more obvious effects and I noticed all the way through how small audio cues were all around me and above me. Of the less subtle effects, I thought that being surrounded by apes added considerably to the immersiveness of the experience, but not so much as the way those sort of effects were used in Gravity.

The final battle scene towards the end of the movie was also terrific with sounds crashing down from above when the Tower was blown to bits by Gary Oldman's character.

One other interesting observation is that they showed several trailers and ads (yes we have to watch ads in the cinema in the UK), none of which were made in Atmos but all of the speakers seemed to be alive including the top ones. IDK if this was some form of upmixing or what but it was definitely there. It was very noticeable with the 5.1 trailers how differently the surrounds sounded, with sound just 'coming from the side' as opposed to the pinpoint precision during the Atmos movie.

All in a all, a good first time for me.

And I thought the movie was pretty good too.


----------



## batpig

Davefromuk said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been following the thread with great interest having recently invested in a 11.1 setup but I'm not quite as confident as some around the scope of utilising front heights in conjunction with Atmos on the 5200w or indeed any other receiver.
> 
> Page 205 lists the Amp Assign settings with 11.1 and Dolby Atmos listed separately with references to pages 208 and 219 respectively. I think the fact that they are listed separately could be significant.
> 
> The page 208 11.1 configuration describes a front height and top middle combination sure, but the page 219 which is the Dolby Atmos page still only refers to combinations of top front and top rear or top middle.
> 
> I can't see anything which says front heights can be used with Atmos.
> 
> Am I just bring paranoid ?


You found Keith's post but the better reference is the more detailed discussion a few pages earlier where PoshFrosh and myself were analyzing the Denon model.

A key piece you missed is the chart on pg 287 - the "relationship between surround modes and channel output" chart is always one of the pithiest in Denon manuals if you really want to know what the options are. On this chart it's explicit that Dolby Atmos (the surround mode) can make sound in ANY of the possible speaker positions.

Initially, there were some sneak previews of certain pages from the Denon X5200W manual which showed the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign option and this caused us to reach a similar conclusion as you did -- that in order to use Dolby Atmos, you HAD to use the special "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode and this "locked in" the speaker positions to one of the four standard Atmos layouts (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2., 7.1.4) with "tops" required by necessity.

However, the full manual makes it clear this is not so. In addition to the chart on pg 287, note that one of the options in 11.1 amp assign mode (pg 208) is "Using Dolby Speakers" and then there are sub options for telling the receiver which channels are using reflected Atmos enabled speakers. If you want to use Atmos with reflected up-firing speakers you HAVE TO use something other than the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode. This, together with the other clues, implies unequivocally that Atmos surround mode is available even when you aren't using "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode.

With this new info, I think the correct interpretation is that "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode is for use when you have an "ideal" Atmos setup. If you don't care about "legacy" upmixing like Neo:X or DSX or non-standard speaker locations like wides or heights, you just put the receiver in "Dolby Atmos" mode, pick which of the four layouts you are using, and you call it a day. This saves time for you (not having to configure a bunch of extra sub-menu options) and also probably makes Audyssey calibration run more quickly since it doesn't even try to measure speakers that aren't going to be there. You just say "I'm using Dolby Atmos mode in 7.1.2 config" and you are locked and loaded.

If you are doing something outside of the "ideal" (i.e. trying to incorporate front wides, trying to use Atmos-enabled elevation speakers, trying to maintain support for Front Height speakers so you can still use Neo:X, etc) then you select a different Amp Assing mode and spend extra time customizing the sub-menu options.

So in short I think the paranoia is unfounded. If you have an existing pair of Front Height speakers and you don't want to relocate them, and just want to add a pair of in-ceilings and then use a x.x.4 Atmos layout, you will be fine.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Guess that's not the same processor Swiss guy is talking about in this video?
> http://www.illusonic.com/iap-16/movie/


That is indeed one in the same. Why not?


----------



## Roger Dressler

PoshFrosh said:


> I've attached a plan for my top speakers for Atmos / Dolby Surround. They will be *on-ceiling mounted mini-bookshelf speakers*. I have three questions:
> 
> 
> *Does the placement look good?* (they will all be 45 degrees elevation to the MLP)
> *Should I aim the top speakers directly at the ground*, or toe them in to aim at the MLP? (like all the other speakers)


Placement and elevation angles look very good to me. I plan to aim them toward the MLP (slightly behind as there are two rows of seats), so yes, at the MLP is my vote.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Dan Hitchman said:


> I always wondered why exhibitors haven't combined forces en masse and strong-armed Hollywood to back off their front loading scheme. It's a studio con game that has theater owners sucking air during the most profitable time of a movie's "life" and a big reason why concessions are so damned expensive. No wonder some can't keep up with the maintenance of their auditoriums, pay their know-nothing employees minimum wage, and only have one or two premium houses in their complexes. The studios don't care about the film surviving in the theater long enough for the theaters to get a higher profit from ticket sales... they have home video to look forward to.
> 
> The whole thing is messed up and also help perpetuate making movies with throw-away stories rather than long-term classics with staying power. It reminds me of our broken governmental institutions.


Seriously. Really?


----------



## aaronwt

I guess I'm going to need to see a movie sometime at the closest Atmos theater to hear this for myself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CinemaAndy said:


> Seriously. Really?


The model of revenue "sharing" is f'd up, especially with the advent of front loading. 

As for my other point: you don't get movies with staying power like you did when home video was in its infancy due to the "sweep the money up quickly and get out" Hollywood mentality of film distribution. You kept the butts in the seats for months (if not about a year with some blockbusters) because you had a, usually, better quality product to sell. 

Now it's all mass commodity driven. That is not good for quality storytelling whether it be books, films, or any other medium.


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> Initially, [it was thought] that in order to use Dolby Atmos [that] "tops" required by necessity.
> 
> If you want to use Atmos with reflected up-firing speakers you HAVE TO use something other than the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode. This, together with the other clues, implies unequivocally that Atmos surround mode is available even when you aren't using "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode.
> 
> So in short I think the paranoia is unfounded. If you have an existing pair of Front Height speakers and you don't want to relocate them, and just want to add a pair of in-ceilings and then use a x.x.4 Atmos layout, you will be fine.


Yes, I agree. As soon as I saw the manual, I realized that the ATMOS speakers could be in any of the 6 height/top positions (or alternately the special up-firing Atmos speakers) and that it clears up a lot of the speculation that was in the early part of this thread. And I like the answers. I think it is really clever what they have done here:


The way it's setup, it allows ALL legacy modes to be used (not only 5.1, and 7.1 but also Neo:X and DSX) while adding ATMOS features. (This allows not only the adding of new features without removing old ones, but also for people who already have front height speakers installed not to have to move them.)
There was much talk about "geometry" and speaker placement early on, and I think this configuration option addresses that. If you cannot put the ATMOS speakers exactly where they "should" typically be, you can put them anywhere up high (front, top, rear) and assign in the amp which one you have chosen. This way, while rendering the ATMOS object data, the amp knows approximately where the speaker is and can adjust accordingly. (I think this is brilliant; versatile but without being overly complicated for the user to setup. Nice.)
Further, telling the Denon whether or not you are using Dobly's up-firing speakers would, among other things, allow Audyssey to know the reflected sound from them is desirable and not to attempt to EQ it out. (This was another concern before the manual was revealed).


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> ...then you select a different *Amp Assing* mode...


Ouch, sounds painful.


----------



## SMHarman

zoetmb said:


> Not EQing the L-R front speakers might be a big advantage to people who also use their systems for stereo music listening. I've never been a fan of Onkyo, but I might have to give this Integra a try.


My Sony has a 2-Ch-Direct that removes the eq for stereo listening.


----------



## Davefromuk

batpig said:


> You found Keith's post but the better reference is the more detailed discussion a few pages earlier where PoshFrosh and myself were analyzing the Denon model....
> 
> ...So in short I think the paranoia is unfounded. If you have an existing pair of Front Height speakers and you don't want to relocate them, and just want to add a pair of in-ceilings and then use a x.x.4 Atmos layout, you will be fine.


Many thanks to Batpig and others for helping me understand what they believe will be possible. It certainly makes sense that to drive sales of new receivers they make it easier to use in existing configurations greater than 7.1. I guess I'd really like a receiver to support 11.1.2 or 11.1.4 though I won't hold my breath.

Still just because I'm paranoid it doesn't mean Denon aren't out to get me...(sorry)


----------



## Nightlord

aaronwt said:


> I guess I'm going to need to see a movie sometime at the closest Atmos theater to hear this for myself.


I strongly believe the first Atmos I'll ever get to hear will be in my own theater.... They're just now building the first one in this country - up in Stockholm.... it'll take quite a while before anyone down here invests in it, methinks. Most cinemas still use 2K projs around here... just those who upgraded to get HFR for the Hobbit that has 4K more or less.


----------



## brwsaw

CinemaAndy said:


> I for one will be glad when Dolby releases it's Home Atmos "whitepaper". I would like to now how big a room a xx.xx.xx can cover with CE equipment.



I was happy to hear/read the demo HT was nearly the same size as my room. That's all I needed to see.


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> I still have the Illusonic processor on hand, so I'm looking forward to using it in a 7+4 mode once I install the 4 ceiling speakers.



Roger:

I assume you're planning on using *IAP* _speaker setup_ *"7-I (Cinema and Blu ray 7.1) + 4H*" using* FL, FR, FC, RL, RR, RLC, RRC, FLH, FRH, RLH, RRH* speakers. I'm looking forward to reading your evaluation of how "robust" is the *IAP* upmix algorithm in its ability to deliver a quality soundfield despite any location differences between the _nominal_ *IAP* positions of the *FLH|FRH* and *RLH|RRH* speaker pairs, and the _as-installed_ _per_ *Dolby Atmos *placement of your "substituted" *TFL|TFR* and *TRL|TRR* speaker pairs.

Unfortunately, I don't see any easy way to deliver a *Dolby Atmos* rendered *5.1.2* soundtrack over *HDMI 1.4* to the *IAP *where it could be upmixed to *15.1* (_price "no object" obviously_  _. . . and the mind boggles_ (***) _at what could be achieved if the *IAP* could accept a *Dolby Atmos* rendered *7.1.4* or *9.1.2* soundtrack as input!_)


(***) Amount of actual *bogglement *(or *crogglement*) may vary by individual, and is subject to limitation of local laws, regulations and ordinances.
_


----------



## kbarnes701

Davefromuk said:


> Many thanks to Batpig and others for helping me understand what they believe will be possible.


+1


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> That is indeed one in the same. Why not?


You have been reminiscing about the good old days with Fosgate when you suddenly mentioned that processor. How does it compare to PLII? What speaker setups did you test?


----------



## batpig

PoshFrosh said:


> There was much talk about "geometry" and speaker placement early on, and I think this configuration option addresses that. If you cannot put the ATMOS speakers exactly where they "should" typically be, you can put them anywhere up high (front, top, rear) and assign in the amp which one you have chosen. This way, while rendering the ATMOS object data, the amp knows approximately where the speaker is and can adjust accordingly. (I think this is brilliant; versatile but without being overly complicated for the user to setup. Nice.)
> Further, telling the Denon whether or not you are using Dobly's up-firing speakers would, among other things, allow Audyssey to know the reflected sound from them is desirable and not to attempt to EQ it out. (This was another concern before the manual was revealed).


Those two points to me still present corresponding open questions...

To the first, we are only assuming there is a difference in rendering when you have "nonstandard" elevated speakers. For example, if your front "Atmos speakers" are Front Height instead of Top Front, does the rendering engine assume they are 5 degrees forward of the Top Front placement? 10 degrees forward? Or does it just send the same signal either way? If your presumption is correct, and it actually DOES alter the rendering based upon its assumptions of approximate speaker location for each respective "Height Speakers" setting, that is indeed super cool and allays a lot of concerns about "crippled" implementation.

To the second bullet, we don't actually know that Audyssey is doing anything different with the Atmos-enabled speakers. Hugo's correspondance with Chris K seemed to clear up any worries about ceiling speakers firing downward (Chris K said it's a non-issue unless the speaker is directly over the mic, and even then it would only cause variance in the high freqs)... but we still don't know how Audyssey (which claims to try and tame reflections) is going to deal with the measurement/filtering of the Atmos-enabled speakers, which will present the mic with a weird mix of reflected (higher freqs) and direct (lower freqs) sound.


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> Those two points to me still present corresponding open questions...
> 
> To the first, we are only assuming there is a difference in rendering when you have "nonstandard" elevated speakers. For example, if your front "Atmos speakers" are Front Height instead of Top Front, does the rendering engine assume they are 5 degrees forward of the Top Front placement? 10 degrees forward? Or does it just send the same signal either way? If your presumption is correct, and it actually DOES alter the rendering based upon its assumptions of approximate speaker location for each respective "Height Speakers" setting, that is indeed super cool and allays a lot of concerns about "crippled" implementation.
> 
> To the second bullet, we don't actually know that Audyssey is doing anything different with the Atmos-enabled speakers. Hugo's correspondance with Chris K seemed to clear up any worries about ceiling speakers firing downward (Chris K said it's a non-issue unless the speaker is directly over the mic, and even then it would only cause variance in the high freqs)... but we still don't know how Audyssey (which claims to try and tame reflections) is going to deal with the measurement/filtering of the Atmos-enabled speakers, which will present the mic with a weird mix of reflected (higher freqs) and direct (lower freqs) sound.


I'll admit that perhaps it's just wishful thinking to believe that Audyssey is doing different processing for Atmos speakers. Until that is cleared up, I think actual ceiling mounted speakers may be a better choice for that reason alone.

But as to the first point, if the AVR isn't doing something about it (i.e. rendering the sound differently for each upper speaker position) why have a differentiation between front height/top front/top center/top rear/rear height at all?
If the same sound was being sent no matter what, the only settings would need to be "do you have 2 overhead speakers or four", and furthermore there wouldn't need to be a differentiation between top front and front height.
Then again, who knows?


----------



## Roger Dressler

SoundChex said:


> Roger:
> 
> I assume you're planning on using *IAP* _speaker setup_ *"7-I (Cinema and Blu ray 7.1) + 4H*" using* FL, FR, FC, RL, RR, RLC, RRC, FLH, FRH, RLH, RRH* speakers. I'm looking forward to reading your evaluation of how "robust" is the *IAP* upmix algorithm in its ability to deliver a quality soundfield despite any location differences between the _nominal_ *IAP* positions of the *FLH|FRH* and *RLH|RRH* speaker pairs, and the _as-installed_ _per_ *Dolby Atmos *placement of your "substituted" *TFL|TFR* and *TRL|TRR* speaker pairs.


Yes, I will use the IAP's "7I+4H" layout. When I first received the unit, I was just using the base "7I" (standard 7.1) layout. I reported my thoughts about it in *another thread* which I realize you have seen, but I mention for others' benefit. My minor quibbles have since been addressed with a firmware update as noted. And there have been more updates since then to add room measurement facilities for setting up the internal PEQ. I owe Mr. Faller a complete runthrough of all that, so what more perfect time than after the 4 ceiling speakers are installed in a couple of weeks. (Speakers arrive today, still awaiting a new amp.)



> Unfortunately, I don't see any easy way to deliver a *Dolby Atmos* rendered *5.1.2* soundtrack over *HDMI 1.4* to the *IAP *where it could be upmixed to *15.1* (_price "no object" obviously_  _. . . and the mind boggles_ (***) _at what could be achieved if the *IAP* could accept a *Dolby Atmos* rendered *7.1.4* or *9.1.2* soundtrack as input!_)


That would be fun! But not in the cards. 

Past crogglement is no guarantee of future results. 



markus767 said:


> You have been reminiscing about the good old days with Fosgate when you suddenly mentioned that processor. How does it compare to PLII? What speaker setups did you test?


The good ole days of Fosgate continue to this day, but I do not even have PLIIz to exercise any height speakers. I am awaiting something that might take its place on a full time basis -- perhaps the new Dolby Surround mode in the Marantz AV7702. I fear if I fall in love with IAP 7+4 it could cost me dearly.


----------



## MichLinton

I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos". 

I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment. 

As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos. The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room. Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.

Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".

This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice? And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline. 

We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> The good ole days of Fosgate continue to this day, but I do not even have PLIIz to exercise any height speakers. I am awaiting something that might take its place on a full time basis -- perhaps the new Dolby Surround mode in the Marantz AV7702. I fear if I fall in love with IAP 7+4 it could cost me dearly.


Why "z"? Did you compare PLII 5/7.1 upmixing to Illusonic 5/7.1 up mixing?


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Why "z"? Did you compare PLII 5/7.1 upmixing to Illusonic 5/7.1 up mixing?


Yes, as mentioned in my *report*.

I have also heard the IAP in a room with more speakers than it could feed. So we used 7 mains and 6 overhead. As you may gather from the report, it offers a vastly different portrayal of the soundspace than what PLII does. The difference is particularly obvious on 2-channel pop/jazz/rock, where PLII is wrapping the instruments around you, while IAP is wrapping only the ambience, and the 2-ch source remains firmly up front. 

When IAP upmixes 5.1 to heights, again the 5.1 direct sounds stay on the ground, with ambience layered overhead. I'll be able to say more about that in near future after having more quality time.


----------



## markus767

^
Thanks! Wasn't aware of that thread.


----------



## sdurani

MichLinton said:


> Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice?


Lossy audio as the only choice? Pretty dire prediction. Almost as good as your previous one from 3 months ago (to the day).


MichLinton said:


> And it's very likely that you won't be talking about "Atmos" for the home or anything else. Dolby is being required to submit to a common-format model, which will likely leave the Auro speaker setup the most used in the theaters.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MichLinton said:


> I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos".
> 
> I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment.
> 
> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos. The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room. Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".
> 
> This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice? And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline.
> 
> We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.



Um, have you actually heard Dolby Atmos? And Atmos for the home is being delivered by a _lossless_ codec on Blu-ray, Dolby TrueHD. I think you're over reacting.


----------



## Orbitron

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, I will use the IAP's "7I+4H" layout. When I first received the unit, I was just using the base "7I" (standard 7.1) layout. I reported my thoughts about it in *another thread* which I realize you have seen, but I mention for others' benefit. My minor quibbles have since been addressed with a firmware update as noted. And there have been more updates since then to add room measurement facilities for setting up the internal PEQ. I owe Mr. Faller a complete runthrough of all that, so what more perfect time than after the 4 ceiling speakers are installed in a couple of weeks. (Speakers arrive today, still awaiting a new amp.)
> 
> That would be fun! But not in the cards.
> 
> Past crogglement is no guarantee of future results.
> 
> The good ole days of Fosgate continue to this day, but I do not even have PLIIz to exercise any height speakers. I am awaiting something that might take its place on a full time basis -- perhaps the new Dolby Surround mode in the Marantz AV7702. I fear if I fall in love with IAP 7+4 it could cost me dearly.


To digress for a sec., Rog, i had a Fosgate DSM-3608, and with laserdisc of Indy Jones and the Last Crusade - it was really good!


----------



## Roger Dressler

MichLinton said:


> I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment.
> 
> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos.


Perhaps you feel the same about 5.1, or 7.1. Do home systems replicate the cinematic experience? If so, on what scientific basis is that established?



> The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room.


"Anything like" is a pretty low bar. If you mean something more specific, it requires further definition, if you please.



> Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.


Are not movies all about gimmicks, both visual and audible? You say that as if it's something negative. Perhaps the studios have their own eyes and ears, and like what they perceive.



> I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos".
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not.


I guess you did not read *this scrap*, which explains there's more to it. 



> This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice?


Lossy audio? Again, your extensive reading has missed the facts. It's TrueHD on Blu-ray. And if you fully understood what MPEG-H portends, with SAOC coding, lossy is just the tip of the iceberg.



> And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline.


There is no bridge burned. Different production formats may coexist, and the best will rise to the top.



> We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.


Moving on. Now that sounds like a good idea. Let me get the door.


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> I've attached a plan for my top speakers for Atmos / Dolby Surround. They will be *on-ceiling mounted mini-bookshelf speakers*. I have three questions:
> 
> 
> *Does the placement look good?* (they will all be 45 degrees elevation to the MLP)
> *Should I aim the top speakers directly at the ground*, or toe them in to aim at the MLP? (like all the other speakers)
> The four gray lines surrounding the couch and attached to the top speakers is *a support structure I plan to build. Does this seem like a reasonable plan?* (It will basically be four 8' studs (with bracing), two 11.3' two-by-fours and two 10' two-by-fours in an arch over the couch to which I will attach the speakers (to avoid drilling any mounting holes in the ceiling, at least for now).


Looks good to me. ...Except for that farther Left Rear surround speaker. ...Everything else is solid sound.
{From the previous page, post #2322 with attachment (room plan).}


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I fear if I fall in love with IAP 7+4 it could cost me dearly.


Can't imagine you giving up logic steering for ambience retrieval, but will keep an open mind.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> It's one thing to do it now and again, and another to do it with relatively short posts. But to do it all the time can be wearing for everyone. It's nothing to worry about though and why you bring it up again is a mystery to me.
> 
> But it is especially ironic that NS himself seems to deplore the idea of people quoting fully very long posts:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-38.html#post25789777


All in good humor Keith.
..._Quoting long posts, and saying just few words._ ...Ain't the end of the world yet.  Almost, at most, atmos.



Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's anything like the cinema version, it's something like 22 mains, 10 overheads, and two sub outputs (LFE and summed bass from all other speakers).
> 
> The 22 mains would probably be like five front screen speakers (left, left extra, center, right extra, right), multiple front wides, multiple side walls, multiple rear walls.


For *Private Ultra Hi-End Home Theaters*; for sure. Thx.



Dan Hitchman said:


> If they don't kill each other first.


That can't happen; we're on the Internet (cyber space) where dimensions are only fictitious.  
...Markus & FilmMixer @ each other's throats. ...No real space exists, only in 'spacious mind'. ...In movies. 

And movies are fun entertainment, with recreated sounds; nothing's real (just an approximation of our imagination). 



SMHarman said:


> My Sony has a 2-Ch-Direct that removes the eq for stereo listening.


All brands of receivers and SSPs can do two-channel stereo without equalization.

* Personally, with XT32, I prefer stereo music listening with it engaged. ...It has more punch, more vibrancy.
...Poignancy.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

MichLinton said:


> I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos".
> 
> I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment.
> 
> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos. The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room. Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".
> 
> This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice? And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline.
> 
> We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.


We love big sized lettering and lots of big speakers! Yeah!


----------



## David Susilo

yeah!!


----------



## sdurani

^^^ What he said.


----------



## NorthSky

...And it's not even Friday yet.


----------



## CinemaAndy

"Dolby Atmos, in a proper configuration, can easily pin point a sound effect in any location of the room -just so long as the mixer isn't trying to put the sound effect under the audience."

By George, that's it! I need speakers in the FLOOR!


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> By George, that's it! I need speakers in the FLOOR!


I'm sure it'll come. ...Not those couch shakers, but real speakers with the sounds of those ants walking on the grass, @ your feet. 

You can replace them ants by anything your imagination wishes for. ...Your cat, your dog, your tiger, that fish you just caught up in the ocean, below your boat's deck...
...Everything above, and below you, up/down close and personal.


----------



## audiofan1

This has got to be the best thread ever! The post with the big letters does have a point you know ! but I'm sure do to the super high expectations for Atmos, its to bad most post of its nature it will be over looked


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> I'm sure it'll come. ...Not those couch shakers, but real speakers with the sounds of those ants walking on the grass, @ your feet.
> 
> You can replace them ants by anything your imagination wishes for. ...Your cat, your dog, your tiger, that fish you just caught up in the ocean, below your boat's deck...
> ...Everything above, and below you, up/down close and personal.


Nothing odd about sound from below if you're flying or in space... but what you're sitting on will be a bit in the way, so we need some AtmosFurniture that's sonically transparent too.


----------



## NorthSky

I mentioned a "sphere" as your future room few days ago, and Andy (CinemaAndy) said that it wasn't a bad idea as it is contemplated in some surround sound quarters. And I wouldn't be surprised that it actually exists, ...some Disney wonderland rides...


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> I mentioned a "sphere" as your future room few days ago, and Andy (CinemaAndy) said that it wasn't a bad idea as it is contemplated in some surround sound quarters. And I wouldn't be surprised that it actually exists, ...some Disney wonderland rides...


You'll have some monster bass trapping to do, though....


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> I mentioned a "sphere" as your future room few days ago, and Andy (CinemaAndy) said that it wasn't a bad idea as it is contemplated in some surround sound quarters. And I wouldn't be surprised that it actually exists, ...some Disney wonderland rides...


A little bit off subject and to quote a saying, "Disney always seems to do, what they say can't be done."

The sphere concept is remarkable, in CAD, waiting for the full build. 

Who knows, might be Dolby's next conception...


----------



## NorthSky

Perhaps less than you think; with openings to the outside of the sphere. 
...Standing waves that can escape the space of the sphere?

* In reply to Nightlord, just above Andy. ...Outside of the sphere.


----------



## CinemaAndy

MichLinton said:


> I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos".
> 
> I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment.
> 
> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos. The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room. Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".
> 
> This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice? And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline.
> 
> We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.


Next time just say you support Sony and defunct SDDS and Sony's non stop tinkering with DTS to fit Sony's Lie-Ray ideology.


----------



## SMHarman

Nightlord said:


> Nothing odd about sound from below if you're flying or in space... but what you're sitting on will be a bit in the way, so we need some AtmosFurniture that's sonically transparent too.


But space is a near vacuum. Nothing much to hear!


----------



## Brazilian

Some questions.

What should sound better, a 5.1.4 or a 7.1.2?

Can i run a 5.2.4?


----------



## Nightlord

SMHarman said:


> But space is a near vacuum. Nothing much to hear!


Tell that to George Lucas.


----------



## noah katz

Wow, gone a couple of days and hundreds of new posts.

Personally I find posts responding to many participants a bit tiresome, so I'll break it up into multiple posts.



markus767 said:


> In my opinion the issue is two-fold: we want more spaciousness (i.e. realism) and we also want precise placement of sounds (although in the past mixers claimed that discrete off-screen sounds would be a distraction). Atmos certainly covers more area around the listener but spaciousness requires speakers at distinct locations that Atmos for the home does not cover.


Markus, on what basis do you equate spaciousness with realism?

What if the on-screen action occurs in an acoustically dead space?

I'm not as widely read in acoustics as I could be, but from what I've read, spaciousness is merely a subjective aspect preferred by a majority of tested listeners, particularly with regard to music; ergo processors' modes synthesizing the reflective characteristics of various music venues.

And why does there need to be physical speakers at the +/-60 deg positions? If there is supposed to be reverberant sound coming from those locations, why can't they be phantom imaged like other sounds?


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> As Sanjay has been explaining, they haven't added Wides. They have added some additional speakers to fill the gap between the 'edges' of the screen and the start of the surrounds


Aren't DTS Neo X wides at +/-60 deg, more or less half way between L/R and side surrounds?

So what's the difference?


----------



## noah katz

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I know about Atmos, but I must admit I don't care about Atmos at all relative to its availability in a theater. As far as home use is concerned, I will leave the Atmos implementation to the extreme fringe elements of the home theater crowd.


It doesn't seem like you left.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> So, ironically, the use of additional speakers normally used to increase the usable listening area (sweet spot, if you like), is not so effective when the array speakers are individually driven. Perhaps CBT's are the salvation?


Not to continually harp on this, but can't CD horn speakers do a pretty good job of that?



kbarnes701 said:


> One other interesting observation is that they showed several trailers and ads (yes we have to watch ads in the cinema in the UK), none of which were made in Atmos but all of the speakers seemed to be alive including the top ones. IDK if this was some form of upmixing or what but it was definitely there. It was very noticeable with the 5.1 trailers how differently the surrounds sounded, with sound just 'coming from the side' as opposed to the pinpoint precision during the Atmos movie.


Are you saying that you could tell the sound was coming from the speakers as opposed to creating an immersive soundfield with nonlocalizable speakers?



audiofan1 said:


> The post with the big letters does have a point you know!


Seemed like a bunch of ignorant and unsubstantiated carping to me.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Dan Hitchman said:


> The model of revenue "sharing" is f'd up, especially with the advent of front loading.
> 
> As for my other point: you don't get movies with staying power like you did when home video was in its infancy due to the "sweep the money up quickly and get out" Hollywood mentality of film distribution. You kept the butts in the seats for months (if not about a year with some blockbusters) because you had a, usually, better quality product to sell.
> 
> Now it's all mass commodity driven. That is not good for quality storytelling whether it be books, films, or any other medium.


AMC typically doesn't change ticket prices in the first year after construction to "seed" behavior, said Mr. Lopez, but the admission fee goes up in subsequent years. Then, if a regular theater raises ticket prices 25 cents, tickets to a reseated auditorium might go up $1 or $1.25, he said.

Collecting those pricier tickets allows for some bargaining power with Hollywood studios. AMC can argue for better terms on how it splits ticket revenue with studios if it can show higher-priced sales are coming from its theaters. "We remind them of that all the time," said Mr. Lopez.

Costs quickly move beyond the auditorium, said Mr. Lopez, who realized at the chain's first reseated theater that customers in cushy seats wouldn't tolerate subpar bathrooms or lobbies. "If we're going to do this, we do the full monty," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/now-at-the-movies-fully-reclining-seats-1404679140

And Atmos is a ticket sales draw, just like "premium seats or bathrooms."


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> Markus, on what basis do you equate spaciousness with realism?


Anything that can be perceived in a real aural spaces is part of realism.



noah katz said:


> What if the on-screen action occurs in an acoustically dead space?


A mix does not need to use all the features possible at all times. For example, Atmos overheads won't play sound all the time just because they are there.



noah katz said:


> I'm not as widely read in acoustics as I could be, but from what I've read, spaciousness is merely a subjective aspect preferred by a majority of tested listeners, particularly with regard to music; ergo processors' modes synthesizing the reflective characteristics of various music venues.


Happens in any space with any sound. Symphony halls are like effect processors for exaggerated spaciousness.



noah katz said:


> And why does there need to be physical speakers at the +/-60 deg positions?


Psychoacoustic studies have found those locations to be most effective.



noah katz said:


> If there is supposed to be reverberant sound coming from those locations, why can't they be phantom imaged like other sounds?


Phantom imaging doesn't work well to the sides and it breaks down (sometimes completely) if you're not sitting in the sweet spot or turn your head.


----------



## NorthSky

Brazilian said:


> Some questions.
> 
> What should sound better, a 5.1.4 or a 7.1.2?
> 
> Can i run a 5.2.4?


It depends of your room's dimensions and its overall arrangement (decor furniture ....)
...Of the numbers of listeners and their positions in the room; for full coverage.

Yes you can run 5.2.4 but the .2 is still only one LFE channel reproduced by two subwoofers, and whatever bass is redirected to them from the other five channels.

Some units permit stereo subwoofers, and some with even front and rear subwoofers, but they are more from the rarity type.

* A smaller room with not much space in the back, and mainly for one to three listeners on the main couch will benefit for a simple/efficient 5.2.2 configuration even. ...Or 5.1.2 because the middle number should technically remain @ .1 for that only one LFE channel, plus whatever bass coming from them other main channels (satellites).

And from 5.1.2 you can add two more on the floor/wall level to make it 7.1.2
...Or add two more on top instead to make it 5.1.4
...Depending of your room's overall size, the number of listener(s), and personal preference in sound dispersion/coverage and satisfaction. ...Ears tell best.


----------



## NorthSky

- With space to spare in the rear: 7.1.2 setup.
- With restricted space in the rear: 5.1.2 (or 5.1.4 if you want to use all channels in a 9.1-channel receiver - sometimes wrongly called 9.2). ...Internal amplification included (9 channels), or if you want to add an additional stereo amp to a 7.1 channel receiver.


----------



## Nightlord

Anyone think Denon will manage 13.2.6 (per pre-outs) by 2017?


----------



## kbarnes701

MichLinton said:


> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos.
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".


Couple of questions: who says that Home Atmos is supposed to "replicate" commercial theater Atmos? What did you personally think after hearing Home Atmos? Not somebody who has heard Bose, *you*?


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> This has got to be the best thread ever! The post with the big letters does have a point you know ! but I'm sure do to the super high expectations for Atmos, its to bad most post of its nature it will be over looked


It will more likely be overlooked because it contains so much misunderstanding and disinformation. Roger's response says everything that needed to be said I think and we can now follow MichLinton's own suggestion and "move on"


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Aren't DTS Neo X wides at +/-60 deg, more or less half way between L/R and side surrounds?
> 
> So what's the difference?


What’s the difference between the Atmos surround speakers in a commercial theater and the Wides in a HT? First, the Atmos speakers aren’t 'Wides' in any sense of the word used in a domestic context*** - they are there simply to fill in a gap between the edge of the screen and the rest of the surrounds to enable seamless panning. And second, the angles stipulated for domestic Wides are nothing at all like the angles of those in-theater speakers.

As this was already explained, Noah, I have a feeling I have misunderstood your question.

***EG, Wides at home are for the extraction or creation or generation or derivation (pick your own noun) of reflections.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Are you saying that you could tell the sound was coming from the speakers as opposed to creating an immersive soundfield with nonlocalizable speakers?


Not at all. With the Atmos content the sound was incredibly immersive but also rendered with pinpoint precision when required. That precision was to place a sound where it should be (based on the on-screen action) not where a speaker happened to be.

With the non-Atmos content, I was surprised that the top speakers seemed to be in use and wondered if some form of upmixing was being used. I don't think they do that in cinemas, do they? If not, then it was some sort of psychoacoustic effect. Please don't attach too much significance at this time to that bit of my report, as it is based on just one experience. I'd prefer to wait until I have seen a lot more non-Atmos content played in an Atmos theater before I come to any firm conclusion myself.


----------



## ss9001

All the theoretical discussion is great...but I have a question on the practical side of actually implementing Atmos in the home 

I'd like to know what some of you think about using mini-bookshelves mounted to the ceiling with brackets like omnimounts instead of actual in-ceiling speakers. Would be as effective? Would you point them straight down or slightly angled to the seating? Speakers like the NHT Superzero 2 or Martin Logan Motion 2/4's. Not as elegant as mounting in-ceiling, yes. But no worries about sound isolation, closed vs open back, and a lot more speaker for the money. Plus less installation cost.

As I'm discovering, good in-ceilings are not cheap, especially closed back ones. Comparison of typical mini-bookshelves vs typical in-ceiling: 

4 M-L Motion 4's ~$1K. NHT SZ's would be $400! 
Compare this to 4 good/excellent quality in-ceilings ranging from $1.5-6K! You can count on at least $300-500 ea for decent ones. And the price goes up from there.

Or is this a case of better to use Dolby enabled if you can't install true downfiring in-ceilings?

Thoughts?

Keith, I know you're considering some pro audio cinema style monitors mounted on a swivel bracket which aren't true in-ceiling mounted. not exactly the same but would you point them straight down or angled?


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> All the theoretical discussion is great...but I have a question on the practical side of actually implementing Atmos in the home
> 
> I'd like to know what some of you think about using mini-bookshelves mounted to the ceiling with brackets like omnimounts instead of actual in-ceiling speakers. Would be as effective? Would you point them straight down or slightly angled to the seating? Speakers like the NHT Superzero 2 or Martin Logan Motion 2/4's. Not as elegant as mounting in-ceiling, yes. But no worries about sound isolation, closed vs open back, and a lot more speaker for the money. Plus less installation cost.
> 
> As I'm discovering, good in-ceilings are not cheap, especially closed back ones. Comparison of typical mini-bookshelves vs typical in-ceiling:
> 
> 4 M-L Motion 4's ~$1K. NHT SZ's would be $400!
> Compare this to 4 good/excellent quality in-ceilings ranging from $1.5-6K! You can count on at least $300-500 ea for decent ones. And the price goes up from there.
> 
> Or is this a case of better to use Dolby enabled if you can't install true downfiring in-ceilings?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Keith, I know you're considering some pro audio cinema style monitors mounted on a swivel bracket which aren't true in-ceiling mounted. not exactly the same but would you point them straight down or angled?


I haven’t read anywhere that Atmos is biased more towards in-ceiling than on-ceiling speakers. I haven’t even considered in-ceiling designs - they are very expensive if they are to be any good, it seems, and I dislike the idea of them in principle, but this may be bias after hearing so many (a lot of my friends have them - WAF etc) and never yet having heard any that I would want to live with myself.

I also intend to angle my own on-ceiling speakers towards the MLP somewhat, although strictly speaking this may not be needed and remember that I am concerned mostly with one seat. In-ceiling designs do sometimes have a movable tweeter but, again, that idea does not appeal to me, although others may find that YMMV applies.

I have indeed pretty much decided to go with *Tannoy Di5 DC* speakers for my four top speakers. I like their size, for my room, and the fact that they use a dual concentric driver design, which I think will work well with Atmos and which I always enjoyed very much with Kef when I used their speakers (UniQ), and the Tannoys have a 90 degree cone of dispersion which I also think will work well. Also, they are the baby brothers to the Di6 DCs that Roger Dressler is using in his (larger) room and I admit to being influenced by Roger's thinking.

Because the Di5s are 'pro' designs, they don't have a finish that would win an Aesthetics award, but that doesn’t matter to me in a dedicated room that is lightproof and painted dark grey and black  And perhaps because they are 'plain looking' shall we say, they are also remarkably good value for money. And they are very easy to mount as they come complete with a C-bracket designed for the purpose.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> All in good humor Keith.
> ..._Quoting long posts, and saying just few words._ ...Ain't the end of the world yet.  Almost, at most, atmos.


I wasn't so much commenting on your quoting a very long post, as such, as the adding of just 5 words to it, none of which contributed anything, other than to say you agreed with the post. This is of almost zero consequence to anything, so can we please move on from it?


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> I have indeed pretty much decided to go with *Tannoy Di5 DC* speakers for my four top speakers.money...And they are very easy to mount as they come complete with a C-bracket designed for the purpose.


I do like the price  very reasonable. the driver design and bracket are a plus.

the more I "research" mounted in-ceilings, the less enthusiastic I am about them. not saying I've decided one way or the other but as you say, there are disadvantages not including the cost. 

Martin Logan has ones from ~300 to ~1200 each and none are closed back! good "audiophile" closed back ones from Totem are up to $1.5K each! no way I'm spending that kind of money for ceiling speakers to reproduce effects.

I'm also seriously considering using the top driver portion of Pioneer's Dolby speakers. I don't know if there's a hard wired crossover between their top and normal firing drivers or if the Dolby crossover is handled internally by the AVR. It makes sense that it's in the AVR otherwise, the top firing module idea wouldn't work, but a statement by AJ in his SW video clip was confusing on that point, at least to me 

any more want to share opinions?


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I do like the price  very reasonable. the driver design and bracket are a plus.
> 
> the more I "research" mounted in-ceilings, the less enthusiastic I am about them. not saying I've decided one way or the other but as you say, there are disadvantages not including the cost.
> 
> Martin Logan has ones from ~300 to ~1200 each and none are closed back! good "audiophile" closed back ones from Totem are up to $1.5K each! no way I'm spending that kind of money for ceiling speakers to reproduce effects.
> 
> I'm also seriously considering using the top driver portion of Pioneer's Dolby speakers. I don't know if there's a hard wired crossover between their top and normal firing drivers or if the Dolby crossover is handled internally by the AVR. It makes sense that it's in the AVR otherwise, the top firing module idea wouldn't work, but a statement by AJ in his SW video clip was confusing on that point, at least to me
> 
> any more want to share opinions?


I agree with you about in-ceiling designs. There just seem too many compromises involved to me. But they look better. If the installation was a living room, then I could perhaps live with them. But a better solution would be Atmos-enabled speakers IMO, having heard them now. Or add-on modules. In a dedicated room there is less need to compromise, so on-ceiling designs seem a better choice to me.

The Atmos module crosses over (to the main speaker) at about 180Hz. My understanding is that the crossover which enables this is in the speaker._ Edit: On second thoughts, it can’t be in the speaker - otherwise the add-on modules wouldn't work, and it must be in the AVR._ What is _(Edit: also_) in the AVR, AIUI, is some DSP which counteracts the possible directivity of some unwanted sound shooting forwards towards the listener, and AIUI, this was done based on research of the human pinna and psychoacoustics. I stress that this is my understanding.


----------



## BillFree

markus767 said:


> Mods are already getting annoyed by the numerous discussions about the upcoming Atmos feature in AVRs. So lets give this new format a home of its own in this thread.
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.
> 
> First, here's some general information about Atmos so everybody is up to speed:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf
> 
> Dolby on Atmos for the home:
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> 
> Information from Onkyo:
> http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com
> 
> Dolby Patent Application:
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014036085A1.html


With all the discussion on Dolby Atmos speaker placement, Atmos receivers, content coming what about Dolby Atmos supported headphones? I have Sony DP-RF6000 headphones that support DTS, Dolby Digital Prologic, Mpeg-2 aac. I really enjoy surround sound effect. Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers placement on headphones? Is that possible?


----------



## KidHorn

ss9001 said:


> All the theoretical discussion is great...but I have a question on the practical side of actually implementing Atmos in the home
> 
> I'd like to know what some of you think about using mini-bookshelves mounted to the ceiling with brackets like omnimounts instead of actual in-ceiling speakers. Would be as effective? Would you point them straight down or slightly angled to the seating? Speakers like the NHT Superzero 2 or Martin Logan Motion 2/4's. Not as elegant as mounting in-ceiling, yes. But no worries about sound isolation, closed vs open back, and a lot more speaker for the money. Plus less installation cost.
> 
> As I'm discovering, good in-ceilings are not cheap, especially closed back ones. Comparison of typical mini-bookshelves vs typical in-ceiling:
> 
> 4 M-L Motion 4's ~$1K. NHT SZ's would be $400!
> Compare this to 4 good/excellent quality in-ceilings ranging from $1.5-6K! You can count on at least $300-500 ea for decent ones. And the price goes up from there.
> 
> Or is this a case of better to use Dolby enabled if you can't install true downfiring in-ceilings?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Keith, I know you're considering some pro audio cinema style monitors mounted on a swivel bracket which aren't true in-ceiling mounted. not exactly the same but would you point them straight down or angled?



I think in ceiling would be better for many reasons. One is if you sit in a typical room with a 8' ceiling and you're ears are 4' off the ground, it doesn't give the ceiling speaker much room to disperse the sound. If the drivers are say 8" lower, that makes it even more difficult.


Another problem is with lighting. If you have in ceiling lighting, do you want speaker shadows? I guess it's not an issue if your room is a dedicated theater with the lights off, but if it's a family room, it may be an issue.


I have a cathedral ceiling so the whole speaker ceiling thing will require a lot of thought. I don't think Atmos is designed for cathedral or sloped ceilings.


----------



## markus767

ss9001 said:


> I do like the price  very reasonable. the driver design and bracket are a plus.
> 
> the more I "research" mounted in-ceilings, the less enthusiastic I am about them. not saying I've decided one way or the other but as you say, there are disadvantages not including the cost.
> 
> Martin Logan has ones from ~300 to ~1200 each and none are closed back! good "audiophile" closed back ones from Totem are up to $1.5K each! no way I'm spending that kind of money for ceiling speakers to reproduce effects.
> 
> I'm also seriously considering using the top driver portion of Pioneer's Dolby speakers. I don't know if there's a hard wired crossover between their top and normal firing drivers or if the Dolby crossover is handled internally by the AVR. It makes sense that it's in the AVR otherwise, the top firing module idea wouldn't work, but a statement by AJ in his SW video clip was confusing on that point, at least to me
> 
> any more want to share opinions?


In-ceiling is preferable to on-ceiling because there will be no dip in the frequency response from the boundary behind the speaker (the ceiling in this case).

In- and on-ceiling is preferabe to ceiling-firing. Ceiling-firing speakers result a) in a high pass filtered direct sound from the location where they are placed (because of their directivity) and b) a delayed ceiling reflection. That ceiling reflection has to be louder than the direct sound otherwise it won't override the localization cue coming from the first arriving sound (precedence effect).
From what we know so far, Dolby applies HRTF-based processing to the signal to aid elevation perception. HRTFs tend to vary from person to person quite considerably though. We have yet to see how good the processing works for a larger group of people.
Ceiling-firing speakers have to be aimed correctly to produce repeatable results. I have measurements that show this. So speakers with adjustable ceiling-firing drivers are preferable.
In dedicated home theater rooms people might have absorption installed to eliminate the early ceiling bounce from the fronts. That absorption would have to go for ceiling-firing speakers to work.

Regarding the Pioneer speakers. The top unit is a separate speaker. There is no crossover between the front speaker and the ceiling-firing speaker other than what AVR bass management offers. Per Andrew Jones bass management has some Atmos specific behavior. Those ceiling-firing speakers will be set to small by default, i.e. they have a high pass applied at about 150-200Hz. The sound below that frequency isn't summed into the subwoofer channel but is redirected to the speaker it sits on top. For example, lower frequencies from ceiling-firing left top surround are redirected to left front main.


----------



## markus767

BillFree said:


> With all the discussion on Dolby Atmos speaker placement, Atmos receivers, content coming what about Dolby Atmos supported headphones? I have Sony DP-RF6000 headphones that support DTS, Dolby Digital Prologic, Mpeg-2 aac. I really enjoy surround sound effect. Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers placement on headphones? Is that possible?


We haven't heard anything about that yet. It's definitely possible and all the tools exist (personalized HRTFs, head tracking, etc.) to do spectacular rendering via headphones. I'm actually more interested in Atmos rendering over headphones than over speakers because speakers in rooms are generally a bad idea  Way too many problems and tradeoffs that just don't exist with headphone playback.


----------



## Nightlord

ss9001 said:


> I'd like to know what some of you think about using mini-bookshelves mounted to the ceiling with brackets like omnimounts instead of actual in-ceiling speakers. Would be as effective? Would you point them straight down or slightly angled to the seating? Speakers like the NHT Superzero 2 or Martin Logan Motion 2/4's. Not as elegant as mounting in-ceiling, yes. But no worries about sound isolation, closed vs open back, and a lot more speaker for the money. Plus less installation cost.


IF sz2 has the same on-axis downwards tilt as the original one (which I used to have seven of myself), then highmounted on the walls would not need a very severe tilt, methinks.

I don't expect anything to compete with in-ceiling speakers of the same quality for this application until speaker manufacturers have had more time to try out atmos on their own sites and possibly found even better radiation patterns for more even effect over multiple seats.


----------



## airkitty

Regarding in-ceiling speakers:

the prices scared the crap out of me! My wife agreed to let me install 6 in our new house but the cost was commercially prohibitive so

I bought blank in wall brackets from parts express and raw drivers from madisound. The drivers match my L/C/R identically. Total cost per speaker and bracket ~$80 each. 

I spent roughly 10 hours each on the install to allow me to modify the brackets. My front heights are at a 60 degree aiming at the main listening area. The sides and rears are at 45 degrees. The angles were executed behind the grill so the WAF is really good. 

I'm fortunate that I do not have ceiling insulation and an air conditioned attic. I have the plans drawn up and the wood to "box in" all six drivers. This part of the plan might happen it might not. The thing is that these in ceiling speakers are not carrying that much of a musical or effects load at present. I think I set the low frequency cut off at 110 hz(?) so some of the benefits of a full in ceiling box are negated. I'm also a bit tired and not anxious to spend another 40 hours crawling around the attic. 

The sound quality is really nice since all the drivers match. I followed the Dolby recommendations for placement as best as I could in hopes that my next processor will be able to fully utilize the speakers.

The point of this post is to illustrate that sweat equity is alive and well in this hobby and cash is not always the only way to go


----------



## smurraybhm

Off topic, but Dan hit the nail on the head and what he lists are the exact reasons why I have not gone to a movie theater in 10 years plus. Just wait for things to be released on DVD, then HD-DVD and the winner of the battle Blu-ray. I think my home theater does a much better job then my local theaters ex Atmos and maybe 3D, the later I could care less about, glasses anyone?

Now that Atmos is coming to the home, I will finally get to hear what all the fuss is about, and continue to save money. I don't miss the person eating popcorn behind me at all or my shoes sticking to the floor when I move


----------



## sdurani

ss9001 said:


> I'd like to know what some of you think about using mini-bookshelves mounted to the ceiling with brackets like omnimounts instead of actual in-ceiling speakers. Would be as effective?


More effective, since they can be aimed to better cover the listening area.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> More effective, since they can be aimed to better cover the listening area.


In my opinion the lack of detrimental boundary effects outweighs this. There are also in-wall/ceiling designs that allow aiming:
http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/square-in-wall


----------



## redjr

zoetmb said:


> ....I've never really been happy with the sound my A/V receiver for music listening - I've always feared that these alignment system do more harm than good. Even in terms of phase alignment, who knows if these systems are doing a good job?


I use a Pioneer Elite receiver from their SC line for both stereo and HT duty. They have a Pure Direct mode that I use when listening to stereo. I turns off all processing and any equalization and gives it to you raw. I absolutely love this mode for music.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

sdurani said:


> More effective, since they can be aimed to better cover the listening area.



Sanjay or anyone,


For the Atmos ceiling speakers, I would like to use small Two-Way Monopole bookshelf speakers that are comprised of (1) 4" woofer and (1) 1" soft dome tweeter that match my other speakers. Would this size and type speaker work OK as Atmos ceiling speakers?

I would like to mount to ceiling using Omni-mount type brackets so I can angle effectively and my question is about the speakers general orientation and it's effect on overall performance.

With regards to cone dispersion, combing, beaming, coverage etc., what are the possible ramifications of mounting the speakers in various positions. In other words, should I mount the speakers upright with the tweeter at the top? Can I mount the speakers horizontally with the tweeter to the left or right? Both tweeters to the outside, both to inside, both towards left or right? 

Thanks!


...Glenn


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> In my opinion the lack of detrimental boundary effects outweighs this.


I'll take a notch in the 300-400 Hz range (which I can ameliorate with absorption) to the lack of toe-in flexibility of in-ceiling speakers.


markus767 said:


> There are also in-wall/ceiling designs that allow aiming:
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/square-in-wall


Not even close to what I would want as far aiming the speaker goes.


----------



## Cam Man

markus767 said:


> In my opinion the lack of detrimental boundary effects outweighs this. There are also in-wall/ceiling designs that allow aiming:
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/square-in-wall


Another fine reason to still have MultEQxt32 on hand. It handles boundary effects extremely well.




sdurani said:


> I'll take a notch in the 300-400 Hz range (which I can ameliorate with absorption) to the lack of toe-in flexibility of in-ceiling speakers. Not even close to what I would want as far aiming the speaker goes.


Now here's a terrific in-ceiling that aims. http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker  Unfortunately, it's a bit pricey and it's huge; tons of vertical clearance needed.

Designs with C-mounts or similar could be players.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I'll take a notch in the 300-400 Hz range (which I can ameliorate with absorption) to the lack of toe-in flexibility of in-ceiling speakers.


You're downplaying the phenomenon. Flush mounted in-wall is superior.



sdurani said:


> Not even close to what I would want as far aiming the speaker goes.


How much toe-in do you need?


----------



## markus767

Cam Man said:


> Another fine reason to still have MultEQxt32 on hand. It handles boundary effects extremely well.


No EQ can handle this well because the effect is non-minimum phase.


----------



## SoundChex

Nightlord said:


> Anyone think Denon will manage 13.2.6 (per pre-outs) by 2017?


Only if* Denon *start selling _re-badged_ *Datasat* or *Trinnov* products under license . . . and even then likely only at the *same* MSRP as the original vendor model...!?   
_


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> I think in ceiling would be better for many reasons. One is if you sit in a typical room with a 8' ceiling and you're ears are 4' off the ground, it doesn't give the ceiling speaker much room to disperse the sound. If the drivers are say 8" lower, that makes it even more difficult.


You'd think so, but at the Atmos demo at Dolby in London, the on-ceiling speakers in the small HT room were about 4 - 4.5 feet above head height and worked just fine. In my HT, my ears are 3ft from the floor and the ceiling is 8ft, so I have 5ft of 'headroom'.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> You're downplaying the phenomenon.


A 300-400 Hz notch doesn't require very thick absorption.


markus767 said:


> Flush mounted in-wall is superior.


Not for what I want.


markus767 said:


> How much toe-in do you need?


Enough to point to the person furthest from the speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Sanjay or anyone,
> 
> 
> For the Atmos ceiling speakers, I would like to use small Two-Way Monopole bookshelf speakers that are comprised of (1) 4" woofer and (1) 1" soft dome tweeter that match my other speakers. Would this size and type speaker work OK as Atmos ceiling speakers?
> 
> I would like to mount to ceiling using Omni-mount type brackets so I can angle effectively and my question is about the speakers general orientation and it's effect on overall performance.
> 
> With regards to cone dispersion, combing, beaming, coverage etc., what are the possible ramifications of mounting the speakers in various positions. In other words, should I mount the speakers upright with the tweeter at the top? Can I mount the speakers horizontally with the tweeter to the left or right? Both tweeters to the outside, both to inside, both towards left or right?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Glenn, I wondered about all the same things, and the decision to go with the *Tannoy Di5 DC* speakers seems to address them all (for me). They have a 4.5 inch woofer with concentric 1 inch titanium dome tweeter, they have 90 degree all round dispersion, so that solves the question of mounting them upright or sideways - it makes no difference; because the tweeter is concentrically mounted, there is no 'left or right' orientation of it, and as they come with purpose-designed mounting brackets, it is easy to angle them slightly towards the MLP if you want to (but probably not necessary with this design). Certainly made my life easier. I will rely on EQ to timbre match them to my mains.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> A 300-400 Hz notch doesn't require very thick absorption.


No? Ever measured the effect and how much absorption is required?



sdurani said:


> Not for what I want.


What do you want? Care to elaborate?



sdurani said:


> Enough to point to the person furthest from the speaker.


And that is in degrees?


----------



## sdurani

Glenn Baumann said:


> Would this size and type speaker work OK as Atmos ceiling speakers?


Sure, as long as you understand the compromises. They're not going to go low, so you might have to cross them over above 100Hz. If they don't sound like your other speakers, you'll have use an EQ to get them to sound more similar.


Glenn Baumann said:


> Can I mount the speakers horizontally with the tweeter to the left or right?


I wouldn't, for the same reason I wouldn't use a horizontal centre speaker (lobing).


----------



## Cam Man

markus767 said:


> No EQ can handle this well because the effect is non-minimum phase.


I admire your dedication and knowledge, but ... EQ is used throughout the pro cinema and HT industry for that purpose to pretty good effect. Maybe it enables other benefits that outweigh/overshadow others ... enough to be a reasonable utility to consider. Are you concerned about the full spectrum? With regards to >1KHz, I agree with you.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Ever measured the effect and how much absorption is required?


Sure, 4 inches of OC703 took care of it.


markus767 said:


> What do you want? Care to elaborate?


Already did in the post you just replied to.


markus767 said:


> And that is in degrees?


Is what in degrees? If I point a speaker at a listener, did I use "degrees" to accomplish that?


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> You'd think so, but at the Atmos demo at Dolby in London, the on-ceiling speakers in the small HT room


I didn't realize your demo was with *on* ceiling as opposed to *in* ceiling.

If it's good enough for Dolby, that says a lot. Maybe I need to reread your review  

Do you know which brand they used?

Regardless of whether they're in Pioneer's speakers or mounted on the ceiling, concentric drivers in this application seem to make lots of sense.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Sure, 4 inches of OC703 took care of it.


Care to share those measurements?



sdurani said:


> Already did in the post you just replied to. Is what in degrees? If I point a speaker at a listener, did I use "degrees" to accomplish that?


So you want to point the top surrounds to the listener farthest away from the speaker, right? Why? How many speakers at what locations and what amount of toe-in does this require for each speaker in your specific case? "Degree" is a pretty good measure to describe the amount of toe-in relative to a point of reference, no?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I'll take a notch in the 300-400 Hz range (which I can ameliorate with absorption) to the lack of toe-in flexibility of in-ceiling speakers. Not even close to what I would want as far aiming the speaker goes.


Not to mention the significant extra cost of comparable quality in-ceiling designs (compared to on-ceiling) plus the possible greater difficulty of fitting them.


----------



## ss9001

Cam Man said:


> Now here's a terrific in-ceiling that aims. http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker  Unfortunately, it's a bit pricey and it's huge; tons of vertical clearance needed.


I'd say your right on both counts - $1000 ea and 9.5" clearance? Plus taking up nearly the whole 16' OC width.

I wonder what idiot came up with this depth dimension 

With typical ceiling joists between 2X6 and 2X10's that disqualifies a whole lot of applications & potential sales. They must think everyone is going to have an attic above the ceiling  

They should have kept the money they spent on THX cert and hired an engineer with a practical sense of home construction instead 

Even if I was a Klipsch fan (which I'm not), I'd pass on this. 

May be a great sounding speaker but not a lot of thought put into practicality for typical homes, especially retrofit.

But hey, it's a good candidate for dumb design of the week 

Here's several hi-end and hi-priced ones that make more sense for large square designs:

http://totemacoustic.com/en/hi-fi/i...cifications/?series=in-wall-in-ceiling-series

14" square but only *4.72"* deep

or 

http://totemacoustic.com/en/hi-fi/i...cifications/?series=in-wall-in-ceiling-series

similar to the Klipsch at 15.7" square but still only *4.72"* deep

or this

http://www.definitivetech.com/products/uiw-rcs-ii

14 3/8" square and *5 7/8"* deep

or the Vanquish from Martin Logan at 6.3" deep & 14.4" diam
http://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/stealth/specs.php

Any one of these is in the same price range but more practical than the Klipsch's 9.5" depth!

Next...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> A 300-400 Hz notch doesn't require very thick absorption. Not for what I want. Enough to point to the person furthest from the speaker.


Markus never seems to quite grasp that what *he* wants is not what *everyone* wants.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Care to share those measurements?


Don't have them (was years ago).


markus767 said:


> So you want to point the top surrounds to the listener farthest away from the speaker, right?


Didn't I just say that a couple posts back?


markus767 said:


> Why?


Energy trading, so the nearby speaker doesn't overwhelm the closest listener. I do that with my fronts, sides and rears.


markus767 said:


> How many speakers at what locations and what amount of toe-in does this require for each speaker in your specific case?


Haven't worked out specifics, but I'll say 4 speakers for now. Won't know specific locations until I try them, just as I did with fronts, sides and rears. However, from past experience that I do know that I would not give up that level of toe-in flexibility.


markus767 said:


> "Degree" is a pretty good measure to describe the amount of toe-in relative to a point of reference, no?


I don't calculate toe-in, I point and listen for what I want.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Sure, as long as you understand the compromises. They're not going to go low, so you might have to cross them over above 100Hz. If they don't sound like your other speakers, you'll have use an EQ to get them to sound more similar. I wouldn't, for the same reason I wouldn't use a horizontal centre speaker (lobing).


That latter was one of my primary reasons for choosing then Tannoys. I was going to go with MK Sound M7s which complement my MK S150s at the front, and which also serve as surrounds now. But they would really need to be positioned vertically, as they have been designed to be used, and given that they are about 14 inches tall, they would just poke too far down into the room. Using them horizontally was an option, but one I declined for the reasons you mention. The dual concentrics seemed to fill the bill nicely.

I am happy to cross them over to the dual Submersives at 100Hz or even 120Hz, so that isn't an issue.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Markus never seems to quite grasp that what *he* wants is not what *everyone* wants.


I know, it never ends. It's like he cannot believe other people have different priorities than he has.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I didn't realize your demo was with *on* ceiling as opposed to *in* ceiling.
> 
> If it's good enough for Dolby, that says a lot. Maybe I need to reread your review
> 
> Do you know which brand they used?
> 
> Regardless of whether they're in Pioneer's speakers or mounted on the ceiling, concentric drivers in this application seem to make lots of sense.


Most of the demo in the HT room was with Atmos speakers but they did also demo on-ceiling speakers (top front/top rear) as well.

They wouldn't comment on the brand of the speakers - they were what they called "prototypes". They were quite small though - maybe 10 inches x 5 inches by 6 inches (HWD) going purely from memory.

I do like the idea of concentrics for the top speakers. They have a lot of benefits per se, and in this application, as you say, maybe even more. 

But AFAIK there is (at this time) no specification or even guidelines for domestic top speakers. Maybe this will emerge soon...?


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I'd say your right on both counts - $1000 ea and 9.5" clearance? Not including needing near the whole 16' width to install. I wonder what idiot came up with these dimensions.
> 
> With typical ceiling joists between 2X6 and 2X10's that disqualifies a whole lot of applications & potential sales. They must think everyone is going to have an attic above the ceiling
> 
> Looks to me like a Stupid Design decision! They should have kept the money they spent on THX cert and hired an engineer with a practical sense of home construction instead
> 
> Even if I was a Klipsch fan (which I'm not), I'd pass on this.
> 
> May be a great sounding speaker but not a lot of thought put into practicality for installing in a typical house.
> 
> Next...


In my evaluation process for the top speakers here, I did look at in-ceiling designs just to be thorough, and other than the huge cost for reasonably specced units, I don't think I could accommodate a single design (that I would actually want) in my ceiling, which only has about 5 inches of clearance max above the plaster. I had pretty much decided anyway that I disliked the idea, but that latter was the clincher. As you say, next...


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Don't have them (was years ago). Didn't I just say that a couple posts back? Energy trading, so the nearby speaker doesn't overwhelm the closest listener. I do that with my fronts, sides and rears. Haven't worked out specifics, but I'll say 4 speakers for now. Won't know specific locations until I try them, just as I did with fronts, sides and rears. However, from past experience that I do know that I would not give up that level of toe-in flexibility. I don't calculate toe-in, I point and listen for what I want.


How many seats in each row and how many rows? How large is your room?


----------



## bargervais

*Hercules 3D is playing in dolby atmos they want $15.50 for an adult and $13.00 for Senior and $12.50 for child at our local Regal theatre might have to check it out 
*


----------



## Cam Man

ss9001 said:


> I'd say your right on both counts - $1000 ea and 9.5" clearance? Not including needing near the whole 16' width to install. I wonder what idiot came up with these dimensions.
> 
> With typical ceiling joists between 2X6 and 2X10's that disqualifies a whole lot of applications & potential sales. They must think everyone is going to have an attic above the ceiling
> 
> Looks to me like a Stupid Design decision! They should have kept the money they spent on THX cert and hired an engineer with a practical sense of home construction instead
> 
> Even if I was a Klipsch fan (which I'm not), I'd pass on this.
> 
> May be a great sounding speaker but not a lot of thought put into practicality for installing in a typical house.
> 
> Next...


Room volume and listening distance drive speaker decisions for me. The Klipsch THX U2 line is a good one for that, and very flexible. You are so right on the installation trouble for the in-ceiling. I'm doing an upgrade for a big living room remodel where I used LCRs from the line a while back, but had to wait for the remodel to do surrounds. Despite the ceiling being 14', there is only 8" or so of ceiling clearance due to various framing. No go. Would have been nice in that room.


I have used them, though, a number of times, and they do very well. There's just not a lot of in-ceiling speakers that are good for big rooms with significant distance/throws. Keith's suggestion with the Tannoys could be a good one, though.


----------



## FilmMixer

BillFree said:


> With all the discussion on Dolby Atmos speaker placement, Atmos receivers, content coming what about Dolby Atmos supported headphones? I have Sony DP-RF6000 headphones that support DTS, Dolby Digital Prologic, Mpeg-2 aac. I really enjoy surround sound effect. Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers placement on headphones? Is that possible?


http://www.cnet.com/news/dolby-to-put-atmos-surround-sound-on-tablets-smartphones/


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Not to mention the significant extra cost of comparable quality in-ceiling designs (compared to on-ceiling) plus the possible greater difficulty of fitting them.


that's what I mean. 

just one look at Can Man's Klipsch example and several other examples I just mentioned show that installation considerations of depth, location right between studs, cut-out sizes & needed mounting hardware add up to potential difficulties while finding a *single* stud to screw in an omnimount style or C bracket is a whole lot easier. plus, depending on which direction the studs go, more flexibility in placement one dimension or the other.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I know, it never ends. It's like he cannot believe other people have different priorities than he has.


I'm just trying to understand what considerations make you dismiss a superior solution. Has nothing to do with me not being able to accept that other priorities exist. I'm just trying to understand what those priorities are.


----------



## bkeeler10

markus767 said:


> In my opinion the lack of detrimental boundary effects outweighs this. There are also in-wall/ceiling designs that allow aiming:
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/square-in-wall


You're assuming that boundary effects disappear when the speaker is flush-mounted . . .


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> How many seats in each row and how many rows? How large is your room?


It's a wide couch that can seat 3-4 in a living room that is about 14 feet wide in the front half (right side wall disappears half way back, opening up to the dining area). Back wall is about 17 feet from the front wall, but there are archways (not doors) on the back wall and left wall. Seating is 3/5ths of room length back. If you want, I can whip up a quick diagram. 

Because of the irregular space, all my speaker placement has been a result of trial and error. Hence why I said that I wouldn't know where my heights would go until I try them. Which is why I prioritize toe-in flexibility higher than you might.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> that's what I mean.
> 
> just one look at Can Man's Klipsch example and several other examples I just mentioned show that installation considerations of depth, location right between studs, cut-out sizes & needed mounting hardware add up to potential difficulties while finding a *single* stud to screw in an omnimount style or C bracket is a whole lot easier. plus, depending on which direction the studs go, more flexibility in placement one dimension or the other.


Couldn’t agree more. I spent some time figuring this out and came to the conclusion that there was just NFW I was going to use in-ceiling designs. Others may have YMMV of course, which is fine. But it ain't for me and I am happy with the likely choice of the Tannoys. If I had a bigger room I’d go with the Di6 DCs and if I had a huge room, maybe the Di8s! Oh yes!


----------



## markus767

bkeeler10 said:


> You're assuming that boundary effects disappear when the speaker is flush-mounted . . .


The worst detrimental boundary effect does indeed disappear, namely the back wall bounce.
http://www.genelec.com/tech-tips/te...ll-behind-the-loudspeaker-cancellation-tip-1/


----------



## aaronwt

bargervais said:


> *Hercules 3D is playing in dolby atmos they want $15.50 for an adult and $13.00 for Senior and $12.50 for child at our local Regal theatre might have to check it out *


 That is $2 less than the Regal Atmos theater in my area. Those prices seem to be inline with the AMC Atmos theater in my area. I have no idea why the Regal in my area is $2 more. I'm hoping to check out the movie Lucy tonight or tomorrow night there. Since I saw it this past weekend at an AMC theater it is still fresh in my mind.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> I'm just trying to understand what considerations make you dismiss a superior solution.


I'm trying to understand why you believe that solutions to your priorities are "superior" for everyone else. Also, I didn't dismiss the problem (said I would address it with absorption).


----------



## bkeeler10

markus767 said:


> The worst detrimental boundary effect does indeed disappear, namely the back wall bounce.
> http://www.genelec.com/tech-tips/te...ll-behind-the-loudspeaker-cancellation-tip-1/


Yes, that boundary effect disappears. I realized after reading further which one you were referring to. Although there are other effects caused by boundaries, which flush-mounting does not remove (and in fact it may reinforce some of them).

Anyway, sorry to jump on it out of context.

Edit: Keeping up with this thread is nearly a full-time job


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I'm trying to understand why you believe that solutions to your priorities are "superior" for everyone else. Also, I didn't dismiss the problem (said I would address it with absorption).


Markus seems to miss the point that while in-ceiling speakers may offer some potential superiority in one area, that they may also offer other parameters which are decidedly _not superior_ in other areas. A very obvious example is fitting the in-ceiling speakers into the ceiling. If they _won't fit into the available space_, then it matters not one jot how 'superior' they are wrt to the one specific parameter he has repeatedly mentioned. And, equally, if you value the ability to toe the speakers in, and they do not offer that ability to your satisfaction and requirements, again, the benefit Markus sees becomes moot. Why this is so hard to grasp that it needs a whole page of posts to communicate is difficult for me to understand.


----------



## ss9001

^^
you hit it square on the button. 

one can argue boundary effects all day long but in the real world, for how many potential owners, even enthusiasts, is this going to be the #1 consideration? 

for the vast majority, any potential theoretical advantage of the one are going to be far outweighed by practical issues of cost, installation problems/concerns & room layout/decor as well as sound quality.

besides, while the cancellation effect of near boundaries effects all frequencies, its greatest impact on room modes is bass. *and* unless one is willing to spend the money for a closed back design plus stuff a *whole lot* of insulation in the space or build a containment box (if that's even possible), there will be resonances & sound transference issues with in-ceiling speakers. *advantage offset by disadvantage. *

And, as he himself pointed out, the internal Dolby crossover for the overheads is about 180 Hz, so I'm not sure how relevant the issue even is. probably not much.

his ongoing speaker debates are very similar to the one he raged over home Atmos to begin with. I'm also at a loss to understand it...in every Atmos thread it's the same poster with the same outcome.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> What’s the difference between the Atmos surround speakers in a commercial theater and the Wides in a HT? First, the Atmos speakers aren’t 'Wides' in any sense of the word used in a domestic context*** - they are there simply to fill in a gap between the edge of the screen and the rest of the surrounds to enable seamless panning. And second, the angles stipulated for domestic Wides are nothing at all like the angles of those in-theater speakers.
> 
> As this was already explained, Noah, I have a feeling I have misunderstood your question.
> 
> ***EG, Wides at home are for the extraction or creation or generation or derivation (pick your own noun) of reflections.


I guess I missed where the angular positions of cinema wides was specified.

And you can't have known this, but in my thinking domestic wides as implemented by DTS Neo X, and when Atmos allows the user to specify speaker locations, has the same purpose.




sdurani said:


> I know, it never ends. It's like he cannot believe other people have different priorities than he has.


Seems like Markus just cannot stand to concede on any point.

Apropos, just heard this recently:

"Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig; after a couple of hours you realize he likes it."

There were some good retorts too; "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right."


----------



## KidHorn

ss9001 said:


> With typical ceiling joists between 2X6 and 2X10's that disqualifies a whole lot of applications & potential sales. They must think everyone is going to have an attic above the ceiling



I've never heard of 2x6 floor joists. I've only seen 2x10 or 2x12. Maybe really short spans have those. If I had 2x6 floor joists, I would be scared to drill wire holes through them. Even so, a 9.5" tall speaker along a 2x10 is cutting it really close.


----------



## asarose247

a comment wrt to the "nearness" of surface mounted Tops and the feeling that 8 ft ceilings would be constrictive wrt to allowing a speaker friendly D for dispersion etc,
got me to thinking
brief geometry lesson
from Sanjays visit last month wrt to my ceiling trestle system, we initially concluded that
on the 8 ft ceiling the vertical D to ears was 50" (depending on couch slouch)
We projected a FT's D of 42" directly ahead of MLP. same for RT's AND
a 42" spread to left and right, essentially a 7 foot square to be cross fired at the MLP bubble
50 x50 +42 x42 yadda yadda yadda. D to speaker face is 65+ inches, speakers angled down from plane of ceiling at 40 degrees. directly in front of MLP, with in parameter range
now move that speaker face42" to the side
42 x 42 + 42 x 42 , square root yields about 59.4", the distance from a spot directly overhead the mlp to that spot ahead and to the left (or right)
so the triangle for the D to the speaker face at the corner of the 7 ft square is 59,4 x 59.4 + 50 x 50 etc. =about 77" to the spot on the ceiling, so if the speaker hangs down about 4-6 inches, it's still about 6 feet away.
same for the RT's. 
since my Surrounds are only about 8 feet from me, this "feels like" maybe the right EQ and ATMOS can marry it all into a well unified sound field.
and my ugly wart design got an upgrade last night
a work in progress
that Marantz 8802 sounds like the real deal


----------



## ss9001

KidHorn said:


> I've never heard of 2x6 floor joists. I've only seen 2x10 or 2x12. Maybe really short spans have those. If I had 2x6 floor joists, I would be scared to drill wire holes through them. Even so, a 9.5" tall speaker along a 2x10 is cutting it really close.


you're right. my own house is 2X10 between the floors but I did find a reference to 2X6. I just searched on "typical ceiling joist dimensions" and couple sites included 2X6. 

I also find that pretty skimpy & not realistic for most normal size rooms but even so, like you said, a 9.5" deep speaker is not going to fit even a 2X10 (9-1/4"). 

bottom line - it's not a practical in-ceiling speaker.


----------



## Schwa

markus767 said:


> I'm just trying to understand what considerations make you dismiss a superior solution. Has nothing to do with me not being able to accept that other priorities exist. I'm just trying to understand what those priorities are.


Drop it already. Sheesh.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I'm trying to understand why you believe that solutions to your priorities are "superior" for everyone else. Also, I didn't dismiss the problem (said I would address it with absorption).


Well, my priorities are pretty simple: describe what is the best solution in terms of high quality sound reproduction. And flush mounting is objectively the best solution. See Toole, see the Genelec page I've liked, see any text about studio acoustics. This has nothing to do with my personal priorities and tradeoffs required in my specific room or any other room.

It is not me being unable to see that there are tradeoffs and differing priorities, it's others imposing their personal requirements or priorities onto the discussion. Just like you did when saying "mini-bookshelves mounted to the ceiling with brackets" would be "More effective" than "actual in-ceiling speakers". Maybe in your specific room but generally it's not true.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> ^^
> you hit it square on the button.
> 
> one can argue boundary effects all day long but in the real world, for how many potential owners, even enthusiasts, is this going to be the #1 consideration?
> 
> for the vast majority, any potential theoretical advantage of the one are going to be far outweighed by practical issues of cost, installation problems/concerns & room layout/decor as well as sound quality.
> 
> besides, while the cancellation effect of near boundaries effects all frequencies, its greatest impact on room modes is bass. *and* unless one is willing to spend the money for a closed back design plus stuff a *whole lot* of insulation in the space or build a containment box (if that's even possible), there will be resonances & sound transference issues with in-ceiling speakers. *advantage offset by disadvantage. *


Yep. It all seems pretty clear to me. A benefit is only a benefit if you can realise it. I can't physically accommodate any in-ceiling speaker I’d want to use; Sanjay wants to toe-in the ceiling speaker more than in-ceiling designs allow. That's pretty much the end of in-ceiling designs as a potential choice. Constantly banging on about the benefits wrt to boundary effects doesn’t somehow suddenly make in-ceiling designs fit into my ceiling nor make then toe-in enough for Sanjay. Tell me I would benefit more if I had a 130 inch screen.... sure... I know I would. Now let me tell you I can't physically fit one into my HT. Isn't that the end of it? No need to tell me another 15 times why a 130 inch screen is better. Where's the roll-eyes thing... ah, here it is...


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Apropos, just heard this recently:
> 
> "Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig; after a couple of hours you realize he likes it."


LOL. Wonderful! 

An optimist says his glass is half full. A pessimist says his glass is half empty. An engineer says you have the wrong size glass.


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> I've never heard of 2x6 floor joists. I've only seen 2x10 or 2x12. Maybe really short spans have those. If I had 2x6 floor joists, I would be scared to drill wire holes through them. Even so, a 9.5" tall speaker along a 2x10 is cutting it really close.


They're all 2x6 in the UK, for modern(ish) houses AFAIK. But our spans are generally shorter than for US homes, as the rooms are smaller. It can restrict the choice of in-ceiling designs quite a lot, and can rule out those which require some sort of back box altogether. I'm sure they have their benefits and their role, but they are clearly not for everyone. And they always seem to cost an arm and a leg for any that are likely to sound good.


----------



## markus767

When you're all done with personal derogative comments and backslapping, could we please get back on topic? There's a difference between attacking a post and attacking a poster. Some of you crossed the line.


----------



## sdurani

asarose247 said:


> from Sanjays visit last month wrt to my ceiling trestle system, we initially concluded that on the 8 ft ceiling the vertical D to ears was 50" (depending on couch slouch)


60" from ears to ceiling when slouching. Mounting the top speakers 42" forward & rearward of the main listening position was based on using the angles (35° forward & rearward of the MLP) in the Denon diagram. The 84" spread came from wanting the top speakers behind the listener at least 60° apart to avoid reversals. For consistency, same spread for the tops in front of the listener. Thus the 7'x7' square.


----------



## jkasanic

Let me ask the question this way (since I'm currently using in-ceiling speakers in a 7.1 setup), if I have enough toe-in adjustment for the extremes of my setup, is there any reason I would replace my in-ceiling speakers with add-on speakers? In this case, do we all agree that a "quality" in-ceiling speaker would be preferable to an add-on speaker for the reasons already mentioned? I'm not trying to prolong this painful discussion but until I read this, I was relieved that I might get some benefit from my in-ceiling speakers (inherited during the purchase of my house) but now I'm wondering if I need to consider replacing them?


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> And flush mounting is objectively the best solution.


Just as vanilla is objectively the best tasting ice cream.


markus767 said:


> This has nothing to do with my personal priorities and tradeoffs required in my specific room or any other room.


Sure it does. You're willing to give up the toe-in flexibility I want in order to not have a SBIR notch. I'm willing to accept a SBIR notch (and address it with absorption) in order to have toe-in flexibility that in-ceiling speakers do not have.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Let me ask the question this way (since I'm currently using in-ceiling speakers in a 7.1 setup), if I have enough toe-in adjustment for the extremes of my setup, is there any reason I would replace my in-ceiling speakers with add-on speakers? In this case, do we all agree that a "quality" in-ceiling speaker would be preferable to an add-on speaker for the reasons already mentioned? I'm not trying to prolong this painful discussion but until I read this, I was relieved that I might get some benefit from my in-ceiling speakers (inherited during the purchase of my house) but now I'm wondering if I need to consider replacing them?


Are they in the right position for Atmos is the first question that springs to mind? IOW, do they meet the angle requirements in the oft-posted diagram? If so, then I see no reason why they wouldn't work well for Atmos if they currently work well for 7.1. 

Mu understanding of it is that either in-ceiling or on-ceiling designs will work well for Atmos, so it becomes a matter of individual choice. *In*-ceilings may have some inherent benefits, but they also have some inherent drawbacks. Same for *on*-ceilings. Only an individual can balance these.

I've already decided I can't accommodate any in-ceiling designs that I would want. And/or they would be too difficult to work with from a practical POV.

One other benefit of my decision to go with on-ceiling designs is that I can fairly easily move them about and experiment with different positions, whereas this will be impossible with in-ceiling designs. Once the hole is cut, it is cut. I intend to experiment because of the Atmos overlap of possible angles. For example, I can specify a Front Height + Top Middle scenario, and with only a smallish move of the Top Middles I can make them Top Rears and this will then allow me a Top Front and Top Rear scenario. I can then compare FH+TM with TF+TR and see which is better, if any. And all I have to do is make sure I have enough speaker wire to allow me to move the speakers. Once I have experimented, I just have some very small holes to repair, where the speakers were fixed to the ceiling. Nice and easy, nice and flexible and it allows me to listen before I commit. In-ceiling designs are a once-and-for-all thing because moving them and filling the holes might not be very easy at all. Especially if the joists go the 'wrong' way, which IME is always.


----------



## ss9001

jkasanic said:


> Let me ask the question this way (since I'm currently using in-ceiling speakers in a 7.1 setup), if I have enough toe-in adjustment for the extremes of my setup, is there any reason I would replace my in-ceiling speakers with add-on speakers? now I'm wondering if I need to consider replacing them?


I agree with Keith. If they are in the right locations, I'd use them and not look back. You're fortunate you have good ones already installed unlike those of us who are having to decide which is the best way to go based on all these issues.

Now, if you wanted to upgrade the speakers themselves that's obviously different but I'd personally not replace them with add-on Dolby speakers as long as they are in the proper placement for the configuration you are thinking of (Top, Middle or Rear). If they aren't in good Atmos spots, then you could weigh the feasibility of moving them vs add-ons. 

I'd at least try what you have first before doing anything differently


----------



## hogues

Thinking of going 5.1.4 but I my ceiling is only 7'2' and I see that the recommended height for the atmos add-on speakers is 8 feet. If I go with in ceiling speakers would just over 7 feet be ok or just a waste of time? I would sit about 9 feet from the screen and have the first pair of atmos speakers a few feet in front of the screen and the second pair a couple of feet behind me. Thanks for any advice!


----------



## sdurani

aaronwt said:


> That is $2 less than the Regal Atmos theater in my area.


The two Atmos theatres closest to me are both Krikorian and both showing _'Lucy'_ in Atmos (probably a less bombastic soundtrack than _'Hercules'_). Thankfully, ticket prices for the first show of the day are $7.75 and $10 (one of the two theatres has a premium auditorium, with better seats and a bigger screen, hence the higher price). Still, can't beat that for hearing a movie in Atmos.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Just as vanilla is objectively the best tasting ice cream.


That's nonsense. Flush mounting does NOT cause a destructive interference from the back wall. Mounting a speaker in front of it does. This is not a matter of preference but physics.



sdurani said:


> Sure it does. You're willing to give up the toe-in flexibility I want in order to not have a SBIR notch. I'm willing to accept a SBIR notch (and address it with absorption) in order to have toe-in flexibility that in-ceiling speakers do not have.


I've shown an in-wall speaker that can be toed-in ±30° while still preventing destructive interference. So why would I go for an inferior mounting method if I don't need a larger toe-in? If the amount of toe-in isn't enough in your or anyone's individual case then you have to bite the bullet and go for on-wall with absorption. Nevertheless the objectively better solution would be flush-mounted in-wall, it's just not possible in your case.

By the way, just to show how deep the notch can be:










http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...nciples-near-wall-speakers-9.html#post4006542


----------



## kbarnes701

hogues said:


> Thinking of going 5.1.4 but I my ceiling is only 7'2' and I see that the recommended height for the atmos add-on speakers is 8 feet. If I go with in ceiling speakers would just over 7 feet be ok or just a waste of time? I would sit about 9 feet from the screen and have the first pair of atmos speakers a few feet in front of the screen and the second pair a couple of feet behind me. Thanks for any advice!


Andrew Jones addressed this specifically in one of the HTG podcasts IIRC. He said that it wouldn't matter all that much if the Atmos speakers didn't see a clear 8 feet. So I wouldn’t worry personally if you want to use Atmos speakers. He also said that many people prefer the Atmos speakers to ceiling speakers (in or on) because the reflected nature of the sound can give an apparent increase in ceiling height over fixed speakers.

I would concentrate more on the published angles than on the distances - the distances (delays) will be taken care of to a large extent by your room EQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The two Atmos theatres closest to me are both Krikorian and both showing _'Lucy'_ in Atmos (probably a less bombastic soundtrack than _'Hercules'_). Thankfully, ticket prices for the first show of the day are $7.75 and $10 (one of the two theatres has a premium auditorium, with better seats and a bigger screen, hence the higher price). Still, can't beat that for hearing a movie in Atmos.


Way cheaper than the $18 I had to pay on Monday. Oddly, even though the 11am Monday showing is almost always played to about half a dozen people (which is why it is my favorite time to go), they haven't cottoned on to the idea of charging much less for that showing in order to try to fill more seats. Long may that be the case IMO!


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Are they in the right position for Atmos is the first question that springs to mind? IOW, do they meet the angle requirements in the oft-posted diagram? If so, then I see no reason why they wouldn't work well for Atmos if they currently work well for 7.1.
> 
> Mu understanding of it is that either in-ceiling or on-ceiling designs will work well for Atmos, so it becomes a matter of individual choice. *In*-ceilings may have some inherent benefits, but they also have some inherent drawbacks. Same for *on*-ceilings. Only an individual can balance these.
> 
> I've already decided I can't accommodate any in-ceiling designs that I would want. And/or they would be too difficult to work with from a practical POV.
> 
> One other benefit of my decision to go with on-ceiling designs is that I can fairly easily move them about and experiment with different positions, whereas this will be impossible with in-ceiling designs. Once the hole is cut, it is cut. I intend to experiment because of the Atmos overlap of possible angles. For example, I can specify a Front Height + Top Middle scenario, and with only a smallish move of the Top Middles I can make them Top Rears and this will then allow me a Top Front and Top Rear scenario. I can then compare FH+TM with TF+TR and see which is better, if any. And all I have to do is make sure I have enough speaker wire to allow me to move the speakers. Once I have experimented, I just have some very small holes to repair, where the speakers were fixed to the ceiling. Nice and easy, nice and flexible and it allows me to listen before I commit. In-ceiling designs are a once-and-for-all thing because moving them and filling the holes might not be very easy at all. Especially if the joists go the 'wrong' way, which IME is always.


Well, using the image oft-cited for "ideal" speaker placement, I would opt for the top front and top rear setup in either a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 depending on what I decide to do about in-room surrounds. This means the top front pair (with an ideal range of 30-55 degrees) fall at approx. 43 degrees while the top rear pair (with an ideal range of 125-150 degrees) fall at approx. 110 degrees. So it seems with my current MLP that one set fits within the range and the other not. Having said that, relocating the MLP approx. 12" forward would put both sets in range and probably not impact my viewing experience.

I do agree that add-ons give one more flexibility (especially for those with measuring equipment) but if we're to take the diagram published at face value then one presumes the average of each range is the optimal, correct? I guess it's still too early to know for sure but I was curious about the pros/cons of add-ons vs. in-ceiling for the height speakers. I think everyone makes valid points for their particular setups so I was just wondering if either worked, which would be preferred?


----------



## batpig

hogues said:


> Thinking of going 5.1.4 but I my ceiling is only 7'2' and I see that the recommended height for the atmos add-on speakers is 8 feet. If I go with in ceiling speakers would just over 7 feet be ok or just a waste of time? I would sit about 9 feet from the screen and have the first pair of atmos speakers a few feet in front of the screen and the second pair a couple of feet behind me. Thanks for any advice!


Home theater is all about compromise, few peeople can have "perfection" in their setups. Considering the speakers won't be directly over your head I think you will be fine. It would probably be more of an issue with a x.x.2 setup with Top Middle speakers directly overhead.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> An optimist says his glass is half full. A pessimist says his glass is half empty. An engineer says you have the wrong size glass.


Yeah, that's another good one; the version I heard is "the engineer sees a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be."


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Flush mounting does NOT cause a destructive interference from the back wall. Mounting a speaker in front of it does.


Flush mounting does NOT allow me the toe-in flexibility I want. Mounting the speaker below the ceiling does.


markus767 said:


> So why would I go for an inferior mounting method if *I don't need* a larger toe-in?


So why would you project your needs onto everyone else?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Flush mounting does NOT allow me the toe-in flexibility I want. Mounting the speaker below the ceiling does.


Yes, after describing your specific situation this is a compromise you have to make.



sdurani said:


> So why would you project your needs onto everyone else?


I don't. I just describe what would be objectively the best solution (in terms of sound quality).
I can't possibly make general statements about what would be best in ANY room like you did. What I can describe though is what would be the best mounting method, the second best, etc. pp. That is not the same as projecting my needs onto everyone else.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Yes, after describing your specific situation this is a compromise you have to make.


Less of a compromise than your alternative, where there is no boundary notch but also no chance of having the toe-in flexibility I want. At least with my approach, I get the flexibility I want and have the chance to address the boundary notch (unless you're now going to claim that flush mounting is the only way to deal with it).


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Less of a compromise than your alternative, where there is no boundary notch but also no chance of having the toe-in flexibility I want. At least with my approach, I get the flexibility I want and can address the boundary notch (unless you're now going to claim that flush mounting is the only way to deal with it).


Good luck dealing with it


----------



## NorthSky

*Just for Fun ...*



bargervais said:


> *Hercules 3D is playing in dolby atmos they want $15.50 for an adult and $13.00 for Senior and $12.50 for child at our local Regal theatre might have to check it out
> *


$17.50 + tax (12%) here for IMAX 3D (without Dolby Atmos)!  
...And no Dolby Atmos theaters @ all on my Island. 

I want it, real bad, @ home! 

* Just think about it for a sec: You go to the IMAX theater with your wife and five kids. 
...Then everyone with popcorn and soda pops and licorice and toffee caramel and M&M mini-chocolates.
How much do you think a roughly two-hour flick will cost all together after gas going there and back? 
{You live 70 miles from that Theater and you drive a Cadillac Deluxe Edition 2014 model, and with the price of gas here in Canada on Vancouver Island.}

Or, the kids want to go to the nearest Dolby Atmos theater, which is on the main land, and three hours drive from the Ferry terminal!
- Don't even bother to think about it; I'll tell you how much, about thousand bucks! 

So, four small coaxial overhead speakers and a new receiver (or SSP) is a great alternative. ...Would you say, after watching ten or so movies recorded on Blu-ray and encoded with Dolby Atmos audio surround sound?
The future looks better/brighter @ home in the countryside than in the big city. ...To me it sure does.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> $17.50 + tax (12%) here for IMAX 3D (without Dolby Atmos)!
> ...And no Dolby Atmos theaters @ all on my Island.
> 
> I want it, real bad, @ home!
> 
> * Just think about it for a sec: You go to the IMAX theater with your wife and five kids.
> ...Then everyone with popcorn and soda pops and licorice and toffee caramel and M&M mini-chocolates.
> How much do you think a roughly two-hour flick will cost all together after gas going there and back?
> {You live 70 miles from that Theater and you drive a Cadillac Deluxe Edition 2014 model, and with the price of gas here in Canada on Vancouver Island.}
> 
> Or, the kids want to go to the nearest Dolby Atmos theater, which is on the main land, and three hours drive from the Ferry terminal!
> - Don't even bother to think about it; I'll tell you how much, about thousand bucks!
> 
> So, four small coaxial overhead speakers and a new receiver (or SSP) is a great alternative. ...Would you say, after watching ten or so movies recorded on Blu-ray and encoded with Dolby Atmos audio surround sound?
> The future looks better/brighter @ home in the countryside than in the big city. ...To me it sure does.


At home is always more beneficial the money you invest in your own system instead of eating out going to a theater eek is right on. But it's always nice to go out as well.


----------



## bargervais

When I get my new avr I'm looking at maybe the TX-NR 1030 then I'll experiment with speaker placement. I already have high fronts and in ceiling backs I'll hook it up as is and see what happens I'll move them if need be later.


----------



## NorthSky

asarose247 said:


> ... that *Marantz 8802* sounds like the real deal


Can you do 9.1.4 and 11.1.2 with that baby? ...No 11.1.4 though right? ...11.1.6 feasible? 
* It's a great looking unit, with lots of copper and gold, and a very cute ass.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Good luck dealing with it


Already did with my L/C/R speakers (wasn't going to baffle mount them nor move them 4 feet into the room to drive SBIR below the crossover point, so went with absorption). Considering Roger and Keith are both mounting speakers below the ceiling, we might soon find out just how much of a problem it really is.


----------



## hogues

Thanks Keith and batpig for the responses. I am finishing my basement right now, so I am running the wires and have a couple of weeks before drywall goes up so I have to make a decision soon. Frankly I'm torn.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> He also said that many people prefer the Atmos speakers to ceiling speakers (in or on) because the reflected nature of the sound can give an apparent increase in ceiling height over fixed speakers.


If the Atmos speakers are 4 feet below a 7 foot ceiling, then the reflections of those speakers are 4 feet on the other side of the ceiling. Situations like this could explain why Jones ended up preferring virtual heights to real heights at the CEDIA demo he attended.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> When I get my new avr I'm looking at maybe the TX-NR 1030 then I'll experiment with speaker placement. I already have high fronts and in ceiling backs I'll hook it up as is and see what happens I'll move them if need be later.


The Onkyo TX-NR1030, with Dolby Atmos, THX Select2 Plus, AccuEQ, ...how many DSP chips inside that machine, two? ...Yes, two powerful/fast 32-Bit DSP chips. ...With BB DACs.
And, AccuEQ it don't EQ the two front main speakers? ...Does it EQ the subwoofer .1 LFE channel? ...One sub or two?

Is it true that AccuEQ requires less DSP power than Audyssey MultEQ in combination with Dolby Atmos?
Is it true that some newer Denon/Marantz units will use four DSP chips for the required computational crunching numbers for XT32 with Dolby Atmos (THX-less)?

Is it true that Onkyo/Integra is saving money with AccuEQ, Dolby Atmos, THX Ultra2 Plus equipped receivers and SSPs because it doesn't need four DSP chips, but three (and two on lower models)?

Is it true that Onkyo makes it more affordable to include Dolby Atmos in their lower receiver lineup?

Is it true that Denon/Marantz is now the one with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in more receivers and SSPs than everyone else?

2007 was a great beginning year for Onkyo/Integra, and seven years later (2014) it seems to me that Denon/Marantz is finally back to where they once used to be. 

But Denon/Marantz still don't have manual Parametric Equalization (Graphic only). ...True, neither Onkyo/Integra, for that we'll cross the bridge over to Pioneer and Yamaha. 

Dolby Atmos is a totally new game in town, and it changes the course of the manufacturer's philosophy on their financial perspective.
Dolby Atmos speakers also need to be EQ, but differently. ...Still it requires more processing power, DSP.

Ultra high-end SSPs can use up to eight DSP chips (high/fast processing silicon chips), and those cost money; them SSPs retail for $5,000 up to $30,000 USD.

Some multichannel pre/pros used only two DSP chips, but two very fast and capable chips, of high storage capability.

Chips, good ones, Cirrus Logic, Shark, Texas Instruments, AKM, ...they cost few bucks. ...And the more of them the more it cost, and the better their implementation the more efficient and performing they are.
At the end of the funnel it's the sound in our rooms, sound well balanced all over, acoustically integrated by the speakers sound dispersion in direct relation to that particular room's acoustics, that counts to our ears in a well surrounding envelopment. 

And, the most important part; the software, the music and movie audio soundtrack recordings.

I hope all goes well for everyone, poor and rich. ...It will.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> I have indeed pretty much decided to go with *Tannoy Di5 DC* speakers for my four top speakers. I like their size, for my room, and the fact that they use a dual concentric driver design, which I think will work well with Atmos and which I always enjoyed very much with Kef when I used their speakers (UniQ), and the Tannoys have a 90 degree cone of dispersion which I also think will work well. Also, they are the baby brothers to the Di6 DCs that Roger Dressler is using in his (larger) room and I admit to being influenced by Roger's thinking.


IMO the the downside of the 5" model is that 80Hz is -10 dB, hence you need to cross at something like 100 Hz. The 6" model would be more acceptable (-10 dB is 55 Hz)...


----------



## bargervais

The reason I'm leaning to the TX-NR 1030 Balanced front XLR and 11.4-multichannel pre-outs and 135 Watts per channel effortlessly handle the most dynamic of audio tracks. 8-in/3-out 4K/60 Hz HDMI® 2.0 terminals support HDCP 2.2-copy-protected 4K internet video and provide the ultimate connectivity for your future- ready home theater. 
first it's the cost It will not break the bank and a first generation atmos. if this was 7 to 10 years into receivers that have had a great history with atmos then I would go with a higher end model..... so for me baby steps. I'll start with a less expensive one..... I've learned my lesson especially when they say it's future proof....


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Already did with my L/C/R speakers (wasn't going to baffle mount them nor move them 4 feet into the room to drive SBIR below the crossover point, so went with absorption). Considering Roger and Keith are both mounting speakers below the ceiling, we might soon find out just how much of a problem it really is.


Dolby's London demo suite ("the best Atmos experience in Europe") had speakers mounted below the ceiling. So did the Atmos cinema I went to on Monday. Am I missing something?

I have no choice but to mount mine that way - but you can be sure I will report back on how they work.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

NorthSky said:


> ...Yes, two powerful/fast 32-Bit DSP chips. ...
> Ultra high-end SSPs can use up to eight DSP chips (high/fast processing silicon chips), and those cost money; them SSPs retail for $5,000 up to $30,000 USD.
> Chips, good ones, Cirrus Logic, Shark, Texas Instruments, AKM, ...they cost few bucks. ...And the more of them the more it cost, and the better their implementation the more efficient and performing they are.


(a bit of selective quoting there...) in the grand scheme of things, those chips are neither powerful nor fast. On the other hand, they are low power, require little (no?) cooling and seem to be cheap as chips. 

It's a mystery to me as to why we don't see greater processing power in a prepro & it would be interesting to hear from someone on the manufacturing/design side to explain this. Processing power is *everywhere* these days and it is overwhelmingly processing power that is passively cooled & sips electricity. The current prepro approach seems stuck in 2005 as far as I can see.


----------



## brwsaw

I'm not sure I can post this here but Axiom just announced a new concentric in ceiling based off their M3 driver dimensions.

http://axiomaudio.com/m3-in-ceiling...m_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=July2014#t-0


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If the Atmos speakers are 4 feet below a 7 foot ceiling, then the reflections of those speakers are 4 feet on the other side of the ceiling. Situations like this could explain why Jones ended up preferring virtual heights to real heights at the CEDIA demo he attended.


Yep. Unfortunately, at my demo I didn't get long enough to compare physical and Atmos speakers from that perspective. I did report how incredibly spacious and 'huge sounding' the cave scene was though and that was played via Atmos speakers. If you get the chance to do a more thorough comparison when you attend your HT demo, I am sure everyone would love to hear your findings.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> IMO the the downside of the 5" model is that 80Hz is -10 dB, hence you need to cross at something like 100 Hz. The 6" model would be more acceptable (-10 dB is 55 Hz)...


True but I can't accommodate the 6 inch version. I don't see crossing to my Submersives at 100Hz as a downside though, and in fact cross all my speakers at 100Hz anyway already. I'm comfortable with crossing the Tannoys at 120Hz if my measurements and listening tests show it to be advantageous.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> When you're all done with personal derogative comments and backslapping, could we please get back on topic? There's a difference between attacking a post and attacking a poster. Some of you crossed the line.


If you're upset that I called you an engineer, I apologize.

Unless you are one.


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby's London demo suite ("the best Atmos experience in Europe") had speakers mounted below the ceiling. So did the Atmos cinema I went to on Monday. Am I missing something?
> I have no choice but to mount mine that way - but you can be sure I will report back on how they work.



For the last 20+ years my height("presence") speakers have been mounted high on the front and rear walls of rooms used for my home theater systems . . . close to where the "intelligent designers" at *Yamaha* had suggested I install them. If any of those speakers wish to relocate to the ceiling, they will need to evolve an independent means of locomotion and reattachment sufficient to do so under their own power (_and remember to reattach their earthquake tethers after the move!_)

Notwithstanding the 'persuasive eloquence' of this forum somewhat to the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of AVR owners with existing *DPLIIz*, *DSX*, *Neo:X*, or *CinemaDSP* height speakers already in place, will chose to leave them exactly where they are already installed until the 'unfitness' of any such existing location for *Dolby Atmos* playback is clearly demonstrated in their own home!

All of which means that I look forward with some interest to finding out just what *DTS* is "promising" with the stated *DTS-UHD* "benefit", *viz: **"Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"*...?!
_


----------



## batpig

brwsaw said:


> I'm not sure I can post this here but Axiom just announced a new concentric in ceiling based off their M3 driver dimensions.
> 
> http://axiomaudio.com/m3-in-ceiling...m_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=July2014#t-0


That seems like a very nice option -- and they specifically mention Atmos in the description (coincidence?!?!). Axiom makes very neutral speakers so they should be easy to calibrate and "match" the rest of the setup without being obstrusive. $350/pair pre-order price is pretty nice too, especially for an in-ceiling speaker with an integrated enclosure.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

ss9001 said:


> And, as he himself pointed out, the internal Dolby crossover for the overheads is about 180 Hz, so I'm not sure how relevant the issue even is. probably not much.


I was under the impression that only in the case of the "Atmos enabled" speakers on top of the mains this 180 Hz crossover applied. Not when using ceiling mounted speakers.

•
•
•


BTW, maybe it's not a bad idea to repeat here that one of the reasons most of us prefer to use a coaxial design for the Top speakers is that these need no distance to merge the sounds of tweeter and mid-woofer (since they are already merged to start with), unlike "normal" speakers. So it's no problem if the speaker-listener distance is only 4 or 5 feet.

The DIY-group designs Volt 10" or 8" cost no more than the 5" Tannoy, so that's where my money (and effort) is going. Size is not an issue. I will make the baffle angled so it points right at the furthest listener.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> Notwithstanding the 'persuasive eloquence' of this forum somewhat to the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of AVR owners with existing *DPLIIz*, *DSX*, *Neo:X*, or *CinemaDSP* height speakers already in place, will chose to leave them exactly where they are already installed until the 'unfitness' of any such existing location for *Dolby Atmos* playback is clearly demonstrated in their own home!


The good news is that, based on the oft-posted diagram, it seems that the Front/Rear Height speakers currently installed will, in most cases, also work well with Atmos.

I have decided to relocate mine to the ceiling but I was considering doing that anyway, even before Atmos was on the horizon. I know it is contrary to all instruction but my feeling was that getting them out of the plane of the mains would give a greater height effect rather than a taller front soundstage. And as there was at that time no height content in the media, I couldn't see a really strong argument against doing so.

However, after waiting months for them to relocate themselves, along the lines you suggest, and observing their stubborn and unwarranted refusal to do so, Atmos came along and solved the problem for me. Now there is actual height content in the media, I am relocating them myself to the ceiling. As the Atmos spec for the Front Height speakers overlaps, angle-wise, with that of the Top Fronts, this will enable me to experiment with FH+TM and FH+TR settings in the AVR, giving me a bit more flexibility in my otherwise fairly inflexible, small HT room.

And as PLIIz has gone with the advent of Atmos (which was the only 'height mode' I used) there is no downside for me.


----------



## CinemaAndy

KidHorn said:


> I think in ceiling would be better for many reasons. One is if you sit in a typical room with a 8' ceiling and you're ears are 4' off the ground, it doesn't give the ceiling speaker much room to disperse the sound. If the drivers are say 8" lower, that makes it even more difficult.
> 
> 
> Another problem is with lighting. If you have in ceiling lighting, do you want speaker shadows? I guess it's not an issue if your room is a dedicated theater with the lights off, but if it's a family room, it may be an issue.
> 
> 
> I have a cathedral ceiling so the whole speaker ceiling thing will require a lot of thought. I don't think Atmos is designed for cathedral or sloped ceilings.


I have always maintained the ideology that in ceiling speakers should remain in hospitals, supermarkets and office complex's.

I have seen very name brand speakers ceiling installed in so called million dollar HT's. Every time the sound switched to them, it sounded identical to "Clean up on isle 7, clean up on isle 7."

Speakers "mounted to the ceiling" offer a much more controlled sound, as they were built for this.

I always get asked were i get my objective views from. They are not objective, they are fact.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Last month, a number of hardware manufacturers officially lifted the lid off of the AV industry's worst-kept secret: Dolby Atmos was finally coming home........


----------



## brwsaw

batpig said:


> That seems like a very nice option -- and they specifically mention Atmos in the description (coincidence?!?!). Axiom makes very neutral speakers so they should be easy to calibrate and "match" the rest of the setup without being obstrusive. $350/pair pre-order price is pretty nice too, especially for an in-ceiling speaker with an integrated enclosure.


Very timely.
I went out of my way to remove the can lights now I want to cut holes.


----------



## FilmMixer

SoundChex said:


> For the last 20+ years my height("presence") speakers have been mounted high on the front and rear walls of rooms used for my home theater systems . . . close to where the "intelligent designers" at *Yamaha* had suggested I install them. If any of those speakers wish to relocate to the ceiling, they will need to evolve an independent means of locomotion and reattachment sufficient to do so under their own power (_and remember to reattach their earthquake tethers after the move!_)
> 
> Notwithstanding the 'persuasive eloquence' of this forum somewhat to the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of AVR owners with existing *DPLIIz*, *DSX*, *Neo:X*, or *CinemaDSP* height speakers already in place, will chose to leave them exactly where they are already installed until the 'unfitness' of any such existing location for *Dolby Atmos* playback is clearly demonstrated in their own home!
> _


I can't really see how these will work in any way that would produce an acceptable result.

When you pan a sound overhead it's going to to jump forwards or backwards if using height.speakers above you mains in the same plane. 

It's just not going to work IMO.


----------



## CinemaAndy

"Dolby Director of Sound Research Brett Crockett also clarified that, since Atmos at home is being delivered as an extension of Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus, you won't need a new Blu-ray player or media streamer (or new HDMI cables) to deliver the format to compatible receivers and pre/pros. You'll merely need to ensure that your player's output is set to bitstream instead of PCM. It stands to reason that Dolby will release a white paper at some point before September giving more details about optimal speaker placement, but until then I wouldn't go cutting extra holes in your ceilings just yet."

I, for one, am so glad i haven't pulled the hole saw out yet.


----------



## chi_guy50

SoundChex said:


> Notwithstanding the 'persuasive eloquence' of this forum somewhat to the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of AVR owners with existing *DPLIIz*, *DSX*, *Neo:X*, or *CinemaDSP* height speakers already in place, will chose to leave them exactly where they are already installed until the 'unfitness' of any such existing location for *Dolby Atmos* playback is clearly demonstrated in their own home!
> 
> All of which means that I look forward with some interest to finding out just what *DTS* is "promising" with the stated *DTS-UHD* "benefit", *viz: **"Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"*...?!
> _


 My sentiments--to a "T". I'm one of the presumptive "majority of AVR owners" (i.e., I don't have a dedicated HT nor the acumen or exacting audiophile expectations of some of the advanced contributors here) who, while excited and enticed by the promise of Atmos, will be following precisely the game plan put forth by SoundChex above. If the result is unsatisfactory, only then will I consider a "forced relocation" of speaker assets. But by then maybe DTS-UHD will have rendered the issue OBE.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> And as PLIIz has gone with the advent of Atmos (which was the only 'height mode' I used) there is no downside for me.


I just want to point out, for those who might have missed it, that Dolby PLIIz is being replaced by Dolby Surround, which I assume will offer similar matrixing for "traditional" height speakers.


----------



## petetherock

I have a 11.2 setup with wides and heights as well as the usual 7 channels.

My heights are close to, but not in the ceiling. I wonder if I can just use these as front ceiling?

Saves me a fair bit of wiring and carpentry...

Cheers


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> IMO the the downside of the 5" model is that 80Hz is -10 dB, hence you need to cross at something like 100 Hz. The 6" model would be more acceptable (-10 dB is 55 Hz)...


Very good point Erwin. ...And that is my intention, to use that driver's size.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> The reason I'm leaning to the TX-NR 1030 Balanced front XLR and 11.4-multichannel pre-outs and 135 Watts per channel effortlessly handle the most dynamic of audio tracks. 8-in/3-out 4K/60 Hz HDMI® 2.0 terminals support HDCP 2.2-copy-protected 4K internet video and provide the ultimate connectivity for your future- ready home theater.
> first it's the cost It will not break the bank and a first generation atmos. if this was 7 to 10 years into receivers that have had a great history with atmos then I would go with a higher end model..... so for me baby steps. I'll start with a less expensive one..... I've learned my lesson especially when they say it's future proof....


Excellent line of thinking, and furthermore, because you now own the Onkyo TX-NR818 receiver it will be very interesting for you to compare the two; one with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Atmos-less but with Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X), and the other with AccuEQ plus Dolby Atmos.


----------



## steveting99

kbarnes701 said:


> True but I can't accommodate the 6 inch version. I don't see crossing to my Submersives at 100Hz as a downside though, and in fact cross all my speakers at 100Hz anyway already. I'm comfortable with crossing the Tannoys at 120Hz if my measurements and listening tests show it to be advantageous.


Keith,

Understand you're interested in getting the Tannoy DSi5 for the ceiling speakers due to their coaxial/concentric design.

Not sure about the cost for the Tannoy DSi5, but have you also looked at the KEF E301? The KEF have a similar concentric design and the price seems reasonable for a pair: http://www.kefstore.co.uk/e301-satellites-655-p.asp

The KEF E301 comes with a base foot. The foot is designed to be wall mounted, so assume that it can also be ceiling mounted. There's also ball joint that makes it possible to toe-in the unit, though the angles are not that great, estimate is about +/-15 deg.

Checking out the specs between the Tannoy and KEF:
*KEF*
Sensitivity: 86db/W/m 
Nominal impedance: 8 ohms 
lower -3dB: 90Hz 
upper -3dB: 33kHz 
weight: 5.3lbs 
Dimensions (HxWxD): 10.2'x5.4'x6.3' 
Nominal power: 100W 
Maximum output: 109dB

*Tannoy*
Sensitivity: 88db/W/m
Nominal impedance: 6 ohms
lower -3dB: 90Hz
upper -3dB: 25kHz
weight: 5.94lbs
Dimensions (HxWxD): 9.47'x6.1'x6.38'
Nominal power: 100W
Maximum output: 111dB

What I'm not sure of is the directivity of the KEF vs. the Tannoy. The specs for both the KEF and Tannoy are similar. The best part of the KEF E301 is that it comes in two decor friendly colors, which means matching with a white ceiling is possible. I also think the KEF looks a bit nicer. 

Unit the specs for the top ceiling mounted speakers are available from Dolby, not sure if mixing different brand of speakers will be a problem. I'm hoping that the often mentioned 180Hz crossover for the top ceiling speakers is correct as opens up a number of possibilities.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I can't really see how these will work in any way that would produce an acceptable result.
> 
> When you pan a sound overhead it's going to to jump forwards or backwards if using height.speakers above you mains in the same plane.
> 
> It's just not going to work IMO.



Are you saying that the combination of Front Height and, say, Top Rear would not work? Denon are offering that combination as one of their Atmos modes, and according to their oft-posted diagram (I apologise for posting it yet again but from the context this time think it would be useful) Front Heights as described by SoundChex would be acceptable.

Here is the diagram:










And here are Denon's suggested speaker combinations which will work with Atmos:

Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height


----------



## kbarnes701

steveting99 said:


> Keith,
> 
> Understand you're interested in getting the Tannoy DSi5 for the ceiling speakers due to their coaxial/concentric design.


I am a big fan of Kef and have used the smaller version of those 'eggs' before for my PLIIz Height speakers, ages ago. The specs for the ones you mention are remarkably similar to the Tannoys aren't they! I would think they (Kefs) ought to work just fine.

I think I personally will stay with the Tannoys - they are a better 'shape' for my room and using the C mount bracket they will be very easy for me to mount. I agree that the Kefs look better but that isn't a consideration for me as the HT is a dedicated room and is painted black and gray, so the speakers will be invisible once the movie is underway. Also, I am very keen on the 90 degree dispersion of the Tannoys for this application (although the Kefs may be the same or similar - an email to Kef will provide that info if it isn't in their spec sheet - Kef are very responsive IME).

WRT to using speakers from different manufacturers in the same setup, I have always strived to use 'matching' speakers where possible. However in my current situation, MK Sound don't make a suitable speaker for my purpose (they do an in-wall speaker but I have already discounted them for reasons already explained). I am heartened by Roger Dressler's remarks that using speakers from the same manufacturer was highly recommended in the days before electronic EQ, but now that we have EQ we can timbre match speakers by that method to our satisfaction. I am sure he is right.


----------



## BillFree

action_jackson said:


> This fall there will be new blu rays released that have Atmos content for you to purchase at retail.
> 
> If you happen to buy one of these "NEW" Atmos mastered BDs and it happens to be the same movie that Keith was watching in the demo, you will be listening to the exact same Atmos content that he previewed.


When the "content" with Dolby Atmos retail hits the shelfs, how will it be labeled? When DTS came out we knew. when D-Box came out it was immediately on BD label. It would be nice to know what to expect. When Sony came out with their 10-15 "4K" bluray's they sold out before anyone had 4k tv's. I expect Dolby Atmos demo disks will start to pop out like 3d demo disks before we had 3d content. It is the same pattern. But you know what, I like the next tech thing as my system just gets better and my wallet gets lighter. I used to pass my older equipment on to my kids, but now they seem to have better than what i have!


----------



## Billybobjimbob

BillFree said:


> When the "content" with Dolby Atmos retail hits the shelfs, how will it be labeled? When DTS came out we knew. when D-Box came out it was immediately on BD label. It would be nice to know what to expect. When Sony came out with their 10-15 "4K" bluray's they sold out before anyone had 4k tv's. I expect Dolby Atmos demo disks will start to pop out like 3d demo disks before we had 3d content. It is the same pattern. But you know what, I like the next tech thing as my system just gets better and my wallet gets lighter. I used to pass my older equipment on to my kids, but now they seem to have better than what i have!


I'm sure the native content will get enough media coverage and if one is still in doubt, you need only look for the audio codec info that's printed at the back of the bluray box.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Are you saying that the combination of Front Height and, say, Top Rear would not work? Denon are offering that combination as one of their Atmos modes, and according to their oft-posted diagram (I apologise for posting it yet again but from the context this time think it would be useful) Front Heights as described by SoundChex would be acceptable.
> 
> Here is the diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here are Denon's suggested speaker combinations which will work with Atmos:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height





What do you do if you want to use a "speaker from Hell" to reproduce sounds from down below?


----------



## Chucka

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> What do you do if you want to use a "speaker from Hell" to reproduce sounds from down below?


Take a look at:

parts-express.com/cat/tactile-transducers-exciters-bass-shakers/18


----------



## ss9001

BillFree said:


> When the "content" with Dolby Atmos retail hits the shelfs, how will it be labeled?


since Atmos BD's haven't even been announced by ANY studio, it's kind of hard to answer  

you'll find out the same time as the rest of us.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ss9001 said:


> since Atmos BD's haven't even been announced by ANY studio, it's kind of hard to answer
> 
> you'll find out the same time as the rest of us.


If the studios consider this a "Premium" sonic experience, then I would suspect Dolby Atmos might be emblazoned on the front cover. I don't know if the industry wants to downplay Atmos with a tiny logo on the back with all the other fine-print clutter like they do with regular DTS and Dolby tracks. 

This is supposed to be the "next big thing" like 3D. Hopefully, without 3D's lackadaisical adoption.


----------



## sdurani

BillFree said:


> When the "content" with Dolby Atmos retail hits the shelfs, how will it be labeled?


_"Blu-ray disc packaging will carry such designations as 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 to indicate the number of speakers that the soundtrack is optimized for."_

http://www.twice.com/blog/reporters...ail&utm_term=0_f57b24d15f-2535c60fa3-87254233

I'm hoping that the author of the above article misinterpreted the info about labeling. Indicating "the number of speakers" is a bad idea for labeling soundtracks, even more so when it is object based.


----------



## CINERAMAX

SoundChex said:


> For the last 20+ years my height("presence") speakers have been mounted high on the front and rear walls of rooms used for my home theater systems . . . close to where the "intelligent designers" at *Yamaha* had suggested I install them. If any of those speakers wish to relocate to the ceiling, they will need to evolve an independent means of locomotion and reattachment sufficient to do so under their own power (_and remember to reattach their earthquake tethers after the move!_)
> 
> Notwithstanding the 'persuasive eloquence' of this forum somewhat to the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of AVR owners with existing *DPLIIz*, *DSX*, *Neo:X*, or *CinemaDSP* height speakers already in place, will chose to leave them exactly where they are already installed until the 'unfitness' of any such existing location for *Dolby Atmos* playback is clearly demonstrated in their own home!
> 
> All of which means that I look forward with some interest to finding out just what *DTS* is "promising" with the stated *DTS-UHD* "benefit", *viz: **"Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"*...?!
> _


Good one.


----------



## redjr

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the studios consider this a "Premium" sonic experience, then I would suspect Dolby Atmos might be emblazoned on the front cover. I don't know if the industry wants to downplay Atmos with a tiny logo on the back with all the other fine-print clutter like they do with regular DTS and Dolby tracks.
> 
> This is supposed to be the "next big thing" like 3D. Hopefully, without 3D's lackadaisical adoption.


Yeah, I wonder if there'll be a nice, new, bigger and bolder price tag too?


----------



## ss9001

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the studios consider this a "Premium" sonic experience, then I would suspect Dolby Atmos might be emblazoned on the front cover.


I would hope they'd do that. We'll find out 

On labeling the "optimum" speaker arrangement - if the engine is supposed to use accommodate all supported speaker configurations adding an optimum setup is actually not only irrelevant but should be technically incorrect for the objects. All that labeling would do is reinforce the idea of channels vs objects & defeat Dolby's whole concept of what Atmos is about. 

If the studios do that, it would be a bad idea for the technology, the marketing of it, and cause customer confusion & concern if they didn't have the same speaker setup as what's on the box.


----------



## ss9001

redjr said:


> Yeah, I wonder if there'll be a nice, new, bigger and bolder price tag too?


no doubt. it will be a premium priced double dip 

what would really suck is if studios started bundling the Atmos BD with their super combos (Blu-3D Blu-DVD-Digital) and the only way to get the Atmos version is buy the whole dam combo. I wouldn't be surprised if they did this. Really hoping they don't since that would really be anti-consumer and a blatant money grab for double dip titles.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I seriously doubt a price increase with Atmos-enabled titles.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ss9001 said:


> I would hope they'd do that. We'll find out
> 
> On labeling the "optimum" speaker arrangement - if the engine is supposed to use accommodate all supported speaker configurations adding an optimum setup is actually not only irrelevant but should be technically incorrect for the objects. All that labeling would do is reinforce the idea of channels vs objects & defeat Dolby's whole concept of what Atmos is about.
> 
> If the studios do that, it would be a bad idea for the technology, the marketing of it, and cause customer confusion & concern if they didn't have the same speaker setup as what's on the box.


It might lead to confusion, no doubt. However, to us it might mean that the track had a 5.1 channel bed with objects (where the back surround speakers are only used for object placements) or a 7.1 channel bed with objects (closer to the cinema version where the stereo back surrounds are part of the channel bed and can contain music and ambiance as well, not just objects). I would rather hope for the latter and not the former, but who knows?

Either way, Dolby has stated these tracks can still render out to 32 (plus subs) separate outputs.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Either way, Dolby has stated these tracks can still render out to 32 (plus subs) separate outputs.


Dolby has never stated that, instead saying on its blog _"as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers"_, for a total of 34 (not 32) speakers. Subwoofers are a result of bass management, not Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I seriously doubt a price increase with Atmos-enabled titles.


Don't throw cold water on the outrage machine. Posters are wanting to get upset over the premium prices that they fabricated in their imagination and here you are talking sense.


----------



## ss9001

^^
and here I was trying to feed the angry beast


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dolby has never stated that, instead saying on its blog _"as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers"_, for a total of 34 (not 32) speakers. Subwoofers are a result of bass management, not Atmos.


Two of the "channels" are for sub outputs just like with commercial Atmos, which isn't 64 outputs but 62 plus subs (62.2). I would imagine they meant something like 32.2.


----------



## joerod

I would gladly buy a well done demo disc... Let's hope they release one this fall!


----------



## mp5475

batpig said:


> That seems like a very nice option -- and they specifically mention Atmos in the description (coincidence?!?!). Axiom makes very neutral speakers so they should be easy to calibrate and "match" the rest of the setup without being obstrusive. $350/pair pre-order price is pretty nice too, especially for an in-ceiling speaker with an integrated enclosure.


Just ordered 2 sets for future atmos set up. Thanks batpig for heads up. I have axiom m80s so this will be perfect.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Two of the "channels" are for sub outputs just like with commercial Atmos, which isn't 64 outputs but 62 plus subs (62.2).


This isn't commercial Atmos and the FAQ never mentions number of "channels" nor "subwoofers", just "speakers".


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Dan Hitchman said:


> Two of the "channels" are for sub outputs just like with commercial Atmos, which isn't 64 outputs but 62 plus subs (62.2). I would imagine they meant something like 32.2.


The white paper I have states 61.3 for theatrical Atmos, not 62.2. There's a LFE sub in front and one in each rear corner to compensate for the bass-lacking surrounds that are typically used in cinema's.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I seriously doubt a price increase with Atmos-enabled titles.


Same here. New sound formats don't usually carry a price increase. Even the commercial theaters aren’t charging extra specifically for Atmos (just for the bigger screen, better seating, reserved seating and so on).


----------



## markrubin

^^^

seems to me the big costs are in the extra amplifiers and speakers we all will need to buy....


----------



## Craig Peer

markrubin said:


> ^^^
> 
> seems to me the big costs are in the extra amplifiers and speakers we all will need to buy....



True. Now I just need to replace all of my HD DVD's with Blu Ray's, and get rid of my Toshiba HD DVD player, so I'll have room for more amps !


----------



## kbarnes701

markrubin said:


> ^^^
> 
> seems to me the big costs are in the extra amplifiers and speakers we all will need to buy....


Yes, this is inevitable, just as it was when we moved from 2 channel to 5.1 and then to 7.1 and, in some cases, 9.1 and beyond. The extra speakers needn't cost the earth though - the on-ceiling Tannoys I am using are reasonably priced, as are the in-ceiling ones that batpig found. Some will need to buy additional amps although many will find enough amps in their new Atmos AVR. And some with external amps can repurpose two or four of the AVR's internal amps to drive the top speakers. As everyone who wants Atmos will have to buy a new AVR, then this can be factored in.

So yes, we will surely have to go to some additional expense, but not as much as might have been thought. But then, when has this hobby ever being about _not_ spending money!


----------



## batpig

Minor correction - I didn't find them! Just commented on them


----------



## Dan Hitchman

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The white paper I have states 61.3 for theatrical Atmos, not 62.2. There's a LFE sub in front and one in each rear corner to compensate for the bass-lacking surrounds that are typically used in cinema's.


Then maybe it's 31.3 to total 34. I wouldn't think Dolby would make it so onerous to scale a theatrical Atmos mix to a consumer mix or the studio post houses wouldn't easily go for it.


----------



## H8nXTC

markrubin said:


> ^^^
> 
> seems to me the big costs are in the extra amplifiers and speakers we all will need to buy....



Yes. And I feel for some that will go out and buy in-ceiling speakers to find they won't fit. The in-ceiling speakers I've been looking at need 5" (like the KEF Ci200RR-THX) to 9" (like the Polk 900-LS and almost that much for the 700-LS) of depth, wait until some of these people cut holes in their ceiling to find they don't have enough room and have to try to make some type of bracket or return and find a pair of in-ceiling speakers that will work...


----------



## wse

Ok let's see if any home theater enthousiast will put 36 speakers in his or her room


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

wse said:


> Ok let's see if any home theater enthousiast will put 36 speakers in his or her room


Maybe, but 36 speakers would be geometrical nonsense since 360°/30° = 12 ear level speakers is al it takes to fulfill the Dolby guidelines (for commercial theaters). Add the consecutive 6 Top speakers and you are there, unless the audience is bigger than a standard family. I'd say 24 speakers would be ample for and audience of 20 people or so.


----------



## NorthSky

BillFree said:


> When the "content" with Dolby Atmos retail hits the shelfs, how will it be labeled?


My best guess:

1. Business as usual; on the back of the Blu-ray cover it will keep saying *Audio* Dolby TrueHD: English 5.1* (or 7.1)

2. And @ the very bottom we'll see a new DD Atmos logo.










* It might also have that a*DD*itional small indication (like above), somewhere on the front cover.


----------



## redjr

Craig Peer said:


> True. Now I just need to replace all of my HD DVD's with Blu Ray's, and get rid of my Toshiba HD DVD player, so I'll have room for more amps !


Don't you just love living on the bleeding edge of technology?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Minor correction - I didn't find them! Just commented on them


Ah so... sorry, I thought you had. Nonetheless, they do look pretty useful. The sealed in-ceiling designs appeal to me much more than the open-backed type.


----------



## Nightlord

markrubin said:


> ^^^
> 
> seems to me the big costs are in the extra amplifiers and speakers we all will need to buy....


Nah, those we have... The big cost is an Atmos decoder with enough number of output channels....


----------



## chi_guy50

mp5475 said:


> Just ordered 2 sets for future atmos set up. Thanks batpig for heads up. I have axiom m80s so this will be perfect.





batpig said:


> Minor correction - I didn't find them! Just commented on them



That's right! Someone should show @brwsaw some love for bringing them to our attention in the first place!



brwsaw said:


> I'm not sure I can post this here but Axiom just announced a new concentric in ceiling based off their M3 driver dimensions.
> 
> http://axiomaudio.com/m3-in-ceiling...m_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=July2014#t-0


----------



## Nightlord

wse said:


> Ok let's see if any home theater enthousiast will put 36 speakers in his or her room


Counting subs as speakers, I already have 27 in the room. 9 more doesn't sound that impossible.


----------



## wse

redjr said:


> Don't you just love living on the bleeding edge of technology?


Yes just returned from the Caribbean and forgot all about electronics and stuff... Who needs all this stuff anyway


----------



## wse

Nightlord said:


> Counting subs as speakers, I already have 27 in the room. 9 more doesn't sound that impossible.


Subs don't count it is a given that you will have at least 4 subs


----------



## Orbitron

wse said:


> Subs don't count it is a given that you will have at least 4 subs


I have 2 in room subs with an infinite baffle subwoofer enclosure with (4) 15" drivers. This count as 3 subs or 6?


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Yes just returned from the Caribbean and forgot all about electronics and stuff... Who needs all this stuff anyway


WoW, Dolby Phantasmagorical!


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Subs don't count it is a given that you will have at least 4 subs


Two 24" in a room of 4 by 3 by 2.5 meters would do just fine.



Orbitron said:


> I have 2 in room subs with an infinite baffle subwoofer enclosure with (4) 15" drivers. This count as 3 subs or 6?


Eight.


----------



## Orbitron

How do you get 8 NorthSky?


----------



## SoundChex

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> What do you do if you want to use a "speaker from Hell" to reproduce sounds from down below?



It would be preferable to have available object-based and|or channel-based source material that decodes|renders for *Bottom Layer* channels . . . check out the *First Draft* (version "*-0*") of *Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_link_) (_direct link to *pdf*_) which details the *eight* _nominal_ *channel|speaker* layouts 'floated' by *ITU* for "next generation broadcast audio systems". Speaker configurations '*E*' and '*G*' meet your requirements.
_


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> How do you get 8 NorthSky?


- Infinite baffle with 4 x 15" drivers = 6
- Two in-room subs = 2

Total = *6*  ...That's what I first meant, 6, I made a typo.


----------



## mogorf

SoundChex said:


> It would be preferable to have available object-based and|or channel-based source material that decodes|renders for *Bottom Layer* channels . . . check out the *First Draft* (version "*-0*") of *Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_link_) (_direct link to *pdf*_) which details the *eight* _nominal_ *channel|speaker* layouts 'floated' by *ITU* for "next generation broadcast audio systems". Speaker configurations '*E*' and '*G*' meet your requirements.
> _


Even though specs are ready and available at ITU, the bottom layer channels will have to wait a bit and take their comfy place on the back seat, unless otherwise what are we gonna sell tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Do you hear the Marketing Director speak up at the Board Meeting while working hard for setting up the future of the company? Sounds familiar, eh? No way out folks, we're in the hands of the MD 

Prove me wrong after 2-4 years and I will stand corrected.


----------



## Orbitron

We all have different subwoofer configs. - what is the Atmos determinate or specification that tells us if we need further woofing?


----------



## esappy

Can someone please tell me which posts are the listener impressions for the in home demoes that some of you seem to have been able to get? I have been gone for about a week and a half (family emergency) and I come back to find that well over 1000 posts have been made in that time!  This thread is getting very big, very fast. I have caught up on the last 150 posts or so and am really enjoying all the ideas and suggestions for specific models of speakers to use for the ceiling speakers. It really seems like the concentric design is really starting to take off and become more main stream instead of staying relegated to the more esoteric brands.

Thanks,
Eric


----------



## NorthSky

Try page 38, and the very first post @ top, post #1111


----------



## petetherock

I guess the cutting edge members here will go for as many speakers as technically feasible to have the bragging rights that they have it all


----------



## NorthSky

*7.1.4* so far or *9.1.2* seems the max @ home from the upcoming first batch of Dolby Atmos products.

* 7.2.4 or 9.2.4 are only variables of the number of subwoofers used (.2 in the middle) ...Or you can have another variable with 7.4.4 or 9.4.4 and so on as you can add more and more subs. ...But technically it always remains the subwoofer channel (.1 LFE) and the bass redirected from all the other main channels (up to 11). 

Am I right? An 11.2-channel or a 13.4-channel AV receiver or SSP is still using 7 or 9 or 11 main channels plus 2 or 4 overheads and one LFE channel (.1 & all the bass from any number of channels redirected to it).

Denon/Marantz top guns are 11.2-channel "sailing ships"
And Onkyo/Integra "flagships" are 13.4-channel "battleships".
Can the Onkyo PR-SC5530 runs 13 all together? ...9 mains plus 4 overheads and 4 subs (LFE).
But they still use 11 (or 13) channels (mains + tops) and one LFE channel all together, running @ the same time.

Am I right?

I'm sure some people wish for 11.1.4 ...or 13.1.4 ...or 15.2.6 ...or 17.4.6 ...or 19.4.8 ...or 24.6.10 ...or 32.8.10 ...or 64.8.16 ...or 128.16.32 ...


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then maybe it's 31.3 to total 34. I wouldn't think Dolby would make it so onerous to scale a theatrical Atmos mix to a consumer mix or the studio post houses wouldn't easily go for it.


Atmos delivers a single LFE channel. The CP-850 performs bass management that can create additional sub feeds.


----------



## bargervais

I have 11 speakers and two 12 inch subs two speakers are front high two are back speakers in the ceiling one center above the TV, two fronts on each side of the TV, two wides and two surrounds. The only thing is my front highs may need to move to the ceiling, but I'll determine that once I hook up a new TX-NR 1030...... if I go in that direction. Still sorting this out in my mind and the more I think about it the more I want it.....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Atmos delivers a single LFE channel. The CP-850 performs bass management that can create additional sub feeds.


I do remember that part, but usually the "managed" sub outputs tend to get lumped together as "channels." They do it and so do we.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> I do remember that part, but usually the "managed" sub outputs tend to get lumped together as "channels." They do it and so do we.


Sure. No disagreement. I just wanted to make the distinction between "Atmos format" and speaker systems. In the latter case, one can arbitrarily have as many subs as one wants. Some more general hardware like the QSC Q-Sys can make piles of them if wanted.


----------



## batpig

Orbitron said:


> We all have different subwoofer configs. - what is the Atmos determinate or specification that tells us if we need further woofing?


I don't think Atmos has anything to do with it. The sub channel will be LFE plus redirected bass, just like any other home HT config.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> I don't think Atmos has anything to do with it. The sub channel will be LFE plus redirected bass, just like any other home HT config.


I think it boils down to whether or not Dolby will recommend that manufacturers include bass managed sub outs for the surround speakers and not just the summed LFE and the redirected bass from all the other speakers into one big mono output.


----------



## esappy

NorthSky said:


> Try page 38, and the very first post @ top, post [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1111]#1111 [/URL]


Thanks dude! When I go to page 38, the top post is #1481 which doesn't have any kind of impressions of actual listening, but post #1111 was a great read. Sounds like Keith really enjoyed the demo. Lucky guy!  

Keith, did you get back for a second listen yet or is that coming? Are you the only one here who has heard Atmos in 'home' first hand or are there other posts I have missed? If I read the impression right, the 'home' version you listened to was the 7.1.4 format? Now the big decision is which level of home Atmos to go for, do I save some buck and do the Denon X4100, go for 7.1.4 and get the X5200 or X7200, or wait till next years models come out and see if the options expand even more. I really want to upgrade my Denon AVR-3808ci as it is really becoming a limit in my main theater and I really want to get into Atmos at home but getting an X4000 for closeout pricing and waiting to see what next years models bring to the table, and what DTS is going to do, also sounds appealing.  Awww decisions, decisions.


----------



## batpig

Cinema Andy also posted a review of a Dolby demo, and his impressions were similar. During his demo they switched from in ceiling speakers to reflected speakers during the movie and nobody noticed.


----------



## NorthSky

The CP-850; it's a separate unit to EQ multiple subs?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> The CP-850; it's a separate unit to EQ multiple subs?


That's the Atmos Cinema Processor. The heart of Dolby's commercial object audio system.


----------



## NorthSky

*Testing Testing*



esappy said:


> Can someone please tell me which posts are the listener impressions for the in home demoes that some of you seem to have been able to get?
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric





batpig said:


> Cinema Andy also posted a review of a Dolby demo, and his impressions were similar. During his demo they switched from in ceiling speakers to reflected speakers during the movie and nobody noticed.


*Keith:* Dolby Atmos | Keith's Real Demo Experience

*Andy:* Dolby Atmos | Andy's Real Demo Experience


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's the Atmos Cinema Processor. The heart of Dolby's commercial object audio system.


Pg. 4 details the CP-850

http://www.cinemateriel.com/PDF/Son/DOLBY_Atmos_CP850.pdf


----------



## noah katz

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it boils down to whether or not Dolby will recommend that manufacturers include bass managed sub outs for the surround speakers and not just the summed LFE and the redirected bass from all the other speakers into one big mono output.


As batpig said, there's no reason for BM to be handled any differently than now.


----------



## NorthSky

Thx Dan (*CP850* = Heart of Dolby Atmos 'commercial' *C*inema *P*rocessor - Object Audio System), gotcha!

* What does the 850 stand for? ...The number itself.

P.S. & thx Orbitron for that above link.

______________

Some additional comments from Andy regarding Dolby Atmos Demo experience:
[Between Floor/Firing into Ceiling & "Overhead" Atmos speakers - Switching +] 

*1.* Dolby Atmos | Switching between Ceiling-Firing & On-Ceiling Atmos Speakers

*2.* Dolby Atmos | "The Apes" & New THX Trailer


----------



## lesliew

brwsaw said:


> I'm not sure I can post this here but Axiom just announced a new concentric in ceiling based off their M3 driver dimensions.
> 
> http://axiomaudio.com/m3-in-ceiling...m_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=July2014#t-0


Hoping to replace my AVR with the Onkyo TX-NR3030 so 4 of these speakers are going to be right on budget for my setup but after reading a few of the more recent posts I'm a bit concerned that there is no ability to direct or toe-in the drivers. 

How important is that going to be. ?

Currently have 4 LED ceiling lights in near perfect position. Just need to swop out for the Atmos ceiling speakers. 

*Really enjoyed reading the Atmos thread over the last few weeks, it has been very educational.*


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Cinema Andy also posted a review of a Dolby demo, and his impressions were similar. During his demo they switched from in ceiling speakers to reflected speakers during the movie and nobody noticed.


While I'm not going to poke the bear, you can't make a determination if anyone noticed a difference unless you hear the same material both ways.

They most definitely sound different... IMO not in a detrimental way.

I'm going the reflective route, and don't have any regrets knowing it's my only choice.. it's really satisfactory.


----------



## Kwikas

SoundChex said:


> For the last 20+ years my height("presence") speakers have been mounted high on the front and rear walls of rooms used for my home theater systems . . . close to where the "intelligent designers" at *Yamaha* had suggested I install them. If any of those speakers wish to relocate to the ceiling, they will need to evolve an independent means of locomotion and reattachment sufficient to do so under their own power (_and remember to reattach their earthquake tethers after the move!_)
> 
> Notwithstanding the 'persuasive eloquence' of this forum somewhat to the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of AVR owners with existing *DPLIIz*, *DSX*, *Neo:X*, or *CinemaDSP* height speakers already in place, will chose to leave them exactly where they are already installed until the 'unfitness' of any such existing location for *Dolby Atmos* playback is clearly demonstrated in their own home!
> 
> All of which means that I look forward with some interest to finding out just what *DTS* is "promising" with the stated *DTS-UHD* "benefit", *viz: **"Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts"*...?!
> _


This 'high on wall' vs 'over head' placement is of big interest to some of us I suspect. It's going to be very interesting to get feedback from people who have/will try both locations. I'm very much looking forward to their comments.


While we can all agree on the angles of location from the MLP, I am still left wondering whether there is any significant sound difference between high on wall vs ceiling mount. FilmMixer seems to think so.


To conduct a real comparison might be a bit of a challenge though. The speakers will have to be located in those 'high' and 'over head' positions and have the same material flicked backwards and forwards between them.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it boils down to whether or not Dolby will recommend that manufacturers include bass managed sub outs for the surround speakers and not just the summed LFE and the redirected bass from all the other speakers into one big mono output.


I think in a cinema it makes sense to place the subs for the surrounds nearer to them. The long distances would cause the bass (were it from the screen region) to arrive at vastly different times vs. the surround sounds depending on where one is seated. At home we do not a problem of that magnitude.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> While I'm not going to poke the bear, you can't make a determination if anyone noticed a difference unless you hear the same material both ways.
> 
> They most definitely sound different... IMO not in a detrimental way.
> 
> I'm going the reflective route, and don't have any regrets knowing it's my only choice.. it's really satisfactory.


I'm going ceiling-firing at first too. Lots to play around with. I had some 4" fullrange drivers lying around anyway. They just need to be put into boxes.

By the way, could you prepare Atmos test files for us? I haven't put too much thought into how those test files should look like yet nor do we know how they could be played back.


----------



## kbarnes701

esappy said:


> Can someone please tell me which posts are the listener impressions for the in home demoes that some of you seem to have been able to get? I have been gone for about a week and a half (family emergency) and I come back to find that well over 1000 posts have been made in that time!  This thread is getting very big, very fast. I have caught up on the last 150 posts or so and am really enjoying all the ideas and suggestions for specific models of speakers to use for the ceiling speakers. It really seems like the concentric design is really starting to take off and become more main stream instead of staying relegated to the more esoteric brands.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric


I did *this review *after hearing home Atmos at Dolby in London. 

I am attending another home Atmos demo at Dolby on 13th August, so expect a further review soon after that. Hopefully I will be able to add more information from a second session.


----------



## kbarnes701

esappy said:


> Thanks dude! When I go to page 38, the top post is #1481 which doesn't have any kind of impressions of actual listening, but post #1111 was a great read. Sounds like Keith really enjoyed the demo. Lucky guy!
> 
> Keith, did you get back for a second listen yet or is that coming? Are you the only one here who has heard Atmos in 'home' first hand or are there other posts I have missed? If I read the impression right, the 'home' version you listened to was the 7.1.4 format? Now the big decision is which level of home Atmos to go for, do I save some buck and do the Denon X4100, go for 7.1.4 and get the X5200 or X7200, or wait till next years models come out and see if the options expand even more. I really want to upgrade my Denon AVR-3808ci as it is really becoming a limit in my main theater and I really want to get into Atmos at home but getting an X4000 for closeout pricing and waiting to see what next years models bring to the table, and what DTS is going to do, also sounds appealing.  Awww decisions, decisions.


I might still be the only person in the thread who has heard home Atmos - not sure. Maybe the only one who has reported on it as I am sure that industry professionals like FilmMixer will have heard it! As just posted (readahead mode is still broken here) I am attending another Dolby demo on 13th August and will make a report, adding to my initial experience. Yes, it was 7.1.4 I heard, with physical and Atmos speakers.

I am going for the Denon X4100W this time around as I can only do 5.1.4 here (no room for rear surrounds) and so that unit suits me, and is quite a lot less costly than the X5200W. I believe the latter is made in Japan and the former in China, if that sort of thing bothers you.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Cinema Andy also posted a review of a Dolby demo, and his impressions were similar. During his demo they switched from in ceiling speakers to reflected speakers during the movie and nobody noticed.


I still don't really understand how they did that during a loud segment of the movie, without there being some sort of way of hearing the switch. If they had done it during an almost silent bit of the track, then maybe, but IIRC that isn't what CinemaAndy said was the way they did it. But I can believe nobody would notice the difference if they did a blind test demo of each - although I do believe I could hear a difference on the demo I attended, between physical ceiling speakers and Atmos speakers, it was very subtle. That is not to say that with different ceiling speakers, of course, that the difference wouldn’t have been more pronounced. FM says the difference is very noticeable (but not in a bad way) and I respect that view, but his demo may have been with a more sophisticated ceiling speaker setup than the one I attended, where the physical speakers were very small.


----------



## chi_guy50

esappy said:


> Can someone please tell me which posts are the listener impressions for the in home demoes that some of you seem to have been able to get?





kbarnes701 said:


> I might still be the only person in the thread who has heard home Atmos - not sure. Maybe the only one who has reported on it.


_Keith, mon vieux, est-que c'est possible que tu aies oublié la contribution d'Hugo? Quel honte!_

Hugo S provided a link to his review (in French) of a demo he attended on July 18 in Paris given by Onkyo. I found his experience particularly interesting since it was presented in an untreated, plain-vanilla living room in a 5.1.2 format (using up-firing Atmos add-on speaker modules)--so nothing at all fancy. And yet he was impressed with the 3D audio immersion. 

If you don't read French, you can try using an on-line translator. Or, if Hugo is not lurking, I would be happy to answer any questions in his stead.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> _Keith, mon vieux, est-que c'est possible que tu aies oublié la contribution d'Hugo? Quel honte!_
> 
> Hugo S provided a link to his review (in French) of a demo he attended on July 18 in Paris given by Onkyo. I found his experience particularly interesting since it was presented in an untreated, plain-vanilla living room in a 5.1.2 format (using up-firing Atmos add-on speaker modules)--so nothing at all fancy. And yet he was impressed with the 3D audio immersion.
> 
> If you don't read French, you can try using an on-line translator. Or, if Hugo is not lurking, I would be happy to answer any questions in his stead.


Comment aurais-je oublié mon ami Hugo! Je m'excuse sincèrement pour lui. Aux petits oignons!! 

Yes, Hugo's report was terrific!


----------



## bargervais

Is the content the same with what ever content is sent to the ceiling speakers if your using just two speakers or four speakers what I'm asking by using four speakers does that just expand it to fill the room or does different content go to the rear ceiling speakers....


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Is the content the same with what ever content is sent to the ceiling speakers if your using just two speakers or four speakers what I'm asking by using four speakers does that just expand it to fill the room or does different content go to the rear ceiling speakers....


I assume the effect will vary if you select 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. For example, on a front-to-back pan, one would assume that the sound will pan more realistically if there are two sets of top speakers for it to use. The sound would start in Top Front and pan to Top Back. If you only have 5.1.2 with just Top Middle speakers, that can't happen. By telling the AVR which configuration you are using, it will know what to do with the panned sound. The content may be the same in all cases, but how it is handled is going to be different. These are assumptions on my part and I readily defer to anyone who knows more (eg FilmMixer).

My feeling is that 5.1.2 will be better than what we have now, but not as good as 5.1.4.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Comment aurais-je oublié mon ami Hugo! Je m'excuse sincèrement pour lui. Aux petits oignons!!
> 
> Yes, Hugo's report was terrific!


Maybe you were just trying to adhere to the old prescript: _"Occupe-toi de tes oignons!"_


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Maybe you were just trying to adhere to the old prescript" _"Occupe-toi de tes oignons!"_


 Toujours!!


----------



## Nightlord

chi_guy50 said:


> Maybe you were just trying to adhere to the old prescript: _"Occupe-toi de tes oignons!"_


Make yourself busy with the onions?


----------



## chi_guy50

Nightlord said:


> Make yourself busy with the onions?


Oh no, let me guess: Google Translator? 

It's a French colloquialism for "Mind your own bee's wax!" 

(I was making a play on words based on Keith's attachment to the expression "aux petits oignons" which means "first rate.")


----------



## tjenkins95

My Home Theater Room uses these 2' x 2' black ceiling tiles from ISC Supply:


http://www.iscsupply.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=33


_ISC Black Cinetile Matte ceiling tiles are made from different thickness of lightweight, semi-rigid 2-3 lb density fiberglass with a non-woven Matte laminated to the face. The Matte facing is dyed black so there is no paint to chip over time and it is completely smooth with no sheen so you get a black ceiling panel that will blend in and look great. _ 
_ In addition to looking great, the facing breathes so that with a 5/8" Thick fiberglass you still achieve an NRC value of .75. For extreme situations, we can use 1" fiberglass and achieve an NRC of .95_. 


So I guess using Pioneer's new Atmos-enabled speakers wouldn't work for that room unless I swapped out some of those panels with a more reflective tile?


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> My Home Theater Room uses these 2' x 2' black ceiling tiles from ISC Supply:
> 
> 
> http://www.iscsupply.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=33
> 
> 
> _ISC Black Cinetile Matte ceiling tiles are made from different thickness of lightweight, semi-rigid 2-3 lb density fiberglass with a non-woven Matte laminated to the face. The Matte facing is dyed black so there is no paint to chip over time and it is completely smooth with no sheen so you get a black ceiling panel that will blend in and look great. _
> _ In addition to looking great, the facing breathes so that with a 5/8" Thick fiberglass you still achieve an NRC value of .75. For extreme situations, we can use 1" fiberglass and achieve an NRC of .95_.
> 
> 
> So I guess using Pioneer's new Atmos-enabled speakers wouldn't work for that room unless I swapped out some of those panels with a more reflective tile?


That's right. Dolby specifies that the ceiling must be made of normally reflective materials - eg plasterboard, wood etc. Only the areas where the Atmos speakers 'beam' to would need to be 'untreated' though.


----------



## markus767

tjenkins95 said:


> So I guess using Pioneer's new Atmos-enabled speakers wouldn't work for that room unless I swapped out some of those panels with a more reflective tile?


No, it wouldn't work especially when you consider that the absorptive tiles are optimally placed at exactly the same locations where the ceiling-firing speaker will point to.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. Dolby specifies that the ceiling must be made of normally reflective materials - eg plasterboard, wood etc. Only the areas where the Atmos speakers 'beam' to would need to be 'untreated' though.


 
Thanks for the reply. I could easily swap out and replace a couple of the panels with reflective ones. I have future plans to move my HT to a larger room which does have a plastered ceiling but I am not planning to do that until next year. Thanks!


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I assume the effect will vary if you select 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. For example, on a front-to-back pan, one would assume that the sound will pan more realistically if there are two sets of top speakers for it to use. The sound would start in Top Front and pan to Top Back. If you only have 5.1.2 with just Top Middle speakers, that can't happen. By telling the AVR which configuration you are using, it will know what to do with the panned sound. The content may be the same in all cases, but how it is handled is going to be different. These are assumptions on my part and I readily defer to anyone who knows more (eg FilmMixer).
> 
> My feeling is that 5.1.2 will be better than what we have now, but not as good as 5.1.4.


Thanks for the reply that was my thinking as well as most people will come from a 5.1 set up adding two speakers i think that will be very common as most BD's are 5.1 now so going to 5.1.2 will be a nice upgrade. for me i'm hoping to go to 7.2.4 and with the hopes of using wides as well if the AV will alow it in atmos listening mode my wish is 9.2.4....


----------



## Orbitron

8 foot ceiling height is suggested, does this mean Atmos can be set up in a room with a 7 foot ceiling but just not as immersive?

Or, not enought distance and soundwaves/reflections are bouncing into each other?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> 8 foot ceiling height is suggested, does this mean Atmos can be set up in a room with a 7 foot ceiling but just not as immersive?
> 
> Or, not enough distance and soundwaves/reflections are bouncing into each other?


Andrew Jones (designer of Pioneer speakers) says a 7', 6" high ceiling would probably not be much different. 7 foot is cutting things awful close. It has something to do with sound wave reflection angles.


----------



## Orbitron

I was thinking, maybe set the bookshelves a foot lower.


----------



## RichB

If the definition of work is to have the listener perceive the sound for above, how can a prediction be made without considering the ceiling type and listening position?

- Rich


----------



## mtbdudex

MichLinton said:


> I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos".
> 
> I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment.
> 
> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos. The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room. Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".
> 
> This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice? And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline.
> 
> We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.


You are not by chance member "dragonfyr" http://www.avsforum.com/forum/members/7500686-dragonfyr.html , who was very knowledgable on acoustics but got over the top at times , http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=4676474


----------



## Nightlord

chi_guy50 said:


> Oh no, let me guess: Google Translator?
> 
> It's a French colloquialism for "Mind your own bee's wax!"
> 
> (I was making a play on words based on Keith's attachment to the expression "aux petits oignons" which means "first rate.")


No, just my own guess.  google translate probably makes a much better job. Hope you at least chuckled.


----------



## noah katz

A possible solution for reflecting height speakers for people with vaulted/angled/too high ceilings is to hang a clear acrylic disc to reflect the sound.

Add some convex curvature to improve the dispersion.


----------



## markrubin

noah katz said:


> A possible solution for reflecting height speakers for people with vaulted/angled/too high ceilings is to hang a clear acrylic disc to reflect the sound.
> 
> Add some convex curvature to improve the dispersion.


I have a 5.2 system and cathedral ceiling (over a 3 car garage): this is beginning to sound like a big project, with some risk, to upgrade to Dolby Atmos


----------



## bargervais

RichB said:


> If the definition of work is to have the listener perceive the sound for above, how can a prediction be made without considering the ceiling type and listening position?
> 
> - Rich


good point what if you add these SKH-410 speaker modules*Easy Add-On for Multi-Dimensional Surround-Sound*

This pair of speakers is a convenient and affordable way to unlock the full Dolby Atmos sound experience in your home theater. You get to keep your existing speaker setup exactly as you like it, with no need to install in-ceiling speakers. The Onkyo SKH-410 speaker modules connect to your Dolby Atmos-compatible A/V receiver's height channels and are designed to sit on top of your floorstanding front speakers or on an entertainment unit. 
These Black modules contain a Dolby Atmos-certified special network that allows the angled full-range driver to beam sound "objects" -such as birdcalls or an aircraft- off your ceiling and into your ears. The result is a multi-dimensional sound, with precisely localized effects moving over and all around you, an intensely realistic sonic experience that truly puts you in the middle of the scene.

what happens if your tower speakers are 40 inchs tall and you place these on top of them..... how would that effect the 8 foot ceiling height......


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> By the way, could you prepare Atmos test files for us? I haven't put too much thought into how those test files should look like yet nor do we know how they could be played back.


No. I don't have that capability.


----------



## kbarnes701

markrubin said:


> I have a 5.2 system and cathedral ceiling (over a 3 car garage): this is beginning to sound like a big project, with some risk, to upgrade to Dolby Atmos


With a cathedral ceiling I don't think Atmos speakers are going to figure in your future. So the next question is, how difficult would it be to install four physical speakers? They'd probably have to be fitted to some sort of poles to enable you to get them all to the same height. I suggested recently to a friend here in the UK (where we don't have cathedral ceilings very much) but whose ceiling is very high, that he might consider using projector ceiling mounts, which usually have provision for adding long poles (using a standard thread, so cheap enough to buy almost anywhere). At the base of the pole would be a modified PJ mounting plate, modded to hold the speaker using the speaker fixing hole(s). Note that this assumes speakers which have some sort of Omnimount fixing or something like the Tannoy Di5/6 that I am using which come with an integrated C Mount. Paint the mount and poles to match your décor prior to installation and Robert is your father's brother. 

But yeah, not an easy project for someone in your situation, I agree. There may also be some sort of Pro solution for high ceilings. I wouldn't automatically assume, Mark, that the remarkable benefits of home Atmos will be denied to you.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> ..... although I do believe I could hear a difference on the demo I attended, between physical ceiling speakers and Atmos speakers, it was very subtle. That is not to say that with different ceiling speakers, of course, that the difference wouldn’t have been more pronounced. FM says the difference is very noticeable (but not in a bad way) and I respect that view, but his demo may have been with a more sophisticated ceiling speaker setup than the one I attended, where the physical speakers were very small.


Keith.. I'm curious of how they played the different speaker setups for you....

Did they play the same clip twice in a row? Did they switch in the middle? 

I was able to hear AB switching in the middle of the same material as it looped.... it wasn't drastic, just different and not in an unpleasant way.


----------



## RichB

A single "full range" driver is all I could find in the ONKYO specs. Not much to go on.

IMO a fixed speaker angle designed to bounce off a ceiling would require some tuning and simply putting on top of an existing speaker only guarantees sound and not sound that appears to emanate from the proper position. In-ceiling or wall angle adjustable speakers may be a better option.

- Rich


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Keith.. I'm curious of how they played the different speaker setups for you....
> 
> Did they play the same clip twice in a row? Did they switch in the middle?
> 
> I was able to hear AB switching in the middle of the same material as it looped.... it wasn't drastic, just different and not in an unpleasant way.


I have to imagine that the difference between the two would be that the reflected one would provide a more fuzzy and diffuse soundfield (not necessarily a bad thing) and that the version using actual speakers on the ceiling would be more pinpoint, more anchored, directional, what have you. 

In any case if I couldn't do actual speakers, I'd definitely give the reflected version a try. I certainly have the ceiling for that!


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Keith.. I'm curious of how they played the different speaker setups for you....
> 
> Did they play the same clip twice in a row? Did they switch in the middle?
> 
> I was able to hear AB switching in the middle of the same material as it looped.... it wasn't drastic, just different and not in an unpleasant way.



They played the same clip twice in a row, once using the Atmos speakers and once using the ceiling speakers. No switching in the middle unfortunately. I believe I could detect a difference between the two configs in that the physical speakers seemed to me to have slightly more 'precision' in where the sounds were placed. But this was a brief demo and I would need to hear more, with preferably a blind comparison, before I could swear that I heard a difference at all. It wasn't that one was better than the other - just different. In fact, the Atmos speakers may have had a greater sense of spaciousness too, in the cave scene I am not permitted to mention by name. 

The demo I attended was a joint presentation by Dolby and Onkyo and Onkyo were keen to showcase their new Atmos speakers, so there was no benefit to them to switch constantly between their speakers and the ceiling speakers.

However, on 13th August I have been invited to another Atmos demo at Dolby in London and, this time, I believe it is Dolby only, so I may get more opportunity to probe deeper. I will post my report here a day or so after the 13th.

From what I heard already, I would have no hesitation in using Atmos speakers or modules. I am only using physical speakers because, for me, in my room, that is the easier option.


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> A single "full range" driver is all I could find in the ONKYO specs. Not much to go on.
> 
> IMO a fixed speaker angle designed to bounce off a ceiling would require some tuning and simply putting on top of an existing speaker only guarantees sound and not sound that appears to emanate from the proper position. In-ceiling or wall angle adjustable speakers may be a better option.
> 
> - Rich


The Pioneer Atmos thread has some detailed posts from Andrew Jones which explain how the Atmos speakers actually work and how their design parameters have been established with a view to minimizing 'leakage' to the front of the soundstage. There is also DSP in the AVR which reinforces this. A useful read. It is far from 'simply putting... on top of an existing speaker'.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I have to imagine that the difference between the two would be that the reflected one would provide a more fuzzy and diffuse soundfield (not necessarily a bad thing) and that the version using actual speakers on the ceiling would be more pinpoint, more anchored, directional, what have you.


It was something like that, Scott, but it was a subtle difference on the demo I heard, not a drastic difference. Andrew Jones said that he preferred the Atmos speakers to physical speakers and I can understand that after having heard them. I will try to get deeper into it on 13th August, but I don't know how much time has been allotted for questions and alternative demos etc. Certainly at the first demo they had a lot of people to push through the six-seater HT room so getting them to deviate from their predetermined path was (understandably) not easy.


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> The Pioneer Atmos thread has some detailed posts from Andrew Jones which explain how the Atmos speakers actually work and how their design parameters have been established with a view to minimizing 'leakage' to the front of the soundstage. There is also DSP in the AVR which reinforces this. A useful read. It is far from 'simply putting... on top of an existing speaker'.


I'll read that but I was referring to the. ONKYO SKH-410 which sits atop an existing speaker with a 3.5 inch *cough* full range driver.

- Rich


----------



## Nightlord

We need to either find the patent behind the network/filter inside those speakers, or slaughter one and reverse-engineer, so we can use whatever speaker we want rather than the (I assume) relative few ones available...


----------



## Hugo S

Merci². :smile:

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> I'll read that but I was referring to the. ONKYO SKH-410 which sits atop an existing speaker with a 3.5 inch *cough* full range driver.
> 
> - Rich


It doesn't matter who made it - it has to conform to a Dolby specification. The driver in an Atmos speaker or module crosses over to the main speaker it sits on at 150-200Hz (180Hz for the Pioneer), so a 3.5 inch driver is going to work just fine. And I’d have to see the quote that it is a "full range" driver with my own eyes to believe it. Who would describe a driver that only need work down to 200Hz as 'full range'?

The good stuff about the Atmos speakers is all in the Pioneer Atmos thread at the moment. Search for Andrew Jones's posts.


----------



## Nightlord

RichB said:


> I'll read that but I was referring to the. ONKYO SKH-410 which sits atop an existing speaker with a 3.5 inch *cough* full range driver.


As long as it is ok at 180Hz where it will start being fed a signal, and is ok up to 14k - it will be fullrange enough at my age.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> No. I don't have that capability.


Huh?


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> We need to either find the patent behind the network/filter inside those speakers, or slaughter one and reverse-engineer, so we can use whatever speaker we want rather than the (I assume) relative few ones available...


There is no "patent behind the network/filter inside those speakers". The crossover and additional processing is done in the AVR. Just slap a decent 4" full range driver into a box and you're set.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> . . . and Robert is your father's brother.


. . . and Fanny's your aunt! 

(I'm not sure how many of my fellow Yanks picked up on this expression; I haven't heard it in ages myself.)


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Huh?


Is "no" really a confusing answer to "By the way, could you prepare Atmos test files for us? I haven't put too much thought into how those test files should look like yet nor do we know how they could be played back." 

No I can't prepare Atmos test files for you... what is the confusion?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> There is no "patent behind the network/filter inside those speakers". The crossover and additional processing is done in the AVR. Just slap a decent 4" full range driver into a box and you're set.


That was not what was written about those speakers, though...

I already have four more than decent 3.3" (cone diameter) fullrange speakers in boxes with sloped baffles.








(Not mine, mine needs to be repainted as they are still bright white)


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> It doesn't matter who made it - it has to conform to a Dolby specification. The driver in an Atmos speaker or module crosses over to the main speaker it sits on at 150-200Hz (180Hz for the Pioneer), so a 3.5 inch driver is going to work just fine. And I’d have to see the quote that it is a "full range" driver with my own eyes to believe it. Who would describe a driver that only need work down to 200Hz as 'full range'?
> 
> The good stuff about the Atmos speakers is all in the Pioneer Atmos thread at the moment. Search for Andrew Jones's posts.



It says they are	
Driver
Type	Full-Range, Acoustic Suspension
Woofer	8 cm (3 1/4") Cone
Rated Input Power	25 W
Maximum Input Power	100 W
Features
Dedicated Dolby Atmos®-Enabled Speakers	
Dolby Atmos-Certified Special Network Inside


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> It says they are
> 
> *Dolby Atmos-Certified Special Network Inside*


I wonder what that is?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sounds like marketing jargon.

Extra bullet points. 

I mean, I built and designed my main speakers which use an outboard DSP crossover. I could definitely say that they feature: Scott Simonian-Certified Special Network Outside


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder what that is?



It's a just copy of an off patent Bose Certified Network!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Sounds like marketing jargon.
> 
> Extra bullet points.
> 
> I mean, I built and designed my main speakers which use an outboard DSP crossover. I could definitely say that they feature: Scott Simonian-Certified Special Network Outside


 Yes, but you explained what SSC Special Network Outside is.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder what that is?


Not sure might be just a bullet point marketing is using to make people think you have to buy these speakers to go along with your new Onkyo AVR ...... I'M just speculating this is My opinion only.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, but you explained what SSC Special Network Outside is.


No, not really. I just said it was an outboard DSP and that it is "special". 

Equally as vague as the posted feature set for those speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> No, not really. I just said it was an outboard DSP and that it is "special".
> 
> Equally as vague as the posted feature set for those speakers.


 The best info on Atmos speakers has, so far, come from Andrew Jones on the Pioneer Atmos thread and the HTG podcast.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> There is no "patent behind the network/filter inside those speakers". The crossover and additional processing is done in the AVR. Just slap a decent 4" full range driver into a box and you're set.





kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder what that is?


It would be interesting with a frequency plot onaxis from those. I hazard a guess they aren't flat (by design).


----------



## g_bartman

Please excuse me for being lazy and not locating speaker requirements within this thread. I'm in the early stages if planning a dedicated room in a basement. 26x13, 8' ceiling. 7.1.4 configuration. Looking at Hsu in walls or something similar. Would like to stay at or below 150.00 each. Thanks, I have tons on my plate now and could use some guidance.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> And I’d have to see the quote that it is a "full range" driver with my own eyes to believe it. Who would describe a driver that only need work down to 200Hz as 'full range'?


I believe it is somewhat common practice to call the driver of a single-drive speaker "full range" to denote that it is a single driver speaker, instead of a pair of drivers with a frequency-dividing crossover network. It is not meant to imply that, in fact, the driver actually covers 20 Hz - 20 kHz.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Is "no" really a confusing answer to "By the way, could you prepare Atmos test files for us? I haven't put too much thought into how those test files should look like yet nor do we know how they could be played back."
> 
> No I can't prepare Atmos test files for you... what is the confusion?


My question was if you are willing to mix an Atmos test file for US once the contents and format is specified.

So I'm not sure what your answer is. You can't or won't do it for me or you can't or won't do it for us?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Denon/Marantz top guns are 11.2-channel "sailing ships"
> And Onkyo/Integra "flagships" are 13.4-channel "battleships".
> Can the Onkyo PR-SC5530 runs 13 all together? ...9 mains plus 4 overheads and 4 subs (LFE).
> But they still use 11 (or 13) channels (mains + tops) and one LFE channel all together, running @ the same time.
> 
> Am I right?


No, the Onkyo has only 11.4 outputs. You need to choose between Height 2 and Wides. There was talk about a 11.4 Onkyo over a year ago (it never hit the streets) and there were going to be 2 sub channels with 2 outputs each, not 4 independent sub channels.

http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/pr-sc5530-117878.html

It's my understanding that the Marantz AV8802 and the Denon 7200 (same but with amps) indeed let you hook up 13 speakers, but only 11 work simultaneously. Like when you use NEO:X, it uses wides and when you have Atmos, it uses 4 tops if you set it up that way.

BTW, I have difficulty to see the value of the Marantz AV8802 because the AV7702 is now very close in features: XT32 and 11 channel playback to name two.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> That was not what was written about those speakers, though...
> 
> I already have four more than decent 3.3" (cone diameter) fullrange speakers in boxes with sloped baffles.


Not sure what you're referring to. The "reference" design for ceiling-firing speakers by Dolby were 4" full range drivers (no whizzer) in an angled box. Andrew Jones did confirm that in the TWIT video.
He said that Dolby specified only frequency range, output capabilities and DI (directivity index) for ceiling-firing speakers. So any decent 4" driver will do. 3" might not match the directivity target but simply try them. I doub't they wouldn't work if angled correctly.


----------



## markus767

bkeeler10 said:


> I believe it is somewhat common practice to call the driver of a single-drive speaker "full range" to denote that it is a single driver speaker, instead of a pair of drivers with a frequency-dividing crossover network. It is not meant to imply that, in fact, the driver actually covers 20 Hz - 20 kHz.


Quite right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-range_speaker


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> My question was if you are willing to mix an Atmos test file for US once the contents and format is specified.
> 
> So I'm not sure what your answer is. You can't or won't do it for me or you can't or won't do it for us?


How much clearer is "no" for an answer?

You didn't ask if I was willing..

You asked:



> By the way, *could you prepare Atmos test files for us? *


I said "no.. I don't have the capability.."

Which means I don't have the ability to create a such a bitstream... we're not an authoring house.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> How much clearer is "no" for an answer?
> 
> You didn't ask if I was willing..


*Sigh* Was my posting really that unclear? If yes then let me rephrase: Are you willing?



FilmMixer said:


> You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "no.. I don't have the capability.."
> 
> Which means I don't have the ability to create a such a bitstream... we're not an authoring house.


I'm pretty sure there will be ways in the near future to export something usable for us.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> *Sigh* Was my posting really that unclear? If yes then let me rephrase: Are you willing?
> 
> I'm pretty sure there will be ways in the near future to export something usable for us.


Markus.. don't act like I'm being difficult.. it doesn't matter if I am willing to or not..

You asked a yes or no question. 

At this point we would need to create an RMU file an then have it converted by Dolby. The authoring tools are coming on line, but as I will now repeat, we don't "author" distributable content.. cinema and broadcast delivery are different than authoring for streaming or disc.

If you are interested in a certain kind of test set, ask Dolby... 

Regardless of what is coming down the pike, the answer would be no if you asked for a test set delivered in 5.1 TrueHD, DD+ or any other codec.. I don't have the capability to do so.


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> It doesn't matter who made it - it has to conform to a Dolby specification. The driver in an Atmos speaker or module crosses over to the main speaker it sits on at 150-200Hz (180Hz for the Pioneer), so a 3.5 inch driver is going to work just fine. And I’d have to see the quote that it is a "full range" driver with my own eyes to believe it. Who would describe a driver that only need work down to 200Hz as 'full range'?


Avert your eyes  

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=SKH-410&class=Speaker#features

Driver type: full range

All is fair in love, war, and marketing HT products 

- Rich


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Markus.. don't act like I'm being difficult.. it doesn't matter if I am willing to or not..
> 
> You asked a yes or no question.
> 
> At this point we would need to create an RMU file an then have it converted by Dolby. The authoring tools are coming on line, but as I will now repeat, we don't "author" distributable content.. cinema and broadcast delivery are different than authoring for streaming or disc.
> 
> If you are interested in a certain kind of test set, ask Dolby...
> 
> Regardless of what is coming down the pike, the answer would be no if you asked for a test set delivered in 5.1 TrueHD, DD+ or any other codec.. I don't have the capability to do so.


You are difficult. Simple question was if you would be willing to prepare an Atmos mix IF there is or will be a way to export something suitable out of PT. A simple yes or no would suffice...


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> I believe it is somewhat common practice to call the driver of a single-drive speaker "full range" to denote that it is a single driver speaker, instead of a pair of drivers with a frequency-dividing crossover network. It is not meant to imply that, in fact, the driver actually covers 20 Hz - 20 kHz.


Ah right. Thank you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Markus.. don't act like I'm being difficult.. it doesn't matter if I am willing to or not..
> 
> You asked a yes or no question.
> 
> At this point we would need to create an RMU file an then have it converted by Dolby. The authoring tools are coming on line, but as I will now repeat, we don't "author" distributable content.. cinema and broadcast delivery are different than authoring for streaming or disc.
> 
> If you are interested in a certain kind of test set, ask Dolby...
> 
> Regardless of what is coming down the pike, the answer would be no if you asked for a test set delivered in 5.1 TrueHD, DD+ or any other codec.. I don't have the capability to do so.


Ssoooo what you're saying is....


You _don't_ have a complete Dolby Atmos rendering suite at your disposal at all times? I'd had thought that you lived in the mixing stage and had a Blu-ray burner hooked up and ready to go.

Pfft. And you call yourself a professional sound re-recording mixer.


----------



## tjenkins95

markus767 said:


> You are difficult. Simple question was if you would be willing to prepare an Atmos mix IF there is or will be a way to export something suitable out of PT. A simple yes or no would suffice...


I believe you are the one being difficult. I found his answer to be quite clear the first time.


----------



## Bumper

tjenkins95 said:


> I believe you are the one being difficult. I found his answer to be quite clear the first time.


+1
Not often do I see such tiresome replies. No words for it and very boring to read...


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> You are difficult. Simple question was if you would be willing to prepare an Atmos mix IF there is or will be a way to export something suitable out of PT. A simple yes or no would suffice...


No.


----------



## PeterTHX

MichLinton said:


> I've read every scrap of information I've been able to find on Atmos, and now "Home Atmos".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the opinion we're getting royally screwed, even more so than the failed THX experiment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> As an acoustical engineer, I can think of no science that would accommodate reproduction of the kind being done by movie theatre Atmos to be replicated by the speaker layouts I've seen promoted for Home Atmos. The theater installation of Atmos is barely at the beta stage, and there still is no evidence that the soundfield being created in each theater is anything like the soundfield in the dubbing room. Apparently Dolby's Emperor's New Clothes argument is enough for the studios, desperate to do anything gimmicky.
> 
> Pioneer, not a hotbed of acoustical or speaker excellence (no offense to their very qualified Andrew Jones), puts in a few ceiling-aimed drivers and expect rendering to take care of the rest? I think not. As someone remarked after one of the Atmos Home demos, "I guess Bose was right with all their reflected sound".
> 
> This premature launch by Dolby is clouding the work of the real professionals who are engaged in a home theatre solution using tools (DTS MDA, MPEG-H) that are being designed for fidelity and quality reproduction. Do I want to be stuck with 4K Blu-rays or UHDTV along will a lossy ******** audio stream as my only choice? And it's stunning that Hollywood would embrace this convoluted production stream that will be streamlined, in the fullness of time, by the real solutions that are still in the pipeline.
> 
> We've just come out of a long period of audio where portability became more important than fidelity. Fidelity is just reemerging as a desired feature in the production of music. Dolby is "first". Kudos. But it's crap. No rewards from me for crap. Let's move on. Nothing to see here.



What a load of FUD.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> What a load of FUD.


I think it was appropriately ignored, by and large...


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> No.


OK but in my opinion quite a slap in the face of everybody freely sharing his knowledge and expertise online.


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> You are difficult. Simple question was if you would be willing to prepare an Atmos mix IF there is or will be a way to export something suitable out of PT. A simple yes or no would suffice...


HE GAVE YOU A SIMPLE NO.

For the love of ..... if you need a half-dozen badgering follow-up posts after receiving a "NO" response to a yes or no question, YOU ARE THE ONE BEING DIFFICULT.

Now drop it. HE SAID NO.


----------



## Nightlord

tjenkins95 said:


> I believe you are the one being difficult. I found his answer to be quite clear the first time.


Well, that depends on how picky you are with the logic. If I didn't miss a post, then I didn't seen an answer on the question whether he would do it if he could or not, only that he couldn't. So whether he would if he tomorrow had the capabilities we don't know.


----------



## chi_guy50

RichB said:


> Avert your eyes
> 
> http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=SKH-410&class=Speaker#features
> 
> Driver type: full range
> 
> All is fair in love, war, and marketing HT products
> 
> - Rich


FWIW, I see that DefTech is also already marketing an Atmos speaker module, the A60 (MSRP: $500 a pair). And I am told that Polk Audio plans to put out an Atmos speaker by the first of the year (not sure what type).


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I think in a cinema it makes sense to place the subs for the surrounds nearer to them. The long distances would cause the bass (were it from the screen region) to arrive at vastly different times vs. the surround sounds depending on where one is seated. At home we do not a problem of that magnitude.


But even @ home it is a smart thing to do, just like you did yourself Roger in your own home theater.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> OK but in my opinion quite a slap in the face of everybody freely sharing his knowledge and expertise online.


Markus.. Markus... Markus..

I think I've been more free with my time and resources on these boards than anyone else in my business... I don't even think it's close...

I'm an expert on certain parts of the film making process.. not in many of the science aspects..

But how dare you accuse me of slapping anyone (figuratively) in the face by not being willing to spend my time and resources (much less my companies, who are running a business) to go make some files for you (which you don't even know what you want or even need them for) or anyone else for free.

I devote most of my time to my career, my love of cinema and my family... and way too much of my precious leisure time around here.... 

Don't turn it into a character issue.. 

You asked for a simple yes or no... I've answered multiple times.. and you keep morphing the original simple request with caveats and what if's, and my answer hasn't changed... I've already expanded on some of the practical reasons why..... 

It's never enough for you, and I'm sorry for wasting everyone else's time having to slog through it... you poke, poke, poke..

I've already put CinemaAndy and MichLinton on the do not respond list... there's always room for another this week...

Please... stop.


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> I think it was appropriately ignored, by and large...


He made the same Dolby and "Emperor's New Clothes" statement in the Dolby Vision thread too.


----------



## chi_guy50

Nightlord said:


> Well, that depends on how picky you are with the logic. If I didn't miss a post, then I didn't seen an answer on the question whether he would do it if he could or not, only that he couldn't. So whether he would if he tomorrow had the capabilities we don't know.


Aaaah, I see that you are an aficionado of the conditional mood; how sad that English speakers don't make better use of it. Would that we could drop this issue!


----------



## noah katz

Or rather than hang the discs, support them from the side surround on a stalk like a beach umbrella.



noah katz said:


> A possible solution for reflecting height speakers for people with vaulted/angled/too high ceilings is to hang a clear acrylic disc to reflect the sound.
> 
> Add some convex curvature to improve the dispersion.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> _Keith, mon vieux, est-que c'est possible que tu aies oublié la contribution d'Hugo? Quel honte!_
> 
> Hugo S provided *a link to his review* (in French) of a demo he attended on July 18 in Paris given by Onkyo. I found his experience particularly interesting since it was presented in an untreated, plain-vanilla living room in a 5.1.2 format (using up-firing Atmos add-on speaker modules)--so nothing at all fancy. And yet he was impressed with the 3D audio immersion.
> 
> If you don't read French, you can try using an on-line translator. Or, if Hugo is not lurking, I would be happy to answer any questions in his stead.





kbarnes701 said:


> Comment aurais-je oublié mon ami Hugo! Je m'excuse sincèrement pour lui. Aux petits oignons!!
> 
> Yes, Hugo's report was terrific!


Hugo's own Dolby Atmos demo experience and review sharing; where is it here in this thread? 
...Which post was it first mentioned? 

* Me too I forgot about this very informative piece of evidence. And more importantly because it was done in a very simple room without any acoustical room's treatments.


----------



## markus767

chi_guy50 said:


> FWIW, I see that DefTech is also already marketing an Atmos speaker module, the A60 (MSRP: $500 a pair).


Specs says it's only a single 3" "midrange" driver. Looks like Dolby's DI requirements aren't really that tight (given that the speaker follows Dolby's DI specs). You can get a decent 3" full range driver for around $10: http://www.parts-express.com/cat/midrange-midbass-drivers-full-range-speakers/16


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> I was thinking, maybe set the bookshelves a foot lower.


...Like on a small platform or speaker stands (two feet tall or so) for people with low ceilings (7 feet or so).

* Put them Dolby Atmos ceiling/firing satellite speakers @ the height from the floor corresponding to the proper distance from the ceiling.

** Also, another approach for some people; a lower chair/couch so that your ears are closer to the floor
(22-28" or so).
...Just toe-in your main speakers vertically; by putting small rubber "lifters" under their rear base. ...Longer speaker spikes on the rear than on the front.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Hugo's own Dolby Atmos demo experience and review sharing; where is it here in this thread?
> ...Which post was it first mentioned?


It was here, in post 2147.

And while we're at it, just as a friendly administrative reminder, when you reference a post try not to link it with a hashmark ("#"). Doing so will create a hyperlink to the AVSForum "hashes" page instead of the reference you intended (thanks to the curse of social media hashtags, I guess). Also, remember that the number of posts per page is customizable (anywhere from 5 to 100), so it will only confuse the reader if you reference a page number. YW.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> But how dare you accuse me of slapping anyone (figuratively) in the face by not being willing to spend my time and resources (much less my companies, who are running a business) to go make some files for you (which you don't even know what you want or even need them for) or anyone else for free.


Because it would only take about 20 minutes of your time. I would do (and did!) that any time.


----------



## NorthSky

markrubin said:


> I have a 5.2 system and cathedral ceiling (over a 3 car garage): this is beginning to sound like a big project, with some risk, to upgrade to Dolby Atmos


Mark, you don't have another room that you can use in your mansion?

* In the Great White North we have the perfect size igloos. ...Stays  too. ...With all that summer heat.
Our amplifiers are happy, and we don't have to endure noisy fans or conditioning air units.

I agree; for some people it's going to be harder. I'm in a similar situation myself with an inclined ceiling that goes from 8 to 11 feet high (wall to ceiling's center). ...I'm going to 'hang' my four overhead Atmos speakers with chains. ...Suspended in mid-air.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Because it would only take about 20 minutes of your time. I would do (and did!) that any time.


You've no idea how much time it would take. 

Or the resources required. 

Which is beside the point..... 

(I really thought I was a smart man..... Step away from the computer... Must resist....)


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> You've no idea how much time it would take.
> 
> Or the resources required.
> 
> Which is beside the point.....
> 
> (I really thought I was a smart man..... Step away from the computer... Must resist....)


Don't feed the troll, Marc. 

Since this thread is all about Dolby Atmos, let's talk about relevant Dolby Atmos stuff. 

Do you have an absolute favorite Atmos track? Or maybe just some scenes that you thought, "this is absolutely better in Atmos" or that it was an obvious improvement over a 'conventional' 5/7.1 reproduction?


----------



## markrubin

such a great thread: please move on

Thanks


----------



## FilmMixer

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't feed the troll, Marc.
> 
> Since this thread is all about Dolby Atmos, let's talk about relevant Dolby Atmos stuff.
> 
> Do you have an absolute favorite Atmos track? Or maybe just some scenes that you thought, "this is absolutely better in Atmos" or that it was an obvious improvement over a 'conventional' 5/7.1 reproduction?


I think Gravity is a great example of a film that was "shot" to use 360 sound. 
Fantastic track. 

I also found Apes to be a great mix. 

Just did the 5.1 and 7.1 printmasters for Turtles and it was great to compare. The 7.1 holds up really well. But the Atmos mix is the way to go... Not tons of overhead stuff (plenty of it, and some cool effects) but the music mix is really aggressive in the surrounds/ceiling. And it's a fun flick to boot.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> It was *here*, in post 2147.


Thank you.



chi said:


> And while we're at it, just as a friendly administrative reminder, when you reference a post try not to link it with a hashmark ("#"). Doing so will create a hyperlink to the AVSForum "hashes" page instead of the reference you intended (thanks to the curse of social media hashtags, I guess). Also, remember that the number of posts per page is customizable (anywhere from 5 to 100), so it will only confuse the reader if you reference a page number. YW.


And thank you again very much for that.

- No more post reference with the *#* sign, check.
- And no more page number as you just explained to me, check.

I really appreciate you informing me of this as I did not realize it. ...Now I do.  TY.


----------



## David Susilo

FilmMixer said:


> Just did the 5.1 and 7.1 printmasters for Turtles and it was great to compare. The 7.1 holds up really well. But the Atmos mix is the way to go... Not tons of overhead stuff (plenty of it, and some cool effects) but the music mix is really aggressive in the surrounds/ceiling. And it's a fun flick to boot.


Ooooh! I love Turtles!!! Knowing you who did the mix making me wanting to watch it even more!!!


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> No, the Onkyo has only 11.4 outputs. You need to choose between Height 2 and Wides. There was talk about a 11.4 Onkyo over a year ago (it never hit the streets) and there were going to be 2 sub channels with 2 outputs each, not 4 independent sub channels.
> 
> http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/pr-sc5530-117878.html
> 
> It's my understanding that the Marantz AV8802 and the Denon 7200 (same but with amps) indeed let you hook up 13 speakers, but only 11 work simultaneously. Like when you use NEO:X, it uses wides and when you have Atmos, it uses 4 tops if you set it up that way.
> 
> BTW, I have difficulty to see the value of the Marantz AV8802 because the AV7702 is now very close in features: XT32 and 11 channel playback to name two.


Thx Erwin for that. ...And it was also my primitive original understanding.

And I agree with you; the Marantz AV7702 seems to be the smarter/more valuable proposition @ this time in the Dolby Atmos game. ...And it is the one on my number one top list @ this present moment.
And of course the price is much more attractive (atmos twice as less than the AV8802).
* Methinks the 8802 is intended for people with more money; that's about it really, and a very cute ass (copper & gold).


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> I think Gravity is a great example of a film that was "shot" to use 360 sound.
> Fantastic track.
> 
> I also found Apes to be a great mix.
> 
> Just did the 5.1 and 7.1 printmasters for Turtles and it was great to compare. The 7.1 holds up really well. But the Atmos mix is the way to go... Not tons of overhead stuff (plenty of it, and some cool effects) but the music mix is really aggressive in the surrounds/ceiling. And it's a fun flick to boot.


I am truly sorry to have missed Gravity in Atmos. I really wanted to see that movie in Atmos more than any movie thus far. As per your and Sanjay's impressions of Apes I bet that would have been great to hear as well. I wish I could go see everything in Atmos. We really need our local chains to upgrade but I doubt it's going to happen soon. I'll have my own Atmos before then.  

We should go see Turtles next weekend!


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> But even @ home it is a smart thing to do, just like you did yourself Roger in your own home theater.


In my case, I am running a mono signal to all the subs. EQs and delays are different, but that does not affect this distance issue.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Thx Dan (*CP850* = Heart of Dolby Atmos 'commercial' *C*inema *P*rocessor - Object Audio System), gotcha!
> 
> * What does the 850 stand for? ...The number itself.
> 
> P.S. & thx Orbitron for that above link.
> 
> ______________
> 
> Some additional comments from Andy regarding Dolby Atmos Demo experience:
> [Between Floor/Firing into Ceiling & "Overhead" Atmos speakers - Switching +]
> 
> *1.* Dolby Atmos | Switching between Ceiling-Firing & On-Ceiling Atmos Speakers
> 
> *2.* Dolby Atmos | "The Apes" & New THX Trailer


The Number is the next sequence to a long line of Dolby Cinema Audio processors. 550/650/750/850, etc, etc. The CP stands for Cinema Processor.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Have we even heard of when we will see the discs with Atmos encoded yet? 

I saw a Def Tech ad today in sound and vision for their add on component. Seems we are getting lots of equipment push but were and when on the the soundtracks?


----------



## CinemaAndy

markrubin said:


> I have a 5.2 system and cathedral ceiling (over a 3 car garage): this is beginning to sound like a big project, with some risk, to upgrade to Dolby Atmos


I think it is safe to say upward firing speakers is out for you. However, if your ceilings are not two stories high, i think ceiling speakers would work with some kind of creative engineering that kept them parallel to the floor.

Of course, when Dolby releases the "whitepaper" we would have the answers to these questions.


----------



## CinemaAndy

7channelfreak said:


> Have we even heard of when we will see the discs with Atmos encoded yet?
> 
> I saw a Def Tech ad today in sound and vision for their add on component. Seems we are getting lots of equipment push but were and when on the the soundtracks?


That, is all on the Studio's.


----------



## Scott Simonian

7channelfreak said:


> Have we even heard of when we will see the discs with Atmos encoded yet?


Unfortunately not. Still no official word. Lots of speculation.


----------



## SoundChex

markrubin said:


> I have a 5.2 system and cathedral ceiling (over a 3 car garage): this is beginning to sound like a big project, with some risk, to upgrade to Dolby Atmos



With an "unforgiving" ceiling my thought is that you might discard all three "*top*" speaker pairs from consideration, and evaluate whether you can make the *Front Height Left|Right* (*FHL*|*FHR*) and|or the *Rear Height Left|Right* (*RHL*|*RHR*) speaker pairs work for you instead . . . either placing height speakers_ on-wall_ or on stands (away from the walls) at the correct height...?!
_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Unfortunately not. Still no official word. Lots of speculation.


I have to imagine that there will be a formal announcement of titles in August or at the latest CEDIA. If not then, the natives will really start to get restless. 

It already looks like some potential titles are out of the running this year, _Godzilla_ and _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ being two of them. Unless I am reading into it (which is possible), Warner Brothers and Sony may be Atmos hold outs.

I would think Fox and Disney would be among the first.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> In my case, I am running a mono signal to all the subs. EQs and delays are different, but that does not affect this distance issue.


Say that you are watching *'Saving Private Ryan'* remastered in Dolby Atmos for Blu-ray, 
and there is a loud explosion coming from the right (or left) side/rear surround channel direction;
then with your four subwoofer's arrangement in your room you experience a more accurate/enriching depiction of the surround sound mix "realism" as you would in real life in a combat zone.

Your four subs are fed all the same LFE information plus all your main channels' bass redirected to them;
all summed up, but because you have two subs @ the rear/corners in your room (in addition to the two other front/corner ones), that rear explosion still has a proper impact on your senses.

In addition/alternative to that; some people will use four subwoofers near the four main/principal speaker channels (LF, LR, RS, LS) and with their respective bass comin' from them respective channels. And, a fifth sub dedicated for the LFE channel only (could be @ the rear center, a few feet or so from the back wall, behind the second row of seats) - And a big one @ that, with an 18" quality driver inside a quality enclosure with a quality parametric EQ.

Actually, nowadays all quality/performing subwoofers should come equipped with a quality parametric EQ in them (and DSP Phase correction). 

____________

The Dolby Atmos CP850; it most likely has some stuff in it in that regard? ...Plus a choice of well tought-out crossovers with selection of slopes?

It is most interesting and captivating what Dolby Atmos with their overhead speakers, and all that it implicates on the new surround envelope that it will bring to all of us @ home.
...New bass management, new DSP algorithms (surround processing), crossovers, phase, etc.

____________


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have to imagine that there will be a formal announcement of titles in August or at the latest CEDIA. If not then, the natives will really start to get restless.
> 
> It already looks like some potential titles are out of the running this year, _Godzilla_ and _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ being two of them. Unless I am reading into it (which is possible), Warner Brothers and Sony may be Atmos hold outs.
> 
> I would think Fox and Disney would be among the first.


Definitely. On both parts.

I will be going to CEDIA for the first time this year and my main draw is audio and anything Atmos related while I'm there. Then I'll get to the rest. 

Hoping for something official by September.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have to imagine that there will be a formal announcement of titles in August or at the latest CEDIA. If not then, the natives will really start to get restless.
> 
> It already looks like some potential titles are out of the running this year, _Godzilla_ and _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ being two of them. Unless I am reading into it (which is possible), Warner Brothers and Sony may be Atmos hold outs.
> 
> I would think Fox and Disney would be among the first.


Early adopters may buy a title for Atmos alone.
Other than that, I cannot think what is in it for the studios.

- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> It was here, in post 2147.
> 
> And while we're at it, just as a friendly administrative reminder, when you reference a post try not to link it with a hashmark ("#"). Doing so will create a hyperlink to the AVSForum "hashes" page instead of the reference you intended (thanks to the curse of social media hashtags, I guess). Also, remember that the number of posts per page is customizable (anywhere from 5 to 100), so it will only confuse the reader if you reference a page number. YW.


A simple answer to that is to use the post's unique ID number and the POST command *[post]post ID number goes here[/post]*. The post ID number is the number at the end of the url when you click the post number in the thread. In the example you just used it is 26053730, so putting that between the POST commands will take you directly to the post regardless of the Post Per Page setting.

Here it is (to see it in the nude, click to quote this post back):

https://www.avsforum.com/posts/26053730/

You can use it with added text too if you wish:

*Hugo's excellent review is linked in this post*!


----------



## FilmMixer

David Susilo said:


> Ooooh! I love Turtles!!! Knowing you who did the mix making me wanting to watch it even more!!!


David. To be clear. 

I only helped with the deliverables. 

I had nothing to do with the fantastic sound job.... 

Just was there to help them get to the finish line.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> The Number is the next sequence to a long line of Dolby Cinema Audio processors. 550/650/750/850, etc, etc. The CP stands for Cinema Processor.


Thx Andy. ... *C*inema *P*rocessor (CP); I just learned it yesterday I believe.
And the number 850; now today.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Definitely. On both parts.
> 
> I will be going to CEDIA for the first time this year and my main draw is audio and anything Atmos related while I'm there. Then I'll get to the rest.
> 
> Hoping for something official by September.


I'll be at CEDIA too (I don't have far to travel)! It's _all_ about the Atmos.  I'm signed up for Dolby's 90 minute spiel on Friday. Maybe I'll see you there.


----------



## kbarnes701

7channelfreak said:


> Have we even heard of when we will see the discs with Atmos encoded yet?
> 
> I saw a Def Tech ad today in sound and vision for their add on component. Seems we are getting lots of equipment push but were and when on the the soundtracks?


Dolby have already announced that content will be available when the hardware is launched this fall, with more to come in 2015.


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> That, is all on the Studio's.


*"You’ll start to see Dolby Atmos titles on Blu-ray and streaming video services this fall, with more to come at the start of 2015."
*


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Unfortunately not. Still no official word. Lots of speculation.


There has been official word, Scott. I just linked to it above.


----------



## DrDon

More bickering removed. Thread bans issued. 

Discuss the topic in a straightforward, scientific manner.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby have already announced that content will be available when the hardware is launched this fall, with more to come in 2015.


Yup, even mentioned that Atmos would be available via streaming. Now it's just a question of naming titles.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> A simple answer to that is to use the post's unique ID number and the POST command [post]post ID number goes here[/post]. The post ID number is the number at the end of the url when you click the post number in the thread. In the example you just used it is 26053730, so putting that between the POST commands will take you directly to the post regardless of the Post Per Page setting.
> 
> Here it is (to see it in the nude, click to quote this post back):
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/posts/26053730/
> 
> You can use it with added text too if you wish:
> 
> Hugo's excellent review is linked in this post!


Yes, I already got that Keith, thx.
But chi_guy went two more further: 1. Not typing the number post indicative sign or hashmark/hashtag sig (#) and 2. Not indicating the page # as it varies from one member to another. And that was the part very informative to me.

Plus, he gave me exactly the post number (which I searched but failed to find in vain) of Hugo's very informative review on Dolby Atmos home demo. ...Post number *2147* in this very thread right here, and which for me (30 posts per page) is @ page number *72*.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yup, even mentioned that Atmos would be available via streaming. Now it's just a question of naming titles.


I'm assuming all of the current crop of Atmos blockbusters will be released on Bluray to coincide with the Atmos launch at CEDIA. I foresee a double-dipping frenzy coming on in my household. Again


----------



## ss9001

If Atmos BD's start coming out soon, I'll be buying them before getting the hardware in place.

Double dipping redux...you are not alone, Keith


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> Yes, I already got that Keith, thx.
> But chi_guy went two more further; 1. Not typing the number post indicative sign or hashmark/hashtag sig (#) and 2. Not indicating the page # as it varies from one member to another. And that was the part very informative to me.
> 
> Plus, he gave me exactly the post number (which I searched but fail to find in vain) of Hugo's very informative review on Dolby Atmos home demo. ...Post number *2147* in this very thread right here, and which for me (30 posts per page) is @ page number 72.


The point is, if you use the post command and the unique ID, there is no need to give page numbers, post numbers, hashtags or anything else. The post's unique ID will _always_ take the link-clicker to the right place.


----------



## tjenkins95

7channelfreak said:


> Have we even heard of when we will see the discs with Atmos encoded yet?
> 
> I saw a Def Tech ad today in sound and vision for their add on component. Seems we are getting lots of equipment push but were and when on the the soundtracks?


 
It is my understanding that someone posted earlier that there was going to be an Atmos-related announcement August 11th. I don't remember which thread I read it in.


----------



## noah katz

Interesting, these clips sound really good on my computer speakers (HK Soundsticks) and give lateral imaging way outside them; one sound seemed to come directly from my side.



NorthSky said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9g4r9QUsM
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd_6WN9GVtQ


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm assuming all of the current crop of Atmos blockbusters will be released on Bluray to coincide with the Atmos launch at CEDIA. I foresee a double-dipping frenzy coming on in my household. Again


As I mentioned to Scott, it may be that Sony and Warner Brothers might not be playing ball this time around... at least for initial releases. Two of their summer Atmos mixed blockbusters have had their specs published already and they happen to list *DTS Master Audio*.  On _Spider-Man 2_, Sony pulled a _Gravity _and released it with only a 5.1 track.

What kind of ---- are some of these guys pulling?

The only other thing I can think of is that some may be intending to release separate, limited or "special" edition Dolby Atmos discs apart from their normal lineup. :shrugs:


----------



## NorthSky

** Test*



kbarnes701 said:


> The point is, if you use the post command and the unique ID, there is no need to give page numbers, post numbers, hashtags or anything else. The post's unique ID will _always_ take the link-clicker to the right place.


Yes, but first you need to find that post ID number, right? 
...And that I didn't have till chi_guy gave it to me (from that post number *2147*). ...Comprende.

*TEST: https://www.avsforum.com/posts/26053730/ ...And THX for that; first time ever someone (you) helped me out on this awesome discovery.  ...That'll save me time and typing. :kiss:


----------



## sdurani

tjenkins95 said:


> It is my understanding that someone posted earlier that there was going to be an Atmos-related announcement August 11th.


11th, 12th, 13th. Hopefully the announcements will cover hardware (technology) and software (movies).


----------



## smurraybhm

Call me an optimist - key question is how Atmos will do up mixing are current formats. Hopefully someone attending a demo can ask to hear that. I believe FilmMixer has also send that Dolby has stated that up mixing performs well. It would be great to not be tempted to replace favorites like Private Ryan assuming a new Atmos mix was released for that film.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> *"You’ll start to see Dolby Atmos titles on Blu-ray and streaming video services this fall, with more to come at the start of 2015."
> *


Thanks nice read


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos Trailer Clips*



noah katz said:


> Interesting, these clips sound really good on my computer speakers (HK Soundsticks) and give lateral imaging way outside them; one sound seemed to come directly from my side.


From my PC speakers too, as well from my laptop (internal/external speakers) with ACID Music Studio 9.0 or Sound Forge Audio Studio.
And I can manually mix the audio to my heart contentment. ...Just *the way young pro audio lovers do*.

____________


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Call me an optimist - key question is how Atmos will do up mixing are current formats. Hopefully someone attending a demo can ask to hear that. I believe FilmMixer has also send that Dolby has stated that up mixing performs well. *It would be great to not be tempted to replace favorites like Private Ryan assuming a new Atmos mix was released for that film*.


Replacing the audio soundtrack mix of SPR? ...No, but improving upon it with Dolby Atmos YES.
...Audio -> Dolby TrueHD: English 7.1 - Remastered in Dolby Atmos elevated surround sound.


----------



## SoundChex

smurraybhm said:


> Call me an optimist - key question is how Atmos will do up mixing are current formats. Hopefully someone attending a demo can ask to hear that. I believe FilmMixer has also send that Dolby has stated that up mixing performs well. It would be great to not be tempted to replace favorites like Private Ryan assuming a new Atmos mix was released for that film.



_And you'll face a somewhat different set of decision issues if *Saving Private Ryan*'s existing *DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1* soundtrack is "replaced" on *BD* only by a remixed *DTS-UHD* soundtrack...?!_    
_


----------



## smurraybhm

Yes - decision would be picking the correct lottery numbers. I have 800 blu-rays besides some HD-DVDs. There are some great mixes out there without the coming audio enhancements. Damn this hobby


----------



## wse

smurraybhm said:


> Yes - decision would be picking the correct lottery numbers. I have 800 blu-rays besides some HD-DVDs. There are some great mixes out there without the coming audio enhancements. Damn this hobby


I only have 750 Blu Rays and 400 DVDs so I guess I might be triple dipping as well, fortunately most of the movies were bought for less that $9.99 each except for Disney classics!!!


----------



## NorthSky

Yuu guys are quite cheap.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Interesting, these clips sound really good on my computer speakers (HK Soundsticks) and give lateral imaging way outside them; one sound seemed to come directly from my side.


Same here - especially noticeable on "Amaze".


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> Yes, but first you need to find that post ID number, right?


Well yes, but if you are linking someone to a post, I am assuming you must know where the post is  The unique ID is the last number in that post's url.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Call me an optimist - key question is how Atmos will do up mixing are current formats. Hopefully someone attending a demo can ask to hear that. I believe FilmMixer has also send that Dolby has stated that up mixing performs well. It would be great to not be tempted to replace favorites like Private Ryan assuming a new Atmos mix was released for that film.


I asked this at the London demo: they said it worked "very well" but they had no actual demo available. I will ask again at the Dolby demo I am attending on 13th August and will report back. I too am very interested in "Dolby Surround" (as they are calling it) for the obvious reason that, like many people, I have over 1,500 movies that are not Atmos mixes


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I mentioned to Scott, it may be that Sony and Warner Brothers might not be playing ball this time around... at least for initial releases. Two of their summer Atmos mixed blockbusters have had their specs published already and they happen to list *DTS Master Audio*.  On _Spider-Man 2_, Sony pulled a _Gravity _and released it with only a 5.1 track.
> 
> What kind of ---- are some of these guys pulling?


Current Bluray releases are not Atmos Blurays, for obvious reasons, so they will have DTS tracks if that is the particular studio's usual codec. I don't think you can draw any conclusions from what Sony and/or Warner are releasing pre-Atmos. What else could they do? If they want to release the Bluray right now, they can't release it as an Atmos Bluray, so they release it in their normal way. Seems reasonable.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The only other thing I can think of is that some may be intending to release separate, limited or "special" edition Dolby Atmos discs apart from their normal lineup. :shrugs:


Well yes... movies released theatrically this summer with Atmos mixes, and since released on Bluray -- eg Noah -- have DTS mixes. When Atmos arrives this Autumn, they will be released as Atmos Blurays. Future movies mixed in Atmos will be released as Atmos Blurays.

You really are a "glass is half empty" kinda guy, Dan LOL


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I asked this at the London demo: they said it worked "very well" but they had no actual demo available. I will ask again at the Dolby demo I am attending on 13th August and will report back.


Bring something with you they could play ?


----------



## kbarnes701

This is weird. There is a page 91 to this thread - I can see it in the page menu bar thing. But I can't actually get to it - when I click the page number for 91 it takes me to the previous page every time. Which means I can't actually see this post as it is on another page that I can't reach!

EDIT - and now it's back! Clicked a link from an email notification and it brought me to p91. Bug?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Bring something with you they could play ?


I'll take something, but I doubt they will want to go off message at a presentation like this (assuming they weren't going to demo upmixing anyway I mean).


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I'll take something, but I doubt they will want to go off message at a presentation like this (assuming they weren't going to demo upmixing anyway I mean).


One could hope they might consider doing it once the planned demo was completed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> One could hope they might consider doing it once the planned demo was completed.


They do a whole day of demos in two hour slots, so there is no time after one's allotted slot has ended as they need to move on to the next group of attendees.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> They do a whole day of demos in two hour slots, so there is no time after one's allotted slot has ended as they need to move on to the next group of attendees.


Pick the last group for the day then?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Pick the last group for the day then?


Not my choice.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Not my choice.


Drat. :serious:


----------



## Davefromuk

batpig said:


> You found Keith's post but the better reference is the more detailed discussion a few pages earlier where PoshFrosh and myself were analyzing the Denon model...
> 
> 
> ...So in short I think the paranoia is unfounded. If you have an existing pair of Front Height speakers and you don't want to relocate them, and just want to add a pair of in-ceilings and then use a x.x.4 Atmos layout, you will be fine.



Just to follow up on my question as to whether existing Front Heights can be used with Atmos I received the following response from Denon support....


"Specifically for Atmos these channels cannot be used, however with our AV receivers they are usually capable of providing extra Dolby PLII processing for other channels aside from the core audio channels being sent to the receiver.

While these channels would not be Atmos channels as such they would be getting audio processed to them while Atmos is being decoded providing the channels are enabled in the speaker configuration menu. You would also need to select the relevant option from the list of sound modes when the receiver starts to decode Atmos for the first time."


My paranoia is playing up again...


----------



## Nightlord

*rummaging for the Denon to English dictionary*


----------



## markus767

^
My take: "The Atmos decoder can't utilize speakers defined as Front Heights but the user can send the decoded/rendered Atmos channels through PLII for upmixing."


----------



## tjenkins95

wse said:


> I only have 750 Blu Rays and 400 DVDs so I guess I might be triple dipping as well, fortunately most of the movies were bought for less that $9.99 each except for Disney classics!!!


 

Well I only have 1145 blu-rays and 283 dvds but whose counting!


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> ^
> My take: "The Atmos decoder can't utilize speakers defined as Front Heights but the user can send the decoded/rendered Atmos channels through PLII for upmixing."


But not what it says in the Denon user manual.

And PLII has gone, BTW. It's been replaced with "Dolby Surround".


----------



## chi_guy50

Davefromuk said:


> Just to follow up on my question as to whether existing Front Heights can be used with Atmos I received the following response from Denon support....
> 
> 
> "Specifically for Atmos these channels cannot be used, however with our AV receivers they are usually capable of providing extra Dolby PLII processing for other channels aside from the core audio channels being sent to the receiver.
> 
> While these channels would not be Atmos channels as such they would be getting audio processed to them while Atmos is being decoded providing the channels are enabled in the speaker configuration menu. You would also need to select the relevant option from the list of sound modes when the receiver starts to decode Atmos for the first time."
> 
> 
> My paranoia is playing up again...





Nightlord said:


> *rummaging for the Denon to English dictionary*


Yes, we need batpig's authoritative translation. 



markus767 said:


> ^
> My take: "The Atmos decoder can't utilize speakers defined as Front Heights but the user can send the decoded/rendered Atmos channels through PLII for upmixing."


That parsing would make sense to me, except for three factors: 

(1) As we all know by now, there will be no PLII on these models; it has been supplanted by Dolby Surround. This may be a matter of simple nomenclature, but it implies to me a lack of clear analysis on the part of the Denon support rep. 

(2) The (European model) X5200W manual (p. 287) shows that Dolby Atmos (as opposed to the Dolby Surround up-mixing process) *can* utilize all speakers. So there is at least some measure of inconsistency between the manual and the support rep's reply.

(3) One would think that there would be at least a footnote included with the Height Layout configuration diagrams (e.g., p. 212 of the manual) to advise the user that selecting one of the pairings that includes heights in lieu of tops or Dolby speakers will impact on the true Atmos rendering.


----------



## markus767

chi_guy50 said:


> That parsing would make sense to me, except for three factors:
> 
> (1) As we all know by now, there will be no PLII on these models; it has been supplanted by Dolby Surround. This may be a matter of simple nomenclature, but it implies to me a lack of clear analysis on the part of the Denon support rep.
> 
> (2) The (European model) X5200W manual (p. 287) shows that Dolby Atmos (as opposed to the Dolby Surround up-mixing process) *can* utilize all speakers except for front wides. So there is at least some measure of inconsistency between the manual and the support rep's reply.
> 
> (3) One would think that there would be at least a footnote included with the Height Layout configuration diagrams (e.g., p. 212 of the manual) to advise the user that selecting one of the pairings that includes heights in lieu of tops or Dolby speakers will impact on the true Atmos rending.


Quite right. I just tried a translation, I didn't say the Denon support rep knows what he's talking about. I could show you emails...


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, we need batpig's authoritative translation.


It wouldn’t be the first time that manufacturer support guys have lacked basic understanding of the products they are meant to support. Until proven otherwise, I'd trust batpig more than some guy at Denon reading answers he doesn't understand off a screen.


----------



## Davefromuk

kbarnes701 said:


> It wouldn’t be the first time that manufacturer support guys have lacked basic understanding of the products they are meant to support. Until proven otherwise, I'd trust batpig more than some guy at Denon reading answers he doesn't understand off a screen.



I should add they also prefixed it with:
"As we haven't had a chance to physically get our hands on one yet we had to check this with our engineers, i apologise for any delay."


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It wouldn’t be the first time that manufacturer support guys have lacked basic understanding of the products they are meant to support. Until proven otherwise, I'd trust batpig more than some guy at Denon reading answers he doesn't understand off a screen.


I might trust "some guy at Denon" (although still not as well as batpig ), but the reply undoubtedly came from Denon's contract support team who have a well-documented, uh, well, let's say "spotty" record for accuracy.


----------



## kbarnes701

Davefromuk said:


> I should add they also prefixed it with:
> "As we haven't had a chance to physically get our hands on one yet we had to check this with our engineers, i apologise for any delay."


Ah - engineers. Right.... 



chi_guy50 said:


> I might trust "some guy at Denon" (although still not as well as batpig ), but the reply undoubtedly came from Denon's contract support team who have a well-documented, uh, well, let's say "spotty" record for accuracy.


Not to mention the response was in a form of English that isn't all that well-known to me, and mentioned a technology that has been replaced ...

I wonder how they'd explain what the user manual says...


----------



## CinemaAndy

I find it interesting when i am told the back plate of a Atmos AVR is more or less what people expect to see and the actual speaker designation is useless in a "Object" based Atmos environment. I have a very dry sense of humor. My take on this, i can change what speaker plays what and just completely prank the unsuspecting masses unlucky enough to venture into my theater. Something like making the right surround field play on the left spears and so on, without having to change wires around!

I love it!!!


----------



## bargervais

markus767 said:


> ^
> My take: "The Atmos decoder can't utilize speakers defined as Front Heights but the user can send the decoded/rendered Atmos channels through PLII for upmixing."


how would a Denon receiver Know if your speaker is in the ceiling or high on the wall can't you just sellect the high speaker and call it a ceiling speaker????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> how would a Denon receiver Know if your speaker is in the ceiling or high on the wall can't you just sellect the high speaker and call it a ceiling speaker????


It would not know one way or the other. It all boils down to whether or not it would still sound good in the height location rather than on the ceiling as Dolby recommends.


----------



## markus767

bargervais said:


> how would a Denon receiver Know if your speaker is in the ceiling or high on the wall can't you just sellect the high speaker and call it a ceiling speaker????


It can't know where the speaker is located. Nevertheless, processing relies on that information. The AVR obviously handles speakers defined as top surround differently than speakers defined as Front Heights.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> It would not know one way or the other. It all boils down to whether or not it would still sound good in the height location rather than on the ceiling as Dolby recommends.


understand


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> It can't know where the speaker is located. Nevertheless, processing relies on that information. The AVR obviously handles speakers defined as top surround differently than speakers defined as Front Heights.


Can't help wonder if you could use two or three microphones with defined positions relative wall/ceiling and get a pinpoint accurate positioning om the speakers will just a minor effort from the enduser...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll be at CEDIA too (I don't have far to travel)! It's _all_ about the Atmos.  I'm signed up for Dolby's 90 minute spiel on Friday. Maybe I'll see you there.


Hell yeah! Though I am not sure if I will be there on Friday. I will be getting into Denver on Wednesday and going to a full day at the show on Thursday. Will you be there on Thursday? Hit me up on PM before the show and we can see about meeting up. 



kbarnes701 said:


> There has been official word, Scott. I just linked to it above.


Umm. Nnnnnnoooooooooot quite, Keith.



sdurani said:


> Yup, even mentioned that Atmos would be available via streaming. *Now it's just a question of naming titles.*


This.

Official *promise* of eventual titles, yeah but official word on ...you know, anything. Not a damn thing.

We sure can speculate though.  

How bout that Godzilla in Atmos? Oh right. Nothing.
How bout that Xmen... oh wait.
Spidey? Well, nothing yet.
I know! Transformers 4 ...might have Atmos. But who knows?


See what I mean?


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> The (European model) X5200W manual (p. 287) shows that Dolby Atmos (as opposed to the Dolby Surround up-mixing process) *can* utilize all speakers except for front wides.


Other way 'round. Page 287 shows that Dolby Atmos does utilize front wides (as opposed to Dolby Surround upmixing, which doesn't support wides).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hmmm.

*stokes chin*


Good lord, I hope these things snap into focus after the 11th.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. Page 287 shows that Dolby Atmos does utilize front wides (as opposed to Dolby Surround upmixing, which doesn't support wides).


Right you are; thanks for that correction.

I was more focused on the issue at hand--Atmos rendering to heights/tops--and futzed up my wording regarding the wides (which are largely irrelevant to this particular discussion anyway).


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> How bout that Godzilla in Atmos? Oh right. Nothing.
> How bout that Xmen... oh wait.
> Spidey? Well, nothing yet.
> I know! Transformers 4 ...might have Atmos. But who knows?
> 
> See what I mean?


What do you mean? Until you hear something official, you're going to firmly believe that Dolby coordinated hardware necessary for the release of consumer Atmos by didn't give any consideration to software? Until Dolby says otherwise, the only thing due out in Atmos is "Oh right. Nothing."? 

I can understand wanting to wait for official confirmation of titles. But until then, my default position would not be that nothing is coming out on BD with Amos soundtracks.


----------



## noah katz

Nightlord said:


> Can't help wonder if you could use two or three microphones with defined positions relative wall/ceiling and get a pinpoint accurate positioning om the speakers will just a minor effort from the enduser...


How would the end user input those positions into the hardware?


----------



## noah katz

Is this different than Marantz?

What do single vs. double circles mean?



sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. Page 287 shows that Dolby Atmos does utilize front wides (as opposed to Dolby Surround upmixing, which doesn't support wides).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> What do you mean? Until you hear something official, you're going to firmly believe that Dolby coordinated hardware necessary for the release of consumer Atmos by didn't give any consideration to software? Until Dolby says otherwise, the only thing due out in Atmos is "Oh right. Nothing."?
> 
> I can understand wanting to wait for official confirmation of titles. But until then, my default position would not be that nothing is coming out on BD with Amos soundtracks.


It'll be interesting to see how many are re-releases and outright remixes of catalog titles.


----------



## batpig

Davefromuk said:


> Just to follow up on my question as to whether existing Front Heights can be used with Atmos I received the following response from Denon support....
> 
> 
> "Specifically for Atmos these channels cannot be used, however with our AV receivers they are usually capable of providing extra Dolby PLII processing for other channels aside from the core audio channels being sent to the receiver.
> 
> While these channels would not be Atmos channels as such they would be getting audio processed to them while Atmos is being decoded providing the channels are enabled in the speaker configuration menu. You would also need to select the relevant option from the list of sound modes when the receiver starts to decode Atmos for the first time."
> 
> 
> My paranoia is playing up again...


I don't know for certain but this seems to me like a CSR who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. I have heard people describe shockingly incorrect answers from Denon CSR's on products which are mature and in release... so the fact that they would swing and miss on an unreleased product with a completely new technology is not surprising. The fact that he still referred to PLIIz is telling.

The oft referenced chart on pg 287 seems unequivocal. In Dolby Atmos surround mode ANY of the 15 potential speaker channel locations can make noise. It seems crazy and counterintuitively circuitous to me that they would decode the Atmos and then apply some surround upmix to generate front height channel info. Why go through the extra step vs. simply rendering to those channels in the first place?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> Is this different than Marantz?
> 
> What do single vs. double circles mean?


That's what I would like to know too.


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> Is this different than Marantz?
> 
> What do single vs. double circles mean?


Marantz manuals are quite literally direct copies of Denon manuals, with some minor branding changes (e.g. Marantz calls its compressed music restorer "MDAX" whereas Denon calls it "Restorer"). I haven't seen it but I would guarantee that the Marantz equivalents have identical charts.

The double circle means (quoting from the footnote): *The output channels depend on the settings of “Speaker Config.”*

In other words, it will output sound to the speakers that are selected as present in Speaker Config. Thus explicitly clarifying the implication that ALL fifteen channels could be active simultaneosuly.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> What do you mean? Until you hear something official, you're going to firmly believe that Dolby coordinated hardware necessary for the release of consumer Atmos by didn't give any consideration to software? Until Dolby says otherwise, the only thing due out in Atmos is "Oh right. Nothing."?
> 
> I can understand wanting to wait for official confirmation of titles. But until then, my default position would not be that nothing is coming out on BD with Amos soundtracks.


Been toyed with promises of awesome things before. A promise of an Atmos title existing does not allow me to actually listen to it in my HT room which is the whole point of all this.

I never said that nothing will ever come out but the question is brought up over and over of: when and what? We don't know. 

I'd like to know. 

A simple news article (or whathaveyou) of ooohhh....let's just say Spiderman 2 for the sake of discussion...and hey listed in the specs: Dolby Atmos TrueHD. That would shut me up.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's what I would like to know too.


Guys, the manual is freely available to download and you could just go to pg 287 and read the footnote I quoted, just like I did.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Umm. Nnnnnnoooooooooot quite, Keith.


Yes, Scott.... the question was when will Atmos content be available? The answer, officially, from Dolby, is "this fall". Unequivocal.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> We sure can speculate though.
> 
> How bout that Godzilla in Atmos? Oh right. Nothing.
> How bout that Xmen... oh wait.
> Spidey? Well, nothing yet.
> I know! Transformers 4 ...might have Atmos. But who knows?
> 
> 
> See what I mean?


No - so what do you think this content will be that Dolby have told us is coming this fall? Gone With The Wind? Citizen Kane? C'mon....


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, Scott.... the question was when will Atmos content be available? The answer, officially, from Dolby, is "this fall". Unequivocal.


A promise delivered. That's all I would like. 

Guess I'll have to wait and see like the rest of you suckers. Oooooofff.


----------



## Nightlord

noah katz said:


> How would the end user input those positions into the hardware?


Other way around, user should be told to put this mic in "back left corner three feet from both walls and three feet up". (Quite possibly a very bad choice of example)


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> What do single vs. double circles mean?


Single circle: _"This indicates the audio output channels or surround parameters that can be set."_

Double circle: _"__This indicates the audio output channels. The output channels depend on the settings of 'Speaker Config'." _

Looks like single circle is mandatory and double circle is optional. That page shows only front L/R speakers as mandatory (single circle) while ALL other speakers are optional (double circle).


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> No - so what do you think this content will be that Dolby have told us is coming this fall? Gone With The Wind? Citizen Kane? C'mon....


At this point it's all speculation. That's really hard to get excited about.

Lol why is this so hard to get, guys? You all know I'm more excited about this than most. I want something real. Not a promise of something...eventually. I want it now, damnit!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I never said that nothing will ever come out but the question is brought up over and over of: when and what? We don't know.


Scott - we do know _when_ (this fall) but we don't yet know _what_. If _when _is definite, and it is, then there has to be some value for _what_ that is >0.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, I guess so.

Sooooo.....

Dolby Atmos. Can't wait!


*looks at watch*


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Can't help wonder if you could use two or three microphones with defined positions relative wall/ceiling and get a pinpoint accurate positioning om the speakers will just a minor effort from the enduser...


Yes, a microphone array can provide data from which speaker locations can be calculated.
Example: http://www.trinnov.com/non-classe/microphone/


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> *looks at watch*


Tick, tock, tick, tock...

I recommend a listen to Pink Floyd's 'Time' while you wait.


----------



## abbyss

i know dolby atmos has speakers all around the room` but what i`d like to know.is the sound effects really 3 dimensional has in freed from the speakers and projected out in the room like in real life ?


----------



## asarose247

Where's the Beef- uh, I mean, SPEAKER ?
A few pages back (IDK) I proposed a (half-baked)(late-night)(?) idea that the AVR could precisely(MOL) know where each speaker is.
Or so I thought
But I've re-read the rebuttals and I expect not much in reply again, however, that's not gonna stop me . . .
IF 4 microphones in a known pattern of known distances from each other, the 4th one being at a pre-determined height (or maybe 3) and the AVR algorithm "pings" them in PAIRS by a tone from the speaker, 
We get multiple(!) intersecting planes, the common point or apex of them all is the speaker.
So the data includes known distances relative to each other for the mikes.
and then there is the data wrt to differences in time delays, which is converted into distances including a vertical factor
So, we've got all this data wrt to distances: a known base which is a solid geometric figure 4 mikes (in the algorithm) and "the data"
but we can't calculate where the speaker is?
I'm not looking for a math lesson here so if any of you resident math/trigonometry wizards have a reference or a (Actually usable AND PRINTABLE (lol)) suggestion,
save most people here the grief of having to read it here and just send me a PM about where to look about how it can't be done.
It's "thinking" like this that pushes the argument/envelope for modular firmware upgradable/expandable HTPC's/AVRPC'S for signal processing with as buttload of pre-outs/.
Amplification seems to been "adequately" have figured out, for now.
We now return you your regularly ongoing speculation.


p.s.
No, but REALLY, how could this not work????
bring in the programmers . . .
1 clown, exit stage right . .


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Yes, a microphone array can provide data from which speaker locations can be calculated.


So it all boils down to "we don't want to change our current receiver designs more than necessary and we're quite bad at software/dsp coding ourselves" ? 

Damn, this is soo good an opportunity for a new company to jump in and take marketshares by doing things differently/better.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Tick, tock, tick, tock...
> 
> I recommend a listen to Pink Floyd's 'Time' while you wait.


But do I listen to it in Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> But do I listen to it in Dolby Atmos?


Definitely not, it should be Quadraphonic!


----------



## batpig

abbyss said:


> i know dolby atmos has speakers all around the room` but what i`d like to know.is the sound effects really 3 dimensional has in freed from the speakers and projected out in the room like in real life ?


Does anyone know WTF this means?


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> Does anyone know WTF this means?


Hmm... "Does it work?"


----------



## markus767

abbyss said:


> i know dolby atmos has speakers all around the room` but what i`d like to know.is the sound effects really 3 dimensional has in freed from the speakers and projected out in the room like in real life ?


If your question is if Atmos is a wave field reconstruction technique then the answer is no. The same is true for stereo which nevertheless can sound pretty realistic at times.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol why is this so hard to get, guys?


Because the _'we know nothing about consumer Atmos releases'_ default position doesn't make sense. Dolby has already said when titles will be available (this fall), how they will be delivered (BD and streaming) and even which codecs will be used (TrueHD and DD+). 

As for titles, the most obvious ones will be from the list of Atmos mixes done during the last couple years. Folks on the forum that have attended demos (including CE Week in NY) have already mentioned a few titles. The Editors' Guild monthly meeting in March mention a couple of catalogue titles. 

But if you want to convince yourself that none of those titles will show up with Atmos mixes on BD, then I won't try to convince you otherwise. But I can't pretend to understand your point of view. Even without 100% confirmation, there is a likely list of titles.


----------



## abbyss

batpig said:


> Does anyone know WTF this means?


what i meant batpig is has with dolby previous systems dolby true hd and so on i never really got that 3d effect where it felt like sounds were not panning thru speakers.but the sound field was truly three dimensional.like i could tell something was happening two feet in front of me`or ten feet above me


----------



## asarose247

WTF ; Where's The Future


----------



## Roger Dressler

abbyss said:


> what i meant batpig is has with dolby previous systems dolby true hd and so on i never really got that 3d effect where it felt like sounds were not panning thru speakers.*but the sound field was truly three dimensional.like i could tell something was happening two feet in front of me`or ten feet above me*


Sounds like you're already getting the benefit of Atmos without even having to install it!


----------



## brwsaw

Edit:

I want the additional ambiance offered by the atoms VOG speakers and nothing more.


----------



## sdurani

abbyss said:


> with dolby previous systems dolby true hd and so on i never really got that 3d effect where it felt like sounds were not panning thru speakers.


In Dolby's defense, I don't think their data packing algorithm (TrueHD) was intended to deliver any of the things you're talking about. It was only supposed to pack PCM more efficiently to take up less space on the disc.


----------



## abbyss

i have not heard atmos has yet`but the closest i`ve come to 3d sound was listening to the high performance stereo system HPS 4000 at a cinema.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, I guess so.
> 
> Sooooo.....
> 
> Dolby Atmos. Can't wait!
> 
> 
> *looks at watch*


LOL. Trust me, buddy, nobody is more excited than I am. Well, apart maybe from you


----------



## kbarnes701

abbyss said:


> i know dolby atmos has speakers all around the room` but what i`d like to know.is the sound effects really 3 dimensional has in freed from the speakers and projected out in the room like in real life ?


It is very three dimensional. One of the misconceptions about Atmos, IMO, is that it is mainly about 'height effects' - helicopters, rain and so on. It IS about that but it is much more than that. Just as important is the sense of three dimensionality that Atmos brings to the sound. If you haven't yet heard an Atmos soundtrack, I urge you to try to do so.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Does anyone know WTF this means?


I had a stab at it. I assume the question was about three dimensionality....


----------



## Schwa

batpig said:


> Marantz manuals are quite literally direct copies of Denon manuals, with some minor branding changes (e.g. Marantz calls its compressed music restorer "MDAX" whereas Denon calls it "Restorer"). I haven't seen it but I would guarantee that the Marantz equivalents have identical charts.
> 
> The double circle means (quoting from the footnote): *The output channels depend on the settings of “Speaker Config.”*
> 
> In other words, it will output sound to the speakers that are selected as present in Speaker Config. Thus explicitly clarifying the implication that ALL fifteen channels could be active simultaneosuly.


How could all 15 channels be simultaneously active if the receiver/pre-pro can only control 11 at a time? There aren't even 15 pre-outs, are there? Not trying to be argumentative; I just don't understand your comment.


----------



## abbyss

kbarnes701 said:


> It is very three dimensional. One of the misconceptions about Atmos, IMO, is that it is mainly about 'height effects' - helicopters, rain and so on. It IS about that but it is much more than that. Just as important is the sense of three dimensionality that Atmos brings to the sound. If you haven't yet heard an Atmos soundtrack, I urge you to try to do so.


thank you very much for that explenation kbarnes thats what i wanted to hear`now i`m very excited to get atmos.unfortunatley the dont have atmos where i live`just the hps 4000 system.


----------



## Sunny44

Do the side or rear surrounds in an existing setup need to be re-positioned (angle/Height)
to add atmos 7.1.2 or 7.1.4?

Side surrounds at 110, 5'
Rear surrounds at 140, 5'
Ceiling height 7'11"

Thanks


----------



## Nightlord

Schwa said:


> How could all 15 channels be simultaneously active if the receiver/pre-pro can only control 11 at a time? There aren't even 15 pre-outs, are there? Not trying to be argumentative; I just don't understand your comment.


Isn't the Marantz prepro and the Denon x7200w 13.2? 13+2=15


----------



## sdurani

Schwa said:


> How could all 15 channels be simultaneously active if the receiver/pre-pro can only control 11 at a time?


I thought he was saying that it puts to rest the rumor that all 13.2 channels could be active simultaneously.


----------



## KidHorn

asarose247 said:


> Where's the Beef- uh, I mean, SPEAKER ?
> A few pages back (IDK) I proposed a (half-baked)(late-night)(?) idea that the AVR could precisely(MOL) know where each speaker is.
> Or so I thought
> But I've re-read the rebuttals and I expect not much in reply again, however, that's not gonna stop me . . .
> IF 4 microphones in a known pattern of known distances from each other, the 4th one being at a pre-determined height (or maybe 3) and the AVR algorithm "pings" them in PAIRS by a tone from the speaker,
> We get multiple(!) intersecting planes, the common point or apex of them all is the speaker.
> So the data includes known distances relative to each other for the mikes.
> and then there is the data wrt to differences in time delays, which is converted into distances including a vertical factor
> So, we've got all this data wrt to distances: a known base which is a solid geometric figure 4 mikes (in the algorithm) and "the data"
> but we can't calculate where the speaker is?
> I'm not looking for a math lesson here so if any of you resident math/trigonometry wizards have a reference or a (Actually usable AND PRINTABLE (lol)) suggestion,
> save most people here the grief of having to read it here and just send me a PM about where to look about how it can't be done.
> It's "thinking" like this that pushes the argument/envelope for modular firmware upgradable/expandable HTPC's/AVRPC'S for signal processing with as buttload of pre-outs/.
> Amplification seems to been "adequately" have figured out, for now.
> We now return you your regularly ongoing speculation.
> 
> 
> p.s.
> No, but REALLY, how could this not work????
> bring in the programmers . . .
> 1 clown, exit stage right . .



Maybe this will help explain...


With one microphone you can pinpoint a speakers location to the surface of a sphere.
With a second mic in a different spot, it also generates a sphere surface and where this intersects the first sphere surface, it makes a circle. So the speaker location is any point on a circle.
With a third mic you get a sphere surface that intersects the circle in 2 points. So now you have 2 points. Think of putting a hula hoop inside a basketball. They would intersect in 2 spots.
With a 4th mic you get a sphere surface that will only intersect with one of the two remaining points, so there you have your spot.


I don't know if this helps or not, but it makes sense to me.


----------



## Nightlord

Another idea would be to slowly move around the mic in the room while playing tone bursts from speakers, but different tones from each speaker? Would be an interesting algorithm to develop, but nothing beyond a final project for a computer science masters degree, I'd say.


----------



## kbarnes701

abbyss said:


> thank you very much for that explenation kbarnes thats what i wanted to hear`now i`m very excited to get atmos.unfortunatley the dont have atmos where i live`just the hps 4000 system.


In that case, you will just love the first demo of Atmos for the home that you can get to hear!


----------



## batpig

Schwa said:


> How could all 15 channels be simultaneously active if the receiver/pre-pro can only control 11 at a time? There aren't even 15 pre-outs, are there? Not trying to be argumentative; I just don't understand your comment.


It doesn't matter whether the receiver can or can't do it -- it's about making sure the chart is clear (such as it is) and doesn't imply capabilities which are impossible.

Forget about the number 15, I screwed that up (don't ask how I came up with it). It's actually NINETEEN potential locations for (non subwoofer) speakers -- the standard seven, plus two wides, two front heights, two rear heights, and three pairs of "top" speakers (front/middle/rear). Obviously they can't all be connected (let alone active) at the same time, but those are the nineteen possible "locations" that a speaker could be designated as existing in the speaker config.

The chart shows what speakers are active in certain surround modes. The "Dolby Atmos" line in the chart has a circle (indicating active) in ALL the columns. If there was no distinction (single circle vs double circle), somebody could look at the chart, see that ALL the speakers are checked for "Channel output" in Dolby Atmos surround mode, and conclude that you could run them all simultaneously (forget about the inherent illogic of that on a 9ch receiver with 13ch preouts).

Thus, the double circle indicates that these channels COULD be active (as opposed to WILL be active), depending "on the settings of Speaker Config". In other words, the double circle is saying these are the POSSIBLE output channels in Dolby Atmos surround mode, but what actually makes noise will depend on how you have the speaker config settings in the setup menus.


----------



## Nightlord

So... What's available in the speaker config settings then?


----------



## KidHorn

Nightlord said:


> Another idea would be to slowly move around the mic in the room while playing tone bursts from speakers, but different tones from each speaker? Would be an interesting algorithm to develop, but nothing beyond a final project for a computer science masters degree, I'd say.



I don't think that would work.


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> No - so what do you think this content will be that Dolby have told us is coming this fall? Gone With The Wind? Citizen Kane? C'mon....





Scott Simonian said:


> At this point it's all speculation. That's really hard to get excited about.
> 
> Lol why is this so hard to get, guys? You all know I'm more excited about this than most. I want something real. Not a promise of something...eventually. I want it now, damnit!



Well, how about some speculation with this then?


*Malificent* Blu-ray press release mentions this for audio:
Blu-ray Feature Film = _*7.1, *_English 2.0 Descriptive Audio, Spanish and French Dolby Digital 5.1

Note they don't list the usual "DTS-HD Master Audio", just "7.1". BVHE's previous press releases all have specified the codec.


I'm thinking since Atmos titles haven't been formally announced they're holding off until Dolby's big to-do.


----------



## batpig

BTW - with respect to the "paranoia" about exactly how Atmos will work with "non Atmos" speaker locations like Front Height, I've been informed that we will have more clarity after CEDIA, when all the stakeholders from D&M will be in the same place with actual demo units. So hang tight.


----------



## Nightlord

KidHorn said:


> I don't think that would work.


I don't have the slightest concern it wouldn't work, the question is whether you want to put enough computing power/memory into a receiver. An iPad would certainly be able to do it.


----------



## noah katz

Thanks for the clarification.



batpig said:


> Marantz manuals are quite literally direct copies of Denon manuals, with some minor branding changes (e.g. Marantz calls its compressed music restorer "MDAX" whereas Denon calls it "Restorer"). I haven't seen it but I would guarantee that the Marantz equivalents have identical charts.
> 
> The double circle means (quoting from the footnote): *The output channels depend on the settings of “Speaker Config.”*
> 
> In other words, it will output sound to the speakers that are selected as present in Speaker Config. Thus explicitly clarifying the implication that ALL fifteen channels could be active simultaneosuly.





sdurani said:


> Single circle: _"This indicates the audio output channels or surround parameters that can be set."_
> 
> Double circle: _"__This indicates the audio output channels. The output channels depend on the settings of 'Speaker Config'." _
> 
> Looks like single circle is mandatory and double circle is optional. That page shows only front L/R speakers as mandatory (single circle) while ALL other speakers are optional (double circle).


----------



## bargervais

asarose247 said:


> WTF ; Where's The Future


thanks i thought it ment what the f***


----------



## asarose247

DSCF0712.jpg


Easy, Breezy, DIY ,adjustable steel unistrut trestle system for up to 10 x 10 ft square, allows attachment of "on ceiling speakers" up to 60 inches front or to rear and to left or right., flat ceiling option only, other systems available
speakers can be "aimed" at MLP bubble with laser-like precision, and clearances/appearances can be micro-adjusted to enhance many varying factors, esthetics, color, wires, WAF
system is completely customizable wrt virtually any suitable speaker, including DIY models.
Some assembly required.


may be suitable for ATMOS implementation


----------



## asarose247

WTF: Works Terrifically Fine


----------



## asarose247

Maybe this will help explain...


thank you, I can "see" that.


who knew?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Sunny44 said:


> Do the side or rear surrounds in an existing setup need to be re-positioned (angle/Height)
> to add atmos 7.1.2 or 7.1.4?
> 
> Side surrounds at 110, 5'
> Rear surrounds at 140, 5'
> Ceiling height 7'11"
> 
> Thanks


When Rear Surrounds are present (@ 140° in your case), Side Surrounds can be as far forward as 70°... 









But in se, this has nothing to do with Atmos. But this way, you don't have to bother with Wides in a Atmos setup with 11 channels.


----------



## PeterTHX

So...nobody else thinks _*Malificent*_ might be Disney's Atmos launch title?


----------



## Scott Simonian

erwinfrombelgium said:


> When Rear Surrounds are present (@ 140° in your case), Side Surrounds can be as far forward as 70°...
> 
> View attachment 192169
> 
> 
> But in se, this has nothing to do with Atmos. But this way, you don't have to bother with Wides in a Atmos setup with 11 channels.



This.

The smart move (if avoiding use of wides) is simply to place the surrounds at a point that is directly in the middle of the distance between your front left and right and rear left and right.

Also see Roger Dressler's home cinema as the proper way to do 7.1.4 audio. My hero.


----------



## esappy

sdurani said:


> Because the _'we know nothing about consumer Atmos releases'_ default position doesn't make sense. Dolby has already said when titles will be available (this fall), how they will be delivered (BD and streaming) and even which codecs will be used (TrueHD and DD+).
> 
> As for titles, the most obvious ones will be from the list of Atmos mixes done during the last couple years. Folks on the forum that have attended demos (including CE Week in NY) have already mentioned a few titles. The Editors' Guild monthly meeting in March mention a couple of catalogue titles.
> 
> But if you want to convince yourself that none of those titles will show up with Atmos mixes on BD, then I won't try to convince you otherwise. But I can't pretend to understand your point of view. Even without 100% confirmation, there is a likely list of titles.


I think what Scott just wants to hear is something like a press release from New Line Cinema stating that on November 11, 2014 The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition will be presented in exciting Dolby ATMOS at home! "I am fire. I AM DEATH!" :devil:

I'm with you Scott, "coming this fall" just isn't good enough!


----------



## esappy

Here is a fun article to help fuel the conspiracy theory fires: 

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/W...lu-ray-Disc-Sooner-Than-You-Might-Think.shtml


----------



## sdurani

esappy said:


> I'm with you Scott, "coming this fall" just isn't good enough!


I appreciate the enthusiasm, but don't understand the entitlement mentality. No one here is owed information that the studios and Dolby aren't ready to divulge. In the mean time, let's not pretend that lack of information equates to a lack of titles coming.


----------



## NorthSky

asarose247 said:


> *WTF* ; Where's The Future -> *DA: Dolby Atmos*


*W*hat's *T*hat *F*orum ... *ODA* ... *O*fficial *D*olby *A*tmos thread (HTV - Home Theater Version)


----------



## sdurani

esappy said:


> Here is a fun article to help fuel the conspiracy theory fires:
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/W...lu-ray-Disc-Sooner-Than-You-Might-Think.shtml


What conspiracy theory? Did you read the article? It's a wish list of Atmos movies the author wants to see on Blu-ray. Nothing more.


----------



## Scott Simonian

esappy said:


> I think what Scott just wants to hear is something like a press release from New Line Cinema stating that on November 11, 2014 The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Edition will be presented in exciting Dolby ATMOS at home! "I am fire. I AM DEATH!" :devil:
> 
> I'm with you Scott, "coming this fall" just isn't good enough!


Yes, exactly. 



sdurani said:


> I appreciate the enthusiasm, but don't understand the entitlement mentality. No one here is owed information that the studios and Dolby aren't ready to divulge. In the mean time, let's not pretend that lack of information equates to a lack of titles coming.


Quite right, my friend. 

Though I don't feel that I am "entitled" at all but it's just what I'd _like_ to hear.

I've got a fever...
And the only prescription...
Is Atmos titles on Blu-ray officially announced.









"I GOTTA have Dolby Atmos, baby!"


----------



## esappy

sdurani said:


> I appreciate the enthusiasm, but don't understand the entitlement mentality. No one here is owed information that the studios and Dolby aren't ready to divulge. In the mean time, let's not pretend that lack of information equates to a lack of titles coming.


It's all in fun, dude. All in fun.


----------



## sdurani

esappy said:


> It's all in fun, dude. All in fun.


So was my reply, dude.


----------



## esappy

Now if we could just bait in a Dolby engineer. :devil: You know at least one has got to lurking around here.


----------



## NorthSky

asarose247 said:


> DSCF0712.jpg
> 
> Easy, Breezy, DIY ,adjustable steel unistrut trestle system for up to 10 x 10 ft square, allows attachment of "on ceiling speakers" up to 60 inches front or to rear and to left or right., flat ceiling option only, other systems available
> speakers can be "aimed" at MLP bubble with laser-like precision, and clearances/appearances can be micro-adjusted to enhance many varying factors, esthetics, color, wires, WAF
> system is completely customizable wrt virtually any suitable speaker, including DIY models.
> Some assembly required.
> 
> may be suitable for ATMOS implementation





asarose247 said:


> WTF: Works Terrifically Fine





asarose247 said:


> Maybe this will help explain...
> thank you, I can "see" that.
> who knew?


Yep, looks fine to me; I'd say it would work just perfectly fine.



PeterTHX said:


> So...nobody else thinks _*Malificent*_ might be Disney's Atmos launch title?


It might be. * Disney; don't they usually use DTS-HD Master Audio for their Blus? ...Yes, in vast majority nowadays. ...At the beginning, uncompressed multichannel LPCM. ...And they also have few with Dolby TrueHD audio soundtracks.

So yes, *'Maleficent'* might be one Dolby Atmos BD title, perhaps the first one from Disney.


----------



## PeterTHX

NorthSky said:


> It might be. * Disney; don't they usually use DTS-HD Master Audio for their Blus? ...Yes, in vast majority nowadays. ...At the beginning, uncompressed multichannel LPCM. ...And they also have few with Dolby TrueHD audio soundtracks.


 
That's the thing. They usually use and say "7.1 DTS-HD MA" (_Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Frozen_, etc) or "7.1 DTS-HD HR" (in the case of _Muppets Most Wanted_) in their press releases for 2014 Blu-rays. The press release for _Malificent_ just says "7.1" (no codec specified) and Dolby Digital 5.1 for French & Spanish. That leads me to think Dolby will announce the title in their upcoming press show.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Schwa said:


> How could all 15 channels be simultaneously active if the receiver/pre-pro can only control 11 at a time? There aren't even 15 pre-outs, are there? Not trying to be argumentative; I just don't understand your comment.


Unfortunately, I think it's wishful thinking on his part.  You have a choice of surround locations. Not that all of them are active at once; you just have to pick the remaining ones (outside of left/center/right) that adhere to some sort of fixed 11.1 layout position as established by Dolby.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> So...nobody else thinks _*Malificent*_ might be Disney's Atmos launch title?


Rather than a mega flop, they might go with one of their hit movies instead, like Captain America or Frozen.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Rather than a mega flop, they might go with one of their hit movies instead, like Captain America or Frozen.


Oh, I would most definitely rebuy Frozen if it had a high quality Atmos track. Not so keen on the Marvel stuff.


----------



## wse

Which AV receiver can decode DTS NEO X? I am primarily interested in 9.2 channel with wide channels.

I could only find ONKYO?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Which AV receiver can decode DTS NEO X? I am primarily interested in 9.2 channel with wide channels.
> 
> I could only find ONKYO?


Certain mid and upper level Denon and Marantz products can. And there is no "decoding." DTS Neo:X is mostly a post-processing mode like the now defunct ProLogic stuff from Dolby.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, I would most definitely rebuy Frozen if it had a high quality Atmos track. Not so keen on the Marvel stuff.


Agree about Frozen. I like the Marvel movies, in fact preferred CA2 to the first one, but it was one of those Atmos mixes that left me wondering why they even bothered. Maybe I will like it better at home.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Rather than a mega flop, they might go with one of their hit movies instead, like Captain America or Frozen.


Malificent a flop? 

Hardly....

233 domestic, 716 worldwide total.

And it out grossed Captain America Winter Soldier.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Malificent a flop?
> 
> Hardly....


My mistake.


----------



## esappy

So has anybody seen Guardians of the Galaxy in Atmos yet? I think the family and I are going to check it out on Sunday as a 'family day' but the closest theater with Atmos is about an hour away and I was hoping to get impressions if it is worth the drive or not. We may go anyway just because and even if the Atmos mix isn't spectacular, it sounds like this is just going to be a fun movie.


----------



## PeterTHX

FilmMixer said:


> Malificent a flop?
> 
> Hardly....
> 
> 233 domestic, 716 worldwide total.
> 
> And it out grossed Captain America Winter Soldier.





sdurani said:


> My mistake.


 
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing: _Malificent_, while not quite a darling with critics, made quite a bit of coin. You might be thinking of last year's Disney offering of _The Lone Ranger_. It should be fairly successful on home video.


_Captain America_ has already been announced as having a 7.1 DTS-MA track.


----------



## FilmMixer

esappy said:


> So has anybody seen Guardians of the Galaxy in Atmos yet? I think the family and I are going to check it out on Sunday as a 'family day' but the closest theater with Atmos is about an hour away and I was hoping to get impressions if it is worth the drive or not. We may go anyway just because and even if the Atmos mix isn't spectacular, it sounds like this is just going to be a fun movie.


It's a great mix.. 

what will stand out most is how the full range bass managed surrounds immerse you and the music mix. 

Worth seeing in the best possible theater regardless. Looks amazing. Great 3D.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> You might be thinking of last year's Disney offering of _The Lone Ranger_.


I was thinking of something that cost a ton of money and made very little at the box office. Maleficent wasn't it.


----------



## Snowmanick

sdurani said:


> I was thinking of something that cost a ton of money and made very little at the box office. Maleficent wasn't it.


John Carter?


----------



## esappy

FilmMixer said:


> It's a great mix..
> 
> what will stand out most is how the full range bass managed surrounds immerse you and the music mix.
> 
> Worth seeing in the best possible theater regardless. Looks amazing. Great 3D.


Perfect. Thank you. We rarely get to see movies in Atmos due to logistics but I think we will go ahead and splurge this weekend. I know we are looking forward to seeing it. Now we will find out if the "Regal Premium Experience" is all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> BTW - with respect to the "paranoia" about exactly how Atmos will work with "non Atmos" speaker locations like Front Height, I've been informed that we will have more clarity after CEDIA, when all the stakeholders from D&M will be in the same place with actual demo units. So hang tight.


I'll make a point of asking about this at Dolby on 13th.


----------



## Nightlord

Snowmanick said:


> John Carter?


Yeah, that probably counts as a flop. Pity, I read some of the books a long time ago and would like to see more and it was definitely layed up for sequels, but that'll probably never happen.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I appreciate the enthusiasm, but don't understand the entitlement mentality. No one here is owed information that the studios and Dolby aren't ready to divulge. In the mean time, let's not pretend that lack of information equates to a lack of titles coming.


Yep. Nobody is more excited about Atmos at home than I am, but I can't quite see the fuss about titles at this time. We have been told there WILL be titles released this fall. Meantime, there is no way to use the titles even if they were released today, so there's no benefit really in knowing what they will be. And, from the studios' POV there is a significant downside: if they announce today which titles will be available in Atmos, then they will harm sales of those titles in 5.1 between now and the launch. 

My guess is that all of the recent Atmos blockbusters will be available on BD at or around hardware availability time.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Agree about Frozen. I like the Marvel movies, in fact preferred CA2 to the first one, but it was one of those Atmos mixes that left me wondering why they even bothered. Maybe I will like it better at home.


I’d hope that their first release would be a movie that will really showcase what Atmos can do. In that case CA2 might be a poor choice.

BTW I love the Marvel movies too - recently had an at-home MCU-fest with all the movies played in chronological order over several nights.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> You might be thinking of last year's Disney offering of _The Lone Ranger_.


I didn’t understand why that movie was panned so much by the critics. The pacing could have been better in places but I thought it was a great, fun movie. The sequences at the end (on the train) were fabulous.



PeterTHX said:


> _Captain America_ has already been announced as having a 7.1 DTS-MA track.


That doesn't mean it won't be released in Atmos later though of course.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d hope that their first release would be a movie that will really showcase what Atmos can do. In that case CA2 might be a poor choice.
> 
> BTW I love the Marvel movies too - recently had an at-home MCU-fest with all the movies played in chronological order over several nights.


I hope it will be a real movie not some gimmicky animated stuff like they did with 3D you know how they had thing's shooting out of the TV to give you a wow factor... 
I want to see something like *Warhorse*


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I hope it will be a real movie not some gimmicky animated stuff like they did with 3D you know how they had thing's shooting out of the TV to give you a wow factor...
> I want to see something like *Warhorse*


AFAIK Warhorse wasn't an Atmos mix so it could be some time before they remix it for Atmos.

But there have been about 120 movies mixed in Atmos to date, so they will be the obvious first releases IMO as the work is already done.

Full list here: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## wse

It seems both can do DTS NeoX.

- Marant SR7008
- Pioneer SC-79

The Expendable and Dread are mastered in DTS Neo:X

Is Yamaha able to do DTS NeoX


----------



## kriktsemaj99

^ Yamaha don't support DTS Neo:X, and wth Atmos coming soon I assume they never will.


----------



## SoundChex

It's probably worth remembering that, _at least for the next few years_, the vast majority of people who buy a _TrueHD-with-Atmos_ *BD* will continue to watch|listen to it only as a "traditional" _TrueHD_ *BD*. So it seems to me that, beyond a handful of exemplar discs remixed|re-released specifically to showcase *Atmos*, there will be little value to the studios in re-releasing *Atmos* remixed *BD*s until there is a much larger installed consumer base of *Atmos* capable AVRs.
_


----------



## 7channelfreak

Are we expecting a price premium for the new Blurays with Atmos? I wouldn't think we would but new technology always tends to cost more. 

And how are we going to know which version we are getting when ordering from a service like Amazon? I'm guessing all new versions will get Atmos but there are lots out there without the new encoded Atmos bed.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> I hope it will be a real movie not some gimmicky animated stuff like they did with 3D you know how they had thing's shooting out of the TV to give you a wow factor...
> I want to see something like *Warhorse*


Along those lines . . .

I'm starting to feel jaded about Atmos based just on the movie titles that have been mentioned so far in this thread, none of which holds the least appeal for me. I wonder whether the promise of Atmos is really limited to just films heavy on special effects or whether it will provide a greater cinematic experience for what I would consider more artistically meaningful films as well. (Michael Sergant and SS9001, you know what I'm talking about!)


I have rather eclectic tastes myself and I don't mean to criticize anyone's preference in movies. I recognize and appreciate the draw for all types of movie entertainment; as they say, to each his own. But to illustrate my point, here are a broad handful of films I've seen in the past three years that I would gladly watch again with an Atmos soundtrack:


All is Lost
Searching for Sugar Man
The Tree of Life
Melancholia
The Descendants
Hugo
True Grit (Coen Bros. Remake)


I would like to hear the opinion of someone in the industry, such as FilmMixer, regarding whether, as a technician, he would enjoy working on such titles and how much he thinks Atmos would add to their cinematic effect.


----------



## SubSolar

chi_guy50 said:


> Along those lines . . .
> 
> I'm starting to feel jaded about Atmos based just on the movie titles that have been mentioned so far in this thread, none of which holds the least appeal for me. I wonder whether the promise of Atmos is really limited to just films heavy on special effects or whether it will provide a greater cinematic experience for what I would consider more artistically meaningful films as well. (Michael Sergant and SS9001, you know what I'm talking about!)
> 
> 
> I have rather eclectic tastes myself and I don't mean to criticize anyone's preference in movies. I recognize and appreciate the draw for all types of movie entertainment; as they say, to each his own. But to illustrate my point, here are a broad handful of films I've seen in the past three years that I would gladly watch again with an Atmos soundtrack:
> 
> 
> All is Lost
> Searching for Sugar Man
> The Tree of Life
> Melancholia
> The Descendants
> Hugo
> True Grit (Coen Bros. Remake)
> 
> 
> I would like to hear the opinion of someone in the industry, such as FilmMixer, regarding whether, as a technician, he would enjoy working on such titles and how much he thinks Atmos would add to their cinematic effect.



I'm pretty sure the studios and most fans are thinking more along the lines of movies such as Godzilla, Transformers and super hero movies for Dolby Atmos. You know, movies that will never be mentioned in the same breath with "Academy Award."


----------



## sdurani

There are movies that are not loud, busy blockbusters that have gotten Atmos mixes: Chasing Mavericks, Life of Pi, Mama, Trance, The Heat, Insidious 2, Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Transcendence, Million Dollar Arm, Jersey Boys, Dolphin Tale 2, etc.


----------



## Orbitron

U-571 would be awesome.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> Yeah, that probably counts as a flop. Pity, I read some of the books a long time ago and would like to see more and it was definitely layed up for sequels, but that'll probably never happen.


Thank the maker! There's a reason John Carter flopped. It was a mess of a movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> I'm pretty sure the studios and most fans are thinking more along the lines of movies such as Godzilla, Transformers and super hero movies for Dolby Atmos. You know, movies that will never be mentioned in the same breath with "Academy Award."


I’d expect that pretty much every movie will be mixed in Atmos eventually, just as pretty much every movie currently is in 5.1 - even very 'quiet' movies. No matter how 'quiet' a movie is, it usually has quite a lot of ambience, foley effects etc and, of course, music. It's a brand new format, so I'd expect it would take some time get a hold, just as 5.1 did when it first appeared.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. Nobody is more excited about Atmos at home than I am, but I can't quite see the fuss about titles at this time. We have been told there WILL be titles released this fall. Meantime, there is no way to use the titles even if they were released today, so there's no benefit really in knowing what they will be. And, from the studios' POV there is a significant downside: if they announce today which titles will be available in Atmos, then they will harm sales of those titles in 5.1 between now and the launch.
> 
> My guess is that all of the recent Atmos blockbusters will be available on BD at or around hardware availability time.


Definitely not all. A handful perhaps. Godzilla, Captain America 2, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, unless their covers undergo a massive revision, are listed with DTS tracks. 

If these same studios are supporting Atmos at some point, their selection process for which films get the Atmos treatment is pretty darn strange.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SubSolar said:


> I'm pretty sure the studios and most fans are thinking more along the lines of movies such as Godzilla, Transformers and super hero movies for Dolby Atmos. You know, movies that will never be mentioned in the same breath with "Academy Award."


Which is a real shame. Even soundtracks for dramas could be improved, even subtly (which what this technology is best for) with object audio.


----------



## tjenkins95

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thank the maker! There's a reason John Carter flopped. It was a mess of a movie.


 

It may have flopped but I hardly think it was a mess of a movie. It was exactly what it was supposed to be and I highly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> It may have flopped but I hardly think it was a mess of a movie. It was exactly what it was supposed to be and I highly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.


I couldn't relate to the characters at all, it seemed like the film was disjointed and almost chaotically edited (its troubled production showed glaringly on the screen), and the story was just silly.  Tarzan in space (which is what Burroughs was thinking about). The actress who played the princess was hot, of course, but that in and of itself doesn't make a great movie. 

Even the early 1980's _Flash Gordon_, while more cheesy/hammy, at least had a sense of tongue-in-cheek fun. 

But that discussion is for a different thread.


----------



## PeterTHX

SubSolar said:


> I'm pretty sure the studios and most fans are thinking more along the lines of movies such as Godzilla, Transformers and super hero movies for Dolby Atmos. You know, movies that will never be mentioned in the same breath with "Academy Award."


Never? Often those type of films get nominated and some win for Best Sound and Best Sound Editing.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAIK Warhorse wasn't an Atmos mix so it could be some time before they remix it for Atmos.
> 
> But there have been about 120 movies mixed in Atmos to date, so they will be the obvious first releases IMO as the work is already done.
> 
> Full list here: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


No I know War Horse wasn't an Atmos film but I would think that something along that type of film would be awesome in Dolby Atmos because it was incredible in dts-Master Audio 7.1 DreamWorks did a great job..... I'm kind of over it with all these animation cartoon type films I want real stuff or great futuristic stuff like ELYSIUM with great picture and atoms surround.
Mind you Avatar would be great in 3D with Dolby Atmos....


----------



## helvetica bold

I'm going to see Guardians of the Galaxy today in Atmos, can't wait.
I'm sure That will inspire me to get my home set up!


----------



## FilmMixer

bargervais said:


> No I know War Horse wasn't an Atmos film but I would think that something along that type of film would be awesome in Dolby Atmos because it was incredible in dts-Master Audio 7.1 DreamWorks did a great job..... I'm kind of over it with all these animation cartoon type films I want real stuff or great futuristic stuff like ELYSIUM with great picture and atoms surround.
> Mind you Avatar would be great in 3D with Dolby Atmos....


Dreamworks had nothing to do with the track. 

It was the tremendously talentrd sound team.


----------



## bargervais

John Carter was a flop in my opinion I bought it only because it was in 3D I'm sure upcoming bad movies that have atmos will sell more based on the fact it will have Atmos not because it's a great film...


----------



## RMK!

FilmMixer said:


> Dreamworks had nothing to do with the track.
> 
> It was the tremendously talentrd sound team.


Great sound ... but a horrible movie.


----------



## bargervais

RMK! said:


> Great sound ... but a horrible movie.


It goes to show you a bad movie with great sound will sell I can't wait to set up my atmos HT


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> Dreamworks had nothing to do with the track.
> 
> It was the tremendously talentrd sound team.


As a presumptive member of that "tremendously talented sound team," do you have any comments you'd care to share regarding my earlier question? What added dimension , if any, do you feel an Atmos mix would bring to a film such as, say, Alexander Payne's gloriously crafted "Nebraska"?


----------



## SubSolar

PeterTHX said:


> Never? Often those type of films get nominated and some win for Best Sound and Best Sound Editing.


Lol, you know what I mean, best picture, etc.


----------



## chi_guy50

SubSolar said:


> Lol, you know what I mean, best picture, etc.


I don't think there's any direct correlation between Best Picture Oscars and cinematic quality. It's much more a question of box office appeal and promotional lobbying.

Golden Globe and SAG Awards might be a more meaningful measure of a film's creative merit. (Personally, as an ardent cinephile, I put more weight in the objective evaluation of movie critcs whose judgment I trust, such as A.O. Scott of the N.Y. Times. I've heard him lecture, and he's a very insightful and well-grounded observer of filmdom.)


----------



## esappy

So this have been asked already and I apologize if it has, but can older non-Atmos movies be remixed with an Atmos soundtrack. Before anyone goes off on the 'why would they even bother' route, just take a look at the Terminator 2's & Army of Darkness's out there that have been re-released a million times. Obviously I'm not in the biz but I don't see why it couldn't be done if someone (or studio) wanted to spend the time and money to do so. It would also seem that if Atmos (and/or DTS UHD) become the new norm eventually then studios would dip back into the archives and re-release movies with Atmos. Personally I would love to see (hear?) movies such as The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, The Exorcist, & Aliens remixed in Atmos just to name a few. Could you imagine how much more scary The Exorcist could be with a proper Atmos mix! Gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.  Wishful thinking right now I know, but a guy can dream can't he?


----------



## batpig

You are that cynical that you think box office appeal is more correlated with Best Picture Oscar than cinematic quality? 

That's a bit hyperbolic. There are some stinkers than have won (*cough* Crash *cough*) but the vast majority of winners (and even nominees) are pretty darn good movies.


----------



## batpig

esappy said:


> So this have been asked already and I apologize if it has, but can older non-Atmos movies be remixed with an Atmos soundtrack. Before anyone goes off on the 'why would they even bother' route, just take a look at the Terminator 2's & Army of Darkness's out there that have been re-released a million times. Obviously I'm not in the biz but I don't see why it couldn't be done if someone (or studio) wanted to spend the time and money to do so. It would also seem that if Atmos (and/or DTS UHD) become the new norm eventually then studios would dip back into the archives and re-release movies with Atmos. Personally I would love to see (hear?) movies such as The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, The Exorcist, & Aliens remixed in Atmos just to name a few. Could you imagine how much more scary The Exorcist could be with a proper Atmos mix! Gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.  Wishful thinking right now I know, but a guy can dream can't he?


Short answer: yes

Long answer: read the thread


----------



## esappy

batpig said:


> Short answer: yes


Good enough for me! 

This thread is getting too long to re-read.


----------



## sdurani

SubSolar said:


> Lol, you know what I mean, best picture, etc.


Life of Pi and Gravity were nominated for Best Picture. I think both won Best Director. Atmos mixes aren't limited to certain types of movies.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> You are that cynical that you think box office appeal is more correlated with Best Picture Oscar than cinematic quality?
> 
> That's a bit hyperbolic. There are some stinkers than have won (*cough* Crash *cough*) but the vast majority of winners (and even nominees) are pretty darn good movies.


I said there's no direct correlation with cinematic quality, and I believe I specified the influence of both box office appeal AND promotional lobbying. I freely admit to being a cynic, but this was not a cynical statement if you stop to consider the millions of dollars the studios spend to try to sway AMPAS members in favor of their products--both directly and through public opinion. All I'm saying is that the politicking and revenue-producing angle have an inordinate influence on whose film is crowned Best Picture. I'll grant you that most nominees are decent enough films in one respect or another; but I think it's a regrettably rare instance that the winner of the award is truly the best movie of the year from the standpoint of objective cinematic criticism. I could go into gory detail analyzing the Oscar selections and snubs, but I don't feel this is the proper place for such a discussion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> I said there's no direct correlation with cinematic quality, and I believe I specified the influence of both box office appeal AND promotional lobbying. I freely admit to being a cynic, but this was not a cynical statement if you stop to consider the millions of dollars the studios spend to try to sway AMPAS members in favor of their products--both directly and through public opinion. All I'm saying is that the politicking and revenue-producing angle have an inordinate influence on whose film is crowned Best Picture. I'll grant you that most nominees are decent enough films in one respect or another; but I think it's a regrettably rare instance that the winner of the award is truly the best movie of the year from the standpoint of objective cinematic criticism. I could go into gory detail analyzing the Oscar selections and snubs, but I don't feel this is the proper place for such a discussion.


One of the truly deserving modern films to win Best Picture is _No Country for Old Men_. That's the exception to the rule, sadly. It was an almost perfect picture and one of the Coen Brothers best along with _Fargo_ and _Raising Arizona_.


----------



## batpig

Not to be too pedantic but if you are going to parse words, there is very obviously a direct correlation. Correlation implies a positive... um ... correlation. It doesn't imply a perfect ordinal match. Nor does it require that one variable to explain 100% of the outcomes. It's rare that Best Picture nominees are NOT very good movies. The average Best Picture nominee is better than the average non nominee. That is a correlation by definition. It doesn't mean the BEST picture always wins nor imply that there haven't been awful snubs or stinker winners. 

I would also take issue with the very concept of "objective" cinematic criticism. But we are straying way off topic.


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> I said there's no direct correlation with cinematic quality, and I believe I specified the influence of both box office appeal AND promotional lobbying. I freely admit to being a cynic, but this was not a cynical statement if you stop to consider the millions of dollars the studios spend to try to sway AMPAS members in favor of their products--both directly and through public opinion. All I'm saying is that the politicking and revenue-producing angle have an inordinate influence on whose film is crowned Best Picture. I'll grant you that most nominees are decent enough films in one respect or another; but I think it's a regrettably rare instance that the winner of the award is truly the best movie of the year from the standpoint of objective cinematic criticism. I could go into gory detail analyzing the Oscar selections and snubs, but I don't feel this is the proper place for such a discussion.


I'll be happy to answer your earlier question later....

However, as an AMPAS member, I think you're really off base. 

But that, as others have stated, is another discussion. 

I can tell you that my counterparts in the Academy, for the most part, devote much time in their deliberations.

What you may or may not think you know about it I would be happy to discuss in a private manner.


----------



## PeterTHX

RMK! said:


> Great sound ... but a horrible movie.


_War Horse_ a horrible movie? :eeksurprise: 


Well, there's always someone who won't like a well received movie I guess...(you're the first person I've seen who hated it).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> _War Horse_ a horrible movie? :eeksurprise:
> 
> 
> Well, there's always someone who won't like a well received movie I guess...(you're the first person I've seen who hated it).


I thought it was a big budget Hallmark movie of the week. Not one of Spielberg's better films.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Definitely not all. A handful perhaps. Godzilla, Captain America 2, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, unless their covers undergo a massive revision, are listed with DTS tracks.


Of course they are. They are not Atmos releases at this time.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course they are. They are not Atmos releases at this time.


So, what do you think then? Next year for those titles if ever?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't think there's any direct correlation between Best Picture Oscars and cinematic quality. It's much more a question of box office appeal and promotional lobbying.


And, unfortunately nowadays, political correctness.


----------



## kbarnes701

esappy said:


> So this have been asked already and I apologize if it has, but can older non-Atmos movies be remixed with an Atmos soundtrack.


Yes. Chicago and Die Hard have already been remixed for Atmos, so we are given to understand. It will depend on commercial potential I guess.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, what do you think then? Next year for those titles if ever?


Like I said, I think every theatrical Atmos mix will find its way to Bluray, sooner or later. Probably sooner, given that it is an easy job and there's money to be made from hardened double (triple, quadruple) dippers like me


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Like I said, I think every theatrical Atmos mix will find its way to Bluray, sooner or later. Probably sooner, given that it is an easy job and there's money to be made from hardened double (triple, quadruple) dippers like me


Are we sure the translation from commercial to consumer Atmos is easy? Wouldn't they have to adjust what gets placed as an object and what gets placed in the channel bed since it's pared down?


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> *U-571* would be awesome.


In Dolby Atmos; yes, most certainly.


----------



## NorthSky

...*'The Lord of the Rings'* Extended Edition Trilogy (LOTREE) also. ...Dolby Atmos, 3D, and 4K.


----------



## dragonleepenn

These will be my atmos ceiling speakers







still
Some work to be done. I think they will match nice enough with my 7. JTR's.8 Rythmik subs turn into a full atmos 7.8.4 setup.
I haven't decided it they will be flush flat to the ceiling or slightly angled.
What should I do?


PeterV


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> As a presumptive member of that "tremendously talented sound team," do you have any comments you'd care to share regarding my earlier question? What added dimension , if any, do you feel an Atmos mix would bring to a film such as, say, Alexander Payne's gloriously crafted "Nebraska"?


I never said I worked on the film... however, to credit the distribution company with the subjective quality of the sound track is plain wrong. 

They have nothing to do with the content or quality of the sound track.. it is the crew of sound editors, designers and mixers who did all of the work and whose creativity is heard on the soundtrack.

It can add a lot or a little.. it all depends on how much the director wants to expand the sound field, and what opportunities the film has to properly utilize the format to express the story. 

Just giving more options on where you can put sounds can really open up possibilities... in "The Heat" there is a scene in a bar where there is very little going on except the on screen conversation and a jukebox in the background (in addition to an off camera pool game we don't see..)

For the Atmos version, we just took the music and pulled it into the auditorium using the front set of surround speakers (not available to us in the 5.1.) 

It just opened up the conversation and sat in a different place, and I was able to turn it up a little bit more than I could in the 5.1 without it getting distracting..

It's a subtle change, but an important one...

Now that example relates to a theatrical setup with a bit more speakers than most people will have access to at home.... it's why I hope more manufacturers add wide options to their setups... outside of the overheads, it's really great to add speakers outside of the LR mains for pans, moves, etc..

So for a film like Nebraska, it might add some spaciousness to the backgrounds and score.. however, you don't know if it works for or against you until you try it, and have a conversation with the director to see if it is helping them to help tell the story.

Around here, many based their subjective opinion on the quality of a track based on how active the surrounds are and how much the LFE channel is used... they may not see the benefit of such subtle usage, but I'm thrilled we now have another tool at our disposal.

And why are you rolling your eyes?


----------



## Worf

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are we sure the translation from commercial to consumer Atmos is easy? Wouldn't they have to adjust what gets placed as an object and what gets placed in the channel bed since it's pared down?


Well, theatrical Atmos is similar to home Atmos - they have a channel bed (most theatres are still 5.1 or 7.1) and the objects are still objects. So there may be a bit of mixing to pare down the object count to 128 or so which is the limit of home receivers right now.

Dolby tends to use the same technologies for professional and home - the data storage is different, but the basic technology is identical. 

Better than trying to find a way to play some theatrical DTS CDs I have, anyways (theatrical DTS is completely different from home DTS).


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> ... it is the crew of sound editors, designers and mixers who did all of the work and whose creativity is heard on the soundtrack.
> 
> It can add a lot or a little.. it all depends on how much the director wants to expand the sound field, and what opportunities the film has to properly utilize the format to express the story.
> 
> Just giving more options on where you can put sounds can really open up possibilities... in "The Heat" there is a scene in a bar where there is very little going on except the on screen conversation and a jukebox in the background (in addition to an off camera pool game we don't see..)
> 
> For the Atmos version, we just took the music and pulled it into the auditorium using the front set of surround speakers (not available to us in the 5.1.)
> 
> It just opened up the conversation and sat in a different place, and I was able to turn it up a little bit more than I could in the 5.1 without it getting distracting..
> 
> It's a subtle change, but an important one...
> 
> Now that example relates to a theatrical setup with a bit more speakers than most people will have access to at home.... it's why I hope more manufacturers add wide options to their setups... outside of the overheads, it's really great to add speakers outside of the LR mains for pans, moves, etc..
> 
> So for a film like Nebraska, it might add some spaciousness to the backgrounds and score.. however, you don't know if it works for or against you until you try it, and have a conversation with the director to see if it is helping them to help tell the story.
> 
> Around here, many based their subjective opinion on the quality of a track based on how active the surrounds are and how much the LFE channel is used... they may not see the benefit of such subtle usage, but I'm thrilled we now have another tool at our disposal.


Marc, I enjoy reading stuff like that from you.


----------



## esappy

+1. Agree very much. Very insightful. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## markus767

dragonleepenn said:


> These will be my atmos ceiling speakers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still
> Some work to be done. I think they will match nice enough with my 7. JTR's.8 Rythmik subs turn into a full atmos 7.8.4 setup.
> I haven't decided it they will be flush flat to the ceiling or slightly angled.
> What should I do?
> 
> 
> PeterV


What drivers do you want to use?

Angled and flush mounted at the same time would be best albeit that would require substantial round overs in order to avoid diffraction effects.

This is a nice alternative solution:
http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/round-in-wall/CW180R-In-Wall-Speaker
The tweeter waveguide can be angled by ±30°


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> ...*'The Lord of the Rings'* Extended Edition Trilogy (LOTREE) also. ...Dolby Atmos, 3D, and 4K.


Yes, please.


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> I never said I worked on the film... however, to credit the distribution company with the subjective quality of the sound track is plain wrong.
> 
> They have nothing to do with the content or quality of the sound track.. it is the crew of sound editors, designers and mixers who did all of the work and whose creativity is heard on the soundtrack.
> 
> It can add a lot or a little.. it all depends on how much the director wants to expand the sound field, and what opportunities the film has to properly utilize the format to express the story.
> 
> Just giving more options on where you can put sounds can really open up possibilities... in "The Heat" there is a scene in a bar where there is very little going on except the on screen conversation and a jukebox in the background (in addition to an off camera pool game we don't see..)
> 
> For the Atmos version, we just took the music and pulled it into the auditorium using the front set of surround speakers (not available to us in the 5.1.)
> 
> It just opened up the conversation and sat in a different place, and I was able to turn it up a little bit more than I could in the 5.1 without it getting distracting..
> 
> It's a subtle change, but an important one...
> 
> Now that example relates to a theatrical setup with a bit more speakers than most people will have access to at home.... it's why I hope more manufacturers add wide options to their setups... outside of the overheads, it's really great to add speakers outside of the LR mains for pans, moves, etc..
> 
> So for a film like Nebraska, it might add some spaciousness to the backgrounds and score.. however, you don't know if it works for or against you until you try it, and have a conversation with the director to see if it is helping them to help tell the story.
> 
> Around here, many based their subjective opinion on the quality of a track based on how active the surrounds are and how much the LFE channel is used... they may not see the benefit of such subtle usage, but I'm thrilled we now have another tool at our disposal.
> 
> And why are you rolling your eyes?


Many thanks for that insight.



FilmMixer said:


> And why are you rolling your eyes?


Really? You missed the pun? (Hint: Think MDA.)


----------



## joerod

Holy Cow they better get Atmos out soon. If we are going to start debating every movie from the past!  Personally I bet wind would sound good "up there" too.


----------



## petetherock

Wonder why no one mentioned horror movies?
They will definitely feel more.... atmospheric


----------



## techop

I believe DirecTV transmits some programs in Dolby Digital Plus. Does that mean we can expect Atmos mixes (when available) on HBO, Showtime, etc via DirecTV? Or maybe their pay-per-view service?


----------



## dragonleepenn

markus767 said:


> What drivers do you want to use?
> 
> Angled and flush mounted at the same time would be best albeit that would require substantial round overs in order to avoid diffraction effects.
> 
> This is a nice alternative solution:
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/round-in-wall/CW180R-In-Wall-Speaker
> The tweeter waveguide can be angled by ±30°



I want to use the Bms 8" 8cn552 coaxial and the Bms 5440 CD.
The cabinets will be recessed into the ceiling with an angle toward the listening area/seats. Those are cool psb speakers but won't keep up with the high output of JTR's. Here is picture of the ceiling they will go in. I'll post a picture when they are installed over at DIY atmos thread.

PeterV


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ...*'The Lord of the Rings'* Extended Edition Trilogy (LOTREE) also. ...Dolby Atmos, 3D, and 4K.



Yes sign me up, along with Star Wars, Prometheus, Alien series and all the good sci-fi movies such as Blade Runner....


----------



## Zen Traveler

Orbitron said:


> U-571 would be awesome.


I'm Old School...I have been following this thread since it's inception and when the subject of "double dipping" and what would be good in Atmos my first thought was "Das Boot." That said, my wife told me after my third purchase of a different format/cut of that great movie "Why in the hell do you need one more copy of Das Boot!"

I can't remember but now have at least 5 different remakes and know my wife will NOT be happy if I need to purchase a new AVR to experience yet another version of it, but possibly if they also release "Practical Magic" in Dolby Atmos it could help sway her into us joining the upcoming Atmos Revolution.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Yes sign me up, along with Star Wars, Prometheus, Alien series and all the good sci-fi movies such as Blade Runner....


The only trouble with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is that they'll have to be 2k up-converts unless they went back to the negatives to rescan them at 4k, and re-did all of the special effects. The studios won't spend that kind of money. You'll get a better color gamut and bit depth, but the detail won't be 4k. Yes to a full Atmos remix, of course.


----------



## RMK!

Had my first Atmos experience yesterday (Guardians of the Galaxy) at a decent commercial theater. The highlight was the Dolby Atmos demos prior to the movie. I found the effects less noticeable during the movie but overall a good sound experience. I think 4 in or on ceiling speakers will set me up for Atmos. 

I'd like to get the details of Dragonleepenn's build ... Peter? 

BTW, fun film and looking forward to the sequel ...


----------



## RichB

joerod said:


> Personally I bet wind would sound good "up there" too.



Here is a chart of instrument frequencies:


https://www.google.com/search?q=fre...frequency-chart-for-instruments.html;1026;709




Speakers crossed above 180Hz will not be capable of producing most of them including the human voice.
God will be speaking from above 


- Rich


----------



## RichB

joerod said:


> Personally I bet wind would sound good "up there" too.


 
Here is a chart of instrument frequencies:

http://djfrobot.blogspot.com/2010/04/eq-frequency-chart-for-instruments.html



Speakers crossed above 180Hz will not be capable of producing most of them including the human voice.
God will not be speaking from above or will she? 


- Rich


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> Wonder why no one mentioned horror movies?


_'Mama'_ and _'Insidious 2'_ lent themselves very well to mixing in Atmos, especially because the quiet moments really let you appreciate the unique advantages of the technology. The sense of things happening off-screen and overall creepiness was remarkable.


----------



## bargervais

RMK! said:


> Had my first Atmos experience yesterday (Guardians of the Galaxy) at a decent commercial theater. The highlight was the Dolby Atmos demos prior to the movie. I found the effects less noticeable during the movie but overall a good sound experience. I think 4 in or on ceiling speakers will set me up for Atmos.
> 
> I'd like to get the details of Dragonleepenn's build ... Peter?
> 
> BTW, fun film and looking forward to the sequel ...


That's the first I hear that someone who saw an Atmos film didn't notice much of an effect please explain. That's one of my big fears that when I get all set up that it won't be much different then what I have with my 11.2 speaker set up my listening modes can only do 9 at a time. So let's hope your experience is the exception and not the rule....


----------



## RMK!

bargervais said:


> That's the first I hear that someone who saw an Atmos film didn't notice much of an effect please explain. That's one of my big fears that when I get all set up that it won't be much different then what I have with my 11.2 speaker set up my listening modes can only do 9 at a time. So let's hope your experience is the exception and not the rule....


I'm sure that during the film there were many moments when the ceiling speakers were active but I just didn't notice them. That may be a good thing but I'm just sayin ...

Now the Dolby Atmos demo clips were a different story. All of the speaker locations were utilized and to great effect. I like it but with many films they may be underutilized. 

A solution looking for a problem?


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> That's the first I hear that someone who saw an Atmos film didn't notice much of an effect please explain.


Having seen over two dozen movies in Atmos, there are only a handful of them that I felt had memorable Atmos mixes. There are many more (loud, busy soundtracks) that made me wonder why they even bothered with Atmos.


RMK! said:


> A solution looking for a problem?


The inability to localize sounds in movie theatres with the sort of precision we take for granted at home was a real problem, as was the inability for channel-based systems to scale to varying speaker counts.


----------



## RichB

RMK! said:


> I'm sure that during the film there were many moments when the ceiling speakers were active but I just didn't notice them. That may be a good thing but I'm just sayin ...
> 
> Now the Dolby Atmos demo clips were a different story. All of the speaker locations were utilized and to great effect. I like it but with many films they may be underutilized.
> 
> A solution looking for a problem?


I just got back from Guardians from the Galaxy. It was an Atmos theater but I can't really say I noticed it.
The movie was a lot a fun and the new assigned recliner seating is a marvel 


Atmos is an attempt to rejuvenate HT. Time will tell whether the benefit has wide appeal. 


- Rich


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Having seen over two dozen movies in Atmos, there are only a handful of them that I felt had memorable Atmos mixes. There are many more (loud, busy soundtracks) that made me wonder why they even bothered with Atmos. The inability to localize sounds in movie theatres with the sort of precision we take for granted at home was a real problem, as was the inability for channel-based systems to scale to varying speaker counts.


That tells me that I should wait till these things have been on the market for a while. I don't want to be one of the first test subjects like I was with 3D I jumped right in replaced just about everything TV, RECEIVERS, BLU-Ray players and then the 3D blu-ray disc trickled in I hate to say this I just have to hold out till the second generation receivers come along.......


----------



## NorthSky

joerod said:


> Holy Cow they better get Atmos out soon. If we are going to start debating every movie from the past!  Personally I bet wind would sound good "up there" too.


We all work for the new ministry of surround sound affairs justice department.  ...A!mos!


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> Wonder why no one mentioned horror movies?
> They will definitely feel more.... *atmos*pheric


What a nice touch! 

* Sci-fi flicks too, even if no one can hear you scream in space. ...Movies are all about atmospherics anyway.
...A mix of illusions with realism. ..This is Entertainment.


----------



## NorthSky

dragonleepenn said:


> I want to use the Bms 8" 8cn552 coaxial and the Bms 5440 CD.
> The cabinets will be recessed into the ceiling with an angle toward the listening area/seats. Those are cool psb speakers but won't keep up with the high output of JTR's. Here is picture of the ceiling they will go in. I'll post a picture when they are installed over at DIY atmos thread.
> 
> PeterV


You have a very nice home theater room Peter.


----------



## NorthSky

Zen Traveler said:


> I'm Old School...I have been following this thread since it's inception and when the subject of "double dipping" and what would be good in Atmos my first thought was "Das Boot." That said, my wife told me after my third purchase of a different format/cut of that great movie "Why in the hell do you need one more copy of Das Boot!"
> 
> I can't remember but now have at least 5 different remakes and know my wife will NOT be happy if I need to purchase a new AVR to experience yet another version of it, but possibly if they also release "Practical Magic" in Dolby Atmos it could help sway her into us joining the upcoming Atmos Revolution.


Dolby Atmos shouldn't be mix with wives too much; only with extreme reservation. ...Best to keep secret.


----------



## dragonleepenn

Thank you Northsky.






PeterV


----------



## helvetica bold

RichB said:


> I just got back from Guardians from the Galaxy. It was an Atmos theater but I can't really say I noticed it.
> The movie was a lot a fun and the new assigned recliner seating is a marvel
> 
> 
> Atmos is an attempt to rejuvenate HT. Time will tell whether the benefit has wide appeal.
> 
> 
> - Rich


I has the same experience. The Atmos mix for Guardians didn't sound that much different from the normal surround. I saw it twice, watched an early screening for free. Then I checked it out in Atmos. 
For me Star Trek into Darkness had the most impressive Atmos mix.


----------



## noah katz

SoundChex said:


> It's probably worth remembering that, _at least for the next few years_, the vast majority of people who buy a _TrueHD-with-Atmos_ *BD* will continue to watch|listen to it only as a "traditional" _TrueHD_ *BD*. So it seems to me that, beyond a handful of exemplar discs remixed|re-released specifically to showcase *Atmos*, there will be little value to the studios in re-releasing *Atmos* remixed *BD*s until there is a much larger installed consumer base of *Atmos* capable AVRs.
> _


Why would people pay for Atmos hardware if there's hardly any s/w for it?

Seems to me it behooves the studios to make the incremental upfront investment to get the ball rolling.


----------



## noah katz

NorthSky said:


> * Sci-fi flicks too, even if no one can hear you scream in space. ...Movies are all about atmospherics anyway.


Don't you mean atmosfearics?


----------



## NorthSky

dragonleepenn said:


> Thank you Northsky.
> 
> PeterV


I like your 'sky'. ...Is it the north sky? ...Better sky for overhead Atmos speakers; cleaner and clearer. ;-)
...You can hear more, more here, more there, from the north sky. ...Clearer sky, overall, overhead.


----------



## bargervais

I'm thinking the studios should already have a whole slew of titles ready and in stores before the atoms receivers are released. It always seems backwards to me maybe studios are waiting to see how many atmos receivers are out there before they start cranking out Blu-Ray 's.
Let's hope that's not the case this time like it was with 3D.......


----------



## NorthSky

It is a smart approach for movie studios to wait for them Dolby Atmos products to be released first; no use to take the time to encode them Blu-rays with that new audio codec if the 'machines' couldn't reproduce the "new elevated thing" in the proper 'object' directional perspective.

Just to re-calibrate the Auto Room Correction and EQ systems from all the various AV receivers and SSP's manufacturers in harmony (unison) with Dolby Atmos is a new elevated challenge in itself. ...It takes more processing power from new DSP chips, and good implementation by smart and highly skilled audio technicians. ...Not everyone is up to that high standard of intelligent surround sound caliber. 

My take.


----------



## Kris Deering

Of all the Atmos mixes I've heard in theaters, and I have heard A LOT of them, Gravity and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had the most engaging surround experience. Most of the other films haven't done anything that sounds any different than I'm used to with traditional sound mixes. I would love to do an A/B comparison with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes with a few scenes to see how much of a difference the Atmos mix actually made or if it is just a really well done sound mix in the surround soundstage. It isn't like before Atmos I had never heard a good surround mix. This is another thing I'm hoping for at CEDIA, good A/B presentations with both a traditional mix and then an Atmos mix of the same content.


----------



## noah katz

Good to see you here, Kris.



Kris Deering said:


> This is another thing I'm hoping for at CEDIA, good A/B presentations with both a traditional mix and then an Atmos mix of the same content.


Should be as simple as switching the processor from Atmos to 5.1/7.1, though not sure how simple that is since it involves different speaker configs.


----------



## Orbitron

After watching the video on how Godzilla got his roar, a purchase for sure when the Atmos Blu-ray comes out.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/dolby-atmos-how-godzilla-got-his-roar


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> After watching the video on how Godzilla got his roar, a purchase for sure when the Atmos Blu-ray comes out.
> 
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/dolby-atmos-how-godzilla-got-his-roar


Gonna have to wait for the next video release because this one sure doesn't have an Atmos mix.


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> Gonna have to wait for the next video release because this one sure doesn't have an Atmos mix.


Release date is Sept. 16, rental only till Atmos version available.


----------



## Kris Deering

Xmen Days of Future Past isn't showing Atmos either, only DTS.


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> Don't you mean *atmosfearics*?


Wise axe!


----------



## NorthSky

By the way, the Blu-ray of *'Gravity'* (2D & 3D) is pretty *atmos*pheric, sound (& 3D picture) wise already, without Dolby Atmos.

But yes, I agree, some films will probably be more effective than *most* @ an elevated surround experience with a Dolby Atmos system. A lot of that will depend on the sound engineers for movie studios. Because the transfers of those soundtracks will directly reflect on our new Blu-ray movie purchases with the new Dolby Atmos audio encoding.

And my best guess is that it will be aimed mainly at new blockbusters, and not older ones. ...At least for the first few years. 
Also, we'll be able perhaps to apply the Dolby Atmos audio mode with our already mixed Dolby TrueHD audio Blu-rays from our BD collections. But I am not too sure about that; perhaps Roger (Dressler) already mentioned some' in that regard previously.


----------



## helvetica bold

It's strange, I saw Godzilla in a new RPX theater in Atlanta while I was on a business trip. I remember thinking at the time I was not blown away by the audio or the movie. But I was blow away by Star Trek into Darkness in Atmos. I guess your milage will vary. I think it depends where you're seated. I was perfectly centered while watching Star Trek that was not the case with Godzilla.

I still can't wait to see if game developers will take advantage of the extra speakers. I play a lot of Battlefield and the potential is massive!


----------



## noah katz

Orbitron said:


> After watching the video on how Godzilla got his roar, a purchase for sure when the Atmos Blu-ray comes out.
> 
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/dolby-atmos-how-godzilla-got-his-roar


Is it just me or was that a tease; seems like they held back on really letting you hear it (I haven't seen it yet so can't tell).


----------



## sdurani

Orbitron said:


> After watching the video on how Godzilla got his roar, a purchase for sure when the Atmos Blu-ray comes out.


One nice thing about the Atmos presentation was hearing Godzilla's roar come from above.


----------



## doublewing11

helvetica bold said:


> It's strange, I saw Godzilla in a new RPX theater in Atlanta while I was on a business trip. I remember thinking at the time I was not blown away by the audio or the movie. But I was blow away by Star Trek into Darkness in Atmos. I guess your milage will vary. I think it depends where you're seated. I was perfectly centered while watching Star Trek that was not the case with Godzilla.
> 
> I still can't wait to see if game developers will take advantage of the extra speakers. I play a lot of Battlefield and the potential is massive!



Wouldn't have mattered where you sat........Godzilla was horse pucky. I sat smack dab in middle of theater.........

My first and only exposure to Atmos via fore-mentioned movie. After 10 minutes into film, I found myself concentrating on sound field rather than watching this cinema disaster........literally. Though I came out of theater unimpressed, I did realize the tremendous potential for object based audio..........hence, I'm committed to implementing in my room.


----------



## Jim S.

The chart circulating on the overhead atmos speakers shows a single row configuration with the rear ceiling speaker at 125-150 degrees. Where do the rear ceiling speakers go when you have a typical 2 row home theater. Where do you position and point them? To the second row Somewhere in between the first and second row?


----------



## esappy

Saw Gaurdians of the Galaxy today with the family. We decided to go all out and went for the full RPX at the Regal Landing in Renton, Wa. The theater itself is decent sized but not massive. The speaker layout had 7 speakers down each side, 7 speakers in each line overhead for Atmos for a total of 14, and six speakers across the back wall. I am assuming there are 3 behind the screen in front and I dont know how many subs they had. So that is at least 37 + subs that I could see. They were also Klipsch speakers. 

For the subjective part, I have to admit that in the more intense action sequences it was tough to tell which sounds were coming from above you. Sounds were coming from everywhere. But what did seem to stand out more was the quieter scenes. There is a scene in a cave I think it was and to me I believed I was in there with the characters. The sound was huge. You could hear echoes from all directions including above you and I thought that was great. But this is all subjective on my part. Do I think Atmos was worth it? In some scenes absolutely, in others not sure I noticed. But another thing I will admit is that while I was trying to listen for specific effects from overhead, I more often just found myself just engrossed in the movie. We loved it and it will be a must buy for us.  

It would be interesting to get the chance to get a private viewing before/after hours and turn off the main speakers and just leave the overheads on to hear what is really in them. 

Nice to hear from you Kris. I really need to give you a call.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> One nice thing about the Atmos presentation was hearing Godzilla's roar come from above.


So that's the oft cited VOG thing?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are we sure the translation from commercial to consumer Atmos is easy? Wouldn't they have to adjust what gets placed as an object and what gets placed in the channel bed since it's pared down?


AIUI once the mix has been done for the theatrical release, the work has also been done for the BD release. It scales.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are we sure the translation from commercial to consumer Atmos is easy? Wouldn't they have to adjust what gets placed as an object and what gets placed in the channel bed since it's pared down?


Theatrical Atmos mixes are (also still) based on channels so the same rules apply as before - home theaters and living rooms are acoustically different from movie theaters. A remix for home is probably a good idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Of all the Atmos mixes I've heard in theaters, and I have heard A LOT of them, Gravity and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had the most engaging surround experience. Most of the other films haven't done anything that sounds any different than I'm used to with traditional sound mixes. I would love to do an A/B comparison with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes with a few scenes to see how much of a difference the Atmos mix actually made or if it is just a really well done sound mix in the surround soundstage. It isn't like before Atmos I had never heard a good surround mix. This is another thing I'm hoping for at CEDIA, good A/B presentations with both a traditional mix and then an Atmos mix of the same content.


You've never heard voices localised to the on-screen action before though, like you did with Dawn. Every ape's voice was precisely located to where the ape was, even when he was off screen, and in a crowd of apes, you could hear the crowd but you could also pick out the most important apes' individual voices too. I've heard some amazing surround experiences in my time, but never heard that before. Mainly, of course, because it was impossible before


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Xmen Days of Future Past isn't showing Atmos either, only DTS.


Not likely to until the Atmos release is available though is it? After September is when you are likely to see the Atmos Bluray release.

I have scaled back my purchases of recent movies now (if they were mixed in Atmos) so that I don't have to double dip them in a few weeks time.


----------



## ss9001

^^
I'm in same quandary. This year has had a lot of SF movies that I'm eager to get my paws on but trying to resist temptation as long as I can on ones that were cinema Atmos. I won't wait a year tho, maybe 4-6 months  If it comes to double dip, so be it but there's a list of dozen or more 2014 high profile movies that are on my list to buy.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> So that's the oft cited VOG thing?


LOL, took me a moment to add zilla to the end of that channel name (brain doesn't turn on without morning coffee).


----------



## SoundChex

According to both *Audiophile.No* (_link_) and the *2L.No* (_link_) *RELEASE PLAN 2014-2016* (_select "release plan 2013-2014"_), the *2L* label will release *MAGNIFICAT*, a *pureaudio* (_link_) *BD *from *TrondheimSolistene,* containing both *9.1 Auro-3D* and *Dolby Atmos *encodes of the same recorded material*.* (The *2L* label has previously released some *BD*s with both *DTS-HDMA* and *9.1 Auro-3D* content.*)
*_
Perhaps someone will do a "technology comparison" and report here...?!_ 
_


----------



## grtuck

SoundChex said:


> According to both *Audiophile.No* (_link_) and the *2L.No* (_link_) *RELEASE PLAN 2014-2016* (_select "release plan 2013-2014"_), the *2L* label will release *MAGNIFICAT*, a *pureaudio* (_link_) *BD *from *TrondheimSolistene,* containing both *9.1 Auro-3D* and *Dolby Atmos *encodes of the same recorded material*.* (The *2L* label has previously released some *BD*s with both *DTS-HDMA* and *9.1 Auro-3D* content.*)
> *_
> Perhaps someone will do a "technology comparison" and report here...?!_
> _


That is exciting to hear, I really like 2L. Very enjoyable to listen to, I'll definitely be buying that one.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Not likely to until the Atmos release is available though is it? After September is when you are likely to see the Atmos Bluray release.
> 
> I have scaled back my purchases of recent movies now (if they were mixed in Atmos) so that I don't have to double dip them in a few weeks time.


I'm sorry but if studios are literally holding out titles so they can double dip a month after their normal release than that is just going to piss people off and is an absolutely AWFUL idea. And frankly, I don't see it happening. If Xmen had a Dolby track on it now I could see them putting the extension in there and staying quiet about it until the Dolby announcement but that isn't even the case. Same for Malifecient, which is showing DTS only as well despite being an Atmos track. This year's summer tentpoles would have been a great opportunity for some strong titles to release with it but I have serious doubts that the studios are all of a sudden now going to release a third version of a title a month or so later after already putting out a 2D and 3D version of each. That is NOT the way to start out on the consumers good side.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> You've never heard voices localised to the on-screen action before though, like you did with Dawn. Every ape's voice was precisely located to where the ape was, even when he was off screen, and in a crowd of apes, you could hear the crowd but you could also pick out the most important apes' individual voices too. I've heard some amazing surround experiences in my time, but never heard that before. Mainly, of course, because it was impossible before


Can't agree, imaging on screen for voices was great, but it didn't stand out. I've heard LOTS of theatrical mixes that track nearly perfect with the onscreen imagery. It isn't hard considering how most films are shot with the focal point in the image right around where a channel would be behind it. If they couldn't get that imaging correct there were issues with the setup. Dawn sounded fantastic, but the vocal imaging onscreen was anything but a highlight for me, both times I saw it.


----------



## redjr

Zen Traveler said:


> I'm Old School...I have been following this thread since it's inception and when the subject of "double dipping" and what would be good in Atmos my first thought was "Das Boot." That said, my wife told me after my third purchase of a different format/cut of that great movie "Why in the hell do you need one more copy of Das Boot!"
> 
> I can't remember but now have at least 5 different remakes and know my wife will NOT be happy if I need to purchase a new AVR to experience yet another version of it, but possibly if they also release "Practical Magic" in Dolby Atmos it could help sway her into us joining the upcoming Atmos Revolution.


I hear you on that one. I hate to double-dip, but have done it on occasion. I'm certainly going to try and resist the temptation of double-dipping with Atmos releases. Unless of course Atmos is just so compelling that I must have.  My wife rolls her eyes now when I bring home one from the bargain bin! I can see her expression now when I start discussing an upgraded AVR.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Can't agree, imaging on screen for voices was great, but it didn't stand out. I've heard LOTS of theatrical mixes that track nearly perfect with the onscreen imagery. It isn't hard considering how most films are shot with the focal point in the image right around where a channel would be behind it. If they couldn't get that imaging correct there were issues with the setup. Dawn sounded fantastic, but the vocal imaging onscreen was anything but a highlight for me, both times I saw it.


Yes, but not since SDDS 8-channel (or 70mm six-track) have we had the potential for five behind the screen speakers. On large screens the front sound stage can be much wider with superior directionalized dialog. We've normally had mono dialog tracks located in the center speaker. It's a rare thing to have dialog get tracked with the actors' locations on screen or off.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, but not since SDDS 8-channel (or 70mm six-track) have we had the potential for five behind the screen speakers. On large screens the front sound stage can be much wider with superior directionalized dialog. We've normally had mono dialog tracks located in the center speaker. It's a rare thing to have dialog get tracked with the actors' locations on screen or off.


Don't get me wrong Dan, I'm ALL about having more channels to spread the wealth theatrically. I'm just saying that dialogue localization and imaging onscreen is probably the least objectionable thing I ever hear/see at a theater, even one with a more simplistic audio system. Even at home it is rarely an issue unless the mix has hard pans to a left/right channel (Disney is notorious for this). Heck I remember when a bunch of people were trying to get better imaging on screen at home by adding the Circle Surround Jr boxes to create another channel in between the center and the mains on either side. But with a proper setup and good phasing by the mixer, this shouldn't be needed at all.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> So that's the oft cited VOG thing?



I think that the Voice of Godzilla is new!


----------



## Orbitron

redjr said:


> I hear you on that one. I hate to double-dip, but have done it on occasion. I'm certainly going to try and resist the temptation of double-dipping with Atmos releases. Unless of course Atmos is just so compelling that I must have.  My wife rolls her eyes now when I bring home one from the bargain bin! I can see her expression now when I start discussing an upgraded AVR.


Indy Jones and the Last Crusade - VHS, S-VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-ray - May as well do an Atmos remix and version #7 .


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol @ Indy on S-VHS or HD-DVD! 



kbarnes701 said:


> Not likely to until the Atmos release is available though is it? After September is when you are likely to see the Atmos Bluray release.
> 
> I have scaled back my purchases of recent movies now (if they were mixed in Atmos) so that I don't have to double dip them in a few weeks time.


Keith, my pal. Do you seriously think that ANY studio would simply re-release a brand new title weeks later in Atmos? I sure hope not cuz you are setting yourself up for a major disappoint if that is your expectation. As if all of a sudden the studio decision makers are going to just start churning out Atmos titles as if they were as excited about this as we are.

But... I wish, man.

However they really _should_ have been doing it already what with these 'snuck in that Atmos for ya' mantras being repeated. Yeaaahhh not happening. 

I wish.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol @ Indy on S-VHS or HD-DVD!
> 
> 
> 
> Keith, my pal. Do you seriously think that ANY studio would simply re-release a brand new title weeks later in Atmos? I sure hope not cuz you are setting yourself up for a major disappoint if that is your expectation. As if all of a sudden the studio decision makers are going to just start churning out Atmos titles as if they were as excited about this as we are.
> 
> But... I wish, man.
> 
> *However they really should have been doing it already* what with these 'snuck in that Atmos for ya' mantras being repeated. Yeaaahhh not happening.
> 
> I wish.


Studio heads are still not that bright.  

They'll probably just dip their toe in the Atmos waters this year. A couple catalog remixes, a couple new Holiday releases, and then wait...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. Doing plenty of waiting. That's for sure.


----------



## Kris Deering

Spider Man 2 and Captain America also DTS. 

Maybe the first title will be Extended Edition of The Hobbit?? But so far it looks like the bulk of the summer tentpole films are DTS only. Hope Dolby has some good news next month at CEDIA including that you don't have to rebuy all these movies in Atmos weeks after you bought it the first time.


----------



## bargervais

One thing we learned from when 3D first came along I don't want to bore you with the details if you jumped into the 3D craze like I did you know what I'm talking about..
I just don't understand why the studios will wait. my thinking is the studios should have dolby atmos blu-ray's ready for sale when the receivers are available at the same time sales should feed each other and it should be a win win for both parties.


----------



## PeterTHX

Kris Deering said:


> Same for Malifecient, which is showing DTS only as well despite being an Atmos track.



DTS-MA confirmed?


The press release from BVHE said "7.1" and no codec information, which was really unusual since they always did before.


----------



## bkeeler10

Kris Deering said:


> Don't get me wrong Dan, I'm ALL about having more channels to spread the wealth theatrically. I'm just saying that dialogue localization and imaging onscreen is probably the least objectionable thing I ever hear/see at a theater, even one with a more simplistic audio system. Even at home it is rarely an issue unless the mix has hard pans to a left/right channel (Disney is notorious for this). Heck I remember when a bunch of people were trying to get better imaging on screen at home by adding the Circle Surround Jr boxes to create another channel in between the center and the mains on either side. But with a proper setup and good phasing by the mixer, this shouldn't be needed at all.


Kris, I just noted a change in your signature (pretty sure anyway). Are you no longer writing for S&V?


----------



## Kris Deering

bkeeler10 said:


> Kris, I just noted a change in your signature (pretty sure anyway). Are you no longer writing for S&V?


That's correct, I've taken a role at Secrets as their new Senior Video Editor. I liked the gang at S&V but it was time to move on. Going back to Secrets was a no brainer as I can be as technical as I want for reviews and I don't have to worry about word counts or adding new objective testing. It is just a better fit for the kind of reviews I like to do and want to see. Stacey Spears is coming back aboard in a joint role with me and I think together we can bring a lot to the Secrets team and reviews going forward. Should be a lot of fun.


----------



## Kris Deering

PeterTHX said:


> DTS-MA confirmed?
> 
> 
> The press release from BVHE said "7.1" and no codec information, which was really unusual since they always did before.


Good call, I see that a bunch of the sites are showing DTS 7.1 but the press release doesn't. So maybe this will be.


----------



## tjenkins95

PeterTHX said:


> DTS-MA confirmed?
> 
> 
> The press release from BVHE said "7.1" and no codec information, which was really unusual since they always did before.


 

What is BVHE?


----------



## Scott Simonian

tjenkins95 said:


> What is BVHE?


Buena Vista Home Entertainment


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> One thing we learned from when 3D first came along I don't want to bore you with the details if you jumped into the 3D craze like I did you know what I'm talking about..
> I just don't understand why the studios will wait. my thinking is the studios should have dolby atmos blu-ray's ready for sale when the receivers are available at the same time sales should feed each other and it should be a win win for both parties.


But then these same "brilliant" marketing executives will have had to have grown a brain since then. Not likely.


----------



## RichB

bargervais said:


> One thing we learned from when 3D first came along I don't want to bore you with the details if you jumped into the 3D craze like I did you know what I'm talking about..
> I just don't understand why the studios will wait. my thinking is the studios should have dolby atmos blu-ray's ready for sale when the receivers are available at the same time sales should feed each other and it should be a win win for both parties.



If it costs them money, why should they release in Atmos. There little benefit for them.
DTS-MA saves space if that is an issue.


- Rich


----------



## Nightlord

RichB said:


> If it costs them money, why should they release in Atmos. There little benefit for them.
> DTS-MA saves space if that is an issue.


If there's title that have formats people can't play, they might upgrade... So sales of receivers may go up, thus more people who might buy re-releases of their old movies. It's just a question whether their financial department understands technology good enough or not...


----------



## noah katz

That's great news, congratulations to you, and us!



Kris Deering said:


> That's correct, I've taken a role at Secrets as their new Senior Video Editor. I liked the gang at S&V but it was time to move on. Going back to Secrets was a no brainer as I can be as technical as I want for reviews and I don't have to worry about word counts or adding new objective testing. It is just a better fit for the kind of reviews I like to do and want to see. Stacey Spears is coming back aboard in a joint role with me and I think together we can bring a lot to the Secrets team and reviews going forward. Should be a lot of fun.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol @ Indy on S-VHS or HD-DVD!
> 
> 
> 
> Keith, my pal. Do you seriously think that ANY studio would simply re-release a brand new title weeks later in Atmos? I sure hope not cuz you are setting yourself up for a major disappoint if that is your expectation. As if all of a sudden the studio decision makers are going to just start churning out Atmos titles as if they were as excited about this as we are.
> 
> But... I wish, man.
> 
> However they really _should_ have been doing it already what with these 'snuck in that Atmos for ya' mantras being repeated. Yeaaahhh not happening.
> 
> I wish.


I don't think they have much choice. They won’t want to delay the release of the current crop of Blurays, but they can't very well release them in Atmos right now.

Saying that a current release is in DTS HD-MA doesn’t mean that it won’t have an Atmos release - that would be crazy for new movies already mixed in Atmos. So the only question is when will the Atmos version be released? You think they'd want to wait till, what? Xmas? New year? Easter? Why? They will want to release as many as they can to coincide with the hardware launch. And the brilliant way this launch has been handled and co-ordinated, worldwide, makes me believe there will be plenty of content from Day One.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> They will want to release as many as they can to coincide with the hardware launch. And the brilliant way this launch has been handled and co-ordinated, worldwide, makes me believe there will be plenty of content from Day One.


if one were a half-empty guy, let's be reminded of how quickly many studios were to jump on the Blu-ray wagon. as in MIA Fox 

Sony was one of the few Blu-ray exclusive studios to actually launch the format, with the help of Disney & format-neutral WB. 

Fox was nowhere to be found for many months, maybe even closer to a year before they really embraced it.

I happen to agree that we can expect content soon, some studios will quickly announce titles, but some will lag (Fox again?) to see how well they sell/rent/stream.

We're still waiting for a non-proprietary form of UHD delivery & content. It's been about 2 yrs since UHD TV's & PJ's were launched.

I'm hopeful and eager to see the studios quickly bring out Atmos titles but we've been down this road before. Studios rarely seem to act in their own best interests. To my eyes, they seem to be ultraconservative when it comes to home video.

I fully believe we'll have some BD titles by end of 2014. but I think predicting we'll have more than a dozen or so end of 1st qtr 2015 is risky  Studios would have to change their historical behavior for that not to be the case.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ss9001 said:


> if one were a half-empty guy, let's be reminded of how quickly many studios were to jump on the Blu-ray wagon. as in MIA Fox
> 
> Sony was one of the few Blu-ray exclusive studios to actually launch the format, with the help of Disney & format-neutral WB.
> 
> Fox was nowhere to be found for many months, maybe even closer to a year before they really embraced it.
> 
> I happen to agree that we can expect content soon, some studios will quickly announce titles, but some will lag (Fox again?) to see how well they sell/rent/stream.
> 
> We're still waiting for a non-proprietary form of UHD delivery & content. It's been about 2 yrs since UHD TV's & PJ's were launched.
> 
> I'm hopeful and eager to see the studios quickly bring out Atmos titles but we've been down this road before. Studios rarely seem to act in their own best interests. To my eyes, they seem to be ultraconservative when it comes to home video.
> 
> only personal opinion but I certainly do think we'll have some BD titles by end of 2014. but I don't think we can expect more than a dozen or so by early 2015 at best. this opinion is just going by how slowly they acted implementing HD formats and are now acting with 4K content.


Unfortunately, that may be the case. They don't seem to coordinate well with electronics companies, even when some of them are owned _by_ electronics companies.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think they have much choice. They won’t want to delay the release of the current crop of Blurays, but they can't very well release them in Atmos right now.
> 
> Saying that a current release is in DTS HD-MA doesn’t mean that it won’t have an Atmos release - that would be crazy for new movies already mixed in Atmos. So the only question is when will the Atmos version be released? You think they'd want to wait till, what? Xmas? New year? Easter? Why? They will want to release as many as they can to coincide with the hardware launch. And the brilliant way this launch has been handled and co-ordinated, worldwide, makes me believe there will be plenty of content from Day One.


Keith, studios are VERY good and doing the wrong thing when it comes to this stuff. And I honestly don't think it would be a far stretch to say that almost none of this summer's hits will be in Atmos for home at launch or even very shortly after. I honestly hope you'll get the option for ALL of them, but it doesn't make any sense to hold off a release by a couple of weeks just so Dolby can make some announcement first. Honestly, I think Dolby REALLY dropped the ball on the initial announcement since they were in the prime of the summer and didn't deliver clear marketing of not only studios on board for support but titles that were in the theater at the time of announcement or soon after that were already lined up for a later Atmos Blu-ray release. Sound formats become just another badge on an AVR without titles, and I was VERY surprised that we didn't see ANYTHING about studios or titles. That would go a LOT farther in getting people on board as they see the movies they are excited about then and now coming to this format in the very near future. Right now all we have is guessing on what may or may not come out, delayed launches and what not. None of us has concrete evidence for what way they might go but I find it discouraging that all these summer movies that had Atmos mixes in theaters are being announced in DTS and not Dolby. So yeah while your comments seem ridiculous considering all the other stuff going on with Atmos at the moment, it could very well end up being as ridiculous as it comes off. Lets just hope not.


----------



## redjr

bargervais said:


> One thing we learned from when 3D first came along I don't want to bore you with the details if you jumped into the 3D craze like I did you know what I'm talking about..
> I just don't understand why the studios will wait. my thinking is the studios should have dolby atmos blu-ray's ready for sale when the receivers are available at the same time sales should feed each other and it should be a win win for both parties.


That would make way too much business sense!  Yeah, there should also be a special display in the Magnolia room of new Atmos Blurays right along side the stack of Atmos enabled AVRs too. When was that last time your heard of any marketing organization thinking outside the box? This would seem to me to be marketing 101, but what do I know. I even remember getting 3 HD-DVDs right inside the box of my spanky new Toshiba player too. That's how it's done if you want to make sales - for both products.


----------



## ss9001

Kris Deering said:


> Keith, studios are VERY good and doing the wrong thing when it comes to this stuff.


yup. I just watched a repeat documentary of the history behind Star Trek. how hard it was for Roddenberry to sell it, cast it (Hunter replaced by Shatner & other replacements), how the studio didn't want Spock's ears (afraid of the devil resemblance), how hard it was to keep it on the air. and yet, it's the most financially successful franchise in the history of TV, worth billions, and a cultural icon. 

The studios made billions in spite of their decisions not because of them.

same is true of the music industry. 

there are more examples of the suits making bad decisions than being able to foresee trends and make good ones. the content industry all seems very resistant to or at least slow to adopt emerging technologies.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kris Deering said:


> Keith, studios are VERY good and doing the wrong thing when it comes to this stuff. And I honestly don't think it would be a far stretch to say that almost none of this summer's hits will be in Atmos for home at launch or even very shortly after. I honestly hope you'll get the option for ALL of them, but it doesn't make any sense to hold off a release by a couple of weeks just so Dolby can make some announcement first. Honestly, I think Dolby REALLY dropped the ball on the initial announcement since they were in the prime of the summer and didn't deliver clear marketing of not only studios on board for support but titles that were in the theater at the time of announcement or soon after that were already lined up for a later Atmos Blu-ray release. Sound formats become just another badge on an AVR without titles, and I was VERY surprised that we didn't see ANYTHING about studios or titles. That would go a LOT farther in getting people on board as they see the movies they are excited about then and now coming to this format in the very near future. Right now all we have is guessing on what may or may not come out, delayed launches and what not. None of us has concrete evidence for what way they might go but I find it discouraging that all these summer movies that had Atmos mixes in theaters are being announced in DTS and not Dolby. So yeah while your comments seem ridiculous considering all the other stuff going on with Atmos at the moment, it could very well end up being as ridiculous as it comes off. Lets just hope not.


This looks to be the case, Kris.

I would LOVE to be proved wrong here because I want to see these in Atmos on BD.

Not sure if this is something that I would blame Dolby for or the studios. My money is on the studios that are at fault.


----------



## ss9001

Kris Deering said:


> Right now all we have is guessing on what may or may not come out...None of us has concrete evidence for what way they might go but I find it discouraging that all these summer movies that had Atmos mixes in theaters are being announced in DTS and not Dolby.


I'm fully embracing Atmos as soon as I can. but I'm also not expecting more than a handful of initial titles. I think that's being realistic. But if the flood gates open, we can all be very pleasantly surprised with thinner wallets 

I hope there's more than a few studios that are part of this coordinated launch with real content for sale. But I also know how few 7.1 Blu-rays there are out of all total releases when the format has supported 7.1 since the beginning. 7.1 is relatively rare when you look at all releases.


----------



## Kris Deering

I'll probably embrace at some point but it's no trivial thing for me. I have a treated room and there is no way I am compromising the treatments in that room for Atmos. Ceiling speakers are easy but I would have to do some research before I just throw some speakers in there. I want them to be ideal for the location and application, which requires more info than what's out there now. While the Marantz is an interesting option I'm not planning on ditching my Anthem until I find something that offers the same sonic performance with Atmos included. So it will probably be a little while for me, but that just means more titles to play with by the time I actually adopt.


----------



## Kris Deering

ss9001 said:


> I'm fully embracing Atmos as soon as I can. but I'm also not expecting more than a handful of initial titles. I think that's being realistic. But if the flood gates open, we can all be very pleasantly surprised with thinner wallets
> 
> I hope there's more than a few studios that are part of this coordinated launch with real content for sale. But I also know how few 7.1 Blu-rays there are out of all total releases when the format has supported 7.1 since the beginning. 7.1 is relatively rare when you look at all releases.



Hope this to be the case. So many good movies already out that had Atmos mixes, so who knows.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I'm sorry but if studios are literally holding out titles so they can double dip a month after their normal release than that is just going to piss people off and is an absolutely AWFUL idea. And frankly, I don't see it happening. If Xmen had a Dolby track on it now I could see them putting the extension in there and staying quiet about it until the Dolby announcement but that isn't even the case. Same for Malifecient, which is showing DTS only as well despite being an Atmos track. This year's summer tentpoles would have been a great opportunity for some strong titles to release with it but I have serious doubts that the studios are all of a sudden now going to release a third version of a title a month or so later after already putting out a 2D and 3D version of each. That is NOT the way to start out on the consumers good side.


It's a business, Kris. They will do, as every business does, whatever will make the greatest profit. Of course, pissing people off isn't good business practice, but we disagree on how pissed off people will be. After all, it was you who was telling me not long ago that only a tiny, tiny percentage of people are even in the market for Atmos anyway, so pissing off a few people isn't the end of the world for them. I guess we'll see, come September/October.


----------



## Kris Deering

Oh I still absolutely believe the market for Atmos is small in the grand scheme. And nothing that Dolby has announced has me believing anything else. For mass consumers it is hard enough to do 5.1 (can't tell you how many people I see with HTIBs have their surrounds sitting right next to the front left and right) so now they are supposed to buy all new AVRs and speakers too, Yeah it is going to be a worldwide hit dude. That doesn't mean that I don't want it though, or the enthusiast. But wanting and getting are two different things. We'll see how it plays out. I wish Dolby only the best, but they are still giving me a lot of reason to be skeptical, even if they've got you sold lock, stock and barrel.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Can't agree, imaging on screen for voices was great, but it didn't stand out. I've heard LOTS of theatrical mixes that track nearly perfect with the onscreen imagery. It isn't hard considering how most films are shot with the focal point in the image right around where a channel would be behind it. If they couldn't get that imaging correct there were issues with the setup. Dawn sounded fantastic, but the vocal imaging onscreen was anything but a highlight for me, both times I saw it.


How odd. It was crystal clear when I saw the movie last week. I don't see how a legacy mix can "track nearly perfectly" when they have just a fuzz of speakers to the left, a fuzz to the right and nothing behind or above. Sure they can track in the front horizontal plane - but you are saying you couldn’t pinpoint the apes' voice to the left, right, centre, above and behind you? Maybe the theater wasn't a brilliant example?


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I fully believe we'll have some BD titles by end of 2014. but I think predicting we'll have more than a dozen or so end of 1st qtr 2015 is risky  Studios would have to change their historical behavior for that not to be the case.


Well, there are at least 120 titles to go at. I’d expect more than 10% of them to be released on day One, let alone day 91!


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> How odd. It was crystal clear when I saw the movie last week. I don't see how a legacy mix can "track nearly perfectly" when they have just a fuzz of speakers to the left, a fuzz to the right and nothing behind or above. Sure they can track in the front horizontal plane - but you are saying you couldn’t pinpoint the apes' voice to the left, right, centre, above and behind you? Maybe the theater wasn't a brilliant example?


Um, you said onscreen. I was talking about the voice tracking for images on screen, not in the surround soundstage. If a character is onscreen, you shouldn't be imaging to the sides or rears or above you either. I said that soundtracks have never had much of an issue with imaging correctly to imagery on screen, especially dialogue. I thought there were some fantastic surround sequences in Dawn. I only saw it in Atmos (at an ETX and RPX theater) so I don't know how it would have sounded without Atmos, which is why I would love a comparison to a legacy soundtrack. Gravity held up really well with surround imaging without Atmos (IMAX) and even in the home but the Atmos mix was a bit more seamless in image placement. I hope to compare it one day too.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, there are at least 120 titles to go at. I’d expect more than 10% of them to be released on day One, let alone day 91!


And hopefully that is the case! I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to hear you spouting out a long list of titles on day one. It is just puzzling why Dolby hasn't already alluded to them by now.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> This looks to be the case, Kris.



Can't agree. It's just speculation (as is mine). And Kris is so, so wrong when he believes that Dolby have dropped the ball on the launch! It is a classic example of how to conduct a new product launch IMO, and I have been professionally involved with literally hundreds of product launches for major FTSE100 UK companies. Of all of them, I'd be very proud to have been involved with the Dolby launch of Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I'm fully embracing Atmos as soon as I can. but I'm also not expecting more than a handful of initial titles. I think that's being realistic. But if the flood gates open, we can all be very pleasantly surprised with thinner wallets
> 
> I hope there's more than a few studios that are part of this coordinated launch with real content for sale. But I also know how few 7.1 Blu-rays there are out of all total releases when the format has supported 7.1 since the beginning. 7.1 is relatively rare when you look at all releases.


How many theatrical mixes are 7.1, out of the total?


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> I think Dolby REALLY dropped the ball on the initial announcement since they were in the prime of the summer and didn't deliver clear marketing of not only studios on board for support but titles that were in the theater at the time of announcement or soon after that were already lined up for a later Atmos Blu-ray release.


Keep in mind that Dolby hasn't made any announcements nor posted any press releases, just updated their informal blog with news that consumer Atmos is coming, followed by a FAQ. Dolby did release hardware manufacturers from the NDA, which then allowed information on speakers and electronics to come out. But that information all came via individual manufacturers, not Dolby. 

Which is why there hasn't been any info on specific titles for home video. At some point they will release studios from their NDA and we will start getting specifics about BD and streaming. Dolby is supposed to make announcements next week, so let's see if we find out more about the software side of consumer Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Oh I still absolutely believe the market for Atmos is small in the grand scheme.


You can’t have it both ways, Kris. Either pissing people off is important or it isn't. If the market is tiny, it isn't.

Of course Dolby have me sold on Atmos. I have heard it in a HT setting, and it is a huge step forward over what we currently have. Why would I not be 'sold'?


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Can't agree. It's just speculation (as is mine). And Kris is so, so wrong when he believes that Dolby have dropped the ball on the launch! It is a classic example of how to conduct a new product launch IMO, and I have been professionally involved with literally hundreds of product launches for major FTSE100 UK companies. Of all of them, I'd be very proud to have been involved with the Dolby launch of Atmos.


Really? Because I just saw a post from Sdurani that says they haven't even launched it yet?? Does that make you proud of the AVR/speaker announcements from Onkyo, Marantz and others or of Dolby's?? I guess I'm confused now.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> You can’t have it both ways, Kris. Either pissing people off is important or it isn't. If the market is tiny, it isn't.
> 
> Of course Dolby have me sold on Atmos. I have heard it in a HT setting, and it is a huge step forward over what we currently have. Why would I not be 'sold'?


Okay, the market is tiny (in the big scheme of electronics) and pissing people off is aways important. But at this point the only people pissed are the day one adopters (if big titles are indeed not available). But they still may pull the rabbit out of the hat. Great that you've heard it, glad you liked it. Looking forward to hearing it at CEDIA and making up my own mind.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Um, you said onscreen.


No I didn’t. I said _"Every ape's voice was precisely located to where the ape was, even when he was *off screen*..." 
_ I mentioned on-screen action in relation to the voices - that is to say, if 'on screen' action dictated that the voice was behind me, that's where it was.



Kris Deering said:


> I was talking about the voice tracking for images on screen, not in the surround soundstage. If a character is onscreen, you shouldn't be imaging to the sides or rears or above you either.


Good job I didn't say that then 



Kris Deering said:


> I said that soundtracks have never had much of an issue with imaging correctly to imagery on screen, especially dialogue. I thought there were some fantastic surround sequences in Dawn. I only saw it in Atmos (at an ETX and RPX theater) so I don't know how it would have sounded without Atmos, which is why I would love a comparison to a legacy soundtrack. Gravity held up really well with surround imaging without Atmos (IMAX) and even in the home but the Atmos mix was a bit more seamless in image placement. I hope to compare it one day too.


I saw gravity in a SOTA theatere (non Atmos) and I have seen (some of it) it at the best Atmos facility in Europe and I have seen (some of) it in a HT environment and there was really no comparison with the non-Atmos version. I agree the non-Atmos version is very good sonically (I have seen it on BD about 3 or 4 times) but it isn't nearly as good as "the real thing" IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> And hopefully that is the case! I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to hear you spouting out a long list of titles on day one. It is just puzzling why Dolby hasn't already alluded to them by now.


Would it be because it's nothing really to do with Dolby? it's the studios' responsibility to promote the content. I've already speculated on a possible reason why they are keeping schtum about it for now but you said it would piss people off


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Really? Because I just saw a post from Sdurani that says they haven't even launched it yet?? Does that make you proud of the AVR/speaker announcements from Onkyo, Marantz and others or of Dolby's?? I guess I'm confused now.


Haven’t launched what yet? Atmos? It is an ongoing launch, brilliantly handled so far (professional opinion).


----------



## Kris Deering

I responded to this first sentence:



> You've never heard voices localised to the on-screen action before though, like you did with Dawn.


And yes I have.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Haven’t launched what yet? Atmos? It is an ongoing launch, brilliantly handled so far (professional opinion).


I was being sarcastic based on the other comment right before yours from him.


----------



## kbarnes701

We're almost in 'real time' here Kris, but I have had a long day and am due an early night. It's 2245 here now so, much as I'd like to continue this with you, it will have to wait till tomorrow (for me). Enjoy the rest of your day!


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I responded to this first sentence:


What - and you ignored the rest of the post? OK, I didn't realise.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I was being sarcastic based on the other comment right before yours from him.


You and I seem to have come away with different takes on Sanjay's post.


----------



## Kris Deering

I think you and I come across with different takes on a lot of things. But we still both seem to want the best audio experience possible and I think that's what matters the most.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> How many theatrical mixes are 7.1, out of the total?


Keith

If you're asking how many theatrical movies were 7.1 for the cinema, I wouldn't have a clue. Filmmixer might have an idea 

If you're asking how many BD releases are 7.1, there's several sites that listed all available 6.1/7.1 BD's. Here's one I can link to.

The original post is in 2010 but the author is keeping the list up-to-date with new & latest titles.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=159814

counting rows on an excel sheet, his total is 711.

the total # of blu-ray titles released is many tens of thousands from all studios. it's going to be tedious to add up the list by studio but I'll see if I can parse the textual listings to just get numbers  and will let you know the number if I succeed! 

the same site has the totals by genre and by studio. if totals by genre don't overlap, the total will be well over 300,000.

for the sake of argument, let's say 7.1's are < 0.25 % of the total. 

IOW, very dam few are taking advantage of existing capability.

and total number of Atmos titles is about 120, right?

not scientific by any means  but looking at numbers, it took *all* Blu-ray studios 8 yrs to release 711 titles with 7.1 out of all the movies released, or about 89/yr. 

with 120 titles with a subset of a subset for Atmos, it could take 1.3 yrs for them to get thru the list IF they decided to aggressively release them at the same pace of ~90/yr. or it could take a decade (!) if they follow the same pattern as 7.1


----------



## ss9001

Kris Deering said:


> I think you and I come across with different takes on a lot of things. But we still both seem to want the best audio experience possible and I think that's what matters the most.


I think we're all on that same page, Kris. 

That's why I'm implementing Atmos even if I don't completely trust studios to deliver the content on a timely basis. I'd rather have the opportunity to enjoy several titles a year than none at all.

Once the speakers are bought & installed, the rest is EZ.


----------



## joerod

I am ready as can be. With 6 ML Vanquish in the ceiling I am set for a couple of different scenarios. Let the games/movies begin.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> I just saw a post from Sdurani that says they haven't even launched it yet?? Does that make you proud of the AVR/speaker announcements from Onkyo, Marantz and others or of Dolby's?? I guess I'm confused now.


You're confusing the launch of a Dolby product with a press release issued from Dolby. The latter isn't necessary for the former. 

Dolby is coordinating a continued product launch, with the first step lifting manufacturers' NDA in order to whet the appetite of consumers. At that point, consumer Atmos had officially launched and there was plenty of buzz going (remember the week of June 23rd here at AVS?), all without Dolby themselves having to issue a press release. 

They've kept their powder dry until the next step this month. And there will be more in the subsequent step at CEDIA. Along the way there are demos, like the one Keith attended and the upcoming Pioneer open house here in Los Angeles, to keep fresh info flowing. People attending the demos will talk about it, rather than Dolby having to issue a press release. 

That sort of coordination between manufacturers and studios doesn't require Dolby to issue a press release. But that doesn't mean Atmos hasn't launched or that Dolby isn't coordinating things behind the scenes. By comparison, look at how Dolby is getting information out in stages vs the last 6 months of info for the XMC-1 product launch. 

It doesn't require a background in marketing, like Keith has, to recognize a well coordinated launch that includes multiple electronics manufacturers and speaker designers and movie studios.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Theatrical Atmos mixes are (also still) based on channels so the same rules apply as before - home theaters and living rooms are acoustically different from movie theaters.
> *A remix for home is probably a good idea*.


What percentage of this happening? ...Because no two homes are the same.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> You're confusing the launch of a Dolby product with a press release issued from Dolby. The latter isn't necessary for the former.
> 
> Dolby is coordinating a continued product launch, with the first step lifting manufacturers' NDA in order to whet the appetite of consumers. At that point, consumer Atmos had officially launched and there was plenty of buzz going (remember the week of June 23rd here at AVS?), all without Dolby themselves having to issue a press release.
> 
> They've kept their powder dry until the next step this month. And there will be more in the subsequent step at CEDIA. Along the way there are demos, like the one Keith attended and the upcoming Pioneer open house here in Los Angeles, to keep fresh info flowing. People attending the demos will talk about it, rather than Dolby having to issue a press release.
> 
> That sort of coordination between manufacturers and studios doesn't require Dolby to issue a press release. But that doesn't mean Atmos hasn't launched or that Dolby isn't coordinating things behind the scenes. By comparison, look at how Dolby is getting information out in stages vs the last 6 months of info for the XMC-1 product launch.
> 
> It doesn't require a background in marketing, like Keith has, to recognize a well coordinated launch that includes multiple electronics manufacturers and speaker designers and movie studios.


I would never compare this to the bumbling that Emo did with the XMC. But in terms of stages I think I would have handled it different. To me it would have made more sense for Dolby to do the initial announcement for Atmos in home talking about what it is, why it's different and the science behind it. Next would be the hardware and software. Instead you have manufacturers announcing a format for another company and pages upon pages of questions from the would be consumers on what, where, when and how. Would Blu-ray have done better if the hardware manufacturers just announced players for a format that the BDA didn't announce or inform the public about? I'm not a marketing guy clearly and while I think most of the audio people on HT forums may know what Atmos is the general public isn't as aware. Of course none of this opinion matters now, what's done is done. But saying that this has been a phenomenal launch given the mum word from Dolby except on their blog and using hardware maufacturers to trumpet the arrival of the next big thing seems a bit much. But since most mainstream consumers don't read forums for press releases from manufacturers I guess they'll probably hear it from Dolby first anyways, or the local big box store, or never. I still get a glaze in the eyes from most of the engineers at work when I mention True HD or Master Audio.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> AIUI once the mix has been done for the theatrical release, the work has also been done for the BD release. *It scales*.





markus767 said:


> Theatrical Atmos mixes are (also still) based on channels so the same rules apply as before - home theaters and living rooms are acoustically different from movie theaters. A remix for home is probably a good idea.


Here you go Markus.


----------



## Zen Traveler

markus767 said:


> Theatrical Atmos mixes are (also still) based on channels so the same rules apply as before - home theaters and living rooms are acoustically different from movie theaters...


Heck, Home Theaters in living rooms are considerably different (even from each other} than dedicated Home Theater rooms where folks go to a lot of trouble to try and get it acoustically similar to Movie Theaters.



Kris Deering said:


> Oh I still absolutely believe the market for Atmos is small in the grand scheme. And nothing that Dolby has announced has me believing anything else. For mass consumers it is hard enough to do 5.1 (can't tell you how many people I see with HTIBs have their surrounds sitting right next to the front left and right) so now they are supposed to buy all new AVRs and speakers too, Yeah it is going to be a worldwide hit dude. That doesn't mean that I don't want it though, or the enthusiast. But wanting and getting are two different things...


This post here sums up my view as well...Home Theater has been a hobby of mine for almost 14 years and I am still surprised how many people are NOT into it in the circles I travel...That said, I remember seeing a poll in another section which asked how many speakers we had and was real surprised the majority of responders on AVS had only 5 speakers(and in 2nd place was 7) but only a few had 9 or more using height and/or wides: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-co...969-what-your-main-speaker-configuration.html

Granted, Atmos looks more awesome than the other matrixing formats, but my guess is that purchasing more speakers and placement issues are obstacles to keep  consumers from going to Atmos based systems en-masse, or even on this forum. Fwiw, this appears to be a_ dedicated_ Home Theater product/format and I would be curious what percentage of us actually have one who post on here regularly--I have a 9.1 setup using 2 subs and it's in my small library.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Spider Man 2 and Captain America also DTS.
> 
> *Maybe the first title will be Extended Edition of The Hobbit??*


Also DTS-HD MA ---------------------------- DTS-UHD 7.1.4 ??


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> According to both *Audiophile.No* (_link_) and the *2L.No* (_link_) *RELEASE PLAN 2014-2016* (_select "release plan 2013-2014"_), the *2L* label will release *MAGNIFICAT*, a *pureaudio* (_link_) *BD *from *TrondheimSolistene,* containing both *9.1 Auro-3D* and *Dolby Atmos *encodes of the same recorded material*.* (The *2L* label has previously released some *BD*s with both *DTS-HDMA* and *9.1 Auro-3D* content.*)
> *_
> Perhaps someone will do a "technology comparison" and report here...?!_
> _


When I first read your post and checked the links it reminded me of this: David Chesky | SACD 6.0 Surround


----------



## NorthSky

As an aside; I notice few members here who aren't spelling correctly *'Maleficent'* 

______


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> That's correct, I've taken a role at Secrets as their new Senior Video Editor. I liked the gang at S&V but it was time to move on. Going back to Secrets was a no brainer as I can be as technical as I want for reviews and I don't have to worry about word counts or adding new objective testing. It is just a better fit for the kind of reviews I like to do and want to see. Stacey Spears is coming back aboard in a joint role with me and I think together we can bring a lot to the Secrets team and reviews going forward. Should be a lot of fun.


Hi Kris,

This is good news because I like Secrets and the people there.

By the way, I notice that under your name (username) on the left, where it says;
*Location: The Pacific
Northwet*

Where is that?


----------



## tjenkins95

I am pretty sure that Dolby knows exactly what it is doing and how Atmos for Home Theater is going to roll out. I think it would be really nice to just wait and see what happens instead of speculating on what we don't know. I am sure things will be announced at CEDIA Expo or possibly a little bit sooner. No matter what, I am getting my HT Room ready for it!


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think they have much choice. They won’t want to delay the release of the current crop of Blurays,* but they can't very well release them in Atmos right now*


They could have released *'Gravity'* on Blu-ray already with an additional audio soundtrack; Dolby TrueHD 7.1.2 (or .4) Atmos surround.

If they did, everyone (many of us) would have jump on the first product having a Dolby Atmos decoder. 
...Talk about doing business the proper way!

Great Dolby Atmos software first, then the hardware soon to follow...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Also DTS-HD MA ---------------------------- DTS-UHD 7.1.4 ??


Not very likely.


----------



## bargervais

Zen Traveler said:


> Heck, Home Theaters in living rooms are considerably different (even from each other} than dedicated Home Theater rooms where folks go to a lot of trouble to try and get it acoustically similar to Movie Theaters.
> 
> 
> 
> This post here sums up my view as well...Home Theater has been a hobby of mine for almost 14 years and I am still surprised how many people are NOT into it in the circles I travel...That said, I remember seeing a poll in another section which asked how many speakers we had and was real surprised the majority of responders on AVS had only 5 speakers(and in 2nd place was 7) but only a few had 9 or more using height and/or wides: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-co...969-what-your-main-speaker-configuration.html
> 
> Granted, Atmos looks more awesome than the other matrixing formats, but my guess is that purchasing more speakers and placement issues are obstacles to keep consumers from going to Atmos based systems en-masse, or even on this forum. Fwiw, this appears to be a_ dedicated_ Home Theater product/format and I would be curious what percentage of us actually have one who post on here regularly--I have a 9.1 setup using 2 subs and it's in my small library.


I have a 9.1 using two subs but a lot of people I know don't have any thing near what I have some have 5.1 but believe it or not a lot have sound bars  
I know they wouldn't care less to upgrade to atmos unless they come out with a sound bar that could do atmos they don't want a room full of speakers and their ceiling full of speakers....
So I'm thinking we are in the minority.....
Just like 3D I'm about the only one in my circle of friends that has them even though I have over fifty 3D blu-ray disks I hardly watch them.
So my conclusion is I think atmos will be in the minority....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> They could have released *'Gravity'* on Blu-ray already with an additional audio soundtrack; *Dolby TrueHD 7.1.2 (or .4)* Atmos surround.
> 
> If they did, everyone (many of us) would have jump on the first product having a Dolby Atmos decoder.
> ...Talk about doing business the proper way!
> 
> Great Dolby Atmos software first, then the hardware soon to follow...


Remember, don't think in those terms. It's more like Dolby Atmos 34 output surround. 

If the Trinnov speaker layout schematic is accurate for their Altitude32 processor, it's possibly breaking down as*:

*Front: 5 screen speakers (Left/Left Center/Center/Right Center/Right)
Left wall: 5 speaker array
Right wall: 5 speaker array
Rear wall: 5 speaker array
Overheads: 10 speaker array (in left and right pairs)

Two subwoofer outputs
Another two bass management derived outputs

A miniature version of the cinema Atmos layout??


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> But in terms of stages I think I would have handled it different. To me it would have made more sense...


That's fair. Just because I think they're doing a good job doesn't mean there aren't equally effective or more effective ways to have done it.


Kris Deering said:


> But saying that this has been a phenomenal launch given the mum word from Dolby except on their blog and using hardware maufacturers to trumpet the arrival of the next big thing seems a bit much.


I think that's one of the better aspects of this launch: lots of buzz amongst enthusiasts, lots of questions waiting to be answered, lots of speculation building up, all without Dolby having issued an official announcement. Like having manufacturers warm up the audience before doing a press conference.


----------



## Kriilin

Hey, has anyone seen this article?

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/

This would be awesome if true. And the beauty from what I understand is, it won't have to be in a preset 5.1.4, 7.1.2, etc. The processor knows the room and speakers, and delivers the best it can with what it has, real time encoding for YOUR setup. So I wonder what kind of microphone array the Atmos receivers will have for room calibration?


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I think you (keith) and I come across with different takes on a lot of things. But we still both seem to want the best audio experience possible and I think that's what matters *the most*.


@ last, @ mos.


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Hi Kris,
> 
> This is good news because I like Secrets and the people there.
> 
> By the way, I notice that under your name (username) on the left, where it says;
> *Location: The Pacific
> Northwet*
> 
> Where is that?


I live on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. I always call the Washington/Oregon area the Pacific Northwet instead of Northwest because of the rain.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh, lol, I see now. 

* I live near Seattle, on Vancouver Island, Victoria's neighborhood, where Jazz rains.


----------



## wse

Kris Deering said:


> I live on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. I always call the Washington/Oregon area the Pacific Northwet instead of Northwest because of the rain.


I love it! I could not take this, lived there for two years and bailed out to sunny pastures, I am solar powered


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kriilin said:


> Hey, has anyone seen this article?
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/
> 
> This would be awesome if true. And the beauty from what I understand is, it won't have to be in a preset 5.1.4, 7.1.2, etc. *The processor knows the room and speakers, and delivers the best it can with what it has, real time encoding for YOUR setup*. So I wonder what kind of microphone array the Atmos receivers will have for room calibration?


You still have to have a layout that is close to their various recommended speaker/sub placement charts... up to 34. Even cinema Atmos renderers are not that sophisticated. We'll know more once Dolby releases their white paper on the at-home Atmos format.

Again, it would be nice if true about stealth Atmos discs already in the wild. But then the studio brass would have to be a lot smarter than they appear to be.


----------



## sdurani

Kriilin said:


> Hey, has anyone seen this article?
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/


The author uses the recent re-release of How To Train Your Dragon, which replaces the original 5.1 track with a TrueHD 7.1 track, to suggest a stealth Atmos release. "Why would the studio bother to do this?" He conveniently leaves out that the previous track was also TrueHD (so it's not like the studio switched form DTS-HA MA to TrueHD) and that the TrueHD 7.1 track had already been released with the 3D version a few years ago (so it's not like the studio had to create a brand new mix, they already had it in 2011).


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> *'The Hobbit'* Trilogy --> DTS-UHD 7.1.4 ??





Dan Hitchman said:


> Not very likely.


*LOTR* Trilogy EE ??

_______


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> *TLOTR* Trilogy EE ??


It depends on if Warner Brothers is waiting on DTS-UHD to release object surround tracks. If Dolby has a big announcement and there are no WB discs listed, then one can start speculating if perhaps they've been in talks with DTS instead.

I think it will also depend on how much Peter Jackson and Co. want to spice up the Lord of the Rings for any subsequent video re-releases and if they have to do any upgrades out of pocket or if Warner Brothers would spring for an audio overhaul and other upgrades


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Remember, don't think in those terms (7.1.4). It's more like Dolby Atmos 34 output surround.


I know, you're right. ...Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround, with Atmos. 



Dan said:


> If the Trinnov speaker layout schematic is accurate for their Altitude32 processor, it's possibly breaking down as*:
> 
> *Front: 5 screen speakers (Left/Left Center/Center/Right Center/Right)
> Left wall: 5 speaker array
> Right wall: 5 speaker array
> Rear wall: 5 speaker array
> Overheads: 10 speaker array (in left and right pairs)
> 
> Two subwoofer outputs
> Another two bass management derived outputs
> 
> A miniature version of the their cinema layout??


...Or expand our home theater rooms? ...No more walls when you come back from work.

Or! Back to drive-in theaters?


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> That's fair. Just because I think they're doing a good job doesn't mean there aren't equally effective or more effective ways to have done it. I think that's one of the better aspects of this launch: lots of buzz amongst enthusiasts, lots of questions waiting to be answered, lots of speculation building up, all without Dolby having issued an official announcement. Like having manufacturers warm up the audience before doing a press conference.


That's why forums like AVS exist, and with all of us a joyous Atmos bunch.


----------



## NorthSky

Kriilin said:


> Hey, has anyone seen this article?
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/
> 
> This would be awesome if true. And the beauty from what I understand is, it won't have to be in a preset 5.1.4, 7.1.2, etc. The processor knows the room and speakers, and delivers the best it can with what it has, real time encoding for YOUR setup. So I wonder what kind of microphone array the Atmos receivers will have for room calibration?


Ha! 

My BD 3D of *'How to Train your Dragon'* comes with an *English 7.1 Dolby TrueHD* audio soundtrack.
...Maybe it is secretly encoded with Dolby Atmos? ...That would be  ...I don't think so though.


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> As an aside; I notice few members here who aren't spelling correctly *'Maleficent'*
> 
> ______
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-XO4XiRop0



That's just the tip of the iceberg of the grammatical horrors I see here every day


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> What percentage of this happening? ...Because no two homes are the same.


True but homes differ from dubbing stages and movie theaters too. Doing mixes for acoustically small rooms is difficult - there's no universally accepted acoustical standard for small rooms - nevertheless it is done every single day for music recordings.


----------



## noah katz

Zen Traveler said:


> ... I remember seeing a poll in another section which asked how many speakers we had and was real surprised the majority of responders on AVS had only 5 speakers(and in 2nd place was 7) but only a few had 9 or more using height and/or wides...[/URL]


That sounds right; makes you wonder how it can be worthwhile for mfgr's to bother making 9+ ch receivers, and if Atmos-enabled ones will survive.

Maybe the incremental cost of 7.1/Atmos over the bread-and-butter models isn't very much.


----------



## markus767

Zen Traveler said:


> Heck, Home Theaters in living rooms are considerably different (even from each other} than dedicated Home Theater rooms where folks go to a lot of trouble to try and get it acoustically similar to Movie Theaters.


How do you define acoustically similar? It's the room sizes that sets them apart:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13686&name=harman


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> True but homes differ from dubbing stages and movie theaters too. Doing mixes for acoustically small rooms is difficult - there's no universally accepted acoustical standard for small rooms - nevertheless it is done every single day for music recordings.


Markus, where are moving picture soundtracks made/mixed and recorded?

And for that matter, where are classical orchestral live operas recorded?

See, film soundtracks recorded in some larger studio theaters, and medium studio theaters, and smaller studio venues, with the dialog recorded on some booths (lip sync), dubbing stages (foley sound effects), orchestral music (larger spaces with good acoustics), mixing consoles with pre-recorded sounds (with EQ added, dynamic compression, etc.) - music recordings done in small jazz venues, blues alleys, professional recording studios of all genre and size, auditoriums, churches, halls of all sizes and everywhere in the world, etc., etc., etc. - makes the music reproduction @ home the impossible art of accurate replication of that moment in time and in space. ...Magic is the best we can hope for in this audio hobby of ours where the Music is the main essence entering our soul through emotional chords of harmony and unison.

Imagine, if you would be a professional recording/mastering artist sound engineer who has his own professional recording studio and use various microphones or few. ...And recording music from the artists you like; a la _David Chesky_ for just naming one example (New York).
Or for the ECM record label in their main recording studios in Europe, or for the Classic Channels record label, or for Concord Jazz record label, or for Reference Recordings studios, or ...

...And the same thing with all the various movie studios; Sony Columbia various studios and sound mixing theaters, , FOX studios, Paramount studios, Universal studios, Warner Brothers studios, Disney various sound stages, studios and theaters (Hollywood, California), Lions Gate studios in North Vancouver, Criterion sound mix venue, etc. etc. etc.

Where all the sounds are recorded, mixed, manipulated, equalized, ..., it's a mine field out there and to expect to be perfect in each one of our living rooms and home theater rooms is like asking for lady Godiva nude on her white horse running on water and with her golden hair floating freely in the four winds from the four corners of the world. 

God lock!


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Keith
> 
> If you're asking how many theatrical movies were 7.1 for the cinema, I wouldn't have a clue. Filmmixer might have an idea
> 
> If you're asking how many BD releases are 7.1, there's several sites that listed all available 6.1/7.1 BD's. Here's one I can link to.
> 
> The original post is in 2010 but the author is keeping the list up-to-date with new & latest titles.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=159814
> 
> counting rows on an excel sheet, his total is 711.
> 
> the total # of blu-ray titles released is many tens of thousands from all studios. it's going to be tedious to add up the list by studio but I'll see if I can parse the textual listings to just get numbers  and will let you know the number if I succeed!
> 
> the same site has the totals by genre and by studio. if totals by genre don't overlap, the total will be well over 300,000.
> 
> for the sake of argument, let's say 7.1's are < 0.25 % of the total.
> 
> IOW, very dam few are taking advantage of existing capability.
> 
> and total number of Atmos titles is about 120, right?
> 
> not scientific by any means  but looking at numbers, it took *all* Blu-ray studios 8 yrs to release 711 titles with 7.1 out of all the movies released, or about 89/yr.
> 
> with 120 titles with a subset of a subset for Atmos, it could take 1.3 yrs for them to get thru the list IF they decided to aggressively release them at the same pace of ~90/yr. or it could take a decade (!) if they follow the same pattern as 7.1


The point I was making is that the comparison with Atmos and 7.1 mixes is irrelevant. If a movie was mixed in 5.1 then it is significant extra work to remix it in 7.1 for the home. And a fair comparison would look at home many 7.1 mixes existed about 3 months after the launch of discrete 5.1. To save the trouble of checking, it was none.


----------



## NorthSky

In reference to post number 3012 ::

Won't happen Markus; money. ...It cost money. ...Thing is that Dolby Atmos is *SCALABLE* to our home rooms from the theatrical mixes.

They'll transfer what they have to our Blu-rays just like they keep doing it since 2006.

* Ask Marc, and Roger what they think.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Won't happen Markus; money. ...It cost money.


I agree, nevertheless there are Blu-ray remixes. How many? Marc might have statistical data.



NorthSky said:


> ...Thing is that Dolby Atmos is *SCALABLE* to our home rooms from the theatrical mixes.


Define "scalable". Does Atmos render to fewer or more speakers than used during re-recording? Yes. Does it change how a mix is perceived at home vs. a movie theater? No. Why would it?

Atmos doesn't do away with the fact that acoustically small rooms behave differently than acoustically large rooms. Acoustics doesn't "scale". Atmos scales the number of speakers but it can't "scale" physics. Reflection patterns in acoustically small rooms are different from larger spaces. The way we perceive sound differs with room size.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Ask Marc and Roger what they think.


Yes sir!  Marc and Roger what do you think?


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> I agree, nevertheless there are Blu-ray remixes. How many? Marc might have statistical data.


Very very very few; not even worth mentioning (from Disney, and another studio; can't remember). 



m767 said:


> Define "scalable". Does Atmos render to fewer or more speakers than used during re-recording? Yes. Does it change how a mix is perceived at home vs. a movie theater? No. Why would it?


Marc, Roger, and Keith know more about the term "scale" than I when it comes to Dolby Atmos.

Yeah, object perception from the theaters to our homes; hard to define when we're not behind those mixing consoles. ...Marc is best, I think, for that. ...Just be cool with him.


----------



## DrDon

Posts removed and condescending remarks edited out.

If you can't take the high road, then I'm going to start removing members from the thread. Discuss the topic and not each other. Don't even address each other. State your point and that's it. Look over your post and ask yourself if it's something the community would get information from or if it's just arguing, it's best to delete and move on.


----------



## kbarnes701

NorthSky said:


> Here you go Markus.


Markus isn't discussing the same issue. He is, rightly, pointing out that home theaters are (usually) pretty small spaces and commercial theaters aren't. In our home theaters many of us listen in the near field. Markus's contention is that the two very different acoustic spaces require different mixes. I am not sure I agree with that but I can see why it is worth discussing, although maybe this thread isn't the best place to do so.

When I mentioned Atmos scaling, I was referring to hardware, not the acoustic space in which the content would be replayed.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That's fair. Just because I think they're doing a good job doesn't mean there aren't equally effective or more effective ways to have done it. I think that's one of the better aspects of this launch: lots of buzz amongst enthusiasts, lots of questions waiting to be answered, lots of speculation building up, all without Dolby having issued an official announcement. Like having manufacturers warm up the audience before doing a press conference.



Bringing the manufacturers on board and letting them do most of the work for you is one of the things which I think is very clever about Dolby's launch strategy. 

I once launched a new financial investment product for a major international broking and investment company. We brought all the main personal financial adviser firms in the UK on side, NDA-ed them to the hilt, and revealed full details of the new product, how it worked, how it was different, better etc than what had gone before and the date on which it would be available for sale (about 3 months down the line). We controlled what information the personal adviser firms could release publicly and let them loose. Soon they were all telling their high value clients _"don't invest or tie up that $100,000 - $1,000,000 right now, something big and new and better is coming. We can’t tell you exactly what it is yet, but believe me, you will want it when you see it." _ As a result, we generated incredible interest in the marketplace and we did untold damage to the competition by getting investors to hold back those funds until our new product was ready. When we finally launched, the pent-up demand sent sales through the roof in the critical first 6 months and the amount of free publicity we garnered was worth millions of dollars. 

I see some parallels to the Dolby launch there.


----------



## chi_guy50

ambesolman said:


> That's just the tip of the iceberg of the grammatical horrors I see here every day


Yes--not to mention spelling and punctuation lapses. It is disconcerting, but not unexpected. OTOH, it made my heart soar last night to see Keith's correct idiomatic use of a term from the Mamaloschen. Mir gefällt's, Bubele! 



kbarnes701 said:


> Would it be because it's nothing really to do with Dolby? it's the studios' responsibility to promote the content. I've already speculated on a possible reason why they are keeping *schtum* about it for now but you said it would piss people off


----------



## kbarnes701

Kriilin said:


> Hey, has anyone seen this article?
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-secret-bluray/
> 
> This would be awesome if true. And the beauty from what I understand is, it won't have to be in a preset 5.1.4, 7.1.2, etc. The processor knows the room and speakers, and delivers the best it can with what it has, real time encoding for YOUR setup. So I wonder what kind of microphone array the Atmos receivers will have for room calibration?


That isn’t how the first generation of Atmos for the home is going to work, based on all information available to date. Specific speaker azimuth and elevation angles will not be provided to the processor, so it will have no way to know where your speakers are. They will have to be placed in accordance with the angles detailed on the oft-posted diagram.

WRT to HTTYD, if you click the link in the article it takes you to more information, which includes:

_"UPDATE (7/30): We heard back from Jeff Hare, VP of Publicity at DreamWorks and he tells us that neither "How to Train Your Dragon" nor the upcoming "Star Trek: The Compendium" set have Dolby Atmos encoding. Per the home video team, "Atmos encoding for Blu-ray was not available when we made the newest Dragon disc to include it there, hidden or not." So the mystery about which title has a stealth Atmos track still remains..."
_


----------



## PoshFrosh

abbyss said:


> i know dolby atmos has speakers all around the room` but what i`d like to know.is the sound effects really 3 dimensional has in freed from the speakers and projected out in the room like in real life ?





batpig said:


> *Does anyone know WTF this means?*


I'm pretty sure it means: "Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?"


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> How many theatrical mixes are 7.1, out of the total?


FWIW, a database of 10518 BDs and their formats is available at

http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php

515 of those are known to have been released in 7.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, a database of 10518 BDs and their formats is available at
> 
> http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php
> 
> 515 of those are known to have been released in 7.1.


That is Bluray releases, Selden. My question was how many *theatrical* releases had been mixed in 7.1.

It was to counter a point attempting to correlate 7.1 BD releases with Atmos (potential) releases.

If in the last several years there have been only 515 7.1 Bluray releases, then this bodes exceptionally well for Atmos Bluray releases IMO, as over 120 movies have *already* been theatrically mixed in Atmos. This is the opposite of what was being contended.

And out of those 515 7.1 Bluray releases, how many were theatrical releases in 7.1? Half? Fewer?

The reason there are so few 7.1 mixes on Bluray is that there are very few 7.1 theatrical mixes, and it takes significant effort to remix especially for the Bluray release. That won’t apply with Atmos - every Atmos movie can expect an Atmos Bluray release, and as the adoption of Atmos is growing much faster than the adoption of 5.1, at the same stage in its evolution, we can therefore expect Atmos releases on Bluray (of Atmos theatrical mixes obviously) to become the norm.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> It is very three dimensional. One of the misconceptions about Atmos, IMO, is that it is mainly about 'height effects' - helicopters, rain and so on. It IS about that but it is much more than that. Just as important is the sense of three dimensionality that Atmos brings to the sound. If you haven't yet heard an Atmos soundtrack, I urge you to try to do so.


I've heard you say this several times and I completely believe you. I know it's difficult to describe sound with language, but can you clarify what exactly "much more" is? (Sorry, there are no Atmos theaters within 5-6 hours of me).
Since height speakers are the only additional channels besides the standard 5.1/7.1 "audio bed", the only way in which I could see Atmos being "much more" than height effects is if the objects are panned through all the speakers (including the channel bed) thus being able to "place and object anywhere". Does this sound like a proper assumption to you, having heard a demo of the home version first hand?


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> I've heard you say this several times and I completely believe you. I know it's difficult to describe sound with language, but can you clarify what exactly "much more" is? (Sorry, there are no Atmos theaters within 5-6 hours of me).
> Since height speakers are the only additional channels besides the standard 5.1/7.1 "audio bed", the only way in which I could see Atmos being "much more" than height effects is if the objects are panned through all the speakers (including the channel bed) thus being able to "place and object anywhere". Does this sound like a proper assumption to you, having heard a demo of the home version first hand?


You have it right I believe. The main benefit of Atmos, IME, is not flyovers and overhead effects as such. It is the ability of the mixer to use a three dimensional space in which to place objects. So he can put a sound slightly above you, in front of you and to the right all at the same time. The overhead speakers make this possible. Think of it as triangles - wherever the sound from three speakers 'intersects' is a triangulated point in space.

Of course, overhead effects are great too, and as we have never really had them before, it is an obvious thing for people to comment on. But at the demo I attended, and at the subsequent viewing of Dawn at the Atmos theater near to me, it was -- for me -- much more about the more subtle uses of the new-found ability of the mixer, in enveloping me with sound, and with the 'objects' very precisely placed in that three dimensional space. 

This is also one of the reasons I don't think the benefits of Atmos will be confined to blockbusters and action movies. More 'subtle' soundtracks will also benefit significantly too IMO.

In the 'cave' scene I heard at the demo I attended, it was uncanny how I could locate with high precision the exact point in space in which a hidden character was located, before he revealed himself (several times). I knew where to look before he appeared, just from the position of his voice - just as you would in real life. The improvement was substantial over what we have right now.

I am attending another Dolby demo next week, where different content will be used, and I will report back to the thread of course.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> It depends on if Warner Brothers is waiting on DTS-UHD to release object surround tracks.


This comment keeps coming up in various forms.

Remember that Atmos is a proprietary format..

WB can decide to release a film that was mixed in Atmos in another codec... they would have to go back an _remix_ the entire film.

This isn't at all, at this point in time, a choice like the one of using TrueHD or DTS-HD MA...


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes--not to mention spelling and punctuation lapses. It is disconcerting, but not unexpected. OTOH, it made my heart soar last night to see Keith's correct idiomatic use of a term from the Mamaloschen. Mir gefällt's, Bubele!


A sheynem dank!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> This comment keeps coming up in various forms.
> 
> Remember that Atmos is a proprietary format..
> 
> WB can decide to release a film that was mixed in Atmos in another codec... they would have to go back an _remix_ the entire film.
> 
> This isn't at all, at this point in time, a choice like the one of using TrueHD or DTS-HD MA...


But what if they don't want to spend the money on software from both camps? And DTS had been talking about a way to translate Atmos data over to MDA for easy file conversion. Don't know how far that's come along.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> That is Bluray releases, Selden. My question was how many *theatrical* releases had been mixed in 7.1.


 Right. That's why I used the prefix "FWIW". i should have been more explicit and written "While this might not correspond directly to the theatrical releases..." Sorry.



kbarnes701 said:


> It was to counter a point attempting to correlate 7.1 BD releases with Atmos (potential) releases.
> 
> If in the last several years there have been only 515 7.1 Bluray releases, then this bodes exceptionally well for Atmos Bluray releases IMO, as over 120 movies have *already* been theatrically mixed in Atmos. This is the opposite of what was being contended.
> 
> And out of those 515 7.1 Bluray releases, how many were theatrical releases in 7.1? Half? Fewer?


I dunno.


kbarnes701 said:


> The reason there are so few 7.1 mixes on Bluray is that there are very few 7.1 theatrical mixes, and it takes significant effort to remix especially for the Bluray release. That won’t apply with Atmos - every Atmos movie can expect an Atmos Bluray release, and as the adoption of Atmos is growing much faster than the adoption of 5.1, at the same stage in its evolution, we can therefore expect Atmos releases on Bluray (of Atmos theatrical mixes obviously) to become the norm.


 Eventually...

Another FWIW, Warner announced this morning that the extended editions of _The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ are scheduled to be released on November 3rd (UK) and 4th (US). Supposedly they have a DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack. 

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14652


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Right. That's why I used the prefix "FWIW". i should have been more explicit and written "While this might not correspond directly to the theatrical releases..." Sorry.
> 
> I dunno.
> Eventually...
> 
> Another FWIW, Warner announced this morning that the extended editions of _The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ are scheduled to be released on November 3rd (UK) and 4th (US). Supposedly they have a DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14652


It's all speculation at this stage, Selden. But September approaches at cosmological speed, so we don't have too long to wait now. I must be a little unusual in that, while I am hugely pumped at the thought of having Atmos in my HT, I am not really at all interested in when this or that movie will be released on Bluray. I expect that all the current Atmos movies will be, and not too far into the future, and post-CEDIA I am expecting every _new_ Atmos movie to get an Atmos BD when the time comes for the release of the latter. I buy a lot of Blurays and they will just start to appear in my collection as time goes on. It's how I remember the move to 5.1 discrete happening when we all moved from VHS to DVD. I didn't immediately throw away all my VHS tapes and as new movies were mixed in 5.1, so they appeared in 5.1 on DVD. Eventually of course I double dipped a lot of the VHS collection and I expect I might do the same all over again for Atmos Blurays. It's just the nature of having a hobby that depends so heavily on technology I guess.


----------



## Selden Ball

Yup. I'm in a similar situation, although I've been struggling not to multi-dip when I can avoid it. I still have both VHS tapes and Laserdiscs, although I haven't watched either format for quite a while. Fortunately (?) I managed not to invest in purchase any Betamax tapes or HD-DVDs.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> But what if they don't want to spend the money on software from both camps? And DTS had been talking about a way to translate Atmos data over to MDA for easy file conversion. Don't know how far that's come along.


How much do you think an encoding suite is? It's not much.

Link for where DTS says they are talking about a way to translate Atmos to MDA data? Curious where you heard that from... I haven't up until you mentioned it...

Regardless of those two points... do you think Dolby is just going to sit there and watch that happen? That they aren't motivated to be competitive?

And while there are many out there who keep bringing up the fact that DTS has been adopted by many studios as their format for BR, Dolby is by no means a loser in this regard... they still have mandatory decoders in _every_ disc player sold, and still have a mandatory decoder in _every_ HDTV with a tuner sold... that is where they make a great deal of money.

Not to mention their dominance in the streaming world.... 

Anyways... just my .02.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> How much do you think an encoding suite is? It's not much.
> 
> Link for where DTS says they are talking about a way to translate Atmos to MDA data? Curious where you heard that from... I haven't up until you mentioned it...
> 
> Regardless of those two points... do you think Dolby is just going to sit there and watch that happen? That they aren't motivated to be competitive?
> 
> And while there are many out there who keep bringing up the fact that DTS has been adopted by many studios as their format for BR, Dolby is by no means a loser in this regard... they still have mandatory decoders in _every_ disc player sold, and still have a mandatory decoder in _every_ HDTV with a tuner sold... that is where they make a great deal of money.
> 
> Not to mention their dominance in the streaming world....
> 
> Anyways... just my .02.


You're probably right. Looking back over older articles I think my memory was blending what SMPTE wanted to have happen with a universal, cross-platform, "open" package that would play nicely between the opposing Dolby and DTS object formats.


----------



## Nightlord

Selden Ball said:


> Another FWIW, Warner announced this morning that the extended editions of _The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ are scheduled to be released on November 3rd (UK) and 4th (US). Supposedly they have a DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack.


This HAS to be the only thread where that warrants a sad smiley!


----------



## Scott Simonian

8ch surround has been around for nearly 10 years on the consumer level.

We can do better if we want to these days.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Scott Simonian said:


> This.
> 
> The smart move (if avoiding use of wides) is simply to place the surrounds at a point that is directly in the middle of the distance between your front left and right and rear left and right.
> 
> Also see Roger Dressler's home cinema as the proper way to do 7.1.4 audio. My hero.


Yeah this concept is all new to me, although I've seen that diagram posted in this thread before.

So this is for use only in a Dolby Atmos setup?

Previously I've heard it said that surround speakers should never be in front of the listener... 90 degrees max.

Also, the Denon 5200 manual does not give these measurements. I'm confused.

Sure, Erwin.BE, Roger Dressler, and you tout this idea, but if the people making the codecs or receivers don't know about it, how could the sound be rendered properly with such a layout? Is your system today set up like this, or is this for future Dolby Atmos setups? Dolby Surround? Please enlighten me.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> My question was how many *theatrical* releases had been mixed in 7.1.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround_7.1 

Looks to be around 80 English language movies plus 45 Bollywood movies and about a dozen Chinese movies.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround_7.1
> 
> Looks to be around 80 English language movies plus 45 Bollywood movies and about a dozen Chinese movies.


Not to mention some of the 7.1 remixes created for home theater.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not to mention some of the 7.1 remixes created for home theater.


If the two numbers are right, more than 400 have been remixed to 7.1 for home video. Which I find surprising.


----------



## Nightlord

PoshFrosh said:


> Previously I've heard it said that surround speakers should never be in front of the listener... 90 degrees max.


Then you haven't been listening to everyone, if I remeber correctly it's 12 degrees in front and 12 degrees up that's the recommendation from my speaker maker for the frontmost of the side surrounds and then you divide the rest of the back fiels in equal pie pieces depending on how many surrounds you use. (3 on either side and 1 each for the back surrounds in my case, thus 7 pie pieces).

Examples on how 2-1-1-2 vs 3-2-2-3 would have been in my theater1.0:


----------



## Scott Simonian

PoshFrosh said:


> So this is for use only in a Dolby Atmos setup?
> 
> Previously I've heard it said that surround speakers should never be in front of the listener... 90 degrees max.
> 
> ....how could the sound be rendered properly with such a layout? Is your system today set up like this, or is this for future Dolby Atmos setups? Dolby Surround? Please enlighten me.


Not only for Atmos, no.

Current, past and future cinemas all have (except for IMAX) an array of surround speakers that will extend well in front of you, to your side and behind you. This is especially the case if you sit in the sweet spot which is typically not directly in the center but 2/3's back from the screen wall.

At home we do not usually use an array of surround speakers. Instead we use just one speaker per channel. This is a compromise we all have to make. Will my surrounds be at my side or behind me? With the days of 7.1 we now have the rear of the room taken care of and this allows us to be more flexible with the side surrounds. Many diagrams depict them to be slightly behind the listener with the rears being even more so. In reality this is not an effective layout, imho as there is very little to differentiate between these channels. It will all sound roughly coming from the same location. Where else do we move these speakers? Well, we don't want to move the rears too much closer as then they will touch and then we just went to 6.1 audio. So those don't need to move. We need to move the side surrounds. At this point the obvious answer seems to be at the 90* point. This makes a ton of sense, imo.

This is where it gets interesting. Pretty much all of us do not sit in the direct center of a square shaped room. Our speakers are not set up like these diagrams set up in perfection-land.  In fact it's really the best idea to sit about 2/3's of the way into the room. If you put your surrounds at your side then there is a very good chance that there is this gap between the surrounds and your front left and right. This will necessitate the need/desire to fill that gap with .... wides.  

I won't go into that part. I love the idea of wides and such so don't take this as if I do not. However, not everyone can accommodate them or even have the capability to generate them. For example I could use them but I don't have NEOX so I can only use DSX wides.

Anyway. So how do we fill this gap? Simple. Move your surrounds a bit forward, fill that gap and sit 'inside' the surround field. I have tried this in the past with some older floorstanders and I liked the effect. I just haven't done it for a long time because I have surrounds mounted on the wall and they don't move.  I will try it again though. Others have tried it and do it currently with pleasing results.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Not only for Atmos, no.
> 
> Current, past and future cinemas all have (except for IMAX) an array of surround speakers that will extend well in front of you, to your side and behind you. This is especially the case if you sit in the sweet spot which is typically not directly in the center but 2/3's back from the screen wall.
> 
> At home we do not usually use an array of surround speakers. Instead we use just one speaker per channel. This is a compromise we all have to make. Will my surrounds be at my side or behind me? With the days of 7.1 we now have the rear of the room taken care of and this allows us to be more flexible with the side surrounds. Many diagrams depict them to be slightly behind the listener with the rears being even more so. In reality this is not an effective layout, imho as there is very little to differentiate between these channels. It will all sound roughly coming from the same location. Where else do we move these speakers? Well, we don't want to move the rears to much closer as then they will touch and then we just went to 6.1 audio. So those don't need to move. We need to move the side surrounds. At this point the obvious answer seems to be at the 90* point. This makes a ton of sense, imo.
> 
> Where is where it gets interesting. Pretty much all of us do not sit in the direct center of a square shaped room. Our speakers are not set up like these diagrams set up in perfection-land.  In fact it's really the best idea to sit about 2/3's of the way into the room. If you put your surrounds at your side then there is a very good chance that there is this gap between the surrounds and your front left and right. This will necessitate the need/desire to fill that gap with .... wides.
> 
> I won't go into that part. I love the idea of wides and such so don't take this as if I do not. However, not everyone can accommodate them or even have the capability to generate them. For example I could use them but I don't have NEOX so I can only use DSX wides.
> 
> Anyway. So how do we fill this gap? Simple. Move your surrounds a bit forward, fill that gap and sit 'inside' the surround field. I have tried this in the past with some older floorstanders and I liked the effect. I just haven't done it for a long time because I have surrounds mounted on the wall and they don't move.  I will try it again though. Others have tried it and do it currently with pleasing results.


For those home owners lucky enough to have money to burn, surround arrays are now a reality in the home thanks to Atmos.

As I mentioned above, this looks like the basic speaker break down: 

Five screen wall speakers
Five right wall
Five left wall
Five rear wall
10 overheads

Subs


----------



## Scott Simonian

Good lord. 

Dan, how large is your room? No way could I really fit all that in my room and that is most likely the case for many others. Plus that is just a ton of speakers to buy and hook up. Most people, even here at AVS, can even bother to go >5.1 let alone .... a bajillion.1 but I love your spirit! 


Do you have a system thread? I'd love to see it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Yup. I'm in a similar situation, although I've been struggling not to multi-dip when I can avoid it. I still have both VHS tapes and Laserdiscs, although I haven't watched either format for quite a while. Fortunately (?) I managed not to invest in purchase any Betamax tapes or HD-DVDs.


I have about 100 HDDVDs. I bought them all for next to nothing after they lost the war. All my VHS tapes have been given to charity shops now though. I used to fight double dipping but now I just go with it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Good lord.
> 
> Dan, how large is your room? No way could I really fit all that in my room and that is most likely the case for many others. Plus that is just a ton of speakers to buy and hook up. Most people, even here at AVS, can even bother to go >5.1 let alone .... a bajillion.1 but I love your spirit!
> 
> 
> Do you have a system thread? I'd love to see it.


I never said _I_ have money to burn, just that some lucky bastards might.  

That is the basic home Atmos layout in all its glory if you went all out.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> That is the basic home Atmos layout in all its glory if you went all out.


Why stop there? 


Honestly, imho, in the domestic environment I see little to gain going beyond a 9.1.6 layout.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not to mention some of the 7.1 remixes created for home theater.


Not in the list I linked to, which was in reply to Keith's question:


kbarnes701 said:


> My question was how many *theatrical* releases had been mixed in 7.1.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Why stop there?


Equidistant speakers on tape from 3M ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Why stop there?
> 
> 
> Honestly, imho, in the domestic environment I see little to gain going beyond a 9.1.6 layout.


I guess Dolby didn't get the memo.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Honestly, imho, in the domestic environment I see little to gain going beyond a 9.1.6 layout.


*whistling and looking absent-mindedly to the skies*


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround_7.1
> 
> Looks to be around 80 English language movies plus 45 Bollywood movies and about a dozen Chinese movies.


So in about a decade, roughly the same number as Atmos mixes since Atmos started less than a couple of years ago. So it's no wonder that 7.1 Bluray mixes are, as a proportion of the total number of movies on Bluray, a very small percentage. So to criticise, as some were, the studios for not releasing many 7.1 discs is manifestly unfair, and what's more relevant to this thread, entirely irrelevant to how many Atmos Blurays we are likely to see. It's just not a valid comparison - to say _"well the studios haven't released all that many 7.1 Blurays, so they're not likely to release all that many Atmos Blurays"_ is just way off beam.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Can't speak for Dolby and without some form of 'whitepaper' on consumer Atmos, I'm not sure if they have gotten ANY memo. 

Time will tell. 

Ugh. Stupid time. Never enough when I need it and WAY too much when I don't.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Not in the list I linked to, which was in reply to Keith's question:


Yes, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that theatrical releases in 7.1 (or Atmos) will be much more likely to get translated to Bluray because most of the work has already been done for the theatrical release. The reason there aren't all that many 7.1 Blurays is because to re-mix for the home 7.1 mix takes time and costs money. This isn’t relevant to how many Atmos Blurays we will see because the movies will _already_ have Atmos mixes. BYAKT


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> If the two numbers are right, more than 400 have been remixed to 7.1 for home video. Which I find surprising.


Keep in mind that we've had discrete 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray for almost four years before there were any *theatrical* 7.1 mixes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that we've had discrete 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray for almost four years before there were any *theatrical* 7.1 mixes.


Yeah, no kidding. I'm sure I have a few of those early titles. IIRC, 3:10 to Yuma was an early one in 7.1 PCM.

Toy Story 3 was the first theatrical 7.1 release presented in *Dolby Surround 7.1* which is what they call their 7.1 audio for cinema.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that we've had discrete 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray for almost four years before there were any *theatrical* 7.1 mixes.


Why are theaters trying to commit suicide? They need to stay on top of the game and lobby to get to keep new tech for a few years before it goes into our homes if they are to survive.

Feb 2015 I expect to have more Atmos home theaters in this country than cinemas with Atmos.... That won't exactly draw any crowds...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Why are theaters trying to commit suicide? They need to stay on top of the game and lobby to get to keep new tech for a few years before it goes into our homes if they are to survive.
> 
> Feb 2015 I expect to have more Atmos home theaters in this country than cinemas with Atmos.... That won't exactly draw any crowds...


The general movie going population probably has no idea what Dolby Atmos is or cares. 

Just the likes of us.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So in about a decade, roughly the same number as Atmos mixes since Atmos started less than a couple of years ago.


Not a decade, since discrete 7.1 theatrical mixes started June of 2010. So about 4 years. 

As for Atmos, there are about 60 English language movies so far, counting to Maze Runner in mid-September. No English language movies listed after that, but we do know there is one more Hobbit movie coming in December and the upcoming Avengers movie announced in Atmos for next year. 

When you see Atmos and Auro talk about over 100 movies mixed in their respective formats, they're including lots of foreign language movies (especially Auro) that might never end up with an Atmos soundtrack on BD. 

With that in mind, I prefer counting only English language titles. The numbers are not as exciting, but it is a more realistic indicator of what might end up on BD. For Auro, it's about 15 titles (all but 2 were also mixed in Atmos). For Atmos, it's around 60 titles so far.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Why are theaters trying to commit suicide?


Everyone needs a hobby.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> The main benefit of Atmos, IME, is not flyovers and overhead effects as such. It is the ability of the mixer to use a three dimensional space in which to place objects. So he can put a sound slightly above you, in front of you and to the right all at the same time. The overhead speakers make this possible. Think of it as triangles - wherever the sound from three speakers 'intersects' is a triangulated point in space.


? Sounds like you're talking about those speakers from awhile back that produced audio-modulated high freq beams that produced sound from the difference freq's generated by interference at locations where the beams physically intersected.

Two speakers is all it takes to produce a phantom image; Atmos doesn't give 3D because of more speakers but because it encodes 3D signals.

Not practical for more than one person, but all it would take for 3D sound is four speakers located at the vertices of a tetrahedron.



Scott Simonian said:


> At home we do not usually use an array of surround speakers. Instead we use just one speaker per channel. This is a compromise we all have to make.


I'm not so sure it's not the theaters that have to compromise in order to deal with listeners' wider range of listening angles compared to at home.


----------



## JHAz

Nightlord said:


> Why are theaters trying to commit suicide? They need to stay on top of the game and lobby to get to keep new tech for a few years before it goes into our homes if they are to survive.
> 
> Feb 2015 I expect to have more Atmos home theaters in this country than cinemas with Atmos.... That won't exactly draw any crowds...



Here in flyover country, I cannot recall a theater ever advertising itself as superior on the basis of anything audio. Presumably if it moved the needle they'd do it. I don't count the pre-movie blurbs from DTS or whoever, which mostly seem to demonstrate that the system in question can clearly and painfully recreate high-mid and treble heavy sounds at high level. WHEE! Ouch.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure I have a few of those early titles. IIRC, 3:10 to Yuma was an early one in 7.1 PCM.


Yup, I think Crank was one of the early ones too.


Scott Simonian said:


> Toy Story 3 was the first theatrical 7.1 release presented in *Dolby Surround 7.1* which is what they call their 7.1 audio for cinema.


8 channels of good ol' PCM and they name it Dolby Surround 7.1 (that company has some balls).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Everyone needs a hobby.
















noah katz said:


> I'm not so sure it's not the theaters that have to compromise in order to deal with listeners' wider range of listening angles compared to at home.


Hey, Noah. Thanks for commenting. I do believe my syntax was not correct when I posted that. I'm often taking several laps to and from the computer here at work.  

That comment should have been aligned with my comments about where to place our surrounds at home. Not in reference to we having to compromise because we do not use surround arrays.

Hope that clears up any confusion.






sdurani said:


> Yup, I think Crank was one of the early ones too. 8 channels of good ol' PCM and they name it Dolby Surround 7.1 (that company has some balls).


Ah yeah, I've got that one too but I swear Crank was 6.1 (mono surrounds). I'd have to look.

Lol I thought that was very confusing when they first announced Dolby Surround 7.1 sound for cinema. I was like, "Don't you guys already have....ahhh forget it."


----------



## wse

Interesting information about more and more studios beeing ATMOS 

Sands Mixes in Atmos with Meyer 








Santa Barbara, CA (August 5, 2014)—

Film sound engineer Dennis S. Sands has installed a Meyer Sound cinema loudspeaker system for mixing in Dolby Atmos at his Sound Waves SB studio.

Sands, private facility, located in Santa Barbara, CA, is the first Dolby Atmos dubbing stage dedicated exclusively to native mixing of film music. 

Sands’ monitoring system is anchored by three Acheron 80 screen channel loudspeakers and two X-800C high-power and X-400C cinema subwoofers each. Perimeter and overhead reinforcement comprises 14 HMS-10 and 10 HMS-12 surround loudspeakers with IntelligentDC technology, while a Galileo loudspeaker management system with one Galileo 408 processor supplies drive and equalization. 

Since installation, Sands has finished native Atmos film score mixes for Mr. Peabody & Sherman and the 2014 Godzilla reboot. He has also completed a 7.1 mix of Maze Runner and television mixes for the Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey series.

Sands’ studio was designed by film sound legend Tomlinson Holman and originally built as a private dubbing stage for director Andrew Davis. The room features a 12-by-20-foot screen, a Euphonix System 5-MC DAW controller, a Euphonix CS3000 digitally-controlled analog console, and four linked Pro Tools systems. A Focusrite RedNet 6 MADI bridge connects the Dolby Atmos RMU (Rendering and Mastering Unit) to a BSS SoundWeb London DSP system, which is used primarily for signal routing when switching from Atmos to 5.1 or 7.1 monitoring.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> ? Sounds like you're talking about those speakers from awhile back that produced audio-modulated high freq beams that produced sound from the difference freq's generated by interference at locations where the beams physically intersected.


Really? Sounded to me like he was talking about a phantom image between 3 speakers.


noah katz said:


> Two speakers is all it takes to produce a phantom image;


Produce a phantom image along a straight line. Like 2 speakers in front of you at ear height producing a horizontal soundstage. A third speaker can pull the phantom image away from from that line. Like a height speaker giving elevation to certain sounds in the horizontal soundstage.


noah katz said:


> Atmos doesn't give 3D because of more speakers but because it encodes 3D signals.


What 3D signals?


----------



## cwt

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're probably right. Looking back over older articles I think my memory was blending what SMPTE wanted to have happen with a universal, cross-platform, "open" package that would play nicely between the opposing Dolby and DTS object formats.


Recall that too ; wonder how the smpte is getting on with standardizing  

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/at-smpte-showeast-immersive-sound-650507


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Really? Sounded to me like he was talking about a phantom image between 3 speakers.


I guess so; my point was that the way phantom images are created is no different with Atmos.



sdurani said:


> What 3D signals?


The x/y/z object data, which will give 3D locations closer to what was intended vs. the 3D location we now get that depends on where we put our speakers.

That's the crux of Atmos, not how phantom images are created.


----------



## JohnAV

Scott Simonian said:


> The general movie going population probably has no idea what Dolby Atmos is or cares.
> 
> Just the likes of us.


 You know given the comments about the small number of 7.1 BD releases tied with the lack of consumer knowledge against Atmos probably doesn't inspire studios to provide home theater fans any BD's with Dolby Atmos audio tracks any time in the immediate future. When a consumer goes to the cinema they would be impressed with vivid image realism and effects from digital images, the story, but typically audio effects are more or less either great or so so, its not like they pay that much attention to the quality or placement of the sound effects especially when its very loud.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Not a decade, since discrete 7.1 theatrical mixes started June of 2010. So about 4 years.


Ah yes - good point. I was thinking since the start of 7.1 on Bluray. But the general point I was trying to make still stands.



sdurani said:


> As for Atmos, there are about 60 English language movies so far, counting to Maze Runner in mid-September. No English language movies listed after that, but we do know there is one more Hobbit movie coming in December and the upcoming Avengers movie announced in Atmos for next year.


Surely more than 60?

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html



sdurani said:


> When you see Atmos and Auro talk about over 100 movies mixed in their respective formats, they're including lots of foreign language movies (especially Auro) that might never end up with an Atmos soundtrack on BD.


Yes, that's a fair comment. Although some of them may well, even though they are foreign titles - Dr Dee for example probably will. A lot of my Chinese movies have fantastic sound - in fact most of them.



sdurani said:


> With that in mind, I prefer counting only English language titles. The numbers are not as exciting, but it is a more realistic indicator of what might end up on BD. For Auro, it's about 15 titles (all but 2 were also mixed in Atmos). For Atmos, it's around 60 titles so far.


OK - but the pace of adoption is still faster than it was for 7.1, and way faster than it was for 5.1 so it bodes well. And I am sure that every movie mixed in Atmos which does find its way to Bluray will be an Atmos release, so there will be a steady stream coming along. In my Amazon Wishlist, for example, I currently have 14 Blurays, of which all but 4 are Atmos theatrical mixes - and as most of the 10 will not be released in the UK until after September, I am sure they will all be Atmos Blurays. 

I can’t see what the doomsayers are trying to get across - if anyone thinks there will be hundreds of Atmos Blurays on Day One, clearly that ain't gonna happen. But there will be a steady stream coming along as more and more movies are mixed in Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> The x/y/z object data, which will give 3D locations closer to what was intended vs. the 3D location we now get that depends on where we put our speakers.


But that's not a 3D signal, just the same sounds as before that are intensity panned so they end up between more than 2 speakers. After that...


noah katz said:


> ...the way phantom images are created is no different with Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> ? Sounds like you're talking about those speakers from awhile back that produced audio-modulated high freq beams that produced sound from the difference freq's generated by interference at locations where the beams physically intersected.
> 
> Two speakers is all it takes to produce a phantom image; Atmos doesn't give 3D because of more speakers but because it encodes 3D signals.
> 
> Not practical for more than one person, but all it would take for 3D sound is four speakers located at the vertices of a tetrahedron.
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure it's not the theaters that have to compromise in order to deal with listeners' wider range of listening angles compared to at home.


Two speakers can phantom image in two dimensions of course. But the overhead layer is needed for triangulation in three dimensions, which is where the precision and the 'three-dimensionality' comes from. 

Theaters certainly have a more difficult job to do, with so many people over such a big area of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

JohnAV said:


> You know given the comments about the small number of 7.1 BD releases tied with the lack of consumer knowledge against Atmos probably doesn't inspire studios to provide home theater fans any BD's with Dolby Atmos audio tracks any time in the immediate future. When a consumer goes to the cinema they would be impressed with vivid image realism and effects from digital images, the story, but typically audio effects are more or less either great or so so, its not like they pay that much attention to the quality or placement of the sound effects especially when its very loud.


What you're missing is that once the Atmos mix has been done for the theatrical release it's real easy (and cheap) to deliver it on Bluray, so there's no real reason not to. That scalability is one of the huge steps forward with Atmos compared with what exists now. 7.1 on BD is a total red herring.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Scott Simonian said:


> ...Anyway. So how do we fill this gap? Simple. Move your surrounds a bit forward, fill that gap and sit 'inside' the surround field. I have tried this in the past with some older floorstanders and I liked the effect. I just haven't done it for a long time because I have surrounds mounted on the wall and they don't move.  I will try it again though. Others have tried it and do it currently with pleasing results.


I assume when doing this and watching a 5.1 movie, one must use PLIIx (which I use all the time anyway)

Interesting. It always did seem odd that there would be more surround speakers than main speakers (3 in front, 4 in the rear).

I'll have to mull this over and then do some experimenting with this concept once I get some quality time with the HT system.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> But that's not a 3D signal, just the same sounds as before that are intensity panned so they end up between more than 2 speakers. After that...


Right; I should have said 3D location data embedded in the signal.



kbarnes701 said:


> Two speakers can phantom image in two dimensions of course. But the overhead layer is needed for triangulation in three dimensions, which is where the precision and the 'three-dimensionality' comes from.


My objection is to the use of the term triangulation, which is no more applicable to phantom imaging using three speakers as it is two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> I assume when doing this and watching a 5.1 movie, one must use PLIIx (which I use all the time anyway)
> 
> Interesting. It always did seem odd that there would be more surround speakers than main speakers (3 in front, 4 in the rear).
> 
> I'll have to mull this over and then do some experimenting with this concept once I get some quality time with the HT system.


The ITU standards for 7.1 are exemplified in this diagram - as you see, Scott's suggested layout meets with their approval:


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Surely more than 60?


I counted 60 English language movies so far.


kbarnes701 said:


> Dr Dee for example probably will. A lot of my Chinese movies have fantastic sound - in fact most of them.


You mean Young Detective Dee, last year's prequel to the 2010 Detective Dee movie? 

Since I have the latter on BD, I looked all over Los Angeles and environs to find an Atmos theatre playing the prequel, to no avail (some Chinese movies, like Grandmasters, did get a theatrical run locally in Atmos). 

BTW, if you haven't already read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Renjie#In_fiction 


kbarnes701 said:


> OK - but the pace of adoption is still faster than it was for 7.1, and way faster than it was for 5.1 so it bodes well.


Yes, 60 Atmos movies in 2 years is faster than 85 7.1 movies in 4 years. And the pace is quite good (5 movies in August).


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> My objection is to the use of the term triangulation, which is no more applicable to phantom imaging using three speakers as it is two.


I did say "think of it like triangulation", meaning that this was a loose comparison. But you still can’t position an object in three dimensional space using only two co-ordinates. Sure, you can plot where a third point is from two locations, using simple sine math, but that isn't the same thing. 

All I meant by "think of it like triangles" was an easy way of getting a grasp of the basic principles involved in x, y, z co-ordinate plotting. One of the Atmos trailers uses triangle graphics heavily, which I am sure isn't a coincidence.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I counted 60 English language movies so far. You mean Young Detective Dee, last year's prequel to the 2010 Detective Dee movie?


LOL - WTF is Dr Dee?! yes, I meant* Detective *Dee... 



sdurani said:


> Since I have the latter on BD, I looked all over Los Angeles and environs to find an Atmos theatre playing the prequel, to no avail (some Chinese movies, like Grandmasters, did get a theatrical run locally in Atmos).


Amazing - I’d have done that too. You are the only person other than me, whom I know anyway, who has even heard of Detective Dee.



sdurani said:


> BTW, if you haven't already read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Renjie#In_fiction Yes, 60 Atmos movies in 2 years is faster than 85 7.1 movies in 4 years. And the pace is quite good (5 movies in August).


Yup.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You are the only person other than me, whom I know anyway, who has even heard of Detective Dee.


He was a real life person who did some unbelievable things (they have the film to prove it).


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> But you still can’t position an object in three dimensional space using only two co-ordinates.


Sure you can; the location of a mono image for a centered listener is located between the 3D positions of the L/R speakers. 

Though now that I think about I wonder if even Atmos isn't really giving us 3D, but just expanding directional 2D info from a line to a surface.

The perception of depth info is generated psychoacoustically by the use of reflections, not by placing speakers at different distances.



kbarnes701 said:


> All I meant by "think of it like triangles" was an easy way of getting a grasp of the basic principles involved in x, y, z co-ordinate plotting. One of the Atmos trailers uses triangle graphics heavily, which I am sure isn't a coincidence.


Might be easy, but I just don't see the technical basis.

I don't think those triangles mean anything, likely just easy to generate images with since they're the basis of computer graphics.



sdurani said:


> He was a real life person who did some unbelievable things (they have the film to prove it).


I didn't realize film has been around so long 

"Di Renjie (630 – August 15, 700[1])"


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I didn't realize film has been around so long
> 
> "Di Renjie (630 – August 15, 700[1])"


Acetate hadn't been invented, so they used strips of rice paper with an egg-based emulsion. Problem was, the camera department kept eating the film stock.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Acetate hadn't been invented, so they used strips of rice paper with an egg-based emulsion. Problem was, the camera department kept eating the film stock.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Sure you can; the location of a mono image for a centered listener is located between the 3D positions of the L/R speakers.


But that is on a horizontal plane. 



noah katz said:


> Though now that I think about I wonder if even Atmos isn't really giving us 3D, but just expanding directional 2D info from a line to a surface.


I freely admit that you have lost me here Noah  You are giving me examples of x and y, but no z.



noah katz said:


> The perception of depth info is generated psychoacoustically by the use of reflections, not by placing speakers at different distances.


Psychoacoustic perception is always going to be trumped by a real 'object' (pun intended). But again, depth cues are on the horizontal plane. Where are you going to get x, y and z from, all at the same time, with 2D?



noah katz said:


> I don't think those triangles mean anything, likely just easy to generate images with since they're the basis of computer graphics.


That may be the case but it doesn't change the fact that Atmos works the way I described.

This post has interesting, and more authoritative, stuff on the subject of triangles:

https://www.avsforum.com/posts/25767561/



noah katz said:


> I didn't realize film has been around so long
> 
> "Di Renjie (630 – August 15, 700[1])"


 Of course, if we use the Jewish calendar it's 5774 already....


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> He was a real life person who did some unbelievable things (they have the film to prove it).


Yes - I followed your link (thanks BTW). I had no idea...


----------



## noah katz

Wait a sec, do I have it wrong - does object data have x/y/z or just x/y coordinates?

The latter is all it takes to determine azimuith and elevation.


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> Wait a sec, do I have it wrong - does object data have x/y/z or just x/y coordinates?
> 
> The latter is all it takes to determine azimuith and elevation.


I thought that was the whole point of object based sound/rendering. 

Lol now I'm confused.


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, no kidding. I'm sure I have a few of those early titles. IIRC, 3:10 to Yuma was an early one in 7.1 PCM.
> 
> Toy Story 3 was the first theatrical 7.1 release presented in *Dolby Surround 7.1* which is what they call their 7.1 audio for cinema.



But I believe all those were remixes, just as studios routinely remix from mono/stereo/LtRt to 5.1. I can't be sure but until _TS3_ there weren't any films natively mixed from scratch to 7.1.



sdurani said:


> Yup, I think Crank was one of the early ones too. 8 channels of good ol' PCM and they name it Dolby Surround 7.1 (that company has some balls).



Didn't they come up with the mixing parameters? And isn't it is their cinema processor?


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> But I believe all those were remixes, just as studios routinely remix from mono/stereo/LtRt to 5.1. I can't be sure but until _TS3_ there weren't any films natively mixed from scratch to 7.1.


True but that wasn't the point. My post that you quoted was in reply to Sanjay's post of native 8ch content on Blu-ray. Whether it was a remix or not does not matter as it was native 7.1 on disk.

Also, to your other question. I believe anymore in cinema there is no Dolby and DTS sound. It's just PCM audio delivered as part of the DCP (digital cinema package).


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Wait a sec, do I have it wrong - does object data have x/y/z or just x/y coordinates?


The x,y coordinates will determine left/right and front/back. The z coordinate determines height.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> I can't be sure but until _TS3_ there weren't any films natively mixed from scratch to 7.1.


Correct, there weren't.


PeterTHX said:


> Didn't they come up with the mixing parameters? And isn't it is their cinema processor?


Dunno, but 8 channels of PCM isn't a Dolby format any more than 6 channels of PCM is "Dolby Surround 5.1".


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> The x,y coordinates will determine left/right and front/back. The z coordinate determines height.


Are you sure?

It only requires one variable to define azimuth around a 360 deg circle, which would cover left/right and front/back, and one more variable to define elevation.


----------



## dschulz

PeterTHX said:


> Didn't they come up with the mixing parameters? And isn't it is their cinema processor?


No, and no. The standards for mixing have long since been established by SMPTE and others (although with considerable input from Dolby over the years). As others have noted the DCI standard for digital cinema soundtracks calls for 48/24 (or 96/24) uncompressed LPCM. 5.1 tracks are mandatory; DCI provided for up to 16 channels of audio, but since there is no provision for automated downmixes, no one really figured out a way to get beyond 7.1 in a practical sense using all 16 channels. There are a number of manufacturers of cinema processors, the most prominent being Dolby, UltraStereo and Datasat (formerly DTS Digital Cinema, and my employer). Any DCI-compliant rig can play back 7.1 D-Cinema tracks.

In Dolby's defense, because of the lack of down-mixing capability moving existing theaters to 7.1 was not as easy as it may sound - the speakers and amplification were already in place, but the wiring had to be re-done. Dolby did work hand-in-hand with Disney to get Toy Story 3 off the ground in 7.1 by providing firmware updates to cinemas using Dolby cinema processors (so they could easily switch between 5.1. and 7.1) and doing a fair amount of ground-work in site visits to cinemas to make sure they were wired properly for 7.1.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> noah katz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a sec, do I have it wrong - does object data have x/y/z or just x/y coordinates?
> 
> The latter is all it takes to determine azimuith and elevation.
> 
> 
> 
> The x,y coordinates will determine left/right and front/back. The z coordinate determines height.
Click to expand...


It might be more useful to think in terms of the "*x|y|z metadata*" as detailing the object's position as "distance *R* from the *MLP*, at a specific *azimuth* and *elevation*"...


_Just a simplified guess as to how audio from a *Static* object might be "rendered"..._

Impose a *Unit Radius* hemisphere "centered on" the *MLP*, and mark the *nominal speaker positions* (on the surface of the hemisphere) *as assumed by the Atmos rendering algorithm*. In, e.g., a *5.1.2* speaker configuration, it is possible to map the convex surface of the hemisphere by connecting the speaker positions using only *7* triangles, _viz_: *SL-H1L-FL*, *FL-H1L-FC*, *H1L-FC-H1R*, *FC-H1R-FR*, *FR-H1R-SR*, and *SR-H1R-H1L* plus *SR-H1L-SL* (or alternatively *SR-H1R-SL* plus *SL-H1R-H1L*).

A radiant connecting the object and the *MLP* always passes through only one of the 7 speaker triangles, and *Atmos* can use those three speakers to create an image of the object at the appropriate *azimuth* and *elevation*.

Placing the image of the object at radius *R* from the *MLP* (rather than at the nominal *Unit Radius* distance of the speakers from the *MLP*) requires _time advance|delay_ and _amplitude_ adjustments similar to that used to compensate for differing speaker distances from the *MLP*.


_Obviously VBAP is really a lot more complicated than this little model._ 
_


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott Simonian said:


> Good lord.
> 
> Dan, how large is your room? No way could I really fit all that in my room and that is most likely the case for many others. Plus that is just a ton of speakers to buy and hook up. Most people, even here at AVS, can even bother to go >5.1 let alone .... a bajillion.1


I agree and I will most likely never go past 7.1.4 myself (okay maybe 9.1.4) but maybe if you have four rows of seats in a large room? You can have the compact but powered Mackie 624 for $500 each:

http://www.mackie.com/products/hrmk2series/

30 of these cost no more than one of those über-processors... No extra amps needed. For those with big families!


----------



## noah katz

SoundChex said:


> It might be more useful to think in terms of the "*x|y|z metadata*" as detailing the object's position as "distance *R* from the *MLP*, at a specific *azimuth* and *elevation*"...


OK; I forgot up until now we've had two variables, azimuth and distance, the latter measurable with the mic and the former assumed to be correct.

Although the distance isn't truly locating objects' location in the depth direction, just ensuring correct relative arrival times.



SoundChex said:


> _Obviously VBAP is really a lot more complicated than this little model._ _


While VBAP happily allows us to perceive sounds from different directions than just where the speakers are, I maintain that that doesn't relate to the encoding model at all.


----------



## JohnAV

kbarnes701 said:


> What you're missing is that once the Atmos mix has been done for the theatrical release it's real easy (and cheap) to deliver it on Bluray, so there's no real reason not to. That scalability is one of the huge steps forward with Atmos compared with what exists now. 7.1 on BD is a total red herring.


 Doing a Atmos mix for a theater release makes sense, but practicality aside, whats in it for the studios to produce BD's that support Atmos nevermind if it is easy or cheap? 

How many consumers at this point in time will to run out and buy a minor re-release or a new release that offers a Atmos coded track over a 5.1/7.1 release? Probably not enough to make the studio even consider it yet. 

I just don't see any tidal wave happening with this. Hell the industry kinda blundered 3D, has over promised with 4K, and now Dolby thinks 3D sound is a cakewalk, I don't so.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> It only requires one variable to define azimuth around a 360 deg circle, which would cover left/right and front/back, and one more variable to define elevation.


Dolby chose a different way to define coordinates. 










The above diagram shows the theatre from above (notice the screen at the top of the diagram/front of the theatre). 

The blue square dot in the centre of the screen is 0 on the X axis. The blue squares all the way to the left side are -100 on the X axis. The blue squares all the way to the right side are 100 on the X axis. 

The blue squares at the midpoint of the side walls are 0 on the Y axis. The blue squares on the front wall are 100 on the Y axis. The blue squares in the back corners are -100 on the Y axis. 

While the X and Y axes have a range of -100 to 100, the Z axis only has a range from 0 to 100 (listeners plane to the ceiling - the two blue squares in the middle of the diagram). The yellow dot in the pic above is an object at the middle of room width and room length and at the listener plane. 










In the diagram above, the object is a left of centre (-41), forward of the midpoint (32) and still on the listener plane (0). So its x,y,z coordinates are -41,32,0 (in that order).


----------



## bargervais

JohnAV said:


> Doing a Atmos mix for a theater release makes sense, but practicality aside, whats in it for the studios to produce BD's that support Atmos nevermind if it is easy or cheap?
> 
> How many consumers at this point in time will to run out and buy a minor re-release or a new release that offers a Atmos coded track over a 5.1/7.1 release? Probably not enough to make the studio even consider it yet.
> 
> I just don't see any tidal wave happening with this. Hell the industry kinda blundered 3D, has over promised with 4K, and now Dolby thinks 3D sound is a cakewalk, I don't so.


I totally agree but I would hope that it will be a faster process then 3D they did have a few 3D blu-ray in he beginning when I got my TV so why not have a atmos blu-ray when you buy a new receiver with atmos....


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Dolby chose a different way to define coordinates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above diagram shows the theatre from above (notice the screen at the top of the diagram/front of the theatre).
> 
> The blue square dot in the centre of the screen is 0 on the X axis. The blue squares all the way to the left side are -100 on the X axis. The blue squares all the way to the right side are 100 on the X axis.
> 
> The blue squares at the midpoint of the side walls are 0 on the Y axis. The blue squares on the front wall are 100 on the Y axis. The blue squares in the back corners are -100 on the Y axis.
> 
> While the X and Y axes have a range of -100 to 100, the Z axis only has a range from 0 to 100 (listeners plane to the ceiling - the two blue squares in the middle of the diagram). The yellow dot in the pic above is an object at the middle of room width and room length and at the listener plane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the diagram above, the object is a left of centre (-41), forward of the midpoint (32) and still on the listener plane (0). So its x,y,z coordinates are -41,32,0 (in that order).


My head is spinning with all this x y z stuff


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> The ITU standards for 7.1 are exemplified in this diagram - as you see, Scott's suggested layout meets with their approval:



Under Atmos (and likely also DTS-UHD), the Surrounds do "double duty": they perform the traditional 'delivery of rear surround ambiance' task, and now--in concert with Front and Height speakers--they participate in the imaging of objects. In this latter task, the AVR's Atmos rendering algorithm relies on all of the speakers being "placed predictably" . . . of course for most people, placement of speakers is "something of a compromise"--but for object rendering purposes, it's likely better to make an attempt to follow the specific AVR's speaker placement guidelines, at least initially!
_


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> True but that wasn't the point. My post that you quoted was in reply to Sanjay's post of native 8ch content on Blu-ray. Whether it was a remix or not does not matter as it was native 7.1 on disk.


But (to me) it isn't "native 7.1" any more than taking any stereo or 5.1 content and DSP-ing it to 7.1 on my receiver. A lot of those faux 7.1 tracks on overseas discs sound awful. Disney Platinum discs sound nice...but there's no mistaking them for actual 7.1 tracks.


One thing I like about possible Atmos remixes is that it will take some thought as to what to create as objects and where to place them in the soundfield, rather than just decorrelation and some logic steering.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> Disney Platinum discs sound nice...but there's no mistaking them for actual 7.1 tracks.


Those are actual 7.1 tracks. Just because those mixes weren't played in a commercial cinema doesn't make them any less 7.1.


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> My head is spinning with all this x y z stuff


Close your eyes.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Those are actual 7.1 tracks. Just because those mixes weren't played in a commercial cinema doesn't make them any less 7.1.


 
When they were created they weren't meant for 7.1, someone 70 years later did that. I can't say _Snow White_'s 7.1 is actual 7.1 and then listen to _Tangled_'s 7.1...(disregarding the improvements in dynamics, fidelity, etc).


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> But (to me) it isn't "native 7.1" any more than taking any stereo or 5.1 content and DSP-ing it to 7.1 on my receiver. A lot of those faux 7.1 tracks on overseas discs sound awful. Disney Platinum discs sound nice...but there's no mistaking them for actual 7.1 tracks.
> 
> 
> One thing I like about possible Atmos remixes is that it will take some thought as to what to create as objects and where to place them in the soundfield, rather than just decorrelation and some logic steering.


Right. Trust me, Peter. We are on the same page but in context with previous posts, it doesn't matter how they came to be. They are indeed REAL 7.1 on disk. When you output the signal to anything it is a "native" 8ch PCM signal that will be detected. 

The AVR isn't going to be all like, "psssh. You think I'm a fool?!? That wasn't 7.1 when I saw it in theaters!"  



PeterTHX said:


> When they were created they weren't meant for 7.1, someone 70 years later did that. I can't say _Snow White_'s 7.1 is actual 7.1 and then listen to _Tangled_'s 7.1...(disregarding the improvements in dynamics, fidelity, etc).


Lol.

You're going off on an unrelated tangent.

It doesn't matter if I have Gone with the Wind in 7.1 even though it wasn't originally. As it exists *on disk* it is a true 8ch signal. 

If I plug in the old Star Trek movies on BD (they were remixed to 7.1 for BD) my devices aren't going to revert them back to their original 6-track analog signal.   No, they will be detected as a 7.1 signal.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> When they were created they weren't meant for 7.1, someone 70 years later did that.


Sure, but the mix 70 years later is discrete 7.1, not something you would be able to do at home with "just decorrelation and some logic steering". 

Same with the remastered Star Trek TV show, where the Enterprise wooshes from the front left speaker to the back right speaker in the 7.1 mix. I couldn't have gotten that by applying surround processing to the original mono soundtrack. Someone remixed the sound to get that effect. 

Would you not consider that an actual 7.1 mix?


----------



## ambesolman

Not sure if this has been posted yet but found this white paper on another forum...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=12544

Edit: didn't look at it before posting, doesn't look like anything new. Just got prematurely excited seeing the Aug 2014 date on it


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> No, and no. The standards for mixing have long since been established by SMPTE and others (although with considerable input from Dolby over the years). As others have noted the DCI standard for digital cinema soundtracks calls for 48/24 (or 96/24) uncompressed LPCM. 5.1 tracks are mandatory; DCI provided for up to 16 channels of audio, but since there is no provision for automated downmixes, no one really figured out a way to get beyond 7.1 in a practical sense using all 16 channels. There are a number of manufacturers of cinema processors, the most prominent being Dolby, UltraStereo and Datasat (formerly DTS Digital Cinema, and my employer). Any DCI-compliant rig can play back 7.1 D-Cinema tracks.
> 
> In Dolby's defense, because of the lack of down-mixing capability moving existing theaters to 7.1 was not as easy as it may sound - the speakers and amplification were already in place, but the wiring had to be re-done. Dolby did work hand-in-hand with Disney to get Toy Story 3 off the ground in 7.1 by providing firmware updates to cinemas using Dolby cinema processors (so they could easily switch between 5.1. and 7.1) and doing a fair amount of ground-work in site visits to cinemas to make sure they were wired properly for 7.1.


Please, your take (eminent future vision) on *dts-UHD* ? ... Thx a bunch.

______________

* P.S. Thx ambesolman for that link (pdf file) just above.


----------



## bargervais

Has anyone asked the question why is Dolby coming out with atmos, almost all the new blu-ray releases are DTS-HD Master Audio. I just bought Divergent and the sound is quite awesome, I think the natural progression would be that DTS Takes the lead here. I think and I may be wrong but I think Dolby is trying to catch up by bringing atmos into our lives ..... is this going to be Atmos / DTS thing with Atmos trying to come out on top???


----------



## FilmMixer

bargervais said:


> Has anyone asked the question why is Dolby coming out with atmos, almost all the new blu-ray releases are DTS-HD Master Audio. I just bought Divergent and the sound is quite awesome, I think the natural progression would be that DTS Takes the lead here. I think and I may be wrong but I think Dolby is trying to catch up by bringing atmos into our lives ..... is this going to be Atmos / DTS thing with Atmos trying to come out on top???


Here's the question you need to ask yourself..

Do you think Divergent sounds good because it is in DTS-HD MA, or because the sound team did an excellent job?

There are several reasons why studios decide to encode with DTS rather than Dolby on BR..

_None_ of them have to do with audio quality.

If you really think there is an audible difference in the two lossless codecs I'm not sure what to say.. DTS has never claimed their MA codec sounded better than TrueHD.. 

What exactly are they trying to catch up to DTS on? Again, for the umpteenth time, DTS and Dolby aren't paid per title for use of their codec... the authoring houses (be it studio in house or independent) own the encoding suites which they use to produce the bitstreams.. 

Both companies make a licensing fee on the decoders present on playback devices... in addition Dolby support was a mandatory codec on ATSC broadcasts, which means almost every decoder set top box and HDTV has a license Dolby decoder inside.

IMO, Dolby might have lost some of the PR/perception race in the BR market... but I don't think the adoption of DTS by a majority of studios and content providers on BR made any bit of difference to their bottom line.

Dolby has spent a lot of money and resources launching Atmos for the theatrical market... and are picking up a lot of momentum.

Why you would ask why they are bringing it home is beyond me.. 

Why wouldn't they?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're probably right. Looking back over older articles I think my memory was blending what SMPTE wanted to have happen with a universal, cross-platform, "open" package that would play nicely between the opposing Dolby and DTS object formats.


MDA want a format that is open as a stand alone solution that can be rendered into any playback system... from stereo > as many channels as available.

I'm paraphrasing, but their idea is to "mix once, playback anywhere."

And I really shouldn't say want... it's what they have delivered.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Dolby chose a different way to define coordinates.


Thanks for that.

Essentially just the difference between polar and rectangular coordinates.

Doesn't change my point, which is apparently incomprehensible or uninteresting; which I can understand given that it's only of academic interest.


----------



## wse

Why is DTS MDA nowhere in movies or in Home Cinema they are loosing a great deal to Dolby


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Essentially just the difference between polar and rectangular coordinates.


Polar coordinates have an inconsistency across different venues. For example: -135 degrees can fall in the back left corner in some theatres or fall on the back wall in wider theatres or fall on the left side wall in narrower theatres. By comparison, an object at -100,-100,0 will always fall in the back left corner, irrespective of the shape or size of the threatre.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Why is DTS MDA nowhere in movies or in Home Cinema they are *losing* a great deal to Dolby


We don't know all of the behind the scenes moving and shaking. It'll be interesting come CES in January for consumer goods and the next ShoWest in the commercial arena to find out if there are more announcements forthcoming.


----------



## JohnAV

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby has spent a lot of money and resources launching Atmos for the theatrical market... and are picking up a lot of momentum.
> 
> Why you would ask why they are bringing it home is beyond me..
> 
> Why wouldn't they?


Yeah we know that they spent a lot of money launching Atmos for the theatrical market, but the home marketplace is quite different. Consumers are inherently scotch when it comes to selecting a home theater setup. Incorporating Atmos in a few AVR's and having a couple of well known AV vendors sell Atmos speakers is not convincing consumers that there really is any benefits. Mind you I don't have a problem with some more serious home theater types willing to go full throttle with a multi speaker home theater, its just at this point in time there is absolutely nothing that Dolby can do to make consumers spend more money on something that just doesn't matter that much to them. Avatar impressed people at the cinemas enough to buy into 3D visuals, what is there now that will jump start Atmos?


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Polar coordinates have an inconsistency across different venues. For example: -135 degrees can fall in the back left corner in some theatres or fall on the back wall in wider theatres or fall on the left side wall in narrower theatres. By comparison, an object at -100,-100,0 will always fall in the back left corner, irrespective of the shape or size of the threatre.


Interesting point, highlights the different considerations of theatrical and home implementations.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Has anyone asked the question why is Dolby coming out with atmos, almost all the new blu-ray releases are DTS-HD Master Audio. I just bought Divergent and the sound is quite awesome, I think the natural progression would be that DTS Takes the lead here. I think and I may be wrong but I think Dolby is trying to catch up by bringing atmos into our lives ..... is this going to be Atmos / DTS thing with Atmos trying to come out on top???


Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, Dolby Atmos, Blu-rays (software), public theaters, private home theaters, Datasat Digital Entertainment, ...all that jazz.

It's a short thread (less than 30 posts): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/114-h...-vs-dolby-digital-plus-vs-dts-hd-ma-wins.html

* Read Josh's posts (13, 19, 28).


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Polar coordinates have an inconsistency across different venues. For example: -135 degrees can fall in the back left corner in some theatres or fall on the back wall in wider theatres or fall on the left side wall in narrower theatres. By comparison, an object at -100,-100,0 will always fall in the back left corner, irrespective of the shape or size of the threatre.


In that case sound location will vary with room dimensions of a theater. Is this what mixers want?


----------



## brwsaw

5.1.3?

1 half way between the money seat and the back wall.
2 at the 1/3 mark from the side and front walls as per various posts.
It is a small room, I wonder how it would sound.
Only thing I'd want to clarify, 1/3 from my front wall places them 3' in front of the screen where as 1/3 from the screen would place them nearly half way between my seat and the screen. 2' and 2 too many holes...


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> In that case sound location will vary with room dimensions of a theater. Is this what mixers want?


Interesting. Makes you wonder what shape is the reference one, or if that will vary from movie to movie depending on the shape of the mixing studio...


----------



## markus767

ambesolman said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet but found this white paper on another forum...
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=12544
> 
> Edit: didn't look at it before posting, doesn't look like anything new. Just got prematurely excited seeing the Aug 2014 date on it


These are new (to me). They aren't linked on Dolby's site.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=12544
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=12543


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> In that case sound location will vary with room dimensions of a theater.


Depends on the definition of location. Angular location will vary, but back corner will be back corner, mid wall will be mid wall. But keep in mind, that's for the commercial version of Atmos.


markus767 said:


> Is this what mixers want?


Ask a mixer.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would imagine they meant something like 32.2.


I hope we can finally put to rest the notion that Dolby meant 32.2 when they've always said 34 speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> I hope we can finally put to rest the notion that Dolby meant 32.2 when they've always said 34 speakers.


Where's the origin of that pic?


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Where's the origin of that pic?


The whitepaper linked earlier.


ambesolman said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet but found this white paper on another forum...
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=12544


----------



## Roger Dressler

SoundChex said:


> A radiant connecting the object and the *MLP* always passes through only one of the 7 speaker triangles, and *Atmos* can use those three speakers to create an image of the object at the appropriate *azimuth* and *elevation*.


 



> Placing the image of the object at radius *R* from the *MLP* (rather than at the nominal *Unit Radius* distance of the speakers from the *MLP*) requires _time advance|delay_ and _amplitude_ adjustments similar to that used to compensate for differing speaker distances from the *MLP*.


To put all the speakers on the room's surface on the same unit radius, time wise, is just the same process of normalizing arrival times (and levels) as done today. Find the furthest speaker, add delays to the others to obtain same arrival times at MLP. Maybe we're saying the same thing.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> The whitepaper linked earlier.


Thanks!


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Polar coordinates have an inconsistency across different venues.


It depends on how one defines consistency. Relative to room surfaces, or relative to the mixer's ears. 



markus767 said:


> In that case sound location will vary with room dimensions of a theater. Is this what mixers want?


I'm not sure, but I have heard some say this is preferred. I suspect that since that is how 5.1/7.1 sound has always worked, it is natural to want the same from object audio. 

Regardless of rectangular/polar coordinates, the playback system can provide either a room-referenced or a mixer-referenced perspective. Based on what I read in the recent Atmos t'home paper, by choosing which of the 34 locations best represent the actual speaker positions in use, the renderer will adjust accordingly, which implies a mixer-referenced presentation.


----------



## kbarnes701

JohnAV said:


> Doing a Atmos mix for a theater release makes sense, but practicality aside, whats in it for the studios to produce BD's that support Atmos nevermind if it is easy or cheap?


The same as was in it for them to produce 5.1.



JohnAV said:


> How many consumers at this point in time will to run out and buy a minor re-release or a new release that offers a Atmos coded track over a 5.1/7.1 release?


Not many. It is common on AVS for people to confuse "niche market" with "no market". Let me ask you a different, but illustrative, question: Q: How many consumers will run out and buy a Lamborghini?. A: not many. Does that mean Lamborghini should pack up their business and start making $13,000 SUVs?



JohnAV said:


> I just don't see any tidal wave happening with this. Hell the industry kinda blundered 3D, has over promised with 4K, and now Dolby thinks 3D sound is a cakewalk, I don't so.


Well you are entitled to your view and time will tell if you are right or wrong. But who, apart from you, mentioned a "tidal wave"? 5.1 and 7.1 aren't "tidal waves" either. The vast majority of people do not have 5.1 or 7.1. Does that mean they are somehow irrelevant and of no value?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Regardless of rectangular/polar coordinates, the playback system can provide either a room-referenced or a mixer-referenced perspective. Based on what I read in the recent Atmos t'home paper, by choosing which of the 34 locations best represent the actual speaker positions in use, the renderer will adjust accordingly, which implies a mixer-referenced presentation.


It's not clear to me if Atmos object metadata itself is room-referenced or a mixer-referenced. Do you have more information?


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> My head is spinning with all this x y z stuff


That explanation of Sanjay's was brilliantly clear though was it not? And just to add another dimension to it (literally) in his example, the sound object was to the left (-41) and forward of the listener (+32) but on the same level as the listener's ears. If the mixer had wanted to place the sound to the left, forward and _above_ the listener's ears, then the co-ordinates would look something like x -41, y +32, x +53. (The z co-ordinate would vary according to how high of course. I've selected 'just above halfway to the top).


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> Under Atmos (and likely also DTS-UHD), the Surrounds do "double duty": they perform the traditional 'delivery of rear surround ambiance' task, and now--in concert with Front and Height speakers--they participate in the imaging of objects. In this latter task, the AVR's Atmos rendering algorithm relies on all of the speakers being "placed predictably" . . . of course for most people, placement of speakers is "something of a compromise"--but for object rendering purposes, it's likely better to make an attempt to follow the specific AVR's speaker placement guidelines, at least initially!
> _


Yes - the diagram I posted was for a 7.1 system, in response to the original question of placement of side surrounds in such a system. Atmos speaker placement is a whole different ball game


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> That explanation of Sanjay's was brilliantly clear though was it not? And just to add another dimension to it (literally) in his example, the sound object was to the left (-41) and forward of the listener (+32) but on the same level as the listener's ears. If the mixer had wanted to place the sound to the left, forward and _above_ the listener's ears, then the co-ordinates would look something like x -41, y +32, x +53. (The z co-ordinate would vary according to how high of course. I've selected 'just above halfway to the top).


This will work brilliantly for video/computer games... and for films that are largely/entirely computer generated - those locations will already be known for the visual representation of the objects making the noise.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Very very very few; not even worth mentioning (from Disney, and another studio; can't remember).


Looks like near-field mix re-recording is an integral part of the Atmos home content creation workflow:










From http://www.hometheaterforum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=12544


----------



## Bumper

*Ceiling Height*

Quote from the white paper:

_There are some rooms in which we don’t recommend using ceiling speakers. If your ceiling
is low or you have to mount your loudspeakers on overhead trusses or brackets, the
overhead speakers will be closer to the listening position. The audio may be distracting
because you’ll hear exactly which speaker is producing the sound instead of feeling
immersed in an atmosphere in which sounds occur naturally overhead._


It doesn't say what 'Low' is. Is that the actual celing height or the distance between ear level and ceiling?
My ceiling is at about 7 to 7.5 feet. It's kind of curved and therefore ground based Atmos speakers are out of the question. The distance between ear lvl and the speaker height straight up is about 5 feet. I hope that will still be enough. It simply has to be because I cannot alter my ceiling.
Not sure if my Boston Voyager 40 concurs with the spec of being wide spread but at least I can angle the speakers toward the listening position. Boston is not sold here anymore so I had to do with the Voyagers still in stock at the dealer. At least I got a good Timbre Match which was the main reason for my choice. The speakers sound about the same as the Boston Bravo 2's which I use as Front Wide. My standard mid and rear surrounds are Dipoles from Boston just like Audyssey recommends and positioned above ear level like an older surround white paper stated. Since the dipoles cannot be pointed out because of their figure 8 spread I suppose it is not such a big problem that they are not at ear level like Dolby states. Furthermore I have two large front speakers with active and passive subs in each Left and Right, a large Center and of course a Buttkicker Concert in each seat.
My current 9.2 sounds great and hopefully the new 7.2.4 will be even (much) better with Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, Dolby Atmos, Blu-rays (software), public theaters, private home theaters, Datasat Digital Entertainment, ...all that jazz.
> 
> It's a short thread (less than 30 posts): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/114-h...-vs-dolby-digital-plus-vs-dts-hd-ma-wins.html
> 
> * Read Josh's posts (13, 19, 28).


Thanks for that link


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> Quote from the white paper:
> 
> _There are some rooms in which we don’t recommend using ceiling speakers. If your ceiling
> is low or you have to mount your loudspeakers on overhead trusses or brackets, the
> overhead speakers will be closer to the listening position. The audio may be distracting
> because you’ll hear exactly which speaker is producing the sound instead of feeling
> immersed in an atmosphere in which sounds occur naturally overhead._
> 
> 
> It doesn't say what 'Low' is. Is that the actual celing height or the distance between ear level and ceiling?
> My ceiling is at about 7 to 7.5 feet.


It would be more useful if they defined 'low'.

In the UK the standard ceiling height is 2.4m, which is 7ft 10 inches. With an ear height of about 3 feet, this puts my ears at 4ft 10 inches from the ceiling, but of course at a greater distance than this from the front/rear top speakers themselves (they are not directly overhead of course).

I am intending to use physical speakers on the ceiling in my Atmos HT and I am, for now, assuming that Dolby know what typical ceiling heights typical homes have and that they took this into account when designing a system to use physical speakers on the ceiling. 

I will ask for more information at Dolby in London, where I am due to hear a second Home Atmos demo next week.


----------



## Bumper

^

Great if you would ask that question next week.
My ceiling bottom is at 2.10m and the curved top at 2.35m. The speakers bottom out at 2.10m. My seats are often in the relax position thus placing my ears at about 60 to 70 cm above ground.
My theater is in a basement... Hence the lower than standard ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> ^
> 
> Great if you would ask that question next week.
> My ceiling bottom is at 2.10m and the curved top at 2.35m. The speakers bottom out at 2.10m. My seats are often in the relax position thus placing my ears at about 60 to 70 cm above ground.
> My theater is in a basement... Hence the lower than standard ceiling.


No problem. I have added it to my list of questions.

If anyone has anything they would like me to ask, please let me know and I will do my best.


----------



## chi_guy50

Keith,

I am fairly certain this is already on your list, but could you please ask for an evaluation of the relative authenticity of using a traditional Dolby front height speaker configuration to play back an Atmos track? IOW, how will we benefit from Atmos if we don't change our layout?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I am fairly certain this is already on your list, but could you please ask for an evaluation of the relative authenticity of using a traditional Dolby front height speaker configuration to play back an Atmos track? IOW, how will we benefit from Atmos if we don't change our layout?


No problem. I will make sure that is on the list. If the format of the meeting is the same as the last one I will get limited opportunity to ask questions but I will do my best.

I did, in fact, ask that question, or a similar one, last time but the answer was from an Onkyo representative who didn't himself seem entirely sure of his ground. This time I will try to ask it of a Dolby guy, as, AFAIK, there won't be any manufacturer representation at next week's session.


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> SoundChex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Placing the image of the object at radius *R* from the *MLP* (rather than at the nominal *Unit Radius* distance of the speakers from the *MLP*) requires _time advance|delay_ and _amplitude_ adjustments similar to that used to compensate for differing speaker distances from the *MLP*.
> 
> 
> 
> To put all the speakers on the room's surface on the same unit radius, time wise, is just the same process of normalizing arrival times (and levels) as done today. Find the furthest speaker, add delays to the others to obtain same arrival times at MLP. *Maybe we're saying the same thing.*
Click to expand...


I agree that the *speaker* distance|time alignment process remains unchanged, but I was trying to make a separate point about *object* distance|time alignment processing. _Consider the following:_


Four _boomboxes _all playing the same CD are started simultaneously at the *MLP *and set to the same volume. The four _boomboxes_ are all moved along the same radiant and placed at distances of 10, 20, 50, and 100 yards from the *MLP*. To someone at the *MLP*, the four _boomboxes_ are perceived as playing at different volumes with about a third of a second delay between playback of the two closest and farthest.

We now replace the _boomboxes_ with an *Atmos BD* on which the four _boomboxes_ are four *static object* instances of the same recording. Because the objects all lie on the same radiant, a simplified VBAP algorithm would map the four objects to the same set of speakers, however the distance|time alignment correction for each of the four objects would be different.


_It's clear that it would relatively easy during the BD authoring process to distance|time align static objects so as to place them on the 'nominal speaker distance sphere' . . . and perhaps only slightly harder to perform a similar correction for dynamic objects. Do we have any idea as to whether this is done in practice? Doing so would have two obvious advantages: (1) it would reduce the amount of processing required at playback time, and (2) everyone who has trouble understanding what is meant by "*x|y|z* metadata" would now have a 'simpler' problem of comprehending the meaning of "*azimuth and elevation* metadata", a one third reduction in complexity!_  
_


----------



## markus767

^
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512255324/article1.pdf


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Jeff,



chi_guy50 said:


> Keith,
> 
> But I am fairly certain this is already on your list, but could you please ask for an evaluation of the relative authenticity of using a traditional Dolby front height speaker configuration to play back an Atmos track? IOW, how will we benefit from Atmos if we don't change our layout?


Not Keith, but I don't see any Dolby representative giving any other answer to your above question, beyond what is included in the whitepaper (p9):

"_While the arrangements recommended above will yield the best experience, a Dolby Atmos
system can support many other configurations you may already have in your home. For
instance, Dolby Atmos supports the standard “wide” speaker positions on the floor and the
“front vertical height” positions usually found on the top of the front wall, as well as many
other speaker positions._"

Now as far as I'm concerned, I'm convinced that if the angle of location of an actual Height speaker, is within the tolerance for allowed angles of a Top/ceiling speaker, then the subjective Atmos effect will be similar, if not the same. 

In other words a Height speaker (on wall or independently positioned) located at an 45° elevation will produce the same effect as a Ceiling speaker located at the same 45° elevation. 










Now what would be the subjective Atmos difference between a 45° and 55° speakers elevation? This is something I'd personally like to experience... the same as comparing a complete 55° 4 speakers elevation configuration to another one composed with 4 Heights at 45° and 2 Tops located at @ 75° (a hemisphere-like configuration, which has my preference).

Then in a slightly different context, yesterday we went to see "Apes" in an Atmos Cinéma... and in French. As I was really curious to see (hear) how this movie would sound with a remixing in another language than its' original English. 

And I must admit that we were quite pleased with what we heard, which was subjectively very "immersive". Is it better in English? I can't say. But for this movie, the Atmos mix in French is excellent. 

Hugo


----------



## Zen Traveler

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I am fairly certain this is already on your list, but could you please ask for an evaluation of the relative authenticity of using a traditional Dolby front height speaker configuration to play back an Atmos track? IOW, how will we benefit from Atmos if we don't change our layout?


I am also curious about this. We currently have a 9.1 setup using Heights (about 9 ft up) with SS that are exactly parallel (and within 5 ft of the LP) and rears that are about 8 ft behind along with my second sub (limited placement issues). It's a about a 2,000 cu ft space where the MLP (only LP) is between 2 spaces/rooms. 

We sit about 9.5 ft from the front soundstage which is also our Library so we have some natural room treatment but have a high cathedral ceiling (not symmetrical with the room). Behind the LP we have a small, 8 ft x 8 ft "cubby" with a slanted ceiling going from about 4.5 ft to 6ft towards the loveseat....Right above our heads is a shelf that is approx. 8ft up that we could attach some speakers, but seems to be the only practical place for atomos speakers, and if so I wonder how this layout would work with the new format. {Note: I understand that the cathedral ceiling isn't conducive). 

Anyway, right now I use this HT primarily for Multichannel Music but both it and Movies sound awesome.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Has anyone actually parsed the wording of the new at home Atmos white paper?

What I find interesting is Dolby's use of the term "spatial audio coding" (psychoacoustic mixing?) and their mentioning that the Dolby TrueHD codec now has an attached fourth substream that contains a "losslessly encoded fully object-based mix."

Is Dolby saying what I think they're saying? That Dolby Atmos for the home is a pure object bitstream and not a hybrid channel+object format as in the cinema? I understand DTS had mentioned at earlier press events that MDA could also be delivered in a pure metadata infused object stream with no traditional channels. So, unless they were being cagey it seems as if the Blu-ray version has two _separate_ lossless soundtracks... a channel based track and a pure object track. If someone knows differently, please correct my assumption. 

They also mentioned that their new, efficient coding scheme via Dolby Media Producer software allows all the objects (and positional metadata?) from a theatrical mix to migrate to the near-field, home theater version. 

I would also have liked for them to sketch out various potential speaker layouts and degrees and angles of separation for said speakers. Their one 24.1.10 diagram and explanation of "super Atmos" really doesn't go into very great detail like their cinema white paper. A more in-depth white paper should be created that goes into more of the technical nitty gritty for home Atmos installations.

One specification they did briefly mention was that true ceiling speaker dispersion patterns should be greater than 90 degrees x 90 degrees.


----------



## bargervais

My question... I see that most of the Blu-Ray's i have are DTS-HD Master Audio as the main audio... now is Dolby trying to replace those with Atmos or will DTS have it's own DTS UHD-will any of the new AVR include DTS UHD and Dolby Atmos HT?.... if i'm going to invest in an atmos receiver i want the ability to do both Atmos and DTS. or will i have to upgrade once more down the road.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Looks like near-field mix re-recording is an integral part of the Atmos home content creation workflow:


It is not "integral"... it's optional. That diagram only shows it can be integrated as it is now.

"Filmmakers _frequently_ remix a film to sound its best in home theaters (a process known as the near-field mix). Spatial audio coding is a tool available during the near-field mix so that the filmmakers can hear exactly how the film will sound when it is encoded to Dolby Digital Plus for streaming or encoded losslessly in Dolby TrueHD for Blu-ray."


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> My question... I see that most of the Blu-Ray's i have are DTS-HD Master Audio as the main audio... now is Dolby trying to replace those with Atmos or will DTS have it's own DTS UHD-will the new AVR including DTS UHD and Dolby Atmos HT?.... if i'm going to invest in an atmos receiver i want the ability to do both Atmos and DTS. or will i have to upgrade once more down the road.


I don't know if current Atmos receivers and pre-amps will be able to get a firmware update that adds DTS-UHD. Their chips seem to be pretty crammed to the gunnels as is.


----------



## noah katz

SoundChex said:


> ...We now replace the _boomboxes_ with an *Atmos BD* on which the four _boomboxes_ are four *static object* instances of the same recording. Because the objects all lie on the same radiant, a simplified VBAP algorithm would map the four objects to the same set of speakers, however the distance|time alignment correction for each of the four objects would be different.


I don't think anything different is needed at all; if the mixers want multiple of the same object to be at different distances they'll use the appropriate time delays.

And as I've said, I believe there are already just the two encoded variables of azimuth and elevation for locating the direction of an object, vs. just azimuth that we had before Atmos.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> It is not "integral"... it's optional. That diagram only shows it can be integrated as it is now.
> 
> "Filmmakers _frequently_ remix a film to sound its best in home theaters (a process known as the near-field mix). Spatial audio coding is a tool available during the near-field mix so that the filmmakers can hear exactly how the film will sound when it is encoded to Dolby Digital Plus for streaming or encoded losslessly in Dolby TrueHD for Blu-ray."


Do I now get to choose which definition from Merriam Webster is closest to what I've meant to say? 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integral

My point was that movie theaters and dubbing stages are acoustically different from living rooms and home theaters hence a remix is warranted. The Dolby paper even says "*Filmmakers frequently remix a film*". Do you have numbers how many theatrical mixes get the treatment? Will it be more in the future with Atmos?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Has anyone actually parsed the wording of the new at home Atmos white paper?
> 
> What I find interesting is Dolby's use of the term "spatial audio coding" (psychoacoustic mixing?) and their mentioning that the Dolby TrueHD codec now has an attached fourth substream that contains a "losslessly encoded fully object-based mix."
> 
> _Is Dolby saying what I think they're saying? _That Dolby Atmos for the home is a pure object bitstream and not a hybrid channel+object format as in the cinema?


AFAIU No.. it is a bed + objects (7.1 + objects) and will be encoded as one bitstream (the objects in an extension.)

One TrueHD bitstream on a BR



Dan Hitchman said:


> They also mentioned that their new, efficient coding scheme via Dolby Media Producer software allows all the objects (and positional metadata?) from a theatrical mix to migrate to the near-field, home theater version.


Yes, but you still need to create a near field of the cinema master if desired... it isn't automatic (which isn't what you are implying at al, but I wanted to clarify..) 

I believe they have a translation tool to create the DAMF from an RMU (theatrical) "wrapped" file if needed. I will see if I can get you more information on that.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> AFAIU No.. it is a bed + objects (7.1 + objects) and will be encoded as one bitstream (the objects in an extension.)


I noticed in the Aug-dated Dolby paper that the bed for cinema Atmos is 9.1, which means some work is involved in going to a home, hopefully not enough to dissuade them from doing it.

Speaking of the nearfield mix, what's involved in creating it; anything more than response shaping?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> AFAIU No.. it is a bed + objects (7.1 + objects) and will be encoded as one bitstream (the objects in an extension.)
> 
> One TrueHD bitstream on a BR
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you still need to create a near field of the cinema master if desired... it isn't automatic (which isn't what you are implying at al, but I wanted to clarify..)
> 
> I believe they have a translation tool to create the DAMF from an RMU (theatrical) "wrapped" file if needed. I will see if I can get you more information on that.


Thanks for the clarification. 

The way the white paper was written it seemed to imply that the substream contained a complete mix as objects rather than a hybrid approach. Hmmm... easy for the lay person to get confused.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Jeff,
> 
> 
> 
> Not Keith, but I don't see any Dolby representative giving any other answer to your above question, beyond what is included in the whitepaper (p9):
> 
> "_While the arrangements recommended above will yield the best experience, a Dolby Atmos
> system can support many other configurations you may already have in your home. For
> instance, Dolby Atmos supports the standard “wide” speaker positions on the floor and the
> “front vertical height” positions usually found on the top of the front wall, as well as many
> other speaker positions._"
> 
> Now as far as I'm concerned, I'm convinced that if the angle of location of an actual Height speaker, is within the tolerance for allowed angles of a Top/ceiling speaker, then the subjective Atmos effect will be similar, if not the same.
> 
> In other words a Height speaker (on wall or independently positioned) located at an 45° elevation will produce the same effect as a Ceiling speaker located at the same 45° elevation.
> 
> Now what would be the subjective Atmos difference between a 45° and 55° speakers elevation? This is something I'd personally like to experience... the same as comparing a complete 55° 4 speakers elevation configuration to another one composed with 4 Heights at 45° and 2 Tops located at @ 75° (a hemisphere-like configuration, which has my preference).


Good points, Hugo. The White Paper is pretty explicit and I, like you, think that so long as the angles are respected, everything should be OK. What I want to explore with Dolby, if possible, is whether there is any degradation from using the Height Speakers and if so, then how much. The WP says that the suggested layouts are the "best" but the Front Heights are "supported". What I want to know is, really, how critical is it that we follow the angles to the letter and if people cannot, then what sort of degradation can they expect?

In my own HT I can follow their recommendations pretty well and remain 'on spec' if I use ceiling mounted speakers for the top fronts, but designate them as 'front heights' (staying all the time within the recommended angles of 30-45 degrees for front heights and also the recommended angles of 30-55 degrees for Top Fronts, by using an angle of 40 degrees - which is on spec for *both* sets of speaker layout). This will then mean that I can use my other pair of ceiling speakers with a designation of Top Middle (65-100 degrees). What I can't do is use the forward pair designated as Top Front, because you can’t use Top Front and Top Middle, and I cannot achieve the required angles for Top Rear. But Front Height (even though they are on the ceiling) can be used with Top Middle, so that is what I am hoping to do. I am hoping I can get some better info from the Dolby guys than is in the WP.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know if current Atmos receivers and pre-amps will be able to get a firmware update that adds DTS-UHD. Their chips seem to be pretty crammed to the gunnels as is.


Are studio's going to abandon using DTS In favor of atmos or will they live side by side like DTS HD master audio and Dolby 5.1 do now. Or Instead of Dolby 5.1 will it have Atmos in its place....


----------



## SoundChex

markus767 said:


> ^
> http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512255324/article1.pdf



Unfortunately Pulkki's paper doesn't address the question I raised because it's really an _implementation technology_ issue: Dolby must attempt to perform as much "pre rendering" before|during the BD authoring process as possible in order to minimize the computational load imposed on the AVR. Just how much can be achieved depends on which rendering calculations are independent of the AVR and speaker configuration, plus listener choices at playback time. I can't tell if object time|distance (or real|apparent volume) normalization can be partially|fully performed before the BD is authored (and even if it could be under the current "architecture", to what extent Dolby chose to do so|not do so in order to avoid foreclosing possible rendering algorithm "upgrades" in the future...?!)
_


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> The way the white paper was written it seemed to imply that the substream contained a complete mix as objects rather than a hybrid approach. Hmmm... easy for the lay person to get confused.


Here's a paper explaining the concept of extensions:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...-future-entertainment-formats-white-paper.pdf


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Are studio's going to abandon using DTS In favor of atmos or will they live side by side like DTS HD master audio and Dolby 5.1 do now. Or Instead of Dolby 5.1 will it have Atmos in its place....


God only knows what goes on in the studios' heads. If it takes more time and money to prep a home Atmos version that hasn't already been accounted for in a movie's budget, I don't know how supportive these studios will be. Will it be a trickle or will it be a landslide? Will this finally supplant traditional channel based approaches of delivery audio? Who knows...

No one outside the industry seems to know what DTS has planned to answer Dolby's home Atmos format or if DTS-UHD can be easily added to the current crop of Atmos products.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Not many. It is common on AVS for people to confuse "niche market" with "no market". Let me ask you a different, but illustrative, question: Q: How many consumers will run out and buy a Lamborghini?. A: not many. Does that mean Lamborghini should pack up their business and start making $13,000 SUVs?


True but Lamborghini is also charging what amounts to an insane markup on the car due to the volume of sales it has and the demand for that small volume. We see this from niche audio brands all the time, but in most cases with audio you are paying for manufacturing inefficiencies. With Atmos you aren't really paying a premium as you've already pointed out before, so Dolby is making their money by hoping that every AVR and pre-pro company will want to license the tech to have the badge on it regardless of whether the end user needs or wants it. They've already been doing this for years and years with all the other DSP stuff. 

Now whether Hollywood reacts the same way is the question. Hopefully they just start putting these soundtracks on by default so they are there if you need them but transparent if you don't. That would be the best you could hope for. If they try to do a special market like they do for 3D where you have to pay a premium for it the results could backfire if there isn't enough market and it could eventually become an issue due to lack of volume in sales. I'm REALLY hoping that they just start including these soundtracks as the default for movies that have an Atmos mix, then sales volume won't really matter.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Here's a paper explaining the concept of extensions:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...-future-entertainment-formats-white-paper.pdf


I understand the core+extension approach of DTS and Dolby's codecs, however the language used in the lastest white paper for the Atmos "substream" could leave one with the impression that it contains a full soundtrack encoded as metadata+objects only. That, after all, was always a possibility as a means to deliver soundtracks without using channels.


----------



## Nightlord

SoundChex said:


> Unfortunately Pulkki's paper doesn't address the question I raised because it's really an _implementation technology_ issue: Dolby must attempt to perform as much "pre rendering" before|during the BD authoring process as possible in order to minimize the computational load imposed on the AVR.


Given the 24.1.10 maximum number of speakers, I guess you could code how much of each object is going into each 'ideal' speaker... And then you create a translation in the avr on how to transcode those ideal channels into what you've got. Should not require much computing power. If it works? No idea, but that would be my initial attempt at getting it to work...


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> True but Lamborghini is also charging what amounts to an insane markup on the car due to the volume of sales it has and the demand for that small volume. We see this from niche audio brands all the time, but in most cases with audio you are paying for manufacturing inefficiencies. With Atmos you aren't really paying a premium as you've already pointed out before, so Dolby is making their money by hoping that every AVR and pre-pro company will want to license the tech to have the badge on it regardless of whether the end user needs or wants it. They've already been doing this for years and years with all the other DSP stuff.
> 
> Now whether Hollywood reacts the same way is the question. Hopefully they just start putting these soundtracks on by default so they are there if you need them but transparent if you don't. That would be the best you could hope for. If they try to do a special market like they do for 3D where you have to pay a premium for it the results could backfire if there isn't enough market and it could eventually become an issue due to lack of volume in sales. I'm REALLY hoping that they just start including these soundtracks as the default for movies that have an Atmos mix, then sales volume won't really matter.


I hope so too. AFAIK, sound has never commanded a price premium, either in commercial cinema or HT, so I am expecting an Atmos BD will cost the same as a current DTS-HD MA or TrueHD BD. We'll know soon enough...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope so too. AFAIK, sound has never commanded a price premium, either in commercial cinema or HT, so I am expecting an Atmos BD will cost the same as a current DTS-HD MA or TrueHD BD. We'll know soon enough...


Actually, Atmos _does_ command a higher price per ticket because theater owners have wrapped it within their "premium" auditorium pricing structure. It used to be that giant screen auditoriums were just standard ticketed items, but not any more.

It boils down to whether or not the studios will look at Atmos and DTS-UHD on home video the same way.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Do you have numbers how many theatrical mixes get the treatment? Will it be more in the future with Atmos?


Today I would guess the number is 75-80%. 

Don't expect the number to change because of Atmos. However, I suspect some of the initial release will not be due to the simple fact that there are very few studios setup to do so at this point. We're sciguring this out now.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> What I find interesting is Dolby's use of the term "spatial audio coding" (psychoacoustic mixing?) and their mentioning that the Dolby TrueHD codec now has an attached fourth substream that contains a "losslessly encoded fully object-based mix."


I think TrueHD has used 3 substreams so far: a 2-channel lossless core, the audio data and instructions needed to reconstitute a lossless 5.1 mix, the audio data and instructions needed to reconstitute a lossless 7.1 mix. 

The next substream will carry objects. Wonder if it might also carry the audio data and instructions needed to reconstitute 9.1 lossless channels (height beds)? Or has Dolby decided to limit the home version to 7 bed channels? 

Don't know how Dolby is using the term "spatial audio coding", but here is what it means to MPEG, as applied to objects: http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards/mpeg-d/spatial-audio-object-coding


Dan Hitchman said:


> Is Dolby saying what I think they're saying? That Dolby Atmos for the home is a pure object bitstream and not a hybrid channel+object format as in the cinema?


This could get into semantics, since it could be argued that channels are objects that don't go anywhere.


Dan Hitchman said:


> I understand DTS had mentioned at earlier press events that MDA could also be delivered in a pure metadata infused object stream with no traditional channels.


They can play with object parameters (size, location, etc) to mimic a channel.


Dan Hitchman said:


> They also mentioned that their new, efficient coding scheme via Dolby Media Producer software allows all the objects (and positional metadata?) from a theatrical mix to migrate to the near-field, home theater version.


Interesting they say "all" without actually giving a number.


Dan Hitchman said:


> I would also have liked for them to sketch out various potential speaker layouts and degrees and angles of separation for said speakers.


What's to sketch out? There are 24 possible speaker locations "on the floor" (their short-hand for non-height speakers). 360 ÷ 24 = 15 degrees. You can either think of it as a possible speaker location every 15 degrees or 24 zones of 15-degree arcs (bit of flexibility in placement). 

If receivers don't end up allowing you to measure actual speaker angles, like Trinnov or Yamaha does, then I think the diagram in the whitepaper would make a nice interface in the receiver's speaker set-up menu. 

Of the 24 possible locations, users simply click to highlight the locations of their 2, 5, 7, 9 or however many speaker they have. Doesn't have to be super precise, just pick the potential locations in the graphic that most closely match the physical locations of your speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Jeff,
> 
> Not Keith, but I don't see any Dolby representative giving any other answer to your above question, beyond what is included in the whitepaper (p9):
> 
> "_While the arrangements recommended above will yield the best experience, a Dolby Atmos
> system can support many other configurations you may already have in your home. For
> instance, Dolby Atmos supports the standard “wide” speaker positions on the floor and the
> “front vertical height” positions usually found on the top of the front wall, as well as many
> other speaker positions._"
> 
> Now as far as I'm concerned, I'm convinced that if the angle of location of an actual Height speaker, is within the tolerance for allowed angles of a Top/ceiling speaker, then the subjective Atmos effect will be similar, if not the same.
> 
> In other words a Height speaker (on wall or independently positioned) located at an 45° elevation will produce the same effect as a Ceiling speaker located at the same 45° elevation.
> 
> Hugo


Salut, mon vieux!

Nous sommes tout à fait d'accord sur ce point. But it will be interesting, from both the technical and marketing aspect, to hear how the Dolby rep addresses this issue. There has been some discussion here on whether Dolby is targeting a "niche of a niche" market. I don't believe that they are; but if they push the angle of "You must have either Dolby speakers or tops to truly appreciate Atmos," then I think you will have your answer. But more than anything, I would like to hear their rep assess in as much detail as possible the results over a "traditional" 9CH or 11CH layout. Jeff



kbarnes701 said:


> Good points, Hugo. The White Paper is pretty explicit and I, like you, think that so long as the angles are respected, everything should be OK. What I want to explore with Dolby, if possible, is *whether there is any degradation from using the Height Speakers and if so, then how much. The WP says that the suggested layouts are the "best" but the Front Heights are "supported". What I want to know is, really, how critical is it that we follow the angles to the letter and if people cannot, then what sort of degradation can they expect?*


That is precisely what motivated me to pose the question.


----------



## SoundChex

Nightlord said:


> Given the 24.1.10 maximum number of speakers, I guess you could code how much of each object is going into each 'ideal' speaker... And then you create a translation in the avr on how to transcode those ideal channels into what you've got. Should not require much computing power. If it works? No idea, but that would be my initial attempt at getting it to work...



_Congratulations!_ You have pretty much reinvented the _downmix capability strategy_ employed with *Hamasaki 22.2* audio as it is currently being implemented by NHK Japanese TV as the audio component of their forthcoming SHV broadcast technology. (Nonetheless, it seems they may still intend to implement a hybrid channel|object-based audio delivery mechanism in the form of (possibly only _static_) _user-interactive objects_.)_
_
_


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

JohnAV said:


> Doing a Atmos mix for a theater release makes sense, but practicality aside, whats in it for the studios to produce BD's that support Atmos nevermind if it is easy or cheap?
> 
> How many consumers at this point in time will to run out and buy a minor re-release or a new release that offers a Atmos coded track over a 5.1/7.1 release? Probably not enough to make the studio even consider it yet.
> 
> I just don't see any tidal wave happening with this. *Hell the industry kinda blundered 3D*, has over promised with 4K, and now Dolby thinks 3D sound is a cakewalk, I don't so.




I am not sure if Atmos will gain traction in a home setting in the near future. However, if Atmos becomes a standard no cost option in every AVR then a lot of people will play around with it. Then again, will all Atmos decoders be "the same" or will their be Atmos decoder "tiers"?

A lot of people do not even use a dedicated 5.1 sound system with their large screen TV sets. 

As a side note I have a 3D capable bluray player and 3D capable TV, but I have never watched a 3D encoded movie at home.  Not sure if I ever will either.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAIK, sound has never commanded a price premium, either in commercial cinema or HT, so I am expecting an Atmos BD will cost the same as a current DTS-HD MA or TrueHD BD.


Yup, one of the local Atmos installs (Buena Park) is not in a premium auditorium, so the ticket price is the same as the rest of the multiplex, irrespective of whether they are showing an Atmos movie or not. Can't beat an Atmos matinee for just $7.50 (if you can handle the re-cycled Styrofoam they sell as "popcorn").


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Yup, one of the local Atmos installs (Buena Park) is not in a premium auditorium, so the ticket price is the same as the rest of the multiplex, irrespective of whether they are showing an Atmos movie or not. Can't beat an Atmos matinee for just $7.50 (if you can handle the re-cycled Styrofoam they sell as "popcorn").


Nachos, my good friend. 

*whispers* _Nachos..._


----------



## sdurani

^^^ Mmmm, nachos. Can drink the cheese sauce as a beverage.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> It doesn't matter if I have Gone with the Wind in 7.1 even though it wasn't originally. As it exists *on disk* it is a true 8ch signal.




It may be a true 8 channel signal, but that does not make it a true 8 channel mix.


----------



## SoundChex

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I am not sure if Atmos will gain traction in a home setting in the near future. However, if Atmos becomes a standard no cost option in every AVR then a lot of people will play around with it. Then again, will all Atmos decoders be "the same" or will their be Atmos decoder "tiers"? *A lot of people do not even use a dedicated 5.1 sound system with their large screen TV sets. *As a side note I have a 3D capable bluray player and 3D capable TV, but I have never watched a 3D encoded movie at home. Not sure if I ever will either.



Object-based audio is not just about "more speakers". We'll have to wait to see just what improved _user interactive_ features will be offered on *Atmos BD*s . . . and (_tragically!_) there also exists the real possibility of _location-dependent _and|or _internet-replaceable_ ("background audio") product placement!


*A radio that is able to change a broadcast depending on where you are and what you are doing has been demonstrated by the BBC* (_link_)
_


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

SoundChex said:


> Object-based audio is not just about "more speakers". We'll have to wait to see just what improved _user interactive_ features will be offered on *Atmos BD*s . . . and (_tragically!_) there also exists the real possibility of _location-dependent _and|or _internet-replaceable_ ("background audio") product placement!




Seems like a lot of people here act like teenage girls. They just love to be in love!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> ^^^ Mmmm, nachos. Can drink the cheese sauce as a beverage.


Agh!

*CCcccccrrrruuuuuuunnnnnnccccccchhhhhh!*





J_Palmer_Cass said:


> It may be a true 8 channel signal, but that does not make it a true 8 channel mix.


Why not?

Is an actual 7.1 signal not "true" if it was remixed into 7.1?

That makes no sense. It's one thing to mention if a film has been remixed but if the time was put into making a whole new mix whether it was from mono, stereo, surround or what you .... it is still a true 'mix'. The only time it is not is if your home audio device is using it's post-process upmixing (ie: Prologic, NEOX, etc) to do it from something that is


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> Object-based audio is not just about "more speakers". We'll have to wait to see just what improved _user interactive_ features will be offered on *Atmos BD*s . . . and (_tragically!_) *there also exists the real possibility of location-dependent and|or internet-replaceable ("background audio") product placement*!


Shut up! Just shut your trap!  

Move along... nothing to see here!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Seems like a lot of people here act like teenage girls. They just love to be in love!



We're all swooning over Dolby's promises of audio nirvana! Catch me! I declare, I do believe I might just have the vapors!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> ^^^ Mmmm, nachos. Can drink the cheese sauce as a beverage.


Lol I just had a visual of you pouring the nacho cheese like you do your sodas.


----------



## sdurani

Straight, no ice.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol I just had a visual of you pouring the nacho cheese like you do your sodas.


Cinema concessions: Disgustingly delicious!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, Atmos _does_ command a higher price per ticket because theater owners have wrapped it within their "premium" auditorium pricing structure. It used to be that giant screen auditoriums were just standard ticketed items, but not any more.
> 
> It boils down to whether or not the studios will look at Atmos and DTS-UHD on home video the same way.


It costs more because they have a bigger screen, better projection, premium seating, seat reservations etc. Not just because of Atmos. I guess we can’t separate them out easily, but it seems to me, based on the promotional material used by the theaters, that the extra cost is justified by the things I mentioned and not by Atmos which is a kind of afterthought. Picture always takes precedence over sound it seems.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I understand the core+extension approach of DTS and Dolby's codecs, however the language used in the lastest white paper for the Atmos "substream" could leave one with the impression that it contains a full soundtrack encoded as metadata+objects only. That, after all, was always a possibility as a means to deliver soundtracks without using channels.


That's what it supposedly is: all objects "downmixed" with additional metadata. "We have added a fourth substream for Dolby Atmos sound. This substream represents a losslessly encoded fully object-based mix."
How do they do it? We don't know. "We’ve met that challenge with a technology called spatial audio coding."


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Today I would guess the number is 75-80%.
> 
> Don't expect the number to change because of Atmos. However, I suspect some of the initial release will not be due to the simple fact that there are very few studios setup to do so at this point. We're sciguring this out now.


Wow, 75-80% is pretty high. I would have guessed less. Do you need a near-field re-recording mixer at your place?


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> The x,y coordinates will determine left/right and front/back. The z coordinate determines height.


And there is also a parameter for the size/spread of an object.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Wow, 75-80% is pretty high. I would have guessed less. Do you need a near-field re-recording mixer at your place?


It's is much more commonplace today than even 3 years ago.

No.. always just looking for regular old mixers (who will then do their own NF's).


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Have you folks noticed on that scheme that there are *two pair* of speakers between LCR? In commercial Atmos, it's only one pair. The Left and Right are now at a whopping +/- 45°!


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> And there is also a parameter for the size/spread of an object.


How could it do this other than with "subobjects", i.e. different parts of an object emitting different sounds?

Because using more speakers just changes the location of the object, and reverb gives cues as to the space the object is in, not its size.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> How could it do this other than with "subobjects", i.e. different parts of an object emitting different sounds?
> 
> Because using more speakers just changes the location of the object, and reverb gives cues as to the space the object is in, not its size.


I'm not sure why it's confusing.

It's much more apparent why this is necessary in a theatrical setting because there are still arrays used for the surrounds in the bed.. If we're mixing for a typical cinema, we might want the object to emirate from a point that is "wider" than one speaker....

For instance ambient wind or even a car driving around the theater... 

One of the big reasons it was requested was to do what you refer to... a sound might have associated reverb that should spread out around the object and travel with it... no sub objects... just use more..... it's really cool when you rotate such things around the room.


----------



## Nightlord

SoundChex said:


> _Congratulations!_ You have pretty much reinvented the _downmix capability strategy_ employed with *Hamasaki 22.2* audio as it is currently being implemented by NHK Japanese TV as the audio component of their forthcoming SHV broadcast technology. (Nonetheless, it seems they may still intend to implement a hybrid channel|object-based audio delivery mechanism in the form of (possibly only _static_) _user-interactive objects_.)_
> _
> _


Guess that means my idea was sound then? ( Will have to google what that Hamasaki thing is, though. )


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> And there is also a parameter for the size/spread of an object.


I cropped the size/spread slider out of the pics I posted so as not to open up another can of worms.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> I'm not sure why it's confusing.


Maybe because I first thought of a parameter as a single variable, whereas there must be a lot more to the inner workings to give an object size.

Your explanation was helpful though, thanks.


----------



## bargervais

I would think that most people will just do 5.1.2 with adding top speakers in the ceiling between MLP and front speakers or upfiring Atmos speakers that sit on top of my front main speakers.. Hopefully audyssey will do the rest, i want it simple i don't own a sliderule and most of us are in small rooms with hardly enough room to put 5.1 surrounds.....
untill i get my Atmos receiver it's all speculation... I personally want 5.2.4 but i should be happy with an entry level AVR for now doing 5.2.2 especially being a first generation Atmos...


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> How could it do this other than with "subobjects", i.e. different parts of an object emitting different sounds?


For the sake of completeness: 










Object size/spread parameter ranges from 0 to 100. 

At 0, the object is not being spread (object size is effectively off), so the sound goes to the speaker(s) nearest its coordinates. At 100, the object is spread to all speakers, irrespective of coordinates. 

The pics above shows an object (size = 26) being panned.


----------



## ArmyMan

*AT screen and up firing speakers*

Sorry if I've missed it.
Has there been any discussion on the use of the up firing speakers when behind an AT screen?
I am planning for a large AT screen and had planned on just putting all the front speakers behind it, not just the center. Typically the AT screen is secured to the ceiling in some fashion as it sits 1-3 feet from the front (treated) wall. Since the screen is typically down some measure from the ceiling there could be room for the up firing part of the speakers to bounce their signal over the screen but that seems they would be severely limited in terms of angles. (9 ft ceiling in my case, but more is better.)

Alternatively, would the up firing speakers work as well firing through the AT screen?

Has Dolby Atmos, Pioneer, anyone else looked into the AT aspect?

Paul


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> At 0, the object is not being spread (object size is effectively off), so the sound goes to the speaker(s) nearest its coordinates.


Does it? I thought "snap to nearest speaker" is optional?


----------



## markus767

ArmyMan said:


> Sorry if I've missed it.
> Has there been any discussion on the use of the up firing speakers when behind an AT screen?
> I am planning for a large AT screen and had planned on just putting all the front speakers behind it, not just the center. Typically the AT screen is secured to the ceiling in some fashion as it sits 1-3 feet from the front (treated) wall. Since the screen is typically down some measure from the ceiling there could be room for the up firing part of the speakers to bounce their signal over the screen but that seems they would be severely limited in terms of angles. (9 ft ceiling in my case, but more is better.)
> 
> Alternatively, would the up firing speakers work as well firing through the AT screen?
> 
> Has Dolby Atmos, Pioneer, anyone else looked into the AT aspect?
> 
> Paul


There are so many uncertainties with these fixed-mounted ceiling-firing speakers, an AT screen has just a minor impact. Any loss caused by the screen can be made up with EQ.

The biggest problem with the Pioneer speakers is that they can't be angled. They seem to have a fixed angle of 15° which assumes that the speaker is very close to the listener. About 3'. If you're further away you need larger angles.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ArmyMan said:


> Sorry if I've missed it.
> Has there been any discussion on the use of the up firing speakers when behind an AT screen?
> I am planning for a large AT screen and had planned on just putting all the front speakers behind it, not just the center. Typically the AT screen is secured to the ceiling in some fashion as it sits 1-3 feet from the front (treated) wall. Since the screen is typically down some measure from the ceiling there could be room for the up firing part of the speakers to bounce their signal over the screen but that seems they would be severely limited in terms of angles. (9 ft ceiling in my case, but more is better.)
> 
> Alternatively, would the up firing speakers work as well firing through the AT screen?
> 
> Has Dolby Atmos, Pioneer, anyone else looked into the AT aspect?
> 
> Paul


I'm thinking it would be better to have real on-ceiling, timbre matched, wide-dispersion monopole speakers in your case. I would also wire for at least five behind the screen speakers, if it's big enough to warrant more than the basic three.


----------



## ArmyMan

Right I think on ceiling is the 'approved solution' and angled speakers (ala Pioneer) are in the also good category. I just read a post that indicated the listeners could not tell the difference between the two methods but that was in a million dollar theater that exceeds the capabilities of most home theaters.
With 9 ft ceiling I do not know that is enough height to get the effect. I could still wire for them but even with DD/GG ceiling the holes present a sound transmission avenue. Backer boxes are only so effective. I can certainly run more wire to the front wall though.
(and here I was about to drywall the ceiling next week.)

Paul


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ArmyMan said:


> Right I think on ceiling is the 'approved solution' and angled speakers (ala Pioneer) are in the also good category. I just read a post that indicated the listeners could not tell the difference between the two methods but that was in a million dollar theater that exceeds the capabilities of most home theaters.
> With 9 ft ceiling I do not know that is enough height to get the effect. I could still wire for them but even with DD/GG ceiling the holes present a sound transmission avenue. Backer boxes are only so effective. I can certainly run more wire to the front wall though.
> (and here I was about to drywall the ceiling next week.)
> 
> Paul


9 foot ceilings will be just fine with overhead surrounds... better than 8 foot ceilings. I would think about devising more aesthetically pleasing metal grid type mounting channels run along the ceiling in line where the top surrounds should go (almost like track lighting). Anchor the two channels to the ceiling joists for added support. That way you don't have to poke holes in the drywall and have a means by which the wires could be (mostly) hidden from view. Where there's a will there's a way.


----------



## Kriilin

ArmyMan said:


> Right I think on ceiling is the 'approved solution' and angled speakers (ala Pioneer) are in the also good category. I just read a post that indicated the listeners could not tell the difference between the two methods but that was in a million dollar theater that exceeds the capabilities of most home theaters.
> With 9 ft ceiling I do not know that is enough height to get the effect. I could still wire for them but even with DD/GG ceiling the holes present a sound transmission avenue. Backer boxes are only so effective. I can certainly run more wire to the front wall though.
> (and here I was about to drywall the ceiling next week.)
> 
> 
> 
> Paul


Good time to run some conduit, methinks.


----------



## JohnAV

Dan Hitchman said:


> We're all swooning over Dolby's promises of audio nirvana! Catch me! I declare, I do believe I might just have the vapors!


 If you didn't already know. 
World English Dictionary
*atmo- * — *combining form * 
air or vapour: _atmometer _; _atmosphere _ [via New Latin from Greek _atmos _ vapour]


----------



## noah katz

Per the previous discussion of three speakers forming a triangle within which lies a speaker location, which I believe can be expanded to any number of speakers, is not the result just to move the location of the phantom image to a different perceived point?

For example, if you put four speakers at each corner of a wall, is not there just a phantom image at a point at the center of the wall, same as there would be for just two speakers at mid-height?

Why would the phantom image be "bigger" (leaving aside the vagaries of imperfectly matched speakers and ear shape affecting perceived speaker response)?



sdurani said:


> For the sake of completeness:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Object size/spread parameter ranges from 0 to 100.
> 
> At 0, the object is not being spread (object size is effectively off), so the sound goes to the speaker(s) nearest its coordinates. At 100, the object is spread to all speakers, irrespective of coordinates.
> 
> The pics above shows an object (size = 26) being panned.


----------



## JohnAV

kbarnes701 said:


> The same as was in it for them to produce 5.1.


 That's up to the studios to decide if there is incentive enough to offer BD's with these soundtracks. Your a optimist, but there is no definite answer yet to how this will play out for consumers.



kbarnes701 said:


> Not many. It is common on AVS for people to confuse "niche market" with "no market". Let me ask you a different, but illustrative, question: Q: How many consumers will run out and buy a Lamborghini?. A: not many. Does that mean Lamborghini should pack up their business and start making $13,000 SUVs?


I agree with Kris's reply, where this would only work out if they don't charge anything extra and don't apply a premium for BD's with these soundtracks.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Does it? I thought "snap to nearest speaker" is optional?


Speaker Snap mode is optional and limited to a single speaker (no phantom imaging). I mentioned plural since the sound might go to multiple speakers, depending on coordinates.


----------



## NorthSky

Yesterday I mentioned (replying to Markus) about very very few audio soundtracks mixed in the Near-Field specifically for the Home Theater use.
Disney studios did few (two or three, can't remember the titles exactly) where it is mentioned on the Blu-ray, and DVD's back cover, plus in the Audio menu of the disc. Another movie studio did too (one or two titles, can't remember exactly either).
But I do have them in my Movie collection. 

The surround mixes from the movie studios (for the large movie theater venues) which are then transferred to Blu-rays, for us @ home; ...that, Marc (FilmMixer) knows more than me. ...I think he mentioned 75-80% of them are "remixed/remastered" for our home theaters? ...In the near-field?
I probably misunderstood. 

__________

* Few links:

♦ Dolby Atmos ------ Scroll down a bit to see the films with a Dolby Atmos audio surround soundtrack.

♦ Movies | Dolby Atmos

♦ Mixing For Home Theater | Chace

♦ Film Industry's | X Curve Suitable For Home Theater?

♦ Atmos | Dolby Changes The Face Of Audio Cinema - Again


----------



## tjenkins95

JohnAV said:


> Yeah we know that they spent a lot of money launching Atmos for the theatrical market, but the home marketplace is quite different. Consumers are inherently scotch when it comes to selecting a home theater setup. Incorporating Atmos in a few AVR's and having a couple of well known AV vendors sell Atmos speakers is not convincing consumers that there really is any benefits. Mind you I don't have a problem with some more serious home theater types willing to go full throttle with a multi speaker home theater, its just at this point in time there is absolutely nothing that Dolby can do to make consumers spend more money on something that just doesn't matter that much to them. Avatar impressed people at the cinemas enough to buy into 3D visuals, what is there now that will jump start Atmos?


 

So how do you know that ATMOS is not convincing consumers that there really is any benefit? The products aren't even on the market yet and you are claiming consumers don't want something that they haven't seen or heard yet! You have some statistics to back this up?


----------



## Zen Traveler

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...33057-dolby-atmos-white-papers-available.html


----------



## NorthSky

Right on!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

24.1.10 seems a bit of overemphasizing on the ground level part. As someone else suggested in the industry news thread, this hints to 7 to front wall, 7 in the back and 5 at each sidewall. Then two rows of five for the top speakers.

This puts L & R at +/- 45 degrees off axis! And seems to be figured out for a wider than deep room. Most HT are deeper rather than wide...

22.1.12 would have seemed more appropriate: 5 in front and back, 6 on each side and 2 rows of 6 on the ceiling. No?


----------



## H8nXTC

Interesting and rather surprising, according to the new papers released, if you want to go with just 2 in-ceiling Atmos system (5.1.2 or 7.1.2), the speakers should be (not in the midway/center of the room as I would have guessed) above the front left and right speakers.


Edit: Nevermind, seems that's for the upward firing speakers only, the other white paper states that if you use 2 in-ceiling speakers they should be just forward of the seated position, so that would be usually midway point (which is what I originally suspected).


----------



## noah katz

H8nXTC said:


> Interesting and rather surprising, according to the new papers released, if you want to go with just 2 in-ceiling Atmos system (5.1.2 or 7.1.2), the speakers should be (not in the midway/center of the room as I would have guessed) above the front left and right speakers.


I thought that odd as well, as it would seem to put a a much lower limit on the maximum achievable height cue elevation.


----------



## JohnAV

tjenkins95 said:


> So how do you know that ATMOS is not convincing consumers that there really is any benefit? The products aren't even on the market yet and you are claiming consumers don't want something that they haven't seen or heard yet! You have some statistics to back this up?


Consumers IMHO have learned to be prudent with new technology, first with 3D, currently with 4K. So while replicating Atmos theater effects in one's home theater might be a desirable goal, usually first generation products are compromise these days IMHO. 

Look at what TDG survey told us about the current consumer marketplace when someone is trying to sell a new UDTV for example. If only 17% of consumers polled are aware of 4K for example, with 6% willing to spend $1500 on a UDTV, and 3% to spend $2000 on a UDTV. 

How difficult do you think selling to the same consumers Dolby Atmos for home? What percentage of consumers do you think are familiar with Dolby Atmos at this time, and then would willing to buy a upscale AVR with Atmos processing, along with necessary speakers or home theater modifications to take full advantage of BD's with Atmos soundtracks? I wonder? 

Mind you I am not being negative just playing Devil's advocate.


----------



## H8nXTC

noah katz said:


> I thought that odd as well, as it would seem to put a a much lower limit on the maximum achievable height cue elevation.


Look at my edit, seems the other paper states different and that info. is for the Atmos upfiring speakers only.


----------



## mtbdudex

Regarding the new White Paper, I posted the below in Scott's thread:


mtbdudex said:


> I found these visual graphics very nice to see
> 
> I can forsee apps/games where for Dolby Atmos AVR's one will be able to move sounds around their HT space (living rooms/family room/dedicated HT space)....
> Self recording and mixing at home and then playback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing this for ceiling speakers IMO relegates them to BOSE size/sound.....don't the ceiling speakers simply seem kinda small?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Espically here, shows ceiling speaker on top or it's own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As others have said who will be the first AVS person to have a 24.x.10 Dolby Atmos HT space? (x= number of subwoofers with individual calibration applied to each grouping of subwoofers, not total number of subwoofers)
> Does this open up the thinking to just using powered speakers and having the digital signal get to them via wireless/BT or even over the AC line itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This workflow nice to see, but why is it called a "Sony Blu-print" under Blu-ray Disc Authoring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This also interesting, so I see the AVR "knows" speaker positions - this via calibration routines like Audyssey/other?
> They are not X-Y-Z coordinates of each speaker relative to MLP are they? Or are they?


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> The biggest problem with the Pioneer speakers is that they can't be angled. They seem to have a fixed angle of 15° which assumes that the speaker is very close to the listener. About 3'. If you're further away you need larger angles.


That Andrew Jones, eh? What does he know!


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

H8nXTC said:


> Interesting and rather surprising, according to the new papers released, if you want to go with just 2 in-ceiling Atmos system (5.1.2 or 7.1.2), the speakers should be (not in the midway/center of the room as I would have guessed) above the front left and right speakers.
> 
> 
> Edit: Nevermind, seems that's for the upward firing speakers only, the other white paper states that if you use 2 in-ceiling speakers they should be just forward of the seated position, so that would be usually midway point (which is what I originally suspected).




The Dolby papers indicate that you want to have a diffuse height speaker sound field and not a direct sound field from a ceiling mounted speaker. Bouncing the sound off of an untreated ceiling is a simple way to do that. The location of the rear height speakers is noted as above the rear surround speaker location.

If you have low ceiling height, ceiling mounted speakers are no preferred.

There is a scene in the movie The Patriot that produces a nice height effect on a 5.1 sound system without the use of Atmos nor any special speakers. The scene is of people being in the cellar with the British walking around the room above. Footsteps sound like they come from above the listener. I should get the time stamp for that effect.


----------



## kbarnes701

ArmyMan said:


> Right I think on ceiling is the 'approved solution' and angled speakers (ala Pioneer) are in the also good category. I just read a post that indicated the listeners could not tell the difference between the two methods but that was in a million dollar theater that exceeds the capabilities of most home theaters.
> With 9 ft ceiling I do not know that is enough height to get the effect. I could still wire for them but even with DD/GG ceiling the holes present a sound transmission avenue. Backer boxes are only so effective. I can certainly run more wire to the front wall though.
> (and here I was about to drywall the ceiling next week.)
> 
> Paul


Paul - I have heard both Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers in a HT room and the differences are subtle. Some people actually prefer the Atmos speakers because they find the sound is a little more 'diffuse' and thus creates a better sense of space in the room. Personally, I found the ceiling speakers to offer slightly more precision in where sounds were placed but TBH I would be very happy with either kind of speaker. a 9 foot ceiling height is fine for Atmos speakers.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Anyone note the fine print on Atmos speaker locations? Obviously there will be AVRs that have different tiers of the Atmos decoder(s). 

From the Dolby papers:

"However, before designing your room layout, refer to your AVR’s documentation to ensure
that it supports the combination of speakers you plan to use."


I wonder if there is a preferred location for the height speakers relative to the use of the "fake Atmos DSP" that will make a standard soundtrack emulate an Atmos encoded soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Anyone note the fine print on Atmos speaker locations? Obviously there will be AVRs that have different tiers of the Atmos decoder(s).
> 
> From the Dolby papers:
> 
> "However, before designing your room layout, refer to your AVR’s documentation to ensure
> that it supports the combination of speakers you plan to use."


I took that to mean that you just need to ensure that your AVR has what you need - eg if you want 5.1.4 make sure it can handle that, or if you want to use 7.1.2 but also want to retain legacy speaker setups from a previous 11 channel system, then make sure you have all the outputs you need. Some units have 13 outputs, for example, which can all be wired, but not all of them can be used at the same time.



J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I wonder if there is a preferred location for the height speakers relative to the use of the "fake Atmos DSP" that will make a standard soundtrack emulate an Atmos encoded soundtrack.


You mean "Dolby Surround" as the upmixer is now called? It will use the standard speaker locations and angles that Atmos will use. Not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> I took that to mean that you just need to ensure that your AVR has what you need - eg if you want 5.1.4 make sure it can handle that, or if you want to use 7.1.2 but also want to retain legacy speaker setups from a previous 11 channel system, then make sure you have all the outputs you need. Some units have 13 outputs, for example, which can all be wired, but not all of them can be used at the same time.



Some receivers will allow for 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, but not 7.1.4. The higher end model in the link below can be setup as 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 Atmos.

Denon AVR-X4100W 7.2ch Network AV Receiver

Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 5.1.4*, 7.1.2* configuration)

and

Denon AVR-X5200W 9.2ch Network AV Receiver

Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4*, 9.1.2* configuration)


* means need additional external 2-channel amplifier



http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/electronics/surround-receivers/denon-dolby-atmos-receivers/1598

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/press/home-theater-news/denon-introduces-avr-x4100w-and-avr-x5200w/




kbarnes701 said:


> You mean "Dolby Surround" as the upmixer is now called? *It will use the standard speaker locations and angles that Atmos will use.* Not sure what you are getting at.




Is there only one Atmos standard for locating speakers?


----------



## helvetica bold

I noticed this section on the white paper
"Many AVRs that support Dolby Atmos have speaker connections labeled HEIGHT. (Some AVRs do not use that label, but they allow you to assign terminals for the height channels.) Connect your Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or ceiling speakers to those outputs. If you’re using four Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or ceiling speakers (or think you might in the future), you need an AVR with four height outputs."
Now my Sony (been mum on Atmos) 1040 receiver is a7.2 channel system w/ height labels. Is it possible that this receiver could output Atmos w/ a possible firmware update? I'm really interested in Atmos but I just bought my receiver last year and don't wasn't to have to go buy a new one again.


----------



## Selden Ball

helvetica bold said:


> I noticed this section on the white paper
> "Many AVRs that support Dolby Atmos have speaker connections labeled HEIGHT. (Some AVRs do not use that label, but they allow you to assign terminals for the height channels.) Connect your Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or ceiling speakers to those outputs. If you’re using four Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or ceiling speakers (or think you might in the future), you need an AVR with four height outputs."
> Now my Sony (been mum on Atmos) 1040 receiver is a7.2 channel system w/ height labels. Is it possible that this receiver could output Atmos w/ a possible firmware update? I'm really interested in Atmos but I just bought my receiver last year and don't wasn't to have to go buy a new one again.


Probably it can't. The Atmos DSP requirements are substantial. For example, Onkyo plans to provide Atmos as a firmware update for most, but not all, of their AVR models being released this year. Previous years' models don't have the necessary hardware. Onkyo also had to forgo Audyssey in this year's models in order to keep the DSP requirements affordable. In contrast, Denon & Marantz kept Audyssey but had to increase the number of DSPs in order to support Atmos, so they are offering it only in their more expensive models.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Some receivers will allow for 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, but not 7.1.4. The higher end model in the link below can be setup as 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 Atmos.


Indeed. Which is what Dolby meant by their comment in the white paper - be sure to get the unit that meets your needs!



J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Is there only one Atmos standard for locating speakers?


The only info we have right now is the oft-posted diagram showing speaker placement and angles. If you haven't seen it, it's been posted numerous times in this thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

helvetica bold said:


> I noticed this section on the white paper
> "Many AVRs that support Dolby Atmos have speaker connections labeled HEIGHT. (Some AVRs do not use that label, but they allow you to assign terminals for the height channels.) Connect your Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or ceiling speakers to those outputs. If you’re using four Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or ceiling speakers (or think you might in the future), you need an AVR with four height outputs."
> Now my Sony (been mum on Atmos) 1040 receiver is a7.2 channel system w/ height labels. Is it possible that this receiver could output Atmos w/ a possible firmware update? I'm really interested in Atmos but I just bought my receiver last year and don't wasn't to have to go buy a new one again.


It's very unlikely unless it was specifically designed to be FW-upgradable to Atmos, as some of the more recent Onkyos were. To deliver Atmos the AVR needs a special hardware chip inside it. If it doesn't have the chip, then it can't be FW-upgraded unfortunately.


----------



## ss9001

helvetica bold said:


> Now my Sony (been mum on Atmos) 1040 receiver...Is it possible that this receiver could output Atmos w/ a possible firmware update?


Keith & Selden are right on this. Atmos code will be on the very latest highest performance DSP processor chips. TI is one of them, I think Cirrus Logic may be the other. Your 1040 came out April 2013, so will not have the capability or "horsepower".

Also, keep in mind, your receiver listed for $600 new. Each mfg is reserving Atmos for their top model receivers with the latest & best processors & hardware - ballpark $1500 & up models. Nothing wrong with what you bought, but that's just the way it is 

Unfortunately, you are looking at a new receiver and an upgrade price-wise to get Atmos. Only ones that are described as Atmos capable or Atmos upgradeable - those will be the ones to look at.

As with all new technology, it will gradually trickle down to more (& lower priced) models in a year or 2


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ss9001 said:


> Keith & Selden are right on this. Atmos code will be on the very latest highest performance DSP processor chips. TI is one of them, I think Cirrus Logic may be the other. Your 1040 came out April 2013, so will not have the capability or "horsepower".
> 
> Also, keep in mind, your receiver listed for $600 new. Each mfg is reserving Atmos for their top model receivers with the latest & best processors & hardware - ballpark $1500 & up models. Nothing wrong with what you bought, but that's just the way it is
> 
> Unfortunately, you are looking at a new receiver and an upgrade price-wise to get Atmos. Only ones that are described as Atmos capable or Atmos upgradeable - those will be the ones to look at.
> 
> As with all new technology, it will gradually trickle down to more (& lower priced) models in a year or 2


To be fair, though, "basic" Atmos is being placed in receivers costing around $600 by way of Onkyo. They're just stuck at 5.1.2, and some a little bit higher up may be 5.1.4. That's also due to the fact these base units don't have a great amount of horsepower. Older models probably don't have the pin outs required for Atmos, even if they may happen to be basic models too.


----------



## harrybnbad

Ya, I too feel the same way... I had my denon 4520 less than a year. While I love the neo:x 11.2. Seems there should be some way to get even 7.2.2 out of it somehow. But I guess it just doesn't have chip setup for any type of atmos. I'd even be willing to send it to denon and pay say 500 bucks to have something upgraded inside so I can atleast add 2 channels up top and center.......to me just kicking their current flagship avr to the curb just sounds wrong..........

Even add some stand alone usb, slash denon link type box to give a few channels of atmos....


----------



## KidHorn

H8nXTC said:


> Interesting and rather surprising, according to the new papers released, if you want to go with just 2 in-ceiling Atmos system (5.1.2 or 7.1.2), the speakers should be (not in the midway/center of the room as I would have guessed) above the front left and right speakers.
> 
> 
> Edit: Nevermind, seems that's for the upward firing speakers only, the other white paper states that if you use 2 in-ceiling speakers they should be just forward of the seated position, so that would be usually midway point (which is what I originally suspected).



I think the reason they suggest this is because we hear in front of us better than behind us.


Another thing they mention is you should use diffuse speakers on the ceiling. Probably because we don't hear sounds over head nearly as well as we do at ground level. Humans have never had an overhead threat so there's never been a need to hear overhead sounds well. This kind of stinks because in most cases the ceiling will be much closer to us than the walls so it will be more difficult to create a diffuse sound than it would be with normal surrounds. Maybe that's why the Atmos reflection speakers have had good reviews. All things being equal, they'll produce a more diffuse sound.


----------



## brwsaw

harrybnbad said:


> to me just kicking their current flagship avr to the curb just sounds wrong...........


While not a flagship model, I'll be going back to 5.1 with front heights, at least for now.
In our room native 5.1 sounds better than non-native 7.1 so I'll use what I have and maybe pick up a couple wall mounts and attach my spare surrounds to the back of my XD screen frame.
This should remove the urge to go Atmos for a while until I can figure out what do do about the crappy ceiling height.


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> Ya, I too feel the same way... I had my denon 4520 less than a year. While I love the neo:x 11.2. Seems there should be some way to get even 7.2.2 out of it somehow. But I guess it just doesn't have chip setup for any type of atmos. I'd even be willing to send it to denon and pay say 500 bucks to have something upgraded inside so I can atleast add 2 channels up top and center.......to me just kicking their current flagship avr to the curb just sounds wrong..........
> 
> Even add some stand alone usb, slash denon link type box to give a few channels of atmos....


I also just last year bought new gear and when i bought them i didn't have a clue that Atmos was even on the horizon. when i saw the announcement, Atmos was comming this Fall, I was Pissed that i would have to upgrade once again to a new AVR to enjoy atmos. that's why i will most likely just get the TX-NR737 for now to try it out in my Den, being its such a small room that doesn't need a lot of power. 5.2.2 will be just fine for me and being a first generation AVR i will not get a flag ship one as i know there will be upgrades coming *
 *


----------



## mtbdudex

harrybnbad said:


> Ya, I too feel the same way... I had my denon 4520 less than a year. While I love the neo:x 11.2. Seems there should be some way to get even 7.2.2 out of it somehow. But I guess it just doesn't have chip setup for any type of atmos. I'd even be willing to send it to denon and pay say 500 bucks to have something upgraded inside so I can atleast add 2 channels up top and center.......to me just kicking their current flagship avr to the curb just sounds wrong..........
> 
> Even add some stand alone usb, slash denon link type box to give a few channels of atmos....


harrybnbad/others - (I hope this does not come across wrong.)
and you've gotten use out of your 4520, and can in the future....it's a great AVR!

maybe it's time for many of us with really great current AVR's to step back, take some deep breaths, and slow down on the urge to jump onto Atmos ....
(I'm a fellow 4520 owner with 11.2 also since Jan-2013)
Sure, if you are on the downslope of your AVR, say it's already +3 years use then planning for the object sound (atmos/other) upgrade as a HT hobbyist makes sense.

Heck - my family and I watched Divergent 2 nights ago and the 4520 processing to NeoX with the 7ch bed plus added front height/wides sounded superb, blows me away every time I watch a blu-ray.

IMO, we HT hobbyist need (not just harrybnbad but many here, including me) a "time out" from upgrading until 3-4 years since last major one.....let the newness flush itself out and all that.

No need for buyers/builders remorse, enjoy what we have and realize how truly fortunate we are compared to so many others.

fwiw, I'm upgrading in 2016/2017 4k pj , new object sound capable AVR, AT screen, baffle wall, speakers, etc.


----------



## bargervais

brwsaw said:


> While not a flagship model, I'll be going back to 5.1 with front heights, at least for now.
> In our room native 5.1 sounds better than non-native 7.1 so I'll use what I have and maybe pick up a couple wall mounts and attach my spare surrounds to the back of my XD screen frame.
> This should remove the urge to go Atmos for a while until I can figure out what do do about the crappy ceiling height.


Thats what i'm doing right now with my TX-NR616 i have no room for back speakers so i mounted two front high speakers up near the ceiling toed down toward my MLP, my room is only 15 x 10 feet and i'm sitting against the back wall with no place to put back speakers so i'm using front Highs and i'm amazed at how good it sounds in there. the sound envelops you and you do get phantom sounds coming from the ceiling. I will enjoy this for now, till my urge to go to Atmos get the better of me and get a new AVR
i watched Divergent when it came out the other night i thought the sound was incredible


----------



## Nightlord

erwinfrombelgium said:


> 24.1.10 seems a bit of overemphasizing on the ground level part.


I think most people are missing the main thing here... The 24 positions are most likely not meant to be used _all_ of them, they are to be many enough for you to with good approximation to select which ones you _are_ using.


----------



## batpig

harrybnbad said:


> Ya, I too feel the same way... I had my denon 4520 less than a year. While I love the neo:x 11.2. Seems there should be some way to get even 7.2.2 out of it somehow. But I guess it just doesn't have chip setup for any type of atmos. I'd even be willing to send it to denon and pay say 500 bucks to have something upgraded inside so I can atleast add 2 channels up top and center.......to me just kicking their current flagship avr to the curb just sounds wrong..........


Well, nobody is forcing you to kick your AVR to the curb. And if you are SOOOOO interested in Atmos that you are willing to ship it do Denon and pay them hundreds of dollars to upgrade the hardware..... why not simply sell the 4520 and put that money into an X5200 instead? 

Technology moves quickly. Deal with it. The AVR-4520CI was relaeased two years ago. Expecting it to be able to support a major hardware/software advance is unrealistic. I never understand the hand wringing and self righteous outrage that happens every year when a new feature appears and owners of the models from the last year or two feel entitled to the new features. You have two choices: (1) don't get caught up in the urgency of the upgrade cycle and just be happy with what you have, or (2) get caught up in the urgency of the upgrade cycle and decide how much resources you are willing to devote to staying current. That's your choice, nobody is forcing you to do either one.


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> I think most people are missing the main thing here... The 24 positions are most likely not meant to be used _all_ of them, they are to be many enough for you to with good approximation to select which ones you _are_ using.


who in there right minds will use this many speakers for home use unless you have a small theater in your house most of us will have small rooms or living rooms and 7.2.2 or 5.2.4 will be just fine????


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> who in there right minds will use this many speakers for home use unless you have a small theater in your house most of us will have small rooms or living rooms and 7.2.2 or 5.2.4 will be just fine????


It's a theoretical maximum. Obviously it's not realistic or relevant for most "typical" home theater setups, even if you have a dedicated room. Considering the processors needed to run this type of setup cost 5 figures it's something that only people with VERY high end home theaters would ever consider.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Well, nobody is forcing you to kick your AVR to the curb. And if you are SOOOOO interested in Atmos that you are willing to ship it do Denon and pay them hundreds of dollars to upgrade the hardware..... why not simply sell the 4520 and put that money into an X5200 instead?
> 
> Technology moves quickly. Deal with it. The AVR-4520CI was relaeased two years ago. Expecting it to be able to support a major hardware/software advance is unrealistic. I never understand the hand wringing and self righteous outrage that happens every year when a new feature appears and owners of the models from the last year or two feel entitled to the new features. You have two choices: (1) don't get caught up in the urgency of the upgrade cycle and just be happy with what you have, or (2) get caught up in the urgency of the upgrade cycle and decide how much resources you are willing to devote to staying current. That's your choice, nobody is forcing you to do either one.


ouch


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> It's a theoretical maximum. Obviously it's not realistic or relevant for most "typical" home theater setups, even if you have a dedicated room. Considering the processors needed to run this type of setup cost 5 figures it's something that only people with VERY high end home theaters would ever consider.


It needs quite the room if it would not look ridiculous as well. I'm building with 13 'arounds' and adding nine more would place them silly close to eachother...


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> It's a theoretical maximum. Obviously it's not realistic or relevant for most "typical" home theater setups, even if you have a dedicated room. Considering the processors needed to run this type of setup cost 5 figures it's something that only people with VERY high end home theaters would ever consider.


understand It's a theoretical maximum but some may think to keep up with the jones i always want the latest and baddest that i can afford


----------



## Scott Simonian

I think you would need a HUGE room to make anything beyond a 9.1.6 speaker layout really worth it, imho. 

Any more than that and the gap between speaker angles is too small making all the extra speakers (and effort) rather trivial.

Not that it isn't fun to think about but I'm just a very practical person.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> I think you would need a HUGE room to make anything beyond a 9.1.6 speaker layout really worth it, imho.


Well, I'm using "11.6" speakerwise for 7.1 already, so...


----------



## tjenkins95

JohnAV said:


> Consumers IMHO have learned to be prudent with new technology, first with 3D, currently with 4K. So while replicating Atmos theater effects in one's home theater might be a desirable goal, usually first generation products are compromise these days IMHO.
> 
> Look at what TDG survey told us about the current consumer marketplace when someone is trying to sell a new UDTV for example. If only 17% of consumers polled are aware of 4K for example, with 6% willing to spend $1500 on a UDTV, and 3% to spend $2000 on a UDTV.
> 
> How difficult do you think selling to the same consumers Dolby Atmos for home? What percentage of consumers do you think are familiar with Dolby Atmos at this time, and then would willing to buy a upscale AVR with Atmos processing, along with necessary speakers or home theater modifications to take full advantage of BD's with Atmos soundtracks? I wonder?
> 
> Mind you I am not being negative just playing Devil's advocate.


None of that has anything to do with Dolby Atmos. And I am not being negative either - just playing Devil's advocate.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Well, I'm using "11.6" speakerwise for 7.1 already, so...


That's because you are set up for NEO:X which is an 11.1 layout. I'm not counting subs which is irrelevant for Atmos talk as it is.

When I said 9.1.6 that will include your wides and your front heights. Add in two more pairs of overhead surrounds and there you have it. You can call that 15.6 if you so incline but it's the same as my 9.1.6 which is relating to the layout. 

Sooo.....


----------



## tjenkins95

mtbdudex said:


> harrybnbad/others - (I hope this does not come across wrong.)
> and you've gotten use out of your 4520, and can in the future....it's a great AVR!
> 
> maybe it's time for many of us with really great current AVR's to step back, take some deep breaths, and slow down on the urge to jump onto Atmos ....
> (I'm a fellow 4520 owner with 11.2 also since Jan-2013)
> Sure, if you are on the downslope of your AVR, say it's already +3 years use then planning for the object sound (atmos/other) upgrade as a HT hobbyist makes sense.
> 
> Heck - my family and I watched Divergent 2 nights ago and the 4520 processing to NeoX with the 7ch bed plus added front height/wides sounded superb, blows me away every time I watch a blu-ray.
> 
> IMO, we HT hobbyist need (not just harrybnbad but many here, including me) a "time out" from upgrading until 3-4 years since last major one.....let the newness flush itself out and all that.
> 
> No need for buyers/builders remorse, enjoy what we have and realize how truly fortunate we are compared to so many others.
> 
> fwiw, I'm upgrading in 2016/2017 4k pj , new object sound capable AVR, AT screen, baffle wall, speakers, etc.


Step back? Not a chance!
Dolby ATMOS is one of the best new features in audio to come out in years!
I've been to ATMOS theaters and they are awesome. 
The world is falling apart and I plan to have ATMOS installed in my HT on day one!


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> That's because you are set up for NEO:X which is an 11.1 layout. I'm not counting subs which is irrelevant for Atmos talk as it is.


No, if I count my possible neo:x/dsx setup I have 15. I meant what I said, I have 11 speakers for 7 channels - three speakers each for the side surrounds. 

I agree on the subs, just put the correct number for clarity.

I also have 11 speakers (with four ported 10" subs) in out tiny tv-room upstairs, same there... Three for each side surround.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Okay. Gotcha. That's pretty cool but (just giving some constructive criticism) you'd benefit from eliminating one of those pairs. At least in the back. You have two speakers within a foot. Might as well be a single speaker back there or just the two in the back corners. I'm sure you like how it sounds so I won't argue with you. Just my opinion. 

I like your style, sir.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Okay. Gotcha. That's pretty cool but (just giving some constructive criticism) you'd benefit from eliminating one of those pairs. At least in the back. You have two speakers within a foot. Might as well be a single speaker back there or just the two in the back corners. I'm sure you like how it sounds so I won't argue with you. Just my opinion.
> 
> I like your style, sir.


The two in the back are the back surrounds and yes, they should be slightly better spaced, they probably are compare to when the pic was taken too. ( All should be equdistant angle-wise, but I was lucky enough with the room as it is, I cannot put a speaker onto my son's bedroom door. )

( You actually have a higher need for many speakers in such a tiny room as this than in a larger to avoid localizing them. )

They actually don't sound anything at all as I cannot locate them, so I'm happy. Otherwise, given their cost, I would have downsized and moved some of them to the big cinema.


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> No, if I count my possible neo:x/dsx setup I have 15. I meant what I said, I have 11 speakers for 7 channels - three speakers each for the side surrounds.
> 
> I agree on the subs, just put the correct number for clarity.
> 
> I also have 11 speakers (with four ported 10" subs) in out tiny tv-room upstairs, same there... Three for each side surround.


i went and visited the Larch theater and that's a nice theater you built, wish i had the time to do something like that..
Great Job


----------



## Nightlord

bargervais said:


> i went and visited the Larch theater and that's a nice theater you built, wish i had the time to do something like that..
> Great Job


Thanks. Still building, though... Just cleaned a paintbrush. But I hope to plug the power in during this fall. 

Time... Yes... Several hours each evening for 2,5 years. 3000 hours? Given my professional hourly rate, I definitely couldn't have afforded myself.


----------



## asarose247

Per Scott Simonian


"Not that it isn't fun to think about but I'm just a very practical person."


perhaps true as a public confession for most here but personally and secretly also for many, to quote mick Jagger: "meantime, I was still thinkin"
9.x.4 or 9.x.6 for about 15 x 19 space, willing to settle for 7.x.4


----------



## wse

For me 9.2.2 will work great.

- Three B&W 800D2 (L/C/R)
- Four B&W 802D2 (SRWR/SR/SL/SWL)
- Two B&W 805D2 (SRB/SLB)
- Two in-ceiling right over the seats

Two JLAudio Subs Fathom F113


----------



## htpcforever

ss9001 said:


> As with all new technology, it will gradually trickle down to more (& lower priced) models in a year or 2


And a few years from now it will also be a bit more mature - I expect some growing pains with something this new. My Onkyo 3010 will certainly stay amazingly awesome for a few more years.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

htpcforever said:


> And a few years from now it will also be a bit more mature - I expect some growing pains with something this new. My Onkyo 3010 will certainly stay amazingly awesome for a few more years.


_If_ the content is there. Studios? Are you listening??


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> _If_ the content is there. Studios? Are you listening??


I've got a few bricks with some of my thoughts about that ready to send through their lobby windows.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> I've got a few bricks with some of my thoughts about that ready to send through their lobby windows.


It sounds like Scott needs a press release RIGHT NOW!! He's getting violent thoughts. :devil:


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It sounds like Scott needs a press release RIGHT NOW!! He's getting violent thoughts. :devil:


Hopefully my fears will be put to rest in a few days.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Hopefully my fears will be put to rest in a few days.


In a few days ???????????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> In a few days ???????????


The next Dolby announcement is supposed to be next week. Hopefully, that's when they'll start announcing the first wave of titles. They'll almost have to otherwise they're not going to hit their fall release target promise.


----------



## NorthSky

Are we going to see (hear about), eventually, a separate audio component with a Dolby Atmos decoder inside and connections for four Dolby Atmos speakers and that we can connect to our actual AV receivers of today and yesterday?

...With all the necessary requirement inside that black 'Dolby Atmos' box. ...And for two hundred bucks (USD). ...More or less.


----------



## batpig

I'm going with NO


----------



## NorthSky

Then I'll get a new AV receiver (SSP). ...And give the one I have now to a family member. ...Are you my brother?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> The next Dolby announcement is supposed to be next week. Hopefully, that's when they'll start announcing the first wave of titles. They'll almost have to otherwise they're not going to hit their fall release target promise.


Fear not. 

It's either next week or the week after. 

I cant divulge any details, but I had a meeting with them yesterday. 

Needless to say they are moving full steam ahead.


----------



## JohnAV

batpig said:


> Well, nobody is forcing you to kick your AVR to the curb. And if you are SOOOOO interested in Atmos that you are willing to ship it do Denon and pay them hundreds of dollars to upgrade the hardware..... why not simply sell the 4520 and put that money into an X5200 instead?
> 
> Technology moves quickly. Deal with it. The AVR-4520CI was relaeased two years ago. Expecting it to be able to support a major hardware/software advance is unrealistic. I never understand the hand wringing and self righteous outrage that happens every year when a new feature appears and owners of the models from the last year or two feel entitled to the new features. You have two choices: (1) don't get caught up in the urgency of the upgrade cycle and just be happy with what you have, or (2) get caught up in the urgency of the upgrade cycle and decide how much resources you are willing to devote to staying current. That's your choice, nobody is forcing you to do either one.


 The x7200 is the 4520 replacement not the x5200, just a FYI. It might be you suggesting a lower priced Denon AVR to compensate for selling the 4520 might bring, but then you won't have the 32 bits Dac's and so on.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Fear not.
> 
> It's either next week or the week after.
> 
> I cant divulge any details, but I had a meeting with them yesterday.
> 
> Needless to say they are moving full steam ahead.


Very good.


----------



## brwsaw

NorthSky said:


> With all the necessary requirement inside that black 'Dolby Atmos' box. ...And for two hundred bucks (USD). ...More or less.





batpig said:


> I'm going with NO


Honestly, if they brought it out at a great price point they'd sell like PS4's.
I'd take 2.


----------



## brwsaw

tjenkins95 said:


> The world is falling apart and I plan to have ATMOS installed in my HT on day one!



^This^


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> Honestly, if they brought it out at a great price point they'd sell like PS4's.
> I'd take 2.


Ain't gonna happen. It's just simpler to put Atmos decoding into new products and bitstream the data from a regular Blu-ray player.


----------



## NorthSky

This video deserves to be also in this thread :: 

_______


----------



## Kriilin

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ain't gonna happen. It's just simpler to put Atmos decoding into new products and bitstream the data from a regular Blu-ray player.


I can actually see it happening. It's all about Dolby's licensing fees. Consumer Atmos will have fewer channel outputs (speakers) with a corresponding price point. Given the Denon AVR X-4100W for example has a $1400 MSRP, consumer Atmos fees can't be that heinous. If the demand is there, Dolby won't prohibit licensing it out to whomever wants to build an outboard processor, what's their incentive to do so? Multi dozen channel decoders for commercial cinemas will naturally have higher licensing fees. It's like why the anti-virus software for your home computer is say, $39.95 while the server version can run you a grand.


----------



## FilmMixer

Kriilin said:


> I can actually see it happening. It's all about Dolby's licensing fees. Consumer Atmos will have fewer channel outputs (speakers) with a corresponding price point. Given the Denon AVR X-4100W for example has a $1400 MSRP, consumer Atmos fees can't be that heinous. If the demand is there, Dolby won't prohibit licensing it out to whomever wants to build an outboard processor, what's their incentive to do so? Multi dozen channel decoders for commercial cinemas will naturally have higher licensing fees. It's like why the anti-virus software for your home computer is say, $39.95 while the server version can run you a grand.


Actually it's all about the rendering engine which needs to be integrated with delays, gain contols, room correction and DSP required for Atmos enabled speakers. 

An external decoder box isn't an option for home theaters.


----------



## batpig

brwsaw said:


> Honestly, if they brought it out at a great price point they'd sell like PS4's.
> I'd take 2.


But the entire concept doesn't make sense. This has already been discussed and dismissed. How is the processor going to deliver the decoded Atmos to a legacy receiver? Any receiver old enough to not have Atmos (ie all of them until some point in the future) doesn't have external inputs to receive the decoded height outputs. They can take 7.1 input via Multich analog or HDMI (decoded PCM) but where are the overhead signals going to go? There are no inputs to receive them. 

So then you're into a Frankenstein kludge where the main 7 channels route to the receiver, but the overhead channels bypass the receiver and have to go to separate amplification. Then how do you coordinate the delays, gain, room correction, etc? 

It just doesn't make sense. The idea of some cheap external decoder that painlessly turns your existing receiver into Atmos by adding these overhead outputs as separate appendages is a fantasy that breaks down quickly once you think about the factors noted above. Once you factor in all the additional expense, extra boxes, extra wiring complexity.... Just sell your old receiver and buy a freaking Atmos receiver if it's that important.


----------



## duc135

Kriilin said:


> I can actually see it happening. It's all about Dolby's licensing fees. Consumer Atmos will have fewer channel outputs (speakers) with a corresponding price point. Given the Denon AVR X-4100W for example has a $1400 MSRP, consumer Atmos fees can't be that heinous. If the demand is there, Dolby won't prohibit licensing it out to whomever wants to build an outboard processor, what's their incentive to do so? Multi dozen channel decoders for commercial cinemas will naturally have higher licensing fees. It's like why the anti-virus software for your home computer is say, $39.95 while the server version can run you a grand.


Not sure where my lengthy response to this went but like batpig and FilmMixer stated, it is not cost effective once you factor in all the additional equipment you'll need to make it work. Even if you can make a relatively inexpensive external Atmos processor, you'll still need more equipment to make it work.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Just thinking that regardless of the alleged superiority in diffuseness of the up-firing Atmos speakers, I prefer to have ceiling mounted speakers that I might also use for other sound formats. Right now that includes an Illusonic IAP (on loan), but who knows what else may come in the vein of Neo:X or the like. In my understanding, the Atmos speakers require specific signal processing to achieve their full effect, and I doubt that processing will be made available outside the Atmos cocoon.


----------



## duc135

Kriilin said:


> I can actually see it happening. It's all about Dolby's licensing fees. Consumer Atmos will have fewer channel outputs (speakers) with a corresponding price point. Given the Denon AVR X-4100W for example has a $1400 MSRP, consumer Atmos fees can't be that heinous. If the demand is there, Dolby won't prohibit licensing it out to whomever wants to build an outboard processor, what's their incentive to do so? Multi dozen channel decoders for commercial cinemas will naturally have higher licensing fees. It's like why the anti-virus software for your home computer is say, $39.95 while the server version can run you a grand.


Edit: Looks like this reply which I tried to post an hour and a half ago finally decided to show up. Oh well, the point has already been made and addressed by batpig, Filmixer, Roger and now me again.

Too many variables that they would have to account for in an external box. I can't see it being cost effective to the manufacturer or very cheap for the end user in any scenario.

If you made a processor that sits in between the source device (BD, media server, etc.) and the AVR then the processor would have to account for how many channels the AVR has. If the AVR only has 5 speaker channels then the processor has to have analog outputs (with full DSP functionality) that go to an outboard amp. If the AVR has more than 5 amp channels then the processor would have to be able to remap those extra channels as ceiling/height speakers. That's assuming that they are not already in use for rear/height/wide speakers.

If the processor is in between the AVR and the speaker then that means the AVR would have to have analog inputs and the AVR has to have analog outputs. I'm not sure if the HDMI output on AVRs output the full HD audio stream or just a stereo downmix. If it does full HD audio then the analog outputs on the AVR is not a requirement. Either way, this would render the amp section in the AVR useless and the purchase of some expensive outboard amps to power all the speakers. You will still need DSP capabilities in the processor for the Atmos ceiling/height channels since the AVR can't correct for those channels.

The third option would be that the Atmos processor only handles the additional Atmos signal and let the AVR process the regular X.1 bed. That would require a source device that has two HDMI outputs that output the full audio stream on both outputs. Again, outboard amps are required.

As you can see, all three options require outboard amps, extra interconnects, additional space and complexity. This is not a very cost effective implementation IMO. Not to mention the knowledge required to connect and properly calibrate everything. The vast majority of people have trouble just connecting a simple AVR and running the auto calibration correctly. Forget all that, many people have trouble just connecting a BD player, AVR and TV and get them to play nicely together. I can't imagine trying to get the common consumer to get an external Atmos processor connected and calibrated correctly. You have to keep in mind we are a very small minority of the A/V consumer sales.


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> This video deserves to be also in this thread


Very nice. Don't think I can afford one, though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Just thinking that regardless of the alleged superiority in diffuseness of the up-firing Atmos speakers, I prefer to have ceiling mounted speakers that I might also use for other sound formats. Right now that includes an Illusonic IAP (on loan), but who knows what else may come in the vein of Neo:X or the like. In my understanding, the Atmos speakers require specific signal processing to achieve their full effect, and I doubt that processing will be made available outside the Atmos cocoon.


Great point, that! It would be interesting to find out if something like DTS-UHD could utilize Atmos enabled speakers, or if you are actually ending up purchasing specialized speakers that only work for one _specific_ audio format. Surely, that would be a waste of money if true.


----------



## Nightlord

Regarding Atmos-enabled speakers - have anyone seen any other brand besides Pioneer and Onkyo ?


----------



## ss9001

^^
Full speakers, no not yet, at least I haven't.
For add-on modules, it's Onkyo & DefTech so far.


----------



## Nightlord

ss9001 said:


> ^^
> Full speakers, no not yet, at least I haven't.
> For add-on modules, it's Onkyo & DefTech so far.


ok, that was one more for me then


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> ok, that was one more for me then


I think you will see more announced at CEDIA.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you will see more announced at CEDIA.


Maybe if I were going, yes.  

_I know what you meant, though._


----------



## KidHorn

Roger Dressler said:


> Just thinking that regardless of the alleged superiority in diffuseness of the up-firing Atmos speakers, I prefer to have ceiling mounted speakers that I might also use for other sound formats. Right now that includes an Illusonic IAP (on loan), but who knows what else may come in the vein of Neo:X or the like. In my understanding, the Atmos speakers require specific signal processing to achieve their full effect, and I doubt that processing will be made available outside the Atmos cocoon.



If you can put speakers on the ceiling, I would opt for that also. If you want something diffuse, you can get some of those bi-polar/di-polar speakers that have 2 angled front baffles. You may need to pick up a few things at Home Depot to mount them.


----------



## chi_guy50

duc135 said:


> Too many variables that they would have to account for in an external box. I can't see it being cost effective to the manufacturer or very cheap for the end user in any scenario.
> 
> The vast majority of people have trouble just connecting a simple AVR and running the auto calibration correctly. *Forget all that, many people have trouble just connecting a BD player, AVR and TV and get them to play nicely together. I can't imagine trying to get the common consumer to get an external Atmos processor connected and calibrated correctly.* You have to keep in mind we are a very small minority of the A/V consumer sales.


As the Chinese say, one picture is worth 1,000 words:


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Maybe if I were going, yes.
> 
> _I know what you meant, though._


LOL - I almost missed the last bit


----------



## RichB

batpig said:


> But the entire concept doesn't make sense. This has already been discussed and dismissed. How is the processor going to deliver the decoded Atmos to a legacy receiver? Any receiver old enough to not have Atmos (ie all of them until some point in the future) doesn't have external inputs to receive the decoded height outputs. They can take 7.1 input via Multich analog or HDMI (decoded PCM) but where are the overhead signals going to go? There are no inputs to receive them.
> 
> So then you're into a Frankenstein kludge where the main 7 channels route to the receiver, but the overhead channels bypass the receiver and have to go to separate amplification. Then how do you coordinate the delays, gain, room correction, etc?
> 
> It just doesn't make sense. The idea of some cheap external decoder that painlessly turns your existing receiver into Atmos by adding these overhead outputs as separate appendages is a fantasy that breaks down quickly once you think about the factors noted above. Once you factor in all the additional expense, extra boxes, extra wiring complexity.... Just sell your old receiver and buy a freaking Atmos receiver if it's that important.


Yes. Without volume control, it cannot be done. So, you would have to turn the AVR volume to full or nearly full volume and to attenuate the volume in the external ATMOS box.
A complete kludge.


- Rich


----------



## KidHorn

JohnAV said:


> The x7200 is the 4520 replacement not the x5200



Yes it is, but I wonder why anyone would buy the 7200 over the 5200. The $500 or so extra gets you very little.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

duc135 said:


> Edit: Looks like this reply which I tried to post an hour and a half ago finally decided to show up. Oh well, the point has already been made and addressed by batpig, Filmixer, Roger and now me again.
> 
> Too many variables that they would have to account for in an external box. I can't see it being cost effective to the manufacturer or very cheap for the end user in any scenario.
> 
> If you made a processor that sits in between the source device (BD, media server, etc.) and the AVR then the processor would have to account for how many channels the AVR has. If the AVR only has 5 speaker channels then the processor has to have analog outputs (with full DSP functionality) that go to an outboard amp. If the AVR has more than 5 amp channels then the processor would have to be able to remap those extra channels as ceiling/height speakers. That's assuming that they are not already in use for rear/height/wide speakers.
> 
> If the processor is in between the AVR and the speaker then that means the AVR would have to have analog inputs and the AVR has to have analog outputs. I'm not sure if the HDMI output on AVRs output the full HD audio stream or just a stereo downmix. If it does full HD audio then the analog outputs on the AVR is not a requirement. Either way, this would render the amp section in the AVR useless and the purchase of some expensive outboard amps to power all the speakers. You will still need DSP capabilities in the processor for the Atmos ceiling/height channels since the AVR can't correct for those channels.
> 
> The third option would be that the Atmos processor only handles the additional Atmos signal and let the AVR process the regular X.1 bed. That would require a source device that has two HDMI outputs that output the full audio stream on both outputs. *Again, outboard amps are required*.
> 
> *As you can see, all three options require outboard amps*, extra interconnects, additional space and complexity. This is not a very cost effective implementation IMO. Not to mention the knowledge required to connect and properly calibrate everything. The vast majority of people have trouble just connecting a simple AVR and running the auto calibration correctly. Forget all that, many people have trouble just connecting a BD player, AVR and TV and get them to play nicely together. I can't imagine trying to get the common consumer to get an external Atmos processor connected and calibrated correctly. You have to keep in mind we are a very small minority of the A/V consumer sales.



Making 1/3 of an Atmos prepro would probably cost as much as a full Atmos prepro. As usual, an Atmos AVR would probably be cheaper to purchase. Not going to save you any money there. Then again, which Atmos configurations will be available in any specific unit?

As a side note you need outboard amplifiers to power some channels in a new Atmos AVR anyhow, so that is not really an issue. How many decent power amplifiers do you think that they can stuff in an AVR along with a reasonable cost structure?


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/press/home-theater-news/denon-introduces-avr-x4100w-and-avr-x5200w/



Denon AVR-X4100W 7.2ch Network AV Receiver (about $1,400)

Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 5.1.4*, 7.1.2* configuration)


Denon AVR-X5200W 9.2ch Network AV Receiver (about $2000)

Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4*, 9.1.2* configuration)


(* with additional 2-channel power amplifier)


----------



## Nightlord

KidHorn said:


> Yes it is, but I wonder why anyone would buy the 7200 over the 5200. The $500 or so extra gets you very little.


if it can do more than 9.1.2 on the preouts, then I'm certain it has a case.


----------



## chi_guy50

KidHorn said:


> Yes it is, but I wonder why anyone would buy the 7200 over the 5200. The $500 or so extra gets you very little.


Not so fast. Firstly, I believe the price difference is probably going to be more in the $800 to $1000 range. Secondly--and more to the point--we still don't have the final word (or really any official word yet) on exactly what goodies will be included in the X7200. I'm going to hold my fire until Denon releases official specs on the new flagship.


----------



## wse

Roger Dressler said:


> Just thinking that regardless of the alleged superiority in diffuseness of the up-firing Atmos speakers, I prefer to have ceiling mounted speakers that I might also use for other sound formats. Right now that includes an Illusonic IAP (on loan), but who knows what else may come in the vein of Neo:X or the like. In my understanding, the Atmos speakers require specific signal processing to achieve their full effect, and I doubt that processing will be made available outside the Atmos cocoon.


I agree 100% plus I already have two in ceiling speakers


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

chi_guy50 said:


> Not so fast. Firstly, I believe the price difference is probably going to be more in the $800 to $1000 range. Secondly--and more to the point--we still don't have the final word (or really any official word yet) on exactly what goodies will be included in the X7200. I'm going to hold my fire until Denon releases official specs on the new flagship.



Here is a Denon feature comparison chart by model number. Not sure how accurate it is for the additional X7200 feature set. 

D.D.S.C. - HD along with an upgraded amplifier and power supply


http://www.profitlineav.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Denon-2014-2015-AVR-Linestep-Charts-with-Audyssey-Tiers.pdf


----------



## chi_guy50

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Here is a Denon feature comparison chart by model number. Not sure how accurate it is for the additional X7200 feature set.
> 
> D.D.S.C. - HD along with an upgraded amplifier and power supply
> 
> 
> http://www.profitlineav.com/wp-cont...5-AVR-Linestep-Charts-with-Audyssey-Tiers.pdf


Right, I've seen that chart; I've also seen a couple of European sites that published unofficial specs.

My point is that D&M has yet to reveal any details or even a firm availability date for the X7200. Until they do--and given the price spread between the X5200 and X7200--I am willing to assume that there will be more features to differentiate the flagship (can you say DTS-UHD? How about Atmos 9.1.4?). In fact, I like to refer to this model as the "mythical" flagship since there is still so much to be revealed. (Cue JDSmoothie for the insider's scoop.)


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> You mean "Dolby Surround" as the upmixer is now called? It will use the standard speaker locations and angles that Atmos will use. Not sure what you are getting at.




The new Denon receivers still have PL-2Z surround decoding. Dolby Surround is an established name and process.

I assume that the Atmos decoding / upmixing does have a name other than Dolby Surround. How about calling it the obvious - Dolby Atmos?


http://usa.denon.com/us/news/news/120


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> The new Denon receivers still have PL-2Z surround decoding. Dolby Surround is an established name and process.


There is no PLIIz any more. It has been replaced by the new upmixing algorithm, which we are told is called simply 'Dolby Surround'.



J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I assume that the Atmos decoding / upmixing does have a name other than Dolby Surround. How about calling it the obvious - Dolby Atmos?


The proper name for the new Dolby upmixing algorithm is Dolby Surround. It can’t be named Dolby Atmos for the obvious reason that that name is reserved for, er, Dolby Atmos


----------



## ggsantafe

kbarnes701 said:


> There is no PLIIz any more. It has been replaced by the new upmixing algorithm, which we are told is called simply 'Dolby Surround'.
> 
> Here's an excerpt from the link provided by J.Palmer Cass:
> 
> The new AVR-X4100W features a power amplifier with 200 watts per channel to create a stunning cinema sound and detailed music playback. Its advanced audio section includes the highest resolution audio decoders like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. It also offers DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX and *Dolby Pro Logic IIz* for an even more realistic surround experience with additional height or wide speakers.
> 
> While the entire suite of options may be covered under the umbrella of "Dolby Surround" it appears that you will have the option of selecting one of the legacy surround programs.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> There is no PLIIz any more. It has been replaced by the new upmixing algorithm, which we are told is called simply 'Dolby Surround'.
> 
> 
> 
> The proper name for the new Dolby upmixing algorithm is Dolby Surround. It can’t be named Dolby Atmos for the obvious reason that that name is reserved for, er, Dolby Atmos



Says who??????????????????


I still own an old Dolby Surround TV. It will not provide Dolby Pro Logic surround. It will not provide a "fake" Dolby Atmos surround sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround


----------



## kbarnes701

ggsantafe said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no PLIIz any more. It has been replaced by the new upmixing algorithm, which we are told is called simply 'Dolby Surround'.
> 
> Here's an excerpt from the link provided by J.Palmer Cass:
> 
> The new AVR-X4100W features a power amplifier with 200 watts per channel to create a stunning cinema sound and detailed music playback. Its advanced audio section includes the highest resolution audio decoders like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. It also offers DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX and *Dolby Pro Logic IIz* for an even more realistic surround experience with additional height or wide speakers.
> 
> While the entire suite of options may be covered under the umbrella of "Dolby Surround" it appears that you will have the option of selecting one of the legacy surround programs.
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no more PLIIz.* I have been told this directly by Dolby. The Denon information is incorrect.
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Says who??????????????????



Dolby, London, to me, in person.

EDIT: And confirmed by Dolby in writing in the extract Markus just quoted.


----------



## KidHorn

chi_guy50 said:


> Right, I've seen that chart; I've also seen a couple of European sites that published unofficial specs.
> 
> My point is that D&M has yet to reveal any details or even a firm availability date for the X7200. Until they do--and given the price spread between the X5200 and X7200--I am willing to assume that there will be more features to differentiate the flagship (can you say DTS-UHD? How about Atmos 9.1.4?). In fact, I like to refer to this model as the "mythical" flagship since there is still so much to be revealed. (Cue JDSmoothie for the insider's scoop.)



Things may change, but based on what we currently know there is not much difference between the 7200 and 5200. I hope the 7200 can do 9.1.4. 11.1.4 would be even better.


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Says who??????????????????
> 
> 
> I still own an old Dolby Surround TV. It will not provide Dolby Pro Logic surround. It will not provide a "fake" Dolby Atmos surround sound.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround



"If you invest in building a Dolby Atmos home theater, you want to get full use of it, even if the content you’re playing isn’t mixed in Dolby Atmos. That’s where the Dolby surround upmixer comes in.
If you choose to enable it, the Dolby surround upmixer expands the audio of legacy channel-based content so that it takes advantage of your entire system, including the ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers. Dolby surround upmixer expands the audio while still honoring and maintaining the artists’ intent for the mix. The Dolby surround upmixer employs the original signal to create a highly accurate rendering of the environment in the movie.
Unlike previous wideband upmixing technologies, the Dolby surround upmixer operates on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands for a fine-grained analysis of the source signal. Dolby surround upmixer can individually steer frequency bands, producing surround sound with precisely located audio elements and a spacious ambience. *Dolby surround upmixer replaces the Dolby Pro Logic II family of upmixers*, offering greater flexibility and superior audio performance.
The Dolby surround upmixer will provide audio to, at maximum, the same set of 24 speakers on the floor and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or ceiling speakers. To maintain the frontal audio image, the upmixer will not send upmixed audio to speakers that are located between the Left, Center, and Right speakers."

From http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-Enabled-Speaker-Technology.pdf


----------



## Roger Dressler

KidHorn said:


> If you can put speakers on the ceiling, I would opt for that also. If you want something diffuse, you can get some of those bi-polar/di-polar speakers that have 2 angled front baffles.


Yes, there's lots of options out there. For me, I do not want my height speakers to be any more diffuse than my surround speakers. I let the content provide the diffuseness.


----------



## jdsmoothie

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> *The new Denon receivers still have PL-2Z surround decoding.* Dolby Surround is an established name and process.
> 
> I assume that the Atmos decoding / upmixing does have a name other than Dolby Surround. How about calling it the obvious - Dolby Atmos?
> 
> 
> http://usa.denon.com/us/news/news/120


The non-Atmos models (ie. X3100W and lower) still do have DD PLIIz, but not on the Atmos models which as Keith notes has been replaced by Dolby Surround as noted in the X5200W's Owner's manual ...


----------



## Bumper

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, there's lots of options out there. For me, I do not want my height speakers to be any more diffuse than my surround speakers. I let the content provide the diffuseness.


Audyssey states that Front LCR and Height/Wide speakers should be direct beam and surrounds should be dipoles.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Bumper said:


> Audyssey states that Front LCR and Height/Wide speakers should be direct beam and surrounds should be dipoles.


Yes. That's why I ignore much of what Audyssey has to say about speaker positions and types. Dipole surrounds are an effect generator one cannot bypass.


----------



## Bumper

chi_guy50 said:


> Not so fast. Firstly, I believe the price difference is probably going to be more in the $800 to $1000 range. Secondly--and more to the point--we still don't have the final word (or really any official word yet) on exactly what goodies will be included in the X7200. I'm going to hold my fire until Denon releases official specs on the new flagship.


When I was at my AV dealer he spoke to the Denon importer and he stated that the 7200 would be released in Jan 2015 for 2499Euro. No matter what the feature difference is going to be, my september 5200 will be replaced by the 7200 model for the price difference of 500 Euro's. I don't think it will be able to process more channels than the 5200. However I concur that the price difference between the two is pretty steep considering what we know now is going to be extra on the 7200.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby, London, to me, in person.


Yeah? What do they know? 

Seriously, there was a lot of confusion based in part on erroneous info published on-line in advance of the product availability date (which I alluded to in my earlier post). Here's one more example:










But the (European) AVR-X5200W User's Manual put all that definitively to rest. Dolby Surround upmixing accompanies Dolby Atmos to supplant PLII processing


----------



## Bumper

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. That's why I ignore much of what Audyssey has to say about speaker positions and types. Dipole surrounds are an effect generator one cannot bypass.


 Very true statement however I bought those 14 years ago and today together with Audyssey it still sounds amazing and better than anything I heard before Audyssey. All being of personal choice obviously


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Dipole surrounds are an effect generator one cannot bypass.


Quite right and the same can be said about Dolby-enabled ceiling-firing speakers


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> "If you invest in building a Dolby Atmos home theater, you want to get full use of it, even if the content you’re playing isn’t mixed in Dolby Atmos. That’s where the Dolby surround upmixer comes in.
> If you choose to enable it, the Dolby surround upmixer expands the audio of legacy channel-based content so that it takes advantage of your entire system, including the ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers. Dolby surround upmixer expands the audio while still honoring and maintaining the artists’ intent for the mix. The Dolby surround upmixer employs the original signal to create a highly accurate rendering of the environment in the movie.
> Unlike previous wideband upmixing technologies, the Dolby surround upmixer operates on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands for a fine-grained analysis of the source signal. Dolby surround upmixer can individually steer frequency bands, producing surround sound with precisely located audio elements and a spacious ambience. *Dolby surround upmixer replaces the Dolby Pro Logic II family of upmixers*, offering greater flexibility and superior audio performance.
> The Dolby surround upmixer will provide audio to, at maximum, the same set of 24 speakers on the floor and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or ceiling speakers. To maintain the frontal audio image, the upmixer will not send upmixed audio to speakers that are located between the Left, Center, and Right speakers."
> 
> From http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-Enabled-Speaker-Technology.pdf





That link does not contain the words that you quoted!


That link does mention "Dolby Atmos enabled technology"!


----------



## JohnAV

KidHorn said:


> Yes it is, but I wonder why anyone would buy the 7200 over the 5200. The $500 or so extra gets you very little.


Most likely that amp section is a lot more robust even if it is spec'ed 10 watts more a channel, along with 32 bit version of Dynamic Discrete Surround Circuit, D.D.S.C-HD with AL32 Processing Plus, Denon Link HD. More details coming later as people commented. Devon is not going to charge that much money more without offering more upscale AVR quality/options. Its nice to see them offer something in-between x4100 and x7200 compared to the huge x4000 vs x4520 price gap.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> *There is no more PLIIz.* I have been told this directly by Dolby. The Denon information is incorrect.


Does that mean that Denon can't still decode/encode/transcode it? If it doesn't exist, then you shouldn't be able to face legal action for decoding a legacy format?

As in having two different upmixers on board?


----------



## Skylinestar

FilmMixer said:


> Actually it's all about the rendering engine which needs to be integrated with delays, gain contols, room correction and DSP required for Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> An external decoder box isn't an option for home theaters.


I would say an external box is possible, but it will be more than a decoder box. It needs to have room correction to check for speaker configs and eq, then output the sound signal to the AVR, which only act as an amp. Something like a decoder+minidsp nanoAVR.
I'm sure Audyssey can do that...perhaps a super duper AudysseyXT64 external box with decoding function...but it's all about $$$


----------



## batpig

J_Palmer_Cass -- I'm not sure what you are arguing for. You are dead wrong. All you have to do is download the X5200 manual to confirm what others are saying.

PLII is GONE in the new Atmos enabled receivers, replaced/subsumed by a new surround upmixing algorithm called "Dolby Surround". JD even provided a screep cap from the manual above.


----------



## batpig

Skylinestar said:


> I would say an external box is possible, but it will be more than a decoder box. It needs to have room correction to check for speaker configs and eq, then output the sound signal to the AVR, which only act as an amp. Something like a decoder+minidsp nanoAVR.
> I'm sure Audyssey can do that...perhaps a super duper AudysseyXT64 external box with decoding function.


But people were hoping for this box to be CHEAP, some $200-300 appendage that would turn their old AVR into an Atmos unit. 

For it to have everything you described it won't be cheap. If you are getting a fancy external box with decoding, room correction, speaker configs, volume control, etc..... at that point, what you describe is a pre/pro. And those are already coming out.


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> Does that mean that Denon can't still decode it? If it doesn't exist, then you shouldn't be able to face legal action for decoding a legacy format?


There is nothing to "decode", PLIIz (like the rest of the Pro Logic family) is an upmixing algorithm NOT a codec. It's no different than DTS Neo:6 being replaced by DTS Neo:X. 

The new Dolby Surround upmix still supports "legacy" layouts so if you have a basic setup with front heights it will probably work the same as PLIIz did, just a different name.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> There is nothing to "decode", PLIIz (like the rest of the Pro Logic family) is an upmixing algorithm NOT a codec. It's no different than DTS Neo:6 being replaced by DTS Neo:X.
> 
> The new Dolby Surround upmix still supports "legacy" layouts so if you have a basic setup with front heights it will probably work the same as PLIIz did, just a different name.


You missed my addition... What's stopping Denon from having the old upmixer onboard as well?


----------



## duc135

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> As a side note you need outboard amplifiers to power some channels in a new Atmos AVR anyhow, so that is not really an issue.
> 
> Denon AVR-X4100W 7.2ch Network AV Receiver (about $1,400)
> 
> Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 5.1.4*, 7.1.2* configuration)
> 
> 
> Denon AVR-X5200W 9.2ch Network AV Receiver (about $2000)
> 
> Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4*, 9.1.2* configuration)
> 
> 
> (* with additional 2-channel power amplifier)


With an external Atmos processor, I don't see any possibility of not needing additional external amps. You will need external amplification for at least two channels (5.1.2) if the processor was upstream of the AVR and you could use the AVR to drive the regular 5.1/7.1 channels. As you have pointed out, an Atmos enabled AVR can handle up to 5..1.4/7.1.2 without the need for additional external amps. So yes, my point stills stands. With an external Atmos solution you will need additional amps no matter what. That will be an additional cost that needs to be factored into the total cost. Not to mention, additional interconnects, space requirements, outlets, DSP, device to level match and control volumes, etc. Just not cost effective to the end user not to mention the setup nightmares. Too much to go wrong and of course the end user will blame Atmos for the poor performance and not their poor setup.



J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How many decent power amplifiers do you think that they can stuff in an AVR along with a reasonable cost structure?


Apparently nine. My 4311 ($900 new to my door a year ago) has nine amp channels that were good enough to power my Revel Salon2s/Voice2 and six other surround speakers at near reference at a 9' distance with the Salon2s set to large.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> Audyssey states that Front LCR and Height/Wide speakers should be direct beam and surrounds should be dipoles.


Where does Audyssey say that?


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Quite right and the same can be said about Dolby-enabled ceiling-firing speakers


They can be bypassed simply by turning off Atmos, surely?


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> That link does not contain the words that you quoted!
> 
> 
> That link does mention "Dolby Atmos enabled technology"!


This link does:

http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf

Page 16:

"Dolby surround upmixer replaces the Dolby Pro Logic II family of upmixers, offering greater flexibility and superior audio performance."


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Does that mean that Denon can't still decode/encode/transcode it? If it doesn't exist, then you shouldn't be able to face legal action for decoding a legacy format?
> 
> As in having two different upmixers on board?


PLIIz has been replaced in Atmos units with Dolby Surround. There's no PLIIz to 'decode' any more. The algorithm has been subsumed into Dolby Surround. As JD says, PLIiz is still available in non-Atmos units.


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> You missed my addition... What's stopping Denon from having the old upmixer onboard as well?


Well first of all we know it's not because there zero mention of Pro Logic in the X5200 manual. 

But the point I think you're missing is that the "old mixer" probably IS still there, it's just enveloped within a single name for upmixing. Just like PLIIx is actually two different upmix algorithms (2.0 > 7.1 and 5.1 > 7.1) wrapped up in one name. 

It wouldn't surprise me if for "legacy" layouts like 5.1+surr back or 5.1 + front height that Dolby Surround behaves identically with PLIIx/z. It just makes it simpler for the end user -- instead of having to keep straight all the different flavors of PLII, you just turn on Dolby Surround and it scales to whatever speaker layout you have. That's the way Neo:X already works.


----------



## duc135

Skylinestar said:


> I would say an external box is possible, but it will be more than a decoder box. It needs to have room correction to check for speaker configs and eq, then output the sound signal to the AVR, which only act as an amp. Something like a decoder+minidsp nanoAVR.
> I'm sure Audyssey can do that...perhaps a super duper AudysseyXT64 external box with decoding function...but it's all about $$$


I don't think anyone said it's not possible, but the argument that it's not feasible. Like you said, it's all about the money. There would be no justifiable business case for an external box when upgrading the AVR would be just as, if not, more cost effective than getting an external box and all the requisite supporting gear. Not to mention the Atmos enable AVR would be much easier to implement. Easy means better chance for success and satisfaction and less chance for customer frustration and backlash.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

batpig said:


> J_Palmer_Cass -- I'm not sure what you are arguing for. You are dead wrong. All you have to do is download the X5200 manual to confirm what others are saying.
> 
> PLII is GONE in the new Atmos enabled receivers, replaced/subsumed by a new surround upmixing algorithm called "Dolby Surround". JD even provided a screep cap from the manual above.






You should be careful where you place capital letters.

Is the Atmos surround upmixer actually called "Dolby Surround" (with surround spelled with a capital S)?


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> That link does not contain the words that you quoted!
> 
> 
> That link does mention "Dolby Atmos enabled technology"!


No need for yelling at me, I've linked the wrong document. The correct one can be found in post 1 of this thread. Here it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> You should be careful where you place capital letters.
> 
> Is the Atmos surround upmixer actually called "Dolby Surround" (with surround spelled with a capital S)?


That is what Dolby told me it is called. 

Is this really all that important to you?


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> Where does Audyssey say that?


https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/208239-Dipoles-bipoles-or-monopoles-for-surround-speakers-


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> What's stopping Denon from having the old upmixer onboard as well?


The "what" in question is Dolby. Why? For the same reason that Neo:6 and Neo:X aren't on the same receiver. Or why old Pro Logic and PLII weren't on the same receiver during that transition period. 

After hearing the new Dolby Surround upmixer, some folks might end up preferring the older PLII family of processing. After all, Jim Fosgate is one of the best designers of surround processing, especially when it comes to reproducing 2-channel music in surround. 

But it doesn't matter because Dolby believes their new surround processing is better, for a variety of reasons: designed with Atmos layouts in mind, scales to 34 outputs, multi-band steering, etc. It might eventually replace PLIIz even on non-Atmos receivers.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> This link does:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf
> 
> Page 16:
> 
> "Dolby surround upmixer replaces the Dolby Pro Logic II family of upmixers, offering greater flexibility and superior audio performance."





I knew where to find it (Scott's thread).

That is the Dolby surround (small s) upmixer.

Where does it say Dolby Surround (capital s)?


I just read the label on my AVR. Dolby Digital EX Pro-Logic 2 is the name on the label.

What does the Dolby authorized label for the new AVRs look like?


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/208239-Dipoles-bipoles-or-monopoles-for-surround-speakers-


Thanks. I might have to add a note to that in the FAQ. I don't go along with it though. Dipoles were for the era when we didn't have discrete m/ch content. I guess Tom Holman influenced Audyssey into that direction, given his background


----------



## ss9001

"Subsumed" - I like that word 

Dolby seems to want to give the impression that Atmos upmixing will be "better" than PLIIx/z. 

They're not really stating whether part of Dolby Surround *includes *ProLogicIIx or will actually work & sound differently than IIx with overheads turned off. 

It will be interesting to compare.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I knew where to find it (Scott's thread).
> 
> That is the Dolby surround (small s) upmixer.
> 
> Where does it say Dolby Surround (capital s)?
> 
> 
> I just read the label on my AVR. Dolby Digital EX Pro-Logic 2 is the name on the label.
> 
> What does the Dolby authorized label for the new AVRs look like?


I've answered you to the best of my ability. I'll leave you to it now...


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> "Subsumed" - I like that word
> 
> Dolby seems to want to give the impression that Atmos upmixing will be "better" than PLIIx/z. I can see this if one used the overheads. But if one changed the speaker configuration to a std 7.1 setup, then I'm leaning towards batpig's interpretation, that it essentially sound the same & be the same as PLIIx/z.


Both bp and I used 'subsumed', without either of us seeing the other's post.  Not often a word like that is used twice on one page.

It may sound identical to PLIIz if you use the old speaker arrangement. I think the point of it is that it will make use of the Atmos speaker arrangement, using all the Atmos speakers it finds, and that should give a much better effect than the old PLIIz which had only two speakers to work with. Regardless, PLIIz is gone, finished, dead, an ex-algorithm in Atmos units and that's that.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

sdurani said:


> The "what" in question is Dolby. Why? For the same reason that Neo:6 and Neo:X aren't on the same receiver. *Or why old Pro Logic and PLII weren't on the same receiver during that transition period. *
> 
> After hearing the new Dolby Surround upmixer, some folks might end up preferring the older PLII family of processing. After all, Jim Fosgate is one of the best designers of surround processing, especially when it comes to reproducing 2-channel music in surround.
> 
> But it doesn't matter because Dolby believes their new surround processing is better, for a variety of reasons: designed with Atmos layouts in mind, scales to 34 outputs, multi-band steering, etc. It might eventually replace PLIIz even on non-Atmos receivers.




My AVR is labeled as Dolby Digital EX Pro Logic 2. Pro Logic is an option, as well as PL-2 Music and Pl-2 Movie.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> Well first of all we know it's not because there zero mention of Pro Logic in the X5200 manual.


Agreed, but my post was theoretical, not factual... I was just wondering if anything stopped Denon from putting old software they already bought a long time ago in there as an extra service to the customer when Dolby no longer support it (by name) anymore.

They would not _need _ to mention any prologic mode if they didn't add any modes that used it on it's own, even if the software would have been capable if made selectable.


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. I might have to add a note to that in the FAQ. I don't go along with it though. Dipoles were for the era when we didn't have discrete m/ch content. I guess Tom Holman influenced Audyssey into that direction, given his background


I bought my dipoles long ago from before the digital era and about three weeks ago when I was searching for the type of speakers to use for Atmos I came along this thread. It is from 2010 (well in the digital era) and it made me happy for still having the correct setup. Maybe I should try different surround speakers (mid and back) and do a new calibration to see what I like best. If it makes the sound even better, I would be willing to buy new speakers but I have a problem getting Boston in the Netherlands. I would have to order from somewhere outside the country making it difficult to expirement. I really need all my speakers of the same manufacturer.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> But it doesn't matter because Dolby believes their new surround processing is better, for a variety of reasons


And how would that have any bearing at all to a marketing department at Denon or elsewhere who said "it must say X on the machine if we are to sell as many as possible" what Dolby thinks if they cant be sued over it? :grin:

Anyway, no one need answer this one, it was just a theoretical exercise so we needn't pollute the thread for too long. Most have gotten the point I was making by now anyway, I'm sure.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Both bp and I used 'subsumed', without either of us seeing the other's post.  Not often a word like that is used twice on one page.
> 
> It may sound identical to PLIIz if you use the old speaker arrangement. I think the point of it is that it will make use of the Atmos speaker arrangement, using all the Atmos speakers it finds, and that should give a much better effect than the old PLIIz which had only two speakers to work with. Regardless, PLIIz is gone, finished, dead, an ex-algorithm in Atmos units and that's that.


agreed!

I must have done my editing at same time as you quoted me  I do that a lot...always look to improve what I write  I'd spend a lot less time on the keyboard if I didn't keep editing my work  

I have no problems with new & improved


----------



## Selden Ball

A minor point of clarification: batpig carefully went through the manual and determined that when you enable Atmos on Denon receivers, they can be configured to make use of the Front Wide pair of speakers, which is not the case when Dolby surround is enabled by itself. _I.e._ Atmos is separate from Dolby surround.


----------



## Roger Dressler

ss9001 said:


> Dolby seems to want to give the impression that Atmos upmixing will be "better" than PLIIx/z.
> 
> They're not really stating whether part of Dolby Surround *includes *ProLogicIIx or will actually work & sound differently than IIx with overheads turned off.
> 
> It will be interesting to compare.


Based on an educated guess, I conclude Dolby Surround is wholly different technology. I'm confident it will do some things better due to the multiband steering. The question is whether it will do some things worse as an unintended consequence. This has happened with other upmixing technologies in the past -- it is very hard to do well. We should all listen carefully. 



J_Palmer_Cass said:


> My AVR is labeled as Dolby Digital EX Pro Logic 2. Pro Logic is an option, as well as PL-2 Music and Pl-2 Movie.


The "Pro Logic" mode is not actually the original Pro Logic circuit, but an emulation achieved by mono surrounds with a 7 kHz low-pass filter. The original PL algorithm was retired when PLII came along.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Now PL2z has _two days til retirement_.

No don't die! Think about your kids!


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> And how would that have any bearing at all to a marketing department at Denon or elsewhere who said "it must say X on the machine if we are to sell as many as possible" what Dolby thinks if they cant be sued over it?


You keep bringing up law suits for reasons I cannot understand. As for Denon, they can only market what is on the DSP chipset in their receiver. If the chips don't include PLIIz processing, then they cannot market PLIIz processing. In their haste to get details out after the NDA was lifted in June, Denon might have cut-n-pasted some specs from last year's models, hence why PLIIz was listed on the Atmos models. However, that is being corrected as newer specs and info get released.


----------



## JohnAV

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby, London, to me, in person.
> 
> EDIT: And confirmed by Dolby in writing in the extract Markus just quoted.


Keith they specifically write it up as "Dolby surround upmixer" in the white paper to explain how things work. Where on Dolby site and on their documentation do they identify it as "Dolby Surround" as a term? Pretty vague rewrite of terminology, probably to glorify Atmos and make other surround methods less important for marketing purposes.


----------



## sdurani

JohnAV said:


> Pretty vague rewrite of terminology, probably to glorify Atmos and make other surround methods less important for marketing purposes.


What "marketing purposes" are you referring to? With the introduction of consumer Atmos, Dolby needed surround processing that could scale/upmix legacy sources to up to 34 outputs. They came up with one and decided to recycle a name they used a quarter century ago: Dolby Surround. It's from Dolby and does surround processing. Why is that name so unreasonable?


----------



## JohnAV

ss9001 said:


> "Subsumed" - I like that word
> 
> Dolby seems to want to give the impression that Atmos upmixing will be "better" than PLIIx/z.
> 
> They're not really stating whether part of Dolby Surround *includes *ProLogicIIx or will actually work & sound differently than IIx with overheads turned off.
> 
> It will be interesting to compare.


 Sure they "want" to give impression that Atmos upmixing will be "better" than PLIIx/z. Whether it is or not much better sounding with a wide mix of a Atmos soundtracks, have to wait and see people posting their impressions in their homes rather then a lot of hearsay marketing bluster with controlled demo's in carefully planned rooms.


----------



## NorthSky

I think "Dolby Surround" up-mixing is going to kick ass. PLII, & x & z are no more a match to "Dolby Surround" up-mixing.

Also, we might see that "Dolby Surround" up-mixing coming through our headphones and TVs. ...Eventually.

And that is why I asked before about a separate Dolby Atmos decoder box. 

Yeah, just get rid of our $2,000 receivers and $3,000 pre/pros from last year or two, and simply buy another one with a Dolby Atmos decoder in it. I got that, no problemo, we all got it; after all we are always following the latest and greatest cutting edge in surround sound. And for that we are willing to upgrade by spending more money and losing our older investment heritage. ...No sweat, we don't want to get stuck with old and inferior sound technologies. ...And that's the price we are willing to pay, in order to get a superior surround sound experience.

Am all for it myself, since I was ten years old. ...And two years from now I will still be ready to upgrade again with DTS-UHD and Auro 3D and them new other surround sound codecs they are already talking about; Illusionic, Holographic 4D Surround Sound, ...and all that blues kind of surround stuff.

Life goes really fast nowadays if you want to keep up, in our audio surround sound hobby from movies we love to watch in our own home theaters rooms where we spent a lot of money to acoustically improve, and now we need to remove some of those acoustic room treatments, from our ceilings, in order to render them reflective, for best diffusive effects.

Then three years from now we'll probably have to put our absorption panels back in our ceilings and all that jazz. ...Because of new surround codecs that require dead rooms for best performance. 
No sweat, we'll do it because we love it. ...Getting the latest and greatest. We'll go along, with our room's metamorphosis, in that constant rearrangement, and re-planification of our life's priorities and most sensory pleasures; hearing the best sound in surround.


----------



## JohnAV

sdurani said:


> What "marketing purposes" are you referring to? With the introduction of consumer Atmos, Dolby needed surround processing that could scale/upmix legacy sources to up to 34 outputs. They came up with one and decided to recycle a name they used a quarter century ago: Dolby Surround. It's from Dolby and does surround processing. Why is that name so unreasonable?


Now why would most people care about scale/upmix legacy sources to up to 34 outputs? The best you can do with a Atmos at this time is use a AVR with 13.2 pre-outputs, internally it is 9.2. Probably because I am technical in nature and don't like vague terms.


----------



## SoundChex

duc135 said:


> I don't think anyone said *[an external Atmos box is]* not possible, but the argument that it's not feasible. *[It's]* all about the money. There would be no justifiable business case for an external box when upgrading the AVR would be just as, if not, more cost effective than getting an external box and all the requisite supporting gear. Not to mention the Atmos enable AVR would be much easier to implement. Easy means better chance for success and satisfaction and less chance for customer frustration and backlash.



The points made by several posters regarding the comparatively large functionality and technical complexity of an add-on *Atmo*s render, its need for substantial user implementation and operation skills, consequently leading perhaps to a "small" market size and "high" price do not suggest this path for "existing AVR" upgrades is particularly likely. But that does not address the question of a useful consumer purchasing strategy in the imminent era of _multiple_ object-based audio codecs:

For the basic "hobbyist" who purchases a *5.1.2 Atmos capable AVR* in January 2015, what do they do when their favorite TV show is released on *DTS-UHD BD* in January 2016? when there is widespread employment of the *MPEG-H 3D Audio* codec _sometime after_ January 2018? ( . . . and perhaps some _not-yet-selected_ *ATSC 3.0 TV 3D Audio* codec goes into limited test use by January 2020?)

The choices would seem to be (1) Buy a new AVR, (2) AVR _hardware component_ replacement, (3) AVR _firmware_ upgrade, (4) _Add-on_ external processor, (5) Use only the legacy element "embedded in" the new codec, or (6) Elect a combination of (1) through (5) on a _codec-by-codec_ basis. Hopefully the CEMs have thought this through, because otherwise I foresee a customer base that will be very unhappy about the prospect of more multiple technology obsolescence cycles at two years intervals!
_


----------



## JohnAV

NorthSky said:


> I think "Dolby Surround" up-mixing is going to kick ass. PLII, & x & z are no more a match to "Dolby Surround" up-mixing.
> 
> Also, we might see that "Dolby Surround" up-mixing coming through our headphones and TVs. ...Eventually.
> 
> And that is why I asked before about a separate Dolby Atmos decoder box.
> 
> Yeah, just get rid of our $2,000 receivers and $3,000 pre/pros from last year or two, and simply buy another one with a Dolby Atmos decoder in it. I got that, no problemo, we all got it; after all we are always following the latest and greatest cutting edge in surround sound. And for that we are willing to upgrade by spending more money and losing our older investment heritage. ...No sweat, we don't want to get stuck with old and inferior sound technologies. ...And that's the price we are willing to pay.


 You forgot to improve/change out your expensive speakers along with placing more importance on a little bit of carefully timed reverb off your ceilings or by using ceiling speakers instead.


----------



## noah katz

SoundChex said:


> ... Hopefully the CEMs have thought this through, because otherwise I foresee a customer base that will be very unhappy about the prospect of multiple technology obsolescence cycles at two years intervals!


They don't care if we're unhappy as long we buy.

The question is if they bother to monitor forums like this and note those of us who may defer purchase until we see how DTS and Auro will be accommodated.

If they say the Atmos DSP's have the horsepower and DTS/Auro can be handled with f/w update, I'm ready to buy into the first generation.

If not, the early obsolescence and likely increased Atmos functionality of the next generation will keep me waiting.

I forget, have there been any definitive statements from any of the mfgr's about f/w update capability.


----------



## chi_guy50

ss9001 said:


> "Subsumed" - I like that word


What, no love for my earlier use of the even more descriptive "supplant"?












chi_guy50 said:


> Seriously, there was a lot of confusion based in part on erroneous info published on-line in advance of the product availability date (which I alluded to in my earlier post).
> 
> But the (European) AVR-X5200W User's Manual put all that definitively to rest. Dolby Surround upmixing accompanies Dolby Atmos to supplant PLII processing


----------



## NorthSky

You're right, I forgot.

Furthermore, when new members will be asking us about Doby Amos, we will direct them straight into the new 'path'.
Some will be displeased to get rid of that new last year Pioneer Elite receiver, and we'll have to work much harder to convince them, once more, to get rid of it and buy another one. ...And get new cheaper speakers too, in order to get more diffusion from them.

* In reply to John's post just above (3357).


----------



## kbarnes701

JohnAV said:


> Keith they specifically write it up as "Dolby surround upmixer" in the white paper to explain how things work. Where on Dolby site and on their documentation do they identify it as "Dolby Surround" as a term? Pretty vague rewrite of terminology, probably to glorify Atmos and make other surround methods less important for marketing purposes.


It's got nothing to do with 'marketing'. Dolby have replaced their old Prologic upmixing algorithms with Dolby Surround in the news Atmos AVRs.

Why is this so important to anyone, what it's called?


----------



## SoundChex

NorthSky said:


> I think "Dolby Surround" up-mixing is going to kick ass. PLII, & x & z are no more a match to "Dolby Surround" up-mixing.



_"There's a new band in town
But you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine..."

-- Billy Joel
_
_


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It's got nothing to do with 'marketing'. Dolby have replaced their old Prologic upmixing algorithms with Dolby Surround in the news Atmos AVRs.
> 
> Why is this so important to anyone, what it's called?


Honestly, I wish it were called something else and not something of the same name that has been around for the past 30 years. 

Kind of cornfusing, even for me.  But I guess I'll get used to it.

"Hey man. This 7.1 sounds great in Dolby Surround!"

"Umm... that thing I was using on my old Technics back in 1990?"


----------



## sdurani

JohnAV said:


> Now why would most people care about scale/upmix legacy sources to up to 34 outputs?


Who said "most people" would? I said Dolby needed new surround processing to support up to 34 outputs, because that is the limit of their consumer Atmos spec.


JohnAV said:


> The best you can do with a Atmos at this time is use a AVR with 13.2 pre-outputs, internally it is 9.2.


So Dolby should have come up with 13-channel surround processing and invented newer surround processing as products came out with more channels? Easier to do something now that can scale sources to up to 34 outputs, even if only some of those outputs are going to be used on fist gen products.


JohnAV said:


> Probably because I am technical in nature and don't like vague terms.


What "technical in nature" name would you want instead? Dolby 24.1.10?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Needless to say they are moving full steam ahead.


Dolby Atmos is like a steam train from which we can hear all that hot pushing smoking air comin' from right above over our head.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Honestly, I wish it were called something else and not something of the same name that has been around for the past 30 years.
> 
> Kind of cornfusing, even for me.  But I guess I'll get used to it.
> 
> "Hey man. This 7.1 sounds great in Dolby Surround!"
> 
> "Umm... that thing I was using on my old Technics back in 1990?"


I kinda agree. How hard can it be to come up with a new name? Surround-X would be better than Dolby Surround. But that seems to be what they have decided on, and really, it is almost entirely unimportant IMO.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> What, no love for my earlier use of the even more descriptive "supplant"?


Supplant implies replacement. 

Subsume is broader -- it implies replacement (supplanting) but ALSO absorption of the thing that was replaced. 

So, obviously, Keith and I are cooler than you.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Why is this so important to anyone, what it's called?


Yeah, I don't get the consternation over the name either. It's from Dolby and does surround processing. Dolby Surround seems an apt name.


----------



## NorthSky

Nightlord said:


> Regarding Atmos-enabled speakers - have anyone seen any other brand besides Pioneer and Onkyo ?


Those are more the HTIB type of speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I kinda agree. How hard can it be to come up with a new name? Surround-X would be better than Dolby Surround. But that seems to be what they have decided on, and really, it is almost entirely unimportant IMO.


Oh totally. It really is a superficial thing to be concerned about but... c'mon. Put some thought into it, Dolby! 

*Dolby Height* or something to that effect, even.

I'm okay with it and I'll get used to saying Dolby Surround again, I'm sure. 

Now... the real meat of the Atmos subject....


----------



## JohnAV

kbarnes701 said:


> It's got nothing to do with 'marketing'. Dolby have replaced their old Prologic upmixing algorithms with Dolby Surround in the news Atmos AVRs.
> 
> Why is this so important to anyone, what it's called?


Excuse the pun, but there is always marketing in the mix of advertising new technology.


----------



## JohnAV

Scott Simonian said:


> Honestly, I wish it were called something else and not something of the same name that has been around for the past 30 years.
> 
> Kind of cornfusing, even for me.  But I guess I'll get used to it.
> 
> "Hey man. This 7.1 sounds great in Dolby Surround!"
> 
> "Umm... that thing I was using on my old Technics back in 1990?"


 That's my thoughts also, it tends to confuse people when you just refer to it as Dolby surround.


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How many decent power amplifiers do you think that they can stuff in an AVR along with a reasonable cost structure?


Fifteen? ...Class D.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Supplant implies replacement.
> 
> Subsume is broader -- it implies replacement (supplanting) but ALSO absorption of the thing that was replaced.
> 
> So, obviously, Keith and I are cooler than you.


"By reason of superior excellence or power" is way cooler (and germane to the lamenting of PLII's demise). IRMC!


----------



## kbarnes701

JohnAV said:


> Excuse the pun, but there is always marketing in the mix of advertising new technology.


Maybe, but I doubt if it is the case in this example. If any marketing department worthy of its name had been involved, they'd have developed a much better name than 'Dolby Surround' which smacks of a 'first thought' and it will be very hard to justify a huge invoice for a first thought idea


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. That's why I ignore much of what Audyssey has to say about speaker positions and types.
> Dipole surrounds are an effect generator one cannot bypass.





markus767 said:


> Quite right and the same can be said about Dolby-enabled ceiling-firing speakers


Touche.


----------



## JohnAV

sdurani said:


> Who said "most people" would? I said Dolby needed new surround processing to support up to 34 outputs, because that is the limit of their consumer Atmos spec. So Dolby should have come up with 13-channel surround processing and invented newer surround processing as products came out with more channels? Easier to do something now that can scale sources to up to 34 outputs, even if only some of those outputs are going to be used on fist gen products. What "technical in nature" name would you want instead? Dolby 24.1.10?


 Your the one that had to throw out the up to 34 outputs comment, which wasn't relevant to my original comment which is that Dolby surround is a vague term that has been around for quite awhile.


----------



## NorthSky

Skylinestar said:


> I would say an external box is possible, but it will be more than a decoder box. It needs to have room correction to check for speaker configs and eq, then output the sound signal to the AVR, which only act as an amp. Something like a decoder+minidsp nanoAVR.
> I'm sure Audyssey can do that...perhaps a super duper AudysseyXT64 external box with decoding function...but it's all about $$$


I'm with you on that.


----------



## duc135

SoundChex said:


> The points made by several posters regarding the comparatively large functionality and technical complexity of an add-on *Atmo*s render, its need for substantial user implementation and operation skills, consequently leading perhaps to a "small" market size and "high" price do not suggest this path for "existing AVR" upgrades is particularly likely. But that does not address the question of a useful consumer purchasing strategy in the imminent era of _multiple_ object-based audio codecs:
> 
> For the basic "hobbyist" who purchases a *5.1.2 Atmos capable AVR* in January 2015, what do they do when their favorite TV show is released on *DTS-UHD BD* in January 2016? when there is widespread employment of the *MPEG-H 3D Audio* codec _sometime after_ January 2018? ( . . . and perhaps some _not-yet-selected_ *ATSC 3.0 TV 3D Audio* codec goes into limited test use by January 2020?)
> 
> The choices would seem to be (1) Buy a new AVR, (2) AVR _hardware component_ replacement, (3) AVR _firmware_ upgrade, (4) _Add-on_ external processor, (5) Use only the legacy element "embedded in" the new codec, or (6) Elect a combination of (1) through (5) on a _codec-by-codec_ basis. Hopefully the CEMs have thought this through, because otherwise I foresee a customer base that will be very unhappy about the prospect of more multiple technology obsolescence cycles at two years intervals!
> _


Let's say a CE manufacturer somehow is capable of creating an external box to address the needs of consumer at a "reasonable" cost. There is no such thing as future proofing. Even if the processor(s) had the horsepower in spades that does not mean it would be able to process future software. It's not just about raw power, but also about computing instructions it can handle. This can be seen quite often in PC processors and graphics cards. So having an external box does not guarantee that it will not become obsolete any less than an all in one AVR.

We all need to remember to keep this in perspective. We are the small minority in the big picture. Most people will not be upgrading every time there is new tech. Of all the people I know outside this community, only two have anything more than a TV or soundbar for sound. Those two people have HTiB setups. I can't imagine the CE manufacturers would be running to appease us for the drop in the bucket revenue we'd bring in for them. I still don't believe that a sub $300 external box solution is possible though.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> But people were hoping for this box to be CHEAP, some $200-300 appendage that would turn their old AVR into an Atmos unit.
> 
> For it to have everything you described it won't be cheap. If you are getting a fancy external box with decoding, room correction, speaker configs, volume control, etc..... at that point, what you describe is a pre/pro. And those are already coming out.


Very true.


----------



## NorthSky

ss9001 said:


> "Subsumed" - I like that word
> 
> *Dolby seems to want to give the impression that Atmos upmixing will be "better" than PLIIx/z*.
> 
> They're not really stating whether part of Dolby Surround *includes *ProLogicIIx or will actually work & sound differently than IIx with overheads turned off.
> 
> It will be interesting to compare.


I completely subsume to that.


----------



## KMFDMvsEnya

My suggestions for instead of Dolby Surround are:
Dolby Immerse or Dolby Immersion
Dolby Envelop
Dolby VOG EX-IIIxyz
Dolby OMG-WT(F)TW!!!

I humbly suggest a reasonable 30% residuals fee for whichever branding that is chosen.

Best regards,
KvE


----------



## ss9001

sdurani said:


> What "technical in nature" name would you want instead? Dolby 24.1.10?


Dolby XX.Y.ZZ Surround works plus reminds the user they're getting 3D audio


----------



## NorthSky

Will digital DSP active speakers work with Dolby Atmos? ...Like Meridian powered speakers, and many other active ones.


----------



## markus767

Skylinestar said:


> I would say an external box is possible, but it will be more than a decoder box. It needs to have room correction to check for speaker configs and eq, then output the sound signal to the AVR, which only act as an amp. Something like a decoder+minidsp nanoAVR.
> I'm sure Audyssey can do that...perhaps a super duper AudysseyXT64 external box with decoding function...but it's all about $$$


Oppo has bass management in their players so they could do Atmos 5.1.2 if their hardware is powerful enough. Connect it directly to an 8 channel amp and you're done. If you need room correction then add a MiniDSP 10x10 in between.


----------



## markus767

KMFDMvsEnya said:


> My suggestions for instead of Dolby Surround are:
> Dolby Immerse or Dolby Immersion
> Dolby Envelop
> Dolby VOG EX-IIIxyz
> Dolby OMG-WT(F)TW!!!
> 
> I humbly suggest a reasonable 30% residuals fee for whichever branding that is chosen.
> 
> Best regards,
> KvE


Dolby UPMOST?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

_*Dolby XX.Y.ZZ Surround*_
zzzzzzz......


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Based on an educated guess, I conclude Dolby Surround is wholly different technology. I'm confident it will do some things better due to the multiband steering. The question is whether it will do some things worse as an unintended consequence. This has happened with other upmixing technologies in the past -- *it is very hard to do well. We should all listen carefully*.


Will we have to pass some ABX/DBT surround sound tests first before being up to the challenge?


----------



## NorthSky

JohnAV said:


> Keith they specifically write it up as "Dolby surround upmixer" in the white paper to explain how things work. Where on Dolby site and on their documentation do they identify it as *"Dolby Surround"* as a term? Pretty vague rewrite of terminology, probably to glorify Atmos and make other surround methods less important for marketing purposes.


Back in 1986 I had an AV receiver with Dolby Surround (decoder inside) ... VSX-5000
The year after I upgraded to the VSX-9300s, with Doby Pro Logic added to Dolby Surround mode. ...Sans the center channel amp (I had to add an external one, a Denon stereo integrated amp which I used to bi-amp my center channel speaker).


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Will digital DSP active speakers work with Dolby Atmos? ...Like Meridian powered speakers, and many other active ones.


Why wouldn't they work? They are simply active speakers with a huge price tag.


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> They don't care if we're unhappy as long we buy.
> 
> The question is if they bother to monitor forums like this and note those of us who may defer purchase until we see how DTS and Auro will be accommodated.
> 
> If they say the Atmos DSP's have the horsepower and DTS/Auro can be handled with f/w update, I'm ready to buy into the first generation.
> 
> If not, the early obsolescence and likely increased Atmos functionality of the next generation will keep me waiting.
> 
> I forget, have there been any definitive statements from any of the mfgr's about f/w update capability.


They sure are happy that we buy. 

* Imagine; comes September 2014 (next month), a young surround sound audiophile buy a new Dolby Atmos equipped receiver for say $1,500 (street).

Then comes September 2015 (13 months from now), and new receivers are released with DTS-UHD.

Then April 2016, new ones are coming again with Auro 3D.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> They sure are happy that we buy.
> 
> * Imagine; comes September 2014 (next month), a young surround sound audiophile buy a new Dolby Atmos equipped receiver for say $1,500 (street).
> 
> Then comes September 2015 (13 months from now), and new receivers are released with DTS-UHD.
> 
> Then April 2016, new ones are coming again with Auro 3D.


Yep. That's how things work in technology. Should I be upset that my nearly one year old Samsung Note 3 will be replaced by an improved Note 4 soon?  

Advances in surround sound come around once in a decade. We have had uncompressed/lossless 8ch sound for nearly 10 years now. This is the new deal.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> _"There's a new band in town
> But you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine..."
> 
> -- Billy Joel
> _
> _


I like that line.  ...Let's march on to that new band, all together, in downtown avenue.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yep. That's how things work in technology. Should I be upset that my nearly one year old Samsung Note 3 will be replaced by an improved Note 4 soon?
> 
> Advances in surround sound come around once in a decade. We have had uncompressed/lossless 8ch sound for nearly 10 years now. This is the new deal.



Do you put the Note up to your head to make calls? I work with a guy that's about 60 who has one. He only makes calls on speakerphone when he can lay it on the table in front of him. Says it's too big to hold up to his face


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> Do you put the Note up to your head to make calls? I work with a guy that's about 60 who has one. He only makes calls on speakerphone when he can lay it on the table in front of him. Says it's too big to hold up to his face


Yes I do. It only seems ridiculous at first but then it feels natural. Anything else looks too small and is.   

Plus who cares what anyone else thinks.


----------



## bargervais

Atmos voice of God


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Advances in surround sound come around once in a decade. We have had uncompressed/lossless 8ch sound for nearly 10 years now. This is the new deal.



Agreed, but my problem today is that I can't predict whether the *BD* releases of *Star Wars Episode VII* and *Game of Thrones Season 8* will contain audio in (_respectively_) *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS-UHD* . . . or _vice versa_? (Of course, either way, I'll need renderers for both technologies . . . which is the real problem!) So I'll plan to hold off upgrading until dual functionality AVRs are available and attractively priced!
_


----------



## NorthSky

KMFDMvsEnya said:


> My suggestions for instead of Dolby Surround are:
> Dolby Immerse or *Dolby Immersion*
> Dolby Envelop
> Dolby VOG EX-IIIxyz
> Dolby OMG-WT(F)TW!!!
> 
> I humbly suggest a reasonable 30% residuals fee for whichever branding that is chosen.
> 
> Best regards,
> KvE


I like that, but "Immersion" is already a trademark, I believe. 

About *Dolby Spatial* ? ...Sounds pretty "special" to me.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Oppo has bass management in their players so they could do Atmos 5.1.2 if their hardware is powerful enough. Connect it directly to an 8 channel amp and you're done. If you need room correction then add a MiniDSP 10x10 in between.


Markus, which school did you attend to? ...Sounds like a smart one.


----------



## markus767

^
I have and still do attend to the RTFM school


----------



## duc135

markus767 said:


> Oppo has bass management in their players so they could do Atmos 5.1.2 if their hardware is powerful enough. Connect it directly to an 8 channel amp and you're done. If you need room correction then add a MiniDSP 10x10 in between.


The lowest priced Oppo is $500. That's already $200 more than what someone here was asking for. It doesn't have any type of RC, just basic bass management and speaker delays. Adding Atmos IMO would require a substantial increase in cost to that. I'm guessing the processor on the Oppos are not nearly powerful enough to handle all the computational tasks to do everything. So we're back to square one. An Atmos pre-pro/AVR is still the more reasonable and cost effective upgrade path for the 99%.

So let's do the math Oppo $500 + additional cost of adding Atmos capabilites/DSP/RC + 8 channels of amplification = $$$$. Minimum of two unit setup with numerous cables to connect. Not to mention the measuring gear and knowledge of how to set that up and use it if you add in the MiniDSP.

Onkyo TX-NR636 7.2-Ch Dolby Atmos Ready Network A/V Receiver for $600. One single unit setup.

Which do you think the 99% of consumers is likely to choose? Expensive and difficult to setup with multiple massive devices or a less expensive, single all inclusive unit?


----------



## sdurani

JohnAV said:


> Your the one that had to throw out the up to 34 outputs comment, which wasn't relevant to my original comment which is that Dolby surround is a vague term that has been around for quite awhile.


You said Dolby Surround was _"probably to glorify Atmos and make other surround methods less important for marketing purposes"_. The new processing was needed to scale legacy sources to new speaker configurations, not for marketing reasons. As for the name, what is vague about it?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Why wouldn't they work? They are simply active speakers with a *huge price tag*.


No they aren't, not all of them; *Audioengine 5+* ($399/pair), and *Audioengine 2* ($199/pair),
and Emotiva has also some inexpensive ones, and Definitive Technology, and Paradigm, and ...


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> Agreed, but my problem today is that I can't predict whether the *BD* releases of *Star Wars Episode VII* and *Game of Thrones Season 8* will contain audio in (_respectively_) *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS-UHD* . . . or _vice versa_? (Of course, either way, I'll need renderers for both technologies . . . which is the real problem!) So I'll plan to hold off upgrading until dual functionality AVRs are available and attractively priced!
> _


Definitely. We are all in the same boat. The smart (easier on the wallet) move would be to wait it out, watch it mature, see what DTS brings, lol and then wait for that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> No they aren't, not all of them; *Audioengine 5+* ($399/pair), and *Audioengine 2* ($199/pair),
> and Emotiva has also some inexpensive ones, and Definitive Technology, and Paradigm, and ...


That's not what you said and that's not what I was replying to.

_You_ said ...



NorthSky said:


> Will digital DSP active speakers work with Dolby Atmos?* ...Like Meridian* powered speakers, and many other active ones.


But yes. No difference. The crossovers are active and the amplification is inside the speaker. It is still a speaker that requires a signal input and that is the part where you come in. Pretty much all of these Atmos devices have preouts. How else would one use their external amplifiers if that were the case?


----------



## noah katz

Why they didn't just call it "Atmos."

I expect people will say "Dolby Surround - haven't we had that forever?"

And it's so generic sounding.



KMFDMvsEnya said:


> My suggestions for instead of Dolby Surround are:
> Dolby Immerse or Dolby Immersion
> Dolby Envelop
> Dolby VOG EX-IIIxyz
> Dolby OMG-WT(F)TW!!!


----------



## markus767

duc135 said:


> The lowest priced Oppo is $500. That's already $200 more than what someone here was asking for. It doesn't have any type of RC, just basic bass management and speaker delays. Adding Atmos IMO would require a substantial increase in cost to that. I'm guessing the processor on the Oppos are not nearly powerful enough to handle all the computational tasks to do everything. So we're back to square one. An Atmos pre-pro/AVR is still the more reasonable and cost effective upgrade path for the 99%.
> 
> So let's do the math Oppo $500 + additional cost of adding Atmos capabilites/DSP/RC + 8 channels of amplification = $$$$. Minimum of two unit setup with numerous cables to connect. Not to mention the measuring gear and knowledge of how to set that up and use it if you add in the MiniDSP.
> 
> Onkyo TX-NR636 7.2-Ch Dolby Atmos Ready Network A/V Receiver for $600. One single unit setup.
> 
> Which do you think the 99% of consumers is likely to choose? Expensive and difficult to setup with multiple massive devices or a less expensive, single all inclusive unit?


If I look at most people's AV gear collection I think what they really want is "Expensive and difficult to setup with multiple massive devices"


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> You keep bringing up law suits for reasons I cannot understand. As for Denon, they can only market what is on the DSP chipset in their receiver. If the chips don't include PLIIz processing, then they cannot market PLIIz processing.


If you haven't noticed it, they've doubled their dsp chipset. It could('ve) be two of each?


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Why wouldn't they work? They are simply active speakers with a huge price tag.


Quite a bit better than the average active speaker with a huge price tag, that would be. Not the best I've heard, but not far from.


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> Why they didn't just call it "Atmos."


For the same reason Pro Logic isn't called "Dolby Digital". Atmos is already a thing. And this other thing, it's a different thing.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> For the same reason Pro Logic isn't called "Dolby Digital". Atmos is already a thing. And this other thing, it's a different thing.



It's not really a new thing. It's the same thing implemented differently, so it ought to haveo tha family name.
Dolby [email protected] would have been apparent and modern but different enough.


----------



## duc135

markus767 said:


> If I look at most people's AV gear collection I think what they really want is "Expensive and difficult to setup with multiple massive devices"


You're absolutely correct for people on these forums but not the rest of the world. We are a "special" bunch.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> If you haven't noticed it, they've doubled their dsp chipset. It could('ve) be two of each?


You keep mentioning a law suit because of that?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> No need for yelling at me, I've linked the wrong document. The correct one can be found in post 1 of this thread. Here it is:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf




Who was yelling at you?

Don't take it out on me just because I pointed out a mistake in *your posting!*


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> For the same reason Pro Logic isn't called "Dolby Digital". Atmos is already a thing. And this other thing, it's a different thing.


As the man said, "This is this."


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Quite a bit better than the average active speaker with a huge price tag, that would be. Not the best I've heard, but not far from.



Take note that I never said "average" I said, "simply".


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Advances in surround sound come around once in a decade. We have had uncompressed/lossless 8ch sound for nearly 10 years now. This is the new deal.


So far I tend to agree with you. ...I'll know for sure comes a near future...


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> For the same reason Pro Logic isn't called "Dolby Digital". Atmos is already a thing. And this other thing, it's a different thing.


DD is a way of transferring data, and Atmos is a way of encoding sound interference.

So PL is to DD as Atmos is to TrueHD.

"Atmos" would be a way of conveying the idea of Dolby surround technology, as was/is Dolby Surround.

Where am I mistaken?


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Who was yelling at you?
> 
> Don't take it out on me just because I pointed out a mistake in *your posting!*


You were yelling at me:



J_Palmer_Cass said:


> That link does not contain the words that you quoted!
> 
> 
> That link does mention "Dolby Atmos enabled technology"!



"The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (*shouting*), and often marks the end of a sentence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark


----------



## Scott Simonian

JPC is just excited as I am to watch Under Siege in Dolby Surround. 

_"Nobody beats me in the kitchen."_


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> Honestly, I wish it were called something else and not something of the same name that has been around for the past 30 years.
> 
> Kind of cornfusing, even for me.  But I guess I'll get used to it.
> 
> "Hey man. This 7.1 sounds great in Dolby Surround!"
> 
> "Umm... that thing I was using on my old Technics back in 1990?"



Do you mean Dolby Surround, or Dolby surround upmixing vias an Atmos processor?

What are you going to call the thousands and thousands of DVDs that are encoded with the "old" Dolby Surround format (AKA matrix) if Dolby Surround is not Dolby Surround any more?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> You were yelling at me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (*shouting*), and often marks the end of a sentence."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark





Your comments are grounds for divorce in Texas (spoken like John Wayne in the Searchers). Verbal abuse!


----------



## Scott Simonian

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Do you mean Dolby Surround, or Dolby surround upmixing vias an Atmos processor?
> 
> What are you going to call the thousands and thousands of DVDs that are encoded with the "old" Dolby Surround format (AKA matrix) if Dolby Surround is not Dolby Surround any more?



Lol!

I know, right?!


----------



## NorthSky

duc135 said:


> Onkyo TX-NR636 7.2-Ch Dolby Atmos Ready Network A/V Receiver for $600. One single unit setup.


1. That receiver has a useless AccuEQ Auto Room Correction and EQ system.
2. Dolby Atmos is not in yet.
3. The processing power and the amplification in that receiver is best suited for HTIB aficionados,
who use little cube Bose speakers, and a mini-subwoofer with a 5" driver.

Best is to go above with another brand; Denon, or Marantz, or Pioneer, or Yamaha.
Onkyo/Integra is no more in 2014; they left the most important engine, Audyssey MultEQ XT32. 
Less than that is just cheap whiskey.

The times are now calling for other brands. ...The true serious players.
* I'm most probably going with Marantz myself. ...And you don't have to ask me why if you already know my priorities.

** Would love the Emotiva XMC-1 with Dirac Live LE, but it does not have Dolby Atmos.
And even if I wouldn't shed tears over it (like _Kal Rubinson_), I still want Do!by Atmos in my !ife, abso!ute!y, irrevocab!y and unequivoca!!y, ...not a single teardrop of a doubt about it.


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Your comments are grounds for divorce in Texas (spoken like John Wayne in the Searchers). Verbal abuse!


First we would need to get married. Not going to happen in Texas


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> For the same reason Pro Logic isn't called "Dolby Digital". Atmos is already a thing. And this other thing, it's a different thing.


They could have called it *'The Thing'*, just like the movie? ...The original one (1982). 
...The year 'Dolby Surround' was born - 1982 exactly.
...Introduced to the public for the first time; 33 years ago.


----------



## NorthSky

duc135 said:


> You're absolutely correct for people on these forums but not the rest of the world.
> We are a "special" bunch.


You think so? ...Did you check AA (AudioAficionado), and AS (AudioShark), and WBF (WhatsBestForum),
and UHEAHTR (U!traHiEndAudioandHomeTheaterReview)?


----------



## bargervais

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Do you mean Dolby Surround, or Dolby surround upmixing vias an Atmos processor?
> 
> What are you going to call the thousands and thousands of DVDs that are encoded with the "old" Dolby Surround format (AKA matrix) if Dolby Surround is not Dolby Surround any more?


What are DVDs are they like 8 tracks??


----------



## Scott Simonian

I think they are those things I never use that come with my Blu-ray movies. 

That and these drink coasters called, "Digital Copies" or something like that. I mean, I've already got a digital copy of the movie. It's a blu-ray!


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> If I look at most people's AV gear collection I think what they really want is "Expensive and difficult to setup with multiple massive devices"


Are you also one of us Markus?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> 1. That receiver has a useless AccuEQ Auto Room Correction and EQ system.
> 2. Dolby Atmos is not in yet.
> 3. The processing power and the amplification in that receiver is best suited for HTIB aficionados,
> who use little cube Bose speakers, and a mini-subwoofer with a 5" driver.
> 
> Best is to go above with another brand; Denon, or Marantz, or Pioneer, or Yamaha.
> Onkyo/Integra is no more in 2014; they left the most important engine, Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
> Less than that is just cheap whiskey.
> 
> The times are now calling for other brands. ...The true serious players.
> * I'm most probably going with Marantz myself. ...And you don't have to ask me why if you already know my priorities.
> 
> ** Would love the Emotiva XMC-1 with Dirac Live LE, but it does not have Dolby Atmos.
> And even if I wouldn't shed tears over it (like _Kal Rubinson_), I still want Do!by Atmos in my !ife, abso!ute!y, irrevocab!y and unequivoca!!y, ...not a single teardrop of a doubt about it.


What are you talking about yamaha and pioneer don't have audyssey
So have you used the useless AccuEQ please explain!!!


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

NorthSky said:


> They could have called it *'The Thing'*, just like the movie? ...The original one (1982).
> ...The year 'Dolby Surround' was born - 1982 exactly.
> ...Introduced to the public for the first time; 33 years ago.




The original one (1982)? More like 1951!


----------



## bargervais

If someone wants the get a TX-NR 636 who are you to tell them to spend an extra $$ on a flagship Avr because you don't like Onkyo.... for a first generation Atmos to me it makes complete sense to me, if this was 2016 with a couple years under atmos's belt then I would agree and go with one of the big boys.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> You were yelling at me:
> 
> "The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (*shouting*), and often marks the end of a sentence."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark


I used that exclamation point a lot in the past; and it wasn't meant to express shouting, but many people viewed as if it was. It took me a very long time to finally realize it, and nobody, ever, helped me out.
I'm French Canadian, and my main tongue is French. English is my second language, and not my best forte.

Sometimes I can see (read) the misinterpretation (misjudgment) from simple punctuation and slight misspelling from simple typos or slight language barriers, and it sometimes creates havoc for nothing @ all, but only because of the true meaning was totally interpreted differently, and like an insult.

It happens often, and with many of us; we have to be alert, understandable, compassionate, respectful, friendly, and above all detours all the time. 

We even need to perfect our typing. ...Making sure that what we write conveys what we want to say. 
Because, we wouldn't even type if it was in a manner of discordance. 

Anyway, my own 2 cents.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> *First we would need to get married.* Not going to happen in Texas


Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

To quoth _Seinfeld_.


----------



## duc135

NorthSky said:


> 1. That receiver has a useless AccuEQ Auto Room Correction and EQ system.
> 2. Dolby Atmos is not in yet.
> 3. The processing power and the amplification in that receiver is best suited for HTIB aficionados,
> who use little cube Bose speakers, and a mini-subwoofer with a 5" driver.
> 
> Best is to go above with another brand; Denon, or Marantz, or Pioneer, or Yamaha.
> Onkyo/Integra is no more in 2014; they left the most important engine, Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
> Less than that is just cheap whiskey.


Let's be realistic here, The Onkyo 636 is not a HTiB receiver.

1. Any receiver that is x.1 capable can drive any number of subs from the little 5" you are talking about to multiple 24" sub systems.
2. None of the features you state the Onkyo is missing is present in the Oppo either.
3. At least the Onkyo processor is Atmos ready and can power 7 speakers on its own. How many speakers can the Oppo drive? Exactly 0 so it won't even satisfy the HTiB aficionados like the Onkyo can.

I'll bet that if one person had to sell the Onkyo setup while another had to sell the Oppo setup and the two had a competition to sell the most units, the Onkyo will sell many more units than the Oppo would. Let's not confuse our wants with what the market will accept.


----------



## duc135

NorthSky said:


> You think so? ...Did you check AA (AudioAficionado), and AS (AudioShark), and WBF (WhatsBestForum),
> and UHEAHTR (U!traHiEndAudioandHomeTheaterReview)?


Seriously, do you think if we put all the forums' members together they would be a fair representation of the real world? We are but a drop in the ocean when it comes to numbers. You can think all you want that we have any sway in the decisions of corporate business, but we don't. We only have weight with the niche companies that target the high end crowd. Even then I would say it's not much.


----------



## bargervais

duc135 said:


> Seriously, do you think if we put all the forums' members together they would be a fair representation of the real world? We are but a drop in the ocean when it comes to numbers. You can think all you want that we have any sway in the decisions of corporate business, but we don't. We only have weight with the niche companies that target the high end crowd. Even then I would say it's not much.


Agree


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> What are you talking about yamaha and pioneer don't have audyssey
> So have you used the useless AccuEQ please explain!!!


Gee, I only posted my own personal opinion. ...No need to shout @ me. 

I think AccuEQ sucks, and I would rather go with MCACC or YPAO. ...You don't agree with that, that's ok I still love you.

And do you want me to write a book explaining all the whys? ...Perhaps if you ask me politely I will. 
...With links and graphs and facts and data and scientific evidence accompanying it to corroborate.

I think you misunderstood the meaning of my post. ...And you did not agree with my opinion on a rather honest term. 

__________

* AccuEQ doesn't have the required processing power to do a good job.
- It doest not EQ your two front main channels.
- Onkyo did not want to add more chips like Denon and Marantz; they went with two, and Denon/Marantz with four.
- From the professional reviews I've read about AccuEQ, all them pro reviewers omitted (deliberately) to talk about it (because it is inferior, useless, and they get paid to write positive reviews).
- Owners are best to write reviews.
- Keith knows about that. And I have great respect for a knowledgeable guy like Keith, and many other members (all) here @ AVS.

Would you like some useful links? ...Regarding Dolby Atmos in conjunction with AccuEQ?
...And others less useful.


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> The original one (1982)? More like 1951!


Then Dolby Surround was first introduced in 1951. ...See, no fuss, I'm real easy.

By the way, I knew that someone would come with that. ...You are right, there are several versions of 'The Thing', @ least three. ...But mine was the _John Carpenter_ one, from 1982, the exact year that _'Dolby Surround'_ was first introduced to the general public. ...Fact. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround

And, the title of that movie above (1951) is *'The Thing From Another World !'*, and not *'The Thing'*

So, the original movie called just *'The Thing'*, is that 1982 one.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Gee, I only posted my own personal opinion. ...No need to shout @ me.
> 
> I think AccuEQ sucks, and I would rather go with MCACC or YPAO. ...You don't agree with that, that's ok I still love you.
> 
> And do you want me to write a book explaining all the whys? ...Perhaps if you ask me politely I will.
> ...With links and graphs and facts and data and scientific evidence accompanying it to corroborate.
> 
> I think you misunderstood the meaning of my post. ...And you did not agree with my opinion on a rather honest term.
> 
> __________
> 
> * AccuEQ doesn't have the required processing power to do a good job.
> - It doest not EQ your two front main channels.
> - Onkyo did not want to add more chips like Denon and Marantz; they went with two, and Denon/Marantz with four.
> - From the professional reviews I've read about AccuEQ, all them pro reviewers omitted (deliberately) to talk about it (because it is inferior, useless, and they get paid to write positive reviews).
> - Owners are best to write reviews.
> - Keith knows about that. And I have great respect for a knowledgeable guy like Keith, and many other members (all) here @ AVS.
> 
> Yould you like some useful links? ...Regarding Dolby Atmos in conjunction with AccuEQ?
> ...And others less useful.


So you say these -- From the professional reviews I've read about AccuEQ, all them pro reviewers omitted (deliberately) to talk about it (because it is inferior, useless, and they get paid to write positive reviews Keith knows about that. And I have great respect for a knowledgeable guy like Keith, and many other members (all) here @ AVS
Yes I would like to see links when they said it's useless.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> If someone wants the get a TX-NR 636 who are you to tell them to spend an extra $$ on a flagship Avr because you don't like Onkyo.... for a first generation Atmos to me it makes complete sense to me, if this was 2016 with a couple years under atmos's belt then I would agree and go with one of the big boys.


Oh, but I love Onkyo; I'm their hugest fan of them all. ...Ask anyone.

But this year (2014), I'm no more. I am now jumping ship (with more chips). I have been the biggest Onkyo's fan since the year 2007 (seven years all together). So, bye bye THX Ultra2 Plus certification, ISF video certification, their excellent dual video processors, Audyssey is now gone, and bye bye 55 pounds tank machines with gobs of power, and a big transformer, high-current (4-ohm loads), real solid steel heatsinks, BB DACs, TI DSP chips, ...and welcome to lightweight products (20 pounds lighter, roughly) with cheaper heatsinks made of cheap metal barbwires, ...but with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (MultEQ Pro Ready), Dolby Atmos, more DSP processing chips (four), and all that cool jazz that appeals more to me now.
{And now I won't be recommending Onkyo/Integra receivers and SSPs no more. ...That is my prerogative.}

That was then, this is now.

You can call me a new rejuvenated, reborn, rehabilitated, fully recovering Marantz/Denon addicted fan from now on. 

Onkyo/Integra is still a good company, even after all their troubles (customer service, HDMI handshake, DTS bomb, tough to upgrade products, or none @ all, earlier, heat issues because they did not indicate in their manual how to diminish it, burned HDMI boards, tra-la-la...).
The other brands too had their own issues, and still do.

But The Thing is that we are now in the year 2014 and smart decisions have to be made.
I will let people buy whatever they want, but I won't shy away of mentioning all the ins and outs to people.
That's my job. ...Informing wisely.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Then Dolby Surround was first introduced in 1951. ...See, no fuss, I'm real easy.
> 
> By the way, I knew that someone would come with that. ...You are right, there are several versions of 'The Thing', @ least three. ...But mine was the _John Carpenter_ one, from 1982, the exact year that _'Dolby Surround'_ was first introduced to the general public. ...Fact. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround
> 
> And, the title of that movie above (1951) is *'The Thing From Another World !'*, and not *'The Thing'*
> 
> So, the original movie called just *'The Thing'*, is that 1982 one.


Careful when calling information on Wikipedia as "fact." It's data based on majority rule, just like IMDB. It's a little bone of contention with Stephen Colbert on his show many times (Colbert gets into it with the founder of that particular Wiki site quite often when he's a guest - a couple times he had his followers change entries on certain pages just to show how easy it is to get facts totally wrong). 

Sometimes it's correct, sometimes not, and sometimes information on pages are manipulated for ulterior motives. Why do you think reputable researchers cannot use Wikipedia for their sources?


----------



## NorthSky

duc135 said:


> Let's be realistic here, The Onkyo 636 is not a HTiB receiver.
> 
> 1. Any receiver that is x.1 capable can drive any number of subs from the little 5" you are talking about to multiple 24" sub systems.
> 2. None of the features you state the Onkyo is missing is present in the Oppo either.
> 3. At least the Onkyo processor is Atmos ready and can power 7 speakers on its own. How many speakers can the Oppo drive? Exactly 0 so it won't even satisfy the HTiB aficionados like the Onkyo can.
> 
> I'll bet that if one person had to sell the Onkyo setup while another had to sell the Oppo setup and the two had a competition to sell the most units, the Onkyo will sell many more units than the Oppo would. Let's not confuse our wants with what the market will accept.


Just forget the Oppo; it is not in my mind @ all. ...Only in Markus's mind, not mine.

TX-NR636 | Review ...Check what he's saying about AccuEQ. ...And Dolby Atmos he cannot as it is not in it just yet.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yamaha.


----------



## bargervais

Can someone explain to me how audyssey would work with atmos I know we don't have any AVRs with atmos I can see how it would work with other listening modes but I'm not clear on how it would room correct atmos please help me understand


----------



## NorthSky

duc135 said:


> Seriously, do you think if we put all the forums' members together they would be a fair representation of the real world? We are but a drop in the ocean when it comes to numbers. You can think all you want that we have any sway in the decisions of corporate business, but we don't. We only have weight with the niche companies that target the high end crowd. Even then I would say it's not much.


I think AVS is the best overall representation of the average audio/video enthusiasts in the world; that's what I think.

The other sites I mentioned are private audio clubs, from hi-end people with very expensive taste. 
They don't represent the general public out there, like us here. ...Great people all around, but different taste and life's priorities. ...Various levels of audiophiles. ...And some only two-channel stereo addicts (analog, or digital - tubes or ss), and other into hi-end home theater systems. ...Prices: It varies, from roughly $5,000 to $500,000


----------



## RichB

bargervais said:


> Atmos voice of God


 
... but why is god coming from the front speakers 


- Rich


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol!
> 
> I know, right?!




Are you yelling at me?


I wonder if Markus thinks that Howard Hawks is yelling at him? After all, his movie is named The Thing from another world!

No Dolby Surround for The Thing, but it is available in Dolby Digital 1.0 (or perhaps DD 2.0 mono)!


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> So you say these -- From the professional reviews I've read about AccuEQ, all them pro reviewers omitted (deliberately) to talk about it (because it is inferior, useless, and they get paid to write positive reviews Keith knows about that. And I have great respect for a knowledgeable guy like Keith, and many other members (all) here @ AVS
> Yes I would like to see links when they said it's useless.


They did not say it was useless, I said it myself. ...They did not even talk about AccuEQ. 

Do you still want some reviews? ...And you can google too. ...There are two Onkyo receivers' reviews with AccuEQ over @ DVDAREA, the German website: Onkyo TX-NR535 and TX-NR737 receivers.

SoundandVision has one, with AccuEQ: Onkyo TX-NR636 which I already posted the direct link.

And you have more from Europe; France and UK. ...Goggle. ...And Canada too.


----------



## duc135

NorthSky said:


> TX-NR636 | Review ...Check what he's saying about AccuEQ. ...And Dolby Atmos he cannot as it is not in it just yet.


Then you better exclude EVERY manufacturer out there because no one technically has an Atmos available. The thing with Onkyo and Pioneer and possibly others is that when Atmos is finally launched the devices that are ready for Atmos can be upgraded via firmware. Denon doesn't have that option nor does Marantz.

Ultimately, my point is that a standalone Atmos processor just doesn't seem to me like a feasible solution over just getting an Atmos capable AVR for the VAST majority of the population. That's what CE manufacturers look at. Not us people in the fringes that make up probably less than 1% of their revenue. We can talk about the superiority and benefits of an external processor all we want, but in the end it's the guys in the suits that make the decisions and they're swayed by the almighty dollar or whatever currency they use.



NorthSky said:


> I think AVS is the best overall representation of the average audio/video enthusiasts in the world; that's what I think.
> 
> The other sites I mentioned are private audio clubs, from hi-end people with very expensive taste.
> They don't represent the general public out there, like us here. ...Great people all around, but different taste and life's priorities. ...Various levels of audiophiles. ...And some only two-channel stereo addicts (analog, or digital - tubes or ss), and other into hi-end home theater systems. ...Prices: It varies, from roughly $5,000 to $500,000


I guess if you put in the qualifier of *average A/V enthusiast* then you may be right. We might be a good representation, but for the average person, no we are far from a good representation.



NorthSky said:


> They did not say it was useless, I said it myself. ...They did not even talk about AccuEQ.
> 
> Do you still want some reviews? ...And you can google too. ...There are two Onkyo receivers' reviews with AccuEQ over @ DVDAREA, the German website: Onkyo TX-NR535 and TX-NR737 receivers.
> 
> SoundandVision has one, with AccuEQ: Onkyo TX-NR636 which I already posted the direct link.
> 
> And you have more from Europe; France and UK. ...Goggle. ...And Canada too.


To each their own. Some people prefer on version of RC over the other. Some say having none is superior. I've read posts where some people are so adamant about not having any type of EQ they refuse to consider any product that has it. Not sure why they can't just buy it if it fits their needs then just disable the RC. Most devices I know have that feature. I think it's just silly to say one manufacture is crap just because they don't have this type of RC or that.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Oh, but I love Onkyo; I'm their hugest fan of them all. ...Ask anyone.
> 
> But this year (2014), I'm no more. I am now jumping ship (with more chips). I have been the biggest Onkyo's fan since the year 2007 (seven years all together). So, bye bye THX Ultra2 Plus certification, ISF video certification, their excellent dual video processors, Audyssey is now gone, and bye bye 55 pounds tank machines with gobs of power, and a big transformer, high-current (4-ohm loads), real solid steel heatsinks, BB DACs, TI DSP chips, ...and welcome to lightweight products (20 pounds lighter, roughly) with cheaper heatsinks made of cheap metal barbwires, ...but with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (MultEQ Pro Ready), Dolby Atmos, more DSP processing chips (four), and all that cool jazz that appeals more to me now.
> {And now I won't be recommending Onkyo/Integra receivers and SSPs no more. ...That is my prerogative.}
> 
> That was then, this is now.
> 
> You can call me a new rejuvenated, reborn, rehabilitated, fully recovering Marantz/Denon addicted fan from now on.
> 
> Onkyo/Integra is still a good company, even after all their troubles (customer service, HDMI handshake, DTS bomb, tough to upgrade products, or none @ all, earlier, heat issues because they did not indicate in their manual how to diminish it, burned HDMI boards, tra-la-la...).
> The other brands too had their own issues, and still do.
> 
> But The Thing is that we are now in the year 2014 and smart decisions have to be made.
> I will let people buy whatever they want, but I won't shy away of mentioning all the ins and outs to people.
> That's my job. ...Informing wisely.


The TX-NR 1030 doesn't look to me to be a lightweight looks like a monster 45 lbs and lots of power. For me my first atmos AVR I will most likely get an entry level atmos AVR for a first generation and EQ it myself for room correction. In a couple years I'll rethink what I have and see what evolves with these receivers, I'm curious what will come from DTS 
But for now to get my feet wet I'll start smaller and not blow my whole budget in the beginning of atmos.


----------



## Skylinestar

SoundChex said:


> The points made by several posters regarding the comparatively large functionality and technical complexity of an add-on *Atmo*s render, its need for substantial user implementation and operation skills, consequently leading perhaps to a "small" market size and "high" price do not suggest this path for "existing AVR" upgrades is particularly likely. But that does not address the question of a useful consumer purchasing strategy in the imminent era of _multiple_ object-based audio codecs:
> 
> For the basic "hobbyist" who purchases a *5.1.2 Atmos capable AVR* in January 2015, what do they do when their favorite TV show is released on *DTS-UHD BD* in January 2016? when there is widespread employment of the *MPEG-H 3D Audio* codec _sometime after_ January 2018? ( . . . and perhaps some _not-yet-selected_ *ATSC 3.0 TV 3D Audio* codec goes into limited test use by January 2020?)
> 
> The choices would seem to be (1) Buy a new AVR, (2) AVR _hardware component_ replacement, (3) AVR _firmware_ upgrade, (4) _Add-on_ external processor, (5) Use only the legacy element "embedded in" the new codec, or (6) Elect a combination of (1) through (5) on a _codec-by-codec_ basis. Hopefully the CEMs have thought this through, because otherwise I foresee a customer base that will be very unhappy about the prospect of more multiple technology obsolescence cycles at two years intervals!
> _


I guess having an HTPC will last longer because software decoding can be done easily.


----------



## duc135

Skylinestar said:


> I guess having an HTPC will last longer because software decoding can be done easily.


Unfortunately, unless the HTPC has a direct connection to the amplifiers and XBMC or whatever software people use gets the license to decode Atmos, you will still need to go through an AVR or pre-pro. Having a HTPC is no help to us at this point. Even though HTPC will most likely have more than enough processing power to do all the decoding including and RC, there's no guarantee that it has the proper instruction sets (not really sure if that's the correct term I'm looking for) to be able to runs the software.

On a side note about HTPCs, I'm still trying to find a media player (HTPC included) that is capable of playing my full ISO rips like my Oppo can. Until then, I'm not upgrading the firmware on my Oppos.


----------



## Skylinestar

duc135 said:


> Which do you think the 99% of consumers is likely to choose? Expensive and difficult to setup with multiple massive devices or a less expensive, single all inclusive unit?


The 99% of consumer with stick with 2.0 stereo from the tv.
That's why YIFY rip movie torrents are popular.


----------



## Roger Dressler

duc135 said:


> I don't think anyone said it's not possible, but the argument that it's not feasible. Like you said, it's all about the money. There would be no justifiable business case for an external box when upgrading the AVR would be just as, if not, more cost effective than getting an external box and all the requisite supporting gear. Not to mention the Atmos enable AVR would be much easier to implement. Easy means better chance for success and satisfaction and less chance for customer frustration and backlash.


I believe everything you said is correct. But just to illustrate what would be involved, conceptually, I made this diagram.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> So you say these -- From the professional reviews I've read about AccuEQ, all them pro reviewers omitted (deliberately) to talk about it (because you're saying that it is inferior, useless, and they get paid to write positive reviews). Keith knows about that. And I have great respect for a knowledgeable guy like Keith, and many other members (all) here @ AVS
> *Yes I would like to see links where they said nothing, or not much @ all*. ...Them pro reviewers.


- Useless, not much mentioning (pros): https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
[And here you have a rough view on Audyssey vs AccuEQ]

_____


♦ This, better (useful, from a real user): https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
[Here too, he's giving us some insight on AccuEQ vs Audyssey]


----------



## CinemaAndy

Come on people, 200 pages is not that much to read!


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yamaha.


Yamaha is cool indeed; I always had/have a penchant for their products. And for many many many years.

- PEQ: Es cool man.  {Used with YPAO}
- DSP: They are the master quality artisan @ it.
- Sound: Natural. 
- DACs: ESS Sabre.
- Overall Value: Aventage. ...And additional foot too (to make it five). 
- Dolby Atmos: They'll have too. ...With enough processing power (DSP chips) to do it all properly.


----------



## NorthSky

duc135 said:


> I think it's just silly to say one manufacture is crap just because they don't have this type of RC or that.


Did you say that? 

_____________

Listen, in av forums we like to read carefully what others are saying.

* I think AccuEQ sucks. Onkyo is a good company. And you don't have to engage it (AccuEQ).

_____________

Me, me personally, my own preference; is to use a system that works best for my own ears and pockets.
And my ears they tell me that my room's acoustic sucks! And my home theater room is my living room, with all my plants, my guitars, my amps, my musics, my movies, my exotic furniture and carpet, my coffee table from the 30s, my entire decor arrangement for a comfortable room to listen, watch, talk with people, drink, eat, sleep, play backgammon, chess, cards, laugh, relax, rest, surf, keep alert of the news on my laptop, water my flowers, play my own music, be surrounded by tons on memorabilia, and everything else you can and can't think of. It is my sanctuary. ...My blessing meditating inspiring space.

Now, it's all wood, and I like it just the way it is, and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 so far has worked best in my sanctuary room for multichannel, stereo music listening, and for surround sound movies watching and full immersion in ways that is satisfying and enveloping with comfort and harmony and peace and love.

My room looks good, smells good, tastes good, and sounds good with XT32.

Did I try Datasat (RS20i)? No.
Did I try Dirac Live Amarra? No.
Did I try Trinnov Altitude? No.
Did I try Auro 3D? No.
Did I try Dolby Atmos? No. ...But I will, because I can afford it, and so are people who are going to purchase the Onkyo TX-NR535 ($300+/-, street). 

So, Dolby Atmos is going to be inside Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, and Integra. ...For now.
Check your bank account, your room's acoustics, and pick the caliber that suits you best. 

Some people simply don't care about their room's acoustics, which is the most important audio component of them all. Other people simply don't care about Dolby Atmos. ...Others don't care about surround sound. Others don't care about sound; they listen through their TV's speakers.

Me, I care about everything and everyone. :kiss:


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> Me, I care about everything and everyone. :kiss:


Typical Canadian


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> The TX-NR 1030 doesn't look to me to be a lightweight looks like a monster 45 lbs and lots of power. For me my first atmos AVR I will most likely get an entry level atmos AVR for a first generation and EQ it myself for room correction. In a couple years I'll rethink what I have and see what evolves with these receivers, I'm curious what will come from DTS
> But for now to get my feet wet I'll start smaller and not blow my whole budget in the beginning of atmos.


The 1030; does it have Dolby Atmos, and Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and four DSP chips inside, and THX Ultra2 Plus certification? ...Does it have a PEQ or a GEQ?

My girlfriend I love her to death; she is deadly gorgeous with a body of a goddess and a mind of an angel.
There is just no way that I would trade her in a million years. I will keep her forever by my side, and nobody is going to take her away from me, no matter if it is god himself, help me god.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I believe everything you said is correct. But just to illustrate what would be involved, conceptually, I made this diagram.


Keeping your Dolby Atmos mind busy Roger?

________


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> Come on people, 200 pages is not that much to read!


Only 116 for me Andy (30 posts per page).


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> The 1030; does it have Dolby Atmos, and Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and four DSP chips inside, and THX Ultra2 Plus certification? ...Does it have a PEQ or a GEQ?
> 
> My girlfriend I love her to death; she is deadly gorgeous with a body of a goddess and a mind of an angel.
> There is just no way that I would trade her in a million years. I will keep her forever by my side, and nobody is going to take her away from me, no matter if it is god himself, help me god.


Are you on drugs I can't follow let's move on sorry man let's get back to talking about the subject of atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Typical Canadian


You bat! :grin: 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- batman, batcave, batmos?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Are you on drugs I can't follow let's move on sorry man let's get back to talking about the subject of atmos.


I don't do drugs and I rarely drink, but I used too; a long time ago.

What my "girlfriend" story meant is very very simple: Some people will never switch from one brand of receiver to another. I own nobody, my girlfriend is totally free, and so I am. 
Was it that hard to figure out, and without any drugs, or alcohol.

It's just my own humorous way of putting things in perspective. 

Dolby Atmos is in all girlfriends (Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer), not just in Onkyo's girlfriends.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I don't do drugs and I rarely drink, but I used too; a long time ago.
> 
> What my "girlfriend" story meant is very very simple: Some people will never switch from one brand of receiver to another. I own nobody, my girlfriend is totally free, and so I am.
> Was it that hard to figure out, and without any drugs, or alcohol.
> 
> It's just my own humorous way of putting things in perspective.
> 
> Dolby Atmos is in all girlfriends (Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer), not just in Onkyo's girlfriends.


I'm French and a little slow on the uptake I was just having trouble following your train of thought 
I've had denon which I love, and yamaha and onkyo.
My question is how is room correction in these AVRs going to deal with atmos. What did we do before room correction stuff.
I turn a lot of this stuff off anyway and EQ myself I like using it for initial set up and then tweek it from there. My samsung has all this picture enhancing stuff but I end up just turning off all that stuff and watch native feeds just the way broadcasters intend it that's just my preference. 
The TX-NR 1030 comes with atmos it doesn't have audyssey but I'm not convinced that it's garbage without it. Being a 9.2 receiver it's very tempting but I'm having a hard time justifying spending that kind of money on a first generation atmos receiver. I will most likely try a TX-NR 737 just to get my feet wet with Atmos, then once we have all had a chance to see how things pan out with these receivers I'll look to upgrade in two years.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Me, I care about everything and everyone. :kiss:


Tell that to Alberta and their tar sands mining operations that look like a nuclear bomb went off.


----------



## Skylinestar

Atmos demo at the HongKong AV show:
http://www.feversound1.com/140809-atmos/


----------



## bargervais

Skylinestar said:


> Atmos demo at the HongKong AV show:
> http://www.feversound1.com/140809-atmos/


Cool I'm getting excited in anticipation can't wait till September.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Only 116 for me Andy (30 posts per page).


116 for me too


----------



## bargervais

http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2014/0...immersive-sound-in-3d-into-the-home/#more-716

Interesting


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> *I'm French* and a little slow on the uptake I was just having trouble following your train of thought
> I've had denon which I love, and yamaha and onkyo.
> My question is how is room correction in these AVRs going to deal with atmos. What did we do before room correction stuff.
> I turn a lot of this stuff off anyway and EQ myself I like using it for initial set up and then tweek it from there. My samsung has all this picture enhancing stuff but I end up just turning off all that stuff and watch native feeds just the way broadcasters intend it that's just my preference.
> The TX-NR 1030 comes with atmos it doesn't have audyssey but I'm not convinced that it's garbage without it. Being a 9.2 receiver it's very tempting but I'm having a hard time justifying spending that kind of money on a first generation atmos receiver. I will most likely try a TX-NR 737 just to get my feet wet with Atmos, then once we have all had a chance to see how things pan out with these receivers I'll look to upgrade in two years.


Sorry, my main point was the the 1030 doesn't have Audyssey MultEQ XT32. 

I believe that Dolby Atmos can benefit much more with Audyssey (XT32) than AccuEQ. ...That's all really.
I simply cannot separate them. 

* I had them all brands in the past; Pioneer, Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra. 
Onkyo/Integra for the last six years or so. ...Still use Yamaha, Denon, Marantz in other sections of my mansion. 

I'll be back in full Dolby Atmos force with Marantz.

P.S. I'm French too by the way (French Canadian).


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Tell that to Alberta and their tar sands mining operations that look like a nuclear bomb went off.


I hate it, and _Neil Young_ too (he hates it too).

* Cool links just above (Dolby Atmos, and Auro-3D), right on!


----------



## SoundChex

_Did I miss a prior post about the *Steinway Lyngdorf P2 Dolby Atmos Processor* being announced in advance of *CEDIA 2014*?_

According to this report on *audiogurus com* (_link_): "The Model P2 is the first and only processor to support multiple speaker configurations for the new Dolby Atmos surround format as well as Auro-3D."
_


----------



## Nightlord

SoundChex said:


> _Did I miss a prior post about the *Steinway Lyngdorf P2 Dolby Atmos Processor* being announced in advance of *CEDIA 2014*?_
> 
> According to this report on *audiogurus com* (_link_): "The Model P2 is the first and only processor to support multiple speaker configurations for the new Dolby Atmos surround format as well as Auro-3D."
> _


Wow. Won't be in the same price range as the gear we normally discuss though.


----------



## cwt

NorthSky said:


> 1. That receiver has a useless AccuEQ Auto Room Correction and EQ system.
> ** Would love the Emotiva XMC-1 with Dirac Live LE, but it does not have Dolby Atmos.
> And even if I wouldn't shed tears over it (like _Kal Rubinson_), I still want Do!by Atmos in my !ife, abso!ute!y, irrevocab!y and unequivoca!!y, ...not a single teardrop of a doubt about it.


Hi Northsky ; I too thought accueq was a poor substitute for audyssey xt32 until I read what David Susilo posted on his site ; though marketing speak it's dolby links and calibration configurability sounds intriguing [ if it is at all like a good peq ] . Possibly the higher echelon ones will have better cal capabilities  A non translated review would indeed be good 

http://davidsusilouncensored.wordpr...chnologies-used-by-2014-onkyo-receiver-lines/

We don't know definitively whether the xmc1 will be atmos capable or not yet ; emo are investigating with dolby labs ; a long time partner .. That said I would wait for something with a proper hdmi2.0 chipset and hdcp2.2 if needed ; which rules out this years atmos avr's ;oh and more outputs than an avr can manage . Ime too cautious dropping $$ on something in its infancy . ymmv as atmos does appeal +


----------



## jacovn

I am/was a meridian owner but decided to sell the whole system as they tend to focus on the 2 channel world and give no information about what they will support until they are ready with it. Besides that it is very expensive. System was 861v6, 800v3, dsp5200x3, dsp3100x4, sw1600x2.
Loose more money on it than my car costed, but on the other hand had some parts for over 10 years.

Atmos seems th next step indeed.

So i looked at stormaudio, they have auro3d and Atmos coming and the distributor told me if dts cones with spatial audio it will be supported.

10.000€ without vat for rack mounted case. Auro3D full licence was 1200€ extra though..
Than you have 16 channel and can be expanded with 16 more.

But this seems about the same path i took with Meridian with the upgradabel architecture. Not sure if this is wise. marantz 7702 will be about 1998€ list price.

Current setup was 7.1, can do the 4 height channels easy, so 12 channels seems enough.

I only wonder how good the Dolby Surround algorithm is for conventional 5.1 and 7.1 blurays. Auro3D seems to be quite good at that.

But i guess the content is more important and for Auro3d i found only 2 blu rays with native auro3D (2L classical recordings)

So i look foreward to the announcements of the content.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> DD is a way of transferring data, and Atmos is a way of encoding sound interference.
> 
> So PL is to DD as Atmos is to TrueHD.
> 
> "Atmos" would be a way of conveying the idea of Dolby surround technology, as was/is Dolby Surround.
> 
> Where am I mistaken?



They didn’t call 'Prologic', `Dolby Digital'. Because they are two different things. Like Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Can someone explain to me how audyssey would work with atmos I know we don't have any AVRs with atmos I can see how it would work with other listening modes but I'm not clear on how it would room correct atmos please help me understand


Audyssey doesn't care what processing has been applied to the sound. It measures the room and speakers, works out some filters to combat room-induced distortions and then applies those filters to whatever subsequently comes out of the speakers. Whether what comes out of the speakers has been processed by Atmos, DSX, Neo:X, PLIIz or anything else, Audyssey doesn't care.


----------



## Bumper

Skylinestar said:


> Atmos demo at the HongKong AV show:
> http://www.feversound1.com/140809-atmos/


This video tells us more about the type of Ceiling speakers used.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> This video tells us more about the type of Ceiling speakers used.


In this image, the surrounds are mounted quite high. In the demo I attended at Dolby, the surrounds in their HT setup were all mounted at roughly ear height. I imagine this is to increase the angular separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers, and I am intending to lower my surrounds somewhat for the same reason. However, the room in the pic does have higher ceilings than most HT rooms.










Also, I want this disc!! I will ask about it next Wednesday when I visit Dolby in London again...


----------



## Bumper

^

If I were to lower my surrounds, I probably would have rewire the speakers in at least 2 out of 4 cases. I use dipoles and they produce sound in a figure eight pattern so I doubt if lowering the surrounds would make much difference. I placed my speakers back in 2008 according to the standards back than. My Atmos ceiling speakers are more to the middle so I do get some good spacing between all speakers. My Heights could be labelled as wides but since they are as wide as my Front L&R they aren't really wides. My Front L&R are placed this wide because my screen is about 170 inch and the room is 5.35mtr x 5.75mtr x 2.20mtr. My screen is about 4mtr wide and 1.80mtr high. So I have less than 1 mtr to fold my electric curtains left and right and place the Fronts in front of the curtains. While placing the ceiling speakers I made sure I got (about) the most distance in between all speakers I could get while maintaing all prescribed angles to the listening positions. What ever I could have done better, I hope Audyssey will fix it


----------



## mp5475

*How wide?*

Just ordered 6 in ceiling speakers. Future proof for 9.4.6.

I know where to place them front to back, but how wide?

Same as front left and right?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> That is what Dolby told me it is called.
> 
> Is this really all that important to you?




Just wondering how you can tell if someone is saying Dolby Surround upmixer or Dolby surround upmixer?

Does the Dolby surround upmixer have user adjustments similar to those that exist in PL2 Movie, PL2 Music and PL2 Games? Just wondering if the Dolby surround upmixer is a one size fits all upmixer that is based on different consumer selected speaker configurations.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> ^
> 
> If I were to lower my surrounds, I probably would have rewire the speakers in at least 2 out of 4 cases. I use dipoles and they produce sound in a figure eight pattern so I doubt if lowering the surrounds would make much difference. I placed my speakers back in 2008 according to the standards back than. My Atmos ceiling speakers are more to the middle so I do get some good spacing between all speakers. My Heights could be labelled as wides but since they are as wide as my Front L&R they aren't really wides. My Front L&R are placed this wide because my screen is about 170 inch and the room is 5.35mtr x 5.75mtr x 2.20mtr. My screen is about 4mtr wide and 1.80mtr high. So I have less than 1 mtr to fold my electric curtains left and right and place the Fronts in front of the curtains. While placing the ceiling speakers I made sure I got (about) the most distance in between all speakers I could get while maintaing all prescribed angles to the listening positions. What ever I could have done better, I hope Audyssey will fix it


HT is almost always about compromises of one sort or another. When I wired in my surrounds, with the wires hidden in the walls, I allowed for a yard or so of extra cable, so moving them down by a foot or so won't be too much of a problem. In fact, compared with the job of running wire for my 4 ceiling speakers, it will be a walk in the park. I'll do it all at the same time, soon, so that I am ready with all speakers in place for when the Atmos AVRs are available. I’ll do the same with my ceiling speakers - run plenty of spare cable - so that I can move them fairly easily if I find I need to adjust them once I am up and running. 

The main reason to lower the surrounds is to create more angular separation between the heights and the surrounds, where the ceiling isn’t all that high - eg a typical 8ft ceiling. For a higher ceiling I would have left my surrounds in place, but as things stand they would be too close to the Top Rear ceiling speakers. You have to be careful when lowering the surrounds that they are still high enough so that the listeners don't block each other from one or the other of the surrounds. At the Dolby demo in London they didn't really take that into account and the listener sitting next to the left surround blocked the listener sitting to his right from that speaker and vice-versa. I’d have raised them a little - but I can see why they did it - their HT room ceiling was treated and the ceiling speakers had to come below the level of the treatment panel, which, in a room with a low ceiling to begin with, was bringing them too close to the surrounds IMO (angle-wise). The degree of angular separation seems to be very important AIUI.

All my speakers are monopoles now. My ceiling speakers are dual concentric driver designs with a 90 degree all-round dispersion pattern and I am hopeful that these will do the job just fine.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Just ordered 6 in ceiling speakers. Future proof for 9.4.6.
> 
> I know where to place them front to back, but how wide?
> 
> Same as front left and right?


That is how they are in all the diagrams posted so far.


----------



## theblackangus

Scott Simonian said:


> Now... the real meat of the Atmos subject....


/Giorgio
Don't you all find it strange that over the last two decades we have been able to go from simple stereo audio to the audio we have today that is so advanced that we cannot, in some cases distinguish, it from reality?

I mean for nearly 4 decades we only had only simple stereo... 

The Dolby came, bringing not just more channels but the ability to take stereo data and transform it into 3d spacial data with astounding accuracy!

Maybe there were some smart guys at Dolby, but the mathematics needed for this type of technology is astoundingly complex and would have been very difficult, likely impossible to fathom 20 years ago.

Rewind 20 years and you will also see in the news a streak of UFO sighting near Dolby's headquarters.
http://www.ufoinfo.com/sightings/usa/880000.shtml
http://www.ufoinfo.com/sightings/usa/980000b.shtml
http://www.ufoinfo.com/sightings/usa/880607.shtml
http://www.ufoinfo.com/sightings/usa/85winter86.shtml
http://www.ufoinfo.com/sightings/usa/840000.shtml

This seems to point to the fact that there may be more to Dolbys advancements in audio than one would think.
Could it possibly be that we are blessed with this great break through because Dolby has gotten advanced mathematics and information from Aliens?

The evidence seems to say - YES!
/end Giorgio


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Just wondering how you can tell if someone is saying Dolby Surround upmixer or Dolby surround upmixer?
> 
> Does the Dolby surround upmixer have user adjustments similar to those that exist in PL2 Movie, PL2 Music and PL2 Games? Just wondering if the Dolby surround upmixer is a one size fits all upmixer that is based on different consumer selected speaker configurations.


Not a great deal of information has been released yet about Dolby Surround. It will upmix legacy material to however many speakers the Atmos setup is using, we know that. And it has subsumed Prologic, we know that. Other than that we'll have to wait and see I guess. I asked Dolby about it in London and they said it "works very well". That was about all they'd say, FWIW, and there was no available demo of it that day. There may be more info about it when I visit them again next Wednesday - I will make a point of asking.

If anyone has any questions they'd like me to ask Dolby, please let me know by next Tuesday and I will do my best to get answers.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

kbarnes701 said:


> In this image, the surrounds are mounted quite high. In the demo I attended at Dolby, the surrounds in their HT setup were all mounted at roughly ear height. I imagine this is to increase the angular separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers, and I am intending to lower my surrounds somewhat for the same reason. However, the room in the pic does have higher ceilings than most HT rooms...[/IMG]



This is something that's been bothering me. We were often told to mount the surrounds a couple of feet above ear height, and now all the new diagrams show the surrounds at ear height the same as the fronts.

I can see the reasoning behind that, but then again the people sitting in the end seats don't really want a surround speaker right in their ear, and for current material the higher surrounds work well. I can see myself getting some Atmos modules and experimenting with placement before re-wiring anything.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> HT is almost always about compromises of one sort or another. When I wired in my surrounds, with the wires hidden in the walls, I allowed for a yard or so of extra cable, so moving them down by a foot or so won't be too much of a problem.


Still a big compromise of audio for the sake of looks. I'm drawing my cable visible - no problem at all if having to move something. I never stop being amazed of the important stuff ending up in the back seat for the sake of looks - which you never notice when using the theater anyway, so why all this bother about how it looks when it's NOT in use? 

Nothing personal, ok? Just a sweeping commentary.


----------



## kbarnes701

kriktsemaj99 said:


> This is something that's been bothering me. We were often told to mount the surrounds a couple of feet above ear height, and now all the new diagrams show the surrounds at ear height the same as the fronts.


Yes they do. I personally think it is important that every set of ears can 'see' every speaker, so they still need to be mounted high enough for that IMO. But many people, me included, can still lower their surrounds a bit and achieve that objective while also increasing the angular separation between surrounds and ceiling speakers.



kriktsemaj99 said:


> I can see the reasoning behind that, but then again the people sitting in the end seats don't really want a surround speaker right in their ear, and for current material the higher surrounds work well. I can see myself getting some Atmos modules and experimenting with placement before re-wiring anything.


If you are using Atmos modules then it isn't all that important. The Atmos modules can sit up to 3ft from their associated speaker according to the latest Dolby white paper, so that gives some flexibility, and also with Atmos speakers, the sound has to travel from the speaker to the ceiling to the listener, thus increasing the perceptual distance of the speaker. Similarly, if someone has high ceilings there is no need to lower their surrounds, as the separation between them and the top speakers will be good anyway.

I think this issue arises for people, like me, who have a typical ceiling height and will be using on-ceiling speakers. It will be important to get the maximum separation between the surrounds and the tops, and in my case, the only way to do this is to lower the surrounds. However, they will still be a little above ear height, for the reasons you mention.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Still a big compromise of audio for the sake of looks. I'm drawing my cable visible - no problem at all if having to move something. I never stop being amazed of the important stuff ending up in the back seat for the sake of looks - which you never notice when using the theater anyway, so why all this bother about how it looks when it's NOT in use?


I conceal the speaker wire because the end result looks much better IMO. There is no compromise to the audio - why would concealing the wire compromise the audio?

Of course, if I have to move the speakers then it involves more work, but I am prepared to do the work and TBH it doesn't happen very often.

But there is no compromise at all to the audio and I don't quite understand your point there.


----------



## Nightlord

Note: you quoted before I added something to it.



kbarnes701 said:


> I conceal the speaker wire because the end result looks much better IMO.


Well, the point was - why are you looking at the absence of cables instead of the movie?  



> There is no compromise to the audio - why would concealing the wire compromise the audio?


Because it would take too long time for you to change setup? Possibly even preventing you because you'd think it'd be too much work for little or no gain. Or the cost would be too high if you were in a financial dip.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Not a great deal of information has been released yet about Dolby Surround. It will upmix legacy material to however many speakers the Atmos setup is using, we know that. And it has subsumed Prologic, we know that. Other than that we'll have to wait and see I guess. I asked Dolby about it in London and they said it "works very well". That was about all they'd say, FWIW, and there was no available demo of it that day. There may be more info about it when I visit them again next Wednesday - I will make a point of asking.
> 
> If anyone has any questions they'd like me to ask Dolby, please let me know by next Tuesday and I will do my best to get answers.




Ask Dolby what the proper term is for the so called Dolby surround upmixer. Audioholics calls it the Atmos Surround upmixer which is a fair description. No one uses the term Dolby Surround (with capital S) upmixer except on this forum.


Also, read the last line in the following paragraph. "The Atmos upmixer will not send redirected content to speakers between the front left, center, and right speakers in order to minimize the impact on the front stage." 

That means processing similar to PL2 Movie and PL2 Music is no more. PL2 Movie and PL2 Music shared content between the front three speakers (adjustable width).


"Atmos Surround Upmixing: Going Beyond Prologic IIz

Now it’s all fine and good that you can enjoy Atmos with future releases, but a lot of folks already own a pretty sizeable collection of films. What’s in it for them you ask? As it turns out, the Atmos engine also includes a surround upmixer, which replaces the Dolby Pro Logic II family of upmixers. As you might imagine, the Atmos upmixer is a bit more advanced than previous generations. The Atmos engine starts by performs a granular analysis of legacy sources, which can range from good old two channel content to the latest 7.1 Dolby TrueHD mix. From there, the system is capable of steering individual frequency bands from each channel to create up to a 24.1.10 matrixed Atmos environment. *Of note: the Atmos upmixer will not send redirected content to speakers between the front left, center, and right speakers in order to minimize the impact on the front stage*."



http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-atmos-home-theater-101


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

This is also of interest.

"What incentive is there for a customer to add more speakers to an already crammed and budgeted home theater by purchasing a new Dolby Atmos enabled AV receiver?

According to the vast majority of installers and AV manufacturers over 90% of home theaters today are only set up for 5.1. Why only 5.1? Limited placement options followed by budgetary concerns are often the two primary reasons. Not only that, but *the market is gravitating more towards soundbars rather than adding more discrete channels.* With people content with MP3 quality audio, one has to wonder just how many enthusiasts will be clamoring for 11 discrete channels of surround sound. We are looking at a new format that demands more speakers in a market driven by using less and often smaller speakers."




http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


>



That guy rocks, he's got the best hair


----------



## Nightlord

ambesolman said:


> That guy rocks, he's got the best hair


Looks like a Centauri...


----------



## Nightlord

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Limited placement options


Is that the politically correct version of WAF?


----------



## fookoo_2010

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> This is also of interest.
> 
> "What incentive is there for a customer to add more speakers to an already crammed and budgeted home theater by purchasing a new Dolby Atmos enabled AV receiver?
> 
> According to the vast majority of installers and AV manufacturers over 90% of home theaters today are only set up for 5.1. Why only 5.1? Limited placement options followed by budgetary concerns are often the two primary reasons. Not only that, but *the market is gravitating more towards soundbars rather than adding more discrete channels.* With people content with MP3 quality audio, one has to wonder just how many enthusiasts will be clamoring for 11 discrete channels of surround sound. We are looking at a new format that demands more speakers in a market driven by using less and often smaller speakers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater


The "experts" have spoken again and they have been disturbingly way off when it came to Dolby Atmos enabled speakers for home theater. But that's what happens when the writer, "expert," is guessing in the dark. Soundbars have their own targeted market and you most likely do not belong to it, at least for anything resembling a definitive home theater.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2014/0...immersive-sound-in-3d-into-the-home/#more-716
> 
> Interesting


Why have 9.1 when you can have 24.1.10?? 

Seriously, traditional channel-based Auro3D (without it switching over to object sound delivery) is no match for Atmos.


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes they do. I personally think it is important that every set of ears can 'see' every speaker, so they still need to be mounted high enough for that IMO. But many people, me included, can still lower their surrounds a bit and achieve that objective while also increasing the angular separation between surrounds and ceiling speakers.


Angular separation is probably more important when using direct radiating speakers vs dipoles. While using direct radiators, don't you think that the direction they fire should take care of a large enough diffential between speakers? The ceiling spekers fire downward in a different plane than the surrounds. When back from holiday I will test different Heights on one of the surrounds that has enough spare wire to determine if there is a noticeable difference. I really don't think there is any difference when lowering the surrounds one foot and that is all I could do and still have all seat positions in a line of sight to the surround. Maybe this is why older pictures display the surrounds above ear level. Old used to use dipoles and new seems to use direct radiators. Surrounds also often don't sit completely next one persones ear but angled in front or back of a seat.


----------



## wse

Interesting read might be in this thread already but just in case

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why have 9.1 when you can have 24.1.10??  Seriously, traditional channel-based Auro3D (without it switching over to object sound delivery) is no match for Atmos.


Ok then you see this in a 12 x13 x 9! or even a 18 x 20 x 10 the sound would be really bad, good luck with that


----------



## ss9001

ambesolman said:


> That guy rocks, he's got the best hair


he's got ancient alien genes


----------



## ss9001

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> No one uses the term Dolby Surround (with capital S) upmixer except on this forum.


Definitely not true. Both Denon & Pioneer are using the term in their lit & released or yet-to-be-released manuals.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

ss9001 said:


> Definitely not true. Both Denon & Pioneer are using the term in their lit & released or yet-to-be-released manuals.



Small s in surround in Dolby papers. Dolby surround upmixer is the term that Dolby uses!


----------



## Roger Dressler

kriktsemaj99 said:


> This is something that's been bothering me. We were often told to mount the surrounds a couple of feet above ear height, and now all the new diagrams show the surrounds at ear height the same as the fronts.


Dolby's art department has been showing surround speakers at ear height for many years. It was just to make it all look pretty, with speakers on stands around the sofa. But the advice has never changed -- not that I have seen. The surrounds should still be elevated, but whereas it did not matter too much how elevated, now it can make a difference as Keith explained. 

Of course moving the height speakers more overhead will give plenty of separation, it can mean the rear seats (in a 2+ row cinema) will not hear optimal directionality. Nothing new there, that's been a tradeoff in home (and commercial) cinemas for ever.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Nightlord said:


> Is that the politically correct version of WAF?




Actually, take a good look at what a lot of people do in their own rooms. Some people like the audio showroom look in their living rooms, but that is just a matter of taste rather than WAF. Then again, a lot of people do not like the look of speaker grills either!


----------



## duc135

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> No one uses the term Dolby Surround (with capital S) upmixer except on this forum.





ss9001 said:


> Definitely not true. Both Denon & Pioneer are using the term in their lit & released or yet-to-be-released manuals.





J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Small s in surround in Dolby papers. Dolby surround upmixer is the term that Dolby uses!


ss9001 let you know that Denon and Pioneer both use Dolby Surround (with capital S) upmixer in their document to refute your claims that only we here on AVS use that term. How is showing us a Dolby paper a counter argument to ss9001?

Is whether or not the letter S all that important to you? I know whether a word is capitalized or not can potentially have different meanings, but read the context and move on. People make spelling mistakes all the time. Even press releases from the actual manufacturer for their own product sometimes misspell their own product names. Spellcheck doesn't catch everything.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Also, read the last line in the following paragraph. "The Atmos upmixer will not send redirected content to speakers between the front left, center, and right speakers in order to minimize the impact on the front stage."
> 
> That means processing similar to PL2 Movie and PL2 Music is no more. PL2 Movie and PL2 Music shared content between the front three speakers (adjustable width).


Happily, that is not what it means at all. The explanation is stated more clearly in the official Atmos for Home paper:


> The Dolby surround upmixer will provide audio to, at maximum, the same set of 24 speakers on the floor and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or ceiling speakers. To maintain the frontal audio image, the upmixer *will not send upmixed audio to speakers that are located between the Left, Center, and Right speakers*.


This says nothing about how the L/C/R audio might be treated in a possible Music mode. Only that any additional speakers between the L/C/R are not used by the upmixer.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why have 9.1 when you can have 24.1.10??
> Seriously, traditional channel-based Auro3D (without it switching over to object sound delivery) is no match for Atmos.



Let's hope someone, sometime finds the desire to validate your theses sufficiently compelling to arrange a three-way "listener comparison" of *Atmos 24.1.10* _vs_ *Atmos 5.1.4* _vs_ *9.1 Auro-3D*.

It should be straightforward technically to configure a _dual-__capability decoder|renderer_ prepro (e.g., a *Trinnov Altitude 32*) to switch between two speaker configurations (1) *Atmos 24.1.10*, and (2) *Atmos 5.1.4* | *9.1 Auro-3D*. The only other requirement would seem to be a _dual content_ *BD*, e.g. *MAGNIFICAT*, a forthcoming *pureaudio* (_link_) *BD *from *TrondheimSolistene,* on the *2L* label, will contain both *9.1 Auro-3D* and *Dolby Atmos *encodes of the same recorded material*.

*One set of listening tests could evaluate whether playback _of the same content_ is better in *Atmos 5.1.4* or *9.1 Auro-3D* (_object-based vs channel-based delivery_).

A second set of listening tests might examine whether the qualitative improvement obtained by playing back *Atmos* content in a *24.1.10* configuration (_vs_ *5.1.4*) is really worth the extra $75,000 equipment cost, plus high grade room treatment.

Of course, this will still not address the question of whether _the same movie content_ will be available more generally on *BD* in both *Atmos* and *Auro-3D* encodes...?! * 
_
 *


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

$75,000 extra for 24.1.10 vs 5.1.4? Maybe, but 25 extra Mackie 624 powered speakers à $500 comes to $12,500. No biggie, really.

Last night, I tried to squeeze in the maximum amount of speakers and subs in our HT design. I came to 11.4.6...


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Note: you quoted before I added something to it.
> 
> Well, the point was - why are you looking at the absence of cables instead of the movie?


Fair point. I guess it's just the internal aesthete in me 



Nightlord said:


> Because it would take too long time for you to change setup? Possibly even preventing you because you'd think it'd be too much work for little or no gain. Or the cost would be too high if you were in a financial dip.


Ah right. I do experiment with speaker placement before I finalise the wiring if possible. If I need to change things, well, I am prepared to do the work. I see what you mean though now.


----------



## helvetica bold

I wonder how Atmos will be used in headphones. I own Astro A50 headphones, it's a virtual 7.1 system and sounds great w/ games. I know games already use object sounds so I'm really curious how Atmos will be utilized. If say the upcoming Uncharted 4 supported Atmos that would push be to update sooner.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> Let's hope someone, sometime finds the desire to validate your theses sufficiently compelling to arrange a three-way "listener comparison" of *Atmos 24.1.10* _vs_ *Atmos 5.1.4* _vs_ *9.1 Auro-3D*.
> 
> It should be straightforward technically to configure a _dual-__capability decoder|renderer_ prepro (e.g., a *Trinnov Altitude 32*) to switch between two speaker configurations (1) *Atmos 24.1.10*, and (2) *Atmos 5.1.4* | *9.1 Auro-3D*. The only other requirement would seem to be a _dual content_ *BD*, e.g. *MAGNIFICAT*, a forthcoming *pureaudio* (_link_) *BD *from *TrondheimSolistene,* on the *2L* label, will contain both *9.1 Auro-3D* and *Dolby Atmos *encodes of the same recorded material*.
> 
> *One set of listening tests could evaluate whether playback _of the same content_ is better in *Atmos 5.1.4* or *9.1 Auro-3D* (_object-based vs channel-based delivery_).
> 
> A second set of listening tests might examine whether the qualitative improvement obtained by playing back *Atmos* content in a *24.1.10* configuration (_vs_ *5.1.4*) is really worth the extra $75,000 equipment cost, plus high grade room treatment.
> 
> Of course, this will still not address the question of whether _the same movie content_ will be available more generally on *BD* in both *Atmos* and *Auro-3D* encodes...?! *
> _
> *


Do you really and truly think that traditional Auro3D is even really happening except for the most eclectic and esoteric high end processors? The industry seems more interested in object audio. I can see DTS-UHD as being direct competition to Atmos moreso than Auro3D for most home video content.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Small s in surround in Dolby papers. Dolby surround upmixer is the term that Dolby uses!


Is this the most important thing about Atmos for you? What they call the upmixer?


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> Angular separation is probably more important when using direct radiating speakers vs dipoles. While using direct radiators, don't you think that the direction they fire should take care of a large enough diffential between speakers? The ceiling spekers fire downward in a different plane than the surrounds. When back from holiday I will test different Heights on one of the surrounds that has enough spare wire to determine if there is a noticeable difference. I really don't think there is any difference when lowering the surrounds one foot and that is all I could do and still have all seat positions in a line of sight to the surround. Maybe this is why older pictures display the surrounds above ear level. Old used to use dipoles and new seems to use direct radiators. Surrounds also often don't sit completely next one persones ear but angled in front or back of a seat.


I think, so long as people are aware of the issues, there is a fair amount of flexibility allowed for. But clearly, having the surrounds on the back wall corners, as I have (110 degrees from MLP ears - small room), if they were up near the ceiling, then they would be so close to the top rears as to be indistinguishable from them. I'd hope you have a bigger room and more options.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> _Did I miss a prior post about the *Steinway Lyngdorf P2 Dolby Atmos Processor* being announced in advance of *CEDIA 2014*?_
> 
> According to this report on *audiogurus com* (_link_): "The Model P2 is the first and only processor to support multiple speaker configurations for the new Dolby Atmos surround format as well as Auro-3D."
> _


This I like, and I ain't the only one. ...How much?
___________
___________
___________

* We can run our smartphones wireless, we can run our laptops wireless, ...they have very powerful chips inside, the processing speed is amazing, everything (almost, atmos) is Wi-Fi, Bluetooth today :
The picture and sound quality are also top-notch (hi-def & hi-res). ...All wirelessly.

=> *Why can we have all our eleven, fifteen (or more) main speakers Wi-Fi (wireless) too?* 
...And without any sound quality degradation.


----------



## asarose247

Random musing . . . and I can't find the picture, again








if in a 9.x.4 config, and the (banished) front heights are NOT in the same vertical plane as the LCR, then what are is angle range for positioning forward of the LCR plane wrt to MLP?


there are semi-finalized pics but this process is kinda like sausage making


3 rd pic these are the 2 fixed side rails spaced 2" down for the traversing speaker holding rails to ride on. Because of the recessed lights they are 106" apart. I located 3 ceiling joists and used 5/16 x 6" lag bolts to hold it all up. I didn't do a full body weight chip-up and the rest of assembly will only weigh in at about 140-150 lbs but it feels very firmly and permentately attached. 
should the opportunity arise, I can add a 3rd center rail for the Top Centers


first pic is the latest iteration of a close to optimally positioning ceiling speaker supporting "wart" , the SLX speakers just securely clip on and are angularly adjustable also
the button head bolt will be used to secure and stabile the traversing beams to the fixed beams. most of this is held together with 3/8 bolts 


2nd pic shows extra holes for vertical spacing adjustments, and the 1 x3 wood on the back of the bracket also allows for about 1 1/2 inches of adjustment for the T-strap


I'll b able to run my wires up thru the wall across the attic and then down into the unistrut channel , making it all neat and pretty . . .


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> This I like, and I ain't the only one. ...How much?


All I know it's going to be far too much. Their TDAI 2170 integrated amp have an MSRP of US$3500 (street for $2,900) but the Canadian MSRP is CA$7,000 with dealer cost being substantially higher than US MSRP!!!! So even if I buy the Lyngdorf unit at dealer cost -15%, it's still higher than the US everyday joe-schmoe street price


----------



## SoundChex

erwinfrombelgium said:


> $75,000 extra for 24.1.10 vs 5.1.4? Maybe, but 25 extra Mackie 624 powered speakers à $500 comes to $12,500. No biggie, really.



Foolishly, I thought that most people who chose a 5.1.4 configuration instead of a 24.1.10 setup would likely select a prepro priced under $5,000 rather than 'keeping' the $50,000+ Trinnov Altitude 32...?! 




erwinfrombelgium said:


> Last night, I tried to squeeze in the maximum amount of speakers and subs in our HT design. I came to 11.4.6...



I turns out that running on a total of three AV systems, _or currently boxed_, I actually have available the speakers and amps for a *24.4.10* configuration. What I do not have is the room, money or inclination to make it a reality!

*Section 7*, _starting page 48_, of "*Report ITU- R BS.2159-6 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications*" (_link_) includes summaries of some studies concerned with whether increasing numbers of (mostly) overhead speakers actually produces "better sound". My conclusion from this material is that in a listening environment with excellent room treatment the perceived quality of *24.1.10* playback will likely be less than 10% better than the perceived quality of *7.1.4* playback at the MLP . . . and at a very much higher cost. (_If one has a large seating area or conversely the speakers are arranged at the periphery of a large listening space that assessment should be revisited._) In line with that, I've set myself an upper limit of *9.x.6* for both my "movie systems" although in practice I suspect I'll find myself limited to a *7.x Standard* _main layer_ for one system and a *5.x Standard plus 2x Front Wides* _main layer_ for the other (_either way, keeping the "prepro out" channel count at 16 or less to avoid the 'price bump' of going higher_).
_


----------



## NorthSky

cwt said:


> Hi Northsky ; I too thought accueq was a poor substitute for audyssey xt32 until I read what David Susilo posted on his site ; though marketing speak it's dolby links and calibration configurability sounds intriguing [ if it is at all like a good peq ] . Possibly the higher echelon ones will have better cal capabilities  A non translated review would indeed be good
> 
> http://davidsusilouncensored.wordpr...chnologies-used-by-2014-onkyo-receiver-lines/


*AccuEQ Room Calibration:* _"proprietary to Onkyo, developed with together with Dolby Labs, is the new, improved calibration system over the previous ham-fisted approach of Audyssey*. For higher accuracy, Onkyo's AccuEQ can further tweaked and customized by professional audio calibrator to reach the most accurate EQ possible that no automatic calibration can even begin to reach."_

* Except for Audyssey MultEQ XT32, with the Pro kit (for products that are Audyssey MultEQ Pro Ready).

I like David, I really do; he's a real nice guy. 



> We don't know definitively whether the xmc1 will be atmos capable or not yet ; emo are investigating with dolby labs ; a long time partner .. That said I would wait for something with a proper hdmi2.0 chipset and hdcp2.2 if needed ; which rules out this years atmos avr's ;oh and more outputs than an avr can manage . Ime too cautious dropping $$ on something in its infancy . ymmv as atmos does appeal +


Yes, I've read that (regarding Dolby Atmos). Lonnie is simply looking into that, and that's all he said that he can do; looking into it.

If, ever Dolby Atmos comes inside the Emotiva XMC-1, that'll be the day. 

And comes next month Dolby Atmos will be in our homes.

_____________

And regarding AccuEQ versus Audyssey (XT32 flavor) working in tandem with Dolby Atmos; we'll see...


----------



## Kriilin

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> This is also of interest.
> 
> "What incentive is there for a customer to add more speakers to an already crammed and budgeted home theater by purchasing a new Dolby Atmos enabled AV receiver?
> 
> According to the vast majority of installers and AV manufacturers over 90% of home theaters today are only set up for 5.1. Why only 5.1? Limited placement options followed by budgetary concerns are often the two primary reasons. Not only that, but *the market is gravitating more towards soundbars rather than adding more discrete channels.* With people content with MP3 quality audio, one has to wonder just how many enthusiasts will be clamoring for 11 discrete channels of surround sound. We are looking at a new format that demands more speakers in a market driven by using less and often smaller speakers."
> 
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater


Agreed, this is probably why Dolby included the option of setting up-firing speakers on top of your old ones. Anyone on this forum will probably use up-firing speakers as a last resort due to installation, WAF, etc. issues. The HTIB crowd will just do it without thinking if thay can install ceiling speakers. As a matter of fact that crowd won't even think of Atmos (in most cases), they'll have an Atmos system because that was on the shelf when they happened to buy.


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> _____________
> 
> And regarding AccuEQ versus Audyssey (XT32 flavor) working in tandem with Dolby Atmos; we'll see...


When compared to XT32 with Pro Kit, the Audyssey wins hands down.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you really and truly think that traditional Auro3D is even really happening except for the most eclectic and esoteric high end processors? The industry seems more interested in object audio. I can see DTS-UHD as being direct competition to Atmos more so than Auro3D for most home video content.



When we think of the installed base of 3D audio AVRs and HTiBs over the next 5 years, the count of 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 systems will likely be 99% of the total--so a studio's objective must be to deliver "good" 5.1.2|5.1.4 playback. For movie playback on the vast majority of these systems, it will be essentially immaterial to the listener whether an object-based mix is rendered to 9.1 Auro-3D for 5.1.4 channel-based delivery on BD ("easy downmix to 5.1.2") or delivered as Atmos on BD and rendered real-time for 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 playback.

The most obvious difference between the two situations is that the Atmos playback looks to be more computationally intensive, and likely requiring a faster and perhaps more expensive processor. And when you manufacture AV equipment with MSRP under $200, bill-of-material pricing is likely done in the fractions of a cent. So at least initially, I would expect it to be economically more feasible to put Auro-3D decoders in cheaper devices. Actually, it's all about retail dollars . . . and there are currently too many unknowns about future trends in 3D audio for movie, music, games, and in-car for good predictions...
_


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Ask Dolby what the proper term is for the so called Dolby surround upmixer. Audioholics calls it the Atmos Surround upmixer which is a fair description. No one uses the term Dolby Surround (with capital S) upmixer except on this forum.
> 
> Also, read the last line in the following paragraph. "The Atmos upmixer will not send redirected content to speakers between the front left, center, and right speakers in order to minimize the impact on the front stage."
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-atmos-home-theater-101


Audioholics' website (and forums) is a unique place, for unique people. They have some excellent articles, over the years, on bass management, etc., with cool Denon/Yamaha/Onkyo/Emotiva/SVS... and other manufacturer's product reviews (who are their supporters - bread), and Gene is an expert.

Nobody is perfect, neither they. And the term used to described "Dolby Surround" upmixer seems to be from their own spatial invention. ...Atmos upmixer.

I wouldn't put much attention to it myself, it's no big deal @ all. 
And when I get my first Dolby Atmos product @ home, I already have a nice sticker (Navy Blue color) that I would put in its front face: *Dolby Spatial*
That's my own, mine only special piece of Atmos space. ...Me sticker.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Last night, I tried to squeeze in the maximum amount of speakers and subs in our HT design.
> I came to *11.4.6* ...


That's a good number: eleven mains, four subwoofers, and six overheads. ...Total, twenty-one (21). 
I like it very much. ...Should have you well covered Erwin.


----------



## NorthSky

helvetica bold said:


> I wonder how Atmos will be used in headphones. I own Astro A50 headphones, it's a virtual 7.1 system and sounds great w/ games. I know games already use object sounds so I'm really curious how Atmos will be utilized. If say the upcoming Uncharted 4 supported Atmos that would push be to update sooner.


Dolby *Surround Sound* (headphones) upmixer.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

SoundChex said:


> Foolishly, I thought that most people who chose a 5.1.4 configuration instead of a 24.1.10 setup would likely select a prepro priced under $5,000 rather than 'keeping' the $50,000+ Trinnov Altitude 32...?!
> 
> I turns out that running on a total of three AV systems, _or currently boxed_, I actually have available the speakers and amps for a *24.4.10* configuration. What I do not have is the room, money or inclination to make it a reality!
> 
> *Section 7*, _starting page 48_, of "*Report ITU- R BS.2159-6 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications*" (_link_) includes summaries of some studies concerned with whether increasing numbers of (mostly) overhead speakers actually produces "better sound". My conclusion from this material is that in a listening environment with excellent room treatment the perceived quality of *24.1.10* playback will likely be less than 10% better than the perceived quality of *7.1.4* playback at the MLP . . . and at a very much higher cost. (_If one has a large seating area or conversely the speakers are arranged at the periphery of a large listening space that assessment should be revisited._) In line with that, I've set myself an upper limit of *9.x.6* for both my "movie systems" although in practice I suspect I'll find myself limited to a *7.x Standard* _main layer_ for one system and a *5.x Standard plus 2x Front Wides* _main layer_ for the other (_either way, keeping the "prepro out" channel count at 16 or less to avoid the 'price bump' of going higher_).
> _


Boy, I didn't know the Trinnov was thàt expensive..

I also completely agree with everything in the second paragraph. 7.2.4 will be near ideal. Adding 6 more speakers will be only marginally better. I think I will never pay more that 5K for a pre-pro.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> That's a good number: eleven mains, four subwoofers, and six overheads. ...Total, twenty-one (21).
> I like it very much. ...Should have you well covered Erwin.


It might happen, but not right away. The AV8803 maybe? Or the Emotiva RMC-2? Early 2017?


----------



## bargervais

I'm going to start out this fall with a 5.1.2 in my little den just to get my feet wet, till I see how things iron out in the upcoming year.. but by this time next year I will start the hunt to upgrade my living room. I have 11 speakers and two subs hooked up right now out there, but I'm leaving it that way till the fall of 2015 then I'll start to upgrade out there.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I didn't know the Trinnov was thàt expensive..


It isn't.


----------



## wse

sdurani said:


> It isn't.


Right I guess it's all relative isn't it!


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> erwinfrombelgium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, I didn't know the Trinnov was that expensive
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't.
Click to expand...


I was _quoting_ from the Trinnov thread "Initial price released from Anthem UK who are the disti for Trinnov in UK are set to be between £12-30k inclusive of Atmos and auro decoding" and "£12k is likely for the Altitude 8/8 without Auro and Atmos encoding. £30k for 32/32 all codecs included" . . . but I'd be interested to hear if you have better and significantly different numbers...?! (*EDIT:* I guess I don't know if the Anthem UK prices excluded|included UK VAT . . . and I have no idea how to adjust a UK price to get a Western Europe mainland _delivered_ price with|without Belgian VAT...?!)
_


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> I'd be interested to hear if you have better and significantly different numbers...?!


We'll find out at CEDIA.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> We'll find out at CEDIA.


Getting a price at *IFA Berlin* would probably be more useful to *Erwin...*
_


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> When compared to XT32 with Pro Kit, the Audyssey wins hands down.


David, did you compare AccuEQ with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (+ Pro kit)? 
{And the Pro kit is an additional $600, with the key.}

And, did you hear Dolby Atmos in a normal home room setting like? 

_______________

* I think the main essence here is the close correlation/implementation of AccuEQ (Onkyo) with Dolby Atmos.
...And of Audyssey (Denon/Marantz) MultEQ XT32 (without the Pro kit) with Dolby Atmos. 
...And same of MCACC (Pioneer) with Dolby Atmos. 
...And same of YPAO (Yamaha) with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> Happily, that is not what it means at all. The explanation is stated more clearly in the official Atmos for Home paper: This says nothing about how the L/C/R audio might be treated in a possible Music mode. Only that any additional speakers between the L/C/R are not used by the upmixer.



OK, obviously I misunderstood the info.

Assuming that you have a typical Atmos AVR like the Denon linked to below, in what speaker configuration / scenario would speakers be placed in between the L and C and R speakers? 


Assume a typical 7.1.2 or 9.1.2 Atmos AVR and not some fictional mega speaker Atmos AVR.

http://usa.denon.com/us/news/news/120



I guess we have to wait until the units are released and in some consumers hands before we can see how adjustable the surround upmixer is. PL2 had options and was adjustable, with the amount of adjustment flexibility being dependent on the specific model in question.

For example, I presently use PL-2 Music to upmix 2 channel movies / TV. I adjust the center width control to about 1/2 way (between no center and full movie center) to suit my listening preference. I wonder how adjustable the Atmos surround mixer will be.


----------



## Jindrak

David Susilo said:


> When compared to XT32 with Pro Kit, the Audyssey wins hands down.


And where is your proof?


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Boy, I didn't know the Trinnov was thàt expensive..
> 
> I also completely agree with everything in the second paragraph. 7.2.4 will be near ideal. Adding 6 more speakers will be only marginally better. I think I will never pay more that 5K for a pre-pro.


The Sherwood Newcastle R-972 A/V receiver with Trinnov Optimizer was a great tool to play with spatial surround sound when it was selling for only six hundred bucks. 
Of course it wasn't perfect, but for that low price some people still enjoy the benefits today.
{The R-972 was $1,800 MSRP.}


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It might happen, but not right away. The AV8803 maybe? Or the Emotiva RMC-2? Early 2017?


You're like me, and the rest of us; you talk and dream too much. :grin:

Enjoy your music listening and movie watching today, now. ...Sans Dolby Atmos...for now.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> OK, obviously I misunderstood the info.


I would chalk it up to the 'holics less rigorous interpretation. 



> Assuming that you have a typical Atmos AVR like the Denon linked to below, in what speaker configuration / scenario would speakers be placed in between the L and C and R speakers?


I don't think that will arise in these first gen products (other than Trinnov or Storm?). Not until there's an option for 5 screen speakers.



> I guess we have to wait until the units are released and in some consumers hands before we can see how adjustable the surround upmixer is. PL2 had options and was adjustable, with the amount of adjustment flexibility being dependent on the specific model in question.
> 
> For example, I presently use PL-2 Music to upmix 2 channel movies / TV. I adjust the center width control to about 1/2 way (between no center and full movie center) to suit my listening preference. I wonder how adjustable the Atmos surround mixer will be.


I'm eager to find out, too, so have put my lawnchair avatar in line at my favorite internet Marantz dealer.


----------



## helvetica bold

Did you guys see Onkyo is offering free atmos speakers... Looks like UK only

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130222-onkyo-giving-away-free-dolby-atmos-overhead-speaker-systems


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> David, did you compare AccuEQ with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (+ Pro kit)?
> {And the Pro kit is an additional $600, with the key.}
> 
> And, did you hear Dolby Atmos in a normal home room setting like?
> 
> _______________
> 
> * I think the main essence here is the close correlation/implementation of AccuEQ (Onkyo) with Dolby Atmos.
> ...And of Audyssey (Denon/Marantz) MultEQ XT32 (without the Pro kit) with Dolby Atmos.
> ...And same of MCACC (Pioneer) with Dolby Atmos.
> ...And same of YPAO (Yamaha) with Dolby Atmos.


I don't have the Atmos enabled when I do the comparison. My comparison is based on how far I can tweak the EQ in order to get as close to SMPTE curve as possible. As I own a pro kit, I can tweak the XT32 to the Nth degree whereas with AccuEQ, it's very limited. On the other hand, a limited tweakability is more preferable to me over the ham fisted approach of regular Audyssey MultEQ (use it or don't without any further tweaking capability).

As far as hearing the final Atmos for home, there is a good chance that I'll be conducting Atmos demo at the TAVES show using all-Pioneer products (the TV will be Sony 950B) and the room I'll be using will be a regular sized (and height) room at a hotel suite.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Did you guys see Onkyo is offering free atmos speakers... Looks like UK only
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130222-onkyo-giving-away-free-dolby-atmos-overhead-speaker-systems


Damn Brits and their free speakers!! [grumble grumble]


----------



## CinemaAndy

OK. Who has one? The bottom line models are showing up on Amazon. Someone has one, how about telling?? As for me i'm waiting for end of year or next year models to arrive.


----------



## bargervais

CinemaAndy said:


> OK. Who has one? The bottom line models are showing up on Amazon. Someone has one, how about telling?? As for me i'm waiting for end of year or next year models to arrive.


The TX-NR 1030 shows it ships in 1 to 4 months on Amazon..


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> They didn’t call 'Prologic', `Dolby Digital'. Because they are two different things.


I didn't say they were, and in fact analogized the distinction.


----------



## CinemaAndy

bargervais said:


> The TX-NR 1030 shows it ships in 1 to 4 months on Amazon..


Onkyo TX-NR636 could be on my doorstep by Tuesday. If i wanted it.

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR63...F8&qid=1407636742&sr=1-1&keywords=Dolby+Atmos


----------



## bargervais

CinemaAndy said:


> Onkyo TX-NR636 could be on my doorstep by Tuesday. If i wanted it.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR63...F8&qid=1407636742&sr=1-1&keywords=Dolby+Atmos


TX-NR 636 doesn't have THX I would a least get the 737 with little more power and THX I think it would be fun to play with and you could always return it if it's useless as some in here is saying . Or you could sell it in a year and upgrade to something better.
Life is short I want atmos, I would like to see if when you get one of the first atmos AVR if Dolby would give a demo atmos blu-ray


----------



## NorthSky

helvetica bold said:


> Did you guys see Onkyo is offering free atmos speakers... Looks like UK only
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130222-onkyo-giving-away-free-dolby-atmos-overhead-speaker-systems


Onkyo's administration must be reading this thread. ...Should be in the US & Canada too (North America).
Disney is doing the same thing with 3D Blu-rays. ...They release them overseas but not here!
I know most don't care, but I do.

And next thing we're going to hear is that Blu-ray movies with Dolby Atmos encoding, from some movie studio distributors are going to be released in the UK, but not in North America. 

Why is that you may ask? Because one word: Money.
In the UK 3D Blu-rays are selling, not here. I think the Europeans and British people are more sophisticated than us... And not just about food, cars, clothing, ...but about home theaters too. ...And perhaps about Dolby Atmos as well. 

By the way, who asked for them curved TVs?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> tx-nr 636 doesn't have thx i would a least get the 737 with little more power and thx i think it would be fun to play with and you could always return it if it's useless as some in here is saying .


https://www.avsforum.com/posts/25974290/


----------



## Zen Traveler

NorthSky said:


> Onkyo's administration must be reading this thread. ......


 I really like coming hewre but have come to the realization that not many, if any insiders are reading this thread nor pay attention to this forum insofar as their business decisions are concerned....


----------



## NorthSky

But some do.


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> Onkyo's administration must be reading this thread. ...Should be in the US & Canada too (North America).
> Disney is doing the same thing with 3D Blu-rays. ...They release them overseas but not here!
> I know most don't care, but I do.
> 
> And next thing we're going to hear is that Blu-ray movies with Dolby Atmos encoding, from some movie studio distributors are going to be released in the UK, but not in North America.
> 
> Why is that you may ask? Because one word: Money.
> In the UK 3D Blu-rays are selling, not here. I think the Europeans and British people are more sophisticated than us... And not just about food, cars, clothing, ...but about home theaters too. ...And perhaps about Dolby Atmos as well.
> 
> By the way, who asked for them curved TVs?


We north americans are far more "price sensitive" than those in the UK. The margins here are so tiny we have turned ourselves into a secondary and tertiary market. That is the same reason cars, better options for the said cars etc are launched in China first. This is why Europeans have more selection of cars than anywhere else in the world.


----------



## NorthSky

Where are Dolby Labs main offices?


----------



## M Code

NorthSky said:


> Where are Dolby Labs main offices?



San Francisco..

Just my $0.03...


----------



## M Code

NorthSky said:


> Onkyo's administration must be reading this thread. ...Should be in the US & Canada too (North America).
> Disney is doing the same thing with 3D Blu-rays. ...They release them overseas but not here!
> I know most don't care, but I do.
> 
> And next thing we're going to hear is that Blu-ray movies with Dolby Atmos encoding, from some movie studio distributors are going to be released in the UK, but not in North America.
> 
> Why is that you may ask? Because one word: Money.
> In the UK 3D Blu-rays are selling, not here. I think the Europeans and British people are more sophisticated than us... And not just about food, cars, clothing, ...but about home theaters too. ...And perhaps about Dolby Atmos as well.
> 
> By the way, who asked for them curved TVs?


U do realize Blu-Rays pricing in the UK are almost _double_ the USA price....

Just my $0.03...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

M Code said:


> U do realize Blu-Rays pricing in the UK are almost _double_ the USA price....
> 
> Just my $0.03...


You're subsidizing our discounted prices.  However, there are some titles I've saved quite a bit on by importing them from the U.K. Certain boxed sets, especially.


----------



## Franin

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Boy, I didn't know the Trinnov was thàt expensive..
> 
> I also completely agree with everything in the second paragraph. 7.2.4 will be near ideal. Adding 6 more speakers will be only marginally better. I think I will never pay more that 5K for a pre-pro.


I agree


----------



## Jim S.

kbarnes701 said:


> Not a great deal of information has been released yet about Dolby Surround. It will upmix legacy material to however many speakers the Atmos setup is using, we know that. And it has subsumed Prologic, we know that. Other than that we'll have to wait and see I guess. I asked Dolby about it in London and they said it "works very well". That was about all they'd say, FWIW, and there was no available demo of it that day. There may be more info about it when I visit them again next Wednesday - I will make a point of asking.
> 
> If anyone has any questions they'd like me to ask Dolby, please let me know by next Tuesday and I will do my best to get answers.


I would like to know:

In a HT with an eight foot ceiling, I know the front on-ceiling speakers are 30-55 degrees for the main listening position. The charts don't show positioning the rear ceiling speakers when you have a 2 row HT. Where do the rear ceiling speakers go, and where do you point them?

Thanks,

Jim S.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Disney is doing the same thing with 3D Blu-rays. ...They release them overseas but not here!
> ...Some great titles. ...And not just Disney.
> 
> Why is that you may ask? Because one word: Money.





M Code said:


> U do realize Blu-Rays pricing in the UK are almost _double_ the USA price....


My quote, above yours.

* But it's not entirely true. They sell more overseas, better market. 
And in Canada, Amazon.ca totally sucks with their outrageous prices!
I'd rather order from Amazon.uk or Amazon.fr (France), sometimes.
And some stuff you simply cannot get here; you have no choice but to order from overseas. 
We live in a sad reality world for few things, here. ...But others live in a sadder reality world, for other things, from over there, overseas, and beyond...


----------



## petetherock

Skylinestar said:


> Atmos demo at the HongKong AV show:
> http://www.feversound1.com/140809-atmos/


Hmm... the ceiling speaker positions will mean some major hacking to retrofit them into existing homes...

Not too WAF friendly I am afraid...


----------



## brwsaw

petetherock said:


> Hmm... the ceiling speaker...
> 
> Not too WAF friendly I am afraid...



The WAF goes out the window the first time she's wowed by the improvement.
I'm keeping her.


----------



## NorthSky

brwsaw said:


> The WAF goes out the window the first time she's wowed by the improvement.
> *I'm keeping her*.


The new Dolby Atmos receiver?


----------



## Nightlord

M Code said:


> U do realize Blu-Rays pricing in the UK are almost _double_ the USA price....
> 
> Just my $0.03...


A brand new 3d-BluRay quite often cost $35-40 here in Sweden, but they do drop down after a while.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Jim S. said:


> I would like to know:
> 
> In a HT with an eight foot ceiling, I know the front on-ceiling speakers are 30-55 degrees for the main listening position. The charts don't show positioning the rear ceiling speakers when you have a 2 row HT. Where do the rear ceiling speakers go, and where do you point them?


Looking at a side view of your room/seating. Extend a line from the front ears toward the rear, with a 30 deg elevation. From the rear ears, extend a line with a 55 deg elevation. Where do they intersect?


----------



## petetherock

Seems that in my small 3m (Width) by 5m (Length) space, I can only place the rear ceiling surrounds?
The Front Ceiling ones will be too close to the front wall?


----------



## Nightlord

petetherock said:


> Seems that in my small 3m (Width) by 5m (Length) space, I can only place the rear ceiling surrounds?
> The Front Ceiling ones will be too close to the front wall?


I severely doubt that. The smaller room, the more speakers you generally need to use. I think it will apply to Atmos highs just the same.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> Looking at a side view of your room/seating. Extend a line from the front ears toward the rear, with a 30 deg elevation. From the rear ears, extend a line with a 55 deg elevation. Where do they intersect?




I think I have the answer. Follow the direction of the thumb!


----------



## petetherock

The problem I guess, is that if you use the HK show as an example of how to place speakers, they placed the ceiling speakers nearer the centre of the action, rather than in the periphery, so I can't use my current false ceiling cove to run the extra cables...

And looking at the Onkyo speaker:
http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-SKH-410-Atmos-Enabled-Speaker-System/dp/B00LN0O0C0

This needs to sit on top of some other speaker / stand, and there will be another speaker run in the room.
That's not going to please the lady of the house. My compliments to those who have generous wives and even more generous dens to do the needed cable runs...


----------



## Luke M

David Susilo said:


> We north americans are far more "price sensitive" than those in the UK.


It's funny you say that, because the stereotype is that Brits are penny pinchers. I would say N.A. is more like Germany than the UK in terms of willingness to spend a bit more for quality.


----------



## cwt

NorthSky said:


> I like David, I really do; he's a real nice guy.
> 
> Yes, I've read that (regarding Dolby Atmos). Lonnie is simply looking into that, and that's all he said that he can do; looking into it.
> 
> If, ever Dolby Atmos comes inside the Emotiva XMC-1, that'll be the day.
> And comes next month Dolby Atmos will be in our homes.
> and regarding AccuEQ versus Audyssey (XT32 flavor) working in tandem with Dolby Atmos; we'll see...


Actually I feel dirty defending onkyo/integra after being shafted owning a dtr10.5 that never got the promised upgrades 

Vis the xmc1 ;we dont know exactly how the signals are routed and even if the zone outs can be reconfigured . Its plain that the multiple pcbs can be switched out as well looking at the innards [and the hdmi board has been already ] ; it has a similar architecture to a krell foundation so who knows what the future holds  Its the base model with other variants to come .. Costs need to be amortized 

Anyway this is o/t when atmos is the go ;Ide put definite money on Gravity being the poster boy bd even considering it's recent release ..


----------



## kbarnes701

Zen Traveler said:


> I really like coming hewre but have come to the realization that not many, if any insiders are reading this thread nor pay attention to this forum insofar as their business decisions are concerned....


You'd be surprised. When I posted my report on the Dolby London demo I attended, where they mistakenly used two clips that had not had studio approval for public exhibition, Dolby were in touch with me within hours to ask me if I would remove certain details from the report (which I was happy to do of course). So either Dolby or the Studio concerned, or someone with inside information on those clips was definitely watching


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> We north americans are far more "price sensitive" than those in the UK. The margins here are so tiny we have turned ourselves into a secondary and tertiary market. That is the same reason cars, better options for the said cars etc are launched in China first. This is why Europeans have more selection of cars than anywhere else in the world.


I can’t seem to quote the person you were quoting in your reply, David. It was about 3D Blurays being released in the UK and not in the US. I have no idea if that is so or not, but the answer is a multi-region Bluray player, like my Oppo, which has a simple hardware modification to make it multi-region. I regularly buy Blurays from the US, for example, because they are different versions, or not released here at all or whatever.

Because US prices are generally cheaper than UK prices, even allowing for postage to the UK, the price usually is more or less the same as buying here.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're subsidizing our discounted prices.  However, there are some titles I've saved quite a bit on by importing them from the U.K. Certain boxed sets, especially.


Yeah, it works both ways, but generally US BD prices are a lot cheaper than UK.

For example:

Lego Movie: $17.96, UK price $21.79
Noah: $17.99, UK price $21.79
Divergent: $18.96, UK price $31.00
Frozen: $24.96, UK price $32.13
Lone Survivor: $19.99, UK price $33.55
Smaug: $22.25, UK price $37.00

All prices off Amazon US and Amazon UK. Content may vary in terms of extras etc. Currency conversion: Google at 10 Aug 14.

So not exactly the "double" that Mcode was saying, but certainly more expensive. Back catalog titles are where the biggest differences come in, and the UK can be cheaper then than the US.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jim S. said:


> I would like to know:
> 
> In a HT with an eight foot ceiling, I know the front on-ceiling speakers are 30-55 degrees for the main listening position. The charts don't show positioning the rear ceiling speakers when you have a 2 row HT. Where do the rear ceiling speakers go, and where do you point them?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim S.


Good question, Jim. I will add that to the list.

EDIT: Just seen Roger's reply. That seems to be the answer - using the 'overlap' of the angles, find a position that is within spec for both listeners. I will ask it anyway, but I can’t see any flaw in Roger's idea at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Seems that in my small 3m (Width) by 5m (Length) space, I can only place the rear ceiling surrounds?
> The Front Ceiling ones will be too close to the front wall?


How far are the MLP ears from the front wall?


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> How far are the MLP ears from the front wall?


Currently I am seated about 2.8m away, but I will be moving further back after the ceiling speakers are sited to about 3.5-3.8m from the front wall.

Cheers


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Currently I am seated about 2.8m away, but I will be moving further back after the ceiling speakers are sited to about 3.5-3.8m from the front wall.
> 
> Cheers


I forgot to ask you your ceiling height - my bad. But assuming it is the typical 8 feet (2.4m), then using the angles prescribed for Top Front speakers (30-55 degrees), you could place Top Front speakers anywhere between those angles. If you used 35 degrees, then the Top Fronts would be roughly 50 inches (1.27m) from the front wall. If you used 45 degrees as your chosen angle, then the Top Fronts would be roughly 75 inches (1.9m) from the front wall. I am assuming a seated ears height of 37 inches. I say 'roughly' because I did the calculation on the back of an envelope (literally) so the measurements may be slightly 'off', but they serve as proof of concept: you can indeed mount Top Front speakers within spec.


----------



## petetherock

Thanks mate,
I have a 3m high ceiling, or 2.8m from the cove / false ceiling..

I am wondering aloud if I can recruit the old Height speakers, mounted on my front wall at about 2.7m high to be used as "Front Ceiling" speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Thanks mate,
> I have a 3m high ceiling, or 2.8m from the cove / false ceiling..
> 
> I am wondering aloud if I can recruit the old Height speakers, mounted on my front wall at about 2.7m high to be used as "Front Ceiling" speakers?


OK no problem - with a 3m high ceiling, the 45 degree angle for top front ceiling speakers places them about 53 inches (1.35m) from the front wall, which is still well within spec.

The prescribed angles for Front Height speakers are 30-45 degrees. My envelope indicates that the 30 degree angle would intersect pretty much with where your front height speakers are currently located. But I wouldn't do it that way personally - I would want much more separation in the front plane between my foremost pair of Atmos speakers and the main speakers. As you can place Top Front ceiling speakers more or less perfectly, that is the way I would go. I envy you that 3m high ceiling.

EDIT: sorry, did I misunderstand you? Did you mean can you use the current FH speakers mounted on the ceiling instead? I see no reason why not. What sort are they? Monopoles? Dual concentrics? Do they have a nice wide, off-axis dispersion pattern?


----------



## brwsaw

NorthSky said:


> The new Dolby Atmos receiver?


I guess it could be read either way.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> OK no problem - with a 3m high ceiling, the 45 degree angle for top front ceiling speakers places them about 53 inches (1.35m) from the front wall, which is still well within spec.
> 
> The prescribed angles for Front Height speakers are 30-45 degrees. My envelope indicates that the 30 degree angle would intersect pretty much with where your front height speakers are currently located. But I wouldn't do it that way personally - I would want much more separation in the front plane between my foremost pair of Atmos speakers and the main speakers. As you can place Top Front ceiling speakers more or less perfectly, that is the way I would go. I envy you that 3m high ceiling.
> 
> EDIT: sorry, did I misunderstand you? Did you mean can you use the current FH speakers mounted on the ceiling instead? I see no reason why not. What sort are they? Monopoles? Dual concentrics? Do they have a nice wide, off-axis dispersion pattern?



Thanks, they are mounted on the front wall (I have a link to a pic of what I am using in my signature  )...
The front speakers are 2 metres or so below, so this might work... I rue to have to rip apart that pretty ceiling..


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Thanks, they are mounted on the front wall (I have a link to a pic of what I am using in my signature  )...
> The front speakers are 2 metres or so below, so this might work... I rue to have to rip apart that pretty ceiling..


I looked at your pics. Is there any chance of replacing two of those lights with in-ceiling designs? They look as if they are in roughly the right place, but it is hard to tell from the photos.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> I looked at your pics. Is there any chance of replacing two of those lights with in-ceiling designs? They look as if they are in roughly the right place, but it is hard to tell from the photos.


Sadly no... the ceiling is filled with rock wool, wooden beams etc, so I am stuffed ... literally...

I am planning to run a small trunking into the cove, then at the right distance - drill through to place a ceiling speaker. I am planning to use the Anthony Gallo A'dia.


----------



## jacked

kbarnes701 said:


> You'd be surprised. When I posted my report on the Dolby London demo I attended, where they mistakenly used two clips that had not had studio approval for public exhibition, Dolby were in touch with me within hours to ask me if I would remove certain details from the report (which I was happy to do of course). So either Dolby or the Studio concerned, or someone with inside information on those clips was definitely watching


Hi Keith,


I`m really looking forward to your next report following your next Dolby visit this week. Allan has told me all about your first experiences at Dolby recently and he was truly gob-smacked by what he heard, and it sounds like you were as well going off your report !!


Hopefully when you attend this time you might experience some different demo clips - that you can talk openly about, get to hear the Dolby Surround upmixing ability on normal blurays, and if nothing`s been announced in the meantime get a sneaky hint as to what bluray titles we can expect.


And yes, try and blag a copy of that Dolby Atmos disc.


Cheers Keith,
Dave


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Sadly no... the ceiling is filled with rock wool, wooden beams etc, so I am stuffed ... literally...


Always the same with me - every good idea has an equally good problem that prevents it happening 

I am planning to run a small trunking into the cove, then at the right distance - drill through to place a ceiling speaker. I am planning to use the Anthony Gallo A'dia.[/QUOTE]

Seems like the only way. Just keep telling yourself it will be worth it...


----------



## kbarnes701

jacked said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> 
> I`m really looking forward to your next report following your next Dolby visit this week. Allan has told me all about your first experiences at Dolby recently and he was truly gob-smacked by what he heard, and it sounds like you were as well going off your report !!
> 
> 
> Hopefully when you attend this time you might experience some different demo clips - that you can talk openly about, get to hear the Dolby Surround upmixing ability on normal blurays, and if nothing`s been announced in the meantime get a sneaky hint as to what bluray titles we can expect.
> 
> 
> And yes, try and blag a copy of that Dolby Atmos disc.
> 
> 
> Cheers Keith,
> Dave


Hi Dave - yes Allan and I were both incredibly impressed at the first demo. I do know that I will be hearing different clips this time, and I will be able to comment freely on them so look out for the report towards the back end of the coming week.

I am really keen to hear the upmixing. Last time it wasn't possible because all the content was run off a laptop for the HT demo and I guess they only had the Atmos stuff on there. IDK if it will be the same this time. I hope I get chance to report on the upmixing because, let's face it, that is what most of us will be using most of the time, until there is considerable Atmos content available. I can understand Dolby not being too keen on showcasing the upmixing though, as they want to concentrate on 'pure' Atmos. I will see what I can do.

I am guessing they will say nothing about upcoming titles, but it is on my questions list. 

As for the demo disc, I might have to cause a distraction while I slip one into my back pocket LOL...


----------



## tjenkins95

Franin said:


> I agree





kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, it works both ways, but generally US BD prices are a lot cheaper than UK.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Lego Movie: $17.96, UK price $21.79
> Noah: $17.99, UK price $21.79
> Divergent: $18.96, UK price $31.00
> Frozen: $24.96, UK price $32.13
> Lone Survivor: $19.99, UK price $33.55
> Smaug: $22.25, UK price $37.00
> 
> All prices off Amazon US and Amazon UK. Content may vary in terms of extras etc. Currency conversion: Google at 10 Aug 14.
> 
> So not exactly the "double" that Mcode was saying, but certainly more expensive. Back catalog titles are where the biggest differences come in, and the UK can be cheaper then than the US.


 
I have a large collection of blu-rays and dvds from the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, and Asia. Sometimes I pay full price and sometimes I purchase them when they go on sale.
Often the European companies release American TV series in blu-ray when the US only releases a dvd version. Also, I find that most of the TV series produced in Europe are far more entertaining than some of the shows here. And, a lot of people would be surprised by the fact that a large number of American TV series actually originate from the UK, France, Sweden, etc.. Owning a multi-region Oppo Blu-ray player is a good thing!


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



SoundChex said:


> ...
> *Section 7*, _starting page 48_, of "*Report ITU- R BS.2159-6 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications*" (_link_) includes summaries of some studies concerned with whether increasing numbers of (mostly) overhead speakers actually produces "better sound". My conclusion from this material is that in a listening environment with excellent room treatment the perceived quality of *24.1.10* playback will likely be less than 10% better than the perceived quality of *7.1.4* playback at the MLP . . . and at a very much higher cost. (_If one has a large seating area or conversely the speakers are arranged at the periphery of a large listening space that assessment should be revisited._) In line with that, I've set myself an upper limit of *9.x.6* for both my "movie systems" although in practice I suspect I'll find myself limited to a *7.x Standard* _main layer_ for one system and a *5.x Standard plus 2x Front Wides* _main layer_ for the other (_either way, keeping the "prepro out" channel count at 16 or less to avoid the 'price bump' of going higher_).
> _


First of all, many thks SoundChex for the above VERY interesting document. 

Then in our case, since almost 5 yrs now, we own an 11.1 (2) type of installation, configured as per Audyssey DSX requirements (= angular speakers positionnings). With 7 front Klipsch KL650 THX U2 speakers precisely positioned as can be seen on page 16 of the above ITU document, but with 4 rear Klipsch KS525 THX U2 Bipolar Surround and Back speakers being elevated @ 40° above ear level, and their azimuth angles following the "standard" recommendations.

And today our use of this installation is based on a Marantz 8801 (Audyssey Pro calibrated) feeding the excellent DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing to 2 Onkyo Pa MC5500 9 channels amplifiers.

Now with the arrival of Dolby Atmos and as soon as possible of DTS-UHD, I'm planning to buy the future Marantz AV8802, which is supposed to have a capacity to drive independently 13.1 (2) channels. Will that be ALL 13 channels at the same time, in the case of Dolby Atmos? This remains to be seen. But anyway this Marantz 8802 has the _potential capacity_ to do that.

In our actual 11.2 context, we will though be able to use a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration, as our actual Front Height speakers are adequately positioned at a 45° elevation and even though their azimuth angle at 45°, isn't strictly conform with what Dolby recommends. But my opinion is that this won't be a problem...

Now as I had the privilege to assist to a recent 5.1.2 Onkyo Dolby Atmos press presentation with up-firing additional Onkyo SKH410 speakers (see my positive feed-back here (in French)), I am also convinced (my own _impression_, clearly without any kind of comparison  ) that in an "advanced" HT context, a x.1.4 configuration with direct firing speakers will _probably_ produce a better subjective impression of envelopment.

So as in our installation the Back Klipsch KS525 Bipolar speakers are physically located at 40°, I will leave them at their actual position. In order for them to be used/recognized/wired as Height Back speakers, and with the addition 2 other Back speakers located @ ear level. My opinion as already expressed here, being that it is the angular difference between the reference (in our HT contexet: ear level) speakers and Height/Top speakers, which de facto creates the 3D subjective impression.

But then what is the optimal angular difference to get the best - Dolby Atmos or Surround - effect? This remains to be indicated, even if from the above ITU document, I think that one can get some interesting ideas...

Anyway, in our configuration, I'm also planning to swap our actual Front Height Klipsch KL650 with the actual Surround Klipsch KS525 Bipolar surrounds. In order to position the Klipsch KS525 Bipolars as Front Heights at an azimuth and elevation 45° location and re-position both KL650s as Surrounds at an azimuth 100° and slightly above ear level elevation. The idea being to have a continuous homogeneity at ear level (front firing KL650) and Height level (Bipolars KS525).

All this will give us a nice 9.2.4 context - compatible with Dolby Atmos, but also with the actual DTS Neo X 11 and Audyssey DSx processings -, and without any "extreme" changes...  All this also in anticipation to the creation of a 9.2.6 configuration which has my clear preference (and will be manageable when 15 channels processors become available); precisely a 9.2.4.2 configuration, where the last .2 are Top/ceiling speakers _à la_ Auro 3D (see here). 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

helvetica bold said:


> Did you guys see Onkyo is offering free atmos speakers... Looks like UK only
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130222-onkyo-giving-away-free-dolby-atmos-overhead-speaker-systems


Same thing here in France... till the end of September in the case of a purchase of an Onkyo Dolby Atmos compatible processor... 

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Owning a multi-region Oppo Blu-ray player is a good thing!


Sure is, for the small additional cost when buying the player (or doing it yourself using a kit from eBay), it opens up the whole world of content.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> I am really keen to hear the upmixing. Last time it wasn't possible because all the content was run off a laptop for the HT demo and I guess they only had the Atmos stuff on there. IDK if it will be the same this time. I hope I get chance to report on the upmixing because, let's face it, that is what most of us will be using most of the time, until there is considerable Atmos content available. I can understand Dolby not being too keen on showcasing the upmixing though, as they want to concentrate on 'pure' Atmos. I will see what I can do.
> ...


Concerning the "upmixing", yesterday I briefly watched some extracts of Gravity (a title I haven't seen yet), through a BRD that some friends brought home. 

It was done with the usual DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing that we use at home and I have to say that I was/we weren't prepared for the exceptionally enveloping and almost 3D like sound that the DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing offered on this title. Really impressing.

After this experience, I'll have to buy this BRD (after Dolby's Atmos BRD titles announcement...  ) as what a "simple" DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing can do on this Gravity title, becomes reference for me.

Bon Dimanche,

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the "upmixing", yesterday I briefly watched some extracts of Gravity (a title I haven't seen yet), through a BRD that some friends brought home.
> 
> It was done with the usual DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing that we use at home and I have to say that I was/we weren't prepared for the exceptionally enveloping and almost 3D like sound that the DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing offered on this title. Really impressing.
> 
> After this experience, I'll have to buy this BRD (after Dolby's Atmos BRD titles announcement...  ) as what a "simple" DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing can do on this Gravity title, becomes reference for me.
> 
> Bon Dimanche,
> 
> Hugo


Ça va Hugo!

Yes, Gravity is a terrifically enveloping sound even without Atmos. But with Atmos, it really blew me away, or knocked my socks off if you are familiar with that expression. In the cinema, on a huge screen, in the scene near the beginning when Sandra Bullock and George Clooney get the message from ground control to abort the spacewalk, my actual pulse rate went up and I started to sweat! I was almost literally outside the space vehicle with the actors, so realistic was the sound and the envelopment and the precision of the imaging. 

I played the disc here at home using Neo:X and also PLIIz and was hugely impressed with the sound.

Amitiés.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> You'd be surprised. When I posted my report on the Dolby London demo I attended, where they mistakenly used two clips that had not had studio approval for public exhibition, Dolby were in touch with me within hours to ask me if I would remove certain details from the report (which I was happy to do of course). So either Dolby or the Studio concerned, or someone with inside information on those clips was definitely watching


They're called Big Brother.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're called Big Brother.


“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”


----------



## jacked

kbarnes701 said:


> I am really keen to hear the upmixing. Last time it wasn't possible because all the content was run off a laptop for the HT demo and I guess they only had the Atmos stuff on there. IDK if it will be the same this time. I hope I get chance to report on the upmixing because, let's face it, that is what most of us will be using most of the time, until there is considerable Atmos content available. I can understand Dolby not being too keen on showcasing the upmixing though, as they want to concentrate on 'pure' Atmos. I will see what I can do.



I know their priority will be native Atmos and rightly so, but you`d think it`s in Dolby`s best interests to also demo the Dolby Surround with bluray to showcase the technology and its potential.


It won`t stop me from installing it but I think a "drip-feed" release schedule of new and back catalogue titles in Atmos might not be enough in itself to drive Atmos sales forward, without the upmixing as well being very impressive in it`s own right. 


I can`t wait to buy T2 for the 50th time !!


Dave


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jacked said:


> I know their priority will be native Atmos and rightly so, but you`d think it`s in Dolby`s best interests to also demo the Dolby Surround with bluray to showcase the technology and its potential.
> 
> 
> It won`t stop me from installing it but I think a "drip-feed" release schedule of new and back catalogue titles in Atmos might not be enough in itself to drive Atmos sales forward, without the upmixing as well being very impressive in it`s own right.
> 
> 
> I can`t wait to buy T2 for the 50th time !!
> 
> 
> Dave


Hopefully, remixed by the audio engineering team behind _Gravity_ or _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_! They'd make a lot of money in the remix biz.


----------



## kbarnes701

jacked said:


> I know their priority will be native Atmos and rightly so, but you`d think it`s in Dolby`s best interests to also demo the Dolby Surround with bluray to showcase the technology and its potential.


I agree, but maybe not at these particular demos. Don't worry - I will press for it!



jacked said:


> It won`t stop me from installing it but I think a "drip-feed" release schedule of new and back catalogue titles in Atmos might not be enough in itself to drive Atmos sales forward, without the upmixing as well being very impressive in it`s own right.


I agree. When I asked Dolby about upmixing, they said words to the effect that it was "really very good" but I guess they would say that 



jacked said:


> I can`t wait to buy T2 for the 50th time !!


LOL - me neither....


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> Ça va Hugo!


Parfaitement! En effet la Vie est Belle en cette fin de Dimanche après midi pluvieux, d'autant plus avec le verre de Lagavulin que j'ai juste à côté de moi et qui fleure toujours aussi bon... mais ça, je sais, que tu sais... 



the said:


> Yes, Gravity is a terrifically enveloping sound even without Atmos. But with Atmos, it really blew me away, or knocked my socks off if you are familiar with that expression. In the cinema, on a huge screen, in the scene near the beginning when Sandra Bullock and George Clooney get the message from ground control to abort the spacewalk, my actual pulse rate went up and I started to sweat! I was almost literally outside the space vehicle with the actors, so realistic was the sound and the envelopment and the precision of the imaging.
> 
> I played the disc here at home using Neo:X and also PLIIz and was hugely impressed with the sound.
> 
> Amitiés.


If all Atmos titles in 5.1/7.1 processed with DTS Neo X 11 Cinema, end up sounding the way this Gravity title does, waiting for the arrival of the 8802 @ Feb 15', will though be much easier. 

Amitiés à Toi,

Hugo


----------



## wse

Hugo S said:


> Hi Keith, Parfaitement! En effet la Vie est Belle en cette fin de Dimanche après midi pluvieux, d'autant plus avec le verre de Lagavulin que j'ai juste à côté de moi et qui fleure toujours aussi bon... mais ça, je sais, que tu sais...  If all Atmos titles in 5.1/7.1 processed with DTS Neo X 11 Cinema, end up sounding the way this Gravity title does, waiting for the arrival of the 8802 @ Feb 15', will though be much easier.  Amitiés à Toi, Hugo


Hugo, Dans quel region habites tu? Lagavulin? Je n'ai jamais entendue parler de cette boisson, sounds good 

DTS NeoX cinema is very interesting, Atmos should top that I hope


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> Parfaitement! En effet la Vie est Belle en cette fin de Dimanche après midi pluvieux, d'autant plus avec le verre de Lagavulin que j'ai juste à côté de moi et qui fleure toujours aussi bon... mais ça, je sais, que tu sais...


Un dimanche parfait, sauf pour la pluie. 



Hugo S said:


> If all Atmos titles in 5.1/7.1 processed with DTS Neo X 11 Cinema, end up sounding the way this Gravity title does, waiting for the arrival of the 8802 @ Feb 15', will though be much easier.
> 
> Amitiés à Toi,
> 
> Hugo


I hope you are right. And then of course there is the Atmos upmixer itself... that should give a great result, I hope...


----------



## markrubin

thread cleanup


----------



## duc135

kbarnes701 said:


> You'd be surprised. When I posted my report on the Dolby London demo I attended, where they mistakenly used two clips that had not had studio approval for public exhibition, Dolby were in touch with me within hours to ask me if I would remove certain details from the report (which I was happy to do of course). So either Dolby or the Studio concerned, or someone with inside information on those clips was definitely watching


I doubt they're paying close attention to the details of threads like these, but if they're like our company, they have at least one dedicated staff member assigned to scour social media for mention of their company name or affiliates, products, etc. Or they hire a company to do it.


----------



## kbarnes701

duc135 said:


> I doubt they're paying close attention to the details of threads like these, but if they're like our company, they have at least one dedicated staff member assigned to scour social media for mention of their company name or affiliates, products, etc. Or they hire a company to do it.


If they're scouring for Atmos or Dolby, they'll have their work cut out


----------



## duc135

True, they're definitely earning their pay if that's what they have to search for.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> If all Atmos titles in 5.1/7.1 processed with DTS Neo X 11 Cinema, end up sounding the way this Gravity title does, *waiting for the arrival of the 8802 @ Feb 15'*, will though be much easier.


I admire your decision to go 'straight to the top'. I am going for the relatively cheap Denon X4100W initially. It can handle 5.1.4 (I don't have room for rear surrounds unfortunately) which is all I need and it has XT32 and is Audyssey Pro ready. I will be using it as a prepro as I have external amplification for all 9 channels. I am hoping that I can fund most or even all of the cost of the unit by selling my flagship Onkyo 5509 processor, especially as the replacement 5530 has dropped Audyssey in favour of AccuEQ! (http://www.avland.co.uk/aasp/onkyo/1420/prsc5530/pr-sc5530.asp) My thinking is that with 'Generation One' of Atmos, I don't want to spend too much on an AVR or AVP at this stage. If Generation Two comes along in a year or so, with additional features (eg the ability to measure our speaker angles and provide that information to the rendering engine) then it won't have cost me a fortune to take this first Atmos step.

And I can start in September or October without having to wait until next year!

The 8802 looks like being a formidable unit though!


----------



## Hugo S

wse said:


> Hugo, Dans quel region habites tu? Lagavulin? Je n'ai jamais entendue parler de cette boisson, sounds good


NW Paris region. 

Now Keith is directly responsible  for my conversion to Lagavulin, as my previous favorite Bowmore is only 2nd today - both having to be used with great moderation -... along with some products from a superb region in France : Bourgogne (Burgundy).  



> DTS NeoX cinema is very interesting, Atmos should top that I hope


I hope so too, singularly after the above indicated impressive Gravity experience with a DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing... 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> I admire your decision to go 'straight to the top'. I am going for the relatively cheap Denon X4100W initially. It can handle 5.1.4 (I don't have room for rear surrounds unfortunately) which is all I need and it has XT32 and is Audyssey Pro ready. I will be using it as a prepro as I have external amplification for all 9 channels. I am hoping that I can fund most or even all of the cost of the unit by selling my flagship Onkyo 5509 processor, especially as the replacement 5030 has dropped Audyssey in favour of AccuEQ! (http://www.avland.co.uk/aasp/onkyo/1420/prsc5530/pr-sc5530.asp) My thinking is that with 'Generation One' of Atmos, I don't want to spend too much on an AVR or AVP at this stage. If Generation Two comes along in a year or so, with additional features (eg the ability to measure our speaker angles and provide that information to the rendering engine) then it won't have cost me a fortune to take this first Atmos step.
> 
> And I can start in September or October without having to wait until next year!
> 
> The 8802 looks like being a formidable unit though!


The Onkyo processor driving the Onkyo Dolby Atmos presentation in Paris that I mentioned above, was an Onkyo 5530, AccuEQ calibrated for the presentation room. Now the presented Dolby Atmos processing wasn't the final version, was it the same for AccuEQ? I don't know...

... but I'm trying to do my best as to get a 5530 for an at home test in our 11.2 context, when it becomes publicly available... 

As the Marantz 8801 that we have at home today is a really wonderful processor (singularly with the latest FW...). Though the fact that my bet lies on the fact that the new Marantz 8802 - with its' Dolby Atmos 11 or maybe 13 capacity-, can sound-wise, only be _at least_ as good as its' predecessor... 

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> ... but I'm trying to do my best as to get a 5530 for an at home test in our 11.2 context, when it becomes publicly available...


I'd be very, very interested in hearing what you have to say about that unit, Hugo. Especially AccuEQ.



Hugo S said:


> As the Marantz 8801 that we have at home today is a really wonderful processor (singularly with the latest FW...). Though the fact that my bet lies on the fact that the new Marantz 8802 - with its' Dolby Atmos 11 or maybe 13 capacity-, can sound-wise, only be _at least_ as good as its' predecessor...
> 
> Hugo


I am sure that the 8802 will not disappoint you in any way!


----------



## helvetica bold

I was best best buy and noticed this. Thought you fellas might enjoy the pic.

I noticed in the pic from the Hong Kong show Sony logo was next to the Atmos logo.
Have they announced anything yet?


----------



## wse

Any idea how much will the *Steinway Lyngdorf P2 Dolby Atmos Processor will cost?*


----------



## Franin

kbarnes701 said:


> I admire your decision to go 'straight to the top'. I am going for the relatively cheap Denon X4100W initially. It can handle 5.1.4 (I don't have room for rear surrounds unfortunately) which is all I need and it has XT32 and is Audyssey Pro ready. I will be using it as a prepro as I have external amplification for all 9 channels. I am hoping that I can fund most or even all of the cost of the unit by selling my flagship Onkyo 5509 processor, especially as the replacement 5530 has dropped Audyssey in favour of AccuEQ! (http://www.avland.co.uk/aasp/onkyo/1420/prsc5530/pr-sc5530.asp) My thinking is that with 'Generation One' of Atmos, I don't want to spend too much on an AVR or AVP at this stage. If Generation Two comes along in a year or so, with additional features (eg the ability to measure our speaker angles and provide that information to the rendering engine) then it won't have cost me a fortune to take this first Atmos step.
> 
> And I can start in September or October without having to wait until next year!
> 
> The 8802 looks like being a formidable unit though!


That's the thing, I haven't had my 8801 for that long and as much as I want to jump into atmos I might actually wait for gen 2 units. By then hopefully there will be a good amount of atmos titles released.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> When I asked Dolby about upmixing, they said words to the effect that it was "really very good" but I guess they would say that


I had a brief listen to it last February and it was "very good.."

However, I might have another chance to hear it tomorrow. 

Any other questions you or anyone else want answered?


----------



## NorthSky

Yes Marc; Dolby Surround upmixer, does it work without Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and without those little Dolby Atmos speakers firing @ the ceiling from the top of your two front mains and two main surrounds?

Thank you for your cooperation. - Robocop


----------



## Kriilin

FilmMixer said:


> I had a brief listen to it last February and it was "very good.."
> 
> However, I might have another chance to hear it tomorrow.
> 
> Any other questions you or anyone else want answered?


I have one, and I don't think it would violate any NDAs: Are there any unmarked Atmos Blu ray currently in the wild? I don't expect specific titles to be mentioned, but if they are, great! Thanks in advance.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kriilin said:


> I have one, and I don't think it would violate any NDAs: Are their any unmarked Atmos Blu ray currently in the wild? I don't expect specific titles to be mentioned, but if they are, great! Thanks in advance.


I believe that ground has been covered before. It's just upcoming discs yet to be announced (a sprinkling, probably, of new and catalog titles).


----------



## FilmMixer

Kriilin said:


> I have one, and I don't think it would violate any NDAs: Are there any unmarked Atmos Blu ray currently in the wild? I don't expect specific titles to be mentioned, but if they are, great! Thanks in advance.


Based on a conversation I had with someone last week, the answer is no.

I think the Sony Blu Print authoring solution has just added support for the codec.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> I can already answer that question.
> 
> No. At least two overhead speakers are required, either direct or Elevation.
> 
> What would it be up-mixing to?


I dunno, I thought that perhaps the main channels were also part of the up-mixing thing.
So you need additional speakers for the new Dolby Surround "upmixer" audio mode for both Music listening and Movies. ...Gotcha.

And Dolby Pro Logic II, IIx and IIz Audio, Movie, and Game modes; gone? ...Dolby Surround will still do it?


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> I dunno, I thought that perhaps the main channels were also part of the up-mixing thing.
> So you need additional speakers for the new Dolby Surround "upmixer" audio mode for both Music listening and Movies. ...Gotcha.
> 
> And Dolby Pro Logic IIx and IIz Audio, Movie, and Game modes; gone? ...Dolby Surround will still do it?


I was told a while ago that IIz would be "retired" from Atmos products.

Denon has removed the Iix decoders according to their manual. I don't know if that is a requirement from Dolby or at the manufacturer's discretion. 

That I will try and get an answer for.


----------



## Franin

FilmMixer said:


> Based on a conversation I had with someone last week, the answer is no.


Hey Marc have you begun mixing in atmos?


----------



## FilmMixer

Franin said:


> Hey Marc have you begun mixing in atmos?


I have an upcoming project that we are talking about.... but up until now I've only done one film.


----------



## NorthSky

Marc, did you accidentally delete your first reply to my first question? ...It is bizarre because I quoted you but now I cannot find your post (look @ my post number 3622 where I'm quoting you).


----------



## Franin

FilmMixer said:


> I have an upcoming project that we are talking about.... but up until now I've only done one film.


That's good!! 😀 I'm still deciding wether to take the move to atmos or still sit on the fence and wait.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Marc, did you accidentally delete your first reply to my first question? ...It is bizarre because I quoted you but now I cannot find your post (look @ my post number 3622 where I'm quoting you).


Yes.. it was an accident.


----------



## NorthSky

I knew it. lol


----------



## Snowmanick

FilmMixer said:


> I had a brief listen to it last February and it was "very good.."
> 
> However, I might have another chance to hear it tomorrow.
> 
> Any other questions you or anyone else want answered?


Maybe you or others can already answer this, but would DTS Blu's/DVD's present a problem for the upmixer? Part of me thinks it obviously wouldn't, but I've seen companies do silly things to keep products proprietary before (cough..Sony..cough).


----------



## wse

Hugo S said:


> NW Paris region. Now Keith is directly responsible  for my conversion to Lagavulin, as my previous favorite Bowmore is only 2nd today - both having to be used with great moderation -... along with some products from a superb region in France : Bourgogne (Burgundy).  Hugo


Very well. I like a nice glass of Alizé myself 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alizé


----------



## NorthSky

Snowmanick said:


> Maybe you or others can already answer this, but would DTS Blu's/DVD's present a problem for the upmixer? Part of me thinks it obviously wouldn't, but I've seen companies do silly things to keep products proprietary before (cough..Sony..cough).


For that you would need a dts surround upmixer (DTS-UHD). 
...Comin' up sometimes next year, I presume. ...Fall 2015.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> I dunno, I thought that perhaps the main channels were also part of the up-mixing thing.
> So you need additional speakers for the new Dolby Surround "upmixer" audio mode for both Music listening and Movies. ...Gotcha.
> 
> And Dolby Pro Logic II, IIx and IIz Audio, Movie, and Game modes; gone? ...Dolby Surround will still do it?


Dolby Surround will certainly upmix stereo to 5.1/7.1, and upmix 5.1 to 7.1 (when no heights are used). It is unclear whether it will upmix to "wide" speakers. Dolby explicitly excluded Lc/Rc from upmixer use.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Snowmanick said:


> Maybe you or others can already answer this, but would DTS Blu's/DVD's present a problem for the upmixer?


They will be treated just like any other 5.1 or 7.1 content. If the AVRs are fussy about decoding DTS-HD MA plus Dolby Surround, the DTS can be decoded in the BD player.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Any other questions you or anyone else want answered?


Andrew Jones said Dolby defined a specific DI for the ceiling-firing speakers. I'd like to know if the dispersion of such a speaker should be no wider or no narrower than the defined limit.
Thanks!


----------



## SoundChex

FilmMixer said:


> "From The Lost Post"
> No. At least two overhead speakers are required, either direct or Elevation.



Either now or in the future, I wonder if something like *Pioneer* _Virtual Height Speaker_ or *Yamaha* _Virtual Presence Speaker_ technologies might allow *5.1.2* or *5.1.4* speaker *Atmos* playback with some or all _nominal_ height speaker content reproduced using only the 5 _Main Layer_ speakers...?
_


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> They will be treated just like any other 5.1 or 7.1 content. If the AVRs are fussy about decoding DTS-HD MA plus Dolby Surround, the DTS can be decoded in the BD player.


...And sent as multich LPCM to the AVR's Dolby Surround upmixer.

_"Fussy"_; can they be? ...But not for long...

* Yes Marc, ask the Dolby people:
*How DTS-HD MA encoded Blu-rays (90% of them) will be 'treated' by the Dolby Surround upmixer*.


----------



## harrybnbad

I don't seem to find this addressed anywhere.

I have a question. When we start seeing the new Blu-ray discs come out with the new atmos ( what-ever ) sound. How's that going to sound on say a Neo:X avr. We all talk about how a few movies today, how the 5.1 or 7.1 REALLY made a difference in some certain movie or scene. ie. train wreck, super 8, the Gravity movie. I know there's more.....You know, those movies that have you look back at your speakers, and say. Ya, that's what this system is meant to do.....

Maybe nothing with the current movies that get tweaked to add atmos, but what about new movies in the future, that are recorded and made from the start with the atmos idea from the get go.....


----------



## harrybnbad

I'm still going to end up with an atmos avr. Just think i'll wait a bit, till at least 2nd gen systems come out. I'm hoping for 11.2.6. With one lazy boy recliner in the center. I want to sit inside my headphones......


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> I don't seem to find this addressed anywhere.
> 
> I have a question. When we start seeing the new Blu-ray discs come out with the new atmos ( what-ever ) sound. How's that going to sound on say a Neo:X avr. We all talk about how a few movies today, how the 5.1 or 7.1 REALLY made a difference in some certain movie or scene. ie. train wreck, super 8, the Gravity movie. I know there's more.....You know, those movies that have you look back at your speakers, and say. Ya, that's what this system is meant to do.....
> 
> Maybe nothing with the current movies that get tweaked to add atmos, but what about new movies in the future, that are recorded and made from the start with the atmos idea from the get go.....


i would assume that the new atmos AVRs will still be able to do Neo:X and that the new BD will have both Atmos and DTS sound tracks on them. i maybe wrong but lets hope


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> I'm still going to end up with an atmos avr. Just think i'll wait a bit, till at least 2nd gen systems come out. I'm hoping for 11.2.6. With one lazy boy recliner in the center. I want to sit inside my headphones......


i have installed two speakers in the ceiling kind of toed in pointing to my MLP... right now im using them as front highs in my very small den, they are positioned 1/3 of the way from my front speakers. while sitting in my command chair i watched Gravity 3D the sound and video were both very good i loved it, the movie itself was not very good IMHO too far fetched and sandra should have died many times and by some miracle makes it at the last second
I can't wait till September when we should start seeing Atmos AVRs i will be ready...


----------



## KidHorn

CinemaAndy said:


> Onkyo TX-NR636 could be on my doorstep by Tuesday. If i wanted it.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR63...F8&qid=1407636742&sr=1-1&keywords=Dolby+Atmos


Don't you have to apply a service update to be able to do atmos? When will that be available?


----------



## bargervais

KidHorn said:


> Don't you have to apply a service update to be able to do atmos? When will that be available?


your right it doesnot have atmos, it will have a Firware update sometime in September updating it to Atmos is what i understand


----------



## Mech0z

Do you think the SKH-410 is worth it, I am planning on getting a 636 but just wonder if its worth getting it full price with SKH-410 or on sale later when its 100$ cheaper


----------



## bargervais

Mech0z said:


> Do you think the SKH-410 is worth it, I am planning on getting a 636 but just wonder if its worth getting it full price with SKH-410 or on sale later when its 100$ cheaper


I think it would be worth it because you'll have to get something if you get some ceiling speakers and spend the time and money to install them. The up firing speakers are appealing as it would be an easier install maybe by the time the firmware comes out for your 636 they may be a little cheaper don't know but historical street prices are usually less then manufacturers suggested retail price... I'm just speculating


----------



## Mech0z

bargervais said:


> I think it would be worth it because you'll have to get something if you get some ceiling speakers and spend the time and money to install them. The up firing speakers are appealing as it would be an easier install maybe by the time the firmware comes out for your 636 they may be a little cheaper don't know but historical street prices are usually less then manufacturers suggested retail price... I'm just speculating


Its retailing for 3800 DKK atm and it often goes on sale for 800-1000 less within the first half year

But its going to be a big feature upgrade going from my Harman Kardon AVS 4500


----------



## willdao

Audioholics is offering a "preview" (teaser) about Denon's X4100W and X5200W:

http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w-avr-x4100w-av-receiver


----------



## bargervais

Mech0z said:


> Its retailing for 3800 DKK atm and it often goes on sale for 800-1000 less within the first half year
> 
> But its going to be a big feature upgrade going from my Harman Kardon AVS 4500


Cool hope I was helpful.


----------



## bargervais

Mech0z said:


> Its retailing for 3800 DKK atm and it often goes on sale for 800-1000 less within the first half year
> 
> But its going to be a big feature upgrade going from my Harman Kardon AVS 4500


Onkyo.US is selling them for $249.00 US dollars so your saying 3800 DKK that's about $650.00 US dollars. WOW does that include tax would it be cheaper to have them shipped to you from the USA


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Dolby Surround will certainly upmix stereo to 5.1/7.1, and upmix 5.1 to 7.1 (when no heights are used). It is unclear whether it will upmix to "wide" speakers. Dolby explicitly excluded Lc/Rc from upmixer use.


Just FYI -- but the Denon manuals for Atmos models (e.g. chart on pg 287 of the X5200W manual) explicitly exclude Front wide L/R output from the "Dolby Surround" output options.


----------



## batpig

NorthSky said:


> Yes Marc; Dolby Surround upmixer, does it work without Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and without those little Dolby Atmos speakers firing @ the ceiling from the top of your two front mains and two main surrounds?


We already know the answer to this. It's not JUST for Atmos, it also replaces (subsuuuuumes!) the older Pro Logic upmixing.

This quote has already been posted (from the Denon manual in this case):

*Dolby Surround*
Dolby surround is a next generation surround technology that intelligently up mixes stereo; 5.1 and 7.1 content for playback through your surround speaker system. *Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker layouts*, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ inceiling speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology.


----------



## mogorf

batpig said:


> *Dolby Surround*
> Dolby surround is a next generation surround technology that *intelligently* up mixes stereo; 5.1 and 7.1 content for playback through your surround speaker system.




Where would we be without those *intelligent* marketing guys, eh? :kiss:


----------



## batpig

NorthSky said:


> And Dolby Pro Logic II, IIx and IIz Audio, Movie, and Game modes; gone? ...Dolby Surround will still do it?


According to the oft-cited Denon manual....

First, the only ADUSTABLE parameter that I can find that is unique for Dolby Surround is a "Center Spread" setting. There is no longer any mention of "Panorama" or "Dimension" settings from the old PLII Music mode. "Center Spread" is described thusly in the manual and has only an On/Off setting (no adjustable scale):

*Center Spread
Center spread expands the center channel signal to left and right front speakers to create a wider frontal audio image for the listener. It is optimized and designed primary for playback of stereo music content.*


Second, in the surround mode selection chart on pg 292-293 of the X5200W manual, there is only mention of Cinema/Music/Game modes for DTS Neo:X, not for Dolby surround.

From this I can conclude that:

1) There is no longer any Cinema/Music/Game mode selection for Dolby upmixing, nor any adjustible sliding parameters.
2) Based on the description above of "Center Spread" being optimized for stereo music playback, this setting is effectively a proxy for Cinema vs. Music modes. 

So in other words:

- Dolby Surround upmix + Center Spread OFF = Cinema mode
- Dolby surround upmix + Center Spread ON = Music mode

The above only applies to 2ch stereo inputs since I doubt the "Center Spread" setting would even be available when upmixing sources that are already discrete multich.


----------



## mogorf

batpig said:


> *Center Spread
> Center spread expands the center channel signal to left and right front speakers to create a wider frontal audio image for the listener. It is optimized and designed primary for playback of stereo music content.*


As we know 2 ch stereo music does not contain a center channel, meatime most probably Dolby Surround (just like Dolby PL) creates a center channel from L &R contents that is then expanded back to L & R fronts. 

OK, ok, ...I'll leave it to you bp to translate that from Denon to English...(or any other language!)


----------



## Nightlord

I like that... Like the 'phantom' button on my old HK.  some movies might very well work better with phantom center, especially when watching something alone.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

batpig said:


> Just FYI -- but the Denon manuals for Atmos models (e.g. chart on pg 287 of the X5200W manual) explicitly exclude Front wide L/R output from the "Dolby Surround" output options.



Make the picture bigger!


----------



## mogorf

Nightlord said:


> I like that... Like the 'phantom' button on my old HK.  some movies might very well work better with phantom center, especially when watching something alone.


Why would a phantom center be better than a real center? Yo have the freedom while watching a movie to move right and left a bit and still hear dialog from dead center. BTW, if a movie has a 5.1/7.1 surround sound track (Dolby or DTS) the avr will default to that setting, you won't be able to set a phanthom center, no way.


----------



## batpig

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Make the picture bigger!


Stop yelling at me. You can always click on the thumbnail to view it larger.

I just uploaded the attachment and that's how it came out. AFAICT since AVSforum switched back to the new (old) software platform there is no way to add an in-line image from an upload, only from a web URL.


----------



## batpig

mogorf said:


> As we know 2 ch stereo music does not contain a center channel, meatime most probably Dolby Surround (just like Dolby PL) creates a center channel from L &R contents that is then expanded back to L & R fronts.
> 
> OK, ok, ...I'll leave it to you bp to translate that from Denon to English...(or any other language!)


If seemed pretty clear to me. Have you ever listened to stereo music and switched between PLII Music and PLII Cinema modes? With Cinema modes the extracted center channel signal collapses to the center channel speaker, with Music mode it is spread out across the L/C/R speakers (controllable with the Center Width setting). Thus my observation that this new "Center Spread" setting is probably a proxy for the (now defunct) Cinema vs. Music modes when upmixing stereo content.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Nightlord said:


> I like that... Like the 'phantom' button on my old HK.  some movies might very well work better with phantom center, especially when watching something alone.



No, more like a choice between a solid center (old PL2 movie) and a shared center (old PL2 music).

As time goes by we will probably see different options in different AVR models.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

batpig said:


> Stop yelling at me. You can always click on the thumbnail to view it larger.
> 
> I just uploaded the attachment and that's how it came out. AFAICT since AVSforum switched back to the new (old) software platform there is no way to add an in-line image from an upload, only from a web URL.




After you do the upload, copy the URL and insert it as an image. Same method that was used in the old days. That's all that I did!!!


----------



## Roger Dressler

bargervais said:


> i would assume that the new atmos AVRs will still be able to do Neo:X and that the new BD will have both Atmos and DTS sound tracks on them. i maybe wrong but lets hope


The BDs will not have both soundtracks. Atmos will deliver the standard 5.1/7.1 to whomever needs it. Neo:X will treat them the same as any other 5.1/7.1 mixes.


----------



## mogorf

batpig said:


> If seemed pretty clear to me. Have you ever listened to stereo music and switched between PLII Music and PLII Cinema modes?


Sure, I've tried it. With stereo music I always use PLII Music mode. It stretches the stereo signal to the surrounds, which I like, its like sitting in the middle of the band. My Preference! I use PLII cinema for cable movies (2 ch stereo) only.



> With Cinema modes the extracted center channel signal collapses to the center channel speaker, with Music mode it is spread out across the L/C/R speakers (controllable with the Center Width setting).


Been there, done that! After a lot of experimenting I settled with Center Width set to 5 (out of 7), Panorama: ON, Dimension: 0 (out of 6). YMMV.



> Thus my observation that this new "Center Spread" setting is probably a proxy for the (now defunct) Cinema vs. Music modes when upmixing stereo content.


Wonder how it will work, better to say how it integrates the two features (cinema and music) that were separatly adjustable in the past (ProLogicII). If it is taken away it's a pity.


----------



## duc135

Mech0z said:


> Do you think the SKH-410 is worth it, I am planning on getting a 636 but just wonder if its worth getting it full price with SKH-410 or on sale later when its 100$ cheaper





bargervais said:


> Onkyo.US is selling them for $249.00 US dollars so your saying 3800 DKK that's about $650.00 US dollars. WOW does that include tax would it be cheaper to have them shipped to you from the USA



I can't believe Onkyo is charging that much for a 3.25" fullrange driver in a box. The specs have no mention of any type of crossover or anything special other than putting a 3.25" driver in a box with connectors and hardware to make it wall mountable.

Type: Full-Range, Acoustic Suspension
Woofer:	8 cm (3 1/4") Cone
Rated Input Power:	25 W
Maximum Input Power:	100 W


----------



## Nightlord

mogorf said:


> Why would a phantom center be better than a real center?


It may 'paint a larger image' in the soundfield. Also, my fronts are probably playing slighly lower in distortion given the double boomers in the lower range. Focusing the center image is mostly needed for small pictures and secondly for off center positions. If I were watching something on my own, I would not be sitting off center, now would I? 

(Do note that I'm not using the wider 30degree opening on my fronts, I'm keeping them where they still project the optimal center imaging)


----------



## batpig

duc135 said:


> I can't believe Onkyo is charging that much for a 3.25" fullrange driver in a box. The specs have no mention of any type of crossover or anything special other than putting a 3.25" driver in a box with connectors and hardware to make it wall mountable.
> 
> Type: Full-Range, Acoustic Suspension
> Woofer:	8 cm (3 1/4") Cone
> Rated Input Power:	25 W
> Maximum Input Power:	100 W


The Definitive Technology version is $499/pair for a single 3" full range driver (although I guess it offers the extra feature of being able to clip on top of the BP-8060ST): http://www.definitivetech.com/products/a60

A side question on this topic, which I'm not sure I've seen discussed...

*Is there a specific functional reason why these Atmos "elevation" modules are single driver units? As opposed to a simple 2-way design with a midrange+tweeter array?*

I can see two possible explanations:

1) There is actually a good design reason why the single full range module works BETTER than a 2-way design
2) There is no advantage, rather it is simply cheaper to produce and the manufacturers know they can "get away with it" because the reflected sound isn't going to have a lot of fidelity


----------



## Selden Ball

A speaker with coaxial drivers probably would be OK, but two separate drivers would reflect their separate outputs off different areas of the ceiling and thus in different directions, producing a distorted frequency response at the primary listening position.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> A side question on this topic, which I'm not sure I've seen discussed...
> 
> *Is there a specific functional reason why these Atmos "elevation" modules are single driver units? As opposed to a simple 2-way design with a midrange+tweeter array?*
> 
> I can see two possible explanations:
> 
> 1) There is actually a good design reason why the single full range module works BETTER than a 2-way design
> 2) There is no advantage, rather it is simply cheaper to produce and the manufacturers know they can "get away with it" because the reflected sound isn't going to have a lot of fidelity


I want to know what the 'network' inside does (if there is one). It would be very interesting to do on-axis measurements of these speakers to figure out how to turn the 'fullrange' 3" surround speakers into atmos bouncers.


----------



## Nightlord

Selden Ball said:


> A speaker with coaxial drivers probably would be OK, but two separate drivers would reflect their separate outputs off different areas of the ceiling and thus in different directions, producing a distorted frequency response at the primary listening position.


You want tight beaming from the element, so I don't think you can make it bigger, even if going coaxial...


----------



## bargervais

Roger Dressler said:


> The BDs will not have both soundtracks. Atmos will deliver the standard 5.1/7.1 to whomever needs it. Neo:X will treat them the same as any other 5.1/7.1 mixes.


thanks


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Is there a specific functional reason why these Atmos "elevation" modules are single driver units? As opposed to a simple 2-way design with a midrange+tweeter array?


As soon as more than one driver is involved you get lobing. This is caused by interference between the two drivers in the crossover region. Fullrange or coax designs can prevent this although there are fullrange drivers that show some significant lobing (a fullrange driver is nothing more than multiple drivers with a mechanical crossover):










From http://www.visaton.de/en/chassis_zubehoer/breitband/fr10_4.html

Ceiling-firing Atmos speakers have to work over a range of greatly varying ceiling heights, speaker distances and listener locations hence lobing needs to be minimized.


----------



## mogorf

Nightlord said:


> It may 'paint a larger image' in the soundfield.


Not sure I get this..."larger image"? Larger than what? Ain't center best when it sticks dialog to... err, the center of the screen? 



> Also, my fronts are probably playing slighly lower in distortion given the double boomers in the lower range.


Do you mean your center shows THD in the lower range compared to the front L & Rs? Do you apply a crossover at or around 80 Hz? Why do you think your center is distorting? Did you troubleshoot this issue?



> Focusing the center image is mostly needed for small pictures and secondly for off center positions. If I were watching something on my own, I would not be sitting off center, now would I?


The idea of the center speaker was to put dialog dead center, regardless of how many people are watching and regardless of screen size. Just dead center.



> (Do note that I'm not using the wider 30degree opening on my fronts, I'm keeping them where they still project the optimal center imaging)


Why not? Any limitations for setting up L & Rs at +/- 30 deg?


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> As soon as more than one driver is involved you get lobing. This is caused by interference between the two drivers in the crossover region.


That's also true for any speaker though. Why is that specifically a bad thing for the Atmos elevation speakers? Is it just because of what Selden noted above, that it would be difficult to maintain coherence of the reflected beam with the drivers not co-located? If so, why not go to simple 2-way coaxial designs? Cost?




markus767 said:


> Fullrange or coax designs can prevent this although there are fullrange drivers that show some significant loving (a fullrange driver is nothing more than multiple drivers with a mechanical crossover)


You lost me on the last part. How is a single speaker driver really multiple drivers?


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I had a brief listen to it last February and it was "very good.."
> 
> However, I might have another chance to hear it tomorrow.
> 
> Any other questions you or anyone else want answered?


I am heartened by the fact you have heard it and found it very good. IDK if I will be able to get the chance to hear it on Wednesday in London. I hope so.


----------



## kbarnes701

Snowmanick said:


> Maybe you or others can already answer this, but would DTS Blu's/DVD's present a problem for the upmixer? Part of me thinks it obviously wouldn't, but I've seen companies do silly things to keep products proprietary before (cough..Sony..cough).


There should be no problem - it's just an upmixer. (Well, not 'just' BYKWIM).


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> That's also true for any speaker though. Why is that specifically a bad thing for the Atmos elevation speakers? Is it just because of what Selden noted above, that it would be difficult to maintain coherence of the reflected beam with the drivers not co-located? If so, why not go to simple 2-way coaxial designs? Cost?


Yes, cost. A coax is two drivers (there are even designs that have 3 drivers) in one and you need an additional crossover. Some fullrange drivers are remarkably flat with smooth off-axis response, e.g. the 3.5" designs by Peerless: http://www.tymphany.com/peerless/full-range
Crossovers are evil. They are only omnipresent because you can get more SPL with less distortion from a multi-driver speaker and you can control directivity.



batpig said:


> You lost me on the last part. How is a single speaker driver really multiple drivers?


At higher frequencies the diaphragm of a driver doesn't move like a single piston anymore. The diaphragm starts to bend and only certain parts emit sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Stop yelling at me. You can always click on the thumbnail to view it larger.
> 
> I just uploaded the attachment and that's how it came out. AFAICT since AVSforum switched back to the new (old) software platform there is no way to add an in-line image from an upload, only from a web URL.


You can, by getting the attachment link and then using that as the url for the embedded image. The image is then hosted at AVS and you don't need anything like Dropbox etc. It is a cumbersome process and leaves you with a thumbnail and a big image, unless you also delete the thumbnail. Making it so hard to attach images to a forum like this is a very retrograde step IMO, but that's the way vBulletin does it. I find it easier just to throw all the images I post into a special folder in my Dropbox and use those, but inevitably, one day, they will disappear and all that future readers will see is a placeholder.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> That's also true for any speaker though. Why is that specifically a bad thing for the Atmos elevation speakers? Is it just because of what Selden noted above, that it would be difficult to maintain coherence of the reflected beam with the drivers not co-located? If so, why not go to simple 2-way coaxial designs? Cost?


They only have to work from 180Hz up. I'm guessing a single 'full range' driver can handle that if it's about 4 inches in diameter.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> They only have to work from 180Hz up. I'm guessing a single 'full range' driver can handle that if it's about 4 inches in diameter.


My concern was more about the up than the down. Not the bass reproduction but rather sacrificing high freq response by not having a dedicated tweeter. But it appears a well designed 3-4" driver can handle that....


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Steve from AH here. In this case I used the term "Atmos upmixer" to describe the "Dolby surround upmixer" for the sake of specificity/descriptiveness, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> My own 2 cents on the topic: I'm interested to hear what the home implementations of Atmos have to offer. I'll be at CEDIA this September, so I'll get my opportunity; I'm particularly interested in the Pioneer Elite speakers (if nothing else, I'm a fan of concentric drivers). Nonetheless, my personal feel is that Atmos is something that belongs on the high end of the food chain. As I said over in the AH forums, if you've got a dedicated space and a 5.1 or 7.1 system that's up to snuff, why not go for the gold. In my case, I've got something that's a notch or two up from an entry level setup, but I've still got a ways to go before I've hit my goals (upgrade the front array, add a sub or three, etc). Suffice it to say, I'm not inclined to divert funds away from that effort in order to bring Atmos home. Of course, YMMV.


Steve - this was my own take after hearing Atmos (Home Theater Version) for the first time:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-38.html#post25785281


----------



## Nightlord

mogorf said:


> Not sure I get this..."larger image"? Larger than what? Ain't center best when it sticks dialog to... err, the center of the screen?


It can be tennis ball sized or basket ball sized. Which suits a big screen the best? You seldom have the actors dead center screen, so why hard-focus the sound there?



> Do you mean your center shows THD in the lower range compared to the front L & Rs? Do you apply a crossover at or around 80 Hz? Why do you think your center is distorting? Did you troubleshoot this issue?


No, the opposite, the fronts are slightly more capable.

Fronts are crossed at 80Hz (the designer of my speakers 'invented' the 80Hz crossover, Tom Holman picked it up from the paper he wrote for the THX spec) center will be crossed higher if the receiver used will allow it, which will mitigate the issue of dist the higher can cross it. Probably not going higher than 250.

There does not exist a speaker in the world that has no distortion, it's just a relative question 'how much'. Two equal elements sharing the load will always distort less. It's not an issue per se, these speakers distort less than most on the market, I'm just being picky.



> Why not? Any limitations for setting up L & Rs at +/- 30 deg?


I intend to listen to music too. 30 deg sounds bloody awful.


----------



## noah katz

mogorf said:


> Why would a phantom center be better than a real center?


Because a real center is often too high, too low, too small, and/or adjacent to furniture, screen, etc. that cause undesirable early reflections.


----------



## mogorf

noah katz said:


> Because a real center is often too high, too low, too small, and/or adjacent to furniture, screen, etc. that *cause undesirable early reflections.*


Noah, ain't that the same for L&Rs with regards to early reflections? On another note, I always believe a center is best put above the TV screen than below coz our vertical perception works best from gound to ear level and starts to degrade above our ear height (evolution stuff), thus localization of center placed above ear level easily intergates with on-screen level events. 

Am I missing out on something here?


----------



## Nightlord

noah katz said:


> Because a real center is often too high, too low, too small, and/or adjacent to furniture, screen, etc. that cause undesirable early reflections.


Though neither of those would apply to my reasons to have an easy button to switch it off, actually. But in general you're quite right.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> My concern was more about the up than the down. Not the bass reproduction but rather sacrificing high freq response by not having a dedicated tweeter. But it appears a well designed 3-4" driver can handle that....


Well, it's a compromise but reports suggest that it works good enough.
Bass is redirected to the speaker the ceiling-firing speaker sits on top.


----------



## noah katz

mogorf said:


> Noah, ain't that the same for L&Rs with regards to early reflections?


Of course, but often L/R can be placed away from room surfaces to delay the reflections, and if not there is likely more latitude for treating nearby surfaces than for the center.


----------



## bargervais

Can the in ceiling speakers be two way a tweeter and a woofer, that should fine correct? Sorry if this has already been covered..


----------



## David Susilo

Yes, that would be fine.


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> Bass is redirected to the speaker the ceiling-firing speaker sits on top.


Is that true for a separate add-on module (vs an integrated "Atmos enabled" speaker)? Does the AVR redirect bass from the Atmos module to the speaker and then the combined signal is passed through the standard bass management to the subwoofer?


----------



## markus767

bargervais said:


> Can the in ceiling speakers be two way a tweeter and a woofer, that should fine correct? Sorry if this has already been covered..


Most multi-way designs exhibit significant lobing hence a coax design would probably work better especially if there's more than one seat.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Is that true for a separate add-on module (vs an integrated "Atmos enabled" speaker)? Does the AVR redirect bass from the Atmos module to the speaker and then the combined signal is passed through the standard bass management to the subwoofer?


That's how Anrew Jones explained it in this video: 



 (around 39:00)


----------



## RichB

markus767 said:


> That's how Anrew Jones explained it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c295SyGQag (around 39:00)


At about 39:45 referring Atmos enabled speakers crossing over to the mains: "*below 200Hz you don't have any real ability to decimate height and so it doesn't sort of matter*"  


- Rich


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> That's how Anrew Jones explained it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c295SyGQag (around 39:00)


I'm not so sure it's clear from that clip (which I've watched before).

In that video he is discussing an "integrated" Atmos speaker with the upward firing module built into the "standard" speaker. This is the transcript of that portion:


*AJ: Typically if it's an Atmos-enabled speaker.... it's going to [extend to] typically somewhere between, let's say, 150 and 200 Hz. Any information below that will be channeled into the front part of the speaker.

SW: Right... so there IS a crossover between the upward firing speaker and the front firing elements?

AJ: Yes, there's both a crossover [garbled] within the speaker and also within the receiver it will set... and then it will redirect the frequencies so they don't get lost. And you know below 200Hz you don't have any real ability to discriminate height and so it doesn't sort of matter which speaker it's coming from.*​

To me that doesn't make it entirely clear whether the first crossover (filtering the upward-firing module at ~180Hz) is built into the speaker or if it's done in the processor. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not clear from that clip.


----------



## ss9001

markus767 said:


> Bass is redirected to the speaker the ceiling-firing speaker sits on top.


I think batpig raised a good point since the add-on modules can't work that way. They are independent of the speaker they sit on. Does the Pioneer speaker work the same way?

We have AJ's comment about crossover to the "speakers" and initially interpreted it the way you are, that he meant the rest of the front firing speaker. 

So I contacted Walkamo, who indicated to the best of his knowledge, the Dolby 180Hz crossover is not in the speaker but handled in the receiver by the Atmos engine. The ceiling firing speaker bass is added to the bass redirected to sub and/or speakers set to Large. He was pretty positive the top part and front firing part were totally independent of each other with no electrical connection between the two. 

I'd like to 100% confirm this since one option I'm considering is to use just the top part of the Pioneer speaker, like an add-on module. So I'm waiting for a manual to appear on Pioneer's site to see if they mention anything about having to connect the normal speaker up to use the top speaker. 

It makes logical sense to me that they would be independent with no physical crossover and let the whole thing get bass managed by the receiver. Because, this has to apply to all mfgs and I don't see how Denon or Onkyo would "know" if there was a specific speaker design in use other than generic a Dolby Enabled or ceiling mounted. 

It's logical that ceiling reflected bass is handled exactly the same way no matter if it's a full speaker (Pioneer) or an add-on module (DefTech or Onkyo). 

And as far as I can tell, there does not appear to be any electrical connection on DefTech's or Onkyo's add-on modules to interface with an internal crossover inside another speaker brand or speaker type or even DT's own bipolar towers that their A60 is designed to sit on. They are hooked up entirely separately since the DT tower certainly doesn't have special connections just for this module. 

IMO I think Walkamo is correct; it's the only way that can be applied universally across all receivers and speaker combinations.


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> To me that doesn't make it entirely clear whether the first crossover (filtering the upward-firing module at ~180Hz) is built into the speaker or if it's done in the processor. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not clear from that clip.


I agree. As I just posted, it confused me when his interview got posted and I listened several times. And I contacted Walkamo @ Pioneer about this. As I said, he thinks it's all done in the AVR. But Andrew's statement is not clear. I interpreted it the same way markus did and that's why I contacted Walkamo because if that were true, one couldn't use the Pioneer speaker just for the top driver. 

Repeating myself, but it makes sense to me that it's done in the receiver but I certainly have no hard proof. If it were a speaker level crossover, then how would Pioneer's receivers distinguish between their full Dolby speaker and just an add-on module which isn't physically connected to another speaker from another company that has no such provision for a crossover from another speaker?? There are only 2 options, Dolby Enabled or Tops, nothing to do with Pioneer's speakers per se.


----------



## noah katz

bargervais said:


> Can the in ceiling speakers be two way a tweeter and a woofer, that should fine correct? Sorry if this has already been covered..





markus767 said:


> Most multi-way designs exhibit significant lobing hence a coax design would probably work better especially if there's more than one seat.


Right, if a conventional 2-way is used consideration should be given to mounting orientation so as to aim the suckouts to do the least damage, ideally where there no seats.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just finished my demo at Dolby Burbank.

Wow. 

Will post later.

It begins.


----------



## doublewing11

Scott Simonian said:


> Just finished my demo at Dolby Burbank.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Will post later.
> 
> It begins.



For crying out loud.......you can't put your freaking subs on your ceiling!!


----------



## bargervais

noah katz said:


> Right, if a conventional 2-way is used consideration should be given to mounting orientation so as to aim the suckouts to do the least damage, ideally where there no seats.


I lost what you are trying to say. (suckouts) not sure what that is but I think I get what your saying


----------



## batpig

ss9001 said:


> I agree. As I just posted, it confused me when his interview got posted and I listened several times. And I contacted Walkamo @ Pioneer about this. As I said, he thinks it's all done in the AVR. But Andrew's statement is not clear. I interpreted it the same way markus did and that's why I contacted Walkamo because if that were true, one couldn't use the Pioneer speaker just for the top driver.
> 
> Repeating myself, but it makes sense to me that it's done in the receiver but I certainly have no hard proof. If it were a speaker level crossover, then how would Pioneer's receivers distinguish between their full Dolby speaker and just an add-on module which isn't physically connected to another speaker from another company that has no such provision for a crossover from another speaker?? There are only 2 options, Dolby Enabled or Tops, nothing to do with Pioneer's speakers per se.



OK, I found a post in the Pio speakers thread from Andrew Jones that seems to clarify:



AndrewJ said:


> In Atmos processing, the frequencies below the bass management crossover frequency used for the upward driver are directed to the forward firing speaker. If this speaker is set to large, end of story. If this speaker is set to small, and its xover frequency is set lower, then all frequencies below this lower xover will be directed as normal to the subwoofer.
> Therefore, nothing is lost.
> 
> 
> Andrew


So it appears the Atmos-enabled upward firing speakers are NOT bass managed to the subwoofer, they are bass managed to the corresponding pair of speakers "below" them. After that the standard bass management takes over.

This somewhat makes sense of why in the Denon manual (pg 209, screenshot below) there is a specific selection where, after designating the "Height Speakers" setting as "Using Dolby Speakers", you have to tell the receiver whether they are "Front Dolby", "Surround Dolby", and/or "Back Dolby". So this implicitly "pairs" the elevation speakers with a corresponding set of normal speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Yes Marc; Dolby Surround upmixer, does it work without Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and without those little Dolby Atmos speakers firing @ the ceiling from the top of your two front mains and two main surrounds?





batpig said:


> We already know the answer to this. It's not JUST for Atmos, it also replaces (subsuuuuumes!) the older Pro Logic upmixing.
> 
> This quote has already been posted (from the Denon manual in this case):
> 
> *Dolby Surround*
> Dolby surround is a next generation surround technology that intelligently up mixes stereo; 5.1 and 7.1 content for playback through your surround speaker system. *Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker layouts*, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ inceiling speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology.


♦ I can read you loud and clear, thank you very much sir.



NorthSky said:


> .And Dolby Pro Logic II, IIx and IIz Audio, Movie, and Game modes; gone? ...Dolby Surround will still do it?





batpig said:


> According to the oft-cited Denon manual....
> 
> First, the only ADUSTABLE parameter that I can find that is unique for Dolby Surround is a "Center Spread" setting. There is no longer any mention of "Panorama" or "Dimension" settings from the old PLII Music mode. "Center Spread" is described thusly in the manual and has only an On/Off setting (no adjustable scale):
> 
> *Center Spread
> Center spread expands the center channel signal to left and right front speakers to create a wider frontal audio image for the listener. It is optimized and designed primary for playback of stereo music content.*
> 
> 
> Second, in the surround mode selection chart on pg 292-293 of the X5200W manual, there is only mention of Cinema/Music/Game modes for DTS Neo:X, not for Dolby surround.
> 
> From this I can conclude that:
> 
> 1) There is no longer any Cinema/Music/Game mode selection for Dolby upmixing, nor any adjustible sliding parameters.
> 2) Based on the description above of "Center Spread" being optimized for stereo music playback, this setting is effectively a proxy for Cinema vs. Music modes.
> 
> So in other words:
> 
> - Dolby Surround upmix + Center Spread OFF = Cinema mode
> - Dolby surround upmix + Center Spread ON = Music mode
> 
> The above only applies to 2ch stereo inputs since I doubt the "Center Spread" setting would even be available when upmixing sources that are already discrete multich.


♦ Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## CinemaAndy

KidHorn said:


> Don't you have to apply a service update to be able to do atmos? When will that be available?


Yes you have to do a firmware update to get Atmos. I was told you call in, give them the AVR model number and serial number and you will get secure, one time, access to download the FW update to enable Atmos via email link. I think i was told the 15th(August) or shortly after the FW update would be on there website.


----------



## Franin

CinemaAndy said:


> Yes you have to do a firmware update to get Atmos. I was told you call in, give them the AVR model number and serial number and you will get secure, one time, access to download the FW update to enable Atmos via email link. I think i was told the 15th(August) or shortly after the FW update would be on there website.


I wonder if there would be a fee?


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> So it appears the Atmos-enabled upward firing speakers are NOT bass managed to the subwoofer, they are bass managed to the corresponding pair of speakers "below" them...After that the standard bass management takes over.


Thanks, batpig. That's a pretty clear statement from Andrew. And consistent with what he said in Scott's interview, just rather hard to accept as the way it really worked. and shoots my idea out of the water of using Pioneer's speakers as add-on modules with existing speakers  I'm going to try to get some confirmation. 

but there's still the question of how do the add-on modules work? 

as far as I can tell, there's nothing in menu (Pioneer's) to distinguish between them and a full Dolby speaker. If you can just sit an add-on module from Co A on top of speaker from Co B, there is no physical electrical connection between them so how does the AVR know what to do with them? it doesn't make sense. is there anything in Denon's manual on add-on modules? I have to spend more time going thru theirs in detail.

strange to see this kind of logical inconsistency. it's this kind of stuff that makes it hard for normal consumers to implement new technology....unclear or inconsistent descriptions from the companies behind it. 

this is more confusing than it needs to be.


----------



## bargervais

Franin said:


> I wonder if there would be a fee?


I'm thinking no fee because on the onkyo web site atmos upgradeable coming in September. I don't see anywhere that there's a fee


----------



## Franin

bargervais said:


> I'm thinking no fee because on the onkyo web site atmos upgradeable coming in September. I don't see anywhere that there's a fee


Good to know


----------



## NorthSky

Yeah Frank; fee-less. ...Free.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Just finished my demo at Dolby Burbank.
> Wow.
> Will post later.
> It begins.


Your insight is much sought after, Scott.


----------



## duc135

ss9001 said:


> Thanks, batpig. That's a pretty clear statement from Andrew. And consistent with what he said in Scott's interview, just rather hard to accept as the way it really worked. and shoots my idea out of the water of using Pioneer's speakers as add-on modules with existing speakers  I'm going to try to get some confirmation.
> 
> but there's still the question of how do the add-on modules work?
> 
> as far as I can tell, there's nothing in menu (Pioneer's) to distinguish between them and a full Dolby speaker. If you can just sit an add-on module from Co A on top of speaker from Co B, there is no physical electrical connection between them so how does the AVR know what to do with them? it doesn't make sense. is there anything in Denon's manual on add-on modules? I have to spend more time going thru theirs in detail.
> 
> strange to see this kind of logical inconsistency. it's this kind of stuff that makes it hard for normal consumers to implement new technology....unclear or inconsistent descriptions from the companies behind it.
> 
> this is more confusing than it needs to be.


You're over thinking this. You can still do what you are thinking. Think of Atmos capable speakers as two separate speakers in one cabinet. The top firing speaker has its own set of binding posts that will connect to the ceiling channels of the AVR. Same connections as in buying a separate add-on module to be placed on your existing speakers. So instead of having two separate units, if you buy the Atmos capable speakers the two units will be in one single cabinet. Each section has its own set of binding posts.


----------



## bargervais

CinemaAndy said:


> Yes you have to do a firmware update to get Atmos. I was told you call in, give them the AVR model number and serial number and you will get secure, one time, access to download the FW update to enable Atmos via email link. I think i was told the 15th(August) or shortly after the FW update would be on there website.


That would be nice August 15th or shortly after the FW update would be on their web site. I was under the assumption that it wouldn't be till September..


----------



## noah katz

bargervais said:


> I lost what you are trying to say. (suckouts) not sure what that is but I think I get what your saying


Lobes are the angles at which the woofer and tweeter are more or less in phase.

Suckouts are the angles at which they are out of phase and cancel, giving notches in the XO freq range where they overlap.


----------



## Fooled

RichB said:


> At about 39:45 referring Atmos enabled speakers crossing over to the mains: "*below 200Hz you don't have any real ability to decimate height and so it doesn't sort of matter*"
> 
> 
> - Rich


 Psychoacoustics tell us its more like 7khz and below we can't tell height related sound placement (anyone with speakers under their TV know this to be true).


The Dolby certified atmos up firing speakers have a atmos certified cross over filter that is based on psychoacoustics. I've reached out to Dolby on clarifying the requirements of this cross over, but it does appear to be within the speakers and not within the AVR directly (bass management is a different story).




> It seems that people can only accurately localize the elevation of sounds that are complex and include frequencies above 7,000 Hz, and a pinna must be present.[12]


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_...n_plane_.28front.2C_above.2C_back.2C_below.29


----------



## bargervais

noah katz said:


> Lobes are the angles at which the woofer and tweeter are more or less in phase.
> 
> Suckouts are the angles at which they are out of phase and cancel, giving notches in the XO freq range where they overlap.


Thanks for the explanation I love this forum you are always learning.


----------



## FilmMixer

So I was lucky to be asked to the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo today.

Three other forum members were there, and I'm sure they will all be posting their impressions soon.

A couple of things..

I've shared my thoughts over the last 6 weeks about what I've been privy to for the last 8 months, and much of what I had been told, and seen/heard, was repeated for those in attendance.

While I asked for some questions that I could relay today, I am not going to post the answer to many of them. 

Mostly because I didn't ask them.

I was privy to some of the answers as others did inquire. If others that post here want to delve into some of them they will... 

Dolby made it very clear today that they are going to put very specific information out (about up firing speaker requirements, detailed setup instructions, etc) in tech papers/releases starting around CEDIA.

There were no content announcements, and they stated they wouldn't be making any such statements, but would let the content providers do so at their discretion. 

This was a big audio press invite, and it was really fantastic to see many people whose articles and columns I've read over the years... it was a who's who of audio journalists, and there was nothing at the event that they were told they couldn't write about, or couldn't post pictures of (the event was relegated to the screening room, a conference room and their home Atmos demo room.)

I think I counted about 32-35 invitees...

To start off, all of the attendees gathered in the Dolby Screening Room, which contains a theatrical Atmos system (IIRC it is a 52 channel system.) They started with an overview of Atmos from it's start two years ago in the cinema towards the focus of the event, the imminent release of Home Atmos, and a peek into where it will be going in the future, i.e. tablets, phones, music players, etc.

I can dispel the rumor that even some of those in attendance mentioned before the presentations started... that this is not a truly object based technology. 

It _is_ object based. I only mention it again here because there were some skeptical comments before the demos started and I've even seen it posted on other sites by a couple of other well known "sources."

After the presentation by Brett Crockett, who wrote the initial blogs about Atmos for Dolby, Stewart Bowling gave a brief summary of the state of cinema Atmos from it's launch up until today.

They then presented four trailers and a 5 minute clip from "Star Trek: Into Darkness." They showed all three Dolby Atmos trailers (Amaze, Unfold and Leaf) in addition to a Red Bull Formula One car "trailer." 

After that, we took a couple of shuttle busses over to the other Dolby facility which houses a lot of their R and D and their Atmos demo room.

Everyone fit into a large conference room and was joined by Stewart, Brett and Craig Eggers, who I believe is the head of home theater marketing. 

People were called out in groups of 5-6 for demos, while everyone else was able to stay in the conference room for a Q and A.

Some tidbits I learned from the Q and A..

1. I was mistaken about the Dolby Surround upmixer... It works as batpig has so thoroughly explained, and not only on setups with overheads. It is indeed the only Dolby upmixer available on Dolby Atmos products going forward. No PLII, PLIIx or PLIIz. No Cinema or Music Mode... it will include and optional Center Width control if the AVR manufacturer implements it.

2. All the objects will use spatial coding as required.

3. They didn't talk any specifics, but it was clearly stated that some manufacturers will ask in setup where the speakers are placed, distance, etc. Some will require user input for such parameters, some will gather it during audio calibration. And some will simply rely on pre determined standard layouts for their products. There has been a bit of speculation that this wasn't going to be available on these upcoming first gen products. While there certainly was no confirmation of what any of the CE's are planning on doing (except we can glean what we can from the Denon manuals) I suspect we will see varied setup options on some of these initial AVR's and pre/pros. 

For the demos, we went into a room approximately 22x20x8 (I'm terrible with measurements, someone else can chime in.) It was a 7.1.4 setup.

They then played the exact same material we heard in the theater for comparisons sake.

In addition we heard some audio only demos in 7.1 and then Atmos. 

And then some of those with with the ceiling mounted speakers and then the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers... 

A couple of the audio only clips played back first one way (ceiling speakers) and then the other. Others played back and they switched in the middle (with an onscreen indication of which one was active.)

There was no demo of Dolby Surround.

I'll let the others chime in their personal experiences... 

I can relate, however, that the other three regulars all subjectively preferred the Atmos speakers over the on ceiling speakers. Again, most of those I spoke with were fairly skeptical before hand... not about if it would work, but how well it would work.

It's no secret that I'm really excited about the technology. I'm really honored that Dolby let me be a part of this gathering, and you are going to read all about it in the next couple of days and weeks and see what those people have to say. There are other demos for the east coast journalists and others happening very soon I was told. 

It was really obvious that today was the _start_ of the information flow and the true launching pad for this new home theater technology.


----------



## FilmMixer

*Ip*



ss9001 said:


> Thanks, batpig. That's a pretty clear statement from Andrew. And consistent with what he said in Scott's interview, just rather hard to accept as the way it really worked. and shoots my idea out of the water of using Pioneer's speakers as add-on modules with existing speakers  I'm going to try to get some confirmation.
> 
> but there's still the question of how do the add-on modules work?
> 
> as far as I can tell, there's nothing in menu (Pioneer's) to distinguish between them and a full Dolby speaker. If you can just sit an add-on module from Co A on top of speaker from Co B, there is no physical electrical connection between them_* so how does the AVR know what to do with them? *_ it doesn't make sense. is there anything in Denon's manual on add-on modules? I have to spend more time going thru theirs in detail.
> 
> strange to see this kind of logical inconsistency. it's this kind of stuff that makes it hard for normal consumers to implement new technology....unclear or inconsistent descriptions from the companies behind it.
> 
> this is more confusing than it needs to be.


Doesn't it simply measure them? 

The Pioneer Atmos elevation speaker should measure as a "full range" speaker while a single driver add on will not. The avr should account for that and bass manage accordingly. 

I would assume that the avr manufacturers correctly redirect the low end under 180hz (I think that is the suggested low frequency response spec for Atmos Enable modules/speakers) to the mains/surrounds.. 

Then those speakers should be crossed to the sub at the desired frequency. 

A good question for Chris at Pioneer or anyone at Denon, Onkyo etc....


----------



## markus767

ss9001 said:


> They are independent of the speaker they sit on.


 That's exactly what I've said all along. The AVR provides the crossover as soon as you define top surrounds as "Atmos enabled speakers". There is no electrical connection between the front speaker and the top unit within the speaker.



ss9001 said:


> I'd like to 100% confirm this since one option I'm considering is to use just the top part of the Pioneer speaker, like an add-on module.


You want to buy a speaker with a fixed mounted Atmos unit on top just to use the top part? Massive waste of money (whole speaker isn't used) and loss of flexibility (top unit can't be angled). Better get a standalone top surround unit or build your own tailored to your room.


----------



## noah katz

Many thanks for the report, Marc!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> 2. All the objects will use spatial coding as required.


Marc, thanks for your initial report! 

Could you (and would you) put object "spatial coding" into context for us lay people who are not tuned into the lingo? How does it differ from the way objects are handled in the theatrical version? Better, worse, just "a different way of doing the same thing"? Would you say that the home Atmos version gives a close approximation of the theatrical Atmos mix or are any compromises readily apparent? Does spatial coding affect audio fidelity and channel/speaker separation in any negative way, especially if using home Atmos for multi-channel music above and beyond 7.1? 

Thank you again!


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Three other forum members were there, and I'm sure they will all be posting their impressions soon.


I will post my thoughts more fully tomorrow, after sleeping on some of it. Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations). 

Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure. Current speaker count is 34 (24 around you, 10 above you), but that could likewise increase in the future IF there is market pressure to do so. 

Dolby Surround Upmixer can scale all channel-based sources (including 2-channel material) to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout. So the fact that upcoming AVRs don't use wides when upmixing is not a limitation of DSU, just how manufacturers/chipmakers are implementing it. 

Aside from Scott Wilkinson, four other AVS members attended the Atmos presser. After hearing a comparison between ceiling mounted height speakers and Atmos-enabled speakers, I did an informal survey amongst our group: all four of us slightly preferred the reflected speakers. There could be a couple of reasons for this, which I'll post about tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to stop using the word "compromise" from now own when referring to the upfiring speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure.


Thanks, that confirms what I believed to be the reason behind that circle-of-speakers graph in the whitepaper.  (Pity if no one uses that, though)


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Marc, thanks for your initial report!
> 
> Could you (and would you) put object "spatial coding" into context for us lay people who are not tuned into the lingo? How does it differ from the way objects are handled in the theatrical version? Better, worse, just "a different way of doing the same thing"? Would you say that the home Atmos version gives a close approximation of the theatrical Atmos mix or are any compromises readily apparent? Does spatial coding affect audio fidelity and channel/speaker separation in any negative way, especially if using home Atmos for multi-channel music above and beyond 7.1?
> 
> Thank you again!


Theatrical objects are all lossless and you can have 118 of them. 

Obviously they can't do that in the home. 

But they didn't go into detail about it. 

It was developed in house. And I don't believe it is based on existing techs. 

I can't speak to the fidelity as I don't have any titles I can compare. 

I know of one of my counterparts who recently signed off on one of his films and he had no complaints. He was very happy. And he is fairly picky. 

Fidelity to the cinema master is imperative. They stated that. And clients and film makers aren't going to sign off on it if it isn't. 

But I have no business commenting on how well it works. I don't have any first hand experience. 

Another tidbit I forgot.

The size of the TrueHD Atmos encodes increase an average of 20% over a regular 7.1.

EDIT: and they mentioned they recommend at least a minimum three feet of distance between listener and an elevation speaker. And in a 7.1 setup to use the elevation speaker on the back, not side, surrounds.


----------



## markus767

^
Quite an achievement that they've found a solution to encode all objects. Did you guys also listen to DD+ encoded mixes? This is probably what most consumers will get to hear via streaming services.


----------



## Mech0z

bargervais said:


> Onkyo.US is selling them for $249.00 US dollars so your saying 3800 DKK that's about $650.00 US dollars. WOW does that include tax would it be cheaper to have them shipped to you from the USA


3800 is for the Onkyo 636 where the offer now includes the speakers without more pay, but yes Denmark is very expensive


----------



## NorthSky

I have a theory, on why the Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers (from atop the four mains - two fronts and two rears) might be more effective @ recreating that 'spatial' heightened envelopment over the on-ceiling Dolby Atmos speakers, @ home.

* I call it Sound Beam, or the beam of sound projection and reflection.
With them top mounted speakers above your two front mains and two rear surrounds, the beam of sound starts right above the listener's horizontal soundfield (on the plane right above the listener's ears - half foot to a foot, roughly) and travels upwards to the ceiling where it is reflected back in a second beam of sound towards the listener's ears. The two beams of sound travel a longer distance and cover a wider soundfield in the room's space.
That in itself creates a larger covered area. 

In-ceiling, or on-ceiling speakers @ home, the sound beam is only one; from directly above and towards the listening area's floor.
The distance of that beam of sound is much less (twice as less) than up-firing speakers atop the four corner standing ones.
And the area of coverage is also less because there are no reflections. ...The soundfield (occupied space in the room) created by the four on-ceiling speakers is narrower and less diffused. ...Because it doesn't travel as much and starts from above, where there is a discontinuity as compared to the the horizontal sound beams starting from the four top mounted Dolby Atmos speakers.

So, our ears are already familiar with the horizontal plane (the sound coming from all our main floor speakers), and there is an ascending continuity, a more seamless integration with the horizontal sound going upwards in that first sound beam of energy. ...And back down reflected from above.

Are you catching what I'm saying?

Dolby Atmos might be Lossless, but with spatial directivity. ...Less direct, less discrete to speak of. ...Because it is based on objects (sounds) positioned in space and between the horizontal and vertical planes, to create a third dimension (3D) with that sense of elevated and more filling space. And if sound can be projected and bounced back then more space is created than just projected sound from above.
Two beams of sound versus only one sound beam.

And that's my theory on why some people might prefer up-firing speakers than on-ceiling mounted ones above. ...A continuity of the sound going up and back down than one just coming down, much above our ears' horizontal plane.

I can easily buy that, psychoacoustically speaking. I'll be keeping a close ear open in the near future...
...On how various AVRs and SSPs manufactureres will be implementing this new Dolby Atmos technology for the home, 
and also how much fine-tuning we are allowed, how many options we have (speaker's positioning wise), accessibilty to pro calibration of Dolby Atmos with the product's own Auto Room Correction & EQ system, the second generation of Dolby Atmos AVRs and SSPs, and of course eventual future DTS-UHD DSP decoders in equipped AVRs and SSPs. 

Dolby Atmos is just the start, much much more to come. But the future sure sounds bright and promising and elevated.

So far so good, and I am quite confident (if software supported in sufficient quality and quantity - might take few years - and for me there are only Blu-rays), that I will be jumping in totally supporting it, but with DTS-UHD and dts Upmixer in addition to Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Upmixer. ...Not before because that would be wasting my money to upgrade again soon. 

I remember very well the past: Dolby Surround (1982), then Dolby Pro Logic (1986-87 - Pioneer VSX-9300s).
...And Dolby Digital (1996-97 - Yamaha RX-2090 + DD decoder), then dts (1998).
...And Audyssey MultEQ (2006 -Denon), then Audyssey MultEQ XT (2007), then MultEQ XT32 (2010). 
{And MultEQ Pro came in 2005, then in receivers and SSPs in 2008} ... Audyssey | History\Timeline 
- I bought too many receivers in very short periods of time. ...I'm rich in surround experience, but not that rich in banking experience. Each year they improve, and each year you discover all the flaws from the previous years, and several wrong implementations. ...That's the core nature of the business.
I'm older too, and wiser I believe, and patient for the next best. ...Till abso!ute and final expiration.

Software is key; without it not much to play on. And the sotware right now is zero on Dolby Atmos encoding.
I'm always talking Blu-rays here; I'm a Blu-ray man, and that's the way it is for me. ...Hi-res multichannel audio.
And Elevated Upmixing experience? ...I got over 4,000 Blu-rays in my BD Cinema/Music/Doc collection with the vast majority of them encoded in DTS-HD Master Audio; I'd say 90% of them. So dts (HD MA) in my book is much more accentuated/pronounced than Dolby (TrueHD & DD+); much much more.


----------



## Nightlord

Mech0z said:


> In-ceiling, or on-ceiling speakers @ home, the sound beam is only one; from directly above and towards the listening area's floor.
> The distance of that beam of sound is much less (twice as less) than up-firing speakers atop the four corner standing ones.
> And the area of coverage is also less because there are no reflections. ...The soundfield (occupied space in the room) created by the four on-ceiling speakers is narrower and less diffused. ...Because it doesn't travel as much and starts from above, where there is a discontinuity as compared to the the horizontal sound beams starting from the four top mounted Dolby Atmos speakers.
> 
> So, our ears are already familiar with the horizontal plane (the sound coming from all our main floor speakers), and there is an ascending continuity with the horizontal sound going upwards in that first sound beam of energy. ...And back down reflected from above.
> 
> Are you catching what I'm saying?


Yes. That's why I've been pondering on if you shouldn't really mount four ceiling speakers per channel... thus 16 speakers for x.x.4. But I think cost itself would stop me from trying it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Could you (and would you) put object "spatial coding" into context for us lay people who are not tuned into the lingo?


My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe *this application* is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.


----------



## Franin

FilmMixer said:


> So I was lucky to be asked to the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo today.
> 
> Three other forum members were there, and I'm sure they will all be posting their impressions soon.
> 
> A couple of things..
> 
> I've shared my thoughts over the last 6 weeks about what I've been privy to for the last 8 months, and much of what I had been told, and seen/heard, was repeated for those in attendance.
> 
> While I asked for some questions that I could relay today, I am not going to post the answer to many of them.
> 
> Mostly because I didn't ask them.
> 
> I was privy to some of the answers as others did inquire. If others that post here want to delve into some of them they will...
> 
> Dolby made it very clear today that they are going to put very specific information out (about up firing speaker requirements, detailed setup instructions, etc) in tech papers/releases starting around CEDIA.
> 
> There were no content announcements, and they stated they wouldn't be making any such statements, but would let the content providers do so at their discretion.
> 
> This was a big audio press invite, and it was really fantastic to see many people whose articles and columns I've read over the years... it was a who's who of audio journalists, and there was nothing at the event that they were told they couldn't write about, or couldn't post pictures of (the event was relegated to the screening room, a conference room and their home Atmos demo room.)
> 
> I think I counted about 32-35 invitees...
> 
> To start off, all of the attendees gathered in the Dolby Screening Room, which contains a theatrical Atmos system (IIRC it is a 52 channel system.) They started with an overview of Atmos from it's start two years ago in the cinema towards the focus of the event, the imminent release of Home Atmos, and a peek into where it will be going in the future, i.e. tablets, phones, music players, etc.
> 
> I can dispel the rumor that even some of those in attendance mentioned before the presentations started... that this is not a truly object based technology.
> 
> It _is_ object based. I only mention it again here because there were some skeptical comments before the demos started and I've even seen it posted on other sites by a couple of other well known "sources."
> 
> After the presentation by Brett Crockett, who wrote the initial blogs about Atmos for Dolby, Stewart Bowling gave a brief summary of the state of cinema Atmos from it's launch up until today.
> 
> They then presented four trailers and a 5 minute clip from "Star Trek: Into Darkness." They showed all three Dolby Atmos trailers (Amaze, Unfold and Leaf) in addition to a Red Bull Formula One car "trailer."
> 
> After that, we took a couple of shuttle busses over to the other Dolby facility which houses a lot of their R and D and their Atmos demo room.
> 
> Everyone fit into a large conference room and was joined by Stewart, Brett and Craig Eggers, who I believe is the head of home theater marketing.
> 
> People were called out in groups of 5-6 for demos, while everyone else was able to stay in the conference room for a Q and A.
> 
> Some tidbits I learned from the Q and A..
> 
> 1. I was mistaken about the Dolby Surround upmixer... It works as batpig has so thoroughly explained, and not only on setups with overheads. It is indeed the only Dolby upmixer available on Dolby Atmos products going forward. No PLII, PLIIx or PLIIz. No Cinema or Music Mode... it will include and optional Center Width control if the AVR manufacturer implements it.
> 
> 2. All the objects will use spatial coding as required.
> 
> 3. They didn't talk any specifics, but it was clearly stated that some manufacturers will ask in setup where the speakers are placed, distance, etc. Some will require user input for such parameters, some will gather it during audio calibration. And some will simply rely on pre determined standard layouts for their products. There has been a bit of speculation that this wasn't going to be available on these upcoming first gen products. While there certainly was no confirmation of what any of the CE's are planning on doing (except we can glean what we can from the Denon manuals) I suspect we will see varied setup options on some of these initial AVR's and pre/pros.
> 
> For the demos, we went into a room approximately 22x20x8 (I'm terrible with measurements, someone else can chime in.) It was a 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> They then played the exact same material we heard in the theater for comparisons sake.
> 
> In addition we heard some audio only demos in 7.1 and then Atmos.
> 
> And then some of those with with the ceiling mounted speakers and then the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers...
> 
> A couple of the audio only clips played back first one way (ceiling speakers) and then the other. Others played back and they switched in the middle (with an onscreen indication of which one was active.)
> 
> There was no demo of Dolby Surround.
> 
> I'll let the others chime in their personal experiences...
> 
> I can relate, however, that the other three regulars all subjectively preferred the Atmos speakers over the on ceiling speakers. Again, most of those I spoke with were fairly skeptical before hand... not about if it would work, but how well it would work.
> 
> It's no secret that I'm really excited about the technology. I'm really honored that Dolby let me be a part of this gathering, and you are going to read all about it in the next couple of days and weeks and see what those people have to say. There are other demos for the east coast journalists and others happening very soon I was told.
> 
> It was really obvious that today was the _start_ of the information flow and the true launching pad for this new home theater technology.




Thank you Marc


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe *this application* is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.


Thanks Roger. Back to reading.


----------



## ss9001

Thanks to both sanjay & Marc for your demo comments. I know most of us would have liked to have joined you 

I'm checking my budget to see if CEDIA is feasible. This summer has been one of unplanned expenses


----------



## Franin

sdurani said:


> I will post my thoughts more fully tomorrow, after sleeping on some of it. Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations).
> 
> Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure. Current speaker count is 34 (24 around you, 10 above you), but that could likewise increase in the future IF there is market pressure to do so.
> 
> Dolby Surround Upmixer can scale all channel-based sources (including 2-channel material) to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout. So the fact that upcoming AVRs don't use wides when upmixing is not a limitation of DSU, just how manufacturers/chipmakers are implementing it.
> 
> Aside from Scott Wilkinson, four other AVS members attended the Atmos presser. After hearing a comparison between ceiling mounted height speakers and Atmos-enabled speakers, I did an informal survey amongst our group: all four of us slightly preferred the reflected speakers. There could be a couple of reasons for this, which I'll post about tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to stop using the word "compromise" from now own when referring to the upfiring speakers.


So we can keep our speakers Sanjay and use external speakers ( modules )? 

Another question is if I have heights already can I angle them towards the ceiling ?

Thanks for your review as well


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> So I was lucky to be asked to the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo today.


Thanks for that Marc. It sounds (NPI) exactly the same format as the demo I attended in London. That demo was in partnership with Onkyo. I believe the one I am attending tomorrow will be just Dolby (it may be the press preview you referred to in LA). I will report back any significant news of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I will post my thoughts more fully tomorrow, after sleeping on some of it. Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations).
> 
> Consumer Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations, even if none of the consumer AVRs are taking advantage of that capability. Granularity is 15-degree chunks (360 degrees ÷ 24 speakers = 15 degrees), though that might change way down the road IF there is market pressure. Current speaker count is 34 (24 around you, 10 above you), but that could likewise increase in the future IF there is market pressure to do so.
> 
> Dolby Surround Upmixer can scale all channel-based sources (including 2-channel material) to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout. So the fact that upcoming AVRs don't use wides when upmixing is not a limitation of DSU, just how manufacturers/chipmakers are implementing it.
> 
> Aside from Scott Wilkinson, four other AVS members attended the Atmos presser. After hearing a comparison between ceiling mounted height speakers and Atmos-enabled speakers, I did an informal survey amongst our group: all four of us slightly preferred the reflected speakers. There could be a couple of reasons for this, which I'll post about tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm going to stop using the word "compromise" from now own when referring to the upfiring speakers.


Thanks Sanjay. I agree with your last comment entirely. In the demo I attended, many preferred the Atmos speakers to the ceiling-mounted speakers. This may have been a deficiency in the latter of course, or just simply that the former are 'better', preference-wise. Bottom line: if you can't mount ceiling speakers, you do not have to feel in any way like a 'second class Atmos citizen'.

It is still a disappointment to me that the AVR manufacturers have not enabled rendering to actual speaker locations, even though I understand their reasons for not doing so at this time. It's also the reason I am choosing the cheapest Atmos AVR I can which meets my personal spec (XT32, Pro Ready, 5.1.4) -- the Denon X4100W. I can see another AVR purchase in my future once the manufacturers fully implement more of the Atmos feature set.


----------



## MX48

Is there a reason these could not be used as Atmos height speakers? Low sensitivity or power handling etc. I know they are cheap just wondering what would keep them from being used for that purpose.


https://www.parts-express.com/faitalpro-4fe35-4-professional-full-range-woofer-4-ohm--294-1123


Thanks.


----------



## markus767

^
Those will work just fine. Just don't expect reference level from them (but the same is true for the commercial designs from Pioneer, Onkyo, etc.).


----------



## kbarnes701

MX48 said:


> Is there a reason these could not be used as Atmos height speakers? Low sensitivity or power handling etc. I know they are cheap just wondering what would keep them from being used for that purpose.
> 
> 
> https://www.parts-express.com/faitalpro-4fe35-4-professional-full-range-woofer-4-ohm--294-1123
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Do you mean as the driver in a DIY Atmos module (to sit on or near a regular speaker)? 

If so, then remember that the cabinet in an Atmos module appears to have been purpose-designed for the job, hence the deep "ashtray-like" cabinet that the driver sits in. I assume that this design is to help prevent forwardly directed sound from reaching the listener's ears. Other than that, I'd guess that the driver itself looks fine.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It is still a disappointment to me that the AVR manufacturers have not enabled rendering to actual speaker locations, even though I understand their reasons for not doing so at this time. It's also the reason I am choosing the cheapest Atmos AVR I can which meets my personal spec (XT32, Pro Ready, 5.1.4) -- the Denon X4100W. I can see another AVR purchase in my future once the manufacturers fully implement more of the Atmos feature set.


I'm thinking along the same lines, Keith, with this reasoning rapidly solidifying for me as more specifics are revealed about HT Atmos implementation. Although I'll be targeting the X5200W (at least) because I don't want to give up on 11CH capability, I can readily foresee feeling the need to upgrade in two to three years as the technology matures. 

For those who have asked the question in the past, I don't believe there is any way these days to "future-proof" your AV purchase at this user level without settling for lesser functionality as time passes. In some ways it's similar to an investor trying to time the market; change (and rapid change, at that) is inevitable and you just have to conduct due diligence and choose to purchase what/when corresponds best to your needs. And I don't think the "early adopter" caveat applies here in the fullest sense of the term because the underlying technology has already undergone years of deployment in the theatrical realm.


----------



## bargervais

Roger Dressler said:


> The BDs will not have both soundtracks. Atmos will deliver the standard 5.1/7.1 to whomever needs it. Neo:X will treat them the same as any other 5.1/7.1 mixes.


So if I understand correctly if I don't have an Atmos AVR and if I purchased a atmos BD it will treat it as 5.1/7.1


----------



## ss9001

bargervais said:


> So if I understand correctly if I don't have an Atmos AVR and if I purchased a atmos BD it will treat it as 5.1/7.1


that is correct, you will get the normal TrueHD or Dolby Digital+ track.


----------



## bargervais

ss9001 said:


> that is correct, you will get the normal TrueHD or Dolby Digital+ track.


Cool that's what I was thinking too kind of backwards compatible.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm thinking along the same lines, Keith, with this reasoning rapidly solidifying for me as more specifics are revealed about HT Atmos implementation. Although I'll be targeting the X5200W (at least) because I don't want to give up on 11CH capability, I can readily foresee feeling the need to upgrade in two to three years as the technology matures.
> 
> For those who have asked the question in the past, I don't believe there is any way these days to "future-proof" your AV purchase at this user level without settling for lesser functionality as time passes. In some ways it's similar to an investor trying to time the market; change (and rapid change, at that) is inevitable and you just have to conduct due diligence and choose to purchase what/when corresponds best to your needs. And I don't think the "early adopter" caveat applies here in the fullest sense of the term because the underlying technology has already undergone years of deployment in the theatrical realm.


Agreed. If I needed 7.1.4 I'd go with the X5200W, but in my room I can't accommodate rear surrounds, so 5.1.4 is fine for me. I am not concerned if I have to change the AVR in a year or two. For me, it will be a price worth paying to a) get into Atmos as soon as possible and b) get more advanced features later. I realise this approach would not suit everyone, and respect their choices, but it suits me.


----------



## PoshFrosh

noah katz said:


> Right, if a conventional 2-way is used consideration should be given to mounting orientation so as to aim the suckouts to do the least damage, ideally where there no seats.


Can someone elaborate on this a bit. I plan on doing exactly what this is referring to (i.e. using four conventionally designed [non-coaxial tweeter/woofer] 2-way speakers on-ceiling for atmos top speakers).
What exact consideration am I giving to mounting orientation...?
Thanks.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe *this application* is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.


Wow, beds (fixed objects that are associated with specific speaker feeds) are even more integral for distribution of Atmos content than I ever thought. Fixed speaker layouts will obviously stay with us for a very long time.


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm thinking along the same lines, Keith, with this reasoning rapidly solidifying for me as more specifics are revealed about HT Atmos implementation. Although I'll be targeting the X5200W (at least) because I don't want to give up on 11CH capability, I can readily foresee feeling the need to upgrade in two to three years as the technology matures.
> 
> For those who have asked the question in the past, I don't believe there is any way these days to "future-proof" your AV purchase at this user level without settling for lesser functionality as time passes. In some ways it's similar to an investor trying to time the market; change (and rapid change, at that) is inevitable and you just have to conduct due diligence and choose to purchase what/when corresponds best to your needs. And I don't think the "early adopter" caveat applies here in the fullest sense of the term because the underlying technology has already undergone years of deployment in the theatrical realm.


At this point you shouldn't assume that all the manufacturers will implement speaker setup information like Denon. 

Dolby clearly stated the the CE's have a great deal of flexibility in how they implement speaker setup. 

Pure speculation on my part but I suspect even some of these first gen products will have more flexibility than what is thought to be the case at this point.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Can someone elaborate on this a bit. I plan on doing exactly what this is referring to (i.e. using four conventionally designed [non-coaxial tweeter/woofer] 2-way speakers on-ceiling for atmos top speakers).
> What exact consideration am I giving to mounting orientation...?
> Thanks.


Have you already got these speakers? If not, then you might consider using a coaxial design, which has various advantages when used as ceiling speakers, as has been mentioned in the thread before. I was going to use MK Sound speakers, to match my other speakers, initially, but I decided against it in the end, for the reasons under discussion, and decided to use four of *these* instead. (Thanks to Roger Dressler for pointing me in the right direction here).

You will have gathered from this reply that I could not resolve the problems that using 'conventional' two-way designs introduced, hence my decision to bypass the problems completely and go for a co-axial design.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> At this point you shouldn't assume that all the manufacturers will implement speaker setup information like Denon.
> 
> Dolby clearly stated the the CE's have a great deal of flexibility in how they implement speaker setup.
> 
> Pure speculation on my part but I suspect even some of these first gen products will have more flexibility than what is thought to be the case at this point.


Interesting you should say that (last sentence). At the Dolby/Onkyo demo I attended, I specifically asked the Onkyo people present if their units would in any way be 'aware' of the speaker positions (ie by user input of angles or AVR measurement of same) and they told me that their units would. I asked the question again, in a different way, as I was surprised by the response, and is it was contrary to what we believed to be true at the time of the demo I heard (a few weeks ago now). I received the same reply, in different words. I later asked another Onkyo person the same question and got the same answer. To this day, I still believe that all three answers were wrong and that the Onkyo guys had been incorrectly briefed themselves. However, your speculative remark now makes me wonder...

To me this lack of information on speaker positions being sent to the rendering engine was a great disappointment (although overcomable for me by judicious speaker placement) so I do hope your speculation is on the money. If it is, then what we need to know sooner rather than later is -- which units will provide the relevant speaker positional information to the rendering engine? And who makes them? And what do they cost?


----------



## PoshFrosh

noah katz said:


> Lobes are the angles at which the woofer and tweeter are more or less in phase.
> 
> Suckouts are the angles at which they are out of phase and cancel, giving notches in the XO freq range where they overlap.


Here was the only picture I could find which demonstrates the effect:










So, as along as the on-ceiling tweeter/woofer speakers are mounted upright, what would be the other mounting considerations?

What I will be doing will end up looking something like the attached picture.

Not sure what else to do but point them directly at the MLP...


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you already got these speakers? If not, then you might consider using a coaxial design, which has various advantages when used as ceiling speakers, as has been mentioned in the thread before. I was going to use MK Sound speakers, to match my other speakers, initially, but I decided against it in the end, for the reasons under discussion, and decided to use four of *these* instead. (Thanks to Roger Dressler for pointing me in the right direction here).
> 
> You will have gathered from this reply that I could not resolve the problems that using 'conventional' two-way designs introduced, hence my decision to bypass the problems completely and go for a co-axial design.


Unfortunately, I already have these speakers. I had decided to match my other speakers and coax was not an option. 

So no one sees any way to even address the issues that would be introduced? I don't need an ideal solution, just as good as I can get.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

As a corollary to that response of mine above, it was also interesting that the Onkyo guys were adamant that the ceiling speakers should be placed roughly at the first 'third point' of the room for the front pair and at the corresponding position for the rear pair, but at the back of the room. That is, one third of the distance from the front and back walls.

This was in conflict with their reply to my question about the units 'knowing' where the speakers were located, but at the time nobody other than me seemed to see this, so I let it go for fear of outstaying my (metaphorical) welcome.


----------



## markus767

PoshFrosh said:


> Can someone elaborate on this a bit. I plan on doing exactly what this is referring to (i.e. using four conventionally designed [non-coaxial tweeter/woofer] 2-way speakers on-ceiling for atmos top speakers).
> What exact consideration am I giving to mounting orientation...?
> Thanks.


When you look up to the speakers from the main listening position they should appear upright.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Here was the only picture I could find which demonstrates the effect:
> 
> So, as along as the on-ceiling tweeter/woofer speakers are mounted upright, what would be the other mounting considerations?
> 
> What I will be doing will end up looking something like the *attached picture.*
> 
> Not sure what else to do but point them directly at the MLP...


Those look to be the same proportions of the MK speakers I was planning initially to use. Another reason I dismissed them in the end - they would have to be mounted vertically as shown (as they are designed with that orientation in mind) and they would then poke so far down into the room as to be undesirable from various points of view.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Those look to be the same proportions of the MK speakers I was planning initially to use. Another reason I dismissed them in the end - they would have to be mounted vertically as shown (as they are designed with that orientation in mind) and they would then poke so far down into the room as to be undesirable from various points of view.


They are 7.45" H X 4.72" W X 5.51" D (Energy V-minis)
(a.k.a. 19cm X 12cm X 14cm)

I have a "standard 8" foot height ceiling. Not sure about looks, but they should be just out of range of bumpings one's head on them.

I guess I'll let you know how it works out.


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> At this point you shouldn't assume that all the manufacturers will implement speaker setup information like Denon. Dolby clearly stated the the CE's have a great deal of flexibility in how they implement speaker setup.


That's not my assumption at all (if indeed that's what you're implying)--in fact, quite the opposite based not least of all on your own reporting. But I fully anticipate utilizing other formats (e.g., DTS Neo:X and Dolby Surround) for most of my source material into the foreseeable future. I also currently plan to keep a "traditional" 11CH speaker set-up even for Atmos playback until I'm convinced it's worth my while (and it can satisfy the WAF) to make the necessary changes.



FilmMixer said:


> Pure speculation on my part but I suspect even some of these first gen products will have more flexibility than what is thought to be the case at this point.


I also made that inference from your and Sanjay's recent posts, and that is one factor leading to my view that "early adopter syndrome" should not deter me from buying one of these first-generation Atmos AVR's.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Unfortunately, I already have these speakers. I had decided to match my other speakers and coax was not an option.
> 
> So no one sees any way to even address the issues that would be introduced? I don't need an ideal solution, just as good as I can get.


They should be oriented as their designer intended - eg 'upright' when looking at them from your chair. And as they are in the image you attached. Depending on your ceiling height and the height dimension of the speakers, this may not be a problem for you. Here, it was a problem for me.

The worst thing to do with them would be to mount them 'horizontally' (from the perspective of your viewing them when seated) as this would then introduce the lobing issues being discussed, and may also result in an undesirable dispersion pattern.

My Tannoys solved all these problems at a stroke - they are designed for horizontal use (coax), they are designed for ceiling mounting and came with all necessary fixings, they are way less 'deep' than the MKs and they have a 90 degree dispersion pattern. My MKs would have just protruded too far into the room when mounted vertically, something compounded by having to use a less than ideal speaker mount which would have positioned them almost 3 inches from the ceiling when angled appropriately. Add that to the 13 inch height dimension of the speaker and the take into account the 8ft ceiling height and they would just have hung too low, to coin a phrase.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Those look to be the same proportions of the MK speakers I was planning initially to use. Another reason I dismissed them in the end - they would have to be mounted vertically as shown (as they are designed with that orientation in mind) and they would then poke so far down into the room as to be undesirable from various points of view.


I also considered small bookshelves, like the M-L Motion 4, and rejected for same reasons. Drivers are vertically aligned. They probably have to be pointed straight ahead to reduce directionality and they would physically intrude on floor-ceiling space. I recall reading something in one of the Dolby white papers that in/on ceiling mounting on wooden type beams isn't recommended (@ ceiling heights ~ 8') due to speakers being too close to listening position height wise and therefore too noticeable. A bookshelf hung from a ceiling is about same height wise as putting an in-ceiling on a beam.

I've been doing lots of speaker "shopping" and if someone wants to ceiling mount, unless you have tall ceilings that would work with suspended pro/cinema speakers, it looks like true in-ceilings or a short height dimension speaker like your Tannoy with concentric driver are the best options.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> They should be oriented as their designer intended - eg 'upright'...The worst thing to do with them would be to mount them 'horizontally' (from the perspective of your viewing them when seated) as this would then introduce the lobing issues being discussed, and may also result in an undesirable dispersion pattern.
> 
> My Tannoys solved all these problems at a stroke - they are designed for horizontal use (coax), they are designed for ceiling mounting and came with all necessary fixings, they are way less 'deep' than the MKs and they have a 90 degree dispersion pattern.


I've come to same conclusions.

For me, it's come down to either the Pioneer Dolby speakers or the Tannoy's. Nothing else quite seems to work as well unless it's a true in-ceiling. 

While there are lots of "outdoor" C-bracket speakers, the vast majority are conventional 2 way vertical aligned drivers. While some of these mfgs do show optional horizontal orientation, not many people are going to know about lobing, let alone care for a party-casual patio speaker. But in a decent home theater setup, you really don't want lobing issues to interfere with sound quality, agreed!


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I've been doing lots of speaker "shopping" and if someone wants to ceiling mount, unless you have tall ceilings that would work with suspended pro/cinema speakers, it looks like true in-ceilings or a short height dimension speaker like your Tannoy with concentric driver are the best options.


I did a lot of soul-searching and online searching too before Roger solved it for me  Even though I have now bought the Tannoys, I have still carried on searching, out of interest, but am pleased to say that I have seen nothing that looks as if it will work better, for me, than those little Tannoys.

I am in the opposite position to many: I would probably have preferred to use Atmos modules, but my room layout and size and my ceiling treatments actually makes it easier for me to use physical ceiling-mounted speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect. Based on today's discussion, I believe *this application* is the one in play. Be forewarned, it does not answer your questions wrt sound quality.


Talk about techno-babble.  So, basically, they're lumping objects and metadata into clusters and then sort-of pulling them apart at the de-compression stage, so they aren't as "discrete" as the theatrical version and yet not like matrixed surround formats of yesteryear. 

I wonder if, for pure music applications, it might be better (fidelity wise) if Dolby (and DTS) just added extensions to their lossless codecs to do 11.1 (7.1 plus two overhead and two front wide) discrete channels at 24/96 or 24/192 and not use Atmos encoding.

I guess the proof is in the listening.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I've come to same conclusions.
> 
> For me, it's come down to either the Pioneer Dolby speakers or the Tannoy's. Nothing else quite seems to work as well unless it's a true in-ceiling.
> 
> While there are lots of "outdoor" C-bracket speakers, the vast majority are conventional 2 way vertical aligned drivers. While some of these mfgs do show optional horizontal orientation, not many people are going to know about lobing, let alone care for a party-casual patio speaker. But in a decent home theater setup, you really don't want lobing issues to interfere with sound quality, agreed!


Yep. I briefly considered in-ceiling designs, but rejected them for practical reasons: either the ones I liked the look of were too deep for my ceiling, or the ones that would fit didn't appeal to me. And also, I would have had zero flexibility to experiment with trying them in different positions. Once the hole is cut, it's cut. 

Agreed about the majority of C-bracket designs.

BTW, I hooked up a pair of the Tannoys to my 2-ch music system. Fed by my old but great pure Class A amps, and my Naim CD player, via my ancient but nice Rega speakers, the Tannoys sounded....



Spoiler



Fabulous! I was very impressed.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> They should be oriented as their designer intended - eg 'upright' when looking at them from your chair. And as they are in the image you attached. Depending on your ceiling height and the height dimension of the speakers, this may not be a problem for you. Here, it was a problem for me.
> 
> The worst thing to do with them would be to mount them 'horizontally' (from the perspective of your viewing them when seated) as this would then introduce the lobing issues being discussed, and may also result in an undesirable dispersion pattern.
> 
> My Tannoys solved all these problems at a stroke - they are designed for horizontal use (coax), they are designed for ceiling mounting and came with all necessary fixings, they are way less 'deep' than the MKs and they have a 90 degree dispersion pattern. My MKs would have just protruded too far into the room when mounted vertically, something compounded by having to use a less than ideal speaker mount which would have positioned them almost 3 inches from the ceiling when angled appropriately. Add that to the 13 inch height dimension of the speaker and the take into account the 8ft ceiling height and they would just have hung too low, to coin a phrase.


I completely understand.

Hopefully it will work for me. My speakers are quite small (and thus can only do about, say, 110-120 Hz with any authority) and are designed to have wide dispersal (although I don't know if it's ≥ 90 degrees). As you can see from how they will be mounted in the picture, they look about 3 inches from the ceiling and are pointed down such that the diagonal (hypotenuse) will determine the "height" of the speaker so to speak. This would place the bottom point of the speaker at about 1 foot from the ceiling (i.e. 7 feet from the ground).

Whether or not this is "too close to the listener" remains to be seen. I plan on mounting them 4 feet in front (and in back) of the MLP. Again, solving for hypotenuse, that would place the speaker 8 feet from the listener. Hopefully, that's enough.


----------



## Rayjr

I got the chance to attend the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo yesterday.
Looks like FilmMixer and sdurani have pretty much touched on most of what we saw and heard, and the only thing I can really add is my personal opinion.

I went in with the idea that the ceiling mounted speakers were going to be the better sounding option..but after listening to the demos and switching back and forth...I preferred the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted. I felt that the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers sounded like a larger over head space and just more enveloping to me.

I was able to take some pictures of the demo room we were in ... I will be posting those later today.

Sorry to have such a brief writeup..but FilmMixer and sdurani have pretty much covered the better part of the technical aspects.

Just my $.02
RayJr


----------



## bargervais

Mech0z said:


> 3800 is for the Onkyo 636 where the offer now includes the speakers without more pay, but yes Denmark is very expensive


that explains the expense because here the 636 is $599 and the speakers are $240 so if your getting both that looks to be a good deal.


----------



## bargervais

Rayjr said:


> I got the chance to attend the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo yesterday.
> Looks like FilmMixer and sdurani have pretty much touched on most of what we saw and heard, and the only thing I can really add is my personal opinion.
> 
> I went in with the idea that the ceiling mounted speakers were going to be the better sounding option..but after listening to the demos and switching back and forth...I preferred the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted. I felt that the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers sounded like a larger over head space and just more enveloping to me.
> 
> I was able to take some pictures of the demo room we were in ... I will be posting those later today.
> 
> Sorry to have such a brief writeup..but FilmMixer and sdurani have pretty much covered the better part of the technical aspects.
> 
> Just my $.02
> RayJr


Do you know what brand of Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers were they using for the up firing speakers.


----------



## Rayjr

bargervais said:


> Do you know what brand of Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers were they using for the up firing speakers.


I do not..as all the equipment was "white labeled" no names...but I do have a picture of them with and with out the grills..will be posting later today.

RayJr


----------



## PoshFrosh

FilmMixer said:


> EDIT: and they mentioned they recommend at least *a minimum three feet of distance between listener and an elevation speaker*. And in a 7.1 setup to use the elevation speaker on the back, not side, surrounds.





PoshFrosh said:


> Whether or not this is "too close to the listener" remains to be seen. I plan on mounting them *4 feet in front* (and in back) of the MLP. Again, solving for hypotenuse, that *would place the speaker 8 feet from the listener*. Hopefully, that's enough.


Phew, what filmmixer has posted sounds promising to the way I plan to set up. Only time will tell for sure how well it will work with my decisions (specifically with regards to using a non-coax design).


----------



## doublewing11

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. I briefly considered in-ceiling designs, but rejected them for practical reasons: either the ones I liked the look of were too deep for my ceiling, or the ones that would fit didn't appeal to me. And also, I would have had zero flexibility to experiment with trying them in different positions. Once the hole is cut, it's cut.
> 
> Agreed about the majority of C-bracket designs.
> 
> BTW, I hooked up a pair of the Tannoys to my 2-ch music system. Fed by my old but great pure Class A amps, and my Naim CD player, via my ancient but nice Rega speakers, the Tannoys sounded....
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Fabulous! I was very impressed.


I'm well aware Roger plans to use Tannoy DC6's in his configuration.......may I assume your remarks are referring to same speaker?

In a bit of a conundrum........I 've gone to great lengths to hide ceiling speakers, but my preferred manufacturer just doesn't have a viable offering unless I go custom, but still dispersion is an issue. 

The more I research possibilities, more I tend to revert back to these Tannoy speakers. I have 8-1/4" depth in cloud.......need 1/4" more to make them work. Fortunate to have 10+ foot ceilings.........and plan was developed utilizing 6 in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wonder if, for pure music applications, it might be better (fidelity wise) if Dolby (and DTS) just added extensions to their lossless codecs to do 11.1 (7.1 plus two overhead and two front wide) discrete channels at 24/96 or 24/192 and not use Atmos encoding.


Guess it depends how many (fixed) objects they can distribute losslessly in a TrueHD container. The patent application doesn't provide any answers to this.


----------



## noah katz

You can determine where the suckouts are by looking at freq response data at vertical angles from a line perpendicular to the baffle, or lacking that, by listening from different angles.



PoshFrosh said:


> Here was the only picture I could find which demonstrates the effect:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, as along as the on-ceiling tweeter/woofer speakers are mounted upright, what would be the other mounting considerations?
> 
> What I will be doing will end up looking something like the attached picture.
> 
> Not sure what else to do but point them directly at the MLP...


----------



## markus767

Rayjr said:


> I do have a picture of them with and with out the grills..will be posting later today.


Thanks in advance!


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> I completely understand.
> 
> Hopefully it will work for me. My speakers are quite small (and thus can only do about, say, 110-120 Hz with any authority) and are designed to have wide dispersal (although I don't know if it's ≥ 90 degrees). As you can see from how they will be mounted in the picture, they look about 3 inches from the ceiling and are pointed down such that the diagonal (hypotenuse) will determine the "height" of the speaker so to speak. This would place the bottom point of the speaker at about 1 foot from the ceiling (i.e. 7 feet from the ground).
> 
> Whether or not this is "too close to the listener" remains to be seen. I plan on mounting them 4 feet in front (and in back) of the MLP. Again, solving for hypotenuse, that would place the speaker 8 feet from the listener. Hopefully, that's enough.


Looks OK to me. My front tops will be about 7.5 feet from my ears, so I am hoping we will both be good to go with that!


----------



## kbarnes701

doublewing11 said:


> I'm well aware Roger plans to use Tannoy DC6's in his configuration.......may I assume your remarks are referring to same speaker?


I am using the Di5 DC - Roger is using its bigger brother, the Di6 DC. My room is much smaller than Roger's (and yours) hence the smaller speaker - the Di6 would just be too big here. Otherwise, it's what I'd use too.



doublewing11 said:


> In a bit of a conundrum........I 've gone to great lengths to hide ceiling speakers, but my preferred manufacturer just doesn't have a viable offering unless I go custom, but still dispersion is an issue.
> 
> The more I research possibilities, more I tend to revert back to these Tannoy speakers. I have 8-1/4" depth in cloud.......need 1/4" more to make them work. Fortunate to have 10+ foot ceilings.........and plan was developed utilizing 6 in-ceiling speakers.


That looks like a lovely ceiling. I am guessing you will not let that pesky 1/4 of an inch stand in your way


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Is it possible some of you, in your understandable enthusiasm, are jumping the gun by purchasing new, mis-matched speakers right now? 

Why not see what the manufacturers of your current speakers are going to do in answering the needs of the Atmos format? 

There is a little something called *timbre matching* that would probably be a lot more critical with object based surround.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is a little something called *timbre matching* that would probably be a lot more critical with object based surround.


There's this other little something called *equalizer* that can remove most tonal differences.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> There's this other little something called *equalizer* that can remove most tonal differences.


That must be some stupendously magical equalizer that can make one model of speaker sound like another. 

I'll definitely hold off and see what Paradigm has to offer.


----------



## doublewing11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is it possible some of you, in your understandable enthusiasm, are jumping the gun by purchasing new, mis-matched speakers right now?
> 
> Why not see what the manufacturers of your current speakers are going to do in answering the needs of the Atmos format?
> 
> There is a little something called *timbre matching* that would probably be a lot more critical with object based surround.



And there's a wonderful tool called eq.........


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Looks OK to me. My front tops will be about 7.5 feet from my ears, so I am hoping we will both be good to go with that!


Thanks! Where are you positioning each pair? You said Onkyo said at thirds of the room (as others have mentioned) but I think this makes no sense. It doesn't take into consideration where your mains are (with relation to the wall) nor if you have 5.1 or 7.1, etc.

I have 7.1 and am using the 38% rule (MLP 38% distance from rear wall). Placing the top rears at thirds would have them almost directly above the MLP. I would think the front and rear top speakers should be between the listener and the front speakers and between the listener and rear speakers respectively.

I know that you have a 5.1 setup. Where are you planning on positioning you tops?


----------



## KidHorn

Rayjr said:


> I went in with the idea that the ceiling mounted speakers were going to be the better sounding option..but after listening to the demos and switching back and forth...I preferred the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted. I felt that the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers sounded like a larger over head space and just more enveloping to me.



It seems like a more diffuse sound from overhead is preferred. Different than we want from speakers at ear level. I would guess that our hearing from overhead isn't as acute as our hearing along the grounds plane.


Myself, when I hear something overhead like an airplane or bird, I typically don't know where the sound is coming from. Looking up helps quite a bit.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> That must be some stupendously magical equalizer that can make one model of speaker sound like another.


No magic, just a boring old parametric EQ


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is it possible some of you, in your understandable enthusiasm, are jumping the gun by purchasing new, mis-matched speakers right now?
> 
> Why not see what the manufacturers of your current speakers are going to do in answering the needs of the Atmos format?
> 
> There is a little something called *timbre matching* that would probably be a lot more critical with object based surround.


Timbre matching was really important back in the day. Now we have EQ...

EDIT: LOL. I see I was comprehensively beaten to it by others. But yes, timbre matching was important when we didn’t have EQ at home. But those days are long gone and we can now EQ our speakers to bring them into tonal balance with each other.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Thanks! Where are you positioning each pair? You said Onkyo said at thirds of the room (as others have mentioned) but I think this makes no sense. It doesn't take into consideration where your mains are (with relation to the wall) nor if you have 5.1 or 7.1, etc.


I agree. It seemed very arbitrary. I am just following the angles shown in the oft-posted diagram.



PoshFrosh said:


> I have 7.1 and am using the 38% rule (MLP 38% distance from rear wall). Placing the top rears at thirds would have them almost directly above the MLP. I would think the front and rear top speakers should be between the listener and the front speakers and between the listener and rear speakers respectively.


Yes, I agree. If you follow the angles published so far, then it all clicks into place.



PoshFrosh said:


> I know that you have a 5.1 setup. Where are you planning on positioning you tops?


At risk of repeating myself, according to the prescribed angles  I am holding off mounting the ceiling speakers until after CEDIA, so that I have the most info I can get from Dolby (which Marc said they said is coming soon).


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> I know that you have a 5.1 setup. Where are you planning on positioning you tops?


Perhaps my earlier reply was too flippant. Sorry.

I am intending to use the front top pair designated as Front Height, but positioned at 42 degrees, which is within the angular spec for both Top Front and Front Height (30-55 and 30-45 degrees respectively). This will place them at 40 inches from the front wall, which will give me, I believe, enough planar separation from the mains. I will position the back pair at 100 degrees which is on spec for Middle Top (65-100 degrees). I will then designate the speakers in the AVR as Front Height and Middle Top. (Front Top and Middle Top cannot be used together, and I cannot meet the spec for Rear Top (125-150 degrees)).


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Timbre matching was really important back in the day. Now we have EQ...
> 
> EDIT: LOL. I see I was comprehensively beaten to it by others. But yes, timbre matching was important when we didn’t have EQ at home.* But those days are long gone and we can now EQ our speakers to bring them into tonal balance with each other*.




How do you EQ speakers that are designed to bounce the audio off of the ceiling over a wide area?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why not see what the manufacturers of your current speakers are going to do in answering the needs of the Atmos format?


My speakers are all M&K or the later MK Sound versions (S150 LCR and M7 surrounds). It is highly unlikely that MK would introduce a coaxial speaker, (my preferred design for ceiling speakers for reasons recently stated) as this would be totally out of line with the design concepts which have been M&K's hallmark for decades. Nothing is impossible of course, but to wait would possibly mean waiting for years.

And given that I am a firm believer that EQ can address tonal differences very well indeed, and certainly well enough for the beneficent incorporation of surround speakers into a system (which is what the Atmos speakers are, really), then I am not concerned with timbre matching for now.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How do you EQ speakers that are designed to bounce the audio off of the ceiling over a wide area?


I won't be using speakers that bounce the audio off the ceiling, so it is of no concern to me how they would be EQd. 

Surely my earlier posts made it clear what kind of speakers I will be using, even down the the model name and number and a provided link to the manufacturer's web site?


----------



## Selden Ball

Speaking more genericaly about EQing bounced audio, I think we'll just have to wait to find out how well it's handled. To a certain extent, I'd expect it to depend on the design of the Atmos-enabled speakers. So long as the mic can't detect a significant amount of direct sound from them, I'd expect it to work just as well for the reflected audio coming from the Atmos-enabled speakers as it does for the direct audio from the other speakers.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> I won't be using speakers that bounce the audio off the ceiling, so it is of no concern to me how they would be EQd.
> 
> Surely my earlier posts made it clear what kind of speakers I will be using, even down the the model name and number and a provided link to the manufacturer's web site?




Instead of the self centered "you", how about the more general "you", meaning those who will use speakers that bounce the audio off of the ceiling?


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How do you EQ speakers that are designed to bounce the audio off of the ceiling over a wide area?


I'll bite 
I would EQ them like any other speaker.


----------



## Bumper

PoshFrosh said:


> Here was the only picture I could find which demonstrates the effect:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, as along as the on-ceiling tweeter/woofer speakers are mounted upright, what would be the other mounting considerations?


Is this a picture of two different speakers? If not, I don't understand how this works. If gravity is not involved how would rotating the speaker 90 degrees suddenly change the radiation.

I mounted Boston Voyager speakers. These are speakers with two drivers and the owners manual shows them mounted sideways. I did mount them so the Low would point to the wall and the tweet points to the center away from the closest wall. While testing the speakers i could really hear no difference while changing the speakers position. I do understand that a speaker is best placed for what it was designed for but I don't understand how lobing can be introduced when a speaker is rotated. If it really is an issue, than it would also make a difference where one is seated in relation to a single two way ceiling speaker. People sitting more to the left from the rear left ceiling speaker that is mounted 90 degrees of its designed position should hear a different sound than people seated right of that same speaker. I will do some more hearing tests later on to confirm or deny this in real life (not in theory) in my own theater. I can see how mounting the speaker in it's designed position would not introduce this problem.

If it turns out to be a huge difference in hearing experience, I can Always buy new speakers
I did go for those so that I atleast didn't have Timbre matching issues.


----------



## redjr

NorthSky said:


> ...By the way, who asked for them curved TVs?


Because now with Atmos we'll have curved sound too!


----------



## bkeeler10

It doesn't change the radiation, only whether the radiation anomalies are perceived. If you mount the speaker vertically, and assuming your seated listening height doesn't change vertically, you will hear the same sound as you move left to right in the seating area. If you mount the speaker horizontally, the sound will change as you move left to right in the seating area. This is due to having the same sounds coming from two different drivers whose distances to the various seating positions, relative to each other, change.

If you mount the speaker vertically, and if you have people sitting with ear heights at 2', 4' and 6', you will have the same problem. That's just not very common though (although different rows of seating would be somewhat affected).


----------



## Bumper

bkeeler10 said:


> It doesn't change the radiation, only whether the radiation anomalies are perceived. If you mount the speaker vertically, and assuming your seated listening height doesn't change vertically, you will hear the same sound as you move left to right in the seating area. If you mount the speaker horizontally, the sound will change as you move left to right in the seating area. This is due to having the same sounds coming from two different drivers whose distances to the various seating positions, relative to each other, change.
> 
> If you mount the speaker vertically, and if you have people sitting with ear heights at 2', 4' and 6', you will have the same problem. That's just not very common though (although different rows of seating would be somewhat affected).


OK, I understand it correctly than. I do however change my ear height to the speakers because my seats can be in an upward or a realx position. Right now it doesn't really matter where you sit. All seats appear to sound the same after I introduced Audyssey in 2010. The Boston Voyagers are relatively small speakers so the distance between the two drivers is not very big. By mounting them the way I did, I can angle the speakers toward the seats whereas I could not have done that any other way while using the same mounting brackets. So I am probably a bit off of perfect but by looking at my sistuation, it is a still a good solution. My ceiling could host in ceiling speakers but I would have to invest a lot of time to make them custom fit which by the way is a nice way to spend time.. If I am not blown away in october after installing the Denon 5200 I will start my search for another solution. Right now I am ready to install and start testing which could be in a few weeks already because Onkyo still wants to come and prove their AccuEQ against Audyssey in my theater.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Instead of the self centered "you", how about the more general "you", meaning those who will use speakers that bounce the audio off of the ceiling?


I assumed that as you were replying to me, and not asking a general question of the thread, that you were in fact addressing, well, me. How silly of me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> Is this a picture of two different speakers? If not, I don't understand how this works. If gravity is not involved how would rotating the speaker 90 degrees suddenly change the radiation.


The dispersion pattern of the speaker will change in relation to your ears when you rotate it (or you for that matter).


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> The dispersion pattern of the speaker will change in relation to your ears when you rotate it (or you for that matter).


Walking in circles underneath my ceiling speakers is also going to be very easy to test if only I were home from holiday In all of these cases (speaker higher or lower, orientation etc) I am not so interested in the theory. I can understand why one thing is better than the orher but I am interested in how it sounds like after a good calibration. Knowing that it could probably sound even better when done right but right would costs aesthetics or time and obviously money.
Many things to do next saturday..


----------



## Maestro J

Interesting feedback from the Burbank Dolby demo regarding their preference of Atmos enabled front/rear speakers over the ceiling installed height speakers. This surprised me since everything I've ready from Dolby has stated that the sweet spot for home Atmos is having 4 ceiling speakers installed.

Since all agreed that the reflecting sound from the Atmos enabled speakers produced a more enveloping 3d sound field than direct firing ceiling speakers, wouldn't bipole/dipole ceiling speakers be the trick for creating this similar type enveloping 3d sound field? Even if you use min 90 degree dispersion monos, a diffused omni-directional bi or di pole should do the trick better, right?


----------



## action_jackson

Bumper said:


> Walking in circles underneath my ceiling speakers is also going to be very easy to test if only I were home from holiday In all of these cases (speaker higher or lower, orientation etc) I am not so interested in the theory. I can understand why one thing is better than the orher but I am interested in how it sounds like after a good calibration. Knowing that it could probably sound even better when done right but right would costs aesthetics or time and obviously money.
> Many things to do next saturday..


I wonder if you walk around the room during an atmos movie you could actually pinpoint the location of the sounds...like if you heard something in the center of the room, would you be able to walk around it? If you were on the right side of the room, the sound would come from the left of you, and if you were on the left side of the room, the sound would be on your right.


----------



## markus767

action_jackson said:


> I wonder if you walk around the room during an atmos movie you could actually pinpoint the location of the sounds...like if you heard something in the center of the room, would you be able to walk around it? If you were on the right side of the room, the sound would come from the left of you, and if you were on the left side of the room, the sound would be on your right.


No, Atmos does not reconstruct a wave field, it is based on stereo instead.


----------



## marky301067

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is it possible some of you, in your understandable enthusiasm, are jumping the gun by purchasing new, mis-matched speakers right now?
> 
> Why not see what the manufacturers of your current speakers are going to do in answering the needs of the Atmos format?
> 
> There is a little something called *timbre matching* that would probably be a lot more critical with object based surround.




That's exactly what's going through my head, you seem to be the fist one on here to mention it :wink:


----------



## Nightlord

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is it possible some of you, in your understandable enthusiasm, are jumping the gun by purchasing new, mis-matched speakers right now?
> 
> Why not see what the manufacturers of your current speakers are going to do in answering the needs of the Atmos format?
> 
> There is a little something called *timbre matching* that would probably be a lot more critical with object based surround.


No, that's why I want a pair of add-on atmos speakers opened up and any component network deconstructed... So I can add the same function to a timbre-matched speaker of my choice. (Or if there isn't any components at all - to know that.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> No, that's why I want a pair of add-on atmos speakers opened up and any component network deconstructed... So I can add the same function to a timbre-matched speaker of my choice. (Or if there isn't any components at all - to know that.)


A little bit of reverse engineering to see some of Dolby's "secret speaker sauce" (sans added post processing).  Not a bad idea at all.


----------



## sdurani

Franin said:


> So we can keep our speakers Sanjay and use external speakers ( modules )?


Sure, no one has ever said otherwise. And height modules don't have to be physically placed on top of your current speakers, as long as they hit the correct location on the ceiling.


Franin said:


> Another question is if I have heights already can I angle them towards the ceiling ?


Aren't they already on the ceiling?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> And height modules don't have to be physically placed on top of your current speakers, as long as they hit the correct location on the ceiling.


Is that information provided by Dolby?


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> A little bit of reverse engineering to see some of Dolby's "secret speaker sauce" (sans added post processing).  Not a bad idea at all.



If there really is "_*Atmos *Secret Speaker Sauce_" in the speakers--_rather than say just clever acoustic throw+focus technology to accommodate the distance from transducer to MLP, and "via ceiling" bounce_--then the question becomes: Will there be a problem using these same _add-on *Atmos* speakers_ with a *DTS-UHD* decoder in your _next_ AVR? or similarly with an *Auro-3D* decoder?
_


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Rayjr said:


> I got the chance to attend the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo yesterday.
> 
> I went in with the idea that the ceiling mounted speakers were going to be the better sounding option..but after listening to the demos and switching back and forth...I preferred the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted. I felt that the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers sounded like a larger over head space and just more *enveloping* to me.
> 
> I was able to take some pictures of the demo room we were in ... I will be posting those later today.


That I can understand. As NorthSky explained it, beaming upwards effectively quadruples (2 x as wide and 2 x as deep) the surface covered by the speakers vs ceiling mounted. 

But that is not all what Atmos is about. It is also about up to 128 sound objects being precisely rendered in the hemisphere. if that object is large, like a car or a plane, then the upwards will work. But I think a Robin in the woods could sound so "enveloping" that it's more like the size of a Turkey, no?  So, that's one concern.

There's a second concern: no way are the ceilings in my HT going to be as flat and shiny as in that Hong Kong demo here: https://www.facebook.com/RickyChanw...10152634741779188.1073742091.783714187&type=1

Also traditional 2-way speakers are probably not ideal, as we discussed here before. Please post those pics, so we can see.

So, the question is what will give the best *overall* sound quality? Upward firing 30 watt capable add-on speakers in a space with untreated ceilings? Or ceiling mounted 300 watt coaxials with a fully acoustic treated ceiling? BTW, the ceiling is by far the ideal spot to treat, as it is large, we don't walk on it (except you, Lionel Richie) and we don't hang paintings on it...


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Is that information provided by Dolby?


Yes, they told us yesterday that height modules could be placed close to the speakers rather than directly on top. 

On a related note, there is a 3rd white paper coming out that is intended as an installation guide with best practices for custom installers (and the rest of us) that Dolby intends to release at CEDIA. 

Personally, I would hold off on mounting any speakers until I've at least perused that white paper. At that point, I would decide how closely I want to stick to their recommendations.


----------



## bargervais

Sure, no one has ever said otherwise. And height modules don't have to be physically placed on top of your current speakers, as long as they hit the correct location on the ceiling




markus767 said:


> Is that information provided by Dolby?


I also read this on the Onkyo web site in the description of the atmos modular speakers.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Yes, they told us yesterday that height modules could be placed close to the speakers rather than directly on top.
> 
> On a related note, there is a 3rd white paper coming out that is intended as an installation guide with best practices for custom installers (and the rest of us) that Dolby intends to release at CEDIA.
> 
> Personally, I would hold off on mounting any speakers until I've at least perused that white paper. At that point, I would decide how closely I want to stick to their recommendations.


Thanks, will wait.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Is that information provided by Dolby?


Yes - they can be up to 3 feet away from the main speakers they relate to.

From the Dolby Atmos FAQ:

_"You can place these add-on modules on top of your current speakers or on another nearby surface.

"If you’re using add-on modules, place them either on top of your front and surround (ideally, rear surround) speakers or within 3 feet (0.9 meter) of those speakers."_


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> My previous speculation about Dolby's Spatial Coding bearing some resemblance to other spatial coders (even those for which Dolby has recent patents filed) was explained as being incorrect.
> 
> Based on today's discussion, I believe *This Application* is the one in play.





markus767 said:


> Thanks Roger. Back to reading.


You said it! ...Tell me more...  ...Ouf!


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> BTW, the ceiling is by far the ideal spot to treat, as it is large, we don't walk on it (except you, Lionel Richie) and we don't hang paintings on it...


And Frank (Sinatra). He _dances_ on it.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> But that is not all what Atmos is about. It is also about up to 128 sound objects being precisely rendered in the hemisphere. if that object is large, like a car or a plane, then the upwards will work.


That's what Atmos is all about for you, but not necessarily for others. I've heard imaging so precise, it made a singer appear to have a head the size of a golf ball. Yeah, it was pinpoint, but unrealistic. 

Same with the Atmos demo yesterday. Instead of 4 precise spots overhead, the upward firing drivers sounded more like a seamless ring above the listening area. Part of the problem might have been that the 4 Tannoys mounted overhead were pointing straight down. How much better would they have sounded had they been toed in, even cross toed to the person furthest away (energy trading)? We'll never know.


erwinfrombelgium said:


> So, the question is what will give the best *overall* sound quality? Upward firing 30 watt capable add-on speakers in a space with untreated ceilings? Or ceiling mounted 300 watt coaxials with a fully acoustic treated ceiling?


You left out the part where the upward firing speaker had its driver sliced up and was connected with 24 gauge lamp cord.


----------



## bkeeler10

Technically, so does Lionel Richie


----------



## NorthSky

Rayjr said:


> I got the chance to attend the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo yesterday.
> Looks like FilmMixer and sdurani have pretty much touched on most of what we saw and heard, and the only thing I can really add is my personal opinion.
> 
> I went in with the idea that the ceiling mounted speakers were going to be the better sounding option..but after listening to the demos and switching back and forth...I preferred the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted. I felt that the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers sounded like a larger over head space and just more enveloping to me.
> 
> I was able to take some pictures of the demo room we were in ... I will be posting those later today.
> 
> Sorry to have such a brief writeup..but FilmMixer and sdurani have pretty much covered the better part of the technical aspects.
> 
> Just my $.02
> RayJr


This, is the most interesting post so far. ...I will be monitoring very closely all the developments, because me too I want the very best surround envelopment. And in my room with cathedral ceilings this is great news as it is much more simpler. ...Installation and all. 
And even if I would have the perfect reflective ceiling @ 9 feet, I would still go with floor up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers @ this point. 

I love the simplicity of it all for home. ...Simply add four small Dolby Atmos satellite (coaxial) speakers atop your two front mains and two rear surrounds (in a 7.1-ch setup), and aim them properly (a la Andrew Jones), connect them to your new unit, et voila. ...No holes, no complication, no ladder, no wires concealment to take care of, just like normal surround business with wires on the floor alongside the walls, or under the floor. ...The ceiling remains as it is, the wife is happy, and the surround effect is greater. ...A win-it-all situation. 

I love this idea so much much much more, and I am so happy of what people have found so far, like you just said it above. Thank you, you made my day. ...Now, waiting for DTS-UHD ,,,


----------



## noah katz

Maestro J said:


> Since all agreed that the reflecting sound from the Atmos enabled speakers produced a more enveloping 3d sound field than direct firing ceiling speakers, wouldn't bipole/dipole ceiling speakers be the trick for creating this similar type enveloping 3d sound field? Even if you use min 90 degree dispersion monos, a diffused omni-directional bi or di pole should do the trick better, right?


Or a variation on a Mirage Omnipolar with a coldspot on axis.


----------



## NorthSky

Rayjr said:


> I do not..as all the equipment was "white labeled" no names...
> but I *do have a picture of them with and with out the grills..will be posting later today*.
> 
> RayJr


♦ Yes Ray, please do. 



NorthSky said:


> By the way, who asked for them curved TVs?





redjr said:


> Because now with Atmos we'll have curved sound too!


♦ Ha!


----------



## asarose247

I'd like to take a moment to thank the "heavy lifters and thinkers" here for pushing the envelope wrt to "understanding" D: All of the above


I went ahead with the overhead trestle project , it penciled out to only about $100 because I already had most of the stuff (dude, you got WAY TOO MUCH STUFF)!), the time and patience and wanted to follow thru on the discussion I had had with Sanjay.


The attached picture is the "on ceiling" thing. there is no speaker attached, obviously, 
My measurements from the center of that bracket to which the SLX attaches to the center of the speaker to the right or behind is about 88 inches, and subtracting for the 4" depth of the speaker puts all four in about a 7 foot square wrt to MLP. (42" ahead, behind, left and right)
The angle "up' is about 35 degrees or less.
The distance from the TF's to the plane of the LCR is also about 80 inches, so using the 35-50 degree option for repositioning of the FH's, there's room for the other 2 SLX sitting around, could also be hung horizontally. think 9.x.4
WRT to the vertical/horizontal argument, I think that for my one-man gets his own MLP theory (?), the notion mentioned earlier about "walking in a circle" to hear the sound change is an interesting possibility. But what if I could just sit there and get that effect and a few others . . . yeah baby, lock and load . . . in the money seat . . 
I'll run the wires and will make them all equal length, about 40 ft max if I go up thru the wall and across the attic, it needs some more pencil work . . .So...
Any suggestions about how to deploy/experiment with/enjoy







this set up while we wait? I have an extra amp that will let me do another 6 channels of amplification


p.s. Everything is Rustoleum 2X satin "Granite" and mostly matches the speaker color and is near invisible in extreme low light/darkness.


And a box holing the "right" co-axial is not out of the question


standing by


and one more time 
TY


----------



## NorthSky

While most of you will be drilling holes in your ceiling, and playing with harnessing the wiring, 
me I'll be putting some blu tack atop four of my speakers (lucky me they are flat on top - all four are 44" high - perfect height, I think - because I won't be hearing sound coming directly from them - my ears are @ 33" height). ...And my ceiling is all made of perfect reflective wood surface to expand that Dolby Spatial sauce. 
...Starting @ 8.25 feet @ the walls and up to 11.0 feet @ center. ...I feel I have the ideal room to retire in higher "elevation".

Man I love this hobby! ...Do you too?


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How do you EQ speakers that are designed to bounce the audio off of the ceiling over a wide area?


I guess we don't.

And the AVR (SSP) would know how far they are from the ceiling, and the main listening position.
From that the receiver would know what just to do with its Auto Room Correction & EQ system as implemented by its manufacturer and working in tandem with the Dolby Atmos chip decoder. 

My best guess is that they won't be massaged/EQued as they are already designed with a 180Hz crossover and Dolby Atmos spatial effects going through them. 

But my guess could be proven wrong; if some expert is in the know. ...Because they could be EQued as well to give that ideal target curve with that upper tilt in the bass and gently descending towards the treble region for that desired smooth sound that all of us aspire to. 

Who's going to be good @ it best? *...Audyssey? ...AccuEQ? ...MCACC? ...YPAO?* 
...Datasat? ...Trinnov Altitude? ...Dirac Live (Amarra - Audirvana)? ...Room Perfect? ...XTZ? ...ARC? ...Acourate? ...Audiolense? ...jriver? ...And there are many more...(but the first four above are the main ones which we are concerned with so far @ this point in time.)

And each year they will implement further improvements to their bass management system and all.
EQ is a perpetual work in progress; science is improvement, not rules.


----------



## sdurani

asarose247 said:


> Any suggestions about how to deploy/experiment with/enjoy this set up while we wait? I have an extra amp that will let me do another 6 channels of amplification.


If you have PLIIz processing on your receiver, you could try sending the extracted height signal to all 4 of your height speakers.


----------



## asarose247

^^^^^


"If you have PLIIz processing on your receiver, you could try sending the extracted height signal to all 4 of your height speakers.	" 


I have a few splitters and I believe the X4000 will oblige 


TY 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-128.html#


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How do you EQ speakers that are designed to bounce the audio off of the ceiling over a wide area?





kbarnes701 said:


> I won't be using speakers that bounce the audio off the ceiling, so it is of no concern to me how they would be EQd.
> 
> Surely my earlier posts made it clear what kind of speakers I will be using, even down the the model name and number and a provided link to the manufacturer's web site?





J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Instead of the self centered "you", how about the more general "you", meaning those who will use speakers that bounce the audio off of the ceiling?


♦ Touche.


----------



## NorthSky

Maestro J said:


> Interesting feedback from the Burbank Dolby demo regarding their preference of Atmos enabled front/rear speakers over the ceiling installed height speakers. This surprised me since everything I've ready from Dolby has stated that the sweet spot for home Atmos is having 4 ceiling speakers installed.
> 
> Since all agreed that the reflecting sound from the Atmos enabled speakers produced a more enveloping 3d sound field than direct firing ceiling speakers, wouldn't bipole/dipole ceiling speakers be the trick for creating this similar type enveloping 3d sound field? Even if you use min 90 degree dispersion monos, a diffused omni-directional bi or di pole should do the trick better, right?


That's a fair question, and I'm sure the Dolby people experimented with all the various alternatives they could have think of. ...Controlled reflections are perhaps not the same as diffusion. ...Dolby knows best.
Them spatial objects need some controlled directivity (every 15° for 24 horizontal speakers and 10 vertical/elevated/overhead ones), and dipolar and bipolar and omnipolar speakers probably do not fit the requirement. ...The acoustical properties as a coaxial speaker does.


----------



## chi_guy50

Franin said:


> Another question is if I have heights already can I angle them towards the ceiling?


Do I understand that you want to explore using traditional heights as reflecting speakers? I don't see how that is going to work.

OTOH, we do know that at least some CE manufacturers will allow you to use heights alone or combined with another pair of height/top/Atmos up-firing speakers (c.f. pp. 208/209 of the oft-cited (European) Denon AVR-X5200W Owner's Manual).


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> And height modules don't have to be physically placed on top of your current speakers, as long as they hit the correct location on the ceiling.





markus767 said:


> Is that information provided by Dolby?


An interesting/important point for people who have front main speakers that are round on top.
...And with rear surround (back) speakers that are mounted high on the back wall.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> If there really is "_*Atmos *Secret Speaker Sauce_" in the speakers--_rather than say just clever acoustic throw+focus technology to accommodate the distance from transducer to MLP, and "via ceiling" bounce_--then the question becomes: Will there be a problem using these same _add-on *Atmos* speakers_ with a *DTS-UHD* decoder in your _next_ AVR? or similarly with an *Auro-3D* decoder?
> _


They'll be similar overall, but with their own personal advancement touches.
...In particular Auro-3D. ...Which works on three layer levels, all around.

* And DTS-UHD covers a much broader base of Blu-rays encoded with DTS-HD Master Audio.
So a dts Upmixer would be much more useful for many many of us with a fair library of Blu-ray movies.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> That I can understand. As NorthSky explained it, beaming upwards effectively quadruples (2 x as wide and 2 x as deep) the surface covered by the speakers vs ceiling mounted.


Yes Erwin; my "theory" post => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs 
It would be interesting to find more as we go along making further discoveries and from a wider stroke of knowledge. 
And so far listeners seem to prefer up-firing speakers instead of those overhead ones.


----------



## ellisr63

What kind of speakers are you using that have a pinpoint dispersion for the heights?


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> Suffice it to say there is a big gulf between what Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround are capable of doing and what manufacturers have implemented (at least first generation implementations).


One example of this gulf: consumer Atmos can render to as few as 2 speakers, meaning height speakers need not be configured for Atmos decoding and rendering. 

One of the first things we discussed at the Atmos presser yesterday is the semantics of channel beds and objects. Dolby considers them all objects (channels are objects that don't move). They said objects pre-date Atmos, but those pieces of sound were limited to 5 or 7 pre-determined locations/outputs. Atmos allowed those same sounds to move in 3D space, but also kept the limitations on some of them in order to have the channel beds. 

I asked what happens when there are more speakers than channel beds. For example, someone sets up a Trinnov with 24 speakers around them. How many speakers get bed information? Is it only 7? Which means that the other 17 would be used just for objects? "We'll get back to you on that." 

Also, there had been an article on TWICE during CE Week 2014 that talked about Blu-ray packaging and claimed Atmos soundtracks would be labeled 7.1.4 or 5.1.4. Apparently, that was incorrect information. That terminology is for speaker configurations. No such designations for Atmos soundtracks on BD. In fact, they said labeling it with any sort of channel designation (even the beds) doesn't make sense. The packaging might still say 5.1 or 7.1, but that's only for the backwards compatible downmix (not even an indicator of the beds in the soundtrack).


----------



## NorthSky

From the Dolby Atmos FAQ:

_"You can place these add-on modules on top of your current speakers or on another nearby surface.

"If you’re using add-on modules, place them either on top of your front and surround (ideally, rear surround) speakers or within 3 feet (0.9 meter) of those speakers."_

Good to know; open more doors to more people.


----------



## helvetica bold

this is a noob question but those of you that have 5.1 and 7.1 how high are your rear surrounds? 
Now THX states about 2 feet above ear level. Right now i have mine at ear level, is this bad?
All this Atmos talk is making me reconsider my system!


----------



## Franin

sdurani said:


> Aren't they already on the ceiling?


Nope there close to the height of my projector screen ( that was shown on manual ) facing towards listening postion on wall. I've read other posts I'm going to wait until we know where to actual install these speakers. I can do ceiling speakers I think I'll wait until I know for certainty where to place them.


Cheers


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> The Blu-ray packaging might still say 5.1 or 7.1, but that's only for the backwards compatible downmix (not even an indicator of the beds in the soundtrack).


I sure hope that all (not sure how many because of so few Dolby TrueHD soundtracks) Blu-rays with Dolby Atmos encoding will be of the 7.1 variety.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Your insight is much sought after, Scott.


Thank you. 

Whew! Just got back a little while ago from my drive back up from LA. First I'd like to extend a thanks to Scott Wilkinson for the invitation to this event. It was quite an opportunity to attend such an event with many members of the press. 

As I am playing 'catch up' here now that Marc, Sanjay and Ray have commented about the events, I'll keep this somewhat short. These guys are way smarter and more articulate that I so I'll not repeat all the important technical stuff and just relay my experience of the day and my thoughts.

After a nice brunch with the guys (sdurani, FilmMixer, Rayjr) we headed out to the Dolby HQ in Burbank. We got there a little bit early so we had some time to mingle a bit in the reception area on the third floor. Hmph, that fruit looked good. Should have grabbed some pineapple and strawberries.  Where was I? Oh.  So after some time the place filled up with the remaining guests and Dolby employees. There were many members of home theater press there. Soon enough we were ushered into Dolby's private cinema there at the Burbank office. It was a modestly sized venue (wait for Ray's pics) with enough to seat about 30-40 people plus a mixing console in the middle. It was loaded with speakers nearly touching each other. IIRC it was somewhere around 34 speakers in total. 

We were introduced to lead Atmos designer Brett Crockett and Stewart Bowling head of the cinema division for Atmos. They gave a short presentation that explained Atmos from where it began to what it is now and where they want to take it in the near future. Most of these things most of you should know by now  but it was interesting to see that they fully intend to implement Atmos into nearly every kind of A/V media from our full fledged HT rooms right on down to portable media such as tablets and phones. Although that subject was touched on very little on the day it will be cool to hear more about that in a years time, I'm sure.

After the brief presentation they went straight into some demo material. First up was the array of Atmos 'trailers' available in equipped cinemas. In order of appearance was the 'Amaze' then 'Unfold' and then 'Leaf' Atmos trailers.
















Also included was an Atmos trailer from Red Bull with Sebastian Vettel driving and some cool sound effects and quick edits.  Not sure what it was called so I can't find the video if it's available. These all sound very cool in a gimicky way, sure but it's fun stuff. If you have seen a movie in Dolby Atmos at your local cinema you have probably seen one of these.

Honorable mention is the 'Introducing Dolby Atmos' EPK that I saw for my first time while attending a show of Guardians with Sanjay. This video is very short but it stars Stuart Bowling who was in attendance at this private demo.






Next up on the list of demos was the opening to 'Star Trek: Into Darkness'. This was played back at reference level in full Atmos sound. I won't comment on the hardware or levels but I must say I did not think that this was a great choice for a "demo". The mix for Into Darkness is quite loud and bombastic which sounds like it would be great but it is way too busy and you really don't get a huge sense of what Atmos is capable of. That being said it was immediately clear that it was presented in Atmos as things moved around the room with single speaker precision. Something you can't get when you are locked into single channels and a cinema surround 'array' of speakers. Along with my face, objects were ripping across the the room and ceiling. Again, I had wished that other material was used but I think in such short notice (and possible apprehensive "support" from the studios) this was sufficient. 

As soon as these clips were finished we were sent in groups into shuttles to another Dolby location in Burbank where they had their home theater system to show us for demo. At this point I we were split up and groups of 6 or so were sent into the HT room for demo. I was allowed into a small conference room with the remaining attendees for some very interesting Q&A with Stuart, Brett and Craig Eggers who is the head of the consumer technical division for Dolby. This was a very interesting point in the day as we all got to freely ask questions and they could answer them as best as they could. Some very modest questions and some very technical questions. I think Sanjay and I caught them by surprise with some of ours.  

I was in the last group to get the home theater demo. The room was not large but not small. Something of 25ft long, maybe 16-18ft wide and about 8ft tall. There were six seats right in the middle with a large table with computers and other various tech in the back. Erm, I didn't take a good long look at that stuff admittedly.  (actually I did get some video of the room. I'll see about an upload but it's not that great of a video. ) The room was equiped with a 50" lcd tv of sorts with a full 7.1.4 system both with "Atmos-equipped" and actual overhead surrounds. Also there was a soundbar that was covered. TBA, I'm sure.  So I sat down in the front row left seat. I had to let Gary Reber take the center seat. He's got a magazine to run, you know! I'm just some dude on the internetz. 

So at this demo was the Atmos trailers from before but now in an HT environment. Played back in Atmos they sounded very convincing. Also played back was the same scene from Into Darkness but we had a chance to hear it in conventional 7.1 and again in Atmos. All the floor level speakers were quite low. Right at ear level. The difference was very noticable and in my opinion clearly improved in Atmos. The next and very interesting demo was a couple of sound only demos put together for demo purposes, obviously. The first was simply an object of a helicopter that would circle around the room. We had this played back in 7.1 then in Atmos with actual ceiling speakers and then again in Atmos but with the upfiring reflective method. All versions sounded different. The 7.1 had an excellent sense of being surrounded by an encircling helicopter but not like it was above me. Then when played back with the ceiling mounted speakers I could clearly hear that it was above me and encircling. Cool! Now... heh, the really neat part. Last was it played back with the upfiring speakers and boy was I impressed! I was not ready for it to sound _that_ good. (to be clear I have not been fluffed with any incentive. This is purely me speaking from the heart) It really did sound like there were speakers up above and the image was very stable. I had expected it to be much more diffuse and not very localizable but I could always tell if it was in front, behind and to the left or right. Very, very impressive. 

Last up was another demo of similar playback but this time it was a recording of a thunderstorm. During this demo they had toggled between real and reflective heights and seriously could not tell the difference. Wow.


Just noticed how much time it took to type this so I'm going to wrap this up. Gotta close up shop. 

I can't enough how eye (ear?) opening this experience was. It was really special.

I will come back to chime in if you guys are interested. I'm sure there is more left to mention about the day.


----------



## NorthSky

helvetica bold said:


> this is a noob question but those of you that have 5.1 and 7.1 how high are your rear surrounds?
> Now THX states about 2 feet above ear level. Right now i have mine at ear level, is this bad?
> All this Atmos talk is making me reconsider my system!


Not @ all. The main rule is "envelopment". If you are enveloped @ ear level, or a foot, or even two above your ear level then it's all good. 

Mine are roughly a foot above ear level, but they are closer to me too. Ideally all our speakers should be @ the same distance of the main listening position. ...How many people here have such an ideal setup?

What THX said, or ITU, or Dolby, or dts, or Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha, etc. about the positioning and height of your speakers all vary more or less. 

If you want to you can raise them a foot or two; and if it is too much work, just put your two little satellite Dolby Atmos speakers on top of them, or near by on their own stands and be done with it.

♦ Another great option is to toe them upward slightly, if they'll permit that in your setup.


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


> What kind of speakers are you using that have a pinpoint dispersion for the heights?


Your question is addressed to the general public I presume? 

And you mean the Front Height speakers (DPLIIz, Audyssey DSX, dts Neo:X) I also presume?

* Small two-way monitors. ...With great on-axis and off-axis frequency response. 
...Coax monitors would do the trick as well, if not better. ...KEF LS50, some' like that. ...On lucky sale for $400, each.


----------



## mp5475

*In ceiling vs atmos up firing speakers*

Thanks for the demo reviews!

I am surprised to hear that many of you guys preferred the atmos speakers to the in ceiling speakers.

I know is difficult, but can you guys who have demoed, quantify degree of preference? 2 to 1? 3 to 1? Or just minimal?

Thanks


----------



## ellisr63

NorthSky said:


> Your question is addressed to the general public I presume?
> 
> And you mean the Front Height speakers (DPLIIz, Audyssey DSX, dts Neo:X) I also presume?
> 
> * Small two-way monitors. ...With great on-axis and off-axis frequency response.
> ...Coax monitors would do the trick as well, if not better. ...KEF LS50, some' like that. ...On lucky sale for $400, each.


Yes, but what i am talking about is for Dolby Atmos height channels. I read that the channels need to be pinpoint dispersion, and I am wondering where people are getting these? Who makes a pinpoint dispersion speaker?


----------



## Schwa

NorthSky said:


> They'll be similar overall, but with their own personal advancement touches.
> ...In particular Auro-3D. ...Which works on three layer levels, all around.
> 
> * And DTS-UHD covers a much broader base of Blu-rays encoded with DTS-HD Master Audio.
> So a dts Upmixer would be much more useful for many many of us with a fair library of Blu-ray movies.


Why would the performance of the upmixer depend on the format of the source material? In other words, I don't understand your implication that the new Dolby Surround upmixer would work any differently with DTS-encoded source material than it would with Dolby-encoded source material. In fact, given two identical mixes, but one encoded using Dolby TrueHD and the other encoded using DTS-HD MA, I'd expect the Dolby Surround upmixer to produce identical-sounding results.


----------



## Selden Ball

Schwa said:


> Why would the performance of the upmixer depend on the format of the source material? In other words, I don't understand your implication that the new Dolby Surround upmixer would work any differently with DTS-encoded source material than it would with Dolby-encoded source material. In fact, given two identical mixes, but one encoded using Dolby TrueHD and the other encoded using DTS-HD MA, I'd expect the Dolby Surround upmixer to produce identical-sounding results.


An example of where they are different:
There are 3 or 4 home movie releases which have 11.1 channel soundtracks encoded using DTS NeoX. They make use of the "Front Wide" speakers. The new Dolby Surround upmixer does not send any sound to the "Front Wide" speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I was in the last group to get the home theater demo. The room was not large but not small. Something of 25ft long, maybe 16-18ft wide and about 8ft tall. There were six seats right in the middle with a large table with computers and other various tech in the back. Erm, I didn't take a good long look at that stuff admittedly.  (actually I did get some video of the room. I'll see about an upload but it's not that great of a video. ) The room was equiped with a 50" lcd tv of sorts with a full 7.1.4 system both with "Atmos-equipped" and actual overhead surrounds. Also there was a soundbar that was covered. TBA, I'm sure.  So I sat down in the front row left seat. *I had to let Gary Reber take the center seat. He's got a magazine to run, you know! I'm just some dude on the internetz. *


Lol :grin:



> So at this demo was the Atmos trailers from before but now in an HT environment. Played back in Atmos they sounded very convincing. Also played back was the same scene from Into Darkness but we had a chance to hear it in conventional 7.1 and again in Atmos. All the floor level speakers were quite low. Right at ear level. The difference was very noticable and in my opinion clearly improved in Atmos. The next and very interesting demo was a couple of sound only demos put together for demo purposes, obviously. The first was simply an object of a helicopter that would circle around the room. We had this played back in 7.1 then in Atmos with actual ceiling speakers and then again in Atmos but with the upfiring reflective method. All versions sounded different. The 7.1 had an excellent sense of being surrounded by an encircling helicopter but not like it was above me. Then when played back with the ceiling mounted speakers I could clearly hear that it was above me and encircling. Cool!
> 
> * Now... heh, the really neat part. Last was it played back with the upfiring speakers and boy was I impressed! I was not ready for it to sound that good. (to be clear I have not been fluffed with any incentive. This is purely me speaking from the heart) It really did sound like there were speakers up above and the image was very stable. I had expected it to be much more diffuse and not very localizable but I could always tell if it was in front, behind and to the left or right. Very, very impressive.*


Scott, I've read all your comments (entire post) with great attention; you are a great writer with an excellent sense of humor. You bring as much as anyone else to the table in conveying the essence. ...The mark of a good audio/video writer/reviewer.

I only quoted the sections where I'm most (atmos) interested.
And that last paragraph that I highlighted, is awesome!

_______________________

* Bonus Dolby Atmos trailer ::


----------



## Zen Traveler

ellisr63 said:


> Yes, but what i am talking about is for Dolby Atmos height channels. I read that the channels need to be pinpoint dispersion, and I am wondering where people are getting these? Who makes a pinpoint dispersion speaker?


As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we have a small (less than 2,000 cu ft) HT where the main area in front of us has a high cathedral ceiling where we have PLIIz Height Speakers in a 9.1 configuration using direct firing monitors (RB-5s) and contemplated that the only place we can put ceiling speakers would be about 8 ft over heads on a flat ledge (behind our mlp is a small cubby with our rear speakers).

I may forgo this first round of Atmos products but was wondering if replacing our current Front Heights with these http://www.klipsch.com/rs-7-surround-speaker/details (which we also already have) would work better in an Atmos setup? They have Klipsch Wide Dispersion Technology using two horn tweeters and a single LF driver.

That said, I find it surprising that neither here nor on the Klipsch Forum there's much talk about them coming out with any Atmos speakers, especially given their prominence in the Commercial and the Home Theater market.


----------



## bargervais

Scott and all that shared your insightful experiences at the Dolby Atmos demo day looking forward to the experience in my home.


----------



## NorthSky

Schwa said:


> Why would the performance of the upmixer depend on the format of the source material? In other words, I don't understand your implication that the new Dolby Surround upmixer would work any differently with DTS-encoded source material than it would with Dolby-encoded source material. In fact, given two identical mixes, but one encoded using Dolby TrueHD and the other encoded using DTS-HD MA, I'd expect the Dolby Surround upmixer to produce identical-sounding results.


I agree with you because right now I am applying Dolby PLIIx Cinema on top of Blu-ray movies with a DTS-HD MA 5.1-channel soundtrack. ...Instead of DTS Neo:6

We don't know much right now about Dolby Surround Upmixer; it should work as you described.

But for the real deal, Dolby Atmos audio encoding, on them Blu-rays, only the ones with a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack would do. ...So the Dolby Surround Upmixer has better to work good or we might be waiting for the next thing real soon; DTS-UHD.

Next month we should find out the real facts, with real demos. Because right now, Dolby did not demo their Dolby Surround Upmixer with DTS-HD MA soundtracks. And that, was the question I suggested to Marc (FilmMixer) in asking the Dolby people @ his demo exhibition yesterday.


----------



## Rayjr

Here are the pictures of the Demo room.
I tried to get the widest shots possible...hope this works for everyone.
the name for the picture is the location view of the room..ie. front..fronttop.

Enjoy
RayJr


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> Thanks for the demo reviews!
> 
> I am surprised to hear that many of you guys preferred the atmos speakers to the in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I know is difficult, but can you guys who have demoed, quantify degree of preference? 2 to 1? 3 to 1? Or just minimal?
> 
> Thanks


Me too, but I'm happy of their findings. I think it would also work better for the vast majority of surround sound aficionados, me included.

I think Sanjey (or Marc) asked its group of people and four of them said they prefer the up-firing speakers over the ceiling ones. ...So it is significant.



ellisr63 said:


> Yes, but what i am talking about is for Dolby Atmos height channels. I read that the channels need to be pinpoint dispersion, and I am wondering where people are getting these? Who makes a pinpoint dispersion speaker?


You mean in or on-ceiling (overhead) Dolby Atmos speakers, so now I see. 
...And my previous answer still stands. ...Suggestions were given in this thread about some Tannoy speakers, and others of the coaxial variety. ...Just google *coaxial speakers*.
But wait before you buy and position them; more is to come still. 

And there are speakers from Onkyo, and Pioneer... _Andrew Jones_; speaker's designer for Pioneer is still working in his lab. 

* It seems to me that many members here are already jumping in wide open without even knowing all the ins & outs so far. Is this an euphoria thing where patience doesn't apply? ...


----------



## Rayjr

Here are the pictures of the Dolby private cinema..once again..tried to get the widest shots possible.

RayJr


----------



## Schwa

Selden Ball said:


> An example of where they are different:
> There are 3 or 4 home movie releases which have 11.1 channel soundtracks encoded using DTS NeoX. They make use of the "Front Wide" speakers. The new Dolby Surround upmixer does not send any sound to the "Front Wide" speakers.


You're not understanding my point. I'm not arguing that Dolby Surround and DTS Neo:X perform differently. What I am saying is that the upmixer doesn't care what codec was used the encode the source material. In other words, there's no need to wait around for a DTS-UHD upmixer to enjoy up-mixed DTS soundtracks. If you like the effects that the new Dolby Surround upmixer delivers, then feed it a DTS source. The upmixer won't care and will work fine.


----------



## NorthSky

Rayjr said:


> Here are the pictures of the Demo room.
> I tried to get the widest shots possible...hope this works for everyone.
> the name for the picture is the location view of the room..ie. front..fronttop.
> 
> Enjoy
> RayJr


Awesome Ray!  ...And I see that _Tom Norton_ was in your group. ...I like Tom.


----------



## NorthSky

Klipsch speakers, Onkyo receivers, they match each other them two brands.


----------



## Schwa

NorthSky said:


> Klipsch speakers, Onkyo receivers, they match each other them two brands.



I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to imply, but I'm sure it's a dig of some sort.

That's okay though...Klipsch is good enough for a plurality of commercial cinemas, so my RF-7II system works great for me.


----------



## Rayjr

I got approval from Scott Simonian to post the picture of him PIMPIN at the Dolby Labs Headquarters.











You asked for it Scott 

RayJr


----------



## Scott Simonian

Who is that short, nerdy dude? 

And how do I dis-like a post?


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Who is that short, nerdy dude?
> 
> And how do I dis-like a post?


I thought it was James Hunt.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm getting there. 

Not that gorgeous, obviously.


----------



## NorthSky

Schwa said:


> I'm not sure what that comment is supposed to imply, but I'm sure it's a dig of some sort.
> 
> That's okay though...Klipsch is good enough for a plurality of commercial cinemas, so my RF-7II system works great for me.


Klipsch speakers are matched with Onkyo receivers when I go to my local Onkyo dealers. 
...Not in your local area?

I don't know why some people have to see something else than what I said here.....It's ok, no big deal.


----------



## NorthSky

Rayjr said:


> I got approval from Scott Simonian to post the picture of him PIMPIN at the Dolby Labs Headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it Scott
> 
> RayJr


Ha, I thought he was much younger.


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> I don't know why to have to see something else than what I said here. It's ok, I get that sometimes...


Eh?


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> I thought it was James Hunt.


Did you, really?


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> Eh?


He thought that it was a secret code of some sort. ...Some people's imagination works in mysterious ways.

Nothing there, please move on. 

* I'm a huge fan of Klipsch and Onkyo. ...And it's no wonder that many music lovers love to have them together.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Who is that short, nerdy dude?
> 
> And how do I dis-like a post?



Get a haircut you dirty hippie!


----------



## NorthSky

ambesolman said:


> Get a haircut you dirty hippie!


It's funny that you just said that; I was thinking the exact same thing but without saying it.

* By the way, my hair are down to my but. ...Honestly, butt they are mostly white.
And I'm younger than Scott too.


----------



## bargervais

CinemaAndy said:


> Yes you have to do a firmware update to get Atmos. I was told you call in, give them the AVR model number and serial number and you will get secure, one time, access to download the FW update to enable Atmos via email link. I think i was told the 15th(August) or shortly after the FW update would be on there website.


The 15th is this Friday I will have to call them to see


----------



## bargervais

I can't believe it's almost September hope fully firmware will be released by then


----------



## kriktsemaj99

Rayjr said:


> Here are the pictures of the Dolby private cinema..once again..tried to get the widest shots possible.



Interesting how high the surround speakers are mounted, they're almost at ceiling height (especially those towards the back of the room).


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I can't believe it's almost September hope fully firmware will be released by then


Time sure is flying fast.


----------



## Schwa

NorthSky said:


> He thought that it was a secret code of some sort. ...Some people's imagination works in mysterious ways.
> 
> Nothing there, please move on.
> 
> * I'm a huge fan of Klipsch and Onkyo. ...And it's no wonder that many music lovers love to have them together.


Fair enough; I assumed (we know what happens when you do that) that based on your earlier statements regarding AccuEQ that you held Onkyo, and by extension Klipsch, in low esteem.

I used to be a big Onkyo fan as well until two of their flagship receivers (the 905 and the 5008) both took a giant dump on me. I've since moved on to Denon and couldn't he happier.


----------



## ellisr63

Rayjr said:


> I got approval from Scott Simonian to post the picture of him PIMPIN at the Dolby Labs Headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it Scott
> 
> RayJr


Lucky you... I wish I could get an invite to Dolby Labs. I used to attend training for their Trademark when I was working in Trademark Enforcement, but I have never been to anything like that.


----------



## NorthSky

Schwa said:


> Fair enough; I assumed (we know what happens when you do that) that based on your earlier statements regarding AccuEQ that you held Onkyo, and by extension Klipsch, in low esteem.
> 
> I used to be a big Onkyo fan as well until two of their flagship receivers (the 905 and the 5008) both took a giant dump on me. I've since moved on to Denon and couldn't he happier.


You should read my latest posts. ...One that I just posted five minutes ago in the "AccuEQ vs Audyssey" thread. 

And you're right; on the Internet don't ever assume.  ...We are all humans, and with emotions that run the full gamut of time and space. And living day-by-day is good philosophy for the soul. 

I love it all myself, and nothing is perfect.


----------



## NorthSky

By the way, it is very true that Onkyo receivers are demo with Klipsch speakers.
And Denon receivers were demo with Mission speakers for years.
And Classe amps are demo with B&W speakers.
Technics was associated with Panasonic.
Etc., etc., etc.

So I wasn't making any type of insinuation here; be it positive or negative; simply stating the facts. 
Onkyo has probably a close relationship with Klipsch, and I think that it is a great union indeed. Klipsch has some amazing speaker's technology behind, and for a very long time too, and the man himself is a great man with high praise and honor.

Yes, before judging me, please take the time to learn more about me, get to know me better. 
Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## noah katz

These sound great on my computer speakers, of course w/o Atmos.

Then I had a sinking feeling - what if, similar to previous latest/greatest formats, the average SQ is of the media is several cuts less than what is possible, with the potential only realized on demo's like these and the relatively small amount of really well mastered material.

Now that I think about it, why would it be any different for Atmos? 



Scott Simonian said:


> After the brief presentation they went straight into some demo material. First up was the array of Atmos 'trailers' available in equipped cinemas. In order of appearance was the 'Amaze' then 'Unfold' and then 'Leaf' Atmos trailers.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXBn3x2PZYQ
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1QM6QrKtIQ
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJA2U-YMvkk


----------



## NorthSky

Noah, Dolby said that it is imperative that the movie sound mixers do a top-notch job. It is the biggest part of all that Dolby Atmos thing.
The future depends on their expert hands @ following the Dolby Atmos highest sound standards.


----------



## noah katz

We can only hope.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> These sound great on my computer speakers, of course w/o Atmos.
> 
> Then I had a sinking feeling - what if, similar to previous latest/greatest formats, the average SQ is of the media is several cuts less than what is possible, with the potential only realized on demo's like these and the relatively small amount of really well mastered material.
> 
> Now that I think about it, why would it be any different for Atmos?


As with any sound mix, it's up to the prowess of the engineers and whether or not they take full advantage of the audio tools available. 

Some Atmos mixes will astound, others will probably be "meh." I'm hoping more of the former than the latter. Perhaps even some further tweaking can be done to cinema mixes while being prepped for home theater usage to improve upon the experience. As everyone is acutely aware, sound mixing is sometimes a last minute event and everyone involved, no matter how talented, cannot always perfect commercial mixes within their allotted time. 

On another note, I would love for some high end CEDIA product demos to show off more than just the typical first generation 7.1.4 layout. Hopefully, Trinnov and others will be partnering with speaker companies to show what home Atmos is really capable of doing. And that retail Blu-ray discs will be used for said demos. 

Anyone in the know on what other companies' booths to target at CEDIA that might really put on an impressive show?


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> We can only hope.


Like any other movie soundtrack; some (mostly few) will be a total blast, and the others,...a bust. 
And each one of us will have a different, more or less, interpretation/experience from each and every one.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> *As with any sound mix, it's up to the prowess of the engineers and whether or not they take full advantage of the audio tools available.
> 
> Some Atmos mixes will astound, others will probably be "meh." I'm hoping more of the former than the latter. Perhaps even some further tweaking can be done to cinema mixes while being prepped for home theater usage to improve upon the experience. As everyone is acutely aware, sound mixing is sometimes a last minute event and everyone involved, no matter how talented, cannot always perfect commercial mixes within their allotted time.*
> 
> On another note, I would love for some high end CEDIA product demos to show off more than just the typical first generation 7.1.4 layout. Hopefully, Trinnov and others will be partnering with speaker companies to show what home Atmos is really capable of doing. And that retail Blu-ray discs will be used for said demos.
> 
> Anyone in the know on what other companies' booths to target at CEDIA that might really put on an impressive show?


You said it very well Dan; _tres realiste._

_______













​


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott Simonian said:


> I was in the last group to get the home theater demo. The room was not large but not small. Something of 25ft long, maybe 16-18ft wide and about 8ft tall. There were six seats right in the middle with a large table with computers and other various tech in the back. Erm, I didn't take a good long look at that stuff admittedly.  (actually I did get some video of the room. I'll see about an upload but it's not that great of a video. ) The room was equiped with a 50" lcd tv of sorts with a full 7.1.4 system both with "Atmos-equipped" and actual overhead surrounds. Also there was a soundbar that was covered. TBA, I'm sure.  So I sat down in the front row left seat. I had to let Gary Reber take the center seat. He's got a magazine to run, you know! I'm just some dude on the internetz.
> 
> So at this demo was the Atmos trailers from before but now in an HT environment. Played back in Atmos they sounded very convincing. Also played back was the same scene from Into Darkness but we had a chance to hear it in conventional 7.1 and again in Atmos. All the floor level speakers were quite low. Right at ear level. The difference was very noticable and in my opinion clearly improved in Atmos. The next and very interesting demo was a couple of sound only demos put together for demo purposes, obviously. The first was simply an object of a helicopter that would circle around the room. We had this played back in 7.1 then in Atmos with actual ceiling speakers and then again in Atmos but with the upfiring reflective method. All versions sounded different. The 7.1 had an excellent sense of being surrounded by an encircling helicopter but not like it was above me. Then when played back with the ceiling mounted speakers I could clearly hear that it was above me and encircling. Cool! Now... heh, the really neat part. Last was it played back with the upfiring speakers and boy was I impressed! I was not ready for it to sound _that_ good. (to be clear I have not been fluffed with any incentive. This is purely me speaking from the heart) It really did sound like there were speakers up above and the image was very stable. I had expected it to be much more diffuse and not very localizable but I could always tell if it was in front, behind and to the left or right. Very, very impressive.
> 
> Last up was another demo of similar playback but this time it was a recording of a thunderstorm. During this demo they had toggled between real and reflective heights and seriously could not tell the difference. Wow.
> 
> 
> Just noticed how much time it took to type this so I'm going to wrap this up. Gotta close up shop.
> 
> I can't enough how eye (ear?) opening this experience was. It was really special.
> 
> I will come back to chime in if you guys are interested. I'm sure there is more left to mention about the day.



Thanks a bunch for an excellent write!

Q: Can you describe if and how the HT was acoustically treated? Which materials were used for ceiling, walls and floor?
Q: What kind of speakers were there used, specifically the ceiling mounts?


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> I don't know why you to have to see something else than what I said here. It's ok, I get that sometimes...


You edited your original post from: _I don't know why to have to see something else than what I said here. It's ok, I get that sometimes..._.

Getting closer.

Try this: I don't know why you have to see something else other than what I said here. It's ok, I get that sometimes...

Eh?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I asked what happens when there are more speakers than channel beds. For example, someone sets up a Trinnov with 24 speakers around them. How many speakers get bed information? Is it only 7? Which means that the other 17 would be used just for objects? "We'll get back to you on that."


 Guess you hit the mark, only 7 (or 9 if you count in the 2 height speaker channels) will be used for beds.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Guess you hit the mark, only 7 (or 9 if you count in the 2 height speaker channels) will be used for beds.


He didn't/couldn't answer my question, so I don't know how beds address multiple speakers. 

Suppose I had 3 rows of seats and each row had a speaker at its left side. Where does the left surround bed go? Only one of those 3 speakers or all 3? 

Suppose I install all 10 possible overhead speakers: 5 left heights and 5 right heights. Will sounds in the left height bed light up all 5 left height speakers? 

Those were the type of questions I was hoping would have gotten answered yesterday, but didn't.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> He didn't/couldn't answer my question, so I don't know how beds address multiple speakers.
> 
> Suppose I had 3 rows of seats and each row had a speaker at its left side. Where does the left surround bed go? Only one of those 3 speakers or all 3?
> 
> Suppose I install all 10 possible overhead speakers: 5 left heights and 5 right heights. Will sounds in the left height bed light up all 5 left height speakers?
> 
> Those were the type of questions I was hoping would have gotten answered yesterday, but didn't.


How is it handled in the dubbing stage?


----------



## markus767

Rayjr said:


> Here are the pictures of the Demo room.
> I tried to get the widest shots possible...hope this works for everyone.
> the name for the picture is the location view of the room..ie. front..fronttop.
> 
> Enjoy
> RayJr


Thanks for the speaker pictures! Looks like they used some acoustic foam around the fullrange unit to mitigate detrimental effects due to the recessed mounting. The Pioneer speakers don't have to deal with that issue. On the other hand the Dolby speakers look identical to normal speakers once the grill is on. Probably exactly what they wanted to achieve.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> How is it handled in the dubbing stage?


Cinemas define which speakers comprise the arrays. Signals destined for the arrays use all of them at the same time (same as current arrays). In Sanjay's example of 10 height speakers, each row of 5 would play a ceiling bed channel, and the objects would pan through individually. Same for the 3-speaker "mini arrays" on each side.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> How is it handled in the dubbing stage?


All the bed channels outside the screen (sides, rears, heights) are reproduced by arrays. IF that's what they're doing at home, then my questions should have been easy to answer instead of "I'll get back to you".


----------



## markus767

^
Let's hope they don't adopt that practice for the home. We'd get comb filter effects. The more speakers the more detrimental this would be.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Rayjr said:


> Here are the pictures of the Demo room.


Hmmm. Makes me wonder when a coaxial ceiling speaker, pointed straight down, is also toed in (which makes no difference at all). Now, if the speakers were tilted toward the MLP, that would make sense. Would the reported Atmos speaker advantage remain were that the case? Why handicap the ceiling speakers?


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> We'd get comb filter effects. The more speakers the more detrimental this would be.


Just like a real cinema. But there are ways to minimize the combing with decorrelation.


----------



## markus767

^
Yes, just like a real cinema


----------



## ss9001

Rayjr said:


> Here are the pictures of the Demo room...RayJr


Thanks, Ray! 

I also don't understand the positioning/toe in on the ceilings since they are pointed straight down. Did Dolby say if these coaxial drivers or 2 ways?


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

I take this opportunity to thank here Marc, Sanjay, Scott and Ray for they very interesting feed back concerning the Atmos experience one can get and singularly through the up-firing Atmos speakers.

In fact all this mirrors my own impressions after attending to a "simple" 5.1.2 Onkyo Dolby Atmos presentation held mid July in Paris (details and feed-back here (in French)), in an non specifically treated adverse acoustic environment, with add-on up-firing Onkyo SKH410 speakers... and even though I was more than skeptic in the beginning... I ended up being impressed by the end result.  



Roger Dressler said:


> Hmmm. Makes me wonder when a coaxial ceiling speaker, pointed straight down, is also toed in (which makes no difference at all). Now, if the speakers were tilted toward the MLP, that would make sense. Would the reported Atmos speaker advantage remain were that the case? Why handicap the ceiling speakers?


Now what would be the result with those same Onkyo SKH410 add-on Atmos speakers (the ones of the above Paris presentation) if they were to be used not in an up-firing context/situation, but in an (adequately angled) on ceiling context/situation, eventually an array of these. For example a 7.1.4 installation where the .4 would consisting of 4 or eventually 8 of these small cheap speakers located on the ceiling.

In my opinion this would be an interesting experience to make, as these speakers are specifically tailored for Atmos, why couldn't they be used as ceiling speakers?

Roger what would be your opinion? Merci.

Hugo


----------



## Mech0z

bargervais said:


> that explains the expense because here the 636 is $599 and the speakers are $240 so if your getting both that looks to be a good deal.


Yes would just love to get some impressions on if they are worth anything together with the 636 before I buy it, if its useless then I would rather wait for it to be on sale and then not get the speakers which I think have ****** WAF


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> ^
> Let's hope they don't adopt that practice for the home. We'd get comb filter effects. The more speakers the more detrimental this would be.


Depends on whether the speaker is made to be used that way or not, normal speakers yes. Those made to create a wavefront together, no/not to the same degree.

I'm using three per side in both my theaters and I have not regretted it for a second.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Depends on whether the speaker is made to be used that way or not, normal speakers yes. Those made to create a wavefront together, no/not to the same degree.
> 
> I'm using three per side in both my theaters and I have not regretted it for a second.


Speaker (drivers) have to be placed within 1/4 distance of the wavelength they are emitting in order to prevent destructive interference. Here are some max. distances for different frequencies:

100Hz = 84cm = 33"
1000Hz = 8.6cm = 3.3"
10000Hz = 0.86cm = 0.33"


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Speaker (drivers) have to be placed within 1/4 distance of the wavelength they are emitting in order to prevent destructive interference. Here are some max. distances for different frequencies:
> 
> 100Hz = 84cm = 33"
> 1000Hz = 8.6cm = 3.3"
> 10000Hz = 0.86cm = 0.33"


That's no news. But I'm not discussing somehing that has anything close to normal radiation patterns towards listener. The designer of them would prefer is surround was just handled by four channels and using four wavefronts, so that all seats would have the same experience. (left, right, back, top) He's doing initial pondering now whether you can re-code Atmos into such channels for his customers to get something even better.

Heck, when I showed my surrounds here the first time, people thought I had them mounted too low and upside down!


----------



## pletwals

http://www.audioprointernational.co...d-brings-dolby-atmos-to-poland/07331#after-ad
http://www.dreamsound.pl/index.php

Not sure if the above has been posted before. It's about Dreamsound of Poland installing Atmos to produce film sound.

The article states it's 280 square foot size, but their own website states it is 86 square meters, which is almost 1,000 square foot. Seems a lot closer to what's in the picture.

I was interested in the speakers they used. It's all JBL-pro:

Front: _ScreenArray 3731-T three-way tri-amplified loudspeakers and 4642 dual-18-inch subwoofers _
Rest: _JBL SCS 12 and *SCS 8 coaxial loudspeakers are mounted on the ceiling*, side and rear walls, augmented by two JBL 4181 18-inch subwoofers._ 

I looked up those JBL SCS8. They seem excellent for ceiling mounting as Atmos speakers and have an unsurpassed 120° x 120° dispersion. Maybe the pro-look (about 1 cubic foot sized) is not for everyone, but I like it. MSRP is $475. Thoughts?

Product link JBL:
http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/...lly-cued-surround-loudspeakers/scs-8#Overview


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> That's no news. But I'm not discussing somehing that has anything close to normal radiation patterns towards listener. The designer of them would prefer is surround was just handled by four channels and using four wavefronts, so that all seats would have the same experience. (left, right, back, top) He's doing initial pondering now whether you can re-code Atmos into such channels for his customers to get something even better.
> 
> Heck, when I showed my surrounds here the first time, people thought I had them mounted too low and upside down!


What kind of speaker would that be?


----------



## ss9001

pletwals said:


> I looked up those JBL SCS8. They seem excellent for ceiling mounting as Atmos speakers and have an unsurpassed 120° x 120° dispersion. Maybe the pro-look (about 1 cubic foot sized) is not for everyone, but I like it. MSRP is $475. Thoughts?


I had looked these up myself weeks ago...someone here posted about them (Roger?). Very industrial metal boxes but while the design looks very appropriate, I think practically, they'd be too large for 8' ish ceilings. You'd lose almost 15" height with the bracket, probably placing speaker height too close to tall tower or planar speakers for optimum separation. I think they'd work very well for a tall ceiling if WAF wasn't an issue.

With the Tannoy Di5 DC, you'd lose only half that distance or less. I think that may make them more suitable for tall fronts or short ceilings.

But the common feature with the Tannoy Di is coaxial driver. The fact that coaxial drivers are used as overheads in professional cinema Atmos lends lots of credence for use in home Atmos. 

Roger, Keith & Sanjay are in good company with the pros *and* Andrew Jones, in suggesting the coaxial Tannoy


----------



## bargervais

markus767 said:


> When you look up to the speakers from the main listening position they should appear upright.


can you spin the tweeter and the woofer in the speaker box so the drivers are firing as if they were in an upright position. what i'm trying to say if the speaker box is horizontal on the ceiling by taking the tweeter and woofer and spin each 45 degrees wouldn't that be the same as mounting them vertical.


----------



## bargervais

Schwa said:


> Why would the performance of the upmixer depend on the format of the source material? In other words, I don't understand your implication that the new Dolby Surround upmixer would work any differently with DTS-encoded source material than it would with Dolby-encoded source material. In fact, given two identical mixes, but one encoded using Dolby TrueHD and the other encoded using DTS-HD MA, I'd expect the Dolby Surround upmixer to produce identical-sounding results.


i would think the same thing


----------



## pletwals

ss9001 said:


> I had looked these up myself weeks ago...someone here posted about them (Roger?). Very industrial metal boxes but while the design looks very appropriate, I think practically, they'd be too large for 8' ish ceilings. You'd lose almost 15" height with the bracket, probably placing speaker height too close to tall tower or planar speakers for optimum separation. I think they'd work very well for a tall ceiling if WAF wasn't an issue.
> 
> With the Tannoy Di5 DC, you'd lose only half that distance or less. I think that may make them more suitable for tall fronts or short ceilings.
> 
> But the common feature with the Tannoy Di is coaxial driver. The fact that coaxial drivers are used as overheads in professional cinema Atmos lends lots of credence for use in home Atmos.
> 
> Roger, Keith & Sanjay are in good company with the pros *and* Andrew Jones, in suggesting the coaxial Tannoy


My ceilings are 8'8" and the space is also quite large. WAF has no influence in that room (only in the rest of the house). 

The Tannoy's are also a very good choice, but I prefer bigger, in line with the rest. I might consider the 6" or 8" version of the Tannoy. The 8" are similarly priced as the SCS8 and are a little bit narrower shaped. The SCS8 have the edge for dispersion, though: 120° vs 90° fro the Tannoy's.


----------



## markus767

bargervais said:


> can you spin the tweeter and the woofer in the speaker box so the drivers are firing as if they were in an upright position. what i'm trying to say if the speaker box is horizontal on the ceiling by taking the tweeter and woofer and spin each 45 degrees wouldn't that be the same as mounting them vertical.


Destructive interference effects are caused by the distance between the tweeter and woofer so rotating just the single drivers doesn't change this.


----------



## Scott Simonian

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Thanks a bunch for an excellent write!
> 
> Q: Can you describe if and how the HT was acoustically treated? Which materials were used for ceiling, walls and floor?
> Q: What kind of speakers were there used, specifically the ceiling mounts?


Thank you, Erwin.

I can't say for sure but it appeared to be little to no actual treatment(s) in the HT demo room. Which I really think is the point. This is supposed to be a typical room and not a 'best case scenario' type setup, I believe. Take a look at Ray's pics and see.

Not sure what speakers were used. When asked they said that they were, "white label" speakers. They can't say as they don't want to show favoritism towards a brand name.


I wanted to touch on the experience in the HT room again. All of us were talking about the height surrounds after the meet and how much we were really impressed by the 'Atmos-equipped' version. I think it is safe to say that we all preferred having some form of heights as opposed to no heights even though we never really talked about _that_. I know I did.  However we did talk some about why we think we preferred them. Given also that we had very little demo material to go off of. The comment was that we liked how the content up above seemed much larger than just coming from a speaker up above. Don't think 'it was too pinpoint'. I'm not sure that is how I would describe it but it did seem (with the helicopter audio demo) that it sounded like it was circling the MLP with a smaller overhead circle that stayed within the boundaries of the overhead layout. The reflected version sounded like the entire ceiling was producing the sound. I thought about it much later that day and pondered.... what if the speakers up above had simply been moved back in each appropriate direction. Push each speaker further back into their respective corners. Not all the way though. Suffice to say and you can see in the pictures that the actual ceiling speakers were not that far spread out. I think this is key. We preferred the reflective type because it sounded bigger, more natural, not overly diffuse either (surprisingly). Having said that it does speak volumes of how good the reflective type implemented heights worked and worked very, very well. I'm still shocked how good.

That being said it will be great to finally get a chance to play with this stuff at home and playback content that is not just Atmos demo stuff. Hopefully we will hear about the initial roll out of content soon. Maybe at CEDIA.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> What kind of speaker would that be?


Ino Audio ambience2


----------



## markus767

^
Those speakers create even more interference than less. To prevent combing effects one would need a speaker that emits a perfectly plane wave front. No such speaker exists.


----------



## ss9001

pletwals said:


> My ceilings are 8'8" and the space is also quite large...The SCS8 have the edge for dispersion, though: 120° vs 90° fro the Tannoy's.


On the JBLs, if you can handle the size, I would think they'd be a good choice then  If you decide to go that route, down the road when Atmos is finally here  please stay in touch with this thread and let us know how the JBLs work for you.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> You edited your original post from: _I don't know why to have to see something else than what I said here. It's ok, I get that sometimes..._.
> 
> Getting closer.
> 
> Try this: I don't know why you have to see something else other than what I said here. It's ok, I get that sometimes...
> 
> Eh?


Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> ^
> Those speakers create even more interference than less. To prevent combing effects one would need a speaker that emits a perfectly plane wave front. No such speaker exists.


Actually, we're talking about designed cancellation rather than interference in this one. I don't think anyone would do the right assumptions on this speaker by looking at it. It's not what it look like to be. (Quite possibly there is no better speaker designer alive today, so we would be presumptious to understand all his considerations in a design that has been refined over the 28 years since introduction.)
Particularly interesting is how amazingly it drops off then your ear level is below it. But also standing next to it, it's close to impossible to tell if it's working or not. Checking that I got all the tweeters connected properly - I had to use a paper tube in front of each to be sure it was playing!


----------



## markus767

^
I was talking about combing effects if a multitude of speakers emits the same signal like it does in a movie theater surround array. Not sure how this specific speaker design is relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Hugo S said:


> Now what would be the result with those same Onkyo SKH410 add-on Atmos speakers (the ones of the above Paris presentation) if they were to be used not in an up-firing context/situation, but in an (adequately angled) on ceiling context/situation, eventually an array of these. For example a 7.1.4 installation where the .4 would consisting of 4 or eventually 8 of these small cheap speakers located on the ceiling.
> 
> In my opinion this would be an interesting experience to make, as these speakers are specifically tailored for Atmos, why couldn't they be used as ceiling speakers?
> 
> Roger what would be your opinion? Merci.


My first reaction is that the AV processor wold not support that optimally. When the AVR is in "Atmos speaker" mode, bass redirection is a) higher than usual (like 180 Hz??), and b) the first redirection is to the "downstairs neighbor" so that those bass frequencies do not fall far from the tree. 

In your experiment if you set the crossover to 80 Hz there will be overhead bass reduction, and if you set it to 180 Hz it will possibly smear the imaging toward the subwoofer location. It might not be a very obvious problem, though, but it is just a potential disadvantage that arises.

My second reaction is if these little speakers are suitable for height effects, then why not use them for all other surround effects? Are we overspending on our surround speakers? I do not understand why heights should be treated differently at home, when they are not in a cinema.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> When the AVR is in "Atmos speaker" mode, bass redirection is a) higher than usual (like 180 Hz??), and b) the first redirection is to the "downstairs neighbor" so that those bass frequencies do not fall far from the tree.


A nice feature would be to have the


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> ^
> I was talking about combing effects if a multitude of speakers emits the same signal like it does in a movie theater surround array. Not sure how this specific speaker design is relevant to this discussion.


Well, that is what it's designed to do for surround channels in homes (which it probably is one of the few ones designed with that in mind). I'd call that relevant, but we can leave the discussion behind just the same.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Well, that is what it's designed to do for surround channels in homes (which it probably is one of the few ones designed with that in mind). I'd call that relevant, but we can leave the discussion behind just the same.


But that speaker doesn't do away with interference effects. How would it? And that's what makes it irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## redjr

FilmMixer said:


> So I was lucky to be asked to the Dolby Labs Home Atmos demo today.
> 
> Three other forum members were there, and I'm sure they will all be posting their impressions soon.
> 
> A couple of things..
> 
> I've shared my thoughts over the last 6 weeks about what I've been privy to for the last 8 months, and much of what I had been told, and seen/heard, was repeated for those in attendance.
> 
> While I asked for some questions that I could relay today, I am not going to post the answer to many of them.
> 
> Mostly because I didn't ask them.
> 
> I was privy to some of the answers as others did inquire. If others that post here want to delve into some of them they will...
> 
> Dolby made it very clear today that they are going to put very specific information out (about up firing speaker requirements, detailed setup instructions, etc) in tech papers/releases starting around CEDIA.
> 
> There were no content announcements, and they stated they wouldn't be making any such statements, but would let the content providers do so at their discretion.
> 
> This was a big audio press invite, and it was really fantastic to see many people whose articles and columns I've read over the years... it was a who's who of audio journalists, and there was nothing at the event that they were told they couldn't write about, or couldn't post pictures of (the event was relegated to the screening room, a conference room and their home Atmos demo room.)
> 
> I think I counted about 32-35 invitees...
> 
> To start off, all of the attendees gathered in the Dolby Screening Room, which contains a theatrical Atmos system (IIRC it is a 52 channel system.) They started with an overview of Atmos from it's start two years ago in the cinema towards the focus of the event, the imminent release of Home Atmos, and a peek into where it will be going in the future, i.e. tablets, phones, music players, etc.
> 
> I can dispel the rumor that even some of those in attendance mentioned before the presentations started... that this is not a truly object based technology.
> 
> It _is_ object based. I only mention it again here because there were some skeptical comments before the demos started and I've even seen it posted on other sites by a couple of other well known "sources."
> 
> After the presentation by Brett Crockett, who wrote the initial blogs about Atmos for Dolby, Stewart Bowling gave a brief summary of the state of cinema Atmos from it's launch up until today.
> 
> They then presented four trailers and a 5 minute clip from "Star Trek: Into Darkness." They showed all three Dolby Atmos trailers (Amaze, Unfold and Leaf) in addition to a Red Bull Formula One car "trailer."
> 
> After that, we took a couple of shuttle busses over to the other Dolby facility which houses a lot of their R and D and their Atmos demo room.
> 
> Everyone fit into a large conference room and was joined by Stewart, Brett and Craig Eggers, who I believe is the head of home theater marketing.
> 
> People were called out in groups of 5-6 for demos, while everyone else was able to stay in the conference room for a Q and A.
> 
> Some tidbits I learned from the Q and A..
> 
> 1. I was mistaken about the Dolby Surround upmixer... It works as batpig has so thoroughly explained, and not only on setups with overheads. It is indeed the only Dolby upmixer available on Dolby Atmos products going forward. No PLII, PLIIx or PLIIz. No Cinema or Music Mode... it will include and optional Center Width control if the AVR manufacturer implements it.
> 
> 2. All the objects will use spatial coding as required.
> 
> 3. They didn't talk any specifics, but it was clearly stated that some manufacturers will ask in setup where the speakers are placed, distance, etc. Some will require user input for such parameters, some will gather it during audio calibration. And some will simply rely on pre determined standard layouts for their products. There has been a bit of speculation that this wasn't going to be available on these upcoming first gen products. While there certainly was no confirmation of what any of the CE's are planning on doing (except we can glean what we can from the Denon manuals) I suspect we will see varied setup options on some of these initial AVR's and pre/pros.
> 
> For the demos, we went into a room approximately 22x20x8 (I'm terrible with measurements, someone else can chime in.) It was a 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> They then played the exact same material we heard in the theater for comparisons sake.
> 
> In addition we heard some audio only demos in 7.1 and then Atmos.
> 
> And then some of those with with the ceiling mounted speakers and then the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers...
> 
> A couple of the audio only clips played back first one way (ceiling speakers) and then the other. Others played back and they switched in the middle (with an onscreen indication of which one was active.)
> 
> There was no demo of Dolby Surround.
> 
> I'll let the others chime in their personal experiences...
> 
> I can relate, however, that the other three regulars all subjectively preferred the Atmos speakers over the on ceiling speakers. Again, most of those I spoke with were fairly skeptical before hand... not about if it would work, but how well it would work.
> 
> It's no secret that I'm really excited about the technology. I'm really honored that Dolby let me be a part of this gathering, and you are going to read all about it in the next couple of days and weeks and see what those people have to say. There are other demos for the east coast journalists and others happening very soon I was told.
> 
> It was really obvious that today was the _start_ of the information flow and the true launching pad for this new home theater technology.


Yes, but did you like what you heard?


----------



## Skylinestar

noah katz said:


> A nice feature would be to have the


----------



## duc135

noah katz said:


> A nice feature would be to have the


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer is impartial, just the facts.


----------



## NorthSky

Skylinestar said:


> The sound of thunder will then emit from the subwoofer on the floor level, not from the sky above you. Are you sure you can handle that?


No way, can't have thunder without having those big cracking spikes of frightening low bursts of energy coming from above. ...Huge subs have to be installed in the ceiling or go home.


----------



## kbarnes701

I attended my second presentation at Dolby Labs London HQ today. Today's event was Dolby-only (ie no manufacturer presence) and was attended by members of the UK Home Theater press, along with myself. Consequently there was more time for discussion with Dolby guys than at the first demo I attended.

I will be writing my report of the day's proceedings and posting it tomorrow or Friday, here in this thread. I didn't get all my questions answered but I did find out some new (to me at least) information which will be of general interest.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I attended my second presentation at Dolby Labs London HQ today. Today's event was Dolby-only (ie no manufacturer presence) and was attended by members of the UK Home Theater press, along with myself. Consequently there was more time for discussion with Dolby guys than at the first demo I attended.
> 
> I will be writing my report of the day's proceedings and posting it tomorrow or Friday, here in this thread. I didn't get all my questions answered but I did find out some new (to me at least) information which will be of general interest.


Look forward to your thoughts, Keith.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Look forward to your thoughts, Keith.


Thanks Scott. I just read your own report - there are some things that we found that we have in common - I won't go into it now, but I will mention it in my report. It was very interesting for me to read something in your report and to think "I thought exactly that same thing too!".


----------



## Scott Simonian

Great minds.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Great minds.


 Something like that.... LOL.


----------



## Skylinestar

NorthSky said:


> No way, can't have thunder without having those big cracking spikes of frightening low bursts of energy coming from above. ...Huge subs have to be installed in the ceiling or go home.


OK. I'm thinking how to install JBL 3677 80lb/speaker (*smallest *JBL pro cinema bookshelf speaker) on the ceiling. Gotta install at least two 3677 for serious thunder and jet plane flyby.
Please advise.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Roger,

Merci for your answer. Then...



Roger Dressler said:


> ...
> 
> My second reaction is if these little speakers are suitable for height effects, then why not use them for all other surround effects? Are we overspending on our surround speakers? I do not understand why heights should be treated differently at home, when they are not in a cinema.


... this is precisely the conclusion to which I'm also slowly arriving... though my question. 

Now even though I don't really like the idea and use Klipsch THX U2 speakers all around in our 11.2 installation, maybe... Bose is really ahead in time... as a set of multiple small speakers/sound sources could end up being a real and elegant solution in HT Atmos and possibly DTS-UHD contextes...

Have a nice day,

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Hi Roger,
> 
> Merci for your answer. Then...
> 
> 
> 
> ... this is precisely the conclusion to which I'm also slowly arriving... though my question.
> 
> Now even though I don't really like the idea and use Klipsch THX U2 speakers all around in our 11.2 installation, maybe... B*** is really ahead in time... as a set of multiple small speakers/sound sources could end up being a real and elegant solution in HT Atmos and possibly DTS-UHD contextes...
> 
> Have a nice day,
> 
> Hugo


Hugo - you mentioned the B-word! 

I've long since thought that many people use more expensive surround speakers than they really need. In a bass managed system, where surrounds can be rolled off at 100Hz or even 120Hz, to a decent sub or subs, it shouldn't be all that hard to find a set of small-ish speakers that can handle very effectively the 100/120Hz upwards range. 

On a similar note (no pun intended, honest!), I hooked up my little Tannoy Di5 DC speakers, which I am intending to use as my Atmos ceiling speakers, to my 2ch music system by way of a quick experimental test to get a feel for their sound quality. That system uses a Naim CD player and a high quality pure Class A amp and very good speakers. And I was very impressed by the sound coming from those little Tannoys. Obviously, the lower octaves were not represented, but they will be redirected to my Submersives anyway. The rest of the FR was handled very nicely indeed. 

Following my test, I am sure that the Di5s would make very capable surround speakers, as well as very capable ceiling speakers, just as Roger hints at.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> But that speaker doesn't do away with interference effects. How would it? And that's what makes it irrelevant to the discussion.


You generally don't discuss interference the same way when things are three feet apart as when they are inches apart. Then it's more a discussion how the brain psychoacoustically integrate signals arriving with time delay, the sensitivity to this in different frequency ranges and how you match the dispersion pattern to even this out.

You are to place these surrounds so that the pair slightly ahead of you have the first arriving signal (about 12 degrees in front). They are also to be placed higher further back, like a horseshoe that's been bent down a bit at the back. (There's an equation to go with it, but as long as you don't buy these speakers you don't need to know it )

I've had numerous hifi nerds listening to my small theater at the get-togethers I've hosten and no one, absolutely no one, has had anything to complain about these surrounds. So if you're correct with the interference patterns, they obviously didn't notice it. Quite the opposite, most have been quite impressed with he disappearance act of the surround speakers while maintaining a quite accurate presentation of surround sounds.


----------



## NorthSky

Skylinestar said:


> OK. I'm thinking how to install JBL 3677 80lb/speaker (*smallest *JBL pro cinema bookshelf speaker) on the ceiling. Gotta install at least two 3677 for serious thunder and jet plane flyby.
> Please advise.


Sorry, I'm not a professional installer, just a professional thinker. ...Goggle around, if you have access to your attic there are methods that are professionally effective.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Hugo - you mentioned the B-word!




I didn't think the B word was allowed in this thread 

I ashamed to admit this but a week ago, in a moment of weakness, _*I*_ wondered if those tiny cubes might work for overhead Atmos. 

I feel soiled


----------



## Scott Simonian

Of course you can use anything of the sorts.

Whether it is the optimal choice is another thing altogether.


----------



## ss9001

I really wouldn't use Bose speakers, Scott  I'm a die-hard big planar (Maggies) speaker owner. I wouldn't be caught with those gimped cubes 

But I did wonder...for all of 2 minutes


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I didn't think the B word was allowed in this thread
> 
> I ashamed to admit this but a week ago, in a moment of weakness, _*I*_ wondered if those tiny cubes might work for overhead Atmos.
> 
> I feel soiled


I think that a period of self-flagellation would be in order now, Steve...


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I really wouldn't use Bose speakers, Scott  I'm a die-hard big planar (Maggies) speaker owner. I wouldn't be caught with those gimped cubes
> 
> But I did wonder...for all of 2 minutes


It's OK to wonder, in a totally hypothetical sense. I myself did wonder, once, about Sarah Palin, for example.... for all of 2 minutes ...


----------



## Lippertize

There is mention that some of the receivers will receive firmware updates to make them Dolby Atmos compatible. Does anyone know if Sony's receivers, which have 7 to 9 channel power and front height speaker connectivity and Dolby Pro Logic IIz, will be able to update to be compatible with this format? Just wondering because based on the minimum requirements of Dolby Atmos, it would seem in the realm of possibility.
Thanks 
Jon


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It's OK to wonder, in a totally hypothetical sense. I myself did wonder, once, about Sarah Palin, for example.... for all of 2 minutes ...


The B-word and now the P-word have been uttered in the same thread. Oh, the humanity!!!


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> Sorry, I'm not a professional installer, just a professional thinker. ...*Goggle* around, if you have access to your attic there are methods that are professionally effective.


Instead of _Goggle_, try this: www.NorthSky_on_"Weeds".ca


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lippertize said:


> There is mention that some of the receivers will receive firmware updates to make them Dolby Atmos compatible. Does anyone know if Sony's receivers, which have 7 to 9 channel power and front height speaker connectivity and Dolby Pro Logic IIz, will be able to update to be compatible with this format? Just wondering because based on the minimum requirements of Dolby Atmos, it would seem in the realm of possibility.
> Thanks
> Jon


If they don't have the requisite DSP chips, then no. You'll have to buy a completely new Sony receiver or pre-amp.


----------



## ggsantafe

ss9001 said:


> I didn't think the B word was allowed in this thread
> 
> I ashamed to admit this but a week ago, in a moment of weakness, _*I*_ wondered if those tiny cubes might work for overhead Atmos.
> 
> I feel soiled


Yikes - first time we've had any soiling issues on this thread - perhaps we need to have a supply of Depends on hand if anyone is tempted by the B's


----------



## Roger Dressler

duc135 said:


> My understanding is that the AVR/pre-pro indeed does that for the Atmos ceiling speakers. That's why these Atmos add-in speaker modules can get away with using a full range 3" driver.
> 
> Everything below the XO frequency will be sent to the associated floor speaker then bass management will apply its own XO to the floor speakers.


Yes. That is exactly how it works when the AVR is driving Atmos speakers. 

The issue is that when driving non-Atmos (any ceiling-mounted) speaker, the bass management presumably reverts to normal, where redirected bass goes straight to the sub. Might have been more useful had it gone to the "downstairs neighbor" the same as with an Atmos speaker, as that would better support bass-shy ceiling speakers. Perhaps it actually does that?!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> No way, can't have thunder without having those big cracking spikes of frightening low bursts of energy coming from above. ...Huge subs have to be installed in the ceiling or go home.


the snap crackle pop will come from the ceiling and the tunder from the Subs. my subs fill the room with thunder like in the BD Noah the thunder is all around you my subs fill the room with thunder so with Atmos It will be even Better.
my understanding is the the ceiling speakers will have the snap crackle and pop and with the deep rumble of the subs it will feel like the thunder is coming from Above.. you know what i'm saying


----------



## PoshFrosh

Rayjr said:


> Here are the pictures of the Demo room.
> I tried to get the widest shots possible...hope this works for everyone.
> the name for the picture is the location view of the room..ie. front..fronttop.
> 
> Enjoy
> RayJr


I notice two things immediately:


There are no acoustic treatments in that room!
The on-ceiling speakers are pointing straight down, not toed in to the MLP. Does anyone know if they were coax?

I plan on doing on-ceiling (not in-ceiling) speakers, although they will not be coax and I was going to point them at the MLP... hm...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> Might have been more useful had it gone to the "downstairs neighbor" the same as with an Atmos speaker, as that would better support bass-shy ceiling speakers. Perhaps it actually does that?!


I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my Onkyo and my previous Harmon Kardon 525 from 2002.

The option was there to BM up to 200hz. If one were to BM a speaker that was 180-200hz, for example, that content would be sent to the left and right mains and if those were also BM'd then the rest would go to the SUB out.


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. That is exactly how it works when the AVR is driving Atmos speakers.
> 
> The issue is that when driving non-Atmos (any ceiling-mounted) speaker, the bass management presumably reverts to normal, where redirected bass goes straight to the sub. Might have been more useful had it gone to the "downstairs neighbor" the same as with an Atmos speaker, as that would better support bass-shy ceiling speakers. Perhaps it actually does that?!


Why would this be any more of an issue for in-ceiling Atmos speakers than for any "typical" elevated speaker like a Front Height or in-ceiling surrounds? Any moderately decent speaker will be able to be used with a more typical 100-120Hz crossover for a smallish speaker.

My understanding wast that the ~180Hz crossover for the Atmos-enabled "elevation" speakers has to do with psychoacoustic principles of "merging" the direct sound vs. the reflected height cues. This wouldn't be an issue with a typical in-ceiling speaker. Why wouldn't the "normal" bass management scheme work fine just like it always has?


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my Onkyo and my previous Harmon Kardon 525 from 2002.
> 
> The option was there to BM up to 200hz. If one were to BM a speaker that was 180-200hz, for example, that content would be sent to the left and right mains and if those were also BM'd then the rest would go to the SUB out.


I'm confused, how could an HK AVR from 2002 have the concept of a "downstairs neighbor" speaker. There wasn't even height speakers back then. Are you talking about bass redirection from the surrounds?

And what Onkyo model allows this "two tier" bass management scheme? I've never even heard of this option (bass managing first to the L/R mains and then from there to the sub) before the current Atmos discussion.


----------



## Lippertize

Dan Hitchman said:


> If they don't have the requisite DSP chips, then no. You'll have to buy a completely new Sony receiver or pre-amp.


Interesting. Well, I just upgraded to the 5800ES and I'm keeping it regardless of Atmos compatibility. It'd be nice to have though. I guess we'll have to wait and see what internal DSP chips will be required for at least somewhat of a backward compatibility option. Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

> I think that a period of *self-flagellation* would be in order now, ...


_"Self-flagellation"_ - Now that is an appropriate term that would be adequate for some (few) of us here.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> Instead of _Goggle_, try this: www.NorthSky_on_"Weeds".ca


Thank you for your gooperation. :nerd:


----------



## Roger Dressler

Scott Simonian said:


> I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my Onkyo and my previous Harmon Kardon 525 from 2002.
> 
> The option was there to BM up to 200hz. If one were to BM a speaker that was 180-200hz, for example, that content would be sent to the left and right mains and if those were also BM'd then the rest would go to the SUB out.


Yes, that was how the original "Center Mode Control" was handled starting with Pro Logic. It was useful even when there was no subwoofer. I had not seen it lately. I'm a little surprised it was still going on in these later receivers, as no one (like Dolby) required it.


----------



## NorthSky

Lippertize said:


> There is mention that some of the receivers will receive firmware updates to make them Dolby Atmos compatible. Does anyone know if Sony's receivers, which have 7 to 9 channel power and front height speaker connectivity and Dolby Pro Logic IIz, will be able to update to be compatible with this format? Just wondering because based on the minimum requirements of Dolby Atmos, it would seem in the realm of possibility.
> Thanks
> Jon





Lippertize said:


> Well, I just upgraded to the 5800ES and I'm keeping it regardless of Atmos compatibility. It'd be nice to have though. I guess we'll have to wait and see what internal DSP chips will be required for at least somewhat of a backward compatibility option. Thanks


Sony is more into *SDDS* than Dolby Atmos, I think.


----------



## kokishin

Example of Atmos bass management:

With Atmos enabled and front/rear BM XO set to 80hz (small), the Atmos AVR/SSP will direct:
Atmos ceiling/reflected speaker frequencies between 180hz and 80hz away from the Atmos ceiling/reflected speakers to their corresponding front/rears;
Atmos ceiling/reflected speaker frequencies below 80hz away from the Atmos ceiling/reflected speakers and away from the front/rears to the sub(s). 
Front/rear frequencies below 80hz to the sub(s).


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Why wouldn't the "normal" bass management scheme work fine just like it always has?


The potential for smearing the imaging increases as the crossover point is raised. If Sandra Bullock's or George Clooney's voices should come from overhead, I do not want to hear them also coming from the sub. 80 Hz assures that. 180 Hz, not so much. The question is, is it enough?



> Why would this be any more of an issue for in-ceiling Atmos speakers than for any "typical" elevated speaker like a Front Height or in-ceiling surrounds? Any moderately decent speaker will be able to be used with a more typical 100-120Hz crossover for a smallish speaker.


The definition of "moderately decent" here is the even more moderate 3" Atmos upfiring speaker that rolls off


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. That is exactly how it works when the AVR is driving Atmos speakers.
> {The bass from the up-firing Dolby Atmos modules - below 180Hz - is redirected to its respective channel floor speaker. Then the bass management from the AVR/SSP is working as usual.}
> 
> The issue is that when driving non-Atmos (any ceiling-mounted) speaker, the bass management presumably reverts to normal, where redirected bass goes straight to the sub. Might have been more useful had it gone to the "downstairs neighbor" the same as with an Atmos speaker, as that would better support bass-shy ceiling speakers. *Perhaps it actually does that?!*


It will be interesting to find out, Roger. ...Soon, very soon.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I'm confused, how could an HK AVR from 2002 have the concept of a "downstairs neighbor" speaker. There wasn't even height speakers back then. Are you talking about bass redirection from the surrounds?
> 
> And what Onkyo model allows this "two tier" bass management scheme? I've never even heard of this option (bass managing first to the L/R mains and then from there to the sub) before the current Atmos discussion.


You are probably confused because you aren't paying attention. 

I never said anything about a "downstairs neighbor". That was Roger who did and my post was in context with his.

Yes this was for the surrounds or center. 

I also mentioned the model. The HK525.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> the snap crackle pop will come from the ceiling and the tunder from the Subs. my subs fill the room with thunder like in the BD Noah the thunder is all around you my subs fill the room with thunder so with Atmos It will be even Better.
> my understanding is the the ceiling speakers will have the snap crackle and pop and with the deep rumble of the subs it will feel like the thunder is coming from Above.. you know what i'm saying


Yes I know what you're saying. @ home in our small theater rooms or living rooms or entertainment rooms or family rooms we don't put subs suspended into the ceiling with brackets, or inside the ceiling.

In larger home theater rooms, professionally designed and calibrated, they do.
... Not everyone, but the astute ones.


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> _"Self-flagellation"_ - Now that is an appropriate term that would be adequate for some (few) of us here.


Hard work, better ask the spousal unit to help.


----------



## ambientcafe

From Hollywood ... :smile:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/dolby-readying-atmos-home-come-724563


----------



## Selden Ball

Boy, is _that_ article misleading.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> You are probably confused because you aren't paying attention.
> 
> I never said anything about a "downstairs neighbor". That was Roger who did and my post was in context with his.
> 
> Yes this was for the surrounds or center.
> 
> I also mentioned the model. The HK525.


I like.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> _"Self-flagellation"_ - Now that is an appropriate term that would be adequate for some (few) of us here.





Nightlord said:


> Hard work, better ask the spousal unit to help.


Not @ all, no need to ::


----------



## SoundChex

ambientcafe said:


> From Hollywood: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/dolby-readying-atmos-home-come-724563


_"Manufacturers who have announced Dolby Atmos AV receivers or processors include Denon, Integra, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, Steinway Lyngdorf, and Yamaha."


_Conspicuous by their absence from the list: *Sony* and *Harman Kardon*.
_


----------



## NorthSky

ambientcafe said:


> From Hollywood ... :smile:
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/dolby-readying-atmos-home-come-724563


Funky town, funky girl (writer/reporter). :smile:


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my Onkyo and my previous Harmon Kardon 525 from 2002.
> 
> The option was there to BM up to 200hz. If one were to BM a speaker that was 180-200hz, for example, that content would be sent to the left and right mains and if those were also BM'd then the rest would go to the SUB out.



"BM'd" lol


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> You are probably confused because you aren't paying attention.
> 
> I never said anything about a "downstairs neighbor". That was Roger who did and my post was in context with his.


My goodness, how inattentive of me to assume that your direct reply to Roger actually was in context with what he was talking about, especially since you said "that is exactly how it works". I should have read your mind and realized that when you said explicitly that yours works exactly the same way, what you actually meant was that it works in a similar, but different, way. Which you didn't articulate.




Scott Simonian said:


> I also mentioned the model. The HK525.


Now who's not paying attention?

You: I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my *Onkyo*
Me: And what *Onkyo* model allows this "two tier" bass management scheme?

So the Onkyo model is the HK525? I didn't know Onkyo made Harman Kardon receivers!


----------



## noah katz

Skylinestar said:


> The sound of thunder will then emit from the subwoofer on the floor level, not from the sky above you. Are you sure you can handle that?


I don't believe the low freq sound of thunder comes from above; if the lightning was that close the higher freq would dominate, not having been more greatly attenuated by distance.

And from a distance, all the sound is more or less land-born and in my experience is only slightly directional, having diffracted and reflected off of the terrain.



duc135 said:


> My understanding is that the AVR/pre-pro indeed does that for the Atmos ceiling speakers. That's why these Atmos add-in speaker modules can get away with using a full range 3" driver.
> 
> Everything below the XO frequency will be sent to the associated floor speaker then bass management will apply its own XO to the floor speakers.


Great!


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my Onkyo and my previous Harmon Kardon 525 from 2002.
> 
> The option was there to BM up to 200hz. If one were to BM a speaker that was 180-200hz, for example, that content would be sent to the left and right mains and if those were also BM'd then the rest would go to the SUB out.




Most AVR's only redirect the bass from other small speakers (plus LFE) to the R & L channels when the R & L main channels are set to large and the subwoofer is set to OFF.

If you set the R & L mains to small, then the bass management scheme is different. All redirected bass (plus LFE) is sent to the subwoofer in the all small speaker mode.

All AVRs have their peculiarities, so you have to test the AVR in question to figure bass management out. Are you sure about your bass management? 

When the R & L mains are set to large (others small) in my AVR, the bass management sends redirected bass (and LFE) to the R & L mains. If the subwoofer output is activated, then total R & L bass is LP filtered and sent to the subwoofer output jack. That is the bass management mode that I use.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

noah katz said:


> I don't believe the low freq sound of thunder comes from above; if the lightning was that close the higher freq would dominate, not having been more greatly attenuated by distance.
> 
> And from a distance, all the sound is more or less land-born and in my experience is only slightly directional, having diffracted and reflected off of the terrain.
> 
> 
> 
> Great!




Atmos need to add a channel for sound from down below. They don't do that because people might say that Atmos sounds like hell!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well that sure went... somewhere. : |


----------



## bargervais

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Atmos need to add a channel for sound from down below. They don't do that because people might say that Atmos sounds like hell!


Sound coming up from the floor a little breeze blows through the room a fog rolls along the floor with birds chirping in the trees and of course your couch needs to vibrate just in case there is an earthquake that maybe the future of atmos.


----------



## ambesolman

bargervais said:


> Sound coming up from the floor a little breeze blows through the room a fog rolls along the floor with birds chirping in the trees and of course your couch needs to vibrate just in case there is an earthquake that maybe the future of atmos.



Think that's 4D


----------



## UKTexan

*Kef Elevation speakers*

First post on AVS, I have been following the home theater Atmos thread with great interest. I am currently building a home with a dedicated home theater room and plan to implement a 7.3.4 setup with either on ceiling or possibly elevation/reflective speakers. I am trying to narrow down my choice of either Sonus Faber Venere , KEF R series or Martin Logan Motion series paired with REL subwoofers.
After much searching online for higher end speaker manufacturer's producing Dolby Atmos elevation speakers I managed to find an article on theregister.co.uk featuring KEF modules. The KEF speakers in the pictures below were recently used for a demo by Dolby in the UK, my original homeland. I am now settling into life in the wild west (Texas). 
Not sure if this was taken from the same demo Keith recently attended?
Keith, Scott, Sanjay, Filmixer and many others have provided valuable information and insight into what I hope will prove to be a huge step up from TrueHD and DTS HD master audio, thank you to all who have posted.


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> Not sure if this was taken from the same demo Keith recently attended?


He just attended another demo yesterday. Will be interesting to find out if he got to hear the Kefs (one of my favourite speaker brands, I had no idea they were an Atmos licensee). 

BTW, welcome to the forum.


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> He just attended another demo yesterday. Will be interesting to find out if he got to hear the Kefs (one of my favourite speaker brands, I had no idea they were an Atmos licensee).
> 
> I wonder if they will be on display at CEDIA?
> 
> 
> BTW, welcome to the forum.


 
Thank you.


----------



## UKTexan

A couple more pictures of the KEF floor stands with elevation speakers taken from http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/08/do...-ive-heard-it-and-it-sounds-bloody-brilliant/


----------



## FilmMixer

UKTexan said:


> A couple more pictures of the KEF floor stands with elevation speakers taken from http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/08/do...-ive-heard-it-and-it-sounds-bloody-brilliant/


Repost for your link...

A journalists report from the Dolby demo:

Dolby Atmos for Your Home: I've Heard it, and it Sounds Bloody Brilliant



> Having heard the simulated reflected surround sound efforts of numerous soundbars, I was a little skeptical as to just how well the Dolby system would perform. It was with some trepidation then that I headed into Dolby’s London office for a demo of the home-bound Atmos kit, set to complement anything from a basic 5.1 set up to more lavish dedicated home cinema rooms. But not only does it work, it works bloody brilliantly.


----------



## RUR

sdurani said:


> ....Will be interesting to find out if he got to hear the Kefs (one of my favourite speaker brands, I had no idea they were an Atmos licensee).


Coaxials - they're a natural.


----------



## Tnedator

I've been looking through all the documents I can find, but still not finding much concrete on the ceiling speaker locations. 

I will have a 27' x 17' home theater (25' x 17' from screen wall to back wall) and 10' high ceiling. I'll be mounting speakers in the coffered beams. 

I'm not sure if I should mount 4 or 6 speakers (I know the current receivers would be 7.1.4 and only 4 ceiling, but I have one shot to easily incorporate the ceiling speakers).

If two, where should I put the speakers. I have two rows of seating, with the back row being about 6' off the back wall. Has Dolby provided anything other than the crude drawings and stated one set in front of listening area and one behind? 

My initial thinking is to put one set just behind the back row, maybe 5' off the back wall, which would be about 8.5' behind the front row (the only row occupied 95% of time) and then the front set 8.5' in front of front row. The downside to this is it puts one set almost on top of the back row and the other 16's in front. 

I'm lost as to where to cut the holes in the coffers and run the wires to. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tnedator said:


> I've been looking through all the documents I can find, but still not finding much concrete on the ceiling speaker locations.
> 
> I will have a 27' x 17' home theater (25' x 17' from screen wall to back wall) and 10' high ceiling. I'll be mounting speakers in the coffered beams.
> 
> I'm not sure if I should mount 4 or 6 speakers (I know the current receivers would be 7.1.4 and only 4 ceiling, but I have one shot to easily incorporate the ceiling speakers).
> 
> If two, where should I put the speakers. I have two rows of seating, with the back row being about 6' off the back wall. Has Dolby provided anything other than the crude drawings and stated one set in front of listening area and one behind?
> 
> My initial thinking is to put one set just behind the back row, maybe 5' off the back wall, which would be about 8.5' behind the front row (the only row occupied 95% of time) and then the front set 8.5' in front of front row. The downside to this is it puts one set almost on top of the back row and the other 16's in front.
> 
> I'm lost as to where to cut the holes in the coffers and run the wires to.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Dolby mentioned that more detailed installation white papers will be released around the time of the CEDIA Expo in September. Can you hold off a bit? I sure would.


----------



## NorthSky

*Awesome!*



Scott Simonian said:


> I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my Onkyo *and my previous Harmon Kardon 525 from 2002*.
> The option was there to BM up to 200hz. If one were to BM a speaker that was 180-200hz, for example, that content would be sent to the left and right mains and if those were also BM'd then the rest would go to the SUB out.





batpig said:


> I'm confused, how could an HK AVR from 2002 have the concept of a "downstairs neighbor" speaker. There wasn't even height speakers back then. Are you talking about bass redirection from the surrounds?
> And what Onkyo model allows this "two tier" bass management scheme? I've never even heard of this option (bass managing first to the L/R mains and then from there to the sub) before the current Atmos discussion.





Scott Simonian said:


> You are probably confused because you aren't paying attention.
> I never said anything about a "downstairs neighbor". That was Roger who did and my post was in context with his.
> Yes this was for the surrounds or center.
> I also mentioned the model. The HK525.





batpig said:


> My goodness, how inattentive of me to assume that your direct reply to Roger actually was in context with what he was talking about, especially since you said "that is exactly how it works". I should have read your mind and realized that when you said explicitly that yours works exactly the same way, what you actually meant was that it works in a similar, but different, way. Which you didn't articulate.
> Now who's not paying attention?
> You: I can't say for every AVR manufacturer but that is exactly how it works on my *Onkyo*
> Me: And what *Onkyo* model allows this "two tier" bass management scheme?
> So the Onkyo model is the HK525? I didn't know Onkyo made Harman Kardon receivers!





Scott Simonian said:


> Well that sure went... somewhere. : |


♦ One evening, only one, I would love going to a tavern (or even better, a strip joint) with you two guys. :grin:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> One evening, only one, I would love going to the tavern (or even better, a strip joint) with you two guys. :grin:


They'd be too busy arguing to notice the hot babes swirling around on metal poles.


----------



## sdurani

Tnedator said:


> I will have a 27' x 17' home theater (25' x 17' from screen wall to back wall) and 10' high ceiling.


Just to be clear: the length of your room (front to back) is 27 feet? But your screen wall is 2 feet from the real front wall?


Tnedator said:


> I have two rows of seating, with the back row being about 6' off the back wall.


How important is the back row? Is it for occasional overflow seating or used all the time?


Tnedator said:


> Has Dolby provided anything other than the crude drawings and stated one set in front of listening area and one behind?


No. They're supposed to be issuing a white paper at CEDIA in a few weeks that addresses placement and installation of an Atmos set-up. Can you wait till mid September?


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> I wonder if they will be on display at CEDIA?


Yup, I hope whatever manufacturers (speakers and electronics) have been holding back will announce their Atmos products at CEDIA. Same with studios and Atmos encoded titles on Blu-ray.


----------



## ambesolman

sdurani said:


> Yup, I hope whatever manufacturers (speakers and electronics) have been holding back will announce their Atmos products at CEDIA. Same with studios and Atmos encoded titles on Blu-ray.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> They'd be too busy arguing to notice the hot babes swirling around on metal poles.


Never too busy and often way too distracted by the local fauna. 

Lol and it's not I was arguing or anything. I thought my posts were pretty straight forward. 

But I'll join yall regardless and buy the drinks. I'll have nachos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Never too busy and often way too distracted by the local fauna.
> 
> Lol and it's not I was arguing or anything. I thought my posts were pretty straight forward.
> 
> But I'll join yall regardless and buy the drinks. I'll have nachos.


Just gently ribbing you guys.  

There's a place called Shotgun Willies just outside Denver. You can look it up for yourselves... but not at work.  CEDIA is coming...


----------



## helvetica bold

Has this been posted-Cnet's feature w/ lots of pics!

http://www.cnet.com/news/dolby-atmos-at-home-ears-on/


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Sound coming up from the floor a little breeze blows through the room a fog rolls along the floor with birds chirping in the trees and of course *your couch needs to vibrate just in case there is an earthquake* that maybe the future of atmos.





ambesolman said:


> Think that's 4D


♦ Hein hein, it's D-Box Technologies

• List of D-Box Motion-Enhanced Theatrical Films



UKTexan said:


> First post on AVS, I have been following the home theater Atmos thread with great interest. I am currently building a home with a dedicated home theater room and plan to implement a 7.3.4 setup with either on ceiling or possibly elevation/reflective speakers. I am trying to narrow down my choice of either Sonus Faber Venere , KEF R series or Martin Logan Motion series paired with REL subwoofers.
> After much searching online for higher end speaker manufacturer's producing Dolby Atmos elevation speakers I managed to find an article on theregister.co.uk featuring KEF modules. The KEF speakers in the pictures below were recently used for a demo by Dolby in the UK, my original homeland. I am now settling into life in the wild west (Texas).
> Not sure if this was taken from the same demo Keith recently attended?
> Keith, Scott, Sanjay, Filmixer and many others have provided valuable information and insight into what I hope will prove to be a huge step up from TrueHD and DTS HD master audio, thank you to all who have posted.





UKTexan said:


> A couple more pictures of the KEF floor stands with elevation speakers taken from Read This!


♦ Thank you for sharing, and welcome to AVS! :smile:
----------------------------------


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I've noticed that on a few of these sites' latest Atmos demo reviews they keep bringing up that discs may be out towards the holidays. I'm assuming Dolby's "fall" release pronouncement has slipped a bit. 

You would think that hardware and software would be ready to roll _at the same time_ when something like this monumental shift in audio reproduction comes around. That would make for a great marketing coup, wouldn't it?? 

And how exactly are these studios going to announce Atmos releases on their own?  They didn't exactly herald the debut of Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio with a trumpet fanfare. Their home video marketing departments sometimes leave something to be desired. 

I hope they're not expecting Best Buy and their "Blue Shirts" to do the legwork for them... that'll be a rip roaring success.


----------



## Tnedator

sdurani said:


> Just to be clear: the length of your room (front to back) is 27 feet? But your screen wall is 2 feet from the real front wall? How important is the back row? Is it for occasional overflow seating or used all the time? No. They're supposed to be issuing a white paper at CEDIA in a few weeks that addresses placement and installation of an Atmos set-up. Can you wait till mid September?


Yes, the shell of the room is 27' front to back, and the screen wall is actually about 30" in front of the front wall, but yes, essentially what you described. 

95% of the time (or more) it will be just my wife and I in the front row, middle seats (two rows of four). 

Yes, the shell is being built this week, but I think we can hold off until they come back to finish the theater (trim, acoustical treatment, etc.) in the fall. We just won't actually drill through the shell with wires until then. 

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for Cedia.


----------



## Waboman

Rayjr said:


> I got approval from Scott Simonian to post the picture of him PIMPIN at the Dolby Labs Headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for it Scott
> 
> RayJr


He's got that "I just ate the last waffle taco" grin.


----------



## NorthSky

*Ya man!*



helvetica bold said:


> Has this been posted-Cnet's feature w/ lots of pics!
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/dolby-atmos-at-home-ears-on/


Right on baby!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> He's got that "I just ate the last waffle taco" grin.



Bacon cheeseburger actually.


----------



## sdurani

Tnedator said:


> Yes, the shell is being built this week, but I think we can hold off until they come back to finish the theater (trim, acoustical treatment, etc.) in the fall.


If you haven't built it yet, might I recommend you put the listeners' ears at 1/5th and 2/5th of room length from the back wall (65" and 130" from the back wall, respectively). Odd divisions of room length are where many of the problem frequencies (room modes) are roughly the same volume level, avoiding deep nulls (cancellations that cannot be fixed later with EQ).


----------



## pletwals

Tnedator said:


> I've been looking through all the documents I can find, but still not finding much concrete on the ceiling speaker locations.
> 
> I will have a 27' x 17' home theater (25' x 17' from screen wall to back wall) and 10' high ceiling. I'll be mounting speakers in the coffered beams.
> 
> I'm not sure if I should mount 4 or 6 speakers (I know the current receivers would be 7.1.4 and only 4 ceiling, but I have one shot to easily incorporate the ceiling speakers).
> 
> If two, where should I put the speakers. I have two rows of seating, with the back row being about 6' off the back wall. Has Dolby provided anything other than the crude drawings and stated one set in front of listening area and one behind?
> 
> My initial thinking is to put one set just behind the back row, maybe 5' off the back wall, which would be about 8.5' behind the front row (the only row occupied 95% of time) and then the front set 8.5' in front of front row. The downside to this is it puts one set almost on top of the back row and the other 16's in front.
> 
> I'm lost as to where to cut the holes in the coffers and run the wires to.
> 
> Any thoughts?



That's a long room and a very long viewing distance. I suggest even to use a total of 8 speakers in 2 rows of 4. I believe it was said during the Dolby showcase to put the ceiling speakers 1/3 from back and front wall when 2 rows of 4 speakers are used. This means simply to divide the distance in equal parts. 

If you use only 2 x 2 speakers this would put them at 25/3 = about 8' from the back and front wall. This means you will sit BEHIND the back speakers. With 2 x 3 you will sit right below the back speakers, spaced at about 6'.

If you use 4 x 2 speakers, this means 25/5 = 5' distance between each and between the back speaker and the wall, and you are also sitting in front of the back speakers.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> My understanding wast that the ~180Hz crossover for the Atmos-enabled "elevation" speakers has to do with psychoacoustic principles of "merging" the direct sound vs. the reflected height cues.


Probably not. HRTF cues for elevation are in the kHz range. The high crossover point around 200Hz is caused by the driver's inability to produce enough sound power level at those frequencies. They are simply too small.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> If you haven't built it yet, might I recommend you put *the listeners' ears at 1/5th and 2/5th of room length from the back wall* (65" and 130" from the back wall, respectively). Odd divisions of room length are where many of the problem frequencies (room modes) are roughly the same volume level, avoiding deep nulls (cancellations that cannot be fixed later with EQ).


I like that too. ...Solid acoustical science; rule of fifths.


----------



## Kwikas

Can we now state that front heights have gone the way of the Dodo?

Or are we not at that point just yet?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> Repost for your link...
> 
> A journalists report from the Dolby demo:
> 
> Dolby Atmos for Your Home: I've Heard it, and it Sounds Bloody Brilliant




Due to the nature of the Atmos speakers (single driver), I did wonder about this factor. Sort of the no highs no lows it must be Bose feature.


"To achieve such a great performance from the reflected sounds, Dolby spent years researching how the ears and brain work in harmony to determine overhead, or “3D”, sounds. Taking into account the way overhead sounds hit the top of our heads before spreading down into our ears, *Dolby’s reflected Atmos output features a “notch” taken out of the high end frequency range,* making the sounds seem more natural as they hit the ear. That precise frequency range at present remains a closely-guarded “secret sauce” for Dolby (though a frequency range analyser and a white noise track would be able to identify it once the systems become commercially available)."


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> First post on AVS, I have been following the home theater Atmos thread with great interest. I am currently building a home with a dedicated home theater room and plan to implement a 7.3.4 setup with either on ceiling or possibly elevation/reflective speakers. I am trying to narrow down my choice of either Sonus Faber Venere , KEF R series or Martin Logan Motion series paired with REL subwoofers.
> After much searching online for higher end speaker manufacturer's producing Dolby Atmos elevation speakers I managed to find an article on theregister.co.uk featuring KEF modules. The KEF speakers in the pictures below were recently used for a demo by Dolby in the UK, my original homeland. I am now settling into life in the wild west (Texas).
> Not sure if this was taken from the same demo Keith recently attended?
> Keith, Scott, Sanjay, Filmixer and many others have provided valuable information and insight into what I hope will prove to be a huge step up from TrueHD and DTS HD master audio, thank you to all who have posted.


Those were the Kefs used in the demo I attended on Wednesday. The overall system sound was fabulous. Look for more info in my report later today or tomorrow. And yes, it's a huge step up from regular 5.1/7.1!


----------



## Nightlord

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Due to the nature of the Atmos speakers (single driver), I did wonder about this factor. Sort of the no highs no lows it must be Bose feature.
> 
> 
> "To achieve such a great performance from the reflected sounds, Dolby spent years researching how the ears and brain work in harmony to determine overhead, or “3D”, sounds. Taking into account the way overhead sounds hit the top of our heads before spreading down into our ears, *Dolby’s reflected Atmos output features a “notch” taken out of the high end frequency range,* making the sounds seem more natural as they hit the ear. That precise frequency range at present remains a closely-guarded “secret sauce” for Dolby (though a frequency range analyser and a white noise track would be able to identify it once the systems become commercially available)."


The question we also still wait for is if it's implemented with components in the speakers, or by DSP in the receiver. Or both.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> He just attended another demo yesterday. Will be interesting to find out if he got to hear the Kefs (one of my favourite speaker brands, I had no idea they were an Atmos licensee).
> 
> BTW, welcome to the forum.


Yes - they used the Kefs shown in those photos. The photo is the exact room I was in. I too have been a longstanding admirer, and owner, of Kefs over the years. The sound yesterday was truly excellent in that small room. I’d venture to say it was better than the first demo I heard when the speakers in use were Onkyo's 'prototypes'. Full details coming soon.


----------



## Skylinestar

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Due to the nature of the Atmos speakers (single driver), I did wonder about this factor. Sort of the no highs no lows it must be Bose feature.
> 
> 
> "To achieve such a great performance from the reflected sounds, Dolby spent years researching how the ears and brain work in harmony to determine overhead, or “3D”, sounds. Taking into account the way overhead sounds hit the top of our heads before spreading down into our ears, *Dolby’s reflected Atmos output features a “notch” taken out of the high end frequency range,* making the sounds seem more natural as they hit the ear. That precise frequency range at present remains a closely-guarded “secret sauce” for Dolby (though a frequency range analyser and a white noise track would be able to identify it once the systems become commercially available)."


High end roll off is now a good feature (as in natural) as suggested by Dolby? X-curve? Is that why the majority of cinemas use JBL 8340A or 8350 for height and surround speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

Keith, better with the up-firing speakers than the overhead ones, again?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> The question we also still wait for is if it's implemented with components in the speakers, or by DSP in the receiver. Or both.


Pre-empting my upcoming article a little - yesterday we were told it was in the AVR.


----------



## kbarnes701

Skylinestar said:


> High end roll off is now a good feature (as in natural) as suggested by Dolby? X-curve? Is that why the majority of cinemas use JBL 8340A or 8350 for height and surround speakers?


It's not high-end roll-off. It's a *notch *at a certain frequency, which Dolby won't, at this stage, disclose. It is higher than 7kHz.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not high-end roll-off. It's a *notch *at a certain frequency, which Dolby won't, at this stage, disclose. It is higher than 7kHz.



When Atmos uses a single driver with no tweeter, then you will have high end roll-off regardless of the notch. That is kind of obvious!

The original Dolby Surround had frequency response limitations in the surround channels


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> When Atmos uses a single driver with no tweeter, then you will have high end roll-off regardless of the notch. That is kind of obvious!


They're two different things.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> They're two different things.



They are two different things that work together. Perhaps the use of a real full range speaker (for high end) is not desirable!


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> When Atmos uses a single driver with no tweeter, then you will have high end roll-off regardless of the notch. That is kind of obvious!


The power response of every speaker shows a roll-off at higher frequencies, even with a tweeter. The question is, how important is the power response to what we hear?


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Perhaps the use of a real full range speaker (for high end) is not desirable!


... or maybe it is because a certain DI is required.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> The power response of every speaker shows a roll-off at higher frequencies, even with a tweeter. The question is, how important is the power response to what we hear?



That's obvious. However, taken in context a tweeter will roll-off at a high frequency. Seems to me that an Atmos surround speaker pretty much equals a Bose speaker.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Pre-empting my upcoming article a little - yesterday we were told it was in the AVR.


Oh, goodie goodie! Then I can proceed with experimentally turning my small ones into 'bouncers'. Tried them out on the wall yesterday just for fun.


----------



## westmd

My room is about 20feet x 13 feet and has a very low ceiling of only 7.2 feet so below Dolby suggested ceiling height for ceiling speakers. As I wanted to attach speakers on the ceiling I would loose some more inch reducing it to 6.8 feet only. Would you suggest for me rather to go for Atmos enabled speakers or would it makes sense to try the on-ceiling speakers?
Another question in regards to the Atmos enabled speakers, how about sound damping? I damped my room to reduce the primary reflections of my main speakers. With Dolby Atmos enabled speakers now, would there be any risk on absorbing needed reflections so would a "naked" ceiling make more sense? Any thoughts?


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> My room is about 20feet x 13 feet and has a very low ceiling of only 7.2 feet so below Dolby suggested ceiling height for ceiling speakers. As I wanted to attach speakers on the ceiling I would loose some more inch reducing it to 6.8 feet only. Would you suggest for me rather to go for Atmos enabled speakers or would it makes sense to try the on-ceiling speakers?
> Another question in regards to the Atmos enabled speakers, how about sound damping? I damped my room to reduce the primary reflections of my main speakers. With Dolby Atmos enabled speakers now, would there be any risk on absorbing needed reflections so would a "naked" ceiling make more sense? Any thoughts?


I'd go with Atmos speakers, given your ceiling height. You don't need a fully 'naked' ceiling. The area that the sound reflects off is surprisingly small. I will be giving more detail on that in my upcoming article.


----------



## petetherock

I haven't had a chance at a demo yet, but I am wondering aloud, about what this Atmos does for soundtracks...



For example, like the movie "The Cave", or "Prometheus" or some horror movie, the addition of the ambience factor might be a wonderful one, but how about steering in more straightforward action movies, that are encoded in 5.1 or even 7.1?



I am really keen to hear it for myself... hopefully there will be a local demo available soon...


----------



## action_jackson

Nightlord said:


> Oh, goodie goodie! Then I can proceed with experimentally turning my small ones into 'bouncers'. Tried them out on the wall yesterday just for fun.


It looks like a good contendor for an atmos height, although you may need to add a ridge between the speaker and listener to block direct sound.


----------



## Nightlord

action_jackson said:


> It looks like a good contendor for an atmos height, although you may need to add a ridge between the speaker and listener to block direct sound.


Precisely what I mean with 'proceed'. Make a box, put dampening material on the inside and drop the speaker into it was my idea. Haven't measure the angle yet, so it may need some tilt in the box as well. ( Basket diameter is 4", active cone size to just outside the middle of the surround - 3". Roll off in the top end [email protected] )


----------



## markus767

action_jackson said:


> It looks like a good contendor for an atmos height, although you may need to add a ridge between the speaker and listener to block direct sound.


A little ridge does nothing to block most direct sound. The ridge would need to have the size of the wavelength it should block. For 500Hz this would be 69cm (27").


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> A little ridge does nothing to block most direct sound. The ridge would need to have the size of the wavelength it should block. For 500Hz this would be 69cm (27").


Which means it's somewhere up and above 10kHz. So perhaps it's not blocking it's meant for - perhaps it's designed diffraction rather?


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Which means it's somewhere up and above 10kHz. So perhaps it's not blocking it's meant for - perhaps it's designed diffraction rather?


The recessed mounting in the Dolby speaker doesn't look like it's the result of some sophisticated FEA optimization  Furthermore the Pioneer speaker doesn't have it so it's probably not part of the specs. HRTF processing is happening in the AVR.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> The recessed mounting in the Dolby speaker doesn't look like it's the result of some sophisticated FEA optimization  Furthermore the Pioneer speaker doesn't have it so it's probably not part of the specs. HRTF processing is happening in the AVR.


Right. Doesn't look like it at least. Have anyone seen them IRL and can verify that there isn't something hiding in the covers?

Anyway, I'd have the luxory of having the possibility to try both versions.


----------



## action_jackson

markus767 said:


> A little ridge does nothing to block most direct sound. The ridge would need to have the size of the wavelength it should block. For 500Hz this would be 69cm (27").


I see...Those pics of the recessed speakers made me think that was the purpose of the recess. I was thinking of the speaker being like a light bulb. A light bulb in that position would only give indirect light, but I take it speakers are not on the same wavelengh so the sound would just travel around the ridge and go directly to the listener? Is the off axis response so minimal that you would not notice the sound was coming from the wall mounted speaker?


----------



## kbarnes701

action_jackson said:


> I see...Those pics of the recessed speakers made me think that was the purpose of the recess. I was thinking of the speaker being like a light bulb. A light bulb in that position would only give indirect light, but I take it speakers are not on the same wavelengh so the sound would just travel around the ridge and go directly to the listener? Is the off axis response so minimal that you would not notice the sound was coming from the wall mounted speaker?


It was explained to me at Dolby yesterday that at least part of the reason for the recess in all of the "ashtray designs" of the modules was to block (some of the) forward radiating sound. This, combined with DSP in the AVR, including the notch filter (for pyschoacoustic reasons) is how the upward firing speakers do what they do.


----------



## KidHorn

Kwikas said:


> Can we now state that front heights have gone the way of the Dodo?
> 
> Or are we not at that point just yet?



Yes and no. Ceiling speakers are logically the same as height speakers that are really high up. So you could probably use front and rear height speakers as a substitute for ceiling speakers and you may not notice much difference.


----------



## KidHorn

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Due to the nature of the Atmos speakers (single driver), I did wonder about this factor. Sort of the no highs no lows it must be Bose feature.
> 
> 
> "To achieve such a great performance from the reflected sounds, Dolby spent years researching how the ears and brain work in harmony to determine overhead, or “3D”, sounds. Taking into account the way overhead sounds hit the top of our heads before spreading down into our ears, *Dolby’s reflected Atmos output features a “notch” taken out of the high end frequency range,* making the sounds seem more natural as they hit the ear. That precise frequency range at present remains a closely-guarded “secret sauce” for Dolby (though a frequency range analyser and a white noise track would be able to identify it once the systems become commercially available)."



Hopefully the folks at audyssey know about the secret.


----------



## markus767

action_jackson said:


> I see...Those pics of the recessed speakers made me think that was the purpose of the recess. I was thinking of the speaker being like a light bulb. A light bulb in that position would only give indirect light, but I take it speakers are not on the same wavelengh so the sound would just travel around the ridge and go directly to the listener? Is the off axis response so minimal that you would not notice the sound was coming from the wall mounted speaker?


The wavelengths of audible sound are much larger (20Hz-20kHz = 17.2m-1.72cm) so a small recess does nothing. There will be substantial amounts of direct sound "leaking" but telling from the reports it's obviously not enough to create a dominant localization cue.
At higher frequencies the recess has some effect but the driver should already have started to beam by itself so I'm not sure how effective that little recess really is. Obviously Andrew Jones didn't think the effect is significant enough so he didn't use anything similar in his design for Pioneer.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> The wavelengths of audible sound are much larger (20Hz-20kHz = 17.2m-1.72cm) so a small recess does nothing. There will be substantial amounts of direct sound "leaking" but telling from the reports it's obviously not enough to create a dominant localization cue.
> At higher frequencies the recess has some effect but the driver should already have started to beam by itself so I'm not sure how effective that little recess really is. Obviously Andrew Jones didn't think the effect is significant enough so he didn't use anything similar in his design for Pioneer.


The edge might just have the funtion of holding the dampening material inside it.


----------



## action_jackson

kbarnes701 said:


> It was explained to me at Dolby yesterday that at least part of the reason for the recess in all of the "ashtray designs" of the modules was to block (some of the) forward radiating sound. This, combined with DSP in the AVR, including the notch filter (for pyschoacoustic reasons) is how the upward firing speakers do what they do.


Very interesting. Let's say you have a speaker that is eq'd to be flat by audessey, the DSP and notch filter will limit its output to the desired frequencies?


----------



## kbarnes701

action_jackson said:


> Very interesting. Let's say you have a speaker that is eq'd to be flat by audessey, the DSP and notch filter will limit its output to the desired frequencies?


A good question and one which I wish I had thought of myself yesterday 

Will Audyssey hear this notch and try to 'correct' it. IDK. I guess it depends how notchy it really is. Maybe. Or not. Who knows. I'll see if I can get an answer for us. 

(EDIT: question asked of my contact at Dolby, London. I will post reply when received.)


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> The edge might just have the funtion of holding the dampening material inside it.


Well then put some Basotect or mineral wool on your speaker and measure how much of an effect that has.


----------



## RUR

kbarnes701 said:


> A good question and one which I wish I had thought of myself yesterday
> 
> Will Audyssey hear this notch and try to 'correct' it. IDK. I guess it depends how notchy it really is. Maybe. Or not. Who knows. I'll see if I can get an answer for us.
> 
> (EDIT: question asked of my contact at Dolby, London. I will post reply when received.)


Keith, do you know how much smoothing Audyssey applies to the measurement(s) before filter calculation? I'm thinking of XT32, since earlier versions appear to apply _no_ smoothing, as evidenced by the "hair" in the filter set @ HF.


----------



## kbarnes701

RUR said:


> Keith, do you know how much smoothing Audyssey applies to the measurement(s) before filter calculation? I'm thinking of XT32, since earlier versions appear to apply _no_ smoothing, as evidenced by the "hair" in the filter set @ HF.


I _should_ know the answer to that and I think I _used_ to know the answer to that, but if I did, it has gone. Sorry. Anyone?


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I _should_ know the answer to that and I think I _used_ to know the answer to that, but if I did, it has gone. Sorry. Anyone?


 
The Audyssey Pro graphs are 1/3 octave resolution as per Chris K. (Edit: the link is buried somewhere in the Audyssey Pro thread, as I indicated below). DK what octave smoothing is actually used in XT32 filter calculation.


----------



## Ted99

rlhaudio said:


> Will anyone offer a Atmos Processor only? ie, A separate box I can connect to my existing receiver or processor? Lets assume I have a Classe, McIntosh, Krell $10,000 plus receiver and Im not willing to sell it or swap for a $2k atmos receiver. Am I screwed or will their be other options? What about an Atmos processor Blu Ray player which I could connect to the back of my receiver or active speakers? I guess im wondering if their is a work-around or will anyone wanting Atmos be forced to purchase a cheaper receiver?
> Will Krell, Classe, etc be required to upgrade all of their processors to Atmos ready as well? Currently if your receiver does not support the newer codecs odd are your blu ray player does which can be connected using Analog and/or digital outputs giving you more codecs. Ugh, now I sound confused.. lol


I'm only up to page 50 in this thread, so if this subject has been dealt with in the next 100 pages, I apologize.
I have a Yamaha RX-Z11 driving my LCR Martin-Logan Ascent electrostatics. I've been tempted to upgrade to DTS Neo11, but resisted because I was sure something better was on the way, plus the HDMI spec kept changing. Now, Atmos seems to be IT and HDMI 2.0a will be good for a number of years. I'll be buying the cheapest 7.1.4 Atmos receiver with pre-outs/ins I can find and feeding the LCR pre-outs to my RX-Z11 and driving the M-L speakers, with their difficult loads that the RX-Z11 handles very nicely. The rest of the channels I'll feed with the on-board amps in the Atmos receiver. Plus, the Atmos receiver will serve as my HDMI switcher. Works even better if the cheap Atmos receiver needs an outboard amp to drive 2 of the channels--I've just freed up 3 receiver on-board amps.


----------



## RUR

If Audyssey has been amended for Atmos applications to ignore the Atmos filter notch, it matters not.

If OTOH, Audyssey is unchanged, and it's XT32 flavor and it's a narrow notch, the measurement smoothing may tend to mitigate, if not completely avoid, Audyssey's "correction" of that notch.

Just idle speculation while you await Dolby's response......


----------



## Fooled

Dolby never got back to me. I previously posted about psychoacoustics effects of height awareness and frequency range we can localize it at (7khz). I'll be really surprised if the notch is from 0-3.5khz (1 octave away from 7khz) but you never know. I have a full scope and frequency generator, but waiting for Dolby is cheaper than buying a pair of add-on modules to see what the filter is doing.


----------



## markus767

RUR said:


> Keith, do you know how much smoothing Audyssey applies to the measurement(s) before filter calculation? I'm thinking of XT32, since earlier versions appear to apply _no_ smoothing, as evidenced by the "hair" in the filter set @ HF.


What exactly they do and how they do it is unfortunately not known. "We bring your system closer to reference but we don't tell you what that reference really is."


----------



## markus767

sdrucker said:


> The Audyssey Pro graphs are 1/3 octave resolution as per Chris K. (the link is buried somewhere in the REW thread). DK what octave smoothing is actually used in XT32 filter calculation.


I thought they smooth them 1/6.


----------



## RUR

markus767 said:


> What exactly they do and how they do it is unfortunately not known. "We bring your system closer to reference but we don't tell you what that reference really is."


One of several reasons I don't use Audyssey in my critical listening system.


----------



## Stanton

KidHorn said:


> Yes and no. Ceiling speakers are logically the same as height speakers that are really high up. So you could probably use front and rear height speakers as a substitute for ceiling speakers and you may not notice much difference.


I've pondered that same question. My mid/side speakers/channels are mounted about 1foot from the ceiling, so the only practical difference is the direction they are facing (towards the seating position). How hard could it be to turn a 7.1 system into a 5.1.2 system?!


----------



## sdurani

Doesn't Audyssey measure the speakers without any processing (e.g., Dolby Elevation) turned on? IF that's the case, why would the pinna/shoulder notches be in the test signal during Audyssey calibration?


----------



## markus767

^
That's how they _should_ do it. Kind of counterproductive to compensate for a deliberate notch.


----------



## sdrucker

markus767 said:


> I thought they smooth them 1/6.


So did I and a lot of people, but StevenLansing and I tracked down confirmation from Chris that it's indeed 1/3 resolution on MultiEQ family graphs, with the old standalone Sub Equalizer having 1/6th smoothing. I was slightly off: it was in the Pro thread, not REW.

Edit: I found the response from the Pro thread, dating back to my follow-up on Steven's OP a day or so before. And note that Chris is opaque about what resolution is actually being used for filter calculation, except that it's more than what you see on the graphs themselves. See below:

*The Oracle (a/k/a Audyssey "Jesus", no relation to "Personal Jesus" of Depeche Mode fame) has spoken.*

*From the Audyssey Tech Talk FB group:*
*Hi Stuart, the graphs in MultEQ Pro (all versions) were never intended to be a "scientific" tool. More of "flatter is better" visual. So they are 1/3 octave smoothed. The calculations and filters are of course done at much much higher resolution. The graphs I had posted for Markus were not from MultEQ Pro--they were using a different internal measurement tool and were trying to make the point that pinging two subs as "one" gives you a flatter response after correction.*

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...kit-thread-faq-post-1-a-141.html#post23315197


----------



## KidHorn

sdurani said:


> Doesn't Audyssey measure the speakers without any processing (e.g., Dolby Elevation) turned on? IF that's the case, why would the pinna/shoulder notches be in the test signal during Audyssey calibration?



We don't know exactly how audyssey and dolby processing interact so it may or may not be a problem using both. You also have to keep in mind that atmos setups will be used for BDs with atmos tracks, BD/Cable without atmos tracks, CDs, etc... so everything will need to work correctly in all cases.


----------



## batpig

It seems only logical to me that ANY automatic REQ calibration system would measure the speaker response with NO processing so as to filter the "native" response of speaker+room. Any DSP (whether the HRTF stuff for Atmos elevation speakers or THX Re-EQ or anything else) shouldn't be part of the calibration program.


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> Hopefully the folks at audyssey know about the secret.





action_jackson said:


> Very interesting. Let's say you have a speaker that is eq'd to be flat by audessey, the DSP and notch filter will limit its output to the desired frequencies?


This will be in my upcoming article, but here is the reply, direct from Dolby:

“Our guidance (in the form of an encyclopedia-sized specification manual) to the AVR manufacturers explicitly addresses this and there are a few techniques which can be employed to ensure any room EQ, such as Audyssey, does not interfere with the psychoacoustic filtering applied to Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. As well as these requirements, we also test for this as part of our mandatory product evaluation process which every Dolby Atmos receiver must go through before it can be brought to market. “


----------



## kbarnes701

RUR said:


> If Audyssey has been amended for Atmos applications to ignore the Atmos filter notch, it matters not.
> 
> If OTOH, Audyssey is unchanged, and it's XT32 flavor and it's a narrow notch, the measurement smoothing may tend to mitigate, if not completely avoid, Audyssey's "correction" of that notch.
> 
> Just idle speculation while you await Dolby's response......


As we might have expected, I guess, Dolby has it covered... (see the reply from Stephen at Dolby).


----------



## kbarnes701

Fooled said:


> Dolby never got back to me. I previously posted about psychoacoustics effects of height awareness and frequency range we can localize it at (7khz). I'll be really surprised if the notch is from 0-3.5khz (1 octave away from 7khz) but you never know. I have a full scope and frequency generator, but waiting for Dolby is cheaper than buying a pair of add-on modules to see what the filter is doing.


The notch is "much higher than 7kHz..."


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Doesn't Audyssey measure the speakers without any processing (e.g., Dolby Elevation) turned on? IF that's the case, why would the pinna/shoulder notches be in the test signal during Audyssey calibration?


Of course! That is almost certainly the case. Audyssey is interested in the room/speaker interaction, not any processing that is done later.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> ^
> That's how they _should_ do it. Kind of counterproductive to compensate for a deliberate notch.


Or, of course, they could add the notch back in afterwards, like they do with the mid-range compensation dip.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It seems only logical to me that ANY automatic REQ calibration system would measure the speaker response with NO processing so as to filter the "native" response of speaker+room. Any DSP (whether the HRTF stuff for Atmos elevation speakers or THX Re-EQ or anything else) shouldn't be part of the calibration program.


Bingo. +1.


----------



## asarose247

copied from an above CNET mentioned review: I added the bold for emphasis


Atmos is able to add so many more channels by doing away with the "channel" concept altogether. Instead of "this sound to rear-right speaker," the sound designer tells the Atmos software to place the sound "object" in a specific area, like "rear corner, halfway up the wall." The Atmos decoder at the theater,* knowing what speakers it has to work with and where they are,* interprets the location metadata in the Atmos feed, and places the sound exactly where the sound designer intended, regardless of the number of speakers in the theater, or their placement (within reason, of course). 


So, *H*ow *T*errifically *F*ine is that gonna happen for in-home applications? when it seems that a multiple microphone set-up is needed to pinpoint MOL speaker locations, D's, etc wrt each dimensionality/proportionality of the total set-up? Which CE manuf. will supply the sophisticated OSD /Automatic input for , as Louie KC would say "All of this!" and make your day/investment eventually all worth while?


slightly puzzled and impatient . .


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Well then put some Basotect or mineral wool on your speaker and measure how much of an effect that has.


If you're being funny, I'm well aware that lower frequencies require more to have an effect. But neither of us know which frequency area they are trying to have an effect on, unless you're not spilling something.

But for higher frequencies, there are some brands that have used dampening material on the front baffle with success, for instance NHT.


----------



## mogorf

sdrucker said:


> Edit: I found the response from the Pro thread, dating back to my follow-up on Steven's OP a day or so before. And *note that Chris is opaque about what resolution is actually being used for filter calculation, except that it's more than what you see on the graphs themselves*.
> 
> Hi Stuart, *the graphs* in MultEQ Pro (all versions) were never intended to be a "scientific" tool. More of "flatter is better" visual.* So they are 1/3 octave smoothed. The calculations and filters are of course done at much much higher resolution. *


Hey to all, let's hold it for a moment here. If you look at the bolded text you will see that it is the graph that is smoothed, not the signal itself. Chris is talking about graph resolution (aka smoothing), not filter resolution. Of course Audyssey uses high resolution filters for EQ'ing room-speaker interaction (the higher the MultEQ version the higher the resolution is, 512x for XT32 as we know where "x" is not published.), but that has nothing to do with graph smoothing.

So, smoothing is a tool for data analysis, but it does not change the signal itself. How could it? How could looking at graphs while changing smoothing change the original filter's resolution? Makes no sense, eh?


----------



## sdrucker

mogorf said:


> Hey to all, let's hold it for a moment here. If you look at the bolded text you will see that it is the graph that is smoothed, not the signal itself. Chris is talking about graph resolution (aka smoothing), not filter resolution. Of course Audyssey uses high resolution filters for EQ'ing room-speaker interaction (the higher the MultEQ version the higher the resolution is, 512x for XT32 as we know where "x" is not published.), but that has nothing to do with graph smoothing.
> 
> So, smoothing is a tool for data analysis, but it does not change the signal itself. How could it? How could looking at graphs while changing smoothing change the original filter's resolution? Makes no sense, eh?


At the risk of derailing the thread, Feri, we all agree there. 

The follow-up I posted here was in response to the question about Keith not knowing the resolution actually used by Audyssey for filter generation, which is part of the Audyssey "secret sauce". I pointed out that all we know is the graph resolution (Markus thought 1/6th smoothing, which is a common misconception, but in reality as per Chris it's 1/3rd WRT MultiEQ in AVRs and pre/pros for the Post-Audyssey graphs). The filter resolution is "more", but we don't know what. The 512x is only useful as a measure of the order magnitude of filters to compare different versions of Audyssey, not to imply any specific octave resolution of the filters.


As someone we know would say, "let's move on, eh"? Nothing to see...


----------



## RUR

mogorf said:


> Hey to all, let's hold it for a moment here. If you look at the bolded text you will see that it is the graph that is smoothed, not the signal itself. Chris is talking about graph resolution (aka smoothing), not filter resolution. Of course Audyssey uses high resolution filters for EQ'ing room-speaker interaction (the higher the MultEQ version the higher the resolution is, 512x for XT32 as we know where "x" is not published.), but that has nothing to do with graph smoothing.
> 
> So, smoothing is a tool for data analysis, but it does not change the signal itself. How could it? How could looking at graphs while changing smoothing change the original filter's resolution? Makes no sense, eh?


Feri, let's not confuse the smoothing shown in the predicted response with the smoothing applied to the measurement before filter calculation. They're two different things, neither of which are related to the # of FIR taps, only to how those taps are applied.

But we're OT, so let's take this to the Official Audyssey thread if you want to continue.


----------



## sdrucker

RUR said:


> Feri, let's not confuse the smoothing shown in the predicted response with the smoothing applied to the measurement before filter calculation. They're two different things, neither of which are related to the # of FIR taps, only to how those taps are applied.
> 
> But we're OT, so let's take this to the Official Audyssey thread if you want to continue.



+10


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> We don't know exactly how audyssey and dolby processing interact so it may or may not be a problem using both.


We can make a reasonable assumption based on past experience. Audyssey has never calibrated while any processing was applied to the signal. Doubt they will make an exception for Dolby Elevation processing. So whatever pinna/shoulder notches Elevation applies, it won't be something that interferes with an Audyssey cal nor something that Audyssey needs to address.


----------



## mogorf

RUR said:


> Keith, do you know how much smoothing Audyssey applies to the measurement(s) before filter calculation? I'm thinking of XT32, since earlier versions appear to apply _no_ smoothing, as evidenced by the "hair" in the filter set @ HF.


Stu, this was the post that caught my attention. Filter calculation and graph smoothing are two different animals, aren't they?

That's why you looked up Chris's quote and that's why I stopped here for a moment.

If all clear, yeah, we can move on.


----------



## mogorf

RUR said:


> But we're OT, so let's take this to the Official Audyssey thread if you want to continue.


Looking forward to a discussion over at the Audyssey thread.

Sorry to all for the OT.


----------



## UKTexan

Keith,


In anticipation of your report could you confirm which series of KEF's floor stands were used in the Dolby demo?
I presume they would use the R series or possibly Q.
The new reference series are set for release soon so I guess that could be a possibility.
Many thanks.


----------



## sdurani

The Dolby demo room in New York has a couple of interesting features to point out: 










Notice the multi-pole speakers (in black) up front for demonstrating PLIIz. These were not uses for the Atmos demonstration. Instead look carefully and you'll see light grey in-ceiling speakers (one at the top edge of the pic and the other just past the light fixture) that were used for overhead sounds. For demonstrating reflected heights, notice that they're dealing with a drop ceiling. 

So while carefully toe-in & tilt for on-ceiling speakers would be optimal, or a hard/reflective drywall or plaster ceiling for upward firing heights, those things aren't absolutely necessary in order for Atmos to work (work well enough that Dolby would feel comfortable demonstrating it this way to the AV press).


----------



## batpig

One thing that was awesomely encouraging was RayJr's pics of the demo room and how NOT professional it looked. Not all fancy and finished, no sophisticated room treatments.... it looked like something that was easily achievable in a typical living room.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> One thing that was awesomely encouraging was RayJr's pics of the demo room and how NOT professional it looked. Not all fancy and finished, no sophisticated room treatments.... it looked like something that was easily achievable in a typical living room.


Yup. Exactly. 

And I'll tell ya.... it sure worked.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. Exactly.
> 
> And I'll tell ya.... it sure worked.



Bloody brilliantly?


----------



## kbarnes701

asarose247 said:


> copied from an above CNET mentioned review: I added the bold for emphasis
> 
> 
> Atmos is able to add so many more channels by doing away with the "channel" concept altogether. Instead of "this sound to rear-right speaker," the sound designer tells the Atmos software to place the sound "object" in a specific area, like "rear corner, halfway up the wall." The Atmos decoder at the theater,* knowing what speakers it has to work with and where they are,* interprets the location metadata in the Atmos feed, and places the sound exactly where the sound designer intended, regardless of the number of speakers in the theater, or their placement (within reason, of course).
> 
> 
> So, *H*ow *T*errifically *F*ine is that gonna happen for in-home applications? when it seems that a multiple microphone set-up is needed to pinpoint MOL speaker locations, D's, etc wrt each dimensionality/proportionality of the total set-up? Which CE manuf. will supply the sophisticated OSD /Automatic input for , as Louie KC would say "All of this!" and make your day/investment eventually all worth while?
> 
> 
> slightly puzzled and impatient . .


Answered numerous times in this thread. Current first gen Atmos AVRs from mainstream manufacturers will not input speaker position information to the Atmos renderer.


----------



## Waboman

ambesolman said:


> Bloody brilliantly?


Is there any other kind?


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> In anticipation of your report could you confirm which series of KEF's floor stands were used in the Dolby demo?
> I presume they would use the R series or possibly Q.
> The new reference series are set for release soon so I guess that could be a possibility.
> Many thanks.


The ones at the demo were rough around the edges as you will see from my photos so possibly not in production yet. IDK what model they were, sorry. I will ask next time I email Dolby with some other stuff - I don't want to bombard them with emails with a single question each. Thanks for your understanding.


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> I _should_ know the answer to that and I think I _used_ to know the answer to that, but if I did, it has gone. Sorry. Anyone?


Off topic, ...come over and join us for a discussion at the Audyssey thread, ...RUR has something to say...:kiss:


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Answered numerous times in this thread. Current first gen Atmos AVRs from mainstream manufacturers will not input speaker position information to the Atmos renderer.


Just to be nit picky... we know that it will not input MEASURED speaker position information to the renderer. I think we are all assuming/hoping it inputs some sort of position information, based upon the speaker config settings, e.g. the position information would be different for "Top Front" vs. "Front Height" as the first pair of overheard speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just to be nit picky... we know that it will not input MEASURED speaker position information to the renderer. I think we are all assuming/hoping it inputs some sort of position information, based upon the speaker config settings, e.g. the position information would be different for "Top Front" vs. "Front Height" as the first pair of overheard speakers.


Agreed. Clearly, the AVR is able to differentiate between Front Tops and Rear Tops  Front Heights (30-45) and Front Tops (30-55) overlap so much that it may not even be an issue to differentiate between them. A speaker at anywhere between 30 and 45 degrees is the same speaker to all intents and purposes, so why would the renderer treat it differently just because it has a different name. I can see your point though - as the Front Tops can theoretically be placed 10 degrees further back, then maybe the renderer 'moves' the sound back a little if you select Front Tops compared with Front Heights. 

I have asked Dolby to clarify this for me as it became a stumbling block to the completion of my review of yesterday's demo. It is clearly a complex issue because the answer I have received is along the lines of "we need to dig for that info, please bear with us".


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*JBLpro SCS8 & SCS12 Atmos*









The coaxial JBLpro SCS8 (8") and SCS12 (12") are both used here, both for surrounds and ceiling speakers in the Polish Atmos production room. Interestingly, only the speakers nearest to the screen are the 12" version, all the others are the 8". 

I presume this is for a bigger impact of the front stage?


----------



## KidHorn

sdurani said:


> We can make a reasonable assumption based on past experience. Audyssey has never calibrated while any processing was applied to the signal. Doubt they will make an exception for Dolby Elevation processing. So whatever pinna/shoulder notches Elevation applies, it won't be something that interferes with an Audyssey cal nor something that Audyssey needs to address.


 
This case is different though. In the past the goal was to have a flat response for all speakers. For the ceiling speakers you don't want a flat response. So there are two ways to approach this. One is to have audyssey try to create a curve for a non flat response. One that includes the notch. The other way is for audyssey to create a flat response and then have the source changed to remove the notch.


I don't know if both approaches would have the same result. The problem I have with this way of doing things is audyssey takes into account what is actually heard at a location by the mic which includes reflections, cancelling of frequencies, etc... . Removal of the notch may have an effect on other frequencies in the room. I understand that the same thing can occur with any source material, but audyssey has to make reasonable assumptions and source material will never have a frequency range that's always notched out. It's probably not a big deal. I just worry about audyssey damping down a harmonic whose source will be always notched out.


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> In the past the goal was to have a flat response for all speakers. For the ceiling speakers you don't want a flat response.


Smooth response is still the goal for all speaker/room interaction. What subsequent signal processing does with the speakers is not the concern of room correction.


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> ...and source material will never have a frequency range that's always notched out.


AIUI, for Atmos speaker processing, it will.

It seems no different to me than the way the Audyssey Mid-range compensation dip is applied. Audyssey measures the in-room response, creates filters to meet its target curve as best it is able and then it adds the MRC dip back in, always and always at the same frequency.

I think worrying over how Audyssey and Atmos work together is overthinking things - Dolby have already stated that they have this covered and that they check the AVR manufacturer's implementation to ensure compliance before they sign off on an Atmos unit.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Smooth response is still the goal for all speaker/room interaction. What subsequent signal processing does with the speakers is not the concern of room correction.


Exactly. It's the same as worrying that Neo:X won’t work properly because an Audyssey calibration was used.


----------



## Fooled

kbarnes701 said:


> The notch is "much higher than 7kHz..."


 I assume that is a quote from Dolby or a manufacturer. Are there going to be details of this notch(s) for people that build speakers?

Thanks for the reporting, interesting stuff.


----------



## bkeeler10

sdurani said:


> Doesn't Audyssey measure the speakers without any processing (e.g., Dolby Elevation) turned on? IF that's the case, why would the pinna/shoulder notches be in the test signal during Audyssey calibration?


Exactly what I thought. Audyssey would just measure using its typical pings, and the correction would be applied to all incoming signals for each channel. Then, after the Audyssey solution has been loaded, you play a Dolby Atmos track. The bitstream would be decoded, the notch for the ceiling speakers would be applied, and then the signal would go through the Audyssey filters. Audyssey doesn't care or need to know about the notch.


----------



## markus767

Fooled said:


> I assume that is a quote from Dolby or a manufacturer. Are there going to be details of this notch(s) for people that build speakers?
> 
> Thanks for the reporting, interesting stuff.


The notch (or notches) is applied by the AVR so it's not a requirement for the speaker. More important is what DI and output capabilities Dolby expects from a ceiling-firing speaker.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> This will be in my upcoming article, but here is the reply, direct from Dolby:
> 
> “Our guidance (in the form of an encyclopedia-sized specification manual) to the AVR manufacturers explicitly addresses this and there are a few techniques which can be employed to ensure any room EQ, such as Audyssey, does not interfere with the psychoacoustic filtering applied to Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. As well as these requirements, we also test for this as part of our mandatory product evaluation process which every Dolby Atmos receiver must go through before it can be brought to market. “


Do you think thats why Onkyo dropped Audyssey and replaced it with AccuEQ. i understand or read it some place that Dolby and Onkyo worked together on AccuEQ.


----------



## sdurani

bkeeler10 said:


> The bitstream would be decoded, the notch for the ceiling speakers would be applied, and then the signal would go through the Audyssey filters. Audyssey doesn't care or need to know about the notch.


Yup, and keep in mind that the notch is part of Dolby Elevation processing, which is used exclusively with Atmos-enabled (upward firing) speakers. If you've got actual speakers above you, then this whole business about the notch is moot (i.e., Elevation processing is never used).


----------



## sdurani

Seems Audioholics have finally dropped their pretense of skepticism and come out of the closet as fully anti-Atmos: 

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/5-reasons-dolby-atmos-is-doa 

Edit: someone started a thread dedicated to the above article: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1644305-why-dolby-atmos-doa.html


----------



## bkeeler10

bkeeler10 said:


> Exactly what I thought. Audyssey would just measure using its typical pings, and the correction would be applied to all incoming signals for each channel. Then, after the Audyssey solution has been loaded, you play a Dolby Atmos track. The bitstream would be decoded, the notch for the ceiling speakers would be applied, and then the signal would go through the Audyssey filters. Audyssey doesn't care or need to know about the notch.


To clarify myself (after reading what followed). Again, MultEQ doesn't care what happens to the signal before it is received for processing by MultEQ. It doesn't care if the music coming in had all the bass chopped off below 100 Hz, for example. It wouldn't care if the mixer of the soundtrack decided to artificially distort a voice in the center channel. And it doesn't care any more whether the Atmos processing notches out a particular frequency.

MultEQ will simply monitor the incoming signal for the ceiling speakers. If the signal contains frequencies for which MultEQ is programmed to apply a correction, it will do so. If that signal doesn't contain frequencies within the notch, there is nothing for MultEQ to do. So, with respect to the notch implemented by Atmos, it seems to me that no modification to the MultEQ process is required.


----------



## bkeeler10

sdurani said:


> Yup, and keep in mind that the notch is part of Dolby Elevation processing, which is used exclusively with Atmos-enabled (upward firing) speakers. If you've got actual speakers above you, then this whole business about the notch is moot (i.e., Elevation processing is never used).


Not exactly related to MultEQ's process, but I didn't think about that. So the notch is implemented to psychoacoustically make Atmos-enabled speakers sound like they are actually on the ceiling then?


----------



## Nightlord

KidHorn said:


> This case is different though. In the past the goal was to have a flat response for all speakers. For the ceiling speakers you don't want a flat response.


Why would you assume Atmos to be activated during measurements? 
The notch won't be active until atmos (enabled speakers) are active.


----------



## Fooled

markus767 said:


> The notch (or notches) is applied by the AVR so it's not a requirement for the speaker. More important is what DI and output capabilities Dolby expects from a ceiling-firing speaker.


 Has Dolby confirmed this? This conflicts with the speaker white paper and onkyo's marketing:
"Dolby Atmos-Certified Special Network Inside
"
http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=SKH-410&class=Speaker#features


----------



## sdurani

bkeeler10 said:


> So the notch is implemented to psychoacoustically make Atmos-enabled speakers sound like they are actually on the ceiling then?


That's its only purpose, to fool your sense of hearing into believing sounds are coming from above you. Not needed when you actually have speakers above you.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

Interesting quote re ceiling speaker placement on avf ( http://www.avforums.com/threads/a-guide-to-dolby-atmos-in-the-home.1889782/page-6#post-21031063 ). The diagram referenced is in the one that shows a body in the middle of the room surrounded by speakers (see the link)



> In a product with 9, 11 or 13 speaker outputs using 4 in-ceiling speakers, then we would recommend these be placed in what we call the “Left Top Front”, “Right Top Front”, “Left Top Rear” and “Right Top Rear” positions. This equates to the setup we have in our demo room. The “Top Front” pair are approximately between 30-55 degrees vertical from the centre-front reference (which is an imaginary line drawn from the central listening position and the centre speaker) and the “Top Rear” pair approximately between 125-150 degrees vertical from the centre-front reference.
> 
> In a product with 7, 9, 11 or 13 speaker outputs using only 2 in-ceiling speakers, we recommend these be placed in “Left Top Middle” and “Right Top Middle” positions. This equates to approximately between 65-100 degrees vertical from the centre-front reference. Ideally, these would be placed nearer the 65 degree angle in order to make sure they are placed slightly in front of the reference listener position. Perhaps this is where some confusion has crept in.
> 
> All height speaker pairs should be mounted along a line that is a +/- 30 degrees from the centre-front reference. In a properly setup 5.1/7.1 configuration, this places them in line with Left and Right front speakers. However, height speaker pairs can be placed as far as the side walls or between the side walls and middle of the room if needed.
> 
> These represent the minimum recommended configurations but by no means are the only configurations that may be supported in a given product. The Dolby Atmos format for the home supports up to 34 speaker locations and the combinations and permutations of configurations is quite sizeable. Our aim is to have a baseline of typical, recommended speaker configurations supported in the first-generation of Dolby Atmos capable hardware."


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> Do you think thats why Onkyo dropped Audyssey and replaced it with AccuEQ. i understand or read it some place that Dolby and Onkyo worked together on AccuEQ.


No. Onkyo dropped Audyssey for one reason only: cost. It would have required engineering resources to implement properly to spec, and additional DSP to keep process both (Atmos rendering + MultEQ) simultaneously. Denon/Marantz decided to stick with Audyssey and adding additional DSP (4 DSP chips on Atmos enabled receivers), Onkyo decided to drop Audyssey in favor of Atmos to keep costs lower and be able to deliver Atmos at lower price points.


----------



## mogorf

batpig said:


> No. Onkyo dropped Audyssey for one reason only: cost. It would have required engineering resources to implement properly to spec, and additional DSP to keep process both (Atmos rendering + MultEQ) simultaneously. Denon/Marantz decided to stick with Audyssey and adding additional DSP (4 DSP chips on Atmos enabled receivers), Onkyo decided to drop Audyssey in favor of Atmos to keep costs lower and be able to deliver Atmos at lower price points.


bp, how do you know how much it cost Onkyo to develop a brand new EQ known by the name of AccuEQ? Software/hardware (like new mic) together? Are you a member of their BOD? How do you know why Denon/Marantz decided to stick with Audyssey even by adding additional chips to the system? Are you a member of their BOD?

Sorry for the nit, but how do you know?


----------



## bkeeler10

batpig said:


> No. Onkyo dropped Audyssey for one reason only: cost. It would have required engineering resources to implement properly to spec, and additional DSP to keep process both (Atmos rendering + MultEQ) simultaneously. Denon/Marantz decided to stick with Audyssey and adding additional DSP (4 DSP chips on Atmos enabled receivers), Onkyo decided to drop Audyssey in favor of Atmos to keep costs lower and be able to deliver Atmos at lower price points.


And yet, as I was casually browsing their websites today, I noticed that the Onkyo 11 channel and 9 channel Atmos AVRs are more expensive (by a few hundred bucks) than the 11 and 9 channel Denons are  I'm comparing the Onkyo 3030 and 1030 with the Denon 5200 and 4100. I didn't do a big comparison of all the other features, but that is interesting.


----------



## action_jackson

I know some choose not to use audyssey, preferring to take measurements and making adjustments manually. Surely they are just controlling the frequency output using the dsp based on an expected nominal output response from the speakers.


----------



## mogorf

action_jackson said:


> I know some choose not to use audyssey, preferring to take measurements and making adjustments manually. Surely they are just controlling the frequency output using the dsp based on an expected nominal output response from the speakers.


How do those "some" do that, I mean how do they make ajdustments manually to the frequency output (better said frequency response)? What do they adjust by hand?


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> The notch (or notches) is applied by the AVR so it's not a requirement for the speaker.
> More important is what *DI* and output capabilities Dolby expects from a ceiling-firing speaker.


Markus, please forget my ignorance here but I saw that you already mentioned few times the term *DI*.
Is it _Digitally Imported_, or is it _Seen & Heard_, or some' else? ...TY


----------



## JHAz

action_jackson said:


> I know some choose not to use audyssey, preferring to take measurements and making adjustments manually. Surely they are just controlling the frequency output using the dsp based on an expected nominal output response from the speakers.


If you measure, you work from the measurements., not from expectations . . . Kinda by definition. The actual speaker in its actual location in the actusl room. Whether you can outperform an automatic eq system depends, one would suppose, on a variety of factors.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> No. Onkyo dropped Audyssey for one reason only: cost. It would have required engineering resources to implement properly to spec, and additional DSP to keep process both (Atmos rendering + MultEQ) simultaneously. Denon/Marantz decided to stick with Audyssey and adding additional DSP (4 DSP chips on Atmos enabled receivers), Onkyo decided to drop Audyssey in favor of Atmos to keep costs lower and be able to deliver Atmos at lower price points.


It was just something I was curious about, the expense of an audyssey fee is just past on to the consumer anyway, onkyo wasn't eating that cost. Why would they drop it to save money and then turn around and charge more for there New atmos AVR. So I was just speculating because I read that Dolby and Onkyo worked together to develop Accu-EQ


----------



## action_jackson

mogorf said:


> How do those "some" do that, I mean how do they make ajdustments manually to the frequency output (better said frequency response)? What do they adjust by hand?


I have not done this personally, but I have read of others doing this. I take it that they use programs such as REW with a calibrated mic to take the readings. Some have dedicated DSPs that will take data from REW to set the PEQ. You could also manually adjust the PEQ of your receiver if it has that capability. This is just a basic idea of what is done, not to get too far off topic.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> View attachment 212177
> 
> 
> The coaxial JBLpro SCS8 (8") and SCS12 (12") are both used here, both for surrounds and ceiling speakers in the Polish Atmos production room. Interestingly, *only the speakers nearest to the screen are the 12" version*, all the others are the 8".
> 
> *I presume this is for a bigger impact of the front stage?*


I would certainly say so Erwin.

______________________

* Some interesting reading (closely related to Dolby Atmos "spatial sauce")::

♦ HRTF | Head-Related Transfer Function

♦ Binaural Research | HRTF

________






________

Lot's of talk about the overhead speakers (exciting), but methinks the main ingredient is the Dolby Atmos chip itself. ...And what it tells the speakers to do. ...And it seems to work best from those small up-firing speakers with their bouncing beam of sound reflection from the ceiling back to our ears.

And, Audyssey, AccuEQ, MCACC, YPAO, Dirac LIve, ... wouldn't touch (EQ) them additional Dolby Atmos speakers, I truly believe. But each Room Calibration & EQ system from them AVR/SSPs manufacturers will implement their own touches in cooperation with Dolby; and more to do with the Dolby Atmos speakers' positioning in relation to the main listening position (MLP), because the up-firing ones or/and the overhead ones will have slight different adjustments for optimal performance.

And nobody yet truly knows which system will work best with Dolby Atmos; it is always about smart implementation and best acoustical sound performance. ...For the very best new surround sound envelopment with that additional 3D elevated (vertically) dimensional soundfield in space (spatial immersion).

It is fun speculating, talking, planning, researching the ideal speakers for the job, their perfect positioning, which variety suits our room best, etc. When we'll get the hardware (AVR/SSP), and reading their manuals, and reading owner's reviews in their own rooms and with different speaker's designs, and various EQ systems, ...we'll have more to play with for our own preferred direction. 

Is Audyssey MultEQ XT32 going to be superior with them new Dolby Atmos products; it remains to be further explored, not on words but in real life performance. And graphs (measurements) are not the only criteria to judge sound performance in real life; our ears are part of the equation as they are our own to decide the level of satisfaction we get from.

We rely on our past experiences but they are not always the best guide to future discoveries. 

My 0.02 cents. 

P.S. And true, the first generation Dolby Atmos products won't be perfect; they'll get more refined in future generations as we all learn more in a home theater environment. ...And even in public theaters more refinement can be added.

Last and most importantly; the sound film mixing/recording engineers doing them soundtracks for the home theater people (us) @ home using Dolby Atmos encoding into our Blu-ray discs and the entire enchilada of other music mediums.


----------



## ambesolman

I'm just hoping the second gen receivers have a mic that also measures elevation angles.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> I'm just hoping the second gen receivers have a mic that also measures elevation angles.


Yamaha. 


Though the 1st gen stuff probably isn't going to account any of these angles into the Atmos decoding but that is yet to be proved/disproved.


----------



## NorthSky

Overhead speakers might work best with acoustically (absorbing panels) treated ceilings.
...And up-firing speakers with untreated (reflecting) ceilings.

Makes a lot of logical sense to me. 

And it is the sum of all the speakers and subwoofers (be it 5.1.2 or 7.2.4 or 9.4.6 etc.) working together with the room that is the final spatial beam of sound immersion.
It's a new more advanced game, and simplicity and logic is always good science. 

The surround sound audiophiles we'll always have them, the scientists of sound hound.
And the music and movie lovers will always form the majority...
That's a good mix in a balanced world. ...The new Dolby Atmos Surround Spatial Sound World. 
...High resolution 3D surround sound to go with our 3D moving pictures in 4K high definition.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Do you think thats why Onkyo dropped Audyssey and replaced it with AccuEQ. i understand or read it some place that Dolby and Onkyo worked together on AccuEQ.


True, Dolby worked closely with Onkyo's AccuEQ. And that, is an important key as they have the edge, methinks.

I was influenced too quickly before, without giving it enough further exploration. David (Susilo) is keeping a close 'ear' on things related to AccuEQ. It deserves closer attention from further readings that I did.
And I would love to have David eventually sharing more on this as he will be experimenting with AccuEQ working in tandem with Dolby Atmos. And I'm sure he will, when he's ready.


----------



## David Susilo

Yup! Definitely! I want to know first hand how well AccuEQ performs with Atmos vs MCACC vs Audyssey vs YPAO.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Yup! Definitely! I want to know first hand how well AccuEQ performs with Atmos vs MCACC vs Audyssey vs YPAO.


My man!


----------



## wse

batpig said:


> No. Onkyo dropped Audyssey for one reason only: cost. It would have required engineering resources to implement properly to spec, and additional DSP to keep process both (Atmos rendering + MultEQ) simultaneously. Denon/Marantz decided to stick with Audyssey and adding additional DSP (4 DSP chips on Atmos enabled receivers), Onkyo decided to drop Audyssey in favor of Atmos to keep costs lower and be able to deliver Atmos at lower price points.


I am done with Onkyo the quality is worst every year


----------



## marcuslaw

In case you missed it. Dolby Atmos Home Version: Demo + Q&A at the Bonus View.


----------



## NorthSky

ambesolman said:


> I'm just hoping the second gen receivers have a mic that also measures elevation angles.


...And made of real metal instead of plastic would be a good thing.
...And also shaped like a real elongated mic, not like a hockey puck or a pyramid.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix_Gi33Vysc



Spatial Audio yes that's cool


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> Yup, and keep in mind that *the notch is part of Dolby Elevation processing, which is used exclusively with Atmos-enabled (upward firing) speakers*. If you've got actual speakers above you, then this whole business about the notch is moot (i.e., Elevation processing is never used).


A very good point here. And that's how the various Auto Room Correction and EQ systems will be implemented to differentiate both types, and apply their EQ or not (more or less) consequently.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> I am done with Onkyo the quality is worst every year


Thanks thats good to know, but maybe things will work out with their new atmos AVRs we shall see. I haven't had an issue.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Seems Audioholics have finally dropped their pretense of skepticism and come out of the closet as fully anti-Atmos:
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/5-reasons-dolby-atmos-is-doa
> 
> Edit: someone started a thread dedicated to the above article:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1644305-why-dolby-atmos-doa.html


Audioholics is going downhill fast. They're making a mockery of themselves with this constant bias against a technology most or all of their staff have never experienced. 

If I hear it and home Atmos does not create a good or decent replication of the cinema version... then I'll voice my concerns, but until that time...

What I _am_ concerned about is studio support. They'll make home Atmos soar or kill it in its nest. They hold the power and they can be fickle.


----------



## Kwikas

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Clearly, the AVR is able to differentiate between Front Tops and Rear Tops  Front Heights (30-45) and Front Tops (30-55) overlap so much that it may not even be an issue to differentiate between them. A speaker at anywhere between 30 and 45 degrees is the same speaker to all intents and purposes, so why would the renderer treat it differently just because it has a different name. I can see your point though - as the Front Tops can theoretically be placed 10 degrees further back, then maybe the renderer 'moves' the sound back a little if you select Front Tops compared with Front Heights.
> 
> I have asked Dolby to clarify this for me as it became a stumbling block to the completion of my review of yesterday's demo. It is clearly a complex issue because the answer I have received is along the lines of "we need to dig for that info, please bear with us".


This is something that I would really like to know the answer to. Thanks for asking Dolby the question and I look forward to reading your report.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Due to the nature of the Atmos speakers (single driver), I did wonder about this factor. Sort of the no highs no lows it must be Bose feature.





kbarnes701 said:


> The notch is "much higher than 7kHz..."


Here's how the Dolby patent explains it: 


> In an embodiment, the adaptive audio system utilizes upward-firing drivers to provide the height element. In general, it has been shown that incorporating signal processing to introduce perceptual height cues into the audio signal being fed to the upward-firing drivers improves the positioning and perceived quality of the virtual height signal. For example, a parametric perceptual binaural hearing model has been developed to create a height cue filter, which when used to process audio being reproduced by an upward-firing driver, improves that perceived quality of the reproduction. In an embodiment, the height cue filter is derived from the both the physical speaker location (approximately level with the listener) and the reflected speaker location (above the listener). For the physical speaker location, a directional filter is determined based on a model of the outer ear (or pinna). An inverse of this filter is next determined and used to remove the height cues from the physical speaker. Next, for the reflected speaker location, a second directional filter is determined, using the same model of the outer ear. This filter is applied directly, essentially reproducing the cues the ear would receive if the sound were above the listener. In practice, these filters may be combined in a way that allows for a single filter that both (1) removes the height cue from the physical speaker location, and (2) inserts the height cue from the reflected speaker location. FIG. 16 is a graph that illustrates the frequency response for such a combined filter. The combined filter may be used in a fashion that allows for some adjustability with respect to the aggressiveness or amount of filtering that is applied. For example, in some cases, it may be beneficial to not fully remove the physical speaker height cue, or fully apply the reflected speaker height cue since only some of the sound from the physical speaker arrives directly to the listener (with the remainder being reflected off the ceiling).


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> I am done with Onkyo the quality is worst every year


Maybe this year they'll be kicking some serious Dolby Atmos axe? ...With AccuEQ.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Audioholics is going downhill fast. They're making a mockery of themselves with this constant bias against a technology most or all of their staff have never experienced.
> 
> If I hear it and home Atmos does not create a good or decent replication of the cinema version... then I'll voice my concerns, but until that time...
> 
> What I _am_ concerned about is studio support. They'll make home Atmos soar or kill it in its nest. They hold the power and they can be fickle.


Some will always be nay sayers they don't want to be confused with the facts. Atmos is like broccoli, I know I won't like it because I've never had it before.


----------



## Scott Simonian

marcuslaw said:


> In case you missed it. Dolby Atmos Home Version: Demo + Q&A at the Bonus View.


Heh. I was sitting about two seats to the right of that picture.


----------



## Tnedator

pletwals said:


> That's a long room and a very long viewing distance. I suggest even to use a total of 8 speakers in 2 rows of 4. I believe it was said during the Dolby showcase to put the ceiling speakers 1/3 from back and front wall when 2 rows of 4 speakers are used. This means simply to divide the distance in equal parts.
> 
> If you use only 2 x 2 speakers this would put them at 25/3 = about 8' from the back and front wall. This means you will sit BEHIND the back speakers. With 2 x 3 you will sit right below the back speakers, spaced at about 6'.
> 
> If you use 4 x 2 speakers, this means 25/5 = 5' distance between each and between the back speaker and the wall, and you are also sitting in front of the back speakers.


About 12.5' viewing distance, 11' wide screen.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Spatial Audio yes that's cool











____________

* Bonus video:


----------



## Roger Dressler

mogorf said:


> bp, how do you know how much it cost Onkyo to develop a brand new EQ known by the name of AccuEQ? Software/hardware (like new mic) together?


Onkyo is a long time user of Cirrus DSP EQ. No big cost involved. *Link*.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


>


Is that a notch filter there @ 10kHz - sure does look like it.


----------



## bargervais

Roger Dressler said:


> Onkyo is a long time user of Cirrus DSP EQ. No big cost involved. *Link*.


That link brought me to an article from 2004 that was ten years ago. So your telling me the new Onkyo atmos receivers are using this


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> That link brought me to an article from 2004 that was ten years ago. So your telling me the new Onkyo atmos receivers are using this


The DSP chips Onkyo uses are Cirrus Logic. The latest DSP's are listed on their site. However, DTS used some sort of new quad core chip from the same company for their DTS-UHD demos. 

Why tablets and iPhones have greater processing power than home surround units to this date is beyond me.


----------



## Fooled

NorthSky said:


> Is that a notch filter there @ 10kHz - sure does look like it.


 Yes and a 5db boost at 7khz.


----------



## Tnedator

sdurani said:


> If you haven't built it yet, might I recommend you put the listeners' ears at 1/5th and 2/5th of room length from the back wall (65" and 130" from the back wall, respectively). Odd divisions of room length are where many of the problem frequencies (room modes) are roughly the same volume level, avoiding deep nulls (cancellations that cannot be fixed later with EQ).


Two problems with that. First, that would put the front row 15' from the screen, which is significantly change the viewing angle. Second, if reclined, the chairs would bump the front row, or if not, nearly do so, meaning if someone was in one of the center two seats, they would have to ask the person to their left/right to un-recline so they could get out. 

Don't think that's practical.


----------



## Roger Dressler

bargervais said:


> That link brought me to an article from 2004 that was ten years ago. So your telling me the new Onkyo atmos receivers are using this


That's my guess. Based on a) they already have it in house, b) they still use Cirrus DSPs. 

It's good enough for Krell.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Spatial Audio yes that's cool


Brings back memories add atmos and It could be a nice trip


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> The DSP chips Onkyo uses are Cirrus Logic. The latest DSP's are listed on their site. However, DTS used some sort of new quad core chip from the same company for their DTS-UHD demos.
> 
> Why tablets and iPhones have greater processing power than home surround units to this date is beyond me.


Cool


----------



## FilmMixer

Scott Simonian said:


> Heh. I was sitting about two seats to the right of that picture.


You flew to NYC yesterday?


----------



## bkeeler10

NorthSky said:


> Markus, please forget my ignorance here but I saw that you already mentioned few times the term *DI*.
> Is it _Digitally Imported_, or is it _Seen & Heard_, or some' else? ...TY


Looks like he means Directivity Index, which is a measure of how directional a speaker is. Higher numbers mean narrower dispersion, I believe, but I don't recall how it is computed from actual dispersion angles (which I am more accustomed to dealing with).


----------



## NorthSky

bkeeler10 said:


> Looks like he means Directivity Index, which is a measure of how directional a speaker is. Higher numbers mean narrower dispersion, I believe, but I don't recall how it is computed from actual dispersion angles (which I am more accustomed to dealing with).


Thanks, I searched around before asking, but in vain.
_______

* True Dan; some of our smartphones and tablets and laptops have more powerful processing power than our AV receivers and SSPs. 
______

** That youtube 3D video (without glasses) that I posted earlier; I think it's pretty cool - if some of you guys didn't give up first. And them other ones with music are spatially cool too when using headphones.
And Dolby Atmos will also be an elevated headphone thing real soon. 
______

*** Me too before, like batpig, I was believing that Onkyo cheapened out by abandoning Audyssey MultEQ XT32, but now I don't think that anymore for the last five or seven days.
______

**** This is a good bunch of passionate people about surround sound here, and concerned about doing it right, and I bet we all would love to learn how to operate a mixing sound console from one of them Hollywood studios; I know I would. ...And encode them Blu-ray movies with awesome Dolby Atmos sound.


----------



## Orbitron

Scott Simonian said:


> Heh. I was sitting about two seats to the right of that picture.


I sat in the the middle row, and in the center seat for the early morning session. Being the first time I've ever heard Atmos, I was curious to hear it and how it would effect me. First off, Josh's review is very thorough and I agree with most everything he said. I found the volume to be excessive and voices shrilly. Putting that aside, the additional speakers used for Atmos made for a more immersive experience. Get the volume down from blasting and smooth out the rest and it's a rewarding experience. Moving on to the home theater room, I was able to hear more precision in the placement of sound and a greater sense of immersion. What impressed me most was the helicopter demo with the speakers mounted to the ceiling, a greater sense of elevation than the reflecting speakers. In the Q&A I was told that even with a ceiling as low as 7 feet, you can still do Atmos. What's funny is now that I've heard Atmos, I'm watching Transcendence today and there is a scene where it's raining- instead of paying attention to the movie I'm wondering what this scene would sound like if it was in Atmos. Would a quiet atmospheric rain be elevated because the sound mixer has a new toy??? With judicious use, Atmos in the home, indeed.


----------



## Jim S.

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you already got these speakers? If not, then you might consider using a coaxial design, which has various advantages when used as ceiling speakers, as has been mentioned in the thread before. I was going to use MK Sound speakers, to match my other speakers, initially, but I decided against it in the end, for the reasons under discussion, and decided to use four of *these* instead. (Thanks to Roger Dressler for pointing me in the right direction here).
> 
> You will have gathered from this reply that I could not resolve the problems that using 'conventional' two-way designs introduced, hence my decision to bypass the problems completely and go for a co-axial design.


Kevin:

Which model of speakers were you referring to for the ceiling speakers to go with your MK Sound speakers? I'm not clear as the *"these"* reference is to the whole Tannoy site with several possibilities.

I have 5 M&K S-150's for LCR and Wides, and 6 M&K SS-150's for the Surrounds together with 2 MK Sound MX-350 subwoofers. I was building and wiring for an 11.2 Audysey set up until I found this Atmos thread a few weeks ago. Now I am figuring out how to configure for atmos and 4 ceiling speakers now.

I would like to use what I already have but I guess hanging the SS-150's horizontally from the ceiling in direct mode may not be the best of ideas. So, I will need to find 4 ceiling speakers also. 

I was trying to keep everything timbre matched. Is that an issue for you with going outside the MK family? Will the Tannoy's sound that different? That's a concern.


Jim


----------



## sdurani

Orbitron said:


> I'm watching Transcendence today and there is a scene where it's raining- instead of paying attention to the movie I'm wondering what this scene would sound like if it was in Atmos. Would a quiet atmospheric rain be elevated because the sound mixer has a new toy???


Having seen that movie at the local Atmos theatre, the first time you hear rain (early in the movie) it is definitely coming from above. The overhead effect is also used when you see particles floating up and for Johnny Depp's voice later in the movie.


----------



## Orbitron

sdurani said:


> Having seen that movie at the local Atmos theatre, the first time you hear rain (early in the movie) it is definitely coming from above. The overhead effect is also used when you see particles floating up and for Johnny Depp's voice later in the movie.


Actually, by elevated I meant raising the volume more than the height of the rain.


----------



## westmd

Orbitron said:


> In the Q&A I was told that even with a ceiling as low as 7 feet, you can still do Atmos.


Interesting to know as the Dolby Atmos white paper speaks of 8 feet minimum. I do have a ceiling of 7.2 feet and with speakers attached 6.8 feet. Maybe I should give it a try with overhead speakers before going to Atmos enabled speakers?


----------



## Orbitron

westmd said:


> Interesting to know as the Dolby Atmos white paper speaks of 8 feet minimum. I do have a ceiling of 7.2 feet and with speakers attached 6.8 feet. Maybe I should give it a try with overhead speakers before going to Atmos enabled speakers?


Yes!


----------



## NorthSky

When we walk outside in the rain, do we hear it up in the air, or falling down on the streets where we walk and on top of rooftops and on top of our umbrellas and on the tree leaves?

The rain up in the air, with no objects around, are the drops hitting each other making noise that we can hear above?
Next time it's raining outside check it out, and listen carefully.


----------



## Orbitron

The comments we make on rain are about the sound of rain hitting anything and everything, it's the enveloping sound of rainfall.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> When we walk outside in the rain, do we hear it up in the air, or falling down on the streets where we walk and on top of rooftops and on top of our umbrellas and on the tree leaves?
> 
> The rain up in the air, with no objects around, are the drops hitting each other making noise that we can hear above?
> Next time it's raining outside check it out, and listen carefully.



Maybe we should install floor speakers as well pointing upwards to recreate the rain falling in the ground!


----------



## Orbitron

westmd said:


> Maybe we should install floor speakers as well pointing upwards to recreate the rain falling in the ground!


And turn on the fire sprinklers if you want the full effect.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, but do we hear the rain from above in free air? ...Without touching any surfaces. ...Like the wind, where is it coming from, and where exactly do we hear it? ...The rain can fall straight down from the clouds above, but do we really hear it above or from all surfaces it touches on our surroundings? ...And that, is what I'm asking to experiment in real life.
Because if it hits the street below where we are walking then we should hear it also from below our feet; that's reality.

* I know, the enveloping atmosphere, a jet plane flying across and above our head, with the sound boom reverberating all around. ...The rain, the same, but with much more subtlety on a quiet day without any wind.
I believe it can be as much enveloping with only floor speakers. But when the going get more active, with heavy winds and thunder, then yes, overhead speakers are the ticket, or sound coming from above. ...And from below as well. ...But not far from below, unless we are standing on the edge of a cliff above a gorge or rapids hundred feet or so below.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Jim S. said:


> Which model of speakers were you referring to for the ceiling speakers to go with your MK Sound speakers? I'm not clear as the *"these"* reference is to the whole Tannoy site with several possibilities.


You may have to zoom out to see the column on the right of the page, which has all the "Di" series speakers. Can skip the "t" models as those have transformers for distribution systems. The "DC" means dual concentric driver, which is what you want. I'll be hanging the Di 6DCs shortly. Keith is planning the Di 5DC. 

Tannoy also make the *DVS series*, which have shapelier cabinets. Worth a look.



> I have 5 M&K S-150's for LCR and Wides, and 6 M&K SS-150's for the Surrounds together with 2 MK Sound MX-350 subwoofers. I was building and wiring for an 11.2 Audysey set up until I found this Atmos thread a few weeks ago. Now I am figuring out how to configure for atmos and 4 ceiling speakers now.
> 
> I would like to use what I already have but I guess hanging the SS-150's horizontally from the ceiling in direct mode may not be the best of ideas. So, I will need to find 4 ceiling speakers also.
> 
> I was trying to keep everything timbre matched. Is that an issue for you with going outside the MK family? Will the Tannoy's sound that different? That's a concern.


If you have some form of EQ in the system, timbre match will not be an issue. I'll be using the Marantz AV7002 which has XT32. Should work fine.


----------



## esappy

NorthSky said:


> When we walk outside in the rain, do we hear it up in the air, or falling down on the streets where we walk and on top of rooftops and on top of our umbrellas and on the tree leaves?
> 
> The rain up in the air, with no objects around, are the drops hitting each other making noise that we can hear above?
> Next time it's raining outside check it out, and listen carefully.


I don't know about outside, but I can tell you as a guy with about 3000sf of metal roof, when we get our western Washington downpours going, I reflexively look up as that is where the sound is concentrated. I have a wrap around deck too and the sound of the rain hitting the roof pretty much drowns out everywhere else unless I have a clogged gutter and hear the overflow splashing on the deck. Strange phenomenon.


----------



## markus767

Fooled said:


> Has Dolby confirmed this? This conflicts with the speaker white paper and onkyo's marketing:
> "Dolby Atmos-Certified Special Network Inside
> "
> http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=SKH-410&class=Speaker#features


Then the designer of the Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers is probably also at odds with Onkyo marketing:


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Markus, please forget my ignorance here but I saw that you already mentioned few times the term *DI*.
> Is it _Digitally Imported_, or is it _Seen & Heard_, or some' else? ...TY


DI = Directivity index. It's a measure that relates a speaker's output at a specific angle to the overall energy the speaker emits at all angles.

You can explore the concept at http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Application Files/RunPolarMap.aspx
Red = power response
Black = DI


----------



## NorthSky

esappy said:


> I don't know about outside, but I can tell you as a guy with about 3000sf of metal roof, when we get our western Washington downpours going, I reflexively look up as that is where the sound is concentrated. I have a wrap around deck too and the sound of the rain hitting the roof pretty much drowns out everywhere else unless I have a clogged gutter and hear the overflow splashing on the deck. Strange phenomenon.


It's raining right now where I am. It's a gentle rain, and hardly any wind. Inside my place I cannot hear it falling on my roof, so gentle it is. But ten minutes ago I was outside on my deck, and I heard it all around; falling on the deck, on the leaves of the trees around, on my big umbrella shade patio, but not in the air by itself. Then I walked away, in the empty field across, and the only sound of the rain was coming from the field around me, the rain hitting the grass. And up in the air, nothing, because the air is empty, with no surfaces for the rain to land on, except the grass below my feet and farther away, horizontally. I even closed my eyes, and got wet. I could hear it too, very lightly, falling down on me. But up in the air, by itself, nothing, just a feeling of being immersed without a sound. ...It is a function of the brain, and we can connect, and we can also disconnect. ...But sound is a reality, and it comes from somewhere, and in films it doesn't always come from where it supposed to. ...It is an art to reproduce sounds realistically in a movie soundtrack. Very few people take the time to analyse sounds and their real provenance, and the very few who do they are good @ it. ...Peter Weir, director of *'Master & Commander'*, also the director of *'The Patriot'*, Roland Emmerich (his sound mixer/engineer), and starring Mel Gibsons, and director Alfonso Cuaron in *'Gravity'*, plus few more; but they are more the exception than the rule. Again, sound, surround sound, like music, is a mastering art. And not many are as adept @ it as the perfect maestro directing an orchestra in perfect harmony and unison.


----------



## NorthSky

If it rains heavy, and that I'm inside, yes I hear it loud 'n clear from above, hitting the roof of my home.
And with it it feels like millions of mini explosions reverberating above, and from all around. ...When the rain is real heavy falling down from the sky above, like copper nails, @ night, when there are no other sounds than just silence, when it's dark out, and that we're sleeping, hitting the roof above our heads, and everything else in its path, the tree leaves, the deck outside, the grass, ...that we could hear @ distance, because the rain is so heavy.


----------



## esappy

NorthSky said:


> If it rains heavy, and that I'm inside, yes I hear it loud 'n clear from above, hitting the roof of my home.
> And with it it feels like millions of mini explosions reverberating above, and from all around. ...When the rain is real heavy falling down, like copper nails, @ night, when there are no other sounds than just silence, when it's dark out, and that we're sleeping.


Unfortunately thats when the rain always seems to fall is at night when we are asleep. I have no attic in my house and a huge downfall to having a metal roof (especially as much as I do) is that it can get quite loud at times and has woken me up many times. Otherwise I like having a metal roof. 

I see you are just north of my location so we share the same weather.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> DI = Directivity index. It's a measure that relates a speaker's output at a specific angle to the overall energy the speaker emits at all angles.
> 
> You can explore the concept at http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Application Files/RunPolarMap.aspx
> Red = power response
> Black = DI


Now, that's what I call audio science. THX Markus.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Tnedator said:


> About 12.5' viewing distance, 11' wide screen.


I missed the part where you wrote "back row" first, sorry.

In that case it is very similar to mine, I also have a 11' screen ready (Seymour AV). I will be planning 6 overheads, but start with 4, as that is all what's possible with a Marantz AV7702.

You wrote that your ceilings are 10' heigh. I would suggest putting your rear overheads 7' behind MLP, which would be a vertical elevation of 45° (side view) if your ear height is 3'...

Depending on the choice for 4 or 6 total overheads, with 4 I would put the fronts 7' before MLP, also a 45° elevation viewed from the side.

With 6 total, I would put the front overheads 10' before MLP (or 2.5' from the screen). And the middle overheads... in the middle of the others, which would be 1.5' for MLP.

There!!


----------



## esappy

NorthSky said:


> It's raining right now where I am. It's a gentle rain, and hardly any wind. Inside my place I cannot hear it falling on my roof, so gentle it is. But ten minutes ago I was outside on my deck, and I heard it all around; falling on the deck, on the leaves of the trees around, on my big umbrella shade patio, but not in the air by itself. Then I walked away, in the empty field across, and the only sound of the rain was coming from the field around me, the rain hitting the grass. And up in the air, nothing, because the air is empty, with no surfaces for the rain to land on, except the grass below my feet and farther away, horizontally. I even closed my eyes, and got wet. I could hear it too, very lightly, falling down on me. But up in the air, by itself, nothing, just a feeling of being immersed without a sound. ...It is a function of the brain, and we can connect, and we can also disconnect. ...But sound is a reality, and it comes from somewhere, and in films it doesn't always come from where it supposed to. ...It is an art to reproduce sounds realistically in a movie soundtrack. Very few people take the time to analyse sounds and their real provenance, and the very few who do they are good @ it. ...Peter Weir, director of *'Master & Commander'*, also the director of *'The Patriot'*, Roland Emmerich (his sound mixer/engineer), and starring Mel Gibsons, and director Alfonso Cuaron in *'Gravity'*, plus few more; but they are more the exception than the rule. Again, sound, surround sound, like music, is a mastering art. And not many are as adept @ it as the perfect maestro directing an orchestra in perfect harmony and unison.


Couldn't agree more with this assessment.  I still find it amazing what we can be tricked into hearing when a master is at the controls and I jones for more.


----------



## NorthSky

esappy said:


> Unfortunately that's when the rain always seems to fall is at night when we are asleep. I have no attic in my house and a huge downfall to having a metal roof (especially as much as I do) is that it can get quite loud at times and has woken me up many times. Otherwise I like having a metal roof.
> 
> *I see you are just north of my location* so we share the same weather.


Yeah, I'm on the North Sky of yours. ...And it is raining right now, from above my sky, up North. 

I got no attic either, and my roof is made of normal roof, the kind that sounds softer and smoother. I just don't know exactly what you call it; I just know how it sounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

Fooled said:


> I assume that is a quote from Dolby or a manufacturer. Are there going to be details of this notch(s) for people that build speakers?
> 
> Thanks for the reporting, interesting stuff.


It is a quote from Dolby. They won’t say anything about the notch, other than their answer to me that it is above 7kHz. It isn't a speaker issue - the notch is handled in the AVR.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Do you think thats why Onkyo dropped Audyssey and replaced it with AccuEQ. i understand or read it some place that Dolby and Onkyo worked together on AccuEQ.


The common consensus is that Onkyo dropped Audyssey because the Onkyo chip couldn't handle Atmos and Audyssey at the same time. Denon solved this by doubling up on their chips, Onkyo solved it by dropping Audyssey.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Not exactly related to MultEQ's process, but I didn't think about that. So the notch is implemented to psychoacoustically make Atmos-enabled speakers sound like they are actually on the ceiling then?


Yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

ambesolman said:


> I'm just hoping the second gen receivers have a mic that also measures elevation angles.


There's nothing to stop the first gen doing that. It was purely a manufacturer decision. Atmos can do that now, if it is implemented. (Source: Dolby).


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Audioholics is going downhill fast. They're making a mockery of themselves with this constant bias against a technology most or all of their staff have never experienced.


I agree. It seems clear from the comment from their site, below, that they haven't experienced an Atmos movie at all. Atmos is way more than "a bit more spaciousness" or overhead effects such as planes flying past.

"What does Dolby Atmos bring to the table? By most accounts, a bit more spaciousness to the sound and the occasionally, "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!" Does that sound worth spending a couple of grand and putting speakers on your ceiling? We doubt many would think so."

And very few of us, so far, have heard Atmos in a HT setting - and yet Audioholics feel able to make their comments in these circumstances. It used to be one of my favourite sites, but based on these recent remarks, they do seem to be venturing into a worse-than-subjective area: the area of comment without even having heard what they are commenting on.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> This is something that I would really like to know the answer to. Thanks for asking Dolby the question and I look forward to reading your report.


I have Dolby's answer now and will finish my report, posting it later today.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Here's how the Dolby patent explains it:


Nice one, Roger. Thanks!


----------



## KidHorn

sdurani said:


> Yup, and keep in mind that the notch is part of Dolby Elevation processing, which is used exclusively with Atmos-enabled (upward firing) speakers. If you've got actual speakers above you, then this whole business about the notch is moot (i.e., Elevation processing is never used).



"To achieve such a great performance from the reflected sounds, Dolby spent years researching how the ears and brain work in harmony to determine overhead, or “3D”, sounds. Taking into account the way overhead sounds hit the top of our heads before spreading down into our ears, *Dolby’s reflected Atmos output features a “notch” taken out of the high end frequency range,* making the sounds seem more natural as they hit the ear. That precise frequency range at present remains a closely-guarded “secret sauce” for Dolby (though a frequency range analyser and a white noise track would be able to identify it once the systems become commercially available)." 


If the notch is introduced based on how we hear sound from above, why would it matter if the sound is reflected vs direct?


----------



## KidHorn

ambesolman said:


> I'm just hoping the second gen receivers have a mic that also measures elevation angles.


You need a device with 4 microphones at a set distance from each other. I think trinnov uses one. With that, you can determine the location of all the speakers relative to reference point. The most logical reference point would probably be the center channel location.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jim S. said:


> Kevin:
> 
> Which model of speakers were you referring to for the ceiling speakers to go with your MK Sound speakers? I'm not clear as the *"these"* reference is to the whole Tannoy site with several possibilities.


The link takes you to the page on their site for the Di series. I am using the Di5 DC because anything physically bigger is too big for me to accommodate. Roger is using the Di6 DC in his bigger room. The basic characteristics of the speakers are similar and there are detailed specs on the page I linked to if you click the speaker you are interested in (on the right).



Jim S. said:


> I would like to use what I already have but I guess hanging the SS-150's horizontally from the ceiling in direct mode may not be the best of ideas. So, I will need to find 4 ceiling speakers also.


SS150 Tripoles might work but it does not seem to be what Dolby is recommending. We will know better when they publish their setup guidelines next month. Dolby described the Di series as "ideal" to me on Wednesday. The big issue seems to be dispersion. The Tannoys have a 90 degree all-round dispersion pattern as you will see from the detailed spec. The dual concentric driver concept was also praised by my Dolby guys in London.



Jim S. said:


> I was trying to keep everything timbre matched. Is that an issue for you with going outside the MK family? Will the Tannoy's sound that different? That's a concern.


Timbre matching was very important in the old days when we didn't have electronic EQ. Now we have EQ, it is much less important, so I am not in the least concerned about that aspect any more (thanks Roger! ).


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Interesting to know as the Dolby Atmos white paper speaks of 8 feet minimum. I do have a ceiling of 7.2 feet and with speakers attached 6.8 feet. Maybe I should give it a try with overhead speakers before going to Atmos enabled speakers?


Having heard both types on a wide variety of material, I honestly would just go with whichever you find easier. Nobody is going to be disappointed with Atmos speakers, truly.


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> "To achieve such a great performance from the reflected sounds, Dolby spent years researching how the ears and brain work in harmony to determine overhead, or “3D”, sounds. Taking into account the way overhead sounds hit the top of our heads before spreading down into our ears, *Dolby’s reflected Atmos output features a “notch” taken out of the high end frequency range,* making the sounds seem more natural as they hit the ear. That precise frequency range at present remains a closely-guarded “secret sauce” for Dolby (though a frequency range analyser and a white noise track would be able to identify it once the systems become commercially available)."
> 
> 
> *If the notch is introduced based on how we hear sound from above, why would it matter if the sound is reflected vs direct?*


Because with the Atmos speakers, the source of the sound is not above you, so they need the 'trick' to create the illusion that it is. With physical speakers on the ceiling, the source of the sound IS above you, so there is no need for a 'trick'.


----------



## KidHorn

kbarnes701 said:


> Because with the Atmos speakers, the source of the sound is not above you, so they need the 'trick' to create the illusion that it is. With physical speakers on the ceiling, the source of the sound IS above you, so there is no need for a 'trick'.


The Atmos speakers reflect sound off the ceiling so logically the source of the sound is above you. How would the reflected sound be any different than if you used a really big speaker on the ceiling. Other than the ceiling possibly damping certain frequencies.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> In anticipation of your report could you confirm which series of KEF's floor stands were used in the Dolby demo?
> I presume they would use the R series or possibly Q.
> The new reference series are set for release soon so I guess that could be a possibility.
> Many thanks.


This is Dolby's reply:

_"The tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but you'd need to ask Kef directly if you need any other information about them. "_

Hope this helps.


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> The Atmos speakers reflect sound off the ceiling so logically the source of the sound is above you. How would the reflected sound be any different than if you used a really big speaker on the ceiling. Other than the ceiling possibly damping certain frequencies.


There's also direct sound from the speaker's physical location. That sound creates a localization cue which needs to be overridden. Firing at the ceiling plus deliberate frequency response distortion does that.


----------



## KidHorn

Roger Dressler said:


> Here's how the Dolby patent explains it:


I think I understand what the filter is for. The problem that dolby is trying to solve is due to our hearing direct sound from the upward speakers and reflected sound. If we hear sounds from in front of us (or behind for rear) and from above, it doesn't sound right. So what they do is two things. They try to apply a filter to reduce the direct overhead sounds and another to enhance the reflected overhead sounds. The combined filters look like the above. My guess is removing 10 Khz helps eliminate the direct overhead sounds and bumping something around 15 Khz helps with the reflected overhead sounds. I assume they did a lot of trial and error to find this.

My guess is this will be somewhat room specific as not all surfaces will reflect equally.

Another related problem that has no solution is a timing issue. The reflected sounds will arrive later.


----------



## markus767

^
Quite right and something I alluded to a couple of posts ago. But obviously it works good enough to impress people when they hear it


----------



## kbarnes701

*Dolby Atmos For The Home – A Second ‘Ears-on’ Experience at Dolby’s London HQ.*

_This report is a counterpart to my original report from the first demo I was kindly invited to at Dolby's London HQ. _

The original report can be seen by clicking here.

*Dolby Atmos For The Home - A Second 'Ears-on' Experience at Dolby's London HQ.*

I was privileged to be invited to a second demonstration of Atmos For The Home on Wednesday, 13th August, at Dolby's magnificent Soho Square HQ in London.

This report is a counterpart report to my original review, which can be seen here, so I won't attempt to cover the same ground, and this report will focus more on technical matters. Nor will I describe in any detail what Atmos is or how it works: those reading this article will already be up to speed on that.

*The event.*

The presentation this time was a much more intimate affair than the one I attended in mid-July. There was only a handful of us this time, including Richard Stevenson from the UK's premier home theater magazine, Home Cinema Choice, and Gerald Lynch from the high-tech product website, Gizmodo UK. So I was in very good company!

The event was hosted by the lovely Abi Holdaway of Dolby and the equally lovely Stella Coffey from Dolby's London PR company, Hill Knowlton. Abi and Stella introduced me to the two Dolby guys who were going to give us the presentation: Jonathan Jowitt, universally known as “JJ”, who is Dolby's Evangelist, Content and E-Media Solutions guru and Stephen Auld, Senior Manager, Broadcast Sales and Licensing.

*Inside “probably the best Atmos experience in Europe”.*

As before, the presentation was split into two parts: the initial briefing and demo in Dolby's truly magnificent screening room, and the second part in their special 'HT' demo room, which is the size of a typical HT room in the UK.

Content shown to us in both rooms consisted of the Atmos trailers which I saw last time ('Unfold', 'Amaze' and 'Leaf'), a Red Bull promo clip and the introductory scene from Star Trek Into Darkness where Kirk is being chased through a forest by spear-throwing aliens. As expected, these all sounded magnificent in the screening room, although I will say that I didn't feel that the STID clip fully did justice to what I know Atmos is capable of. That part of the movie soundtrack is incredibly 'busy', with so much going on that it isn't easy to focus on the Atmos effects that we were there to hear. In my view, a clip from the more recent Dawn of the Planet of the Apes would better demonstrate what Atmos is truly capable of, or of course, something from the award-winning Gravity soundtrack, or maybe the Gollum cave scene from The Hobbit. But Dolby is restricted by the studios as to what they can show publicly, so they do not have an entirely free hand at this time. Of the Atmos trailers, 'Unfold' was specially created by the Sound Designer of the Transformers movies, Erik Aadahl, and, in my opinion is the most impressive of the three, although 'Leaf' displays better the more subtle way in which Atmos can be used by the mixer.

*Dolby's 'domestic HT room' setup.*

But the main event of the day was yet to come and we filed into the special Home Theater demo room which Dolby have created to showcase Atmos. Stephen and JJ told us that we would hear the exact same clips as we had previously heard and that we would get the opportunity to hear them played through Atmos-enabled speakers and physical ceiling-mounted speakers, for comparison.

Before going into more detail, let me describe this room. It is a modestly sized room with 5 chairs in two rows (3 in front, 2 behind) and a ceiling height of 2.4m (roughly 8 feet). As can be seen in the photograph taken from the back of the room, there are some acoustic treatments on the walls.










What is less clear is the way the ceiling has been designed. The central section is a suspended design which features 4 reflective panels in its centre, and these are flanked by the ceiling-mounted speakers which are concealed behind acoustically transparent panels. In the photograph below you can see the central, reflective area and, to the bottom right you can just make out the acoustically transparent material covering the ceiling-mounted speakers. In the second photograph below you can see a close-up of that panel covering one of the speakers (to the right).



















What surprised me is how small the reflective area is. It covered an area roughly, I am guessing, 4ft x 4ft and it is at this area that the Atmos speaker modules were 'aimed'. Inevitably, there is some 'overspill' onto the slightly higher plastered part of the ceiling but, as JJ pointed out, the distance between the suspended part of the ceiling and the plastered part is only about 1 foot or so - a millisecond in terms of sound travel - and this difference will have no significance in terms of what we hear. This bodes well for those with smaller rooms, as it seems that the full Atmos experience can be gained even from a relatively small reflective area. Those with ceiling treatments may yet be able to use Atmos-enabled speakers or modules so long as they can create this clear central reflective area I saw in Dolby's room.

(Incidentally I should give credit to Gizmodo for the above photograph of the room and I hope they do not mind me using it here as it is so much better than the photograph I took myself. Gizmodo's take on the event can be seen here.)

*Speakers and placement considerations.*

The speakers used at listener level were all Kef designs: the tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but Dolby has no further information on that aspect of the speaker. As before, the surrounds were all placed at approximately ear level. 

Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers. 

Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins. 

This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room. 

Again, I thank Gizmodo for the pictures of the Kef speakers and their Atmos upfiring module.










*The incredible upward-firing Atmos speakers! No compromise!*

JJ began the presentation by playing two Atmos trailers and asking us to guess whether they had been played via the Atmos speakers or via the ceiling-mounted physical speakers. I was the only person present who was able to detect that both clips were, in fact, played by the Atmos speakers. I am sure that the reason for this is that, having heard a similar demo before, I was much more tuned in as to what to listen for. Atmos speakers give a slightly more diffuse presentation while the ceiling-mounted speakers are slightly more 'precise' in where they place the sounds (objects). Neither one is better than the other: they are both excellent but (slightly) different. 
*
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Atmos speakers that even highly experienced listeners such as Richard and Gerald could not detect that these speakers were being used for this part of the demo*. Once again, most people present later confirmed that they actually preferred the Atmos speakers to the ceiling-mounted speakers. There is absolutely no sense of 'compromise' if domestic circumstances mean you have to go the Atmos speakers route. I think it is especially important to stress this for two reasons: one is that it is almost incredible that sound bounced off the ceiling can sound this good and the other is that, for most people, Atmos speakers will be the only way they can incorporate Atmos into their home. If you fall into the latter group, do not hesitate for one moment to go with Atmos-enabled speakers or modules. I can guarantee that you will in no way at all be disappointed.

JJ then played us the STID clip, using both types of speaker in turn so that we could compare. Again, my impressions of slightly more diffuseness vs slightly more precision were confirmed. 

*Don't just hear the sound - see the sound.*

We were next treated to an incredibly interesting section of the presentation where a graphic was overlaid onto the screen, simultaneously with a clip being played, which showed the sound objects moving in real time around the room.










It was a simplified form of the mixer's control tool as shown above, with each speaker in the HT demo room being represented on the left and the room itself being represented on the right. This fairly poor photograph of my own shows what I mean: 










The green dots on the left each represent a speaker. As Stephen switched between Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers, the dots lit or went out so that we could see which speaker set was in use. On the right, the cube represents the room with the green wall being the screen wall. As the clip played, we could see the position and progress of each sound object as it moved around the listening space. And of course, we could also hear the sound moving around the room at the same time as seeing it graphically represented. How cool is that! 

*Hardware implementation of Atmos in affordable AVRs and processors.*

With regard to hardware, I asked Stephen and JJ some questions about the way Atmos is being implemented in current AVRs from the mainstream manufacturers such as Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha and Pioneer. 

JJ went into some detail to answer my question concerning the angles that the rendering engine will render to and how current units handle this. *JJ confirmed that Dolby are giving full capability to the AVR manufacturers to be able to use full speaker positional information. It is entirely up to the manufacturer to implement this or not*, either by allowing the user to enter details manually or allowing the AVR to handle it through the measuring process which is part of the setup routine. Currently, as we know, none of the mainstream manufacturers is giving us this capability in their first generation Atmos units.

I took this question up with Stephen later and we discussed the information provided to date by Denon in the following oft-posted diagram.










I commented that the range of angles and the overlap between the speakers was quite considerable and asked if there was an 'optimum position' within the range given. 
*
More flexibility than we might have expected.*

Stephen's reply was interesting. He said that the actual positioning of the speakers was not as critical as we might have been conditioned to expect, basing our knowledge on the precise positional information dictated by ITU specifications for 5.1 and 7.1 systems. This would explain why the angles cover such a broad range. For example, as I pointed out, 30-55 degrees for the Top Front could cover a ceiling distance of several feet and Stephen's view was that, so long as we stayed within the recommendations then we should be good to go. This was also confirmed by JJ who pointed out that some flexibility was required simply because there could easily be some impediment to precision placing in the ceiling - eg a joist or a water pipe. While this is only speculation on my part, this could explain why the AVR manufacturers have, at this stage, decided not to bother with enabling the detailed input of precise speaker positions: if the placement is less critical than we might have expected, then diminishing returns (audibly) might have made the additional cost and complexity of the units less worthwhile.

I mentioned in the general chat that I was intending to use Tannoy Di5 DC speakers for my ceiling-mounted speakers and explained that these were a dual concentric design with a dispersion pattern of 90 degrees all round. JJ said that, in his opinion, these speakers sounded “ideal” for use as Atmos ceiling speakers, which is a good endorsement of Roger Dressler's view and, as I have now bought the speakers, a relief to me! Detailed specification for those speakers is here. 

*Psychoacoustics and the development of Atmos speakers and modules.*

Staying with speakers for a moment, JJ also gave us some insight into how Dolby had developed the concept of upwards firing speakers and a hint of the incredibly sophisticated technology which lies behind the way they work so well.

Dolby spent some considerable time (and no doubt money) researching the way our ear/brain combination works with regard to our perception of overhead sounds. Apparently, when we hear sounds from overhead, there is a natural 'notch filter' engaged by our brain and the physical disposition of our ears (and even our shoulders which reflect sound back up to our ears) and between them, these help us determine when sounds are emanating from overhead. To capitalise on this, Dolby's Atmos speakers and modules have a frequency response which is shaped by internal DSP in the AVR. This includes a recreation of that notch filter which is important in telling us that a sound is coming from above us. At this time, Dolby would not reveal at what frequency this notch filter operates other than that it is in the HF area. I speculated 7kHz and JJ said “no, it will be much higher than that”. Stephen has since added that while a 7kHz peak is an essential part of the filter, it's not just about a notch or a peak filter, but the relative shape of the filter above 5kHz - everything above 5kHz being an important part of the filter.

No doubt someone with suitable measuring equipment and a white noise generator will be able to determine the precise frequency at which the filter operates, once Atmos units are available to buy. 

For anyone wondering if their automated room EQ (eg Audyssey) would try to counteract that notch, effectively nullifying it, read what Stephen had to say in answer to that question:

_“Our guidance (in the form of an encyclopedia-sized specification manual) to the AVR manufacturers explicitly addresses this and there are a few techniques which can be employed to ensure any room EQ, such as Audyssey, does not interfere with the psychoacoustic filtering applied to Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. As well as these requirements, we also test for this as part of our mandatory product evaluation process which every Dolby Atmos receiver must go through before it can be brought to market.“ _

*In reality, it is of academic interest: what is important is that, improbable though it seems at first thought, Atmos upward firing modules not only work, but they work in a way that to most people is indistinguishable from physical ceiling-mounted speakers. And in a way that to many people is actually preferable to the latter. I cannot overstress, having had two opportunities now to hear Atmos speakers, just how exceptionally well they work. They truly exceed all expectations and immediately on hearing them, skeptics become converts - they really are that good. My advice is to forget all preconceptions about 'reflected sound', to entirely dismiss from your mind anything you have heard from the so-called 'surround sound sound-bars' and so on and just get a demo of Atmos speakers as soon as you possibly can. Hearing is believing.*

*Dolby Surround - the all-new upmixing algorithm.*

I asked JJ about Dolby Surround, the new upmixing algorithm which has subsumed Prologic, PLII, PLIIx and PLIIz. The Dolby Surround upmixer is mandatory and integral to the Dolby Atmos for AVR solution. JJ explained that all AVR manufacturers will therefore implement Dolby Surround, as one would expect, given that most people will have a much greater library of legacy content than Atmos content, for quite some time to come. There was no possibility of hearing the upmixer in action at this time. Maybe at a future demo?

And talking of content, the most I could squeeze out of JJ with regard to Blurays was that we could expect content to be available “in time for Christmas” and probably before. Similarly, when I asked what the very first Dolby Bluray release would be, JJ commented candidly that he simply didn't know. JJ pointed out that many of the movies which have currently been released in Atmos will not be available at launch because of practical and commercial considerations involved in the disc authoring process. 

*A question of bass management.*

Some members have asked questions about how Atmos units handle bass management and I explored this with Stephen by email after the demo. I asked Stephen to comment for me on the following assumption of mine:

_“Also, how does bass management work for physical ceiling-mounted speakers? I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the ceiling speakers will work in the same way as any other surround speaker does now - that is they will be bass managed by the AVR, and below the selected crossover they will be handed off to the subwoofer. In other words, the physical ceiling speaker does not get crossed at 180Hz (or so) to the associated speaker 'downstairs' by the AVR and then bass management takes over - it's just treated the same way as a conventional surround speaker would be? Do I have this right? If so, and I choose to cross my ceiling speakers at, say, 100Hz, then all the content below 100Hz goes to the sub?”_

This was Stephen's reply:
_
“Bass management for Dolby Atmos is handled in the AVR according to Dolby's requirements and guidance provided to the AVR manufacturers. This special bass management system (quite different to traditional bass management systems) is specifically designed to work with object-based audio and the range of speakers and speaker configurations that Dolby Atmos supports. In essence, the Dolby Atmos AVR will handle the complex bass management effectively regardless of whether the speakers connected to the "height position" outputs are Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers, Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker modules or in-ceiling speakers.”_

So not a specific response to my query as expressed above, but probably all that Dolby are permitted to say without revealing the 'secret sauce'. The interesting part of the reply, to me, is the confirmation that bass management for the Atmos speakers is “quite different to traditional bass management”. It does seem that Dolby have covered the ground and, other than a natural desire to understand the secret sauce, we have no need to worry about this aspect of Atmos, regardless of the speaker type we use.

*Speaker configuration options - how much flexibility do we have?*

I also explored with Stephen the different speaker configuration options which Denon have confirmed in their user manual, specifically the issue of the use of Front Heights in Atmos setups.

Denon are making available the following potential configuration options for their new Atmos AVRs:

Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height

This is especially relevant to my own situation because in my room I have limited space behind the listening position and I cannot meet the specified angles for Top Rear speakers. However, I am able to meet the required angles for Top Middle (65-100 degrees) and by using the extreme of 100 degrees, the speakers do fall behind my listening position. However, Denon's spec indicates that we cannot use Top Front and Top Middle together, so my plan was to use Front Heights (at the 42 degree position - which is a specified position for both Top Front and Front Heights) together with Top Middle. The latter is a permitted combination according to Denon. So I was especially interested in Stephen's comments on just how much flexibility we have with the speaker options. Stephen replied with this:
_
“We have a set of minimum speaker configurations which must be supported in a Dolby Atmos product depending on how many speaker outputs it has. However, other configurations which make use of additional speaker configurations is permissible provided our requirements are adhered to by the manufacturer. As you might recall, there are 34 speaker locations in the Dolby Atmos for the home format which consists of 24 "listener position" speakers and 10 "height position" speakers which can be thought of as 5 pairs of speakers in "front height", "top front", "top middle", "top rear" and "rear height" locations. It is perfectly feasible to have front height speaker pairs used in combination with top speaker pairs in a Dolby Atmos system. It is great to see that these additional configuration options are being made available by manufacturers such as Denon.”_

The conclusion is that Denon have it right and we do have the flexibility that many of us will require.

*And finally…. How did it sound?*

No report of an Atmos demo would be complete without some attempt to convey in words how it all actually sounds. Well, in Dolby's multi-million dollar screening room, it sounds as good as the best commercial cinema in which you may have already heard Atmos movies: fabulous. The sense of immersion, the precision with which sounds are placed around you, the dynamic way that sounds move through the room, with such precision that you often end up following the sound with your eyes, as well as with your ears… all these are part of the commercial Atmos experience, and they all help take cinema sound to a whole new level (pun intended). As I said in my first report, Atmos is much, much more than 'height effects' and the occasional flyover of a helicopter.

But it is when you move to a typical HT environment that you will be truly amazed. Here, in a typical sized domestic space, Dolby seem to have worked a miracle. So little is lost compared with the commercial theater experience that you can scarcely believe it. In many ways, the HT demo is even more impressive than the 'big room' demo, simply because the result is so much less expected. 

Using either Atmos speakers or ceiling-mounted speakers, your HT room will suddenly become the environment in which the action is taking place. Walls and ceiling simply disappear and you are transported to a cave, to outer space, to a forest, adding immensely to the enjoyment of the on-screen action in a way which you will not have previously experienced. In the opening scenes of Star Trek Into Darkness, when the aliens throw their spears, they don't just move from front to back of the room, as before. Now they also move overhead as well. As the aliens and the Enterprise crew run through the forest, you can hear precisely where they are, where their voices are coming from; the rustle of leaves and the snapping of branches happen above you, to your left, your right, in front of you. You are there. When I got home, I played that scene in my own HT, which is substantially treated and has high quality speakers, subs and amplification. The difference left me feeling 'flat'. So I say to Dolby, the AVR manufacturers, the content creators, the studios: *bring it on!* I can't wait. And I would love to hear how the upmixing algorithm treats my legacy version of STID and how it compares with the full fat Atmos version - but that is something, I hope, for another demo on another day.

*Acknowledgements.*

I would like to thank Dolby for inviting me to the event in their London HQ and specifically thank JJ and Stephen for their patience and enthusiastic responses to questions which they must have been asked many times before. Thanks also to Abi and Stella for their help and guidance on the day. I had a fabulous day - thanks guys!


----------



## ss9001

I find this discussion fascinating of the "physics" behind how Dolby speakers really work. Great information! Secret sauce revealed?


----------



## ss9001

Dan Hitchman said:


> Audioholics is going downhill fast. They're making a mockery of themselves with this constant bias against a technology most or all of their staff have never experienced.


I've commented about this in the DOA thread but I'll re-confirm - I couldn't agree with you more!

as both I & sanjay stated at different times and in separate threads, they're past the raising concern phase...when a supposedly objective reviewer can say it doesn't do much to the sound without having listened to a single demo, then all pretensions of being objective are cast aside.

I'm just an enthusiast and I've not heard it either. But I have yet to read anyone who has been to a demo say anything negative or derogatory about their listening experience - everyone has had nothing but very positive comments - and how many are industry insiders? I know Keith is not in the industry.

Contrast positive comments from enthusiasts who've heard it vs. negative comments from someone who hasn't and who has more credibility?


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> The Atmos speakers reflect sound off the ceiling so logically the source of the sound is above you. How would the reflected sound be any different than if you used a really big speaker on the ceiling. Other than the ceiling possibly damping certain frequencies.


I am not following you. Physical ceiling-mounted speakers do not rely on reflected sound to create the impression that sound is coming from above you. It actually IS coming from above you. Thus there is no need for a 'trick' to convince you that speakers mounted at ear level are really mounted above you. The 'trick' is to convince you that speakers at ear level are in fact speakers above you. By using the DSP in the AVR, it overides/counteracts any sound from those ear-level speakers and prevents it (pyschoacoustically it seems) from reaching your ears (consciously). This isn't needed when the speakers are physically above you.


----------



## Kwikas

kbarnes701 said:


> _This report is a counterpart to my original report from the first demo I was kindly invited to at Dolby's London HQ. _
> 
> ...............................
> 
> *Speaker configuration options - how much flexibility do we have?*
> 
> I also explored with Stephen the different speaker configuration options which Denon have confirmed in their user manual, specifically the issue of the use of Front Heights in Atmos setups.
> 
> This is especially relevant to my own situation because in my room I have limited space behind the listening position and I cannot meet the specified angles for Top Rear speakers. However, I am able to meet the required angles for Top Middle (65-100 degrees) and by using the extreme of 100 degrees, the speakers do fall behind my listening position. However, Denon's spec indicates that we cannot use Top Front and Top Middle together, so my plan was to use Front Heights (at the 42 degree position - which is a specified position for both Top Front and Front Heights) together with Top Middle. The latter is a permitted combination according to Denon. So I was especially interested in Stephen's comments on just how much flexibility we have with the speaker options. Stephen replied with this:
> 
> _“We have a set of minimum speaker configurations which must be supported in a Dolby Atmos product depending on how many speaker outputs it has. However, other configurations which make use of additional speaker configurations is permissible provided our requirements are adhered to by the manufacturer. As you might recall, there are 34 speaker locations in the Dolby Atmos for the home format which consists of 24 "listener position" speakers and 10 "height position" speakers which can be thought of as 5 pairs of speakers in "front height", "top front", "top middle", "top rear" and "rear height" locations. It is perfectly feasible to have front height speaker pairs used in combination with top speaker pairs in a Dolby Atmos system. It is great to see that these additional configuration options are being made available by manufacturers such as Denon.”_
> 
> 
> _.............................._


 
Thanks for such a full and detailed posting and great news (for me at least) on being able to use front heights.


How many overhead speakers were in situ in the home cinema room? Did they have the full compliment of 10?


----------



## Audio Geek

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not following you. Physical ceiling-mounted speakers do not rely on reflected sound to create the impression that sound is coming from above you. It actually IS coming from above you. Thus there is no need for a 'trick' to convince you that speakers mounted at ear level are really mounted above you. The 'trick' is to convince you that speakers at ear level are in fact speakers above you. By using the DSP in the AVR, it overides/counteracts any sound from those ear-level speakers and prevents it (pyschoacoustically it seems) from reaching your ears (consciously). This isn't needed when the speakers are physically above you.


But what about the 180 Hz crossover (assuming conformity to the minimal spec)? Is there anything special done to the signal getting sent to associated speaker (on the floor/stand)? Would it get delayed (more) when using upfiring Atmos speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> Thanks for such a full and detailed posting and great news (for me at least) on being able to use front heights.


Glad you found it useful. Front Heights + Top Middles as an 'approved' combination is also great news for me! 



Kwikas said:


> How many overhead speakers were in situ in the home cinema room? Did they have the full compliment of 10?


Just four. They were at the 'corners' of that suspended panel. In the photos you can see the difference between the reflective part of the suspended ceiling, where the Atmos modules were aimed at, and the non-reflective acoustically transparent cloth covering the ceiling-mounted speakers.

If that was my own HT room, I’d go with Atmos speakers instead of ceiling-mounted. Reason: neither of the two chairs in the back row is ideally situated - each listener in either of those chairs is too close to the right or left ceiling speaker and it is possible that this skews the sound. No such problem with Atmos speakers or modules were apparent. If I had that room and just the front row, I'd be happy with either type of speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

Audio Geek said:


> But what about the 180 Hz crossover (assuming conformity to the minimal spec)? Is there anything special done to the signal getting sent to associated speaker (on the floor/stand)? Would it get delayed (more) when using upfiring Atmos speakers?


See my recent report for more on that, or at least all that Dolby are prepared to reveal.


----------



## sdurani

Excellent write-up, Keith, especially taking the trouble to ask follow-up questions/clarifications via e-mail.


----------



## KidHorn

markus767 said:


> ^
> Quite right and something I alluded to a couple of posts ago. But obviously it works good enough to impress people when they hear it



I read Rogers post after posting a few things. This thread has so many posts, it's hard to keep on top of things.


I think the way they handle the atmos speakers and audyssey is not optimal. I posted something about this yesterday.


Rather than having audyssey eq everything flat and then apply a filter, they would be better served to have audyssey try to eq to the filter to begin with. The reason is there will likely be a lot of variation in speakers/room setup/ceilings etc... . Better to have a custom curve for your particular setup than to apply the same curve for everyone.


My guess is they must be aware of this potential issue and it would have been difficult to implement optimally dues to time contraints/costs. Maybe the next iteration will be better.


----------



## harrybnbad

Thank you so much for the report.

As I was hoping to wait for 2nd gen avr's to come out. ( trying to get more life out of my 4520 ) I really dont see me waiting after reading that.


----------



## sdurani

KidHorn said:


> The reason is there will likely be a lot of variation in speakers/room setup/ceilings etc... .


Audyssey already handles speaker/room interaction. That should be the limit of their calibration/equalization. Their equalization shouldn't, for example, be addressing and/or interfering with any processing that is subsequently applied.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Excellent write-up, Keith, especially taking the trouble to ask follow-up questions/clarifications via e-mail.


Thanks, Sanjay. I think I learned some useful stuff on the day, and had other stuff confirmed, which is useful in itself. Glad to share with my fellow AVS-ers.


----------



## harrybnbad

I now wonder as new movies are being filmed, are producers/film crews/sound mixers etc. going to think about the audio a bit more before an during movie production.


----------



## mtbdudex

Keith, a very warm thanks for your write up "*Dolby Atmos For The Home – A Second ‘Ears-on’ Experience at Dolby’s London HQ.* ", I felt like I was there asking those questions myself!


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> Rather than having audyssey eq everything flat and then apply a filter, they would be better served to have audyssey try to eq to the filter to begin with. The reason is there will likely be a lot of variation in speakers/room setup/ceilings etc... . Better to have a custom curve for your particular setup than to apply the same curve for everyone.


Couldn't disagree more. I want Audyssey to deal with my room/speaker interaction, not to start futzing with any DSP that I decide to use afterwards, and that is how it has been designed to work. If I decide I want to use DTS Neo:X, for example, I want DTS Neo:X, not a version of it that has been tampered with by Audyssey.


----------



## Kwikas

kbarnes701 said:


> Glad you found it useful. Front Heights + Top Middles as an 'approved' combination is also great news for me!
> 
> 
> Just four. They were at the 'corners' of that suspended panel. In the photos you can see the difference between the reflective part of the suspended ceiling, where the Atmos modules were aimed at, and the non-reflective acoustically transparent cloth covering the ceiling-mounted speakers.
> 
> If that was my own HT room, I’d go with Atmos speakers instead of ceiling-mounted. Reason: neither of the two chairs in the back row is ideally situated - each listener in either of those chairs is too close to the right or left ceiling speaker and it is possible that this skews the sound. No such problem with Atmos speakers or modules were apparent. If I had that room and just the front row, I'd be happy with either type of speaker.


 
I know you're going for ceiling mounted Tannoys rather than Atmos speakers. I'm also going that route but mine will most likely be "in ceiling" coaxial speakers. I think the wide dispersion pattern of coax's makes them good for this.


I seem to recall that you posted a comment earlier in this thread about how we may spend too much money on our surrounds...or something like that and sorry if I have it out of context but it did get me thinking. With Atmos for home now here and my new home cinema room being planned, I'm thinking that simple 'in walls' for surrounds and 'in ceilings' for overheads will likely suffice.


Strangely, the thought of in wall anything would have been an anathema in my previous 7.1 set up.


----------



## kbarnes701

harrybnbad said:


> I now wonder as new movies are being filmed, are producers/film crews/sound mixers etc. going to think about the audio a bit more before an during movie production.


Do you think they don't already do that? I am almost always impressed nowadays by the SQ of modern movies (say in the last several years). Even relatively 'quiet' movies seem to make good use of all my speakers when appropriate and of course most movies have a score which is usually rendered very well. There are a few that have disappointed me, but they are very much in the minority. And with some movies, the sound is really the main event (step forward Mr Bay).


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> Keith, a very warm thanks for your write up "*Dolby Atmos For The Home – A Second ‘Ears-on’ Experience at Dolby’s London HQ.* ", I felt like I was there asking those questions myself!


That is a real compliment! Thank you!


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> I know you're going for ceiling mounted Tannoys rather than Atmos speakers. I'm also going that route but mine will most likely be "in ceiling" coaxial speakers. I think the wide dispersion pattern of coax's makes them good for this.


That seems to be the consensus.



Kwikas said:


> I seem to recall that you posted a comment earlier in this thread about how we may spend too much money on our surrounds...or something like that and sorry if I have it out of context but it did get me thinking. With Atmos for home now here and my new home cinema room being planned, I'm thinking that simple 'in walls' for surrounds and 'in ceilings' for overheads will likely suffice.


I did speculate that, following on from a similar speculation by Roger (Dressler). With bass management and decent subwoofers, I do think that the use of less highly specified (and therefore less expensive) speakers can often be a good choice for many. HST, I'd also be happy to have 5 or 7 identical speakers at listener level - but would also think I had almost certainly have overspent.



Kwikas said:


> Strangely, the thought of in wall anything would have been an anathema in my previous 7.1 set up.


I am still prejudiced against them, but probably without foundation or justification. If the in-walls have a closed 'cabinet' inside the wall, then a lot of my concerns do fade away though. I have heard fabulous demos of MK Sound in-walls for example.


----------



## KidHorn

kbarnes701 said:


> Couldn't disagree more. I want Audyssey to deal with my room/speaker interaction, not to start futzing with any DSP that I decide to use afterwards, and that is how it has been designed to work. If I decide I want to use DTS Neo:X, for example, I want DTS Neo:X, not a version of it that has been tampered with by Audyssey.



I don't follow. Audyssey applies a filter to everything regardless if you're using Neo:x or not. The filtering is used to produce a desirable output curve which, by default, is flat for every speaker. Audyssey doesn't care how or why your speakers need correction to make them flat, it just knows what needs to be done to make them flat. Now we have an exception. The dolby speakers need to have a resultant curve that isn't flat. So it would make sense to have audyssey target that curve instead of a flat one. I would assume the non flat curve is optimal regardless of what you're listening to. What makes an atmos soundtrack more realistic would make everything else more realistic too. Don't you think?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bravo, Keith! Bravo! 

Great write up! You're hitting a lot of the salient talking points that we "audience members" are wondering about consumer Atmos implementation. After reading many a professional article about these same events, it seems like most are just regurgitations of Dolby's marketing department. You and some other lucky AVS Forum participants are getting into the nitty gritty and helping to squeeze a bit more detail from their savvy PR "speak."


----------



## Chucka

Thank you Keith! Wonderfully expressive review that gives us a much better preview of what to expect.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> You flew to NYC yesterday?


Oh! Hahaha! Woops. I guess I wasn't there.  

It all looks the same.


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> I read Rogers post after posting a few things. This thread has so many posts, it's hard to keep on top of things.
> 
> 
> I think the way they handle the atmos speakers and audyssey is not optimal. I posted something about this yesterday.
> 
> 
> Rather than having audyssey eq everything flat and then apply a filter, they would be better served to have audyssey try to eq to the filter to begin with. The reason is there will likely be a lot of variation in speakers/room setup/ceilings etc... . Better to have a custom curve for your particular setup than to apply the same curve for everyone.
> 
> 
> My guess is they must be aware of this potential issue and it would have been difficult to implement optimally dues to time contraints/costs. Maybe the next iteration will be better.


I don't follow. You first want to level the playing field before applying any additional processing, i.e. EQ first then apply HRTF-processing.


----------



## Selden Ball

The order doesn't matter. Audyssey's corrections and the Atmos corrections are "commutative". 

FWIW, my understanding is that the signal path is something like this:

Bitstream from BR ==> [Atmos decoding (including corrections) ] ==> [Audyssey corrections] ==> amps ==> speakers


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> The order doesn't matter. Audyssey's corrections and the Atmos corrections are "commutative".
> 
> FWIW, my understanding is that the signal path is something like this:
> 
> Bitstream from BR ==> [Atmos decoding (including corrections) ] ==> [Audyssey corrections] ==> amps ==> speakers


The order is of utmost importance. If the Audyssey test signal goes through any processing it will become part of the measured response and Audyssey will try to compensate for that. This would remove the processing.
Try it for yourself and add EQ to the signal path. Audyssey will (try to) remove it.

Once the filter is created it indeed doesn't matter if filters are applied A+B or B+A.


----------



## KidHorn

markus767 said:


> I don't follow. You first want to level the playing field before applying any additional processing, i.e. EQ first then apply HRTF-processing.



I guess what I'm not certain about is if adjusting the curve for the atmos speakers will always have the same end result for the end listeners in all rooms. For example maybe lowering the signal at 10K produces the best result in a Dolby test lab, but in your living room it works best to lower at 9.5K. If we were dealing with a single speaker, it would be moot, but since we're dealing with interaction between what is effectively 2 speakers out of phase, it may be an issue.


If audyssey listens to the end result and it's not optimal, it can adjust the curve accordingly until it gets the desired result. Which would be a better outcome.


----------



## redjr

wse said:


> I am done with Onkyo the quality is worst every year


Same as everything else it seems. Even the beloved Pioneer Elite receivers are slipping in quality from just a few years ago. Seems big corps (in every industry) are just trying to satisfy their shareholders rather than build quality gear for their existing and would-be new customer/users. Sad. Sorry OT.


----------



## petetherock

@ kbarnes701

Great write up Keith, after the demo, did it change how you feel about speaker position and so if I may re-ask my question, will I be able to use my current Height speakers to be used as Ceiling Front Top speakers?

That will save me one run of cables and one less effort at painful re-modelling / hacking...


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> I don't follow. Audyssey applies a filter to everything regardless if you're using Neo:x or not. The filtering is used to produce a desirable output curve which, by default, is flat for every speaker. Audyssey doesn't care how or why your speakers need correction to make them flat, it just knows what needs to be done to make them flat. Now we have an exception. The dolby speakers need to have a resultant curve that isn't flat. So it would make sense to have audyssey target that curve instead of a flat one. I would assume the non flat curve is optimal regardless of what you're listening to. What makes an atmos soundtrack more realistic would make everything else more realistic too. Don't you think?


Audyssey is designed to EQ the room and speaker combination. That's it. It isn't meant to EQ the resulting DSPs applied. When you run Audyssey, all DSP, tone controls, levels etc etc are switched off. Audyssey then attempts to EQ the speaker/room combination to deliver Audyssey's target curve.

Whatever you do after that is irrelevant to Audyssey. If you decide to boost the HF from 5kHz to 9kHz, then that is fine. Audyssey won't try to stop you. If you decide to introduce a DSP notch filter at 10kHz, Audyssey won’t interfere with it. You may not like it working that way, but that is the way it works. This is way OT for this thread - if you want to continue it can I suggest taking it to the Official Audyssey Thread?

Regardless, Dolby have confirmed that they are fully aware of how REQ works in conjunciton with Atmos and have ensured that the AVR makers understand how to implement it and remain within spec for Atmos, so perhaps the whole discussion is futile anyway?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Bravo, Keith! Bravo!
> 
> Great write up! You're hitting a lot of the salient talking points that we "audience members" are wondering about consumer Atmos implementation. After reading many a professional article about these same events, it seems like most are just regurgitations of Dolby's marketing department. You and some other lucky AVS Forum participants are getting into the nitty gritty and helping to squeeze a bit more detail from their savvy PR "speak."


Thanks Dan. Another great compliment. I am sure we will learn even more when Dolby release their custom-installer guidelines soon...


----------



## kbarnes701

Chucka said:


> Thank you Keith! Wonderfully expressive review that gives us a much better preview of what to expect.


My pleasure. Glad to be able to share this stuff.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> Couldn't disagree more. I want Audyssey to deal with my room/speaker interaction, not to start futzing with any DSP that I decide to use afterwards, and that is how it has been designed to work. If I decide I want to use DTS Neo:X, for example, I want DTS Neo:X, not a version of it that has been tampered with by Audyssey.


I don't see the difference as it seems, from the info known so far, it is just a different target curve. All you need is an audyssey aware atmos impl and away you go.

Having said that it will be interesting to see how audyssey deals with an atmos speaker and whether it is able to discern that the "direct" sound is the later arriving, and possibly stronger, reflected signal.

edit: having read subsequent posts, the key distinction is an atmos aware audyssey. As seldenball says, it is DSP in the end.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> @ kbarnes701
> 
> Great write up Keith, so if I may re-ask my question, will I be able to use my current Height speakers to be used as Ceiling Front Top speakers?
> 
> That will save me one run of cables and one less effort at painful re-modelling / hacking...


Thanks. Yes, so long as you are within the required angle specification (30-45 degrees for Front Height) then you can use them in any combination allowed by your AVR. The permitted combinations which Denon are offering are:

Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height

Dolby have now confirmed, and even praised Denon for the fact, that those combinations will all work well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Dan. Another great compliment. I am sure we will learn even more when Dolby release their custom-installer guidelines soon...


I'm anxiously awaiting those guides. They've been teasing us for too long with bits and pieces of the whole picture.


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> I guess what I'm not certain about is if adjusting the curve for the atmos speakers will always have the same end result for the end listeners in all rooms. For example maybe lowering the signal at 10K produces the best result in a Dolby test lab, but in your living room it works best to lower at 9.5K. If we were dealing with a single speaker, it would be moot, but since we're dealing with interaction between what is effectively 2 speakers out of phase, it may be an issue.
> 
> 
> If audyssey listens to the end result and it's not optimal, it can adjust the curve accordingly until it gets the desired result. Which would be a better outcome.


The Atmos elevation-processing is related to what the outer ear, head and torso does to a sound not what the room does to a sound.


----------



## Selden Ball

I think you are conflating the calibration process with the equalization process. The calibration process itself involves the Audyssey logic/dsp, plus subsequent amps, speakers, room and microphone and does not take into account whatever kind of signals might be provided by other signal sources. 

When it is enabled, Audyssey EQ then modifies the incoming audio source data using the equalization algorithm that was determined by the calibration process to produce a new audio data stream. It effectively multiplies the amplitude of each incoming frequency on a specific speaker channel by a multiplier to produce a new amplitude. The part of Atmos which cares about specific speaker channels (e.g. an "Atmos enabled" speaker channel) also multiplies the amplitude of each incoming frequency on that specific speaker channel by a multiplier to produce a new amplitude. Multiplication is commutative (i.e. order doesn't matter: 0.2x0.5x0.3 = 0.2x0.3x0.5 = 0.03).

In fact, Atmos per-channel processing happens before Audyssey in Denon/Marantz equipment, but that's just because it's easier/cheaper to do it all of the Atmos processing (both object and channel processing) in its own DSP chip before it gets handed off to the DSP which does Audyssey processing. (My impression is that Onkyo uses a single DSP for both, while Trinnov uses a conventional CPU for both. I haven't seen any description of Pioneer's architecture.)


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm anxiously awaiting those guides. They've been teasing us for too long with bits and pieces of the whole picture.


Me too. Not a hole will be drilled, a wire pulled, a screw screwed until I have seen that setup guidance


----------



## brwsaw

Anyone here thinking what I'm thinking?


----------



## bkeeler10

I will add my praise of and thanks for your write-up, Keith.

When you were conversing with them about your choice of the Tannoy for overhead, did you get the impression that wider coverage angles were better than narrow coverage angles (that is, if you cannot have 90 degrees, would 80 degrees be better or would 100 degrees be better)?

I ask because I work for the company that makes this product (a 5.25" coaxial two-way) and I would consider using it for overhead. Although Tannoy doesn't specify the frequency ranges that were averaged to come up with their 90 degree dispersion spec, I believe the SoundTube is wider dispersion.


----------



## Scott Simonian

brwsaw said:


> Anyone here thinking what I'm thinking?


Live on playground
Ultimate Atmos setup 
Profit!


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> This is Dolby's reply:
> 
> _"The tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but you'd need to ask Kef directly if you need any other information about them. "_
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thanks for the information. I have scheduled a visit with my local dealer to listen to the R700's and also requested further information from their KEF rep regarding the Atmos enabled speakers. He mentioned they may make an appearance at CEDIA but could not confirm for sure. If I receive any further information regarding availability here in the States I will let everyone know.


----------



## esappy

I too would like to say thank you, Keith. That was a fascinating read and I only wish I could have been there too. You are a fortunate guy. I can definitely respect Dolby's 'limited' info available on the specifics of home flavored Atmos, even though we want more, but I equally respect the amount of information you have been able to get from Dolby. This really gets the old wheels turning on the possibilities and keeps the excitement factor high. I want Atmos in my house even more now and I think I have my wife convinced to let me do it. Although, for the first generation I think I may start out with a 'smaller' Atmos receiver like the Denon X4100 and then see how everything pans out a couple years down the road. I can always move the X4100 to the bedroom later and enjoy Atmos from the bed  Thanks again.


----------



## markus767

brwsaw said:


> Anyone here thinking what I'm thinking?


Yes, dome climber


----------



## bkeeler10

esappy said:


> I too would like to say thank you, Keith. That was a fascinating read and I only wish I could have been there too. You are a fortunate guy. I can definitely respect Dolby's 'limited' info available on the specifics of home flavored Atmos, even though we want more, but I equally respect the amount of information you have been able to get from Dolby. This really gets the old wheels turning on the possibilities and keeps the excitement factor high. I want Atmos in my house even more now and I think I have my wife convinced to let me do it. Although, for the first generation I think I may start out with a 'smaller' Atmos receiver like the Denon X4100 and then see how everything pans out a couple years down the road. I can always move the X4100 to the bedroom later and enjoy Atmos from the bed  Thanks again.


Yes, perhaps I should be cursing Keith rather than thanking him  I was planning on waiting until the second generation of Atmos receivers before considering it, but I'm changing plans now. Thanks a lot Keith 

Edit: Thanks also to the other guys who have taken the time to attend these things and report on them. It's this sort of information that is most beneficial, rather than relying just on professional media opinions (*cough* Audioholics *cough*).


----------



## redjr

^ Me too! Thanks again Keith for a very informative and insightful write-up/review of your first-hand experience. You have conveyed a wealth of information about Atmos that helps to separate the speculation from reality. The more I read on this thread, the more I'm ready to invest in Atmos. I'm already wiring for my ceiling speakers as this will be the more cost-effective way for me to implement first-gen Atmos. Excellent! - Rick


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> I will add my praise of and thanks for your write-up, Keith.
> 
> When you were conversing with them about your choice of the Tannoy for overhead, did you get the impression that wider coverage angles were better than narrow coverage angles (that is, if you cannot have 90 degrees, would 80 degrees be better or would 100 degrees be better)?
> 
> I ask because I work for the company that makes this product (a 5.25" coaxial two-way) and I would consider using it for overhead. Although Tannoy doesn't specify the frequency ranges that were averaged to come up with their 90 degree dispersion spec, I believe the SoundTube is wider dispersion.


Thanks for the kind remarks.

Not sure is my honest answer to your question, but I do think that a wide dispersion angle seems to be important, so I would think that the SoundTube would be a good choice in that respect. I believe that Dolby specify a Directivity Index, but I don't know what the spec is - it has been mentioned I am sure but I can't recall it. 

I think the main benefits of the Di series of speakers are that they have a wide dispersion (90 degrees all round) and have dual concentric drivers. Ceiling speakers to avoid would seem to be highly directive designs and probably conventional 2-way designs unless they can be installed in the proper orientation (usually vertical) and some distance from the listener (to avoid lobing etc). We may learn more when Dolby publish their custom-installer guidelines next month.


----------



## UKTexan

Keith,

Excellent write up, thank you for sharing your thoughts and also for following up with Dolby. As others have mentioned I too have read many professional reviews with much less useful and pertinent information. 
Great job.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> I also explored with Stephen the different speaker configuration options which Denon have confirmed in their user manual, specifically the issue of the use of Front Heights in Atmos setups.
> 
> This is especially relevant to my own situation because in my room I have limited space behind the listening position and I cannot meet the specified angles for Top Rear speakers. However, I am able to meet the required angles for Top Middle (65-100 degrees) and by using the extreme of 100 degrees, the speakers do fall behind my listening position. However, Denon's spec indicates that we cannot use Top Front and Top Middle together, so my plan was to use Front Heights (at the 42 degree position - which is a specified position for both Top Front and Front Heights) together with Top Middle. The latter is a permitted combination according to Denon. So I was especially interested in Stephen's comments on just how much flexibility we have with the speaker options. Stephen replied with this:
> _
> “We have a set of minimum speaker configurations which must be supported in a Dolby Atmos product depending on how many speaker outputs it has. However, other configurations which make use of additional speaker configurations is permissible provided our requirements are adhered to by the manufacturer. As you might recall, there are 34 speaker locations in the Dolby Atmos for the home format which consists of 24 "listener position" speakers and 10 "height position" speakers which can be thought of as 5 pairs of speakers in "front height", "top front", "top middle", "top rear" and "rear height" locations. It is perfectly feasible to have front height speaker pairs used in combination with top speaker pairs in a Dolby Atmos system. It is great to see that these additional configuration options are being made available by manufacturers such as Denon.”_
> 
> The conclusion is that Denon have it right and we do have the flexibility that many of us will require.


Thanks for this, that's great news. It basically means that the 5 possible positions for "elevated" speakers on Denon Atmos AVR's correspond to the (10) Atmos locations in the 24.x.10 layout, and I assume the rendering will adjust as a result. So on these first gen products you can choose any two non-adjacent pairs of the 5 possible locations.

It's a huge boon to people who already have mounted Front Height speakers from previous DSX/NeoX/PLIIz installs that, as long as they are elevated more than 30 degrees, they can use them within a new Atmos setup without relocating them. And because of the settings flexibility they can be combined with either a pair of in-ceiling or Atmos-enabled speakers to expand to an x.x.4 layout. Should allay a lot of people's concerns about having to tear up their walls again after having already installed Front Height speakers.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Using either Atmos speakers or ceiling-mounted speakers, your HT room will suddenly become the environment in which the action is taking place. Walls and ceiling simply disappear and you are transported to a cave, to outer space, to a forest, adding immensely to the enjoyment of the on-screen action in a way which you will not have previously experienced.


One of the things that surprised me at the Dolby demo in Burbank is how much phantom imaging there was between the two layers of speakers. This wasn't a case of _'this is around me'_ vs _'that was above me'_ but plenty of sounds floating in between.


----------



## bkeeler10

^^ And was that phantom imaging pretty much still intact with Atmos-enabled speakers too?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. Yes, so long as you are within the required angle specification (30-45 degrees for Front Height) then you can use them in any combination allowed by your AVR. The permitted combinations which Denon are offering are:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height
> 
> Dolby have now confirmed, and even praised Denon for the fact, that those combinations will all work well.


Keith, I want to add my public encomium to that which I expressed to you in private on your stellar reporting. You have set a high bar for the rest of us.

What are your thoughts about using FH only? Denon apparently allows this (see attachment) and it would permit me to try out Atmos with my current 11.1 configuration before deciding whether to move and/or install additional speakers.








As I understand it, Dolby seems to convey the idea that at least four speakers are needed for the best Atmos experience but that two will suffice ("you’ll still get a very immersive experience"). If using only two (i.e., one pair), they recommend using either Atmos-enabled speakers at the LF/RF location, or ceiling speakers placed slightly in front of the MLP. So I'm wondering what type of effect I can expect from just the FH (wall-mounted just below ceiling level) and how I can extrapolate from that experience to determine the cost-effectiveness (including the cost of divorce proceedings) in going for the Full Monty. Can you shed any light on this question--either based on your impressions or on feedback from Dolby? Thanks, Jeff


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, I want to add my public encomium to that which I expressed to you in private on your stellar reporting. You have set a high bar for the rest of us.
> 
> What are your thoughts about using FH only? Denon apparently allows this (see attachment) and it would permit me to try out Atmos with my current 11.1 configuration before deciding whether to move and/or install additional speakers.


You have to tell the AVR you have OH's, not heights... it's my undemanding that the AVR won't decode Atmos without those speakers being present. 

While you can certainly "fool" the AVR into telling it you have OH's, it's not going to be a good gauge to "try it out..." The mixes will "fall apart." 

For example, in one of the oft cited demos of the helicopter flying around, the metadata contains a circular pan... while it might rise up in your setup, it's going to jump from front to back, and not pan smoothly at all because it will bypass your surround speakers all together..

It's different than what has been possible with current post processing decoding, like IIz and Neo:X... if dialog panned in a traditional mix, it uses the surrounds to do so... if an object of dialog is panned overhead to the rear, it's going to sound awfully weird going up your front wall and down the back one..

I asked one of my contacts at Dolby about the use of heights and they didn't think it would work well either.

Why Denon seems to allow this is odd to me. 

Just my .02.


----------



## ellisr63

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. Yes, so long as you are within the required angle specification (30-45 degrees for Front Height) then you can use them in any combination allowed by your AVR. The permitted combinations which Denon are offering are:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height
> 
> Dolby have now confirmed, and even praised Denon for the fact, that those combinations will all work well.


So I could basically add a top middle to my setup and be ready for Dolby Atmos, since i already have the Front Height channels... If so that is awesome news!


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> Thanks for this, that's great news. It basically means that the 5 possible positions for "elevated" speakers on Denon Atmos AVR's correspond to the (10) Atmos locations in the 24.x.10 layout, and I assume the rendering will adjust as a result. So on these first gen products you can choose any two non-adjacent pairs of the 5 possible locations.
> 
> It's a huge boon to people who already have mounted Front Height speakers from previous DSX/NeoX/PLIIz installs that, as long as they are elevated more than 30 degrees, they can use them within a new Atmos setup without relocating them. And because of the settings flexibility they can be combined with either a pair of in-ceiling or Atmos-enabled speakers to expand to an x.x.4 layout. Should allay a lot of people's concerns about having to tear up their walls again after having already installed Front Height speakers.


True. Additionally, mounting "rear height" speakers could be just as easy as it was to mount your front heights (likely easier than mounting ceiling speakers, depending on the setup), making a relatively easy path to 7.2.4.

I just have to wonder if I would feel like *perhaps I was not getting "the full Atmos experience" by not using their standard default "top front / top rear" configuration* when I could have with a little more work...

I actually have the tripods from a Da-Lite Background Mounting System kicking around that I plan on using to *try* my four height speakers out *in various positions before making the permanent mount.*

http://www.amazon.com/Da-Lite-Backg...&qid=1408126452&sr=8-4&keywords=da-lite+stand










Then for the final mount, I was planning on using a bracket to mount an 18" board sticking out perpendicularly from the wall near the ceiling and then mount the speaker to that board thus creating *a "ceiling mounted" speaker mounted on the wall* (for top fronts and top rears). My mains are 19" from the side walls anyway, so this would put the "ceiling" speakers in line with them.

I got the idea by looking at this picture of someone who mounted a speaker far from their wall using a TV mount:


----------



## kbarnes701

esappy said:


> I too would like to say thank you, Keith. That was a fascinating read and I only wish I could have been there too. You are a fortunate guy. I can definitely respect Dolby's 'limited' info available on the specifics of home flavored Atmos, even though we want more, but I equally respect the amount of information you have been able to get from Dolby. This really gets the old wheels turning on the possibilities and keeps the excitement factor high. I want Atmos in my house even more now and I think I have my wife convinced to let me do it. Although, for the first generation I think I may start out with a 'smaller' Atmos receiver like the Denon X4100 and then see how everything pans out a couple years down the road. I can always move the X4100 to the bedroom later and enjoy Atmos from the bed  Thanks again.





bkeeler10 said:


> Yes, perhaps I should be cursing Keith rather than thanking him  I was planning on waiting until the second generation of Atmos receivers before considering it, but I'm changing plans now. Thanks a lot Keith
> 
> Edit: Thanks also to the other guys who have taken the time to attend these things and report on them. It's this sort of information that is most beneficial, rather than relying just on professional media opinions (*cough* Audioholics *cough*).





redjr said:


> ^ Me too! Thanks again Keith for a very informative and insightful write-up/review of your first-hand experience. You have conveyed a wealth of information about Atmos that helps to separate the speculation from reality. The more I read on this thread, the more I'm ready to invest in Atmos. I'm already wiring for my ceiling speakers as this will be the more cost-effective way for me to implement first-gen Atmos. Excellent! - Rick


Thanks guys. I really appreciate your kind remarks.
@esappy - the X4100W is my initial choice too. Pre-ordered mine in the UK yesterday in fact.
@bkeeler - why wait - Atmos for the home is all that it has been promised to be and more! Go for it!
@Rick - way to go! It's all coming together now.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Thanks for this, that's great news. It basically means that the 5 possible positions for "elevated" speakers on Denon Atmos AVR's correspond to the (10) Atmos locations in the 24.x.10 layout, and I assume the rendering will adjust as a result. So on these first gen products you can choose any two non-adjacent pairs of the 5 possible locations.


Yes - great news indeed. Denon rock!



batpig said:


> It's a huge boon to people who already have mounted Front Height speakers from previous DSX/NeoX/PLIIz installs that, as long as they are elevated more than 30 degrees, they can use them within a new Atmos setup without relocating them. And because of the settings flexibility they can be combined with either a pair of in-ceiling or Atmos-enabled speakers to expand to an x.x.4 layout. Should allay a lot of people's concerns about having to tear up their walls again after having already installed Front Height speakers.


Yes indeed. And good news for people like me whose MLP is close to the back wall - I can't make the angles for Top Rears, but I can do Top Middle - and as Top Middle can be used with Front Heights (so long as the angles are adhered to) I am all set for a 5.14 install, instead of the 5.1.2 I initially thought I was limited to. Woot!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> One of the things that surprised me at the Dolby demo in Burbank is how much phantom imaging there was between the two layers of speakers. This wasn't a case of _'this is around me'_ vs _'that was above me'_ but plenty of sounds floating in between.


Agreed. Hence my oft-repeated remark that Atmos is much more than simply height effects (and what a shame that Audioholics haven't listened to Atmos properly before making their asinine remarks about "a bit more spaciousness" and "the occasional plane flying over").

The effect you describe came over very well to me too on both my demos. I can't wait for Dawn OTPOT Apes to be released on Atmos Bluray - the effect you mention came across very well on the "massed apes" scenes in that movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> ^^ And was that phantom imaging pretty much still intact with Atmos-enabled speakers too?


Amazingly so. I know it stretches credulity when people say that they actually prefer the Atmos speakers to physical ceiling speakers, but when you get to hear them you will see why they say this. Atmos speakers/modules are no sort of compromise at all really. The differences I hear between them and ceiling speakers are there, but it isn't a question of A is better than B, but rather that A and B are different and I like them both.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> The Atmos elevation-processing is related to what the outer ear, head and torso does to a sound not what the room does to a sound.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> I am all set for a 5.14 install, instead of the 5.1.2 I initially thought I was limited to. Woot!


And you can still do all this with "just" the 4100 

Great news indeed.

For me to go 7.2.4 requires $2k for a 5200 (when I already have a denon 4311), which gives me pause, especially when there will be few atmos titles initially available. Might go through with it anyway.  I hope "Dolby Surround" sounds better than its name sounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, I want to add my public encomium to that which I expressed to you in private on your stellar reporting. You have set a high bar for the rest of us.


Many thanks. (Great word 'encomium') 



chi_guy50 said:


> What are your thoughts about using FH only? Denon apparently allows this (see attachment) and it would permit me to try out Atmos with my current 11.1 configuration before deciding whether to move and/or install additional speakers.


I'd imagine that if you use a single pair of top speakers, they need to be more in the middle of the room. If you use only Front Heights, closer to the 30 degree mark than the 45 degree, then I'd guess you don't have enough angular separation between those and the mains to give any sort of movement to the sound. You’d still get height effects, but would, I suspect, miss out on the other benefits of Atmos, such as Sanjay just described.

You could always try it and see, as the speakers are already there. Or how about pairing those speakers with two Atmos modules at the back? You can mix and match upward firing speakers with physical speakers on the ceiling (or front wall in your case).


----------



## Kriilin

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks guys. I really appreciate your kind remarks.
> 
> @esappy - the X4100W is my initial choice too. Pre-ordered mine in the UK yesterday in fact.


So are you doing 5.1.4? I am considering this setup too, but 7.1.4 (5200W) is sure tempting me! I don't upgrade that often (current receiver is a ten year old NAD T-761), so I'm tempted to splurge. BTW, great writeup from Dolby UK!


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> You have to tell the AVR you have OH's, not heights... it's my undemanding that the AVR won't decode Atmos without those speakers being present.
> 
> While you can certainly "fool" the AVR into telling it you have OH's, it's not going to be a good gauge to "try it out..." The mixes will "fall apart."
> 
> For example, in one of the oft cited demos of the helicopter flying around, the metadata contains a circular pan... while it might rise up in your setup, it's going to jump from front to back, and not pan smoothly at all because it will bypass your surround speakers all together..
> 
> It's different than what has been possible with current post processing decoding, like IIz and Neo:X... if dialog panned in a traditional mix, it uses the surrounds to do so... if an object of dialog is panned overhead to the rear, it's going to sound awfully weird going up your front wall and down the back one..
> 
> I asked one of my contacts at Dolby about the use of heights and they didn't think it would work well either.
> 
> Why Denon seems to allow this is odd to me.
> 
> Just my .02.


Am I misunderstanding you, Marc? Dolby have just specifically told me that Front Heights plus another pair - eg Top Rear - will work very well and even congratulated Denon on implementing this configuration.

I agree that ONLY Front Heights will not give the desired result but wasn't sure what you were saying. Nowhere have I seen in the Denon manual that you can engage Atmos with just Front Heights in play - although of course you can do 5.1.2 with just Top Middles for example. Seems to me, AIUI ATM, that if you only have one pair of height speakers, they should be designated Top Middle.


----------



## kbarnes701

ellisr63 said:


> So I could basically add a top middle to my setup and be ready for Dolby Atmos, since i already have the Front Height channels... If so that is awesome news!


Yes - that is how I will be doing it too. You just need to check that the angles of your Front Heights are in spec. I will be using speakers mounted in the Top Front position (42 degrees) but designating them as Front Heights in the AVR (also 42 degrees for spec).


----------



## harrybnbad

Wow, pretty hot topic. This just keeps updating. I actually left the house for an hour, couldn't believe how far behind I got....


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Am I misunderstanding you, Marc? Dolby have just specifically told me that Front Heights plus another pair - eg Top Rear - will work very well and even congratulated Denon on implementing this configuration.
> 
> I agree that ONLY Front Heights will not give the desired result but wasn't sure what you were saying. Nowhere have I seen in the Denon manual that you can engage Atmos with just Front Heights in play - although of course you can do 5.1.2 with just Top Middles for example. Seems to me, AIUI ATM, that if you only have one pair of height speakers, they should be designated Top Middle.


Keith..

I was simply stating that height only aren't an option... not in addition to.. (which I am personally very skeptical about until I hear it..)

He said this: "_*What are your thoughts about using FH only?*_ Denon apparently allows this (see attachment) and it would permit me to try out Atmos with my current 11.1 configuration before deciding whether to move and/or install additional speakers.
"


----------



## Selden Ball

Keith,

A demo that I haven't heard mentioned is what the Atmos decoder does for non-Atmos soundtracks. I seem to recall seeing claims that "it works", but I don't know what that means. Does it mean that in some cases audio is expanded to overhead speakers, or just that the ear-level 7.1 speaker channels of a 7.1.2 configuration are used and the overhead speakers are silent?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Amazingly so. I know it stretches credulity when people say that they actually prefer the Atmos speakers to physical ceiling speakers, but when you get to hear them you will see why they say this. Atmos speakers/modules are no sort of compromise at all really. The differences I hear between them and ceiling speakers are there, but it isn't a question of A is better than B, but rather that A and B are different and I like them both.


This is what I'm most hapoy to hear, means I don't need to think about cutting holes in my diffusion later on... The question only becomes how well atmos-kind speakers like longitudinal panel diffusion. With some luck it's a bonus, though.

I must place my voice in the choir and say that was an amazing piece of reporting, so I understand why we had to wait a while for it.

Given what the 1st gen Denons will cost here, I'm definitely waiting for the x7200w specs... But honestly I'm also waiting for the repost from DTS. I definitely don't have the money to go for 1st AND 2nd gen atmos receivers, so my next one will have to be one I can live quite a while with.


----------



## sdurani

bkeeler10 said:


> ^^ And was that phantom imaging pretty much still intact with Atmos-enabled speakers too?


The phantom imaging was more audible with the Atmos-enabled speakers. I know that stretches credulity, as Keith already predicted I would say, but that's what I heard at the demo. I still believe that ceiling mounted speakers might do a better job if aimed carefully rather than merely pointed downwards, but maybe that's just me unable to shake my bias.


----------



## ellisr63

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - that is how I will be doing it too. You just need to check that the angles of your Front Heights are in spec. I will be using speakers mounted in the Top Front position (42 degrees) but designating them as Front Heights in the AVR (also 42 degrees for spec).


Would you by any chance be able to add a center height channel and have it be the top center... Or is that going to be out of spec? Another thing I am wondering about... Could I install a speaker behind my AT screen and aim it at the ceiling for the top channel?


----------



## harrybnbad

As much as I want, oh really want this. There's this sensible side that says wait for 2nd gen. No to mention, my 17 yr old kid lives in the room I bought this home for in the first place. My HT. 18' x 24' with 8 ft ceilings. And a huge attic space. Sounds like the kid needs tp go...HaHa. After what you guys are saying, seems like its made for atmos.

Not to mention, my 4520's only a yr old. My wife will never let me upgrade this soon. So 2 yrs, ill be ready for atmos, and there's no telling where it will be in 2 yrs....


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> You have to tell the AVR you have OH's, not heights... it's my undemanding that the AVR won't decode Atmos without those speakers being present.
> 
> While you can certainly "fool" the AVR into telling it you have OH's, it's not going to be a good gauge to "try it out..." The mixes will "fall apart."
> 
> For example, in one of the oft cited demos of the helicopter flying around, the metadata contains a circular pan... while it might rise up in your setup, it's going to jump from front to back, and not pan smoothly at all because it will bypass your surround speakers all together..
> 
> It's different than what has been possible with current post processing decoding, like IIz and Neo:X... if dialog panned in a traditional mix, it uses the surrounds to do so... if an object of dialog is panned overhead to the rear, it's going to sound awfully weird going up your front wall and down the back one..
> 
> I asked one of my contacts at Dolby about the use of heights and they didn't think it would work well either.
> 
> Why Denon seems to allow this is odd to me.
> 
> Just my .02.


If you can spare another .02, do you mean to say that it's your understanding that Atmos will not work at all (or at least not as intended) with any combination that includes wall-mounted height speakers vice either "top" (overhead) or Atmos-enabled speakers? Or do you mean that one pair of FH's alone is not feasible? I would rather not give up my DTS Neo:X 11.1 configuration if I can still manage to accommodate Atmos without having to add up to four more speakers. 

EDITED TO ADD: Okay, just saw your subsequent post. But you are still skeptical that heights will work at all, is that right?




kbarnes701 said:


> I'd imagine that if you use a single pair of top speakers, they need to be more in the middle of the room. If you use only Front Heights, closer to the 30 degree mark than the 45 degree, then I'd guess you don't have enough angular separation between those and the mains to give any sort of movement to the sound. You’d still get height effects, but would, I suspect, miss out on the other benefits of Atmos, such as Sanjay just described.
> 
> You could always try it and see, as the speakers are already there. Or how about pairing those speakers with two Atmos modules at the back? You can mix and match upward firing speakers with physical speakers on the ceiling (or front wall in your case).


Unfortunately, there's no room at the back for Atmos modules. I have other options, of course, but am somewhat limited by the fact that it is a living room not a dedicated HT. As it is, I cannot accommodate traditional surrounds (because that would entail running wires into the middle of the room) and have solved this problem by using in-ceiling speakers (Polk Audio 80F/X-RT) located R/L and just behind the MLP. I could redesignate these surrounds as TR's and use my current timbre-matched SB satellites (sitting on a mantelpiece one foot above ear level and three feet behind the MLP) as surrounds. This would give me a 7.1.4 configuration with FW and an Atmos combo of FH/TR. But I would be forgoing SB's. Alternatively, I could take my SB's and mount them on the wall at ceiling height for a FH/RH Atmos combo. 

Thoughts/comments/suggestions?


----------



## bkeeler10

sdurani said:


> The phantom imaging was more audible with the Atmos-enabled speakers. I know that stretches credulity, as Keith already predicted I would say, but that's what I heard at the demo. I still believe that ceiling mounted speakers might do a better job if aimed carefully rather than merely pointed downwards, but maybe that's just me unable to shake my bias.


Yes, that's a tough bias to shake for me too. I would still go with on-ceiling speakers, because it simply _has to be_ better, despite all the recent subjective experience and commentary to the contrary.  Although I am now convinced that, if I could not do on-ceiling, that's no reason to forego 
Atmos. A month ago I would not have even considered it.


----------



## kokishin

J_Palmer_Cass said:


>


"Na-Nu Na-Nu" 

RIP


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> I just have to wonder if I would feel like *perhaps I was not getting "the full Atmos experience" by not using their standard default "top front / top rear" configuration* when I could have with a little more work...


According to Dolby they gave the standard top front/top rear as part of their minimum spec, but with various other options, implementable according to the manufacturers' wishes. These other configuration options include Front Height + Top Middle etc, as shown in the Denon manual. Dolby say that these configurations are fine, and even praised Denon for implementing them.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Keith..
> 
> I was simply stating that height only aren't an option... not in addition to.. (which I am personally very skeptical about until I hear it..)


Ah, OK, sure thing. Agreed then. The only configuration possible with just two 'top' speakers is Top Middle as in 5.1.2.

All mine will be on the ceiling - I think it is important to get as much separation between the top speakers and the mains/surrounds as possible (within spec) to allow the system to phantom image better between speaker 'sets'.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Keith,
> 
> A demo that I haven't heard mentioned is what the Atmos decoder does for non-Atmos soundtracks. I seem to recall seeing claims that "it works", but I don't know what that means. Does it mean that in some cases audio is expanded to overhead speakers, or just that the ear-level 7.1 speaker channels of a 7.1.2 configuration are used and the overhead speakers are silent?


Not much information on upmixing legacy content, Selden. I asked again on Wednesday and was told that it was "very good". But no chance to hear it yet. AIUI, legacy content upmixed by Dolby Surround will be expanded to all available speakers.

FM has heard it and he says it is "very good" too, so I am inclined to think that it will be, well, "very good"


----------



## Selden Ball

Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

ellisr63 said:


> Would you by any chance be able to add a center height channel and have it be the top center... Or is that going to be out of spec? Another thing I am wondering about... Could I install a speaker behind my AT screen and aim it at the ceiling for the top channel?


No centre height in Atmos spec. If the module behind the screen can be aimed at the right part of the ceiling, I guess it could work OK.


----------



## kbarnes701

harrybnbad said:


> As much as I want, oh really want this. There's this sensible side that says wait for 2nd gen. No to mention, my 17 yr old kid lives in the room I bought this home for in the first place. My HT. 18' x 24' with 8 ft ceilings. And a huge attic space. Sounds like the kid needs tp go...HaHa. After what you guys are saying, seems like its made for atmos.
> 
> Not to mention, my 4520's only a yr old. My wife will never let me upgrade this soon. So 2 yrs, ill be ready for atmos, and there's no telling where it will be in 2 yrs....


Would she notice if you swapped the 4520 for, say, a X4100W? I mean, they look pretty similar...  They do it all the time with shoes and purses...


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Would she notice if you swapped the 4520 for, say, a X4100W? I mean, they look pretty similar...  They do it all the time with shoes and purses...


You noticed, didn't you - how else could you claim it to be the case?


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Yes, that's a tough bias to shake for me too. I would still go with on-ceiling speakers, because it simply _has to be_ better, despite all the recent subjective experience and commentary to the contrary.  Although I am now convinced that, if I could not do on-ceiling, that's no reason to forego
> Atmos. A month ago I would not have even considered it.


How's this for a controversial statement: having heard both types, if I could, I would choose Atmos speakers over ceiling speakers. Really. It's just that the peculiarities of my room make modules very difficult to accommodate (and there is NFW I am foregoing my M&K S150s for an Atmos speaker, and even if I did it would have to have the form factor of the S150, which is unlikely ever to happen).


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> You noticed, didn't you - how else could you claim it to be the case?


LOL. I am a special case. I used to work in the fashion business and have been trained to notice this stuff


----------



## ellisr63

kbarnes701 said:


> Would she notice if you swapped the 4520 for, say, a X4100W? I mean, they look pretty similar...  They do it all the time with shoes and purses...


Sometimes ya just shouldn't tell the wife... A good chance she will never know as long as she doesn't see the cost.


----------



## qwho51

*DTS' answer to Dolby Atmos?*

Article posted August 14,2014....Is this the DTS answer? Nothing posted at DTS website however..!
http://widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=20166


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> How's this for a controversial statement: having heard both types, if I could, I would choose Atmos speakers over ceiling speakers. Really. It's just that the peculiarities of my room make modules very difficult to accommodate (and there is NFW I am foregoing my M&K S150s for an Atmos speaker, and even if I did it would have to have the form factor of the S150, which is unlikely ever to happen).


*Pause while brain attempts to reconcile*

"Error, error, error"


----------



## bkeeler10

qwho51 said:


> Article posted August 14,2014....Is this the DTS answer? Nothing posted at DTS website however..!
> http://widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=20166


Umm, this line: "DTS-UHD is the first object-based audio format designed for consumer delivery." 

They're gonna have to get this out pretty quick for that to be true. Either that or they really did design it before Dolby designed Atmos and they're incredibly slow rolling it out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> Anyone here thinking what I'm thinking?


I think so, but where are we going find an open tattoo parlor at this time of night?

_Narf!! _


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I still believe that ceiling mounted speakers might do a better job if aimed carefully rather than merely pointed downwards, but maybe that's just me unable to shake my bias.


Ceiling speakers should be better IF the (re-)mix supports it. If not then reflected sound can result in a more realistic presentation. Same reason why some like omnis for playback of stereo recordings...


----------



## Selden Ball

qwho51 said:


> Article posted August 14,2014....Is this the DTS answer? Nothing posted at DTS website however..!
> http://widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=20166


Sadly, I really don't see anything new there. Just as for Dolby Atmos, we need to see a list of CE manufacturers incorporating their decoders and a list of source material which uses them. I would not be a bit surprised if there's a lot of arm-twisting going on in the background by both Dolby and DTS in order to encourage studios to specify their respective encoding technologies and/or providing the software and training for the mixing companies. Of course, they're all going to be under NDAs until the last possible minute.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> _This report is a counterpart to my original report from the first demo I was kindly invited to at Dolby's London HQ. _
> 
> The original report can be seen by clicking here.
> 
> *Dolby Atmos For The Home - A Second 'Ears-on' Experience at Dolby's London HQ.*
> 
> I was privileged to be invited to a second demonstration of Atmos For The Home on Wednesday, 13th August, at Dolby's magnificent Soho Square HQ in London.
> 
> 
> 
> And talking of content, the most I could squeeze out of JJ with regard to Blurays was that we could expect content to be available “in time for Christmas” and probably before. Similarly, when I asked what the very first Dolby Bluray release would be, JJ commented candidly that he simply didn't know. JJ pointed out that many of the movies which have currently been released in Atmos will not be available at launch because of practical and commercial considerations involved in the disc authoring process.


I am pro home Atmos and and patiently waiting to purchase an Atmos AVR and Atmos speakers. However, Dolby's and the studios lack of announcements regarding home Atmos content on BD has me concerned. Content is king. For home Atmos to be successful, there has to be a reasonable amount of content for home Atmos to be successful. Perhaps the studios are waiting to see how popular/successful home Atmos equipment sales will be before investing in home Atmos BD content? Perhaps only newer theatrical Atmos releases will be converted to Atmos BD and current non-Atmos BD will utilize the home Atmos up mixer? Perhaps there will be significant announcements coming soon and we just have to wait patiently? I certainly hope that there will be a plethora of Atmos BD content available by Christmas 2014.

Regarding the home Atmos up mixer for non-Atmos BD, has anyone heard it? If so, please share your thoughts about it.


----------



## bkeeler10

markus767 said:


> Ceiling speakers should be better IF the (re-)mix supports it. If not then reflected sound can result in a more realistic presentation. Same reason why some like omnis for playback of stereo recordings...


This does bring up an interesting point: What is the preference from Dolby's perspective? Or, maybe even more to the point: What configuration is used in the mixing process?

I'm still wrapping my brain around the idea that it doesn't matter very much though. That's clearly a cool bit of trickery Dolby has pulled off.


----------



## harrybnbad

Ya, the cost. Or the bank account statement. I could tell her that its her birthday gift next week. But, I dont think she'l quite believe me. You are right about the shoes and purses...


----------



## mp5475

So, if we get the atmos speaker, will we be able to use it for dts uhd? Or safe bet is to get the ceiling speakers?


----------



## 3ll3d00d

mp5475 said:


> So, if we get the atmos speaker, will we be able to use it for dts uhd? Or safe bet is to get the ceiling speakers?


Safe bet is to get nothing and wait and see what happens.


----------



## markus767

bkeeler10 said:


> This does bring up an interesting point: What is the preference from Dolby's perspective? Or, maybe even more to the point: What configuration is used in the mixing process?


It's the decades old question how much the listening room acoustics should be part of the presentation. In my mind the recording should be enabled to have full control over the presentation but this requires highly standardized acoustics in production and reproduction. Ceiling-firing Atmos speakers don't follow that thinking.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> I am pro home Atmos and and patiently waiting to purchase an Atmos AVR and Atmos speakers. However, Dolby's and the studios lack of announcements regarding home Atmos content on BD has me concerned. Content is king. For home Atmos to be successful, there has to be a reasonable amount of content for home Atmos to be successful. Perhaps the studios are waiting to see how popular/successful home Atmos equipment sales will be before investing in home Atmos BD content? Perhaps only newer theatrical Atmos releases will be converted to Atmos BD and current non-Atmos BD will utilize the home Atmos up mixer? Perhaps there will be significant announcements coming soon and we just have to wait patiently? I certainly hope that there will be a plethora of Atmos BD content available by Christmas 2014.
> 
> Regarding the home Atmos up mixer for non-Atmos BD, has anyone heard it? If so, please share your thoughts about it.


The industry is playing the ol' chicken and the egg game. What they should have done was simultaneously release "test the water" disc content _with_ the hardware roll out.


----------



## SoundChex

mp5475 said:


> So, if we get the atmos speaker, will we be able to use it for dts uhd [and with *Auro-3D* (and with *MPEG-H 3D*)]? Or safe bet is to get the ceiling speakers?



Of course if you are 'lucky', your AV system might _need_ only to support 3D audio playback for *one codec* . . . but I can't rely on studios choosing the same codec for both *Game Of Thrones Season 8*, and a 3D audio remix of *Star Wars Episodes I-VI*!    
_


----------



## Eldiablos

I like the idea of Dolby Atmos. I will, however, wait for the next set of flagship receivers in a year or two and see what they will have to offer. I hope by then they will support 9.1.4 and that DTS-UHD will be available. I'm greedy and want my wides and 4 ceiling speakers


----------



## Selden Ball

It'd be nice if the high-end decoder systems were to include a copy of at least the Dolby Atmos demo disc, like some of the early 3D TVs came with 3D movies.


----------



## wse

qwho51 said:


> Article posted August 14,2014....Is this the DTS answer? Nothing posted at DTS website however..!http://widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=20166


So here we go again all of us will need to replace our AV R or AV pre/pro

2104 New AVR with Dolby Atmos

2015 New AVR with ATMOS & DTS-UHD

2016 New AVR with ATMOS, DTS-UHD, AURO 3D

And if BluRay movies are released DTS-UHD will take the lead but they have a lot catching up to do!


----------



## kbarnes701

ellisr63 said:


> Sometimes ya just shouldn't tell the wife... A good chance she will never know as long as she doesn't see the cost.


IME, just like most guys don't know the difference between a $30 pair of shoes and a $300 pair of shoes, most women don't know the difference between a $3,000 flagship processor and an entry level unit.  Happy wife = happy life...


----------



## markus767

wse said:


> So here we go again all of us will need to replace our AV R or AV pre/pro
> 
> 2104 New AVR with Dolby Atmos
> 
> 2015 New AVR with ATMOS & DTS-UHD
> 
> 2016 New AVR with ATMOS, DTS-UHD, AURO 3D
> 
> And if BluRay movies are released DTS-UHD will take the lead but they have a lot catching up to do!


If Atmos in DD+ over streaming services will find fast implementation then I'm not sure if we will speak of DTS-UHD or Auro 3D anymore at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> If Atmos in DD+ over streaming services will find fast implementation then I'm not sure if we will speak of DTS-UHD or Auro 3D anymore at all.


And by all accounts, we will be seeing Atmos in DD+ over streaming services really soon, so...


----------



## sdurani

bkeeler10 said:


> *Pause while brain attempts to reconcile*


My brain is still doing that, even after hearing it. Will hopefully get another demo soon, with different speakers in a different room, when Pioneer has their open house locally.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> And by all accounts, we will be seeing Atmos in DD+ over streaming services really soon, so...


But if it's anything like the audio streaming quality of Netflix, then my excitement will be quite tempered. They tend to further compress the sound beyond what the studios give them as downloadable files (not just the video). 

We need a disc based approach as a *primary* means of delivering a premium experience. That goes for UHD as well.


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> So here we go again all of us will need to replace our AV R or AV pre/pro
> 
> 2104 New AVR with Dolby Atmos
> 
> 2015 New AVR with ATMOS & DTS-UHD
> 
> 2016 New AVR with ATMOS, DTS-UHD, AURO 3D
> 
> And if BluRay movies are released DTS-UHD will take the lead but they have a lot catching up to do!


 
We're all not rich or even in the 5%, but this is exactly why the Trinnov Altitude is such an appealing product. Scalability from 8/16/24/32 channels, and a PC-core based processor allowing for software instead of DSP implementation of codecs, and ala carte codec upgrade packages possibly (e.g. you can get Atmos and Auro one year, and add UHD the next to that bundle). Plus you have the heavily customizable parameters of the Trinnov Optimizer, and a ton of presets and ability to generate configuration-specific target curves. Of course, it's a $20K+ solution, and closer to $40K or more potentially as you creep up toward 32 channels! OTOH you can build your 24.1.10 speaker model if you're ambitious enough LOL. 

As I said somewhere else, think of what people spend on boats, or a motorcyle or some vanity thing, and the time value of money. Buying those shiny new AVRs, if you have a frequent case of upgraditis and tend toward the flagship products like a Pioneer SC-89 or a Denon X7200, means that over enough time, you'll spend a good deal of the amount on those incremental new AVRs that you might spend on an eight or ten year lifespan of the Trinnov pre/pro. Disclaimer: I'm about 75% likely to put my money to some degree of where my mouth is, but see me after CEDIA for exactly what that means 

Amazing that only the PS3 and Trinnov have seriously looked at PC-based processing instead of DSPs for a "mainstream" home audio product. You would think that eventually someone would stumble into an HTPC solution that's in-between the hunk of metal AVR world and the Trinnov hi-end model, maybe on a subscription model for updates like Microsoft provides for some of its flavors of Office. Or someone that would also do a hook up with a financing institution as part of selling a processor for the ambitious types who have some, but not all of the cash for a product like the Altitude. Imagine a "Fannie Mae" for AVSers.....the mind reels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> We're all not rich or even in the 5%, but this is exactly why the Trinnov Altitude is such an appealing product. Scalability from 8/16/24/32 channels, and a PC-core based processor allowing for software instead of DSP implementation of codecs, and ala carte codec upgrade packages possibly (e.g. you can get Atmos and Auro one year, and add UHD the next to that bundle). Plus you have the heavily customizable parameters of the Trinnov Optimizer, and a ton of presets and ability to generate configuration-specific target curves. Of course, it's a $20K+ solution, and closer to $40K or more potentially as you creep up toward 32 channels. :eek. OTOH you can build your 24.1.10 speaker model if you're ambitious enough LOL.
> 
> 
> As I said somewhere else, think of what people spend on boats, or a motorcyle or some vanity thing, and the time value of money. Buying those three new AVRs, if you have a frequent case of upgraditis and tend toward the flagship products like a Marantz 8802, means that over enough time, you'll spend a good deal of the amount on those incremental new AVRs that you might spend on an eight or ten year lifespan of the Trinnov pre/pro.
> 
> 
> Amazing that only the PS3 and Trinnov have seriously looked at PC-based processing instead of DSPs. You would think that eventually someone would stumble into an HTPC solution that's in-between the hunk of metal AVR world and the Trinnov hi-end model, maybe on a subscription model for updates like Microsoft provides for some of its flavors of Office. Or someone that would also do a hook up with a financing institution as part of selling a processor for the ambitious types who have some, but not all of the cash for a product like the Altitude. Imagine a "Fannie Mae" for AVSers LOL.


Subscription based like Adobe Premiere and Photoshop, and what MS wants to do with the Windows OS? No thank you! 

However, this traditional receiver and pre-amp nonsense needs to end with the advent of object based surround. The equipment needs to be upgradeable and modular.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Subscription based like Adobe Premiere and Photoshop, and what MS want to do with the Windows OS? No thank you!
> 
> However, this traditional receiver and pre-amp nonsense needs to end with the advent of object based surround. The equipment needs to be upgradeable and modular.


Agreed - but it works in some contexts as long as there's strong support staff and a stream of updates in response to user issues. I'm in marketing research, and most of the software products I use (SAS, SPSS, and those from specialized companies like Sawtooth Software) are on subscription models, and downloadable Internet updates with push notification, these days, are more of a norm than ever. MS Windows isn't the best example, since Windows OS is in the "if it's not broke, why try to fix it" mode. Maybe someone like an Oppo might go for it, if the user is willing to pay for maintenance and/or rent specific options (codecs?) as needed, with an option to buy? Assuming a software-based processing world, though, not hardware as we know it.


----------



## UKTexan

Just received the information below from KEF US regarding the "R50 Atmos speakers"


KEF US:


"Right now the KEF R50 Atmos speakers are pre-official-launch. These match perfectly with our current R series of Floorstanding and bookshelf speakers.
Their US debut will be at the B-to-B CEDIA show in Denver, but they will not be active.
Keep an eye on www.kef.com as the information on these will be posted in the next few weeks.
They will begin shipping to dealers for display and sale in the October time period."


I am looking forward to a demo of these in October


----------



## sdrucker

UKTexan said:


> Just received the information below from KEF US regarding the "R50 Atmos speakers"
> 
> 
> KEF US:
> 
> 
> "Right now the KEF R50 Atmos speakers are pre-official-launch. These match perfectly with our current R series of Floorstanding and bookshelf speakers.
> Their US debut will be at the B-to-B CEDIA show in Denver, but they will not be active.
> Keep an eye on www.kef.com as the information on these will be posted in the next few weeks.
> They will begin shipping to dealers for display and sale in the October time period."
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to a demo of these in October



Oh fun: something ELSE to check out at CEDIA! I hope there's a few more manufacturers planning a rollout of Atmos-capable, top-firing speakers as well. Hello PSB


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Agreed - but it works in some contexts as long as there's strong support staff and a stream of updates in response to user issues. I'm in marketing research, and most of the software products I use (SAS, SPSS, and those from specialized companies like Sawtooth Software) are on subscription models, and downloadable Internet updates with push notification, these days, are more of a norm than ever. MS Windows isn't the best example, since Windows OS is in the "if it's not broke, why try to fix it" mode. Maybe someone like an Oppo might go for it, if the user is willing to pay for maintenance and/or rent specific options (codecs?) as needed, with an option to buy? Assuming a software-based processing world, though, not hardware as we know it.


I don't want to rent codecs either. I would, however, pay a little more if a new audio codec (like DTS-UHD) comes out and my DSP can be flashed to include it. However, A/V codecs don't come out very often, so I wouldn't have to keep paying over and over and over and over and... like some of these "pay all the time or you lose the ability to use our product" types of services that are popping up right and left like greedy weeds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Oh fun: something ELSE to check out at CEDIA! I hope there's a few more manufacturers planning a rollout of Atmos-capable, top-firing speakers as well. Hello PSB


I hope, though, that everyone elses' Atmos related products will be all wired up and allowed to "do their thing." I would rather not have just a bunch of mockups to stare at while I'm at CEDIA.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't want to rent codecs either. I would, however, pay a little more if a new audio codec (like DTS-UHD) comes out and my DSP can be flashed to include it. However, A/V codecs don't come out too often, so I wouldn't have to keep paying over and over and over and over and... like some of these "pay all the time or you lose the ability to use our product" types of services that are popping up right and left like greedy weeds.


 
What I was thinking of was a model where you could "try" a new codec (e.g. Auro or DTS-UHD) for, say, 7 or 14 days, either for free as part of a maintenance package, or for a small fee, enough to try some streamed content or possibly a rented shiny disc or two, and decide if it was for you. If so, you pay for the full version either perpetually (if you really want it) or a specific amount of time (i.e. a longer trial, or if you want to see if a meaningful degree of content comes out). 

The problem IMO with the whole Atmos thing is that you've got to shell out a few thousand bucks + two/four new speakers, and it's going to be useless to you unless a) there's Atmos content you want to buy/stream or b) Dolby Surround provides enough benefit and uses those Atmos speakers to simulate the Atmos effect, which is a huge unknown right now. And it doesn't hurt to have the patience to wait until the stuff you really want to experience in true Atmos hits the market.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> What I was thinking of was a model where you could "try" a new codec (e.g. Auro or DTS-UHD) for, say, 7 or 14 days, either for free as part of a maintenance package, or for a small fee, enough to try some streamed content or possibly a rented shiny disc or two, and decide if it was for you. If so, you pay for the full version either perpetually (if you really want it) or a specific amount of time (i.e. a longer trial, or if you want to see if a meaningful degree of content comes out).
> 
> 
> The problem IMO with the whole Atmos thing is that you've got to shell out a few thousand bucks + two/four new speakers, and it's going to be useless to you unless a) there's Atmos content you want to buy/stream or b) Dolby Surround provides enough benefit and uses those Atmos speakers to simulate the Atmos effect, which is a huge unknown right now. And it doesn't hurt to have the patience to wait until the stuff you really want to experience in true Atmos hits the market.


However, if you want to trial rent a codec... especially something like Atmos... you would still need to buy the extra speakers and install them or you wouldn't be able to try it out anyway. 

And again, I'm not going to pay perpetually to keep my surround processor running.  Companies can just stuff that idea.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, if you want to trial rent a codec... especially something like Atmos... you would still need to buy the extra speakers and install them or you wouldn't be able to try it out anyway.
> 
> And again, I'm not going to pay perpetually to keep my surround processor running.  Companies can just stuff that idea.


 
True - but you can buy a pair of those Onkyo add-ons for $500 at a Best Buy, try Atmos in my hypothetical purchase model, and still be within the return policy. Or if you already have the speakers, you might be able to use one configuration (not optimal, but better than nothing) for a given set of speakers and try it for different codecs, i.e. UHD, Auro, the newish version of Atmos if/when a second generation comes to the consumer A/V market, etc. In that sense it would be no different than using DTS True-HD vs. DD Plus for a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, as long as you have the speakers to support 9/11 channels.

Not as nuts as it sounds if you think about how some of us demo speakers or subs in our home, and still potentially cheaper than the hunk of metal you're buying just to have Atmos. But you need something other than a DSP-based AVR or pre/pro to make it work, or at least more powerful chips than the Japanese manufacturers use. That also helps avoid tradeoffs like the one Onkyo made: dumping Audyssey so they wouldn't have to add another DSP or swap DSPs to include Atmos. Just as stupid as the 32-bit Windows memory limitation to 4 GB RAM being a bottleneck to software app development for many years, in my view, until Microsoft developed stable versions of 64-bit Windows 7. The consumer A/V world needs to step up to the plate and join the proverbial 64-bit processing world.

Well, off of the soapbox and back to the usual discussion hijinks.....


----------



## Zen Traveler

kbarnes701 said:


> Glad you found it useful. Front Heights + Top Middles as an 'approved' combination is also great news for me! ....


If you are talking about having Front Height speakers in the same location I've been using them for PLIIz that is great news for me as well...also if Top Middle means right above our MLP we could be good to go. 

Unfortunately a new Monitor is going to be our first concern and convincing my wife that whatever she remembers about me saying about the Denon AVR-4311ci being the last piece of audio equipment we will need until the warranty runs out hopefully will be forgotten, but my guess is I won't be an early adapter...

Thanks Keith for all of your effort and excitement.


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> I hope, though, that everyone elses' Atmos related products will be all wired up and allowed to "do their thing." I would rather not have just a bunch of mockups to stare at while I'm at CEDIA.


Yes, I will be sorely disappointed if I don't get to hear an actual demo or two at CEDIA. Including, preferably, at least one in a room outside the main floor. Even the sound rooms on the main floor have quite a lot of background noise to deal with.


----------



## Zen Traveler

FilmMixer said:


> You have to tell the AVR you have OH's, not heights... it's my undemanding that the AVR won't decode Atmos without those speakers being present.
> 
> While you can certainly "fool" the AVR into telling it you have OH's, it's not going to be a good gauge to "try it out..." The mixes will "fall apart." ...
> 
> I asked one of my contacts at Dolby about the use of heights and they didn't think it would work well either.
> 
> Why Denon seems to allow this is odd to me.
> 
> Just my .02.


Wait...I gather you are talking about using Heights alone and not in conjunction with a pair of Top Middles, correct?

EDIT: Never mind--I've seen it's already been asked and answered-sorry.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I know it stretches credulity when people say that they actually prefer the Atmos speakers to physical ceiling speakers, but when you get to hear them you will see why they say this. Atmos speakers/modules are no sort of compromise at all really. The differences I hear between them and ceiling speakers are there, but it isn't a question of A is better than B, but rather that A and B are different and I like them both.


Could you tell how the in-ceiling speakers were oriented? Were they straight down as in previous demos, or aimed toward the MLP? If the former, thus far we have not heard of a demo where the ceiling speakers were aimed toward the MLP. Would that not factor in at all?


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby WoW Atmos! | Keith's Post!*

Keith, awesome post :: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
*Dolby Atmos For The Home - A Second 'Ears-On' Experience @ Dolby's London HQ*

____________

* Just for you ::


----------



## chi_guy50

Zen Traveler said:


> Wait...I gather you are talking about using Heights alone and not in conjunction with a pair of Top Middles, correct?
> 
> EDIT: Never mind--I've seen *it's already been asked and answered*-sorry.


Well, not really. I believe FilmMixer said that he remains skeptical regarding the use of heights in any configuration for Atmos rendering. I'd still like to hear more on this subject from him unless it's moot pending an actual demo.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,

BRAVO + merci². 

Amts,

Hugo


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Physical ceiling-mounted speakers do not rely on reflected sound to create the impression that sound is coming from above you. It actually IS coming from above you. Thus there is no need for a 'trick' to convince you that speakers mounted at ear level are really mounted above you.
> 
> The 'trick' is to convince you that speakers at ear level are in fact speakers above you.
> * By using the DSP in the AVR, it overrides/counteracts any sound from those ear-level speakers and prevents it (pyschoacoustically it seems) from reaching your ears (consciously).*
> 
> This isn't needed when the speakers are physically above you.


DSP works in mysterious "good" ways. 

____________

* Bonus video ::










____________

By the way, I'm going full blast Dolby Atmos. ... In 2015


----------



## brwsaw

harrybnbad said:


> Ya, the cost. Or the bank account statement. I could tell her that its her birthday gift next week. But, I dont think she'l quite believe me. You are right about the shoes and purses...



I purchased a VCR for my wife one time. She was very understanding.

It was a good one...last one I purchased.


----------



## NorthSky

harrybnbad said:


> I now wonder as new movies are being filmed, are producers/film crews/sound mixers etc. going to think about the audio a bit more before an during movie production.


They should, because sound is 50% of the total movie experience. ...Spatial Immersion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> They should, because sound is 50% of the total movie experience. ...Spatial Immersion.


It's more like 60%. People are more forgiving of video flaws (depending on the source material or story being conveyed) than substandard audio. 

Studios need to allow more time for sound design work in their production schedules. That's a must.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's more like 60%. People are more forgiving of video flaws (depending on the source material or story being conveyed) than substandard audio.
> .


Mmmm.. Could be. Thought so too. Until we saw the Sony VPL VW500ES projector at work. Not even 4K content, just a Bond movie. It was stunning! It costs €10K, but it's miles ahead of the usual €2-3K bunch.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Markus, please forget my ignorance here but I saw that you already mentioned few times the term *DI*.
> Is it _Digitally Imported_, or is it _Seen & Heard_, or some' else? ...TY





bkeeler10 said:


> Looks like he means Directivity Index, which is a measure of how directional a speaker is. Higher numbers mean narrower dispersion, I believe, but I don't recall how it is computed from actual dispersion angles (which I am more accustomed to dealing with).





markus767 said:


> DI = Directivity index. It's a measure that relates a speaker's output at a specific angle to the overall energy the speaker emits at all angles.
> 
> You can explore the concept at http://gedlee.azurewebsites.net/Application Files/RunPolarMap.aspx
> Red = power response
> Black = DI


♦ When I searched for it (goggle) my two best shots were: - www.di.fm
And: - www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/594758/di



markus767 said:


> I don't follow. You first want to level the playing field before applying any additional processing, i.e. EQ first then apply *HRTF*-processing.







___________

* Bonus video ::






___________

** Beam Chip?






___________
___________

Question: Onkyo with Dolby Atmos & AccuEQ; AccuEQ does not EQ the two main front channel speakers. ...That we know for sure.
*Does it EQ the subwoofer (.1 - LFE/Bass) channel; or not?* 
... It seems to be very vague here; what is the official confirmation, please? THX


----------



## FilmMixer

qwho51 said:


> Article posted August 14,2014....Is this the DTS answer? Nothing posted at DTS website however..!
> http://widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=20166


That's a reprint of the press release from January 2014.. it's not new.

The only articles on WSR this week about Atmos was a link to the Hollywood Reporter story.. other than that there are " headline" stories about Auro and DTS.. hmmm.

Strange as Gary Reber sat across from me at the press Q and A..... wonder why they haven't mentioned it on their site yet but then post a reprint of an 8 month old CES DTS press release... 

I'll be curious if DTS-UHD will be coded into TI's DSP solution, which both Yamaha and Pioneer currently employ. So far we've only heard about Cirrus in their PR..


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, not really. I believe FilmMixer said that he remains skeptical regarding the use of heights in any configuration for Atmos rendering. I'd still like to hear more on this subject from him unless it's moot pending an actual demo.


Not much to say... doesn't make sense to me how this will provide an acceptable overhead sound field.. but until I hear it I won't know.


----------



## harrybnbad

As I have yet to hear any type of atmos, I sure can imagine. And I know its been mentioned. But I hope we get the content. I feel good about it. New theaters being built or modified with it. But waiting is a must for me. I thought ( me no think good sometimes ) neo : x was to be something. When I heard the test track on th expendables 2 disc, I just knew my 4520 avr was going to be the bomb. ( it is a great avr ) Best ive ever had. Hell, better than any anybody I know has. But we know how that fell through. But seeing the theaters are adding this technology. This gives me a little more hope.

Bring it, bring it bad, and bring it loud.....


----------



## SoundChex

FilmMixer said:


> I'll be curious if DTS-UHD will be coded into TI's DSP solution, which both Yamaha and Pioneer currently employ. So far we've only heard about Cirrus in their PR..



Supposedly "continued interest in DTS-UHD" was mentioned during the DTS second quarter fiscal 2014 earnings conference call, Monday, August 11, 2014.

_


----------



## NorthSky

This thread is so much on fire (I'm still reading it; all the posts), that I have to take breaks often.

I'm not done yet, but as I surf along I have to mention this @ this moment.

1. This is so great; we have the choice to install Dolby Atmos speakers or on top of our main channels 
(FL-FR-BSR-BSL), or on our ceiling.
...And without losing any performance whatsoever. 

2. People jumping on the 1st gen Dolby Atmos AVRs & SSPs got the chance to experiment faster. ...Than people waiting.
...But hopefully Dolby Surround Upmixer is/will be fully operative and that it works/will work with all various audio codecs, including DTS-HD MA. :kiss:

3. People waiting for the 2nd gen Dolby Atmos AVRs & SSPs got the chance to get DTS-UHD decoding inside.
...Plus, Blu-ray movies encoded with Dolby Atmos (and DTS-UHD) have a stronger chance to be quality ones, and in fair quantity. :smile:

4. It's nice to have plenty of money and be in love with this hobby. :grin:

5. I can easily see (in a near future) a setup consisting of *11.2.4* (15.2) or *13.4.6* (19.4) arrangement. 
♦ WAF is not an option. ...And more sex is always good for the stamina & equilibrium. ...Sky's the limit.

6. Auro-3D anyone? :wink:


----------



## NorthSky

qwho51 said:


> Article posted August 14,2014....Is this the DTS answer? Nothing posted at DTS website however..!
> 
> *DTS-UHD Comin' Up!*


Now, this is truly what I'm aiming for, in 2015. 

Time to be wise...


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> It's the decades old question how much the listening room acoustics should be part of the presentation. In my mind the recording should be enabled to have full control over the presentation but this requires highly standardized acoustics in production and reproduction.
> *Ceiling-firing Atmos speakers don't follow that thinking*.


...And that sounds like a real good 'think'. ...Room acoustics; ok. ...DSP; ok too. 

* Maybe, just maybe; we finally broke the surround sound hound barrier, @ home, in our own theater rooms.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> If Atmos in *DD+* over streaming services will find fast implementation then I'm not sure if we will speak of DTS-UHD or Auro 3D anymore at all.


No good; highly compressed audio (lossy @ 640kbps). ...Anything less than multich hi-res audio won't do. 
*Blu* or go home.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if it's anything like the audio streaming quality of Netflix, then my excitement will be quite tempered. They tend to further compress the sound beyond what the studios give them as downloadable files (not just the video).
> 
> We need a disc based approach as a *primary* means of delivering a premium experience. That goes for UHD as well.


♦ I fully agree with you Dan. ...Blu-ray is the only true picture/sound medium.



sdrucker said:


> We're all not rich or even in the 5%, but this is exactly why the Trinnov Altitude is such an appealing product. Scalability from 8/16/24/32 channels, and a PC-core based processor allowing for software instead of DSP implementation of codecs, and ala carte codec upgrade packages possibly (e.g. you can get Atmos and Auro one year, and add UHD the next to that bundle). Plus you have the heavily customizable parameters of the Trinnov Optimizer, and a ton of presets and ability to generate configuration-specific target curves. Of course, it's a $20K+ solution, and closer to $40K or more potentially as you creep up toward 32 channels! OTOH you can build your 24.1.10 speaker model if you're ambitious enough LOL.
> 
> As I said somewhere else, think of what people spend on boats, or a motorcyle or some vanity thing, and the time value of money. Buying those shiny new AVRs, if you have a frequent case of upgraditis and tend toward the flagship products like a Pioneer SC-89 or a Denon X7200, means that over enough time, you'll spend a good deal of the amount on those incremental new AVRs that you might spend on an eight or ten year lifespan of the Trinnov pre/pro. Disclaimer: I'm about 75% likely to put my money to some degree of where my mouth is, but see me after CEDIA for exactly what that means
> 
> Amazing that only the PS3 and Trinnov have seriously looked at PC-based processing instead of DSPs for a "mainstream" home audio product. You would think that eventually someone would stumble into an HTPC solution that's in-between the hunk of metal AVR world and the Trinnov hi-end model, maybe on a subscription model for updates like Microsoft provides for some of its flavors of Office. Or someone that would also do a hook up with a financing institution as part of selling a processor for the ambitious types who have some, but not all of the cash for a product like the Altitude. Imagine a "Fannie Mae" for AVSers.....the mind reels.


♦ Or JBL Synthesis? ...JBL Synchros Reflect?


----------



## wse

sdrucker said:


> .... The consumer A/V world needs to step up to the plate and join the proverbial 64-bit processing world.


Classe use 64 bit chips


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> Oh fun: something ELSE to check out at *CEDIA*! I hope there's a few more manufacturers planning a rollout of *Atmos-capable, top-firing speakers as well. Hello PSB*


...And Paradigm. ...And Mirage. ...And ...


----------



## wse

SoundChex said:


> Supposedly "continued interest in DTS-UHD" was mentioned during the DTS second quarter fiscal 2014 earnings conference call, Monday, August 11, 2014._


So then why no AVR with DTS-UHD!!!


----------



## Ethan Ong

http://www.whathifi.com/news/dolby-...rticle_1_read_more&utm_source=August 15, 2014

The demo: how does Atmos sound?

Dolby ushered us into a modest living room-sized demo room, where a 7.1 system with Dolby Atmos-enabled KEF speaker modules and in-ceiling speakers were waiting for us.

We were shown the same clips as in the cinema room - Pixar's Brave trailer, the intro chase scene from Star Trek: Into Darkness, a clip of Red Bull racers Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber driving their F1 cars in a tunnel, and a couple of bespoke Atmos trailers. We weren't told at first if the clips were being played via the in-ceilings or the KEF modules (it was the modules all along), but the effect was fantastic.

We weren't expecting the huge scale you get in an Atmos cinema, but the sounds whizzing all around you, and the sense of immersion - it's all there. The upward-firing modules do a great job at making us believe that sound is coming right from above us, while integration across all speakers is seamless.

The tension and energy of Kirk and Bones running through the jungle is palpable and arrows seem to fly right at us and whizz past in a hugely exciting manner.

But it's the quieter, subtler moments - such as a sycamore seed being gently buffeted around by a breeze in the Brave trailer - that really impressed us. It feels tangible; you can hear the rustling of leaves and wind going around you, not just around the edges of the room.

Switching between in-ceilings and the modules was interesting. Admittedly, the in-ceilings do give a stronger impression of overhead sound, but the upward-firing modules perform almost as admirably. 






KEF module sitting atop a KEF R700 front speaker

For those curious, here's a complete list of the products used in the Atmos home demo:

The 7.1 system consisted of seven KEF R700 speakers for the front, centre, surround, and rear channels, with two B&W CT SW15 subwoofers for the LFE channel (powered by a B&W SA1000 sub amp).

Two Onkyo PA-MC5501 amplifiers were used, one for powering the seven surround speakers, the other for powering the in-ceiling and Atmos-enabled speaker modules from KEF.

The source was a bespoke Dolby-produced Atmos software renderer running on a Windows laptop (for logistical reasons of switching between demo clips, speaker configurations and showing us the renderer interface).

Clips were shown on a 51in Samsung PS51D6900 TV; yes, our screen was a three-year old plasma telly with no hint of 4K Ultra HD, but we hardly noticed that it wasn't a giant 4K screen, as the Atmos soundtrack was captivating and entertaining.


Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/news/dolby-atmos-bringing-it-home#eZjMELKgts68pr94.99


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> Agreed - but it works in some contexts as long as there's strong support staff and a stream of updates in response to user issues. I'm in marketing research, and most of the software products I use (SAS, SPSS, and those from specialized companies like Sawtooth Software) are on subscription models, and downloadable Internet updates with push notification, these days, are more of a norm than ever. MS Windows isn't the best example, since Windows OS is in the "if it's not broke, why try to fix it" mode. Maybe someone like an Oppo might go for it, if the user is willing to pay for maintenance and/or rent specific options (codecs?) as needed, with an option to buy? Assuming a software-based processing world, though, not hardware as we know it.





sdrucker said:


> What I was thinking of was a model where you could "try" a new codec (e.g. Auro or DTS-UHD) for, say, 7 or 14 days, either for free as part of a maintenance package, or for a small fee, enough to try some streamed content or possibly a rented shiny disc or two, and decide if it was for you. If so, you pay for the full version either perpetually (if you really want it) or a specific amount of time (i.e. a longer trial, or if you want to see if a meaningful degree of content comes out).
> 
> The problem IMO with the whole Atmos thing is that you've got to shell out a few thousand bucks + two/four new speakers, and it's going to be useless to you unless a) there's Atmos content you want to buy/stream or b) Dolby Surround provides enough benefit and uses those Atmos speakers to simulate the Atmos effect, which is a huge unknown right now. And it doesn't hurt to have the patience to wait until the stuff you really want to experience in true Atmos hits the market.





sdrucker said:


> True - but you can buy a pair of those Onkyo add-ons for $500 at a Best Buy, try Atmos in my hypothetical purchase model, and still be within the return policy. Or if you already have the speakers, you might be able to use one configuration (not optimal, but better than nothing) for a given set of speakers and try it for different codecs, i.e. UHD, Auro, the newish version of Atmos if/when a second generation comes to the consumer A/V market, etc. In that sense it would be no different than using DTS True-HD vs. DD Plus for a 5.1 or 7.1 setup, as long as you have the speakers to support 9/11 channels.
> 
> Not as nuts as it sounds if you think about how some of us demo speakers or subs in our home, and still potentially cheaper than the hunk of metal you're buying just to have Atmos. But you need something other than a DSP-based AVR or pre/pro to make it work, or at least more powerful chips than the Japanese manufacturers use. That also helps avoid tradeoffs like the one Onkyo made: dumping Audyssey so they wouldn't have to add another DSP or swap DSPs to include Atmos. Just as stupid as the 32-bit Windows memory limitation to 4 GB RAM being a bottleneck to software app development for many years, in my view, until Microsoft developed stable versions of 64-bit Windows 7. The consumer A/V world needs to step up to the plate and join the proverbial 64-bit processing world.
> 
> Well, off of the soapbox and back to the usual discussion hijinks.....


♦ Stuart, you got some great points, and ideas. ...Very interesting to read your posts.


----------



## Tnedator

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I missed the part where you wrote "back row" first, sorry.
> 
> In that case it is very similar to mine, I also have a 11' screen ready (Seymour AV). I will be planning 6 overheads, but start with 4, as that is all what's possible with a Marantz AV7702.
> 
> You wrote that your ceilings are 10' heigh. I would suggest putting your rear overheads 7' behind MLP, which would be a vertical elevation of 45° (side view) if your ear height is 3'...
> 
> Depending on the choice for 4 or 6 total overheads, with 4 I would put the fronts 7' before MLP, also a 45° elevation viewed from the side.
> 
> With 6 total, I would put the front overheads 10' before MLP (or 2.5' from the screen). And the middle overheads... in the middle of the others, which would be 1.5' for MLP.
> 
> There!!


Thanks for the info. Based on what I've seen so far, I think I'll go with three pairs of overheads, but will see if anything more is released at CEDIA before deciding.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's more like 60%. People are more forgiving of video flaws (depending on the source material or story being conveyed) than substandard audio.
> 
> Studios need to allow more time for sound design work in their production schedules. That's a must.


Totally agree look at gravity incredible sound and video but the movie was horrible


----------



## NorthSky

*DTS-UHD Old Press Release!*



FilmMixer said:


> *That's a reprint of the press release from January 2014*.. it's not new.


♦ Oh that's what it was!



> ... hmmm. Dolby Atmos
> 
> *Strange as Gary Reber sat across from me at the press Q and A..... wonder why they haven't mentioned it on their site yet but then post a reprint of an 8 month old CES DTS press release...*


♦ Vary strange/awkward indeed.
...Why would he do something like that; to resurrect attention of old news from eight months ago?
Beats me!


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> So then why no AVR with DTS-UHD!!!


dts is always roughly a year behind Dolby. It's a routine pattern. It'll come, in 2015. I'll be right there too.

* They wait for software to appear first; smart move.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Totally agree look at gravity incredible sound and video but the movie was horrible


Sound is great, picture is great. ...The rest is up to each individual. 
...For me; I enjoyed the experience @ IMAX 3D, and @ home too on Blu, and in 3D as well.
The movie itself; it was alright. ...Not the greatest, and not as horrible as *'The Hunger Games 1 & 2'*.
...Actually *'Gravity'* was much much better than *'The Hunger Games'*.
..Movie itself/alone/story wise.

Movies are like wines ... or strippers ...


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Strange as Gary Reber sat across from me at the press Q and A..... wonder why they haven't mentioned it on their site yet but then post a reprint of an 8 month old CES DTS press release...


During it's heyday, Widescreen Review whipped readers into a frenzy, creating something for DTS that no lossy compression codec had before or since: a fan following. Yup, for a lossy compression codec. Reber even petitioned the FCC to get DTS on HDTV broadcasts.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> No good; highly compressed audio (lossy @ 640kbps). ...Anything less than multich hi-res audio won't do.
> *Blu* or go home.


You're talking about Dolby Digital but streaming Atmos will be encoded in Dolby Digital *Plus*


----------



## westmd

What I find quite odd about the Denon diagram is the height level of the side surrounds. From my knowledge they should be quite high in the room. (I have a Jamo THX setup and they suggest min. 2 meters). Question is now if Denon always suggested to bring side surrounds at ear level or if this an "Atmos effect" as airspace now belongs to the ceiling/Atmos speakers?


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


>


Here again the diagram!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if it's anything like the audio streaming quality of Netflix, then my excitement will be quite tempered. They tend to further compress the sound beyond what the studios give them as downloadable files (not just the video).
> 
> We need a disc based approach as a *primary* means of delivering a premium experience. That goes for UHD as well.


Couldn't agree more. All my movie content is on shiny disc and is likely to be that way until the day comes when I can stream the exact same quality. But that's me...


----------



## kbarnes701

Zen Traveler said:


> If you are talking about having Front Height speakers in the same location I've been using them for PLIIz that is great news for me as well...also if Top Middle means right above our MLP we could be good to go.


If your existing Front Heights fall within the angle range of 30-45 degrees, then you can leave them where they are, and add another pair of top speakers and you are good to go. That other pair could be Top Middle, and the range for TM is 65-100 degrees, so do a quick diagram of your room and see where they fall in relation to your seating position.



Zen Traveler said:


> Thanks Keith for all of your effort and excitement.


Kind of you to say so - thanks.


----------



## luca_frontino

Anybody care to speculate if these upcoming Atmos soundtracks will retain the original volume level when played on a non-Atmos 7 ch AVR or will there be attenuation, like when 7.1 tracks get lowered by 3dB on 5 ch AVRs?


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Could you tell how the in-ceiling speakers were oriented? Were they straight down as in previous demos, or aimed toward the MLP? If the former, thus far we have not heard of a demo where the ceiling speakers were aimed toward the MLP. Would that not factor in at all?


They were pointing directly down, Roger. They also looked, as far as I could tell from a quick glance when the AT cover was briefly pulled back, as if they were conventional designs and not dual concentrics. I am expecting, as you are, that DC designs, with a wide, 90 degree all-round dispersion, oriented towards the MLP, will make a good difference and perhaps close the gap between the spaciousness of the Atmos speakers and the in-ceiling speakers I heard at both my demos. Then we will have the best of both worlds - the terrific spaciousness which the Atmos speakers create, plus the extra precision which the ceiling speakers create.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, not really. I believe FilmMixer said that he remains skeptical regarding the use of heights in any configuration for Atmos rendering. I'd still like to hear more on this subject from him unless it's moot pending an actual demo.


I believe he was referring to Heights mounted in the conventional 'height position' (ie top of the front or rear wall). You can of course mount a speaker on the ceiling and designate it as Front Height or Top Front thanks to the angle overlap: 30-45 vs 30-55 respectively. 

Denon and Dolby say that their posted combinations will work well, even when FH speakers are used in the regular FH position, which is closer to the 30 degrees than anything else. Personally, I feel that the speakers should all be on the ceiling for the best result, even if one pair is designated in the AVR as Front Height, and I suspect that is what Marc meant. No doubt he will confirm or otherwise in due course.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> BRAVO + merci².
> 
> Amts,
> 
> Hugo


Merci bien, Hugo. Rien du tout!

And thanks for the nice mention on the French AV site too!


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> What I find quite odd about the Denon diagram is the height level of the side surrounds. From my knowledge they should be quite high in the room. (I have a Jamo THX setup and they suggest min. 2 meters). Question is now if Denon always suggested to bring side surrounds at ear level or if this an "Atmos effect" as airspace now belongs to the ceiling/Atmos speakers?


At both demos I have attended the surrounds were all at ear height. The reason, I believe, is to create the maximum separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers (or just the ceiling in the case of Atmos speakers). The requisite phantom imagine between 'sets' of speakers won’t work well if some of the speakers are very close to some of the others - eg if the surrounds and the Top Rears are only separated by a couple of feet.

I am lowering my own surrounds for this reason. Incidentally, if more than one listener has to be considered it may be worth lowering the surrounds but still ensuring that they fire over the heads of the listeners, to prevent a listener on the left from having the surround speaker 'blocked' by the listener to the right, and vice-versa.


----------



## Kwikas

I think this might have been covered earlier in the thread but I can't locate it. 

Can someone tell me.....what happens if you put 5 screen speakers up front? I believe atmos does/can allow for this.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> I think this might have been covered earlier in the thread but I can't locate it.
> 
> Can someone tell me.....what happens if you put 5 screen speakers up front? I believe atmos does/can allow for this.


In the cinema but not, AFAIK, at home. At home, typical screen widths would make it less useful than in a cinema where the screens are so much wider.

Dolby may have allowed for it in the home Atmos spec, but the real question is whether any AVR manufacturers will enable it as an option. So far, none of the mainstream manufacturers has.


----------



## ss9001

luca_frontino said:


> Anybody care to speculate if these upcoming Atmos soundtracks will retain the original volume level when played on a non-Atmos 7 ch AVR or will there be attenuation, like when 7.1 tracks get lowered by 3dB on 5 ch AVRs?


since the Atmos objects are metadata and contained in the existing TrueHD /DD+ track, I would expect no change. non-Atmos AVR's will ignore the metadata & just process the TrueHD track as they normally would. that's my interpretation.

remember, part of Atmo is still the 7.1 conventional channels anyway.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

westmd said:


> What I find quite odd about the Denon diagram is the height level of the side surrounds. From my knowledge they should be quite high in the room. (I have a Jamo THX setup and they suggest min. 2 meters). Question is now if Denon always suggested to bring side surrounds at ear level or if this an "Atmos effect" as airspace now belongs to the ceiling/Atmos speakers?


The reason for the recommended 6' height was that this height allowed for a more immersive soundfield within the limitation of only one available surround height. Now there are two heights, this no longer holds value.

As Keith wrote, the effect will be less if the side Surounds and Overheads are very close to each other. 

Think of it as a hemisphere where you try to spread out the speakers as even as possible, but within the guidelines of Atmos and the way it's implemented into the hardware at this point. Meaning you cannot put speakers anywhere it suits you, since the positions are preset into the hardware. It may come, though, if the processor can figure out where you have put the speakers via triangulation from multiple microphone points in the room.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> Totally agree look at gravity incredible sound and video but the movie was horrible


It received a 97% rating among viewers and all of those awards so you must have been in the 3% that didn't like it.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

tjenkins95 said:


> It received a 97% rating among viewers and all of those awards so you must have been in the 3% that didn't like it.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/overrated-movies_n_5481916.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


----------



## Nightlord

tjenkins95 said:


> It received a 97% rating among viewers and all of those awards so you must have been in the 3% that didn't like it.


Well, I doubt avs constitutes as much as 3% of the population, so there you have it. 

Haven't seen it yet, but since that guy also dislikes matrix and avatar, I would not grant him a second more of attention for the remainder of my life..


----------



## tjenkins95

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/overrated-movies_n_5481916.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


 

That's only one person's opinion and obviously another member of the 3%.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

kbarnes701 said:


> With regard to hardware, I asked Stephen and JJ some questions about the way Atmos is being implemented in current AVRs from the mainstream manufacturers such as Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha and Pioneer.
> 
> JJ went into some detail to answer my question concerning the angles that the rendering engine will render to and how current units handle this. *JJ confirmed that Dolby are giving full capability to the AVR manufacturers to be able to use full speaker positional information. It is entirely up to the manufacturer to implement this or not*, either by allowing the user to enter details manually or allowing the AVR to handle it through the measuring process which is part of the setup routine. Currently, as we know, none of the mainstream manufacturers is giving us this capability in their first generation Atmos units.



I'm beginning to think Yamaha might surpise us with the RX-A3040, because why else would they have just modified their angle meaasuring device? They've measured angles for years but only using 3 mic positions, and now they added a 4 position out of the plane so they can measure everything needed by Atmos. So for sure they will be measuring actual speaker angles, and if the rendering engine can use this information it's trivial for them to make use of it.

Also adding Atmos support in a later FW update means they can keep their powder dry and spring this as a surprise after everyone else is committed to fixed angles.


----------



## Nightlord

kriktsemaj99 said:


> I'm beginning to think Yamaha might surprise us with the RX-A3040, because why else would they have just modified their angle meaasuring device? They've measured angles for years but only using 3 mic positions, and now they added a 4 position out of the plane so they can measure everything needed by Atmos. So for sure they will be measuring actual speaker angles, and if the rendering engine can use this information it's trivial for them to make use of it.


Very interesting. Yamaha has never been in the game for me before, but perhaps they just got into it.


----------



## westmd

So how do I use this Denon sheet exactly? I calculated that if I would go for installing front heights at between 45 and 30 degrees to the main listening position I would have a distance between 170 and 207 cm as distance between main listening position and ceiling is around 120 cm. Now my main speakers are at about 400 cm distance to the listening position. That means I would have to install the front heights somewhere in the middle between main listening position and main speakers. Are these tboughts correct?
BTW I found a really nice tool to calculate distances from the angles. It is in german but I think self explanatory:

http://www.arndt-bruenner.de/mathe/scripts/dreiecksberechnungrw.htm


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> It received a 97% rating among viewers and all of those awards so you must have been in the 3% that didn't like it.


I loved everything about it. I found it to be one of the most involving, immersive movie experiences of the year. I was on the edge of my seat half of the running time. The incredible sound and visuals perfectly complemented the story IMO. And to hear it in Atmos... well....


----------



## kbarnes701

kriktsemaj99 said:


> I'm beginning to think Yamaha might surpise us with the RX-A3040, because why else would they have just modified their angle meaasuring device? They've measured angles for years but only using 3 mic positions, and now they added a 4 position out of the plane so they can measure everything needed by Atmos. So for sure they will be measuring actual speaker angles, and if the rendering engine can use this information it's trivial for them to make use of it.
> 
> Also adding Atmos support in a later FW update means they can keep their powder dry and spring this as a surprise after everyone else is committed to fixed angles.


I do hope you are right. It would be great to see at least one of the mainstream manufacturers using the features Dolby have provided.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Very interesting. Yamaha has never been in the game for me before, but perhaps they just got into it.


I've been a longtime fan of Yamaha going back decades. My very first 'proper' stereo amplifier was a Yamaha, decades ago. I sold it to a friend in the late '70s and, amazingly, he still uses it to this very day. How's that for build quality?

I only moved away from Yamaha with the advent of AV units because I attach so much importance to Audyssey's XT32 in my system. I am sure that if Yamaha had XT32, it would be my go-to brand. I am not all that familiar with the latest version of YPAO but I understand that it is much improved over earlier incarnations. Add that to the ability to measure speaker locations (if this comes off) and Yamaha might just be coming back on to the radar of a lot of people.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. Yes, so long as you are within the required angle specification (30-45 degrees for Front Height) then you can use them in any combination allowed by your AVR. The permitted combinations which Denon are offering are:
> 
> Front Height + Top Middle
> Front Height + Top Rear
> Front Height + Rear Height
> Top Front + Top Rear (default)
> Top Front + Rear Height
> Top Middle + Rear Height
> 
> Dolby have now confirmed, and even praised Denon for the fact, that those combinations will all work well.


So that means Dolby Atmos would be possible with neither ceiling speakers nor Dolby Atmos enabled speakers just by using front and rear heights at an angle firing about straight into your direction. This could solve my "low ceiling dilemma" as ceiling height should not matter that much! I wonder how this will sound!

And if the next gen of processor come out and support more channels I buy 4 Dolby Atmos enabled speakers additionally!


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> It received a 97% rating among viewers and all of those awards so you must have been in the 3% that didn't like it.


For me too Hollywood Sandra Bullock almost dies, I don't know how many times to miraculously make it then get to that Chinese space station and reenter the atmosphere..
Remember she was tumbling in space out of control screaming and flailing she should have died then.
The sound and video were amazing and that's what got me through it but the content was just too unbelievable..


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> So how do I use this Denon sheet exactly? I calculated that if I would go for installing front heights at between 45 and 30 degrees to the main listening position I would have a distance between 170 and 207 cm as distance between main listening position and ceiling is around 120 cm. Now my main speakers are at about 400 cm distance to the listening position. That means I would have to install the front heights somewhere in the middle between main listening position and main speakers. Are these tboughts correct?
> BTW I found a really nice tool to calculate distances from the angles.


Yes, you are correct. In my room, using a 42 degree angle from the MLP, the Top Front or Front Height speakers on the ceiling fall in between the MLP and the front wall, which is perfect.

I just drew a scale rectangle on a piece of paper, using the scale 1mm = 2cm, to represent the room, measured where my ears are in the room and marked them on the diagram and then used my schoolboy protractor to draw a line at the relevant angle until it intersected the ceiling. Easy then to measure the distance from that point to the front wall - and bingo - you have your speaker position. If it isn't quite where you want it, then repeat using any angle in the permitted range for the speaker pair you are concerned with and you are good to go. Then repeat the whole process for the Top rear or Top Middle etc...


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> I've been a longtime fan of Yamaha going back decades. My very first 'proper' stereo amplifier was a Yamaha, decades ago. I sold it to a friend in the late '70s and, amazingly, he still uses it to this very day. How's that for build quality?
> 
> I only moved away from Yamaha with the advent of AV units because I attach so much importance to Audyssey's XT32 in my system. I am sure that if Yamaha had XT32, it would be my go-to brand. I am not all that familiar with the latest version of YPAO but I understand that it is much improved over earlier incarnations. Add that to the ability to measure speaker locations (if this comes off) and Yamaha might just be coming back on to the radar of a lot of people.


My first Dolby surround unit was also from Yamaha in the early nineties. Then I moved to Lexicon but they have just become too slow so I am looking into Yamaha again. I am going to the IFA in Berlin in three weeks where Yamaha apperently will announce /demonstrate a CX A5000 sucessor which will have Dolby Atmos!


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> So that means Dolby Atmos would be possible with neither ceiling speakers nor Dolby Atmos enabled speakers just by using front and rear heights at an angle firing about straight into your direction. This could solve my "low ceiling dilemma" as ceiling height should not matter that much! I wonder how this will sound!
> 
> And if the next gen of processor come out and support more channels I buy 4 Dolby Atmos enabled speakers additionally!


In Denons at least, and supported by Dolby for Atmos, you can use Front Height and Rear Height speakers so long as they comply with the angles to the listening ears which are laid down in the specs (see the oft-posted diagram). 

Both FilmMixer and myself have recently commented that this configuration might not be as effective as overhead speakers, but neither of us has currently heard such a configuration so we could be surprised. And Dolby specifically support that configuration so it must be, at the very least, a reasonable way to go or, presumably, it would not be a supported configuration. In my reply to this specific question (see my report) Stephen from Dolby said that while they (Dolby) are recommending a 'standard' configuration (using Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear in 5/7.1.2 or 5/7.1.4 configurations) they also allow for the full Atmos experience with other configurations and indeed he commended Denon for making these other configurations available.

In your case, with your room, the configuration you are considering might be less than ideal, but still much better than no Atmos at all. I wish you well with it and would love to read a report of how it sounds if you do go that way.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I've been a longtime fan of Yamaha going back decades.


Me too - for synthesizers....  

I guess they have had too many syntheics hall/concert modes for meto pay attention


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> So that means Dolby Atmos would be possible with neither ceiling speakers nor Dolby Atmos enabled speakers just by using front and rear heights at an angle firing about straight into your direction.


Just don't be surprised when speakers in front of you and behind you don't sound like they're above you.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> For me too Hollywood Sandra Bullock almost dies, I don't know how many times to miraculously make it then get to that Chinese space station and reenter the atmosphere..
> Remember she was tumbling in space out of control screaming and flailing she should have died then.
> The sound and video were amazing and that's what got me through it but the content was just too unbelievable..


'Believability' isn't a requirement for my enjoyment of a movie. How else would I enjoy Marvel Comic Universe movies, for example, or The Hobbit and thousands of others where a suspension of disbelief is not just desired but mandated? Suspension of disbelief requires that you accept that she did NOT die (in the movie) when hurtling through space, just as you accept in Superman that a man can fly. It is absolutely 'unbelievable' that a man can fly but we suspend that disbelief to allow ourselves to be entertained. Similarly, in, for example, Skyfall, it is 'unbelievable' that an MI6 agent and a foreign agent can engage in hand to hand combat on a moving train in the way they do, but we can still enjoy that part of the movie immensely thanks to this ability to suspend disbelief when watching a play or a movie.


----------



## bargervais

I have had yamaha and denon for years then I tried onkyo I love my TX-NR 818 has been a workhorse I have it hooked up to 11 speakers and two subs the 818 can only do 9.2 I use a amp to drive my wides I rarely use my back speakers mostly use just the 9 speakers from the front highs to the surrounds.
I just replaced my TX-NR 616 in the den with a TX-NR 737 and once the atmos firmware update comes out hopefully next month. I'll have it run 5.2.2 with ceiling speakers top middle. I got the 737 at a good price and I was very curious about Accu-EQ I just don't believe how it's that horrible it's made out to be, I've always loved Audyssey XT32. But I wanted just too see what Accu-EQ was all about I won't bad mouth it till I have first hand use of it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Me too - for synthesizers....
> 
> I guess they have had too many syntheics hall/concert modes for meto pay attention


But you don't have to use them. I'd say more than half the features on my Onkyo 5509 have never been used (by me).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Just don't be surprised when speakers in front of you and behind you don't sound like they're above you.


Yes, it's a stretch to imagine that they would isn’t it? But not as big a stretch, perhaps, as speakers which fire at the ceiling and reflect sound of it will sound as good (better than?) as speakers physically mounted above you.  It's a Dolby-supported configuration so it must work in at least some capacity with Atmos. Maybe better than no Atmos at all? I’d love to see the OP try it and report back.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I was very curious about Accu-EQ I just don't believe how it's that horrible.


I shall look forward to you report on that! In the comparative test I saw somewhere, AccuEQ didn't actually seem to do anything worthwhile at all (based on measurements).


----------



## westmd

sdurani said:


> Just don't be surprised when speakers in front of you and behind you don't sound like they're above you.


I can test that out easily! As top front and topheight have an overlapping angle (same for top rear and rear height) I can aim tbem a) at the listener, b) directly to the ground and (a) and b) from the same position) c) get myself four Atmos enabled speakers and compare these three setups I should find the best for my room with an overseeable workload.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I loved everything about it. I found it to be one of the most involving, immersive movie experiences of the year. I was on the edge of my seat half of the running time. The incredible sound and visuals perfectly complemented the story IMO. And to hear it in Atmos... well....


 
I totally agree!
The first time I saw it in the theater, there were only 6 people in this huge theater. When the movie started, about 30 minutes into it, I realized that I hadn't moved once. I was mesmerized by the cinematography and the sound track. The second time I saw it, I was able to look around the screen, checking out the details. As far as the plot, it's just a story. Anyway, back to the topic on hand, I just installed the new Pioneer Elite Dolby ATMOS speakers designed by Andrew Jones in my home theater and connected the speakers to the new Denon AVR-X5200W. After watching Matrix and Avatar in Dolby ATMOS I am really impressed. Looking forward to some of the new releases of other blockbuster movies. Fade to black - just kidding. Hopefully in a few months after the announcements in Denver.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> You're talking about Dolby Digital but streaming Atmos will be encoded in Dolby Digital *Plus*


That hasn't stopped certain popular streaming services from further compressing the Dolby Digital Plus audio data, just like they further compress the video files given to them by the studios.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> In the cinema but not, AFAIK, at home. At home, typical screen widths would make it less useful than in a cinema where the screens are so much wider.
> 
> Dolby may have allowed for it in the home Atmos spec, but the real question is whether any AVR manufacturers will enable it as an option. So far, none of the mainstream manufacturers has.


If you look carefully at the Trinnov speaker layout on their website, they show a diagram with five screen speakers (I think that's why they have 32 outputs rather than the maximum of 34). The diagram that Dolby shows in their white paper actually shows seven are supported. That's way overkill for most home theater screen installations... that's even too much for many cinema screens.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> It received a 97% rating among viewers and all of those awards so you must have been in the 3% that didn't like it.


I didn't like it. Great sound, poor script.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> I've been a longtime fan of Yamaha going back decades. My very first 'proper' stereo amplifier was a Yamaha, decades ago. I sold it to a friend in the late '70s and, amazingly, he still uses it to this very day. How's that for build quality?
> 
> I only moved away from Yamaha with the advent of AV units because I attach so much importance to Audyssey's XT32 in my system. I am sure that if Yamaha had XT32, it would be my go-to brand. I am not all that familiar with the latest version of YPAO but I understand that it is much improved over earlier incarnations. Add that to the ability to measure speaker locations (if this comes off) and Yamaha might just be coming back on to the radar of a lot of people.


Can Yamaha do wide like DTS NEOX?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, it's a stretch to imagine that they would isn’t it? But not as big a stretch, perhaps, as speakers which fire at the ceiling and reflect sound of it will sound as good (better than?) as speakers physically mounted above you.


Sure, maybe Dolby has a similar feature they haven't revealed yet that can turn a tall soundstage into overhead imaging. That would be as nice a surprise as their upward firing speakers.


kbarnes701 said:


> It's a Dolby-supported configuration so it must work in at least some capacity with Atmos. Maybe better than no Atmos at all?


Better than no Atmos at all, but I can't pretend that a tall soundstage sounds like overhead imaging. Folks will have to decide for themselves which of the two comes closer to the intent of Atmos.


----------



## wse

westmd said:


> My first Dolby surround unit was also from Yamaha in the early nineties. Then I moved to Lexicon but they have just become too slow so I am looking into Yamaha again. I am going to the IFA in Berlin in three weeks where Yamaha apperently will announce /demonstrate a CX A5000 sucessor which will have Dolby Atmos!


Interesting really taht would be good hopefully they will have DTS NEOX as well!


----------



## alfa1

Based on some of the glowing reviews from those that have actually experienced it, I am very excited at the prospect of upgrading my home theatre to atmos. I currently have def tech bp7006's (front L/R) and 8040 hd (center channel) about 9 feet in front of my listening position, and 2 def tech in-ceiling speakers (for R/L rear surrounds) about 6 feet behind my listening position. I was thinking the most economical way to get a 5.1.4 system would be to move my bp7006's behind the listening position (as rear surrounds), use my existing ceiling speakers as dolby rear top speakers, and buy def tech 8060st's, with the soon to be released up-firing atmos modules for front L/R. Would 6 feet behind the listening position be too far for rear top ceiling speakers, or is there another reason this wouldn't work well?


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> I can test that out easily! As top front and topheight have an overlapping angle (same for top rear and rear height) I can aim tbem a) at the listener, b) directly to the ground and (a) and b) from the same position) c) get myself four Atmos enabled speakers and compare these three setups I should find the best for my room with an overseeable workload.


I was talking about the difference between speakers mounted high up on the front wall (around 30 degrees elevation) vs speakers mounted above you (closer to 55 degrees elevation). I don't think you can simulate that difference by aiming speakers.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

westmd said:


> So how do I use this Denon sheet exactly? I calculated that if I would go for installing front heights at between 45 and 30 degrees to the main listening position I would have a distance between 170 and 207 cm as distance between main listening position and ceiling is around 120 cm. Now my main speakers are at about 400 cm distance to the listening position. That means I would have to install the front heights somewhere in the middle between main listening position and main speakers. Are these tboughts correct?
> BTW I found a really nice tool to calculate distances from the angles. It is in german but I think self explanatory:
> 
> http://www.arndt-bruenner.de/mathe/scripts/dreiecksberechnungrw.htm


The math to know distances for rectangular triangles is very simple if your calculator has a function for roots and square.

Edit: tried the calculator: it works like a treat, thanks!


----------



## IgorZep

ss9001 said:


> remember, part of Atmo is still the 7.1 conventional channels anyway.


The beds (that are 7.1 part of Atmos) are not conventional channels. Those are 'envelopment' channels, i.e. the conventional 7.1 minus the content that is in 'objects'. So, you cannot just play them as 'legacy' channels. They have to have the legacy 7.1 for backward compatibility plus (separately) 7.1 beds for 'object' based audio.


----------



## SubSolar

westmd said:


> Here again the diagram!


I'm a little confused on where to place my in-ceilings. I'm planning on putting two top front speakers and two top rear speakers. One diagram says to put the fronts 30-55 degrees from MLP, another source says 1/3rd from the front speakers to MLP. I'm in a pretty long room so there's a difference. Also should the top front and top rear speakers be equally distanced from the MLP?

My room is 14' Wide x 24' Long x 9' Tall. MLP is 17' in, front Left Center Right are 2' from front wall so 15' from MLP. The side surrounds will be mounted on the side walls but because the kitchen is behind the room I must use in-ceilings for rear surrounds too, 7' from the MLP. Because both the top rears and rear surrounds will be in ceilings I want to put as much distance between them as possible so was planning on the top rears 3' in back of MLP. I was also going to put the top fronts 3' from MLP but wondering if I should put them farther forward, it won't be the same distance as top rears from MLP obviously.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

IgorZep said:


> The beds (that are 7.1 part of Atmos) are not conventional channels. Those are 'envelopment' channels, i.e. the conventional 7.1 minus the content that is in 'objects'. So, you cannot just play them as 'legacy' channels. They have to have the legacy 7.1 for backward compatibility plus (separately) 7.1 beds for 'object' based audio.


Actually, that's not what Dolby has proposed. The 7.1 "core" contains the entire soundtrack for backwards compatibility. It's not the "official" 7.1 track that has been reorganized specifically for cinema 7.1, but some say it's "better" since it's optimized for Atmos. 

When you run the track through an Atmos processor object sounds are "deleted" from the 7.1 core mix and the substream containing the object data is layered into the newly constructed "bed" channels. 

There is only one Dolby TrueHD track, unless the studios feel like they have extra room to cram two separate tracks on one disc: an Atmos optimized track and a 7.1 optimized track.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> You're talking about Dolby Digital but streaming Atmos will be encoded in Dolby Digital *Plus*


I was referring exactly to *DD+* - Highly compressed audio @ 640 kbps (MP3 type of resolution, @ the very best). 

For some people, with 7.1.4 mutichannel Dolby Atmos audio (Surround Sound Expander/Upmixer),
it might be sufficient for them when streaming content encoded with DD+.
But for others, like me, it is grossly lacking. ...My ears are the best measuring tool for me, and I trust them, based on vast listening experience.
* If I 'upmix' my music (audio/movies), I want to upmix Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and Multichannel uncompressed LPCM audio. 
- And for music only, with overhead speakers, and Dolby Surround Upmixing; Multichannel Hybrid SACD (DSD), DVD-Audio, CDs too, and all the TRUE hi-res stereo and surround sound music recordings (from the real physical software, because downloading is a rip-off from many of them Internet companies - not true hi-res audio, but derived from tape cassette masters and inferior CD versions from the 80s). 

-> I've read your post totally correctly. ...*DD+* (compressed audio @ 640 kbps), 
and not DD (compressed audio @ 192 - 384/448 kbps).


----------



## IgorZep

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, that's not what Dolby has proposed. The 7.1 "core" contains the entire soundtrack for backwards compatibility. It's not the "official" 7.1 track that has been reorganized specifically for cinema 7.1, but some say it's "better" since it's optimized for Atmos.


What Dolby has proposed is undisclosed... We don't know how it will be implemented (do you have complete spec for the Atmos stream and the decoder?). But if it is like you describe then home Atmos experience is seriously compromised!



Dan Hitchman said:


> When you run the track through an Atmos processor object sounds are "deleted" from the 7.1 core mix


Do you know any reliable way to "delete" particular sounds from the track without basically providing another track without the particular sounds?

Well... they can render back "objects" to bed channels and then sum them out of phase. But for compressed non-lossless content (and core is compressed content) there will not be exact 'deletion'. Hopefully the noise (that happens from wrong direction this time) is still masked well enough... And hopefully the encoder for legacy 7.1 will be good from the start as any improvements will not be possible after first recording sees the light.

And well... this over-processing may explain why they need so much DSP resources for just decoding Atmos...


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> They were pointing directly down, Roger. They also looked, as far as I could tell from a quick glance when the AT cover was briefly pulled back, as if they were conventional designs and not dual concentrics.
> *I am expecting, as you are, that DC designs, with a wide, 90 degree all-round dispersion, oriented towards the MLP, will make a good difference and perhaps close the gap between the spaciousness of the Atmos speakers and the in-ceiling speakers I heard at both my demos. Then we will have the best of both worlds - the terrific spaciousness which the Atmos speakers create, plus the extra precision which the ceiling speakers create*.


That expectation might vary widely, from one person's room to the next.

And I am certain that Dolby did experiment with all variations possible concerning them four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers; coaxial, two-ways, three-ways, dipoles, bipoles, omnipoles, monopoles. ...And with all type of angles and triangulation (quadrants). 

I had a theory before, and now I'm having more, and if I'm right then up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers might be proven to be the most efficient performance in recreating that 3D spatial height elevation.

The very near future will confirm or not my theory(ies). 

* What sounds right in our mind is not always right in reality.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you look carefully at the Trinnov speaker layout on their website, they show a diagram with five screen speakers (I think that's why they have 32 outputs rather than the maximum of 34). The diagram that Dolby shows in their white paper actually shows seven are supported. That's way overkill for most home theater screen installations... that's even too much for many cinema screens.


Oh sure... I just don't include Trinnov in "mainstream manufacturers"


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Can Yamaha do wide like DTS NEOX?


Sorry, I don't know. Not looked at a Yamaha closely for years.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Sure, maybe Dolby has a similar feature they haven't revealed yet that can turn a tall soundstage into overhead imaging. That would be as nice a surprise as their upward firing speakers. Better than no Atmos at all, but I can't pretend that a tall soundstage sounds like overhead imaging. Folks will have to decide for themselves which of the two comes closer to the intent of Atmos.


Oh I agree. It's just that FH + RH might be better than no Atmos at all. I am ass-u-ming that Dolby wouldn't have included it as a potential configuration if it was entirely useless. Personally, I am a believer in overheads.


----------



## asarose247

Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99*  _I'm beginning to think Yamaha might surprise us with the RX-A3040, because why else would they have just modified their angle meaasuring device? They've measured angles for years but only using 3 mic positions, and now they added a 4 position out of the plane so they can measure everything needed by Atmos. So for sure they will be measuring actual speaker angles, and if the rendering engine can use this information it's trivial for them to make use of it._
Very interesting. Yamaha has never been in the game for me before, but perhaps they just got into it.  


When I had the Yamaha 775WA set up, the ypao measured speaker distance to .2 feet, (my 818 couldn't do that!) which led to me think and propose, a few pages back, that 4 mikes in a pre-determined, non-planar configuration should be able to map a layout with convincing yada yada yada . 
TY to *kriktsemaj99 for the post and heads up*

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-145.html#


----------



## westmd

sdurani said:


> I was talking about the difference between speakers mounted high up on the front wall (around 30 degrees elevation) vs speakers mounted above you (closer to 55 degrees elevation). I don't think you can simulate that difference by aiming speakers.


As I would use the same speakers for either option (I can't install in ceiling speakers but onlyon ceiling) and having read in Keiths report that Dolby Atmos is very forgiving if you are within their range of requested angles the only difference between ceiling and height speakers is the firing angle. In my setup between max distance for the ceiling speaker is around 2m and min distance around 1m. As mentioned before top front speakers in my setup would not be at the front wall but in the middle between MLP and main speakers! (About 2m away from MLP)


----------



## kbarnes701

alfa1 said:


> Based on some of the glowing reviews from those that have actually experienced it, I am very excited at the prospect of upgrading my home theatre to atmos. I currently have def tech bp7006's (front L/R) and 8040 hd (center channel) about 9 feet in front of my listening position, and 2 def tech in-ceiling speakers (for R/L rear surrounds) about 6 feet behind my listening position. I was thinking the most economical way to get a 5.1.4 system would be to move my bp7006's behind the listening position (as rear surrounds), use my existing ceiling speakers as dolby rear top speakers, and buy def tech 8060st's, with the soon to be released up-firing atmos modules for front L/R. Would 6 feet behind the listening position be too far for rear top ceiling speakers, or is there another reason this wouldn't work well?


Its more about angles that distances. Will the Top Rear speakers be within 125-150 degrees, measured from the MLP? If so, then you will be good to go.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

IgorZep said:


> What Dolby has proposed is undisclosed... We don't know how it will be implemented (do you have complete spec for the Atmos stream and the decoder?). But if it is like you describe then home Atmos experience is seriously compromised!
> 
> 
> Do you know any reliable way to "delete" particular sounds from the track without basically providing another track without the particular sounds?
> 
> Well... they can render back "objects" to bed channels and then sum them out of phase. But for compressed non-lossless content (and core is compressed content) there will not be exact 'deletion'. Hopefully the noise (that happens from wrong direction this time) is still masked well enough... And hopefully the encoder for legacy 7.1 will be good from the start as any improvements will not be possible after first recording sees the light.
> 
> And well... this over-processing may explain why they need so much DSP resources for just decoding Atmos...


This cancellation technique has been a staple of these core + extension codecs (TrueHD and Master Audio) from the beginning. I guess if they felt it works well enough not to start with a brand new codec, then hopefully it sounds as good as these demos have indicated. 

Dolby has already stated that the studios can choose to have a single Dolby TrueHD track with Atmos extensions, or two separate TrueHD tracks with one of them being based off the "official" cinema 7.1 downmix if they feel they have enough room for two lossless tracks.

Would I have rather Dolby (and subsequently) DTS started fresh with a new, fully optimized object based lossless codec and not have had to do all these extra processing steps and funky deletion and layering techniques, absolutely! The purer the better.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> For me too Hollywood Sandra Bullock almost dies, I don't know how many times to miraculously make it then get to that Chinese space station and reenter the atmosphere..
> Remember *she was tumbling in space out of control screaming and flailing she should have died then*.
> The sound and video were amazing and that's what got me through it but the content was just too unbelievable..


If she would have died, like she was supposed to, 'Gravity' would not have been made. 
That's what so magic with movies; liberty. :smile:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> If she would have died, like she was supposed to, 'Gravity' would not have been made.
> That's what so magic with movies; liberty. :smile:


But sometimes the filmmakers take the very concept of the suspension of disbelief a bit too far... and all you can do is roll your eyes, which takes you right out of the movie. The screenplay needed _a lot_ of work. Lots of flash with a very flimsy plot and character foundation to hold it all up.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> The diagram that Dolby shows in their white paper actually shows seven are supported.


No, those labels were arbitrarily placed by their art department. Dolby has never advocated a 90 degree separation between front L/R speakers and they're not starting now. Also, they only recommend 5 across the front in commercial theatres where the screen/room is over 40 feet wide. Considering the narrower spacing in consumer layouts, they're not recommending 7 across the front.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I have had yamaha and denon for years then I tried onkyo I love my *TX-NR818* has been a workhorse I have it hooked up to 11 speakers and two subs the 818 can only do 9.2 I use a amp to drive my wides I rarely use my back speakers mostly use just the 9 speakers from the front highs to the surrounds.
> I just replaced my TX-NR 616 in the den with a *TX-NR737* and once the atmos firmware update comes out hopefully next month. I'll have it run 5.2.2 with ceiling speakers top middle. I got the 737 at a good price and I was very curious about Accu-EQ I just don't believe how it's that horrible it's made out to be, I've always loved *Audyssey MultEQ XT32*. But I wanted just too see what *AccuEQ* was all about I won't bad mouth it till I have first hand use of it.


That is awesome! ...I can't wait to hear your impressions between them two systems; that should be quite interesting, captivating, revealing, fun for you to experiment with and compare them both.

I am most certainly looking forward to your discoveries. ...I will be keeping a very close eye and sharp ear on your new adventure.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

westmd said:


> .....
> BTW I found a really nice tool to calculate distances from the angles. It is in german but I think self explanatory:
> 
> http://www.arndt-bruenner.de/mathe/scripts/dreiecksberechnungrw.htm


A similar English version of this type of angle calculator. Enter two if the values and hit calculate. Click clear before entering another set of values to refresh. It couldn't be easier.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> I shall look forward to you report on that! In the comparative test I saw somewhere, AccuEQ didn't actually seem to do anything worthwhile at all (based on measurements).


Measurements aren't the full story; that review was simplistic and we don't have all the full coordinates yet as to what to read accurately and exactly from them measurements, plus the room where they were taken, etc.

By the way, AccuEQ; does it EQ the subwoofer channel or not?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> That hasn't stopped certain popular streaming services from further compressing the Dolby Digital Plus audio data, just like they further compress the video files given to them by the studios.


It's a shame, a big shame. ...Down to 192 kbps, and perhaps even lower.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> ...having read in Keiths report that Dolby Atmos is very forgiving if you are within their range of requested angles the only difference between ceiling and height speakers is the firing angle.


Not sure what you mean by "firing angle", but the main difference is elevation angle in relation to the listener. If you truly believe that 30° elevation will sound like 55° elevation, then I won't try to persuade you otherwise. Enjoy.


----------



## sdurani

IgorZep said:


> Do you know any reliable way to "delete" particular sounds from the track without basically providing another track without the particular sounds?


Provide the particular sounds. They can be used to decode the legacy channels to bed channels without requiring "another track without the particular sounds".


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Similarly, in, for example, Skyfall, it is 'unbelievable' that an MI6 agent and a foreign agent can engage in hand to hand combat on a moving train in the way they do


Certainly belivable since he's MI6 - not CIA or FBI.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh sure... I just don't include Trinnov in "mainstream manufacturers"


It's all relative, as in "mainstream in one's consideration set". Just like a Bentley is for others.  

Just chant: "time value of money", "time value and convenience of upgrades", hari rama, hari rama LOL...

Warning: the chant may not be applicable with significant WAF turbulence


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> No, those labels were arbitrarily placed by their art department. Dolby has never advocated a 90 degree separation between front L/R speakers and they're not starting now. Also, they only recommend 5 across the front in commercial theatres where the screen/room is over 40 feet wide. Considering the narrower spacing in consumer layouts, they're not recommending 7 across the front.


Hmmm... then they better get more specific with their installation white papers and what they're advocating with the 34 speaker locations, hadn't they? If their art department can't get it right on an official white paper, then they better be more careful next time. 

I never thought it seemed logical to have more behind the screen speakers than their cinema layout. Though, I do bet the more expensive processors will allow for the five screen speakers if you want them (like the Trinnov).


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Can Yamaha do wide like DTS NEOX?





wse said:


> Interesting really that would be good hopefully they will have DTS NEOX as well!


The Yamaha CX-A5000 SSP? ...It is not mentioned about DTS Neo:X in the specs.

And with its 11-channel matching amp it is a magnificent combination. ...Six grands retail total.
...More than your average AVR but less than the Marantz AV8801 or 8802 (the SSP alone).

And with Dolby Atmos next in it, it should rock the world of many surround sound audiophiles.
Add two DSP (PEQ) subs with it and you don't need no Audyssey MultEQ XT32 inside that beauty.


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> It's all relative, as in "mainstream in one's consideration set". Just like a Bentley is for others.
> 
> Just chant: "time value of money", "time value and convenience of upgrades", hari rama, hari rama LOL...
> 
> Warning: the chant may not be applicable with significant WAF turbulence


Stuart, you do have the Sherwood Newcastle R-972 AV receiver with Trinnov Optimizer,
plus another Denon AVR-4311CI receiver with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 & MultEQ Pro, right?

Which Auto Room Correction & EQ system do you prefer best?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> It's all relative, as in "mainstream in one's consideration set". Just like a Bentley is for others.
> 
> Just chant: "time value of money", "time value and convenience of upgrades", hari rama, hari rama LOL...
> 
> Warning: the chant may not be applicable with significant WAF turbulence


I deliberately used the words 'mainstream manufacturers' to indicate I was referring to guys like Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Marantz, Sony, Yamaha etc. Trinnov, and any other ultra-expensive gear is niche. I wasn't trying to draw any qualitative comparison or anything - just saying that the feature in question is only relevant to those 'mainstream' brands.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Certainly belivable since he's MI6 - not CIA or FBI.


Well it's definitely true that his upper lip is stiffer than those other guys. And maybe that's not all...


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hmmm... then they better get more specific with their installation white papers and what they're advocating with the 34 speaker locations, hadn't they? If their art department can't get it right on an official white paper, then they better be more careful next time.
> 
> I never thought it seemed logical to have more behind the screen speakers than their cinema layout. Though, I do bet the more expensive processors will allow for the five screen speakers if you want them (like the Trinnov).


A person would be nuts though to think he'd hear any benefit from 5 front speakers if his screen is, say, 12 feet wide...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> A person would be nuts though to think he'd hear any benefit from 5 front speakers if his screen is, say, 12 feet wide...


I guess Trinnov is going for those super rich "nuts" then. More money than sense. 

They might work in those Theo Kalomirakis designs and/or for people who can have screening rooms in their McMansions.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> That hasn't stopped certain popular streaming services from further compressing the Dolby Digital Plus audio data, just like they further compress the video files given to them by the studios.


That is unlikely to happen with DD+ ATMOS. One cannot simply decode and re-encode as with 5.1 audio. The decoded audio is not in a form usable by the second encoder.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> That is unlikely to happen with DD+ ATMOS. One cannot simply decode and re-encode as with 5.1 audio. The decoded audio is not in a form usable by the second encoder.


Hopefully, Netflix (and others) get the message. Though, I can rarely stand streaming quality to begin with anyway unless there is no other way to watch a movie.


----------



## sdrucker

NorthSky said:


> Stuart, you do have the Sherwood Newcastle R-972 AV receiver with Trinnov Optimizer,
> plus another Denon AVR-4311CI receiver with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 & MultEQ Pro, right?
> 
> Which Auto Room Correction & EQ system do you prefer best?


I'm about 90% likely to buy a 16 channel Altitude as a standalone with the Trinnov Optimizer, or Magnitude to use with a mainstream AVR or pre/pro to decode up to 7.1.4 Atmos, in the next six months, so draw your own conclusions. However, for a conventional 5.1 or 7.1 user, there's merits to both EQ as implemented in each AVR. I think it depends on how much you value the Remapping feature, two or more target curve setttings, and the Trinnov Fourier Bessel approach to correction vs. Sub HT EQ, DEQ, DVOL, multi-position measurement, etc. And note the discontinued R-972 has an older, fixed parameter version of what's in the units I'm considering (plus AVR to AVR, the Denon wins hands-down). I use the R-972 as processor for BluRay, on pre-out to the 4311, and I have my other sources including a Blu-Ray input run through XT32 and Audyssey Pro in my pre-Atmos 7.1 system, so I get the best of both worlds.

A detailed answer would be OT here. If you're seriously interested I can PM you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I guess Trinnov is going for those super rich "nuts" then. More money than sense.
> 
> They might work in those Theo Kalomirakis designs and/or for people who can have screening rooms in their McMansions.


Sure - if their screen is 40 feet wide or more, it makes sense.


----------



## Roger Dressler

luca_frontino said:


> Anybody care to speculate if these upcoming Atmos soundtracks will retain the original volume level when played on a non-Atmos 7 ch AVR or will there be attenuation, like when 7.1 tracks get lowered by 3dB on 5 ch AVRs?


When do 7.1 tracks get lowered 3 dB? 

I suppose if a "7.1 capable" AVR is decoding the 7.1 audio and downmixing it to 5.1, it might apply -3 dB to protect the surrounds from clipping. But even that would not be enough as the peaks can rise as much as 6 dB. A properly designed AVR would just decode the 5.1 core that is in the bitstream (both DTS-HD MA and TrueHD do this). 

If the AVR is being fed 7.1 PCM, it has no choice but to downmix it, but even then the gain shifts ought to be compensated in the volume control as is routinely done. 

That was the long answer. The short answer is that Atmos soundtracks will have the same loudness reference as other soundtracks.


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> A person would be nuts though to think he'd hear any benefit from 5 front speakers if his screen is, say, 12 feet wide...


What they really need to two upward firing drivers for their mains  

- Rich


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - if their screen is 40 feet wide or more, it makes sense.


For 24 or 32 channels I couldn't agree more. For 8 or 16 it's debatable (but not here).

Back to your regular discussion....


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> What they really need to two upward firing drivers for their mains
> 
> - Rich


Upfiring (Atmos-enabled) speakers are for overhead sounds, and to be used instead of physical overhead (ceiling) speakers. They have no relevance to the discussion of using 3 or 5 front speakers.


----------



## IgorZep

sdurani said:


> Provide the particular sounds. They can be used to decode the legacy channels to bed channels without requiring "another track without the particular sounds".


The particular sounds are still a track. Except the case I've described... that fixes the way how it is down-mixed to legacy without possibility to improve the legacy down-mixing in the future. While the mp3 (or other lossy) encoders can be improved without touching the decoder, home Atmos will be limited in such possibility as the decoder will not be able to correctly subtract the objects from the legacy beds if any change is made to the down-mixer. So, the hope is that the down-mix will be close to perfect from the start. Unfortunately such things are never perfect.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> That was the long answer. The short answer is that Atmos soundtracks will have the same loudness reference as other soundtracks.


The only thing that needs to change from a production stand point is making sure the surrounds are trimmed accordingly.

Theatrical Atmos uses a different SPL reference for the surrounds than 7.1 and 5.1 for the LSS/RSS and LSB/RSB arrays.. it's 85.

When doing the down mixes from a native Atmos mix to 7.1, you actually need to raise the surround levels from the bed stems 3db and lower the surround channels 3db from the object crash downs (the RMU keeps the channels equal and doesn't compensate) to get the equivalent SPL in 7.1.... the 5.1 often requires even more "manipulation."

I need to find out if taking the DAMR through the media encoder leaves them as is since the home SPL reference more closely matches the theatrical.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> If their art department can't get it right on an official white paper, then they better be more careful next time.


Or else what? There will be a sudden rash of consumers spreading their L/R speakers 90 degrees apart? The point of the diagram was to show all 34 potential speaker locations, not have people fixate on labels.


----------



## sdurani

IgorZep said:


> The particular sounds are still a track.


They're a substream/extension that legacy decoders won't recognize, allowing the downmix to be backwards compatible. My point is that the substream isn't _"another track without the particular sounds"_. There is no need to include the bed channels without the objects. All you need to include are the objects, because they can be used to recover the bed channels from the legacy downmix.


IgorZep said:


> So, the hope is that the down-mix will be close to perfect from the start. Unfortunately such things are never perfect.


We'll have to wait and see if consumers will accept technology that is less than perfect.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> We'll have to wait and see if consumers will accept technology that is less than perfect.


What - like cars for example?  Nah - they'll never catch on...


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> The only thing that needs to change from a production stand point is making sure the surrounds are trimmed accordingly.
> 
> Theatrical Atmos uses a different SPL reference for the surrounds than 7.1 and 5.1 for the LSS/RSS and LSB/RSB arrays.. it's 85.


Yes, all channels and objects reference to 85 dB (for -20 dBFS) regardless of where they are pointed. Nice and simple! (And happily, this is the same as how home systems are calibrated.)



> When doing the down mixes from a native Atmos mix to 7.1, you actually need to raise the surround levels from the bed stems 3db and *lower the surround channels 3db from the object crash downs* (the RMU keeps the channels equal and doesn't compensate) to get the equivalent SPL in 7.1.... the 5.1 often requires even more "manipulation."


For the theatrical 7.1, we [now] agree that all the beds and objects are uniformly referenced to 85 dB. If a direct 7.1 mix is created, that will be just as needed for the home users. 

To use that 7.1 mix in a cinema only requires that the surrounds need to be printed 3 dB hotter to conform to standard cinema calibration 82 dB settings. I'm not understanding what you mean about the "object crash down" levels.

None of this takes into account any peak overload issues, which ought to have been dealt with during the original production by monitoring a live 5.1 render on a meter bridge. If that is safe, then so are all other renditions.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, all objects reference to 85 dB (for -20 dBFS) regardless of where they are pointed. Nice and simple! *The bed surrounds still conform to the yester-rule of 82 dB. Tradition! *
> 
> Let's clearly separate the two cases: Theatrical 7.1, and home 7.1.
> 
> For the theatrical 7.1, no calibration gain offsets are needed, just select the 7.1 config and go. I suspect that's why the RMU keeps the channels equal and doesn't compensate. No compensation is needed.
> 
> For the home 7.1 mix, the bed channels all need to be at the 85 dB ref, which means the surround levels have to be _dropped _3 dB on the home printmaster (home systems have 3 dB more surround gain than cinemas). That needs to be done _before _the the objects are folded in, as they require no further calibration offsets (they are already at 85 dB).
> 
> None of this takes into account any peak overload issues, which ought to have been dealt with during the original production by monitoring a live 5.1 render on a meter bridge. If that is safe, then so are all other renditions.


They don't, which is why I made the comments in the first place.

They are at 85 in Theatrical Atmos.

I'm not talking about playing back with the RMU... theaters don't use RMU's, so you must make 5.1 and 7.1 PCM masters as always... so, yes, you do need to compensate when print mastering.


----------



## Tnedator

Ok, based on that Denon diagram, and my room layout, this is what I've got so far as a speaker layout (too far down the road for any room layout change). This is a rough drawing and not to scale -- like that back beam is actually too far back on my drawing. I eyeballed these locations when I drew it in paint. 

I think the three overheads would be in the degree range that are in that diagram -- However, I could move them into the long beams, rather than shorter cross beams, meaning the TM would be over the main seating row, the TB would be over the back seating row, etc. The S? marks represent surrounds, but I'm not sure how I would use them. In an Atmos setup (at least in future receivers), I think I will be able to put each of those as a separate surrounds (part of the 24 floor speakers) and it will figure out how to best use them. In a shorter time frame, I would probably use the back two side surrounds in an array, driving the same signal to the back two side surrounds on the left and two on the right (the way Erskine spec'd it pre-Atmos). 

The recent wild card for me is the front wides. I will have wooden tower (matching the columns) each corner where the wall and screen wall meet, angled back towards the room, and this might be acceptable for front wide speakers. 

What do you think about this setup, based on what we currently know? 

EDIT: I've done the calculations, and the top front speakers would be "roughly" 40 degrees in relation to MLP and center speaker, and the top rear would be roughly 140*, so both at the same rough angle to MLP and both within the range in that Denon diagram. The top middle would be just behind the MLP, and didn't feel like calculating, but would be somewhere between 90-100*.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> They don't, which is why I made the comments in the first place.
> 
> They are at 85 in Theatrical Atmos.


My error! Allow me to revise my *previous post*.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

SubSolar said:


> I'm a little confused on where to place my in-ceilings. I'm planning on putting two top front speakers and two top rear speakers. One diagram says to put the fronts 30-55 degrees from MLP, another source says 1/3rd from the front speakers to MLP. I'm in a pretty long room so there's a difference. Also should the top front and top rear speakers be equally distanced from the MLP?
> 
> My room is 14' Wide x 24' Long x 9' Tall. MLP is 17' in, front Left Center Right are 2' from front wall so 15' from MLP. The side surrounds will be mounted on the side walls but because the kitchen is behind the room I must use in-ceilings for rear surrounds too, 7' from the MLP. Because both the top rears and rear surrounds will be in ceilings I want to put as much distance between them as possible so was planning on the top rears 3' in back of MLP. I was also going to put the top fronts 3' from MLP but wondering if I should put them farther forward, it won't be the same distance as top rears from MLP obviously.


I think the top rears 3' behind MLP is not far enough as it's not 125°.

Maybe you can do top middle (above MLP -1'/+2') and front height (at least 6 feat and no more than about 10 feet ahead of MLP) instead?


----------



## Roger Dressler

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I think the top rears 3' behind MLP is not far enough as it's not 125°.


It's pretty close -- 120° give or take, depending on ear height.

@SubSolar, I'd move the top fronts so they are more like a 40-45° elevation, and not worry about front/back symmetry too much. Your surrounds are somewhat higher than the fronts, no?


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> I was referring exactly to *DD+* - Highly compressed audio @ 640 kbps (MP3 type of resolution, @ the very best).


Didn't you follow the link I had posted? DD+ isn't 640kbit/s but max. 6.144Mbit/s.


----------



## SubSolar

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I think the top rears 3' behind MLP is not far enough as it's not 125°.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can do top middle (above MLP -1'/+2') and front height (at least 6 feat and no more than about 10 feet ahead of MLP) instead?



So no top rears?


----------



## SubSolar

Roger Dressler said:


> It's pretty close -- 120° give or take, depending on ear height.
> 
> @SubSolar, I'd move the top fronts so they are more like a 40-45° elevation, and not worry about front/back symmetry too much. Your surrounds are somewhat higher than the fronts, no?



I'm having side surrounds directly to the side of MLP, probably at ear level or 1 foot higher

The rear surrounds I have to go in ceiling, max I can put them is 7' from MLP.

That's why I was only going to up put the top rears 3' from MLP so there's still 4' distance from them and rear surrounds.


----------



## Roger Dressler

SubSolar said:


> I'm having side surrounds directly to the side of MLP, probably at ear level or 1 foot higher
> 
> The rear surrounds I have to go in ceiling, max I can put them is 7' from MLP.


I read that and then just ignored it. My bad. 

So what are the chances for using angled corner cabinets like you show for front wides, but for the rear speakers? Is there room for that even if the back wall is open? I use that solution and it works very well. 

And if all that fails, something like *these Triad speakers* could be flush mounted in the side walls at the rear, and that would be preferable to the ceiling positions.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Didn't you follow the link I had posted? DD+ isn't 640kbit/s but max. 6.144Mbit/s.


Oh but I did check your link Markus. Now, streaming DD+ you can get 6.144 Megabits per second?
Is that uncompressed high resolution multichannel audio? ...Kilobits? 

When you download or stream a movie from Netflix, Vudu, etc. what is their highest res? 
...Better than Blu-ray?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Oh but I did check your link Markus. Now, streaming DD+ you can get 6.144 Megabits per second?
> Is that uncompressed high resolution multichannel audio? ...Kilobits?
> 
> When you download or stream a movie from Netflix, Vudu, etc. what is their highest res?
> ...Better than Blu-ray?


It's 640 kilobits/sec on some streamed files... just not from Netflix, those are compressed further (and often sound lousy).


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> Upfiring (Atmos-enabled) speakers are for overhead sounds, and to be used instead of physical overhead (ceiling) speakers. They have no relevance to the discussion of using 3 or 5 front speakers.


 
It was discussed in this thread, this was the first I heard about its irrelevance.

This release of Atmos is all about ceiling channels.
Since theater speaker are already above, ceiling channels are more above. 
Perhaps, that presents a larger opportunity in the home environment.


Earlier discussion of Atmos centered around the flexibility or object oriented sound that would have greater control of mapping sound onto the individual's speaker configuration and allow users to tune the sound to their preferences.

That is very intriguing and I look forward to that advancement (FilmMixer has alluded to more to come).
When I go to any theater Atmos or otherwise, the most striking aspect is the size of the center channel. Object oriented sound could be used to recreate this effect at home. Right-now, it is uncertain which vender will provide that advancement. Time will tell.

- Rich


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

The current question:


Is the Atmos speaker filtering built into the Atmos speaker or is the filtering part of the Atmos AVR's DSP?






kbarnes701 said:


> *Psychoacoustics and the development of Atmos speakers and modules.*
> 
> Staying with speakers for a moment, JJ also gave us some insight into how Dolby had developed the concept of upwards firing speakers and a hint of the incredibly sophisticated technology which lies behind the way they work so well.
> 
> Dolby spent some considerable time (and no doubt money) researching the way our ear/brain combination works with regard to our perception of overhead sounds. Apparently, when we hear sounds from overhead, there is a natural 'notch filter' engaged by our brain and the physical disposition of our ears (and even our shoulders which reflect sound back up to our ears) and between them, these help us determine when sounds are emanating from overhead. * To capitalise on this, Dolby's Atmos speakers and modules have a frequency response which is shaped by internal DSP in the AVR. *This includes a recreation of that notch filter which is important in telling us that a sound is coming from above us. At this time, Dolby would not reveal at what frequency this notch filter operates other than that it is in the HF area. I speculated 7kHz and JJ said “no, it will be much higher than that”. No doubt someone with suitable measuring equipment and a white noise generator will be able to determine the precise frequency at which the filter operates, once Atmos units are available to buy.





and





Scott Wilkinson said:


> _This Atmos-enabled speaker (maker unknown) includes a small upfiring driver that sends the overhead signal to the ceiling, which reflects it down to the listeners. (Photo by Mark Henninger)
> _
> But there's more to it than simply adding some transducers to the top of a speaker—the system must replicate the effect of a human head as sounds from above, especially high frequencies, bend around it. *This height-cue filtering is performed using standard analog components built into each Atmos-enabled speaker.*





Source information below:


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1646937-dolby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26623145




Some new information on the issue below here:






sdurani said:


> I was chatting with Brett before the demo began and got different information about the two items below: I was told it was done in the AV receiver, which is why you have to tell it whether you're using ceiling-mounted OR upward-firing speakers, so it knows whether to turn on Dolby Elevation processing. I was told that Dolby Surround upmixes all incoming sources to up to 24+10 speakers, including wides, and that it has a centre width adjustment (like PLII currently has for 2-channel sources).
> 
> Will have to get clarification on both points.





and response from Scott






Scott Wilkinson said:


> Sanjay, these were both points that Dolby made during the fact check of the article. I had originally written that the height DSP was done in the AVR, which is what I understood from the discussion, but they "corrected" that to what ended up in the article. Also, I recall you saying in our after-event discussion that the wides were not used in an Atmos upmix, which Dolby confirmed in the fact check.





and






sdurani said:


> Bizarre that it is done in the analogue domain. First I've heard of it. I mentioned the lack of wides as an example of the gulf between capability vs implementation. Atmos is capable of rendering to actual speaker locations even though none of the manufacturers have implemented it that way. Dolby Surround is capable of upmixing to all 24 speakers on the floor, even though current implementation doesn't include wides.
> 
> Apparently that last part (not using wides) is how the upmixer is supposed to operate, not a limitation of current implementation. Like I said, it conflicts with what Brett told me. Then again, we were told DS had a music mode, only to get an e-mail later clarifying that there is no such thing.


----------



## AdamsEllis

New to the Dolby atmos concept, Would a small bookshelve work in regards of theory with this?


----------



## sdurani

AdamsEllis said:


> New to the Dolby atmos concept, Would a small bookshelve work in regards of theory with this?


Atmos doesn't change the physics of sound reproduction. If you've been using small bookshelf speakers and subwoofers, then they will continue to work on soundtracks mixed in Atmos.


----------



## Teremei

Well I wish I knew about this I would have held off on the x4000 6 months ago and just waited for Atmos.

I have a pretty small room, but it's got a low ceiling and thick carpeting so it's pretty good for audio. I take it my options are. . Having 5.2 already.

-New receiver required
-addition of 4 small ceiling speakers to current set up
-replacement of Front LR and SL/SR to speakers that also fire upwards at an angle (IE: Atmos speakers)

Is this true?


----------



## FilmMixer

Teremei said:


> Well I wish I knew about this I would have held off on the x4000 6 months ago and just waited for Atmos.
> 
> I have a pretty small room, but it's got a low ceiling and thick carpeting so it's pretty good for audio. I take it my options are. . Having 5.2 already.
> 
> -New receiver required
> -addition of 4 small ceiling speakers to current set up
> -replacement of Front LR and SL/SR to speakers that also fire upwards at an angle (IE: Atmos speakers)
> 
> Is this true?


No need for new LR and Surround speakers..

Just add the 4 ceiling speakers, or 4 stand alone upward firing modules... and the AVR.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's 640 kilobits/sec on some streamed files... just not from Netflix, those are compressed further (and often sound lousy).


Yes Dan, DD+ is 640 kbps (Blu-rays), and it can be lower too like you just said (from streaming, Netflix, etc.).
...Markus seems to like it, and wikipedia has another technical way of saying it. 

* If the first batch of Dolby Atmos AVRs & SSPs have a Dolby Surround "upmixer", I hope it works with Dolby TrueHD. I have a decent number of them Blu-rays with such encoding (10% of 4,000 is roughly 400).

And Netflix and downloading I never used of my entire life. ...Don't know how and not interested. 
But bravo to all who do (voodoo).


----------



## Schwa

I'm really enjoying this thread, but I have a humble request: For the sake of readability, could some of you guys try using the Multi-Quote feature instead of posting multiple times in a row?

TIA!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

SubSolar said:


> So no top rears?


The Denon's used with 2 pair of elevated speakers let you set six different combinations of Front Height / Top Front/Middle/Rear / Rear-Height, including the one I suggested. You just leave out the adjacent combinations.

It goes without saying that following Roger Dressler's suggestion and try to reposition the Surround Rear to ear level instead, would be better!

Have you considered to not use Back Surrounds, but use Wides instead? (Although that option is not 100% certain to be possible now even if the Denon 7200 has that output via pre-out)


----------



## SubSolar

Yeah, it's not really possible to put rear surrounds anywhere but in ceiling. Behind couch is kitchen; counter, sink and cabinets.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> But you don't have to use them. I'd say more than half the features on my Onkyo 5509 have never been used (by me).


Now that there is auite a good guideline to calculate positions of speakers in regards to the distance between front and back wall I was wondering what the best way is in regards to distances between the side walls. 
My room is about 4.5m wide and my main speakers are located directly in the corner of the wall. .Following the guidance of the speaker manufacturer my back surrounds are a little bit more inward sp having about 1m distance to the right respective left wall. If I would install ceiling speakers in the same way leaving 1m to each side they have roughly 2m between each other. Would that make sense?


----------



## Teremei

FilmMixer said:


> No need for new LR and Surround speakers..
> 
> Just add the 4 ceiling speakers, or 4 stand alone upward firing modules... and the AVR.


In a 13x11 viewing area. Would you still need 4 ceiling speakers? I only mentioned surrounds because in the pioneer picture that has become popular around here shows both the towers and bookshelves firing upward, in so giving you 4 ceiling "spots". If you put these modules on the sidewalls I really won't have room for them. So it's new speakers or ceiling speakers for me.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Oh but I did check your link Markus. Now, streaming DD+ you can get 6.144 Megabits per second?
> Is that uncompressed high resolution multichannel audio? ...Kilobits?
> 
> When you download or stream a movie from Netflix, Vudu, etc. what is their highest res?
> ...Better than Blu-ray?


Yes, DD+ can do higher bitrates and it might even do more single objects than TrueHD. It is lossy but who cares if it's good enough.



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's 640 kilobits/sec on some streamed files... just not from Netflix, those are compressed further (and often sound lousy).


That's something we'll have to see when the first implementations arrive. Currently there is no Atmos streaming.
By the way, see Roger's previous post:



Roger Dressler said:


> That is unlikely to happen with DD+ ATMOS. One cannot simply decode and re-encode as with 5.1 audio. The decoded audio is not in a form usable by the second encoder.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I have fed all Denon's suggested side-elevation angles to the cool German calculator, using my ceiling height of 260 cm minus the speaker size (the JBLpro SCS 8 coaxial is my current n°1). The center of the coaxial ceiling mounts will be at 240 cm [8'] minus 90 cm ear height [3'] = *150 cm [5']*

http://www.arndt-bruenner.de/mathe/scripts/dreiecksberechnungrw.htm

Outcome is the distance ahead [↑] or behind [↓] MLP on the axis MLP - screen center.

FH: 30 to 45° ↑260 to ↑150 cm [↑8'8" to ↑5']
TF: 30 to 55° ↑260 to ↑105 cm [↑8'8" to ↑3'6"]
TM: 65 to 100° ↑70 to ↓25 cm [↑2'4" to ↓0'10"]
TR: 125 to 150° ↓105 to ↓260 cm [↓3'6" to ↓8'8"]
RH: 135 to 150° ↓150 to ↓260 cm [↓5' to ↓8'8"]

If anyone finds this helpful, I could do a few more between 7' and 10' ceiling heights.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Yes Dan, DD+ is 640 kbps (Blu-rays), and it can be lower too like you just said (from streaming, Netflix, etc.).
> ...Markus seems to like it, and wikipedia has another technical way of saying it.


Markus never said he likes it. Please stick to what I've said and don't make up things.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Teremei said:


> In a 13x11 viewing area. Would you still need 4 ceiling speakers?


The actual size of the space is not really relevant. Two ceiling speakers only form a one-dimentional line so they can only produce sound coming from the line between them. Four ceiling speakers form a two-dimentional plane, hence the sound they produce can come from anywhere on that plane. It will be far superior.

And ofcourse two speakers will not really give you the sense of total envelopment that four will do.


----------



## Teremei

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The actual size of the space is not really relevant. Two ceiling speakers only form a one-dimentional line so they can only produce sound coming from the line between them. Four ceiling speakers form a two-dimentional plane, hence the sound they produce can come from anywhere on that plane. It will be far superior.
> 
> And ofcourse two speakers will not really give you the sense of total envelopment that four will do.


I see, makes sense. Would adding 4 ceiling speakers to 5.1 make it essentially 9.1? I'm not sure how the lingo works here since I've always had 5.1. I consider doing front wides in the front LR corner ceiling. Would that even be recommended with a 4 ceiling atmos set up? I'm just curious how 7.1 systems might change with atmos. IE: which speakers would be less useful? Sides, front heights, front wides, etc. .


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Teremei said:


> I see, makes sense. Would adding 4 ceiling speakers to 5.1 make it essentially 9.1? I'm not sure how the lingo works here since I've always had 5.1. I consider doing front wides in the front LR corner ceiling. Would that even be recommended with a 4 ceiling atmos set up? I'm just curious how 7.1 systems might change with atmos. IE: which speakers would be less useful? Sides, front heights, front wides, etc. .


It would be called 5.1.4 in Dolby Atmos speak. Front Wides should be at the same height as the Side Surrounds. With Atmos, that height should ideally be ear height.

BTW, Rear Surrounds can also be on the side wall at about +/- 135° if that would suit your room. Then the Side Surrounds can be recommended even at +/- 75° which would put them somehow ahead of MLP. Together with 4 ceiling speakers, this would be a superb 7.1.4 layout, only possible to be improved upon marginally by 9.1.4. But at a much bigger cost, since the former can be done with, for example, a Marantz AV7702, while the latter would need to use a AV8802 (besides two more Surround speakers and amps ofcourse). And it's not even confirmed yet if the AV8802 will process 13 channels simultaneously.


----------



## PeterTHX

NorthSky said:


> I was referring exactly to *DD+* - Highly compressed audio @ 640 kbps (MP3 type of resolution, @ the very best).


 
You're saying DD+ is like MP3? That's like saying HEVC is like MPEG1. 



> I've read your post totally correctly. ...*DD+* (compressed audio @ 640 kbps),
> and not DD (compressed audio @ 192 - 384/448 kbps).


 
DD runs from 32kbps to 640kbps. DD+ goes from 32kbps to 6144kbps but is designed for extremely low bitrate applications (i.e. streaming) and to overcome the 5.1 channel limitation of DD


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> It was discussed in this thread, this was the first I heard about its irrelevance.
> 
> This release of Atmos is all about ceiling channels.
> Since theater speaker are already above, ceiling channels are more above.
> Perhaps, that presents a larger opportunity in the home environment.
> 
> 
> Earlier discussion of Atmos centered around the flexibility or object oriented sound that would have greater control of mapping sound onto the individual's speaker configuration and allow users to tune the sound to their preferences.
> 
> That is very intriguing and I look forward to that advancement (FilmMixer has alluded to more to come).
> When I go to any theater Atmos or otherwise, the most striking aspect is the size of the center channel. Object oriented sound could be used to recreate this effect at home. Right-now, it is uncertain which vender will provide that advancement. Time will tell.
> 
> - Rich


Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion you joined in to was about the use of 3 or 5 speakers across the front. You replied with a comment about upfiring speakers, which was not relevant in any way to that discussion and have now wandered further away from it still.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> The current question:
> 
> 
> Is the Atmos speaker filtering built into the Atmos speaker or is the filtering part of the Atmos AVR's DSP?


Dolby told me it was done in the AVR.


----------



## luca_frontino

Roger Dressler said:


> When do 7.1 tracks get lowered 3 dB?


I have the DTS-HD Master Audio Suite and, when creating a 7.1 track, there's an embedded 5.1 downmix defaulting to a -3dB attenuation (I doubt it gets touched at all by BD producers). It cannot be deactivated, so every DTS MA 7.1 track has it. When playing back a 7.1 track on a 5.1 AVR, it will play 3dB lower than Reference Level, no matter what. When extracting the DTS core from 7.1 MA, it receives (or already had) a -3dB attenuation, so even in that case 5.1 system will play 3dB below Reference Level. People in possess of Pacific Rim and 5.1 system can make a quick test, if willing to.


----------



## kbarnes701

Teremei said:


> Well I wish I knew about this I would have held off on the x4000 6 months ago and just waited for Atmos.
> 
> I have a pretty small room, but it's got a low ceiling and thick carpeting so it's pretty good for audio. I take it my options are. . Having 5.2 already.
> 
> -New receiver required
> -addition of 4 small ceiling speakers to current set up
> -replacement of Front LR and SL/SR to speakers that also fire upwards at an angle (IE: Atmos speakers)
> 
> Is this true?


You will need a new AVR.

Then you have a choice for the height speakers: you can install four speakers in or on your ceiling, or you can use Atmos speakers which contain the upward firing element. You don't need both, although you can mix and match them, so you could have two physical speakers, for example, and two Atmos speakers. If you want to retain your existing speakers, you can either use physical speakers on the ceiling or you can add Atmos 'modules' which sit on or close to (up to 3ft) your existing speakers. So to summarize, your options are:

1. New AVR, mandatory.
2. 4 on or in ceiling speakers, all other speakers retained.
3. 4 new Atmos speakers, no ceiling speakers needed.
4. Retain original speakers, add 4 Atmos modules on or near them.
5. Retain your front speakers and add two Atmos modules, with 2 additional speakers in or on ceiling.
6. Use two new Atmos speakers at the front and two in or on ceiling speakers at the rear.

All will work pretty much equally well, so long as the on or in ceiling speakers can meet the required angles (see the oft-posted diagram). So so whichever is the easiest or cheapest for your circumstances.


----------



## kbarnes701

Schwa said:


> I'm really enjoying this thread, but I have a humble request: For the sake of readability, could some of you guys try using the Multi-Quote feature instead of posting multiple times in a row?
> 
> TIA!


Multiquote is really for one reply to different people. If you use multiquote for different replies to different people, it makes it much harder for others to quote back and stay in the loop.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Now that there is auite a good guideline to calculate positions of speakers in regards to the distance between front and back wall I was wondering what the best way is in regards to distances between the side walls.
> My room is about 4.5m wide and my main speakers are located directly in the corner of the wall. .Following the guidance of the speaker manufacturer my back surrounds are a little bit more inward sp having about 1m distance to the right respective left wall. If I would install ceiling speakers in the same way leaving 1m to each side they have roughly 2m between each other. Would that make sense?


In most of the setup guidelines I have seen the overhead speakers are in line with the front main L&R speakers. This is assuming that the front speakers follow the standard ITU spec for 5.1 or 7.1. If you are not following the spec for your current setup, then I think you can only experiment and see what works best for your non-standard layout.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It would be called 5.1.4 in Dolby Atmos speak. Front Wides should be at the same height as the Side Surrounds. With Atmos, that height should ideally be ear height.
> 
> BTW, Rear Surrounds can also be on the side wall at about +/- 135° if that would suit your room. Then the Side Surrounds can be recommended even at +/- 75° which would put them somehow ahead of MLP. Together with 4 ceiling speakers, this would be a superb 7.1.4 layout, only possible to be improved upon marginally by 9.1.4. But at a much bigger cost, since the former can be done with, for example, a Marantz AV7702, while the latter would need to use a AV8802 (besides two more Surround speakers and amps ofcourse). And it's not even confirmed yet if the AV8802 will process 13 channels simultaneously.


That's exactly how I would do it if I had a big enough room. Rear surrounds at 135 degrees, side surrounds at 75-80 degrees and dispense with wides altogether. With 4 overheads I think that would be a fabulous result - and as you say, from a 7.1.4 AVR.


----------



## Teremei

erwinfrombelgium said:


> BTW, Rear Surrounds can also be on the side wall at about +/- 135° if that would suit your room. Then the Side Surrounds can be recommended even at +/- 75° which would put them somehow ahead of MLP.


I really can't understand the math of how those positions relate to the MLP which is on a couch 1' from the wall. The LS and RS can only go 1' behind MLP on the side wall and that would be with them brushing the back wall. How does 135 and 75 relate to my MLP in 10' from the front speakers?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Teremei said:


> I really can't understand the math of how those positions relate to the MLP which is on a couch 1' from the wall. The LS and RS can only go 1' behind MLP on the side wall and that would be with them brushing the back wall. How does 135 and 75 relate to my MLP in 10' from the front speakers?


Sorry, I was just speculating since some folks think they cannot have Rear Surrounds because +/- 120° is not possible for them. In your situation it is indeed not purposeful to have Rear Surrounds, even at +/- 135°. 

I'd say, go for 5.1.4 and maybe add Front Wides (at ear height) later if nothing is standing in the way and the AVR supports it. In a 11' wide room, the Wides would be 3' to 4' ahead of MLP.


----------



## RichB

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion you joined in to was about the use of 3 or 5 speakers across the front. You replied with a comment about upfiring speakers, which was not relevant in any way to that discussion and have now wandered further away from it still.



In earlier discussions of the benefit of object oriented sound, one benefit discussed was encoding the dialog as an object.
This would permit the home user to adjust the sound in a more direct manner than the current control of the center channel permits.


You may be correct, it may be irrelevant to the first implementation of Atmos, but it is not irrelevant to object oriented sound.


- Rich


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> That's exactly how I would do it if I had a big enough room. Rear surrounds at 135 degrees, side surrounds at 75-80 degrees and dispense with wides altogether. With 4 overheads I think that would be a fabulous result - and as you say, from a 7.1.4 AVR.


Thanks for all your insight it has helped me with what I wish to do and yes my goal would be hopefully next year that 7.2.4 will work I will upgrade my 818 then in either late 2015 or early 2016. I did pick up the TX-NR 737 to play with till then in my den I'll be running her 5.2.2 using ceiling speakers. Looking forward for the September firmware update to atmos.


----------



## Teremei

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Sorry, I was just speculating since some folks think they cannot have Rear Surrounds because +/- 120° is not possible for them. In your situation it is indeed not purposeful to have Rear Surrounds, even at +/- 135°.
> 
> I'd say, go for 5.1.4 and maybe add Front Wides (at ear height) later if nothing is standing in the way and the AVR supports it. In a 11' wide room, the Wides would be 3' to 4' ahead of MLP.


Yes, I figured my living room was not suited for 7.1 (or .2 in my case since I now run 2 equalized subwoofers). Some day, before I die, I might build a dedicated theater room with a large projector screen. But for now I'm going to have to be happy with 5.2.4. Thank you for your recommendations!


----------



## Maestro J

Thoughts on using 2 pair of these for in ceiling Atmos in Top Front and Top Rear locations:
http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-200-series/control-226c-t#.U_CxI7xdVnE

Coaxial. 120 degree dispersion. Overkill?

Also considering these:
http://www.currentaudio.com/products/inceiling/index.htm


----------



## harrybnbad

Nothing I hate more is, being on the fence.

Do I sell my 4520, while I still can get enough out of it. ( ilove the power of that thing )

Use that money to go towards a new 5. 1. 4 system.

The only thing ill really have to do is move my front wides, and make rear surrounds out of them. 
And move the front hieghts and current rear surrounds abit to at least have a good start at atmos. 

A probem I have, which I havent heard addressed. Is living in florida. Ceiling fans are a must. I also have to have ceiling speakers, not upward firing ones do to the fan. So I have to position the ceiling speakers in a way the fan does not interfer with sound....

Orjust wait till my ht room becomes available. But my wife said my daughters never moving out....


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby told me it was done in the AVR.



We know that. However, as I previously noted Dolby has also said that the EQ is built into the speakers.

What is the correct answer?

You may try to add to the discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1646937-dolby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> We know that. However, as I previously noted Dolby has also said that the EQ is built into the speakers.
> 
> What is the correct answer?


Why not ask Dolby?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> Why not ask Dolby?



He is not giving out that kind of information these days!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Dolby


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Is Dolby Prologic dead or not?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1646937-dolby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html







batpig said:


> J_Palmer_Cass -- I'm not sure what you are arguing for. You are dead wrong. All you have to do is download the X5200 manual to confirm what others are saying.
> 
> *PLII is GONE in the new Atmos enabled receivers, replaced/subsumed by a new surround upmixing algorithm called "Dolby Surround".* JD even provided a screep cap from the manual above.



and 




Scott Wilkinson said:


> Another interesting tidbit is that the Dolby Atmos system includes a new upmixing algortihm designed to be compatible with conventional channel-based and Atmos playback systems.* Manufacturers can choose to include Dolby Pro Logic in Atmos-capable receivers, and Pro Logic will continued to be offered in channel-based receivers.* This new upmixer is called Dolby Surround, which is a somewhat unfortunate moniker, since it's also the name given to the earliest consumer version of Dolby's multichannel analog film-sound format back in 1982. Perhaps that's so long ago that few will remember the term from those days.


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> He is not giving out that kind of information these days!
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Dolby


 Dolby Inc.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> Dolby Inc.



Dolby Inc. does not know much about Atmos speakers!

http://dolbygroupinc.com/index.html


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Dolby Inc. does not know much about Atmos speakers!
> 
> http://dolbygroupinc.com/index.html


Are you trying to be funny? You're not.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/about/contact-us/email-us.aspx


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Is Dolby Prologic dead or not?


If the AVR has Dolby Surround, it will _not_ include PL.


----------



## Nightlord

Teremei said:


> I really can't understand the math of how those positions relate to the MLP which is on a couch 1' from the wall. The LS and RS can only go 1' behind MLP on the side wall and that would be with them brushing the back wall. How does 135 and 75 relate to my MLP in 10' from the front speakers?


I would move the couch forwards by 2' which would make 7.1 possible. Prime* RS/LS should be slightly ahead of MLP at +/- 78 degs.

Back surrounds will probably need to be closer to eachother than theory dictates sitting this close, perhaps at 160-170 degs and a bit higher up.

* any more speakers for those channels should arrive somewhat later in time by having longer distances.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> Are you trying to be funny? You're not.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/about/contact-us/email-us.aspx



Oh, you mean Dolby Labratories. The last time I asked San Francisco a question, it took about 6 weeks to get a correct answer.

You can ask Dolby anything that you want if you are interested in doing so.

Proof of claim is up to the AVS experts and insiders who make claims about this or any product.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> If the AVR has Dolby Surround, it will _not_ include PL.



More to the point, if an AVR has Atmos will it include PL2?

For example, what is included in an AVR that can be upgraded to Atmos in the near future? Those AVR's come standard with PL-2. Will those Atmos upgrades include "Dolby Surround" and remove PL2?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> More to the point, if an AVR has Atmos will it include PL2?
> 
> For example, what is included in an AVR that can be upgraded to Atmos in the near future? Those AVR's come standard with PL-2. Will those Atmos upgrades include "Dolby Surround" and remove PL2?


I'm sure it depends a lot on how much extra data these chips can handle.


----------



## westmd

On the german Onkyo homepage I found the following measurements for their Atmos speakers: 120 x 155 x 153 mm (4 3/4 ̋ x 6 1/8 ̋ x 6 ̋)

Can anybody confirm that the KEF prototypes were of similar proportions? I would have thought that they would be much bigger!


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm sure it depends a lot on how much extra data these chips can handle.


No..

If the AVR uses the Dolby Surround umpixer, there will be no PLII...

They were pretty clear on this point...


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> More to the point, if an AVR has Atmos will it include PL2?
> 
> For example, what is included in an AVR that can be upgraded to Atmos in the near future? Those AVR's come standard with PL-2. Will those Atmos upgrades include "Dolby Surround" and remove PL2?


It's optional..

Again, if there is a Dolby Surround upmixer in a SSP/AVR, there will be no PLII.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm sure it depends a lot on how much extra data these chips can handle.




Here is the spec sheet for a low end Onkyo unit. Movie, Music and Game buttons on the front panel of the AVR.

Dolby Atmos Ready	✓ (with upcoming firmware update)
32-Bit Digital Signal Processing Engine	✓ (Dual DSP for Powerful Advanced Processing)
Dolby Decoder	True HD, DD Plus, PLIIz
DTS Decoder	DTS-HD Master Audio
Dolby PLIIz	✓
ONKYO GAME Surround Modes	✓ (Rock, Sports, Action, RPG)



http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR737&class=Receiver&source=RelatedModels


----------



## ss9001

westmd said:


> On the german Onkyo homepage I found the following measurements for their Atmos speakers: 120 x 155 x 153 mm (4 3/4 ̋ x 6 1/8 ̋ x 6 ̋)
> 
> Can anybody confirm that the KEF prototypes were of similar proportions? I would have thought that they would be much bigger!


can't find any detailed info on the KEF's other than references to the model as the KEF R50. but here are 2 photos. maybe you can deduce the approx size by the speakers they are sitting on.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> It's optional..
> 
> Again, if there is a Dolby Surround *decoder* in a SSP/AVR, there will be no PLII.





Are you talking about a Dolby Surround upmixer, or a Dolby Atmos decoder?


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Are you talking about an Dolby Surround upmixer, or a Dolby Atmos decoder?


I had already edited my post while you were quoting.

You understand the difference...


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Here is the spec sheet for a low end Onkyo unit. Movie, Music and Game buttons on the front panel of the AVR.
> 
> Dolby Atmos Ready	✓ (with upcoming firmware update)
> 32-Bit Digital Signal Processing Engine	✓ (Dual DSP for Powerful Advanced Processing)
> Dolby Decoder	True HD, DD Plus, PLIIz
> DTS Decoder	DTS-HD Master Audio
> Dolby PLIIz	✓
> ONKYO GAME Surround Modes	✓ (Rock, Sports, Action, RPG)
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR737&class=Receiver&source=RelatedModels


And notice no mention of Dolby Surround..

If they decide to implement it with the FW upgrade for Atmos is unclear... you'd have to ask them.

For the last time.. it's optional. But if the product has Dolby Surround, there will be no PLII.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> And notice no mention of Dolby Surround..
> 
> If they decide to implement it with the FW upgrade for Atmos is unclear... you'd have to ask them.
> 
> For the last time.. it's optional. But if the product has Dolby Surround, there will be no PLII.




What is the "it" in "it's optional"?


How can there be a Dolby surround upmixer specified if the AVR does not have Atmos firmware available for the unit yet? 


Regardless of claims being made on AVS, not much is clear about anything at this point in time. There will be differences in many of these various Atmos AVRs.


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> What is the "it" in "it's optional"?
> 
> 
> How can there be a Dolby surround upmixer specified if the AVR does not have Atmos firmware available for the unit yet?
> 
> 
> Regardless of claims being made on AVS, not much is clear about anything at this point in time.


No J.. you're just being contrary.

Dolby Surround is optional in Atmos receivers.

What else are you unclear about?


----------



## mogorf

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> More to the point, if an AVR has Atmos will it include PL2?
> 
> For example, what is included in an AVR that can be upgraded to Atmos in the near future? Those AVR's come standard with PL-2. Will those Atmos upgrades include "Dolby Surround" and remove PL2?


Even more to the point, will the new Dolby Surround have separate Music and Cinema modes like PL II now has for upmixing 2 ch stereo signals to 5.1? If so its OK.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> No J.. you're just being contrary.
> 
> Dolby Surround is optional in Atmos receivers.
> 
> What else are you unclear about?




OK, but up until this point in time that has not been stated clearly. So if you buy an Atmos AVR, you still have to check to see if the unit in question includes the optional "Dolby Surround"!


----------



## FilmMixer

mogorf said:


> Even more to the point, will the new Dolby Surround have separate Music and Cinema modes like PL II now has for upmixing 2 ch stereo signals to 5.1? If so its OK.


No, it doesn't.

There is now a single Center Spread parameter.


----------



## Zen Traveler

After following the last few posts in regard to PLII and Dolby Surround and liking the way PLIIz sounds in our 9.1 home theater using heights--Is this mostly about semantics if I choose to purchase another AVR that happens to have Atmos Surround and choose to keep my speaker layout the same? IOW if I like PLIIz would Dolby Surround perform similarly in our current configuration? {Note: I am talking about with 5.1 material}


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

mogorf said:


> Even more to the point, will the new Dolby Surround have separate Music and Cinema modes like PL II now has for upmixing 2 ch stereo signals to 5.1? If so its OK.



At this point in time, the answer has been no Movie, Music, or Game modes will be available for Atmos "Dolby Surround". There will just be one mode called Atmos "Dolby Surround"..


----------



## mogorf

FilmMixer said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> There is now a single Center Spread parameter.


Thanks FM. Will the Center Spread work with 2 ch stereo? How will this new Dolby Surround upmix the 2 ch stereo to 5.1. Or am I missing out on something here?


----------



## FilmMixer

mogorf said:


> Thanks FM. Will the Center Spread work with 2 ch stereo? How will this new Dolby Surround upmix the 2 ch stereo to 5.1. Or am I missing out on something here?


Yes... the center spread was designed for such upmixing... 

I heard one early demo that was 5.1 > 7.1.4, which I thought was very good.

Dolby seems very proud of the new upmixer, but it is definitely one of the least demonstrated, or talked about, parts of the tech.


----------



## mogorf

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> At this point in time, the answer has been no Movie, Music, or Game modes will be available for Atmos "Dolby Surround". There will just be one mode called Atmos "Dolby Surround"..


Thanks JPC, and what will that one mode do with 2ch stereo input apart from spreading the center?


----------



## mogorf

FilmMixer said:


> Yes... the center spread was designed for such upmixing...
> 
> I heard one early demo that was 5.1 > 7.1.4, which I thought was very good.
> 
> Dolby seems very proud of the new upmixer, but it is definitely one of the least demonstrated, or talked about, parts of the tech.


So, this means you didn't hear a 2ch stereo upmix demo yet, did you? Really curious of what will happen to good old stereo music?


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> At this point in time, the answer has been no Movie, Music, or Game modes will be available for Atmos "Dolby Surround". There will just be one mode called Atmos "Dolby Surround"..


It's not called Atmos "Dolby Surround.."

It replaces the older Pro Logic decoders.... 

It is a new technology that they designed to be used with the new availability of overhead / Atmos enabled speakers in peoples rooms..

However, it will work with 5.1 setups and greater just as PL/PLII did...

The mode is simply called "Dolby Surround.." It can be applied to any incoming source on the AVR, from 2.0 PCM to DTS- HD MA... just like PLII/x works.

I suspect it will _only_ be absent from some of the upgradeable products (and even then, I will be surprised to see if that is the case (that it's not in every Atmos product)) 

I can't see any reason why a manufacturer wouldn't implement it.


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> Nothing I hate more is, being on the fence.
> 
> Do I sell my 4520, while I still can get enough out of it. ( ilove the power of that thing )
> 
> Use that money to go towards a new 5. 1. 4 system.
> 
> The only thing ill really have to do is move my front wides, and make rear surrounds out of them.
> And move the front hieghts and current rear surrounds abit to at least have a good start at atmos.
> 
> A probem I have, which I havent heard addressed. Is living in florida. Ceiling fans are a must. I also have to have ceiling speakers, not upward firing ones do to the fan. So I have to position the ceiling speakers in a way the fan does not interfer with sound....
> 
> Orjust wait till my ht room becomes available. But my wife said my daughters never moving out....


I live on the beach with ceiling fans in every room I'm going to go with in or on ceiling speakers because I'm not sure what those up firing speakers will or will not be affected by those fans.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

mogorf said:


> So, this means you didn't hear a 2ch stereo upmix demo yet, did you? Really curious of what will happen to good old stereo music?



I don't know for sure what the Atmos Dolby surround upmixer does, but I am sure that it optimizes the matrix upmix based on the various new Atmos speaker configurations. For a 5.1 system, it probably sound almost the same as any of the other various matrix upmixers.


----------



## FilmMixer

mogorf said:


> So, this means you didn't hear a 2ch stereo upmix demo yet, did you? Really curious of what will happen to good old stereo music?


No, I didn't.

I suspect it will spread the 2 channel music out to your speaker setup, just like any matrix decoder does.

Jk... 

I am sure we will start getting ears on reports post CEDIA.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> It's not called Atmos "Dolby Surround.."
> 
> It replaces the older Pro Logic decoders....
> 
> It is a new technology that they designed to be used with the new availability of overhead / Atmos enabled speakers in peoples rooms..
> 
> However, it will work with 5.1 setups and greater just as PL/PLII did...
> 
> The mode is simply called "Dolby Surround.." It can be applied to any incoming source on the AVR, from 2.0 PCM to DTS- HD MA... just like PLII/x works.
> 
> I suspect it will _only_ be absent from some of the upgradeable products, and become standard from then on (and even then, I will be surprised to see if that is the case (that it's not in every Atmos product)).... but that's just a guess on my part.




Ah yes, "Dolby Surround". Not to be confused with Dolby Surround!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround


----------



## mogorf

FilmMixer said:


> No, I didn't.
> 
> I suspect it will spread the 2 channel music out to your speaker setup, just like any matrix decoder does.
> 
> Jk...
> 
> I am sure we will start getting ears on reports post CEDIA.


Probably it's me misunderstanding something in this new Dolby Surround mode, but does this mean 2ch stereo music will be upmixed into Dolby Atmos with beds and objects?

WOW! A "Dolby Digital Atmos Surround" mode is being born for good old stereo redbook CDs. 

JK. 

Will see what CEDIA brings about. Please keep us informed FM. TIA!


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Ah yes, "Dolby Surround". Not to be confused with Dolby Surround!
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround


Yes, because they expect so many of their consumers outside of AVS to remember that. 

The comment came up during our Q and A...

They're sticking with it.


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> And notice no mention of Dolby Surround..
> 
> If they decide to implement it with the FW upgrade for Atmos is unclear... you'd have to ask them.
> 
> For the last time.. it's optional. But if the product has Dolby Surround, there will be no PLII.


Dolby Atmos Ready	✓
32-Bit Digital Signal Processing Engine	✓ (Dual DSP for Powerful Advanced Processing)
Dolby Decoder	True HD, DD Plus, PLIIz, Atmos
DTS Decoder	DTS-HD Master Audio
Dolby PLIIz	✓
ONKYO GAME Surround Modes	✓ (Rock, Sports, Action, RPG)
THX Processing Mode	✓
AccuEQ Room Calibration	✓ (with Mic Included


----------



## FilmMixer

bargervais said:


> Dolby Atmos Ready	✓
> 32-Bit Digital Signal Processing Engine	✓ (Dual DSP for Powerful Advanced Processing)
> Dolby Decoder	True HD, DD Plus, PLIIz, Atmos
> DTS Decoder	DTS-HD Master Audio
> Dolby PLIIz	✓
> ONKYO GAME Surround Modes	✓ (Rock, Sports, Action, RPG)
> THX Processing Mode	✓
> AccuEQ Room Calibration	✓ (with Mic Included


And where is "Dolby Surround" in that description?

I suspect that when the firmware comes PLIIz will go away and Dolby Surround will be included.

EDIT:

If you look at the product page for the Onkyo 3030 it has the same thing (PLIIz checked off, and mistakenly listing PLIIz as a "decoded" format..)

However, in reading the 3030 manual it states:



> quipped with 11 channel amplifier
> Supports playback in Dolby Atmos format which provides
> 360-degree placement and movement of sounds
> including overhead sound
> _*Dolby Surround listening mode expands 2 ch, 5.1 ch or
> 7.1 ch source to available speaker configurations*_
> 
> THX Select2 Plus certified
> 
> Incorporates QdeoTM technology for HDMI video
> upscaling
> 
> All HDMI jacks support displays of 4K resolution at 60 Hz Supports the HDMI Through function which allows
> transmission from playback devices to the TV in standby
> state
> Supports HDCP2.2, a strict copy-protection for providing
> high quality content (HDMI IN3/OUT MAIN only)
> Supports ARC (Audio Return Channel)
> Supports USB storage playback
> Supports variety of network functions such as Internet
> Radio, DLNA, etc.
> Supports Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and MHL-enabled mobile
> device
> Bi-Amping capability
> A/V Sync function to correct deviation of audio and video Multi-zone function which allows you to play a different
> source in another room from the main room (Video can
> also be played in Zone 2)
> 32 bit DSP (Digital Signal Processor) with excellent
> calculation performance
> Automatic speaker setup available using supplied
> Music OptimizerTM for Compressed Digital Music files Phase Matching Bass System
> calibrated microphone (AccuEQ Room Calibration) Supports playback of MP3, FLAC, WAV, Ogg Vorbis,
> Apple Lossless, DSD via network and USB storage device (the supported formats will differ depending on the use environment)
> ISF (Imaging Science Foundation) Video Calibration


I expect the website errors to be corrected soon...


----------



## kbarnes701

RichB said:


> In earlier discussions of the benefit of object oriented sound, one benefit discussed was encoding the dialog as an object.
> This would permit the home user to adjust the sound in a more direct manner than the current control of the center channel permits.
> 
> 
> You may be correct, it may be irrelevant to the first implementation of Atmos, but it is not irrelevant to object oriented sound.
> 
> 
> - Rich


What it was irrelevant to is the discussion you jumped in on, which was about the efficacy of 5 speakers across the front in a HT setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Is Dolby Prologic dead or not?


IDK how many times we have to cover the same ground before everyone gets up to speed, but this has been asked and answered more than once in this thread.

In Atmos units, Prologic is no more. It has been replaced by a new upmixer called Dolby Surround, which has subsumed PLII, PLIIx, PLIIz and all of Prologic into one new upmixer, which also upmixes Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Oh, you mean Dolby Labratories. The last time I asked San Francisco a question, it took about 6 weeks to get a correct answer.
> 
> You can ask Dolby anything that you want if you are interested in doing so.
> 
> Proof of claim is up to the AVS experts and insiders who make claims about this or any product.


I asked Dolby, London, on Wednesday. I have already told you what they said. If you don't believe them, or me, then you will have to find out for yourself from a source you do believe. Meanwhile, you aren't really adding much to the discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> On the german Onkyo homepage I found the following measurements for their Atmos speakers: 120 x 155 x 153 mm (4 3/4 ̋ x 6 1/8 ̋ x 6 ̋)
> 
> Can anybody confirm that the KEF prototypes were of similar proportions? I would have thought that they would be much bigger!


A bit bigger than that but not much. If you look at the photo in my recent report, and then get the specs for the R700s they were sitting on, you will be able to figure out pretty accurately how big their upfiring modules are.


----------



## kbarnes701

Zen Traveler said:


> After following the last few posts in regard to PLII and Dolby Surround and liking the way PLIIz sounds in our 9.1 home theater using heights--Is this mostly about semantics if I choose to purchase another AVR that happens to have Atmos Surround and choose to keep my speaker layout the same? IOW if I like PLIIz would Dolby Surround perform similarly in our current configuration? {Note: I am talking about with 5.1 material}


I was told it performs better than PLIIz.

For the benefit of some of the apparently hard of thinking on the thread (not you), as FM has stated at least 5 times and as I have stated at least twice recently, and as others have stated numerous times *Dolby Surround replaces Prologic in Atmos units in all its forms*.


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> I was told it performs better than PLIIz.
> 
> For the benefit of some of the apparently hard of thinking on the thread (not you), as FM has stated at least 5 times and as I have stated at least twice recently, and as others have stated numerous times *Dolby Surround replaces Prologic in Atmos units in all its forms*.


No need to repeat. But if you know what Dolby Surround will do to 2ch stereo music compared to what PLII did, lay it on us please.


----------



## kbarnes701

mogorf said:


> No need to repeat. But if you know what Dolby Surround will do to 2ch stereo music compared to what PLII did, lay it on us please.


AFAIK it will do the same as PLII currently does. Expand it to the available channels. It's an upmixer, so it will work the way upmixers work. What is it you think it might not do? (Other than what you asked before which FM answered).

Dolby haven't yet demoed Dolby Surround AFAIK. I asked at my first demo in London and again last Wednesday but they said they have no facilities at that time to demo it. Remember the demos were running off a specially set up laptop (to facilitate switching between speaker layouts instantaneously) so it's possible that Dolby Surround wasn't implemented in it. Either way, I asked twice if I could hear it and twice was told "no". I did express disappointment on the basis that most people with Atmos setups, in the early days, will be upmixing legacy content a lot more than they will be playing Atmos content, so it is very important that Dolby Surround works well. I was told on three occasions by two different Dolby personnel that it is "very good" and FM has heard it and he says the same, so I am optimistic that it is "very good".

As for using it to upmix 2.0, personally I wouldn't want 2.0 music upmixed to 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 and would turn it off for 2ch music, but that's just me.


----------



## aaronwt

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAIK it will do the same as PLIIx currently does. Expand it to the available channels.


But PLIIx has a music and cinema mode which each sound different. It sounds like Dolby Surround won't have different modes. Which would be a big oversite if it is trim the case.


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAIK it will do the same as PLII currently does. Expand it to the available channels. It's an upmixer, so it will work the way upmixers work. What is it you think it might not do? (Other than what you asked before which FM answered).


If I remember well, you're not listening to music on your HT system, but have a separate stereo room for 2 CH music, so you're not gonna miss PL II for music. I'll wait for FM's first hand info after CEDIA. Thanks anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaronwt said:


> But PLIIx has a music and cinema mode which each sound different. It sounds like Dolby Surround won't have different modes. Which would be a big oversite if it is trim the case.


That is correct. It does not have a music and cinema mode. Just a centre width expansion thing. Atmos has been designed for cinema sound, not music so it doesn’t surprise me.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK how many times we have to cover the same ground before everyone gets up to speed, but this has been asked and answered more than once in this thread.
> 
> In Atmos units, Prologic is no more. It has been replaced by a new upmixer called Dolby Surround, which has subsumed PLII, PLIIx, PLIIz and all of Prologic into one new upmixer, which also upmixes Atmos.


You're absolutely right, Keith; this has been covered ad nauseum (particularly in this thread). But I think it will sadly remain a point of confusion at least until the Atmos-capable AVR's hit the market. Case in point:

1) Crutchfield (a reliable CE retailer with an enviable reputation for customer care) currently has the AVR-X5200W listed available for pre-order with the following blurb in the "Overview" section:




















I suspect that this listing is erroneous (I also note that for both the X4100W and X5200W they list DTS Neo:6 in lieu of Neo:X), but it adds to the aforementioned confusion.


2) There's also this input from Scott Wilkinson, who was one of the attendees at last Monday's demo in Burbank (along with FilmMixer, SDurani, et al) :



Scott Wilkinson said:


> Another interesting tidbit is that the Dolby Atmos system includes a new upmixing algortihm designed to be compatible with conventional channel-based and Atmos playback systems. *Manufacturers can choose to include Dolby Pro Logic in Atmos-capable receivers*, and Pro Logic will continued to be offered in channel-based receivers. This new upmixer is called Dolby Surround, which is a somewhat unfortunate moniker, since it's also the name given to the earliest consumer version of Dolby's multichannel analog film-sound format back in 1982. Perhaps that's so long ago that few will remember the term from those days.


So perhaps Atmos CE manufacturers have the leeway to include either Dolby Surround or PLII or both? My guess is that PLII will only survive on non-Atmos-enabled equipment, but survive it will. Personally, I'm hoping that Dolby Surround will work so well that we won't be giving Pro Logic (which I use a lot) a second thought.


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> You're absolutely right, Keith; this has been covered ad nauseum (particularly in this thread). But I think it will sadly remain a point of confusion at least until the Atmos-capable AVR's hit the market. Case in point:
> 
> 1) Crutchfield (a reliable CE retailer with an enviable reputation for customer care) currently has the AVR-X5200W listed available for pre-order with the following blurb in the "Overview" section (see attached thumbnail):
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby® and DTS® surround sound decoding, including Pro Logic IIz
> Dolby Atmos processing for use with in-ceiling or "height" speakers for more enveloping surround sound; compatible with 7-, 9-, or 11-channel setups (11 channels requires an external stereo power amp)
> I suspect that this listing is erroneous (I also note that for both the X4100W and X5200W they list DTS Neo:6 in lieu of Neo:X), but it adds to the aforementioned confusion.
> 
> 
> 2) There's also this input from Scott Wilkinson, who was one of the attendees at last Monday's demo in Burbank (along with FilmMixer, SDurani, et al) :
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps Atmos CE manufacturers have the leeway to include either Dolby Surround or PLII or both? My guess is that PLII will only survive on non-Atmos-enabled equipment, but survive it will. Personally, I'm hoping that Dolby Surround will work so well that we won't be giving Pro Logic (which I use a lot) a second thought.


It's one or the other. 

Crutchfields description is wrong. 

Reading the X5200 manual confirms it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

luca_frontino said:


> I have the DTS-HD Master Audio Suite and, when creating a 7.1 track, there's an embedded 5.1 downmix defaulting to a -3dB attenuation (I doubt it gets touched at all by BD producers).


Hi Luca,

Thanks for the further details. Your original question was asking about Atmos, which is delivered through Dolby TrueHD, so it does not matter how DTS' encoder works. And in TrueHD, the core 5.1 of a 7.1 mix is not forced to -3 dB. So that should assure us that whatever is heard from an Atmos mix is exactly how the content makers wanted it to be wrt reference levels. 



> It cannot be deactivated, so every DTS MA 7.1 track has it. When playing back a 7.1 track on a 5.1 AVR, it will play 3dB lower than Reference Level, no matter what.


The DTS Master Audio Suite User Guidelines, in the section discussing making a 5.1 downmix from a 7.1 source, states:


> The first fader (i.e. L, R, C, LFE, Ls and Rs) in each control set, known as Scaling Coefficients, shows the scaling value for each of those channels. The values in these fields, at the bottom of each column, specify the channel’s contribution to the output mix. The values range from 0.0 to -6.0 (0 to -6.0 dBFS) inclusive.


 It also states:


> The Downmix Saturation Check feature allows a user to check for Saturation (or clipping) in the 5.1 downmix.


So a) it looks like the -3 dB default can be easily changed to 0 dB. And b) if there's any headroom problem, it can be flagged and addressed before mastering. 



luca_frontino said:


> When extracting the DTS core from 7.1 MA, it receives (or already had) a -3dB attenuation, so even in that case 5.1 system will play 3dB below Reference Level. People in possess of Pacific Rim and 5.1 system can make a quick test, if willing to.


So we agree that none of this has anything to do with the AVR, which is dutifully playing the source exactly as encoded.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> We know that. However, as I previously noted Dolby has also said that the EQ is built into the speakers. What is the correct answer?


If that EQ were in the speaker, it would be impossible for the room EQ system to avoid "fixing" it, negating the filter. But Dolby assures us that problem does not exist. It means the EQ is in the DSP (which of course is also much more practical, and it also assures the benefit accrues only to Atmos sources).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> If that EQ were in the speaker, it would be impossible for the room EQ system to avoid "fixing" it, negating the filter. But Dolby assures us that problem does not exist. It means the EQ is in the DSP (which of course is also much more practical, and it also assures the benefit accrues only to Atmos sources).


This is just one more example why Dolby needs to really get its act together in regards to these demos and press/public relations meetings. Some information being bandied about is as inconsistent as their audio demonstrations at various event locations themselves.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> For a 5.1 system, it probably sound almost the same as any of the other various matrix upmixers.


It might, but which one? They sound quite different. I'm hoping the new Dolby Surround retains the best of PLIIx and builds upon it with improved spatial openness, but does not introduce strange side effects as some other do. I also hope the center adjustment can be remembered per source/input so it will not have to be adjusted each time when switching between movie/TV and music sources.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You're absolutely right, Keith; this has been covered ad nauseum (particularly in this thread). But I think it will sadly remain a point of confusion at least until the Atmos-capable AVR's hit the market. Case in point:
> 
> 1) Crutchfield (a reliable CE retailer with an enviable reputation for customer care) currently has the AVR-X5200W listed available for pre-order with the following blurb in the "Overview" section (see attached thumbnail):
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby® and DTS® surround sound decoding, including Pro Logic IIz
> Dolby Atmos processing for use with in-ceiling or "height" speakers for more enveloping surround sound; compatible with 7-, 9-, or 11-channel setups (11 channels requires an external stereo power amp)
> 
> I suspect that this listing is erroneous (I also note that for both the X4100W and X5200W they list DTS Neo:6 in lieu of Neo:X), but it adds to the aforementioned confusion.
> 
> 
> 2) There's also this input from Scott Wilkinson, who was one of the attendees at last Monday's demo in Burbank (along with FilmMixer, SDurani, et al) :
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps Atmos CE manufacturers have the leeway to include either Dolby Surround or PLII or both? My guess is that PLII will only survive on non-Atmos-enabled equipment, but survive it will. Personally, I'm hoping that Dolby Surround will work so well that we won't be giving Pro Logic (which I use a lot) a second thought.


It is true that the AVR manufacturers can choose *not *to implement Dolby Surround if they wish - I covered that in my last report. The question is, why would they not want to implement it? If any of them made an Atmos unit and chose not to include DS, then they would presumably incorporate Prologic, but I really can’t see the point of that - you'd have an Atmos-capable AVR but no ability to upmix legacy content to Atmos speaker sets. Who would buy an AVR like that?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> This is just one more example why Dolby needs to really get its act together in regards to these demos and press/public relations meetings. Some information being bandied about is as inconsistent as their audio demonstrations at various event locations themselves.


There was nothing inconsistent in the demo I attended. I asked where the filter was applied and they said "in the AVR". Pretty darn clear.

Just because someone has chosen to disbelieve what was said and to wilfully pretend to misunderstand crystal-clear replies, isn’t the fault of Dolby.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> There was nothing inconsistent in the demo I attended. I asked where the filter was applied and they said "in the AVR". Pretty darn clear.
> 
> Just because someone has chosen to disbelieve what was said and to wilfully pretend to misunderstand crystal-clear replies, isn’t the fault of Dolby.


I don't think Scott Wilkinson was willfully pretending to misunderstand; he thought it was in the AVR until Dolby corrected him: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...lby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26631465


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I don't think Scott Wilkinson was willfully pretending to misunderstand; he thought it was in the AVR until Dolby corrected him:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...lby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26631465


Except it is in the AVR. At least that is what I was told - straight question, straight reply. And as Roger points out, if it was in the speakers, then Audyssey etc would do it's darndest to EQ it out. Obviously I wasn't there when Scott asked his question but I see no reason to suppose that the reply from Dolby, LA somehow trumps the reply from Dolby, London, especially when the latter makes the most sense. 

But yes, one could say there was some inconsistency between the answer Scott received and the answer I received - but I wasn't referring to Scott of course as, until now, I hadn't seen his answer 

The other point of course is what sense does it make to do DSP in the speaker when it can easily be done in the AVR, thus removing a potential source of problem and error? By which I mean that Dolby are licensing AVR makers and checking they are conforming to specs. That is impossible wrt to speakers as anyone can make a speaker that looks like an Atmos module - do we think Dolby would allow their entire upward firing Atmos concept to be FUBARed by a speaker maker who didn't 'bother to include' the required DSP?


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> The other point of course is what sense does it make to do *DSP in the speaker* when it can easily be done in the AVR, thus removing a potential source of problem and error? By which I mean that Dolby are licensing AVR makers and checking they are conforming to specs. That is impossible wrt to speakers as anyone can make a speaker that looks like an Atmos module - do we think Dolby would allow their entire upward firing Atmos concept to be FUBARed by *a speaker maker who didn't 'bother to include' the required DSP*?


As a side nit Keith, please do not use DSP in connection with speakers. DSP stands for Digital Signal Processing and as such it can only be done in the AVR until the signal is in the digital domain, while speakers are fed with analog signals, so, technically speaking in this context DSP'ing a speaker makes no sense. Thank you for your attention.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> _This report is a counterpart to my original report from the first demo I was kindly invited to at Dolby's London HQ. _*Dolby Atmos For The Home - A Second 'Ears-on' Experience at Dolby's London HQ.* I was privileged to be invited to a second demonstration of Atmos For The Home on Wednesday, 13th August, at Dolby's magnificent Soho Square HQ in London.
> 
> *Inside “probably the best Atmos experience in Europe”.*: As before, the presentation was split into two parts: the initial briefing and demo in Dolby's truly magnificent screening room, and the second part in their special 'HT' demo room, which is the size of a typical HT room in the UK.
> 
> 
> *Dolby's 'domestic HT room' setup.*
> 
> But the main event of the day was yet to come and we filed into the special Home Theater demo room which Dolby have created to showcase Atmos. Stephen and JJ told us that we would hear the exact same clips as we had previously heard and that we would get the opportunity to hear them played through Atmos-enabled speakers and physical ceiling-mounted speakers, for comparison.
> 
> Before going into more detail, let me describe this room. It is a modestly sized room with 5 chairs in two rows (3 in front, 2 behind) and a ceiling height of 2.4m (roughly 8 feet). As can be seen in the photograph taken from the back of the room, there are some acoustic treatments on the walls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is less clear is the way the ceiling has been designed. The central section is a suspended design which features 4 reflective panels in its centre, and these are flanked by the ceiling-mounted speakers which are concealed behind acoustically transparent panels. In the photograph below you can see the central, reflective area and, to the bottom right you can just make out the acoustically transparent material covering the ceiling-mounted speakers. In the second photograph below you can see a close-up of that panel covering one of the speakers (to the right).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What surprised me is how small the reflective area is. It covered an area roughly, I am guessing, 4ft x 4ft and it is at this area that the Atmos speaker modules were 'aimed'. Inevitably, there is some 'overspill' onto the slightly higher plastered part of the ceiling but, as JJ pointed out, the distance between the suspended part of the ceiling and the plastered part is only about 1 foot or so - a millisecond in terms of sound travel - and this difference will have no significance in terms of what we hear. This bodes well for those with smaller rooms, as it seems that the full Atmos experience can be gained even from a relatively small reflective area. Those with ceiling treatments may yet be able to use Atmos-enabled speakers or modules so long as they can create this clear central reflective area I saw in Dolby's room.
> 
> (Incidentally I should give credit to Gizmodo for the above photograph of the room and I hope they do not mind me using it here as it is so much better than the photograph I took myself. Gizmodo's take on the event can be seen here.)
> 
> *Speakers and placement considerations.*
> 
> The speakers used at listener level were all Kef designs: the tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but Dolby has no further information on that aspect of the speaker. As before, the surrounds were all placed at approximately ear level. Stephen later confirmed that this was to create the maximum distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. So in other words, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room.
> 
> Again, I thank Gizmodo for the pictures of the Kef speakers and their Atmos upfiring module.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The incredible upward-firing Atmos speakers! No compromise!*
> 
> JJ began the presentation by playing two Atmos trailers and asking us to guess whether they had been played via the Atmos speakers or via the ceiling-mounted physical speakers. I was the only person present who was able to detect that both clips were, in fact, played by the Atmos speakers. I am sure that the reason for this is that, having heard a similar demo before, I was much more tuned in as to what to listen for. Atmos speakers give a slightly more diffuse presentation while the ceiling-mounted speakers are slightly more 'precise' in where they place the sounds (objects). Neither one is better than the other: they are both excellent but (slightly) different.
> *
> It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Atmos speakers that even highly experienced listeners such as Richard and Gerald could not detect that these speakers were being used for this part of the demo*. Once again, most people present later confirmed that they actually preferred the Atmos speakers to the ceiling-mounted speakers. There is absolutely no sense of 'compromise' if domestic circumstances mean you have to go the Atmos speakers route. I think it is especially important to stress this for two reasons: one is that it is almost incredible that sound bounced off the ceiling can sound this good and the other is that, for most people, Atmos speakers will be the only way they can incorporate Atmos into their home. If you fall into the latter group, do not hesitate for one moment to go with Atmos-enabled speakers or modules. I can guarantee that you will in no way at all be disappointed.
> 
> JJ then played us the STID clip, using both types of speaker in turn so that we could compare. Again, my impressions of slightly more diffuseness vs slightly more precision were confirmed.
> 
> *Don't just hear the sound - see the sound.*
> 
> We were next treated to an incredibly interesting section of the presentation where a graphic was overlaid onto the screen, simultaneously with a clip being played, which showed the sound objects moving in real time around the room.
> 
> 
> 
> *And finally…. How did it sound?*
> 
> No report of an Atmos demo would be complete without some attempt to convey in words how it all actually sounds. Well, in Dolby's multi-million dollar screening room, it sounds as good as the best commercial cinema in which you may have already heard Atmos movies: fabulous. The sense of immersion, the precision with which sounds are placed around you, the dynamic way that sounds move through the room, with such precision that you often end up following the sound with your eyes, as well as with your ears… all these are part of the commercial Atmos experience, and they all help take cinema sound to a whole new level (pun intended). As I said in my first report, Atmos is much, much more than 'height effects' and the occasional flyover of a helicopter.
> 
> But it is when you move to a typical HT environment that you will be truly amazed. Here, in a typical sized domestic space, Dolby seem to have worked a miracle. So little is lost compared with the commercial theater experience that you can scarcely believe it. In many ways, the HT demo is even more impressive than the 'big room' demo, simply because the result is so much less expected.
> 
> Using either Atmos speakers or ceiling-mounted speakers, your HT room will suddenly become the environment in which the action is taking place. Walls and ceiling simply disappear and you are transported to a cave, to outer space, to a forest, adding immensely to the enjoyment of the on-screen action in a way which you will not have previously experienced. In the opening scenes of Star Trek Into Darkness, when the aliens throw their spears, they don't just move from front to back of the room, as before. Now they also move overhead as well. As the aliens and the Enterprise crew run through the forest, you can hear precisely where they are, where their voices are coming from; the rustle of leaves and the snapping of branches happen above you, to your left, your right, in front of you. You are there. When I got home, I played that scene in my own HT, which is substantially treated and has high quality speakers, subs and amplification. The difference left me feeling 'flat'. So I say to Dolby, the AVR manufacturers, the content creators, the studios: *bring it on!* I can't wait. And I would love to hear how the upmixing algorithm treats my legacy version of STID and how it compares with the full fat Atmos version - but that is something, I hope, for another demo on another day.


Lucky you!

I love the idea of acoustic panel ceiling cloud mounting brackets! I could use two panels and cut a whole in the middle to install two in ceiling speakers so I can do Atmos in the small room!

I don’t want to cut my ceiling plus the panels would improve acoustics in the small room!

http://www.markertek.com/Audio-Equipment/Speakers/Outdoor-Waterproof-Speakers/Tannoy-Ltd/DI5.xhtml

I am thinking using these http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci200RR/index.html to mount on the panels and attached to the ceiling using 

these http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/acoustic-panel-ceiling-cloud-mounting-brackets/


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I wasn't referring to Scott of course as, until now, I hadn't seen his answer


My mistake. To Scott's credit, he does say: _"I had originally written that the height DSP was done in the AVR, which is what I understood from the discussion, but they "corrected" that to what ended up in the article."_


----------



## mogorf

wse said:


> Lucky you!


wse, care to minimize the quote of the OP in your recent post? Many will be grateful just like me. Thanks a million.


----------



## luca_frontino

Roger Dressler said:


> Hi Luca,
> 
> Thanks for the further details. Your original question was asking about Atmos, which is delivered through Dolby TrueHD, so it does not matter how DTS' encoder works. And in TrueHD, the core 5.1 of a 7.1 mix is not forced to -3 dB. So that should assure us that whatever is heard from an Atmos mix is exactly how the content makers wanted it to be wrt reference levels.
> 
> The DTS Master Audio Suite User Guidelines, in the section discussing making a 5.1 downmix from a 7.1 source, states: It also states: So a) it looks like the -3 dB default can be easily changed to 0 dB. And b) if there's any headroom problem, it can be flagged and addressed before mastering.
> 
> So we agree that none of this has anything to do with the AVR, which is dutifully playing the source exactly as encoded.


I admit I didn't make myself clear enough. I brought DTS as an example because if they default a -3 dB attenuation for a 7.1 downmixed, how could Dolby leave TrueHD to be downmixed without attenuation? Usually it's DTS that follows Dolby's specifications.
Pacific Rim's 7.1 downmixed sounds lower than the 5.1 when played back (the end credits music is an easy on-the-fly test).
The 5.1 track embedded in a TrueHD 7.1 is actually a separate stream and not really a core without MLP; that's why there's no -3 dB attenuation.

But in the Atmos case, objects metadata are just "coordinates" or actual loudness content? Playing Atmos without decoding Objects does get or not an attenuation?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> This is just one more example why Dolby needs to really get its act together in regards to these demos and press/public relations meetings. Some information being bandied about is as inconsistent as their audio demonstrations at various event locations themselves.


Dan.. no offense but this detail (how they process audio for the enabled speakers) is hardly important to how the system works as whole (except for those that think they can build their own up firing speakers, which would be relegated to the few here..)

You've heard from countless people about how well it works... do it matter where the EQ is happening? 

I think you confuse the understanding of what Dolby has _disseminated by some_ to the quality of the information they have released publicly.

Shoot the messenger in many cases, IMO... I've posted some incorrect information, all of my own doing.

They haven't relasesd a lot of information themselves and have stated when a lot of the details will be released (CEDIA.) 

And how exactly have the demos been inconsistent? And exactly what information has Dobly provided (that you can prove came directly form them) that needs explaining?

Just curious....


----------



## Zen Traveler

FilmMixer said:


> And how exactly have the demos been inconsistent? And exactly what information has Dobly provided (that you can prove came directly form them) that needs explaining?
> 
> Just curious....


My question would be why everyone in one group seem to prefer the upfiring speakers and in the other group everyone preferred the on ceiling speakers.
Btw, this isn't a knock, just a curiosity.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.. no offense but this detail (how they process audio for the enabled speakers) is hardly important to how the system works as whole (except for those that think they can build their own up firing speakers, which would be relegated to the few here..)
> 
> You've heard from countless people about how well it works... do it matter where the EQ is happening?
> 
> I think you confuse the understanding of what Dolby has _disseminated by some_ to the quality of the information they have released publicly.
> 
> Shoot the messenger in many cases, IMO... I've posted some incorrect information, all of my own doing.
> 
> They haven't relasesd a lot of information themselves and have stated when a lot of the details will be released (CEDIA.)
> 
> And how exactly have the demos been inconsistent? And exactly what information has Dobly provided (that you can prove came directly form them) that needs explaining?
> 
> Just curious....


None taken. In the grand scheme of things, if it works, it works irrespective of where the extra height effects processing is done. I agree. I would also think that this would take place in the receiver or pre-amp/processor and not in the "Atmos" speaker itself. It just seems more logical.

And yet, if you look at what some reports of experiences and thoughts from these Dolby demo/meet n' greet press events have talked about, like Scott Wilkinson's_, _they were getting some inconsistent information from Dolby (compared to what you and others have talked about on this and other threads), and the presentations themselves seemed to have 100% totally different opinions and outcomes about what were the better height effect speakers ("enabled" or in-ceiling), etc. based on said home theater demos. That makes me curious as to what caused this total 180 discrepancy. 

The placement and "calibration" of their ceiling speakers didn't seem to be as well thought out either (compared to discussions on this board). They're aimed straight down at the ground, for one thing. Are they consciously trying to play-up the Atmos enabled speakers? I'm just not sure what their motivation was here? And yet Scott's "team" agreed that the ceiling surrounds were the more effective means of reproducing the height effects. Again, a complete reversal of Keith's (and others') group experiences. 

More than one person has mentioned that the movie demo material (especially the Star Trek clip) didn't highlight Atmos' benefits very well (compared to the other "unmentionable" movie clip that Keith heard) and their cinema auditoriums were playing material too loudly and were harsh sounding. That diminished the effectiveness of the demos.

You would admit that Dolby needs to address some of these issues, if this is indeed the case. Wouldn't they want to show home Atmos (a fine technology, I'm sure) and the Atmos format in general in the best light possible?


----------



## bargervais

Atmos Surround Upmixing: Going Beyond Prologic IIz
Now it’s all fine and good that you can enjoy Atmos with future releases, but a lot of folks already own a pretty sizeable collection of films. What’s in it for them you ask? As it turns out, the Atmos engine also includes a surround upmixer, which replaces the Dolby Pro Logic II family of upmixers. As you might imagine, the Atmos upmixer is a bit more advanced than previous generations. The Atmos engine starts by performs a granular analysis of legacy sources, which can range from good old two channel content to the latest 7.1 Dolby TrueHD mix. From there, the system is capable of steering individual frequency bands from each channel to create up to a 24.1.10 matrixed Atmos environment. Of note: the Atmos upmixer will not send redirected content to speakers between the front left, center, and right speakers in order to minimize the impact on the front stage


----------



## UKTexan

mogorf said:


> As a side nit Keith, please do not use DSP in connection with speakers. DSP stands for Digital Signal Processing and as such it can only be done in the AVR until the signal is in the digital domain, while speakers are fed with analog signals, so, technically speaking in this context DSP'ing a speaker makes no sense. Thank you for your attention.


 

Mogorf,


I'm sure Keith is well aware what DSP stands for. Your statement is a little sweeping, arguably some of the best loudspeakers in the world are digital and use DSP internally, Meridian.........


https://www.meridian-audio.com/en/c...dition-dsp8000-digital-active-loudspeaker/47/


Thank you for your attention.


----------



## bargervais

Dolby Atmos Speaker Configuration Options for Home Theater

5.1.2: A standard 5.1 setup with a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
5.1.4: A standard 5.1 setup with a front and rear pairs of in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
7.1.2: A standard 7.1 setup with a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
7.1.4: A standard 7.1 setup with a front and rear pairs of in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
9.1.2: A 9.1 setup utilizing front wide channels and a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.


----------



## bargervais

In-Ceiling vs Atmos-Enabled Reflective Speaker Technology
In addition to the number of channels, there’s also the question of whether you wish to utilize discrete in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers or “Atmos-enabled” speakers utilizing what they call reflective speaker technology. The latter option (of which the aforementioned Pioneer Elite Speakers are an example) adds a separate driver array which is aimed toward your ceiling. The drivers are band limited, and special processing takes place within the Atmos engine to alter select frequencies in order to create the psychoacoustic effect of sound appearing to come from above you. Dolby notes that Atmos-enabled speakers do not rely on virtualized processing like a soundbar, which also means there’s NOT a narrow sweet spot to get the "Atmos" effect. This is claim is very curious and we look forward to verifying ourselves


----------



## David Susilo

markus767 said:


> The order is of utmost importance. If the Audyssey test signal goes through any processing it will become part of the measured response and Audyssey will try to compensate for that. This would remove the processing.
> Try it for yourself and add EQ to the signal path. Audyssey will (try to) remove it.
> 
> Once the filter is created it indeed doesn't matter if filters are applied A+B or B+A.


As most know, I never see eye to eye with Markus. However, in this case, Markus is absolutely correct. The order is VERY important.


----------



## mp5475

So for people going with physical in or on ceiling speakers, is in ceiling poor choice if they can not be aimed? Ideally they should not point straight down? Or it's ok if the dispersion angle is wide?

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

luca_frontino said:


> I have the DTS-HD Master Audio Suite and, when creating a 7.1 track, there's an embedded 5.1 downmix defaulting to a -3dB attenuation (I doubt it gets touched at all by BD producers). It cannot be deactivated, so every DTS MA 7.1 track has it. When playing back a 7.1 track on a 5.1 AVR, it will play 3dB lower than Reference Level, no matter what. When extracting the DTS core from 7.1 MA, it receives (or already had) a -3dB attenuation, so even in that case 5.1 system will play 3dB below Reference Level. People in possess of Pacific Rim and 5.1 system can make a quick test, if willing to.


Hey thanks for that; makes sense.


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> The current question:
> 
> Is the Atmos speaker filtering built into the Atmos speaker or is the filtering part of the Atmos AVR's DSP?
> 
> Source information below:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1646937-dolby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26623145
> 
> Some new information on the issue below here:
> 
> and response from Scott


You are a good reader, thanks for that: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> Dolby Atmos Speaker Configuration Options for Home Theater
> 5.1.2: A standard 5.1 setup with a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
> 5.1.4: A standard 5.1 setup with a front and rear pairs of in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
> 7.1.2: A standard 7.1 setup with a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
> 7.1.4: A standard 7.1 setup with a front and rear pairs of in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.
> 9.1.2: A 9.1 setup utilizing front wide channels and a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers.


- *9.1.2: A 9.1 setup utilizing front wide channels and a pair of “middle” in-ceiling/ceiling-mounted speakers. *Yes that's what I want with one row of seats


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Except it is in the AVR. At least that is what I was told - straight question, straight reply. And as Roger points out, if it was in the speakers, then Audyssey etc would do it's darndest to EQ it out. Obviously I wasn't there when Scott asked his question but I see no reason to suppose that the reply from Dolby, LA somehow trumps the reply from Dolby, London, especially when the latter makes the most sense.
> 
> *But yes, one could say there was some inconsistency between the answer Scott received and the answer I received - but I wasn't referring to Scott of course as, until now, I hadn't seen his answer *
> 
> The other point of course is what sense does it make to do DSP in the speaker when it can easily be done in the AVR, thus removing a potential source of problem and error? By which I mean that Dolby are licensing AVR makers and checking they are conforming to specs. That is impossible wrt to speakers as anyone can make a speaker that looks like an Atmos module - do we think Dolby would allow their entire upward firing Atmos concept to be FUBARed by a speaker maker who didn't 'bother to include' the required DSP?



and




kbarnes701 said:


> I asked Dolby, London, on Wednesday. I have already told you what they said. If you don't believe them, or me, then you will have to find out for yourself from a source you do believe. Meanwhile, you aren't really adding much to the discussion.





Kind of hard to miss Scott's and Sanjay's conversation about the issue when you responded to posting #4422 earlier today!


Posting 4422 on this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-111.html#post26625329


----------



## Teremei

Nightlord said:


> I would move the couch forwards by 2' which would make 7.1 possible. Prime* RS/LS should be slightly ahead of MLP at +/- 78 degs.
> 
> Back surrounds will probably need to be closer to eachother than theory dictates sitting this close, perhaps at 160-170 degs and a bit higher up.
> 
> * any more speakers for those channels should arrive somewhat later in time by having longer distances.


Thank you, if I ever feel like adding BSR and BSL and I see if I can make it work. For now though I'm rockin crystal clear 5.1 with Klipschorns.


----------



## mogorf

UKTexan said:


> Mogorf,
> 
> 
> I'm sure Keith is well aware what DSP stands for. Your statement is a little sweeping, arguably some of the best loudspeakers in the world are digital and use DSP internally, Meridian.........
> 
> 
> https://www.meridian-audio.com/en/c...dition-dsp8000-digital-active-loudspeaker/47/
> 
> 
> Thank you for your attention.


Digital speakers make digital sound for digital people to enjoy digital.


----------



## noah katz

NorthSky said:


> They should, because sound is 50% of the total movie experience. ...Spatial Immersion.





Dan Hitchman said:


> It's more like 60%...


I think it's even more; compare the emotional impact of an action scene with picture and no sound vs. sound and no picture.



sdurani said:


> Just don't be surprised when speakers in front of you and behind you don't sound like they're above you.


Are phantom images not created for height speakers forward and behind the listening position?



erwinfrombelgium said:


> The actual size of the space is not really relevant. Two ceiling speakers only form a one-dimentional line so they can only produce sound coming from the line between them. Four ceiling speakers form a two-dimentional plane, hence the sound they produce can come from anywhere on that plane. It will be far superior.


I don't think it will be that bad; together with front and back speakers sounds can occur on an arced surface.


----------



## ambesolman

mogorf said:


> Digital speakers make digital sound for digital people to enjoy digital.



"Sometimes I park in handicap spaces
while handicapped people 
make handicapped faces. I'm an ***hole!"

--Dennis Leary


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Yes, *DD+ can do higher bitrates and it might even do more single objects than TrueHD*.
> It is lossy but who cares if it's good enough.





markus767 said:


> Markus never said he likes it. Please stick to what I've said and don't make up things.


Ok Markus.


----------



## NorthSky

PeterTHX said:


> You're saying DD+ is like MP3? That's like saying HEVC is like MPEG1.
> 
> DD runs from 32kbps to 640kbps. DD+ goes from 32kbps to 6144kbps but is designed for extremely low bitrate applications (i.e. streaming) and to overcome the 5.1 channel limitation of DD


Hi Peter,

THX for the info.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Are phantom images not created for height speakers forward and behind the listening position?


From the front wall to the back wall? Try it some time.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> It is true that the AVR manufacturers can choose *not *to implement Dolby Surround if they wish - I covered that in my last report. The question is, why would they not want to implement it? If any of them made an Atmos unit and chose not to include DS, then they would presumably incorporate Prologic, but I really can’t see the point of that - you'd have an Atmos-capable AVR but no ability to upmix legacy content to Atmos speaker sets. Who would buy an AVR like that?


Very true, without _Dolby Surround_ "upmixer" you are not 'elevated' no more. ...With legacy audio content. ...Which makes no sense to be a first generation Dolby Atmos adopter, and not having it.

_______


* *bargervais*; in your new onkyo 737 Dolby Atmos ready AV receiver, 
do you have a *Dolby Surround* decoder/upmixer? /// If not, too bad. IMO


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Ah yes, "Dolby Surround". Not to be confused with Dolby Surround!
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround


The former, from 1982. ...The later, from 2014, with Dolby Atmos receivers and surround sound processors.
...Same name, different times, different technologies, different advancement, more elevated now, 3D sound.
...Before, 2D horizontal. ...Today, horizontal, plus vertical, 3D.


----------



## FilmMixer

On a complete departure from all of this back and forth (which isn't going to change how the products or codec work IMO ) I'm happy to finally report I've finally got some audio bliss coming back in my life. 

We moved in March and had to liquidate all of my HT gear. Since I knew what was coming there was no sense to buy anything... Until now. 

Yamaha RX-A3040 on the way. 

Pioneer 5.1.4 speakers pre-ordered.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> None taken. In the grand scheme of things, if it works, it works irrespective of where the extra height effects processing is done. I agree. I would also think that this would take place in the receiver or pre-amp/processor and not in the "Atmos" speaker itself. It just seems more logical.
> 
> And yet, if you look at what some reports of experiences and thoughts from these Dolby demo/meet n' greet press events have talked about, like Scott Wilkinson's_, _they were getting some inconsistent information from Dolby (compared to what you and others have talked about on this and other threads), and the presentations themselves seemed to have 100% totally different opinions and outcomes about what were the better height effect speakers ("enabled" or in-ceiling), etc. based on said home theater demos. That makes me curious as to what caused this total 180 discrepancy.
> 
> The placement and "calibration" of their ceiling speakers didn't seem to be as well thought out either (compared to discussions on this board). They're aimed straight down at the ground, for one thing. Are they consciously trying to play-up the Atmos enabled speakers? I'm just not sure what their motivation was here? And yet Scott's "team" agreed that the ceiling surrounds were the more effective means of reproducing the height effects. Again, a complete reversal of Keith's (and others') group experiences.
> 
> More than one person has mentioned that the movie demo material (especially the Star Trek clip) didn't highlight Atmos' benefits very well (compared to the other "unmentionable" movie clip that Keith heard) and their cinema auditoriums were playing material too loudly and were harsh sounding. That diminished the effectiveness of the demos.
> 
> You would admit that Dolby needs to address some of these issues, if this is indeed the case. *Wouldn't they want to show home Atmos (a fine technology, I'm sure) and the Atmos format in general in the best light possible?*


In the NorthSky of things it would make the utmost (atmos) sense.

Also because if people can build their own speakers: If them Dolby Atmos speakers were DSPed inside their own enclosures from the crossover network in the analog domain, then we wouldn't be able to choose our own designated or custom-made build coaxial speakers for Dolby Atmos overhead speakers or up-firing module Dolby Atmos speakers.

Maybe! Maybe the overhead ceiling speakers are DSP processed (digital domain) in the Dolby Atmos receivers, and the up-firing modules are ASP processed (analog domain) in the speaker modules themselves? ...Or vice versa? 

Do the Dolby Atmos people know what's happening exactly? ...We've got to know some more...
And the same with Dolby Surround; like having demos with it because it is one of the most (atmos) important features in the first generation of Dolby Atmos AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors (SSPs). If some manufacturers decide to not include this very important surround sound audio decoder in their first gen products, then they'll be doing a big disfavor to their first customers. ...Me truly thinks.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.. no offense but this detail (how they process audio for the enabled speakers) is hardly important to how the system works as whole (*except for those that think they can build their own up firing speakers, which would be relegated to the few here..*)


*Perhaps more than you'd think Marc*.


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> So for people going with physical in or on ceiling speakers, is in ceiling poor choice if they can not be aimed? Ideally they should not point straight down? Or it's ok if the dispersion angle is wide?
> 
> Thanks


Dolby Atmos people seem to aim them straight down. I'm sure they know what they're doing because those overhead speakers have their own mounting brackets with the option to be aimed @ different places.
So if they chose a straight down aiming it has to be a logical reason. ...My guess is that they are of the wide dispersion type speakers, and if aiming them @ the MLP (main listening area position) they might be too prominent and less immersing. ...And perhaps the reason why some people prefer the up-firing modules instead, with a greater sense of envelopment without calling due attention as to their directional origin.

Is that make some reasonable sense, anyone?

* Plus my previous theory (she still stands, by my own account) on the dual beams effect (sound beam).
...The first beam of sound going towards the ceiling, and the second beam of sound, being reflected by the ceiling's surface, going towards the MLP and its surroundings. ...Two beams of sound multiplied by four up-firing speakers are much more immersing/enveloping 3D wise than just one beam of sound multiplied by four overhead speakers. It's acoustical physics, covering a wider area in a more diffuse/infuse sound envelopment without precise localisation and with better object rendition in a more spatial three-dimensional cocoon.
Our brain is part of the entire processing with DSP in an HRTF (Head-Related Transfer Function) derivative algorithm. 

ASP (Analog Signal Processing); I just don't know.

And we also know about the notch filter applied @ 10kHz. ...And the 180Hz crossover.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> *Perhaps more than you'd think Marc*.


No... Not really IMO. 

For the majority of the targeted consumer base, very few of which know what an AVS even is, they won't have the inclination or the where with all to do it. 

As much as we all get wrapped up in this forum, I've never made the mistake to think it's indicative of the "real world" consumers. 

Looking at this thread, the majority of constant, frequent contributors numbers in the teens... Even with the lurkers, I have a feeling there isn't a large base of people who are interested in building their own speakers vs. consumers who will buy them at Best Buy, etc. afrer getting demos there....

Just my .02.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.. no offense but this detail (how they process audio for the enabled speakers) is hardly important to how the system works as whole (except for those that think they can build their own up firing speakers, which would be relegated to the few here..)


Not just building... anyone who have a few speakers leftofter that the might want to use even if they aren't optimal... but if there is a need of some complex network inside the speakers, it would be good to know it's not even worth trying.

"My dad has an old pair of bookshelves that he doesn't use, why don't we use those?"


----------



## NorthSky

*Phantom imaging...*



sdurani said:


> From the front wall to the back wall? Try it some time.


With your head turned sideways @ 90° in either direction,
from facing straight forward @ the front center channel speaker (screen display)?


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Keith, kind of hard to miss Scott's and Sanjay's conversation about the issue when you responded to posting #4422 earlier today!
> 
> Posting 4422 on this thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-111.html#post26625329


As I already mentioned: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> On a complete departure from all of this back and forth (which isn't going to change how the products or codec work IMO ) I'm happy to finally report I've finally got some audio bliss coming back in my life.
> 
> We moved in March and had to liquidate all of my HT gear. Since I knew what was coming there was no sense to buy anything... Until now.
> 
> *Yamaha RX-A3040 on the way*.
> 
> Pioneer 5.1.4 speakers pre-ordered.


I love Yamaha! ...Always have. ...Congratulations Marc! 

♦ And _Andrew Jones_ is a smart speaker's designer. ...For the common mortals, down-to-earth value oriented people; us. :smile: ...Quality sound performance not missing one bit.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> No... Not really IMO.
> 
> For the majority of the targeted consumer base, very few of which know what an AVS even is, they won't have the inclination or the where with all to do it.
> 
> As much as we all get wrapped up in this forum, I've never made the mistake to think it's indicative of the "real world" consumers.
> 
> Looking at this thread, the majority of constant, frequent contributors numbers in the teens... Even with the lurkers, I have a feeling there isn't a large base of people who are interested in building their own speakers vs. consumers who will buy them at Best Buy, etc. afrer getting demos there....
> 
> Just my .02.


Yes, but AVS is only a glimpse of the entire full picture; there are about six thousand+ other audio/video forums on the Wide World Web. 

Just my two and half senses.


----------



## NorthSky

Nightlord said:


> *Not just building... anyone who have a few speakers leftover that the might want to use* even if they aren't optimal... but if there is a need of some complex network inside the speakers, it would be good to know it's not even worth trying.
> 
> "My dad has an old pair of bookshelves that he doesn't use, why don't we use those?"


E.x.a.c.t.e.m.e.n.t.e. ------ ...And save some m.o.n.e.y.


----------



## ambientcafe

Some Atmos first impressions from 'Sound & Vision' Magazine ...

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dolby-atmos-moves


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> And yet, if you look at what some reports of experiences and thoughts from these Dolby demo/meet n' greet press events have talked about, like Scott Wilkinson's_, _they were getting some inconsistent information from Dolby (compared to what you and others have talked about on this and other threads), and the presentations themselves seemed to have 100% totally different opinions and outcomes about what were the better height effect speakers ("enabled" or in-ceiling), etc. based on said home theater demos. That makes me curious as to what caused this total 180 discrepancy.


I wonder if it's because both statements are true. Per the blog:


> The drivers are band limited, and special processing takes place within the Atmos engine to alter select frequencies in order to create the psychoacoustic effect


The bandlimiting function (high-pass filter) is probably inside the crossover so as to protect the little drivers in case they are fed some normal audio signal. The psychoacoustic effect is in the DSP. 

_Certs is a breath mint. Certs us a candy mint. _ Both correct.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> I wonder if it's because both statements are true. Per the blog: The bandlimiting function (high-pass filter) is probably inside the crossover so as to protect the little drivers in case they are fed some normal audio signal. The psychoacoustic effect is in the DSP.


That's the first thing said about use of passive components in the speakers that made sense compared to being done in the DSP.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Today I installed a set of 4 Agnos™ ceiling speakers (short for "format agnostic" ). They will first be used for Illusonic Immersive Audio Processing. Then for Atmos, and who knows what may come after that. The closest one on the right is the front-right-height.


----------



## NorthSky

ambientcafe said:


> Some Atmos first impressions from 'Sound & Vision' Magazine ...
> 
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dolby-atmos-moves


I like Tom; he's a straight shooter.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I wonder if it's because both statements are true. Per the blog: The bandlimiting function (high-pass filter) is probably inside the crossover so as to protect the little drivers in case they are fed some normal audio signal. The psychoacoustic effect is in the DSP.
> 
> _Certs is a breath mint. Certs us a candy mint. _ Both correct.


Does a simple high pass filter qualify as "Dolby Atmos-certified special network"?

"The handsome black modules contain a Dolby Atmos-certified special network that allows the angled full-range driver to beam sound "objects" -such as birdcalls or an aircraft- off your ceiling and into your ears."

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=SKH-410&class=Speaker&source=prodClass


----------



## Roger Dressler

^ That webpage also says a 3.25" driver is full range.  We'll just have to wait to see what's really happening.


----------



## NorthSky

Those $249/pair full range loudspeakers are for the HTIB crowd. ...With Dolby Atmos-Certified Spatial Network Inside. ...Wall-Mount Capability! ...For people without any speakers @ all, I guess. 

...They're not for the big men, with caves full of bats.


----------



## kbarnes701

mogorf said:


> As a side nit Keith, please do not use DSP in connection with speakers. DSP stands for Digital Signal Processing and as such it can only be done in the AVR until the signal is in the digital domain, while speakers are fed with analog signals, so, technically speaking in this context DSP'ing a speaker makes no sense. Thank you for your attention.


I should have said the "height cue filter in the speaker" of course, but I doubt if anyone was confused by my post. 

Of course, as you probably know, I do understand what DSP is but thanks for the lesson.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Lucky you!
> 
> I love the idea of acoustic panel ceiling cloud mounting brackets! I could use two panels and cut a whole in the middle to install two in ceiling speakers so I can do Atmos in the small room!
> 
> I don’t want to cut my ceiling plus the panels would improve acoustics in the small room!


It's quite a neat idea isn’t it?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> My mistake. To Scott's credit, he does say: _"I had originally written that the height DSP was done in the AVR, which is what I understood from the discussion, but they "corrected" that to what ended up in the article."_


No problem. I agree that there does seem to be some confusion around where the DSP (sorry, "height cue filtering") is done: speaker or AVR, but can't see any sense in doing it anywhere but the AVR, personally.

EDIT: Since saw Roger's post which makes sense to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Zen Traveler said:


> My question would be why everyone in one group seem to prefer the upfiring speakers and in the other group everyone preferred the on ceiling speakers.
> Btw, this isn't a knock, just a curiosity.


Yes, good question. Less than great setup in NYC, as was postulated in the report? Or maybe a better setup of the ceiling speakers than in the other demos? In both 'my' demos the Atmos speakers were universally preferred. I was more 'on the fence' seeing benefits and drawbacks to both, bringing me to the conclusion that one wasn't necessarily _better _than the other, but that they were both excellent, but _different_.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> So for people going with physical in or on ceiling speakers, is in ceiling poor choice if they can not be aimed? Ideally they should not point straight down? Or it's ok if the dispersion angle is wide?
> 
> Thanks


As far as we know at this time, a wide dispersion pattern seems to be desirable. So in-ceiling speakers with a wide dispersion pattern would be OK one would presume. And some have tweeters that can be angled towards the listener too. I have become convinced, personally, that dual concentric designs make an excellent choice too.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of hard to miss Scott's and Sanjay's conversation about the issue when you responded to posting #4422 earlier today!
> 
> 
> Posting 4422 on this thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-111.html#post26625329


*Post 4422* is a post by Roger Dressler and I didn’t respond to it. As always, I never seem to quite grasp the point of your posts, sorry.

AFAIK, Scott has not posted in this thread at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> On a complete departure from all of this back and forth (which isn't going to change how the products or codec work IMO ) I'm happy to finally report I've finally got some audio bliss coming back in my life.
> 
> We moved in March and had to liquidate all of my HT gear. Since I knew what was coming there was no sense to buy anything... Until now.
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3040 on the way.
> 
> Pioneer 5.1.4 speakers pre-ordered.


Happy days on the way again! Out of interest, why did you choose the Yamaha RX-A3040 over any of the other Atmos units?


----------



## Spizz

Nearly here 

http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/201408/Denon-AVR-X5200W-open/0.htm


----------



## Nightlord

That mic stand cracks me up! (Perhaps it's nothing new, but I haven't seen it before...)


----------



## bargervais

Spizz said:


> Nearly here
> 
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/201408/Denon-AVR-X5200W-open/0.htm


Sweet thanks for sharing


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> That mic stand cracks me up! (Perhaps it's nothing new, but I haven't seen it before...)


Cracks me up too.

At least it shows you have to use some kind of stand for the Mic I see people who don't use a stand or tripod and then wondered what they did wrong.


----------



## ss9001

FilmMixer said:


> On a complete departure from all of this back and forth (which isn't going to change how the products or codec work IMO ) I'm happy to finally report I've finally got some audio bliss coming back in my life.
> 
> We moved in March and had to liquidate all of my HT gear. Since I knew what was coming there was no sense to buy anything... Until now.
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3040 on the way.
> 
> Pioneer 5.1.4 speakers pre-ordered.


Congratulations!

I'm seriously considering 2 pair of Pioneer bookshelves to add to my Maggie setup. Will make final decision on speakers probably around CEDIA or shortly after. I want to get a solid idea of cost to do on-ceiling mounted (Tannoys) before making that decision. Local AV stores want open-ended $100-125/hr and I can easily see this costing $1K+ just for labor. I'm trying to get a cost from a repair- contractor who recently did a patch-drywall repair for me and he said he has a lo-voltage person who does wiring, installs; once I get some ideas from him, I'll know which way to go  The Pioneer speakers look like an excellent alternative and most likely, they'll be what I go with.


----------



## ss9001

bargervais said:


> At least it shows you have to use some kind of stand for the Mic _*I see people who don't use a stand or tripod and then wondered what they did wrong.*_


Over the years, there've been a lot of folks in Pioneer threads who are clueless about how to logically use the calibration mic & then complain about the sound quality. 

One guy said he stood behind his seat & hand held the mic right in front of his face, on the tip of his nose, aimed straight ahead instead of at the ceiling. Honest. That was one of the best  ones I had ever read. One has to wonder how people come up with these notions how to do something.

And Pioneer even shows in a drawing & says in print how to use the mic.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Over the years, there've been a lot of folks in Pioneer threads who are clueless about using a calibration mic properly & then complain about the sound quality.
> 
> One guy said he stood behind his seat & hand held the mic right in front of his face, on the tip of his nose. Honest. That was one of the best  ones I had ever read. One has to wonder how people come up with these notions how to do something.


Yeah - people have used old broom handles resting on towels and all sorts of Rube Goldberg contraptions! LOL.


----------



## bargervais

ss9001 said:


> Over the years, there've been a lot of folks in Pioneer threads who are clueless about using a calibration mic properly & then complain about the sound quality.
> 
> One guy said he sat in his seat & hand held the mic right in front of his face, on the tip of his nose. Honest. That was one of the best  ones I had ever read. And Pioneer even shows in a drawing & says in print how to use the mic.


In the beginning I to was very ignorant on how to use the Mic I stuck it on the head rest of the couch thinking I was doing it correctly LOL


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> *Post 4422* is a post by Roger Dressler and I didn’t respond to it. As always, I never seem to quite grasp the point of your posts, sorry.
> 
> AFAIK, Scott has not posted in this thread at all.



Maybe you need a new computer? Perhaps you should move on from Roman numerals to get to the correct posting? Post #4422 on this thread is a detailed posting on the issue and was authored by me. I just checked, and the posting is still there. 

You could always just click that link to get you to posting # 4422 on this thread. Scott W. was quoted in posting.


Special link just for you - posting [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=4422]#4422 [/URL]


----------



## redjr

Ethan Ong said:


> http://www.whathifi.com/news/dolby-...rticle_1_read_more&utm_source=August 15, 2014
> 
> The demo: how does Atmos sound?
> 
> Dolby ushered us into a modest living room-sized demo room, where a 7.1 system with Dolby Atmos-enabled KEF speaker modules and in-ceiling speakers were waiting for us.
> 
> We were shown the same clips as in the cinema room - Pixar's Brave trailer, the intro chase scene from Star Trek: Into Darkness, a clip of Red Bull racers Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber driving their F1 cars in a tunnel, and a couple of bespoke Atmos trailers. We weren't told at first if the clips were being played via the in-ceilings or the KEF modules (it was the modules all along), but the effect was fantastic.
> 
> We weren't expecting the huge scale you get in an Atmos cinema, but the sounds whizzing all around you, and the sense of immersion - it's all there. The upward-firing modules do a great job at making us believe that sound is coming right from above us, while integration across all speakers is seamless.
> 
> The tension and energy of Kirk and Bones running through the jungle is palpable and arrows seem to fly right at us and whizz past in a hugely exciting manner.
> 
> But it's the quieter, subtler moments - such as a sycamore seed being gently buffeted around by a breeze in the Brave trailer - that really impressed us. It feels tangible; you can hear the rustling of leaves and wind going around you, not just around the edges of the room.
> 
> Switching between in-ceilings and the modules was interesting. Admittedly, the in-ceilings do give a stronger impression of overhead sound, but the upward-firing modules perform almost as admirably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KEF module sitting atop a KEF R700 front speaker
> 
> For those curious, here's a complete list of the products used in the Atmos home demo:
> 
> The 7.1 system consisted of seven KEF R700 speakers for the front, centre, surround, and rear channels, with two B&W CT SW15 subwoofers for the LFE channel (powered by a B&W SA1000 sub amp).
> 
> Two Onkyo PA-MC5501 amplifiers were used, one for powering the seven surround speakers, the other for powering the in-ceiling and Atmos-enabled speaker modules from KEF.
> 
> The source was a bespoke Dolby-produced Atmos software renderer running on a Windows laptop (for logistical reasons of switching between demo clips, speaker configurations and showing us the renderer interface).
> 
> Clips were shown on a 51in Samsung PS51D6900 TV; yes, our screen was a three-year old plasma telly with no hint of 4K Ultra HD, but we hardly noticed that it wasn't a giant 4K screen, as the Atmos soundtrack was captivating and entertaining.
> 
> 
> Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/news/dolby-atmos-bringing-it-home#eZjMELKgts68pr94.99


Thanks Ethan for your comments. Sounds like Atmos 'really' is a different experience that must be heard to be appreciated for what it sounds like. Can't wait!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Very true, without _Dolby Surround_ "upmixer" you are not 'elevated' no more. ...With legacy audio content. ...Which makes no sense to be a first generation Dolby Atmos adopter, and not having it.
> 
> _______
> 
> 
> * *bargervais*; in your new onkyo 737 Dolby Atmos ready AV receiver,
> do you have a *Dolby Surround* decoder/upmixer? /// If not, too bad. IMO


I'm looking forward for the new firmware then we shall see but on their site it says it will play in Dolby Atmos with or without an encoded disc.


----------



## chi_guy50

Spizz said:


> Nearly here
> 
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/201408/Denon-AVR-X5200W-open/0.htm


Many thanks for that excellent reference. Here's my favorite picture from that site; I can't wait to see one of these in my living room!


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Maybe you need a new computer? Perhaps you should move on from Roman numerals to get to the correct posting? Post #4422 on this thread is a detailed posting on the issue and was authored by me. I just checked, and the posting is still there.
> 
> You could always just click that link to get you to posting # 4422 on this thread. Scott W. was quoted in posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [URL="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-111.html#post26625329"]Special link just for you - posting [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=4422]#4422[/URL] [/URL][/quote]
> 
> Oh I think I see what the problem is now - the quoting of posts on AVS is not totally reliable since they moved back to vBulletin - it is a known issue. It is always better to reference a post by its unique ID number - the number at the very end of the url using the post command. Otherwise, quoted posts can go all over the place depending on user settings and other factors.
> 
> I'm not sure what makes you think I read all your posts, but trust me, I don't. So as I said, not only did I not see the reference you seem to want to insist that I did see, but also Scott has not, AFAIK, posted in this thread.
> 
> Didn't understand your 'Roman numerals' comment, sorry. Was it an attempt at humor?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> On a complete departure from all of this back and forth (which isn't going to change how the products or codec work IMO ) I'm happy to finally report I've finally got some audio bliss coming back in my life.
> 
> We moved in March and had to liquidate all of my HT gear. Since I knew what was coming there was no sense to buy anything... Until now.
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3040 on the way.
> 
> Pioneer 5.1.4 speakers pre-ordered.





A Yamaha RX-A3040? Oh my!


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> [/CODE]
> 
> Oh I think I see what the problem is now - the quoting of posts on AVS is not totally reliable since they moved back to vBulletin - it is a known issue. It is always better to reference a post by its unique ID number - the number at the very end of the url using the post command. Otherwise, quoted posts can go all over the place depending on user settings and other factors.
> 
> *I'm not sure what makes you think I read all your posts, but trust me, I don't.* So as I said, not only did I not see the reference you seem to want to insist that I did see, but also Scott has not, AFAIK, posted in this thread.
> 
> Didn't understand your 'Roman numerals' comment, sorry. Was it an attempt at humor?




My link takes me to page 111, then after about 5 seconds the screen drops down to posting # 4422. 

As far as your comment of "I'm not sure what makes you think I read all your posts, but trust me, I don't", you quoted my top line comment from posting 4422. 

How do you answer a posting without reading it? ESP?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> ^ That webpage also says a 3.25" driver is full range.  We'll just have to wait to see what's really happening.



Actually, 3.25" drivers can do fairly well with proper protection. Full range is an interesting term to use to describe that speakers performance.

I have a full set of speakers that use a 3" paper midrange driver and they sound just fine.


----------



## Zen Traveler

Teremei said:


> Thank you, if I ever feel like adding BSR and BSL and I see if I can make it work. For now though I'm rockin crystal clear 5.1 with Klipschorns.


Umm...Just for clarification these are Klipschorns: http://www.klipsch.com/klipschorn-floorstanding-speaker


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> They should, because sound is 50% of the total movie experience. ...Spatial Immersion.


totally agree and with atmos it will be the most important part of the movie


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Actually, 3.25" drivers can do fairly well with proper protection. Full range is an interesting term to use to describe that speakers performance.


Full range (20Hz-20kHz) reference level at the main listening position? I'd like to have that driver 
Even with a 180Hz cutoff you won't get there.


----------



## mp5475

Thanks for your reply north sky and Keith.

I have option to go with either inceiling or atmos speaker but prefer the in or on ceiling due to my sound panels.

There does seem to be some conflict between the reviews.

Most if not all people on this forum who attended the demo prefer the atmos speakers while many other reviews, especially the professional reviews say in ceiling is preferred. Is it because they are trying to hype the atmos speakers? And in ceilings are not optimized? 

Also I am concerned about that if I get the atmos speakers, then I may not be able to use them when dts comes out with their own system. 

I plan to wait and see. I am following you closely Keith!
@NorthSky, your theory makes a lot of sense.
@Keith, thanks for the heads up on those tannoy speakers. I may go for it after hearing how they work for you.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Happy days on the way again! Out of interest, why did you choose the Yamaha RX-A3040 over any of the other Atmos units?


1. Want 7.1.4 for the future, so Pioneer was out.
2. Onkyo is dead to me. 
3. I've been happy with the Yamaha's before that I owned... will spend more time doing a manual cal myself, which I can't really do with the Denon.


----------



## Zen Traveler

FilmMixer said:


> ...happy with the Yamaha's before that I owned... will spend more time doing a manual cal myself, which I can't really do with the Denon.


I got a chuckle reading this--Fwiw, I usually roll my eyes when others make this statement, but with you I understand COMPLETLY.


----------



## ss9001

Zen Traveler said:


> Umm...Just for clarification these are Klipschorns: http://www.klipsch.com/klipschorn-floorstanding-speaker


that would be a mighty (& loud) 5.1 system  

I did know a quadraphile who said he used La Scalla's for his vintage quadraphonic system. I guess one per corner in a *big* room


----------



## Teremei

Zen Traveler said:


> Umm...Just for clarification these are Klipschorns: http://www.klipsch.com/klipschorn-floorstanding-speaker


Thank you, I wouldn't want to go embarrassing myself on an AV forum. I mean I guess I could have, since it was buried a page back. I probably never would have used that phrase again, but now I won't use that term ever again. Thank you for the information.


----------



## ss9001

Teremei said:


> Thank you, I wouldn't want to go embarrassing myself on an AV forum. I mean I guess I could have, since it was buried a page back. I probably never would have used that phrase again, but now I won't use that term ever again. Thank you for the information.


Don't feel bad, you probably have good company  Since the Klipschorn is their trademark design, it's understandable to use it like a catch-all name.


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> 1. Want 7.1.4 for the future, so Pioneer was out.
> 2. Onkyo is dead to me.
> 3. I've been happy with the Yamaha's before that I owned... will spend more time doing a manual cal myself, which I can't really do with the Denon.


i didn't know that can't really do with the Denon


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> 1. Want 7.1.4 for the future, so Pioneer was out.
> 2. Onkyo is dead to me.
> 3. I've been happy with the Yamaha's before that I owned... will spend more time doing a manual cal myself, which I can't really do with the Denon.




Why did you purchase a unit with no "Dolby Surround" option?


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Why did you purchase a unit with no "Dolby Surround" option?


It is my understanding that the Yamaha will have it when upgraded with the Atmos FW.


----------



## ss9001

bargervais said:


> i didn't know that can't really do with the Denon


with Audyssey room correction, you get its auto-calibration EQ or you can buy a license & kit to do Audyssey Pro which allows for doing some custom tweaking of the target curve. The last time I knew, the Pro kit costs an additional $7-800 ballpark and works with Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 version.

so it's an Audyssey thing, not Denon. 

I'm not an Audyssey user, but Keith Barnes can give you many details since he's one of the resident experts


----------



## bargervais

ss9001 said:


> with Audyssey room correction, you get its auto-calibration EQ or you can buy a license & kit to do Audyssey Pro which allows for doing some custom tweaking of the target curve. The last time I knew, the Pro kit costs an additional $7-800 ballpark and works with Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 version.
> 
> so it's an Audyssey thing, not Denon.
> 
> I'm not an Audyssey user, but Keith Barnes can give you many details since he's one of the resident experts


thanks for the explanation


----------



## Zen Traveler

ss9001 said:


> that would be a mighty (& loud) 5.1 system
> 
> I did know a quadraphile who said he used La Scalla's for his vintage quadraphonic system. I guess one per corner in a *big* room


The most awesome 5.1 Home Theater I've ever heard was at Klipsch HQ in Indianapolis which used 3 Lascalas up front and 2 Belles in the back with a pair of their THX subs taking up the lower end and it was incredible...There are a few folks over on the Klipsch Forum that have large speakers all of the way around--A guy named Indyklipschfan has 7 Lascallas/ 4 THX subs.  



Teremei said:


> Thank you, I wouldn't want to go embarrassing myself on an AV forum. I mean I guess I could have, since it was buried a page back. I probably never would have used that phrase again, but now I won't use that term ever again. Thank you for the information.


I apologize if I offended you and there is nothing to be embarrassed by because some of these things folks don't know until they come here. I understand you thought it was "a phrase" but wanted to point out it was a specific thing...You have every right to be enthusiastic about your Home Theater and sorry for the OT comments.


----------



## bargervais

it will be a sad day when denon drops Audyssey MultiEQ looks like all of them are dropping it i always wondered why now it's only D M


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> It is my understanding that the Yamaha will have it when upgraded with the Atmos FW.



I hope your understanding is correct.

Does that mean they will remove PL, PL2 and PL2X music, movie and games and add in "Dolby Surround" when Atmos is added via firmware?

Do you know if "Dolby Surround" firmware based or hardware based?


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> I've been happy with the Yamaha's before that I owned... will spend more time doing a manual cal myself, which I can't really do with the Denon.


The RX-A2040/3040 comes with PEQ - nice! Hope it will still be there after the Atmos firmware update.


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I hope your understanding is correct.
> 
> Does that mean they will remove PL, PL2 and PL2X music, movie and games and add in "Dolby Surround" when Atmos is added via firmware?
> 
> Do you know if "Dolby Surround" firmware based or hardware based?


Seriously? You know the answer to your first question.

What exactly is "firmware based?" there's no such thing...


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> Seriously? You know the answer to your first question.
> 
> What exactly is "firmware based?" there's no such thing...




Well, good luck with your Atmos firmware update!


----------



## kriktsemaj99

I'm sure Atmos and Dolby Surround are just new DSP code (i.e. firmware based, not dedicated hardware).

I'm also interested to see how the 3040 reports speaker angles after you run YPAO with that 4 position mic thingy. It's so easy for Yamaha to pass those angles to the Atmos rendering engine that they'd be stupid not to do it.


----------



## sdrucker

kriktsemaj99 said:


> I'm sure Atmos and Dolby Surround are just new DSP code (i.e. firmware based, not dedicated hardware).
> 
> I'm also interested to see how the 3040 reports speaker angles after you run YPAO with that 4 position mic thingy. It's so easy for Yamaha to pass those angles to the Atmos rendering engine that they'd be stupid not to do it.


Wonder if using the angles is a manufacturer decision or the angles are "hard wired" in the code for the DSP implementation of Atmos. If the Yamaha can pass angles along to the rendering engine, that would make the 3040 and its less expensive siblings a very appealing (and depending on taste, relatively affordable) alternative for people that can't get their Atmos speakers at ideal angles. How much difference it makes would make some good discussion here when the mainstream consumer AVR manufacturers have their Atmos-related updates.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdrucker said:


> Wonder if using the angles is a manufacturer decision or the angles are "hard wired" in the code for the DSP implementation of Atmos. If the Yamaha can pass angles along to the rendering engine, that would make the 3040 and its less expensive siblings a very appealing (and depending on taste, relatively affordable) alternative for people that can't get their Atmos speakers at ideal angles. How much difference it makes would make some good discussion here when the mainstream consumer AVR manufacturers have their Atmos-related updates.


At least the CX-A5000 had angle measurement before. I believe they use it to enhance their proprietary sound modes. So it's not certain they would use it to enhance Atmos playback. Would be swell though!


----------



## sdrucker

ss9001 said:


> with Audyssey room correction, you get its auto-calibration EQ or you can buy a license & kit to do Audyssey Pro which allows for doing some custom tweaking of the target curve. The last time I knew, the Pro kit costs an additional $7-800 ballpark and works with Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 version.
> 
> so it's an Audyssey thing, not Denon.
> 
> I'm not an Audyssey user, but Keith Barnes can give you many details since he's one of the resident experts



Steve,
The "some" tweaking of the target curve with Audyssey Pro involves being able to switch between three different settings of the MRC (Mid-Range Compensation, a/k/a the "BBC dip") according to room size, and adjustment of the individual channel target curves (or groups of channels, if you prefer) with 1/3 octave handle control. However, there's no Q adjustment to widen or trim the degree of adjustment, so it's more of an "EQ" than "PEQ". For a hard-core enthusiast or professional that has an ear for exactly what they want to adjust and can measure, YPAO can have some advantages in comparison, but you'd probably need an external solution for EQing the sub channel with precise resolution, like an Antimode or MiniDSP.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> At least the CX-A5000 had angle measurement before. I believe they use it to enhance their proprietary sound modes. So it's not certain they would use it to enhance Atmos playback. Would be swell though!


Definitely - and the next best thing to the Altitude, if the latter is using the angles for Atmos similarly to they do for Remapping LOL. I'm going to CEDIA so I'm going to check it out along with the other Atmos AVRs. All the biggies are there that we've discussed.


----------



## batpig

Just in case anyone didn't see this, Spizz posted some stuff in the Denon Atmos receivers thread from a Japanese website:



Spizz said:


> Denon AVR-X5200W Unboxing-
> 
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/201408/Denon-AVR-X5200W-open/0.htm
> 
> OnScreen menus Pictures and Video-
> 
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/201408/Denon-AVR-X5200W-SETUP/0.htm
> 
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/201408/Denon-AVR-X5200W-2/0.htm



A couple of things of interest....

1) There is a "Dolby Atmos Reference Disc" blu-ray.... here's hoping that's included with all Atmos receivers....











2) The video (second link) shows the Denon menu interface as different menu options are engaged. Pretty cool.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> 2) The video (second link) shows the Denon menu interface as different menu options are engaged. Pretty cool.


 
You'll have to get past the CHINESE (EDIT: corrected from Japanese upon Chi_Guy's observation) text and scroll to the bottom of the link. The video clip narration isn't in English but the screen shots of the Denon settings are.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Interesting.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

erwinfrombelgium said:


> At least the CX-A5000 had angle measurement before. I believe they use it to enhance their proprietary sound modes. So it's not certain they would use it to enhance Atmos playback. Would be swell though!



The A5000 only had a 3 position microphone base (not good enough for Atmos speaker angles), but the 3040 (and undoubtedly the yet to be announced A5000 replacement) adds a 4th position above the other 3.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> You'll have to get past the Japanese text and scroll to the bottom of the link. The video clip narration isn't in English but the screen shots of the Denon settings are.


Uh, that would be *Chinese*, not Japanese. (As a linguist, I care at least as much about language as the rest of you here do about A/V.)


----------



## sdrucker

^^
I was going by BP's post of the links coming from a Japanese website, but I'll take your word for it. And I corrected my post for posterity . You can smile now.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kriktsemaj99 said:


> The A5000 only had a 3 position microphone base (not good enough for Atmos speaker angles), but the 3040 (and undoubtedly the yet to be announced A5000 replacement) adds a 4th position above the other 3.


Thanks. Very promising.


----------



## kbarnes701

*UPDATES TO EARLIER REPORT* *(See here)*

Feedback from Dolby has raised some points which will be of interest to many members. I have incorporated these into my report, but for ease of reference the relevant sections are reproduced below, with the changes highlighted in bold.

_Speakers and placement considerations.

The speakers used at listener level were all Kef designs: the tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but Dolby has no further information on that aspect of the speaker. As before, the surrounds were all placed at approximately ear level.

*Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.

Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins. *

Dolby spent some considerable time (and no doubt money) researching the way our ear/brain combination works with regard to our perception of overhead sounds. Apparently, when we hear sounds from overhead, there is a natural 'notch filter' engaged by our brain and the physical disposition of our ears (and even our shoulders which reflect sound back up to our ears) and between them, these help us determine when sounds are emanating from overhead. To capitalise on this, Dolby's Atmos speakers and modules have a frequency response which is shaped by internal DSP in the AVR. This includes a recreation of that notch filter which is important in telling us that a sound is coming from above us. At this time, Dolby would not reveal at what frequency this notch filter operates other than that it is in the HF area. I speculated 7kHz and JJ said “no, it will be much higher than that”. *Stephen has since added that while a 7kHz peak is an essential part of the filter, it's not just about a notch or a peak filter, but the relative shape of the filter above 5kHz - everything above 5kHz being an important part of the filter.*

Dolby Surround - the all-new upmixing algorithm.

I asked JJ about Dolby Surround, the new upmixing algorithm which has subsumed Prologic, PLII, PLIIx and PLIIz. *The Dolby Surround upmixer is mandatory and integral to the Dolby Atmos for AVR solution. JJ explained that all AVR manufacturers will therefore implement Dolby Surround*, as one would expect, given that most people will have a much greater library of legacy content than Atmos content, for quite some time to come. There was no possibility of hearing the upmixer in action at this time. Maybe at a future demo?_

This latest information clarifies some things recently discussed, and makes clear that Dolby Surround is mandatory in all Atmos AVRs.


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> Just in case anyone didn't see this, Spizz posted some stuff in the Denon Atmos receivers thread from a Japanese website:


Menu - looks like lots of speaker configuration options including mixing Dolby enabled with ceilings.

Not Atmos & someone already commented on this but I think the cardboard tab A-slot B tripod is a simple but clever idea! Well done Denon. No excuse now for not doing the cal correctly.

It would definitely be cool if the reference disc came with all the AVR's.

Thanks, spizz for the find and batpig for the post about it.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> _*In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.*_


I have seen this guideline in other available information. The one negative to this is it obviously won't work with planar speakers like taller electrostats or Magnepans. My fronts are 6' tall to begin with & wall mounted Magnepan panels are supposed to be 2' off the floor and 4' tall, so again 6' height. Lowering the surround panels could help gain ~1 ft. but they're still going to produce sound higher than ear level. 

Anyone with tall tower speakers or planars may have to accept a compromise from the reduced separation of the overhead effect, depending on their ceiling height.

Personally, I haven't obsessed about this in the least since that's just the way it is. But I think it's worth noting.


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby spent some considerable time (and no doubt money) researching the way our ear/brain combination works with regard to our perception of overhead sounds. Apparently, when we hear sounds from overhead, there is a natural 'notch filter' engaged by our brain and the physical disposition of our ears (and even our shoulders which reflect sound back up to our ears) and between them, these help us determine when sounds are emanating from overhead. To capitalise on this, Dolby's Atmos speakers and modules have a frequency response which is shaped by internal DSP in the AVR. This includes a recreation of that notch filter which is important in telling us that a sound is coming from above us. At this time, Dolby would not reveal at what frequency this notch filter operates other than that it is in the HF area. I speculated 7kHz and JJ said “no, it will be much higher than that”. *Stephen has since added that while a 7kHz peak is an essential part of the filter, it's not just about a notch or a peak filter, but the relative shape of the filter above 5kHz - everything above 5kHz being an important part of the filter.*


I am wondering... If the speakers are at the ceiling... so the sound comes physically from overhead... so our ears are already "applying" a filter, why they need to do it yet another time? Same is with top-firing speakers, as above mentioned 7kHz they are very directional and the sound at those frequencies still comes from overhead...


----------



## Scott Simonian

IgorZep said:


> I am wondering... If the speakers are at the ceiling... so the sound comes physically from overhead... so our ears are already "applying" a filter, why they need to do it yet another time? Same is with top-firing speakers, as above mentioned 7kHz they are very directional and the sound at those frequencies still comes from overhead...


This filter is only applied when using the special "Atmos-enabled" speakers which are going to be positional around ear level.\

These special EQ filter will not be in signal when using actual overhead speakers.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Uh, that would be *Chinese*, not Japanese.


They all look the same to provincial white Americans! 

(thanks for the correction)


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> Uh, that would be *Chinese*, not Japanese. (As a linguist, I care at least as much about language as the rest of you here do about A/V.)





batpig said:


> They all look the same to provincial white Americans!
> 
> (thanks for the correction)


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> *UPDATES TO EARLIER REPORT* *(See here)*
> 
> Feedback from Dolby has raised some points which will be of interest to many members. I have incorporated these into my report, but for ease of reference the relevant sections are reproduced below, with the changes highlighted in bold.
> 
> _Speakers and placement considerations.
> 
> The speakers used at listener level were all Kef designs: the tower and centre speakers are from the Kef R700 range. The upwards-firing modules are built by Kef according to the Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker specification but Dolby has no further information on that aspect of the speaker. As before, the surrounds were all placed at approximately ear level.
> 
> *Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.
> 
> Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins. *
> 
> Dolby spent some considerable time (and no doubt money) researching the way our ear/brain combination works with regard to our perception of overhead sounds. Apparently, when we hear sounds from overhead, there is a natural 'notch filter' engaged by our brain and the physical disposition of our ears (and even our shoulders which reflect sound back up to our ears) and between them, these help us determine when sounds are emanating from overhead. To capitalise on this, Dolby's Atmos speakers and modules have a frequency response which is shaped by internal DSP in the AVR. This includes a recreation of that notch filter which is important in telling us that a sound is coming from above us. At this time, Dolby would not reveal at what frequency this notch filter operates other than that it is in the HF area. I speculated 7kHz and JJ said “no, it will be much higher than that”. *Stephen has since added that while a 7kHz peak is an essential part of the filter, it's not just about a notch or a peak filter, but the relative shape of the filter above 5kHz - everything above 5kHz being an important part of the filter.*
> 
> Dolby Surround - the all-new upmixing algorithm.
> 
> I asked JJ about Dolby Surround, the new upmixing algorithm which has subsumed Prologic, PLII, PLIIx and PLIIz. *The Dolby Surround upmixer is mandatory and integral to the Dolby Atmos for AVR solution. JJ explained that all AVR manufacturers will therefore implement Dolby Surround*, as one would expect, given that most people will have a much greater library of legacy content than Atmos content, for quite some time to come. There was no possibility of hearing the upmixer in action at this time. Maybe at a future demo?_
> 
> This latest information clarifies some things recently discussed, and makes clear that Dolby Surround is mandatory in all Atmos AVRs.


Thank goodness life without upmixing atmos would have been a very sad day because I jumped in and was just waiting for the firmware.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> ^^
> I was going by BP's post of the links coming from a Japanese website, but I'll take your word for it. And I corrected my post for posterity . You can smile now.


*どうもありがとうございまし**た*

:kiss:


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> *どうもありがとうございまし * :kiss:


I'll say it for him..

You're welcome.


----------



## Kriilin

chi_guy50 said:


> *どうもありがとうございまし *:kiss:


chi_guy50 posting in Hiragana? (form of simplified Japanese writing) You're really going to confuse us!!


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> *どうもありがとうございまし * :kiss:


You left off a hiragana character at the end.

どうもありがとうございました (less formal)

どうも有難うございました (more formal)

doumo arigatougozaimashita = thank you very much


----------



## dabotsonline

UKTexan said:


> Just received the information below from KEF US regarding the "R50 Atmos speakers"
> 
> 
> KEF US:
> 
> 
> "Right now the KEF R50 Atmos speakers are pre-official-launch. These match perfectly with our current R series of Floorstanding and bookshelf speakers.
> Their US debut will be at the B-to-B CEDIA show in Denver, but they will not be active.
> Keep an eye on www.kef.com as the information on these will be posted in the next few weeks.
> They will begin shipping to dealers for display and sale in the October time period."
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to a demo of these in October


Hopefully these will receive an international launch.


----------



## IgorZep

Scott Simonian said:


> This filter is only applied when using the special "Atmos-enabled" speakers which are going to be positional around ear level.\
> 
> These special EQ filter will not be in signal when using actual overhead speakers.


Above 7kHz the 'enabled' speakers are still very directional and what we hear are the reflected off the ceiling sound... that comes from overhead, so, the ear still filters those frequencies the same way as with physical in-ceiling speakers. So, it sound like the Atmos is trying to be more realistic than the reality by double applying the height cue filtering  To be sure 

The interesting question! From where will we hear such 'overhead' sound if we turn out head up to the ceiling...


----------



## dragonleepenn

Roger Dressler said:


> Today I installed a set of 4 Agnos™ ceiling speakers (short for "format agnostic" ). They will first be used for Illusonic Immersive Audio Processing. Then for Atmos, and who knows what may come after that. The closest one on the right is the front-right-height.


Today I finished installing 4 diy coaxial in ceiling atmos speakers.
Now to wait for software and of course the processor.
Hope the wait is not to long,I'd like to know what difference between
The denon 5200 and 7200 sound wise other then price.


----------



## Scott Simonian

IgorZep said:


> Above 7kHz the 'enabled' speakers are still very directional and what we hear are the reflected off the ceiling sound... that comes from overhead, so, the ear still filters those frequencies the same way as with physical in-ceiling speakers. So, it sound like the Atmos is trying to be more realistic than the reality by double applying the height cue filtering  To be sure
> 
> The interesting question! From where will we hear such 'overhead' sound if we turn out head up to the ceiling...


As these filters exist in the first place, it is clear that Dolby has put a lot of thought into this and it took more than just aiming an additional driver up to the ceiling and for a simple 'reflection' for it to work effectively.


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> You left off a hiragana character at the end.
> 
> どうもありがとうございました (less formal)
> 
> どうも有難うございました (more formal)
> 
> doumo arigatougozaimashita = thank you very much


Sorry, my editor somehow cut off the final hiragana "ta" (た) (Darn Caucasian wordprocessor!) I will amend my earlier post.

I've only learned about 200 _kanji_, so hiragana is easier for me!


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> On a complete departure from all of this back and forth (which isn't going to change how the products or codec work IMO ) I'm happy to finally report I've finally got some audio bliss coming back in my life.
> 
> We moved in March and had to liquidate all of my HT gear. Since I knew what was coming there was no sense to buy anything... Until now.
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3040 on the way.
> 
> Pioneer 5.1.4 speakers pre-ordered.


Congrats!

Regarding the Pioneer AJ Atmos enabled speakers, did you pre-order the whole enchilada: a pair of floorstanders and the center for the fronts, a pair of standmounts for the surrounds, as well as the sub?

Reason I'm asking is that I was curious if you or others would do some mixing and matching with other speakers, especially the sub.


----------



## dragonleepenn

Here is the front pair,still can't get two attachments (FS) annoys me.






PeterV


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> The RX-A2040/3040 comes with PEQ - nice! Hope it will still be there after the Atmos firmware update.


What manual frequency range the subwoofer channel has for PEQ?

Also, why the Yamaha receivers risk to lose their manual PEQ after the Dolby Atmos firmware update?

And! How can we be sure that Dolby Surround will be implemented with that firmware update?
And obviously if it does, then DPL II family will automatically become extinct. ...And what the manual is saying right now on those audio mode decodings will also become obsolete.

* Same thing with Onkyo receivers regarding the Dolby Atmos firmware update.

____________________

♦ Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers (atop our existing ones - four of them - front & rear):
-> They are crossed @ 180Hz; with their own crossover network, in the analog domain.
-> The AVR applies the notch filter @ 10kHz; it is done digitally via DSP from Atmos instructions chip.
-> The bass below 180Hz goes to its respective channel.
-> The AVR bass management works as intended, going from there.

♦ Overhead (in or on-ceiling) speakers (four of them):
-> The AVR does not apply a notch filter to them.
-> The AVR does not apply a 180Hz crossover to them.
-> The speakers themselves have nothing different than normal speakers (in their crossover network).
-> The speakers characteristics seem to espouse the coaxial type with wide dispersion.
-> The aiming of those speakers doesn't seem to be crucial. * We've seem them aiming straight down.

____________

So, for the overhead speakers we can pick the ones of our own liking and own aiming.
So, for the up-firing speakers (small modules) we can also pick our own preferred ones, without being slave of buying new dedicated Dolby Atmos ones.

____________

Dolby Surround (upmixer) is a big deal, it is a very important feature, and DPL family is no more.
Then Onkyo and Yamaha (I don't know about Pioneer and Denon/marantz) were quick as wild fire to write their manual, and all them manufacturers are quick to release them new Dolby Atmos products without having Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround in them, but through a firmware update comin' up next month.

____________


The confusion regarding the Dolby Atmos module speakers (up-firing) was confusing to say the least.
Scott said that they have a modified analog network on them, and Keith said that the AVR produces the digital (DSP) effect required by them; and not their fault as they simply conveyed what their sources told them. 

____________

Dolby Atmos is so new and game-changing @ home that we have already install all that is required (speakers, angles, positioning, etc.) and that we have already purchased Dolby Atmos receivers without even having Dolby Atmos in them, and no software yet on the horizon.
We are a very funny bunch of excited kids @ the circus fair of our local town. 
No wonder that new technologies are showing up @ the speed of light. ...And we follow that light even faster than it passes us by.


----------



## FilmMixer

kokishin said:


> Congrats!
> 
> Regarding the Pioneer AJ Atmos enabled speakers, did you pre-order the whole enchilada: a pair of floorstanders and the center for the fronts, a pair of standmounts for the surrounds, as well as the sub?
> 
> Reason I'm asking is that I was curious if you or others would do some mixing and matching with other speakers, especially the sub.


Whole set up..

2 floors, 2 surrounds the center and the sub..

Was going to go with a bigger sub, but after listening to AJ's webcast with SW, and looking at comparable subs at the same price, it seemed like a no brainer.. if there is one thing I can replace later it will be that... but I don't expect I'll be disappointed.


----------



## IgorZep

Scott Simonian said:


> As these filters exist in the first place, it is clear that Dolby has put a lot of thought into this


Hmm... I remember... I've heard such argument already... And not even a single time.
It is an invalid logic! Or, in another word - religion.


----------



## ss9001

dragonleepenn said:


> Here is the front pair,still can't get two attachments (FS) annoys me. PeterV


Peter - what ceiling mounted speakers are you using?


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> My link takes me to page 111, then after about 5 seconds the screen drops down to posting # 4422.
> 
> As far as your comment of "I'm not sure what makes you think I read all your posts, but trust me, I don't", you quoted my top line comment from posting 4422.
> 
> How do you answer a posting without reading it? ESP?


I can guarantee you that I won’t make this mistake again.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> @Keith, thanks for the heads up on those tannoy speakers. I may go for it after hearing how they work for you.


I will be sure to post my initial impressions here. Roger has already installed their big brothers I see!


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> 1. Want 7.1.4 for the future, so Pioneer was out.
> 2. Onkyo is dead to me.
> 3. I've been happy with the Yamaha's before that I owned... will spend more time doing a manual cal myself, which I can't really do with the Denon.


Thanks. Onkyo is dead to me too since they dropped Audyssey. Manual cal with the Yamaha? I must check that out - thanks again.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Why did you purchase a unit with no "Dolby Surround" option?


Direct quote from Dolby to me, via email, today:

*"The Dolby Surround upmixer is in fact mandatory and integral to the Dolby Atmos for AVR solution. ".*

Give it a rest now, eh?


----------



## qwho51

Interesting tidbits from Dolby to further muddy the soundscape: Read it here... 
. http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-followup-answers/.
My surrounds are mounted 16 inches from ceiling. Will I be arrested? 
.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Wonder if using the angles is a manufacturer decision or the angles are "hard wired" in the code for the DSP implementation of Atmos. If the Yamaha can pass angles along to the rendering engine, that would make the 3040 and its less expensive siblings a very appealing (and depending on taste, relatively affordable) alternative for people that can't get their Atmos speakers at ideal angles. How much difference it makes would make some good discussion here when the mainstream consumer AVR manufacturers have their Atmos-related updates.


Part of the Atmos spec is that Dolby permit the passing of speaker position to the rendering engine. It is up to the AVR manufacturer whether they include this but there is no impediment from Dolby to their doing so.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. Onkyo is dead to me too since they dropped Audyssey. Manual cal with the Yamaha? I must check that out - thanks again.


They have their own Automatic EQ also.... with 5 different "targets." Flat, Natural, Front, Manual and Through (None.) 

Since they've used height spearers for their own in house DSP programs (they call them presence speakers, 2 front, 2 rear) they added angle measurements into the calibration a couple of years ago for better reproduction.

In addition, this year the have added a height calibration.... the unit comes with a three pronged tripod attachment that you move the mic around to the three positions.. they added a height attachment this year for the fourth measurement.. makes you wonder why they did that.... 

You can also store two different speaker setups (i.e. one for music with mains as large, etc...)

So between the four independent EQs and the speaker setups, you have a lot of flexibility.. add to that the Scene presets (8 of them) and you can cusomtize to your hearts intent..

The things you can customize for the scenes is fairly comprehensive.. and it's all doable via a bare bones but full featured IP web setup..

To read more about the Yamaha, se my post from the A3030 thread..

RX-A3030 web setup and features


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> Manual cal with the Yamaha? I must check that out - thanks again.


It is limited to third-octave frequency choices. AFAIK this year nothing changed in this regard...


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> What manual frequency range the subwoofer channel has for PEQ?


See manual, page 128.


----------



## markus767

IgorZep said:


> It is limited to third-octave frequency choices. AFAIK this year nothing changed in this regard...


Page 128 in the manual isn't really clear on that.


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> Whole set up..
> 
> 2 floors, 2 surrounds the center and the sub..
> 
> Was going to go with a bigger sub, but after listening to AJ's webcast with SW, and looking at comparable subs at the same price, it seemed like a no brainer.. if there is one thing I can replace later it will be that... but I don't expect I'll be disappointed.


Thanks Marc. I also plan to purchase the entire AJ Atmos speaker package. Still thinking about the Atmos AVR though; most likely Yamaha or Denon.

I have some concerns about Dolby home Atmos BD content availability. Since you are jumping into home Atmos quickly, and you are a professional film mixer with insight and connections that go with your job, I believe you are a good barometer that home Atmos content in BD will be available sooner rather than later.


----------



## Kadath

Nice meeting some of you at the NYC demo. 

I wish we had gotten a chance to compare notes between groups afterwards but the main question I have for you who were there: was the LFE severely squelched in your demo session? The group of us from HTF all agreed that it seemed like the sub was turned very low in order to 'enhance' the height effect, but this was probably a mistake given A. how familiar we are with what a well rounded track should sound like and B. that we just came out of the Cinema demo minutes before. As always the Cinema experience was terrific but both the upfiring and ceiling mount home demos felt flat because of the lack of bass. The height effect was great on the ceiling mount and I intend to upgrade my own basement theater as soon as Denon's new 7.1.4 model ships, but every participant in our group was easily able to pick out when the upfires were running vice the ceilings, was no fooling any of us.


----------



## sdrucker

markus767 said:


> Worse - page 128 in the manual
> PEQ in the Yamaha is useless. Bummer.


A pity, since if the frequencies were adjustible the Yamaha would mate well with REW's Auto EQ function, with manual entry of the parameters for multiple band per channel. Along with an Antimode or MiniDSP for the sub(s), naturally.


----------



## markus767

sdrucker said:


> A pity, since if the frequencies were adjustible the Yamaha would mate well with REW's Auto EQ function, with manual entry of the parameters for multiple band per channel. Along with an Antimode or MiniDSP for the sub(s), naturally.


I've edited my comment quite a bit after your quote


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> Sorry, my editor somehow cut off the final hiragana "ta" (た) (Darn Caucasian wordprocessor!) I will amend my earlier post.
> 
> I've only learned about 200 _kanji_, so hiragana is easier for me!


i noticed that  LOL


----------



## FilmMixer

sdrucker said:


> A pity, since if the frequencies were adjustible the Yamaha would mate well with REW's Auto EQ function, with manual entry of the parameters for multiple band per channel. Along with an Antimode or MiniDSP for the sub(s), naturally.


It's bettr than no manual solution, as is offered by Onkyo and Denon.

I agree that the sub eq is fairly useless, But I've had decent results with YPAO in the past

At the price I paid it is extremely acceptable.


----------



## mp5475

Kadath said:


> Nice meeting some of you at the NYC demo.
> 
> I wish we had gotten a chance to compare notes between groups afterwards but the main question I have for you who were there: was the LFE severely squelched in your demo session? The group of us from HTF all agreed that it seemed like the sub was turned very low in order to 'enhance' the height effect, but this was probably a mistake given A. how familiar we are with what a well rounded track should sound like and B. that we just came out of the Cinema demo minutes before. As always the Cinema experience was terrific but both the upfiring and ceiling mount home demos felt flat because of the lack of bass. The height effect was great on the ceiling mount and I intend to upgrade my own basement theater as soon as Denon's new 7.1.4 model ships, but every participant in our group was easily able to pick out when the upfires were running vice the ceilings, was no fooling any of us.


Hi

So you preferred the on or in ceiling speakers to the atmos speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Whole set up..
> 
> 2 floors, 2 surrounds the center and the sub..
> 
> Was going to go with a bigger sub, but after listening to AJ's webcast with SW, and looking at comparable subs at the same price, it seemed like a no brainer.. if there is one thing I can replace later it will be that... but I don't expect I'll be disappointed.


Fantastic! Can't wait to read a review from you. I am burning with jealousy!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Fantastic! Can't wait to read a review from you. I am burning with jealousy!


Yeah, seriously. 

Can't wait to hear of your impressions, Marc.


----------



## Kadath

mp5475 said:


> Hi
> 
> So you preferred the on or in ceiling speakers to the atmos speakers?


Yes I did but let me add -for this particular installation- and given the LFE issues I noted above. I wouldn't take my 15 minute listening experience as any kind of scientific proof of excellence, and I am skeptical that there will be significant media available this year and kinda torqued that I am gonna have to move up AGAIN in Denon's line to get any kind of reasonable Audessey and 7.1.4 this year. But I intend to do it and be the first on my block cause that's the kind of guy I am.

I am also VERY concerned that the complexities of Atmos installation (double the wiring adding twice as many potential phase issues in addition to the PITA of physically installing speakers and fishing those wires through walls ceilings and floors to get those new speakers in).

Dolby was insistent that this is a consumer level roll out and not just for enthusiasts. I am very very very skeptical about that for sure!


----------



## sdrucker

markus767 said:


> I've edited my comment quite a bit after your quote


So I see, and dramatically so .FM, do you know if this year's version of YPAO can adjust the frequency associated with each band, along with Q and gain? For someone like Keith, with a single MLP, REW skills, and a heavily treated room, a mid to high end Atmos-capableYamaha with fully adjustable PEQ parameters might be appealing, especially since he has the potential for sub EQ separately with his Behringer FBD .

More of academic interest to me, but of possible value to others looking to plunge into Atmos. That web interface in your link sure looks nice.

The 3040 would be on my short list due to the ESS Sabre DAC, if I decide to keep the pre/pro flexible and get a Trinnov Magnitude processor, rather than the AIO Altitude, so I've been lurking in your 2014 Yamaha AVR thread . Either that or the Denon X4100 or X5200 (with Trinnov I wouldn't be using the source pre/pro for bass management or REQ).


----------



## tjenkins95

kokishin said:


> Thanks Marc. I also plan to purchase the entire AJ Atmos speaker package. Still thinking about the Atmos AVR though; most likely Yamaha or Denon.
> 
> I have some concerns about Dolby home Atmos BD content availability. Since you are jumping into home Atmos quickly, and you are a professional film mixer with insight and connections that go with your job, I believe you are a good barometer that home Atmos content in BD will be available sooner rather than later.


I am also planning to go with the Pioneer Atmos speaker package and I will be getting the Denon AVR-x5200.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> What manual frequency range the subwoofer channel has for PEQ?
> 
> Also, why the Yamaha receivers risk to lose their manual PEQ after the Dolby Atmos firmware update?
> 
> And! How can we be sure that Dolby Surround will be implemented with that firmware update?
> And obviously if it does, then DPL II family will automatically become extinct. ...And what the manual is saying right now on those audio mode decodings will also become obsolete.
> 
> * Same thing with Onkyo receivers regarding the Dolby Atmos firmware update.
> 
> ____________________
> 
> ♦ Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers (atop our existing ones - four of them - front & rear):
> -> They are crossed @ 180Hz; with their own crossover network, in the analog domain.
> -> The AVR applies the notch filter @ 10kHz; it is done digitally via DSP from Atmos instructions chip.
> -> The bass below 180Hz goes to its respective channel.
> -> The AVR bass management works as intended, going from there.
> 
> ♦ Overhead (in or on-ceiling) speakers (four of them):
> -> The AVR does not apply a notch filter to them.
> -> The AVR does not apply a 180Hz crossover to them.
> -> The speakers themselves have nothing different than normal speakers (in their crossover network).
> -> The speakers characteristics seem to espouse the coaxial type with wide dispersion.
> -> The aiming of those speakers doesn't seem to be crucial. * We've seem them aiming straight down.
> 
> ____________
> 
> So, for the overhead speakers we can pick the ones of our own liking and own aiming.
> So, for the up-firing speakers (small modules) we can also pick our own preferred ones, without being slave of buying new dedicated Dolby Atmos ones.
> 
> ____________
> 
> Dolby Surround (upmixer) is a big deal, it is a very important feature, and DPL family is no more.
> Then Onkyo and Yamaha (I don't know about Pioneer and Denon/marantz) were quick as wild fire to write their manual, and all them manufacturers are quick to release them new Dolby Atmos products without having Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround in them, but through a firmware update comin' up next month.
> 
> ____________
> 
> 
> The confusion regarding the Dolby Atmos module speakers (up-firing) was confusing to say the least.
> Scott said that they have a modified analog network on them, and Keith said that the AVR produces the digital (DSP) effect required by them; and not their fault as they simply conveyed what their sources told them.
> 
> ____________
> 
> Dolby Atmos is so new and game-changing @ home that we have already install all that is required (speakers, angles, positioning, etc.) and that we have already purchased Dolby Atmos receivers without even having Dolby Atmos in them, and no software yet on the horizon.
> We are a very funny bunch of excited kids @ the circus fair of our local town.
> No wonder that new technologies are showing up @ the speed of light. ...And we follow that light even faster than it passes us by.





kbarnes701 said:


> Direct quote from Dolby to me, via email, today:
> 
> *"The Dolby Surround upmixer is in fact mandatory and integral to the Dolby Atmos for AVR solution. ".*





FilmMixer said:


> They have their own Automatic EQ also.... with 5 different "targets." Flat, Natural, Front, Manual and Through (None.)
> 
> Since they've used height spearers for their own in house DSP programs (they call them presence speakers, 2 front, 2 rear) they added angle measurements into the calibration a couple of years ago for better reproduction.
> 
> In addition, this year the have added a height calibration.... the unit comes with a three pronged tripod attachment that you move the mic around to the three positions.. they added a height attachment this year for the fourth measurement.. makes you wonder why they did that....
> 
> You can also store two different speaker setups (i.e. one for music with mains as large, etc...)
> 
> So between the four independent EQs and the speaker setups, you have a lot of flexibility.. add to that the Scene presets (8 of them) and you can cusomtize to your hearts intent..
> 
> The things you can customize for the scenes is fairly comprehensive.. and it's all doable via a bare bones but full featured IP web setup..
> 
> To read more about the Yamaha, se my post from the A3030 thread..
> 
> RX-A3030 web setup and features





markus767 said:


> See manual, page 128 (Yamaha).





sdrucker said:


> A pity, since if the frequencies were adjustible the Yamaha would mate well with REW's Auto EQ function, with manual entry of the parameters for multiple band per channel. Along with an Antimode or MiniDSP for the sub(s), naturally.


Thanks for all your inputs.

* I had to quote my own post @ top because I added considerably to it, and the points I made I consider important and requiring corrections if necessary. This thread is so fast that it is easy to miss stuff.
And me I don't want to miss a thing. Dolby Atmos is serious 3D surround sound entertainment @ home.


----------



## ambesolman

chi_guy50 said:


> Uh, that would be *Chinese*, not Japanese. (As a linguist, I care at least as much about language as the rest of you here do about A/V.)



I'm a "cunniliguist", or so I've been told


----------



## Kadath

WRT whether or not the filtering happens in the speaker or AVR I agree, Dolby were woefully non-transparent on this. Initially they told us there was processing going on in the speaker, when I asked how that was powered they reversed course and told me there was only passive filtering going on not any kind of active processing :/

So that answer still seems counter to KBarnes report that the filtering is happening in the AVR. Dolby told us that these height speakers had to be Atmos enabled to be done right. Very confusing.


----------



## dragonleepenn

ss9001 said:


> Peter - what ceiling mounted speakers are you using?


They are diy that I built to suit the needs of the ceiling gavity,
The coaxial is an 8" eminence, (until my BMS 8cn552 8"coaxial/cd
Comes in. I like the sound from the eminence coaxial&cd however,
the bms cd is used and 8"coaxial for there smaller jtr speakers .
I have a full jtr setup so I'm trying to stay close to there sound timbre . And the cabinets needed to be custom so I built them.




PeterV


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> It's bettr than no manual solution, as is offered by Onkyo and Denon.
> 
> I agree that *the sub eq is fairly useless*, But I've had decent results with YPAO in the past
> 
> At the price I paid it is extremely acceptable.


Marc, in your opinion, why is that that Yamaha is not putting more energy in the subwoofer PEQ?
In room acoustics the bass is the most problematic region of them all others from the full human audio spectrum (20 to 20).

And we all know that from 10Hz (roughly) to 250Hz (roughly) is where it counts the very most. 
Do Yamaha expect their customers to purchase a subwoofer(s) with the requisite PEQ?
Do Yamaha build some of their own subwoofers with such?
Is your room perfect and well acoustically treated?

I am @ lost sometimes with so many features now inside our receivers but the ones that count the most are missing (regarding sound quality adapted to our room's acoustics). ...And the bass EQuing is sure one of them, the most important one of them all. ...The one that makes all other frequencies of the audio range gel all together in balanced harmony; the sound, the music, the element, the essence, the unison.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I finished the design of our HT with Atmos layout after a 1,000,000 tweaks last night. The drawings are posted here:

http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/...use-homecinema-project?page=6&scrollTo=663990

Box-in-box wood framing build started today on a floating concrete floor...

Warning: big! Prints for the carpenter were €39.


----------



## NorthSky

Sorry Erwin but your files over @ the Lounge are not accessible to me.

* Best is to make them available here, @ AVS. ...And not just for me but for a whole lot bunch of other people too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Warner Brothers Home Video is listing _Edge of Tomorrow_ (aka _Live. Die. Repeat._ by way of their new marketing campaign) as having a DTS-MA 7.1 track. Another potential Atmos track knocked off the list.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. Another dagger to the heart.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Sorry Erwin but your files over @ the Lounge are not accessible to me.
> 
> * Best is to make them available here, @ AVS. ...And not just for me but for a whole lot bunch of other people too.


How? They are several MB.

Sorry to hear you don't have access anymore. Just presumed you stopped posting.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Uploaded drawings to sendspace, for temporarily direct download, so be quick:

http://www.sendspace.com/filegroup/nbgdZyCtcFj0Kyvbpqfx9F2kqJTQGxSU

https://www.sendspace.com/file/7rfjf7

https://www.sendspace.com/delete/7rfjf7/4bd7cebc8ce9a54d9613735a526207bd


----------



## 74Sooner

I'm curious - for those of you fortunate enough to hear the Atmos demonstrations, did anybody get a chance to hear the format in a two-ceiling speaker/Atmos-enabled speaker setup? 

I've got a very small room (10 x 11, 8 foot ceilings), and I'm wondering if a 7.1.2 configuration would be effective or a complete waste of time.


----------



## Nightlord

Kadath said:


> Dolby was insistent that this is a consumer level roll out and not just for enthusiasts. I am very very very skeptical about that for sure!


Quite right. Too few channels for the enthusiasts.


----------



## Scott Simonian

74Sooner said:


> I'm curious - for those of you fortunate enough to hear the Atmos demonstrations, did anybody get a chance to hear the format in a two-ceiling speaker/Atmos-enabled speaker setup?
> 
> I've got a very small room (10 x 11, 8 foot ceilings), and I'm wondering if a 7.1.2 configuration would be effective or a complete waste of time.


No they only had four channel overhead and did not demo 2ch version or surround upmixer.


----------



## 74Sooner

Scott Simonian said:


> No they only had four channel overhead and did not demo 2ch version or surround upmixer.


Thanks!


----------



## bargervais

74Sooner said:


> I'm curious - for those of you fortunate enough to hear the Atmos demonstrations, did anybody get a chance to hear the format in a two-ceiling speaker/Atmos-enabled speaker setup?
> 
> I've got a very small room (10 x 11, 8 foot ceilings), and I'm wondering if a 7.1.2 configuration would be effective or a complete waste of time.


I too have a small room I'm going to do 5.2.2 for me I got a 7.2 receiver only because cost was my biggest hurdle as I just bought two receivers last year and speakers. I just needed to keep cost down for now on a first generation Atmos. But next year when the second generation atmos I'll upgrade my 818 and hopefully there will be a lot more atmos BD Available. But I'm very excited to at least have something this year.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Y'all speak German, don't ya? Here's Lars Mette's latest video report from Dolby London. Interesting.

http://www.takeoffmedia.de/journalismus/specials-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

Another room with really high surround placement. Same at the US Dolby locations.

Doesn't help sell that overhead surround field. 

Good thing it was quite the opposite for the home version demo.


----------



## wse

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Y'all speak German, don't ya? Here's Lars Mette's latest video report from Dolby London. Interesting.
> 
> http://www.takeoffmedia.de/journalismus/specials-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html


Nine translation Bitte


----------



## sdurani

74Sooner said:


> I've got a very small room (10 x 11, 8 foot ceilings), and I'm wondering if a 7.1.2 configuration would be effective or a complete waste of time.


If you can differentiate sounds coming from around you vs sounds coming from above you, then it's not a waste of time to add a couple of overhead speakers. 

BTW, in a small room like that, how far is your seating from the back wall?


----------



## 74Sooner

sdurani said:


> If you can differentiate sounds coming from around you vs sounds coming from above you, then it's not a waste of time to add a couple of overhead speakers.
> 
> BTW, in a small room like that, how far is your seating from the back wall?


I'm three feet from the back wall. Wouldn't have attempted rears if I was sitting against it. Honestly, I'm glad I went with the configuration - they absolutely do immerse, even in a confined space.


----------



## aaronwt

Scott Simonian said:


> No they only had four channel overhead and did not demo 2ch version or surround upmixer.


 Holy Crap!! What the heck are those subs in your signature? They look gigantic! Dwarfing everything in the room!

All this Atmos talk is making me want to do some kind of a setup for this. But after getting the Denon 4520 recently, I would need to spring for the new Denon AVR-X7200W since that is the successor to the 4520. And I can't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Warner Brothers Home Video is listing _Edge of Tomorrow_ (aka _Live. Die. Repeat._ by way of their new marketing campaign) as having a DTS-MA 7.1 track. Another potential Atmos track knocked off the list.


*'We Were Soldiers'* (2002), on Blu-ray: DTS-ES 6.1 and DD 5.1 EX audio surround,
was I believe the first movie ever recorded with a Height channel.










_________

* We need Dolby Atmos, and DTS-UHD; both of them. ...Not just one. 
This is the world we live in since 1996-97 (DVD & DD/AC3 & dts). ...And on LaserDisc, since *'Jurassic Park'* was the first release ever in January 1997 with the first dts soundtrack.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> *'We Were Soldiers'* (2002), on Blu-ray: DTS-ES 6.1 and DD 5.1 EX audio surround,
> was I believe the first movie recorded with a Height channel.


I think I know something or other about that film.. 

None of the home releases has ever been released with the Dolby Whole Sonic Overhead track.. it played in two theaters (and our dub stage of course.)


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> No they only had four channel overhead and did not demo 2ch version or surround upmixer.
> 
> 
> 
> aaronwt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Crap!! What the heck are those subs in your signature? They look gigantic! Dwarfing everything in the room!
Click to expand...

The S² came here to chew bubble gum and play earth shattering LFE with kick ass subs. And he's all out of bubble gum.


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> *Y'all speak German, don't ya?* Here's Lars Mette's latest video report from Dolby London. Interesting.
> 
> http://www.takeoffmedia.de/journalismus/specials-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html


Ganz klar, mein lieber Erwin. Und recht vielen Dank for den Hinweis!



wse said:


> Nine translation Bitte


What, you want the whole thing translated? Will you pay my hourly rate?

Seriously, I'd be glad to give you a synopsis if you can narrow down your points of interest.


----------



## NorthSky

*'We Were Soldiers' (1982) - with Mel Gibson.*



FilmMixer said:


> I think I know something or other about that film..


Did you mix it Marc?



> None of the home releases has ever been released with the Dolby Whole Sonic Overhead track.. it played in two theaters (and our dub stage of course.)


True, it was never released on home videos as such encoded. 

* Quite interesting though; I first learned about it from Widescreen Review, many years ago.


----------



## sdurani

74Sooner said:


> I'm three feet from the back wall.


Consider 4 speakers above you instead of 2 (IF that is do-able).


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> I think I know something or other about that film..
> 
> None of the home releases has ever been released with the Dolby Whole Sonic Overhead track.. it played in two theaters (and our dub stage of course.)


Damn right, you do! 

Andd... darn right it ain't.  *sniff*



Waboman said:


> The S² came here to chew bubble gum and play earth shattering LFE with kick ass subs. And he's all out of bubble gum.



LOL! 



aaronwt said:


> Holy Crap!! What the heck are those subs in your signature? They look gigantic! Dwarfing everything in the room!


Even better... that system has been replaced with an even larger, more powerful subwoofer system.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Did you mix it Marc?
> 
> True, it was never released on home videos as such encoded.
> 
> * Quite interesting though; I first learned about it from Widescreen Review, many years ago.


Yes I did..

It was great to watch WSR gush over the overhead envelopment, with me full well knowing they were listening to the EX encode the entire time.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> How? They are several MB.
> 
> Sorry to hear you don't have access anymore. Just presumed you stopped posting.


Oh I stopped posting for sure. ...And so did many more members as well.

* Do you remember Dan, assistant technical staff and musician? ...And what he had to say @ the end.
...And Carlos, with an Integra SSP and matching multichannel amp, from New Jersey I believe? ...A nice fellow.
...And Rick, the ex-submariner? ...Another great fella. 
...And Nemesis, from Ireland? ...Super cool guy, loving bass.
...And ntrain! ...The onkyo guy with a great sense of humor, and a lovely character.
...And about hundreds more members...

What do they all think about Dolby Atmos? ...Where can they get the best info about it on the Internet?
...That's right, right here Erwin, @ AVS.


----------



## bargervais

Time is moving slow waiting for atmos like giving birth but we are almost in September.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Yes I did..
> 
> It was great to watch WSR gush over the overhead envelopment, with me full well knowing they were listening to the EX encode the entire time.












Excellent!


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Uploaded drawings to sendspace, for temporarily direct download, so be quick:
> 
> http://www.sendspace.com/filegroup/nbgdZyCtcFj0Kyvbpqfx9F2kqJTQGxSU
> 
> https://www.sendspace.com/file/7rfjf7
> 
> https://www.sendspace.com/delete/7rfjf7/4bd7cebc8ce9a54d9613735a526207bd


Those can be harmful to my computer (Mac).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Excellent!


Lol! I'd like to think if/when Marc were to divulge the truth about the contents of the disc it would look something like this:


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Y'all speak German, don't ya? Here's Lars Mette's latest video report from Dolby London. Interesting.
> 
> *http://www.takeoffmedia.de/journalismus/specials-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html*


Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Yes I did..
> 
> It was great to watch WSR gush over the overhead envelopment, with me full well knowing they were listening to the EX encode the entire time.


Lol, I remember the entire article and interview as if it happened just yesterday. 

* I was a subscriber to WSR right from the beginning. ...Nineteen-ninety somethin'...
{First WSR issue: *Issue 1 (Nov/Dec 1992)*}


----------



## bargervais

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Y'all speak German, don't ya? Here's Lars Mette's latest video report from Dolby London. Interesting.
> 
> http://www.takeoffmedia.de/journalismus/specials-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html


Very nice thank you for sharing this


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!


Same here. In fact it was the spearhead for me to gain interest in "overhead surround" since and now it's finally here (almost)!


----------



## bargervais

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14722

Dolby DigitalDolby Atmos is ready for Blu-ray. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the legendary sound company has developed all the authoring tools for the studios to deliver a theatrical Atmos mix for home use. Dolby expects the first Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos to arrive on the market this fall. 

Initially, Dolby Atmos is expected to be supported by Blu-ray players capable of decoding Dolby TrueHD and OTT services using Dolby Digital Plus. Both will get an upgrade to enable them to decode Dolby Atmos audio.

Amongst the manufacturers who have already announced Dolby Atmos support for receivers or processors are Denon, Integra, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, Steinway Lyngdorf, and Yamaha.

Dolby is also working on a new format, Dolby Vision, which will deliver better dynamic range in terms of color reproduction for a wide range of displays. The first TVs with Dolby Vision are expected to arrive on the market in early 2015.

Note: Included with this announcement is a short promo video produced by Onkyo USA


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Same here. In fact it was the spearhead for me to gain interest in "overhead surround" since and now it's finally here (almost)!


Almost here can't wait.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Yes I did..
> 
> It was great to watch WSR gush over the overhead envelopment, with me full well knowing they were listening to the EX encode the entire time.


Alright Marc, I found that article. It's on Volume 12, Number 1, Issue 68, Jannuary 2003. ...On page 80 & 81.
From Widescreen Review.

*The Height Channel*
_Holosonic Spherical Surround_ by Gary Reber & Norm Schnieder

Todd-AO/Soundelux And Dolby Laboratories Announce World Premiere of "Sonic Whole Overhead Sound" Theater Enhancement.

_"The anticipated introduction of a new "height" channel for theatrical and home theater playback has now been introduced. Todd-AO/Soundelux (a part of Liberty Livewire Corporation's Audio Division) and Dolby Laboratories, Inc. premiered an experimental overhead sound concept on the occasion of an exclusive re-release of Paramount Pictures' *We Were Soldiers* on Friday, September 20, 2002, in Tempe, Arizona.
Dubbed "Sonic Whole Overhead Sound" by *We Were Soldiers* producers, this enhancement is the first movie theater audio system to wed a new overhead loudspeaker system with the Dolby Digital Surround EX sound system, using matrix technology to achieve both the back surround and height channels.

...

At WSR we have used SMART's Center Surround 3X (CS-3X, Jr.) unit which uses matrix Circle Surround technology to derive both a center back surround and height channel.

...

The first movie to include a "height" channel was *We Were Soldiers* (now on DVD) starring Mel Gibson.

...

We suggest that four loudspeakers be placed over the prime listening area about two feet apart, in a square pattern (two and two) in the center of the listening area. ... Choose loudspeakers with the widest possible dispersion pattern for good blending without hot spots. ...And preferably timbre-matched perfectly, from mid-bass through high-frequencies, to the main loudspeakers in a Holosonic surround system.

...

As an example, the recently released *Star Wars: Episode II--Attack Of The Clones* on DVD is loaded with height channel material._

_________________

Anyway, their main room @ the time was using a single overhead channel speaker, and one center rear one. ...And all with the help of the SMART CS-3X Jr. device.
They reviewed several DVDs and always mentioned the ones with the most prominent overhead effects.
Of course them DVDs were simply extracted from the "invisible height" info in a matrix way by the SMART device.

But twelve years ago here it was. ...Matrix technology extracting height information.


----------



## htpcforever

chi_guy50 said:


> Ganz klar, mein lieber Erwin. Und recht vielen Dank for den Hinweis!
> 
> 
> 
> What, you want the whole thing translated? Will you pay my hourly rate?
> 
> Seriously, I'd be glad to give you a synopsis if you can narrow down your points of interest.


Let Google do an OK job of it for you:


https://translate.google.com/transl...-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html&edit-text=


----------



## kokishin

*Best Buy/Magnolia Dolby Atmos Ad*

Best Buy/Magnolia Dolby Atmos Ad (using archiver to preserve web page). [Original url: http://www.magnoliaav.com/promotions/pre-order-dolby-atmos?from=tout&ref=30&loc=KW-4336]

_Be one of the first to bring this amazing technology home by pre-ordering your products August 15 – September 13. Then, on September 14, come into your nearest Magnolia and experience what makes Dolby Atmos the future of home theater sound._


----------



## action_jackson

kokishin said:


> Best Buy/Magnolia Dolby Atmos Ad (using archiver to preserve web page). [Original url: http://www.magnoliaav.com/promotions/pre-order-dolby-atmos?from=tout&ref=30&loc=KW-4336]
> 
> _Be one of the first to bring this amazing technology home by pre-ordering your products August 15 – September 13. Then, on September 14, come into your nearest Magnolia and experience what makes Dolby Atmos the future of home theater sound._


It looks like they have the Marantz NR1504 listed as a 5.1 channel AVR capable of doing Atmos. That does not make much sense.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

action_jackson said:


> It looks like they have the Marantz NR1504 listed as a 5.1 channel AVR capable of doing Atmos. That does not make much sense.


Leave it to Best Buy to mess something up.


----------



## kokishin

action_jackson said:


> It looks like they have the Marantz NR1504 listed as a 5.1 channel AVR capable of doing Atmos. That does not make much sense.


I saw that as well. I presume they should have listed the Marantz SR7009 instead. Bait and switch? [j/k]


----------



## action_jackson

kokishin said:


> I saw that as well. I presume they should have listed the Marantz SR7009 instead. Bait and switch? [j/k]


At first I saw that $499 price and was like wow , then I was that it was 5.1 and was like huh . 

The Yamaha Aventage RX-A2040 is the one I would most likely go with out of the bunch. My wife just spent $2000 on a vacuum cleaner today so I think my Atmos budget was just blown for this year anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

htpcforever said:


> Let Google do an OK job of it for you:
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html&edit-text=


Mac, automatic. ...Windows 8.1, automatic.


----------



## kokishin

action_jackson said:


> At first I saw that $499 price and was like wow , then I was that it was 5.1 and was like huh .
> 
> The Yamaha Aventage RX-A2040 is the one I would most likely go with out of the bunch. My wife just spent $2000 on a vacuum cleaner today so I think my Atmos budget was just blown for this year anyway.


$2K for a vacuum cleaner??? Can she ride it? ;-) Must be a Kirby. Poor you!


----------



## NorthSky

Must be an overhead vacuum.


----------



## ambesolman

action_jackson said:


> At first I saw that $499 price and was like wow , then I was that it was 5.1 and was like huh .
> 
> The Yamaha Aventage RX-A2040 is the one I would most likely go with out of the bunch. My wife just spent $2000 on a vacuum cleaner today so I think my Atmos budget was just blown for this year anyway.



Wish mine would just use the one we have


----------



## mp5475

Can someone clarify something for me. On Scott wilkinson's demo experience, he states "Interestingly, if you have a 9.1 system with front wide speakers, the new expansion algorithm won't include those two channels. According to Dolby, this was a conscious decision in order not to smear the front soundstage."

So you can not use atmos if you have front wides?


----------



## NorthSky

You can use Atmos even if you have front wides, but perhaps not simultaneously?

Denon/Marantz people know best.


----------



## Nightlord

mp5475 said:


> Can someone clarify something for me. On Scott wilkinson's demo experience, he states "Interestingly, if you have a 9.1 system with front wide speakers, the new expansion algorithm won't include those two channels. According to Dolby, this was a conscious decision in order not to smear the front soundstage."
> 
> So you can not use atmos if you have front wides?


I think the keyword(s) here being 'expansion algorithm' so it's just when atmos process older formats that this applies. But I'm not sure of course.


----------



## sdurani

mp5475 said:


> So you can not use atmos if you have front wides?


Scott was talking about Dolby Surround Upmixer not using wides. Atmos uses wides.


----------



## Waboman

action_jackson said:


> At first I saw that $499 price and was like wow , then I was that it was 5.1 and was like huh .
> 
> The Yamaha Aventage RX-A2040 is the one I would most likely go with out of the bunch. My wife just spent $2000 on a vacuum cleaner today so I think my Atmos budget was just blown for this year anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> kokishin said:
> 
> 
> 
> $2K for a vacuum cleaner??? Can she ride it? ;-) Must be a Kirby. Poor you!
Click to expand...

We bought a Kirby a few years ago. When I saw the price and had to write that check I was like...



Spoiler













On the bright side, Kirby's are Atmos ready with a firmware update.


----------



## mp5475

Thanks for clarification guys. I ordered wides two weeks ago and almost had a heart attack. I should have known, theater version uses them.


----------



## action_jackson

kokishin said:


> $2K for a vacuum cleaner??? Can she ride it? ;-) Must be a Kirby. Poor you!





NorthSky said:


> Must be an overhead vacuum.


It's a Rainbow. It is suposed to help with her alergies, or so they say. She has at least agreed that we can get some new speakers now and an AT screen. Was planning to get the JBL 8320 for surround duties, but leaning towards those Volts now since many think the coaxials would be better suited for surround and atmos. Decisions Decisions...

Edit: As a side note, I may be making some money off the vacuum cleaner salesman. Apparently he has been trying to talk his wife into purchasing a projector for years. Asked if his wife could come over and check out my setup. Now they are getting a new projector and buying my old screen and maybe getting my surround system.


----------



## Roger Dressler

mp5475 said:


> Can someone clarify something for me. On Scott wilkinson's demo experience, he states "Interestingly, if you have a 9.1 system with front wide speakers, the new expansion algorithm won't include those two channels. According to Dolby, this was a conscious decision in order not to smear the front soundstage."
> 
> So you can not use atmos if you have front wides?


This is the original statement from Dolby's Atmos for the Home paper:


> The Dolby surround upmixer will provide audio to, at maximum, the same set of 24 speakers on the floor and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or ceiling speakers. To maintain the frontal audio image, the upmixer will not send upmixed audio to speakers that are located between the Left, Center, and Right speakers.


The excluded speakers are not wides, but speakers that sit between L and C, and between R and C, as in 5 screen speakers.

We are still left wondering why the wide speakers would not be included in the upmixing.


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> This is the original statement from Dolby's Atmos for the Home paper:
> 
> 
> The Dolby surround upmixer will provide audio to, at maximum, the same set of 24 speakers on the floor and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or ceiling speakers. To maintain the frontal audio image, the upmixer will not send upmixed audio to speakers that are located between the Left, Center, and Right speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> The excluded speakers are not wides, but speakers that sit between L and C, and between R and C, as in 5 screen speakers. We are still left wondering why the wide speakers would not be included in the upmixing.
Click to expand...



One possibility is that there exists a *Dolby Surround* rule of *>* so that the same upmix algorithm can remain valid for _speaker|display|seating_ geometries in use with all home theater display resolutions from *1080*, *4K2K*, thru *8K4K*...


The (approx) 120° azimuthal span of five speakers conventionally labelled *FLw - FL - FC - FR - FRw* when used with *1080* and *4K2K* resolution displays also describes the screen space of an *8K4K* resolution display with the five speakers covering the same span now re-labelled *FL - FLc - FC - FRc - FR*.


_*As an aside:*_ Appropriate _content-to-speaker mapping_ seems likely to become somewhat more complicated in the future as audio mixed for *1080* or *4K2K* resolution _speaker|display|seating_ geometry is played back in home theaters configured for *8K4K* resolution _speaker|display|seating_ geometry . . . and _vice versa_...?!
_


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> They have their own Automatic EQ also.... with 5 different "targets." Flat, Natural, Front, Manual and Through (None.)
> 
> Since they've used height spearers for their own in house DSP programs (they call them presence speakers, 2 front, 2 rear) they added angle measurements into the calibration a couple of years ago for better reproduction.
> 
> In addition, this year the have added a height calibration.... the unit comes with a three pronged tripod attachment that you move the mic around to the three positions.. they added a height attachment this year for the fourth measurement.. makes you wonder why they did that....
> 
> You can also store two different speaker setups (i.e. one for music with mains as large, etc...)
> 
> So between the four independent EQs and the speaker setups, you have a lot of flexibility.. add to that the Scene presets (8 of them) and you can cusomtize to your hearts intent..
> 
> The things you can customize for the scenes is fairly comprehensive.. and it's all doable via a bare bones but full featured IP web setup..
> 
> To read more about the Yamaha, se my post from the A3030 thread..
> 
> RX-A3030 web setup and features


Thanks for all that, Marc. If the A3030 A3040 is going to be the only one of the affordable units that actually measures speaker positions for feeding to the rendering engine, then this might be a unit I would have to take a serious look at too. The only thing that puts me off is that I would lose XT32 and Pro. I have always liked Yamaha gear but I worry about going to YPAO. I'll investigate it further though. I have no problem doing manual EQ and have REW and so on, so if that was a real alternative to XT32 it could be interesting.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> So I see, and dramatically so .FM, do you know if this year's version of YPAO can adjust the frequency associated with each band, along with Q and gain? For someone like Keith, with a single MLP, REW skills, and a heavily treated room, a mid to high end Atmos-capableYamaha with fully adjustable PEQ parameters might be appealing, especially since he has the potential for sub EQ separately with his Behringer FBD .


I agree. I am looking into it... 



sdrucker said:


> The 3040 would be on my short list due to the ESS Sabre DAC,


Oooooh.... Stuart... you *know* that all decent modern DACs have all their significant distortion parameters well below the threshold of human hearing capability nowadays! IOW, they all sound the same these days (like amps - usual caveats apply).


----------



## kbarnes701

Kadath said:


> WRT whether or not the filtering happens in the speaker or AVR I agree, Dolby were woefully non-transparent on this. Initially they told us there was processing going on in the speaker, when I asked how that was powered they reversed course and told me there was only passive filtering going on not any kind of active processing :/
> 
> So that answer still seems counter to KBarnes report that the filtering is happening in the AVR. Dolby told us that these height speakers had to be Atmos enabled to be done right. Very confusing.


It's quite possible, as Roger Dressler speculated, that both positions are right. There is, without question, DSP in the AVR. But there may also be some kind of clever crossover or other filter of some kind in the Atmos module too.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Uploaded drawings to sendspace, for temporarily direct download, so be quick:
> 
> http://www.sendspace.com/filegroup/nbgdZyCtcFj0Kyvbpqfx9F2kqJTQGxSU
> 
> https://www.sendspace.com/file/7rfjf7
> 
> https://www.sendspace.com/delete/7rfjf7/4bd7cebc8ce9a54d9613735a526207bd


Lovely drawings!


----------



## kbarnes701

74Sooner said:


> I'm curious - for those of you fortunate enough to hear the Atmos demonstrations, did anybody get a chance to hear the format in a two-ceiling speaker/Atmos-enabled speaker setup?
> 
> I've got a very small room (10 x 11, 8 foot ceilings), and I'm wondering if a 7.1.2 configuration would be effective or a complete waste of time.


That's about the same size as my Hobbit-sized HT. I'm able to accommodate 4 ceiling speakers though for a 5.1.4 layout.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Consider 4 speakers above you instead of 2 (IF that is do-able).


Do-able here, as you know. For the benefit of others with ridiculously small rooms, this is the plan: I am using front ceiling speakers mounted at 42 degrees from MLP and these will be designated as Front Height. They actually are in the correct place to be designated as Top Front, but ....

The rear ceiling speakers will be positioned at 100 degrees from MLP which is on-spec for Top Middle. As the combination of Top Front and Top Middle is not available, this is why the front ceiling pair will be designated as Front Height, which then allows for the use of Top Middle as FH+TM is an approved combination (at least it is in Denons). I cannot meet spec for Top Rears.

I am of the opinion that this will work pretty well. The front ceiling pair will be well forward of the MLP and the rear ceiling pair will be just behind MLP. All speakers will conform to the distance requirements (from each other) laid down by Dolby and described in the recent amendment to my second demo report. 

I am constantly amazed at what can be achieved in very small rooms with some effort and ingenuity (and help from one's AV buddies).


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Direct quote from Dolby to me, via email, today:
> 
> *"The Dolby Surround upmixer is in fact mandatory and integral to the Dolby Atmos for AVR solution. ".*
> 
> Give it a rest now, eh?





More to the point, does an Atmos upgrade remove Dolby PL from the AVR during the Atmos firmware upgrade process in an Atmos capable AVR?

The DTS matrix upmixers will remain no matter what.





Scott Wilkinson said:


> Another interesting tidbit is that the Dolby Atmos system includes a new upmixing algortihm designed to be compatible with conventional channel-based and Atmos playback systems. *Manufacturers can choose to include Dolby Pro Logic in Atmos-capable receivers*, and Pro Logic will continued to be offered in channel-based receivers. This new upmixer is called Dolby Surround, which is a somewhat unfortunate moniker, since it's also the name given to the earliest consumer version of Dolby's multichannel analog film-sound format back in 1982. Perhaps that's so long ago that few will remember the term from those days.


----------



## bargervais

action_jackson said:


> It looks like they have the Marantz NR1504 listed as a 5.1 channel AVR capable of doing Atmos. That does not make much sense.


They must have forgot the .4 might be alien to them. Whoever typeset it saw 5.1.4 and thought this can't be right LOL


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for all that, Marc. If the A3030 is going to be the only one of the affordable units that actually measures speaker positions for feeding to the rendering engine, then this might be a unit I would have to take a serious look at too. The only thing that puts me off is that I would lose XT32 and Pro. I have always liked Yamaha gear but I worry about going to YPAO. I'll investigate it further though. I have no problem doing manual EQ and have REW and so on, so if that was a real alternative to XT32 it could be interesting.


Interesting The YPAO FAQ in our future


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Interesting The YPAO FAQ in our future


 I just spent a little while reading through FM's thread. The Yamaha is an interesting unit - and the control over it is immense.

I am guessing that YPAO does a reasonable job of EQ-ing above 250Hz and that something like an AntiMode, or manual PEQ, will do a pretty good job for the subs. If that is the case, then I could be persuaded to move away from XT32. HST, I am still keen to do it 'on the cheap' for now (with the Denon X4100W) as I am fairly sure we will see new developments in a year or two (although the Yamaha may already have them of course, especially if it will pass speaker location info to the rendering engine, something that no Denons etc are currently doing). I wouldn’t want such an expensive unit going out of currency so fast, but I can live with it for the comparatively cheap Denon.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> That's about the same size as my Hobbit-sized HT. I'm able to accommodate 4 ceiling speakers though for a 5.1.4 layout.


My room is also small is there a point where too many speakers can be over kill and you don't hear the separation as good as you would hear it a bigger HT


----------



## action_jackson

bargervais said:


> They must have forgot the .4 might be alien to them. Whoever typeset it saw 5.1.4 and thought this can't be right LOL


I checked the Marantz site, it only has 5 speaker level outputs on the back and no line level outputs for an external amp.


----------



## asarose247

*Minimum separation ?*



bargervais said:


> My room is also small is there a point where too many speakers can be over kill and you don't hear the separation as good as you would hear it a bigger HT


 My mancave is only


----------



## westmd

Onkyo released a basic manual for their 5530. on ceiling speaker placement it states:

Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for maximizing effects in Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround listening mode. Install Top Front speakers midway between the position just above the listening position and the position just above the front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers just above the listening position. Install Top Rear speakers midway between the position just above the listening position and the position just above the surround back speakers.

Allowed combinations of soeakers are:

Combination patterns for Height speakers 1 and 2
Dolby recommends the following combination pattern to obtain the best effect of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround listening modes.
Pair 1: Top Middle
Pair 2: Top Front / Top Rear
The following are the patterns of Height speakers 2 that can be selected according to the type of Height speakers 1.
Height speakers1: Front High
Height speakers2: Not Use/Top Middle/Rear High/Dolby
Enabled Speaker (Surround)/Dolby Enabled Speaker (Back)
Height speakers1: Top Front Height speakers2: Not Use/Top Rear
Height speakers1: Top Middle Height speakers 2 cannot be used.
Height speakers1: Dolby Enabled Speaker (Front) Height speakers2: Not Use/Dolby Enabled Speaker
(Surround)/Dolby Enabled Speaker (Back)
Height speakers1: Dolby Enabled Speaker (Surround) Height speakers 2 cannot be used.
Height speakers1: Dolby Enabled Speaker (Back) Height speakers 2 cannot be used.
When front speakers are bi-amp connected, you can select a pattern for Height speakers 2 from the following options. Not Use/Front High/Top Front/Top Middle/Dolby Enabled Speaker (Front)/Dolby Enabled Speaker (Surround)/Dolby Enabled Speaker (Back)

You can download the whole document here:

http://filedepot.onkyousa.com/Files/own_manuals/PR-SC5530_BAS_En_29401678_140619_web.pdf


----------



## Kadath

Nightlord said:


> Quite right. Too few channels for the enthusiasts.


I don't get this train of thought at all, and you aren't the first I have seen it from. I think the idea of virtual channels will work to satisfy just about everyone. Who on earth really wants more than 7.1.4? 1% of 1% of potential buyers? What more do you NEED?


----------



## chi_guy50

htpcforever said:


> Let Google do an OK job of it for you:
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...-workshops-heimkino/dolbyatmos.html&edit-text=


Does Google translate Lars Mette's video commentary for you? I didn't think so. 

I was intrigued to note that, according to the article, the demo took place in Dolby's London HQ on August 29, 2014. Forget 3D, those ingenious Germans have broken the fourth dimension. Mein Gott im Himmel!

Seriously, Keith, Scott and others have provided us with much more detailed, informative feedback from their demos, but here are a couple of points that Lars makes:

1) He was impressed with the height effect created by Atmos object rendering and felt that the technology has great potential for significantly enhancing the HT experience, but his enthusiasm was tempered by the less than optimal conditions in Dolby's demo theater (where have we heard this before?). He was disturbed to find that the speakers were not all timbre matched and the PVC screen was not accoustically transparent resulting in reflected sound originating from the rear. This led him to comment that you are shooting yourself in the foot if, in the rush to add Atmos capability in a HT, you do not prioritize speaker set-up and accoustical treatments. In fact, in his experience, a properly configured conventional 5.1 or 7.1 HT will perform "not necessarily worse" than an Atmos HT (in its current form) in terms of encompassing sound ("spherische Gesamtwirkung").

2) In the coming months AVR signal processing will take on significantly greater importance than was previously the case in purely channel-based audio.

3) Despite many unanswered questions regarding technological details, Auro3D appears, in his opinion, to have not much chance of competing with Dolby Atmos at this point.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> My room is also small is there a point where too many speakers can be over kill and you don't hear the separation as good as you would hear it a bigger HT


From the demos I have heard, which were in pretty small demo rooms, yes. The 5.1 (+ front heights with PLIIz) sound in my room is amazing. So I expect it will be even more amazing when I add 4 overhead speakers for Atmos. I think it is a myth that one cannot achieve good m/ch sound in a small room. It isn’t easy, but my room (and that of others I am sure) proves that it is definitely do-able.


----------



## kbarnes701

asarose247 said:


> My mancave is only


----------



## mp5475

Question for Keith and Roger, 

I know you guys went for the tannoy speakers. And they are not timbre matched to your mains. I think You guys said eq should take care of that. I am still pretty much a newbie. I am assuming audyssey will take care of the this and will not to do any manuel eq?

Thanks


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> We are still left wondering why the wide speakers would not be included in the upmixing.


At the Burbank demo Brett told me that DSU does include wides, irrespective of how manufacturers/chipmakers implement it. Yet another example of conflicting information that needs to be resolved.


----------



## westmd

chi_guy50 said:


> Does Google translate Lars Mette's video commentary for you? I didn't think so.
> 
> I was intrigued to note that, according to the article, the demo took place in Dolby's London HQ on August 29, 2014. Forget 3D, those ingenious Germans have broken the fourth dimension. Mein Gott im Himmel!
> 
> Seriously, Keith, Scott and others have provided us with much more detailed, informative feedback from their demos, but here are a couple of points that Lars makes:
> 
> 1) He was impressed with the height effect created by Atmos object rendering and felt that the technology has great potential for significantly enhancing the HT experience, but his enthusiasm was tempered by the less than optimal conditions in Dolby's demo theater (where have we heard this before?). He was disturbed to find that the speakers were not all timbre matched and the PVC screen was not accoustically transparent resulting in reflected sound originating from the rear. This led him to comment that you are shooting yourself in the foot if, in the rush to add Atmos capability in a HT, you do not prioritize speaker set-up and accoustical treatments. In fact, in his experience, a properly configured conventional 5.1 or 7.1 HT will perform "not necessarily worse" than an Atmos HT (in its current form) in terms of encompassing sound ("spherische Gesamtwirkung").
> 
> 2) In the coming months AVR signal processing will take on significantly greater importance than was previously the case in purely channel-based audio.
> 
> 3) Despite many unanswered questions regarding technological details, Auro3D appears, in his opinion, to have not much chance of competing with Dolby Atmos at this point.


As I am German please let me know if you have any specific questions! Maybe I can help!


----------



## jima4a

kbarnes701 said:


> This is covered in my report - straight from Dolby itself.


What post was that? I can't find it but did see it once (did not have time to read it then).


----------



## chi_guy50

westmd said:


> As I am German please let me know if you have any specific questions! Maybe I can help!


I just picked out what I felt were some of the more interesting comments and paraphrased them. You could let us know if you feel I misinterpreted anything Lars said or left out anything you believe would be of significant interest to other forum members. Mit kameradschaftlichen Grüßen, Jeff


----------



## PoshFrosh

*Are these woofer-tweeter (non-concentric) speakers?* Or are these concentric/coax speakers with a giant port that is plugged?








I'm very interested in your opinions, because *I plan on using non-coax, on-ceiling speakers. Anyone else planning on this?*
image source, the third of the following links: Denon AVR-X5200W Unboxing-
http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/20...00W-open/0.htm
OnScreen menus Pictures and Video-
http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/20...0W-SETUP/0.htm
http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/20...X5200W-2/0.htm


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> At the Burbank demo Brett told me that DSU does include wides, irrespective of how manufacturers/chipmakers implement it. Yet another example of conflicting information that needs to be resolved.


Correct. There is a lot of things getting mixed up in these threads about Atmos.

Some things worth considering are related directly to Dolby Atmos.
Some things worth considering are related directly to the CE's and how they handle things.
The last is things that are in the hands of the studios.

So we have the native sound technology: Dolby Atmos
Then we have the hardware/software implementation of that: CE's 
Then there is the content end. The blame there is neither the above but only the studios and their home video division.

Lots of this gets mixed up. Dolby isn't responsible for every aspect of this discussion.

For example, wides. Dolby Atmos (for home) supports wides. But why isn't it now? Ask the CE's.
Another example. Why isn't there any content or official announcement of titles with Atmos sound? Ask the studios.
Why doesn't Dolby Atmos support more than 24.1.10 speaker layout? Okay, now that is a question for Dolby.


----------



## Nightlord

Kadath said:


> I don't get this train of thought at all, and you aren't the first I have seen it from. I think the idea of virtual channels will work to satisfy just about everyone. Who on earth really wants more than 7.1.4? 1% of 1% of potential buyers? What more do you NEED?


I have 3 speakers up front, front highs and front wides. 3 side surrounds each side and one for each back surround and four more speakers lying waiting for ceiling channels. Plus one other pair of speakers, just because they were fun... I have 9 external amp channels besides sub amps. I want to use it all, that's what I need.


----------



## sdurani

PoshFrosh said:


> *Are these woofer-tweeter (non-concentric) speakers?* Or are these concentric/coax speakers with a giant port that is plugged?


Those look like Kef R300 bookshelf speakers.


----------



## redjr

bargervais said:


> I live on the beach with ceiling fans in every room I'm going to go with in or on ceiling speakers because I'm not sure what those up firing speakers will or will not be affected by those fans.


Perhaps the fans will introduce some vibrato affect to your atmos sound.  When I was in college I would practice the organ in the chapel that had an old large rotating baffle suspended from the ceiling in the auditorium. This was used in the ole days to produce tremolo or vibrato to the sound. Very effective in its day. Either that, or you'll get some 'cool' sounds.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Do-able here, as you know.


I figured it was worth suggesting since he is 3 feet from the back wall, allowing him to spread top front and top rear speakers well apart.


----------



## Nightlord

redjr said:


> Perhaps the fans will introduce some vibrato affect to your atmos sound.  When I was in college I would practice the organ in the chapel that had an old large rotating baffle suspended from the ceiling in the auditorium. This was used in the ole days to produce tremolo or vibrato to the sound. Very effective in its day. Either that, or you'll get some 'cool' sounds.


Your own Leslie.


----------



## pasender91

Scott Simonian said:


> For example, wides. Dolby Atmos (for home) supports wides. But why isn't it now? Ask the CE's.


Hi Scott, some CE's support wides on Atmos, the denon 5200 does support 9.1.2, it is also a direct way up for Audissey DSX users ..


----------



## PeterTHX

NorthSky said:


> * I was a subscriber to WSR right from the beginning. ...Nineteen-ninety somethin'...
> {First WSR issue: *Issue 1 (Nov/Dec 1992)*}


I was too, until they became the DTS® Newsletter*™* in the late 90s. 


All the Dolby AC-3 bashing, the DVD format bashing...articles about his CAR...too much for me to continue to support the magazine. A total 180 from the early days of the magazine where every format was treated fairly and huge articles devoted to how they worked.


The talk about the EX encode vs. the actual Sonic Overhead track, reminds me of the first reviews of DVDs. 2 channel AC-3 discs were always bashed as sounding "thinner and inferior" to their LD PCM counterparts. Until he reviewed Image Entertainment's first releases, which listed PCM as their soundtracks on the package. They were reviewed as "identical to their LD counterparts". Except they weren't PCM: they were actually encoded in Dolby Digital 2.0. If he had bothered to display the audio information either in the DVD player or receiver he would have known. Amazing what a little audio placebo can do for people. With the comments about _We Were Soldiers_ I see it continued on.


----------



## Scott Simonian

pasender91 said:


> Hi Scott, some CE's support wides on Atmos, the denon 5200 does support 9.1.2, it is also a direct way up for Audissey DSX users ..


Right. I know this but it isn't widely supported nor does it support a 9.1.4 configuration leading to mass confusion.

My post was in response to this confusion.


----------



## Kadath

Nightlord said:


> I have 3 speakers up front, front highs and front wides. 3 side surrounds each side and one for each back surround and four more speakers lying waiting for ceiling channels. Plus one other pair of speakers, just because they were fun... I have 9 external amp channels besides sub amps. I want to use it all, that's what I need.


I think you're going to be disappointed for a long time to come. Even at 7.1.4 there is such a small ROI for the costs of upgrading that there's going to be no point to authoring anything in more specific physical channels even if Atmos takes off in the home. You're asking for entire industries to cater to a crowd that's less than .001% of the world's population. You are at least 4 orders of magnitude out from the population of enthusiasts who built 7.1 when 5.1 was "mainstream", and even today the vast majority of homes are barely better than stereo coming from directly off a flat panel. All the authoring testing and pressing to cater to that audience? Fugeddaboudit.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Question for Keith and Roger,
> 
> I know you guys went for the tannoy speakers. And they are not timbre matched to your mains. I think You guys said eq should take care of that. I am still pretty much a newbie. I am assuming audyssey will take care of the this and will not to do any manuel eq?
> 
> Thanks


Yes Audyssey XT32 will do a pretty good job of timbre matching the speakers. As Roger taught me recently, timbre matching speakers is 'old school' stuff from the days before we had EQ. Not so much reason to worry about it these days.


----------



## kbarnes701

jima4a said:


> What post was that? I can't find it but did see it once (did not have time to read it then).


*Here you are.* 

If you don't want to read it all, although I'd be shocked if you didn't - LOL - the bit you need is under the subhead 'Speakers and placement considerations'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kadath said:


> I think you're going to be disappointed for a long time to come. Even at 7.1.4 there is such a small ROI for the costs of upgrading that there's going to be no point to authoring anything in more specific physical channels even if Atmos takes off in the home. You're asking for entire industries to cater to a crowd that's less than .001% of the world's population. You are at least 4 orders of magnitude out from the population of enthusiasts who built 7.1 when 5.1 was "mainstream", and even today the vast majority of homes are barely better than stereo coming from directly off a flat panel. All the authoring testing and pressing to cater to that audience? Fugeddaboudit.


Well thank goodness that it doesn't work like that. If it is content encoded in Atmos then it will support the 1st gen limited 7.1.4 speaker layout. That same content will support the full 24.1.10 layout in the future.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for all that, Marc. If the A3030 is going to be the only one of the affordable units that actually measures speaker positions for feeding to the rendering engine, then this might be a unit I would have to take a serious look at too. The only thing that puts me off is that I would lose XT32 and Pro. I have always liked Yamaha gear but I worry about going to YPAO. I'll investigate it further though. I have no problem doing manual EQ and have REW and so on, so if that was a real alternative to XT32 it could be interesting.


Marc (FilmMixer) ordered the A3040 which supports Atmos. A3030 is the previous generation model which does not support Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> *Are these woofer-tweeter (non-concentric) speakers?* Or are these concentric/coax speakers with a giant port that is plugged?
> 
> I'm very interested in your opinions, because *I plan on using non-coax, on-ceiling speakers. Anyone else planning on this?*
> image source, the third of the following links: Denon AVR-X5200W Unboxing-
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/20...00W-open/0.htm
> OnScreen menus Pictures and Video-
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/20...0W-SETUP/0.htm
> http://www.avbuzz.com/audio-video/20...X5200W-2/0.htm


AIUI there is nothing wrong with using conventional two-way designs per se. Just bear in the mind that Atmos ceiling speakers need a nice, wide dispersion pattern. Also, you will need to be a few feet away from the speakers so that the sound from the different drivers can 'integrate' before it gets to your ears. This isn’t a problem of course with dual concentric designs as the sound is integrated in the speaker design itself. Check the dispersion pattern or Directivity Index with the manufacturer.


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> Hi Scott, some CE's support wides on Atmos, the denon 5200 does support 9.1.2, it is also a direct way up for Audissey DSX users ..


Again, the discussion above is about the Dolby Surround UPMIXER not Atmos itself. And what started this entire discussion about DSU supporting wides or not is in fact the X5200W, because the manual that was posted on the UK site clearly indicates that the front wide output is NOT supported by DSU. 

Thus, the subsequent discussion about how DSU in theory can support up to 24.1.10 channels and why it wouldn't be implemented as such in receivers. As Roger pointed out the only channel that we know is "prohibited" is the "in between fronts and center" screen channels (to avoid messing up front soundstage).

You are of course correct that Atmos will render to the wides if the content is native Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Marc (FilmMixer) ordered the A3040 which supports Atmos. A3030 is the previous generation model which does not support Atmos.


Sorry - typo - I meant the 3040 of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> My room is also small is there a point where too many speakers can be over kill and you don't hear the separation as good as you would hear it a bigger HT


Well what you can't have with a small room is the sheer physical distance between speakers that you can have with a bigger room. For example, if the left surround and front right speaker are 20 feet apart, then there will always be more chance of properly hearing a pan from back left to front right than there will be in a room where those speakers are only 10 feet apart. Speed of sound and all that. But I haven't found that to be a barrier to enjoyment in my room and I still get a fully immersive experience. I don't think the number of speakers is an issue - all that happens with more speakers is that the potential for more accuracy of phantom imaging is there - it doesn't affect the spatial dimension or the impression of movement of sound etc. It's more that in a very large room you _need _more speakers because it is harder to phantom image if the speakers are physically much further apart from each other.


----------



## Kadath

Scott Simonian said:


> Well thank goodness that it doesn't work like that. If it is content encoded in Atmos then it will support the 1st gen limited 7.1.4 speaker layout. That same content will support the full 24.1.10 layout in the future.


Exactly, but that's not what he's asking for. He's asking for more dedicated physical channels!


----------



## Nightlord

bargervais said:


> My room is also small is there a point where too many speakers can be over kill and you don't hear the separation as good as you would hear it a bigger HT


It's the other way around.... To get desired separation when you are close to the speakers - you need more. In a larger room you can settle for fewer until they don't have the desired level capacity on their own.


----------



## Nightlord

Kadath said:


> I think you're going to be disappointed for a long time to come. Even at 7.1.4 there is such a small ROI for the costs of upgrading that there's going to be no point to authoring anything in more specific physical channels even if Atmos takes off in the home. You're asking for entire industries to cater to a crowd that's less than .001% of the world's population. You are at least 4 orders of magnitude out from the population of enthusiasts who built 7.1 when 5.1 was "mainstream", and even today the vast majority of homes are barely better than stereo coming from directly off a flat panel. All the authoring testing and pressing to cater to that audience? Fugeddaboudit.


You're not making up numbers bad enought. I think even around 1 million sold machines will be quite decent! 

Jokes aside. This is an extreme machine, so they need to look at the extreme users. Or not do it at all. Yes, they can't get the volume, but that's why the price is higher. I still will have paid more for glue and caulk in my theater than the receiver will cost...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kadath said:


> Exactly, but that's not what he's asking for. He's asking for more dedicated physical channels!


It sounds more like that he is interested in *utilizing* all these speaker locations. Not necessarily that they have to be whole new channels. 

Either way... I would not set my heart on any delivery of more channels any time soon. HDMI 2.0 can support more 8ch streams (which could be used for >8ch audio) but Dolby Atmos was developed to be backward compatible with conventional 8ch delivery. We will get a standard 7.1 track with 2 overhead "beds" and all the objects folded down into the 7.1 layer.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> We will get a standard 7.1 track with 2 overhead "beds" and all the objects folded down into the 7.1 layer.


That sounds bad, doesn't it? But as far as I have understood, they've halved that maximum sampling frequency, so the do get access to twice as much data... So... 7.1 + objects coded into the data space of 8 channels.


----------



## blastermaster

I'm so stoked about jumping in on this technology. I'm going to be ceiling mounting my speakers and making them flush with my drop ceiling. I hope that the height of my room will be ok (drop ceiling is about 7.5 feet)??? I've seen pics of people mounting bookshelf speakers onto the ceiling...where would one buy these ceiling mounts? I'm trying to prepare in advance, and I just saw a smoking deal on some full band Tannoy bookshelf speakers (they're big), and I just want to make sure I can safely mount these bad boys. Also, last year I bought a pair of Axiom Quadpolar surround speakers. Are direct firing speakers necessary for Atmos, or will I still be ok with the Axioms? Thanks for the help.


----------



## jima4a

kbarnes701 said:


> *Here you are.*
> 
> If you don't want to read it all, although I'd be shocked if you didn't - LOL - the bit you need is under the subhead 'Speakers and placement considerations'.


Keith,

Thanks! A great read, appreciate you taking the time to share. So right now I have traditional front heights and some ceiling surrounds that are not in use. It sounds like neither can be used for ATMOS, correct?

Jim


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> That sounds bad, doesn't it? But as far as I have understood, they've halved that maximum sampling frequency, so the do get access to twice as much data... So... 7.1 + objects coded into the data space of 8 channels.


No, you're overthinking it..

The fold down is still 7.1 channels, no more, no less.. the _additional_ extension contains the objects that are audibly subtracted out.. it's still the 7.1 in the same "data space."

On average, the additional sub stream of the objects adds about 20% to the size of the TrueHD encode.


----------



## brwsaw

blastermaster said:


> last year I bought a pair of Axiom Quadpolar surround speakers. Are direct firing speakers necessary for Atmos, or will I still be ok with the Axioms? Thanks for the help.


You'll probably agree the QS series are pretty good at getting out of the way and just presenting good quality surround. In theory they should perform admirably if you can get them out of the way of the image/screen and close enough to the ideal locations.


----------



## westmd

Not having officially Integra in the country where I live I am wondering if there are any differences between Onkyo and Integra products. According to Lars Mette in his video the 5530 and the 80.6 will sound different. How was that with oast Onkyo/Integra oroducts?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> Lovely drawings!


Thanks... Only the minor task of putting it all into reality remains!

Figured out the foam pads today which will support the ceiling in a "floated" way. The company next door makes them to size. I picked the strongest density. 2 panels of 1 x 2 m of the stuff (hence 4 m2, thickness 2 cm) are what it takes to cary the whole 60 m² ceiling. They will cut it up to pads of 16 x 4 cm. Two of each of the pads are glued to a multiply panel (40 x 16 cm leftover). This panel is then placed between the FJI beams, forming a floating "bridge" where the actual construction is screwed on to... Even with all the weight of the ceiling, including acoustic diffusion, it should not be pressed in more than 1 mm. Same principle as the floating concrete floor. Acoustic ceiling hangers would have cost me more than €2,000.


----------



## kbarnes701

jima4a said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks! A great read, appreciate you taking the time to share. So right now I have traditional front heights and some ceiling surrounds that are not in use. It sounds like neither can be used for ATMOS, correct?
> 
> Jim


Thanks - you're welcome!

It depends on the angles and on the separation distance between the various speakers, as described in the article. If you can meet the specified angles for Front Height and either Top Middle or Top Rear (with the ceiling surrounds) then they will probably work. What angle from the MLP are the ceiling surrounds?

(If they are your only surrounds, then it isn't possible of course as you would then not have the required 5 speakers at listener level. I was sort of hoping they were rear surrounds as you said they are not currently in use, which you could dispense with if utilising them as Atmos Top Rear or Top Middle was going to give you a better result). You can also mix and match physical speakers with Atmos speakers and Atmos modules, so would that help? I guess not if the side surrounds are the current in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Thanks... Only the minor task of putting it all into reality remains!
> 
> Figured out the foam pads today which will support the ceiling in a "floated" way. The company next door makes them to size. I picked the strongest density. 2 panels of 1 x 2 m of the stuff (hence 4 m2, thickness 2 cm) are what it takes to cary the whole 60 m² ceiling. They will cut it up to pads of 16 x 4 cm. Two of each of the pads are glued to a multiply panel (40 x 16 cm leftover). This panel is then placed between the FJI beams, forming a floating "bridge" where the actual construction is screwed on to... Even with all the weight of the ceiling, including acoustic diffusion, it should not be pressed in more than 1 mm. Same principle as the floating concrete floor. Acoustic ceiling hangers would have cost me more than €2,000.


I am very envious. I'd love to make a HT like yours will be!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

chi_guy50 said:


> Does Google translate Lars Mette's video commentary for you? I didn't think so.
> 
> I was intrigued to note that, according to the article, the demo took place in Dolby's London HQ on August 29, 2014. Forget 3D, those ingenious Germans have broken the fourth dimension. Mein Gott im Himmel!
> 
> Seriously, Keith, Scott and others have provided us with much more detailed, informative feedback from their demos, but here are a couple of points that Lars makes:
> 
> 1) He was impressed with the height effect created by Atmos object rendering and felt that the technology has great potential for significantly enhancing the HT experience, but his enthusiasm was tempered by the less than optimal conditions in Dolby's demo theater (where have we heard this before?). He was disturbed to find that the speakers were not all timbre matched and the PVC screen was not accoustically transparent resulting in reflected sound originating from the rear. This led him to comment that you are shooting yourself in the foot if, in the rush to add Atmos capability in a HT, you do not prioritize speaker set-up and accoustical treatments. In fact, in his experience, a properly configured conventional 5.1 or 7.1 HT will perform "not necessarily worse" than an Atmos HT (in its current form) in terms of encompassing sound ("spherische Gesamtwirkung").
> 
> 2) In the coming months AVR signal processing will take on significantly greater importance than was previously the case in purely channel-based audio.
> 
> 3) Despite many unanswered questions regarding technological details, Auro3D appears, in his opinion, to have not much chance of competing with Dolby Atmos at this point.


This is exactly how I remember it. This guy sells HT equipment for a living. He prefers high end stuff...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

redjr said:


> Perhaps the fans will introduce some vibrato affect to your atmos sound.  When I was in college I would practice the organ in the chapel that had an old large rotating baffle suspended from the ceiling in the auditorium. This was used in the ole days to produce tremolo or vibrato to the sound. Very effective in its day. Either that, or you'll get some 'cool' sounds.


Three words:
*Hunter Concert Breeze*
http://craziestgadgets.com/2009/01/07/ceiling-fan-with-built-in-speakers/


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> No, you're overthinking it..
> 
> The fold down is still 7.1 channels, no more, no less.. the _additional_ extension contains the objects that are audibly subtracted out.. it's still the 7.1 in the same "data space."
> 
> On average, the additional sub stream of the objects adds about 20% to the size of the TrueHD encode.


Perhaps I am. But what it adds on average with the material tested thus far than the theoretical maximum may not be be same?


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> I was too, until they became the DTS® Newsletter*™* in the late 90s.


Twenty years later, that hasn't changed. Reber was sitting across the table from me at the Atmos presser in Burbank last week. Unlike all the other reporters there, he rushed back and re-published an 8-month old DTS press release from CES about their UHD object-based audio tech, asthough the entire Dolby presser had never happened.


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> Perhaps I am. But what it adds on average with the material tested thus far than the theoretical maximum may not be be same?


They've encoded titles at this point, not just demos. 

The authoring software is in the hands of outside facilities. 

I think they know how much data space will increase on average.


----------



## jima4a

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks - you're welcome!
> 
> It depends on the angles and on the separation distance between the various speakers, as described in the article. If you can meet the specified angles for Front Height and either Top Middle or Top Rear (with the ceiling surrounds) then they will probably work. What angle from the MLP are the ceiling surrounds?
> 
> (If they are your only surrounds, then it isn't possible of course as you would then not have the required 5 speakers at listener level. I was sort of hoping they were rear surrounds as you said they are not currently in use, which you could dispense with if utilising them as Atmos Top Rear or Top Middle was going to give you a better result). You can also mix and match physical speakers with Atmos speakers and Atmos modules, so would that help? I guess not if the side surrounds are the current in-ceiling speakers.


My ceiling surrounds are near the back corners pretty much right above my tower surrounds, I believe.


----------



## westmd

chi_guy50 said:


> I just picked out what I felt were some of the more interesting comments and paraphrased them. You could let us know if you feel I misinterpreted anything Lars said or left out anything you believe would be of significant interest to other forum members. Mit kameradschaftlichen Grüßen, Jeff


Hi Jeff, I think you captured it quite well. The only other thing I found quite interesting was a statement from Integra that their 80.6 will be different in sound to the Onkyo 5530!


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Twenty years later, that hasn't changed. Reber was sitting across the table from me at the Atmos presser in Burbank last week. Unlike all the other reporters there, he rushed back and re-published an 8-month old DTS press release from CES about their UHD object-based audio tech, asthough the entire Dolby presser had never happened.



Figures. He was wrong about Dolby Digital, he was late to the party on DVD and wrong about Blu-ray. Ignoring Atmos is par for the course at WSR.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> Figures. ...Ignoring Atmos is par for the course at WSR.


Well, if Atmos had been invented by DTS, you can imagine how different the coverage would have been at WSR.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> That sounds bad, doesn't it? But as far as I have understood, they've halved that maximum sampling frequency, so the do get access to twice as much data... So... 7.1 + objects coded into the data space of 8 channels.


The recording resolution can be 16 bit/48 kHz or 24 bit/48 kHz and possibly higher. Dolby stated that the extra substream object data adds about 20% more to a normal TrueHD encoding.


----------



## westmd

PoshFrosh said:


> I'm very interested in your opinions, because *I plan on using non-coax, on-ceiling speakers. Anyone else planning on this.*


*

Yes I am planning to use 4 Jamo D500 THX speakers. I will also get 4 KEF Atmos enabled speakers once available and let them compete against each other!*


----------



## westmd

Nightlord said:


> I have 3 speakers up front, front highs and front wides. 3 side surrounds each side and one for each back surround and four more speakers lying waiting for ceiling channels. Plus one other pair of speakers, just because they were fun... I have 9 external amp channels besides sub amps. I want to use it all, that's what I need.


Go for Trinnov!


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> But as far as I have understood, they've halved that maximum sampling frequency, so the do get access to twice as much data...


Does that mean the lossless track isn't actually lossless but instead contains only half the samples of the encoding master?


----------



## NorthSky

PeterTHX said:


> Figures. He was wrong about Dolby Digital, he was late to the party on DVD and wrong about Blu-ray. Ignoring Atmos is par for the course at WSR.


True, he was late on DVD, stuck on LaserDisc. ...And the kids knew much more than him about Blu-ray.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Well what you can't have with a small room is the sheer physical distance between speakers that you can have with a bigger room. For example, if the left surround and front right speaker are 20 feet apart, then there will always be more chance of properly hearing a pan from back left to front right than there will be in a room where those speakers are only 10 feet apart. Speed of sound and all that. But I haven't found that to be a barrier to enjoyment in my room and I still get a fully immersive experience. I don't think the number of speakers is an issue - all that happens with more speakers is that the potential for more accuracy of phantom imaging is there - it doesn't affect the spatial dimension or the impression of movement of sound etc. It's more that in a very large room you _need _more speakers because it is harder to phantom image if the speakers are physically much further apart from each other.


Thanks I always enjoy your insight


----------



## WynsWrld98

blastermaster said:


> I'm so stoked about jumping in on this technology. I'm going to be ceiling mounting my speakers and making them flush with my drop ceiling. I hope that the height of my room will be ok (drop ceiling is about 7.5 feet)??? I've seen pics of people mounting bookshelf speakers onto the ceiling...where would one buy these ceiling mounts? I'm trying to prepare in advance, and I just saw a smoking deal on some full band Tannoy bookshelf speakers (they're big), and I just want to make sure I can safely mount these bad boys. Also, last year I bought a pair of Axiom Quadpolar surround speakers. Are direct firing speakers necessary for Atmos, or will I still be ok with the Axioms? Thanks for the help.


I didn't see this question get answered and am curious answers to it. I also have a 7.5 foot drop ceiling and am curious if people think this will be OK for ceiling mounted speakers in a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 setup? I'm planning on using some inwall style (less deep than normal) speakers so they recess in the drop ceiling.


----------



## Roger Dressler

mp5475 said:


> Question for Keith and Roger,
> 
> I know you guys went for the tannoy speakers. And they are not timbre matched to your mains. I think You guys said eq should take care of that. I am still pretty much a newbie. I am assuming audyssey will take care of the this and will not to do any manuel eq?


I am confident that Audyssey will take care of it. I did a little quickie manual EQ on one speaker yesterday and it fell into line nicely. Same degree as needed for my surrounds, and auto-EQ handled those fine.


----------



## bargervais

I know this is off topic but what is a good temperature for an AVR My TX-NR 737 after watching for five hours is 96 degrees


----------



## Luke M

FilmMixer said:


> On average, the additional sub stream of the objects adds about 20% to the size of the TrueHD encode.


I don't know how to interpret that number. 20% relative to what? 5.1? 7.1? 9.1? Lossy or lossless? Average number of objects? How many "bed" channels?

Seems like there are so many degrees of freedom, you can basically target any bitrate you want.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Luke M said:


> I don't know how to interpret that number. 20% relative to what? 5.1? 7.1? 9.1? Lossy or lossless? Average number of objects? How many "bed" channels?
> 
> Seems like there are so many degrees of freedom, you can basically target any bitrate you want.


Take the bitrate of a soundtrack encoded in TrueHD 5.1 or 7.1 and add an average of 20% on top of it.


----------



## FilmMixer

Luke M said:


> I don't know how to interpret that number. 20% relative to what? 5.1? 7.1? 9.1? Lossy or lossless? Average number of objects? How many "bed" channels?
> 
> Seems like there are so many degrees of freedom, you can basically target any bitrate you want.


I'm not sure what is so confusing.

There are no 9.1 bed in TrueHD, and the 5.1 fold down is made from the 7.1 encode... 

If you were to compare a 7.1 TrueHD track to a 7.1 Atmos TrueHD encode, the average file size increase Dolby has seen is around 20%.

The new Dolby Media Encoder that supports Atmos does let you increase the object count from it's default setting... of course if you raise it to it's maximum you will raise both the bandwidth and space required... lowering it would obviously do the inverse, which an expected hit to acceptable parity between the master and the encode. 

You can't really target the bitrate with a lossless VBR codec..

You can with a lossy track.... DD+ Atmos should see no meaningful size increase since it is a CBR codec.


----------



## Orbitron

For those going to CEDIA, Josh Gersham of Dolby will be speaking at 4pm on Sept. 10.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> For those going to CEDIA, Josh Gersham of Dolby will be speaking at 4pm on Sept. 10.


I can't make it until Thursday afternoon, but hopefully someone could give me a recap.


----------



## Luke M

Dan Hitchman said:


> Take the bitrate of a soundtrack encoded in TrueHD 5.1 or 7.1 and add an average of 20% on top of it.


The question is what are you getting out of that 20%. How many bed channels, how many objects (average), lossless or lossy, etc.

If you just want to light up the Atmos LED on a receiver, that could be done with less than 20%. If you want a lossless 9.1 bed with a bunch of lossless objects in a super noisy soundtrack, then you could potentially be constrained by the maximum bitrate. It's a wide range.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Luke M said:


> The question is what are you getting out of that 20%. How many bed channels, how many objects (average), lossless or lossy, etc.
> 
> If you just want to light up the Atmos LED on a receiver, that could be done with less than 20%. If you want a lossless 9.1 bed with a bunch of lossless objects in a super noisy soundtrack, then you could potentially be constrained by the maximum bitrate. It's a wide range.


Maybe Dolby is taking into consideration how many objects and bed channels are in a typical Atmos mix right now. None of the films released so far have used all 128 slots on the Atmos DAW, not even close to that. There is built-in future expansion capabilities when someone decides to go hog wild.


----------



## FilmMixer

Luke M said:


> The question is what are you getting out of that 20%. How many bed channels, how many objects (average), lossless or lossy, etc.
> 
> If you just want to light up the Atmos LED on a receiver, that could be done with less than 20%. If you want a lossless 9.1 bed with a bunch of lossless objects in a super noisy soundtrack, then you could potentially be constrained by the maximum bitrate. It's a wide range.


Did you not need my reply?

You can't define how many bed channels, it is fixed..

And again, TrueHD is a lossless codec, so you can't define the bitrate.. it's a Variable Bit Rate (VBR.)

Who "just wants to light up the Atmos" LED on a receiver?" 

The number of maximum objects isn't variable or dynamic over the length of a project..

The BR spec defines max bandwidth for audio, not the codec. 

Any Atmos mix is going to have a bunch of objects... no content provider has any interest in delivering a presentation that wildly varies from it's theatrical master..

Why is the average data increase of 20% so unbelievable to you? 

I'm lost as to your understanding, or misunderstanding, of the codec and what you are hoping to be enlightened about...


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Maybe Dolby is taking into consideration how many objects and bed channels are in a typical Atmos mix right now. None of the films released so far have used all 128 slots on the Atmos DAW, not even close to that. There is built-in future expansion capabilities when someone decides to go hog wild.


Every theatrical Atmos mix assigns 10 channels for the bed (the first 10 inputs on the RMU.)

You of course don't have to use them, but you record onto all 10 of them when mastering... with lossless encoding, however, it can save some space if you don't use the overhead arrays (which isn't unheard of) in the bed...

But I'm not sure what any of this line of discussion has to do with ?????

It's an average of 20% for TrueHD.. since there is a finite number of objects defined when you encode, and taking into consideration the spacial coding technology, that percentage shouldn't vary wildly regardless if there are 10 objects a lot of the time, or 60 some of the time...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Every theatrical Atmos mix assigns 10 channels for the bed (the first 10 inputs on the RMU.)
> 
> You of course don't have to use them, but you record onto all 10 of them when mastering... with lossless encoding, however, it can save some space if you don't use the overhead arrays (which isn't unheard of) in the bed...
> 
> But I'm not sure what any of this line of discussion has to do with ?????
> 
> It's an average of 20% for TrueHD.. since there is a finite number of objects defined when you encode, and taking into consideration the spacial coding technology, that percentage shouldn't vary wildly regardless if there are 10 objects a lot of the time, or 60 some of the time...


I was just trying to see if I could explain to the questioner, Luke M, a possibility of why Dolby thinks a 20% average increase is their target increase for a TrueHD file. Theoretically, if all 128 objects were used, wouldn't that 20% increase shoot up quite a bit and perhaps be more than the current Blu-ray format could handle at this time?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> I was just trying to see if I could explain to the questioner Luke M a possibility of why Dolby thinks a 20% average increase is their target increase for a TrueHD file. Theoretically, if all 128 objects were used, wouldn't that 20% shoot up quite a bit and perhaps be more than the current Blu-ray format could handle at this time?


It's not a "target" increase.. it's what they have observed when encoding real world content.

It was the direct answer to the question "how much bigger are the TrueHD encodes with Atmos over those without."

It will certainly go up with a large number of active objects, but remember that's an average over the run time of the content... with the number of max objects defined per project, and with spatial audio coding, I wouldn't expect a magnitude order of data space increase to be seen even in that example of 118 (it's not 128.) 

I'm not an authoring expert, and just happen to have a bit of information on how content is being authored at this point.. 

Again, however, I'm completely lost as to what his point is, what exact question he wants answered, and why it matters in the grand scheme of things..


----------



## action_jackson

Dan Hitchman said:


> I was just trying to see if I could explain to the questioner, Luke M, a possibility of why Dolby thinks a 20% average increase is their target increase for a TrueHD file. Theoretically, if all 128 objects were used, wouldn't that 20% increase shoot up quite a bit and perhaps be more than the current Blu-ray format could handle at this time?


Surely the engineers thought of this ahead of time, I could not see them just throwing this out there untested. They have most likely done sample mixes with everything maxed out just to see how far it was capable of going, then reduced it to its current value of 118 objects to give it a little wiggle room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> It's not a "target" increase.. it's what they have observed when encoding real world content.
> 
> It was the direct answer to the question "how much bigger are the TrueHD encodes with Atmos over those without."
> 
> It will certainly go up with a large number of active objects, but remember that's an average over the run time of the content... with the number of max objects defined per project, and with spatial audio coding, I wouldn't expect a magnitude order of data space increase to be seen even in that example of 118 (it's not 128.)
> 
> I'm not an authoring expert, and just happen to have a bit of information on how content is being authored at this point..
> 
> Again, however, I'm completely lost as to what his point is, what exact question he wants answered, and *why it matters in the grand scheme of things.*.


No, it really doesn't. 

I thought Dolby was now considering the channel beds as "fixed objects that don't go anywhere" in their total object count?


----------



## ambientcafe

Furthur musings on Atmos from 'Sound and Vision' ... 

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-enabled-products-caution-ahead


----------



## sdurani

ambientcafe said:


> Furthur musings on Atmos from 'Sound and Vision' ...
> 
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-enabled-products-caution-ahead


 _"Let's suppose that you shell out $10,000 for a major upgrade to Atmos complete with an array of ceiling speakers, and let's suppose that it sounds awesome, just like in the movie theater. Now you run over to tell your friend that you have Atmos and it's awesome. And he pulls out his iPhone and says, oh, I have Atmos too and it really does sound super duper good. Instant buzz kill. *You wanted something exclusive, something really cool that phones couldn't pretend to do*, because you're sick of how phones dumb down everything."_ 

Considering the author's motivations for getting Atmos, even if it never migrated to mobile devices he was still going to be disappointed eventually as the technology became more affordable to more consumers, thereby losing the exclusivity and cool factor that he had originally bought Atmos for.


----------



## ambientcafe

sdurani said:


> _"Let's suppose that you shell out $10,000 for a major upgrade to Atmos complete with an array of ceiling speakers, and let's suppose that it sounds awesome, just like in the movie theater. Now you run over to tell your friend that you have Atmos and it's awesome. And he pulls out his iPhone and says, oh, I have Atmos too and it really does sound super duper good. Instant buzz kill. *You wanted something exclusive, something really cool that phones couldn't pretend to do*, because you're sick of how phones dumb down everything."_
> 
> Considering the author's motivations for getting Atmos, even if it never migrated to mobile devices he was still going to be disappointed eventually as the technology became more affordable to more consumers, thereby* losing the exclusivity and cool factor *that he had originally bought Atmos for.


Us early adopters go thru this all the time. I remember when name brand (non-3D) bd players started regularly selling for around 60 bucks after I paid $550 (Cdn) for my Panny BD30. Not particularly looking forward to shelling out $1,800 (Cdn) for the new (Atmos-capable) Yamaha 2040, as I've never paid more than $600 for an AVR, altho I do remember paying $1,800 for my Pioneer CLD3080 laserdisc player way back when.


----------



## action_jackson

sdurani said:


> _"Let's suppose that you shell out $10,000 for a major upgrade to Atmos complete with an array of ceiling speakers, and let's suppose that it sounds awesome, just like in the movie theater. Now you run over to tell your friend that you have Atmos and it's awesome. And he pulls out his iPhone and says, oh, I have Atmos too and it really does sound super duper good. Instant buzz kill. *You wanted something exclusive, something really cool that phones couldn't pretend to do*, because you're sick of how phones dumb down everything."_
> 
> Considering the author's motivations for getting Atmos, even if it never migrated to mobile devices he was still going to be disappointed eventually as the technology became more affordable to more consumers, thereby losing the exclusivity and cool factor that he had originally bought Atmos for.


Right, it seems like he is more interested in bragging rights than enjoying the atmos experience. Although, earlier in the article he states that he seeks out movie theaters that are showing atmos presentations of movies, driving further and paying more if necessary to enjoy the experience. 

He seemed a little confused about the optional use of ceiling mounted speakers as well, mentioned that he is not thrilled about having to use reflected sound from the atmos enabled speakers.


----------



## Luke M

FilmMixer said:


> Did you not need my reply?
> 
> You can't define how many bed channels, it is fixed..


So every home Atmos mix is 9.1+objects? Never 7.1, or 5.1?



FilmMixer said:


> And again, TrueHD is a lossless codec, so you can't define the bitrate.. it's a Variable Bit Rate (VBR.)


According to the dolby white paper, you can choose a lossy coding for the objects.



FilmMixer said:


> Any Atmos mix is going to have a bunch of objects... no content provider has any interest in delivering a presentation that wildly varies from it's theatrical master..


So what is the average number of objects? (Average, meaning how many are playing at a time, on average throughout the movie). My guess would be less than 1, but I really don't know.



FilmMixer said:


> Why is the average data increase of 20% so unbelievable to you?


I believe it with all my heart. I just don't know what it means.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> I was just trying to see if I could explain to the questioner, Luke M, a possibility of why Dolby thinks a 20% average increase is their target increase for a TrueHD file. Theoretically, if all 128 objects were used, wouldn't that 20% increase shoot up quite a bit and perhaps be more than the current Blu-ray format could handle at this time?


The thing we are not factoring in is the Spatial Coding (SC). It offers lot of flexibility, and that means opportunities to trade off performance vs DSP burden. SC can take all the objects (even 100) and distill them to a manageable number. That is the number of objects the renderer has to process. A consumer product will not need, nor be able, to decode 100 individual lossless objects and render them. The BD disc cannot support that, nor can the DSPs. Luckily it does not need to do that, for 2 reasons: a) mixers do not push that many objects, and b) a human brain cannot track that many independently moving sounds. The video game authors figured that out a long time ago. 

The only objects that might need to be delivered separate from SC would be things that the end user can freely adjust, like dialog. So that can add to the pile, if and when such an option is adopted.


----------



## sdurani

ambientcafe said:


> Us early adopters go thru this all the time.


Yeah, but you know that comes along with being an early adopter, and you're not whining about it like the author was.


action_jackson said:


> Right, it seems like he is more interested in bragging rights than enjoying the atmos experience. Although, earlier in the article he states that he seeks out movie theaters that are showing atmos presentations of movies, driving further and paying more if necessary to enjoy the experience.


No doubt he likes Atmos, and he should get the consumer version for that reason, not for bragging rights.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Luke M said:


> So every home Atmos mix is 9.1+objects? Never 7.1, or 5.1?


It's everything that was in the source. As translated to the BD disc, the entire lot is boiled down to a compatible 7.1 +objects, typically. It is permissible to be 5.1 +objects, but I suspect that will be seldom used for movies. When played back in consumer Atmos, the "9.1" bed is fully represented (if that was in the source). Those extra bed channels look just like objects, so are bundled in with the rest. 



> According to the dolby white paper, you can choose a lossy coding for the objects.


Yes, the core 7.1 and the Spatial Coded (SC) objects are all delivered with lossless coding on Blu-ray.



> So what is the average number of objects? (Average, meaning how many are playing at a time, on average throughout the movie). My guess would be less than 1, but I really don't know.


The average over the whole movie is not very interesting, as it has no implication on overall file size because that number is reduced by Spatial Coding before delivery. I think a more interesting question is how many objects do mixers use at one time, typically, and any extreme examples. But even that has no correlation to BD bitrates because SC reduces the number before it goes to the disc. So, if I may inquire, why do you ask?



> I believe it with all my heart. I just don't know what it means.


I dunno either. If the 20% refers to the peak bitrate, it does not seem like a lot more channels (even with SC). If it refers to file size, that seems more reasonable. But there are lots of things we do not know about the whole coding picture that could affect the armchair analysis. Luckily, we need not worry about it. Someone else is paid to do that.


----------



## action_jackson

Roger Dressler said:


> Luckily, we need not worry about it. Someone else is paid to do that.


+1


----------



## jacovn

Is a sound in a Object also not always 24bit/96Khz sampled. I assume specific sounds will have limited freqeuncy range, and perhaps do not need 24 bit dynamic range either.
This will make it much smaller quickly i guess.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, the core 7.1 and the Spatial Coded (SC) objects are all delivered with lossless coding on Blu-ray.


Are you sure the object audio samples themselves are delivered lossless? If I remember correctly the patent application describes techniques that don't seem to be lossless.


----------



## Luke M

Roger Dressler said:


> It's everything that was in the source. As translated to the BD disc, the entire lot is boiled down to a compatible 7.1 +objects, typically. It is permissible to be 5.1 +objects, but I suspect that will be seldom used for movies. When played back in consumer Atmos, the "9.1" bed is fully represented (if that was in the source). Those extra bed channels look just like objects, so are bundled in with the rest.


So a 9.1 truehd decoder (without Atmos), if such a thing existed, would not be able to do anything with the two extra bed objects/channels?



Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, the core 7.1 and the Spatial Coded (SC) objects are all delivered with lossless coding on Blu-ray.


By spatial coding do you mean something like MPEG Surround? That's a very low bitrate, lossy, way of coding surround channels given some downmix channels (which may be lossless).



Roger Dressler said:


> The average over the whole movie is not very interesting, as it has no implication on overall file size because that number is reduced by Spatial Coding before delivery. I think a more interesting question is how many objects do mixers use at one time, typically, and any extreme examples. But even that has no correlation to BD bitrates because SC reduces the number before it goes to the disc. So, if I may inquire, why do you ask?


Well, because my assumption was that one object takes about the same amount of space as one channel, when coded the same way. So if you know the average object count, then you can relate that to channel count.


----------



## markus767

Luke M said:


> So a 9.1 truehd decoder (without Atmos), if such a thing existed, would not be able to do anything with the two extra bed objects/channels?


A legacy TrueHD decoder would only recognize a 7.1 channel-based mix (top surrounds and objects would be folded into the 7.1 bed).



Luke M said:


> By spatial coding do you mean something like MPEG Surround? That's a very low bitrate, lossy, way of coding surround channels given some downmix channels (which may be lossless).
> 
> 
> 
> Well, because my assumption was that one object takes about the same amount of space as one channel, when coded the same way. So if you know the average object count, then you can relate that to channel count.


We can only speculate based on Dolby's patent at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014099285A1.html

The described methods on page 3-6 are lossy.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> The thing we are not factoring in is the Spatial Coding (SC). It offers lot of flexibility, and that means opportunities to trade off performance vs DSP burden. SC can take all the objects (even 100) and distill them to a manageable number. That is the number of objects the renderer has to process. A consumer product will not need, nor be able, to decode 100 individual lossless objects and render them. The BD disc cannot support that, nor can the DSPs. Luckily it does not need to do that, for 2 reasons: a) mixers do not push that many objects, and b) a human brain cannot track that many independently moving sounds. The video game authors figured that out a long time ago.
> 
> The only objects that might need to be delivered separate from SC would be things that the end user can freely adjust, like dialog. So that can add to the pile, if and when such an option is adopted.


Thanks, Roger, for the insight. I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Dolby's brand of spatial coding might work and still deliver excellent fidelity, discrete object separation, and possibly almost the entire cinema Atmos experience at the same time. Hmmm...

Some of us get wrapped up in the sausage making. I know I sometimes do.


----------



## Steven414

Prepping to purchase dolby atmos AVR. Been doing some researchand have narrowed it down to Onkyo or Denon. The info I’ve read on Onkyo isvague regarding the impedance output. It sounds like they’re designed for 6 ohmspeaker systems and that wouldn't work for me. Can any Onkyo owners clear this up? Thanks!


----------



## jkasanic

WynsWrld98 said:


> I didn't see this question get answered and am curious answers to it. I also have a 7.5 foot drop ceiling and am curious if people think this will be OK for ceiling mounted speakers in a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 setup? I'm planning on using some inwall style (less deep than normal) speakers so they recess in the drop ceiling.


If your question is in regards to the drop ceiling then Dolby's own home theater demo room should answer that question. If it's more in regards to the ceiling height of 7.5' then I'd wait for the guidelines to be posted. I believe it was stated that "enough" separation between the ceiling and surrounds is approx. 2/3's of the room height. If you have your surrounds at ear height (approx. 3.5') then that leaves 4' less however much your speakers protrude into the room for separation. That's about 1/2 of your room height best case. Tough to say if that will be enough or not until the standard is published or users start reporting their results.


----------



## IgorZep

Luke M said:


> So what is the average number of objects? (Average, meaning how many are playing at a time, on average throughout the movie). My guess would be less than 1, but I really don't know.


As it is 20% average over 10 bed channels... I guess average is 2 objects. Sometimes there are no objects. Sometimes it max out... at 6... Just a guess, but looks realistic to the 20% size average.


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> As far as we know at this time, a wide dispersion pattern seems to be desirable. So in-ceiling speakers with a wide dispersion pattern would be OK one would presume. And some have tweeters that can be angled towards the listener too. I have become convinced, personally, that dual concentric designs make an excellent choice too.


I hope so.  My son and I just got through installing 4 new Parasound C65 in-ceiling speakers. As we're still finishing up the new HT/media room space, we obviously can't test them for surround duty yet, much less Atmos. But we positioned them as close as we could to the diagram outlined in the Denon/Onkyo pre manual (link found elsewhere in this thread). My room will ultimately be treated, but I'm not at that stage just yet. My space is roughly 12' across at the TV end, 19' long, and 14' across the back end. I'm planning on a 5.2.4 speaker arrangement when the day comes.


----------



## batpig

IgorZep said:


> As it is 20% average over 10 bed channels... I guess average is 2 objects. Sometimes there are no objects. Sometimes it max out... at 6... Just a guess, but looks realistic to the 20% size average.


This makes no sense. First of all why would you assume that one object = one channel in terms of file size (10 x 20% = 2 objects)?

More importantly though the initial reference is a 20% increase in file size vs. a comparable, non-Atmos TrueHD track. The baseline is not "10 bed channels", it's a typical TrueHD encode.

This seems like it is being wildly overcomplicated. It seems pretty straightfoward to me -- take a sample of movies with "standard" TrueHD encodes. Then redo them with Atmos mixes (TrueHD encodes with whatever extra object substream metadata is needed). The second group, on average, is 20% larger in file size on the disk than the first group. Simple. The question was about how much more space on the disk the Atmos tracks take up.... the answer is about 20% more. I'm confused as to how this is engendering so much discussion.

I don't see how you could possibly extrapolate the number of objects based on that info, and it doesn't have anything to do with referencing 10 bed channels.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Simple. The question was about how much more space on the disk the Atmos tracks take up.... the answer is about 20% more. *I'm confused as to how this is engendering so much discussion.*


Thank heavens for that. I thought it was just me!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Something new to get worried about wrt [email protected] 

My stance is still the same. Gimme the gear, gimme the content. Bring it!


----------



## PeterTHX

Steven414 said:


> Prepping to purchase dolby atmos AVR. Been doing some researchand have narrowed it down to Onkyo or Denon. The info I’ve read on Onkyo isvague regarding the impedance output. It sounds like they’re designed for 6 ohmspeaker systems and that wouldn't work for me. Can any Onkyo owners clear this up? Thanks!



Onkyo specs for 6 ohms but 8 ohms works just fine. It's the lower impedance like 4 ohms you'd need to worry about.


As my screen name would imply, I would go with the Onkyo because it has THX certification and the processing modes.


----------



## IgorZep

batpig said:


> This makes no sense. First of all why would you assume that one object = one channel in terms of file size (10 x 20% = 2 objects)?
> 
> More importantly though the initial reference is a 20% increase in file size vs. a comparable, non-Atmos TrueHD track. The baseline is not "10 bed channels", it's a typical TrueHD encode.


The thing is there is little that can be gained in encoding performance, especially for uncorrelated sound (the objects)...

Ok. If baseline in 8 channels... And Atmos encode have 2 more 'bed' channels... Then this means that there is very little of real "objects" in encode! This data just confirms that what we get (in home Atmos) is mostly 9.1 discrete sound with very little objects. And not "a lot" as was claimed by some 'insiders'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

IgorZep said:


> Ok. If baseline in 8 channels... And Atmos encode have 2 more 'bed' channels... Then this means that there is very little of real "objects" in encode! This data just confirms that what we get (in home Atmos) is mostly 9.1 discrete sound with very little objects. And not "a lot" as was claimed by some 'insiders'.


Not sure how you are coming to this conclusion? 

A theatrical Atmos mix does not require the use of a 2ch overhead bed. Transformers 4, for example, has extensive use of objects that move all over the room but there was no overhead bed used at all. Only objects were used overhead.


----------



## kbarnes701

Audioholics have published a counter-article to the one that caused them so much backlash (you know, the one where the reviewer felt fit to comment without having actually heard it...).


*5 Reasons Why Dolby Atmos Will Succeed*


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Something new to get worried about wrt [email protected]
> 
> My stance is still the same. Gimme the gear, gimme the content. Bring it!


Same here. Bring it *ON*!


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> Onkyo specs for 6 ohms but 8 ohms works just fine. It's the lower impedance like 4 ohms you'd need to worry about.
> 
> 
> As my screen name would imply, I would go with the Onkyo because it has THX certification and the processing modes.


Trouble is, it also has AccuEQ.


----------



## batpig

IgorZep said:


> The thing is there is little that can be gained in encoding performance, especially for uncorrelated sound (the objects)...
> 
> Ok. If baseline in 8 channels... And Atmos encode have 2 more 'bed' channels... Then this means that there is very little of real "objects" in encode! This data just confirms that what we get (in home Atmos) is mostly 9.1 discrete sound with very little objects. And not "a lot" as was claimed by some 'insiders'.


Again, this argument is premised on the assumption that an object will take up as much data as a channel. That's the only way to conclude that 20% increase in file size is equal to 2 objects. What reason do we have to believe that this premise is true?


----------



## FilmMixer

IgorZep said:


> Ok. If baseline in 8 channels... And Atmos encode have 2 more 'bed' channels... Then this means that there is very little of real "objects" in encode! This data just confirms that what we get (in home Atmos) is mostly 9.1 discrete sound with very little objects. And not "a lot" as was claimed by some 'insiders'.


You are wrong.


----------



## thxman

PeterTHX said:


> As my screen name would imply, I would go with the Onkyo because it has THX certification and the processing modes.


What kind of looser puts "THX" in their user name?


----------



## IgorZep

batpig said:


> Again, this argument is premised on the assumption that an object will take up as much data as a channel. That's the only way to conclude that 20% increase in file size is equal to 2 objects. What reason do we have to believe that this premise is true?


The rate of lossless compression is pretty much constant. You cannot go too far with it as pretty much any audio data contain too much 'randomness' in samples. So, i don't expect objects to be compressed orders of magnitude better than beds. Even vice-versa as objects are supposed to contain the data that cannot be correlated to the data of other channels and so cannot be better compressed.


----------



## IgorZep

FilmMixer said:


> You are wrong.


The question is still open - how many objects (or bed channels+objects) at maximum can be in the encoded Home Atmos track at any given time?


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Again, this argument is premised on the assumption that an object will take up as much data as a channel. That's the only way to conclude that 20% increase in file size is equal to 2 objects. What reason do we have to believe that this premise is true?


How much bandwidth does a single sound file eat? How much do 118 independent simultaneous sound files eat? It's impossible to have 118 independent simultaneous sound files in TrueHD or DD+ without reducing their bandwidth requirements. The Dolby patent gives hints how this can be solved.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> You are wrong.


By how much? 
By the way, are you talking about theatrical Atmos? That might be a different animal. But when it comes to packaging Atmos in TrueHD or DD+ it seems pretty obvious to me that there can't be 118 simultaneous, independent and uncompressed audio objects.


----------



## Nightlord

IgorZep said:


> The question is still open - how many objects (or bed channels+objects) at maximum can be in the encoded Home Atmos track at any given time?


That's the technical side of it. The other being - how many can we as human beings make use of?


----------



## IgorZep

Nightlord said:


> That's the technical side of it. The other being - how many can we as human beings make use of?


I cannot answer how many... but it is - a lot. Given we have the ability to listen for it several times (and we do as it it a recording) and every time focusing on different aspects of the sound. I had a case when my friend heard a sound that could be compared to the moskito squeak, this was at the time we had listened music quite loudly and also talking even more loudly. All this when he was on another side of the room from the sound source. Nobody else who was close to the source of the sound heard it... even when pointed out... until switching off the music and putting ear close to the sound source. It was interesting experience  Our senses can be very good filters at times. Sometimes not allowing us to hear quite a loud noise, sometimes allowing us to hear something that is well hidden behind quite a lot of noise.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> That's the technical side of it. The other being - how many can we as human beings make use of?


Probably exactly the number Dolby could fit into TrueHD/DD+ 

Your question is more than warranted but I doubt anybody has a good answer. Dolby had to solve a bandwidth problem while trying to retain all 118 objects. They obviously succeeded. The problem is how to market a lossy process that is probably "good enough" when in the past the same marketing people created a little army of "lossless or nothing at all" soldiers


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Something new to get worried about wrt [email protected]
> 
> My stance is still the same. Gimme the gear, *gimme the content*. Bring it!


That's the thing. Without the content this is all moot.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Audioholics have published a counter-article to the one that caused them so much backlash (you know, the one where the reviewer felt fit to comment without having actually heard it...).
> 
> 
> *5 Reasons Why Dolby Atmos Will Succeed*


Gene is reading the Dolby Atmos threads here @ AVS and came up with that new list of five reasons why Dolby Atmos is a good thing (will succeed). 

* Did he mention Dolby Atmos Headphones?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Something new to get worried about wrt [email protected]
> 
> My stance is still the same. Gimme the gear, gimme the content. Bring it!


Scott, I like your "[email protected]" attitude. ...It is positively 'elevating'. :smile:


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Trouble is, it also has AccuEQ.


Yamaha has a PEQ and YPAO. And Marc has just ordered their newest flagship AVR, with Dolby Atmos Ready.
{Not THX certified though. ...But a whole lot more...}


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, I like your "[email protected]" attitude. ...It is positively 'elevating'. :smile:



I see what you did there. 

You might say that these Atmos discussions has had my interest...._elevated_.

You might say that my interest has been...._heightened_


----------



## NorthSky

thxman said:


> What kind of looser puts "THX" in their user name?


Are you two both from TX?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I see what you did there.
> 
> You might say that these Atmos discussions has had my interest...._elevated_.
> 
> You might say that my interest has been...._heightened_


...Psychedelically enlightening baby. :grin: ... *Overhead*ly groovy.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Are you sure the object audio samples themselves are delivered lossless? If I remember correctly the patent application describes techniques that don't seem to be lossless.


The audio codec is lossless. The spatial coding, technically, is not, in that once objects are "clustered" into fewer objects, they cannot be recovered as separate objects again sans crosstalk -- the same objects that fed the encoder do not emerge from the decoder. I submit that does not matter at all. It's like saying a multichannel 192/24 signal that is downmixed to stereo 192/24 is not lossless anymore. Well, the fidelity is lossless, there's no low bitrate coding happening. The loss, if there is one, is spatial. But even there, if your frame of reference is 2-speaker stereo, there's no spatial loss at all. Only if you were expecting to hear 5.1 audio is there any "loss." 

In Dolby's spatial coding, the spatial "loss" is of course intended to be imperceptible. And that comes down to how clever it is in the clustering process. Having seen how far one can go with simple matrix encoding-decoding, I see no reason to be concerned. But of course the proof's in the pudding. 7.4.4 is ready and waiting.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Luke M said:


> By spatial coding do you mean something like MPEG Surround? That's a very low bitrate, lossy, way of coding surround channels given some downmix channels (which may be lossless).


It is nothing like MPEG Surround. In Dolby's spatial coding, there is no "lossy coding" of the traditional type involved. The bitrate reduction comes from audio summing, which is quite pure sonically. 



> Well, because my assumption was that one object takes about the same amount of space as one channel, when coded the same way. So if you know the average object count, then you can relate that to channel count.


Ok. So now you may see that spatial coding alters that equation quite a bit.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> the same objects that fed the encoder do not emerge from the decoder.


But how many do?


----------



## PeterTHX

thxman said:


> What kind of *looser* puts "THX" in their user name?


Got one too many "o"s there buddy


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> Trouble is, it also has AccuEQ.


What's the trouble with AccuEQ? 


I'd think the overall build quality, the DSPs, the quality of the amps, would be enough.


----------



## Selden Ball

PeterTHX said:


> What's the trouble with AccuEQ?


This is being discussed in detail in the thread
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html
Please don't derail this thread by discussing it here. Briefly, though, it does not EQ either the front speakers or the subwoofer. Many consider these limitations to be unacceptable.



PeterTHX said:


> I'd think the overall build quality, the DSPs, the quality of the amps, would be enough.


Good EQ software is needed if you're using your audio system in a room that can't be given appropriate acoustic treatments for some reason.


----------



## ambesolman

Why does it matter how much extra room Atmos is taking up on the disk?


----------



## RichB

PeterTHX said:


> Got one too many "o"s there buddy



Hang loose  


- Rich


----------



## thxman

PeterTHX said:


> Got one too many "o"s there buddy


 Sorry, I got excited when I saw I could play my "THX in my user name" card.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thxman said:


> What kind of looser puts "THX" in their user name?


The kind that spells loser as "looser."


----------



## Selden Ball

ambesolman said:


> Why does it matter how much extra room Atmos is taking up on the disk?


It reduces the total available space, of course! While many studios are willing to use double layer (50GB) BDs, single layer (25GB) discs are cheaper. By a very tiny amount. 

Audio typically takes only 10% as much space as the video does. Increasing the audio by 20% only increases its total usage to 12%.

In other words, I agree with you: it doesn't matter.


----------



## PeterTHX

Selden Ball said:


> This is being discussed in detail in the thread
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html
> Please don't derail this thread by discussing it here. Briefly, though, it does not EQ either the front speakers or the subwoofer. Many consider these limitations to be unacceptable.
> 
> Good EQ software is needed if you're using your audio system in a room that can't be given appropriate acoustic treatments for some reason.


 
Doesn't Atmos itself EQ the room during setup?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> Hang loose
> 
> 
> - Rich


Or is it hang lose? :devil:

Anyway, enough funnin'.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> Doesn't Atmos itself EQ the room during setup?


It seems to rely on third-party solutions, but doesn't use that data for pinpointing rendered object locations... at least not yet. Too bad Dolby doesn't come out with a home version of their Lake EQ program that ties into the Atmos renderer just like in the cinema.


----------



## Selden Ball

PeterTHX said:


> Doesn't Atmos itself EQ the room during setup?


No. It decodes audio objects and sends them to appropriate speaker channels. Optional room EQ (like Audyssey, AccuEQ, YPAO, etc) then can be applied to those speaker channels. Atmos makes some psychoacoustic modifications to the audio that is sent to channels driving "Atmos enabled" upfiring speakers, but that's not the same as room qualization.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> By how much?
> By the way, are you talking about theatrical Atmos? That might be a different animal.


Thats up to Dolby to divulge if they close to. I know the answer and think its acceptable. 

So of course I was speaking about home Atmos. 


It's more than 2... And less than 118.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Thats up to Dolby to divulge if they close to. I know the answer and think its acceptable.
> 
> So of course I was speaking about home Atmos.
> 
> 
> It's more than 2... And less than 118.


My guess it's closer to 2 than to 118


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> But how many do?


I guess the answer is from zero to as many as the content maker needs and can afford to fund, up to some limit Dolby may define based on system limits (bitrate or DSP capability). I hope that content will adopt the "isolated dialog" concept as that to me is vital for improving the lives of many users, even if they do not need surround sound.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Selden Ball said:


> It reduces the total available space, of course! While many studios are willing to use double layer (50GB) BDs, single layer (25GB) discs are cheaper. By a very tiny amount.
> 
> Audio typically takes only 10% as much space as the video does. Increasing the audio by 20% only increases its total usage to 12%.
> 
> In other words, I agree with you: it doesn't matter.


The audio's peak bitrate matters a lot, as it clashes with the video, and capping the video is not welcomed. Dual layer discs have the same bitrate as single layer.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I guess the answer is from zero to as many as the content maker needs and can afford to fund, up to some limit Dolby may define based on system limits (bitrate or DSP capability).


The limits are rather well defined (namely TrueHD and DD+) and not just subject to content maker needs or funding.



Roger Dressler said:


> I hope that content will adopt the "isolated dialog" concept as that to me is vital for improving the lives of many users, even if they do not need surround sound.


Yes, we're all getting older  Nevertheless "isolated dialog" means even less bandwidth for other objects (grouping other objects to dialog would be counterproductive).


----------



## NorthSky

ambesolman said:


> Why does it matter how much extra room Atmos is taking up on the disk?


Because 50GB is not enough on a Blu-ray disc for a 4K picture with Dolby Atmos audio encoding for say a two-hour movie. ...Without counting 3D @ 4K resolution. 

We need more storage space, we need a new Blu-ray disc medium with @ least 100GB of storage space.
...And higher/faster bitrate.

The less compression, the more expansion, the better our lives. ...Picture and sound wise.
And size does matter.


----------



## NorthSky

PeterTHX said:


> Doesn't Atmos itself EQ the room during setup?


Yes, Dolby Atmos EQ the room. ...It applies reflective panels on the ceiling, absorbing ones on your back wall, and bass traps in your corners.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> It seems to rely on third-party solutions, but doesn't use that data for pinpointing rendered object locations... at least not yet. Too bad Dolby doesn't come out with a home version of their Lake EQ program that ties into the Atmos renderer just like in the cinema.


The AVR makers usually reject the idea of expanding territory outside of "format decoding," as they prefer to "differentiate" with their own choice of EQ. When I was at Dolby introducing PLII Music mode, my old friend who headed AVRs at Sony did not want it, as they had their own Cinema Studio modes. Until he heard it...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Because 50GB is not enough on a Blu-ray disc for a 4K picture with Dolby Atmos audio encoding for say a two-hour movie. ...Without counting 3D @ 4K resolution.
> 
> We need more storage space, we need a new Blu-ray disc medium with @ least 100GB of storage space.
> 
> The less compression, the more expansion, the better our lives. ...Picture and sound wise.
> And size does matter.


If they're releasing UHD Blu-ray discs, of course they're going to a larger capacity. However, Dolby has stated they're not going to be tweaking this iteration of Dolby Atmos for the home. It will probably be the same format as used on current 1080p Blu-ray discs, for better or worse. Probably because more room will be needed for increased video bit depth, wider color gamut, higher frame rates, True 2160p 3D, HDR, etc. etc. and audio won't be given even more space to expand. That's my thought anyway.


----------



## westmd

What is your opinion, on these about in ceiling speakers
.
http://www.jamo.com/speaker-types/installation/?sku=IC206FG


----------



## NorthSky

No UHD Blu-rays, no UHDTVs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> No UHD Blu-rays, no UHDTVs.


The trouble is that the studios want a direct line to your wallet and would rather do "in the cloud" content... irrespective of A/V quality or whether the infrastructure can actually accommodate it. In the U.S., especially, that's doubtful. Truth be told, it's a friggin' mess.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> When I was at Dolby introducing PLII Music mode, my old friend who headed AVRs at Sony did not want it, as they had their own Cinema Studio modes.


While I'm not a fan of surround processing that generates ambience, preferring ambience extraction instead, I have to admit that those Cinema Modes from Sony were a pleasant surprise and did a good job of room simulation (even if that isn't my cup o'tea).


----------



## bargervais

Steven414 said:


> Prepping to purchase dolby atmos AVR. Been doing some researchand have narrowed it down to Onkyo or Denon. The info I’ve read on Onkyo isvague regarding the impedance output. It sounds like they’re designed for 6 ohmspeaker systems and that wouldn't work for me. Can any Onkyo owners clear this up? Thanks!


Onkyo says
Set the impedance of the connected speakers. 
"4ohms": 
When any of the connected speakers have 4Ω or more to less than 6Ω impedance 
"6ohms": 
When the connected speakers all have 6 Ω or more impedance
My AVR gives me a choice to set it at 4 or 6Ω 
I have my AVR set at 6Ω
that covers 6Ω to 16Ω all my speakers are 8Ω
Hope that helps


----------



## Luke M

Roger Dressler said:


> It is nothing like MPEG Surround. In Dolby's spatial coding, there is no "lossy coding" of the traditional type involved. The bitrate reduction comes from audio summing, which is quite pure sonically.


If you just sum objects together, that's not any kind of coding, since there's no decoding process at the other end. It's just fewer objects, and there's no way to recover the original objects. Alternatively, you could have a low bit rate method of actually coding (lossily) all the original objects, using summed (lossless) channels/objects as a source. The term "spatial coding" makes me think it's the latter, but I don't know.


----------



## ambesolman

markus767 said:


> My guess it's closer to 2 than to 118



It's still more than 0 which is what we have now


----------



## Roger Dressler

Luke M said:


> If you just sum objects together, that's not any kind of coding, since there's no decoding process at the other end.


Summing is used, but it's a lot more than just summing objects together. Have you looked at the patent link Markus provided?

There are many forms of audio coding, and even matrix coding qualifies. There does not have to be a low-bitrate audio codec in the chain. In the case of Atmos, the decoding on the other end is called rendering. That is how the clustered objects are mapped to speakers.



> It's just fewer objects, and there's no way to recover the original objects.


Right. And there's no need to recover them in most cases. I give the example of separate dialog as one case where independence is needed, and can be had, at a price. 



> Alternatively, you could have a low bit rate method of actually coding (lossily) all the original objects, using summed (lossless) channels/objects as a source. The term "spatial coding" makes me think it's the latter, but I don't know.


The DD+ implementation uses lossy coding, but it's just a substitute for the lossy codec. The spatial coding process remains the same (AFAIK).


----------



## bargervais

PeterTHX said:


> What's the trouble with AccuEQ?
> 
> 
> I'd think the overall build quality, the DSPs, the quality of the amps, would be enough.


A lot of onkyo hate here because onkyo dropped audyssey.
I got a TX-NR 737 because of all the hate speak just to see what all the fuss is, this thing sounds great compared to my TX-NR 818 they both sound great.
Now I'm very excited anticipating atmos firmware release.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> A lot of onkyo hate here because onkyo dropped audyssey.
> I got a TX-NR 737 because of all the hate speak just to see what all the fuss is, this thing sounds great compared to my TX-NR 818 they both sound great.
> Now I'm very excited anticipating atmos firmware release.


There is also a lot of Onkyo hate due to poor quality control.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Because 50GB is not enough on a Blu-ray disc for a 4K picture with Dolby Atmos audio encoding for say a two-hour movie. ...Without counting 3D @ 4K resolution.
> 
> We need more storage space, we need a new Blu-ray disc medium with @ least 100GB of storage space.
> ...And higher/faster bitrate.
> 
> The less compression, the more expansion, the better our lives. ...Picture and sound wise.
> And size does matter.


You know I'm more excited about atmos then 4K. I think my plasmas look great right now when they die I'll look at 4K 
I've always been more impressed with sound now atmos will be all around and above me. Can't wait.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is also a lot of Onkyo hate due to poor quality control.


I have read that.
Knock on wood I've not had an issue. I hope to keep it that way. Who knows when I replace my 818 to an Atmos AVR I may get a denon.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> I have read that.
> Knock on wood I've not had an issue. I hope to keep it that way. Who knows when I replace my 818 to an Atmos AVR I may get a denon.


I may get a second generation Denon, Marantz, or Yammie with Atmos and proper UHD support. Maybe by then we'll know if DTS-UHD is DOA or not.


----------



## bargervais

Steven414 said:


> Prepping to purchase dolby atmos AVR. Been doing some researchand have narrowed it down to Onkyo or Denon. The info I’ve read on Onkyo isvague regarding the impedance output. It sounds like they’re designed for 6 ohmspeaker systems and that wouldn't work for me. Can any Onkyo owners clear this up? Thanks!


That TX-NR 1030 and the 3030 both look pretty sweet a little pricey compared to denon 4100w and 5200w 
So it's really your choice atmos is going to be a whole new world of sound, always changing.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> The trouble is that the studios want a direct line to your wallet and would rather do "in the cloud" content... irrespective of A/V quality or whether the infrastructure can actually accommodate it. In the U.S., especially, that's doubtful. Truth be told, it's a friggin' mess.


1. In the cloud there isn't enough elevated hi-def/res bandwidth.
2. Greed and control are what's killing our planet and the human race living on it.
3. Just look @ the last HDTV/UHDTV OLED, Plasma, LCD LED flat/curved panels shootout: HD won over UHD.
4. That'll be the day. ...If we can survive another thousand years.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I may get a second generation Denon, Marantz, or Yammie with Atmos and proper UHD support. Maybe by then we'll know if DTS-UHD is DOA or not.


I hope DTS-UHD will not be DOA
it would be sweet if the second generation AVR will do both atmos and DTS-UHD


----------



## Steven414

bargervais said:


> That TX-NR 1030 and the 3030 both look pretty sweet a little pricey compared to denon 4100w and 5200w
> So it's really your choice atmos is going to be a whole new world of sound, always changing.


Currently running 7.1 and would hate to downsize to 5.1 for atmos. 4100w will allow 7.2.2 but you need additional 2 channel amp. It appears that pioneer SC-85 would be set up for 7.2.2 out of the box. Hmmm! 

Looking forward to atmos home experience. Love the idea of object placement vs speaker placement. Should be interesting.


----------



## wse

Any receivers that can do 9.2.4? I know Marantz 8802 can do that but it's too rich for my blood!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Any receivers that can do 9.2.4? I know Marantz 8802 can do that but it's too rich for my blood!


Until we hear otherwise, it looks like the "normal" processors are stuck at a maximum of 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 rendering. Then you have to shell out the big bucks. Like luxury car type bucks.

Maybe next go around there will be more choices that "regular" folk can _sort of_ afford.

We really need a more modular approach. Buy 11 or 13 outs now and you can plug in another subunit that can add more outputs later.


----------



## pasender91

wse said:


> Any receivers that can do 9.2.4? I know Marantz 8802 can do that but it's too rich for my blood!


The Denon 7200W is to support 9.2.4, it is the replacement for the 4520 and very similar architecture to 8802, except it has 11 amps and 13.2 Preouts.
It should be significantly cheaper than the Marantz  (i saw indicative public prices of 2800€ (3000$?) for the 7200W and 3800 € (4000$?) for the 8802)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> The Denon 7200W is to support 9.2.4, it is the replacement for the 4520 and very similar architecture to 8802, except it has 11 amps and 13.2 Preouts.
> It should be significantly cheaper than the Marantz


There has been no confirmation I am aware of that the 7200 can do more than 11.1 Atmos processing. It would be wonderful if it actually did accommodate 9.1.4 rendering.


----------



## sikclown

Dan Hitchman said:


> There has been no confirmation I am aware of that the 7200 can do more than 11.1 Atmos processing. It would be wonderful if it actually did accommodate 9.1.4 rendering.


According to JD from AVScience over in the x7200w thread it can only do 11.1 with addition of an amp (or 9.1.2).


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Onkyo says
> Set the impedance of the connected speakers.
> "4ohms":
> When any of the connected speakers have 4Ω or more to less than 6Ω impedance
> "6ohms":
> When the connected speakers all have 6 Ω or more impedance
> My AVR gives me a choice to set it at 4 or 6Ω
> I have my AVR set at 6Ω
> that covers 6Ω to 16Ω all my speakers are 8Ω
> Hope that helps


Even if your speakers are 4 Ohms set the impedance selection @ its highest setting (6 Ohms with Onkyo).
That way you are not limiting the current of your AV receiver (less power - watts RMS). 
Onkyo receivers (THX) can handle the extra juice required @ lower impedance.

So is Yamaha, Pioneer, Denon, Marantz, Arcam, NAD, Anthem, Cambridge, Sherwood, ... AV receivers.
...Unless from the lower end; roughly less than $699 MSRP.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> While I'm not a fan of surround processing that generates ambience, preferring ambience extraction instead, I have to admit that those Cinema Modes from Sony were a pleasant surprise and did a good job of room simulation (even if that isn't my cup o'tea).


I think Yamaha is the best @ DSP recreated/simulated venues.
...For both Cinema and Music audio modes; Trifield and Quadfield. ...Hall, Jazz, ...and all.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> There has been no confirmation I am aware of that the 7200 can do more than 11.1 Atmos processing. It would be wonderful if it actually did accommodate 9.1.4 rendering.



I could live with *Atmos 9.1.2* or *7.1.4* rendering from a *13* speaker setup (_including external amps_), if I could do both the following:


(*1*) _In-movie switching_ between *3 Atmos* configurations each using only *11* speakers: (*a*) *7.1.4*, (*b*) *9.1.2* using the "*H1L|H1R*" pair, and (*c*) *9.1.2* using the "*H2L|H2R*" pair.

(*2*) _For *non-Atmos* source material_:_ In-movie switching_ between *Neo:X 11.1* (*Front Heights + Front Wides*), and *Dolby Surround* configuration *7.1.4*.



_It seems like this would require the "*H1L|H1R*" pair to be *Front Height Left|Right* (*FHL|FHR*) speakers._


I suspect an *Atmos 9.1.2* configuration would be preferable to *7.1.4* if the scene placed you, e.g., in the trackside stands watching a *Star Wars Pod Race*...?!  
_


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Any receivers that can do 9.2.4? I know Marantz 8802 can do that but it's too rich for my blood!


For your humble cinema room? I'd wait for the next Classe SSP with Dolby Atmos and Barco 3D.


----------



## batpig

JD and I have been explicitly told the 7200 (like the 5200) is 9 amps, 11ch max at a time. I have no reason to believe the Marantz models (which are based on the same internals) will be any different. Anybody assuming the 8802 can do 9.1.4 is going to be disappointed. 

At this point going beyond 11ch simultaneous is going to cost mega bucks.


----------



## batpig

SoundChex said:


> I could live with *Atmos 9.1.2* or *7.1.4* rendering from a *13* speaker setup (_including external amps_), if I could do both the following:
> 
> 
> (*1*) _In-movie switching_ between *3 Atmos* configurations each using only *11* speakers: (*a*) *7.1.4*, (*b*) *9.1.2* using the "*H1L|H1R*" pair, and (*c*) *9.1.2* using the "*H2L|H2R*" pair.
> 
> (*2*) _For *non-Atmos* source material_:_ In-movie switching_ between *Neo:X 11.1* (*Front Heights + Front Wides*), and *Dolby Surround* configuration *7.1.4*.
> _


#1 is going to b tough but unless I am totally misreading the manual #2 will be possible with the 11ch D&M models (like the X5200W). From what I can tell it would require 4 extra amp channels to go with the 9 internal. But that's why it has 13.2 preouts.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> The Denon 7200W is to support 9.2.4, it is the replacement for the 4520 and very similar architecture to 8802, except it has 11 amps and 13.2 Preouts.
> It should be significantly cheaper than the Marantz  (i saw indicative public prices of 2800€ (3000$?) for the 7200W and 3800 € (4000$?) for the 8802)


♦ Denon AVR-X7200W (9-Channel Amp) AV Receiver = 2800 € (2 800 euros)

♦ Marantz AV7702 SSP = 1 999 euros

♦ Marantz AV8802 SSP = 3 799 euros


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Until we hear otherwise, it looks like the "normal" processors are stuck at a maximum of 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 rendering. Then you have to shell out the big bucks. Like luxury car type bucks.
> 
> Maybe next go around there will be more choices that "regular" folk can _sort of_ afford.
> 
> We really need a more modular approach. Buy 11 or 13 outs now and you can plug in another subunit that can add more outputs later.


I'm happy to get 5.2.2 in my little den can't wait for the firmware.


----------



## NorthSky

*7.1.4* is the best so far (1st gen). ...Better than *9.1.2* 
... Because 4 overhead speakers are better than just two (front/back and L/R sideways panning).
{And that's the max allowed so far; no such thing as 9.1.4 - in your dreams, or next year - in 2016 perhaps.}

And two subwoofers are better than just one lonely one. 

* And the most amps in a receiver: Nine (9).


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Denon AVR-X7200W (9-Channel Amp) AV Receiver = 2800 € (2 800 euros)
> 
> ♦ Marantz AV7702 SSP = 1 999 euros
> 
> ♦ Marantz AV8802 SSP = 3 799 euros


Agree
That's way too rich for my blood for a first generation atmos receiver and may be in two years I think it would be more feasible 
I'm not going to spend that kind of money.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *7.1.4* is the best so far (1st gen). ...Better than *9.1.2*
> ... Because 4 overhead speakers are better than just two (front/back and L/R sideways panning).
> {And that's the max allowed so far; no such thing as 9.1.4 - in your dreams, or next year - in 2016 perhaps.}
> 
> And two subwoofers are better than just one lonely one.
> 
> * And the most amps in a receiver: Nine (9).


Maybe in a month I'll give you my impression of 5.2.2 I would like .4 but it's not in my budget this go around.


----------



## NorthSky

You can also wait for the Dolby Atmos equipped replacement of this baby with its matching 11-channel amp.


----------



## Orbitron

So many posts, I'm getting a pain in my Atmos. What feature more than any other is likely to appear in a future AVR that it makes sense to wait?


----------



## brwsaw

Orbitron said:


> So many posts, I'm getting a pain in my Atmos. What feature more than any other is likely to appear in a future AVR that it makes sense to wait?



Re-assignable preouts?


----------



## Kriilin

batpig said:


> #1 is going to b tough but unless I am totally misreading the manual #2 will be possible with the 11ch D&M models (like the X5200W). From what I can tell it would require 4 extra amp channels to go with the 9 internal. But that's why it has 13.2 preouts.


That's actually not a bad strategy, IMO. I think the assumption by D&M is anyone buying in this price range is replacing gear that has 5 pre-ins. If you need external amplification anyways, why not use 4/5 amp channels? That's what I'll be doing with my old NAD.


----------



## CinemaAndy

http://steinwaylyngdorf.com/news/34...imensional-sound-in-next-generation-processor


----------



## SoundChex

batpig said:


> SoundChex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could live with *Atmos 9.1.2* or *7.1.4* rendering from a *13* speaker setup (_including external amps_), if I could do both the following:
> 
> 
> (*1*) _In-movie switching_ between *3 Atmos* configurations each using only *11* speakers: (*a*) *7.1.4*, (*b*) *9.1.2* using the "*H1L|H1R*" pair, and (*c*) *9.1.2* using the "*H2L|H2R*" pair.
> 
> (*2*) _For *non-Atmos* source material_:_ In-movie switching_ between *Neo:X 11.1* (*Front Heights + Front Wides*), and *Dolby Surround* configuration *7.1.4*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 is going to b tough *but unless I am totally misreading the manual #2 will be possible with the 11ch D&M models (like the X5200W)*. From what I can tell it would require 4 extra amp channels to go with the 9 internal. But that's why it has 13.2 preouts.
Click to expand...


My admitedly incomplete reading of the 5200 manual suggests that *Dolby Surround* *7.1.4* is only available with a *Dolby Atmos* *7.1.4* configuration and that a *Dolby Atmos* *9.1.2* configuration can only deliver *Dolby Surround* *7.1.2* (even if I supply an *H2L|H2R* speaker pair _plus external amp_) . . . anybody confirm|refute this? 
_


----------



## bargervais

Am I in an Atmos bubble? Why isn't The world talking about it the only place I see atmos mentioned is here in these forums. No one outside of these atmos bubbles even knows what the heck I'm talking about. Why am I not seeing TV adds that atmos coming, is this a big secret? I'm all in but I'm worried that there will be no content that I'll be able to hear except that Dolby demo BLU-RAY.


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> So many posts, I'm getting a pain in my Atmos.
> *What feature more than any other is likely to appear in a future AVR that it makes sense to wait?*


Wireless. ...Speakers, sources and all.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> http://steinwaylyngdorf.com/news/34...imensional-sound-in-next-generation-processor


McIntosh SSP? ...Lexicon? ...Classe? ...Krell? ...Meridian? ...Ayre? ...Arcam?


----------



## David Susilo

bargervais said:


> Am I in an Atmos bubble? Why isn't The world talking about it the only place I see atmos mentioned is here in these forums. No one outside of these atmos bubbles even knows what the heck I'm talking about. Why am I not seeing TV adds that atmos coming, is this a big secret? I'm all in but I'm worried that there will be no content that I'll be able to hear except that Dolby demo BLU-RAY.


1. Atmos is yet to become public knowledge because it's not CEDIA yet

2. There will tons of movies with the next 12 months in Atmos (some already released movies are rumoured to already have Atmos hidden track)


----------



## Orbitron

At the Dolby Event we were told no Blu-rays have been released with "hidden" Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> At the Dolby Event we were told no Blu-rays have been released with "hidden" Atmos


On the Home Theater Forum Ron Epstein said 150 Blu-ray Atmos titles were being released starting this fall. I'll believe it when I see it. It's more likely IMHO he meant what the studios could potentially release given the cinema mixes already done.


----------



## David Susilo

Orbitron said:


> At the Dolby Event we were told no Blu-rays have been released with "hidden" Atmos.


Hence my use of the word "rumour"


----------



## FilmMixer

Chris Walker just posted in the Pioneer Speaker thread that their Elite SC-85,87,89 and the Andrew Jones' designed Atmos speakers will be shipping starting this Friday.. 

Atmos FW for the AVR's to follow.. no time frame.


----------



## Orbitron

David Susilo said:


> Hence my use of the word "rumour"


Exactly. Call this a hunch but if I were to wager 10 cents I would go with Transformers 4 as one of the first titles that will include Atmos.


----------



## jacovn

NorthSky said:


> McIntosh SSP? ...Lexicon? ...Classe? ...Krell? ...Meridian? ...Ayre? ...Arcam?


Meridian is far away from Atmos i think. All solutions are 8 channel maximum, they have no bitstream input, only works with LPCM.
They could do it, but at what price. Too much for me, i sold everything and will go for Marantz preamp.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Denon AVR-X7200W (9-Channel Amp) AV Receiver = 2800 € (2 800 euros)
> 
> ♦ Marantz AV7702 SSP = 1 999 euros
> 
> ♦ Marantz AV8802 SSP = 3 799 euros


For comparison, the AV8801 is €3,499 MSRP. But the AV7702 is upgraded in so many ways, that the AV8002 will be very overpriced in comparison. Unless it would do 9.2.4. Which it most likely won't.


----------



## westmd

One more question in regards to in-ceiling speakers. My ceiling is not hollow but is full filled with plaster. Can I install in-ceiling speakers by just drilling a fitting tube-sized hole or does the speaker need a real hollow ceiling?


----------



## Nightlord

westmd said:


> One more question in regards to in-ceiling speakers. My ceiling is not hollow but is full filled with plaster. Can I install in-ceiling speakers by just drilling a fitting tube-sized hole or does the speaker need a real hollow ceiling?


I would go for in-celing speakers that have their own defined, sealed back box.


----------



## kbarnes701

Waboman said:


> That's the thing. Without the content this is all moot.


Of course. But Dolby have stated publicly that content will be available at Launch, with more in time for Christmas and more still in 2015.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> What's the trouble with AccuEQ?


It doesn’t EQ the front right and left speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> Doesn't Atmos itself EQ the room during setup?


No, not in any way.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> #1 is going to b tough but unless I am totally misreading the manual #2 will be possible with the 11ch D&M models (like the X5200W). *From what I can tell it would require 4 extra amp channels to go with the* 9 *internal*. But that's why it has 13.2 preouts.


bp - can the X4100W do that too, with 4 extra amps of course? I mean to 11.1 not 13. I am thinking of leaving my current Height speakers in place for now. I will be running the X4100 as 5.1.4 (with two extra amp channels). If I could add two more amp channels I could wire in the existing Height speakers for this 'internal swap' we are discussing. If the answer is 'no' then it could swing me towards the X5200.


----------



## ss9001

FilmMixer said:


> Chris Walker just posted in the Pioneer Speaker thread that their Elite SC-85,87,89 and the Andrew Jones' designed Atmos speakers will be shipping starting this Friday..
> 
> Atmos FW for the AVR's to follow.. no time frame.


yes, good news


----------



## kbarnes701

Orbitron said:


> So many posts, I'm getting a pain in my Atmos. What feature more than any other is likely to appear in a future AVR that it makes sense to wait?


For the AVR to be able to measure the actual speaker locations for distance and angle and convey that to the rendering engine. Dolby permit this right now within the Atmos spec, but it is up to AVR manufacturers whether they implement it or not. So far, none of the 'affordable' makes have (although the jury may be out on the Yamaha 3040).


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> 2. There will tons of movies with the next 12 months in Atmos (some already released movies are rumoured to already have Atmos hidden track)


David, I specifically asked that question at Dolby in London and was told "no - there are no 'stealth' releases". The explanation given was the timeline for Bluray production, so the rumours seem to be unfounded. The only candidate disc for a potential stealth release that I could discover was STID. This was mixed in Atmos and the BD has a TrueHD track. All the other potential candidates had DTS-HD MA tracks, this knocking them out of the game.


----------



## kbarnes701

Orbitron said:


> Exactly. Call this a hunch but if I were to wager 10 cents I would go with Transformers 4 as one of the first titles that will include Atmos.


Quite possibly. I think any tentpole movie released in Atmos but not slated for a BD release until CEDIA is a candidate for the first out of the gate.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> One more question in regards to in-ceiling speakers. My ceiling is not hollow but is full filled with plaster. Can I install in-ceiling speakers by just drilling a fitting tube-sized hole or does the speaker need a real hollow ceiling?


Some designs use the ceiling and the space behind it as their 'baffle'. Others are sealed modules. The former is no good for you but the latter might be.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> It doesn’t EQ the front right and left speakers.


http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-receiver/
Not everyone finds Onkyo Accu-EQ bad.
As many commenters have pointed out, some Onkyo models have had a troubled history for HDMI reliability. This is something we considered while writing this guide, but not something we’ve been able to pin down. Since Onkyo has been one of the best-selling AVR brands for many years, usually filling the top Best Seller spots at Amazon, there are a lot of them out there. Trying to determine if HDMI issues are something inherent to Onkyo because of a design flaw, or because they just sell more and have more reports, is something we can’t be certain


----------



## jima4a

bargervais said:


> http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-receiver/
> Not everyone finds Onkyo Accu-EQ bad.
> As many commenters have pointed out, some Onkyo models have had a troubled history for HDMI reliability. This is something we considered while writing this guide, but not something we’ve been able to pin down. Since Onkyo has been one of the best-selling AVR brands for many years, usually filling the top Best Seller spots at Amazon, there are a lot of them out there. Trying to determine if HDMI issues are something inherent to Onkyo because of a design flaw, or because they just sell more and have more reports, is something we can’t be certain


In talking with a service center about whether they could get parts (not likely) for my Denon 4310 receiver, I asked about HDMI failures and he said he sees them on all brands. Percentage wise he felt there may not be big differences but that was strictly a guess. I also have an Onkyo 1008 and an Integra DHC-80.3 that have had no issues.


----------



## petetherock

Can I check:

This Atmos thing, I can't use it to playback a 5.1 or 7.1 BR disc and give it more... 'Atmosphere' ?

Cf DTS-Neo X or DSX etc?

If that's the case, then won't it have very limited appeal since the number of movies with this are only a small percentage of the vast bank of movies on Blu Ray?


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Can I check:
> 
> This Atmos thing, I can't use it to playback a 5.1 or 7.1 BR disc and give it more... 'Atmosphere' ?
> 
> Cf DTS-Neo X or DSX etc?
> 
> If that's the case, then won't it have very limited appeal since the number of movies with this are only a small percentage of the vast bank of movies on Blu Ray?


This is why Dolby have mandated the incorporation of Dolby Surround in all Atmos units. Dolby Surround is Dolby's newest upmixing technology (replacing the Prologic varieties in Atmos units) and it will take your legacy Blurays, mixed in conventional 5.1 or 7.1, and will utilise all the speakers in your Atmos layout to give an immersive sound. In this sense, it will function similarly, but better (we are told) than PLIIz or Neo:X or DSX.

If Dolby Surround is as good as it is supposed to be, then it will breathe new life into your current Bluray collection, in a similar way that PLII does now for movies mixed in 2.0. 

So far, Dolby has not made any official demos of Dolby Surround (because all demos so far have been made via a laptop to facilitate rapid switching between Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers and, it seems, the laptop was missing DS). However, those who have heard it, like our very own FilmMixer here on AVS, have said that it is "very good". I would expect it to be so, because Dolby have huge experience with upmixing algorithms and this comes through clearly if you have ever used PLII to upmix a 2.0 movie to 5.1 - or of course, used it to upmix standard 5.1 to 7.1 to make use of your rear surround channels.

At the Dolby, London demos I attended, I specifically asked about Dolby Surround and the Dolby guys all said it was "very good". While in a way we might expect them to say that, the way they said it, combined with the manifest integrity and transparency of all the Dolby people I met, brought me to the conclusion that it will be, well, "very good" 

You are right - most people will, for a long time, have way more legacy discs than Atmos discs, so Dolby Surround will be in use constantly. I personally am looking forward to hearing it. I have used Dolby PLIIz for a long time and been very pleased with it, so I am expecting DS to take upmixing to a new level (literally).


----------



## Billybobjimbob

petetherock said:


> Can I check:
> 
> This Atmos thing, I can't use it to playback a 5.1 or 7.1 BR disc and give it more... 'Atmosphere' ?
> 
> Cf DTS-Neo X or DSX etc?
> 
> If that's the case, then won't it have very limited appeal since the number of movies with this are only a small percentage of the vast bank of movies on Blu Ray?


You won't get anymore atmosphere from a the regular 5 or 7 channel track..but if you're wired up for Atmos, the Dolby Surround upmixer will make use of the Atmos speakers to give you potentially more atmosphere.


----------



## petetherock

Thank God for the Dolby Surround upmixer then 

I am talking to some installers, and will shortly try to confirm some designs to install ceiling speakers into my existing system..

Some cutting of the concrete required, and cabling..


----------



## pletwals

petetherock said:


> Thank God for the Dolby Surround upmixer then
> 
> I am talking to some installers, and will shortly try to confirm some designs to install ceiling speakers into my existing system..
> 
> Some cutting of the concrete required, and cabling..


Get 'em with very wide dispersion > mo' atmosphere...


----------



## harrybnbad

NorthSky said:


> 1. In the cloud there isn't enough elevated hi-def/res bandwidth.
> 2. Greed and control are what's killing our planet and the human race living on it.
> 3. Just look @ the last HDTV/UHDTV OLED, Plasma, LCD LED flat/curved panels shootout: HD won over UHD.
> 4. That'll be the day. ...If we can survive another thousand years.


Reminds me of the song by Zager and Evans



In the year 2525


----------



## salacious

I've seen that a number of receivers have 11.1 pre-outs but only have 9 channel amplification. This will limit them to either 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 and if you want 7.1.4 then you need a two channel amp. Have any of the manufacturers announced 2 channel amps for this purpose?


----------



## kbarnes701

salacious said:


> I've seen that a number of receivers have 11.1 pre-outs but only have 9 channel amplification. This will limit them to either 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 and if you want 7.1.4 then you need a two channel amp. Have any of the manufacturers announced 2 channel amps for this purpose?


Any two channel amp will work. Something from Emotiva maybe, or a Crown amp would be good relatively low cost solutions.


----------



## duc135

An amp is an amp. You don't need an Atmos specific amp so I don't think any manufacturer is going to announce an Atmos specific 2CH amp since any one of the hundreds of current models will suffice. Of course that's not to say some manufacturer won't just slap the moniker on there and charge an absurd price for it to unsuspecting buyers.

Edit: Looks like Keith already beat me to the answer.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> The AVR makers usually reject the idea of expanding territory outside of "format decoding," as they prefer to "differentiate" with their own choice of EQ. When I was at Dolby introducing PLII Music mode, my old friend who headed AVRs at Sony did not want it, as they had their own Cinema Studio modes. Until he heard it...



I still run my Sony STR-DA4es. The Cinema modes are interesting in that you can set the surround speakers to virtual speakers (simulated 5 speakers from 2 surround speakers). You have to set the surrounds by position and by height (high or low) in the setup menu.


----------



## batpig

SoundChex said:


> My admitedly incomplete reading of the 5200 manual suggests that *Dolby Surround* *7.1.4* is only available with a *Dolby Atmos* *7.1.4* configuration and that a *Dolby Atmos* *9.1.2* configuration can only deliver *Dolby Surround* *7.1.2* (even if I supply an *H2L|H2R* speaker pair _plus external amp_) . . . anybody confirm|refute this?
> _


I assume by 9.1.2 configuration you mean 7.1 + Front Wides + 1 pair of Height/Tops. What we DO know (based on the speaker output chart on pg 287) is that Dolby Surround upmixer, as implemented on the upcoming Denon models, will NOT output to the Front Wide L/R channels:










So if that is your configuration then, yes, Dolby Surround would output a 7.1.2 signal and the Front Wides would be silent.

However, if you are supplying an H2L|H2R speaker pair, then you aren't really running a 9.1.2 configuration right? You actually have 9.1.4 potential speakers. Since we know all thirteen channels can't output simultaneously, and the Denon manual doesn't indicate any way to switch Atmos configs on the fly, my ass-u-mption is that if 4 height/top speakes are present in the speaker config that Dolby Atmos surround mode will default to 7.1.4 output, and the wides would be silent. My presumption is that for Atmos to produce sound output to the front wides, it is mandatory that only 2 top speakers be present in the config, based on the premise that height/top speakers are "preferred" for Atmos output.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> bp - can the X4100W do that too, with 4 extra amps of course? I mean to 11.1 not 13. I am thinking of leaving my current Height speakers in place for now. I will be running the X4100 as 5.1.4 (with two extra amp channels). If I could add two more amp channels I could wire in the existing Height speakers for this 'internal swap' we are discussing. If the answer is 'no' then it could swing me towards the X5200.


The issue (not just the X4100W but the higher models is well) is that it appears they support a MAX of FOUR height/top speakers. The "Front Wide" outputs can't be configured to output a third pair of height speaker signals. The six outputs beyond the standard 7.1ch layout are for four height/top speakers and two front wide speakers.

So while it certainly appears possible to switch between an Atmos output with 4 top speakers and a Neo:X layout with wide + 2 height speakers, it does NOT appear possible to switch between 4 top speakers for Atmos and a SEPARATE pair of front height speakers for Neo:X or PLIIz (i.e. SIX total elevated speakers). 

Or, in other words, the only way to switch between Atmos surround and "legacy" surround upmix is if the FIRST pair of elevated speakers are designated as Front Height so they can be "shared" between the modes. Thus it would only work with configs.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> Chris Walker just posted in the Pioneer Speaker thread that their Elite SC-85,87,89 and the Andrew Jones' designed Atmos speakers will be shipping starting this Friday..
> 
> Atmos FW for the AVR's to follow.. no time frame.



Probably stating the obvious, but does anybody know if the new Dolby Surround also become available when the Atmos FW is ready? IOW will buyers of the new Atmos-ready AVR or pre/pros have a "head start" with Dolby Surround, or have to stay with their legacy upmixers until the firmware upgrade will be ready?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> The issue (not just the X4100W but the higher models is well) is that it appears they support a MAX of FOUR height/top speakers. The "Front Wide" outputs can't be configured to output a third pair of height speaker signals. The six outputs beyond the standard 7.1ch layout are for four height/top speakers and two front wide speakers.
> 
> So while it certainly appears possible to switch between an Atmos output with 4 top speakers and a Neo:X layout with wide + 2 height speakers, it does NOT appear possible to switch between 4 top speakers for Atmos and a SEPARATE pair of front height speakers for Neo:X or PLIIz (i.e. SIX total elevated speakers).
> 
> Or, in other words, the only way to switch between Atmos surround and "legacy" surround upmix is if the FIRST pair of elevated speakers are designated as Front Height so they can be "shared" between the modes. Thus it would only work with configs.


Thanks Sir batpig! (I have had you honored as a knight of the realm of Olde Englande for services to Denon - of the garter order, obviously ).

So I will be good to go, since my intended designation of the ceiling speakers at 42 degrees is Front Height, to be used with Top Middle.

It's not all that important to me TBH as I am expecting Dolby Surround will be better than any legacy upmixer, but as the speakers are there, and it is easier to leave them in place than remove them, I may as well give it a try. I have enough amps lying around here to do it.

Thanks again - you are truly an encyclopedic cornucopia of knowledge of all things Denon.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Probably stating the obvious, but does anybody know if the new Dolby Surround also become available when the Atmos FW is ready? IOW will buyers of the new Atmos-ready AVR or pre/pros have a "head start" with Dolby Surround, or have to stay with their legacy upmixers until the firmware upgrade will be ready?


AIUI, DS will be part of the FW upgrade to Atmos. All Atmos units are mandated to have DS, but I doubt if DS will be available on its own.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Probably stating the obvious, but does anybody know if the new Dolby Surround also become available when the Atmos FW is ready? IOW will buyers of the new Atmos-ready AVR or pre/pros have a "head start" with Dolby Surround, or have to stay with their legacy upmixers until the firmware upgrade will be ready?


That's a very good question. It hasn't been super clear really.

I believe that these devices will not have either full decoded Atmos and the upmixer at start and that both will be included when the updates roll out.

It would be interesting if we got the upmixer to play with beforehand. That doesn't appear to be the case and really it's up to the CE's to decide how to implement that feature.

My guess is that we will have to wait for the upmixer along with decoded Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> That's a very good question. It hasn't been super clear really.
> 
> I believe that these devices will not have either full decoded Atmos and the upmixer at start and that both will be included when the updates roll out.
> 
> It would be interesting if we got the upmixer to play with beforehand. That doesn't appear to be the case and really it's up to the CE's to decide how to implement that feature.
> 
> My guess is that we will have to wait for the upmixer along with decoded Atmos.


 
Mine too, but we'll learn more @ CEDIA, hopefully, when at least some of us are there . 


Slight raining on the parade: With all the enthusiasm about Atmos on AVS (at least among a bubble of hard-core hobbyists), the elephant in the room is Dolby Surround, as the vast majority of content in the near future will be upmixed and not native Atmos. Otherwise, no offense Keith and FM, but those top-firing or ceiling speaker modules aren't going to particularly useful when you get your new AVRs except as "front heights" with Neo:X or Audyssey DSX, maybe (as Dolby PLII is now dead technology in these AVRs, correct?).

From a marketing POV, what would be weird about the firmware for Dolby Surround coming down the pike is that as per FM, Pioneer's already announced the release of the Andrew Jones speakers and Elite AVRs with Atmos capability. 

If Dolby Surround isn't ready for the release, you're asking consumers to take a chance that those shiny new Andrew Jones speakers they're buying will "eventually" be ready for prime time over buying conventional non-Atmos capable speakers or keeping existing speakers. If I were planning to buy a Pioneer Atmos-capable AVR (I'm not, for several reasons) I would buy them and wait, and many if not most of the folks here would do the same, but asking Joe Consumer shopping at Magnolia to wait is another thing. I know late August/September is roughly the traditional release schedule for Pioneer Elites, but they might be better off waiting until at least Dolby Surround is ready to keep up the momentum.


At any rate, I personally am not buying anything Atmos-related until after CEDIA.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Mine too, but we'll learn more @ CEDIA, hopefully, when at least some of us are there .
> 
> 
> Slight raining on the parade: With all the enthusiasm about Atmos on AVS (at least among a bubble of hard-core hobbyists), the elephant in the room is Dolby Surround, as the vast majority of content in the near future will be upmixed and not native Atmos. Otherwise, no offense Keith and FM, but those top-firing or ceiling speaker modules aren't going to particularly useful when you get your new AVRs except as "front heights" with Neo:X or Audyssey DSX, maybe (as Dolby PLII is now dead technology in these AVRs, correct?).
> 
> From a marketing POV, what would be weird about the firmware for Dolby Surround coming down the pike is that as per FM, Pioneer's already announced the release of the Andrew Jones speakers and Elite AVRs with Atmos capability.
> 
> If Dolby Surround isn't ready for the release, you're asking consumers to take a chance that those shiny new Andrew Jones speakers they're buying will "eventually" be ready for prime time over buying conventional non-Atmos capable speakers or keeping existing speakers. If I were planning to buy a Pioneer Atmos-capable AVR (I'm not, for several reasons) I would buy them and wait, and many if not most of the folks here would do the same, but asking Joe Consumer shopping at Magnolia to wait is another thing. I know late August/September is roughly the traditional release schedule for Pioneer Elites, but they might be better off waiting until at least Dolby Surround is ready to keep up the momentum.
> 
> 
> At any rate, I personally am not buying anything Atmos-related until after CEDIA.


No offense taken here, Stuart, at all. I have always said that DS will be hugely important for the very reason you mention. I am guessing that it comes with the FW upgrade as it is part of the total package. And it would be bad marketing, IMO, to offer it independently of Atmos anyway - it would allow people to hear a 'less than perfect'. 'sort of' Atmos which could then prejudice their opinion of the real thing when it comes.

I have been hugely impressed at how this is all being marketed, and while there may be other reasons for not releasing DS as a standalone thing, the marketing angle alone is compelling IMO. It would certainly be my advice if I was involved in Dolby's marketing at all. 

At any rate, I am 99.99% sure that DS will not be announced independently of Atmos and can't see any good reason why it should. To use DS properly, you need an Atmos speaker configuration and anyone doing that will also want a true Atmos experience from their AVR. IMO.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> No offense taken here, Stuart, at all. I have always said that DS will be hugely important for the very reason you mention. I am guessing that it comes with the FW upgrade as it is part of the total package. And it would be bad marketing, IMO, to offer it independently of Atmos anyway - it would allow people to hear a 'less than perfect'. 'sort of' Atmos which could then prejudice their opinion of the real thing when it comes.
> 
> I have been hugely impressed at how this is all being marketed, and while there may be other reasons for not releasing DS as a standalone thing, the marketing angle alone is compelling IMO. It would certainly be my advice if I was involved in Dolby's marketing at all.
> 
> At any rate, I am 99.99% sure that DS will not be announced independently of Atmos and can't see any good reason why it should. To use DS properly, you need an Atmos speaker configuration and anyone doing that will also want a true Atmos experience from their AVR. IMO.


 
We can agree to disagree there: the wisdom of having all the Atmos-related firmware downloadable at one time as part of an integrated plan, vs. having Dolby Surround that can use the Atmos-capable speakers ahead of when home Atmos is ready. YMMV, but IMO if Dolby Surround is ready to go, and is "pretty good", I'd like to have it to get a taste of what Atmos might be like with those AJ or Atmos-oriented speakers, set up in the true Atmos speaker configuration.

At any rate, while that's what I'd want ideally as a buyer, you're probably right that it will all be ready and available at the same time.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Otherwise, no offense Keith and FM, but those top-firing or ceiling speaker modules aren't going to particularly useful when you get your new AVRs except as "front heights" with Neo:X or Audyssey DSX, maybe (as Dolby PLII is now dead technology in these AVRs, correct?).


Remains to be seen whether the height processing and the three-way crossover are only active with Atmos decoding and DS upmixing but not Neo:X or DSX. I would guess/hope that the height processing and crossover are a condition of configuring the receiver for upward-firing speakers, not something that remains on only for Dolby modes. If it is as I hope, then Neo:X can benefit from virtual heights as well.


----------



## doublewing11

I'm waiting and listening.........ceiling cloud is all ready for Atmos implementation............


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Remains to be seen whether the height processing and the three-way crossover are only active with Atmos decoding and DS upmixing but not Neo:X or DSX. I would guess/hope that the height processing and crossover are a condition of configuring the receiver for upward-firing speakers, not something that remains on only for Dolby modes. If it is as I hope, then Neo:X can benefit from virtual heights as well.


I may be missing something but I don't think you can use DSX, Neo:X, etc. with the "virtual" Atmos height speakers. 

Taking the Denon as an example, you have to specifically designate that you are using "Dolby enabled" speakers when configuring your height speakers layout. And the surround output chart clearly indicates that these speakers only make noise in Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround modes.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I don't think you can use DSX, Neo:X, etc. with the "virtual" Atmos height speakers.


Too bad. There is a version of Neo:X that uses 4 heights in a 7.1.4 configuration that could benefit from virtual height speakers (even if their overhead spots are not in the ideal locations for Neo). Hope it becomes format agnostic in the future.


----------



## Bumper

batpig said:


> The issue (not just the X4100W but the higher models is well) is that it appears they support a MAX of FOUR height/top speakers. The "Front Wide" outputs can't be configured to output a third pair of height speaker signals. The six outputs beyond the standard 7.1ch layout are for four height/top speakers and two front wide speakers.
> 
> So while it certainly appears possible to switch between an Atmos output with 4 top speakers and a Neo:X layout with wide + 2 height speakers, it does NOT appear possible to switch between 4 top speakers for Atmos and a SEPARATE pair of front height speakers for Neo:X or PLIIz (i.e. SIX total elevated speakers).
> 
> Or, in other words, the only way to switch between Atmos surround and "legacy" surround upmix is if the FIRST pair of elevated speakers are designated as Front Height so they can be "shared" between the modes. Thus it would only work with configs.


As I read it, you can use Front Wide (page 168) while NEO:X is selected and (page 209) Wide/Height is set to Default while still be able to play 7.1.4 with 4 Top speakers.
My setup will be: Assign Mode 11.1 with 4 height speakers (Top Front and Top Rear) with Wide Height set to Front Wide and Pre Out set to Top Rear.
This means that 11 speakers are connected to the unit and the Top Rears are connected using a pre amp on Pre Out Height 2.
With this config I ass-u-me that I can play 9.1 with Front Wide from NEO:X and 7.1.4 with Dolby Surround.

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I am setup right now and if it cannot be done this way I guess my Front Wides will have to sit until some next gen Denon arrives at the scene.


----------



## Orbitron

Definitive Technology A60 module rated at 100W for maximum watt handling and 100W for peak power handling, something to keep in mind if you're considering doing A60s.


----------



## batpig

Bumper said:


> As I read it, you can use Front Wide (page 168) while NEO:X is selected and (page 209) Wide/Height is set to Default while still be able to play 7.1.4 with 4 Top speakers.
> My setup will be: Assign Mode 11.1 with 4 height speakers (Top Front and Top Rear) with Wide Height set to Front Wide and Pre Out set to Top Rear.
> This means that 11 speakers are connected to the unit and the Top Rears are connected using a pre amp on Pre Out Height 2.
> With this config I ass-u-me that I can play 9.1 with Front Wide from NEO:X and 7.1.4 with Dolby Surround.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I am setup right now and if it cannot be done this way I guess my Front Wides will have to sit until some next gen Denon arrives at the scene.



Again, I think there are two key restrictions that are inviolate:

1. You can only have FOUR elevated speakers (so you can't have four "top" speakers for Atmos and a separate pair of "Front Height" for Neo:X/DSX)
2. If you want to "share" one of those pairs of elevated speakers between Atmos and "legacy" non-Atmos height upmixers, the Height1 output must be designated as FRONT HEIGHT. 

It may be academic if your forward pair of elevated speakers is placed within the angular range for BOTH the "Top Front" and "Front Height" assignments, but (based on the chart on pg 287) both DSX and Neo:X can only provide height output to the speaker pair designated as FRONT HEIGHT.

Beyond that, it appears to be free range to connect up to 13 speakers (4 high and 2 wide in addition to the standard 7.1) and switch among Atmos, Dolby Surround, Neo:X and DSX modes. Provided you have sufficient channels of amplification for all 13 speakers.

Anyway... all that being said, it sounds like you want to switch between 9.1 Neo:X (no height speakers, 7.1 + Front Wide) and Atmos in 7.1.4 (four "Top" speakers). This shouldn't be a problem, although again by designating the front pair of elevated speakers as "Front Height" instead of "Top Front" you could switch between 11ch DSX (7.1 + wide + height) and 7.1.4 Atmos. But if you prefer it that way to keep the Atmos config "ideal" with Top Front + Top Rear assignments, it will work. 

However, unless I'm wrong it DOES appear you will need FOUR extra channels of external amps. This is based on the paragraph on pg 210:

*When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back. Furthermore,
when two sets of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
be output when Audyssey DSX® or Neo:X are played back in addition to when
Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back.*


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> We can agree to disagree there: the wisdom of having all the Atmos-related firmware downloadable at one time as part of an integrated plan, vs. having Dolby Surround that can use the Atmos-capable speakers ahead of when home Atmos is ready.


Yep  It would be disastrous IMO. 



sdrucker said:


> YMMV, but IMO if Dolby Surround is ready to go, and is "pretty good", I'd like to have it to get a taste of what Atmos might be like with those AJ or Atmos-oriented speakers, set up in the true Atmos speaker configuration.



That's the problem. You’d have a go and then think a) it's pretty good but I was expecting better or b) it's disappointing, I was expecting better. I just can’t see a single benefit in it from Dolby's POV.



sdrucker said:


> At any rate, while that's what I'd want ideally as a buyer, you're probably right that it will all be ready and available at the same time.


If it isn't, I will eat my best Panama hat without sauce.


----------



## NorthSky

*Onkyo TX-NR636 AV Receiver*



bargervais said:


> http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-receiver/


Very nice.


----------



## kbarnes701

doublewing11 said:


> I'm waiting and listening.........ceiling cloud is all ready for Atmos implementation............


You can only imagine how much I hate you for that room! LOL


----------



## NorthSky

harrybnbad said:


> Reminds me of the song by Zager and Evans - "In the year 2525"


----------



## NorthSky

doublewing11 said:


> I'm waiting and listening.........ceiling cloud is all ready for Atmos implementation............


Nice, vewy nice.


----------



## Bumper

batpig said:


> Again, I think there are two key restrictions that are inviolate:
> 
> 1. You can only have FOUR elevated speakers (so you can't have four "top" speakers for Atmos and a separate pair of "Front Height" for Neo:X/DSX)
> 2. If you want to "share" one of those pairs of elevated speakers between Atmos and "legacy" non-Atmos height upmixers, the Height1 output must be designated as FRONT HEIGHT.
> 
> It may be academic if your forward pair of elevated speakers is placed within the angular range for BOTH the "Top Front" and "Front Height" assignments, but (based on the chart on pg 287) both DSX and Neo:X can only provide height output to the speaker pair designated as FRONT HEIGHT.
> 
> Beyond that, it appears to be free range to connect up to 13 speakers (4 high and 2 wide in addition to the standard 7.1) and switch among Atmos, Dolby Surround, Neo:X and DSX modes. Provided you have sufficient channels of amplification for all 13 speakers.
> 
> Anyway... all that being said, it sounds like you want to switch between 9.1 Neo:X (no height speakers, 7.1 + Front Wide) and Atmos in 7.1.4 (four "Top" speakers). This shouldn't be a problem, although again by designating the front pair of elevated speakers as "Front Height" instead of "Top Front" you could switch between 11ch DSX (7.1 + wide + height) and 7.1.4 Atmos. But if you prefer it that way to keep the Atmos config "ideal" with Top Front + Top Rear assignments, it will work.
> 
> However, unless I'm wrong it DOES appear you will need FOUR extra channels of external amps. This is based on the paragraph on pg 210:
> 
> *When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can*
> *be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back. Furthermore,*
> *when two sets of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can*
> *be output when Audyssey DSX® or Neo:X are played back in addition to when*
> *Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back.*


I want to play 7.1.4 = 11Ch in Atmos / Dolby Surround and play 9.1 in NEO:x. In NEO:X only the pair connected to Wide/Height2 speaker terminal and no Height 1 (Top Front) and Pre Out Height 2 (Top Rear). So the above statement is fully correct. I don't need 4 amps because I don't use 11.1 in NEO:X because I don;t have FH's combined with FW's. Page 287 tells me that NEO:X can output sound to FW and FW is connected to terminals Wide/Height2 and assigned as stated above. Again, time will tell but I really think this is going to work.
I cannot go for Atmos FH + Top Middle because that would place my Atmos Front Ceiling pair way to far out. I have 4 ceiling speakers connected and maintained my current Wide speakers and those I would still like to be able to use but without any of the Top speakers obviously because of limitations of the unit.

So yes, 13 speakers connected while using 9 or 11 at a time and when using 11, the Height 2 Pre Out for Top Rear is being used.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> There is a version of Neo:X that uses 4 heights in a 7.1.4 configuration that could benefit from virtual height speakers (even if their overhead spots are not in the ideal locations for Neo). Hope it becomes format agnostic in the future.




That does seem possible when we look at the story behind the "*X*" in "*Neo:X*", as excerpted from a small 'puff piece' interview with *DTS* about *Neo:X* on *TechRadar com* (_link_):



> _"When we showed *11.1*, we came up with a concept called '*Neo:X*' – where '*X*' could be any number within reason. *'X' for CES was 11*.
> 
> [11.1] was what we showed. It could be 11, it could be 9, it could be 13, *it could be 366. The Master Audio algorithm is very expandable*."_


_


----------



## Scott Simonian

That was sort of the claim to fame of their algorithm that it would be expandable to essentially an unlimited amount of speakers. Hence the moniker Neo:*X*. 

Will interesting to see what they bring to the table.


----------



## ss9001

Hey guys,
Any opinions on Triad in-ceilings (silver or gold) for Atmos? Also, any idea on their approx cost?


----------



## ss9001

harrybnbad said:


> Reminds me of the song by Zager and Evans...In the year 2525


I remember that song  perfect for the 60's - very nihilistic.


----------



## sdurani

ss9001 said:


> Any opinions on Triad in-ceilings (silver or gold) for Atmos?


Triad might be making an announcement at CEDIA.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> You can only imagine how much I hate you for that room! LOL


Dear Keith,

Please remind me to invite you over whenever mine is ready! Only a train trip away...


----------



## brwsaw

There's little chance but I wonder if older (2-3 year) AVR's will see the new Dolby Surround firmware update? That would be nice.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> There's little chance but I wonder if older (2-3 year) AVR's will see the new Dolby Surround firmware update? That would be nice.


They will not. It only works with Atmos speaker positions. ProLogic was designed to work with current speaker positions.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> That's the problem. You’d have a go and then think a) it's pretty good but I was expecting better or b) it's disappointing, I was expecting better. I just can’t see a single benefit in it from Dolby's POV.
> 
> If it isn't, I will eat my best Panama hat without sauce.


 
Speaking as a relative Atmos insider (you've been to two more Dolby presentations than the vast majority of us have to date ), I can see you saying that. As a consumer, I'd take what I can get to get a taste of it, and I'd hope that the simulated product (DS) is good enough to compel me to want the real thing and look for Atmos specific mixes. But as we know, consumer convenience doesn't drive marketing decisions. 


However, there's actually another consideration to support your POV: if you lead with Dolby Surround rather than the ability to decode Atmos natively, and it's as "very good" as indicated by some, less people will go out and buy Atmos mixes because they'll be satisfied with the DS upmixing (technical points about what DS is doing vs. Atmos aside being beyond the scope of Joe Consumer). That's a bad thing for studios, since for them, Dolby Surround is really just a curiosity to bridge people to Atmos until more Atmos mixes are available. Not that there's a cabal of profit maximizers, but I can see common interests converging toward Dolby Surround following Atmos (or released concurrently) vs. leading the way to get people into buying Atmos receivers.

Besides, only us enthusiasts worry about stuff like this. And we certainly don't drive the market.


----------



## ss9001

^^
I think it's reasonable to expect Dolby Surround to be at least as good as PLIIx is on music as well as movies. Surely Dolby is going to deliver the goods for its new upmixing. But it is kind of interesting that no demo has included it.

(Also interesting - I asked Walkamo about it and unless I misunderstand him, he's not had the opportunity either. Apparently, demos *to* them as a mfg have been with Atmos tracks but not std material.)

That tells me it's still an unknown & we have to take Dolby's word that it will be "better". Not being negative at all, just kind of summarizing what people *haven't* heard who have been part of evaluations & demos.


----------



## bargervais

brwsaw said:


> There's little chance but I wonder if older (2-3 year) AVR's will see the new Dolby Surround firmware update? That would be nice.


Not possible


----------



## doublewing11

kbarnes701 said:


> You can only imagine how much I hate you for that room! LOL


Don't hate! 

On the QT, I'm half British........


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Anyway... [snip] by designating the front pair of elevated speakers as "Front Height" instead of "Top Front" you could switch between 11ch DSX (7.1 + wide + height) and 7.1.4 Atmos. But if you prefer it that way to keep the Atmos config "ideal" with Top Front + Top Rear assignments, it will work.
> 
> However, unless I'm wrong it DOES appear you will need FOUR extra channels of external amps. This is based on the paragraph on pg 210:
> 
> *When one set of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
> be output when Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back. Furthermore,
> when two sets of pre-amp outputs are used, a maximum 11.1-channel audio can
> be output when Audyssey DSX® or Neo:X are played back in addition to when
> Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround are played back.*


As I pointed out to batpig earlier this week in The "Official" 2014 Denon Atmos+XT32 Model Thread (X4100/X5200/X7200), that note on p. 210 of the manual regarding the need for two sets of pre-outs to achieve Neo:X 11.1 AND Atmos/DS seems only applicable to the one scenario it is appended to (*When “Height Speakers” is set to “4 Height Speakers” and “Wide/Height2” is set to “Front Wide”*). I did not see a similar note anywhere else in the manual, which leads me to think that it is either not globally applicable or it's a publication formatting error. (E.g., why would it not apply to the immediately succeeding scenario (*When “Height Speakers” is set to “4 Height Speakers” and “Wide/Height2” is set other than to “Front Wide”*)?) I do find it mildly disappointing that the X5200 would require 13 channels of amplification (i.e., four versus just two external) if only a maximum of 11 are to be functional at any one time; I'm guessing the limitation might have to do with devoting at least one set of amps to the Atmos-exclusive speaker assignments (TF/TM/TR/RH) as opposed to the "dual-duty" FH.

Otherwise, I expect that the flagship X7200, whenever it emerges on the scene, will offer even more amp assign flexibility--just as the current flagship 4520 does.


----------



## doublewing11

sdurani said:


> Triad might be making an announcement at CEDIA.


What the &[email protected]

Just recently I have been in contact with Steve Colburn who leads Triad Product development. Conclusion was I would need to custom build for my design ie ceiling speakers! That was based on 8-1/4" depth......


----------



## Scott Simonian

doublewing11 said:


> Don't hate!
> 
> On the QT, I'm half British........


Jolly good, ol' Chap!


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Remains to be seen whether the height processing and the three-way crossover are only active with Atmos decoding and DS upmixing but not Neo:X or DSX.


The 3-way is where the bass


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> The 3-way is where the bass


----------



## Dan Hitchman

doublewing11 said:


> What the &[email protected]
> 
> Just recently I have been in contact with Steve Colburn who leads Triad Product development. Conclusion was I would need to custom build for my design ie ceiling speakers! That was based on 8-1/4" depth......


Perhaps their upcoming turn key Atmos speaker models don't fit your needs.


----------



## Steven414

*onkyo's W\atmos*

Has anyone out there purchased onkyo 737 or 838 yet? Just pulled the trigger on a 737 and scanning through the on-line manual I noticed that not a word is mentioned about setting up for dolby atmos. I understand it's not availabe yet, but you would think there would be some clue about it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> I may be missing something but I don't think you can use DSX, Neo:X, etc. with the "virtual" Atmos height speakers.


My understanding is that the height output jacks remain available whether Dolby Enabled is selected or not, and whether Atmos is being decoded or not. When other sources are playing with DSX or Neo:X, those jacks output normal height signals. If the attached speaker happens to be an Atmos speaker, it will play the sound. And assuming the special EQ is inside the speaker, it should still work -- unless there's other DSP processing involved.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> My understanding is that the height output jacks remain available whether Dolby Enabled is selected or not, and whether Atmos is being decoded or not. When other sources are playing with DSX or Neo:X, those jacks output normal height signals. If the attached speaker happens to be an Atmos speaker, it will play the sound. And asuming the special EQ is inside the speaker, it should still work -- unless there's other DSP processing involved.


Agreed. 

It if it works any different then that, I be pretty surprised.... and annoyed because this would have just got much more complicated.


----------



## wse

http://cdn-blog.dolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf

I am sure all of you may have already seen this but just in case!


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> They will not. It only works with Atmos speaker positions. ProLogic was designed to work with current speaker positions.


Right answer, but Dolby Surround will also be able to output to 5.1 or 7.1, just as PLIIx does today. Like when someone buys an Atmos AVR but does not connect the height speakers right away.

The probable reason it will not be offered as an update to current AVRs is that it would not make much sense from a business perspective. Might not even fit in the same DSP slot, as PLIIx is relatively simple, whereas Dolby Surround appears to work in the frequency domain.


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> http://cdn-blog.dolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf
> 
> I am sure all of you may have already seen this but just in case!


Them whitepaper, son.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...33057-dolby-atmos-white-papers-available.html


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Yes, to minimize mid-bass smear. It is done passively for the Andrew Jones speakers. I was told in the AVR, when configured for Atmos-enabled speakers.


How does the AVR know the difference between an Andrew Jones speaker and other Atmos speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> How does the AVR know the difference between an Andrew Jones speaker and other Atmos speakers?


Atmos: it's not only better surround technology, it's psychic too!


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> My understanding is that the height output jacks remain available whether Dolby Enabled is selected or not, and whether Atmos is being decoded or not. When other sources are playing with DSX or Neo:X, those jacks output normal height signals. If the attached speaker happens to be an Atmos speaker, it will play the sound. And assuming the special EQ is inside the speaker, it should still work -- unless there's other DSP processing involved.


That sounds fine in theory but that understanding is directly contradicted by the Denon manual:










Notice all the highlighted blanks for output for Dolby Atmos speaker assignments with Neo:X and DSX. It seems pretty explicit that if you tell the receiver you have Dolby enabled speakers in the "Height Speakers" setup menu, they will NOT make noise other than in Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround surround modes.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> - Yes, to minimize mid-bass smear. Bass below 180Hz goes to its respective main 'floor' speaker.
> 
> - It is done passively for the Andrew Jones speakers. For Pioneer own Dolby Atmos speakers; designed by Andrew Jones.
> 
> - I was told in the AVR, when configured for Atmos-enabled speakers. The receiver will have normal bass management, plus, the optional 180Hz crossover for the Atmos speakers, and their positioning.


All makes total logical sense.

* The receivers will have the option to use the 180Hz x-over for the Dolby Atmos modules or not.
They have too, because of the different speaker's positioning, and the type used (up-firing or on the ceiling).
And cascading crossovers won't happen (double-cross).
...Am I right?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> How does the AVR know the difference between an Andrew Jones speaker and other Atmos speakers?


Heheh! Really. 

Seriously though it would not make any difference. 

There are two things here we are talking about. 

1) Atmos-enabled speaker
2) The speakers frequency response


Inside the AVR of choice you will let it know that it is the 'reflective' type or actual. Then you will select it's lowend cutoff.

Is it known that if you decide to use an Atmos-enabled speaker system that you will be locked out of selecting it's bass cutoff and will it assume 180hz? I somewhat doubt that and I am to believe that you will still have to select that respective speakers cutoff point just as one would for any other speaker in the system.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> How does the AVR know the difference between an Andrew Jones speaker and other Atmos speakers?


The receiver won't, but you. ...You just tell the receiver.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> How does the AVR know the difference between an Andrew Jones speaker and other Atmos speakers?


Beats me, maybe measuring the roll-off?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Right answer, but *Dolby Surround* will also be able to output to 5.1 or 7.1, just as PLIIx does today. Like when someone buys an Atmos AVR but does not connect the height speakers right away.
> 
> *The probable reason it will not be offered as an update to current AVRs is that it would not make much sense from a business perspective. Might not even fit in the same DSP slot, as PLIIx is relatively simple, whereas Dolby Surround appears to work in the frequency domain*.


That would be a real drag. ...In my elevated opinion. They'd better have a bunch of Blus encoded with Dolby Atmos by then or else ...

* Roger, what about if you were to purchase the Marantz AV7702, and to find out that it has no Dolby Surround audio mode? ...Would you still go ahead?

Not me, no way sir.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> That sounds fine in theory but that understanding is directly contradicted by the Denon manual:
> 
> Notice all the highlighted blanks for output for Dolby Atmos speaker assignments with Neo:X and DSX. It seems pretty explicit that if you tell the receiver you have Dolby enabled speakers in the "Height Speakers" setup menu, they will NOT make noise other than in Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround surround modes.


But notice that the two different sets of height signals, FH Front Heights and TF Top Fronts both use the very same Height1 output jacks. Doesn't that solve the problem? And regardless of that, both Atmos and Neo:X can be assigned to use the Front Height outputs.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Is it known that if you decide to use an Atmos-enabled speaker system that you will be locked out of selecting it's bass cutoff and will it assume 180hz?


Don't know if that frequency is a requirement or a minimum: i.e., does the upward firing driver have to go down to 180Hz or go down to _at least_ 180Hz (within spec to go lower)? 

Seems there is no disagreement that mid-bass below 180Hz goes to its downstairs neighbor (the woofer of the associated speaker). The question is, how/where does this take place? 

For the height modules, one assumes this happens electronically in the AVR (frequencies below 180Hz are actively re-routed to the nearby speaker, which is bass managed as usual). 

But Andrew Jones says that it is done passively in his speaker's crossover. In which case, when you connect the upward-firing part of his speaker to an AVR, does it see a driver rolling off at 180Hz or rolling off where the speaker's woofer rolls off? Does the AVR apply redundant re-routing of mid-bass below 180Hz, when that is already happening in the speaker itself?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos: it's not only better surround technology, it's psychic too!


The front panel display reads out next week's lottery numbers.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> That would be a real drag. ...In my elevated opinion. They'd better have a bunch of Blus encoded with Dolby Atmos by then or else ...


Sorry, but I think we are talking about 2 different things. All Atmos AVRs will have Dolby Surround, so one can enjoy "heightened sensations" from existing discs. 

I'm just saying that existing 5.1/7.1 AVRs will not be able to be retrofit with the new Dolby Surround process. 



> * Roger, what about if you were to purchase the Marantz AV7702, and to find out that it has no Dolby Surround audio mode? ...Would you still go ahead?


The sequence will be opposite. First I find out what it can do, then I decide. No, I will not buy it without Dolby Surround, but I am not aware of that possibility.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> But Andrew Jones says that it is done passively in his speaker's crossover. In which case, when you connect the upward-firing part of his speaker to an AVR, does it see a driver rolling off at 180Hz or rolling off where the speaker's woofer rolls off? Does the AVR apply redundant re-routing of mid-bass below 180Hz, when that is already happening in the speaker itself?


Where did AJ say explicitly that the ~180Hz filter to the forward-firing portion of speaker is a passive filter in the speaker? I remember watching the video interview with SW and not feeling it was explicit.


----------



## bargervais

Steven414 said:


> Has anyone out there purchased onkyo 737 or 838 yet? Just pulled the trigger on a 737 and scanning through the on-line manual I noticed that not a word is mentioned about setting up for dolby atmos. I understand it's not availabe yet, but you would think there would be some clue about it.


I have the 737 and yes there is no mention of atmos in it, I think once the firmware is released they will hopefully update the online manual


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Don't know if that frequency is a requirement or a minimum: i.e., does the upward firing driver have to go down to 180Hz or go down to _at least_ 180Hz (within spec to go lower)?
> 
> Seems there is no disagreement that mid-bass below 180Hz goes to its downstairs neighbor (the woofer of the associated speaker). The question is, how/where does this take place?
> 
> For the height modules, one assumes this happens electronically in the AVR (frequencies below 180Hz are actively re-routed to the nearby speaker, which is bass managed as usual).
> 
> But Andrew Jones says that it is done passively in his speaker's crossover. In which case, when you connect the upward-firing part of his speaker to an AVR, does it see a driver rolling off at 180Hz or rolling off where the speaker's woofer rolls off? Does the AVR apply redundant re-routing of mid-bass below 180Hz, when that is already happening in the speaker itself?


Excellent questions, Sanjay.

I am pretty sure that the 180hz specification was the *bare minimum* lowend rolloff requirement for such height speakers whatever configuration one uses. Be it the Atmos-enabled variety or actual physical overhead speaker. 

I am also convinced that all the 'height cue' filters will be implemented in the digital domain and not as part of the the actual response from said Atmos-enabled speaker. I really can't say about the Andrew Jones version but it would be, to me, a much more complicated thing to do this as part of a passive network instead of digitally inside the AVR. That's just my thought though so maybe I'm off. 

If the Andrew Jones version of these has a passive network then it will simply be a highpass filter and roll off the bass. Kind of redundant and unnecessary imho if the audio device is perfectly capable of doing it inside the processor. It would be like having an extra filter in any other speaker for a 80hz rolloff. We can and have been doing this digitally.

But you know I could be wrong about how this works. I guess we will have to wait and see when the products roll out or if there is a newer, more detailed whitepaper about how this is supposed to work.



sdurani said:


> The front panel display reads out next week's lottery numbers.


Okay. Now I am gonna drop some dough on that 3040. I'll win the lottery, get it all back and buy some cool gear for myself and friends.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Where did AJ say explicitly that the ~180Hz filter to the forward-firing portion of speaker is a passive filter in the speaker? I remember watching the video interview with SW and not feeling it was explicit.


I could be wrong but I thought he said it in the video and then held up a complicated crossover in 3 parts/pieces to make his point. IF the upward firing driver of his speaker behaves like an add-on module, then this whole discussion is moot.


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> But notice that the two different sets of height signals, FH Front Heights and TF Top Fronts both use the very same Height1 output jacks. Doesn't that solve the problem?


Yes, it's a shared output, but there is a specific setup step in the GUI workflow where you tell it which of the eight possible height speaker pairs (front/middle/rear tops, front/rear heights, or three Dolby enabled locations). Just because they share a physical speaker jack doesn't mean they are treated the same when there is a specific setting that you use to tell the receiver what type of speaker is connected there.

And if what you say is true, why would they explicitly exclude output from those channels when using DSX/Neo:X in the table on pg 287?

I think -- like with Dolby Surround upmixer being able to output wides -- this is a case of theoretical potential vs. actual real world implementation. It would be great if I could use Neo:X and have it output through Dolby enabled upward firing speakers for the Front Height channels, complete with the HTRF processing to make them feel like they are above me, but it seems pretty clear to me that it's not possible on the Denon models in question.



Roger Dressler said:


> And regardless of that, both Atmos and Neo:X can be assigned to use the Front Height outputs.


Yes, but we are talking about Atmos upward firing speakers, and that ("Front Dolby") is a separate designation in the GUI workflow than Front Height.


----------



## bargervais

Steven414 said:


> Has anyone out there purchased onkyo 737 or 838 yet? Just pulled the trigger on a 737 and scanning through the on-line manual I noticed that not a word is mentioned about setting up for dolby atmos. I understand it's not availabe yet, but you would think there would be some clue about it.


With this 737 you will do 5.1.2 I'm putting top middle so I'll have two ceiling speakers. I will experiment for the best placement. You can also get those atmos modules that fire to the ceiling and reflect to the MLP.
I can't wait till the firmware is released.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Sorry, but I think we are talking about 2 different things. All Atmos AVRs will have Dolby Surround, so one can enjoy "heightened sensations" from existing discs.
> 
> I'm just saying that existing 5.1/7.1 AVRs will not be able to be retrofit with the new Dolby Surround process.
> 
> The sequence will be opposite. First I find out what it can do, then I decide. No, I will not buy it without Dolby Surround, but I am not aware of that possibility.


Gotcha Roger; I didn't realize you were referring to old legacy receivers with obsolete Dolby Pro Logic family.
I agree; no way that they can be retrofit with the newer, better, higher, elevated, superior Dolby Surround.
People would simply need to stop crying and purchase a newer and better more up-to-date receiver.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> The front panel display reads out next week's lottery numbers.


That I like, very much so.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Where did AJ say explicitly that the ~180Hz filter to the forward-firing portion of speaker is a passive filter in the speaker? I remember watching the video interview with SW and not feeling it was explicit.


Did you watch the full interview video?


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Yes, it's a shared output, but there is a specific setup step in the GUI workflow where you tell it which of the eight possible height speaker pairs (front/middle/rear tops, front/rear heights, or three Dolby enabled locations). Just because they share a physical speaker jack doesn't mean they are treated the same when there is a specific setting that you use to tell the receiver what type of speaker is connected there.


I am not claiming to be correct, but I do not see sufficient evidence to know for certain that other modes cannot use the Dolby speakers. 

Let’s walk thru the AVR setup. Let’s use 7.1.4 speakers, the 4 heights being Atmos type.

p. 205. Assign Mode. Select 11.1.
p. 208. Detailed 11.1 Assign Mode. 
a) Select 4 height speakers
b) Select Using Dolby Speakers​p. 209. Select Front Dolby & Back Dolby
p. 168. Select Front Height speakers for Neo:X (There is no warning that if the height speakers are declared as Dolby speakers, this option is disabled.)


----------



## tjenkins95

doublewing11 said:


> I'm waiting and listening.........ceiling cloud is all ready for Atmos implementation............


 


Very nice room - what are the measurements of your screen?


----------



## Steven414

bargervais said:


> With this 737 you will do 5.1.2 I'm putting top middle so I'll have two ceiling speakers. I will experiment for the best placement. You can also get those atmos modules that fire to the ceiling and reflect to the MLP.
> I can't wait till the firmware is released.


Ok... so my hunch is that the rears in a 7.1 configuration would become the overheads in an atmos configuration, making it a 5.1.2 or in my case (since I'm running 2 subs), a 5.2.2. Correct? Would be nice if onkyo would at least enlighten us a little bit on this!


----------



## batpig

Steven414 said:


> Ok... so my hunch is that the rears in a 7.1 configuration would become the overheads in an atmos configuration, making it a 5.1.2 or in my case (since I'm running 2 subs), a 5.2.2. Correct? Would be nice if onkyo would at least enlighten us a little bit on this!


For one of the lower end 7ch Atmos receivers you would have to sacrifice back surrounds to add 2 overhead Atmos speakers. The "core" 5.1 channels are mandatory, but beyond that it's up to how many speakers the receiver can process. If it's a 7ch receiver, 5.1.2 is max.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steven414 said:


> Ok... so my hunch is that the rears in a 7.1 configuration would become the overheads in an atmos configuration, making it a 5.1.2 or in my case (since I'm running 2 subs), a 5.2.2. Correct? Would be nice if onkyo would at least enlighten us a little bit on this!


I think in a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 configuration the back wall surrounds of a 7.1 bed or traditional channel mix would be folded into the side surrounds as normal. The wall surrounds shouldn't effect the top surrounds. If you only have two tops, all the overhead object data gets folded into those two overhead speakers, I would imagine.


----------



## doublewing11

tjenkins95 said:


> Very nice room - what are the measurements of your screen?


Thanks......

12 ft 2.37 Screen Excellence 4K


----------



## NorthSky

Few interesting splices:

1. From 37:45 to 39:15
2. From *39:15 to 39:45* (x-over between 150 & 200Hz) => Both in the speaker and in the receiver.
3. From 44:30 to 46:00 
4. From 56:40 to 57:45 (with pictures of the various crossovers)


----------



## aaronwt

bargervais said:


> That TX-NR 1030 and the 3030 both look pretty sweet a little pricey compared to denon 4100w and 5200w
> So it's really your choice atmos is going to be a whole new world of sound, always changing.


WOuldn't the Onkyo NR3030 be competing with the Denon X7200W? Both receivers have 32bit DACs. While teh models below only get 24bit DACs.


----------



## NorthSky

doublewing11 said:


> Thanks......
> 
> 12 ft 2.37 Screen Excellence 4K


Nice fireplace (avatar).


----------



## bargervais

Steven414 said:


> Ok... so my hunch is that the rears in a 7.1 configuration would become the overheads in an atmos configuration, making it a 5.1.2 or in my case (since I'm running 2 subs), a 5.2.2. Correct? Would be nice if onkyo would at least enlighten us a little bit on this!


Yes that's the way I understand it as well. 
And I too wish onkyo would enlighten us as well hopefully they will when the firmware is released.


----------



## doublewing11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Perhaps their upcoming turn key Atmos speaker models don't fit your needs.


Considering Dennis Erskine stopped by my build thread and posted to wait until CEDIA since "EXACT" match will be available.......

I suspect Triad will have more to offer than pseudo add-ons for Gold/Silver line.........

Speculation of course on decoding Dennis' comment.


----------



## doublewing11

NorthSky said:


> Nice fireplace (avatar).


Thanks, it's a monster.....


----------



## RichB

NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c295SyGQag
> 
> Few interesting splices:
> 
> 1. From 37:45 to 39:15
> 2. From *39:15 to 39:45* (x-over between 150 & 200Hz) => Both in the speaker and in the receiver.
> 3. From 44:30 to 46:00
> 4. From 56:40 to 57:45 (with pictures of the various crossovers)


 
I took 2 to mean, there is a crossover in the top speaker because it is a two way (classic tweeter/woofer).
The Atmos AVR will provide the other crossover. I doubt there is an electrical connection between to top-fire module and the mains.


- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

doublewing11 said:


> Thanks, it's a monster.....


It's hard to tell; your avatar is so small. ...Got a bigger picture?


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> I took 2 to mean, there is a crossover in the top speaker because it is a two way (classic tweeter/woofer).
> The Atmos AVR will provide the other crossover. I doubt there is an electrical connection between to top-fire module and the mains.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Rich, I think you're right; the top part (up-firing coax speaker) is independent of its base. 
And nothing goes in that up-firing speaker below 180Hz; instead it is redirected to its dedicated bottom part (lower bass coax driver, above the passive radiator) via the receiver's special crossover for Dolby Atmos speakers. Then you have the normal bass management, from wherever (40Hz to 80Hz for example) to the subwoofer(s).

And that top up-firing coax speaker has a special network crossover with a 10kHz notch filter.
And inside the full speaker it is independently separated; in its own enclosure.

* Them Pioneer Elite speakers are very simple from the outside; simple black covering (vinyl) boxes.
Nothing gorgeous about them, like Vienna Acoustics or Stradivarius, but bland black boxes looking.
It is in the various crossover networks that the real technical design (sound quality) resigns.
And from the coaxial drivers, with their dome tweeters. 
...And the internal enclosure tuning, down to 40Hz (perfect for a 80Hz x-over - THX - to the subwoofer).


----------



## UKTexan

*First public Atmos demo*

The first public demo of Dolby Atmos was apparently held in San Antonio TX today. 
I cant believe I missed the announcement, I live in Houston but would have made the 3 hour drive if I knew it was scheduled.
I have emailed the store (Bjorns) to find out if there are any more public demos planned, this was part of an annual Music Matters event:


http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/08/21/bjorn-s-debuts-dolby-atmos-system.html


----------



## Spanbauer

NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c295SyGQag
> 
> Few interesting splices:
> 
> 1. From 37:45 to 39:15
> 2. From *39:15 to 39:45* (x-over between 150 & 200Hz) => Both in the speaker and in the receiver.
> 3. From 44:30 to 46:00
> 4. From 56:40 to 57:45 (with pictures of the various crossovers)


Thanks for that! Watched the whole thing. Admittedly, most of the tech talk was over my head, but really interesting nonetheless. It was nice to hear Andrew say he considers the new speaker series to be very good performers that just also happen to include Atmos essentially for "free".

It was also nice to hear Andrew took cabinet placement into consideration when designing the center channel; my pioneer C-21 is housed in the first shelf below the television, just as he described.


----------



## NorthSky

Andrew is a really nice guy; smart, talented, and designs very good sounding speakers for everyone. 
He's an award winner speaker designer. ...Sound quality performance, and value.


----------



## brwsaw

Atmos is confirmed for the yammy 3040


----------



## Spanbauer

NorthSky said:


> Andrew is a really nice guy; smart, talented, and designs very good sounding speakers for everyone.
> He's an award winner speaker designer. ...Sound quality performance, and value.


Yeah that's the impression I've gotten. I really hope some reviewers pit the new Elite series against Andrew's budget Pioneer series, just to see if they're worth all the extra coin.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> McIntosh SSP? ...Lexicon? ...Classe? ...Krell? ...Meridian? ...Ayre? ...Arcam?


Not sure. But i doubt any of them.


----------



## jhferry

Sorry to not have read the entire thread. I am in the market within this year for a 7.1 or 9.1 receiver. I understand the need for the new heights which I planned to do anyway for Dolby IIx. My question is are all the speakers supposed to be replaced or just the new additional heights? I have a nice 7.1 setup now, its only the receiver holding it back.


----------



## NorthSky

Take your time; in reading about Dolby Atmos.


----------



## westmd

jima4a said:


> In talking with a service center about whether they could get parts (not likely) for my Denon 4310 receiver, I asked about HDMI failures and he said he sees them on all brands. Percentage wise he felt there may not be big differences but that was strictly a guess. I also have an Onkyo 1008 and an Integra DHC-80.3 that have had no issues.


As an Onkyo and Integra owner would you say its worth spending the extra bucks to go for the Integra and nit the Build-alike Onkyo model?


----------



## NorthSky

No.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> And that top up-firing coax speaker has a special network crossover with a 10kHz notch filter.


Does it?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> How does the AVR know the difference between an Andrew Jones speaker and other Atmos speakers?


It doesn't and there's no need for it because there's no connection between the top unit and the unit below. The "complicated" crossover Mr. Jones showed in the video is the crossover for the coax.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> No.


Was that direct "in-your-face" answer to my question about Onkyo/Integra?:eeksurprise:


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, because me too I am an owner of both Onkyo and Integra products. /// But not directly in your face, just very quietly and peacefully in your ear, like a very good friend. /// That type of no.

Buy the one that cost less. Because they both can break down, and they do.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Does it?


That's why I am asking you now. ...It is my understanding. ...Is it yours too?


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> That's why I am asking you now. ...It is my understanding. ...Is it yours too?


My understanding is that any processing of signals going to the ceiling-firing speaker is done in the AVR.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> My understanding is that any processing of signals going to the ceiling-firing speaker is done in the AVR.


Alright, so the AVR is sending a DSP (digital) signal to the up-firing speakers, with that special notch filter @ 10kHz. ...Are you 100% certain? ...Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos speakers designed by Andrew Jones.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> It doesn't and there's no need for it because there's no connection between the top unit and the unit below. The "complicated" crossover Mr. Jones showed in the video is the crossover for the coax.


That of course would make perfect sense. As would putting the "funny EQ" in the DSP.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Yes, because me too I am an owner of both Onkyo and Integra products. /// But not directly in your face, just very quietly and peacefully in your ear, like a very good friend. /// That type of no.
> 
> Buy the one that cost less. Because they both can break down, and they do.


Thanks for the open answer! Here in Germany I would have to pay a premium upgrade for Integra of at least 500€!


----------



## westmd

I am still looking into in-ceiling speakers and have been told they would be very good for Dolby Atmos due to their wide dispersion (see picture). This looks very interesting for Atmos! Now the question is which size of speakers to take? Should I treat the four overhead channels as full speakers and go for the biggest KEF CI 200Q?


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Alright, so the AVR is sending a DSP (digital) signal to the up-firing speakers, with that special notch filter @ 10kHz. ...Are you 100% certain? ...Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos speakers designed by Andrew Jones.


"DSP" is an abbreviation for "Digital Signal Processing" or "Digital Signal Processor". It is by definition "digital". DSP doesn't send a signal. It processes it.

The information we got so far from people within the industry suggests that the processing is done in the AVR and not in the speaker. _You_ would need to ask Mr. Jones why he designed the speaker to have an additional notch as this is what _you_ chose to believe.

A notch at 10kHz is not confirmed as far as I know.


----------



## pletwals

westmd said:


> I am still looking into in-ceiling speakers and have been told they would be very good for Dolby Atmos due to their wide dispersion (see picture). This looks very interesting for Atmos! Now the question is which size of speakers to take? Should I treat the four overhead channels as full speakers and go for the biggest KEF CI 200Q?


That's what I would do. There's a THX version of the 200 mm. Not cheap though.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> "DSP" is an abbreviation for "Digital Signal Processing". It is by definition "digital". DSP doesn't send a signal. It processes it.
> 
> The information we got so far from people within the industry suggests that the processing is done in the AVR and not in the speaker. You would need to ask Mr. Jones why he designed the speaker to have an additional notch if this is what you chose to believe.
> 
> A notch at 10kHz is not confirmed as far as I know.


Lol Markus, thanks; I didn't know what DSP stands for. By the way, did you know that you can apply graphic equalization in both the analog and digital domain?

As for all those huge crossover networks (three of them) that Andrew showed real quick in the video; they must be doing something real spatial. And that was my read because he didn't want to slow down and explain @ that point, but revisit that section I indicated before (between 56:40 and 57:45) and freeze at the right spots to have a look @ them three huge crossover networks; they are very unusual in normal application for speakers in that price range. 

Anyway, someday, real soon we are going to discover exactly what's happening in them speakers and in them receivers, because next month is Dolby Atmos time @ home, and some audio nuts (tech gurus) are going to perform autopsies with all the inside guts ready to bleed out with measurements and all that scientific/technical/data accumulated/ping pong imaging/mathematical jazz.

...Dolby Atmos dissected in n' out all over the floor and ceiling. ...Very soon Markus, and when that'll happen all of our guesses/assumptions/presumptions/speculations will die down into extinction. ...Some discoveries will confirm the obvious, and others will result in few surprises, I'm sure. ...But it'll come, perhaps not in September but within few months, before or after Christmas.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> I am still looking into in-ceiling speakers and have been told they would be very good for Dolby Atmos due to their wide dispersion (see picture). This looks very interesting for Atmos! Now the question is which size of speakers to take? Should I treat the four overhead channels as full speakers and go for the biggest KEF CI 200Q?


Key word: Timbre-matching.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> As for all those huge crossover networks (three of them) that Andrews showed real quick in the video; they must be doing something real spatial. And that was my read because he didn't want to slow down and explain @ that point, but revisit that section I indicated before (between 56:40 and 57:45) and freeze at the right spots to have a look @ them three huge crossover networks; they are very unusual in normal application for speakers in that price range.


So whenever anybody shows you a crossover you switch off common sense and blend out confirmed information?
Why don't you ask Andrew Jones or Chris Walker in the Pioneer thread or send them a PM?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> If the Andrew Jones version of these has a passive network then it will simply be a highpass filter and roll off the bass. Kind of redundant and unnecessary imho if the audio device is perfectly capable of doing it inside the processor. It would be like having an extra filter in any other speaker for a 80hz rolloff. We can and have been doing this digitally.




The passive network is probably required to protect the speaker from improper AVR settings / connections being made by the end user (by accident or by intent).


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Key word: Timbre-matching.


See below


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Key word: Timbre-matching.


I know but Jamo doesn't have a suitable speaker, they replied to my question yesterday.
Would THX help, I mean are two THX certified speakers from different companies suitable or wouldn't THX doesn't mean anything in regards to timbre matching!


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Dear Keith,
> 
> Please remind me to invite you over whenever mine is ready! Only a train trip away...


 That is most kind of you. If I came to experience your HT I think I would come home and never be able to set foot in mine again. Your room does look fabulous.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> However, there's actually another consideration to support your POV: if you lead with Dolby Surround rather than the ability to decode Atmos natively, and it's as "very good" as indicated by some, *less people will go out and buy Atmos mixes because they'll be satisfied with the DS upmix*ing (technical points about what DS is doing vs. Atmos aside being beyond the scope of Joe Consumer). That's a bad thing for studios, since for them, Dolby Surround is really just a curiosity to bridge people to Atmos until more Atmos mixes are available. Not that there's a cabal of profit maximizers, but I can see common interests converging toward Dolby Surround following Atmos (or released concurrently) vs. leading the way to get people into buying Atmos receivers.


I considered that but then thought that there won't be parallel Bluray releases of movies in Atmos and movies not in Atmos, so the only Blurays that people will be able to buy will be the Atmos releases. Full backwards compatibility will see just a single BD release of Atmos-mixed movies.



sdrucker said:


> Besides, only us enthusiasts worry about stuff like this. And we certainly don't drive the market.


True - but we also buy the flagship models that the manufacturers make, and that is where the profit is. A bit like the few guys flying in First Class pay for the entire plane.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> ^^
> I think it's reasonable to expect Dolby Surround to be at least as good as PLIIx is on music as well as movies. Surely Dolby is going to deliver the goods for its new upmixing. *But it is kind of interesting that no demo has included it.*
> 
> (Also interesting - I asked Walkamo about it and unless I misunderstand him, he's not had the opportunity either. Apparently, demos *to* them as a mfg have been with Atmos tracks but not std material.)
> 
> That tells me it's still an unknown & we have to take Dolby's word that it will be "better". Not being negative at all, just kind of summarizing what people *haven't* heard who have been part of evaluations & demos.


I was told that it was because the demos had to be run from a laptop, for various reasons, including the ability to instantly switch between Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers. I am guessing that DS wasn't on the laptop - and even if it had been, I doubt they would have wanted to play any upmixed content when the emphasis was all about Atmos itself. I would love to hear it first hand though. I’ll be attending the Dolby demo of 'mobile Atmos' next, which I am guessing will be after CEDIA (just a guess) so by them DS will have been available for a while, so we should get some good feedback. And I know I will be reporting here the very moment that my Atmos AVR (and some content) arrives, so you can be sure I will be reporting on DS too.


----------



## kbarnes701

doublewing11 said:


> Don't hate!


I was JK really 



doublewing11 said:


> On the QT, I'm half British........


Which half?


----------



## jima4a

westmd said:


> As an Onkyo and Integra owner would you say its worth spending the extra bucks to go for the Integra and nit the Build-alike Onkyo model?


I honestly don't know. I would actually go with Yamaha if build quality was the biggest driver.


----------



## westmd

pletwals said:


> That's what I would do. There's a THX version of the 200 mm. Not cheap though.


Thanks, I saw that also and KEF Germany tokd that is the one to get. I am a little bit hesitant as it is about 25% more expensive and part of the money is directly cashed by THX!
I do think that for the Atmos channels the CI200Q series is very good and sufficient so that is the unit I will go for. I don't think you will hear much of a difference to the THX one.


----------



## harrybnbad

I wonder if future atmos avr's will allow us to run the front wides during atmos play back.


----------



## sdurani

harrybnbad said:


> I wonder if future atmos avr's will allow us to run the front wides during atmos play back.


The upcoming ones already do. Wides won't get bed channel audio, but that is to be expected because Atmos has no wide channels. However, wides will get object audio.


----------



## doublewing11

kbarnes701 said:


> I was JK really
> 
> 
> 
> Which half?


Certainly not the better half!  

Mum was born/raised in Edmonton, London.......I was raised with lots of childhood stories about "The Blitz". 

Father was born near Brandenburg, Germany.......an unlikely mix! 

Ok.........back on topic!


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I considered that but then thought that there won't be parallel Bluray releases of movies in Atmos and movies not in Atmos, *so the only Blurays that people will be able to buy will be the Atmos releases.* Full backwards compatibility will see just a single BD release of Atmos-mixed movies.
> 
> True - but we also buy the flagship models that the manufacturers make, and that is where the profit is. A bit like the few guys flying in First Class pay for the entire plane.


In the long run, you would logically expect to see a single BD release of current and future content with an Atmos mix, unless the studios have plans to offer multiple releases (with Atmos enabled versions at a price premium, even though we all know that the Atmos content can be embedded in standard BD, and ignored by legacy users) to try to skim the cream off of the top of the market while not losing sales from folks that won't pay the premium. That sounds stupid except that you've already got BD and DVD versions of movies (as well as BD+DVD+digital copy of some), so there's a precedent for tiering the market. After all, superior tech in BD hasn't killed cheaper priced DVD releases. 


Be careful in assuming rationality: rationally speaking many of us can stream our movies as easily as watch them on shiny discs, and listen to our music on HTPC or iTunes, but that doesn't mean that BD and DVD discs are dead, let alone CDs. Old argument but still relevant.

But yes, we buy the flagships while leaping toward the first Atmos releases (and some of us, lunge toward the high end market when we can). To what degree the manufacturers notice us, that is.


Back to work...you can have the last word, Keith. You usually do


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> In the long run, you would logically expect to see a single BD release of current and future content with an Atmos mix, unless the studios have plans to offer multiple releases (with Atmos enabled versions at a price premium, even though we all know that the Atmos content can be embedded in standard BD, and ignored by legacy users) to try to skim the cream off of the top of the market while not losing sales from folks that won't pay the premium. That sounds stupid except that you've already got BD and DVD versions of movies (as well as BD+DVD+digital copy of some), so there's a precedent for tiering the market. After all, superior tech in BD hasn't killed cheaper priced DVD releases.
> 
> 
> But yes, we buy the flagships while leaping toward the first Atmos releases (and some of us, lunge toward the high end market when we can). To what degree the manufacturers notice us, that is.


If I was marketing Bluray, I'd push now to end DVD sales altogether, and reduce the price of the Blurays a bit, funded by a bit of scale economy thanks to only distributing a single format. There is no really good reason for the continued existence of DVD now, any more than any other legacy format such as VHS or LD. It is ludicrous that the only TVs you can buy anymore are high definition models, yet people still buy DVD. We can see why, of course - they are cheaper. But that is also preventing the growth of Bluray sales and its wider adoption.

I doubt if they will charge a premium for Atmos content - it would mean charging a premium to 95% of all buyers, who won't have Atmos and won't care. If they wanted to charge a premium, they'd have to issue two disc types - an Atmos one and a regular one - but as the Atmos one is backwards compatible, that seems like a non-starter to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Back to work...you can have the last word, Keith. You usually do


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> If I was marketing Bluray, I'd push now to end DVD sales altogether, and reduce the price of the Blurays a bit, funded by a bit of scale economy thanks to only distributing a single format. There is no really good reason for the continued existence of DVD now, any more than any other legacy format such as VHS or LD. It is ludicrous that the only TVs you can buy anymore are high definition models, yet people still buy DVD. We can see why, of course - they are cheaper. But that is also preventing the growth of Bluray sales and its wider adoption.
> 
> I doubt if they will charge a premium for Atmos content - it would mean charging a premium to 95% of all buyers, who won't have Atmos and won't care. If they wanted to charge a premium, they'd have to issue two disc types - an Atmos one and a regular one - but as the Atmos one is backwards compatible, that seems like a non-starter to me.


 




Let's hope that nobody dies and makes you king!


Speaking of the prices of Bluray content, it looks like prices of Bluray disks have been moving higher over the past few years. I have only purchased a limited number of Bluray disks, and for the most part I paid less than $15 for each disk.


As far as DVD content is concerned, upscaled DVD content looks pretty good assuming that a good video master was used making the DVD and your screen size is not overly large.


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> If I was marketing Bluray, I'd push now to *end DVD sales altogether*, and reduce the price of the Blurays a bit, funded by a bit of scale economy thanks to only distributing a single format. There is no really good reason for the continued existence of DVD now, any more than any other legacy format such as VHS or LD.


 

I have to agree with Keith, end DVD sales now.The most significant improvement of Bluray over DVD has always been the audio, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, the picture quality is also better, but with an upscaled DVD the delta is narrowed.
The audio on the other hand is another subject, night and day. When I first heard the difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and Dolby TrueHD I was very impressed, the increase in resolution yielded great benefits IMHO.
Admittedly it was with a Toshiba HD DVD player, that will teach me to jump the gun again. 
No going back to DVD, Bluray for me until 4K players become a reality.
Its a little easier for me than some I suppose as I sold/gave away my DVD collection when I emigrated to the US.
It still amazes me how the shelves of grocery stores are littered with DVD's with one or two Blurays there to make up the numbers. I guess people find it difficult to let go of old technology.


----------



## Selden Ball

Some of my friends have a dual DVD/VCR player. They won't buy a Blu-ray player because there aren't any that include a tape drive. They have a large library of VHS tapes and aren't about to "double dip" with other formats. They'd rather spend their money touring Europe on alternate summers.


----------



## TweakerInWA

Selden Ball said:


> Some of my friends have a dual DVD/VCR player. They won't buy a Blu-ray player because there aren't any that include a tape drive. They have a large library of VHS tapes and aren't about to "double dip" with other formats. They'd rather spend their money touring Europe on alternate summers.


Well, there goes 4K Blu-Ray.... Tell them I said "thanks" next time they return from Fundenberg.... 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## RichB

End DVD sales if you think it will make more money.
Just look around at stores and and Redbox, most titles are DVD.
Redbox still warns when a blu-ray is selected 


Lionsgate rentals often do not include the lossless track. If that continues, the Atmos track will not be available. 


- Rich


----------



## Selden Ball

They're in Germany this week.


----------



## chi_guy50

Selden Ball said:


> Some of my friends have a dual DVD/VCR player. They won't buy a Blu-ray player because there aren't any that include a tape drive. They have a large library of VHS tapes and aren't about to "double dip" with other formats. They'd rather spend their money touring Europe on alternate summers.


I have a VCR/DVD recorder (Samsung), a region-free DVD player (Philips), and a VCR/BDP (Panasonic)--not to mention an automatic turntable (Sansui) for my collection of vinyl--all in addition to my standard BDP (Sony).

I'm looking forward to HT Atmos, but I'm not ready to let go of my legacy gear just yet.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Selden Ball said:


> They won't buy a Blu-ray player because there aren't any that include a tape drive.


This is quite simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR/Blu-ray_combo

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMP-BD70V-Blu-ray-Multimedia-Player/dp/B001VZ1W5U

Tell your friends to buy this and move on. Those tapes won't last forever anyway.


----------



## chi_guy50

PoshFrosh said:


> This is quite simply not true.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR/Blu-ray_combo
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMP-BD70V-Blu-ray-Multimedia-Player/dp/B001VZ1W5U
> 
> Tell your friends to buy this and move on. Those tapes won't last forever anyway.


Yup, that's the one I have in my master bedroom. I purchased it in 2010 for $140.


----------



## Selden Ball

Thanks for the pointer! I'll mention it to them the next time I see them.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> So whenever anybody shows you a crossover you switch off common sense and blend out confirmed information?


Of course not; I'm simply looking for the right answers.



> Why don't you ask Andrew Jones or Chris Walker in the Pioneer thread or send them a PM?


I believe you Markus; the AVR is the one sending the digital audio processing signal to the speakers.
The small up-firing speaker must simply have a circuit protection for low bass being send to it (in its x-over between 150 and 200Hz).


----------



## batpig

jhferry said:


> Sorry to not have read the entire thread. I am in the market within this year for a 7.1 or 9.1 receiver. I understand the need for the new heights which I planned to do anyway for Dolby IIx. My question is are all the speakers supposed to be replaced or just the new additional heights? I have a nice 7.1 setup now, its only the receiver holding it back.


You don't have to replace your existing speakers. You just have to add at least two (but preferably four) elevated speakers. These additional speakers can either be physical in-ceiling speakers, or upward-firing Atmos "elevation" speaker modules that reflect off the ceiling. 

You might want to review the Atmos at home whitepaper as this question is covered: http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf


----------



## UKTexan

I am attending my first demo of Dolby Atmos for home theater tomorrow, exciting stuff!!
Bjorn's in San Antonio TX held the first public demo in the US yesterday, at least the first public one I'm aware of.
They are keeping the setup in place for the next few days so I have booked myself in for tomorrow morning, a 3 hr drive or so but worth it IMO. 
I enquired about the setup, unfortunately they do not have elevation/up firing Atmos speakers but do have down firing on ceiling types.
The setup consists of:


Denon AVRX5200W
Definitive speakers for the ear level speakers (Not sure which models, I suspect the Mythos ST-L superTower)
Definitive Mythos Gem for the heights channels, mounted from the ceiling
5.2.4 configuration


I presume they are using a Bluray player as the source rather than a computer as has been seen in the recent demos.


I am surprised they are not using the A60's for elevation speakers for an A/B comparison but the above setup will at least give me a good idea of the immersive element. I questioned whether I could listen to a regular Bluray with TrueHD/DTS MA with the Dolby Surround upmixer.
I was told I can demo the "Dolby digital plus content" I presume he was referring to Dolby Surround, I will find out tomorrow.
If the AVRX5200W has the Atmos firmware I am sure the Dolby Surround mode must also be available.
Is there one specific Blu Ray title you feel would be best to test the Dolby Surround upmixer? Let me know your thoughts, I was thinking maybe Gravity or Tron? Just looking for something that may really show off the immersive effect of Atmos. If I do not have the title in my collection I may be able to purchase from BestBuy this evening.
Gotta go, I'm leaving work early to demo the KEF R line of speakers, the R300 bookshelf and R700 floor stands at another dealer. Cant wait for my new home to be finished, under construction but hopefully closing in a couple of months, then the Atmos fun can really begin.


----------



## WayneJoy

So now we have Atmos enabled speakers and receivers shipping and still no software announcements.


----------



## Selden Ball

WayneJoy said:


> So now we have Atmos enabled speakers and receivers shipping and still no software announcements.


Just the 1 music audio BD by 2L to be available in October.


----------



## Waboman

Yep, all this countless energy used to talk about processors and speakers. They'll all be boat anchors without software.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> I believe you Markus; the AVR is the one sending the digital audio processing signal to the speakers.
> The small up-firing speaker must simply have a circuit protection for low bass being send to it (in its x-over between 150 and 200Hz).


No need for believing - ask them. What's holding you back?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I have a VCR/DVD recorder (Samsung), a region-free DVD player (Philips), and a VCR/BDP (Panasonic)--not to mention an automatic turntable (Sansui) for my collection of vinyl--all in addition to my standard BDP (Sony).
> 
> I'm looking forward to HT Atmos, but I'm not ready to let go of my legacy gear just yet.


But you don't have to let anything go if DVD just disappeared. All your DVDs will still play - but on your Bluray player. And all the future movies would be on Bluray disc, also to be played in your Bluray player.

I can sort of see Selden's friends' POV if they want a combination DVD/VHS player as I assume you can't buy a VHS player any more. But when the VHS layer wears out (all those spinning, moving, rubbing bits) they're screwed anyway.


----------



## batpig

UKTexan said:


> I am attending my first demo of Dolby Atmos for home theater tomorrow, exciting stuff!!
> Bjorn's in San Antonio TX held the first public demo in the US yesterday, at least the first public one I'm aware of.
> They are keeping the setup in place for the next few days so I have booked myself in for tomorrow morning, a 3 hr drive or so but worth it IMO.
> I enquired about the setup, unfortunately they do not have elevation/up firing Atmos speakers but do have down firing on ceiling types.
> The setup consists of:
> 
> 
> Denon AVRX5200W
> Definitive speakers for the ear level speakers (Not sure which models, I suspect the Mythos ST-L superTower)
> Definitive Mythos Gem for the heights channels, mounted from the ceiling
> 5.2.4 configuration
> 
> 
> I presume they are using a Bluray player as the source rather than a computer as has been seen in the recent demos.


That will be an interesting demo considering they are using "conventional" small 2-way bookshelf type speakers mounted on the ceiling as Atmos speakers. Although the Gems do have two drivers mounted in different directions to give more dispersion, so they may work well for this. Definitely report back (hopefully with pictures!) showing how they work, how they were mounted (pointed straight down vs. angled) etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> I am attending my first demo of Dolby Atmos for home theater tomorrow, exciting stuff!!
> Bjorn's in San Antonio TX held the first public demo in the US yesterday, at least the first public one I'm aware of.
> They are keeping the setup in place for the next few days so I have booked myself in for tomorrow morning, a 3 hr drive or so but worth it IMO.
> I enquired about the setup, unfortunately they do not have elevation/up firing Atmos speakers but do have down firing on ceiling types.
> The setup consists of:
> 
> 
> Denon AVRX5200W
> Definitive speakers for the ear level speakers (Not sure which models, I suspect the Mythos ST-L superTower)
> Definitive Mythos Gem for the heights channels, mounted from the ceiling
> 5.2.4 configuration
> 
> 
> I presume they are using a Bluray player as the source rather than a computer as has been seen in the recent demos.


What are they using for Atmos content?

BTW, if they have a Denon 5200 on demo, *they will be able to demonstrate Dolby Surround*. Please, please get a demo of that and let us know what it sounds like! And if you could take some photos of the demo room, I am sure you would have the eternal gratitude of most of us here!


----------



## kbarnes701

WayneJoy said:


> So now we have Atmos enabled speakers and receivers shipping and still no software announcements.


That's right. We have been told repeatedly that content will be announced at CEDIA, available soon after.


----------



## kbarnes701

Waboman said:


> Yep, all this countless energy used to talk about processors and speakers. They'll all be boat anchors without software.


Fortunately we have been told that there will be content available when Atmos is officially launched (at CEDIA) and with more to come in time for the Christmas spending bonanza and then more still in 2015.

BTW, the Atmos units won't be 'boat anchors' as they can all play all existing content, as well as being able to upmix it to Atmos speaker layouts in 5.1.2 up to 7.1.4 (and beyond for some very high end units of course).


----------



## mtbdudex

UKTexan said:


> I have to agree with Keith, end DVD sales now.The most significant improvement of Bluray over DVD has always been the audio, as far as I'm concerned.
> Yes, the picture quality is also better, but with an upscaled DVD the delta is narrowed.
> The audio on the other hand is another subject, night and day. When I first heard the difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and Dolby TrueHD I was very impressed, the increase in resolution yielded great benefits IMHO.
> Admittedly it was with a Toshiba HD DVD player, that will teach me to jump the gun again.
> No going back to DVD, Bluray for me until 4K players become a reality.
> Its a little easier for me than some I suppose as I sold/gave away my DVD collection when I emigrated to the US.
> It still amazes me how the shelves of grocery stores are littered with DVD's with one or two Blurays there to make up the numbers. I guess people find it difficult to let go of old technology.


How many cars have entertainment systems?

Now show me how many have a bluray laser vs a dvd laser?

We went on a big 3 week family vacation, drove 5,000 miles, 122 hours in the car, $1400 gas, and having video "distraction" at time is a must!

Yes - there is still huge demand for dvd.

Of course no need for blu-ray video quality in a car, screen way too small to matter, still until auto OE's go blu-ray that's a huge roadblock in my book.


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> How many cars have entertainment systems?
> 
> Now show me how many have a bluray laser vs a dvd laser?
> 
> We went on a big 3 week family vacation, drove 5,000 miles, 122 hours in the car, $1400 gas, and having video "distraction" at time is a must!
> 
> Yes - there is still huge demand for dvd.
> 
> Of course no need for blu-ray video quality in a car, screen way too small to matter, still until auto OE's go blu-ray that's a huge roadblock in my book.


My point was that currently they have no incentive to ditch the antiquated and inferior DVD players. If DVD were to be totally replaced by Bluray, how long do you think it would be before ICE systems featured Bluray players?

BTW, do you still have an 8-track player in your car? Or even a cassette player come to that?


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Fortunately we have been told that there will be content available when Atmos is officially launched (at CEDIA) and with more to come in time for the Christmas spending bonanza and then more still in 2015.
> 
> BTW, the Atmos units won't be 'boat anchors' as they can all play all existing content, as well as being able to upmix it to Atmos speaker layouts in 5.1.2 up to 7.1.4 (and beyond for some very high end units of course).


I didn't need a boat anchor. I already just replaced my receivers last May of 2013 but I was itching to be ready when atmos release comes in September.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> My point was that currently they have no incentive to ditch the antiquated and inferior DVD players. If DVD were to be totally replaced by Bluray, how long do you think it would be before ICE systems featured Bluray players?
> 
> BTW, do you still have an 8-track player in your car? Or even a cassette player come to that?


 
FWIW I was at a musician's house yesterday as part of us funding their Kickstarter project a while back, and he actually DID have a double cassette deck player in his home studio, along with a Mac, Pro Tools, and more modern stuff. Says he uses it because he has old legacy stuff he can't bring himself to digitize - and coincidentally one of his projects, Thievery Corporation, has released some of the newer material on vinyl.


Only one comment, Keith: I'm all for ending the sale of DVDs, in the US and UK, at least, after a sunset period, and going exclusively BluRay/Atmos. But there are a large number of foreign countries that release their local cinema or music concerts still on DVD except for rare cases- one's Israel. So you at least want backwards compatibility with future BluRay players to continue to play DVD (and for those of us interested in foreign films, exactly why we use an Oppo LOL, but that's OT here) until almost everything other than purely obscure stuff makes the transition.


----------



## SoundChex

Waboman said:


> Yep, all this countless energy used to talk about processors and speakers. *They'll all be boat anchors without software.*





_Yes! But they'll be *Dolby Atmos capable boat anchors*, Dude . . . How cool is that?!_  


_And think of the money we'll all save if there is *never* any software!_
_


----------



## jdsmoothie

Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> But you don't have to let anything go if DVD just disappeared. All your DVDs will still play - but on your Bluray player. And all the future movies would be on Bluray disc, also to be played in your Bluray player.
> 
> I can sort of see Selden's friends' POV if they want a combination DVD/VHS player as I assume you can't buy a VHS player any more. But when the VHS layer wears out (all those spinning, moving, rubbing bits) they're screwed anyway.


Quite right*, and I support your premise regarding the marketing of BRD. I just wanted to point out that some of us old fogeys don't like to part with our old stuff--even as we acquire the latest technology.

*One caveat: None of my BDP's can play back my PAL (region 2) edition DVD of Pierre Granier-Deferre's 1971 masterpiece "Le Chat" starring Jean Gabin and Simone Signoret.


----------



## Nightlord

UKTexan said:


> I am attending my first demo of Dolby Atmos for home theater tomorrow, exciting stuff!!
> Bjorn's in San Antonio TX held the first public demo in the US yesterday, at least the first public one I'm aware of.


I have a store there? 

Why haven't I seen any revenue statements?


----------



## aaronwt

kbarnes701 said:


> If I was marketing Bluray, I'd push now to end DVD sales altogether, and reduce the price of the Blurays a bit, funded by a bit of scale economy thanks to only distributing a single format. There is no really good reason for the continued existence of DVD now, any more than any other legacy format such as VHS or LD. It is ludicrous that the only TVs you can buy anymore are high definition models, yet people still buy DVD. We can see why, of course - they are cheaper. But that is also preventing the growth of Bluray sales and its wider adoption.
> 
> I doubt if they will charge a premium for Atmos content - it would mean charging a premium to 95% of all buyers, who won't have Atmos and won't care. If they wanted to charge a premium, they'd have to issue two disc types - an Atmos one and a regular one - but as the Atmos one is backwards compatible, that seems like a non-starter to me.


The majority of people still use DVDs. Why would they stop making DVDs when that is still what most people use.


----------



## Selden Ball

I'd guess that about 1/3 of the BDs that I buy come with a DVD and/or digital download in the same package. It's a little hard to determine if that increases the actual price to me, though.


----------



## chi_guy50

jdsmoothie said:


> Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today.


In for one! Thanks, JD, for a very pleasant purchasing experience


----------



## kbarnes701

aaronwt said:


> The majority of people still use DVDs. Why would they stop making DVDs when that is still what most people use.


That's right - that was my point. If they stopped making DVDs people would switch to Bluray. This would bring us one medium and would help reduce Bluray prices and there is no downside at all. Legacy DVD collections could still be viewed on Bluray players. Bluray players are available for just a few dollars these days. Arguing for the retention of outdated technology like DVD is like arguing we should still be able to buy movies on VHS, or music on 8-track cartridges.


----------



## FilmMixer

So I am a true geek. 

Yamaha A3040 arrives today. 

And then I see the Denon X5200 for sale. 

Atmos and Dolby Surround on board.

Mine will be here in the morning. . 

Just need the speakers which I expect next week.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> FWIW I was at a musician's house yesterday as part of us funding their Kickstarter project a while back, and he actually DID have a double cassette deck player in his home studio, along with a Mac, Pro Tools, and more modern stuff. Says he uses it because he has old legacy stuff he can't bring himself to digitize - and coincidentally one of his projects, Thievery Corporation, has released some of the newer material on vinyl.
> 
> 
> Only one comment, Keith: I'm all for ending the sale of DVDs, in the US and UK, at least, after a sunset period, and going exclusively BluRay/Atmos. *But there are a large number of foreign countries that release their local cinema or music concerts still on DVD* except for rare cases- one's Israel. *So you at least want backwards compatibility with future BluRay players to continue to play DVD* (and for those of us interested in foreign films, exactly why we use an Oppo LOL, but that's OT here) until almost everything other than purely obscure stuff makes the transition.


Don't understand. All Bluray players can play DVDs.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today.


Wow! I wonder why they are dragging their feet in the UK then. Off to pester my dealership.... :


----------



## Schwa

FilmMixer said:


> Just need the speakers which I expect next week.


And software, although given your profession, I'm guessing you might have access to some...


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> So I am a true geek.
> 
> Yamaha A3040 arrives today.
> 
> And then I see the Denon X5200 for sale.
> 
> Atmos and Dolby Surround on board.
> 
> Mine will be here in the morning. .
> 
> Just need the speakers which I expect next week.


My X5200 won't be delivered until September. But in the meantime I anxiously await your comparative analysis of the two.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Quite right*, and I support your premise regarding the marketing of BRD. I just wanted to point out that some of us old fogeys don't like to part with our old stuff--even as we acquire the latest technology.


But you wouldn’t have to part with anything. You could keep the old DVD player until it died a natural death if you wanted to. You could even use it to play DVDs if you didn’t want to use the Bluray player for that 



chi_guy50 said:


> *One caveat: None of my BDP's can play back my PAL (region 2) edition DVD of Pierre Granier-Deferre's 1971 masterpiece "Le Chat" starring Jean Gabin and Simone Signoret.


That is probably an issue with the particular disc though - a multiregion DVD section of a Bluray player should be able to play a R2 DVD.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't understand. All Bluray players can play DVDs.


They do now....as long as the laser technology stays backwards compatible it's not an issue. Although as part of enforcing region protection I could eventually see the studios trying to put pressure on manufacturers to change that, if it's technically possible (as DVDs are easier to break region coding). However, shiny discs will probably be obsolete before the world goes BluRay only...YMMV.

Anyway, the DVD/BluRay discussion is really OT.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I'd guess that about 1/3 of the BDs that I buy come with a DVD and/or digital download in the same package. It's a little hard to determine if that increases the actual price to me, though.


It has to cost something to include the DVD, and I am guessing the consumer pays for it. That's another way they could reduce the price of the Bluray then. And it has a knock-on effect on reduced packaging costs and even reduced shipping costs (as the DVD must weigh something and when you ship hundreds of thousands, that something will be considerable). DVD has had its time in the sun - it is time to let it die gracefully, just like LD, VHS and all the other outdated content carriers.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> So I am a true geek.
> 
> Yamaha A3040 arrives today.
> 
> And then I see the Denon X5200 for sale.
> 
> Atmos and Dolby Surround on board.
> 
> Mine will be here in the morning. .
> 
> Just need the speakers which I expect next week.


Way to go! So you'll be able to give us a first-hand report on how Dolby Surround upmixes legacy content?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> They do now....as long as the laser technology stays backwards compatible it's not an issue.


Why on earth would they suddenly decide to change the laser?

But even if it happened, so what? Are you mourning the loss of VHS? 

I had a huge collection of movies on VHS. As soon as I saw the superior quality and other benefits of DVD I knew VHS was doomed. They ran in parallel for a short while and then VHS was killed off. Just as an inferior technology deserved to be. I gave hundreds of VHS movies to a charity shop. But that was then - these days the charity shops won't take them! All they are good for now is landfill.


----------



## Waboman

Schwa said:


> And software...


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't understand. All Bluray players can play DVDs.


One rumor is that the players for 4K "BD" discs won't be able to play CDs or DVDs because of differences in their laser designs. However, since there are also rumors that there never will be any 4K BDs, it's a little hard to gauge its veracity.

Edited to add: the frequency of the light and the size of the focusing spot are just too different. The data pits and tracks of 4K media are much smaller. I seem to recall that some early BD players actually had two different lasers in them in order to be able to read CDs and DVDs. If they do that for the 4K players, maybe it's a non-issue.

And again: many of us have tapes and discs containing material which _never_ will be available on newer formats for various reasons. It's quite discouraging.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wow. I could have a Denon X4100 next Wednesday, from Amazon US .... and no more expensive than waiting for the UK version.... all I’d lose is the warranty.... hmmm...


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. I could have a Denon X4100 next Wednesday, from Amazon US .... and no more expensive than waiting for the UK version.... all I’d lose is the warranty.... hmmm...


Don't forget that radio frequencies and formatting are different, too. But if you don't use it for OTA reception, that's irrelevant. I dunno if its power supply has been optimized for the type of mains power.


----------



## mtbdudex

kbarnes701 said:


> My point was that currently they have no incentive to ditch the antiquated and inferior DVD players. If DVD were to be totally replaced by Bluray, how long do you think it would be before ICE systems featured Bluray players?
> 
> BTW, do you still have an 8-track player in your car? Or even a cassette player come to that?



Keith, we agree, however the market does not. People want lowest cost solution, in cars where millions of vehicles are sold pennies matter.
I'm manager at OE auto company,
I've challenged going to
Bluray, at OE level it's simply too expensive for no additional revenue.
Until cost is same, it will not happen.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. I could have a Denon X4100 next Wednesday, from Amazon US .... and no more expensive than waiting for the UK version.... all I’d lose is the warranty.... hmmm...


I'd say go for it, bro! But only if it doesn't put you in a financial "situation". 

Cuz I know I would (Yammy 3040) but I don't want to be broke for the next half year.


----------



## DS-21

ss9001 said:


> With the Tannoy Di5 DC, you'd lose only half that distance or less. ***Roger, Keith & Sanjay are in good company with the pros *and* Andrew Jones, in suggesting the coaxial Tannoy


Let me put a slight damper on that. I have a set of Tannoy Di5DC's on my bedroom balcony, powered by a little Parasound Zamp v3. They're fine for background music, but they do have an audible resonance in the lower mids that's distracting for more-than-background listening. I would not use them in my living room.

The bigger Di6DC may be a better speaker. I don't know; it was too big for my small bedroom balcony, so I never checked them out. The old Tannoy i8AW (driver designed under Mark Dodd, who's currently heading up all that cool stuff KEF's been doing, and their same "2046" unit used in several of their studio monitors from the day) is a massively better speaker, if you can find them and find the yolks. (One nice thing about the Di-series is that they come with the mounting yolks.) But as you'd expect they're also much larger, which may be an issue for ceiling mounts, and was an issue for my little balcony. Hence the Di5DC purchase.

Another good option, considering that height speakers don't seem to need much SPL capability, are the KEF eggs. Both the old 3005-series and the newer E-series have table stands that convert to wall mounts.


----------



## chi_guy50

(Text deleted.)


----------



## kokishin

jdsmoothie said:


> Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today.


JD,

The X5200 has Dolby Atmos and Surround working out of the box? No firmware upgrade needed? If so, that's a competitive advantage for Denon.

Is the X5200 manufactured in Japan?


----------



## bkeeler10

FilmMixer said:


> So I am a true geek.
> 
> Yamaha A3040 arrives today.
> 
> And then I see the Denon X5200 for sale.
> 
> Atmos and Dolby Surround on board.
> 
> Mine will be here in the morning. .
> 
> Just need the speakers which I expect next week.


Wow, someone's excited. And not very patient.  

At this point I'm looking at one of these two models. Since you'll have them side-by-side, I'd be interested in your take on their performance (sound quality), with and without their onboard auto EQ systems.

You planning on keeping both units?


----------



## FilmMixer

bkeeler10 said:


> Wow, someone's excited. And not very patient.
> 
> At this point I'm looking at one of these two models. Since you'll have them side-by-side, I'd be interested in your take on their performance (sound quality), with and without their onboard auto EQ systems.
> 
> You planning on keeping both units?


Probably not..

The Yamaha won't have the Atmos FW until end Sept/Oct according to Yamaha US..


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> But you don't have to let anything go if DVD just disappeared. All your DVDs will still play - but on your Bluray player. And all the future movies would be on Bluray disc, also to be played in your Bluray player.
> 
> I can sort of see Selden's friends' POV if they want a combination DVD/VHS player as I assume you can't buy a VHS player any more. But when the VHS layer wears out (all those spinning, moving, rubbing bits) they're screwed anyway.



I dubbed all my special content VHS tapes to DVD. By special content, I mean content that is not available on DVD or Bluray. That being said, I tend to update those movies when they are available.


----------



## batpig

kokishin said:


> JD,
> 
> The X5200 has Dolby Atmos and Surround working out of the box? No firmware upgrade needed? If so, that's a competitive advantage for Denon.
> 
> Is the X5200 manufactured in Japan?


Yes to both. The Denon Atmos models are shipping with Atmos / DSU already included out of the gate.

And the X5200W is basically a Japanese made, souped-up version of the X4100W. It's basically the same physical dimensions but adds two more amp channels, the ability to expand to 11ch output, bigger power supply and beefier capacitors, more power etc.


----------



## UKTexan

batpig said:


> That will be an interesting demo considering they are using "conventional" small 2-way bookshelf type speakers mounted on the ceiling as Atmos speakers. Although the Gems do have two drivers mounted in different directions to give more dispersion, so they may work well for this. Definitely report back (hopefully with pictures!) showing how they work, how they were mounted (pointed straight down vs. angled) etc.




Not my first choice of speaker type/manufacturer but should prove an interesting demo.
Will certainly report back with my thoughts and pictures


----------



## jdsmoothie

kokishin said:


> JD,
> 
> The X5200 has Dolby Atmos and Surround working out of the box? No firmware upgrade needed? If so, that's a competitive advantage for Denon.
> 
> Is the X5200 manufactured in Japan?


All D&M Atmos AVRs and pre-pros will be released with Atmos "on board" beginning with the X5200W, likely followed by the SR7009 in a week or two, and then the X4100W a week or two later.


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> What are they using for Atmos content?


I was told they have "Atmos trailers and short clips" - I'm sure it will be the same demo disc seen previously in this thread, no movie material.


Will certainly take some pictures and report.


----------



## howard68

The big question is Auro 3D ,will the 1st generation of Atmos amps be able to upgrade to this format?
I have 3 blu rays with Auro 3d on the disc however no way of playing it back with out spending silly money
I wish DTS would make some statement and talk about the speaker layout for the extra speakers


----------



## aaronwt

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right - that was my point. If they stopped making DVDs people would switch to Bluray. This would bring us one medium and would help reduce Bluray prices and there is no downside at all. Legacy DVD collections could still be viewed on Bluray players. Bluray players are available for just a few dollars these days. Arguing for the retention of outdated technology like DVD is like arguing we should still be able to buy movies on VHS, or music on 8-track cartridges.


Most people I know that are still using DVDs. If they stopped making DVDs, they would not switch to BD. They would turn to more digital rentals instead of getting a BD player. They have already made it very clear that they have no intention of buying any Blu-ray Discs. Either way though, I would expect the discs to sound very good with an Atmos capable receiver.


----------



## UKTexan

mtbdudex said:


> How many cars have entertainment systems?


I thought the kids were all spoilt these days with iPad's, Kindle fire etc....downloading movies to their tablets/phablets/phones, no need for physical media, surely that would be the way to go for vehicles.
I fully understand and appreciate your point with regards to manufacturers though, they can be slow to adopt.
I work for a manufacturer myself, however that's in the VRF (Variable refrigerant flow) industry.


----------



## UKTexan

Nightlord said:


> I have a store there?
> 
> Why haven't I seen any revenue statements?


I'll be sure to point out their shortcomings.


Expect a check (cheque) in the mail.


Its strange getting used to American English, my old English teacher would be appalled...


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. I could have a Denon X4100 next Wednesday, from Amazon US .... and no more expensive than waiting for the UK version.... all I’d lose is the warranty.... hmmm...


Robin hood country, so are you a Forest or County fan?


----------



## Waboman

Bringing back sexy. Have to admit, this has me excited for the 8802 when it's released. Patience has never been my strong suit.


----------



## ambesolman

kbarnes701 said:


> It has to cost something to include the DVD, and I am guessing the consumer pays for it. That's another way they could reduce the price of the Bluray then. And it has a knock-on effect on reduced packaging costs and even reduced shipping costs (as the DVD must weigh something and when you ship hundreds of thousands, that something will be considerable). DVD has had its time in the sun - it is time to let it die gracefully, just like LD, VHS and all the other outdated content carriers.



If they'd decided to kill it off years ago, I'd say do it gracefully. Now however, make it a quick and brutal demise
You can't get the everyday schmo to adopt new tech if the old stuff is STILL around!


----------



## ss9001

jdsmoothie said:


> Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today.


And Walkamo announced in the Pioneer speaker thread that receivers & speakers were shipping today also.

Atmos fun will begin pretty soon


----------



## bargervais

Amazon has 13 in stock for sale
Denon AVRX5200W 9.2 Network A/V Receiver with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth


----------



## aaronwt

bargervais said:


> Amazon has 13 in stock for sale
> Denon AVRX5200W 9.2 Network A/V Receiver with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth


Somebody is buying them. I thought there were fifteen available earlier today.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> One rumor is that the players for 4K "BD" discs won't be able to play CDs or DVDs because of differences in their laser designs. However, since there are also rumors that there never will be any 4K BDs, it's a little hard to gauge its veracity.
> 
> Edited to add: the frequency of the light and the size of the focusing spot are just too different. The data pits and tracks of 4K media are much smaller. I seem to recall that some early BD players actually had two different lasers in them in order to be able to read CDs and DVDs. If they do that for the 4K players, maybe it's a non-issue.
> 
> And again: many of us have tapes and discs containing material which _never_ will be available on newer formats for various reasons. It's quite discouraging.


4 times smaller


----------



## mtbdudex

Waboman said:


> Bringing back sexy. Have to admit, this has me excited for the 8802 when it's released. Patience has never been my strong suit.



Are they going to display both input and output same time 


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## bargervais

They could stop selling DVD alone all together but include it with your blu-Ray disc and then they could sell you the 3D blu-ray, atmos blu-ray, blu-ray, and digital copy.
Those two packages... I don't think that getting rid of the DVD will lower pricing once they get us use to paying what ever...the prices never seem to drop unless they know there going sell alot with a promotional release.. or wait till they end up in the discount bin.


----------



## harrybnbad

I must really be slow. But I just realized, no more 7.1 anolog input. And I know, I hear hdmi there is no difference. Except, now, hdmi is much much more.

Just curious. Whats a good price to list my used 4520 on craigslist, or other listing affiliates? Only 1 yr old.


----------



## chi_guy50

mtbdudex said:


> Are they going to display both input and output same time
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


No, and I will miss that feature on my current AVR-3311CI.  

But, as I recall, there is an info button that provides the input/output info via graphic overlay on a display. So that is at least some consolation.


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> I must really be slow. But I just realized, no more 7.1 anolog input. And I know, I hear hdmi there is no difference. Except, now, hdmi is much much more.
> 
> Just curious. Whats a good price to list my used 4520 on craigslist, or other listing affiliates? Only 1 yr old.


Look on Amazon and check what they are selling it used, that always give me a good idea.


----------



## Roger Dressler

DS-21 said:


> Let me put a slight damper on that. I have a set of Tannoy Di5DC's on my bedroom balcony, powered by a little Parasound Zamp v3. They're fine for background music, but they do have an audible resonance in the lower mids that's distracting for more-than-background listening. I would not use them in my living room.


Try them with XT32 or better.


----------



## bargervais

aaronwt said:


> Somebody is buying them. I thought there were fifteen available earlier today.


They will most likely be gone by the end of the weekend, 
I didn't realize how small it is (15.5 x 17.1 x 6.6 inches ; 31.1 pounds) nice sweet package a little too rich for my blood right now but in a year when I'm ready to replace my 818 this thing may be in my future.


----------



## aaronwt

bargervais said:


> Look on Amazon and check what they are selling it used, that always give me a good idea.


On Amazon, the used Denon 4520's sell for more than my 4520 refurb cost. I guess since the new ones aren't at the very low price they were a month ago the used prices have gone way up. Which I guess is good for someone trying to sell.


----------



## bargervais

aaronwt said:


> On Amazon, the used Denon 4520's sell for more than my 4520 refurb cost. I guess since the new ones aren't at the very low price they were a month ago the used prices have gone way up. Which I guess is good for someone trying to sell.


I know I saw that some of the new one are $2500.00 
Good luck selling at that price when you can get the 5200w for $1999


----------



## Schwa

bargervais said:


> I know I saw that some of the new one are $2500.00
> Good luck selling at that price when you can get the 5200w for $1999


Except that if you don't need/want Atmos, the 4520 has features (similar to the X7200W's step-up features) that the X5200W doesn't.


----------



## jacovn

howard68 said:


> The big question is Auro 3D ,will the 1st generation of Atmos amps be able to upgrade to this format?
> I have 3 blu rays with Auro 3d on the disc however no way of playing it back with out spending silly money
> I wish DTS would make some statement and talk about the speaker layout for the extra speakers


auro will be silly money, i was quoted €1200 for the Auro license on a stormaudio processor.

So i lost interest at that point..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jacovn said:


> auro will be silly money, i was quoted €1200 for the Auro license on a stormaudio processor.
> 
> So i lost interest at that point..


Yeah, I doubt Auro 3D will go very far in the home theater realm. The unknown factor is DTS-UHD.


----------



## mtbdudex

One discussion point I've not seen is how good the upmixer works on non-atmos content:









Once people invest $$$$ into new AVR and the speakers, you do want to use that gear.
That will be part of the make it or break it, who the heck is going to re-purchase good blu-rays just for atmos re-mix? Not I.
Will the studios even break their bank just to release a re-mix in atmos?
Maybe only for the biggie/legacy movies.

Now, if the atmos upmixer does a good job, then people can feel good about their purchase and not have buyers remorse/etc.

I've not read about any A vs B for the upmixer on non-atmos mix, why?

I'm running a full 11.2 set-up and can say that NeoX upmixer does add envelopment to my HT (prior was 7.1), enough that I leave it always on.
I've tried PLIIz and DSX, but NeoX seems to have the best balanced upmixer out there.


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> So I am a true geek.
> 
> Yamaha A3040 arrives today.
> 
> And then I see the Denon X5200 for sale.
> 
> Atmos and Dolby Surround on board.
> 
> Mine will be here in the morning. .
> 
> Just need the speakers which I expect next week.


Marc,

Do you have Atmos content to try other than the Denon BD Atmos demo included with the X5200? I have a feeling you're in an enviable position with respect to access. Can't wait to get your feedback on the X5200 with the AJ Atmos speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Don't forget that radio frequencies and formatting are different, too. But if you don't use it for OTA reception, that's irrelevant. I dunno if its power supply has been optimized for the type of mains power.


Thanks, Selden.

True, but I don't use OTA radio any more. AFAIK the power supplies for all these units are universal. I am "thinking about it".


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> Keith, we agree, however the market does not. People want lowest cost solution, in cars where millions of vehicles are sold pennies matter.
> I'm manager at OE auto company,
> I've challenged going to
> Bluray, at OE level it's simply too expensive for no additional revenue.
> Until cost is same, it will not happen.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


That would have applied to the change from cassette to CD as well though, but they still did it. Why? Because the content stopped being available on cassette. Same thing would be sure to happen if the content stopped being available on DVD. What would the car manufacturers do - carry on installing DVD players for an obsolete format, install nothing, or install players that could play the format in common use? I suspect the latter.

Your point makes perfect sense as long as there are DVDs. My postulation embraces a world where there are no more DVDs (being released).


----------



## jdsmoothie

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks, Selden.
> 
> True, but I don't use OTA radio any more. *AFAIK the power supplies for all these units are universal*. I am "thinking about it".



No, rather based on the region so USA model is 120v/60Hz.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd say go for it, bro! But only if it doesn't put you in a financial "situation".
> 
> Cuz I know I would (Yammy 3040) but I don't want to be broke for the next half year.


The financial aspect isn't relevant as I am going to buy an Atmos unit as soon as I can anyway. And buying from the States actually saves me $150, all taxes, carriage etc taken into account. I have bought a lot of stuff from the US over the years, but not usually highly complex stuff, because of the warrant issue if the thing dies on me. Speakers, subs, amps etc are all a fairly safe bet, and can all be easily repaired here. But AVRs are a different kettle of fish.

I guess it boils down to this: if the UK models will be here in two weeks, I may as well wait. If the UK models won't be here until October, then getting one right now would be attractive, and I'd have to hope it works properly for at least 2 years. Hmmm...


----------



## jdsmoothie

kokishin said:


> Marc,
> 
> Do you have Atmos content to try *other than the Denon BD Atmos demo included with the X5200*? I have a feeling you're in an enviable position with respect to access. Can't wait to get your feedback on the X5200 with the AJ Atmos speakers.


Note that although this demo disc exists, it is not shipping with the X5200W units, or rather at least not with the USA units.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> Let me put a slight damper on that. I have a set of Tannoy Di5DC's on my bedroom balcony, powered by a little Parasound Zamp v3. They're fine for background music, but they do have an audible resonance in the lower mids that's distracting for more-than-background listening. I would not use them in my living room.
> 
> The bigger Di6DC may be a better speaker. I don't know; it was too big for my small bedroom balcony, so I never checked them out. The old Tannoy i8AW (driver designed under Mark Dodd, who's currently heading up all that cool stuff KEF's been doing, and their same "2046" unit used in several of their studio monitors from the day) is a massively better speaker, if you can find them and find the yolks. (One nice thing about the Di-series is that they come with the mounting yolks.) But as you'd expect they're also much larger, which may be an issue for ceiling mounts, and was an issue for my little balcony. Hence the Di5DC purchase.


Interesting. I hooked up a pair of Di5 DCs to my very high quality Class A amp, and fed it a CD from my equally high quality Naim CD player, and on careful listening to some vocal jazz I didn't detect any issues at all. Have you been able to measure this 'audible resonance' at all? I guess I could hook up REW and do a temporary install of the Di5 in the HT, but In didn't because I didn't hear anything obviously untoward in my listening test.

How would you characterise the resonance you are hearing?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaronwt said:


> Most people I know that are still using DVDs. If they stopped making DVDs, they would not switch to BD. .


Not even if the BD discs were more or less the same price as current DVD discs?


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Robin hood country, so are you a Forest or County fan?


 Neither. But my mates, Alan-a-Dale and Will Scarlet, are. Although Much The Miller's Son is a rugby fan TBH


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> I've not read about any A vs B for the upmixer on non-atmos mix, why?


Because the only demos anyone has heard so far have been the Dolby 'industry & press' demos and at those they didn't have DS available on the laptop which fed the content out. I expect people will be clamouring for the demo you are after (me too) at CEDIA, and of course, as units are now shipping, we can expect some reports here on AVS from the very early adopters such as FilmMixer.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> No, rather based on the region so USA model is 120v/60Hz.


Ah right - thanks JD. One less decision for me to make then.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> Note that although this demo disc exists, it is not shipping with the X5200W units, or rather at least not with the USA units.


Dolby, London weren't even aware of its existence. I told them that Dolby, Hong Kong had them, and that I'd seen pictures of them, and Dolby, London said they would 'look into it' and promised to send me one if they became available for the UK.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> No need for believing - ask them. What's holding you back?


No need to ask them you are a trustworthy member. 

* I don't have enough time in life to check McIntosh and Pioneer Elite and Lexicon and Meridian and NAD and Bryston and...threads here @ AVS. ...So I do my 'shopping/info gathering' from only few limited threads.

...And I lost my trust in Onkyo.


----------



## mtbdudex

kbarnes701 said:


> That would have applied to the change from cassette to CD as well though, but they still did it. Why? Because the content stopped being available on cassette. Same thing would be sure to happen if the content stopped being available on DVD. What would the car manufacturers do - carry on installing DVD players for an obsolete format, install nothing, or install players that could play the format in common use? I suspect the latter.
> 
> Your point makes perfect sense as long as there are DVDs. My postulation embraces a world where there are no more DVDs (being released).


Last point on market demand:
FYI - Auto Luxury brands carried cassette capability in headunits thru 2010....them old gezers just did not want to throw away what still "worked", until market demand dwindled they were offered
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/03/cassette-decks-no-longer-available-in-new-vehicles.html

I did a 4 year stint in my companies OE Accessory division 2004-2008, trust me way back when the iPod and digital video was brand new I was all over that, trying to get a paradigm shift into going to just screens with capability for any mobile device to provide the audio/video.....the market data was just not there then and appears not there now...
I miss those days, when CES was really cool and neat....


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today.





jdsmoothie said:


> All D&M Atmos AVRs and pre-pros will be released with Atmos "on board" beginning with the X5200W, likely followed by the SR7009 in a week or two, and then the X4100W a week or two later.


Wow, Denon is first with Atmos; awesome! ... *August 22, 2014*


----------



## tjenkins95

aaronwt said:


> Somebody is buying them. I thought there were fifteen available earlier today.


 
I had purchased the second one which brought the count down to 13. Scheduled to be here Tuesday!


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> I had purchased the second one which brought the count down to 13. Scheduled to be here Tuesday!


Congratulations!


----------



## chi_guy50

jdsmoothie said:


> Note that although this demo disc exists, it is not shipping with the X5200W units, or rather at least not with the USA units.


Rats!!!!!!!!!

I hope that FilmMixer will confirm or deny this when he--as presumably first on the block--gets his unit.


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> I had purchased the second one which brought the count down to 13. Scheduled to be here Tuesday!


Congratulations I'm very jealous maybe this time next year I'll be upgrading as well let us know how upmixing sounds.


----------



## aaronwt

kbarnes701 said:


> That would have applied to the change from cassette to CD as well though, but they still did it. Why? Because the content stopped being available on cassette. Same thing would be sure to happen if the content stopped being available on DVD. What would the car manufacturers do - carry on installing DVD players for an obsolete format, install nothing, or install players that could play the format in common use? I suspect the latter.
> 
> Your point makes perfect sense as long as there are DVDs. My postulation embraces a world where there are no more DVDs (being released).


In that world there probably aren't any BDs being released either. Everyone is using digital downloads instead. I just can't see them dropping DVDs when BDs will never gain the popularity that DVDs had. Plus Digital has already surpassed DVD and BD sales combined(Digital surpassed Disc sales for the first time in the first half of 2014. And digital sales are increasing much faster than BD sales). By the time BD sales surpass DVD sales, Digital will have left them both in the dust.

http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...s-Down-8-Digital-Revenue-Surpasses-Discs.html


----------



## kbarnes701

aaronwt said:


> In that world there probably aren't any BDs being released either. Everyone is using digital downloads instead. I just can't see them dropping DVDs when BDs will never gain the popularity that DVDs had. Plus Digital has already surpassed DVD and BD sales combined(Digital surpassed Disc sales for the first time in the first half of 2014. And digital sales are increasing much faster than BD sales). By the time BD sales surpass DVD sales, Digital will have left them both in the dust.
> 
> http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...s-Down-8-Digital-Revenue-Surpasses-Discs.html


We are getting way OT and I never intended so much discussion of what was, for me anyway, just a throwaway remark, so this will be my last post on this subject. Yes, I agree that streaming or downloading may, one day, replace physical discs. The huge fly in the ointment is the broadband speed that many people have, especially those living well outside urban environments. Almost all the people who live around me for example have broadband speeds of less than 2 Mbps. This makes the idea of streaming and downloading Blu-ray quality video and sound a pure pipe dream. I had to go to enormous and expensive lengths to get a broadband speed of 30Mbps and most people aren’t sufficiently interested or just can't afford that option. And, of course, if streaming and downloading has to be tailored to realistic BB speed expectations in rural areas, then the video and audio quality will be abysmal. I expect BB speeds to improve over time in the UK and the USA and Europe, but there will still be significant markets where streaming and downloading are years away. 

The situation will only become worse when 4K video, Atmos and any other technology which increases the amount of data needing to be transferred become more widely adopted. I see a huge discrepancy between the industry push to 4K on one hand and the desire for streaming and downloading on the other. 4K is being introduced because it brings substantial potential improvements in video quality, but with substantially increased file sizes. Streaming and downloading is touted as the future, but it is largely incompatible with those huge file sizes. So will we end up in a situation where people have spent considerable money in order to have a 4K TV or display, but all they can view on it will be low-quality, highly compressed content that can be downloaded on sub-optimal BB connections? Makes no sense to me. 

All in all I conclude therefore that while Bluray might be the last physical format, it will be with us for many years, maybe even decades, to come.


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> I hope that FilmMixer will confirm or deny this when he--as presumably first on the block--gets his unit.


I expect that there have been a few one-off's for trade demos.

There is a new demo disc being prepared, and I am promised one as soon as they are available..


----------



## Ted99

bargervais said:


> http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-receiver/
> Not everyone finds Onkyo Accu-EQ bad.
> As many commenters have pointed out, some Onkyo models have had a troubled history for HDMI reliability. This is something we considered while writing this guide, but not something we’ve been able to pin down. Since Onkyo has been one of the best-selling AVR brands for many years, usually filling the top Best Seller spots at Amazon, there are a lot of them out there. Trying to determine if HDMI issues are something inherent to Onkyo because of a design flaw, or because they just sell more and have more reports, is something we can’t be certain


I had an Onkyo HDMI go bad after 2 years. Now very leery to spend more than $1k on Onkyo.


----------



## kokishin

jdsmoothie said:


> Note that although this demo disc exists, it is not shipping with the X5200W units, or rather at least not with the USA units.


That sucks! For $2K, Denon should include the demo disc so that owners have at least a gnat's ass worth of Atmos content to try until Atmos BD's are available for purchase.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Until then you can use the Dolby Surround setting to get an idea of the effect.


----------



## DS-21

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. I hooked up a pair of Di5 DCs to my very high quality Class A amp, and fed it a CD from my equally high quality Naim CD player, and on careful listening to some vocal jazz I didn't detect any issues at all.


As you know or should know, the brand of equipment and class of amp (as long as it's a standard model with flat FR into an actual load, low noise, etc.) aren't relevant to this discussion. FWIW signal chain in my case is MacBook/iPhone/iPad wirelessly to Apple AirPort Express, APE used as DAC, minijack to RCA cable, Parasound Zamp v3, 14/4 CL3-rated copper (same as used in the living room). Basically just a standard extension system, nothing special at all. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Have you been able to measure this 'audible resonance' at all? I guess I could hook up REW and do a temporary install of the Di5 in the HT, but In didn't because I didn't hear anything obviously untoward in my listening test.
> 
> How would you characterise the resonance you are hearing?


Try something with vocals. They have a bit of a nasal tinge to them. Not so offensive as to make them unlistenable, mind, but IMO better for background music than for a primary system.

They're speakers I had installed on my upstairs balcony so we could enjoy background music while sitting outside. I bought them because they were the biggest thing with concentric drivers (I don't use anything else - have a house full of speakers with concentric drivers by Tannoy, Pioneer/TAD, and KEF...) that would fit in the space without making my wife scream like the mention of installing my Tannoy i8AW's up there did.  I didn't _listen_ to them before they went up, let alone measure them.

However, I noticed a similar coloration a while back with the Tannoy Arena eggs I used to use as surrounds (atop the factory "tulip" stands) in my old DVD-A/SACD desktop/nearfield system (Tannoy System 8 NFM II LCR mains, DIY closed box sub with JBL W15GTi woofer) when I tried them in front. (As surrounds I didn't notice any issues.) Sound and Vision measured the Arena eggs, and their measurements show a spike between 1kHz and 2kHz that correlates well with what I hear from my balcony Di5DC's.









(top trace)

I suspect the Arena shares most of its driver innards* with the Di5DC.

For reference, this is the kind of axial and polar performance to which I'm acclimated:










*The basket is clearly different, as the Arena egg's whole front face is the driver mounting flange.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> That sucks! For $2K, Denon should include the demo disc so that owners have at least a gnat's ass worth of Atmos content to try until Atmos BD's are available for purchase.


It sucks but I doubt it is Denon's fault. It's probably a rights management and IP issue. Those are enormously complex to arrange - look at the problems Dolby had when showing 'unathorised content' at their London demo. And that was material that had already been released a long time ago theatrically too - but Dolby needed a separate license to show it at their demos, which I assume has still not been negotiated. So many different people and organisations can be required to consent - the author of the original work, the studio, the distributor, the director, the producers, even some of the actors. So unless you want a disc with nothing more than Dolby trailers on it (and even there there could be problems), it will take some time to negotiate with all the parties and for all the different markets. 

It may be significant that Hong Kong is the only place, as far as we know, that has a demo disc out. China has a rather 'different' view about copyright and IP than we are used to in the West


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> As you know or should know, the brand of equipment and class of amp (as long as it's a standard model with flat FR into an actual load, low noise, etc.) aren't relevant to this discussion.


Sure  I mentioned the gear in the chain just so nobody might have come back with some sort of challenge that I used a 10 dollar Chinese disc player and a 1970s amp of uncertain quality and provenance 



DS-21 said:


> Try something with vocals. They have a bit of a nasal tinge to them. Not so offensive as to make them unlistenable, mind, but IMO better for background music than for a primary system.


I did use vocals - always do for listening tests. On this occasion I used Eva Cassidy and Norah Jones as I find their voices are nicely pitched to show up problems, and as I am also familiar with the albums on a variety of systems.



DS-21 said:


> However, I noticed a similar coloration a while back with the Tannoy Arena eggs I used to use as surrounds (atop the factory "tulip" stands) in my old DVD-A/SACD desktop/nearfield system (Tannoy System 8 NFM II LCR mains, DIY closed box sub with JBL W15GTi woofer) when I tried them in front. (As surrounds I didn't notice any issues.) Sound and Vision measured the Arena eggs, and their measurements show a spike between 1kHz and 2kHz that correlates well with what I hear from my balcony Di5DC's.


Thanks. As I say, I didn’t notice it here - I'll perhaps try it again. I expect EQ will deal with a relatively small spike. If I get the chance next week I'll set them up in the HT and run some REW sweeps. I'm recovering from an unpleasant operation on my jaw and it has left me a bit lethargic, although I did just manage a 70 minute workout in my gym, so maybe I'm on the mend 

EDIT: TBH, I don't think a small anomaly in the mid-range (or nasal tinge) is going to be much of a problem for Atmos ceiling speakers even if EQ can't deal with it.


----------



## Selden Ball

The picture of the demo disc in the Japanese "review" of the 5200 showed a blue recording surface, not an aluminized one. In other words, it was not mass-produced.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> In that world there probably aren't any BDs being released either. Everyone is using digital downloads instead. I just can't see them dropping DVDs when BDs will never gain the popularity that DVDs had. Plus Digital has already surpassed DVD and BD sales combined(Digital surpassed Disc sales for the first time in the first half of 2014. And digital sales are increasing much faster than BD sales). By the time BD sales surpass DVD sales, Digital will have left them both in the dust.
> 
> http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...s-Down-8-Digital-Revenue-Surpasses-Discs.html


Physical DVD and Blu-Ray are going the way of our local rental Video stores. ...Way of the dodo.
And that's a very good thing in a very material and greedy world. ...Big companies... 

What I (we, very few) prefer personally has nothing to do with the world's current affairs (masses).
Because the Internet is faster becoming as materially greedy. ...Hi-res downloads that are NOT..

Methinks & all that jazz...

* And look @ UHD (4K), 3D, and TVs, and soundcards, and cars with CD heads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> The picture of the demo disc in the Japanese "review" of the 5200 showed a blue recording surface, not an aluminized one. In other words, it was not mass-produced.


Good catch, Sherlock  So it was a pirated home-brew. Well, it was Hong Kong....


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> It sucks but I doubt it is Denon's fault. It's probably a rights management and IP issue. Those are enormously complex to arrange - look at the problems Dolby had when showing 'unathorised content' at their London demo. And that was material that had already been released a long time ago theatrically too - but Dolby needed a separate license to show it at their demos, which I assume has still not been negotiated. So many different people and organisations can be required to consent - the author of the original work, the studio, the distributor, the director, the producers, even some of the actors. So unless you want a disc with nothing more than Dolby trailers on it (and even there there could be problems), it will take some time to negotiate with all the parties and for all the different markets.
> 
> It may be significant that Hong Kong is the only place, as far as we know, that has a demo disc out. China has a rather 'different' view about copyright and IP than we are used to in the West


Perhaps it is unique to HK (China). Have to start checking ebay.com.hk and ebay.cn for Atmos content [mostly j/k]. One would think that with Dolby's status in "the industry", they would be able to legally arrange some publicly available Atmos demos with redistribution rights.




kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby, London weren't even aware of its existence. I told them that Dolby, Hong Kong had them, and that I'd seen pictures of them, and Dolby, London said they would 'look into it' and promised to send me one if they became available for the UK.


Hope you get it even if it's handed to you "under the table".


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> All in all I conclude therefore that while *Bluray might be the last physical format, it will be with us for many years*, maybe even decades, to come.


[email protected] our Salvation Army stores and all, just like cassette and VHS tapes. ...And LPs and CDs.
...For people with CRT tube TVs and $2 turntables and without hi-speed, Ethernet, we-fee, bluetooth, DLNA.


----------



## Mastiff

I have a slight problem. I have built the living room in my cabin around an 11.4 system (4 subs, 15"), with a Yamaha receiver (while giving my wife a kitchen that has no problem catering to 20 guests - give and take in action). I really love the effect from the prescence speakers. But I would like to expand to an 11.4.4 (well, technically 11.2.4, since there are only two subwoofer outs, I have hooked up two to each). From what I have seen Yamaha is the only company that supports the prescence speakers in the position I have them, and their 3040 only supports 7.1.4. I will put four ceiling speakers for Atmos (luckily I work slowly, so after two years the ceiling stil isn't up, we spent all summer in a cabin with plastic sheets under insulation to admire in the living room), two behind and two in front of the sitting position. But will I be able to use them, with the prescence speakers, any time soon? Are there any AV receivers/processors that will give me this? Moving the speakers isn't at all trivial, they are bolted to ceiling beams and other assorted places.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> That sucks! For $2K, Denon should include the demo disc so that owners have at least a gnat's ass worth of Atmos content to try until Atmos BD's are available for purchase.


Like Panasonic did with FOX 'Avatar' 3D BD.


----------



## Selden Ball

Selden Ball said:


> The picture of the demo disc in the Japanese "review" of the 5200 showed a blue recording surface, not an aluminized one. In other words, it was not mass-produced.





kbarnes701 said:


> Good catch, Sherlock  So it was a pirated home-brew. Well, it was Hong Kong....


Well, just because it was produced in relatively small numbers on BD burners instead of in mass-quantity stamping plants does not necessarily mean it was pirated. Supposedly there were a couple of Atmos demos in Texas this past week hosted by a local A/V store which used that disc or a similar one. I doubt they'd publicize having used a pirated disc. Sorry, I'm not sure which thread talked about them. There are just too many Atmos threads!


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Perhaps it is unique to HK (China). Have to start checking ebay.com.hk and ebay.cn for Atmos content [mostly j/k]. One would think that with Dolby's status in "the industry", they would be able to legally arrange some publicly available Atmos demos with redistribution rights.


I'm sure they can - it's just that it is a legal minefield and can take for ever. There are still movies not released on Bluray (True Lies for example) because of IP issues.



kokishin said:


> Hope you get it even if it's handed to you "under the table".


So do I. They promised me one "if it is available". The fact that Dolby, London were unaware that it was available suggests to me that it isn't "official".


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Well, just because it was produced in relatively small numbers on BD burners instead of in mass-quantity stamping plants does not necessarily mean it was pirated. Supposedly there were a couple of Atmos demos in Texas this past week hosted by a local A/V store which used that disc or a similar one. I doubt they'd publicize having used a pirated disc. Sorry, I'm not sure which thread talked about them. There are just too many Atmos threads!


Logically, you are right, Selden. But we are talking China here - the place where an 'iPhone 5' costs 50 bucks 

I am suspicious about the Texas demos too - there is no official Dolby demo disc (according to Dolby in London). Demo discs are not being bundled with a Denons (according to our own JD). There is no Atmos content at this time on Bluray. So WTF are they getting their (legal) content for a demo, this far ahead of the official launch at CEDIA?


----------



## FilmMixer

8/23 

10:26 AM

Denon X5200 arrived. 

Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer. 

It has begun.


----------



## jdsmoothie

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess it boils down to this: if the UK models will be here in two weeks, I may as well wait. If the UK models won't be here until October, then getting one right now would be attractive, and I'd have to hope it works properly for at least 2 years. Hmmm...


IIRC, in past years Europe is first to put up the adverts on the new D&M models but then receives them 1-2 months after being released in the USA.  Also, I get calls from time to time from members in other countries saying they can save money with a USA model (including shipping/taxes) and can handle the power difference (transformer); however, I caution them with the "warranty only valid in the USA" caveat as even the flagship units have been known to be DOA or have issues within the first week which we promptly exchanged out of course ...in fact it just happened with a brand new A3040 I sold last week. 

Moral of the story .. I have yet to sell one out of country given that reminder.


----------



## westmd

I did some test drills yesterday and found out that the ceiling of my home cinema is actually hollow after about 3-4cm of plaster and an overall depth of 15cm so no restriction in putting in-ceiling speakers anymore! 
After some discussions with stores I reduced my potential speakers to two options:

KEF CI200QR
KEF CI200RR THX

Both are KEF's ar they are supposed to be quite neutral, so easier to mix with other manufacturers.
i looked a little bit around and price difference between the units wouldn't be that high so both of them are feasible options.
I have been told that the THX version have a better clarity and more power so would be the better choice for my 65 square meter room. Another source told me to stay away from the THX version as due to the more powerfull and thus prominent sound the lack of timbre matching to my main speakers (Jamo) would be more obvious.

So what are your suggestions to that? How much information will the ceiling speakers really transport and how much timbre matching will be possible with modern processors (was thinking about Yamaha for a new receiver / processor)

Here are the links to the two speakers:

http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/ci200qr/index.html

http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci200RR/index.html


----------



## jdsmoothie

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.


Yup. I'd agree especially as the Amazon site is showing 13 in stock and tjenkins95 bought the other one with an expected delivery date of this Tuesday he said.


----------



## Waboman

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.


To paraphrase the old Wendy's lady from the 80's tv commercial, where's the pics?


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.


FilmMixer: _The man, the myth, the legend_.

Congrats! All thread eyes are focused on you so please keep us posted on your findings.

Enjoy!


----------



## Orbitron

kokishin said:


> FilmMixer: _The man, the myth, the legend_.
> 
> Congrats! All thread eyes are focused on you so please keep us posted on your findings.
> 
> Enjoy!


He's ATMOS-MAN


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.


Good job I am several thousand miles away, Marc. The deep shade of green that seems to have overcome me is quite scary 

Enjoy!!! I, and everyone else I am sure, await your reports with bated breath...


----------



## bargervais

jdsmoothie said:


> IIRC, in past years Europe is first to put up the adverts on the new D&M models but then receives them 1-2 months after being released in the USA.  Also, I get calls from time to time from members in other countries saying they can save money with a USA model (including shipping/taxes) and can handle the power difference (transformer); however, I caution them with the "warranty only valid in the USA" caveat as even the flagship units have been known to be DOA or have issues within the first week which we promptly exchanged out of course ...in fact it just happened with a brand new A3040 I sold last week.
> 
> Moral of the story .. I have yet to sell one out of country given that reminder.


Great point even though DENON is a very reliable AVR.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> IIRC, in past years Europe is first to put up the adverts on the new D&M models but then receives them 1-2 months after being released in the USA.  Also, I get calls from time to time from members in other countries saying they can save money with a USA model (including shipping/taxes) and can handle the power difference (transformer); however, I caution them with the "warranty only valid in the USA" caveat as even the flagship units have been known to be DOA or have issues within the first week which we promptly exchanged out of course ...in fact it just happened with a brand new A3040 I sold last week.
> 
> Moral of the story .. I have yet to sell one out of country given that reminder.


Agreed. I've bought amps and speakers and subs from the USA - but they are simple things, comparatively, and if they go wrong can usually be fixed locally. So far I have been lucky. I did have an amp fail me on one of my Submersives, but Mark made the entire return process so simple it was no different really to dealing with a UK supplier. And I took the opportunity to upgrade to the 6,000 watt master/slave arrangement at the same time. But yeah, AVRs and processors are much more likely to need attention during the warranty period. But the real killer for me is the 120v/60Hz PSU. Thanks for the advice.


----------



## howard68

Mastiff said:


> I have a slight problem. I have built the living room in my cabin around an 11.4 system (4 subs, 15"), with a Yamaha receiver (while giving my wife a kitchen that has no problem catering to 20 guests - give and take in action). I really love the effect from the prescence speakers. But I would like to expand to an 11.4.4 (well, technically 11.2.4, since there are only two subwoofer outs, I have hooked up two to each). From what I have seen Yamaha is the only company that supports the prescence speakers in the position I have them, and their 3040 only supports 7.1.4. I will put four ceiling speakers for Atmos (luckily I work slowly, so after two years the ceiling stil isn't up, we spent all summer in a cabin with plastic sheets under insulation to admire in the living room), two behind and two in front of the sitting position. But will I be able to use them, with the prescence speakers, any time soon? Are there any AV receivers/processors that will give me this? Moving the speakers isn't at all trivial, they are bolted to ceiling beams and other assorted places.


the Denon 5200 can do front height and back height in Atmos


----------



## SoundChex

bargervais said:


> Great point even though *DEMON* is a very reliable AVR.




_*DEMON* . . . The first *AVR* with an *MSRP* listing in *DOLLARS* and *SOULS*...?!_ :devil: :devil: :devil:
_


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> Great point even though *DEMON* is a very reliable AVR.


I expect that every so often there is a demon in the Denon's.


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.


Congratulations let the atmos games begin it a very exciting time Mark it on your calendar when we look back years from now, it will be a nice feeling knowing we were the pioneers.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I expect that every so often there is a demon in the Denon's.


Oops Denon


----------



## Ted99

jima4a said:


> I honestly don't know. I would actually go with Yamaha if build quality was the biggest driver.


I've had about 6 Yamaha Receivers, including the RX-Z11, and have only replaced them because of new features, unlike Onyko; of which i've only owned one and it's HDMI failed.


----------



## FilmMixer

Waboman said:


> To paraphrase the old Wendy's lady from the 80's tv commercial, where's the pics?


Here ya go!

As I mentioned earlier, I have no speakers yet.. so I might do some height output testing with some other local members tomorrow, but Dolby Surround listening will have to wait until next weekend (that is if the Pioneer speakers get here quickly. )

Also of note... looks like a July build date... my last 5 serial #'s 00835.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> The picture of the demo disc in the Japanese "review" of the 5200 showed a blue recording surface, not an aluminized one. In other words, it was not mass-produced.


A true blue colored Blu-ray.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> Because the only demos anyone has heard so far have been the Dolby 'industry & press' demos and at those they didn't have DS available on the laptop which fed the content out. I expect people will be clamouring for the demo you are after (me too) at CEDIA, and of course, as units are now shipping, we can expect some reports here on AVS from the very early adopters such as FilmMixer.


Hopefully they wipe the dust off the demo speakers this time around, polish them up a bit so they at least look new. Grill cloth wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## jdsmoothie

FilmMixer said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I have no speakers yet.. so I might do some height output testing with some other local members tomorrow, but Dolby Surround listening will have to wait until next weekend (that is if the Pioneer speakers get here quickly. )
> 
> Also of note... looks like a July build date... my last 5 serial #'s 00835.


It's the first 3 (407?) that define the mfr date.


----------



## UKTexan

Just finished my demo of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround. I will report later on with pictures as I have a 3hr drive back home but all I can say at the moment is WOW!!
I knew Atmos in the home would sound good but didn't realize how good!
I also tested a Dolby TrueHD Bluray (The Dark Knight) and a DTS MA Bluray (Gravity) in the Dolby Surround mode, I can testify under oath it is "Very Good"
It's more than very good, IMHO it is the best upmixed/matrixed, whatever you want to call it, system out there.
Both discs were astonishing, I actually thought Gravity was an Atmos disc at times!
I will add more hopefully this evening, central time.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I have no speakers yet.. so I might do some height output testing with some other local members tomorrow, but Dolby Surround listening will have to wait until next weekend (that is if the Pioneer speakers get here quickly. )
> 
> Also of note... looks like a July build date... my last 5 serial #'s 00835.


Congratulations Marc. But if you want to hear Atmos it's currently much cheaper to spend money on movie tickets


----------



## bargervais

UKTexan said:


> Just finished my demo of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround. I will report later on with pictures as I have a 3hr drive back home but all I can say at the moment is WOW!!
> I knew Atmos in the home would sound good but didn't realize how good!
> I also tested a Dolby TrueHD Bluray (The Dark Knight) and a DTS MA Bluray (Gravity) in the Dolby Surround mode, I can testify under oath it is "Very Good"
> It's more than very good, IMHO it is the best upmixed/matrixed, whatever you want to call it, system out there.
> Both discs were astonishing, I actually thought Gravity was an Atmos disc at times!
> I will add more hopefully this evening, central time.


It's good to hear, I was hoping Dolby surround would be good thanks for sharing.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Congratulations Marc. But if you want to hear Atmos it's currently much cheaper to spend money on movie tickets


Thank... or I can just go to work.. 

I've missed having any kind of system in my house, so I'm excited, even outside of Atmos.


----------



## FilmMixer

jdsmoothie said:


> It's the first 4 (1407?) that define the mfr date.


40715 are the first 5.

Made a mistake on the last 5, but it's within 20..


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> 40715 are the first 5.
> 
> Made a mistake on the last 5, but it's within 20..


Congratulations again. By spending money early you get the unique chance to be one of the first to discover the bugs QC missed


----------



## NorthSky

Mastiff said:


> I have a slight problem. I have built the living room in my cabin around an 11.4 system (4 subs, 15"), with a Yamaha receiver (while giving my wife a kitchen that has no problem catering to 20 guests - give and take in action). I really love the effect from the presence speakers. But I would like to expand to an 11.4.4 (well, technically 11.2.4, since there are only two subwoofer outs, I have hooked up two to each). From what I have seen Yamaha is the only company that supports the presence speakers in the position I have them, and their 3040 only supports 7.1.4. I will put four ceiling speakers for Atmos (luckily I work slowly, so after two years the ceiling stil isn't up, we spent all summer in a cabin with plastic sheets under insulation to admire in the living room), two behind and two in front of the sitting position. But will I be able to use them, with the presence speakers, any time soon? Are there any AV receivers/processors that will give me this? Moving the speakers isn't at all trivial, they are bolted to ceiling beams and other assorted places.


Do you have the Yamaha RX-Z11 AV receiver (11.2-channel with eleven internal amps: seven mains plus four presences)? 

You could still do your seven mains, but replace your four presences with four overheads (3040).

Your wife can now have 25 guests (give or take).

Or, you could wait, and see what will happen with the Marantz AV8802 (a pre/pro though, so you might need thirteen amplifier channels to add to it). ...Plus your four subs, evidently. 

Someone, somewhere, sometimes, will come up with a receiver that can do *11.2.4*
Yamaha, Denon, ...?


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> 40715 are the first 5.
> 
> Made a mistake on the last 5, but it's within 20..


Perhaps: YMMDD
July 15, 2014


----------



## jdsmoothie

FilmMixer said:


> 40715 are the first 5.
> 
> Made a mistake on the last 5, but it's within 20..


Oops! Yeh ... rather first three .. so indeed it is July 2014.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.





jdsmoothie said:


> Yup. I'd agree especially as the Amazon site is showing 13 in stock and we know another forum member bought the other one with an expected delivery date of this Tuesday.


So Marc has the first ever Dolby Atmos (already inside) receiver in North America (USA)? 

* Marc, I thought you just recently ordered a Yamaha 3040.
Are you again going to try them all? ...Most (atmos) likely; it is part of your job.


----------



## harrybnbad

FilmMixer said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I have no speakers yet.. so I might do some height output testing with some other local members tomorrow, but Dolby Surround listening will have to wait until next weekend (that is if the Pioneer speakers get here quickly. )
> 
> Also of note... looks like a July build date... my last 5 serial #'s 00835.



What a tease. Good luck, and congrats...


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Also of note... looks like a July build date... my last 5 serial #'s 00835.


August (8), third (3), two-thousand fifteen (5). ...The first two zeros (00): customer number zero zero.


----------



## NorthSky

UKTexan said:


> Just finished my demo of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround. I will report later on with pictures as I have a 3hr drive back home but all I can say at the moment is WOW!!
> I knew Atmos in the home would sound good but didn't realize how good!
> I also tested a Dolby TrueHD Bluray (The Dark Knight) and a DTS MA Bluray (Gravity) in the Dolby Surround mode, I can testify under oath it is "Very Good"
> It's more than very good, IMHO it is the best upmixed/matrixed, whatever you want to call it, system out there.
> Both discs were astonishing, I actually thought Gravity was an Atmos disc at times!
> I will add more hopefully this evening, central time.


Well, that did it, just what I was waiting for; Dolby Surround superimposed over DTS-HD MA - awesome!
Time to align the stars...


----------



## Mastiff

Howard68, to me it seems like the Denon only does front presence, not rear, in addition to ceiling speakers. Or am I wrong?



NorthSky said:


> Do you have the Yamaha RX-Z11 AV receiver (11.2-channel with eleven internal amps: seven mains plus four presences)?
> 
> You could still do your seven mains, but replace your four presences with four overheads (3040).
> 
> Your wife can now have 25 guests (give or take).
> 
> Or, you could wait, and see what will happen with the Marantz AV8802 (a pre/pro though, so you might need thirteen amplifier channels to add to it). ...Plus your four subs, evidently.
> 
> Someone, somewhere, sometimes, will come up with a receiver that can do *11.2.4*
> Yamaha, Denon, ...?


I have the 3067, with a 2500 running in Pure Direct mode to drive the precence channels. I was going to buy the 3040, but I want four overheads "*and*" the four presence speakers, not "*or*".  As for the Marantz I can deal with that. I can keep the Yamahas as amps and add another 3067 or 2500 for the ceiling speakers. The rack is full, but I have a few shelves next to it that I can use.

So I guess my best bet is to wait and see, then.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I've bought amps and speakers and subs from the USA - but they are simple things, comparatively, and if they go wrong can usually be fixed locally. So far I have been lucky. I did have an amp fail me on one of my Submersives, but Mark made the entire return process so simple it was no different really to dealing with a UK supplier. And I took the opportunity to upgrade to the 6,000 watt master/slave arrangement at the same time. But yeah, AVRs and processors are much more likely to need attention during the warranty period. But the real killer for me is the 120v/60Hz PSU. Thanks for the advice.


Try shipping from hong kong or Singapore then, usually when the model is available, the prices are competitive..

Cheers


----------



## FilmMixer

Link to my AVR pictures in the X5200 thread..

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-10.html#post26823457

However, here is a repost that I'm sure most of you will enjoy.


----------



## howard68

FHL/FHR (Front height speaker left/ right): TFL/TFR (Top front speaker left/right): TML/TMR (Top middle speaker left/ right): TRL/TRR (Top rear speaker left/right): RHL/RHR (Rear height speaker left/ right): 29 Remote Place the FRONT HEIGHT left and right speakers directly above the front speakers. Mount them as close to the ceiling as possible and aim them towards the main listening position. Mount the TOP FRONT left and right speakers on the ceiling slightly in front of your main listening position and aligned with the left and right front speakers. Mount the TOP MIDDLE left and right speakers directly above the main listening position and aligned with the left and right front speakers. Mount the TOP REAR left and right speakers on the ceiling slightly behind your main listening position and aligned with the left and right front speakers. Place the REAR HEIGHT left and right speakers directly behind the main listening position. Mount them as close to the ceiling as possible and aligned with the left and right front speaker
From manual 52000w


----------



## harrybnbad

FilmMixer said:


> Link to my AVR pictures in the X5200 thread..
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-10.html#post26823457
> 
> However, here is a repost that I'm sure most of you will enjoy.


Thats some perty pics. Thanks


----------



## dan webster

Will the dolby surround mode simulate dolby atmos with all blu ray material?


----------



## dan webster

FilmMixer said:


> Link to my AVR pictures in the X5200 thread..
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-10.html#post26823457
> 
> However, here is a repost that I'm sure most of you will enjoy.


Congratulations on your new toy. I was planning on getting the yamaha 3040 but now that the denon 5200 has atmos onboard i am tempted to get one now.


----------



## rprice54

Does the manual say where to put the ceiling speakers in a x.x.2 configuration? I'm planning on going 7.2.2 with only one set of ceiling speakers. I guess I'd go top middle.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dan webster said:


> Will the dolby surround mode simulate dolby atmos with all blu ray material?


Any sources, not just Blu-ray, can be advantageously processed with Dolby Surround.


----------



## UKTexan

Dolby Atmos demo

I attended a Dolby Atmos demo at Bjorn’s of San Antonio TX today. This was according to Bjorn’s,the first *Retail* demo, anywhere in the world. A little background to this – I read an article online on Thursday stating a Dolby Atmos demonstration was taking place in San Antonio as part of an annual event called Music matters, hosted each year by Bjorn’s. The demos were already over by the time I read the article but I emailed the store anyway to enquire if there would be any follow up demonstrations. Long story short I was told the equipment would be in place for the next few days at least. I setup a slot on Saturday, around 11a.m.

I set off at 8a.m.on my 300 mile round trip, hoping to shave off a little time due to my Lead (Pb) foot, avoiding the Texas State Troopers as I rushed to the demo from Houston to San Antonio. I managed to avoid the wrath of the local plod but unfortunately my plan did not work out as my Garmin decided to route me 30 miles south of the store!
Later I found out it was user error, I selected HWY 281, but did not specify North, I won’t make that mistake again!
More haste, less speed, as my father always taught me.
I arrived at Bjorn’s to a warm welcome, the staff members at the main counter were obviously expecting me, the manager Neil Viers had informed his staff well. He runs a tight ship, a staff of approximately 50 including installers, sales and project managers. It was refreshing to enter a relatively large store, not quite Best Buy size but certainly larger than your usual custom dealer and be treated in such a courteous way. I have to say, customer service in the US is in general much better than the UK, this was a perfect example, top notch.
I was then greeted by the assistant manager, Eric Argueta.He escorted another gentlemen and I into the demo room. It was not a purpose built, acoustically treated space, basically it resembled a medium to large size office, approximately 16ft wide (Screen wall) by 23ft long, with a 10ft ceiling. The ceiling construction was a suspended ceiling grid with drop in ceiling tiles. The walls were plasterboard/sheetrock on one side with a few panels and a folding concertina wall on the opposite side. 
The equipment setup consisted of:
 90” TV (Sharp)
 Denon AVR-X5200Wreceiver
Denon Blu-ray player (not sure which model)
Definitive BP-8060ST floor standing speakers (FL,FR)
Definitive Mythos 10 center channel speaker 
Definitive BP6B floor standing speakers (RR,RL)
Definitive Mythos Gem XL (4 ceiling mounted speakers)
Definitive Supercube 4000 subwoofers (2 subs, one eitherside of FR &FL) 
Essentially, a 5.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup.

You will note from the attached pictures, A60 elevation/upfiring Atmos speakers were on display and fitted to the top of 8060’s but they were not connected. The original intention had been to demo both on ceiling and up firing but the ceiling tiles were not considered to be suitable due to the absorptive nature of the material. Dolby recommended they use some sheets of cardboard as a temporary measure but the decision was made to demonstrate the on ceiling setup only. I felt it a shame I was unable to experience the A60’s but the ceiling speakers soon made up for my disappointment.
As you can see from the above list of equipment, this was not a top of the range speaker selection, which bodes well for the general consumer (and us) as you will find out below.
The demonstration began with a description of Dolby Atmos,the basic premise of height channels to create an immersive 3D environment, the required speakers for 5.2.2 up to 7.2.4 for average room setups; we did not discuss 24.1.10 at this stage. We talked about audio objects as opposed to traditional channels and the beauty of a onetime mix which can be scaled down and tailored to fit other surround configurations.
The TV was displaying the familiar Atmos test menu; the same demo disc seen in the Hong Kong demo.
 I later found out this was provided by the Denon rep and is an Official Dolby Atmos demo disc,dated August 2014. It is not included with the X5200W.
The first clip played was the Leaf trailer; the volume was relatively low, nowhere near reference level. 
The effect was nothing short of astonishing, sounds could be picked out at locations within the room where speakers did not exist. Even with the ceiling mounted Gem XL’s, which are not a coaxial design, although the drivers are set at opposed angles, sound was not localizable during the demo.
I specifically looked up at the speakers to try to identify where the sounds were coming from but I could not, a very effective speaker setup. The other interesting fact is the speakers pointed straight down, no angling towards the MLP, straight down. Again I asked the question during a break from the demo but was told there is no official word from Dolby regarding ceiling speaker direction/angle. I’m sure CEDIA will reveal all but Bjorn’s crew may actually find out before then as they have a Dolby rep/engineer scheduled to give a lecture/presentation to the staff within the next couple of weeks. It appears Bjorn’s carries great weight within the industry. This is evident by the upcoming Dolby lecture to be given in store.
They have been in business since 1975; Bjorn is personal friends with Tom Holman of THX fame, various Dolby, DTS and industry insiders also. Tom Holman personally worked with Bjorn in designing their THX approved theater.They have various theater demo rooms but due to the rush nature of the Atmos demo they had to setup in a less than optimal office type space.
Back to the demo, we then went through the other trailers such as amaze, unfold, etc. The effects were extremely impressive, not just height but as others have said, filling the gaps between the speakers at ear level and those at ceiling level. The overall feeling is one of being “In themovie” or trailer, rather than just viewing from a distance. I found the pans from speaker to speaker from the front left to center to right to surrounds seemed to have no sonic gaps, a smooth transition was felt along with the overhead sounds which totally enveloped me. 
Another really cool short film started out in Mono, then transitioned through the various stereo, original Dolby surround, 5.1 and then eventually to a full blown Atmos presentation. I was more than happy with my decision to drive to San Antonio and attend the demo. 
Something that really struck me during the demo was the oohs, aahs and laughter that I heard. We had been joined by another gentleman,his wife and kids. The husband and wife were both laughing in amazement and they were not Audiophiles of any sort. Testament to the immersive sound field we were experiencing. If the general public have this kind of reaction to a few, short 1 minute trailers/clips, I am sure when the content becomes available that Atmos will be a resounding success. 
After listening to all of the material, the volume was then raised to reference level and we had a second opportunity to listen in. Now we are talking! The immersive feeling was off the charts – full range sounds were heard all around including from above, the room was electric. This is what I have been waiting for, a long time coming but I feel we are finally at a turning point in home theater. I couldn’t care less about 3D video but 3D immersive audio, that’s another story, or as we say in the North of England, now we’re cooking with gas.
The regular demo was now complete and the rest of the guests left the room after reviewing their reactions and answering questions, mainly related to cost. At this point Eric left the demo room to attend to his customers.Carl Schwartz then entered the room and helped me with my own demo material. I had the opportunity to find out how well Dolby Surround, yes it is a capital S,worked in comparison to PLIIX/Z. First disc into the Blu-ray player was The Dark Knight. I wanted to try a TrueHD track that had some weight and authority; it’s also a great movie and performance by Heath Ledger.
The X5200W display showed the appropriate Dolby HD + DolbySurround (Double D logo and S was displayed, pictures attached)
I played the movie from the beginning and watched all the way through the bank scene, up to the point where the school bus drives out and blends in with other buses on the street.
I was truly immersed in the film, the ceiling speakers filled the room, explosions/bullets flying, echoing voices filling the banking hall…..Wow, what an experience. The Dolby Surround mode is better than the advertised“Very Good”. It’s Awesome. IMHO it is far better than any other type of upmixing,Dolby or DTS. Certain effects were almost as good as the genuine Atmos content,possibly just as good. Difficult to really do an accurate A/B comparison without having Atmos Blu-ray/Non Atmos TrueHD Blu-ray versions of the same film but nonetheless I was immersed in the movie. I’m sure you will all be impressed once you are able to experiment with Dolby Surround and different movie genres.I will be interested to hear a professional opinion once FilmMixer receives his Andrew Jones speakers.
Next up I played Gravity, I chose this as it is one of the best sound tracks I have listened to (I have not heard the Atmos theatrical presentation) in DTS HD MA format. Also I wanted to test the DTS HD MA + Dolby Surround to see how well the two formats converged. This was possibly better than TDK, I again watched from the beginning of the movie, up until the point where Sandra Bullock is able to calm her breathing and eventually starts to focus on the space station and regain her bearings.
At no time were strange matrixed effects heard, the dialogue was centered when it should have been, to the left as Sandra Bullock spoke from that side of the screen and to the right as George Clooney spoke.
But once she starts spinning out of control following the debris field crashing in, as she spins her voice is clearly heard from above,with, again, weight and authority – that’s the best way I can describe it. I am no audio expert but I know what I like. I’m sure pro’s such as FilmMixer are thrilled to have full range speakers in the theaters around the full perimeter of the space and also overhead. It seems to be this full range which adds so much to the immersive feeling. Combined with the low end provided by the Supercube 4000’s, the ceiling was literally shaking, resonating. The suspended ceiling grid and drop in light fittings added to the effect . I know this was less than optimal but I feel it demonstrates what is possible in an untreated room with poor acoustics and rattling ceilings. The mind boggles with the thought of how this will sound in an acoustically treated and purpose built home theater. 
 I can say in my humble and nonprofessional opinion, I guess you could say your average consumer;Dolby Atmos AND Dolby Surround are a huge leap forward in audio and one we have always dreamed of.
For the record I have no affiliation with any audio company whatsoever. I am a professional technical manager of advanced VRF (variable refrigerant flow) equipment. I am technically minded, certainly not a salesman and not an audio expert. My expertise lies elsewhere. But I for one am sold on the Dolby Atmos technology.
I toured the rest of the showroom floor and traditional demo rooms after the Atmos demo, but even the THX approved room with McIntosh speakers/amps and D-Box chairs could not hold a candle to the immersive feeling of the simple/makeshift Atmos room setup. Obviously the quality of equipment is a higher order but did not make up for the lack of immersion. 
It goes to show, with Atmos, we may have to rethink our idea of high end, as affordable setups such as the Denon and Definitive technology provide such a great experience, I am now questioning myself and second guessing whether I truly need to have the KEF R series or Sonus Faber venere line I am considering. I am sure many people will be more than satisfied with the more affordable speaker brands. Of course the higher end speakers/amps/processors/receivers will push the envelope further, but by how much I am not sure.
I would like to take the opportunity to publicly thank Bjorn’s for their hospitality during my visit. I was made to feel welcome and was at no time rushed to finish my personal Dolby Surround demo. 
I had a great day and a wonderful experience. I purchased a Blu-ray player while I was there as I felt I really ought to spend something and contribute to the company as I am not in a position to purchase a full Atmos setup until my new house closes, hopefully late October/early November.
Neil, Eric and Carl, thank you! 


Apologies to all for the long drawn out post. It is difficult to express how good this is with a few words.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I have no speakers yet.. so I might do some height output testing with some other local members tomorrow, but Dolby Surround listening will have to wait until next weekend (that is if the Pioneer speakers get here quickly. )
> 
> Also of note... looks like a July build date... my last 5 serial #'s 00835.










Seriously, though, congratulations on the new Atmos baby! I'm not jealous; not at all.


----------



## jacovn

@UKTexan, thanks for the report, this is very positive.


----------



## batpig

rprice54 said:


> Does the manual say where to put the ceiling speakers in a x.x.2 configuration? I'm planning on going 7.2.2 with only one set of ceiling speakers. I guess I'd go top middle.


If you check the Dolby Atmos consumer white paper (google it if you don't have it) they recommend placing them a bit in front of the listening position if you only can have two Atmos speakers.


----------



## batpig

jacovn said:


> @UKTexan, thanks for the report, this is very positive.


Yes, phenomenal, and great to hear about DSU being so effective. I'm looking forward to my X5200 and then twiddling my thumbs trying to find a good Atmos enabled module to add!


----------



## NorthSky

This is an awesome post: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## clausdk

UKTexan said:


> Dolby Atmos demo
> I had a great day and a wonderful experience. I purchased a Blu-ray player while I was there as I felt I really ought to spend something and contribute to the company as I am not in a position to purchase a full Atmos setup until my new house closes, hopefully late October/early November.[/FONT]
> Neil, Eric and Carl, thank you!
> 
> 
> Apologies to all for the long drawn out post. It is difficult to express how good this is with a few words.


Great review thank you.


----------



## Mastiff

UKTexan, did you see the old Norwegian himself, if he's still around? Bjorn is from "Bjørn", which is a Norse name. I met him around 19 years ago the first time I was in the US. Very nice guy!



howard68 said:


> FHL/FHR (Front height speaker left/ right): TFL/TFR (Top front speaker left/right): TML/TMR (Top middle speaker left/ right): TRL/TRR (Top rear speaker left/right): RHL/RHR (Rear height speaker left/ right): 29 Remote Place the FRONT HEIGHT left and right speakers directly above the front speakers. Mount them as close to the ceiling as possible and aim them towards the main listening position. Mount the TOP FRONT left and right speakers on the ceiling slightly in front of your main listening position and aligned with the left and right front speakers. Mount the TOP MIDDLE left and right speakers directly above the main listening position and aligned with the left and right front speakers. Mount the TOP REAR left and right speakers on the ceiling slightly behind your main listening position and aligned with the left and right front speakers. Place the REAR HEIGHT left and right speakers directly behind the main listening position. Mount them as close to the ceiling as possible and aligned with the left and right front speaker
> From manual 52000w


Interesting! I really need to look into that one, thanks!  Even though Denon says on the info page:



> The AVR-X5200W has the processing power to run a more enveloping, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibrated 7, 9 or 11 channel Dolby Atmos layout using 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4* or 9.1.2* configurations utilizing ceiling mounted, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers.


So according to them the max is a 9.1.2, not 11.1/2.4.

Claus, det er ikke nødvendig å sitere en så j... lang post bare for å takke for den, iallfall ikke når den er på samme siden!


----------



## clausdk

Haha true enjoyed the review and just hit reply.


----------



## W3Rman

FilmMixer said:


> Here ya go!
> 
> ... but Dolby Surround listening will have to wait until next weekend ...


Sure hoping that you can do a nice review of the Dolby Surround Upmixer capabilities. As I am getting the x5200 for my PC gaming rig in 7.2.4 :wink: , this AVR gives nice options now to have choice of Neo:X / DSX / Dolby Surround


----------



## jdsmoothie

rprice54 said:


> Does the manual say where to put the ceiling speakers in a x.x.2 configuration? I'm planning on going 7.2.2 with only one set of ceiling speakers. I guess I'd go top middle.


Correct. The TML/TMR (middle) speaker positions would "currently" only be used in a X.X.2 configuration and as batpig notes from the Dolby white paper ...



> If you use ceiling speakers, Dolby recommends that you use four or more speakers when
> possible, though two speakers will still provide a great experience. If you use four ceiling
> speakers, you should place the front pair of ceiling speakers in front of the position where
> you’ll be listening and the second pair of ceiling speakers behind you when you’re seated. *If
> you use two ceiling speakers, mount them slightly in front of where you’ll be listening*.



http://cdn-blog.dolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf


----------



## jdsmoothie

*When to avoid using ceiling speakers*

From the Dolby white paper .....



> There are some rooms in which we don’t recommend using ceiling speakers. *If your ceiling
> is low or you have to mount your loudspeakers on overhead trusses or brackets*, the
> overhead speakers will be closer to the listening position. The audio may be distracting
> because you’ll hear exactly which speaker is producing the sound instead of feeling
> immersed in an atmosphere in which sounds occur naturally overhead.
> 
> In this environment, *Dolby Atmos enabled speakers* may better reproduce the Dolby Atmos
> sound you would hear in a movie theatre, where the overhead speakers are high in the
> auditorium, creating a more diffuse experience. Audio experts who have heard Dolby Atmos
> enabled speakers agree that in certain rooms, *the sound these speakers produce can be
> preferable to the sound that ceiling speakers produce*.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Just finished my demo of Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround. I will report later on with pictures as I have a 3hr drive back home but all I can say at the moment is WOW!!
> I knew Atmos in the home would sound good but didn't realize how good!
> I also tested a Dolby TrueHD Bluray (The Dark Knight) and a DTS MA Bluray (Gravity) in the Dolby Surround mode, I can testify under oath it is "Very Good"
> It's more than very good, IMHO it is the best upmixed/matrixed, whatever you want to call it, system out there.
> Both discs were astonishing, I actually thought Gravity was an Atmos disc at times!
> I will add more hopefully this evening, central time.


Thanks for these first impressions. Very helpful, especially the confirmation that DS works well. The first time you hear Atmos in a HT environment is a very memorable moment isn’t it! Hope you had a safe journey home.


----------



## jdsmoothie

UKTexan said:


> The other interesting fact is the speakers pointed straight down, no angling towards the MLP, straight down. Again I asked the question during a break from the demo but was told there is no official word from Dolby regarding ceiling speaker direction/angle.




Everything we've seen to date has implied the ceiling speakers should face straight down.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Congratulations Marc. But if you want to hear Atmos it's currently much cheaper to spend money on movie tickets


If you want to watch any sort of movie, isn't it _always_ cheaper to buy movie tickets (than setting up any sort of HT system)?

EDIT: it costs me about $20 to go see a movie in a cinema. So 1000 movies would cost me $20000. I watch about 350 movies a year, so that means that after three years, it would *not* be cheaper to spend money on movie tickets. And $20000 will buy a very nice HT setup, including Atmos. So I'm not really sure what point you were making.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Try shipping from hong kong or Singapore then, usually when the model is available, the prices are competitive..
> 
> Cheers


Not a bad thought - thanks. I take it that they use 230v/50Hz there like we do in the UK?


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Link to my AVR pictures in the X5200 thread..
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-10.html#post26823457
> 
> However, here is a repost that I'm sure most of you will enjoy.


WOOT!!!! I want it and I want it *now*!


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Dolby Atmos demo
> 
> I attended a Dolby Atmos demo at Bjorn’s of San Antonio TX today.


Fabulous report, mate! Thanks for taking the time to write it up. The experience you had mirrored my own when I first heard Atmos for the home - except you also had the chance to hear Dolby Surround which, from your write-up, seems as it if will exceed all expectations. Bjorn's sounds like (NPI) some amazing store!

I hope you have forwarded a copy of your report to the store, BTW. I am sure they would love to read it.


----------



## Selden Ball

jdsmoothie said:


> Everything we've seen to date has implied the ceiling speakers should face straight down.


This doubtless is one reason why wide audio dispersion angles (>90 degrees) are being specified for the overhead speakers. Also, don't forget that room EQ software like Audyssey will do its best to compensate for too-rapid off-axis high-frequency dropoffs. However, experience with conventional speakers suggests that this tends to make the speakers sound overly bright.


----------



## Mastiff

clausdk said:


> Haha true enjoyed the review and just hit reply.


You danes are famous here in Norway for being friendly and talkative. A bit too talkative at times, especially after a couple of Elefant...


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Not a bad thought - thanks. I take it that they use 230v/50Hz there like we do in the UK?


Yes, all part of the British Empire.. voltage and radio frequencies are fully compatible..
Some items are pretty cheap in Asia, but you should do your homework..
Eg Compared to UK, Marantz products are worth the price of a trip to Singapore and packing one home for example...


----------



## Bumper

kbarnes701 said:


> If you want to watch any sort of movie, isn't it _always_ cheaper to buy movie tickets (than setting up any sort of HT system)?
> 
> EDIT: it costs me about $20 to go see a movie in a cinema. So 1000 movies would cost me $20000. I watch about 350 movies a year, so that means that after three years, it would *not* be cheaper to spend money on movie tickets. And $20000 will buy a very nice HT setup, including Atmos. So I'm not really sure what point you were making.


Probably if you download your content but if you buy the actual Blu Ray and spend and average of 10 Euro, Pound or Dollar on each Blu Ray that adds another 3500 a year x 3 is 10K each 3 years to your HT. So not sure about HT being cheaper in time. BTW your HT needs an upgrade each two years now that tech is catching up
2000: TX-NR989
2005: TX-NR5000e (5000 Euro) + NEC Plasma (5000 Euro)
2010: TX-NR5007 (2700 Euro) + PT-AE3000 (2800 Euro)
2012: TX-NR5009 (2400 Euro) + PT-AE5000 (2400 Euro) + 3 x 3D Glasses
2013: PT-AT6000 (2400 Euro)
2014: AVR-X5200 followed by the 7200 in January.
201X: 4K Projector....

That is excluded the extra speakers I bought, the Darbee Darblet, Butt Kickers and a bucket load of other stuff.
But it is worth every penny not to have to sit to some Nacho eating visitor in a movie theater

I used to use my stuff for about 5 years before new tech had made the old tech obsolete but we are living different times now..


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> Probably if you download your content but if you buy the actual Blu Ray and spend and average of 10 Euro, Pound or Dollar on each Blu Ray that adds another 3500 a year x 3 is 10K each 3 years to your HT.


Good point. But then you have to factor in the potential asset value of the discs - they have a resale value of course  It's a silly discussion really and if you hadn't replied I'd probably have deleted my post. I was just intrigued as to what Markus's real point was - he made two 'sourpuss' comments on FilmMixer's good news in a row.


----------



## Selden Ball

The reasons for having Auros in the home are the same as for having any home theater (quality of experience) and usually are not related to the cost. However, you have neglected to take into account that a family has to pay _much_ more at a commercial movie theater than a single person does.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> This doubtless is one reason why wide audio dispersion angles (>90 degrees) are being specified for the overhead speakers. Also, don't forget that room EQ software like Audyssey will do its best to compensate for too-rapid off-axis high-frequency dropoffs. However, experience with conventional speakers suggests that this tends to make the speakers sound overly bright.


I'm still going to aim my top speakers towards the MLP, even though they are dual concentric designs with an all-round 90° dispersion pattern. It would take quite a lot to persuade me that deliberately pointing the speaker away from the listeners was a good idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Yes, all part of the British Empire.. voltage and radio frequencies are fully compatible..
> Some items are pretty cheap in Asia, but you should do your homework..
> Eg *Compared to UK, Marantz products are worth the price of a trip to Singapore and packing one home for example..*.


Wow. Really? And it's years since I went to Singapore too. Lovely place with great food. Hmmm....


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> The reasons for having *Atmos* in the home are the same as for having any home theater (quality of experience) and usually are not related to the cost. However, you have neglected to take into account that a family has to pay _much_ more at a commercial movie theater than a single person does.


Another *very* good point. BTW, IFYP  ^^


----------



## Bumper

Selden Ball said:


> The reasons for having Auros in the home are the same as for having any home theater (quality of experience) and usually are not related to the cost. However, you have neglected to take into account that a family has to pay _much_ more at a commercial movie theater than a single person does.


True of course and you need a drive and also a parking ticket and some drinks. However I usually watch my movies alone. Hope that changes when kids grow older.
Even if a movie theater was for free, that would not stop me from my Atmos hobby. Happy to spend the money on my DIY HT because it's more than just watching movies. It's an experience having all the automation stuff driving my theater and if I had to choose between watching a movie or building something new, it would be the latter.
OT: Back to Atmos..


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm still going to aim my top speakers towards the MLP, even though they are dual concentric designs with an all-round 90° dispersion pattern. It would take quite a lot to persuade me that deliberately pointing the speaker away from the listeners was a good idea.


I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they're trying to simplify the speaker installation procedure, as well as taking into account that they'll often be used in rooms with extended seating arrangements. Still, I agree with you.


----------



## clausdk

Mastiff said:


> You danes are famous here in Norway for being friendly and talkative. A bit too talkative at times, especially after a couple of Elefant...


Thanks and very true, but who isn't after some "elephants"!

I am enjoying norwegian hospitality on a weekly basis since I work out of Oslo but live in Denmark.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. Really? And it's years since I went to Singapore too. Lovely place with great food. Hmmm....


On the other, I Am on my way up to ol' London in mid September.... unless the volcano situation gets out of hand...

A SR 7009 might fit into my duffle bag.... 

There's an AV show in Singapore in November, that's a likely time that they launch the new D & M Atmos offerings...


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm still going to aim my top speakers towards the MLP, even though they are dual concentric designs with an all-round 90° dispersion pattern. It would take quite a lot to persuade me that deliberately pointing the speaker away from the listeners was a good idea.


I will have my ceiling speakers aimed towards MLP as there is only two of us. I'm anxiously waiting for the firmware.


----------



## harrybnbad

that review had to be one of the most exciting things I have read in years.

I felt my heart beat increasing I was just filled with excitement. It was as if I was reading something from Dean Koontz, and all hell was getting ready to break out.

thanks so much for the review and your time...


----------



## harrybnbad

I think there might be something to the speakers pointing straight down. during the review he was stating that sounds were coming from places where no speakers were located. If the speakers are pointed at MLP, I think it might hinder that a bit. Maybe not...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

UKTexan said:


> Dolby Atmos demo
> 
> I attended a Dolby Atmos demo at Bjorn’s of San Antonio TX today.
> 
> I set off at 8a.m.on my 300 mile round trip...


That's what I call dedication! Thanks for the nice read.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

harrybnbad said:


> I think there might be something to the speakers pointing straight down. during the review he was stating that sounds were coming from places where no speakers were located. If the speakers are pointed at MLP, I think it might hinder that a bit. Maybe not...


Interesting point. I am also determined to angle the overheads towards MLP. But I am always prepared to reconsider if it's preferred (only a fool never changes his opinions). Let's wait what Keith has to say about it when he hooks up his AVR.

What's certain with the typical down pointed speakers is that MLP is not hearing a lot of treble frequencies.


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> Neither. But my mates, Alan-a-Dale and Will Scarlet, are. Although Much The Miller's Son is a rugby fan TBH



Men in tights, reminds me of American Football........
I played second row for a couple of seasons in an amateur team, league of course. Is there any other code?


Before you all start in, I'm a huge football (American variety) fan too, Texans, hope they have a better season than last. My American wife converted me


----------



## UKTexan

FilmMixer said:


> 8/23
> 
> 10:26 AM
> 
> Denon X5200 arrived.
> 
> Which I beleuve might be the first known Atmos decoder delivered to a general customer.
> 
> It has begun.



Congratulations, its a great receiver. I was actually considering the Yamaha 3040 or the Denon X5200, you have both, I would be grateful to hear your opinion regarding the performance and also the custom options the Yamaha seems to have.


----------



## UKTexan

jacovn said:


> @UKTexan, thanks for the report, this is very positive.


Your very welcome.


----------



## UKTexan

Mastiff said:


> UKTexan, did you see the old Norwegian himself, if he's still around? Bjorn is from "Bjørn", which is a Norse name. I met him around 19 years ago the first time I was in the US. Very nice guy!


I didn't get chance to meet him in person, unfortunately. He is still around, in his early seventies I believe.
The way his staff talk about him and the company with such pride and passion is testament to the man.
I am aware he is Norwegian, where I am from in the north of England we have many place names which are of Norse origin as a result of the Viking era. I grew up near York (Jorvik in Norse). Much of the local dialect is also surprisingly based upon old English and Norse languages, primarily Norwegian and Danish.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Interesting point. I am also determined to angle the overheads towards MLP. But I am always prepared to reconsider if it's preferred (only a fool never changes his opinions). Let's wait what Keith has to say about it when he hooks up his AVR.


Yes, I will try it in different ways and see if one is noticeably better than another.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> I
> What's certain with the typical down pointed speakers is that MLP is not hearing a lot of treble frequencies.


Yes - and then Audyssey tries to correct for that, which can then result in the harsher treble that some have reported when their speakers were off-axis. That's one of the reasons my first instinct is to point them towards the MLP, or at least the general listening area.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Men in tights, reminds me of American Football........
> I played second row for a couple of seasons in an amateur team, league of course. Is there any other code?


I played Hooker at school but never played after I left. Union, of course


----------



## batpig

Just for fun - here's a neat internals shot of the X5200. 










Itching to get mine!


----------



## Nightlord

And the classic answer to get figured out - does it really power down unused amps, or do they remain in standby for a signal?


----------



## tjenkins95

From the Dolby white paper just quoted by JD, "Dolby designed the technology for rooms with ceiling heights of 8 to 9 feet... For the best sound, place your speakers at or slightly above the height of your ears when you’re seated. Avoid placing the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers higher than one-half the height of your wall."


My ceiling is 7’ 3” (87") high. Halfway up is 43".
My Klipsch fronts are 44" tall and adding an Atmos-enabled speaker on top would most likely add another 3 or 4" which puts the speaker above the recommended 1/2 the height of the wall.


I have been looking into the new Pioneer Elite ATMOS 5.1 speaker set which looks like it will better suit the no higher than "one-half the height of your wall" recommendation from Dolby.

SP-EFS73 (fronts) (W 9.3" x H 39.6" x D 10.4") 
SP-EBS73-LR (sides) (W 7.3" x H 15.6" x D 9.3") 

Do you guys agree?


Ray


----------



## jdsmoothie

Nightlord said:


> And the classic answer to get figured out - does it really power down unused amps, or do they remain in standby for a signal?


AFAIK, no change from past years ... amps remain powered on at all times however, the new ECO mode is supposed to reduce that power somewhat for lower volume listening levels although you'll likely want to set this to OFF for louder movie/music listening. My experience with the X4000 using a Kill-A-Watt meter is there is no appreciable increase in power draw from no source playing up to volume levels of about -20db.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> And the classic answer to get figured out - does it really power down unused amps, or do they remain in standby for a signal?


What's the difference? If they aren’t presented with a load, then they are effectively 'off'.


----------



## batpig

Couple thoughts....

1) don't get too crazy taking things literally. They are rules of thumb. I don't think there is some magic line where, when crossed, sound turns from gold to poop 

2) I wouldn't replace the entire speaker set just to lower the Atmos modules by a few inches. If you are just looking for an excuse to upgrade, then you have my blessing, enjoy your new toys. But if the ONLY reason is this and you are otherwise happy with your speakers, that seems like a lot of hassle. 

Remember that the Atmos modules do not have to be placed literally on top of the other speakers, the Dolby mentioned that they could be placed anywhere within 2-3ft of the speaker to which they "pair". So for example you could wall mount the modules (or sit them on a shelf) a couple of feet behind the front speakers, at a more appropriate height. Or (what I'm probably going to do) if you have a tv stand / av console below the display you can sit them on either edge of the console, just inside the front speakers. This will be perfect for me as my console height is about 10 inches below the tops of my front speakers. 

Basically, the theme here is be creative. Unless you just really want to replace those Klipsch.


----------



## tjenkins95

Thanks Batpig - 


I forgot that "the Atmos modules do not have to be placed literally on top of the other speakers, ...."
I will wait to see if Klipsch announces anything at CEDIA.


----------



## DS-21

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm still going to aim my top speakers towards the MLP, even though they are dual concentric designs with an all-round 90° dispersion pattern. It would take quite a lot to persuade me that deliberately pointing the speaker away from the listeners was a good idea.


You don't want to point the Tannoys, or _any_ concentric driver or speaker with a round waveguide, directly at the listening position. Simple geometry: there's a cancellation notch in the treble that fills in completely a little off axis. So best to "overtoe" them such that they're 20º-30º off axis at the MLP. In your case, the optional "K-ball" brackets might be a good pickup, because you could play with firing angles in 2 dimensions. The included U-bracket is more limiting in that regard.



westmd said:


> I did some test drills yesterday and found out that the ceiling of my home cinema is actually hollow after about 3-4cm of plaster and an overall depth of 15cm so no restriction in putting in-ceiling speakers anymore!
> After some discussions with stores I reduced my potential speakers to two options:
> 
> KEF CI200QR
> KEF CI200RR THX***


I've not heard the "THX" ones, but they look like they use the same driver as the Q900. Good stuff, capable of very high performance as long as the woofer's breakup mode is suppressed well. (The Q900 could use a more sophisticated crossover.) 

The other ones use a smaller tweeter and I have heard them. The tweeter is too small to play as low as needed to match directivity. Now, your Jamo speakers may have the same issue, because very few home speaker companies actually make speakers that sound good through the midrange. Most have serious directivity problems in the mid/tweet crossover region that lead to poor midrange reproduction. I expect the other ones are a lot cheaper, too.



bargervais said:


> Great point even though DENON is a very reliable AVR.


Some of us have sour tastes in our mouths from AVR-4308ci's that had dead digital audio boards just a couple months out of warranty, whereupon Denon simply responded that the fix was over $500 but they probably didn't even have the parts to fix them.


----------



## jdsmoothie

tjenkins95 said:


> My ceiling is 7’ 3” (87") high. Halfway up is 43".
> My Klipsch fronts are 44" tall and adding an Atmos-enabled speaker on top would most likely add another 3 or 4" which puts the speaker above the recommended 1/2 the height of the wall.


Keep in mind it's all about angles .. the higher the Atmos module is placed, the more the reflected sound moves forward of the main listening position.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> You don't want to point the Tannoys, or _any_ concentric driver or speaker with a round waveguide, directly at the listening position. Simple geometry: there's a cancellation notch in the treble that fills in completely a little off axis. So best to "overtoe" them such that they're 20º-30º off axis at the MLP. In your case, the optional "K-ball" brackets might be a good pickup, because you could play with firing angles in 2 dimensions. The included U-bracket is more limiting in that regard.


OK - thanks. I'll try that. What I was really trying to say was that I wouldn't point them directly to the floor. I'll experiment with different toe-ins etc before I make the fixing permanent. I can just fix the C bracket into the ceiling joist with one screw initially, so that I can swivel the entire bracket around its axis, as well as being able to move the speaker up and down within the bracket. Once I get it right, I'll pop in another couple of screws.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> You don't want to point the Tannoys, or _any_ concentric driver or speaker with a round waveguide, directly at the listening position. Simple geometry: there's a cancellation notch in the treble that fills in completely a little off axis. So best to "overtoe" them such that they're 20º-30º off axis at the MLP. In your case, the optional "K-ball" brackets might be a good pickup, because you could play with firing angles in 2 dimensions. The included U-bracket is more limiting in that regard.


OK - thanks. I'll try that. What I was really trying to say was that I wouldn't point them directly to the floor. I'll experiment with different toe-ins etc before I make the fixing permanent. I can just fix the C bracket into the ceiling joist with one screw initially, so that I can swivel the entire bracket around its axis, as well as being able to move the speaker up and down within the bracket. Once I get it right, I'll pop in another couple of screws. The K-ball mount is worth considering too - thanks.


----------



## RUR

kbarnes701 said:


> What's the difference? If they aren’t presented with a load, then they are effectively 'off'.


Even at idle, the amps are drawing some small amount of power, Keith. My nCores, for example, idle @ 4.5W. It ain't much, but it's not zero.


----------



## aaronwt

kbarnes701 said:


> What's the difference? If they aren’t presented with a load, then they are effectively 'off'.


Is that true? The power difference with my 4520 between no audio being sent out and some audio being sent is only a few watts.
It draws around 130 watts and then when playing audio it goes up some. Or is this not normal?


----------



## kjenkins

Well just as I was trying to finish the HT a year after moving in ... and the game changes! I've still got the opportunity to add the four speakers in the ceiling but would love some advice. The ceiling for this room was already finished when we got here and has a one foot deep trey with a 32inch border around the room. The room is 13.25' wide and 23' deep. The rear most seating positions will be roughly 18 inches inside the trey border. 

After seeing the pics from the dealer showroom, how do you all feel about the use of surrounds attached to the ceiling versus the in-wall variety? My plan was to use Definitive 7001sc's for my L/C/R and surrounds and a pair of BP-VX for the rears. I had been running a pair of SM450's for wides last year when I had this all together in the last house. I have an extra pair of the bp-vx's from when I added the 7001 surrounds. Should I mount the bpvx's or sm450's to the ceiling or try and timbre match with the DI6.5R?

As my plan to upgrade from the Integra 80.2 to a Marantz 8801 were officially laid to rest this morning after reading UKTexan's post ( my wife will be sending you a thank you card post-haste ) , I have a silly question. I am running multiple subs by splitting the 2 LFE outputs on the Integra. My plan would be the same on the next AV unit but I'm curious why all the specs on these new processors mentions 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 for Dolby Atmos when all of the ones I am looking at are x.2 processors? Is Atmos limiting the LFE to one channel? I'm hoping this is part of the continued discrimination of sub hoarders as Dolby's speaker placement guides never seem to mention multiple subs.


----------



## Selden Ball

The numeric speaker designations are from Dolby to indicate the number of Atmos overhead speaker channels. I suspect they didn't want to confuse the issue with how many subwoofers might be in the configuration. To first approximation, the number and location of subwoofers is not affected by whether or not you're using Atmos.

Someone else will have to comment on your speaker choices.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kjenkins5150 said:


> Well just as I was trying to finish the HT a year after moving in ... and the game changes! I've still got the opportunity to add the four speakers in the ceiling but would love some advice. The ceiling for this room was already finished when we got here and has a one foot deep trey with a 32inch border around the room. The room is 13.25' wide and 23' deep. The rear most seating positions will be roughly 18 inches inside the trey border.
> 
> After seeing the pics from the dealer showroom, how do you all feel about the use of surrounds attached to the ceiling versus the in-wall variety? My plan was to use Definitive 7001sc's for my L/C/R and surrounds and a pair of BP-VX for the rears. I had been running a pair of SM450's for wides last year when I had this all together in the last house. I have an extra pair of the bp-vx's from when I added the 7001 surrounds. Should I mount the bpvx's or sm450's to the ceiling or try and timbre match with the DI6.5R?
> 
> As my plan to upgrade from the Integra 80.2 to a Marantz 8801 were officially laid to rest this morning after reading UKTexan's post ( my wife will be sending you a thank you card post-haste ) , I have a silly question. I am running multiple subs by splitting the 2 LFE outputs on the Integra. My plan would be the same on the next AV unit but I'm curious why all the specs on these new processors mentions 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 for Dolby Atmos when all of the ones I am looking at are x.2 processors? Is Atmos limiting the LFE to one channel? I'm hoping this is part of the continued discrimination of sub hoarders as Dolby's speaker placement guides never seem to mention multiple subs.


As for the *.1.* designation, Dolby is just including the LFE channel, which has always been mono. Any further sub outs are derived from the bass management engine in the surround processor.


----------



## westmd

DS-21 said:


> I've not heard the "THX" ones, but they look like they use the same driver as the Q900. Good stuff, capable of very high performance as long as the woofer's breakup mode is suppressed well. (The Q900 could use a more sophisticated crossover.)
> 
> The other ones use a smaller tweeter and I have heard them. The tweeter is too small to play as low as needed to match directivity. Now, your Jamo speakers may have the same issue, because very few home speaker companies actually make speakers that sound good through the midrange. Most have serious directivity problems in the mid/tweet crossover region that lead to poor midrange reproduction. I expect the other ones are a lot cheaper, too.


Actually the THX ones are only 15% more expensive as the normal ones. What do you think of the risk of not having timbre matched speakers to my mains?


----------



## BennyTurbo

Hi,

what is about existing Front High speakers which are near to the ceiling? Will it be used also by Dolby Atmos Setup additional to the new ceiling speakers? I don't want extra ceiling speakers in the living room. Is it possible to use Front High speakers as 7.1.2 Setup ? (Now i am using 9.1 Setup)

Thanks.
Regards,
Ben


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BennyTurbo said:


> Hi,
> 
> what is about existing Front High speakers which are near to the ceiling? Will it be used also by Dolby Atmos Setup additional to the new ceiling speakers? I don't want extra ceiling speakers in the living room. Is it possible to use Front High speakers as 7.1.2 Setup ? (Now i am using 9.1 Setup)
> 
> Thanks.
> Regards,
> Ben


You can, but it isn't as good as having true overheads. Not enough separation between the speaker layers.


----------



## BennyTurbo

Thanks. So normally Front High isn't planned at new Atmos format? What do you think makes more sense... to keep the 9.1 Setup (now i am using DTS Neo:X most the of the time) or to use existing Front Highs for Atmos 7.1.2 ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BennyTurbo said:


> Thanks. So normally Front High isn't planned at new Atmos format? What do you think makes more sense... to keep the 9.1 Setup (now i am using DTS Neo:X most the of the time) or to use existing Front Highs for Atmos 7.1.2 ?


Only the more elaborate Atmos processors will be able to place objects in the more frontal "high" positions and the direct overheads. As long as your front heights are in the positional range as described by a few speaker layout diagrams, you may not have to move them per se. Again, they may not sound as convincing as having them on the ceiling.


----------



## Fooled

DS-21 said:


> You don't want to point the Tannoys, or _any_ concentric driver or speaker with a round waveguide, directly at the listening position. Simple geometry: there's a cancellation notch in the treble that fills in completely a little off axis.


I have not found this to be the case, do you have waterfall response charts that show this?


----------



## Kain

Sorry if this has already been discussed but is it possible to have Atmos sound at home without any ceiling speakers or the upward firing speakers? For example, is Atmos 5.1.2 without the "2" (so basically 5.1.0) the same as TrueHD 5.1? Are the object-based sounds/effects of Atmos only for the ceiling/upward firing speakers or all speakers?


----------



## markus767

Fooled said:


> I have not found this to be the case, do you have waterfall response charts that show this?


Waterfall wouldn't show this. You would need to look at the magnitude response at different angles.


----------



## jdsmoothie

aaronwt said:


> Is that true? The power difference with my 4520 between no audio being sent out and some audio being sent is only a few watts.
> It draws around 130 watts and then when playing audio it goes up some. Or is this not normal?


No not true. As I pointed out in my previous post, the amps are always powered on and cannot be shut off when not in use, so what you are experiencing is normal.


----------



## DS-21

Fooled said:


> I have not found this to be the case, do you have waterfall response charts that show this?


A waterfall is basically a useless measurement. However, if by waterfall you meant horizontal frequency response, not for a 5" Tannoy but here's one for a ~5" concentric by TAD, courtesy of Stereophile: 

Axial:









Note how the notch fills in off axis in this normalized plot:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Sorry if this has already been discussed but is it possible to have Atmos sound at home without any ceiling speakers or the upward firing speakers? For example, is Atmos 5.1.2 without the "2" (so basically 5.1.0) the same as TrueHD 5.1? Are the object-based sounds/effects of Atmos only for the ceiling/upward firing speakers or all speakers?


Objects can be panned or anchored anywhere. They are not exclusive to the ceiling speakers.

However, you end up with a movie sounding about the same as always, but perhaps just a bit more aggressive. The upward "thrust" of sound is part of the 3D sonic experience of object based surround, so you lose the whole point of Atmos (and DTS-UHD). The ceiling speakers are also there to create better phantom imaging _between_ the floor and ceiling speakers for more precise placement of sounds throughout the room.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Kain said:


> Sorry if this has already been discussed but is it possible to have Atmos sound at home without any ceiling speakers or the upward firing speakers? For example, is Atmos 5.1.2 without the "2" (so basically 5.1.0) the same as TrueHD 5.1? Are the object-based sounds/effects of Atmos only for the ceiling/upward firing speakers or all speakers?


Not possible, as a minimum of a 5.1.2 configuration is required to engage the Atmos surround mode.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> What's the difference? If they aren’t presented with a load, then they are effectively 'off'.


There's typically still heat being burned off if the power supply isn't decoupled from the poweramps. If it had been class D there would have been no difference.


----------



## Fischer

This new surround speaker from JBL can probably be an interesting alternative for Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers, they have 120° x 120° coverage pattern!

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/...cued-surround-loudspeakers/scs-8#.U_oc1cXV_Yg


----------



## Ted99

NorthSky said:


> Do you have the Yamaha RX-Z11 AV receiver (11.2-channel with eleven internal amps: seven mains plus four presences)?
> 
> You could still do your seven mains, but replace your four presences with four overheads (3040).
> 
> Your wife can now have 25 guests (give or take).
> 
> Or, you could wait, and see what will happen with the Marantz AV8802 (a pre/pro though, so you might need thirteen amplifier channels to add to it). ...Plus your four subs, evidently.
> 
> Someone, somewhere, sometimes, will come up with a receiver that can do *11.2.4*
> Yamaha, Denon, ...?


I have the RX-Z11 and I think the problem with what you describe is that Dolby True HD is not a supported Codec and it's HDMI 1.2. Yamaha has told me that they are not providing any firmware updates for this "obsolete" receiver. My hope is to find the cheapest 7.1.4 Atmos-capable receiver with pre-outs and use it as an HDMI 2.0 switching pre-amp feeding to the excellent Yamaha amplifier pre-ins in just the manner you describe (actually, I'd love for it to be the mythical 9.1.4 receiver and use some of the receiver's on board amps--but it would probably have amps at least as good as the RX-Z11 and render the RX-Z11 redundant). If you know better, please advise.


----------



## Fooled

DS-21 said:


> A waterfall is basically a useless measurement. However, if by waterfall you meant horizontal frequency response, not for a 5" Tannoy but here's one for a ~5" concentric by TAD, courtesy of Stereophile:


I don't see a significant notch filling in, sorry. I asked for a waterfall (a type of chart, as you can see its used for more than room decay to convey the quality of off axis listening.)


----------



## IgorZep

Nightlord said:


> There's typically still heat being burned off if the power supply isn't decoupled from the poweramps. If it had been class D there would have been no difference.


Mine and RUR's nCores draw 4.5W when idle... per channel  Class AB in receivers often draws less at idle. The difference is when signal is present - class D consumes pretty much the same power as when idle (only a little more), but class A/B can turn to heat as much energy as it sends to the load or even more in addition to the idle losses.


----------



## DS-21

Fooled said:


> I don't see a significant notch filling in, sorry.


Look harder. It's clear from the above graphs that the top octave has issues on axis that fill in basically immediately off axis. 

The behavior would be clearer in an un-normalized graph, to be sure.



Fooled said:


> I asked for a waterfall (a type of chart, as you can see its used for more than room decay to convey the quality of off axis listening.)


I know what I waterfall is. I agree with Drs. Toole, Geddes, Olive, etc. that it's a basically worthless measurement. A pretty picture that doesn't convey anything useful.

For what I'm talking about (an axial notch in the frequency response that fills out off axis) there's absolutely no reason look at a waterfall even if you do think (unlike the actual experts) that it's a meaningful thing. You need a polar map.


----------



## BennyTurbo

Dan Hitchman said:


> ... so you lose the whole point of Atmos (and DTS-UHD).


Does the new Denon X5200 or other AVR for example these DTS-UHD integrated? Or will this come only in next generation of AVR? I thought at the moment the receivers only have Dolby Atmos integrated and no Auro 3D or DTS 3D sound formats?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BennyTurbo said:


> Does the new Denon X5200 or other AVR for example these DTS-UHD integrated? Or will this come only in next generation of AVR? I thought at the moment the receivers only have Dolby Atmos integrated and no Auro 3D or DTS 3D sound formats?


One can only hope that the Atmos products currently released will include a firmware update for DTS-UHD when and if it comes to market. I think, though I could be wrong, that Auro3D for the masses is DOA.


----------



## BennyTurbo

I think Auro 3D devices at the moment are too expensive for the mass... But i am interesting in new 3D DTS format.... but maybe this will come at next generation of AV Receivers. For actual generation they don't make firmware upgrade on Dolby Atmos but maybe it would be possible? Or what do you think? I think at the moment all people who wants a surround system at home bought it in the last years. So the industry needs to find reasons for people to upgrade every year or every two years...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BennyTurbo said:


> I think Auro 3D devices at the moment are too expensive for the mass... But i am interesting in new 3D DTS format.... but maybe this will come at next generation of AV Receivers. For actual generation they don't make firmware upgrade on Dolby Atmos but maybe it would be possible? Or what do you think? I think at the moment all people who wants a surround system at home bought it in the last years. So the industry needs to find reasons for people to upgrade every year or every two years...


Only select upper level models from last year _may_ end up getting an Atmos upgrade if they have the processing power to integrate the format. Someone mentioned here that there is a rumor, and it is only an _unconfirmed_ _rumor_, that Denon may include a firmware update to DTS-UHD in the future for first generation products (this year's new models) when it gets released.

You would think that DTS would be smart enough to remain in talks with the studios and manufacturers to make sure their format can be added as long as there are still interested parties for DTS-UHD available.


----------



## chi_guy50

jdsmoothie said:


> Not possible, as a minimum of a 5.1.2 configuration is required to engage the Atmos surround mode.


That makes sense although I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Did you learn this from your Atmos orientation or is it in the D&M documentation (or both)? 

Does the same prerequisite apply to both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround processing?*

*Never mind this latter question, as I believe I found the answer on p. 297 of the (European) model user's manual:

*Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker
layouts*, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ inceiling
speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> That makes sense although I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Did you learn this from your Atmos orientation or is it in the D&M documentation (or both)?
> 
> Does the same prerequisite apply to both Dolby Atmos and Atmos Surround processing?


It would make sense that you can only engage Atmos surround if it thinks you have the requisite speakers for the format. Otherwise, the processor will fall back to regular TrueHD 7.1 decoding.


----------



## ellisr63

jdsmoothie said:


> AFAIK, no change from past years ... amps remain powered on at all times however, the new ECO mode is supposed to reduce that power somewhat for lower volume listening levels although you'll likely want to set this to OFF for louder movie/music listening. My experience with the X4000 using a Kill-A-Watt meter is there is no appreciable increase in power draw from no source playing up to volume levels of about -20db.


My 4520 draws .8 amps on turn on all the way to reference level.


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> Objects can be panned or anchored anywhere. They are not exclusive to the ceiling speakers.
> 
> However, you end up with a movie sounding about the same as always, but perhaps just a bit more aggressive. The upward "thrust" of sound is part of the 3D sonic experience of object based surround, so you lose the whole point of Atmos (and DTS-UHD). The ceiling speakers are also there to create better phantom imaging _between_ the floor and ceiling speakers for more precise placement of sounds throughout the room.





jdsmoothie said:


> Not possible, as a minimum of a 5.1.2 configuration is required to engage the Atmos surround mode.


Thanks.

Lets say I have a 5.1 setup without any ceiling or upward firing speakers (basically 5.1.0). If I were to run an Atmos movie (while having an Atmos-enabled processor), wouldn't I still get the object-based sounds/effects (but obviously without the overhead effects)? Basically, what I am trying to say is, with TrueHD 5.1 everything is discrete and with Atmos some things are object-based, so wouldn't 5.1 Atmos without any ceiling/upward firing speakers still sound better than discrete TrueHD 5.1?

Edit: Unless the ceiling/upward firing speakers are absolutely mandatory to enable Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Lets say I have a 5.1 setup without any ceiling or upward firing speakers (basically 5.1.0). If I were to run an Atmos movie (while having an Atmos-enabled processor), wouldn't I still get the object-based sounds/effects (but obviously without the overhead effects)? Basically, what I am trying to say is, with TrueHD 5.1 everything is discrete and with Atmos some things are object-based, so wouldn't 5.1 Atmos without any ceiling/upward firing speakers still sound better than discrete TrueHD 5.1?


The processor will decode the channel based TrueHD core of the soundtrack and not the Atmos extension. You need at least two ceiling speakers or two Atmos modules plugged into an Atmos receiver or pre-amp to engage the full Atmos track, though you would be getting a very stripped down 5.1.2 version.


----------



## jdsmoothie

chi_guy50 said:


> That makes sense although I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Did you learn this from your Atmos orientation or is it in the D&M documentation (or both)?
> 
> Does the same prerequisite apply to both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround processing?*
> 
> *Never mind this latter question, as I believe I found the answer on p. 297 of the (European) model user's manual:
> 
> *Dolby surround is compatible with traditional speaker
> layouts*, as well as Dolby Atmos enabled playback systems that employ inceiling
> speakers or products with Dolby speaker technology.


Suffice it to say that the focus of Dolby Atmos is on the height/ceiling speakers or speakers/modules that simulate "ceiling" speakers. Without physical connections to 2-4 of these speakers, you will be unable to select the Atmos surround mode.


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> The processor will decode the channel based TrueHD core of the soundtrack and not the Atmos extension. You need at least two ceiling speakers or two Atmos modules plugged into an Atmos receiver or pre-amp to engage the full Atmos track, though you would be getting a very stripped down 5.1.2 version.


Thanks again. You state that the 5.1.2 is a very stripped down version of Atmos. At what speaker setup does it really start to make sense? 7.1.4? My room is quite small any I cannot have a 7.1 setup, only a 5.1 setup. However, I think I could accommodate 4 ceiling speakers. So, basically, my room can support 5.1.4. Is this still too "bare minimum" for Atmos to make proper sense?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Lets say I have a 5.1 setup without any ceiling or upward firing speakers (basically 5.1.0). If I were to run an Atmos movie (while having an Atmos-enabled processor), wouldn't I still get the object-based sounds/effects (but obviously without the overhead effects)? Basically, what I am trying to say is, with TrueHD 5.1 everything is discrete and with Atmos some things are object-based, so wouldn't 5.1 Atmos without any ceiling/upward firing speakers still sound better than discrete TrueHD 5.1?
> 
> Edit: Unless the ceiling/upward firing speakers are absolutely mandatory to enable Atmos?


Yes. Absolutely mandatory.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Kain said:


> Thanks again. You state that the 5.1.2 is a very stripped down version of Atmos. At what speaker setup does it really start to make sense? 7.1.4? My room is quite small any I cannot have a 7.1 setup, only a 5.1 setup. However, I think I could accommodate 4 ceiling speakers. So, basically, my room can support 5.1.4. Is this still too "bare minimum" for Atmos to make proper sense?


Currently, unless you order the $30K boutique AVR (32 channel capability), you're limited to a maximum of 4 HT speakers so 5.1.4 would be maximum with a standard 5.1 setup


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Kain said:


> Thanks again. You state that the 5.1.2 is a very stripped down version of Atmos. At what speaker setup does it really start to make sense? 7.1.4? My room is quite small any I cannot have a 7.1 setup, only a 5.1 setup. However, I think I could accommodate 4 ceiling speakers. So, basically, my room can support 5.1.4. Is this still too "bare minimum" for Atmos to make proper sense?


5.1.4 will be perfect, as seen a few pages earlier.

Read this, it's 5.2.4 (two subs)
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-175.html#post26829297


----------



## chi_guy50

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Lets say I have a 5.1 setup without any ceiling or upward firing speakers (basically 5.1.0). If I were to run an Atmos movie (while having an Atmos-enabled processor), wouldn't I still get the object-based sounds/effects (but obviously without the overhead effects)? Basically, what I am trying to say is, with TrueHD 5.1 everything is discrete and with Atmos some things are object-based, so wouldn't 5.1 Atmos without any ceiling/upward firing speakers still sound better than discrete TrueHD 5.1?
> 
> *Edit: Unless the ceiling/upward firing speakers are absolutely mandatory to enable Atmos?*


This is what I understand JD is telling us, and it is news to me. I had planned to stick initially with my 11.1 set-up using the FH for double duty. But it appears that JD is saying that the Dolby Atmos processing will not engage unless the AVR is configured for at least one pair of Atmos height speakers--i.e., exclusive of FH and RH. If so, then I can't do 9.1.2 w/FH; I could designate my FH speakers as FT, but then they would not be available for DSX or Neo:X.


----------



## Kain

jdsmoothie said:


> Currently, unless you order the $30K boutique AVR (32 channel capability), you're limited to a maximum of 4 HT speakers so 5.1.4 would be maximum with a standard 5.1 setup





erwinfrombelgium said:


> 5.1.4 will be perfect, as seen a few pages earlier.


Thanks.

Are the overhead speakers each operating in individual channels or do they all play the same thing? I am assuming they each have their own channel? Or are they viewed as individual/separate speakers by the processor and used only for object-based effects (and the positioning of the sound would determine which overhead speaker(s) to use)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Thanks again. You state that the 5.1.2 is a very stripped down version of Atmos. At what speaker setup does it really start to make sense? 7.1.4? My room is quite small any I cannot have a 7.1 setup, only a 5.1 setup. However, I think I could accommodate 4 ceiling speakers. So, basically, my room can support 5.1.4. Is this still too "bare minimum" for Atmos to make proper sense?


5.1.4 would be fine in your situation.


----------



## jdsmoothie

chi_guy50 said:


> This is what I understand JD is telling us, and it is news to me. I had planned to stick initially with my 11.1 set-up using the FH for double duty. But it appears that JD is saying that the Dolby Atmos processing will not engage unless the AVR is configured for at least one pair of Atmos height speakers--i.e., exclusive of FH and RH. If so, then I can't do 9.1.2 w/FH; I could designate my FH speakers as FT, but then they would not be available for DSX or Neo:X.



With the addition of (2) 2 CH amps or a 5CH amp, you can have your current DTS Neo:X (11.1) setup as well as a 9.2.2 Atmos setup.

From X5200W's owner's manual .. p. 210


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Are the overhead speakers each operating in individual channels or do they all play the same thing? I am assuming they each have their own channel? Or are they viewed as individual/separate speakers by the processor and used only for object-based effects (and the positioning of the sound would determine which overhead speaker(s) to use)?


The ceiling "bed" channels are presumably split to both stereo pairs of ceiling speakers (mostly for music and/or ambiance). However, objects can be panned anywhere as determined by their metadata instructions. In fact, one of the Atmos demos had a helicopter circle the room from above. That was done with objects.


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> Everything we've seen to date has implied the ceiling speakers should face straight down.


You are abso!utely right; all the Cinema Theaters and home theater rooms all have the on-ceiling speakers facing/firing straight down. ...No angling to the MLP here.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm still going to aim my top speakers towards the MLP, even though they are dual concentric designs with an all-round 90° dispersion pattern. It would take quite a lot to persuade me that deliberately pointing the speaker away from the listeners was a good idea.


You're going to change your mind as soon as you discover the greater benefit of aiming them straight down;
I'm sure of it.


----------



## kokishin

UKTexan said:


> Dolby Atmos demo
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the demo, we then went through the other trailers such as amaze, unfold, etc. The effects were extremely impressive, not just height but as others have said, filling the gaps between the speakers at ear level and those at ceiling level. The overall feeling is one of being “In themovie” or trailer, rather than just viewing from a distance. I found the pans from speaker to speaker from the front left to center to right to surrounds seemed to have no sonic gaps, a smooth transition was felt along with the overhead sounds which totally enveloped me.
> Another really cool short film started out in Mono, then transitioned through the various stereo, original Dolby surround, 5.1 and then eventually to a full blown Atmos presentation. I was more than happy with my decision to drive to San Antonio and attend the demo.
> Something that really struck me during the demo was the oohs, aahs and laughter that I heard. We had been joined by another gentleman,his wife and kids. The husband and wife were both laughing in amazement and they were not Audiophiles of any sort. Testament to the immersive sound field we were experiencing. If the general public have this kind of reaction to a few, short 1 minute trailers/clips, I am sure when the content becomes available that Atmos will be a resounding success.
> After listening to all of the material, the volume was then raised to reference level and we had a second opportunity to listen in. Now we are talking! The immersive feeling was off the charts – full range sounds were heard all around including from above, the room was electric. This is what I have been waiting for, a long time coming but I feel we are finally at a turning point in home theater. I couldn’t care less about 3D video but 3D immersive audio, that’s another story, or as we say in the North of England, now we’re cooking with gas.
> The regular demo was now complete and the rest of the guests left the room after reviewing their reactions and answering questions, mainly related to cost. At this point Eric left the demo room to attend to his customers.Carl Schwartz then entered the room and helped me with my own demo material. I had the opportunity to find out how well Dolby Surround, yes it is a capital S,worked in comparison to PLIIX/Z. First disc into the Blu-ray player was The Dark Knight. I wanted to try a TrueHD track that had some weight and authority; it’s also a great movie and performance by Heath Ledger.
> The X5200W display showed the appropriate Dolby HD + DolbySurround (Double D logo and S was displayed, pictures attached)
> I played the movie from the beginning and watched all the way through the bank scene, up to the point where the school bus drives out and blends in with other buses on the street.
> I was truly immersed in the film, the ceiling speakers filled the room, explosions/bullets flying, echoing voices filling the banking hall…..Wow, what an experience. The Dolby Surround mode is better than the advertised“Very Good”. It’s Awesome. IMHO it is far better than any other type of upmixing,Dolby or DTS. Certain effects were almost as good as the genuine Atmos content,possibly just as good. Difficult to really do an accurate A/B comparison without having Atmos Blu-ray/Non Atmos TrueHD Blu-ray versions of the same film but nonetheless I was immersed in the movie. I’m sure you will all be impressed once you are able to experiment with Dolby Surround and different movie genres.I will be interested to hear a professional opinion once FilmMixer receives his Andrew Jones speakers.
> Next up I played Gravity, I chose this as it is one of the best sound tracks I have listened to (I have not heard the Atmos theatrical presentation) in DTS HD MA format. Also I wanted to test the DTS HD MA + Dolby Surround to see how well the two formats converged. This was possibly better than TDK, I again watched from the beginning of the movie, up until the point where Sandra Bullock is able to calm her breathing and eventually starts to focus on the space station and regain her bearings.
> At no time were strange matrixed effects heard, the dialogue was centered when it should have been, to the left as Sandra Bullock spoke from that side of the screen and to the right as George Clooney spoke.
> But once she starts spinning out of control following the debris field crashing in, as she spins her voice is clearly heard from above,with, again, weight and authority – that’s the best way I can describe it. I am no audio expert but I know what I like. I’m sure pro’s such as FilmMixer are thrilled to have full range speakers in the theaters around the full perimeter of the space and also overhead. It seems to be this full range which adds so much to the immersive feeling. Combined with the low end provided by the Supercube 4000’s, the ceiling was literally shaking, resonating. The suspended ceiling grid and drop in light fittings added to the effect . I know this was less than optimal but I feel it demonstrates what is possible in an untreated room with poor acoustics and rattling ceilings. The mind boggles with the thought of how this will sound in an acoustically treated and purpose built home theater.
> I can say in my humble and nonprofessional opinion, I guess you could say your average consumer;Dolby Atmos AND Dolby Surround are a huge leap forward in audio and one we have always dreamed of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies to all for the long drawn out post. It is difficult to express how good this is with a few words.


UKTexan,

I was out celebrating my birthday yesterday so I am catching up on posts today. I want to thank you for taking the time and energy to write up such a great report! Can't wait to hear it for myself.


----------



## NorthSky

harrybnbad said:


> I think there might be something to the speakers pointing straight down. during the review he was stating that sounds were coming from places where no speakers were located. If the speakers are pointed at MLP, I think it might hinder that a bit. Maybe not...


Of course there is something to it; Dolby people spent considerable amount of time experimenting and found that aiming them straight down was the best/superior effect possible. Any deviation from that is inferior performance, and the listener(s) won't reach the full potential. 

* Everyone is free to set themselves in inferior positions of life. ...Me I just know what to do. I'll follow Dolby recommendations, based on solid experimentation.


----------



## jacovn

The document dolby atmos cinema technical guidelines specifies the ceiling speakers to be aimed specificall in chapter 3.3.7


----------



## harrybnbad

NorthSky said:


> You're going to change your mind as soon as you discover the greater benefit of aiming them straight down;
> I'm sure of it.


Thate what it sounds like to me


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Just for fun - here's a neat internals shot of the X5200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Itching to get mine!


Wow, this is all DSP world in there. ...Lots of big chips.


----------



## kbarnes701

RUR said:


> Even at idle, the amps are drawing some small amount of power, Keith. My nCores, for example, idle @ 4.5W. It ain't much, but it's not zero.


True - but to me a draw of 4.5W is (effectively) off. I don't have too much sympathy for Greenies (well not here in the UK where they are all crackpots) so a few watts here and there isn't much of an issue for me. And I tend to automatically switch off anything that says 'Eco' on it, as a small rebellion


----------



## kbarnes701

aaronwt said:


> Is that true? The power difference with my 4520 between no audio being sent out and some audio being sent is only a few watts.
> It draws around 130 watts and then when playing audio it goes up some. Or is this not normal?


What we were chewing over was whether the internal amps are 'off' if you use external amps. Some units have a setting that tells you they are 'off' and may even bypass them somehow. My contention is that an amp that has no load presented to it is 'effectively' off anyway. But yeah, it might draw some pissant little amount of current - shouldn't even be enough to annoy Al Gore though


----------



## kbarnes701

kjenkins5150 said:


> Well just as I was trying to finish the HT a year after moving in ... and the game changes! I've still got the opportunity to add the four speakers in the ceiling but would love some advice. The ceiling for this room was already finished when we got here and has a one foot deep trey with a 32inch border around the room. The room is 13.25' wide and 23' deep. The rear most seating positions will be roughly 18 inches inside the trey border.
> 
> After seeing the pics from the dealer showroom, how do you all feel about the use of surrounds attached to the ceiling versus the in-wall variety? My plan was to use Definitive 7001sc's for my L/C/R and surrounds and a pair of BP-VX for the rears. I had been running a pair of SM450's for wides last year when I had this all together in the last house. I have an extra pair of the bp-vx's from when I added the 7001 surrounds. Should I mount the bpvx's or sm450's to the ceiling or try and timbre match with the DI6.5R?
> 
> As my plan to upgrade from the Integra 80.2 to a Marantz 8801 were officially laid to rest this morning after reading UKTexan's post ( my wife will be sending you a thank you card post-haste ) , I have a silly question. I am running multiple subs by splitting the 2 LFE outputs on the Integra. My plan would be the same on the next AV unit but I'm curious why all the specs on these new processors mentions 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 for Dolby Atmos when all of the ones I am looking at are x.2 processors? Is Atmos limiting the LFE to one channel? I'm hoping this is part of the continued discrimination of sub hoarders as Dolby's speaker placement guides never seem to mention multiple subs.


If you are going to use Atmos, in or on ceiling surrounds won't work. For Atmos the surrounds need to be much close to ear level to create a 'gap' between them and the ceiling speakers.

They call it x.1.x because there is only 1 LFE channel. IOW there's no such thing as 5.2 although it is used commonly for people with 2 subs. But there is only one LFE channel so even if you have 4 subs, it's still 5.1. Your multiple subs will work just the same for Atmos as they do for 5.1.


----------



## NorthSky

Ted99 said:


> I have the RX-Z11 and I think the problem with what you describe is that Dolby True HD is not a supported Codec and it's HDMI 1.2. Yamaha has told me that they are not providing any firmware updates for this "obsolete" receiver. My hope is to find the cheapest 7.1.4 Atmos-capable receiver with pre-outs and use it as an HDMI 2.0 switching pre-amp feeding to the excellent Yamaha amplifier pre-ins in just the manner you describe (actually, I'd love for it to be the mythical 9.1.4 receiver and use some of the receiver's on board amps--but it would probably have amps at least as good as the RX-Z11 and render the RX-Z11 redundant). If you know better, please advise.


The only thing that I can see so far is the replacement of the Yamaha CX-A5000 pre/pro with added Dolby Atmos/Dolby Surround inside and in a *11.2.4* configuration possible device. It's matching amp, the MX-A5000 (11-channel amp) will remain.

Separates are always better. The top receiver(s) right now, IMO, is the Denon AVR-X7200W or the Marantz SR7900. ...Available later on; end of year or beginning of next.

But! Who knows when DTS-UHD will start to appear in the second generation of receivers...

It's a lot of fun to be the first one on our block with Dolby Atmos, but it is also very wise (more so for people with limited funds) to be patient and wait fall 2015 for what's coming up.
Because $1,000 or $2,000 for many people is a fair chunk of cash, and they cannot afford to upgrade next year with even better surround audio codecs (decoders).


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Sorry if this has already been discussed but is it possible to have Atmos sound at home without any ceiling speakers or the upward firing speakers? For example, is Atmos 5.1.2 without the "2" (so basically 5.1.0) the same as TrueHD 5.1? Are the object-based sounds/effects of Atmos only for the ceiling/upward firing speakers or all speakers?


No. The minimum Atmos spec is 5.1.2.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> No not true. As I pointed out in my previous post, the amps are always powered on and cannot be shut off when not in use, so what you are experiencing is normal.


Powered on, but doing nothing. So they use next to no power. That is what I was trying to get across.


----------



## Mastiff

NorthSky said:


> Because $1000 or $2,000 for many people is fair chunk of cash, and they cannot afford to upgrade next year with even better surround codecs.


And even if you can afford it, it's always a bit of work to do an upgrade. I prefer to go in on the second generation of any new fads, but I may have to wait for the third generation for this 11.2.4 dream system of mine!

Does anybody remember back in the day, when the first surround sound came out? Many companies had an add-on to a stereo receiver/amp that stripped out the extra two channels (surround speakers were mono back in that time), ampliefied them and sent a stereo signal to the amp. Like the Pioneer VSP-200_. _If somebody could make one for Atmos, with .4 decoding, I'd be all over it like the powder from an exploded fire extinguisher!


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> Fabulous report, mate! Thanks for taking the time to write it up. The experience you had mirrored my own when I first heard Atmos for the home - except you also had the chance to hear Dolby Surround which, from your write-up, seems as it if will exceed all expectations. Bjorn's sounds like (NPI) some amazing store!
> 
> I hope you have forwarded a copy of your report to the store, BTW. I am sure they would love to read it.


Thank you Keith, I appreciate your comments. Bjorn's is awesome, if you are ever in Texas in the future it would be worth checking out, maybe I could take you for a few cold pints here in Houston.
I just sent them an email with a copy of the report. I was out today training, I'm a martial artist/fighter, when I got back from training an email was already waiting for me, from Bjorn's, thanking me for making the trip yesterday, truly a first class company.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Lets say I have a 5.1 setup without any ceiling or upward firing speakers (basically 5.1.0). If I were to run an Atmos movie (while having an Atmos-enabled processor), wouldn't I still get the object-based sounds/effects (but obviously without the overhead effects)? Basically, what I am trying to say is, with TrueHD 5.1 everything is discrete and with Atmos some things are object-based, so wouldn't 5.1 Atmos without any ceiling/upward firing speakers still sound better than discrete TrueHD 5.1?
> 
> Edit: Unless the ceiling/upward firing speakers are absolutely mandatory to enable Atmos?


The edit is right. You can’t engage Atmos mode unless you have at least 2 top speakers (eg 5.1.2 or 7.1.2).


----------



## Kain

Thanks for all the help guys. 

How does DTS-UHD compare to Atmos? Is the concept and speaker layout the same? What about Auro-3D? From what I know and have been told, Auro-3D was not object-based until recently (when they decided to add some object-based processing to it). If all three have different speaker layouts, how do we decide which one to design our home theater for?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks again. You state that the 5.1.2 is a very stripped down version of Atmos. At what speaker setup does it really start to make sense? 7.1.4? My room is quite small any I cannot have a 7.1 setup, only a 5.1 setup. However, I think I could accommodate 4 ceiling speakers. So, basically, my room can support 5.1.4. Is this still too "bare minimum" for Atmos to make proper sense?


5.1.4 is great. I am in the same position - no room for rear surrounds. But a 5.1.4 setup will work very well - better than a 5.1.2 and probably better than a 7.1.2. More overhead speakers is better, IOW.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> This is what I understand JD is telling us, and it is news to me. I had planned to stick initially with my 11.1 set-up using the FH for double duty. But it appears that JD is saying that the Dolby Atmos processing will not engage unless the AVR is configured for at least one pair of Atmos height speakers--i.e., exclusive of FH and RH. If so, then I can't do 9.1.2 w/FH; I could designate my FH speakers as FT, but then they would not be available for DSX or Neo:X.


I don't think JD said that. Front height and Rear Height can be used with Atmos - see the chart batpig has posted. It may not be as effective as using Top Front and Top Rear though. But you can definitely engage Atmos with a FH+TM or FH+TR or FH+RH setup.


----------



## jdsmoothie

kbarnes701 said:


> Powered on, but doing nothing. So they use next to no power. That is what I was trying to get across.


And my point was that when powered on, the AVR will draw 100-130W regardless of whether using external amps or not.


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> What we were chewing over was whether the internal amps are 'off' if you use external amps. Some units have a setting that tells you they are 'off' and may even bypass them somehow. My contention is that an amp that has no load presented to it is 'effectively' off anyway. But yeah, it might draw some pissant little amount of current - shouldn't even be enough to annoy Al Gore though


Keith, it is not the problem with Al Gore, but the problem of heat-buildup. Some classes of amplifiers are notorious for generating heat even without a load or an input signal. Public enemy #1 of semiconductors is HEAT. See the previous post of a picture of an AVR where alumin(i)um heat sinks take up a sizable amount of space inside the "box" and still need proper ventilation (air flow) with a clearance above and below the gear to get rid of that dreaded heat. Cool, eh?


----------



## UKTexan

harrybnbad said:


> that review had to be one of the most exciting things I have read in years.
> 
> I felt my heart beat increasing I was just filled with excitement. It was as if I was reading something from Dean Koontz, and all hell was getting ready to break out.
> 
> thanks so much for the review and your time...



Your welcome. It's funny you say that, I'm actually a huge horror fan, Dean Koontz, James Herbert, Stephen King.....
Maybe I have read to many lines about State troopers


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Thank you Keith, I appreciate your comments. Bjorn's is awesome, if you are ever in Texas in the future it would be worth checking out, maybe I could take you for a few cold pints here in Houston.
> I just sent them an email with a copy of the report. I was out today training, I'm a martial artist/fighter, when I got back from training an email was already waiting for me, from Bjorn's, thanking me for making the trip yesterday, truly a first class company.


I’d love to take you up on that. Texas is one state I have never visited. Bjorn's really does sound like the real deal!


----------



## UKTexan

erwinfrombelgium said:


> That's what I call dedication! Thanks for the nice read.



I am responsible for 7 States in the US for my job, so the distance was no problem.
If that was in Europe I may have crossed many international borders but in Texas, it was a drop in the ocean.
I could wait to hear the demo, well worth it.
I see your from Belgium, I'm partial to a few Chimay Blue's on a weekend, well, more than a few at times
Thank you for the kind reply.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> And my point was that when powered on, the AVR will draw 100-130W regardless of whether using external amps or not.


Ah right. Sorry I was misunderstanding you then. The AVR may draw that regardless of whether it's using external amps or not, but the internal amps will be drawing next to nothing if they don't have a load presented to them. Obviously the AVR has a lot of things to power besides amps, hence the draw you mention. But if you physically ripped out the internal amps, it would make very little difference. 

We are at cross purposes. I was (trying to) comment on the 'feature' in some units I have seen where there is a setting to 'turn off' or 'bypass' the internal amps if one is using external amps. My point was that the feature is more or less pointless, as amps presented with no load are not using any (significant) power anyway.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> But it appears that JD is saying that the Dolby Atmos processing will not engage unless the AVR is configured for at least one pair of Atmos height speakers--i.e., exclusive of FH and RH.





kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think JD said that. Front height and Rear Height can be used with Atmos - see the chart batpig has posted. It may not be as effective as using Top Front and Top Rear though. But you can definitely engage Atmos with a FH+TM or FH+TR or FH+RH setup.


No, Keith, as I understand it--and JD can correct me if I have misunderstood--he is instructing us that the AVR will not engage Dolby Atmos processing if you have configured your height speakers as FH/RH, which was the two-pair configuration I had envisioned for my living room. As I now understand it, you can use FH or RH for one of the two pairs but not both and not individually, only in combination with one of the Atmos-specific speakers.

That is why I stated that this was news to me.


----------



## UKTexan

westmd said:


> Actually the THX ones are only 15% more expensive as the normal ones. What do you think of the risk of not having timbre matched speakers to my mains?


westmd, I contacted David Kroll who is the Global product manager for KEF in ceiling speakers as I too am considering the THX speaker. David gave me three options which would all match well with the KEF R300's I am looking at:


Depending on the room size / and what main speakers, the Ci160QR, Ci200QR, or the Ci200RR-THX.

The Ci200QR offer the best output/LF response for reasonable cost. The Ci200RR-THX are an exceptional speaker, and can even be used as LCR in a high performance system.


Does not answer your timbre match question but thought I would share the information received.


----------



## NorthSky

Just imagine...for a simple glimpse of moment...Oppo making a hi-end receiver with Dolby Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with a possible configuration of *11.2.4* (11.3.6 - 11.4.5) ... or a pre/pro. ...Or an eventual Universal Blu-ray player with a Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS-UHD, dts Surround decoders. ...HDCP 2.2 - HDMI 2.0 - 4K/8K, 3D Sound & Picture...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

UKTexan said:


> I am responsible for 7 States in the US for my job, so the distance was no problem.
> If that was in Europe I may have crossed many international borders but in Texas, it was a drop in the ocean.
> I could wait to hear the demo, well worth it.
> I see your from Belgium, I'm partial to a few Chimay Blue's on a weekend, well, more than a few at times
> Thank you for the kind reply.


I actually took my family across the border to experience Atmos @ the movies, but it was only a 2h drive into Holland... Well worth it.

BTW, there aren't any real borders in the EU anymore... except for the UK, as you know! You Brits always have to be special!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Just imagine...for a simple glimpse of moment...Oppo making a hi-end receiver with Dolby Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with a possible configuration of *11.2.4* (11.3.6 - 11.4.5) ... or a pre/pro. ...Or an eventual Universal Blu-ray player with a Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS-UHD, dts Surround decoders. ...HDCP 2.2 - HDMI 2.0 - 4K/8K, 3D Sound & Picture...


Bring it on!


----------



## jdsmoothie

chi_guy50 said:


> No, Keith, as I understand it--and JD can correct me if I have misunderstood--he is instructing us that the AVR will not engage Dolby Atmos processing if you have configured your height speakers as FH/RH, which was the two-pair configuration I had envisioned for my living room. As I now understand it, you can use FH or RH for one of the two pairs but not both and not individually, only in combination with one of the Atmos-specific speakers.
> 
> That is why I stated that this was news to me.


Sorry for the confusion, although not ideal, FH+RH can indeed be used as the Atmos "height" speakers.


----------



## UKTexan

kokishin said:


> UKTexan,
> 
> I was out celebrating my birthday yesterday so I am catching up on posts today. I want to thank you for taking the time and energy to write up such a great report! Can't wait to hear it for myself.


Well happy belated birthday!
Your welcome, it was a long day but well worth it.
I'm sure you will be more than impressed.


----------



## NorthSky

IgorZep said:


> Mine and RUR's nCores draw 4.5W when idle... per channel  Class AB in receivers often draws less at idle. The difference is when signal is present - class D consumes pretty much the same power as when idle (only a little more), but class A/B can turn to heat as much energy as it sends to the load or even more in addition to the idle losses.


Some Arcam receivers are Class G? ...Or H?

______

♦ Class A receivers: Forget it!
♦ Class B: Are there any?
♦ Class A/B: Many.
♦ Class C: ?
♦ Class D: ICE - Pioneer Elite.
♦ Class E: ?
♦ Class F: ?
♦ Class G: Arcam I believe.
♦ Class H: Some older Technics receivers I believe.
♦ Class I: ?
♦ Class J: ?


----------



## bargervais

I'm embarrassed to ask but what is AFAIK


----------



## ellisr63

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah right. Sorry I was misunderstanding you then. The AVR may draw that regardless of whether it's using external amps or not, but the internal amps will be drawing next to nothing if they don't have a load presented to them. Obviously the AVR has a lot of things to power besides amps, hence the draw you mention. But if you physically ripped out the internal amps, it would make very little difference.
> 
> We are at cross purposes. I was (trying to) comment on the 'feature' in some units I have seen where there is a setting to 'turn off' or 'bypass' the internal amps if one is using external amps. My point was that the feature is more or less pointless, as amps presented with no load are not using any (significant) power anyway.


When you turn on the 4520... If there is no load would it be running much cooler to since the amps are idle? I am asking this to see if a dedicated AVP would be more efficient AC wise and temperature wise than a AVR.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Thanks again. You state that the 5.1.2 is a very stripped down version of Atmos. At what speaker setup does it really start to make sense? 7.1.4? My room is quite small any I cannot have a 7.1 setup, only a 5.1 setup. However, I think I could accommodate 4 ceiling speakers. So, basically, my room can support 5.1.4. Is this still too "bare minimum" for Atmos to make proper sense?


5.1.4 is perfect.


----------



## mogorf

bargervais said:


> I'm embarrassed to ask but what is AFAIK


As Far As I Know...

https://www.google.hu/search?q=afai...hannel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Llb6U9KCPcOk8weI_YDwDw


----------



## chi_guy50

jdsmoothie said:


> Sorry for the confusion, although not ideal, FH+RH can indeed be used as the Atmos "height" speakers.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (big sigh of relief).

Thank you for setting the record straight. But you have nonetheless started me thinking that I should seriously contemplate reconfiguring my set-up to accommodate FH/TR. Compromises abound.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> UKTexan,
> 
> I was out celebrating my birthday yesterday so I am catching up on posts today. I want to thank you for taking the time and energy to write up such a great report! Can't wait to hear it for myself.


Interesting, as I was also out celebrating the birthday of Catherine, a very good and sweet friend. 
{ She likes The Bee Gees - Music tunes } ...About 40 people all together; most all professional musicians (90%). ...From Blues to Jazz to Classical to New Age to Folk to Rock to World music...
I was even talking Dolby Atmos with one of them musicians, Robert, who plays piano, organ and violin (Classical, Choral, Jazz, ...).

Great party, great people, great food, great conversations, great experience sharing, great *atmos*phere, great happiness, great decors (magnificent view and surroundings), great life @ 360°, in real 6D.

And *Happy Birthday* to you too kokishin!


----------



## NorthSky

jacovn said:


> The document dolby atmos cinema technical guidelines specifies the ceiling speakers to be aimed specificall in chapter 3.3.7


I'll be experimenting in my own room. ...Starting with Dolby, then Robby (me). 
...I'm free, so it should be easy.


----------



## UKTexan

Dolby Atmos demo - Additional info


I really didn't mention anything about Atmos music yesterday, it was late and my mind was drifting while I wrote the report.


I listened to the Enrique Iglesias music video: Bailando, in Dolby Atmos glory. Whilst it was not my cup of chai with regards to the artist/genre it was very interesting. A scene which included a large crowd had overhead lyrics coming through from above as well as the traditional front sound stage and surround channels. It appears to work "very well" but IMO will depend entirely on the genre, artist and ultimately who is doing the actual mixing.
I can think of many songs and artists where this may be a great benefit, but as we are talking music, many will prefer 2 channel instead of this blasphemous Atmos mix. I am looking forward to hearing more as time goes on.
Sadly I was unable, well to be honest I forgot, to test any music material upmixed using Dolby Surround. 
I forgot to mention yesterday, I listened to all of the trailers/clips four times, 2 at reference and two times at a lower level as I sat in on two separate demos.
I then spent another 45 minutes or so testing Dolby Surround on the two Blu-ray discs I had brought with me. At the end, another group were due to use the facility so I did not want to push my luck playing around any more. I'm sure if Bjorn's had closed for the night and I was accidentally locked in the Atmos demo room I could have handled that for one night!
On the way home I almost committed a school boy error, I guess my mind was still in space (Gravity) or Atmos ville or wherever. I stopped by a gas (petrol) station for a drink and snacks for the journey home. After driving for about 20 minutes my gas light came on, 50 miles to fill up. I drove on realizing I had forgot to fill up, cursing myself as Texas is a large State and not one you want to run out of gas in. I eventually got down to 8 miles left in the tank before I found a Shell station, what a relief. The Atmos demo had certainly clouded my ability to think clearly about anything else, well at least until I saw a beautiful woman at the gas pump


THE END


----------



## bargervais

mogorf said:


> As Far As I Know...
> 
> https://www.google.hu/search?q=afai...hannel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Llb6U9KCPcOk8weI_YDwDw


Thanks


----------



## action_jackson

chi_guy50 said:


> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it appears that JD is saying that the Dolby Atmos processing will not engage unless the AVR is configured for at least one pair of Atmos height speakers--i.e., exclusive of FH and RH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think JD said that. Front height and Rear Height can be used with Atmos - see the chart batpig has posted. It may not be as effective as using Top Front and Top Rear though. But you can definitely engage Atmos with a FH+TM or FH+TR or FH+RH setup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Keith, as I understand it--and JD can correct me if I have misunderstood--he is instructing us that the AVR will not engage Dolby Atmos processing if you have configured your height speakers as FH/RH, which was the two-pair configuration I had envisioned for my living room. As I now understand it, you can use FH or RH for one of the two pairs but not both and not individually, only in combination with one of the Atmos-specific speakers.
> 
> That is why I stated that this was news to me.
Click to expand...

You can sit all 11 speakers and your sub right next to your TV if you want. The AVR won't know the difference but you will. If you want the best results you should go by the suggested speaker locations.


----------



## NorthSky

Mastiff said:


> And even if you can afford it, it's always a bit of work to do an upgrade. I prefer to go in on the second generation of any new fads, but I may have to wait for the third generation for this 11.2.4 dream system of mine!
> 
> Does anybody remember back in the day, when the first surround sound came out? Many companies had an add-on to a stereo receiver/amp that stripped out the extra two channels (surround speakers were mono back in that time), ampliefied them and sent a stereo signal to the amp. Like the Pioneer VSP-200_. _If somebody could make one for Atmos, with .4 decoding, I'd be all over it like the powder from an exploded fire extinguisher!


We have been talking about that few weeks ago and more. One company, Lyngdorf, makes such a separate unit, but prohibitively expensive. ...Much better to simply buy an equipped receiver. 
Some ultra hi-end home theater rooms (read expensive) use a simple receiver as the heart of their system. ...And you can use it too as a pre/pro if you want to. ...Smart choice as ultra hi-end pre/pros are no better in 82.5% of all cases. 

Get a Denon receiver, or a Marantz pre/pro or receiver (top tier). ...And give your RX-Z11 to your son.


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> And my point was that when powered on, the AVR will draw 100-130W regardless of whether using external amps or not.


Just leave it on Standby.  ...And contemplate your ceiling with them new four speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

action_jackson said:


> You can sit all 11 speakers and your sub right next to your TV if you want. The AVR won't know the difference but you will. If you want the best results you should go by the suggested speaker locations.


Like most people without a dedicated HT, I can not accommodate the prescribed ideal speaker locations. I think Dolby has done a great job of providing different options to allow for Atmos-capable playback in a variety of contexts. But my living room was surround-sound challenged even before adding Atmos to the mix, and I will continue to have to make concessions somewhere.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Just imagine...for a simple glimpse of moment...Oppo making a hi-end receiver with Dolby Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with a possible configuration of *11.2.4* (11.3.6 - 11.4.5) ... or a pre/pro. ...Or an eventual Universal Blu-ray player with a Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS-UHD, dts Surround decoders. ...HDCP 2.2 - HDMI 2.0 - 4K/8K, 3D Sound & Picture...





erwinfrombelgium said:


> Bring it on!


Two weeks ...


----------



## wse

@UKTexan , thanks for the review I can't wait if it sounded that good in that room I am looking forward to see what it will sound like in my rooms


----------



## batpig

If I were in the position of trying to shoehorn Atmos into a setup with existing installed front heights and couldn't accommodate in ceiling speakers, I would try my darnedest to make the rear pair a set of Atmos modules. Rear height aren't used for anything else right now so it's not like you'd be compromising another format like Neo:X by not having RH speakers. Then you at least have one pair of speakers that images overhead to fill in the "dome of sound" along with the FH speakers. 

The only exemption would be if you room wasn't very long as a consequence the RH speakers achieved a proper angle to make them practically "top rear" speakers. But if your two pairs of Atmos speakers are one way in front of you and one way behind you it's going to be impossible to get true overhead imaging.


----------



## Orbitron

Time for a FilmMixer update.


----------



## aaronwt

kbarnes701 said:


> Powered on, but doing nothing. So they use next to no power. That is what I was trying to get across.


Something in my 4520 is using 130 watts though in my setup when there is no input or output. 130 watts is not minimal. Even my LED DLP set only draws around 100watts(But my lamp based DLP sets draw over 200 watts).

Man all this Atmos info is really going to force me to upgrade my 4520 next year to the 7200(or maybe a downgrade to the 5200). Hopefully they will have some refurbs for some decent prices. And then if that happens I'll also need to get more speakers and amps. Which would mean even more money.


----------



## Selden Ball

aaronwt said:


> Something in my 4520 is using 130 watts though in my setup when there is no input or output. 130 watts is not minimal. Even my LED DLP set only draws around 100watts(But my lamp based DLP sets draw over 200 watts)


Do you have video processing enabled? Try turning it off.


----------



## UKTexan

wse said:


> @UKTexan , thanks for the review I can't wait if it sounded that good in that room I am looking forward to see what it will sound like in my rooms


wse, You are welcome!
You may find the attached picture interesting as I know you are a big B&W fan (Nice setup by the way)
The pic was taken as part of an MIT Ambisonic experiment in 2010.
2 x 800D's, plus 19 x B&W M-1's. Looks very similar to the Atmos white paper ear level speaker arrangement.


----------



## aaronwt

Selden Ball said:


> Do you have video processing enabled? Try turning it off.


My video processing is off. Or at least it is supposed to be. I use my DVDO DUO for the video processing before going into the receiver.


----------



## petetherock

I don't know about the odds of a free DTS UD update... Eg they didn't upgrade the 4311 to what the 4520 had, so I won't hold my breath on that one...


----------



## wse

UKTexan said:


> wse, You are welcome!
> You may find the attached picture interesting as I know you are a big B&W fan (Nice setup by the way) The pic was taken as part of an MIT Ambisonic experiment in 2010. 2 x 800D's, plus 19 x B&W M-1's. Looks very familiar to the Atmos white paper ear level speaker arrangement.


800D2 with M1s that is sacrilege  I guess they could not afford 22 M1


----------



## Selden Ball

aaronwt said:


> My video processing is off. Or at least it is supposed to be. I use my DVDO DUO for the video processing before going into the receiver.


Just as a test, you might try selecting Pure Direct. That's supposed to turn off just about all audio and video processing.
The audio and video DSPs use a lot of power and generate a lot of heat.


----------



## NorthSky

UKTexan said:


> Dolby Atmos demo - Additional info
> 
> 
> I really didn't mention anything about Atmos music yesterday, it was late and my mind was drifting while I wrote the report.
> 
> 
> I listened to the Enrique Iglesias music video: Bailando, in Dolby Atmos glory. Whilst it was not my cup of chai with regards to the artist/genre it was very interesting. A scene which included a large crowd had overhead lyrics coming through from above as well as the traditional front sound stage and surround channels. It appears to work "very well" but IMO will depend entirely on the genre, artist and ultimately who is doing the actual mixing.
> I can think of many songs and artists where this may be a great benefit, but as we are talking music, many will prefer 2 channel instead of this blasphemous Atmos mix. I am looking forward to hearing more as time goes on.
> Sadly I was unable, well to be honest I forgot, to test any music material upmixed using Dolby Surround.
> I forgot to mention yesterday, I listened to all of the trailers/clips four times, 2 at reference and two times at a lower level as I sat in on two separate demos.
> I then spent another 45 minutes or so testing Dolby Surround on the two Blu-ray discs I had brought with me. At the end, another group were due to use the facility so I did not want to push my luck playing around any more. I'm sure if Bjorn's had closed for the night and I was accidentally locked in the Atmos demo room I could have handled that for one night!
> On the way home I almost committed a school boy error, I guess my mind was still in space (Gravity) or Atmos ville or wherever. I stopped by a gas (petrol) station for a drink and snacks for the journey home. After driving for about 20 minutes my gas light came on, 50 miles to fill up. I drove on realizing I had forgot to fill up, cursing myself as Texas is a large State and not one you want to run out of gas in. I eventually got down to 8 miles left in the tank before I found a Shell station, what a relief. The Atmos demo had certainly clouded my ability to think clearly about anything else, well at least until I saw a beautiful woman at the gas pump
> 
> 
> THE END


♦ I can think of several music genres (New Age, Alternative, Psychedelic, ...) which would benefit immensely from Dolby Surround Music mode: Pink Floyd, Tangerine Dream, AIR, Dead Can Dance, Bjork, ...


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> Something in my 4520 is using 130 watts though in my setup when there is no input or output. 130 watts is not minimal. Even my LED DLP set only draws around 100watts(But my lamp based DLP sets draw over 200 watts).
> 
> Man all this Atmos info is really going to force me to upgrade my 4520 next year to the 7200(or maybe a downgrade to the 5200). Hopefully they will have some refurbs for some decent prices. And then if that happens I'll also need to get more speakers and amps. Which would mean even more money.


Did you think that being a member here @ AVS you could escape life without upgrading eventually, and sooner than later?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I can think of several music genres (New Age, Alternative, Psychedelic, ...) which would benefit immensely from Dolby Surround Music mode: Pink Floyd, Tangerine Dream, AIR, Dead Can Dance, Bjork, ...


Pink Floyd another brick in the wall or Moody blues threshold of a dream..


----------



## aaronwt

Selden Ball said:


> Just as a test, you might try selecting Pure Direct. That's supposed to turn off just about all audio and video processing.
> The audio and video DSPs use a lot of power and generate a lot of heat.


I just tried the Pure Direct Mode. The power usage stayed the same. I am using the display on the APC UPS to see the wattage. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I use Kill-a-watt type devices with my other electronics but I never connected one to the receiver since the receiver and a whisper quiet fan(sitting on top of the receiver) are the only things I have connected to the UPS.


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Time for a FilmMixer update.


Sanjay and Roger came by today and we had access to a pair of my studio monitors...

Some unofficial non-scientific observations..

We hooked the pair up to the heights, wides, etc. to hear what was working, etc..

The one caveat is that some of these findings may be unique to how the Denon X5200 works.

1. You can't use the Top speakers with DSX.
2. Dolby Surround does not use the wides.
3. There was definite processing activated when you changed the type of speakers from "Top"(Direct Firing) to "Dolby Enabled."

The Denon was fairly non-intuitive in regards to selecting the Dolby Enable speakers, and general setup was a bit more involved than a 5.1 or 7.1 setup.. for example, there is an Amp Assign mode which allows you to say how the receiver will be set up (7.1 + Zone 2, 9.1, 5.1 Bi-Amp, etc..)

When in "Dolby Atmos" mode we couldn't activate the Dolby Enabled speakers.. only seems to add Top's..

We had to change it to 9.1 or 11.1 and then the option became available..

When I finally have my setup I will play more..

Sanjay and Roger will chime in I expect..

Waiting for speakers.........


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> I'm embarrassed to ask but what is AFAIK


Click here -> RTFM  ROTFLMAO


----------



## harrybnbad

Man all this Atmos info is really going to force me to upgrade my 4520 next year to the 7200(or maybe a downgrade to the 5200). Hopefully they will have some refurbs for some decent prices. And then if that happens I'll also need to get more speakers and amps. Which would mean even more money.[/QUOTE]

Ya, this is just killing me...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Sanjay and Roger came by today and we had access to a pair of my studio monitors...
> 
> Some unofficial non-scientific observations..
> 
> We hooked the pair up to the heights, wides, etc. to hear what was working, etc..
> 
> The one caveat is that some of these findings may be unique to how the Denon X5200 works.
> 
> 1. You can't use the Top speakers with DSX.
> 2. Dolby Surround does not use the wides.
> 3. There was definite processing activated when you changed the type of speakers from "Top"(Direct Firing) to "Dolby Enabled."
> 
> The Denon was fairly non-intuitive in regards to selecting the Dolby Enable speakers, and general setup was a bit more involved than a 5.1 or 7.1 setup.. for example, there is an Amp Assign mode which allows you to say how the receiver will be set up (7.1 + Zone 2, 9.1, 5.1 Bi-Amp, etc..)
> 
> When in "Dolby Atmos" mode we couldn't activate the Dolby Enabled speakers.. only seems to add Top's..
> 
> We had to change it to 9.1 or 11.1 and then the option became available..
> 
> When I finally have my setup I will play more..
> 
> Sanjay and Roger will chime in I expect..
> 
> Waiting for speakers.........


Thanks for the updates! 

I agree that Denon is not the best at making intuitive menu structures... or manuals for that matter.


----------



## NorthSky

Onkyo is generally more intuitive; easier ergonomics.  ...Example: AccuEQ. 

* Personally I prefer more complex machines.

_______

Besides, Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround are brand new @ home; wait till 2nd and 3rd gen it should become even more fun with more features and possibilities...
The 7200 I'm sure is a more capable machine, and so will be the 5300 and 7300 and 5400 and 7400...

For now go 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 and be elevated. Forget Height Front and Rear and Front Width channels, they are an old diversion/perversion. Dolby Atmos is the real deal, and the new Dolby Surround is the new portal that we can use right now; the foot inside the new 3D real spatial surround sound world.


----------



## harrybnbad

NorthSky said:


> Just imagine...for a simple glimpse of moment...Oppo making a hi-end receiver with Dolby Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with a possible configuration of *11.2.4* (11.3.6 - 11.4.5) ... or a pre/pro. ...Or an eventual Universal Blu-ray player with a Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS-UHD, dts Surround decoders. ...HDCP 2.2 - HDMI 2.0 - 4K/8K, 3D Sound & Picture...


Just imagine. I am....

Wait a minute. Thats like 17 more upgrades.


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> And *Happy Birthday* to you too kokishin!


Thank you NS.


----------



## DS-21

westmd said:


> Actually the THX ones are only 15% more expensive as the normal ones. What do you think of the risk of not having timbre matched speakers to my mains?


If the difference is just 15% then get the newer and better ones.

As for "timbre matching," that's an marketer's phrase with no real meaning except that it's a useful pesudo-technical bit of nonsense jargon a salesperson can employ to convince people to buy non-identical speakers over not buying any speakers. 

There is identical and there is different. So it's not something to worry about one way or the other.


----------



## bargervais

DS-21 said:


> If the difference is just 15% then get the newer and better ones.
> 
> As for "timbre matching," that's an marketer's phrase with no real meaning except that it's a useful pesudo-technical bit of nonsense jargon a salesperson can employ to convince people to buy non-identical speakers over not buying any speakers.
> 
> There is identical and there is different. So it's not something to worry about one way or the other.


I was always under the impression that the front three are the most crucial and do most of the work is that correct


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I was always under the impression that the front three are the most crucial and do most of the work is that correct


Best surround sound experience comes from identical loudspeakers ALL AROUND. ...Front Left, Center, FR, SR, and SL. ...For all the others, smaller speakers from the same manufacturer with similar voicing is preferable. So for a 11.2.4 setup; same family of speakers is best. Not many people do and not many people have the best.
Subwoofers are another subject, and because of DSP now (EQ) more flexibility is allowed somehow.


----------



## David Susilo

Once you've experienced surround with 100% identical speakers, you will then realize how important having identical speakers all around.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am several thousand miles away, Marc. ...I, and everyone else I am sure, await your reports with bated breath...


Being 17 miles away, figured I'd take advantage of Marc's kind hospitality rather than wait for his report. The below text is copied from the Denon 4100/5200/7200 thread. 


To add to Marc's post, there were several interesting things we were able to find out using only 2 speakers. 

First, the wides get no signal from Dolby Surround Upmixing, but do get signals from Neo:X and all-channel stereo and even those reverby DSP modes (Rock Arena, Jazz Club, etc). Scott Wilkinson's write up of the Dolby demo already mentioned that the DSU does not use wides because they didn't want to smear the soundstage. The Dolby white paper said that DSU didn't use the speakers between the L/C/Rs because they didn't want to smear the soundstage. Seeing the same reason, I thought that there might have been some communication mixup, so I was holding out hope that wides were included in the upmixing ...to no avail. Shame, since I don't buy their smearing-the-soundstage excuse (in both cases). 

The centre spread parameter in Dolby Surround Upmixing is not the gradual adjustment from fully extracted centre to complete phantom centre that we're used to in PLII Music mode. Instead, it is simply an on/off setting. When turned on, centre content is distributed equally across the L/C/R speakers (centre "spread", get it?). 

We plugged the speakers into the height outputs and switched between DSU and Neo:X; the former seemed to extract more info to the height speakers than the latter. When we configured the heights as tops, Neo:X didn't output anything, nor did DSX. 

While configured as tops, we went back and forth with the "using Dolby speakers" setting. Even though it was a pair of studio monitors pointing at us, the HTRF processing made them less easy to localize. Marc was almost hearing imaging behind him. When we configured them as regular height speakers, they imaged at their physical location. So even without Atmos-enabled upward-firing speakers, we could hear it was doing some sort of virtualizing. Roger said he heard a notch in the high frequencies. Thanx Sherlock, didn't know that's how it was being done. 

Unfortunately, virtual heights only worked with Dolby Surround Upmixing, not with Neo:X and DSX. Too bad, because even though the virtual height speakers aren't exactly where DTS or Audyssey height speakers (or even Yamaha presence speakers) are intended to be placed, they're close enough that the function should have been compartmentalized from subsequent processing. Like bass management; if you have small speakers that are crossed over at 100 Hz, then it stays that way irrespective of subsequent processing. Likewise, if you have virtual heights instead of actual heights, then they should be treated like height speakers whether using DSU, Neo:X, DSX, Yamaha Cinema DSP, Auro3D, etc. 

Finally, I must be spoiled by my last two decades of using Lex processors, because the menu structure in the Denon was unintuitive to me. You first have to pick Amp Assign, which includes settings like "Dolby Atmos". What does that even mean when it comes to assigning internal amps? The next step is to configure speakers based on the Amp Assign settings. I would have preferred it the other way 'round. Configure 7 or 9 or 11 or however many speakers you want to use. Then assign internal amps to however many speakers they will support. Whatever speakers (if any) are left over have to be powered by external amplification.


----------



## DS-21

bargervais said:


> I was always under the impression that the front three are the most crucial and do most of the work is that correct


While I cannot speak to height channels one way or another in the context of Atmos or anything else (never heard, let alone used, heights) for 2 to 7 channel systems I think that's right. Ideally, the front three speakers should be identical speakers oriented identically and at the same height. When that is not practicable then one should try to get as close to the ideal situation as possible. The rest of 'em...basically, make sure they're placed right and aren't terrible performers.



NorthSky said:


> Best surround sound experience comes from identical loudspeakers ALL AROUND. ...Front Left, Center, FR, SR, and SL.


I don't think that's particularly or at all important, actually. LCR, yes. The rest of 'em, not so much. At least on material for which fidelity is an actual issue, such as orchestral concerts recorded in multichannel. For movies, whatever. Don't know, don't care. 



David Susilo said:


> Once you've experienced surround with 100% identical speakers, you will then realize how important having identical speakers all around.


Except when you've done it, and realized that after spending an awful lot of money on four speakers to your sides or rear you're not even positive you could tell the new 20x more expensive surrounds from the old ones in a blind test, even though when you compare them as main speakers the spectral balance, image rendition, and dynamic reproduction of the new ones are all beyond question superior...

Furthermore, there's a strong case to be made that ambience speakers have different requirements from front-stage speakers, especially in a small room.* Dr. Toole touches on this idea in _Sound Reproduction._ Note that his discussion of surrounds *never once refers to mains.* Instead, he refers to problems unique to the surround channels in small rooms, such as localization at one surround speaker for listeners outside the main listening position, and makes some proposals that seem to have intuitive merit but are not widely adopted, such as use of line or CBT arrays for ambience channels. 

I don't see how Atmos would change the equation there, though I'm very open to changing my mind if presented with a good argument.

*"Small room" used here as a term of art to refer to the kinds of spaces found in personal homes, as distinct from "large rooms" such as auditoria or concert halls that seat hundreds or thousands of people.


----------



## Orbitron

Having set up 5.1 SACD with identical tweeters and woofers for fronts, center and rears, it's really smooth and balanced.


----------



## David Susilo

OIC, yet another "blind test" guy.

My home theatre have 2 sets of speakers to make a point to my clients. One set 100% identical, another only the LCR are identical with slightly different model but from the same series of the same brand manufacturers. Funny enough that 100% of about 500 listeners (so far) always prefer the 100% identical speakers vs similarly sounding speakers. None of them knew which set I was playing and I only asked whether they choose set A or set B.


----------



## batpig

Thanks Sanjay and Marc for the reports. So it sounds like some of our earlier inferences (mostly based on the now infamous pg 287 chart) were correct:

- the Atmos elevation speakers cannot be used with Neo:X or DSX, only DSU 
- wides don't make sound with DSU 
- if you want to "share" a pair of height speakers between Atmos/DSU and legacy upmix like Neo:X, the first pair of elevated speakers must be designated Front Height

Definitely a bummer that you can't utilize the HTRF processing for the visual heights in other height modes, but then again I'm not surprised. Why would Dolby allow their proprietary design, a result of a lot of time and research, be used to enhance competitor products from DTS and Audyssey?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Why would Dolby allow their proprietary design, a result of a lot of time and research, be used to enhance competitor products from DTS and Audyssey?


For the same reason PLIIz works with all codecs (from Dolby and its competitors). Otherwise, it leaves an opening for someone else to offer a truly agnostic version of the technology. If that happens, they don't just run the risk of someone offering an alternative, they run the risk of someone offering something _better_. 

Imagine if Dolby had limited PLIIz to only extract height information from Dolby codecs (DD, DD+, TrueHD) and not work with competitor's codecs. Most BDs use a DTS codec, which would have left an opening for another company to offer a truly universal upmixer. But what if that other company offered one that could extract heights AND wides? Would Dolby want to leave themselves open to that? 

IF it is Dolby that has limited their Elevation processing to only work with their upmixer, rather than it being a limitation in 1st gen products due to chipmakers/manufacturers, then I hope they seriously reconsider this restriction. What's the worst that will happen? More of their licensed speakers will be sold?


----------



## blastermaster

> My home theatre have 2 sets of speakers to make a point to my clients. One set 100% identical, another only the LCR are identical with slightly different model but from the same series of the same brand manufacturers. Funny enough that 100% of about 500 listeners (so far) always prefer the 100% identical speakers vs similarly sounding speakers. None of them knew which set I was playing and I only asked whether they choose set A or set B.


I would love to have all of my speakers the same. However, my LCR's are about fifty pounds each and take up a fair chunk of real estate. How in the hell am I supposed to mount those to the ceiling for atmos? I think I may have to settle for bookshelf speakers that are in the same brand/family. If I were to have them all the same, in my space, the fronts would have to be much smaller and would probably sound much more anemic than the ones I am currently using. I agree that having them all the same would be ideal, I just don't see how I can do it with my setup and room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blastermaster said:


> I would love to have all of my speakers the same. However, my LCR's are about fifty pounds each and take up a fair chunk of real estate. How in the hell am I supposed to mount those to the ceiling for atmos? I think I may have to settle for bookshelf speakers that are in the same brand/family. If I were to have them all the same, in my space, the fronts would have to be much smaller and would probably sound much more anemic than the ones I am currently using. I agree that having them all the same would be ideal, I just don't see how I can do it with my setup and room.


Yes, of course you would want to use the smaller family of speakers from the same brand for the surrounds as the fronts to maintain timbre matching. The low end can be sent to the subs. 

One thing I would like to have in receivers and pre-amps would be surround subwoofer outputs like in Atmos theaters. That is an add-on function of the processor's bass management software.


----------



## westmd

David Susilo said:


> Once you've experienced surround with 100% identical speakers, you will then realize how important having identical speakers all around.


David, over at the Yamaha aventage thread you wrote: 

_Timbre Matching, even as a THX Certified Professional, I find it to be totally unnecessary as the matching is already done by YPAO EQ_

Could explain that statement?


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Having set up 5.1 SACD with identical tweeters and woofers for fronts, center and rears, it's really smooth and balanced.


Right on!


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> OIC, yet another "blind test" guy.
> 
> My home theatre have 2 sets of speakers to make a point to my clients. One set 100% identical, another only the LCR are identical with slightly different model but from the same series of the same brand manufacturers. Funny enough that 100% of about 500 listeners (so far) always prefer the 100% identical speakers vs similarly sounding speakers. None of them knew which set I was playing and I only asked whether they choose set A or set B.


That is also what I experienced and many of my friends. ...And for both multichannel music and movies.

* Dr. Toole is good, very good.


----------



## Roger Dressler

DS-21 said:


> You don't want to point the Tannoys, or _any_ concentric driver or speaker with a round waveguide, directly at the listening position. Simple geometry: there's a cancellation notch in the treble that fills in completely a little off axis.


I'd like to know more about the geometry that causes this notch. There's no mention of that *here*.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Thanks Sanjay and Marc for the reports. So it sounds like some of our earlier inferences (mostly based on the now infamous pg 287 chart) were correct:
> 
> - the Atmos elevation speakers cannot be used with Neo:X or DSX, only DSU
> - wides don't make sound with DSU
> - if you want to "share" a pair of height speakers between Atmos/DSU and legacy upmix like Neo:X, the first pair of elevated speakers must be designated Front Height
> 
> Definitely a bummer that you can't utilize the HTRF processing for the visual heights in other height modes, but then again I'm not surprised. Why would Dolby allow their proprietary design, a result of a lot of time and research, be used to enhance competitor products from DTS and Audyssey?


I guess it would be the same with Marantz? ...Of course it is.

* You think Yamaha, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo/Integra, have a different topology (implementation) about Dolby Atmos working with their own proprietary Auto Room Calibration and EQ systems? 
Like for Dolby Surround working with dts Neo:X and the presence channels (Yamaha).


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d love to take you up on that. Texas is one state I have never visited. Bjorn's really does sound like the real deal!


When I moved to San Antonio in 1980, Bjorn was already "at it" doing demos of high fidelity sound with projection video, playing surrounds through a time delay device. This was at least 2 years before Dolby Surround was born.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> David, over at the Yamaha aventage thread you wrote:
> 
> _Timbre Matching, even as a THX Certified Professional, I find it to be totally unnecessary as *the matching is already done by YPAO EQ*_
> 
> Could explain that statement?


It says right there; YPAO EQ. ...Doesn't mean it's perfect; because it is not.


----------



## NorthSky

DS-21 said:


> I don't think that's particularly or at all important, actually. LCR, yes. The rest of 'em, not so much. At least on material for which fidelity is an actual issue, such as orchestral concerts recorded in multichannel. For movies, whatever. Don't know, don't care.


Nothing is essentially important, but when you hear the difference between what is and what's not, 
then it becomes obvious that what counts is what you prefer. ...And no matter what other prefer,
even Dr. Toole, or/and Dr. Olive.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> It says right there; YPAO EQ. ...Doesn't mean it's perfect; because it is not.


I would love nothing more then to get timbre matched speakers to my existing ones but AFAIK they don't exist. I have been in contact both with the US and German representatives of Jamo.
What I have been told is that KEF's are rather neutral so difference wouldn't be too great between mine and the KEF's.
One other company I found was Preference (http://preference-audio.com). They have in ceiling speakers with a silk tweeter (my Jamos have a polyester one) in comparison to KEFs aluminium. I have been told that comparing tweeter material is the most important when it comes to timbre matching. Unfortunately so far I was not able to find any reviews or experience reports on the Preference units?


----------



## jacovn

We really need a white paper from Dolby for the specifications on the ceiling speakers.

I sort of assume it will be close to the cinema requirements on most part.

From http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf there are some clear guidelines.

Loudspeakers over Central Listening Area (CLA) should be aimed down
Loudspeakers front and behind CLA should be aimed at the edge of the CLA. 

When CLA is 1 seat, or row, it should perhaps not be aimed directly at the ear position, but slightly before and behind ?

The same seems true for the angle they need from side towards the middle of the room. That is halfway between the middle of the room and the axis front rear they are installed on.
Same logic, not directly at the ears of the person in the optimal position, but just next to it.



Come on Dolby, share this information.


----------



## markus767

westmd said:


> I would love nothing more then to get timbre matched speakers to my existing ones but AFAIK they don't exist. I have been in contact both with the US and German representatives of Jamo.
> What I have been told is that KEF's are rather neutral so difference wouldn't be too great between mine and the KEF's.
> One other company I found was Preference (http://preference-audio.com). They have in ceiling speakers with a silk tweeter (my Jamos have a polyester one) in comparison to KEFs aluminium. I have been told that comparing tweeter material is the most important when it comes to timbre matching. Unfortunately so far I was not able to find any reviews or experience reports on the Preference units?


In the bigger picture diaphragm material is meaningless if distortion of drivers is similarly low. Timbre is dictated by driver dispersion characteristics and room interaction.


----------



## westmd

jacovn said:


> Loudspeakers over Central Listening Area (CLA) should be aimed down
> Loudspeakers front and behind CLA should be aimed at the edge of the CLA. .


Esoecially with in ceiling f that will be hard to achieve as they are flat with the ceiling and it will be hard to aim! There are some models with pointaboe tweeters but these don't follow Dolby's "Wide Dispersion" requirement. I understood that if you have a wide dispersion speaker (like KEF uni-q) within the correct angle no aiming should be done!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> No, Keith, as I understand it--and JD can correct me if I have misunderstood--he is instructing us that the AVR will not engage Dolby Atmos processing if you have configured your height speakers as FH/RH, which was the two-pair configuration I had envisioned for my living room. As I now understand it, you can use FH or RH for one of the two pairs but not both and not individually, only in combination with one of the Atmos-specific speakers.
> 
> That is why I stated that this was news to me.


JD will no doubt step in, but I don't think you have got it right. Batpig's chart showed clearly that the FH+RH combination was an Atmos combination. I should have saved the post but search should find it for you. 

*@batpig*: would you post the chart from the manual again please (or PM it to me). It's the one where you had highlighted in yellow various combinations IIRC. Thanks buddy.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> westmd, I contacted David Kroll who is the Global product manager for KEF in ceiling speakers as I too am considering the THX speaker. David gave me three options which would all match well with the KEF R300's I am looking at:
> 
> 
> Depending on the room size / and what main speakers, the Ci160QR, Ci200QR, or the Ci200RR-THX.
> 
> The Ci200QR offer the best output/LF response for reasonable cost. The Ci200RR-THX are an exceptional speaker, and can even be used as LCR in a high performance system.
> 
> 
> Does not answer your timbre match question but thought I would share the information received.


If you are using XT32, timbre matching isn’t really an issue.


----------



## jdsmoothie

kbarnes701 said:


> JD will no doubt step in, but I don't think you have got it right. Batpig's chart showed clearly that the FH+RH combination was an Atmos combination. I should have saved the post but search should find it for you.
> 
> *@batpig*: would you post the chart from the manual again please (or PM it to me). It's the one where you had highlighted in yellow various combinations IIRC. Thanks buddy.



Currently the only available X5200W manual is the one on the Denon UK website in which you can easily download yourself.  

http://www.denon.co.uk/uk/downloads/pages/instructionmanual.aspx


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I actually took my family across the border to experience Atmos @ the movies, but it was only a 2h drive into Holland... Well worth it.


Which movie did you see?



erwinfrombelgium said:


> BTW, there aren't any real borders in the EU anymore... except for the UK, as you know! You Brits always have to be special!


It's not that - we just like to make life difficult for the French  LOL.

(Amitiés, Hugo!)


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> Sorry for the confusion, although not ideal, FH+RH can indeed be used as the Atmos "height" speakers.


Thanks JD. Some confusion seems to arise from the nomenclature for the overhead speakers. Some call them 'overhead', others 'height', others 'top', others 'ceiling' and so on. So when referring to 'heights' some people mean the legacy heights like those for PLIIz and others mean 'tops' like the new Top Front etc. I guess it will settle into some sort of convention eventually. Maybe we should call traditional front and rear heights 'legacy heights' and all the others 'ceiling'?


----------



## kbarnes701

ellisr63 said:


> When you turn on the 4520... If there is no load would it be running much cooler to since the amps are idle? I am asking this to see if a dedicated AVP would be more efficient AC wise and temperature wise than a AVR.


Probably not. It's the HDMI board that seems to generate most of the heat.


----------



## ss9001

Owner's manuals are up on Pioneer US site for the AJ Dolby speakers:

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Elite+Speakers/SP-EBS73-LR


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the updates!
> 
> I agree that Denon is not the best at making intuitive menu structures... or manuals for that matter.


Which is why we have batpig of course


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Being 17 miles away, figured I'd take advantage of Marc's kind hospitality rather than wait for his report. The below text is copied from the Denon 4100/5200/7200 thread.


Great post, Sanjay. Thanks. I do envy you guys who all live so close to each other that you can have these GTGs.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Great post, Sanjay. Thanks. I do envy you guys who all live so close to each other that you can have these GTGs.


Really no one in your area?


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Which is why we have batpig of course


I was just about to type the same thing and you beat me to it!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> JD will no doubt step in, but I don't think you have got it right. Batpig's chart showed clearly that the FH+RH combination was an Atmos combination. I should have saved the post but search should find it for you.
> 
> *@batpig*: would you post the chart from the manual again please (or PM it to me). It's the one where you had highlighted in yellow various combinations IIRC. Thanks buddy.





kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks JD. Some confusion seems to arise from the nomenclature for the overhead speakers. Some call them 'overhead', others 'height', others 'top', others 'ceiling' and so on. So when referring to 'heights' some people mean the legacy heights like those for PLIIz and others mean 'tops' like the new Top Front etc. I guess it will settle into some sort of convention eventually. Maybe we should call traditional front and rear heights 'legacy heights' and all the others 'ceiling'?


Keith, I see that, subsequent to your first post, you noticed that JD had corrected himself here.

I was perfectly clear about the five sets of permissible height speakers, but JD's original statement--although startling--was also plausible assuming a heretofore undisclosed prerequisite for engaging the Atmos processor that further delimits the speaker combinations. Although I am somewhat adept at reading their manuals after three years of ownership (and with the help of my dog-eared copy of batpig's Denon-to-English Dictionary), D&M is notorious for their convoluted and less than exhaustive user's manuals. Even so, you would think such a prerequisite would have been spelled out somewhere in the manual. But I would not be surprised to see other actual surprises emerge once we start getting user feedback on these units. Caveat emptor, RTFM, and--when all else fails--consult the experts here at AVS Forum!

BTW, I'm now tentatively planning to redesignate my in-ceiling surrounds as TR (for a FH/TR set-up) so at that point the whole question of a FH/RH combo would be moot for my purposes.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> I don't think that's particularly or at all important, actually. LCR, yes. The rest of 'em, not so much. At least on material for which fidelity is an actual issue, such as orchestral concerts recorded in multichannel. For movies, whatever. Don't know, don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you've done it, and realized that after spending an awful lot of money on four speakers to your sides or rear you're not even positive you could tell the new 20x more expensive surrounds from the old ones in a blind test, even though when you compare them as main speakers the spectral balance, image rendition, and dynamic reproduction of the new ones are all beyond question superior...


As someone who has done it, I have to agree. I spent a lot of money on a matching set of 5 speakers from the Canadian company, Totem. This was in the days when I seemed to have some sort of belief in 'audiophile' speakers, although I am embarrassed to admit it now. The sound was very good though. Then, for various reasons to do with reconfiguring the room, I had to replace the surround pair of Totems and I chose some small, inexpensive speakers from a British company which isn't well known, or known at all in the USA. And guess what? After running XT32, I couldn’t detect any audible difference between these small, cheap speakers and the 5 times more expensive Totems, for surround duties.

More recently, to go with my M&K S150s across the front, I have used M&K SS150T Tripoles, which are fairly expensive but I wanted the tripole concept. Those speakers were wonderful as surrounds, but clearly they are not identical to the mains and also the great sound had little to do with 'timbre matching' and a lot to do with the tripole concept in my room.

Now, in preparation for Atmos, I have sold the Tripoles and relocated my surrounds to 110° and changed them to some MK Sound M7s, which aren't cheap and aren't expensive. And lately I have been thinking of replacing those with some dual concentrics.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> OIC, yet another "blind test" guy.
> 
> My home theatre have 2 sets of speakers to make a point to my clients. One set 100% identical, another only the LCR are identical with slightly different model but from the same series of the same brand manufacturers. Funny enough that 100% of about 500 listeners (so far) always prefer the 100% identical speakers vs similarly sounding speakers. None of them knew which set I was playing and I only asked whether they choose set A or set B.


Yes, David, I am sure that is the case - but there are all sorts of possible reasons why they preferred A over B which have nothing to do with whether all the speakers are identical or not. They might, for example, have shown the same preference for one over another if you had used the 'second set' for the mains and the 'first set' for the surrounds. 

Do you use XT32 or some similar electronic EQ in the HT?

Incidentally, as you will know, the test you performed isn't scientifically valid really because while the audience may not have known which set of speakers were in use, *you* did. And you may well have (and possibly did) unconsciously convey bias to the audience, thus influencing their decision. I am not saying this happened of course, as I was not there, but it does happen all the time, which is why the only really reliable tests are double blind. We are OT for this thread so it isn’t the place to prolong a discussion of this.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are using XT32, timbre matching isn’t really an issue.


I will most likely use YPAO but have not found a word on timbre matching in Yamaha's current manuals!


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> As someone who has done it, I have to agree. I spent a lot of money on a matching set of 5 speakers from the Canadian company, Totem. This was in the days when I seemed to have some sort of belief in 'audiophile' speakers, although I am embarrassed to admit it now. The sound was very good though. Then, for various reasons to do with reconfiguring the room, I had to replace the surround pair of Totems and I chose some small, inexpensive speakers from a British company which isn't well known, or known at all in the USA. And guess what? After running XT32, I couldn’t detect any audible difference between these small, cheap speakers and the 5 times more expensive Totems, for surround duties.
> 
> More recently, to go with my M&K S150s across the front, I have used M&K SS150T Tripoles, which are fairly expensive but I wanted the tripole concept. Those speakers were wonderful as surrounds, but clearly they are not identical to the mains and also the great sound had little to do with 'timbre matching' and a lot to do with the tripole concept in my room.
> 
> Now, in preparation for Atmos, I have sold the Tripoles and relocated my surrounds to 110° and changed them to some MK Sound M7s, which aren't cheap and aren't expensive. And lately I have been thinking of replacing those with some dual concentrics.





Keith,


I believe I have read in some past posts of yours that you wanted to maybe use the Dual Concentrics for the Atmos "Tops". Are you also considering them for the "Side Surrounds" also? 


...Glenn


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, of course you would want to use the smaller family of speakers from the same brand for the surrounds as the fronts to maintain timbre matching.


The point DS was making is that timbre matching is largely an illusion. I used to think it was important - it was only recently that Roger (Dressler) made a casual remark to me that timbre matching used to be important back in the day, when we had no easy means of EQing speakers, but not so important these days when we have easy access to EQ like XT32 and so on. Roger's remark caused me to rethink and to do some research and, as expected, Roger is right. Nowadays, electronic EQ will 'iron out' the timbral differences between speakers, so long, of course, as they are fairly decent speakers to begin with. By which I mean, nobody is saying that B&W Whatevers can be made to timbrally match the speaker in my 20 dollar transistor radio, simply by using EQ. But where the speakers are designed reasonable flat across the spectrum, then yes, EQ will do the job. 

This Damascene moment has caused me to rethink the whole concept of a 5.1 speaker 'set' and I have come to the conclusion that, provided effective EQ is undertaken, the surround speakers can be different, and much less costly, to the main speakers (in a bass managed system) with no real audible detriment. If one wants a 'belt and braces/suspenders' solution, then choosing smaller speakers from the same manufacturer might be an option.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> When I moved to San Antonio in 1980, Bjorn was already "at it" doing demos of high fidelity sound with projection video, playing surrounds through a time delay device. This was at least 2 years before Dolby Surround was born.


I don't think we have anything like Bjorn's in the entire UK. Although, of course, the entire UK is significantly smaller than Texas! We have the very high end 'custom integrators', some small specialist shops and the big box shifter stores. But nothing like the Bjorn concept which seems to wrap all three into one.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> I will most likely use YPAO but have not found a word on timbre matching in Yamaha's current manuals!


YPAO will do a similar job. Timbre matching is a term related to speakers so I'd not expect to see it in an AVR manual.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Really no one in your area?


Nope. Where I live there are about .5 people to the square kilometer! But I have hardly any friends who are into AV - most of them have a TV and a soundbar, and they only have the soundbar because their flat TVs have such poor speakers  And I don't participate in the UK forums so I haven't 'met' any virtual buddies there. TBH, I am much more in tune with Americans than with Brits in almost every way.


----------



## Selden Ball

westmd said:


> I will most likely use YPAO but have not found a word on timbre matching in Yamaha's current manuals!


They wouldn't mention it using those words. Rather, any good room EQ software will attempt to flatten (make more accurate) the frequency response of all of the speakers as heard at your primary listening position. To the extent that the EQ actually manages to do that, then the timbre of the sounds coming from all of the speakers will be the same: accurate. If you use a spectrum analysis program like REW, you'll discover that the differing peaks and valleys in frequency response (which are what make speakers sound different) will have been substantially reduced after you've run the EQ calibration. As a result, the speakers will sound very similar to one another when the room EQ is enabled.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> I believe I have read in some past posts of yours that you wanted to maybe use the Dual Concentrics for the Atmos "Tops". Are you also considering them for the "Side Surrounds" also?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Hey Glenn... yes, I am using Tannoy dual concentrics for my four ceiling speakers. And yes, I am, sort of, considering using them for my side surrounds now too. Nothing decided at this time, but under consideration. The wide dispersion pattern appeals to me, in my room, for the surrounds. Also, my room is small, and inevitably I sit quite close to one of the surrounds - the greater phase coherence of the dual concentrics appeals to me.

Both of those benefits seem to be potentially useful to me, in my room. If I decide to try them, I will keep my current surround speakers until I am sure I have made the right choice.

As I am far from expert in this area, if anyone wishes to chime in and comment on the above, I'd welcome it.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey Glenn... yes, I am using Tannoy dual concentrics for my four ceiling speakers. And yes, I am, sort of, considering using them for my side surrounds now too. Nothing decided at this time, but under consideration. The wide dispersion pattern appeals to me, in my room, for the surrounds. Also, my room is small, and inevitably I sit quite close to one of the surrounds - the greater phase coherence of the dual concentrics appeals to me.
> 
> Both of those benefits seem to be potentially useful to me, in my room. If I decide to try them, I will keep my current surround speakers until I am sure I have made the right choice.
> 
> As I am far from expert in this area, if anyone wishes to chime in and comment on the above, I'd welcome it.


 
Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past? This is so that the "Tops" are to be more separated from the sides, is that the thinking? 


Also, I have a relatively narrow room at 12 ft 4 inches. I have (1) row of (3) seats and if the "Side Surrounds" in particular are mounted at ear level wouldn't the person seated in the middle have the "Side Surrounds" being blocked by the two people on the ends?


...Glenn


----------



## FilmMixer

jacovn said:


> _*We really need a white paper from Dolby for the specifications on the ceiling speakers.
> 
> *_I sort of assume it will be close to the cinema requirements on most part.
> 
> From http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf there are some clear guidelines.
> 
> Loudspeakers over Central Listening Area (CLA) should be aimed down
> Loudspeakers front and behind CLA should be aimed at the edge of the CLA.
> 
> When CLA is 1 seat, or row, it should perhaps not be aimed directly at the ear position, but slightly before and behind ?
> 
> The same seems true for the angle they need from side towards the middle of the room. That is halfway between the middle of the room and the axis front rear they are installed on.
> Same logic, not directly at the ears of the person in the optimal position, but just next to it.
> 
> *Come on Dolby, share this information*.


Dolby stated specifically, at their press demo event, that one would be available around CEDIA time..


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past?


Yes. At both the Dolby demos I attended, the surrounds were all placed at ear level. This is to create a bigger distance between the floor-level speakers and the ceiling speakers. Since then, Stephen at Dolby, London has confirmed to me the following, which is taken from *my report* on the second demo:

_Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.

Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins.

This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room. _



Glenn Baumann said:


> Also, I have a relatively narrow room at 12 ft 4 inches. I have (1) row of (3) seats and if the "Side Surrounds" in particular are mounted at ear level wouldn't the person seated in the middle have the "Side Surrounds" being blocked by the two people on the ends?


Yes - I have the same issue. Some compromise is required. If you assume the above info from Dolby represents the 'ideal' then try to get as close to it as you can, without introducing undesirable side effects. I’d say it was more important that everyone has a clear line of hearing to the surrounds than the ideal placement of the surrounds vis-à-vis the ceiling speakers, if one has to compromise. So, lower the surrounds to the point where every set of ears can 'see' them - that will be the optimum possible position in your room.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes. At both the Dolby demos I attended, the surrounds were all placed at ear level. This is to create a bigger distance between the floor-level speakers and the ceiling speakers. Since then, Stephen at Dolby, London has confirmed to me the following, which is taken from *my report* on the second demo:
> 
> _Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers._
> 
> _Translating that to a practical example, if your main speakers' tweeters are 3.5 feet off the ground, then you will need a ceiling speaker to be at least 7 feet from the floor for the best effect, and preferably a little more. And for those same mains speakers, the surrounds should not be higher than about 4ft 3 ins._
> 
> _This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room. _
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - I have the same issue. Some compromise is required. If you assume the above info from Dolby represents the 'ideal' then try to get as close to it as you can, without introducing undesirable side effects. I’d say it was more important that everyone has a clear line of hearing to the surrounds than the ideal placement of the surrounds vis-à-vis the ceiling speakers, if one has to compromise. So, lower the surrounds to the point where every set of ears can 'see' them - that will be the optimum possible position in your room.


 
That line of thinking regarding the compromise makes total sense!


I will have to also decide whether I will be using "Dipole" or "Monopole" speakers for my "Side" and "Back" Surrounds? I have always used "Dipolar" surround speakers in the past but I might have to give the "Monopoles" a try! I have both types of speakers so I can do just the rears as monopoles or do the "sides" and "rears" as monopoles... decisions, decisions!


...Glenn


----------



## Ted99

NorthSky said:


> The only thing that I can see so far is the replacement of the Yamaha CX-A5000 pre/pro with added Dolby Atmos/Dolby Surround inside and in a *11.2.4* configuration possible device. It's matching amp, the MX-A5000 (11-channel amp) will remain.
> 
> Separates are always better. The top receiver(s) right now, IMO, is the Denon AVR-X7200W or the Marantz SR7900. ...Available later on; end of year or beginning of next.
> 
> But! Who knows when DTS-UHD will start to appear in the second generation of receivers...
> 
> It's a lot of fun to be the first one on our block with Dolby Atmos, but it is also very wise (more so for people with limited funds) to be patient and wait fall 2015 for what's coming up.
> Because $1,000 or $2,000 for many people is a fair chunk of cash, and they cannot afford to upgrade next year with even better surround audio codecs (decoders).


Thanks. I got so tired of chasing codecs, I passed on DTS Neo11 and HDMI 1.4. It looks like HDMI 2.0 and Atmos, plus DTS-UHD will be as good as I need for a while, so I'll wait until the 2nd generation, as you suggest. I used to be an early adopter, but stopped that looking for step changes. Looks like Atmos and DTS-UHD are step changes.


----------



## Ted99

NorthSky said:


> Just imagine...for a simple glimpse of moment...Oppo making a hi-end receiver with Dolby Atmos and Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with a possible configuration of *11.2.4* (11.3.6 - 11.4.5) ... or a pre/pro. ...Or an eventual Universal Blu-ray player with a Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS-UHD, dts Surround decoders. ...HDCP 2.2 - HDMI 2.0 - 4K/8K, 3D Sound & Picture...


I sent Oppo a letter about a year ago asking them to put DTS Neo X and 11 pre outs in their next player. No reply, but I'm glad they didn't because Atmos/DTS-UHD would be a more long-lasting product.


----------



## sdurani

Glenn Baumann said:


> Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past? This is so that the "Tops" are to be more separated from the sides, is that the thinking?


That convention should be due more to common sense than Atmos. 

When going from 5.1 to 7.1, you shouldn't just add a pair of speakers behind you, but also move your current surrounds a bit forward, to better separate sounds behind you from sounds at your sides. 

Same with Atmos. It isn't just about having sounds above you but separating sounds above you from sounds around you. To that end, anything you can do to improve that distinction (e.g., move current surrounds a bit down) is helpful.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> The point DS was making is that timbre matching is largely an illusion. I used to think it was important - it was only recently that Roger (Dressler) made a casual remark to me that timbre matching used to be important back in the day, when we had no easy means of EQing speakers, but not so important these days when we have easy access to EQ like XT32 and so on. Roger's remark caused me to rethink and to do some research and, as expected, Roger is right. Nowadays, electronic EQ will 'iron out' the timbral differences between speakers, so long, of course, as they are fairly decent speakers to begin with. By which I mean, nobody is saying that B&W Whatevers can be made to timbrally match the speaker in my 20 dollar transistor radio, simply by using EQ. But where the speakers are designed reasonable flat across the spectrum, then yes, EQ will do the job.
> 
> This Damascene moment has caused me to rethink the whole concept of a 5.1 speaker 'set' and I have come to the conclusion that, provided effective EQ is undertaken, the surround speakers can be different, and much less costly, to the main speakers (in a bass managed system) with no real audible detriment. If one wants a 'belt and braces/suspenders' solution, then choosing smaller speakers from the same manufacturer might be an option.



Hi Keith, 
+1 on that, in a movie setting the surrounds can be smaller.
But i would temper this statement for people also listening to multichannel audio, SACD, DVD-A, BD-TA, ... In this scenario, the surround channels emit a lot of signal and are as important as the fronts


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I do envy you guys who all live so close to each other that you can have these GTGs.


Roger was 800 miles away, until he found out there was a fully functioning Atmos receiver at Marc's place.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No doubt. I'd have made that drive.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Hi Keith,
> +1 on that, in a movie setting the surrounds can be smaller.
> But i would temper this statement for people also listening to multichannel audio, SACD, DVD-A, BD-TA, ... In this scenario, the surround channels emit a lot of signal and are as important as the fronts


Ah yes sure - I *always* forget that people use their HT for music listening too. I don't, so all my remarks on AVS are concerned with movie sound only - but of course you can't be expected to know that. I ought to add it as a disclaimer to every post I make


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Roger was 800 miles away, until he found out there was a fully functioning Atmos receiver at Marc's place.


LOL. I understand. I could have been tempted to make the 12,000 mile round trip myself


----------



## bkeeler10

Ted99 said:


> I sent Oppo a letter about a year ago asking them to put DTS Neo X and 11 pre outs in their next player. No reply, but I'm glad they didn't because Atmos/DTS-UHD would be a more long-lasting product.


Yep. Make it 13 pre-outs and give it either Dirac Live/XT32 or a versatile multi-band PEQ for each channel, and they will have my attention. We bantied this idea around about 100 pages ago in this thread


----------



## Orbitron

I make a Motion that Marc put up a video of his Atmos room, who seconds the Motion?


----------



## redjr

Great review UKTexan! This kind of reviews is inspiring all of us to hopefully to speed up our adoption of Dolby Atmos. I just need to get a new receiver now!  Unfortunately, I've just spent $$$$$ on my new mancave/basement.


----------



## Kain

Now that we have overhead channels, are the surround speakers (side and back) suppose to be at ear-level or can they still be placed above ear-level? I've noticed that all of Dolby's layouts on their Web site (not just for Atmos) have all speakers are ear-level (if I am not mistaken).


----------



## pasender91

Kain said:


> Now that we have overhead channels, are the surround speakers (side and back) suppose to be at ear-level or can they still be placed above ear-level? I've noticed that all of Dolby's layouts on their Web site (not just for Atmos) have all speakers are ear-level (if I am not mistaken).


ehhhhhhh, this has been discussed earlier today already, don't you read a bit the messages before asking questions ? 

The answer was yes, now with Atmos the surrounds are lowered to ear-level (in order to create more space between them and the Top speakers)


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> I had the opportunity to find out how well Dolby Surround, yes it is a capital S, worked in comparison to PLIIX/Z.


Thank you for covering that part of the new technology. For the near future, folks with Atmos receivers and pre-pros will have still have media collections dominated by legacy material, so the Dolby Surround Upmixer could end up getting much MUCH more use than the Atmos decoder residing on the same DSP chip. Hope more people report on DSU while we wait for Atmos content to be released.


----------



## W3Rman

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally, as you will know, the test you performed isn't scientifically valid really because while the audience may not have known which set of speakers were in use, *you* did. And you may well have (and possibly did) unconsciously convey bias to the audience,.....


For all 500 listeners... ROFLMAO moment .... :grin:


----------



## bargervais

Quote:
Originally Posted by *pasender91*  
_Hi Keith, 
+1 on that, in a movie setting the surrounds can be smaller.
But i would temper this statement for people also listening to multichannel audio, SACD, DVD-A, BD-TA, ... In this scenario, the surround channels emit a lot of signal and are as important as the fronts _



kbarnes701 said:


> Ah yes sure - I *always* forget that people use their HT for music listening too. I don't, so all my remarks on AVS are concerned with movie sound only - but of course you can't be expected to know that. I ought to add it as a disclaimer to every post I make


i use the front speakers mostly anyways for listening to music, hardly the surrounds are used when i listen to music.


----------



## Kain

pasender91 said:


> ehhhhhhh, this has been discussed earlier today already, don't you read a bit the messages before asking questions ?
> 
> The answer was yes, now with Atmos the surrounds are lowered to ear-level (in order to create more space between them and the Top speakers)


I did read (well sort of breeze through) the last few pages and didn't see anything on this? 

Anyway, thanks for answering though.


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> Thank you for covering that part of the new technology. For the near future, folks with Atmos receivers and pre-pros will have still have media collections dominated by legacy material, so the Dolby Surround Upmixer could end up getting much MUCH more use than the Atmos decoder residing on the same DSP chip. Hope more people report on DSU while we wait for Atmos content to be released.


Your welcome. I agree, legacy content will be much more prevalent in most collections for a long time to come which is why I wanted to try it out. Bjorn's were insistent I try Dolby Atmos first before I tested Dolby Surround because they knew just how good it was, they wanted me to have the wow factor from regular 5.1 to 5.2.4. 
Dolby Surround is not Atmos but it gets pretty close IMHO.
Both titles I tested provided astounding results, I look forward to the day when I can try this in my own home.
I will also be on the look out for opinions from you and other members once you have the capability in your home theaters.
All the best.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

sdurani said:


> That convention should be due more to common sense than Atmos.
> 
> When going from 5.1 to 7.1, you shouldn't just add a pair of speakers behind you, but also move your current surrounds a bit forward, to better separate sounds behind you from sounds at your sides.
> 
> Same with Atmos. It isn't just about having sounds above you but separating sounds above you from sounds around you. To that end, anything you can do to improve that distinction (e.g., move current surrounds a bit down) is helpful.


Hi Sanjay,


The way the walls are laid out in my room, I have to mount the "Side Surrounds" more or less at 90 degrees in relation to my single row of (3) attached seats... in other words, directly to the sides of the seating . The room is only 12ft 4in wide and the sides of the end seats are only 2 feet away from the wall. I was thinking I might be better served by using "Dipole" as opposed to "Monopole" Side Surrounds so as to not have that "Monopole Point source" beaming towards the outer seat occupants heads? I thought the "Null" of the Dipoles might be beneficial there not beaming close to your ears.


For the "Back Surrounds", I thought I might want to mount them somewhat lower, more towards the recommended Atmos ear height. I also would probably want to try "Monopoles" as opposed to my usual "Dipoles" back there.

Thoughts?

...Glenn


----------



## jacovn

I think i am lucky to start all over with Atmos system.
Sold all my ht audio system (meridian)

Will go for 7x same speaker, and 4x speaker for height units.

genelec 8040 for normal speakers, and 8030 for heights it might be. Perhaps dynaudio comparable models if i can get A good demo.

The genelec are -2 dB on 48 and 58 Hz. So crossover at 80-90 perhaps.

I do want active monitors, not want huge amps again waisting energy in passive filters. Since i come from active speakers, there are power cables everywhere, and i can bring them to the celing very easy also.

But i will just wait for a few weeks, Cedia is soon.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> I did read (well sort of breeze through) the last few pages and didn't see anything on this?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for answering though.


15 posts before yours (#5444) Glen Baumann asked the same question and Keith answered two posts later.


----------



## BennyTurbo

Did anyone of the new 5200W owners try to use existing Front High Speakers as Top Front Speakers and maybe try to move the speakers then to the Ceiling to compare? Is there a big difference?


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> 15 posts before yours (#5444) Glen Baumann asked the same question and Keith answered two posts later.


Awesome! Thanks for the info. 

Sorry for missing that post. 

By the way, this actually works to my advantage because I was planning on placing the surround speakers in my new planned home theater at ear-level due to room constraints.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Now that we have overhead channels, are the surround speakers (side and back) suppose to be at ear-level or can they still be placed above ear-level? I've noticed that all of Dolby's layouts on their Web site (not just for Atmos) have all speakers are ear-level (if I am not mistaken).


I already posted this today, but if you missed it, here it is again.

This is what Stephen from Dolby, London, told me:

_Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers."_


----------



## kbarnes701

W3Rman said:


> For all 500 listeners... ROFLMAO moment .... :grin:


It is impossible for human beings to control bias. There are numerous articles on the Internet about it if you want to learn more about it. In tests of the kind David carried out, the controller of the test can, and usually does, impart his own bias on to the testees, unconsciously, which is why double blind tests are the gold standard and why no hard conclusions can be drawn, unfortunately, from David's tests.


----------



## tjenkins95

BennyTurbo said:


> Did anyone of the new 5200W owners try to use existing Front High Speakers as Top Front Speakers and maybe try to move the speakers then to the Ceiling to compare? Is there a big difference?


 

Sorry but I don't have Front Heights - I only have a 7.1 system and my 5200W is being delivered tomorrow. I am awaiting the announcements at CEDIA to see if Klipsch will be offering ATMOS-enabled addon speakers. Also waiting for FilmMixer's review of his new 5.1 set of the Andrew Jones Pioneer 5.1 Atmos-enabled speakers.


Ray


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Glenn Baumann said:


> Hi Sanjay,
> 
> 
> The way the walls are laid out in my room, I have to mount the "Side Surrounds" more or less at 90 degrees in relation to my single row of (3) attached seats... in other words, directly to the sides of the seating . The room is only 12ft 4in wide and the sides of the end seats are only 2 feet away from the wall. I was thinking I might be better served by using "Dipole" as opposed to "Monopole" Side Surrounds so as to not have that "Monopole Point source" beaming towards the outer seat occupants heads? I thought the "Null" of the Dipoles might be beneficial there not beaming close to your ears.
> 
> 
> For the "Back Surrounds", I thought I might want to mount them somewhat lower, more towards the recommended Atmos ear height. I also would probably want to try "Monopoles" as opposed to my usual "Dipoles" back there.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ...Glenn


From everything I've gleaned so far, out-of-phase, hyper diffuse dipole speakers (especially) are not really suited for object based formats.


----------



## sdurani

Glenn Baumann said:


> I was thinking I might be better served by using "Dipole" as opposed to "Monopole" Side Surrounds so as to not have that "Monopole Point source" beaming towards the outer seat occupants heads?


I would point those speakers to the outer seat occupants on the opposite end of the row. You'll have to raise your side speakers up anyway to get better line of sight to all listeners, so use that opportunity to do a little energy trading. I would rather do that than resort to dipoles. 

With the side speakers raised a foot or two above ear height, the difference in elevation between them and the top speakers is lessened (the front speakers and rear speakers can remain around ear height). You can still separate the sides from the tops with some difference in azimuth by mounting the tops well forward and rearward of the listening position.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> I already posted this today, but if you missed it, here it is again.
> 
> This is what Stephen from Dolby, London, told me:
> 
> _Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers."_


Yep, batpig linked your post. Thanks again though.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> True - but to me a draw of 4.5W is (effectively) off.


That's per channel, and for a class D amp.

For a class AB multichannel receiver/amp you're over 100W idle dissipation.


----------



## RichB

noah katz said:


> That's per channel, and for a class D amp.
> 
> For a class AB multichannel receiver/amp you're over 100W idle dissipation.


 
It is amp dependent. My Parasound A51 (high-bias Class A/B) settles at an idle of 150 watts (30 watts per channel).
The Outlaw 7500 was closer to 50, which is more like 10.

My old Onkyo TX-NR828 receiver idled at 70 watts is 10 watts as well.

That is all that much different, just some data points.

- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> That's per channel, and for a class D amp.
> 
> For a class AB multichannel receiver/amp you're over 100W idle dissipation.


I don't seem to be able to get my point across. Of course an AVR at idle will use a fair amount of power - it has HDMI circuits, display circuits, network circuits etc etc, all running when the AVR is turned on. My point is that an amplifier that has no load on the end of it is not using very much power. It will use some, because it has circuits which are not solely concerned with amplification, but there is no real difference between an amp in an AVR which is somehow 'bypassed' by a special setting in its menus and an amp which isn't bypassed, but has no load.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course an AVR at idle will use a fair amount of power ...My point is that an amplifier that has no load on the end of it is not using very much power.


You contradict yourself.

But I forgot to make my point as explicitly as I intended to, which is that whether the amp is being used or not, the average power consumed through a movie is not much different than the idle dissipation.


----------



## RUR

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't seem to be able to get my point across.....


Keith, it's only of interest within the context of Nightlord's original question:



Nightlord said:


> And the classic answer to get figured out - does it really power down unused amps, or do they remain in standby for a signal?


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> You contradict yourself.


How? The AVR is not the same as the amp in the AVR. The AVR draws current to feed all those circuits regardless of whether its amps require any current or not. And if the amps are doing nothing, it's 'not'.



noah katz said:


> But I forgot to make my point as explicitly as I intended to, which is that whether the amp is being used or not, the average power consumed through a movie is not much different than the idle dissipation.


Absolutely agreed. But it has nothing to do with the special settings in some AVRs which allow the amps to be 'turned off'. That is what I was discussing. The 'special settings' are marketing. Whether the amps are 'turned off' or not when external amps are used, it is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

RUR said:


> Keith, it's only of interest within the context of Nightlord's original question:


I agree. It's one of those throwaway remarks that has taken a life of its own.


----------



## asarose247

for those looking at the 3040, an interesting post (212) partial quote (steveting99)


"Guys,

On page 49 of A3040 owner's manual, the angle measurements only work for the main speakers and the height of the presence speakers. The interesting aspect is the use of the angle/height data under CINEMA DSP mode. It appears that there is only one mode where angle/height of the speakers would be utilized. Can an owner of the A3040 check and confirm that the angle/heights taken under YPAO for their speaker setup is correct?

Wondering if under the Atmos this data would be used to get elevation/azimuth of each speaker relative to the Main Listening Position? "


I wonder what will be revealed in CEDIA?


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't seem to be able to get my point across. Of course an AVR at idle will use a fair amount of power - it has *HDMI circuits, display circuits, network circuits* etc etc, all running when the AVR is turned on.


Those circuits are not power hogs, power hogs are amps (class AB, especially) that idle. Just accept what Noah says, please.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> The AVR draws current to feed all those circuits regardless of whether its amps require any current or not. And if the amps are doing nothing, it's 'not'...Whether the amps are 'turned off' or not when external amps are used, it is pretty much the same thing.


That also sounds self-contradicting, with the first part being incorrect and the second correct.

So let's leave it at the second and call it good.

Could be what you mean by the amps doing nothing.

Maybe you mean amplifying signal; I mean dissipating power.


----------



## kokishin

noah katz said:


> You contradict yourself.
> 
> But I forgot to make my point as explicitly as I intended to, which is that whether the amp is being used or not, the average power consumed through a movie is not much different than the idle dissipation.


I don't think Keith is contradicting himself. The issue is that comparing the power dissipation of an AVR with internal class AB amps to an external class AB audio power amplifier is like comparing apples and oranges. The AVR has many circuits (as Keith mentioned) dissipating power irrespective of its internal class AB amps. An external class AB audio power amp has very few circuits dissipating power other than its amps. So at idle, the external class AB audio power amp should be dissipating less power than an AVR.


----------



## dan webster

I was thinking about heading in the atmos direction however i have very low ceilings in my basement theater. They are only 6' 8" and i am not going to be able to raise them without lots of work and cash. I will wait to hear reviews of anyone who has a low ceiling.


----------



## mogorf

kbarnes701 said:


> How? The AVR is not the same as the amp in the AVR. The AVR draws current to feed all those circuits regardless of whether its amps require any current or not. And if the amps are doing nothing, it's 'not'.


Not exactly. AB class power amps typically used by Onk/Denon are "biased" even when idle. Here the word "bias" means something different than what you may think. 

More here for you to study: http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/Amplifiers/amplifiers55.php 



> Absolutely agreed. But it has nothing to do with the special settings in some AVRs which allow the amps to be 'turned off'.


Actually those amps are not "turned off" but are idling within their "biased" state.



> That is what I was discussing. The 'special settings' are marketing. Whether the amps are 'turned off' or not when external amps are used, it is pretty much the same thing.


There's no marketing here. Pure basics of electronics.

P.s.: in your system with an Onk 5509 pre/pro and separate power amps you are not experiencing the idling phenomenon of an AVR power amp stage with pre-outs used to feed separate power amps. 

Hope this helps clear matters.


----------



## turnne1

kbarnes701 said:


> IME, just like most guys don't know the difference between a $30 pair of shoes and a $300 pair of shoes.


you must know different guys than I do....

are those same guys the type that walk and scrub their knuckles on the ground..lol

the wife thing and the $3K processor and not knowing the difference is more realistic

but you can show her a $50 purse and a $500 one...and the rules change completely

Warren


----------



## Jim S.

[
More recently, to go with my M&K S150s across the front, I have used M&K SS150T Tripoles, which are fairly expensive but I wanted the tripole concept. Those speakers were wonderful as surrounds, but clearly they are not identical to the mains and also the great sound had little to do with 'timbre matching' and a lot to do with the tripole concept in my room.

Now, in preparation for Atmos, I have sold the Tripoles and relocated my surrounds to 110° and changed them to some MK Sound M7s, which aren't cheap and aren't expensive. And lately I have been thinking of replacing those with some dual concentrics.[/QUOTE]




Keith: Since you have M&K , as I do. What are your thoughts on using 4 surround SS-150T's flat mounted to the ceiling for atmos? Pros/cons? Would the dispersion in tripole mode be viable for the 90 degree spec and any other considerations? I sold my receiver earlier during my current build out so I don't have anything to play around with. I'd like to use my "paid for" speakers, if possible.

Jim


----------



## mogorf

kokishin said:


> I don't think Keith is contradicting himself. The issue is that comparing the power dissipation of an AVR with internal class AB amps to an external class AB audio power amplifier is like comparing apples and oranges. The AVR has many circuits (as Keith mentioned) dissipating power irrespective of its internal class AB amps. An external class AB audio power amp has very few circuits dissipating power other than its amps. So at idle, the external class AB audio power amp should be dissipating less power than an AVR.


Quite peculiar logic kokishin. The unused power amps of an AVR will still dissipate heat regardless of what is hooked up to their pre-outs. Full stop.


----------



## action_jackson

Maybe the ones that don't want to create heat from the unused internal amplifiers should just purchase a pre-pro instead? What does this have to do with atmos anyway?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

action_jackson said:


> Maybe the ones that don't want to create heat from the unused internal amplifiers should just purchase a pre-pro instead? What does this have to do with atmos anyway?


There seems to be a lull in the Atmos action, so the thread has meandered off into Amp Theory 101. I doubt things will pick up until CEDIA and along with it more concrete information.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> There seems to be a lull in the Atmos action, so the thread has meandered off into Amp Theory 101. I doubt things will pick up until CEDIA and along with it more concrete information.


 
Or put another way, some of the action is happening on the dedicated threads for the Denons with Atmos. I'm sure those of us going to CEDIA will have much to say based on what we find on the floor .


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> There seems to be a lull in the Atmos action, so the thread has meandered off into Amp Theory 101. I doubt things will pick up until CEDIA and along with it more concrete information.


Marc (FilmMixer) is the man of the moment (Dolby Surround 'upmixer').


----------



## bargervais

I thought the Denon X5200W would have gone quick this weekend still 13 in stock on the Amazon site, the way the talk was in this thread I was convinced that a least 13 of us would have picked one up. I for one can't swing it, it's a little to rich for my blood. I'll wait for the firmware update on my TX-NR 737


----------



## sikclown

bargervais said:


> I thought the Denon X5200W would have gone quick this weekend still 13 in stock on the Amazon site, the way the talk was in this thread I was convinced that a least 13 of us would have picked one up. I for one can't swing it, it's a little to rich for my blood. I'll wait for the firmware update on my TX-NR 737


I think a handful of us preordered from AVScience, present company included, and the rest are probably waiting for the reviews to roll in.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Glenn Baumann said:


> Is it true that the latest "Atmos" convention regarding "Side" and "Back" Surrounds indicates that they should be mounted down lower than the usually recommended "2 to 3 feet above ear level" as in the past? This is so that the "Tops" are to be more separated from the sides, is that the thinking?


The surrounds are not being lowered in cinemas, so I see no reason to lower them at home if within the normal range.



Kain said:


> Now that we have overhead channels, are the surround speakers (side and back) suppose to be at ear-level or can they still be placed above ear-level? I've noticed that all of Dolby's layouts on their Web site (not just for Atmos) have all speakers are ear-level (if I am not mistaken).


"What happens in demos stays in demos," to torture the saying. I suspect several aspects of these demos are designed to highlight benefits of Atmos, rather than to exemplify the ultimate in implementation. IMHO. And I would not be interested in diminishing the performance of the standard 7.1 setup just because I have added height speakers. Not everything will use the height speakers, DSU notwithstanding. 



kbarnes701 said:


> This is what Stephen from Dolby, London, told me:
> 
> _Stephen later confirmed that this was to help create an optimal distance between the listener level speakers and the ceiling speakers. In fact, Stephen said that ideally the ceiling speakers should be between 2 and 3 times the height of the listener level speakers. For listener level speakers, the height of the surround speakers is still less critical when compared with the height of the front speakers, but Dolby recommend that surround speakers in a Dolby Atmos system be no more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers."_


I do not buy this ratio business. What matters most is the angle of incidence, just as has always been the case for any speakers in a surround system. And just as with all the rest of the speakers, the further they are from the seats, the larger the sweet spot. So I do not discount the value of higher ceilings.


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> I think a handful of us preordered from AVScience, present company included, and the rest are probably waiting for the reviews to roll in.


...And second gen Dolby Atmos AV receivers.


----------



## tronic307

jdsmoothie said:


> Sorry for the confusion, although not ideal, FH+RH can indeed be used as the Atmos "height" speakers.


But we'd have to switch speaker configurations in the setup menu depending on whether we want Atmos or Neo:x, right? Has anybody tried Atmos or DSU with the Top speakers in the Height positions?


----------



## batpig

tronic307 said:


> jdsmoothie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion, although not ideal, FH+RH can indeed be used as the Atmos "height" speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> But we'd have to switch speaker configurations in the setup menu depending on whether we want Atmos or Neo:x, right? Has anybody tried Atmos or DSU with the Top speakers in the Height positions?
Click to expand...

No need to switch. As long as the forward pair is designated as "front height" (vice "top front") they can be shared among Neo:X and Atmos surround modes. Since Neo:X doesn't use the rear tops/heights those speakers won't affect non Atmos surround modes.


----------



## jhferry

I have a very high angled ceiling however I have beams running across the length of the room. Can I use ceiling mounted on the beams or that wont really work. I already have my 7.1 setup but it looks like the add ons want a flat ceiling.


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> ....This should allow most people with a standard height ceiling to accommodate ceiling-mounted speakers, but may necessitate lowering the surround speakers somewhat, which is what I am having to do in my own room....
> 
> Yes - I have the same issue. Some compromise is required. If you assume the above info from Dolby represents the 'ideal' then try to get as close to it as you can, without introducing undesirable side effects. I’d say it was more important that everyone has a clear line of hearing to the surrounds than the ideal placement of the surrounds vis-à-vis the ceiling speakers, if one has to compromise. So, lower the surrounds to the point where every set of ears can 'see' them - that will be the optimum possible position in your room.


Won't that surround placement cramp the style of many HTs? I've never really had my surrounds at 'head' level, and the gorgeous HT of so many AVS'rs haven't either. Will most people really relocate their surrounds to half-way down the side walls? I just can't see that happening. So... just how much of a compromise is it? My only option in my new media center is to put 2 floor-standers on either side and behide the love-seat or chairs (haven't decided yet.) as surrounds. (My room only accomodates 2 people comfortably.  ) So less likely to 'interfere' with the 4 Atmos ceiling speakers I just installed. But I'm not sure when i'll be able to afford the Pio SC-89. Them class D, ICEAmps with AIR Studios tunning that I'm so used to are incredible sounding AVRs. I guess I'll have to work a couple extra hours this week.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> The surrounds are not being lowered in cinemas, so I see no reason to lower them at home if within the normal range.


It's the same reason you often give for moving the surround speakers forward when adding rears or changing locations of those speakers when adding wides. 

A single pair of surrounds has to strike a compromise between sounds at our sides and sounds behind us, a compromise that is no longer necessary when you have separate side and rear speakers. That allows you to move the sides a little forward to better stabilize imaging directly to your sides. You can compromise that a bit by moving the side speakers forward of the listening position, to give better phantom imaging at the wides location. But that compromise is no longer necessary when you add wide speakers, which then allows you to re-adjust placement of the side speakers. 

With that in mind, most of us place our surround speakers above ear level to turn a 2D ring of sound into more of a 3D bubble of sound, as well as address logistical problems (heads blocking speakers). But placing all the surrounds above ear height strikes a compromise between sounds around us and sounds above us, a compromise that is no longer necessary when you have separate surround and height speakers. That allows you to move the surrounds a little lower to better stabilize imaging around you. 

Don't let the fact that surrounds weren't lowered in cinemas limit what you do at home.


----------



## tronic307

redjr said:


> Won't that surround placement cramp the style of many HTs? I've never really had my surrounds at 'head' level, and the gorgeous HT of so many AVS'rs haven't either. Will most people really relocate their surrounds to half-way down the side walls? I just can't see that happening. So... just how much of a compromise is it? My only option in my new media center is to put 2 floor-standers on either side and behide the love-seat or chairs (haven't decided yet.) as surrounds. (My room only accomodates 2 people comfortably.  ) So less likely to 'interfere' with the 4 Atmos ceiling speakers I just installed. But I'm not sure when i'll be able to afford the Pio SC-89. Them class D, ICEAmps with AIR Studios tunning that I'm so used to are incredible sounding AVRs. I guess I'll have to work a couple extra hours this week.


I find that low surrounds result in a better phantom height image from 7.1. Picture a hemispherical soundfield, with the speakers as anchors. If you raise the surrounds, the height image is then shifted too far forward. This is more evident on ambisonic recordings.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> It's the same reason you often give for moving the surround speakers forward when adding rears or changing locations of those speakers when adding wides.


There may be those among us who are conflicted in how to straddle the conflicting requirements of 5.1 and 7.1 playback wrt placement of the side surrounds. Move them to 90 deg for optimal 7.1 or leave them at 110 deg for optimal 5.1. It's a matter of personal preference, and possibly the ratio of content available in 5.1 vs. 7.1. I dodge that conflict simply by using PLIIx all the time, so I can use the 90 deg position without compromise.

I do not yet expect I will use Dolby Surround upmixing for routine music listening (it is not ruled out, but neither is it assured, as the Marantz AV7702 with XT32 +DSU would have to surpass the performance of the SSP-800 with PEQ +PLIIx -- a tall order). 



> Don't let the fact that surrounds weren't lowered in cinemas limit what you do at home.


New Atmos cinemas must continue to perform as well as ever with 5.1/7.1 content. So just as there's a conflict for the mixed 5.1/7.1 home "purist," so too is there a conflict for those who wish to enjoy both standard surround and Atmos. The question is which is the least detrimental approach:

a) Elevated surrounds with Atmos height speakers
b) Ear-level surrounds used for standard surround

The answer may be down to personal preference, rather than Dolby edict.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, David, I am sure that is the case - but there are all sorts of possible reasons why they preferred A over B which have nothing to do with whether all the speakers are identical or not. They might, for example, have shown the same preference for one over another if you had used the 'second set' for the mains and the 'first set' for the surrounds.
> 
> Do you use XT32 or some similar electronic EQ in the HT?
> 
> Incidentally, as you will know, the test you performed isn't scientifically valid really because *while the audience may not have known which set of speakers were in use, you did. And you may well have (and possibly did) unconsciously convey bias to the audience, thus influencing their decision*. I am not saying this happened of course, as I was not there, but it does happen all the time, which is why the only really reliable tests are double blind. We are OT for this thread so it isn’t the place to prolong a discussion of this.


I bet he did. ...Very doubt it.

* Is hi-res multichannel music more serious than movie soundtracks with all the prerecorded special effects? ...Or equivalent?


----------



## westmd

dan webster said:


> I was thinking about heading in the atmos direction however i have very low ceilings in my basement theater. They are only 6' 8" and i am not going to be able to raise them without lots of work and cash. I will wait to hear reviews of anyone who has a low ceiling.


My celings are only slightly higher at 7'2'' and I am planning in ceiling speakers from KEF. Will let you know the result once installed! I remember a former post from kbarnes stating that Dolby said during a demo that 7' would still be okay!


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> The question is which is the least detrimental approach:
> 
> a) Elevated surrounds with Atmos height speakers
> b) Ear-level surrounds used for standard surround


I would lower the surrounds as close to ear level as logistically possible in my set-up and dodge the conflict simply by using DSU all the time when watching movies. Your solution to 5.1 vs 7.1, just extended vertically.


Roger Dressler said:


> The answer may be down to personal preference, rather than Dolby edict.


It always has for me. My preference is the same as yours regarding moving the surround speakers forward when adding surround-back speakers. Makes sense (to me) to continue that approach in the vertical dimension.


----------



## pletwals

Roger Dressler said:


> There may be those among us who are conflicted in how to straddle the conflicting requirements of 5.1 and 7.1 playback wrt placement of the side surrounds. Move them to 90 deg for optimal 7.1 or leave them at 110 deg for optimal 5.1. It's a matter of personal preference, and possibly the ratio of content available in 5.1 vs. 7.1. I dodge that conflict simply by using PLIIx all the time, so I can use the 90 deg position without compromise.


Good tip, it never crossed my mind to use PLIIx with 5.1. I only use it with sattelite TV, some of the broadcasts are Dolby, others not. 




Roger Dressler said:


> New Atmos cinemas must continue to perform as well as ever with 5.1/7.1 content. So just as there's a conflict for the mixed 5.1/7.1 home "purist," so too is there a conflict for those who wish to enjoy both standard surround and Atmos. The question is which is the least detrimental approach:
> 
> a) Elevated surrounds with Atmos height speakers
> b) Ear-level surrounds used for standard surround
> 
> The answer may be down to personal preference, rather than Dolby edict.


The Atmos movie I went to was in a brand new multiplex which had only one of the (12-ish) theatres Atmos equipped. So each Atmos movie is only on view for a limited time (3-4 weeks), before it is replaced with the newest film. It then is apparently moved to a standard space, without Atmos. I recently missed Dawn of the Planet of the Apes this way. Never mind, I will get it at home when it's out on BR with Atmos. My family loved the first one on BR in our home.

What I want to say is that even in that specialized space that only shows Atmos movie, the side surrounds are in the "old" elevated position. Soundwise BTW, it's miles ahead of any commercial movie sound I ever experienced.



WRT to the 5.1/7.1 discussion. What I think might happen for the average mid-priced AVR buyer, who has never bothered with 7.1 even if his AVR permitted it, might be tempted into 5.1.4 with Atmos enabled fronts and surrounds instead. I think it will sound superior over 7.1 also, especially since most BR are (and probably will be) in 5.1, not 7.1. The total extra cost will be limited to maybe a Fistfull Of Dollars for the AVR and the 4 top driver in the speakers. The 9-channel AVR would be the default choice, vs 7-channel now. 5.1.4 with Atmos enabled speakers has better WAF than 7.1 too, only half the speaker count in the room except the front stage. 

This has nothing to do with the positioning of the surrounds an sich, but I wanted to share my musings to put it into perspective.


----------



## jacovn

I made some cartboard boxes the size of 2 different speakers I am considering and have fixed them to the ceiling with some electrical wire for support.
Man this looks ugly, as the cardboard color is very visable against a black ceiling. Black speakers will not be seen during movie viewing I think.
The ceiling speakers will be the only visable speakers in the room.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> That also sounds self-contradicting, with the first part being incorrect and the second correct.
> 
> So let's leave it at the second and call it good.
> 
> Could be what you mean by the amps doing nothing.
> 
> Maybe you mean amplifying signal; I mean dissipating power.


It's not important. I think we are at cross-purposes. My original statement was that in these units that have a setting to 'bypass' internal amps when external amps are being used, that setting effectively does nothing. I stand by that. It then morphed into something else - but it's OT and not important anyway, so I will follow your suggestion and leave it now. Thanks Noah.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jim S. said:


> [
> More recently, to go with my M&K S150s across the front, I have used M&K SS150T Tripoles, which are fairly expensive but I wanted the tripole concept. Those speakers were wonderful as surrounds, but clearly they are not identical to the mains and also the great sound had little to do with 'timbre matching' and a lot to do with the tripole concept in my room.
> 
> Now, in preparation for Atmos, I have sold the Tripoles and relocated my surrounds to 110° and changed them to some MK Sound M7s, which aren't cheap and aren't expensive. And lately I have been thinking of replacing those with some dual concentrics.


 


Keith: Since you have M&K , as I do. What are your thoughts on using 4 surround SS-150T's flat mounted to the ceiling for atmos? Pros/cons? Would the dispersion in tripole mode be viable for the 90 degree spec and any other considerations? I sold my receiver earlier during my current build out so I don't have anything to play around with. I'd like to use my "paid for" speakers, if possible.

Jim[/QUOTE]

The honest answer, Jim, is I don't know. Probably nobody does at this time. My current understanding is that dipoles and/or tripoles are not recommended for Atmos and that direct firing speakers are needed, with a wide dispersion pattern. Anything which deviates from that is a shot in the dark and all I can say is that there is some logic to your idea, but whether it will work is unknown. Perhaps you could try it and see as you have the speakers? I was very reluctant to give up my SS150Ts I can tell you, but I did it for the greater good


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I do not buy this ratio business. What matters most is the angle of incidence, just as has always been the case for any speakers in a surround system. And just as with all the rest of the speakers, the further they are from the seats, the larger the sweet spot. So I do not discount the value of higher ceilings.


Well, as you know Roger, I always respect your opinion and advice. All I can say is that that is what Dolby told me - it's a direct quote with no subjective added or subtracted words of my own. 

I also take your point that cinemas are not lowering their surrounds. Is that because they usually have quite high ceilings though, so they don't need to lower the surrounds in order to create a significant distance between them and the ceiling speakers? In my HT, my surrounds are currently only 3 feet from the ceiling and it seemed to me that if I lowered the surrounds (as much as possible while still giving line of sight to every listener) I would be creating a situation where I was more likely to be able to differentiate sounds from the surrounds from sounds from the ceiling. This seemed like A Good Idea with no real downside (other than the work of relocating the surrounds, which is minimal here).


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> Won't that surround placement cramp the style of many HTs? I've never really had my surrounds at 'head' level, and the gorgeous HT of so many AVS'rs haven't either. Will most people really relocate their surrounds to half-way down the side walls? I just can't see that happening. * So... just how much of a compromise is it? * My only option in my new media center is to put 2 floor-standers on either side and behide the love-seat or chairs (haven't decided yet.) as surrounds. (My room only accomodates 2 people comfortably.  ) So less likely to 'interfere' with the 4 Atmos ceiling speakers I just installed. But I'm not sure when i'll be able to afford the Pio SC-89. Them class D, ICEAmps with AIR Studios tunning that I'm so used to are incredible sounding AVRs. I guess I'll have to work a couple extra hours this week.


Nobody knows right now. Roger says it isn't all that important. Dolby say to lower them to meet the spec quoted in my report (and above). If it is a lot of work to lower them, I'd try Atmos first with them in place. If it is easy to lower them, then lowering them can’t do any harm (line of sight issues taken into account). I'd guess it also depends on your ceiling height. If the purpose of lower surrounds is to create more difference between listener level sounds and overhead sounds, then those with a high ceiling may not need to lower their surrounds anyway, as they will already enjoy a decent distance between the speakers.


----------



## markus767

tronic307 said:


> I find that low surrounds result in a better phantom height image from 7.1. Picture a hemispherical soundfield, with the speakers as anchors. If you raise the surrounds, the height image is then shifted too far forward. This is more evident on ambisonic recordings.


Not sure about the sound generally moving forward but it moves definitely upward. Saw Apes in Atmos a while ago with the surrounds mounted above the listeners as it is typical for movie theaters. Often the surround sound stage got stuck to the ceiling in a rather unnatural and annoying way. Maybe the movie was mixed in a dubbing stage with the surrounds mounted lower or it's a general problem with Atmos and surrounds being mounted way above ear level?


----------



## westmd

According to the Deonon diagram the top front and top rear are between 35deg and 60deg. in regards to the listening position. That means the angle between them is between 70 and 120 degrees. Question is, is there a sweet spot of an optimal angle between them? Should always be aimed at a maximum angle and thus maximum distance between them or is a mean angle of 95deg optimal? What are your thoughts?


----------



## kbarnes701

*"I am Tom and I am an Audioholic..."*

Audioholics have published another article by Tom Andry - the guy who_ hasn't heard Atmos for the home_ but is sure it is DOA. This article, entitled _"4 Ways Atmos Can Be Saved"_ (I am not kidding - that really is what he called the article) is even further off-beam than his original and will do nothing to reassure those who are now beginning to question Audioholic's credibility as objective reviewers.

Despite _still _not having heard Atmos, in this article the author takes it upon himself to tell Dolby how they_ really_ should have done it. Honestly, I am not making this up. All those years of research and patent applications which Dolby put in were totally not needed. All they needed to have done was ask Tom Andry  One of his bright (literally) ideas for how Atmos for the home should really have been done is to fit speakers into your light fitting. Really. (I assume that he must have ideally placed light fittings).

The disinformation in his earlier article is continued:

_"Most people aren't going to adopt a system that requires you to place speakers on their ceilings. I don't think that's an opinion I really have to defend."_

"Requires" the placement of on-ceiling speakers... I guess he hasn't heard of Atmos speakers or modules. Uh-oh - he has - because he says this about them:

_"If we put aside what we know about the effectiveness of reflected sound and assume that they'll sound exactly like in-ceiling speakers..."_

Where did Dolby say that Atmos speakers are meant to sound "exactly like in-ceiling speakers". Andry then gives us the benefit of his insights on how an Atmos speaker really_ should _be designed. I guess he needs to have a word with Andrew Jones and explain to him where he's been going wrong. No doubt we will see an award-winning range of speakers "designed by Tom Andry" soon?

Andry also doesn’t understand the difference between what Dolby are offering and what *manufacturers* are implementing. He spends quite some time 'explaining' that what Dolby_ should have done_ is allow the AVRs to determine actual speaker locations. He doesn't understand that this is exactly what Dolby _have_ done and it is the AVR manufacturers who will have the final say in whether it is implemented or not.

_"The problem with Atmos as we're currently seeing it implemented is that it acts like a conventional decoding system. It assumes "ideal" placement of speakers (including those on the ceiling)."_

IOW, the guy is clueless. He hasn't even heard Atmos yet in the home but he feels qualified to tell Dolby where they have 'gone wrong'. And he hasn't heard Atmos speakers yet, but he feels qualified to tell Andrew Jones where *he* has 'gone wrong'. Oh boy - the combination of arrogance and ignorance is always an unpleasant one, but this guy has developed it into an art form.

I reserve the ultimate hilarity until last. This is a quote from Tom Andry's biography on Audioholics:

_"A Psychology degree focusing on research methodology and program evaluation has provided Tom with the specific tools he needs to review both AV hardware and software while reducing bias."_

Clearly, his idea of 'reduced bias' and mine are not in harmony...

You can read the whole sorry, confused, ignorant mess here:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/4-ways-dolby-atmos-can-be-saved


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> According to the Deonon diagram the top front and top rear are between 35deg and 60deg. in regards to the listening position. That means the angle between them is between 70 and 120 degrees. Question is, is there a sweet spot of an optimal angle between them? Should always be aimed at a maximum angle and thus maximum distance between them or is a mean angle of 95deg optimal? What are your thoughts?


I asked Dolby if there was a 'sweet spot' in the range of the angles listed, and they said "no", more or less. Anywhere within that range is good. Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> I asked Dolby if there was a 'sweet spot' in the range of the angles listed, and they said "no", more or less. Anywhere within that range is good. Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger


Thanks Keith! I am in contact with a guy from the UK who sells ceiling speakers and he will tomorrow attend a training on Dolby Atmos in regards to ceiling speakers. I also asked him the same question so let's what information he brings home!


----------



## bargervais

markus767 said:


> Not sure about the sound generally moving forward but it moves definitely upward. Saw Apes in Atmos a while ago with the surrounds mounted above the listeners as it is typical for movie theaters. Often the surround sound stage got stuck to the ceiling in a rather unnatural and annoying way. Maybe the movie was mixed in a dubbing stage with the surrounds mounted lower or it's a general problem with Atmos and surrounds being mounted way above ear level?


I have my surrounds just a little below ear level so I'm hoping that when the firmware releases I'll be ready, the good thing is my speakers are not mounted so I'll easily experiment with position


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Thanks Keith! I am in contact with a guy from the UK who sells ceiling speakers and he will tomorrow attend a training on Dolby Atmos in regards to ceiling speakers. I also asked him the same question so let's what information he brings home!


Great! Please do let us know what he discovers.


----------



## bungi43

If it's a firmware upgrade, why wouldn't the SC-71, 72, 75, 77 and 79 be able? I would figure they would be capable.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> I thought the Denon X5200W would have gone quick this weekend still 13 in stock on the Amazon site, the way the talk was in this thread I was convinced that a least 13 of us would have picked one up. I for one can't swing it, it's a little to rich for my blood. I'll wait for the firmware update on my TX-NR 737




Relax. The number on Amazon is now 12 in stock.


----------



## TweakerInWA

bungi43 said:


> If it's a firmware upgrade, why wouldn't the SC-71, 72, 75, 77 and 79 be able? I would figure they would be capable.


It's actually hardware related as well. The Onkyo line has the hardware already onboard....

Sent from my SM-N900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## pasender91

bungi43 said:


> If it's a firmware upgrade, why wouldn't the SC-71, 72, 75, 77 and 79 be able? I would figure they would be capable.


Well, it's not *ONLY *about the firmware, the AVRs should have a lot of DSP power to handle Atmos. For Pioneer, only the 58 78 88 are strong enough to support it , or maybe they want to force you to buy a new AVR !!!!


----------



## dabotsonline

jacovn said:


> I think i am lucky to start all over with Atmos system.
> Sold all my ht audio system (meridian)
> 
> Will go for 7x same speaker, and 4x speaker for height units.
> 
> genelec 8040 for normal speakers, and 8030 for heights it might be. Perhaps dynaudio comparable models if i can get A good demo.
> 
> The genelec are -2 dB on 48 and 58 Hz. So crossover at 80-90 perhaps.


Why not go for 7 x 8030 for normal units, 4 x 8030 for height units (so 11 identical speakers), and use the savings to buy a 7060B subwoofer?


----------



## ahmedreda

So my understanding is that the Audyssey setup does not recognize the Dolby Top speakers. How are they calibrated and if it is something different than audyssey, how well does it handle the rest of the speakers / subwoofers?


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmedreda said:


> So my understanding is that the Audyssey setup does not recognize the Dolby Top speakers. How are they calibrated and if it is something different than audyssey, how well does it handle the rest of the speakers / subwoofers?


What makes you think that? Audyssey has always been able to calibrate 11 speakers, and that is all it has to do for Atmos (in the current Denon/Marantz Atmos units, which are now the only ones that feature Audyssey).

Audyssey will calibrate the ceiling speakers just the same way that it has always calibrated the surrounds/wides/heights in the past.


----------



## jacovn

dabotsonline said:


> Why not go for 7 x 8030 for normal units, 4 x 8030 for height units (so 11 identical speakers), and use the savings to buy a 7060B subwoofer?


The 8040 sounded better for stereo listening. 
The 8030 just fit the ceiling in the back between the lower part of the ceiling and the skyline panels I have installed.


I intend to buy a sub indeed, not sure 7060 or 7070. The main point is the weight, 28 or 50 KG to lift 2 floors up alone..


----------



## ahmedreda

In the manual it is showing just the main speakers + wides / heights and no top speakers.













kbarnes701 said:


> What makes you think that? Audyssey has always been able to calibrate 11 speakers, and that is all it has to do for Atmos (in the current Denon/Marantz Atmos units, which are now the only ones that feature Audyssey).
> 
> Audyssey will calibrate the ceiling speakers just the same way that it has always calibrated the surrounds/wides/heights in the past.


----------



## FilmMixer

ahmedreda said:


> In the manual it is showing just the main speakers + wides / heights and no top speakers.


Because you have to configure it for Atmos to show them there.


----------



## Selden Ball

ahmedreda,

The picture provided with Audyssey Calibration Step 7 just shows an example of typical results: most people have only a 5.1 system
You'll note that the pictures associated with the previous steps show 11.1 speakers, although they don't actually show the Atmos ceiling speaker channels.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> What makes you think that? *Audyssey has always been able to calibrate 11 speakers*, and that is all it has to do for Atmos (in the current Denon/Marantz Atmos units, which are now the only ones that feature Audyssey).
> 
> Audyssey will calibrate the ceiling speakers just the same way that it has always calibrated the surrounds/wides/heights in the past.


Keith, don't you mean 13? If I configure my Denon AVR-X5200W for the conventional 11.1 plus TR (using pre-outs for FH/TR), won't Audyssey recognize and calibrate all 13.1?


----------



## ahmedreda

Got it. So it will calibrate all the speakers they can only be used with the Dolby Surround modes as well as with Dolby Atmos. 


FilmMixer said:


> Because you have to configure it for Atmos to show them there.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, don't you mean 13? If I configure my Denon AVR-X5200W for the conventional 11.1 plus TR (using pre-outs for FH/TR), won't Audyssey recognize and calibrate all 13.1?


FR, FL, C, RS, LS, RRS, RLS, RH, LH, FWR, FWL. That is what Audyssey can do currently - as you see, it totals 11. Up till now, this was the max capability Audyssey needed.

The most that the mainstream Atmos units can handle is 7.1.4, which is 11 channels. However they are configured there aren't more than 11, which will be FR, FL, C, RS, LS, RRS, RLS, (7) plus TFR, TFL, TRR, TRL (11). You can substitute Front Heights and Rear Heights (FHR, FHL, RHR, RHL) for those Atmos top speakers but it's still only 11. Wides are not part of the Atmos spec. 

As a result of the max requirement now being 7.1.4 this enabled the AVR manufacturers/Audyssey to use the current Audyssey spec without any need to upgrade it. Whether Audyssey will ever upgrade to more than 11 channels is not known, but given their apparent lack of interest (nothing new for 4 years) it could be a false hope.


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, don't you mean 13? If I configure my Denon AVR-X5200W for the conventional 11.1 plus TR (using pre-outs for FH/TR), won't Audyssey recognize and calibrate all 13.1?


Did you purchase an X5200? If so, congrats!


----------



## sikclown

kbarnes701 said:


> FR, FL, C, RS, LS, RRS, RLS, RH, LH, FWR, FWL. That is what Audyssey can do currently - as you see, it totals 11. Up till now, this was the max capability Audyssey needed.
> 
> The most that the mainstream Atmos units can handle is 7.1.4, which is 11 channels. However they are configured there aren't more than 11, which will be FR, FL, C, RS, LS, RRS, RLS, (7) plus TFR, TFL, TRR, TRL (11). You can substitute Front Heights and Rear Heights (FHR, FHL, RHR, RHL) for those Atmos top speakers but it's still only 11. Wides are not part of the Atmos spec.
> 
> As a result of the max requirement now being 7.1.4 this enabled the AVR manufacturers/Audyssey to use the current Audyssey spec without any need to upgrade it. Whether Audyssey will ever upgrade to more than 11 channels is not known, but given their apparent lack of interest (nothing new for 4 years) it could be a false hope.


Wides are used in a 9.1.2 Configuration with middle tops vs Front and Rear tops in the 7.1.4


----------



## kbarnes701

sikclown said:


> Wides are used in a 9.1.2 Configuration with middle tops vs Front and Rear tops in the 7.1.4


Only for Dolby Surround. Atmos doesn't support wides. When you decode an Atmos soundtrack in that config, the wides will be silent.

^^^^ Other way around, d'oh!


And, of course, the configuration you mention is still only 11 channels. Audyssey cannot calibrate for more than 11 channels.


----------



## pasender91

I believe it is the other way around (at least on Denon 5200 implementation):
9.1.2 not supported in Dolby Surround, wides with no signal as tested by FilmMixer. For me, this is the only bad news on Atmos until now.
9.1.2 supported in Dolby Atmos, as stated very clearly in the documentation. By design, Atmos can render signal to wides if objects are located there. Maybe some test to be done by our release-tester FilmMixer ?


----------



## batpig

Keith you are totally flipped around right now. Take a deep breath before you post again, maybe you are still all worked up from that Audioholics article?


----------



## batpig

To be clear:

1. At least as implemented in upcoming Denons the wides work exactly the opposite of what Keith is saying: available for Atmos but NOT with DSU. 

2. There is no arbitrary channel limit for audyssey. In theory audyssey could EQ many more than 11 or 13 channels. The only limitation is DSP resources and memory. Because audyssey EQs each speaker independently it doesn't care how many you have. 

I see no reason to believe that audyssey won't calibrate all 13.1 potential speaker channels.


----------



## sikclown

kbarnes701 said:


> Only for Dolby Surround. Atmos doesn't support wides. When you decode an Atmos soundtrack in that config, the wides will be silent.
> 
> 
> And, of course, the configuration you mention is still only 11 channels. Audyssey cannot calibrate for more than 11 channels.


If the wides are silent than it isn't 9.1.2, it would just be 7.1.2 right? I have read this in several places "If you have a receiver with 11 channels of amplification then you have a choice of going as high as a 9.1.2 configuration with two overhead or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers and two width speaker or a 7.1.4 configuration with standard 7.1 setup augmented by four overheard or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers."


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Only for Dolby Surround. Atmos doesn't support wides. When you decode an Atmos soundtrack in that config, the wides will be silent.
> 
> 
> And, of course, the configuration you mention is still only 11 channels. Audyssey cannot calibrate for more than 11 channels.


You're mixing things up (didn't get your morning caffeine)?  Atmos supports wides, Dolby Surround does not.


----------



## sikclown

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're mixing things up (didn't get your morning caffeine)?  Atmos supports wides, Dolby Surround does not.


Thank you, I thought I was going nuts for a second. My new x5200w should be on it's way soon and I am doing 9.1.2 for the meantime.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith you are totally flipped around right now. Take a deep breath before you post again, maybe you are still all worked up from that Audioholics article?


D'oh! Of course! WTF am I on? Yes, wides are supported by Atmos and not supported by DS.  Thanks to you and the others for pointing this out!

HST, Audyssey has never calibrated more than 11 speakers/channels before, so why would we think it can now calibrate 13? You say it is a limitation of DSP not Audyssey, but why do we think that the current DSPs can handle more than they were ever required to handle before?

And, of course, no mainstream Atmos units can handle more than 11 speakers at a time anyway, so Audyssey only needs to handle 11, which was the origin of my brain meltdown.

I will strikethrough my earlier inane remarks so they don't confuse any newcomer to the thread.


----------



## redjr

tronic307 said:


> I find that low surrounds result in a better phantom height image from 7.1. Picture a hemispherical soundfield, with the speakers as anchors. If you raise the surrounds, the height image is then shifted too far forward. This is more evident on ambisonic recordings.


I don't doubt the phantom height image argument. I'm questioning whether or not everyone will rush to lower their already wired-in and mounted surround speakers in their HTs. It may be easy for some, but most likely more difficult for others. Just depends upon original installation. Luckily for me, when the time comes, since I have a multi-purpose room, I have some flexibility with speaker placement.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I believe it is the other way around (at least on Denon 5200 implementation):
> 9.1.2 not supported in Dolby Surround, wides with no signal as tested by FilmMixer. For me, this is the only bad news on Atmos until now.
> 9.1.2 supported in Dolby Atmos, as stated very clearly in the documentation. By design, Atmos can render signal to wides if objects are located there. Maybe some test to be done by our release-tester FilmMixer ?


You are quite right. I think I have inhaled something


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not important. I think we are at cross-purposes. My original statement was that in these units that have a setting to 'bypass' internal amps when external amps are being used, that setting effectively does nothing. I stand by that. It then morphed into something else - but it's OT and not important anyway, so I will follow your suggestion and leave it now. Thanks Noah.


Agreed, not worth spilling so much ethereal ink over.

But I think we're on the same page as I see now that by "does nothing" you meant that the so-called deactivating of amps, not that the amps do nothing.



kbarnes701 said:


> I asked Dolby if there was a 'sweet spot' in the range of the angles listed, and they said "no", more or less. Anywhere within that range is good. Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger


That seems odd; I'd think they'd have more concern for where the objects image.


----------



## batpig

redjr said:


> I don't doubt the phantom height image argument. I'm questioning whether or not everyone will rush to lower their already wired-in and mounted surround speakers in their HTs. It may be easy for some, but most likely more difficult for others. Just depends upon original installation. Luckily for me, when the time comes, since I have a multi-purpose room, I have some flexibility with speaker placement.


I think a lot of people (not suprising on a borderline obsessive enthusiast forum) tend to overthink this stuff to the point where the "perfect becomes the enemy of the good". If you already have a HT setup with the surrounds mounted a couple of feet above ear level, I wouldn't go to a huge amount of effort to lower than 1-2 feet. It's one thing if relocation is easy to do, but I think there is a tendency to overreact to these generalized, rule of thumb recommendations. 

Common sense should always rule out here. As Roger pointed out, it's not like Atmos movie theaters have lowered their surrounds to ear level and it still sound great there. I think you should do whatever is reasonable within your particular constraints and not sweat the small stuff if your surrounds are 1-2 feet higher than a theoretical "ideal".

It's one thing if your surrounds are REALLY high up (e.g. only a foot or two below the ceiling) or physically in-ceiling. Then, obviously, it will be difficult to create any meaningful separation in the imaging on that vertical dimension. But, again, that's just common sense.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> To be clear:
> 
> 1. At least as implemented in upcoming Denons the wides work exactly the opposite of what Keith is saying: available for Atmos but NOT with DSU.
> 
> 2. There is no arbitrary channel limit for audyssey. In theory audyssey could EQ many more than 11 or 13 channels. The only limitation is DSP resources and memory. Because audyssey EQs each speaker independently it doesn't care how many you have.
> 
> *I see no reason to believe that audyssey won't calibrate all 13.1 potential speaker channels.*


That has been my assumption all along. My other assumption (never having calibrated using a combination of speaker connections and pre-outs) is that it makes no difference to Audyssey which way the signal reaches the respective speaker. Correct?



kbarnes701 said:


> D'oh! Of course! WTF am I on? Yes, wides are supported by Atmos and not supported by DS.  Thanks to you and the others for pointing this out!
> 
> HST, Audyssey has never calibrated more than 11 speakers/channels before, so why would we think it can now calibrate 13? You say it is a limitation of DSP not Audyssey, but why do we think that the current DSPs can handle more than they were ever required to handle before?
> 
> And, of course, no mainstream Atmos units can handle more than 11 speakers at a time anyway, so Audyssey only needs to handle 11, which was the origin of my brain meltdown.
> 
> I will strikethrough my earlier inane remarks so they don't confuse any newcomer to the thread.


Keith, you are totally forgiven for the mix-up. You are not forgiven, however, for invoking the 11-speaker limitation; I will blame you if Audyssey follows your counsel and I am left with two red-headed stepchild speakers!


----------



## batpig

In EVERY such implementation in the past, any D/M product with Audyssey has had the ability to calibrate ALL the potential speaker connections. For example, the 3311CI which came out about five years ago was just a 7ch model but had 11ch speaker posts, and it could calibrate all 11 speakers despite only being able to process 7 at a time.

I don't see why Denon would include 13.2 pre-outs on these models if they couldn't all be calibrated together. If there was an arbitrary 11ch calibration limit, they would have limited the pre-outs to 11.2 (not 13.2) and forced you to "choose" which of the speakers had to be left out. That's how it's always worked on D/M models with Audyssey and I don't see any reason this would be different. Again, there is really no theoretical limit on Audyssey calibrated channels. It really only needs extra memory -- the DSP requirements (with respect to applying the EQ filters) aren't upped because it still only has to process 11 channels at the same time. If a 5-year-old mid-level Denon had enough DSP/memory to calibrate 11 speakers during initial setup, I can't see why these new models can't add 2 more channels.

As a data point (although not conclusive) here is an amp assign config screencap (from the Chinese review linked earlier) which clearly shows the 13ch layout:


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Agreed, not worth spilling so much ethereal ink over.
> 
> But I think we're on the same page as I see now that by "does nothing" you meant that the so-called deactivating of amps, not that the amps do nothing.


Phew 



noah katz said:


> That seems odd; I'd think they'd have more concern for where the objects image.


Yes, I was surprised by the reply. I personally would imagine that when a range of, say, 30-55° is given, there will be a 'sweet spot' somewhere in that range that we could opt for, if we have the flexibility to do so, which some people do. I was after a reply something like "_well, for that range we optimized for 44°, so if you can, place the speakers there"_. But no - they said it wasn't all that important so long as we kept within the range. 

Of course, I have no way of knowing if the answer I was given was correct, although the person providing it seemed to be very knowledgeable and I have no reason to doubt what he said. 

It sort of chimes with what Onkyo said at the first demo. They simply said we should divide the room into roughly thirds and place he Top Front speakers on the line of the first third and the Top Rears on the line of the second third. I was incredulous at that too but it was what they said (twice). 

So maybe we are all worrying too much about the precision of speaker placement - maybe Onkyo are right or maybe we just can put them anywhere between (per my example) 30-55° and we will be all set. I hope so. 

The ultimate, of course, will be next gen AVRs which will be able to calculate, or allow for manual input, of the speaker angles so that the rendering engine knows exactly where they are - then we can definitely stop worrying about it.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That has been my assumption all along. My other assumption (never having calibrated using a combination of speaker connections and pre-outs) is that it makes no difference to Audyssey which way the signal reaches the respective speaker. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Keith, you are totally forgiven for the mix-up. You are not forgiven, however, for invoking the 11-speaker limitation; I will blame you if Audyssey follows your counsel and I am left with two red-headed stepchild speakers!


I hope you are right and I am wrong. I am only speculating anyway, based on current Audyssey systems.

EDIT: Batpig has convinced me that I am wrong, with his latest post. Panic over


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> In EVERY such implementation in the past, any D/M product with Audyssey has had the ability to calibrate ALL the potential speaker connections. For example, the 3311CI which came out about five years ago was just a 7ch model but had 11ch speaker posts, and it could calibrate all 11 speakers despite only being able to process 7 at a time.


That is a very good point. So what you are saying is that during the cal, Audyssey will check for whatever speakers are there and then send tones to, and calibrate for, all of them, even though not all can be played simultaneously. That makes sense.


----------



## redjr

batpig said:


> ...It's one thing if your surrounds are REALLY high up (e.g. only a foot or two below the ceiling) or physically in-ceiling. Then, obviously, it will be difficult to create any meaningful separation in the imaging on that vertical dimension. But, again, that's just common sense.


Trust me, I'm all about common sense - even with inexact audio! My surrounds ARE 1' below the ceiling, so I just may need to move them when I upgrade to Atmos. But I will test them as-is before making any final decision, but as I see it it's a year out anyway.  When I planned my media room, I wasn't even aware of Atmos at the time and had already wired for the surrounds, so I'm not too enthusiastic about relocating them for optimal performance just yet. Optimal being the key word. But I have time, and other options in my space, so I won't fret too much about it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> All I can say is that that is what Dolby told me - it's a direct quote with no subjective added or subtracted words of my own.


 Understood.



> I also take your point that cinemas are not lowering their surrounds. Is that because they usually have quite high ceilings though, so they don't need to lower the surrounds in order to create a significant distance between them and the ceiling speakers?


The cinema must not diminish the performance for 5.1/7.1 content. Lowering the surrounds impacts that, but also makes it even more of an issue for nearby seats when smaller subsets of the surrounds are used by Atmos, as the "hot spotting" can be a real problem aesthetically and painfully (concentrated SPL).



> In my HT, my surrounds are currently only 3 feet from the ceiling and it seemed to me that if I lowered the surrounds (as much as possible while still giving line of sight to every listener) I would be creating a situation where I was more likely to be able to differentiate sounds from the surrounds from sounds from the ceiling. This seemed like A Good Idea with no real downside (other than the work of relocating the surrounds, which is minimal here).


IIRC your surrounds were able to be lowered because they were originally on the higher side of the range. It sounds like they are still not so low as to be directly at ear level, and given the other constraints of the room for top rear placement, it seemed like a good idea. 

I'm just trying to offer the perspective that the adoption of Atmos does not automatically negate all that was considered good practice for "flat earth" surround system design in a mixed use system.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Understood.
> 
> The cinema must not diminish the performance for 5.1/7.1 content. Lowering the surrounds impacts that, but also makes it even more of an issue for nearby seats when smaller subsets of the surrounds are used by Atmos, as the "hot spotting" can be a real problem aesthetically and painfully (concentrated SPL).
> 
> IIRC your surrounds were able to be lowered because they were originally on the higher side of the range. It sounds like they are still not so low as to be directly at ear level, and given the other constraints of the room for top rear placement, it seemed like a good idea.
> 
> I'm just trying to offer the perspective that the adoption of Atmos does not automatically negate all that was considered good practice for "flat earth" surround system design in a mixed use system.


Thanks Roger. All good stuff, as ever. Yes, I am lowering my surrounds - not to ear level - as it is easy for me to do so and, as you say, they were on the high side before anyway.

It's also a bit easier for me than for many because I only use my HT for movies, so that is all I have to consider. I think that once my Atmos system is up and running, Dolby Surround will be permanently engaged for non-Atmos coded content.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> Phew
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was surprised by the reply. I personally would imagine that when a range of, say, 30-55° is given, there will be a 'sweet spot' somewhere in that range that we could opt for, if we have the flexibility to do so, which some people do. I was after a reply something like "_well, for that range we optimized for 44°, so if you can, place the speakers there"_. But no - they said it wasn't all that important so long as we kept within the range.
> 
> Of course, I have no way of knowing if the answer I was given was correct, although the person providing it seemed to be very knowledgeable and I have no reason to doubt what he said.
> 
> It sort of chimes with what Onkyo said at the first demo. They simply said we should divide the room into roughly thirds and place he Top Front speakers on the line of the first third and the Top Rears on the line of the second third. I was incredulous at that too but it was what they said (twice).
> 
> So maybe we are all worrying too much about the precision of speaker placement - maybe Onkyo are right or maybe we just can put them anywhere between (per my example) 30-55° and we will be all set. I hope so.
> 
> The ultimate, of course, will be next gen AVRs which will be able to calculate, or allow for manual input, of the speaker angles so that the rendering engine knows exactly where they are - then we can definitely stop worrying about it.


What I would like to know is information also in regards to seating. As I have a very low ceiling mounting the rear heights towards one extreme angle I would have them very close to my ears raising the risks of being able to locate them and not having a sound cloud!


----------



## bungi43

pasender91 said:


> Well, it's not *ONLY *about the firmware, the AVRs should have a lot of DSP power to handle Atmos. For Pioneer, only the 58 78 88 are strong enough to support it , or maybe they want to force you to buy a new AVR !!!!



I just got the 77 in April. I'm not going to be buying a new one for a while. Although, to be quite honest, I'm thrilled with the sound I get right now. I don't know that I need anything extra at the moment.


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> Did you purchase an X5200? If so, congrats!


Currently on pre-order from JDSmoothie at AV Science (see below). I'm no. 4 in line and hope to get it NLT the second week in September. 

Next week I will be rewiring my 11.1 set-up to add new SL/R satellites so that I can redesignate my current in-ceiling surrounds as TRL/R. Using FHL/R, I'll be ready for Neo:X 11.1 as well as Atmos 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. There will be some compromises made regarding angles, but it's a living room and WAF is paramount. Still, I'm fully prepared to be wowed, particularly once Atmos BRD's hit the market.



chi_guy50 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jdsmoothie*
> _Looks like the Denon X5200W will be the first Atmos included AVR to be released and available as of today. _
> 
> 
> 
> In for one! Thanks, JD, for a very pleasant purchasing experience


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Audyssey has never calibrated more than 11 speakers/channels before, so why would we think it can now calibrate 13?


Because of the way Audyssey works. It EQs each channel in isolation, so only memory and processing horsepower keep the algorithm from being used on as many channels as needed.


kbarnes701 said:


> I personally would imagine that when a range of, say, 30-55° is given, there will be a 'sweet spot' somewhere in that range that we could opt for, if we have the flexibility to do so, which some people do. I was after a reply something like "_well, for that range we optimized for 44°, so if you can, place the speakers there"_. But no - they said it wasn't all that important so long as we kept within the range.


IF consumer Atmos is rendering based on speaker angles, then somewhere in the renderer is a look-up table telling the Atmos decoder where each speaker is. Right now those speaker angles come hard-wired from the chipmakers, in the future users will hopefully be able to enter their own numbers. 

Like you, I'm curious what the numbers are in the look-up table. If your ceiling is wide open, then it's not going to cost more or less nor is it going to require drilling fewer or more holes whether you choose to install those speakers at 30° or 44° or 55°. So I would love to know where in that 30-55 degree range the renderer thinks the speakers are, assuming it is rendering to a specific angle. 

BTW, it's possible that a ±10° difference overhead is negligible _enough_ that Dolby didn't think it would be worthwhile listing precise angles and dealing with all the teeth gnashing that will inevitably come with it (what if I'm off by 4 degrees, how do I compensate). Most consumers that try Atmos will get their speakers within the recommended ranges and be done.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> In EVERY such implementation in the past, any D/M product with Audyssey has had the ability to calibrate ALL the potential speaker connections. For example, the 3311CI which came out about five years ago was just a 7ch model but had 11ch speaker posts, and it could calibrate all 11 speakers despite only being able to process 7 at a time.





kbarnes701 said:


> That is a very good point. So what you are saying is that during the cal, Audyssey will check for whatever speakers are there and then send tones to, and calibrate for, all of them, even though not all can be played simultaneously. That makes sense.


As it happens, I can personally confirm batpig's specific example (not that any confirmation was necessary). I am currently using a 3311CI with an 11.1 set-up. I've run at least a dozen calibrations of all 11ch speakers, even though for playback I can only toggle between SB/FH/FW for the 5.1 + 2. I've been jonsing to run 'em all at once for quite a while but am now glad that I waited for the 2014 models. (Please don't remind me of this last statement next year, those of you waiting on the sidelines.)


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> What I would like to know is information also in regards to seating. As I have a very low ceiling mounting the rear heights towards one extreme angle I would have them very close to my ears raising the risks of being a üable to locate them and not having a sound cloud!


What distance are your ears from the nearest speaker?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Because of the way Audyssey works. It EQs each channel in isolation, so only memory and processing horsepower keep the algorithm from being used on as many channels as needed.


Sure. How do we know that current units have enough horsepower to EQ 13 speakers?



sdurani said:


> IF consumer Atmos is rendering based on speaker angles, then somewhere in the renderer is a look-up table telling the Atmos decoder where each speaker is. Right now those speaker angles come hard-wired from the chipmakers, in the future users will hopefully be able to enter their own numbers.
> 
> Like you, I'm curious what the numbers are in the look-up table. If your ceiling is wide open, then it's not going to cost more or less nor is it going to require drilling fewer or more holes whether you choose to install those speakers at 30° or 44° or 55°. So I would love to know where in that 30-55 degree range the renderer thinks the speakers are, assuming it is rendering to a specific angle.


Yep - which is why I asked the question (twice to different people) but never got an answer. Someone, somewhere must know - someone has programmed it into the unit.



sdurani said:


> BTW, it's possible that a ±10° difference overhead is negligible _enough_ that Dolby didn't think it would be worthwhile listing precise angles and dealing with all the teeth gnashing that will inevitably come with it (what if I'm off by 4 degrees, how do I compensate). Most consumers that try Atmos will get their speakers within the recommended ranges and be done.


Yes, that would tie in with the answers I was given, and also with the advice to not overthink things. I am trying to go with the 'in the middle of the range' figure for my top fronts, but with my top rear pair, I have to go to an extreme, just because the way the room is. I still expect to get a good result though.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> As it happens, I can personally confirm batpig's specific example (not that any confirmation was necessary). I am currently using a 3311CI with an 11.1 set-up. I've run at least a dozen calibrations of all 11ch speakers, even though for playback I can only toggle between SB/FH/FW for the 5.1 + 2. I've been jonsing to run 'em all at once for quite a while but am now glad that I waited for the 2014 models. (Please don't remind me of this last statement next year, those of you waiting on the sidelines.)


I certainly agree with batpig's hypothesis. The only question I have is how we know that current units have enough grunt to EQ 13 speakers. Somewhere there will be a limit, and I am hoping that limit wasn't 11. After all, 11 was all that was needed in the past. I don't want to be a FUD spreader though, and am pretty sure bp is correct - but I'd prefer to *know *that the processors in the units can handle 13 speakers or more (for Audyssey).


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Phew
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was surprised by the reply. I personally would imagine that when a range of, say, 30-55° is given, there will be a 'sweet spot' somewhere in that range that we could opt for, if we have the flexibility to do so, which some people do. I was after a reply something like "_well, for that range we optimized for 44°, so if you can, place the speakers there"_. But no - they said it wasn't all that important so long as we kept within the range.
> 
> Of course, I have no way of knowing if the answer I was given was correct, although the person providing it seemed to be very knowledgeable and I have no reason to doubt what he said.
> 
> It sort of chimes with what Onkyo said at the first demo. They simply said we should divide the room into roughly thirds and place he Top Front speakers on the line of the first third and the Top Rears on the line of the second third. I was incredulous at that too but it was what they said (twice).
> 
> So maybe we are all worrying too much about the precision of speaker placement - maybe Onkyo are right or maybe we just can put them anywhere between (per my example) 30-55° and we will be all set. I hope so.
> 
> The ultimate, of course, will be next gen AVRs which will be able to calculate, or allow for manual input, of the speaker angles so that the rendering engine knows exactly where they are - then we can definitely stop worrying about it.


I am following the speaker placement conversations with great interest, within reason I am starting from scratch for speaker placement as I am redoing the HT room anyway. So positioning and heights of the surrounds in a nominal 8' high room is one consideration, ie. ear height or something closer to the original Dolby specifications...? I am looking forward to that guide!


And from Onkyo's TX-NR3030 manual the following is their recommendation for the ceiling positions:


*Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for maximizing effects in Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround listening mode. Install Top Front speakers midway between the position just above the listening position and the position just above the front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers just above the listening position. Install Top Rear speakers midway between the position just above the listening position and the position just above the surround back speakers.*


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> The cinema must not diminish the performance for 5.1/7.1 content.


Does cinema Atmos theaters not have an upmixer?

I guess it's also fair to ask if theaters use DPLIIx to go from 5.1 to 7.1.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> I certainly agree with batpig's hypothesis. The only question I have is how we know that current units have enough grunt to EQ 13 speakers. Somewhere there will be a limit, and I am hoping that limit wasn't 11. After all, 11 was all that was needed in the past. I don't want to be a FUD spreader though, and am pretty sure bp is correct - but I'd prefer to *know *that the processors in the units can handle 13 speakers or more (for Audyssey).


Keith,

I think (hope) you might be conflating two different aspects of EQing. One is doing the calibration: run test tones through each of the speaker channels and store a table of lookup values for the coefficients that will later be used by the room EQ algorithm. I think we're in general agreement that this could be done relatively easily: increase the loop count for the number of speakers, and provide the slightly increased table space that's needed for two more channels (going from 11 to 13).

The second, of course, is the active EQing of the speakers' audio during playback. I think it's pretty clear that this is not possible with the 2015 models of AVRs and pre/pros, which seem to max out at 11 channels.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> Does cinema Atmos theaters not have an upmixer?
> 
> I guess it's also fair to ask if theaters use DPLIIx to go from 5.1 to 7.1.


No up mixing in the cinema.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> How do we know that current units have enough horsepower to EQ 13 speakers?


We don't. My point was that it is not a limitation of the Audyssey algorithm.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Keith,
> 
> I think (hope) you might be conflating two different aspects of EQing. One is doing the calibration: run test tones through each of the speaker channels and store a table of lookup values for the coefficients that will later be used by the room EQ algorithm. I think we're in general agreement that this could be done relatively easily: increase the loop count for the number of speakers, and provide the slightly increased table space that's needed for two more channels (going from 11 to 13).
> 
> The second, of course, is the active EQing of the speakers' audio during playback. I think it's pretty clear that this is not possible with the 2015 models of AVRs and pre/pros, which seem to max out at 11 channels.


That also makes sense, Selden. If the unit can easily EQ as many speakers as the system has, and can then play back any set of 11 EQd speakers, then we have nirvana.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> We don't. My point was that it is not a limitation of the Audyssey algorithm.


Fair enough. Selden's answer makes total sense to me anyway, rendering the question moot. If it is that easy to do the cal for each speaker, then presumably it isn't too hard to provide the required doodahs to calibrate numerous speakers, on an individual basis. As the units with Audyssey can only play back 11 at a time, and we know that's possible, it seems that all is right with the world, in this respect at least.


----------



## asarose247

I'm glad to hear so much of the discussion trending toward sanity wrt "overthinking" pending revelations at CEDIA












my concern here is the lineal 30" distance between the "centers" of the TR's and Rear Surrounds
whereas everything else seems to have adequate "separation" , the TOPS being a 7' square (mol) and angled around 35 degrees.
There is 80" from the LCR plane to the TF's. Would there be a good placement possibility for FH's?.
and no, I don't have a 3040 or anything else for ATMOS, . . . 
yet . . .


----------



## asarose247

^


DSCF0727.jpg (157.9 KB)


----------



## Selden Ball

My personal opinion is that both the side-surround and rear-surround speakers in the picture are too high. My understanding of what Dolby is currently suggesting (going by the pictures in the Denon manuals) is that there is not enough separation between them and the overhead speakers.

Also, the rear-surround speakers look like they're either bipoles or dipoles. My understanding is that such designs are intended to reflect sound off the side-walls, diffusing the sound to improve the feeling of ambiance. Modern movie and music mixes probably would sound better if they were replaced by "monopoles" in order to provide more directivity.

But, as has been mentioned already, a lot of the speaker placement has to be driven by convenience and personal preference. If you can experiment with their positions, that'll help you to determine what arrangement sounds best in your room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> My personal opinion is that both the side-surround and rear-surround speakers in the picture are too high. My understanding of what Dolby is currently suggesting (going by the pictures in the Denon manuals) is that there is not enough separation between them and the overhead speakers.


Yes, agreed, My thoughts too - way too high. I’d drop the surrounds and the rear surrounds, and with rear surrounds in place I'd move the side surrounds forward too.



Selden Ball said:


> Also, the rear-surround speakers look like they're either bipoles or dipoles. My understanding is that such designs are intended to reflect sound off the side-walls, diffusing the sound to improve the feeling of ambiance. Modern movie and music mixes probably would sound better if they were replaced by "monopoles" in order to provide more directivity.


Also agreed, but you are more observant than I am - I hadn’t noticed that until you remarked on it.



Selden Ball said:


> But, as has been mentioned already, a lot of the speaker placement has to be driven by convenience and personal preference. If you can experiment with their positions, that'll help you to determine what arrangement sounds best in your room.


Looks like he has the flexibility to experiment. Either WAF isn't an issue or he has her extremely well trained 
_
(What's the worst upgrade you ever made? "I installed a GF in the middle of my couch"...)_


----------



## asarose247

Thank you both, Selden Ball and Kbarnes701
There is a 0 WAF , nobody to tell me NO!
and time to consider the suggestions and implement/reconfigure.
Lowering the surrounds(all) may necessitate moving the sub and redoing some of ALL THAT but let Audyssey figure that out
and check and recheck with REW and the Inuke DSP
and the beat goes on


----------



## wse

If you are going to CEDIA you should hear this  



















*The Altitude32 to deliver
Dolby Atmos® multidimensional sound at Cedia Expo*
Colorado Convention Center, Denver, Booth 850
11th to 13th September 2014.

Trinnov Audio announces the world premiere of its leading 3D AV Preamplifier Altitude32, and a Dolby Atmos demonstration in collaboration with Sound Developments Ltd and Procella Audio at Cedia Expo. 

Trinnov Audio is proud to introduce a whole new generation of 3D AV Preamplifier products, powered by unique proprietary technologies and designed to deliver an exceptional Dolby Atmos experience to the audience. With Dolby Atmos, sound comes alive from all directions, including overhead, to fill the home theater with astonishing clarity, power, detail, and depth.

_“Trinnov stands for *3D Innov*ation. As early as 2001, we achieved the world first high-spatial-resolution 3D sound chain from 3D-recording to 3D-reproduction over 24 loudspeakers. Since then, Trinnov continuously contributed to 3D audio at the highest scientific level.”_ said Arnaud Laborie, Trinnov Audio’s CEO. _“We worked with Dolby on our own implementation of Dolby Atmos and we are very excited to show the full capability of this ground-breaking format with the Altitude32.”_

Dolby Atmos is the first home theater system that is based not on channels, but on object audio. An audio object is any sound heard in a scene: a child yelling, a helicopter taking off or a car horn blaring. Dolby Atmos breaks the creative boundaries of channel based audio mixing, providing the artists with toolsets that allow them to accurately place audio anywhere within a 3 dimensional space.

The sophisticated and powerful signal rendering incorporated in the Trinnov Altitude32 processor adapts and scales the Dolby Atmos soundtrack to fill as many as 32 speaker locations in a home playback system.







The Altitude32 relies on a revolutionary hardware platform and unprecedented processing capabilities to deliver up to 32 outputs of high-resolution audio, taking multi-dimensional sound to a new level.

_“For custom installations and home theater enthusiasts the Trinnov Altitude32, with support for up to 32 individual speaker locations, truly elevates the multi-dimensional Dolby Atmos experience by filling the room with amazing clarity and true-to-life detail,"_ said Craig Eggers, Director, Home Theater, Dolby Laboratories.

In collaboration with Sound Developments, Trinnov Audio will highlight the incredible level of realism offered by Dolby Atmos with the world’s first Dolby Atmos 9.2.4 demonstration on a high-performance system.

_“Our organization is very excited about hosting the first ultra high-end Dolby Atmos demonstrations at CEDIA Expo,”_ said Barry Wosk, President of Sound Developments. _“Thanks to Trinnov Audio and their state-of-the-art 32-channel Altitude32 processor, we will be able to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos 3D Audio with speakers mounted in ceiling. This will be a great opportunity for integrators to experience high-performance 3D Audio as they plan to design and install these systems for their clients. With the resolution and cinema impact of the Procella loudspeakers and the rest of the Sound Developments product mix, our goal is to give visitors a listening experience second to none.”_

Dolby is a registered trademark of Dolby Laboratories.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'll have to check it out.

You gonna attend CEDIA, wse?


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> If you are going to CEDIA you should hear this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Altitude32 to deliver
> Dolby Atmos® multidimensional sound at Cedia Expo*
> Colorado Convention Center, Denver, Booth 850
> 11th to 13th September 2014.
> 
> (Snip)
> 
> In collaboration with Sound Developments, Trinnov Audio will highlight the incredible level of realism offered by Dolby Atmos with the world’s first Dolby Atmos 9.2.4 demonstration on a high-performance system.
> 
> _“Our organization is very excited about hosting the first ultra high-end Dolby Atmos demonstrations at CEDIA Expo,”_ said Barry Wosk, President of Sound Developments. _“Thanks to Trinnov Audio and their state-of-the-art 32-channel Altitude32 processor, we will be able to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos 3D Audio with speakers mounted in ceiling. This will be a great opportunity for integrators to experience high-performance 3D Audio as they plan to design and install these systems for their clients. With the resolution and cinema impact of the Procella loudspeakers and the rest of the Sound Developments product mix, our goal is to give visitors a listening experience second to none.”_
> 
> Dolby is a registered trademark of Dolby Laboratories.


Already have my appointment set with Procella/Sound Developments.


----------



## UKTexan

wse said:


> If you are going to CEDIA you should hear this


 
Should be a great demonstration although it would have been nice if they were to rev the Trinnov engine a little more with the full 32 channels rather than the 9.2.4 setup.
Either way I'm sure it will be awesome, I wonder what material they will be playing? Maybe some shiny new Blu-ray Dolby Atmos discs


----------



## action_jackson

Only a 9.2.4 demonstration.  What about the other 17 channels Trinnov?


J/K


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

_In collaboration with Sound Developments, Trinnov Audio will highlight the incredible level of realism offered by Dolby Atmos with the world’s first Dolby Atmos 9.2.4 demonstration on a high-performance system._

A whopping two [2] extra speakers more than a mid-priced AVR? Talk about diminishing returns. Let's hope they start using all those channels sooner rather than later...


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> _In collaboration with Sound Developments, Trinnov Audio will highlight the incredible level of realism offered by Dolby Atmos with the world’s first Dolby Atmos 9.2.4 demonstration on a high-performance system._
> 
> A whopping two [2] extra speakers more than a mid-priced AVR? Talk about diminishing returns. Let's hope they start using all those channels sooner rather than later...


They might be using some speakers as bi- or tri-amped....not my thing but if those Procella floor speakers are active that can start eating up channels fast.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll have to check it out. You gonna attend CEDIA, wse?


Please do tell, I can't have too much work


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll have to check it out.
> 
> You gonna attend CEDIA, wse?


Are you attending, S²?

If so we expect lots of pics. And maybe a video or two.


----------



## bkeeler10

action_jackson said:


> Only a 9.2.4 demonstration.  What about the other 17 channels Trinnov?
> 
> 
> J/K


Well, to actually do 32 channels in what will likely be a fairly small room within a booth on the show floor would be a little ridiculous. Still, when I initially started reading I was thinking they'd do 11.1.6 or something.

sdrucker, are you under the impression that an appointment is needed? Since it's in their booth (presumably on the show room floor), I would have thought an appointment was not necessary.

I will be checking this out if possible.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> What distance are your ears from the nearest speaker?


From rear height speaker around 1,50, from side surround 1,15m and from back surround 1,40m. I just checked my speaker angles against ITU and I only have around 26 degrees to the front speakers. If I want to achieve 30 degrees I would move around 60cm forward but I don't like the idea as I would be too close to my screen then. Obviously I would then also be further away from back speakers!


----------



## action_jackson

bkeeler10 said:


> Well, to actually do 32 channels in what will likely be a fairly small room within a booth on the show floor would be a little ridiculous. Still, when I initially started reading I was thinking they'd do 11.1.6 or something.
> 
> sdrucker, are you under the impression that an appointment is needed? Since it's in their booth (presumably on the show room floor), I would have thought an appointment was not necessary.
> 
> I will be checking this out if possible.


Yeah, I was just kidding, although I was expecting more. I'm sure that the equipment used in their presentation will be of higher quality than what was used in the previous demostrations performed by dolby. Not saying that dolby's presentations were poor, but at the price point that Trinnov commands, the Trinnov experience must be exponentially greater than the competition.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> The cinema must not diminish the performance for 5.1/7.1 content. Lowering the surrounds impacts that, but also makes it even more of an issue for nearby seats when smaller subsets of the surrounds are used by Atmos, as the *"hot spotting"* can be a real problem aesthetically and painfully (concentrated SPL).
> 
> IIRC your surrounds were able to be lowered because they were originally on the higher side of the range. It sounds like they are still not so low as to be directly at ear level, and given the other constraints of the room for top rear placement, it seemed like a good idea.
> 
> I'm just trying to offer the perspective that the adoption of Atmos does not automatically negate all that was considered good practice for "flat earth" surround system design in a mixed use system.


Thanks Roger for the good explanation. Is "hot spotting" another way of expresssing "too much localization"? From your explanation, it seems the general rule of thumb is NOT to have any given speaker too close to a listener?

I have been wondering about the same issue: if a top layer of ceiling speakers implies the pre existing 7.1 lower layer should now all be at ear level. From your post, the answer is "no"?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Already have my appointment set with Procella/Sound Developments.


How do you get an appointment set up to hear this Trinnov demo? Or do you mean you've added their listening booth to your list of attendees you want to visit? I'm going to CEDIA, so I need to know these things.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cannga said:


> Thanks Roger for the good explanation. Is "hot spotting" another way of expresssing "too much localization"? From your explanation, it seems the general rule of thumb is NOT to have any given speaker too close to a listener?
> 
> I have been wondering about the same issue: if a top layer of ceiling speakers implies the pre existing 7.1 lower layer should now all be at ear level. From your post, the answer is "no"?


If your wall surrounds are too high up towards the ceiling, then lower them to get better separation from the top surrounds. If not, don't. That's my take away.


----------



## Craig Peer

I'm looking forward to hearing Atmos demos at Cedia myself !


----------



## petetherock

So far I have only seen the speaker positions as suggested by Denon, as I about to do some renovations, can I confirm that other makers also suggest the same positions for the ceiling speakers?

I will place them about 1.5 m in front of my MLP and about 1m behind..
Thanks


----------



## sdrucker

bkeeler10 said:


> sdrucker, are you under the impression that an appointment is needed? Since it's in their booth (presumably on the show room floor), I would have thought an appointment was not necessary.
> 
> I will be checking this out if possible.


Guys,
I responded to the email sent to registered CEDIA attendees from Procella. They mentioned appointments so I contacted their person and set up a time. Maybe I got it because I had hi-end audio as an interest?

Since this is a general thread, if you're going to CEDIA and didn't get it, PM me and I'll send you the contact info later tonight.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I am pretty sure I placed 'high end audio' as an interest and did not receive and invite or email.

I would be interested but I'll only be available to attend on the 11th.


----------



## brwsaw

jacovn said:


> I made some cartboard boxes the size of 2 different speakers I am considering and have fixed them to the ceiling with some electrical wire for support.
> Man this looks ugly, as the cardboard color is very visable against a black ceiling. Black speakers will not be seen during movie viewing I think.
> The ceiling speakers will be the only visable speakers in the room.



Have you considered paint-able in ceiling speakers?


----------



## helvetica bold

I just realized I'll be in Colorado from the 9th to the 13th! I'm definitely going to attend CEDIA even just for a few hours. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

Hot off the presses (web manual with link to PDF download): Denon AVR-X5200W User's Manual (U.S. Edition)


----------



## harrybnbad

Now I know I dont really know any of the techno-lingo. And I may not know HOW any of this works. But, I think I know when it sound good. Or sounds right....

But years ago, I had a top-art ( I think ) yamaha avr. Really gave a crisp clean sound. Had 4 identical sony tower speakers in a almost square room. While the front lcr speakers were within a foot on the sides of the 51 " tv, the rears were in the corners. And all 4 onthe floor...

Even with my denon 4520, running 11.2. Doesn't even come close to how the rear sound came out. ( and that wasn't even bluray audio ) Where did I ever get the idea that mounting side and rear surrounds should be mounted up high. 

So what im getting at, it seems I hear a few people wondering why we need to lower our speakers down the wall for better seperation. With the new atmos ceiling speakers. Im begining to think they should have always been there.

Now I realize, that we cant mount a speaker on a wall, when there is no wall. Which I too have that problem. Now I even have a new problem. I running klispch rs-62 ll reference series surround speakers. Looks like this style of speaker wont work to well with atmos. So while I find a way to lower my rear speakers, looks like I need to look for replacements too...

And I guess until I upgrade my avr, I might as well move the speakers down now. Try and get that sound I had before.

Thanks guys. You really help people like me out alot..


----------



## harrybnbad

chi_guy50 said:


> Hot off the presses (web manual with link to PDF download): Denon AVR-X5200W User's Manual (U.S. Edition)


I want


----------



## lesliew

Cutting holes in my ceiling this weekend for 4 ceiling speakers, I am planning on a 7.2.4 setup. I had my heart set on the Onkyo TX-NR3030 but the lack of Audessey is making me take a second look at the Denon's.

I have drawn a rough layout of my dedicated Room 19ft x 13ft with a 9ft high ceiling. I currently have my seats against the back wall but will be bringing these forwards by 4 feet. Because the seats were against the back wall I also had the SBR /SBL speakers mounted as rear heights but will be moving these to ear level. Speakers not shown here are a pair of Wharfedale Opus 2-3's which the FL / FR speakers sit on.

The objects/speakers in the room are roughly in the right place but not necessarily to scale. 

Any thoughts on the speaker placements for the 4 atmos ceiling speakers. I do need to keep them vertically in this position so they line up with my LED lighting and the joists but they can be moved horizontally either towards or away from the MLP. 

Do I have these ceiling speakers positioned in the right place ?. I believe that they are OK based on the Onkyo guidelines. 

Thoughts anyone


----------



## DS-21

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd like to know more about the geometry that causes this notch.***[/URL].


It's just the axial cancellation notch inherent in a round waveguide. They all have it, whether the WG is fixed or moving. And it completely fills in just a tiny bit off axis.



NorthSky said:


> Nothing is essentially important, but when you hear the difference between what is and what's not, then it becomes obvious that what counts is what you prefer.


I don't think you understood what you read. I wrote nothing at all about preference. I wrote that there basically was no *observable difference* after basic level matching* between very cheap, merely above-average speakers and considerably more expensive ones with objectively superior performance when used as surrounds, even though when used as LCR there was a clear advantage to the better speakers. 

Now, perhaps some people sell crap speakers instead of speakers designed with some thought behind them - most "high end" speakers are risible garbage, alas - and both of these particular speakers had concentric drivers with a decent directivity match through the crossover. So yes, I'm sure there are speakers so poorly designed that even as surrounds they're inadequate. But frankly anything remotely competent will do for surrounds, IME. I am loathe to say the same about heights just because (a) I've never used them and (b) they are in front of you, or at least half of them are.

Also, I'm not saying there's no psychic benefit to having everything match. Some people just want all their speakers to look the same. And that's fine, but often people are not so smart and believe an aesthetic preference to actually be a sonic preference. That's how companies like B&W and Martin-Logan manage to sell speakers, for the most part...

*No EQ for this comparison: I had no "room correction" at the time. Just broadband level adjustment with pink noise from the AVR and a Rat Shack analog SLM. Program material was multichannel music on DVD-A and SACD, because I think it's pointless to judge sound reproduction using a multimedia experience. For reference, the cheapies were KEF Q-Compacts, purchased at a big box store for $50 each. The expensive and objectively superior replacements were Tannoys with 8" Dual Concentrics and an MSRP of about $800 each at the time. OK, my "20x more expensive" above was a little hyperbolic, but the price gap between the two quads of speakers was very wide, and the performance difference as mains was also quite different. 



westmd said:


> I have been told that comparing tweeter material is the most important***


It's really amazing what kind of idiot garbage regularly spews from salespeoples' mouths... 



David Susilo said:


> OIC, yet another "blind test" guy.


As an audio parts dealer you must hate reality-based people like me...



David Susilo said:


> My home theatre have 2 sets of speakers to make a point *to my clients.* [emph. added] One set 100% identical, another only the LCR are identical with slightly different model but from the same series of the same brand manufacturers. Funny enough***


Yeah, I'm sure the way you calibrate the system has _nothing_ to do with that. 

Sorry, salesman. Not impressed by your anecdote.


----------



## Roger Dressler

DS-21 said:


> It's just the axial cancellation notch inherent in a round waveguide. *They all have it*, whether the WG is fixed or moving. And it completely fills in just a tiny bit off axis.


How did *the TAD's* avoid it?


> The concentric driver is a true point-source, with no nodal cancellation that results when the midrange and tweeter are physically separated on the baffle. The midrange and tweeter outputs sum perfectly regardless of the listening distance, listening height, or listening axis. In addition, the midrange cone acts as a waveguide for the tweeter, controlling the tweeter’s dispersion so that at the lower end of the tweeter’s frequency range, the tweeter’s dispersion more closely matches the midrange driver’s dispersion.


----------



## DS-21

Roger Dressler said:


> How did *the TAD's* avoid it?


They didn't, as the measurements from _Stereophile_ of a TAD speaker I posted above clearly show. There is a clear notch in the top octave (~2 octaves above the mid/tweet cross) that fills in completely just a little off axis.

The notch I'm talking about is generally (assuming competent design) considerably higher than the midrange-tweeter cross, and has nothing to do with the mid/tweet cross, or the midrange at all. This treble notch exists whether the tweeter waveguide is a midrange/midwoofer or a stationary 'guide. It exists solely because the tweeter is on a round waveguide. Here's a DIYA post by Dr. Geddes that may be clearer than what I've written.



Earl Geddes said:


> There will always be an on axis null for a round device if there is diffraction from the mouth. A bigger radius on the mouth reduces this diffraction and reduces the null. A big enough radius and it will disappear. But that gets big.
> 
> An axial hole will also not appear if the device has any internal diffraction, because this will "fill the hole". ***


Source: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ver-commercially-available-2.html#post2537988

But again, it's basically a non-issue. Just rotate the concentric driver a little bit. Constant-directivity speakers generally sound better when their axes cross a couple feet ahead of one's nose anyway.


----------



## qwho51

Upfront, I apologize in advance if this question has been asked regarding Dolby Atmos speakers.
Anyone's thoughts about using bi-poles/di-pole speakers as the VOG speakers.
I have two I was thinking of using on the ceiling but before I go and build up my biceps for
the installation I thought I would ask for input.
Thank you to all for your time and thoughts


----------



## NorthSky

Coaxial speakers seem to be the preferred choice for overhead Dolby Atmos speakers. ...The tweeter in the center of the midrange/woofer driver. ...With a wide dispersion pattern.


----------



## westmd

I just received feedback from a German Trinnov dealer on prices of the upcoming Altitude models. The 8-channel version excluding 3D sound codecs is 17,800€ including VAT. The 16-channel version including the 3D sound formats will be an additional 3,570€ including VAT. 
I also attached the official English flyer from Trinnov, I don't know if that has been distributed in thus forum yet. After reading the flyer I had three more questions which I asked the dealer to get information from Trinnov.
- Confirmation that each subwoofer uses up one output channel
-It seems that the unit only has balanced outputs but I assume unbalanced amps are supported with adapters
- the leaflet states only Dolby Digital is natively processed. I would like to know about Dolby Digital Plus

For thise whi are able to experience the Trinnov live I would really like to know your opinion on whether it is worth going in that direction. I think the unit really sounds very interesting!


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Thanks Roger for the good explanation. Is "hot spotting" another way of expresssing "too much localization"? From your explanation, it seems the general rule of thumb is NOT to have any given speaker too close to a listener?


Yes. In a cinema, when a side surround array outputs, say, 90 dB SPL (as measured at the center of the audience), it is the combination of some 6+ speakers all working together, each one outputting about 82 dB (if measured alone). If in an Atmos presentation that same 90 dB effect is directed to a single speaker, that one speaker will be playing 8 dB louder than when it was part of the array. Someone sitting "in the line of fire" of that speaker will hear a much louder degree of surround effect, at minimum degrading the balance of the mix at that moment, and at worst being annoyingly loud, even if present only for a short time.



> I have been wondering about the same issue: if a top layer of ceiling speakers implies the pre existing 7.1 lower layer should now all be at ear level. From your post, the answer is "no"?


In my mixed use case, where I do not want to do anything to impact my 7.1 mode (my 90% listening mode), the answer is no. Besides, the rear heights are elevated 30 deg above the surrounds, and that, in my book, is sufficient spatial separation. 

For others, who will use all the speakers most of the time as with upmixing, if not Atmos content, and do not have the surrounds too close to any listeners, they may prefer to lower the surrounds somewhat to gain more separation. Lots of things to weigh in the decision.


----------



## SubSolar

lesliew said:


> Cutting holes in my ceiling this weekend for 4 ceiling speakers, I am planning on a 7.2.4 setup. I had my heart set on the Onkyo TX-NR3030 but the lack of Audessey is making me take a second look at the Denon's.
> 
> I have drawn a rough layout of my dedicated Room 19ft x 13ft with a 9ft high ceiling. I currently have my seats against the back wall but will be bringing these forwards by 4 feet. Because the seats were against the back wall I also had the SBR /SBL speakers mounted as rear heights but will be moving these to ear level. Speakers not shown here are a pair of Wharfedale Opus 2-3's which the FL / FR speakers sit on.
> 
> The objects/speakers in the room are roughly in the right place but not necessarily to scale.
> 
> Any thoughts on the speaker placements for the 4 atmos ceiling speakers. I do need to keep them vertically in this position so they line up with my LED lighting and the joists but they can be moved horizontally either towards or away from the MLP.
> 
> Do I have these ceiling speakers positioned in the right place ?. I believe that they are OK based on the Onkyo guidelines.
> 
> Thoughts anyone



Aren't those surround left/rights to far forward? They should be right around where the MLP is. Can you put the rear surrounds on the back wall instead too?


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> From rear height speaker around 1,50, from side surround 1,15m and from back surround 1,40m. I just checked my speaker angles against ITU and I only have around 26 degrees to the front speakers. If I want to achieve 30 degrees I would move around 60cm forward but I don't like the idea as I would be too close to my screen then. Obviously I would then also be further away from back speakers!


Not all that different to my own distances here. I wouldn't worry about it, which is another way of saying "I'm not worrying about it". We are near field listeners that’s all


----------



## kbarnes701

cannga said:


> I have been wondering about the same issue: if a top layer of ceiling speakers implies the pre existing 7.1 lower layer should now all be at ear level. From your post, the answer is "no"?


Maybe a better way to say it is that they *can* be lower now, rather than *should* be lower? As Sanjay explained a few posts back, when we only had 7.1, people raised their surrounds somewhat to create a 'bubble' or sphere, rather than a 'circle' of sound. With top speakers, that isn't required any more as the top speakers themselves give us all we need in the vertical dimension. So now we can lower our surrounds and get a better listener level experience with no detriment to the 'bubble'.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> If your wall surrounds are too high up towards the ceiling, then lower them to get better separation from the top surrounds. If not, don't. That's my take away.


That's what I am doing and for that reason. There's no need to have my surrounds 'up there' any more. Roger, I think, believes that the angles are more important than the distances (correct me if I am misinterpreting you, Roger). I think a good case can be made for both POV - but in my case there is no downside to having my cake and eating it because it won’t take me half an hour to lower my surrounds to give me a little more separation. It will probably make zero audible difference but it will make me feel better


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> So far I have only seen the speaker positions as suggested by Denon, as I about to do some renovations, can I confirm that other makers also suggest the same positions for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> I will place them about 1.5 m in front of my MLP and about 1m behind..
> Thanks


Onkyo just say to put them on the 'third lines' of the room. Denon are giving us a more precise take on it. Dolby confirmed to me that the Denon way is good an in line with their spec. (They didn't say the Onkyo was was _not_ good, BTW - I didn't ask them that).


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Hot off the presses (web manual with link to PDF download): Denon AVR-X5200W User's Manual (U.S. Edition)


And the link to the manual for the X4100W is here:


----------



## kbarnes701

lesliew said:


> Do I have these ceiling speakers positioned in the right place ?. I believe that they are OK based on the Onkyo guidelines.
> 
> Thoughts anyone


I would use the guide in the oft-posted Denon diagram if it were me.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> I don't think you understood what you read. I wrote nothing at all about preference. I wrote that there basically was no *observable difference* after basic level matching* between very cheap, merely above-average speakers and considerably more expensive ones with objectively superior performance when used as surrounds, even though when used as LCR there was a clear advantage to the better speakers.
> 
> Now, perhaps some people sell crap speakers instead of speakers designed with some thought behind them - most "high end" speakers are risible garbage, alas - and both of these particular speakers had concentric drivers with a decent directivity match through the crossover. So yes, I'm sure there are speakers so poorly designed that even as surrounds they're inadequate. But frankly anything remotely competent will do for surrounds, IME. I am loathe to say the same about heights just because (a) I've never used them and (b) they are in front of you, or at least half of them are.


FWIW I agree entirely and your experience reflects my own. Any half decent speaker makes a good surround speaker. I have done it both ways and there is no way I would ever go back to using expensive monitors for the surrounds just because they were the same as my mains. After proper calibration, there is no way that the expensive monitors can be justified IMO.



DS-21 said:


> Also, I'm not saying there's no psychic benefit to having everything match. Some people just want all their speakers to look the same. And that's fine, but often people are not so smart and believe an aesthetic preference to actually be a sonic preference. That's how companies like B&W and Martin-Logan manage to sell speakers, for the most part...


Yes - agreed again. It's not that those (sort of) speakers aren't good, because they are - but the buyer pays a huge price premium just for the way they look. In a living room system, the look might be as important as the sound of course, but in a HT, which by definition is a room where we sit in the dark, way better sonic performance can be obtained for way less money simply by choosing pig-ugly black boxes (step forward M&K and Teufel) or at least plain looking boxes. When the cabinet costs more than all of the rest of the speaker, much more, then I start to question what I am paying for and why. And, of course, in sighted tests, those gorgeous B&W diamond monitors are just _bound _to be preferred to a pig-ugly black box 



DS-21 said:


> Yeah, I'm sure the way you calibrate the system has _nothing_ to do with that.


I was kinder in my reply to David on that topic, but I have to say the thought crossed my mind  Even with the best of intentions, David is no less subject to presentation bias than anyone else, so it is more than likely that, even if all other things were equal, his own bias influenced the attendees.

(No offence intended, David - nothing wrong with making a living!)


----------



## kbarnes701

qwho51 said:


> Upfront, I apologize in advance if this question has been asked regarding Dolby Atmos speakers.
> Anyone's thoughts about using bi-poles/di-pole speakers as the VOG speakers.
> I have two I was thinking of using on the ceiling but before I go and build up my biceps for
> the installation I thought I would ask for input.
> Thank you to all for your time and thoughts


Consensus is that direct firing monopole speakers are best for the top speakers in an Atmos system. And possibly dual concentric designs are the best of those too.


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> Aren't those surround left/rights to far forward? They should be right around where the MLP is. Can you put the rear surrounds on the back wall instead too?


In a 7.1 system it is usually preferable to move the side surrounds forward of the MLP. This gives a more seamless listening experience, front-to-back. This isn’t set in stone though as the two diagrams below show. The first is the ITU recommendation and the second is Dolby's recommendation.



















IMO the ITU recommendation makes most sense, as there is no need to have the side surrounds at 90 degrees when one also has rearmost sounds coming from the rear surround speakers. YMMV.


----------



## toothsavers

*Dolby atmos and ceiling slope*

Being a home theatre novice,I have a family room with 2 sloping ceiling parts conjoined in the center of my room with a flat ceiling area that has a fan-light combo.I have a 7.1 system already with a Denon 4311ci as a receiver.Dolby states that a flat ceiling is the most ideal reflective surface for Dolby Atmos.Installing in ceiling speakers is out of the question(wife).Is it a waste of money buying a new Atmos ready receiver and either 2 enabled dolby atmos modules to sit on my nht 2.5 fronts or 2 dedicated Atmos front speakers? The question is will I get ANY benefit in immersive dolby atmos sound from angled ceiling reflective speakers on a Sloped 14 ft high ceiling?.Could this all result in a mishmash of sound.Please forgive my being a home theatre novice.I need Good advice.Thanks for any opinions!


----------



## kbarnes701

toothsavers said:


> Being a home theatre novice,I have a family room with 2 sloping ceiling parts conjoined in the center of my room with a flat ceiling area that has a fan-light combo.I have a 7.1 system already with a Denon 4311ci as a receiver.Dolby states that a flat ceiling is the most ideal reflective surface for Dolby Atmos.Installing in ceiling speakers is out of the question(wife).Is it a waste of money buying a new Atmos ready receiver and either 2 enabled dolby atmos modules to sit on my nht 2.5 fronts or 2 dedicated Atmos front speakers? The question is will I get ANY benefit in immersive dolby atmos sound from angled ceiling reflective speakers on a Sloped 14 ft high ceiling?.Could this all result in a mishmash of sound.Please forgive my being a home theatre novice.I need Good advice.Thanks for any opinions!


Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers have been designed to work with a flat ceiling. It is unlikely they will work well, or as intended, with sloping ceilings.

However, there are other possibilities for your room. Rather than denying yourself the opportunity to have Atmos at home, with all its unique benefits for movie sound, why not upload a couple of photos of your room so that members here can explore those opportunities with you? Photos taken on your cellphone are more than adequate. WAF can sometimes be overcome once the possible options have been explored.


----------



## Selden Ball

Just as an example, installing track lighting might be acceptable. Some of the positions which might otherwise be lamps could be replaced by speakers. Although I haven't seen it mentioned here, it seems to me that pendant speakers might be adequate replacements for traditional hifi speakers.


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> In a 7.1 system it is usually preferable to move the side surrounds forward of the MLP. This gives a more seamless listening experience, front-to-back. This isn’t set in stone though as the two diagrams below show. The first is the ITU recommendation and the second is Dolby's recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the ITU recommendation makes most sense, as there is no need to have the side surrounds at 90 degrees when one also has rearmost sounds coming from the rear surround speakers. YMMV.



Would a native 5.1 surround signal than not end up on the side speakers at 60-70 degrees which is in front of you ?


Even if it would be on both the RS/RB equal loud, it would sound center between them, so direct at your side.
With the Dolby modell it would end up behind you.


For real 7 channel sources I do agree with you that speakers about every 60 degrees (with center in front as extra) seem to make more sense.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Just as an example, installing track lighting might be acceptable. Some of the positions which might otherwise be lamps could be replaced by speakers. Although I haven't seen it mentioned here, it seems to me that pendant speakers might be adequate replacements for traditional hifi speakers.


Yes, I am sure there are opportunities that the OP should look at. WAF might prevent him utilizing them but at least they should be explored. If he posts a couple of pictures of his room, I am sure there'll be plenty of suggestions


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> Would a native 5.1 surround signal than not end up on the side speakers at 60-70 degrees which is in front of you ?


You mean you'd go to the trouble and expense of installing rear surrounds and then _not use them_? I have to admit, that concept had not occurred to me.



jacovn said:


> For real 7 channel sources I do agree with you that speakers about every 60 degrees (with center in front as extra) seem to make more sense.


Do you have some objection to upmixing 5.1 to 7.1?

The benefits of following the ITU layout were discussed only recently in this thread in an exchange between Roger and Sanjay, so I won't repeat them here, but it had honestly not even entered my mind that anyone would install rear surrounds and then use them only for the handful of discs that have 7.1 soundtracks on them (the 'real' content you mention - ie, I assume you mean, movies actually mixed in 7.1).


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> You mean you'd go to the trouble and expense of installing rear surrounds and then _not use them_? I have to admit, that concept had not occurred to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some objection to upmixing 5.1 to 7.1?
> 
> The benefits of following the ITU layout were discussed only recently in this thread in an exchange between Roger and Sanjay, so I won't repeat them here, but it had honestly not even entered my mind that anyone would install rear surrounds and then use them only for the handful of discs that have 7.1 soundtracks on them (the 'real' content you mention - ie, I assume you mean, movies actually mixed in 7.1).


I have already used 20 years a 7.1 system. So all films with 5.1 were indeed upmixed to 7.1 all that time.


Most systems can do a good job with upmix indeed.


I was meaning that the current side was traditionally in your back (when there was 5.1 only) and now is moved in front of you.
And even when the 5.1 to 7.1 upmix is done, it comes next to you (~90 degrees) Unless the rear signal is going to the back surround only and the side surround is used to create something new in between front and rear.


With the old mixes that presume the rear is behind you it might sound not ok I fear. The Dolby way the rear will still be behind you and was how I always understood it was meant going from 5.1 to 7.1


But my experience is with 1 system only for all that time, so I could be totally wrong.


For new mixes mixed with the ITU standard in mind it is another thing, I understand that, and it will sound much better.


----------



## action_jackson

I remember when I used to have a 6.1 speaker layout and the AVR was set to native instead of upmixing. We often forgot that the rear center speaker was even there until we stuck in one of the rare movies that actually used it, then it would startle us! 

I now alway upmix everything to 7.1 since we upgraded. I don't see any reason not to upmix myself.


----------



## aaronwt

Yes I don't think it sounds right without the rear surrounds. I went to 7.1 in 2001 with a Sony receiver that had PLII. I think that each rear surround channel played the same info. But when I switched to Denon in 2005 I think that is when I first used PLIIx which made it seem like discrete info for the rear surrounds when upmixing. And now with a Denon 4520, 7.1 audio has never sounded as good as now in my setup. So I am curious how front heights will sound. And hopefully in the future I will have a viable option for Dolby Atmos since I can't put any speakers on the actual ceiling because mine is concrete.


----------



## Al Sherwood

harrybnbad said:


> Now I know I dont really know any of the techno-lingo. And I may not know HOW any of this works. But, I think I know when it sound good. Or sounds right....
> 
> But years ago, I had a top-art ( I think ) yamaha avr. Really gave a crisp clean sound. Had 4 identical sony tower speakers in a almost square room. While the front lcr speakers were within a foot on the sides of the 51 " tv, the rears were in the corners. And all 4 onthe floor...
> 
> Even with my denon 4520, running 11.2. Doesn't even come close to how the rear sound came out. ( and that wasn't even bluray audio ) Where did I ever get the idea that mounting side and rear surrounds should be mounted up high.
> 
> So what im getting at, it seems I hear a few people wondering why we need to lower our speakers down the wall for better seperation. With the new atmos ceiling speakers. Im begining to think they should have always been there.
> 
> Now I realize, that we cant mount a speaker on a wall, when there is no wall. Which I too have that problem. Now I even have a new problem. I running klispch rs-62 ll reference series surround speakers. Looks like this style of speaker wont work to well with atmos. So while I find a way to lower my rear speakers, looks like I need to look for replacements too...
> 
> And I guess until I upgrade my avr, I might as well move the speakers down now. Try and get that sound I had before.
> 
> Thanks guys. You really help people like me out alot..



Harry, I may be wrong but I haven't read anything thus far that would indicated that your RS-62's still wouldn't be viable for the rear and back surrounds... for the top (ceiling mount) speakers there may be better options, but you likely don't have 4 RS-62's sitting in boxes for these positions anyway.


----------



## richmagnus

kbarnes701 said:


> Keith: Since you have M&K , as I do. What are your thoughts on using 4 surround SS-150T's flat mounted to the ceiling for atmos? Pros/cons? Would the dispersion in tripole mode be viable for the 90 degree spec and any other considerations? I sold my receiver earlier during my current build out so I don't have anything to play around with. I'd like to use my "paid for" speakers, if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim




The honest answer, Jim, is I don't know. Probably nobody does at this time. My current understanding is that dipoles and/or tripoles are not recommended for Atmos and that direct firing speakers are needed, with a wide dispersion pattern. Anything which deviates from that is a shot in the dark and all I can say is that there is some logic to your idea, but whether it will work is unknown. Perhaps you could try it and see as you have the speakers? I was very reluctant to give up my SS150Ts I can tell you, but I did it for the greater good [/QUOTE]


I run M&K S300T's as surrounds. I see no issue using these as surrounds in an Atmos system. They are tripole, mounted just above head height. An Atmos movie will still have the base layer mix as well as the added object based cues. I will place 4 appropriate ceiling speakers in the room once Atmos has settled down and we see what is available to the consumer.


----------



## Al Sherwood

qwho51 said:


> Upfront, I apologize in advance if this question has been asked regarding Dolby Atmos speakers.
> Anyone's thoughts about using bi-poles/di-pole speakers as the VOG speakers.
> I have two I was thinking of using on the ceiling but before I go and build up my biceps for
> the installation I thought I would ask for input.
> Thank you to all for your time and thoughts





NorthSky said:


> Coaxial speakers seem to be the preferred choice for overhead Dolby Atmos speakers. ...The tweeter in the center of the midrange/woofer driver. ...With a wide dispersion pattern.


I too was wondering about the attributes these speakers should have... thinking out loud now, but I think coaxial ceiling speakers are going to be a default more because they are designed for this type of installation, however... I think that there are a number of options that could be used here.


If anyone has an actual published recommendation for these speakers from Dolby, please share... thanks!


----------



## asarose247

Track Lighting Bar for Pendant Speaker


Selden Ball: Just as an example, installing track lighting might be acceptable. Some of the positions which might otherwise be lamps could be replaced by speakers. Although I haven't seen it mentioned here, it seems to me that pendant speakers might be adequate replacements for traditional hifi speakers.	


reference my picture in post 5575. 


I had access to discarded track lights and re-engineered/purposed the attachment portion and at one point used some 3/4" EMT to extend the length for up to a 20 inch drop.
and based on recent discussion about lowering all surrounds wrt to better overall separation from the Tops and yet avoiding hot spots , I'll experiment with using some older Bose 101 roommates for Rear surrounds, monopoles being better for me as there is no rear wall or not close enough to the sides to warrant the use of bipoles.


tinkering on. .. 


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-188.html#


----------



## asarose247

Al Sherwood ;"If anyone has an actual published recommendation for these speakers from Dolby, please share... thanks! "


In the DIY section there is a thread: Design challenge for Dolby Atmos speakers


see post 2 for suggested specifications, courtesy of LTD02.


----------



## Al Sherwood

asarose247 said:


> Al Sherwood ;"If anyone has an actual published recommendation for these speakers from Dolby, please share... thanks! "
> 
> 
> In the DIY section there is a thread: Design challenge for Dolby Atmos speakers
> 
> 
> see post 2 for suggested specifications, courtesy of LTD02.



Thanks for the tip, although I did not see anything concrete there it did provide a lot of conjecture.


My take away was a timber matched wide dispersion speaker positioned at the recommended ceiling position...


----------



## jacovn

asarose247 said:


> Al Sherwood ;"If anyone has an actual published recommendation for these speakers from Dolby, please share... thanks! "
> 
> 
> In the DIY section there is a thread: Design challenge for Dolby Atmos speakers
> 
> 
> see post 2 for suggested specifications, courtesy of LTD02.


These are cinema specifications
Chapter 2 of the whitepaper:dolby atmos cinema technical guidelines


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> I run M&K S300T's as surrounds. I see no issue using these as surrounds in an Atmos system. They are tripole, mounted just above head height. An Atmos movie will still have the base layer mix as well as the added object based cues. I will place 4 appropriate ceiling speakers in the room once Atmos has settled down and we see what is available to the consumer.


I was just making the point that, AFAIK, all indications so far have been that monopoles are the Dolby spec for _ceiling_ speakers. I wasn’t commenting on the type of surround speakers and I am sure the Tripoles will work just fine.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks for the tip, although I did not see anything concrete there it did provide a lot of conjecture.
> 
> 
> My take away was a timber matched wide dispersion speaker positioned at the recommended ceiling position...


Al - Dolby are releasing information aimed at custom installers "before CEDIA" so all that sort of info should be included.


----------



## richmagnus

kbarnes701 said:


> I was just making the point that, AFAIK, all indications so far have been that monopoles are the Dolby spec for _ceiling_ speakers. I wasn’t commenting on the type of surround speakers and I am sure the Tripoles will work just fine.



I agree with you totally. The reason I posted was that over here in the UK on AVF,Atmos thread, there has been a lot of conjecture that Tripoles will not work well as surrounds because they will smear the detail the object based cues. I personally don't agree with this at all, far from it, I believe they will excel in an Atmos system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

richmagnus said:


> I agree with you totally. The reason I posted was that over here in the UK on AVF,Atmos thread, there has been a lot of conjecture that Tripoles will not work well as surrounds because they will smear the detail the object based cues. I personally don't agree with this at all, far from it, *I believe they will excel in an Atmos system*.


I'm not so sure. The imaging that is created with these object mixes probably shouldn't be tampered with by speakers coloring the sound with their own diffusion patterns. There must be a reason that no Dolby sanctioned demo or dubbing stage has used these types of speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> I agree with you totally. The reason I posted was that over here in the UK on AVF,Atmos thread, there has been a lot of conjecture that Tripoles will not work well as surrounds because they will smear the detail the object based cues. I personally don't agree with this at all, far from it, I believe they will excel in an Atmos system.


Oh, those Limeys are all audiophiles and believe speaker wire makes a difference tonally too  JK. 

We will perhaps get a definitive view when Dolby publish this custom installer paper in the next two weeks or so. Until then, I'd hang on to the Tripoles  And hopefully, even after then


----------



## richmagnus

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not so sure. The imaging that is created with these object mixes probably shouldn't be tampered with by speakers coloring the sound with their own diffusion patterns. There must be a reason that no Dolby sanctioned demo or dubbing stage has used these types of speakers.



Obviously it's all conjecture till they are used in an Atmos system, but as they stand now in a 5.1/7.1 system they have pin point accuracy for sounds when required. They just help to create a huge sense of space and envelopment too. THX now use them in their reference system. I get that the height speakers need to be monopole as do the LCR but sides and rears I'm not so sure about as I mentioned earlier, movies will still have the base layer mix.


----------



## corndogggy

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe a better way to say it is that they *can* be lower now, rather than *should* be lower? As Sanjay explained a few posts back, when we only had 7.1, people raised their surrounds somewhat to create a 'bubble' or sphere, rather than a 'circle' of sound. With top speakers, that isn't required any more as the top speakers themselves give us all we need in the vertical dimension. So now we can lower our surrounds and get a better listener level experience with no detriment to the 'bubble'.


I have a few Klipsch KL-650-THX's on the way. If I go with an Atmos enabled receiver like a Marantz SR-7009 and get ceiling speakers, when I can afford the surrounds are you saying I should just get more 650's or KL-525's and mount them on the floor instead of putting some bipole KS-525's up on the wall? I was told this by a salesperson yesterday but not in so many words, just want to really understand.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not so sure. The imaging that is created with these object mixes probably shouldn't be tampered with by speakers coloring the sound with their own diffusion patterns. There must be a reason that no Dolby sanctioned demo or dubbing stage has used these types of speakers.


I suspect the reason is that dipoles aren't really needed anyway, now we have proper discrete multichannel content. They were great back in the day when surround activity wasn't discrete and they definitely created a diffuseness that helped with ambiance etc. But now that we have discrete content in the back channels, monopoles are just as (more than) effective and any diffuseness required can be created in the mix. Tripoles are a slightly special case because they also have a direct firing speaker(s) as well as the diffuse ones. In my much loved and now sold M&K SS150T tripoles, they could be configured to work as pure monopoles too, so anyone using those could stick them in that mode and hang on to them. I sold mine and replaced them with monopoles for the reasons above and also because I needed to reconfigure my 5.1 system surrounds to 110° in preparation for Atmos. It was difficult for me to mount the SS150Ts where I wanted them. I am shortly replacing their (short-lived) replacements with a dual concentric design.


----------



## richmagnus

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh, those Limeys are all audiophiles and believe speaker wire makes a difference tonally too  JK.
> 
> 
> 
> We will perhaps get a definitive view when Dolby publish this custom installer paper in the next two weeks or so. Until then, I'd hang on to the Tripoles  And hopefully, even after then



Ha ha yes a few of us are no longer brain washed by the snake oil myth of speaker wire and HDMI cables, much to the annoyance of some. 
I plan on keeping them as they are fantastic and cost a fortune over hear at £3000 a pair!!! I will make them work with Atmos!


----------



## kbarnes701

corndogggy said:


> I have a few Klipsch KL-650-THX's on the way. If I go with an Atmos enabled receiver like a Marantz SR-7009 and get ceiling speakers, when I can afford the surrounds are you saying I should just get more 650's or KL-525's and mount them on the floor instead of putting some bipole KS-525's up on the wall? I was told this by a salesperson yesterday but not in so many words, just want to really understand.


My advice these days, and as a former long-time user of dipoles and tripoles, is to use monopoles for surround speakers. See my reply to Dan above for why. And, FWIW, Floyd Toole agrees with me too, Or, rather, I agree with him.


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> Ha ha yes a few of us are no longer brain washed by the snake oil myth of speaker wire and HDMI cables, much to the annoyance of some.
> I plan on keeping them as they are fantastic and cost a fortune over hear at £3000 a pair!!! I will make them work with Atmos!


I would tend in that direction too if I had spent 3 grand on a pair


----------



## 3ll3d00d

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not so sure. The imaging that is created with these object mixes probably shouldn't be tampered with by speakers coloring the sound with their own diffusion patterns. There must be a reason that no Dolby sanctioned demo or dubbing stage has used these types of speakers.


I tend to think that they'll still have a place in a smaller system, e.g. a 5.1.2, as a height layer is not going to create that sense of space at ground level that a tripole can help with. I get the impression the demos so far have all been 7.1.4, is that right?


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> I tend to think that they'll still have a place in a smaller system, e.g. a 5.1.2, as a height layer is not going to create that sense of space at ground level that a tripole can help with. I get the impression the demos so far have all been 7.1.4, *is that right?*


Yes.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> My advice these days, and as a former long-time user of dipoles and tripoles, is to use monopoles for surround speakers. See my reply to Dan above for why. And, FWIW, Floyd Toole agrees with me too, Or, rather, I agree with him.


I agree, especially if one listens to multichannel music. In my own case with Magnepan's, while they are dipolar planar panels, designed that way, the wall mounted panels are supposed to be located and angled so that the front is aimed at the listening position. That's not the same as deliberately spraying surround 180 deg forwards & 180 deg rearwards of the listening position with listening position in the null.

Hopefully, with the coming of Atmos, the THX style diffused approach may gradually be coming to an end.


----------



## Nightlord

richmagnus said:


> I agree with you totally. The reason I posted was that over here in the UK on AVF,Atmos thread, there has been a lot of conjecture that Tripoles will not work well as surrounds because they will smear the detail the object based cues. I personally don't agree with this at all, far from it, I believe they will excel in an Atmos system.


I think they will outperform direct radiators still. Mine are sort-of-tripoles too and I use three on each side with fantastic results and I don't think Atmos will stop them from doing so. I'm on your side here.


----------



## NorthSky

Some Dolby Atmos @ home demos were not also of the 5.1.4 variety?

* Onkyo/Integra still adheres to their THX licence. ...You never know; superimposed over Dolby Atmos could be interesting. ...And/or on top of Dolby Surround too, of course. ...Anyway, it also means a certain security of mind, as Onkyo's lab tests can reveal. ...THX should also mean better and more reliable HDMI circuit boards, with no audio dropouts caused by the network chip attached to them. ...And also better control of heat dissipation from the video processors, with perhaps heatsinks atop of them, and with internal fans that engaged sooner rather than too late, and without the customer's recourse of buying external ones.

If only THX also meant reliability and quality control of parts and implementation, and customer service satisfaction, integrity all across the company line with their THX certified products...the world would perhaps be a better place to be living in.


----------



## richmagnus

Nightlord said:


> I think they will outperform direct radiators still. Mine are sort-of-tripoles too and I use three on each side with fantastic results and I don't think Atmos will stop them from doing so. I'm on your side here.



I just cannot see how they can't work well. If they excel in present systems I don't see what changes with Atmos? Yes there are object based cues but in real life most sound isn't emitted from a direct point source anyway. A tripole is just a wide dispersion speaker that makes the walls melt away. Height channels will just add to this.


----------



## NorthSky

Nightlord said:


> I think they will outperform direct radiators still. Mine are sort-of-tripoles too and I use three on each side with fantastic results and I don't think Atmos will stop them from doing so. I'm on your side here.


With Dolby Atmos methinks that monopole speakers are still best (direct radiators), with wide dispersion; @ level, and above. ...Good on-axis, and good off-axis performance. ...The type of great normal loudspeakers that measure well all across the board.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

richmagnus said:


> I just cannot see how they can't work well. If they excel in present systems I don't see what changes with Atmos? Yes there are object based cues but in real life most sound isn't emitted from a direct point source anyway. A tripole is just a wide dispersion speaker that makes the walls melt away. Height channels will just add to this.


We all shall soon find out...


----------



## batpig

I think there is some conflation with DIpoles (which are supposed to be super diffuse due to out-of-phase drivers) and BIpole/TRIpole types which are still fairly directional but just spread the sound around. Most users of bipole/tripole type surrounds claim that they can provide precise imaging when it's called for, unlike a true dipole which will never be "pinpoint" if you are sitting in the null field. 

I agree that for someone with only 5.1 "ear level" speakers there could be a place for bipole/tripole surrounds to enhance the sense of "horizontal envelopment" that compensates for the lack of surround back speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

But Dolby Atmos is not a 5.1-channel setup; it's a new "elevated" world. 
...Dipole, bipole, tripole, omnipole, ...they all going the way of the dodo now.

It is not 1982 no more, it is 2014. ...The year of precise objects in space; the spatial surround sound, the precise 3D rendition.
...A new harmony between the floor channels and overhead channels. ...If you are using dipole or bipole or tripole on your side and/or rear walls, they'll change the game with the new overhead Dolby Atmos speakers. ...And perhaps not to the ideal match; overall effective 3D performance. 

I sincerely believe that; I am going to get rid of all my speakers that are dipole, bipole, tripole and omnipole types in favor of monopole ones all around. Dolby Atmos should perform better that way, and the professional recording studios as well with their new Dolby Atmos mixing console, and their monopole speakers everywhere around and above. 

Adapt, or experience inferior performance, really/radically, I think very much so. ...Time to reorganize our rooms in favor of the new King in town; Dolby "elevated" Atmos.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

toothsavers said:


> Being a home theatre novice,I have a family room with 2 sloping ceiling parts conjoined in the center of my room with a flat ceiling area that has a fan-light combo.I have a 7.1 system already with a Denon 4311ci as a receiver.Dolby states that a flat ceiling is the most ideal reflective surface for Dolby Atmos.Installing in ceiling speakers is out of the question(wife).Is it a waste of money buying a new Atmos ready receiver and either 2 enabled dolby atmos modules to sit on my nht 2.5 fronts or 2 dedicated Atmos front speakers? The question is will I get ANY benefit in immersive dolby atmos sound from angled ceiling reflective speakers on a Sloped 14 ft high ceiling?.Could this all result in a mishmash of sound.Please forgive my being a home theatre novice.I need Good advice.Thanks for any opinions!


I really think you could pull it of using (4) up-firing speakers. Take a look at the manual for the 5200. All you have to do is position the "Atmos" speaker modules in such a way that they project their sound to where you will be sitting. A mirror held on the ceiling by an accomplice might help...


----------



## NorthSky

Dolby Atmos should be good business for mirrors. ...And lasers too. ...Laser beam.


----------



## RichB

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I really think you could pull it of using (4) up-firing speakers. Take a look at the manual for the 5200. All you have to do is position the "Atmos" speaker modules in such a way that they project their sound to where you will be sitting. A mirror held on the ceiling by an accomplice might help...


Now all you need is the smoke  

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

Question: In Theaters, do they use dipole/bipole/tripole speakers?

Another question: Do some theaters use smoke?


----------



## David Susilo

Only monopoles in theatres.


----------



## action_jackson

^^
Smoke + Laser beam = Line in the air.


----------



## corndogggy

Really wish I knew that Atmos was a possibility when I started building my house a couple years ago, would have wired things up differently. Now I have these useless speaker terminals higher up on my walls for surround plus I'll have to either snip those off and use as the ceiling speakers or I'll have to run more wire inside of the wall from my receiver up to the attic, which is doable but it sucks.


----------



## J_P_A

Has anyone worked on a two row HT layout yet? For my room it looks like getting a good compromise for both rows might be a little tough. Particularly with the top center speakers. That may be a good reason to go with a 7.x.4 layout instead of trying to get those last two top speakers in there.

EDIT: Scratch that. Even with just four tops I can't get the overheads to fall within range for both rows. Hmmmm…..

Sorry if this has been beat to death already, but I can't keep up with this thread. You guys are machines!


----------



## toothsavers

*dolby atmos and slanted ceiling*

Thank you for your suggestion.The only Atmos speakers which can be utilized would be the enabled modules on top of my 2 floor standing speakers or 2 new Atmos speakers to replace my existing 2 speakers.We can't break thru our ceiling or walls to run additional atmos speakers.My concern is if we just utilize the 2 front Atmos speakers , would reflecting off a slanted ceiling gives us ANY degree of atmos immersive sound?? Will we get any benefit of this sound technology or just a sonic mess? Is an investment of a new atmos receiver/speaker practical with our room/ceiling configuration?Any thoughts


----------



## RichB

toothsavers said:


> Thank you for your suggestion.The only Atmos speakers which can be utilized would be the enabled modules on top of my 2 floor standing speakers or 2 new Atmos speakers to replace my existing 2 speakers.We can't break thru our ceiling or walls to run additional atmos speakers.My concern is if we just utilize the 2 front Atmos speakers , would reflecting off a slanted ceiling gives us ANY degree of atmos immersive sound?? Will we get any benefit of this sound technology or just a sonic mess? Is an investment of a new atmos receiver/speaker practical with our room/ceiling configuration?Any thoughts


A flush mounted speaker that has an adjustable angle might work.

Invisa HTR 7000:

http://www.goldenear.com/products/invisa-series

- Rich


----------



## aaronwt

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I really think you could pull it of using (4) up-firing speakers. Take a look at the manual for the 5200. All you have to do is position the "Atmos" speaker modules in such a way that they project their sound to where you will be sitting. A mirror held on the ceiling by an accomplice might help...


If that actually works then could front height speakers be used in that fashion? And then rear heights the same way? In my setup I can't put anything on the ceiling. The best I can do is use side walls on the front and the back walls on the rear. All my other speakers in my setup are around ear height.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_P_A said:


> Has anyone worked on a two row HT layout yet? For my room it looks like getting a good compromise for both rows might be a little tough. Particularly with the top center speakers. That may be a good reason to go with a 7.x.4 layout instead of trying to get those last two top speakers in there.
> 
> EDIT: Scratch that. Even with just four tops I can't get the overheads to fall within range for both rows. Hmmmm…..


I'm doing a 2 row setup, and to best emulate the performance of a real Atmos cinema, the folks in the back row definitely get a different aural perspective!  IOW, no, both rows do not fall within the angle guidelines. Just make sure the MLP does.


----------



## bargervais

corndogggy said:


> Really wish I knew that Atmos was a possibility when I started building my house a couple years ago, would have wired things up differently. Now I have these useless speaker terminals higher up on my walls for surround plus I'll have to either snip those off and use as the ceiling speakers or I'll have to run more wire inside of the wall from my receiver up to the attic, which is doable but it sucks.


I know what you mean I just bought new speakers for the living room If I would have known atmos was on the horizon I would have held off on the speakers and put that money towards a better receiver and atmos speaker set up. Well there is always next year.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I suspect the reason is that dipoles aren't really needed anyway, now we have proper discrete multichannel content.


Dipole surrounds were pushed by Tom Holman for his home THX program, because those types of speakers most closely mimicked the long arrays of surround speakers in commercial cinemas (the reference point for home THX). When soundtracks switched from a mono surround channel (Dolby Stereo) to 2 surround channels (discrete 5.1), movie theatres didn't change their speaker layouts. 

At home, if you bought into the THX goal of replicating the movie theatre experience (as much as logistically possible), then you continued to use dipoles because they continued to best mimic long arrays of surround speakers. Just because consumers got discrete multi-channel content doesn't mean dipoles suddenly stopped serving the purpose they were originally meant for. 

So if anyone has a 5.1 set-up that uses dipole surrounds, _and likes how it sounds_, then I think they should continue to keep a set-up they enjoy even when adding 2 or 4 speakers overhead.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Only monopoles in theatres.


That is what I also saw in all the Theaters that I attended in my lifetime.

* I hope they release *'Ratatouille'* here in North America, in 3D, 4K, and Dolby Atmos.


----------



## rprice54

Forgive me if this has been asked before- what's 'better' with a 9 channel amp? 5.1.4 or 7.1.2? I lean towards 7.1.2 since there's already 7.1 source material out there. 

Looking at a Marantz 7009. Trying to figure out how many surrounds/ceiling speakers to get.


----------



## J_P_A

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm doing a 2 row setup, and to best emulate the performance of a real Atmos cinema, the folks in the back row definitely get a different aural perspective!  IOW, no, both rows do not fall withing the angle guidelines. Just make sure the MLP does.


I was afraid you would say that  This sort of thing drives my OCD crazy.

Another question for you guys. Part of the recommended speaker placements are outside the range that a speaker with a 90 degree dispersion will cover. Has anything been mentioned about aiming the speakers to compensate?


----------



## NorthSky

rprice54 said:


> Forgive me if this has been asked before- what's 'better' with a 9 channel amp? 5.1.4 or 7.1.2? I lean towards 7.1.2 since there's already 7.1 source material out there.
> 
> Looking at a Marantz 7009. Trying to figure out how many surrounds/ceiling speakers to get.


*7.1.4* ... Add a stereo amp...for the back surrounds.


----------



## SoundChex

NorthSky said:


> *7.1.4* ... Add a stereo amp...for the back surrounds.



I'm still hoping some CEM will allow *7.1.4* with the_ Main Layer_ *7.1* composed of *5.1 Standard + 2x Front Wides*...!  
_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rprice54 said:


> Forgive me if this has been asked before- what's 'better' with a 9 channel amp? 5.1.4 or 7.1.2? I lean towards 7.1.2 since there's already 7.1 source material out there.
> 
> Looking at a Marantz 7009. Trying to figure out how many surrounds/ceiling speakers to get.


7.1.4 

That's the maximum the 7009 can render for Atmos. Get a cheap 2 channel amp for the extra speakers, as NorthSky mentioned.


----------



## rprice54

I can wire for an eventual 7.2.4 but the budget is tapped out right now.


----------



## batpig

SoundChex said:


> I'm still hoping some CEM will allow *7.1.4* with the_ Main Layer_ *7.1* composed of *5.1 Standard + 2x Front Wides*...!
> _


I'm not sure the current Denon 5200 can't already do that. In theory it should be possible. Unfortunately that won't work with Dolby Surround up mixer (which doesn't output to wides as implemented) but Atmos content should render. 

Of course, the lack of output for DSU means it might be more practical to do a "traditional" 7.1.4 and just move the Surround speakers in front of the MLP and space the Surr Back wider as in this ITU layout:










That layout is practically close enough to what you want, and all 11 speakers will be hot with DSU and native Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

rprice54 said:


> I can wire for an eventual 7.2.4 but the budget is tapped out right now.


I would go 5.1.4 ...instead of 7.1.2 ...put your side surrounds @ 110-120° or so.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> I would go 5.1.4 ...instead of 7.1.2 ...put your side surrounds @ 110-120° or so.


It all depends on the number of seats and rows in your theater. For me two seats one row I will do 7.2.2


----------



## sdurani

Paraphrasing from my post in the Atlantic Technology Owners thread: 

Saw a prototype of these height modules at CES back in January, where they looked like an extension to one of Atlantic's THX speakers. Since then, the look has been changed to make it more of a universal height module. Though there wasn't much info about these "virtual height" speakers at CES (no mention of Atmos), Atlantic has apparently been quietly working with Dolby for a couple of years (!) on these. 

In fact, when Scott Wilkinson did his podcast speaker designer Andrew Jones from Pioneer about their upcoming Atmos-enabled speakers, Jones mentioned that he was skeptical until he heard the CEDIA 2013 Atmos demo, which impressed him enough to pursue his own version. What he heard at that 2013 demo was an early prototype of these height modules. 

The ones I saw at CES in January had a small single driver pointing up. Looks like that's been changed to a larger coax in order to have better bass response and a wider dispersion (larger ceiling spot) than other manufacturers have. First time I've seen one of the Atmos speaker licensees promote the used of height modules NOT on top of a speaker. 


http://www.atlantictechnology.com/files/2214/0914/9695/44-DA_PIS_082614-2-lrz.pdf


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_P_A said:


> I was afraid you would say that  This sort of thing drives my OCD crazy.


What do you do for current 5.1/7.1? There's only one MLP.



> Another question for you guys. Part of the recommended speaker placements are outside the range that a speaker with a 90 degree dispersion will cover. Has anything been mentioned about aiming the speakers to compensate?


Could you be more specific? Which positions fall out?


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_P_A said:


> I was afraid you would say that  This sort of thing drives my OCD crazy.


What do you do for current 5.1/7.1? There's only one MLP.



> Another question for you guys. Part of the recommended speaker placements are outside the range that a speaker with a 90 degree dispersion will cover. Has anything been mentioned about aiming the speakers to compensate?


Could you be more specific? Which positions fall out?


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> It all depends on the number of seats and rows in your theater. For me two seats one row I will do 7.2.2


Yeah, it all depends...how many feet behind the couch to the back wall.

* But! It is very easy to figure his particular situation and room; and because of that 5.1.4 would be much more beneficial to him...in my very humble and smart opinion. 

** Four overheads Dolby Atmos speakers are better than only two of them plus two back surround speakers.
I truly think. /// Why? Because of object rendition in a 3D space. ...Much more spatial, much more immersing in both horizontal (five speakers) and vertical (four speakers) planes; plus subwoofer(s). 
5.1.4 is a perfect spatial balance; much more than 7.1.2 - and even for only one or three listeners (main listener surrounded by his two girlfriends, one on each side of his couch). 

*** Yes, four overhead Dolby Atmos "sky satellites" should 'elevate' a listener or three much more than two surround back speakers (mostly useless in most small rooms), and only two overhead ones (only overhead side panning, no front to back overhead panning).

**** The two Side surrounds like I said; @ 110-120° behind the "love triangle" (MLP).


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> ...
> 
> The ones I saw at CES in January had a small single driver pointing up. Looks like that's been changed to a larger coax in order to have better bass response and a wider dispersion (larger ceiling spot) than other manufacturers have. First time I've seen one of the Atmos speaker licensees promote the used of height modules NOT on top of a speaker.
> 
> 
> http://www.atlantictechnology.com/files/2214/0914/9695/44-DA_PIS_082614-2-lrz.pdf


Cute, I really like them...they are going to make life much easier for a whole bunch more people.


----------



## pletwals

toothsavers said:


> The only Atmos speakers which can be utilized would be the enabled modules on top of my 2 floor standing speakers or 2 new Atmos speakers to replace my existing 2 speakers.We can't break thru our ceiling or walls to run additional atmos speakers.My concern is if we just utilize the 2 front Atmos speakers , would reflecting off a slanted ceiling gives us ANY degree of atmos immersive sound??


2 Atmos speakers are obviously not as good as 4 since so much can happen inside the plane formed by 4 speakers while 2 speakers only form a line. But using 2 Atmos speakers will be superior to having no Atmos speakers at all..

I don't recall if you indicated the way the ceiling slopes? Suppose it's from the sides and upwards: if you reverse the wiring from the top Atmos modules (L > < R) then the one on the right (wired as left) will reflect to your left side.. and vice versa. 
Suppose the slope is parallel to the front wall? Even better. Just wire the top modules as intended (L = L and R = R) and they will sound as they are Top Middle...


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> But Dolby Atmos is not a 5.1-channel setup; it's a new "elevated" world.
> ...Dipole, bipole, tripole, omnipole, ...they all going the way of the dodo now.
> 
> It is not 1982 no more, it is 2014. ...The year of precise objects in space; the spatial surround sound, the precise 3D rendition.
> ...A new harmony between the floor channels and overhead channels. ...If you are using dipole or bipole or tripole on your side and/or rear walls, they'll change the game with the new overhead Dolby Atmos speakers. ...And perhaps not to the ideal match; overall effective 3D performance.
> 
> I sincerely believe that; I am going to get rid of all my speakers that are dipole, bipole, tripole and omnipole types in favor of monopole ones all around. Dolby Atmos should perform better that way, and the professional recording studios as well with their new Dolby Atmos mixing console, and their monopole speakers everywhere around and above.
> 
> Adapt, or experience inferior performance, really/radically, I think very much so. ...Time to reorganize our rooms in favor of the new King in town; Dolby "elevated" Atmos.


Now this whole discussion makes me start to think! I have the following setup for Atmos planned. My room is roughly 19 feet long, 14 feet wide and 7.2 feet high. MLP is 14 feet away from front. The MLP is a compromise because even though I only have 26 degrees to my keft and right speaker , to achieve required 30 degrees I would move too far to the screen! Side surrounds will be 6.5 feet away from back wall so at 62 degrees and back surrounds at 102 degrees. All speakers will be the same height at ear level.
Now currenly I do have side dipoles. Woul you suggest to stick with them or try monopoles?


----------



## toothsavers

*atmos speakers with sloping ceiling*

Thank you for your advice.My ceiling slope would be parallel to front upward angulated Atmos speakers.The apex of our sloped ceiling is a flattened area that has a fan/light combo in the center of our room.Our viewing area is under the flattened ceiling area.Is it possible that the sound reflection would bounce off the angulated ceiling onto our seated area? Would this give us at least some of the Atmos immersive sound?.I am sure that I am not alone with this ceiling dilemma and that others could benefit from this forums advice and expertise.The ultimate question is to invest or not with new Atmos equipment and experience at least some immersive sound.Any comments would be appreciated,THX


----------



## pletwals

toothsavers said:


> Thank you for your advice.My ceiling slope would be parallel to front upward angulated Atmos speakers.The apex of our sloped ceiling is a flattened area that has a fan/light combo in the center of our room.Our viewing area is under the flattened ceiling area.Is it possible that the sound reflection would bounce off the angulated ceiling onto our seated area? Would this give us at least some of the Atmos immersive sound?.I am sure that I am not alone with this ceiling dilemma and that others could benefit from this forums advice and expertise.The ultimate question is to invest or not with new Atmos equipment and experience at least some immersive sound.Any comments would be appreciated,THX


There will definitely be an enhanced immersiveness. I would advise to use the separate add-on modules so that some angling can be done if needed.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> Has anyone worked on a two row HT layout yet? For my room it looks like getting a good compromise for both rows might be a little tough. Particularly with the top center speakers. That may be a good reason to go with a 7.x.4 layout instead of trying to get those last two top speakers in there.
> 
> EDIT: Scratch that. Even with just four tops I can't get the overheads to fall within range for both rows. Hmmmm…..
> 
> Sorry if this has been beat to death already, but I can't keep up with this thread. You guys are machines!


Both the demos I went to had two rows of seats. For the first demo I sat in the front row and for the second in the back row. With Atmos speakers I couldn’t really say there was much difference for either row. With ceiling speakers, I happened to be sitting directly underneath the top rear speaker, but the effect was still very good, and this is probably the worst seat in the room. 

If I had two rows, I'd decide which was the primary row and then optimize for that row. The other row will perhaps sound less good, but still very good and definitely better than what we have currently.

In some ways, two row HTs have always had to compromise similarly, but as those with two-row cinemas will testify, the results can be very good indeed.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Dipole surrounds were pushed by Tom Holman for his home THX program, because those types of speakers most closely mimicked the long arrays of surround speakers in commercial cinemas (the reference point for home THX). When soundtracks switched from a mono surround channel (Dolby Stereo) to 2 surround channels (discrete 5.1), movie theatres didn't change their speaker layouts.
> 
> At home, if you bought into the THX goal of replicating the movie theatre experience (as much as logistically possible), then you continued to use dipoles because they continued to best mimic long arrays of surround speakers. *Just because consumers got discrete multi-channel content doesn't mean dipoles suddenly stopped serving the purpose they were originally meant for. *


No - it means that the original purpose for which they were designed no longer exists.



sdurani said:


> So if anyone has a 5.1 set-up that uses dipole surrounds, _and likes how it sounds_, then I think they should continue to keep a set-up they enjoy even when adding 2 or 4 speakers overhead.


No disagreement with that.


----------



## J_P_A

Roger Dressler said:


> What do you do for current 5.1/7.1? There's only one MLP.
> 
> Could you be more specific? Which positions fall out?


The top front, for example, are shown to go between 30 and 55 degrees up. Putting the speaker between 30 and 44 degrees pointing down would put the listener outside the 90 degree pattern of the overhead (assuming 45 degrees in each direction), correct? The back overheads have the same issue.


----------



## rprice54

wse said:


> It all depends on the number of seats and rows in your theater. For me two seats one row I will do 7.2.2


Two rows of four. Back row will be pretty close to the rear wall. I've used the Axiom 'quadripolar' surrounds in the past and been very happy with them. Trying to decide if I will use those as surrounds again. I will be using their new ceiling speakers for the tops. 

I will wire for 7.2.4. I guess it really doesn't matter where I start, but 5.2.4 makes sense.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> The top front, for example, are shown to go between 30 and 55 degrees up. Putting the speaker between 30 and 44 degrees pointing down would put the listener outside the 90 degree pattern of the overhead (assuming 45 degrees in each direction), correct? The back overheads have the same issue.


So why not just aim them towards the listening area?


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> So why not just aim them towards the listening area?


That was my original question  I haven't seen anything mentioned in any of the ATMOS information about aiming the speakers. I was wondering if I'd missed something.



J_P_A said:


> ……...Has anything been mentioned about aiming the speakers to compensate?


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> That was my original question  I haven't seen anything mentioned in any of the ATMOS information about aiming the speakers. I was wondering if I'd missed something.


Ah, sorry, I missed that. Although the overhead speakers in the demos have all been aimed straight down, I’d have thought that aiming the speakers was also permitted. I guess your concern is that if you aim them towards the MLP then you might be able to localize them. I share that concern and am intending to try them both pointed down and pointed towards the MLP. In the absence of any detailed info at this time from Dolby (and this may be covered in the much-awaited custom installer guidelines coming soon), I think experimentation is the only way to go.


----------



## rcohen

sdurani said:


> Paraphrasing from my post in the Atlantic Technology Owners thread:
> 
> Saw a prototype of these height modules at CES back in January, where they looked like an extension to one of Atlantic's THX speakers. Since then, the look has been changed to make it more of a universal height module. Though there wasn't much info about these "virtual height" speakers at CES (no mention of Atmos), Atlantic has apparently been quietly working with Dolby for a couple of years (!) on these.
> 
> In fact, when Scott Wilkinson did his podcast speaker designer Andrew Jones from Pioneer about their upcoming Atmos-enabled speakers, Jones mentioned that he was skeptical until he heard the CEDIA 2013 Atmos demo, which impressed him enough to pursue his own version. What he heard at that 2013 demo was an early prototype of these height modules.
> 
> The ones I saw at CES in January had a small single driver pointing up. Looks like that's been changed to a larger coax in order to have better bass response and a wider dispersion (larger ceiling spot) than other manufacturers have. First time I've seen one of the Atmos speaker licensees promote the used of height modules NOT on top of a speaker.
> 
> 
> http://www.atlantictechnology.com/files/2214/0914/9695/44-DA_PIS_082614-2-lrz.pdf


It would be nice to be able to wall mount something like that, for people with mains behind a screen or wall. Maybe those people are expected to ceiling mount.

For example, the Atmos speakers could go on top of front-wides and backs.


----------



## kbarnes701

rcohen said:


> It would be nice to be able to wall mount something like that, for people with mains behind a screen or wall. Maybe those people are expected to ceiling mount.
> 
> For example, the Atmos speakers could go on top of front-wides and backs.


Bear in mind that they need to be within 3 feet of their associated speaker, according to the Dolby white paper.


----------



## rcohen

kbarnes701 said:


> Bear in mind that they need to be within 3 feet of their associated speaker, according to the Dolby white paper.


Any idea why?


----------



## pletwals

I suppose because Dolby Surround uses content from the main speaker to send to the upfiring speaker, it needs to be close?


----------



## jamin

Ostensibly the info below the 180 Hz Xover is routed to the "downstairs neighbor". Thus the 3 ft to mitigate localization issues.


----------



## markus767

jamin said:


> Ostensibly the info below the 180 Hz Xover is routed to the "downstairs neighbor". Thus the 3 ft to mitigate localization issues.


Not only localization issues but also interference issues. The sources should be placed within 1/4 of the wavelength they emit, otherwise they don't act as a single source. At 180Hz this would be within 48cm (19"). So the closer the better.


----------



## redjr

RichB said:


> Now all you need is the smoke
> 
> - Rich


And I had that too - way back in 1969 when I took 1st prize in the Science Fair at my high school when I built a flame speaker. Everyone was impressed. Alas, I reminisce.


----------



## jamin

markus767 said:


> Not only localization issues but also interference issues. The sources should be placed within 1/4 of the wavelength they emit, otherwise they don't act as a single source. At 180Hz this would be within 48cm (19"). So the closer the better.


Yup. And depending on the size of the associated "downstairs neighbor" that 1/4 wavelength may not even met with an on top placement of the Dolby Height speaker! Ah, the compromises


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah, sorry, I missed that. Although the overhead speakers in the demos have all been aimed straight down, I’d have thought that aiming the speakers was also permitted. I guess your concern is that if you aim them towards the MLP then you might be able to localize them. I share that concern and am intending to try them both pointed down and pointed towards the MLP. In the absence of any detailed info at this time from Dolby (and this may be covered in the much-awaited custom installer guidelines coming soon), I think experimentation is the only way to go.


You are correct. I also can't help but wonder if being off-axis will help get closer to the diffused sound you guys heard with the ATMOS enabled speakers. I'm not sure I can think of a reason why, but who needs to apply physics to a problem like this, right?

At any rate, the question can be generalized a little more once we know whether or not the speakers should be aimed. That is, do we point the speakers at the MLP, or possibly at the floor directly in front of the MLP, or somewhere else? Do you really want the MLP to be directly on-axis?


----------



## kbarnes701

rcohen said:


> Any idea why?


Content from the Atmos module is crossed to the associated Atmos speaker, so if that speaker is too far from the module, then an (acoustic) disconnect will probably ensue.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> You are correct. I also can't help but wonder if being off-axis will help get closer to the diffused sound you guys heard with the ATMOS enabled speakers. I'm not sure I can think of a reason why, but who needs to apply physics to a problem like this, right?
> 
> At any rate, the question can be generalized a little more once we know whether or not the speakers should be aimed. That is, do we point the speakers at the MLP, or possibly at the floor directly in front of the MLP, or somewhere else? Do you really want the MLP to be directly on-axis?


I'm just going to experiment - pointing them straight down to the floor vs aiming them to the MLP. Whichever sounds best is what I'll keep.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> No - it means that the original purpose for which they were designed no longer exists.


What do you mean "no longer exists"? Even with discrete multi-channel, theatres were still using arrays, so consumers were still using dipoles to mimic them.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm just going to experiment - pointing them straight down to the floor vs aiming them to the MLP. Whichever sounds best is what I'll keep.


I'm going to do likewise point them down then try pointing them slightly towards the MLP. I'll see what sounds better to me and go from there.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> What do you mean "no longer exists"? Even with discrete multi-channel, theatres were still using arrays, so consumers were still using dipoles to mimic them.


I mean that now we have discrete m/ch content, there is no reason to use dipoles at home. There is no longer any purpose _at home _in trying to simulate a commercial theater which uses an array because of the auditorium size. When we didn’t have m/ch discrete 5.1 content at home, dipoles were a good idea. Now, they are not needed because we do have discrete 5.1 content, at home.


----------



## SpenceJT

While I am awaiting shipment of my Marantz SR7009, I am working to see how I can implement a 7.1.2 Dolby Atmos layout without tearing apart my ceiling.

Here is my current setup;
75" Mitsubishi LaserVue L75A91
Onkyo TX-NR905
Axiom Audio Epic 60 - 350 in a 7.1 channel configuration

and an old pair of Axiom Audio M22s

Here is an image of how it currently looks (not M22s hiding in the shadows atop of the oak entertainment towers)









I have an 8' ceiling comprised of acoustically absorbent 2'x'2 tiles. Here is the idea that I am kicking around, and I would love any feedback.

My plan was to re-purpose my M22s by placing them horizontally atop of the 6' oak entertainment towers. The speaker cabinet/s of the M22s is slightly angled, which when laid on their side, would place the drivers on a slight angle toward the ceiling. While I am unsure as to if the angle will be sufficient (which I will be able to easily modify), I am more curious as to how well (or poorly) the ceiling will reflect overhead audio. It is my hope that the ceiling tiles will reflect a sufficient amount of the sound, and perhaps help to diffuse it a bit.

Thoughts?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> There is no longer any purpose _at home _in trying to simulate a commercial theater which uses an array because of the auditorium size.


Then why would it have made sense to use dipole surrounds before discrete multi-channel? Same auditorium size, same attempt to replicate that experience. 

The whole idea behind the home THX program was to reproduce as much as possible how a soundtrack was heard when being mixed on a dubbing stage or played back in the best commercial theatres, both of which use surround arrays. Attempting to replicate that experience might not be your goal, but it remains a valid one. That's the "purpose" of dipoles, to better mimic arrays.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> What do you mean "no longer exists"? Even with discrete multi-channel, theatres were still using arrays, so consumers were still using dipoles to mimic them.


Atmos might use decorrelation to achieve the same? Do we know?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Here is my planned layout but with a few slight equipment changes to achieve a 7.2.4 system.


A 120" wide Scope AT screen, 2 DTS-10's for subs and all speakers either on wall, in ceiling or behind the screen.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SpenceJT said:


> While I am awaiting shipment of my Marantz SR7009, I am working to see how I can implement a 7.1.2 Dolby Atmos layout without tearing apart my ceiling.
> 
> Here is my current setup;
> 75" Mitsubishi LaserVue L75A91
> Onkyo TX-NR905
> Axiom Audio Epic 60 - 350 in a 7.1 channel configuration
> 
> and an old pair of Axiom Audio M22s
> 
> Here is an image of how it currently looks (not M22s hiding in the shadows atop of the oak entertainment towers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an 8' ceiling comprised of acoustically absorbent 2'x'2 tiles. Here is the idea that I am kicking around, and I would love any feedback.
> 
> My plan was to re-purpose my M22s by placing them horizontally atop of the 6' oak entertainment towers. The speaker cabinet/s of the M22s is slightly angled, which when laid on their side, would place the drivers on a slight angle toward the ceiling. While I am unsure as to if the angle will be sufficient (which I will be able to easily modify), I am more curious as to how well (or poorly) the ceiling will reflect overhead audio. It is my hope that the ceiling tiles will reflect a sufficient amount of the sound, and perhaps help to diffuse it a bit.
> 
> Thoughts?


I think you'll have to wait for Atmos modules from Axiom (they'll come, I'm sure). The upward reflective drivers are a completely different animal than a standard bookshelf angled towards the ceiling.


----------



## bargervais

SpenceJT said:


> While I am awaiting shipment of my Marantz SR7009, I am working to see how I can implement a 7.1.2 Dolby Atmos layout without tearing apart my ceiling.
> 
> Here is my current setup;
> 75" Mitsubishi LaserVue L75A91
> Onkyo TX-NR905
> Axiom Audio Epic 60 - 350 in a 7.1 channel configuration
> 
> and an old pair of Axiom Audio M22s
> 
> Here is an image of how it currently looks (not M22s hiding in the shadows atop of the oak entertainment towers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an 8' ceiling comprised of acoustically absorbent 2'x'2 tiles. Here is the idea that I am kicking around, and I would love any feedback.
> 
> My plan was to re-purpose my M22s by placing them horizontally atop of the 6' oak entertainment towers. The speaker cabinet/s of the M22s is slightly angled, which when laid on their side, would place the drivers on a slight angle toward the ceiling. While I am unsure as to if the angle will be sufficient (which I will be able to easily modify), I am more curious as to how well (or poorly) the ceiling will reflect overhead audio. It is my hope that the ceiling tiles will reflect a sufficient amount of the sound, and perhaps help to diffuse it a bit.
> 
> Thoughts?


it won't cost anything to try seeing you already have those speakers. I thought of doing simular with some book shelf speakers, laying them on their backs angle them towards the ceiling to reflect to the MLP When i suggested it here i was told that it may not work. thats what is fun about this we can experiment and hopefuly not deviate to far from what Dolby Suggests to us on how we need to place our speakers and the kind of speakers for atmos.
I'm opting to place speakers on the ceiling and do 5.2.2


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Atmos might use decorrelation to achieve the same? Do we know?


Never heard of any decorrelation in home Atmos playback. THX used decorrelation during playback to keep the mono surround channel externalized (keep it from imaging in your head). 

On the other side of the equation, if there was such a parameter in traditional mixing tools, I doubt it went away with the introduction of Atmos.


----------



## Jim S.

J_P_A said:


> You are correct. I also can't help but wonder if being off-axis will help get closer to the diffused sound you guys heard with the ATMOS enabled speakers. I'm not sure I can think of a reason why, but who needs to apply physics to a problem like this, right?
> 
> At any rate, the question can be generalized a little more once we know whether or not the speakers should be aimed. That is, do we point the speakers at the MLP, or possibly at the floor directly in front of the MLP, or somewhere else? Do you really want the MLP to be directly on-axis?


The August 14 Dolby white paper states speakers with 90 degree dispersion are pointed straight down. Those speakers with less than 90 degrees dispersion are pointed "toward" the MLP. I took that to mean you don't point straight at the MLP because of the directionality issue, but just enough to cover your listening area. If you don't point straight at the MLP with 90 degree speakers, you also wouldn't with less than 90 degree speakers. At least that's my reading.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Then why would it have made sense to use dipole surrounds before discrete multi-channel? Same auditorium size, same attempt to replicate that experience.


Because dipoles give a diffuse sound field, like those multi-speaker surround arrays in the cinema.



sdurani said:


> The whole idea behind the home THX program was to reproduce as much as possible how a soundtrack was heard when being mixed on a dubbing stage or played back in the best commercial theatres, both of which use surround arrays. Attempting to replicate that experience might not be your goal, but it remains a valid one. That's the "purpose" of dipoles, to better mimic arrays.


Only because the arrays have a diffuse soundfield. With discrete m/ch that idea has long since gone and been replaced by, well, discrete channels. And monopoles are better suited to reproducing that. Of course, if someone wants to try to recreate at home what he hears in a theater, then he might choose dipoles - but a theater doesn’t use a multi-channel array because it thinks it's best - it used it because it's the only solution to creating two side surround channels in a room hundreds of feet long. At home that is a problem that doesn't exist, so using dipoles solves a non-existent problem.

I'm not arguing against using dipoles - I used them, and later Tripoles - myself for years. Just that, these days, monopoles are probably a better choice.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_P_A said:


> The top front, for example, are shown to go between 30 and 55 degrees up. Putting the speaker between 30 and 44 degrees pointing down would put the listener outside the 90 degree pattern of the overhead (assuming 45 degrees in each direction), correct? The back overheads have the same issue.


Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, and that's why pointing them down is probably not the best idea. Yet that's the Dolby demo... the demo to show how well the upfiring speakers work.


----------



## Ted99

Atmos speakers on the cheap

Had a pair of Infiniti wall mount speakers in the closet. Purchased a pair of enclosures for 6 X 9 speakers on e-bay. Enlarged the oval hole for the Infiniti speakers. Yes, they are not concentric, but the tweeters are tiltable to hit the same spot on the ceiling as the mids.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, and that's why pointing them down is probably not the best idea. Yet that's the Dolby demo... the demo to show how well the upfiring speakers work.


 Cynical Roger ....


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Only because the arrays have a diffuse soundfield. With discrete m/ch that idea has long since gone and been replaced by, well, discrete channels.


But discrete surround channels played back using arrays will still create a diffuse soundfield. That's how arrays sound. 

It wouldn't matter if the left surround channel is matrix derived or discrete, it will be played back by an array of speakers on the left wall, starting well forward of the sweet spot and stretching to the back corner of the auditorium, and including the speakers on the left half of the back wall. 

Isn't that's large L-shaped array going to sound diffuse, no matter what signal you feed it? Instead of a matrix derived left surround channel, if you switch to a discrete left surround channel, will it no longer sound like a large L-shaped array? Will that large array stop sounding diffuse?


----------



## bkeeler10

I was just perusing the GoldenEar thread and noted that GoldenEar will have a 5.1.4 Atmos demo going on in (presumably) their sound room at CEDIA. Just a heads-up for anyone who will be there and wants to hear Atmos as much as possible (that would be me).

I wonder if they (and others demoing Atmos at CEDIA) will have material other than the oft-used demo disc that we've seen up until now. Hmmm.


----------



## pasender91

Re-using bookshelf speakers is a valid question for those that want to go to Atmos but out of cash after buying the AVR 

AFAIK, the reflective Atmos speakers are directive, set at a 15° angle from vertical (this is the same as 75° from horizontal), and cut at 180 Hz. 

So what about using a small bookshelf correctly angled?
In my case i could consider using this as an up-firing Atmos :Monitor Audio BX1
Why would that not work?


----------



## bkeeler10

sdurani said:


> But discrete surround channels played back using arrays will still create a diffuse soundfield. That's how arrays sound.
> 
> It wouldn't matter if the left surround channel is matrix derived or discrete, it will be played back by an array of speakers on the left wall, starting well forward of the sweet spot and stretching to the back corner of the auditorium, and including the speakers on the left half of the back wall.
> 
> Isn't that's large L-shaped array going to sound diffuse, no matter what signal you feed it? Instead of a matrix derived left surround channel, if you switch to a discrete left surround channel, will it no longer sound like a large L-shaped array? Will that large array stop sounding diffuse?


So a dipole will still create the same diffuse sound that a theater will, if the theater is playing a non-Atmos mix. Because all the surround speakers on the left side of the theater will be playing the same sound. That would be reasonably well-duplicated in the home by a single left surround speaker that is a dipole.

But, when you hear an Atmos in the theater, every speaker is discrete. In that case, you don't want a diffuse sound to be created by the speaker layout, but rather by the mix itself. And you would presumably want the same thing at home, if you were trying to recreate the theatrical Atmos experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> But discrete surround channels played back using arrays will still create a diffuse soundfield. That's how arrays sound.


Gee - this is a big circle we're going around...  Yes I know - but we don't need arrays in our small HTs, so there is no need to have a diffuse sound field. Any diffusion required in the sound field can be put there by the mixer with a discrete m/ch system. The diffusion caused by the multiple arrays isn't a desired objective, it's an inevitable consequence. The desired objective with two discrete channels is two discrete channels. 



sdurani said:


> It wouldn't matter if the left surround channel is matrix derived or discrete, it will be played back by an array of speakers on the left wall, starting well forward of the sweet spot and stretching to the back corner of the auditorium, and including the speakers on the left half of the back wall.


In a theater. I am, and always have been, talking about at home. What is the point of mimicking something that only exists as a forced consequence of using multiple arrays because a single left and right surround won't actually work in such a large room? In our HTs a single left and right surround will work as intended - discretely. Why FUBAR it by making it sound like a commercial cinema? If there was a commercial cinema the size of a HT, it wouldn't have arrays - it would have a left surround and a right surround.



sdurani said:


> Isn't that's large L-shaped array going to sound diffuse, no matter what signal you feed it? Instead of a matrix derived left surround channel, if you switch to a discrete left surround channel, will it no longer sound like a large L-shaped array? Will that large array stop sounding diffuse?


You are starting from the assumption that a HT should mimic a commercial theater. I'm not, so we can never agree. I am starting from the assumption that with discrete m/ch sound designed to use a single left surround and a single right surround, that is what we want. 

When we had just Prologic and no discrete surround sound, dipoles were a good idea IMO. They created a more diffuse sound field at the back and sides. Now we have discrete channels, we don't need to do that any more, and indeed it is a bad idea anyway, because a dipole cannot image properly a precisely located sound, so if that is what the mixer intended, a dipole won't give it you. But a monopole will. And if any diffuseness is intended by the mixer, then he will mix it in the track, so again a dipole is not wanted. IOW, dipoles used to be a great idea, but they have been overtaken by events. IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> So a dipole will still create the same diffuse sound that a theater will, if the theater is playing a non-Atmos mix. Because all the surround speakers on the left side of the theater will be playing the same sound. That would be reasonably well-duplicated in the home by a single left surround speaker that is a dipole.
> 
> But, when you hear an Atmos in the theater, every speaker is discrete. In that case, you don't want a diffuse sound to be created by the speaker layout, but rather by the mix itself. And you would presumably want the same thing at home, if you were trying to recreate the theatrical Atmos experience.


Sanjay and I deliberately left Atmos out of it I think, because of course it doesn’t have what was effectively a left surround split into multiple speakers and ditto a right surround. 

Where Sanjay and I can't seem to connect is that he believes that someone using a dipole wants to mimic the undesirable theater implementation where one speaker is represented by a dozen speakers. I say that isn't a good idea and indeed arrays are only there because they _have to be_ when the room is 100 feet long. Of course, if someone really wants to mimic a 100 foot long room in his 18 foot long HT, then dipoles might be just what he wants. I’d ask "*why?*".

And as you point out, with the advent of Atmos, all of this becomes moot.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay and I deliberately left Atmos out of it I think, because of course it doesn’t have what was effectively a left surround split into multiple speakers and ditto a right surround.
> 
> And as you point out, with the advent of Atmos, all of this becomes moot.


ICBW, but I think the origin of this discussion was in relation to keeping dipoles for use in Atmos?! Sanjay's point might still be valid for someone considering a speaker swap from dipole to monopole solely for this reason (as you did when relocating your surrounds) but I follow your logic with respect to why dipoles (and tripoles) were preferred in the past.


----------



## richmagnus

jkasanic said:


> ICBW, but I think the origin of this discussion was in relation to keeping dipoles for use in Atmos?! Sanjay's point might still be valid for someone considering a speaker swap from dipole to monopole solely for this reason (as you did when relocating your surrounds) but I follow your logic with respect to why dipoles (and tripoles) were preferred in the past.



It was actually in regards to Tripoles as they have direct firing drivers as well as side out of phase drivers to create an enveloping sound, not to mimics arrays.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> ICBW, but I think the origin of this discussion was in relation to keeping dipoles for use in Atmos?! Sanjay's point might still be valid for someone considering a speaker swap from dipole to monopole solely for this reason (as you did when relocating your surrounds) but I follow your logic with respect to why dipoles (and tripoles) were preferred in the past.


And I said a while back that dipoles would be fine for surrounds with Atmos (but probably not for overheads) if someone was already using dipoles for surrounds and liked them.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You are starting from the assumption that a HT should mimic a commercial theater.


No, I'm pointing out that it was the goal of the home THX program: to hear the soundtrack as closely as possible to what it sounded like when being mixed. Soundtracks are mixed using surround arrays.


kbarnes701 said:


> I am starting from the assumption that with discrete m/ch sound designed to use a single left surround and a single right surround, that is what we want.


You think that the 5.1 soundtracks you're getting on Blu-ray were designed/mixed with a single left surround speaker and single right surround speaker?


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> It was actually in regards to Tripoles as they have direct firing drivers as well as side out of phase drivers to create an enveloping sound, not to mimics arrays.


Yes, Tripoles are a special case and they are able to reproduce deliberately localized sounds the mixer has put in the surround channels as well as having a nice diffuseness which broadens the surround field. I loved my Tripoles for that very reason and for someone who cannot accommodate rear surrounds, Tripoles, IMO and IME make an excellent choice. I only got rid of them here because, as things stood, they would have been directly below my rear overheads and moving them to 110 degrees to obviate that problem negates the point of tripoles anyway. Hence my replacing them with monopoles.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Where Sanjay and I can't seem to connect is that he believes that someone using a dipole wants to mimic the undesirable theater implementation where one speaker is represented by a dozen speakers.


It is undesirable _for you_ to hear the soundtrack the way the recording engineer heard it when it was being mixed, but why are you projecting your personal preference on others?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No, I'm pointing out that it was the goal of the home THX program: to hear the soundtrack as closely as possible to what it sounded like when being mixed. Soundtracks are mixed using surround arrays.


But they are only mixed that way because that is what is in commercial theaters! And what is in commercial theaters is there as a forced consequence of the room size not a desired objective.



sdurani said:


> You think that the 5.1 soundtracks you're getting on Blu-ray were designed/mixed with a single left surround speaker and single right surround speaker?


No - but it isn't relevant to my point anyway. And how may surround channels does the mixer have? Not speakers - channels? Yep - two.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It is undesirable _for you_ to hear the soundtrack the way the recording engineer heard it when it was being mixed, but why are you projecting your personal preference on others?


I don't think I am. If people want to use dipoles, then so be it. It's their choice. And when the mixer decides that he wants to put a single sound directly into the left surround speaker, localizable, they won't hear it the way it was intended to be heard. Sure they may hear it the way it would be heard in the cinema - where the left surround speaker sound comes simultaneously out of a dozen or more speakers. But with discrete m/ch at home we no longer have to tolerate that compromise.


----------



## Selden Ball

FWIW, it looks like the Atmos mixing for _Noah_ was done in a room with quite high surround speakers plus 4 overheads. See the picture of the mixing room down near the bottom of the article at http://library.creativecow.net/wilson_tim/VFX_NOAH_Sound-editor/1


----------



## pjvader

if you have 11.2 or above and have some spare speakers (and are able to try it!) it's worth trying them above your listening position 
i have added another 2 and have found from extensive testing that neo:x seems to work best (dsx was great as there were alot more FX coming through but... there was also a lot of noises that shouldn't be coming from above slipping in there too)
i isloated the heights only and tried some of my favourite demo scenes and it is as if they are discrete there were periods of silence then they would burst to life at the moments you would hope they would
i know it's not atmos but it may help until one can afford to buy some new kit (i know i can't!)or until they iron out the kinks!


----------



## bargervais

Jim S. said:


> The August 14 Dolby white paper states speakers with 90 degree dispersion are pointed straight down. Those speakers with less than 90 degrees dispersion are pointed "toward" the MLP. I took that to mean you don't point straight at the MLP because of the directionality issue, but just enough to cover your listening area. If you don't point straight at the MLP with 90 degree speakers, you also wouldn't with less than 90 degree speakers. At least that's my reading.


thanks for that kind of clears things up in my mind


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But they are only mixed that way because that is what is in commercial theaters!


Irrespective of reason, that's what ends up on the disc. Not telling you to like it, just pointing how it was mixed (with surround arrays).


kbarnes701 said:


> And what is in commercial theaters is there as a forced consequence of the room size not a desired objective.


Not a desired objective _for you_. Others consider the dubbing stage as their reference and desired objective. That's where the soundtrack was mixed and that's how some people want to experience the soundtrack at home.


kbarnes701 said:


> No - but it isn't relevant to my point anyway. And how may surround channels does the mixer have? Not speakers - channels? Yep - two.


Mixers don't listen to channels, they listen to speakers. An array of speakers will sound diffuse no matter what you feed it. I still don't understand what discrete vs matrix has to do with it. Not like the array can tell the difference and suddenly stop being diffuse in nature.


kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think I am. If people want to use dipoles, then so be it. It's their choice.


That's not the projecting of personal preference I was talking about. It is the notion that experiencing a movie soundtrack at home the way it was heard when being mixed on a dubbing stage is "undesirable". Maybe for you, but others actually aspire to that.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Irrespective of reason, that's what ends up on the disc. Not telling you to like it, just pointing how it was mixed (with surround arrays).


True but now we have objects too. Which one is more "worthy" to be "emulated" correctly?


----------



## bargervais

i think it all boils down to people asking about useing diploes it's because a lot of us are set up that way and we don't want to yet again spend more money replacing them. it's already costing us a bundle for The AVR and upfiring or ceiling speakers.
i personally do not use dipoles and if i were to start from scratch i would not use them.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Irrespective of reason, that's what ends up on the disc. Not telling you to like it, just pointing how it was mixed (with surround arrays). Not a desired objective _for you_. Others consider the dubbing stage as their reference and desired objective. That's where the soundtrack was mixed and that's how some people want to experience the soundtrack at home. Mixers don't listen to channels, they listen to speakers. An array of speakers will sound diffuse no matter what you feed it. I still don't understand what discrete vs matrix has to do with it. Not like the array can tell the difference and suddenly stop being diffuse in nature. That's not the projecting of personal preference I was talking about. It is the notion that experiencing a movie soundtrack at home the way it was heard when being mixed on a dubbing stage is "undesirable". Maybe for you, but others actually aspire to that.


When the mixer wants to place a sound solely into the left surround channel, that is what he does. Of course, when it is played back in a commercial theater, it is heard from multiple speakers at once, all down the left side of the room. But the fact remains that the mixer wanted the sound solely in the left surround channel. Of course, because the cinema cannot accommodate that, the mixer has no choice but to hear it, in his mixing room, from an array. He is, after all, mixing for the commercial cinema. But we at home have no such constraints. We can hear _exactly _what the mixer intended: a sound placed solely in the left surround channel. Well, as long as we don't use dipoles of course. 

In this respect, we are hearing what the mixer intended. So long as we use monopoles. If we use dipoles we are not hearing what the mixer intended.

I am not sure that most of us want to recreate the experience of a commercial cinema anyway. If we did, we would make our floors sticky, invite several people in to use their cellphones during the movie, arrange for some more people to come in and chat to each other, and probably use sub standard projection as well  OK, I am not being serious, but we are so OT, and not likely to come to any agreement on this, that I am going to bow out at this point. I'm surprised we haven’t had complaints from the others, whom I thank for their forbearance. And you, of course, Sanjay, for an interesting discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> i think it all boils down to people asking about useing diploes it's because a lot of us are set up that way and we don't want to yet again spend more money replacing them. it's already costing us a bundle for The AVR and upfiring or ceiling speakers.
> i personally do not use dipoles and if i were to start from scratch i would not use them.


I agree with you. I have never once said that people should not use dipoles if they prefer them for their surround speakers. I am sure they will continue to work well with Atmos (at the sides but probably not overhead).


----------



## BigScreen

I'll add my two cents on the tripole/dipole vs. monopole issue, as well as some of the other theories about what will work best for a Home Atmos setup. 

First off, all of this is guessing based on very little information, so we need to keep in mind that we don't really know how things are going to work. I reserve the right to revise my point of view when actual software and hardware is available and people have had a chance to play with it outside of controlled demos and demos in compromised situations (CEDIA rooms, etc.). This is going to be very fluid for a while until lots of things have been tried and a general consensus begins to form on the approaches that work best and those that do not.

The direct radiator vs. diffuse pattern debate didn't stop when discrete multichannel soundtracks came out, and I see no reason why it will stop with Atmos. It comes down to personal preference, and there isn't any one "right" way to do it, IMO, because there is logical justification for both approaches. Atmos doesn't introduce any more magic to the situation than 5.1/7.1 did, as you are still trying to produce sound from a particular point in the room. 

I like the idea of direct radiators _in concept_, but I use dipoles for the side and rear surrounds because, _in practice_, there is no one standard for placing those surround speakers. If I place them using one approach, but the mix on the disc was created using speakers placed the other way, I have a non-optimal situation. Until the processors have the ability to locate every driver in the room and use that information to steer the effects so that the effects become independent of speaker placement (within reason, of course), the entire thing is going to be a compromise and the mythical ideal situation will never be achieved universally.

I would love for Atmos to make placement flexibility a reality, but I haven't read anything that says that it will.

If pinpoint accuracy of sound was of utmost importance, the reflecting "Atmos-enabled" speakers would never have a place. By their nature, they will be creating a diffuse soundfield in the area of the driver and of the surface upon which they reflect the sound emanating from them.

I look at it like the dispersion of light from a recessed light fixture. I can get a fixture with a pinpoint light pattern, but it won't do much to illuminate much around it. I can put up a bare bulb and have lots of light in all directions. Of course, there are fixtures that will provide everything in between, depending on what the desired goal is. A surround speaker, in my view, is like a recessed light fixture that provides a fair amount of light in its general area without being to wide, and without being so pinpointed that the sound is only good for a single listening position. How much dispersion is needed is going to depend upon placement and distance to the listener. The further away, the more a monopole driver can create a dispersed soundfield, which is what happens in a commercial movie theater. The array of speakers for a particular channel covers the area that it needs to cover with that sound. An overhead Atmos speaker (in a commercial theater) is responsible for more pinpointed sound (it's individually addressable vs. part of an array), but it's far enough away from the audience, that it's going to be sending its sounds to more than just a couple of people.

Given that, I think it's very likely that dipole/tripole speakers may end up serving roles as overhead Atmos speakers quite well. If I only have the ability to have two or four overhead speakers (because of processor/software capability), I don't want sound coming from only four distinct and easily localizable locations just a few feet over my head. Right now, I'm keeping an eye on the prices for used speakers to match up with my VRS Pro rears or VR-MX sides, as well as in-ceiling speakers. It's been 10 years since I wired the room for height channels, so I'm excited to see where this goes!

This is all going to be quite interesting, but I don't think any of us can say that we have a lock on the "right" or "only" or even "best" way of implementing Atmos in the home. There's not enough factual information, much less empirical evidence yet.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Here is my planned layout but with a few slight equipment changes to achieve a 7.2.4 system.
> 
> A 120" wide Scope AT screen, 2 DTS-10's for subs and all speakers either on wall, in ceiling or behind the screen.


Hi Al, neighbor from Victoria.

Your plan seems to be the ideal floor and ceiling design for top Dolby Atmos performance @ home. 
...Except for that other (second) missing subwoofer @ right. 










_____________

♦ We can all deviate from it in our own rooms because of decor considerations, wife factor acceptance, financial budget, using what we already have, not willing to change the type of speakers we have, not willing to drill holes here and there, for a ton of reasons. And it is permissible, it is accepted in life to do what we can without being the best that it could be. ...Still, your plan is perfect to the ideal I think, or @ the very top to that ideal.

I see no dipole, no bipole, no tripole, no quadrupole, no omnipole speakers in your plan, and no high surround speakers either (they are @ ear level or just slightly above). 

I see four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers in your plan, and one couch for three people.
Two would also work, but four are better, in my wise opinion.

I see seven main floor speakers in your plan, including the back surround speakers.
There is only one subwoofer slightly to the left. ...Another subwoofer to the right would be nice.
And both subwoofers could also be nice if they were positioned closer to the front L & R corners of the room. ...My experience. 
One sub works, but two are better, in my experienced opinion. ...And four is another highly considerate option.

* If I was constraint to make compromises (budget, positioning, wife, kids, etc.), I would still opt for a 5.1.4 setup over a 7.1.2 one.
And if I would have two, or three rows of seats, my home theater room would be set professionally with even more speakers and with the appropriate room treatments for best acoustics; panel sound absorbers, diffuser ones, bass traps, reflective ceiling, lenses, and all that moderate jazz.

There are three basic type of home theater rooms (with variations, subdivisions within each class):
1. Pro setup.
2. Mid setup..
3. Entry level setup.

We just have one of them in our own home (or two of them, or three), and we model it/them around other people and our lifestyle. The modifications we make, the deviations we get from Dolby Atmos' recommendations, are what we are free to do. 
And the performance level we get from it/them depends of between the level of our freedom to experiment with Dolby Atmos' guidelines, and our owns. 

Everything works, just that some setups and rooms work better than others...

Your plan is a good plan, and a good example for many. ...Not for me because I have a vaulted ceiling, and I will experiment with various setups to find out which one works best in my own particular room.
But one thing is certain, no matter if I installed Dolby Atmos speakers on my ceiling or atop my four mains (two front L & R screen flankers and two L & R back/rear surrounds), I am going to use four of them, and not just two. 

No dipole, no bipole, etc., and no high surrounds. ...No width, no height; but I'm going to experiment.
5.1.4 is perfect, 7.1.4 is perfect, 9.1.4 is not here yet but it will. ...And 11.4.6 and above is for the Pro setups, with the higher hi-end gear, and the larger rooms. 

5.1.2 works, 7.1.2 works, 9.1.2 works...


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Atmos might use decorrelation to achieve the same? Do we know?


Does it say in their papers?


----------



## NorthSky

Ted99 said:


> Atmos speakers on the cheap
> 
> Had a pair of Infiniti wall mount speakers in the closet. Purchased a pair of enclosures for 6 X 9 speakers on e-bay. Enlarged the oval hole for the Infiniti speakers. Yes, they are not concentric, but the tweeters are tiltable to hit the same spot on the ceiling as the mids.


I did not read that in the Dolby Atmos papers, but that is a great innovative solution. ...Chapeau! 

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> He is, after all, mixing for the commercial cinema.


Think about what that means: every mixing decision is based on hearing each surround channel from a wrap-around diffuse array of speakers.


kbarnes701 said:


> But we at home have no such constraints. We can hear _exactly _what the mixer intended: a sound placed solely in the left surround channel. Well, as long as we don't use dipoles of course.


But that's not what the mixer heard nor what he intended. His mixing choices were NOT based on hearing the surround channels as two point sources at 110 degrees. All his mixing choices were based on hearing each surround channel as an L-shaped diffuse soundfield. Question is: is it undesirable to hear the soundtrack the way the mixer heard it?


kbarnes701 said:


> ...we are so OT, and not likely to come to any agreement on this, that I am going to bow out at this point.


Hate to disagree with you (you know I do), but I don't think it is OT even in an Atmos thread to discuss how to reproduce movie soundtracks at home, and whether the goal should be what the mixer heard or what you prefer to hear. I think both are valid goals.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> _____________
> 
> ♦


lets hope we are not all alone when we enjoy Atmos LOL
all the drawings you see is one person sitting alone surrounded in ATMOS let's have a party...Dolby Surround


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> If I only have the ability to have two or four overhead speakers (because of processor/software capability), I don't want sound coming from only four distinct and easily localizable locations just a few feet over my head.


I have no argument with most of what you say, other than the bit above. When you listen to a good stereo system, properly set up, do you feel that the sound comes from "_only [two] distinct and easily localizable locations_"? I guess not, so why would it be different for Atmos overhead speakers?


----------



## action_jackson

Let's say someone already has a 7.1 system and they decide they want atmos but can't afford to to purchase an 11 channel AVR. Would running the rear surrounds off the surround left and right channels be a good option?


----------



## bargervais

action_jackson said:


> Let's say someone already has a 7.1 system and they decide they want atmos but can't afford to to purchase an 11 channel AVR. Would running the rear surrounds off the surround left and right channels be a good option?


not clear on what your asking


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> True but now we have objects too. Which one is more "worthy" to be "emulated" correctly?


For those that want to reproduce what the mixer heard, it becomes tricky. Some of the content (bed channels) was heard as an entire wall of sound, starting well forward of the sweet spot and stretching to the back corner of the auditorium. Other sounds (objects, depending on size) could have been as pin-point as the phantom imaging we're accustomed to hearing at home. 

Even if someone buys the Altitude 32 from Trinnov for their 2-row or 3-row home theatre, we don't yet know whether it has the capability to route each surround channel to 2 or 3 side speakers while simultaneously treating each speaker in the array individually for objects. At the Atmos presser a couple weeks back, I asked what would happen if I followed the spec by placing 24 speakers around me, but only played back the channel beds ("objects that don't move" to use their words). Would only 7 of those speakers light up, leaving the other 17 silent until objects showed up? _"We'll get back to you on that."_ 

Of course, if you're not interested in replicating what was heard at the mixing facility, then you can design the home experience to your personal preference. Which ends up being more "worthy" will depend on several factors. For example, even a year from now, do you want to have your set-up optimized for the maybe 5-10% of your Blu-ray library that has Atmos soundtracks or do you continue to cater to the 90-95% of channel-based titles in your media collection?


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> No, I'm pointing out that it was the goal of the home THX program: to hear the soundtrack as closely as possible to what it sounded like when being mixed. Soundtracks are mixed using surround arrays. You think that the 5.1 soundtracks you're getting on Blu-ray were designed/mixed with a single left surround speaker and single right surround speaker?


If there was a near-field remix done for the Blu Ray, there's a good chance the 5.1 (or 7.1) soundtrack was mixed in a room with single speakers for all channels rather than arrays.


----------



## jacovn

I measured the angles for the positions i can place the ceiling speakers.
For the front it is about 40 degrees. In the back its only 25 or so. (Measured from the seating position)
Will save me buying speaker mounts that need to have adjustable angle at the back. Straight down should work there.


----------



## action_jackson

bargervais said:


> not clear on what your asking


Would it be okay to have multiple surround speakers connected to the same channels, like 2 connected the the left surround and 2 connected to the right surround. I see several theaters on here that already have them this way, but I wonder if this will still be doable with an atmos system.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> The direct radiator vs. diffuse pattern debate didn't stop when discrete multichannel soundtracks came out, and I see no reason why it will stop with Atmos.


Agree with the first part: the debate didn't stop because mimicking an array of speakers wasn't connected to the number of surround channels. Those who preferred to emulate what they heard in theatres continued to use diffuse pattern speakers. 

The reason this might change is because of how Atmos deals with surround arrays in a theatre: all the speakers are addressed together for the channel beds but speaker is addressed individually for audio objects. With a regular 7.1 layout at home, I don't know how well you can replicate that combination of a diffuse wall of sound AND specific imaging on that wall, when both are occurring simultaneously. 

Diffuse pattern surround speakers can emulate the former, but not the latter. And there's no way that I know of to play back channels and objects separately (in order to send them to different types of speakers).


----------



## NorthSky

Hey, regarding speaker arrays in theaters, dipole/bipole/tripole/quadrupole/omnipole/THX speakers @ home, diffuse, precise sound and direct sound direction, THX decorrelation and timbre-matching and crossovers of the surrounds, and all that jazz installed high on theater's walls and @ home, ...*what does Dolby Atmos papers have to say about all of this and that?* 

*Objects rendered in space (precise 3D spatial surround sound); what type of speakers and arrangement best reproduce the Dolby Atmos elevated experience @ home?* ...Fair question? 

The professional movie mixing/recording engineers working in special mixing movie theaters, and also in professional movie recording studios, and with sometimes the participation of the music composers and the movie directors; what do they all think and do in actual rendition of their intentions? ...Their very best shot, @ sound reproduction of their imagination and interpretation coming from their artistic inspiration and aspiration. 

It is live, or if not, fabricated. ...But fabricated with the newest and best sound technologies; here in the now, @ home, Atmos. 

Dolby Atmos is new; it ain't Dolby Surround from 1982, it ain't Dolby Pro Logic from 1986, it ain't Dolby Digital from 1996, it ain't Dolby DD ProLocic II, IIx, IIz, it ain't dts, it ain't dts Neo:6 and Neo:X, it ain't DSX, it ain't THX, it ain't 'Presence' channels, it ain't nothing else but the new Dolby Atmos 3D with the new Dolby Surround (2014 upmixer) @ home surround sound elevated experience.

What is hard to adjust with? ...Money, changes, past beliefs, new holes in our ceilings, patching few holes on our walls, get money from our bank accounts, work harder to save more for the future, ...what is it that makes life tough to adjust with today? 

Us, surround sound aficionados, we're a funny bunch; we love talking about our own setups in our own rooms, and what we can do to improve upon it with the New Dolby Atmos World, and on one hand it is so simple, and on the other we seem to love exploring all the complications possible and impossible so that @ the end we can be certain for sure. ...To feel reassured that what we all separately and individually do in our own particular circumstances is the proper and right way among a multitude of other possible options, as much valid and effective. 

I'm sixty, and I feel like sixteen...


----------



## bargervais

action_jackson said:


> Would it be okay to have multiple surround speakers connected to the same channels, like 2 connected the the left surround and 2 connected to the right surround. I see several theaters on here that already have them this way, but I wonder if this will still be doable with an atmos system.


i think that should work especially if you have a two row HT but i would think you would need additional Amp maybe someone else here at AVS can chime in on this.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

That's the beauty of Atmos: you can (for a price) have a small array of speakers along the front, sides, rear, and ceiling... a miniaturized large-auditorium cinematic experience. You _really_ don't want dipoles in that situation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> i think that should work especially if you have a two row HT but i would think you would need additional Amp maybe someone else here at AVS can chime in on this.


But you want to do your wiring in such a way that the speakers can be individually addressed if and when more equipment (that doesn't cost the same as a top of the line Audi) allows for more speaker outputs than 7.1.4. Remember, Atmos tracks can send specific audio signals to each individual speaker.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, it looks like the Atmos mixing for _Noah_ was done in a room with quite high surround speakers plus 4 overheads. See the picture of the mixing room down near the bottom of the article at http://library.creativecow.net/wilson_tim/VFX_NOAH_Sound-editor/1


That's one of the venues where Dolby Atmos soundtracks are mixed and recorded:










♦ Notice the size (large venue). ...Nothing remotely similar to a normal home theater @ home.
{I can count eighteen seats @ front, distributed by two rows, plus the seats behind the mixing console, plus most probably more seats behind the main foreground plan.}

This is a sound mixing venue for large commercial theaters. ...Dolby Atmos Cinema Theaters.
- For Blu-ray surround sound transfers @ home, some studios are quite small, very small, near-field type of small, and they use monopole speakers all around (@ ear level or near), and above, overhead. ...All monopoles (direct radiating, wide dispersion, no THX speakers here with restricted dispersion).
Some are transferred with normal living rooms in mind, others are not. 
Some sound transfers are serious, others aren't. ...The sources are the most important, then the transfers; how they are done. ...To finally reach our living rooms or small home theater rooms @ home.


----------



## Al Sherwood

action_jackson said:


> Would it be okay to have multiple surround speakers connected to the same channels, like 2 connected the the left surround and 2 connected to the right surround. I see several theaters on here that already have them this way, but I wonder if this will still be doable with an atmos system.


 
Connecting multiple speakers to the same set of terminals could be done if the amplifier was capable of handling the lower impedance... however the signal that is sent to that particular amplifier channel cannot provide the output for more then one channel designations at a time, in other words if it is "Surround Back" all speakers connected to that channel would play that sound.

This would not solve the issue of getting 11 channels out of a 7 channel AVR... 


To provide 11 discrete channels you would have to have a AVR or Surround processor that decodes each channel and makes it available either through pre-outs or discrete amplifier channels for the proper implementation of a true multi-channel sound system.


Does this answer your question?


----------



## redjr

NorthSky said:


> ....I'm sixty, and I feel like sixteen...


I'm 62 and my head hurts after all this discussion. Let's just get our speakers in each of our respective spaces, hook up the new AVR and hear how it sounds. When the time comes I fully intend to move speakers around. Adjust here and there, angle more here, toe-in there. And since this is MY space I don't have any other constraints to worry about! For all I care we could hang our speakers from those rope contraptions we all used in the 70s for potted plants!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> _"We'll get back to you on that."_


Did they?



sdurani said:


> For example, even a year from now, do you want to have your set-up optimized for the maybe 5-10% of your Blu-ray library that has Atmos soundtracks or do you continue to cater to the 90-95% of channel-based titles in your media collection?


What collection? I don't have one. I'm not a horder


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


I just finished reading your post; excellent read.


----------



## action_jackson

Al Sherwood said:


> Connecting multiple speakers to the same set of terminals could be done if the amplifier was capable of handling the lower impedance... however the signal that is sent to that particular amplifier channel cannot provide the output for more then one channel designations at a time, in other words if it is "Surround Back" all speakers connected to that channel would play that sound.
> 
> This would not solve the issue of getting 11 channels out of a 7 channel AVR...
> 
> 
> To provide 11 discrete channels you would have to have a AVR or Surround processor that decodes each channel and makes it available either through pre-outs or discrete amplifier channels for the proper implementation of a true multi-channel sound system.
> 
> 
> Does this answer your question?


Yes. I realize they won't be discrete. My surrounds are going to be Volt 10s, once I get them built. These are 8ohm and my emotiva amp will handle 4ohm loads so running them in parallel should be okay. Planning to get 4 of the 6 1/2" coaxials for the ceiling once they are ready. 

Hopefully I can find a deal on an 11 channel AVR so I won't have to deal with trying to figure out what to do with a 9 channel, lol.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> ... For example, even a year from now, do you want to have your set-up optimized for the maybe 5-10% of your Blu-ray library that has Atmos soundtracks or do you continue to cater to the 90-95% of channel-based titles in your media collection?


Dolby Surround (upmixer); 100%


----------



## Al Sherwood

action_jackson said:


> Yes. I realize they won't be discrete. My surrounds are going to be Volt 10s, once I get them built. These are 8ohm and my emotiva amp will handle 4ohm loads so running them in parallel should be okay. Planning to get 4 of the 6 1/2" coaxials for the ceiling once they are ready.
> 
> Hopefully I can find a deal on an 11 channel AVR so I won't have to deal with trying to figure out what to do with a 9 channel, lol.



My preference would be an 11 channel AVR as well, makes it a whole lot easier then pre-outs to another multi-channel amp. AFAIK the only one I have seen thus far is the Onkyo TX-NR3030.


----------



## NorthSky

action_jackson said:


> Let's say someone already has a 7.1 system and they decide they want atmos but can't afford to to purchase an 11 channel AVR. Would running the rear surrounds off the surround left and right channels be a good option?


It would be an excellent option; 5.1.4 is perfect, so a 9-channel AVR is ideal (and you can do 7.1.2 as well).
...Even a 7-channel one would do (5.1.2). ...The very minimum for the Dolby Atmos experience @ home in your room.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> If there was a *near-field remix done for the Blu-ra*y, there's a good chance the 5.1 (or 7.1) soundtrack was mixed in a room with single speakers for all channels rather than arrays.


99%+ good chance of it.


----------



## scarabaeus

Al Sherwood said:


> My preference would be an 11 channel AVR as well, makes it a whole lot easier then pre-outs to another multi-channel amp. AFAIK the only one I have seen thus far is the Onkyo TX-NR3030.


And the Integra DHC 80.6, with Audyssey instead of AccuEQ.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's the beauty of Atmos: you can (for a price) have a small array of speakers along the front, sides, rear, and ceiling... a miniaturized large-auditorium cinematic experience. You _really_ don't want dipoles in that situation.


Do they use dipole drivers in headphones?


----------



## NorthSky

redjr said:


> I'm 62 and my head hurts after all this discussion. Let's just get our speakers in each of our respective spaces, hook up the new AVR and hear how it sounds. When the time comes I fully intend to move speakers around. Adjust here and there, angle more here, toe-in there. And since this is MY space I don't have any other constraints to worry about!
> * For all I care we could hang our speakers from those rope contraptions we all used in the 70s for potted plants!*


Ya, exactemente!


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Did they?


I haven't kept in touch to remind them of the question. Figured I have enough friends going to CEDIA that one of them will re-ask what happens when there are significantly more speakers than bed channels. I don't know if they would be against arrays, since I'm guessing that already happens with the 2 height beds when using more than 2 height speakers.


----------



## sikclown

redjr said:


> I'm 62 and my head hurts after all this discussion. Let's just get our speakers in each of our respective spaces, hook up the new AVR and hear how it sounds. When the time comes I fully intend to move speakers around. Adjust here and there, angle more here, toe-in there. And since this is MY space I don't have any other constraints to worry about! For all I care we could hang our speakers from those rope contraptions we all used in the 70s for potted plants!


I couldn't have said it better


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> What collection? I don't have one. I'm not a horder


Netflix Markus? ... Movie server? ... www.thepiratebay.se ?


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> My preference would be an 11 channel AVR as well, makes it a whole lot easier then pre-outs to another multi-channel amp. AFAIK the only one I have seen thus far is the Onkyo TX-NR3030.


Forget AccuEQ, go Denon or Marantz (Audyssey MultEQ XT32) and simply add an inexpensive stereo amp to make it eleven. Ha! ...You can find some of them @ Salvation Army stores, or thrift stores (five bucks), or in your garage, or in the attic, or in your basement (free).


----------



## Al Sherwood

scarabaeus said:


> And the Integra DHC 80.6, with Audyssey instead of AccuEQ.



Correct me if I am wrong but the DHC is a pre-only unit, with no amplifiers and from what I read it too uses AccuEq.


Apparently the DTR-70.6 is the Integra AVR with 11 channels of amplification.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> And the Integra DHC 80.6, with Audyssey instead of AccuEQ.


Does the new SSP DHC-80.6 have Audyssey MultEQ XT32? ...Or AccuEQ? ...Yup, AccuEQ, very very unfortunately. 

* Sadly simple: All new 2014 AV receivers and SSPs from Onkyo/Integra are now using AccuEQ system.
...No more Audyssey in any of them; gone, all gone.


----------



## Smarty-pants

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm doing a 2 row setup, and to best emulate the performance of a real Atmos cinema, the folks in the back row definitely get a different aural perspective!  IOW, no, both rows do not fall within the angle guidelines. Just make sure the MLP does.


Do you happen to have a diagram or a link to one that shows how the setup for 2-row setting should look? (TIA)


----------



## scarabaeus

Al Sherwood said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but the DHC is a pre-only unit, with no amplifiers and from what I read it too uses AccuEq.
> 
> 
> Apparently the DTR-70.6 is the Integra AVR with 11 channels of amplification.


Oops, you are right. I got confused and looked at the 80.3 description on their web site. And the .6es do have AccuEQ.


----------



## NorthSky

Smarty-pants said:


> Do you happen to have a diagram or a link to one that shows how the setup for 2-row setting should look? (TIA)


Hi Dave,

Roger wouldn't know that. ...Or would he? :grin:


----------



## laugsbach

Smarty-pants said:


> Do you happen to have a diagram or a link to one that shows how the setup for 2-row setting should look? (TIA)


Post number 6 in his build thread...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ion/1179128-deadwood-theater-comes-alive.html


----------



## Roger Dressler

Smarty-pants said:


> Do you happen to have a diagram or a link to one that shows how the setup for 2-row setting should look? (TIA)





laugsbach said:


> Post number 6 in his build thread...


I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to look. But that's how it looks in my cramped quarters.


----------



## DS-21

kbarnes701 said:


> My advice these days, and as a former long-time user of dipoles and tripoles, is to use monopoles for surround speakers. *** And, FWIW, Floyd Toole agrees with me too, Or, rather, I agree with him.


Has Dr. Toole written something recently that supersedes his take on surround in _Sound Reproduction?_ Because in that book he seems to be quite fond of bidirectional surrounds, though perhaps more so of bidirectional in-phase ("bipole") than bidirectional out-of-phase ("dipole").



NorthSky said:


> Question: In Theaters, do they use dipole/bipole/tripole speakers?


Out of the scope of a discussion of small rooms.



NorthSky said:


> Do they use dipole drivers in headphones?


Out of the scope of a discussion of small rooms, but...


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. In a cinema, when a side surround array outputs, say, 90 dB SPL (as measured at the center of the audience), it is the combination of some 6+ speakers all working together, each one outputting about 82 dB (if measured alone). If in an Atmos presentation that same 90 dB effect is directed to a single speaker, that one speaker will be playing 8 dB louder than when it was part of the array. Someone sitting "in the line of fire" of that speaker will hear a much louder degree of surround effect, at minimum degrading the balance of the mix at that moment, and at worst being annoyingly loud, even if present only for a short time.
> 
> In my mixed use case, where I do not want to do anything to impact my 7.1 mode (my 90% listening mode), the answer is no. Besides, the rear heights are elevated 30 deg above the surrounds, and that, in my book, is sufficient spatial separation.
> 
> For others, who will use all the speakers most of the time as with upmixing, if not Atmos content, and do not have the surrounds too close to any listeners, they may prefer to lower the surrounds somewhat to gain more separation. Lots of things to weigh in the decision.


Fascinating info. Thank you.


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm just going to experiment - pointing them straight down to the floor vs aiming them to the MLP. Whichever sounds best is what I'll keep.


I understand. I'm sort of an analysis nut. I'm one of those that wants to understand how the people that designed it intended it to be used. I figure they've gone to a lot of effort to get the best out of the setup. Sometimes that's right, sometimes it's wrong.

That aside, this same question applies to the side-to-side location of the overheads as well. That is, the rightmost seat may not be within 45 degrees of the top left speaker. I'm looking at my layout now, and I would need to put my overhead speakers directly above the left outside seats to get good coverage on the right side seats. That's getting dangerously close to the left speaker no longer being on the left side of the person in that seat. Particularly for the back row that is one seat wider.


----------



## NorthSky

DS-21 said:


> Has Dr. Toole written something recently that supersedes his take on surround in _Sound Reproduction?_ Because in that book he seems to be quite fond of bidirectional surrounds, though perhaps more so of bidirectional in-phase ("bipole") than bidirectional out-of-phase ("dipole").
> 
> Out of the scope of a discussion of small rooms.
> 
> Out of the scope of a discussion of small rooms, but...



Awesome info. ...And right on target too.


----------



## Brad/Viper-Fan

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, it looks like the Atmos mixing for _Noah_ was done in a room with quite high surround speakers plus 4 overheads. See the picture of the mixing room down near the bottom of the article at http://library.creativecow.net/wilson_tim/VFX_NOAH_Sound-editor/1


The video in this link (The Evolution of Sound: Dolby Atmos) is very informative. For me, it answers the question without any doubt, my THX dipole surround speakers will not work with Atmos. As the video shows when Atmos went to an object based system the theater surround speakers became a pan-through array, giving each speaker discrete sound instead of an array of diffuse sound. It seems logical to me Atmos software will somehow use front, side, top, or back speakers at the same time at different spl's to triangulate if you will, a sound anywhere in the room they want it, when speakers are properly setup. A dipole speaker can't do this because its firing the same sound in opposite directions at the same time. The dipoles served as the best way in the home to hear sound as it was intended to be heard up through 5.1 but now I believe monopoles are the way to hear Atmos.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I don't know if they would be against arrays, since I'm guessing that already happens with the 2 height beds when using more than 2 height speakers.


That's probably another question Dolby hopefully answers at CEDIA.


----------



## NorthSky

Brad/Viper-Fan said:


> The video in this link (The Evolution of Sound: Dolby Atmos) is very informative. For me, it answers the question without any doubt, my THX dipole surround speakers will not work with Atmos. As the video shows when Atmos went to an object based system the theater surround speakers became a pan-through array, giving each speaker discrete sound instead of an array of diffuse sound. It seems logical to me Atmos software will somehow use front, side, top, or back speakers at the same time at different spl's to triangulate if you will, a sound anywhere in the room they want it, when speakers are properly setup. A dipole speaker can't do this because its firing the same sound in opposite directions at the same time. The dipoles served as the best way in the home to hear sound as it was intended to be heard up through 5.1 but now I believe monopoles are the way to hear Atmos.


I am totally with you on that.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> Has Dr. Toole written something recently that supersedes his take on surround in _Sound Reproduction?_ Because in that book he seems to be quite fond of bidirectional surrounds, though perhaps more so of bidirectional in-phase ("bipole") than bidirectional out-of-phase ("dipole").


Sanjay and I were discussing dipoles not bipoles.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> I understand. I'm sort of an analysis nut. I'm one of those that wants to understand how the people that designed it intended it to be used. I figure they've gone to a lot of effort to get the best out of the setup. Sometimes that's right, sometimes it's wrong.


Agreed entirely. So am I. But in the absence (so far) of the required information, experimentation is all that's left.



J_P_A said:


> That aside, this same question applies to the side-to-side location of the overheads as well. That is, the rightmost seat may not be within 45 degrees of the top left speaker. I'm looking at my layout now, and I would need to put my overhead speakers directly above the left outside seats to get good coverage on the right side seats. That's getting dangerously close to the left speaker no longer being on the left side of the person in that seat. Particularly for the back row that is one seat wider.


I am following the prescribed 'in line with the front mains' dictum, but that happens to work for me here.


----------



## joerod

No need to stress too much about speaker placement. The Marantz 7009 has plenty of options and speaker types (ceiling, on wall or Atmos Module) and options for the various locations. Front, middle and or back. Almost all placement ideas will work. It's literally fool proof! And yes it is mainly referred to as "Dolby Surround" not Atmos in the menu and display.


----------



## joerod

And you can select it for everything. Atmos Surround that is.


----------



## Stanton

joerod said:


> No need to stress too much about speaker placement. The Marantz 7009 has plenty of options and speaker types (ceiling, on wall or Atmos Module) and options for the various locations. Front, middle and or back. Almost all placement ideas will work. It's literally fool proof! And yes it is mainly referred to as "Dolby Surround" not Atmos in the menu and display.


I like it! I'm curious what the NEXT menu would be (after selecting here): ceiling or wall? or am I off track...


----------



## smurraybhm

Pioneer Atmos Receivers and Speakers Available:
I got an email from Pioneer announcing the availability of both the Elite receivers and speakers yesterday afternoon. They can now be ordered from Pioneer direct. Yesterday afternoon there were no ordering instructions/links on their US site. I imagine they will be up for sale on authorized retailers' sites/stores shortly. Chris Walker had said last week they had started shipping, good to see them available. Now I have to decide what Atmos receiver to order, Denon or Pioneer.


----------



## kbarnes701

joerod said:


> No need to stress too much about speaker placement. The Marantz 7009 has plenty of options and speaker types (ceiling, on wall or Atmos Module) and options for the various locations. Front, middle and or back. Almost all placement ideas will work. It's literally fool proof! And yes it is mainly referred to as "Dolby Surround" not Atmos in the menu and display.


While you can use all those combinations, the speakers themselves still need to be positioned in accordance with the angles detailed in the oft-posted diagram.

Dolby Surround is the upmixer, so one needs to be careful when reading the terms Dolby Surround and Dolby Atmos as they are two totally different things.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Stanton said:


> I like it! I'm curious what the NEXT menu would be (after selecting here): ceiling or wall? or am I off track...


Off track.  The "top" speaker term defines the "in-ceiling" speaker and there is no special configuration for a "wall" speaker.


----------



## joerod

kbarnes701 said:


> While you can use all those combinations, the speakers themselves still need to be positioned in accordance with the angles detailed in the oft-posted diagram.
> 
> Dolby Surround is the upmixer, so one needs to be careful when reading the terms Dolby Surround and Dolby Atmos as they are two totally different things.


I wasn't stating you could place them anywhere you like. I was saying there are combinations listed for front, middle and back which should be able to accomadate any room.

And it will be very cool one day to put a Blu-ray in and see Atmos on the display.


----------



## wse

joerod said:


> And you can select it for everything. Atmos Surround that is.


No ceiling and wide!


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> While you can use all those combinations, the speakers themselves still need to be positioned in accordance with the angles detailed in the oft-posted diagram. Dolby Surround is the upmixer, so one needs to be careful when reading the terms Dolby Surround and Dolby Atmos as they are two totally different things.


Why doesn't it show Dolby Atmos or does it?


----------



## tjenkins95

smurraybhm said:


> Pioneer Atmos Receivers and Speakers Available:
> I got an email from Pioneer announcing the availability of both the Elite receivers and speakers yesterday afternoon. They can now be ordered from Pioneer direct. Yesterday afternoon there were no ordering instructions/links on their US site. I imagine they will be up for sale on authorized retailers' sites/stores shortly. Chris Walker had said last week they had started shipping, good to see them available. Now I have to decide what Atmos receiver to order, Denon or Pioneer.


Thanks for the update! I had sent an email to them on Wednesday inquiring on the availability and I received this email:


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:37
Thank you for contacting Pioneer Customer Service with your inquiry. The Dolby Atmos Elite Speakers should be available for purchase by the end of the year. As for pricing that has not yet been released.
Thank you for your time and continued patience.
Best Regards,
Customer Service Representative


I replied to Pioneer as to why Amazon had them listed as available on Oct 25th.
I received the following reply:


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:09


The speakers on Amazon.com are not the new Dolby Atmos Elite Speakers.
For accurate information when it comes to Pioneer products, please visit http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers.


Have a wonderful Holiday!!!
Best Regards,

So I had to send them direct links and pictures from Amazon showing the speakers before they would believe me.


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 14:11
Yes, I see. Amazon is an authorized seller of our products, so it is safe to order from them.
It's not unusual for our re sellers to have the material before we post it on our website.
That is usual practice. As for our release date and pricing, it has not been released.
Once available you will see it on the product page at pioneerelectronics.com.
This information is all coming from our Home Team as of today.
Best Regards,


I felt like I was dealing with Best Buy!


----------



## kbarnes701

joerod said:


> I wasn't stating you could place them anywhere you like. I was saying there are combinations listed for front, middle and back which should be able to accomadate any room.


Sure - I was just commenting for the avoidance of doubt - it was the phrase _"almost all placement ideas will work. It's literally fool proof!"_ that caught my attention. There are 5 possible combinations, but the speakers definitely can't be placed any old where, which, to me anyway, _"almost all placement ideas will work"_ sort of implied. 



joerod said:


> And it will be very cool one day to put a Blu-ray in and see Atmos on the display.


Oh yes! Not too long to wait now...


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Why doesn't it show Dolby Atmos or does it?


The second photo was just showing different surround modes.


----------



## harrybnbad

Can someone explain to me what di/bi-pole speakers are.

And would any recomend that I get rid of my klispch rs-62. I currently have them mounted rear side surrounds. I do need to lower them. Somehow. Very odd shaped room. I am considering either speaker stands, or even up-side down mounts hanging from the ceiling.


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> I have no argument with most of what you say, other than the bit above. When you listen to a good stereo system, properly set up, do you feel that the sound comes from "_only [two] distinct and easily localizable locations_"? I guess not, so why would it be different for Atmos overhead speakers?


It comes down to distance to the listener and the type of sound coming from the speakers.

My front left and right speakers are more than 10 feet away and more than 10 feet apart from each other. That gives them plenty of space to cover the room with stereo music, and being front speakers, they are going to be tasked with reproducing primary sounds while a movie is playing, such as dialog and on-screen cues.

Ceiling-mounted speakers are not going to be as far away as those front speakers, and they would be reproducing sounds that are very different from the front speakers. I can't imagine using them while listening to music, so that's not a real concern, and for watching a movie in Atmos, they are going to be playing sounds that are supposed to be coming from their general direction, not necessarily their exact location.

If I had the ability to install and use a half dozen or more overhead speakers, I think that would be an argument for direct radiators only. Having more point sources means that the resolution for the overhead sounds is much higher, and there would be less of a need for each speaker to cover a larger area of the ceiling. 

However, with only two or four speakers, those speakers need to handle it all, and I don't want Gollum talking to me three feet above my head in the Riddles in the Dark scene. I would want to hear him coming from the upper right corner of the room, as was the case in the Atmos-equipped cinema where I watched it for the first time. Instead of several speakers being able to localize that sound in that particular point in space, I'm only going to have one or two (if the front right speaker gets some of the signal), so I don't want it to be a case of "he came out of that speaker up there" but rather "he came out of the upper corner of the room, off screen."


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> It comes down to distance to the listener and the type of sound coming from the speakers.
> 
> My front left and right speakers are more than 10 feet away and more than 10 feet apart from each other. That gives them plenty of space to cover the room with stereo music, and being front speakers, they are going to be tasked with reproducing primary sounds while a movie is playing, such as dialog and on-screen cues.
> 
> Ceiling-mounted speakers are not going to be as far away as those front speakers, and they would be reproducing sounds that are very different from the front speakers. I can't imagine using them while listening to music, so that's not a real concern, and for watching a movie in Atmos, they are going to be playing sounds that are supposed to be coming from their general direction, not necessarily their exact location.
> 
> If I had the ability to install and use a half dozen or more overhead speakers, I think that would be an argument for direct radiators only. Having more point sources means that the resolution for the overhead sounds is much higher, and there would be less of a need for each speaker to cover a larger area of the ceiling.
> 
> However, with only two or four speakers, those speakers need to handle it all, and I don't want Gollum talking to me three feet above my head in the Riddles in the Dark scene. I would want to hear him coming from the upper right corner of the room, as was the case in the Atmos-equipped cinema where I watched it for the first time. Instead of several speakers being able to localize that sound in that particular point in space, I'm only going to have one or two (if the front right speaker gets some of the signal), so I don't want it to be a case of "he came out of that speaker up there" but rather "he came out of the upper corner of the room, off screen."


I don't think you need to worry - I am not allowed to specifically mention a particular movie, but if you read this section which relates to the first demo I attended, you can piece it together yourself 

_"But nothing, nothing I have heard before prepared me for this Atmos mix. And remember, I was hearing this now only on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The sound came from above, from the left, from the centre, from the above left, from the left-centre, from everywhere that the character jumped to in the scene. The precision of the placement of his voice to reflect his physical location on the screen was excellent. I found myself moving my head towards his voice. In some parts of the scene we can’t see the character as he is obscured by shadows. But each time he spoke, before we could see him, we knew exactly where he was. Exactly. And when he came out of the shadows to reveal himself, he was exactly where we knew he would be.

Amazing though this was, and amazed as I was at the way the Atmos-enabled speakers ‘just worked’, this was not actually the most impressive part of this scene.

Much, much more than ‘height effects’.

No, the most impressive part was the sheer scale of the space we were now ’sitting in’. The walls and ceiling of the room had gone. They had just vanished. In their place instead were the confines of a massive cave, hundreds of feet wide and high. There is a lot of ambient sound and echoes in this scene and Atmos’s ability to add a height dimension was just breathtaking. I don’t want to ‘gush’ over this, but there is no other way to describe what I was hearing. I had been transported to a huge, echoing cave with an evil little creature taunting me as he hid and revealed himself over and over in this huge space. I closed my eyes. Yes, I was sitting in a massive cave, not a small demo room in central London. If Dolby had blown a cold blast of aircon into then room, the illusion would have been total. And I repeat, this was from the Atmos speakers not the physical in-ceiling speakers. Remember I said that I heard a little more precision in the sound with the physical speakers playing? I can only imagine how much better this clip would sound when using the physical speakers because, sadly, we had run out of time and had to make way for the next six attendees. "
_


----------



## mry110

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - I was just commenting for the avoidance of doubt - it was the phrase _"almost all placement ideas will work. It's literally fool proof!"_ that caught my attention. There are 5 possible combinations, but the speakers definitely can't be placed any old where, which, to me anyway, _"almost all placement ideas will work"_ sort of implied.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes! Not too long to wait now...


I just want to be able to do that creepy "aaaaallll around youuuuuuuuu". Does that come with the Atmos receivers?


----------



## kbarnes701

mry110 said:


> I just want to be able to do that creepy "aaaaallll around youuuuuuuuu". Does that come with the Atmos receivers?



See above


----------



## joerod

Just wish we had a good Blu-ray Atmos demo disc!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

joerod said:


> Just wish we had a good Blu-ray Atmos demo disc!!!


Well there's the one that's been seen in the wild in Hong Kong, although it was a recorded disc and not an 'official' one - although no idea where they got the content from. It was nicely packaged. I asked the Dolby guys in London if we could have something similar and they said "maybe" 

Only just over two weeks to CEDIA now, so I expect we will learn a lot more soon.


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think you need to worry - I am not allowed to specifically mention a particular movie, but if you read this section which relates to the first demo I attended, you can piece it together yourself


I had not seen that report, so thanks for pointing me to it! I was trying to avoid all the Atmos stuff until more concrete information was available, in order to save myself from getting hyped up about the new development, but I got sucked in as a result of the Audioholics "5 Reasons" post and came here to read about the first-hand reports. 

Reading your first-hand report reminded me of that first time I was exposed to home theater at the CES in Chicago in 1993. Coming out of that "Far and Away" demo after having seen it just a few months earlier in a 70mm theater, I was hooked!

I have to say that I'm surprised by the effectiveness of the Atmos-enabled (there must be a better way to refer to them, maybe "reflecting"?) speakers in the small-room demo you experienced. It's heartening that it may be possible for a wide variety of people with various levels of speaker implementations will be able to enjoy the new technology.

When I wired my room for overhead speakers, my assumption was to use in-ceiling or in-wall speakers for the task. That's still my hope, as I only have a 7.5 foot ceiling height, so doing something on-ceiling would be less than ideal.

Hopefully, more information will come out of CEDIA and/or ensuing announcements as September/October come. There are going to be a lot of implementations at all kinds of price points, and it will be interesting to see how they begin to flesh out as people get them in their hands and do first-hand reports.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I had not seen that report, so thanks for pointing me to it! I was trying to avoid all the Atmos stuff until more concrete information was available, in order to save myself from getting hyped up about the new development, but I got sucked in as a result of the Audioholics "5 Reasons" post and came here to read about the first-hand reports.


I had the privilege of being invited to two demos, so there are two reports, in case you didn't see the second. Here they both are anyway:

This is the first.

This is the second.



BigScreen said:


> Reading your first-hand report reminded me of that first time I was exposed to home theater at the CES in Chicago in 1993. Coming out of that "Far and Away" demo after having seen it just a few months earlier in a 70mm theater, I was hooked!


True milestones are few and far between!



BigScreen said:


> I have to say that I'm surprised by the effectiveness of the Atmos-enabled (there must be a better way to refer to them, maybe "reflecting"?) speakers in the small-room demo you experienced. It's heartening that it may be possible for a wide variety of people with various levels of speaker implementations will be able to enjoy the new technology.


This is one of the most remarkable things about it IMO. I was very skeptical about the idea of bouncing sound off the ceiling, but once you've heard it, you're hooked. Many prefer it to physical speakers and I can see why too.



BigScreen said:


> Hopefully, more information will come out of CEDIA and/or ensuing announcements as September/October come. There are going to be a lot of implementations at all kinds of price points, and it will be interesting to see how they begin to flesh out as people get them in their hands and do first-hand reports.


Yes - not long to go. I am like a kid waiting for Christmas


----------



## helvetica bold

I want a better understanding of surround sound. Which book is better for a beginner. The Dr Toole or the Thomas Holman book?
I'm sure I'll get both but what should I read first? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joerod

kbarnes701 said:


> Well there's the one that's been seen in the wild in Hong Kong, although it was a recorded disc and not an 'official' one - although no idea where they got the content from. It was nicely packaged. I asked the Dolby guys in London if we could have something similar and they said "maybe"
> 
> Only just over two weeks to CEDIA now, so I expect we will learn a lot more soon.


Though I will post my 7009 Review soon it will still need an update when I can finally see Atmos light up.


----------



## DS-21

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay and I were discussing dipoles not bipoles.


Within the scope of your discussion, a a distinction without a material difference. The difference between bidirectional in-phase ("BIP") speakers and bidirectional out-of-phase ("BOOP") speakers (I prefer to use accurate words) is, assuming well-designed speakers, only one thing: an axial null for the BOOP speakers. (BIP speakers are harder to design, actually, because pattern control comes from geometry in a BIP. Very few seem to get it right, mostly because many home audio makers have yet to discover the waveguide.) A good BOOP speaker will be as smooth or smoother than a unidirectional or BIP speaker. See, e.g. Daniel Kumin's measurements of a KEF R-Series setup,. (As an aside, for the 2d Atmos demo you attended, did they use unidirectional speakers for the side-surrounds or the R800ds?)

The main compromise with surrounds at home, as Toole notes, is that the soundfield collapses to the nearest speaker for listeners outside a very small listening area because the pathlength differences are often quite large. That's why Toole discusses line array and CBT's as potentially ideal surrounds, and contra to some claptrap in this thread says absolutely nothing about using speakers identical to the mains. (Though nobody, including Harman, has followed up with that; I'd love to see Harman do a surround-targeted variant of one of the JBL Pro CBT speakers.) But they don't, and the Pro models don't look right on the sides of a multipurpose living room. BOOP speakers also mitigate the pathlength differences issue, because of classic time-intensity trading in the relevant frequencies. If spaciousness is inferior to a direct-firing unidirectional or BIP speaker, that's often a compromise worth making IMO. 

As for Atmos heights, it's clear to me that for "elevation" speakers a BOOP design is exactly the wrong way to go, because elevation seem to depend on specific placement of the treble axial reflection. However, for ceiling speakers, IMO it is less clear. A well-designed ceiling BOOP with smooth response except the axial null may help with localization issues while providing good spaciousness. I do not know if such a ceiling speaker actually exists, though.


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> Within the scope of your discussion, a a distinction without a material difference. The difference between bidirectional in-phase ("BIP") speakers and bidirectional out-of-phase ("BOOP") speakers (I prefer to use accurate words) is, assuming well-designed speakers, only one thing: an axial null for the BOOP speakers. (BIP speakers are harder to design, actually, because pattern control comes from geometry in a BIP. Very few seem to get it right, mostly because many home audio makers have yet to discover the waveguide.) A good BOOP speaker will be as smooth or smoother than a unidirectional or BIP speaker. See, e.g. Daniel Kumin's measurements of a KEF R-Series setup,. (As an aside, for the 2d Atmos demo you attended, did they use unidirectional speakers for the side-surrounds or the R800ds?)


All the speakers at the second demo were from the Kef R-700 range. The mains, sides and rears were all identical. They had Kef Atmos modules on top.



DS-21 said:


> The main compromise with surrounds at home, as Toole notes, is that the soundfield collapses to the nearest speaker for listeners outside a very small listening area because the pathlength differences are often quite large. That's why Toole discusses line array and CBT's as potentially ideal surrounds,


Yes, this is indeed a potential issue in my own room. I am in the process of rearranging things a little so that the MLP is dead centre between the side surrounds. This will screw things a bit for the only other seat, but that seat is not used for critical listening of any kind so I don't care.



DS-21 said:


> and contra to some claptrap in this thread says absolutely nothing about using speakers identical to the mains. (Though nobody, including Harman, has followed up with that; I'd love to see Harman do a surround-targeted variant of one of the JBL Pro CBT speakers.) But they don't, and the Pro models don't look right on the sides of a multipurpose living room.


Agreed. I can see no purpose, other than bragging rights maybe, in having the surrounds identical to the mains.



DS-21 said:


> BIP speakers also mitigate the pathlength differences issue, because of classic time-intensity trading in the relevant frequencies. If spaciousness is inferior to a direct-firing unidirectional or BIP speaker, that's often a compromise worth making IMO.


Noted.



DS-21 said:


> As for Atmos heights, it's clear to me that for "elevation" speakers a BOOP design is exactly the wrong way to go, because elevation seem to depend on specific placement of the treble axial reflection. However, for ceiling speakers, IMO it is less clear. A well-designed ceiling BOOP with smooth response except the axial null may help with localization issues while providing good spaciousness. I do not know if such a ceiling speaker actually exists, though.


And, of course, neither do I  I am happy with my choice of dual concentrics for my on-ceiling speakers though. Which is fortunate as I am installing them tomorrow 

Thanks for that. Very informative.


----------



## kbarnes701

helvetica bold said:


> I want a better understanding of surround sound. Which book is better for a beginner. The Dr Toole or the Thomas Holman book?
> I'm sure I'll get both but what should I read first?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Toole's book is a great read. He has a very good way of explaining very technical things in an easy-to-understand way.


----------



## mry110

So let's talk crazy for a minute. If a person purchased the Trinnov Altitude, are there any guidelines on how many speakers are too many for a room X by X size? If you had a crazy number of ceiling speakers (let's say 12), would the Atmos Bluray material even be able to take advantage of that?

My wife and I are kicking around building a house, so making an insane room like this could be in the cards.


----------



## sdurani

mry110 said:


> So let's talk crazy for a minute. If a person purchased the Trinnov Altitude, are there any guidelines on how many speakers are too many for a room X by X size?


If you buy a 32-channel processor, it's not "crazy" to use its capabilities. Placement guidelines are due in an Atmos white paper to be released soon.


mry110 said:


> If you had a crazy number of ceiling speakers (let's say 12), would the Atmos Bluray material even be able to take advantage of that?


The consumer version of Atmos supports up to 10 height speakers. Atmos-encoded soundtracks (BD and streaming) can render to all those speakers.


----------



## asarose247

it may seem I haven't been paying attention but , for giggles, which high end CE toy would do this?


----------



## RUR

asarose247 said:


> it may seem I haven't been paying attention but , for giggles, which high end CE toy would do this?


Trinnov Altitude


----------



## SubSolar

It's hard to tell by the pictures and diagrams, but does it look like it's better to have the top fronts further from MLP then the top rears? Sort of like how front speakers are usually further than rear surrounds.


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed entirely. So am I. But in the absence (so far) of the required information, experimentation is all that's left.
> 
> 
> 
> I am following the prescribed 'in line with the front mains' dictum, but that happens to work for me here.


I was planning to put my overheads in line with the mains as well, and then I realized that they would be more than 45 degrees away from the furthest seat. As far as I can tell, there really is no way around aiming the speakers. I suspect that this has a lot to do with why the ATMOS enabled speakers work well. The path length is doubled and area covered is squared. Seat-to-seat variability will also be lower because the path length is much longer.

Looks like now I need to come up with a location to mount my overheads as well as a way to angle the in both directions.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

mry110 said:


> So let's talk crazy for a minute. If a person purchased the Trinnov Altitude, are there any guidelines on how many speakers are too many for a room X by X size? If you had a crazy number of ceiling speakers (let's say 12), would the Atmos Bluray material even be able to take advantage of that?
> 
> My wife and I are kicking around building a house, so making an insane room like this could be in the cards.


As mentioned, 10 ceiling speakers is the limit for consumer Atmos. But there are 24 ear level positions... Okay, let me go along with your "crazy" thinking. It isn't possible with very big speakers. But knowledgeable folks like Ethan Hawke (edit: WINER ) swear by modest sized active speakers like the Mackie 624. You could put a lot of these in a medium sized room. Spacing should ideally be equal or less than 30°. 360° (circle) / 30° = 12 speakers (only). 24 speakers comes to 15° between each. But this means a speaker between L & C and between C & R. Which I don't believe is supported yet. And a rear surround speaker every 15° also seems a waste of resources. 30° will be more than enough for the rear. 

What it comes to is this: 3 LCR + 3 rears + 2 x 5 sides + 2 x 5 overheads = 26 speakers (16.x.10), in a typical rectangular shaped room. The Mackie's can be bought for $500 each, so it isn't that far fetched IMO. 

It also doesn't need to cost Trinnov money, is it? The Marantz AV 7702 is $2000 and does 11.2 channels. Double that for double the money and you're close. Something like 14.4.8...

Bring it on!!:grin:


----------



## Selden Ball

SubSolar said:


> It's hard to tell by the pictures and diagrams, but does it look like it's better to have the top fronts further from MLP then the top rears? Sort of like how front speakers are usually further than rear surrounds.


My understanding is that the angular separations are what matter the most, while the physical distances are less important (except insofar as the room acoustics have more of a chance to mess things up). The variations in timing delays (controlled by distance settings) and sound levels (controlled by trim levels) which are due to different distances are compensated for when you run the AVR's calibration procedure.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> But knowledgeable folks like Ethan Hawke swear by modest sized active speakers like the Mackie 624.


Ethan who?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdurani said:


> Ethan who?


Duuh! I mean Ethan Winer!! Hawke is the actor!


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that the *angular separations are what matter the most*, while the physical distances are less important (except insofar as the room acoustics have more of a chance to mess things up). The variations in timing delays (controlled by distance settings) and sound levels (controlled by trim levels) which are due to different distances are compensated for when you run the AVR's calibration procedure.


This is what I was taught by Roger, and I am now a fully paid-up member of the Angular Separation Rules Club. It also enables me to use 4 overheads without worrying too much about the distances, because my angles meet spec!


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Duuh! I mean Ethan Winer!! Hawke is the actor!


I'm sure Ethan the acoustician will be flattered


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> Ethan who?


Winer. ... http://ethanwiner.com

http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html


----------



## SubSolar

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm doing a 2 row setup, and to best emulate the performance of a real Atmos cinema, the folks in the back row definitely get a different aural perspective!  IOW, no, both rows do not fall within the angle guidelines. Just make sure the MLP does.





Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that the angular separations are what matter the most, while the physical distances are less important (except insofar as the room acoustics have more of a chance to mess things up). The variations in timing delays (controlled by distance settings) and sound levels (controlled by trim levels) which are due to different distances are compensated for when you run the AVR's calibration procedure.


I can only put my top rears about 3 feet from MLP, which isn't quite the 30-55 degree angle recommended, that would be 3.5 to 8.66 feet. Should I also put my top fronts at 3 feet from MLP to make it uniform, or something further like around 5-6 feet from MLP? The MLP is 13-15 feet from front speakers so I have plenty of room in that direction. Only about 7 feet from MLP to rear surround speakers.

Also the in-ceilings I'm going with are only 80 degree dispersion, not the recommended 90. I'm wondering if I should keep them closer to MLP because of this. Also not sure about aiming them toward MLP or just straight down. I would think it would be less localizable if they pointed straight down.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Winer. ... http://ethanwiner.com
> 
> http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html


I learned a ton from that man!


----------



## Roger Dressler

SubSolar said:


> Also the in-ceilings I'm going with are only 80 degree dispersion, not the recommended 90. I'm wondering if I should keep them closer to MLP because of this. Also not sure about aiming them toward MLP or just straight down. I would think it would be less localizable if they pointed straight down.


To make a speaker less localizable by aiming, they will have to direct significant energy to other surfaces relative to the direct path. Hence the idea of diploes/tripoles. To me that's a better solution than just aiming a monopole speaker way off axis of the listeners. (My idea of "on axis" is not necessarily laser pointed to the MLP ears, but toward the middle of the seats or even biased to the furthest seat in the listening area.) 

Consider a monopole aimed off axis. The REQ is going to see HF rolloff. It will try to fix it. Folks seated more on-axis will hear excess HF boost. For best spectral uniformity for all listeners, I'd think getting most ears into the sweet spot of the radiation pattern is the way forward.

If the content should sound diffuse, the mixers should do that, not the room. If the small room should sound like a big room (cinema), then some good DSP should do that, as no small room can do that, not even with dipoles.

IMHO.


----------



## SubSolar

Roger Dressler said:


> To make a speaker less localizable by aiming, they will have to direct significant energy to other surfaces relative to the direct path. Hence the idea of diploes/tripoles. To me that's a better solution than just aiming a monopole speaker way off axis of the listeners. (My idea of "on axis" is not necessarily laser pointed to the MLP ears, but toward the middle of the seats or even biased to the furthest seat in the listening area.)
> 
> Consider a monopole aimed off axis. The REQ is going to see HF rolloff. It will try to fix it. Folks seated more on-axis will hear excess HF boost. For best spectral uniformity for all listeners, I'd think getting most ears into the sweet spot of the radiation pattern is the way forward.
> 
> If the content should sound diffuse, the mixers should do that, not the room. If the small room should sound like a big room (cinema), then some good DSP should do that, as no small room can do that, not even with dipoles.
> 
> IMHO.


So, I should or shouldn't aim these toward MLP?

http://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/electromotion/em-r.php


----------



## asarose247

DSCF0728.jpg


the keen eyed will see "new' monopole back surrounds lowered to about the same height as the surrounds
this increased the distance center to center from the top rears to 36" from 30" a 25% increase.
but I can also put them a bit closer together, center-ward and increase that even though that puts them a bit further back. 
TAREQWT
in the works is an attachment system similarly for 2 more SLX speakers to replace those Bose (hey it rhymes) (WC?) which just happened to be on hand. 
the tubing is 3/4 inch EMT


in other news, the TOP fronts are attached as Front heights and the Top rears are split off from the X4000 pre-outs and run thru the Yamaha and Emotiva amps and the center is also split for a below and on top of the TV set-up.


Sure, a bit "hybrid" (a BIT???) but with DTS NEO X all 12 do play, a little bit of SPL metering , each speaker has a "gain" and some more REQ just may do, temporarily . . .


I appreciate the dialogue wrt to monopole "aiming".


----------



## Roger Dressler

SubSolar said:


> So, I should or shouldn't aim these toward MLP?


I would. That's just me. And what's nice about round is, they can be rotated to see if that as some nice effect.


----------



## nucky

That's me just about ready for Atmos. I will be using 4 Dali phantom kompas 6m in-ceiling Speakers. It will be 5.2.4


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I learned a ton from that man!


Ethan is a great man, very knowledgeable on all matters acoustics; a writer, a scientist, a sharer, a gentleman, a member here. 

* I wonder if he'll jump on the Atmos wagon... ...I'm sure he will after experiencing it @ his own place.


----------



## SoundChex

batpig said:


> SoundChex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping some CEM will allow 7.1.4 with the Main Layer 7.1 composed of 5.1 Standard + 2x Front Wides...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the current Denon 5200 can't already do that. In theory it should be possible. Unfortunately that won't work with Dolby Surround up mixer (which doesn't output to wides as implemented) but Atmos content should render.
> 
> Of course, the lack of output for DSU means it might be more practical to do a "traditional" 7.1.4 and just move the Surround speakers in front of the MLP and space the Surr Back wider as in this ITU layout: (_link_). That layout is practically close enough to what you want, and all 11 speakers will be hot with DSU and native Atmos.
Click to expand...


That's an excellent _outside-the-box_ thought! My current _in-place_ configuration is *5.1 Standard + 2x Front Heights*, so I had not previously needed to explore how to implement a *7.1 Standard* _middle layer_. Fortuitously, the planned|available *Front Wide* pair are *Polk R50* floorstanders, and there is sufficient, open _adjacent-to-wall_ floorspace at (approx) ±70° for me to place them as a *Side Surround Left|Right* (*SiL|SiR*) pair. (_Because of foot traffic patterns, this may not prove feasible in practice, but I'll certainly give it serious consideration. Thanks!_)
_


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. Many people (who don't own them already) can skip the wides and go this route.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

SoundChex said:


> That's an excellent _outside-the-box_ thought! My current _in-place_ configuration is *5.1 Standard + 2x Front Heights*, so I had not previously needed to explore how to implement a *7.1 Standard* _middle layer_. Fortuitously, the planned|available *Front Wide* pair are *Polk R50* floorstanders, and there is sufficient, open _adjacent-to-wall_ floorspace at (approx) ±70° for me to place them as a *Side Surround Left|Right* (*SiL|SiR*) pair. (_Because of foot traffic patterns, this may not prove feasible in practice, but I'll certainly give it serious consideration. Thanks!_)
> _


This has been discussed in this very thread... Having rear surrounds at about +/- 135° allows for the side surrounds to be moved forward of MLP. Even up to 60°. Or as per Roger Dressler recommendation: split the distance between fronts and rear surrounds in two. Mine in a 7.2.4 set-up will be around 75-80°.


----------



## brwsaw

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Having rear surrounds at about +/- 135° allows for the side surrounds to be moved forward of MLP. Even up to 60°. Or as per Roger Dressler recommendation: split the distance between fronts and rear surrounds in two. Mine in a 7.2.4 set-up will be around 75-80°.



I had done this in my 2nd to last room and discussed it/noted it on another forum. At the time it didn't seem to go over too well.
I found the towers I was using, while not very good in their own right, had a pleasant coloration from the side of the towers. I was actually hearing a combination of the direct sound (facing the rear of the room) and the coloration. All this talk makes me want to re-install them as they had been in that room, mind you the room was wider...

Edit : these towers were +/-85° (LS & RS in a 7.1 setup) and on 24" stands


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> To make a speaker less localizable by aiming, they will have to direct significant energy to other surfaces relative to the direct path. Hence the idea of diploes/tripoles. *To me that's a better solution than just aiming a monopole speaker way off axis of the listeners.* (My idea of "on axis" is not necessarily laser pointed to the MLP ears, but toward the middle of the seats or even biased to the furthest seat in the listening area.)
> 
> *Consider a monopole aimed off axis. The REQ is going to see HF rolloff.* It will try to fix it. Folks seated more on-axis will hear excess HF boost. For best spectral uniformity for all listeners, I'd think getting most ears into the sweet spot of the radiation pattern is the way forward.
> 
> If the content should sound diffuse, the mixers should do that, not the room. If the small room should sound like a big room (cinema), then some good DSP should do that, as no small room can do that, not even with dipoles.
> 
> IMHO.


I have downward firing B&W CCM682 in my ceiling and have noticed that in a typical home-theater such as mine, speakers 8 feet high and ears 3 feet high (making very acute angle between the 2), my ears are very much off-axis to the speakers, and as a result there is much attenuation particularly in the high frequency. The sound changes drastically as I move to become more on axis. Is this an example of what what you were referring to in "aiming a monopole way off axis of the listeners"?

My own conclusion has been that a downward firing speaker in a commercial theater, being say 30 feet higher up, is a lot more "on axis" towards listeners, than my downward ceiling speaker 5 feet away higher up. For this reason, I personally favor turning the tweeter of my ceiling speaker to fire at me, NOT downward. Is my logic in line with what you wrote above? (TIA - I do often find your posts very interesting to read.)


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> I have downward firing B&W CCM682 in my ceiling and have noticed that in a typical home-theater such as mine, speakers 8 feet high and ears 3 feet high (making very acute angle between the 2), my ears are very much off-axis to the speakers, and as a result there is much attenuation particularly in the high frequency. The sound changes drastically as I move to become more on axis. Is this an example of what what you were referring to in "aiming a monopole way off axis of the listeners"?


Exactly.



> My own conclusion has been that a downward firing speaker in a commercial theater, being say 30 feet higher up, is a lot more "on axis" towards listeners, than my downward ceiling speaker 5 feet away higher up. For this reason, I personally favor turning the tweeter of my ceiling speaker to fire at me, NOT downward. Is my logic in line with what you wrote above?


Yes. That's why the "advice" to aim them straight down does not light my fuse. Looking forward to getting some clarity at CEDIA.



> (TIA - I do often find your posts very interesting to read.)


----------



## W3Rman

harrybnbad said:


> *Can someone explain to me what di/bi-pole speakers are.*
> 
> *And would any recomend that I get rid of my klispch rs-62*. I currently have them mounted rear side surrounds. I do need to lower them. Somehow. Very odd shaped room. I am considering either speaker stands, or even up-side down mounts hanging from the ceiling.


Explaination of: Monopole/Bipole/Dipole
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=66471

I recommend keeping your RS-*62*'s


----------



## Skylinestar

If the DTS-UHD (based on Auro3D placement) reach the consumer market, it will be a winner. The single Voice-of-God ceiling speaker is more welcomed than Dolby's 2x or 4x ceiling speakers. The height channels are also easier to install because they are installed on walls.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Skylinestar said:


> If the DTS-UHD (based on Auro3D placement) reach the consumer market, it will be a winner. The single Voice-of-God ceiling speaker is more welcomed than Dolby's 2x or 4x ceiling speakers. The height channels are also easier to install because they are installed on walls.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhzAk-XzmYQ


Auro's single, mono Voice of God speaker is in the worst possible spot. Most sounds directly above or behind you are very hard to localize. Plus, current Auro doesn't have discrete object panning, just channels plus some fancy matrix de-correlation.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Auro's single, mono Voice of God speaker is in the worst possible spot.


Exactly! When our human hearing hears the same sound in both ears, its automatic reflex is to localize it in front of us. As you said, a speaker along the listener's centre line, either directly above or directly behind, should be avoided in order to minimize the psychoacoustic problem of imaging reversals. Auro avoids this in commercial cinemas by playing back the mono VOG channel through a grid of 4 overhead speakers that are spread out.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Exactly! When our human hearing hears the same sound in both ears, its automatic reflex is to localize it in front of us.


No, our hearing gets confusing localization cues when multiple coherent signals from equidistant locations are presented. A single discrete source is always easier to localize as this is how sounds occur in nature, i.e. our hearing is highly trained (24/7) in localizing such sounds.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> No, our hearing gets confusing localization cues when multiple coherent signals from equidistant locations are presented. A single discrete source is always easier to localize as this is how sounds occur in nature, i.e. our hearing is highly trained (24/7) in localizing such sounds.


No, a single discrete source directly behind the listener is more problematic than the same signal sent to two speakers behind the listener. Same above the listener. 

This is why Dolby, DTS and THX _all_ recommended using 2 rear speakers, at least ±30° from the centre line, for reproducing the mono surround-back channel of their EX/ES format. Note that it was the _only_ channel they recommended 2 speakers for playback. 

Dolby likewise recommend that same spread, at least ±30° from centre line, for height speaker placement in Atmos set-ups.


----------



## markus767

^
It's pretty obvious to me why these companies recommend more speakers  I don't know any psychoacoustic study that would support the notion that two or more sources emitting the same signal would improve localization compared to a single source. The former case is something that simply doesn't exist in nature.


----------



## PeterTHX

Skylinestar said:


> If the DTS-UHD (based on Auro3D placement) reach the consumer market, it will be a winner. The single Voice-of-God ceiling speaker is more welcomed than Dolby's 2x or 4x ceiling speakers. The height channels are also easier to install because they are installed on walls.


You lose the ability to pan sounds back and forth and left to right completely above the listener. Single speaker above me says "intercom".


----------



## westmd

SubSolar said:


> I can only put my top rears about 3 feet from MLP, which isn't quite the 30-55 degree angle recommended, that would be 3.5 to 8.66 feet. Should I also put my top fronts at 3 feet from MLP to make it uniform, or something further like around 5-6 feet from MLP? The MLP is 13-15 feet from front speakers so I have plenty of room in that direction. Only about 7 feet from MLP to rear surround speakers.
> 
> Also the in-ceilings I'm going with are only 80 degree dispersion, not the recommended 90. I'm wondering if I should keep them closer to MLP because of this. Also not sure about aiming them toward MLP or just straight down. I would think it would be less localizable if they pointed straight down.


I just received feedback from a UK speaker retailer who was invited to a Dolby Atmos presentation. 

_"I don’t have a definitive answer for you beyond the information that you already have. however, if the top rear speakers cannot be brought into the room very far then you could compensate by bringing the top front speakers further in towards the viewing position."_

That also means if rear heights are to close you can compensate by placing the front heights further away from the MLP!


----------



## SubSolar

westmd said:


> I just received feedback from a UK speaker retailer who was invited to a Dolby Atmos presentation.
> 
> _"I don’t have a definitive answer for you beyond the information that you already have. however, if the top rear speakers cannot be brought into the room very far then you could compensate by bringing the top front speakers further in towards the viewing position."_
> 
> That also means if rear heights are to close you can compensate by placing the front heights further away from the MLP!


By further in towards viewing position do you mean closer to the front speakers and away from the MLP?


----------



## westmd

In my search for the perfect in-ceiling speaker I contacted David Kroll who is the global product manager for KEFs custom installation series. (THX to UKTexan for getting me into contact).
About the CI200QR and CI200RR-THX David states:

_"The Ci200QR is an excellent speaker and would do a very good job giving you the additional surround and height informatom. I expect you would be very happy with the results.

The Ci200RR-THX however is something extra special. The performance of this model is extraordinary! The bass response, resolution, and level of detail is beyond what most people would expect from an in-ceiling speaker."_

Interestingly enough *all* shops I contacted whether in Germany, Netherlands and UK I got the same answer that even though the CI200RR-THX is the better speakers, as an Atmos speaker you won't be able to hear any difference to the CI200QR due to the fact that they are "just"effect speakers! What are your thoughts of the people who already had Atmos presentations?

In regards to timbre matching David also writes:

_"Things like Yamaha's YPAO are used to calibrate a system for levels, phase etc - these cannot make one speaker sound like a different brand. Although some of these technologies do apply equalization, the equalization more often than not throws off the loudspeakers' balanced sound and sometimes prove detrimental. I do not know if YPAO has equalization or not."_


----------



## westmd

SubSolar said:


> By further in towards viewing position do you mean closer to the front speakers and away from the MLP?


The way that I understand is that Dolby wants to make sure to have enough separation between rear and front. That is also one of the reasons why none of the receivers allow front and middle or middle and rear but only front and rear as combination for height speakers. If your rear heights are too close then to have enough separation you have to move front heights closer to the fronts. My interpretation!


----------



## Manni01

westmd said:


> In my search for the perfect in-ceiling speaker I contacted David Kroll who is the global product manager for KEFs custom installation series. (THX to NorthSky for getting me into contact).
> About the CI200QR and CI200RR-THX David states:
> 
> _"The Ci200QR is an excellent speaker and would do a very good job giving you the additional surround and height informatom. I expect you would be very happy with the results._
> 
> _The Ci200RR-THX however is something extra special. The performance of this model is extraordinary! The bass response, resolution, and level of detail is beyond what most people would expect from an in-ceiling speaker."_
> 
> Interestingly enough *all* shops I contacted whether in Germany, Netherlands and UK I got the same answer that even though the CI200RR-THX is the better speakers, as an Atmos speaker you won't be able to hear any difference to the CI200QR due to the fact that they are "just"effect speakers! What are your thoughts of the people who already had Atmos presentations?
> 
> In regards to timbre matching David also writes:
> 
> _"Things like Yamaha's YPAO are used to calibrate a system for levels, phase etc - these cannot make one speaker sound like a different brand. Although some of these technologies do apply equalization, the equalization more often than not throws off the loudspeakers' balanced sound and sometimes prove detrimental. I do not know if YPAO has equalization or not."_


 
Hi everyone, and thanks for all the great info in the thread, slowly soaking everything in .

@westmd, thanks for this info, I like these Kef speakers.


Do you know what the dispersion angle of these speakers is? I couldn't find the info on the website.


Also is the asymmetrical tweeter an issue or not? How would you need to orientate them?


Do you know if there is an accessory to mount them easily?

@All: finally re the discussion about moving the front top further away from the MLP when the rear top are closer than ideal (which is my situation), I guess the limitation is regarding the dispersion cone of the FT speakers. If you move them too far from the MLP, the MLP is at risk of being outside of the dispersion cone, so most of the effect will be lost (especially if the in-ceiling speaker can't be oriented towards the MLP), which will cause issues during calibration.


I like the idea of in-ceiling speakers for Atmos, and as I'm redoing my room early next year it's perfect timing, but I'm wondering about orientation, especially re the front top ones.


Rear top speakers will be around 1-2 feet behind me at about 7 feet high (it's a loft, after that, the ceiling is sloping down so I can't move them further back), so the front top will have to be about 4/5 feet forward, mid-way between the front speakers and the MLP (distance MLP to front wall is about 9 feet, to back wall is about 8 feet, and the room is about 11 ft wide). Would that work with 90 degrees dispersion cone speakers?


----------



## westmd

Manni01 said:


> Hi everyone, and thanks for all the great info in the thread, slowly soaking everything in .
> 
> @westmd, thanks for this info, I like these Kef speakers.
> 
> 
> Do you know what the dispersion angle of these speakers is? I couldn't find the info on the website.
> 
> 
> Also is the asymmetrical tweeter an issue or not? How would you need to orientate them?
> 
> 
> Do you know if there is an accessory to mount them easily?


I don't know the exact dispersion angle but found this picture explaining the Q-series. It is in German but the left picture shows the KEF Q-series whilst the right one is a normal in-ceiling speaker.

http://www.hifi-regler.de/shop/kef/kef_ci160ql.php

AFAIK the tweeters of the Q-series are not assymetric but symetric. Therefore you won't be able to orientate them. That is the reason for their wide dispersion.

From KEF website:
_"
Uni-Q driver array
KEF’s patented Uni-Q technology places the tweeter in the acoustic centre of the bass/midrange cone so that both act as a single source that disperses the sound widely and evenly over a large area. By eliminating the ‘sweet spot’ restrictions of conventional speakers, this gives you complete freedom of positioning.
"_

Speakers will be easy to mount on standardcelings. Accesories are built in boxes that you can put in your ceiling beforehand making sure that the speakers have the right amount of air to work properly. You will find tht all on the KEF website!

http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/ci200qr/index.html


----------



## markus767

^
Every speaker beams at higher frequencies. Doesn't matter if it's a coax or not. "By eliminating the ‘sweet spot’ restrictions of conventional speakers, this gives you complete freedom of positioning" is a claim a veracious speaker designer would never make. The marketing department on the other hand...


----------



## harrybnbad

W3Rman said:


> Explaination of: Monopole/Bipole/Dipole
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=66471
> 
> I recommend keeping your RS-*62*'s


----------



## PoshFrosh

Does anyone have a guess as to when I might find a Denon x5200w for about $1500?
I currently have a Denon 4311 which was $2000 when it came out, but I purchased it open-box (it was a return) for $1500 from OneCall (which is a Denon authorized retailer).
I guess I have to wait for someone else to buy one and return it and then get lucky to grab it at that time? Maybe a couple months?


----------



## chi_guy50

PoshFrosh said:


> Does anyone have a guess as to when I might find a Denon x5200w for about $1500?
> I currently have a Denon 4311 which was $2000 when it came out, but I purchased it open-box (it was a return) for $1500 from OneCall (which is a Denon authorized retailer).
> I guess I have to wait for someone else to buy one and return it and then get lucky to grab it at that time? Maybe a couple months?


Have you called JD yet? You might want to pick up the phone and inquire about a price. Just sayin'. 

_"JD" – [email protected] ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - *Authorized dealer for AV Gear* _
_Mon - Fri: 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too, will return call if I don't pick up)_
_Call for pricing on Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, Klipsch, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech_


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Exactly! When our human hearing hears the same sound in both ears, its automatic reflex is to localize it in front of us. As you said, a speaker along the listener's centre line, either directly above or directly behind, should be avoided in order to minimize the *psychoacoustic problem of imaging reversals*. Auro avoids this in commercial cinemas by playing back the mono VOG channel through a grid of 4 overhead speakers that are spread out.


What does the above mean please? Does it mean such single speaker on top or behind listener is not easy to localize, and image may appear to come out in a different spot? In front ("reversal")??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cannga said:


> What does the above mean please? Does it mean such single speaker on top or behind listener is not easy to localize, and *image may appear to come out in a different spot? In front* ("reversal")??


I believe that is exactly what he meant. That's one reason why they went to split stereo rear wall surrounds and why Atmos has stereo pairs in their overhead outputs rather than a monaural signal directly over the audience. Another would be better panning and tracking of dialog and effects.


----------



## dschulz

Skylinestar said:


> If the DTS-UHD (based on Auro3D placement) reach the consumer market, it will be a winner. The single Voice-of-God ceiling speaker is more welcomed than Dolby's 2x or 4x ceiling speakers. The height channels are also easier to install because they are installed on walls.


There is no reason for DTS-UHD to have to conform to the Auro-3D channel layout. Early demos in Hollywood of MDA-based mixes have taken place in cinemas with Auro-3D installations, it's true, and Auro Technologies, Barco and DTS are working together on MDA implementation in cinemas, but the MDA format is fairly agnostic in terms of speaker placement, and presumably DTS-UHD will be the same. I don't believe DTS has yet published any recommendations on speaker layouts for DTS-UHD.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Auro's single, mono Voice of God speaker is in the worst possible spot. Most sounds directly above or behind you are very hard to localize. Plus, current Auro doesn't have discrete object panning, just channels plus some fancy matrix de-correlation.


Auro-3D does not have discrete object panning, it's true; but it does not use fancy matrix de-correlation. It is channel-based, but with a lot of research into the utility of height channels (not overhead) for creating more believable sound reproduction. The VOG in Auro is needed for true flyover effects, but is far less important than the height channels, and in a small room the VOG can be foregone altogether without much loss of impact. The height channels are the key for Auro-3D.

And the system is mixed discretely, and played back discretely. This is done by using the least significant bits in the 24 bit files in a DCP or on a Blu Ray. It's an encode/decode algorithm, not a matrix.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> What does the above mean please? Does it mean such single speaker on top or behind listener is not easy to localize, and image may appear to come out in a different spot? In front ("reversal")??


Toole mentions it in his book, Griesinger mentions it in the paper below (page 10). 

http://www.davidgriesinger.com/channels.pdf


----------



## markus767

cannga said:


> What does the above mean please? Does it mean such single speaker on top or behind listener is not easy to localize, and image may appear to come out in a different spot? In front ("reversal")??


That's what he meant but that would also mean our hearing wouldn't work. I mean, does anybody get front/back reversals when listening to a center speaker and therefore we use a phantom center to "minimize the psychoacoustic problem of imaging reversals"?


----------



## SubSolar

westmd said:


> The way that I understand is that Dolby wants to make sure to have enough separation between rear and front. That is also one of the reasons why none of the receivers allow front and middle or middle and rear but only front and rear as combination for height speakers. If your rear heights are too close then to have enough separation you have to move front heights closer to the fronts. My interpretation!


Makes sense to me. I wonder who I can contact at Dolby to double check?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Most sounds directly above or behind you are very hard to localize.





sdurani said:


> ...a speaker along the listener's centre line, either directly above or directly behind, should be avoided in order to minimize the psychoacoustic problem of imaging reversals.





markus767 said:


> I mean, does anybody get front/back reversals when listening to a center speaker and therefore we use a phantom center to "minimize the psychoacoustic problem of imaging reversals"?


Why do you keep inventing straw man arguments that no one claimed? After specifically saying (twice) that the problem was with a speaker directly above or directly behind, why do you deliberately pretend otherwise?


----------



## pasender91

Markus, as explained in thread and in the linked books, the reversal is from back to front, not front to back !!!
So, center is OK, but center back is NOT OK.

It is due to our biology, the ears are built to ear the sounds in front in order to locate preys and predators, not built for a 7.2.4 Atmos system ...


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Why do you keep inventing straw man arguments that no one claimed? After specifically saying (twice) that the problem was with speakers directly above and directly behind, why do you deliberately pretend otherwise?


It's not a straw man argument. I'm just looking at the bigger picture. The cone of confusion exists. It will create front/back reversals in _anechoic_ spaces - and even more so when the effect of the outer ear, head and torso is removed and/or the head is fixated - but our living rooms are far from being anechoic and we can freely move our heads.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> It's not a straw man argument.


It is when you're trying to refute a claim no one made. It would be one thing if this was the first time you did this, but this is an endless pattern with you.


----------



## markus767

pasender91 said:


> Markus, as explained in thread and in the linked books, the reversal is from back to front, not front to back !!!
> So, center is OK, but center back is NOT OK.


No need to yell at me. I'm very familiar with the psychoacoustic literature and that is the reason why I don't agree.



pasender91 said:


> It is due to our biology, the ears are built to ear the sounds in front in order to locate preys and predators, not built for a 7.2.4 Atmos system ...


Don't you think we were long extinct if we wouldn't be able to locate a _single_ source behind us?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> It is when you're trying to refute a claim no one made. It would be one thing if this was the first time you did this, but this is an endless pattern with you.


It is an endless pattern with you that you don't look at the whole picture. And another endless pattern is "David Susilo likes this." whenever someone gets personal


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> It is an endless pattern with you that you don't look at the whole picture.


That's my point: a very specific problem is mentioned and you pretend it was a broad claim in order to refute something that was never said. You can "look at the whole picture" all you want, but let's not pretend I'm also looking at something so broad. No one brought up the centre speaker, except you. Only to refute something no one claimed.


----------



## Schwa

harrybnbad said:


> Can someone explain to me what di/bi-pole speakers are.
> 
> And would any recomend that I get rid of my klispch rs-62. I currently have them mounted rear side surrounds. I do need to lower them. Somehow. Very odd shaped room. I am considering either speaker stands, or even up-side down mounts hanging from the ceiling.


Dipole speakers have two speaker arrays that fire out-of-phase. This creates a null zone of sorts and serves to make the soundfield emanated from the speaker sound more diffuse.

Bipole speakers have two speakers arrays that fire in-phase. The resultant sound field is less diffuse than what one would experience from a dipole speaker, but it's more diffuse than what you get from a monopole. In essence, bipoles are a compromise between dipoles and monopoles.

IMHO Klipsch surround speakers do a good job of projecting a diffuse sound field while also being able to localize specific sounds when called for. I do NOT plan to replace my RS-62II surrounds any time soon, and I'm in the process of adding ceiling speakers for Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> In my search for the perfect in-ceiling speaker I contacted David Kroll who is the global product manager for KEFs custom installation series. (*THX to NorthSky for getting me into contact*).


I read every single post in this thread, every single paragraph, every single word; could you please refresh my memory; thank you very much.


----------



## toothsavers

*dolby atmos and slanted ceiling and rear surrounds*

I have a 7.1 system in our family room with slanted ceilings conjoined by a center flat ceiling.My rear surrounds are at the rear areas of this slanted ceiling(about 8 ft off the floor).Is it possible to use these rear surrounds (since they are in the slanted ceiling ) as dolby Atmos speakers?.I will use the Dolby Atmos enabled modules on top of my front 2.5 Nht fronts.Technically, I would have reflective sound bouncing off my front slanted ceiling(from my enabled modules) and downward Atmos sound form my rear surrounds.By channeling Dolby Atmos to replace from rear surrounds,what will be the consequences to my surround system?( I can't add any more in ceiling or in wall speakers) Will this create a sound field MESS????.Need your advice and expertise,THX


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> Does anyone have a guess as to when I might find a *Denon x5200w for about $1500*?
> I currently have a Denon 4311 which was $2000 when it came out, but I purchased it open-box (it was a return) for $1500 from OneCall (which is a Denon authorized retailer).
> I guess I have to wait for someone else to buy one and return it and then get lucky to grab it at that time? Maybe a couple months?


Just wait after CEDIA, less than two weeks. ...Then your wish will come true.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> *There is no reason for DTS-UHD to have to conform to the Auro-3D channel layout. Early demos in Hollywood of MDA-based mixes have taken place in cinemas with Auro-3D installations, it's true, and Auro Technologies, Barco and DTS are working together on MDA implementation in cinemas, but the MDA format is fairly agnostic in terms of speaker placement, and presumably DTS-UHD will be the same. I don't believe DTS has yet published any recommendations on speaker layouts for DTS-UHD.
> 
> Auro-3D does not have discrete object panning, it's true; but it does not use fancy matrix de-correlation. It is channel-based, but with a lot of research into the utility of height channels (not overhead) for creating more believable sound reproduction. The VOG in Auro is needed for true flyover effects, but is far less important than the height channels, and in a small room the VOG can be foregone altogether without much loss of impact. The height channels are the key for Auro-3D.
> 
> And the system is mixed discretely, and played back discretely. This is done by using the least significant bits in the 24 bit files in a DCP or on a Blu Ray. It's an encode/decode algorithm, not a matrix.*


Valuable info; thank you sir.


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> I read every single post in this thread, every single paragraph, every single word; could you please refresh my memory; thank you very much.


I believe he got David Kroll's contact info from UKTexan based on this post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-108.html#post26844145


----------



## NorthSky

*http://www.davidgriesinger.com/channels.pdf*

Very good paper to read. ...Right on.


----------



## NorthSky

SubSolar said:


> Makes sense to me. I wonder who I can contact at Dolby to double check?


*www.dolby.com/us/en/index.html* ---> Scroll down @ the bottom (*Contact Us*)


----------



## PoshFrosh

I was going to install my on-ceiling overhead speakers (top front & top rear) this weekend, but it sounds like I should wait for more placement info to be released?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PoshFrosh said:


> I was going to install my on-ceiling overhead speakers (top front & top rear) this weekend, but it sounds like I should wait for more placement info to be released?


Not much longer at all. I would hold off.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> I believe he got David Kroll's contact info from UKTexan based on this post:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-108.html#post26844145


Amazing find! 

* Because I thought about it, and my memory is usually good, and one mention I made about KEF speakers in this thread (I think it was in this thread) was on the *LS50* ... as the speaker you can put all around in a 7.1.4 Atmos setup (eleven of them, even four on the ceiling). ...That should sound awesome in a Dolby Atmos room theater setup from say 19' by 14' by 10' (D x W x H), plus two excellent quality subwoofers. ...Say from *REL* for example (one of their two top-of-the-line series - Gibraltar, or Serie S).


----------



## PoshFrosh

Thanks so much everyone. This forum has been very helpful over all these months. I'll hold off a little bit more.

In the mean time I'll be prepping the room in other ways including upgrading to two SVS PC12-NSDs and installing $1000 of acoustic treatments from GIK.
Sheesh, this is going to end up being a $5000 upgrade by the end.

I just came here to read about atmos and now all of a sudden I've spent all this money... This always happens when I visit the avsforums... I'm gonna have to take another break from here after this ~


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> Thanks so much everyone. This forum has been very helpful over all these months. I'll hold off a little bit more.
> 
> In the mean time I'll be prepping the room in other ways including upgrading to two SVS PC12-NSDs and installing $1000 of acoustic treatments from GIK.
> Sheesh, this is going to end up being a $5000 upgrade by the end.
> 
> I just came here to read about atmos and now all of a sudden I've spent all this money... This always happens when I visit the avsforums... *I'm gonna have to take another break from here after this* ~


I doubt that.


----------



## PoshFrosh

NorthSky said:


> PoshFrosh;27010546I just came here to read about atmos[B said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna have to take another break from here after this[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, I'm already thinking about the next thing... Prolly a >61" OLED UHDTV... And maybe an Oppo 4K player... And................


----------



## NorthSky

...And some more guidance on Dolby Atmos various room's setups.  ...As we discover and read more papers about it.


----------



## UKTexan

*Dolby Atmos demo*


I would like to correct two mistakes I made in my review of home theater Dolby Atmos at Bjorn's of San Antonio, TX.
I mentioned they had another demo room which was developed in conjunction with Tom Holman and was a THX room.
The room was constructed with guidance directly from Tom Holman but in fact it is a TMH room, back in 1999 it was way ahead of its time:


*Holman Conducts First Public Demo of "10.2" Surround Sound*


By Barry Willis • Posted: Jul 11, 1999 


In early July, Holman's new company, Los Angeles-based TMH Corporation, conducted its first public demonstration of 10.2 at an electronics store in San Antonio, Texas. Approximately 100 people heard the demo at Bjorn's Audio Video, an event deemed noteworthy enough to warrant a mention in the _Wall Street Journal_.



Link to the TMH room: http://www.bjorns.com/pages/ultimate-theater-room


As you can see from the above article they have had two notable world's firsts, TMH and Atmos.
The TMH room will be converted to a dedicated Dolby Atmos demo room as soon as the finer details are revealed at CEDIA.


The 2nd point I made regarding Dolby conducting an in store Dolby Atmos presentation/seminar.
The class will take place after CEDIA, not before as I mentioned previously; Bjorn's are hoping a Dolby representative will be available to present the information, if not it will be presented by in house personnel.


Thank you to Bjorn for the corrections, he called me personally after reading the review and was very appreciative especially after hearing the positive response from AVS members around the world.


----------



## 7channelfreak

I need to get over there and see the place. I know several who've made purchases there and I've heard really good things about them. Too bad we don't have anything similar in Houston.


----------



## westmd

kokishin said:


> I believe he got David Kroll's contact info from UKTexan based on this post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-108.html#post26844145


May I beg your forgivesness NorthSky and yours UKTexan for mixing you up.  i will edit my initial pist!


----------



## UKTexan

7channelfreak said:


> I need to get over there and see the place. I know several who've made purchases there and I've heard really good things about them. Too bad we don't have anything similar in Houston.


I agree, I intend to visit again after they complete the conversion from 10.2 to Dolby Atmos.
You will find they are a great bunch of guys and gals.
Unfortunately I have a few months to wait before I can make my Atmos purchase but at least most of the finer details should be worked out by then.


----------



## UKTexan

westmd said:


> May I beg your forgivesness NorthSky and yours UKTexan for mixing you up.  i will edit my initial pist!



No forgiveness necessary.
I hope you find the best speaker solution for you, whether it be KEF or otherwise.


----------



## westmd

*Onkyo to present Dolby Atmos at this years IFA in Berlin*

For everybody here in Europe Onkyo announced a Dolby Atmos demonstration booth at this years IFA starting in 6 days!

*Discover Dolby Atmos in our listening room!*

Dolby Atmos goes far beyond surround sound to create a new level of realism for movie fans. When you watch a movie with Dolby Atmos, sound moves around the room to match what you see on the screen. Rain on a roof, airplanes taking off - you'll hear the sounds exactly where they would be in real life. The sound comes from all directions, including overhead, and moves dynamically around the listener in multidimensional space... it's unlike any other surround sound system you've heard before.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> May I beg your forgivesness NorthSky and yours UKTexan for mixing you up.  i will edit my initial pist!


No need to ask for forgiveness; you did not do anything wrong. 

1. I cannot take credit for something that wasn't from me.
2. I'm very happy that *kokishin* found exactly the source, after I posted my query. 

We live in a beautiful world, with beautiful people.


----------



## Skylinestar

Dan Hitchman said:


> Auro's single, mono Voice of God speaker is in the worst possible spot. Most sounds directly above or behind you are very hard to localize. Plus, current Auro doesn't have discrete object panning, just channels plus some fancy matrix de-correlation.





sdurani said:


> Exactly! When our human hearing hears the same sound in both ears, its automatic reflex is to localize it in front of us. As you said, a speaker along the listener's centre line, either directly above or directly behind, should be avoided in order to minimize the psychoacoustic problem of imaging reversals. Auro avoids this in commercial cinemas by playing back the mono VOG channel through a grid of 4 overhead speakers that are spread out.


What if the VOG speaker is not directly above our head, but forward? I'm sure that will help with the front stage height ambiance.


----------



## sdurani

Skylinestar said:


> What if the VOG speaker is not directly above our head, but forward?


Can you use a small pair of speakers and spread them apart?


Skylinestar said:


> I'm sure that will help with the front stage height ambiance.


The Auro3D format already has dedicated L/C/R height channels for that (those speakers should be elevated about 20-30 degrees above your L/C/R speakers).


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> Can you use a small pair of speakers and spread them apart?
> 
> 
> Skylinestar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the VOG speaker is not directly above our head, but forward?
Click to expand...


There appear to be *6 Voice Of God speakers arranged in three left|right pairs* used in the system described in this interesting 1/9/2014 article in *Residential Systems* (_link_), "*HomeTronics Designs First Home Theater for Voice of God Audio System*", which includes some details of a "28.12" (_speakers_) high-end home setup for *Auro-3D* (and presumably with relevance to other '3D audio' formats). The included 'Side Elevation' drawing (_link_) lets us infer some considerations which may have influenced speaker placement decisions:




All front and surround _middle layer_ speakers lie in one flat plane *tilted* to accommodate the pitch of the stadium style seating.
Front _height layer_ speakers are placed near the top of the display.
Side and rear surround _height layer_ speakers all lie in one *horizontal* plane somewhat below the ceiling, and are tilted downward.
The 6 _VOG_ speakers are centered approx half way between the front and rear walls.
*You can never have too many sub woofers!*


It would be nice to find out just how well the system's 6 _VOG_ speaker setup worked out for the owner!* *
_


----------



## batpig

Wanted to share a conversation I had with Chris K from Audyssey on the Facebook Audyssey Tech Talk page, about changes to MultEQ to support the Atmos-enabled speakers (midly edited to remove extraneous banter but all the details are there):

*Chris Kyriakakis* The changes include a custom Dolby-required target curve for the up-firing Atmos speakers. It’s based on HRTF cues that give the impression of virtual height. So MultEQ will calibrate those speakers to the Dolby target curve.

The distance to the up-firing speakers is a bit tricky because the lower frequencies coming from them are omnidirectional. Denon assumes a standard 8’ ceiling height. If your ceiling is higher than that then just add 1 ms per added ceiling height foot.

*Batpig* Interesting Chris thanks for the response. Most of us had assumed that MultEQ would calibrate to its standard target curve and then the HRTF cues would be layered on top. 

Since one could obviously use these speakers without Audyssey EQ engaged, it seems like there must also be some HTRF type DSP happening independent of what Audyssey is doing as well. Do you know if when the end user engages Audyssey EQ will this replace, or be additive with, the Dolby DSP?

*Chris Kyriakakis* There is no added DSP. It's just a target curve specified by Dolby that is applied, as you said, after MultEQ calibrates to the standard curve

*Batpig* Roger that. So either way (whether or not you have MultEQ engaged) the additional Dolby specified HTRF cue are layered on. 

And a follow up on the distance issue. Am I correct in interpreting your comment to mean that MultEQ will measure the distance/delay and then the processor adds X to the measured delay, with X being based on an assumption of 8' ceilings?

*Chris Kyriakakis* Yes, that's right (for both statements)

*Batpig* Great, final question (for now!). Just to be clear -- when you mentioned adding "1 ms per added ceiling height foot" are you proposing that the end user do this manually after calibration? Because the processor only adds X assuming 8 ft, but the higher ceilings require more than X additional delay? So if I have 10ft ceilings, after completing MultEQ calibration I should manually go into the speaker settings and add 2ft to the distance for any Dolby enabled speakers?

*Chris Kyriakakis* Yes if the ceiling is higher than 8'

*Batpig* Thanks!

*Chris Kyriakakis* And one more thing: The importance of this delay is highly overrated. Being off by 1-2 ms is not going to make any difference whatsoever. The information from these speakers is ambient and not used for imaging.

*Batpig* Understood, just wanted to confirm exactly what you meant. Thanks again!


----------



## SoundChex

batpig said:


> *Chris Kyriakakis* The changes include a custom Dolby-required target curve for the up-firing Atmos speakers. It’s based on HRTF cues that give the impression of virtual height. So MultEQ will calibrate those speakers to the Dolby target curve. The distance to the up-firing speakers is a bit tricky because the lower frequencies coming from them are omnidirectional. *Denon assumes a standard 8’ ceiling height. If your ceiling is higher than that then just add 1 ms per added ceiling height foot.*



ONE extra foot of ceiling height results in a TWO foot longer travel distance from speaker to MLP. The speed of sound is (approx) 1,125 ft/s, so the adjustment seems like it should be *2 ms per additional foot of ceiling height...?!* 






batpig said:


> *Chris Kyriakakis* And one more thing: The importance of this delay is highly overrated. Being off by 1-2 ms is not going to make any difference whatsoever. *The information from these speakers is ambient and not used for imaging.*



Which makes me wonder just how little _perceived_ difference we might be able to find between *Atmos 5.1.4* and *9.1 Auro-3D* reproduction of the same audio content...?
_


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> ONE extra foot of ceiling height results in a TWO foot longer travel distance from speaker to MLP. The speed of sound is (approx) 1,125 ft/s, so the adjustment seems like it should be *2 ms per additional foot of ceiling height...?!*


♦ Not only that, but if your front towers are three feet tall, or four feet tall... 



> Which makes me wonder just how little _perceived_ difference we might be able to find between *Atmos 5.1.4* and *9.1 Auro-3D* reproduction of the same audio content...?
> _


♦ Objects in space are always ambient; only when they hit you directly on the back of your head or straight @ your face that they become distinct and impactful...reckless.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Can you use a small pair of speakers and spread them apart? The Auro3D format already has dedicated L/C/R height channels for that (those speakers should be elevated about 20-30 degrees above your L/C/R speakers).


I remember a video interview in which auro-3D inventor Wilfried van Baelen advices not to go below 25 or above 35 degrees for the middle layer, with 30 degrees being the optimum. This was also shown on the auro-3d website, but here it was later changed to 40 degrees. I have looked for an explanation but have not found any information explaining the rationale for this change, and whether this is a new optimum, or rather an extension of the tolerable range. In the latter case, it may be a commercial driven choice to enable better integration with ATMOS speaker lay-outs. Just a wild guess...


----------



## markus767

SoundChex said:


> ONE extra foot of ceiling height results in a TWO foot longer travel distance from speaker to MLP. The speed of sound is (approx) 1,125 ft/s, so the adjustment seems like it should be *2 ms per additional foot of ceiling height...?!*


Actually it's a bit less. I'd go for about 1.5ms.
You can calculate the exact value for your setup with this calculator.


----------



## W3Rman

batpig said:


> *Batpig* Great, final question (for now!). Just to be clear -- when you mentioned adding "1 ms per added ceiling height foot" are you proposing that the end user do this manually after calibration? Because the processor only adds X assuming 8 ft, but the higher ceilings require more than X additional delay? So if I have 10ft ceilings, after completing MultEQ calibration I should manually go into the speaker settings and add 2ft to the distance for any Dolby enabled speakers?
> 
> *Chris Kyriakakis* Yes if the ceiling is higher than 8'
> 
> *Batpig* Thanks!
> 
> *Chris Kyriakakis* And one more thing: The importance of this delay is highly overrated. Being off by 1-2 ms is not going to make any difference whatsoever. *The information from these speakers is ambient and not used for imaging.*
> 
> *Batpig* Understood, just wanted to confirm exactly what you meant. Thanks again!


:wink:


----------



## westmd

I currently have dipoles as side speaker (Jamo D600 SUR). So with Dolby Atmos should I get rid of them and go for monopoles?


----------



## rcohen

How about bipoles?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> I currently have dipoles as side speaker (Jamo D600 SUR). So with Dolby Atmos should I get rid of them and go for monopoles?


Dipoles are not recommended (too diffuse and they have a null point). I guess CEDIA goers will have to ask Dolby on their thoughts about _bipole _surround speakers.


----------



## David Susilo

Anything other than monopole speakers are the evils of home theatre. They are only recommended for matrixed surround as the surrounds are supposed to be diffused. Since Dolby AC3 (discrete surround), every mixing studio moved to monopoles as the soundtracks now require specific sound placement. This is also the official stance of Dolby and DTS.

The only company that supports the use of dipole/bipole is THX...which I'm absolutely against (although I am a THX certified guy)


----------



## SoundChex

markus767 said:


> Actually it's a bit less. I'd go for about 1.5ms. You can calculate the exact value for your setup with this calculator.



The calculator you suggest is NOT appropriate for computation of the sound "travel time" for _AtmosSpeaker-to-Ceiling-to-MLP_. You can force it to work by setting *d* to *zero* and using the floor as the ceiling . . . but the _speed of sound_ appears to have been entered as (approx) *1,350 fps*. So probably better to just do the math using a Newtonian Equation of Motion . . . *T = L/V* (and use *1,125 fps*).

I get that sound travels 2 ft in 1.78 ms . . . so if the Denon is adjustable in 1 ms intervals, I'd suggest a 2 ms added delay for the first 1 ft increase in ceiling height (above the 'assumed 8 ft ceiling' computation value).



_Interestingly, I seem to recall always using 1,116 fps in school, although I routinely see 1,125|1,126 fps stated as the correct speed of sound nowadays..?!_ 
_


----------



## markus767

SoundChex said:


> The calculator you suggest is NOT appropriate for computation of the sound "travel time" for _AtmosSpeaker-to-Ceiling-to-MLP_. You can force it to work by setting *d* to *zero* and using the floor as the ceiling . . . but the _speed of sound_ appears to have been entered as (approx) *1,350 fps*. So probably better to just do the math using a Newtonian Equation of Motion . . . *T = L/V* (and use *1,125 fps*).
> 
> I get that sound travels 2 ft in 1.78 ms . . . so if the Denon is adjustable in 1 ms intervals, I'd suggest a 2 ms added delay for the first 1 ft increase in ceiling height (above the 'assumed 8 ft ceiling' computation value).
> 
> 
> 
> _Interestingly, I seem to recall always using 1,116 fps in school, although I routinely see 1,125|1,126 fps stated as the correct speed of sound nowadays..?!_
> _


You have to add the distance from driver to ear, sure. Use the floor as the ceiling. Speed of sound is for 21°C (344m/s).

1,116 fps is pre global warming


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> *Chris Kyriakakis* And one more thing: The importance of this delay is highly overrated. Being off by 1-2 ms is not going to make any difference whatsoever. *The information from these speakers is ambient and not used for imaging.*
> 
> *Batpig* Understood, just wanted to confirm exactly what you meant. Thanks again!


Great post, bp. As you understood him, what does he mean by the part I bolded? In Atmos, the overheads are used for imaging.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Great post, bp. As you understood him, what does he mean by the part I bolded? In Atmos, the overheads are used for imaging.


Some companies seem to be working with the opposite assumption. A communication breakdown?


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> Great post, bp. As you understood him, what does he mean by the part I bolded? In Atmos, the overheads are used for imaging.


Probably he meant that special EQ with 'height hints' that fool our brains are used for imaging, and those up-firing speakers are just creating ambiance above us which helps to fool our brains even further... so it is even 'better' than the reality (or real sound source / speaker above us)  Cheap tricks... that kind of working... or impress.


----------



## IgorZep

Dan Hitchman said:


> Some companies seem to be working with the opposite assumption. A communication breakdown?


The opposite assumption is proven to be false by the fact they add height cues to the Atmos-enabled speakers and do it at very high frequencies. This wouldn't be needed if imaging was based on the reflected sound as it still from the above and appropriate HTRF is applied by our ears. And they clearly don't rely on that!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

IgorZep said:


> The opposite assumption is proven to be false by the fact they add height cues to the Atmos-enabled speakers and do it at very high frequencies. This wouldn't be needed if imaging was based on the reflected sound as it still from the above and appropriate HTRF is applied by our ears. And they clearly don't rely on that!


Somebody should tell that to Audyssey then.


----------



## jacovn

All that Auro3d talk is nice, but they seem to charge a lot for a license.
Stormaudio quoted me €1200 for a license.
The prices that were on a uk site for trinnov were £2500 for Auro3D and Atmos licenses.

I assume these companys just ask something not related to the real price as long as they can (not much competition in the 16 channel and up processors)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jacovn said:


> All that Auro3d talk is nice, but they seem to charge a lot for a license.
> Stormaudio quoted me €1200 for a license.
> The prices that were on a uk site for trinnov were £2500 for Auro3D and Atmos licenses.
> 
> I assume these companys just ask something not related to the real price as long as they can (not much competition in the 16 channel and up processors)


Then Auro will price themselves out of the market. However, I like Atmos' approach to surround envelopment more than I do Auro's. Auro (without object rendering) is very long in the tooth.


----------



## richmagnus

David Susilo said:


> Anything other than monopole speakers are the evils of home theatre. They are only recommended for matrixed surround as the surrounds are supposed to be diffused. Since Dolby AC3 (discrete surround), every mixing studio moved to monopoles as the soundtracks now require specific sound placement. This is also the official stance of Dolby and DTS.
> 
> The only company that supports the use of dipole/bipole is THX...which I'm absolutely against (although I am a THX certified guy)



I disagree. Tri polar speakers work extremely well as surround speakers. Far better than monopoles IMO.


----------



## David Susilo

Maybe to you. However, as per Dolby and DTS recommendations, they only recommend monopoles.


----------



## jacovn

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then Auro will price themselves out of the market. However, I like Atmos' approach to surround envelopment more than I do Auro's. Auro (without object rendering) is very long in the tooth.


I hope so, the less different systems the better it seems to me.

The Stormaudio dealer told me that it was possible to support new DTS-UHD when it comes out with an update.

But i guess a D&M product will be sooner out for around 2K €/$/£ with support for DTS-UHD. (The cheapest stormaudio unit was €12100 quoted to me)


----------



## westmd

jacovn said:


> All that Auro3d talk is nice, but they seem to charge a lot for a license.
> Stormaudio quoted me €1200 for a license.
> The prices that were on a uk site for trinnov were £2500 for Auro3D and Atmos licenses.
> 
> I assume these companys just ask something not related to the real price as long as they can (not much competition in the 16 channel and up processors)


Trinnov does charge the money for the additional 8 speakers as well as the 3D codecs! Base price for the 8 channel unit here in Germany is 17,800€ obviously without 3D codes. For 3,570€ extra you get the 16 channel version including the 3D codecs. So the whole amount is not just purely used for licenses


----------



## richmagnus

David Susilo said:


> Maybe to you. However, as per Dolby and DTS recommendations, they only recommend monopoles.



And many others too.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

westmd said:


> Trinnov does charge the money for the additional 8 speakers as well as the 3D codecs! Base price for the 8 channel unit here in Germany is 17,800€ obviously without 3D codes. For 3,570€ extra you get the 16 channel version including the 3D codecs. So the whole amount is not just purely used for licenses


Is that the recommended retail price? To be fair, That's not a bad price at all. That comes approx £17,000 and in the UK, that would get you the base level Datasat Rs20i..16 channels, but no extra codecs. 

If Trinnov are offering 32 channels and all 3D codecs for virtually the same price as the Datasat, if makes it a very decent proposal indeed.


----------



## westmd

Billybobjimbob said:


> Is that the recommended retail price? To be fair, That's not a bad price at all. That comes approx £17,000 and in the UK, that would get you the base level Datasat Rs20i..16 channels, but no extra codecs.
> 
> If Trinnov are offering 32 channels and all 3D codecs for virtually the same price as the Datasat, if makes it a very decent proposal indeed.


That is the MSRP for the 16-channels including 3D codec option (in € incl. 19% VAT).

What I found as quite an interesting alternative to the Trinnov is Stormaudio. Over at the avsforums.com (http://www.avforums.com/threads/storm-audio-auro-3d-capable-processors.1893367/) is a UK pricelist. I think the 12 channel version sounds really promising.

For all of you who are attending the CEDIA. Stormaudio will present their 16 channel processor there (http://expo.cedia.net/why-cedia-exp.../01/sound-developments---stormaudio-ssp-16-3d) maybe someone can listen and give a feedback to this forum.


----------



## Orbitron

The first wave of Atmos AVRs is coming out now, just wondering if Dolby has released all the intel to the manufacturers for full implementation or is this a work in progress from Dolby?


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> For all of you who are attending the CEDIA. Stormaudio will present their 16 channel processor there (http://expo.cedia.net/why-cedia-exp.../01/sound-developments---stormaudio-ssp-16-3d) maybe someone can listen and give a feedback to this forum.


I'm guessing you haven't heard: 

 _"Hear the state-of-the-art in Home Cinema at CEDIA Expo! In Booth 850, we'll have a full Procella-based Dolby Atmos 3D Audio system, with four ceiling mounted P6s - no upward firing speakers! Making its debut at the show will be the state-of-the-art Trinnov Altitude32 processor, which provides native Atmos decoding and unsurpassed audio quality. Booth 850 is the home of Sound Developments, Procella distributor for North America."_

http://www.procella.citymax.com/index.html


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> The first wave of Atmos AVRs is coming out now, just wondering if Dolby has released all the intel to the manufacturers for full implementation or is this a work in progress from Dolby?


Didn't you just answer your own question? 

The AVRs are out.


----------



## westmd

sdurani said:


> I'm guessing you haven't heard:
> 
> _"Hear the state-of-the-art in Home Cinema at CEDIA Expo! In Booth 850, we'll have a full Procella-based Dolby Atmos 3D Audio system, with four ceiling mounted P6s - no upward firing speakers! Making its debut at the show will be the state-of-the-art Trinnov Altitude32 processor, which provides native Atmos decoding and unsurpassed audio quality. Booth 850 is the home of Sound Developments, Procella distributor for North America."_
> 
> http://www.procella.citymax.com/index.html


Sorry I don't get that!


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> Didn't you just answer your own question?
> 
> The AVRs are out.


Let me rephrase, i'm asking if Dolby has provided the complete package of info to the manufacturers and the manufacturers have decided what is included in 1st generation product and what they will implement in 2nd generation.

Or, does Dolby continue to develop home Atmos and provide more intel to the manufacturers meaning what we will see in future generation product is dependent on what intel Dolby provides to the manufacturers.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> Sorry I don't get that!


You posted a link from 3 months ago saying that Sound Developments would be demonstrating the Storm Audio SSP-163D at CEDIA. I posted a more recent link saying that Sound Developments will be demonstrating the Trinnov Altitude32 at CEDIA. 

If you go to Storm Audio's website, you'll notice that Sound Developments is no longer listed as a distributor. Storm doesn't currently list a distributor for the Americas. They won't be at CEDIA.


----------



## westmd

sdurani said:


> You posted a link from 3 months ago saying that Sound Developments would be demonstrating the Storm Audio SSP-163D at CEDIA. I posted a more recent link saying that Sound Developments will be demonstrating the Trinnov Altitude32 at CEDIA.
> 
> If you go to Storm Audio's website, you'll notice that Sound Developments is no longer listed as a distributor. Storm doesn't currently list a distributor for the Americas. They won't be at CEDIA.


Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Let me rephrase, i'm asking if Dolby has provided the complete package of info to the manufacturers and the manufacturers have decided what is included in 1st generation product and what they will implement in 2nd generation.
> 
> Or, does Dolby continue to develop home Atmos and provide more intel to the manufacturers meaning what we will see in future generation product is dependent on what intel Dolby provides to the manufacturers.


Considering that Trinnov has already announced a 32 channel processor, I think it's safe to conclude that the codec can support it's maximum outputs at this point in time...

But for anyone to speculate what Dolby and it's CE's share is foolish... 

The objective evidence so far is that these first generation "mass" market AVR's are all simple progressions of the manufacturers current lineups.. nothing new, of note, in any of them except Atmos and DS.

Outside of the obvious requirements (chipsets, minimum performance benchmarks, etc..) to include Atmos, I don't think Dolby tells any of their licensees what or how to develop their products.


----------



## mike_carton

SoundChex said:


> ONE extra foot of ceiling height results in a TWO foot longer travel distance from speaker to MLP. The speed of sound is (approx) 1,125 ft/s, so the adjustment seems like it should be *2 ms per additional foot of ceiling height...?!*
> _


Unless the sound is going up vertically, the distance is more than 2 feet. If it is hitting the ceiling at 30 degrees, the additional travel distance should be 2+2 feet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Let me rephrase, i'm asking if Dolby has provided the complete package of info to the manufacturers and the manufacturers have decided what is included in 1st generation product and what they will implement in 2nd generation.
> 
> Or, does Dolby continue to develop home Atmos and provide more intel to the manufacturers meaning what we will see in future generation product is dependent on what intel Dolby provides to the manufacturers.



All the data for Atmos has been released to manufacturers and media distributors, as far as I know. It is now up to them as to which features and how many speaker/sub outputs they will include in what models as long as what they do include meets specs. Dolby has no interest in updating Atmos at this time. The R&D is finished and they'll probably go on to something else to stay frosty.


----------



## Mre_man

My apologies in advance if I'm posting this in the wrong thread but will any of the first iterations of Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros be able to process more than 4 over head speakers in a 7.2.x setup?


----------



## FilmMixer

Mre_man said:


> My apologies in advance if I'm posting this in the wrong thread but will any of the first iterations of Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros be able to process more than 4 over head speakers in a 7.2.x setup?


Yes.. the Trinnov Altitude... at a cost.


----------



## SubSolar

All this talk about monopoles, dipoles and bipoles have had me rethinking my side surround speaker choice. I was going to with these MartinLogan FX2's:









But now I'm thinking of going with Motion 15 or Motion 35XT's:

















I take it these traditional monopole speakers would be better at helping Atmos create pinpoint 3D sound, correct?

Should I get the 15 or 35XT? For some reason the cheaper 15 has more dispersion (80x80 vs 80x30), not sure if it's too much dispersion for Atmos. The more expensive 35XT goes down more (50 hz vs 60) and has a lower crossover (2,200 hz vs 2,700 hz), but does that matter if you have a subwoofer crossed at 80? The full specs are here:

http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/specs.php


----------



## Mre_man

SubSolar said:


> All this talk about monopoles, dipoles and bipoles have had me rethinking my side surround speaker choice. I was going to with these MartinLogan FX2's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now I'm thinking of going with Motion 15 or Motion 35XT's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it these traditional monopole speakers would be better at helping Atmos create pinpoint 3D sound, correct?
> 
> Should I get the 15 or 35XT? For some reason the cheaper 15 has more dispersion (80x80 vs 80x30), not sure if it's too much dispersion for Atmos. The more expensive 35XT goes down more (50 hz vs 60) and has a lower crossover (2,200 hz vs 2,700 hz), but does that matter if you have a subwoofer crossed at 80? The full specs are here:
> 
> http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/specs.php


I read somewhere inDolby's white papers that wide dispersion speakers is recommended for use with Dolby Atmos


----------



## Roger Dressler

SoundChex said:


> ONE extra foot of ceiling height results in a TWO foot longer travel distance from speaker to MLP.


Adding 1 foot of ceiling height adds 2 feet in travel only if the listener is co-located with the upfiring speaker. If one sits some 8' away, the path reflects off the ceiling at an angle. The path length increases more like 18" and that adds 1.3 ms to the trip. ChrisK was right about adding 1 ms. 

OTOH, his statement: >>The information from these speakers is ambient and *not used for imaging*.


----------



## westmd

If I would install in ceiling speakers in the rear and in the front according to the famous diagram would I then also good to go for Auro or do I need a different setup?


----------



## markus767

richmagnus said:


> I disagree. Tri polar speakers work extremely well as surround speakers. Far better than monopoles IMO.





David Susilo said:


> Maybe to you. However, as per Dolby and DTS recommendations, they only recommend monopoles.


Are we talking surround arrays or single surround speakers? Movie theaters use arrays and single omni-like surrounds at home are probably closer to the more diffuse presentation of those arrays.

Atmos objects on the other hand call for speakers with higher directivity.


----------



## miliotov

Would this Klipsch KS 7502 be ok to use as ceiling speaker in a Dolby Atmos set up??


----------



## westmd

Would it had a benefit if I would PEQ my two subwoofer separatly? They are in an absolute symetrical position (below the left and right front speaker) . E.g. When using the Trinnov I could assign one output to the left and one output to the right or I could go with a Y-adapter and can connect both subs to it!


----------



## markus767

westmd said:


> Would it had a benefit if I would PEQ my two subwoofer separatly?


Theoratically yes, but there's no easy procedure to do this by hand. Simply EQ them as one unit.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> OTOH, his statement: >>The information from these speakers is ambient and *not used for imaging*.


----------



## maikeldepotter

westmd said:


> If I would install in ceiling speakers in the rear and in the front according to the famous diagram would I then also good to go for Auro or do I need a different setup?


My guess is that such a setup could work for Auro-3d as long as the elevation angles stay below 40 degrees and the speakers are not firing straight down but slightly overhead MLP.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Pre-Pro question - I currently have a 7.1 amplifier in a 7.1 speaker setup. For my smaller man cave, I can see adding four height speakers, maximum, for a Dolby Atmos configuration.

I believe I will need a pre that can handle Dolby Atmos processing. Can I still use my 7.1 amplifier or do I need the equivalent power per channel? Will this be discrete channels (not matrixed)?


----------



## scarabaeus

Mre_man said:


> My apologies in advance if I'm posting this in the wrong thread but will any of the first iterations of Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros be able to process more than 4 over head speakers in a 7.2.x setup?


I'm not sure if the Marantz AV8802 Prepro (13.2 channels) will allow to reconfigure the wide pair to a third height pair. If so, you could decode 7.1.6 with it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Pre-Pro question - I currently have a 7.1 amplifier in a 7.1 speaker setup. For my smaller man cave, I can see adding four height speakers, maximum, for a Dolby Atmos configuration.
> 
> I believe I will need a pre that can handle Dolby Atmos processing. Can I still use my 7.1 amplifier or do I need the equivalent power per channel? Will this be discrete channels (not matrixed)?


You need a new pre-pro that will decode Atmos, one that allows for a 7.1.4 configuration. Those are the top of the line models currently. I've never heard of a 7.1 amplifier specifically. Do you mean a multi-channel amplifier that handles seven channels or do you mean you have a 7.1 _receiver _already? 

You'll need an additional five channel amp and then use four to power the ceiling speakers. 

Dolby Atmos uses discrete outputs, up to 34. This is not a matrixed format.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

scarabaeus said:


> I'm not sure if the Marantz AV8802 Prepro (13.2 channels) will allow to reconfigure the wide pair to a third height pair. If so, you could decode 7.1.6 with it.


From everything I've read, it seems like all the Atmos renderers attached to the big electronics manufacturers are limited at up to 7.1.4. Probably because they shoe-horned Atmos into already designed 7.1/9.1/11.1 models for their 2014 lines.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> I raised the same point. Don't you find it disturbing that the CTO of Audyssey doesn't understand how Atmos works, yet at the same time they (Audyssey) are implementing special algorithms to cater for Atmos?


To be fair, all he had to do was meet a Dolby spec for a target curve. It's not like he had to change the fundamental algorithm of MultEQ. 

There is some additional discussion on Facebook (Feri asked him about his comment pointing out that objects render in 3D) and Chris seems to be slipping into his coy mode. I asked him if he'd heard an Atmos demo and he said he had, but didn't volunteer any more info. I'm wondering if he just doesn't like Atmos but is being circumspect in order to not piss off any partners.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Pre-Pro question - I currently have a 7.1 amplifier in a 7.1 speaker setup. For my smaller man cave, I can see adding four height speakers, maximum, for a Dolby Atmos configuration.
> 
> I believe I will need a pre that can handle Dolby Atmos processing. Can I still use my 7.1 amplifier or do I need the equivalent power per channel? Will this be discrete channels (not matrixed)?


Use your 7.1 amp and add an additional 2ch amp for 7.1.2 or two, for 7.1.4. I use more powerful amps across the front (300 watt), where most of the heavy lifting is done, with 200 watt amps for the current surround channels, and also for the upcoming Atmos speakers on my ceiling. I have never encountered a situation where this has not been enough. (All power specs into 4 ohm loads).


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> You need a new pre-pro that will decode Atmos, one that allows for a 7.1.4 configuration. Those are the top of the line models currently. I've never heard of a 7.1 amplifier specifically. Do you mean a multi-channel amplifier that handles seven channels?
> 
> *You'll need an additional five channel amp and then use four to power the ceiling speakers. *
> 
> Dolby Atmos uses discrete outputs, up to 34. This is not a matrixed format.


He's already got a 7 channel amp. Or does he mean a 7 channel AVR? If he already has a 7 channel amp, then he only needs 4 additional channels of amplification.

If he means he has a 7 channel AVR, then that will have to go when he upgrades to Atmos, so I am not sure what he means, on reflection. If he buys, for example, the Denon X5200W, which is a 9 channel AVR, then he will need 4 more channels of amplification on top.

Or does he mean he wants to use an existing 7.1 AVR as the amp with a new Atmos processor?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> To be fair, all he had to do was meet a Dolby spec for a target curve. It's not like he had to change the fundamental algorithm of MultEQ.


True - I wasn't hinting that the Audyssey implementation will be flawed - just that I am surprised that a CTO of a company involved in room EQ for Atmos units apparently doesn't know that Atmos speakers are used for imaging. Maybe he should never have left AVS 



batpig said:


> There is some additional discussion on Facebook (Feri asked him about his comment pointing out that objects render in 3D) and Chris seems to be slipping into his coy mode. I asked him if he'd heard an Atmos demo and he said he had, but didn't volunteer any more info. I'm wondering if he just doesn't like Atmos but is being circumspect in order to not piss off any partners.


If he has heard an Atmos demo I am even more surprised that he doesn't know that Atmos speakers are for imaging!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> He's already got a 7 channel amp. Or does he mean a 7 channel AVR? If he already has a 7 channel amp, then he only needs 4 additional channels of amplification.
> 
> If he means he has a 7 channel AVR, then that will have to go when he upgrades to Atmos, so I am not sure what he means, on reflection. If he buys, for example, the Denon X5200W, which is a 9 channel AVR, then he will need 4 more channels of amplification on top.
> 
> Or does he mean he wants to use an existing 7.1 AVR as the amp with a new Atmos processor?


Yeah, that's what I was trying to verify in my previous post.  I've never heard of a *7.1* amplifier.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, that's what I was trying to verify in my previous post.  I've never heard of a *7.1* amplifier.


Quite - that slipped under my radar. I think between us we have covered all eventualities.  Maybe he will come back and clarify...


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, that's what I was trying to verify in my previous post.  I've never heard of a *7.1* amplifier.


Whoops - sorry about that. I meant a 7 channel amplifier - 7.1 configuration. (Teeny amp for the .1 )

My setup is as follows - Wyred4Sound 7.1 MMC (Seven channels - 221 wpc) - a Pioneer SC65 being used as a "Pre-Amp" with the Pioneer amp turned off. 

Instead of buying a new receiver, is it possible to have a Dolby Atmos decoder or something in the chain where I can turn on the Pioneer amp and use that for the new 4 Atmos speakers in a 7.1.4 configuration with the Wyred4Sound amplifer?

I'm trying to visualize the best solution that's also cost effective.

Much thanks - Rico.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Whoops - sorry about that. I meant a 7 channel amplifier - 7.1 configuration. (Teeny amp for the .1 )
> 
> My setup is as follows - Wyred4Sound 7.1 MMC (Seven channels - 220 wpc) - a Pioneer SC65 being used as a "Pre-Amp" with the Pioneer amp turned off.
> 
> Instead of buying a new receiver, is it possible to have a Dolby Atmos decoder or something in the chain where I can turn on the Pioneer amp and use that for the new 4 Atmos speakers in a 7.1.4 configuration with the Wyred4Sound amplifer?
> 
> I'm trying to visualize the best solution that's also cost effective.
> 
> Much thanks - Rico.


I can only see it working if you have multi-channel analog inputs on your SC65 and put it in PURE or DIRECT MODE and power your four ceiling speakers with its amps. However, that would be a b--ch to try and calibrate and level match. You would still need a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos pre-pro. Not exactly cheap, but if you have the funds...


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Whoops - sorry about that. I meant a 7 channel amplifier - 7.1 configuration. (Teeny amp for the .1 )
> 
> My setup is as follows - Wyred4Sound 7.1 MMC (Seven channels - 221 wpc) - a Pioneer SC65 being used as a "Pre-Amp" with the Pioneer amp turned off.
> 
> Instead of buying a new receiver, is it possible to have a Dolby Atmos decoder or something in the chain where I can turn on the Pioneer amp and use that for the new 4 Atmos speakers in a 7.1.4 configuration with the Wyred4Sound amplifer?
> 
> I'm trying to visualize the best solution that's also cost effective.
> 
> Much thanks - Rico.


You can keep your 7 channel amp and buy an Atmos processor, but the cheapest option is to buy an Atmos AVR. This will then give you 7 or 9 'spare' channels of amplification, so with your current 7 channel amp, you will have 14 or 16 amp channels in total to play with (more than you need) by mixing and matching them. That is the lowest cost option.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> I can only see it working if you have multi-channel analog inputs on your SC65 and put it in PURE or DIRECT MODE and power your four ceiling speakers with its amps. However, that would be a b--ch to try and calibrate and level match. You would still need a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos pre-pro. Not exactly cheap, but if you have the funds...


Much thanks. I think my setup is not that unusual out there. And, even 5.1 setups. 

If Dolby is looking for a bigger market - - they are going to have to find a way to make it economically and technically feasible to get their Dolby Atmos platform out to the masses. Otherwise - - it will be a product that only new buyers or audiophiles will seek. It doesn't make sense to throw out everything you have to make Dolby Atmos work for a HT setup. 

So (and please correct me if I'm wrong,) the most cost effective way for me to get there would be by replacing my Pioneer SC65 with a Dolby Atmos receiver - - like the new Marantz SR7009 (must have preouts!) and use the height channels from the Marantz for the additional 4 "height" channels.

Now - if you tell me that I need to exactly match the power specs to my amplifier - - Dolby Atmos is DOA as far as I'm concerned. I'll spend my money on an OLED TV or FALD LCD/LED (75" or greater) and retire my projector. 

I think of myself as an early adopter (which can be costly) - - but if the Dolby Atmos solution requires a radical change from your existing environment - - cost and setup wise - - I just do not see this happening for me and a lot of other people. 

Thx - Rick.


----------



## Helson

In my current 7.1 set up, I have towers for my main left and right fronts and for my rear surround back channels. (4 towers) These four speakers are all towed-in toward the MLP. My only desirable option, when upgrading to a Dolby Atmos system, would be to add four top-mounted modules , placed on the tops of these tower speakers. 
Is there a recommendation for how to angle these modules? Would it be correct to angle them the same as my towers? Or, would the set up software take care of all this?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Much thanks. I think my setup is not that unusual out there. And, even 5.1 setups.
> 
> If Dolby is looking for a bigger market - - they are going to have to find a way to make it economically and technically feasible to get their Dolby Atmos platform out to the masses. Otherwise - - it will be a product that only new buyers or audiophiles will seek. It doesn't make sense to throw out everything you have to make Dolby Atmos work for a HT setup.
> 
> So (and please correct me if I'm wrong,) the most cost effective way for me to get there would be by replacing my Pioneer SC65 with a Dolby Atmos receiver - - like the new Marantz SR7009 (must have preouts!) and use the height channels from the Marantz for the additional 4 "height" channels.
> 
> Now - if you tell me that I need to exactly match the power specs to my amplifier - - Dolby Atmos is DOA as far as I'm concerned. I'll spend my money on an OLED TV or FALD LCD/LED (75" or greater) and retire my projector.
> 
> I think of myself as an early adopter (which can be costly) - - but if the Dolby Atmos solution requires a radical change from your existing environment - - cost and setup wise - - I just do not see this happening for me and a lot of other people.
> 
> Thx - Rick.


I don't think you'll have a problem due to amp power mismatching unless you have a huge room that you have to fill with sound and the receiver's amps have to strain to power your speakers at a given volume (especially with lower ohm speakers). All the mid and upper level receivers have pre-outs. You could add another multi-channel power amp at a later date and then use the receiver as just a pre-amp again.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> I use more powerful amps across the front (300 watt), where most of the heavy lifting is done, with 200 watt amps for the current surround channels



I've gotten so used to having no distortion (from lack of power) that I can't bear to leave things as it is.
It's not that I listen at ridiculous levels, just goes to prove dynamic range is your friend and needs its own special attention.
I'm going to move up to 500w per channel driven, doubling my current output (L/C/R) for those extremely intense moments (Grenades, gun fire, bomb drops/explosions etc.) once I find an ATMOS capable AVR I'm happy with. Should clear everything nicely for that clean reproduction of the last bit of detail during those moments when things sound all too real.
Love it...


----------



## Al Sherwood

SubSolar said:


> All this talk about monopoles, dipoles and bipoles have had me rethinking my side surround speaker choice. I was going to with these MartinLogan FX2's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now I'm thinking of going with Motion 15 or Motion 35XT's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it these traditional monopole speakers would be better at helping Atmos create pinpoint 3D sound, correct?
> 
> Should I get the 15 or 35XT? For some reason the cheaper 15 has more dispersion (80x80 vs 80x30), not sure if it's too much dispersion for Atmos. The more expensive 35XT goes down more (50 hz vs 60) and has a lower crossover (2,200 hz vs 2,700 hz), but does that matter if you have a subwoofer crossed at 80? The full specs are here:
> 
> http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/specs.php





Mre_man said:


> I read somewhere inDolby's white papers that wide dispersion speakers is recommended for use with Dolby Atmos


 
From Dolby's white paper:


*Dolby recommends ceiling speakers with wide dispersion patterns. If you use ceiling speakers with narrow dispersion (less than 90 degrees x 90 degrees) or those with aimable drivers, angle the drivers slightly toward your listening position.* 



Klipsch makes a speaker similar to the Martin Logan FX2's, their S-20, it has two horn tweeters that operate in-phase therefore act as a monopole but with very wide dispersion due to their placement. Their small size and dispersion characteristics has me planning to try 4 of them in the ceiling.


----------



## Mre_man

Al Sherwood said:


> SubSolar said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about monopoles, dipoles and bipoles have had me rethinking my side surround speaker choice. I was going to with these MartinLogan FX2's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now I'm thinking of going with Motion 15 or Motion 35XT's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it these traditional monopole speakers would be better at helping Atmos create pinpoint 3D sound, correct?
> 
> Should I get the 15 or 35XT? For some reason the cheaper 15 has more dispersion (80x80 vs 80x30), not sure if it's too much dispersion for Atmos. The more expensive 35XT goes down more (50 hz vs 60) and has a lower crossover (2,200 hz vs 2,700 hz), but does that matter if you have a subwoofer crossed at 80? The full specs are here:
> 
> http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/specs.php
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mre_man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read somewhere inDolby's white papers that wide dispersion speakers is recommended for use with Dolby Atmos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Dolby's white paper:
> 
> 
> *Dolby recommends ceiling speakers with wide dispersion patterns. If you use ceiling speakers with narrow dispersion (less than 90 degrees x 90 degrees) or those with aimable drivers, angle the drivers slightly toward your listening position.*
> 
> 
> 
> Klipsch makes a speaker similar to the Martin Logan FX2's, their S-20, it has two horn tweeters that operate in-phase therefore act as a monopole but with very wide dispersion due to their placement. Their small size and dispersion characteristics has me planning to try 4 of them in the ceiling.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly except I'm leaning towards the Bic Acoustech line do to my budget. Which ever line I decide to go with it will be the whole series (for timbre matching purposes) and once the reviews come out on these new receivers I'll go with 4-6 surrounds to use as ceiling speakers (assuming that these new receivers can process more than 4 ceiling speakers).
Price (MSRP):
Design: Two-way three-component bookshelf/surround speakers. Flush wall mounts included.
Frequency Response: 40Hz-20kHz
Sensitivity: 96dB @ 1 watt, 1 meter
Drivers: One 6 1/2" high efficiency aluminum horn tweeter w/neodynium magnet, one 6 1/2" screen pressed long fiber woofer with heavy duty surround, one 5" x 7" passive radiator for extended bass output.
Magnetic Shielding: YES
Gold-Plated Terminals:YES
Recommended Power: 10-175 watts per channel
Impedance: 8 ohms
Dimensions: 10"H x 14"W x 7 1/4"D
Weight: 30 lbs. Pair (13.6 kg.)
Warranty: 5 Year Parts & Labor

We proudly introduce the new BIC/Acoustech Platinum Horn Series. Since 1973, BIC America has been known for offering top-rated, quality audio components at unprecedented low price points. Over the past several years, BIC Acoustech speakers have become recognized as a superb value in horn speakers for the home while offering extremely affordable pricing.

The high efficiency PL-66 bookshelf/surround speakers deliver performance with lush, crystal clear sound for both music and video, They offer angled cabinets which enable wide dispersion reflection throughout a room. Each speaker contains one 6 1/2" mid/high frequency aluminum dome horn tweeter with neodynium magnet, one 6 1/2" woofer with heavy duty surround, and one 5" x 7" passive radiator for extended bass output. All Acoustech Platinum Series speakers come in elegant enclosures with hand-rubbed black lacquer tops and bottoms. This extra step ensures each cabinet has a deep gloss shine that is more scratch resistant than many lacquer finishes on the market. Flush wall mounts included.


----------



## Mre_man

http://www.bicamerica.com/images/acoustech/full/PL-66.jpg


----------



## Mre_man

The new integra DTR 70.6 peaked my interest. Any thoughts?
http://www.wifihifi.ca/LatestNewsHeadlines/NewDolbyAtmosAVReceiversandProcessorfromIntegra.html#


----------



## Ricoflashback

I currently have Paradigm ADP 590's as Dipoles in my 7.1 setup. They have worked great in my smaller man cave theater. 

It sounds like Dolby Atmos is recommending direct firing speakers for the sides? Can I still use my Dipoles? Any difference in the sound?

If I buy a new receiver that is Dolby Atmos enabled - - it would be great to have a feature to use, for example, like a Marantz SR7009 for just the height speakers (4) and get extra power routed to them from the other channels. I do not know if this is technically feasible but I do know that I can turn on and turn off the "mains" as well as the "center" speaker for my Pioneer SC65. (They are all "off" right now with the amplifier I am using).

There is also a setting in the Pioneer SC65 to "Bi-Amp" the FL/FR speaker by changing the setting in the menu and using the Front Height (L/R) as well.

I guess I'm looking to see if the new Dolby Atmos receivers have this capability - - especially if you're coming from a "Pre-Pro" environment - - whether it be 5.1 or 7.1. 

It would be nice to use power from channels that are "turned off" into the channels you are using. Not sure if this is doable or not.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Mre_man said:


> The new integra DTR 70.6 peaked my interest. Any thoughts?
> http://www.wifihifi.ca/LatestNewsHeadlines/NewDolbyAtmosAVReceiversandProcessorfromIntegra.html#


Onkyo receivers can be "iffy" in my experience. They can run hot and some have had HDMI issues. 

Also - - if I read it correctly, there is a firmware "update" that has to happen to enable Dolby Atmos. I couldn't see the back of the receiver and it sounds like the Dolby Atmos can be software programmed into the receiver? I suppose you still have to have the requisite "channels" - for example, in a 7.1.4 setup - - extra connections for the FH/FW (ceiling?) speakers? 

Onkyo and Pioneer Electronics have merged - - so who knows how this will ultimately shake out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> From Dolby's white paper:
> 
> 
> *Dolby recommends ceiling speakers with wide dispersion patterns. If you use ceiling speakers with narrow dispersion (less than 90 degrees x 90 degrees) or those with aimable drivers, angle the drivers slightly toward your listening position.*
> 
> 
> 
> Klipsch makes a speaker similar to the Martin Logan FX2's, their S-20, it has two horn tweeters that operate in-phase therefore act as a monopole but with very wide dispersion due to their placement. Their small size and dispersion characteristics has me planning to try 4 of them in the ceiling.


Where does it say that they are wired in-phase? Most Klipsch surround speakers have, in the past, been based on THX's older dipole recommendations.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Ricoflashback said:


> If Dolby is looking for a bigger market - - they are going to have to find a way to make it economically and technically feasible to get their Dolby Atmos platform out to the masses. Otherwise - - it will be a product that only new buyers or audiophiles will seek. It doesn't make sense to throw out everything you have to make Dolby Atmos work for a HT setup.


It's not Dolby who gets Atmos to the masses, but their clients. I presume it's not economically viable to add a box costing the same as some AVR's anyway. The business is not there to make sure you can keep using your gear at infinitum, but rather to sell you a new black box on a regularly base. It's hardly a secret that the technology on the processor side moves very fast. If you want to keep up with that, you need to be prepared to replace it every couple years. Something to consider before overspending. IMO...


----------



## bargervais

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's not Dolby who gets Atmos to the masses, but their clients. I presume it's not economically viable to add a box costing the same as some AVR's anyway. The business is not there to make sure you can keep using your gear at infinitum, but rather to sell you a new black box on a regularly base. It's hardly a secret that the technology on the processor side moves very fast. If you want to keep up with that, you need to be prepared to replace it every couple years. Something to consider before overspending. IMO...


That's why I got the TX-NR 737 I didn't want to over spend on first generation receivers. I just wanted to get my feet wet to see how things develop.


----------



## bargervais

Mre_man said:


> My thoughts exactly except I'm leaning towards the Bic Acoustech line do to my budget. Which ever line I decide to go with it will be the whole series (for timbre matching purposes) and once the reviews come out on these new receivers I'll go with 4-6 surrounds to use as ceiling speakers (assuming that these new receivers can process more than 4 ceiling speakers).
> Price (MSRP):
> Design: Two-way three-component bookshelf/surround speakers. Flush wall mounts included.
> Frequency Response: 40Hz-20kHz
> Sensitivity: 96dB @ 1 watt, 1 meter
> Drivers: One 6 1/2" high efficiency aluminum horn tweeter w/neodynium magnet, one 6 1/2" screen pressed long fiber woofer with heavy duty surround, one 5" x 7" passive radiator for extended bass output.
> Magnetic Shielding: YES
> Gold-Plated Terminals:YES
> Recommended Power: 10-175 watts per channel
> Impedance: 8 ohms
> Dimensions: 10"H x 14"W x 7 1/4"D
> Weight: 30 lbs. Pair (13.6 kg.)
> Warranty: 5 Year Parts & Labor
> 
> We proudly introduce the new BIC/Acoustech Platinum Horn Series. Since 1973, BIC America has been known for offering top-rated, quality audio components at unprecedented low price points. Over the past several years, BIC Acoustech speakers have become recognized as a superb value in horn speakers for the home while offering extremely affordable pricing.
> 
> The high efficiency PL-66 bookshelf/surround speakers deliver performance with lush, crystal clear sound for both music and video, They offer angled cabinets which enable wide dispersion reflection throughout a room. Each speaker contains one 6 1/2" mid/high frequency aluminum dome horn tweeter with neodynium magnet, one 6 1/2" woofer with heavy duty surround, and one 5" x 7" passive radiator for extended bass output. All Acoustech Platinum Series speakers come in elegant enclosures with hand-rubbed black lacquer tops and bottoms. This extra step ensures each cabinet has a deep gloss shine that is more scratch resistant than many lacquer finishes on the market. Flush wall mounts included.


Is this an advertisement for bic america speakers. I have the same speakers I think they sound great.


----------



## FilmMixer

Ricoflashback said:


> Onkyo receivers can be "iffy" in my experience. They can run hot and some have had HDMI issues.
> 
> Also - - if I read it correctly, there is a firmware "update" that has to happen to enable Dolby Atmos.


Did you actually read it. 

"The other new models are slated to arrive in October, and _*will support Dolby Atmos out of the box.*_ Retailing for $2,600, the DTR-60.6 is a 9.2-channel receiver rated at 9x135 watts (20Hz-20kHz, 8Ω, 0.08% THD). It has eight HDMI inputs and three outputs, with support for Zone 2 HDMI and HDBaseT.

Priced at $3,200, the DTR-70.6 (shown at top of story) is an 11.2-channel receiver rated at 11x135 watts (20Hz-20kHz, 8Ω, 0.08% THD), with 11.2-channel pre-outs. Four channels can be assigned to Zones 2 and 3."

Only the lowest model will get Atmos via a FW update.


----------



## Nightlord

If they haven't fixed the hdmi problem for this generation, then we can probably give up on them permanently.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I raised the same point. Don't you find it disturbing that the CTO of Audyssey doesn't understand how Atmos works, yet at the same time they (Audyssey) are implementing special algorithms to cater for Atmos?


Not at all. Successfully following Dolby's instructions is feasible even if the underlying theory/operation is not understood.


----------



## Ricoflashback

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's not Dolby who gets Atmos to the masses, but their clients. I presume it's not economically viable to add a box costing the same as some AVR's anyway. The business is not there to make sure you can keep using your gear at infinitum, but rather to sell you a new black box on a regularly base. It's hardly a secret that the technology on the processor side moves very fast. If you want to keep up with that, you need to be prepared to replace it every couple years. Something to consider before overspending. IMO...


Understood. But that was the idea of going to a "Pre-Pro" environment - - keep my amplifier and upgrade the pre-amp.

And it is Dolby that has to enable its "clients" to get Atmos to the masses. If they are looking solely at a new market comprised of early adopters and well healed audiophiles - - good luck with that business model! 

It's not solely an issue of buying new equipment. It's everything else in the chain when you are considering Dolby Atmos.

So, what are the requirements for Dolby Atmos? More importantly, how economically and technically can Dolby Atmos reach the existing HT base? (Or better put, "How Easily Can My Home Theater Configuration Get To Dolby Atmos?")

Need a new receiver? Check. Need new speakers? Check. Integrate into existing environment? (Bipoles/Dipoles - can you use them or do you have to replace those?) 

Can you use it with your existing amplifier? Yes/No - you'll have add a new amplifier (matching) if you do not use your new receiver's channels - - which to me, makes more sense.

I'm not against spending the money for a new receiver - - but only if it provides an appreciable difference in the sound or listening enjoyment. 

Without the advent of Dolby Atmos - - there would be no reason, whatsoever, to even consider replacing my current equipment.

If it's just 5.1 or 7.1 - DTS/Dolby True HD - - then I'm set for some time. 

I understand the goal of manufacturers selling new equipment. And I appreciate that the technology on the processor sides moves very fast - - but without Dolby Atmos - - there really is no need to change your equipment if you're happy with what you have right now.

The real question that everyone will ask is (1) is Dolby Atmos worth the investment and (2) how much will it cost me?


----------



## Nightlord

Could be understood, but not regarded as the best you can do and thus following another line of thinking.


----------



## Nightlord

Ricoflashback said:


> The real question that everyone will ask is (1) is Dolby Atmos worth the investment and (2) how much will it cost me?


(3) will it be compatible with 4k blurays when they come?


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Much thanks. I think my setup is not that unusual out there. And, even 5.1 setups.
> 
> If Dolby is looking for a bigger market - - they are going to have to find a way to make it economically and technically feasible to get their Dolby Atmos platform out to the masses. Otherwise - - it will be a product that only new buyers or audiophiles will seek. It doesn't make sense to throw out everything you have to make Dolby Atmos work for a HT setup.
> 
> So (and please correct me if I'm wrong,) the most cost effective way for me to get there would be by replacing my Pioneer SC65 with a Dolby Atmos receiver - - like the new Marantz SR7009 (must have preouts!) and use the height channels from the Marantz for the additional 4 "height" channels.
> 
> Now - if you tell me that I need to exactly match the power specs to my amplifier - - Dolby Atmos is DOA as far as I'm concerned. I'll spend my money on an OLED TV or FALD LCD/LED (75" or greater) and retire my projector.
> 
> I think of myself as an early adopter (which can be costly) - - but if the Dolby Atmos solution requires a radical change from your existing environment - - cost and setup wise - - I just do not see this happening for me and a lot of other people.
> 
> Thx - Rick.


You don't need to match the power specs. And remember that you have to double the amp power to achieve a significant (3dB) difference anyway. One of the current Atmos AVRs will be all you need - use a combination of the internal amps and your external amps. Just make sure that the unit you decide on can use your 7 external amps for your listener level speakers and 4 of its internal amps for the Atmos speakers and you are good to go. If considering a Denon, I'd double check with batpig or JDSmoothie before buying.

The rest of the upgrade cost is 4 Atmos speaker modules to use with your existing speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Not at all. Successfully following Dolby's instructions is feasible even if the underlying theory/operation is not understood.


That's true. No need to understand how a cellphone works to be able to call your buddies. I am just surprised that someone whose job title includes the word _'Technical'_ fails to understand at this stage of the game that Atmos overhead speakers are not just for 'ambient sounds'. That sort of thing worries me  It makes me worry what else they don't understand.


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> (3) will it be compatible with 4k blurays when they come?


Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Priced at $3,200, the DTR-70.6 (shown at top of story) is an 11.2-channel receiver rated at 11x135 watts (20Hz-20kHz, 8Ω, 0.08% THD), with 11.2-channel pre-outs. Four channels can be assigned to Zones 2 and 3."


If that baby would have Audyssey MultEQ XT32 inside it would be awesome.
I'm sure it is still awesome though, but just less awesomeness.

* 11.2-channel Pre Outs; is that enough for a $3,200 machine?


----------



## Mre_man

Yea, not advertising for Bic but I'm in need for a serious home theater upgrade. My Sony receiver and 5.1 speaker setup is over 10 years old. No HDMI inputs. Been using my 70" sharp for my inputs for all Hdmi devices for the past 3 years. Think receiver is on it's last legs because the audio seems to break for a split second every other minute on average. As far as speakers go a 5.1 set for less than $1,100 seems very affordable to me. Think I can get a 7.1 setup plus 2 additional sets of surrounds to use as my ceiling speakers for about $1,800. Would gladly except some advice on 12 quality speakers within the $2,000 range.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> Why wouldn't it be?


Hdcp 2.2


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> Hdcp 2.2


And again, what does that have to do with audio codec support?


----------



## Ricoflashback

FilmMixer said:


> Did you actually read it.
> 
> "The other new models are slated to arrive in October, and _*will support Dolby Atmos out of the box.*_ Retailing for $2,600, the DTR-60.6 is a 9.2-channel receiver rated at 9x135 watts (20Hz-20kHz, 8Ω, 0.08% THD). It has eight HDMI inputs and three outputs, with support for Zone 2 HDMI and HDBaseT.
> 
> Priced at $3,200, the DTR-70.6 (shown at top of story) is an 11.2-channel receiver rated at 11x135 watts (20Hz-20kHz, 8Ω, 0.08% THD), with 11.2-channel pre-outs. Four channels can be assigned to Zones 2 and 3."
> 
> Only the lowest model will get Atmos via a FW update.


Yes, I did read it!  I wanted to know if the firmware "update model" already had the height speaker connections on the back panel like the Marantz SR7009. I couldn't see if from the web link you provided. 

I also thought that Dolby Atmos receivers would be identified with the trailing "Atmos" configuration - 7.1.2 or 7.1.4.

And if one is considering jumping into the Atmos world with a new receiver, you'll also have to look at the feature set, video wise. (4K upscaling/HDMI 2.0 spec) - - unless, of course, you upgrade your receiver every two years. 

Personally - - I like to get at least five years out of my equipment before looking at new products. My amplifier is a keeper and I see no reason not to keep it for well beyond five years.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> And again, what does that have to do with audio codec support?


If you cannot get picture, what need do you have for the audio?


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> If you cannot get picture, what need do you have for the audio?


You've lost me.... 

Your original comment was questioning whether 4K BR would support Atmos...

Of course it will..

What does copy protection have to do with any of this?


----------



## FilmMixer

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes, I did read it!  I wanted to know if the firmware "update model" already had the height speaker connections on the back panel like the Marantz SR7009. I couldn't see if from the web link you provided.


Yes... the 50.6 should be equivalent to the Onkyo 828 if it follows past product parity...

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR838&class=Receiver&source=prodClass

Here is the back panel....

http://www.onkyousa.com/imagesNew/receiver/tx-nr838/back_large.jpg


----------



## Manni01

FilmMixer said:


> You've lost me....
> 
> Your original comment was questioning whether 4K BR would support Atmos...
> 
> Of course it will..
> 
> What does copy protection have to do with any of this?


 
Nightlord is referring to the fact that most AVR models offering Atmos this year (bar a few Onkyos with limited HDMI 2.0b bandwidth) do not support HDCP 2.2, therefore won't be able to play Bluray 4K.


I agree it has nothing to do with the codec itself, but it's true that HDCP 2.2 is missing in most current Atmos implementations.


I also agree with the fact that Bluray 4K will support Atmos, no doubt about that.


----------



## FilmMixer

Manni01 said:


> Nightlord is referring to the fact that most models offering Atmos this year (bar a few Onkyos with limited HDMI 2.0 bandwidth) do not support HDCP 2.2, therefore won't be able to play Bluray 4K.


Got it now.. nothing to see here. 

I fully expect there to be Oppo dual output solutions for that issue however...


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> That's true. No need to understand how a cellphone works to be able to call your buddies. I am just surprised that someone whose job title includes the word _'Technical'_ fails to understand at this stage of the game that Atmos overhead speakers are not just for 'ambient sounds'. That sort of thing worries me  It makes me worry what else they don't understand.


Yes, absent Dolby's guidance, it can matter. Haven't we seen that amply demonstrated in DSX and Dynamic EQ? But we're about to veer O/T.


----------



## mry110

Is there anything available to test the Atmos setup once we get it hooked up? I'm hoping to have all my equipment by the middle of the month. I kind of hit the jackpot. I just sold my media equipment with my house and appear to have hit the perfect time to rebuild!


----------



## Al Sherwood

Mre_man said:


> The new integra DTR 70.6 peaked my interest. Any thoughts?
> http://www.wifihifi.ca/LatestNewsHeadlines/NewDolbyAtmosAVReceiversandProcessorfromIntegra.html#





NorthSky said:


> If that baby would have Audyssey MultEQ XT32 inside it would be awesome.
> I'm sure it is still awesome though, but just less awesomeness.
> 
> * 11.2-channel Pre Outs; is that enough for a $3,200 machine?



Yes a very nice unit, similar to the 3030, but alas both have AccuEQ, not Audyssey.


----------



## NorthSky

> The real question that everyone will ask is (1) is Dolby Atmos worth the investment and (2) how much will it cost me?


The real answer is to purchase a receiver or SSP equipped with Dolby Atmos, and install them correct four overhead, or up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers in your own room.

* You can check the sound with your two or four dipole speakers highly mounted on your side and back walls, but you should also check with four monopoles (direct-radiating) @ near ear level. ...As CEDIA would probably be set up that way. 

Or you can simply skip Dolby Atmos for a while; until you get more info and better products with the latest parameters, essential to Dolby Atmos' best performance, plus true HDCP 2.2 (true HDMI v.2.0), and perhaps some' new too from dts. ...And of course some material with Dolby Atmos encoding.

That's also why some people go low (cheap) with their first Dolby Atmos receiver, and some people even diy their own Dolby Atmos module speakers; or up-firing, or on-ceiling. 
- Invest not too much money @ the beginning just for experimenting in your own room @ home;
then based on your experimentation you'll know your next move, and when. 

But you'll never entirely know what's coming next, so anytime you make a move, someone else is two moves ahead of you. 

And no matter what there will always be some people @ anytime who invest larger than others in the newest audio/video technologies, in the now. ...And they'll upgrade, eventually, or not, to the next ones.


----------



## Manni01

FilmMixer said:


> Got it now.. nothing to see here.
> 
> I fully expect there to be Oppo dual output solutions for that issue however... and I'm not a big believer in the benefit of 4k...


 
I agree that 4K by itself (the resolution increase) doesn't bring much if your screen is 100" diag or less or if you sit more than 12 ft from your screen. But the benefit of what is likely to come with Bluray 4K (higher bit depth, larger gamut, better compression, better chroma upsampling) will be very visible even on smaller screens. Banding and compression artifacts annoy me more on bluray than the actual pixel resolution on my 88" diag.


That's why it's important to also make sure that the HDMI 2.0 bandwidth isn't limited, or you'll only get some of these goodies, HDCP 2.2 or not.


All 4K sources (Sony Puck/Brick, Oppo 4K or whatever) offer/will offer dual HDMI out to bypass AVRs not supporting 4K or HDCP 2.2, but that defeats the idea of getting a new AVR to be able to switch 4K inputs offering protected content.


In this regard even the Onkyos are useless (beyond the HDMI 2.0b limitation) as they only have one input and one output with HDCP 2.2 support.


So unfortunately there is currently no AVR offering Atmos and a modicus amount of future proofing.


This won't bother those who upgrade their AVRs every 1-2 years as we'll probably have wait until the end of 2015 to get to see the first Bluray 4K, but for those like me who like to keep their AVR for at least 3-5 years, it means we have to wait at least one more year to upgrade (or buy an expensive 4K scaler/processor to do the switching).


----------



## Al Sherwood

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where does it say that they are wired in-phase? Most Klipsch surround speakers have, in the past, been based on THX's older dipole recommendations.


Although this is a current offering I am not absolutely sure of this but their description support in phase tweeters (but I will check with Klipsch tomorrow). If need be I can change the wiring on one tweeter to achieve this... 


DUAL TRACTRIX® HORNS Align together for a 180-degree coverage pattern
WDST™ (WIDE DISPERSION SURROUND TECHNOLOGY) Provides maximum surround coverage and placement flexibility


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Got it now.. nothing to see here.
> 
> *I fully expect there to be Oppo dual output solutions for that issue however...*


I just knew that you were going to say that.  
...Good, but not good enough for everyone (not all people own an Oppo player, with them two HDMI Outs).


----------



## wse

I would rather buy an ATMOS AVR today and enjoy it and worry latter about 4K. My OPPO Blu Ray player will take care of that.

The AVR should only take care of sound from my perspective! If manufacturer if AVR would only concentrate on AUDIO and leave video to BluRay players we would be able to have much better quality for the same money.

In addition the back of these AR would look much simpler! Finally I wonder when are manufacturer going to drop all the analog video these are long gone so please get rid of them!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> If you cannot get picture, what need do you have for the audio?


I assume you believe that 4K Blurays will support Dolby TrueHD (and DTS-HD MA for that matter?). If that's so, then they will also support Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> Nightlord is referring to the fact that most AVR models offering Atmos this year (bar a few Onkyos with limited HDMI 2.0b bandwidth) do not support HDCP 2.2, therefore won't be able to play Bluray 4K.
> 
> 
> I agree it has nothing to do with the codec itself, but it's true that HDCP 2.2 is missing in most current Atmos implementations.


He wasn't asking if the AVRs would support HDCP 2.1 - he asked if 4k Blurays would. And obviously, they will, as Atmos is delivered by TrueHD.



Manni01 said:


> I also agree with the fact that Bluray 4K will support Atmos, no doubt about that.


Indeed.


----------



## NorthSky

There are so many ways to get exactly what we think we want, and not.

* Referring to post number 6011 just above.

_________

The essence is in the software (Dolby Atmos Software), and how intelligently and effectively
it was/will be mixed, recorded, and encoded.


----------



## Manni01

wse said:


> I would rather buy an ATMOS AVR today and enjoy it and worry latter about 4K. *My OPPO Blu Ray player will take care of that.*
> 
> *The AVR should only take care of sound from my perspective*! If manufacturer if AVR would only concentrate on AUDIO and leave video to BluRay players we would be able to have much better quality for the same money.
> 
> In addition the back of these AR would look much simpler! Finally I wonder when are manufacturer going to drop all the analog video these are long gone so please get rid of them!


This made sense when audio and video were conveyed through different cables, but not anymore with HDMI.


If you don't use the AVR for switching, why pay more for all the inputs? We only need ONE HDMI in.


If you do use the AVR to switch inputs, then it has to support audio and video.


Having to separate 4K sources from 2K sources also causes issues with calibration. If you have to bypass the AVR to connect the source directly to the display, it means you can't calibrate it outside of the display's possibilities (which are usually very limited). As no consumer display has a 3D LUT, it means that either you're lucky enough to have 3D LUT processing inside your source (I do, I use an HTPC with MadVR as my primary source), or you have to purchase a scaler/processor with 4K input and HDCP 2.2 support (which doesn't exist yet).


Of course if you only care about audio quality and don't care about/need any video calibration, or don't mind swapping physical discs, then you can happily bypass an incompatible AVR and use an Oppo or any source with dual HDMI out, and manually switch the cable everytime you want to switch the source.


But as far as I'm concerned, unless I upgrade to a display which doesn't need advanced calibration, I need either an AVR with HDCP 2.2 to do the switching, or a 4K scaler with HDCP 2.2 which will do the switching and send the audio to the AVR, wasting 6 or 7 HDMI inputs in the AVR that I've paid for... Again, these are expensive investments and I'm not willing to swap them every year.


Those who don't care about any of this are right to dive in with whatever is available today, and I envy them, but you can also accept that other users, despite their excitement with Atmos - I for one am really looking forward to trying it at home - will probably have to wait in order to be able to get a model compatible with upcoming 4K video sources and able to switch such protected sources. For me, that's the job of an AVR.


----------



## NorthSky

I fully agree with you Manni.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> I would rather buy an ATMOS AVR today and enjoy it and worry latter about 4K. My OPPO Blu Ray player will take care of that.
> 
> The AVR should only take care of sound from my perspective! If manufacturer if AVR would only concentrate on AUDIO and leave video to BluRay players we would be able to have much better quality for the same money.
> 
> In addition the back of these AR would look much simpler! Finally I wonder when are manufacturer going to drop all the analog video these are long gone so please get rid of them!


I totally agree I wish AVRs would have just stuck with audio and leave the video to TV's and blu-ray players. But here we are everyone trying to get in the video game if AVRs would have stuck to just the audio they would have more power for the audio.


----------



## Marcus Gan

Wrong post delete


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mry110 said:


> Is there anything available to test the Atmos setup once we get it hooked up? I'm hoping to have all my equipment by the middle of the month. I kind of hit the jackpot. I just sold my media equipment with my house and appear to have hit the perfect time to rebuild!


That's the $65,000 question: when are the first discs going to be ready? Perhaps right around CEDIA, maybe a little after... I hope.


----------



## wse

Manni01 said:


> This made sense when audio and video were conveyed through different cables, but not anymore with HDMI.
> 
> If you don't use the AVR for switching, why pay more for all the inputs? We only need ONE HDMI in. If you do use the AVR to switch inputs, then it has to support audio and video.
> 
> Having to separate 4K sources from 2K sources also causes issues with calibration. If you have to bypass the AVR to connect the source directly to the display, it means you can't calibrate it outside of the display's possibilities (which are usually very limited). As no consumer display has a 3D LUT, it means that either you're lucky enough to have 3D LUT processing inside your source (I do, I use an HTPC with MadVR as my primary source), or you have to purchase a scaler/processor with 4K input and HDCP 2.2 support (which doesn't exist yet).
> 
> Of course if you only care about audio quality and don't care about/need any video calibration, or don't mind swapping physical discs, then you can happily bypass an incompatible AVR and use an Oppo or any source with dual HDMI out, and manually switch the cable everytime you want to switch the source.
> 
> But as far as I'm concerned, unless I upgrade to a display which doesn't need advanced calibration, I need either an AVR with HDCP 2.2 to do the switching, or a 4K scaler with HDCP 2.2 which will do the switching and send the audio to the AVR, wasting 6 or 7 HDMI inputs in the AVR that I've paid for... Again, these are expensive investments and I'm not willing to swap them every year.
> 
> Those who don't care about any of this are right to dive in with whatever is available today, and I envy them, but you can also accept that other users, despite their excitement with Atmos - I for one am really looking forward to trying it at home - will probably have to wait in order to be able to get a model compatible with upcoming 4K video sources and able to switch such protected sources. For me, that's the job of an AVR.


Well to each their own!

For me I have two sources a Blu Ray Player and Apple TV and the Oppo goes straight to the projector so I don't need video technology through my AVR as a matter of fact in my primary system I use Classe SSP-800 which just passthrought the signal!


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> I totally agree I wish AVRs would have just stuck with audio and leave the video to TV's and blu-ray players. But here we are everyone trying to get in the video game if AVRs would have stuck to just the audio they would have more power for the audio.


Exactly my perspective, AVR would be called AR and have better Audio 

Of course one could just forget the AVR all together grab an OPPO BDP-105 with a good quality amp and be happy as a clam 

Hopefully the next OPPO will have 7.2.4 RCA pre out so we can have ATMOS


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Exactly my perspective, AVR would be called AR and have better Audio
> 
> Of course one could just forget the AVR all together grab an OPPO BDP-105 with a good quality amp and be happy as a clam
> 
> *Hopefully the next OPPO will have 7.2.4 RCA pre out so we can have ATMOS*


Here you go! :grin:

_________

* Question: 
When was the very first AV Receiver invented; what year, and which brand and model number was it?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> He wasn't asking if the AVRs would support HDCP 2.1 - he asked if 4k Blurays would. And obviously, they will, as Atmos is delivered by TrueHD.


The question was what to consider about getting Atmos, which equals getting an AVR/prepro. Unless you know another way to get Atmos?

I wasn't asking at all, I was giving another point to consider when buying Atmos (=an AVR).


----------



## markus767

wse said:


> Of course one could just forget the AVR all together grab an OPPO BDP-105 with a good quality amp and be happy as a clam
> 
> Hopefully the next OPPO will have 7.2.4 RCA pre out so we can have ATMOS


I'd even buy it with 5.1.2. They already have the hardware for that. It's "just" a software problem.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> I'd even buy it with 5.1.2. They already have the hardware for that. It's "just" a software problem.


You also need some sort of speaker calibration since this is more advanced than basic channel based audio. I'd hate to see the price for something like this... it's a player and pre-pro all in one.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> You also need some sort of speaker calibration since this is more advanced than basic channel based audio. I'd hate to see the price for something like this... it's a player and pre-pro all in one.


Just add a miniDSP 10x10. It would do room correction and bass management.


----------



## pletwals

wse said:


> Hopefully the next OPPO will have 7.2.4 RCA pre out so we can have ATMOS





markus767 said:


> I'd even buy it with 5.1.2. They already have the hardware for that. It's "just" a software problem.


I would like 9.2.6


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> The question was what to consider about getting Atmos, which equals getting an AVR/prepro. Unless you know another way to get Atmos?
> 
> I wasn't asking at all, I was giving another point to consider when buying Atmos (=an AVR).


You did ask. You asked "Will it [Atmos] be compatible with 4k blurays when they come?"

My apologies then. I thought you were making the point that Atmos might be incompatible somehow with 4K Blurays. Clearly it won’t, so 4K Bluray compatibility isn't really something that needs to be considered when buying an Atmos unit.

Edited to add words in red above.


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> My apologies then. I thought you were making the point that Atmos might be incompatible somehow with 4K Blurays. Clearly it won’t, so 4K isn't really something that needs to be considered when buying an Atmos unit.


 
4K is something to be considered when buying an Atmos unit as no model available this year except the Onkyos (which have other limitations, both on the audio and video side) will be able to pass-through 4K protected content due to the lack of HDCP 2.2, therefore they won't be compatible with Bluray 4K.


Some of us use or plan to use these AVRs for more than audio processing, i.e. 4K source switching. It's the only point we are trying to make.


It's not against Atmos, just against the current Atmos implementations, which are all a compromise as far as 4K content is concerned (due to either the lack of HDCP 2.2 in the D&M, Pioneer and Yamaha models or the limited HDMI 2.0b bandwidth in the Onkyos).


All of these 1st gen models have limitations with 4K content, so will have to be bypassed or replaced. The fact that Bluray 4K supports Atmos has nothing to do with these limitations in the current AVRs. If you can't play Bluray 4K, you won't get Atmos from bluray 4K with these AVRs, even if Bluray 4K supports Atmos (which is a given). Unless you bypass the AVR for video and only feed them with audio from a second HDMI out from each source, which means switching 4K sources manually or using another device (HDCP 2.2 compatible switch or scaler) to switch them if you have more than one.


----------



## markus767

pletwals said:


> I would like 9.2.6


That certainly would be nice but requires new hardware. 5.1.2 could probably be done with current hardware:










The number of Atmos outputs could be a nice idea for Oppo to differentiate between player models.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> 4K is something to be considered when buying an Atmos unit as no model available this year except the Onkyos (which have other limitations, both on the audio and video side) will be able to pass-through 4K protected content due to the lack of HDCP 2.2, therefore they won't be compatible with Bluray 4K.
> 
> 
> Some of us use or plan to use these AVRs for more than audio processing, i.e. 4K source switching. It's the only point we are trying to make.
> 
> 
> It's not against Atmos, just against the current Atmos implementations, which are all a compromise as far as 4K content is concerned (due to either the lack of HDCP 2.2 in the D&M, Pioneer and Yamaha models or the limited HDMI 2.0b bandwidth in the Onkyos).
> 
> 
> All of these 1st gen models have limitations with 4K content, so will have to be bypassed or replaced.


I agree that if 4K is important to you then it is a consideration when buying any new AVR, Atmos or not. The question asked was "will Atmos work with 4K Blurays?" and the answer is, "of course it will", as Atmos is delivered by TrueHD. It is inconceivable that 4K Blurays would not be compatible with TrueHD, therefore the issue of 4K Blurays "working" with Atmos is not relevant. (I have edited my earlier post to include the words "4K Bluray compatibility" when saying that [it] was not relevant to the purchase of an Atmos AVR right now. 

IOW, 4K is relevant, but 4L Bluray compatibility is not.

This is what was asked:



Nightlord said:


> (3) will it be compatible with 4k blurays when they come?


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that if 4K is important to you then it is a consideration when buying any new AVR, Atmos or not. The question asked was "will Atmos work with 4K Blurays?" and the answer is, "of course it will", as Atmos is delivered by TrueHD. It is inconceivable that 4K Blurays would not be compatible with TrueHD, therefore the issue of 4K Blurays "working" with Atmos is not relevant.
> 
> This is what was asked:


 
And this was a completely relevant question.


The question was not "will Atmos be supported by Bluray 4K", we all know and agree it will, as Bluray 4K will support DTS-HD and has support for up to 32 discrete audio channels anyway thanks to HDMI 2.0.


The question was "will it -* the AVR, not Atmos* - work (be compatible) with 4K bluray players", and the answer is for most, no. You will not be able to play your 4K bluray through most of the current Atmos AVRs because most of them do not support HDCP 2.2. Therefore they are NOT compatible with Bluray 4K (and other sources with protected 4K content, like a UHDTV set top box or the Sony 4K servers), and will not be able to switch them.


The only thing they will be able to do is to play the Atmos track (or any track) if fed audio separately from a second HDMI out from the source.


So if you plan to have only one 4K protected source and don't mind connecting it directly to the display, that's a non issue.


If you plan to be able to switch 4K sources playing protected content, it is an issue and you have to either wait for a model with HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0a or compromise audio and/or video quality (HDCP 2.2 but no Audyssey and HDMI 2.0b only with the Onkyos, or no HDCP 2.2 but HDMI 2.0a with the others and Audyssey XT32 on top with the Denons).


You don't care about this because you plan to buy a cheap (well, relatively  ) model and swap it next year, which is a perfectly valid choice, but for those who want to buy something for the next 3-5 years, that's not an option.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> And this was a completely relevant question.
> 
> 
> The question was not "will Atmos be supported by Bluray 4K", we all know and agree it will, as Bluray 4K will support DTS-HD and has support for up to 32 discrete audio channels anyway.
> 
> 
> The question was "will these AVRs work with 4K blurays", and the answer is for most, no. You will not be able to play your 4K bluray through these AVRs because most of them do not support HDCP 2.2. Therefore they are NOT compatible with Bluray 4K, and will not be able to switch them.


 
IDK which question you are looking at. Here is the question I was looking and, and to which I replied:



Nightlord said:


> (3) will it [Atmos] be compatible with 4k blurays when they come?


You will note that the question of 4K compatibility is with reference to *Bluray discs*, not AVRs.


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK which question you are looking at. Here is the question I was looking and, and to which I replied:
> 
> 
> 
> You will note that the question of 4K compatibility is with reference to *Bluray discs*, not AVRs.


You are misconstruing the question by adding atmos. Nightlord has already confirmed that this is not what he meant. He meant AVR, not Atmos. See my post above.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> My apologies then. I thought you were making the point that Atmos might be incompatible somehow with 4K Blurays. Clearly it won’t, so 4K Bluray compatibility isn't really something that needs to be considered when buying an Atmos unit.


 I fail to see any logic. If your future BD-player refuses to send data to your Atmos AVR, what else than "incompatible" would you label it?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK which question you are looking at.


This is what my post was adding to:



Ricoflashback said:


> The real question that everyone will ask is (1) is Dolby Atmos worth the investment and (2) how much will it cost me?


----------



## westmd

*Stormaudio processors*



Manni01 said:


> So unfortunately there is currently no AVR offering Atmos and a modicus amount of future proofing..


I am getting very much into the *Stormaudio* products. Even they are quite expensive they are still much cheaper and much more affordable then Trinnov and Datasat. Let me quickly tell you what I found out so far. 

In general they have two models the *SSP12-3D* which features 12 freely configurable non-symetrical channels and the *SSP16-3D* which features 16 freely configurable symetrical channels. Both processors from the inside completely the same except that the SSP16-3D offers an upgrade board with 16 additional channels. They both have four HDMI in and one HDMI out (can be upgraded to double the amount). HDMI is 1.4 but once available your get an *HDMI 2.0 board fully compliant for €80!!!*

Currently they both feature a very well designed PEQ but no automatic room correction, but this has been announced as an upgrade for Dec 2014! It is rumoured that they will use DIRAC but nothing is confirmed yet. Dolby Atmos will come as an upgrade Feb 2015. Neither pricing for atmos and room ED has been announced yet.

Now for pricing the *SSP12-3D is from 8,000€ (MSRP excl. VAT) (* the *SSP16-3D is from 10,000€ (MSRP excl. VAT*. price differences come mainly from different outer designs and not by technical features!

The setup is completely done via an IP adress. I have attached a screenshot for speaker management. All other setups (input, PEQ, test noises, etc.) are in exactly the sane fashion. I think these units look very promising and once more details are out for Atmos and automatic EQ they are definitely worth a look at.

Mor info on www.stormaudio.com


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> You are misconstruing the question by adding atmos. Nightlord has already confirmed that this is not what he meant. He meant AVR, not Atmos. See my post above.


No, I am not misconstruing anything. Here is the exchange:










As you can see, the "it" clearly refers to Atmos. There is no mention of AVRs.

So please excuse me for reading what he wrote and not what he meant.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> (3) will it be compatible with 4k blurays when they come?





Nightlord said:


> I fail to see any logic. If your future BD-player refuses to send data to your Atmos AVR, what else than "incompatible" would you label it?


Atmos will be compatible with 4K Blurays. Period. If your AVR can't handle 4K Blurays, then nothing will be compatible with 4K Blurays.


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> No, I am not misconstruing anything. Here is the exchange:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the "it" clearly refers to Atmos. There is no mention of AVRs.
> 
> So please excuse me for reading what he wrote and not what he meant.





kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos will be compatible with 4K Blurays. Period. If your AVR can't handle 4K Blurays, then nothing will be compatible with 4K Blurays.


 
First English is not his native language, second he has since made it very clear what he meant, but for some reason you keep ignoring it.


You are debating something that is not in question. Atmos will be compatible with 4K blurays.


If you want your AVR to be able to switch/passthrough a 4K bluray player or any other 4K source with protected content, you need the AVR to support HDCP 2.2. which at the moment only the new Onkyos do (with other limitations).


Most of the current crop of Atmos AVRs do not support HDCP 2.2, therefore most of them will not switch/passthrough content from a Bluray 4K player or any other source with 4K protected content (i.e. movies).


Do you agree with this?


If you don't you probably have an agenda and/or are trying to win an argument instead of looking for the truth, so I'll happily let you win .


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> No, I am not misconstruing anything. Here is the exchange:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the "it" clearly refers to Atmos. There is no mention of AVRs.
> 
> So please excuse me for reading what he wrote and not what he meant.


 I'm rather sure he wasn't planning to buy Dolby, but of course that would be a way to invest in Atmos...


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> Do you agree with this?
> 
> 
> If you don't you probably have an agenda and/or are trying to win an argument instead of looking for the truth, so I'll happily let you win .


I have made my point clearly. Nothing more to add. Atmos is not incompatible with 4K Bluray discs.


----------



## Nightlord

And everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701.


----------



## markus767

I did some measurements on a full range 4" driver to find out how the direct sound is affected by the recessed mounting which creates a "barrier" for the direct sound. The Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers don't have that barrier so it doesn't seem to be a mandatory design feature.

I've found if the ear can see the speaker cone (even partially) then the barrier doesn't have a significant effect (


----------



## smurraybhm

Nightlord said:


> And everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701.


That's another reason most of us by Oppo blu-ray players. The AVR 4k discussion is past silly. Those of us early adopters of Atmos receivers have a number of options for watching 4k content when the time comes. I for one won't be upgrading my display until my VT60 dies - plasma does too many things right and I don't have the room for a projector/100" screen. OLED is a few years away from prime-time/cost. By the way Oppo is not the only player with dual outputs. 

If one is that worried about 4k blu-ray the solution is easy, sit this year, maybe two out. The reasons why AVR manufactures went with the HDMI configurations the way they did this year have been explained in detail and made perfect sense. It isn't a given things will change next year either.


----------



## ss9001

Nightlord said:


> And everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701.


assuming there will ever be a 4K blu-ray 

Sony is not doing well financially (continuing to lose large amounts of money) & if they don't have the money for development or converting pressing/mastering facilities, then you may be waiting "awhile" since they are 1) a major BD Assoc member 2) the main developer of BD and 3) Sony Digital Audio Disc Corp is one of the major pressing plants for BD's.

I read an online article written in May 2014 on the business side of 4K BD and the article wasn't very encouraging that we'll see 4K BD anytime soon.

IMO, since there is literally no major 4K content 2 yrs after launching 4K TV's, except for proprietary Sony media servers that only work with Sony TV/PJ, and until there is a one chip solution for HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 that supports all the features of HDMI 2.0 (none exist now), there is no reason to wait for what may take several more years to become available.




*
*


----------



## ss9001

smurraybhm said:


> *The AVR 4k discussion is past silly.* Those of us early adopters of Atmos receivers have a number of options for watching 4k content when the time comes.


you hit it. 

*if a 4K BD disc format is ever developed* and when 4K BD players with HDCP 2.2 become available, just get one with dual outputs - problem solved.

people should be careful for what they ask for because based on what I've read, HDCP 2.2 is NOT going to be fully backwards compatible to previous versions...IIRC, versions prior to HDCP 2.0. this is unlike all previous HDCP updates and means that every piece of gear will have to support HDCP 2.2. meaning your existing UHDTV or more likely 1080p TV that you own may become obsolete. It also means you probably couldn't phase in to 4K gradually using an existing HDTV with HDMI 1.3/1.4 that had versions of HDCP older than 2.0. 

if you read the details about HDCP 2.2, it'll give you pause. it could be a mixed blessing because of the possibility of not being backwards compatible with older HDTV's. you may end up being forced to upgrade your TV as well as the BD player for it to even work with 1080p.

at least that's my interpretation of what I've seen written about 2.2. I tried to find information on what versions of HDCP are in the various versions of HDMI and never found references. if someone more knowledgeable than me knows differently about compatibility & versions, feel free to correct me.

personally, I'd rather enjoy Atmos NOW and not worry about disc based 4K until there's publicized plans for introducing it. then deal with it when the time & interest hits me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> And everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701.


 This doesn’t just apply to Atmos AVRs. Anyone buying an AVR today will have to ascertain if it meets his future needs. It has nothing to do with Atmos. Atmos will be delivered by TrueHD on 4K bluray discs and some units will be able to play 4K and some won't.


----------



## Nightlord

smurraybhm said:


> That's another reason most of us by Oppo blu-ray players. The AVR 4k discussion is past silly. Those of us early adopters of Atmos receivers have a number of options for watching 4k content when the time comes. I for one won't be upgrading my display until my VT60 dies - plasma does too many things right and I don't have the room for a projector/100" screen. OLED is a few years away from prime-time/cost. By the way Oppo is not the only player with dual outputs.


What good will dual outputs do? I assume hdcp2.2 will handshake with the receiver before sending any audio as well as it would to for the video?

And for us with projector, it's not very appealing to have to run several long cables to it AND have to switch channel on the projector as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> assuming there will ever be a 4K blu-ray
> 
> Sony is not doing well financially (continuing to lose large amounts of money) & if they don't have the money for development or converting pressing/mastering facilities, then you may be waiting "awhile" since they are 1) a major BD Assoc member 2) the main developer of BD and 3) Sony Digital Audio Disc Corp is one of the major pressing plants for BD's.
> 
> I read an online article written in May 2014 on the business side of 4K BD and the article wasn't very encouraging that we'll see 4K BD anytime soon.
> 
> IMO, since there is literally no major 4K content 2 yrs after launching 4K TV's, except for proprietary Sony media servers that only work with Sony TV/PJ, and until there is a one chip solution for HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 that supports all the features of HDMI 2.0 (none exist now), there is no reason to wait for what may take several more years to become available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *



Yes, good points. It doesn’t make much sense to worry about compatibility with something that isn't currently here, may never be here and if it ever is here, we will probably by then have changed our gear more than once anyway.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> some units will be able to play 4K and some won't.


Which was the reason for my original comment. It's needed to be evaluated before investing in Atmos (=an AVR). _Are we done dancing now?_


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's the $65,000 question: when are the first discs going to be ready? Perhaps right around CEDIA, maybe a little after... I hope.


Amen... it better be soon... DTS Neo-X had minimal software, and whilst listening to some raindrops and helicopter flyby scenes is cute, the novelty will wear off unless we get real titles...


----------



## Manni01

ss9001 said:


> you hit it.
> 
> *if a 4K BD disc format is ever developed* and when 4K BD players with HDCP 2.2 become available, just get one with dual outputs - problem solved.
> 
> people should be careful for what they ask for because based on what I've read, HDCP 2.2 is NOT going to be fully backwards compatible to previous versions...IIRC, versions prior to HDCP 2.0. this is unlike all previous HDCP updates and means that every piece of gear will have to support HDCP 2.2. meaning your existing UHDTV or more likely 1080p TV that you own may become obsolete. It also means you probably couldn't phase in to 4K gradually using an existing HDTV with HDMI 1.3/1.4 that had versions of HDCP older than 2.0.
> 
> if you read the details about HDCP 2.2, it'll give you pause. it could be a mixed blessing because of the possibility of not being backwards compatible with older HDTV's. you may end up being forced to upgrade your TV as well as the BD player for it to even work with 1080p.
> 
> at least that's my interpretation of what I've seen written about 2.2. I tried to find information on what versions of HDCP are in the various versions of HDMI and never found references. if someone more knowledgeable than me knows differently about compatibility & versions, feel free to correct me.
> 
> personally, I'd rather enjoy Atmos NOW and not worry about disc based 4K until there's publicized plans for introducing it. then deal with it when the time & interest hits me.


It doesn't make any sense to worry about 4K compatibility if you haven't already upgraded your display to a 4K/UHD model (hopefully an HDCP 2.2 compatible one) or plan to do so within the next few months.


HDCP 2.2 is not only needed for Bluray 4K. It will likely be a requirement to switch/passthrough any 4K source with protected content, i.e. UHDTV setboxes, mediaservers from Sony, Samsung, etc, basically any 4K source that will play 4K commercial movies. So one source with dual HDMI out might cut it for now, but when you have a second source, what do you do? There are usually only 2 HDMI in in most projectors at most, so you're stuck.

Of course if you're happy swapping AVRs every 1-2 years enjoy this first gen of products and replace them later. Just be aware that their resale value will DROP when people will realise that they won't play any upcoming 4K protected source, especially if by that time Bluray 4K is more of a reality.


And yes, unfortunately the whole point is that as you upgrade to 4K, the whole chain (display, AVR, source, switch) needs to support HDCP 2.2 to be able to play 4K protected sources.


So if you're not ready to upgrade the whole chain starting with your display, stick to 1080p sources and buy/keep any HDMI 1.4 AVR. You don't need "4K" or HDMI 2.0 support in the AVR as it is pointless without HDCP 2.2 (except for your own camcorder footage and Youtube videos).


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Which was the reason for my original comment. It's needed to be evaluated before investing in Atmos (=an AVR). _*Are we done dancing now?*_


Was that your hand I felt on my a$$ just now? LOL. 

Sure. I was only ever replying to the point about 4K *bluray discs* and Atmos. I think we can leave the floor now and take our place at the bar...  My round...


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> Was that your hand I felt on my a$$ just now? LOL.
> 
> Sure. I was only ever replying to the point about 4K *bluray discs* and Atmos. I think we can leave the floor now and take our place at the bar...  My round...


I'll pour the drinks


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Amen... it better be soon... *DTS Neo-X had minimal software,* and whilst listening to some raindrops and helicopter flyby scenes is cute, the novelty will wear off unless we get real titles...


Three discs. But there's no real comparison between upmixed content and a brand new codec like Atmos. To create those 3 Neo:X optimized discs, the studio had to remix the movies. With Atmos movies, the work was already done for the commercial theater release. Dolby said that discs would be available in time for CEDIA, with more to come for Christmas and more still in the new year. I have no reason to disbelieve them.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> I'll pour the drinks


Mine's a pint of nice, warm English beer thanks


----------



## sdrucker

westmd said:


> I am getting very much into the *Stormaudio* products. Even they are quite expensive they are still much cheaper and much more affordable then Trinnov and Datasat. Let me quickly tell you what I found out so far.
> 
> In general they have two models the *SSP12-3D* which features 12 freely configurable non-symetrical channels and the *SSP16-3D* which features 16 freely configurable symetrical channels. Both processors from the inside completely the same except that the SSP16-3D offers an upgrade board with 16 additional channels. They both have four HDMI in and one HDMI out (can be upgraded to double the amount). HDMI is 1.4 but once available your get an *HDMI 2.0 board fully compliant for €80!!!*
> 
> Currently they both feature a very well designed PEQ but no automatic room correction, but this has been announced as an upgrade for Dec 2014! It is rumoured that they will use DIRAC but nothing is confirmed yet. Dolby Atmos will come as an upgrade Feb 2015. Neither pricing for atmos and room ED has been announced yet.
> 
> Now for pricing the *SSP12-3D is from 8,000€ (MSRP excl. VAT) (* the *SSP16-3D is from 10,000€ (MSRP excl. VAT*. price differences come mainly from different outer designs and not by technical features!
> 
> The setup is completely done via an IP adress. I have attached a screenshot for speaker management. All other setups (input, PEQ, test noises, etc.) are in exactly the sane fashion. I think these units look very promising and once more details are out for Atmos and automatic EQ they are definitely worth a look at.
> 
> Mor info on www.stormaudio.com


They don't have a North American distributor, unfortunately:
http://www.stormaudio.com/en/distributors/

However, it would be interesting if Dirac was included (at a price, I take it) as an upgrade, as well as Atmos as an future option, since the Storm Audio units would then compete directly against the pricier Datasat RS20i. Big if's but who knows.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> They don't have a North American distributor, unfortunately:
> http://www.stormaudio.com/en/distributors/
> 
> However, it would be interesting if Dirac was included (at a price, I take it) as an upgrade, as well as Atmos as an future option, since the Storm Audio units would then compete directly against the pricier Datasat RS20i. Big if's but who knows.


Looks good. And way cheaper than their alternatives. Hmmm...


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Looks good. And way cheaper than their alternatives. Hmmm...


But no Atmos yet, and just PEQ at the moment. If the PEQ element changes....and you already have a Trinnov MC 16 channel unit with digital DB25 input, the 16 channel version might have some appeal since it can have DB25 digital out (not sure if the connectors match). But there aren't many people with the latter.

However if Atmos and if scalable multichannel Dirac...and priced less than Datasat....then it looks better. Definitely superior to the XMC-1 with no 3D codec and limited to 7.1.


----------



## westmd

sdrucker said:


> They don't have a North American distributor, unfortunately:
> http://www.stormaudio.com/en/distributors/
> 
> However, it would be interesting if Dirac was included (at a price, I take it) as an upgrade, as well as Atmos as an future option, since the Storm Audio units would then compete directly against the pricier Datasat RS20i. Big if's but who knows.


Dolby Atmos for sure as this was specifically announced on their website! Room EQ also, but which is the question? Apperently a room EQ with an existing library (so no new development) and one which runs on SHARC DSP's, that was the statement from Stormaudio. A distributor I was talking to has both companies, Datasat and Storm for sale and says now already without automatic room EQ both are comparable and Storm is way cheaper then Datasat!


----------



## SoundChex

sdrucker said:


> They don't have a North American distributor, unfortunately: http://www.stormaudio.com/en/distributors/
> 
> However, it would be interesting *if Dirac was included* (at a price, I take it) as an upgrade, as well as Atmos as an future option, since the Storm Audio units would then compete directly against the pricier Datasat RS20i. Big if's but who knows.





*The Auro-3D® Mensa™* *Integrated 3D Sound Processor - Full 3D Audio + 3D Video AV Processor* (_link_)



> _"The Auro-3D® Mensa™ includes features such as Dirac Live® room optimization, [...]"_








Also, info about the *The Auro-3D® Crux™ Integrated 3D Sound Processor - Full 3D Audio + 3D Video AV Processor* (_link_)

_


----------



## RUR

SoundChex said:


> *The Auro-3D® Mensa™* *Integrated 3D Sound Processor - Full 3D Audio + 3D Video AV Processor* (_link_)
> 
> Also, info about the *The Auro-3D® Crux™ Integrated 3D Sound Processor - Full 3D Audio + 3D Video AV Processor* (_link_)
> 
> _


"Exclusively designed for Auro Technologies by Datasat Digital Entertainment..."

Odd that Datasat would design another company's product which directly competes with their own RS20. We'll need more details, esp. price, in order to make a proper comparison.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Manni01 said:


> 4K is something to be considered when buying an Atmos unit as no model available this year except the Onkyos (which have other limitations, both on the audio and video side) will be able to pass-through 4K protected content due to the lack of HDCP 2.2, therefore they won't be compatible with Bluray 4K.
> 
> 
> Some of us use or plan to use these AVRs for more than audio processing, i.e. 4K source switching. It's the only point we are trying to make.
> 
> 
> It's not against Atmos, just against the current Atmos implementations, which are all a compromise as far as 4K content is concerned (due to either the lack of HDCP 2.2 in the D&M, Pioneer and Yamaha models or the limited HDMI 2.0b bandwidth in the Onkyos).
> 
> 
> All of these 1st gen models have limitations with 4K content, so will have to be bypassed or replaced. The fact that Bluray 4K supports Atmos has nothing to do with these limitations in the current AVRs. If you can't play Bluray 4K, you won't get Atmos from bluray 4K with these AVRs, even if Bluray 4K supports Atmos (which is a given). Unless you bypass the AVR for video and only feed them with audio from a second HDMI out from each source, which means switching 4K sources manually or using another device (HDCP 2.2 compatible switch or scaler) to switch them if you have more than one.



Agreed!


I want/need the AVR to not only support HDCP 2.2 but process/pass full bandwidth (18 Gbps) video as well, oh yes, and provide full Atmos 7.1.4 processing with 11 channels of amplification as well... too much to ask? In the rush to bring a product to market that can handle Dolby Atmos, these guys are hoping we didn't notice a few short comings in the 2014 line up.


Forgetting (for now) the lack of Audyssey, the Onkyo TX-NR3030 comes very close, IIRC only missing the full bandwidth video capability


----------



## scarabaeus

ss9001 said:


> people should be careful for what they ask for because based on what I've read, HDCP 2.2 is NOT going to be fully backwards compatible to previous versions...IIRC, versions prior to HDCP 2.0.


HDCP 1.4 and HDCP 2.2 are going to be parallel implementations on the HDMI interface. The source device can initiate the handshake in either one of the two, depending on the requirements of the content. An input that supports HDCP 2.2 handshake will most likely still retain the previous HDCP 1.4 implementation, so that it can accept protected content from "legacy" devices (for the forseeable future, approx. 99.9% of all HDMI devices fall into this "legacy" category).

HDCP 1.x was the original HDCP system for wired interfaces such as HDMI. The latest version is HDCP 1.4.

HDCP 2.x was developed to allow for wireless interfaces and is similar, but incompatible to HDCP 1.x. Version HDCP 2.2 added the capability to run on HDMI interfaces as well.

Also, most 2160p ("4K") content is going to be 30 Hz or less for quite some time.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> And everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701.


The entitlement mentality, where you're never responsible for your own actions.


Nightlord said:


> Which was the reason for my original comment. It's needed to be evaluated before investing in Atmos (=an AVR). _Are we done dancing now?_


Instead of continuing to dance, you should hold off investing in Atmos. Waiting for a few years, until the 4k dust settles, would allow you to buy with confidence.


----------



## ss9001

scarabaeus said:


> HDCP 1.4 and HDCP 2.2 are going to be parallel implementations on the HDMI interface. The source device can initiate the handshake in either one of the two, depending on the requirements of the content. An input that supports HDCP 2.2 handshake will most likely still retain the previous HDCP 1.4 implementation, so that it can accept protected content from "legacy" devices (for the forseeable future, approx. 99.9% of all HDMI devices fall into this "legacy" category).
> 
> HDCP 1.x was the original HDCP system for wired interfaces such as HDMI. The latest version is HDCP 1.4.
> 
> HDCP 2.x was developed to allow for wireless interfaces and is similar, but incompatible to HDCP 1.x. Version HDCP 2.2 added the capability to run on HDMI interfaces as well.
> 
> Also, most 2160p ("4K") content is going to be 30 Hz or less for quite some time.


Thank you for the info & clarifications!

It was concerning what I found out several months ago not knowing that there was going to be a workaround in the implementation. Thankfully, the CE companies aren't throwing older devices under the bus.

Much obliged!


----------



## ss9001

sdurani said:


> Instead of continuing to dance, you should hold off investing in Atmos. Waiting for a few years, until the 4k dust settles, would allow you to buy with confidence.


+1

Each has to make that decision.

I have been down this path on the video side and decided to hold off another 1-2 yrs until 1) OLED is more mainstream & affordable (>65" 4K OLED) or 2) more dust settles on what image enhancement features are eventually going to be in UHD. 

However, Atmos is something we can implement & enjoy now. Speakers, AVR & content. We're 2/3 there already and soon will have the 3rd piece. 

If someone wants to hold off until there is a 4K Blu-ray, that's fine & maybe a good decision for them but, based on the response in this thread, isn't a negative for the many enthusiasts here.

By the time a ubiquitous 4K delivery system is created, many of us will have swapped gear or won't have a problem in upgrading gear. 

Maybe by the time I'm ready to buy a new display, a 4K Blu-ray may be real, not just wishful thinking.


----------



## Manni01

scarabaeus said:


> Also, most 2160p ("4K") content is going to be 30 Hz or less for quite some time.


I guess "quite some time" is a relative concept .


The first UHDTV broadcasts, which requires 10 bits at 50/60hz in rec709 for the fisrt stage, are planned for 2016. That's kind of tomorrow in my book (I replace my AVR every 3-5 years). But for a yearly swapper, I guess it's "quite some time" .


Note that even the Onkyos with HDCP 2.2 support (only on one input/one output sadly) won't accept such signals due to the bandwidth limitation in their cut-down HDMI 2.0 chipsets (10.2 Gb, same as HDMI 1.4, with a max at YCB 420 8 bits at 50/60hz).


So better forget about 4K altogether if you buy an AVR this year. If you don't already have an HDCP 2.2 protected source like the Sony 4K servers, then you probably have a good 1-2 years before it's obsolete. Also HDCP 2.2 requires hardware support, there is no f/w upgrade that provides it unless the hardware is already there (which isn't the case for the current crop of non Onkyo AVRs).


----------



## Manni01

Al Sherwood said:


> Forgetting (for now) the lack of Audyssey, the Onkyo TX-NR3030 comes very close, IIRC only missing the full bandwidth video capability


 
Unfortunately the Onkyos only support HDCP 2.2 on one input and one output, which makes them just as useless to switch 4K protected sources as the Denons. That plus the limited bandwidth and the lack of Audyssey made me decide to sit them out as well.


----------



## westmd

RUR said:


> "Exclusively designed for Auro Technologies by Datasat Digital Entertainment..."
> 
> Odd that Datasat would design another company's product which directly competes with their own RS20. We'll need more details, esp. price, in order to make a proper comparison.


Problem is Datasat charges quite a bit of money for the upgrades! The Auro upgrade to the existing SSP16 from *Stormaudio* is 1,000€ whilst *Datasat* charges 2,700€!
As DIRAC is for Datasat as an upgrade 3,700€ I hope that in correlation Storm would not charge more then 2,000€ if it will become tgeir room EQ!


----------



## Manni01

ss9001 said:


> +1
> 
> Each has to make that decision.
> 
> I have been down this path on the video side and decided to hold off another 1-2 yrs until 1) OLED is more mainstream & affordable (>65" 4K OLED) or 2) more dust settles on what image enhancement features are eventually going to be in UHD.
> 
> However, Atmos is something we can implement & enjoy now. Speakers, AVR & content. We're 2/3 there already and soon will have the 3rd piece.
> 
> If someone wants to hold off until there is a 4K Blu-ray, that's fine & maybe a good decision for them but, based on the response in this thread, isn't a negative for the many enthusiasts here.
> 
> By the time a ubiquitous 4K delivery system is created, many of us will have swapped gear or won't have a problem in upgrading gear.
> 
> Maybe by the time I'm ready to buy a new display, a 4K Blu-ray may be real, not just wishful thinking.


 
4K Bluray is not more or less real than Atmos content at this stage. But 4K protected content is already here. Bluray 4K is just one of the possible upcoming 4K sources (mediaservers, UHDTV, etc). 

While I really like Atmos and will implement it and wire for it when I redo my room in a few months, I'm not sure you'll get more Atmos content over the coming year than there is 4K content already available which requires HDCP 2.2.


So waiting one year to implement Atmos with a properly featured AVR ready to play 4K protected content (which is already there and will increase over next year), or jump in early when there is no Atmos content at all, and at best a hundred movies over the next year, I guess it's pretty equal.


I bought my 3311 in 2010, when 3D was settled and HDMI 1.4 was finalized, and I upgraded my display and all my sources (I'm an enthusiast too!  ). I'll do the same with 4K, starting with the display, but all the components I buy have to support the already published requirements (mainly HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0a and HEVC).


I guess you're happy to be at the forefront of the audio wave only. When upgrading looking at both the video and audio improvements, one needs to get a bit more cautious as the costs are not the same.


It's a very exciting but also very frustrating time unless you have very deep pockets.


In the end, it's a personal decision, entirely agree with that. Those going for audio first will upgrade their AVR now and will think about 4K later. Those thinking video first have upgraded their display to 4K already (or are about to do so) and will have to wait until next year for an AVR upgrade (unless they're happy to swap AVRs at a frenetic pace).


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Instead of continuing to dance, you should hold off investing in Atmos. Waiting for a few years, until the 4k dust settles, would allow you to buy with confidence.


Oh, rest assure that I will, I will be needing 13.1.6 myself anyway. This is about making sure no one else ends up in a trap. 

We're not all self-centered, y'know. (None in particular pointed finger at)


----------



## RUR

westmd said:


> Problem is Datasat charges quite a bit of money for the upgrades! The Auro upgrade to the existing SSP16 from *Stormaudio* is 1,000€ whilst *Datasat* charges 2,700€!
> As DIRAC is for Datasat as an upgrade 3,700€ I hope that in correlation Storm would not charge more then 2,000€ if it will become tgeir room EQ!


Yes, you're preaching to the choir as I follow these high-end processors, and their pricing, closely. Assuming a lower price would only serve to re-phrase and emphasize the hypothetical question: Why is Datasat apparently helping to provide a similarly featured, _lower priced_ alternative to their own product?

We need more detail, including _official_ pricing, to make a fair comparison.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> This is about making sure no one else ends up in a trap.


Appreciate you saving us from ourselves, but most folks in this thread understand what comes with being an early adopter in this hobby. Your idea of a "trap" is their idea of enjoying Atmos for a few years while you wait. Don't get me wrong, waiting can be a fun hobby, but it's not for everyone.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Manni01 said:


> Unfortunately the Onkyos only support HDCP 2.2 on one input and one output, which makes them just as useless to switch 4K protected sources as the Denons. That plus the limited bandwidth and the lack of Audyssey made me decide to sit them out as well.


Really, only one input? I can possibly understand one output, but all inputs need/should be capable too.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Appreciate you saving us from ourselves, but most folks in this thread understand what comes with being an early adopter in this hobby. Your idea of a "trap" is their idea of enjoying Atmos for a few years while you wait. Don't get me wrong, waiting can be a fun hobby, but it's not for everyone.


Well, I don't believe it will be 'a couple of years' as the bd-press machine that handles more layers is available, I doubt they have plans to wait a few years before they sell any... My thinking is that 4k bluray and the players for it are planned for christmas 2015.


----------



## kokishin

Al Sherwood said:


> Really, only one input? I can possibly understand one output, but all inputs need/should be capable too.


Only input 3 supports HDCP 2.2 on the Onkyo and Integra.


----------



## Manni01

Al Sherwood said:


> Really, only one input? I can possibly understand one output, but all inputs need/should be capable too.


 
Believe me, I'm with you, but as Kokishin said, only input 3 (and main output) support HDCP 2.2 on the Onkyos.


That's the sad reality of this first gen. Audio and/or video compromises, acceptable for some, not acceptable for others.


All enthusiasts though


----------



## westmd

RUR said:


> We need more detail, including _official_ pricing, to make a fair comparison.


At least prices for Auro upgrade are from the official current pricelists as given to me by one dealer who has both Datasat as well as Stormaudio in his portfolio! One mistake I made I just realized is that one was with and the other price without VAT, so here corrected orizes:

*Datasat Auro upgrade 2,000€ *
*Stormaudio Auro upgrade 1,000€*

(both values now without VAT)

Still question remains why is Datasat charging double for the same licence?


----------



## mry110

For those of you with a deeper understanding of Atmos, are the Def Tech BP-8060STs going to be any good in an Atmos setup? I'm concerned about the rear firing part of the speaker mucking up the timing.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kokishin said:


> Only input 3 supports HDCP 2.2 on the Onkyo and Integra.





Manni01 said:


> Believe me, I'm with you, but as Kokishin said, only input 3 (and main output) support HDCP 2.2 on the Onkyos.
> 
> 
> That's the sad reality of this first gen. Audio and/or video compromises, acceptable for some, not acceptable for others.
> 
> 
> All enthusiasts though


 
Well then I guess that I wait then, I have yet to build the actual Atmos HT setup so 'they' have time...


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> The entitlement mentality, where you're never responsible for your own actions.


We're deep into the nerdishness and quite a few of us isn't or hasn't been aware of the hdcp implication. If you go to a store, you won't be told about it. The business is trying to trick people to get in now and then have to upgrade. Just as the 4k tv sets being sold now most likely won't be able to show 4k once the bd-discs come, and all but a very limited nerdset will have ways to show 4k contents. 

So trying to hit me over the head and leaving those in need of help without - that don't impress me much. If you have information, it's your responsibility to make it known. Information wants to be free.

People can't ask questions they don't know to ask. Saying they have to be responsible about their choices means that everyone has to be an expert about everything, not even an engineer can be that.


----------



## westmd

I was just trying to find it, did DATASAT ever officially announce Dolby Atmos support for the LS10 in the future?


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> My thinking is that 4k bluray and the players for it are planned for christmas 2015.


And you feel that enjoying Atmos until Christmas of 2015 is some sort of "trap"? I don't understand why you're "making sure" no one else ends up in a trap when others aren't "making sure" you adopt Atmos right away? Why don't you want them to enjoy Atmos until the 4k situation is resolved?


----------



## smurraybhm

Nightlord - You really think those of us on AVS are going to be tricked? Your continued rant about this is being made to the wrong audience, but since you're in Sweden it would be tough to stand out in front of a Best Buy with a sign  Not that most of their customers would know what your talking about. As others have said, we are well aware of the limitations of this year's receivers (and I would bet next year for most too) and as Steve said I would rather enjoy Atmos for the next few years instead of waiting for a decision to be made on yet another HDMI standard and its implementation. Besides 4k will offer little benefit to those who buy displays (and those shiny disks if they happen) based on what most people buy for display sizes and the distance they sit from it. As a computer monitor now your talking.


----------



## RUR

westmd said:


> Still question remains why is Datasat charging double for the same licence?


I've no idea, but lower Storm pricing only amplifies my original question.



westmd said:


> I was just trying to find it, did DATASAT ever officially announce Dolby Atmos support for the LS10 in the future?


I've seen nothing official anywhere, only strictly unofficial guesses.

Meanwhile, does anyone know if the Storm SSD 16-3D and SSD 12-3D are one and the same as Mensa/Crux? I have pricing for the former.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Saying they have to be responsible about their choices means that everyone has to be an expert about everything, not even an engineer can be that.


No, it simply means owning your decision. It has to do with a mindset where you tell yourself that you're not responsible for your own actions, someone else is. That mindset even permeates attempts at humor ("everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701"). Someone else is responsible for a decision you made. Someone else should pay for a decision you made. You're entitled to it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So you're saying....

If I buy that Yamaha 3040 that I really, really, _really_ want and then I go broke I *can't* blame it on all of you for making me so damn interested in Atmos that I went broke doing it?

Hmph!


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> So you're saying....
> 
> If I buy that Yamaha 3040 that I really, really, _really_ want and then I go broke I *can't* blame it on all of you for making me so damn interested in Atmos that I went broke doing it?
> 
> Hmph!


Since this thread is so OT anyway...

Scott, 

Why do you prefer the Yamaha 3040 over the Denon X5200? Just want your input since I am going to buy an Atmos AVR soon (which seems On Topic).


----------



## Nightlord

smurraybhm said:


> Nightlord - You really think those of us on AVS are going to be tricked? Your continued rant about this is being made to the wrong audience


Well, the audience of this thread is everyone capable of googling in English.  Not just AVS members.

I'll shut up now, but I won't accept anyone saying later "why didn't you say something?".


----------



## kokishin

Nightlord said:


> And everyone buying an Atmos AVR today and can't watch their 4K blurays in the future will get a full refund from kbarnes701.


I missed the memo! Keith is offering a buyer protection plan? Sign me up! [j/k]


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> +1
> 
> Each has to make that decision.
> 
> I have been down this path on the video side and decided to hold off another 1-2 yrs until 1) OLED is more mainstream & affordable (>65" 4K OLED) or 2) more dust settles on what image enhancement features are eventually going to be in UHD.
> 
> However, Atmos is something we can implement & enjoy now. Speakers, AVR & content. We're 2/3 there already and soon will have the 3rd piece.
> 
> If someone wants to hold off until there is a 4K Blu-ray, that's fine & maybe a good decision for them but, based on the response in this thread, isn't a negative for the many enthusiasts here.
> 
> By the time a ubiquitous 4K delivery system is created, many of us will have swapped gear or won't have a problem in upgrading gear.
> 
> Maybe by the time I'm ready to buy a new display, a 4K Blu-ray may be real, not just wishful thinking.


Agreed. Personally 4K is of very little interest to me right now. I would need a much larger screen to be able to benefit much from the higher resolution and my room won't accommodate that anyway. Not to mention lack of content 2 years after 4K was released into the wild. By the time 4K units are at current 2K prices, I will have probably swapped my AVR anyway.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> If I buy that Yamaha 3040 that I really, really, _really_ want and then I go broke I *can't* blame it on all of you for making me so damn interested in Atmos that I went broke doing it?


Last I heard, kbarnes701 will refund you the cost. Or, since you weren't an expert, you can ask Nightlord to accept responsibility for your decision.


Nightlord said:


> I won't accept anyone saying later "why didn't you say something?".


Well so much for that idea.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> Since this thread is so OT anyway...
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Why do you prefer the Yamaha 3040 over the Denon X5200? Just want your input since I am going to buy an Atmos AVR soon (which seems On Topic).


Don't get me wrong. The X5200 looks like a suhweet piece of gear. It would be my next choice if I did not get the Yamaha.

I just have had a long time love for Yamaha processors in general. They are always very good and have had a good track record for reliability and such. I also am a fan of their CinemaDSP technology.



sdurani said:


> Last I heard, kbarnes701 will refund you the cost. Or, since you weren't an expert, you can ask Nightlord to accept responsibility for your decision. Well so much for that idea.


Lol!

Alright then. Credit card debt, here I come! 

Keith, get ready to send that check. Nightlord, get ready for some blame.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Appreciate you saving us from ourselves, but most folks in this thread understand what comes with being an early adopter in this hobby. Your idea of a "trap" is their idea of enjoying Atmos for a few years while you wait. Don't get me wrong, waiting can be a fun hobby, but it's not for everyone.


Definitely. I want Atmos as soon as I can get it (and my Denon may be here next week so my dealer says!). I don't care if I have to replace the unit in 18-24 months time. I am an early adopter and that is the price of entry into that club. I get excited by having stuff before it becomes mainstream and, for me, it is part of the enjoyment. I also understand why some want to wait, but waiting is, for me, boring.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I also am a fan of their CinemaDSP technology.


I just vomited a little in my mouth.


----------



## RichB

Al Sherwood said:


> Agreed!
> 
> 
> I want/need the AVR to not only support HDCP 2.2 but process/pass full bandwidth (18 Gbps) video as well, oh yes, and provide full Atmos 7.1.4 processing with 11 channels of amplification as well... too much to ask?



In 2014: You prayers have been answered and the answer is No.
In 2015: You should find what you are looking for.


- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> And you feel that enjoying Atmos until Christmas of 2015 is some sort of "trap"? I don't understand why you're "making sure" no one else ends up in a trap when others aren't "making sure" you adopt Atmos right away? Why don't you want them to enjoy Atmos until the 4k situation is resolved?


OMG. For me, the idea of waiting until *Christmas next yea*r is totally utterly out of the question! What - when some have Atmos right now, and I will wait until the end of this year, through the following new year, on to Easter, then summer, then fall - and still not be enjoying my Atmos at home - and then on to Christmas 2015! NFW!!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I missed the memo! Keith is offering a buyer protection plan? Sign me up! [j/k]


Hahaha. First year premium for this exceptional level of protection is just $999. Sign up now while this introductory price lasts!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> I just vomited a little in my mouth.


I only mentioned it for this very effect.

It worked.


----------



## wse

Here is the competition 


* Trinnov Audio partners with Auro Technologies to Bring Immersive Sound in 3D to Home Cinema *





Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
















*Trinnov Audio Partners with Auro Technologies to Bring Immersive Sound in 3D to Home Cinema*








Trinnov Audio announced today a partnership agreement with Auro Technologies. The agreement integrates the Auro Technologies’ software into the new and leading Trinnov 3D AV Preamplifier Altitude32 and will enable to bring the Auro-3D® immersive sound format within the reach of consumers. A sneak preview of the result of this cooperation will be offered at the Auro Technologies booth at IFA Berlin and at CEDIA Expo Denver.









_"Working with Trinnov Audio, pioneer in the field of 3D research, will allow everyone to enjoy the most immersive Auro-3D® sound experience at home. We’re looking forward to expand this relationship by cooperating on other ground-breaking products in the years to come"_, said Wilfried Van Baelen, CEO of Auro Technologies.

Already in 2001, Trinnov Audio achieved the world’s first high-spatial-resolution 3D sound chain from 3D-recording to 3D-reproduction over 24 loudspeakers and has since then, been continuously contributing to 3D audio at the highest scientific level, with a portfolio of over 50 patents.

Auro Technologies are the creators of the Auro-3D® format, which has revolutionised the cinema industry with true 3D sound, called immersive sound. This exciting move from two-dimensional Surround sound (5.1/7.1) format to Auro-3D® is a break-through achieved by adding the missing third dimension of height in front of and all around the listener. The unique Auro-3D® speaker layouts deliver an immersive and captivating sound experience around the listener and represent the next step in sound evolution.







_"We shaped the Altitude32 leaving nothing to chance: high channel count, huge processing capabilities to meet the highest technical requirements, and exclusive patented technologies to unleash the full potential of immersive sound, regardless of formats and speaker layouts, turning the Altituted32 into a real 3D sound virtuoso. The Altitude32 will place the listener in a cocoon of natural sound, allowing the listener to be doused in a new world of immersive sound with Auro-3D®,"_ said Arnaud Laborie, Trinnov Audio’s CEO.

The flexible room correction system of the Altitude32, i.e. its capacity to virtually reposition the speakers to the recommended positions to compensate for room shape constraints, optimises spatial accuracy and immersion and allows a maximum flexibility in the installation and system design.

Moreover, thanks to its capability to manage any number of subwoofers and up to 4-ways speakers, the Trinnov Altitude32 is the ideal partner to demonstrate the real immersive 3D sound experience of Auro Technologies and leaves the high resolution audio transmitted via the Auro-Codec® intact.

This latest announcement is part of Auro Technologies’ strategy to bring the Auro-3D® experience out of the cinema and directly to the consumer, via home cinema, gaming, car and mobile platforms.

A preview of the Altitude32 will be available at the Auro Technologies demo room in Hall 25, booth 147 at IFA – Berlin – from 5 till 10 September 2014 – and in the HPA room 702 & 704 at CEDIA Expo – Denver – from 10 till 13 September 2014.

*About Auro Technologies*
Auro Technologies is a spin-off of the Galaxy Studios Group and owner of the Auro-3D® Technology Suite. The Auro-3D® Concept and Listening Formats are designed by Wilfried Van Baelen, founder and CEO of Galaxy Studios and Auro Technologies. Galaxy Studios is renowned worldwide for its state-of-the-art leadership in audio innovation for music and sound for film. The Auro-3D® suite offers ground-breaking, easy-to-use and unprecedented levels of sound reproduction capabilities to the professional, automotive, broadcast and consumer electronics markets (such as gaming, smart phones, multimedia PC, notebooks, tablets, audio players, digital TV, media libraries and packaged media). For more information, visit the Auro-3D® website.


















PRESS CONTACTS  Trinnov Audio, Arnaud Destinay 
[email protected] / +33 (0) 1 47 06 61 37 
   TRINNOV Audio 

*FRANCE: *5 rue Edmond Michelet - 93360 Neuilly Plaisance / *USA:* Curt Hoyt - Huntington Beach - CA 92649 Copyright © 2014 - Trinnov Audio, all rights reserved.
Send to a friend / Unsubscribe / Manage preferences 

_© Trinnov Audio, all rights reserved
Dolby®, Dolby Atmos® and the double-D symbol are trademarks of Dolby Laboratories._​


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^

Hmm, yeeesssss.

Do it. Then make it affordable. Profit.


----------



## westmd

RUR said:


> Meanwhile, does anyone know if the Storm SSD 16-3D and SSD 12-3D are one and the same as Mensa/Crux? I have pricing for the former.


I will be in Berlin on the IFA next Saturday and will try to find something out! What is the US pricing?


----------



## wse

westmd said:


> I will be in Berlin on the IFA next Saturday and will try to find something out! What is the US pricing?


At least $20,000 tell us how it sounds


----------



## RUR

westmd said:


> I will be in Berlin on the IFA next Saturday and will try to find something out! What is the US pricing?


I have UK only, no VAT. If that helps, shoot me a PM.


----------



## jacovn

westmd said:


> Problem is Datasat charges quite a bit of money for the upgrades! The Auro upgrade to the existing SSP16 from *Stormaudio* is 1,000€ whilst *Datasat* charges 2,700€!
> As DIRAC is for Datasat as an upgrade 3,700€ I hope that in correlation Storm would not charge more then 2,000€ if it will become tgeir room EQ!


I was quoted 1200€ for the Auro3D license, but when I told the dealer it was very overpriced, he said he would take the cost. So very easy 1200 discount if you want to see it that way.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Hmm, yeeesssss.
> 
> Do it. Then make it affordable. Profit.


And people keep worrying about _Atmos_ content...


----------



## dschulz

RUR said:


> I've no idea, but lower Storm pricing only amplifies my original question.
> 
> 
> I've seen nothing official anywhere, only strictly unofficial guesses.
> 
> Meanwhile, does anyone know if the Storm SSD 16-3D and SSD 12-3D are one and the same as Mensa/Crux? I have pricing for the former.


The Mensa and Crux are both Datasat designs for Auro Technologies. The Auro Auriga is, I believe, derived from one of the Storm Audio products.


----------



## dschulz

westmd said:


> As DIRAC is for Datasat as an upgrade 3,700€


Dirac Live is included with all RS20i processors, and is not available in the LS10, so I'm not sure what upgrade price you're referring to. Unless you're thinking of the Dirac Kit that Datasat sells to dealers and installers for calibrating systems.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

dschulz said:


> The Mensa and Crux are both Datasat designs for Auro Technologies. The Auro Auriga is, I believe, derived from one of the Storm Audio products.












Yes, The Auro Auriga is a Storm Audio made AVR. It has 13x200 Watt class D amps inside and sells in Holland for €14,950 incl VAT (€12,355 excl).

Ofcourse, since it's made exclusively for Auro,it's doubtful that Atmos can be processed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> And people keep worrying about _Atmos_ content...


Right but I don't look at Auro3D anymore for *native* content.

As it is there is absolutely zero Atmos content on the consumer level.

I am interested in more in the upmixer.


----------



## smurraybhm

sdurani said:


> I just vomited a little in my mouth.


Don't sugarcoat your true feelings 
Your post almost made me gag.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> I will be in Berlin on the IFA next Saturday and will try to find something out! What is the US pricing?





Scott Simonian said:


> Right but I don't look at Auro3D anymore for *native* content.
> 
> As it is there is absolutely zero Atmos content on the consumer level.
> 
> I am interested in more in the upmixer.


Yes, but at least we know for certain that Atmos Blurays are on the way.

I agree that the upmixing is really important and will be for some time to come. I have 1,400 or more discs here, and - so far - none of them is Atmos. As my new Denon X4100W is possibly going to arrive next week, and as my ceiling speakers are now installed, I will soon know how good DS is on my legacy discs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sanjay was holding back.

He was really like:



Spoiler















Then wiped his mouth off with Logic7 perfection.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, but at least we know for certain that Atmos Blurays are on the way.
> 
> I agree that the upmixing is really important and will be for some time to come. I have 1,400 or more discs here, and - so far - none of them is Atmos. As my new Denon X4100W is possibly going to arrive next week, and as my ceiling speakers are now installed, I will soon know how good DS is on my legacy discs.


Oh hell yeah! You ordered the Denon. 

Can't wait to hear your impressions of it and the Dolby Surround upmixer.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, but at least we know for certain that Atmos Blurays are on the way.
> 
> I agree that the upmixing is really important and will be for some time to come. I have 1,400 or more discs here, and - so far - none of them is Atmos. As my new Denon X4100W is possibly going to arrive next week, and as my ceiling speakers are now installed, I will soon know how good DS is on my legacy discs.



Since Keith's not only an early adaptor but a True Believer in Atmos, and he'll have an interval to wait for Atmos BluRays to arrive at his doorstep, his next task is to see how those 1400+ discs sound with the Dolby Surround upmixer and listen to them...one by one....and note where the height effects and sense of immersion are most noticeable. We expect regular updates here LOL.


----------



## Frohlich

I just want to say "I HATE YOU ATMOS". 

You are like the pretty cheerleader in high school. I want you so bad just not sure how to go about doing it. I just finished my room a couple of years ago and feel like going with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers is a huge hassle to run the wires and install. I am in the basement so I can't just go up into the attic to run my wires...or anything like that. I fee like doing the front Atmos speaker modules that sit on top of the front L/R speakers isn't going to do it full justice. Guess I will watch Cedia for new offerings and keep thinking about how to tackle this for my room


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh hell yeah! You ordered the Denon.


Yep. I am getting the first one in the UK!



Scott Simonian said:


> Can't wait to hear your impressions of it and the Dolby Surround upmixer.


Same here. I will be posting those early impressions, you can be sure. Any particular discs you're interested in? I thought I’d test first of all with Blurays of movies that were mixed in Atmos - can’t wait to hear Gravity and the Gollum cave scene. Then I'll try with something with really good sound - maybe one of Michael Bay's Transformers movies. And then with some older content that still holds up well - eg The Rock or Con Air etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Since Keith's not only an early adaptor but a True Believer in Atmos, and he'll have an interval to wait for Atmos BluRays to arrive at his doorstep, his next task is to see how those 1400+ discs sound with the Dolby Surround upmixer and listen to them...one by one....and note where the height effects and sense of immersion are most noticeable. We expect regular updates here LOL.


 See my post to Scott. Already workin' on it...


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> I just want to say "I HATE YOU ATMOS".
> 
> You are like the pretty cheerleader in high school. I want you so bad just not sure how to go about doing it. I just finished my room a couple of years ago and feel like going with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers is a huge hassle to run the wires and install. I am in the basement so I can't just go up into the attic to run my wires...or anything like that. I fee like doing the front Atmos speaker modules that sit on top of the front L/R speakers isn't going to do it full justice. Guess I will watch Cedia for new offerings and keep thinking about how to tackle this for my room


I spent the weekend running wires through my ceiling. PITA but worth it. And once it's done, it's done.

But I wouldn't rule out the upfirers - I've heard them twice now, and both times there was very little in it, with most people present actually preferring the upfirers.


----------



## RUR

dschulz said:


> The Mensa and Crux are both Datasat designs for Auro Technologies.


We're going in circles. See my post #6063.



> The Auro Auriga is, I believe, derived from one of the Storm Audio products.





erwinfrombelgium said:


> Yes, The Auro Auriga is a Storm Audio made AVR.


And the Auriga is included in _Storm's_ price list.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. I am getting the first one in the UK!
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I will be posting those early impressions, you can be sure. Any particular discs you're interested in? I thought I’d test first of all with Blurays of movies that were mixed in Atmos - can’t wait to hear Gravity and the Gollum cave scene. Then I'll try with something with really good sound - maybe one of Michael Bay's Transformers movies. And then with some older content that still holds up well - eg The Rock or Con Air etc.


Oh nice! Thanks!

Yeah lemme brainstorm some titles for you to try out. Thank you for considering some older titles too. The Rock and Con Air are long time favs. 


First one off the top of my head is the cannon barrage scene in the beginning of Master and Commander. I'd like to know as it currently has excellent overhead imaging even with conventional surround.

Hmm I'll think of some more.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. I am getting the first one in the UK!
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I will be posting those early impressions, you can be sure. Any particular discs you're interested in? I thought I’d test first of all with Blurays of movies that were mixed in Atmos - can’t wait to hear Gravity and the Gollum cave scene. Then I'll try with something with really good sound - maybe one of Michael Bay's Transformers movies. And then with some older content that still holds up well - eg The Rock or Con Air etc.


Got any MCH music, live or studio you could try with the Dolby Surround Upmixer?


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh nice! Thanks!
> 
> Yeah lemme brainstorm some titles for you to try out. Thank you for considering some older titles too. The Rock and Con Air are long time favs.
> 
> 
> First one off the top of my head is the cannon barrage scene in the beginning of Master and Commander. I'd like to know as it currently has excellent overhead imaging even with conventional surround.
> 
> Hmm I'll think of some more.


When We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down and Apocalypse Now - lot's of helicopters.


----------



## smurraybhm

This thread is killing me - I am just about ready to hit "buy" on the Denon 5200 and have it here in two days. If the modules were out now it would be done. Cost be damned. I want the cheerleader now.


----------



## sdrucker

smurraybhm said:


> When We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down and Apocalypse Now - lot's of helicopters.


 
Ride of the Valkyries should be special with Dolby Surround upmixing....and in that legacy vein, the Alien attacks in LA/NYC and the USAF base from Independence Day.


Music - Talking Heads Stop Making Sense BluRay, particularly Burning Down the House with the immersion on the percussion (you can pick whether you want the "audience" or "studio" mix).


However, I know Keith's a movie guy so asking him to play Talking Heads in his Euro sized room is a bit unfair.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well now...

Even though we _want_ such things to image up above that doesn't mean the blind upmixer will know whether or not it _should_ be up there. 

I really do wonder how Dolby Surround decides to put things in the overheads and how to steer them now that we have more than a single pair (front heights) over such post processors like: PL2z, DSX, NeoX.

I'm going to guess it's just like PL2z but with the addition to the algorithm to take notice of cues from the front left and right and the surround/rear left and right and then go from there using old code. 

Just a guess.


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> Amen... it better be soon... DTS Neo-X had minimal software, and whilst listening to some raindrops and helicopter flyby scenes is cute, the novelty will wear off unless we get real titles...


Blu-ray movies encoded with DTS Neo:X - How many total, three? ...'The Expendables 2', and what else?


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh nice! Thanks!
> 
> Yeah lemme brainstorm some titles for you to try out. Thank you for considering some older titles too. The Rock and Con Air are long time favs.
> 
> 
> First one off the top of my head is the cannon barrage scene in the beginning of Master and Commander. I'd like to know as it currently has excellent overhead imaging even with conventional surround.
> 
> Hmm I'll think of some more.


The only titles worthy of being the first Atmos releases should be Sharknado and Sharknado 2. Can you imagine object based sharks... flying around in a vortex!? Game over, man. Game over.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Blu-ray movies encoded with DTS Neo:X - How many total, three? ...'The Expendables 2', and what else?


Dredd. Now that's one I'd like to have tested.

Also Step Up Revolution or whatever. 



Waboman said:


> The only titles worthy of being the first Atmos releases should be Sharknado and Sharknado 2. Can you imagine object based sharks... flying around in a vortex!? Game over, man. Game over.


Lol nope!


----------



## kokishin

smurraybhm said:


> This thread is killing me - I am just about ready to hit "buy" on the Denon 5200 and have it here in two days. If the modules were out now it would be done. Cost be damned. I want the cheerleader now.


I feel your pain.

In another forum, you said you recently purchased two HTM-200 speakers for heights. I believe your setup is Sierra-2s:L/R, Horizon:C, Sierra-1s:Surround L/R, Sub:?. What is your plan for supporting an Atmos config? BTW, I wish Dave would offer some Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott said:


> I just have had a long time love for Yamaha processors in general. They are always very good and have had a good track record for reliability and such. I also am a fan of their CinemaDSP technology.


I think the same because I had similar experience, except for my Yamaha CD recorder (model CDR-S1000). 
- If only Yamaha would add few more PEQ bands to the subwoofer channel...down to 20Hz or so.


----------



## smurraybhm

kokishin said:


> I feel your pain.
> 
> In another forum, you said you recently purchased two HTM-200 speakers for heights. I believe your setup is Sierra-2s:L/R, Horizon:C, Sierra-1s:Surround L/R, Sub:?. What is your plan for supporting an Atmos config? BTW, I wish Dave would offer some Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers.


Correct on the speakers and 2 SVS subs, including a PC12+ cylinder. HTM's are great little speakers but my plans to cheat and use them for bouncing purposes went out the window with Batpig's less than official test over the weekend. I can't see using them as Heights (based on comments I don't think they would be worth it and room doesn't really need wides either) since someday I may want to go 7.2.4 instead of the 7.2.2 I am planning - my room is only about 12x12 with 8 foot ceiling (flat). Based on the upfiring comments I think the modules are the way to go and overheads are not an option given the downstairs location and floor joists. Just trying to figure out a way to justify keeping the HTM's, but most likely back to Ascend and towards my two modules. I here you on Dave making some modules, but my guess is Dolby's fee will keep a small company like Ascend out-of-the-game.

P.S. It doesn't help that everytime I check this forum I have to look at the Denon AVRX5200 as an add placement for Amazon - damn cookies.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. I am getting the first one in the UK!
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I will be posting those early impressions, you can be sure. Any particular discs you're interested in? I thought I’d test first of all with Blurays of movies that were mixed in Atmos - can’t wait to hear Gravity and the Gollum cave scene. Then I'll try with something with really good sound - maybe one of Michael Bay's Transformers movies. And then with some older content that still holds up well - eg The Rock or Con Air etc.


How about some adult movies, moaning from above


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> But I wouldn't rule out the upfirers - I've heard them twice now, and both times there was very little in it, with most people present actually preferring the upfirers.


So why didn't you try upfires first before installing ceiling speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> I think the same because I had similar experience, except for my Yamaha CD recorder (model CDR-S1000).
> - If only Yamaha would add few more PEQ bands to the subwoofer channel...down to 20Hz or so.


Yeah they could but this is easily mended by using an external EQ device of which there are many choices.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Definitely. I want Atmos as soon as I can get it (and my Denon may be here next week so my dealer says!). I don't care if I have to replace the unit in 18-24 months time. I am an early adopter and that is the price of entry into that club. I get excited by having stuff before it becomes mainstream and, for me, it is part of the enjoyment. I also understand why some want to wait, but waiting is, for me, boring.


Question for you Keith: The Denon AVR-X5200W is already in the hands of some owners, and with dolby Atmos and dolby Surround already aboard the mother ship.
Some owners commented positively/favorably about dolby Surround 'upmixer' and you can superimpose it over dts HD-MA soundtracks from Blu-ray discs. 

@ CEDIA (roughly a week from now) we should find more about Dolby Atmos content (software); 
would you still get the Denon AVR-X4100W AV receiver even without Dolby Atmos content for say another two-three months or so, and with restricted titles during that period, say less than a dozen or so?


----------



## kokishin

smurraybhm said:


> Correct on the speakers and 2 SVS subs, including a PC12+ cylinder. HTM's are great little speakers but my plans to cheat and use them for bouncing purposes went out the window with Batpig's less than official test over the weekend. I can't see using them as Heights (based on comments I don't think they would be worth it and room doesn't really need wides either) since someday I may want to go 7.2.4 instead of the 7.2.2 I am planning - my room is only about 12x12 with 8 foot ceiling (flat). Based on the upfiring comments I think the modules are the way to go and overheads are not an option given the downstairs location and floor joists. Just trying to figure out a way to justify keeping the HTM's, but most likely back to Ascend and towards my two modules. I here you on Dave making some modules, but my guess is Dolby's fee will keep a small company like Ascend out-of-the-game.
> 
> P.S. It doesn't help that everytime I check this forum I have to look at the Denon AVRX5200 as an add placement for Amazon - damn cookies.


My current plan is to go with X5200W and the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers in a 5.1.4 setup: no towers, four bookshelves for FL/FR/SL/SR, the Center, and the Sub. IOW, I plan to nearly copy FilmMixer (I think he got the towers for his fronts). Waiting for feedback on the speakers before pulling the trigger.

If you're talking about side bar ads, have you tried this? http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1585826-how-disable-side-bar.html#post25380730


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> And people keep worrying about _Atmos_ content...


Without it we ain't going far @ all.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Yes, The Auro Auriga is a Storm Audio made AVR. It has 13x200 Watt class D amps inside and sells in Holland for €14,950 incl VAT (€12,355 excl).
> 
> Ofcourse, since it's made exclusively for Auro,it's doubtful that Atmos can be processed.


That's a nice little looking unit Erwin (with the 3D cube on top). 
And the price ain't too bad either to impress your friends and neighbors. 
Thirteen is also a good number, the perfect number for most people.
Fifteen (or seventeen) would have been better though.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Sanjay was holding back.
> 
> He was really like:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then wiped his mouth off with *Logic7* perfection.


Harman Kardon? ...Are they too comin' up with Dolby Atmos? ...In addition to their Logic 7 sound processing.
...Lexicon? ...JBL Synthesis? ...Meridian?


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> I just want to say "I HATE YOU ATMOS".
> 
> You are like the pretty cheerleader in high school. I want you so bad just not sure how to go about doing it. I just finished my room a couple of years ago and feel like going with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers is a huge hassle to run the wires and install. I am in the basement so I can't just go up into the attic to run my wires...or anything like that. I fee like doing the front Atmos speaker modules that sit on top of the front L/R speakers isn't going to do it full justice. Guess I will watch Cedia for new offerings and keep thinking about how to tackle this for my room


Not very long now till CEDIA. ...Lets hold on for few more days...


----------



## mogorf

NorthSky said:


> Blu-ray movies encoded with DTS Neo:X - How many total, three? ...'The Expendables 2', and what else?


Bob, Blu-ray movies are not encoded with DTS Neo:X, never. Let's think about it, ...Neo:X is an upmixer, but not a codec. DTS codecs are labeled either "DTS" or "DTS HD MA". Right?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh nice! Thanks!
> 
> Yeah lemme brainstorm some titles for you to try out. Thank you for considering some older titles too. The Rock and Con Air are long time favs.
> 
> 
> First one off the top of my head is the cannon barrage scene in the beginning of Master and Commander. I'd like to know as it currently has excellent overhead imaging even with conventional surround.
> 
> Hmm I'll think of some more.


...And *'Tron Legacy'* 3D on Blu.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> *Dredd*. Now that's one I'd like to have tested.
> 
> Also Step Up Revolution or whatever.


*'Dredd'*, I got that one too, in 3D.

* Not a huge fan of the 'Step Up' franchise. ...More into 'The Expendables' trilogy (got the first two Blu). 
...For fun only of course.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah they could but this is easily mended by using an external EQ device of which there are many choices.


Which external EQ device are you going to add to your new Yamaha AV receiver equipped with Dolby Atmos Scott?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Which external EQ device are you going to add to your new Yamaha AV receiver equipped with Dolby Atmos Scott?


I'm already using several Behringer DCX2496's as my front three mains are fully active. 

But you won't need "several". Just one is more than enough for anyone.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm already using several Behringer DCX2496's as my front three mains are fully active.
> 
> But you won't need "several". Just one is more than enough for anyone.


 
Oy vey....is it true about the Behringer fan noise being noticeable? There's a few comments on HTS I remember reading about it.


Pricier, but you could do the same thing with an MiniDSP 8x8/10x10 with 8 analog I/O if you're bi-amping, and two of those units if you're tri-amping. Or a 24 or 32 channel Altitude LOL to also tied you into the Atmos world and support your active speakers. And from what Keith said on the REW thread about the Behringer awhile back, the MiniDSP would certainly be prettier .


----------



## NorthSky

mogorf said:


> Bob, Blu-ray movies are not encoded with DTS Neo:X, never. Let's think about it, ...Neo:X is an upmixer, but not a codec. DTS codecs are labeled either "DTS" or "DTS HD MA". Right?


Yes I know Feri; I did not phrase my question properly.

What I was referring to were them few titles with "extra dts experience" ... dts Neo:X with eleven channels or so, plus the sub channel, I believe. And the titles that I and Scott mentioned were the ones I was referring to.

Yes, there are no eleven (twelve) discrete encoded channels in our Blu-ray movies; seven point one is it.
And you are right, for them three titles mentioned, you simply engage to dts Neo:X audio mode (upmixer) to have a certain verisimilitude of what the sound designer intended to recreate.

dts Neo:X - is that 11.1-channel surround sound reproduction? ...Sound upmixing. ...Or 9.1-channel?

Dolby Atmos is going to change all of that anyway, and for the better good of humanity.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Oy vey....is it true about the Behringer fan noise being noticeable? There's a few comments on HTS I remember reading about it.
> 
> 
> Pricier, but you could do the same thing with an MiniDSP 8x8/10x10 with 8 analog I/O if you're bi-amping, and two of those units if you're tri-amping. Or a 24 or 32 channel Altitude LOL to also tied you into the Atmos world and support your active speakers. And from what Keith said on the REW thread about the Behringer awhile back, the MiniDSP would certainly be prettier .


There are no fans on the DCX. It's a digital crossover.

I own and use six Behringer Europower amps and with a very simple and cheap fan mod they are inaudible 4ft behind me. The Cerwin Vega cv5000 on the other hand is loud as hell. I need to fix that.


----------



## sdurani

smurraybhm said:


> When We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down and Apocalypse Now - lot's of helicopters.


Isn't that stacking the deck by using expectation bias?


----------



## SoundChex

mogorf said:


> Bob, Blu-ray movies are not encoded with DTS Neo:X, never. Let's think about it, ...Neo:X is an upmixer, but not a codec. DTS codecs are labeled either "DTS" or "DTS HD MA". Right?



_Sometimes I think the 'boundaries' have become a little flexible, once you start to to do object-based *mixing* . . . with a view to multiple playback strategies...?!_ 

I saw this "news item" around *NAB 2013* . . . but I have no idea about what market penetration the product might have made since then...?! 


*Fairlight Delivers an Open Post Production Solution to Create Audio Content in MDA™ and Neo:X™, the Next Generation Format From DTS* (_link_)



> _"The new Fairlight 3DAW is available to the industry as a turnkey solution, based on Fairlight’s powerful Crystal Core Media processor and innovative software. It offers audio engineers with a ready-to-go, creative tool to design sound in both object-based or channel 3D mixing methods. The system provides on-screen 3D panning via a Plug-In, as well as extensive monitoring functions. 3DAW is able to generate a diverse range of mixes ranging from stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1+2, DTS Neo:X, as well as an object-based mix (MDA)."_


_


----------



## FilmMixer

SoundChex said:


> _Sometimes I think the 'boundaries' have become a little flexible, once you start to to do object-based *mixing* . . . with a view to multiple playback strategies...?!_
> 
> I saw this "news item" around *NAB 2013* . . . but I have no idea about what market penetration the product might have made since then...?!
> 
> 
> *Fairlight Delivers an Open Post Production Solution to Create Audio Content in MDA™ and Neo:X™, the Next Generation Format From DTS* (_link_)
> 
> _


It's not a very prevalent platform for film post in the U.S. 

It also allows mixing in Atmos and NHK 22.2. 

http://www.tvtechnology.com/thewire.aspx?entryid=2918&add=view


----------



## NorthSky

*Check*

www.tvtechnology.com/thewire.aspx?entryid=2918&add=view


----------



## Kriilin

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. I am getting the first one in the UK!
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I will be posting those early impressions, you can be sure. Any particular discs you're interested in? I thought I’d test first of all with Blurays of movies that were mixed in Atmos - can’t wait to hear Gravity and the Gollum cave scene. Then I'll try with something with really good sound - maybe one of Michael Bay's Transformers movies. And then with some older content that still holds up well - eg The Rock or Con Air etc.


Keith, do you have a link to your space, or could you please briefly describe your room and setup? I think you stated at one point your couch is against your back wall., and you will be running 5.1.4, correct? Thanks in advance.


----------



## ambesolman

sdurani said:


> I just vomited a little in my mouth.



What did it taste like?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## SoundChex

FilmMixer said:


> [_Fairlight_] also allows mixing in Atmos and NHK 22.2.




It sounds like the Fairlight console is intended to provide, e.g., the capability for tv shows, to "mix once" and create audio 'tailored' for tv systems using both *Atmos* and "*non-Atmos*" _object-based_ soundtrack delivery, and using "all" _channel-based_ soundtrack variations up thru *NHK 22.2* (for future Japanese domestic tv, and perhaps others).




_Newton Minow's "vast wasteland" . . . available soon 'new and improved' with immersive 3D audio...!?_   

_


----------



## Gary Thomas

Any thoughts on using monoprice in-wall speakers for Atmos ceiling speakers? They have several models...these seem to be near the top of their heap: 

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=109&cp_id=10837&cs_id=1083703&p_id=4929&seq=1&format=2


----------



## sdurani

ambesolman said:


> What did it taste like?


Reverb.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> I spent the weekend running wires through my ceiling. PITA but worth it. And once it's done, it's done. But I wouldn't rule out the upfirers - I've heard them twice now, and both times there was very little in it, with most people present actually preferring the upfirers.


I am impressed, can you come do that in my room?


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> Reverb.


You can manually adjust the amount of it through various parameters;
to find the perfect blend in your room. The delay control also helps.

Them four 'presence' channel speakers (higher up) work great with some jazz and classical music. 
Yamaha does it best. Like I said; they give you total freedom over many of their manual parameters.
Plus they didn't simply put them chips in their receivers; they went to actual venues all over the word.
...They gathered real coordinates from serious analysis and sets of measurements from professional microphones strategically and meticulously mounted @ the right positions in those clubs and halls and churches. 

And they let us the customers with abso!ute control to experiment further in our own particular rooms.

I know, because I experimented with them for years; and with very satisfying results.
You should take the time; you'll reap the rewards. ...Without vomiting.


----------



## ambesolman

Looks like Atlantic Technology is getting in the game...

http://hometheaterreview.com/atlantic-technology-introduces-dolby-atmos-speaker-module/


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

https://www.avsforum.com/posts/26940953/


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> I did some measurements on a full range 4" driver to find out how the direct sound is affected by the recessed mounting which creates a "barrier" for the direct sound. *The Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers don't have that barrier* so it doesn't seem to be a mandatory design feature.


Perhaps they do. 

Marc, have you looked under the bonnet?


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Harman Kardon? ...Are they too comin' up with Dolby Atmos? ...In addition to their Logic 7 sound processing.
> ...Lexicon? ...JBL Synthesis? ...Meridian?


As Lexicon is now using Bryston processors Logic 7 is gone! A sad ending...


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps they do.


Good catch - could well be.


----------



## pletwals

NorthSky said:


> That's a nice little looking unit Erwin (with the 3D cube on top).
> And the price ain't too bad either to impress your friends and neighbors.
> Thirteen is also a good number, the perfect number for most people.
> Fifteen (or seventeen) would have been better though.


It's Auro-3D, which tops out at 13 AFAIK.


----------



## jacovn

As for Atmos content, the demo disc from Dolby seems to be in Holland also. There is a dealer that spammed a Dutch forum for his demo of Atmos with an Denon X4100 with a Dolby Demo disc (both Atmos and Dolby Surround demo material)


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/posts/26940953/


i can't keep up with this thread


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh nice! Thanks!
> 
> Yeah lemme brainstorm some titles for you to try out. Thank you for considering some older titles too. The Rock and Con Air are long time favs.
> 
> 
> First one off the top of my head is the cannon barrage scene in the beginning of *Master and Commander*. I'd like to know as it currently has excellent overhead imaging even with conventional surround.
> 
> Hmm I'll think of some more.


Yes, that's a good one. Will include it.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Got any MCH music, live or studio you could try with the Dolby Surround Upmixer?


Not much, sorry. One or two live gigs - but I can't really see how overhead speakers would help with those.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> When We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down and Apocalypse Now - lot's of helicopters.


BHD will be a good one. Will add it. Thx.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Ride of the Valkyries should be special with Dolby Surround upmixing....and in that legacy vein, the Alien attacks in LA/NYC and the USAF base from Independence Day.
> 
> 
> Music - Talking Heads Stop Making Sense BluRay, particularly Burning Down the House with the immersion on the percussion (you can pick whether you want the "audience" or "studio" mix).
> 
> 
> However, I know Keith's a movie guy so asking him to play Talking Heads in his Euro sized room is a bit unfair.


Ride of the Valkyries - added. Independence Day too.

I have Talking Heads on CD, is all


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> So why didn't you try upfires first before installing ceiling speakers?


Not conducive to my room. I actually find it easier to install ceiling speakers than finding someplace to put the modules. I can't put modules on my mains as they are angled up to the MLP quite a bit. And I have ceiling treatments I don't want to remove. In the end I decided ceiling speakers would be the easiest choice for me. But in a different room, I’d be totally happy with upfirers, having heard them side by side with ceiling speakers. The word 'compromise' should not be used in the same context _at all_.


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> BHD will be a good one. Will add it. Thx.


 Seems to have 7 Hz frequency (if I understood the "How low should you Go" thread correctly)


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Oy vey....is it true about the Behringer fan noise being noticeable? There's a few comments on HTS I remember reading about it.


You can generally disable the Behringer fans (own risk) - unless you are driving the amps to mad levels all day long they aren't really needed. *IMO*. Disclaimers apply. Just because I did it and it was OK doesn’t mean it will be OK for everyone. Check home fire insurance policy is up to date. Etc etc,


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Isn't that stacking the deck by using expectation bias?


Probably. But it's a subjective test, one person's opinion, not scientific and just a bit of fun. I can't see much point testing it out with a Woody Allen movie...


----------



## Bigham16

Was getting ready to upgrade to Atmos and had a couple of question and wanted y'alls feedback. I was thinking of getting 4 SuperSat 3's (Satellite Speakers) instead of doing 4 in-ceiling speakers? My ceiling is vaulted on the right side, if facing the screen, and right where the vaulted part meets the flat part of the ceiling is where I wanted to add the speakers for Atmos. Obviously I can't place in-ceilings at this location and I don't want to install in-ceiling speakers on the vaulted side as they would not be pointed straight down. I would use the Def Tech wall mounts for the SuperSat 3's which have a ball joint.

Here is the link to the SuperSat 3's: http://www.goldenear.com/products/supersat-series

Oh, and it's three feet in front and three feet behind the main listing position for the ceiling speakers? Do we know how wide they should be separated from each other?

Do you guys have any other suggestions? You can see my room in my sig. Thanks for the help!!


----------



## westmd

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Yes, The Auro Auriga is a Storm Audio made AVR. It has 13x200 Watt class D amps inside and sells in Holland for €14,950 incl VAT (€12,355 excl).
> 
> Ofcourse, since it's made exclusively for Auro,it's doubtful that Atmos can be processed.


The Crux is the Datasat LS10, the Mensa the Datasat RS20, my guess if you look at the product description on the IFA site: http://www.virtualmarket.ifa-berlin.de/de/suche?&term=Auro

I would assume that if Datasat decides to go with Atmos then these be also upgradable. But if they are not 30% cheaper then Datasat I don't see the point in releasing them in the first place. I don't believe in rebadging at all!


----------



## kbarnes701

Kriilin said:


> Keith, do you have a link to your space, or could you please briefly describe your room and setup? I think you stated at one point your couch is against your back wall., and you will be running 5.1.4, correct? Thanks in advance.


No link unfortunately. Yes, 5.1.4 setup. The room is ideal for Hobbits. It is outrageously small - about 11 feet x 11 feet x 8 feet. It has 3 M&K S150s across the front, 4 Tannoy Di5 DCs on the ceiling, and two Tannoy Di6 DCs on surround duty. All speakers are externally powered by Emotiva amps - XPA-3 for LCR and three UPA-2 for the other speakers. Subwoofers are two Seaton Submersive F2s using the 6,000 watt Master/Slave setup. The room is heavily treated using REW as my guide. I also run Audyssey XT32 + Pro from the current processor, the Onkyo 5509. All the amps and other gear are housed in an external closet behind the screen wall. 

Video is taken care of by an Epson 5030 PJ shooting at a 95 inch diagonal (16.9) screen, which has removable masks to accommodate Scope format movies. 

The two seats (cinema recliners with inbuilt drink coolers, heating and massage) are about 2.5 feet from the back wall (ears position) which puts me at about 8 feet viewing distance from the screen, for an immersive experience.

After much tweaking, the room sounds way, way better than it has any right to, giving lie to the commonly heard view that square rooms make for bad sound, and that small rooms just 'don't work'. I have friends who enjoy the room precisely because it IS small and they say it makes watching a movie an 'intimate and involving experience'. I agree. 

I would love a bigger room but in this house, which Mrs Keith and I love, this is the room I have to work with. It will remain so for the foreseeable future.

As you can probably gather, I do not believe that putting powerful and capable equipment in a small room is 'overkill' in any way - a word I have banished from my vocabulary. The considerable power of the amps, the extraordinary performance and power of the dual Submersives, the power handling capabilities of all the speakers, all makes for an effortless performance with great dynamic range.

Does this help? I am happy to answer specific questions (Atmos-related in this thread).


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> I am impressed, can you come do that in my room?


If you knew how much I hate fishing wires through walls and ceilings, you wouldn't ask  Has to be done though. I hate visible wires even more.


----------



## FilmMixer

Although reporter at IFA, we should assume the same for the US?


Onkyo AVR's to get Atmos Upgrade 09/29, 1030, 3030 and 5530 Coming in October

"If you're an owner of the Onkyo TX-NR636, TX-NR737 or TX-NR838 (pictured) network AV receivers, Dolby Atmos is soon to be on its way courtesy of a free firmware update scheduled for September 29th.

The firmware update will bring Dolby Atmos technology to the mid-range models before Onkyo launches its high-end TX-NR1030 and TX-NR3030 receivers, as well as the flagship PR-SC5530 AV controller, from mid-October.

Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/news/ifa-2014-dolby-atmos-and-spotify-connect-coming-to-onkyo-av-receivers#txQ8BZSAwJhBKBkM.99"


----------



## pletwals

sdrucker said:


> Oy vey....is it true about the Behringer fan noise being noticeable? There's a few comments on HTS I remember reading about it.


The stock fan is intolerably loud.

Here's how you swap the fan. The Noktua fan is recomended.

HTShack:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...nu1000-amp-amplifier-fan-swap-how-w-pics.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

From an e-mail I recently received from Procella Audio, the Atmos demonstrations at CEDIA will be featuring a new demo disc from Dolby. They do not yet know what content will be included. It would be wonderful if clips from upcoming retail Atmos Blu-ray's are included this time around, especially if no retail discs will be available to show off the format.


----------



## chi_guy50

Bigham16 said:


> Was getting ready to upgrade to Atmos and had a couple of question and wanted y'alls feedback. I was thinking of getting 4 SuperSat 3's (Satellite Speakers) instead of doing 4 in-ceiling speakers? My ceiling is vaulted on the right side, if facing the screen, and right where the vaulted part meets the flat part of the ceiling is where I wanted to add the speakers for Atmos. Obviously I can't place in-ceilings at this location and I don't want to install in-ceiling speakers on the vaulted side as they would not be pointed straight down. I would use the Def Tech wall mounts for the SuperSat 3's which have a ball joint.
> 
> Here is the link to the SuperSat 3's: http://www.goldenear.com/products/supersat-series
> 
> Oh, and it's three feet in front and three feet behind the main listing position for the ceiling speakers? Do we know how wide they should be separated from each other?
> 
> Do you guys have any other suggestions? You can see my room in my sig. Thanks for the help!!


That's one of the most gorgeous HT rooms I've seen; I love your clean, minimalist design esthetic (are you sure you live in Texas?)! One designer suggestion: I would paint the inside of the entry door and trim either black or (preferably) dark grey and replace those gold-colored knobs and hinges (same for the A/V closet door and trim). I would leave just the baseboards and the crown molding over the columns in white for contrast. Then wait for the magazine photographers to come a-knockin'.

Regarding the mounts for your satellites, if you are referring to the Definitive Technology Pro-Mount 90, I am using a pair of these and find them both good looking and very functional. I think they are an excellent choice for the SuperSat 3's.

I'll leave it to someone else to address your more substantive A/V questions but wanted to express my admiration for the room (and equipment) you've assembled.


----------



## Kriilin

kbarnes701 said:


> No link unfortunately. Yes, 5.1.4 setup. The room is ideal for Hobbits. It is outrageously small - about 11 feet x 11 feet x 8 feet. It has 3 M&K S150s across the front, 4 Tannoy Di5 DCs on the ceiling, and two Tannoy Di6 DCs on surround duty. All speakers are externally powered by Emotiva amps - XPA-3 for LCR and three UPA-2 for the other speakers. Subwoofers are two Seaton Submersive F2s using the 6,000 watt Master/Slave setup. The room is heavily treated using REW as my guide. I also run Audyssey XT32 + Pro from the current processor, the Onkyo 5509. All the amps and other gear are housed in an external closet behind the screen wall.
> 
> Video is taken care of by an Epson 5030 PJ shooting at a 95 inch diagonal (16.9) screen, which has removable masks to accommodate Scope format movies.
> 
> The two seats (cinema recliners with inbuilt drink coolers, heating and massage) are about 2.5 feet from the back wall (ears position) which puts me at about 8 feet viewing distance from the screen, for an immersive experience.
> 
> After much tweaking, the room sounds way, way better than it has any right to, giving lie to the commonly heard view that square rooms make for bad sound, and that small rooms just 'don't work'. I have friends who enjoy the room precisely because it IS small and they say it makes watching a movie an 'intimate and involving experience'. I agree.
> 
> I would love a bigger room but in this house, which Mrs Keith and I love, this is the room I have to work with. It will remain so for the foreseeable future.
> 
> As you can probably gather, I do not believe that putting powerful and capable equipment in a small room is 'overkill' in any way - a word I have banished from my vocabulary. The considerable power of the amps, the extraordinary performance and power of the dual Submersives, the power handling capabilities of all the speakers, all makes for an effortless performance with great dynamic range.
> 
> Does this help? I am happy to answer specific questions (Atmos-related in this thread).


Yes, that helps greatly thanks a lot!  BTW, that sounds like an awesome setup, looking forward to your reports!


----------



## Bigham16

I really appreciate the kind words! Yes, the knobs and hinges are brushed nickel and great idea on the inside of the door. The trim is a darker grey than regular grey.

I am using the Pro-Mount 80's for my surrounds as they are about an inch less than the 90's. I did try the 90's first . I am thinking they will do great for on the ceiling but just wanted to see if anybody else was going none in-ceiling speakers. Thanks!!



chi_guy50 said:


> That's one of the most gorgeous HT rooms I've seen; I love your clean, minimalist design esthetic (are you sure you live in Texas?)! One designer suggestion: I would paint the inside of the entry door and trim either black or (preferably) dark grey and replace those gold-colored knobs and hinges (same for the A/V closet door and trim). I would leave just the baseboards and the crown molding over the columns in white for contrast. Then wait for the magazine photographers to come a-knockin'.
> 
> Regarding the mounts for your satellites, if you are referring to the Definitive Technology Pro-Mount 90, I am using a pair of these and find them both good looking and very functional. I think they are an excellent choice for the SuperSat 3's.
> 
> I'll leave it to someone else to address your more substantive A/V questions but wanted to express my admiration for the room (and equipment) you've assembled.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Not much, sorry. One or two live gigs - but I can't really see how overhead speakers would help with those.


I got the idea from joerod's review of the Marantz SR7009 when utilizing the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU). He wrote: _Oblivion has many cool scenes. Tom's ship was cruising (or so it felt) above our heads and behind and then in front quite a bit. The vintage songs (Ramble On and A Winter_ [sic] _Shade of Pale) pulled at you emotionally. As did the ending song in Lone Survivor which is Heroes by Peter Gabriel._ Since music is an integral part of movies, made me wonder how MCH music would sound with the DSU.

joerod's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1535177-marantz-sr7009-3.html#post27032633


----------



## RUR

kokishin said:


> ....and A *Winter* Shade of Pale


No Procol Harum for you.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Not much, sorry. One or two live gigs - but I can't really see how overhead speakers would help with those.


Maybe it's just me, but I could see the overheads helping to add realism to reproduction of acoustic instruments (a string section or piano, for example) and classical or "new music", if you like a "be part of the performance" feel to surround sound, with the feeling of enclosure from the room adding a bit of character (yes, I know that's probably anathema to a non-environmental movie environment kind of guy like you, Keith). I've wondered for a while, but last night I was digging into my CD archive and listened to the Nonesuch New Music Sampler from the late 80's, and got thinking about it again.

That's really just a guess - I have some Steven Reich, Phillip Glass, and Kronos Quartet I'd love to hear with Dolby Surround, to go with all the rock and world music stuff I normally listen to, and it would be interesting to test this out when I have my Atmos-based system later this year. But to play devil's advocate, at the risk of getting stoned by the crowd here: the Auro people seem to be thinking of 3D music as at least some of their initial native content releases. Is there any technical reason why Atmos upmixing or native content couldn't provide a reasonable sense of immersion and spatiality by using the ceiling/top-firing element for music, even if overall, objects are "fixed in space", as it was put for channel beds? Other than Atmos originating in the commercial cinema world.

I'm gonna duck now...


----------



## kokishin

RUR said:


> No Procol Harum for you.


Not me. Direct quote from joerod (notice it's in italics). I'll edit my post to add "[sic]" next to the misspelled word.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps they do.
> 
> Marc, have you looked under the bonnet?


Still waiting. End of this week or next.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> From an e-mail I recently received from Procella Audio, the Atmos demonstrations at CEDIA will be featuring a *new demo disc from Dolby. * They do not yet know what content will be included. It would be wonderful if clips from upcoming retail Atmos Blu-ray's are included this time around, especially if no retail discs will be available to show off the format.


Interesting. Dolby London promised me a copy if Dolby released a demo disc. I'll email my contact there and see if I can get my hands on one... thanks.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps they do.
> 
> Marc, have you looked under the bonnet?


Suggested that a quite a while ago*, but no one paid attention to me at the time. Not surprised if you will get more attention. 



* I assume it was this thread, but not guaranteed.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I got the idea from joerod's review of the Marantz SR7009 when utilizing the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU). He wrote: _Oblivion has many cool scenes. Tom's ship was cruising (or so it felt) above our heads and behind and then in front quite a bit. The vintage songs (Ramble On and A Winter_ [sic] _Shade of Pale) pulled at you emotionally. As did the ending song in Lone Survivor which is Heroes by Peter Gabriel._ Since music is an integral part of movies, made me wonder how MCH music would sound with the DSU.
> 
> joerod's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1535177-marantz-sr7009-3.html#post27032633


I'll certainly report on the music in movies. Thanks for the link - will check that out. I'll add Oblivion to my list too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. Dolby London promised me a copy if Dolby released a demo disc. I'll email my contact there and see if I can get my hands on one... thanks.


No prob! Hopefully, if they do have movie clips containing the same soundtracks being delivered to completed retail discs that it doesn't have the same "Into Darkness" segment you mentioned. I'd much rather have the "unmentionable ones" along with the new POTA movie, etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> No prob! Hopefully, if they do have movie clips containing the same soundtracks being delivered to completed retail discs that it doesn't have the same "Into Darkness" segment you mentioned. I'd much rather have the "unmentionable ones" along with the new POTA movie, etc.


Yeah, that scene from STID is such a busy mix that it is distracting from the Atmos experience. I'm not saying it isn't a decent sounding clip, just that it isn't the best showcase for Atmos. The unmentionables were way, way better IMO. And in the cinema, the various scenes with apes talking at large meetings etc were just amazingly good, with ape voices coming from everywhere, and each one from where that particular ape was standing. Oblivion is an obvious choice too - the sound in that movie is terrific even in 5.1. An off-the-wall choice of mine would be the Danny Boyle movie, 'Trance'. Aside from being a good movie, I recall the sound as being pretty good too, although it's not an obvious choice for Atmos. 

I am, oddly perhaps, more excited about Dolby Surround right now. After all, I have 1,479 discs of which precisely none are Atmos Blurays right now... 

TOW, this Joerod review of the Marantz 7009 has some good impressions of Dolby Surround. "Ear blowing" he calls it! (In a good way).


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Not conducive to my room. I actually find it easier to install ceiling speakers than finding someplace to put the modules. I can't put modules on my mains as they are angled up to the MLP quite a bit. And I have ceiling treatments I don't want to remove. In the end I decided ceiling speakers would be the easiest choice for me. But in a different room, I’d be totally happy with upfirers, having heard them side by side with ceiling speakers. The word 'compromise' should not be used in the same context _at all_.


Do you think that using these high on the wall and angled towards the seating positions would approach the in ceiling configuration for ATMOS?


B&W AM-1









http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Custom_Installation/CI_Series/AM-1.html


----------



## NorthSky

Keith, do you have a smartphone or iPhone?

If yes can you take a picture or two of your ceiling showing those four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers you just installed?


----------



## markus767

wse said:


> Do you think that using these high on the wall and angled towards the seating positions would approach the in ceiling configuration for ATMOS?
> 
> 
> B&W AM-1


The problem with any on-wall speaker is that you'll get interference effects caused by the sound wave that is reflected back from the wall or ceiling the speaker is mounted to.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> .....I am, oddly perhaps, more excited about Dolby Surround right now. After all, I have 1,479 discs of which precisely none are Atmos Blurays right now...  TOW, this Joerod review of the Marantz 7009 has some good impressions of Dolby Surround. "Ear blowing" he calls it! (In a good way).


Please rank the movies that you have seen that benefited the most from DS, I only have 900 Blu Ray none of them Atmos!

I am thinking of the ones that would be great are:


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> First one off the top of my head is the cannon barrage scene in the beginning of Master and Commander. I'd like to know as it currently has excellent overhead imaging even with conventional surround.





kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that's a good one. Will include it.



Actually, not just the cannon barrage: the scene in _Master and Commander_ that impressed me with "overhead" sound is towards the beginning of the film, with the shot below decks and you hear the loud footsteps of the crew on the deck above.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> As Lexicon is now using Bryston processors Logic 7 is gone! A sad ending...


Ah, I did not even know about that yet, thx.
...Perhaps we'll see Dolby Atmos in the near future, with Lexicon, and Bryston.



pletwals said:


> It's Auro-3D, which tops out at 13 AFAIK.


Trinnov also is restricted to only thirteen channels, I believe.



ambesolman said:


> i can't keep up with this thread


Most cannot. ...Or don't have the time. ...So you aren't alone, and I only posted the link to help out,
not to blame you, never.


----------



## wse

markus767 said:


> The problem with any on-wall speaker is that you'll get interference effects caused by the sound wave that is reflected back from the wall or ceiling the speaker is mounted to.


So even if I install them on the ceiling that would not work?


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> I got the idea from joerod's review of the Marantz SR7009 when utilizing the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU). He wrote: _Oblivion has many cool scenes. Tom's ship was cruising (or so it felt) above our heads and behind and then in front quite a bit. The vintage songs (Ramble On and A Winter_ [sic] _Shade of Pale) pulled at you emotionally. As did the ending song in Lone Survivor which is Heroes by Peter Gabriel._ Since music is an integral part of movies, made me wonder how MCH music would sound with the DSU.
> 
> joerod's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1535177-marantz-sr7009-3.html#post27032633


Hey thanx a bunch for that link.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Do you think that using these high on the wall and angled towards the seating positions would approach the in ceiling configuration for ATMOS?


B&W give so little information to go on that it's difficult to venture an opinion. That's one of my complaints about the 'hi-fi' manufacturers - they almost never publish useful specifications and charts. Contrast that with what Tannoy show for my on-ceiling speakers... (See attached).

I think B&W is a good make. They are probably overpriced. I’d guess they'd work OK as ceiling speakers. Mounting speakers high on the frnt and back wall is an Atmos configuration, so if you can meet the specified angles, then you may be OK.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> Actually, not just the cannon barrage: the scene in _Master and Commander_ that impressed me with "overhead" sound is towards the beginning of the film, with the shot below decks and you hear the loud footsteps of the crew on the deck above.


Yes - after they beat to drums when they first encounter the French warship. That's the scene I have in mind.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> So even if I install them on the ceiling that would not work?


Markus is technically right and practically not a lot of help with those remarks IMO. Speakers designed for ceiling mounting will work just fine. If you are worried about unwanted reflections from the ceiling, treat the ceiling first and then mount the speakers on top of the treatments. Few will bother with that and most will be very happy with the results.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> B&W give so little information to go on that it's difficult to venture an opinion. That's one of my complaints about the 'hi-fi' manufacturers - they almost never publish useful specifications and charts. Contrast that with what Tannoy show for my on-ceiling speakers... (See attached).
> 
> I think B&W is a good make. They are probably overpriced. I’d guess they'd work OK as ceiling speakers. Mounting speakers high on the frnt and back wall is an Atmos configuration, so if you can meet the specified angles, then you may be OK.


You and Roger are using Tannoy on the ceiling, I might go and buy a pair of them. Are these the ones you have? 

http://www.markertek.com/Audio-Equi...lcYbdHksQ4N7L-CL01Z6RiNEps5j3JGl0vxoCvyTw_wcB

I am worried they would not match with my KEF LS50s!


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Please rank the movies that you have seen that benefited the most from DS, I only have 900 Blu Ray none of them Atmos!
> 
> I am thinking of the ones that would be great are:


I think any of those will be great. I have most of those too. The ones originally mixed in Atmos might be good ones to try first.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> The problem with any on-wall speaker is that you'll get interference effects caused by the sound wave that is reflected back from the wall or ceiling the speaker is mounted to.


I agree; you'll end up with smearing sound, blurred, inconsistent, reflected, against Dolby Atmos recommendation. 
1. Up on the ceiling, facing straight down.
2. Or dedicated up-firing Dolby Atmos modules on top of your four mains, or on their own stands and few feet from any walls, and within three feet of your four mains (LF, LR, SBR, SBL).
3. Or full dedicated floor and stand-mounted/bookshelf Dolby Atmos speakers, like from Pioneer example, or KEF, Atlantic Technologies, Definitive Technologies, etc.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Please rank the movies that you have seen that benefited the most from DS, I only have 900 Blu Ray none of them Atmos!
> 
> I am thinking of the ones that would be great are:


Awesome selection of "possible" Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles. 
Are those all Dolby TrueHD?


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> So even if I install them on the ceiling that would not work?


That's where you supposed to install them; so yes, that would perfectly work.


----------



## markus767

wse said:


> So even if I install them on the ceiling that would not work?


Well, it would "work". The problem with sound reproduction generally is that there's no standard that defines how it should work. So there's a very wide range of recording, mixing and reproduction techniques. Because of this it's virtually impossible to claim that a ceiling mounted speaker with its inherent response aberrations wouldn't sound good.


----------



## markus767

P.S. The same is true for any speaker that is put into an acoustically small room, not just on wall mounted speakers.


----------



## RichB

I am not sure if this was posted, so here goes (in case it has not).

Audhioholics has a new article: *Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers Explained.*

This article has some good information, some new and some older in one place including:

- A description of Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers
- A description Dolby EQ Processing Using HRTF to Simulate Elevation 
- A link to the Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Patent
- An interview with Dr. Flyod Toole 
- An interview with Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey
- Feedback from Paul Scarpelli, former Director of Sales & Marketing of Triad Loudspeakers

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/dolby-atmos-elevation-speaker

- Rich


----------



## wse

"That being said, it’s important to note that if you install Atmos Elevation speakers today, they will likely *NOT* be compatible with future competing surround formats such as Auro 3D and DTS UHD. "

So in ceiling that's all I guess? I will experiment and report back my ears will let me know what works


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Awesome selection for Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles. Are those all Dolby TrueHD?


Dolby TrueHD 7.1

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search

    



IMHO much better selection in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1

 
 



So http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> An off-the-wall choice of mine would be the Danny Boyle movie, 'Trance'. Aside from being a good movie, I recall the sound as being pretty good too, although it's not an obvious choice for Atmos.


It had a theatrical Atmos mix. Don't know if it did well enough on home video to warrant an Atmos re-release. That's going to be the case for many movies with Atmos mixes have have already been released on BD. Will Atmos be enough to make a re-release worth it? 

Meanwhile, looks like a documentary has been mixed in Atmos: 

http://www.attentionalifeinextremes.com/


----------



## kokishin

RichB said:


> I am not sure if this was posted, so here goes (in case it has not).
> 
> Audhioholics has a new article: *Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers Explained.*
> 
> This article has some good information, some new and some older in one place including:
> 
> - A description of Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers
> - A description Dolby EQ Processing Using HRTF to Simulate Elevation
> - A link to the Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Patent
> - An interview with Dr. Flyod Toole
> - An interview with Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey
> - Feedback from Paul Scarpelli, former Director of Sales & Marketing of Triad Loudspeakers
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/dolby-atmos-elevation-speaker
> 
> - Rich


Still seems like the 'Holics have a negative bias toward Atmos. I am more impressed by the handful of reviews by AVS members who have heard Atmos demos or the Dolby Surround Upmixer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> I am not sure if this was posted, so here goes (in case it has not).
> 
> Audhioholics has a new article: *Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers Explained.*
> 
> This article has some good information, some new and some older in one place including:
> 
> - A description of Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers
> - A description Dolby EQ Processing Using HRTF to Simulate Elevation
> - A link to the Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Patent
> - An interview with Dr. Flyod Toole
> - An interview with Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey
> - Feedback from Paul Scarpelli, former Director of Sales & Marketing of Triad Loudspeakers
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/dolby-atmos-elevation-speaker
> 
> - Rich


Even though they do have similar concerns as I do about the upward firing speakers _only_ being enabled for Dolby audio formats (namely, Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixing) and the cost of licensing driving up the "enabled" module and all-in-one speaker costs unnecessarily, the guys at Audioholics still sound like those who have never heard these speakers for themselves. They keep using the word "claim" in regards to Dolby's "enabled" speaker design and that Auro-3D doesn't use this trick because it just doesn't work. The article is still dripping with almost childishly petulant bias - a double-down, if you will, on their previous unsubstantiated claims. If they had actually experienced it and not been impressed and explained why from a scientific and objective level, that's one thing. But they continually show an unprofessional slant in just about everything having to do with Atmos I can find on their website.

It's almost as if the competition is paying them for a smear campaign to blow Atmos' chances out of the water, and this is not supposed to be a politically charged debate. It's an enthusiasts' hobby, for crying out loud! We should all want the best audio/video experience possible, and to get there we should objectively weigh the pros and cons after we've had our own experiences with these various forms of technology. I always thought, for instance, that vinyl records had the best sound possible. Boy, was I wrong! Once I heard well recorded SA-CD's and DVD-Audio discs when they debuted, I knew properly mastered high resolution digital was superior. Then I read just how poor LP's really were from a technical standpoint. 

They're fast becoming a real joke and giving audiophiles a bad name in the process IMHO.


----------



## SoundChex

pletwals said:


> It's Auro-3D, which tops out at 13 AFAIK.



*AURO-3D OCTOPUS CODEC* (_link_) *PAGE 15/18*:



> *5.1 Aurophonic multi-channel audio (3D - 2D)*
> Aurophonic multi-channel audio (sound in 3D) can have any number *from 10 (9.1) to **24 (22.2)* discrete audio channels. However, current standards for the distribution and transportation of multi-channel audio are limited to 8 (HDMI/BD) discrete channels.



*AURO-3D OCTOPUS CODEC* (_link_) *PAGE 16/18*:



> *6.2 Auro-3D Octopus Codec Modes*
> As described in the previous chapters, the *Auro-3D* Octopus codec has four different operational modes:
> *Auro-3D*: This ultimate mode is used to encode _Aurophonic_ multi-channel streams, ranging *from 8.0 up to 15.1*, into a PCM-stream with 4 to 8 channels, depending on the selected configurations.



_That sounds to me like "8.0 thru 15.1 today . . . maybe 8.0 thru 22.2 in the future (over HDMI 2.0?)"_ 
_


----------



## wse

SoundChex said:


> *AURO-3D OCTOPUS CODEC* (_link_) *PAGE 15/18*:*AURO-3D OCTOPUS CODEC* (_link_) *PAGE 16/18*_ That sounds to me like "8.0 thru 15.1 today . . . maybe 8.0 thru 22.2 in the future (over HDMI 2.0?)"_ _


Thank you for the link


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that's a good one. Will include it.


I'd suggest The Fugitive. Not only a bunch of helicopter time, but when the good Dr. is in the flophouse apartment and the cops are running down the back stairway, that has sounded "up there" to me.



kbarnes701 said:


> Not much, sorry. One or two live gigs - but I can't really see how overhead speakers would help with those.


I'm looking forward to trying David Gilmour: Remember That Night - Live from the Royal Albert Hall.


----------



## westmd

wse said:


> "That being said, it’s important to note that if you install Atmos Elevation speakers today, they will likely *NOT* be compatible with future competing surround formats such as Auro 3D and DTS UHD. "
> 
> So in ceiling that's all I guess? I will experiment and report back my ears will let me know what works


I have a meeting scheduled with Auro on the IFA with exactly the question, how to design the cinema that it will work for Auro and Atmos!


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Dolby TrueHD 7.1
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO much better selection in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


So, from your list of "possible" Blu-ray titles with a remastered Dolby Atmos encoding audio, less than 20% are candidates. ...Dolby TrueHD.


----------



## wse

westmd said:


> I have a meeting scheduled with Auro on the IFA with exactly the question, on how to design the cinema that it will work for Auro and Atmos!


Great please let us know


----------



## wse

This might be good to lot's of rain in that movie 












Of course this is probably even better

*“APOCALYPSE NOW”*


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Ah, I did not even know about that yet, thx.
> ...Perhaps we'll see Dolby Atmos in the near future, with Lexicon, and Bryston.


I contacted Bryston and they told me no plans currently for 3D sounds! They are scanning the market whether the new formats will stay. So next 3-5 years no Bryston!


----------



## Orbitron

westmd said:


> I contacted Bryston and they told me no plans currently for 3D sounds! They are scanning the market whether the new formats will stay. So next 3-5 years no Bryston!


I wouldn't say quite that - i contacted James Tanner about a month ago and word is nothing at this time and nothing before late next year at the earliest.


----------



## SoundChex

NorthSky said:


> Ah, I did not even know about that yet, thx.
> ...Perhaps we'll see Dolby Atmos in the near future, *with Lexicon*, and Bryston.



I've assumed that *Harman* limited *QuantumLogic 3D surround-sound* to _in-car entertainment_ because there was heretofore no large scale "standard configuration" 3D home theater market with 4+ height speakers. Perhaps a "substantive" HT base of *Atmos|Auro-3D|DTS-UHD* systems might tempt *Lexicon* back--and offering *QLS-3D* as an alternative to *Dolby Surround Upmix* . . . especially if *QLS-3D* could support upmixing to *Front Wide* speakers!
_


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> Although reporter at IFA, we should assume the same for the US?
> 
> 
> Onkyo AVR's to get Atmos Upgrade 09/29, 1030, 3030 and 5530 Coming in October
> 
> "If you're an owner of the Onkyo TX-NR636, TX-NR737 or TX-NR838 (pictured) network AV receivers, Dolby Atmos is soon to be on its way courtesy of a free firmware update scheduled for September 29th.
> 
> The firmware update will bring Dolby Atmos technology to the mid-range models before Onkyo launches its high-end TX-NR1030 and TX-NR3030 receivers, as well as the flagship PR-SC5530 AV controller, from mid-October.
> 
> Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/news/ifa-2014-dolby-atmos-and-spotify-connect-coming-to-onkyo-av-receivers#txQ8BZSAwJhBKBkM.99"


That's great news they said that the firmware was coming in September but I was starting to have my doubts as I heard nothing anywhere. So September 29th? They could have waited till the last day and still have made it as advertised. I was hoping that it would have been the middle of the month.
So I'll wait another three weeks


----------



## NorthSky

When Dolby Atmos will be well implemented you can rest assured that the hi-end audio market is going to adopt it as well.
...Bryston included. ...Canadians are true to their solid customer's grounding. ...They listen to their request, and in time they deliver.

Actually the ultra hi-end audio market is even leading the trend with 3D sound.


----------



## Orbitron

SoundChex said:


> I've assumed that *Harman* limited *QuantumLogic 3D surround-sound* to _in-car entertainment_ because there was heretofore no large scale "standard configuration" 3D home theater market with 4+ height speakers. Perhaps a "substantive" HT base of *Atmos|Auro-3D|DTS-UHD* systems might tempt *Lexicon* back--and offering *QLS-3D* as an alternative to *Dolby Surround Upmix* . . . especially if *QLS-3D* could support upmixing to *Front Wide* speakers!
> _


Also contacted Lexicon, Krell and Simaudio and response was no plans to do Dolby Atmos at this time.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> I've assumed that *Harman* limited *QuantumLogic 3D surround-sound* to _in-car entertainment_ because there was heretofore no large scale "standard configuration" 3D home theater market with 4+ height speakers. Perhaps a "substantive" HT base of *Atmos|Auro-3D|DTS-UHD* systems might tempt *Lexicon* back--and offering *QLS-3D* as an alternative to *Dolby Surround Upmix* . . . especially if *QLS-3D* could support upmixing to *Front Wide* speakers!
> _


How is Lexicon doing with their latest hi-end SSP? ...Is QLS-3D operative? 

...And what about JBL Synthesis system; and 3D sound?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> That's great news they said that the firmware was coming in September but I was starting to have my doubts as I heard nothing anywhere. So September 29th? They could have waited till the last day and still have made it as advertised. I was hoping that it would have been the middle of the month.
> *So I'll wait another three weeks*


Twenty-six days.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Even though they do have similar concerns as I do about the upward firing speakers _only_ being enabled for Dolby audio formats (namely, Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixing) and the cost of licensing driving up the "enabled" module and all-in-one speaker costs unnecessarily, the guys at Audioholics still sound like those who have never heard these speakers for themselves. They keep using the word "claim" in regards to Dolby's "enabled" speaker design and that Auro-3D doesn't use this trick because it just doesn't work. The article is still dripping with almost childishly petulant bias - a double-down, if you will, on their previous unsubstantiated claims. If they had actually experienced it and not been impressed and explained why from a scientific and objective level, that's one thing. But they continually show an unprofessional slant in just about everything having to do with Atmos I can find on their website.
> 
> It's almost as if the competition is paying them for a smear campaign to blow Atmos' chances out of the water, and this is not supposed to be a politically charged debate. It's an enthusiasts' hobby, for crying out loud! We should all want the best audio/video experience possible, and to get there we should objectively weigh the pros and cons after we've had our own experiences with these various forms of technology. I always thought, for instance, that vinyl records had the best sound possible. Boy, was I wrong! Once I heard well recorded SA-CD's and DVD-Audio discs when they debuted, I knew properly mastered high resolution digital was superior. Then I read just how poor LP's really were from a technical standpoint.
> 
> They're fast becoming a real joke and giving audiophiles a bad name in the process IMHO.


Dan. In then end the conclusion of all the back and forth of those 3 pages and footnotes of the article was:

In ceiling speakers are best... And if you can't do it for certain reasons, Elevation is a decent solution. 

I agree that it has a certain slant to it... At least that is my interpretation.


----------



## SoundChex

Orbitron said:


> Also contacted Lexicon, Krell and Simaudio and response was no plans to do Dolby Atmos at this time.



My understanding is that *Krell* uses an _all-in-one_ chipset from Cirrus Logic that would seem to be likely to include *DTS-UHD* in its next incarnation.

And the absence of "me too" *Atmos* ads from *Sony* and *Harman* (_incl. _*Lexicon*) might suggest they too will start out in the *DTS-UHD* camp...?
_


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Also contacted Lexicon, Krell and Simaudio and response was no plans to do Dolby Atmos at this time.


Simaudio is Canadian or European?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Dan. In the end the conclusion of all the back and forth of those 3 pages and footnotes of the article was:
> 
> In ceiling speakers are best... And if you can't do it for certain reasons, Elevation is a decent solution.
> 
> I agree that it has a certain slant to it... At least that is my interpretation.


They just love free publicity. ...No matter what.


----------



## David Susilo

I want the original Nosferatu to be released in Atmos  .


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> I want the original Nosferatu to be released in Atmos  .


That would be totally awesome!


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> Simaudio is Canadian or European?


Canadian.


----------



## Orbitron

Who is going to CEDIA to post details here - from new gear to impressions after demos?


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> Even though they do have similar concerns as I do about the upward firing speakers _only_ being enabled for Dolby audio formats (namely, Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixing) and the cost of licensing driving up the "enabled" module and all-in-one speaker costs unnecessarily, the guys at Audioholics still sound like those who have never heard these speakers for themselves. They keep using the word "claim" in regards to Dolby's "enabled" speaker design and that Auro-3D doesn't use this trick because it just doesn't work. The article is still dripping with almost childishly petulant bias - a double-down, if you will, on their previous unsubstantiated claims. If they had actually experienced it and not been impressed and explained why from a scientific and objective level, that's one thing. But they continually show an unprofessional slant in just about everything having to do with Atmos I can find on their website.


There is some information provided by Dr. Floyd Toole concerning height cue's that there is variability in human interpretation of height cues.
Data from Audyssey which indicates that reflected sound distance is not detected but computed based on a ceiling height of 8 feet.
There is the Dolby patent which recommends 20 to 60 degree angle based upon the environment.
So there are reasons to have doubts

I agree AH has many skeptics.



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's almost as if the competition is paying them for a smear campaign to blow Atmos' chances out of the water, and this is not supposed to be a politically charged debate.
> It's an enthusiasts' hobby, for crying out loud! We should all want the best audio/video experience possible, and to get there we should objectively weigh the pros and cons after we've had our own experiences with these various forms of technology.


The competition is paying them might be a bit over the top. 
They are acknowledging it may work, and I am fairly certain there are reviews (with measurements) coming.
Perhaps some folks who are avid 2-channel enthusiasts, have a built in bias. For example, if you have spent significant time working on room treatments reducing reflections, this feels wrong.



Dan Hitchman said:


> I always thought, for instance, that vinyl records had the best sound possible. Boy, was I wrong! Once I heard well recorded SA-CD's and DVD-Audio discs when they debuted, I knew properly mastered high resolution digital was superior. Then I read just how poor LP's really were from a technical standpoint.


+100000000. I love good digital recordings (which can be found on CD as well).



Dan Hitchman said:


> They're fast becoming a real joke and giving audiophiles a bad name in the process IMHO.


With some HT-Philes perhaps, but audiophiles are unpredictable lot.
Perhaps, if you had $5000 Atmous speakers, you get them too  

- Rich


----------



## Roger Dressler

RichB said:


> There is some information provided by Dr. Floyd Toole concerning height cue's that there is variability in human interpretation of height cues.
> Data from Audyssey which indicates that reflected sound distance is not detected but computed based on a ceiling height of 8 feet.
> There is the Dolby patent which recommends 20 to 60 degree angle based upon the environment.
> *So there are reasons to have doubts*


The Dolby patent explains the 30-60 deg adjustability is a way to compensate for the environment so that the bounce finds the listener. Nothing to do with human variability re subjective perception of height cues. IOW, it does not support the doubt matter.



> These drivers are positioned such that they project sound at an angle up to the ceiling where it can then bounce back down to a listener, as shown in FIG. 6. The degree of tilt may be set depending on listening environment characteristics and system requirements. For example, the upward driver 706 may be tilted up between 30 and 60 degrees and may be positioned above the front- firing driver 702 in the speaker enclosure 700 so as to minimize interference with the sound waves produced from the front-firing driver 702.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Canadian.


That's why it's good stuff.


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> So there are reasons to have doubts


Doubts about what? That the approach doesn't work?


RichB said:


> They are acknowledging it may work...


May work? Unfortunately for their campaign, the speculation is over. Even people who preferred ceiling mounted speakers to the upward firing ones said that the latter did work (gave the impression of sound above them). 

But Audioholics can't help themselves. What should be an objective article explaining how Atmos-enabled speakers work, ends up unnecessarily loaded with bias. 

They even encourage readers to create their own height modules rather than buy from a Dolby licensee, capping the instructions with a childish: _"*Caution:* Don't place an Atmos logo on the speaker to avoid a potential patent infringement lawsuit."_


----------



## SanchoPanza

^^^ I got a suggestion for where They place the Atmos logo...


----------



## Rod#S

NorthSky said:


> How is Lexicon doing with their latest hi-end SSP? ...Is QLS-3D operative?
> 
> ...And what about JBL Synthesis system; and 3D sound?



There will be nothing in the near future from either as both JBL and Lexicon have adopted the Bryston SP3 as their SSP platform. One of 3 things would now have to happen for either to get Atmos, Auro, etc.


1 - Bryston comes out with a new SSP with those capabilities and both JBL and Lexicon rebadge that. If it had enough processing power perhaps it would be a candidate to implement QLS-3D on it.
2 - Lexicon and JBL switch to another manufacturer for a rebadge, something like the Datasat RS20i or Altitude32 perhaps. With the processing power of either of those then QLS-3D may be a possibility as an add on.
3 - Lexicon actually steps back into the game and brings to market a platform of their own design with the latest tech plus QLS-3D


----------



## David Susilo

SanchoPanza said:


> ^^^ I got a suggestion for where They place the Atmos logo...


:devil:  :devil:


----------



## NorthSky

Thank you very much sir, Rod.

* Poster just above David.


----------



## sdurani

Rod#S said:


> Lexicon and JBL switch to another manufacturer for a rebadge, something like the Datasat RS20i or Altitude32 perhaps. With the processing power of either of those then QLS-3D may be a possibility as an add on.


Right, even if they continue to re-badge hardware, differentiating it their own surround processing and/or room correction would keep it from being yet another "me too" product.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> I want the original Nosferatu to be released in Atmos  .


David, 

The thing is they actually _could_ re-record an audiophile 24/96 Atmos version of the original symphony score and re-release this classic... just like 2L is doing with one of their audio Blu-ray's.


----------



## tjenkins95

RichB said:


> There is some information provided by Dr. Floyd Toole concerning height cue's that there is variability in human interpretation of height cues.
> Data from Audyssey which indicates that reflected sound distance is not detected but computed based on a ceiling height of 8 feet.
> There is the Dolby patent which recommends 20 to 60 degree angle based upon the environment.
> So there are reasons to have doubts
> 
> I agree AH has many skeptics.
> 
> 
> 
> The competition is paying them might be a bit over the top.
> They are acknowledging it may work, and I am fairly certain there are reviews (with measurements) coming.
> Perhaps some folks who are avid 2-channel enthusiasts, have a built in bias. For example, if you have spent significant time working on room treatments reducing reflections, this feels wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> +100000000. I love good digital recordings (which can be found on CD as well).
> 
> 
> 
> With some HT-Philes perhaps, but audiophiles are unpredictable lot.
> Perhaps, if you had $5000 Atmous speakers, you get them too
> 
> - Rich


 

Let's not forget about the first video review they did about Dolby Atmos without having seen or heard any demonstrations. I was really embarrassed for their performance. I immediately unsubscribed from their newsletter.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Who is going to CEDIA to post details here - from new gear to impressions after demos?


I will after I get back home.


----------



## David Susilo

Dan Hitchman said:


> David,
> 
> The thing is they actually _could_ re-record an audiophile 24/96 Atmos version of the original symphony score and re-release this classic... just like 2L is doing with one of their audio Blu-ray's.


Naaah, I want all the sound elements from the original movie. I'd like to experience silent movie in Atmos :devil:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> There is some information provided by Dr. Floyd Toole concerning height cue's that there is variability in human interpretation of height cues.
> Data from Audyssey which indicates that reflected sound distance is not detected but computed based on a ceiling height of 8 feet.
> There is the Dolby patent which recommends 20 to 60 degree angle based upon the environment.
> So there are reasons to have doubts
> 
> I agree AH has many skeptics.
> 
> The competition is paying them might be a bit over the top.
> They are acknowledging it may work, and I am fairly certain there are reviews (with measurements) coming.
> Perhaps some folks who are avid 2-channel enthusiasts, have a built in bias. For example, if you have spent significant time working on room treatments reducing reflections, this feels wrong.
> 
> - Rich


My biggest beef I have with most of these Audioholics Atmos postings is that they should have waited to hear it and then comment on what they liked and didn't like and then make recommendations for potential buyers based on that. However, that's not what seems to have transpired. That's what snobby, pretentious audiophiles tend to do. If it ain't two-channel vinyl, it must automatically be suspect.  That level of unprofessionalism doesn't help anyone, even if it gets them lookie-loo hits on their website in the short term.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> Naaah, I want all the sound elements from the original movie. I'd like to experience silent movie in Atmos :devil:


Ahhh, the three-dimensional silence of Atmos!!


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> I will after I get back home.


Dan, if you hear the same demo material on the Atmos AVRs as the Altitude, would like to know which sounds most immersive and which does object placement with greater precision?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> Dan, if you hear the same demo material on the Atmos AVRs as the Altitude, would like to know which sounds most immersive and which does object placement with greater precision?



Will do! I'm going to check out the Procella demo since they'll be showcasing 9.1.4 using the same new Dolby demo disc as everyone else (Dolby is giving it to their partners in crime so they have material to play) and with real overheads. It would be fantastic if there was Dolby swag like this available to the attendees like DTS used to do.


----------



## Rod#S

sdurani said:


> Right, even if they continue to re-badge hardware, differentiating it their own surround processing and/or room correction would keep it from being yet another "me too" product.



Indeed. I had so hoped that the MC-14 i.e. Brsyton SP3 would at least have Logic 7 since it is after all just a 7.1 SSP with 2 Aux outputs just like the MC-12 but either Lexicon couldn't strike a deal with Bryston to allow a piece of their own software on the platform or that the SP3 didn't have enough extra horse power left to implement Logic 7. I suppose there could be other reasons like money, maybe Lexicon just didn't want to spend any extra time and man power getting Logic 7 onto the platform. Whatever the reason it was a shame. I certainly would have taken advantage of the trade in program which is underway and upgraded. I would then at least get HDMI but I suppose I would have lost room EQ.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Have dts demo disc from 2013.


----------



## RichB

Roger Dressler said:


> The Dolby patent explains the 30-60 deg adjustability is a way to compensate for the environment so that the bounce finds the listener. Nothing to do with human variability re subjective perception of height cues. IOW, it does not support the doubt matter.



Many Atmos speakers have a fixed angle, the patent indicates that adjustability may be required depending on the environment.
The equalization is curve designed to provide height cues from sound emanating from the front that reached the listener directly because of the dispersion pattern of a top-firing driver.
The patent also describes the ability to vary the slope dependent on the curve depending on the mix of direct and indirect sound.


There are many variables here that effect the performance of an Atmos speaker, as described in the patent.


- Rich


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> Doubts about what? That the approach doesn't work? May work? Unfortunately for their campaign, the speculation is over. Even people who preferred ceiling mounted speakers to the upward firing ones said that the latter did work (gave the impression of sound above them).
> 
> But Audioholics can't help themselves. What should be an objective article explaining how Atmos-enabled speakers work, ends up unnecessarily loaded with bias.
> 
> They even encourage readers to create their own height modules rather than buy from a Dolby licensee, capping the instructions with a childish: _"*Caution:* Don't place an Atmos logo on the speaker to avoid a potential patent infringement lawsuit."_



What is the definition of an Atmos speaker working? 
It will function, some sound will reach you directly and some indirectly the mix varies which is discussed in the patent.


IMO, working is the height sound being placed where the sound designer intended it in the persons home theater.
Of course, almost no users will be able to determine the designed effect so working may be defined as produces a pleasant effect with increased ambiance.


There are quotes from other contributors and their affiliations are known. It is good to have it and when properly attributed, folks can draw their own conclusions. I find nothing wrong with that.


The caution was a bit of camp. It's a hobby, not life and death. 
My interpretation of their position is that these Atmos speakers are high priced relative to their components and since the DSP functions are in the Atmos AVR, some may chose a home grown solution and to good effect. Dolby licensed the AVR so they made money and did not get shafted.


- Rich


----------



## Roger Dressler

RichB said:


> Many Atmos speakers have a fixed angle, the patent indicates that adjustability may be required depending on the environment.
> The equalization is curve designed to provide height cues from sound emanating from the front that reached the listener directly because of the dispersion pattern of a top-firing driver.
> The patent also describes the ability to vary the slope dependent on the curve depending on the mix of direct and indirect sound.
> 
> *There are many variables here that effect the performance of an Atmos speaker*, as described in the patent.


Yes, indeed! Is not much of that equally true for any speakers in a surround system? Do we doubt that when installed correctly, surround systems work? Are we surprised when speakers are installed poorly the results are "doubtful"? The descriptions of how one can adapt a speaker to make it work better under varying conditions does not mean that people cannot follow the directions with fixed-angle speakers -- if they so choose. We do toe-in and tilt with our speakers, do we not?


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> My biggest beef I have with most of these Audioholics Atmos postings is that they should have waited to hear it and then comment on what they liked and didn't like and then make recommendations for potential buyers based on that. However, that's not what seems to have transpired. That's what snobby, pretentious audiophiles tend to do. If it ain't two-channel vinyl, it must automatically be suspect.  That level of unprofessionalism doesn't help anyone, even if it gets them lookie-loo hits on their website in the short term.


Personally, I think Audioholics is about value, measurements, and science.
I get that many feel they jumped the gun and folks were rubbed the wrong way, but I do feel they pulled back.

This last article pulled together a lot of outside data and interviews. So, I found it worthwhile.
In any event, it will not be long now before listening sessions and measurements occur and I believe in their integrity.

Audioholics does not push vinyl, ridiculously priced power cords, and speaker cables like many others.
They have done a batter of speaker cable measurements to determine performance characteristics that in my mind are quantifiable.
There are many audiophile publications that do not include measurements and consistently find amplifiers open up when attached to a $500 power cable. 

- Rich


----------



## RichB

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, indeed! Is not much of that equally true for any speakers in a surround system? Do we doubt that when installed correctly, surround systems work? Are we surprised when speakers are installed poorly the results are "doubtful"? The descriptions of how one can adapt a speaker to make it work better under varying conditions does not mean that people cannot follow the directions with fixed-angle speakers -- if they so choose. We do toe-in and tilt with our speakers, do we not?


Do soundbars sound like surround systems even when properly placed?
They use DSP's and phase to create an effect that many find pleasing and they have a value in the marketplace.

If the purpose is for the listener to properly place height sounds in Atmos track then the bar may be very high based on a mix for reflected and direct radiating sound.
Much higher than ceiling speakers. And like a soundbar, it may provide a pleasing result and the vast majority of listeners have no idea where the sound is supposed to be.

Current Atmos speakers and AVRs do not have the flexibility outlined by Dolby in the patent, presumably put there to maximize the perception of objects in their proper place.

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

But then, it is not a matter of life and death...


----------



## RichB

NorthSky said:


> But then, it is not a matter of life and death...



or black or white, for or against, friend or foe, and yet, here we are  


- Rich


----------



## htpcforever

David Susilo said:


> Naaah, I want all the sound elements from the original movie. I'd like to experience silent movie in Atmos :devil:


Charlie Chaplain would be phenomenal in Atmos!


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> What is the definition of an Atmos speaker working?


Doing what they were intended to do: create the impression of sound above the listener.


RichB said:


> IMO, working is the height sound being placed where the sound designer intended it in the persons home theater.


How do you know where the sound designer intended the height sound to be placed?


RichB said:


> The caution was a bit of camp. It's a hobby, not life and death.


That was my point, they literally cannot help themselves. Even when attempting humor, it has to be anti-Dolby.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> Will do! I'm going to check out the Procella demo since they'll be showcasing 9.1.4 using the same new Dolby demo disc as everyone else (Dolby is giving it to their partners in crime so they have material to play) and with real overheads. It would be fantastic if there was Dolby swag like this available to the attendees like DTS used to do.


9.1.4 yes please is it with wide channels and four in- ceiling I assume


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> 9.1.4 yes please is it with wide channels and four in- ceiling I assume


That's what I believe, yes. I'll be concentrating to hear if I can discern a benefit from having the beginnings of a basic side-wall pan-through array as compared to not having one with a 7.1.4 configuration (where there is only a single side speaker).


----------



## NorthSky

htpcforever said:


> Charlie Chaplain would be phenomenal in Atmos!


Now don't be so silly.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> Markus is technically right and practically not a lot of help with those remarks IMO. Speakers designed for ceiling mounting will work just fine...


+1

Markus' criticisms apply equally to the vast majority of main and satellite speakers out there, so I guess he thinks those don't work, either.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> +1
> 
> Markus' criticisms apply equally to the vast majority of main and satellite speakers out there, so I guess he thinks those don't work, either.


Well, they all "work" but boundaries near the driver affect the performance more profoundly than boundaries farther away. Waveguides are a good example.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It had a theatrical Atmos mix. Don't know if it did well enough on home video to warrant an Atmos re-release. That's going to be the case for many movies with Atmos mixes have have already been released on BD. Will Atmos be enough to make a re-release worth it?


Sure - I was thinking of it as a candidate for Dolby Surround really. I am wondering if movies mixed in Atmos will sound better via DS than movies not mixed in Atmos? Or is it just a free-for-all and there's no way of knowing until we try it? I ask because when I play the Atmos trailers on my computer speakers (little JBLs with a little Subwoofer) I hear imaging in way different locations to where the speakers are.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Still seems like the 'Holics have a negative bias toward Atmos. I am more impressed by the handful of reviews by AVS members who have heard Atmos demos or the Dolby Surround Upmixer.


The truly astounding thing, to me, about the Audioholics articles on home Atmos is that they have all been written by people who *have not heard it yet*!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Even though they do have similar concerns as I do about the upward firing speakers _only_ being enabled for Dolby audio formats (namely, Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixing) and the cost of licensing driving up the "enabled" module and all-in-one speaker costs unnecessarily, the guys at Audioholics still sound like those who have never heard these speakers for themselves. They keep using the word "claim" in regards to Dolby's "enabled" speaker design and that Auro-3D doesn't use this trick because it just doesn't work. The article is still dripping with almost childishly petulant bias - a double-down, if you will, on their previous unsubstantiated claims. If they had actually experienced it and not been impressed and explained why from a scientific and objective level, that's one thing. But they continually show an unprofessional slant in just about everything having to do with Atmos I can find on their website.
> 
> It's almost as if the competition is paying them for a smear campaign to blow Atmos' chances out of the water, and this is not supposed to be a politically charged debate. It's an enthusiasts' hobby, for crying out loud! We should all want the best audio/video experience possible, and to get there we should objectively weigh the pros and cons after we've had our own experiences with these various forms of technology. I always thought, for instance, that vinyl records had the best sound possible. Boy, was I wrong! Once I heard well recorded SA-CD's and DVD-Audio discs when they debuted, I knew properly mastered high resolution digital was superior. Then I read just how poor LP's really were from a technical standpoint.
> 
> They're fast becoming a real joke and giving audiophiles a bad name in the process IMHO.


All agreed. They now have zero credibility with me. To make such definitive comments on something they have not even heard is just staggering.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd suggest The Fugitive. Not only a bunch of helicopter time, but when the good Dr. is in the flophouse apartment and the cops are running down the back stairway, that has sounded "up there" to me.
> 
> I'm looking forward to trying David Gilmour: Remember That Night - Live from the Royal Albert Hall.


Good choices Roger. I have The Fugitive but not the Gilmour gig. I only recently got into live music gigs on BD - but with a big picture and great sound, it is as near as 'being there' as I have ever experienced.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Dan. In then end the conclusion of all the back and forth of those 3 pages and footnotes of the article was:
> 
> In ceiling speakers are best... And if you can't do it for certain reasons, Elevation is a decent solution.


Their conclusion might have been more credible if they'd actually heard either though  They are comparing two solutions they haven't heard and coming to a conclusion that one of the unheard solutions is better than the other unheard solution.


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> How do you know where the sound designer intended the height sound to be placed?



Right, the home user will no usually know and it may create a pleasing effect.


If there concept of accuracy has relevance in home Atmos, then placing the sound where the designer intended is the goal.
IMO, the goal of an Atmos speaker or ceiling speakers should be the proper placement of the sound. 


- Rich


----------



## westmd

markus767 said:


> A speaker with an adjustable angle seems highly desirable.


Are you reffering to an adjustable angle of the tweeter? From how I understood it they don't fall under wide-dispersion or am I getting this wrong?


----------



## Wookii

RichB said:


> If there concept of accuracy has relevance in home Atmos, then placing the sound where the designer intended is the goal.
> IMO, the goal of an Atmos speaker or ceiling speakers should be the proper placement of the sound.
> 
> 
> - Rich


That is TBH, almost the whole point of the object based system upon which Atmos is built. Forgetting the current crop of Atmos receivers with their half baked fixed speaker layouts, the underlying premise of the Atmos object based system is that it will accurately place an audio object irrespective of the specific speaker layout, providing there are a sufficient quantity of speakers evenly spaced around the MLP.


----------



## westmd

sdrucker said:


> They don't have a North American distributor, unfortunately:
> http://www.stormaudio.com/en/distributors/


Just received word that Stormaudio is in discussion with several potential US distributors.


----------



## RichB

Wookii said:


> That is TBH, almost the whole point of the object based system upon which Atmos is built. Forgetting the current crop of Atmos receivers with their half baked fixed speaker layouts, the underlying premise of the Atmos object based system is that it will accurately place an audio object irrespective of the specific speaker layout, providing there are a sufficient quantity of speakers evenly spaced around the MLP.


I agree with the premise of Atmos and OO sound.


What is TBH?


- Rich


----------



## Wookii

RichB said:


> What is TBH?
> 
> 
> - Rich


*T*o *B*e *H*onest - its a figure of speech


----------



## PoshFrosh

wse said:


> 9.1.4 yes please is it with wide channels and four in- ceiling I assume


http://hometoys.com/news/2014/09/02...evelopments-ltd-cedia-expo-booth-850/20005774

_In booth 850, located near the center of the show floor and adjacent to Lutron and Savant, a CEDIA sound room will be equipped with components from Trinnov Audio, Procella Audio, DPI, Front Row seating, and Stewart Filmscreen. The Dolby Atmos demonstration will be a 9.1.4 speaker configuration, meaning that in addition to the standard 7.1 setup, the system will include four overhead speakers (no upward firing speakers) located in the ceiling above the listening position and *two front wide speakers* located on the left and right side walls._​


----------



## RichB

Wookii said:


> *T*o *B*e *H*onest - its a figure of speech


Of course! I blame it on insufficient cafenation  


- Rich


----------



## nucky

That's my in ceiling speakers finally finished, I used 4 hoody 1 fire and Acoustic speaker hoods, and then I soundproofed them so you can't here them in the upstairs bedrooms. So then I had a listen to them in stereo, they sound really good. Just waiting on the Denon 5200 amp to arrive now, looking forward to atmos now.


----------



## Wookii

nucky said:


> That's my in ceiling speakers finally finished, I used 4 hoody 1 fire and Acoustic speaker hoods, and then I soundproofed them so you can't here them in the upstairs bedrooms. So then I had a listen to them in stereo, they sound really good. Just waiting on the Denon 5200 amp to arrive now, looking forward to atmos now.
> View attachment 245618


Where's your MLP in that photo Nucky? Presumably not on that rear wall where the the top of the sofa can just be seen, given the position of the in ceiling speakers?

EDIT: Scratch that, I've just spotted the two ceiling speakers at the rear - they are hard to make out, a high WAF!!


----------



## nucky

Wookii said:


> Where's your MLP in that photo Nucky? Presumably not on that rear wall where the the top of the sofa can just be seen, given the position of the in ceiling speakers?
> 
> EDIT: Scratch that, I've just spotted the two ceiling speakers at the rear - they are hard to make out, a high WAF!!


The MLP is about 2 feet in front of the back ceiling speakers.


----------



## htpcforever

nucky said:


> That's my in ceiling speakers finally finished, I used 4 hoody 1 fire and Acoustic speaker hoods, and then I soundproofed them so you can't here them in the upstairs bedrooms. So then I had a listen to them in stereo, they sound really good. Just waiting on the Denon 5200 amp to arrive now, looking forward to atmos now.
> View attachment 245618


What brand speakers are they?


----------



## nucky

htpcforever said:


> What brand speakers are they?


It's in my signature, Dali phantom kompas 6m


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> All agreed. They now have zero credibility with me. To make such definitive comments on something they have not even heard is just staggering.


agreed how can you dismiss atmos if you haven't heard it.


----------



## bargervais

westmd said:


> Just received word that Stormaudio is in discussion with several potential US distributors.


that looks too expensive for me, to spend that kind of money it's out of my league. Now if i had a dedicated HT seating for more then six people. i'm just a little guy with maybe two people watching a movie in a room 10" X 15' i just want to get my feet wet with a first generation receiver and then see how it evolves from here.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> Actually, not just the cannon barrage: the scene in _Master and Commander_ that impressed me with "overhead" sound is towards the beginning of the film, with the shot below decks and you hear the loud footsteps of the crew on the deck above.


Right. That's what I meant. I don't believe I had got any overhead sensation during the actual cannon battle. It was the footsteps above while they were preparing for battle that was impressive. Extremely convincing overhead effect there. I wish more movies had stuff like that going on. I wonder how Dolby Surround will treat this specific effect. I'm sure (since it is so convincing already) it would be tough to tell if that content stays in the surrounds or of DS redirects it.


----------



## Al Sherwood

nucky said:


> That's my in ceiling speakers finally finished, I used 4 hoody 1 fire and Acoustic speaker hoods, and then I soundproofed them so you can't here them in the upstairs bedrooms. So then I had a listen to them in stereo, they sound really good. Just waiting on the Denon 5200 amp to arrive now, looking forward to atmos now.
> View attachment 245618



Looks great, nicely done!

BTW that is a stange place for a glass of red wine?


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> If there concept of accuracy has relevance in home Atmos, then placing the sound where the designer intended is the goal. IMO, the goal of an Atmos speaker or ceiling speakers should be the proper placement of the sound.


What does that have to do with Audioholics' misinformation campaign against Atmos-enabled speakers? It's not like ceiling mounted speakers magically know the intended location of sounds above the listener.


----------



## nucky

Al Sherwood said:


> Looks great, nicely done!
> 
> BTW that is a stange place for a glass of red wine?


Do you think if that was real it would still be sitting there. It is a party lite candle.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Right. That's what I meant. I don't believe I had got any overhead sensation during the actual cannon battle. It was the footsteps above while they were preparing for battle that was impressive. Extremely convincing overhead effect there. I wish more movies had stuff like that going on. I wonder how Dolby Surround will treat this specific effect. I'm sure (since it is so convincing already) it would be tough to tell if that content stays in the surrounds or of DS redirects it.


the sound is English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (48kHz, 24-bit) will Dolby Surround upmix to atmos or does it have to be Dolby Tru HD


----------



## Scott Simonian

It will absolutely upmix even if in DTS-MA. 

The upmixer does not care. It's native Atmos content that must be used with TrueHD to work.

I'm not sure if it's in Dolby's best interest to have made it (native Atmos) agnostic to DTS-MA's codec. However it's just not that simple as we are talking about major changes needed to get all the object and overhead channel bed to fold down into a 5/7.1 carrier. Technically it is possible.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Right. That's what I meant. I don't believe I had got any overhead sensation during the actual cannon battle. It was the footsteps above while they were preparing for battle that was impressive. Extremely convincing overhead effect there. I wish more movies had stuff like that going on. I wonder how Dolby Surround will treat this specific effect. I'm sure (since it is so convincing already) it would be tough to tell if that content stays in the surrounds or of DS redirects it.


Which might also indicate that we do not need very much help in creating an overhead sensation. So perhaps Chris K. IS right, the new atmos are not for pinpoint sound, they might be just an overhead cue, perhaps the real contents are still coded in the surrounds?

We won't know until someone actually records (or listens to) an atmos high channel by itself.


----------



## Wellywell

Schwa said:


> JD at AVS said that Atmos is the home wouldn't measure the precise locations of your speakers:
> 
> _As the Atmos focus will be on the "ceiling speakers", there will be no additional angle information at all ... rather simply that the speakers will be identified as either "top front", "top middle", or "top rear" (based on the previously posted 4 configurations) and then Audyssey will do its thing just as it does with the traditional 5.1/7.1 setup._
> 
> All along I thought that half the point of Atmos was to allow for some speaker placement flexibility while simultaneously allowing for far more accurate placement of audio objects. If the home Atmos processor doesn't know the precise locations of your speakers, and just assumes their positions based on your generic layout, then other than the ceiling speakers, what makes home Atmos better than theatrical Atmos down-mixed to a channel-based mix for HT?


Where is the list of all the upcoming Atmos supported Blu Ray titles? I see that Onkyo has announced Sept. 29th as the release date for the firmware but no mention anywhere that I can find as to what content we'll be able to play with


----------



## FilmMixer

Wellywell said:


> Where is the list of all the upcoming Atmos supported Blu Ray titles? I see that Onkyo has announced Sept. 29th as the release date for the firmware but no mention anywhere that I can find as to what content we'll be able to play with


There isn't one. 

A little birdie told me the press release with titles is imminent.


----------



## redjr

RichB said:


> or black or white, for or against, friend or foe, and yet, here we are
> 
> 
> - Rich


Let's not forget that this is all DSP'ed, virtualized sound. The purist's might as well go home now.  The mixer can make the sound come from just about anywhere he or she wants it to now. Since sound reproduction is all about trying to re-create the illusion of the original, there are many factors that contribute to how well (or accurate) that is achieved. From the input (mixing) to the placement of all the speakers (output).


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> There isn't one.
> 
> A little birdie told me the press release with titles is imminent.


What a tease, Marc. 

Play with your Denon anymore? You got the Pioneer speakers installed?


----------



## NorthSky

Wellywell said:


> Where is the list of all the upcoming Atmos supported Blu Ray titles? I see that Onkyo has announced Sept. 29th as the release date for the firmware but no mention anywhere that I can find as to what content we'll be able to play with





FilmMixer said:


> There isn't one.
> 
> A little birdie told me the press release with titles is imminent.


Ah, I forgot about that. ...I wonder...how many titles...and if intelligently mixed...



redjr said:


> Let's not forget that this is all DSP'ed, virtualized sound. The purist's might as well go home now.  The mixer can make the sound come from just about anywhere he or she wants it to now. Since sound reproduction is all about trying to re-create the illusion of the original, there are many factors that contribute to how well (or accurate) that is achieved. From the input (mixing) to the placement of all the speakers (output).


You mister got that right; not for the audiophiles/anti-DSP type. ...Sacrilege for them.


----------



## Scott Simonian

But upconverting standard def content to fit a 1080p picture area? Totally cool.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> What a tease, Marc.
> 
> Play with your *Denon* anymore? You got the Pioneer speakers installed?



Scott, speaking of Denon: www.strata-gee.com/2014/09/04/bain-capital-fails-bid-restructure-dm-holdings-buyout-financing/


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> But upconverting standard def content to fit a 1080p picture area? Totally cool.


With 3D sound? ...And 3D picture? ...4K streaming?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> With 3D sound? ...And 3D picture? ...4K streaming?


Agree I'm thinking 4K streaming will be in our future before 4K BD and with atmos that's what I see.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> With 3D sound? ...And 3D picture? ...4K streaming?


I was responding to your comment about the "anti-DSP" crowd. 

It seems people are quick to get their panties in a bunch over upmixing their audio content to their speaker layout but don't even blink an eye towards upconverting their video content to their native display resolution.


----------



## UKTexan

bargervais said:


> the sound is English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (48kHz, 24-bit) will Dolby Surround upmix to atmos or does it have to be Dolby Tru HD


Any DTS-HD MA track will upmix with Dolby Surround and will sound fantastic if my experiment with Gravity is anything to go by. The result was awesome.
Looking forward to hearing which titles will be coming with Atmos but you will not be disappointed using Dolby surround for the rest of your collection, whether it is DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD or LPCM.


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> What does that have to do with Audioholics' misinformation campaign against Atmos-enabled speakers? It's not like ceiling mounted speakers magically know the intended location of sounds above the listener.



What does your supposition of Audholic's intentions have to with the performance Atmos speakers in regards to the proper placement of objects in HT?


In OO sound the sound designer has placed the height objects at a position. Some may have a goal to layout their systems to accurately place the sounds as intended.
Not all choices are equal.


- Rich


----------



## RichB

Scott Simonian said:


> But upconverting standard def content to fit a 1080p picture area? Totally cool.


I am not sure that is applicable since the precise position of each pixel in the source and destination are known.


Perhaps a better one is the application of Darby processing which does not increase accuracy but many find has a pleasing effect.


- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Which might also indicate that we do not need very much help in creating an overhead sensation. So perhaps Chris K. IS right, the new atmos are not for pinpoint sound, they might be just an overhead cue, perhaps the real contents are still coded in the surrounds?
> 
> We won't know until someone actually records (or listens to) an atmos high channel by itself.


Don't forget that the overhead speakers are also responsible for positional information in the 3D soundstage, using the 'triangulation' method discussed earlier in the thread. IMO this makes Chris K off-beam when he says the overheads are for ambient information only - he seems to be thinking that Atmos is for 'overhead effects' only, such as rain or helicopters. It isn't.


----------



## RichB

redjr said:


> Let's not forget that this is all DSP'ed, virtualized sound. The purist's might as well go home now.  The mixer can make the sound come from just about anywhere he or she wants it to now. Since sound reproduction is all about trying to re-create the illusion of the original, there are many factors that contribute to how well (or accurate) that is achieved. From the input (mixing) to the placement of all the speakers (output).


Most movies are not accurate color representation of reality.
However, the image on the disk can be accurately displayed on a properly calibrated display. 
It cannot be accurately displayed on an inaccurate display.

Achieving accurate sound in HT is difficult and may not be attainable in all situations but that does not invalidate the goal.

- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> This is where things get more interesting. Gene may or may not have heard a demo at this point (I'm not privy to all of his doings), but there were quite a few contributors to this last article, and I can guarantee you some (including Dr. Toole) have gotten an Atmos home demo.


How are you able to guarantee that?



Steve1981 said:


> When Josh Ricci releases his next subwoofer review at AH, that will have no credibility with you?


I doubt I will see it.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I was responding to your comment about the "anti-DSP" crowd.
> 
> It seems people are quick to get their panties in a bunch over upmixing their audio content to their speaker layout but don't even blink an eye towards upconverting their video content to their native display resolution.


Yes, I got that. But movie sound and picture for true audiophiles is not part of their picture; it's another world.
For that you need videophiles, 3D lovers (picture & sound), Hi-Res Audio and Hi-Def Picture.
Then DSP and EQ is part of the equation, but @ a much lower level as compared to their audio rigs only.

Audiophiles are Stereo people; no DSP, no Subwoofer, no EQ, no nothing but pure analog (or digital) audio signal in the shortest path possible and less contaminated sound conveyor. 
The EQ is on the cables, the cable's lifters, and the special AC power chords. ...And the stillpoints to put under their speakers and audio components. ...Room treatments; that too.

And you got the multiphiles; people who are into surround sound and picture. ...3D.
...Multichannel music. ...SACD, Blu-ray Audio, DVD Audio, etc. ...But the home theater room is not the proper environment (perfection) for multichannel music reproduction; different criteria and speaker's positioning.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^

It's funny. They don't want all these "things in the signal path" but they don't get that the passive crossover in their 'audiophile' speakers are doing FAR more damage to the sound than any of those things you mentioned. 

But what do I know.


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> What does your supposition of Audholic's intentions have to with the performance Atmos speakers in regards to the proper placement of objects in HT?


They're the ones sowing seeds of doubt that Atmos-enabled speakers wouldn't work and now grudgingly admitting that they may work. Their idea of not working was the inability to create the impression of sounds above the listener. It's obvious they believed it was impossible, even calling it "Star Trek physics" in their previous video. 

After posting a link to their latest article, you attempt to deflect from their uninformed beliefs by changing their definition of work to one of your own: placing sounds where the sound designer intended. While your definition wasn't what AH talking about about, I played along and answered your questions. The moment I did, you ask what this has to do with AH, asthough I wasn't supposed to remember what they had meant by not working. 

Enough people have heard enough demonstrations at this point to discredit A-holics' claim of "Star Trek physics". This is science, not religion. The technology works, irrespective of AH's beliefs.


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> Perhaps a better one is the application of Darby processing which does not increase accuracy but many find has a pleasing effect.


Good point Rich; DSP video processing, to enhance the picture presentation, ...experience.
...Done with taste though, if you set the control @ the right 'notch' for each movie, for your own personal preference. ...And adjust accordingly depending of the source (medium) playing, and your display type.

Dolby Atmos is similar; depending of your ceiling you have few choices. ...And on the number of speakers used (your own personal preference). ...And the type of speakers used (uni-coaxial, two separate drivers, in or on-ceiling, up-firing modules, full designated Dolby Atmos speakers, ...). ...And even subwoofers in or on-ceiling (for larger rooms). Dolby Atmos is a surround sound enhancement to give us spatial sound in 3D (elevation from overhead sound). 
...But like Darbee, done with taste. 

Darbee and Dolby Atmos and 3D Sound and 3D Moving Pictures and UHD and true HDCP 2.2 (HDMI 2.0) and a quality DSP/REQ system and a good room with quality speakers and audio/video gear are all contributors for the ultimate movie and sound experience in the year 2014 and beyond. ...But beyond will include stuff even better, the very best. ...And the very best never last; it is only occupying a certain moment in time and space. 

It's the trip to get there; wherever we can and aspire to, that is the essence. ...Then relax and enjoy for a little while, till time comes to get back on the road again. ...And we'll all end up @ the same place, in the same space...


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> They're the ones sowing seeds of doubt that Atmos-enabled speakers wouldn't work and now grudgingly admitting that they may work. Their idea of not working was the inability to create the impression of sounds above the listener. It's obvious they believed it was impossible, even calling it "Star Trek physics" in their previous video.
> 
> After posting a link to their latest article, you attempt to deflect from their uninformed beliefs by changing their definition of work to one of your own: placing sounds where the sound designer intended. While your definition wasn't what AH talking about about, I played along and answered your questions. The moment I did, you ask what this has to do with AH, asthough I wasn't supposed to remember what they had meant by not working.
> 
> Enough people have heard enough demonstrations at this point to discredit A-holics' claim of "Star Trek physics". This is science, not religion. The technology works, irrespective of AH's beliefs.


Sanjay, you should register as a member over @ Audioholics. ...Participate/contribute in their forums.
...Or are you already?


----------



## RUR

Steve1981 said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the video was made before anybody bothered to explain how Atmos enabled speakers would actually work.


Which would be a terrific reason to be reticent, no?



> If your job is to report on the happenings of the AV industry, and this is all they're giving you to work with, what exactly would you say?


Something a hell of a lot less inflammatory than "Star Trek Physics".


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> Most movies are not accurate color representation of reality.
> However, the image on the disk can be accurately displayed on a properly calibrated display.
> It cannot be accurately displayed on an inaccurate display.
> 
> Achieving accurate sound in HT is difficult and may not be attainable in all situations but that does not invalidate the goal.
> 
> - Rich


Methinks that microphones (audio) and cameras (picture) are great toys @ reproducing reality, and they sometimes embellish reality for the better. ...A good entertaining diversion over reality, but reality it ain't, and never will be. 

Just imagine for a short moment: 
...If man was to embellish his reality first instead of his entertaining diversion/distraction.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't forget that the overhead speakers are also responsible for positional information in the 3D soundstage, using the 'triangulation' method discussed earlier in the thread. IMO this makes Chris K off-beam when he says the overheads are for ambient information only - he seems to be thinking that Atmos is for 'overhead effects' only, such as rain or helicopters. It isn't.


In the Audioholics article I see he explained a little more about what was talked about on Facebook; in there he specifically referenced Atmos Elevation speakers:

*AH*: How does the auto setup determine the distance and level for Atmos Elevation speakers since it’s relying on bouncing the sound but also getting directional sound below 1-2kHz? I believe this can offer variable and often non-ideal results.

*Chris*: Yes, this is a challenge. To minimize variability, Audyssey MultEQ determines the direct path distance to the speaker as it does with all speakers. Simple trigonometry can be used to find the distance from the ceiling reflection. The user can enter the ceiling height of their room or a standard ceiling height (8ft) can be used in the calculation. Since the information from the Atmos Elevation speakers is mostly ambient and not used for imaging, the importance of precise delay isn’t as critical. In any case, if your ceiling is higher than 8’ you can manually add the extra distance to the up firing speakers.​

Also later Audioholics themselves noted (in the little inset quote in the conclusion) that "Atmos Elevation speakers aren't designed to deliver precise sound reflected from the ceiling. For that intent, you will need discrete ceiling mounted speakers."

So perhaps Chris wasn't intending to say that Dolby Atmos itself doesn't place discrete content up there, but is just being somewhat dismissive/cynical about the efficacy of "virtual speakers" vs real speakers. There was some follow up conversation on FB after the quotes I posted earlier, with Feri pressing him on that statement, and some of the comments seemed to indicate that his real intent/objection was to the idea that someone could take two upward firing speakers and get meaningful overhead imaging from these virtual sources. 

When Feri asked him about all the Atmos objects panning around the room, Chris responded, "Hard to imagine that all this is possible from two upfiring speakers." Later he added (after I noted that two is just the minimum), "With 4 or more ceiling speakers things get better, but with just two trying to recreate virtual speakers is much more challenging." 

Feri then pressed him more about whether Atmos will work in terms of creating objects imaging not just around you, but above you, and Chris responded, "'Truly work' is a tricky one and will depend on what the content is trying to do. But, I do know for sure that real speakers will always work better than virtual speakers."

So the takeaway (with the addition to some other comments not relevant to the above) was that he believes (1) mo speakers mo bettah and (2) real speakers > virtual speakers.

We know the first is definitely true, and it's something which Chris/TH/Audyssey has long been advocating and I'm sure most of us are on board with. But it seems there is a division between those who are impressed with the up-firing Atmos Elevation speakers and the Audioholics/ChrisK skepticism that these virtual speakers can really be effective.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> It's funny. They don't want all these "things in the signal path" but they don't get that the passive crossover in their 'audiophile' speakers are doing FAR more damage to the sound than any of those things you mentioned.
> 
> But what do I know.


It is what they believe that counts; always what they believe. 
...The power of persuasion from sensorial pleasure over the auditory sound field. ...Hearing is believing.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> So the takeaway (with the addition to some other comments not relevant to the above) was that he believes (1) mo speakers mo bettah and (2) real speakers > virtual speakers.
> 
> We know the first is definitely true, and it's something which Chris/TH/Audyssey has long been advocating and I'm sure most of us are on board with. But it seems there is a division between those who are impressed with the up-firing Atmos Elevation speakers and the Audioholics/ChrisK skepticism that these virtual speakers can really be effective.


The people who are skeptical that the upward firing speakers can't really work seem to fall into one camp: those who haven't heard them  They keep talking about the 'theory' of it and whether reflections will 'work' or be effective and so on. All they need to do is go and listen. Almost all those who have heard upfiring speakers have been impressed - and these include some very experienced listeners, time-served journalists, industry professionals and so on. All the negative comment I am seeing lately is from people who haven't apparently heard them yet - and now we can add Chris K to that bandwagon. 

I can well understand people hearing them and liking them, and people hearing them and not liking them, and people hearing them and liking physical speakers more. What I find a bit irritating is the legion of people who haven't heard them but who are convinced they can't "work" and then feel that it is legitimate to spread their ill-informed guessing across the Internet.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't forget that the overhead speakers are also responsible for positional information in the 3D soundstage, using the 'triangulation' method discussed earlier in the thread. IMO this makes Chris K off-beam when he says the overheads are for ambient information only - he seems to be thinking that Atmos is for 'overhead effects' only, such as rain or helicopters. It isn't.


Quite right, but do you need the entire sound to do that, or can you send a que first and then fill from the channels you already have permanently in and save data-bandwidth? After all, there is so much data from the individual objects that can't be sent alone, so where have they cheated?


----------



## sdurani

Steve1981 said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the video was made before anybody bothered to explain how Atmos enabled speakers would actually work.


Andrew Jones of Pioneer was explaining how his Atmos speakers worked a couple weeks before the AH video. But even if you want to use ignorance as an excuse, why would they take the default position that the technology could _not_ work? If they were unaware of the science, why reflexively call it science fiction? And why so many attempts (starting with an article in February) to drive doubt?


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> As mentioned previously, I write freelance for AH. You guys have your friends on the inside, so do we.
> What can I say, it's a shame that AH's initial thoughts on Atmos in the home have soured your opinions of the site as a whole. I can understand that you think Gene and Tom are full of it with respect to Atmos. OTOH, I'm not sure how that diminishes reviews (usually filled with objective data) on speakers, subs, AVRs, etc.


Are you also familiar with their forums? ...Where Gene himself is an active member.
...And Clint, and Tom, and ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> As mentioned previously, I write freelance for AH. You guys have your friends on the inside, so do we.
> 
> 
> What can I say, it's a shame that AH's initial thoughts on Atmos in the home have soured your opinions of the site as a whole. I can understand that you think Gene and Tom are full of it with respect to Atmos. OTOH, I'm not sure how that diminishes reviews (usually filled with objective data) on speakers, subs, AVRs, etc.


I understand your feeling. It's a contamination I suppose. AH seems to have become a site where senior contributors feel that it is OK to post subjective views on things they haven’t heard. Another word for that is "guessing" or rumor-monging. Once a site acquires a reputation for making things up, or guessing, without a shred of objective evidence, I feel personally that the site is of no use to me. How do I know that every one of their contributors isn't toeing then official line and also guessing and making things up? If it's OK for Gene, then it might be OK for everyone. I am not impugning you or your own reputation at all - it is for you to decide if you wish to be 'contaminated by association' and whether you wish to contribute content to AH, not me. 

Since I saw the disgraceful video about Atmos, I have wondered how much content on the site was made the same way? Content which, in the past I have taken on face value. Have I been as misled over other topics as I could have been over Atmos, if I didn’t happen on this occasion to know better? No way to know, but you can probably see why I’d want to avoid a site where this pall of doubt hung over it. If I was a newcomer to the whole Atmos content and I had gone to AH to find out more about it, and had seen their video, chances are I would think _"well these guys know their stuff and they say Atmos is dead in the water... nothing to see here... let's move along..."_. As it happens, I know a bit about Atmos and I have heard two separate demos at Dolby and I have talked with industry professionals and knowledgeable enthusiasts, so I was able to see their video for what it was: fraud. Not everyone will be in such a fortunate position as I am though.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the video was made before anybody bothered to explain how Atmos enabled speakers would actually work. At the time, all that was being said was "hey, we're pointing some speakers towards your ceiling to create height effects." More importantly, we gave some folks (most notably Pioneer) time to give us an inside scoop before everything went to hell in a handbasket. Guess what we got? A whole lot of nada. If your job is to report on the happenings of the AV industry, and this is all they're giving you to work with, *what exactly would you say?*


Nothing.


----------



## nucky

I was a skeptic, I went to the cinema to see a few films in Dolby atmos and I wasnt that impressed. But only because i thought i got the same kind of sound in my own home, but for me it always sounds better in your own home. For me if you want it to work you have to jump in as soon as possible, the more people that jump in from the start will make it a success. So I say go for Dolby Atmos.


----------



## kokishin

I am really looking forward to FilmMixer's feedback on his AVR-X5200/Pioneer AJ Atmos speaker home setup. The guy is mixing theatrical movies with Atmos professionally, heard the Dolby demo in LA, and has been given some "insider" info which should go public at CEDIA. Can't think of anyone more qualified to render a solid opinion. His thumbs up on his home setup should be all I need to jump in with my credit card.

The opinions of the naysayers who have never heard home Atmos are worthless. Folks should try to keep an open mind; especially the professional reviewers. 

After the reviews start rolling in, we'll discover that some home Atmos environments will sound better than others based on equipment, room setup, content, user expertise, etc. Of course, that is to be expected.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> If there was a suggestion from anybody that there would be more information on how these speakers worked in the coming weeks/months, I'd agree. There simply wasn't, so Gene took it at face value. You can argue that he might have been inflammatory (I'm sure he'd even agree with you), but lets face facts here: if you're going to break new technology, it's smart to explain how it works at the time of release rather than two or three months down the road. That's doubly true given that AH tries to make some technical analysis based on the info contained within press releases versus just regurgitating the content.


That still don't eradicate some facts about Audioholics, Gene, Tom, and the following gang. 
And no wonder Gene wasn't invited to a Dolby Atmos demo. ...What a missed opportunity!


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the video was made before anybody bothered to explain how Atmos enabled speakers would actually work.


Whoa!! IIRC it came after Scott Wilkinson had interviewed Andrew Jones at length on exactly how he had designed them to work very well indeed*. 

The main criticism of the video is not that AH dislike Atmos speakers but that they went to the trouble to produce an allegedly serious "review" without having done a modicum of homework, without having heard the speakers and without apparently questioning their own arrogance in assuming they must know better than anyone else. 

*Correction: AH published their video on 9th July 2014 and HTG published theirs on the following day 10 July 2014. It is amazing how HTG managed to deliver a professional and in-depth discussion about how Atmos speakers work, with one of the designers of such speakers actually present on the video, while AH managed to produce a shameful hatchet job based on nothing at all other than their own prejudices.



Steve1981 said:


> At the time, all that was being said was "hey, we're pointing some speakers towards your ceiling to create height effects." More importantly, we gave some folks (most notably Pioneer) time to give us an inside scoop before everything went to hell in a handbasket. Guess what we got? A whole lot of nada. If your job is to report on the happenings of the AV industry, and this is all they're giving you to work with, what exactly would you say?


Those statements don't actually bear scrutiny do they? AH and HTG published on consecutive days. HTG certainly didn’t get a "whole lot of nada" did they? If HTG could discover proper, pertinent information and secure an hour long video interview with the man who designed Atmos speakers, then what was stopping AH doing something similar? Instead, AH just decided they'd make some stuff up.


----------



## M Code

Rather than debating if Dolby Atmos sounds good or not..... 
Why not listen to an Atmos demo @ CEDIA 2014..
Pioneer/Elite will have a major Atmos setup in the High Performance Suites, #703 .
Also note that Dolby (booth #180 ) will have their own dedicated Atmos demo room but is available only on an _RSVP invitation_ basis only... 

Just my $0.02...


----------



## kbarnes701

RUR said:


> Which would be a terrific reason to be reticent, no?
> 
> 
> Something a hell of a lot less inflammatory than "Star Trek Physics".


Absolutely. It's hardly a defence that they had no information! So they decided to make some up instead. Very professional. And people wonder why I've binned them.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve said:


> Explained in a previous post. If you don't want to tell us how something works, or even tell us that the info is coming soon, we're going to take what we have at face value and analyze it.


...And ending up with wrong judgements, false misrepresentation, and out of orbit.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> If there was a suggestion from anybody that there would be more information on how these speakers worked in the coming weeks/months, I'd agree.


Oh really. You are damaging your own reputation now by defending the indefensible. More information in the coming _weeks or months_? All they had to do was wait one day after their own publishing date and listen to Scott Wilkinson interviewing Andrew Jones. One day.

And in the absence of any information, if this is their defense, surely the most professional thing to do was to say nothing until they had the information at hand. As opposed to making up some fiction.



Steve1981 said:


> There simply wasn't, so Gene took it at face value. You can argue that he might have been inflammatory (I'm sure he'd even agree with you), but lets face facts here: if you're going to break new technology, it's smart to explain how it works at the time of release rather than two or three months down the road.


Yeah - that Scott Wilkinson is a smart guy. Before he made his video report, he didn't just find someone to explain how it works - he found one of the founding speaker manufacturers designing the Atmos speakers. 

Compare Scott's HTG video on 10 July with AH's video on 9 July. Now tell me seriously, which one would you rather be associated with?


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Yup. Gene is active. Clint is no longer associated with AH, and Tom hasn't been actively contributing in some time.


Steve, do you know the reason why Clint went his own way? ...And why Tom doesn't participate anymore?


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Unfortunately that doesn't fly


Talking bull s**t is better than saying nothing, really!


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> After posting a link to their latest article, you attempt to deflect from their uninformed beliefs by changing their definition of work to one of your own: placing sounds where the sound designer intended. While your definition wasn't what AH talking about about, I played along and answered your questions. The moment I did, you ask what this has to do with AH, asthough I wasn't supposed to remember what they had meant by not working.


Many fall short of grace. 



sdurani said:


> Enough people have heard enough demonstrations at this point to discredit A-holics' claim of "Star Trek physics". This is science, not religion. The technology works, irrespective of AH's beliefs.


Folks can have different opinion of what "works" means. For example:

"Works" could mean it sounds better than straight 5.1/7.1.
"Works: could mean a preference for Atmos speaker over Ceiling channels.

For me, "Works" means to faithfully place ceiling objects in the position as established by the sound engineer.

What works for me may not work for you  

- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Explained in a previous post. If you don't want to tell us how something works, or even tell us that the info is coming soon, we're going to take what we have at face value and analyze it.


You really call their video "analysis"? They made it all up! It was fiction. It was guessing. It was valueless. It was unprofessional. Journalists don't make things up if they can't get the information they need. They wait until they have the information. Or they publish non-commital, even-handed commentary saying they don't have information at this time to do any more. Or they publish an unbiased list of what might be good and what might be bad. Show me anywhere in that AH schoolboy video where they behaved in any way like responsible journalists.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Lets put it this way: there are a couple sides to AH.
> 
> In terms of technical content, yeah, everything gets peer reviewed to make sure we're presenting accurate information. Same goes for reviews and previews, up to and including allowing a manufacturer to preview the article for fact checking purposes. Then there's the editorial side. Yeah, AH has some opinionated staff members. You can't really peer review opinions, so there's a lot of leeway there. However, that doesn't really change what's going on with respect to the technical side.


I hear you, but the lay person doesn't necessarily know what is 'opinion' and what is 'fact', especially when opinion is presented as fact. To avoid the dilemma, the easiest thing to do is to avoid the site. Sorry.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> HTG seems to have scored big time with respect to Atmos. Scott also managed to get the scoop on the white papers. As far as what was stopping AH from doing similar, I couldn't really say. All I know is that we reached out to Pioneer and got bupkis. There's really not much else I can say.


I wonder if the bupkis was a result of the negative and biased commentary on Atmos that had already been published on AH earlier in the year - as early as February?

And really, is that the extent of their journalistic skills? They ask the manufacturer and if the manufacturer isn't forthcoming, they just make something up? Like, there are no other sources of information or anything? Heck, all they had to do was visit AVS and they'd have at least found something... this thread started on the 20th June, and Atmos had been discussed in various other threads well before that.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Lets put it this way: there are a couple sides to AH.
> 
> In terms of technical content, yeah, everything gets peer reviewed to make sure we're presenting accurate information. Same goes for reviews and previews, up to and including allowing a manufacturer to preview the article for fact checking purposes. Then there's the editorial side. Yeah, AH has some opinionated staff members. You can't really peer review opinions, so there's a lot of leeway there.
> *However, that doesn't really change what's going on with respect to the technical side.*


Thing is with heavy financial bias the technical aspects are going the way of the dodo too;
for what's missing, not divulged in depth.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Unfortunately, yes.


Thanks; I learned that a long time ago @ Audioholics.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steve1981 said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the video was made before anybody bothered to explain how Atmos enabled speakers would actually work. At the time, all that was being said was "hey, we're pointing some speakers towards your ceiling to create height effects." More importantly, we gave some folks (most notably Pioneer) time to give us an inside scoop before everything went to hell in a handbasket. Guess what we got? A whole lot of nada. If your job is to report on the happenings of the AV industry, and this is all they're giving you to work with, what exactly would you say?


You then have nothing to say and try to get information from another source and/or ask to go to a demo, however they went ahead and made all kinds of scurrilous claims without having heard the technology. Some people here have... at the same time they were dissing Atmos... and they came away with totally opposite impressions. They had a right to voice their pro and con opinions because they had actually experienced home Atmos and the "enabled" speakers for themselves. Gene did not. He's dragging you guys down with his oddly unprofessional level of behavior lately.


----------



## smurraybhm

We can all decide if it works when we have the chance to hear it. I have yet to find someone who has posted a negative review of Atmos who has been part of one of the numerous listening sessions. In fact, there are a lot of enthusiastic reactions to the demos. It's hard to not jump on the bandwagon. My biggest question is what you'll be able to use for "Atmos" speakers and placement locations that will provide the proper results. Only 2 options listed in the white paper have been discussed, still curious how the top of the wall angled at 45 degrees towards the listener works for Heights when selecting Dolby Surround.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Re: Clint, that's a mess I'd rather not get into other than to say he's now associated with Audiogurus, which was formerly the AH Store. As for Tom, he's mentioned on his podcast once or twice that life is a bit too busy for him to dwell on the forums much anymore.


You are a good man, I can tell. ...Thank you.


----------



## sdurani

Steve1981 said:


> Sorry, but explaining on an AVS doesn't really cut it.


No, what doesn't cut it is using ignorance as an excuse. Half a year mounting a campaign, article after article sowing seeds of doubt, and when called on it your excuse is: how were we supposed to know? Remarkable. This is your idea of objective journalism?


Steve1981 said:


> We asked for more info directly from the source well before the video went live for the preview on the new Pioneer line with a whole lot of nothing in return.


You're not entitled to have it special delivered on a platter to your doorstep. The information was already out there, if only you were willing to do your homework.


Steve1981 said:


> If you don't want to tell us how something works, or even tell us that the info is coming soon, we're going to take what we have at face value and analyze it.


Except you didn't do that. You didn't look into any of the psychoacoustic research about whether it was possible to virtualize sounds above you without having speakers physically placed there. Instead, you continued the campaign started back in February with an article that labeled the technology _"a bit ridiculous"_. That set the tone for your coverage since then, and it was evident from the very first article. You make your bias that obvious from the word go, and now expect us to believe it wasn't deliberate?


----------



## Frohlich

Sorry if this is old news but now Triad announced an Atmos (top firing) speaker. Looks like the options are growing heading into cedia:


http://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/triad-bronze-lr-h-atmos


----------



## sdurani

Frohlich said:


> Sorry if this is old news but now Triad announced an Atmos (top firing) speaker.


That's definitely new news (check the date). BTW, these are the unlabeled speakers that were used at the Atmos press day at the Dolby offices, at least here in the US.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder if the bupkis was a result of the negative and biased commentary on Atmos that had already been published on AH earlier in the year - as early as February?
> 
> And really, is that the extent of their journalistic skills? They ask the manufacturer and if the manufacturer isn't forthcoming, they just make something up? Like, there are no other sources of information or anything? Heck, all they had to do was visit AVS and they'd have at least found something... *this thread started on the 20th June*, and Atmos had been discussed in various other threads well before that.


June 21st, first day of Summer 2014. ...By Markus Polo.


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> Folks can have different opinion of what "works" means.


I'll stick to what A-holics meant when they went from claiming it wouldn't work to now admitting it may work.


----------



## ss9001

Audioholics...the saga continues.

Can't add much other than to confirm that I personally share the positions held by Keith & sanjay. I said my piece in the separate AH thread. if they expect cooperation from companies making the speakers after already dissing them, they shouldn't be surprised if they didn't get any.

they have had a campaign against it, sowing seeds of doubt, since early this year. while they have some valid points, the overall tone is negative and making pronouncements w/o actually hearing an Atmos demo is poor journalism and/or technology reporting. if they want to criticize the technology, or a particular piece of gear after experiencing it, that's perfectly valid and reasonable objective people (or companies) couldn't have a problem with them doing that.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> You then have nothing to say and try to get information from another source and/or ask to go to a demo, however they went ahead and made all kinds of scurrilous claims without having heard the technology. Some people here have... at the same time they were dissing Atmos... and they came away with totally opposite impressions. They had a right to voice their pro and con opinions because they had actually experienced home Atmos and the "enabled" speakers for themselves.
> *Gene did not. He's dragging you guys down with his oddly unprofessional level of behavior lately.*


...Much longer than lately...


----------



## sdurani

ss9001 said:


> Audioholics...the saga continues.


Yup, with us playing into the discussion and publicity they want.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Audioholics...the saga continues.
> 
> Can't add much other than to confirm that I personally share the positions held by Keith & sanjay. I said my piece in the separate AH thread...that I thought they were biased, lost the pretense of objectivity, saying various things (upfiring speakers) were "silly" & "stupid" before even hearing them. That's as objective as the talking heads on cable news. and if they expect cooperation from companies making the speakers after already dissing them, they shouldn't be surprised if they didn't get any.
> 
> they have had a campaign against it, sowing seeds of doubt, since early this year. while they have some valid points, the overall tone is negative.


Agreed. I've made my views clear I think so I will bow out of the discussion now. The real pity of it, for me, is that I really used to rate that site in the past, but now they have damaged themselves and their reputation to the extent I don't really think I'll be visiting them again any time soon. It's just my personal view and I wouldn't try to influence anyone else to think the same way though. I'm not talking behind anyone's back: I have made my views known to Gene in the other thread.


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> Sorry if this is old news but now Triad announced an Atmos (top firing) speaker. Looks like the options are growing heading into cedia: http://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/triad-bronze-lr-h-atmos


Quite interesting, and different. ...Would have prefer two 6" drivers on front though (6.5" for a lower 3dB point), and a more pleasing look (colors and curves). ...And with supplied matching stands. ...Same $$

* Pioneer Dolby Atmos speakers? ...I'm more inclined, definitely, with more bass extension.
...And from a pro speaker designer. ...And price is more attractive too.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I hear you, but the lay person doesn't necessarily know what is 'opinion' and what is 'fact', especially when opinion is presented as fact. To avoid the dilemma, the easiest thing to do is to avoid the site. Sorry.


you know i love the way you respond. you were the biggest influence for me to explore and taste Atmos i was very skeptical in the begining i was going to wait at least till next year for things to be clearer in my mind but after reading your and others first hand experience at an *actual *Atmos Demo it made me salivate and now I can't wait to be one of the first to experience it in my own home.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Ditto. Cheers gentlemen.


Steve, things can only get better ahead.  ...The past is passed, and everyone has good intentions.
We forgive, but we don't forget.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> you know i love the way you respond. you were the biggest influence for me to explore and taste Atmos i was very skeptical in the begining i was going to wait at least till next year for things to be clearer in my mind but after reading your and others first hand experience at an *actual *Atmos Demo it made me salivate and now I can't wait to be one of the first to experience it in my own home.


Keith would be a good salesman.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve1981 said:


> Indeed. If nothing else, I'll be at CEDIA and playing with all the latest toys this time next week, so that's something.


Attaboy!


----------



## wse

smurraybhm said:


> We can all decide if it works when we have the chance to hear it. I have yet to find someone who has posted a negative review of Atmos who has been part of one of the numerous listening sessions. In fact, there are a lot of enthusiastic reactions to the demos. It's hard to not jump on the bandwagon. My biggest question is what you'll be able to use for "Atmos" speakers and placement locations that will provide the proper results. Only 2 options listed in the white paper have been discussed, still curious how the top of the wall angled at 45 degrees towards the listener works for Heights when selecting Dolby Surround.


Me too and that might be the way to go  It will be a lot cheaper as well!


----------



## smurraybhm

Steve1981 said:


> Indeed. If nothing else, I'll be at CEDIA and playing with all the latest toys this time next week, so that's something.


You get an A for effort, but unfortunately AH has lost a lot of respect from more than a few of us here on AVS. Personally I won't visit their website anymore after the Atmos garbage. I hope you visit AVS going forward and continue to post on this thread and others. Look forward to what you think of Atmos after hearing a demo next week. Wish I could be at CEDIA myself.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I've made my views clear I think so I will bow out of the discussion now. The real pity of it, for me, is that I really used to rate that site in the past, but now they have damaged themselves and their reputation to the extent I don't really think I'll be visiting them again any time soon. It's just my personal view and I wouldn't try to influence anyone else to think the same way though. I'm not talking behind anyone's back: I have made my views known to Gene in the other thread.


I agree, the worst are when people express a very biased position when they have never experienced the product or the technology or the food or anything for themselves! 

GOSSIPS is what that is 

Ok at this stage I suggest we all move on and share real experience in our own HT about DS and ATMOS


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> ......What I find a bit irritating is the legion of people who haven't heard them but who are convinced they can't "work" and then feel that it is legitimate to spread their ill-informed guessing across the Internet.


Agree 100% opinion based on nothing


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well now...


Hopefully in just a few more days we will have something to talk about in here.


----------



## ss9001

looking forward to reports, announcements, rave reviews, things to buy  

I thought about going but had to make a decision on what to spend money on the next few months  

sdrucker's going, so I'm sure he'll have much to tell us.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'll be there next Thursday. Will try and see everything Atmos related and get some good info with some pictures and maybe video.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll be there next Thursday. Will try and see everything Atmos related and get some good info with some pictures and maybe video.


Yes please do share I am not going as I have too much work but would love to be there!


----------



## David Susilo

wse said:


> Agree 100% opinion based on nothing


I wonder whether AH is finally invited by Dolby (for Atmos), Datasat (for the new Auro 3D), and other tech companies and/or vendors at CEDIA...if not (at least) for the companies to prove them wrong.


----------



## ss9001

re ceiling speakers, I read someone post in one of the threads about positioning them 45 deg laterally from MLP or was it both end seats? to me, if I recall what I read correctly, this seems to be predicated on a 90 deg dispersion pattern. is this so? or something in a Dolby spec? I can't recall seeing any specific side-to-side angles mentioned by Denon or Pioneer info, just front-to-rear angle ranges unless I missed something.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll be there next Thursday. Will try and see everything Atmos related and get some good info with some pictures and maybe video.


...And good burgers too. 
...And don't forget to rely all pertinent and important info right here, in this very own tread.

* Wow Scott, that should be an awesomely elevated experience, I envy it all.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Will do! 

The burgers, I mean.


----------



## David Susilo

Steve1981 said:


> Suffice it to say I've gotten my fair share of invites for Atmos demos.


Did you go, though? i'm in Canada and I went for once in the US and one in Hong Kong. AH should really do the same before writing a single word on Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Will do!
> 
> The burgers, I mean.


You think they'll also have Dolby Atmos strippers standing by? ...To calm down too "elevated" people.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ummm....

I'll find out for ya.


----------



## NorthSky

Take pics! ...The strippers, I mean.


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Ummm....
> 
> I'll find out for ya.


Pics please! I have to live vicariously through someone.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol! I thought I said already that I would.

Did you guys think I was going all the way to Denver to take pics of my burger?

Cuz I will .... _now_!


----------



## NorthSky

Whatever, nevermind...


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! I thought I said already that I would.
> 
> Did you guys think I was going all the way to Denver to take pics of my burger?
> 
> Cuz I will .... _now_!


Just call me _J. Wellington Wimpy_


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ...And good burgers too.
> ...And don't forget to rely all pertinent and important info right here, in this very own tread.
> 
> * Wow Scott, that should be an awesomely elevated experience, I envy it all.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott is not into Onkyo; he's into Yamaha.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'd be into Onkyo if they would put g-damn Zone1 12v triggers on their >$1,000 AVR's. 


Btw, I am currently using an Onkyo TXNR3007.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd be into Onkyo if they would put g-damn Zone1 12v triggers on their >$1,000 AVR's.
> 
> *Btw, I am currently using an Onkyo TXNR3007.*


Oh I didn't know that; that's a nice machine. ...She still works?


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd be into Onkyo if they would put g-damn Zone1 12v triggers on their >$1,000 AVR's.
> 
> 
> Btw, I am currently using an Onkyo TXNR3007.


It always bugged me that there was no zone 1 12volt trigger to me it makes no sense. I use a smart power strip that shuts off my AMP 90 seconds after the TV is shut off.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Oh I didn't know that; that's a nice machine. ...She still works?


He said he was currently using his TX-NR 3007


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Scott is not into Onkyo; he's into Yamaha.


How did you come to make this statement I don't think it was an answer to anything I said I'm confused.


----------



## NorthSky

I guess I was confused too.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I guess I was confused too.


I was confused when you said he wasn't into onkyo sorry I get a little sensitive with all these onkyo jabs. Every time some one mentions onkyo out come the nay Sayers oh ya by the way onkyo has Accu-EQ.
I got an onkyo for Atmos. One reason for budget reasons plus I've never had an issue with any onkyo receiver, to speak of some of my issues I've had were user error.


----------



## NorthSky

No jab, honest good humor. ...Sorry. ...I was the first one surprised by this  emoticon, and because I did not know what it meant exactly I simply jumped subject; to what Scott is getting next (Yamaha receiver) for reproducing Dolby Atmos. I shouldn't have mentioned Onkyo, even if a good bunch of us is what we are using right now. ...Integra for me (I had three Onkyos before, and no issues personally), Scott is also using an Onkyo, Keith as well, and so are many more members.
And AccuEQ wasn't on my mind @ all. I have never tried it, so I cannot criticize. 

I'll try to be more vigilant in the future; I respect all people's sensitivities, even when I am not fully aware @ the moment present. 
Please accept my apology.


----------



## htpcforever

NorthSky said:


> And AccuEQ wasn't on my mind @ all. I have never tried it, so I cannot criticize.


I know an online magazine where you can easily find work if you start doing that - they do not require trying something before criticizing it.


----------



## NorthSky

htpcforever said:


> I know an online magazine where you can easily find work if you start doing that - they do not require trying something before criticizing it.


You must be referring to Audioholics then.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> you know i love the way you respond. you were the biggest influence for me to explore and taste Atmos i was very skeptical in the begining i was going to wait at least till next year for things to be clearer in my mind but after reading your and others first hand experience at an *actual *Atmos Demo it made me salivate and now I can't wait to be one of the first to experience it in my own home.


Thank you! I hope it lives up to your expectations. I am sure it will though. I know I am repeating myself but Atmos for the home really is the biggest step forward in home audio for a decade, probably more. If we can replicate in our own homes the demos I heard in Dolby's small demo room in London, we will be very happy indeed. And there is no reason why we shouldn't - Dolby's room was nothing special. It wasn't all that big, it wasn't heavily treated, the speakers they used were modestly priced and so on. And it sounded fabulous, truly bringing the experience we had heard in their cinema-sized room a few moments earlier into a genuine domestic setting.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Ditto. Cheers gentlemen.


Understood. Thank you for the debate and the way it was conducted. Enjoy CEDIA!


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> re ceiling speakers, I read someone post in one of the threads about positioning them 45 deg laterally from MLP or was it both end seats? to me, if I recall what I read correctly, this seems to be predicated on a 90 deg dispersion pattern. is this so? or something in a Dolby spec? I can't recall seeing any specific side-to-side angles mentioned by Denon or Pioneer info, just front-to-rear angle ranges unless I missed something.


No side to side angles have been given AFAIK. All the diagrams I have seen show the ceiling speakers placed in line with the mains and that is also how they were arranged at the Dolby demo in London.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> They're all in relation to the CEDIA show next week, and yes, I'll be taking in as much as possible.


I’d really appreciate your views when you've heard the upfiring speakers demonstrated.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> No side to side angles have been given AFAIK. All the diagrams I have seen show the ceiling speakers placed in line with the mains and that is also how they were arranged at the Dolby demo in London.



Thanks, Keith. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. In line with mains is what Denon/Pioneer diagrams show.


----------



## ss9001

I almost hate to do this since it will re-hash the AH issue. But here is an excellent example of their negative bias showing yet again, even while trying to be complimentary. 

From this morning's just announced Triad Atmos elevation speaker preview:

Actual quoting but bold italics added by me.

"_*Unfortunately*_, the more exciting (_*to some*_) part are the Atmos Elevation speakers."

"We have to admit that _*we didn't think we'd see the name Triad associated with Atmos*_ quite so quickly."

Their wording makes it clear where they are coming from, again being coyly, back-handedly negative in a ostensibly positive statement. A slap in the face to the idea of an elevation speaker while talking about it.

If AH was truly objective, the sentences could be structured like this:

"Many home owners will have interest in upcoming Atmos elevation speakers which get around the issue of installing ceiling speakers." or "We are pleased that Triad has developed their own design for an Atmos elevation speaker."

I'm sure there are numerous ways to phrase these statements so that they are factual, without being biased one way or another. 

But AH isn't doing it. They have to get their digs in, even while writing something good about it.

I hope the casual reader of any AH discussion of anything to do with Atmos, also seeks other resources for information because it appears that they won't get unbiased information there.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I almost hate to do this since it will re-hash the AH issue. But here is an excellent example of their negative bias showing yet again, even while trying to be complimentary.
> 
> From this morning's just announced Triad Atmos elevation speaker preview:
> 
> Actual quoting but bold italics added by me.
> 
> "_*Unfortunately*_, the more exciting (_*to some*_) part are the Atmos Elevation speakers."
> 
> "We have to admit that _*we didn't think we'd see the name Triad associated with Atmos*_ quite so quickly."
> 
> Their wording makes it clear where they are coming from, again being coyly, back-handedly negative in a ostensibly positive statement. A slap in the face to the idea of an elevation speaker while talking about it.
> 
> If AH was truly objective, the sentences could be structured like this:
> 
> "Many home owners will have interest in upcoming Atmos elevation speakers which get around the issue of installing ceiling speakers." or "We are pleased that Triad has developed their own design for an Atmos elevation speaker."
> 
> I'm sure there are numerous ways to phrase these statements so that they are factual, without being biased one way or another.
> 
> But AH isn't doing it. They have to get their digs in, even while writing something good about it.
> 
> I hope the casual reader of any AH discussion of anything to do with Atmos, also seeks other resources for information because it appears that they won't get unbiased information there.


As Sanjay has said - they can't help themselves. Maybe they need to reflect on why a name like Triad has joined this revolution so quickly?


----------



## WayneJoy

The newest Home Theater Geeks episode with Dolby interview.


http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/222


----------



## ss9001

Steve1981 said:


> However, as some have said, its time to look forward. Cheers!


yes, agreed, Steve. 

I hope you get opportunities to hear demos @ CEDIA next week and can let us know all about it.

full steam ahead 

I'm pretty close on deciding speakers (finally).


----------



## kokishin

All I really got from Steve1981's "defense" of the 'Holics was that Pioneer blew them off so the 'Holics started writing hatchet pieces on Atmos. I suspect that after some of the CE companies involved with Atmos take Gene, Steve, and other 'Holics out for dinner, drinks, and lap dances at CEDIA, the Atmos articles will become more favorable.


----------



## pasender91

*standard Bookshelf speakers as up-firing Atmos*

Hi all,

I asked what i believe is an interesting question a few pages back, but got no reply as the AH debate picked up very loudly at that time 

Is it possible to use standard bookshelf speakers as up-firing Atmos modules? 

All those modules being released (KEF today at IFA) are similar to bookshelf speakers, but angled at 15 to 20 °.
To note that the KEF modules do not have any kind of "lip" preventing the sound from "leaking" directly towards the auditor.

I have 2 of those available : Monitor Audio BX1 , they fit the bill in terms of frequency response.

If i place them on a custom base angled at 20°, will it fit the need?

I know already of one negative factor: those bookshelves, as most, are not using concentric speakers, so that's already a -1. Aside from this issue, anything else worth mentioning?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I asked what i believe is an interesting question a few pages back, but got no reply as the AH debate picked up very loudly at that time
> 
> Is it possible to use standard bookshelf speakers as up-firing Atmos modules?
> 
> All those modules being released (KEF today at IFA) are similar to bookshelf speakers, but angled at 15 to 20 °.
> To note that the KEF modules do not have any kind of "lip" preventing the sound from "leaking" directly towards the auditor.
> 
> I have 2 of those available : Monitor Audio BX1 , they fit the bill in terms of frequency response.
> 
> If i place them on a custom base angled at 20°, will it fit the need?
> 
> I know already of one negative factor: those bookshelves, as most, are not using concentric speakers, so that's already a -1. Aside from this issue, anything else worth mentioning?


It's always possible that the KEF design isn't the best example of up-firing Atmos speakers. Triad's looks like it might be one of the better ones. However, I don't think any old bookshelf will cut it.


----------



## brwsaw

Has there been a statement made about the height of the Atmos module off the floor? Given most of the other variables have been discussed I'm sure I've missed it somewhere.


----------



## blipszyc

I admit upfront that I didn't read through the entire thread, but does anyone have any speaker placement guides for ceiling speakers in an Atmos system? All I can find through my myriad of searching is that there are either 2 or 4 speakers and that they can be ceiling or upfiring, but I can't seem to find anything about distance from listening position. I'm getting ready to run my last bit of wire and want to know where I need to run the wire to.

Thanks.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's always possible that the KEF design isn't the best example of up-firing Atmos speakers. Triad's looks like it might be one of the better ones. However, I don't think any old bookshelf will cut it.


Some Atmos modules are single 4 inch drivers with no crossovers.

I would think that any decent bookshelf would work since the frequency response of an Atmos speaker is limited to about 180hz and the Atmos DSP is handling the notch filters and crossing to the mains.

If you have an Atmos processor is a first step and prototyping could be helpful.

- Rich


----------



## Selden Ball

blipszyc said:


> I admit upfront that I didn't read through the entire thread, but does anyone have any speaker placement guides for ceiling speakers in an Atmos system? All I can find through my myriad of searching is that there are either 2 or 4 speakers and that they can be ceiling or upfiring, but I can't seem to find anything about distance from listening position. I'm getting ready to run my last bit of wire and want to know where I need to run the wire to.
> 
> Thanks.


What matters is not distance but angular separation. The sounds should seem to be coming from specific directions. How far away the speakers actually are in a given direction doesn't matter so much so long as they can generate an adequate sound level at the primary listening position. Speaker distance settings and trim values will attempt to apply appropriate delays and gains so the resulting sound level is correct.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the speaker placement diagrams from Denon's manuals that have been posted frequently. I'ved attached a copy.


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I asked what i believe is an interesting question a few pages back, but got no reply as the AH debate picked up very loudly at that time
> 
> Is it possible to use standard bookshelf speakers as up-firing Atmos modules?
> 
> All those modules being released (KEF today at IFA) are similar to bookshelf speakers, but angled at 15 to 20 °.
> To note that the KEF modules do not have any kind of "lip" preventing the sound from "leaking" directly towards the auditor.
> 
> I have 2 of those available : Monitor Audio BX1 , they fit the bill in terms of frequency response.
> 
> If i place them on a custom base angled at 20°, will it fit the need?
> 
> I know already of one negative factor: those bookshelves, as most, are not using concentric speakers, so that's already a -1. Aside from this issue, anything else worth mentioning?


I've heard from several sources that it will NOT work as effectively as a dedicated Atmos Elevation speaker module. It's not just about freq response -- these Elevation speakers have specific directivity parameters that enable them to "beam" the sound and maintain coherence of the reflected sound, and also to prevent the direct sound from the speaker from being too obvious in relation to the reflected sound (which will muddle the impression of the sound being above you). For example a typical 2-way bookshelf speaker designed for wide, even dispersion will probably have pretty decent off-axis response and thus may present too much direct sound to your ears even when tilted so far off axis.

I've had the Denon X5200W in my possession for about a week now and (in the absence of any Atmos modules being available) have actually been testing this myself, using a pair of spare small bookshelf speakers next to my front L/R angled up at the ceiling. With the two important caveats that (1) I don't yet have a true Atmos Elevation module with which to compare and (2) I don't have any discrete Atmos content to test, only upmixed content with Dolby Surround, I can say with a decent amount of certainty that it probably won't work very well. 

What I've found in my testing so far (using a variety of upmixed music and video content) is that the "fake" Elevation speakers do provide a sense of increased "height", effectively increasing the spaciousness / envelopment of the audio, but I have yet to hear anything that remotely resembles a discrete overhead effect. When I switch between "flat" 5.1 audio and the upmixed 5.1.2 sound, I definitely feel like the "top" of the sound has been chopped off, but it's more of a vague sense of increased vertical immersion as opposed to feeling like things are really imaging overhead. I have to imagine the improper (for this task) directivity of the speakers I am using is causing the overhead effect to be more vague and muddled than is actually intended by Atmos/DSU, so I'm skeptical that I am getting much more benefit than I would have by using more "traditional" height speakers upmixed with PLIIz or DTS Neo:X.

I will report more when I can get my hands on real Atmos Elevation modules to compare.


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> To note that the KEF modules do not have any kind of "lip" preventing the sound from "leaking" directly towards the auditor.


Have any pic been posted of the Kef modules with the grill on? Without the grills, the Pioneer Atmos speakers look like they have no lip either. But it remains to be seen whether that's the case with the grills on.


----------



## kbarnes701

blipszyc said:


> I admit upfront that I didn't read through the entire thread, but does anyone have any speaker placement guides for ceiling speakers in an Atmos system? All I can find through my myriad of searching is that there are either 2 or 4 speakers and that they can be ceiling or upfiring, but I can't seem to find anything about distance from listening position. I'm getting ready to run my last bit of wire and want to know where I need to run the wire to.
> 
> Thanks.


You need to check this oft-posted diagram. Get the angles in the ranges specified and you are all set.










EDIT: Ooops. I see Selden posted this as an attachment so I missed it. I'll leave it here at the risk of the wrath of regular readers who have seen this posted 11,985 times in this thread now.


----------



## sdurani

ss9001 said:


> In line with mains is what Denon/Pioneer diagrams show.


Dolby reps have mentioned the same, with the assumption that the L/R speakers are ±30° from centre line.


----------



## sdurani

Steve1981 said:


> Images with and without grill are up on KEF's site.
> http://www.kef.com/html/en/showroom/hi-fi_series/r_series/images/index.html


Thanx. No lip hiding behind that grill cloth. In their 'bounce' patent, Dolby mentions that the HTRF processing not only gives the impression of sounds coming from above but also actively suppresses the impression of sound at ear level. Maybe Kef is relying more heavily on the latter than other manufacturers are.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

batpig said:


> I've heard from several sources that it will NOT work as effectively as a dedicated Atmos Elevation speaker module. It's not just about freq response -- these Elevation speakers have specific directivity parameters that enable them to "beam" the sound and maintain coherence of the reflected sound, and also to prevent the direct sound from the speaker from being too obvious in relation to the reflected sound (which will muddle the impression of the sound being above you). For example a typical 2-way bookshelf speaker designed for wide, even dispersion will probably have pretty decent off-axis response and thus may present too much direct sound to your ears even when tilted so far off axis.
> 
> I've had the Denon X5200W in my possession for about a week now and (in the absence of any Atmos modules being available) have actually been testing this myself, using a pair of spare small bookshelf speakers next to my front L/R angled up at the ceiling. With the two important caveats that (1) I don't yet have a true Atmos Elevation module with which to compare and (2) I don't have any discrete Atmos content to test, only upmixed content with Dolby Surround, I can say with a decent amount of certainty that it probably won't work very well.
> 
> *What I've found in my testing so far (using a variety of upmixed music and video content) is that the "fake" Elevation speakers do provide a sense of increased "height", effectively increasing the spaciousness / envelopment of the audio, but I have yet to hear anything that remotely resembles a discrete overhead effect.* When I switch between "flat" 5.1 audio and the upmixed 5.1.2 sound, I definitely feel like the "top" of the sound has been chopped off, but it's more of a vague sense of increased vertical immersion as opposed to feeling like things are really imaging overhead. I have to imagine the improper (for this task) directivity of the speakers I am using is causing the overhead effect to be more vague and muddled than is actually intended by Atmos/DSU, so I'm skeptical that I am getting much more benefit than I would have by using more "traditional" height speakers upmixed with PLIIz or DTS Neo:X.
> 
> I will report more when I can get my hands on real Atmos Elevation modules to compare.




Until you get content with a real Atmos mix, I don't expect that you will get anything that remotely resembles a discrete overhead effect by use of the Dolby Surround Upmixer being applied to the vast majority of content that uses the standard encoding / mix.


We need less speculation and theory and some first hand experience with the products being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Agreed. 

I want to see some products roll out and hear about what people think of the upmixer and hopefully (soon enough) real Atmos content.


----------



## batpig

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> We need less speculation and theory and some first hand experience with the products being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU.


Um, I *AM* relating first hand experience with the product being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU. The only difference is that I am using a typical speaker pointed up at the ceiling instead of a purpose designed Atmos Elevation module, which is precisely in context with the query I responded to about whether such a thing would work effectively.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Um, I *AM* relating first hand experience with the product being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU. The only difference is that I am using a typical speaker pointed up at the ceiling instead of a purpose designed Atmos Elevation module, which is precisely in context with the query I responded to about whether such a thing would work effectively.


The other, equally big unknown is how these different Atmos Elevation modules perform vs. each other in creating a seamless overhead effect, and how to choose between them besides on price, their dimensions and/or whether you want just an add-on or a conventional speaker with a built-in, top-firing element. Does a single, concentric driver like Onkyo's, DT's, or Pioneer's really does as well as Atlantic Technology's or KEF's two-way woofer/tweeter setup? Does lip matter? Is it worth the price premium to have four 1" drivers to get a possibly tighter dispersion pattern with Triad's version? 

And these are just the manufacturers we know about today, before CEDIA.


----------



## batpig

Side note about DSU that I found somewhat interesting (at least as implemented on D&M products, don't know if other brands will be this way)....

Unlike Audyssey DSX (which doesn't work if there isn't a 5.1 setup present) DSU works with pretty much any speaker layout. For example, I changed my speaker config and just had a 2.1.2 setup (Fronts + Heights) and DSU worked and produced noise out of the "height" speakers. This worked regardless of whether I told the processor that my "height" speakers were "Dolby Enabled" or "Rear Height" or any of the possibilities.

So while there is unlikely to be any practical use for something as esoteric as a 2.1.2 setup with Fronts + Rear Heights, you could install a setup this way and DSU would upmix a stereo signal to the Rear Heights.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> The other, equally big unknown is how these different Atmos Elevation modules perform vs. each other in creating a seamless overhead effect, and how to choose between them besides on price, their dimensions and/or whether you want just an add-on or a conventional speaker with a built-in, top-firing element. Does a single, concentric driver like Onkyo's, DT's, or Pioneer's really does as well as Atlantic Technology's or KEF's two-way woofer/tweeter setup? Does lip matter? Is it worth the price premium to have four 1" drivers to get a possibly tighter dispersion pattern with Triad's version?
> 
> And these are just the manufacturers we know about today, before CEDIA.


Yes, huge open question since many people are unlikely to be able to make the "easy" decision of just buying the Atmos module that "matches" their other speakers. Somebody like me who has a mid-level 5.1 Energy speaker setup is by necessity going to have to buy an Atmos module from some other brand. So how do I assess tonal match, relative quality, etc. Is there going to be a huge sound quality increase going from the bargain basement Onkyo module at $249 to a fancier AT module with 2-way coaxial design? Lots of questions.


----------



## wse

sdurani said:


> Thanx. No lip hiding behind that grill cloth. In their 'bounce' patent, Dolby mentions that the HTRF processing not only gives the impression of sounds coming from above but also actively suppresses the impression of sound at ear level. Maybe Kef is relying more heavily on the latter than other manufacturers are.


Look at the specs!!

*R50 Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers *

Designed to sit above freestanding or wall-mounted home theatre satellite speakers, the new KEF R50 adds the all-important vertical sound dimension that allows you to enjoy at home the staggeringly realistic 3D sound image that Dolby Atmos creates in cinemas. Built around KEF’s latest and most sophisticated ‘sit anywhere’ Uni-Q driver array, with a 25mm (1-in.) vented aluminium tweeter at the centre of a potent 130mm (5.25-in.) bass/mid driver, it beams the sound upwards to envelope you in a breathtakingly precise multidimensional soundscape where each sound source moves as it does in real life.


*Frequency range (-6dB)* *96Hz – 19.5kHz* *
Frequency response (±3dB)* *105Hz – 18.5kHz* *Sensitivity **85dB* 
*(2.83V/1m) * 

For $1500 a pair I think not!!!


----------



## UKTexan

batpig said:


> I've had the Denon X5200W in my possession for about a week now and (in the absence of any Atmos modules being available) have actually been testing this myself, using a pair of spare small bookshelf speakers next to my front L/R angled up at the ceiling. With the two important caveats that (1) I don't yet have a true Atmos Elevation module with which to compare and (2) I don't have any discrete Atmos content to test, only upmixed content with Dolby Surround, I can say with a decent amount of certainty that it probably won't work very well.
> 
> I will report more when I can get my hands on real Atmos Elevation modules to compare.


 
Batpig, have you tried any actual overhead speakers yet, even temporarily rigged or traditional front height locations? I'd be interested to hear your opinion. In the demo I attended, the overhead speakers DID produce discrete sounding effects from the ceiling mounted speakers using Dolby Surround in conjunction with either TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. The effects were astonishing using exactly the same Denon receiver you have. Unfortunately I can't comment on elevation speakers as I have not yet heard them.


----------



## zeus33

kbarnes701 said:


> You need to check this oft-posted diagram. Get the angles in the ranges specified and you are all set.



Sorry if it has been posted, but I haven't read through the thread. What is the recommendation for those that have their couch against the back wall? Obviously, it's not optimal but it is a very common setup for most homes. I'm assuming the "middle speakers" are for if you only use two height speakers instead of four?


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> The people who are skeptical that the upward firing speakers can't really work seem to fall into one camp: those who haven't heard them  They keep talking about the 'theory' of it and whether reflections will 'work' or be effective and so on. All they need to do is go and listen. Almost all those who have heard upfiring speakers have been impressed - and these include some very experienced listeners, time-served journalists, industry professionals and so on. All the negative comment I am seeing lately is from people who haven't apparently heard them yet - and now we can add Chris K to that bandwagon.
> 
> I can well understand people hearing them and liking them, and people hearing them and not liking them, and people hearing them and liking physical speakers more. What I find a bit irritating is the legion of people who haven't heard them but who are convinced they can't "work" and then feel that it is legitimate to spread their ill-informed guessing across the Internet.


OK, here's an update to the FB discussion. I asked Chris K for some clarification about his comments on the speakers "being used mostly for ambience and not imaging" and it looks like my inference was right that he was not talking about Atmos in general (rather the reflected speakers specifically), but he HAS heard them so you can't really lump him into the bandwagon to which you refer derisively 



*Me:* (preamble about Atmos placing discrete sounds overhead truncated) So just to be clear, are you asserting that Atmos itself doesn't image overhead, or are you just expressing skepticism that the virtual speakers can successfully accomplish that goal?

*Chris: *I am skeptical about the ability to image with virtual speakers in general.

*Me:* Thanks Chris. Since you said you've attended Atmos demos, did you actually hear direct comparisons of in ceiling vs upward firing? Those who have reported on attending demos have said that the same test clips were played back in both scenarios and many in the audience were unable to tell the difference. So is your skepticism more theoretical or empirical?

*Chris: *I am not able to discuss the nature of the demo. But, yes I have heard direct comparisons. The difference was rather plainly audible. On the other hand, let's not lose the big picture here: having the extra channels is much better than not having them. But, actual speakers will always perform better in imaging compared to virtual/phantom speakers regardless of the method used.​


----------



## smurraybhm

But they're KEF


----------



## batpig

UKTexan said:


> Batpig, have you tried any actual overhead speakers yet, even temporarily rigged or traditional front height locations? I'd be interested to hear your opinion. In the demo I attended, the overhead speakers DID produce discrete sounding effects from the ceiling mounted speakers using Dolby Surround in conjunction with either TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. The effects were astonishing using exactly the same Denon receiver you have. Unfortunately I can't comment on elevation speakers as I have not yet heard them.


No, unfortunately it would be a PITA for me to install physical height / ceiling speakers in my current living situation so I don't have any frame of reference. I do have a fairly "ideal" situation for Elevation speakers in this respect as (1) the limitation noted above and (2) I have a standard, 8ft flat drywall ceiling.

I'm going to hold off on firm conclusions until I can get my hands on an actual pair of Elevation modules with which to compare. But I do think with the combination of (1) virtual speakers vs. physical on-ceiling speakers and (2) DSU upmix vs. native Atmos content that it may be difficult to achieve "true" precise overhead imaging. We shall see.


----------



## batpig

zeus33 said:


> Sorry if it has been posted, but I haven't read through the thread. What is the recommendation for those that have their couch against the back wall? Obviously, it's not optimal but it is a very common setup for most homes. I'm assuming the "middle speakers" are for if you only use two height speakers instead of four?


At least on D&M models, you can't use adjacent pairs of height speakers among the five possible locations (Rear Height, Top Rear, Top Middle, Top Front, Front Height). So you can't for exampel do Top Middle + Top Front. So in a situation like yours, if you wanted to run four height speakers, you would probably want to do Top Middle + Front Height with the forward pair mounted a bit further forward than the "Top Front" speakers would typically be. 

So with a 5.1.4 setup -- surrounds to the sides close to ear level, a pair of speakers in the ceiling directly above you, and a pair of front heights mounted either high on the front wall or in the ceiling just a bit forward of the front wall -- I think you could still get a really effective Atmos expereince.


----------



## Selden Ball

zeus33 said:


> Sorry if it has been posted, but I haven't read through the thread. What is the recommendation for those that have their couch against the back wall? Obviously, it's not optimal but it is a very common setup for most homes. I'm assuming the "middle speakers" are for if you only use two height speakers instead of four?


It looks like the Top Middle speakers can be used as one of the two pairs when the other pair is either Front Height or Rear Height. Apparently they'd be too close to the Top Front or Top Rear speakers.

For example, attached are the overhead speaker selection tables from the Marantz SR7009's manual when a 9.1 speaker configuration is being used.


----------



## kbarnes701

zeus33 said:


> Sorry if it has been posted, but I haven't read through the thread. What is the recommendation for those that have their couch against the back wall? Obviously, it's not optimal but it is a very common setup for most homes. I'm assuming the "middle speakers" are for if you only use two height speakers instead of four?


If you can't meet the required angles, then you can't meet them. You can certainly meet the angles for Top Middle (65-100°) though and go with a 5.1.2 setup. That is a legitimate Atmos setup. You may be able to combine this with Front Heights (30-45°) for a 5.1.4 setup, depending on your room. That is also a legitimate Atmos setup. All the info you need is in the diagrams.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> The other, equally big unknown is how these different Atmos Elevation modules perform vs. each other in creating a seamless overhead effect, and how to choose between them besides on price, their dimensions and/or whether you want just an add-on or a conventional speaker with a built-in, top-firing element. Does a single, concentric driver like Onkyo's, DT's, or Pioneer's really does as well as Atlantic Technology's or KEF's two-way woofer/tweeter setup? Does lip matter? Is it worth the price premium to have four 1" drivers to get a possibly tighter dispersion pattern with Triad's version?
> 
> And these are just the manufacturers we know about today, before CEDIA.


It has to be easier to design a dual concentric version than to tackle all the problems associated with 4 small drivers so close together, so all things being equal, the Triads will cost more for the same performance in all likelihood. Maybe the same for the twin driver designs too. So for value, my money would be on the dual concentric designs.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yes, huge open question since many people are unlikely to be able to make the "easy" decision of just buying the Atmos module that "matches" their other speakers. Somebody like me who has a mid-level 5.1 Energy speaker setup is by necessity going to have to buy an Atmos module from some other brand. So how do I assess tonal match, relative quality, etc. Is there going to be a huge sound quality increase going from the bargain basement Onkyo module at $249 to a fancier AT module with 2-way coaxial design? Lots of questions.


At the first demo I attended, the upfirers were Onkyo and it sounded fabulous. At the second demo I attended, the upfirers were Kef and it sounded fabulous. My guess is that there is no point in paying a fortune for these modules. Atmos modules only have to be able to reproduce 180Hz and up - how hard can it be?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> OK, here's an update to the FB discussion. I asked Chris K for some clarification about his comments on the speakers "being used mostly for ambience and not imaging" and it looks like my inference was right that he was not talking about Atmos in general (rather the reflected speakers specifically), but he HAS heard them so you can't really lump him into the bandwagon to which you refer derisively


There's a reason for the derision, if that is what it was: If he's heard them, how can he possibly come to the conclusion that Atmos speakers, real or upfiring, are only reproducing "ambient effects". You only have to listen to one of the Atmos trailers for a few seconds to realise that is patently not the case.



batpig said:


> *Me:* (preamble about Atmos placing discrete sounds overhead truncated) So just to be clear, are you asserting that Atmos itself doesn't image overhead, or are you just expressing skepticism that the virtual speakers can successfully accomplish that goal?
> 
> *Chris: *I am skeptical about the ability to image with virtual speakers in general.​




And he's heard them he says? I find it hard to believe. The imaging I heard with the upfirers was astoundingly good. I could place Gxxxxx's voice with amazing precision in three dimensional space, every time, even before he appeared on screen (as I described in my first, redacted review).



batpig said:


> *Me:* Thanks Chris. Since you said you've attended Atmos demos, did you actually hear direct comparisons of in ceiling vs upward firing? Those who have reported on attending demos have said that the same test clips were played back in both scenarios and many in the audience were unable to tell the difference. So is your skepticism more theoretical or empirical?
> 
> *Chris: *I am not able to discuss the nature of the demo. But, yes I have heard direct comparisons. The difference was rather plainly audible. On the other hand, let's not lose the big picture here: having the extra channels is much better than not having them. But, actual speakers will always perform better in imaging compared to virtual/phantom speakers regardless of the method used.


He must have a different demo to the two I had.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> It has to be easier to design a dual concentric version than to tackle all the problems associated with 4 small drivers so close together, so all things being equal, the Triads will cost more for the same performance in all likelihood. Maybe the same for the twin driver designs too. So for value, my money would be on the dual concentric designs.



For value, I see your point. For all rooms and all content, we're all guessing until these things hit the wild.


----------



## WayneJoy

For those who didn't see the latest episode of Home Theater Geeks, Dolby will issue various press releases for Disc/Streaming content availability and other matters on Monday.


----------



## brwsaw

zeus33 said:


> Sorry if it has been posted, but I haven't read through the thread. What is the recommendation for those that have their couch against the back wall? Obviously, it's not optimal but it is a very common setup for most homes. I'm assuming the "middle speakers" are for if you only use two height speakers instead of four?


This is interesting, I wonder if top middle speakers can be used as well as top fronts while not installing top rears. The same could be said for the front 6 of 10 available. I accept you probably shouldn't, clarification about whether you could would be nice.
I'm looking forward to reading the new white papers.

Edit: Sorry, I should have read further down the page before posting.


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Until you get content with a real Atmos mix, I don't expect that you will get anything that remotely resembles a discrete overhead effect by use of the Dolby Surround Upmixer being applied to the vast majority of content that uses the standard encoding / mix.
> 
> We need less speculation and theory and some first hand experience with the products being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU.



Makes total common sense; right on!


----------



## NorthSky

WayneJoy said:


> The newest Home Theater Geeks episode with Dolby interview.
> 
> 
> http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/222


Hey, just brand new from only yesterday.


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> The other, equally big unknown is how these different Atmos Elevation modules perform vs. each other in creating a seamless overhead effect, and how to choose between them besides on price, their dimensions and/or whether you want just an add-on or a conventional speaker with a built-in, top-firing element. Does a single, concentric driver like Onkyo's, DT's, or Pioneer's really does as well as Atlantic Technology's or KEF's two-way woofer/tweeter setup? Does lip matter? Is it worth the price premium to have four 1" drivers to get a possibly tighter dispersion pattern with Triad's version?
> 
> And these are just the manufacturers we know about today, before CEDIA.


Trust the people you know best, the ones you love the most. ... _Andrew Jones?_


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> Um, I *AM* relating first hand experience with the product being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU. The only difference is that I am using a typical speaker pointed up at the ceiling instead of a purpose designed Atmos Elevation module, which is precisely in context with the query I responded to about whether such a thing would work effectively.


Thanks for sharing your experiences so far. Looking forward to hearing more.

What speakers are you using for your normal setup?

What are your impressions so far of the X5200 irrespective of Atmos? I'll check this thread or this one which is probably more appropriate: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1616010-official-2014-denon-atmos-xt32-model-thread-x4100-x5200-x7200.html


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Look at the specs!!
> 
> *R50 Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers *
> 
> Designed to sit above freestanding or wall-mounted home theatre satellite speakers, the new KEF R50 adds the all-important vertical sound dimension that allows you to enjoy at home the staggeringly realistic 3D sound image that Dolby Atmos creates in cinemas. Built around KEF’s latest and most sophisticated ‘sit anywhere’ Uni-Q driver array, with a 25mm (1-in.) vented aluminium tweeter at the centre of a potent 130mm (5.25-in.) bass/mid driver, it beams the sound upwards to envelope you in a breathtakingly precise multidimensional soundscape where each sound source moves as it does in real life.
> 
> 
> *Frequency range (-6dB)* *96Hz – 19.5kHz* *
> Frequency response (±3dB)* *105Hz – 18.5kHz* *Sensitivity **85dB*
> *(2.83V/1m) *
> 
> For $1500 a pair I think not!!!


A pair of KEF LS50 on sale is roughly a thou (+ change). 
...One thousand miles per hour that I'd pick them over the ones just above. 
...And put two pairs (roughly $2,200) above, on my ceiling. ...With balls of steel chain.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Depends on what you're trying to keep up with. A 3" driver will tend to have lower sensitivity and a smaller VC than a larger driver, limiting power handling and at the same time requiring more juice for a given output level. A 3" driver also has very limited displacement to work with, that even with a 180Hz HPF, its feasible to run into limits at "spirited" levels. On the high end, I'd advise taking a look at what the FR of an inexpensive 3" paper cone driver looks like.
> 
> http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-3-fullrange/hi-vi-c3n-iii-3-paper-cone-full-range/
> 
> How will the presentation differ from a 2 way concentric design that extends up higher and doesn't exhibit breakup in the zone where the HRTF is doing its thing?


I take your points - *IF* we were asking the speaker to deliver a full range, full fat performance like we expect the LCR to do. But Atmos speakers are effectively surround speakers. If I shut of my LCR amps and just listen to the surrounds in isolation, on pretty much any movie I have tried it on, it is surprising how little they really are doing (compared with the LCR).

I speak only for movies - I have no understanding at all of m/ch music.


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> This is interesting,* I wonder if top middle speakers can be used as well as top fronts *while not installing top rears. The same could be said for the front 6 of 10 available. I accept you probably shouldn't, clarification about whether you could would be nice.
> I'm looking forward to reading the new white papers.


No. The speakers can't be adjacent pairs. So FH + TM is OK, but TF + TM is no good.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> But they're KEF


Are they made in China?


----------



## NorthSky

If I can find two pairs of nice Genelec speakers @ the right price, I might try them on my ceiling. I got plans ... for overhead Atmos.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> No. The speakers can't be adjacent pairs. So FH + TM is OK, but TF + TM is no good.


and here I was contemplating just that, Keith. I'm glad I read these posts.

For D&M, I see that arrangement isn't an option. I re-checked Pioneer info, and the same is also true. 

For Pioneer - 

7.2.2: choices are 1) Top Mid OR FH, 2) Top Mid OR FW.
5.2.4: choice is Top Fr & Top Rr

So no Top Fr & Top Mid pairs at same time for Pioneer either.

And I just had posted in the SC-89 thread that new owners will have to carefully read the manual for speaker configurations, connections and setup. No winging it as some do, not wanting to read the manual. They will get into trouble w/o consulting these manuals, diagrams & rear panel connections carefully. And it even happened to me & many of you know I do read them!


----------



## petetherock

IMHO, and it's my personal speculation, that non-Atmos specced speakers are frown upon, simply because they want us to buy new stuff!
I can't quite see why a limited bandwidth speaker needs to cost so much, and does better than a good bookshelf speaker that covers the same frequency range...

As for ceiling ones, I am opting for Anthony Gallos...


----------



## ss9001

I hadn't thought of Gallos. I see an accessory for putting them into a ceiling like any in-ceiling speaker but it there a way to mount them on the ceiling? which model are you considering?


----------



## pasender91

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Until you get content with a real Atmos mix, I don't expect that you will get anything that remotely resembles a discrete overhead effect by use of the Dolby Surround Upmixer being applied to the vast majority of content that uses the standard encoding / mix.
> 
> 
> *We need less speculation and theory and some first hand experience with the products being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU*.


That's what Batpig just did, he tested a real product in his home and on DSU content, so it is a very valid test, especially as DSU upmix from 2.0 or 5.1 will be the vast majority of what we will listen to for many years to come 

Batpig, you're the man, i will be waiting for your results the day you compare bookshelves with atmos modules, hopefully you will be able to share your results and impressions


----------



## zeus33

batpig said:


> So with a 5.1.4 setup -- surrounds to the sides close to ear level, a pair of speakers in the ceiling directly above you, and a pair of front heights mounted either high on the front wall or in the ceiling just a bit forward of the front wall -- I think you could still get a really effective Atmos expereince.



Thanks for the info.

I just realized that for Atmos, your surround speakers need to be lowered to ear level. The recommended placement before (Dolby, THX, etc.) was 2 ft above ear level. Apparently they want as much separation from the height speakers as possible.


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> As for ceiling ones, I am opting for Anthony Gallos...


The spheres?


----------



## petetherock

Yes sir...
A'Diva X 4....


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

batpig said:


> Um, I *AM* relating first hand experience with the product being used in a home setting with standard content being upmixed with DSU. The only difference is that I am using a typical speaker pointed up at the ceiling instead of a purpose designed Atmos Elevation module, which is precisely in context with the query I responded to about whether such a thing would work effectively.



I did not intend to be as critical of your trial as it looks. More or less I meant that we need multiple in home trails of the various Atmos / ceiling speaker setups with a comparison of actual Atmos content and standard content played back with the DS Upmixer.

A question could be is the "noise" that comes out of the Atmos / ceiling speaker what you are expecting to hear, or is it similar to ambient surround noise with the speaker being placed up high? Is the addition of the Atmos / ceiling speakers worth the effort when content is played back via DSU? Is 2 channel content adequate for the DSU, or do you need 5.1 content to get a good "height" effect?

Plenty of questions with limited user experience in a real world home setting.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> The spheres?





petetherock said:


> Yes sir...
> A'Diva X 4....


Should work nicely.


----------



## SanchoPanza

I wonder if Atmos Blu rays will have better Height material for PLIIz?


----------



## NorthSky

PLIIz? ...Is dead. ...It's Dolby Surround now.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Still alive on my AVRs.


----------



## pasender91

On a non-atmos avr yes you're right, but then it will not decode any Atmos info !!! it will just work from the usual 5.1, no changes at all for you, i'm afraid. 
On a new Atmos AVR, no more PL IIz, replaced with Dolby surround.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Perhaps; we'll see.


----------



## bargervais

*s*



SanchoPanza said:


> Still alive on my AVRs.


What AVR do you have


----------



## SanchoPanza

Denon 3312 & 3311.


----------



## NorthSky

SanchoPanza said:


> Still alive on my AVRs.


Pretty much obsolete now.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Perhaps; remains to be seen.


----------



## bargervais

*a*



pasender91 said:


> On a non-atmos avr yes you're right, but then it will not decode any Atmos info !!! it will just work from the usual 5.1, no changes at all for you, i'm afraid.
> On a new Atmos AVR, no more PL IIz, replaced with Dolby surround.


Correct Keith talked about this that Dolby surround replaced PL IIz


----------



## NorthSky

SanchoPanza said:


> Perhaps; we'll see.


You'll have the regular PLIIz that you always had before, from all them Dolby and dts various flavors of audio soundtracks. Dolby Atmos new stuff will be simply ignored. 

Like I said; obsolete.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Perhaps, we'll see.


----------



## kokishin

SanchoPanza said:


> Perhaps, we'll see.





NorthSky said:


> Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## wse

IIz was never very good IMHO


----------



## WhiskeyConway

NorthSky said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spheres?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petetherock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sir...
> A'Diva X 4....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should work nicely.
Click to expand...

Interesting. 

I see they have a wide dispersion model, A'Diva SE. Plus, they have a nice pivoting ceiling mount. I found this at roundsound.com . $330 a piece seems a bit much for their size, but I won't judge. Let us know how these work out, I am going to start renovating my basement soon and these may do the trick. 


Anyone else heard the A'Diva as satellites?



Frequency Response 80Hz to 22Khz (on wall)
100Hz to 22kHz (on stand)

Impedance	4 ohms (nominal)

Sensitivity	85 dB @2.83v / 1 Meter

Power Handling	60 watts (full range)

125 watts (X-over at 80-120Hz)

Driver	3" wide-dispersion flat diaphragm

Dimensions	5" Sphere


----------



## SanchoPanza

Hard to make my point from an iPhone; but, my old Sony 6.1 dts/Dolby AVR, circa 2001 does receive some benefit from dts-HD...at least from what I read on the dts website.

FULL Benefit, up to 6.1, if I use MULTI Channel outs from a Blu ray player to the Sonys MULTI Channel inputs.

So, there MAY be some benefit from Atmos Blu rays; especially if it is 7.1.

When one comes out that I want, I will give it a whirl.


----------



## pasender91

Something is puzzling me from an Atmos-decoding standpoint, maybe some experts lurking around like FilmMiwer or others can help.

- Let's assume we have a soundtrack that includes an helicopter.
- For users without atmos, the BD will have a 5.1 or 7.1 with the helicopter, let's assume 5.1 for this discussion.
- Then Atmos has the helicopter as an object, moving around the scene.
- But the helicopter is already in the 5.1, so how does it work? 
- Option 1): Does Atmos "ignore" the 5.1 speakers in order not to have the helicopter twice?
- Option 2): Does the disc have a separate 5.1 without the helicopter, dedicated to Atmos playback?

Sorry in advance if this was a stupid question ...


----------



## SanchoPanza

Reads like a good Q, to me.


----------



## NorthSky

SanchoPanza said:


> Hard to make my point from an iPhone; but, my old Sony 6.1 dts/Dolby AVR, circa 2001 does receive some benefit from dts-HD...at least from what I read on the dts website.
> 
> FULL Benefit, up to 6.1, if I use MULTI Channel outs from a Blu ray player to the Sonys MULTI Channel inputs.
> 
> *So, there MAY be some benefit from Atmos Blu rays; especially if it is 7.1.
> 
> When one comes out that I want, I will give it a whir*l.


Yes, let us know please.

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## David Susilo

pasender91 said:


> Something is puzzling me from an Atmos-decoding standpoint, maybe some experts lurking around like FilmMiwer or others can help.
> 
> - Let's assume we have a soundtrack that includes an helicopter.
> - For users without atmos, the BD will have a 5.1 or 7.1 with the helicopter, let's assume 5.1 for this discussion.
> - Then Atmos has the helicopter as an object, moving around the scene.
> - But the helicopter is already in the 5.1, so how does it work?
> - Option 1): Does Atmos "ignore" the 5.1 speakers in order not to have the helicopter twice?
> - Option 2): Does the disc have a separate 5.1 without the helicopter, dedicated to Atmos playback?
> 
> Sorry in advance if this was a stupid question ...


You know what? I never asked that question! I should ask about that at CEDIA! Thank you for the very good question!


----------



## SanchoPanza

& of course, some one COULD come out with a Dolby Atmos Enabled Blu ray player with MULTI Channel outputs...

Perhaps...


----------



## SanchoPanza

PLIIz seemed to work best with TrueHD 7.1 Material.


----------



## NorthSky

SanchoPanza said:


> & of course, some one COULD come out with a Dolby Atmos Enabled Blu ray player with MULTI Channel outputs...
> 
> Perhaps...


Very possible, Oppo, perhaps...



SanchoPanza said:


> PLIIz seemed to work best with TrueHD 7.1 Material.


...And with DTS-HD MA 7.1 surround too.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

pasender91 said:


> Something is puzzling me from an Atmos-decoding standpoint, maybe some experts lurking around like FilmMiwer or others can help.
> 
> - Let's assume we have a soundtrack that includes an helicopter.
> - For users without atmos, the BD will have a 5.1 or 7.1 with the helicopter, let's assume 5.1 for this discussion.
> - Then Atmos has the helicopter as an object, moving around the scene.
> - But the helicopter is already in the 5.1, so how does it work?
> - Option 1): Does Atmos "ignore" the 5.1 speakers in order not to have the helicopter twice?
> - Option 2): Does the disc have a separate 5.1 without the helicopter, dedicated to Atmos playback?
> 
> Sorry in advance if this was a stupid question ...


Pretty sure it was covered in home theater geeks 222.. an object is no different than a character in a film and isn't cut out. 

I may be wrong, but I understand it as that certain sounds, designated as "objects", normally laying down into the standard 7.1 bed of audio, can be given additional room placement info and essentially pulled up and given directions from the metadata. 

At least that was my interpretation. Some sounds are given the ability to rise, and some aren't. An atmos avr can simply move those enlightened sounds up to the heavens and make us spend a bunch of money.


----------



## petetherock

SanchoPanza said:


> Perhaps, we'll see.


Denial mate?


----------



## SanchoPanza

But can it move those enlightened sounds up & get heaven to send US lots of money?


----------



## SanchoPanza

petetherock said:


> Denial mate?


Not at all; if you'll just POST me a Dolby Atmos Enabled Blu ray I can remove all doubt.


----------



## petetherock

You can get cheaper and bigger speakers, if that's the name of the game..
Or get something neat that the missus won't mind, produces good sound, and doesn't cost that much...
Many companies offer far more expensive and equally small speakers. 
Those Atmos speakers don't come cheap either...
YMMV ... cheers


WhiskeyConway said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I see they have a wide dispersion model, A'Diva SE. Plus, they have a nice pivoting ceiling mount. I found this at roundsound.com . $330 a piece seems a bit much for their size, but I won't judge. Let us know how these work out, I am going to start renovating my basement soon and these may do the trick.
> 
> 
> Anyone else heard the A'Diva as satellites?
> 
> 
> 
> Frequency Response 80Hz to 22Khz (on wall)
> 100Hz to 22kHz (on stand)
> 
> Impedance 4 ohms (nominal)
> 
> Sensitivity 85 dB @2.83v / 1 Meter
> 
> Power Handling 60 watts (full range)
> 
> 125 watts (X-over at 80-120Hz)
> 
> Driver 3" wide-dispersion flat diaphragm
> 
> Dimensions 5" Sphere


----------



## SanchoPanza

Need my snailer?


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Something is puzzling me from an Atmos-decoding standpoint, maybe some experts lurking around like FilmMiwer or others can help.
> 
> - Let's assume we have a soundtrack that includes an helicopter.
> - For users without atmos, the BD will have a 5.1 or 7.1 with the helicopter, let's assume 5.1 for this discussion.
> - Then Atmos has the helicopter as an object, moving around the scene.
> - But the helicopter is already in the 5.1, so how does it work?
> - Option 1): Does Atmos "ignore" the 5.1 speakers in order not to have the helicopter twice?
> - Option 2): Does the disc have a separate 5.1 without the helicopter, dedicated to Atmos playback?
> 
> Sorry in advance if this was a stupid question ...


1. With a Dolby Atmos equipped receiver and a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray: You get the full Dolby Atmos elevated experience/impact; WoW! 

2. Without a Dolby Atmos equipped receiver but still with a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray: You'll get the normal Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (or 7.1) surround sound. ...Use your Dolby Pro Logic II family as usual surround sound business. ...Audio (Movie) listening mode. ...Or the dts family. ...Or the THX family (if you have).
{The Dolby Atmos stuff is simply ignored/discarded/eliminated/invisible/absent/dead/nada/zip/zero.}

3. With a Dolby Atmos equipped receiver and a non Dolby Atmos Blu-ray (normal Blu-ray with a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio soundtrack): Engage the new Dolby Surround "upmixer" audio listening mode.

4. With a non Dolby Atmos receiver and a non Dolby Atmos Blu-ray (normal Blu-ray): Well ...  ...You live in the prehistoric age of enraged people who still wish for a better life in their miserable existence.


----------



## NorthSky

SanchoPanza said:


> But can it move those enlightened sounds up & get heaven to send US lots of money?


The Internet, and AVS Forum, and this thread here, are all still part of the planet Earth of the vast universe (multiverse?). 

You can check if money grows in that tree from the backyard of yours, and if it does give us a call.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Dang, so you are sure it won't send US money?


----------



## bargervais

It almost the end of the growing season getting ready to harvest the bill's from my tree. before tax frost gets them


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> - Then Atmos has the helicopter as an object, moving around the scene.
> - But the helicopter is already in the 5.1, so how does it work?


Atmos soundtracks are made up of objects and channel beds. For home video delivery, they are combined into a 5.1 or 7.1 downmix for backwards compatibility. 

In your example, the 5.1 downmix has an extension packet of data attached that contains objects, like the helicopter sound. The data describing the helicopter sound is inverted and subtracted from the 5.1 downmix. 

If you do this with all the other objects, they will all be removed from the 5.1 downmix. Without the objects, it is no longer a downmix. Instead, you've recovered the original bed channels. 

The beds get sent to their respective 5.1 speakers while the objects, like the helicopter sound, move around. Not complicated.


----------



## Orbitron

sdurani said:


> Atmos soundtracks are made up of objects and channel beds. For home video delivery, they are combined into a 5.1 or 7.1 downmix for backwards compatibility.
> 
> In your example, the 5.1 downmix has an extension packet of data attached that contains objects, like the helicopter sound. The data describing the helicopter sound is inverted and subtracted from the 5.1 downmix.
> 
> If you do this with all the other objects, they will all be removed from the 5.1 downmix. Without the objects, it is no longer a downmix. Instead, you've recovered the original bed channels.
> 
> The beds get sent to their respective 5.1 speakers while the objects, like the helicopter sound, move around. Not complicated.


What if the helicopter was in a bed?


----------



## Wellywell

*Atmos 2 pair height support TX-NR838?*

Guys quick question, hopefully someone knows the answer. I recently purchased the tx-nr838 and it only has 1 channel output for height. I noticed it also has a preamp out for height so I'm wondering if I use a 2 Channel external amp will I get individual object sound from each ceiling speaker? I'm assuming yes and since the 838 has dual 32 bit processing, my surround is surround and atmos is atmos 2 different things. I guess I'm still coming to terms with understanding atmos, lol


----------



## SanchoPanza

Orbitron said:


> What if the helicopter was in a bed?


I've seen a bed in a helicopter.


----------



## Wellywell

Wellywell said:


> Guys quick question, hopefully someone knows the answer. I recently purchased the tx-nr838 and it only has 1 channel output for height. I noticed it also has a preamp out for height so I'm wondering if I use a 2 Channel external amp will I get individual object sound from each ceiling speaker? I'm assuming yes and since the 838 has dual 32 bit processing, my surround is surround and atmos is atmos 2 different things. I guess I'm still coming to terms with understanding atmos, lol


Can't wait for Sept. 29th! I'm installing 2 pair of Monoprice 6 1/2" 2-way in-ceiling speakers front and back next week and looking forward to the content. I also can't wait for games to support it.


----------



## sdurani

Orbitron said:


> What if the helicopter was in a bed?


Nothing happens to it.


----------



## sdurani

Wellywell said:


> I recently purchased the tx-nr838 and it only has 1 channel output for height.


That's not possible.


----------



## Orbitron

sdurani said:


> Nothing happens to it.


Unless it's 2 helicopters in the bed - then you get the dreaded HELI-BABY.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> No. The speakers can't be adjacent pairs. So FH + TM is OK, but TF + TM is no good.


Is this a first gen setback?
We know x.x.10 is possible,and that Atmos is said to work with any multichannel system (5.1-24.1).


----------



## Frohlich

Orbitron said:


> What if the helicopter was in a bed?


California King?????


----------



## Wellywell

sdurani said:


> That's not possible.


What's not possible?


----------



## NorthSky

Nothing is impossible. ...Not with Dolby Atmos now in our homes...


----------



## Wellywell

Wellywell said:


> What's not possible?


It's totally possible once the firmware comes out?


----------



## SanchoPanza

Wellywell said:


> It's totally possible once the firmware comes out?



as far as you know...


----------



## sdurani

Wellywell said:


> What's not possible?


What you said earlier:


Wellywell said:


> it only has 1 channel output for height


----------



## Wellywell

sdurani said:


> What you said earlier:


Actually it has two but 1 is a pre-amp out


----------



## Wellywell

*838 Rear Panel Height Pre-Amp Out*

See I'm pretty sure I can run two pair of height channel if I use a separate amp


----------



## SubSolar

For those with the couch closer to the rear of the room, are you guys installing the top fronts further from the MLP than the top rears?


----------



## Roger Dressler

zeus33 said:


> I just realized that for Atmos, your surround speakers need to be lowered to ear level. The recommended placement before (Dolby, THX, etc.) was 2 ft above ear level. Apparently they want as much separation from the height speakers as possible.


I think saying "need to be lowered" is stronger than necessary. Are they lowering the surrounds in the cinema? Nope.

If you plan to use your system 100% with Atmos or DSU, then designing it or even modifying it with ear-level surrounds might be useful, assuming the sides are not right in line with a row of seats. That will cause blockage of the sound path. 

If you do not plan on 100% use of Atmos/DSU, do you really want to impact the performance of the base 5.1/7.1 system?


----------



## NorthSky

Me, I would use common sense: Eg.; 8-foot ceiling, 3-foot ear level (main seat), five fronts @ ear level, four surrounds @ near ear level (between three and four feet), and four overheads @ 8 feet. 

With Dolby Atmos, all the main channels (FLW, FL, C, FR, FRW, SR, SBR, SBL, SL) @ ear level (the four surrounds can be slightly higher, by 2 to 12 inches, roughly, or @ ear level too), and the four overheads (ceiling) @ the height of the ceiling (from 8 to 9 feet).

* Up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers (four of them modules), on top of the FL, FR, SBR, SBL, or on their own stands, within three feet of their mains, away from any walls, and just above ear level (roughly 40 inches ).
...Or Dolby Atmos full equipped tower speakers, with integrated up-firing speakers. 

If not Dolby Atmos, you can raise them four surrounds from three to five feet high. 

That's me, and my own common sense.


----------



## jdsmoothie

SubSolar said:


> For those with the couch closer to the rear of the room, are you guys installing the top fronts further from the MLP than the top rears?


As was answered in Scott W's podcast ... the Dolby recommendation is the focus is on the MLP and so the angle to each of the TF and TR speakers from the MLP should be the same (ie. mount the TF closer in your case to match the closer distance to the TR).


----------



## maikeldepotter

jdsmoothie said:


> As was answered in Scott W's podcast ... the Dolby recommendation is the focus is on the MLP and so the angle to each of the TF and TR speakers from the MLP should be the same (ie. mount the TF closer in your case to match the closer distance to the TR).


With 'angle' are you referring to elevation angle or azimuth?


----------



## Selden Ball

If you move speakers closer to one another, directionality suffers, so they should be kept as far apart as possible. For example, Top Middle + Top Front is not an allowed configuration. In other words, if one set of the Top speakers is going to have to be effectively directly overhead, you should consider designating them Top Middle. The forward overhead pair then has to be Front Height.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Most of the time, this is probably true. However, surrounds and (per one of FilmMixer's prior posts) Atmos speakers are still expected to deliver peaks up to 105dB at the listening position when listening at reference level. Even with bass management, that's far more than what a 3" driver is going to handle. At the end of the day, all it really takes is one movie where someone wanted to mix some fireworks a little hot to blow a driver.
> 
> Edit: To clarify, we're talking about utilization versus what may be required of the channels. The surround channels ARE full range, full fat channels like the LCR, but they aren't often heavily utilized. However, for those moments when they are in the spotlight (which may not be every movie, but it certainly happens), it pays to have speakers up to the task.


Interesting point about the Atmos speakers being able to deliver 105dB. `Even though I made sure mine could do that (mine are physical on-ceiling speakers though) it hadn't occurred to me to consider the upfiring modules in this way. 

So really, what you are questioning is whether the Andrew Jones designs for Pioneer or the Onkyo designs are able to meet the Atmos specification? I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe I was told by Dolby that every Atmos speaker had to meet their specification. If that specification is that they can play 105dB without issues, then in order to meet Dolby's requirements, the drivers we are discussing should be able to play 105dB without issues.

So I am wondering which it is: can the 3 inch drivers play 105dB to meet the Atmos spec (and Dolby's requirement AIUI), or not?


----------



## jdsmoothie

maikeldepotter said:


> With 'angle' are you referring to elevation angle or azimuth?


Elevation. "Top" speakers should be placed in line with the FL/FR and SBL/SBR speakers. So in the instance where a couch is positioned fairly close to the back wall, it limits the distance the TRL/TRR speakers can be placed behind the MLP which in turn then ideally requires the TFL/TFR speakers to be placed the same shorter distance in front of the MLP (therefore closer then one might expect in a more open room with say at least 10' behind the couch).


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> and here I was contemplating just that, Keith. I'm glad I read these posts.
> 
> For D&M, I see that arrangement isn't an option. I re-checked Pioneer info, and the same is also true.
> 
> For Pioneer -
> 
> 7.2.2: choices are 1) Top Mid OR FH, 2) Top Mid OR FW.
> 5.2.4: choice is Top Fr & Top Rr
> 
> So no Top Fr & Top Mid pairs at same time for Pioneer either.
> 
> And I just had posted in the SC-89 thread that new owners will have to carefully read the manual for speaker configurations, connections and setup. No winging it as some do, not wanting to read the manual. They will get into trouble w/o consulting these manuals, diagrams & rear panel connections carefully. And it even happened to me & many of you know I do read them!


It's a minefield for the unwary, for sure. I guess anything new is. The permitted combinations, for the avoidance of doubt, are:

Front Height + Top Middle
Front Height + Top Rear
Front Height + Rear Height
Top Front + Top Rear (default)
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> IMHO, and it's my personal speculation, that non-Atmos specced speakers are frown upon, simply because they want us to buy new stuff!
> I can't quite see why a limited bandwidth speaker needs to cost so much, and does better than a good bookshelf speaker that covers the same frequency range...


The Scott Wilkinson interview with Andrew Jones has some good insights. Available over at Home Theater Geeks as a podcast.


----------



## kbarnes701

SanchoPanza said:


> I wonder if Atmos Blu rays will have better Height material for PLIIz?


Nor sure what you mean, but Prologic will disappear in Atmos enabled AVRs and is being replaced by Dolby Surround Upmixer, so if you have an Atmos AVR you won't have PLIIz any more.



SanchoPanza said:


> Perhaps; we'll see.


No need to 'see'. It's definitely so.


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> Is this a first gen setback?
> We know x.x.10 is possible,and that Atmos is said to work with any multichannel system (5.1-24.1).


It could be. When units appear with 10 overhead possibilities it might be different configurations, or even all configurations are possible. Or it could be that similar restrictions apply. Only Trinnov so far have more capability than the big name brands - maybe the Trinnov thread has the answer?


----------



## jdsmoothie

SanchoPanza said:


> I wonder if Atmos Blu rays will have better Height material for PLIIz?


Dolby indicates a better height experience should be realized when using Dolby Surround Upmixer on the new 2014 Atmos models.


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> For those with the couch closer to the rear of the room, are you guys installing the top fronts further from the MLP than the top rears?


Just follow the angles in the oft-posted diagram. That gives you a range of potential positions. Bear in mind you need good angular separation between all speakers when deciding where in the range to put the speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Presumably Dolby is more concerned with the modules meeting specs along the lines of FR, dispersion, etc. It would have to be up to the user to purchase a module that would provide sufficient output for their purposes. Some (many) consumers opt not to listen at reference levels, room size is a factor, etc. Not much sense in trying to specify one size meets all in that respect.


Agreed. My point was, though, that AIUI (and ICBW here) Dolby have specified that the modules must meet their requirements. If one of those requirements is the ability to play at 105dB without problems, then consumer preference doesn't come into it.



Steve1981 said:


> I'd love to see an FR graph on Onkyo's module though. That thing looks....pathetic. The AJ module on the other hand still uses a concentric unit for the Atmos driver (at least according to the product sheets), so extension / breakup aren't issues. In addition, the mid/woof's power handling ought to be much better than you'd expect for the size. Remember, the tweeter assembly has to fit within the VC former of the Pio's midrange driver. A 1.5" VC wouldn't be unexpected in this case, though that's absolutely huge for a 4" driver.


I have actually heard the Onkyo upfirers at the first demo I attended at Dolby in London, which was co-hosted with Onkyo. They sounded terrific. I can't say what SPLs they achieved in the demo, nor if it reached Reference, but it was certainly loud enough for me (and I usually listen at home about 5dB below Reference). I take all your points, but I didn’t hear any issues.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> If you move speakers closer to one another, directionality suffers, so they should be kept as far apart as possible. For example, Top Middle + Top Front is not an allowed configuration. In other words, if one set of the Top speakers is going to have to be effectively directly overhead, you should consider designating them Top Middle. The forward overhead pair then has to be Front Height.


What about the optimal azimuth spread between two pairs of top/height speakers. Without top middle speakers I could imagine a 'hole in the middle' effect when the two pairs are too far apart (in an very long room). On the other hand, there must also exist some minimum as far as this azimuth spread is concerned (e.g. in a very short room). Any information yet available on that?


----------



## smurraybhm

It's easy to cast doubt when most have yet to hear Atmos. At least Keith has heard them so until some of us have the opportunity to do so maybe it's best to not throw darts yet. If your older like I am it's not hard to remember the days when just about every hi-fi speaker had woofers, mids and tweeters made with paper - they managed to sound pretty damn good as long as someone didn't puncture a driver - with paper that was pretty easy for a small child (speaking as someone who may have done that).

Given what the upfiring modules are required to do, I don't see the use of a paper driver as grounds for dismissing them without hearing them.


----------



## bargervais

Wellywell said:


> Guys quick question, hopefully someone knows the answer. I recently purchased the tx-nr838 and it only has 1 channel output for height. I noticed it also has a preamp out for height so I'm wondering if I use a 2 Channel external amp will I get individual object sound from each ceiling speaker? I'm assuming yes and since the 838 has dual 32 bit processing, my surround is surround and atmos is atmos 2 different things. I guess I'm still coming to terms with understanding atmos, lol


I was told that it was only capable of 7. 1 because it only has 7 pre outs not sure if that pre out high is the same channel as the amplified speaker post I was going to get the 838 but I was told that it could only do 5.1.2. Hopefully someone in here can clarify if 5.1.4 is possible if one were to use an external AMP For atmos height speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

jdsmoothie said:


> Elevation. "Top" speakers should be placed in line with the FL/FR and SBL/SBR speakers. So in the instance where a couch is positioned fairly close to the back wall, it limits the distance the TRL/TRR speakers can be placed behind the MLP which in turn then ideally requires the TFL/TFR speakers to be placed the same shorter distance in front of the MLP (therefore closer then one might expect in a more open room with say at least 10' behind the couch).


Thanks for clarifying that. So having your top rears fairly close behind you, your top fronts will end up fairly close in front of you. No need to worry about some minimum distance between these two pairs in terms of effectivity? (see also my previous post on maximum and minimum distances).


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> It's easy to cast doubt when most have yet to hear Atmos. At least Keith has heard them so until some of us have the opportunity to do so maybe it's best to not throw darts yet. If your older like I am it's not hard to remember the days when just about every hi-fi speaker had woofers, mids and tweeters made with paper - they managed to sound pretty damn good as long as someone didn't puncture a driver - with paper that was pretty easy for a small child (speaking as someone who may have done that).
> 
> Given what the upfiring modules are required to do, I don't see the use of a paper driver as grounds for dismissing them without hearing them.


Keith is not the only one reporting that they have been to an Atmos demo and was impressed. 
Mind you Keith has given us an awesome amount of pages of his thoughts and reviews on what he experienced.


----------



## Selden Ball

maikeldepotter said:


> What about the optimal azimuth spread between two pairs of top/height speakers. Without top middle speakers I could imagine a 'hole in the middle' effect when the two pairs are too far apart (in an very long room). On the other hand, there must also exist some minimum as far as this azimuth spread is concerned (e.g. in a very short room). Any information yet available on that?


Angular separation is what Dolby seems to care about, not so much the physical positions. To a large extent, the distance to the speaker will be compensated for by the AVR's calibration: for example, closer speakers will have their signals delayed to match the delay heard from distant speakers, while their sound levels will be amplified or attenuated to match reference levels. While seated, you essentially say "it came from that direction" while other auditory cues in the soundtrack (not the room!) are supposed to tell you how far away the object is. When audio systems have been calibrated and thus optimized for movies, the cues provided by in-room acoustics (reflections) are supposed to have been minimized. (This is unlike many of the audio systems which have been optimized for music listening. Often the cues provided by the listening-room's acoustics are more desirable than they are for movies.)

While I haven't seen azimuthal angles specified explicitly for the overhead speakers, you should be able to measure them yourself on the diagrams which are provided in the AVR manuals. See the attached layout diagrams: one provides elevation angles for overhead speakers (taken from a D+M manual), while the other provides azimuthal angles for the ear-level speakers (taken from Dolby's Web site at http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/7-1-setup.html). Overhead speakers are expected to be placed on the lines between the front main speakers and rear surround speakers. Also, bear in mind that speaker placement is not expected to be as precise as some of us would prefer. Quite a bit of leeway is allowed.

Edited to add:

Note that the minimum recommended separation between Top Front and Top Rear is 70 degrees (125-55), while the minimum from Front Height to Top Middle is only 20 degrees (65-45) but more typically would be about 45 (90-45).


----------



## pasender91

sdurani said:


> Atmos soundtracks are made up of objects and channel beds. For home video delivery, they are combined into a 5.1 or 7.1 downmix for backwards compatibility.
> 
> In your example, the 5.1 downmix has an extension packet of data attached that contains objects, like the helicopter sound. The data describing the helicopter sound is inverted and subtracted from the 5.1 downmix.
> 
> If you do this with all the other objects, they will all be removed from the 5.1 downmix. Without the objects, it is no longer a downmix. Instead, you've recovered the original bed channels.
> 
> The beds get sent to their respective 5.1 speakers while the objects, like the helicopter sound, move around. Not complicated.


Ok, so it seems to be another option yet, if i summarize it:
With Atmos engaged, the helicopter gets "removed" from the 5.1 bed, and then added again at the right location.

It makes sense, but i better understand now why Atmos needs massive DSP horsepower 
At least it allows to have only one 5.1 bed on the disc, minimizing space used.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Glad we've put that to bed.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Is this thread really trying to figure out the speaker placement of overhead speakers so that we can correctly place off screen monkeys in the exact position intended by the sound engineer?

It would be to easy to troll this thread with the same silly questions and watch everyone try to be a white knight riding in to save the day, explaining the white paper and info already answered on home theater geeks episode 222.

I think a nice expansion of the sound field will be heard with dolby surround and two additional overhead speakers in the top forward position. More would be better, but I bet those few with a 7.1 setup have rear surrounds somewhere closer to the spec for rear heights than ear height.

Let's say you add two top forward speakers to a 7.1 setup with fairly high rear surrounds. If rear surrounds from a 7.1 are designated as rear heights, so that the avr thinks it's 5.1.4, will part of the rear surround bed from the 7.1 movie play in the "rear height" with dolby surround? Also, what would happen if it was a bluray with atmos?

The avr "should" just know speaker placement, in xyz, and blend the sounds from that general direction in with other known speakers in the setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> What about the optimal azimuth spread between two pairs of top/height speakers. Without top middle speakers I could imagine a 'hole in the middle' effect when the two pairs are too far apart (in an very long room). On the other hand, there must also exist some minimum as far as this azimuth spread is concerned (e.g. in a very short room). Any information yet available on that?


The ceiling speakers should be in line with the front L and R speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> The problem with demos is that they're highly controlled in a way that isn't going to happen in the wild. I don't doubt your experiences, but its an open question as to how they'll translate to a wide variety of real world material at bone rattling volumes, particularly in larger spaces.


I didn't see any evidence of 'control' in the Dolby demos. Everyday equipment and speakers used in an everyday sort of HT room. UKTexan reported similar experiences to my own in the store demo he attended, as have others in various demos around the world.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Just looked at the product sheet for the Onkyo:
> Output Sound Pressure Level: 81dB/W/m
> Rated Input Power: 25W
> Max. Input Power: 100W
> 
> I think its fair to say 105dB isn't going happen.


On the basis of those figures, no it isn't. So the question is: do Dolby specify that the Atmos speakers must be able to play 105dB or don't they? And if they do, do they specify that a speaker has to meet that target in order to be classed as an Atmos-enabled speaker?


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> It's easy to cast doubt when most have yet to hear Atmos. At least Keith has heard them so until some of us have the opportunity to do so maybe it's best to not throw darts yet. If your older like I am it's not hard to remember the days when just about every hi-fi speaker had woofers, mids and tweeters made with paper - they managed to sound pretty damn good as long as someone didn't puncture a driver - with paper that was pretty easy for a small child (speaking as someone who may have done that).
> 
> Given what the upfiring modules are required to do, I don't see the use of a paper driver as grounds for dismissing them without hearing them.


Yep. I remember those days well  Well, I've heard upfirers at two demos, and I honestly could find no fault with them. I am an experienced listener, with decades of hi-fi and AV experience behind me and I have owned, and listened to elsewhere, numerous high quality (and low quality) systems over the years. In both 'my' demos, the upfirers delivered everything I could imagine anyone wanting. And most of the listeners could not readily distinguish between upfirers and ceiling speakers, and where they could, they tended to prefer the upfirers. Personally I am convinced.

I will have my own Atmos system installed and running next week (or the week after if any delays in delivery occur) so will be able to report back on my initial experiences, albeit at this stage only with DSU of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Thanks for clarifying that. *So having your top rears fairly close behind you, your top fronts will end up fairly close in front of yo*u. No need to worry about some minimum distance between these two pairs in terms of effectivity? (see also my previous post on maximum and minimum distances).


Not necessarily. Follow the angles! There is a fair range of possibilities as the angles are quite generously spread - eg 30-55° for Top Front.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Keith is not the only one reporting that they have been to an Atmos demo and was impressed.


Quite. I think everyone has been similarly impressed other than the guys who attended the NYC demo, where some complained that the sound was 'harsh'. In every other case, people have been impressed and pleased with what they heard. At the first demo I attended, I hung around for a while after my demo was over (I was in the first group to go in) and every group that came out after me was smiling and saying how great the experience had been. I didn't meet or hear a single person who was less than happy with what they heard.



> Mind you Keith has given us an awesome amount of pages of his thoughts and reviews on what he experienced.


Thanks. I am happy to help spread the good news about this huge step forward in home theater audio.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Sorry, but regardless of the fact that Atmos modules are new, they're still loudspeakers and the same basic physics apply. Firing a 3" paper speaker up towards the ceiling doesn't change its inherent limitations, and those limitations are quite well known. If someone thinks they sound good, more power to them. But to imagine that they represent the state of the art or that improvement isn't possible...that doesn't fly. To put it another way, if Bose releases a next gen cube with a "state of the art" 2.5" paper driver, I don't need to hear it to know why it will continue to suck.


I agree with you, but where we might diverge is on what the upfiring speakers are intended to do. If you are expecting them to play like my M&K S150s, then clearly they will not and by that standard they can be dismissed. The only fair and meaningful anlaysis of their capabilities is within the context of what they actually have to do. BTW, I didn't "think" they sounded good. They sounded good.


----------



## jdsmoothie

maikeldepotter said:


> What about the optimal azimuth spread between two pairs of top/height speakers. Without top middle speakers I could imagine a 'hole in the middle' effect when the two pairs are too far apart (in an very long room). On the other hand, there must also exist some minimum as far as this azimuth spread is concerned (e.g. in a very short room). Any information yet available on that?


Dolby is expected to publish their white paper on speaker installation on Monday.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Steve1981 said:


> The problem with demos is that they're highly controlled in a way that isn't going to happen in the wild. I don't doubt your experiences, but its an open question as to how they'll translate to a wide variety of real world material at bone rattling volumes, particularly in larger spaces.


Member joerod (SR7009) is expected to be receiving a set of the Onkyo Atmos modules to demo soon, so we'll get a home owner's take.


----------



## RichB

Steve1981 said:


> Sorry, but regardless of the fact that Atmos modules are new, they're still loudspeakers and the same basic physics apply. Firing a 3" paper speaker up towards the ceiling doesn't change its inherent limitations, and those limitations are quite well known. If someone thinks they sound good, more power to them. But to imagine that they represent the state of the art or that improvement isn't possible...that doesn't fly. To put it another way, if Bose releases a next gen cube with a "state of the art" 2.5" paper driver, I don't need to hear it to know why it will continue to suck.


True. Your speaking of SPL which makes sense, but since Atmos up-firing speakers are crossted at 180 or above that should reduce the real-world volume requirements.
Also not included is the distortion produced. Many will not want to listen to a 3" paper cone at their maximum volume due to the distortion that may occur.
If a speaker starts to distort, the tonal match goes out the window.

Using a Pioneer Atmos speaker system all around, the up-firing speakers appear to be the same as the midrange/tweeter found in the mains so they work fine without any SPL or distortion issues.

In the demo in NY,

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1646937-dolby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html

The NY demo attendees were able to differentiate between Atmos up-firing speakers and the overhead channels. Some had high-end HT's and I get the impression that the demo did not exceed the performance of their HT's.
Those impressions posted did not include a preference statement for up-firing speakers versus overhead channels (unless I missed it).

- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Ok, so it seems to be another option yet, if i summarize it:
> With Atmos engaged, the helicopter gets "removed" from the 5.1 bed, and then added again at the right location.
> 
> It makes sense, but i better understand now why Atmos needs massive DSP horsepower
> At least it allows to have only one 5.1 bed on the disc, minimizing space used.


They're normally 7.1 beds with a possibility of 9.1 beds. Dolby has stated that whatever the cinema Atmos mix has, so will the consumer version, but with a little bit of shifting involved and the renderer being limited to 34.1 possible positions. Of course, no movie has used all 128 possible simultaneous objects (beds are included in that count) in one scene. It would probably be too busy a mix and you couldn't keep up with all the sounds being panned around you.


----------



## westmd

Just returning from my first Dolby Atmos demonstration from the IFA and *hell* did Onkyo do a bad job there. They used as a sound processor the 5530, as Dolby Atmos enabled speakers a very cheap looking prototype from Elac and as ceiling speakers 4 Magnat units. 
First we were shown two Dolby Atmos trailer with the Atmos enabled speakers. It was just loud and the sound reflecting from the ceiling did not really create ahomogenous sound cloud from above. It seemed like parts of the reflections hit you whilst other just vaporized. *Not convincing at all for the Dolby Atmos speaker!* The next demo was a song from Enrique Inglesias. It was first shown through the Magnat in-ceiling speakers. Problem here was that the rear row of in-ceiling speakers was not behind me but directly above me. The cinema was a small room with two rows of three chairs. I was sitting in the middle of the second row. For the first row the speakers were a little bit behind, but I don't assune that they fulfilled the required angle. Result was that the speakers were very much audible as such. There was never the effect of a*realistic sound field but just indvidual speakers that were heard.* Afterwards we heard the Enrique Inglesis song again from the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, and result was as above blurry and not convincing at all!
Final conclusion of this demo. Dolby Atmos enabled speakers didn't work at all! Ceiling speakers worked but placing of them is very important. Angles /distances have to be kept not to make the individual speakers audible. 
Sorry Onkyo but you really blew it! *If I wouldn't know from this forum that Atmos works, I think after this presentation I would forget about it!*

PS: Afterwards I had a chance to listen to an *Auro 3D*presentation. A little booth maybe a little bit bigger then the Atmos booth was used. The speaker setup was only 5.1 and four height speakers above the Front Left and Front Right and Surround Left and Right. Height speakers were slightly tilted towards the listening position. Receiver was the Auriga from Stormaudio. Several demos were played. Standing on an open space in Amsterdam, a tractor passing by on a field road and a plane flying overhead. Finally a sequence from Dreamwork Turbo was played. *That demo really blew me away! * The sound was so realistic that you had the feeling of actually experiencing the individual situations. Unfortunately we did not have enough time to listen to their upmixer Auromatc but I heard from several people that this is superior to Dolby Surround!
When asking the Auro guy that currently no Auro products are availabke for less then $10k he told me to keep my feet still for some weeks as there will be more products available soon. (Appeaently D&M is working on a cobtract with Auro).
My final conclusion for today is, *no proccessor without Auro 3D* and *speaker layout so it works for Atmos & Auro!* how this can be achieved will follow in a later entry.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> Just returning from my first Dolby Atmos demonstration from the IFA and *hell* did Onkyo do a bad job there. They used as a sound processor the 5530, as Dolby Atmos enabled speakers a very cheap looking prototype from Elac and as ceiling speakers 4 Magnat units.
> First we were shown two Dolby Atmos trailer with the Atmos enabled speakers. It was just loud and the soubd reflecting from the ceiling did not really create a homogenous sound cloud from above. It seemed like parts of the reflections hit you whilst other just vaporized. *Not convincing at all for the Dolby Atmos speaker!* The next demo was a song from Enrique Inglesias. It was first shown through the Magnat in-ceiling speakers. Problem here was that the rear row of in-ceiling speakers was not behind me but directly above me. The cinema was a small room with two rows of three chairs. I was sitting in the middle of the second row. For the first row the speakers were a little bit behind, but I don't assune that they fulfilled the required angle. Result was that the speakers were very much audible as such. There was never the effect of a*realistic sound field but just indvidual speakers that were heard.* Afterwards we heard the Enrique Inglesis song again from the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, and result was as above blurry and not convincing at all!
> Final conclusion of this demo. Dolby Atmos enabled speakers didn't work at all! Ceiling speakers worked but placing of them is very important. Angles /distances have to be kept not to make the individual speakers audible.
> Sorry Onkyo but you really blew it! *If I wouldn't know from this forum that Atmos works, I think after this presentation I would forget about it!*
> 
> PS: Afterwards I had a chance to listen to an *Auro 3D*presentation. A little booth maybe a little bit bigger then the Atmos booth was used. The speaker setup was only 5.1 and four height speakers above the Front Left and Front Right and Surround Left and Right. Height speakers were slightly tilted towards the listening position. Receiver was the Auriga from Stormaudio. Several demos were played. Standing on an open space in Amsterdam, a tractor passing by on a field road and a plane flying overhead. Finally a sequence from Dreamwork Turbo was played. *That demo really blew me away! * The sound was so realistic that you had the feeling of actually experiencing the individual situations. Unfortunately we did not have enough time to listen to their upmixer Auromatc but I heard from several people that this is superior to Dolby Surround!
> When asking the Auro guy that currently no Auro products are availabke for less then $10k he told me to keep my feet still for some weeks as there will be more products available soon. (Appeaently D&M is working on a cobtract with Auro).
> My final conclusion for today is, *no proccessor without Auro 3D* and *speaker layout so it works for Atmos & Auro!* how this can be achieved will follow in a later entry.


Do you know if this iteration of Auro was utilizing DTS's MDA object format? That's something that has been talked about: object mixing getting added to the Auro format since Barco is a part of the MDA group.


----------



## SanchoPanza

westmd,

What Source Material did they use?

Other than Turbo?


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you know if this iteration of Auro was utilizing DTS's MDA object format? That's something that has been talked about: object mixing getting added to the Auro format since Barco is a part of the MDA group.


It was a PCM track of a demo Blu-Ray. I wouldn't think that the standard Auriga us even currently capable of doing object based audio!


----------



## RichB

westmd said:


> PS: Afterwards I had a chance to listen to an *Auro 3D*presentation. A little booth maybe a little bit bigger then the Atmos booth was used. The speaker setup was only 5.1 and four height speakers above the Front Left and Front Right and Surround Left and Right. Height speakers were slightly tilted towards the listening position. Receiver was the Auriga from Stormaudio. Several demos were played. Standing on an open space in Amsterdam, a tractor passing by on a field road and a plane flying overhead. Finally a sequence from Dreamwork Turbo was played. *That demo really blew me away! * The sound was so realistic that you had the feeling of actually experiencing the individual situations. Unfortunately we did not have enough time to listen to their upmixer Auromatc but I heard from several people that this is superior to Dolby Surround!
> When asking the Auro guy that currently no Auro products are availabke for less then $10k he told me to keep my feet still for some weeks as there will be more products available soon. (Appeaently D&M is working on a cobtract with Auro).
> My final conclusion for today is, *no proccessor without Auro 3D* and *speaker layout so it works for Atmos & Auro!* how this can be achieved will follow in a later entry.


Thanks for your impressions.
The Auto-3D is compatible and embedded within the LPCM stream and it is really cool that it may also be coming to HT.

If more options appear, then perhaps a wider variety of speaker layouts could be supported by Atmos. I don't get why notch filters provide cues from front speakers but cannot provide cues from front height speakers. If Auro and DTS-UHD arrive in mainstream products, customers will want universal speaker layouts.

- Rich


----------



## SoundChex

SanchoPanza said:


> I wonder if Atmos Blu rays will have better Height material for PLIIz?




The vast majority of existing *AVRs* equipped with *DPLIIz* will likely remain in service "for many years" . . . and continue to be used to play the 'legacy' *TrueHD 7.1* tracks on *Atmos BDs*.


On an *Atmos BD*, some height information from the *Atmos* track could be preserved in the legacy *TrueHD 7.1* track if the _downconvert_ from *Atmos* was executed in two steps:

(*1*) _Render_ the *Atmos* track into a *7.1 Standard plus 2x Front Heights* track 
(*2*) _DPLIIz Matrix Encode_ the *7.1 Standard plus 2x Front Heights* track to create the *7.1 Standard* track for the *BD*

(A similar mechanism appears to have been employed to create the handful of *BDs* _'encoded+matrixed'_ as *DTS-HDMA 7.1 | DTS Neo:X 11.1*.)



Of course, the decision whether to do this rather than simply to render the *Atmos* track directly into a *7.1 Standard* track for the *BD* would depend on a number of both _marketing_ and _artistic_ consideration factors...?! 
_


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you know if this iteration of Auro was utilizing DTS's MDA object format? That's something that has been talked about: object mixing getting added to the Auro format since Barco is a part of the MDA group.


Using objects during mixing is a convenience of the Auro toolkit. But that has nothing to do with playback, which is via a channel-based downmix/translation, not using any object-based rendering.


----------



## westmd

SanchoPanza said:


> westmd,
> 
> What Source Material did they use?
> 
> Other than Turbo?


It was digital recordings on a demo Blu-Ray with a discrete PCM soundtrack played through an Oppo standard player.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Thank you!


----------



## Wellywell

Onkyo's response to my 838 question,


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> It could be. When units appear with 10 overhead possibilities it might be different configurations, or even all configurations are possible. Or it could be that similar restrictions apply. Only Trinnov so far have more capability than the big name brands - maybe the Trinnov thread has the answer?



I dare not look at Trinnov...I'm not worthy....(supposed to be funny, think Wayne and Garth)


----------



## tronic307

petetherock said:


> Yes sir...
> A'Diva X 4....


That's awesome! Do you think Stradas would be overkill? (especially if they were to fall on you) I'm curious as to how to securely mount those to the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Just returning from my first Dolby Atmos demonstration from the IFA and *hell* did Onkyo do a bad job there.


Really sorry to hear that the demo you attended was so badly set up. I have to say that I have attended many audio shows over the years and have rarely heard a demo that was set up to do justice to the equipment being demoed, and your experience seems to show that this is still an ongoing trend. It is a real pity that this first demo of yours did not do justice to Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Come on Keith, are you telling me Dolby didn't plan out what playback level and what material to use to best show off Atmos with the available hardware?


Do you think it is somehow unfair or misrepresentative then to set up the equipment properly and to use material that shows what you are trying to get across to the listeners?

Are you sure you're not on the Audioholics payroll?


----------



## smurraybhm

Steve1981 said:


> They sounded good...to you. Unless you're suggesting "it sounded good" isn't a subjective opinion, but an absolute fact that nobody could possibly disagree with?


Keith isn't the only one who has heard a demo of Atmos and sung its praises. You have taken time to read the threads on AVS dealing with this topic right? 

Fact remains neither you or I haven't heard Atmos, I choose to remain open minded as do others yet you continue to post as if you've heard something none of us have (non demo group). 

Let's not pre-judge - that's already been done on AH


----------



## kokishin

*Dolby Atmos Questions Answered*

Check out this thread discussing Scott Wilkinson's HTG podcast with _two tech guys from Dolby Labs—Brett Crockett, senior director of research, sound technology, and Craig Eggers, director, home theater—explain Dolby Atmos for cinema and home theater, including its object orientation, overhead and upfiring speakers, objects and "beds," the Dolby Surround upmixer, and streaming and Blu-ray content. They also answer questions from AVS members and the chat room, including speaker placement, multiple seating rows, timbre matching, how objects and beds are assigned to speakers, video games, Atmos in headphones, retailer demos, finding Atmos cinemas, and much more._

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-forum-podcasts/1673658-dolby-atmos-questions-answered.html#post27169290

YouTube video (podcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GQ-fxj3t6k#t=19


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Unfair or misrepresentation, no. But it isn't perfectly representative of a wide range of real world conditions either.


The demos I went to were entirely representative of real world conditions, as I have said. Modest gear in a normal sized room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> They sounded good...to you. Unless you're suggesting "it sounded good" isn't a subjective opinion, but an absolute fact that nobody could possibly disagree with?


They sounded good to everyone who was at the two demos I attended. I spoke to as many people as time allowed for and they all said they sounded good. When you finally get to hear them, you may also think they sound good.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith isn't the only one who has heard a demo of Atmos and sung its praises. You have taken time to read the threads on AVS dealing with this topic right?
> 
> Fact remains neither you or I haven't heard Atmos, I choose to remain open minded as do others yet you continue to post as if you've heard something none of us have (non demo group).


Yes - hence the Audioholics crack I made (which I withdraw incidentally).


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> I'm not judging Atmos. I'm judging a 3" paper cone driver, of which I've heard plenty. I'm reasonably familiar with the technical compromises of using such a driver full range, and have pointed them out (power handling and sensitivity affecting dynamic capability, top end extension / cone breakup potentially being a problem). Keith has heard the Onkyos in a demo and came away with a favorable impression. Great. Is that enough evidence to suggest that there's no advantage to going with a "better" Atmos module? Not IMHO. *Of course if you're willing to take Keith's word that the Onkyos are all you need, by all means purchase them.*


Excuse me - can you please quote where I said that the Onkyos were "all you need"? If not, please don't make up things I am supposed to have said. Thanks.

This is exactly the sort of line which AH have followed, to so much ridicule and derision.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> They key in my statement is a *wide range *of real world conditions.


Isn’t a room about 20ft x 18ft x 8ft representative of a wide range of real world conditions where you live? Especially when it is equipped with modest gear?


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> I expect that Onkyo knows how to pull off a demo that paints their product in a good light, so you're probably right. Even Bose knows how to create a passable demo. That doesn't mean I'd opt to buy either for my own system.


Who suggested you should buy the Onkyos for your own system?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Not necessarily. Follow the angles! There is a fair range of possibilities as the angles are quite generously spread - eg 30-55° for Top Front.


Understood. The specified spread of elevation angles together with the rule to place the top speakers in line with the fronts, automatically defines the distance between top fronts and top rears in terms of difference in azimuth.


----------



## UKTexan

Steve1981 said:


> Come on Keith, are you telling me Dolby didn't plan out what playback level and what material to use to best show off Atmos with the available hardware?


Steve1981,


At the retail demo I attended we listened to the demo material at low volume levels, well below reference for the first run. The volume was then raised to just below reference for the 2nd run. The immersion was fantastic at both volume levels but really shone as the volume was cranked up.
I sat through two separate customer demo's and when finished I played around for another 45 to 50 minutes with my own material, Gravity and The Dark Knight to experience the Dolby Surround upmixer - spectacular!
Dolby had no control over volume levels, speaker brand (Definitive Tech) or my choice of legacy demo material. I wouldn't be so cynical until hearing a demo with a relatively well set up room, it was certainly not a controlled demo, by any means.
In the demo I attended, 5.2.4, the ceiling speakers were approximately 2.4m (7.8ft) apart (front to back), Top front speakers approximately 1m (3.2ft) in front of the 1st row of seats, the rear ceiling speakers approximately 0.5m (1.6ft) behind the 2nd row. The speakers were approximately 2.2m (7.2ft) in width, more or less in line with the Left and Right front speakers.
Not a perfect setup by any means but the results were great and I sat in two different locations, both dead center and also to the far right.
I have not heard the up firing Atmos enabled speakers but from reports on AVS and also a gentlemen who has been involved with Dolby over the last two years, the effects are very close to actual ceiling speakers.
It's a shame to hear westmd's experience at IFA, the setup seems to be the problem but you and many others will be able to judge for yourself at CEDIA. There are many companies running Atmos demos so it will be interesting to hear your opinion and other AVS members - I wonder if some setups will shine over others. Goldenear have a 5.2.4 setup I believe, not sure if they are using the new Triton 1's? 
All I'm saying is keep an open mind, AH seems to be more one sided than the reporting on CNN regarding Atmos! 
Enjoy the show and report back so we can all hear about your experiences.


----------



## bargervais

Wellywell said:


> Onkyo's response to my 838 question,


So I read the attachment I'm confused can you use an external amp with the 838 to get the additional two height speakers I understand that you can't, as it a 7.1 receiver but that last part after they talked about the 1030 & 3030 it said adding an external amplifier.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn’t a room about 20ft x 18ft x 8ft representative of a wide range of real world conditions where you live? Especially when it is equipped with modest gear?


Yes I would say so.


----------



## bargervais

Steve1981 said:


> Ohh and uhh...


Are you adding to the discussions or trying to get under our skin all Keith said was if up firing speaker A does the same job as speaker B why spend the extra money


----------



## noah katz

Steve1981 said:


> However, surrounds and (per one of FilmMixer's prior posts) Atmos speakers are still expected to deliver peaks up to 105dB at the listening position when listening at reference level.


I thought I read in one of the white papers that the object speakers only needed to 95 dB.


----------



## UKTexan

Steve1981 said:


> If you can quote it, that'd be useful. I just did a search on both of the whitepapers posted here for "95" and didn't find anything.


Steve1981,


The specs below are taken from the cinema Atmos white paper. As you can see, *individual* surround speakers, including Top surround as Dolby terms them, only need to achieve 99dB in a movie theater, I cant see the reference level being raised to 105dB for the home theater. Arrays are to achieve 105dB, but again in the home, the requirements may differ. The white paper due out on Monday should help clarify the issue.






4.3 Surround Loudspeaker Sound Pressure Level: 99 dB


Each loudspeaker and associated amplifier must have a maximum output capability of 99 dB continuous SPL at the reference
 

listening position. Loudspeaker capability must be determined, as described in Section 6. We recommend an amplifier with 3


dB of headroom (that is, twice the required continuous power).




4.4 Surround Array Sound Pressure Level: 105 dB


Each surround array and the associated amplifiers must be able to produce 105 dB continuous SPL at the reference
 

listening position. To meet this requirement for surround arrays with fewer than four loudspeakers, each loudspeaker must


be able to produce more than 99 dB continuous SPL.




4.5 Surround Sound Frequency Response: 40 Hz to 16 kHz, +3/–6 dB


Dolby Atmos auditoriums must support playback of full-range surround signals. To meet this specification standard, cinema
 

surround loudspeakers with limited bass response require bass management. If bass management is used, the surround


loudspeakers frequency response (±3 dB) must extend to 90 Hz or lower. The crossover frequency should be set based on


the capabilities of the surround loudspeakers, but must not be higher than 100 Hz.


----------



## petetherock

tronic307 said:


> That's awesome! Do you think Stradas would be overkill? (especially if they were to fall on you) I'm curious as to how to securely mount those to the ceiling.


IMHO you can use that if you don't mind big stuff on your ceiling ... And anyway since the crossover is pretty high, are they needed?


----------



## toothsavers

*Realistic or unrealistic Dolby Atmos Setup with Cathedral Ceiling*

Please find 3D rendering (by my son) showing our Cathedral ceiling which is at a 45 degree angle conjoined by a center 3ft flat ceiling that attaches both ceilings. We currently have a 7.1 system with the rear speakers in the angled ceiling. With so called angled Dolby enabled modules for our fronts, is it possible to reflect Atmos sound off that flat portion of the ceiling. Does it make sense to use the rear surrounds as rear Dolby Atmos speakers? Please comment on the two 3D renderings provided below. In this configuration is it possible to get some Atmos immersive sound? Any comments would be appreciated. The projected path of the sound is in red.Seating area is 15ft from front speakers and 6ft from rear surrounds.Rear surrounds are 9ft from floor and about 6ft from ones ears.Side surrounds are high up(about 13ft from floor) due to picture window on one side-Flat ceiling is about 16ft from floor.Our listening area is under the flat ceiling.


----------



## UKTexan

toothsavers said:


> Please find 3D rendering (by my son) showing our Cathedral ceiling which is at a 45 degree angle conjoined by a center 3ft flat ceiling that attaches both ceilings. We currently have a 7.1 system with the rear speakers in the angled ceiling. With so called angled Dolby enabled modules for our fronts, is it possible to reflect Atmos sound off that flat portion of the ceiling. Does it make sense to use the rear surrounds as rear Dolby Atmos speakers? Please comment on the two 3D renderings provided below. In this configuration is it possible to get some Atmos immersive sound? Any comments would be appreciated. The projected path of the sound is in red.Seating area is 15ft from front speakers and 6ft from rear surrounds.Rear surrounds are 9ft from floor and about 6ft from ones ears.Side surrounds are high up(about 13ft from floor) due to picture window on one side-Flat ceiling is about 16ft from floor.Our listening area is under the flat ceiling.


toothsavers,


A 16ft ceiling height is really pushing the boundaries of Atmos enabled speakers. They are designed for ceilings 8 to 9 feet high but have been tested up to 14ft. At 16ft I would really recommend you look into ceiling mounted speakers with directional brackets to enable adjustment of the speaker directivity. The rear ceiling speakers may work, but I would wait for the Dolby installation white paper due out on Monday. Hopefully we will all have a better understanding of the specific requirements. In addition you may want to look at lowering your side surrounds if at all possible, the current understanding is around ear level or possibly 1 to 2 feet above to create as much separation between the different layers of sound. Nice 3D rendering by the way, what program did your son use?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Steve1981 said:


> However, surrounds and (per one of FilmMixer's prior posts) Atmos speakers are still expected to deliver peaks up to 105dB at the listening position when listening at reference level.


The question then becomes, who among us plays their systems at reference level? I for one have never done that, and never intend to do so. -10 dB is enough for me. 

BTW, SMPTE observes that "reference" level should be derated as the room gets smaller to achieve the same perceived effect. I have not seen a precise chart, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 dB would probably not be too far off.


----------



## Roger Dressler

UKTexan said:


> The specs below are taken from the cinema Atmos white paper. As you can see, *individual* surround speakers, including Top surround as Dolby terms them, only need to achieve 99dB in a movie theater, I cant see the reference level being raised to 105dB for the home theater. Arrays are to achieve 105dB, but again in the home, the requirements may differ.


The problem is that at home, one speaker will usually be all there is to carry the full array's sound -- just as happens today with 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks. So the 105 dB requirement remains in effect. 

I will mention that due to traditional cinema calibrations, the peak modulation for surrounds was set 3 dB lower than for the main channels, 82 dB vs 85 dB for -20 dBFS. That means content was limited to 102 dB in the surrounds vs. 105 dB in the screen channels. 

That bit of arcane calibration tradition has finally been retired with the advent of Atmos (and MDA) systems, and all speakers are now to be set for -20 dBFS = 85 dB SPL. That in effect raises the surround headroom 3 dB.


----------



## zeus33

toothsavers said:


> Please find 3D rendering (by my son) showing our Cathedral ceiling which is at a 45 degree angle conjoined by a center 3ft flat ceiling that attaches both ceilings.




That definitely won't give you optimal results. With that ceiling, you will want to use surface mount speakers that you can aim properly to achieve the recommended angles. The angle on the rear speakers is way off and the cathedral ceiling will mess with the sound of the front modules.


_*Will Dolby Atmos enabled speakers work in my room?*

Dolby Atmos enabled speakers can produce an incredibly accurate Dolby Atmos experience in many kinds of rooms. You’ll get the best sound if your ceiling is flat (not vaulted or angled) and made of an acoustically reflective material, such as standard drywall, plaster, concrete, or wood. While we designed the technology for rooms with ceiling heights of 8 to 9 feet (2.4 m to 2.7 m), our testing indicates that you can still hear incredible Dolby Atmos sound in rooms with ceilings as high as 14 feet (4.3 m), though the effect may become more diffuse in rooms with higher ceilings._


----------



## Roger Dressler

Steve1981 said:


> Just looked at the product sheet for the Onkyo:
> Output Sound Pressure Level: 81dB/W/m
> Rated Input Power: 25W
> Max. Input Power: 100W
> 
> I think its fair to say 105dB isn't going happen.





Steve1981 said:


> With a sensitivity of 81dB w/ 1W and 25W rated input power, the Onkyo can deliver 95dB...at 1 meter and mum is the word on distortion. By those basic numbers alone, assuming you've got a fair sized theater space, the odds aren't in your favor.


The spec of interest is Max Input Power. That's 20 dB higher than the 1W needed for 81 dB (at 1 M). So it "should" be able to produce 101 dB at some frequencies anyway. Still not 105, but better than 95.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Steve1981 said:


> Max input power is indeed 100W, but what does that mean, particularly given the presence of the "rated" figure? Max it will take without slagging the VC?


Onkyo will have to tell us what rated 25W means. I suspect that means long term power capacity, and the 100W short tern peaks. But why not tell us, like the big boys do at Harman, Tannoy...



> I think it's fair to say that the odds are in my favor that 100W doesn't represent the amount of power the Onkyo module can take while delivering a linear increase in volume for the power input as well as keeping a cap on distortion.


Probably not. They should tell us. 



> Of course even assuming the Onkyo module can cleanly deliver 101dB, it's still at 1 meter, not the listening position. If you figure a 4m distance to the listening position, you're looking at a theoretical loss of 12dB, dropping you down to 89dB. Now being in room helps with that, but you can't readily predict how much. Not exactly a compelling solution in my book, even if you're listening at -10dB from reference.


I agree with all of that.


----------



## batpig

Let's be realistic here. What end user who is serious about reaching clean reference level output at their home theater is going to be buying the entry level Onkyo modules? 

The target market market for these is at best your mid level living room compromise HT, and these types of setups rarely go above -20db. It's not a particularly demanding task, and IMHO anyone interested in real high fidelity near reference output (if they aren't installing actual on ceiling speakers) is going to start with the $500+ type units like the AT model.


----------



## batpig

BTW (will cross post in Denon thread as well) -- I popped into my local Best Buy Magnolia Design Center here in San Diego (Mission Valley location) this evening. I asked the two reps if they had the DT A60 modules, and they are in fact IN STOCK right now. I almost bought them just to test out (and may still do so).

I also asked if they were going to set up an Atmos demo room since they had them in stock and they said they weren't going to. I pointed out that their speaker demo room already has in-ceiling speakers plus speakers all over each wall which would make it easy to do Atmos... but they noted that it isn't so easy because of their speaker switching system (all the in-ceiling speakers will be hooked up to FR/FL to be demo'd for stereo music playback) so they'd really have to do a dedicated room, and that wasn't going to happen at this point. They also told me (not surprised) that I was the first person to ever ask them about Atmos.


----------



## petetherock

I have a question:

If I can't position the four Atmos ceiling speakers in the middle of the room, but I can use my cove false ceiling to install them, nearer the side walls, and aim them more towards the centre, will that work?

That way, I don't need to cut into the ceiling...


----------



## markus767

Steve1981 said:


> Volume is one side of it, but I'm definitely interested to see the FR of some of these full range 3" models as well. Most paper cone drivers in that range that I've seen start breaking up around the 10kHz mark, which is smack dab in the middle of where Dolby's DSP is working its magic. I posted one example of this earlier. I'm interested to know how this will compare subjectively with a two-way Atmos enabled speaker.


Yes, all full range driver cones do break up, even way below 10kHz. It is part of how they work. Lots of full range drivers have a horrible response at high frequencies but there are also drivers that are very smooth.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Roger Dressler said:


> The problem is that at home, one speaker will usually be all there is to carry the full array's sound -- just as happens today with 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks. So the 105 dB requirement remains in effect.
> 
> I will mention that due to traditional cinema calibrations, the peak modulation for surrounds was set 3 dB lower than for the main channels, 82 dB vs 85 dB for -20 dBFS. That means content was limited to 102 dB in the surrounds vs. 105 dB in the screen channels.
> 
> That bit of arcane calibration tradition has finally been retired with the advent of Atmos (and MDA) systems, and all speakers are now to be set for -20 dBFS = 85 dB SPL. That in effect raises the surround headroom 3 dB.


That was exactly my thinking: in home cinema, an array = a speaker. This would be different if/when the full arsenal of up to 34 speakers are installed, but in 7.2.4 (or my optimum 9.2.6 layout maybe one day) I will very much stick to the standard. 

I have received 8 Eminence Beta 10CX woofers for building the surrounds and on-ceiling speakers. Sealed Volt V-10 for ceiling and I am looking into a passive radiator version of it for the surrounds. This means I can use a 80 Hz crossover (the ceilings will have enhanced bass from their 2∏ setting) and still hit reference since these are 95 dB/W sensitive. They are good for up to 500 Watt peaks. With 200 Watt Emotiva power, these will do 110 dB at MLP. That should be adequate.  

And these woofers are only $70 BTW. Add about the same for tweeter and crossover. Those top-firing modules seem awfully expensive looking at their limited capacity.


----------



## toothsavers

Steve1981 said:


> Max input power is indeed 100W, but what does that mean, particularly given the presence of the "rated" figure? Max it will take without slagging the VC? I think it's fair to say that the odds are in my favor that 100W doesn't represent the amount of power the Onkyo module can take while delivering a linear increase in volume for the power input as well as keeping a cap on distortion. Of course even assuming the Onkyo module can cleanly deliver 101dB, it's still at 1 meter, not the listening position. If you figure a 4m distance to the listening position, you're looking at a theoretical loss of 12dB, dropping you down to 89dB. Now being in room helps with that, but you can't readily predict how much. Not exactly a compelling solution in my book, even if you're listening at -10dB from reference.


Thanks for your response.It is very obvious to me attaining "optimal" results with my type of ceiling is totally out of the question.The question then becomes is it worth attaining "some" Dolby Atmos immersive affect with my current layout?I cannot install in ceiling speakers nor lower my surrounds.I currently have a Denon 4311ci receiver with NHT 2.5 fronts and in wall/in rear ceiling speakers that were all installed during construction of this added on family room which is about 500sq ft.We are thrilled with our current surround sound movie watching experience.We have a large volume of space to be filled with sound.I was hoping of upgrading(wife doesn't think it is necessary) to include a new Atmos receiver and 2 enabled front modules to reflect sound off the flat portion of our ceiling.Will I create a sound field MESS if I enter the Dolby Atmos ring?I feel every early adopter will go thru a trial and error scenario with this new sound adventure and most experiences will be with non optimal settings.I guess that personal experimentation (actual family listening) will be the deciding factor.Would anybody utilize this same approach or just eliminate the Dolby Atmos scene altogether because of our room limitations?.( My son uses Blender,Unitiy,z brush programs for 3-d.He works with his brother in their App developing company which has a world-wide reputation) Thanks for any opinions!


----------



## toothsavers

UKTexan said:


> toothsavers,
> 
> 
> A 16ft ceiling height is really pushing the boundaries of Atmos enabled speakers. They are designed for ceilings 8 to 9 feet high but have been tested up to 14ft. At 16ft I would really recommend you look into ceiling mounted speakers with directional brackets to enable adjustment of the speaker directivity. The rear ceiling speakers may work, but I would wait for the Dolby installation white paper due out on Monday. Hopefully we will all have a better understanding of the specific requirements. In addition you may want to look at lowering your side surrounds if at all possible, the current understanding is around ear level or possibly 1 to 2 feet above to create as much separation between the different layers of sound. Nice 3D rendering by the way, what program did your son use?


Thanks for your response.It is very obvious to me attaining "optimal" results with my type of ceiling is totally out of the question.The question then becomes is it worth attaining "some" Dolby Atmos immersive affect with my current layout?I cannot install in ceiling speakers nor lower my surrounds.I currently have a Denon 4311ci receiver with NHT 2.5 fronts and in wall/in rear ceiling speakers that were all installed during construction of this added on family room which is about 500sq ft.We are thrilled with our current surround sound movie watching experience.We have a large volume of space to be filled with sound.I was hoping of upgrading(wife doesn't think it is necessary) to include a new Atmos receiver and 2 enabled front modules to reflect sound off the flat portion of our ceiling.Will I create a sound field MESS if I enter the Dolby Atmos ring?I feel every early adopter will go thru a trial and error scenario with this new sound adventure and most experiences will be with non optimal settings.I guess that personal experimentation (actual family listening) will be the deciding factor.Would anybody utilize this same approach or just eliminate the Dolby Atmos scene altogether because of our room limitations?.( My son uses Blender,Unitiy programs for 3-d.He works with his brother in their App developing company which has a world-wide reputation) Thanks for any opinions!


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> A wide range of conditions includes a wide range of content and playback levels.


How wide a range of content can someone be expected to use in a 20 minute demo? As movies were being demoed it seems to me that their close-to-reference level was ideal.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Well, let's start with:
> 
> and add in:
> 
> 
> Now combine that with your general approach to our conversation. When I pointed out that Atmos channels have to play at reference levels per FilmMixer, you wonder if the Onkyo can play at reference level simply because it has the Atmos name slapped on it; to that I provided specs all but stating it can't. When you stated that the Onkyo demo was "loud enough", I pointed out that it was still a controlled demo. For some reason, you think pointing out the ordinary nature of the equipment and room negates that the demo was planned out, and that you weren't in control of the content and the volume. So yeah, add all that up and it appears to me that you absolutely are approaching things from the position that the Onkyo is "all you need" and getting pretty defensive when I point out some of the glaring issues of using a full range 3" paper cone driver.
> 
> PS: I see you can't help but bring AH into our convo. Great form....again. If you've got something constructive to add, I'm all ears. Otherwise...nice talking with you.


So nowhere did I ever say that Onkyo was "all you need". Thanks for confirming that, even in a long-winded, roundabout way.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> At the retail demo I attended we listened to the demo material at low volume levels, well below reference for the first run. The volume was then raised to just below reference for the 2nd run. The immersion was fantastic at both volume levels but really shone as the volume was cranked up.
> I sat through two separate customer demo's and when finished I played around for another 45 to 50 minutes with my own material, Gravity and The Dark Knight to experience the Dolby Surround upmixer - spectacular!
> Dolby had no control over volume levels, speaker brand (Definitive Tech) or my choice of legacy demo material. I wouldn't be so cynical until hearing a demo with a relatively well set up room, it was certainly not a controlled demo, by any means.
> In the demo I attended, 5.2.4, the ceiling speakers were approximately 2.4m (7.8ft) apart (front to back), Top front speakers approximately 1m (3.2ft) in front of the 1st row of seats, the rear ceiling speakers approximately 0.5m (1.6ft) behind the 2nd row. The speakers were approximately 2.2m (7.2ft) in width, more or less in line with the Left and Right front speakers.
> Not a perfect setup by any means but the results were great and I sat in two different locations, both dead center and also to the far right.
> I have not heard the up firing Atmos enabled speakers but from reports on AVS and also a gentlemen who has been involved with Dolby over the last two years, the effects are very close to actual ceiling speakers.
> 
> All I'm saying is keep an open mind, AH seems to be more one sided than the reporting on CNN regarding Atmos!
> Enjoy the show and report back so we can all hear about your experiences.


The interesting thing is how those who have heard Atmos for the home are almost universally positive about it, while those who haven't heard it seem to feel they are qualified to comment on the demos they didn't attend.  One can draw one's own conclusions. The word 'agenda' comes to my mind.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Are you adding to the discussions or trying to get under our skin all Keith said was if up firing speaker A does the same job as speaker B why spend the extra money


Yes that is pretty much what I said. You need speakers that can do the job they are deployed for. Personally, I would probably want something better than the Onkyos, but I listen at -5dB in a well-treated room and have substantial amplification. Not everyone does and so, for them, the Onkyo modules may work well. 

There seems to me to be a subtext going on in the posts of some members (and, of course, some external sites!), which is to subtly discredit various aspects of Atmos even though they have no personal experience of it. This ranges from "upfiring speakers can’t possibly work" to "this particular speaker is no good", to "there will be little or no content", to "most Blurays have DTS tracks so Atmos can't ever go mainstream" and so on and on. My answer to these people is simple: you haven't heard it, I have. When they have heard it, I will probably be more inclined to take some notice of their comments.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Keith specifically asked where he said that the Onkyo was all anybody needed. I'd say that quote is darned near close to verbatim given that the Onkyo was one of the upfiring models that he demoed. Of course I'm not sure why this is getting under *your* skin. Keith seems perfectly capable of speaking for himself.


I am - and I never said the Onkyo modules were "all you need", as is evidenced by your inability to quote me saying it.


----------



## kbarnes701

toothsavers said:


> Please find 3D rendering (by my son) showing our Cathedral ceiling which is at a 45 degree angle conjoined by a center 3ft flat ceiling that attaches both ceilings. We currently have a 7.1 system with the rear speakers in the angled ceiling. With so called angled Dolby enabled modules for our fronts, is it possible to reflect Atmos sound off that flat portion of the ceiling. Does it make sense to use the rear surrounds as rear Dolby Atmos speakers? Please comment on the two 3D renderings provided below. In this configuration is it possible to get some Atmos immersive sound? Any comments would be appreciated. The projected path of the sound is in red.Seating area is 15ft from front speakers and 6ft from rear surrounds.Rear surrounds are 9ft from floor and about 6ft from ones ears.Side surrounds are high up(about 13ft from floor) due to picture window on one side-Flat ceiling is about 16ft from floor.Our listening area is under the flat ceiling.


IDK the answer to your question (which is probably, I suspect, "maybe") but at the London Dolby Atnos demos I was surprised at how small an area of ceiling they used to bounce the sound off. If you look at my second report, you'll see pictures that show what I mean. I’d be wary of taking that as a definite 'yes' to your question, but your idea may well work. I think you'd have to try it to be sure. Having parts of the ceiling at different angles to each other are usually problematic, so it may also be the case for Atmos. Remember you can do an Atmos setup with just two ceiling speakers (5.1.2 or 7.1.2) so you might be OK with that 3 feet area of flat ceiling, for just two speakers. 2 ceiling speakers isn't ideal, but it will be better than what we have currently.

I agree with UKTexan that 16 feet is too high for upfirers so you would have to try physical speakers.

WRT to UKTexan;'s remark about lowering the surrounds, that is indeed the general advice. But the reason is to obtain separation between the surrounds and the overheads, when one has a typical 8ft ceiling. With your 16 ft ceiling you probably have that separation already so can leave the surrounds where they are (as they do in commercial cinemas).


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> The question then becomes, who among us plays their systems at reference level? I for one have never done that, and never intend to do so. -10 dB is enough for me.
> 
> *BTW, SMPTE observes that "reference" level should be derated as the room gets smaller to achieve the same perceived effect. I have not seen a precise chart, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 dB would probably not be too far of*f.


I never knew that - but I aim, subjectively, to get the same loudness at home as I hear in a commercial theater. And guess what level gives me that? Yep - -5dB. Not very scientific I agree but interesting. I also remember FM saying he uses a similar setting at home. I have called -5dB 'home Reference' many times.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> I can't say reference level playback is high on my personal list of things to do either, but obviously it's something at least a few enthusiasts are interested in. Either way, the overall point is that dynamic capability is something that will separate entry level Atmos modules from costlier models. Even at -10dB, would the Onkyo model handle my earlier example of "realistic" playback of fireworks, or as another example a low jet flyover without compression/significant distortion? With a sensitivity of 81dB w/ 1W and 25W rated input power, the Onkyo can deliver 95dB...at 1 meter and mum is the word on distortion. By those basic numbers alone, assuming you've got a fair sized theater space, the odds aren't in your favor.


I think you have made your point: you don't rate the Onkyo speakers. Nobody here is defending them or fighting for them, so what's the purpose of spending so much time and effort to keep on repeating that you feel they are not up to the job ('job' being defined by you in this case).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Let's be realistic here. What end user who is serious about reaching clean reference level output at their home theater is going to be buying the entry level Onkyo modules?
> 
> The target market market for these is at best your mid level living room compromise HT, and these types of setups rarely go above -20db. It's not a particularly demanding task, and IMHO anyone interested in real high fidelity near reference output (if they aren't installing actual on ceiling speakers) is going to start with the $500+ type units like the AT model.


The voice of reason enters the fray


----------



## westmd

*Atmos and Auro3D compatible speaker layout*

As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.

Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.

Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.

Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.

The following row of speaker is the *front top speaker*. Now whilst the middle top was not really that important for Atmos the front top row has little to none importance for Auro. Therfore my suggestion for this row would be in-ceiling or Dolby enabled speakers. If the overall amount of channels is of relevance this row could be muted during Auro playback and the amplifier could be used to drive front height speakers.

The last row according to the Denon sheet is the *front height speaker* which again like the rear height are direct firing speakers tilted to the MLP. The difference between Atmos and Auro for this row would be that the speakers should be attached 30-45 degrees which leave them sometimes in the middle of the room (in my case for instance) Auro requires them to be in line with front row speakers / the screen and not much relevance is given to the angle. As these speakers do not hold much relevance for Atmos, my suggestion would be to install them by the screen and maybe even mute them for Atmos. As suggested above front top for Atmos and front height for Auro could be run over the same amp using a switch in between.

One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.

*Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...

*Addition on September 12th* In the meantime I got feedback from Auro tgemselves. I forwarded this post to them and they replied that they don't see any issue with using this setup for Auro!


----------



## petetherock

@westmd
Very informative post, do you have any opinions on my speaker placement question?
I am trying to place them slightly outside the central ceiling area, so they can fit onto the cove / false ceiling?

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...


Thanks for that detailed report. Very helpful. I already have my Atmos ceiling speakers in place but I also have Front Height speakers which were used for PLIIz, Neo:X before. I was about to remove these speakers and sell them, but from what you say, the best plan may be to leave them in place in case Auro comes along in the future. That will give me 6 speakers 'up there' - the old Front Heights, the Atmos first row pair and the Atmos second row pair. I won't bother with a VOG speaker as I'd expect the existing ceiling speakers would do a good job of phantom imaging that. I can easily add a Centre Height speaker if necessary. 

Thanks again - I will remove my ad for the current Height speakers from the UK forum where I have them for sale and see how things develop.

TBH I don't have a lot of confidence that Auro will succeed, but if all I need to do to future-proof myself for now is leave an existing pair iof speakers in place, that's a pretty easy decision.


----------



## tjenkins95

batpig said:


> BTW (will cross post in Denon thread as well) -- I popped into my local Best Buy Magnolia Design Center here in San Diego (Mission Valley location) this evening. I asked the two reps if they had the DT A60 modules, and they are in fact IN STOCK right now. I almost bought them just to test out (and may still do so).
> 
> I also asked if they were going to set up an Atmos demo room since they had them in stock and they said they weren't going to. I pointed out that their speaker demo room already has in-ceiling speakers plus speakers all over each wall which would make it easy to do Atmos... but they noted that it isn't so easy because of their speaker switching system (all the in-ceiling speakers will be hooked up to FR/FL to be demo'd for stereo music playback) so they'd really have to do a dedicated room, and that wasn't going to happen at this point. They also told me (not surprised) that I was the first person to ever ask them about Atmos.


I visited a local Best Buy Magnolia store last week and asked one of the reps if they were going to setup an Atmos demo and he had no clue what I was talking about. I pointed him to the Best Buy website which provides a page describing Dolby Atmos and also to the pages containing the Atmos receivers and speakers that they are selling. No wonder Best Buy's sales are down.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> @westmd
> Very informative post, do you have any opinions on my speaker placement question?
> I am trying to place them slightly outside the central ceiling area, so they can fit onto the cove / false ceiling?
> 
> Thanks


How far 'outside' is outside?


----------



## petetherock

Like that... the entire hall is about 3.6m (W) by 6m (L) by 3m (H)
The cove extends 700mm into the hall on both sides..


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that detailed report. Very helpful. I already have my Atmos ceiling speakers in place but I also have Front Height speakers which were used for PLIIz, Neo:X before. I was about to remove these speakers and sell them, but from what you say, the best plan may be to leave them in place in case Auro comes along in the future. That will give me 6 speakers 'up there' - the old Front Heights, the Atmos first row pair and the Atmos second row pair. I won't bother with a VOG speaker as I'd expect the existing ceiling speakers would do a good job of phantom imaging that. I can easily add a Centre Height speaker if necessary.
> 
> Thanks again - I will remove my ad for the current Height speakers from the UK forum where I have them for sale and see how things develop.
> 
> TBH I don't have a lot of confidence that Auro will succeed, but if all I need to do to future-proof myself for now is leave an existing pair iof speakers in place, that's a pretty easy decision.


Happy that I could be a help. I was asking the same question to Auro yesterday and the answer was that they also have contracts with a lot of major Hollywood studios! I remember back in 1997 I bought a Millenium 2*4*6. If someone remembers, it was the first standalone DTS decoder.Everybody laughed at me and said DTS wouldn't have a future. Especially as back in these days you had to buy specific Laser Discs that were DTS only, so without a DTS decoder no playback possible. Now look at DTS 17 years later...

Anyway even if it does not succeed as a native format, I heard lots of raving reviews on their upmixer Auromatic being way superior to Dolby Surround! I just want to keep my options open


----------



## Selden Ball

FWIW, the manuals for the Denon and Marantz models which support Atmos claim that they support both updates and upgrades, with separate notification messages. One can hope that they'll be able to upgrade to support Auro and DTS UHD when they become available. For a fee, of course, to cover the additional licensing costs.

Auro did publicize that D&M were among their partners.
http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2014/0...-home-entertainment-car-and-mobile-platforms/


----------



## ss9001

tjenkins95 said:


> I visited a local Best Buy Magnolia store last week and asked one of the reps if they were going to setup an Atmos demo and he had no clue what I was talking about. I pointed him to the Best Buy website which provides a page describing Dolby Atmos and also to the pages containing the Atmos receivers and speakers that they are selling. No wonder Best Buy's sales are down.


Same experience in Atlanta. Local BB-Mag store where I live can't even demo speakers after several visits; their switching control system is down and they can't find the key to open the cabinet to reboot it  

I called the main Perimeter Mall Magnolia Design Center last Friday and they are totally clueless about Atmos. They have no idea what it's about, if they're selling Pioneer's speakers, or going to have a demo room. Totally useless as a retailer! they couldn't even demo some ceiling speaker I wanted to listen to, plus they only had 1, not 1 pair, but 1, in stock. How do you end up with or sell only one?

I told the sales assoc at Perimeter Des Ctr they should check their own company web site home page, where Atmos Coming Soon is plastered all over it and learn something. 

IF Magnolia were a competent retailer, they would have all their store managers up to speed and IF the managers were competent, they would do some initial training of their salespeople to know what it's about and what the store's plans are.

Clearly, the ones in Atlanta aren't competent. I can almost excuse a BB-Mag but not the main design center. IMHO, either corporate Magnolia is doing a poor job of rolling it out or Atlanta management is incompetent and don't deserve the job. The guy at the local BB-Mag store at least knew something about Atmos but there's no excuse for the main Design Center to be ignorant about it. this is the 2nd time I've called them with the same ignorant results.

And BB management wonders why people showroom them...how do you sell speakers if people can't listen to them? 

the speaker selector issue has gone on for weeks, according to the BB sales guy. one has to wonder if the mgr just picks his toes?

IF BB or Magnolia go out of business, they deserve their fate. I gave up on BB years ago for major AV purchases.


----------



## westmd

petetherock said:


> Like that... the entire hall is about 3.6m (W) by 6m (L) by 3m (H)
> The cove extends 700mm into the hall on both sides..


I think what is most important here, that the speakers is more then 50cm away from the wall. I would think that pointing would work, but then I would work with a pointable tweeter of a speaker with a general wider dispersion pattern. I am looking into the Jamo IC 608 FG ( not the three way LCR version). That shoul offer all of the above.


----------



## petetherock

Thanks westmd
My choice is the AG A'Diva, which can be directed when mounted using their ceiling ring mount..


----------



## ss9001

I'm checking into the Gallos, pete. look stylish as well as functional. I'm glad I saw your post a day or 2 ago about them. I may not go that way but it is another option to consider.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Like that... the entire hall is about 3.6m (W) by 6m (L) by 3m (H)
> The cove extends 700mm into the hall on both sides..


What matters is that ideally the ceiling speakers would be in line with the front left and right. How far off this ideal will they be?


----------



## toothsavers

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK the answer to your question (which is probably, I suspect, "maybe") but at the London Dolby Atnos demos I was surprised at how small an area of ceiling they used to bounce the sound off. If you look at my second report, you'll see pictures that show what I mean. I’d be wary of taking that as a definite 'yes' to your question, but your idea may well work. I think you'd have to try it to be sure. Having parts of the ceiling at different angles to each other are usually problematic, so it may also be the case for Atmos. Remember you can do an Atmos setup with just two ceiling speakers (5.1.2 or 7.1.2) so you might be OK with that 3 feet area of flat ceiling, for just two speakers. 2 ceiling speakers isn't ideal, but it will be better than what we have currently.
> 
> I agree with UKTexan that 16 feet is too high for upfirers so you would have to try physical speakers.
> 
> WRT to UKTexan;'s remark about lowering the surrounds, that is indeed the general advice. But the reason is to obtain separation between the surrounds and the overheads, when one has a typical 8ft ceiling. With your 16 ft ceiling you probably have that separation already so can leave the surrounds where they are (as they do in commercial cinemas).


Thanks for you response.Does the following make sense?.My front nht 2.5 front speakers are 3ft 4inches tall.If I place Dolby enabled modules on top of these 3ft,4 inch high speakers would 16ft minus 3ft 4inch reduce the height to my flat ceiling portion to 12ft 8 inches and be in the Dolby Atmos parameters for optimal ceiling height for reflective sound? Or I am just grasping at straws here?


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> What matters is that ideally the ceiling speakers would be in line with the front left and right. How far off this ideal will they be?


The front R & L should be a tad more narrow, but within 50cm each side...


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Anyway even if it does not succeed as a native format, I heard lots of raving reviews on their upmixer Auromatic being way superior to Dolby Surround! I just want to keep my options open


Yes - the upmixer is an attractive proposition even if Auro movies as such don't materialize. Very interesting option.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kokishin said:


> Check out this thread discussing Scott Wilkinson's HTG podcast with _two tech guys from Dolby Labs—Brett Crockett, senior director of research, sound technology, and Craig Eggers, director, home theater—explain Dolby Atmos for cinema and home theater, including its object orientation, overhead and upfiring speakers, objects and "beds," the Dolby Surround upmixer, and streaming and Blu-ray content. They also answer questions from AVS members and the chat room, including speaker placement, multiple seating rows, timbre matching, how objects and beds are assigned to speakers, video games, Atmos in headphones, retailer demos, finding Atmos cinemas, and much more._
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-forum-podcasts/1673658-dolby-atmos-questions-answered.html#post27169290
> 
> YouTube video (podcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GQ-fxj3t6k#t=19




A lot of good information there. Details like:

Multiple surround speakers can be used as an array or individual, but that is determined by the soundtrack mixer and AVR capabilities and not only by the speaker configuration.

All Bluray players may or may not be compatible with Atmos. They finessed that by saying that your Bluray player has to meet the full Bluray spec. I guess that means you have to try an Atmos mix on your existing Bluray player to be certain if your player meets the full Bluray spec.

Locating ceiling speakers was discussed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, the manuals for the Denon and Marantz models which support Atmos claim that they support both updates and upgrades, with separate notification messages. One can hope that they'll be able to upgrade to support Auro and DTS UHD when they become available. For a fee, of course, to cover the additional licensing costs.


Yes I spotted that too. A section for 'update' and a separate section for 'upgrade'. Made me wonder what they might upgrade to... but it is encouraging that the option is there.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> And BB management wonders why people showroom them...how do you sell speakers if people can't listen to them?


This is why I feel no guilt in showrooming these big retailers. Generally they are useless for anything else! If I find a proper retailer, I will support them (and I do have a very good supplier of AV gear here, and at great prices, with superb demo facilities too. Limited range, but all good) but all too often the experience you had is the one I have too. One of the obvious ways in which a B&M retailer can compete with the Internet is with demos and helpful and knowledgeable staff. If they have neither, then there's no reason not to buy on the Internet and (usually) save some $$$.


----------



## kbarnes701

toothsavers said:


> Thanks for you response.Does the following make sense?.My front nht 2.5 front speakers are 3ft 4inches tall.If I place Dolby enabled modules on top of these 3ft,4 inch high speakers would 16ft minus 3ft 4inch reduce the height to my flat ceiling portion to 12ft 8 inches and be in the Dolby Atmos parameters for optimal ceiling height for reflective sound? Or I am just grasping at straws here?


I hear you - truth is nobody knows at this time because nobody has tried it yet. So it's all speculation. Yes, it may well work. Only way to be sure is to try it out - if you can get modules with a good return policy someplace for example. Sorry, I realise it's no what you want to hear, but there is just no way to know. Dolby say that up to 14 feet can work pretty good, and you are on the limit of that. Physical on-ceiling or in-ceiling speakers would be a safer bet IMO, but you still have the issue of how they would be impacted by the slope of the ceilings. I might be inclined to go for a x.1.2 setup with just two physical speakers mounted on the flat area.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> The front R & L should be a tad more narrow, but within 50cm each side...


Difficult call. Dolby repeatedly say that the speaker placement has more flexibility than we are used to. They told me that in London and it was repeated in the HTG interview with Scott Wilkinson. The big problem right now, for anyone who can't meet the published spec, is that nobody has any hands-on experience with off-spec placement, so nobody can really answer this sort of question. Same problem for toothsaver above.


----------



## toothsavers

kbarnes701 said:


> I hear you - truth is nobody knows at this time because nobody has tried it yet. So it's all speculation. Yes, it may well work. Only way to be sure is to try it out - if you can get modules with a good return policy someplace for example. Sorry, I realise it's no what you want to hear, but there is just no way to know. Dolby say that up to 14 feet can work pretty good, and you are on the limit of that. Physical on-ceiling or in-ceiling speakers would be a safer bet IMO, but you still have the issue of how they would be impacted by the slope of the ceilings. I might be inclined to go for a x.1.2 setup with just two physical speakers mounted on the flat area.


Thanks for your opinion.My insurmountable problem is that I can't physically install any new ceiling speakers.I am stuck using only angled front Dolby Atmos enabled modules and possibly turning my rear (angled in ceiling) surrounds into Dolby Atmos speakers.In your opinion is it worth upgrading to the new Atmos receivers for (hopefully possible Atmos sound) and the new Dolby Surround mode compared to my denon 4311ci? I would really like to thank this forum for their advice on the Atmos question as well as advice that I took on angling my center speaker off my floor(Batpig) .I did this and such an improvement was heard by all of my family with dialog .This is such WORTHWHILE forum,Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

toothsavers said:


> Thanks for your opinion.My insurmountable problem is that I can't physically install any new ceiling speakers.I am stuck using only angled front Dolby Atmos enabled modules and possibly turning my rear (angled in ceiling) surrounds into Dolby Atmos speakers.In your opinion is it worth upgrading to the new Atmos receivers for (hopefully possible Atmos sound) and the new Dolby Surround mode compared to my denon 4311ci? I would really like to thank this forum for their advice on the Atmos question as well as advice that I took on angling my center speaker off my floor(Batpig) .I did this and such an improvement was heard by all of my family with dialog .This is such WORTHWHILE forum,Thanks


If I had to give an opinion and was going to be held to it, then I'd have to say "no - don't do it". That is the safest advice from my POV. I say this because your room makes it impossible to comply with Atmos specifications as we currently understand them. New information is scheduled for release tomorrow by Dolby, and this may contain information that is useful to you, as I know that cathedral ceilings are not exactly unknown in the USA. 

If I was giving an opinion on a far less stringent basis, I'd say "try it and see". I imagine you will be able to get hold of an Atmos AVR and some Atmos speakers from a supplier with a good returns policy. If so, then you can try it for yourself, in your own room, and see how well it works for you. You may be pleasantly surprised. If not, then you can return the goods within the return window and you won't be substantially out of pocket.

If it were me, and having heard Atmos for the home and knowing how much it adds to the aural experience of a movie, I’d go for the second option above. 

If you do, I am sure the thread would greatly welcome you coming back to tell us if it worked, or not. You won't be the only person with this particular type of room.


----------



## FilmMixer

westmd said:


> Anyway even if it does not succeed as a native format, I heard lots of raving reviews on their upmixer Auromatic being way superior to Dolby Surround! I just want to keep my options open


Can you define "lots" and if they heard the same content? Just curious...

At the immersive sound event at Sony yesterday, I spoke to at least 5 people who heard both the cinema setups, with mostly filmed content (trailers and demos too) and also an Auro demo they had setup in a smaller mixing room... Dolby had no such setup (this was a professional event, not HT.)

Many people liked the Dolby presentation very much in the theater..

Many _really_ liked the Auro demos in the smaller room.. the only comment about it to the negative was that while they shoed off a bit of recorded content using the Auro microphone setup, etc, many thought those production realities of obtaining such material was impractical in a lot of situations...


----------



## bargervais

toothsavers said:


> Thanks for your opinion.My insurmountable problem is that I can't physically install any new ceiling speakers.I am stuck using only angled front Dolby Atmos enabled modules and possibly turning my rear (angled in ceiling) surrounds into Dolby Atmos speakers.In your opinion is it worth upgrading to the new Atmos receivers for (hopefully possible Atmos sound) and the new Dolby Surround mode compared to my denon 4311ci? I would really like to thank this forum for their advice on the Atmos question as well as advice that I took on angling my center speaker off my floor(Batpig) .I did this and such an improvement was heard by all of my family with dialog .This is such WORTHWHILE forum,Thanks


I too have benefited from the vast knowledge from this forum I will experiment with the placement of my ceiling speakers once the firmware is released for my 737 for the best results. I'm only going to be doing 5.2.2 only a few more weeks then I'll enjoy height.


----------



## westmd

FilmMixer said:


> Can you define "lots" and if they heard the same content? Just curious...
> 
> At the immersive sound event at Sony yesterday, I spoke to at least 5 people who heard both the cinema setups, with mostly filmed content (trailers and demos too) and also an Auro demo they had setup in a smaller mixing room... Dolby had no such setup (this was a professional event, not HT.)
> 
> Many people liked the Dolby presentation very much in the theater..
> 
> Many _really_ liked the Auro demos in the smaller room.. the only comment about it to the negative was that while they shoed off a bit of recorded content using the Auro microphone setup, etc, many thought those production realities of obtaining such material was impractical in a lot of situations...


Lots mean about 5-6 people yesterday during the IFA. I don't know what they heard exactly. 
Anyway its not just a question of material but also of setup. Yesterday Onkyo used in ceiling speaker for about 50€ wrongly attached, so presumably even comparison of tbe same material would have sounded miles apart just due to setup! I think one has to wait until a comparison is possible in ones home with exactly the same setup! I don't want to rave too much about Auro here, I just want to prevent people stating it's DOA (like AH with Atmos)!


----------



## chi_guy50

toothsavers said:


> In your opinion is it worth upgrading to the new Atmos receivers for (hopefully possible Atmos sound) and the new Dolby Surround mode compared to my denon 4311ci?


As someone who is happily committed to upgrading from my current AVR-3311CI to the AVR-X5200W, I would advise you not to upgrade at this time given your circumstances. The AVR-4311CI is a damn fine piece of equipment and, assuming you have no issues with your unit, should provide just about everything you could reasonably want to drive your 7.1 set-up. The compromising configuration of your room together with your professed inability to mount additional ceiling speakers probably leaves you with only less than desirable solutions for implementing this first generation of Atmos processing (although you might be better able to judge this for yourself when the Dolby white paper comes out this week). Within one or two years I would expect the mainstream AVR/SSP's to provide expanded capabilities and/or competing MDA systems (e.g., DTS-UHD) that may offer you more suitable options.

For me it was a relatively easy decision since I have been wanting an 11CH-capable AVR for almost a year now, and Atmos is just the cherry on top of the sundae.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> I visited a local Best Buy Magnolia store last week and asked one of the reps if they were going to setup an Atmos demo and he had no clue what I was talking about. I pointed him to the Best Buy website which provides a page describing Dolby Atmos and also to the pages containing the Atmos receivers and speakers that they are selling. No wonder Best Buy's sales are down.


Best Buy is a joke and always has been. They have hurt the retail brick n mortar A/V model more than they have helped. I hope Dolby doesn't rely on them too heavily. Either that or they need to supervise every single Dolby Atmos demo setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> A lot of good information there. Details like:
> 
> Multiple surround speakers can be used as an array or individual, but that is determined by the soundtrack mixer and AVR capabilities and not only by the speaker configuration.
> 
> All Bluray players may or may not be compatible with Atmos. They finessed that by saying that your Bluray player has to meet the full Bluray spec. I guess that means you have to try an Atmos mix on your existing Bluray player to be certain if your player meets the full Bluray spec.
> 
> Locating ceiling speakers was discussed.


The only player model I see having a problem is the early fat PS3's that couldn't bitstream anything but basic DTS, Dolby, and PCM. Every other player that I'm aware of has the HDMI chipsets allowing bitstreaming. The key is turning SECONDARY AUDIO to OFF.

If you only have a fat PS3, then it's time to buy another player.


----------



## batpig

toothsavers said:


> Thanks for you response.Does the following make sense?.My front nht 2.5 front speakers are 3ft 4inches tall.If I place Dolby enabled modules on top of these 3ft,4 inch high speakers would 16ft minus 3ft 4inch reduce the height to my flat ceiling portion to 12ft 8 inches and be in the Dolby Atmos parameters for optimal ceiling height for reflective sound? Or I am just grasping at straws here?


That's not really how it works. The Atmos recommendations of 8ft ceilings / 14ft max for upfiring mobiles doesn't assume they are on the floor. There is an implicit assumption of them being on top of your speakers so you can't "cheat" any extra height that way. 

However since you are already in compromise land you could always experiment (assuming installing more physical speakers up there is a non starter?). For example, you could try mounting the modules on the front wall a few feet above the mains (either directly on wall or on a decorative shelf). That would reduce the effective bounce height, although the reflected beam still has to travel back down to your ears so it still may be more diffuse than ideal. 

Or another option is not aiming for the flat part but having them reflect off the front angled part of the ceiling. Doing a little geometry (angle of incidence = angle of reflection) you could probably effectively aim them towards the listening position and be bouncing them off a lower part of the ceiling than the flat part. Considering your listening position is very far back from the display (15ft right?) you might even benefit from the extra angle.


----------



## SpenceJT

toothsavers said:


> Thanks for your opinion.My insurmountable problem is that I can't physically install any new ceiling speakers.I am stuck using only angled front Dolby Atmos enabled modules and possibly turning my rear (angled in ceiling) surrounds into Dolby Atmos speakers.In your opinion is it worth upgrading to the new Atmos receivers for (hopefully possible Atmos sound) and the new Dolby Surround mode compared to my denon 4311ci? I would really like to thank this forum for their advice on the Atmos question as well as advice that I took on angling my center speaker off my floor(Batpig) .I did this and such an improvement was heard by all of my family with dialog .This is such WORTHWHILE forum,Thanks


I'm in the same boat. "CeilingMax" ceiling system, with the cavities in the joists above full of duct work and heavily insulated. I'll be "experimenting" by repurposing my formerly stand-mounted bookshelf Axiom Audio M22s. Far from optimal I know, but if it provides "some" improvement, it will suffice until I can fashion a better solution.


----------



## toothsavers

batpig said:


> That's not really how it works. The Atmos recommendations of 8ft ceilings / 14ft max for upfiring mobiles doesn't assume they are on the floor. There is an implicit assumption of them being on top of your speakers so you can't "cheat" any extra height that way.
> 
> However since you are already in compromise land you could always experiment (assuming installing more physical speakers up there is a non starter?). For example, you could try mounting the modules on the front wall a few feet above the mains (either directly on wall or on a decorative shelf). That would reduce the effective bounce height, although the reflected beam still has to travel back down to your ears so it still may be more diffuse than ideal.
> 
> Or another option is not aiming for the flat part but having them reflect off the front angled part of the ceiling. Doing a little geometry (angle of incidence = angle of reflection) you could probably effectively aim them towards the listening position and be bouncing them off a lower part of the ceiling than the flat part. Considering your listening position is very far back from the display (15ft right?) you might even benefit from the extra angle.


Thanks Batpig for your input on my dilemma .Your suggestion of angling up my center channel off the floor after seeing my photos of my (Novice setup) has made quite a discernible audio difference with the dialogue.I attributed my lack of audible clarity to 38 years of hearing a Dental drill!!!In your opinion would it help to use a laser pointer extending from the angled speaker in the Dolby enabled module to see where the sound would reflect off the ceiling?If this would lend some useable info for us ,it would be nice if Atmos speaker companies could have this attached to that angled speaker (Angle that could be adjusted,not fixed) and let the homeowner or installer set the most desired angle that works best in one's ceiling config .Again to adjust for non-optimal ceilings,altering Dolbys recommendations and letting ones ears due the deciding if it is an improvement or not.Again your help and this forums help are invaluable.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> I heard lots of raving reviews on their upmixer Auromatic being way superior to Dolby Surround!


Superior only IF you prefer that type of surround processing. 

User reports indicate that Auromatic adds reverb that wasn't in the soundtrack, the same way that Yamaha DSP modes do (or the way Audyssey adds early side wall and proscenium reflections based on concert hall acoustics). By comparison, Dolby Surround does its upmixing by extracting info from the soundtrack itself, like how DTS Neo:X and Dolby PLIIz operate. 

So, superiority depends on preference: whether you prefer your ambience generated or extracted.


----------



## kokishin

westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.
> 
> Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...


What does Auro plan to do for those that can't mount ceiling speakers? 

Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (will) allow many of us to enjoy Dolby Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer.


----------



## kokishin

Regarding Atmos content from another thread (Today, 07:27 AM PT): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1474980-official-yamaha-aventage-rx-a1030-rx-a2030-rx-a3030-cx-a5000-mx-a5000-thread-62.html#post27209002



FilmMixer said:


> There will be a bunch of content...
> 
> And sooner rather than later....
> 
> I believe the press release on the "launch" titles will be out tomorrow.
> 
> I had the chance to speak with one of the professional services engineers yesterday (they install and maintain the dub stages, where the content is created...) They are in the middle of almost _doubling_ the amount of Atmos mixing rooms in LA in the next couple of months.... a lot of them for OTT (streaming) content.. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Vudu, etc...)
> 
> So by your accounts, in a year from now (where md is reporting the new pre/pro will be announced) there will be much more than a "few" things to watch..
> 
> I promise you that.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> Regarding Atmos content from another thread (Today, 07:27 AM PT): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...cx-a5000-mx-a5000-thread-62.html#post27209002


I'd much rather have disc content, but that's just me.


----------



## NorthSky

Tomorrow's Monday?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Tomorrow's Monday?


As far I know, the calendars haven't all been changed by some mysterious force.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> ... superiority depends on preference: whether you prefer your ambience generated or extracted.


Realistically recreated. ...Spatially engulfing.


----------



## kokishin

Dan Hitchman said:


> As far I know, the calendars haven't all been changed by some mysterious force.


He's Canadian so cut him some slack.  [j/k]


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> As far I know, the calendars haven't all been changed by some mysterious force.


Then we should know more about them Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie titles.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Then we should know more about them Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie titles.


Is it Monday yet??? No wait, I still have to watch the Broncos game tonight. Dang it!


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> He's Canadian so cut him some slack.  [j/k]


Thank you for your support and cooperation. :kiss:


----------



## westmd

sdurani said:


> Superior only IF you prefer that type of surround processing.
> 
> User reports indicate that Auromatic adds reverb that wasn't in the soundtrack, the same way that Yamaha DSP modes do (or the way Audyssey adds early side wall and proscenium reflections based on concert hall acoustics). By comparison, Dolby Surround does its upmixing by extracting info from the soundtrack itself, like how DTS Neo:X and Dolby PLIIz operate.
> 
> So, superiority depends on preference: whether you prefer your ambience generated or extracted.


As I said I want to keep my options open until I was able to compare *the same material on the same setup*I can neither say I like it due to the statements I on the IFA nor can I say I dislike it due to your statement! I just don't think Auro should be neglected and therefore I wrote the speaker Layout guide!

...and maybe it is even more complex and one movie sounds better with Auromatic and one with Dolby Surround, who kniws?


----------



## Frohlich

kokishin said:


> He's Canadian so cut him some slack.  [j/k]


It's Spring time in Canada since they are on the other side of the equator.....it's probably like March 23rd down there.


----------



## westmd

kokishin said:


> What does Auro plan to do for those that can't mount ceiling speakers?
> 
> Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (will) allow many of us to enjoy Dolby Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer.


As they are "only" using heights and no in ceiling speakers I would think it is easier to comply with their layout, AFAIK there is no real alternative to tge height speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> He's Canadian so cut him some slack.  [j/k]


Blame Canada! :devil:


----------



## batpig

SpenceJT said:


> I'm in the same boat. "CeilingMax" ceiling system, with the cavities in the joists above full of duct work and heavily insulated. I'll be "experimenting" by repurposing my formerly stand-mounted bookshelf Axiom Audio M22s. Far from optimal I know, but if it provides "some" improvement, it will suffice until I can fashion a better solution.


If you were willing to forego the two chotchkes sitting on your L/R tower mains you could easily place a squarish Atmos module (like the AT ones) on top of your towers. IMO that would be preferably to trying to bounce speakers up off the top of the huge wall unit.


----------



## nucky

westmd said:


> Happy that I could be a help. I was asking the same question to Auro yesterday and the answer was that they also have contracts with a lot of major Hollywood studios! I remember back in 1997 I bought a Millenium 2*4*6. If someone remembers, it was the first standalone DTS decoder.Everybody laughed at me and said DTS wouldn't have a future. Especially as back in these days you had to buy specific Laser Discs that were DTS only, so without a DTS decoder no playback possible. Now look at DTS 17 years later...
> 
> Anyway even if it does not succeed as a native format, I heard lots of raving reviews on their upmixer Auromatic being way superior to Dolby Surround! I just want to keep my options open


Yes I remember, I also had one of those DTS decoders'


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nucky said:


> Yes I remember, I also had one of those DTS decoders'


I still do. Maybe a museum might want it.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Superior only IF you prefer that type of surround processing.
> 
> *User reports indicate that Auromatic adds reverb that wasn't in the soundtrack, *the same way that Yamaha DSP modes do (or the way Audyssey adds early side wall and proscenium reflections based on concert hall acoustics). By comparison, Dolby Surround does its upmixing by extracting info from the soundtrack itself, like how DTS Neo:X and Dolby PLIIz operate.
> 
> So, superiority depends on preference: whether you prefer your ambience generated or extracted.


OMG. I hate that. As you know, I really dislike DSX and much prefer PLIIz or Neo:X. I'm for extracting from the soundtrack not creating stuff that was never there to start with. Nonetheless I will leave my old Height speakers in place and try Auromatic if/when I can. Terrible name. Sounds like some cheap gizmo from the 70s.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> What does Auro plan to do for those that can't mount ceiling speakers?
> 
> Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (will) allow many of us to enjoy Dolby Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer.


Good question. The genius of home Atmos, for me, is that people can enjoy it without (apparently) adding any more speakers to their room - a highly WAF friendly solution. The No 1 objection to any new system, as far as WAF is concerned, must be _"I do not want any more speakers in the room!_". Atmos-enabled speakers allow for the Atmos experience and, as far as WAF is concerned, there's exactly the same number of speakers as there was with the old 5.1 or 7.1 setup. 

I can’t see a multi-speaker format gaining acceptance in the marketplace if it requires speakers to be physically mounted on the ceiling, walls etc.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> ...and maybe it is even more complex and one movie sounds better with *Auromatic* and one with Dolby Surround, who knows?


That's a funny word to describe 3D surround sound; _"auromatic"._


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> It's Spring time in Canada since they are on the other side of the equator.....it's probably like March 23rd down there.


Summer time; 36° Celsius. ...September 07, 2014. ...Vancouver Island, right by Victoria.


----------



## SpenceJT

batpig said:


> If you were willing to forego the two chotchkes sitting on your L/R tower mains you could easily place a squarish Atmos module (like the AT ones) on top of your towers. IMO that would be preferably to trying to bounce speakers up off the top of the huge wall unit.


On the list as a future option. Going to go with the "no cost" (aside from receiver purchase) experiment first. ;-)


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> That's a funny word to describe 3D surround sound; _"auromatic"._


as well as http://www.vaillant.com/customers/products/auromatic-560-2115.en_ex.html


----------



## bargervais

Frohlich said:


> It's Spring time in Canada since they are on the other side of the equator.....it's probably like March 23rd down there.


Your just joking right Canada is north of Cincinnati Ohio the last I looked they are above the U.S.


----------



## Frohlich

bargervais said:


> Your just joking right Canada is north of Cincinnati Ohio the last I looked they are above the U.S.


Of course I was joking fellas. I was hoping my post was so silly that it was self-evident


----------



## brwsaw

Oh Canada...

Its snowing 4 hours north of me and the weather man said I'm next.
We expect it late tonight.

Its a good (guilt free) time to have a HT.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Love snow; see but little.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Your just joking right Canada is north of Cincinnati Ohio the last I looked they are above the U.S.


:grin:


----------



## NorthSky

Canada is a more "elevated" country (higher up on the map); perfect for Dolby Atmos experience.


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> Your just joking right Canada is north of Cincinnati Ohio the last I looked they are above the U.S.


Canadians look down on us, eh?


----------



## bargervais

brwsaw said:


> Oh Canada...
> 
> Its snowing 4 hours north of me and the weather man said I'm next.
> We expect it late tonight.
> 
> Its a good (guilt free) time to have a HT.


Last time I saw snow was last Christmas when I was back home in Montreal the snow was falling from above a real atmos moment but very quiet.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> I can neither say I like it due to the statements I on the IFA nor can I say I dislike it due to your statement!


Wasn't asking you to like or dislike it, just addressing the notion of one being "superior" to the other when comparing two different _types_ of surround processing.


----------



## NorthSky

Is there a specific "Like" button for Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> User reports indicate that Auromatic adds reverb that wasn't in the soundtrack, the same way that Yamaha DSP modes do (or the way Audyssey adds early side wall and proscenium reflections based on concert hall acoustics). By comparison, Dolby Surround does its upmixing by extracting info from the soundtrack itself, like how DTS Neo:X and Dolby PLIIz operate.


Someone with an Auro upmixer could confirm this question in a few seconds by playing a click signal through it. Does the output have a decay tail or not? Done.


----------



## asarose247

Quote kbarnes701: I can’t see a multi-speaker format gaining acceptance in the marketplace if it requires speakers to be physically mounted on the ceiling, walls etc.	
After all over 6700+ post you bring this up NOW???
So now what the flip do I do?



20140904_144842[1].jpg


JK


This should be a week to create another flood of info.
*Bring it on . . .*


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Someone with an Auro upmixer could confirm this question in a few seconds by playing a click signal through it.


Ask away: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...y-test-our-ultra-systems-22.html#post27169746


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> Last time I saw snow was last Christmas when I was back home in Montreal the snow was falling from above a real atmos moment but very quiet.


Montreal une tres Belle ville


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Is there a specific "Like" button for Dolby Atmos?


Nope it seems to be Dolby Surround 

I think when the first Blu Ray with ATMOS arrive we might see it displayed


----------



## dan webster

I swore i was done following this thread since i have a 6' 8" ceiling in my basement theater. One week later and i just got caught up. I am very tempted to buy a denon 5200, i have enough extra speakers to temporarily mount them in the ceiling with the panels removed. However I will wait for a review from someone with a low ceiling.


----------



## NorthSky

dan webster said:


> I swore i was done following this thread since i have a 6' 8" ceiling in my basement theater. One week later and i just got caught up. I am very tempted to buy a denon 5200, i have enough extra speakers to temporarily mount them in the ceiling with the panels removed. However I will wait for a review from someone with a low ceiling.


Sit very very low, and position all your speakers very low too and closer to you; it should work.


----------



## SoundChex

NorthSky said:


> That's a funny word to describe 3D surround sound; _"*auromatic*"._




Apparently '_omitting the hyphen_' makes something funny...?





> *THE AURO-3D® ENGINE COMPRISES:
> 
> Auro-Codec: The revolutionary codec that delivers native, discrete Auro-3D® content.
> 
> Auro-Matic®: The groundbreaking up-mixing algorithm that converts legacy content into the Auro-3D® format.*


_


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Superior only IF you prefer that type of surround processing.
> 
> User reports indicate that Auromatic adds reverb that wasn't in the soundtrack, the same way that Yamaha DSP modes do (or the way Audyssey adds early side wall and proscenium reflections based on concert hall acoustics). By comparison, Dolby Surround does its upmixing by extracting info from the soundtrack itself, like how DTS Neo:X and Dolby PLIIz operate.
> 
> So, superiority depends on preference: whether you prefer your ambience generated or extracted.


Good point. I went a bit suspicious on Auromatic once I heard it even worked with mono recordings. Personally, I am not looking for added reverb no matter how good it sounds.


----------



## bargervais

see​


asarose247 said:


> Quote kbarnes701: I can’t see a multi-speaker format gaining acceptance in the marketplace if it requires speakers to be physically mounted on the ceiling, walls etc.
> After all over 6700+ post you bring this up NOW???
> So now what the flip do I do?
> 
> 
> 
> 20140904_144842[1].jpg
> 
> 
> JK
> 
> 
> This should be a week to create another flood of info.
> *Bring it on . . .*


That place looks upside down


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> Apparently '_omitting the hyphen_' makes something funny...?


Ha! ... *Auro-Matic* (up-mixer). ...That, I did not know. ...Still a funny word though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Ha! ... Auro-matic. ...That, I did not know. ...Still a funny word though.


It not only sounds good, it smells too!


----------



## NorthSky

...And adds levels of reverbs. ... https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## NorthSky

asarose247 said:


> 20140904_144842[1].jpg





bargervais said:


> That place looks upside down


Not only does it look upside down but is also upside down.


----------



## asarose247

^
while it may appear so, once I don my Dolby ATMOS enabled anti-gravity belt, I can sit on the couch, the effect will still be the same, as long as the angle parameters are maintained . . .


a bit more cleaning up and I'll give it another go . . .


----------



## NorthSky

It's ok, it looks cool like dat; different but cool.


----------



## PeterTHX

NorthSky said:


> Canada is a more "elevated" country (higher up on the map); perfect for Dolby Atmos experience.



Nah. That just makes Canada the "overhead speaker" to the US surround system. 


(and makes Mexico the subwoofer?)


----------



## NorthSky

PeterTHX said:


> Nah. That just makes Canada the "overhead speaker" to the US surround system.
> 
> (and makes Mexico the subwoofer?)


Hey! Wise axe.


----------



## kokishin

PeterTHX said:


> Nah. That just makes Canada the "overhead speaker" to the US surround system.
> 
> 
> (and makes Mexico the subwoofer?)


Canada: VOG

Mexico: VOMR (Voice of Montezuma's Revenge)


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> *Canada: VOG*
> 
> Mexico: VOMR (Voice of Montezuma's Revenge)


Oh, now I like that even more. 

Thank you for your cooperation. - Robocop


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> Oh, now I like that even more.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation. - Robocop


Bob, 

I did it for you. I was expecting a "like" from you though. Need your cooperation.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> Bob,
> 
> I did it for you. I was expecting a "like" from you though. Need your cooperation.


My way to thank people is directly, face to face, just like in real life. ...I'm not into chicklets...Audioholics.


----------



## westmd

I finally made up my mind of speaker type and layout and wanted to get your feedback,
The front height speakers I will place as Auro told me next to the screen. For these I will also use in-ceiling speakers *Jamo ICQ608FG LCR* (see picture attached). As I can point high and midrange tweeter I think they can be used quite well for this purpose. Optinal I will put a third directly in the middle functioning as center heigt.
In the top front position I will place two *Hamo IC608FG* which are two way speakers only but through design they have a wider dispersion and are not as pointed as the LCR layout.
For the rear top I am not sure if I should use the LCR version which can be well pointed but might be to direct for Atmos or the normal layout which might be not precise enough for Auro. Any thoughts!


----------



## westmd

...here is a picture of the non-LCR version.


----------



## kbarnes701

asarose247 said:


> Quote kbarnes701: I can’t see a multi-speaker format gaining acceptance in the marketplace if it requires speakers to be physically mounted on the ceiling, walls etc.
> After all over 6700+ post you bring this up NOW???
> So now what the flip do I do?


 Fortunately Atmos does NOT require anyone to to physically mount speakers on the ceiling. That's the stroke of genius behind Atmos for the home.


----------



## Wookii

westmd said:


> I finally made up my mind of speaker type and layout and wanted to get your feedback,
> The front height speakers I will place as Auro told me next to the screen. For these I will also use in-ceiling speakers *Jamo ICQ608FG LCR* (see picture attached). As I can point high and midrange tweeter I think they can be used quite well for this purpose. Optinal I will put a third directly in the middle functioning as center heigt.
> In the top front position I will place two *Hamo IC608FG* which are two way speakers only but through design they have a wider dispersion and are not as pointed as the LCR layout.
> For the rear top I am not sure if I should use the LCR version which can be well pointed but might be to direct for Atmos or the normal layout which might be not precise enough for Auro. Any thoughts!


Go for the LCR version. Both Atmos and Auro work at their optimum, like any conventional speaker system, when the drivers are on axis and pointed towards the MLP - this will provide the best imaging for Atmos audio objects.


----------



## westmd

Wookii said:


> Go for the LCR version. Both Atmos and Auro work at their optimum, like any conventional speaker system, when the drivers are on axis and pointed towards the MLP - this will provide the best imaging for Atmos audio objects.


Thanks, would you then even go for six LCR's? I thought the row between MLP and the screen I would go for the normal ones?


----------



## Wookii

Nice post Westmd, but there are a couple of points I think need re-examining.



westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.


Writing off Auro so early on would be a mistake. I have had the privilege of hearing the upmixer several times in a domestic set-up and it is nothing short of stunning. We will need to wait and see if the Dolby upmixer can compare with the Auro one!



westmd said:


> Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.


Both types of speaker will work perfectly for both Atmos and Auro to provide the first row of height speakers.




westmd said:


> Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. *In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup*. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.


This is completely incorrect I'm afraid. It is true that the VOG speaker does not deliver a huge amount of output, but the effect it has in combination with the other height speakers, particularly in the upmixer, is quite dramatic, it lifts the whole height of the listening space and provides the fill in with the other height channels. It also significantly comes into play with specific height effects. The helicopter scene in Lone Survivor is a perfect example - you can feel the helicopter right above you through the VOG channel. Bear in mind also that the VOG channel is not currently de-selectable (certainly on the Datasat RS20i) so content will be sent to that channel even if you don't have a speaker installed.



westmd said:


> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.


This is an actually an important channel for Auro (well, at least as important any other height channel). However its output (at least on the RS20i) can be downmixed into the front left and right height speakers if required, in order to create a phantom centre height.



westmd said:


> Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...


Agreed, the two layouts are quite compatible, as the angles and positions are quite close. The key thing to bear in mind though is that you are comparing to the current layout on this first batch of Atmos enabled receivers. It is evident that this is a very restricted layout determined by the AVR manufacturers in order to try and ease in mass adoption. The operation of Atmos is being intentionally limited. The full Atmos systems that will be released on high end SSP's, and probably on top tier AVRs, next year, will likely be much more flexible and allow the use of pretty much any speaker in any (sensible) position, meaning all the Auro speakers should be directly usable with Atmos, with the option of adding more Atmos dedicated speakers if the user feels necessary.


----------



## Wookii

westmd said:


> Thanks, would you then even go for six LCR's? I thought the row between MLP and the screen I would go for the normal ones?


Personally yes, I would always go for a speaker that can be directed straight to the MLP, no matter what its position. Speaker performance can decline significantly as you get off axis to the drivers. All systems are designed to be optimum with drivers firing directly at the listeners. Again Dolby's advice for wide dispersion in ceiling speakers is merely them sensibly acknowledging that for many users, this will be the easiest option - to get as many people to adopt it as possible. They don't want the average user having too much to worry/think about when installing their Atmos system.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> The helicopter scene in Lone Survivor is a perfect example - you can feel the helicopter right above you through the VOG channel. Bear in mind also that the VOG channel is not currently de-selectable (certainly on the Datasat RS20i) so content will be sent to that channel even if you don't have a speaker installed.


Just to clarify this for me, so you are saying that in an Auro setup which did not include the VOG speaker, that helicopter in Lone Survivor just wouldn't be there? We’d see the helicopter but it would be silent or nearly so? The sound of the helicopter will be sent to a channel that might not actually exist? I ask because it seems so crazy to do it that way.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> Just to clarify this for me, so you are saying that in an Auro setup which did not include the VOG speaker, that helicopter in Lone Survivor just wouldn't be there? The sound of the helicopter will be sent to a channel that might not actually exist? I ask because it seems so crazy to do it that way.


In essence yes. Obviously the helicopter effect is going to be coming from other channels also, but it prominence was definitely in the VOG channel.

Why does it seem crazy to do it that way? The same applies to any other standard. If you play a standard 7.1, or upmix to Neo:X but omit one of the speakers you won't hear the sound that the mix/up mixer has sent to that speaker.

That said, I would be surprised if Auro don't update the upmixer at some point to allow the VOG channel to be down-mixed to the other height channels to approximate it with a phantom image, though I don't think it will have quite the same impact.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> In essence yes. Obviously the helicopter effect is going to be coming from other channels also, but it prominence was definitely in the VOG channel.
> 
> Why does it seem crazy to do it that way? The same applies to any other standard. If you play a standard 7.1, or upmix to Neo:X but omit one of the speakers you won't hear the sound that the mix/up mixer has sent to that speaker.
> 
> That said, I would be surprised if Auro don't update the upmixer at some point to allow the VOG channel to be down-mixed to the other height channels to approximate it with a phantom image, though I don't think it will have quite the same impact.


Thanks for clarifying that. It seems crazy to me not to downmix into existing channels if a channel is not present in the system. Your Neo:X example isn't quite right - if I have a 5.1 system and play a 7.1 soundtrack on it, the information in the rear surrounds is redirected to the side surrounds - it isn’t just thrown away, as it seems to be in the Auro system. 

I got quite excited at the thought of being able to accommodate Auro as well as Atmos after reading westmd's post, simply be retaining my Front Height speakers. But since then I have learned that Auromatic generates content rather than extracting it, and I dislike that (when I have heard it, as well as conceptually) and now I learn that if I don't install a VOG channel that some content will be simply discarded. Neither of those things fill me with enthusiasm. Nonetheless, I have not yet heard Auromatic for myself so I keep an open mind, but just with less enthusiasm.


----------



## petetherock

Well, IMHO, to have a channel just for a helicopter flyby... I think I can do without that...
Why can't they image it to a 'phantom' location by making use of the four ceiling speakers together?

Anyway, I am not sure if I want to build a 'helicopter' enabled speaker


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Well, IMHO, to have a channel just for a helicopter flyby... I think I can do without that...


Me too. But I wouldn't want to lose most of the sound of the helicopter at the same time.



petetherock said:


> Why can't they image it to a 'phantom' location by making use of the four ceiling speakers together?


I was wondering the same thing, but I know next to nothing about Auro. Atmos seem to have such a lead now in commercial theaters that I wonder if anyone else, coming so late to the game, can catch them up. And if they can't then I can't see many movie releases making it to Bluray. I don't think I want Auro just for upmixing so I may be ruling it out. But I need to do a lot more homework before I can say for sure.


----------



## westmd

Wookii said:


> Personally yes, I would always go for a speaker that can be directed straight to the MLP, no matter what its position. Speaker performance can decline significantly as you get off axis to the drivers. All systems are designed to be optimum with drivers firing directly at the listeners. Again Dolby's advice for wide dispersion in ceiling speakers is merely them sensibly acknowledging that for many users, this will be the easiest option - to get as many people to adopt it as possible. They don't want the average user having too much to worry/think about when installing their Atmos system.


I think what I am going to do then is to buy 4 LCR speakers placed in the rear and front ( according to Dolby angles) which would leave the frint runs in the middle between MLP and screen. Once I will have my Auro/Atmos processor I will test run this setup for both codecs. Only if I get any problems with this setup will I buy two more speakers placed by the screen. Maybe that way I get Auro and Atmos with exactly the same setup!


----------



## westmd

petetherock said:


> Anyway, I am not sure if I want to build a 'helicopter' enabled speaker


VOH = Voice of Helicopter


----------



## Nightlord

I don't think helicopter sound in four top speakers would be noticably worse than in one VOG. In fact, it might even sound larger as a side effect. And it will probably be more stable from seat to seat in experience.


----------



## petetherock

This helicopter speaker may fair worse...
Imagine if the chopper comes a tad to the left of this speaker, then what happens?

If they can make use of the four ceiling speakers, then you can control the deviation from the centre... flybys will be more realistic...

Really it's only good for the "Voice of God"... and how many movies need that?

One of my fav demo scenes comes from the 5.1 'only' Band of Brothers Episode Two, in which a grenade is hurled by a German soldier and the path can be traced from back, upwards, and to the front, from one side to the centre.. you can already get this effect with a well placed set of speakers in DTS-Neo X... I look forward to seeing how this pans out (pun intended) with Atmos ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> I know some folks had mentioned Auro-matic adding in reverb. FWIW, here's a quick excerpt from an upcoming interview with Wilfried Van Baelen of Auro:


How do they extract height and surround information from mono? I can see how they could generate it, but if they are not generating it, how are they extracting it from mono sources?


----------



## dschulz

Wookii said:


> This is completely incorrect I'm afraid. It is true that the VOG speaker does not deliver a huge amount of output, but the effect it has in combination with the other height speakers, particularly in the upmixer, is quite dramatic, it lifts the whole height of the listening space and provides the fill in with the other height channels. It also significantly comes into play with specific height effects. The helicopter scene in Lone Survivor is a perfect example - you can feel the helicopter right above you through the VOG channel. Bear in mind also that the VOG channel is not currently de-selectable (certainly on the Datasat RS20i) so content will be sent to that channel even if you don't have a speaker installed.


This is not quite right. There are several Auro configurations supported by the Auro codec and the RS20i, including 9.1 (5.1 + 4 heights) and a 7.1+4 config, neither of which have the VOG. If you configure your system with either of these, and play back native 11.1 or 13.1 content the VOG information will be down mixed appropriately.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Not a clue.


Would that be because it's not possible 

Which would suggest that if they are upmixing mono "impressively" then they are indeed generating the information and not extracting it. 

Which then raises the question as to what Wilfrid Van Baelen actually meant when he said "_It is impressive how even Mono upmixed to Auro-3D sounds so natural without changing the artistic intent of the original mix, meaning *no addition *of reverbs or changing the spectrum or dynamics like other upmixing algorithms typically do." _


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> How do they extract height and surround information from mono? I can see how they could generate it, but if they are not generating it, how are they extracting it from mono sources?


excellent question.
the only DSP modes I've ever seen for mono add reverb.

is Auro new physics? 

I also am skeptical because of this in their statement:

 *"*meaning no addition of reverbs or changing the spectrum or dynamics *like other upmixing algorithms typically do.*"

what upmixing algorithms add reverb? certainly none I'm familiar with, going all the way back to the quadraphonic era.

does IIx & Neo change the frquency "spectrum or dynamics"?

Roger might know, but in all the years (40) I've listened to surround sound, I can't say I've heard noticeable changes in freq response or dynamics. only using phase differences to re-direct sound. the only system I know for sure could introduce dynamic range artifacts were the old Fosgate-Tate super-SQ decoders which sometimes could introduce a slight breathing or pumping effect. Never noticed it with any other system, from Sansui's QS to Dolby PLII to DTS Neo. Maybe my ears aren't picking it up.

Auro's statement reads like marketing-speak to me.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> _*Would that be because it's not possible
> *_
> Which would suggest that if they are upmixing mono "impressively" then they are indeed generating the information and not extracting it.
> 
> Which then raises the question as to what Wilfrid Van Baelen actually meant when he said "_It is impressive how even Mono upmixed to Auro-3D sounds so natural without changing the artistic intent of the original mix, meaning no addition of reverbs or changing the spectrum or dynamics like other upmixing algorithms typically do." _


exactly!
time for Auro's statement to be taken with a grain of salt? without further proof, I am


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> excellent question.
> the only DSP modes I've ever seen for mono add reverb.
> 
> is Auro new physics?
> 
> I also am skeptical because of this in their statement:
> 
> *"*meaning no addition of reverbs or changing the spectrum or dynamics *like other upmixing algorithms typically do.*"
> 
> what upmixing algorithms add reverb? certainly none I'm familiar with, going all the way back to the quadraphonic era.
> 
> does IIx & Neo change the frquency "spectrum or dynamics"?
> 
> Roger might know, but in all the years (40) I've listened to surround sound, I can't say I've heard noticeable changes in freq response or dynamics. only using phase differences to re-direct sound. the only system I know for sure could introduce dynamic range artifacts were the old Fosgate-Tate super-SQ decoders which sometimes could introduce a slight breathing or pumping effect. Never noticed it with any other system, from Sansui's QS to Dolby PLII to DTS Neo. Maybe my ears aren't picking it up.
> 
> Auro's statement reads like marketing-speak to me.


As it stands, it reads like gibberish to me 

Audyssey's DSX creates _reflections_ of course, rather than extracting them. Maybe that is what he meant? Who knows - at the end of the day he's a salesman, selling his product. We all know how reliable salesmen are at providing meaningful information


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Would that be because it's not possible
> Which then raises the question as to what Wilfrid Van Baelen actually meant when he said "_It is impressive how even Mono upmixed to Auro-3D sounds so natural without changing the artistic intent of the original mix, meaning no addition of reverbs or changing the spectrum or dynamics like other upmixing algorithms typically do." _


Perhaps he means, "Plays all sound out of the Center Channel" LOL

That would certainly make it "sound natural" and not add "reverb" etc, :devil:


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Perhaps he means, "Plays all sound out of the Center Channel" LOL
> 
> That would certainly make it "sound natural" and not add "reverb" etc, :devil:


 Oh yes. And it'd require very little DSP horsepower too  

I'd need a lot more convincing that they can "impressively" upmix *mono* to several height and surround speakers without adding anything to it! Where would the spatial cues come from? ATM, from Wilfrid Van Baelen's imagination it seems


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

Transformes 4, Age of Extinction, 1st BluRay with an Dolby Atmos track?! See here (in French) :

http://www.avcesar.com/actu/id-1500...os-sera-transformers-lage-de-lextinction.html

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> I'd agree to some extent, but Wilfried isn't just some marketing hack either. AFAIK, he's the guy that developed Auro from the ground up.


He is also a salesman, selling his product. Not that a salesman would ever be economical with the truth, of course.



Steve1981 said:


> If he's saying Auro-matic doesn't add reverb, there's not much ambiguity in the statement, regardless of its implications for how they upmix mono content.


How can they upmix mono content, which has no spatial information, without adding something to the original signal? My understanding is that it is impossible, so while there's no ambiguity in his statement, there is also no meaningful content to it either.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh yes. And it'd require very little DSP horsepower too
> 
> I'd need a lot more convincing that they can "impressively" upmix *mono* to several height and surround speakers without adding anything to it! Where would the spatial cues come from? ATM, from Wilfrid Van Baelen's imagination it seems


Let's see. I'll play devil's advocate. All you have is pitch and amplitude, right? And amplitude seems unrelated. So, you could do something like: the higher the pitch, the higher the sound is played (e.g. higher Hz sounds from height speakers, lower Hz sounds from ear level speakers). Not sure how *impressive *that would be (especially considering that many mono movie mixes are rather limited in Hz range). I guess we're getting off topic (not to mention, silly) and I should stop digressing. heh.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> Transformes 4, Age of Extinction, 1st BluRay with an Dolby Atmos track?! See here (in French) :
> 
> http://www.avcesar.com/actu/id-1500...os-sera-transformers-lage-de-lextinction.html
> 
> Hugo


I'd guessed it would be that. Thanks for the link. At first I thought that they had gotten advance notice of today's upcoming announcement from Dolby, but it seems that this is just one piece of information that they are obtaining 'petit à petit'. Please post the Dolby announcement link if you get it first!

Looks like I will be importing Transformers 4 then, to get it into my BD player as soon as humanely possible.  

Amitiés,

K.


----------



## westmd

dschulz said:


> This is not quite right. There are several Auro configurations supported by the Auro codec and the RS20i, including 9.1 (5.1 + 4 heights) and a 7.1+4 config, neither of which have the VOG. If you configure your system with either of these, and play back native 11.1 or 13.1 content the VOG information will be down mixed appropriately.


The demo I saw was a 5.1 bed and 4 height speakers.*No VOG!*
And it sounded phenomenal! We saw actually several clips with some information from above like a plane and a helicopter flying over you. It was totally lifelike, nothing was missing.
I think if the VOG would be that important, Auro would definitely have it i in their demo setup, always!


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Take it or leave it Keith. The man explicitly said that they don't add reverb. Being that he's the guy that developed Auro, he's the guy that can make a definitive statement.


Does that mean that he can defy the current understandings of science then? Call me impressed. 




Steve1981 said:


> Ad hominem attacks aren't becoming of you Keith.


Take it or leave it Steve.  He's a salesman for sure. While I am sure you have never been misled by a salesman, or even by marketing, heaven forbid, there are plenty who'd not agree with you as to the reliability we can place on their statements. He is also a salesman, currently, very much on the losing end of a technology battle for the hearts and minds (and dollars) of those seeking more immersive movie sound. Maybe that encourages him to be 'flexible' with his claims?

Maybe you could get van Baelen to explain how he upmixes mono (impressively) without adding adding anything to the source content?


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> Looks like I will be importing Transformers 4 then, to get it into my BD player as soon as humanely possible.
> 
> Amitiés,
> 
> K.


Unfortubately the movie is so bad that not even Dolby Atmos in perfection makes it watchable!


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> I'd guessed it would be that. Thanks for the link. At first I thought that they had gotten advance notice of today's upcoming announcement from Dolby, but it seems that this is just one piece of information that they are obtaining 'petit à petit'. Please post the Dolby announcement link if you get it first!


You'll get it before I can as I won't be back home before late this evening...




Keith who also said said:


> Looks like I will be importing Transformers 4 then, to get it into my BD player as soon as humanely possible.
> Amitiés,
> K.


Looks like you won't be the only one... even though at that time I'll still have the 8801, but I NEED to see/hear how DTS Neo X 11 Cinema interprets an Atmos mix/track.

Amts,

H.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Audyssey's DSX creates _reflections_ of course, rather than extracting them.


Being in Pioneer-land, I forgot about DSX. maybe that's what he had in mind.

I tend to think of "upmixing" as deriving channels from existing sound but not adding something that wasn't there to begin with.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Unfortubately the movie is so bad that not even Dolby Atmos in perfection makes it watchable!


Maybe. But Michael Bay gets fantastic sound from his movies, so it will be a good demo of what home Atmos can do I expect.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Being in Pioneer-land, I forgot about DSX. maybe that's what he had in mind.
> 
> I tend to think of "upmixing" as deriving channels from existing sound but not adding something that wasn't there to begin with.


Yes - as it should be IMO.


----------



## Wellywell

Wellywell said:


> Onkyo's response to my 838 question,


Here's Onkyo's response to my 838 question. Looks like i'm beat for running four channels. Although the 838 has a height pre-amp it will not help me in what I'm looking to do. Guess I should have saved up and bought the 1080. Regardless here is the answer I got from Onkyo..

"As the TX-NR 838 is only a 5.1.2 system; using an external amp will not properly emit audio in the 5.1.4 format you are seeking. It will still output in 5.1.2 with the extra two speakers mirroring the same audio output as the FRONT HIGH speakers.This will not produce a real Dolby Atmos experience."

-FM


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe. But Michael Bay gets fantastic sound from his movies, so it will be a good demo of what home Atmos can do I expect.


+1

I don't watch 'meaningful' movies on Atmos 

Gimme the bass, bombs and babes


----------



## SubSolar

So I'm just days away from speaker wire and speakers being installed in my new house. I've got a little bit of a dilemma though. I bought six of these speakers, MartinLogan EM-R's: http://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/electromotion/em-r.php

Tested them yesterday and man, I knew in-ceilings weren't going to sound great but they were worse than I expected. They just sounded muffled and tiny. I guess I've never critically listened to in-ceilings before. I'm debating now whether I should just return these and install bookshelves and brackets. These are the ones I'm thinking of, MartinLogan Motion 15's: http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/models/bookshelf.php

They would actually be cheaper than the in-ceilings. The only issue is of course they will stick out more on my living room ceiling compared to in-ceilings. But do you guys think I'm overreacting, and you don't need great speakers for overheard sounds? I just fear the in-ceilings will muddy up the clear sounds I'm getting from the electrostats. Originally I thought Atmos was just for ambient noise and overheard sounds, but the more I read it sounds like tracks will use multiple speakers to place sounds on an x,y,z which to me seems like higher quality, better sounding speakers should be used all around.

The other issue I have is I was going to go 7.1.4. I would need to place the rear surrounds on/in the ceiling though because the kitchen is in back of me. Do you think this is bad to have rear surround speakers on the same plane as the Atmos speakers? They would only be about 3 feet behind the top rear Atmos speakers. Would this mess up the 3D x,y,z placement of sounds because Atmos and the receiver would expect sounds to come from ear level from the rear surrounds? Or would Atmos/Audessey be able to figure out and "know" where the speakers are and still create 3D sound? Should I just go to 5.1.4 instead? Which do you think would sound better?


----------



## ss9001

Steve1981 said:


> The man explicitly said that they don't add reverb. Being that he's the guy that developed Auro, he's the guy that can make a definitive statement...
> 
> I'm getting the feeling that anything that goes against the grain of certain members here just isn't welcome. A such, I'm out. Cheers.


true. I can only speak for me but I wasn't condemning the statement, but I was questioning what he could mean. how to accomplish something some of us can't understand since mono by definition is the sum of L+R so where are the phase or spatial cues. I completely admit I know very little about Auro, other than it being in a prepro I can't afford  and would like to know more. is there a white paper that explains how this works?

as far as not accepting your opinions & review of actual demo's if they go against preconceived ideas, I hope you change your mind. because that's not the case. if you truly come away unimpressed, I think forum members would like to hear that and your reasons why. 

no one is chasing you off, but I've learned nothing is sacred here  over the years, I've had a few statements of mine clarified or corrected; admit the mistake & thank the poster. it's all about learning.


----------



## ss9001

petetherock said:


> +1
> 
> I don't watch 'meaningful' movies on Atmos
> 
> Gimme the bass, bombs and babes



no intellectual or artistic merit needed  IME, some of the best soundtracks are on the weakest B movies


----------



## Selden Ball

It might be appropriate to wait until you've actually heard and measured the results of the Auro upmixer before criticizing it.


----------



## westmd

SubSolar said:


> So I'm just days away from speaker wire and speakers being installed in my new house. I've got a little bit of a dilemma though. I bought six of these speakers, MartinLogan EM-R's: http://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/electromotion/em-r.php
> 
> Tested them yesterday and man, I knew in-ceilings weren't going to sound great but they were worse than I expected. They just sounded muffled and tiny. I guess I've never critically listened to in-ceilings before. I'm debating now whether I should just return these and install bookshelves and brackets. These are the ones I'm thinking of, MartinLogan Motion 15's: http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/models/bookshelf.php
> 
> They would actually be cheaper than the in-ceilings. The only issue is of course they will stick out more on my living room ceiling compared to in-ceilings. But do you guys think I'm overreacting, and you don't need great speakers for overheard sounds? I just fear the in-ceilings will muddy up the clear sounds I'm getting from the electrostats. Originally I thought Atmos was just for ambient noise and overheard sounds, but the more I read it sounds like tracks will use multiple speakers to place sounds on an x,y,z which to me seems like higher quality, better sounding speakers should be used all around.
> 
> The other issue I have is I was going to go 7.1.4. I would need to place the rear surrounds on/in the ceiling though because the kitchen is in back of me. Do you think this is bad to have rear surround speakers on the same plane as the Atmos speakers? They would only be about 3 feet behind the top rear Atmos speakers. Would this mess up the 3D x,y,z placement of sounds because Atmos and the receiver would expect sounds to come from ear level from the rear surrounds? Or would Atmos/Audessey be able to figure out and "know" where the speakers are and still create 3D sound? Should I just go to 5.1.4 instead? Which do you think would sound better?


How did you test the in-ceilings?


----------



## SubSolar

westmd said:


> How did you test the in-ceilings?


I just plugged them into a receiver to make sure they worked before having them installed. Did two at a time and selected Stereo only and played some music.


----------



## sikclown

SubSolar said:


> I just plugged them into a receiver to make sure they worked before having them installed. Did two at a time and selected Stereo only and played some music.


I could be wrong here but wouldn't in-ceiling speakers sound awful when playing them not installed in the actual ceiling?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe you could get van Baelen to explain how he upmixes mono (impressively) without adding adding anything to the source content?


Someone made a similar suggestion earlier today (I believe on another thread): Play an extremely short click sound with and without the up mixing engaged. If up mixing results in hearing more than one click, you have proven that some reverb is added to the original mix. If you don't, Van Baelen's claim still stands. In that case he might have found a - for us yet inconceivable - way of extracting ambiance information from a mono signal and sending it to the upper layer. Even without having a clue on what kind of algorithm you would need for that, our own ears and brains are for sure able to 'hear' ambiance in a mono recorded sound.


----------



## SubSolar

sikclown said:


> I could be wrong here but wouldn't in-ceiling speakers sound awful when playing them not installed in the actual ceiling?


I can't imagine they'd sound better in an enclosed ceiling cavity?


----------



## kokishin

*Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines (aka "The Dolby White Paper")*

The Dolby Atmos white paper on home theater speaker installation:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## westmd

SubSolar said:


> I just plugged them into a receiver to make sure they worked before having them installed. Did two at a time and selected Stereo only and played some music.


And there is your prpblem! The sound you heard is not representative for how thet would sound installed! You can even break them like that. Only way to test them beforehand is if you build a box for it!


----------



## UKTexan

kokishin said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Awesome!!


Thanks for the link.


----------



## sdurani

Thanx Kokishin.


----------



## sikclown

SubSolar said:


> I can't imagine they'd sound better in an enclosed ceiling cavity?


Wouldn't they though? Aren't ceiling speakers designed to use the enclosure as a kind of box?


----------



## thxman

kokishin said:


> The Dolby Atmos white paper on home theater speaker installation:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thanks. Lunch time.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe. But Michael Bay gets fantastic sound from his movies, so it will be a good demo of what home Atmos can do I expect.


Today should be the day we hear from Dolby on content. But on a related note, Keith keep an eye out for Godzilla on Blu-ray. I watched this at home on Friday. Obviously it does not have an Atmos mix for home but it was mixed that way for theaters and I must say I was blown away by the surround mix. Plenty of panning, crossing over and discrete placement that sounded like it was above the listening position. This is one I'd love to A/B with a discrete Atmos system and mix at some point. I also hope this is an indicator that Atmos mixed movies with more aggressive surround soundstages will still provide obvious benefits for systems using legacy surround setups just like we see obvious benefits of higher capture resolution (70mm/4K) with 1080p playback.


----------



## ambesolman

petetherock said:


> Well, IMHO, to have a channel just for a helicopter flyby... I think I can do without that...
> Why can't they image it to a 'phantom' location by making use of the four ceiling speakers together?
> 
> Anyway, I am not sure if I want to build a 'helicopter' enabled speaker



That's what those fan speakers are for


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## ss9001

SubSolar said:


> I just plugged them into a receiver to make sure they worked before having them installed. Did two at a time and selected Stereo only and played some music.


I tend to agree with the others who've responded. Not a true test of how they're going to sound in the ceiling, where you have an un-dampened or partially dampened back wave from the speaker in the cavity. yours are open backed, meaning as much sound is going to go behind as forward...since you are coming from e-stats, you know the principle 

they may still not be as space-filling as Motions but they should be better than putting a bare driver on the floor, chair or table. and for all intents, bare driver is closer to what they are than not when not installed in a ceiling. I have not listened to them; I wanted to at local BB-Magnolia but they couldn't demo a single speaker in their speaker room. once they are in the ceiling, you should get some bass reinforcement from the cavity.

if you want to get an idea of what they'll sound like, look for them setup at a dealer, hopefully your BB/Magnolia stores are more competent than the ones in Atlanta


----------



## SubSolar

ss9001 said:


> I tend to agree with the others who've responded. Not a true test of how they're going to sound in the ceiling, where you have an un-dampened or partially dampened back wave from the speaker in the cavity. yours are open backed, meaning as much sound is going to go behind as forward...since you are coming from e-stats, you know the principle
> 
> they may still not be as space-filling as Motions but they should be better than putting a bare driver on the floor, chair or table. and for all intents, bare driver is closer to what they are than not when not installed in a ceiling. I have not listened to them; I wanted to at local BB-Magnolia but they couldn't demo a single speaker in their speaker room. once they are in the ceiling, you should get some bass reinforcement from the cavity.
> 
> if you want to get an idea of what they'll sound like, look for them setup at a dealer, hopefully your BB/Magnolia stores are more competent than the ones in Atlanta


OK, but in general, can an in-ceiling speaker ever sound as good as a bookshelf?


----------



## ss9001

Thanks for the white paper link! Got it and reading.


----------



## Wookii

Selden Ball said:


> It might be appropriate to wait until you've actually heard and measured the results of the Auro upmixer before criticizing it.


Here here!! Some of the comments on here amaze me, from people I thought had a little more sense and objectivity, to completely dismiss a technology they a) know nothing about, and b) have never heard. It kind of reminds me of my 2 year old son who wouldn't eat his pea's because he didn't like the taste of 'green stuff'!

I HAVE heard the Auro upmixer, granted not playing a mono track, but playing a stereo track, and the results were spectacular. I won't take up space in this thread waxing lyrical about it, but needless to say, even a two channel purist such as myself was blown away by the envelopment of the soundstage and the extra clarity it brought to vocals and instruments, I have no reason to believe that wouldn't also work on a mono track.

The Auro 3D upmixer is a real game changer, for me its as big an advance as the HD audio codecs. I really hope Dolby Surround can offer the same performance as Dolby upmixers have always been my 'go to' choice, but if it can't then Auro will be THE current state of the art.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

thxman said:


> Thanks. Lunch time.


Lunchtime?... yeah sure! 

Thanks for the link kokishin! http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


...Glenn


----------



## Bigham16

This might be a silly questions. Does anybody know if you will have to use Bitstream to use the new Dolby Surround upmixer?


----------



## ss9001

Wookii said:


> I HAVE heard the Auro upmixer, granted not playing a mono track, but playing a stereo track, and the results were spectacular...The Auro 3D upmixer is a real game changer, for me its as big an advance as the HD audio codecs.


good to hear this. thanks! and for the record, I was not one who dismissed it, just questioned how it would work for mono 

I remain very open-minded, and if I got the opportunity to have it on an AVR/prepro that I could afford, I'd be all over it. I am a die-hard surround fan, music too, using all processing except reverbed ones


----------



## smurraybhm

Wookii said:


> Here here!! Some of the comments on here amaze me, from people I thought had a little more sense and objectivity, to completely dismiss a technology they a) know nothing about, and b) have never heard. It kind of reminds me of my 2 year old son who wouldn't eat his pea's because he didn't like the taste of 'green stuff'!
> 
> I HAVE heard the Auro upmixer, granted not playing a mono track, but playing a stereo track, and the results were spectacular. I won't take up space in this thread waxing lyrical about it, but needless to say, even a two channel purist such as myself was blown away by the envelopment of the soundstage and the extra clarity it brought to vocals and instruments, I have no reason to believe that wouldn't also work on a mono track.
> 
> The Auro 3D upmixer is a real game changer, for me its as big an advance as the HD audio codecs. I really hope Dolby Surround can offer the same performance as Dolby upmixers have always been my 'go to' choice, but if it can't then Auro will be THE current state of the art.


Not it if it doesn't come down in price. Until then it is a game changer for a very select few if indeed as good as you say it is. Hopefully it continues to be a player as things move forward, and like most new technology comes down in price over time.


----------



## Wookii

dschulz said:


> This is not quite right. There are several Auro configurations supported by the Auro codec and the RS20i, including 9.1 (5.1 + 4 heights) and a 7.1+4 config, neither of which have the VOG. If you configure your system with either of these, and play back native 11.1 or 13.1 content the VOG information will be down mixed appropriately.


Sorry, Yes, I forgot about the 9.1 layout, but that does lose the two rears of the 7.1 bed. As far as I know there is no 7.1 + 4 heights option, unless you are telling me this has been added?

Per the Datasat document there are 4 options:

9.1 - 5.1 bed + 4 heights
10.1 - As above + front centre height
11.1 - As above + VOG
13.1 - As above + 2 x rears (7.1 bed)

http://www.avforums.com/attachments/auro_speaker_placement-pdf.497259/


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> +1
> 
> I don't watch 'meaningful' movies on Atmos
> 
> Gimme the bass, bombs and babes


Oh yes.


----------



## Selden Ball

Bigham16 said:


> This might be a silly questions. Does anybody know if you will have to use Bitstream to use the new Dolby Surround upmixer?


 You won't have to bitstream the audio, but you can. Like its predecessors, it doesn't really care where the multiple audio streams originate. I suspect that it does need for the various channels to have some out-of-phase audio with respect to one another.

Dolby Atmos decoding requires bitstreaming because that's the only way to get the object metadata off the disc and into the receiver's Atmos decoder. Blu-ray players do not (yet?) contain Atmos decoders, so they can only decode up to 7.1 channels of "bed" audio. (And some current generation players, like Sony's, will only decode two channels. *grump*) The resulting LPCM won't include the channel information.


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> So I'm just days away from speaker wire and speakers being installed in my new house. I've got a little bit of a dilemma though. I bought six of these speakers, MartinLogan EM-R's: http://www.martinlogan.com/architectural/electromotion/em-r.php
> 
> Tested them yesterday and man, I knew in-ceilings weren't going to sound great but they were worse than I expected. They just sounded muffled and tiny. I guess I've never critically listened to in-ceilings before. I'm debating now whether I should just return these and install bookshelves and brackets. These are the ones I'm thinking of, MartinLogan Motion 15's: http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/models/bookshelf.php
> 
> They would actually be cheaper than the in-ceilings. The only issue is of course they will stick out more on my living room ceiling compared to in-ceilings. But do you guys think I'm overreacting, and you don't need great speakers for overheard sounds? I just fear the in-ceilings will muddy up the clear sounds I'm getting from the electrostats. Originally I thought Atmos was just for ambient noise and overheard sounds, but the more I read it sounds like tracks will use multiple speakers to place sounds on an x,y,z which to me seems like higher quality, better sounding speakers should be used all around.
> 
> The other issue I have is I was going to go 7.1.4. I would need to place the rear surrounds on/in the ceiling though because the kitchen is in back of me. Do you think this is bad to have rear surround speakers on the same plane as the Atmos speakers? They would only be about 3 feet behind the top rear Atmos speakers. Would this mess up the 3D x,y,z placement of sounds because Atmos and the receiver would expect sounds to come from ear level from the rear surrounds? Or would Atmos/Audessey be able to figure out and "know" where the speakers are and still create 3D sound? Should I just go to 5.1.4 instead? Which do you think would sound better?


If the in-ceiling speakers don't sound good to you when you test them, then I’d replace them, or you will always be wondering "what if...". My two cents anyway. I demoed my ceiling speakers in my music system before I installed them,. If I hadn’t been happy with them on that demo, I'd have sent them back. But I would add to what others have said - demoing them out of the ceiling isn't a fair test. It'd be liking taking the drivers out of a conventional 'box' speaker and expecting it to sound good.

WRT to your second issue, angular separation is more important than distance separation, so what are the angles for the rear surrounds and the top rears?


----------



## tjenkins95

westmd said:


> Unfortubately the movie is so bad that not even Dolby Atmos in perfection makes it watchable!


 

Totally agree. Movie was pure garbage! Hope they announce more than one title!


----------



## Wookii

ss9001 said:


> good to hear this. thanks! and for the record, I was not one who dismissed it, just questioned how it would work for mono
> 
> I remain very open-minded, and if I got the opportunity to have it on an AVR/prepro that I could afford, I'd be all over it. I am a die-hard surround fan, music too, using all processing except reverbed ones


I think people are getting a little hung up in this reverb thing. All upmixing algorithms, whether PLIIx, Neo:X, Auro or Dolby Surround use a whole host of techniques to achieve their results.

I personally don't really care too much what is going on as long as information in the original track isn't lost, and it sounds significantly better than the original. If not there is little point in upmixing.

I've heard DSP effects numerous time on different processors and AVR's with names like Hall, Stadium etc that add a clearly distinguishable reverb and echo. Auro is nothing like that at all, it may or may not add some reverb, I don't know, but it's certainly not noticable and the effect is that you can't go back and listen in standard 7.1, it sounds so flat and two dimensional in comparison.

The cost of entry is a fair point though, and unless Auro get into the mainstream they're going to have limited penetration into the market.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve1981 said:


> Ad hominem attacks aren't becoming of you Keith. I know some of you guys had asked that I post my CEDIA impressions here, but I'm getting the feeling that anything that goes against the grain of certain members here just isn't welcome. A such, I'm out. Cheers.


I don't agree with that at all. I think all views are welcome, but they have to be grounded in reality. So people, for example, dissing Atmos enabled speakers without ever having heard them are given the brush off. And people making claims that can't apparently be supported by known science tend to get looked at with a sidelong glance too. 

I for one was looking forward to your view once you had actually heard home Atmos, but if you want to take your ball home, well that's your call of course.


----------



## Selden Ball

FWIW, _Transformers 4_ is scheduled to be released on September 30. The announcement on the HighDef Digest still says "Video Resolution/Codec 1080p/TBA" 

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/12717/transformersageofextinction.html


----------



## sdurani

Disappointing that only one title is mentioned so far: 

http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9ebbbf8c/DLB_News_2014_9_8_Press_Releases.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> It might be appropriate to wait until you've actually heard and measured the results of the Auro upmixer before criticizing it.


Is anyone criticising it? I was expressing my *preference* for upmixed content that is *derived* rather than generated that's all. I stand by that but understand others may feel differently. WRT to upmixing mono "impressively" to several speakers, I was *questioning *how that can possibly be done unless the upmixer is _generating_ content. I don't think I need to hear the Auro upmixer to ask these questions or express conceptual preferences.


----------



## smurraybhm

So looking through the official white paper it shows the ability to place front speakers (on ceiling in my case) at a 45 degrees in relation to the listener lined up with the L and R fronts. Is there any reason why you can't use two small speakers angled appropriately to meet this purpose? I am not talking about heights in the traditional sense, but the front Atmos heights. Curious to know other thoughts, a lot of information to digest. In-ceiling speakers are not an option for me (hopefully others in the same boat searching for solutions) and I am trying to avoid spending $500 for a pair of modules that may have limited use going forward for other possible surround formats be it UHD or Auro. 

I have to believe others will respond with alternatives and not just leave the world of object based sound to only Dolby - thus my attempt at flexibility.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Someone made a similar suggestion earlier today (I believe on another thread): Play an extremely short click sound with and without the up mixing engaged. If up mixing results in hearing more than one click, you have proven that some reverb is added to the original mix. If you don't, Van Baelen's claim still stands. In that case he might have found a - for us yet inconceivable - way of extracting ambiance information from a mono signal and sending it to the upper layer. Even without having a clue on what kind of algorithm you would need for that, our own ears and brains are for sure able to 'hear' ambiance in a mono recorded sound.


What I was asking is how is it possible to upmix mono unless you are adding information? There is nowhere in mono that the spatial cues exist. If Van Balen has a way of doing this, then he seems to be going against understood science. When anyone does that, my first instinct is to believe they are mistaken or misinforming, either deliberately or accidentally. IOW, I just don't believe it. But I am happy for someone to show me I am wrong of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> The Dolby Atmos white paper on home theater speaker installation:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Today should be the day we hear from Dolby on content. But on a related note, Keith keep an eye out for Godzilla on Blu-ray. I watched this at home on Friday. Obviously it does not have an Atmos mix for home but it was mixed that way for theaters and I must say I was blown away by the surround mix. Plenty of panning, crossing over and discrete placement that sounded like it was above the listening position. This is one I'd love to A/B with a discrete Atmos system and mix at some point.


I saw that at the cinema and was impressed, even though it was an IMAX cinema and generally their sound doesn't make a favorable impression on me. It is on my pre-order list! 




Kris Deering said:


> I also hope this is an indicator that Atmos mixed movies with more aggressive surround soundstages will still provide obvious benefits for systems using legacy surround setups just like we see obvious benefits of higher capture resolution (70mm/4K) with 1080p playback.


I have long thought this might be the case. A great soundtrack is a great soundtrack.

BTW. I enjoyed your magazine review of the acoustic panels - pricey though!


----------



## sdrucker

Wookii said:


> The cost of entry is a fair point though, and unless Auro get into the mainstream they're going to have limited penetration into the market.


Not just that; you're going to need AVRs or pre/pros that support > 13 pre-outs to be able to enjoy both Atmos and Auro content. To date, 13 is the limit outside of the $20K world.

For example, if someone has a 7.1.4 setup for Atmos (currently the maximum for mainstream FirstGen manufacturers), they'll be limited to a single pair of heights for Auro, which may or may not work for upmixing purposes, but won't adequately reproduce native Auro content. You'll need 15 pre-outs to be able to get the minimal native Auro configuration of 9.1 (i.e. 5.1 +4 heights) and simultaneously have that 7.1.4 setup for Atmos. That becomes 17 pre-outs if you go for the front center and VOG speakers.

At least immediately, the bleeding-edge users without a Trinnov Altitude will have to choose between an optimal Atmos (optimal WRT DSP implementations of Atmos) and an optimal Auro configuration. OTOH somebody that is space limited to 5.1.4, but can do front and rear heights (hello Keith), won't quite have the same constraint.

If there's a flagship Denon/Marantz with 15 pre-outs in the pipeline, though, feel free to correct me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> Here here!! Some of the comments on here amaze me, from people I thought had a little more sense and objectivity, to completely dismiss a technology they a) know nothing about, and b) have never heard. It kind of reminds me of my 2 year old son who wouldn't eat his pea's because he didn't like the taste of 'green stuff'!
> 
> I HAVE heard the Auro upmixer, granted not playing a mono track, but playing a stereo track, and the results were spectacular. I won't take up space in this thread waxing lyrical about it, but needless to say, even a two channel purist such as myself was blown away by the envelopment of the soundstage and the extra clarity it brought to vocals and instruments, I have no reason to believe that wouldn't also work on a mono track.
> 
> The Auro 3D upmixer is a real game changer, for me its as big an advance as the HD audio codecs. I really hope Dolby Surround can offer the same performance as Dolby upmixers have always been my 'go to' choice, but if it can't then Auro will be THE current state of the art.


AFAICS nobody is dissing Auro. Just asking sensible questions about how mono can be upmixed the way they say it is. Extraordinary claims, as they say, demand extraordinary proof.

I personally dislike upmixed content that is generated. I don't want an electronic chip adding sounds that were never in the original. But that's a preference and I explained it as such and also said I would reserve judgement on Auromatic until I had had chance to hear it. 

I don't see anyone "dismissing a technology" in this regard. (Although I have seen plenty dismissing the concept of upfiring Atmos modules without having heard them.)


----------



## Selden Ball

Unfortunately, it's too easy to interpret negative personal opinions of one potential aspect of a system as criticism of the entire thing. For example, it might just be copying monaural audio into multiple speaker channels at differing amplitudes while adding no reverb or other manipulation of the sound. It'd be nice if someone could do some measurements using REW or OmniMic to find out what's actually happening.

Personally, I have not taken the time to read the detailed technical specs (assuming they're available). The currently available or announced decoding devices all are far out of my price range, and I'm only aware of one disc having been announced (a combined Atmos/Auro music disc due from 2L in October), so there hasn't been much point.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> There is nowhere in mono that the spatial cues exist.


It may be a definition thing, but I thought spatial cues are the part of the recorded sound that give us information in what type of room the recording took place. If you would compare a mono sound recorded in a small room and a cathedral, I am close to certain that you would be able to tell which was recorded where, thanks to the spatial cues present. No?


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> I think people are getting a little hung up in this reverb thing. All upmixing algorithms, whether PLIIx, Neo:X, Auro or Dolby Surround use a whole host of techniques to achieve their results.
> 
> I personally don't really care too much what is going on as long as information in the original track isn't lost, and it sounds significantly better than the original. If not there is little point in upmixing.


The question isn't whether anything is lost from the original. It's how you feel about stuff that *isn’t in the original *being generated, added to it and played along with it. You may like it that way, but many do not (including me). I dislike it conceptually. It would be like my Kindle deciding to add an extra sentence to the novel I was reading now and then, in order to 'enhance' it. Extracting content for upmixing, OTOH, is like my Kindle adding a footnote to the content to help explain an important narrative point more fully. Like all analogies, it's not that good, but you probably see what I mean.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Disappointing that only one title is mentioned so far:
> 
> http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9ebbbf8c/DLB_News_2014_9_8_Press_Releases.pdf


They do say more are on their way in the fall though.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW. I enjoyed your magazine review of the acoustic panels - pricey though!


I agree on IMAX, not always my cup of tea.

Thanks. The acoustic panels tend to run about the same rate as anyone else's but obviously more than DIY. Love the results and asthetics though.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> At least immediately, the bleeding-edge users without a Trinnov Altitude will have to choose between an optimal Atmos (optimal WRT DSP implementations of Atmos) and an optimal Auro configuration. OTOH somebody that is space limited to 5.1.4, but can do front and rear heights (hello Keith), won't quite have the same constraint.


Yes, for once the restrictions of my room are working for me  I have already withdrawn my classified ad for my legacy Front Height speakers and decided to leave them in place for now. I was going to decommission them this week. I can easily add a corresponding pair of Rear Heights if necessary too, and even a central Height speaker. All of this, of course, assumes that Auro will ever have any content and will make it as a lasting option for the home.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Just asking sensible questions about how mono can be upmixed the way they say it is.


Circle Surround had a really natural sounding mono-to-surround upmixer that used delayed copies to create a sense of envelopment. My old Lex spreads frequencies outside the vocal range to other speakers while keeping sounds within the vocal range in the centre speaker. Others have different approaches. Doesn't your pre-pro have some sort of mono movie mode?


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, it's too easy to interpret negative personal opinions of one potential aspect of a system as criticism of the entire thing. For example, i*t might just be copying monaural audio into multiple speaker channels at differing amplitudes while adding no reverb or other manipulation of the sound.* It'd be nice if someone could do some measurements using REW or OmniMic to find out what's actually happening.


That would hardly class as "impressive" upmixing though would it? 



Selden Ball said:


> Personally, I have not taken the time to read the detailed technical specs (assuming they're available). The currently available or announced decoding devices all are far out of my price range, and I'm only aware of one disc having been announced (a combined Atmos/Auro music disc due from 2L in October), so there hasn't been much point.


Agreed. The lack of native content, of course, is why the spotlight has been thrown on their upmixer. I don't really want to embrace an expensive upgrade just for an upmixer.

All my own comments were solely wrt to the latter - as I said, I haven’t done my homework on Auro in general, for the same reasons as you.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> It may be a definition thing, but I thought spatial cues are the part of the recorded sound that give us information in what type of room the recording took place. If you would compare a mono sound recorded in a small room and a cathedral, I am close to certain that you would be able to tell which was recorded where, thanks to the spatial cues present. No?


Yes - but you are conflating _recorded_ sounds which capture the ambience of the venue with playback. We are discussing how to extract spatial clues from a mono source and upmix them to several other channels. It can be done if you generate additional sounds, but not if you extract them, because there is nothing to extract in a mono source. 

With PLII for example, the extra channel content is extracted using the difference between the spatial audio content between two individual channels of stereo tracks (or Dolby Digital encoded 5.1 channel tracks). With mono you don't have a 'difference' anywhere because you only have one channel.


----------



## SubSolar

kbarnes701 said:


> If the in-ceiling speakers don't sound good to you when you test them, then I’d replace them, or you will always be wondering "what if...". My two cents anyway. I demoed my ceiling speakers in my music system before I installed them,. If I hadn’t been happy with them on that demo, I'd have sent them back. But I would add to what others have said - demoing them out of the ceiling isn't a fair test. It'd be liking taking the drivers out of a conventional 'box' speaker and expecting it to sound good.
> 
> WRT to your second issue, angular separation is more important than distance separation, so what are the angles for the rear surrounds and the top rears?


The top rears would be about 51 degrees while the rear surrounds would be about 35 degrees. I didn't see any recommended degrees in the papers on the rear surrounds, just top rears and rear heights.

In the new paper released from Dolby today it says that the rear surrounds shouldn't be more than 1.25 times the front speaker height. Obviously it will be more like 2 times the height, so it won't be the recommended height. I'm just wondering if it will sound worse than not having rear surrounds at all.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Same difference.

Here, there, same, same.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> The Dolby Atmos white paper on home theater speaker installation:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thank you! Reading it now.



sdurani said:


> Disappointing that only one title is mentioned so far:
> 
> http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9ebbbf8c/DLB_News_2014_9_8_Press_Releases.pdf


Yeah. Figures. Hopefully there will be more in the near future.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I agree on IMAX, not always my cup of tea.
> 
> Thanks. The acoustic panels tend to run about the same rate as anyone else's but obviously more than DIY. Love the results and asthetics though.


I love IMAX for the 80 foot tall picture. And hate it for the sound. My new local Atmos premium screen cinema is giving me a good compromise - a bigger screen (similar to the local LieMax) but with fabulous sound. (And comfortable seats).

Yes, those panels looked fabulous. For that alone, they are worth a premium. A definite 'wow' factor when people walk into the room, as you said in the article.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Disappointing that only one title is mentioned so far:
> 
> http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9ebbbf8c/DLB_News_2014_9_8_Press_Releases.pdf


Despite saying more titles coming it is pretty disappointing that with all the hoopla over Atmos coming to the home they managed to list one title only. With the bulk of the summer movies already announced for Blu-ray (and most mixed for Atmos theatrically) I was hoping to see a large number of the already announced titles set to be released in the coming months in there (Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and even something like The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut. I have no doubt we'll see more titles released before Christmas but I was hoping for better news in terms of the studios stepping up right away and showing strong support. One confirmed title and only two studios listed makes it sound like a toe in the water type scenario. Hopefully better news at CEDIA.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm hoping that all these cool blockbusters of this year mixed in Atmos will sound pretty close to 'full/native' Atmos using the Dolby Surround upmixer.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Circle Surround had a really natural sounding mono-to-surround upmixer that used delayed copies to create a sense of envelopment. My old Lex spreads frequencies outside the vocal range to other speakers while keeping sounds within the vocal range in the centre speaker. Others have different approaches. Doesn't your pre-pro have some sort of mono movie mode?


It might have. I'm not really all that keen on things like that though. When I watch a mono movie I just let it play through the centre speaker, in mono. The resulting 'old fashioned' sound goes nicely with the old-fashioned, academy-framed, mono image  I watched the Errol Flynn 'Adventures of Robin Hood' that way just this last weekend.


----------



## SoundChex

Extract from a recent *DTS *Press Release (_link_):



> *DTS to Showcase Next-Generation Audio Solutions for Digital Content Distribution at IBC 2014 *
> 
> AMSTERDAM – IBC: DTS Stand 2.B50 (September 4, 2014) – DTS Inc. (Nasdaq: DTSI), a leader in high-definition audio solutions, today announced that it will be demonstrating its latest audio technologies at IBC in Amsterdam on September 12-16, 2014. At DTS’ Stand 2.B50, attendees can experience the full spectrum of audio entertainment solutions geared for the home to personal mobile devices. Booth demos will include:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrations of an interactive broadcast using object-based audio technology to showcase the future of personalized and immersive audio experiences for consumers


_


----------



## Selden Ball

Kris Deering said:


> Despite saying more titles coming it is pretty disappointing that with all the hoopla over Atmos coming to the home they managed to list one title only. With the bulk of the summer movies already announced for Blu-ray (and most mixed for Atmos theatrically) I was hoping to see a large number of the already announced titles set to be released in the coming months in there (Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and even something like The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut. I have no doubt we'll see more titles released before Christmas but I was hoping for better news in terms of the studios stepping up right away and showing strong support. One confirmed title and only two studios listed makes it sound like a toe in the water type scenario. Hopefully better news at CEDIA.


One possibility would be to go through the list of announced titles, looking for those which have their encoders listed as "TBA". It probably wouldn't be completely accurate in predicting which have Atmos, of course. Why, some of them might be in Auro! 

Edited to add: Unfortunately the extended Desolation has already been announced as using DTS-HD MA.  Of course, that doesn't mean they won't switch to Atmos for the final three-title combo pack.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I love IMAX for the 80 foot tall picture. And hate it for the sound. My new local Atmos premium screen cinema is giving me a good compromise - a bigger screen (similar to the local LieMax) but with fabulous sound. (And comfortable seats).
> 
> Yes, those panels looked fabulous. For that alone, they are worth a premium. A definite 'wow' factor when people walk into the room, as you said in the article.


I like the screen sizes typically associated with IMAX but now they've gone to almost exclusive 3D playback for most movies and I generally avoid 3D so they are rarely an option for me. There are some good RPX and ETX theaters near me that have bigger screens than normal, Atmos sound and typically some mixed showings so you can still see a movie in 2D with all the bells and whistles. I saw a few movies in 3D this summer (Captain America 2, Godzilla, Xmen, Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), all in Atmos sound and not a single one impressed me for 3D. The only movie that was decent in 3D I saw this year was the sequel to 300. I wanted to see Sin City 2 in 3D based on what I saw in the trailers but never got a chance to go see it and won't anytime soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Despite saying more titles coming it is pretty disappointing that with all the hoopla over Atmos coming to the home they managed to list one title only. With the bulk of the summer movies already announced for Blu-ray (and most mixed for Atmos theatrically) I was hoping to see a large number of the already announced titles set to be released in the coming months in there (Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and even something like The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut. I have no doubt we'll see more titles released before Christmas but I was hoping for better news in terms of the studios stepping up right away and showing strong support. One confirmed title and only two studios listed makes it sound like a toe in the water type scenario. Hopefully better news at CEDIA.


Yeah, my feelings too. But this was a Dolby announcement and they have always been careful to say that they are in the hands of studios for content. At the two London demos, they said similar things in response to the inevitable content questions. IOW, they were a little cagey.

I hope there are something like 15 titles out by Christmas. I'd be happy with that, I think. With lots more promised for 2015 of course.

Meanwhile, it's back to Dolby Surround mode for most listening on our shiny new AVRs...


----------



## Kris Deering

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm hoping that all these cool blockbusters of this year mixed in Atmos will sound pretty close to 'full/native' Atmos using the Dolby Surround upmixer.


If Godzilla is any indication, you will probably get what you wish for.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm hoping that all these cool blockbusters of this year mixed in Atmos will sound pretty close to 'full/native' Atmos using the Dolby Surround upmixer.


Me too. But I’d rather have the real thing of course.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> I have no doubt we'll see more titles released before Christmas but I was hoping for better news in terms of the studios stepping up right away and showing strong support.


Should have been marketed with a bang instead of a whimper. They'll probably leave the announcements up to the studios, just as they left hardware announcements up to manufacturers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I like the screen sizes typically associated with IMAX but now they've gone to almost exclusive 3D playback for most movies and I generally avoid 3D so they are rarely an option for me. There are some good RPX and ETX theaters near me that have bigger screens than normal, Atmos sound and typically some mixed showings so you can still see a movie in 2D with all the bells and whistles. I saw a few movies in 3D this summer (Captain America 2, Godzilla, Xmen, Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), all in Atmos sound and not a single one impressed me for 3D. The only movie that was decent in 3D I saw this year was the sequel to 300. I wanted to see Sin City 2 in 3D based on what I saw in the trailers but never got a chance to go see it and won't anytime soon.


Yes I agree. My IMAX visits are gradually tailing off as everything seems to be 3D and I personally prefer 2D. I just find watching 3D to be an uncomfortable experience. It may be just me, or my eyes, but I just feel 'uncomfortable' and I also find the experience tiring too. Something in my brain is resisting being tricked.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Should have been marketed with a bang instead of a whimper. *They'll probably leave the announcements up to the studios, *just as they left hardware announcements up to manufacturers.


I think I recall being told exactly that by their 'Evangelist' (love that job title) in London.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I think I recall being told exactly that by their 'Evangelist' (love that job title) in London.


 
Having an onboard "Evangelist" (how is that different from Marketing Communications/PR?) is pure marketing speak. It's down there with having Thought Leaders - so late 1990's - and Futurists as being overwrought.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> The question isn't whether anything is lost from the original. It's how you feel about stuff that *isn’t in the original *being generated, added to it and played along with it. You may like it that way, but many do not (including me). I dislike it conceptually. It would be like my Kindle deciding to add an extra sentence to the novel I was reading now and then, in order to 'enhance' it. Extracting content for upmixing, OTOH, is like my Kindle adding a footnote to the content to help explain an important narrative point more fully. Like all analogies, it's not that good, but you probably see what I mean.



I understand what you are getting at Keith, but if you think other upmixing systems are simply plucking an element out of the original audio track and sending it to a different speaker with no other post processing applied, then you are heavily over simplifying. 

I also think you have your analogy wrong, even if Auro does add some reverb in places (and I don't know whether or not it does) it is not adding anything to the audio track, it is simply manipulating it to create the upmix - just a different footnote to continue your analogy.

The principle is no different to creating a height channel in any of the surround upmixers - that height channel didn't exist in the original mix, and neither the director nor the sound mixer ever intended there to be a height channel (though they may well have added it had it been an option at the time), but we use the upmixer to create the height channel anyway and irrevocably change both the mix and the presentation of the audio because we feel it sounds better.

We can of course only judge whether or not it sounds better once we have listened to the effect of the upmixing, and make an informed decision based on our individual experience. Dismissing any of the new upmixing systems out of hand, with no real world experience of them (even if based on some lose grasp of the science involved) is a little daft in the context of an exthusiasts forum such as this.

I don't wish to appear as some supporter of Auro 3D, I am a supporter of ANY development or advancement in audio or video, no matter who it comes from, and I have very high hopes for Atmos. I have heard Auro, and its upmixer is amazing, but I look forward to your, and others, review of the Atmos upmixer when you get your new AVR's in the hope that it is equally as good if not better.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kris Deering said:


> If Godzilla is any indication, you will probably get what you wish for.


Very good. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Me too. But I’d rather have the real thing of course.


Yeah, really. I'm sure we will get more before the end of the year.



sdurani said:


> Should have been marketed with a bang instead of a whimper. They'll probably leave the announcements up to the studios, just as they left hardware announcements up to manufacturers.


Seriously. I can't blame Dolby about this though. I think this is studio thing really.


----------



## Bigham16

Not sure if this helps but I will not able to install in-ceiling speakers either. I am going to use on-ceilings speakers. I have a vaulted ceiling on the right side of my room and cannot install in-ceiling speakers.

I will have the speakers placed at the recommended degrees by Dolby white papers for the top-front and top-back on-ceiling speakers. But they will be about a foot inside the front L/R speakers, no other option due to the vault. I will be using wall mounts with ball joints so I can tilt the speakers if needed. I ran speaker wires last night and just waiting on my speakers, GoldenEar SuperSat 3's (this week) and my Marantz 7009 (soon I hope).

I do have front heights that I am already using with DTS Neo:X. I will test the difference between the front heights vs top fronts in Dolby Surround and Atmos (once content is available). Should make for a fun day 




smurraybhm said:


> So looking through the official white paper it shows the ability to place front speakers (on ceiling in my case) at a 45 degrees in relation to the listener lined up with the L and R fronts. Is there any reason why you can't use two small speakers angled appropriately to meet this purpose? I am not talking about heights in the traditional sense, but the front Atmos heights. Curious to know other thoughts, a lot of information to digest. In-ceiling speakers are not an option for me (hopefully others in the same boat searching for solutions) and I am trying to avoid spending $500 for a pair of modules that may have limited use going forward for other possible surround formats be it UHD or Auro.
> 
> I have to believe others will respond with alternatives and not just leave the world of object based sound to only Dolby - thus my attempt at flexibility.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Should have been marketed with a bang instead of a whimper. They'll probably leave the announcements up to the studios, just as they left hardware announcements up to manufacturers.


Unfortunately that will probably be a whimper too. Studios largely ignore big press releases for formats. The CE companies are the ones that hype stuff like this. Studios don't do shows like CEDIA or CES and typically you'll see the hardware guys touting the support of the studios directly with clear titles announced. I HIGHLY doubt you'll see press releases from studios specifically dealing with Atmos other than in the tech specs for movies being announced. They've rarely if ever done this in the past with sound formats and even 3D barely had a whisper from the studios, it was more with the BDA as a whole since it was a change to the BD spec to incorporate (and it was a chance to sell new BD players due to requirements). This really requires NOTHING from the BDA since it works with existing hardware. I think the best chance to get a good sign of support and titles was from Dolby in this case, but I'd love to be wrong.


----------



## ss9001

Godzilla, with or without Atmos should be an awesome soundtrack in the home. grrrrr

as far as releases, this has been my underlying concern all along, in spite of my continued enthusiasm & commitment to get this into my house ASAP.

I tried to introduce a dose of realism in this thread with comments about 7.1 vs 5.1, how little the % of total titles is 7.1. studios haven't taken full advantage of existing capability, let alone a new one. 

I'm sorry but I'm a confirmed skeptic when it comes to studios & how they treat the consumer. 

from BD's for shows that were started but never completed & probably never will (Space 1999, Stargate Universe) or dip their toe in with 1 season but wait 5 yrs to do the right way & complete (Sopranos, no less!), from box sets that were started, dropped, then do-overs (James Bond) to half-butted releases of movies that had enough fan push-back that they were redone (Fifth Element, Star Trek, incorrect framing on 1 Pirates of Caribbean), titles with worse soundtracks than the DVD (Master & Commander) and 6.1 EX/ES titles that were turned into plain 5.1.

FilmMixer can say for sure, but from my amateur perspective, studios are ultraconservative & not willing to take many risks. they will play wait & see until they see more home penetration of gear and use. just like Blu-ray. classic chicken & egg...

they don't have a stellar track record for being "first on the block". I know they'll get there eventually, but only 1 BD title is still disappointing for something that's supposed to be revolutionary. and not one of the big name high profile true blockbusters at that. if it were a Gravity redux, or Tom Cruise SF blockbuster, a Hobbit, Brave redux or upcoming Godzilla, we'd be cooking.

I own 11-12 titles and have quite a few more on my to-buy list that have Atmos counterparts and was completely willing to start double-dipping if there was commitment from a strong release announcement. 

And b4 someone says I'm just being a pessimist...let me remind everyone about Sony & Lawrence of Arabia when they had LoA as a coming soon to Blu-ray teaser at BD launch and it took them how many yrs to release it?


----------



## ss9001

sdurani said:


> Should have been marketed with a bang instead of a whimper. They'll probably leave the announcements up to the studios, just as they left hardware announcements up to manufacturers.


yup

Dolby can get it started but it's all on the studios and I agree with what Kris said. Movie studios don't really seem to push audio formats, least so far. Multichannel music is different story, where the format is important to the experience & playback system used. 

We can hope for the best but don't be surprised if it's a Slow Train Coming.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not really all that keen on things like that though.


The only reason I replied is because you asked how mono upmixing was possible.


----------



## sdurani

ss9001 said:


> I know they'll get there eventually, but only 1 BD title is still disappointing for something that's supposed to be revolutionary.


As are many aspects of this 1st gen roll out. Still, it _is_ rolling out. And in a couple weeks folks will have an Atmos title (not just some demo disc) to play at home.


----------



## bargervais

Wellywell said:


> Here's Onkyo's response to my 838 question. Looks like i'm beat for running four channels. Although the 838 has a height pre-amp it will not help me in what I'm looking to do. Guess I should have saved up and bought the 1080. Regardless here is the answer I got from Onkyo..
> 
> "As the TX-NR 838 is only a 5.1.2 system; using an external amp will not properly emit audio in the 5.1.4 format you are seeking. It will still output in 5.1.2 with the extra two speakers mirroring the same audio output as the FRONT HIGH speakers.This will not produce a real Dolby Atmos experience."
> 
> -FM


Thanks thats what I assumed that it only will do 5.2.2 as well. Thats why I went with the 737 because at this point i didn't have the money for the 1030 which i almost pulled the trigger on, but i will next year if i like the atmos surround on the 737


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I think I recall being told exactly that by their 'Evangelist' (love that job title) in London.


You ought to have it too, given the promotion job you do for them on here.


----------



## action_jackson

Quote from Business Wire, 
"Additional manufacturers who have committed to delivering future Dolby Atmos products include Datasat Digital Entertainment, Emotiva Audio Corp, Outlaw Audio, Storm Audio, and NHT"

Looks like there are a few other MFGs joining in on the atmos fun.​


----------



## Frohlich

Kris Deering said:


> Unfortunately that will probably be a whimper too. Studios largely ignore big press releases for formats. The CE companies are the ones that hype stuff like this. Studios don't do shows like CEDIA or CES and typically you'll see the hardware guys touting the support of the studios directly with clear titles announced. I HIGHLY doubt you'll see press releases from studios specifically dealing with Atmos other than in the tech specs for movies being announced. They've rarely if ever done this in the past with sound formats and even 3D barely had a whisper from the studios, it was more with the BDA as a whole since it was a change to the BD spec to incorporate (and it was a chance to sell new BD players due to requirements). This really requires NOTHING from the BDA since it works with existing hardware. I think the best chance to get a good sign of support and titles was from Dolby in this case, but I'd love to be wrong.


Couldn't agree more. As somebody that does Product Mgmt for a living, there aren't any free lunches. You want to get the word out then do it yourself. If you are going to set-up demos for hardware, you also must advertise the software. Software sells hardware so give people a reason to upgrade. 99% of consumers, short of the AVS crowd, won't have any idea of what the dolby surround upmixer is and that they can use it on non-atmos based tracks. DTS advertises their software, like 7.1 mixes, on their site. Dolby needs to list all the software on their site and also advertise it through other channels.


----------



## jamin

Thought Dolby said on Scott's interview that the press release was delayed to this week so they could release the list. 

Must have gotten their wings clipped by the studios.


----------



## ss9001

Nightlord said:


> You ought to have it too, given the promotion job you do for them on here.


good one


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> As are many aspects of this 1st gen roll out. Still, it _is_ rolling out. And in a couple weeks folks will have an Atmos title (not just some demo disc) to play at home.















I'm sure these feelings are being expressed by all of us.


----------



## ss9001

just like sex, once is not good enough


----------



## Frohlich

ss9001 said:


> just like sex, once is not good enough


So for the older crowd, just like sex, they can only watch one Atmos movie per day????


----------



## ss9001

Frohlich said:


> Dolby needs to list all the software on their site and also advertise it through other channels.


you probably know, they do list all the movies. I think you're talking about home formats & Atmos and I completely agree. DTS did a good job listing the formats (7.1, 5.1, ES) on their site, and Dolby should do the same with Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Frohlich said:


> So for the older crowd, just like sex, they can only watch one Atmos movie per day????


Definitely. That retirement isn't going to pay for itself.

Get to work, Grandpa!


----------



## thxman

Dolby White Paper said:


> * With the exception of the center speaker, all speakers in a Dolby Atmos playback system (listener level, center back, overhead, Dolby Atmos enabled) must be added in pairs.


There is a flaw in this statement. Speaker configurations are normally odd numbers because of the center speaker, yet the Atmos home limitation is an even number (24). I assume this extra single speaker is for a single speaker in the rear?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

About the overhead speakers, quote from the white paper:

_Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move
around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, *overhead speakers
should ideally be full range* and complement the frequency response, output, and
power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers
that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers.
Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby
Atmos system. This will ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment,
where overhead speakers are placed high above the listeners._

Hear, hear...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

thxman said:


> There is a flaw in this statement. Speaker configurations are normally odd numbers because of the center speaker, yet the Atmos home limitation is an even number (24). I assume this extra single speaker is for a single speaker in the rear?


Yes, as you see in their illustration.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> *Someone with an Auro upmixer could confirm this question in a few seconds by playing a click signal through it. Does the output have a decay tail or not? Done.*


♦ Auro-Matic up-mixer: Reverberation, or not? ...Three levels: Small, Medium, or Large room.

♦ Dolby Surround up-mixer: Reverb added, or not?

♦ Auro-3D: VOG, essential, or not?

___________

* Price of entry for Dolby Atmos is roughly a thou. ...More or less with the speakers.
[Onkyo highly restricted everything; more for the kids to have a little taste.]

What about entry level price for Auro-3D, five, ten times, twenty times more, ...?

** Dolby Atmos Instruction/Guideline paper is out; today Monday: good.

*** Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles: 'Transformers 4' ... anything else?


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> The Dolby Atmos white paper on home theater speaker installation:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


All done (read).

Thank you for your cooperation. :smile:


----------



## batpig

thxman said:


> There is a flaw in this statement. Speaker configurations are normally odd numbers because of the center speaker, yet the Atmos home limitation is an even number (24). I assume this extra single speaker is for a single speaker in the rear?


Yes, I would assume so. The diagram on pg 3 of the 24.1.10 layout shows a single rear center channel. 

I have found a few other errors / inconsistencies in the document, for example....

1. Pg 24 - the 9.1.2 layout diagram at the bottom (the "perspective detail" from the rear of the room) omits the "wide" speakers (it's actually the 7.1.2 diagram)

2. On both of the 9.1.2 diagrams (pp 24-25) they refer to the "wides" as "Front Surround Speakers" and the traditional surrounds as "Rear Surround Speakers", distinct from the "Back Speakers", implying that there are two pairs of surrounds as a "side array" layout. The word "wide" doesn't appear on either page. Yet, on pg 26, when they move into "other speakers" beyond the standard layouts, they note:



_This section focuses on the placement of speakers, which may be added to the 
positions covered in section 3. For clarity, the positions covered in section 3 were:

• Left/Right speaker pair
• Left Surround/Right Surround speaker pair
• Left Rear Surround/Right Rear Surround speaker pair
• Left Wide/Right Wide speaker pair
• Left Top Front/Right Top Front speaker pair
• Left Top Middle/Right Top Middle speaker pair
• Left Top Rear/Right Top Rear speaker pair_​

So on pg 26 "Surround" refers to surrounds and "Rear Surround" refers to Surr.Back, with "Wide" clearly mentioned. Yet throughout the section the Surround Back speakers are called "Back Speakers", and in the 9 listener level speaker diagrams on pp 24-25 the "Rear Surround" actually refers to the surround speakers with the wide represented as "Front Surround".


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ss9001 said:


> no intellectual or artistic merit needed  IME, some of the best soundtracks are on the weakest B movies


These flashy soundtracks are meant to distract you from the fact you're actually watching a Z-Grade movie.  

Gimme something better than Transformers 4!!


----------



## batpig

A couple of tidbits I found interesting from the DSU page at the end (pg 35)....

*In a Dolby Atmos system, the channel-based mix is fully honored. Dolby Atmos 
enabled speakers and overhead speakers are employed to lend a sense of 
atmospherics or room effect to the listening experience*

So this implies pretty clearly that DSU isn't even trying to "fake" discrete overhead sounds, but seems to be doing more of a PLIIz-ish ambience extraction. 


*This new technology will process and upmix channel-based content to as many as 20
speaker locations at listener level and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or overhead
speakers.

Note: To maintain an accurate frontal audio image, the upmixer will not send 
upmixed audio to the front wide speakers or any speakers that are located between 
the Left, Center, and Right speakers.*

So there is the official confirmation that it's not a manufacturer implementation restriction, but a Dolby restriction, that DSU won't output to wides. Note it says TWENTY (not 24) possible speaker locations at listener level for upmix.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> These flashy soundtracks are meant to distract you from the fact you're actually watching a Z-Grade movie.
> 
> Gimme something better than Transformers 4!!


Agreed. It really is a unique-to-AVS (or equivalent enthusiasts forum) phenomenon where people will watch absolute sh!t movies just to hear the good sound. There are plenty of awesome action movies that aren't complete vomit inducing garbage that still have great sound (Dark Knight trilogy, the Marvel universe movies, etc).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Having an onboard "Evangelist" (how is that different from Marketing Communications/PR?) *is pure marketing speak.* It's down there with having Thought Leaders - so late 1990's - and Futurists as being overwrought.


Well, er yeah. It's a marketing and communications function.


----------



## kokishin

sdurani said:


> Disappointing that only one title is mentioned so far:
> 
> http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9ebbbf8c/DLB_News_2014_9_8_Press_Releases.pdf


Agree.

I hope the above wasn't the press release FilmMixer referred to in his post regarding Atmos content: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-134.html#post27212434


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> These flashy soundtracks are meant to distract you from the fact you're actually watching a Z-Grade movie.
> 
> Gimme something better than Transformers 4!!


All the hype, and the earliest adaptors will have to sit through this movie again and again and again, or really learn to love Dolby Surround for the intermediate future, while Atmos releases trickle out one by one in an ultra-conservative worst case.

Maybe the primary focus of AVS CEDIA attendees at Dollby demos should be on the the difference that the upmixer and new speaker configurations brings to 5.1 content.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> *There are several Auro configurations supported by the Auro codec and the RS20i, including 9.1 (5.1 + 4 heights) and a 7.1+4 config, neither of which have the VOG. If you configure your system with either of these, and play back native 11.1 or 13.1 content the VOG information will be down mixed appropriately*.


That's good info; thank you.

____________

♦ Mono Recordings: Is there ambiance/spatiality in them? ...Of course there is. 

* How can you extract it and spread it? There are several methods: DSP Mono Movie mode, extension to the other speakers (same signal - Full Mono), Stereo (two, three, all channel), Dolby (PL Music), and CS, + ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> I understand what you are getting at Keith, but if you think other upmixing systems are simply plucking an element out of the original audio track and sending it to a different speaker with no other post processing applied, then you are heavily over simplifying.
> 
> I also think you have your analogy wrong, even if Auro does add some reverb in places (and I don't know whether or not it does) it is not adding anything to the audio track, it is simply manipulating it to create the upmix - just a different footnote to continue your analogy.


No - that is not correct. There are two ways to do it - one is to generate content and the other is to extract it. In the former, it is exactly "adding to the audio track". It is *generating *content. In the upmixing systems based on extracting information, it literally is "plucking an element out of the original" - but of course it has to do clever things then with that 'plucked' content so it knows where to deliver it to.



Wookii said:


> The principle is no different to creating a height channel in any of the surround upmixers - that height channel didn't exist in the original mix, and neither the director nor the sound mixer ever intended there to be a height channel (though they may well have added it had it been an option at the time), but we use the upmixer to create the height channel anyway and irrevocably change both the mix and the presentation of the audio because we feel it sounds better.


It depends which upmixer you choose and it has nothing to do with whether the height channel was there to begin with, when the content was mixed. The point is, Neo:X *extracts* content and Audyssey DSX *generates *content. Whether the height channels were in the mixer's original intent is not relevant to this discussion where we are simply examining which of two possible method is being used.



Wookii said:


> We can of course only judge whether or not it sounds better once we have listened to the effect of the upmixing, and make an informed decision based on our individual experience. Dismissing any of the new upmixing systems out of hand, with no real world experience of them (even if based on some lose grasp of the science involved) is a little daft in the context of an exthusiasts forum such as this.


I do have real world experience of upmixing where the content is generated as opposed to extracted. 



Wookii said:


> I don't wish to appear as some supporter of Auro 3D, I am a supporter of ANY development or advancement in audio or video, no matter who it comes from, and I have very high hopes for Atmos. I have heard Auro, and its upmixer is amazing, but I look forward to your, and others, review of the Atmos upmixer when you get your new AVR's in the hope that it is equally as good if not better.


I agree with that sentiment entirely. I just happen not to prefer generated content in the upmixer. You might. Both are fine as both are preferences. I can't see why my preference has attracted so much attention and comment TBH.


----------



## westmd

sdrucker said:


> Not just that; you're going to need AVRs or pre/pros that support > 13 pre-outs to be able to enjoy both Atmos and Auro content. To date, 13 is the limit outside of the $20K world.
> 
> For example, if someone has a 7.1.4 setup for Atmos (currently the maximum for mainstream FirstGen manufacturers), they'll be limited to a single pair of heights for Auro, which may or may not work for upmixing purposes, but won't adequately reproduce native Auro content. You'll need 15 pre-outs to be able to get the minimal native Auro configuration of 9.1 (i.e. 5.1 +4 heights) and simultaneously have that 7.1.4 setup for Atmos. That becomes 17 pre-outs if you go for the front center and VOG speakers.
> 
> At least immediately, the bleeding-edge users without a Trinnov Altitude will have to choose between an optimal Atmos (optimal WRT DSP implementations of Atmos) and an optimal Auro configuration. OTOH somebody that is space limited to 5.1.4, but can do front and rear heights (hello Keith), won't quite have the same constraint.
> 
> If there's a flagship Denon/Marantz with 15 pre-outs in the pipeline, though, feel free to correct me.


I don' think you have to have completely separate speakers for Auro and Atmos. As mentioned before I will use some in ceiling speakers with pointable mid and high range both as Atmos as well as Auro speaker. I will try first with a second pair if these installed to use them for top front (Atmos) as well as front height (Auro). If that shouldn't work I will buy another pair to separate top front and front height. So max. 6 ceiling channels.


----------



## sdrucker

westmd said:


> I don' think you have to have completely separate speakers for Auro and Atmos. As mentioned before I will use some in ceiling speakers with pointable mid and high range both as Atmos as well as Auro speaker. I will try first with a second pair if these installed to use them for top front (Atmos) as well as front height (Auro). If that shouldn't work I will buy another pair to separate top front and front height. So max. 6 ceiling channels.


That works if you can install ceiling speakers. But if you can't....


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The only reason I replied is because you asked how mono upmixing was possible.


I always thought it was possible. The question I asked was how is it possible by extraction as opposed to generation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> You ought to have it too, given the promotion job you do for them on here.


I'd rather have money


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> just like sex, once is not good enough


Once a night isn't bad


----------



## Hatoraid

http://www.cnet.com/news/transformers-4-will-be-first-dolby-atmos-blu-ray/


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> Transformes 4, Age of Extinction, 1st BluRay with an Dolby Atmos track?! See here (in French) :
> 
> http://www.avcesar.com/actu/id-1500...os-sera-transformers-lage-de-lextinction.html
> 
> Hugo


Hugo, I'm a big _Michael Bay_'s fan.  ...Is that the only BD title?



Steve1981 said:


> Take it or leave it Keith. The man explicitly said that they don't add reverb. Being that he's the guy that developed Auro, he's the guy that can make a definitive statement.


I believe you Steve. And we can easily verify what the "man" says.



> Ad hominem attacks aren't becoming of you Keith. I know some of you guys had asked that I post my CEDIA impressions here, but I'm getting the feeling that anything that goes against the grain of certain members here just isn't welcome. A such, I'm out. Cheers.


Steve, no one here @ AVS is an authority on everything audio and video. No one is an authority in the entire universe. 
Science is a constantly evolving theory, always going up or down. We know less than the sum of the parts missing. And the speed @ what evolution progresses is just a turtle's throttle in an hemisphere where the unknown is more certain than our most deeply convictions in life.

Don't sweat the small stuff; stick around.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Agreed. It really is a unique-to-AVS (or equivalent enthusiasts forum) phenomenon where people will watch absolute sh!t movies just to hear the good sound. There are plenty of awesome action movies that aren't complete vomit inducing garbage that still have great sound (Dark Knight trilogy, the Marvel universe movies, etc).


Hehe. What you say is true. But a 'movie' isn't just a story. It is the picture, the photography, the sound, the music, the acting and the story. I have enjoyed movies that have been 'poor' in one or more areas but which have still been worthwhile because of stunning photography, or a stunning score, for example. Of course, you are absolutely right that it is much better when all the components come together.

I will enjoy Transformers 4, I am sure, simply because it will have awesome sound and exceptionally well-crafted action sequences, like all of Michael Bay's movies. And I like Mark Wahlberg normally too. I haven't seen the movie or even read about it - does it have a really crap script? That is usually hard to get past.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Someone made a similar suggestion earlier today (I believe on another thread): Play an extremely short click sound with and without the up mixing engaged. If up mixing results in hearing more than one click, you have proven that some reverb is added to the original mix. If you don't, Van Baelen's claim still stands. In that case he might have found a - for us yet inconceivable - way of extracting ambiance information from a mono signal and sending it to the upper layer. Even without having a clue on what kind of algorithm you would need for that, our own ears and brains are for sure able to 'hear' ambiance in a mono recorded sound.


Good post.

* Roger Dressler mentioned the simple experiment; yesterday, in this very own thread here...the ex-Dolby man (25 years). ...And still kicking butts in all things surround sound hound.


----------



## jkasanic

I thought it was interesting that Dolby noted at least twice in two different sections (p.7 and p. 13) that the overhead speakers "should be timbre matched to the primary listener-level speakers". I think the importance of this was debated already in this thread and somewhat dismissed by the advances in equalization BICBW? Is that still the prevailing belief (i.e. an AVR or prepro with automated EQ such as Audyssey will be enough for any differences found between various speaker manufacturers)?


----------



## thxman

batpig said:


> Agreed. It really is a unique-to-AVS (or equivalent enthusiasts forum) phenomenon where people will watch absolute sh!t movies just to hear the good sound. There are plenty of awesome action movies that aren't complete vomit inducing garbage that still have great sound (Dark Knight trilogy, the Marvel universe movies, etc).


 D-Box is great for this too. Pop in Speed Racer with D-Box, nuf said.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Hehe. What you say is true. But a 'movie' isn't just a story. It is the picture, the photography, the sound, the music, the acting and the story. I have enjoyed movies that have been 'poor' in one or more areas but which have still been worthwhile because of stunning photography, or a stunning score, for example. Of course, you are absolutely right that it is much better when all the components come together.


You're a Mandarin, Keith (an aesthete). But many of us may not want to stock our libraries with movies aimed at immature teenagers or adults with arrested development just to have great sound aside from an extended demo (which is how I look at Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). No matter how many talking raccoons with laser guns or post-apocalyptic simians they have. 

HST, I expect at least home Atmos mixes of Star Trek: Into Darkness or Hunger Games: Catching Fire by 2016. I hope, to capture something I'd actually want to willingly watch more than once. But I'm not holding my breath for an Atmos mix of Francis Ford Coppola's Youth Without Youth in the next decade LOL.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Today should be the day we hear from Dolby on content. But on a related note, Keith keep an eye out for Godzilla on Blu-ray. I watched this at home on Friday. Obviously it does not have an Atmos mix for home but it was mixed that way for theaters and I must say I was blown away by the surround mix. Plenty of panning, crossing over and discrete placement that sounded like it was above the listening position. This is one I'd love to A/B with a discrete Atmos system and mix at some point. I also hope this is an indicator that Atmos mixed movies with more aggressive surround soundstages will still provide obvious benefits for systems using legacy surround setups just like we see obvious benefits of higher capture resolution (70mm/4K) with 1080p playback.


Kris, I've read here @ AVS that *'Godzilla'* isn't that great in the bass department; louder than extended.

* Is it an intelligent movie, or just for the fun of it.  ...Creativity, innovation, ...? ...Good acting by GodG?


----------



## bargervais

Hatoraid said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/transformers-4-will-be-first-dolby-atmos-blu-ray/


more to come i think once September 29 comes and passes we should have a good idea


----------



## smurraybhm

^ They (overhead speakers) don't get that much content. I find this part of the white paper along with the mistakes Batpig pointed out WTF. What happened to all the comments about Atmos being more forgiving in regards to speaker placement then other audio formats? The white paper reads anything but that. I guess I'll go out and buy all new speakers just so I can timber match what I use for overhead speakers since that's not an option given what I own


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Hehe. What you say is true. But a 'movie' isn't just a story. It is the picture, the photography, the sound, the music, the acting and the story. I have enjoyed movies that have been 'poor' in one or more areas but which have still been worthwhile because of stunning photography, or a stunning score, for example. Of course, you are absolutely right that it is much better when all the components come together.
> 
> I will enjoy Transformers 4, I am sure, simply because it will have awesome sound and exceptionally well-crafted action sequences, like all of Michael Bay's movies. And I like Mark Wahlberg normally too. I haven't seen the movie or even read about it - does it have a really crap script? That is usually hard to get past.


Let's just say the screen"writers" went up to Michael Bay's office and dumped a load on his desk. 

And I, for one, cannot stand the way Michael Bay edits his action sequences. It's like being hit with a ball peen hammer straight between the eyes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jkasanic said:


> I thought it was interesting that Dolby noted at least twice in two different sections (p.7 and p. 13) that the overhead speakers "should be timbre matched to the primary listener-level speakers". I think the importance of this was debated already in this thread and somewhat dismissed by the advances in equalization BICBW? Is that still the prevailing belief (i.e. an AVR or prepro with automated EQ such as Audyssey will be enough for any differences found between various speaker manufacturers)?


EQ is not a magic bullet. If you _can_ timbre match... then by all means do timbre match your speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Wookii said:


> Here here!! Some of the comments on here amaze me, from people I thought had a little more sense and objectivity, to completely dismiss a technology they a) know nothing about, and b) have never heard. It kind of reminds me of my 2 year old son who wouldn't eat his pea's because he didn't like the taste of 'green stuff'!
> 
> I HAVE heard the Auro upmixer, granted not playing a mono track, but playing a stereo track, and the results were spectacular. I won't take up space in this thread waxing lyrical about it, but needless to say, even a two channel purist such as myself was blown away by the envelopment of the soundstage and the extra clarity it brought to vocals and instruments, I have no reason to believe that wouldn't also work on a mono track.
> 
> The Auro 3D upmixer is a real game changer, for me its as big an advance as the HD audio codecs. I really hope Dolby Surround can offer the same performance as Dolby upmixers have always been my 'go to' choice, but if it can't then Auro will be THE current state of the art.


Your post has interesting points:

1. Never judge a sound that you didn't hear. ...Or the food by its color.
2. Blown away from a two-channel purist's perspective. ...Auro-Matic.
3. We're only @ the control wheel of a much bigger machine behind the one we have access to. ...Spatial.
4. And finally; Dolby Atmos (with Dolby Surround) versus/with Auro-3D (with Auro-Matic).


----------



## kokishin

Re: mono upmixing, going to have to try Rawhide


----------



## W3Rman

SubSolar said:


> I can't imagine they'd sound better in an enclosed ceiling cavity?


Well, i make it a point to test any new speaker purchased using REW for a quick performance analysis. Setting the speaker on a window sill or a chair at the opening of a sliding glass door or preferably completely outside whichever is convienent for you will do. The idea is to test avoiding abberations of backwave produced by the wall behind the speaker and side reflections from adjacent walls and the open air space to avoid further reflections. Just place the mic (outside) 1m from the driver or at the midpoint between drivers in a multiway design.

In your case I would use a wood/cardboard box or a 4x4 piece of sheetrock found at most hardware stores and cut out a hole to fit the speaker into so as to act as the baffle and then cut out the back side of the box if the speaker is designed to an open back then run your tests. 

Anyway, i just prefer to test my speakers capabilities/function before installation

The speakers could be bad or you could just not like the way they sound.

Good Luck


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, _Transformers 4_ is scheduled to be released on September 30. The announcement on the HighDef Digest still says "Video Resolution/Codec 1080p/TBA"
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/12717/transformersageofextinction.html


What is happening with the French Cinema Noir genre? 
...You know, the kind of stuff from what is made the real true cinema art form.

Look @ all the sci-fi flicks with big CGI effects and kadaboum sound; mainly made in the USA (Hollywood studios). ...Culturally beneficial for our future generations? ...Intelligence level wise, not financial profit wise. 

I was just wondering like that. ...Here, in this thread, in the Dolby Atmos thread, for movies. 

* Entertainment doesn't have to be intelligent.


----------



## bargervais

sdrucker said:


> You're a Mandarin, Keith (an aesthete). But many of us may not want to stock our libraries with movies aimed at immature teenagers or adults with arrested development just to have great sound aside from an extended demo (which is how I look at Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). No matter how many talking raccoons with laser guns or post-apocalyptic simians they have.
> 
> HST, I expect at least home Atmos mixes of Star Trek: Into Darkness or Hunger Games: Catching Fire by 2016. I hope, to capture something I'd actually want to willingly watch more than once. But I'm not holding my breath for an Atmos mix of Francis Ford Coppola's Youth Without Youth in the next decade LOL.


Agree
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
thats were i draw the line


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Agree
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> thats were i draw the line


They did remix Die Hard in Atmos. BRING IT ON! 

YIPPEEKAYEAH, MOTHERF%$KERS!!!


----------



## NorthSky

Wookii said:


> I think people are getting a little hung up in this reverb thing. All upmixing algorithms, whether PLIIx, Neo:X, Auro or Dolby Surround use a whole host of techniques to achieve their results.
> 
> I personally don't really care too much what is going on as long as information in the original track isn't lost, and it sounds significantly better than the original. If not there is little point in upmixing.
> 
> I've heard DSP effects numerous time on different processors and AVR's with names like Hall, Stadium etc that add a clearly distinguishable reverb and echo. Auro is nothing like that at all, it may or may not add some reverb, I don't know, but it's certainly not noticeable and the effect is that you can't go back and listen in standard 7.1, it sounds so flat and two dimensional in comparison.


I agree.



> The cost of entry is a fair point though, and unless Auro get into the mainstream they're going to have limited penetration into the market.


Another good post. And true too; this world was created for everyone, not just few from the rich elite. 
Because the true richness is in equal sharing among everyone. 

Some do get it, others just don't.


----------



## NorthSky

> Disappointing that only one title is mentioned so far:
> 
> http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9ebbbf8c/DLB_News_2014_9_8_Press_Releases.pdf


Indeed, it is. ...So far.



maikeldepotter said:


> It may be a definition thing, but I thought spatial cues are the part of the recorded sound that give us information in what type of room the recording took place. If you would compare a mono sound recorded in a small room and a cathedral, I am close to certain that you would be able to tell which was recorded where, thanks to the spatial cues present. No?


Oh yes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

In all seriousness, Dolby should have listed more than one title. That's a little pathetic after their spiel on releasing a title list. A single Blu-ray is not a list.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> They did remix Die Hard in Atmos. BRING IT ON!
> 
> YIPPEEKAYEAH, MOTHERF%$KERS!!!


love it


----------



## NorthSky

> *Circle Surround* had a really natural sounding mono-to-surround upmixer that used delayed copies to create a sense of envelopment. My old Lex spreads frequencies outside the vocal range to other speakers while keeping sounds within the vocal range in the centre speaker. Others have different approaches. Doesn't your pre-pro have some sort of mono movie mode?


Marantz. ...Harman Kardon?


----------



## Frohlich

If transformers is all they have lined up for their big debut week of Cedia then consider this AVS member hugely dissapointed. I was hoping for much more. Hard to create hype and anticipation with no software. DOLBY...WTF????


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Kris, I've read here @ AVS that *'Godzilla'* isn't that great in the bass department; louder than extended.
> 
> * Is it an intelligent movie, or just for the fun of it.  ...Creativity, innovation, ...? ...Good acting by GodG?


I haven't seen a spectracl response plot that shows actual extension but it sure sounded (and felt) incredible in my room. You're not that far away, feel free to come by and I'll make a believer out of you.


----------



## Kris Deering

Frohlich said:


> If transformers is all they have lined up for their big debut week of Cedia then consider this AVS member hugely dissapointed. I was hoping for much more. Hard to create hype and anticipation with no software. DOLBY...WTF????


I just received the full press pacakge from Dolby and unfortunately nothing more to add. I don't know if I was more disappointed by only one title actually mentioned by name or that there was only two studios listed as supporting. I was expecting them to list the majority, if not all, the studios considering theatrical support and a nice list of titles to get people excited, even if just a handful at first.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Despite saying more titles coming it is pretty disappointing that with all the hoopla over Atmos coming to the home they managed to list one title only. With the bulk of the summer movies already announced for Blu-ray (and most mixed for Atmos theatrically) I was hoping to see a large number of the already announced titles set to be released in the coming months in there (Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and even something like The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut. I have no doubt we'll see more titles released before Christmas but I was hoping for better news in terms of the studios stepping up right away and showing strong support. One confirmed title and only two studios listed makes it sound like a toe in the water type scenario. Hopefully better news at CEDIA.


Hopefully we won't see type of Panasonic/FOX exclusive deal like they did with 'Avatar' 3D. 
Then they'll do like they did with 3D; kill Dolby Atmos too.


----------



## batpig

jkasanic said:


> I thought it was interesting that Dolby noted at least twice in two different sections (p.7 and p. 13) that the overhead speakers "should be timbre matched to the primary listener-level speakers". I think the importance of this was debated already in this thread and somewhat dismissed by the advances in equalization BICBW? Is that still the prevailing belief (i.e. an AVR or prepro with automated EQ such as Audyssey will be enough for any differences found between various speaker manufacturers)?


I think you have to take into account that this is "idealized/generalized" advice and doesn't intend to account for high end room EQ solutions which can mitigate differences. Some people don't even use any EQ, so it can't be assumed that one will have MultEQ XT32 or the like running. Obviously, if you are going to give a general recommendation for HT, saying "timbre match your speakers" is good advice in a vacuum. I don't see it as a refutation of the idea that if you mix really good speakers, with solid freq reponse characteristics, from different manufacturers and apply really good room EQ to them, that you can "get away" with non perfect timbre match.


----------



## Frohlich

Kris Deering said:


> I just received the full press pacakge from Dolby and unfortunately nothing more to add. I don't know if I was more disappointed by only one title actually mentioned by name or that there was only two studios listed as supporting. I was expecting them to list the majority, if not all, the studios considering theatrical support and a nice list of titles to get people excited, even if just a handful at first.


Thanks for confirming Kris. I feel like all the air was just let out of my Atmos balloon. One title...really Dolby? This is your week to shine...you have been working on this for years...and this is all you could muster? I am the easy sell. I am the guy debating what hardware to buy and where to place 2 or 4 new in ceiling speakers. Now I feel no compelling reason to upgrade quickly. I will likely just let it play out for the next couple of months and see whether and/or when it is right upgrading. Maybe just hold out for gen 2 hardware and maybe get Auro thrown into the hardware by then?


----------



## gbaby

Kris Deering said:


> I just received the full press pacakge from Dolby and unfortunately nothing more to add. I don't know if I was more disappointed by only one title actually mentioned by name or that there was only two studios listed as supporting. I was expecting them to list the majority, if not all, the studios considering theatrical support and a nice list of titles to get people excited, even if just a handful at first.


 
I don't know about anyone else on this forum, but Home Theater and Audio as a hobby is about to burn me out.  I just purchased a 10k processor and now Atmos, Auro, Dirac, EQ, Ascynchronous USB, etc.  I give up. This hobby seems to consume folks. It is taking too much energy. I think many of us need to ask ourselves if we are lettting life pass us by in spending too much time an money on this hobby. It is getting obsurb to me. I am throwing in the towel, and just enjoy the software I have and not worry about the latest and its imperfections to satisfy folks consumed with making sound larger than reality.I am not directing this rage at Kris, but all of us in general. We need to catch ourselves and get and be more diverse.


----------



## NorthSky

> It might have. I'm not really all that keen on things like that though. When I watch a mono movie I just let it play through the centre speaker, in mono. The resulting 'old fashioned' sound goes nicely with the old-fashioned, academy-framed, mono image  I watched the Errol Flynn 'Adventures of Robin Hood' that way just this last weekend.


You can also check Mono Movie audio mode, with your Onky SSP. 
...You might like it, after getting used to it. ...More so than just plain Mono (only the center channel).


----------



## jkasanic

Dan Hitchman said:


> EQ is not a magic bullet. If you _can_ timbre match... then by all means do timbre match your speakers.


Agree, my concern was with respect to adding heights and the fact that certain manufacturers aren't offering in-ceiling speakers atm.



batpig said:


> I think you have to take into account that this is "idealized/generalized" advice and doesn't intend to account for high end room EQ solutions which can mitigate differences. Some people don't even use any EQ, so it can't be assumed that one will have MultEQ XT32 or the like running. Obviously, if you are going to give a general recommendation for HT, saying "timbre match your speakers" is good advice in a vacuum. I don't see it as a refutation of the idea that if you mix really good speakers, with solid freq reponse characteristics, from different manufacturers and apply really good room EQ to them, that you can "get away" with non perfect timbre match.


Thanks for the response bp. This was my thinking as well but always nice to get some affirmation.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> I thought it was interesting that Dolby noted at least twice in two different sections (p.7 and p. 13) that the overhead speakers "should be timbre matched to the primary listener-level speakers". I think the importance of this was debated already in this thread and somewhat dismissed by the advances in equalization BICBW? Is that still the prevailing belief (i.e. an AVR or prepro with automated EQ such as Audyssey will be enough for any differences found between various speaker manufacturers)?


I think so FWIW. If the REQ is doing a good job, then it delivers a flat response (or whatever the target curve is) to each speaker. Timbre is thus diminished greatly as an issue.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm hoping that all these cool blockbusters of this year mixed in Atmos will sound pretty close to 'full/native' Atmos using the Dolby Surround upmixer.


Scott, I hope for you that your hope get realized. 

* But best would be to have them same Dolby Atmos movies in theater available on Blu-rays as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> You're a Mandarin, Keith (an aesthete). But many of us may not want to stock our libraries with movies aimed at immature teenagers or adults with arrested development just to have great sound aside from an extended demo (which is how I look at Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). No matter how many talking raccoons with laser guns or post-apocalyptic simians they have.


I’d never suggest what anyone stocks their libraries with.



sdrucker said:


> HST, I expect at least home Atmos mixes of Star Trek: Into Darkness or Hunger Games: Catching Fire by 2016. I hope, to capture something I'd actually want to willingly watch more than once. But I'm not holding my breath for an Atmos mix of Francis Ford Coppola's Youth Without Youth in the next decade LOL.


If someone is into Woody Allen or romcoms etc, then they don't really need Atmos at all. Or even 5.1. It's a purely personal thing.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

thxman said:


> There is a flaw in this statement. Speaker configurations are normally odd numbers because of the center speaker, yet the Atmos home limitation is an even number (24). I assume this extra single speaker is for a single speaker in the rear?


It's correct on page 12 though:

_With the exception of the center *and center-back speakers*, all
components must be added in pairs in a Dolby Atmos playback system._


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Let's just say the screen"writers" went up to Michael Bay's office and dumped a load on his desk.
> 
> And I, for one, cannot stand the way Michael Bay edits his action sequences. It's like being hit with a ball peen hammer straight between the eyes.


Hehe. 3.5 second average shot length for over 2 hours. You're showing your age Dan if you can't hack that LOL!


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d never suggest what anyone stocks their libraries with.
> 
> If someone is into Woody Allen or romcoms etc, then they don't really need Atmos at all. Or even 5.1. It's a purely personal thing.


 
True, if rom-coms or IFE films are your primary interest you're not going to gain much from anything other than a well-mixed soundtrack, and Dolby PLII Cinema for center channel extraction. And isn't Woody still only doing stereo mixes or close to it? 

However, while the first Atmos consumer releases will be based on recent Dolby Atmos theatrical releases, leaning heavily toward blockbusters and action films, hopefully that won't stay that way into the indefinite future. There's got to be something better than Noah coming down the pike for a more mature audience....although that's going to probably be a second or third-gen thing once Atmos has (we hope!) broader acceptance from the consumer AVR buying public.


It doesn't have to be art films...even an Atmos mix of a back catalog film like The Island would work for me .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Hehe. 3.5 second average shot length for over 2 hours. You're showing your age Dan if you can't hack that LOL!


I find something like the main action/chase sequence in _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ to be beautifully shot, choreographed, and edited. And John Williams' score... brilliant!! Michael Bay and his ilk... not so much.  

And yes, I did just date myself a little.


----------



## Kris Deering

gbaby said:


> I don't know about anyone else on this forum, but Home Theater and Audio as a hobby is about to burn me out.  I just purchased a 10k processor and now Atmos, Auro, Dirac, EQ, Ascynchronous USB, etc.  I give up. This hobby seems to consume folks. It is taking too much energy. I think many of us need to ask ourselves if we are lettting life pass us by in spending too much time an money on this hobby. It is getting obsurb to me. I am throwing in the towel, and just enjoy the software I have and not worry about the latest and its imperfections to satisfy folks consumed with making sound larger than reality.I am not directing this rage at Kris, but all of us in general. We need to catch ourselves and get and be more diverse.


Understandable. I certainly don't want to convey some doom and gloom with the Atmos comments. I'm sure there will be more and more titles released over time. Just disappointed with this announcement. 

These forums can easily burn one out when it comes to the enjoyment of their systems. I try to ignore most of it and concentrate only on specific things that I'm interested in otherwise you're in for trouble. I find that if you're happy with what you have you should probably check out of the forums for awhile and just sit back and enjoy. But that upgrade bug will starting biting eventually.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, I hope for you that your hope get realized.
> 
> * But best would be to have them same Dolby Atmos movies in theater available on Blu-rays as well.


And I _hope_ for _your_ hope of my hope is fully realized for everybody to enjoy.


----------



## Waboman

Frohlich said:


> If transformers is all they have lined up for their big debut week of Cedia then consider this AVS member hugely dissapointed. I was hoping for much more. Hard to create hype and anticipation with no software. DOLBY...WTF????


This is what I've been saying all along. Dolby needs to kick it up a notch and get some content out there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

_Studios_ need to kick it up a notch and start releasing content, you mean.


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> _Studios_ need to kick it up a notch and start releasing content, you mean.


Well somebody needs to metaphorically turn it to 11 and get the ball rolling. You'd think Dolby would try and schmooze the studios to get more blu's released with their technological marvel.


----------



## W3Rman

batpig said:


> Yes, I would assume so. The diagram on pg 3 of the 24.1.10 layout shows a single rear center channel.
> 
> I have found a few other errors / inconsistencies in the document, for example....
> 
> 1. Pg 24 - the 9.1.2 layout diagram at the bottom (the "perspective detail" from the rear of the room) omits the "wide" speakers (it's actually the 7.1.2 diagram)
> 
> 2. On both of the 9.1.2 diagrams (pp 24-25) they refer to the "wides" as "Front Surround Speakers" and the traditional surrounds as "Rear Surround Speakers", distinct from the "Back Speakers", implying that there are two pairs of surrounds as a "side array" layout. The word "wide" doesn't appear on either page. Yet, on pg 26, when they move into "other speakers" beyond the standard layouts, they note:
> 
> 
> 
> _This section focuses on the placement of speakers, which may be added to the
> positions covered in section 3. For clarity, the positions covered in section 3 were:
> 
> • Left/Right speaker pair
> • Left Surround/Right Surround speaker pair
> • Left Rear Surround/Right Rear Surround speaker pair
> • Left Wide/Right Wide speaker pair
> • Left Top Front/Right Top Front speaker pair
> • Left Top Middle/Right Top Middle speaker pair
> • Left Top Rear/Right Top Rear speaker pair_​
> 
> So on pg 26 "Surround" refers to surrounds and "Rear Surround" refers to Surr.Back, with "Wide" clearly mentioned. Yet throughout the section the Surround Back speakers are called "Back Speakers", and in the 9 listener level speaker diagrams on pp 24-25 the "Rear Surround" actually refers to the surround speakers with the wide represented as "Front Surround".



LOL... i think where gonna have to make another thread for this one!

:nerd:


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> Well somebody needs to metaphorically turn it to 11 and get the ball rolling. You'd think Dolby would try and schmooze the studios to get more blu's released with their technological marvel.


They did that already. It's called Dolby Atmos. 


Seriously, though... I hear ya. More titles will come with time. I'm sure it will start slow and then nearly everything mixed in Atmos for cinema will be ported to Atmos for home and release more often.

I think it is a safe bet to say at this point that the new Turtles movie will be in Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

jkasanic said:


> I thought it was interesting that Dolby noted at least twice in two different sections (p.7 and p. 13) that the overhead speakers "should be timbre matched to the primary listener-level speakers". I think the importance of this was debated already in this thread and somewhat dismissed by the advances in equalization BICBW? Is that still the prevailing belief (i.e. an AVR or prepro with automated EQ such as Audyssey will be enough for any differences found between various speaker manufacturers)?


Say that you are EQuing two different speakers with Audyssey MultEQ XT32; are they going to sound similar after EQuing? ...Certainly not; only if they are the same speakers and even then speakers are always positioned @ different spots in the room (different acoustics). 

Timbre-match is the right/intelligent way. 

* THX Ultra2 Plus Cinema audio mode; in tandem with Audyssey MultEQ XT32: Better help? ...With miss-matched speakers. Yes, but then with Dolby Atmos on top of it all? ...Experimentation is called for.

Which SSP or AV receiver has Dolby Atmos, Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and THX Ultra2 Plus certification, today? ...I don't see any. ...In the Ultra Hi-End audio business? 

- I hope that in a near future Audyssey will implement beneficial improvements accessible to the general public. It is already there, but only on the pro install business. 

It occurs to me that all of us huge fans of surround sound; we should perhaps aim @ the pro market...
And if we don't have the means to access; we should @ least learn from it. 
...From real state-of-the-art cinema theaters to pro home theater rooms (medium to large) to general home theater living rooms, or small home theater rooms.

Not all rooms and audio/video gear are created equal. ...Including the sound reproducers (loudspeakers).
And not all music and movie soundtracks are quality recordings.


----------



## NorthSky

action_jackson said:


> Quote from Business Wire,
> "Additional manufacturers who have committed to delivering future Dolby Atmos products include Datasat Digital Entertainment, Emotiva Audio Corp, Outlaw Audio, Storm Audio, and NHT"
> 
> Looks like there are a few other MFGs joining in on the atmos fun.​


They have to; if they want to do business, and survive.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - but you are conflating _recorded_ sounds which capture the ambience of the venue with playback. We are discussing how to extract spatial clues from a mono source and upmix them to several other channels. It can be done if you generate additional sounds, but not if you extract them, because there is nothing to extract in a mono source.
> 
> With PLII for example, the extra channel content is extracted using the difference between the spatial audio content between two individual channels of stereo tracks (or Dolby Digital encoded 5.1 channel tracks). With mono you don't have a 'difference' anywhere because you only have one channel.


I don't see any conflict between your explanations and my post you are referring to. Hence, don't understand the 'Yes - but' part. 

Anyway, if you make a recording of a slamming door in a cathedral using only one microphone and play this back over one speaker, you will hear lots of reverberation which by definition can be addressed as spatial cues. We do know how spatial cues can be extracted from stereo tracks, namely using the difference between the two channels (like your example of PLII). This method will obviously not work for recorded mono tracks. Concluding that there is nothing to extract in a mono source by explaining that the method used for a stereo source will not work makes little sense to me. We just don't know how....


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Let's just say the screen"writers" went up to Michael Bay's office and dumped a load on his desk.
> 
> And I, for one, cannot stand the way Michael Bay edits his action sequences. It's like being hit with a ball peen hammer straight between the eyes.


Does Michael edit his own films?


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Agreed. It really is a unique-to-AVS (or equivalent enthusiasts forum) phenomenon where people will watch absolute sh!t movies just to hear the good sound. There are plenty of awesome action movies that aren't complete vomit inducing garbage that still have great sound (Dark Knight trilogy, the Marvel universe movies, etc).


Maybe that's the reason why normal people don't listen to us? ...Because we have really bad movie taste.


----------



## sdurani

Just posted in the Outlaw Audio forum:


> Dear Fellow Outlaw:
> 
> With Dolby’s announcement today that the Outlaws are an Atmos licensee we wanted to take this opportunity to comment on our future product plans.
> 
> From the time we first heard home Atmos over 18 months ago we knew it was something we wanted to offer. We can now confirm that we are currently hard at work on our first Atmos product, an all-new, Outlaw exclusive, high-end surround processor. This unique product is still many months away with an estimated release date late in the second quarter of 2015.
> 
> If you have been reading the online forums you are already aware that Atmos is a very complex format, particularly with regard to the firmware. While some companies have begun shipping Atmos products, a number of major brands still have “Atmos-Ready” models that are waiting for a final firmware download. In addition, content will be gradually rolled out this fall as studios get up to speed.
> 
> With product quality, performance, and reliability being the essential qualities of any Outlaw product, we are deliberately taking a measured approach with regard to development and introduction date.
> 
> As befits a true high-end Atmos processor, it will be capable of 7.2.4 and will include other key technologies such as HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 and will utilize premium, audiophile grade components throughout the design. To accommodate those features and more, this state of the art processor price will be substantially higher than the Model 975. However, we will offer special programs for owners of current Outlaw processors so that present and future owners of the Model 975 can experience its award winning performance while being assured of an attractive pathway to this new processor.
> 
> To give you a brief insight into our plans, we are already at work with our factory team and US-based hardware and software consultants on the product architecture. This advanced product is based on a new dual DSP platform, an ARM processor, and will also include streaming capabilities plus some other technologies. Designed by us and built to our specifications, it will be a flexible, but easy-to-use product that will meet and in some cases exceed the needs of the most demanding home theater enthusiast. Even at this early stage, we are confident that this new product will be unlike anything else both in terms of features and performance.
> 
> As important is it is for us to address the inevitable questions that will surface from Outlaw being listed as an Atmos licensee, please remember that we are many months ahead of shipping. Therefore, it is important that we now enter a quiet period.
> 
> Having been down this road before, we feel that this acknowledgement is the right way to give you a view into our ongoing development activity so that when we are ready to release more information it will accurately detail our schedule.
> 
> The Outlaws


----------



## UKTexan

Interesting how the diagram on page 3 clearly shows the front and rear height speakers as in ceiling and well into the room, the front height speakers are in line with the front wide speakers and yet the description on pages 32 and 33 clearly state they should be mounted on the wall resulting in a totally different location to what's shown:

Left Front Height/Right Front Height speaker pair

The Left Front Height and Right Front Height speakers should be mounted on the
*front wall (instead of on the ceiling)* in line with an approximately 30 degrees
horizontal from the center-front reference


Left Rear Height/Right Rear Height speaker pair

We recommend that the Left Rear Height and Right Rear Height speakers should be
mounted on the *rear wall (instead of on the ceiling)* in line with an approximately 30
degrees horizontal from the center-front reference.


I guess the diagram uses a little artistic freedom as a plan view of front speakers with heights directly above would be a little crowded but still, one should reflect the other.


----------



## ss9001

Re: Outlaw Audio's announcement -

very interesting. looks like they learned some things from their Trinnov-Sherwood platform experience. 

I hope they succeed. noticed no mention of room EQ systems tho. wonder if Dirac could be a possibility. would be very nice and give you-know-who some real competition


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I find something like the main action/chase sequence in _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ to be beautifully shot, choreographed, and edited. And John Williams' score... brilliant!! Michael Bay and his ilk... not so much.
> 
> And yes, I did just date myself a little.


Raiders of the Lost what??


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> They (overhead speakers) don't get that much content. I find this part of the white paper along with the mistakes Batpig pointed out *WTF*.


What WTF stands for?



> What happened to all the comments about Atmos being more forgiving in regards to speaker placement then other audio formats? The white paper reads anything but that. I guess I'll go out and buy all new speakers just so I can timber match what I use for overhead speakers since that's not an option given what I own


We're all a bunch of fake preachers. ...We love talking about what we don't know anything about. 

I don't remember comments about speakers positioning not being important. The height of the regular surrounds, yes, lower now with Dolby Atmos, for best integration with the overhead Atmos speakers. ...I agree. 
But they still could be a foot or so higher than ear level (generally), or near ear level. 

And few comments were made about timbre-matching, with EQuing helping to attain that, even from different brands of speakers. Me, I never bought that one.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> Re: mono upmixing, going to have to try Rawhide


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdR6MN2jKYs
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt5Vv97v5g8


Thank you for your cooperation (most of the time).


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> In all seriousness, Dolby should have listed more than one title. That's a little pathetic after their spiel on releasing a title list. A single Blu-ray is not a list.


Dan, start a petition, and we'll all sign it; about twenty-six or fifty-nine people.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I haven't seen a spectral response plot that shows actual extension but it sure sounded (and felt) incredible in my room. You're not that far away, feel free to come by and I'll make a believer out of you.


There is a cut-off point @ 30Hz (-10dB @ 20Hz), according to a 'spectral' member.
He said it is loud, and the same bass segments keep repeating themselves. 
It's in the 'Godzilla' thread. 

* I need a fast boat.


----------



## sdrucker

ss9001 said:


> Re: Outlaw Audio's announcement -
> 
> very interesting. looks like they learned some things from their Trinnov-Sherwood platform experience.
> 
> I hope they succeed. noticed no mention of room EQ systems tho. wonder if Dirac could be a possibility. would be very nice and give you-know-who some real competition


 
Good luck to them too...the majors could use some competition, especially if Dirac is in the game for a potential REQ (assuming there is one). There's a couple of you-know-whos (both on the manufacturer and implementation side) that could use the kick in the butt to step their REQ game up.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> I think you have to take into account that this is "idealized/generalized" advice and doesn't intend to account for high end room EQ solutions which can mitigate differences. Some people don't even use any EQ, so it can't be assumed that one will have MultEQ XT32 or the like running. Obviously, if you are going to give a general recommendation for HT, saying "timbre match your speakers" is good advice in a vacuum. I don't see it as a refutation of the idea that if you mix really good speakers, with solid freq reponse characteristics, from different manufacturers and apply really good room EQ to them, that you can "get away" with non perfect timbre match.


The day that they'll recommend different sounding speakers all around, that'll be the day.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Does Michael edit his own films?


Bay is very hands-on with every aspect of production.


----------



## NorthSky

gbaby said:


> *I don't know about anyone else on this forum, but Home Theater and Audio as a hobby is about to burn me out.  I just purchased a 10k processor and now Atmos, Auro, Dirac, EQ, Ascynchronous USB, etc.  I give up. This hobby seems to consume folks. It is taking too much energy. I think many of us need to ask ourselves if we are lettting life pass us by in spending too much time an money on this hobby. It is getting obsurb to me. I am throwing in the towel, and just enjoy the software I have and not worry about the latest and its imperfections to satisfy folks consumed with making sound larger than reality. I am not directing this rage at Kris,
> but all of us in general. We need to catch ourselves and get and be more diverse.*


This could be the best post of this entire thread, really.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Raiders of the Lost what??


Funny.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Understandable. I certainly don't want to convey some doom and gloom with the Atmos comments. I'm sure there will be more and more titles released over time. Just disappointed with this announcement.
> 
> These forums can easily burn one out when it comes to the enjoyment of their systems. I try to ignore most of it and concentrate only on specific things that I'm interested in otherwise you're in for trouble. I find that if you're happy with what you have *you should probably check out of the forums for awhile and just sit back and enjoy*. But that upgrade bug will starting biting eventually.


Like strip joints?


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> This could be the best post of this entire thread, really.


You just contributed to global warming as well as nearly burning out my retinas.


----------



## NorthSky

kokishin said:


> Thank you for your cooperation (most of the time).


Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> And I _hope_ for _your_ hope of my hope is fully realized for everybody to enjoy.


Now that's a mouthful
I hope they put movies like the amazing Spiderman 2 out to pasture and never re-release that lame movie. I hope transformers in atmos will have amazing sound I can't sit through another one like Spiderman.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Bay is very hands-on with every aspect of production.


He has his own style; nobody's perfect. ...Some stuff he's a real good @. Other stuff, like ... he's just human, like anyone else. ...But man, he knows how to "shine" car sequential accidents! 

Dan, who is/are your favorite movie director(s)? 

______________

* I don't like fast "shaking camera", gives me real bad headaches. For me, all the movie directors and cinematographers using that style, plus the "lights camera lenses" effect, are from the worst school of cinematography. You know who I'm talking about; I have no redeeming comments about them, moving pictures wise. 

Just one example; they used it in *'Non-Stop'*, starring _Liam Neeson_. 
Without Liam this flick is All-Stop, or No-Go, or it just wouldn't exist. 

I'm more the Sergio Leone type. ...That's what I like about cameras. 
Yeah, Dolby Atmos for some of Sergio's flicks.  ... *'Once Upon a Time...the Revolution'* (1971).
...Starring _James Coburn_.


----------



## bargervais

I need one more copy of avatar I have Avatar blu-ray, Avata extended version, Avatar 3D, now I need Avatar 3D Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

How about Django Unchained in atmos or Darkman


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> He has his own style; nobody's perfect. ...Some stuff he's a real good @. Other stuff, like ... he's just human, like anyone else. ...But man, he knows how to "shine" car sequential accidents!
> 
> Dan, who is/are your favorite movie director(s)?



Early Spielberg, Sergio Leone, early Francis Ford Coppola, Akira Kurosawa, Howard Hawks, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, David Lean, sometimes David Fincher, Billy Wilder, Woody Allen, many times John Carpenter, etc.


----------



## Petedwitt

Dan Hitchman said:


> Early Spielberg, Sergio Leone, early Francis Ford Coppola, Akira Kurosawa, Howard Hawks, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, David Lean, sometimes David Fincher, Billy Wilder, Woody Allen, many times John Carpenter, etc.


Would these be ok as atmos speakers?.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061731-REG/onkyo_d_p301b_d_p301_wide_range_2_way.html


----------



## ss9001

some sobering thoughts from Bill Hunt on home video industry. his comments are about 4K Blu-ray but one *could* substitute Atmos and see the same problem because its intrinsic to how the main studios view us as consumers & the market. not that I'm a Nostradomus but I think we all can see where he's coming from.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/090814_1530

notice his comments about digital delivery & studios decreasing their interest in discs. it's not surprising that Vudu & streaming was a big part of today's announcement while we saw only 1 BD title announced. also notice that besides Paramount, WB was the only studio who said they are working on Atmos releases. Where's statements from Disney & Sony who I heard were on board with Atmos. Fox is not worth mentioning, since they were one of the last studios to release Blu-rays; no reason to expect them to be an early adopter of Atmos or 4K.

personally, I don't have an interest in using streamed media as my main source of movie/show watching. I'm a collector and want to watch & re-watch movies on my time schedule, full hi-rez audio, not lossy tracks, with no compressed video or audio and not depend on the cloud for entertainment. 

so I guess I'll be one of those who will have to wait for Atmos discs 

and why I'm not particularly ready to jump on the 4K bandwagon. we'll have the players next year but BD movies to watch? let's see how they do with Atmos. I'm jumping on Atmos but I'm in no hurry to change one of the best made 1080p sets to 4K. I'm a skeptic that studios "get it". and then when something starts to flop, it's self-defeating prophecy. what do I know? but I view studios as timid creatures. that's 1 reason we see increasing reliance on sequels ad nauseum, reboots and remakes. no need to take a chance when you have a ready-made audience, even if the movie itself is mediocre.

I'm done with my soap box for today  I saw Hunt's article and it seemed relevant to today.


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> What WTF stands for?



It means you seem to be padding your post count


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## greylight44

Anyone here heard of any announced processors that will be able to handle the other channles mentioned near the end of the white paper >7.1.4?


----------



## Frohlich

ss9001 said:


> some sobering thoughts from Bill Hunt on home video industry. his comments are about 4K Blu-ray but one *could* substitute Atmos and see the same problem because its intrinsic to how the main studios view us as consumers & the market. not that I'm a Nostradomus but I think we all can see where he's coming from.
> 
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/090814_1530
> 
> notice his comments about digital delivery & studios decreasing their interest in discs. it's not surprising that Vudu & streaming was a big part of today's announcement while we saw only 1 BD title announced. also notice that besides Paramount, WB was the only studio who said they are working on Atmos releases. Where's statements from Disney & Sony who I heard were on board with Atmos. Fox is not worth mentioning, since they were one of the last studios to release Blu-rays; no reason to expect them to be an early adopter of Atmos or 4K.
> 
> personally, I don't have an interest in using streamed media as my main source of movie/show watching. I'm a collector and want to watch & re-watch movies on my time schedule, full hi-rez audio, not lossy tracks, with no compressed video or audio and not depend on the cloud for entertainment.
> 
> so I guess I'll be one of those who will have to wait for Atmos discs
> 
> and why I'm not particularly ready to jump on the 4K bandwagon. we'll have the players next year but BD movies to watch? let's see how they do with Atmos. I'm jumping on Atmos but I'm in no hurry to change one of the best made 1080p sets to 4K. I'm a skeptic that studios "get it". and then when something starts to flop, it's self-defeating prophecy. what do I know? but I view studios as timid creatures. that's 1 reason we see increasing reliance on sequels ad nauseum, reboots and remakes. no need to take a chance when you have a ready-made audience, even if the movie itself is mediocre.


It pains me to say I agree with his thoughts. I want 4K blu ray, I am willing to buy the hardware to take advantage of it. The problem is that nobody I know, outside of my AVS friends, give a rats a$$ about it. Like he says, a ton of folks just upgraded to HD in the last 5 years and on a normal sized display (40 to 60 inches) you would be hard pressed to make Joe Six Pack believe the picture quality upgrade is worth it...and I would agree with Joe Six Pack on this one. I want 4k for my projector in my HT room but for the other HD sets in my house, 4K means nothing even to me. I won't rush and upgrade anything to 4K except for my dedicated room.


----------



## mike_carton

I wouldn't be surprised if

1. Content creators try subscription model or DivX (think Circuit City) type arrangement again. Ultraviolet could be the channel; the ToS only require for the content to replayable free of charge for one year, I understand
2. Some CE Manufacturer tries a subscription model for their TV or AVR; pay X upfront and Y every month to use it with a Z year contract like the cell phones in US

So long as the business models are dependent upon consumers throwing away functioning and perfectly good equipment and content and repurchasing replacements at full/higher price for incremental gains, and doing so multiple times, the interests of sellers and buyers will be wide apart. Of course, this is nothing new. "Caveat Emptor" is a five-centuries old term.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Petedwitt said:


> Would these be ok as atmos speakers?.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061731-REG/onkyo_d_p301b_d_p301_wide_range_2_way.html


I don't know if they could handle the dynamic range of a rockin' movie soundtrack. They look, specs. wise, like the cheap speakers they are.


----------



## FirstReflect

So I spotted another contradiction in that White Paper:


On page 35 in the Dolby Surround Upmixer section, it states that,


"This new technology will process and upmix channel-based content to as many as 20 speaker locations at listener level and 10 Dolby Atmos enabled or overhead speakers."


But it also states,


"To maintain an accurate frontal audio image, the upmixer will not send upmixed audio to the front wide speakers or any speakers that are located between the Left, Center, and Right speakers."


OK, so let's think that through; our 24 "listener level" speakers are now:


Front Center
L/R Screen
L/R Center
L/R Front Main
L/R Wide
L/R Surround 1
L/R Surround
L/R Surround 2
L/R Rear Surround 1 (aka Surround Back 1)
L/R Rear Surround (aka Surround Back)
L/R Rear Surround 2 (aka Surround Back 2)
L/R Rear Center (aka Center Back)
Rear Center (aka Center Back)


And they just said (in not so many words) that the L/R Screen, L/R Center, and Wide speakers will not be used.


Last time I checked, 24 minus 6 is 18, not 20.


However, they also talk about being able to "spread" the center image using an on/off Center Width control. Based upon the above quotes, I would expect that to mean they are only "spreading" the center image across the Center and L/R Front Main speakers. Frankly, though, it would make more sense to leave the L/R Front Main speakers alone and only use L/R Screen or L/R Center speakers (if they've been installed) to "spread" the center image. So...maybe that's how they get to 20 listener level speakers? Still a contradiction in the text, though


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Early Spielberg, Sergio Leone, early Francis Ford Coppola, Akira Kurosawa, Howard Hawks, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, David Lean, sometimes David Fincher, Billy Wilder, Woody Allen, many times John Carpenter, etc.


Nice grouping. ...Love them all.


----------



## bargervais

mike_carton said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if
> 
> 1. Content creators try subscription model or DivX (think Circuit City) type arrangement again. Ultraviolet could be the channel; the ToS only require for the content to replayable free of charge for one year, I understand
> 2. Some CE Manufacturer tries a subscription model for their TV or AVR; pay X upfront and Y every month to use it with a Z year contract like the cell phones in US
> 
> So long as the business models are dependent upon consumers throwing away functioning and perfectly good equipment and content and repurchasing replacements at full price for incremental gains, and doing so multiple times, the interests of sellers and buyers will be wide apart. Of course, this is nothing new. "Caveat Emptor" is a five-centuries old term.


Since the introduction of HD then 3D I have gone through 7 TV's and 8 AVRs and 5 3D blu-ray players so I'm trying to hold off on 4K I'm more into the sound then the video. Mind you my tv's have great video.
That's what I'm looking to just update this year to atmos just in my den. I can't keep spending money on every new thing that come our way.
Atmos to me is a real step forward.


----------



## FirstReflect

greylight44 said:


> Anyone here heard of any announced processors that will be able to handle the other channles mentioned near the end of the white paper >7.1.4?


Only the Trinnov Altitude 32 for certain, at this moment. It can do 30 speakers and 2 subwoofers. So even that model can't quite do ALL of the possible 34 speakers plus a dedicated .1 LFE channel output (or 2 or 4)


The rumors are that Datasat will have an upgrade for their LS10 and RS20i Processors.


And who knows how many speaker outputs the Steinway Lyngdorf unit will have.


And just to piggyback on this lovely question, I'll shamelessly plug the thread I started in case anyone on this thread has more information. I'd love to be able to have 13 speakers playing simultaneously, myself. But not if the only way to get there costs $20,000 minimum for the Processor 


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...any-chance-reasonable-price.html#post27219754


----------



## NorthSky

ss9001 said:


> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/090814_1530


Yes Steve, unfortunately that's the news everywhere. And AVS is talking loud and clear about it.

We are an endangered species here @ AVS with our toys and our physical music and movie mediums; CDs, SACDs, Blu-rays, ...

The world now lives in the cloud, obscured by a momentary lapse of reason that seems to last forever...

We'll disappear all together before the end of this millenium. ,,,By 2022. ...That's the doomed year for physical content. ...After that, all is virtual. We got seven years till the full eclipse of apocalypse. 

So, move your butt quickly movie studios, with Dolby Atmos. And FOX, just forget it! ,,,Bruce Willis my axe.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Yes Steve, unfortunately that's the news everywhere. And AVS is talking loud and clear about it.
> 
> We are an endangered species here @ AVS with out toys and our physical music and movie mediums; CDs, SACDs, Blu-rays, ...
> 
> The world now lives in the cloud, obscured by a momentary lapse of reason that seems to last forever...
> 
> We'll disappear all together before then end of this millenium. ,,,By 2022. ...That's the doomed year for physical content. ...After that, all is virtual. We got seven years till the full eclipse of apocalypse.
> 
> So, move your butt quickly movie studios, with Dolby Atmos. ...And FOX, just forget it! ,,,Bruce Willis my axe.


Just wait until the studios' cloud collection gets hacked...


----------



## Selden Ball

a) One can only hope that Outlaw doesn't get shafted like they did the last time. (My understanding is that the A/V company using the majority of their shared Chinese production facility pulled strings and got their previous pre/pro project cancelled.)
b) They really need to consider getting ahead of the pack and provide more than just 7.1.4 speaker channels.
c) Basing a portion of the architecture on ARM is a good choice. It might help in making some of its functionality future proof.


----------



## NorthSky

ambesolman said:


> It means you seem to be padding your post count


Do you feel better now? ...Only one BD title with Dolby Atmos. ...What do you think?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know if they could handle the dynamic range of a rockin' movie soundtrack. They look, specs. wise, like the cheap speakers they are.


That's also what I thought looking @ them like that, but didn't want to say.


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> Do you feel better now? ...Only one BD title with Dolby Atmos. ...What do you think?



WTF


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> How do they extract height and surround information from mono? I can see how they could generate it, but if they are not generating it, how are they extracting it from mono sources?





kbarnes701 said:


> Would that be because it's not possible


The "blind source separation" technique used in Lexicon QLS is a means to do that. No reverb added.



ss9001 said:


> excellent question.
> the only DSP modes I've ever seen for mono add reverb.


Both SRS Labs and Fosgate have mono upmixing techniques that add no reverb. They work pretty well.



> I also am skeptical because of this in their statement:
> 
> *"*meaning no addition of reverbs or changing the spectrum or dynamics *like other upmixing algorithms typically do.*"
> 
> what upmixing algorithms add reverb? certainly none I'm familiar with, going all the way back to the quadraphonic era.


I'd say DSX fits that definition.


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> Interesting how the diagram on page 3 clearly shows the front and rear height speakers as in ceiling and well into the room, the front height speakers are in line with the front wide speakers...


Look again at the diagram on page 3: there are 5 speakers across the front, the front height speakers are in line with the L/R speakers, not the LW/RW.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

sdurani said:


> As are many aspects of this 1st gen roll out. Still, it _is_ rolling out. And in a couple weeks folks will have an Atmos title (not just some demo disc) to play at home.



I hear that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is coming out on Atmos. Great movie for committed early Atmos adopters who think that the word patience means patients!


----------



## sdurani

smurraybhm said:


> What happened to all the comments about Atmos being more forgiving in regards to speaker placement then other audio formats? The white paper reads anything but that.


It is forgiving, as evidenced by the white paper expressing speaker placement in ranges rather than absolutely required angles. What other flexibility were you looking for?


----------



## wse

FirstReflect said:


> Only the Trinnov Altitude 32 for certain, at this moment. It can do 30 speakers and 2 subwoofers. So even that model can't quite do ALL of the possible 34 speakers plus a dedicated .1 LFE channel output (or 2 or 4). The rumors are that Datasat will have an upgrade for their LS10 and RS20i Processors. And who knows how many speaker outputs the Steinway Lyngdorf $18,000) unit will have. And just to piggyback on this lovely question, I'll shamelessly plug the thread I started in case anyone on this thread has more information. I'd love to be able to have 13 speakers playing simultaneously, myself. But not if the only way to get there costs $20,000 minimum for the Processor . http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...any-chance-reasonable-price.html#post27219754



I am done upgrading for a while, I am set with speakers 800D2 series, now I am waiting until Classe release a decent SSP to replace my five year old SSP-800!

All I care about is good sound ATMOS, DTS UHD, and may be AURO 3D! I could care less about 3D or pseudo 4K. Now when the real 4K Blu Ray start going then I will think about a new projector! For now my four year old JVC will stay home.

I will not spend above $10,000 for any processor unless it starts making me dinner! What I love about the mass brands is they can release new processors every year with new features. 

I bought a Marantz SR-7009 for the mini cinema and it is a very fun AVR sound very nice to and for the first time tried AUDYSSEY XT32 very cool


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> Look again at the diagram on page 3: there are 5 speakers across the front, the front height speakers are in line with the L/R speakers, not the LW/RW.


 There are 24 speakers around the perimeter, 5 at the front, all ear level.
10 ceiling speakers shown, 1 sub.
The text below is from page 3:


Figure 1: (Left) A Dolby Atmos system with five speakers on the floor and two overhead speakers.


(Right) A Dolby Atmos system with *24 speakers on the floor* and 10 overhead speakers.



When I said the front heights are in line with the wides I was referring to the distance from the screen wall, so they are in line by distance from the front wall.
According to the white paper, the ceiling speakers depicted on the diagram as front heights, should actually be positioned directly above the front left and right speakers, mounted using wall brackets on the screen wall, not in the location shown.


----------



## NorthSky

j_palmer_cass said:


> i hear that *one flew over the cuckoo's nest is coming out on atmos*. Great movie for committed early atmos adopters who think that the word patience means patients!


---:grin:


----------



## brwsaw

I mapped out the in ceiling locations to confirm how far they would be from the MLP.
Very nice to see they would be the same distance from my ears as my surrounds (6' +/- a couple inches) when centered (37.5° & 142.5° respectively) in the recommended positions.
Is this too close? It lines up so nicely I have to do it, at least the front pair.
Great news either way, the first pair will be used as front heights with my current AVR.
Still a little bummed, the Atmos upgrade won't happen this year.


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> When I said the front heights are in line with the wides I was referring to the distance from the screen wall, so they are in line by distance from the front wall.


OK, I was referring to the distance from the side walls. The front heights, in fact all the height speakers, are in line with the front L/R speakers.


UKTexan said:


> According to the white paper, the ceiling speakers depicted on the diagram as front heights, should actually be positioned directly above the front left and right speakers, mounted using wall brackets on the screen wall, not in the location shown.


No, the front heights should be positioned at a minimum of 30 degrees elevation. Depending on seating location and room height, 30 degrees elevation could end up being on the front wall or ceiling. 

For example: my room is the typical 8 feet tall and I sit 10 feet from the front wall. 30 degrees elevation ends up being a spot on my ceiling about 1.5 feet away from the front wall. If my room was taller, then 30 degrees elevation would be a spot 8.75 feet up on the front wall.


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> OK, I was referring to the distance from the side walls. The front heights, in fact all the height speakers, are in line with the front L/R speakers. No, the front heights should be positioned at a minimum of 30 degrees elevation. Depending on seating location and room height, 30 degrees elevation could end up being on the front wall or ceiling.


Understood, I will be in a similar scenario.

The question I have then, is why the preference inferred by the white paper for wall mounted front and rear height speakers when using all 10 ceiling speakers rather than ceiling mounted?
It would appear due to the distance from the MLP that directivity comes into play and as such wall mounted is preferable, if we go the ceiling route then on ceiling with adjustable brackets rather than in ceiling may prove to be the best option to give flexibility regarding angle to the listener.
I plan to use on ceiling anyway, 4 for now until a more cost effective pre/pro is announced.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Timbre-match is the right/intelligent way. .


I think the same way and will by in-ceilingst imbre matched to my mains. I think risk is too high to have somehow two different sound levels (ceiling and listener level) that don't really mix. I heard that during Onkyos weak presentation during the IFA!


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Timbre-match is the right/intelligent way. .


I think the same way and will buy in-ceilings timbre matched to my mains. I think risk is too high to have somehow two different sound levels (ceiling and listener level) that don't really mix. I heard that during Onkyos weak presentation during the IFA!


----------



## batpig

jkasanic said:


> I thought it was interesting that Dolby noted at least twice in two different sections (p.7 and p. 13) that the overhead speakers "should be timbre matched to the primary listener-level speakers". I think the importance of this was debated already in this thread and somewhat dismissed by the advances in equalization BICBW? Is that still the prevailing belief (i.e. an AVR or prepro with automated EQ such as Audyssey will be enough for any differences found between various speaker manufacturers)?


BTW - for folks who are slightly flipping out about the comments in the white paper about "full range" performance for ceiling speakers and "timbre matching" them to your other speakers (with some positing that it invalidates Roger's point about REQ taking care of small differences)... I wanted to point out that (as I'm watching the Home Theater Geeks podcast right now) the two Dolby reps had this to say on the topic (with my bolding for emphasis):

1) Brett Crockett, when asked about the requirements of ceiling speakers: "You have to take into account that full range signals are going to be sent to those speakers. So they have to handle bass, either inherently through the speaker *or through bass management* and that's handled by the AVR."

2) Craig Eggers, when asked about timbre matching of height channels: "Timbre is important.... but, in the case of the overhead speakers as well as the Dolby enabled speakers, we've been working very very closely with equalization partners, and *we expect that the room EQ can balance out any timbre mismatches to provide a satisfactory listening experience*. Obviously, in all cases ... you should try to timbre match them, *but the good news is that the room EQ is doing a very very good job* in the efforts that we've seen here."

So there you have it, straight from Dolby.


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> The question I have then, is why the preference inferred by the white paper for wall mounted front and rear height speakers when using all 10 ceiling speakers rather than ceiling mounted?


They're making the ass-umption that 30 degrees elevation will put the front and rear height speakers high up on the front and rear walls rather than the ceiling. Nothing more complicated than that. Since they gave a placement range (30-45 degrees elevation), I would stick to that, irrespective of whether that means wall-mounting or ceiling-mounting.


----------



## batpig

Hey UKTexan - you're famous! You got the mention by Craig Eggers at about 52 minutes in... unless there is another AVS member who drove from Houston to San Antonio for an Atmos demo at Bjorns


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> BTW - for folks who are slightly flipping out about the comments in the white paper...


Folks really should take it easy on the white paper, considering Brett and Craig wrote the entire thing after the Scott Wilkinson podcast.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> I don't see any conflict between your explanations and my post you are referring to. Hence, don't understand the 'Yes - but' part.
> 
> Anyway, if you make a recording of a slamming door in a cathedral using only one microphone and play this back over one speaker, you will hear lots of reverberation which by definition can be addressed as spatial cues. We do know how spatial cues can be extracted from stereo tracks, namely using the difference between the two channels (like your example of PLII). This method will obviously not work for recorded mono tracks. Concluding that there is nothing to extract in a mono source by explaining that the method used for a stereo source will not work makes little sense to me. We just don't know how....


Explain to me what there is in a mono recording that can be extracted to create the requires spatial cues for upmixing to several channels.


----------



## kbarnes701

Petedwitt said:


> Would these be ok as atmos speakers?.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061731-REG/onkyo_d_p301b_d_p301_wide_range_2_way.html


They don't have much power handling capability and the dispersion isn't specified. Be wary.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> personally, I don't have an interest in using streamed media as my main source of movie/show watching. I'm a collector and want to watch & re-watch movies on my time schedule, full hi-rez audio, not lossy tracks, with no compressed video or audio and not depend on the cloud for entertainment.


Same here. Not to mention that where I live nobody (other than me who has spent a lot of $$$ to bypass the problem) is even able to stream or download BD-quality movies simply because they have broadband speeds of 1 or 2 meg. That is very common in all rural areas in the UK. So their choice is crappy low-res quality streaming or Bluray disc. The advocates of streaming and those who say BD is dead or dying must all live in areas where 40meg+ broadband is common, and they seem blissfully unaware that half of almost every country in the world doesn't have that, and has little prospect of it in the next decade.



ss9001 said:


> and why I'm not particularly ready to jump on the 4K bandwagon. we'll have the players next year but BD movies to watch? let's see how they do with Atmos. I'm jumping on Atmos but I'm in no hurry to change one of the best made 1080p sets to 4K. I'm a skeptic that studios "get it". and then when something starts to flop, it's self-defeating prophecy. what do I know? but I view studios as timid creatures. that's 1 reason we see increasing reliance on sequels ad nauseum, reboots and remakes. no need to take a chance when you have a ready-made audience, even if the movie itself is mediocre.


Agreed. I have little interest in 4K. My screen is only 95 inch diagonal due to my small room and I am therefore just on the cusp of benefiting from the higher resolution. Anyone with anything other than a PJ as their display device is more or less wasting their money if they buy 4K sets IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> The "blind source separation" technique used in Lexicon QLS is a means to do that. No reverb added.


Thanks Roger. I'll have to google that one 

EDIT: Phew. I've read about it now and think I kinda understand it. So all that we need to know now is whether Auromatic uses BSS as their means of upmixing mono content, without generating any additional information, DSX-style.  Something we will probably never know... TBH I don't know how my expressed preference for extracted content has become the focus of such intense debate. I could care less if Auromatic uses generated or extracted content - it just happens that my preference is for the latter. Others may have the opposite preference.


----------



## RichB

westmd said:


> I think the same way and will buy in-ceilings timbre matched to my mains. I think risk is too high to have somehow two different sound levels (ceiling and listener level) that don't really mix. I heard that during Onkyos weak presentation during the IFA!


There are limits to what room correct can do. It is not speaker correction, it is room correction and limited.
If you take two of the exact same speakers and place one in corner and the other further out in the room they sound different. 
Apply room correction and that can help but it is always better to apply treatments and place your speaker properly.


Also, when a speaker distorts, timbre is changed so a better speaker is also a good idea for those who are into reference levels.
(Which is why a well built coaxial design can be a better solution for some than a 3 inch paper cone.) 


- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> BTW - for folks who are slightly flipping out about the comments in the white paper about "full range" performance for ceiling speakers and "timbre matching" them to your other speakers (with some positing that it invalidates Roger's point about REQ taking care of small differences)... I wanted to point out that (as I'm watching the Home Theater Geeks podcast right now) the two Dolby reps had this to say on the topic (with my bolding for emphasis):
> 
> 1) Brett Crockett, when asked about the requirements of ceiling speakers: "You have to take into account that full range signals are going to be sent to those speakers. So they have to handle bass, either inherently through the speaker *or through bass management* and that's handled by the AVR."
> 
> 2) Craig Eggers, when asked about timbre matching of height channels: "Timbre is important.... but, in the case of the overhead speakers as well as the Dolby enabled speakers, we've been working very very closely with equalization partners, and *we expect that the room EQ can balance out any timbre mismatches to provide a satisfactory listening experience*. Obviously, in all cases ... you should try to timbre match them, *but the good news is that the room EQ is doing a very very good job* in the efforts that we've seen here."
> 
> So there you have it, straight from Dolby.


Nice rebuttal there, batpig. +1


----------



## ss9001

the white paper gives the ideal, the spokesmen (who are also promoting ) give the practical. we're good


----------



## pletwals

I have been reading the Dolby speaker guidelines about the placement of the L/R Center and the L/R Screen speakers... Very confusing at first, until...

Remember when we first saw the layout with 24 speakers positions @ 15° from one another (24 x 15° = 360°)? That it was odd that the L/R Main speakers were indicated @ 45° off axis? After reading the paper, 45° is exactly where Dolby puts the L/R Main, if both L/R Center and L/R Screen are used! They don't state it as such, but it is the only possibility.

As follows with 7 front speakers:
1/ Center @ 0°
2/ L/R Center @ +/- 15°
3/ L/R Screen @ +/- 30°
*4/ L/R Main @ +/- 45°*

Without the L/R Screen, it's business as usual with the L/R Center @ +/- 15° and L/R Main @ +/- 30°.


----------



## srjinatl

ss9001 said:


> Same experience in Atlanta. Local BB-Mag store where I live can't even demo speakers after several visits; their switching control system is down and they can't find the key to open the cabinet to reboot it
> 
> I called the main Perimeter Mall Magnolia Design Center last Friday and they are totally clueless about Atmos. They have no idea what it's about, if they're selling Pioneer's speakers, or going to have a demo room. Totally useless as a retailer! they couldn't even demo some ceiling speaker I wanted to listen to, plus they only had 1, not 1 pair, but 1, in stock. How do you end up with or sell only one?
> 
> I told the sales assoc at Perimeter Des Ctr they should check their own company web site home page, where Atmos Coming Soon is plastered all over it and learn something.
> 
> IF Magnolia were a competent retailer, they would have all their store managers up to speed and IF the managers were competent, they would do some initial training of their salespeople to know what it's about and what the store's plans are.
> 
> Clearly, the ones in Atlanta aren't competent. I can almost excuse a BB-Mag but not the main design center. IMHO, either corporate Magnolia is doing a poor job of rolling it out or Atlanta management is incompetent and don't deserve the job. The guy at the local BB-Mag store at least knew something about Atmos but there's no excuse for the main Design Center to be ignorant about it. this is the 2nd time I've called them with the same ignorant results.
> 
> And BB management wonders why people showroom them...how do you sell speakers if people can't listen to them?
> 
> the speaker selector issue has gone on for weeks, according to the BB sales guy. one has to wonder if the mgr just picks his toes?
> 
> IF BB or Magnolia go out of business, they deserve their fate. I gave up on BB years ago for major AV purchases.


It sounds like the situation hasn't improved at that location. I went to several Best Buy locations in the Atlanta area last year around this time and the Perimeter location's speaker panel for in-walls was not working for the right side rows that happened to have the speakers that I wanted to audition. I waited around for several weeks before just giving up. Sounds like they have given up on doing this kind of feature area right - which makes it a very expensive waste of retail space. Maybe Fry's in Atlanta will have an Atmos setup at some point that we can listen to. 


Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk HD


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Explain to me what there is in a mono recording that can be extracted to create the requires spatial cues for upmixing to several channels.


I cannot. You are implicitly asking me for the 'how' for which I have no clue. I can only explain to you what I like to be extracted from a mono source to achieve a more realistic playback sound resembling the recording venue: the spatial cues (reverberation) that we can hear and therefore are present in the original recording, to be subsequently send to elevated channels in an appropriate manner.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> I cannot. You are implicitly asking me for the 'how' for which I have no clue. I can only explain to you what I like to be extracted from a mono source to achieve a more realistic playback sound resembling the recording venue: the spatial cues (reverberation) that we can hear and therefore are present in the original recording, to be subsequently send to elevated channels in an appropriate manner.


Yes, I like these cues to be extracted too, rather than created. It's way off topic in this thread, so I am bowing out of the discussion now as I have made my position on this clear. It's all preference anyway wrt to upmixing.


----------



## srjinatl

sikclown said:


> Wouldn't they though? Aren't ceiling speakers designed to use the enclosure as a kind of box?


That depends on the design of the in-wall or in-ceiling speaker. Some like Triads are built with their own enclosure and do not depend on the wall or ceiling cavity while others do not come that way and do rely on the wall cavity. If those speakers falk into the latter camp then you can't really judge them until they are installed in the actual location in-wall or in-ceiling. 

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk HD


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I like these cues to be extracted too, rather than created. It's way off topic in this thread, so I am bowing out of the discussion now as I have made my position on this clear. It's all preference anyway wrt to upmixing.


Agreed.


----------



## westmd

Dolby once told us to use Dipoles to simulate long arrays of speakers like in a cinema, now they condemn them due to the fact that we have a discrete signal. Niw they are telling us to use wide dispersion speakers to simulate the height of the cinema, even though it is also a discrete channel. IMHO I think both statements contradict each other. Either the Dipoles are still okay or no wide dispersion from the ceiling.
Honestly I don't want to simulate a big multiplex but have the best sound possible within my own walls. I am going now for good pointable in-ceiling speakers. Just my 0.02!


----------



## pletwals

IMO, it's physically almost impossible to use 24 ground level speakers like the drawing on p3 suggests for a 3-row HT. Say the room is very wide and permits equidistant speaker distance of 10 feet to MLP. This results in only 80 cm (31 inch) distance from tweeter to tweeter. How is anybody getting in or out, unless there is a floor hatch?


----------



## Bruce Lowekamp

westmd said:


> Dolby once told us to use Dipoles to simulate long arrays of speakers like in a cinema, now they condemn them due to the fact that we have a discrete signal. Niw they are telling us to use wide dispersion speakers to simulate the height of the cinema, even though it is also a discrete channel. IMHO I think both statements contradict each other. Either the Dipoles are still okay or no wide dispersion from the ceiling.
> Honestly I don't want to simulate a big multiplex but have the best sound possible within my own walls. I am going now for good pointable in-ceiling speakers. Just my 0.02!


As someone with a very non-ideal HT environment (sideways in the end of a long family room open on the far side), I still believe in dipoles to make up for non-ideal speaker placement. I'm willing to believe that in an ideal environment with a single MLP monopoles are best---that just doesn't describe my HT.

It's nice that the Atmos speaker WP starts by saying MLP should be equidistant from all speakers. That's probably less than 1% of the AVS audience...

Bruce


----------



## kbarnes701

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> As someone with a very non-ideal HT environment (sideways in the end of a long family room open on the far side), I still believe in dipoles to make up for non-ideal speaker placement. I'm willing to believe that in an ideal environment with a single MLP monopoles are best---that just doesn't describe my HT.
> 
> It's nice that the Atmos speaker WP starts by saying MLP should be equidistant from all speakers. That's probably less than 1% of the AVS audience...
> 
> Bruce


I think they are 'ideal' locations - the locations one would choose in a perfect situation. If we can't or don't want to sit equidistant from all speakers then we have to compromise, but clearly Dolby will give their 'best' recommendations. The rest is up to us - how picky we are, how much flexibility we have, WAF, etc. I have tried to get as close to their recommendations as I can. Some of my speakers are within spec and some cannot be due to my room - for example, my surrounds are not at 1.2 times the height of the LCR speakers and they cannot be. Am I worrying about this? No, because my surrounds work very well for me with 5.1 in their 'non-recommended' positions so I expect they will carry on working well. Will I get a 'perfect' Atmos presentation in my room? Probably not, but it will be better than what I currently have. Mostly, I am within spec, particularly wrt to my ceiling speakers and my LCR. But those surrounds just have to fit in with my room circumstances.


----------



## kbarnes701

pletwals said:


> IMO, it's physically almost impossible to use 24 ground level speakers like the drawing on p3 suggests for a 3-row HT. Say the room is very wide and permits equidistant speaker distance of 10 feet to MLP. This results in only 80 cm (31 inch) distance from tweeter to tweeter. How is anybody getting in or out, *unless there is a floor hatch*?


Hmmm... what's the WAF on that?


----------



## Bruce Lowekamp

ss9001 said:


> some sobering thoughts from Bill Hunt on home video industry. his comments are about 4K Blu-ray but one *could* substitute Atmos and see the same problem because its intrinsic to how the main studios view us as consumers & the market. not that I'm a Nostradomus but I think we all can see where he's coming from.
> 
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/090814_1530
> 
> notice his comments about digital delivery & studios decreasing their interest in discs.
> ...


I've always appreciated Bill Hunt's thoughts, and I think in this case he is totally on target. While it would be nice if 4K is supported, hardly anyone can benefit from it. Even among enthusiasts, screensize and distance rarely require more than 1080P. If it was free to add 4K to releases, it might happen, but I think the math goes against any production studio making an investment in producing 4K material that hardly anyone can benefit from.

Atmos, I'm hoping, is slightly different. For Atmos to succeed we need it to be supported in a $250 sound bar. Fortunately with the "atmos enabled" speakers, I think there's a hope of it appearing in $500 HTIB with soundbars or small satellites. And, honestly, I think it would add something to the experience even in that price range.

The problem I'm afraid of is that Dolby isn't taking the right business strategy here. They should be aiming to get Atmos into theaters (successful here---theaters and content are being made) and then capitalize with the mass market by getting it into everyone's next HT system.

It *should* be easy to make Atmos media available---after all there are already theatrical releases. But I'm afraid they're trying to also make money in the production of bluray Atmos discs. And that's a disaster---a disaster like having only one title at launch. Assuming Bill Hunt is right that studios aren't investing in home video production, Dolby should have made it free to take an Atmos theatrical release and produce and Atmos BluRay. So Dolby gives away disc production for free and capitalizes on the mass market. Unfortunately, it looks like it requires more investment (in equipment and production time) from the studios, so we're not seeing a lot of engagement from the studios on their side of the equation.

Would love to be wrong on that.

Bruce


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> I think they are 'ideal' locations - the locations one would choose in a perfect situation. If we can't or don't want to sit equidistant from all speakers then we have to compromise, but clearly Dolby will give their 'best' recommendations. The rest is up to us - how picky we are, how much flexibility we have, WAF, etc. I have tried to get as close to their recommendations as I can. Some of my speakers are within spec and some cannot be due to my room - for example, my surrounds are not at 1.2 times the height of the LCR speakers and they cannot be. Am I worrying about this? No, because my surrounds work very well for me with 5.1 in their 'non-recommended' positions so I expect they will carry on working well. Will I get a 'perfect' Atmos presentation in my room? Probably not, but it will be better than what I currently have. Mostly, I am within spec, particularly wrt to my ceiling speakers and my LCR. But those surrounds just have to fit in with my room circumstances.



Keith,

Are your side surrounds Monopole or Dipole and at what degrees are they positioned (azimuth?)?

Also, how wide is your room?

...Glenn


----------



## Nightlord

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> If it was free to add 4K to releases, it might happen, but I think the math goes against any production studio making an investment in producing 4K material that hardly anyone can benefit from.


You think the images when you go to the movies is as sharp as you could want? I can understand what you say if we were only considering the home market, but if the studios produce 4k for real theaters, then it's not an issue to put it out on 4k BluRay.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Keith,
> 
> Are your side surrounds Monopole or Dipole and at what degrees are they positioned (azimuth?)?
> 
> Also, how wide is your room?
> 
> ...Glenn


They are Tannoy Di6 DCs. So dual concentric monopoles, mounted at 110°. I am very pleased with these. Previously I used M&K SS150T tripoles at 90° but needed to move to 110° to better get ready for Atmos (the relationship between side surrounds and ceiling speakers).

Room is about 11 feet wide that's all.


----------



## Frohlich

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> I've always appreciated Bill Hunt's thoughts, and I think in this case he is totally on target. While it would be nice if 4K is supported, hardly anyone can benefit from it. Even among enthusiasts, screensize and distance rarely require more than 1080P. If it was free to add 4K to releases, it might happen, but I think the math goes against any production studio making an investment in producing 4K material that hardly anyone can benefit from.
> 
> Atmos, I'm hoping, is slightly different. For Atmos to succeed we need it to be supported in a $250 sound bar. Fortunately with the "atmos enabled" speakers, I think there's a hope of it appearing in $500 HTIB with soundbars or small satellites. And, honestly, I think it would add something to the experience even in that price range.
> 
> The problem I'm afraid of is that Dolby isn't taking the right business strategy here. They should be aiming to get Atmos into theaters (successful here---theaters and content are being made) and then capitalize with the mass market by getting it into everyone's next HT system.
> 
> *It *should* be easy to make Atmos media available---after all there are already theatrical releases. But I'm afraid they're trying to also make money in the production of bluray Atmos discs. And that's a disaster---a disaster like having only one title at launch. * Assuming Bill Hunt is right that studios aren't investing in home video production, * Dolby should have made it free to take an Atmos theatrical release and produce and Atmos BluRay.* So Dolby gives away disc production for free and capitalizes on the mass market. Unfortunately, it looks like it requires more investment (in equipment and production time) from the studios, so we're not seeing a lot of engagement from the studios on their side of the equation.
> 
> Would love to be wrong on that.
> 
> Bruce


This ^^^^^


----------



## kbarnes701

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> But I'm afraid they're trying to also make money in the production of bluray Atmos discs. And that's a disaster---*a disaster like having only one title at launch*.


Agree with your post Bruce, but would just say wrt to the bolded section above, that the launch hasn't officially happened yet. It is due at CEDIA so we _might_ get some more content announced there. I stress 'might' though. May be wishful thinking...


----------



## SanchoPanza

What's the 1 (one) Title?

Sorry, must've missed that.


----------



## Frohlich

kbarnes701 said:


> Agree with your post Bruce, but would just say wrt to the bolded section above, that the launch hasn't officially happened yet. It is due at CEDIA so we _might_ get some more content announced there. I stress 'might' though. May be wishful thinking...


While I love your optimism, pretty sure Kris Deering said he received the press packet yesterday and it only listed Transformers. If they had more, they would have told us by now


----------



## ss9001

SanchoPanza said:


> What's the 1 (one) Title?
> 
> Sorry, must've missed that.


Transformers 4 (age of extinction)


----------



## SanchoPanza

Thank you; as my twin 8 year olds, Lee & Jackson, love Transformers, I'll have to buy it, anyway


----------



## FilmMixer

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> Atmos, I'm hoping, is slightly different. For Atmos to succeed we need it to be supported in a $250 sound bar. Fortunately with the "atmos enabled" speakers, I think there's a hope of it appearing in $500 HTIB with soundbars or small satellites. And, honestly, I think it would add something to the experience even in that price range.
> 
> The problem I'm afraid of is that Dolby isn't taking the right business strategy here. They should be aiming to get Atmos into theaters (successful here---theaters and content are being made) and then capitalize with the mass market by getting it into everyone's next HT system.
> 
> It *should* be easy to make Atmos media available---after all there are already theatrical releases. But I'm afraid they're trying to also make money in the production of bluray Atmos discs. And that's a disaster---a disaster like having only one title at launch. Assuming Bill Hunt is right that studios aren't investing in home video production, Dolby should have made it free to take an Atmos theatrical release and produce and Atmos BluRay. So Dolby gives away disc production for free and capitalizes on the mass market. Unfortunately, it looks like it requires more investment (in equipment and production time) from the studios, so we're not seeing a lot of engagement from the studios on their side of the equation.
> 
> Would love to be wrong on that.
> 
> Bruce


I do think you are wrong. 

There is so much going on behind the scenes.... i already know of at least 5 more titles that are "finished" and so many more on the horizon.... I'm talking before the end of year. 

Everyone needs to have some patience.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> While I love your optimism, pretty sure Kris Deering said he received the press packet yesterday and it only listed Transformers. If they had more, they would have told us by now


It's still possible that they are holding something back for CEDIA. But I doubt it, really. The comment from FM above is very encouraging though... Id be happy with 15 titles by Christmas and more to come in the NY.


----------



## SanchoPanza

FM, care to name them?


----------



## htpcforever

pletwals said:


> IMO, it's physically almost impossible to use 24 ground level speakers like the drawing on p3 suggests for a 3-row HT. Say the room is very wide and permits equidistant speaker distance of 10 feet to MLP. This results in only 80 cm (31 inch) distance from tweeter to tweeter. How is anybody getting in or out, unless there is a floor hatch?


Think bigger - have a motorized wall section that swings open to allow access. She will appreciate the cool factor.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

Where did Dolby come up with that speaker naming convention? In a 9.1.2 system, the wides are "front surrounds", surrounds become "rear surrounds", and rear surrounds become "back speakers". Kind of silly to call the side speakers "rear surrounds".


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> I do think you are wrong.
> 
> There is so much going on behind the scenes.... i already know of at least 5 more titles that are "finished" and so many more on the horizon.... I'm talking before the end of year.
> 
> Everyone needs to have some patience.




Did you use spell check? Would that be patience, or patients? 




J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I hear that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is coming out on Atmos. Great movie for committed early Atmos adopters who think that the word patience means patients!


----------



## skads_187

still trying to catch up reading on this thread, just wanted to know a few things if someone can help me out, 

from the document : Mounting considerations
If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90
degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10
kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For
speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements
should be angled toward the primary listening position.

Would this be a good choice of ceiling speakers facing downwards? Paradigm AMS-150R (4 of them for a 7.1.4 setup)
or it doesnt have a wide enough dispersion? Im having a hard time knowing which ceiling speakers do have wide dispersion.
in which case should i purchase a 30 degree angled one? and place it a bit further front from the listening area?


----------



## pletwals

kriktsemaj99 said:


> Where did Dolby come up with that speaker naming convention? In a 9.1.2 system, the wides are "front surrounds", surrounds become "rear surrounds", and rear surrounds become "back speakers". Kind of silly to call the side speakers "rear surrounds".


No, almost:

L/R Wide @ +/- 60°
L/R Surround 1 @ +/-75°
L/R Surround @ +/- 90°
L/R Surround 2 @ +/- 105°
L/R Rear Surround 1 @ +/- 120°
L/R Rear Surround @ +/- 135° (AKA back surround)
L/R Rear Surround 2 @ +/- 145°
L/R Center Surround @ +/- 165°
Center Surround @ 180°


----------



## smurraybhm

sdurani said:


> It is forgiving, as evidenced by the white paper expressing speaker placement in ranges rather than absolutely required angles. What other flexibility were you looking for?


I guess we have different definitions of forgiving. Hey, but I'm on the bandwagon - with a degree or two of caution. It's early in the game.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

kriktsemaj99 said:


> Where did Dolby come up with that speaker naming convention? In a 9.1.2 system, the wides are "front surrounds", surrounds become "rear surrounds", and rear surrounds become "back speakers". Kind of silly to call the side speakers "rear surrounds".





pletwals said:


> No, almost:



Look at the 9.1.2 diagram on page 24 of the white paper. The speakers at the sides (numbered 6) are called "rear surrounds". Kind of confusing, unless they just made a mistake.


----------



## Selden Ball

I have the impression that it was rushed, and already was overdue. (I seem to recall rumors that it was expected to be available last week). Typos, including misplaced labels, are inevitable in cases like that.


----------



## greylight44

Some company has an opportunity to make some money bridging the gap between the max-minimum 7.1.2 (4?) and the 34 possible channel setups. Making an affordable processor (_not _tens of thousands of dollars) will be the trick. Some of us would like to build slowly (or need to ).


----------



## smurraybhm

greylight44 said:


> Some company has an opportunity to make some money bridging the gap between the max-minimum 7.1.2 (4?) and the 34 possible channel setups. Making an affordable processor (_not _tens of thousands of dollars) will be the trick. Some of us would like to build slowly (or need to ).


Your either single or married a more A/V connected spouse than I did. "My" room still has guidelines to follow. No way I get more than 9.2.2 past the home police.


----------



## greylight44

smurraybhm said:


> Your either single or married a more A/V connected spouse than I did. "My" room still has guidelines to follow. No way I get more than 9.2.2 past the home police.


I just don't speak of it. It's a big mystery what goes on in that room.


----------



## pletwals

greylight44 said:


> Some company has an opportunity to make some money bridging the gap between the max-minimum 7.1.2 (4?) and the 34 possible channel setups. Making an affordable processor (_not _tens of thousands of dollars) will be the trick. Some of us would like to build slowly (or need to ).


+1

Take the Marantz AV-7702, priced 2,000. Double it to make it 22.4 and ask 4,000. Et voilà, that will do nicely for me.

I don't want 34 channels but around halfway between 11 and 34 sounds fine...


----------



## westmd

greylight44 said:


> Some company has an opportunity to make some money bridging the gap between the max-minimum 7.1.2 (4?) and the 34 possible channel setups. Making an affordable processor (_not _tens of thousands of dollars) will be the trick. Some of us would like to build slowly (or need to ).


The question is how low we want to decrease our expectations / quality levels. Onkyo cut Audyssey to save money on soft- and hardware. If you remember Lars Mettes report on the Atmos presentation, he said he heard more room filling non-Atmos installations then Dolbys Atmos installation. If for the same amount of money you get a very good and room 5.1 system or a very poor 7.1.4 I would prefer the former. I think it isn't good to push Atmos in everything, it can also harm the brand!


----------



## Frohlich

greylight44 said:


> I just don't speak of it. It's a big mystery what goes on in that room.


Amen brother!!!

*Wife:* what are all the big empty boxes in the garage?

*Me:* "flexor valve" is on the fritz ....had to buy a new one...again!!!!! 

*Wife:* Thats 13 times in the last 2 years 

*Me:* Tell me about it!!!


----------



## greylight44

westmd said:


> The question is how low we want to decrease our expectations / quality levels. Onkyo cut Audyssey to save money on soft- and hardware. If you remember Lars Mettes report on the Atmos presentation, he said he heard more room filling non-Atmos installations then Dolbys Atmos installation. If for the same amount of money you get a very good and room 5.1 system or a very poor 7.1.4 I would prefer the former. I think it isn't good to push Atmos in everything, it can also harm the brand!


Agreed. I know it's early but the only way to get beyond the 7.1.2 or 4, is to lay down some serious cash. There will be a more affordable way to do it, but when, is the question.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> IMHO I think both statements contradict each other.


They don't contradict each other. 

Dipoles are wide dispersion speakers with a null (quiet zone) in their dispersion pattern. Sitting in the null of a dipole speaker gives a better impression of a speaker array than using a direct-firing monopole speaker (which sounds nothing like what you hear in a commercial theatre or dubbing stage). 

Dolby is saying that the overhead speakers should have wide enough dispersion to cover all the listeners. But these speakers don't need to have a null in their dispersion pattern for the overhead imaging they are trying to create. That doesn't contradict with using surround speakers that are specifically designed to mimic an array.


westmd said:


> Honestly I don't want to simulate a big multiplex but have the best sound possible within my own walls.


Best sound possible for you. Can you understand that other people have different preferences than you? For them, the "best sound possible" is the one that recreates the experience they enjoyed when originally viewing the movie in a commercial theatre.


----------



## pletwals

westmd said:


> The question is how low we want to decrease our expectations / quality levels. Onkyo cut Audyssey to save money on soft- and hardware. If you remember Lars Mettes report on the Atmos presentation, he said he heard more room filling non-Atmos installations then Dolbys Atmos installation. If for the same amount of money you get a very good and room 5.1 system or a very poor 7.1.4 I would prefer the former. I think it isn't good to push Atmos in everything, it can also harm the brand!


Lars Mette is a vendor of high end gear. Think diamond tweeters etc, costing thousands.. He doesn't like MultEQ-XT either. You have to put his opinions into perspective. 

There's enough options costing 300-500 per speaker including amplification. A Pair for my birthday, a pair for Christmas...


----------



## sdurani

smurraybhm said:


> I guess we have different definitions of forgiving.


Maybe not. I wasn't arguing with you, just curious what other flexibility you were looking for besides placement.


----------



## batpig

pletwals said:


> No, almost:
> 
> L/R Wide @ +/- 60°
> L/R Surround 1 @ +/-75°
> L/R Surround @ +/- 90°
> L/R Surround 2 @ +/- 105°
> L/R Rear Surround 1 @ +/- 120°
> L/R Rear Surround @ +/- 135° (AKA back surround)
> L/R Rear Surround 2 @ +/- 145°
> L/R Center Surround @ +/- 165°
> Center Surround @ 180°


What you missed is that Dolby wasn't even consistent on nomenclature within adjacent pages of their own white paper. I pointed this out in a post yesterday (now buried a few pages back) but the 9.1.2 diagrams have a divergent nomenclature reserved only for those two pages.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> I've always appreciated Bill Hunt's thoughts, and I think in this case he is totally on target. While it would be nice if 4K is supported, hardly anyone can benefit from it. Even among enthusiasts, screensize and distance rarely require more than 1080P. If it was free to add 4K to releases, it might happen, but I think the math goes against any production studio making an investment in producing 4K material that hardly anyone can benefit from.
> 
> Atmos, I'm hoping, is slightly different. For Atmos to succeed we need it to be supported in a $250 sound bar. Fortunately with the "atmos enabled" speakers, I think there's a hope of it appearing in $500 HTIB with soundbars or small satellites. And, honestly, I think it would add something to the experience even in that price range.
> 
> The problem I'm afraid of is that Dolby isn't taking the right business strategy here. They should be aiming to get Atmos into theaters (successful here---theaters and content are being made) and then capitalize with the mass market by getting it into everyone's next HT system.
> 
> It *should* be easy to make Atmos media available---after all there are already theatrical releases. But I'm afraid they're trying to also make money in the production of bluray Atmos discs. And that's a disaster---a disaster like having only one title at launch. Assuming Bill Hunt is right that studios aren't investing in home video production, Dolby should have made it free to take an Atmos theatrical release and produce and Atmos BluRay. So Dolby gives away disc production for free and capitalizes on the mass market. Unfortunately, it looks like it requires more investment (in equipment and production time) from the studios, so we're not seeing a lot of engagement from the studios on their side of the equation.
> 
> Would love to be wrong on that.
> 
> Bruce


That's why Panasonic seems to be giving DTS-UHD an opening with UHD Blu-ray... anyone can use it to create rendering and disc mastering software. Dolby Atmos is proprietary and costlier. Don't count out DTS yet... and hope there is a DTS-UHD update for current Atmos products.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SanchoPanza said:


> FM, care to name them?


He'd be in some trouble if he did.


----------



## westmd

pletwals said:


> Lars Mette is a vendor of high end gear. Think diamond tweeters etc, costing thousands.. He doesn't like MultEQ-XT either. You have to put his opinions into perspective.
> 
> There's enough options costing 300-500 per speaker including amplification. A Pair for my birthday, a pair for Christmas...


Give me your adress and birthday and I will send you one!

I know Lars Mette I was in contact with him before. What I just wanted to state that things have also their price. And also I saw the statement of how many people have 7.1. now how many people will invest in 7.1.4 and more channels even less people will be interested in. Batch sizes will be small and RnD costs have to paid by the few people who wants 12.4.8! This is why the standard companies not even start with these products.


----------



## W3Rman

pletwals said:


> IMO, it's physically almost impossible to use 24 ground level speakers like the drawing on p3 suggests for a 3-row HT. Say the room is very wide and permits equidistant speaker distance of 10 feet to MLP. This results in only 80 cm (31 inch) distance from tweeter to tweeter. *How is anybody getting in or out, unless there is a floor hatch*?


Can somebody crunch the WAF figures on that one :laugh:


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> I do think you are wrong.
> 
> There is so much going on behind the scenes.... i already know of at least 5 more titles that are "finished" and so many more on the horizon.... I'm talking before the end of year.
> 
> Everyone needs to have some patience.


*thank you* 
i'll now step away from the edge and not jump. As i thought that Transformers 4 was it, it was bringing back thoughts of when 3D Blu-rays started to trickle out


----------



## Scott Simonian

And look how many 3D Blu-rays exist now.

Quite a bit.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> And look how many 3D Blu-rays exist now.
> 
> Quite a bit.


when ever i get a new blu-ray disc i always try to get the combo pack 3D Blu-ray DVD and digital copy. 
lets hope they offer the same with atmos


----------



## Scott Simonian

There will be no choice. It will be Atmos for everyone.


----------



## westmd

sdurani said:


> Can you understand that other people have different preferences than you? For them, the "best sound possible" is the one that recreates the experience they enjoyed when originally viewing the movie in a commercial theatre.


But then I also want sticky carpet, seat neighbours who talk ob their phones during the movie and overpriced coke...


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> But then I also want sticky carpet, seat neighbours who talk ob their phones during the movie and overpriced coke...


How original.


----------



## Nightlord

westmd said:


> The question is how low we want to decrease our expectations / quality levels. Onkyo cut Audyssey to save money on soft- and hardware. If you remember Lars Mettes report on the Atmos presentation, he said he heard more room filling non-Atmos installations then Dolbys Atmos installation. If for the same amount of money you get a very good and room 5.1 system or a very poor 7.1.4 I would prefer the former. I think it isn't good to push Atmos in everything, it can also harm the brand!


I can understand that... Given how enveloping my cinema is, you would not have to fail much in an Atmos demo room to perform worse. But that does not mean that I can't improve what I have even more implementing Atmos....


----------



## Nightlord

westmd said:


> but then i also want sticky carpet, seat neighbours who talk ob their phones during the movie and overpriced coke...


*rotflmao*


----------



## kokishin

westmd said:


> But then I also want sticky carpet, seat neighbours who talk ob their phones during the movie and overpriced coke...


Invite me to your home and I'll handle all the logistics. I'll even throw in flat coke, stale popcorn, sticky seats, seat kickers, noisy teenagers, and crying babies.


----------



## Frohlich

FilmMixer said:


> I do think you are wrong.
> 
> There is so much going on behind the scenes.... i already know of at least 5 more titles that are "finished" and so many more on the horizon.... I'm talking before the end of year.
> 
> Everyone needs to have some patience.


Thank you sir. I was one of the ones spreading doom and gloom yesterday with the single announcement of transformers. I felt like they $hit the bed. Now back to figuring out what Atmos hardware and speakers to buy


----------



## ss9001

FilmMixer said:


> I do think you are wrong.
> 
> There is so much going on behind the scenes.... i already know of at least 5 more titles that are "finished" and so many more on the horizon.... I'm talking before the end of year.
> 
> Everyone needs to have some patience.


this is very good to hear you say & encouraging  I'll hold off on doom & gloom.

ss9001 must be more positive & patient 

Best Buy still sucks tho


----------



## sdrucker

ss9001 said:


> this is very good to hear you say & encouraging  I'll hold off on doom & gloom.
> 
> ss9001 must be more positive & patient
> 
> Best Buy still sucks tho


 
We have to understand that the rest of the world doesn't think of Atmos as THE REVOLUTION (in capitals) that us on the bleeding edge think it is, let alone have the knowledge we do of what's coming down the pipeline right before and after CEDIA. The clock for Blu-Rays with Atmos really starts ticking after the holiday season, to be honest, once purchases of the mainstream AVRs pick up stride during the overhyped silly season post-Thanksgiving at your favorite BB with those circa $1K units. 

Meanwhile, enjoy your Dolby Surround and endless views of Transformers .


----------



## quinn4528

westmd said:


> I don' think you have to have completely separate speakers for Auro and Atmos. As mentioned before I will use some in ceiling speakers with pointable mid and high range both as Atmos as well as Auro speaker. I will try first with a second pair if these installed to use them for top front (Atmos) as well as front height (Auro). If that shouldn't work I will buy another pair to separate top front and front height. So max. 6 ceiling channels.


That would be great if you could use the same set of speakers for both Auro front height and Atmos top front. My question would be what height angle to the main listening area would you need to achieve for both Auro frontt height and Atmos top front? The Atmos WP indicates 30 to 55 degrees. Not sure on Auro. What would be the ideal?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

batpig said:


> What you missed is that Dolby wasn't even consistent on nomenclature within adjacent pages of their own white paper. I pointed this out in a post yesterday (now buried a few pages back) but the 9.1.2 diagrams have a divergent nomenclature reserved only for those two pages.


Maybe Dolby isn't interested in 9.1.2 since the Wides used are advocated by the competition (DSX and NEO:X)... 

I have been studying chapter 4, not chapter 3.
Anyway, this earlier released scheme (see below) turns out to be accurate after all:
L/R Main are supposed to be @ +/- 45°. 
L/R Center are nearest to Center. 
L/R Screen are nearest to L/R Main.
Crazy stuff...

More logical:
L/R Front Height are @ +/- 30° horizontal, against the front wall.
L/R Rear Height are @ +/- 30° horizontal, against the back wall.

It's all rather unrealistic regarding the listener level speakers, even for large rooms. In the cinema-Atmos paper, it's stated "30° or less" between each speaker, for all the listeners in the center of the theater. Now, it's suddenly 15° from MLP!










More realistic than the above (ahum, relatively spoken...) would be a speaker at each 20° point:
Center @ 0°
L/R Center @ +/- 20°
L/R Main @ +/- 40°
L/R Wide @ +/- 60°
L/R Surround 1 @ +/- 80°
L/R Surround @ +/- 100°
L/R Surround 2 @ +/- 120°
Continuing to the rear with 30° gaps:
L/R Rear Surround @ +/- 150°
Center Surround @ 180°

This comes to 16 speakers. Add 10 elevated speakers. Mama, I want my 26.2 processor with 16.2.10 Atmos!

Such fun!


----------



## NorthSky

CEDIA starts Thursday, after tomorrow, on September eleven? ...Maybe we'll know more about Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles for Christmas.


----------



## Waboman

Swung by BBY during lunch today to pick up the new Cap 2 blu. Decided to mosey on over to the Magnolia store and be dazzled by Atmos. Lol. It was crickets and tumbleweeds in there. When someone finally showed up I asked them about Atmos. Deer in the headlights. Already wasted too much time waiting around. Had to leave. Seems no one outside of AVS has even heard of this new fangled Atmos thingy.


----------



## batpig

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's all rather unrealistic regarding the listener level speakers, even for large rooms. In the cinema-Atmos paper, it's stated "30° or less" between each speaker, for all the listeners in the center of the theater. Now, it's suddenly 15° from MLP!


I guess I missed the part where they twisted your arm and forced you to install all of those speakers in your room? 

That is the MAXIMUM capability. 

Anyway the +/- 45° from MLP for the front mains isn't really true for 'standard' layouts; all of the diagrams in section 3 indicate the traditional 22°-30° spread for FR/FL speakers that you would expect with a traditional 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 listener level layout.

I would imagine that would only be applicable in a GIANT home theater where you had room for 5 or 7 front channels.


----------



## chi_guy50

ss9001 said:


> this is very good to hear you say & encouraging  I'll hold off on doom & gloom.
> 
> ss9001 must be more positive & patient
> 
> *Best Buy still sucks tho*


As I fellow resident of the ATL, I must agree. I was at the Buckhead BB yesterday and asked whether they would be setting up their Outer Mongolia, oh, er, uh . . . Magnolia showroom for Atmos demos; I got a puzzled look and a downcast shake of the head no. 

But then, as long as I was there, I did pick up a TiVo Mini for $85--including free Product Lifetime Service--by asking them to match Amazon's published price (now OBE). I like to support the local B&M when practicable, and if I can land a sweet deal in the process, then it's a win-win.


----------



## krozman

See that's just the thing. All you guys are going over and over the proper atmos specs, when 95% of the time you will be using the new "amazing" upmixer. Give me upmixer reviews!


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> L/R Center are nearest to Center.
> L/R Screen are nearest to L/R Main.


Other way 'round: L/R Screen are just outside the Centre speaker, then L/R Centre, then L/R speakers. 

Still, a 90 degree soundstage is really wide. Not even the largest of commercial cinemas use 7 speakers across the front, so I don't know why Dolby worked this into a home layout.


----------



## brwsaw

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round: L/R Screen are just outside the Centre speaker, then L/R Centre, then L/R speakers.
> 
> Still, a 90 degree soundstage is really wide. Not even the largest of commercial cinemas use 7 speakers across the front, so I don't know why Dolby worked this into a home layout.



Object based content?


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> BTW - for folks who are slightly flipping out about the comments in the white paper about "full range" performance for ceiling speakers and "timbre matching" them to your other speakers (with some positing that it invalidates Roger's point about REQ taking care of small differences)... I wanted to point out that (as I'm watching the Home Theater Geeks podcast right now) the two Dolby reps had this to say on the topic (with my bolding for emphasis):
> 
> 1) Brett Crockett, when asked about the requirements of ceiling speakers: "You have to take into account that full range signals are going to be sent to those speakers. So they have to handle bass, either inherently through the speaker *or through bass management* and that's handled by the AVR."
> 
> 2) Craig Eggers, when asked about timbre matching of height channels: "Timbre is important.... but, in the case of the overhead speakers as well as the Dolby enabled speakers, we've been working very very closely with equalization partners, and *we expect that the room EQ can balance out any timbre mismatches to provide a satisfactory listening experience*. Obviously, in all cases ... you should try to timbre match them, *but the good news is that the room EQ is doing a very very good job* in the efforts that we've seen here."
> 
> So there you have it, straight from Dolby.


1.a) Bass management for the overhead Dolby Atmos speakers (2 or 4 of them): 
---> We all know than an 80Hz crossover is a good one generally. So them overhead speakers should still be decent in their extension. ...Say @ 60Hz or so (40Hz even better). 

1.b) Bass management for the up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers (2 or 4 of them):
---> They already have their own special network with cut off @ approx 180-200Hz (the Atmos ones, not your own), then the bass below is redirected to their respective channel speakers. The rest is DSP and bass managed in the receiver (like normal, say 80Hz x-over for bass @ and below going to the sub).
* The notch; is applied in the receiver, right? [email protected] around 10kHz. 
** And the detached modules; they have the same characteristics as the ones attached to their base, right?
♦ So, if you want to use your own modules (not Dolby Atmos designed ones), that wouldn't work optimally @ all, unless you can modify them yourself to Dolby Atmos standards, and with the proper angle of course.

_________

2) Timbre Matching:
--> Best from the same speaker manufacturer; the laws of acoustics still remain.
- REQ system from various provenances; they only can do so much but they cannot timbre match two different speakers @ two different locations. Expectation is not acoustical science.

* Yes, it is flexible; it has to, if it wants penetration. But timbre matched speakers is still and will always remain best.

_______


Height of the Side and Back Surrounds:
------> If they are say five-six feet or so from the floor; I would lower them to three-four feet (near ear level or slightly above). That is my strong belief for optimal Dolby Atmos experience.
For some people they simply won't bother (too complicated, too much work, too much construction remodeling). Ok, I understand...but not optimal performance.

_______

*** This post is only my own personal opinion. I am not an expert, but just a member here @ AVS who read attentively about everything Dolby Atmos, without knowing all the inside stuff, and who uses common sense (logic) @ the end of theoretical ideas. Next will be my own experimentations...in a near future. And it's real cool what I learned so far from the comments of them people who have experienced Dolby Atmos in normal size rooms, like ours. ...And all the Dolby Atmos papers, and interviews, of course.


----------



## sdurani

brwsaw said:


> Object based content?


That's what I've been told, Atmos uses objects.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round: L/R Screen are just outside the Centre speaker, then L/R Centre, then L/R speakers.
> 
> Still, a 90 degree soundstage is really wide. Not even the largest of commercial cinemas use 7 speakers across the front, so I don't know why Dolby worked this into a home layout.


Ah, yes. Thanks for correcting. Very confusing: the 3 Center speakers are separated by the L/R Screen. I fail to see the logic in that. 

Dolby has some explaining to do regarding the use of 7 front speakers.


----------



## greylight44

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Ah, yes. Thanks for correcting. Very confusing: the 3 Center speakers are separated by the L/R Screen. I fail to see the logic in that.
> 
> Dolby has some explaining to do regarding the use of 7 front speakers.


It completes the circle.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

batpig said:


> I guess I missed the part where they twisted your arm and forced you to install all of those speakers in your room?
> 
> That is the MAXIMUM capability.
> 
> Anyway the +/- 45° from MLP for the front mains isn't really true for 'standard' layouts; all of the diagrams in section 3 indicate the traditional 22°-30° spread for FR/FL speakers that you would expect with a traditional 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 listener level layout.
> 
> I would imagine that would only be applicable in a GIANT home theater where you had room for 5 or 7 front channels.


My LCR fronts use SEOS-24, if I were to follow the maximum and put one at each 15°, there would only be 5 inch between each speaker.  
I will stick to just three!

Things might get a bit crazy later with the rest though... 10.2.8 if/when some realistically priced ditto processor ever appears. It comes down to an extra 7-channel amp (Emo UPA-700 now on sale for $360, I just bought one) and 7 extra speaker kits ($150 each with MDF, Volt V-10) starting from 7.2.4. This paper really fires my appetite.


----------



## westmd

quinn4528 said:


> That would be great if you could use the same set of speakers for both Auro front height and Atmos top front. My question would be what height angle to the main listening area would you need to achieve for both Auro frontt height and Atmos top front? The Atmos WP indicates 30 to 55 degrees. Not sure on Auro. What would be the ideal?


Auro only stated speakers should be above main speakers. No angles. Whilst my rear top fulfills both requirements (angle and above main) my Atmos top front speaker will be at 2meters halfway between MLP and screen, which is 4.30m as I will use 4 Jamo IC608FG LCR which all will be slightly guided at MLP I will just take a chance to test this arrangement for both Auro and Atmos. If Auro doesn't work acwill leave top front as dedicated Atmos speaker and will install two add'l speakesvdirectly in front of screen, so more or less in line with left and right main speaker equally distant.
So for me it will be trial and error.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> Swung by BBY during lunch today to pick up the new Cap 2 blu. Decided to mosey on over to the Magnolia store and be dazzled by Atmos. Lol. It was crickets and tumbleweeds in there. When someone finally showed up I asked them about Atmos. Deer in the headlights. Already wasted too much time waiting around. Had to leave. Seems no one outside of AVS has even heard of this new fangled Atmos thingy.


Not surprised really. It's still so early from the POV of the retailers. The likes of us are on the bleeding edge and we are all following this closely before there was really anything to go on. From their POV they probably don't even have Atmos equipped inventory and they certainly don't have any content to show it off in.

I'd give it a couple months but then again I wouldn't go to a BB to demo something like this.  Though I am lucky to have attended the demo I don't need to hear it in some store to know it's the next big thing and worth having. But that's me.  I've been advocating overhead surround (or at least very interested in it) for about a decade now.


----------



## greylight44

erwinfrombelgium said:


> My LCR fronts use SEOS-24, if I were to follow the maximum and put one at each 15°, there would only be 5 inch between each speaker.
> I will stick to just three!
> 
> Things might get a bit crazy later with the rest though... 10.2.8 if/when some realistically priced ditto processor ever appears. It comes down to an extra 7-channel amp (Emo UPA-700 now on sale for $360, I just bought one) and 7 extra speaker kits ($150 each with MDF, Volt V-10) starting from 7.2.4. This paper really fires my appetite.


I think I'd go with the 7 fronts (where the action is), before I'd go with the 7 rears. I like the idea of 5 fronts like the old 5 stage channels on 70mm 6 tracks!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Meanwhile, enjoy your Dolby Surround and endless views of Transformers .


I am actually a bit of a Michael Bay fan* and feel that he makes very good movies _of the type that he specialises in_. I prefer the late Tony Scott's movies of that type, but I have no real complaints about Bay's directing abilities. Subject matter, scripts, well, yeah - but direction, no.

HST, even I don't think I could take _endless_ views of Transformers 

So I am greatly heartened at FilmMixer's assertion, from the inside track, that there are many more Atmos offerings in the pipeline. And meanwhile, of course, we have DSU - which Marc has already told us is "very good".

*To wit, I watched, and enjoyed 'Pain & Gain' last night, for the _second_ time! Not a bad action comedy, and with a reasonably sharp script. Still has MB's trademark 3 second shot time though, so no good for Dan


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^^

I'm very excited about DSU. Need to hear more about it. 

Does anyone else own Atmos gear? I know Marc does right now but I haven't heard of anyone else picking up something like the X5200.

I'd prod Marc about the upmixer but I know he has been extremely busy recently.


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I'm very excited about DSU. Need to hear more about it.
> 
> Does anyone else own Atmos gear? I know Marc does right now but I haven't heard of anyone else picking up something like the X5200.
> 
> I'd prod Marc about the upmixer but I know he has been extremely busy recently.


Last update I saw from Marc was that his Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers were supposed to arrive very soon, perhaps this week.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I'm very excited about DSU. Need to hear more about it.
> 
> Does anyone else own Atmos gear? I know Marc does right now but I haven't heard of anyone else picking up something like the X5200.
> 
> I'd prod Marc about the upmixer but I know he has been extremely busy recently.


Me too. My Denon is due to arrive imminently, and everything is in place to just hook it up and I am away. So I will report on DSU the moment I hear it here.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> Last update I saw from Marc was that his Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers were supposed to arrive very soon, perhaps this week.


Yup. Still waiting for his speakers to arrive. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Me too. My Denon is due to arrive imminently, and everything is in place to just hook it up and I am away. So I will report on DSU the moment I hear it here.


Cool! Maybe by the time I get back from CEDIA you will have got your Denon and tried it out maybe.


----------



## markus767

Dolby updated their site with infos on Atmos for home:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html#2
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html


----------



## FirstReflect

Honestly, the layout of the Center, L/R Screen, L/R Front Center, and L/R Front Main speakers is the most confusing thing to me.


I can easily grasp the fairly simple idea of having a speaker every 15° in a circle of sorts around the MLP. But moving the L/R Front Main speakers out to +/- 45° makes no sense. We still have to use those Front Main speakers for all other types of content. I don't know of any speaker placement guide anywhere that suggests +/- 45° placement for the Front Main speakers.


It would have made a lot more sense to have the Front Center at 0°, the L/R Front Center speakers at +/- 15°, the L/R Front Main speakers at +/- 30° as normal, and then have L/R Screen Edge speakers at +/- 45° for people who have absolutely gigantic screens.


To me, that placement and naming convention would have made a lot more sense. I mean, "L/R Front Center" speakers where the Front Main speakers would normally go? How are those "center" speakers in any way? Doesn't make a lick of sense -- haha.


I am also still curious as to how they came up with the 20 listener level speakers number for DSU. They flat out say in that white paper that the DSU does not use any speakers across the front soundstage other than the Center, and L/R Front Mains. So no Front Wides, no L/R Front Centers, and no L/R Screen speakers during DSU. That's still 24 minus 6. The arithmetic just doesn't work out


----------



## jrogers

Just unboxed my x4100w and planning to finish installing TML/TMR speakers in the next day or so, for a 5.1.2 system (for now) - and was hoping I could dig up one of the Atmos trailers with actual Atmos encoding (Leaf, Unfold, Amaze, etc - or better still the Life of Pi On/Off demo) somewhere out there. I have Transformers on pre-order, but it's going to be hard to wait that long. Anyone happen to know if/where I can find one of the demo files or DD Plus streams?


----------



## maikeldepotter

westmd said:


> Auro only stated speakers should be above main speakers. No angles.


Really? What happened with Van Baelen's statement that the elevation angle of the upper layer should be between 25 and 35 degrees, with a defined optimum at 30 degrees. And what about the auro white paper and drawings presented at both the auro3d and stormaudio website showing the upper layer at 30 degrees which was later changed to 40 degrees (without any explanation that I know of BTW)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> CEDIA starts Thursday, after tomorrow, on September eleven? ...Maybe we'll know more about Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles for Christmas.


CEDIA starts on Wednesday. Tomorrow. _It's only a... day... awaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!_


----------



## SoundChex

westmd said:


> *Auro only stated speakers should be above main speakers. *No angles. Whilst my rear top fulfills both requirements (angle and above main) my Atmos top front speaker will be at 2meters halfway between MLP and screen, which is 4.30m as I will use 4 Jamo IC608FG LCR which all will be slightly guided at MLP I will just take a chance to test this arrangement for both Auro and Atmos. If Auro doesn't work acwill leave top front as dedicated Atmos speaker and will install two add'l speakesvdirectly in front of screen, so more or less in line with left and right main speaker equally distant. So for me it will be trial and error.



In this *Auro Technologies* graphic, the "_invisible_" *Height Center* speaker (midway between the *Height Left* and *Height Right* speakers shown) would seem to be definitively placed at a *+30°* elevation:












_


----------



## bargervais

maikeldepotter said:


> Really? What happened with Van Baelen's statement that the elevation angle of the upper layer should be between 25 and 35 degrees, with a defined optimum at 30 degrees. And what about the auro white paper and drawings presented at both the auro3d and stormaudio website showing the upper layer at 30 degrees which was later changed to 40 degrees (without any explanation that I know of BTW)?


I wonder if auro3d should have its own thread I thought this was an home Atmos thread.


----------



## SpenceJT

Having read Dolby's white paper, I am a bit at a loss in that my existing placement for side & back speakers would need to be completely re-configured. They are currently placed about 66" up on my walls, far above Dolby's recommended "listening" height. In addition to this, I have insufficient space within my ceiling cavity due to ducts etc. and my ceiling is made up of 2'x2' acoustical tile. My only hope would be to "try" a pair of Dolby Atmos modules and hope that the sound does not become too diffused or absorbed by the ceiling material. I was considering "experimenting" with my formerly stand-mounted bookshelf speakers, by placing/angling them on top of my oak entertainment towers in the hope that the close proximity and angle of the speakers to the ceiling would help reduce any "localization" of the speakers.

I am pretty much screwed where Atmos is concerned. I guess I'll enjoy having 3D pass-through, Audyssey XT32, and the benefits that newer faster processing can offer over my old Onkyo TX-NR905 (sigh).

Regards,
Spence


----------



## ambesolman

markus767 said:


> Dolby updated their site with infos on Atmos for home:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html#2
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html



According to this, wides are acceptable in 9.1.2!


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## maikeldepotter

bargervais said:


> I wonder if auro3d should have its own thread I thought this was an home Atmos thread.


Good point.


----------



## pasender91

ambesolman said:


> According to this, wides are acceptable in 9.1.2!
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still



Yes it is the case, this has been mentionned already, Atmos supports 9.1.2 with wides (they will play object-related sounds), but in this scenario the wides will stay silent when playing 2.0 or 5.1 legacy soundtracks using Dolby Surround Upmixer


----------



## bargervais

maikeldepotter said:


> Good point.


There is so much to digest with just talking about atmos, I get confused when auro3D is talked about at the same time, I know they are similar but they are different. I'm just trying to set up my atmos gear.


----------



## Roger Dressler

SpenceJT said:


> Having read Dolby's white paper, I am a bit at a loss in that my existing placement for side & back speakers would need to be completely re-configured. They are currently placed about 66" up on my walls, far above Dolby's recommended "listening" height.


Don't worry about that for now. It is not a big issue. Besides, if you ever plan to use your system without the height speakers running, you'll want them where they are.



> In addition to this, I have insufficient space within my ceiling cavity due to ducts etc. and my ceiling is made up of 2'x2' acoustical tile. My only hope would be to "try" a pair of Dolby Atmos modules and hope that the sound does not become too diffused or absorbed by the ceiling material.


Yes, the upfiring speakers may be the ideal in your case. Sounds like your 2x2 tiles are in a suspended ceiling. Have you considered sliding out the panels where the sounds would bounce and replacing them with something non-absorbent? Does not have to be drywall. Anyway, that can wait until after you see how they sound.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Anyone know much about the new modules announced? 

I noticed definitive technology announced modules for 500 a pair, while the Onkyo SKH 410's are 250 a pair... wondering how big a difference there likely is between the two? Anyone seen prices for other options? 

I'm hoping they might sort of match with my Klipsch Chorus II's :/ ?


----------



## SoundChex

bargervais said:


> There is so much to digest with just talking about atmos, I get confused when auro3D is talked about at the same time, I know they are similar but they are different. I'm just trying to set up my atmos gear.



The pertinent question that was asked here is: *What speaker configuration is consistent with both Atmos and Auro-3D requirements?*

More generally I want an answer to the question: *What speaker configuration is consistent with all of Atmos and Auro-3D and DTS-UHD requirements?

*Unfortunately we are still some time away from the answer to that question...!  
_


----------



## westmd

maikeldepotter said:


> Good point.


I find Auro imoortant as well especially during speaker choice and layout design as otherwise the newly built HT has to be completely rebuild if Auro wants to be added. As both formats are out already ( not like DTS UHD) we should at least discuss it here when it comes to speaker layout!


----------



## ambesolman

pasender91 said:


> Yes it is the case, this has been mentionned already, Atmos supports 9.1.2 with wides (they will play object-related sounds), but in this scenario the wides will stay silent when playing 2.0 or 5.1 legacy soundtracks using Dolby Surround Upmixer



Yeah I'd heard that, just thought this meant they changed their minds


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ambesolman said:


> Yeah I'd heard that, just thought this meant they changed their minds
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Looking closely at the new white paper, I can see why they did exclude front wides from current implementations of Dolby Surround, though. The positions for the front wides, at least with the one pair given to us with 9.1.2 in at-home Dolby Atmos, conform to cinema Atmos wides. They're frontal_ side_ surround array speakers, not screen wall speakers. There is a big difference. That's why they wouldn't work well with Dolby Surround up mixing as implemented by the mainstream manufacturers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> Yeah I'd heard that, just thought this meant they changed their minds
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Unfortunately not. They have said from the beginning that they will support these (wides) locations within their suggested layout. It's just the matter of what will go there if used. They will not route any channel information there (or matrix any content there) but object content will. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. With time and more object use in movie mixes there will be more content sent to these locations. 

For example, I'm told that Gravity was a fully object based mix. No channels or "beds" used. I can not confirm that but if it is the case then you will see moderate/heavy use of these speaker locations. 

It only takes a sound mixer to use more and more objects (they will and are now) for these speakers to be lit up more often.


----------



## krozman

I think the idea about the upmixer is that it takes any traditional 5.1 or 7.1 and, depending on the AVR, "easily" converts legacy content to atmos 5.1.X or 7.1.X. The question is whether the experience is an upgrade to your ears. The Denon X4100W or X5200W forces you to make a choice between 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 if you're just using the internal amp. The papers tell you that ceiling speaker positioning is completely different if you're going for 2 vs. 4. Therefore, unless you thrive on putting holes in your ceiling the testing process is going to require a lot of strong testing. 


My entire system consists of RB51ii Klipsch surrounds already, so the pre drilled support threads in the back really help out, and Klipsch techs confirmed that they conform to the sound ranges for ceiling atmos.


----------



## batpig

ambesolman said:


> Yeah I'd heard that, just thought this meant they changed their minds


Did you watch the Home Theater Geeks podcast from a few days ago? The Dolby guys explicitly noted there (confirming what's in the white paper) that wides are NOT used with Dolby Surround upmixer.

However, the wides will be supported with native Atmos content.

So in other words... nothing new at all


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I'm very excited about DSU. Need to hear more about it.
> 
> Does anyone else own Atmos gear? I know Marc does right now but I haven't heard of anyone else picking up something like the X5200.
> 
> I'd prod Marc about the upmixer but I know he has been extremely busy recently.


I've had the X5200 for over a week and posted several times about my experiments with "fake" Atmos modules (pointing standard bookshelf speakers up at the ceiling) used with DSU.

Or maybe you have me on ignore?!  then you will never see this post either! (head explodes)


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I've had the X5200 for over a week and posted several times about my experiments with "fake" Atmos modules (pointing standard bookshelf speakers up at the ceiling) used with DSU.
> 
> Or maybe you have me on ignore?!  then you will never see this post either! (head explodes)


No way! I never ignore anybody on AVS and I certainly pay attention to your posts, BP.

I just must have missed that you had the gear. I thought you had just 'heard' some stuff in one way not that you owned it. 

So what up, brah! Post more about that stuff! I wanna know.


----------



## mlah384

I've been trying to read through this huge thread... i need a nap! lol

Are there any AV processors out that handle Atmos, Auro-3D, DTS-UHD, etc effectively? or are they all promising firmware updates? Will their cpu's be able to handle all this stuff?

Isn't Marantz about to replace their flagship AV Processor soon? I guess to address all this stuff?

Seems like the engineers will eventually say "screw it, just wear headphones and sit on a subwoofer!"... 

Also, what power will be needed for these extra speakers? same as LCR and surrounds? so if you are running a 200w x 7ch amp, will you need to buy more 200w/ch amps to drive the added speakers? or just have enough to hear the added effects?

Thanks!


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Unfortunately not. They have said from the beginning that they will support these (wides) locations within their suggested layout. It's just the matter of what will go there if used. They will not route any channel information there (or matrix any content there) but object content will. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. With time and more object use in movie mixes there will be more content sent to these locations.



Because _upmixing_ is always a _dice-roll_--with no one upmixer always delivering "the best results" for every soundtrack--I'm planning to install *Front Height* speakers for my proposed *Atmos 9.2.2* (_and implicitly_ *Dolby Surround 7.2.2*) system, so that I can make a _comparison_ choice of _upmixer_ between *Dolby Surround 7.2.2* and *DTS Neo:X 11.2* on a _track-by-soundtrack_ basis.

( _This plan subject to revision when I find an *AVR* which also includes both "*Companion to DTS-UHD*" and *Auro-Matic* upmixers!_    )
_


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Anyone know much about the new modules announced?
> 
> I noticed definitive technology announced modules for 500 a pair, while the Onkyo SKH 410's are 250 a pair... wondering how big a difference there likely is between the two? Anyone seen prices for other options?


Another option mentioned earlier in this thread: 

http://www.gspr.com/atlantic/at44da.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> Because _upmixing_ is always a _dice-roll_--with no one upmixer always delivering "the best results" for every soundtrack--I'm planning to install *Front Height* speakers for my proposed *Atmos 9.2.2* (_and implicitly_ *Dolby Surround 7.2.2*) system, so that I can make a _comparison_ choice of _upmixer_ between *Dolby Surround 7.2.2* and *DTS Neo:X 11.2* on a _track-by-soundtrack_ basis.
> 
> ( _This plan subject to revision when I find an *AVR* which also includes both "*Companion to DTS-UHD*" and *Auro-Matic* upmixers!_    )
> _


Cool! Look forward to the comparison.

And right on! Don't we all want a SSP with all these technologies built in? I know I do.


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> I've had the X5200 for over a week and posted several times about my experiments with "fake" Atmos modules (pointing standard bookshelf speakers up at the ceiling) used with DSU.
> 
> Or maybe you have me on ignore?!  then you will never see this post either! (head explodes)


What speakers are you using for F/C/Surr/Sub?


----------



## sdurani

FirstReflect said:


> I can easily grasp the fairly simple idea of having a speaker every 15° in a circle of sorts around the MLP. But moving the L/R Front Main speakers out to +/- 45° makes no sense. We still have to use those Front Main speakers for all other types of content. I don't know of any speaker placement guide anywhere that suggests +/- 45° placement for the Front Main speakers.


Guess the outrage machine needs constant feeding. 

If moving the L/R speakers to ±45° doesn't make sense to you, then DON'T DO IT. There is no gun to your head forcing you to spread your L/R speakers that far apart. 

The white paper also recommends placing the L/R speakers ±22-30° apart. Do that instead. It conforms to the Atmos spec and you can use your L/R speakers "for all other types of content".


----------



## wse

ambesolman said:


> According to this, wides are acceptable in 9.1.2! Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Yes that is good I think that will be my favorite set-up 

9 are:
- three B&W 800D2 L/C/R
- two B&W 802D2 WFR/WFL
- two B&W 802D2 WSR/WSL
-two B&W 805D2 BSR/BSL (TBA)
http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Downloads/Product/Brochure/ENG_FP29491_800-Diamond_brochure.pdf

.2 are:
- two JL audio F113
http://www.soundoctor.com/pdf/JL113_review_HTmag_4-07.pdf

.2 are:
- in the ceiling B&W 7NT
http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Downloads/Product/Archive/ENG_FP13102_Signature-7-NT_info_sheet.pdf


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html

Now all I need is the processor capable of delivering ATMOS, DTS UHD and AURO 3D


----------



## LDBecker

wse said:


> Yes that is good I think that will be my favorite set-up
> 
> 9 are:
> - three B&W 800D2 L/C/R
> - two B&W 802D2 WFR/WFL
> - two B&W 802D2 WSR/WSL
> -two B&W 805D2 BSR/BSL (TBA)
> http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Downloads/Product/Brochure/ENG_FP29491_800-Diamond_brochure.pdf
> 
> .2 are:
> - two JL audio F113
> http://www.soundoctor.com/pdf/JL113_review_HTmag_4-07.pdf
> 
> .2 are:
> - in the ceiling B&W 7NT
> http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Downloads/Product/Archive/ENG_FP13102_Signature-7-NT_info_sheet.pdf
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
> 
> Now all I need is the processor capable of delivering ATMOS, DTS UHD and AURO 3D


Why do those B&W 802s remind me of Dr. Who every time I see them?  Seriously, though - they are beautiful speakers...


----------



## bargervais

SoundChex said:


> The pertinent question that was asked here is: *What speaker configuration is consistent with both Atmos and Auro-3D requirements?*
> 
> More generally I want an answer to the question: *What speaker configuration is consistent with all of Atmos and Auro-3D and DTS-UHD requirements?
> 
> *Unfortunately we are still some time away from the answer to that question...!
> _


Well said now I understand, I'm personally interested in atmos as I will never spend the money for an auro3D receiver that also has atmos. Do you think that DTS-UHD will be a firmware upgrade to an Atmos receiver?


----------



## brwsaw

SpenceJT said:


> Having read Dolby's white paper, I am a bit at a loss in that my existing placement for side & back speakers would need to be completely re-configured. They are currently placed about 66" up on my walls, far above Dolby's recommended "listening" height. In addition to this, I have insufficient space within my ceiling cavity due to ducts etc. and my ceiling is made up of 2'x2' acoustical tile. My only hope would be to "try" a pair of Dolby Atmos modules and hope that the sound does not become too diffused or absorbed by the ceiling material. I was considering "experimenting" with my formerly stand-mounted bookshelf speakers, by placing/angling them on top of my oak entertainment towers in the hope that the close proximity and angle of the speakers to the ceiling would help reduce any "localization" of the speakers.
> 
> I am pretty much screwed where Atmos is concerned. I guess I'll enjoy having 3D pass-through, Audyssey XT32, and the benefits that newer faster processing can offer over my old Onkyo TX-NR905 (sigh).
> 
> Regards,
> Spence


Isn't the main point of an Atmos capable system that it can and will work with most current speaker placement?
Testing the theory with the PS4 for example (object based), the sounds move to different speakers differently than they do during movie watching (currently channel based). Atmos is to use similar movements around the room for the added effect.

I'd try it with an Atmos encoded movie before changing any surround heights to be sure. If they worked well before....


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Another option mentioned earlier in this thread:
> 
> http://www.gspr.com/atlantic/at44da.html


Cool ty, I saw those too, 500 bucks a pair as well. Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if getting the cheap Onkyo's for the rear modules and a nice pair for the front would make sense? Or does Atmos just sort of make equal use of all height speakers? 

So those of you who saw "Dolby Atmos questions answered"... in the segment where they discussed tamber... is there any way to determine how compatible any of these new modules might be with already existing speakers? Is that determined by what material the speaker cone is made out of? 

Or is this a wait and see sort of thing?


----------



## pasender91

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool ty, I saw those too, 500 bucks a pair as well. Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if getting the cheap Onkyo's for the rear modules and a nice pair for the front would make sense? Or does Atmos just sort of make equal use of all height speakers?
> 
> So those of you who saw "Dolby Atmos questions answered"... in the segment where they discussed tamber... is there any way to determine how compatible any of these new modules might be with already existing speakers? Is that determined by what material the speaker cone is made out of?
> 
> Or is this a wait and see sort of thing?


I would guess using different speakers for Top channels is a bad idea, remember what dolby said about timbre-matching? 
And timbre is not defined only by the speaker material, but also the filters, the topology, the shape size and material of the enclosure, so many parameters ...


----------



## SoundChex

bargervais said:


> Well said now I understand, I'm personally interested in atmos as I will never spend the money for an auro3D receiver that also has atmos. *Do you think that DTS-UHD will be a firmware upgrade to an Atmos receiver?*




All we have seen so far is that "*AVR, HTiB and soundbar licensee partners of DTS that utilize Cirrus Logic quad-core audio DSPs will be able to license the DTS-UHD decoder into their product designs beginning Q2 2014*" . . . which does not make the possibility of a *DTS-UHD* firmware update for existing _mass market_* Atmos AVRs* sound so likely to me!

On the other hand, *Auro-3D* likely has very *low *processor requirements, and therefore seems like a good candidate for inclusion in a firmware update. The problem with *Auro-3D* would seem to be the economics|politics of the codec marketplace!
_


----------



## Aras_Volodka

pasender91 said:


> I would guess using different speakers for Top channels is a bad idea, remember what dolby said about timbre-matching?
> And timbre is not defined only by the speaker material, but also the filters, the topology, the shape size and material of the enclosure, so many parameters ...


They advised to match the height speakers to the floors but if I remember he said they've tested with different match ups and said it can work with eq calibration or whatever... for me I've got 4x Klipsch chorus II's which I hope not to have to sell.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

What about other people on here? You guys mostly going to change your floor speakers to accommodate your modules or doing the best you can with eq?


----------



## bargervais

SoundChex said:


> All we have seen so far is that "*AVR, HTiB and soundbar licensee partners of DTS that utilize Cirrus Logic quad-core audio DSPs will be able to license the DTS-UHD decoder into their product designs beginning Q2 2014*" . . . which does not make the possibility of a *DTS-UHD* firmware update for existing _mass market_* Atmos AVRs* sound so likely to me!
> 
> On the other hand, *Auro-3D* likely has very *low *processor requirements, and therefore seems like a good candidate for inclusion in a firmware update. The problem with *Auro-3D* would seem to be the economics|politics of the codec marketplace!
> _


Thanks I didn't know that you need Logic quad-core audio DSPs will be able to license the DTS-UHD decoder


----------



## SpenceJT

Roger Dressler said:


> Sounds like your 2x2 tiles are in a suspended ceiling. Have you considered sliding out the panels where the sounds would bounce and replacing them with something non-absorbent? Does not have to be drywall. Anyway, that can wait until after you see how they sound.


Unfortunately it isn't a true "drop ceiling" (although looks like one). The grid is attached directly to the joists, so the panels cannot move, and if there isn't plumbing, there is duct work. About the only place I could mount can lights and the ceiling fan were only open spots.

...possible speaker/smart-bulb product is an option if there are good quality products, favorable reviews and good pricing.


----------



## Roger Dressler

SoundChex said:


> The pertinent question that was asked here is: *What speaker configuration is consistent with both Atmos and Auro-3D requirements?*
> 
> More generally I want an answer to the question: *What speaker configuration is consistent with all of Atmos and Auro-3D and DTS-UHD requirements?
> 
> *Unfortunately we are still some time away from the answer to that question...!
> _


Very simple. Set up the system for Atmos. Use it for Auro if and when there's something to play. It will work perfectly. Of course it will all be a lot easier if the upfiring speakers could be shared with all decoders...


----------



## ambesolman

batpig said:


> Did you watch the Home Theater Geeks podcast from a few days ago? The Dolby guys explicitly noted there (confirming what's in the white paper) that wides are NOT used with Dolby Surround upmixer.
> 
> 
> 
> However, the wides will be supported with native Atmos content.
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words... nothing new at all



Btw work, school and building a sub I haven't had time to watch it. Just seems silly to me that wides are good enough for native content but not for upmixing


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## batpig

kokishin said:


> What speakers are you using for F/C/Surr/Sub?


I have an Energy 5.2 Reference Connoisseur speaker setup:

RC-10 bookshelf speakers for L/R
RC-LCR for center
RC-Mini bookshelfs for surrounds
Two 8" subs - one Mirage Prestige S8 and an older Energy ES-8 to smooth out the freq response

All told about ~$2,500msrp worth of speakers (although I didn't pay half that), so a solid mid level setup that will never be asked to approach reference level in my small townhouse living room, but can easily handle -15dB which would probably be max "movie night" type volume.

Plus I have standard drywall 8' ceiling and have a lot of practical limitations from trying to ceiling mount or do in-ceiling speakers, so I am perfectly cut out for Atmos enabled upfiring speakers. The "fake" Atmos speakers I tried were an older pair of Energy bookshelf speakers I have laying around, which I placed on the front L/R corners of the AV console (just inside of the front L/R bookshelf speakers) and angled up at the ceiling.

Image link of front of room: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ijok23txqrszdrn/1-DSC_6259.JPG

That's my intended locaton for Atmos modules so I figured I'd try them out there. Plus then a couple of extra speakers on the console can duel with the wife-approved photos and decorative chotchkes. 




Scott Simonian said:


> No way! I never ignore anybody on AVS and I certainly pay attention to your posts, BP.
> 
> I just must have missed that you had the gear. I thought you had just 'heard' some stuff in one way not that you owned it.
> 
> So what up, brah! Post more about that stuff! I wanna know.


Ha, I did post a decent amount of it in the Denon thread for their Atmos models so you may not have seen it. So as to avoid repeating myself, here are relevant quotes (editing out non-Atmos related commentary where necessary for brevity).

The bottom line is that DSU seems to be extracting mostly ambient stuff for the height channels (judged by placing my ears against the speakers many times, to wife's amusement). While my comments in the quotes below indicate a belief that it was because I wasn't using actual Atmos modules, the more I hear and especially the comments in the white paper make me think it may just be how DSU is, going for subtle atmospheric enhancement by extending the sound overhead and not getting crazy distracting by trying to steer discrete effects up top. 

Overall I found the difference between "flat" 5.1 and DSU upmix with the fake-o Atmos speakers to be a subtle, but quite welcome increase in the immersion/envelopment of nearly all the material I tried, and when I would switch back to "flat" 5.1 it would sound like the top of the sound kind of got lopped off. And it has been surprisingly good with 2ch music upmix with Center Spread set ON, making me feel "in the music" without distracting steering of things like guitar licks to the tops or surrounds.

I will probably pick up a pair of the Def Tech A60 modules (now in stock at my local BB Magnolia) just to test out the "real thing" and see how they compare.


From the Denon 4100/5200/7200 thread:



batpig said:


> Unfortunately I had only minimal time today to play around with actual listening tests. I mentioned previously that (in the absence of any actual available Atmos modules) I was going to get a little crazy and try sitting a pair of extra speakes on my console, pointed up at the ceiling, and telling the receiver they are Front Dolby enabled speakers. They calibrated fine, but my limited testing confirmed that this is definitely not going to provide the intended effect.
> 
> Obvioulsy, I only have Dolby Surround upmixing to experiment with at this point, lacking any real Atmos conent. However, in my limited testing they didn't seem produce any obvious "discrete" sounding overhead effects. Rather, in A/B testing of standard 5.1 vs. 5.1+DSU, it just seemed to produce a vague sense of expanded "tallness" and atmosphere. My test clips were a few scenes from "300" (the best being the one where the Persian armies release a storm of arrows which fall from the sky upon the Spartans) on HD DVD (MultiCH In + DSU), a few scenes from "Gladiator" streamed off of Netflix (5.1 DD plus + DSU), and a bit of 2ch music streamed through Pandora.
> 
> I will reserve judgement until I can try more material, and obviously wil not render any firm conclusions until I have actual Atmos modules with which to test. However, I can say that I found the music upmixing to be very pleasant sounding with DSU (with Center Spread ON). I toggled back and forth between DTS Neo:X Music mode (which upmixes to my standard 5.1 speakers) and Dolby Surround (upmixing to 5.1 plus my fake-o upward firing speakers) and the DSU upmix was much more spacious and envelopming thanks to the extra dimension (literally) of the sound. When I would switch back to Neo:X I could feel the "top" of the sound get removed and it collapsed down to the circle of sound around me.





batpig said:


> Again, 100% agreed. I should have included the caveat that I don't have height speakers so I've never really heard music upmixed with vertical expansion, so it's possibly the extra "spaciousness/atmosphere/envelopment" would also have been there with a pair of physical height speakers and PLIIz/DSX/Neo:X upmix. A truly fair comparison would have been Neo:X (5.1+height) vs. DSU.
> 
> But, on the other hand, remember that Dolby-enabled speakers open up the potential for "height effects" to a whole new class of buyers who (like me) can't easily accomodate physical height speakers. So this was less a battle of Dolby vs. DTS than an experiment in adding that 3rd dimension to the sound bubble with music upmix. And since PLII is gone, the only way I could A/B test easily was Neo:X Music mode vs. DSU with fake heights.
> 
> And I have to say, I listened to some more music in the evening, ranging from "atmospheric" stuff like Radiohead, Arcade Fire and The National to more traditional mixes like The Velvet Underground and 100% of the time I preferred DSU upmix with Center Spread ON to the "2D" upmix of Neo:X Music mode. Now, upmix vs straight 2ch stereo.... not always so clearcut. But I can say for sure that the DSU music upmix is fairly sublte with respect to the vertical effects, it all seemed very smooth without any fake sounding effects or weird steering.



From this thread (no excuses on this one!)



batpig said:


> I've heard from several sources that it will NOT work as effectively as a dedicated Atmos Elevation speaker module. It's not just about freq response -- these Elevation speakers have specific directivity parameters that enable them to "beam" the sound and maintain coherence of the reflected sound, and also to prevent the direct sound from the speaker from being too obvious in relation to the reflected sound (which will muddle the impression of the sound being above you). For example a typical 2-way bookshelf speaker designed for wide, even dispersion will probably have pretty decent off-axis response and thus may present too much direct sound to your ears even when tilted so far off axis.
> 
> I've had the Denon X5200W in my possession for about a week now and (in the absence of any Atmos modules being available) have actually been testing this myself, using a pair of spare small bookshelf speakers next to my front L/R angled up at the ceiling. With the two important caveats that (1) I don't yet have a true Atmos Elevation module with which to compare and (2) I don't have any discrete Atmos content to test, only upmixed content with Dolby Surround, I can say with a decent amount of certainty that it probably won't work very well.
> 
> What I've found in my testing so far (using a variety of upmixed music and video content) is that the "fake" Elevation speakers do provide a sense of increased "height", effectively increasing the spaciousness / envelopment of the audio, but I have yet to hear anything that remotely resembles a discrete overhead effect. When I switch between "flat" 5.1 audio and the upmixed 5.1.2 sound, I definitely feel like the "top" of the sound has been chopped off, but it's more of a vague sense of increased vertical immersion as opposed to feeling like things are really imaging overhead. I have to imagine the improper (for this task) directivity of the speakers I am using is causing the overhead effect to be more vague and muddled than is actually intended by Atmos/DSU, so I'm skeptical that I am getting much more benefit than I would have by using more "traditional" height speakers upmixed with PLIIz or DTS Neo:X.
> 
> I will report more when I can get my hands on real Atmos Elevation modules to compare.


----------



## wse

Ok here are my predictions:

*ATMOS* has a major first mover advantage with all the major studios behind it and will be the first Blu Ray 4K 
- Over 300 theater through in the US and many other in other countries: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/index.html
- Over 200 movies with ATMOS and growing: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html
- Multiple AV manufacturers offering ATMOS in 2014, Marantz, Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo, Steinway Lyngdorf, Pioneer...

ATMOS could manage to grab 80% of the market and kill DTS  (That's what happens after DTS got acquired it went all downhill)


*AURO 3D*

- Less than 20 Theaters with Auro 3D
- Less than 50 movies http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/movies
- The only manufacturers with AURO 3D are primarily Pre/Pro in the UBER PRICE RANGE: 
Datasat (>$20,000), Steinway Lyngdorf (>$18,00); Trinnov Altitude ($30,000); Auro-3D Auriga ($16,800)

The way to success is not to just cater only to the super rich but to the masses!! Pioneer Elite Plasma were so expensive no one but a few bought them (including myself) and they went out of business sold to ONKYO! Yes it might be a cool technology but even if a few in Hollywood supports it today, if there is no customer buying it, it will be dropped just like Betamax, HD DVD and so on!

Even Kaleidescape who made a good business selling super expensive media servers are lowering their prices here is a quote from their new CEO: " Kaleidescape CEO Cheena Srinivasan will “reposition” media server company to reach broader markets; promises more studio deals for online content, support for 4K Ultra HD, sub-$1k server by 2016." ‘Repositioning’ Kaleidescape for a Broader Market" http://www.cepro.com/article/print/...cape_will_stay_relevant_with_content_4k_cost/


*DTS UHD* *MDA*
- No Movie Theaters
- No Movies
- No AVR or pre pro

That is really too bad they might go by the waist side and drown into the Abyss  
Last press release about DTS UHD: Jan 2014! http://www.dts.com/corporate/press-...p-audio-dsp-at-consumer-electronics-show.aspx
DTS Headphone:X™ surround sound experience on any pair of headphones!


----------



## NorthSky

I'll stick with Dolby Atmos, thank you very much sir.


----------



## wse

pasender91 said:


> Yes it is the case, this has been mentionned already, Atmos supports 9.1.2 with wides (they will play object-related sounds), but in this scenario the wides will stay silent when playing 2.0 or 5.1 legacy soundtracks using Dolby Surround Upmixer


Are you sure about this? Most of the current discs will be using DSU!


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> Are you sure about this? Most of the current discs will be using DSU!


This has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, first uncovered weeks ago when the Denon X5200 manual became available. And most recently was confirmed as an explicit limitation set out by Dolby in both the HTG podcast with the two Dolby reps and in the white paper.


----------



## ambesolman

Good news about Kaleidescape


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## WayneJoy

Yes, anything between Left and Center and Right and Center and Wides do not work in Surround upmixer.


----------



## wse

Roger Dressler said:


> Don't worry about that for now. It is not a big issue....


Roger,

Since you are the Dolby guru do you know if I use the Dolby Surround to mimic ATMOS with no ATMOS Blu Ray movies.

1. Will it use wide if I ave a 9.2.2

2. If it does not as I have read would I be better of with 7.2.4? Is this over kill? Should I just use 7.2.2?

The room is 11 x 13 x 9 this is for the mini theater for the kids with KEF LS50!

I am thinking of installing a pair of KEF LS50 on the front wall close to the ceiling. I can put a shelf with a 30 degree incline to point straight at the listeners!

Opinion, please


----------



## wse

batpig said:


> This has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, first uncovered weeks ago when the Denon X5200 manual became available. And most recently was confirmed as an explicit limitation set out by Dolby in both the HTG podcast with the two Dolby reps and in the white paper.


LINKS


----------



## WayneJoy

wse said:


> LINKS


----------



## NorthSky

Second and third generations of Dolby Atmos AV receivers should be better.


----------



## Roger Dressler

wse said:


> Roger,
> 
> Since you are the Dolby guru do you know if I use the Dolby Surround to mimic ATMOS with no ATMOS Blu Ray movies.
> 
> 1. Will it use wide if I ave a 9.2.2


DSU will not use the wides.



> 2. If it does not as I have read would I be better of with 7.2.4? Is this over kill? Should I just use 7.2.2?


I have never heard home Atmos. But the idea of 4 height speakers makes a lot of sense to me, so that's what I have installed.



> The room is 11 x 13 x 9 this is for the mini theater for the kids with KEF LS50!


Do the kids care in particular about spatial nuance of sound? 



> I am thinking of installing a pair of KEF LS50 on the front wall close to the ceiling. I can put a shelf with a 30 degree incline to point straight at the listeners!


Sounds like a workable option. Especially because it is not so permanent.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Transformers:Age of Extinction, first Atmos BD release. Some say before Atmos AVR's are released :serious: .

I have been reading a lot of posts about floors on here of late. The only thing that should be on a floor is your feet, dog, cat, furniture, carpet, tile, etc. Speakers deserve to be "mounted" at ear level height while seated. :serious: Overhead speakers deserve to be mounted overhead. :serious: MK and Jbl have nice pictures to illustrate this for maximum sound quality.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ambesolman said:


> Btw work, school and building a sub I haven't had time to watch it. Just seems silly to me that wides are good enough for native content but not for upmixing


As I mentioned earlier, if you're using a receiver or pre-amp that can do 9.1.2 (which utilizes one pair of Atmos wides)... the wide locations, as you have known them with DTS Neo:X & ProLogic IIz, do not apply. These are front side surround locations as in the cinema and are positioned in a different spot than before (creating side wall pan-through arrays with two speakers on both sides of the room). Not good for Dolby Surround upmixing too as it would "funk up" the front sound stage.

If you see Procella Audio's & Trinnov's CEDIA demo plan (in another thread about CEDIA, as I recall), they have two pairs of side wall surrounds. However, they can also have four top surrounds. So, 9.1.4. "Normal" mainstream products have to drop one pair of tops to give you that pan-through array due to their limited architecture.


----------



## westmd

SoundChex said:


> On the other hand, *Auro-3D* likely has very *low *processor requirements, and therefore seems like a good candidate for inclusion in a firmware update. The problem with *Auro-3D* would seem to be the economics|politics of the codec marketplace!
> _


I think also the speaker setup might be an issue in the 1st gen receivers. If you look closely at all high-end units that will eventually support Atmos and Auro there speaker outputs are freely configurable. Take for instance in comparison the back of consumer gear unuts were the channels are mainly fixed. I think it could be done but it would be a major change in their operating system.
I for instance plan to have a speaker pair dedicated to Atmos and one dedicated to Auro means when switching codecs out of the same speaker output relevant data like distance, volume, eq, etc. Has to be changed. I don't think that the current orocessors willl support that!


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> Transformers:Age of Extinction, first Atmos BD release. Some say before Atmos AVR's are released :serious: .
> 
> I have been reading a lot of posts about floors on here of late. The only thing that should be on a floor is your feet, dog, cat, furniture, carpet, tile, etc. Speakers deserve to be "mounted" at ear level height while seated. :serious: Overhead speakers deserve to be mounted overhead. :serious: MK and Jbl have nice pictures to illustrate this for maximum sound quality.


Alright Andy, god info. :serious:


----------



## westmd

BTW This is the graphic *Auro* speaker angles are based on.


----------



## krozman

The debate over 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 is going to be a great one. The answer will inevitably rely on whether you can even do 7.1.4, as it requires the Denon X5200W or above....or a power solution for the final two speakers. I guess you can also do 5.1.4 with the X4100W but whatever....those people are likely only going that way because their room makes it impossible to mount and/or enjoy 7.1. The setup for 7.1.2 has speakers directly above the MLP with the angle of the disbursements essentially blanketing the MLP in sound. The 7.1.4 setup has all 4 speakers essentially putting the MLP in a cage, with the possibility of really awesome results. Some people may attempt to use Dipoles (which has been debated as a bad idea) or monopoles, which has the potential of not getting the sound to the MLP in a 7.1.4 setup if they're not mounted correctly. 


THE REAL ISSUE FOR EVERYONE SHOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:


Over 100 movies have been released on Blu Ray since 2012 that were originally mixed in Atmos for the theatre (i.e. captain America, guardians of the galaxy, all of the hobbit movies, etc....theres a big list). We have to wait for a blu ray release with the atmos track. GROAN!!! I'm not buying the winter soldier twice. I'm not buying the winter soldier twice. Willpower.......fading....someone help me!


----------



## maikeldepotter

westmd said:


> I find Auro imoortant as well especially during speaker choice and layout design as otherwise the newly built HT has to be completely rebuild if Auro wants to be added. As both formats are out already ( not like DTS UHD) we should at least discuss it here when it comes to speaker layout!


Good point too. Maybe someone could start a thread on Auro to optimize the information flow for overlapping issues like speaker placement.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> BTW This is the graphic *Auro* speaker angles are based on.


It's a girl.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> Do the kids care in particular about spatial nuance of sound?




If they don't, then it's off to bed with no supper!


----------



## SubSolar

Turns out that my front speakers, top fronts, rear fronts and rear surrounds will all be in a line. Will this be an issue? Seems like all diagrams have the rear surrounds closer together than the others. But if I do the minimum length apart for the angles they recommend at that distance, it's in the same line as the fronts (and therefore the Atmos ceiling speakers too).

Should I go out of the recommended angles and make them slightly narrower? By the way, I'm also outside of the recommended angle for the fronts since my room is so long. The fronts should wider.


----------



## NorthSky

krozman said:


> The debate over 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 is going to be a great one. The answer will inevitably rely on whether you can even do 7.1.4, as it requires the Denon X5200W or above....or a power solution for the final two speakers. I guess you can also do 5.1.4 with the X4100W but whatever....those people are likely only going that way because their room makes it impossible to mount and/or enjoy 7.1. The setup for 7.1.2 has speakers directly above the MLP with the angle of the disbursements essentially blanketing the MLP in sound. The 7.1.4 setup has all 4 speakers essentially putting the MLP in a cage, with the possibility of really awesome results. Some people may attempt to use Dipoles (which has been debated as a bad idea) or monopoles, which has the potential of not getting the sound to the MLP in a 7.1.4 setup if they're not mounted correctly.
> 
> 
> THE REAL ISSUE FOR EVERYONE SHOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> 
> Over 100 movies have been released on Blu Ray since 2012 that were originally mixed in Atmos for the theatre (i.e. captain America, guardians of the galaxy, all of the hobbit movies, etc....theres a big list). We have to wait for a blu ray release with the atmos track. GROAN!!! I'm not buying the winter soldier twice. I'm not buying the winter soldier twice. Willpower.......fading....someone help me!


*7.2.4* is my minimum.

* And I already purchased the Blu of *'Captain America - The Winter Soldier'*, the 3D version.
And I will rebuy LOTR EE trilogy in 3D and Dolby Atmos. 

It's only change money; don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## sdurani

SubSolar said:


> Turns out that my front speakers, top fronts, rear fronts and rear surrounds will all be in a line. Will this be an issue?


That's what Dolby recommends. If your fronts are at ±30° and your rears are at ±150°, then they are the same width apart. All the height speakers should be in line with fronts and rears.


----------



## jdsmoothie

CinemaAndy said:


> Transformers:Age of Extinction, first Atmos BD release. *Some say before Atmos AVR's are released* :serious: .


Huh? The Denon X4100W and X5200W and Marantz SR7009 have already hit the streets with Atmos and the new Dolby Surround upmixer both pre-loaded (ie. no firmware update required as with Onkyo, Pioneer, and Yamaha).


----------



## Wookii

SubSolar said:


> Turns out that my front speakers, top fronts, rear fronts and rear surrounds will all be in a line. Will this be an issue? Seems like all diagrams have the rear surrounds closer together than the others. But if I do the minimum length apart for the angles they recommend at that distance, it's in the same line as the fronts (and therefore the Atmos ceiling speakers too).
> 
> Should I go out of the recommended angles and make them slightly narrower? By the way, I'm also outside of the recommended angle for the fronts since my room is so long. The fronts should wider.





sdurani said:


> That's what Dolby recommends. If your fronts are at ±30° and your rears are at ±150°, then they are the same width apart. All the height speakers should be in line with fronts and rears.


It depends on your seating position I would guess. ±30° for the fronts and ±150° for the rear only produces equal spacing of both if the MLP is at the dead centre of the room. If you sit 2/3 back in the room, then the gap between the rears will need to about 1/3 of the gap between the fronts.

It practice though Dolby give a range of angles in that white paper (as they have always done). Again using the example, if you sit 2/3 back in the room, and put the fronts at the minimum angle of ±22°, and the rear at the maximum angle of ±135°, then the fronts will pretty much be in line with the rears again.


----------



## SubSolar

Wookii said:


> It depends on your seating position I would guess. ±30° for the fronts and ±150° for the rear only produces equal spacing of both if the MLP is at the dead centre of the room. If you sit 2/3 back in the room, then the gap between the rears will need to about 1/3 of the gap between the fronts.
> 
> It practice though Dolby give a range of angles in that white paper (as they have always done). Again using the example, if you sit 2/3 back in the room, and put the fronts at the minimum angle of ±22°, and the rear at the maximum angle of ±135°, then the fronts will pretty much be in line with the rears again.


Unfortunately because of the length of the room, the front speakers will only be about 15 degrees from MLP. I sit about 13-14 feet from them and I will have them about 8-9 feet apart. Rear surrounds will be about 7 feet from MLP and also 8-9 feet apart.


----------



## sdurani

Wookii said:


> It depends on your seating position I would guess.


Yes, the circle layout diagrams put the listener in the middle so that the heights end up on parallel lines front to back.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> It's a girl.


Unfortunately the boy version is a *soft- and hardware* upgrade!


----------



## Wookii

SubSolar said:


> Unfortunately because of the length of the room, the front speakers will only be about 15 degrees from MLP. I sit about 13-14 feet from them and I will have them about 8-9 feet apart. Rear surrounds will be about 7 feet from MLP and also 8-9 feet apart.


Well, one thing we can never do is defeat our room dimensions. I shouldn't worry too much, get the angle where you can, and compromise where you can't. It should still sound great!


----------



## tjenkins95

krozman said:


> THE REAL ISSUE FOR EVERYONE SHOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> Over 100 movies have been released on Blu Ray since 2012 that were originally mixed in Atmos for the theatre (i.e. captain America, guardians of the galaxy, all of the hobbit movies, etc....theres a big list). We have to wait for a blu ray release with the atmos track. GROAN!!! I'm not buying the winter soldier twice. I'm not buying the winter soldier twice. Willpower.......fading....someone help me!


 

I saw it in the theater and it was awesome. I picked it up yesterday for $20 which included the 3D disc. Just buy it - no need to suffer!


----------



## tjenkins95

maikeldepotter said:


> Good point too. Maybe someone could start a thread on Auro to optimize the information flow for overlapping issues like speaker placement.


 
I agree! Auro needs to go to its own thread.


----------



## hexcode99

I read over a lot of the posts in this thread and forum last night as well as looked at websites for manufactures coming out with Atmos enabled processors in Q4 of this year. Is it correct that none of these processors actually support full HDMI 2.0 18gbps bandwidth for 4k 4:4:4 content as well as HDCP 2.2? Additionally, does anyone know of a Atmos enabled processor coming out that not only supports at least 7.1.2 Atmos but also offers those as fully balanced XLR outputs?


----------



## kbarnes701

CinemaAndy said:


> Transformers:Age of Extinction, first Atmos BD release. Some say before Atmos AVR's are released :serious: .


Oops. AVRs are already here, and Transformers 4 isn't (until September 30).


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Roger,
> 
> Since you are the Dolby guru do you know if I use the Dolby Surround to mimic ATMOS with no ATMOS Blu Ray movies.
> 
> 1. Will it use wide if I ave a 9.2.2


I admire your desire to not be at all defeatist, but you will keep on getting the same answer no matter how many times you ask  DSU does not use wides.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool ty, I saw those too, 500 bucks a pair as well. Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if getting the cheap Onkyo's for the rear modules and a nice pair for the front would make sense? Or does Atmos just sort of make equal use of all height speakers?
> 
> So those of you who saw "Dolby Atmos questions answered"... in the segment where they discussed tamber... is there any way to determine how compatible any of these new modules might be with already existing speakers? Is that determined by what material the speaker cone is made out of?
> 
> Or is this a wait and see sort of thing?


Remember that the Dolby gurus in Scott Wilkinson't HTG podcast were specifically asked this. Their answer was that you should try to match timbre if you can, and if you can't, then EQ will do a pretty good job of matching it for you. IOW, don't worry so much about it.


----------



## bargervais

Product Details
Actors: Mark Wahlberg, Nicola Peltz
Directors: Michael Bay
Format: Multiple Formats, Blu-ray, AC-3, Dolby, Dubbed, Subtitled
Language: English
Subtitles: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish
Dubbed: French, Portuguese, Spanish
Region: Region A/1 (Read more about DVD/Blu-ray formats.)
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number of discs: 2
Rated: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Studio: Paramount
DVD Release Date: September 30, 2014
Run Time: 164 minutes
Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (150 customer reviews)
ASIN: B00L4K3MLE
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #48 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#5 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure
I just pre ordered Transformers 4 from Amazon there is no mention of atmos am I to understand that this blu-ray will have Atmos ??


----------



## kbarnes701

SpenceJT said:


> Having read Dolby's white paper, I am a bit at a loss in that my existing placement for side & back speakers would need to be completely re-configured. They are currently placed about 66" up on my walls, far above Dolby's recommended "listening" height. In addition to this, I have insufficient space within my ceiling cavity due to ducts etc. and my ceiling is made up of 2'x2' acoustical tile. My only hope would be to "try" a pair of Dolby Atmos modules and hope that the sound does not become too diffused or absorbed by the ceiling material. I was considering "experimenting" with my formerly stand-mounted bookshelf speakers, by placing/angling them on top of my oak entertainment towers in the hope that the close proximity and angle of the speakers to the ceiling would help reduce any "localization" of the speakers.
> 
> I am pretty much screwed where Atmos is concerned. I guess I'll enjoy having 3D pass-through, Audyssey XT32, and the benefits that newer faster processing can offer over my old Onkyo TX-NR905 (sigh).
> 
> Regards,
> Spence


Spence - I wouldn't give up just yet! Can you cover part of that ceiling with some sort of reflective material that would look aesthetically pleasing and at the same time bounce the sound from Atmos speakers or modules down into the room. At the Dolby demo I went to in London, this is exactly what they had done and it worked brilliantly. If you check out my *second report* you will see photos of their ceiling showing what I am trying to describe. The area you need to cover is surprisingly small - about 4 feet by 4 feet would do it.

Atmos speakers/modules are NOT a compromise. They sound terrific and many people prefer them over physical speakers on the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I wonder if auro3d should have its own thread I thought this was an home Atmos thread.


Good idea. Discussing overlap in speaker placement between Auro and Atmos is helpful, but discussing Auro itself is OT.

westmd has heard both Atmos and Auro and is a knowledgeable contributor - maybe he'd care to start a thread called something like "Atmos and Auro - how they can co-exist in one HT room". Just a thought.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I admire your desire to not be at all defeatist, but you will keep on getting the same answer no matter how many times you ask  DSU does not use wides.


Well, in a device supporting all the speaker locations that Dolby has in their whitepapers, there should be one that maps to a wide location... But I guess we won't have that flexibility to select speaker locations in most (or all) devices coming out in gen.1....


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Well, in a device supporting all the speaker locations that Dolby has in their whitepapers, there should be one that maps to a wide location... But I guess we won't have that flexibility to select speaker locations in most (or all) devices coming out in gen.1....


Atmos sends signals to wides. Dolby Surround Upmixer, which is what he was asking about, doesn't.


----------



## Roger Dressler

CinemaAndy said:


> Speakers deserve to be "mounted" at ear level height while seated. :serious: Overhead speakers deserve to be mounted overhead. :serious: MK and Jbl have nice pictures to illustrate this for maximum sound quality.


The setup on the left does not work for me. I do not like the screen that low, or, alternatively, the L/R speakers above ear level.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos sends signals to wides. Dolby Surround Upmixer, which is what he was asking about, doesn't.


Ok, got it.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> The setup on the left does not work for me. I do not like the screen that low, or, alternatively, the L/R speakers above ear level.


Well, even if you go with the right setup in regards to fronts - the center is still wrong, it should be upright in any case.


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> Well, even if you go with the right setup in regards to fronts - the center is still wrong, it should be upright in any case.


What is the difference if the centre speaker is horizontal or vertical aren't canter speakers designed to sit horizontal under the TV. Thanks in advance.


----------



## westmd

Nightlord said:


> Well, even if you go with the right setup in regards to fronts - the center is still wrong, it should be upright in any case.


I do have the right setup. Just tilt the center a little bit towards MLP and all is fine!


----------



## Nightlord

bargervais said:


> What is the difference if the centre speaker is horizontal or vertical aren't canter speakers designed to sit horizontal under the TV. Thanks in advance.


Just because they are designed for it doesn't mean its a good idea to design like that. Imagine yourself moving sideways and pay attention to the distances to each element. Then do the same with an upright one. I'm sure you'll get it.


----------



## Nightlord

westmd said:


> I do have the right setup. Just tilt the center a little bit towards MLP and all is fine!


If there's only one listener sitting in MLP yes. But I'm not your average selfish hifi-nerd, I pay attention to the best results for off-center listeners as well...


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Ok, got it.


All we have to do now, then, is convince wse


----------



## pletwals

bargervais said:


> What is the difference if the centre speaker is horizontal or vertical aren't canter speakers designed to sit horizontal under the TV. Thanks in advance.


Read this:

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/vertical-vs-horizontal-speaker-designs


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> What is the difference if the centre speaker is horizontal or vertical aren't canter speakers designed to sit horizontal under the TV. Thanks in advance.


That design shown in the picture (MTM) is generally regarded as non-optimum for centre speakers because of dispersion issues, comb filtering and lobing. This article is a good introduction: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=89614

So Nightlord was probably saying that such a design would sound better when used vertically, and he is probably right.

There are, of course, many different designs of centre speaker and some work much better than others. I have always used identical LCR speakers where possible and this is the ideal, but often is not practical.


----------



## rcohen

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos sends signals to wides. Dolby Surround Upmixer, which is what he was asking about, doesn't.


I was actually really happy to hear this. I'm not a fan of what matrix mixing that messes with the front soundstage. For a wider soundstage, physically moving the left and right speakers wider and towing them in sounds a lot better to my ears.

In fact, messing with the front soundstage is the main thing that ruins most upmixers for me.


----------



## pasender91

hexcode99 said:


> I read over a lot of the posts in this thread and forum last night as well as looked at websites for manufactures coming out with Atmos enabled processors in Q4 of this year. Is it correct that none of these processors actually support full HDMI 2.0 18gbps bandwidth for 4k 4:4:4 content as well as HDCP 2.2? Additionally, does anyone know of a Atmos enabled processor coming out that not only supports at least 7.1.2 Atmos but also offers those as fully balanced XLR outputs?


Today => NONE
Late 2014 => Onkyo 5530
Early 2015 => Marantz 8802 :grin:


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> That design shown in the picture (MTM) is generally regarded as non-optimum for centre speakers because of dispersion issues, comb filtering and lobing. This article is a good introduction: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=89614
> 
> So Nightlord was probably saying that such a design would sound better when used vertically, and he is probably right.
> 
> There are, of course, many different designs of centre speaker and some work much better than others. I have always used identical LCR speakers where possible and this is the ideal, but often is not practical.




I have a few different setups, but a W(T/M)W speaker configuration works great in a horizontal orientation. Since they also work fine for a R or L speaker in a vertical or horizontal orientation, the same speaker can be used all the way around. An identical wall mounted version was also available at the time.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

rcohen said:


> I was actually really happy to hear this. I'm not a fan of what matrix mixing that messes with the front soundstage. *For a wider soundstage, physically moving the left and right speakers wider and towing them in sounds a lot better to my ears.*
> 
> In fact, messing with the front soundstage is the main thing that ruins most upmixers for me.




Yes, but why do things the easy way?


----------



## rcohen

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember that the Dolby gurus in Scott Wilkinson't HTG podcast were specifically asked this. Their answer was that you should try to match timbre if you can, and if you can't, then EQ will do a pretty good job of matching it for you. IOW, don't worry so much about it.


I always wonder if something magical happens with imaging when all speakers are identical in terms of both timbre and phase. It certainly helps for the front soundstage. It's logical that it would help make panning more convincing, but I don't know that much panning happens between the front and surrounds, except for video games.

Similarly, I wonder how important it is to match both timbre and phase between ceiling and surround speakers. Timbre can be corrected with EQ, but phase probably needs matching crossovers.


----------



## hexcode99

pasender91 said:


> Today => NONE
> Late 2014 => Onkyo 5530
> Early 2015 => Marantz 8802 :grin:


Isn't the Onkyo 5530 limited to 4:2:0 at 4k?


----------



## Frohlich

hexcode99 said:


> Isn't the Onkyo 5530 limited to 4:2:0 at 4k?


Yup, the Onkyos are limited in bandwidth but do have HDCP 2.2.


----------



## Nightlord

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I have a few different setups, but a W(T/M)W speaker configuration works great in a horizontal orientation. Since they also work fine for a R or L speaker in a vertical or horizontal orientation, the same speaker can be used all the way around. An identical wall mounted version was also available at the time.


Yes, the issue with that configuration is reduced as the woofers will be crossed over at reasonably low frequency. If the maximum distance in travel can be kept below, say 1/4 of the shortest wavelength they will play, then there won't be any distructive intereference between them. Thus also the crossover slope on the LP is of high importance here.

( Have auditioned a Von Schweikert with similar configuration myself and it worked quite well, it just fell on not being timbre matched to the rest of my speakers. )


----------



## jkasanic

Wookii said:


> It depends on your seating position I would guess. ±30° for the fronts and ±150° for the rear only produces equal spacing of both if the MLP is at the dead centre of the room. If you sit 2/3 back in the room, then the gap between the rears will need to about 1/3 of the gap between the fronts.
> 
> It practice though Dolby give a range of angles in that white paper (as they have always done). Again using the example, if you sit 2/3 back in the room, and put the fronts at the minimum angle of ±22°, and the rear at the maximum angle of ±135°, then the fronts will pretty much be in line with the rears again.


Keep in mind that the ranges given by Dolby are for a different plane than you're discussing above. The plane that cuts the room in half length wise is the one that Dolby gives more flexibility on the location of the top firing speakers wrt MLP (e.g. ranges from 30-55 degrees for front and 125-150 for rear) while the diagram doesn't really show any latitude for the relative position of these top speakers in the top plane (viewing down on the room from the top) as it just shows them in line with the mains. HST, I already have 4 in-ceiling speakers and neither set is in line with my mains (or even with each other for that matter) and I'm planning to use them as my height channels in a 5.1.4 setup. I'm as guilty as most on this thread for fretting about these angles and trying to fall within the recommended guidelines so take this last bit with a grain of salt: just do the best you can in your setup to get as close as possible and then forget about it and enjoy Atmos (once we finally have some content to play that is)!

EDIT: Sorry I was mistaken. You are correct about the 22-30 degree for the mains from MLP. I was talking about the relative position of the top speakers to the mains as opposed to the rear surrounds which as you indicate may not be in line with the mains even though you are within the range specified for both.


----------



## Nightlord

Wookii said:


> Again using the example, if you sit 2/3 back in the room, and put the fronts at the minimum angle of ±22°, and the rear at the maximum angle of ±135°, then the fronts will pretty much be in line with the rears again.


And you'd get about the perfect angles for stereo music from the fronts as well. For me, you've described a very nice set of parameters at once there.


----------



## PoshFrosh

*7.2.4 ready to go...*

Last night, I got my Top Front / Top Rear speakers installed (pictures attached) for 7.2.4
I didn't want to drill into the popcorn ceiling, so I created a creative workaround:
My mains are only a foot and a half out from the walls, and since the top speakers are supposed to be "in-line" with them, I got 18" shelf brackets and mounted small speakers to them.
(Equipment: four 18" shelf brackets, four omnimount 10.0s, scrap wood, three monoprice cable management kits, sixteen 3M command hanging strips, four Energy V-minis, speaker wire, *total cost: about $440*)
The tiny speakers are from the same "family" as my other Energy speakers, so the timbre matching issue should be small to nonexistent.
The speakers end up being about 7 feet from the floor (well above head-height) and about 8 feet diagonally from the MLP (5 feet laterally), so I think they will be far enough away to avoid locatlization problems (although SBIR will be something I am unable to address [i.e. ceiling mounted acoustic material is a no go]).
The *girlfriend gave me one of those looks*, but I think it's gonna be okay. (She was way more upset about the acoustic treatments [also pictured] than the "ceiling" speakers).
I get my Denon 5200 later today. I can't wait to hook it all up.  (Still have to run the speaker wire, and of course swap AVRs and run Audyssey)


----------



## alyssanick

I'm so much more interested in whether legacy movies will get remixes in Atmos. Any info on this yet??

I'm talking big movies like Star Wars movies. Terminator movies. Lord of the Rings. Jurassic Park. War Of The Worlds. Tranformers. Tron: Legacy. Titanic. Watchmen. Indiana Jones. Saving Private Ryan - Stuff where directional sound is going to be impactful. And where its popular enough they may go back and have it remixed for a special edition - Even stuff like Pixar movies I'd be down for.

I ask because I'm looking at the list of current movies with mixes and am only interested in...

1. Hobbit
2. Hobbit 2
3. Gravity
4. The Wolverine
5. Man of Steel
6. Iron Man 3
7. Hobbit 3
8. Into the Storm
9. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
10. Amazing Spiderman 2
11. X-men : Days
12. Godzilla
13. Noah (maybe...)
14. Avengers : Age

...of the 150 odd titles. Not much for me! I have at least 500 blu's. And I'd rebuy 50 of them that I feel would give me something extra and that I consider epic movies. I realize some movies like Flight of the Phoenix or Mission Impossible I probably wouldn't get a remix.

I see my collection as a whole and older movies need to feel as relevant to me as new ones. And I favour legacy movies much more than post 2011 movies. I barely collect current movies. I'm simply not going to buy an atmos enabled setup if legacy isn't going to see this technology.

I didn't read all 200 pages so forgive me if this has been answered or addressed! Btw *I understand there is an upmixer that can handle most legacy titles depending on receiver enabling it with all codec.* But its been well mentioned it doesn't really remix the title. It remains mostly faithful. Hence I'd rather a remix to give those older titles I love the atmos experience.


----------



## Kris Deering

On another note the Steinway Lyngdorf Model P200 was announced today. It is a surround processor that supports both Dolby Atmos and Auro Surround. Probably in the $20K range and I haven't looked at the channel count yet. Their demo last year sounded fantastic so it will be interesting to see what they demo this year.


----------



## Gurba

I'm thinking that these might be OK as Atmos roofmounted speakers. Maybe I'll try them out when my AVR gets the Atmos fw update.


----------



## pletwals

PoshFrosh, there's a lot of empty space on the ceiling for acoustic panels!


----------



## PoshFrosh

hexcode99 said:


> Isn't the Onkyo 5530 limited to 4:2:0 at 4k?


From what I've read, it sounds to me that 4K Bluray may adopt only 4:2:0, so (and this is even more speculation) if it also goes HDCP 2.2, then the Onkyo crowd might end up okay...
I guess time will tell...
I'm getting a Denon now and figuring all that stuff out later.


----------



## Roger Dressler

rcohen said:


> I was actually really happy to hear this. I'm not a fan of what matrix mixing that messes with the front soundstage. For a wider soundstage, physically moving the left and right speakers wider and towing them in sounds a lot better to my ears.
> 
> In fact, messing with the front soundstage is the main thing that ruins most upmixers for me.


The upmixer I use lets me dial in the amount of "messing." That's how they all should work, including DSU.


----------



## rcohen

Roger Dressler said:


> The upmixer I use lets me dial in the amount of "messing." That's how they all should work, including DSU.


Agreed, that would be most flexible, as long as there is a setting for zero.

IMO, even a little bit of "messing" makes it slightly worse.

The philosophy for Atmos seems to be to reproduce very precise localization if that's the mixer's intent, and diffuse imaging if that's the mixer's intent. It's nice to see that carry over to DSU.

Finally, an upmixer I can live with?


----------



## wse

WayneJoy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GQ-fxj3t6k


 an hour and ten minutes!


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> All we have to do now, then, is convince wse


Of what


----------



## petetherock

@PoshFrosh
Interesting pics
Do let us know how it sounds?
Isn't your 'ceiling' speakers are a little wider spaced than the ascribed in the Denon manual?


----------



## PoshFrosh

The first DSU'ed movie I see should be Capt America 2 this weekend (Netflix BD rental).
I'm hoping when Netflix send me Transformers 4 sometime soon, I'll be able to listen to the Atmos mix on that (don't want to buy that one... Especially after all the money I've spent on the Atmos upgrade). Pretty excited...


----------



## Glenn Baumann

PoshFrosh said:


> Last night, I got my Top Front / Top Rear speakers installed (pictures attached) for 7.2.4
> I didn't want to drill into the popcorn ceiling, so I created a creative workaround:
> My mains are only a foot and a half out from the walls, and since the top speakers are supposed to be "in-line" with them, I got 18" shelf brackets and mounted small speakers to them.
> (Equipment: four 18" shelf brackets, four omnimount 10.0s, scrap wood, three monoprice cable management kits, sixteen 3M command hanging strips, four Energy V-minis, speaker wire, *total cost: about $440*)
> The tiny speakers are from the same "family" as my other Energy speakers, so the timbre matching issue should be small to nonexistent.
> The speakers end up being about 7 feet from the floor (well above head-height) and about 8 feet diagonally from the MLP (5 feet laterally), so I think they will be far enough away to avoid locatlization problems (although SBIR will be something I am unable to address [i.e. ceiling mounted acoustic material is a no go]).
> The *girlfriend gave me one of those looks*, but I think it's gonna be okay. (She was way more upset about the acoustic treatments [also pictured] than the "ceiling" speakers).
> I get my Denon 5200 later today. I can't wait to hook it all up.  (Still have to run the speaker wire, and of course swap AVRs and run Audyssey)



PoshFrosh,

We will anxiously await your impressions of the setup's performance in regards to your particular type of speakers and they're placement!

I would like to see pictures of your seating in relationship to your speaker placement.

Looks interesting... Bring it on!

...Glenn


----------



## wse

PoshFrosh said:


> Last night, I got my Top Front / Top Rear speakers installed (pictures attached) for 7.2.4


Nice job


----------



## W3Rman

pletwals said:


> Read this:
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/vertical-vs-horizontal-speaker-designs


:eeksurprise: can we please not go there again.... 

(pun intended) :wink:


----------



## Al Sherwood

Roger Dressler said:


> The setup on the left does not work for me. I do not like the screen that low, or, alternatively, the L/R speakers above ear level.


 
For the living room (Plasma TV) set up the left image is a non started for obvious reasons, I wrestled with the right configuration until I was able to adjust the heights of the screen and all LCR (identical) speakers to keep the left right channels (based on tweeter position) at ear height while seated and keep the center channel tweeter within 12" of that same height (as recommended by the speaker manufacturer. Sometimes life is a compromise... 


Now for the 'real' HT setup being built for the basement, I already have the acoustically transparent screen and will place all front main speakers at the correct height behind the screen, much like the left image.


----------



## brwsaw

rcohen said:


> I always wonder if something magical happens with imaging when all speakers are identical in terms of both timbre and phase. It certainly helps for the front soundstage. It's logical that it would help make panning more convincing, but I don't know that much panning happens between the front and surrounds, except for video games.
> 
> Similarly, I wonder how important it is to match both timbre and phase between ceiling and surround speakers. Timbre can be corrected with EQ, but phase probably needs matching crossovers.



Having matching across the front is worth the effort and expense (its easy to say when you get your PJ for free).
The magic happens when sounds pan between them and there is no hand over, no degradation, no audible change. 0,zilch, nada.
I got to give credit to the speakers too, in our room you can't tell which speaker is outputting sound until you're right up against it ,or where the speakers are behind the screen (content specific but generally true). At one time I had 5 nearly matching units up front, with 2 pairs of 2 on a switcher (center not connected) and you would have had to guess which pair was playing if you didn't know the difference between the 2 versions. Even then you did need to walk up to them out of disbelief, you couldn't pinpoint which set was playing from from the MLP. That's magical.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Al Sherwood said:


> For the living room (Plasma TV) set up the left image is a non started for obvious reasons, I wrestled with the right configuration until I was able to adjust the heights of the screen and all speakers to keep the left right channels (based on tweeter position) at ear height while seated and keep the center channel tweeter within 12" of that same height (as recommended by the speaker manufacturer. Sometimes life is a compromise...


That it is!



> Now for the 'real' HT setup being built for the basement, I already have the acoustically transparent screen and will place all front main speakers at the correct height behind the screen, much like the left image.


I think your speakers should be positioned for best sound, and the screen should be positioned for best picture. In many cases, depending on screen viewing size, the result may differ from the graphic as shown. 

Speakers placed above the middle of the screen is really only justified in a stadium seating situation. Most of us t'home don't have that to deal with.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> That design shown in the picture (MTM) is generally regarded as non-optimum for centre speakers because of dispersion issues, comb filtering and lobing. This article is a good introduction: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=89614
> 
> So Nightlord was probably saying that such a design would sound better when used vertically, and he is probably right.
> 
> There are, of course, many different designs of centre speaker and some work much better than others. I have always used identical LCR speakers where possible and this is the ideal, but often is not practical.


I'm using BIC Acoustech PL-28II Center Speaker it sounds great but after reading blu ray.com forum I'm wondering if my choice was incorrect with getting the BIC Acoustech PL-28II Center Speaker as it is a horizontal orientation.


----------



## Al Sherwood

rcohen said:


> I always wonder if something magical happens with imaging when all speakers are identical in terms of both timbre and phase. It certainly helps for the front soundstage. It's logical that it would help make panning more convincing, but I don't know that much panning happens between the front and surrounds, except for video games.
> 
> Similarly, I wonder how important it is to match both timbre and phase between ceiling and surround speakers. Timbre can be corrected with EQ, but phase probably needs matching crossovers.





brwsaw said:


> Having matching across the front is worth the effort and expense (its easy to say when you get your PJ for free).
> The magic happens when sounds pan between them and there is no hand over, no degradation, no audible change. 0,zilch, nada.
> I got to give credit to the speakers too, in our room you can't tell which speaker is outputting sound until you're right up against it ,or where the speakers are behind the screen (content specific but generally true). At one time I had 5 nearly matching units up front, with 2 pairs of 2 on a switcher (center not connected) and you would have had to guess which pair was playing if you didn't know the difference between the 2 versions. Even then you did need to walk up to them out of disbelief, you couldn't pinpoint which set was playing from from the MLP. That's magical.



I agree with the premise of having all speakers matched, from a starting point it should make the job of a seamless sound presentation easier to achieve. For the full blown Atmos 7.2.4 I am planning for the basement, all speakers (except subs, 2 x DTS-10) will be of the same brand/family/series...


----------



## Roger Dressler

Here's my idea of a better arrangement for home theaters.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> Here's my idea of a better arrangement for home theaters.


And that works just fine. Just want to be sure not to block much of the mid/high section of a speaker. Bass is okay.

My screen/speaker arrangement is similar. I have a large horn loaded midrange and hf section that is unobstructed and a large quad 15" bass section. No worries on the screen frame blocking that part but gotta keep it clear for the critical midrange, obviously.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Roger Dressler said:


> Here's my idea of a better arrangement for home theaters.



That will likely be closer to what I end up with in the home theatre...


I have towers for the LCR speakers and a 51" high screen, that combined with an 8' ceiling actually favour this layout.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Roger Dressler said:


> Here's my idea of a better arrangement for home theaters.


My fronts are towers set up just like that. I have the TV just slightly higher and tilted forward to compensate. It works surprisingly well, IMHO.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> I'm as guilty as most on this thread for fretting about these angles and trying to fall within the recommended guidelines so take this last bit with a grain of salt: just do the best you can in your setup to get as close as possible and then forget about it and enjoy Atmos (once we finally have some content to play that is)!


I agree. For years people have positioned their left, right, centre, surround and sub speakers in less than ideal places and not worried about it at all, and still enjoyed satisfying movie sound. Now we have Atmos and suddenly people are fretting about this precise azimuth, that precise elevation, this distance and that to the millimeter.  Obviously, get everything as close to spec as possible (including 5.1 setups) but if you can't meet the spec perfectly, don't let good be the enemy of perfect (©sdurani).


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Last night, I got my Top Front / Top Rear speakers installed (pictures attached) for 7.2.4
> I didn't want to drill into the popcorn ceiling, so I created a creative workaround:
> My mains are only a foot and a half out from the walls, and since the top speakers are supposed to be "in-line" with them, I got 18" shelf brackets and mounted small speakers to them.
> (Equipment: four 18" shelf brackets, four omnimount 10.0s, scrap wood, three monoprice cable management kits, sixteen 3M command hanging strips, four Energy V-minis, speaker wire, *total cost: about $440*)
> The tiny speakers are from the same "family" as my other Energy speakers, so the timbre matching issue should be small to nonexistent.
> The speakers end up being about 7 feet from the floor (well above head-height) and about 8 feet diagonally from the MLP (5 feet laterally), so I think they will be far enough away to avoid locatlization problems (although SBIR will be something I am unable to address [i.e. ceiling mounted acoustic material is a no go]).
> The *girlfriend gave me one of those looks*, but I think it's gonna be okay. (She was way more upset about the acoustic treatments [also pictured] than the "ceiling" speakers).
> I get my Denon 5200 later today. I can't wait to hook it all up.  (Still have to run the speaker wire, and of course swap AVRs and run Audyssey)


Very creative solution. Do let us know what DSU sounds like on some good modern movies with good soundtracks!


----------



## kbarnes701

alyssanick said:


> I ask because I'm looking at the list of current movies with mixes and am only interested in...
> 
> 1. Hobbit
> 2. Hobbit 2
> 3. Gravity
> 4. The Wolverine
> 5. Man of Steel
> 6. Iron Man 3
> 7. Hobbit 3
> 8. Into the Storm
> 9. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
> 10. Amazing Spiderman 2
> 11. X-men : Days
> 12. Godzilla
> 13. Noah (maybe...)
> 14. Avengers : Age
> 
> ...of the 150 odd titles.


Wouldn’t that be typical though? Of any list of 150 titles wouldn't you generally only be interested in about 10%. Gradually, as more and more movies are mixed in Atmos, I expect it to become the de facto standard for BD sound, much like 5.1 is now, and almost all movies will be released with an Atmos track. When we consider the many benefits to the professional mixer which Atmos brings, we can see that it is bound to become the norm. We have to give it time - it's not even officially launched yet for the home version!




alyssanick said:


> I didn't read all 200 pages so forgive me if this has been answered or addressed! Btw *I understand there is an upmixer that can handle most legacy titles depending on receiver enabling it with all codec.* But its been well mentioned it doesn't really remix the title. It remains mostly faithful. Hence I'd rather a remix to give those older titles I love the atmos experience.


Yes, we all have high hopes of Dolby Surround Upmixer for our legacy collections. AFAIK the only person who has heard DSU here on this thread right now is FilmMixer - he said it was "very good".


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Of what


That DSU doesn’t do wides


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I'm using BIC Acoustech PL-28II Center Speaker it sounds great but after reading blu ray.com forum I'm wondering if my choice was incorrect with getting the BIC Acoustech PL-28II Center Speaker as it is a horizontal orientation.


Hey - if it's sounded good to you all this time, don't let an Internet article suddenly make it start sounding bad! If you sit more or less on axis, MTM designs aren’t as bad as you'd expect from the design theory. Next time you buy a centre speaker, just bear in mind what you've learned from that article, but I wouldn't start throwing away a perfectly good speaker that "sounds great" just because the theoretical aspects of speaker design say (rightly) that MTM designs aren't the greatest idea.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> That DSU doesn’t do wides


Oh well that makes me sad! 

But what happens when ATMOS discs are encoded will they have sides or not? Maybe I should think about 7.2.4 instead. I kind of like the sides, fills the gap between Front and Surrounds


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> Oh well that makes me sad!
> 
> But what happens when ATMOS discs are encoded will they have sides or not? Maybe I should think about 7.2.4 instead. I kind of like the sides, fills the gap between Front and Surrounds


Yes. When listening to native Atmos content, if there are *objects* that move from the left/right front to the left/right surround they will move through your 'wide' speaker position.

The DSU will not use these wide speaker locations.


----------



## NorthSky

I got some "wide" news today; CEDIA has just started.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. When listening to native Atmos content, if there are *objects* that move from the left/right front to the left/right surround they will move through your 'wide' speaker position. The DSU will not use these wide speaker locations.


Ok got it 

So is it worth keeping the sides then since I probably am not going to buy again 900 Blu Ray again even with 4K and ATMOS, as I said may be I am better off with 7.2.4


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> That DSU doesn’t do wides



The "*DTS-UHD Companion Upmixer*" is presumably based on the same algorithms used in *DTS Neo:X* _. . . so we might hope that it DOES do wides!_  
_


----------



## wse

SoundChex said:


> The "*DTS-UHD Companion Upmixer*" is presumably based on the same algorithms used in *DTS Neo:X* _. . . so we might hope that it DOES do wides!_  _


Ah there is hope of course that will be in 2015 maybe and by then ATMOS will have grabbed 99% market share


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> Ok got it
> 
> So is it worth keeping the sides then since I probably am not going to buy again 900 Blu Ray again even with 4K and ATMOS, as I said may be I am better off with 7.2.4


Really this is a decision for you to make. You have invested much in your speaker system that happens to include 'wides'. There is only one single Atmos title announced and that hasn't even come out yet.

At this point I really wouldn't get hung up on this kind of stuff.


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> Ok got it
> 
> So is it worth keeping the sides then since I probably am not going to buy again 900 Blu Ray again even with 4K and ATMOS, as I said may be I am better off with 7.2.4


Your options are:

Option 1: Go full bore into Atmos / DSU and go with a 7.1.4 setup, all speakers are lit up for Atmos native content and DSU upmixed content. Done with wides, say bye-bye to legacy upmixers.

Option 2: If you love your wide speakers, you can go with a 9.1.2 setup, in which case Atmos native content will light up all speakers, but DSU upmixed content will only play in 7.1.2.

Option 3: Try a hybrid approach with 13 speakers, maintaining a 9ch setup at floor level and 4 height speakers. Atmos content and DSU upmixed content will play in 7.1.4, and you can also retain the option of the "old" 11ch upmix with Neo:X/DSX which will light up the wides and front heights (and the back heights silent). Note that this option requires telling the processor that your frontal elevated speakers are "Front Height" as Neo:X/DSX won't upmix to "Top Front" speaker position. So the config would be 7.1 + Front Wide + Front Height + Top Middle/Rear.

Then with Option 3 you cross your fingers and pray for an affordable 13ch processor to appear that will let you do full 9.1.4 with native Atmos content.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Oh well that makes me sad!
> 
> But what happens when ATMOS discs are encoded will they have sides or not? Maybe I should think about 7.2.4 instead. I kind of like the sides, fills the gap between Front and Surrounds


Atmos supports wides. DSU doesn't.


----------



## Al Sherwood

13 channels.... I hope this gets sorted out soon, I am beginning to run out of matching speakers! 


I thought I was going to retire the wides...


----------



## NorthSky

For right now Option 1 seems to be the smartest one. 

And screw them wides.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> The "*DTS-UHD Companion Upmixer*" is presumably based on the same algorithms used in *DTS Neo:X* _. . . so we might hope that it DOES do wides!_
> _


Seems a reasonable theory. If we ever get it...


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> For right now Option 1 seems to be the smartest one.
> 
> And screw them wides.


Makes my floor plan a lot easier!


----------



## sdurani

Wides channels are a concoction of the consumer market. According to an interview in one of Scott Wilkinson's podcasts, the inventor of Neo:X submitted an 11 channel version that was 7 main + 4 heights. Prior to release, DTS changed that to 7 main + 2 heights and 2 wides (maybe because Audyssey DSX had just released processing that used 2 heights and 2 wides). For the last couple years, the DTS website has been showing an 11.1 Neo:X layout as 7.1 + 4 heights. 

In any case, there are no wide channels in movie mixing. Never have been. Look at the mix formats from the Dolby Stereo matrix to discrete 5.1/7.1: no wide channels. Even with Atmos, no wide channel beds. Same with Auro3D, whether the mix is 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1, no wide channels. No surprise then that wides are the step-child of home theatre layouts.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Your options are:
> 
> Option 1: Go full bore into Atmos / DSU and go with a 7.1.4 setup, all speakers are lit up for Atmos native content and DSU upmixed content. Done with wides, say bye-bye to legacy upmixers.
> 
> Option 2: If you love your wide speakers, you can go with a 9.1.2 setup, in which case Atmos native content will light up all speakers, but DSU upmixed content will only play in 7.1.2.
> 
> Option 3: Try a hybrid approach with 13 speakers, maintaining a 9ch setup at floor level and 4 height speakers. Atmos content and DSU upmixed content will play in 7.1.4, and you can also retain the option of the "old" 11ch upmix with Neo:X/DSX which will light up the wides and front heights (and the back heights silent). Note that this option requires telling the processor that your frontal elevated speakers are "Front Height" as Neo:X/DSX won't upmix to "Top Front" speaker position. So the config would be 7.1 + Front Wide + Front Height + Top Middle/Rear.
> 
> Then with Option 3 you cross your fingers and pray for an affordable 13ch processor to appear that will let you do full 9.1.4 with native Atmos content.


Option 3 is *exactly *what I have done. All 13 speakers were wired up and mounted last week, and my X5200W is scheduled for delivery tomorrow!


----------



## krozman

I am the only person in my house that cares about sound in movies. I don't have friends. 7.1.2 baby!


DSU upmixer question: If you're 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 and you throw in a legacy 7.1 track blu ray.....the upmixer only sends "upmixer" signals to the atmos ceilings correct? Or will DSU change everything?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Wides channels are a concoction of the consumer market. According to an interview in one of Scott Wilkinson's podcasts, the inventor of Neo:X submitted an 11 channel version that was 7 main + 4 heights. Prior to release, DTS changed that to 7 main + 2 heights and 2 wides (maybe because Audyssey DSX had just released processing that used 2 heights and 2 wides). For the last couple years, the DTS website has been showing an 11.1 Neo:X layout as 7.1 + 4 heights.
> 
> In any case, there are no wide channels in movie mixing. Never have been. Look at the mix formats from the Dolby Stereo matrix to discrete 5.1/7.1: no wide channels. Even with Atmos, no wide channel beds. Same with Auro3D, whether the mix is 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1, no wide channels. No surprise then that wides are the step-child of home theatre layouts.


Absolutely, and that's because home theater layouts present a problem (the gap between fronts and surrounds) that isn't an issue in commercial cinema, because in a real movie theater there is an array of surround speakers lining the side walls. Many, many people, due to room constraints (myself included) have their front L/R speakers sort of flanking the display (making them a little more narrow than ideal) and their surround speakers behind them, exacerbating the gap with non ideal spacing.


----------



## batpig

krozman said:


> I am the only person in my house that cares about sound in movies. I don't have friends. 7.1.2 baby!
> 
> 
> DSU upmixer question: If you're 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 and you throw in a legacy 7.1 track blu ray.....the upmixer only sends "upmixer" signals to the atmos ceilings correct? Or will DSU change everything?


I don't think we know for sure at this point, but it's a good bet that with native multich (5.1/7.1) conent, DSU won't touch the front 3 channels all (or else why would they intentionally not mix to wides in order to avoid messing up the front soundstage?). There may be some slight changing of the surround signal, perhaps deleting sounds that are extracted to the height speakers? I'm not sure how PLIIz does it but I imagine it won't be that different in concept.

In my limited testing with DSU at this point I haven't noticed any perceptable change in the quality of the front soundstage.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey - if it's sounded good to you all this time, don't let an Internet article suddenly make it start sounding bad! If you sit more or less on axis, MTM designs aren’t as bad as you'd expect from the design theory. Next time you buy a centre speaker, just bear in mind what you've learned from that article, but I wouldn't start throwing away a perfectly good speaker that "sounds great" just because the theoretical aspects of speaker design say (rightly) that MTM designs aren't the greatest idea.


I love you Man i appreciate all of your advise, to me it's almost always spot on and i respect your feedback. now i don't have to sell everything and start over. LOL
I was starting to doubt my hearing thinking that that i was clueless to what i think sounded good when it's really crap. I do sit on axis as i have no choice there isn't much room in my Den.
How far off axis are we talking about can you help me understand how to identify how far off axis that i would notice it.
I know when watching most LED TV's off axis is obvious, like if your off axes the image washes out the more off axes you go.


----------



## kokishin

Tried to post from my phone. PITA. Never mind.


----------



## bargervais

krozman said:


> I am the only person in my house that cares about sound in movies. I don't have friends. 7.1.2 baby!
> 
> 
> DSU upmixer question: If you're 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 and you throw in a legacy 7.1 track blu ray.....the upmixer only sends "upmixer" signals to the atmos ceilings correct? Or will DSU change everything?


I have one Friend


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> I love you Man i appreciate all of your advise, to me it's almost always spot on and i respect your feedback. now i don't have to sell everything and start over. LOL
> I was starting to doubt my hearing thinking that that i was clueless to what i think sounded good when it's really crap. I do sit on axis as i have no choice there isn't much room in my Den.
> How far off axis are we talking about can you help me understand how to identify how far off axis that i would notice it.
> I know when watching most LED TV's off axis is obvious, like if your off axes the image washes out the more off axes you go.


Look - there are always going to be certain people who will point out the theoretical flaws with anybody's setup. Center channels sound better vertical than horizontal because of interference/lobing!! On-ceiling speakers are flawed because of SBIR!! Your speakers are 6 inches too high / too far forward / too low!!!

And these people are NOT wrong... it's just that theoretical perfection is an impossible goal. So you do what you gotta do. 

Everybody has compromises, you do what you can and magically the imperfect setup can still be pretty freakin enjoyable. So don't sweat the small stuff if you are happy.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I love you Man i appreciate all of your advise, to me it's almost always spot on and i respect your feedback. now i don't have to sell everything and start over. LOL
> I was starting to doubt my hearing thinking that that i was clueless to what i think sounded good when it's really crap. I do sit on axis as i have no choice there isn't much room in my Den.
> How far off axis are we talking about can you help me understand how to identify how far off axis that i would notice it.
> I know when watching most LED TV's off axis is obvious, like if your off axes the image washes out the more off axes you go.


LOL - thanks. 

It's easy to test - just play something and slowly move from the centre to the far side of the room, keeping your ears pointed at the centre speaker. Do you hear any problems? Do you hear comb filtering or lobing? No? I thought not. When you get really off axis you may notice some problems with the sound, but unless you normally sit in that position, or have someone who does, why worry about how it sounds when you are right up against the side wall?

And remember, if it sounds good to you, then it IS good to you!


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> Wides channels are a concoction of the consumer market. According to an interview in one of Scott Wilkinson's podcasts, the inventor of Neo:X submitted an 11 channel version that was 7 main + 4 heights. Prior to release, DTS changed that to 7 main + 2 heights and 2 wides (maybe because Audyssey DSX had just released processing that used 2 heights and 2 wides). For the last couple years, the DTS website has been showing an 11.1 Neo:X layout as 7.1 + 4 heights.
> 
> In any case, there are no wide channels in movie mixing. Never have been. Look at the mix formats from the Dolby Stereo matrix to discrete 5.1/7.1: no wide channels. Even with Atmos, no wide channel beds. Same with Auro3D, whether the mix is 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1, no wide channels. No surprise then that wides are the step-child of home theatre layouts.


Well said, and the truth. ...Audyssey DSX ... Where is Chris? 

* And why not having six front wide channels, six side wide surround channels, and six wide back surround channels while @ it! ...After all, we truly want to be surrounded, no? 
And then, @ three levels; ear level, above (mid-level) and overhead, with the voices of the angels and god. ...Say 128 speakers total (without counting the subs). ...Just ask Chris (the Audyssey DSX man). 

Me, I know exactly my configuration, and it is *7.1.4* using dual subs. 

They say the more discrete speakers the better directionality. ...With Dolby Atmos, more is not better anymore, not with the new mixing consoles that can put objects anywhere in space. ...Spatial surround sound in 3D, using smart algorithms. This is the world, and a room is a room inside a room is a room, @ home. We are stepping out of the cinema theaters, from 400 listeners down to ten, six, two, or/and one. 
...Twelve atmos. ...Or so.


----------



## krozman

NorthSky said:


> Me, I know exactly my configuration, and it is *7.1.4* using dual subs.
> 
> .


Is there a way to do 7.1.4 with two subs that doesn't involve calling it 7.2.4?


----------



## krozman

bargervais said:


> I have one Freind


Mispelled.....oh wait did you mean Fiend?


----------



## sikclown

Anyone have thoughts on Klipsch RS-52ii for Top Middle/rear speakers?
*
*


----------



## batpig

krozman said:


> Is there a way to do 7.1.4 with two subs that doesn't involve calling it 7.2.4?


I don't really understand the question. You can call it whatever you want.

Technically it is ALWAYS ".1" because there is only a single mono subwoofer channel that plays LFE + redirected bass. Whether you have one sub, two subs, or 8 subs it's still the same .1 output.

Now that things have migrated to where the numerical designation tends to refer to people's speaker setup more than the input signal channels, it's fine if you want to say, "I have a 7.2 system" to indicate that you have a 7.1 setup but two subs instead of one. With Atmos we are now referring exclusively to the actual speaker layout, so it really doesn't matter if you want to say 7.1.4 or make it 7.2.4 because you want to indicate that you have two subs.


----------



## bargervais

krozman said:


> Mispelled.....oh wait did you mean Fiend?


oops I Before E no i didn't mean fiend LOL *sorry friend*


----------



## Al Sherwood

krozman said:


> Is there a way to do 7.1.4 with two subs that doesn't involve calling it 7.2.4?



Is using a "2" to denote two subs really miss spelling? We are only talking about numbers here... 


I like the idea of bigger numbers hence the 2 as opposed to only 1 Ha, ha!


----------



## batpig

sikclown said:


> Anyone have thoughts on Klipsch RS-52ii for Top Middle/rear speakers?
> *
> *


Are those bipole or dipole? 

Most have recommended using monopoles for on-ceiling speakers. I think though if you only had two ceiling speakers and were concerned that they wouldn't be immersive enough (e.g. the ceiling is too low) then using a speaker like this with two tweeters aimed in different directions would be a decent compromise.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Absolutely, and that's because home theater layouts present a problem (the gap between fronts and surrounds) that isn't an issue in commercial cinema, because in a real movie theater there is an array of surround speakers lining the side walls. Many, many people, due to room constraints (myself included) have their front L/R speakers sort of flanking the display (making them a little more narrow than ideal) and their surround speakers behind them, exacerbating the gap with non ideal spacing.


We talked a lot about this in the past. In a normal 7.1-channel setup the side surround speakers are @ 90° from dead front center. ...And the front L & R @ roughly 30° on each side of that center channel speaker.
The rear surround speakers are on the back wall, @ roughly 150° on each side.

With Dolby Atmos now they can put objects between all them speakers, and also above; them four overhead ones, or them four up-firing ones reflected from the ceiling's surface. 

It's like a new kid in town has arrived, and he just used his laser gun to blast Audyssey DSX, and DTS Neo:W (Wides). ...And front and back Heights have been replaced by four overhead speakers. 

The speaker positions are solid sounding, and Dolby Atmos is taking care of everything else; large and small. And the Dolby Pro Logic family has also been laser gun blasted to welcome the much improved Dolby Surround mode (up-mixer, or DSU).


----------



## SoundChex

krozman said:


> Is there a way to do 7.1.4 with two subs that doesn't involve calling it 7.2.4?



I usually write 'something like' *7.1(2).4* . . . or *7.1(Dual Mono).4*

but there don't seem to be any real standards...?!  
_


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> With Atmos we are now referring exclusively to the actual speaker layout...


Yup, the nomenclature originally intended to describe the number of discrete channels was no longer useful with object-oriented soundtracks. So Dolby recycled that nomenclature, just as they recycled the name Dolby Surround. At least they're doing their part for conservation.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, we all have high hopes of Dolby Surround Upmixer for our legacy collections. AFAIK *the only person who has heard DSU here on this thread right now is FilmMixer* - he said it was "very good".


I thought there were more; like four or five more people?


----------



## krozman

Batpig has had it for a week. Report~!


----------



## krozman

sikclown said:


> Anyone have thoughts on Klipsch RS-52ii for Top Middle/rear speakers?


I thought this exactly until that discussion somewhere that said that dipoles will confuse the purpose of atmos on the ceiling. I am only going 7.1.2 so I just bought 2 more RB51ii's, as that is what I have for all my surrounds already. Plus the RB51's are pre drilled and threaded for mounting.


----------



## NorthSky

krozman said:


> Is there a way to do 7.1.4 with two subs that doesn't involve calling it 7.2.4?


You can call it that, no problemo, but the .2 is still only one LFE/Bass channel. ...There are no two LFE channels in movie soundtracks and multichannel music recordings, only one.


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> Are those bipole or dipole?
> 
> Most have recommended using monopoles for on-ceiling speakers. I think though if you only had two ceiling speakers and were concerned that they wouldn't be immersive enough (e.g. the ceiling is too low) then using a speaker like this with two tweeters aimed in different directions would be a decent compromise.


Honestly I don't know which they are. Hmm maybe these are too wide dispersing? My ceilings are 14.6 feet tall so Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers are kind off of the table I think.


----------



## batpig

sikclown said:


> Honestly I don't know which they are. Hmm maybe these are too wide dispersing? My ceilings are 14.6 feet tall so Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers are kind off of the table I think.


With ceilings that high I would go with a direct firing speaker. A bipole/dipole type would probably end up being too diffuse.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Received a news-update from Auro-3D:

*Here at Auro we’ve always been determined to make the wonder of immersive sound available to everyone. That’s why I’m delighted to announce that our new flagship AV processor, the Auro-3D Mensa, delivered in partnership with Datasat, will feature both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos 3D sound formats.*

http://www.auro-3d.com/blog/breakin...ensa-to-feature-both-auro-3d-and-dolby-atmos/


----------



## NorthSky

*14.6 feet high ceiling*



batpig said:


> With ceilings that high I would go with a direct firing speaker. A bipole/dipole type would probably end up being too diffuse.


I would improvise; hang them from the ceiling, with chains. ...And no bipole/dipole, but direct radiators.


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> With ceilings that high I would go with a direct firing speaker. A bipole/dipole type would probably end up being too diffuse.


Yeah that is what I am thinking now too. Now to find direct firing speakers I can mount on the ceiling that marry well with Klipsch.


----------



## sikclown

NorthSky said:


> I would improvise; hang them from the ceiling, with chains. ...And no bipole/dipole, but direct radiators.


hmmmm....... That option intrigues me.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

NorthSky said:


> We talked a lot about this in the past. In a normal 7.1-channel setup the side surround speakers are @ 90° from dead front center. ...And the front L & R @ roughly 30° on each side of that center channel speaker.
> The rear surround speakers are on the back wall, @ roughly 150° on each side.
> 
> With Dolby Atmos now they can put objects between all them speakers, and also above; them four overhead ones, or them four up-firing ones reflected from the ceiling's surface.
> 
> It's like a new kid in town has arrived, and he just used his laser gun to blast Audyssey DSX, and DTS Neo:W (Wides). ...And front and back Heights have been replaced by four overhead speakers.
> 
> The speaker positions are solid sounding, and Dolby Atmos is taking care of everything else; large and small. And the Dolby Pro Logic family has also been laser gun blasted to welcome the much improved Dolby Surround mode (up-mixer, or DSU).



Northsky,

I have to say my friend, you have a certain way with words that I really do enjoy... you are one of a kind! 


...Glenn


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Received a news-update from Auro-3D:
> 
> *Here at Auro we’ve always been determined to make the wonder of immersive sound available to everyone. That’s why I’m delighted to announce that our new flagship AV processor, the Auro-3D Mensa, delivered in partnership with Datasat, will feature both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos 3D sound formats.*
> 
> http://www.auro-3d.com/blog/breakin...ensa-to-feature-both-auro-3d-and-dolby-atmos/


How much is the *Mensa* Erwin?


----------



## SoundChex

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Received a news-update from Auro-3D:
> 
> *Here at Auro we’ve always been determined to make the wonder of immersive sound available to everyone. That’s why I’m delighted to announce that our new flagship AV processor, the Auro-3D Mensa, delivered in partnership with Datasat, will feature both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos 3D sound formats.*
> 
> http://www.auro-3d.com/blog/breakin...ensa-to-feature-both-auro-3d-and-dolby-atmos/



*Auro-3D Mensa* https://www.facebook.com/Auro3D/pho...207520000.1410377501./716370855065967/?type=1

*Auro-3D Crux* https://www.facebook.com/Auro3D/pho...207520000.1410377501./716370601732659/?type=1

_


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> hmmmm....... That option intrigues me.


It is very possible; first you need to have a center of gravity that would give each speaker its intended angling position. ...Some sort of bracket attached to the speaker's rear. 
And for more stability, two chains per each speaker. 

Me, I would simply put four small hooks @ the speaker's rear where it is perfectly balanced to face straight down (use wide dispersion speakers for that). And then use very short chains to rely them four hooks.
Finally, attached them to the high ceiling using two long chains for better stability (no movements). 

* I'm in the same situation @ my place, and that is one of my ideas so far; but I'm not done yet. 
The highest spot (middle) in my room is eleven feet; I can also have long metal rods to be hanging and holding the four overhead speakers in position; say roughly couple feet long metal rods. 

More ideas to come too...


----------



## NorthSky

Glenn Baumann said:


> Northsky,
> 
> I have to say my friend, you have a certain way with words that I really do enjoy... you are one of a kind!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Thx Glenn. ...THX speakers have also been obliterated, vaporised, disintegrated to smithereens.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Wides channels are a concoction of the consumer market. According to an interview in one of Scott Wilkinson's podcasts, the inventor of Neo:X submitted an 11 channel version that was 7 main + 4 heights. Prior to release, DTS changed that to 7 main + 2 heights and 2 wides (maybe because Audyssey DSX had just released processing that used 2 heights and 2 wides). For the last couple years, the DTS website has been showing an 11.1 Neo:X layout as 7.1 + 4 heights.
> 
> In any case, there are no wide channels in movie mixing. Never have been. Look at the mix formats from the Dolby Stereo matrix to discrete 5.1/7.1: no wide channels. Even with Atmos, no wide channel beds. Same with Auro3D, whether the mix is 9.1 or 11.1 or 13.1, no wide channels. No surprise then that wides are the step-child of home theatre layouts.


A quibble: when people here on AVS have discussed the priority of adding speakers to a 5.1 configuration (before Atmos), the consensus has been that adding Front Wides is better than adding Rear Surrounds, which is better than adding Front Heights. (Defining "better" in some appropriate way  ) As I recall, this same advice was promulgated by the Audyssey spokesperson. 

I'm in the process of adding 6 speakers to my current 5.1 configuration to become 7.1.4. Since i really have no room for Rear Surrounds in their standard locations, I've been seriously considering designating my current Surrounds as Rears and designating the new ear-level speakers (which otherwise would be considered Front Wides) as Side Surrounds, just to find out how it sounds. That way both DSU and Neo:X would use all of the ear-level speakers. 

Oh, well, one can always hope that future cost-effective implementations of Dolby Surround will actually make use of whatever speaker layout one actually has (as Trinnov's Altitude 32 is expected to do) instead of imposing such an arbitrary limitation.


----------



## sikclown

NorthSky said:


> It is very possible; first you need to have a center of gravity that would give each speaker its intended angling position. ...Some sort of bracket attached to the speaker's rear.
> And for more stability, two chains per each speaker.
> 
> Me, I would simply put four small hooks @ the speaker's rear where it is perfectly balanced to face straight down (use wide dispersion speakers for that). And then use very short chains to rely them four hooks.
> Finally, attached them to the high ceiling using two long chains for better stability (no movements).
> 
> * I'm in the same situation @ my place, and that is one of my ideas so far; but I'm not done yet.
> The highest spot (middle) in my room is eleven feet; I can also have long metal rods to be hanging and holding the four overhead speakers in position; say roughly couple feet long metal rods.
> 
> More ideas to come to...


I found these brackets which I think may actually be perfect for the setup I am thinking of running. 

http://www.wayfair.com/Cotytech-Ceiling-Bracket-Set-of-2-Set-of-2-SP-OS03-PGY1168.html


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I've been seriously considering designating my current Surrounds as Rears and designating the new ear-level speakers (which otherwise would be considered Front Wides) as Side Surrounds, just to find out how it sounds. That way both DSU and Neo:X would use all of the ear-level speakers.


That sounds like the fairly standard arrangement of having rear surrounds somewhat behind you and then moving the side surrounds somewhat before you, as in this image:










I’d have thought that this 'standard' layout would be better than actually designating sides as rears and wides as sides. For one thing, wides are not present in any original format mixed for the theater and side surrounds are mixed with the assumption that the speakers are where the mixer intended them to be placed. IOW, I think it will sound like a mess. HST, it will be interesting to see if the practice exceeds the theory, so do please let us know!

If I had 7.1 I'd definitely follow the right hand diagram above.


----------



## Selden Ball

Keith,

Thanks for the diagrams! Fortunately, the placement of the new ear-level speakers is going to be adjustable, unlike the existing speakers which are constrained by immovable furniture. So now I have to determine some reasonable titles with full 7.1 soundtracks... Any suggestions?


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for the diagrams! Fortunately, the placement of the new ear-level speakers is going to be adjustable, unlike the existing speakers which are constrained by immovable furniture. So now I have to determine some reasonable titles with full 7.1 soundtracks... Any suggestions?


Understood. Well they are all reasonable when upmixed  But only recently, IIRC, you posted a link to Bluray stats dot com where they listed all the movies mixed originally in 7.1 didn’t they? Or was it just movies released with 7.1 soundtracks? I’d guess starting with the original (Toy Story 3) would be a reasonable idea. And a great movie to boot.

Just from my own collection I spot the following with original 7.1 mixes:

Transformers: Dark of the Moon 
Captain America: The First Avenger 
Tron: Legacy
Kung Fu Panda 2 
Thor 
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Super 8
Cars 2


----------



## Selden Ball

Thanks! Now if only my receiver and speakers arrive soon...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Thanks! Now if only my receiver and speakers arrive soon...


_3:10 to Yuma_ has a pretty good PCM 7.1 track as well.

A lot of modern Disney & PIXAR films have 7.1 tracks besides _Toy Story 3_.

Check out _Wreck-It-Ralph_'s 7.1 track. Fun movie (a lot better than the lackadaisical _Brave_ and even a bit better than _Frozen_).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember that the Dolby gurus in Scott Wilkinson't HTG podcast were specifically asked this. Their answer was that you should try to match timbre if you can, and if you can't, then EQ will do a pretty good job of matching it for you. IOW, don't worry so much about it.


Cool TY! Not that I'm accusing the Dolby spokespeople of dishonesty or anything but I do remain cautiously optimistic when it comes to expectations being met. I'm just asking because I'm not that experienced with format changes but I know a lot in the AVS community are... so I'm just curious what many of you will be doing (buying Atmos dedicated speakers or keeping your old ones and getting different brand modules for the heights?)


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> With ceilings that high I would go with a direct firing speaker. A bipole/dipole type would probably end up being too diffuse.


I think those Klipsch surrounds are bipole, based on everything I've seen. And bipoles are just like monopoles with a wide dispersion angle (uniform frequency response). Dispersion is not diffusion, so no need to put them by the curb just yet.


----------



## W3Rman

sikclown said:


> Anyone have thoughts on Klipsch RS-52ii for Top Middle/rear speakers?
> *
> *


I will be using two pair of the Klipsch RS-52 II's for both TF & TR. 

They have two woofers that are wired in phase just as the tweeters are in phase also.

The faces for each woofer/tweeter pair are approx 40deg.

*Depending on who you talk to at Klipsch you will get one of two answers*
a. they are bipole < they say this because the woofer/tweeter pairs are wired in phase like normal bipole speakers
b. they are niether < they say this because the angle of the pairs and cabinet spacing between them does not produce as much diffused sound seen in many bipole cabinet constuction.

* so they say they are WDST (Wide Dispersion Surround Technology) direct radiating with a 180deg. dispersion pattern.

Anyway they will work just fine for me as I have only one MLP for PC gaming. 
. The TF pair will be at 40deg and the TR will be 130deg 
. Each pair will be 4' from the MLP when measured straight out toward the screen/toward the rear of room
. Each pair will have a 6.5' spread that will be in line with the FL/FR & BLs/BRs


So as far as recommendation goes for movie watching with multiple seating IDK its your call depends on the seating arrangement and sound experience your looking for. 

With my application using *DSU* for gaming I will be sitting below and between looking right up at the inside speaker faces and they will provide both directionality and envelopment. 

They also will timbre match nicely with my (RS-62 II's >Ls/Rs, BLs/BRs) and RB-61, RC-62, RW-12D's)


:smile:


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> A quibble: when people here on AVS have discussed the priority of adding speakers to a 5.1 configuration (before Atmos), the consensus has been that adding Front Wides is better than adding Rear Surrounds, which is better than adding Front Heights. (Defining "better" in some appropriate way  ) As I recall, this same advice was promulgated by the Audyssey spokesperson.
> 
> I'm in the process of adding 6 speakers to my current 5.1 configuration to become 7.1.4. Since i really have no room for Rear Surrounds in their standard locations, I've been seriously considering designating my current Surrounds as Rears and designating the new ear-level speakers (which otherwise would be considered Front Wides) as Side Surrounds, just to find out how it sounds. That way both DSU and Neo:X would use all of the ear-level speakers.
> 
> Oh, well, one can always hope that future cost-effective implementations of Dolby Surround will actually make use of whatever speaker layout one actually has (as Trinnov's Altitude 32 is expected to do) instead of imposing such an arbitrary limitation.


Thing is this too: Blu-ray flicks are encoded with 5.1 or 7.1 channels (rear surrounds). 
{I must have few hundreds in 7.1 surround sound where the film mixer put something in them two back surround channels - I just don't wanna miss a thing, that is real and concrete and discrete and not recreated, invented, DSPed, virtualised.}


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> I found these brackets which I think may actually be perfect for the setup I am thinking of running.
> 
> http://www.wayfair.com/Cotytech-Ceiling-Bracket-Set-of-2-Set-of-2-SP-OS03-PGY1168.html


Now you're talking. /// And look @ those telescopic type too, and the longer posts (third one from the left).
Your excellent link is the solution for all the people with high ceilings, and cathedral types, etc. 
...People like me. 

Bravo! ...Very


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> _3:10 to Yuma_ has a pretty good PCM 7.1 track as well.
> 
> A lot of modern Disney & PIXAR films have 7.1 tracks besides _Toy Story 3_.
> 
> Check out _Wreck-It-Ralph_'s 7.1 track. Fun movie (a lot better than the lackadaisical _Brave_ and even a bit better than _Frozen_).


All great exemplary 7.1-channel titles. ...And there are so many more...


----------



## sikclown

NorthSky said:


> Now you're talking. /// And look @ those telescopic type too, and the longer posts (third one from the left).
> Your excellent link is the solution for all the people with high ceilings, and cathedral types, etc.
> ...People like me.
> 
> Bravo! ...Very


Thanks! Here is another site I looked at which gives some more options for heavier/larger speakers.

http://adapttechgroup.com/multimount_c.html

But I prefer the first mounts I posted.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I think those Klipsch surrounds are bipole, based on everything I've seen. And bipoles are just like monopoles with a wide dispersion angle (uniform frequency response). Dispersion is not diffusion, so no need to put them by the curb just yet.


I'm not sure Roger; best is to experiment with them and compare them with monopole speakers having wide dispersion (great off-axis performance). And the sound should stay away from ceiling reflections...


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> Thanks! Here is another site I looked at which gives some more options for heavier/larger speakers.
> 
> http://adapttechgroup.com/multimount_c.html
> 
> But I prefer the first mounts I posted.


Wow, you found the right links; that link is good too man! ...For a more discrete look, perfect. 
Bingo! ...You just saved a lot of people's headaches.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> A quibble: when people here on AVS have discussed the priority of adding speakers to a 5.1 configuration (before Atmos), the consensus has been that adding Front Wides is better than adding Rear Surrounds, which is better than adding Front Heights. (Defining "better" in some appropriate way  ) As I recall, this same advice was promulgated by the Audyssey spokesperson.


I don't recall any consensus, just blind faith that Audyssey's approach was the right approach. Those of us that had always recommended the opposite approach (rears, then heights, then wides - if at all) received plenty of flack for disagreeing with Audyssey. Wides continue to be my lowest priority, I just don't get flack for saying that anymore. 

Remember that Audyssey wasn't pushing wides to solve the problem of "the gap between fronts and surrounds" that batpig mentioned, but instead to create early side wall reflections in order to simulate concert hall acoustics. Same with heights. If you had 9 speakers, Audyssey would have you place a full 7 of them in front of you, with only 2 left over to cover the entire surround field. 

By comparison, the movie industry had been doing the exact opposite by adding more and more surround channels, going from one (Dolby Stereo) to two (discrete 5.1) to three (Surround EX) to four (discrete 7.1). Even Sony's attempt at doing 5 channels across the front ended up being temporary and differed from Audyssey by having the additional channels between the L/C/R rather than well outside them. During all that time, no wides. 

Wides didn't originate in discussions on AVS, only to be promoted by Audyssey. Instead, they pushed the idea and the forum repeated it, more so after Neo:X. Since wides have never been part of movie sound, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that neither Dolby's nor Auro's upmixers support those channels as part of immersive/3D audio.


----------



## NorthSky

True; Audyssey has always given in order of importance:
1. Front Width surround speakers.
2. Front Height surround speakers.
3. Rear Back surround speakers.

And people simply bought it. ...But smart people did not.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> True; Audyssey has always given in order of importance:
> 1. Front Width surround speakers.
> 2. Front Height surround speakers.
> 3. Rear Back surround speakers.
> 
> And people simply bought it. ...But smart people did not.


Just curious: Did at that time smart people prefer front heights above rears or were the rears considered more important?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Just curious: Did at that time smart people prefer front heights above rears or were the rears considered more important?


Not a question of importance, just what people were used to. Fosgate came out with their first 7.1 pre-pro in 1986, Lexicon followed with their first 7.1 processor in 1988. When it came to home video, 5.1 EX and discrete 6.1 content started in 1998, with discrete 7.1 content in 2006. 

For 20 years, 7.1-speaker layouts and 6.1/7.1-channel content had been established to mean fronts, sides and rears (no heights). By the time height processing (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X) came around, people were already used to a convention for 7.1. 

On top of all that, there was no source material with height channels. Combine that with two decades of rear speakers being used in consumer set-ups, and it's easy to see why heights had never been considered more important than rears.


----------



## mike_carton

*ATMOS discs with non-ATMOS Equipment*

I've been reading all the ATMOS threads but don't remember if this was addressed:

Let's say there's a movie with a helicopter flyby scene and the BD uses ATMOS object(s) for the helicopter sounds while the rest of the sound in the scene goes into the bed (7.1 channels). If this BD were to be played in home theater equipment that is not ATMOS-enabled, what does the home audience hear? Obviously the sounds in the bed would come through but what about the helicopter sounds?


----------



## batpig

mike_carton said:


> I've been reading all the ATMOS threads but don't remember if this was addressed:
> 
> Let's say there's a movie with a helicopter flyby scene and the BD uses ATMOS object(s) for the helicopter sounds while the rest of the sound in the scene goes into the bed (7.1 channels). If this BD were to be played in home theater equipment that is not ATMOS-enabled, what does the home audience hear? Obviously the sounds in the bed would come through but what about the helicopter sounds?


It's been discussed. All Atmos tracks will be backwards compatible. The objects are folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel and the substream with object metadata will only be recognized if the processor has an Atmos decoder. 

If it's an Atmos decoder, the objects will be pulled out of the bed channels. If it's not an Atmos decoder they will stay folded down in the channels. Either way the helicopter is heard "as intended".


----------



## jimim

Hi guys,

I opted some stuff over theTirad owners thread and they thought I should maybe put my questions here also.

I'm in the wring process duet the summer and really slowing down on my build. I'm kinda glad I did due to these new formats.

Right now I'm wired for fronts (LCR), rears (as separated as I could get them in the room, side surrounds (one pair for 2 rows, they are a bit behind the main listening position), and 4 subs (2 front behind screen and two in rear of room in the columns that will house the rears.

I plan on adding ceiling speakers. I have 2 rows. The ceiling height is 8.5" about for the front row and up on the riser we are at 7.6"

Here is my first question. 

1. Can I do ceiling mounted speakers. Are my ceilings high enough even up on the riser. MLP will be front row.
2. I planned on 4 but since i have 2 rows do i have to do more? if I did 6 would 4 be wired to one set of posts and the signal split and the other 2 go to the other posts? or even in a .4 setup they are going to one set of posts and the signal is split. This i am greatly confused. Is the .* channels discrete? meaning the disc might be a .2 or a .4 and the pre/pro's will be either .2 or .4?

Wides. . . I wasn't going to wire for them but should I? is the wide channel a discrete channel? Will discs actually be 9. or will they continue to be just up to 7. and the wides are a mix channel? Can someone explain the wide channel to me? I am guessing heights don't matter if I'm doing ceiling speakers for Atmos? 

I guess my questions come down to what exactly are the pre/pro's and discs going to actually truly be able to discretely put out vs just mixing and generating fill for various speakers that are not true channels?

I hope my terminology isn't to off and you all understand what I mean.

thanks a lot. . . 

this is all so confusing. It's almost impossible to have a room anymore that can handle most formats like when things were a bit simpler with 5.1 or 7.1

thanks again. . .

jim


----------



## Kriilin

I'm glad to hear that wide dispersion speakers are still ok, I'm really loathe to give up my Mirage FRX omnipolar surrounds.


----------



## Jim S.

What do you use for WIDES and why??

I can use 2 speakers that match my LCR's, or, I can use 2 surrounds. Will the output of a native Atmos recording to wides be comparable to ceiling & surrounds, such that that a pair of surrounds would be the recommendation, or would the output be something more, so that matching the LCR speakers makes more sense?


----------



## mike_carton

batpig said:


> It's been discussed. All ATMOS tracks will be backwards compatible. The objects are folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel and the substream with object metadata will only be recognized if the processor has an Atmos decoder.
> 
> If it's an ATMOS decoder, the objects will be pulled out of the bed channels. If it's not an ATMOS decoder they will stay folded down in the channels. Either way the helicopter is heard "as intended".


When you say "and the substream with object metadata will only be recognized if the processor has an ATMOS decoder" I understand that and its implications perfectly; I have no questions about that. But correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATMOS objects cannot be "folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel" because the hardware is not even ATMOS aware. The non-ATMOS aware hardware will just play whatever is in the bed (the 7.1 channels) and ignore the ATMOS object meta data and the audience will therefore not even hear the helicopter; they'll just see it.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Just curious: Did at that time smart people prefer front heights above rears or were the rears considered more important?


That was a figure of speech, of preference; everyone is smart. ...5.1 is all you needed. 
And all type of various configurations came along, with more speakers; four side surrounds, four height presence channels, one then two rear back surrounds, ...you know the rest.

If your room is the size of a small theater then more speakers offer more people's coverage; say 16 to 24 people. But for a small room (15 by 12 by 8), a 5.1 setup should get the job done just fine. 

With Dolby Atmos, 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 (small to mid rooms) is perfect, IMO.


----------



## sdurani

mike_carton said:


> But correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATMOS objects cannot be "folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel" because the hardware is not even ATMOS aware. The non-ATMOS aware hardware will just play whatever is in the bed (the 7.1 channels) and ignore the ATMOS object meta data and the audience will therefore not even hear the helicopter; they'll just see it.


The 7.1 downmix includes both parts of an Atmos soundtrack: objects and channel beds. When the TrueHD track is played on legacy gear, listeners will hear all the sounds, nothing will be missing. 

The objects in the extension packet (substream) will only be recognized and unpacked by an Atmos-aware receiver. As each of those objects take their turn on stage, the data describing their sound is inverted and mathematically cancelled from the downmix. 

Do this for all the objects and the downmix ends up in two parts: objects and channel beds (they're no longer the downmixed channels because they're missing object sounds). So on legacy gear, you're hearing the downmixed channels. On Atmos hardware, you're hearing objects and channel beds.


----------



## NorthSky

mike_carton said:


> When you say "and the substream with object metadata will only be recognized if the processor has an ATMOS decoder" I understand that and its implications perfectly; I have no questions about that. But correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATMOS objects cannot be "folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel" because the hardware is not even ATMOS aware. The non-ATMOS aware hardware will just play whatever is in the bed (the 7.1 channels) and ignore the ATMOS object meta data and the audience will therefore not even hear the helicopter; they'll just see it.


I'm no expert: 
1. Dolby Atmos decoder; you have the full Atmos* elevated swing (through your own choice of config.).
2. No Dolby Atmos decoder; you have the normal Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (or 7.1).

* With 'Transformers 4' on Blu. ...September 30th.


----------



## NorthSky

jimim said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I opted some stuff over theTirad owners thread and they thought I should maybe put my questions here also.
> 
> I'm in the wring process duet the summer and really slowing down on my build. I'm kinda glad I did due to these new formats.
> 
> Right now I'm wired for fronts (LCR), rears (as separated as I could get them in the room, side surrounds (one pair for 2 rows, they are a bit behind the main listening position), and 4 subs (2 front behind screen and two in rear of room in the columns that will house the rears.
> 
> I plan on adding ceiling speakers. I have 2 rows. The ceiling height is 8.5" about for the front row and up on the riser we are at 7.6"
> 
> Here is my first question.
> 
> 1. Can I do ceiling mounted speakers. Are my ceilings high enough even up on the riser. MLP will be front row.
> 2. I planned on 4 but since i have 2 rows do i have to do more? if I did 6 would 4 be wired to one set of posts and the signal split and the other 2 go to the other posts? or even in a .4 setup they are going to one set of posts and the signal is split. This i am greatly confused. Is the .* channels discrete? meaning the disc might be a .2 or a .4 and the pre/pro's will be either .2 or .4?
> 
> Wides. . . I wasn't going to wire for them but should I? is the wide channel a discrete channel? Will discs actually be 9. or will they continue to be just up to 7. and the wides are a mix channel? Can someone explain the wide channel to me? I am guessing heights don't matter if I'm doing ceiling speakers for Atmos?
> 
> I guess my questions come down to what exactly are the pre/pro's and discs going to actually truly be able to discretely put out vs just mixing and generating fill for various speakers that are not true channels?
> 
> I hope my terminology isn't to off and you all understand what I mean.
> 
> thanks a lot. . .
> 
> this is all so confusing. It's almost impossible to have a room anymore that can handle most formats like when things were a bit simpler with 5.1 or 7.1
> 
> thanks again. . .
> 
> jim


Hi Jim,

Check Roger Dressler's own theater room. ...A very good guideline room; perfect setup example, IMO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jimim said:


> I guess my questions come down to what exactly are the pre/pro's and discs going to actually truly be able to discretely put out vs just mixing and generating fill for various speakers that are not true channels?
> 
> I hope my terminology isn't to off and you all understand what I mean.
> 
> thanks a lot. . .
> 
> this is all so confusing. It's almost impossible to have a room anymore that can handle most formats like when things were a bit simpler with 5.1 or 7.1
> 
> thanks again. . .
> 
> jim


Jim,

Atmos has discrete outputs for each individual speaker the decoder/renderer can address and knows is hooked up to your receiver or pre-pro. One soundtrack has 3D positional metadata for at least a 24.1.10 configuration (or 34 outputs and the LFE channel), but can be folded down to as little as 5.1.2. Some speakers, like those at the front side surround locations (what some are calling "wides," though they no longer really apply), can only be addressed with objects if they were positioned there in the mixing session. The bed channels (the "foundation" of the mix) are 7.1 or 9.1 and they comply with the normal 7.1 layout that we all know and love plus two overhead channels if the original mix had overheads included). Objects, OTOH, can be placed just about anywhere with x/y/z axis coordinates. 

If you have more than the 7.1 or 9.1 bed configuration when using a more sophisticated processor, like the Trinnov, it is up to the original mixer if he/she decided to spread the fixed channel information (like music or ambiance) out to the other speaker arrays or keep them confined to the predetermined channel bed locations and only have objects positioned in the other speakers. It's a case by case situation.

Atmos is not a matrixed surround format like Dolby ProLogic or DTS Neo:X.


----------



## asarose247

FYI:
from the design challenge etc. thread wrt to overheads for home ATMOS, AVS member dragonleepenn expected to get his X5200 yesterday.
He should have some good stuff to report once he gets things going . . 
he put in a few details about his overheads build . . .


----------



## helvetica bold

Sony announced new high end receivers but no mention of Atmos support.
I wonder why they aren't jumping on the Atmos train.

http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/three-sony-avrs-target-installers/53976


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Sony announced new high end receivers but no mention of Atmos support.
> I wonder why they aren't jumping on the Atmos train.
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/three-sony-avrs-target-installers/53976


Because they didn't invent it or have royalties associated with it.


----------



## Skylinestar

helvetica bold said:


> Sony announced new high end receivers but no mention of Atmos support.
> I wonder why they aren't jumping on the Atmos train.
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/three-sony-avrs-target-installers/53976


Perhaps Sony wants you to engage SDDS.


----------



## krozman

That's a hard sell for some of those high end Sony AVRs. Atmos could be interpreted as a gimmick with a limited shelf life for skeptics, but Denon will still blow them away regardless of atmos for the same price points. I don't get it. Only thing I see is that they have HDCP 2.2. I guess the title says it all...."targets installers." Maybe the article was just written badly.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> How much is the *Mensa* Erwin?


AFAIK Crux and Mensa are only being distributed in territories where Datasat is not on the market (mainly Asia). They are 1:1 clones of the LS10 and RS20i with a different facplate i heard that they will be slightly higher in price then their Datasat twins.
End of September / beginning of October new proccessors for Atmos and Auro are about to be revealed. Apparantly somewhere in the region of 8k€ so between the small Datasat and the big Marantz.


----------



## kbarnes701

mike_carton said:


> When you say "and the substream with object metadata will only be recognized if the processor has an ATMOS decoder" I understand that and its implications perfectly; I have no questions about that. But correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATMOS objects cannot be "folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel" because the hardware is not even ATMOS aware. The non-ATMOS aware hardware will just play whatever is in the bed (the 7.1 channels) and ignore the ATMOS object meta data and the audience will therefore not even hear the helicopter; they'll just see it.


No - that is not correct. batpig's explanation is correct. Atmos is totally backwards compatible, so if you have a non-Atmos AVR then the Bluray disc will send the full information for 5.1/7.1 sound to your AVR for playing in the normal way (and the object metadata will be ignored). If you have an Atmos AVR, then the Bluray will send the full information, but this time the metadata for the objects will be recognised by the Atmos AVR and rendered appropriately. At no time, in no circumstances is any sound "lost".


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool TY! Not that I'm accusing the Dolby spokespeople of dishonesty or anything but I do remain cautiously optimistic when it comes to expectations being met. I'm just asking because I'm not that experienced with format changes but I know a lot in the AVS community are... so I'm just curious what many of you will be doing (buying Atmos dedicated speakers or keeping your old ones and getting different brand modules for the heights?)


I understand your scepticism but it isn't only Dolby who are saying this. It is generally accepted that good room EQ (eg Audyssey XT32) will match the response of each speaker to its target curve well enough that timbre matching becomes less important than it was in the days when we did not have effective EQ built into many affordable AVRs.

Clearly, if your LCR speaker brand offers Atmos modules, then there is no reason to avoid buying them. But where the LCR brand does not, and is not likely to, offer Atmos modules, then others can be used so long as there is some effective way to EQ them, either automated or manual.

It would be odd to change expensive and otherwise satisfactory LCR speakers for Atmos dedicated speakers, unless one was contemplating a LCR speaker change anyway, when the modules can be used, with EQ, for a perfectly good result. Timbre matching is one of those things that has become part of the 'folk lore' of audio from back in the day when it was important because we had no effective EQ readily available to most people. The folk lore of the audio industry accounts for many similar things which have become very different with the march of progress - for example, the idea that amplifiers sound significantly different to each other. Yes, they did, back in the day, but not so much nowadays with modern SS manufacturing techniques and higher quality, lower cost components. But we digress...

Bottom line is don't worry too much about timbre matching IF you have effective EQ in your system.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Thanks! Now if only my receiver and speakers arrive soon...


Anticipation is a pleasure in itself, Selden... 

(But me, I want it and I want it NOW!)


----------



## loekf

Will anybody visit IBC in Amsterdam ?

Dolby and DTS have a booth at the exhibition, like they normally do. I wonder if Dolby will demonstrate
Atmos using "a receiver from a certain brand" over there.

Last year they had a 9.2 speaker setup there and a nice demo disk.

I'm also wondering if they have any BD disk with demo material. I'm wondering what e.g. BD players
will do if they bitstream a TrueHD stream with Atmos in there to my receiver (a TX-NR636, which will get a firmware upgrade end of this month). Also I'm curious what XBMC does when you play a MKV with a
TrueHD/Atmos stream in there.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> I understand your scepticism but it isn't only Dolby who are saying this. It is generally accepted that good room EQ (eg Audyssey XT32) will match the response of each speaker to its target curve well enough that timbre matching becomes less important than it was in the days when we did not have effective EQ built into many affordable AVRs.
> 
> Clearly, if your LCR speaker brand offers Atmos modules, then there is no reason to avoid buying them. But where the LCR brand does not, and is not likely to, offer Atmos modules, then others can be used so long as there is some effective way to EQ them, either automated or manual.
> 
> It would be odd to change expensive and otherwise satisfactory LCR speakers for Atmos dedicated speakers, unless one was contemplating a LCR speaker change anyway, when the modules can be used, with EQ, for a perfectly good result. Timbre matching is one of those things that has become part of the 'folk lore' of audio from back in the day when it was important because we had no effective EQ readily available to most people. The folk lore of the audio industry accounts for many similar things which have become very different with the march of progress - for example, the idea that amplifiers sound significantly different to each other. Yes, they did, back in the day, but not so much nowadays with modern SS manufacturing techniques and higher quality, lower cost components. But we digress...
> 
> Bottom line is don't worry too much about timbre matching IF you have effective EQ in your system.


I don't think there is any need to rush speaker rebuild! Just wait until the processor / receiver is there, buy the designated Atmos models and test it live in your environment. If room EQ is not able to correct return the speakers and find an alternative.
I for myself have niw about the tenth plan in my mind about new speakers and speaker layout. But I won't do one drill or buy one pair of speakers until I have my processor on hand and can test the complete setup. I would really love to buy and rebuild now (my wife always says building fever) but I am really holding back until I have my upstream equipment available!


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> I don't think there is any need to rush speaker rebuild! Just wait until the processor / receiver is there, buy the designated Atmos models and test it live in your environment. If room EQ is not able to correct return the speakers and find an alternative.
> I for myself have niw about the tenth plan in my mind about new speakers and speaker layout. But I won't do one drill or buy one pair of speakers until I have my processor on hand and can test the complete setup. I would really love to buy and rebuild now (my wife always says building fever) but I am really holding back until I have my upstream equipment available!


Makes sense. OTOH, I am confident enough that Audyssey XT32 + Pro Kit EQs sufficiently well to allow me to use the speakers I have already mounted on my ceiling. But your approach makes perfect sense for someone who is not so sure. And auditioning speakers in your own room is always a very good idea of course - and no different for Atmos modules than any other speaker.


----------



## ss9001

westmd, right or wrong, I'm doing a 180 from you  I'm going to setup speakers before electronics. I'd like to have all the planning, figuring out how to implement & grunt work done and then plop in electronics because that'll be EZ part


----------



## westmd

loekf said:


> Will anybody visit IBC in Amsterdam ?
> 
> Dolby and DTS have a booth at the exhibition, like they normally do. I wonder if Dolby will demonstrate
> Atmos using "a receiver from a certain brand" over there.
> 
> Last year they had a 9.2 speaker setup there and a nice demo disk.
> 
> I'm also wondering if they have any BD disk with demo material. I'm wondering what e.g. BD players
> will do if they bitstream a TrueHD stream with Atmos in there to my receiver (a TX-NR636, which will get a firmware upgrade end of this month). Also I'm curious what XBMC does when you play a MKV with a
> TrueHD/Atmos stream in there.


I don't think I will go there. To overlapping with IFA and CEDIA. But I am planning to go to the ISE next year in Amsterdam to see if Datasat is ready with their Atmos implementation they announced for tge RS20i. I hope they can say something about the smaller brother the LS10 as this could be feature and price wise a good alternative. Datasat already announced HDMI 2.0 and DTS UHD once available. Auro they already have so that coul really be the happy-go-lucky package! The only thing is the price for upgrades. Datasat currently wants $3k extra for Auro (software upgrade only,!) so if they want the same amount for Atmos and DTS-UHD we are looking at $9k and that is about the same amount you pay for the unit itself in the beginning!


----------



## bargervais

mike_carton said:


> When you say "and the substream with object metadata will only be recognized if the processor has an ATMOS decoder" I understand that and its implications perfectly; I have no questions about that. But correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATMOS objects cannot be "folded into the 7.1 TrueHD bed channel" because the hardware is not even ATMOS aware. The non-ATMOS aware hardware will just play whatever is in the bed (the 7.1 channels) and ignore the ATMOS object meta data and the audience will therefore not even hear the helicopter; they'll just see it.


No you will hear the helicopter on an Atmos the receiver will unfold to your heights and the none Atmos receiver will play it unfolded just like it is now 5.1/7.1 you will hear it either way


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> westmd, right or wrong, I'm doing a 180 from you  I'm going to setup speakers before electronics. I'd like to have all the planning, figuring out how to implement & grunt work done and then plop in electronics because that'll be EZ part


I think what he is saying is that you will need the AVR in place to test the Atmos speakers with an Atmos or DSU source in the actual room. That is fine if you feel the need to do that, but clearly you and I don't. I have installed my Tannoy ceiling speakers and tested them with regular content (using the front pair as height speakers with PLIIz and Neo:X) and they are fine wrt to timbre matching with the LCR.


----------



## westmd

ss9001 said:


> westmd, right or wrong, I'm doing a 180 from you  I'm going to setup speakers before electronics. I'd like to have all the planning, figuring out how to implement & grunt work done and then plop in electronics because that'll be EZ part


...and I would love to do that as well but my common sense tells me not to!


----------



## westmd

bargervais said:


> No you will hear the helicopter an Atmos receiver will unfold to your heights and the none atmos receiver will play it unfolded just like it is now 5.1/7.1 you will hear it either way


I would like a list with *movies featuring helicopters* as this example comes up all the time again throughout this thread'


----------



## Frohlich

westmd said:


> I would like a list with *movies featuring helicopters* as this example comes up all the time again throughout this thread'


I further declare that going forward, all big budget movies have at least one helicopter scene (up to 322 is acceptable) to keep us early Atmos adopters happy with our new gear


----------



## Selden Ball

_Exendables 2_ was explicitly mixed for playback using DTS Neo:X in home theaters with front height speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> By the time height processing (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X) came around, people were already used to a convention for 7.1.


That was the time my question was referring to. 

With my MLP about 2.5 feet from the back wall, I was never able to effectively test the contribution of rears to the overall sound. I then started reading about some people relocating their rears to become the newly introduced heights, knowingly giving up their capability to use (the then already established) 7.1 lay-out. This, together with some reading of Floyd Toole's work, made me put away the whole idea of rears by labeling them as 'apparently not really essential in achieving the best possible immersive sound'.

At this moment in time, going from 5.1 and 7.1 standard surround to 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 3D-surround, I started wondering whether the added value of rears has changed in a positive direction. In that case, I would be willing (or rather forced) to again include the option of rears in my ongoing quest for achieving the best possible sound in my home setup.

The posed question was my clumsy way of bringing this point into the discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> I would like a list with *movies featuring helicopters* as this example comes up all the time again throughout this thread'


Here you go - a *list of 703 movies featuring helicopters* to get started with...


----------



## Frohlich

BTW, just found this..another new Atmos product..this time a new pre/pro from Acurus:

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/perfect-together-acurus-and-atmos


----------



## SanchoPanza

Airplane scenes are pretty nice, too.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> That was the time my question was referring to.
> 
> With my MLP about 2.5 feet from the back wall, I was never able to effectively test the contribution of rears to the overall sound. I then started reading about some people relocating their rears to become the newly introduced heights, knowingly giving up their capability to use (the then already established) 7.1 lay-out. This, together with some reading of Floyd Toole's work, made me put away the whole idea of rears by labeling them as 'apparently not really essential in achieving the best possible immersive sound'.
> 
> At this moment in time, going from 5.1 and 7.1 standard surround to 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 3D-surround, I started wondering whether the added value of rears has changed in a positive direction. In that case, I would be willing (or rather forced) to again include the option of rears in my ongoing quest for achieving the best possible sound in my home setup.
> 
> The posed question was my clumsy way of bringing this point into the discussion.


If you only have 2.5ft behind the MLP (as I do too) then the question of deploying rear surrounds is moot: there isn't sufficient room to make them worthwhile IMO.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> That was a figure of speech, of preference; everyone is smart. ...5.1 is all you needed.
> And all type of various configurations came along, with more speakers; four side surrounds, four height presence channels, one then two rear back surrounds, ...you know the rest.
> 
> If your room is the size of a small theater then more speakers offer more people's coverage; say 16 to 24 people. But for a small room (15 by 12 by 8), 5.1 get the job done.
> 
> With Dolby Atmos, 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 (small to mid rooms) is perfect, IMO.


Get your point and that has always been my understanding / assumption too. My room happens to be exactly 15"x12"x8". Was wondering though if Atmos could change the game a bit with regard to the importance of rears in small rooms (see also my earlier reply to Sdurani).

Edit: Replacing 'small room' by 'small set-up' meaning 'accommodating only two people on one row' might better define the intention of my question.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> If you only have 2.5ft behind the MLP (as I do too) then the question of deploying rear surrounds is moot: there isn't sufficient room to make them worthwhile IMO.


Not if the perfectionist as I am would consider to sacrifice a larger room and move my stuff there in order to achieve a noticeable better immersive sound...


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> If you only have 2.5ft behind the MLP (as I do too) then the question of deploying rear surrounds is moot: there isn't sufficient room to make them worthwhile IMO.


I too don't have room for rear surrounds as my MLP IS against the back wall.


----------



## pletwals

kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go - a *list of 703 movies featuring helicopters* to get started with...


:grin::grin::grin:


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Not if the perfectionist as I am would consider to sacrifice a larger room and move my stuff there in order to achieve a noticeable better immersive sound...


Absolutely. If I could move to a larger room, it would be already done! Unfortunately, the only room I can use in this house is the one I am using already. TBH, while I would like rear surrounds, I think that a good 5.1.4 Atmos system will give me a sufficiently satisfying and immersive experience.


----------



## rprice54

Sorry if this has been addressed. I've tried skimming through the thread. It's hard to search as almost every post mentions 'surround' and 'speaker'. 

I'm putting direct speakers in my ceiling for a 7.1.4 setup. My question is about the surrounds and back surrounds in an Atmos system. I've used Axioms quadrapolar surrounds in the past and been very happy with them. Do I buy more of those, are is Atmos better with direct monopolar surrounds for more precise imaging? Or does it matter? I'm starting from scratch, getting monopolar surrounds would save a bit of cash, but otherwise I want to get whichever would be best with the new processing modes.


----------



## kbarnes701

rprice54 said:


> Sorry if this has been addressed. I've tried skimming through the thread. It's hard to search as almost every post mentions 'surround' and 'speaker'.
> 
> I'm putting direct speakers in my ceiling for a 7.1.4 setup. My question is about the surrounds and back surrounds in an Atmos system. I've used Axioms quadrapolar surrounds in the past and been very happy with them. Do I buy more of those, are is Atmos better with direct monopolar surrounds for more precise imaging? Or does it matter? I'm starting from scratch, getting monopolar surrounds would save a bit of cash, but otherwise I want to get whichever would be best with the new processing modes.


Current consensus is that you should choose the type of surrounds you most prefer. Some like dipoles and tripoles and so on, some prefer monopoles. FWIW I have used M&K Tripoles for some time for my surrounds, but recently changed them for monopoles because I needed to relocate my side surrounds, which had been at 90° with the Tripoles, to 110° in order to get better angular separation between them and my Top Rear on-ceiling speakers. I felt that the Tripoles would not work well at 110°, which in my room is in the rear corners, hence the move to monopoles. 

Having made this change, I am very happy with the way current 5.1 sounds in my room, so I could recommend monopoles with my hand on my heart. There could be a case for the more precise imaging of the monopoles when used in an Atmos system and both of the Dolby demos I attended used monopoles all round. I suspect that "quadrapolar" surrounds also have a direct radiating element (like my M&T tripoles) to give the 'best of both worlds', so if you like those and you can place them optimally in your room while also considering their position relative to the ceiling speakers, then I suspect you would be happy to continue using them.


----------



## PoshFrosh

*My first quickie in-home review with DSU 7.2.4*

Hello All, I'd like to give you some of my thoughts on on DSU (the Dolby Surround Upmixed) now that I've had maybe 10-20 minutes to play with it (more soon). I know that's not a lot of time to have spent with it, but I already come away with opinions that sound very similar to what others here have posted with their Atmos experiences.
Tuesday evening I mounted four speakers to my ceiling and *posted the pics here.*
Last night (Wed), I ran speaker cables and set up the new Denon 5200. This took considerable longer than I thought and I ended up finishing the Audyssey run at 11:30pm before going to bed.
This morning from about 7:40-8:00 I played with it a little bit.

*Music*:
I listened to some music using DSU with Center Spread on, and I liked it. It was similar to "PLIIx Music" but even better. This is going to sound like a repeat of what others we saying, but it sounded like it was filling the whole room, and not in any bad or unnatural way (e.g. no reverby echos, etc). *I think anyone who enjoyed "PLIIx Music" will love DSU Center Spread*, but anyone who was a two channel purist, will of course not.

*Film*:
With not much time left, I threw on Chapter 16 of Marvel's "Avengers". Again, the sound filled the room. *Sounds were coming from all around me*: left, rear, upper left front, upper left rear, etc. But the imaging was very precise... an object would pan clearly around me where appropriate *in the most wonderfully exciting yet natural sounding way*. Ambient effects would fill the room and light up the space. It was simply a blissful experience that made all the work and money seem very worthwhile. (When I put my ear close to one of the ceiling speakers, the sound coming out of it was quiet, but constant (unlike in PLIIz where much of the time the heights would be completely silent).

*Thoughts*:
I was pretty relieved because I know there won't be much Atmos content available for a while, and Dolby seemed coy about the DSU's capabilities (e.g. not showing it off at events, etc.)
*I am pretty confident that I will be leaving DSU on for all non-music content, all the time.*

*Conclusion*:
I have to mention that I have been struggling for years to get the "surround" effect to seem perfect for movies in my setup (it was always good, but not perfect). Recently I've even been having some psychoacoustic issues where sounds coming from the rear would seem to be in the front and the side surrounds would overpower any sense of rear envelopment (even with native 7.1 content). Nothing I did seemed to make it all just sing well together and pop into a perfect sound field. Well, I'm ecstatic to report that this has been instantly remedied by engaging DSU. With no other changes to my system except installing the ceiling speakers and swapping the Denon 4311 for the 5200, the entire surround field has been "fixed." Rear pans are *perfect*. Iron Man flew down from the upper left, past my left side, smoothly further into the left rear of the room, directly behind my head, and finally off the right rear of the room and into the distance with a seamlessness I have never heard before. *It almost seemed impossible for it to sound that good (particularly using only upmixing)*. DSU seems to create one complete sound field, instead of just a bunch of different speakers making noises. I know I haven't spent much time with it, but I'm already in love.

I can't wait to use it more, and especially hear some real Atmos content. As I stated before, on Friday or Saturday I will watch Captain America 2. And when Netflix sends me Transformers 4 I will likely get to hear Atmos.

Let me know if you have any questions.

*tl;dr version: Dolby Surround Upmixer in 7.2.4 is awesome and fills the room seamlessly with natural sounding exciting sound*

*Equipment used (layout diagram attached)*:
Denon x5200W
AMP-100 (stereo amp to power Top Rear speakers)
3x Energy RC70s (mains)
2x Energy RC-10s (rear surround)
2x Energy VS surrounds (sides)
4x Energy VS mini's (mounted in a ceiling position using Omnimount 10.0's) for .4 Atmos (top front, top rear)
2x SVS PC12-NSDs (subwoofers)
Panasonic DMP-BDT220 (BluRay player)
Samsung 61A750
GiK acoustic treatments (four tri-traps for front corners; a freestand panel and a 244 bass trap for first reflection points)
Avengers (4 disc combo)
Some internet radio music

P.S. I've never been to an Atmos movie theater... none near me


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Absolutely. If I could move to a larger room, it would be already done! Unfortunately, the only room I can use in this house is the one I am using already. TBH, while I would like rear surrounds, I think that a good 5.1.4 Atmos system will give me a sufficiently satisfying and immersive experience.


Thanks for your TBH. I guess time and sharing experiences will ultimately tell whether the importance of using rears with the new Atmos has been increased/ decreased / remained the same.


----------



## pletwals

^^

PoshFrosh,

Great! 

Do you have some panels on the ceiling also? There's plenty space there it seems...


----------



## tomparis

Hi fellows

I did it and ran 160ft of speaker wire to the ceiling, where now my new RS-42 II are mounted.
Can say it was an insane amount of work, but it finally looks, how I imagined it.
Hope it sounds as good as well, since there are no Atmos AVRs available in Germany at the moment.
If this speaker configuration even works with Auro3D will be seen, since there isn't even one affordable AVR announced today. But I will jump it, should it be available some day.
Attached some pictures. Fell free to comment.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> With not much time left, I threw on Chapter 16 of Marvel's "Avengers". Again, the sound filled the room. *Sounds were coming from all around me*: left, rear, upper left front, upper left rear, etc. But the imaging was very precise... an object would pan clearly around me where appropriate *in the most wonderfully exciting yet natural sounding way*. Ambient effects would fill the room and light up the space. It was simply a blissful experience that made all the work and money seem very worthwhile. (When I put my ear close to one of the ceiling speakers, the sound coming out of it was quiet, but constant (unlike in PLIIz where much of the time the heights would be completely silent).


Great report - thanks! Good to know you have been so impressed with DSU, as that is what we will all be using, most of the time, in the short and medium term. If it sounds that good upmixed, I think you are in for a real treat when you eventually get some native Atmos content playing!

So glad that you feel that the time and money was well spent! I am still waiting for my Denon so this has encouraged me greatly while I am waiting. Thanks again.

And please report back on some additional content. Can you compare the difference with DSU on an original Atmos mix such as the Hobbit vs a non-Atmos mix? I'm interested if the original Atmos mixes upscale 'better' in some way than straight 5.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> I did it and ran 160ft of speaker wire to the ceiling, where now my new RS-42 II are mounted.
> Can say it was an insane amount of work, but it finally looks, how I imagined it.
> Hope it sounds as good as well, since there are no Atmos AVRs available in Germany at the moment.
> If this speaker configuration even works with Auro3D will be seen, since there isn't even one affordable AVR announced today. But I will jump it, should it be available some day.
> Attached some pictures. Fell free to comment.


That is a nice job, Tom. Room looks great. In fact, it is such a great looking room, I have to say that it would benefit hugely from some acoustic treatments. The Vicoustic range recently reviewed by Kris Deering would look stunning in your room, and would certainly enhance the sound. Check out Kris's HT build (linked in his sig) to see what a WOW factor those treatments add, visually.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

PoshFrosh,

Thanks for your report. I am going to be building a home theater in a similarly sized room and layout. (12x20)

I am curious about the rear heights vs back surrounds. I keep going back to this notion that if I only ran top fronts, positioned exactly as you have 45 up from MLP, that the back surrounds at about 25-30 degrees up would sufficiently take care of the top rearward panning and little back surround info. Split the difference if you will for what little nuances are given to off-screen objects. 

All top rear info should be pushed down into the back surrounds in DSU and Atmos if I'm not mistaken.

This is a big request for your new toy, but could you disable rear heights and see if my theory works? Also, what angle/height are your back surrounds?


----------



## Skylinestar

PoshFrosh said:


> *Conclusion*:
> I have to mention that I have been struggling for years to get the "surround" effect to seem perfect for movies in my setup (it was always good, but not perfect). Recently I've even been having some psychoacoustic issues where sounds coming from the rear would seem to be in the front and the side surrounds would overpower any sense of rear envelopment (even with native 7.1 content). Nothing I did seemed to make it all just sing well together and pop into a perfect sound field. Well, I'm ecstatic to report that this has been instantly remedied by engaging DSU. With no other changes to my system except installing the ceiling speakers and swapping the Denon 4311 for the 5200, the entire surround field has been "fixed." Rear pans are *perfect*. Iron Man flew down from the upper left, past my left side, smoothly further into the left rear of the room, directly behind my head, and finally off the right rear of the room and into the distance with a seamlessness I have never heard before. *It almost seemed impossible for it to sound that good (particularly using only upmixing)*. DSU seems to create one complete sound field, instead of just a bunch of different speakers making noises. I know I haven't spent much time with it, but I'm already in love.


Putting the ceiling/height speakers aside, you're saying that upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 in DSU is way better than ProLogic IIx?


----------



## SanchoPanza

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> I did it and ran 160ft of speaker wire to the ceiling, where now my new RS-42 II are mounted.
> Can say it was an insane amount of work, but it finally looks, how I imagined it.
> Hope it sounds as good as well, since there are no Atmos AVRs available in Germany at the moment.
> If this speaker configuration even works with Auro3D will be seen, since there isn't even one affordable AVR announced today. But I will jump it, should it be available some day.
> Attached some pictures. Fell free to comment.


Very nice, thank you for posting.


----------



## PoshFrosh

WhiskeyConway said:


> PoshFrosh,
> 
> Thanks for your report. I am going to be building a home theater in a similarly sized room and layout. (12x20)
> 
> I am curious about the rear heights vs back surrounds. I keep going back to this notion that if I only ran top fronts, positioned exactly as you have 45 up from MLP, that the back surrounds at about 25-30 degrees up would sufficiently take care of the top rearward panning and little back surround info. Split the difference if you will for what little nuances are given to off-screen objects.
> 
> All top rear info should be pushed down into the back surrounds in DSU and Atmos if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> This is a big request for your new toy, but could you disable rear heights and see if my theory works? Also, what angle/height are your back surrounds?


I tend to agree with your reasoning. If you have no rear heights, but you rear surrounds are elevated, then they would "become" your rear heights for all intents and purposes and perform a sort of double duty. If I were only going to have one set of height speakers, they would certainly be in the front. The rear surrounds, if elevated, should fill in the back soundstage nicely and with native Atmos content, the objects should be mapped back there appropriately. No way to tell until it is attempted.

I recently moved all four of my surround speakers to ear height just for Atmos. Is there some specific reason you don't want to do rear heights? Is it specificlally because your surround back speakers are elevated?

I could disable the rears quite easily, but I'm not sure it would test your theory because my surrounds are at ear level. Using the Dolby surround upmixer with only top fronts would like sound kinda like PLIIz, I would imagine, which is to say pretty good. I'm definitely going to play around with some stuff once I get the time. But I do have to say, it sounds pretty great right now.

My top fronts and top rears are currently both at a 45 degree elevation to the MLP. They both 5 feet away (horizontally and perpendicularly) from the MLP and about 7 feet off the ground. I tried to mirror everything as close as possible. In fact, I've been working very diligently to get all the speakers balanced, and I've had much success, barring the surround back left speaker which needs to be slightly further away. Seems to be okay though with Audyssey. I'm really happy with how it all sounds right now, finally.


----------



## kbarnes701

WhiskeyConway said:


> PoshFrosh,
> 
> Thanks for your report. I am going to be building a home theater in a similarly sized room and layout. (12x20)
> 
> I am curious about the rear heights vs back surrounds. I keep going back to this notion that if I only ran top fronts, positioned exactly as you have 45 up from MLP, that the back surrounds at about 25-30 degrees up would sufficiently take care of the top rearward panning and little back surround info. Split the difference if you will for what little nuances are given to off-screen objects.
> 
> All top rear info should be pushed down into the back surrounds in DSU and Atmos if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> This is a big request for your new toy, but could you disable rear heights and see if my theory works? Also, what angle/height are your back surrounds?


If you are running x.1.2 then it won't sound as good as x.1.4 because there will only be lateral overhead movement of sounds. To get front-back movement overhead you need 4 overhead speakers. So while the info from the non-top-front speakers won’t be lost and will be directed someplace else, it isn't going to be as good as if you used 4 overheads. You will have a standard 7.1.2 configuration in your example.


----------



## kbarnes701

Skylinestar said:


> Putting the ceiling/height speakers aside, you're saying that upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 in DSU is way better than ProLogic IIx?


I think he is saying it is better _because of _the ceiling/height speakers.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

PoshFrosh said:


> Hello All, I'd like to give you some of my thoughts on on DSU (the Dolby Surround Upmixed) now that I've had maybe 10-20 minutes to play with it (more soon). I know that's not a lot of time to have spent with it, but I already come away with opinions that sound very similar to what others here have posted with their Atmos experiences.
> Tuesday evening I mounted four speakers to my ceiling and *posted the pics here.*
> Last night (Wed), I ran speaker cables and set up the new Denon 5200. This took considerable longer than I thought and I ended up finishing the Audyssey run at 11:30pm before going to bed.
> This morning from about 7:40-8:00 I played with it a little bit.
> 
> *Music*:
> I listened to some music using DSU with Center Spread on, and I liked it. It was similar to "PLIIx Music" but even better. This is going to sound like a repeat of what others we saying, but it sounded like it was filling the whole room, and not in any bad or unnatural way (e.g. no reverby echos, etc). *I think anyone who enjoyed "PLIIx Music" will love DSU Center Spread*, but anyone who was a two channel purist, will of course not.
> 
> *Film*:
> With not much time left, I threw on Chapter 16 of Marvel's "Avengers". Again, the sound filled the room. *Sounds were coming from all around me*: left, rear, upper left front, upper left rear, etc. But the imaging was very precise... an object would pan clearly around me where appropriate *in the most wonderfully exciting yet natural sounding way*. Ambient effects would fill the room and light up the space. It was simply a blissful experience that made all the work and money seem very worthwhile. (When I put my ear close to one of the ceiling speakers, the sound coming out of it was quiet, but constant (unlike in PLIIz where much of the time the heights would be completely silent).
> 
> *Thoughts*:
> I was pretty relieved because I know there won't be much Atmos content available for a while, and Dolby seemed coy about the DSU's capabilities (e.g. not showing it off at events, etc.)
> *I am pretty confident that I will be leaving DSU on for all non-music content, all the time.*
> 
> *Conclusion*:
> I have to mention that I have been struggling for years to get the "surround" effect to seem perfect for movies in my setup (it was always good, but not perfect). Recently I've even been having some psychoacoustic issues where sounds coming from the rear would seem to be in the front and the side surrounds would overpower any sense of rear envelopment (even with native 7.1 content). Nothing I did seemed to make it all just sing well together and pop into a perfect sound field. Well, I'm ecstatic to report that this has been instantly remedied by engaging DSU. With no other changes to my system except installing the ceiling speakers and swapping the Denon 4311 for the 5200, the entire surround field has been "fixed." Rear pans are *perfect*. Iron Man flew down from the upper left, past my left side, smoothly further into the left rear of the room, directly behind my head, and finally off the right rear of the room and into the distance with a seamlessness I have never heard before. *It almost seemed impossible for it to sound that good (particularly using only upmixing)*. DSU seems to create one complete sound field, instead of just a bunch of different speakers making noises. I know I haven't spent much time with it, but I'm already in love.
> 
> I can't wait to use it more, and especially hear some real Atmos content. As I stated before, on Friday or Saturday I will watch Captain America 2. And when Netflix sends me Transformers 4 I will likely get to hear Atmos.
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> *tl;dr version: Dolby Surround Upmixer in 7.2.4 is awesome and fills the room seamlessly with natural sounding exciting sound*
> 
> *Equipment used (layout diagram attached)*:
> Denon x5200W
> AMP-100 (stereo amp to power Top Rear speakers)
> 3x Energy RC70s (mains)
> 2x Energy RC-10s (rear surround)
> 2x Energy VS surrounds (sides)
> 4x Energy VS mini's (mounted in a ceiling position using Omnimount 10.0's) for .4 Atmos (top front, top rear)
> 2x SVS PC12-NSDs (subwoofers)
> Panasonic DMP-BDT220 (BluRay player)
> Samsung 61A750
> GiK acoustic treatments (four tri-traps for front corners; a freestand panel and a 244 bass trap for first reflection points)
> Avengers (4 disc combo)
> Some internet radio music
> 
> P.S. I've never been to an Atmos movie theater... none near me


PoshFrosh,

Thanks for the impressions and also your Layout Diagram!

Definitely encouraging... please update when you have more time to fully assess!


...Glenn


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> I think he is saying it is better _because of _the ceiling/height speakers.


Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. It's hard to describe, and I may just be imagining it, but I have a gut feeling that if you ran Dolby Surround Upmixer without heights it would be very similar if not indistinguishable from PLIIz. But I don't know where I get this idea from. It's just a hunch based on what I've heard.

Basically, somehow someway, the four height speakers "complete" the sound field and through some sort of upmix magic create a more solid rear soundstange (in fact it made the front soundstage seem "fuller" and more robust as well). And all this without any negative effects I could discern.

Again, I seem to be saying an awful lot from having heard one movie for less than half an hour, but honestly, it really did leave an impression on me. (I'm cheerily walking around on air all morning.) I'm familiar with how my speakers sound, and I'm quite familiar with this sequence in the film, and this was an exciting improvement for sure.

I don't know how they did it, but they did it. This is even more of an improvement than was going from PLIIx to PLIIz, and certainly much more impactful than upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 

Ugh, stuck at work. Itching to get home and play with my 7.2.4


----------



## kokishin

PoshFrosh said:


> Hello All, I'd like to give you some of my thoughts on on DSU (the Dolby Surround Upmixed) now that I've had maybe 10-20 minutes to play with it (more soon). I know that's not a lot of time to have spent with it, but I already come away with opinions that sound very similar to what others here have posted with their Atmos experiences.
> Tuesday evening I mounted four speakers to my ceiling and *posted the pics here.*
> Last night (Wed), I ran speaker cables and set up the new Denon 5200. This took considerable longer than I thought and I ended up finishing the Audyssey run at 11:30pm before going to bed.
> This morning from about 7:40-8:00 I played with it a little bit.
> 
> *Music*:
> I listened to some music using DSU with Center Spread on, and I liked it. It was similar to "PLIIx Music" but even better. This is going to sound like a repeat of what others we saying, but it sounded like it was filling the whole room, and not in any bad or unnatural way (e.g. no reverby echos, etc). *I think anyone who enjoyed "PLIIx Music" will love DSU Center Spread*, but anyone who was a two channel purist, will of course not.
> 
> *Film*:
> With not much time left, I threw on Chapter 16 of Marvel's "Avengers". Again, the sound filled the room. *Sounds were coming from all around me*: left, rear, upper left front, upper left rear, etc. But the imaging was very precise... an object would pan clearly around me where appropriate *in the most wonderfully exciting yet natural sounding way*. Ambient effects would fill the room and light up the space. It was simply a blissful experience that made all the work and money seem very worthwhile. (When I put my ear close to one of the ceiling speakers, the sound coming out of it was quiet, but constant (unlike in PLIIz where much of the time the heights would be completely silent).
> 
> *Thoughts*:
> I was pretty relieved because I know there won't be much Atmos content available for a while, and Dolby seemed coy about the DSU's capabilities (e.g. not showing it off at events, etc.)
> *I am pretty confident that I will be leaving DSU on for all non-music content, all the time.*
> 
> *Conclusion*:
> I have to mention that I have been struggling for years to get the "surround" effect to seem perfect for movies in my setup (it was always good, but not perfect). Recently I've even been having some psychoacoustic issues where sounds coming from the rear would seem to be in the front and the side surrounds would overpower any sense of rear envelopment (even with native 7.1 content). Nothing I did seemed to make it all just sing well together and pop into a perfect sound field. Well, I'm ecstatic to report that this has been instantly remedied by engaging DSU. With no other changes to my system except installing the ceiling speakers and swapping the Denon 4311 for the 5200, the entire surround field has been "fixed." Rear pans are *perfect*. Iron Man flew down from the upper left, past my left side, smoothly further into the left rear of the room, directly behind my head, and finally off the right rear of the room and into the distance with a seamlessness I have never heard before. *It almost seemed impossible for it to sound that good (particularly using only upmixing)*. DSU seems to create one complete sound field, instead of just a bunch of different speakers making noises. I know I haven't spent much time with it, but I'm already in love.
> 
> I can't wait to use it more, and especially hear some real Atmos content. As I stated before, on Friday or Saturday I will watch Captain America 2. And when Netflix sends me Transformers 4 I will likely get to hear Atmos.
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> *tl;dr version: Dolby Surround Upmixer in 7.2.4 is awesome and fills the room seamlessly with natural sounding exciting sound*
> 
> *Equipment used (layout diagram attached)*:
> Denon x5200W
> AMP-100 (stereo amp to power Top Rear speakers)
> 3x Energy RC70s (mains)
> 2x Energy RC-10s (rear surround)
> 2x Energy VS surrounds (sides)
> 4x Energy VS mini's (mounted in a ceiling position using Omnimount 10.0's) for .4 Atmos (top front, top rear)
> 2x SVS PC12-NSDs (subwoofers)
> Panasonic DMP-BDT220 (BluRay player)
> Samsung 61A750
> GiK acoustic treatments (four tri-traps for front corners; a freestand panel and a 244 bass trap for first reflection points)
> Avengers (4 disc combo)
> Some internet radio music
> 
> P.S. I've never been to an Atmos movie theater... none near me


PoshFrosh,

I was going to snip your post to condense it but it was so well done, I just didn't have the heart to do it.

Really appreciate you pulling yourself away from your new setup to take the time and energy to provide such a timely and well thought out post!

Congrats and keep us updated please.

BTW, Chapel Hill is such a beautiful, cool college town. Really enjoyed it when I was there.


----------



## batpig

Skylinestar said:


> Putting the ceiling/height speakers aside, you're saying that upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 in DSU is way better than ProLogic IIx?


You can't "put the height speakers aside" -- that's exactly what makes it special!!

I can't imagine there would be much difference from PLIIx at all going 5.1 > 7.1 without height speakers. Mixing two surrounds to four isn't particularly tricky. 

For the past week or so I've not had my "fake" Atmos modules so I've been running my standard 5.1 layout, no heights. I tested some 2ch > 5.1 upmix with streamed video content and I didn't find any major differences between Neo:X Cinema and DSU. Which is basically the same way I felt about Neo:X vs PLIIx Cinema modes. Put the dialogue in the center and move the ambient stuff to the surrounds, nothing complicated. 

I think the real differentiation / magic happens (1) when you start expanding beyond 5.1, especially in the vertical dimension and (2) with music upmix. 

Btw since we are on the topic I will say that did some testing of 2ch music upmix with DSU (center spread on) vs Neo:X Music and I greatly prefer DSU. Which is significant because I felt that PLII Music was fairly similar to Neo:X Music. The DSU upmix was more "alive" with detail and energy, and switching to Stereo and back I felt it preserved the feel of the stereo mix more faithfully while making it "bigger" and more "present", whereas Neo:X music sounded a bit flat and recessed in comparison. And again this is with 5.1, no heights.


----------



## kokishin

Roger Dressler said:


> The setup on the left does not work for me. I do not like the screen that low, or, alternatively, the L/R speakers above ear level.





Roger Dressler said:


> Here's my idea of a better arrangement for home theaters.


Roger et al,

There are those that believe that using front bookshelf speakers with a sub is preferred (more cost effective, better bass integration) over using front full range speakers with a sub. Would like to get your opinion on this. TIA.


----------



## mike_carton

sdurani said:


> The 7.1 downmix includes both parts of an Atmos soundtrack: objects and channel beds.
> ...
> As each of those objects take their turn on stage, the data describing their sound is inverted and mathematically cancelled from the downmix.


That explains it. Thanks.

Each sound object would have to be subtracted from potentially eight channels in real time. With 100+ simultaneous objects possible, that's a lot of DSP requiring beefy processors and ample, fast memory.


----------



## Steven414

First blu ray dolby atmos movie scheduled to be released at the end of this month... Transformers: Age of Extinction. Not a big Transformers fan but will probably buy to check out the new system. Time to tweak!


----------



## sdurani

mike_carton said:


> Each sound object would have to be subtracted from potentially eight or more speakers in real time.


Each sound object is subtracted from one bitstream (the downmix), irrespective of how many speakers it will later be rendered to.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Roger,
> 
> There are those that believe that using front bookshelf speakers with a sub is preferred (more cost effective, better bass integration) over using front full range speakers with a sub. Would like to get your opinion on this. TIA.


I'm one of those people. I'll let Roger reply before I say any more though.


----------



## 74Sooner

I'm curious - perhaps it's premature, but how will room treatments be affected by ceiling/Atmos-enabled speakers going forward? I'll confess that I know pretty little about the topic.


----------



## Nightlord

kokishin said:


> Roger,
> 
> There are those that believe that using front bookshelf speakers with a sub is preferred (more cost effective, better bass integration) over using front full range speakers with a sub. Would like to get your opinion on this. TIA.


I'm not Roger, but...

cost is definitely lower, especially if you know you need the subs anyway (I assume you do!). But you have to look at the effect tolerance above the 80Hz and I'm sure many floor standers can tolerate much more power than a bookshelf - especially if you take away the burden of below 80.

Thus they will play with less distortion and probably play cleanly to higher levels as well.

Better bass integration is just up to the quality lf the crossover. You aren't using the pitiful excuse for one built into the receiver, are you? The slopes are much too shallow.( But yes, if you are using it, then I do understand that using a bookshelf falling off by itself might help it out, but you also need to help the sub cut off faster...)

So in this case, I do think you will get bang for your bucks going to bigger speakers.


----------



## UKTexan

PoshFrosh said:


> Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. It's hard to describe, and I may just be imagining it, but I have a gut feeling that if you ran Dolby Surround Upmixer without heights it would be very similar if not indistinguishable from PLIIz. But I don't know where I get this idea from. It's just a hunch based on what I've heard.
> 
> Basically, somehow someway, the four height speakers "complete" the sound field and through some sort of upmix magic create a more solid rear soundstange (in fact it made the front soundstage seem "fuller" and more robust as well). And all this without any negative effects I could discern.
> 
> Again, I seem to be saying an awful lot from having heard one movie for less than half an hour, but honestly, it really did leave an impression on me. (*I'm cheerily walking around on air all morning*.) I'm familiar with how my speakers sound, and I'm quite familiar with this sequence in the film, and this was an exciting improvement for sure.
> 
> I don't know how they did it, but they did it. This is even more of an improvement than was going from PLIIx to PLIIz, and certainly much more impactful than upmixing 5.1 to 7.1
> 
> Ugh, stuck at work. Itching to get home and play with my 7.2.4


 
I felt the same way after the demo I attended.
Great review by the way! , good to hear your impressions at home echoed my experience and many others here on AVS. I'm sure you have plenty of material you want to check out but if you have Gravity and The Dark Knight I would be interested to hear your opinion. I had the chance to sit through the opening scenes of both movies and was blown away, especially the DTS HD-MA mix of Gravity with DSU - would be great for all of us following this thread so closely to hear what your thoughts are after sitting through the whole movie, or any others for that matter.
I'm happy you have your system installed, enjoy!!


----------



## kbarnes701

74Sooner said:


> I'm curious - perhaps it's premature, but how will room treatments be affected by ceiling/Atmos-enabled speakers going forward? I'll confess that I know pretty little about the topic.


Well you can’t have Atmos speakers or modules firing at absorbers or diffusers for obvious reasons. But in general, a room will need treating acoustically regardless of the format of the playback media if one wishes to achieve the best sound quality the room is capable of. In my room I didn't need to touch any of the treatments when I installed my Atmos ceiling speakers.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm one of those people. I'll let Roger reply before I say any more though.


I just edited my post to: _Roger et al_. So please share your knowledge on this. Thanks Keith.


----------



## tanishq02

batpig said:


> I have an Energy 5.2 Reference Connoisseur speaker setup:
> 
> 
> Image link of front of room: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ijok23txqrszdrn/1-DSC_6259.JPG


batpig, your setup looks very sleek...what did you use to elevate the front of your center channel?


----------



## Cam Man

*"Semi-Pro" Dolby Atmos at CEDIA*

I searched to see if anybody else had mentioned this, and didn't find anything. If I was at CEDIA, this is the ticket I would want. Talk about a niche target!

*Harman to Demo D-Cinema Dolby ATMOS System*
*on Booth 176*


Harman will show the latest products from Revel, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, JBL Professional, Crown and AMX on the booth. All the Harman Luxury brands will be well-represented in active and static displays. 

Spotlighting the booth will be the 10-seat, 32-Channel JBL Synthesis theater (shown below) incorporating the Dolby ATMOS CP-850 Cinema Processor, JBL Synthesis SDEC/ARCOS Room Correction System and powerful new JBL Synthesis Digital Amplifiers incorporating DriveCore technology. Using proprietary Harman BLU-link technology, the system sports a 24/96 audio signal path that stays completely digital from the D-Cinema server all the way to the amplifier output stages! The D-Cinema projector provided by Digital Projection is based on the NEC NC900C small format 3-Chip DLP 2K chassis. Tickets will be available at the reception desk on the booth. You do not want to miss this!


----------



## Selden Ball

Niche is right. I'm guessing it's at least a $200K installation, probably a lot more. 

I wonder if individuals can subscribe to the commercial movie distributions. I suppose if you can afford that kind of setup, you can afford to claim it's a commercial movie theater.


----------



## jimim

wow this is all so confusing. so many people are doing thier setups so diff now. how r u guys with 2 rows handling ceiling speakers? 2 or 4 or even 6 to cover the whole area? and if their are that many such as 6 are they all getting thier own information from the processor or are all 6 or 4 getting the same info?

i still don't know what to do about wiring for wides or as you guys r calling them front wide speakers? my sides and rear surrounds will be at close to ear leve las i can get them but i'm kinda at a loss for my ceiling.

jim


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I just edited my post to: _Roger et al_. So please share your knowledge on this. Thanks Keith.


OK - these are just personal opinions and others will no doubt have their own, differing, views.

First off, before considering any sort of speaker for HT use (with movies) I think we need to look at what we are asking the speaker to do. It has to be able to play at 105dB, without issues, cleanly and reliably. So it has to have the power handling capacity and sensitivity to do that. Many consumer-grade 'audiophile' speakers cannot meet this simple, basic spec. 

Once we've found some that meet that requirement, then of course we have to ensure that they are transparent to the source, have an appropriate frequency response, dispersion pattern etc etc.

After that, then I'd look at the issue of smaller speakers (I dislike the term 'bookshelf' as the speakers I have in mind won't typically fit onto a bookshelf) vs tower designs. Given that I am assuming the use of at least one high power subwoofer of good quality, able to play cleanly down to at least 20Hz, and at 115dB when required, at that frequency, then the main speaker only needs to handle down to roughly 80Hz.

Relieving the main speaker of the heavy lifting below 80Hz, where amplifier power meets hugely increased demands and where speakers struggle to perform and distortion levels rise etc, and handing the bottom octaves to the aforementioned subwoofers, purpose-designed to handle that one task well, there seems to me to be little benefit in those big towers. They cost more, have bigger, and thus more expensive cabinets and any capability they have to dig down below 80Hz is wasted. Any 'bass capacity' they have is pitifully small compared with a purpose-designed subwoofer of good quality, with good amplification, matched to the driver design. And in any case, we only need to go as low as ~80Hz.

So, putting all that together, it seems to me that a system with good quality 'smaller' speakers with high power handling capability, married to at least one good quality sub, is the way to go.

My comments, as always, are for a system that plays movies, not music.


----------



## Cam Man

kbarnes701 said:


> OK - these are just personal opinions and others will no doubt have their own, differing, views.
> 
> First off, before considering any sort of speaker for HT use (with movies) I think we need to look at what we are asking the speaker to do. It has to be able to play at 105dB, without issues, cleanly and reliably. So it has to have the power handling capacity and sensitivity to do that. Many consumer-grade 'audiophile' speakers cannot meet this simple, basic spec.
> 
> Once we've found some that meet that requirement, then of course we have to ensure that they are transparent to the source, have an appropriate frequency response, dispersion pattern etc etc.
> 
> After that, then I'd look at the issue of smaller speakers (I dislike the term 'bookshelf' as the speakers I have in mind won't typically fit onto a bookshelf) vs tower designs. Given that I am assuming the use of at least one high power subwoofer of good quality, able to play cleanly down to at least 20Hz, and at 115dB when required, at that frequency, then the main speaker only needs to handle down to roughly 80Hz.
> 
> Relieving the main speaker of the heavy lifting below 80Hz, where amplifier power meets hugely increased demands and where speakers struggle to perform and distortion levels rise etc, and handing the bottom octaves to the aforementioned subwoofers, purpose-designed to handle that one task well, there seems to me to be little benefit in those big towers. They cost more, have bigger, and thus more expensive cabinets and any capability they have to dig down below 80Hz is wasted. Any 'bass capacity' they have is pitifully small compared with a purpose-designed subwoofer of good quality, with good amplification, matched to the driver design. And in any case, we only need to go as low as ~80Hz.
> 
> So, putting all that together, it seems to me that a system with good quality 'smaller' speakers with high power handling capability, married to at least one good quality sub, is the way to go.
> 
> My comments, as always, are for a system that plays movies, not music.


All the basics, but so often neglected or forgotten. Well done!


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> My comments, as always, are for a system that plays movies, not music.


Good catch, otherwise I would have suggested playing Trentemöller "Vamp" on your bookshelves @ 105dB.


----------



## batpig

tanishq02 said:


> batpig, your setup looks very sleek...what did you use to elevate the front of your center channel?


Thanks. It's my wife's fault, she loves the rosenut wood finish, otherwise I would probably have big black boxes up there 

The console is a bit low so I have to angle up to ear level. The L/R speakers are angled up on Auralex MoPads, and for the center speaker I found the ingenious solution (can't take credit, somebody else tipped me off) of using this cheapo foam laptop cooling stand: http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Lift-Portable-Notebook-Cooling/dp/B00028VKLI/

Previously I was using rubber doorstops to angle the CC up but this is a more elegant solution and looks a lot better.


----------



## NorthSky

Cam Man said:


> I searched to see if anybody else had mentioned this, and didn't find anything. If I was at CEDIA, this is the ticket I would want. Talk about a niche target!
> 
> *Harman to Demo D-Cinema Dolby ATMOS System*
> *on Booth 176*
> 
> 
> Harman will show the latest products from Revel, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, JBL Professional, Crown and AMX on the booth. All the Harman Luxury brands will be well-represented in active and static displays.
> 
> Spotlighting the booth will be the 10-seat, 32-Channel JBL Synthesis theater (shown below) incorporating the Dolby ATMOS CP-850 Cinema Processor, JBL Synthesis SDEC/ARCOS Room Correction System and powerful new JBL Synthesis Digital Amplifiers incorporating DriveCore technology. Using proprietary Harman BLU-link technology, the system sports a 24/96 audio signal path that stays completely digital from the D-Cinema server all the way to the amplifier output stages! The D-Cinema projector provided by Digital Projection is based on the NEC NC900C small format 3-Chip DLP 2K chassis. Tickets will be available at the reception desk on the booth. You do not want to miss this!


This should be awesome; I wish I could be there. 
{Harman Kardon has some fantastic sounding receivers, and Logic 7, and...QLS - QuantumLogic system with Lexicon, and...JBL Synthesis.}

__________

* I'm reading some really good stuff here about Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU). ...Right on!


----------



## bargervais

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> I did it and ran 160ft of speaker wire to the ceiling, where now my new RS-42 II are mounted.
> Can say it was an insane amount of work, but it finally looks, how I imagined it.
> Hope it sounds as good as well, since there are no Atmos AVRs available in Germany at the moment.
> If this speaker configuration even works with Auro3D will be seen, since there isn't even one affordable AVR announced today. But I will jump it, should it be available some day.
> Attached some pictures. Fell free to comment.


Very nice now all you need is a Big A$$ Plasma PN64F8500 would look nice there


----------



## Frohlich

Cam Man said:


> I searched to see if anybody else had mentioned this, and didn't find anything. If I was at CEDIA, this is the ticket I would want. Talk about a niche target!
> 
> *Harman to Demo D-Cinema Dolby ATMOS System*
> *on Booth 176*
> 
> 
> Harman will show the latest products from Revel, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, JBL Professional, Crown and AMX on the booth. All the Harman Luxury brands will be well-represented in active and static displays.
> 
> Spotlighting the booth will be the 10-seat, 32-Channel JBL Synthesis theater (shown below) incorporating the Dolby ATMOS CP-850 Cinema Processor, JBL Synthesis SDEC/ARCOS Room Correction System and powerful new JBL Synthesis Digital Amplifiers incorporating DriveCore technology. Using proprietary Harman BLU-link technology, the system sports a 24/96 audio signal path that stays completely digital from the D-Cinema server all the way to the amplifier output stages! The D-Cinema projector provided by Digital Projection is based on the NEC NC900C small format 3-Chip DLP 2K chassis. Tickets will be available at the reception desk on the booth. You do not want to miss this!


That is my exact set-up (minus the hardware, speakers, projector, seats, 32 channels, etc..)

That does sound sweet!!!!


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Very nice now all you need is a Big A$$ Plasma *PN65F8500* would look nice there


*PN64F8500* ... 64" only, not 65".


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> *Expendables 2* was explicitly mixed for playback using DTS Neo:X in home theaters with front height speakers.


Great flick!  ... Some great lines, by some cool guys. ... _Chuck_ 

Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA but expanded* to ten channels, I believe. 

* The expanded sound of 'The Expendables 2'.  ...Neo:X from dts.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> How much is the *Mensa* Erwin?


No idea, but as they are in fact Datasat, it's going to be a lot... A multiple of what I can afford. I rather put my funds in the LCR build They will last forever and have a greater impact on the sound, a processor OTOH...

They do look the part though. I love that front design.

Mensa:









Crux:









Then the Acurus act 4 is a lot more down to earth for looks and price ($6,000). Still slightly expensive for "only" 11.3. But not that much more than the Marantz AV8802.


----------



## NorthSky

ss9001 said:


> westmd, right or wrong, I'm doing a 180 from you  I'm going to setup speakers before electronics. I'd like to have all the planning, figuring out how to implement & grunt work done and then plop in electronics because that'll be EZ part


That's how most people are doing it; the wrong way.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Relieving the main speaker of the heavy lifting below 80Hz, where amplifier power meets hugely increased demands and where speakers struggle to perform and distortion levels rise etc, and handing the bottom octaves to the aforementioned subwoofers, purpose-designed to handle that one task well, there seems to me to be little benefit in those big towers. They cost more, have bigger, and thus more expensive cabinets and any capability they have to dig down below 80Hz is wasted. Any 'bass capacity' they have is pitifully small compared with a purpose-designed subwoofer of good quality, with good amplification, matched to the driver design. And in any case, we only need to go as low as ~80Hz.
> 
> So, putting all that together, it seems to me that a system with good quality 'smaller' speakers with high power handling capability, married to at least one good quality sub, is the way to go.


Don't forget the additional flexibility offered by being able to place the sub(s) in a more optimal location(s) to better deal with your particular room modes. It's pretty tough to do that with towers unless the optimal position(s) falls somewhere within the footprint of your mains location.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Good catch, otherwise I would have suggested playing Trentemöller "Vamp" on your bookshelves @ 105dB.


 I play my music on a plain old fashioned stereo system that is a quarter century old. And nowhere near 105dB


----------



## Nightlord

jkasanic said:


> Don't forget the additional flexibility offered by being able to place the sub(s) in a more optimal location(s) to better deal with your particular room modes. It's pretty tough to do that with towers unless the optimal position(s) falls somewhere within the footprint of your mains location.


That's why you use subwoofers with the towers. There's close to no floorstander who manages without in any case...


----------



## tomparis

bargervais said:


> Very nice now all you need is a Big A$$ Plasma PN65F8500 would look nice there


Bought this Panasonic 55" Plasma not long ago this year. It was of the last series they built.
While I'm happy with the size, I'm more of a picture quality over size guy now. Waiting for OLED to become affordable.
But we're going off topic here.

Thanks to all for your kind responses to my work :smile:


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I play my music on a plain old fashioned stereo system that is a quarter century old. And nowhere near 105dB


Played Jamie Woon 'Night air' in my cinema averaging 108dB and peaking well above 120 (dB-meter clips at that point, so I don't know just how much above) the other week. Very nice.


----------



## batpig

jimim said:


> wow this is all so confusing. so many people are doing thier setups so diff now. how r u guys with 2 rows handling ceiling speakers? 2 or 4 or even 6 to cover the whole area? and if their are that many such as 6 are they all getting thier own information from the processor or are all 6 or 4 getting the same info?


Well here's the thing -- you don't have the option to do more than 4 ceiling speakers unless you drop $20k+ on one of the uber processors like the Trinnov Altitude32. With the typical


----------



## NorthSky

helvetica bold said:


> Sony announced new high end receivers but no mention of Atmos support.
> I wonder why they aren't jumping on the Atmos train.
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/three-sony-avrs-target-installers/53976


We know how Sony likes to do business; with their own attachments.
...No compatibility with nobody else but themselves. ...And you pay big time for their little gadgets (accessories that you cannot get anywhere else because they made sure of that). 

* They closed down their two Sony stores here in Victoria, on Vancouver Island.
And if you need repair from a defective Sony product on warranty, you need to ship it on the main land,
because they don't have any support @ all here on the island. 

I know for a fact as my latest Sony product has a broken internal speaker, and a disconnected LCD screen from its frame! ...A total piece of junk! ...Extremely disappointed for a brand new product.
Never ever anymore; just too many strikes against them now, in my own life. 
And I got tons of their products...so I know. ...The built is poor, very poor, all plastic. ...And the glue too is poor, it is not holding together. And their speakers are also poorly built. ...They distort @ low volume. 

Anyway, thx for sharing. 

___________

Go Oppo go! ....For both Video and CD/SACD. 

And get a Samsung plasma TV instead. 

...And an iPhone, and an iMac, and iPad, and an Onkyo receiver.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Don't forget the additional flexibility offered by being able to place the sub(s) in a more optimal location(s) to better deal with your particular room modes. It's pretty tough to do that with towers unless the optimal position(s) falls somewhere within the footprint of your mains location.


True - but one could do that even if towers were employed at the front, so long as one had subs too. Of course, then I'd wonder why someone had paid for towers with an 'extended' frequency response, only to leave it unused as the bass was passed to the sub


----------



## jkasanic

Nightlord said:


> That's why you use subwoofers with the towers. There's close to no floorstander who manages without in any case...


Sorry, I missed the "with a sub" part in the original quote.



kokishin said:


> Roger et al,
> 
> There are those that believe that *using front bookshelf speakers with a sub is preferred (more cost effective, better bass integration) over using front full range speakers with a sub.* Would like to get your opinion on this. TIA.


I personally prefer the former as my listening habits are 95% movies and only 5% music (multi-ch as well). I also wouldn't overlook the complexity of integrating the bass with the latter.


----------



## tanishq02

batpig said:


> Thanks. It's my wife's fault, she loves the rosenut wood finish, otherwise I would probably have big black boxes up there
> 
> The console is a bit low so I have to angle up to ear level. The L/R speakers are angled up on Auralex MoPads, and for the center speaker I found the ingenious solution (can't take credit, somebody else tipped me off) of using this cheapo foam laptop cooling stand: http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Lift-Portable-Notebook-Cooling/dp/B00028VKLI/
> 
> Previously I was using rubber doorstops to angle the CC up but this is a more elegant solution and looks a lot better.


Lovely...I was looking for similar solutions as well, mostly for center channel. Thanks for the link


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course, then I'd wonder why someone had paid for towers with an 'extended' frequency response, only to leave it unused as the bass was passed to the sub


I was thinking this as well but isn't it possible with some AVR's and Prepros to play "double bass" (i.e. send bass to both the mains and sub) and isn't that what makes integrating the two so difficult? ICBW though and the discussion is even more moot than I thought.


----------



## batpig

Adding more fuel to what seems to have become my "stop being such a perfectionist" campaign to mitigate some of the overobsession in this thread....

With respect to surround height and everyone ripping up walls to lower their surrounds, or fretting about not being able to implement Atmos in their home because the surrounds are high up.

"Stop being such a perfectionist".

This is the Dolby Atmos demo room:










And this is the image posted above of the Harman Kardon / JBL Synthesis high end Atmos demo room for CEDIA:










Notice, just like commercial theaters, the surrounds are pretty high up. Obviously the needs of a larger multi-row theater dictate this somewhat, but I think home users can still get a really darn satisfying Atmos experience with their surrounds higher up. Roger Dressler has been an advocate of not sweating this aspect so much, so I just wanted to add more ammo and hopefully alleviate some stress for people who are worried about this factor.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Thanks. It's my wife's fault, she loves the rosenut wood finish, otherwise I would probably have big black boxes up there
> 
> The console is a bit low so I have to angle up to ear level. The L/R speakers are angled up on Auralex MoPads, and for the center speaker I found the ingenious solution (can't take credit, somebody else tipped me off) of using this cheapo foam laptop cooling stand: http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Lift-Portable-Notebook-Cooling/dp/B00028VKLI/
> 
> Previously I was using rubber doorstops to angle the CC up but this is a more elegant solution and looks a lot better.


Very nice and clean love it.
I Have used wine corks i cut them to the desired thickness to angle my speaker up or down to MLP. 
that Cool Lift Portable Notebook Cooling Pad is a great looking idea got to get me one thanks.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> True - but one could do that even if towers were employed at the front, so long as one had subs too. Of course, then I'd wonder why someone had paid for towers with an 'extended' frequency response, only to leave it unused as the bass was passed to the sub


I think most towers cross from their woofers higher than 80Hz, so the woofer capability will still be used. And since they will have much less excursion not playing below 80Hz, the distortion will be significantly reduced, aka better sound quality.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I understand your scepticism but it isn't only Dolby who are saying this. It is generally accepted that good room EQ (eg Audyssey XT32) will match the response of each speaker to its target curve well enough that timbre matching becomes less important than it was in the days when we did not have effective EQ built into many affordable AVRs.
> 
> Clearly, if your LCR speaker brand offers Atmos modules, then there is no reason to avoid buying them. But where the LCR brand does not, and is not likely to, offer Atmos modules, then others can be used so long as there is some effective way to EQ them, either automated or manual.
> 
> It would be odd to change expensive and otherwise satisfactory LCR speakers for Atmos dedicated speakers, unless one was contemplating a LCR speaker change anyway, when the modules can be used, with EQ, for a perfectly good result. Timbre matching is one of those things that has become part of the 'folk lore' of audio from back in the day when it was important because we had no effective EQ readily available to most people. The folk lore of the audio industry accounts for many similar things which have become very different with the march of progress - for example, the idea that amplifiers sound significantly different to each other. Yes, they did, back in the day, but not so much nowadays with modern SS manufacturing techniques and higher quality, lower cost components. But we digress...
> 
> Bottom line is don't worry too much about timbre matching IF you have effective EQ in your system.


Thanks for the feedback, that's puts my mind at ease. Any AVR sophisticated enough to play Atmos I'd image would have EQ good enough to match speakers... now the question is... to buy the 500 dollar pair modules or 250 pair (onkyo) modules? haha.


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> BTW, just found this..another new Atmos product..this time a new pre/pro from Acurus:
> 
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/perfect-together-acurus-and-atmos


It is THX certified too.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *PN64F8500* ... 64" only, not 65".


i saw that fat fingers i fixed it. thank you


----------



## wse

batpig said:


> Adding more fuel to what seems to have become my "stop being such a perfectionist" campaign to mitigate some of the overobsession in this thread....
> 
> With respect to surround height and everyone ripping up walls to lower their surrounds, or fretting about not being able to implement Atmos in their home because the surrounds are high up.
> 
> "Stop being such a perfectionist".
> 
> This is the Dolby Atmos demo room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the image posted above of the Harman Kardon / JBL Synthesis high end Atmos demo room for CEDIA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, just like commercial theaters, the surrounds are pretty high up. Obviously the needs of a larger multi-row theater dictate this somewhat, but I think home users can still get a really darn satisfying Atmos experience with their surrounds higher up. Roger Dressler has been an advocate of not sweating this aspect so much, so I just wanted to add more ammo and hopefully alleviate some stress for people who are worried about this factor.


CEDIA that's going to be fun too bad I can't go


----------



## Aras_Volodka

PoshFrosh said:


> *Film*:
> With not much time left, I threw on Chapter 16 of Marvel's "Avengers". Again, the sound filled the room. *Sounds were coming from all around me*: left, rear, upper left front, upper left rear, etc. But the imaging was very precise... an object would pan clearly around me where appropriate *in the most wonderfully exciting yet natural sounding way*. Ambient effects would fill the room and light up the space. It was simply a blissful experience that made all the work and money seem very worthwhile. (When I put my ear close to one of the ceiling speakers, the sound coming out of it was quiet, but constant (unlike in PLIIz where much of the time the heights would be completely silent).


Awesome! Thanks for the initial impressions!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

westmd said:


> I don't think there is any need to rush speaker rebuild! Just wait until the processor / receiver is there, buy the designated Atmos models and test it live in your environment. If room EQ is not able to correct return the speakers and find an alternative.
> I for myself have niw about the tenth plan in my mind about new speakers and speaker layout. But I won't do one drill or buy one pair of speakers until I have my processor on hand and can test the complete setup. I would really love to buy and rebuild now (my wife always says building fever) but I am really holding back until I have my upstream equipment available!


Good advice, thanks! I'm sure that even if die hard home theater-ists aren't planning on replacing speakers then I probably don't have any reason to either. I'll just find a way to make it work if the match isn't ideal, because I like my current speakers very much


----------



## jkasanic

Nightlord said:


> I think most towers cross from their woofers higher than 80Hz, so the woofer capability will still be used. And since they will have much less excursion not playing below 80Hz, the distortion will be significantly reduced, aka better sound quality.


At the risk of veering too far OT, it's not like bookshelf speakers don't have woofers capable of reproducing 80Hz so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make above? I thought the point was to determine pros and cons of mains plus sub vs. towers plus sub? If you don't intend to use the full range of the towers but rather use bass management to redirect all of the bass to the sub then what additional benefit are they actually providing over a capable bookshelf speaker? Consequently, I don't see larger woofers in a tower speaker using bass management as a pro for tower speakers plus sub configuration.


----------



## ambesolman

Man I bet that Harman room sounds great! Too bad it looks like they had Ringling Bros. design the room


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## toothsavers

*Switching functions*

Is it possible to switch my rear surrounds to Dolby rear heights on Atmos movies and back again to rear surrounds on
movies that are only coded as 7.1 ?Would this choice be able to be customizable on a universal or AVR remote? Is it a hard and fast designation of either atmos rear heights or surround rears?Thx


----------



## batpig

toothsavers said:


> Is it possible to switch my rear surrounds to Dolby rear heights on Atmos movies and back again to rear surrounds on
> movies that are only coded as 7.1 ?Would this choice be able to be customizable on a universal or AVR remote? Is it a hard and fast designation of either atmos rear heights or surround rears?Thx


It would take a really flexibly processor to do this. For example, on Denon/Marantz models there are separate speaker terminals (and pre-outs) for SURROUND BACK vs REAR HEIGHT outputs. So switching would literally involve swapping the speaker cables from one jack to the other. Plus you'd have to load a separate Audyssey config for each of the two setups (10-15 minutes every time you wanted to switch). So it would be a huge PITA and definitely not something you could do on the fly.


----------



## NorthSky

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> I did it and ran 160ft of speaker wire to the ceiling, where now my new RS-42 II are mounted.
> Can say it was an insane amount of work, but it finally looks, how I imagined it.
> Hope it sounds as good as well, since there are no Atmos AVRs available in Germany at the moment.
> If this speaker configuration even works with Auro3D will be seen, since there isn't even one affordable AVR announced today. But I will jump it, should it be available some day.
> Attached some pictures. Fell free to comment.


WoW! 

Earlier in this thread I had a discussion with another gentle fellow member,, and we were talking about high ceilings and what would be best to install four overhead Atmos speakers.
He came up with two great links on speaker's rod brackets. ...Steel poles roughly two feet long.
...So that we can have our four overheads speakers @ the exact same height (9 feet or so). 

Perhaps you missed it as you were installing all the wiring and your speakers above already. 
Or did you? 

It would be very interesting to experiment with what you did already, and with them speakers too.
Their bipolar pattern with their two 45° side angles should make for a fun experiment.

I like your room, a lot. And I will use it as a total experimentable room on everything surround sound related, like a lab. For Dolby Atmos overhead speakers I would install them using those long steel rods where the wiring is concealed inside the steel tube. ...And I would made them hanging @ roughly the same distance as your floor mains. ...On the same horizontal plane too.

And! I would also try direct radiators, monopole speakers, coaxial type with very wide dispersion, and aim them straight down. ...For fun, for experimentation, to hear what sounds best in your cool room with a Dolby Atmos setting. 

Last but not least, some acoustical room treatments. 

* Do you have two subs? ...Two subs are better than just ...

...Your room is an ideal room to experiment, I strongly believe, and that's what I would do myself with a room like that. And the way you are set up right now, and after delivery of your Dolby Atmos AV receiver, or Dolby Atmos SSP, and *'Transformers 4'* on Blu (Sept. 30), and Dolby Surround up-mixer too, I think that you are going to have an elevated blast. ...But the potential to improve is still there, I think. 

Have fun!


----------



## NorthSky

Oh, one last thing; a larger display. 

And two: Switch your Wides to the Back Rears. ...Experiment. Me, I would do that.


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> I found these brackets which I think may actually be perfect for the setup I am thinking of running.
> 
> http://www.wayfair.com/Cotytech-Ceiling-Bracket-Set-of-2-Set-of-2-SP-OS03-PGY1168.html





sikclown said:


> Thanks! Here is another site I looked at which gives some more options for heavier/larger speakers.
> 
> http://adapttechgroup.com/multimount_c.html
> 
> But I prefer the first mounts I posted.


Here are the two links I was referring to (above two quotes), & the gentle member who came up with them.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> I was thinking this as well but isn't it possible with some AVR's and Prepros to play "double bass" (i.e. send bass to both the mains and sub) and isn't that what makes integrating the two so difficult? ICBW though and the discussion is even more moot than I thought.


It's possible to run 'double bass'. But it's a really bad idea. I covered my reasons in the Audyssey FAQ:

*f)7. What is ‘LFE + Main’ or ‘Double Bass’ and should I use it?*


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks for the feedback, that's puts my mind at ease. Any AVR sophisticated enough to play Atmos I'd image would have EQ good enough to match speakers...


Unless it's an Onkyo  But the Denons/Marantz with Audyssey XT32 certainly fall into that category. And maybe MCACC (Pioneer) and YPAO (Yamaha), about which I know less than diddly squat.



Aras_Volodka said:


> Now the question is... to buy the 500 dollar pair modules or 250 pair (onkyo) modules? haha.


I’d say buy the best speakers you can possibly afford - and I'd apply this to Atmos modules as much as any other speaker.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> No idea, but as they are in fact Datasat, it's going to be a lot... A multiple of what I can afford. I rather put my funds in the LCR build *They will last forever* and have a greater impact on the sound, a processor OTOH...
> 
> They do look the part though. I love that front design.
> 
> Mensa:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crux:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Acurus act 4 is a lot more down to earth for looks and price ($6,000). Still slightly expensive for "only" 11.3. But not that much more than the Marantz AV8802.


Erwin, nothing lasts forever. ...Not us, and not even our audio components.  
...Next year something else will come up, even better and more up-to-date. ...Just like us, people.


----------



## smurraybhm

I guess I am just too practical as I just ordered a Denon 5200 - so its official I have joined Club Atmos. I put my Denon 4311 up for sale last night, it was bought this morning and will be on its way to TX Monday. Took that as a sign from above to join the early adopter group. I encourage those of you in the States to reach out to our forum sponsors for pricing, much better than Amazon or Magnolia/Best Buy. I plan on going 7.2.2 in a slightly unconventional manner. Time to experiment later next week, but no bookshelves laying down and angled at the ceiling - Batpig's covered that one.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Erwin, nothing lasts forever. ...Not us, and not even our audio components.
> ...Next year something else will come up, even better and more up-to-date. ...Just like us, people.



I was talking about my speakers lasting forever, not the processor. But I agree, it was meant in a relative way of speaking... But I bet I will do 20 years with them. I hope I wear them out before I am wheeled off to an institution of some kind!


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Nightlord said:


> I think most towers cross from their woofers higher than 80Hz, so the woofer capability will still be used. And since they will have much less excursion not playing below 80Hz, the distortion will be significantly reduced, aka better sound quality.



I own two types of large sealed speakers, and they cross from the mid-range driver to the internal speaker "subwoofer driver" at 80Hz and 100Hz.

I run my AVR as large R&L other speakers small with subwoofer crossed at 50 Hz. No problems.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> It's possible to run 'double bass'. But it's a really bad idea. I covered my reasons in the Audyssey FAQ:
> 
> *f)7. What is ‘LFE + Main’ or ‘Double Bass’ and should I use it?*




It's only a bad idea if you overlap the bass when you use "double bass"!


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Adding more fuel to what seems to have become my "stop being such a perfectionist" campaign to mitigate some of the overobsession in this thread....
> 
> With respect to surround height and everyone ripping up walls to lower their surrounds, or fretting about not being able to implement Atmos in their home because the surrounds are high up.
> 
> "Stop being such a perfectionist".
> 
> This is the Dolby Atmos demo room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the image posted above of the Harman Kardon / JBL Synthesis high end Atmos demo room for CEDIA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, just like commercial theaters, the surrounds are pretty high up. Obviously the needs of a larger multi-row theater dictate this somewhat, but I think home users can still get a really darn satisfying Atmos experience with their surrounds higher up. Roger Dressler has been an advocate of not sweating this aspect so much, so I just wanted to add more ammo and hopefully alleviate some stress for people who are worried about this factor.


Very true; for them larger venues.

But the fact still remains that Dolby recommends having the four floor surrounds @ ear level,
to have a better blend/differentiation with them four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers; space between them for an overall best effect between horizontal and vertical planes (3D) in a smaller venue like @ home, in our smaller theater rooms, or living rooms.

And! If you have to use the four Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers; you wouldn't put them modules so high up, no way. ...They'll be just slightly above ear level. 

* Me: The four floor surround speakers (SLS, BLS, BRS, SRS), should be @ or near ear level; say no more than a foot or so above ear level. ....And not on the walls if you are using the Dolby Atmos up-firing integrated speakers or separate up-firing modules, but on their own stands, away from the walls, and on top of your FL, FR, SBR, SBL speakers. ...Or near them on their own stands too (the modules). 

For sure, we can all deviate from that, and it would still work. But would that be the very best performance working with the most efficiency in our home theater rooms @ home? 
That, is the true question. And the true answer is in the pudding of experimentation, and with Dolby's own recommendations, and using our common sense, and take no prisoners, no compromises, and all that jazz. 

What's good for me is not necessarily good for you, and vice versa. 

Who has the best setup in the best room? ...It has to be each one of us, that's who. 
Because that's where we all live. ...In nobody's else room than our own. 

Say no to compromises, life's just too short for shorting us out of the better visual and auditive performance.

Live intensively, exclusively on the edge of the latest technologies by observing the smart guidelines that come with them. Anything less is just that, less.

Hey, just look @ them Dolby Atmos room demos. ...For normal size rooms; it's all there.
I don't have a large theater room @ home like in them two pictures above; my room is 19 by 16 by 11 feet.


----------



## smurraybhm

I think one thing we've learned on AVS is that there are ways to get solid if not great performance out of an "unconventional" setup. Every manufacturer makes recommendations to cover their xxx. Until we have more Atmos capable units out among us and there is the opportunity to try different things I don't think anything can be labeled smart yet. I'm with Batpig on this one, and would say that most of us have to make a compromise somewhere in our setup. Please remember I said most which I'll define as the simple majority here on AVS.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> i saw that fat fingers i fixed it. thank you


I just saw an opportunity, and I took it.


----------



## toothsavers

batpig said:


> It would take a really flexibly processor to do this. For example, on Denon/Marantz models there are separate speaker terminals (and pre-outs) for SURROUND BACK vs REAR HEIGHT outputs. So switching would literally involve swapping the speaker cables from one jack to the other. Plus you'd have to load a separate Audyssey config for each of the two setups (10-15 minutes every time you wanted to switch). So it would be a huge PITA and definitely not something you could do on the fly.


Thanks Batpig.In your opinion,would you turn a well sounding 7.1 system into a 5.1.4 or a 7.1.2 Atmos home theatre? Remember,that I am the unfortunate with sloped ceilings conjoined with a flattened ceiling in a approx 500sq ft family room with high surround speakers and rears in the ceiling that is sloped. Your advice is surely appreciated! Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

toothsavers said:


> Is it possible to switch my rear surrounds to Dolby rear heights on Atmos movies and back again to rear surrounds on
> movies that are only coded as 7.1 ?Would this choice be able to be customizable on a universal or AVR remote? Is it a hard and fast designation of either atmos rear heights or surround rears?Thx





batpig said:


> It would take a really flexibly processor to do this. For example, on Denon/Marantz models there are separate speaker terminals (and pre-outs) for SURROUND BACK vs REAR HEIGHT outputs. So switching would literally involve swapping the speaker cables from one jack to the other. Plus you'd have to load a separate Audyssey config for each of the two setups (10-15 minutes every time you wanted to switch).
> *So it would be a huge PITA and definitely not something you could do on the fly*.


I totally agree with the poster just above; Mr. batpig.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I was talking about my speakers lasting forever, not the processor. But I agree, it was meant in a relative way of speaking... But I bet I will do 20 years with them. I hope I wear them out before I am wheeled off to an institution of some kind!


A loudspeaker is a mechanical/electrical audio component as well. ...A box with drivers and x-over inside.
And I agree, they can outlast us very easily, if we take good care of them. 

Erwin, are you as excited as I am?


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I am just too practical as I just ordered a Denon 5200 - so its official I have joined Club Atmos. I put my Denon 4311 up for sale last night, it was bought this morning and will be on its way to TX Monday. Took that as a sign from above to join the early adopter group. I encourage those of you in the States to reach out to *our forum sponsors for pricing, much better than Amazon or Magnolia/Best Buy*. I plan on going 7.2.2 in a slightly unconventional manner. Time to experiment later next week, but no bookshelves laying down and angled at the ceiling - Batpig's covered that one.


Awesome! 

* For us Canadians, is there something in the AVS dealer's bag? ...Or is it only for USA residents?


----------



## jimim

batpig said:


> Well here's the thing -- you don't have the option to do more than 4 ceiling speakers unless you drop $20k+ on one of the uber processors like the Trinnov Altitude32. With the typical


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Awesome!
> 
> * For us Canadians, is there something in the AVS dealer's bag? ...Or is it only for USA residents?


Robert - it seems like you guys always get hit by import taxes - no? I am headed to Montreal on business first week in October, besides seeing if I remember French from my summer in Paris a LONG time ago, I am hoping that some of the great audio products made in Canada might be lower there than here in the States. Of course I may have some trouble convincing Customs that I always travel with a pair of speakers.


----------



## batpig

toothsavers said:


> Thanks Batpig.In your opinion,would you turn a well sounding 7.1 system into a 5.1.4 or a 7.1.2 Atmos home theatre? Remember,that I am the unfortunate with sloped ceilings conjoined with a flattened ceiling in a approx 500sq ft family room with high surround speakers and rears in the ceiling that is sloped. Your advice is surely appreciated! Thanks


I'm not sure honestly. We are somewhat into uncharted waters with Atmos and you have a pretty unique situation with super high vaulted ceilings combined with really high surround placement.

From a practical perspective, your current room is covered in terms of "vertical sound" in the rear half -- you have high surrounds to either side and in-ceiling rear surrounds in the back. So I think the most pressing need is to fill in the "dome of sound" by extending the front soundstage in the vertical dimension. So I would figure out how to get Top Front / Front Height speakers (preferably real, but at worst virtual with an Atmos module bouncing off the front vaulted slope) and from there you should experiment. 

If you set the current back surrounds as Top Rear / Rear Height for Atmos and go 5.1.4, you are basically locked into using DSU upmix for all content if you want those speakers to make noise (i.e. otherwise a 7.1 track wouldn't engage those speakers). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's impossible to predict at this point which way will sound better. Worst case you re-run auto setup and try it the other way and decide which you like better.


----------



## krozman

The problem I am having, witness the horror:


1. Originally I was buying a new receiver because I wanted WiFI and my wife's cell phone to function with an AVR, and that my Denon 1707 is "good," but does not have any real room correction and I wanted to upgrade to new tech considering I just bought an entire Klipsch Reference set. So I decided to buy the X3100W.
2. While waiting for the X3100 to come out, the Atmos tech became less of a gimmick and more of a reliable option given the strength of the DSU upmixer. So yesterday I called and bought two more RB51ii speakers for a 7.1.2 system and will upgrade to X4100W. Why not, it's XT32 and atmos. No brainer.
3. While waiting to purchase the X4100W, I am now realizing that you can't upgrade 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 with a X4100W, AND you'd have to move the speakers from nearly above the MLP to a more balanced box around the MLP. I.e. I'd have to leave holes in the ceiling. So GROAN I'm thinking X5200W.


Someone ban me from the AVS forums before I just say F it and refinance my house to go beyond that.


----------



## chi_guy50

krozman said:


> The problem I am having, witness the horror:
> 
> 
> 1. Originally I was buying a new receiver because I wanted WiFI and my wife's cell phone to function with an AVR, and that my Denon 1707 is "good," but does not have any real room correction and I wanted to upgrade to new tech considering I just bought an entire Klipsch Reference set. So I decided to buy the X3100W.
> 2. While waiting for the X3100 to come out, the Atmos tech became less of a gimmick and more of a reliable option given the strength of the DSU upmixer. So yesterday I called and bought two more RB51ii speakers for a 7.1.2 system and will upgrade to X4100W. Why not, it's XT32 and atmos. No brainer.
> 3. While waiting to purchase the X4100W, I am now realizing that you can't upgrade 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 with a X4100W, AND you'd have to move the speakers from nearly above the MLP to a more balanced box around the MLP. I.e. I'd have to leave holes in the ceiling. So GROAN I'm thinking X5200W.
> 
> 
> Someone ban me from the AVS forums before I just say F it and refinance my house to go beyond that.


Just put in your pre-order now for the X7200W and be done with it. 

Operators are standing by.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

alyssanick said:


> I'm so much more interested in whether legacy movies will get remixes in Atmos. Any info on this yet??
> 
> I'm talking big movies like Star Wars movies. Terminator movies. Lord of the Rings. Jurassic Park. War Of The Worlds. Tranformers. Tron: Legacy. Titanic. Watchmen. Indiana Jones. Saving Private Ryan - Stuff where directional sound is going to be impactful. And where its popular enough they may go back and have it remixed for a special edition - Even stuff like Pixar movies I'd be down for.
> 
> I ask because I'm looking at the list of current movies with mixes and am only interested in...
> 
> 1. Hobbit
> 2. Hobbit 2
> 3. Gravity
> 4. The Wolverine
> 5. Man of Steel
> 6. Iron Man 3
> 7. Hobbit 3
> 8. Into the Storm
> 9. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
> 10. Amazing Spiderman 2
> 11. X-men : Days
> 12. Godzilla
> 13. Noah (maybe...)
> 14. Avengers : Age
> 
> ...of the 150 odd titles. Not much for me! I have at least 500 blu's. And I'd rebuy 50 of them that I feel would give me something extra and that I consider epic movies. I realize some movies like Flight of the Phoenix or Mission Impossible I probably wouldn't get a remix.
> 
> I see my collection as a whole and older movies need to feel as relevant to me as new ones. And I favour legacy movies much more than post 2011 movies. I barely collect current movies. I'm simply not going to buy an atmos enabled setup if legacy isn't going to see this technology.
> 
> I didn't read all 200 pages so forgive me if this has been answered or addressed! Btw *I understand there is an upmixer that can handle most legacy titles depending on receiver enabling it with all codec.* But its been well mentioned it doesn't really remix the title. It remains mostly faithful. Hence I'd rather a remix to give those older titles I love the atmos experience.


I asked that same question & Scott Simonian told me there was an announcement somewhere that he saw a few old films would be getting Atmos mix, Die Hard was one of them. Star Wars OT got that 4k remaster... I'd imagine we'll be getting an Atmos mix for that. Reliance Media works did their project. 

I'd say LOTR *probably* given that Jackson does update his film releases. Indiana Jones might but keep in mind the reviews of the Bluray were underwhelming, as I think the same went for Jurrasic Park... which I own, and I am not impressed with the bluray quality... however, Saving Private Ryan has the best sound out of most of my bluray collection. I do think Spielberg authorized all the blurays of titles he directed. Titanic & Terminator I'd say are a good bet... but be prepared to wait a while! Keep in mind though, films upscale in Atmos, so you do get sort of an Atmos-ish sound which one member of this thread had talked about and was impressed.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

krozman said:


> The problem I am having, witness the horror:
> 
> 
> 1. Originally I was buying a new receiver because I wanted WiFI and my wife's cell phone to function with an AVR, and that my Denon 1707 is "good," but does not have any real room correction and I wanted to upgrade to new tech considering I just bought an entire Klipsch Reference set. So I decided to buy the X3100W.
> 2. While waiting for the X3100 to come out, the Atmos tech became less of a gimmick and more of a reliable option given the strength of the DSU upmixer. So yesterday I called and bought two more RB51ii speakers for a 7.1.2 system and will upgrade to X4100W. Why not, it's XT32 and atmos. No brainer.
> 3. While waiting to purchase the X4100W, I am now realizing that you can't upgrade 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 with a X4100W, AND you'd have to move the speakers from nearly above the MLP to a more balanced box around the MLP. I.e. I'd have to leave holes in the ceiling. So GROAN I'm thinking X5200W.
> 
> 
> Someone ban me from the AVS forums before I just say F it and refinance my house to go beyond that.



I could be wrong about this, but I thought I remember reading on another thread that you can get the 7.1.4 if you buy an external preamp/ have the heights go out of a different output which can be assigned. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry for getting anyone too excited.

Any new 1,500-1,800-ish AVR's announced @ Cedia? I'm hoping to get good 7.1.4 for less than 1,600-1,800 if possible.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Aras_Volodka said:


> I could be wrong about this, but I thought I remember reading on another thread that you can get the 7.1.4 if you buy an external preamp/ have the heights go out of a different output which can be assigned. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry for getting anyone too excited.
> 
> Any new 1,500-1,800-ish AVR's announced @ Cedia? I'm hoping to get good 7.1.4 for less than 1,600-1,800 if possible.


Denon X4100W - max 9 CH processing (5.1.4 or 7.1.2)

Denon X5200W/X7200W - max 11 CH processing (adds 7.1.4 and 9.1.2)


----------



## jxz2000

ss9001 said:


> Good idea, Markus


Good idea!


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> I could be wrong about this, but I thought I remember reading on another thread that you can get the 7.1.4 if you buy an external preamp/ have the heights go out of a different output which can be assigned. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry for getting anyone too excited.
> 
> Any new 1,500-1,800-ish AVR's announced @ Cedia? I'm hoping to get good 7.1.4 for less than 1,600-1,800 if possible.


You are wrong, the X4100 maxes out at 9 channels simultaneous.

Give JD a call and I bet you can get an X5200 or Marantz SR7009 on preorder (first run has already sold out) for your budget.


----------



## batpig

Another point on the "don't obsess about perfection" tip....

From the Atmos CEDIA press release thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...olby-atmos-press-conference-cedia-2014-a.html

*In the final few minutes, I asked about speaker placement, and Brett reminded everyone that Dolby just released a detailed installation guide, which you can download from AVS here. He also said that if the speaker placement isn't perfect, it should still work pretty well; Atmos is designed to be forgiving. Joel agreed, saying that Atmos is almost begging you to try and make it not work. It's very resilient, so don't be afraid if you don't have the perfect placement. *


----------



## toothsavers

batpig said:


> I'm not sure honestly. We are somewhat into uncharted waters with Atmos and you have a pretty unique situation with super high vaulted ceilings combined with really high surround placement.
> 
> From a practical perspective, your current room is covered in terms of "vertical sound" in the rear half -- you have high surrounds to either side and in-ceiling rear surrounds in the back. So I think the most pressing need is to fill in the "dome of sound" by extending the front soundstage in the vertical dimension. So I would figure out how to get Top Front / Front Height speakers (preferably real, but at worst virtual with an Atmos module bouncing off the front vaulted slope) and from there you should experiment.
> 
> If you set the current back surrounds as Top Rear / Rear Height for Atmos and go 5.1.4, you are basically locked into using DSU upmix for all content if you want those speakers to make noise (i.e. otherwise a 7.1 track wouldn't engage those speakers). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's impossible to predict at this point which way will sound better. Worst case you re-run auto setup and try it the other way and decide which you like better.


Thanks.Do you feel that if I left the rear surrounds as is and just added front heights(in my case Dolby enabled modules)=7.1.2 config,I could preserve and experience the "best of both worlds" scenario with my non ideal Dolby Atmos room? We have in our novice opinion with our Denon 4311ci terrific movie discreet surround sound.Do you feel DSU would adequately compensate for the loss of rear surrounds?.Finally,how does DSU affect a 7.i surround system that is not engaged with Dolby Atmos?THX


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Robert - it seems like you guys always get hit by import taxes - no? I am headed to Montreal on business first week in October, besides seeing if I remember French from my summer in Paris a LONG time ago, I am hoping that some of the great audio products made in Canada might be lower there than here in the States. Of course I may have some trouble convincing Customs that I always travel with a pair of speakers.


Yes, Canadians get hit hard with taxes and duties and all that jazz of doing business with south of the border. That's just life; part of the free trade deal agreement.

And yes I'm from near Montreal originally and my native tongue is French Canadian. 
We got Anthem, Bryston, Simaudio, Paradigm, PSB, and a whole lot more, plus the NRC is in Toronto, I believe. ...We have some great speaker's designers, and great values too. We also have some of the best DAC and DSP and integrated audio circuit designers in the whole world. ...ESS DACs, Meitner Labs, ...the list of technical audio gurus is long here in my country. ...And same for scientific drugs like to cure Ebola.
Our research team of scientists in the exploration of space is also quite impressive.

Canadians and Americans are two very strong friends. ...On many many levels of support and peace in the world. ...No wonder; we live on the same land, same continent, same four seasons, and same blood running through our veins. Even our hearts are similar in size and in generosity.

* I would like to see Dolby Atmos in them Anthem AV receivers; within a year or two. 
...And a multitude of Blu-ray movies with Dolby Atmos impregnated inside them.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Just put in your pre-order now for the X7200W and be done with it.
> 
> Operators are standing by.


That!  ...Or @ least the X5200W.


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> We ship world wide. Just sent a X5200W to Japan in fact.
> *Keep in mind though warranty is only good in USA*.


Ah, too bad, because that's important. ...But thank you sir for the generous info.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Another point on the "don't obsess about perfection" tip....
> 
> From the Atmos CEDIA press release thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...olby-atmos-press-conference-cedia-2014-a.html
> 
> *In the final few minutes, I asked about speaker placement, and Brett reminded everyone that Dolby just released a detailed installation guide, which you can download from AVS here. He also said that if the speaker placement isn't perfect, it should still work pretty well; Atmos is designed to be forgiving. Joel agreed, saying that Atmos is almost begging you to try and make it not work. It's very resilient, so don't be afraid if you don't have the perfect placement. *


I don't know anyone here @ AVS who is aiming for perfection; do you?


----------



## batpig

toothsavers said:


> Thanks.Do you feel that if I left the rear surrounds as is and just added front heights(in my case Dolby enabled modules)=7.1.2 config,I could preserve and experience the "best of both worlds" scenario with my non ideal Dolby Atmos room? We have in our novice opinion with our Denon 4311ci terrific movie discreet surround sound.Do you feel DSU would adequately compensate for the loss of rear surrounds?.Finally,how does DSU affect a 7.i surround system that is not engaged with Dolby Atmos?THX


Maybe. Like I said, we are in uncharted waters so you will have to experiment. If you could physically mount two speakers, pointed down, at the high point (flat part) then I would say it's a no-brainer to just do 7.1.2 and you basically have a movie-theater-style "high surrounds + Atmos" setup. But considering the inability to physically mount speakers up there, it's all going to be an unpredictable compromise. The fact of the matter is that you are starting from a highly "non ideal" Atmos setup with respect to the guidelines, so there's a lot of gray area for you to explore.

*"Do you feel DSU would adequately compensate for the loss of rear surrounds?"*

Ummm. Maybe. Probably? If you have 5.1.4 with the back speakers designated as Top Rear / Rear Height, then a sound that is intended to be behind will render to some mix of those two speakers + the side surrounds. So it will probably still sound good. Again, experimentation will be necessary.

*"Finally,how does DSU affect a 7.i surround system that is not engaged with Dolby Atmos?"*

Not sure I understand the question.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ Methinks that DSU is a better experience, and if you can use the rears it's good. ...And if not, it ain't the end of the world.

♦ DSU is for non Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks; so you cannot engage Dolby Atmos with them.


----------



## nick510

Hello everyone, I'm new to home theater and need help on hooking up Dolby Atmos to a Onkyo tx nr626 receiver. I'm trying to understand the whole speaker setup and what I should get. I'm looking at B & W CM 9 towers with the CMC2 center. Now the real question is how do I setup the surrounds and rears? I bought 4 ceiling speakers that I planned on hooking up but now I don't think that's the best option. Should I hookup surrounds on the left and rears above for the Atoms speakers? I've read that Zone 2 can be used for more speakers in the main theater but I can't find any real info on it...

Thank you in advance for your advice!


----------



## krozman

nick510 said:


> Hello everyone, I'm new to home theater and need help on hooking up Dolby Atmos to a Onkyo tx nr626 receiver. I'm trying to understand the whole speaker setup and what I should get. I'm looking at B & W CM 9 towers with the CMC2 center. Now the real question is how do I setup the surrounds and rears? I bought 4 ceiling speakers that I planned on hooking up but now I don't think that's the best option. Should I hookup surrounds on the left and rears above for the Atoms speakers? I've read that Zone 2 can be used for more speakers in the main theater but I can't find any real info on it...
> 
> Thank you in advance for your advice!


The Atmos threads all have links to the home installation guides for speakers. Apparently room correction software will challenge you to screw it up enough to make it not sound good.


----------



## nick510

krozman said:


> The Atmos threads all have links to the home installation guides for speakers. Apparently room correction software will challenge you to screw it up enough to make it not sound good.


Thank you, I'll take a look at the links. Would 2 ceiling atmos speakers and 2 surrounds be better then 4 ceiling speakers?


----------



## audioguy

Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.

The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!

But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


----------



## krozman

nick510 said:


> Thank you, I'll take a look at the links. Would 2 ceiling atmos speakers and 2 surrounds be better then 4 ceiling speakers?


 I'm not sure it's possible to answer that question for you specifically, even if we knew your setup, room dimensions, etc. 5.1.4 could conceivably sound better in your room than 7.1.2. When in doubt, throw money at the problem and do both!


----------



## NorthSky

nick510 said:


> Thank you, I'll take a look at the links. Would 2 ceiling atmos speakers and 2 surrounds be better then 4 ceiling speakers?





krozman said:


> I'm not sure it's possible to answer that question for you specifically, even if we knew your setup, room dimensions, etc. 5.1.4 could conceivably sound better in your room than 7.1.2. When in doubt, throw money at the problem and do both!


What he said; go *5.1.4*


----------



## bargervais

> Code:





nick510 said:


> Hello everyone, I'm new to home theater and need help on hooking up Dolby Atmos to a Onkyo tx nr626 receiver. I'm trying to understand the whole speaker setup and what I should get. I'm looking at B & W CM 9 towers with the CMC2 center. Now the real question is how do I setup the surrounds and rears? I bought 4 ceiling speakers that I planned on hooking up but now I don't think that's the best option. Should I hookup surrounds on the left and rears above for the Atoms speakers? I've read that Zone 2 can be used for more speakers in the main theater but I can't find any real info on it...
> 
> Thank you in advance for your advice!


If I'm not mistaken you can only do 5.1.2 with the 636 zone 2 will not give you more speaker's for the front. The 636 is only a 7.1 receiver.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> *The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!*
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


Awesome, I'll be waiting for that too. ...Thx for reporting. ...Not installing any new speakers above and anywhere else till I got the full Auro-3D picture on my drawing board.


----------



## nick510

NorthSky said:


> What he said; go *5.1.4*


Ok I think I get it now. 5.1 (left, right and center then 2 surrounds on the left and right and 4 ceiling for atmos). Does this sound correct? That would mean I would need a 9.1 channel reciever to make this happen. So if I have a 7.1 I can do a 5.1.2?

This is all new to me so I'm just trying to make the best system the first time and not screw it up..


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> If I'm not mistaken you can only do 5.1.2 with the 636 zone 2 will not give you more speaker's for the front. The 636 is only a 7.1 receiver.


He said the 626; must have been a typo.

* With the 636 you can only do 5.1.2, but can you add a separate amp to do 5.1.4? 

If not then the 737 would be better?

In a smaller room 5.1.2 should be ok. But I would think that 5.1.4 would be much better, @ minimum.


----------



## nick510

bargervais said:


> If I'm not mistaken you can only do 5.1.2 with the 636 zone 2 will not give you more speaker's for the front. The 636 is only a 7.1 receiver.


I think you're right, it is a 7.1 so that would make it 7.1 or 5.1.2. I was having trouble understanding that, thank you for the help!


----------



## batpig

nick510 said:


> Ok I think I get it now. 5.1 (left, right and center then 2 surrounds on the left and right and 4 ceiling for atmos). Does this sound correct? That would mean I would need a 9.1 channel reciever to make this happen. So if I have a 7.1 I can do a 5.1.2?
> 
> This is all new to me so I'm just trying to make the best system the first time and not screw it up..


Your receiver is a 7ch model. So if you want to do Atmos your only option is 5.1.2. That means two ceiling speakers (above and slightly in front of listening position) and two surrounds (to the sides and slightly behind the listening position). 

To do more you'd need to spend $$ on a 9ch model.


----------



## NorthSky

nick510 said:


> Ok I think I get it now. 5.1 (left, right and center then 2 surrounds on the left and right and 4 ceiling for atmos). Does this sound correct? That would mean I would need a 9.1 channel receiver to make this happen. So if I have a 7.1 I can do a 5.1.2?
> 
> This is all new to me so I'm just trying to make the best system the first time and not screw it up..


Yeah you got it. ...If you can add a separate stereo amp that'll work (5.1.4).
And with the 636 you can certainly do 5.1.2 - no sweat.

If budget permissible check @ the next one, the 737, which *bargervais* has right now, so he can tell you exactly if you can do 5.1.4 (by adding a separate stereo amp).


----------



## nick510

NorthSky said:


> He said the 626; must have been a typo.
> 
> * With the 636 you can only do 5.1.2, but can you add a separate amp to do 5.1.4?
> 
> If not then the 737 would be better?
> 
> In a smaller room 5.1.2 should be ok. But I would think that 5.1.4 would be much better, @ minimum.


I've heard that 5.1.2 is good be 5.1.4 is optimal until you step up to 7.1.4 and beyond. I'll look into 9 channel amps to see if its worth is otherwise I'll stay with 5.1.2. To be clear, can I add an amp to the zone 2 and have those ceiling speakers?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


Is Auro 11.1 at the minimum? I was trying to check out their site but it won't load. Do films that are mixed in Atmos work for Auro?


----------



## Frohlich

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. *That will be my next purchase!!*
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


I have heard nothing but great things about Auro. I thought I had read that Auro was trying to sign a contract with Denon/Marantz but thought it was just hearsay. Sounds like that might have legs...interesting. If it does come true, it likely will also be my next purchase as well. Hopefull the x7200 or AV8802.


----------



## kokishin

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


Content is king. What did they say about Auro content for HT?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> He said the 626; must have been a typo.
> 
> * With the 636 you can only do 5.1.2, but can you add a separate amp to do 5.1.4?
> 
> If not then the 737 would be better?
> 
> In a smaller room 5.1.2 should be ok. But I would think that 5.1.4 would be much better, @ minimum.


You can not do more then 7.1 with the 636 you can only do 5.1.2 you can't put an external amp to it..


----------



## NorthSky

nick510 said:


> I've heard that 5.1.2 is good be 5.1.4 is optimal until you step up to 7.1.4 and beyond. I'll look into 9 channel amps to see if its worth is otherwise I'll stay with 5.1.2.
> 
> * To be clear, can I add an amp to the zone 2 and have those ceiling speakers?*


No, if you add an amp for Zone 2 it is for stereo music in another room; no ceiling speakers in the main room.

The 636 is a 7-channel AV receiver, so you can do 5.LFE.2 Dolby Atmos setup. 
And the Zone 2 is a totally separate room; it is simply to play another source than in your main zone, and in stereo only. ...Like watching a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie in your main zone with five main speakers, one subwoofer, and two overhead (on-ceiling) or up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers (integrated with the two front mains, or as separate modules) = 5.1.2

...While in the bedroom (Zone 2 for example) your girlfriend is listening to Celine Dion's music in stereo from the CD player connected to your receiver in the main zone. 
For that you add a separate stereo amp using the Zone 2's Left and Right RCA jacks (Preouts), with long RCA interconnects that goes into the bedroom, and you connect a pair of stereo speakers to that stereo amp's rear speaker's binding posts. ...Or that stereo amp could be not too far from the 636 AV receiver but using longer speaker cables that go in the bedroom.

Did I explain ok, or is it confusing?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> You can not do more then 7.1 with the 636 you can only do 5.1.2 you can't put an external amp to it..


Gotcha; no preouts for the main zone, only for a second zone (stereo).


----------



## nick510

bargervais said:


> You can not do more then 7.1 with the 636 you can only do 5.1.2 you can't put an external amp to it..


Ok understood thank you! This is all new to me


----------



## bargervais

nick510 said:


> I've heard that 5.1.2 is good be 5.1.4 is optimal until you step up to 7.1.4 and beyond. I'll look into 9 channel amps to see if its worth is otherwise I'll stay with 5.1.2. To be clear, can I add an amp to the zone 2 and have those ceiling speakers?


Sorry you can not add an amp to the 636 to add two additional speakers to the mains
I'm in the same boat with the 737.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is Auro 11.1 at the minimum? I was trying to check out their site but it won't load.
> *Do films that are mixed in Atmos work for Auro?*





kokishin said:


> Content is king. What did they say about Auro content for HT?


That (above, in red).


----------



## nick510

NorthSky said:


> No, if you add an amp for Zone 2 it is for stereo music in another room; no ceiling speakers in the main room.
> 
> The 636 is a 7-channel AV receiver, so you can do 5.LFE.2 Dolby Atmos setup.
> And the Zone 2 is a totally separate room; it is simply to play another source than in your main zone, and in stereo only. ...Like watching a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie in your main zone with five main speakers, one subwoofer, and two overhead (on-ceiling) or up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers (integrated with the two front mains, or as separate modules) = 5.1.2
> 
> ...While in the bedroom (Zone 2 for example) your girlfriend is listening to Celine Dion's music in stereo from the CD player connected to your receiver in the main zone.
> For that you add a separate stereo amp using the Zone 2's Left and Right RCA jacks (Preouts), with long RCA interconnects that goes into the bedroom, and you connect a pair of stereo speakers to that stereo amp's rear speaker's binding posts. ...Or that stereo amp could be not too far from the 636 AV receiver but using longer speaker cables that go in the bedroom.
> 
> Did I explain ok, or is it confusing?


You explained it perfectly!! We already have speakers hooked up and wired to the receiver location in the other room so those will work great on zone 2. I was willing to give those up if I could make a 5.1.4 but now I know that is not possible. I will have to settle for the 2 atmos ceiling speakers, maybe I'll run 2 extra wires and hide them in the ceiling so I can hookup if I every upgrade the reciever. As of now though I can't spend more $ on a different reciever. Like I said before I'm new to this, I just bought a Sony VPL HW55ES projector with a Elite Lunette 100" curved screen, the reciever, a blu ray player, now figuring out good tower speakers and center to get for around $1,500-$2,000 next hooking up recessed lighting, AHHH so much to do!! Its all getting wired on Monday.. Thank you again for you explanations and help!!


----------



## SoundChex

kokishin said:


> Content is king. What did they say about Auro content for HT?



Correct, but there would seem to be very little point to _rolling out_ and promoting a "substantial number" of *Auro-3D BD* titles until there are some _mass market_ priced *AVR*s and|or *HTiB*s available on which they may be played...?!    
_


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SoundChex said:


> Correct, but there would seem to be very little point to _rolling out_ and promoting a "substantial number" of *Auro-3D BD* titles until there are some _mass market_ priced *AVR*s and|or *HTiB*s available on which they may be played...?!
> _


This question isn't meant to be sarcastic, but I'm wondering if any theaters have Auro sound? I have no idea how to figure out what theaters have it or are playing new films with Auro mix.


----------



## bargervais

HTML:







nick510 said:


> You explained it perfectly!! We already have speakers hooked up and wired to the receiver location in the other room so those will work great on zone 2. I was willing to give those up if I could make a 5.1.4 but now I know that is not possible. I will have to settle for the 2 atmos ceiling speakers, maybe I'll run 2 extra wires and hide them in the ceiling so I can hookup if I every upgrade the reciever. As of now though I can't spend more $ on a different reciever. Like I said before I'm new to this, I just bought a Sony VPL HW55ES projector with a Elite Lunette 100" curved screen, the reciever, a blu ray player, now figuring out good tower speakers and center to get for around $1,500-$2,000 next hooking up recessed lighting, AHHH so much to do!! Its all getting wired on Monday.. Thank you again for you explanations and help!!


Cool glad we could help keep us posted, the atmos firmware due September 29th can wait.


----------



## SoundChex

Aras_Volodka said:


> This question isn't meant to be sarcastic, but I'm wondering if any theaters have Auro sound? I have no idea how to figure out what theaters have it or are playing new films with Auro mix.



http://www.auro-3d.com/ Look at FIND *AURO 11.1* NEAR YOU

and

http://www.barco.com/en/StaticPages/Locators/Digitalcinema/AuroLocator?


_


----------



## 7channelfreak

I really enjoyed the Auro demo today with Datasat and James loudspeakers but I just don't see this ever being a mass marketed codec. It was very impressive but the cost to get in is just off the charts for 99.5% of people.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SoundChex said:


> http://www.auro-3d.com/ Look at FIND *AURO 11.1* NEAR YOU
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.barco.com/en/StaticPages/Locators/Digitalcinema/AuroLocator?
> 
> 
> _


I will try to check out the Auro theater... there is one sort of in my area but it's a bit of a hike (in Evanston, near Chicago), it's quite close but just a pain to get to.


----------



## 7channelfreak

The three best Atnos demos I saw today was Goldenear, Dolby, and d & m. I didn't think the Pioneer up firing demo wasn't executed very well. I did find the up firing demo at Dolby very good though. I would say its 80% of ceiling mounted speakers. It was much closer than I thought it would be. But clearly not as good. 


I still need to see procella and I'm not sure what Pro is showing.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

7channelfreak said:


> I really enjoyed the Auro demo today with Datasat and James loudspeakers but I just don't see this ever being a mass marketed codec. It was very impressive but the cost to get in is just off the charts for 99.5% of people.


What's the minimum cost for admission? I think if I buy everything I need to get Atmos it will be like 2.5/3k (for 4 heights & AVR)


----------



## 7channelfreak

Aras_Volodka said:


> What's the minimum cost for admission? I think if I buy everything I need to get Atmos it will be like 2.5/3k (for 4 heights & AVR)


The only pre/pro that has that I'm aware of is like 24k (Datasat RS20). Plus all the height speakers above your lower surround level. Then you can add the VOG channel if you want it. They recommend that channel if you have over ten seats in your room. They showed 9.1, 10.1, and 11.1. 

It was great..but I just don't see the film companies pushing this out on blu till there are more receivers that offer it.


----------



## krozman

More likely content mixed in Auro would not be interpreted or seen by Atmos. Instead, a lower 7.1 regular format will be used and upmixed via DSU into the atmos environment.


the two standards for center speakers almost demand that if you wanted both, you need to put your center speakers on tracks and move them according to what you're playing at the time. Don't think I'm going to wait for a format that requires the impossible anyway.


----------



## Frohlich

7channelfreak said:


> I really enjoyed the Auro demo today with Datasat and James loudspeakers but I just don't see this ever being a mass marketed codec. It was very impressive but the cost to get in is just off the charts for 99.5% of people.


If you check the previous page, there is some smoke that Auro is coming to Denon/Marantz. If that pans out, it will be available at a new price point. I agree that as of today, it is only in a few select (expensive) products and will likely stay a niche market until they bring down to more affordable units. I would also be excited for the auro upmixing, as I have read it is the best on the market.


----------



## Skylinestar

krozman said:


> the two standards for center speakers almost demand that if you wanted both, you need to put your center speakers on tracks and move them according to what you're playing at the time. Don't think I'm going to wait for a format that requires the impossible anyway.


What are the 2 standards for center?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frohlich said:


> If you check the previous page, there is some smoke that Auro is coming to Denon/Marantz. If that pans out, it will be available at a new price point. I agree that as of today, it is only in a few select (expensive) products and will likely stay a niche market until they bring down to more affordable units. I would also be excited for the auro upmixing, as I have read it is the best on the market.


2.5 Quick questions... if the Denon comes out this Xmas with Auro... do you think it will support 7.1.4? Or does it require 11 channels no matter what? & does it use a different type of speaker config than Atmos?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frohlich said:


> If you check the previous page, there is some smoke that Auro is coming to Denon/Marantz. If that pans out, it will be available at a new price point. I agree that as of today, it is only in a few select (expensive) products and will likely stay a niche market until they bring down to more affordable units. I would also be excited for the auro upmixing, as I have read it is the best on the market.


Or should I have said 2.5.4 questions? Oh man now I'm making terrible AVR jokes.


----------



## Frohlich

Aras_Volodka said:


> 2.5 Quick questions... if the Denon comes out this Xmas with Auro... do you think it will support 7.1.4? Or does it require 11 channels no matter what? & does it use a different type of speaker config than Atmos?


Unfortunately the recommended Auro set-up for speaker and the Atmos recommended set-up does not appear that similar. I certainly am no expert because both are so new to the home market but from Auro's website they are more into height speakers with one ceiling speaker (VOG - voice of god). So I think the discussion might soon turn to how do you set-up a room for both without getting into a crazy amount of new speakers. I think some of us are willing to add 2 or 4 speakers but I doubt very many will be willing to add 4 to 8 to accomodate both "recommended" configurations....not to mention the additional investment required to power that many speakers.


----------



## audioguy

Disks are being produced that have the Atmos channels "buried" in the 5.1 (or 7.1) mix so it will work on legacy systems as well as the new receivers that can extract the new data.

I can't recall how many exist but I'm sure not many.

I also agree that selling Auro will be an uphill battle given how many consumers are not in a position (financially, space wise, WAF, etc) to install the number of speakers required. It will be better with Atmos in that they have the Atmos enabled speakers. However, I heard that today and while maybe a bit better than traditional 5.1, not much. And, I think if your existing surrounds are at 6 feet or so, then then improvement from Atmos is greatly reduced.

BUT, this would not be the first thing I was wrong about in the world of home audio!!!


----------



## mctobias

Wish a theater by me had this Atmos


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frohlich said:


> Unfortunately the recommended Auro set-up for speaker and the Atmos recommended set-up does not appear that similar. I certainly am no expert because both are so new to the home market but from Auro's website they are more into height speakers with one ceiling speaker (VOG - voice of god). So I think the discussion might soon turn to how do you set-up a room for both without getting into a crazy amount of new speakers. I think some of us are willing to add 2 or 4 speakers but I doubt very many will be willing to add 4 to 8 to accomodate both "recommended" configurations....not to mention the additional investment required to power that many speakers.


Ahh ok, so the Auro setup would require 1 ceiling mounted speaker in addition to the upward firing modules (if Auro can even make use of those?) I'm planning on getting 4 upward firing modules.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frohlich said:


> Unfortunately the recommended Auro set-up for speaker and the Atmos recommended set-up does not appear that similar. I certainly am no expert because both are so new to the home market but from Auro's website they are more into height speakers with one ceiling speaker (VOG - voice of god). So I think the discussion might soon turn to how do you set-up a room for both without getting into a crazy amount of new speakers. I think some of us are willing to add 2 or 4 speakers but I doubt very many will be willing to add 4 to 8 to accomodate both "recommended" configurations....not to mention the additional investment required to power that many speakers.


Oh ok I see the diagrams... that's insane... it does seem like the least is 11 channels. I don't think putting a speaker in the center ceiling is an option if i still want to have sex.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

mctobias said:


> Wish a theater by me had this Atmos


What area are you in? You may be able to figure out if one is being installed by you.


----------



## audioguy

Auro, as it is curretnly defined, would not make good use of upward firing speakers. In their (Auro) ideal environment, there would be 5.1 or 7.1 speakers at ear level; then between 4 and 7 speakers placed high above each of the first level of speakers (so one over each of the LCR's plus one over each surround) and then the VOG speaker(s). The upward firing speakers that are recommend for Atmos place "virtual" speakers on the ceiling but NOT where the VOG speakers go. The VOG speakers go in the middle of the room (running from front to rear).

As I noted earlier, we may have to pick which horse to ride or not have a very good solution by compromising one or both of the new technologies. 

This has the feeling of the original battle of high definiton video (Bluray vs HD). It was ugly for a while!


----------



## alyssanick

Aras_Volodka said:


> *Keep in mind though, films upscale in Atmos, so you do get sort of an Atmos-ish sound which one member of this thread had talked about and was impressed.*


Yeah I know this part. However, for me I see my collection as a whole to have the same opportunities for tech as my current ones will. This is why I'm in favour of how movies like Titanic and Top Gun, and Jurassic Park have been made 3D. (as opposed to just using a 2D-to-3D function on those titles in a player/TV) They give greater value to the 3D collection I have, and greater value to current 3D titles for me.



Aras_Volodka said:


> *I asked that same question & Scott Simonian told me there was an announcement somewhere that he saw a few old films would be getting Atmos mix, Die Hard was one of them. Star Wars OT got that 4k remaster...* I'd imagine we'll be getting an Atmos mix for that. Reliance Media works did their project.


Nice! That's awesome. Just if the older films would be blanket abandoned as a prospect for Atmos, I would be not interested in getting atmos, at least until it had 10+ years of content). Just how I feel. I don't collect DVD even if people say the audio is better on the DVD (bass wise or dynamics or w/e) because it doesn't have lossless. I collect blus and that is my primary investment.


----------



## krozman

Skylinestar said:


> What are the 2 standards for ceiling?


Fixed, sorry.


----------



## Nightlord

audioguy said:


> Auro, as it is curretnly defined, would not make good use of upward firing speakers. In their (Auro) ideal environment, there would be 5.1 or 7.1 speakers at ear level; then between 4 and 7 speakers placed high above each of the first level of speakers (so one over each of the LCR's plus one over each surround) and then the VOG speaker(s). The upward firing speakers that are recommend for Atmos place "virtual" speakers on the ceiling but NOT where the VOG speakers go. The VOG speakers go in the middle of the room (running from front to rear).
> 
> As I noted earlier, we may have to pick which horse to ride or not have a very good solution by compromising one or both of the new technologies.


Define the Auro speaker locations as Atmos objects and just pipe Auro through Atmos.


----------



## David Susilo

audioguy said:


> As I noted earlier, we may have to pick which horse to ride or not have a very good solution by compromising one or both of the new technologies.
> 
> This has the feeling of the original battle of high definiton video (Bluray vs HD). It was ugly for a while!



It's very easy for me. I choose the ones with better movies in the theatres. Auro have Dolphin Tale, Croods, Turbo, Spiderman, Red Tails (up to 50 PLANNED movies). Dolby have Gravity, all Disney stuff, Godzilla, Life of Pi (around 120 RELEASED movies and up to another 50 planned movies).

For my tastes in movies, Auro don't have more than 10 titles I like, Atmos have more than 50 movies I like.

Auro is too expensive and very inflexible in the speaker setup, Atmos is affordable to me and have more flexibility in the speaker setup.

The choice is clear (to me); Atmos.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

alyssanick said:


> Yeah I know this part. However, for me I see my collection as a whole to have the same opportunities for tech as my current ones will. This is why I'm in favour of how movies like Titanic and Top Gun, and Jurassic Park have been made 3D. (as opposed to just using a 2D-to-3D function on those titles in a player/TV) They give greater value to the 3D collection I have, and greater value to current 3D titles for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! That's awesome. Just if the older films would be blanket abandoned as a prospect for Atmos, I would be not interested in getting atmos, at least until it had 10+ years of content). Just how I feel. I don't collect DVD even if people say the audio is better on the DVD (bass wise or dynamics or w/e) because it doesn't have lossless. I collect blus and that is my primary investment.


You might not have to wait the 10 years for things to pan out. I know the Star Wars remaster has already been done (not sure with Atmos, but then again, why not?). A lot of these movies we are talking about might get the 4k treatment so the timing just works out really good for anyone who's into Atmos (provided they can hold on a year). I'd like to see more 3D titles too, I don't even have a 3D player but want to get an Ultra D TV when they come out, hopefully with UHD & DHR. With Atmos I'd be set for a loooooong time I think. I don't think I have the wallet or the setup for Auro... but I guess We'll see.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

David Susilo said:


> It's very easy for me. I choose the ones with better movies in the theatres. Auro have Dolphin Tale, Croods, Turbo, Spiderman, Red Tails (up to 50 PLANNED movies). Dolby have Gravity, all Disney stuff, Godzilla, Life of Pi (around 120 RELEASED movies and up to another 50 planned movies).
> 
> For my tastes in movies, Auro don't have more than 10 titles I like, Atmos have more than 50 movies I like.
> 
> Auro is too expensive and very inflexible in the speaker setup, Atmos is affordable to me and have more flexibility in the speaker setup.
> 
> The choice is clear (to me); Atmos.


Quick note: Dolphin Tale 2 is mixed in Atmos as well... I'm putting myself and family through that just so I can hear it for the Atmos mix again. Maze Runner next week maybe. But yeah, Auro 3D does seem to have less. We'll find out winter 2015 when all the Huge titles hit theaters who = winner I'd think.


----------



## bargervais

To me it's real simple who ever get things done first, atmos looks to be more practical and economical, it will all boil down to what we can afford. Auro seems more high end and out of my reach unless they produce a receiver that we could afford. It's like back in the day when Bata came along it was better the VHS but no one could afford Bata and VHS won. So I think Atmos will become mainstream, first because atmos price point is reachable and atmos receivers are here in some of our homes, and they are selling.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kokishin said:


> Roger et al,
> 
> There are those that believe that using front bookshelf speakers with a sub is preferred (more cost effective, better bass integration) over using front full range speakers with a sub. Would like to get your opinion on this. TIA.


I agree that would be equally good sonically, and more cost effective.


----------



## westmd

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


Same in Berlin even though Atmos was by far not that strong caliber as on the Cedia!
Äi wrote a quick overview hot to become Atmos and Auro compatible with speaker laOut. I send this article to Auro themselves and they answerwd that it would be a good approach. Here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-222.html#post27206858


----------



## Roger Dressler

mike_carton said:


> Each sound object would have to be subtracted from potentially eight channels in real time. With 100+ simultaneous objects possible, that's a lot of DSP requiring beefy processors and ample, fast memory.


First, the consumer format does not carry that many objects individually. Maybe more like 1/10th that number. 

Second, the subtraction process is performed on all the objects as one operation per bed channel, which is 7 max. Regardless of the number of objects, they are first rendered to 7 channels (same as the bed), then subtracted from the bed. 

At least, that's my conception. This is not official Dolby info.


----------



## westmd

7channelfreak said:


> The only pre/pro that has that I'm aware of is like 24k (Datasat RS20). Plus all the height speakers above your lower surround level. Then you can add the VOG channel if you want it. They recommend that channel if you have over ten seats in your room. They showed 9.1, 10.1, and 11.1.
> 
> It was great..but I just don't see the film companies pushing this out on blu till there are more receivers that offer it.


Beginning of October shpuld be more Atmos&Auro compatible products announced to more market friendly prices. That was what I have been told by a dealer working closely with Auro! Therefore I am waiting and keeping my feet still.


----------



## westmd

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh ok I see the diagrams... that's insane... it does seem like the least is 11 channels. I don't think putting a speaker in the center ceiling is an option if i still want to have sex.


I don't know what has been demoed at the CEDIA but I saw a 9.1 demo. Standard 5.1 setup plus one additional height speaker on FL, FR SL and SR. No center height and no VOG and it sounded amazing. Minimum requiremen for Auro is 9.1 (so less then Atmos)


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


Auro's insistence that their system is not compatible with a consumer Atmos speaker setup will only help ensure Auro adoption will be limited. No one is going to put up two sets of height speakers. And guess which wins the argument based on content? 

If thunder sounds good from an Atmos speaker, why does it not sound good from an Auro decoder played from the same speaker?


----------



## westmd

Roger Dressler said:


> Auro's insistence that their system is not compatible with a consumer Atmos speaker setup will only help ensure Auro adoption will be limited. No one is going to put up two sets of height speakers. And guess which wins the argument based on content?
> 
> If thunder sounds good from an Atmos speaker, why does it not sound good from an Auro speaker 2' away?


The only real inconsistency are Atmos enabled speakers. We learned from Dolby earlier in this thread that their suggested angles are rcommendations but Atmos most likely will sound well when you deviate from this angles. Now with Auro it's the same! You don't have to be precisly in their angles to make it work. You don't have to have VOG and centre height to make it work. I send a speaker layout to Auro with one additional pair of speakers and they came back to me and said this should work.
Don't make Auro and Atmos a format war a la HD DVD and BluRay which were totally incompatible, because these to systems aren't!


----------



## Roger Dressler

westmd said:


> I don't know what has been demoed at the CEDIA but I saw a 9.1 demo. Standard 5.1 setup plus one additional height speaker on FL, FR SL and SR. No center height and no VOG and it sounded amazing. Minimum requirement for Auro is 9.1 (so less then Atmos)


Math check: Atmos minimum requirement is 4 speakers: L/R plus 2 height. For surround systems the Atmos minimum is 7: 5.1 plus 2 overhead. 

The Auro 9.1 system, and your own writeup about merging the speaker systems, underscores that neither of Auro's median-plane speaker are essential (phantom imaging works), and that 4 overhead speakers work very well. Of course they do. Just as they demonstrably do for Atmos. Why Auro would want to argue to the contrary is senseless, and counterproductive to their mission to gain traction.


----------



## westmd

Roger Dressler said:


> Math check: Atmos minimum requirement is 4 speakers: L/R plus 2 height. For surround systems the Atmos minimum is 7: 5.1 plus 2 overhead.
> 
> The Auro 9.1 system, and your own writeup about merging the speaker systems, underscores that neither of Auro's median-plane speaker are essential, and that 4 overhead speakers work very well. Of course they. Just as they demonstrably do for Atmos. Why Auro would want to argue to the contrary is senseless, and counterproductive to their mission to gain traction.


Dolby stated tbey recommend 4 overhead not just 2. they said tgat you get some benefit from 2 but you really need 4 for the three dimensional sound field. That comes also up to 9.1!


----------



## Roger Dressler

westmd said:


> Dolby stated they recommend 4 overhead not just 2. they said that you get some benefit from 2 but you really need 4 for the three dimensional sound field. That comes also up to 9.1!


Your word was "minimum" so that's the issue to which I replied. Atmos is perfectly happy with 9.1, too.


----------



## westmd

Roger Dressler said:


> Your word was "minimum" so that's the issue to which I replied. Atmos is perfectly happy with 9.1, too.


Okay, but Auro is also happy with 9.1! As I said I only ever listened to 9.1 at the demo.


----------



## tomparis

NorthSky said:


> Oh, one last thing; a larger display.
> 
> And two: Switch your Wides to the Back Rears. ...Experiment. Me, I would do that.


Hi NorthSky,
just coming from an 42" screen. Now it's 55". The extra € 1000,-- wasn't worth it for me, although 65" is a fascinating size.
You probably won't believe it, but I had over a period of many years a total of 8 home theatre projectors with a very large screen. Now I'm watching over a 55" Plasma and I miss the beamer not for a second. Size doesn't always matter.
My fantasy for the future is a curved 21:9 OLED with a minimum of 80". But if and when this will be affordable, will be seen. Till then I enjoy my Panasonic Plasma with it's amazing blacks and contrast.

As for the wides. I actually had once back surround installed. Although positioning and distance to MLP were at an optimum, I could never really make them out.
Now the wides on the other hand are fantastic with Neo : X and a real enrichment for movies and TV-Shows. So I will encourage everyone, who has ambitions to upgrade from 5.1, to try wides first.


----------



## Waboman

All this Atmos, Auro 3D talk. I'm betting on SDDS.:kiss:


----------



## Wookii

Roger Dressler said:


> Math check: Atmos minimum requirement is 4 speakers: L/R plus 2 height. For surround systems the Atmos minimum is 7: 5.1 plus 2 overhead.
> 
> The Auro 9.1 system, and your own writeup about merging the speaker systems, underscores that neither of Auro's median-plane speaker are essential (phantom imaging works), and that 4 overhead speakers work very well. Of course they do. Just as they demonstrably do for Atmos. Why Auro would want to argue to the contrary is senseless, and counterproductive to their mission to gain traction.


Where have Auro stated that an Auro speaker layout isn't compatible with a Atmos layout Roger? 

Yourself and Westmd have come to the logical conclusion in that, in the current raft of AVR's that are limited to 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 fixed Atmos speaker layouts, the four ceiling speakers should translate quite nicely to a 9.1 or 11.1 Auro layout.

Add in the likely next generation of Atmos receiver may allow for more flexible speaker placement, and the two layouts can be even more closely matched.


----------



## Skylinestar

westmd said:


> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center speaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to *distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.*


This center height sounds a little like IMAX center height. I hope it helps to lock the dialog at the center of the screen for those who don't have AT screen.


----------



## jdsmoothie

nick510 said:


> Hello everyone, I'm new to home theater and need help on hooking up Dolby Atmos to a Onkyo tx nr626 receiver. I'm trying to understand the whole speaker setup and what I should get. I'm looking at B & W CM 9 towers with the CMC2 center. Now the real question is how do I setup the surrounds and rears? I bought 4 ceiling speakers that I planned on hooking up but now I don't think that's the best option. Should I hookup surrounds on the left and rears above for the Atoms speakers?* I've read that Zone 2 can be used for more speakers in the main theater but I can't find any real info on it...*
> 
> Thank you in advance for your advice!



None of the Onkyo AVRs that will have Atmos added via a firmware update will be able to go beyond Dolby Atmos 5.1.2.

*Onkyo 626, 737, 838 *= 7 CH AVR with no capabilty to expand beyond that; firmware update to add Dolby Atmos 5.1.2

*Onkyo 1030* = 9 CH AVR (w/expansion to 11CH with additional amp); Dolby Atmos pre-loaded, 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4

*Onkyo 3030 *= 11 CH AVR; Dolby Atmos pre-loaded, 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4


----------



## westmd

*New Auro thread initiated*

May I invite you all to join into the *The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version)
*


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> Correct, but there would seem to be very little point to _rolling out_ and promoting a "substantial number" of *Auro-3D BD* titles until there are some _mass market_ priced *AVR*s and|or *HTiB*s available on which they may be played...?!
> _


Auro has three big problems as I see it. 

1. They are not going to remix movies made in other formats just for release in Auro on Bluray. So the content is going to depend on how many movies are original theater Auro movies. So far, Auro loses out to Atmos big time with that one.

2. Auro have no equivalent of Atmos speakers, so installing Auro requires the physical installation of a lot of additional speakers. That in itself will pretty much kill it off outside of the dedicated HT room people.

3. And AFAIK Auro cannot be streamed, which is a big downer given the way the market is going,


----------



## bargervais

​


kbarnes701 said:


> Your Onkyo is a 7 channel unit, so you have the choice of 5.1.2 only for Atmos. Or you can have 7.1 in a conventional system. If you put 4 speakers on the ceiling (even if the unit permits that), then you only have 3 channels left for LCR and no surrounds. That would not give a good result. Go with 5.1.2 as Onkyo intended for the unit.
> 
> (IDK but if the unit has outputs for two additional channels when used with an external amp, then you could do 5.1.4 - but you’d have to check your manual to see if that is possible. If not, stick with 5.1.2).


The 636 doesn't have pre outs for the mains the only pre out are for zone2 so your are correct in saying 5.1.2 and I don't think that 3.1.4 would sound right with the surrounds on the ceiling as well as the heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Okay, but Auro is also happy with 9.1! As I said I only ever listened to 9.1 at the demo.


At the end of the day it will come down to content. Can you see there being a time when more Blurays are released in Auro than in Atmos? If so, then Auro is the way for you to go. If not, then Atmos is the way to go. *Unless*, of course, Auro discs will work really well using an Atmos speaker layout that people already have. Then it won't matter whether the movie is Auro or Atmos. 

But there is still the problem that people with Atmos speakers (most Atmos installations over time, I'd guess) and people who are streaming, will still not be able to use Auro.

On the basis of all that, it does seem that Auro is going to struggle real hard to gain any significant traction.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro has three big problems as I see it.
> 
> 1. They are not going to remix movies made in other formats just for release in Auro on Bluray. So the content is going to depend on how many movies are original theater Auro movies. So far, Auro loses out to Atmos big time with that one.
> 
> 2. Auro have no equivalent of Atmos speakers, so installing Auro requires the physical installation of a lot of additional speakers. That in itself will pretty much kill it off outside of the dedicated HT room people.
> 
> 3. And AFAIK Auro cannot be streamed, which is a big downer given the way the market is going,


Good points and I didn't think about the streaming part. I see more and more content being streamed as cloud based content is growing so fast. I will still purchase blu-ray disc but as cloud storage is growing in popularity, I have a huge digital library in the cloud (vudu) as well all the blu-rays I have also have digital copy


----------



## Rayjr

Opps


----------



## SanchoPanza

what Thread is the Auro discussion in?


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> ​The 636 doesn't have pre outs for the mains the only pre out are for zone2 so your are correct in saying 5.1.2 and I don't think that 3.1.4 would sound right with the surrounds on the ceiling as well as the heights.


Thanks. I deleted my post as it had been answered by so many others.


----------



## bargervais

SanchoPanza said:


> what Thread is the Auro discussion in?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-home-theater-version.html#post27349794


----------



## Rayjr

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


What booth was the Auro demo in?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## SanchoPanza

bargervais said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-home-theater-version.html#post27349794


Thank you.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> At the end of the day it will come down to content. Can you see there being a time when more Blurays are released in Auro than in Atmos? If so, then Auro is the way for you to go. If not, then Atmos is the way to go. *Unless*, of course, Auro discs will work really well using an Atmos speaker layout that people already have. Then it won't matter whether the movie is Auro or Atmos.
> 
> But there is still the problem that people with Atmos speakers (most Atmos installations over time, I'd guess) and people who are streaming, will still not be able to use Auro.
> 
> On the basis of all that, it does seem that Auro is going to struggle real hard to gain any significant traction.


As I wrote nefore we should stop to see this as a format war. IMO Atmos and Auro can coe ist both from a hard- as well as from a software side. Those who will like to install both are happily invited to the Auro thread, those who don't want (or can't) will be happy with Atmos only.
I honestly don't think that Auro will one day be bigger then Atmos, but maybe there will be some Auro only releases and maybe the upmixer will sound better to some ears then the Atmos upmixer.


----------



## tomparis

I wonder if anybody here can give an answer to this question.
Which of the upcoming Atmos AVRs can process 2 Wides and 4 Tops at the same time?

So far I see only Denon/Marantz with these option.

The others only do 2 Backs with 4 Tops.


----------



## audioguy

Rayjr said:


> What booth was the Auro demo in?
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4


Room 7 hundred something. It was down stairs with a number of other demos.


----------



## FilmMixer

Some tidbits from a little birdy (who's on this thread and can chime in if they choose.)

The HRTF on the Dolby Enabled speakers is required to be in the speaker!

And the bass management of 180hz down to the main cabinet/speaker is an AVR function, not internal to the speakers. 

Only exception is HTIB implementation. 

Which means anyone can use the speakers with any format... If the manufacturer of the AVP/SSP enables such functionality.

It will work with the Yamah's for their DSP programs. 

The Denon's, howver, at this time, do not use them as heights. That could be changed. 

I think that is pretty big news.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> As I wrote nefore we should stop to see this as a format war. IMO Atmos and Auro can coe ist both from a hard- as well as from a software side. Those who will like to install both are happily invited to the Auro thread, those who don't want (or can't) will be happy with Atmos only.
> I honestly don't think that Auro will one day be bigger then Atmos, but maybe there will be some Auro only releases and maybe the upmixer will sound better to some ears then the Atmos upmixer.


A well-balanced view westmd. I agree entirely that this isn't a format war and that both formats can co-exist happily. The main issue I see is tha`t of content - that will ultimately be the deciding factor IMO.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> Some tidbits from a little birdy (who's on this thread and can chime in if they choose.)
> 
> The HRTF on the Dolby Enabled speakers is required to be in the speaker!


Damn!


----------



## nucky

I've just ordered the Denon AVR-X5200w it will be arriving of the ship on monday, so I should have it for next week sometime.:grin::grin: can't wait.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

FilmMixer said:


> Some tidbits from a little birdy (who's on this thread and can chime in if they choose.)
> 
> The HRTF on the Dolby Enabled speakers is required to be in the speaker!
> 
> And the bass management of 180hz down to the main cabinet/speaker is an AVR function, not internal to the speakers.
> 
> Only exception is HTIB implementation.
> 
> Which means anyone can use the speakers with any format... If the manufacturer of the AVP/SSP enables such functionality.
> 
> It will work with the Yamah's for their DSP programs.
> 
> The Denon's, howver, at this time, do not use them as heights. That could be changed.
> 
> I think that is pretty big news.



FilmMixer,

So, are you saying that there is a DSP that processes HRTF functions on board the speaker itself? 

If so, that would also mean that the "Dolby Atmos Add On Modules" would also have this on board, correct?

...Glenn


----------



## FilmMixer

Glenn Baumann said:


> FilmMixer,
> 
> So, are you saying that there is a DSP that processes HRTF functions on board the speaker itself?
> 
> If so, that would also mean that the "Dolby Atmos Add On Modules" would also have this on board, correct?
> 
> ...Glenn


Passive network inside the speakers yes. Active solution on self powered speakers.

And yes... The add on modules will work too. Which is why the bass management has to happen in the AVR.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> At the end of the day it will come down to content. Can you see there being a time when more Blurays are released in Auro than in Atmos? If so, then Auro is the way for you to go. If not, then Atmos is the way to go. *Unless*, of course, Auro discs will work really well using an Atmos speaker layout that people already have. Then it won't matter whether the movie is Auro or Atmos.
> 
> But there is still the problem that people with Atmos speakers (most Atmos installations over time, I'd guess) and people who are streaming, will still not be able to use Auro.
> 
> On the basis of all that, it does seem that Auro is going to struggle real hard to gain any significant traction.


As I wrote before we should stop to see this as a format war. IMO Atmos and Auro can coe ist both from a hard- as well as from a software side. Those who will like to install both are happily invited to the Auro thread, those who don't want (or can't) will be happy with Atmos only.
I honestly don't think that Auro will one day be bigger then Atmos, but maybe there will be some Auro only releases and maybe the upmixer will sound better to some ears then the Atmos upmixer.


----------



## sdrucker

audioguy said:


> Room 7 hundred something. It was down stairs with a number of other demos.


Next to the Auro room, in the 702-704 area. I'm going to the Datasat demo with Auro later this afternoon.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Rayjr said:


> What booth was the Auro demo in?
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 4


Downstairs in the high end audio area. It's with Datasat.


----------



## pasender91

FilmMixer said:


> Some tidbits from a little birdy (who's on this thread and can chime in if they choose.)
> 
> The HRTF on the Dolby Enabled speakers is required to be in the speaker!
> 
> ...
> 
> I think that is pretty big news.


Yes it is interesting, it destroys the idea of using an angled bookshelf as an alternative to the Atmos up-firing module


----------



## SanchoPanza

Or even speakers used in a Atmos Commercial Theater?

For overhead speakers, that is?


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Some tidbits from a little birdy (who's on this thread and can chime in if they choose.)
> 
> The HRTF on the Dolby Enabled speakers is required to be in the speaker!
> 
> And the bass management of 180hz down to the main cabinet/speaker is an AVR function, not internal to the speakers.
> 
> Only exception is HTIB implementation.
> 
> Which means anyone can use the speakers with any format... If the manufacturer of the AVP/SSP enables such functionality.
> 
> It will work with the Yamah's for their DSP programs.
> 
> The Denon's, howver, at this time, do not use them as heights. That could be changed.
> 
> I think that is pretty big news.


What/who is the source of that information?
HTIB implementation is an exception to what? Top surround bass management or HRTF-based notch filter in the speaker?

General question, why is there a HRTF-based notch at all? The sound is already coming from above, i.e. the notch is already created by the listeners head, pinna, torso. How does double HRTF-processing NOT create a spectral distortion?


----------



## bkeeler10

FilmMixer said:


> Passive network inside the speakers yes. Active solution on self powered speakers.
> 
> And yes... The add on modules will work too. Which is why the bass management has to happen in the AVR.


I don't think this is perfectly clear so I want to make sure. The HRTF circuit is used only in upfiring Atnos enabled speakers, not in speakers that will physically live on the ceiling. Right?


----------



## SanchoPanza

^^^ that will answer my question, too!


----------



## batpig

bkeeler10 said:


> I don't think this is perfectly clear so I want to make sure. The HRTF circuit is used only in upfiring Atnos enabled speakers, not in speakers that will physically live on the ceiling. Right?


Yes of course. If a speaker is physically on the ceiling there is no need for special processing to trick your brain that it is above you.


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> Yes it is interesting, it destroys the idea of using an angled bookshelf as an alternative to the Atmos up-firing module


It doesn't totally destroy it as the room EQ will also incorporate the HRTF notch in its target curve for these speakers. As my tests have shown you can still get a decent impression of added overhead ambience. But just don't expect it to be as effective or as precise as a dedicated Atmos module.


----------



## batpig

tomparis said:


> I wonder if anybody here can give an answer to this question.
> Which of the upcoming Atmos AVRs can process 2 Wides and 4 Tops at the same time?
> 
> So far I see only Denon/Marantz with these option.
> 
> The others only do 2 Backs with 4 Tops.


Denon / Marantz can't do it. Nor can any other consumer avr. They all max out at 11ch processing so the second pair of height speakers replaces the wides (7.1.4). 

On D/M models at least you can hook up 13 speakers but you can only run up to 11 simultaneously. So if you hooked up wides and 4 heights you could calibrate them all with audyssey but in any Atmos mode it would play in 7.1.4 and you would have to switch to a non atom surround mode (like DTS Neo:X) to activate the wides.

The only processors at this point that can go beyond 11ch simultaneous are the über expensive boutique models (Trinnov etc).


----------



## Kriilin

The notch being in the speakers seems to be a concession to speaker manufacturers. Well, I wonder how long before Parts Express or someone has that built into a crossover? Or maybe run a tone generator for that frequency during setup for the Atmos upfiring speakers and fool Audyssey into building that notch in. Or just buy the speakers


----------



## batpig

Kriilin said:


> The notch being in the speakers seems to be a concession to speaker manufacturers. Well, I wonder how long before Parts Express or someone has that built into a crossover? Or maybe run a tone generator for that frequency during setup for the Atmos upfiring speakers and fool Audyssey into building that notch in. Or just buy the speakers


Actually if you are using Audyssey EQ remember the the notch is also part of the target curve for these speakers. The reason of course is so that Audyssey doesn't attempt to erase the notch by flattening the response of the Elevation speakers. But it also means that it will attempt to put the notch back in if it doesn't hear it.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Yes of course. If a speaker is physically on the ceiling there is no need for special processing to trick your brain that it is above you.


So why is processing needed for ceiling-firing speakers? The reflected sound is coming from the ceiling just as it does with ceiling-mounted speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

markus767 said:


> So why is processing needed for ceiling-firing speakers? The sounds is coming from the ceiling just as it does with ceiling-mounted speakers.


 You also hear sounds coming from the physical direction of the speakers. Dolby's patented frequency shaping subtracts the frequency shape that your ears are designed to expect from horizontally located sounds and adds the frequency shape that your ears are designed to expect from sounds located overhead. This technique is more or less effective depending on how closely the shapes of your ears match the shapes assumed by their algorithm.


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> You also hear sounds coming from the physical direction of the speakers. Dolby's patented frequency shaping subtracts the frequency shape that your ears are designed to expect from horizontally located sounds and adds the frequency shape that your ears are designed to expect from sounds located overhead. This technique is more or less effective depending on how closely the shapes of your ears match the shapes assumed by their algorithm.


But the sound is already coming from the ceiling. Why would you add the same HRTF twice?


----------



## kokishin

westmd said:


> May I invite you all to join into the *The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version)
> *


Thank you and all the best.

Sincerely,

-- VOG


----------



## batpig

Again, because not ALL of the sound is coming from the ceiling. One can assume Dolby didn't do this arbitrarily but determined in their extensive testing that it worked.


----------



## Selden Ball

markus767 said:


> But the sound is already coming from the ceiling. Why would you add the same HRTF twice?


 The initial sounds that we hear come directly from the speakers: that sound path is much shorter than the reflective path from the ceiling. My understanding is that there is a psycho-acoustic effect which causes us to associate the directions of sounds with the first direction that they seem to come from. By appropriately reshaping the audio frequency profile, the effect of this illusion is greatly reduced. The acoustic illusion has a name (taken from the name of the person who published a study of it) but I don't recall what it is.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Again, because not ALL of the sound is coming from the ceiling. One can assume Dolby didn't do this arbitrarily but determined in their extensive testing that it worked.


As far as I know the notch (or the notches) are applied to (very) high frequencies only and this is exactly the frequency range that is coming from the ceiling. High frequencies from the actual speaker locations are subdued by the driver's directivity and the little barrier (not present in KEF designs).


----------



## batpig

Or you can just go back the Pio Atmos speakers thread and reread the extensive discussion in which AJ already explained all of his.


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> The initial sounds that we hear come directly from the speakers: that sound path is much shorter than the reflective path from the ceiling. My understanding is that there is a psycho-acoustic effect which causes us to associate the directions of sounds with the first direction that they seem to come from. By appropriately reshaping the audio frequency profile, the effect of this illusion is greatly reduced. The acoustic illusion has a name (taken from the name of the person who published a study of it) but I don't recall what it is.


See my last post. There's little high frequency energy coming from the actual speaker location.

IF the Atmos-enabled speaker would fire directly to the listener location then a HRTF-based notch would make sense. But now the HRTF is applied twice, first in the speaker and a second time by the listener's own head, pinna and torso.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Or you can just go back the Pio Atmos speakers thread and reread the extensive discussion in which AJ already explained all of his.


He did? I did follow that thread but I can't remember him explaining why double-HRTF-processing is needed. Maybe I missed that post? Do you have a link?


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Selden Ball said:


> The initial sounds that we hear come directly from the speakers: that sound path is much shorter than the reflective path from the ceiling. My understanding is that there is a psycho-acoustic effect which causes us to associate the directions of sounds with the first direction that they seem to come from. By appropriately reshaping the audio frequency profile, the effect of this illusion is greatly reduced. The acoustic illusion has a name (taken from the name of the person who published a study of it) but I don't recall what it is.




That would be the Precedence Effect also known as the "Haas Effect"!


See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect


...Glenn


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> What/who is the source of that information?


Dolby reps at CEDIA.


> HTIB implementation is an exception to what?


Two possible exceptions to HTRF being in the speaker: active speakers, where the HTRF can be in the speaker's electronics; HTiB, where speakers and electronics are bundled as a package (and HTRF can be in the electronics).


----------



## markus767

Glenn Baumann said:


> That would be the Precedence Effect also known as the "Haas Effect"!
> 
> 
> See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Correct but precedence will also break down when the second arrival is louder than the initial sound. That's exactly what is happening with a ceiling-firing speaker.
Point your speaker's at the first reflection point on the ceiling and you'll hear certain sounds coming from elevated locations instead of the speaker locations.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Dolby reps at CEDIA. Two possible exceptions to HTRF being in the speaker: active speakers, where the HTRF can be in the speaker's electronics; HTiB, where speakers and electronics are bundled as a package (and HTRF can be in the electronics).


Not sure why that distinction is necessary. Those active components are part of the speaker if you will.
Just to clarify: there's no HRTF-processing for Dolby-enabled speakers in any AVR. It is done elsewhere. Correct?

By the way, are you guys currently attending CEDIA? I would have some questions.


----------



## IgorZep

markus767 said:


> But the sound is already coming from the ceiling. Why would you add the same HRTF twice?


The answer to that is on the surface, but you won't get it from fanboys and marketing that will just tell "it the way to make it work". The right answer is compromise (and there is nothing bad in this word, but many get it as offence). The compromise is between the sense of height and accuracy (stability of the image in the first place). The up-firing speakers were not giving enough sense of height without the trick... So, they had to amplify the effect and trade some accuracy to make people feel they are not deceived (as the sense of height is the first thing that would impress and what is expected from 'overhead'). But as Atmos is marketed for accuracy, they are really sold to something that is not what was promised  The same is with objects/clustering. We could have just more discrete channels (overhead) and still have about the same practical effect. Well, for a few sensitive 'objects' we could still have it, but the promise that just everything could be rendered at the side of reproduction system optimised for the actual layout is unfulfilled, contrary to the cinema mix.

All this thing goes on emotion, marketing one thing, but selling something different (or at least not as complete as in the leaflet).


----------



## W3Rman

Selden Ball said:


> You also hear sounds coming from the physical direction of the speakers. Dolby's patented frequency shaping subtracts the frequency shape that your ears are designed to expect from horizontally located sounds and adds the frequency shape that your ears are designed to expect from sounds located overhead. *This technique is more or less effective depending on how closely the shapes of your ears match the shapes assumed by their algorithm*.


I would like to ear a little more detail about this process!

:laugh:


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> I agree that would be equally good sonically, and more cost effective.


Just make sure they handle 90/100Hz @ 105dB at MLP without bottoming out. Preferrably they should manage within Xmax rather than within Xmech.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Wookii said:


> Where have Auro stated that an Auro speaker layout isn't compatible with a Atmos layout Roger?


For one, this was reported in *the quote to which I responded*. 



> Yourself and Westmd have come to the logical conclusion in that, in the current raft of AVR's that are limited to 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 fixed Atmos speaker layouts, the four ceiling speakers should translate quite nicely to a 9.1 or 11.1 Auro layout.


Yes. But does Auro share this view?


----------



## Nightlord

This is a bit peculiar... If the hrtf frequency responce is done passively in the speakers, why would the avr need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones - if it's to output the same signal? Something's fishy here....

So I'm back to my original statement... Someone needs to open up an atmos speaker.


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> This is a bit peculiar... If the hrtf frequency responce is done passively in the speakers, why would the avr need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones - if it's to output the same signal? Something's fishy here....
> 
> So I'm back to my original statement... Someone needs to open up an atmos speaker.



1) because otherwise the room EQ would attempt to flatten the HRTF notch

2) because of the two tier bass management where the Elevation module is crossed to the downstairs neighbor at ~180hz

3) because otherwise the processor wouldn't know to compensate the delay appropriately


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Roger Dressler said:


> For one, this was reported in *the quote to which I responded*.
> 
> Yes. But does Auro share this view?




Roger,

What type of Atmos processor are you going to be using? 

***EDIT*** Nevermind, I read in your theater build thread that you are planning to use the Marantz AV7702.




...Glenn


----------



## markus767

IgorZep said:


> The answer to that is on the surface, but you won't get it from fanboys and marketing that will just tell "it the way to make it work". The right answer is compromise (and there is nothing bad in this word, but many get it as offence). The compromise is between the sense of height and accuracy (stability of the image in the first place). The up-firing speakers were not giving enough sense of height without the trick... So, they had to amplify the effect and trade some accuracy to make people feel they are not deceived (as the sense of height is the first thing that would impress and what is expected from 'overhead'). But as Atmos is marketed for accuracy, they are really sold to something that is not what was promised


 I agree.



IgorZep said:


> The same is with objects/clustering. We could have just more discrete channels (overhead) and still have about the same practical effect. Well, for a few sensitive 'objects' we could still have it, but the promise that just everything could be rendered at the side of reproduction system optimised for the actual layout is unfulfilled, contrary to the cinema mix.
> 
> All this thing goes on emotion, marketing one thing, but selling something different (or at least not as complete as in the leaflet).


Do we have any information how many objects (really just "spatially encoded" sound clusters) we really get delivered with TrueHD and DD+?


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> 1) because otherwise the room EQ would attempt to flatten the HRTF notch
> 
> 2) because of the two tier bass management where the Elevation module is crossed to the downstairs neighbor at ~180hz
> 
> 3) because otherwise the processor wouldn't know to compensate the delay appropriately


I doubt room eq is mandatory for Atmos, so I severly doubt #1 .

#2 hasn't anything to do with hrtf.

#3 is a good point - if it otherwise would trigger on direct sound.


----------



## Selden Ball

W3Rman said:


> I would like to ear a little more detail about this process!
> 
> :laugh:


http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014107714A1?cl=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> This is a bit peculiar... If the hrtf frequency responce is done passively in the speakers, why would the avr need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones - if it's to output the same signal? Something's fishy here....
> 
> So I'm back to my original statement... Someone needs to open up an atmos speaker.


...or just measure the preamp outs with and without Atmos-enabled speakers selected. Not that we end up with tripple HRTF processing


----------



## Selden Ball

markus767 said:


> ...or just measure the preamp outs with and without Atmos-enabled speakers selected. Not that we end up with tripple HRTF processing


Remember, the speakers not intended to _output_ the same signal. You're intended to _hear_ the same signal. Or something very similar.


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> Not sure why that distinction is necessary. Those active components are part of the speaker if you will.


The distinction is because not all speakers have active electronics. When active components are present, there is the option to put the HTRF in the electronics.


> Just to clarify: there's no HRTF-processing for Dolby-enabled speakers in any AVR. It is done elsewhere. Correct?


Correct.


----------



## mry110

Anyone know if any of the speaker top modules are shipping yet?


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Not sure why that distinction is necessary. Those active components are part of the speaker if you will.


Just a matter of full disclosure. And to make people aware that if they attempt to use the upfiring speakers from an HTiB elsewhere, they might not work as well, as there's probably no HRTF stuff in them.



markus767 said:


> Just to clarify: there's no HRTF-processing for Dolby-enabled speakers in any AVR. It is done elsewhere. Correct?


If the AVR is part of HTiB, then it _can be_ in the AVR.



Nightlord said:


> This is a bit peculiar... If the hrtf frequency response is done passively in the speakers, why would the avr need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones - if it's to output the same signal? Something's fishy here....


It needs to know because the ceiling mounted speakers a) use a lower bass crossover, and b) the REQ target uses a "flatter" curve without the HRTF shape.


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> Remember, the speakers not intended to _output_ the same signal. You're intended to _hear_ the same signal. Or something very similar.


Err, yes but how is this related to measuring the preamp output? Do you expect that there's a difference that can only be heard but not measured? That is just impossible.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> ...or just measure the preamp outs with and without Atmos-enabled speakers selected. Not that we end up with tripple HRTF processing


Good idea.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Just a matter of full disclosure. And to make people aware that if they attempt to use the upfiring speakers from an HTiB elsewhere, they might not work as well, as there's probably no HRTF stuff in them.


Makes sense.



Roger Dressler said:


> If the AVR is part of HTiB, then it _can be_ in the AVR.


Time for someone to measure the effect so we can set our miniDSPs accordingly


----------



## Selden Ball

markus767 said:


> Err, yes but how is this related to measuring the preamp output? Do you expect that there's a difference that can only be heard but not measured? That is just impossible.


Right: the signals will be quite different depending on whether the channels are for upfiring Atmos Enabled speakers or for direct-firing overhead speakers. Although, if part of the HRTF is in the speaker design, they won't be as different as most of us were expecting.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> It needs to know because the ceiling mounted speakers a) use a lower bass crossover, and b) the REQ target uses a "flatter" curve without the HRTF shape.


Well, I want to use the same speakers no matter if they go on the ceiling or I bounce them. But I need to know for sure if I need to send the signal through an peq and implement the Atmos curve or not. There will not be any Atmos-addon speakers made that I would accept as good enough (timbre matche etc), so I have to do this with the speakers I already have bought for ceiling channel, but placing them to bounce seems more interesting than mounting them as originally planned, but of course I can go back to that plan if needed.


----------



## mike_carton

sdurani said:


> Each sound object is subtracted from one bitstream (the downmix), irrespective of how many speakers it will later be rendered to.


Thinking more about it, I edited my post to replace "potentially eight or more speakers" with "potentially eight channels" which I think is more accurate.

The bed and object bitstreams are two separate, independently-compressed, lossless (and therefore, variable bitrate) data streams. I'm not sure any operations can be performed on them without first uncompressing them into component channels. Would appreciate if you can point me to a source describing this.

I think of it in these terms: Imagine a pure text file (something you create in MS Windows Notepad accessory.) Then imagine it is compressed using WinZip or WinRar. Would it be possible to remove every occurrence of the letter 'a' from the compressed file directly? Or do you have to uncompress the file before searching for and deleting all occurrences of the letter 'a'?

If I understand the responses so far correctly, I suspect something like the following is needed:

1. Uncompress the bitstream for the regular 7.1 channel sounds

2. Uncompress the bitstream for the ATMOS objects, mapping them to 7.1 channels based on the meta-data

3. Add up the sounds of the ATMOS objects at channel level, producing a 7.1 channel sound data comprising only of ATMOS sounds

4. Subtract the 7.1 channel data produced in (3) from the 7.1 channel data produced in (1) at channel level producing 7.1 channel data

5. Use the uncompressed ATMOS object data from (2) and map them to the speaker configuration known to the processor/AVR (not fixed numberof channels anymore but speakers whose number is determined by a combination of the actual configuration and meta-data) 

6. Play data from (4) through the 7.1 speakers and data from (5) through the height speakers (either ATMOS-enabled or ceiling-mounted)


----------



## sdurani

mike_carton said:


> Would appreciate if you can point me to a source describing this.


Describing what? Describing what you just described?


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> I doubt room eq is mandatory for Atmos, so I severly doubt #1 .
> 
> #2 hasn't anything to do with hrtf.
> 
> #3 is a good point - if it otherwise would trigger on direct sound.


You didn't ask why there is HRTF. You asked why the processor "need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones".

All three of my reasons are valid for this.

1) It doesn't matter if room EQ is mandatory or not. But the processor has to KNOW that the speaker it attempts to calibrate is a "virtual" speaker or else it will screw up the HRTF filter. If there was no setting to distinguish the two in the processor, the notch would be calibrated out.

2) Again, the fact that it has nothing to with HRTF is irrelevant. It IS relevant to why the processor "need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones" because otherwise it wouldn't know to apply this extra bass management tier.


----------



## mike_carton

Roger Dressler said:


> First, the consumer format does not carry that many objects individually. Maybe more like 1/10th that number.
> 
> Second, the subtraction process is performed on all the objects as one operation per bed channel, which is 7 max. Regardless of the number of objects, they are first rendered to 7 channels (same as the bed), then subtracted from the bed.
> 
> At least, that's my conception. This is not official Dolby info.


True, nobody expects 100+ objects in reality, not for any length of time anyway. But I suspect you'd have to design for it as an AVR manufacturer, if only to be compliant. I'd have said 8 including the subwoofer. I wrote another post a few minutes ago (*#7553*) Would like your thoughts on that.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nightlord said:


> Well, I want to use the same speakers no matter if they go on the ceiling or I bounce them. But I need to know for sure if I need to send the signal through an peq and implement the Atmos curve or not.


You won't need extra EQ if you use an HTiB to drive them...



> There will not be any Atmos-addon speakers made that I would accept as good enough (timbre match etc), so I have to do this with the speakers I already have bought for ceiling channel, but placing them to bounce seems more interesting than mounting them as originally planned, but of course I can go back to that plan if needed.


Their effectiveness in "bounce mode" requires more than EQ and aiming at the ceiling. The dispersion pattern comes into play, both on-axis and 90-deg off-axis.


----------



## Roger Dressler

mike_carton said:


> True, nobody expects 100+ objects in reality, not for any length of time anyway. But I suspect you'd have to design for it as an AVR manufacturer, if only to be compliant. I'd have said 8 including the subwoofer. I wrote another post a few minutes ago (*#7553*) Would like your thoughts on that.


The clustering technique allows the content maker to decide where to limit the number of objects, regardless of how many exist in the theatrical original. I presume there is a limit imposed not just by practical bitrate considerations, but also by DSP realities.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> 2) Again, the fact that it has nothing to with HRTF is irrelevant. It IS relevant to why the processor "need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones" because otherwise it wouldn't know to apply this extra bass management tier.




I'd think that "extra bass management tier" should be available for ceiling speakers as well in case they fall of early.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Their effectiveness in "bounce mode" requires more than EQ and aiming at the ceiling. The dispersion pattern comes into play, both on-axis and 90-deg off-axis.


Do we know any specifics about the required dispersion pattern?


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> Dolby reps at CEDIA. Two possible exceptions to HTRF being in the speaker: active speakers, where the HTRF can be in the speaker's electronics; HTiB, where speakers and electronics are bundled as a package (and HTRF can be in the electronics).



This seems to be an odd decision since it complicates the speaker design and such filters are not as easily done in the analog domain and the DSP's are already in place for Atmos.
Also, the Dolby patent discusses tuning of the HRTF filters could be applied for optimization.


Presumably, future Atmos processors/firmware could have tuning features if not in the speaker.
Higher-end usually means greater flexibility.


- Rich


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> I'd think that "extra bass management tier" should be available for ceiling speakers as well in case they fall of early.


"Should" be is one thing. "Will be" is another.

But remember that the Atmos module is "paired" with a "downstairs neighbor" and is required to be placed within 3ft of the paired neighbor, which presumably mitigates any localization issues with the ultra high crossover. If you are using a physical ceiling speaker that is already 10+ ft from the listener level speaker, why not just bass manage directly to the subwoofer?

And I doubt any ceiling speaker will be as bass anemic as the Elevation modules. Even if you can only get the crossover down to the 120Hz range it doesn't seem there is any benefit to not just redirecting directly to the subs.


----------



## Orbitron

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-pioneer-onkyo-idUSKBN0H70FD20140912

Now what?


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> Also, the Dolby patent discusses tuning of the HRTF filters could be applied for optimization.


What sort of tuning?


----------



## Roger Dressler

mike_carton said:


> Thinking more about it, I edited my post to replace "potentially eight or more speakers" with "potentially eight channels" which I think is more accurate.


IMHO the max is not 8 but 7. There's no LFE objects. 



> The bed and object bitstreams are two separate, independently-compressed, lossless (and therefore, variable bitrate) data streams.


Just to be brutally accurate, the bed is not what is delivered separately. It is the complete 7.1 mix. The bed is a byproduct of decoding the full Atmos program and removing the objects from the complete mix. See your #4 .



> I'm not sure any operations can be performed on them without first uncompressing them into component channels.


Correct.



> If I understand the responses so far correctly, I suspect something like the following is needed:
> 
> 1. Uncompress the bitstream for the regular 7.1 channel sounds
> 
> 2. Uncompress the bitstream for the ATMOS objects, mapping them to 7.1 channels based on the meta-data
> 
> 3. Add up the sounds of the ATMOS objects at channel level, producing a 7.1 channel sound data comprising only of ATMOS sounds
> 
> 4. Subtract the 7.1 channel data produced in (3) from the 7.1 channel data produced in (1) at channel level producing 7.1 channel data
> 
> 5. Use the uncompressed ATMOS object data from (2) and map them to the speaker configuration known to the processor/AVR (not fixed number of channels anymore but speakers whose number is determined by a combination of the actual configuration *and meta-data*)
> 
> 6. Play data from (4) through the 7.1 speakers and data from (5) through the height speakers (either ATMOS-enabled or ceiling-mounted)


I'm not sure to what metadata you refer in #5 . Otherwise looks good.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Orbitron said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-pioneer-onkyo-idUSKBN0H70FD20140912
> 
> Now what?


Not sure of the question?... this has been in the works for awhile now.


----------



## RichB

Orbitron said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-pioneer-onkyo-idUSKBN0H70FD20140912
> 
> Now what?


That has been in the works for a while. It may be related to dropping Audyssey, since they will now have Pioneers room EQ.

There are rumors about the future of Denon/Marantz restricting/selling part of their business.
Manufacturers are making some great products but also losing money.

- Rich


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Do we know any specifics about the required dispersion pattern?


Just that is needs to be narrow, is all I've heard. At minimum, the HF barrier is apparently effective for several designs.


----------



## Selden Ball

RichB said:


> That has been in the works for a while. It may be related to dropping Audyssey, since they will now have Pioneers room EQ.
> 
> There are rumors about the future of Denon/Marantz restricting/selling part of their business.
> Manufacturers are making some great products but also losing money.
> 
> - Rich


There is a significant change in the terms of the deal, though. Originally it was going to be a separate company with a holding company having majority ownership and Onkyo and Pioneer having minority positions. The holding company backed out and now Onkyo will own what was Pioneer's entertainment division, while Pioneer gets somewhat more than 14% of Onkyo as a whole. (I'm not familiar with what Onkyo does other than its home entertainment stuff.)


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> What sort of tuning?


 
From the Dolby Patent:


http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014107714A1?cl=en




> [0053] FIG. 3 depicts virtual height filter responses PT with oc=l derived from a directional hearing model based on a database of HRTF responses averaged across a large set of subjects. The black lines 303 represent the filter PT computed over a range of azimuth angles and a range of elevation angles corresponding to reasonable speaker distances and ceiling heights. Looking at these various instances of PT, one first notes that the majority of each filter's variation occurs at higher frequencies, above 4Hz. In addition, each filter exhibits a peak located at roughly 7kHz and a notch at roughly 12kHz. The exact level of the peak and notch vary a few dB between the various responses curves. Given this close agreement in location of peak and notch between the set of responses, it has been found that a single average filter response 302, given by the thick gray line, may serve as a universal height cue filter for most reasonable physical speaker locations and room dimensions. Given this finding, a single filter PT may be designed for a virtual height speaker, and no knowledge of the exact speaker location and room dimensions is required for reasonable performance*. For increased performance, however, such knowledge may be utilized to dynamically set the filter PT to one of the particular black curves in FIG. 3, corresponding to the specific speaker location and room dimensions*.


 
Also:


> [0055] In an alternative embodiment, the virtual height filter pre-processing can take place in the rendering equipment prior to input to a speaker amplifier (i.e., an AV receiver or preamp). FIG. 4B illustrates a virtual height filter incorporated as part of a rendering unit for driving an upward firing driver, under an embodiment. As shown in system 410 of FIG. 4B, Tenderer 412 outputs separate height and direct signals through amp 414 to drive upward firing speakers 418 and direct speakers 417, respectively. A height filter 416 within the Tenderer 412 provides the direct sound compensation through a notch filter (e.g., reference curve 302) for the upward firing speaker 418, as described above with respect to FIG. 4A. *This allows the height filter function to be provided for speakers that do not have any built-in virtual height filtering. *


 
I know AH is website non-grata here but this is a reasonable statement about analog crossover versus DSP processing:

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspea...ion-speaker/dolby-atmos-elevation-speakers-p2




> The Dolby patent calls for a filter response with a rise at 7 kHz of 5 dB followed by a drop of 7 dB at 12 kHz. While the patent claims this can be done in the speaker via a crossover network or in the digital domain via DSP processing or a combination of both, the reality is it’s typically done digitally via DSP processing in the AV receiver. It’s quite difficult and expensive to achieve such a tight response like this in the analog domain. Moreover, it's NEVER a good idea to apply boost via a passive filter network. This should be done in the digital domain. Period.


 
- Rich


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> "Should" be is one thing. "Will be" is another.
> 
> But remember that the Atmos module is "paired" with a "downstairs neighbor" and is required to be placed within 3ft of the paired neighbor, which presumably mitigates any localization issues with the ultra high crossover. If you are using a physical ceiling speaker that is already 10+ ft from the listener level speaker, why not just bass manage directly to the subwoofer?
> 
> And I doubt any ceiling speaker will be as bass anemic as the Elevation modules. Even if you can only get the crossover down to the 120Hz range it doesn't seem there is any benefit to not just redirecting directly to the subs.


Depends on the room acoustics. I've seen speakers that go down to 40Hz under free field conditions requiring very high crossovers >120Hz. In such a case it's probably preferable to retain some directionality by redirecting to the nearest neighbor first.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Just that is needs to be narrow, is all I've heard. At minimum, the HF barrier is apparently effective for several designs.


Makes me wonder why the KEF designs have no barrier. Those coax drivers most likely have wider dispersion than a full range driver of the same size.


----------



## Kriilin

RichB said:


> This seems to be an odd decision since it complicates the speaker design and such filters are not as easily done in the analog domain and the DSP's are already in place for Atmos.
> Also, the Dolby patent discusses tuning of the HRTF filters could be applied for optimization.
> 
> 
> Presumably, future Atmos processors/firmware could have tuning features if not in the speaker.
> Higher-end usually means greater flexibility.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Just to add, by doing the filtering at the analog stage, aren't you wasting amp power to generate what you don't need, and generating excess heat to get rid of it at the speaker? If Audyssey knows you have an Atmos upfiring speaker, wouldn't you want the calibration to insert that notch? Plus if Dolby specs (for example because I don't know) that you need a 3db notch from 10000-12000 hz, and you have either a hump or dip in that range, then couldn't Audyssey just compensate on the fly? The notch in the speaker has no clue about room acoustics, or am I missing something?


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> I know AH is website non-grata here but this is a reasonable statement about analog crossover versus DSP processing:


Why do you keep making things up Rich? AH is not "website non-grata here", they've just (understandably) been called out for the anti-Atmos campaign they've been running since February. BTW, is it possible for you to take a break from the passive-aggressive comments like the above during technical discussions? 

As for doing the HTRF in the digital domain, that would require Atmos-enabled upward-firing speakers to no longer be Atmos-enabled but instead only upward-firing. Don't know if speaker manufacturers would find that unique enough a product to pursue. I'd rather see the basic filter in the speaker and post-tuning as an electronic option.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> You won't need extra EQ if you use an HTiB to drive them...


I have not the slightest clue WTF an HTiB is. I'd use a separate power amp to drive them, of course.


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> Why do you keep making things up Rich? AH is not "website non-grata here", they've just (understandably) been called out for the anti-Atmos campaign they've been running since February. BTW, is it possible for you to take a break from the passive-aggressive comments like the above during technical discussions?



Yikes.  
I just do not know how to quote them on this thread without being attacked.
None the less, there comments were pertinent to those wishing to have a technical discussion. 




sdurani said:


> As for doing the HTRF in the digital domain, that would require Atmos-enabled upward-firing speakers to no longer be Atmos-enabled but instead only upward-firing. Don't know if speaker manufacturers would find that unique enough a product to pursue. I'd rather see the basic filter in the speaker and post-tuning as an electronic option.



Power usage, significant slopes in the filters, lack of adjustability are all reasons that folks have been using DSP's.
I suppose there is a business case for a unique but inferior solution if it limits competition.


- Rich


----------



## tomparis

batpig said:


> Denon / Marantz can't do it. Nor can any other consumer avr. They all max out at 11ch processing so the second pair of height speakers replaces the wides (7.1.4).
> 
> On D/M models at least you can hook up 13 speakers but you can only run up to 11 simultaneously. So if you hooked up wides and 4 heights you could calibrate them all with audyssey but in any Atmos mode it would play in 7.1.4 and you would have to switch to a non atom surround mode (like DTS Neo:X) to activate the wides.
> 
> The only processors at this point that can go beyond 11ch simultaneous are the über expensive boutique models (Trinnov etc).


Thank you very much batpig. Finally I get a valuable answer. So this means I'm not married to Denon/Marantz.


----------



## mike_carton

sdurani said:


> Describing what? Describing what you just described?


In your response you said "Each sound object is subtracted from one bitstream (the downmix), irrespective of how many speakers it will later be rendered to."

I was asking for a source that describes that process.


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> I just do not know how to quote them on this thread without being attacked.


So the answer is "no", you cannot stop lacing your posts with passive-aggressive comments.


----------



## sdurani

mike_carton said:


> I was asking for a source that describes that process.


You mean a document from Dolby? If so, I haven't seen any.


----------



## batpig

tomparis said:


> Thank you very much batpig. Finally I get a valuable answer. So this means I'm not married to Denon/Marantz.


Currently, if you want to run wides + 4 heights (9.1.4 Atmos) you need to also not be married to around twenty thousand dollars


----------



## markus767

Kriilin said:


> Just to add, by doing the filtering at the analog stage, aren't you wasting amp power to generate what you don't need, and generating excess heat to get rid of it at the speaker? If Audyssey knows you have an Atmos upfiring speaker, wouldn't you want the calibration to insert that notch? Plus if Dolby specs (for example because I don't know) that you need a 3db notch from 10000-12000 hz, and you have either a hump or dip in that range, then couldn't Audyssey just compensate on the fly? The notch in the speaker has no clue about room acoustics, or am I missing something?


It's a mystery to me why the HRTF processing isn't done in the AVR. Doing it in the speaker just adds cost to the speaker. Did they do it just to sell us new speakers that have a "Dolby Atmos-certified special network"?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> So the answer is "no", you cannot stop lacing your posts with passive-aggressive comments.


You mean just like your comment(s)


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> So the answer is "no", you cannot stop lacing your posts with passive-aggressive comments.



If you have a personal beef with me, PM me.
Technical discussion is great, but this post is both inaccurate and a waste of everyone's time. 

Cheers,


- Rich


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> You mean just like your comment(s)


Requesting he take a break from passive-aggressive comments isn't a passive-aggressive comment itself. If Rich wants to quote AH, he can do so without editorializing about their victimhood at AVS. That's all I was requesting.


----------



## sdurani

RichB said:


> If you have a personal beef with me, PM me.


Not a beef, just a public request about comments you're posting publicly.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> It's a mystery to me why the HRTF processing isn't done in the AVR. Doing it in the speaker just adds cost to the speaker. Did they do it just to sell us new speakers that have a "Dolby Atmos-certified special network"?


If just any speaker would do, they would make no money on it... And there would be little incentive for speaker makers to do them. So it's an inferior solution created by economists.

Of you need special speakers, then you're forced to go to those who make them and that's their incentive....


----------



## Frohlich

markus767 said:


> It's a mystery to me why the HRTF processing isn't done in the AVR. Doing it in the speaker just adds cost to the speaker. *Did they do it just to sell us * new speakers that have a "Dolby Atmos-certified special network"?


This...everytime!!! ^^^


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> So it's an inferior solution created by economists.


Leaves an opening for DTS or Auro to come up with a superior solution for their immersive formats.


----------



## NorthSky

tomparis said:


> Thank you very much batpig. Finally I get a valuable answer.
> * So this means I'm not married to Denon/Marantz*.


...And not married to Audyssey DSX & dts Neo:X. ...Put them Wides in the Rears.  
...Go Atmos the proper way.

* Tom, which AV receiver are you using right now?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> A loudspeaker is a mechanical/electrical audio component as well. ...A box with drivers and x-over inside.
> And I agree, they can outlast us very easily, if we take good care of them.
> 
> Erwin, are you as excited as I am?


I am excited... But your degree of excitement is very hard to match!


----------



## NorthSky

Since Marc (FilmMixer) reported from CEDIA regarding Dolby Atmos speakers (the up-firing ones);
me too I saw that as major news. ...And the thread's tone reflects that. 

We discussed a lot in the past about Timbre-Matching, Notch Filter (@ 10 or 12kHz), Passive Network, DSP adjustments in the AV receiver (SSP), Full floor integrated Dolby Atmos loudspeakers, separate Dolby Atmos modules to put on top of your existing speakers or on their own stands (FL, SBL, SBR, FR), Bass Management, 180-200Hz x-over (in or on-ceiling speakers) from the AVR and/or SSP, Atmos speakers positioning and angling, Wide dispersion pattern, great off-axis performance, Coaxial speakers, REQ, etc., etc., etc. ...

It is a technical journey trying to comprehend, absorb all this new Dolby Atmos world, and in the mix came Auro-3D, just to make it less confusing and adding VOG as a good 'elevated' measure. 

Content is King, and so far only 'Transformers 4' has been announced in Dolby Atmos form.

Money, money, money, ...Onkyo is the cheapest way to get in the Atmos ball park, and from there it goes into the stratosphere of the gods' kingdom.

___________


♦ What me I took out of it: If you want to play, try your very best to put them four overhead Atmos speakers in or on your ceiling.
Because the other option (up-firing speakers, or modules), even if working great, is still restricted in your speaker's choice.

That won't stop me; Dolby Atmos is still more attractive than Auro-3D @ this moment in time. 

...Just my personal opinion from the latest news (CEDIA).


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I am excited... But your degree of excitement is very hard to match!


You mean timbre-match?


----------



## IgorZep

markus767 said:


> Do we have any information how many objects (really just "spatially encoded" sound clusters) we really get delivered with TrueHD and DD+?


I don't know, but I guess if it would be something like at least 1/4 of the cinema total number of channels (beds+object) we would know already.

HDMI 2.0 should allow up to 32 channels even in PCM/uncompressed, but they claim to be compatible with older specs / blu ray players, so - there is not so much room/bitrate to put additional info in backwards-compatible TrueHD/DD+ streams (AFAIK there is room for ~16 channels at max). It looks like they are a little bit early with the technology, as new specs could truly bring it to next level. On the other side it would also require even more DSP power to render...


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Requesting he take a break from passive-aggressive comments isn't a passive-aggressive comment itself. If Rich wants to quote AH, he can do so without editorializing about their victimhood at AVS. That's all I was requesting.


I know what "passive-aggressive" means, thanks


----------



## markus767

IgorZep said:


> I don't know, but I guess if it would be something like at least 1/4 of the cinema total number of channels (beds+object) we would know already.
> 
> HDMI 2.0 should allow up to 32 channels even in PCM/uncompressed, but they claim to be compatible with older specs / blu ray players, so - there is not so much room/bitrate to put additional info in backwards-compatible TrueHD/DD+ streams (AFAIK there is room for ~16 channels at max). It looks like they are a little bit early with the technology, as new specs could truly bring it to next level. On the other side it would also require even more DSP power to render...


I thought when CEDIA comes we would get ALL the details


----------



## bargervais

markus767 said:


> I thought when CEDIA comes we would get ALL the details


Now I have more questions I'll keep reading all your advices. I love this forum. I think a lot of our questions will be cleared up, once more of us have an Atmos AVR in our homes...


----------



## mtbdudex

I posted yesterday in this thread, however re-posting here for more detailed discussion:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...ess-conference-cedia-2014-a.html#post27333306


mtbdudex said:


> After looking at the link Scott posted for speaker placement, http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf , here's my image for going from;
> a) my current 11.2 ; traditional 7.2 + front wides/heights
> to
> b) 9.2.8 ; traditional 7.2 +front wides +8 overhead (re-purpose my front height as Atmos frt ceiling, add 2 mid-ceiling pairs, add rear height as Atmos rear ceiling)
> 
> Now I need to wait for AVR capable of this (Summer 2015??) + amps, or go thebland (Jeff) Datasat RS20i method...
> Red shows ceiling layout image:
> (image edited after I studied the physical layout, due to existing corner bass traps, ceiling acoustic panels, etc.)


The above 9.2.8 layout is doable in my HT.
When I wired my HT in late in 2007 I used 14/4 wire everywhere,and have been running that as double twisted 11ga kinda overkill.
Plus, during that 2007 phase I added 2 speaker runs to the rear corners with 14/4, intention way back in 2007 was HT uses the higher side wall speakers, while for 5 channel music I was going to add corner monopoles, I never did, 
Therefore speaker wire runs will be used as 14/2 for the rear wall and read ceiling speaker, while the 14/4 wire on the side wall will be re-purposed as 14/2 for side speaker and 14/2 for front overhead speaker. 
Ta-da! I have the wire layout figured out.

Now, which AVR can drive a 9.2.8 layout? None on the market today.....
Open issue, I'm a hobbyist, so boutique stuff is outta my reach. 

I'm hoping a truly flagship AVR in late 2015 will meet needs of Atmos/Auro with scalable pre-out strategy...

My thinking is the AVR unit itself will handle up to 9 channels via it's amps and 4 more (2 pairs) via pre-outs.
Then some pre-out connection method (optical is 1-direction , so need HDMI/other to have bi-direction communication) to a simple pre-our "box", then from that box to the amp source your basic RCA out/in cables used as scalable method? 
This way AVR "only" needs to handle what most people will use, and the truly enthusiast can use the pre-out connection box to scale up many more speakers, up to the full 24.x.10 (AVR + pre-out outboard box) per the Dolby install guide.

Heck; for my usage I'd use the New AVR of course and re-purpose my 4520 as amp source, since it's paid for and has 9 amps.

We need a solution to scale to lots of speakers, I see a pre-out outboard box as 1 method, I've not heard anyone talking about practical matters like that, again I've not read every post in this thread either.


----------



## muad'dib

I'm waiting for my new pioneer sc-87 which I understand only does 9 channels max at any given atmos config. 

So. Questions. 
At moment, I have my theater room as follows. 
Couch is unfortunately on back wall with 2 side surround speakers located to sides of couch about 5 feet high. On back wall above couch rear surrounds are 5 feet high. 
I just installed 2 ceiling height speakers for atmos 3.5 feet in front of couch. 
In my current system I'm running 7.1 and sounds is awesome. I hear the sides and rear effects great. 
But. 
With atmos, should I keep the 7.1.2 config? Or would 5.1.4 be better. Thus using my surround back speakers for rear ceiling height channel instead. 

Now, if my room was longer, would a 7.1.2 sound better than a 5.1.4 setup? 

Thanks and hope someone can steer me in right direction.


----------



## Selden Ball

My understanding is that 4 overhead speakers are better for use with Atmos than two because then you get front-to-back movement for the overhead sounds in addition to side-to-side. 

However, I'd suggest trying both speaker configurations to decide which you prefer: Top Front + Rear Height or Top Front + Rear Surround. I'm assuming that it won't be too difficult to change between them. Worst case would be having to change which pair of speaker posts you use to connect the Rear speakers.


----------



## batpig

mtbdudex said:


> Now, which AVR can drive a 9.2.8 layout? None on the market today.....
> Open issue, I'm a hobbyist, so boutique stuff is outta my reach.


IMHO you will be waiting a LONG time if you think a reasonably affordable AVR / pre-pro is going to come out that can run a 17ch setup any time soon. Currently we are at 11ch max, and I would wager (speculating, no inside info) that best case scenario you will see a 13ch processor so you can do 9.1.4 (with wides) or 7.1.6.


----------



## SubSolar

Day after getting keys to brand new house:










#Priorities


----------



## smurraybhm

I'm surprised that all these folks on AVS who are smarter than I am are so up in arms that an Atmos certified module has special sauce in it. For those who have forgotten this came up at least 2 or 3 weeks ago because I questioned it at the time it was raised. I believe Batpig's informal speaker test last weekend confirmed that something was cooking in the modules that wasn't in a regular speaker. So what's the big deal? We have overhead/on-ceiling and heights as other options for those not wanting to bounce sound off their ceilings using the modules. If Dolby spent the money on research and testing to develop the tech, why shouldn't their be some "licensing" to build a module that provides the right sound/effect. Everyone always wants what they've bought to work with the new tech that a company has spent money developing. This is not a new concept (the need to buy a specific product and/or upgrade) and its happened many times before in a/v land. 

Personally I will experiment with some on-ceiling semi-height speakers to see how they work, but anticipate modules (Atlantic Tech) being in my future assuming something better doesn't pop up in the next few months since I can't install in-ceiling speakers in my room. If anyone is going to complain about the inability to timber match a module


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> IMHO you will be waiting a LONG time if you think a reasonably affordable AVR / pre-pro is going to come out that can run a 17ch setup any time soon. Currently we are at 11ch max, and I would wager (speculating, no inside info) that best case scenario you will see a 13ch processor so you can do 9.1.4 (with wides) or 7.1.6.


Trinnov with a Linux-based OS and an Intel multi-core CPU. End of conversation. Spend your inheritance now or later LOL. Or you just need to redefine the time value of money and the hobby, as well as food, home and shelter .

FWIW, one of the Procella/Sound Development guys yesterday mentioned 9.1.6 as the place to start for a large HT room, with extra speakers only taking one further down the maximal 24.1.10 home Atmos model.


----------



## mtbdudex

batpig said:


> IMHO you will be waiting a LONG time if you think a reasonably affordable AVR / pre-pro is going to come out that can run a 17ch setup any time soon. Currently we are at 11ch max, and I would wager (speculating, no inside info) that best case scenario you will see a 13ch processor so you can do 9.1.4 (with wides) or 7.1.6.


I hear you, hence the AVR won't have those pre-outs, rather an outboard box will and the signals will need to get their via some 2-way fast bandwidth communication method, HDMI/other, from the AVR. 

Directly from Dolbys guide, 24.x.10 is what Atmos can scale up to, so I do expect flagship AVR's + outboard box to support.
Question is does the DSP chipsets needed exist (or in R&D final stage), and the HMI menu system/etc.
Does D&M/others see enough opportunity to make a business case with ROI? Etc.


----------



## 7channelfreak

kokishin said:


> Content is king. What did they say about Auro content for HT?


It can be delivered on bluray just like Atmos but no titles for the home have been announced. Which means small niche as they said the same thing last year's Cedia. I pressed and they danced. As much as I liked it..I just don't know when it will get to the ht market. It's impressive but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## mtbdudex

sdrucker said:


> Trinnov with a Linux-based OS and an Intel multi-core CPU. End of conversation. Spend your inheritance now or later LOL. Or you just need to redefine the time value of money and the hobby, as well as food, home and shelter .
> 
> FWIW, one of the Procella/Sound Development guys yesterday mentioned 9.1.6 as the place to start for a large HT room, with extra speakers only taking one further down the maximal 24.1.10 home Atmos model.


I'm a HT hobbyist, a dad of 3 kids 8/10/12 all in travel soccer, cubmaster, we go camping, mtb riding, etc.
Room is not "large", it's a small acoustic space wise, 2 rows, sizes in post above.

I'm already at 11.2, or in Dolby speak I'm 9.2.2, so adding a few ceiling / rear height is all I'm looking at, not much really. I do expect flagship AVR to be flexible and scalable.


----------



## bargervais

mtbdudex said:


> I hear you, hence the AVR won't have those pre-outs, rather an outboard box will and the signals will need to get their via some 2-way fast bandwidth communication method, HDMI/other, from the AVR.
> 
> Directly from Dolbys guide, 24.x.10 is what Atmos can scale up to, so I do expect flagship AVR's + outboard box to support.
> Question is does the DSP chipsets needed exist (or in R&D final stage), and the HMI menu system/etc.
> Does D&M/others see enough opportunity to make a business case with ROI? Etc.


Looks a little over kill To me unless you have a decent very large HT


----------



## batpig

mtbdudex said:


> I hear you, hence the AVR won't have those pre-outs, rather an outboard box will and the signals will need to get their via some 2-way fast bandwidth communication method, HDMI/other, from the AVR.
> 
> Directly from Dolbys guide, 24.x.10 is what Atmos can scale up to, so I do expect flagship AVR's + outboard box to support.


Good luck with that. 

What makes you think that a flagship AVR + outboard box solution will be any more affordable than one of the fancy Trinnov/Datasat type processors?

I think the best you can hope for is that a Trinnov or the like comes out with a scaled down 18 or 24 ch processor solution that is more in the $10k range instead of $20k.

And if you're not willing to spend "boutique" money then I wouldn't hold out hopes for anything beyond 13 channels.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

batpig said:


> "Should" be is one thing. "Will be" is another.
> 
> But remember that the Atmos module is "paired" with a "downstairs neighbor" and is required to be placed within 3ft of the paired neighbor, which presumably mitigates any localization issues with the ultra high crossover. If you are using a physical ceiling speaker that is already 10+ ft from the listener level speaker, why not just bass manage directly to the subwoofer?
> 
> And I doubt any ceiling speaker will be as bass anemic as the Elevation modules. Even if you can only get the crossover down to the 120Hz range* it doesn't seem there is any benefit to not just redirecting directly to the subs*.




You have to be careful making any assumptions about bass redirection. You will probably find that bass redirection of Atmos content is different than bass redirection when DSU is being used for legacy content. 

There may be bass redirection differences similar to the difference between bass redirection of DD and bass redirection of PL-*.


----------



## zeus33

Nightlord said:


> I have not the slightest clue WTF an HTiB is. I'd use a separate power amp to drive them, of course.



Home Theater in a Box (DVD/Blu Ray player with built in amp and crappy cube speakers)


----------



## SoundChex

Nightlord said:


> I have not the slightest clue WTF an HTiB is.




Beyond adding _processor|firmware_ capable of decoding *Dolby Atmos* (_or_ *Auro-3D* _and|or_ *DTS-UHD*_ ...?_) it's not clear how much more would be needed to turn this existing 2014 model year *HTiB* -- *LG BH9430PW 9.1ch 3D Home Cinema System* (_link_) (MSRP $799) -- into a competent _mass market_ *Atmos 5.1.4* audio platform.






Of course, anyone on *AVSForum* is probably already committed to at least an *11.x* _all discrete speaker_ configuration.








_
We are not really the target market for the *LG* and *Samsung* *HTiB* product lines, although I expect we'll see *Atmos* packages similar to this *HTiB* from both conglomerates at *CES 2015*...?!
_ 
_


----------



## kokishin

Nightlord said:


> I have not the slightest clue WTF an HTiB is. I'd use a separate power amp to drive them, of course.


You might get Home Theater In a Bonfire


----------



## action_jackson

mike_carton said:


> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the consumer format does not carry that many objects individually. Maybe more like 1/10th that number.
> 
> Second, the subtraction process is performed on all the objects as one operation per bed channel, which is 7 max. Regardless of the number of objects, they are first rendered to 7 channels (same as the bed), then subtracted from the bed.
> 
> At least, that's my conception. This is not official Dolby info.
> 
> 
> 
> True, nobody expects 100+ objects in reality, not for any length of time anyway. But I suspect you'd have to design for it as an AVR manufacturer, if only to be compliant. I'd have said 8 including the subwoofer. I wrote another post a few minutes ago (*#7553*) Would like your thoughts on that.
Click to expand...

During Scott's interview with Dolby this question was asked. It was stated that all objects would be included in the home Atmos track, they mentioned leaving out an object would be like leaving out an actor.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> I'm surprised that all these folks on AVS who are smarter than I am are so up in arms that an Atmos certified module has special sauce in it. For those who have forgotten this came up at least 2 or 3 weeks ago because I questioned it at the time it was raised. I believe Batpig's informal speaker test last weekend confirmed that something was cooking in the modules that wasn't in a regular speaker. So what's the big deal? We have overhead/on-ceiling and heights as other options for those not wanting to bounce sound off their ceilings using the modules. If Dolby spent the money on research and testing to develop the tech, why shouldn't their be some "licensing" to build a module that provides the right sound/effect. Everyone always wants what they've bought to work with the new tech that a company has spent money developing. This is not a new concept (the need to buy a specific product and/or upgrade) and its happened many times before in a/v land.
> 
> Personally I will experiment with some on-ceiling semi-height speakers to see how they work, but anticipate modules (Atlantic Tech) being in my future assuming something better doesn't pop up in the next few months since I can't install in-ceiling speakers in my room.
> 
> * If anyone is going to complain about the inability to timber match a module*


_"Timber"_ is lumber.


----------



## batpig

action_jackson said:


> During Scott's interview with Dolby this question was asked. It was stated that all objects would be included in the home Atmos track, they mentioned leaving out an object would be like leaving out an actor.


It's always carefully worded -- Brett Crockett said all the objects in the cinema mix are REPRESENTED in the home mix. (see about 20min into the HTG podcast)

And Roger's response was equally precise -- "the consumer format does not carry that many objects INDIVIDUALLY".

So all the objects are "represented" but not "individually". This is part of Dolby's proprietary "Spatial Coding" that allows the cinema mix to get packed into a much smaller file size so it can be delivered to the end user in TrueHD / DD+ container.


----------



## action_jackson

batpig said:


> action_jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> During Scott's interview with Dolby this question was asked. It was stated that all objects would be included in the home Atmos track, they mentioned leaving out an object would be like leaving out an actor.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always carefully worded -- Brett Crockett said all the objects in the cinema mix are REPRESENTED in the home mix. (see about 20min into the HTG podcast)
> 
> And Roger's response was equally precise -- "the consumer format does not carry that many objects INDIVIDUALLY".
> 
> So all the objects are "represented" but not "individually". This is part of Dolby's proprietary "Spatial Coding" that allows the cinema mix to get packed into a much smaller file size so it can be delivered to the end user in TrueHD / DD+ container.
Click to expand...

I wonder why they give ambiguous answers to these questions? They should just give a strait answer and end these debates about how many objects are allowed. Maybe it is a dynamic number based on the amount of data that is being used at a particular moment for the bed channels. Less data required for the bed equals a greater number of possible objects meta data and vice versa.


----------



## NorthSky

Financial business secrets...


----------



## Jim S.

What are the best sites to read CEDIA reviews of equipment, demos etc?


----------



## NorthSky

All the major audio/video online magazines have their own report with pictures, and overall impressions plus few specs. ...More extensive Pro reviews come later on...


----------



## DS-21

Someone posted a link to a Reuters piece. In that vein, here's something that should chill a little bit:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sit...os"/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/

One hit in the US paper of record for Atmos. From over two years ago. Under the headline "New Dolby Technology to Make Horror Movies Scarier."

http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS="dolby+atmos"&mod=DNH_S

No hits at all in probably the runner-up paper of record.

Dolby's done a good job preaching to the choir, as this thread shows. But the I've chatted to a few friends and colleagues in the last two month about our (now thankfully almost finished; just some wall-plates and new HDbaseT set to go) living room project (wiring for, ahem 7.multisubs.4, bespoke mantel integrating a Pioneer EX in-wall speaker, in-wall side-surrounds, on-wall rear-surrounds). None of them (outside of the Emotiva show) recognized the term "Atmos." 



FilmMixer said:


> Some tidbits from a little birdy (who's on this thread and can chime in if they choose.)
> 
> The HRTF on the Dolby Enabled speakers is required to be in the speaker!


I wonder why. Because the internet, the intended passive crossover function will be a non-secret for all of, what, two or three weeks? Especially since most of the speakers are widebanders. Not too hard to disconnect a widebander and wire it directly to an amp to measure the transfer function of the filter. Or for that matter to take one of Mr. Jones' speakers and measure the frequency response of the main channel concentric and that of the upfiring concentric, no hand-tools required...



markus767 said:


> Makes me wonder why the KEF designs have no barrier. Those coax drivers most likely have wider dispersion than a full range driver of the same size.


For looks, I expect.

FWIW, here's a normalized dispersion plot for the KEF LS50:










The KEF LS50 driver is not different from the upfiring one in any way that's material to the polar map. (Same cone shape, same tweeter shape, same phase plug.) Cabinet diffraction differs, of course.



RichB said:


> Yikes.
> I just do not know how to quote them on this thread without being attacked.


Perhaps because we're all just waiting for his 180 deg pivot when RBH comes out with Atmos stuff. He's just so predictably corrupt.


----------



## mtbdudex

sdrucker said:


> FWIW, one of the Procella/Sound Development guys yesterday mentioned 9.1.6 as the place to start for a large HT room, with extra speakers only taking one further down the maximal 24.1.10 home Atmos model.


Define "large" here. How much cu ft they talking? Or L x w h.

I'm curious what the minimum spatial distance recommendations are for ceiling speaker distance - the point of diminishing returns / the sound field(s) so overlap each other it's not worthwhile.

5 feet apart center-center? 4 feet? 3 feet?

Or another good info would be maximum speaker qty/location guides from Dolby themselves for a few room generic sizes.
Would give some fact based objective data instead of what we are engaging in here as subjective guessing.

I can speak from personal experience, having gone from 7.1 to 11.2 the increase envelopment is fantastic, yes I'm up-scaling via NeoX, but recognize all others who get an Atmos AVR will be up-scaling 99.9% of content also for quite some time.....

And, I still insist for a AVR to be called a flagship AVR of any brand line it should be capable of full decoding all Atmos mixes into the full 24.x.10 signals.....and somehow making those signals easily available for usage at "reasonable" cost, yes for flagship AVR those can go into $5k/more range.

I'm looking forward to this future announcement:
"Introducing the all new *Denon AVR-X9200W ($5k msrp)*, available Late 2015, fully Denon Atmos decoding 24.x.10 and Auro capable to enhance the ultimate HT sound system.
13 internal amps can satisfy most Home Theatres, however with outbox set-up the full Denon Atmos decoding 24.x.10 spec can be realized"

Btw, since I'll also be going AT screen this thread has caused me to consider center lower and center height, instead of single center.
The added front heights/wides from my current set-up so expanded my front sound stage, that it should have occurred to me to split the center also.
So now I'm looking at 10.2.8 layout....


----------



## wse

SoundChex said:


> Beyond adding _processor|firmware_ capable of decoding *Dolby Atmos* (_or_ *Auro-3D* _and|or_ *DTS-UHD*_ ...?_) it's not clear how much more would be needed to turn this existing 2014 model year *HTiB* -- *LG BH9430PW 9.1ch 3D Home Cinema System* (_link_) (MSRP $799) -- into a competent _mass market_ *Atmos 5.1.4* audio platform.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In6N0i0mcI0&feature=player_detailpage
> 
> Of course, anyone on *AVSForum* is probably already committed to at least an *11.x* _all discrete speaker_ configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> We are not really the target market for the *LG* and *Samsung* *HTiB* product lines, although I expect we'll see *Atmos* packages similar to this *HTiB* from both conglomerates at *CES 2015*...?!
> _
> _


Cool but lots of negative reviews http://smile.amazon.com/LG-BH9431PW...&formatType=all_formats&filterByStar=one_star


----------



## W3Rman

SubSolar said:


> Day after getting keys to brand new house:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #Priorities


Now thats what I'm talking about ... you da man ... setting next gen WAF baselines


----------



## CinemaAndy

westmd said:


> BTW This is the graphic *Auro* speaker angles are based on.


To reproduce cinema Auro-3D, requires an insane amount of speakers, like everything you now have times two plus a deadcenter overhead. I do not see that working in a HT. Not enough headroom.


----------



## CinemaAndy

sdrucker said:


> Trinnov with a Linux-based OS and an Intel multi-core CPU. End of conversation. Spend your inheritance now or later LOL.


If i was seriously looking at a Trinnov, i would go with the Steinway Lyngdorf. Maybe if you smile enough, they will throw a piano in. No not for free, nothing is free.


----------



## sdrucker

CinemaAndy said:


> If i was seriously looking at a Trinnov, i would go with the Steinway Lyngdorf. Maybe if you smile enough, they will throw a piano in. No not for free, nothing is free.


I'll probably catch their demo tomorrow.


----------



## RUR

sdrucker said:


> I'll probably catch their demo tomorrow.


Room Perfect's nice, Stuart, but nowhere near Trinnov capabilities. Can't comment on the speakers.


----------



## Roger Dressler

action_jackson said:


> I wonder why they give ambiguous answers to these questions? They should just give a straight answer and end these debates about how many objects are allowed. Maybe it is a dynamic number based on the amount of data that is being used at a particular moment for the bed channels. Less data required for the bed equals a greater number of possible objects meta data and vice versa.


The precise answer is, it depends. 



DS-21 said:


> I wonder why. Because the internet, the intended passive crossover function will be a non-secret for all of, what, two or three weeks? Especially since most of the speakers are widebanders. Not too hard to disconnect a widebander and wire it directly to an amp to measure the transfer function of the filter. Or for that matter to take one of Mr. Jones' speakers and measure the frequency response of the main channel concentric and that of the upfiring concentric, no hand-tools required...


It's not a secret. Dolby shows the EQ curve in the patent.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> It's not a secret. Dolby shows the EQ curve in the patent.


I can't believe they are that stupid and show the actual curve in the patent. It's probably just an illustration? It looks like it's drawn by hand using a tool for technical drawing - see the little imperfections at the peaks?


----------



## NorthSky

Looks like a tooth. ...A toothache.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> I can't believe they are that stupid and show the actual curve in the patent.


Why? 



> It's probably just an illustration? It looks like it's drawn by hand using a tool for technical drawing - see the little imperfections at the peaks?


I've seen some indirect evidence that suggests it might just be an accurate representation.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Why?


Anybody could just copy the curve and use any speaker as an "Atmos-enabled" speaker.



Roger Dressler said:


> I've seen some indirect evidence that suggests it might just be an accurate representation.


What "indirect evidence" would that be? I see a bunch of fixed curves that have been imprecisely matched to each other.


----------



## tomparis

NorthSky said:


> ...And not married to Audyssey DSX & dts Neo:X. ...Put them Wides in the Rears.
> ...Go Atmos the proper way.
> 
> * Tom, which AV receiver are you using right now?


I'm using the Pioneer SC-2023, no idea what model this would be in the U.S.

The speaker cable for back surrounds is already in place. But I don't want to spent the extra money on them at the moment, because they add so little. And that's from personal experience.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Anybody could just copy the curve and use any speaker as an "Atmos-enabled" speaker.


As DS-21 pointed out, any notion of keeping the actual curve a secret is a delusion. I'm sure Dolby understood that. 



> What "indirect evidence" would that be? I see a bunch of fixed curves that have been imprecisely matched to each other.


It was private data...

To which curves are you referring? Got links?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> As DS-21 pointed out, any notion of keeping the actual curve a secret is a delusion. I'm sure Dolby understood that.


They probably could have sold more "special" Dolby-enabled speakers with the curve not being public right from the start. It's trivial to mimic the curve with an EQ.



Roger Dressler said:


> To which curves are you referring? Got links?


I was referring to the curve shown in the patent.










By the way, "real" HRTFs can be found at https://github.com/jkammerl/libAudio3D/tree/master/data/MIT-KEMAR-HRTFs
Import the WAVs into REW and you get the magnitude response.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> They probably could have sold more "special" Dolby-enabled speakers with the curve not being public right from the start. It's trivial to mimic the curve with an EQ.


I suspect most people would not go that route. Too messy, adds cost (most AVR's cannot do it). In my case, my PEQ won't do it. It limits at +3 dB, and I need 3 of the 5 bands for tuning. 



> I was referring to the curve shown in the patent.


Oh, ok.



> By the way, "real" HRTFs can be found at https://github.com/jkammerl/libAudio3D/tree/master/data/MIT-KEMAR-HRTFs
> Import the WAVs into REW and you get the magnitude response.
> 
> The Dolby curve looks more like a HRTF for sounds coming from below...


Perhaps they have been empirically tuned for the specific application, and taking into account rather simple circuitry. Unless one is going to map their own HRTF into the system, precision is not a prime factor.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> precision is not a prime factor.


Filter 1: Fc 2.640 Hz Gain -2,0 dB Q 1,00
Filter 2: Fc 6.899 Hz Gain 5,2 dB Q 1,35
Filter 3: Fc 9.908 Hz Gain -7,2 dB Q 1,61


----------



## kbarnes701

IgorZep said:


> The answer to that is on the surface, but you won't get it from fanboys and marketing that will just tell "it the way to make it work". The right answer is compromise (and there is nothing bad in this word, but many get it as offence). The compromise is between the sense of height and accuracy (stability of the image in the first place). The up-firing speakers were not giving enough sense of height without the trick... So, they had to amplify the effect and trade some accuracy to make people feel they are not deceived (as the sense of height is the first thing that would impress and what is expected from 'overhead'). *But as Atmos is marketed for accuracy, they are really sold to something that is not what was promised * The same is with objects/clustering. We could have just more discrete channels (overhead) and still have about the same practical effect. Well, for a few sensitive 'objects' we could still have it, but the promise that just everything could be rendered at the side of reproduction system optimised for the actual layout is unfulfilled, contrary to the cinema mix.
> 
> All this thing goes on emotion, marketing one thing, but selling something different (or at least not as complete as in the leaflet).


Igor, Dolby have explicitly said (to me in person as well as elsewhere) that Atmos enabled speakers will NOT give the precision of location of sounds which physical ceiling speakers will give. Instead, they give a more diffuse sound, which many prefer to the actual ceiling speaker sound. I can confirm from having heard both that this is exactly so - if you want a 'diffuse' sound, Atmos enabled speakers give it, if you want precise localisation of overhead sounds, ceiling speakers give it. I don't think there is an marketing subterfuge on this.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> This is a bit peculiar... If the hrtf frequency responce is done passively in the speakers, why would the avr need to distinguish between in-ceiling speaker and atmos-enabled ones - if it's to output the same signal? Something's fishy here....
> 
> So I'm back to my original statement... Someone needs to open up an atmos speaker.


An obvious reason to differentiate them is Audyssey. It will need to know which type of speaker is being used so that it knows how to shape the target curve, which has to allow for the 'notch' in Atmos speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I doubt room eq is mandatory for Atmos, so I severly doubt #1 .



Not mandatory - but the AVR still has to make provision for it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> This...everytime!!! ^^^


Dolby, AFAIK, don't sell speakers.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I suspect most people would not go that route. Too messy, adds cost (most AVR's cannot do it). In my case, my PEQ won't do it. It limits at +3 dB, and I need 3 of the 5 bands for tuning.


With those limitations you still could do something like this:










Now if we only would know what feature in the patent graph is wanted and what feature is just a by-product of the filter used.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Anybody could just copy the curve and use any speaker as an "Atmos-enabled" speaker.


No they can't - that's the entire point of a Patent.


----------



## toothsavers

*Dolby surround*

Could someone please explain on how the new Dolby surround (dolby digital plus) works? How does this program affect a 7.1 system not utilizing an Atmos coded track as well as an Atmos coded track.I need some guidance as to deciding whether to convert my rear surround (already in vaulted angled ceiling) to Dolby enabled rear heights thus making my system 5.1.4 or just using front enabled dolby modules making my system 7.1.2.We have awesome surround sound with 7.1 Blurays now.Will I be messing that up by converting my rears to heights?


----------



## kbarnes701

toothsavers said:


> Could someone please explain on how the new Dolby surround (dolby digital plus) works? How does this program affect a 7.1 system not utilizing an Atmos coded track as well as an Atmos coded track.I need some guidance as to deciding whether to convert my rear surround (already in vaulted angled ceiling) to Dolby enabled rear heights thus making my system 5.1.4 or just using front enabled dolby modules making my system 7.1.2.We have awesome surround sound with 7.1 Blurays now.Will I be messing that up by converting my rears to heights?


Why did you put DD+ in brackets after Dolby Surround? Dolby Surround is the new Dolby upmixer which is found in Atmos-enabled AVRs. It is for legacy content not for Atmos content. If you have an Atmos AVR, and an Atmos Bluray, then Atmos will be reproduced natively, as Atmos. If you have an Atmos AVR and you want to play a legacy 5.1/7.1 disc encoded with Dolby or DTS codecs then you can use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) which will upmix this legacy content to as many speakers as your Atmos system includes (but not Wides).

It makes no difference wrt to DSU whether you opt for a 7.1.2 system or a 5.1.4 system - DSU will upmix to whichever you have. If you want to spend the extra bucks when you buy your new Atmos AVR, then you can choose a unit that offers 7.1.4 as an option and keep your rear surrounds while also enjoying the benefits of 4 overhead speakers.

When you have an Atmos AVR, be aware that the Prologic family of upmixers (PLii, PLiix, PLiiz) will no longer be an option, as these upmixers have now been subsumed into the new Dolby Surround Upmixer on Atmos AVRs. By all accounts, DSU works very well, and it seems to be generally accepted that DSU is preferable to Prologic.


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> No they can't - that's the entire point of a Patent.


True, except that factual/statistical data is not patentable. Sure anyone can still be trolled if they repeat that three biquads that Markus shown...


----------



## Frohlich

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby, AFAIK, don't sell speakers.


I realize they don't sell speakers directly but they are a business...the object is to make money. I am not knocking them for that at all...that is the point of any business. They don't put the word dolby on these speakers for free. It is a marketing and/or revenue stream for them.....and thats ok.


----------



## markus767

IgorZep said:


> True, except that factual/statistical data is not patentable. Sure anyone can still be trolled if they repeat that three biquads that Markus shown...


Got an even better fit with 4 










In case someone has a miniDSP:



Code:


biquad1,
b0=0.966027651374279,
b1=-1.55293047059956,
b2=0.7176037689124113,
a1=1.55293047059956,
a2=-0.6836314202866903,
biquad2,
b0=1.2166834696020636,
b1=-0.8715561434622384,
b2=0.3270661718503183,
a1=0.8715561434622384,
a2=-0.5437496414523819,
biquad3,
b0=0.7762520167286865,
b1=-0.2796197905801495,
b2=0.5547140650921173,
a1=0.2796197905801495,
a2=-0.3309660818208038,
biquad4,
b0=1.0725608064204013,
b1=0.4740059033044866,
b2=0.333930233973998,
a1=-0.4740059033044866,
a2=-0.4064910403943991,
biquad5,
b0=1.0,
b1=0.0,
b2=0.0,
a1=0.0,
a2=0.0,
biquad6,
b0=1.0,
b1=0.0,
b2=0.0,
a1=0.0,
a2=0.0


----------



## kriktsemaj99

Using 3 out of the available 7 PEQ filters on a Yamaha will get you this. And presumably those speakers won't need many more filters for room correction if they're crossed over at 180Hz.


----------



## mtbdudex

Frohlich said:


> I realize they don't sell speakers directly but they are a business...the object is to make money. I am not knocking them for that at all...that is the point of any business. They don't put the word dolby on these speakers for free. It is a marketing and/or revenue stream for them.....and thats ok.


So like the THX thing of the mid/late 1990's, we will now be seeing "Dolby Atmos" or some other wording on speakers....yea their must be some lic fee then
Like my 1996 Atlantic Technology System 350's were THX Ultra back in the day
(I'm just benchmarking OE speaker grilles for my DIY speaker/grilles below, and had a pict of the 350 grille to show)









Yep
















So are all those THX speakers now DOA?
What does this mean for THX home theater certification?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Roger Dressler said:


> The precise answer is, it depends.
> 
> It's not a secret. Dolby shows the EQ curve in the patent.




Does that curve represent the passive EQ curve that is applied to the Dolby enabled speaker, or is that the target curve of the Dolby enabled speaker in room?

In other words, if the "full range" driver starts rolling off at say 8 kHz and the "EQ" filter is applied, then does the drivers roll off have to be added to the EQ curve to get the in room FR curve right?


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Frohlich said:


> I realize they don't sell speakers directly but they are a business...the object is to make money. I am not knocking them for that at all...that is the point of any business. *They don't put the word dolby on these speakers for free*. It is a marketing and/or revenue stream for them.....and thats ok.




I suppose that would be a copyright or trademark issue rather than a patent issue. If one follows the FR curve and can't call the product a Dolby enabled speaker, who will buy it in the retail market?


----------



## toothsavers

kbarnes701 said:


> Why did you put DD+ in brackets after Dolby Surround? Dolby Surround is the new Dolby upmixer which is found in Atmos-enabled AVRs. It is for legacy content not for Atmos content. If you have an Atmos AVR, and an Atmos Bluray, then Atmos will be reproduced natively, as Atmos. If you have an Atmos AVR and you want to play a legacy 5.1/7.1 disc encoded with Dolby or DTS codecs then you can use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) which will upmix this legacy content to as many speakers as your Atmos system includes (but not Wides).
> 
> It makes no difference wrt to DSU whether you opt for a 7.1.2 system or a 5.1.4 system - DSU will upmix to whichever you have. If you want to spend the extra bucks when you buy your new Atmos AVR, then you can choose a unit that offers 7.1.4 as an option and keep your rear surrounds while also enjoying the benefits of 4 overhead speakers.
> 
> When you have an Atmos AVR, be aware that the Prologic family of upmixers (PLii, PLiix, PLiiz) will no longer be an option, as these upmixers have now been subsumed into the new Dolby Surround Upmixer on Atmos AVRs. By all accounts, DSU works very well, and it seems to be generally accepted that DSU is preferable to Prologic.


If you have an Atmos AVR and you want to play a legacy 5.1/7.1 disc encoded with Dolby or DTS codecs then you can use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) which will upmix this legacy content to as many speakers as your Atmos system includes (but not Wides Thanks-are you implying that the DSU will automatically be used instead of the coded sound track(DTS master-7.1/5.1 ) or it will be my choice to either use DSU or DTS master.What would be the difference using DSU compared to DTS master?


----------



## sdurani

toothsavers said:


> What would be the difference using DSU compared to DTS master?


As with your mention of DD+, you're still confusing two different technologies. DSU is surround processing. DD+ is lossy audio compression (like MP3). DTS-HD Master Audio is lossless audio packing (like zipping a file). 

When a studio wants to deliver a soundtrack to consumers, they shrink its size it to take up less bandwidth for streaming or take up less space on a disc. DD+ is often used to do this for streaming and DTS-HD MA is often used for Blu-ray discs. All they do is reduce the size of the audio data. 

Dolby Surround Upmixing is surround processing. Think of it like video scaling, where you take a 480i or 720p source and scale it to the number of pixels in a 1080p display. Likewise, DSU takes 2-channel and 5.1 and 7.1 tracks and scales it to the number of speakers in your set-up.


----------



## SanchoPanza

He didn't mention DD+.


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Does that curve represent the passive EQ curve that is applied to the Dolby enabled speaker, or is that the target curve of the Dolby enabled speaker in room?
> 
> In other words, if the "full range" driver starts rolling off at say 8 kHz and the "EQ" filter is applied, then does the drivers roll off have to be added to the EQ curve to get the in room FR curve right?


From the patent WO 2014/036085:

"In an embodiment, the adaptive audio system utilizes upward-firing drivers to provide
the height element. In general, it has been shown that incorporating signal processing to
introduce perceptual height cues into the audio signal being fed to the upward-firing drivers
improves the positioning and perceived quality of the virtual height signal. For example, a
parametric perceptual binaural hearing model has been developed to create a height cue filter,
which when used to process audio being reproduced by an upward-firing driver, improves
that perceived quality of the reproduction. In an embodiment, the height cue filter is derived
from the both the physical speaker location (approximately level with the listener) and the
reflected speaker location (above the listener). For the physical speaker location, a
directional filter is determined based on a model of the outer ear (or pinna). An inverse of
this filter is next determined and used to remove the height cues from the physical speaker.
Next, for the reflected speaker location, a second directional filter is determined, using the
same model of the outer ear. This filter is applied directly, essentially reproducing the cues
the ear would receive if the sound were above the listener. In practice, these filters may be
combined in a way that allows for a single filter that both (1) removes the height cue from the
physical speaker location, and (2) inserts the height cue from the reflected speaker location.
FIG. 16 [graph posted by Roger] is a graph that illustrates the frequency response for such a combined filter. The
combined filter may be used in a fashion that allows for some adjustability with respect to the
aggressiveness or amount of filtering that is applied. For example, in some cases, it may be
beneficial to not fully remove the physical speaker height cue, or fully apply the reflected
speaker height cue since only some of the sound from the physical speaker arrives directly to
the listener (with the remainder being reflected off the ceiling)."


----------



## ss9001

SanchoPanza said:


> He didn't mention DD+.



yes, he did. I suggest you re-read his original post:

"Could someone please explain on how the new Dolby surround (dolby digital plus) works?" followed by Keith's asking him why he mentioned DD+ in brackets.

he's confusing the new upmixing algorithm with the decoding codec DD+. sanjay's answer is right on target.


----------



## SanchoPanza

Not the one you quoted from.


----------



## ss9001

your nit-pick on exact quotes doesn't negate the fact that the OP confused a post processing format with not one but 2 decoding modes. so sanjay's answer is still correct and informative to the OP.

if you want to continue to nit-pick by all means...but I'm not going to respond


----------



## SanchoPanza

Please don't respond, that was not my intent.


----------



## Nightlord

If there are nits, it's a safe bet on a hifi site they will be picked...


----------



## SanchoPanza

Don't know, nor care, if it's been mentioned; but, Crutchfield has a Dolby Atmos article in they ;/) catalogue.

NO Afilliation.


----------



## smurraybhm

Posted this on the Denon thread - input/opinions welcome - thanks.

I have a 5200 scheduled for delivery on Monday and was curious what everyone would recommend given this situation. I have a traditional 7.2 setup which sounds great. I have a pair of speakers that I could mount and setup as heights or even as the in-ceiling fronts angled appropriately mounted on the ceiling. I'm thinking that I should go with heights for greater flexibility and then add up-firing modules on my surrounds. Surround backs are too close to main seating position to use up-firing there.

Mounting multiple sets of speakers on the ceiling is out of the question - no way wife goes for that in my a/v room. Rules of wife apply despite the my. Room is about 12' deep and 12' wide. Input/thoughts/wisdom appreciated. Up-firing modules I am considering are the Atlantic Tech - not due out until sometime in Nov. Thanks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

SanchoPanza said:


> *Don't know, nor care*, if it's been mentioned; but, Crutchfield has a Dolby Atmos article in they ;/) catalogue.


Just curious. If you don't care if it's been mentioned, why mention it? 

While we're here, what does "in they ;/) catalogue" mean? Is that some kind of emoticon?


----------



## SanchoPanza

In case anyone is interested was why I posted that; that is a wink, for those who wonder.

The reason I didn't care is bc I wasn't going to look through the thread, which I have been following, to make double sure that info hadn't been posted.

Hard enough on an iPhone to follow.


----------



## primetimeguy

The response somewhat resembles THX surround mode processing.


----------



## toothsavers

sdurani said:


> As with your mention of DD+, you're still confusing two different technologies. DSU is surround processing. DD+ is lossy audio compression (like MP3). DTS-HD Master Audio is lossless audio packing (like zipping a file).
> 
> When a studio wants to deliver a soundtrack to consumers, they shrink its size it to take up less bandwidth for streaming or take up less space on a disc. DD+ is often used to do this for streaming and DTS-HD MA is often used for Blu-ray discs. All they do is reduce the size of the audio data.
> 
> Dolby Surround Upmixing is surround processing. Think of it like video scaling, where you take a 480i or 720p source and scale it to the number of pixels in a 1080p display. Likewise, DSU takes 2-channel and 5.1 and 7.1 tracks and scales it to the number of speakers in your set-up.


Thanks for clearing that up.In your opinion,would you change my rear surrounds to Dolby Atmos enabled rear heights and change my 7.1.2 to 5.1.4 and allow dolby surround give me surround sound in non Atmos movies.In essence I would be giving up my discreet rear surrounds in Dts master 7.1 and Dolbytru hd 7.1.Is Dolby Surround enough to compensate for the loss of the rear surrounds.Sorry for my novice inquires!


----------



## sdurani

toothsavers said:


> In your opinion,would you change my rear surrounds to Dolby Atmos enabled rear heights and change my 7.1.2 to 5.1.4 and allow dolby surround give me surround sound in non Atmos movies.


Depends on where the seating is and how the rear surrounds are placed. Can you post a quick diagram of your room?


----------



## toothsavers

Thank you for your opinion whether I should turn the rear surrounds into rear heights for Atmos and rely on Dolby surround for my surround sound or 7.1.2 for surround sound or 5.1.4 Atmos. My choice is 7.1.2 or 5.1.4


----------



## westmd

CinemaAndy said:


> To reproduce cinema Auro-3D, requires an insane amount of speakers, like everything you now have times two plus a deadcenter overhead. I do not see that working in a HT. Not enough headroom.


Sorry but as a general statement this *not true!*
Minimum setup of Auro is 9.1! That is a standard 5,1 (which everybody should have) and 4 height speakers above L, R, L surround and R surround. depending of the room layout some or all of these speakers can be used for Atmos! Height center and VOG are opzional and without them you still have an excellent Auro experience! For any further Auro questions pop over to the Auro forum!


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Interesting. 

The AVS group seemed to prefer the Dolby enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted speakers.

"Many of those I spoke with after the demo preferred the upfiring speakers over the ceiling-mounted ones, especially if they were sitting directly beneath one of the ceiling speakers."


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1683954-avs-exclusive-dolby-atmos-demo-cedia-2014-a.html


----------



## westmd

RUR said:


> Room Perfect's nice, Stuart, but nowhere near Trinnov capabilities. Can't comment on the speakers.





sdrucker said:


> I'll probably catch their demo tomorrow.


Guys, if you hear any Auro demo pn the CEDIA it would be great to have a quick overview in the Auro forum. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Steve Goff

So the patent describes a system where the filter in the speaker removes the height information for a speaker in that location and the audio dsp adds a filter for the height information of an elevated speaker. The graph shows the combined response of the two filters, not the response of the filter in the speaker.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> From the patent WO 2014/036085:
> 
> "In an embodiment, the adaptive audio system utilizes upward-firing drivers to provide
> the height element. In general, it has been shown that incorporating signal processing to
> introduce perceptual height cues into the audio signal being fed to the upward-firing drivers
> improves the positioning and perceived quality of the virtual height signal. For example, a
> parametric perceptual binaural hearing model has been developed to create a height cue filter,
> which when used to process audio being reproduced by an upward-firing driver, improves
> that perceived quality of the reproduction. In an embodiment, the height cue filter is derived
> from the both the physical speaker location (approximately level with the listener) and the
> reflected speaker location (above the listener). For the physical speaker location, a
> directional filter is determined based on a model of the outer ear (or pinna). An inverse of
> this filter is next determined and used to remove the height cues from the physical speaker.
> Next, for the reflected speaker location, a second directional filter is determined, using the
> same model of the outer ear. This filter is applied directly, essentially reproducing the cues
> the ear would receive if the sound were above the listener. In practice, these filters may be
> combined in a way that allows for a single filter that both (1) removes the height cue from the
> physical speaker location, and (2) inserts the height cue from the reflected speaker location.
> FIG. 16 [graph posted by Roger] is a graph that illustrates the frequency response for such a combined filter. The
> combined filter may be used in a fashion that allows for some adjustability with respect to the
> aggressiveness or amount of filtering that is applied. For example, in some cases, it may be
> beneficial to not fully remove the physical speaker height cue, or fully apply the reflected
> speaker height cue since only some of the sound from the physical speaker arrives directly to
> the listener (with the remainder being reflected off the ceiling)."




That begs the question.

Does all of that presume that the unfiltered "full range" speaker is flat to 20 kHz in room when measured at the LP?


----------



## markus767

Steve Goff said:


> So the patent describes a system where the filter in the speaker removes the height information for a speaker in that location and the audio dsp adds a filter for the height information of an elevated speaker. The graph shows the combined response of the two filters, not the response of the filter in the speaker.


The patent doesn't state where the filter is applied. FilmMixer claimed that the filter (both) are applied in the Atmos-enabled speaker.


----------



## mry110

SubSolar said:


> Day after getting keys to brand new house:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #Priorities


Slacker. I close on my house Wednesday. I'll have my media room ripped apart on Wednesday. Lol. #pissedwife


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> That begs the question.
> 
> Does all of that presume that the unfiltered "full range" speaker is flat to 20 kHz in room when measured at the LP?


The patent doesn't say if the curve is related to the listening axis, 0°, free field or in-room.


----------



## Steve Goff

markus767 said:


> The patent doesn't state where the filter is applied. FilmMixer claimed that the filter (both) are applied in the Atmos-enabled speaker.



You're right, I read it too quickly. Not sure why the processor has to know that Atmos enabled speakers are used if the combined filter is in the speaker, but it could be so it can redirect the bass/lower midrange to the main speaker.


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> So like the THX thing of the mid/late 1990's, we will now be seeing "Dolby Atmos" or some other wording on speakers....yea their must be some lic fee then
> Like my 1996 Atlantic Technology System 350's were THX Ultra back in the day
> (I'm just benchmarking OE speaker grilles for my DIY speaker/grilles below, and had a pict of the 350 grille to show)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So are all those THX speakers now DOA?
> What does this mean for THX home theater certification?*


Do you still have some LaserDiscs? ...And VHS tapes with THX certification (from FOX for example)? 
...From way back then, in the early 90s, and even before.
...Twenty-five years (a quarter century) ago, plus.


----------



## batpig

Steve Goff said:


> markus767 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The patent doesn't state where the filter is applied. FilmMixer claimed that the filter (both) are applied in the Atmos-enabled speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I read it too quickly. Not sure why the processor has to know that Atmos enabled speakers are used if the combined filter is in the speaker, but it could be so it can redirect the bass/lower midrange to the main speaker.
Click to expand...

Just discussed. It has to know because (1) otherwise the room EQ will attempt to remove the filter notches, (2) the distance / delay calculation needs to be compensated, and (3) what you noted, the special bass management for the Elevation modules where they are paired with a downstairs neighbor speaker.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Steve Goff said:


> You're right, I read it too quickly. Not sure why the processor has to know that Atmos enabled speakers are used if the combined filter is in the speaker, but *it could be so it can redirect the bass/lower midrange to the main speaker.*



I suspect that is what happens. Bass management differs depending on the type of speaker being used.


----------



## NorthSky

>


Looks like couple tumors.



> By the way, "real" HRTFs can be found at https://github.com/jkammerl/libAudio3D/tree/master/data/MIT-KEMAR-HRTFs
> Import the WAVs into REW and you get the magnitude response.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

markus767 said:


> The patent doesn't say if the curve is related to the listening axis, 0°, free field or in-room.




Marcus, have you ever measured a speaker's FR where the test signal is bounced off of the ceiling and compared that measurement with the direct on axis speaker's FR measurement?


----------



## Steve Goff

batpig said:


> Just discussed. It has to know because (1) otherwise the room EQ will attempt to remove the filter notches, (2) the distance / delay calculation needs to be compensated, and (3) what you noted, the special bass management for the Elevation modules where they are paired with a downstairs neighbor speaker.



Ah, of course. Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

tomparis said:


> I'm using the *Pioneer SC-2023, no idea what model this would be in the U.S.*
> 
> The speaker cable for back surrounds is already in place. But I don't want to spent the extra money on them at the moment, because they add so little. And that's from personal experience.


Pioneer Elite *SC-72* ... very most likely (they are the exact same on the back).


----------



## NorthSky

kriktsemaj99 said:


> Using 3 out of the available 7 PEQ filters on a Yamaha will get you this. And presumably those speakers won't need many more filters for room correction if they're crossed over at 180Hz.


Wow, a perfect replica of a Dolby Atmos up-firing speaker module.


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Interesting.
> 
> The AVS group seemed to prefer the Dolby enabled speakers over the ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> "Many of those I spoke with after the demo preferred the upfiring speakers over the ceiling-mounted ones, especially if they were sitting directly beneath one of the ceiling speakers."
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1683954-avs-exclusive-dolby-atmos-demo-cedia-2014-a.html


True, I've read that too. ...People prefer "diffuse" surround sound over "discrete" surround sound.

Why? Because of the envelopment; less precise, less distracting, more realistic like in real-live environments.

Think about it for just a sec: In real-live environments sounds are bouncing off from all type of surfaces.
You walk down the streets with sounds bouncing off from the pavement, from the cars, from the buildings, etc. ...You walk down the forest with sounds bouncing off from the trees, from the rocks along the creeks, from the water running in them creeks, sounds from the birds, the wind in the leaves,the reflections from the lake, the thunder @ distance resonating from the clouds and the trees (lots of wood), and shaking the ground all around (subwoofers). ...The rain falling, the birds and the helicopters and the planes flying above and overhead from back to front and left to right and in depth (3D). 

It all makes perfect sense. If all the sounds were all direct and discrete, it wouldn't be real no more. 
And it also applies in our own home theater rooms, and in our living rooms.
...A balanced amount of absorbing and diffusing panels is key to realistic surround sound envelopment.

And that, is what I deeply believe; scientifically, and logically.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> The patent doesn't state where the filter is applied.
> FilmMixer claimed that the filter (both) are applied in the Atmos-enabled speaker.


He's not claiming; he was told by Dolby staff people.

* And speaking of Marc (FilmMixer); where is that list of Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles? 
He is rather quiet nowadays. ...But today is still CEDIA's last day; till 11:00 PM.


----------



## mtbdudex

North sky, what is your HT setup?
I'd like to see it.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## CinemaAndy

westmd said:


> Sorry but as a general statement this *not true!*
> Minimum setup of Auro is 9.1! That is a standard 5,1 (which everybody should have) and 4 height speakers above L, R, L surround and R surround. depending of the room layout some or all of these speakers can be used for Atmos! Height center and VOG are opzional and without them you still have an excellent Auro experience! For any further Auro questions pop over to the Auro forum!


Well according to this information, that's not true. Then you have half a Auro-3D.


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> North sky, what is your HT setup?
> I'd like to see it.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


My home theater room is a scientific laboratory; it is in constant change. 
First and foremost I am a sound/light explorer; always was. 

Also, I'm not the show-off type person; never was. ...Too many setups over the years, and in too many rooms. And the gear is very secondary to me; the content is King. ...As long as the gear and speakers disappear and that the music and movies are rolling I roll with it. 

* Dolby Atmos is the new game in town; and my present setup is ready, because all my speakers are @ or near ear level right now. I got few plans for them New Dolby Atmos speakers...

My main system (home theater) is very humble (less than fifteen grands, more or less); Integra, Oppo, Rotel, Emotiva, Denon, Samsung, Image, Paradigm, Sony, Toshiba, Definitive Technology, ...

It is a 7.2 setup right now (I did 11.3 before). 
...And I'm aiming for a 7.2.4 for Atmos. 
...And I am extremely ecstatic.

Trust me; there is nothing to show, but everything to see (movies) and hear (music).
Because that's where the bulk of my entertainment pleasure (hobby) goes. 
And I'm a physical type of guy (software); everything on physical discs (movies on Blu, and music on CD/SACD), plus plus plus ... ...Over half million...dollars.

Pictures; I leave it to the the pros. I am not a pro. ...My space is a sanctuary, a forest among all forests.

One day...


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> North sky, what is your HT setup?
> I'd like to see it.


Your home (timber house) and your theater room are simply/phenomenally gorgeous.
...And your surroundings (trees, greeneries, ...) also.

Do you have mountains nearby? ...An ocean or a lake? ..Cascades, chutes, creeks, rivers, moose, bears, bald eagles, whales, ...? 

My mansion is cozy and humble, same as my main entertainment center room. ...You would like.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> My home theater room is a scientific laboratory; it is in constant change.
> First and foremost I am a sound/light explorer; always was.
> 
> Also, I'm not the show-off type person; never was. ...Too many setups over the years, and in too many rooms. And the gear is very secondary to me; the content is King. ...As long as the gear and speakers disappear and that the music and movies are rolling I roll with it.
> 
> * Dolby Atmos is the new game in town; and my present setup is ready, because all my speakers are @ or near ear level right now. I got few plans for them New Dolby Atmos speakers...
> 
> My main system (home theater) is very humble (less than fifteen grands, more or less); Integra, Oppo, Rotel, Emotiva, Denon, Samsung, Image, Paradigm, Sony, Toshiba, Definitive Technology, ...
> 
> It is a 7.2 setup right now (I did 11.3 before).
> ...And I'm aiming for a 7.2.4 for Atmos.
> ...And I am extremely ecstatic.
> 
> Trust me; there is nothing to show, but everything to see (movies) and hear (music).
> Because that's where the bulk of my entertainment pleasure (hobby) goes.
> And I'm a physical type of guy (software); everything on physical discs (movies on Blu, and music on CD/SACD), plus plus plus ... ...Over half million...dollars.
> 
> Pictures; I leave it to the the pros. I am not a pro. ...My space is a sanctuary, a forest among all forests.
> 
> One day...


A mad scientist in his lab


----------



## NorthSky

Alright, back on topic; Atmos elevation.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> Well according to this information, that's not true. Then you have half a *Auro-3D*.


That's right; three layers. ...Horizontal, perpendicular (44° apex), and vertical. ...For the full 3D swing.


----------



## wse

Question if I can only do two ATMOS speakers should the be in front or the back? My intuition tells me the front as our ears are better suited to listen in front of us!


----------



## NorthSky

Front, but very slightly. ...Center overhead would be more like it.

* Up-firing Atmos speakers; only two: Front.


----------



## zeus33

wse said:


> Question if I can only do two ATMOS speakers should the be in front or the back? My intuition tells me the front as our ears are better suited to listen in front of us!



You wouldn't do either. You would locate them as top middle speakers instead. Located at a 65-100 degree angle over the LP.


----------



## NorthSky

Methinks he meant the up-firing type.


----------



## htpcforever

NorthSky said:


> True, I've read that too. ...People prefer "diffuse" surround sound over "discrete" surround sound.



I prefer discrete over diffuse in my home theater - and always have. I am one of the outliers in their studies. In this case, though, it really helps me since all my surrounds are already discreete, just like Atmos wants.


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> Looks like couple tumors.



I concur, but Arnold disagrees...










Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## DS-21

wse said:


> Question if I can only do two ATMOS speakers should the be in front or the back? My intuition tells me the front as our ears are better suited to listen in front of us!


They've shown setups with heights in front but not in back. I've not seen a setup diagram with heights in back but not in front.

I'm really surprised nobody at Dolby or in any demos is talking about 7.M.2, with the surround rears above ear level and height/upfiring channels up front.

For one thing, such a configuration would require much less reconfiguration by people with 7-channel setups, as the traditional advice has been to mount the surround backs up high.

For another, it would make Atmos practicable in more rooms, because often surround backs end up over windows, on top of book-cases, etc. Very few multipurpose rooms allow for ear-level loudspeaker placement on all four walls, and even many dedicated rooms don't!

For a third...we don't hear that well behind us anyway. 

Is there a reason I'm not seeing why this configuration hasn't seemed to get much attention? Is that a 3d gen Atmos thing, when Atmos comes paired with a Trinnov-style multimike probe so that it "knows" where the speaker in the room actually are and remaps channels/objects accordingly?


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> He's not claiming; he was told by Dolby staff people.
> 
> * And speaking of Marc (FilmMixer); where is that list of Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles?
> He is rather quiet nowadays. ...But today is still CEDIA's last day; till 11:00 PM.


I never said I was told by them directly. 

It was relayed to me by someone who was at the show and had a conversation with Dolby reps.

Why he has not hasn't posted the info on his own I don't know. 

I'm still sitting at work finishing off a 105 hour work wee (18th straight day) trying to finish a film that opens 10/17.

Been a little busy. 

Why there haven't been more title announcements I do not know. I do know of many titles that have been mastered, catalog titles being redone and broadcasters ramping up.


----------



## ambesolman

FilmMixer said:


> I'm still sitting at work finishing off a 105 hour work wee (18th straight day) trying to finish a film that opens 10/17.



Slacker


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Orbitron

Is this typical, several days rushing to finish a mix?


----------



## NorthSky

Hi Marc,

I was assuming that you were busy mixing. And I was right.

Everything is fine; you relayed to us what you learned (heard) from your reliable source anyway.
...Regarding the notch filter inside the up-firing Dolby Atmos top module speaker.

And we were waiting for more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles to be released, as that "little bird" told you before,
and you said that we won't be disappointed.


----------



## Skylinestar

DS-21 said:


> They've shown setups with heights in front but not in back. I've not seen a setup diagram with heights in back but not in front.
> 
> I'm really surprised nobody at Dolby or in any demos is talking about 7.M.2, with the surround rears above ear level and height/upfiring channels up front.
> 
> For one thing, such a configuration would require much less reconfiguration by people with 7-channel setups, as the traditional advice has been to mount the surround backs up high.
> 
> For another, it would make Atmos practicable in more rooms, because often surround backs end up over windows, on top of book-cases, etc. Very few multipurpose rooms allow for ear-level loudspeaker placement on all four walls, and even many dedicated rooms don't!
> 
> For a third...we don't hear that well behind us anyway.
> 
> Is there a reason I'm not seeing why this configuration hasn't seemed to get much attention? Is that a 3d gen Atmos thing, when Atmos comes paired with a Trinnov-style multimike probe so that it "knows" where the speaker in the room actually are and remaps channels/objects accordingly?


Auro3D is the easier upgrade path in your case.


----------



## westmd

CinemaAndy said:


> Well according to this information, that's not true. Then you have half a Auro-3D.


But then Atmos in a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 is just a cut down version from the cinema and not the real deal as cinemas have a much higher amount of speakers.

Fact is Auro works really well in a 9.1 setup. Is it *better* in an 11.1 or 13.1 setup most likely. Will Atmos be [Bbetter[/B]in 9.1.6 setup most likely as well.

The sky is the limit so additional channels will for both system be good burt*not mandatory!*


----------



## batpig

I picked up a pair of the Definitive Technology A60 Atmos modules today at my local Best Buy Magnolia. Nicely packaged (come in individually wrapped brown cloth bags), nice build quality. It doesn't look like the whole top grille comes off (at least I wasn't going to pull hard enough to break it) but you can see in the photo below that this speaker has a LOT of foam surrounding the single up-firing driver (not just in front but on each side.


----------



## NorthSky

Key word: Scalable.

* In reply to post number 7709


----------



## batpig

Because of the quirks of my particular setup I am probably going to end up with a pair of Atmos modules on the console just inside the front L/R speakers. Here's a couple of photos showing before/after adding the Def Tech A60's.



















Fairly unobtrusive as far as adding two extra speakers up front go; this is one of the best innovations of Atmos, being able to add "virtual ceiling speakers" as the WAF is much higher than physically mounting speakers up high. A great boon to the living room HT for those of us without dedicated rooms. I'm in a situation where it would be very difficult to do it even if my wife didn't care, so I have basically sat on the sidelines with a 5.1 setup and not added heights for PLIIz, then DSX and then Neo:X. But the Elevation module opens the door for me.

Haven't had a chance to recalibrate or do much testing but will report soon.

One more close-up of how they integrate into my setup (please don't mind the corner bumpers or other accoutrements of parenthood):


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audioguy said:


> Sort of off topic but: I am at CEDIA and saw 4 Atmos presentations and one Auro presentation. I was underwhelmed by every Atmos demo I heard regardless of the cost of the system. The JBL Synthesis system audio was over the top (with hardware costs at about $140,000 and 32 speakers). And while the audio was spectacular, the envelopment increase from switching to Atmos was nice but certainly not enough for me to have invested in it.
> 
> The Auro demo, on the other hand with about 15 less speakers (and probably $100,000 less in hardware) was soooooooo much better and enveloping and three dimensional. And we learned that Denon and Marantz will be making that available hopefully by year end. So you get Atmos, Auro and Audyssey X32 in one box. That will be my next purchase!!
> 
> But contrary to what some have suggested, the Atmos speaker configuration will be far less than optimal for Auros (that is according to what we were told by Auro and when they explained why the configure the speakers the way they do. So if you are looking for one best solution, choose carefully!!


Yes, the Auro3D demo was quite good. The James Loudspeakers, which I had never heard, were mostly spectacular. Auro was excellent when used with ambient, multichannel recordings rather than synthetic and far too busy Hollywood soundtracks (similar issues cropped up with Atmos, especially using the T4 clip - yuck!). However, I had a few issues with Auro as presented at CEDIA. The single, mono VOG arrangement called attention to itself time after time during hard overhead pans. It doesn't work as well as the split stereo overheads in Atmos. Music was a mixed bag, though fidelity was very good (perhaps due to the speakers and amps utilized??). I could not hear the surrounds in either music clip... the pipe organ or the symphony orchestra clips. The size and scope of the pipes were well recreated in the front height speakers, but the orchestral track sounded weird. It was like the orchestra was taller than wide. The heights were too aggressive and should have contained mostly hall ambiance. It was one of those symphony recordings that could have benefited from Atmos' expanded screen array approach with hall ambiance surrounding you from above, sides, and the rear. 

There are little niggling issues with both formats, frankly, and I think that if a sound system came out with ultra-high fidelity, wall height speakers, and the split stereo overheads as well (and with the system scalability of object rendering)... you would practically have the best immersive audio experience for the foreseeable future.


----------



## westmd

PoshFrosh said:


> Last night, I got my Top Front / Top Rear speakers installed (pictures attached) for 7.2.4
> I didn't want to drill into the popcorn ceiling, so I created a creative workaround:
> My mains are only a foot and a half out from the walls, and since the top speakers are supposed to be "in-line" with them, I got 18" shelf brackets and mounted small speakers to them.
> (Equipment: four 18" shelf brackets, four omnimount 10.0s, scrap wood, three monoprice cable management kits, sixteen 3M command hanging strips, four Energy V-minis, speaker wire, *total cost: about $440*)
> The tiny speakers are from the same "family" as my other Energy speakers, so the timbre matching issue should be small to nonexistent.
> The speakers end up being about 7 feet from the floor (well above head-height) and about 8 feet diagonally from the MLP (5 feet laterally), so I think they will be far enough away to avoid locatlization problems (although SBIR will be something I am unable to address [i.e. ceiling mounted acoustic material is a no go]).
> The *girlfriend gave me one of those looks*, but I think it's gonna be okay. (She was way more upset about the acoustic treatments [also pictured] than the "ceiling" speakers).
> I get my Denon 5200 later today. I can't wait to hook it all up.  (Still have to run the speaker wire, and of course swap AVRs and run Audyssey)


PoshFrosh, a very nice and interesting read! I have still got a question. As far as I see it you worked with height soeakers and no in ceiling or Atmos enabled speakers, correct? Could you please tell me the angles you have to these speakers. I calculated my room once for Atmos with height speakers and MLP would have changed significantly to my current setup if I would have stayed in Dolbys recommended angles.
.
Thanks


----------



## Mre_man

Currently researching my next avr or pre/pro, which will be atmos capable but specifically my question relates to hdcp 2.2 protection. Some of the brands I'm considering do not offer hdcp 2.2 and currently I use my Ps4 for to watch BD's. Once I upgrade to a 4k display will I have handshaking issues going forward using the ps4 to watch BD's since at the moment I don't think the ps4 has hdmi 2.0 or hdcp 2.2, especially if I get a receiver or pre/pro that doesn't have hdcp 2.2?


----------



## markus767

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Marcus, have you ever measured a speaker's FR where the test signal is bounced off of the ceiling and compared that measurement with the direct on axis speaker's FR measurement?


I did but the results are hard to interpret.
The response has two parts. First, lower frequencies reach the listening position. After several milliseconds the higher frequency part arrives. How to combine these two responses so they show what is perceived?
Another problem is that the response is significantly cluttered with room reflections.

To get useful data one would probably need to drag the whole setup outside to something like a parking lot and use the ground to emulate a ceiling-like reflection.


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> The single, mono VOG arrangement called attention to itself time after time during hard overhead pans. It doesn't work as well as the split stereo overheads in Atmos.


Thanks Dan for your valuable feedback. I was worried a little bit of the single mono VOG directly overhead the listeners. I have a very low ceiling so the risk of this happening would be even higher.
I am actually thinking of using the top fron in- celing speakers which are dedicated to Atmos in the Auro mode as stereo VOG. This way the distance would be higher and the stereo effect would distribute the sound a little bit better!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Dolby reps at CEDIA.





FilmMixer said:


> I never said I was told by them directly.
> 
> It was relayed to me by someone who was at the show and had a conversation with Dolby reps.


Did anybody talk to Dolby directly? Verbal information doesn't tend to get more accurate the more people it has to pass...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I'm going to go against some of the grain here and state that from what I heard at CEDIA - and I heard a lot of Atmos and one big demo of Auro3D (setup by "the man" himself, Wilfried Van Baelen - he was at the Atmos/Auro panel) - I would only choose the Atmos "enabled" speakers as a weapon of last resort, and not some kind of mystical panacea. 

It's inconsistent and the quality of the height effect varies wildly with content. The enabled speakers and Dolby psychoacoustic "trick" seem to work best when there is a strong Doppler effect happening such as with thunderstorms, jets flying overhead, and the like. Otherwise, it seems to sound similar to one of those synthetic DSP modes in a Sony or Yamaha receiver that you lay on top of a stereo track. Yes, it gives you a sense of a wider spaciousness around the speaker, but the illusion of something going on above you becomes minimal and more in line with a Mirage omnipole design from a while ago. While talking with other CEDIA attendees I normally got similar feedback: enabled speakers are fairly good, but not great. In order to get the full effect of a 3D mix, you need to go with ceiling speakers. 

This bears repeating: Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixing is far more effectively three-dimensional with properly chosen, properly located physical ceiling speakers... and again, timbre matched as closely as possible to the rest of the mains and surrounds. This really became crystal clear to me during the Trinnov/Procella, Denon/Snell and Steinway presentations. 

If you design a home Atmos theater system willy-nilly, you will not be getting your money's worth. It really takes proper planning and a lot more care (almost to the minutia) for Atmos to work its optimal magic in your home. It's not IMHO as forgiving as Dolby would like you to believe... unless you have fantastic calibration software as in the Trinnov and Steinway processors that can work wonders.


----------



## kbarnes701

IgorZep said:


> True, except that factual/statistical data is not patentable. Sure anyone can still be trolled if they repeat that three biquads that Markus shown...


True, but then if it's so obvious, they wouldn't be able to patent it anyway (to get a patent granted lack of "obviousness" is essential).


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> I realize they don't sell speakers directly but they are a business...the object is to make money. I am not knocking them for that at all...that is the point of any business. They don't put the word dolby on these speakers for free. It is a marketing and/or revenue stream for them.....and thats ok.


Yes, agreed. It should come as no surprise to anyone that speaker manufacturers want to sell us more speakers. But the requirement to buy more speakers in no way negates the technical reasons or benefits of doing so. Some members seem to feel that the need to buy more speakers makes the whole business of Atmos some sort of 'marketing scam'.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Got an even better fit with 4


Gosh - how easy it is! (When someone else has already done it first).


----------



## kbarnes701

toothsavers said:


> If you have an Atmos AVR and you want to play a legacy 5.1/7.1 disc encoded with Dolby or DTS codecs then you can use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) which will upmix this legacy content to as many speakers as your Atmos system includes (but not Wides Thanks-are you implying that the DSU will automatically be used instead of the coded sound track(DTS master-7.1/5.1 ) or it will be my choice to either use DSU or DTS master.What would be the difference using DSU compared to DTS master?


DSU is just an upmixer, like PLIIx or Neo:X. You can choose to use it, or not.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Because of the quirks of my particular setup I am probably going to end up with a pair of Atmos modules on the console just inside the front L/R speakers. Here's a couple of photos showing before/after adding the Def Tech A60's.
> 
> 
> Fairly unobtrusive as far as adding two extra speakers up front go; this is one of the best innovations of Atmos, being able to add "virtual ceiling speakers" as the WAF is much higher than physically mounting speakers up high. A great boon to the living room HT for those of us without dedicated rooms. I'm in a situation where it would be very difficult to do it even if my wife didn't care, so I have basically sat on the sidelines with a 5.1 setup and not added heights for PLIIz, then DSX and then Neo:X. But the Elevation module opens the door for me.
> 
> Haven't had a chance to recalibrate or do much testing but will report soon.
> 
> One more close-up of how they integrate into my setup (please don't mind the corner bumpers or other accoutrements of parenthood):


Very nice, batpig. Shows very clearly one aspect of home Atmos which is sheer genius IMO: how to bring it home without having to physically put speakers on the ceiling, something probably 1% of the potential market is able or willing to do. That's the winning feature of home Atmos IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm going to go against some of the grain here and state that from what I heard at CEDIA - and I heard a lot of Atmos and one big demo of Auro3D (setup by "the man" himself, Wilfried Van Baelen - he was at the Atmos/Auro panel) - I would only choose the Atmos "enabled" speakers as a weapon of last resort, and not some kind of mystical panacea.
> 
> It's inconsistent and the quality of the height effect varies wildly with content. The enabled speakers and Dolby psychoacoustic "trick" seem to work best when there is a strong Doppler effect happening such as with thunderstorms, jets flying overhead, and the like. Otherwise, it seems to sound similar to one of those synthetic DSP modes in a Sony or Yamaha receiver that you lay on top of a stereo track. Yes, it gives you a sense of a wider spaciousness around the speaker, but the illusion of something going on above you becomes minimal and more in line with a Mirage omnipole design from a while ago. While talking with other CEDIA attendees I normally got similar feedback: enabled speakers are fairly good, but not great. In order to get the full effect of a 3D mix, you need to go with ceiling speakers.
> 
> This bears repeating: Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixing is far more effectively three-dimensional with properly chosen, properly located physical ceiling speakers... and again, timbre matched as closely as possible to the rest of the mains and surrounds. This really became crystal clear to me during the Trinnov/Procella, Denon/Snell and Steinway presentations.


That's interesting because it isn't what I heard on the two separate Dolby, London demos I went to. I hear very little difference between Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers - the difference being that the former were a little more diffuse and the latter a little more precise, but 'little' is the word. And at those demos nobody could reliably even tell which set of speakers was playing anyway.

So, given your experience, this would seem to indicate that it is important to set the system up properly. I can't really see any other obvious explanation for the discrepancies between what you heard and what I heard.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*IBC Amsterdam*

FYI, I have decided to visit IBC tomorrow. 

Will try and visit the stands of Dolby (Atmos and Dolby Vision), DTS (Headphone:X), NHK (8K television), FTV ('holo-deck'), BBC (object based media), and Video Stich (360 recordings for Oculus Rift). 

I also will attend a 1.5 hour forum discussion on Immersive Audio with Auro, Barco, Dolby and DTS delegates including demonstrations on Big Screen.

The day ends with a world first presentation of 'Dawn of the planet of the apes' on a 14 fL 3D Christie 6p laser projection screen with Dolby Atmos 40+ QSC speakers. We will see, hear, and report back...

Any suggestions for where to pay additional attention to are welcomed!


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> I picked up a pair of the Definitive Technology A60 Atmos modules today at my local Best Buy Magnolia.


I didn't take any photos  but I got to see the Pioneer Atmos bookshelves yesterday in local BB-Mag, the very same one I've complained about  looks like they are getting their act together.

the speakers are very nice looking, the finish is better than I expected and the speakers are have a nice solid feel to them. they had only 1 pair in stock, brand new in box and were nice enough to get the box, and take out the speaker for me to look at it on the counter. they said this was supposed to be their demo pair for an Atmos setup so they were OK opening the box up. 

from aesthetics, build quality, finish dept, these easily look worth the $750/pr cost. I think Pioneer has a winner. 

this week, I'll probably go back and buy them if they'll sell me the demo set or get at least 1 pair on order.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> FYI, I have decided to visit IBC tomorrow.
> 
> Will try and visit the stands of Dolby (Atmos and Dolby Vision), DTS (Headphone:X), NHK (8K television), FTV ('holo-deck'), BBC (object based media), and Video Stich (360 recordings for Oculus Rift).
> 
> I also will attend a 1.5 hour forum discussion on Immersive Audio with Auro, Barco, Dolby and DTS delegates including demonstrations on Big Screen.
> 
> The day ends with a world first presentation of 'Dawn of the planet of the apes' on a 14 fL 3D Christie 6p laser projection screen with Dolby Atmos 40+ QSC speakers. We will see, hear, and report back...
> 
> Any suggestions for where to pay additional attention to are welcomed!


Pay attention to the crowd scenes where the apes are shouting stuff out. I heard very precise positional information of individual apes' voices, as well as all-round 'crowd noise'. The precision of placement of the apes' voices was almost scary in the way it sounded real. At the end there is a big fight scene which takes place on a collapsing tower - listen out for the height placement of sounds there. Also, assuming the theater has L, LOC, C, ROC and R speakers behind the screen, listen for how precisely the on-screen voices are matched with the on-screen position of the actors.

But most of all, it's a great movie, so enjoy!


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> The day ends with a world first presentation of 'Dawn of the planet of the apes' on a 14 fL 3D Christie 6p laser projection screen with Dolby Atmos 40+ QSC speakers. We will see, hear, and report back...
> 
> Any suggestions for where to pay additional attention to are welcomed!


When the apes are swinging through the trees, listen for the sound of leaves/branches rustling above you. 

There is also a quick moment when some humans are running away from the apes and hide under a large fallen tree. As the apes cross the log, the camera cuts to a close up of the humans. During this shot, listen for the sounds of the apes above you. 

Aside from the technical stuff, the movie has a good story that is well told.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> I picked up a pair of the Definitive Technology A60 Atmos modules today at my local Best Buy Magnolia.


Would you mind opening one up and see/show how much filter components there are in one?


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, the Auro3D demo was quite good. The James Loudspeakers, which I had never heard, were mostly spectacular. Auro was excellent when used with ambient, multichannel recordings rather than synthetic and far too busy Hollywood soundtracks (similar issues cropped up with Atmos, especially using the T4 clip - yuck!). However, I had a few issues with Auro as presented at CEDIA. The single, mono VOG arrangement called attention to itself time after time during hard overhead pans. It doesn't work as well as the split stereo overheads in Atmos. Music was a mixed bag, though fidelity was very good (perhaps due to the speakers and amps utilized??). I could not hear the surrounds in either music clip... the pipe organ or the symphony orchestra clips. The size and scope of the pipes were well recreated in the front height speakers, but the orchestral track sounded weird. It was like the orchestra was taller than wide. The heights were too aggressive and should have contained mostly hall ambiance. It was one of those symphony recordings that could have benefited from Atmos' expanded screen array approach with hall ambiance surrounding you from above, sides, and the rear.
> 
> There are little niggling issues with both formats, frankly, and I think that if a sound system came out with ultra-high fidelity, wall height speakers, and the split stereo overheads as well (and with the system scalability of object rendering)... you would practically have the best immersive audio experience for the foreseeable future.


Since our experiences were so vastly different, I can only assume we sat in completely different places. For example, the organ piece gave me way more than height information as it did everyone on my row: we were IN that church.

Just like the seating position in my much smaller 7.2 system provides a different experience.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Any suggestions for where to pay additional attention to are welcomed!


Please let us know where the speakers were mounted. When I was watching Apes in Atmos the sounds were placed annoyingly high. Everything sounded like coming from the ceiling corners. That's probably exactly how it is supposed to sound because there are no surround speakers that could make any sound to appear at ear level height.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Would you mind opening one up and see/show how much filter components there are in one?


The number of components doesn't tell much. I would simply measure the crossover with a sweep. This shows exactly what it does.


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> True, but then if it's so obvious, they wouldn't be able to patent it anyway (to get a patent granted lack of "obviousness" is essential).


If it was true and the 'obviousness' requirement would be checked there would be no trolls patenting 'one button click sale' and similar things and then threatening to sue everyone and collect some money on stupidly basic things. You could easily get such patent and there are lots of them in the field that are creating really big problems for innovation.

But here is another thing - you cannot patent something that is property of the nature. You can measure HRTF and keep it secret, and so - use for your advantage. But you cannot protect it, as anyone else could measure it also and get the same (or statistically close) result.

Also, if something is mentioned in the patent it doesn't mean it is the subject of what is protected. And... the use of reflections to create 'virtual speaker' together with HRTF processing is also not at all the new idea and it has extensive prior art (see soundbars).


----------



## chi_guy50

ss9001 said:


> I didn't take any photos  but I got to see the Pioneer Atmos bookshelves yesterday in local BB-Mag, the very same one I've complained about  looks like they are getting their act together.
> 
> the speakers are very nice looking, the finish is better than I expected and the speakers are have a nice solid feel to them. they had only 1 pair in stock, brand new in box and were nice enough to get the box, and take out the speaker for me to look at it on the counter. they said this was supposed to be their demo pair for an Atmos setup so they were OK opening the box up.
> 
> from aesthetics, build quality, finish dept, these easily look worth the $750/pr cost. I think Pioneer has a winner.
> 
> this week, I'll probably go back and buy them if they'll sell me the demo set or get at least 1 pair on order.


Steve,

Could you tell us which Atlanta-area store you are referring to?


----------



## markus767

kriktsemaj99 said:


> Using 3 out of the available 7 PEQ filters on a Yamaha will get you this. And presumably those speakers won't need many more filters for room correction if they're crossed over at 180Hz.


Now get a cheap full range driver, glue (use caulk that turns into a rubbery substance) it in a cardboard box filled with some polyester stuffing (buy a pillow at IKEA) and you're Atmos-ready


----------



## kbarnes701

IgorZep said:


> If it was true and the 'obviousness' requirement would be checked there would be no trolls patenting 'one button click sale' and similar things and then threatening to sue everyone and collect some money on stupidly basic things. You could easily get such patent and there are lots of them in the field that are creating really big problems for innovation.


I am married to a Patent Attorney  It is definitely true that for a patent to be granted the subject has to be innovative, not obvious and not already in the public domain.



IgorZep said:


> But here is another thing - you cannot patent something that is property of the nature. You can measure HRTF and keep it secret, and so - use for your advantage. But you cannot protect it, as anyone else could measure it also and get the same (or statistically close) result.


That is true. You would have to develop some process that made unique, innovative, not-obvious etc use of HRTF. Then you could patent the process.



IgorZep said:


> Also, if something is mentioned in the patent it doesn't mean it is the subject of what is protected. And... the use of reflections to create 'virtual speaker' together with HRTF processing is also not at all the new idea and it has extensive prior art (see soundbars).


You can’t patent anything that is already in the public domain or has been revealed in any way, to anyone, publicly.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Did anybody talk to Dolby directly? Verbal information doesn't tend to get more accurate the more people it has to pass...


Markus..

This one person talked directly to Dolby.

Why they haven't posted the info personally I don't know.

It's not a telephone situation... one of the most reliable people we _all_ know..

It's accurate..


----------



## ss9001

chi_guy50 said:


> Steve,
> 
> Could you tell us which Atlanta-area store you are referring to?



Town Center BB-Mag Kennesaw

Altho I didn't demo any of their ceiling speakers yesterday, the guys assured me they have the speaker room fixed. take that for what it's worth 

only 1 pr of the Pio bookshelf speakers which they said they were going to use in an Atmos setup most likely in PJ room because they can't put in-ceilings in that room due to ceiling construction. the 1 guy on Sat actually had been to Atmos training last week so they're finally making progress on learning what it's about  I asked when they'd have more in and he wasn't sure but I imagine it wouldn't be more than several weeks. just guessing of course  they also had the towers NIB but I didn't ask them to open them up. my guess is their setup will be 5.1.4, 2 towers, 2 bookshelves & the AJ center.


----------



## FilmMixer

Audioholics Atmos Enabled Speakers Ears on Report

http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/pioneer-elite-speakers

"*Our initial reaction to this idea was pretty skeptical.* However, since Pioneer's announcement we've learned that there's more to Atmos-enabled speakers than meets the eye. A high pass filter is applied to the up-firing array at 180Hz in the AV receivers bass management when you select "Atmos speaker", easing its burden considerably. In addition, Dolby has formulated a bit of DSP magic which they claim will allow an Atmos-enabled speaker to convincingly pull off the illusion of height. The big question is: how well does it actually work? Fortunately, we were able to score some demo time with a full Pioneer Elite theater system at CEDIA, so we're able to answer that question. _*Suffice it to say that in spite of our initial skepticism, we walked away duly impressed with what Pioneer is offering. *_While an Atmos-enabled speaker doesn't necessarily deliver the exact same as an in-ceiling speaker, the Pioneers were able to pull off height effects quite effectively, including a thunderstorm raging over our heads. After our experiences in the demo room, we would definitely like to get these in-house for a bit of further testing and evaluation."


----------



## primetimeguy

primetimeguy said:


> The response somewhat resembles THX surround mode processing.


And I find in interesting how a lot of people said they would never use a THX mode because of this, but doesn't seem to deter people from Atmos.


----------



## ss9001

markus767 said:


> Now get a cheap full range driver, glue (use caulk that turns into a rubbery substance) it in a cardboard box filled with some polyester stuffing (buy a pillow at IKEA) and you're Atmos-ready


you could set up a small cottage industry with those


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I think this question might have been addressed earlier in this thread but it's getting a little complicated... bipolar speakers = good or bad for surrounds on Atmos? I'm trying to choose between Klipsch SB2's or SS1's.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I think this question might have been addressed earlier in this thread but it's getting a little complicated... bipolar speakers = good or bad for surrounds on Atmos? I'm trying to choose between Klipsch SB2's or SS1's.


It's been discussed at length. Should be an easy find if you search on dipole and/or bipole.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, agreed. It should come as no surprise to anyone that speaker manufacturers want to sell us more speakers. But the requirement to buy more speakers in no way negates the technical reasons or benefits of doing so. *Some members seem to feel that the need to buy more speakers makes the whole business of Atmos some sort of 'marketing scam'*.




Perhaps the requirement that one must add additional speakers in awkward places makes Atmos DOA in a lot of home settings!


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> The number of components doesn't tell much. I would simply measure the crossover with a sweep. This shows exactly what it does.


The number zero would say a lot.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> The number zero would say a lot.


I expect more to see than a zero from the "Dolby Atmos-certified special network"


----------



## markus767

primetimeguy said:


> And I find in interesting how a lot of people said they would never use a THX mode because of this, but doesn't seem to deter people from Atmos.


Guess that's the difference when you tell people what the processing is supposed to do. I've found zero information about those THX modes.


----------



## mike_carton

FilmMixer said:


> ...
> I do know of many titles that have been mastered, catalog titles being redone and broadcasters ramping up.


Firsthand?

Broadcasters (as in more than 1) are ramping up to send lossless audio with embedded ATMOS object substream to homes?


----------



## markus767

ss9001 said:


> you could set up a small cottage industry with those


Actually I would love to do a DIY home theater speaker set completely made out of cardboard. People would be mighty surprised how good it can sound when correctly integrated into a room.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

mike_carton said:


> Firsthand?
> 
> Broadcasters (as in more than 1) are ramping up to send lossless audio with embedded ATMOS object substream to homes?




Is that a new definition of what a "broadcaster" is?


----------



## bargervais

markus767 said:


> Now get a cheap full range driver, glue (use caulk that turns into a rubbery substance) it in a cardboard box filled with some polyester stuffing (buy a pillow at IKEA) and you're Atmos-ready


So all I need are four cardboard boxes I have old pillows I can recycle them, hmm. Might give it a try.


----------



## mike_carton

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Is that a new definition of what a "broadcaster" is?


Not sure what you mean. Broadcasters do send out OTA transmissions for people to receive at homes. Even when coming through cable providers, the audio data is meant to be received at homes mostly.


----------



## sdurani

primetimeguy said:


> The response somewhat resembles THX surround mode processing.


Surround mode processing? Do you mean their Re-EQ feature?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> That's interesting because it isn't what I heard on the two separate Dolby, London demos I went to. I hear very little difference between Atmos speakers and ceiling speakers - the difference being that the former were a little more diffuse and the latter a little more precise, but 'little' is the word. And at those demos nobody could reliably even tell which set of speakers was playing anyway.
> 
> So, given your experience, this would seem to indicate that it is important to set the system up properly. I can't really see any other obvious explanation for the discrepancies between what you heard and what I heard.


From everything you described about how Dolby set up their ceiling speakers at the two press events it leads me to believe they didn't do it correctly. At CEDIA, except for the Onkyo booth that did a budget slick and a promise system, most of the "partners" took some care in doing a carefully calibrated and laid out Atmos array. Even Dolby switched over to timbre matched, retail Triad speakers. The four timbre matched Triad in-ceilings were placed where they fired at the MLP rather than straight down. They even made a comment that they found out AVS Forum members don't like to be "tricked" with their overhead demos.  

Once you hear a properly configured Atmos system, you'll hear so much more cohesiveness with the real overheads along with the main level speakers. Star Trek had a quick scene of the Enterprise's shuttle pod descending and swooping in from over your head and it sounded more convincing and had more weight and presence than the "enabled" version of that same scene. You could even hear the spears swooshing over your head as McCoy and Kirk were running through the jungle far more distinctly with the overheads. The Enrique Iglesias music video had singers and instruments swirling around the room and from above and the physical overheads placed them far more convincingly. 

It just all locked into place, even when I was standing in a less than ideal location at one of the bigger Atmos demos. I couldn't say that for the up-firing speakers. 

Keith, you should have been there! I really think you would have come away with a similar response. _Fantastic_ is the word to describe the better full Atmos demos.


----------



## markus767

bargervais said:


> So all I need are four cardboard boxes I have old pillows I can recycle them, hmm. Might give it a try.


Just make sure the boxes are reasonably air tight and have the same size.
The stuffing has to be polyester, not feathers. It looks like this:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ss9001 said:


> I didn't take any photos  but I got to see the Pioneer Atmos bookshelves yesterday in local BB-Mag, the very same one I've complained about  looks like they are getting their act together.
> 
> the speakers are very nice looking, the finish is better than I expected and the speakers are have a nice solid feel to them. they had only 1 pair in stock, brand new in box and were nice enough to get the box, and take out the speaker for me to look at it on the counter. they said this was supposed to be their demo pair for an Atmos setup so they were OK opening the box up.
> 
> from aesthetics, build quality, finish dept, these easily look worth the $750/pr cost. I think Pioneer has a winner.
> 
> this week, I'll probably go back and buy them if they'll sell me the demo set or get at least 1 pair on order.


They sound pretty amazing too given their price point with a good sub. The towers are even better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audioguy said:


> Since our experiences were so vastly different, I can only assume we sat in completely different places. For example, the organ piece gave me way more than height information as it did everyone on my row: we were IN that church.
> 
> Just like the seating position in my much smaller 7.2 system provides a different experience.


I sat in the front row. The front screen and height speakers dominated during the musical sequences. The "live," in-field multi-mic ambiance recordings were far more impressive and I could definitely hear sounds all around. Unfortunately, that's where I heard the mono VOG rear up out of the mix. It kind of threw off the overhead pan effect because it brought attention to itself. Far too localized and mono-ized. People sitting around me pretty much came to the same conclusion. I believe, if memory serves, Scott Simonian, who was sitting next to me in the same row heard similar issues. He'll have to give you his own impressions.

To be fair to both systems, we need a demo that has James Loudspeakers positioned at both Auro and Atmos layouts with similar material miced for each format and then do an apples to apples comparison. Great ambient recordings can sound superb and very 3D-like even through binaural headphones, so I give props to the recordists more than the Auro system here.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, the Auro3D demo was quite good. The James Loudspeakers, which I had never heard, were mostly spectacular. Auro was excellent when used with ambient, multichannel recordings rather than synthetic and far too busy Hollywood soundtracks (similar issues cropped up with Atmos, especially using the T4 clip - yuck!). However, I had a few issues with Auro as presented at CEDIA. The single, mono VOG arrangement called attention to itself time after time during hard overhead pans. It doesn't work as well as the split stereo overheads in Atmos. Music was a mixed bag, though fidelity was very good (perhaps due to the speakers and amps utilized??). I could not hear the surrounds in either music clip... the pipe organ or the symphony orchestra clips. The size and scope of the pipes were well recreated in the front height speakers, but the orchestral track sounded weird. It was like the orchestra was taller than wide. The heights were too aggressive and should have contained mostly hall ambiance. It was one of those symphony recordings that could have benefited from Atmos' expanded screen array approach with hall ambiance surrounding you from above, sides, and the rear.
> 
> There are little niggling issues with both formats, frankly, and I think that if a sound system came out with ultra-high fidelity, wall height speakers, and the split stereo overheads as well (and with the system scalability of object rendering)... you would practically have the best immersive audio experience for the foreseeable future.


Dan--are you referring to the Datasat High Performance room demo? They had 20 speakers as per Datasat, and IIRC five lower speakers (LCR and back surrounds), a middle layer of five speakers parallel to the lower five (fronts behind the screens), two pairs of side surrounds (middle and lower) on each side wall, and finally two speakers on the ceilings as VOG. Plus subs. I was skeptical about speaker count but they confirmed when I asked in the followup Q and A.


----------



## NorthSky

IgorZep said:


> If it was true and the 'obviousness' requirement would be checked there would be no trolls patenting 'one button click sale' and similar things and then threatening to sue everyone and collect some money on stupidly basic things. You could easily get such patent and there are lots of them in the field that are creating really big problems for innovation.
> 
> But here is another thing - you cannot patent something that is property of the nature. You can measure HRTF and keep it secret, and so - use for your advantage. But you cannot protect it, as anyone else could measure it also and get the same (or statistically close) result.
> 
> Also, if something is mentioned in the patent it doesn't mean it is the subject of what is protected. And... the use of reflections to create 'virtual speaker' together with HRTF processing is also not at all the new idea and it has extensive prior art (see soundbars).


And the laws on patents are different in each country...


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Audioholics Atmos Enabled Speakers Ears on Report
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/pioneer-elite-speakers
> 
> "*Our initial reaction to this idea was pretty skeptical.* However, since Pioneer's announcement we've learned that there's more to Atmos-enabled speakers than meets the eye. A high pass filter is applied to the up-firing array at 180Hz in the AV receivers bass management when you select "Atmos speaker", easing its burden considerably. In addition, Dolby has formulated a bit of DSP magic which they claim will allow an Atmos-enabled speaker to convincingly pull off the illusion of height. The big question is: how well does it actually work? Fortunately, we were able to score some demo time with a full Pioneer Elite theater system at CEDIA, so we're able to answer that question. _*Suffice it to say that in spite of our initial skepticism, we walked away duly impressed with what Pioneer is offering. *_While an Atmos-enabled speaker doesn't necessarily deliver the exact same as an in-ceiling speaker, the Pioneers were able to pull off height effects quite effectively, including a thunderstorm raging over our heads. After our experiences in the demo room, we would definitely like to get these in-house for a bit of further testing and evaluation."


Interesting now Marc. ...And it's fun too to read the forum poster's comments. ... _Birdy_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan--are you referring to the Datasat High Performance room demo? They had 20 speakers as per Datasat, and IIRC five lower speakers (LCR and back surrounds), a middle layer of five speakers parallel to the lower five, two pairs of side surrounds (middle and lower) on each side wall, and finally two speakers on the ceilings as VOG. Plus subs. I was skeptical about speaker count but they confirmed when I asked in the followup Q and A.


Hey! Great to meet finally meet you at CEDIA and chat at Bubba Gump's! How was the rest of your tour of the various Atmos demos? Any one in particular stick out to you?

Yeah, I was talking about the big Auro3D demo in one of the auditoriums downstairs with the James Loudspeakers.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Actually I would love to do a DIY home theater speaker set completely made out of cardboard.
> People would be mighty surprised how good it can sound when correctly integrated into a room.


You could also use real wood; it looks nicer, and women seem to prefer too.  
...And I bet it sounds better as well.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Just make sure the boxes are reasonably air tight and have the same size.
> The stuffing has to be polyester, not feathers. It looks like this:


Looks like Atmos in the Cloud, above.


----------



## primetimeguy

sdurani said:


> Surround mode processing? Do you mean their Re-EQ feature?


Nope, per the image I posted you can see the wavy frequency response of the surrounds. The image is not mine, stole it from the audyssey thread but I have similar measurements.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> You could also use real wood; it looks nicer, and women seem to prefer too.
> ...And I bet it sounds better as well.


The idea here is to create something everybody can build without the need for power tools. 90% of sound quality for 10% of the money, not 90% of the money for 10% better sound.


----------



## markus767

primetimeguy said:


> Nope, per the image I posted you can see the wavy frequency response of the surrounds. The image is not mine, stole it from the audyssey thread but I have similar measurements.


I think I've seen that graph before


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> From everything you described about how Dolby set up their ceiling speakers at the two press events it leads me to believe they didn't do it correctly. At CEDIA, except for the Onkyo booth that did a budget slick and a promise system, most of the "partners" took some care in doing a carefully calibrated and laid out Atmos array. Even Dolby switched over to timbre matched, retail Triad speakers. The four timbre matched Triad in-ceilings were placed where they fired at the MLP rather than straight down. They even made a comment that they found out AVS Forum members don't like to be "tricked" with their overhead demos.


You really think that Dolby had set up their demo in London _wrongly_, twice? I don't think so, or it wouldn't have sounded fantastic to everyone.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Once you hear a properly configured Atmos system, you'll hear so much more cohesiveness with the real overheads along with the main level speakers.


LOL. I have. Twice.  



Dan Hitchman said:


> Star Trek had a quick scene of the Enterprise's shuttle pod descending and swooping in from over your head and it sounded more convincing and had more weight and presence than the "enabled" version of that same scene. You could even hear the spears swooshing over your head as McCoy and Kirk were running through the jungle far more distinctly with the overheads.


Yes, I heard all that too. I heard it first with the Atmos speakers and then with the ceiling speakers  Like I've said numerous times - I can hear differences, but they are subtle, not game-changing. Maybe they set up the Atmos speakers incorrectly at the demo you went to?



Dan Hitchman said:


> It just all locked into place, even when I was standing in a less than ideal location at one of the bigger Atmos demos. I couldn't say that for the up-firing speakers.


Fair enough. You know what you heard. But so do I know what I heard.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Keith, you should have been there! I really think you would have come away with a similar response. _Fantastic_ is the word to describe the better full Atmos demos.


Yes, I thought the demos in London were fantastic too!


----------



## sdurani

primetimeguy said:


> Nope, per the image I posted you can see the wavy frequency response of the surrounds.


But the image says PLII THX, meaning the surround processing is PLII. How do you know whether the wavy frequency response is PLII surround processing or THX post processing (Timbre Matching, Re-EQ, etc)?


----------



## primetimeguy

sdurani said:


> But the image says PLII THX, meaning the surround processing is PLII. How do you know whether the wavy frequency response is PLII surround processing or THX post processing (Timbre Matching, Re-EQ, etc)?


Because measurements of just PLIIx without THX didn't have the ripple.


----------



## FilmMixer

mike_carton said:


> Firsthand?
> 
> Broadcasters (as in more than 1) are ramping up to send lossless audio with embedded ATMOS object substream to homes?


Yes I know of specific titles. 

OTT (streaming) will use DD+, not TrueHD. 

I know of at least 5 shows mixing in Atmos for their next seasons.


----------



## sdurani

primetimeguy said:


> Because measurements of just PLIIx without THX didn't have the ripple.


Do you have a link to those measurements?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Do you have a link to those measurements?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1388491-thx-technologies-explained.html


----------



## primetimeguy

sdurani said:


> Do you have a link to those measurements?


Couldn't find my original plots from way back so just got out OmniMic. Crude measuerement, mic is just in the area of the SL speaker. See plot below. Looking at the original capture I stole from Marcus I guestimated dips aroiund 500hz, 1300hz and 7k....pretty well matches up with my quick measurement.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Even Dolby switched over to timbre matched, retail Triad speakers. The four timbre matched Triad in-ceilings were placed where they fired at the MLP rather than straight down. They even made a comment that they found out AVS Forum members don't like to be "tricked" with their overhead demos.


Hey Dan,

I knew they were Triads, but did they say which model? All I could see was a black cloth patch on the ceiling. If they were using the IC Bronze8, aligned with those patches, they would indeed at least be aiming back/front toward the audience (the speaker baffle being 45-deg down), but were they also toed in?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> But the image says PLII THX, meaning the surround processing is PLII. How do you know whether the wavy frequency response is PLII surround processing or THX post processing (Timbre Matching, Re-EQ, etc)?


From the Abyss: "I'll tell what it's not. It's not one of ours." Those dips are not from PLII.


----------



## Kris Deering

Roger Dressler said:


> Hey Dan,
> 
> I knew they were Triads, but did they say which model? All I could see was a black cloth patch on the ceiling. If they were using the IC Bronze8, aligned with those patches, they would indeed at least be aiming back/front toward the audience (the speaker baffle being 45-deg down), but were they also toed in?


They were the Bronze in ceiling. I thought the Dolby booth demo was by far one of the weakest in terms of overall audio quality. The booth was too big for the setup and the audio just didn't sound that great overall.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Yes I know of specific titles.
> 
> OTT (streaming) will use DD+, not TrueHD.
> 
> I know of at least 5 shows mixing in Atmos for their next seasons.


Any Netflix exclusives? They are already streaming DD+ so we would get Atmos pretty soon.


----------



## bargervais

High Compatibility, Wide Adoption: Dolby Digital Plus is compatible with more than 8 billion consumer electronics devices. All leading service providers, such as Netflix® and Amazon Instant Video™, deliver content encoded in Dolby Digital Plus. And it's part of the Windows® 8 operating system and Mac OS® as well.

Create Once, Distribute Everywhere: With the scalable Dolby Digital Plus codec, you need to create only one audio bitstream. Dolby Digital Plus can automatically adapt to bandwidth and device specifications.

Differentiate Your Streaming Service: Dolby Digital Plus will give your customers superior sound, no matter the device. You drive growth, revenue, and loyalty with a highly reliable audio solution and a widely recognized audio brand.
Be Ready for the Future: Dolby Digital Plus is integrated in the DLNA®, HDMI®, and UltraViolet™ standards to meet demand for HD audio. And as device and distribution capabilities expand, Dolby Digital Plus will keep you ready


----------



## bargervais

Dolby Atmos Comes to the Home Via Blu-ray and VUDU to Transport Entertainment Enthusiasts Into a New Dimension of Sound
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do...asts-into-a-new-dimension-of-sound-2014-09-08


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> From the Abyss: "I'll tell what it's not. It's not one of ours." Those dips are not from PLII.


*'The Abyss'* (1989 - FOX studios), was THX mastered (sound & picture). ...The DVD and the LaserDisc.

* That would be a cool title to have on Blu (it ain't on Blu-ray yet), and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack. ...Deep under water with the air bubbles overhead.  ...And all those other sounds coming from above when inside the deep base station and the subs. ...The envelopment would reflect well for this flick, with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

primetimeguy said:


> Looking at the original capture I stole from Marcus I guestimated dips aroiund 500hz, 1300hz and 7k....pretty well matches up with my quick measurement.


OK, but both those THX graphs show the dip at 7k you mention, but the Dolby Elevation squiggle shows a peak at that frequency.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I can’t see a multi-speaker format gaining acceptance in the marketplace if it requires speakers to be physically mounted on the ceiling, walls etc.


Except for the addicts on AVS and our counterparts on other forums, I totally agree.

I'm sure there is some formula but my guess would be something like WAF= 1/(Number of Speakers x Number of Speakers)


----------



## primetimeguy

sdurani said:


> OK, but both those THX graphs show the dip at 7k you mention, but the Dolby Elevation squiggle shows a peak at that frequency.


Right, I didn't say they matched, rather was making the point of how many people hear talked bad about THX listening modes as they messed with the frequency response, only to have to be totally acceptable for Atmos to do it. And not saying it is right or wrong just an interesting outside observation.


----------



## wse

ATMOS should all speakers be the same brand or ideally same model? Or does it not matter, I kind of like having the same voice!


----------



## sdurani

primetimeguy said:


> Right, I didn't say they matched, rather was making the point of how many people hear talked bad about THX listening modes as they messed with the frequency response, only to have to be totally acceptable for Atmos to do it.


Got it. I guess what threw me is when you said _"The response somewhat resembles THX surround mode processing."_ By "resembles" you weren't talking specific peaks & dips, just that they both messed with the high frequency response.


----------



## David Susilo

wse said:


> ATMOS should all speakers be the same brand or ideally same model? Or does it not matter, I kind of like having the same voice!


With any discrete surround, the ideal will be identical speakers for all channel. The further away they are from being identical, the worse the surround realism will be.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, the Auro3D demo was quite good. The James Loudspeakers, which I had never heard, were mostly spectacular. *Auro* was excellent when used with ambient, multichannel recordings rather than synthetic and far too busy Hollywood soundtracks (similar issues cropped up with Atmos, especially using the T4 clip - yuck!). However, I had a few issues with Auro as presented at CEDIA. *The single, mono VOG arrangement called attention to itself time after time during hard overhead pans*. It doesn't work as well as the split stereo overheads in Atmos. Music was a mixed bag, though fidelity was very good (perhaps due to the speakers and amps utilized??). I could not hear the surrounds in either music clip... the pipe organ or the symphony orchestra clips. The size and scope of the pipes were well recreated in the front height speakers, but the orchestral track sounded weird. It was like the orchestra was taller than wide. The heights were too aggressive and should have contained mostly hall ambiance. It was one of those symphony recordings that could have benefited from Atmos' expanded screen array approach with hall ambiance surrounding you from above, sides, and the rear.
> 
> There are little niggling issues with both formats, frankly, and I think that if a sound system came out with ultra-high fidelity, wall height speakers, and the split stereo overheads as well (and with the system scalability of object rendering)... you would practically have the best immersive audio experience for the foreseeable future.


I'm glad to read you noticed this. I did NOT install a VOG per the recommendation of Carl Huff (ex Datasat engineer / calibrator).. I wondered if it was a wise move and thought of adding it. Glad I didn't..

Thanks


----------



## Orbitron

audioguy said:


> Except for the addicts on AVS and our counterparts on other forums, I totally agree.
> 
> I'm sure there is some formula but my guess would be something like WAF= 1/(Number of Speakers x Number of Speakers)


Atmos requires several wives.


----------



## Selden Ball

David Susilo said:


> With any discrete surround, the ideal will be identical speakers for all channel. The further away they are from being identical, the worse the surround realism will be.


 Modern room EQ software (like Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, Dirac, RoomPerfect, etc) attempts to flatten (make more accurate) the audio response that you hear from each speaker. To the extent that the EQ is successful, then differing speakers will sound very similar. In many cases, this is adequate although not perfect.


----------



## wse

David Susilo said:


> With any discrete surround, the ideal will be identical speakers for all channel. The further away they are from being identical, the worse the surround realism will be.


That's what I am thinking it's just going to be hard to mount 800D2 in the ceiling 

For the KEF room the maybe I could mount the LS50!


----------



## David Susilo

Just do it, wse, I know you want to hang four 800D in the ceiling!


----------



## primetimeguy

sdurani said:


> Got it. I guess what threw me is when you said _"The response somewhat resembles THX surround mode processing."_ By "resembles" you weren't talking specific peaks & dips, just that they both messed with the high frequency response.


Yep, now we are on the same page.


----------



## David Susilo

Selden Ball said:


> Modern room EQ software (like Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, Dirac, RoomPerfect, etc) attempts to flatten (make more accurate) the audio response that you hear from each speaker. To the extent that the EQ is successful, then differing speakers will sound very similar. In many cases, this is adequate although not perfect.


You are not wrong and I agree with you. However, perfection is the ideal, of course; and still there are limitations of the EQ can do if you use (I'm using examples based on my personal experience) PSB Synchrony towers but only using PSB Alpha AV for the rears. No amount of built-in EQ will be able to re-shape the sonic characteristic of the entry level Alphas to the top of the line Synchrony.


----------



## zeus33

kbarnes701 said:


> You can’t patent anything that is already in the public domain or has been revealed in any way, to anyone, publicly.



That would be called prior art.


----------



## wse

David Susilo said:


> Just do it, wse, I know you want to hang four 800D in the ceiling!


B&W need to sell a speaker that uses just the Marlan Head! then it could hang from the ceiling just like the eggs in Alien


----------



## Irwinroad

David Susilo said:


> You are not wrong and I agree with you. However, perfection is the ideal, of course; and still there are limitations of the EQ can do if you use (I'm using examples based on my personal experience) PSB Synchrony towers but only using PSB Alpha AV for the rears. No amount of built-in EQ will be able to re-shape the sonic characteristic of the entry level Alphas to the top of the line Synchrony.


What speakers were you thinking of using on/in the ceiling to match
up with the Synchrony towers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Hey Dan,
> 
> I knew they were Triads, but did they say which model? All I could see was a black cloth patch on the ceiling. If they were using the IC Bronze8, aligned with those patches, they would indeed at least be aiming back/front toward the audience (the speaker baffle being 45-deg down), but were they also toed in?


Hi Roger! Great meeting you at CEDIA! 

From what I gathered talking to Triad's Steve Colburn (product developer) at their booth, Dolby used retail Bronze LR-H's for the Atmos "enabled" front and back L/R, Bronze LCR for center and sides, and four Bronze/8 in-ceilings. I don't know if the in-ceilings were toed-in or not.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> ATMOS should all speakers be the same brand or ideally same model? Or does it not matter, I kind of like having the same voice!


They should be timbre matched. Absolutely. The best, most seamless Atmos demos used matching "family" speakers from the same line. EQ only gets you so far.


----------



## David Susilo

Irwinroad said:


> What speakers were you thinking of using on/in the ceiling to match
> up with the Synchrony towers?


I will be using four AJ Atmos Enabled towers, AJ centre and my current PSB SubSeries 300 subwoofer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Modern room EQ software (like Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, Dirac, RoomPerfect, etc) attempts to flatten (make more accurate) the audio response that you hear from each speaker. To the extent that the EQ is successful, then differing speakers will sound very similar. In many cases, this is adequate although not perfect.


That's not what I heard at CEDIA. The best demos used similarly voiced speakers. This is hyper critical with 3D audio. Moreso than previous formats. Use the same line family (sans subs) if you possibly can.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> I will be using four AJ Atmos Enabled towers, AJ centre and my current PSB SubSeries 300 subwoofer.


Can't wait to hear your observations!


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Dan Hitchman said:


> They should be timbre matched. Absolutely. The best, most seamless Atmos demos used matching "family" speakers from the same line. EQ only gets you so far.


Would having the same family of tweeter within a brand line be enough to adhere to the timbre match philosophy? 


...Glenn


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> B&W need to sell a speaker that uses just the Marlan Head! then it could hang from the ceiling just like the eggs in Alien


I would contact B&W and ask them if they can customize you the top parts only; four of them. 
...With special brackets to attach them on the ceiling. ...And with flexible angling adjustment. 

Who knows, that might inspire them to start something new with Dolby Atmos in mind. 
It might sound a little farfetched just like that, but the concept is there; and by adding a wider dispersion pattern in their driver's design and x-over. 

Yeah, perhaps a little too farfetched... ...B&W in-ceiling wide dispersion speakers. ...Timbre matched to your towers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Glenn Baumann said:


> Would having the same family of tweeter within a brand line be enough to adhere to the timbre match philosophy?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


You want most of the drivers/cross-overs to closely match or be identical. If they're towers in front and bookshelfs for the surrounds, for example, at least the treble and midrange would match all around.


----------



## NorthSky

Glenn Baumann said:


> Would having the same family of tweeter within a brand line be enough to adhere to the timbre match philosophy?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


...And midrange driver.


----------



## Kris Deering

thebland said:


> I'm glad to read you noticed this. I did NOT install a VOG per the recommendation of Carl Huff (ex Datasat engineer / calibrator).. I wondered if it was a wise move and thought of adding it. Glad I didn't..
> 
> Thanks


Weird, I attended the Auro demo twice during the show and thought the VOG channel was fine both times it was used. I thought the Auro demo was FAR more convincing for overhead audio effects but it was also a pretty large room with high ceilings so I don't know how that would translate in a more common room environment. I thought the Auro demo was far more engaging and convincing than the majority of the Dolby Atmos demos with maybe the exception of the D-Cinema grade demo in the Harmon booth. Considering that we'll be seeing Dreamworks titles with Auro soundtracks by year's end and they are also trying to bring Sony onboard I'm in absolutely no hurry to add either format to my system until the dust settles and we see who and what is truly supported. I don't like changing audio processors yearly, I leave that to projectors.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I gathered talking to Triad's Steve Colburn (product developer) at their booth, Dolby used retail Bronze LR-H's for the Atmos "enabled" front and back L/R, Bronze LCR for center and sides, and four Bronze/8 in-ceilings. I don't know if the in-ceilings were toed-in or not.


Thanks for the details. Seems the jury is still out, not so much where the speakers should be located, but how they should be aimed. Time will tell!


----------



## David Susilo

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's not what I heard at CEDIA. The best demos used similarly voiced speakers. This is hyper critical with 3D audio. Moreso than previous formats. Use the same line family (sans subs) if you possibly can.


The weakest Atmos demo at CEDIA, IMO, was Yamaha due to several factors:

1. A room shaped nearly a perfect cube which is the absolute worst for acoustics.

2. Reflective surfaces everywhere 

3. Severely mismatched speakers

YPAO can somewhat fixes items 1 and 2 but the severe mismatched speakers makes the presentation very underwhelming. Still very good, but not "I gotta have it now" good. 

The "I gotta have it now" presentation (that my pocket will allow) was the one by Pioneer.


----------



## David Susilo

Roger Dressler said:


> Thanks for the details. Seems the jury is still out, not so much where the speakers should be located, but how they should be aimed. Time will tell!


Considering the Atmos Enabled speakers are angled at 30 degrees upwards (which then have 30-degree reflective angle), the ceiling speakers should be angled 30 degrees towards to listener's area.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Thanks for the details. Seems the jury is still out, not so much where the speakers should be located, but how they should be aimed. Time will tell!


No problem! 

Did you catch the Auro3D demo as well?


----------



## tjenkins95

David Susilo said:


> I will be using four AJ Atmos Enabled towers, AJ centre and my current PSB SubSeries 300 subwoofer.


Is there a specific reason why you are going with 4 towers instead of 2 towers/2 bookshelf surrounds?


Thanks.


Ray


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> The weakest Atmos demo at CEDIA, IMO, was Yamaha due to several factors:
> 
> 1. A room shaped nearly a perfect cube which is the absolute worst for acoustics.
> 
> 2. Reflective surfaces everywhere
> 
> 3. Severely mismatched speakers
> 
> YPAO can somewhat fixes items 1 and 2 but the severe mismatched speakers makes the presentation very underwhelming. Still very good, but not "I gotta have it now" good.
> 
> The "I gotta have it now" presentation (that my pocket will allow) was the one by Pioneer.


While I think overheads give the overall better presentation, I too was duly impressed with the Andrew Jones speakers considering their price. Were they the best of show? No, but they were certainly one of the best bang vs. buck examples at CEDIA.


----------



## David Susilo

The more identical speakers I can use, the closer to ideal the sound would be. Don't forget that EQ is compensation, nothing is better than using the least amount compensation as possible.


----------



## Shakaa

David Susilo said:


> With any discrete surround, the ideal will be identical speakers for all channel. The further away they are from being identical, the worse the surround realism will be.


Im thinking of getting the pioneer atmos enable speakers, so if I get four Floorstanding speakers instead of a pair of Floorstanding and a pair of bookshelf Speakers would that be better? Im new in all of this. Thanks


----------



## Roger Dressler

David Susilo said:


> Considering the Atmos Enabled speakers are angled at 30 degrees upwards (which then have 30-degree reflective angle), the ceiling speakers should be angled 30 degrees towards to listener's area.


I do not think that necessarily follows, for 2 reasons: 1) The ceiling speakers are not recommended to be positioned at the bounce points, based on the Dolby diagrams. 2) The bounce vector does not necessarily cover the overall listening area as uniformly as would be desired or possible with a real speaker. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Did you catch the Auro3D demo as well?


No. But I have been to some full tilt Auro demos at the Dub Stage in Burbank, FWIW.


----------



## NorthSky

Shakaa said:


> Im thinking of getting the pioneer atmos enable speakers, so if I get four Floorstanding speakers instead of a pair of Floorstanding and a pair of bookshelf Speakers would that be better? Im new in all of this. Thanks


I think that it is very good. ...Better? ...I'd say yes. ...Same four exact speakers in the four corners; excellent.


----------



## audioguy

Kris Deering said:


> I'm in absolutely no hurry to add either format to my system until the dust settles and we see who and what is truly supported. I don't like changing audio processors yearly, I leave that to projectors.


Totally agree with you. While I thought the Auro demo was superior to the 4 or 5 Atmos demo's I heard, I would hate to finish out my room to best present Auro and then say "oops". 

After some folks have these systems running a while, maybe we can determine the best compromise speaker placement - or if one of the formats fails, place them exactly where they belong.

After returning home from CEDIA, and playing some segments from some of the demo material, I discovered that from my 6 foot high placed side and rear surrounds, I get a fair amount of overhead information, I guess coming from the ceiling reflection. 

So I'm good for a while!!


----------



## David Susilo

Shakaa said:


> Im thinking of getting the pioneer atmos enable speakers, so if I get four Floorstanding speakers instead of a pair of Floorstanding and a pair of bookshelf Speakers would that be better? Im new in all of this. Thanks


At least from my personal experience, having 5 identical bookshelfs (all PSB Century 300i) sounds better than having 1 pair of towers, 1 pair of bookshelf, 1 centre (all PSB from the same Image series).


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

mike_carton said:


> Not sure what you mean. Broadcasters do send out OTA transmissions for people to receive at homes. Even when coming through cable providers, the audio data is meant to be received at homes mostly.



Yes, but does broadcast ATSC use standard Dolby or lossless Dolby? Standard Dolby does not carry the Atmos signal.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Yes, but does broadcast ATSC use standard Dolby or lossless Dolby? Standard Dolby does not carry the Atmos signal.


Broadcast Dolby Digital is low end AC-3 lossy. You need at least Dolby Digital Plus lossy to get some semblance of Dolby Atmos delivered to the home.


----------



## Kris Deering

audioguy said:


> Totally agree with you. While I thought the Auro demo was superior to the 4 or 5 Atmos demo's I heard, I would hate to finish out my room to best present Auro and then say "oops".
> 
> After some folks have these systems running a while, maybe we can determine the best compromise speaker placement - or if one of the formats fails, place them exactly where they belong.
> 
> After returning home from CEDIA, and playing some segments from some of the demo material, I discovered that from my 6 foot high placed side and rear surrounds, I get a fair amount of overhead information, I guess coming from the ceiling reflection.
> 
> So I'm good for a while!!


I went a step further. I actually got a copy of the Dolby Atmos Blu-ray demo disc they were using and tried the same clips. My surrounds are bipoles with a front firing tweeter that is aimed down toward the listening position and I only have a 5.1 system. BUT, listening to all the same Dolby Atmos trailers (that presented by far the most compelling "Atmos" demos of the show) I could probably convince 99% of people I have a true Atmos system. My room did a better job with height presence than most of the Atmos rooms I heard at the show with the exception of maybe the rain in one of the trailers (and even that sounded very convincing but not quite as dead placed as some of the rooms with actual speakers above my head). My surrounds are about 6' up on my sidewalls at 90 degrees. As for the movie clips, none of them were convincing in the demos at the show except for the ones in the Harmon demo (which were digital cinema trailers, not clips). It may have been the clips they used (TF4, Oblivion and Star Trek Into Darkness) but I know that Oblivion and ST sound FAR more engaging in the surrounds and overall presence in my 5.1 system than they did in ANY of the demos at the show.


----------



## thebland

I'm curious to get my own copy of the Atmos Demo disc. Then play it through AURO up mixer. 

Might be great results.


----------



## SoundChex

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Yes, but does broadcast ATSC use standard Dolby or lossless Dolby? Standard Dolby does not carry the Atmos signal.



I'm under the impression that we must wait for the roll out of *ATSC 3.0* in order to receive OTA _hybrid channel|object-based_ audio_ . . . so maybe after 2020...?  
_
_


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, many thks SoundChex for the above VERY interesting document.
> 
> Then in our case, since almost 5 yrs now, we own an 11.1 (2) type of installation, configured as per Audyssey DSX requirements (= angular speakers positionnings). With 7 front Klipsch KL650 THX U2 speakers precisely positioned as can be seen on page 16 of the above ITU document, but with 4 rear Klipsch KS525 THX U2 Bipolar Surround and Back speakers being elevated @ 40° above ear level, and their azimuth angles following the "standard" recommendations.
> 
> And today our use of this installation is based on a Marantz 8801 (Audyssey Pro calibrated) feeding the excellent DTS Neo X 11 Cinema processing to 2 Onkyo Pa MC5500 9 channels amplifiers.
> 
> Now with the arrival of Dolby Atmos and as soon as possible of DTS-UHD, I'm planning to buy the future Marantz AV8802, which is supposed to have a capacity to drive independently 13.1 (2) channels. Will that be ALL 13 channels at the same time, in the case of Dolby Atmos? This remains to be seen. But anyway this Marantz 8802 has the _potential capacity_ to do that.
> 
> In our actual 11.2 context, we will though be able to use a 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration, as our actual Front Height speakers are adequately positioned at a 45° elevation and even though their azimuth angle at 45°, isn't strictly conform with what Dolby recommends. But my opinion is that this won't be a problem...
> 
> Now as I had the privilege to assist to a recent 5.1.2 Onkyo Dolby Atmos press presentation with up-firing additional Onkyo SKH410 speakers (see my positive feed-back here (in French)), I am also convinced (my own _impression_, clearly without any kind of comparison  ) that in an "advanced" HT context, a x.1.4 configuration with direct firing speakers will _probably_ produce a better subjective impression of envelopment.
> 
> So as in our installation the Back Klipsch KS525 Bipolar speakers are physically located at 40°, I will leave them at their actual position. In order for them to be used/recognized/wired as Height Back speakers, and with the addition 2 other Back speakers located @ ear level. My opinion as already expressed here, being that it is the angular difference between the reference (in our HT contexet: ear level) speakers and Height/Top speakers, which de facto creates the 3D subjective impression.
> 
> But then what is the optimal angular difference to get the best - Dolby Atmos or Surround - effect? This remains to be indicated, even if from the above ITU document, I think that one can get some interesting ideas...
> 
> Anyway, in our configuration, I'm also planning to swap our actual Front Height Klipsch KL650 with the actual Surround Klipsch KS525 Bipolar surrounds. In order to position the Klipsch KS525 Bipolars as Front Heights at an azimuth and elevation 45° location and re-position both KL650s as Surrounds at an azimuth 100° and slightly above ear level elevation. The idea being to have a continuous homogeneity at ear level (front firing KL650) and Height level (Bipolars KS525).
> 
> All this will give us a nice 9.2.4 context - compatible with Dolby Atmos, but also with the actual DTS Neo X 11 and Audyssey DSx processings -, and without any "extreme" changes...  All this also in anticipation to the creation of a 9.2.6 configuration which has my clear preference (and will be manageable when 15 channels processors become available); precisely a 9.2.4.2 configuration, where the last .2 are Top/ceiling speakers _à la_ Auro 3D (see here).
> 
> Hugo


Hugo quick question if you might be able to answer please: I've got 4x Klipsch Chorus II's. I was hoping to have the Chorus II's as my fronts & rears, while either having a pair of SB2's as my surrounds or SS1's. Would it be better to have bipolar SS1's as surrounds or the SB2 as the surrounds with an Atmos setup? I'm hoping to go for a 7.1.4 setup... I figure it would be ok to have the chorus II's as rears with the nice amount of dispersion the horns put out... and perhaps the directionality of the SB2's might be more advantageous for my setup? My apologies I'm not bi-polar-literate and don't know much about how the surrounds usually work with a mix, especially as far as Atmos is concerned.


----------



## mike_carton

FilmMixer said:


> Yes I know of specific titles.
> 
> OTT (streaming) will use DD+, not TrueHD.
> 
> I know of at least 5 shows mixing in Atmos for their next seasons.


Q1. DD+ and ATMOS? Didn't know that was possible. Thought it was limited to being a substream of TrueHD.

Q2. Would be interesting to see if any of those shows' advertisements will feature ATMOS prominently enough to penetrate public consciousness.

I'm myself intimately familiar with the demands of crunch-time in my own field. Find time to rest and recharge.


----------



## sdurani

mike_carton said:


> DD+ and ATMOS? Didn't know that was possible.


Mentioned in the FAQ from three months ago. See under the question "*How will I get Dolby Atmos movies?*" 

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> They should be timbre matched. Absolutely. The best, most seamless Atmos demos used matching "family" speakers from the same line. EQ only gets you so far.


Agreed, get as close as you are able before asking EQ to work its magic. Having said that, Denon's room was the best demo of Atmos I heard (of Dolby, Denon, Pioneer, GoldenEar and part of Procella), and their ceiling speakers were a different brand than the fronts. Thank you Audyssey, and thank you Denon for making a good decision to keep it.


----------



## audioguy

bkeeler10 said:


> . Thank you Audyssey, and thank you Denon for making a good decision to keep it.


Amen to that!!


----------



## bkeeler10

Kris Deering said:


> Weird, I attended the Auro demo twice during the show and thought the VOG channel was fine both times it was used. I thought the Auro demo was FAR more convincing for overhead audio effects but it was also a pretty large room with high ceilings so I don't know how that would translate in a more common room environment. I thought the Auro demo was far more engaging and convincing than the majority of the Dolby Atmos demos with maybe the exception of the D-Cinema grade demo in the Harmon booth. Considering that we'll be seeing Dreamworks titles with Auro soundtracks by year's end and they are also trying to bring Sony onboard I'm in absolutely no hurry to add either format to my system until the dust settles and we see who and what is truly supported. I don't like changing audio processors yearly, I leave that to projectors.


Agreed Kris, all the speakers disappeared in the Auro demo for me. It was nothing short of fantastic. I was the second person to pick a seat in my demo and got dead center left-to-right and dead center between the two VOG speakers as well so that probably helped.


----------



## FilmMixer

thebland said:


> I'm curious to get my own copy of the Atmos Demo disc. Then play it through AURO up mixer.
> 
> Might be great results.


Unlike matrix formats that use phase to encode/embed surround material, there will be nothing more "special" on the Atmos demo disc than any other 7.1 encoded soundtrack...


----------



## Nightlord

wse said:


> B&W need to sell a speaker that uses just the Marlan Head! then it could hang from the ceiling just like the eggs in Alien


Send a mail to them with the pic of your setup and as if it would be possible to buy just that from them. Worst response would be the same situation as not asking, so nothing to lose.


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Special or spacial?


...Or spatial?


----------



## markus767

David Susilo said:


> Considering the Atmos Enabled speakers are angled at 30 degrees upwards (which then have 30-degree reflective angle), the ceiling speakers should be angled 30 degrees towards to listener's area.


The angle of the ceiling reflection depends on the height of speaker, ear and ceiling and not how the speaker itself is angled.

The Atmos-enabled Pioneer speakers have an angle of 20° by the way. I'd think those ceiling firing speakers should be aimed at the ceiling's first reflection point anyway to get the smoothest coverage of the listening area.

"Dolby has calculated the best angle for the upward-firing speaker based on where *most people* place their floor mounted tower and stand-mounted loudspeakers and based on standard ceiling heights."
http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-Enabled-Speaker-Technology.pdf

So I don't think any recommendation for angling ceiling-mounted speakers can be derived from this.


Dolby's installation guidelines has more information:

"If the chosen overhead speakers have a *wide dispersion* pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted *facing directly downward*. For speakers with *narrower dispersion* patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled *toward the primary listening position*."
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I went a step further. I actually got a copy of the Dolby Atmos Blu-ray demo disc they were using and tried the same clips. My surrounds are bipoles with a front firing tweeter that is aimed down toward the listening position and I only have a 5.1 system. BUT, listening to all the same Dolby Atmos trailers (that presented by far the most compelling "Atmos" demos of the show) I could probably convince 99% of people I have a true Atmos system. My room did a better job with height presence than most of the Atmos rooms I heard at the show with the exception of maybe the rain in one of the trailers (and even that sounded very convincing but not quite as dead placed as some of the rooms with actual speakers above my head).


It's not just about height effects though. How would your system image a sound 4 feet in front of you and three feet above you? And then move that sound directly to the right, and then up to the left? It can't. You need object-based audio to do that. The idea that Atmos is just about overhead effects such as helicopters and rain is one of the biggest misunderstandings of the technology of all.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> After returning home from CEDIA, and playing some segments from some of the demo material, I discovered that from my 6 foot high placed side and rear surrounds, I get a fair amount of overhead information, I guess coming from the ceiling reflection.


Well, obviously. If you placed your LCR speakers on the ceiling you'd get a lot of overhead information too. The point is, it isn't the overhead information you want.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> With any discrete surround, the ideal will be identical speakers for all channel. The further away they are from being identical, the worse the surround realism will be.


David - that looks awfully like an opinion presented as fact. Many people with impeccable credentials believe that competent EQ will minimise timbral differences to the point of insignificance.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> You are not wrong and I agree with you. However, perfection is the ideal, of course; and still there are limitations of the EQ can do if you use (I'm using examples based on my personal experience) PSB Synchrony towers but only using PSB Alpha AV for the rears. No amount of built-in EQ will be able to re-shape the sonic characteristic of the entry level Alphas to the top of the line Synchrony.


So the Alphas are so bad that even competent EQ cannot bring them to something resembling flat?


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Would having the same family of tweeter within a brand line be enough to adhere to the timbre match philosophy?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


What sort of EQ are you using?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> You want most of the drivers/cross-overs to closely match or be identical. If they're towers in front and bookshelfs for the surrounds, for example, at least the treble and midrange would match all around.



So the position of the speakers in the room won't alter the timbre? And the different cabinets won't? And the listening position relative to each speaker won't have a bearing? This entire timbre match argument is a great one for speaker manufacturers to convince people to buy more of their speakers, and a great argument for retailers to sell 4 expensive speakers instead of two, but since we got EQ, not so much of an argument based on scientific reality.


----------



## lesliew

markus767 said:


> Dolby's installation guidelines has more information:
> 
> "If the chosen overhead speakers have a *wide dispersion* pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted *facing directly downward*. For speakers with *narrower dispersion* patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled *toward the primary listening position*."
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


I could of course be wrong but in that last sentence I think they made improper use of a 'comma splice' and that should have read.

For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns *and* those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.


----------



## markus767

^
I agree. This would make more sense.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, obviously. If you placed your LCR speakers on the ceiling you'd get a lot of overhead information too. The point is, it isn't the overhead information you want.


yes, and I have 6 ft tall Magnepan planar speakers and their smaller wall mounted panels as surrounds, the tops are also 6 ft off the floor. 

I guess I'm all set for Atmos too  

if the ceiling (direct or indirect) speakers are used to help convey the objects, how does a speaker that is mostly dedicated to standard bed surround channels convey them the way the mixer intended? or take into account 1) correct angles of placement or 2) the psychoacoustic effect since they aren't Dolby enabled speakers? 

I think it's understandable that some people may want to believe this idea can work & maybe in some rooms & placements it might, but, in general, it seems wishful thinking.

sometimes, I can get some illusion of height from the fact that my speakers are so tall relative to MLP but I wouldn't pretend that's going to be a substitute for an Atmos setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> yes, and I have 6 ft tall Magnepan planar speakers and their smaller wall mounted panels as surrounds, the tops are also 6 ft off the floor.
> 
> I guess I'm all set for Atmos too


I think Dan and Kris have stumbled onto a winning idea that will save people a lot of money: forget Atmos - to get truly overhead sounds and imaging, _get the same effect by mounting your left, centre, right and surround speakers on the ceiling! _



ss9001 said:


> if the ceiling (direct or indirect) speakers are used to help convey the objects, how does a speaker that is mostly dedicated to standard bed surround channels convey them the way the mixer intended? or take into account 1) correct angles of placement or 2) the psychoacoustic effect since they aren't Dolby enabled speakers?
> 
> I think it's understandable that some people may want to believe this idea can work & maybe in some rooms & placements it might, but, in general, it seems wishful thinking.
> 
> sometimes, I can get some illusion of height from the fact that my speakers are so tall relative to MLP but I wouldn't pretend that's going to be a substitute for an Atmos setup.


Quite.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> What sort of EQ are you using?


That would be Audyssey XT32.

...Glenn


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> I think Dan and Kris have stumbled onto a winning idea that will save people a lot of money: forget Atmos - to get truly overhead sounds and imaging, _get the same effect by mounting your left, centre, right and surround speakers on the ceiling! _


the other fly in the ointment is very obvious - 

w/o overhead ceilings or Dolby enabled, the AVR is going to consider them std 5.1 setup and all the user is going to get is std TrueHD not Atmos. 

any height effect is only the result of speakers placed hi on the wall not anything to do with the actual Atmos objects or mix.

basically, one can pretend or one can implement it correctly.


----------



## Frohlich

ss9001 said:


> the other fly in the ointment is very obvious -
> 
> w/o overhead ceilings or Dolby enabled, the AVR is going to consider them std 5.1 setup and all the user is going to get is std TrueHD not Atmos.
> 
> any height effect is only the result of speakers placed hi on the wall not anything to do with the actual Atmos objects or mix.
> 
> basically, one can pretend or one can implement it correctly.


I hope you realize the Keith's post was made in jest.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, obviously. If you placed your LCR speakers on the ceiling you'd get a lot of overhead information too. The point is, it isn't the overhead information you want.


I must be missing something. Every demo I went to at CEDIA emphasized the wonderfulness of height information. 

I am not suggesting, however, that the ceiling reflections I am getting is the same as a fully implemented Auro/Atmos system. But, I will say that the sense of 3D audio envelopment in my room was reasonably close to what I heard at CEDIA. And based upon the response Kris Deering posted, he had the same experience. 

As a result, I am willing to wait until all of this gets flushed out (e.g. which format will dominate; best speaker placement to optimize the implementation of both technologies, etc) before I go spend the money on SSP and speaker hardware and start drilling holes in my ceiling.

And since I will have all of this money sitting around, I will purchase a product that truly is completed, error-free and operating as it should and that would be the Emotiva XMC-1  (Oops! this would be the wrong thread)


----------



## ss9001

Frohlich said:


> I hope you realize the Keith's post was made in jest.



of course but thanks for asking.

both of us are 100% in agreement about the idea and it's "merit"  you can trust me on this


----------



## thebland

+1. Although I have a 13.6 ch Auro set up (no VOG - Rear Back Heights using Side Back Heights w/ Center Heights). If Auro does succeed, I'd a VOG. But like you I will wait till the dust settles vs Atmos as there is no provion for a VOG in Atmos. Great stuff here!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If you placed your LCR speakers on the ceiling you'd get a lot of overhead information too.


Who needs the Atmos version of Gravity when you can raise your speakers up to get dialogue above you.


> The point is, it isn't the overhead information you want.


Right, it's surround information, NOT height information.


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> I must be missing something. Every demo I went to at CEDIA emphasized the wonderfulness of height information.


IF height by itself was being emphasized at CEDIA, then they were missing something. Just as 7.1 is emphasized not merely by sounds behind you but side VS rear separation in the surround field, likewise the Atmos demos should have emphasized the separation between sounds around you VS sounds above you. In other words, they should have demonstrated something you can't get by merely raising your surround speakers.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> IF height by itself was being emphasized at CEDIA, then they were missing something. Just as 7.1 is emphasized not merely by sounds behind you but side VS rear separation in the surround field, likewise the Atmos demos should have emphasized the separation between sounds around you VS sounds above you. In other words, they should have demonstrated something you can't get by merely raising your surround speakers.


The concept of a three vs two dimensional sound space was the theme of virtually every presentation I heard.

Again, I am not suggesting my room sounds like the Auro demo (but pretty close to the Atmos demos I heard). All I am saying is that I have at least a 2.5 dimensional sound field in my room and can wait until the confusion gets worked out about Speaker placement, content, winning technology, etc. before purchasing an SSP and installing speakers - unless, of course, Datasat has a 75% off sale!!


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not just about height effects though. How would your system image a sound 4 feet in front of you and three feet above you? And then move that sound directly to the right, and then up to the left? It can't. You need object-based audio to do that. The idea that Atmos is just about overhead effects such as helicopters and rain is one of the biggest misunderstandings of the technology of all.


Phasing tricks are nothing new Keith and honestly if Dolby was trying to do individual objects that appear to float right next to your head they would be doing that with their demo trailers. Theory vs practice. In the Dolby demo their whole emphasis was the height portion. They even went so far as to pan helicopters across the heights. If they could place an object right next to my face or whisper in my ear you can bet they'd be ALL about demonstrating that type of effect. Putting a sound in different locations throughout a room using an array of speakers is nothing new, I have two channel mixes that can put sound next to your head or even next to my surround channels without the use of anything but the front left and right speaker.

Obviously the ultimate test would be to install an Atmos system in my room so I could compare the two directly. I am only comparing to the demos I heard at the show. It could sound profoundly different in my room. I'm sure at some point I'll have that opportunity. I certainly didn't think any of the demos sounded BAD, anything but, I just didn't find them world changing. I guess it all comes down to what you are or are not used to in your own setup.


----------



## Kris Deering

ss9001 said:


> the other fly in the ointment is very obvious -
> 
> w/o overhead ceilings or Dolby enabled, the AVR is going to consider them std 5.1 setup and all the user is going to get is std TrueHD not Atmos.
> 
> any height effect is only the result of speakers placed hi on the wall not anything to do with the actual Atmos objects or mix.
> 
> basically, one can pretend or one can implement it correctly.


Not sure on this. Dolby makes it a point to say that absolutely NOTHING is left out of the mix if you go down to a 5.1 mix. No object is left behind sort of speak. Obviously it is mixed down into the 5.1 base layer (similar to what they do for 7.1 if you have a 5.1 mix). That means they take into consideration the phasing of the objects and try to put them into an acoustic space that is as close as they can render without the Atmos information. This is why I feel that even 5.1 mixes will benefit from Atmos mixes because so far (at least this year's summer movies) the surround mixes tend to be a bit more aggressive than normal, probably because they emphasized that in the mix. It would be something else entirely if they took out a large percentage of the sounds they are using as objects and throwing those away for the down mix. Broken down into simple terms and object is nothing more than a piece of the audio puzzle, no different than a single track in a piece of music that is combining 30 tracks simultaneously. The only real difference is they are treating each one individually in the acoustic space, but it isn't like sounds were all clumped together before and you just had everything being lumped into every channel all the time.


----------



## ss9001

Kris Deering said:


> I have two channel mixes that can put sound next to your head or even next to my surround channels without the use of anything but the front left and right speaker.


so do I, Kris. or sounds that creep down the side walls. with no surrounds.

but I think you would agree that such recordings that just happen to have the right phasing so that you hear those effects are the exception, even rare. 

just like you probably have, I also have experienced pinpoint positioning of specific sounds right near my head with certain 5.1 music, but I also have speakers from the same company, cut from identical sonic cloth with same driver design characteristics (magnepans). at the sweet spot, on some music, I can hear precise localization of instruments within the soundspace and not coming from the speaker itself. it all depends on the mix, speakers, room, tonal matching. and I don't get this effect on movies as much as I do with music.

but a few experiences like this IMO are not a substitute for object audio using the correct speaker placements, where speakers can be from different companies, different surround design from mains (monopole vs bi/di-pole), shapes, sizes, freq response, positioning. this is where OOA has a big advantage.


----------



## FilmMixer

Kris Deering said:


> That means they take into consideration the phasing of the objects and try to put them into an acoustic space that is as close as they can render without the Atmos information.


That conclusion is incorrect from my understanding.

The positional placement of the objects during the down mix is purely a function of the panning metadata, not analysis of the objects themselves.

Objects with Z axis information tend to get folded into the side surrounds...


----------



## mike_carton

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Yes, but does broadcast ATSC use standard Dolby or lossless Dolby? Standard Dolby does not carry the Atmos signal.


Hence my question; if you re-read the post I was responding to and then my post you'll see what I was asking and why.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> That would be Audyssey XT32.
> 
> ...Glenn


Then I wouldn't worry too much about timbre matching.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> the other fly in the ointment is very obvious -
> 
> w/o overhead ceilings or Dolby enabled, the AVR is going to consider them std 5.1 setup and all the user is going to get is std TrueHD not Atmos.
> 
> any height effect is only the result of speakers placed hi on the wall not anything to do with the actual Atmos objects or mix.
> 
> *basically, one can pretend or one can implement it correctly*.


My thoughts exactly. And a very good point you make too.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> I hope you realize the Keith's post was made in jest.


Only partly


----------



## tjenkins95

Can consumers get a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration disc?


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I must be missing something. Every demo I went to at CEDIA emphasized the wonderfulness of height information.
> 
> I am not suggesting, however, that the ceiling reflections I am getting is the same as a fully implemented Auro/Atmos system. But, I will say that the sense of 3D audio envelopment in my room was reasonably close to what I heard at CEDIA. And based upon the response Kris Deering posted, he had the same experience.


I hear you. But I have to say there must have been something very wrong with what you heard at CEDIA, because it is so different to what I heard in London. I too get the 'normal' very immersive soundstage (especially when I engage PLIIz or Neo:X on my Height speakers). But it is just nothing at all, not in the slightest, anything like the 3D immersion I heard from Atmos in London. And nor can it be simply because there IS no discrete height content in my system, so if it isn't there to begin with then it can't be there to end with. 

What has excited me so much about Atmos is just how much better it is than what I am used to and what I have heard before, from 5.1/7.1 systems. And my system is no slouch. It is in a dedicated and treated room, REW and Audyssey Pro optimised, with high quality speakers, properly placed, and the best subwoofers in the world (IMO and arguably). My AV dealer also has a superb room, with huge amounts of money and time and skill expended to make it sound fabulous. But neither his nor mine even begins to approach the Atmos systems I have heard.



audioguy said:


> As a result, I am willing to wait until all of this gets flushed out (e.g. which format will dominate; best speaker placement to optimize the implementation of both technologies, etc) before I go spend the money on SSP and speaker hardware and start drilling holes in my ceiling.


Can't fault that. 



audioguy said:


> And since I will have all of this money sitting around, I will purchase a product that truly is completed, error-free and operating as it should and that would be the Emotiva XMC-1  (Oops! this would be the wrong thread)


Yeah - by the time the XMC-1 is sorted out and fully working, Atmos will be on Generation 7 probably


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> .
> 
> I certainly didn't think any of the demos sounded BAD, anything but, I just didn't find them world changing.


Then you heard a very different set of demos to those I heard where everyone attending was amazed. And the attendees included dealers, hobbyists like me, journalists with decades of experience and so on. Nobody came away from those demos saying anything even vaguely like what you are saying. As I can safely assume you have heard good 5.1 systems, then the only conclusion I can come to is that the demos you heard were flawed. But this is nothing new at shows like this: I stopped attending shows years ago precisely because I had _neve_r heard a decent demo at any of them. 



Kris Deering said:


> I guess it all comes down to what you are or are not used to in your own setup.


Yes, and I am used to very high quality sound, and have been for decades, so that is why I am so sure there is something amiss with your observations. Well, not your observations as I don't doubt what you heard, but YKWIM.

Of course, if you really believe that you can approximate Atmos by raising the surround speakers up higher, then we are talking about very different things


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I hear you. But I have to say there must have been something very wrong with what you heard at CEDIA, because it is so different to what I heard in London. I too get the 'normal' very immersive soundstage (especially when I engage PLIIz or Neo:X on my Height speakers). But it is just nothing at all, not in the slightest, anything like the 3D immersion I heard from Atmos in London. And nor can it be simply because there IS no discrete height content in my system, so if it isn't there to begin with then it can't be there to end with.


Please understand Keith that I am in no way trying to say anything to discredit your experience. What you heard in London was in a VASTLY different type of room than what is used at CEDIA. CEDIA is HORRIBLE for audio demos and only gives you an idea of what is possible, but not a reference level execution. This is why I mentioned that the only way for me to make a truly honest judgement would be to either try it in my room specifically or a dedicated room that is setup with the care and attention to detail that I would put into mine. It may turn out that I would completely change my tune in every way under those circumstances. But at the moment all I can do is go by what I heard from the companies that put their demos together (and were quite emphatic about how good they thought they were by the way). 

You'll have to let us know how it plays out in your own system when you get it all running.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> What has excited me so much about Atmos is just how much better it is than what I am used to and what I have heard before, from 5.1/7.1 systems. And my system is no slouch. It is in a dedicated and treated room, REW and Audyssey Pro optimised, with high quality speakers, properly placed, and the best subwoofers in the world (IMO and arguably). My AV dealer also has a superb room, with huge amounts of money and time and skill expended to make it sound fabulous. But neither his nor mine even begins to approach the Atmos systems I have heard.


You may be right. Most of the people I spoke with coming out of the various demos were NOT overly impressed (with Atmos). The guys I was with was not impressed and apparently neither was Kris Deering. So maybe less than ideal show conditions is the issue.

Maybe I was not sitting in the correct spot.

Atmos notwithstanding, the JBL Atmos demo was off the charts. Incredible sound. Tight bass while I was not in the best location, great envelopment - but it had something like 32 speakers and 6 subs!!!

The Auro demo was off the charts as well but as I posted previously, a much better three-dimensional sound scape. Maybe it was where I was sitting.

Keith, I have NO doubt I will end up with an Auro and/or Atmos system. What the Auro system did my system could not even approach so I'm sure it will all get worked out. I just think, as previously stated, I will sit on the sidelines a bit !!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I think Dan and Kris have stumbled onto a winning idea that will save people a lot of money: forget Atmos - to get truly overhead sounds and imaging, _get the same effect by mounting your left, centre, right and surround speakers on the ceiling! _
> 
> 
> 
> Quite.


Now Keith, I never said to forget Atmos. I think you're misrepresenting me. I stated from the many Atmos demos I went to, that timbre matching your mains and surrounds is of supreme importance. Yes, layout is key too, but you will get a much more seamless 3D effect.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Please understand Keith that I am in no way trying to say anything to discredit your experience. What you heard in London was in a VASTLY different type of room than what is used at CEDIA. CEDIA is HORRIBLE for audio demos and only gives you an idea of what is possible, but not a reference level execution. This is why I mentioned that the only way for me to make a truly honest judgement would be to either try it in my room specifically or a dedicated room that is setup with the care and attention to detail that I would put into mine. It may turn out that I would completely change my tune in every way under those circumstances. But at the moment all I can do is go by what I heard from the companies that put their demos together (and were quite emphatic about how good they thought they were by the way).


Yes, as I just said while you were typing, my own experience of audio shows, going back decades, is that the demos are pointless, simply because they are thrown together or in very poor rooms, or both. Atmos can only be judged IMO in a properly set up room such as the one I was in in London. Or a very good dealer's demo room of course.



Kris Deering said:


> You'll have to let us know how it plays out in your own system when you get it all running.


You can be sure I will. And I will be totally honest about it. I know I come across as extremely enthusiastic about Atmos (because of the concept and the execution (as heard by me, twice)) but if it fails to live up to expectations in my own system, you can be sure I will be telling! I have done my best to place the 4 ceiling speakers in their correct positions, and I have chosen those speakers carefully to tie in with Dolby recommendations. I am all set - everything is wired in and just waiting for the Denon to arrive.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> You may be right. Most of the people I spoke with coming out of the various demos were NOT overly impressed (with Atmos). The guys I was with was not impressed and apparently neither was Kris Deering. So maybe less than ideal show conditions is the issue.
> 
> Maybe I was not sitting in the correct spot.
> 
> Atmos notwithstanding, the JBL Atmos demo was off the charts. Incredible sound. Tight bass while I was not in the best location, great envelopment - but it had something like 32 speakers and 6 subs!!!
> 
> The Auro demo was off the charts as well but as I posted previously, a much better three-dimensional sound scape. Maybe it was where I was sitting.
> 
> Keith, I have NO doubt I will end up with an Auro and/or Atmos system. What the Auro system did my system could not even approach so I'm sure it will all get worked out. I just think, as previously stated, I will sit on the sidelines a bit !!


I see where you are coming from for sure. It is a great pity that the demos you heard did not blow you away, as they did for the entire participant numbers in London on both occasions. One difference may be that the demo room in London was just like a typical HT like you or I might have - not too big, 6 seats (5 for the second demo) and typical gear. IOW it was set up optimally. If the CEDIA demos were trying to pack a lot more people in than 6 or 8, I can see how they might be compromised.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Now Keith, I never said to forget Atmos. I think you're misrepresenting me. I stated from the many Atmos demos I went to, that timbre matching your mains and surrounds is of supreme importance. Yes, layout is key too, but you will get a much more seamless 3D effect.


I wasn't being _entirely _serious, Dan


----------



## brwsaw

ss9001 said:


> planar speakers and their smaller wall mounted panels as surrounds


Planar dome with 34 panels completing the top half of the sphere...I wonder...

I like the idea of using 34 transducers too


----------



## ss9001

in the quad days, it was called a Scheiber sphere


----------



## RichB

Kris Deering said:


> Not sure on this. Dolby makes it a point to say that absolutely NOTHING is left out of the mix if you go down to a 5.1 mix. No object is left behind sort of speak. Obviously it is mixed down into the 5.1 base layer (similar to what they do for 7.1 if you have a 5.1 mix).


Auro states that Atmos is lossey for the height objects. I am not sure if that is correct.
If this is correct, then wouldn't that mean that the 7.1 Atmos mix has some lossey sound when played on a 5.1/7.1 system where a standard mix would not?

Auro is using the extra bits in the 24 bits (18 bits are all that is needed) for full dynamics to encode the additional information which they claim is lossless.
I believe this also means that a LPCM uncompressed must be provided on the disk which uses more space/bandwidth.

- Rich


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I see where you are coming from for sure. It is a great pity that the demos you heard did not blow you away, as they did for the entire participant numbers in London on both occasions. One difference may be that the demo room in London was just like a typical HT like you or I might have - not too big, 6 seats (5 for the second demo) and typical gear. IOW it was set up optimally. If the CEDIA demos were trying to pack a lot more people in than 6 or 8, I can see how they might be compromised.


Most of the CEDIA demos were small. The Dolby one specifically was a bit large (but it was one of the least impressive). The Pioneer one was 5 seats in a room off the showfloor. I was surprised that this one was one of the least impressive to me. The Golden Ear one was only about 6 seats total and one of the more impressive ones. The Integra one wasn't too bad and a smaller room. The Trinnov one was about 10 people I believe. The Auro demo had a big room and so did the Harmon demo. Those were the best demos I heard. I didn't get to hear the Steinway room though, which I heard good things about.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> Auro states that Atmos is lossless for the height objects. I am not sure if that is correct.
> If this is correct, then wouldn't that mean that the 7.1 Atmos mix has some lossey sound when played on a 5.1/7.1 system where a standard mix would not?
> 
> Auro is using the extra bits in the 24 bits (18 bits are all that is needed) for full dynamics to encode the additional information which they claim is lossless.
> I believe this also means that a LPCM uncompressed must be provided on the disk which uses more space/bandwidth.
> 
> - Rich


It sounds like Dolby Atmos for the home has lossless bed channels (maybe up to 9.1) and the objects are lossy. How lossy? I don't know. And yet the way the current Auro3D format is set up with "folded" PCM, it's not exactly lossless without a drop-off in fidelity either. Neither side is being totally forthright in their descriptions... mainly marketing sins of omission. 

Just for giggles I'd love to know, on average, how much space and what kind of bitrate is necessary for the totally lossless cinema DCP version of Atmos. That's the only way true PCM fidelity is maintained from top to bottom while retaining all the objects.


----------



## Kris Deering

RichB said:


> Auro states that Atmos is lossless for the height objects. I am not sure if that is correct.
> If this is correct, then wouldn't that mean that the 7.1 Atmos mix has some lossey sound when played on a 5.1/7.1 system where a standard mix would not?
> 
> Auro is using the extra bits in the 24 bits (18 bits are all that is needed) for full dynamics to encode the additional information which they claim is lossless.
> I believe this also means that a LPCM uncompressed must be provided on the disk which uses more space/bandwidth.
> 
> - Rich


I think you meant that they said the height objects were lossy, not lossless. It is my understanding that everything in an Atmos mix is lossless, but I don't know that for sure. 

Auro uses PCM but once the mix is done it can be encoded as Dolby or DTS just like any other PCM mix. It is my understanding that the Auro titles that will be released later this year will all be in a DTS-HD Master Audio package. But the mix is done in PCM.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Most of the CEDIA demos were small. The Dolby one specifically was a bit large (but it was one of the least impressive). The Pioneer one was 5 seats in a room off the showfloor. I was surprised that this one was one of the least impressive to me. The Golden Ear one was only about 6 seats total and one of the more impressive ones. The Integra one wasn't too bad and a smaller room. The Trinnov one was about 10 people I believe. The Auro demo had a big room and so did the Harmon demo. Those were the best demos I heard. I didn't get to hear the Steinway room though, which I heard good things about.


Steinway had one of the best showcases of Atmos, and they also used *9.1.4* (like Procella). That is IMHO the base layout most people should be shooting for from what I heard.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> I think you meant that they said the height objects were lossy, not lossless. It is my understanding that everything in an Atmos mix is lossless, but I don't know that for sure.
> 
> Auro uses PCM but once the mix is done it can be encoded as Dolby or DTS just like any other PCM mix. It is my understanding that the Auro titles that will be released later this year will all be in a DTS-HD Master Audio package. But the mix is done in PCM.


Atmos for the home seems to be lossless beds and lossy objects. Atmos for the cinema is totally lossless since they have more room to work with. Auro isn't exactly bit for bit lossless either.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> Steinway had one of the best showcases of Atmos, and they also used *9.1.4* (like Procella). That is IMHO the base layout most people should be shooting for from what I heard.


Interesting that you say that. When I attended a private Dolby demo they said that all the mixing facilities that are doing the Blu-ray mixes use a 7.1.4 layout. While I realize that Atmos is scalable, for sake of the most accurate playback as possible to the mix wouldn't one want a 7.1.4 setup? This would ensure you are hearing exactly what the mixer heard to the greatest extent possible wouldn't it?


----------



## thebland

Kris Deering said:


> I think you meant that they said the height objects were lossy, not lossless. It is my understanding that everything in an Atmos mix is lossless, but I don't know that for sure.
> 
> Auro uses PCM but once the mix is done it can be encoded as Dolby or DTS just like any other PCM mix. It is my understanding that the Auro titles that will be released later this year will all be in a DTS-HD Master Audio package. But the mix is done in PCM.


Any Auro titles and dates mentioned at CEDIA? Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Interesting that you say that. When I attended a private Dolby demo they said that all the mixing facilities that are doing the Blu-ray mixes use a 7.1.4 layout. While I realize that Atmos is scalable, for sake of the most accurate playback as possible to the mix wouldn't one want a 7.1.4 setup? This would ensure you are hearing exactly what the mixer heard to the greatest extent possible wouldn't it?


Each of the two pairs of side speakers (there is no traditional "front wide" location as we've come to know it for home theaters) was clearly getting distinct information. Dolby has stated, unless they're lying, that the home mix retains the cinema mix attributes for artistic integrity.


----------



## smurraybhm

Well the ultimate test is trying Atmos or Auro at home - right? I too need a 75% off sale like Audioguy on the Datastat to be able to get one in my home allowing me to both audio formats. The Denon 5200w I ordered last week is on the UPS truck for delivery to the office today. I thought about sitting the first round out, my Denon 4311 has worked great for over two years, but in the end I didn't want to spend up to a year not enjoying what seems to be a big improvement in the audio department. Too many times things have been promised the next year only to be delivered the following year or never. Worse case I upgrade next year if Auro pans out, works with an Atmos speaker config or close, no VOG either, sell the 5200w and I'm out the difference. Worth it since who knows what else can happen in a year - the older I get the more I realize that. I will be trying Atmos out in a less than perfect room/setup/speaker placement - including the use of bipoles for rear surrounds 

Looking forward to hearing Dolby Surround for myself and trying out some different speaker placements to see how forgiving Dolby Surround is/isn't. I may be buying some Atmos modules as well this week if Batpig likes what he heard using the Def Techs. I'll be sure to share my thoughts, good and/or bad later this week. Hopefully I can duck out earlier from work and get things set up tonight - at least this has given me the opportunity to clean up my wiring. I'll have Transformers at the end of the month as well - can't pass up the first Atmos mix regardless of movie quality.


----------



## Kris Deering

thebland said:


> Any Auro titles and dates mentioned at CEDIA? Thanks!


All I was told was some Dreamworks titles will be re-issued with Auro soundtracks on Blu-ray by the end of this year. Based on the demos I would assume Turbo, Rise of the Guardians and The Croods as a minimum (all of which had Auro mixes for theaters). They said they are also looking to get Sony to support (ASM 2 had an Auro mix).


----------



## Mfusick

KidHorn said:


> Along with the top of the line Intel processor you would need liquid cooling for the processor and have to install cooling fins and a fan on the back of the receiver.


No way. It would never heat up or run at 100% CPU. And most modern Intel chips down clock and throttle down in lighter loads.

You can run an i7 at 2000mhz x 4 cores all day without a fan on it. That's about 50 times more powerful than the other low grade chips being used. The only reason those low grade weak chips even work is because they are optimized to be a one trick pony. They could't do well on other tasks they are not optimized for.

Where as the i7 will crush just about anything you throw at it. Audio is really a simple thing for a modern CPU to handle.


----------



## batpig

Kris Deering said:


> Most of the CEDIA demos were small. The Dolby one specifically was a bit large (but it was one of the least impressive). The Pioneer one was 5 seats in a room off the showfloor. I was surprised that this one was one of the least impressive to me.


I think an important point here is that there's no accounting for taste. Several other reports have stated that the Pio demo was one of (if not) the most impressive Atmos demos at the show. For example: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-atmos-demo-tops

*Pioneer's Atmos demo, using the company's Class D powered SC-89 receiver ($3000), was the best Atmos demo we heard on the first day of the show, with not just strong height effects but an overall tonal balance that made even the most aggressive movie soundtracks a treat.*


----------



## RichB

Kris Deering said:


> I think you meant that they said the height objects were lossy, not lossless. It is my understanding that everything in an Atmos mix is lossless, but I don't know that for sure.
> 
> Auro uses PCM but once the mix is done it can be encoded as Dolby or DTS just like any other PCM mix. It is my understanding that the Auro titles that will be released later this year will all be in a DTS-HD Master Audio package. But the mix is done in PCM.



Right, I edit the post to correctly state that Auro is making a big deal out of the use of lossey height objects (again, I have no idea if this is correct, not, or is just an option).


Dolby has been making a big deal that no objects are lost, but if the objects are playing within the bed and it is lossey, then there an Atmos mix would be a bit lossey on a non-Atmos system where a standard mix would not be lossless. This is might not be a big deal, but Dolby's competitors will point it out. 


Interesting that they will package Auro-3D in DTS-HD package, still with either format more space has to be required. 


- Rich


----------



## Kris Deering

batpig said:


> I think an important point here is that there's no accounting for taste. Several other reports have stated that the Pio demo was one of (if not) the most impressive Atmos demos at the show. For example: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-atmos-demo-tops
> 
> *Pioneer's Atmos demo, using the company's Class D powered SC-89 receiver ($3000), was the best Atmos demo we heard on the first day of the show, with not just strong height effects but an overall tonal balance that made even the most aggressive movie soundtracks a treat.*


Funny you mention this. Ericglo said the same thing about it just before we went in. I didn't have the "sweet spot" but there were only 5 seats tightly packed together. I felt that the surrounds were too hot and that demo had the least amount of "height" experience for me. I had two other friends with me in that demo. One was in the sweet spot and his experience mirrored mine. The other said he heard a lot of height stuff. So maybe it all depended on where you sat.

I will say it seemed to be one of the most controlled demos of the show with a decent room and it was away from the floor so no other noises in the background distracting you.


----------



## Mfusick

batpig said:


> I think an important point here is that there's no accounting for taste. Several other reports have stated that the Pio demo was one of (if not) the most impressive Atmos demos at the show. For example: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-atmos-demo-tops
> 
> *Pioneer's Atmos demo, using the company's Class D powered SC-89 receiver ($3000), was the best Atmos demo we heard on the first day of the show, with not just strong height effects but an overall tonal balance that made even the most aggressive movie soundtracks a treat.*


It was also the best demo I heard on the first day of the show... then the Dolby room and the Procella room blew it away. 

It never had a line and was easy to get into so that probably means they only hit that one that day. I'd love to hear them report back after waiting for the limited access (you needed tickets) JBL sythesis demo. The JBL demo was in a territory that Pio demo could never go.


----------



## Nightlord

Kris Deering said:


> Interesting that you say that. When I attended a private Dolby demo they said that all the mixing facilities that are doing the Blu-ray mixes use a 7.1.4 layout. While I realize that Atmos is scalable, for sake of the most accurate playback as possible to the mix wouldn't one want a 7.1.4 setup? This would ensure you are hearing exactly what the mixer heard to the greatest extent possible wouldn't it?


If there are nine beds in atmos, you definitely want all those for physical speakers. That most implementations now would only leave you two highs... Well, that's underspecing the implementations. I'm not at all surprised that they who have the hardware would demo 9.1.4.


----------



## thebland

Kris Deering said:


> All I was told was some Dreamworks titles will be re-issued with Auro soundtracks on Blu-ray by the end of this year. Based on the demos I would assume Turbo, Rise of the Guardians and The Croods as a minimum (all of which had Auro mixes for theaters). They said they are also looking to get Sony to support (ASM 2 had an Auro mix).


Do you think Auro has any chance to 'win' this format 'war' or at least be a player for time to come?

Thanks!


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> If there are nine beds in atmos, you definitely want all those for physical speakers. That most implementations now would only leave you two highs... Well, that's underspecing the implementations. I'm not at all surprised that they who have the hardware would demo 9.1.4.


The 8th/9th bed channels correspond to the HEIGHTS not the "front wide" position. So a 7.1.4 setup is theoretically all you need to get the whole shebang.


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> I think an important point here is that there's no accounting for taste. Several other reports have stated that the Pio demo was one of (if not) the most impressive Atmos demos at the show. For example: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-atmos-demo-tops
> 
> *Pioneer's Atmos demo, using the company's Class D powered SC-89 receiver ($3000), was the best Atmos demo we heard on the first day of the show, with not just strong height effects but an overall tonal balance that made even the most aggressive movie soundtracks a treat.*





Mfusick said:


> It was also the best demo I heard on the first day of the show... then the Dolby room and the Procella room blew it away.



So to reinforce my point further -- you say the Dolby room blew the Pio room away. But Kris said:



Kris Deering said:


> Most of the CEDIA demos were small. The Dolby one specifically was a bit large (*but it was one of the least impressive*).



So again, obviously a lot of subjectivity here!




Mfusick said:


> I'd love to hear them report back after waiting for the limited access (you needed tickets) JBL sythesis demo. The JBL demo was in a territory that Pio demo could never go.


To be fair, the JBL/Harman demo was not really apples-to-apples. There are the "you could do this in your living room" Atmos demos (i.e. up to 7.1.4, smaller room) and there are the ones that are basically literal "home theaters" with multiple rows, way more than 11 speakers etc. I don't think it's the same class, I would hope a room with several hundred thousands $$$ worth of equipment would "blow away" a consumer setup that could be had for under $10k. So S&V may have been referring to the first class.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> The 8th/9th bed channels correspond to the HEIGHTS not the "front wide" position. So a 7.1.4 setup is theoretically all you need to get the whole shebang.


Thanks, I assume you're right and then you're the first one to write that clear enough. 

Which also gives a clue to how they have coded down the placement of objects in 3D without using up too much bandwidth.


----------



## BigScreen

Now that CEDIA is over, it's unfortunate that additional ATMOS titles weren't announced. That fact that only one title is official speaks to the newness of all of this.

Tomorrow's release of Godzilla would have been a great title to do this on, but I have to wonder if it the production schedule was just too tight to make it happen?

Another thought is that the studios may have agreements in place with DTS for putting DTS-HD MA on a certain title, or a certain number of titles per year, and these types of agreements have to run their course before Dolby can get back into the game again.

It sounds as though all of the demos were content-related, and none had any kind of specific demo material to show off the imaging that ATMOS should be capable of. In my mind, I would be curious to hear a single sound element (a singing bird, a single-note bell ring, something) that would be played in each channel of the bed, and then have that sound elevate to various points in the audio hemisphere that ATMOS should be capable of producing. I know that such a demonstration is artificial and that's not how actual movies are done, but if you're trying to get an idea of the benefits of the technology and how capable a particular system is of being able to position sound at all points within that hemisphere, locating a single sound is going to be much easier than trying to decipher lots of sound during a movie clip (I can't imagine what kind of a mess Michael Bay's robot fight-fest is going to be like).

Lastly, with all of the sound processing, detection, and measurement possible with the likes of Audyssey XT32 and YPAO-RSC and the like, I'd like to see these manufacturers put in some kind of analysis of the installed system in regards to its spacial accuracy. Shouldn't it be possible to have the receiver ping various points in the hemisphere and then measure each ping for its accuracy in the space? For example, if the ping should be coming from an angle of 30 degrees to the right and 45 degrees above, the receiver ought to be able to detect that. Without that ability, any measurement is missing a critical piece, isn't it?


----------



## Mfusick

thebland said:


> Do you think Auro has any chance to 'win' this format 'war' or at least be a player for time to come?
> 
> Thanks!


No. 

It was awesome. But the format war will be won with content, and Dolby is going to win.


----------



## jrogers

This has been an excellent thread to follow along with the launch of Atmos! It seems much of the discussion has been around the "top end" of home Atmos systems, so I just thought I'd let others that might be considering an "entry level" of Atmos know that, having now installed (leveraging some of the great information posted here) and spending a relatively short amount of time with a 5.1.2, on-wall system - including comparing 5.1 vs 5.1.2 playback of various audio formats - the addition of the top-middle speakers (at ~80 degrees in my case) combined with the new Dolby Surround upmixer in the X4100W provides a noticeably better and more immersive movie experience, and has made the cost/effort of "Atmos" worthwhile for me even before Atmos-encoded content becomes available. This was emphasized when my 14-year-old son made a comment over the weekend that the DTS-HD MA movie we were watching wasn't as "good" as the previous Dolby TrueHD movie, which led me to notice the X4100W doesn't default "+ Dolby Surround" for DTS signals as it does for Dolby signals. Switched the X4100W to "DTS(-HD) + Dolby Surround" and the sound was once again "sick" as he put it 

Bottom line, a huge thumbs up for 5.1.2 Atmos.

----
Components
---
Display: Samsung UN75HU8550
Receiver: Denon X4100W
Blu-ray: LG BP540
Speaker C: GoldenEar SuperSat 60C
Speakers L/R: GoldenEar SuperSat 60 (at 20 degrees azimuth from MLP)
Speakers SL/SR: GoldenEar SuperSat 3 (at 95 degrees azimuth from MLP, inches above ear level)
Speakers TML/TMR: GoldenEar Invisa 525 (at 80 degrees altitude from MLP)
Subwoofer: SVS SB-2000
Acoustic Treatment: Acoustimac Panels (wip)
Game Console: Microsoft Xbox One
Cable Box: Xfinity X1
UHD Video Pack: Samsung CY-SUC10SH/ZA
Universal Remote: Harmony Ultimate One
Whole-House Audio: Sonos


----------



## pasender91

Nightlord said:


> Thanks, I assume you're right and then you're the first one to write that clear enough.
> 
> Which also gives a clue to how they have coded down the placement of objects in 3D without using up too much bandwidth.


I confirm beds 8 and 9 are for height info, so actually to play the bed info in full what we need as a minimum is 7.1.2, not 7.1.4.
I agree with most that 7.1.4 seems to be the ideal "real world" config in order to play the objects and cover well most angles of the 3D hemisphere.


----------



## Mfusick

batpig said:


> So to reinforce my point further -- you say the Dolby room blew the Pio room away. But Kris said:
> 
> So again, obviously a lot of subjectivity here!


I guess I will disagree with Kris then. (Politely  ) I heard the PIO demo first, it was the first Atmos demo I heard. The same day I heard the Dolby demo and thought it was better. It was. (opinion). Room was bigger, and better too. I'm not a huge fan of the TRIAD speakers, they fall a tad short for me every time I hear them (they used BRONZE TRIAD for the Dolby demo) but the set up and execution was well done and I thought it was more impressive than the Pioneer Demo.

But the Procella Demo was better than both. The Auro 3D was better than all three. And the JBL demo was operating in a territory the others could not go. Again, all opinions but I did attend most of the demos with other AVSers and folks that seemingly had the same opinions I did afterwards. None of the demos were bad, so it's not really important which was better or worse though. 



batpig said:


> To be fair, the JBL/Harman demo was not really apples-to-apples. There are the "you could do this in your living room" Atmos demos (i.e. up to 7.1.4, smaller room) and there are the ones that are basically literal "home theaters" with multiple rows, way more than 11 speakers etc. I don't think it's the same class, I would hope a room with several hundred thousands $$$ worth of equipment would "blow away" a consumer setup that could be had for under $10k. So S&V may have been referring to the first class.


Yeah I think you are right. But the Procella demo got crapped on by the JBL demo IMO, but costs are comparable. I would not compare $400 speakers to the JBL demo so I do agree in theory what you are saying about the others. Denon, Pioneer, Onkyo, Dolby and the other consumer level demos where certainly aimed to say you can do this now, and for consumer level commitments and budgets. 

The Procella room has a $35,000 processor and although I have no clue what the total value of the system was it clearly was JBL class budget. 

I'm fairly confident though, that the JBL speaker system could easily translate to a consumer AVR or Pro/Pro+AMPS (all sub $5000) and kick ass though, and there is DIY copycat options using the same JBL parts for way less $. I'm guessing with JBL parts (or like) you could DIY a speaker system that had about 95% of what that JBL system did under $10,000. The tricky part would be set up and integration but it can be done for sure. Set aside $1000 to have a top level calibrator come calibrate the system and it would own totally and completely any of the premium high end consumer options, soundly offering better value and dynamics.

The thing I took away from the JBL demo wasn't that exact system, but the reinforcement of the fact that a pro audio approach to a consumer solution will provide superior results and offer higher value than a premium high end consumer solution. It's not for everyone, in fact probably not for most people. But the few that have the talent and commitment to pull it off would be rewarded with superior cinema experience and value.


----------



## Kris Deering

thebland said:


> Do you think Auro has any chance to 'win' this format 'war' or at least be a player for time to come?
> 
> Thanks!


I don't think there is a format war to win honestly. We've always had two different types of audio tracks coexisting peacefully so there is no reason we can't continue to do that. The problem becomes setting up a speaker system that supports both equally and peacefully. Sounds like it would be harder to do with these two. But from what I heard at the show I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss Auro. But I would have also liked a demo in a more traditional room like the Atmos demos were being done in.


----------



## Kris Deering

BigScreen said:


> It sounds as though all of the demos were content-related, and none had any kind of specific demo material to show off the imaging that ATMOS should be capable of. In my mind, I would be curious to hear a single sound element (a singing bird, a single-note bell ring, something) that would be played in each channel of the bed, and then have that sound elevate to various points in the audio hemisphere that ATMOS should be capable of producing. I know that such a demonstration is artificial and that's not how actual movies are done, but if you're trying to get an idea of the benefits of the technology and how capable a particular system is of being able to position sound at all points within that hemisphere, locating a single sound is going to be much easier than trying to decipher lots of sound during a movie clip (I can't imagine what kind of a mess Michael Bay's robot fight-fest is going to be like).
> 
> Lastly, with all of the sound processing, detection, and measurement possible with the likes of Audyssey XT32 and YPAO-RSC and the like, I'd like to see these manufacturers put in some kind of analysis of the installed system in regards to its spacial accuracy. Shouldn't it be possible to have the receiver ping various points in the hemisphere and then measure each ping for its accuracy in the space? For example, if the ping should be coming from an angle of 30 degrees to the right and 45 degrees above, the receiver ought to be able to detect that. Without that ability, any measurement is missing a critical piece, isn't it?


Actually most of the demos were relying heavily on the Dolby Atmos trailers. There were only three short movie clips used but sometimes demos would only use one of them (and the movie clips were ALWAYS the least impressive demo). In the Dolby demo I attended I was in the sweet spot and when they had to chance to do a special test they did a helicopter panning around the ceiling. This is why I said that if Dolby could do pin point placement of an object right next to your head you could be damn sure this would have been the time to do it. Instead I got to hear the sounds of a helicopter going in circles above me. They did this with discrete ceiling speakers and up firing Atmos speakers. The upfiring was more convincing to me in this clip because it was a bit more difuse so the pans were more consistent. 

The helicopter pass over demo in the Auro presentation sounds FAR FAR better and extremely realistic. I grew up around bases with helicopters (my Dad worked with Army Chinook helicopters his whole life) and I've never heard any audio playback that sounded as true to life as the Auro one did for that.


----------



## drp4120205

*In-wall speaker*

I have recently purchased a Denon AVR-4100W, atoms enable receiver. I have 5.1 in wall speakers with 2.35:1 ratio screen. My three inwall speakers are behind the screen. So can I able to use with my atoms receiver to create this effect? I am planning to add two ceiling speakers as per their guide. Is it a good idea or do I need to have floor speakers? Sorry for newbie question. 

Thanks


----------



## Kris Deering

Mfusick said:


> I guess I will disagree with Kris then. (Politely  ) I heard the PIO demo first, it was the first Atmos demo I heard. The same day I heard the Dolby demo and thought it was better. It was. (opinion). Room was bigger, and better too. I'm not a huge fan of the TRIAD speakers, they fall a tad short for me every time I hear them (they used BRONZE TRIAD for the Dolby demo) but the set up and execution was well done and I thought it was more impressive than the Pioneer Demo.
> 
> But the Procella Demo was better than both. The Auro 3D was better than all three. And the JBL demo was operating in a territory the others could not go. Again, all opinions but I did attend most of the demos with other AVSers and folks that seemingly had the same opinions I did afterwards. None of the demos were bad, so it's not really important which was better or worse though.


I don't see a disagreement. The Dolby booth didn't sound good (as in sound quality) to me. I think the speakers and the room didn't jive well from a quality standpoint. But it was better at "Atmos" than the Pioneer room. The Pioneer had better sound, but it lacked the elements that were being used to convey the benefits of Atmos sound. Very little height perception to me. 

The Auro demo was FAR better than all of the Atmos demos save for the Harmon one for me. The Procella/Trinnov one was good though, but I thought its highlight was the jazz clip after the Atmos demos. The Harmon one wasn't realistic though since it was a true D-Cinema setup and not in any way a home or consumer based example of Atmos. They used a D-Cinema server with licensed content, not the material that anyone else was using from a server or Blu-ray.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Scott Simonian said:


> So I got to go to most of the Atmos demos at CEDIA.
> 
> I found the Procella, Onkyo and Yamaha booths to be the most disappointing. Onkyo and Yamaha because they had these really small rooms, if you would call them rooms, that were completely exposed to the outside show area so lots of noise would mask the demo. The Yamaha booth was nice but the Atmos demo was extremely brief. Same with Onkyo which really was the same experience. Both used overhead speakers and did not use the 'Atmos-enabled' type configuration but now I think it would not have been that useful given their layout. (I'll post pics later)
> 
> Procella was disappointing mostly because of all the damn hype about it. So they had a 9.1.4 layout (and I confirmed this at my demo) but I can not confirm or not whether the "wide" position and "side" position were separate signals or not. To me it didn't really sound like it. Just sounded exactly like all the 7.1.4 demos I've heard. They were using a Trinnov processor and at least in relation to the demo I received I don't see what all the fuss is about. Seriously. The Procella speakers sounded like...speakers. Little speakers. What the heck is the big deal and why everyone raves about them? I don't get it. Maybe it was all this build up and hype that left me disappointed in them.
> 
> The Dolby and Pioneer demos were the most impressive. Maybe it's because of their setup. Actually I'm certain it's because they actually put some thought into their setup.
> 
> Which brings me to Auro. I got a chance to demo Auro3D and it was pretty impressive. Mostly because the room was HUGE. All the Atmos demos pretty much stepped on their own foot with their low ceilings. My impression of Auro is that it sounded big but their overhead was completely non-existent. Several of us came out from the Auro demo and many said they had preferred the Auro. I thought immediately it was because of the impressive room (also they had the best sounding room with proper speaker set up and calibration. Most other demos at the show I'd wonder if a monkey had done all the work. More on this later) and it would. Had there been an Atmos demo in a room like Auro had I think these impressions would have swayed the other way from what we discussed outside the Auro demo.
> 
> Sorry. I want to go much more into this but I am pressed for time at work. Please ask away or forward this quote to another Atmos/Auro thread if you would like to discuss any of this in further detail. I know I would like to but it's crazy here at the office.


Post from CEDIA thread. Thought it would be useful in here.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> That means they take into consideration the phasing of the objects and try to put them into an acoustic space that is as close as they can render without the Atmos information.


When downmixing, phase tricks aren't used to get the objects to image where they would have been rendered by an Atmos decoder. If you're playing back the decoded Atmos track, then those sounds will be heard from above you because they're coming from speakers above you. When listening to the legacy downmix, the only reason you'll hear sounds above ear level is because you have speakers above ear level. Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> When downmixing, phase tricks aren't used to get the objects to image where they would have been rendered by an Atmos decoder. If you're playing back the decoded Atmos track, then those sounds will be heard from above you because they're coming from speakers above you. When listening to the legacy downmix, the only reason you'll hear sounds above ear level is because you have speakers above ear level. Nothing more complicated than that.


I agree, but if an object was meant to be directly above the listener and you only have a 5.1 system you can still render an object above the listener if the surrounds are higher up and the "sound" is in phase between the two surrounds. I find it awfully convinient that all of a sudden it is a bad thing to have your surround speakers higher up on the side walls and not directly in line with your ears. If you have a 5.1 setup like that I can completely understand why all of a sudden everything would sound different. But for those of us that have been putting the surrounds where they've been suggested for years now, I guess we're not hearing what we are "supposed" to anymore.


----------



## mry110

Does anyone have the Onkyo Atmos add on speakers? I ordered some on Amazon hoping their ship date is wrong (like most of the Atmos stuff, what's up with that). No shipment confirmation yet.


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> Do you think Auro has any chance to 'win' this format 'war' or at least be a player for time to come?
> 
> Thanks!


No. At this point it looks like Auro is going nowhere. 

The only thing they have going for them is their up-mixer (which you seem to like ) and that's great but us mere mortals will never afford their $10-20,000 buy in for just an 'upmixer'. No thanks.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Post from CEDIA thread. Thought it would be useful in here.


Very helpful, because it shows how varied the opinions were of the demos. 

I'm so glad that lots of AVS members got to listen to multiple demos, because it shows everyone what Atmos is and isn't. The fact that one person can rank the various Atmos demos from best to worst clearly shows that it is no magic bullet that will be a cure-all for home theatre. Same is true on the commercial side. Living within driving distance of 13 Atmos theatres, I learnt very quickly that it wasn't the great homogenizer, that installing Atmos didn't make a particular theatre sounds like other Atmos theatres. 

So folks got to hear for themselves that careful set up and good quality gear were still deciding factors for what made a system sound great, and it should be obvious to everyone at this point that Atmos won't change that. Seeing the same few clips demonstrated multiple times might seem annoying at first, but it also had a benefit. Folks got to hear for themselves that creativity and skill were still the deciding factors for what made a soundtrack sound great, and that object-based mixing won't change that. 

While it was helpful that a few of us AVS members got to describe our experiences at the Dolby press day in August, it is much more helpful that many more AVS members got the do the same from CEDIA. Like I said, gives a better idea of what Atmos is and isn't.


----------



## bkeeler10

Kris Deering said:


> The helicopter pass over demo in the Auro presentation sounds FAR FAR better and extremely realistic. I grew up around bases with helicopters (my Dad worked with Army Chinook helicopters his whole life) and I've never heard any audio playback that sounded as true to life as the Auro one did for that.


I did not hear the helicopter demo in Atmos, but I did hear Auro and it was in fact very realistic. To me, however, there were lots of factors that could have contributed to this feeling, not the least of which would be the very lifelike output levels that the system was capable of, and in fact it seemed to be merely idling along even at those levels. The size of the space must have had something to do with it. The mix itself also played a role I'm sure (they created some fantastic material to demo with). As I've said elsewhere, the Auro vs Atmos comparison based on demos at CEDIA is not apples-to-apples IMO. And as someone else said, if Dolby had arranged for a demo space and system on the scale of the Auro setup, that would have been a fascinating comparison. Or if Auro had something set up similar to most of the Atmos demos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well said, Sanjay. I didn't think of it like that but you make a great point. I too thought that with the advent of Dolby Atmos that things would "homogenize" better than ever and this is clearly not the case at all. Now, I haven't been to as many Atmos cinemas as you have but now I have been to at least three different theaters with Atmos with you and I can definitely say that they all sounded different. Some better than others in one aspect, some worse.

This was the same for this show. I do wonder what I'd think if some of these demos were a little better prepared for listening and had been calibrated a bit better. Maybe I just have high expectations. 

I think it keeps things interesting that one system can be different from another. While as a content creator I would prefer to have one system sound exactly like another. As an audio enthusiast I like when things sound a bit different. It's nice to go to someone else home and hear a different presentation. Gives that room a certain personality or character.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> I agree, but if an object was meant to be directly above the listener and you only have a 5.1 system you can still render an object above the listener if the surrounds are higher up and the "sound" is in phase between the two surrounds.


How do you know that a sound that is mixed equally and in-phase to the two surround channels wasn't meant to image behind you in a 5.1 system? You'd hear that same sound as a phantom centre up front, but that's because your front speakers are at ear level. The only reason you're hearing it as a phantom height image is because your surrounds are well above ear level. Place 5 of the same floorstanding tower speakers around you and tell me if that's still a height object? You're taking localization that is a result of speaker placement in your room and ascribing the film maker's intent to it.


> I find it awfully convinient that all of a sudden it is a bad thing to have your surround speakers higher up on the side walls and not directly in line with your ears.


It's not a bad thing if you're willing to admit what it is: surround information that you're hearing above you.


> But for those of us that have been putting the surrounds where they've been suggested for years now, I guess we're not hearing what we are "supposed" to anymore.


Correct. For a 5.1 set-up, it has been suggested for years to have the single pair of surrounds straddle a location rearward and above the listener in order to gives a compromise of side, rear and height imaging. When you add surround-back speakers, the surrounds can move forward to give better rear vs side separation. When you add heights, the surrounds can be lowered to give better above vs around separation. As the system changes with the addition of more speakers, where your surrounds are "supposed" to be will change appropriately. Would be weird if it didn't.


----------



## RichB

Kris Deering said:


> I agree, but if an object was meant to be directly above the listener and you only have a 5.1 system you can still render an object above the listener if the surrounds are higher up and the "sound" is in phase between the two surrounds. I find it awfully convinient that all of a sudden it is a bad thing to have your surround speakers higher up on the side walls and not directly in line with your ears. If you have a 5.1 setup like that I can completely understand why all of a sudden everything would sound different. But for those of us that have been putting the surrounds where they've been suggested for years now, I guess we're not hearing what we are "supposed" to anymore.



All theaters have the surrounds up high, so one could argue that this configuration is true to the cinema model (which will not change).


- Rich


----------



## batpig

drp4120205 said:


> I have recently purchased a Denon AVR-4100W, atoms enable receiver. I have 5.1 in wall speakers with 2.35:1 ratio screen. My three inwall speakers are behind the screen. So can I able to use with my atoms receiver to create this effect? I am planning to add two ceiling speakers as per their guide. Is it a good idea or do I need to have floor speakers? Sorry for newbie question.
> 
> Thanks


A speaker makes noise. It doesn't matter if it's sitting on the floor or stuck to the wall or inside the wall. Or, more specifically, there is nothing specific about Atmos that changes this. If your 5.1 in-wall speaker setup sounds good now, it will still sound good with Atmos.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> How do you know that a sound that is mixed equally and in-phase to the two surround channels wasn't meant to image behind you in a 5.1 system? You'd hear that same sound as a phantom centre up front, but that's because your front speakers are at ear level. The only reason you're hearing it as a phantom height image is because your surrounds are well above ear level. Place 5 of the same floorstanding tower speakers around you and tell me if that's still a height object? You're taking localization that is a result of speaker placement in your room and ascribing the film maker's intent to it. It's not a bad thing if you're willing to admit what it is: surround information that you're hearing above you.


It will image behind if there is little to none of the same information in the front channels balancing the position in the space. None of this is hard. But we can play the what if all day. Ultimately NONE of us know exactly what the intent of the mixer was and what his system was exactly when he did the mix (unless of course your Filmmixer and you did the mix!) so we can go round and round on this all day. None of us will EVER get exactly what the mixer intended perfectly unless we sit in the room when he is mixing it, and only if he'll let you sit in his chair and he plays it back for you.


----------



## SanchoPanza

^^^ then you'll need him to lend you his ears...


----------



## Mfusick

Scott Simonian said:


> *Post from CEDIA thread. Thought it would be useful in here.*
> 
> So I got to go to most of the Atmos demos at CEDIA.
> 
> I found the Procella, Onkyo and Yamaha booths to be the most disappointing. Onkyo and Yamaha because they had these really small rooms, if you would call them rooms, that were completely exposed to the outside show area so lots of noise would mask the demo. The Yamaha booth was nice but the Atmos demo was extremely brief. Same with Onkyo which really was the same experience. Both used overhead speakers and did not use the 'Atmos-enabled' type configuration but now I think it would not have been that useful given their layout. (I'll post pics later)
> 
> Procella was disappointing mostly because of all the damn hype about it. So they had a 9.1.4 layout (and I confirmed this at my demo) but I can not confirm or not whether the "wide" position and "side" position were separate signals or not. To me it didn't really sound like it. Just sounded exactly like all the 7.1.4 demos I've heard. They were using a Trinnov processor and at least in relation to the demo I received I don't see what all the fuss is about. Seriously. The Procella speakers sounded like...speakers. Little speakers. What the heck is the big deal and why everyone raves about them? I don't get it. Maybe it was all this build up and hype that left me disappointed in them.
> 
> The Dolby and Pioneer demos were the most impressive. Maybe it's because of their setup. Actually I'm certain it's because they actually put some thought into their setup.
> 
> Which brings me to Auro. I got a chance to demo Auro3D and it was pretty impressive. Mostly because the room was HUGE. All the Atmos demos pretty much stepped on their own foot with their low ceilings. My impression of Auro is that it sounded big but their overhead was completely non-existent. Several of us came out from the Auro demo and many said they had preferred the Auro. I thought immediately it was because of the impressive room (also they had the best sounding room with proper speaker set up and calibration. Most other demos at the show I'd wonder if a monkey had done all the work. More on this later) and it would. Had there been an Atmos demo in a room like Auro had I think these impressions would have swayed the other way from what we discussed outside the Auro demo.
> 
> Sorry. I want to go much more into this but I am pressed for time at work. Please ask away or forward this quote to another Atmos/Auro thread if you would like to discuss any of this in further detail. I know I would like to but it's crazy here at the office.




Hi Scott, 

I was nice to meet you! I think I agree with a lot of what you say, and I know I feel a lot of the same ways you do about this stuff. But if I am being honest with myself and to others reading, I probably share these thoughts with you because of our similar interests and hanging out in the DIY audio forum. I think you and I realize (well perhaps BigmouthinDC too because he has JBL drivers and CD DIY speakers) that there is a proven winning track record there with the basis founded in pro audio and commercial cinema solutions. But not everyone wants to employ a commercial or professional level solution to a consumer level project, so there is likely some disagreement here that's going to be as much a difference in personality and opinion as it would be in reality.

I know some of the guys around here like the Procella/Triad stuff and I imagine what they like about it is knowing it's quality product, it's well manufactured and designed, and it's proven. Those guys also probably tend not to be DIY (at least with regard to speaker building) and don't want the uncertainty of the results or the hassle of the process. 

It's just different strokes for different folks. 

But I do agree with you 100% and share the same feelings. I don't think the procella sounded "small" as much as the JBL sounds "HUGE" !  There is a certain point where the laws of physics take over on these things too. There is only so much bass and midbass you'll get from a limited sized driver and the laws of physics will not yield even for the best quality designs and products. BTW I never got a chance to tell you about my subwoofer solution project I am embarking on, but I'll save that for PM. Since I know you are a "bass enabler" I'm confident you'll like it very much.

I don't think many around here would be doing a set up like that JBL demo in their house! It was essentially a professional level application in reality (and it costs $200,000.00 too). But I do think a lot around here would employ the same basic fundamentals of that system and it's design with either a DIY flavor for a lot cheaper, or just a lesser execution using JBL pro level components. None of the speakers themselves are excessively prices actually, certainly not in comparison to the TRIAD or Procella stuff.


----------



## Mfusick

BTW- pics here for anyone that wants see: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...594922-cedia-2014-you-going.html#post27432954


----------



## Mfusick

Kris Deering said:


> I don't see a disagreement. The Dolby booth didn't sound good (as in sound quality) to me. I think the speakers and the room didn't jive well from a quality standpoint. But it was better at "Atmos" than the Pioneer room. The Pioneer had better sound, but it lacked the elements that were being used to convey the benefits of Atmos sound. Very little height perception to me.
> 
> The Auro demo was FAR better than all of the Atmos demos save for the Harmon one for me. The Procella/Trinnov one was good though, but I thought its highlight was the jazz clip after the Atmos demos. The Harmon one wasn't realistic though since it was a true D-Cinema setup and not in any way a home or consumer based example of Atmos. They used a D-Cinema server with licensed content, not the material that anyone else was using from a server or Blu-ray.


I do agree with you. The Pioneer speakers were designed by Andrew Jones right? Triad should hire him... lol

I agree on the pioneer being a good demo but not a good ATMOS implementation (which is where I was judging) and I agree on the overkill of the JBL.

I loved the JBL but it's like driving a race car to work, or doing hunting with a GPS controlled missle launcher.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Heheh. Hey, Mike! It was great to finally meet you. 

I agree with what you are saying. I know everyone has their own interests and that is not always big, pro-style speakers like we crazies prefer. I just thought there was nothing inherently special about the Procella speakers compared to anything else I've heard at the show. That's all. 

Small speakers sound like small speakers.   Also that room didn't sound all that fantastic either even though it appeared they had given some thought to the acoustics. Oh well.

Btw, I would like to know about your sub system you are working on. As I mentioned in the CEDIA thread, my time there was so short I did not get to spend a lot of time with everybody. Seems like whenever we met up we were going in different directions.  Glad we got to meet up, nonetheless. Look forward to hear about what you're working on.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mfusick said:


> I do agree with you. The Pioneer speakers were designed by Andrew Jones right? Triad should hire him... lol
> 
> I agree on the pioneer being a good demo but not a good ATMOS implementation (which is where I was judging) and I agree on the overkill of the JBL.
> 
> I loved the JBL but it's like driving a race car to work, or doing hunting with a GPS controlled missle launcher.


And what's wrong with either of those!??!  

I thought the Pioneer demo was great because they had done their room very well and it was well isolated from the show noise. Makes a huge difference. Also the Pioneer demo was Atmos but it was 5.1.4 and they did not use actual overheads at all. It was all 'reflective' Atmos-enabled speakers. This is a good demo because it shows what you can do with no overheads. It's also just good to compare it with the other Atmos demos in general because of this, imho.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> When I attended a private Dolby demo they said that all the mixing facilities that are doing the Blu-ray mixes use a 7.1.4 layout. While I realize that Atmos is scalable, for sake of the most accurate playback as possible to the mix wouldn't one want a 7.1.4 setup? This would ensure you are hearing exactly what the mixer heard to the greatest extent possible wouldn't it?


Makes total perfect sense.


----------



## Mfusick

Scott Simonian said:


> Heheh. Hey, Mike! It was great to finally meet you.
> 
> I agree with what you are saying. I know everyone has their own interests and that is not always big, pro-style speakers like we crazies prefer. I just thought there was nothing inherently special about the Procella speakers compared to anything else I've heard at the show. That's all.


I totally agree. A $500 DIY design could best them. As could the M2's for the same cash. 




Scott Simonian said:


> Small speakers sound like small speakers.   Also that room didn't sound all that fantastic either even though it appeared they had given some thought to the acoustics. Oh well.
> 
> Btw, I would like to know about your sub system you are working on. As I mentioned in the CEDIA thread, my time there was so short I did not get to spend a lot of time with everybody. Seems like whenever we met up we were going in different directions.  Glad we got to meet up, nonetheless. Look forward to hear about what you're working on.


----------



## batpig

jrogers said:


> This has been an excellent thread to follow along with the launch of Atmos! It seems much of the discussion has been around the "top end" of home Atmos systems, so I just thought I'd let others that might be considering an "entry level" of Atmos know that, having now installed (leveraging some of the great information posted here) and spending a relatively short amount of time with a 5.1.2, on-wall system - including comparing 5.1 vs 5.1.2 playback of various audio formats - the addition of the top-middle speakers (at ~80 degrees in my case) combined with the new Dolby Surround upmixer in the X4100W provides a noticeably better and more immersive movie experience, and has made the cost/effort of "Atmos" worthwhile for me even before Atmos-encoded content becomes available.


Out of curiosity what is the height of your surrounds (you mentioned azimuth)?

I ask because, at this point (very limited testing) I am not noticing a dramatic change to my 5.1 setup with the addition of the Def Tech A60 Atmos modules. In fact, although it's premature, I may be recanting my initial speculation that grabbing a pair of bookshelf speakers and aiming them up at the ceiling isn't as effective as dedicated Atmos modules. Even with the "Dolby enabled" Def Techs, I would describe the difference with DSU as a suble increase in the overhead envelopment, the "tallness" of the front soundstage, but it's not much different from what I was getting with the "fake" Atmos modules. I'm sure some of this is because I use Audyssey which (as we now know) calibrates those two channels with the HRTF filters built into the target curve.

Now, my surrounds are pretty high up (about 6ft) so what the two front Atmos modules are really doing is providing a "front height" sensation, but probably not with as much vertical separation with the ambient surround effects that DSU seems to be matrixing into the top channels as if my surrounds were closer to ear level. I imagine the effect would be much more dramatic if my surrounds were down at ear level too. 

The huge elephantine caveat in the room is that I don't have access to any NATIVE Atmos content. So it's hard to find anything to really test the overhead imaging. But it feels like DSU (like PLIIz before it with height effects) seems to be taking a more conservative approach with what it tries to send above you. Rather than throw up some discrete sound that will be distracting suddenly appearing overhead, it appears to be mostly ambient info and "enhancement" of the listener level effects.


----------



## Mfusick

Scott Simonian said:


> And what's wrong with either of those!??!
> 
> I thought the Pioneer demo was great because they had done their room very well and it was well isolated from the show noise. Makes a huge difference. Also the Pioneer demo was Atmos but it was 5.1.4 and they did not use actual overheads at all. It was all 'reflective' Atmos-enabled speakers. This is a good demo because it shows what you can do with no overheads. It's also just good to compare it with the other Atmos demos in general because of this, imho.


That was the cool part of the dolby demo IMO. They demo both overhead vs reflective back to back, and surprisingly the reflective was great.

I'd imagine in a properly designed dedicated theater, using reflectors and diffusers properly could yield a better result than true overheads, but it would take a serious level of acoustical prowess, or professional plans to get it right.


----------



## FilmMixer

BigScreen said:


> Now that CEDIA is over, it's unfortunate that additional ATMOS titles weren't announced. That fact that only one title is official speaks to the newness of all of this.
> 
> Tomorrow's release of Godzilla would have been a great title to do this on, but I have to wonder if it the production schedule was just too tight to make it happen?
> 
> Another thought is that the studios may have agreements in place with DTS for putting DTS-HD MA on a certain title, or a certain number of titles per year, and these types of agreements have to run their course before Dolby can get back into the game again.
> 
> It sounds as though all of the demos were content-related, and none had any kind of specific demo material to show off the imaging that ATMOS should be capable of. In my mind, I would be curious to hear a single sound element (a singing bird, a single-note bell ring, something) that would be played in each channel of the bed, and then have that sound elevate to various points in the audio hemisphere that ATMOS should be capable of producing. I know that such a demonstration is artificial and that's not how actual movies are done, but if you're trying to get an idea of the benefits of the technology and how capable a particular system is of being able to position sound at all points within that hemisphere, locating a single sound is going to be much easier than trying to decipher lots of sound during a movie clip (I can't imagine what kind of a mess Michael Bay's robot fight-fest is going to be like).
> 
> Lastly, with all of the sound processing, detection, and measurement possible with the likes of Audyssey XT32 and YPAO-RSC and the like, I'd like to see these manufacturers put in some kind of analysis of the installed system in regards to its spacial accuracy. Shouldn't it be possible to have the receiver ping various points in the hemisphere and then measure each ping for its accuracy in the space? For example, if the ping should be coming from an angle of 30 degrees to the right and 45 degrees above, the receiver ought to be able to detect that. Without that ability, any measurement is missing a critical piece, isn't it?


There are no agreements on what codecs studios use. There are no such deals. 

It is my understanding that the professional authoring tools, used for mass duplicating, took longer than hope for to get ironed out (not Dolly's domain.). 

Neither DTS nor Dolby are paid a per title licensing fee for their codecs. 

Ease of use and speed of the authoring tools early on we're clearly in DTS' favor. 

I've heard the new Atmos tools are smoking fast.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I didn't think of it like that but you make a great point.


Well, my post was based on what we were talking about last night. When I asked you about the Auro demo, you reflexively started talking about what a big room it was, how well the equipment had been chosen and how carefully the system had been tuned. You didn't say 'wow, limiting playback to channels really does blow away object-based rendering'. That is, you didn't confuse presentation with the audio format (even if others might be).


----------



## Bigham16

My impression for 7.2.4 Dolby Surround with the Marantz 7009.

Movies: I watched a number of different clips from movies and was just blown away, I really was! I watched a number of clips from different movies over the weekend that I know well. I didn't include all of them below, just a few. 

Need for Speed was the first as it has a lot of helicopters and racing (obviously). Everything in this movie panned or moved seamlessly. It really seemed three dimensional. The cars moving and passing each other never sounded like it was coming from a specific speaker, they just moved around the room. All the helicopter and plane scenes sounded great, coming from the right, left, front, back, up, down and all around. 

I watched the beginning or first 10 minutes of Oblivion. After Tom takes off in his ship and enters the storm, it sounded like I was covered in rain, the lighting was coming from all around and above. The best part was after Tom fixed the circle robot(?) on the football field, after it scans the area, it takes off and disappears above and behind you. It was soo cool because the sound of the robot disappearing kept weakening and weakening and weakening, never really disappearing. Great effect that I had never heard before.

One of the cave scenes from Prometheus was amazing as well. Felt like I was in the cave with condensation/drips of water falling all around. When one of the guys launches four of those little orbes that maps the caves, sounded like it was scanning me from head to toe and then taking off over my head and behind me. It was great.

Watched one of the first scenes from Art of Flight. Deadmau5 music first filled the room then once it starts to quiet down, all of the music moved to the front stage but it was very seamless. Was a really cool effect on how and when the music moved. 

The best so far was the beginning of Top Gun. Just flipping amazing. I felt like I was really on the aircraft carrie, no lie. Sounds were coming from every where, detailed, and atmospheric. Even though I have never been on an aircraft carrie, it sure felt like it. Never seemed like there were speakers in the room, just jets and Kenny Loggins. The best over the head effect was when Tom rides his motorcycle next to the landing/takeoff strip (after he gets accepted to Top Gun), a jet fly's literally right over you. Like at an air show.

I thought Neo:X sounded great with the wides and front heights but Dolby Surround is just amazing. Not just better but way better. 

The sound really is spacious, seamless, enveloping, and atmospheric (I know I have used these words a lot). Never before have I felt like I was actually in a movie until this weekend. It really is that good. I can't wait for real Atmos movies to come out. I do have Transformers 4 on pre-order.

The same thing for video games, it was just better in very way.

I didn't try my front heights or wides in the Atmos config but at this point not sure I will. Maybe on a rainy day  I didn't try music either, was having way too much fun with movies and video games.

I am no professional by any means, just an ordinary dude like most of you and I hope this helps.

The only very very small complaint I have so far is I felt like the back top speakers were getting a little more action than the fronts. This is more than likely a placement issue than a with Dolby Surround. I tend to aim the tops more at the listing position the next time I tinker with it.

Oh, I did try a before and after Audyssey calibration and I am sure as you know it was much better after. Thanks!!


----------



## kbarnes701

jrogers said:


> This has been an excellent thread to follow along with the launch of Atmos! It seems much of the discussion has been around the "top end" of home Atmos systems, so I just thought I'd let others that might be considering an "entry level" of Atmos know that, having now installed (leveraging some of the great information posted here) and spending a relatively short amount of time with a 5.1.2, on-wall system - including comparing 5.1 vs 5.1.2 playback of various audio formats - the addition of the top-middle speakers (at ~80 degrees in my case) combined with the new Dolby Surround upmixer in the X4100W provides a noticeably better and more immersive movie experience, and has made the cost/effort of "Atmos" worthwhile for me even before Atmos-encoded content becomes available. This was emphasized when my 14-year-old son made a comment over the weekend that the DTS-HD MA movie we were watching wasn't as "good" as the previous Dolby TrueHD movie, which led me to notice the X4100W doesn't default "+ Dolby Surround" for DTS signals as it does for Dolby signals. Switched the X4100W to "DTS(-HD) + Dolby Surround" and the sound was once again "sick" as he put it
> 
> Bottom line, a huge thumbs up for 5.1.2 Atmos.


Nice report. Thanks for that. Glad to hear it's sick


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> All I was told was some Dreamworks titles will be re-issued with Auro soundtracks on Blu-ray by the end of this year. Based on the demos I would assume *Turbo, Rise of the Guardians and The Croods* as a minimum (all of which had Auro mixes for theaters). They said they are also looking to get Sony to support (ASM 2 had an Auro mix).


To be perfectly honest; I won't be re-buying them three Blu-ray titles that you just mentioned above and that I already have in my collection. 

♦ I want *Gravity, Tron Legacy, Prometheus, LOTR EE trilogy, How to Train your Dragon, ...* type of movies on Blu with Dolby Atmos. ...Them, I'll repurchase again. 

If Dolby Atmos is the new surround processing on the block, make it intelligently effective; with attractive movies to the cinema lovers (videophiles and audiophiles), not just the kids. 

That's only my own personal opinion. ...And it will dictate how I will be spending my money (voting with my own wallet). 

Yes, I can see myself waiting here, until the right material mixed by the right people gets out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> T*his is why I said that if Dolby could do pin point placement of an object right next to your head you could be damn sure this would have been the time to do it.* Instead I got to hear the sounds of a helicopter going in circles above me. They did this with discrete ceiling speakers and up firing Atmos speakers.


Did you not notice this with the 'Leaf' trailer?


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> I think an important point here is that there's no accounting for taste. Several other reports have stated that the Pio demo was one of (if not) the most impressive Atmos demos at the show. For example: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-atmos-demo-tops
> 
> *Pioneer's Atmos demo, using the company's Class D powered SC-89 receiver ($3000), was the best Atmos demo we heard on the first day of the show, with not just strong height effects but an overall tonal balance that made even the most aggressive movie soundtracks a treat.*





Kris Deering said:


> Funny you mention this. Ericglo said the same thing about it just before we went in. I didn't have the "sweet spot" but there were only 5 seats tightly packed together. I felt that the surrounds were too hot and that demo had the least amount of "height" experience for me. I had two other friends with me in that demo. One was in the sweet spot and his experience mirrored mine. The other said he heard a lot of height stuff. So maybe it all depended on where you sat.
> 
> I will say it seemed to be one of the most controlled demos of the show with a decent room and it was away from the floor so no other noises in the background distracting you.


Two key words here: *Personal Taste*. ...Tough to debate.

* Seating position; that too is of importance. ...Very influential on our taste; up to a certain/valid physical and psychological and acoustical/logical degree. ...Cannot be dismissed.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> Ultimately NONE of us know exactly what the intent of the mixer was and what his system was exactly when he did the mix (unless of course your Filmmixer and you did the mix!) so we can go round and round on this all day.


Agreed, hence my addressing your comment about _"an object was meant to be directly above the listener"_, since none of us know exactly where the sound object was "meant to be" just based on it being equal in both surround channels. Play back those channels through speakers above ear level and you'll think it is a height object. Play back those channels through speakers at ear level and you'll think it is a surround-back object.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well said, Sanjay. I didn't think of it like that but you make a great point. I too thought that with the advent of Dolby Atmos that things would "homogenize" better than ever and this is clearly not the case at all. Now, I haven't been to as many Atmos cinemas as you have but now I have been to at least three different theaters with Atmos with you and I can definitely say that they all sounded different. Some better than others in one aspect, some worse.


It's always been like this hasn't it? With 5.1 nobody expects every cinema they go to sound exactly like every other cinema. Some are great and some suck. Same with content - some make fantastic use of 5.1, others not so much. Why would it be any different with Atmos? 

Comparing Atmos with Auro on the basis of demos of uncertain quality seems to me like comparing, for example, DTS-HD MA and TrueHD and coming to the conclusion that one is way better than the other because that's how it sounded in the demos at CEDIA. IOW, it's a pointless comparison. 

The only way to compare Atmos and Auro is to have both systems set up in the same room, playing the same content, and then deciding which sounds best. Some movies have been mixed in both formats (eg GotG I believe, for example) so they could be used for the comparison. Otherwise, these subjective, sighted comparisons seem to me to have as much value as any subjective, sighted comparison of anything - speakers, cables, amps, whatever - that is to say, no value at all. IMO.


----------



## Scottyb09

Forgive my ignorance but can you help explain to me what benefit Atmos might bring to my home theater? I do not have the ability to install any more speakers above and beyond my 5.1 M&K set up (i.e., no 'overhead' speakers or speakers mounted above above the front channels). Knowing this how might Atmos benefit me above and beyond my current DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Marantz set-up? I examined the Dolby website and a few others and frankly don't understand it much.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Post from CEDIA thread. Thought it would be useful in here.


Scott - where were you sitting in the Procella demo? I was sitting in the center (front row) on one demo on Thursday early afternoon, and the second row/center from the front on my second demo on Friday late in the day. I didn't localize "little speakers" but found the experience quite immersive and huge - and the experience with the ceiling speakers to be seamless rather than a hard pan, as one other AVSer mentioned. Conversely the Snell speakers on the Denon demo didn't impress me, producing more of an impression closer to heights than sounds from overhead on, say, the Dolby Storm demo. And I sat center first row on that demo as well.

What stood out to me both times at Procella/Trinnov were subtle effects - more of presence (dimension) the way I notice Atmos in a theater. I sensed the leaf flying on the screen, and its sounds seeming to follow the leaf's movement in the center of the screen (as well as around the room) during the Atmos trailer, the volcano at the start of ST: Into Darkness rising upward with the sound seeming to rise up and expand, Spock's "It would seem I'm still alive" (I'm paraphrasing) carrying his breath within his helmet with a sense of depth, the shuttle flown by Uhura carrying a pan independent of specific speakers reminiscent of a similar effect when I saw Guardians of the Galaxy in Atmos, etc.

More to say once I can escape from work and Real Life and write up my notes from the demos, but we have a wide range of contradictory opinions on these demos. For example I loved the sense of diffusion and upward expansion of the Pioneer Dolby-Enabled AJ speakers on their Atmos demos for the overhead effects, and probably would put Pio's demo and Dolby's (with the Dolby speakers on, vs. the ceiling ones) as close to Procella's for my favorite in experiencing Home Atmos. You can find enthusiasts for Denon, which IMO lacked the subtlety I noted on Procella, but others preferred to Pioneer's and Procella's. And the less impressive bass volume and consistency that Nyall Mellor caught @ Procella (although he also preferred it most for Atmos demos IIRC) was found to be to be too loud by a respected authority here on AVS in a PM exchange with me, enough to put it behind Dolby's.

IOW these reports are fun to read, but Keith has it right. Without double blind A/B and controls for number and brand/quality of speakers, room treatment, and seating position, not to mention the method of room RQ, we have a beauty contest at the end of the day in comparing our experiences, and not much else.

Disclaimer: I have a R-972 with Trinnov, as well as a Denon running Audyssey XT32/Pro, but I hadn't expected that speaker variation would be as important between Denon/Pioneer as it turned to apparently be. Especially since I've been in the "no sophisticated sub EQ=MCACC is of limited value" camp the last two years . Anybody: was Pioneer running subs in their High Performance room or just running the AJ speakers full range?


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> Do you think Auro has any chance to 'win' this format 'war' or at least be a player for time to come?
> 
> Thanks!


Is there a war? ...In surround sound processing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scottyb09 said:


> Forgive my ignorance but can you help explain to me what benefit Atmos might bring to my home theater? I do not have the ability to install any more speakers above and beyond my 5.1 M&K set up (i.e., no 'overhead' speakers or speakers mounted above above the front channels). Knowing this how might Atmos benefit me above and beyond my current DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Marantz set-up? I examined the Dolby website and a few others and frankly don't understand it much.


No benefit at all. Atmos requires at least 2 overhead speakers.


----------



## Bigham16

This is so true when I was view different clips of movies over the weekend in Dolby Surround. Some sounded amazing and some sounded good. You could really tell the difference in a well mixed film vs. a weaker mix. I never really notice until I watched in Dolby Surround. Don't get me wrong, nothing and I mean nothing sounded bad. Some just sounded better than others. 



kbarnes701 said:


> It's always been like this hasn't it? With 5.1 nobody expects every cinema they go to sound exactly like every other cinema. Some are great and some suck. Same with content - some make fantastic use of 5.1, others not so much. Why would it be any different with Atmos?
> 
> Comparing Atmos with Auro on the basis of demos of uncertain quality seems to me like comparing, for example, DTS-HD MA and TrueHD and coming to the conclusion that one is way better than the other because that's how it sounded in the demos at CEDIA. IOW, it's a pointless comparison.
> 
> The only way to compare Atmos and Auro is to have both systems set up in the same room, playing the same content, and then deciding which sounds best. Some movies have been mixed in both formats (eg GotG I believe, for example) so they could be used for the comparison. Otherwise, these subjective, sighted comparisons seem to me to have as much value as any subjective, sighted comparison of anything - speakers, cables, amps, whatever - that is to say, no value at all. IMO.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> A speaker makes noise.


What is it about Atmos that makes it necessary to remind people of what they already know? I keep seeing this repeatedly.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> The 8th/9th bed channels correspond to the HEIGHTS not the "front wide" position. So a 7.1.4 setup is theoretically all you need to get the whole shebang.


You mean the Front L & R Height channels. 

Then yes, as the Front L & R Width channels they are also obsolete, with Dolby Atmos four overhead channels. ♦ *7.1.4* is the ticket. ...With them two back (Rear) surround channels. ... IMHO and +


----------



## tjenkins95

Scottyb09 said:


> Forgive my ignorance but can you help explain to me what benefit Atmos might bring to my home theater? I do not have the ability to install any more speakers above and beyond my 5.1 M&K set up (i.e., no 'overhead' speakers or speakers mounted above above the front channels). Knowing this how might Atmos benefit me above and beyond my current DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Marantz set-up? I examined the Dolby website and a few others and frankly don't understand it much.


 

You would need to purchase an Atmos-ready receiver and at least two new speakers: 2 overheads or 2 Atmos enabled speakers in order to listen to Atmos.


Ray


----------



## corndogggy

Bigham16 said:


> My impression for 7.2.4 Dolby Surround with the Marantz 7009.
> 
> Movies: I watched a number of different clips from movies and was just blown away, I really was! I watched a number of clips from different movies over the weekend that I know well. I didn't include all of them below, just a few.
> 
> Need for Speed was the first as it has a lot of helicopters and racing (obviously). Everything in this movie panned or moved seamlessly. It really seemed three dimensional. The cars moving and passing each other never sounded like it was coming from a specific speaker, they just moved around the room. All the helicopter and plane scenes sounded great, coming from the right, left, front, back, up, down and all around.
> 
> I watched the beginning or first 10 minutes of Oblivion. After Tom takes off in his ship and enters the storm, it sounded like I was covered in rain, the lighting was coming from all around and above. The best part was after Tom fixed the circle robot(?) on the football field, after it scans the area, it takes off and disappears above and behind you. It was soo cool because the sound of the robot disappearing kept weakening and weakening and weakening, never really disappearing. Great effect that I had never heard before.
> 
> One of the cave scenes from Prometheus was amazing as well. Felt like I was in the cave with condensation/drips of water falling all around. When one of the guys launches four of those little orbes that maps the caves, sounded like it was scanning me from head to toe and then taking off over my head and behind me. It was great.
> 
> Watched one of the first scenes from Art of Flight. Deadmau5 music first filled the room then once it starts to quiet down, all of the music moved to the front stage but it was very seamless. Was a really cool effect on how and when the music moved.
> 
> The best so far was the beginning of Top Gun. Just flipping amazing. I felt like I was really on the aircraft carrie, no lie. Sounds were coming from every where, detailed, and atmospheric. Even though I have never been on an aircraft carrie, it sure felt like it. Never seemed like there were speakers in the room, just jets and Kenny Loggins. The best over the head effect was when Tom rides his motorcycle next to the landing/takeoff strip (after he gets accepted to Top Gun), a jet fly's literally right over you. Like at an air show.
> 
> I thought Neo:X sounded great with the wides and front heights but Dolby Surround is just amazing. Not just better but way better.
> 
> The sound really is spacious, seamless, enveloping, and atmospheric (I know I have used these words a lot). Never before have I felt like I was actually in a movie until this weekend. It really is that good. I can't wait for real Atmos movies to come out. I do have Transformers 4 on pre-order.
> 
> The same thing for video games, it was just better in very way.
> 
> I didn't try my front heights or wides in the Atmos config but at this point not sure I will. Maybe on a rainy day  I didn't try music either, was having way too much fun with movies and video games.
> 
> I am no professional by any means, just an ordinary dude like most of you and I hope this helps.
> 
> The only very very small complaint I have so far is I felt like the back top speakers were getting a little more action than the fronts. This is more than likely a placement issue than a with Dolby Surround. I tend to aim the tops more at the listing position the next time I tinker with it.
> 
> Oh, I did try a before and after Audyssey calibration and I am sure as you know it was much better after. Thanks!!


How are you experiencing Atmos specific effects when there is no material out with Atmos information on it?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It's not a bad thing if you're willing to admit what it is: surround information that you're hearing above you.


Which, to me, is the very definition of a bad thing 

I can't believe that people are posting that if they move some of their speakers to a location above them, they hear sound coming from above them. D'oh. Well yes. But what has that to do with Atmos? Nothing at all. And to suggest that it is some sort of 'make-do' Atmos is hilarious. So unless it's some sort of covert competition for stating the bleedin' obvious, I can't quite see the point. As you cogently said just above, when we had just 5.1 we put the surrounds behind us a little and above us a little to give the best overall 'bubble' we could manage with those speakers. Then when we had 7.1 we could let the back surrounds handle the rearmost sounds, so we could move the side surrounds forward again. And now we have height speakers we can put ear-level sounds back to where they belong with ear-level speakers. To suggest that by placing the surrounds high up we somehow replicate object-based audio using actual height speakers is ludicrous IMO. You get, as you say, surround information coming from above. What I want, and what Atmos gives me, is surround information coming from around me and height information coming from above me. All at the same time.


----------



## bargervais

mry110 said:


> Does anyone have the Onkyo Atmos add on speakers? I ordered some on Amazon hoping their ship date is wrong (like most of the Atmos stuff, what's up with that). No shipment confirmation yet.


if i'm not mistaken their stuff will start shipping mid October


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> All I was told was some Dreamworks titles will be re-issued with Auro soundtracks on Blu-ray by the end of this year. Based on the demos I would assume Turbo, Rise of the Guardians and The Croods as a minimum (all of which had Auro mixes for theaters). They said they are also looking to get Sony to support (ASM 2 had an Auro mix).


Just about every one of those tracks suffered like T4 in the Atmos demos where it was difficult to discern where the various sounds were coming from: just a big blob of noise. Not very good examples of either format's capabilities.


----------



## Bigham16

I guess you didn't read the part about Dolby Surround did you?



corndogggy said:


> How are you experiencing Atmos specific effects when there is no material out with Atmos information on it?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Now, my surrounds are pretty high up (about 6ft) so what the two front Atmos modules are really doing is providing a "front height" sensation, but probably not with as much vertical separation with the ambient surround effects that DSU seems to be matrixing into the top channels as if my surrounds were closer to ear level. I imagine the effect would be much more dramatic if my surrounds were down at ear level too.


Can you temporarily put those surrounds at ear level, even if you can't keep them there, and see if it makes a difference. I can't believe it is accidental that Dolby put the surrounds at ear level in all their demos.


----------



## Selden Ball

Scottyb09 said:


> Forgive my ignorance but can you help explain to me what benefit Atmos might bring to my home theater? I do not have the ability to install any more speakers above and beyond my 5.1 M&K set up (i.e., no 'overhead' speakers or speakers mounted above above the front channels). Knowing this how might Atmos benefit me above and beyond my current DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Marantz set-up? I examined the Dolby website and a few others and frankly don't understand it much.


While Atmos itself wouldn't do anything for you without some kind of overhead audio, quite a few people have been waxing lyrical about the accompanying new Dolby Surround upmixing software. In addition, if you don't already have it, the Atmos-capable equipment from Denon and Marantz include Audyssey XT32, the highest grade of that room equalizer, which is quite a bit better than the XT version.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mfusick said:


> It was also the best demo I heard on the first day of the show... then the Dolby room and the Procella room blew it away.
> 
> It never had a line and was easy to get into so that probably means they only hit that one that day. I'd love to hear them report back after waiting for the limited access (you needed tickets) JBL sythesis demo. The JBL demo was in a territory that Pio demo could never go.


There were two things wrong with the JBL demo: dialog reproduction and intelligibility was a good deal lower in quality than many of the other consumer demos (large and small) and the example clips being presented just didn't emphasize Atmos' 3D qualities as well as could be expected. The Red Bull Indy car trailer was very good, but that was about it... it also had little dialog and mostly sound effects. The old Snells, in contrast, sounded fantastic at the Denon/Marantz booth. Dialog naturalness with rich, warm tonality was a highlight, and amongst the best of the show.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bigham16 said:


> My impression for 7.2.4 Dolby Surround with the Marantz 7009.
> 
> Movies: I watched a number of different clips from movies and was just blown away, I really was! I watched a number of clips from different movies over the weekend that I know well. I didn't include all of them below, just a few.
> 
> Need for Speed was the first as it has a lot of helicopters and racing (obviously). Everything in this movie panned or moved seamlessly. It really seemed three dimensional. The cars moving and passing each other never sounded like it was coming from a specific speaker, they just moved around the room. All the helicopter and plane scenes sounded great, coming from the right, left, front, back, up, down and all around.
> 
> I watched the beginning or first 10 minutes of Oblivion. After Tom takes off in his ship and enters the storm, it sounded like I was covered in rain, the lighting was coming from all around and above. The best part was after Tom fixed the circle robot(?) on the football field, after it scans the area, it takes off and disappears above and behind you. It was soo cool because the sound of the robot disappearing kept weakening and weakening and weakening, never really disappearing. Great effect that I had never heard before.
> 
> One of the cave scenes from Prometheus was amazing as well. Felt like I was in the cave with condensation/drips of water falling all around. When one of the guys launches four of those little orbes that maps the caves, sounded like it was scanning me from head to toe and then taking off over my head and behind me. It was great.
> 
> Watched one of the first scenes from Art of Flight. Deadmau5 music first filled the room then once it starts to quiet down, all of the music moved to the front stage but it was very seamless. Was a really cool effect on how and when the music moved.
> 
> The best so far was the beginning of Top Gun. Just flipping amazing. I felt like I was really on the aircraft carrie, no lie. Sounds were coming from every where, detailed, and atmospheric. Even though I have never been on an aircraft carrie, it sure felt like it. Never seemed like there were speakers in the room, just jets and Kenny Loggins. The best over the head effect was when Tom rides his motorcycle next to the landing/takeoff strip (after he gets accepted to Top Gun), a jet fly's literally right over you. Like at an air show.
> 
> I thought Neo:X sounded great with the wides and front heights but Dolby Surround is just amazing. Not just better but way better.
> 
> The sound really is spacious, seamless, enveloping, and atmospheric (I know I have used these words a lot). Never before have I felt like I was actually in a movie until this weekend. It really is that good. I can't wait for real Atmos movies to come out. I do have Transformers 4 on pre-order.
> 
> The same thing for video games, it was just better in very way.
> 
> I didn't try my front heights or wides in the Atmos config but at this point not sure I will. Maybe on a rainy day  I didn't try music either, was having way too much fun with movies and video games.
> 
> I am no professional by any means, just an ordinary dude like most of you and I hope this helps.
> 
> The only very very small complaint I have so far is I felt like the back top speakers were getting a little more action than the fronts. This is more than likely a placement issue than a with Dolby Surround. I tend to aim the tops more at the listing position the next time I tinker with it.
> 
> Oh, I did try a before and after Audyssey calibration and I am sure as you know it was much better after. Thanks!!


Your report excites me greatly! That is precisely what I am hoping to hear when my Denon finally arrives. I have all those discs and will use the same clips to compare your experience with mine.


----------



## Scottyb09

Thanks, guys. I understand the difference between XT and XT32 and will eventually upgrade to a XT32-capable Marantz processor (although I will also say my AV7701 sounds AMAZING!).


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Did you not notice this with the 'Leaf' trailer?


No, and that was one of the demos that was done almost consistently with every booth. Only the one with the rain and stuff was done more.


----------



## kbarnes701

corndogggy said:


> How are you experiencing Atmos specific effects when there is no material out with Atmos information on it?


He explains that in his first sentence. He is using Dolby Surround Upmixer on his Atmos AVR.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Bigham16 said:


> The only very very small complaint I have so far is I felt like the back top speakers were getting a little more action than the fronts. This is more than likely a placement issue than a with Dolby Surround. I tend to aim the tops more at the listing position the next time I tinker with it.


*This is so true on my 7.2.4 setup as well!* I was thinking it was a placement issue also, but since you are having the same issue, it seems unlikely that we both made the same "mistake". *I fear the DSU favors the rear top/height speakers.*


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> To be perfectly honest; I won't be re-buying them three Blu-ray titles that you just mentioned above and that I already have in my collection.
> 
> ♦ I want *Gravity, Tron Legacy, Prometheus, LOTR EE trilogy, How to Train your Dragon, ...* type of movies on Blu with Dolby Atmos. ...Them, I'll repurchase again.
> 
> If Dolby Atmos is the new surround processing on the block, make it intelligently effective; with attractive movies to the cinema lovers (videophiles and audiophiles), not just the kids.
> 
> That's only my own personal opinion. ...And it will dictate how I will be spending my money (voting with my own wallet).
> 
> Yes, I can see myself waiting here, until the right material mixed by the right people gets out.


I completely understand. I don't rebuy movies I don't want to watch because they have a new audio format I want to try out in home (oh wait, I do!! ). There are some others that were mixed for Auro I'd be more interested in like Elysium, Oz the Great and Powerful, Ender's Game, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Lucy and even Transformers 4.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> No, and that was one of the demos that was done almost consistently with every booth. Only the one with the rain and stuff was done more.


How odd. When I heard that clip I was staggered that I could almost reach out and touch the various sounds, so precise was their placement in space. Like you sometimes want to do with 3D video. The demos you went to must have really sucked.


----------



## batpig

And more ammo for the "no accounting for taste" conclusion:



sdrucker said:


> Conversely *the Snell speakers on the Denon demo didn't impress me*, producing more of an impression closer to heights than sounds from overhead on, say, the Dolby Storm demo. And I sat center first row on that demo as well.





Dan Hitchman said:


> There were two things wrong with the JBL demo: dialog reproduction and intelligibility was a good deal lower in quality than many of the other consumer demos (large and small) and the example clips being presented just didn't emphasize Atmos' 3D qualities as well as could be expected. The Red Bull Indy car trailer was very good, but that was about it... it also had little dialog and mostly sound effects. *The old Snells, in contrast, sounded fantastic at the Denon/Marantz booth. Dialog naturalness with rich, warm tonality was a highlight, and amongst the best of the show.*


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> Now that CEDIA is over, it's unfortunate that additional ATMOS titles weren't announced. That fact that only one title is official speaks to the newness of all of this.
> 
> Tomorrow's release of Godzilla would have been a great title to do this on, but I have to wonder if it the production schedule was just too tight to make it happen?


Flicks type like *Transformers & Godzilla & Planet of the Apes* with Dolby Atmos are not the type of flicks that I personally find appetizing. ...This is kids stuff, not smart stuff. 

This is my own personal opinion; and you cannot judge the degree of fun inside an individual human being brain. ...This is a general/overall personal opinion; in certain days it can vary, but overall my taste in films is usually more advanced. ...Like Charlie Chaplin films for example, and the Coen Brothers, and Fellini, and Tornatore, and Leone ...

...Spike Lee, Alfonso Cuaron, Peter Jackson, Sir Ridley Scott, David Cronenberg, David Fincher, Guillermo Del Toro, Peter Weir, etc., ... these type of film directors...give me Dolby Atmos with them; with the films they make.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Well, my post was based on what we were talking about last night. When I asked you about the Auro demo, you reflexively started talking about what a big room it was, how well the equipment had been chosen and how carefully the system had been tuned. You didn't say 'wow, limiting playback to channels really does blow away object-based rendering'. That is, you didn't confuse presentation with the audio format (even if others might be).


So THIS is where I have a problem. So if an audio format decides to use channels instead of objects do you honestly think the same exact soundtrack couldn't be done with the exact same speaker layout? To me object audio would be a benefit to ease of placement for the mixer but would have VERY little benefit to the end user. The mixer could just as easily put any part of a mix in that same location with a channel based mix. It isn't like movies before were all information in all channels all the time. It is clear to me that the tools for Dolby Atmos look like they would make putting particular parts of a mix in a certain point in acoustic space easy, but it seems like people here think you couldn't do the same thing with a properly mastered mix based on channels. Do you think that channels can't image properly? Do you think channels are limited to how many sounds are coming out of them at once? 

In a stereo recording when you hear a phantom image of just a singers voice being flanked on either side by a guitar and a bass with clear seperation and even depth, does this mean that they are not an "object" in that space?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It sounds like Dolby Atmos for the home has lossless bed channels (maybe up to 9.1) and the objects are lossy. How lossy? I don't know. And yet the way the current Auro3D format is set up with "folded" PCM, it's not exactly lossless without a drop-off in fidelity either.


Not a question of how lossy by what type of lossy. 

The consumer version of Atmos doesn't throw away data the way lossy codecs (DD, MP3) do. However, they do spatially combine objects into clusters, and separating them later doesn't yield bit-perfect copies of the original objects. So it's spatially lossy but not resolution lossy (the audio objects are still 48/24). 

Auro, according to their Octopus codec white paper, uses _"the 2-4 lowermost bits of each sample to encode the additional channels"_. Not to mention that the non-height channels have to lob off 4-6 bits to make room for the additional channels. So, again, it isn't lossy the way compression (DTS, MP3) is, but 4-bit audio isn't going to sound like the original height channels. So it is resolution lossy, but not spatially lossy (100% channel separation).


----------



## Bigham16

Oh good (and bad) that you are having the same experience.  It's not a major deal but I does become noticeable from time to time. I even got my ladder out to double check the fronts were on, which they were but just not as loud as the backs. I will bump up the front/top/heights a dB or two and also try turning the rear/top/height down a db or two (with original front/top/height dBs). None-the-less it sounds sooo cool!!



PoshFrosh said:


> *This is so true on my 7.2.4 setup as well!* I was thinking it was a placement issue also, but since you are having the same issue, it seems unlikely that we both made the same "mistake". *I but the DSU favors the rear top/height speakers.*


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> How odd. When I heard that clip I was staggered that I could almost reach out and touch the various sounds, so precise was their placement in space. Like you sometimes want to do with 3D video. The demos you went to must have really sucked.


+1. The leaf's sonic placement in the scene, not panned into a speaker or fixed in space in the center of the screen, was the most obvious use of objects in all the Atmos demos IMO and set the stage for what I heard. Most noticeable with Procella, almost as much for Pioneer and Dolby, and IMO weakest with the Denon demo. I would attribute the differences to Trinnov's Optimizer controls for Procella, and possibly the speaker quality for Procella/Pioneer/Triad respectively compared to the Snells, but that's just me. Bottom line is even if you can't do a home theater for the 1%, you can see what the Atmos technology can achieve.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Actually most of the demos were relying heavily on the Dolby Atmos trailers. There were only three short movie clips used but sometimes demos would only use one of them (and the movie clips were ALWAYS the least impressive demo). In the Dolby demo I attended I was in the sweet spot and when they had to chance to do a special test they did a helicopter panning around the ceiling. This is why I said that if Dolby could do pin point placement of an object right next to your head you could be damn sure this would have been the time to do it. Instead I got to hear the sounds of a helicopter going in circles above me. They did this with discrete ceiling speakers and up firing Atmos speakers. The upfiring was more convincing to me in this clip because it was a bit more difuse so the pans were more consistent.
> 
> The helicopter pass over demo in the Auro presentation sounds FAR FAR better and extremely realistic. I grew up around bases with helicopters (my Dad worked with Army Chinook helicopters his whole life) and I've never heard any audio playback that sounded as true to life as the Auro one did for that.


My experience was a little different with the Auro presentation. My take away was that if they only had at least four discrete overheads rather than the mono VOG along with the sides, rears, and mirrored wall heights, Auro would be a real contender. The arrangement of the VOG speakers really over emphasized the fact it was a single, mono point-source and it hot spotted like crazy. 

The orchestral track sounded funky to me. It made the orchestra seem tall like the pipe organ, rather than laterally wide as in a real, live staged concert. This is something Atmos would excel at because it can have up to seven screen wall speaker outputs. Though, on that track it could have been the recording where they mixed the screen heights too hot. 

Auro excelled at the ambient sound effects tracks like the truck going down the country lane. It could also be the mix moreso than the format. Gotta have real ambisonic field recordings mixed in Atmos to get a better comparison.


----------



## NorthSky

jrogers said:


> This has been an excellent thread to follow along with the launch of Atmos! It seems much of the discussion has been around the "top end" of home Atmos systems, so I just thought I'd let others that might be considering an "entry level" of Atmos know that, having now installed (leveraging some of the great information posted here) and spending a relatively short amount of time with a 5.1.2, on-wall system - including comparing 5.1 vs 5.1.2 playback of various audio formats - the addition of the top-middle speakers (at ~80 degrees in my case) combined with the new Dolby Surround upmixer in the X4100W provides a noticeably better and more immersive movie experience, and has made the cost/effort of "Atmos" worthwhile for me even before Atmos-encoded content becomes available. This was emphasized when my 14-year-old son made a comment over the weekend that the DTS-HD MA movie we were watching wasn't as "good" as the previous Dolby TrueHD movie, which led me to notice the X4100W doesn't default "+ Dolby Surround" for DTS signals as it does for Dolby signals. Switched the X4100W to "DTS(-HD) + Dolby Surround" and the sound was once again "sick" as he put it
> 
> Bottom line, a huge thumbs up for 5.1.2 Atmos.
> 
> ----
> Components
> ---
> Display: Samsung UN75HU8550
> Receiver: Denon X4100W
> Blu-ray: LG BP540
> Speaker C: GoldenEar SuperSat 60C
> Speakers L/R: GoldenEar SuperSat 60 (at 20 degrees azimuth from MLP)
> Speakers SL/SR: GoldenEar SuperSat 3 (at 95 degrees azimuth from MLP)
> Speakers TML/TMR: GoldenEar Invisa 525 (at 80 degrees altitude from MLP)
> Subwoofer: SVS SB-2000
> Acoustic Treatment: Acoustimac Panels (wip)
> Game Console: Microsoft Xbox One
> Cable Box: Xfinity X1
> UHD Video Pack: Samsung CY-SUC10SH/ZA
> Universal Remote: Harmony Ultimate One
> Whole-House Audio: Sonos


This is so much encouraging, for all of us humble people. ...Thx a bunch for sharing.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Kris Deering said:


> In the Dolby demo I attended I was in the sweet spot and when they had to chance to do a special test they did a helicopter panning around the ceiling. This is why I said that if Dolby could do pin point placement of an object right next to your head you could be damn sure this would have been the time to do it. Instead I got to hear the sounds of a helicopter going in circles above me. They did this with discrete ceiling speakers and up firing Atmos speakers. The upfiring was more convincing to me in this clip because it was a bit more diffuse so the pans were more consistent.


There are no consumer technologies that will present pin point placement of an object right next to your head (apart from headphones ). No one claims it, either, just for the record.



> The helicopter pass over demo in the Auro presentation sounds FAR FAR better and extremely realistic. I grew up around bases with helicopters (my Dad worked with Army Chinook helicopters his whole life) and I've never heard any audio playback that sounded as true to life as the Auro one did for that.


I should hope the Auro helicopter was clearly better, or there'd be something seriously wrong. A mono synthetic "helicopter" loop used to simply compare the imaging between real and upfiring speakers is no match for a proper recording of a real helicopter.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Can you temporarily put those surrounds at ear level, even if you can't keep them there, and see if it makes a difference. I can't believe it is accidental that Dolby put the surrounds at ear level in all their demos.


It would engender some really funny looks from my wife but I could try to give it a shot. I might have to splice some wire in because I don't think I have enough slack to get them too much lower from where the wire exits the wall.

I've already received a lot of stink-eye over the past couple of weeks since I've done an inordinate number of Audyssey calibrations recently (swapping around speakers, swapping around X4000 to X5200). Always tricky since I can't do it late at night (sleeping babies). Yesterday I snuck one in (for the new A60 modules) while my wife was upstairs in the shower, with my 1-year-old in my lap and my 3-year-old playing the "be quiet so we can make the funny beep boop noises with the speakers" game.

It would also help if I had some discrete Atmos demo material to see if anything can image effectively overhead. Again, with elevated surrounds like I have currently, a lot of ambient effects (rain, ambient crowd noise, etc) already images somewhat overhead and behind, so it just feels like the Atmos modules with DSU upmixing is sort of "filling in the gap" or "closing the dome" at the front height position.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I don't think there is a format war to win honestly. We've always had two different types of audio tracks coexisting peacefully so there is no reason we can't continue to do that. The problem becomes setting up a speaker system that supports both equally and peacefully. Sounds like it would be harder to do with these two. But from what I heard at the show I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss Auro. But I would have also liked a demo in a more traditional room like the Atmos demos were being done in.


+1 ... I'm 100% with ya Kris.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> When downmixing, phase tricks aren't used to get the objects to image where they would have been rendered by an Atmos decoder. If you're playing back the decoded Atmos track, then those sounds will be heard from above you because they're coming from speakers above you. When listening to the legacy downmix, the only reason you'll hear sounds above ear level is because you have speakers above ear level. Nothing more complicated than that.


No speakers above on the ceiling @ my place; all @ or near ear level (within twelve inches).

*'Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World'*: Very distinct sounds coming from well above.


----------



## batpig

Another thing -- at this point my tests have all been late-night-listening style, with low SPL and Dyn Vol on. It occured to me that maybe the lack of "obviousness" or "impact" of the Atmos modules could also be due to the low volumes, making the ambient noises placed "virtually" above me less obvious.

So I asked Chris K about it on FB, and he confirmed what I suspected, that overhead speakers (Tops, Heights) do NOT receive any level boost with DEQ like the surrounds do. So I'm wondering now if the issue is that the surrounds are just overpowering the overheads at the extremely low volume at which I have been listening, since they are receiving some level boost whereas the Atmos channels are not. So if both are producing similar "ambient envelopment" info, the Atmos effects would be less noticeable than the surround effects. Maybe I can convince the wife to take the kids out for a bit so I can rock some loud stuff and test the thoery


----------



## NorthSky

drp4120205 said:


> I have recently purchased a Denon AVR-4100W, atoms enable receiver. I have 5.1 in wall speakers with 2.35:1 ratio screen. My three inwall speakers are behind the screen. So can I able to use with my atoms receiver to create this effect? I am planning to add two ceiling speakers as per their guide. Is it a good idea or do I need to have floor speakers? Sorry for newbie question.
> 
> Thanks


Atmos, not "atoms".

* You need @ least two overhead (or up-firing) speakers to benefit from the Dolby Atmos processing. 
So yes, if you install two ceiling speakers you're good to go (Atmos style). ...And no need for floor speakers.
Your setup configuration will be (Dolby) a 5.1.2 one; enough to put you in orbit. 

And of course you'll be able to use the new Dolby Surround processor (up-mixer) with all your material, including the dts audio stuff.


----------



## Bigham16

I wonder if this also applies for in/on-ceiling speakers as well?



batpig said:


> Another thing -- at this point my tests have all been late-night-listening style, with low SPL and Dyn Vol on. It occured to me that maybe the lack of "obviousness" or "impact" of the Atmos modules could also be due to the low volumes, making the ambient noises placed "virtually" above me less obvious.
> 
> So I asked Chris K about it on FB, and he confirmed what I suspected, that overhead speakers (Tops, Heights) do NOT receive any level boost with DEQ like the surrounds do. So I'm wondering now if the issue is that the surrounds are just overpowering the overheads at the extremely low volume at which I have been listening, since they are receiving some level boost whereas the Atmos channels are not. So if both are producing similar "ambient envelopment" info, the Atmos effects would be less noticeable than the surround effects. Maybe I can convince the wife to take the kids out for a bit so I can rock some loud stuff and test the thoery


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Another thing -- at this point my tests have all been late-night-listening style, with low SPL and Dyn Vol on. It occured to me that maybe the lack of "obviousness" or "impact" of the Atmos modules could also be due to the low volumes, making the ambient noises placed "virtually" above me less obvious.
> 
> So I asked Chris K about it on FB, and he confirmed what I suspected, that overhead speakers (Tops, Heights) do NOT receive any level boost with DEQ like the surrounds do. So I'm wondering now if the issue is that the surrounds are just overpowering the overheads at the extremely low volume at which I have been listening, since they are receiving some level boost whereas the Atmos channels are not. So if both are producing similar "ambient envelopment" info, the Atmos effects would be less noticeable than the surround effects. Maybe I can convince the wife to take the kids out for a bit so I can rock some loud stuff and test the thoery


Or just turn DEQ/DVOL off and pick up a MiniDSP or equivalent to produce a summated sub channel target curve for up to four of your favorite listening volumes if you feel the Audyssey bass is weak. I sit close enough MLP that with DEQ the surrounds would be overwhelming with certain movies, and decided to live without it at my typical listening volumes for Audyssey REQ'd sources. At -15 to -25 db for BluRay/DVDs - sometimes more towards 0 db reference with cable TV viewing of HD sources - I don't miss it a bit.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> So THIS is where I have a problem. So if an audio format decides to use channels instead of objects do you honestly think the same exact soundtrack couldn't be done with the exact same speaker layout? To me object audio would be a benefit to ease of placement for the mixer but would have VERY little benefit to the end user. The mixer could just as easily put any part of a mix in that same location with a channel based mix. It isn't like movies before were all information in all channels all the time. It is clear to me that the tools for Dolby Atmos look like they would make putting particular parts of a mix in a certain point in acoustic space easy, but it seems like people here think you couldn't do the same thing with a properly mastered mix based on channels. Do you think that channels can't image properly? Do you think channels are limited to how many sounds are coming out of them at once?
> 
> In a stereo recording when you hear a phantom image of just a singers voice being flanked on either side by a guitar and a bass with clear seperation and even depth, does this mean that they are not an "object" in that space?


Where the benefit of objects, to me, come in is around the 9.1.4 mark as demonstrated in the Steinway presentation. Channel speaker arrays have the same exact sound coming out of all the separate banks of multi-speaker arrays whereas in an object based mix, you can more precisely pan or anchor an object. It can come out of ONE of those array speakers, not _all _of them at once. 

Every one of the clips played had distinct sounds coming out of each of the side wall speakers. The Latin music video had various instruments in each of the array speakers too. Panning was smoother and the 3D effect was more like a sphere of sound. That's where Atmos started to really shine at CEDIA. I would enthusiastically want at least a base layout of 9.1.4 to come to more consumer friendly priced products rather than just $30,000 luxury items... and in fact one of the Dolby engineers at the private demo stated he was working on such a rendering block for another generation of product.

The wall surrounds at the Steinway demo were just above ear level and just enough to fire over the heads of each row of listeners, giving quite a spread between those locations and the overheads.


----------



## batpig

Bigham16 said:


> I wonder if this also applies for in/on-ceiling speakers as well?


Yes, Chris was unambiguous -- overhead speakers (whether heights, tops, or "virtual" atmos speakers) do not receive the level boost that DEQ applies to the surround channels. 

I do wonder (after hearing the really positive reports of DSU from you and PoshFrosh, who are both doing 7.1.4 with physical ceiling speakers) if I'm sort of at a triple whammy point with respect to the "impact" of Atmos:

Whammy #1 - Atmos modules instead of physical ceiling speakers (more diffuse, less precise)
Whammy #2 - 2 Atmos speakers instead of 4 (less ability to accurately image overhead)
Whammy #3 - Surrounds are elevated (so less separation between "layers" vertically)

Plus now my suspicion about needing a little level boost at lower volumes to maintain their (relative) audibility. I definitely believe that if I had four ceiling speakers and surrounds a couple of feet lower my impressions would be different.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> Or just turn DEQ/DVOL off and pick up a MiniDSP or equivalent to produce a summated sub channel target curve for up to four of your favorite listening volumes if you feel the Audyssey bass is weak. I sit close enough MLP that with DEQ the surrounds would be overwhelming with certain movies, and decided to live without it at my typical listening volumes for Audyssey REQ'd sources.


Yeah, that's not happening. I need the "Dynamic" part, too much variability in how I listen and I prefer the simplicity of the "set and forget" solution that just makes it sound approximately as good at any volume. And I require the modulation of Dynamic Volume to keep dialogue intelligible at late night volumes without the loud effects bringing the righteous anger of awakened wife/babies down upon me.


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> All theaters have the surrounds up high, so one could argue that this configuration is true to the cinema model (which will not change).


All theaters are large venues with a fair number of movie watchers inside. 
If you put some surround speakers lower you would totally annoyed some of them movie customers. 

@ home ... it is ... you know the rest of it, Rich.  ...Different.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> It will image behind if there is little to none of the same information in the front channels balancing the position in the space. None of this is hard. But we can play the what if all day. Ultimately NONE of us know exactly what the intent of the mixer was and what his system was exactly when he did the mix (unless of course your Filmmixer and you did the mix!) so we can go round and round on this all day. None of us will EVER get exactly what the mixer intended perfectly unless we sit in the room when he is mixing it, and only if he'll let you sit in his chair and he plays it back for you.


Kris, I've been reading you since you first started reviewing audio components, I believe, and I always respected your reviews to a high caliber. ...And still am, including all your posts here and there; chapeau!


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where the benefit of objects, to me, come in is around the 9.1.4 mark as demonstrated in the Steinway presentation. Channel speaker arrays have the same exact sound coming out of all the separate banks of multi-speaker arrays whereas in an object based mix, you can more precisely pan or anchor an object. It can come out of ONE of those array speakers, not _all _of them at once.
> 
> Every one of the clips played had distinct sounds coming out of each of the side wall speakers. The Latin music video had various instruments in each of the array speakers too. Panning was smoother and the 3D effect was more like a sphere of sound. That's where Atmos started to really shine at CEDIA. I would enthusiastically want at least a base layout of 9.1.4 to come to more consumer friendly priced products rather than just $30,000 luxury items... and in fact one of the Dolby engineers at the private demo stated he was working on such a rendering block for another generation of product.



I noticed some of that with the Enrique Iglesias music video mixed in native Atmos with the Pioneer demo in 5.1.4, but more for the background vocals and call and response in the video than for instruments (which may have used more objects, along the lines of the Triphonic electronic music demo that we heard in the Dolby room at the AVS event). OTOH I only caught a few minutes of the Steinway 9.1.4 demo when I asked nicely, not enough to form a definitive opinion.


----------



## NorthSky

SanchoPanza said:


> ^^^ then you'll need him to lend you his ears...


That too; touche!

* In reply to the quote from post number 7973 just above.


----------



## NorthSky

Mfusick said:


> BTW- pics here for anyone that wants see: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...594922-cedia-2014-you-going.html#post27432954


Your pictures, are 'invisible'.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Yeah, that's not happening. I need the "Dynamic" part, too much variability in how I listen and I prefer the simplicity of the "set and forget" solution that just makes it sound approximately as good at any volume. And I require the modulation of Dynamic Volume to keep dialogue intelligible at late night volumes without the loud effects bringing the righteous anger of awakened wife/babies down upon me.


 
To each their own....although that's where room treatments can be useful. Or REQ systems that can apply compensation (I won't call it correction) to the room's energy. There's two I can think of offhand...

As for listening volume: my one year old is well trained. His crib is on a side wall of our living room, directionally to the far left from the HT area of our living room (probably 12 to 15 feet away to the speaker closest to him), and I just turn down the music to a reasonable listening volume where I can still hear the vocals, and dialogue from movies. We also have daddy/me music listening time until he's ready to crash. Then I listen, with the lights down and he sleeps, well, like a baby. .


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> So to reinforce my point further -- you say the Dolby room blew the Pio room away. But Kris said:
> 
> _*So again, obviously a lot of subjectivity here!*_
> 
> To be fair, the JBL/Harman demo was not really apples-to-apples. There are the "you could do this in your living room" Atmos demos (i.e. up to 7.1.4, smaller room) and there are the ones that are basically literal "home theaters" with multiple rows, way more than 11 speakers etc. I don't think it's the same class, I would hope a room with several hundred thousands $$$ worth of equipment would "blow away" a consumer setup that could be had for under $10k. So S&V may have been referring to the first class.


what's interesting to me is every written & verbal impression I've seen/heard of these demos are literally all over the map with no consensus from anyone on any given demo, with the exceptions of the Trinnov & perhaps the Auro.

someone I talked to said he and another person both couldn't wait to get out of the JBL room, that the overhead speakers were cringe-inducing bright & way too localizable while another says the JBL was the best one of the bunch. anothe AVS friend of mine said he thought that next to the Trinnov setup, the Pioneer demo was his best overall experience, while another says it was the "least impressive".

all these demos had widely different electronics at widely different price points with widely different speakers, and if the gear, calibration & EQ systems were that critical to the experience, you'd think there would be much more consensus as to which ones were better than others and yet there is no such consensus or trend of a consensus even with the hi-end systems.

are everyone's preferences that much different statistically or did factors involving the specific speakers & care given to speaker placement matter more?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It's always been like this hasn't it? With 5.1 nobody expects every cinema they go to sound exactly like every other cinema. Some are great and some suck. Same with content - some make fantastic use of 5.1, others not so much. Why would it be any different with Atmos?
> 
> Comparing Atmos with Auro on the basis of demos of uncertain quality seems to me like comparing, for example, DTS-HD MA and TrueHD and coming to the conclusion that one is way better than the other because that's how it sounded in the demos at CEDIA. IOW, it's a pointless comparison.
> 
> The only way to compare Atmos and Auro is to have both systems set up in the same room, playing the same content, and then deciding which sounds best. Some movies have been mixed in both formats (eg GotG I believe, for example) so they could be used for the comparison. Otherwise, these subjective, sighted comparisons seem to me to have as much value as any subjective, sighted comparison of anything - speakers, cables, amps, whatever - that is to say, no value at all. IMO.


Definitely. It is very clear to me that many of these 'demos' have their content to be well thought out in advance to best showcase each respective technology.

A perfect 1:1 would be a room where both surround formats could be compared together and with like content. I think we are still a bit off from being able to this (cost prohibitive, content hard to source) but in the near future I'm sure someone with deep pockets, patience and maybe even a lot of clout can scrounge together a comparison that is fair.

Will be interesting to consider these current discussions about all this in a couple to a few years time. Hopefully we ALL will look back and have a good laugh. 



sdrucker said:


> Scott - where were you sitting in the Procella demo? I was sitting in the center (front row) on one demo on Thursday early afternoon, and the second row/center from the front on my second demo on Friday late in the day. I didn't localize "little speakers" but found the experience quite immersive and huge - and the experience with the ceiling speakers to be seamless rather than a hard pan, as one other AVSer mentioned. Conversely the Snell speakers on the Denon demo didn't impress me, producing more of an impression closer to heights than sounds from overhead on, say, the Dolby Storm demo. And I sat center first row on that demo as well.
> 
> What stood out to me both times at Procella/Trinnov were subtle effects - more of presence (dimension) the way I notice Atmos in a theater. I sensed the leaf flying on the screen, and its sounds seeming to follow the leaf's movement in the center of the screen (as well as around the room) during the Atmos trailer, the volcano at the start of ST: Into Darkness rising upward with the sound seeming to rise up and expand, Spock's "It would seem I'm still alive" (I'm paraphrasing) carrying his breath within his helmet with a sense of depth, the shuttle flown by Uhura carrying a pan independent of specific speakers reminiscent of a similar effect when I saw Guardians of the Galaxy in Atmos, etc.
> 
> More to say once I can escape from work and Real Life and write up my notes from the demos, but we have a wide range of contradictory opinions on these demos. For example I loved the sense of diffusion and upward expansion of the Pioneer Dolby-Enabled AJ speakers on their Atmos demos for the overhead effects, and probably would put Pio's demo and Dolby's (with the Dolby speakers on, vs. the ceiling ones) as close to Procella's for my favorite in experiencing Home Atmos. You can find enthusiasts for Denon, which IMO lacked the subtlety I noted on Procella, but others preferred to Pioneer's and Procella's. And the less impressive bass volume and consistency that Nyall Mellor caught @ Procella (although he also preferred it most for Atmos demos IIRC) was found to be to be too loud by a respected authority here on AVS in a PM exchange with me, enough to put it behind Dolby's.
> 
> IOW these reports are fun to read, but Keith has it right. Without double blind A/B and controls for number and brand/quality of speakers, room treatment, and seating position, not to mention the method of room RQ, we have a beauty contest at the end of the day in comparing our experiences, and not much else.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have a R-972 with Trinnov, as well as a Denon running Audyssey XT32/Pro, but I hadn't expected that speaker variation would be as important between Denon/Pioneer as it turned to apparently be. Especially since I've been in the "no sophisticated sub EQ=MCACC is of limited value" camp the last two years . Anybody: was Pioneer running subs in their High Performance room or just running the AJ speakers full range?


Stuart, first of all it was great to meet you at the show! Haha I thought it was funny how we had a chance bumping into each other at the Pioneer booth. I recognized you right away.  Was good to spend time after the show and hang out too. 

So I'll go back and say that I didn't find the Procella demo room "bad" or anything. Just overall disappointing. Something I probably did to myself what with all I kept hearing about this company and all the rave reviews and hype. I found that the speakers themselves while good were still conventional and uninteresting. This could be a good thing but as an enthusiast that is very knowledgeable about speaker design and construction, I found myself unimpressed. Although I really didn't go there for that...

It was a Trinnov room and this would be my first experience with this processor. Not as if I could actually play with the damn thing but I know what it can do and that's great. Wish I had more time in the room. They didn't do much of any demo material. We were played back a trailer or two and quickly kicked out for the next group.  Again... I wish I had more time to attend the show. One day and part of the next morning was not enough to go through the whole show AND meet people. Honestly as cool as all this was I had more enjoyment meeting everyone. 

The sound was good but not any better than what I heard in the Dolby room. It sounded pretty much the same to me. Not a bad thing but there was not anything about this room that stood out as "I gotta have that!" or that. Maybe that is good that nothing stood out cuz that might be bad when you start noticing things. Neutral is a good thing.  I sat dead center in the very front row btw.


----------



## NorthSky

Bigham16 said:


> My impression for 7.2.4 Dolby Surround with the Marantz 7009.
> 
> Movies: I watched a number of different clips from movies and was just blown away, I really was! I watched a number of clips from different movies over the weekend that I know well. I didn't include all of them below, just a few.
> 
> Need for Speed was the first as it has a lot of helicopters and racing (obviously). Everything in this movie panned or moved seamlessly. It really seemed three dimensional. The cars moving and passing each other never sounded like it was coming from a specific speaker, they just moved around the room. All the helicopter and plane scenes sounded great, coming from the right, left, front, back, up, down and all around.
> 
> I watched the beginning or first 10 minutes of Oblivion. After Tom takes off in his ship and enters the storm, it sounded like I was covered in rain, the lighting was coming from all around and above. The best part was after Tom fixed the circle robot(?) on the football field, after it scans the area, it takes off and disappears above and behind you. It was soo cool because the sound of the robot disappearing kept weakening and weakening and weakening, never really disappearing. Great effect that I had never heard before.
> 
> One of the cave scenes from Prometheus was amazing as well. Felt like I was in the cave with condensation/drips of water falling all around. When one of the guys launches four of those little orbes that maps the caves, sounded like it was scanning me from head to toe and then taking off over my head and behind me. It was great.
> 
> Watched one of the first scenes from Art of Flight. Deadmau5 music first filled the room then once it starts to quiet down, all of the music moved to the front stage but it was very seamless. Was a really cool effect on how and when the music moved.
> 
> The best so far was the beginning of Top Gun. Just flipping amazing. I felt like I was really on the aircraft carrie, no lie. Sounds were coming from every where, detailed, and atmospheric. Even though I have never been on an aircraft carrie, it sure felt like it. Never seemed like there were speakers in the room, just jets and Kenny Loggins. The best over the head effect was when Tom rides his motorcycle next to the landing/takeoff strip (after he gets accepted to Top Gun), a jet fly's literally right over you. Like at an air show.
> 
> I thought Neo:X sounded great with the wides and front heights but Dolby Surround is just amazing. Not just better but way better.
> 
> The sound really is spacious, seamless, enveloping, and atmospheric (I know I have used these words a lot). Never before have I felt like I was actually in a movie until this weekend. It really is that good. I can't wait for real Atmos movies to come out. I do have Transformers 4 on pre-order.
> 
> The same thing for video games, it was just better in very way.
> 
> I didn't try my front heights or wides in the Atmos config but at this point not sure I will. Maybe on a rainy day  I didn't try music either, was having way too much fun with movies and video games.
> 
> I am no professional by any means, just an ordinary dude like most of you and I hope this helps.
> 
> The only very very small complaint I have so far is I felt like the back top speakers were getting a little more action than the fronts. This is more than likely a placement issue than a with Dolby Surround. I tend to aim the tops more at the listing position the next time I tinker with it.
> 
> Oh, I did try a before and after Audyssey calibration and I am sure as you know it was much better after. Thanks!!


This is the type of post that I'm talkin' 'bout, wow!
...Makes you want to go to the bank and get into orbit right now.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> I noticed some of that with the Enrique Iglesias music video mixed in native Atmos with the Pioneer demo in 5.1.4, but more for the background vocals and call and response in the video than for instruments (which may have used more objects, along the lines of the Triphonic electronic music demo that we heard in the Dolby room at the AVS event). OTOH I only caught a few minutes of the Steinway 9.1.4 demo when I asked nicely, not enough to form a definitive opinion.


You should have stayed for more. It was one of the more impressive Atmos showcases. Why Dolby can't do it themselves, I have no idea.


----------



## RichB

NorthSky said:


> All theaters are large venues with a fair number of movie watchers inside.
> If you put some surround speakers lower you would totally annoyed some of them movie customers.
> 
> @ home ... it is ... you know the rest of it, Rich.  ...Different.


I do and I have one setup at ear level and another with 5 Revel M20's and a C20 speaker at 9 feet in a room that seats 8 in a u-shaped couch.
Guess which one sounds more "theatrical" and works better for all listeners (at home) .

- Rich


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> So if an audio format decides to use channels instead of objects do you honestly think the same exact soundtrack couldn't be done with the exact same speaker layout?


Back in late June, when the Dolby NDA expired for manufacturers and all sorts of details about home Atmos emerged, I lamented the fact that 1st gen implementation was no better than discrete 11.1 with downmixing (7 main channels could be downmixed to 5 while 4 height channels could be downmixed to 2). The pre-determined speaker locations reinforced my skepticism about any sort of on-the-fly "rendering" to adapt to 7.1.4 or 5.1.2 configurations, since those small adaptations could be done by upmixing/downmixing. 

But dschulz (of Datasat) and batpig addressed my complaint by pointing out the that the object-based nature of Atmos would become more apparent as the same soundtrack on Blu-ray adapted itself to more speakers and/or non-traditional locations. Indeed, you can see this happening already. 

So rather than answer your question above with hypothetical formats and speaker layouts, I'll use real life situations. Suppose you have a layout with 7 speakers around you and 4 heights: 2 near the front of the room and 2 roughly in line with your side surrounds. Both Auro and Atmos would be comfortable with this speaker configuration (small difference in elevation angles). 

If you want to add a couple more heights to the back of the room, how will Auro handle it? Upmix the 2 surround height channels to 4 speakers using Auromatic? Nope. Just copy the 2 surround height channels to both pairs of surround height speakers. Same info at your sides as behind you. How about if you add a pair of wides to bridge the gap between your fronts and sides? There is nothing that the Auro decoder and Auromatic upmixer can do to make sound come out of those speakers. 

By comparison, Atmos will render objects to the rear heights and/or wides that would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway. So we didn't have to go far beyond a 7+4 set-up to see the advantage of object-based rendering compared to playing back channels only. Does that answer your question?


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> You should have stayed for more. It was one of the more impressive Atmos showcases. Why Dolby can't do it themselves, I have no idea.



I couldn't: I had a flight to catch home. I literally spent about five minutes there, but I did get to talk to Peter about their plans beforehand. Hint: it would make the Trinnov Altitude look like a value product if you went for the full version of their pre/pro, 9.1.4 speakers, all digital amp (with CAT6 paths to keep the signal all digital until the final D/A conversion within the power element of the amp), and the video side. Hope you have $126K, which is what their brochure said!


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> By comparison, Atmos will render objects to the rear heights and/or wides that would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway. So we didn't have to go far beyond a 7+4 set-up to see the advantage of object-based rendering compared to playing back channels only. Does that answer your question?



The sound-mixer has the option of permitting the "beds" to be spread across than the speakers or locking them to the specific bed.
Although, I don't know why a sound-mixer would do that.


- Rich


----------



## jrogers

batpig said:


> Out of curiosity what is the height of your surrounds (you mentioned azimuth)?
> 
> I ask because, at this point (very limited testing) I am not noticing a dramatic change to my 5.1 setup with the addition of the Def Tech A60 Atmos modules. In fact, although it's premature, I may be recanting my initial speculation that grabbing a pair of bookshelf speakers and aiming them up at the ceiling isn't as effective as dedicated Atmos modules. Even with the "Dolby enabled" Def Techs, I would describe the difference with DSU as a suble increase in the overhead envelopment, the "tallness" of the front soundstage, but it's not much different from what I was getting with the "fake" Atmos modules. I'm sure some of this is because I use Audyssey which (as we now know) calibrates those two channels with the HRTF filters built into the target curve.
> 
> Now, my surrounds are pretty high up (about 6ft) so what the two front Atmos modules are really doing is providing a "front height" sensation, but probably not with as much vertical separation with the ambient surround effects that DSU seems to be matrixing into the top channels as if my surrounds were closer to ear level. I imagine the effect would be much more dramatic if my surrounds were down at ear level too.
> 
> The huge elephantine caveat in the room is that I don't have access to any NATIVE Atmos content. So it's hard to find anything to really test the overhead imaging. But it feels like DSU (like PLIIz before it with height effects) seems to be taking a more conservative approach with what it tries to send above you. Rather than throw up some discrete sound that will be distracting suddenly appearing overhead, it appears to be mostly ambient info and "enhancement" of the listener level effects.


Surround height could definitely account for some/much of the difference, as my surrounds are just a few inches above MLP ear level. Also, physical ceiling speakers (as opposed to Atmos modules) might be providing a more localized effect, which makes the difference that much more noticeable. It occurs to me given your comments, and my excitement around the new tech - I might be equating "more noticeable" with "better" more than I ultimately should


----------



## NorthSky

Scottyb09 said:


> Forgive my ignorance but can you help explain to me what benefit Atmos might bring to my home theater? I do not have the ability to install any more speakers above and beyond my 5.1 M&K set up (i.e., no 'overhead' speakers or speakers mounted above above the front channels). Knowing this how might Atmos benefit me above and beyond my current DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Marantz set-up? I examined the Dolby website and a few others and frankly don't understand it much.


Hi Scott, fellow Canadian,

Did you read this thread a bit? ...One word (make that two): *Elevated Envelopment*.

...The new 3D spatial dimension; vertical plane added to the horizontal one.
If you can install two or four overhead speakers, and purchase a new Dolby Atmos unit; I would say go for it, 100%. ...Or better yet, wait. ...And see what's coming up for the second generation of AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors. ...It is only starting, and there is no material @ all yet. 
...Or unless you wannit now, with Dolby Surround Up-mixer (for the most affordable solution). 
...And with only two overhead Atmos speakers (Middle). 

*** Two subs are better than just one, four overhead speakers are better than just two.


----------



## ss9001

Scott, your comments and from Stu are exactly what I was trying to convey. you & Stu heard the same demo material in the same ultra hi-end system and yet have different experiences to report. you found the Procella demo disappointing while others rave about Trinnov and the setup.

it would be different, to my thinking, if both of you said you could hear clear and better differences between the uber-expensive setups vs normal priced ones but that's not what you and others are saying. 

this lack of consensus makes it impossible to say how the gear, its expense, the EQ system used, the speaker choice & speaker locations accounted for the sound you say you heard. you could easily have heard the same thing using Audyssey, MCACC or YPAO as Trinnov for all the consensus as to what it sounded like to trained hi-end, seasoned (or pro) listeners. 

I find that a stunning result.


----------



## bkeeler10

sdrucker said:


> Anybody: was Pioneer running subs in their High Performance room or just running the AJ speakers full range?


Yes, Pioneer had a pair of subs in their room.


----------



## Scott Simonian

RichB said:


> The sound-mixer has the option of permitting the "beds" to be spread across than the speakers or locking them to the specific bed.
> Although, I don't know why a sound-mixer would do that.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Lol, seriously? Why not?

Not everything should come from one single predetermined space all the time. What about big diffuse sounds like wind or droning machine noise or even music? All sorts of various content.

This is up for the content creator to decide. In a cinema where there is a huge array to work with this is ideal for _them_ to decide where this stuff goes. We in the home environment will most likely not have a large array but this is to no consequence to us as that array content is shifted down to a single speaker anyway and it always has.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ss9001 said:


> Scott, your comments and from Stu are exactly what I was trying to convey. you & Stu heard the same demo material in the same ultra hi-end system and yet have different experiences to report. you found the Procella demo disappointing while others rave about Trinnov and the setup.
> 
> it would be different, to my thinking, if both of you said you could hear clear and better differences between the uber-expensive setups vs normal priced ones but that's not what you and others are saying.
> 
> this lack of consensus makes it impossible to say how the gear, its expense, the EQ system used, the speaker choice & speaker locations accounted for the sound you say you heard. you could easily have heard the same thing using Audyssey, MCACC or YPAO as Trinnov for all the consensus as to what it sounded like to trained hi-end, seasoned (or pro) listeners.
> 
> I find that a stunning result.


Not all that surprising. It's all about different tastes and expectations.

While Stuart and I are both experienced and knowledgeable it could very well be that we have interest in sound that is not aligned with one another. We are not the same age nor have we been subjected to identical aural events in our life. We may be of similar stature  but we do not have the same ears or brain.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Stuart, first of all it was great to meet you at the show! Haha I thought it was funny how we had a chance bumping into each other at the Pioneer booth. I recognized you right away.  Was good to spend time after the show and hang out too.  .


 
Same here - wish you could have stayed another day and we could have done the floor together, but at least we met in person .




Scott Simonian said:


> It was a Trinnov room and this would be my first experience with this processor. Not as if I could actually play with the damn thing but I know what it can do and that's great. Wish I had more time in the room. They didn't do much of any demo material. We were played back a trailer or two and quickly kicked out for the next group.  Again... I wish I had more time to attend the show. One day and part of the next morning was not enough to go through the whole show AND meet people. Honestly as cool as all this was I had more enjoyment meeting everyone.


 
In the two demos, we heard the Leaf and Storm trailers, and the Star Trek: Into Darkness clip. The second demo also has an outstanding Marcus Miller Jazz cut with a serious finger-picking bass solo, and Lee Ritenour's guitar, with IMO better bass than the Dolby cuts (which may have something to do with the upper bass coming from the Procellas, or just my preference for music and the separate calibration from the one done on Atmos: no upmixer in place as per Trinnov). The only thing was that it wasn't Atmos but straight BluRay multichannel.




Scott Simonian said:


> The sound was good but not any better than what I heard in the Dolby room. It sounded pretty much the same to me. Not a bad thing but there was not anything about this room that stood out as "I gotta have that!" or that. Maybe that is good that nothing stood out cuz that might be bad when you start noticing things. Neutral is a good thing.  I sat dead center in the very front row btw.


That could be. In my case, I had a better seat for Procella than I did in the Dolby demo, where I was off to the far left rather than the center. And did you see those big wall diffusers on either sidewall in the Procella demo?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Same here - wish you could have stayed another day and we could have done the floor together, but at least we met in person .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the two demos, we heard the Leaf and Storm trailers, and the Star Trek: Into Darkness clip. The second demo also has an outstanding Marcus Miller Jazz cut with a serious finger-picking bass solo, and Lee Ritenour's guitar, with IMO better bass than the Dolby cuts (which may have something to do with the upper bass coming from the Procellas, or just my preference for music and the separate calibration from the one done on Atmos: no upmixer in place as per Trinnov). The only thing was that it wasn't Atmos but straight BluRay multichannel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That could be. In my case, I had a better seat for Procella than I did in the Dolby demo, where I was off to the far left rather than the center. And did you see those big wall diffusers on either sidewall in the Procella demo?


Agh! Wtf! They didn't play any of that in my demo.  G-damnit. Could possibly be a good idea for those of you to not put much account into my experience at Procella.  Lame demo.

Yeah I noticed that they had put much thought into their acoustics. That's good. The room didn't have much of a sound and I think that helped. 

Not sure if you have interest or can attend CES but that's the next big show. It's in Las Vegas in January. We could hang again.


----------



## NorthSky

corndogggy said:


> How are you experiencing Atmos specific effects when there is no material out with Atmos information on it?


Have you heard of Dolby Pro Logic, and dts Neo:6, and of their entire families before?

* Dolby Surround (up-mixer) is the new kid on the block, and it will do what no other surround sound processing mode has even dare to go before. It will add "elevated" processing sounds. ...To make the surround experience 3D instead of just 2D.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Have you heard of Dolby Pro Logic, and dts Neo:6, and of their entire families before?
> 
> * Dolby Surround (up-mixer) is the new kid on the block, and *it will do what no other surround sound processing mode has even dare to go before. It will add "elevated" processing sounds. ...To make the surround experience 3D instead of just 2D.*


Did you forget that Dolby has had Prologic2*z* for several years now or that DTS has had their Neo:X algorithm for just as many years? Audyssey DSX also adds a height layer.

Yamaha has had height presence speakers for about 20 years now. For the past several years they have had both front and rear heights to aid with their CinemaDSP to add this vertical layer to conventional 2,6 and 8ch surround sound.

Height surrounds are not that new.


----------



## NorthSky

Scottyb09 said:


> Thanks, guys. I understand the difference between XT and XT32 and will eventually upgrade to a XT32-capable Marantz processor (although I will also say my AV7701 sounds AMAZING!).


Scott, the AV7702 is your new upgrade.  ...Or you can wait for its replacement; the AV7703, next year. 

1. XT32: You wannit.
2. Dolby Atmos: You wannit too. 

And Marantz newer SSP gives it to you; both.


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> *This is so true on my 7.2.4 setup as well!* I was thinking it was a placement issue also, but since you are having the same issue, it seems unlikely that we both made the same "mistake". *I but the DSU favors the rear top/height speakers.*


Lower their levels.


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> You should have stayed for more. It was one of the more impressive Atmos showcases. Why Dolby can't do it themselves, I have no idea.





sdrucker said:


> I couldn't: I had a flight to catch home. I literally spent about five minutes there, but I did get to talk to Peter about their plans beforehand.


That was my problem too - had to catch a plane. I really wished I had time to see Steinway - if I did it would've been straight from the Auro demo to Steinway. Sounds like I really missed out . . .

Edit: The unfortunate thing was, I sat for an hour and a half at the airport after security . . .


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I completely understand. I don't rebuy movies I don't want to watch because they have a new audio format I want to try out in home (oh wait, I do!! ). There are some others that were mixed for Auro I'd be more interested in like Elysium, Oz the Great and Powerful, Ender's Game, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Lucy and even Transformers 4.


About *Under the Skin* ?


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Not all that surprising. It's all about different tastes and expectations.
> 
> While Stuart and I are both experienced and knowledgeable it could very well be that we have interest in sound that is not aligned with one another. We are not the same age nor have we been subjected to identical aural events in our life. We may be of similar stature  but we do not have the same ears or brain.


 
Yeah, even though I listen to everything from Porcupine Tree to Carmina Burana in multi-channel form, but I appreciate the subtle effects of a voice moving with the actor more than apes screaming and running above me on a building's ceiling . Not that they're mutually exclusive, mind you , but more of a selling point for having a more realistic experience without it being in my face. At the end of the day it's all balance and preference, I suppose.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where the benefit of objects, to me, come in is around the 9.1.4 mark as demonstrated in the Steinway presentation. Channel speaker arrays have the same exact sound coming out of all the separate banks of multi-speaker arrays whereas in an object based mix, you can more precisely pan or anchor an object. It can come out of ONE of those array speakers, not _all _of them at once.
> 
> Every one of the clips played had distinct sounds coming out of each of the side wall speakers. The Latin music video had various instruments in each of the array speakers too. Panning was smoother and the 3D effect was more like a sphere of sound. That's where Atmos started to really shine at CEDIA. I would enthusiastically want at least a base layout of 9.1.4 to come to more consumer friendly priced products rather than just $30,000 luxury items... and in fact one of the Dolby engineers at the private demo stated he was working on such a rendering block for another generation of product.



You may be onto something: one of the Sound Development guys told us in the Q&A that the ideal configuration would be 9.1.4, even 9.1.6, if you had the right room size. Capturing an additional speaker between the fronts and the back surround, in something like Dolby's "Surround 1 and Surround 2" form vs. wides as such (which don't get upmixed as we know because they're too close to the L/R mains), helps to broaden the experience with objects and Atmos in general.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> My experience was a little different with the Auro presentation. My take away was that if they only had at least four discrete overheads rather than the mono VOG along with the sides, rears, and mirrored wall heights, Auro would be a real contender. The arrangement of the VOG speakers really over emphasized the fact it was a single, mono point-source and it hot spotted like crazy.
> 
> The orchestral track sounded funky to me. It made the orchestra seem tall like the pipe organ, rather than laterally wide as in a real, live staged concert. This is something Atmos would excel at because it can have up to seven screen wall speaker outputs. Though, on that track it could have been the recording where they mixed the screen heights too hot.
> 
> Auro excelled at the ambient sound effects tracks like the truck going down the country lane. It could also be the mix moreso than the format. Gotta have real ambisonic field recordings mixed in Atmos to get a better comparison.


Except that the orchestra wasn't a live staged concert. The recording was done in a recording studio and was recorded as such, not like it was recorded from the audience perspective in a concert hall. A studio recording would be completely different and you'd be hearing the orchestra all around as well as the size of the room. I completely agree that it would have sounded WAY out of place if it was from a hall and you were an audience member.


----------



## sdrucker

ss9001 said:


> what's interesting to me is every written & verbal impression I've seen/heard of these demos are literally all over the map with no consensus from anyone on any given demo, with the exceptions of the Trinnov & perhaps the Auro.
> 
> someone I talked to said he and another person both couldn't wait to get out of the JBL room, that the overhead speakers were cringe-inducing bright & way too localizable while another says the JBL was the best one of the bunch. anothe AVS friend of mine said he thought that next to the Trinnov setup, the Pioneer demo was his best overall experience, while another says it was the "least impressive".
> 
> all these demos had widely different electronics at widely different price points with widely different speakers, and if the gear, calibration & EQ systems were that critical to the experience, you'd think there would be much more consensus as to which ones were better than others and yet there is no such consensus or trend of a consensus even with the hi-end systems.
> 
> are everyone's preferences that much different statistically or did factors involving the specific speakers & care given to speaker placement matter more?


Without being an elitist, I'll point out something obvious: automated room correction, number of positions measured (and if relevant, how they're weighted by where you measure), and the person doing the calibration matter too. And the target curve we prefer: one created with "Audyssey Flat" vs. automated MCACC vs. a Swiss army knife configured by a hands-on audio expert, with manual PEQ or run otherwise with a nextgen electronic method like Dirac or Trinnov. I think it all comes down to what's "good enough" for you in your room vs. what would be the best possible sound you could possibly hear regardless of price point.

About the only consensus I've picked up is about the Pioneer speakers showing that Atmos capable speakers work as well or better as the ceilings for most listeners.


----------



## RichB

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, seriously? Why not?
> 
> Not everything should come from one single predetermined space all the time. What about big diffuse sounds like wind or droning machine noise or even music? All sorts of various content.
> 
> This is up for the content creator to decide. In a cinema where there is a huge array to work with this is ideal for _them_ to decide where this stuff goes. We in the home environment will most likely not have a large array but this is to no consequence to us as that array content is shifted down to a single speaker anyway and it always has.



I would expect locking the sound to a specific bed (and therefore speaker) would not be used for ambient sound.
My point is that it is the sound designers choice and so additional speakers may not be used.

Beds that cannot be spread across speakers are not functionally different than channels. 

- Rich


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> In a cinema where there is a huge array to work with this is ideal for _them_ to decide where this stuff goes. We in the home environment will most likely not have a large array but this is to no consequence to us as that array content is shifted down to a single speaker anyway and it always has.


Right, but the capability is already built into home Atmos. So if someone has 3 rows of seating and surround speakers flanking each row, then all three speakers on each side will get the same bed channel info but independent object audio. The ability to address those speaker as an array and individual speakers, simultaneously, is also how commercial Atmos works.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> Not all that surprising. It's all about different tastes and expectations.
> 
> While Stuart and I are both experienced and knowledgeable it could very well be that we have interest in sound that is not aligned with one another. We are not the same age nor have we been subjected to identical aural events in our life. We may be of similar stature  but we do not have the same ears or brain.




Speaking of stature did you have to muscle your way to the front of the crowd, or was it that you ended up standing front row next to the Dolby reps because of your charming personality?


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> +1. The leaf's sonic placement in the scene, not panned into a speaker or fixed in space in the center of the screen, was the most obvious use of objects in all the Atmos demos IMO and set the stage for what I heard. Most noticeable with Procella, almost as much for Pioneer and Dolby, and IMO weakest with the Denon demo. I would attribute the differences to Trinnov's Optimizer controls for Procella, and possibly the speaker quality for Procella/Pioneer/Triad respectively compared to the Snells, but that's just me. Bottom line is even if you can't do a home theater for the 1%, you can see what the Atmos technology can achieve.


Methinks it's all in the content first.

A 30-second clip; they can put all their bananas into it; for a full movie it's another totally different ball game.

As for a $20,000-40,000 surround sound processor with $100,000 full set of speakers and subwoofers;
ya, it should sound a little better than a system that costs total, say $2,000-4,000

Some people have one million dollars in their bank account, others have less than three grands.
Some people live in mansions with huge rooms, others live in cabins with small rooms.

But! Anyone can feel the world around them vibrating the same.
With a little bit of expertise you can have a full life with almost nothing, and have a miserable life with almost everything; this is all so superficially relative, Stuart.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where the benefit of objects, to me, come in is around the 9.1.4 mark as demonstrated in the Steinway presentation. Channel speaker arrays have the same exact sound coming out of all the separate banks of multi-speaker arrays whereas in an object based mix, you can more precisely pan or anchor an object. It can come out of ONE of those array speakers, not _all _of them at once.
> 
> Every one of the clips played had distinct sounds coming out of each of the side wall speakers. The Latin music video had various instruments in each of the array speakers too. Panning was smoother and the 3D effect was more like a sphere of sound. That's where Atmos started to really shine at CEDIA. I would enthusiastically want at least a base layout of 9.1.4 to come to more consumer friendly priced products rather than just $30,000 luxury items... and in fact one of the Dolby engineers at the private demo stated he was working on such a rendering block for another generation of product.
> 
> The wall surrounds at the Steinway demo were just above ear level and just enough to fire over the heads of each row of listeners, giving quite a spread between those locations and the overheads.


I undertand this but you're talking about a situation when an array of speakers is treated as one channel (this happens all the time in theaters). At home this is rarely the case unless you are purposely copying channels to multiple speakers (usually the surrounds). I'm saying in a channel system that has a discrete channel for each speaker that matches the same amount of speakers for an object based system. So if 9.1.4 you have 13 speakers (not counting the sub). So if I have a 13.1 channel system does that mean I can't replicate the experience for some reason if the mix was made by the mixer specifically for 13.1?? I don't see why it couldn't be but I agree that given what I've seen about the tools for Atmos it would probably be a lot easier on the mixer to do it in Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Speaking of stature did you have to muscle your way to the front of the crowd, or was it that you ended up standing front row next to the Dolby reps because of your charming personality?


Lol! What do you think?

The crowd formed around _me_, of course.   




jk




maybe


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Which, to me, is the very definition of a bad thing


Oh I don't know. Raising my surrounds to go from a 2D ring of sound to more of a 3D bubble of sound is quite pleasing. As long as I'm not fooling myself about what I'm hearing, I don't consider it a bad thing.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Back in late June, when the Dolby NDA expired for manufacturers and all sorts of details about home Atmos emerged, I lamented the fact that 1st gen implementation was no better than discrete 11.1 with downmixing (7 main channels could be downmixed to 5 while 4 height channels could be downmixed to 2). The pre-determined speaker locations reinforced my skepticism about any sort of on-the-fly "rendering" to adapt to 7.1.4 or 5.1.2 configurations, since those small adaptations could be done by upmixing/downmixing.
> 
> But dschulz (of Datasat) and batpig addressed my complaint by pointing out the that the object-based nature of Atmos would become more apparent as the same soundtrack on Blu-ray adapted itself to more speakers and/or non-traditional locations. Indeed, you can see this happening already.
> 
> So rather than answer your question above with hypothetical formats and speaker layouts, I'll use real life situations. Suppose you have a layout with 7 speakers around you and 4 heights: 2 near the front of the room and 2 roughly in line with your side surrounds. Both Auro and Atmos would be comfortable with this speaker configuration (small difference in elevation angles).
> 
> If you want to add a couple more heights to the back of the room, how will Auro handle it? Upmix the 2 surround height channels to 4 speakers using Auromatic? Nope. Just copy the 2 surround height channels to both pairs of surround height speakers. Same info at your sides as behind you. How about if you add a pair of wides to bridge the gap between your fronts and sides? There is nothing that the Auro decoder and Auromatic upmixer can do to make sound come out of those speakers.
> 
> By comparison, Atmos will render objects to the rear heights and/or wides that would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway. So we didn't have to go far beyond a 7+4 set-up to see the advantage of object-based rendering compared to playing back channels only. Does that answer your question?


Outstanding post. And yes, if my question was comparing the limitations of Auro to Atmos. Sorry I wasn't clear on that, I was referring to just channels in general, didn't mean to infer that I was talking about Auro's format. I'm saying that if a mix was done in a channel based system that used the same amount of speakers for their mix in Atmos. I can completely see how the scalability of Atmos would be an advantage compared to Auro IF (and this is a big IF that probably won't be answered for a long time) and only IF all those extra speakers that you're talking about adding to the Atmos speaker setup were truly a benefit and not just more speakers for more speakers sake. Phantom imaging between speakers works VERY well and has for years. Sure you can keep filling in those gaps with discrete speakers but that doesn't mean you have to.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! What do you think?
> 
> The crowd formed around _me_, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe




LOL.


Were you seated for the Atmos demonstration, or were you standing? 

Did you get a good listening position?


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Another thing -- at this point my tests have all been late-night-listening style, with low SPL and Dyn Vol on. It occured to me that maybe the lack of "obviousness" or "impact" of the Atmos modules could also be due to the low volumes, making the ambient noises placed "virtually" above me less obvious.
> 
> So I asked Chris K about it on FB, and he confirmed what I suspected, that overhead speakers (Tops, Heights) do NOT receive any level boost with DEQ like the surrounds do. So I'm wondering now if the issue is that the surrounds are just overpowering the overheads at the extremely low volume at which I have been listening, since they are receiving some level boost whereas the Atmos channels are not. So if both are producing similar "ambient envelopment" info, the Atmos effects would be less noticeable than the surround effects. Maybe I can convince the wife to take the kids out for a bit so I can rock some loud stuff and test the thoery


That mister bat, you just hit the spot. ...AVRs second generation, and third ...


----------



## Kris Deering

Scott Simonian said:


> Agh! Wtf! They didn't play any of that in my demo.  G-damnit. Could possibly be a good idea for those of you to not put much account into my experience at Procella.  Lame demo.
> 
> Yeah I noticed that they had put much thought into their acoustics. That's good. The room didn't have much of a sound and I think that helped.
> 
> Not sure if you have interest or can attend CES but that's the next big show. It's in Las Vegas in January. We could hang again.


The only thing I remember about the Procella demo that stood out was the jazz clip. It sounded fantastic. I ordered the Blu-ray that was on the moment I left the booth.


----------



## Scott Simonian

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> LOL.
> 
> 
> Were you seated for the Atmos demonstration, or were you standing?
> 
> Did you get a good listening position?


All us AVS members had seats and it was the Dolby reps that stood during the demo.

I attended the 'public' version of their demo in the morning where I sat right in the center of the room and then for the AVS demo I sat in the very back row off to the right sort of between Mark Seaton and David Susilo. 

I made a point in all these demos (well most but not all of them) to sit off axis so I could gauge whether or not this technology is effective for those _not_ in the sweetest sweet spot in the direct center. I did the same at the very exclusive Atmos demo in Burbank at Dolby's headquarters a month ago.


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> About *Under the Skin* ?


Under the Skin sounds good already!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kris Deering said:


> The only thing I remember about the Procella demo that stood out was the jazz clip. It sounded fantastic. I ordered the Blu-ray that was on the moment I left the booth.


I'm still mad that you were there at CEDIA and I did not know. Would have loved to meet you. 

Btw, I just got the latest S&V and saw a very familiar room.  Very cool.


----------



## bkeeler10

sdurani said:


> Right, but the capability is already built into home Atmos. So if someone has 3 rows of seating and surround speakers flanking each row, then all three speakers on each side will get the same bed channel info but independent object audio. The ability to address those speaker as an array and individual speakers, simultaneously, is also how commercial Atmos works.


Are you confident this is true? Where does Atmos draw the line wrt which speakers are considered side surrounds and therefore should receive side surround bed information? Does the pair of "wide" speakers in a 9.1.4 setup receive bed information from the front left and right or the surround side left and right channels? Perhaps all speakers that fall within a certain space (determined by their position wrt the MLP) receive bed information? 

Seems like this question was asked in the HTG interview with Dolby two weeks ago, but I'm not sure there was a definitive answer.


----------



## NorthSky

*Audyssey Dynamic Volume - Not Effecting Dolby Atmos Speakers (Up-Firing, & Overhead).*



Bigham16 said:


> I wonder if this also applies for in/on-ceiling speakers as well?


I bet it does; 100% (99) confident.


----------



## Kris Deering

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm still mad that you were there at CEDIA and I did not know. Would have loved to meet you.
> 
> Btw, I just got the latest S&V and saw a very familiar room.  Very cool.


I was bummed that I didn't get the chance to go to the AVS meetup. Secrets was having its writer dinner at the exact same time. I go to most of the CEDIA's and a few of the CES's so I'm sure we'll have a chance again. I always love meeting other HT enthuasists which is why I've always had an open door policy at my home.


----------



## bkeeler10

Kris Deering said:


> The only thing I remember about the Procella demo that stood out was the jazz clip. It sounded fantastic. I ordered the Blu-ray that was on the moment I left the booth.


So what blu ray was it, and which clip did they play? I only heard Into Darkness at the Procella booth, unfortunately. TIA.


----------



## Tom Riddle

I've done a bit of reading and believe I have this right, if I play an Atmos soundtrack back on my legacy receiver that doesn't have Atmos, it will still play in the best configuration per channel possible. So if I had heights and rear surrounds, it would incorporate the objects meant for those channels into reproduction. Is this correct?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where the benefit of objects, to me, come in is around the 9.1.4 mark as demonstrated in the Steinway presentation. Channel speaker arrays have the same exact sound coming out of all the separate banks of multi-speaker arrays whereas in an object based mix, you can more precisely pan or anchor an object. It can come out of ONE of those array speakers, not _all _of them at once.
> 
> Every one of the clips played had distinct sounds coming out of each of the side wall speakers. The Latin music video had various instruments in each of the array speakers too. Panning was smoother and the 3D effect was more like a sphere of sound. That's where Atmos started to really shine at CEDIA. I would enthusiastically want at least a base layout of 9.1.4 to come to more consumer friendly priced products rather than just $30,000 luxury items... and in fact one of the Dolby engineers at the private demo stated he was working on such a rendering block for another generation of product.
> 
> The wall surrounds at the Steinway demo were just above ear level and just enough to fire over the heads of each row of listeners, giving quite a spread between those locations and the overheads.


Dan, that 9.1.4 configuration, make that 7.1.6 instead. ...Me, my own personal opinion. ...Or 9.1.6


----------



## sdrucker

Kris Deering said:


> The only thing I remember about the Procella demo that stood out was the jazz clip. It sounded fantastic. I ordered the Blu-ray that was on the moment I left the booth.


 
I have Trinnov in the old Sherwood R-972 I use with 5.1/7.1 BluRay sources, but even so, that clarity of detail on the bass solo, and the lifelike sound on Lee Ritenour's guitar and the drums was an OMG moment. YMMV but as enveloping and as realistic as you'd hear in a studio with a live band in front of you beyond the glass (which I've had the pleasure of doing once as part of a Kickstarter project) or a medium sized jazz club like Birdland in NYC.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Yes, Chris was unambiguous -- overhead speakers (whether heights, tops, or "virtual" atmos speakers) do not receive the level boost that DEQ applies to the surround channels.
> 
> I do wonder (after hearing the really positive reports of DSU from you and PoshFrosh, who are both doing 7.1.4 with physical ceiling speakers) if I'm sort of at a triple whammy point with respect to the "impact" of Atmos:
> 
> Whammy #1 - Atmos modules instead of physical ceiling speakers (more diffuse, less precise)
> Whammy #2 - 2 Atmos speakers instead of 4 (less ability to accurately image overhead)
> Whammy #3 - Surrounds are elevated (so less separation between "layers" vertically)
> 
> Plus now my suspicion about needing a little level boost at lower volumes to maintain their (relative) audibility. I definitely believe that if I had four ceiling speakers and surrounds a couple of feet lower my impressions would be different.


Oh, you first mentioned DVol; so now DEQ as well. ...Ok.


----------



## audioguy

Kris Deering said:


> The helicopter pass over demo in the Auro presentation sounds FAR FAR better and extremely realistic.


+1


----------



## Orbitron

If the decision is to do 7.1.4 using Atmos modules, what what be at the top of the list or get strong consideration?


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> I do and I have one setup at ear level and another with 5 Revel M20's and a C20 speaker at 9 feet in a room that seats 8 in a u-shaped couch.
> Guess which one sounds more "theatrical" and works better for all listeners (at home) .
> 
> - Rich


The room @ ear level?  ...You lucky sunnabaggun!


----------



## wse

Grimani suggest 9.1.2 wide are more important in his opinion, I would agree  But DS doesn't do wide


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> Back in late June, when the Dolby NDA expired for manufacturers and all sorts of details about home Atmos emerged, I lamented the fact that 1st gen implementation was no better than discrete 11.1 with downmixing (7 main channels could be downmixed to 5 while 4 height channels could be downmixed to 2). The pre-determined speaker locations reinforced my skepticism about any sort of on-the-fly "rendering" to adapt to 7.1.4 or 5.1.2 configurations, since those small adaptations could be done by upmixing/downmixing.
> 
> But dschulz (of Datasat) and batpig addressed my complaint by pointing out the that the object-based nature of Atmos would become more apparent as the same soundtrack on Blu-ray adapted itself to more speakers and/or non-traditional locations. Indeed, you can see this happening already.
> 
> So rather than answer your question above with hypothetical formats and speaker layouts, I'll use real life situations. Suppose you have a layout with 7 speakers around you and 4 heights: 2 near the front of the room and 2 roughly in line with your side surrounds. Both Auro and Atmos would be comfortable with this speaker configuration (small difference in elevation angles).
> 
> If you want to add a couple more heights to the back of the room, how will Auro handle it? Upmix the 2 surround height channels to 4 speakers using Auromatic? Nope. Just copy the 2 surround height channels to both pairs of surround height speakers. Same info at your sides as behind you. How about if you add a pair of wides to bridge the gap between your fronts and sides? There is nothing that the Auro decoder and Auromatic upmixer can do to make sound come out of those speakers.
> 
> By comparison, Atmos will render objects to the rear heights and/or wides that would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway. So we didn't have to go far beyond a 7+4 set-up to see the advantage of object-based rendering compared to playing back channels only. Does that answer your question?


It depends.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> I can completely see how the scalability of Atmos would be an advantage compared to Auro IF (and this is a big IF that probably won't be answered for a long time) and only IF all those extra speakers that you're talking about adding to the Atmos speaker setup were truly a benefit and not just more speakers for more speakers sake.


Benefit is in the eye ear of the beholder. Some AVS members swear by wides, but they are a low priority for me (the wides, not those AVS members). For the other location I mentioned, we don't have to wait a long time since thebland installed a pair of rear heights above his surround-back speakers. With Auro, he'll get the same sound duplicated from the side heights. With Atmos, he'll get objects rendered uniquely to those locations. 

BTW, if you start with a sufficiently large number of channels (e.g., Hamasaki 22.2), then there is a reasonable amount of scaling that can be done with downmixing and upmixing. But even then, there are advantages to object based delivery (dialogue stem as a separate object, whose volume level can be adjust on playback, independently of the rest of the soundtrack).


> Phantom imaging between speakers works VERY well and has for years.


Yup, it's the basis for stereophonic playback over the last 80 years. But even where our human hearing is best able to create phantom images (in front of us), we still end up using a hard source (centre speaker). So even where phantom imaging works VERY well, an actual speaker ends up being preferred. Imagine locations where phantom imaging is not so good.


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> Grimani suggest 9.1.2 wide are more important in his opinion, I would agree  But DS doesn't do wide


Man. You're really hung up on these wide speakers.

I'm starting to think you care more about those damn wides more than ANY other speaker location. 

Wides, man. Just like... move your left and right out farther. Instant 'wides' that work on every format known to man.


----------



## mastermaybe

Sheesh- as another 4311 owner thanks for pushing me to the edge - now I'm sure you'll get it (5200) and post that it sounds amazing! 

Same boat and I'm using the same reasoning- even without HDCP to make the jump.

Good luck!

James



smurraybhm said:


> Well the ultimate test is trying Atmos or Auro at home - right? I too need a 75% off sale like Audioguy on the Datastat to be able to get one in my home allowing me to both audio formats. The Denon 5200w I ordered last week is on the UPS truck for delivery to the office today. I thought about sitting the first round out, my Denon 4311 has worked great for over two years, but in the end I didn't want to spend up to a year not enjoying what seems to be a big improvement in the audio department. Too many times things have been promised the next year only to be delivered the following year or never. Worse case I upgrade next year if Auro pans out, works with an Atmos speaker config or close, no VOG either, sell the 5200w and I'm out the difference. Worth it since who knows what else can happen in a year - the older I get the more I realize that. I will be trying Atmos out in a less than perfect room/setup/speaker placement - including the use of bipoles for rear surrounds
> 
> Looking forward to hearing Dolby Surround for myself and trying out some different speaker placements to see how forgiving Dolby Surround is/isn't. I may be buying some Atmos modules as well this week if Batpig likes what he heard using the Def Techs. I'll be sure to share my thoughts, good and/or bad later this week. Hopefully I can duck out earlier from work and get things set up tonight - at least this has given me the opportunity to clean up my wiring. I'll have Transformers at the end of the month as well - can't pass up the first Atmos mix regardless of movie quality.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Did you forget that Dolby has had Prologic2*z* for several years now or that DTS has had their Neo:X algorithm for just as many years? Audyssey DSX also adds a height layer.
> 
> Yamaha has had height presence speakers for about 20 years now. For the past several years they have had both front and rear heights to aid with their CinemaDSP to add this vertical layer to conventional 2,6 and 8ch surround sound.
> 
> Height surrounds are not that new.


Been there done all that Scott; and they all suck. ...Dolby Atmos seems to be the real deal; finally! 

* Did you notice that in my post there is that distinction: _"And of their entire families."_
That includes all what you mentioned above, and more.

Height ain't new, Atmos is.
...A big difference between pure recreated/processed crap and good/smart "3D object" rendition taste.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Been there done all that Scott; and they all suck. ...Dolby Atmos seems to be the real deal; finally!
> 
> * Did you notice that in my post there is that distinction: _"And of all their families."_


Ah yes... "seems" is the key word right here.  Good luck!

And yes I did. But I bolded the important part where you said: 



NorthSky said:


> and it will do what no other surround sound processing mode has even dare to go before. It will add "elevated" processing sounds. ...To make the surround experience 3D instead of just 2D.



To which I said:



Scott Simonian said:


> Did you forget that Dolby has had Prologic2*z* for several years now or that DTS has had their Neo:X algorithm for just as many years? Audyssey DSX also adds a height layer.
> 
> Yamaha has had height presence speakers for about 20 years now. For the past several years they have had both front and rear heights to aid with their CinemaDSP to add this vertical layer to conventional 2,6 and 8ch surround sound.
> 
> Height surrounds are not that new.



Again. Height surrounds are not new. "Been there, done that" said Yamaha and everybody else.  

In other news NorthSky woke up from under a rock today. 


EDIT:



NorthSky said:


> ...A big difference between pure recreated/processed crap and good/smart "3D object" rendition taste.


Yeah. I get it. Native Atmos is cool in this regard but DSU is the same as all that other "recreated/processed crap" so your argument does not hold water, my friend.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Btw. I triple dog dare you to try mounting four overhead surrounds (in full Atmos glory) and use PL2z but with the stereo height channels also sent to the newer rear-most overheads.

Then tell me it sucks so much more than the "new" DSU that you have never heard before.



I'll grab the popcorn, erm nachos.


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> The sound-mixer has the option of permitting the "beds" to be spread across than the speakers or locking them to the specific bed. Although, I don't know why a sound-mixer would do that.


Rich, the "sound-mixer" guy/gal is in total control of our destiny.


----------



## NorthSky

bkeeler10 said:


> Edit: The unfortunate thing was, I sat for an hour and a half at the airport after security . . .


Airports and airplanes suck; take the train, or drive. 

* Did you see the movie *'Non-Stop'* ?


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> The sound-mixer has the option of permitting the "beds" to be spread across than the speakers or locking them to the specific bed.
> Although, I don't know why a sound-mixer would do that.
> 
> 
> - Rich


There is no such option. 

Either the sound goes into the bed or it's an object (which has a size / spread control.)


----------



## sdurani

bkeeler10 said:


> Are you confident this is true?


So said Brett Crockett when asked at CEDIA.


> Where does Atmos draw the line wrt which speakers are considered side surrounds and therefore should receive side surround bed information?


I would guess 3 surrounds on each side, based on their recent installation guide white paper. 

In a commercial Atmos decoder, you get to choose how many of the speakers on the side wall form the surround array. The couple of speakers forward of the array are somewhat akin to wide speakers at home: they're only for objects, not bed channel info, just like wides at home (but they're not at 55-60 degree angles, like wides at home).


> Does the pair of "wide" speakers in a 9.1.4 setup receive bed information from the front left and right or the surround side left and right channels?


Unfortunately, they don't receive any bed info, only object audio. I would have liked for the bed channels to have been upmixed, a la Neo:X, to extract a wide output from the fronts and sides, but that's not happening.


> Seems like this question was asked in the HTG interview with Dolby two weeks ago, but I'm not sure there was a definitive answer.


It was asked in the HTG podcast, but the answer slightly contradicted what was said at CEDIA. In the podcast, he said that the content provider would have to switch something on or change a flag or do something to the soundtrack in order to get the surround channel beds to array across several speakers. 

At CEDIA it was the opposite, where he said that bed channels by their nature are already flagged to play back on speaker arrays, so it would require someone changing the metadata of the theatrical track to force each surround or top channel to play back over a single speaker. 

That gives the impression that Atmos soundtracks on home media are ready to work that way. So if anyone liked the dual-sides approach heard at the Procella/Trinnov demo or the Steinway/Lyngdorf demo, then upcoming Atmos Blu-rays will be ready for that configuration.


----------



## batpig

Tom Riddle said:


> I've done a bit of reading and believe I have this right, if I play an Atmos soundtrack back on my legacy receiver that doesn't have Atmos, it will still play in the best configuration per channel possible. So if I had heights and rear surrounds, it would incorporate the objects meant for those channels into reproduction. Is this correct?


That is not correct. If your receiver doesn't have Atmos, it will be no different than any other 5.1 or 7.1 Blu-ray. In other words, for the heights to make noise, you would need to apply some sort of post-processing upmixer (PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X, etc) to generate the height content.

If you have an Atmos enabled receiver, then it will render a "custom" surround mix to all speakers present in the layout, without any further upmixing required.

In other words -- if your receiver doesn't have Atmos, then Atmos Blu-rays will be no different than non-Atmos Blu-rays with respect to surround decoding / upmixing. You might as well pretend Atmos doesn't exist. 

Now, the MIX might be a bit different (anecdotal reports indicate that the freedom of mixing in Atmos is encouring the sound engineers to be more aggressive with placing sounds in the surround / height channels) but in terms of surround decoding / processing / upmixing, it will be no different than your non Atmos Blu-rays.


----------



## bargervais

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Speaking of stature did you have to muscle your way to the front of the crowd, or was it that you ended up standing front row next to the Dolby reps because of your charming personality?


Pioneer's of sound what a bunch.


----------



## NorthSky

Ok, I know where the two Scotts are, and Stuart too. ...Can someone with knowledge tell me more about who's who and where they are in that pic.

I would luv it, I'm dying to know. 
...Where is Mr. Roger Dressler, Sanjay (our knowledgeable AVS resident), Mr. Mark Seaton (subwoofer man), Mark our AVS writer, David our Canadian resident, all of them? ...Fanatics to experts to Dolby gang. ...All surround sound hound lovers, just like me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Ok, I know where the two Scotts are, and Stuart too. ...Can someone with knowledge tell me more about who's who and where they are in that pic.
> 
> I would luv it, I'm dying to know. ...Where is Mr. Roger Dressler, Sanjey, Mr. Seaton, Mark, all of them?


Sanjay did not attend CEDIA.

Roger is to the far left, slightly in back with the white hair. Seaton is standing next to Scott Wilkerson on his right.

Who else did you want to know? Would be fun to have all the names on there. 

I'm up front in the red Speaker City shirt, looking like a dork.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm up front in the red Speaker City shirt, looking like a dork.


What's funny is that until Sanjay shared a photo (offline) of an AV meet, I thought your avator photo actually WAS you


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. I'm totally going for the James Hunt look. Damn hotel shampoo keeps my hair all flat and uninteresting.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

FilmMixer said:


> There is no such option.
> 
> Either the sound goes into the bed or it's an object (which has a size / spread control.)




What happens to an object when you playback an Atmos track on legacy equipment?


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> There is no such option.
> 
> Either the sound goes into the bed or it's an object (which has a size / spread control.)


From the Dolby interview at about 48 minutes, the beds can be treated as a single speaker or line array:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3GQ-fxj3t6k#t=2881

- Rich


----------



## Scott Simonian

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> What happens to an object when you playback an Atmos track on legacy equipment?


It is "spatially encoded" into the legacy 5/7.1 track.

Therefor it plays back with no issues. As for where it goes that is up to however the "spatial encoding" works down to the nitty-gritty details of which I am unsure.



RichB said:


> From the Dolby interview, the beds can be treated as a single speaker or line array:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3GQ-fxj3t6k#t=2881
> 
> - Rich


Is it possible that the information quoted from that interview was ...*gasp* slightly incorrect?


----------



## RichB

Scott Simonian said:


> It is "spatially encoded" into the legacy 5/7.1 track.
> 
> Is it possible that the information quoted from that interview was ...*gasp* slightly incorrect?


It is possible, is it correct?

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Roger is to the far left, slightly in back with the white hair. Seaton is standing next to Scott Wilkerson on his right.
> 
> Who else did you want to know? Would be fun to have all the names on there.
> 
> I'm up front in the red Speaker City shirt, looking like a dork.


Ok, Roger Dressler, roger that (he's almost my age with his white hair).
Mark Seaton, right on, a strong young fella.
@ the right of you Scott, it is Stuart I bet.

Where is Mark, our AVS famous reviewer and writer (imagic)?
Where is our cool Canadian THX friend, David Susilo?
Where is Dan (our handsome member here)?
Where is Carl? ...Audio expert.
Where is Brett? ...Dolby man.
Where is Ralph?
Where is Wilfried? ...Auro guy.
Where is Mike?
Where is everybody else?


----------



## Scott Simonian

RichB said:


> It is possible, it is correct?
> 
> - Rich


A few of us have already twisted the arms of either Brett, Craig or other Dolby fellows pretty good at which they had responded with either "no comment" or "we'll get back to you on that". It's not uncommon knowledge that they have had to change their tune regarding these things before.

And that interview was like...two weeks ago, yo.


----------



## RichB

NorthSky said:


> The room @ ear level?  ...You lucky sunnabaggun!


 
While my main and surrounds are full range, the ceiling is challenging, with a slant on one side angling from 8 feet to 12 feet at the center where it levels off, beams, heating panels, skylights and a ceiling fan. It's a minefield.  

- Rich


----------



## RichB

Scott Simonian said:


> A few of us have already twisted the arms of either Brett, Craig or other Dolby fellows pretty good at which they had responded with either "no comment" or "we'll get back to you on that". It's not uncommon knowledge that they have had to change their tune regarding these things before.
> 
> And that interview was like...two weeks ago, yo.


Don't you mean: Dude, that interview was like...two weeks ago?  

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> While my main and surround are full range, the ceiling is challenging, with a slant on one side angling from 8 feet to 12 feet at the center where it levels off, beams, skylights and a ceiling fan.
> *It's a minefield*.


I like people living in dangerous times, on the edge of a precipice.


----------



## Kris Deering

bkeeler10 said:


> So what blu ray was it, and which clip did they play? I only heard Into Darkness at the Procella booth, unfortunately. TIA.


Legends of Jazz, track 3 "The Panther"


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> *Under the Skin* sounds good already!


You saw it Kris? ...Your take, please?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm still mad that you were there at CEDIA and I did not know. Would have loved to meet you.
> 
> Btw, I just got the latest S&V and saw a very familiar room.  Very cool.


Scott, is Kris in that famous picture?

* Edit: No.


----------



## Smarty-pants

RichB said:


> While my main and surrounds are full range, the ceiling is challenging, with a slant on one side angling from 8 feet to 12 feet at the center where it levels off, beams, heating panels, skylights and a ceiling fan. It's a minefield.
> 
> - Rich


That's a tough setup, but you could always either put them right on the bottom of the beams,
in between the beams with bracing, or even hang them down from the ceiling with wires or columns.
I think the biggest challenge would be the audio cables, unless you somehow managed to use wireless speakers.


----------



## Jh2

I'm new to Dolby Atmos. If I'm listening to a program not recorded in Atmos, what sound will I hear from the rear ceiling speakers?

Considering a Denon X4100W.


----------



## NorthSky

*Scott Simonian, the Formule 1 pilot ...*



batpig said:


> What's funny is that until Sanjay shared a photo (offline) of an AV meet, I thought your avator photo actually WAS you


Did you really! ...Cool.


----------



## Selden Ball

Jh2 said:


> I'm new to Dolby Atmos. If I'm listening to a program not recorded in Atmos, what sound will I hear from the rear ceiling speakers?
> 
> Considering a Denon X4100W.


If you listen to a soundtrack not encoded in Atmos, you have to have one of the upmix algorithms (Dolby Surround, DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, Yamaha's presence, etc) running in order for any of the overhead speakers to produce any sound. Which overhead speakers are active and exactly what sounds they receive differs for the different upmixers.


----------



## NorthSky

Smarty-pants said:


> That's a tough setup, but you could always either *put them right on the bottom of the beams*,
> in between the beams with bracing, or even hang them down from the ceiling with wires or columns.
> I think the biggest challenge would be the audio cables, unless you somehow managed to use wireless speakers.


Check that out Rich; Dave has a superb idea(s). 

* Wireless speakers; are those getting better Dave?


----------



## batpig

Jh2 said:


> I'm new to Dolby Atmos. If I'm listening to a program not recorded in Atmos, what sound will I hear from the rear ceiling speakers?
> 
> Considering a Denon X4100W.





Selden Ball said:


> If you listen to a soundtrack not encoded in Atmos, you have to have one of the upmix algorithms (Dolby Surround, DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, Yamaha's presence, etc) running in order for any of the overhead speakers to produce any sound. Which overhead speakers are active and exactly what sounds they receive differs for the different upmixers.


More specifically, since you asked about the REAR ceiling speakers, they will ONLY make noise with Dolby Surround upmixer. The other upmixers (DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX) can only mix to the FRONT HEIGHT location for elevated speakers.

Also be aware that the X4100W has 7 amps and 9 channels max with the addition of a 2ch external amp, so in order for the rear ceiling speakers to even be available as an option you need a 5.1.4 setup which requires that additional amplification. Using the internal amps you can only have one pair of ceiling/height speakers (5.1.2 setup).


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Under the Skin* sounds good already!
> 
> 
> 
> You saw it Kris? ...Your take, please?
Click to expand...

I enjoyed it a lot but it is a pretty polarizing type of film. Slow burn art house sci-fi with some visuals you won't forget anytime soon. Story leaves a lot to the viewers imagination so opinions seem pretty divided.


----------



## NorthSky

Jh2 said:


> I'm new to Dolby Atmos. If I'm listening to a program not recorded in Atmos, what sound will I hear from the rear ceiling speakers?
> 
> Considering a Denon X4100W.


Simply engage Dolby Surround new up-mixer surround movie mode, and anything behind you and above, recorded/extrapolated in the audio soundtrack, should be reproduced/processed from them two overhead ceiling back speakers.

But! If you only use two of them overhead ceiling speakers, position them in the Middle of your ceiling, just above your head, six inches forward or so, or not. ...Not on the ceiling's rear; unless you also have two on the ceiling's front. 

It will vary from one audio soundtrack to the next regarding what's coming from them above rear ceiling speakers. ...Some flicks would sound cool, others less cool. ...But all together (average of them all), cool nonetheless. ...And more so than Dolby PLIIx or IIz, and than dtx Neo:6 or Neo:X. ...And also better than Audyssey DSX.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> I undertand this but you're talking about a situation when an array of speakers is treated as one channel (this happens all the time in theaters). At home this is rarely the case unless you are purposely copying channels to multiple speakers (usually the surrounds). I'm saying in a channel system that has a discrete channel for each speaker that matches the same amount of speakers for an object based system. So if 9.1.4 you have 13 speakers (not counting the sub). So if I have a 13.1 channel system does that mean I can't replicate the experience for some reason if the mix was made by the mixer specifically for 13.1?? I don't see why it couldn't be but I agree that given what I've seen about the tools for Atmos it would probably be a lot easier on the mixer to do it in Atmos.


In that scenario then channel based or object based would be the same, no doubt. However, it's the scalability that's cool about a format like Atmos (and possibly DTS-UHD). One track: any number of theater sizes and speaker layouts (within reason).


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I get it. Native Atmos is cool in this regard but DSU is the same as all that other "recreated/processed crap" so your argument does not hold water, my friend.


I had Dolby Atmos software in mind.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Btw. I triple dog dare you to try mounting four overhead surrounds (in full Atmos glory) and use PL2z but with the stereo height channels also sent to the newer rear-most overheads.
> Then tell me it sucks so much more than the "new" DSU that you have never heard before.
> 
> I'll grab the popcorn, erm nachos.


It is Dolby Atmos, or a pseudo. And comparing pseudos is like comparing girlfriends.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I enjoyed it a lot but it is a pretty polarizing type of film. Slow burn art house sci-fi with some *visuals you won't forget anytime soon*. Story leaves a lot to the viewers imagination so opinions seem pretty divided.


Right there; made its mark. ...Creative art mark. ...Take the true love, leave the rest. ...We all win.


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> From the Dolby interview at about 48 minutes, the beds can be treated as a single speaker or line array:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3GQ-fxj3t6k#t=2881
> 
> - Rich


When using the RMU the first 10 channels are bed inputs. You cannot use them any other way. The other 118 are objects. 

Again, you can speed an object with its size control.

A bed is a mono channel played back on a defined array of speakers.


----------



## smurraybhm

I got my Denon 5200w today as planned, didn't leave work early and just finished running Audyssey. Since I still need to eat just wanted to give you my thoughts after only using DirectTV as my source for about 30 minutes. Forgive the lack of details I'm hungry, it's late, but had to say - "WOW!!!!"

Dolby Surround is the real deal. Well done Dolby & Denon.


----------



## sdrucker

Kris Deering said:


> Legends of Jazz, track 3 "The Panther"


 
And I just ordered the last one on Amazon (at least, I ordered it where it said "only one in print" and it let me do so). I had meant to do it on Friday but you jogged my memory. Thanks, Kris .


----------



## mp5475

Bigham16 said:


> Oh good (and bad) that you are having the same experience.  It's not a major deal but I does become noticeable from time to time. I even got my ladder out to double check the fronts were on, which they were but just not as loud as the backs. I will bump up the front/top/heights a dB or two and also try turning the rear/top/height down a db or two (with original front/top/height dBs). None-the-less it sounds sooo cool!!


Could you tell me what type/manufacturer you are using for top speakers?
thanks


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I'm totally going for the James Hunt look. Damn hotel shampoo keeps my hair all flat and uninteresting.



Those low flow shower heads don't help either










Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Man. You're really hung up on these wide speakers.
> 
> I'm starting to think you care more about those damn wides more than ANY other speaker location.
> 
> Wides, man. Just like... move your left and right out farther. Instant 'wides' that work on every format known to man.


Scott, did you notice that the 9.1.4 setups did not have wides in the traditional sense? They were left/right side wall pan-through arrays. I can now see clearly why Dolby Surround doesn't work with "wides" where we're used to having them in the home environment- there are no front wides with Atmos. Front _side_ surrounds, yes. 

I think we need to start visualizing home Atmos speaker layouts just like cinema Atmos, but with a limit of 34 rather than 62 outputs. Everyone should take a look at how the speakers are situated in the cinema Atmos white paper since the home cinema white paper isn't quite as precise.


----------



## DS-21

Dan Hitchman said:


> They should be timbre matched.


"Timbre matching" is a meaningless marketing term, not a real thing. People should refrain from enabling the baser instincts of marketers, and not use such terms with no real world value at all.



David Susilo said:


> At least from my personal experience, having 5 identical bookshelfs (all PSB Century 300i) sounds better than having 1 pair of towers, 1 pair of bookshelf, 1 centre (all PSB from the same Image series).


I don't doubt that. When you use a crappy center channel,* don't expect much from the system. However, that little setup says nothing about a more intelligently configured system (good identical LCR, whatever for ambient channels).

*PSB does not offer a competent center in that line, according to their website. They are all toppled-MTMs, which is not a valid configuration for a high-fidelity audio system.


----------



## Bigham16

4 Golden Ear Technology Super Sat 3's for my ceiling speakers.



mp5475 said:


> Could you tell me what type/manufacturer you are using for top speakers?
> thanks


----------



## NorthSky

DS-21 said:


> "Timbre matching" is a meaningless marketing term, not a real thing. People should refrain from enabling the baser instincts of marketers, and not use such terms with no real world value at all.
> 
> I don't doubt that. When you use a crappy center channel,* don't expect much from the system. However, that little setup says nothing about a more intelligently configured system (good identical LCR, whatever for ambient channels).
> 
> *PSB does not offer a competent center in that line, according to their website. They are all toppled-MTMs, which is not a valid configuration for a high-fidelity audio system.


I disagree with you; same tonal speakers all around is best. ...Timbre matching is the right way to do surround sound the right way more effectively. 

That's the first step; best all same speakers all around.
Step two; room's acoustics. ...Treatments.
Step three; judicious/intelligent EQ (moderate). 

I am not an expert, but I do know a thing or two about proper sound in a room, large and small.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DS-21 said:


> "Timbre matching" is a meaningless marketing term, not a real thing. People should refrain from enabling the baser instincts of marketers, and not use such terms with no real world value at all.


It certainly _is_ a real thing because it's something you can objectively hear unless you are going deaf.  Your speakers should voice the same or very similarly... if you can help it. The interplay between speakers making up a 3D audio sound system is far more critical than the channel based systems of the past. Each speaker can be called upon to create phantom imaging between the one next to it (hence the x/y/z metadata instructions for objects). Sonically mismatched speakers can start to call attention to themselves. The sub doesn't matter, the speakers do. 

The very best Atmos demos and one Auro demo had speakers from the same range all around the room. The closest presentation to having the same speakers everywhere was at the Auro demo with James Loudspeakers. The next best was the Steinway presentation. Fantastic sound... quite seamless!


----------



## NorthSky

...The center ch. speaker; if an horizontal one, a three-way one, with mid and tweet in the vertical plane.


----------



## DS-21

Dan Hitchman said:


> It certainly _is_ a real thing because it's something you can objectively hear unless you are going deaf.  Your speakers should voice the same or very similarly... if you can help it.


I'm of the opinion that speakers should not be voiced at all. They should have flattish and smooth axial response, smooth polars, and enough displacement to cleanly reach the required SPL. It doesn't really matter if they say "Revel" or "Gradient" or "KEF" or "TAD" or "Infinity" or "Pioneer" or whatever.

The things people say about "same tweeter," "same brand," "same range," etc is just idiot claptrap marketing nonsense that sensible people should not fall for, and certainly should not repeat. As long as the front LCR speakers are very good (and well-placed!), and the others are competent and placed far enough away that the soundfield doesn't localize on one of them, then that's all that's actually needed.

Atmos/Auro don't seem to change that, because just look at the speakers generally being sold for Atmos. Yes, the Pioneer one uses identical concentric drivers. It is the exception. The KEF package uses a very different concentric driver for the upfiring module as in the mains, and there's basically nothing similar between the mains and the upfiring modules in the Triad speakers. One is a conventional MTM, the other is a square of 4 2" widebanders! Likewise, the Atlantic Tech, DefTech, etc. Atmos modules don't even pretend to be like the mains.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The very best Atmos demos and one Auro demo had speakers from the same range all around the room.


I have no experience with Atmos or Auro. My experience with multichannel music reproduction in small rooms, however, means I wouldn't be surprised at all if that could be reduced to "the best setup of good LCR speakers."


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> When using the RMU the first 10 channels are bed inputs. You cannot use them any other way. The other 118 are objects.
> 
> Again, you can speed an object with its size control.
> 
> A bed is a mono channel played back on a defined array of speakers.


Just to clarify, a sound mixed to LS/RS/LBS/RBS will always play back on an array of speakers? There's no option in the Atmos mixer to shrink it to a single speaker? Is this also true for the top surrounds?

How is this handled in Atmos for the home?


----------



## krozman

So if I tell my wife I paid 4 grand so I could have a bigger bed downstairs and I was bringing up to 118 "objects" to party with......... Ya unfortunately after all these years she's probably just say "just don't put it on facebook" and go to bed.


----------



## FilmMixer

Yay!


----------



## kokishin

FilmMixer said:


> Yay!




Atmos on BD! Denon sampler? FM creation?

Are you running the Pioneers?

I know you're working your azz off but throw us a bone and give us some data.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Yay!


What you got there Marc, 'Transformers 4' already?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Just to clarify, a sound mixed to LS/RS/LBS/RBS will always play back on an array of speakers? There's no option in the Atmos mixer to shrink it to a single speaker? Is this also true for the top surrounds?
> 
> How is this handled in Atmos for the home?


Markus.... there is nothing to clarify as I said nothing of the sort. 

A bed channel during creation will play back the same as a normal surround channel.... For the cinema those are via speaker arrays. 

Not a "sound". Your use of the term is incorrect. It's either a bed channel or an object. 

An object can be in as little as one speaker or spread out to many. 

Beds have no metadata. Objects have both position and size. 

Afaik the authoring software has a provision to play the beds out of a single speaker if desired in the home via a flag. 

To be clear.... this is not dynamic and again has nothing to do with object size.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> It is "spatially encoded" into the legacy 5/7.1 track.
> 
> Therefor it plays back with no issues. As for where it goes that is up to however the "spatial encoding" works down to the nitty-gritty details of which I am unsure.




By legacy equipment I mean an AVR that only decodes lossy DD and DTS. With no lossless decode capability in the AVR, the AVR will not know that the Atmos information is even on the Atmos audio stream.

Does the Bluray player "spatially encode" the objects to other channels so the AVR gets all of the object content?


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Markus.... there is nothing to clarify as I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> A bed channel during creation will play back the same as a normal surround channel.... For the cinema those are via speaker arrays.
> 
> Not a "sound". Your use of the term is incorrect. It's either a bed channel or an object.
> 
> An object can be in as little as one speaker or spread out to many.
> 
> Beds have no metadata. Objects have both position and size.
> 
> Afaik the authoring software has a provision to play the beds out of a single speaker if desired in the home via a flag.
> 
> To be clear.... this is not dynamic and again has nothing to do with object size.


Sorry if my question wasn't clear.

1. If you mix a sound (that is a single mono sound file) to a bed surround channel, is there an option to prevent it from being spread to all speakers of the corresponding surround speaker array (other than in the authoring software). For example, when mixing a single mono sound to the left surround bed channel, it is played back from the left surround speaker array. Is there an option to prevent this (other than handling the sound as an object) so the sound is played back just from a single speaker?

2. Is the behavior the same for the top surround bed?


----------



## NorthSky

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> By legacy equipment I mean an AVR that only decodes lossy DD and DTS. With no lossless decode capability in the AVR, the AVR will not know that the Atmos information is even on the Atmos audio stream.
> 
> Does the Bluray player "spatially encode" the objects to other channels so the AVR gets all of the object content?


No.


----------



## action_jackson

DS-21 said:


> I'm of the opinion that speakers should not be voiced at all. They should have flattish and smooth axial response, smooth polars, and enough displacement to cleanly reach the required SPL.


In a perfect world, all speakers would sound the same and be able to produce every frequency with perfect fidelity and zero distortion. Unfortunately, this is not the case and we have speakers built with many different types of materials and enclosures. These different materials, enclosures, ported and sealed, will each create a slightly different sound, just like a plastic clarinet will sound different than one made of wood. If you want a seamless 3D sound stage, then having all the same speakers throughout will give you that.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> 1. If you mix a sound (that is a single mono sound file) to a bed surround channel, is there an option to prevent it from being spread to all speakers of the corresponding surround speaker array (other than in the authoring software). For example, when mixing a single mono sound to the left surround bed channel, it is played back from the left surround speaker array. Is there an option to prevent this (other than handling the sound as an object) so the sound is played back just from a single speaker?


I think Marc's information does address your specific question.


> A bed channel during creation will play back the same as a normal surround channel.... For the cinema those are via speaker arrays. Beds have no metadata.


In short, no.




> 2. Is the behavior the same for the top surround bed?


A bed channel is a bed channel. They all behave the same.


----------



## markus767

^
Understood but I was hoping for confirmation from someone that is actually working with the software/hardware. Marc said there's an option in the authoring software to prevent speaker spread of surround beds via a flag. I was wondering if such an option might exist for the theatrical mix as well (during print mastering?).


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> ^
> Understood but I was hoping for confirmation from someone that is actually working with the software/hardware. Marc said there's an option in the authoring software to prevent speaker spread of surround beds via a flag. I was wondering if such an option might exist for the theatrical mix as well (during print mastering?).


This was clarified by Dolby at CEDIA. The consumer system has the same options as the cinema system: A sound may be defined either as a channel or an object. Object opens a range of rendering options, like size, position, etc. 

What is different in the consumer path is that this decision can be revisited when the consumer version is prepared -- channels may be re-defined as objects if so desired. Although if near-field Atmos mixes are auditioned in 7.1.4 systems as has been reported, a channel and point-source object will sound exactly the same, thus making it difficult to decide anything accurately wrt size.


----------



## markus767

^
Guess the difference might be audible in the top surrounds because .4 represents an array (of 2 speakers)?
Regarding the other surrounds I'd think the question is if a surround speaker array can be defined in future AVRs.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It would engender some really funny looks from my wife but I could try to give it a shot. I might have to splice some wire in because I don't think I have enough slack to get them too much lower from where the wire exits the wall.


Easy enough if you use those little wire connector thingies. And easily removed afterwards when you put the speakers back.




batpig said:


> I've already received a lot of stink-eye over the past couple of weeks since I've done an inordinate number of Audyssey calibrations recently (swapping around speakers, swapping around X4000 to X5200). Always tricky since I can't do it late at night (sleeping babies). Yesterday I snuck one in (for the new A60 modules) while my wife was upstairs in the shower, with my 1-year-old in my lap and my 3-year-old playing the "be quiet so we can make the funny beep boop noises with the speakers" game.


 I have been that man  Some time ago now, and not with Audyssey. Just with vinyl test discs! And the Sheffield Lab Drum Disc - hearing that for the 6,184th time is enough to test the patience of even otherwise angelic wives.



batpig said:


> It would also help if I had some discrete Atmos demo material to see if anything can image effectively overhead. Again, with elevated surrounds like I have currently, a lot of ambient effects (rain, ambient crowd noise, etc) already images somewhat overhead and behind, so it just feels like the Atmos modules with DSU upmixing is sort of "filling in the gap" or "closing the dome" at the front height position.


Discrete Atmos material as in the Dolby Demo Disk?


----------



## pletwals

Dan Hitchman said:


> It certainly _is_ a real thing because it's something you can objectively hear unless you are going deaf.  Your speakers should voice the same or very similarly... if you can help it. The interplay between speakers making up a 3D audio sound system is far more critical than the channel based systems of the past. Each speaker can be called upon to create phantom imaging between the one next to it (hence the x/y/z metadata instructions for objects). Sonically mismatched speakers can start to call attention to themselves. The sub doesn't matter, the speakers do.
> 
> The very best Atmos demos and one Auro demo had speakers from the same range all around the room. The closest presentation to having the same speakers everywhere was at the Auro demo with James Loudspeakers. The next best was the Steinway presentation. Fantastic sound... quite seamless!


I don't know whether you liked the JBL Synthesis demo for Atmos, but most seem to like that one a lot. It used the JBL M2 tower with horn loaded compression driver for LCR, costing like $6,000 each. The rest of the speakers bar the subs, were al the JBL SCS 8, which is a reasonably priced ($450 or so) coaxial. Those are very different speakers, not? So do you mean all speakers should be equal, or just all but the LCR?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It certainly _is_ a real thing because it's something you can objectively hear unless you are going deaf.  Your speakers should voice the same or very similarly... if you can help it.


What does "voice the same" mean? Do you mean that the in-room response of all speakers should measure similarly? If so, then that is what a well set up system does when you EQ it competently. And unlike a reliance on the manufacturer's specification, the latter also allows for the different responses of _identical _speakers when placed in different parts of a room. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Sonically mismatched speakers can start to call attention to themselves.


Exactly. But they are not sonically mismatched after competent EQ (assuming that the speakers were of reasonably good quality to begin with of course - we’re not talking about comparing a studio monitor with a transistor radio speaker, obviously (I hope)).



Dan Hitchman said:


> The very best Atmos demos and one Auro demo had speakers from the same range all around the room. The closest presentation to having the same speakers everywhere was at the Auro demo with James Loudspeakers. The next best was the Steinway presentation. Fantastic sound... quite seamless!


Certainly for LCR identical speakers are the best option. But nobody has been talking about using speakers from different manufacturers for the LCR set and it would be unwise to do so IMO. For LCR I would always choose identical. And I mean identical - not a LR pair with some compromised 'center' speaker in the middle. But there is no compelling reason (unless you make or sell speakers) for using the same speakers as surrounds, so long as the speakers you choose are of reasonably good quality, the system is bass managed, and you have some form of competent EQ applied to them. Don't be taken in by cunning marketing types


----------



## kbarnes701

action_jackson said:


> In a perfect world, all speakers would sound the same and be able to produce every frequency with perfect fidelity and zero distortion. Unfortunately, this is not the case and we have speakers built with many different types of materials and enclosures. These different materials, enclosures, ported and sealed, will each create a slightly different sound, just like a plastic clarinet will sound different than one made of wood. If you want a seamless 3D sound stage, then having all the same speakers throughout will give you that.


As will competent EQ for all practical purposes.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> What's funny is that until Sanjay shared a photo (offline) of an AV meet, I thought your avator photo actually WAS you


LOL. He should be so lucky.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I have Trinnov in the old Sherwood R-972 I use with 5.1/7.1 BluRay sources, but even so, that clarity of detail on the bass solo, and the lifelike sound on Lee Ritenour's guitar and the drums was an OMG moment. YMMV but *as enveloping and as realistic as **you'd hear in* a studio with a live band in front of you beyond the glass (which I've had the pleasure of doing once as part of a Kickstarter project) or *a medium sized jazz club like Birdland in NYC*.


I get that from my 25 year old two channel music system


----------



## kbarnes701

Tom Riddle said:


> I've done a bit of reading and believe I have this right, if I play an Atmos soundtrack back on my legacy receiver that doesn't have Atmos, it will still play in the best configuration per channel possible. So if I had heights and rear surrounds, it would incorporate the objects meant for those channels into reproduction. Is this correct?


If you play an Atmos Bluray on a non-Atmos AVR then you get the 5.1/7.1 soundtrack just as you have always done. If you had height speakers and rear surrounds, you would need to use an upmixer of some sort (eg PLIIz) to send sounds to the Heights and, in the case of 5.1 tracks, to the rear surrounds. Atmos is fully backwards compatible with legacy AVRs.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Another thing -- at this point my tests have all been late-night-listening style, with low SPL and Dyn Vol on. It occured to me that maybe the lack of "obviousness" or "impact" of the Atmos modules could also be due to the low volumes, making the ambient noises placed "virtually" above me less obvious.
> 
> So I asked Chris K about it on FB, and he confirmed what I suspected, that overhead speakers (Tops, Heights) do NOT receive any level boost with DEQ like the surrounds do. So I'm wondering now if the issue is that the surrounds are just overpowering the overheads at the extremely low volume at which I have been listening, since they are receiving some level boost whereas the Atmos channels are not. So if both are producing similar "ambient envelopment" info, the Atmos effects would be less noticeable than the surround effects. Maybe I can convince the wife to take the kids out for a bit so I can rock some loud stuff and test the thoery


I always test at close to Reference, just to avoid problems of the sort you describe, which do seem to me to have a bearing on what you are hearing. I do this so that I can eliminate some other variables and know that at least I am listening to the content at the SPL it was mixed at. I do realise of course that domestic circumstances make this impossible for many people - just saying that I agree with you about your hypotheses.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> +1. The leaf's sonic placement in the scene, not panned into a speaker or fixed in space in the center of the screen, was the most obvious use of objects in all the Atmos demos IMO and set the stage for what I heard. Most noticeable with Procella, almost as much for Pioneer and Dolby, and IMO weakest with the Denon demo. I would attribute the differences to Trinnov's Optimizer controls for Procella, and possibly the speaker quality for Procella/Pioneer/Triad respectively compared to the Snells, but that's just me. Bottom line is even if you can't do a home theater for the 1%, you can see what the Atmos technology can achieve.


Agreed. The Leaf trailer enabled me to point (and I actually did!) to where the sound was in the room. If Kris's demo didn't enable him to do this, then there was something wrong with the demo. One of the problems with all these widely differing reports of the demos is that it is difficult to see if the reason for the discrepancies is the demo itself or the content or technology. Having heard Atmos properly demoed, I tend to subscribe to the view that the demo conditions or setup were flawed in many cases.


----------



## westmd

What would I get if I add to 4 in-ceiling speakers (being placed rear top and front top) for Atmos a pair of front heights. Would that be supported by DSU / native Atmos and which information would that sound be?


----------



## mp5475

Bigham16 said:


> 4 Golden Ear Technology Super Sat 3's for my ceiling speakers.


Thanks


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> If you play an Atmos Bluray on a non-Atmos AVR then you get the 5.1/7.1 soundtrack just as you have always done. If you had height speakers and rear surrounds, you would need to use an upmixer of some sort (eg PLIIz) to send sounds to the Heights and, in the case of 5.1 tracks, to the rear surrounds. Atmos is fully backwards compatible with legacy AVRs.




What happens to the objects if your AVR does not recognize an Atmos track? My older AVR does not decode any lossless DD tracks, but as I understand it the extensions are dropped to play the lossy DD track on a legacy system.


----------



## Selden Ball

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> What happens to the objects if your AVR does not recognize an Atmos track? My older AVR does not decode any lossless DD tracks, but as I understand it the extensions are dropped to play the lossy DD track on a legacy system.


If your equipment can't decode Atmos, the object info will just be ignored. You won't lose anything. All of the sounds are provided in the standard 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack, just without the additional 3D steering information.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Sorry if my question wasn't clear.
> 
> 1. If you mix a sound (that is a single mono sound file) to a bed surround channel, is there an option to prevent it from being spread to all speakers of the corresponding surround speaker array (other than in the authoring software). For example, when mixing a single mono sound to the left surround bed channel, it is played back from the left surround speaker array. Is there an option to prevent this (other than handling the sound as an object) so the sound is played back just from a single speaker?
> 
> 2. Is the behavior the same for the top surround bed?


1 How can you "prevent this" when the sound has been mixed in with other sounds? It's the whole point designing this as a bed + objects system... you have the choice... you want it in the array, then use the bed. You want it to be smaller and more point source, make it an object.

2. See 1...


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> 1 How can you "prevent this" when the sound has been mixed in with other sounds? It's the whole point designing this as a bed + objects system... you have the choice... you want it in the array, then use the bed. You want it to be smaller and more point source, make it an object.
> 
> 2. See 1...


Of course you can't "prevent it". It would be an all or nothing option. Either the whole bed channel goes to a surround speaker array or single speaker. My question was just if such an option exists or not.


----------



## jimim

hi guys,

very sorry cause i know this has been discussed pages back but i can't find it.

i know the 2 front ceiling speakers should be a few feet infront of MLP and the rear 2 should be behind the MLP but at what angles should they be positioned and is that with respect to what angle? a 90 drawn from speaker down to floor? also how do i know if the dispersion pattern for a speaker is 90 degrees if i can't angle the speakers i pick? am i missing anything else here? i also know they need to be inline with my front LR channels.

thanks again,
jim


----------



## BigScreen

FilmMixer said:


> There are no agreements on what codecs studios use. There are no such deals.
> 
> :
> 
> Neither DTS nor Dolby are paid a per title licensing fee for their codecs.


Thanks for the info, I'm actually quite surprised by that!


----------



## jkasanic

jimim said:


> hi guys,
> 
> very sorry cause i know this has been discussed pages back but i can't find it.
> 
> i know the 2 front ceiling speakers should be a few feet infront of MLP and the rear 2 should be behind the MLP but at what angles should they be positioned and is that with respect to what angle? a 90 drawn from speaker down to floor? also how do i know if the dispersion pattern for a speaker is 90 degrees if i can't angle the speakers i pick? am i missing anything else here? i also know they need to be inline with my front LR channels.
> 
> thanks again,
> jim


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...read-home-theater-version-2.html#post25317073


----------



## jimim

Thanks a lot. So I can use ceiling mounted or rear/front height speakers bit ceiling mounted would be the more appropriate application correct?

Also how do I tell if the speaker I choose has the proper dispersion?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pletwals said:


> I don't know whether you liked the JBL Synthesis demo for Atmos, but most seem to like that one a lot. It used the JBL M2 tower with horn loaded compression driver for LCR, costing like $6,000 each. The rest of the speakers bar the subs, were al the JBL SCS 8, which is a reasonably priced ($450 or so) coaxial. Those are very different speakers, not? So do you mean all speakers should be equal, or just all but the LCR?


They should be voiced similarly. I found the sound effects to be punchy and clear, but the Atmos effect was fairly subtle- probably due to the content being used. Only one clip was really 3D - the Red Bull trailer. The dialog quality was not very good. I heard much better cohesiveness in some of the other consumer grade demos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> What does "voice the same" mean? Do you mean that the in-room response of all speakers should measure similarly? If so, then that is what a well set up system does when you EQ it competently. And unlike a reliance on the manufacturer's specification, the latter also allows for the different responses of _identical _speakers when placed in different parts of a room.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But they are not sonically mismatched after competent EQ (assuming that the speakers were of reasonably good quality to begin with of course - we’re not talking about comparing a studio monitor with a transistor radio speaker, obviously (I hope)).
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly for LCR identical speakers are the best option. But nobody has been talking about using speakers from different manufacturers for the LCR set and it would be unwise to do so IMO. For LCR I would always choose identical. And I mean identical - not a LR pair with some compromised 'center' speaker in the middle. But there is no compelling reason (unless you make or sell speakers) for using the same speakers as surrounds, so long as the speakers you choose are of reasonably good quality, the system is bass managed, and you have some form of competent EQ applied to them. Don't be taken in by cunning marketing types


I didn't say the surrounds had to be *EXACTLY 100% *the same as the front LCR. Unless you have a huge room, that would be impracticable. They should (and the best demos I heard bear this out) be voiced similarly. The same or similar tweeters and drivers for the high and mid to mid-low frequencies.

No EQ in the world is going to make Paradigms sound like JTR's, etc. etc. Otherwise, why have different speaker brands??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> What happens to the objects if your AVR does not recognize an Atmos track? My older AVR does not decode any lossless DD tracks, but as I understand it the extensions are dropped to play the lossy DD track on a legacy system.


There has always been a _separate_ parallel DD lossy 5.1 track on Blu-ray's with a Dolby TrueHD compressed soundtrack on board for legacy, non-TrueHD decoders. It is flagged and selected automatically. DTS Master Audio has a core lossy track as part of the Russian nesting doll approach to their Coherent Acoustic codec.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> Those low flow shower heads don't help either
> 
> View attachment 264738
> 
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


_"Low flow? I don't like the sound of that!"_ 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Scott, did you notice that the 9.1.4 setups did not have wides in the traditional sense? They were left/right side wall pan-through arrays. I can now see clearly why Dolby Surround doesn't work with "wides" where we're used to having them in the home environment- there are no front wides with Atmos. Front _side_ surrounds, yes.


Sorry, Dan. Up until CEDIA there has been nobody with 9.1.4 setups. I only experienced one and that was the Procella demo room. I have no idea what exact decoding they were doing. Really, these guys can say anything to us.



Dan Hitchman said:


> I think we need to start visualizing home Atmos speaker layouts just like cinema Atmos, but with a limit of 34 rather than 62 outputs. Everyone should take a look at how the speakers are situated in the cinema Atmos white paper since the home cinema white paper isn't quite as precise.


I don't have to start. This is *exactly* how I think of HT and how I treat mine. I treat my room like a miniature movie theater. The only difference is that I use consumer grade SSP's and my content is derived from Blu-ray and not a DCP. So for me, this is not a new way of thinking at all. Been doing it for years. 

Lol, have you seen my mains and screen?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Of course you can't "prevent it". It would be an all or nothing option. Either the whole bed channel goes to a surround speaker array or single speaker. My question was just if such an option exists or not.


You need to work on your communication skills because that wasn't the question you posed. 

As has been explained to me, there is an option in the authroing suite to define how bed surround channels are played back. I suspect they put the option in for music content providers. 

I also suspect very few titles will use the functionality to go the single speaker route. 

IMO it's something they should leave up to the user on products that support more than 4 surround outputs... Like the EX flag, I assume that CEs might have that flexibility.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> _"Low flow? I don't like the sound of that!"_
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Dan. Up until CEDIA there has been nobody with 9.1.4 setups. I only experienced one and that was the Procella demo room. I have no idea what exact decoding they were doing. Really, these guys can say anything to us.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to start. This is *exactly[/i] how I think of HT and how I treat mine. I treat my room like a miniature movie theater. The only difference is that I use consumer grade SSP's and my content is derived from Blu-ray and not a DCP. So for me, this is not a new way of thinking at all. Been doing it for years.
> 
> Lol, have you seen my mains and screen? *


*

You showed me photos of your "little" speakers/subs at the Dolby event. How are you not deaf by now??  You didn't get to the Steinway demo? That really was 9.1.4. You could easily tell. And that's why I keep saying it should be the minimum setup to get the most out of the Atmos experience. One of the other AVS members said in their particular Dolby event, the guys from Dolby Labs stated that they thought 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 was a good sweet-spot configuration. This goes along with the Dolby engineer who said to me he's working on a 9.1.4 block for new Atmos products.*


----------



## pasender91

batpig said:


> What's funny is that until Sanjay shared a photo (offline) of an AV meet, I thought your avator photo actually WAS you





kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. He should be so lucky.


You know what, at first i thought the same of you Keith, i imagined you were a man with really large ears , what a bonus to ear all the Atmos sounds


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> You showed me photos of your "little" speakers/subs at the Dolby event. How are you not deaf by now??  You didn't get to the Steinway demo? That _really_ was 9.1.4. You could easily tell. And that's why I keep saying it should be the _minimum_ setup to get the most out of the Atmos experience. One of the other AVS members said in their particular Dolby event, the guys from Dolby Labs stated that they thought 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 was a good sweet-spot configuration. This goes along with the Dolby engineer who said to me he's working on a 9.1.4 block for new Atmos products.


Lol. It's called a volume control. 

And no, I missed the Steinway demo. I think that was the one where I last saw you and David outside in the hallway. I had to leave. 

Yup. Been saying for a while now that 9.1.6 is the optimal "full" home Atmos experience and I didn't even need to hear it.


----------



## nagendrachalla

Do they have an ETA on when would the Onkyo TX-NR-3030 be available? or is there a hands on review for the same anywhere?


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> You showed me photos of your "little" speakers/subs at the Dolby event. How are you not deaf by now??  You didn't get to the Steinway demo? That _really_ was 9.1.4. You could easily tell. And that's why I keep saying it should be the _minimum_ setup to get the most out of the Atmos experience. One of the other AVS members said in their particular Dolby event, the guys from Dolby Labs stated that they thought 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 was a good sweet-spot configuration. This goes along with the Dolby engineer who said to me he's working on a 9.1.4 block for new Atmos products.


If you mean me, I heard it from a Sound Developments guy at the Procella demo (where the Trinnov Altitude is scalable to any number of possible configurations among the 24.1.10 channels for consumer Atmos), but I don't doubt that someone at Dolby agrees or is planning around 9.1.4 in some way. However, isn't the stumbling block the DSP horsepower and choice of what can implemented by mainstream A/V manufacturers, not Dolby per se, except for scaling down the algorithm at the DSP level for Analog Devices or TI, or whomever?


----------



## batpig

jimim said:


> Thanks a lot. So I can use ceiling mounted or rear/front height speakers bit ceiling mounted would be the more appropriate application correct?
> 
> Also how do I tell if the speaker I choose has the proper dispersion?


Ideally, yes, Atmos speakers should be physically on (or in) the ceiling so they can image ABOVE you. Front/Rear "Height" speakers high up on the walls are supported but aren't ideal. Now, of course, in some cases you may be able to achieve the proper angles with speakers high on the walls, or may be stuck doing so due to room constraints, but the ideal is Top Front/Rear ceiling speakers for the typical x.x.4 consumer Atmos setup.

As to how you tell.... you hope that the manufacturer is clear and forthright in their product description and specifications. Many aren't.


----------



## KidHorn

Dan Hitchman said:


> You showed me photos of your "little" speakers/subs at the Dolby event. How are you not deaf by now??  You didn't get to the Steinway demo? That _really_ was 9.1.4. You could easily tell. And that's why I keep saying it should be the _minimum_ setup to get the most out of the Atmos experience. One of the other AVS members said in their particular Dolby event, the guys from Dolby Labs stated that they thought 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 was a good sweet-spot configuration. This goes along with the Dolby engineer who said to me he's working on a 9.1.4 block for new Atmos products.



I'm going to wait on 9.1.4 to become available before taking the atmos plunge. I want front wides. My hope is the next generation of top end receivers will offer this.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> You need to work on your communication skills because that wasn't the question you posed.


Guess you could work on your reading skills because not everybody's mother tongue here is English...



FilmMixer said:


> As has been explained to me, there is an option in the authroing suite to define how bed surround channels are played back. I suspect they put the option in for music content providers.
> 
> I also suspect very few titles will use the functionality to go the single speaker route.
> 
> IMO it's something they should leave up to the user on products that support more than 4 surround outputs... Like the EX flag, I assume that CEs might have that flexibility.


When you say "authoring suite", what step in the content creation workflow are you talking about?


----------



## bargervais

nagendrachalla said:


> Do they have an ETA on when would the Onkyo TX-NR-3030 be available? or is there a hands on review for the same anywhere?


On the onkyo web site they say the firmware for 636, 737, 838 will be available September 29th and the 1030, 3030 will start shipping mid October. If you go to their site it's towards the bottom left. Hope this information helps.


----------



## batpig

westmd said:


> What would I get if I add to 4 in-ceiling speakers (being placed rear top and front top) for Atmos a pair of front heights. Would that be supported by DSU / native Atmos and which information would that sound be?


You would get 6 overhead speakers instead of 4. I'm not sure I understand the question "what would I get"? Atmos for home specifies 10 (5 pairs) possible overhead speaker locations: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height, from front to back. 

The wrench in the gears of course is that none of the "consumer level" Atmos processors support 6 overhead speakers. They all appear to support 4 max, and allow you to choose any 2 of the 5 potential spots for each pair, provided they are non-adjacent (so no Top Middle + Top Front). If you can afford the more expensive boutique SSP's like the Trinnov or Datasat options, they will let you use more, and you can do 6 or 8 or even 10 overhead speakers.

DSU will mix up to ANY of the 34 possible speaker locations (24 floor / 10 overhead) with the exception of those adjacent to / in between the L/C/R speakers, so as to not mess up the front soundstage. 

And of course it's supported by native Atmos. I mean, you've been reading this thread for a while -- that's the whole point of object audio, it's fully scalable!


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Guess you could work on your reading skills because not everybody's mother tongue here is English...


We're not her to try and interpret what you're thinkng Markus... I can only go on why you write. 

If you want a specific question answered phrase it as so. Which you didn't.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> If you want a specific question answered phrase it as so.


Like this?



markus767 said:


> When you say "authoring suite", what step in the content creation workflow are you talking about?


----------



## bargervais

nagendrachalla said:


> Do they have an ETA on when would the Onkyo TX-NR-3030 be available? or is there a hands on review for the same anywhere?


If you can't find the information on onkyos web site it says.

2014-09-03 Onkyo Poised to Deliver Dolby Atmos Sound This Month

UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NJ. A firmware update enabling Dolby Atmos® sound on the Onkyo TX-NR636, TX-NR737, and TX-NR838 network A/V receivers will be released on September 29, the home entertainment specialists confirmed today.
The free firmware download enabling Dolby Atmos on these mid-range products precedes the release of Onkyos high-end TX-NR1030 and TX-NR3030 network A/V receivers, and the flagship PR-SC5530 Network A/V Controller, all of which will ship from mid-October with support for Dolby Atmos built in at the factory. The HT-S7700 Network Home Theater System will also ship with Dolby Atmos built-in beginning at the end of September


----------



## jimim

Thanks a lot for the reply. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I'm glad u saw the post cause I suck at quoting with this new forum phone layout! I miss the old setup. 

Anyway. I'm going to spend some time this weekend trying to see if I can pull off cieling speakers vs high front and rears. But tonight the catfish are calling to be caught with my fresh bluegills. Lol. That will take priority tonight.


----------



## PorkchopExpr3ss

how do you think a set of coaxial bipoles(custom box) on the ceiling would sound for atmos? just thinking out loud here.


----------



## pasender91

Hi all,

If i make an overview of demos and the first "real" installations, it looks like already with DSU almost everyone is very much impressed by the quality of the 3D immersion, and the native Atmos should be even better.

I was about to take the dive as well, with either Denon 5200W or Marantz 7009, but was able to resist the urge and delay my purchase. Let me tell you why i think it is better to wait, it is due to a single feature that is annoyingly missing.

Atmos is object oriented and places objects precisely in 3D. 
Then, in current systems this is played on 7.1.4 speakers that are *NOT *placed precisely in 3D, defeating the whole philosophy. It will for sure lead to light/medium/severe shift in 3D placement of objects.
We all know this 3D placement of speakers is supported by Atmos but not by the first generation of AVRs.
I hope that when the 2nd generation of Atmos AVRs will come out they could have this feature, and believe it could improve a LOT the precision of the 3D effects, because the Atmos decoder will know where the speakers are and the object placement will be so much more precise.

So i will save my cash until an AVR with precise location of speakers appears below 2000€.
Am i smoking too much weed, or is that a fair position?
Did any of you attending CEDIA ask this question about the AVRs knowing the speakers placement?
Any vendor getting ready for that feature?


----------



## batpig

The Dolby guys have repeatedly said that precise placement isn't really THAT important. Even the white papers specify a range of angles that will work for each speaker position. I think as long as you are pretty close, and can position your speakers near the "ideal" positions, it will still sound great.

So I don't think you are necessarily smoking too much weed, but I do think you are overstating the importance of that feature. I think it's a wild exageration to say that the lack of actual location measurements (vs assumed locations) "defeats the whole philosophy". Obviously, it would be better if the processor could precisely measure where each speaker is in space, but the lack of this isn't going to ruin the experience.

That said, if YOU think this is really important and choose to hold off in the hopes that this feature appears in the future, more power to you. But it's not something that's holding me back.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> ^
> Guess the difference might be audible in the top surrounds because .4 represents an array (of 2 speakers)?


Even a point source object positioned in the middle of the top array will light up both ends of the array -- so again the result of changing size is ambiguous until there's at least 3 speakers in an array. Only if the content maker wanted to hit the front or rear end of the array would one get a smaller size sound source with a 2-speaker array. And that would be a rather more significant alteration of artistic intent than just scaling the size. So I doubt we'd see that sort of thing happen during a routine near-field transfer process. Marc's insights would be valuable here!



> Regarding the other surrounds I'd think the question is if a surround speaker array can be defined in future AVRs.


Defining arrays becomes necessary at some point. The user may not have participate in that process until a significant number of speakers are involved, like in the Altitude 24/32.


----------



## htpcforever

Dan Hitchman said:


> INo EQ in the world is going to make Paradigms sound like JTR's, etc. etc. Otherwise, why have different speaker brands??


Someone should create a sound mode for that...you know, like the Jazz Hall, Cathedral, etc., sound modes AVRs currently waste resources having.


----------



## g_bartman

Roger Dressler said:


> Even a point source object positioned in the middle of the top array will light up both ends of the array -- so again the result of changing size is ambiguous until there's at least 3 speakers in an array. Only if the content maker wanted to hit the front or rear end of the array would one get a smaller size sound source with a 2-speaker array. And that would be a rather more significant alteration of artistic intent than just scaling the size. So I doubt we'd see that sort of thing happen during a routine near-field transfer process. Marc's insights would be valuable here!
> 
> Defining arrays becomes necessary at some point. The user may not have participate in that process until a significant number of speakers are involved, like in the Altitude 24/32.


It would be great to have an Atmos placement calculator. Plug in room dimensions, how many rows of seats and their location, .2 .4 Atmos etc and the calc spits out ideal placement. I'm in the early planning stages and would really like to know the best locations BEFORE I cut the holes!


----------



## bargervais

I just noticed that VUDU has Transformers Age of Extinction for sale in HDX does anyone know if this is dolby Digital Plus and will it have atmos. or is Dolby Atmos just going to be on the Blu-Ray that i have pre-ordered.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> I just noticed that VUDU has Transformers Age of Extinction for sale in HDX does anyone know if this is dolby Digital Plus and will it have atmos. or is Dolby Atmosjust just going to be on the Blu-Ray that i have pre-ordered.




Why don't you just ask Vudu?




Ray


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> I just noticed that VUDU has Transformers Age of Extinction for sale in HDX does anyone know if this is dolby Digital Plus and will it have atmos. or is Dolby Atmos just going to be on the Blu-Ray that i have pre-ordered.


If it is DD+ then you will get the Atmos content in full.

If it is just regular DD then you will not get Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> Why don't you just ask Vudu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray


thanks good idea have you ever been able to contact them and get anyone that are in the know


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> If it is DD+ then you will get the Atmos content in full.
> 
> If it is just regular DD then you will not get Atmos.


*Thanks*
That's my understanding as well that their HDX is indeed DD+ I just wanted to report that it's available and you can own it two weeks before Blu-Ray
I know alot of people that don't by discs and have everthing in the cloud. So i'm hoping this would be an option for them.


----------



## Roger Dressler

g_bartman said:


> It would be great to have an Atmos placement calculator. Plug in room dimensions, how many rows of seats and their location, .2 .4 Atmos etc and the calc spits out ideal placement. I'm in the early planning stages and would really like to know the best locations BEFORE I cut the holes!


There's so many variables. If you list those criteria for your room, plus identifying the MLP, doors/windows, speaker types (floor standing/bookshelf, inwall, Atmos enabled), number of subs, seating riser if used, I'd like to take a stab at it. Would be interesting to see what others consider the best solution, too.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Marc's insights would be valuable here!


Indeed it would but he doesn't answer if you don't "phrase it as so"


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Defining arrays becomes necessary at some point.


That point is when the number of speakers exceeds the number of channel beds. Already happening with heights: when you have 4 configured, the 2 left and 2 right are treated as arrays for the L/R height beds.


----------



## sdurani

g_bartman said:


> It would be great to have an Atmos placement calculator. Plug in room dimensions, how many rows of seats and their location, .2 .4 Atmos etc and the calc spits out ideal placement. I'm in the early planning stages and would really like to know the best locations BEFORE I cut the holes!


How did you manage to find the best locations for your current speakers without using a placement calculator? Why can't you use that same knowledge when placing heights?


----------



## westmd

batpig said:


> And of course it's supported by native Atmos. I mean, you've been reading this thread for a while -- that's the whole point of object audio, it's fully scalable!


Thanks! True I have been reading it for a while but I got confused about the whole 'wides' discussion, so I just wanted to make sure I got it right!


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> If it is DD+ then you will get the Atmos content in full.
> 
> If it is just regular DD then you will not get Atmos.





bargervais said:


> *Thanks*
> That's my understanding as well that their HDX is indeed DD+ I just wanted to report that it's available and you can own it two weeks before Blu-Ray
> I know alot of people that don't by discs and have everthing in the cloud. So i'm hoping this would be an option for them.


Wait just a minute -- just because the VUDU movie has DD+ as the audio option does NOT necessarily mean that it's the Atmos soundtrack! I think we would know if you could get the native Atmos track weeks before the official BD release on Sep 30! Why would Dolby/VUDU hide this fact that you can hear native Atmos content NOW?

It MIGHT be true but I would not assume that the offering currently available on VUDU is Atmos native!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> How did you manage to find the best locations for your current speakers without using a placement calculator? Why can't you use that same knowledge when placing heights?


Dude. I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out these height locations.

I guess I am not the only one. As stuff just goes right _*over my head*_.

*buh dum tish*


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Wait just a minute -- just because the VUDU movie has DD+ as the audio option does NOT necessarily mean that it's the Atmos soundtrack! I think we would know if you could get the native Atmos track weeks before the official BD release on Sep 30! Why would Dolby/VUDU hide this fact that you can hear native Atmos content NOW?
> 
> It MIGHT be true but I would not assume that the offering currently available on VUDU is Atmos native!


The 7.1 DD+ audio track it will indeed be full Atmos.


That was kinda the point, BB.  They didn't hide this fact at all. They advertised it, in fact. First movie ever streaming with Atmos. Go re-read the press stuff from last week about Transformers.

_"Dolby has finally announced the first Blu-ray title to include an Atmos soundtrack. Paramount's 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D will support the new audio technology when it hits stores on September 30. Likewise, VUDU will be the first streaming service to offer Atmos support."_


----------



## g_bartman

sdurani said:


> How did you manage to find the best locations for your current speakers without using a placement calculator? Why can't you use that same knowledge when placing heights?


The early reviews of Atmos that I have read said that Atmos channel speaker placement is critical in delivering the proper sound field. With my other speakers, I could move them around until they sounded right. Once I cut holes in the ceiling, that would make relocating them a bit difficult. Apples and oranges.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> The 7.1 DD+ audio track it will indeed be full Atmos.
> 
> 
> That was kinda the point, BB.  They didn't hide this fact at all. They advertised it, in fact. First movie ever streaming with Atmos. Go re-read the press stuff from last week about Transformers.
> 
> _"Dolby has finally announced the first Blu-ray title to include an Atmos soundtrack. Paramount's 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D will support the new audio technology when it hits stores on September 30. Likewise, VUDU will be the first streaming service to offer Atmos support."_


The press releases all stated that Vudu would be the first streaming partner to support Atmos but I think it's pretty big news if they have "scooped" the Sep 30 release date and we can hear the native Atmos track in DD+ right NOW! Do you have a direct quote from a press release indicating this? I've read several in googling on the topic just now and they all just vaguely mention Vudu in the context that Atmos "will be available this fall on Blu-ray Disc and via Vudu".

The Vudu page for this movie shows rental available on Sep 30 but it looks like you can purchase "digital exclusive" right now: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!overview/541997/Transformers-Age-of-Extinction

I don't think it's as clear as you are making it out to be. Are you SURE that the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE purchase option from VUDU includes the Atmos track encoded in DD+?


----------



## markus767

g_bartman said:


> It would be great to have an Atmos placement calculator. Plug in room dimensions, how many rows of seats and their location, .2 .4 Atmos etc and the calc spits out ideal placement. I'm in the early planning stages and would really like to know the best locations BEFORE I cut the holes!


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html

±45° from the main listening position is the preferred location?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I didn't say the surrounds had to be *EXACTLY 100% *the same as the front LCR. Unless you have a huge room, that would be impracticable. They should (and the best demos I heard bear this out) be voiced similarly. The same or similar tweeters and drivers for the high and mid to mid-low frequencies.


What does 'voiced similarly' mean, other than some sort of marketing speak? I asked you this before but you didn't answer.



Dan Hitchman said:


> No EQ in the world is going to make Paradigms sound like JTR's, etc. etc. Otherwise, why have different speaker brands??


There is some truth in this wrt to 'hi-fi' or 'audiophile' speakers which are deliberately distorted to give them a 'house sound'. But I deplore the use of such speakers and instead choose speakers that are 'pro' models. These have been designed to have a flat response, or a gently falling response, and to be as neutral to the source as possible. EQ is all you need to bring them into line in the room.

You studiously ignore the 'difficult' points I raise, such as the response of these Paradigms and JTRs _in the room_ and in the part of the room in which they sit. Once you put them in the room, the maker's FR is fairly irrelevant because of room influences (in all but the best treated rooms).

I can see you will not be convinced that if you start with good, neutral speakers, avoiding the overpriced 'hi-fi' stuff, then you can EQ two different makes to give a flat enough in-room response as makes no difference. Fair enough - you believe in 'voicing'. We may as well leave it there - but I’d still like to know what you mean by 'voiced similarly'.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> You know what, at first i thought the same of you Keith, i imagined you were a man with really large ears , what a bonus to ear all the Atmos sounds


Hahahaha. If I looked like my avatar, I'd have surgery.


----------



## sdurani

g_bartman said:


> The early reviews of Atmos that I have read said that Atmos channel speaker placement is critical in delivering the proper sound field.


No more critical than the channel based system you're currently using. For example: if you're doing a single pair of heights overhead, the Atmos specs allow for placement anywhere within a 35-degree range above you. That's critical placement?


> With my other speakers, I could move them around until they sounded right. Once I cut holes in the ceiling, that would make relocating them a bit difficult. Apples and oranges.


So you're going to accept other people's answers on faith? How will they know what sound right for you? If you learned anything from moving your speakers around, why not apply that to your heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> As to how you tell.... you hope that the manufacturer is clear and forthright in their product description and specifications. Many aren't.


That pretty much means choosing a 'pro' brand like Tannoy, JBL etc then. Do any of the 'hi-fi' speaker makers publish this information? And if not, one has to wonder why... even my little, inexpensive Tannoy Di5 DCs come with pages of graphs showing FR, polar response etc, at various frequencies and SPLs. Not to mention a *full* specification. But I can’t remember ever seeing an 'audiophile' brand do the same. There is sure to be an exception but IDK what it is.


----------



## kbarnes701

g_bartman said:


> It would be great to have an Atmos placement calculator. Plug in room dimensions, how many rows of seats and their location, .2 .4 Atmos etc and the calc spits out ideal placement. I'm in the early planning stages and would really like to know the best locations BEFORE I cut the holes!


All you need is some graph paper, a pencil, a ruler and a protractor. Draw a scale diagram using the graph paper and pencil. Mark where your ears are when you are sitting in the MLP. Take the protractor and measure off the various angles allowed by Atmos and draw a line long enough to hit the ceiling. That is where your speaker goes. Repeat as required.


----------



## RichB

Audioholics has a new article: *Auro-3D® Immersive Sound Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen*
The article has a good deal of technical information and a competitors take on Atmos and DTS-UHD. (Viewer discretion is advised  )

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/auro-3d-interview

- Rich


----------



## kbarnes701

jimim said:


> hi guys,
> 
> also how do i know if the dispersion pattern for a speaker is 90 degrees if i can't angle the speakers i pick?


You'll have to ask the manufacturer if they don't publish this information on their website or in their speaker literature. Good luck!


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> What does 'voiced similarly' mean, other than some sort of marketing speak? I asked you this before but you didn't answer.
> 
> 
> 
> There is some truth in this wrt to 'hi-fi' or 'audiophile' speakers which are deliberately distorted to give them a 'house sound'. But I deplore the use of such speakers and instead choose speakers that are 'pro' models. These have been designed to have a flat response, or a gently falling response, and to be as neutral to the source as possible. EQ is all you need to bring them into line in the room.
> 
> You studiously ignore the 'difficult' points I raise, such as the response of these Paradigms and JTRs _in the room_ and in the part of the room in which they sit. Once you put them in the room, the maker's FR is fairly irrelevant because of room influences (in all but the best treated rooms).
> 
> I can see you will not be convinced that if you start with good, neutral speakers, avoiding the overpriced 'hi-fi' stuff, then you can EQ two different makes to give a flat enough in-room response as makes no difference. Fair enough - you believe in 'voicing'. We may as well leave it there - but I’d still like to know what you mean by 'voiced similarly'.


Seems pretty obvious to me what he means. Regardless of your speaker choice, and whether you prefer a speaker with a response that deviates from neutral, or flat, or slightly rolled off at the top, what you should want is a set of speakers that sounds about the same, especially across the front. So if you find a pair of speakers whose "voicing" (or "tuning," or "distortions") you like, you'd be best served to find speakers for your multichannel setup that maintain a similar sonic "character." And, even if you prefer a flat speaker, if you sit in a theater and listen to a pan from left to right going from a "voiced" speaker to a "flat" speaker and then to a "voiced" speaker, it's going to be annoying and distracting. I think the same would apply to a pan from front to back.

It is true that a good EQ system can mostly take care of those differences. OTOH, is frequency response (which EQ can change) the only characteristic that determines what a speaker sounds like? For example, can EQ make a ribbon tweeter sound like a compression horn?


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> The 7.1 DD+ audio track it will indeed be full Atmos.
> 
> 
> That was kinda the point, BB.  They didn't hide this fact at all. They advertised it, in fact. First movie ever streaming with Atmos. Go re-read the press stuff from last week about Transformers.
> 
> _"Dolby has finally announced the first Blu-ray title to include an Atmos soundtrack. Paramount's 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D will support the new audio technology when it hits stores on September 30. Likewise, VUDU will be the first streaming service to offer Atmos support."_


Thanks I knew I read that somewhere


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Seems pretty obvious to me what he means. Regardless of your speaker choice, and whether you prefer a speaker with a response that deviates from neutral, or flat, or slightly rolled off at the top, what you should want is a set of speakers that sounds about the same, especially across the front. So if you find a pair of speakers whose "voicing" (or "tuning," or "distortions") you like, you'd be best served to find speakers for your multichannel setup that maintain a similar sonic "character." And, even if you prefer a flat speaker, if you sit in a theater and listen to a pan from left to right going from a "voiced" speaker to a "flat" speaker and then to a "voiced" speaker, it's going to be annoying and distracting. I think the same would apply to a pan from front to back.
> 
> It is true that a good EQ system can mostly take care of those differences. OTOH, is frequency response (which EQ can change) the only characteristic that determines what a speaker sounds like? For example, can EQ make a ribbon tweeter sound like a compression horn?


So what he means by 'voiced similarly' is 'a similar FR across the audible spectrum'? Why not say that then - then we all know what it means. 'Voiced similarly' sounds like something straight out of the marketing brochure.

OK, so if the FR is similar in each speaker after EQ, where does the 'timbre matching' come in?


----------



## g_bartman

markus767 said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
> 
> ±45° from the main listening position is the preferred location?


Thank you, that is helpful. My google search for Atmos placement did not bring me to that page. I guess you need to compromise with two rows of seats. I bought Martin Logan in ceiling speakers which are "aimable" (angled) so I'll place two slightly in front of the front row and two slightly behind the back row and hope for the best. It's going to be a while before I get an Atmos enabled pre pro, looking to pick up a Marantz av7702 eventually. My 8801 will do for now, can't justify getting rid of it already. When enough Atmos enabled discs come out, I'll consider pulling the trigger.


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> Thanks I knew I read that somewhere


Again, I would urge caution and NOT just assume that the currently available for purchase "digital exclusive" version of Transformers AoE has native Atmos content embedded within the DD+ stream.

If you parse the quote, it doesn't say anything about this movie having Atmos on Vudu specifically: "Dolby has finally announced the first Blu-ray title to include an Atmos soundtrack. Paramount's 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D will support the new audio technology when it hits stores on September 30. Likewise, VUDU will be the first streaming service to offer Atmos support."

It just says that the BLU-RAY will have it, when released on Sep 30, and that ALSO the first streaming service to offer Atmos support will be Vudu. It doesn't say WHEN the Atmos support will be available on Vudu, nor does it specifically indicate that Transformers AoE on Vudu will have Atmos.

If you look at the info on the Vudu page (click "More Info" tab) it indicates that 5.1 DD+ is available for SD, HD, and HDX copies: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#more_info/541997/Transformers-Age-of-Extinction

No mention of Atmos so I wouldn't bet that if you purchased it today, it would have Atmos. 

I could be wrong but I don't think it's as cut and dry as Scott is asserting.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Again, I would urge caution and NOT just assume that the currently available for purchase "digital exclusive" version of Transformers AoE has native Atmos content embedded within the DD+ stream.
> 
> If you parse the quote, it doesn't say anything about this movie having Atmos on Vudu specifically: "Dolby has finally announced the first Blu-ray title to include an Atmos soundtrack. Paramount's 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D will support the new audio technology when it hits stores on September 30. Likewise, VUDU will be the first streaming service to offer Atmos support."
> 
> It just says that the BLU-RAY will have it, when released on Sep 30, and that ALSO the first streaming service to offer Atmos support will be Vudu. It doesn't say WHEN the Atmos support will be available on Vudu, nor does it specifically indicate that Transformers AoE on Vudu will have Atmos.
> 
> If you look at the info on the Vudu page (click "More Info" tab) it indicates that 5.1 DD+ is available for SD, HD, and HDX copies: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#more_info/541997/Transformers-Age-of-Extinction
> 
> No mention of Atmos so I wouldn't bet that if you purchased it today, it would have Atmos.
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think it's as cut and dry as Scott is asserting.


Thanks I will be cautious I have the blu-ray on pre order.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The press releases all stated that Vudu would be the first streaming partner to support Atmos but I think it's pretty big news if they have "scooped" the Sep 30 release date and we can hear the native Atmos track in DD+ right NOW! Do you have a direct quote from a press release indicating this? I've read several in googling on the topic just now and they all just vaguely mention Vudu in the context that Atmos "will be available this fall on Blu-ray Disc and via Vudu".
> 
> The Vudu page for this movie shows rental available on Sep 30 but it looks like you can purchase "digital exclusive" right now: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!overview/541997/Transformers-Age-of-Extinction
> 
> I don't think it's as clear as you are making it out to be. Are you SURE that the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE purchase option from VUDU includes the Atmos track encoded in DD+?


I hear ya, man. It is not super clear but that's how this Atmos thing is going to be it seems. Just because they do not explicitly say "This Will Be In Atmos" on Vudu (even the BD for T4 doesn't mention Atmos, apparently) doesn't mean it isn't.

Say hey... If I send you $5 will you rent it on Vudu in HDX and check it on your Atmos receiver for all of us?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Yay!












Marc, could you please explain this? ...One of your great attributes "sometimes" is to tease us;
be the revelator, this time around. 

_______


----------



## redjr

NorthSky said:


> It is very possible; first you need to have a center of gravity that would give each speaker its intended angling position. ...Some sort of bracket attached to the speaker's rear.
> And for more stability, two chains per each speaker.
> 
> Me, I would simply put four small hooks @ the speaker's rear where it is perfectly balanced to face straight down (use wide dispersion speakers for that). And then use very short chains to rely them four hooks.
> Finally, attached them to the high ceiling using two long chains for better stability (no movements).
> 
> * I'm in the same situation @ my place, and that is one of my ideas so far; but I'm not done yet.
> The highest spot (middle) in my room is eleven feet; I can also have long metal rods to be hanging and holding the four overhead speakers in position; say roughly couple feet long metal rods.
> 
> More ideas to come too...


I'm not sure you 'got' sikclown's reference to, "that option intrigues me" statement.  Hum.. yes, chains from the ceiling.


----------



## krozman

It is indeed confusing to me that a new format would be added to a blu ray release with absolutely no advertising telling us as much. This is probably going to be one of those Costco purchases, because when I put in that blu ray I better friggin hear my ceiling speakers come to life. Maybe you can select atmos from the top menu?


----------



## bargervais

krozman said:


> It is indeed confusing to me that a new format would be added to a blu ray release with absolutely no advertising telling us as much. This is probably going to be one of those Costco purchases, because when I put in that blu ray I better friggin hear my ceiling speakers come to life. Maybe you can select atmos from the top menu?


I'm totally with you because I did pre order it from Amazon and it says nothing about atmos. And I asked this in the transformer thread.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...age-extinction-first-blu-ray-dolby-atmos.html


----------



## PoshFrosh

NorthSky said:


> Marc, could you please explain this? ...One of your great attributes "sometimes" is to tease us;
> be the revelator, this time around.





krozman said:


> It is indeed confusing to me that a new format would be added to a blu ray release with absolutely no advertising telling us as much. This is probably going to be one of those Costco purchases, because when I put in that blu ray I better friggin hear my ceiling speakers come to life. Maybe you can select atmos from the top menu?


*Wait, what movie is this we are talking about?*


----------



## bargervais

PoshFrosh said:


> *Wait, what movie is this we are talking about?*


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...age-extinction-first-blu-ray-dolby-atmos.html


----------



## PoshFrosh

bargervais said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...age-extinction-first-blu-ray-dolby-atmos.html


But someone has it already? I thought it wasn't out till the 30th??


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> I'm totally with you because I did pre order it from Amazon and it says nothing about atmos. And I asked this in the transformer thread.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...age-extinction-first-blu-ray-dolby-atmos.html


Let me just understand the issue here. Are you concerned that you will purchase Transformers 4 on Blu-ray and possibly get a copy that does not have Atmos on it?

It will be Dolby TrueHD 7.1 sound. That is what ALL of the packaging and any feature list will ever say.

They may not explicitly mention Atmos at all. It will be in the TrueHD encode. You must have an Atmos capable AVR/SSP to decode that Atmos-enabled TrueHD track.


This is pretty simple.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Let me just understand the issue here. Are you concerned that you will purchase Transformers 4 on Blu-ray and possibly get a copy that does not have Atmos on it?
> 
> It will be Dolby TrueHD 7.1 sound. That is what ALL of the packaging and any feature list will ever say.
> 
> They may not explicitly mention Atmos at all. It will be in the TrueHD encode. You must have an Atmos capable AVR/SSP to decode that Atmos-enabled TrueHD track.
> 
> 
> This is pretty simple.


That clears it up for me


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> Again, I would urge caution and NOT just assume that the currently available for purchase "digital exclusive" version of Transformers AoE has native Atmos content embedded within the DD+ stream.


I've submitted the question directly to Vudu support, in no unclear terms.

One telling point is that the film on Vudu is only in 5.1 DD+ (whereas Vudu offers 7.1 DD+ on many films and the BluRay will be in 7.1, so that leads me to believe that this is some dumbed down version in the audio department and will likely not include Atmos, but that's just a guess). I think being cautious as batpig advizes is wise.I'm not spending $22+ to find out though. (Although I do have this crapola movie pre-ordered on BD from Amazon )


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> That clears it up for me


Yeah, sorry. I wish it was more clear but this is how the studio home video department is handling this new sound technology.

The only way to know for sure on your end would be to playback the disc on an Atmos-aware processor/AVR and see that Atmos light up the display.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> So what he means by 'voiced similarly' is 'a similar FR across the audible spectrum'? Why not say that then - then we all know what it means. 'Voiced similarly' sounds like something straight out of the marketing brochure.
> 
> OK, so if the FR is similar in each speaker after EQ, where does the 'timbre matching' come in?


In my mind, what is implied when the terms "similar voicing" or "timbre matching" are thrown out there is that the speakers all sound the same. FR is a part of that (possibly the largest part of that), but I think there's more to it, that there are qualities of speaker reproduction that are not measureable by conventional methodology but are perceptible to the human auditory system.

Take the example I gave above of two very different tweeter technologies. A ribbon tweeter, for example, often is described as light and airy, whereas most horn loaded compression tweeters I've heard are "in-your-face." What causes those characteristics, and can the two tweeter types be made to sound the same by EQ or any other electronic manipulation? I don't know the answer to that question.

Or, let's take the example of a stereo pair of speakers. One would not even consider using an electrostat speaker for the left channel and a conventional monopole for the right channel. The stereo image would be odd, wouldn't sound right. And if you ran Audyssey on that pair of speakers, would you expect that all would be well, as if both speakers were electrostats? I've never done this, but I doubt it. I'm taking an extreme example here, since the radiation patterns of those two speakers are radically different, but hopefully you see what I mean. Even in a less-extreme example, like having a stereo pair of monopole speakers, one with a Heil-type folded ribbon tweeter and one with a soft dome, I wonder if EQ could "timbre-match" them sufficiently that they would sound like a cohesive stereo pair. I really don't know, but I have my doubts.

To add to this, the room can change the FR of a speaker significantly, and so a good EQ system can bring them back in line with each other. What the room may not change, however, are the intangible, difficult-to-measure-but-audible characteristics of different driver technologies. In my opinion, using speakers from the same line when possible will help mitigate these sorts of issues, while EQ will counteract the room's effect on FR.

Sorry for going so far OT.


----------



## sdurani

PoshFrosh said:


> But someone has it already? I thought it wasn't out till the 30th??


Some reviewers have it already, others have the Dolby demo disc from CEDIA. An OSD showing Atmos decoding could be either disc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's a fun demo. I wish I had an Atmos receiver to get the full experience.


----------



## smurraybhm

markus767 said:


> Indeed it would but he doesn't answer if you don't "phrase it as so"


Markus - enjoy your posts and knowledge, but why you continue to pick at Marc - it is really getting old. Haven't we been down this road before which ended with a ban? Let's not drive away someone who has a lot to offer this thread and others in regards to Atmos and other sound tech. It hurts the community when we stop hearing from members like him. In the words of forum member from Canada, "Thank you for your cooperation."


----------



## NorthSky

PoshFrosh said:


> *Wait, what movie is this we are talking about?*


'Need For Speed' ?


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> All you need is some graph paper, a pencil, a ruler and a protractor. Draw a scale diagram using the graph paper and pencil. Mark where your ears are when you are sitting in the MLP. Take the protractor and measure off the various angles allowed by Atmos and draw a line long enough to hit the ceiling. That is where your speaker goes. Repeat as required.


He's right though (g_bartman), its too bad there isn't a HT calculator that takes each of the variables (ideal speaker location, ideal seating locations, room acoustics, actual room size, etc) and say HERE... DO THIS...PUT THAT THERE!!!..SIT HERE>>>
Not sure we'd all do it but it would remove so many variables, just let the calculator work out the trade offs and let the HT owner decide what to do, in the order of their priority.
That would make it too easy though.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Marc, could you please explain this? ...One of your great attributes "sometimes" is to tease us;


No tease. 

I'm now on day 20 straight I think of.a mix... It was all I could do last night to put the BR in and take a picture. 

It's the Dolby demo disc. 

I would never post a screenshot of an unreleased title, no matter how obscured it is by an OSD.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^

Definitely the Red Bull Formula 1 trailer.


----------



## bargervais

PoshFrosh said:


> I've submitted the question directly to Vudu support, in no unclear terms.
> 
> One telling point is that the film on Vudu is only in 5.1 DD+ (whereas Vudu offers 7.1 DD+ on many films and the BluRay will be in 7.1, so that leads me to believe that this is some dumbed down version in the audio department and will likely not include Atmos, but that's just a guess). I think being cautious as batpig advizes is wise.I'm not spending $22+ to find out though. (Although I do have this crapola movie pre-ordered on BD from Amazon )


That's what I was confused about on Amazon it says and has no mention of 7.1

Product Details
Actors: Mark Wahlberg, Nicola Peltz
Directors: Michael Bay
Format: Multiple Formats, Blu-ray, AC-3, Dolby, Dubbed, Subtitled
Language: English
Subtitles: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish
Dubbed: French, Portuguese, Spanish
Region: Region A/1 (Read more about DVD/Blu-ray formats.)
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number of discs: 2
Rated: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Studio: Paramount
DVD Release Date: September 30, 2014


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol.

Stop believing Amazon specs listings.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I've been going back and forth about this... but I think I'm going to make the Atmos dive with the Denon 5200W. Quick question (if this is answerable) I'd eventually like to use this receiver with a 4k blu ray player & TV when they come out (probably something like a Vizio R series or HDR-ish with 3D or UltraD... is there anything I should be concerned about regarding connectivity/ latency? 

& for those of you who were upgrading to 3D or 4k & didn't want to upgrade old receivers... how much did those dual output HDMI players cost? I'm wondering how much dual HDMI 4k blu ray players will cost (if anyone might have a way to provide at least a vague estimate based on historical experience)
(I've been living under a rock with my home theater in a box since 2001).


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol.
> 
> Stop believing Amazon specs listings.


Yes sir LOL


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> Yes sir LOL


It's okay but you keep asking the same thing.

The only way you are going to get Transformers 4 without Atmos is if you buy the dvd. If you buy the BD then you will get Atmos sound.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Even a point source object positioned in the middle of the top array will light up both ends of the array -- so again the result of changing size is ambiguous until there's at least 3 speakers in an array. Only if the content maker wanted to hit the front or rear end of the array would one get a smaller size sound source with a 2-speaker array. And that would be a rather more significant alteration of artistic intent than just scaling the size. So I doubt we'd see that sort of thing happen during a routine near-field transfer process. Marc's insights would be valuable here!


Roger are you saying that in an Atmos commercial theater, the individual speakers that represent say the Right Surround Array of the Right Surround Channel Bed, could be used individually when used to represent *objects*? For example the front 5 of said array could be lighted up, and the rear 5 not, when representing objects?


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> Audioholics has a new article: *Auro-3D® Immersive Sound Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen*
> The article has a good deal of technical information and a competitors take on Atmos and DTS-UHD. (Viewer discretion is advised  )
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/auro-3d-interview
> 
> - Rich


A good read I agree 

But many factual inaccuracies and questionable claims.


----------



## GoCaboNow

kbarnes701 said:


> All you need is some graph paper, a pencil, a ruler and a protractor. Draw a scale diagram using the graph paper and pencil. Mark where your ears are when you are sitting in the MLP. Take the protractor and measure off the various angles allowed by Atmos and draw a line long enough to hit the ceiling. That is where your speaker goes. Repeat as required.


 Or, the web has many right angle calculators. All you need are two sides and the 90 degree right angle and you determine the angle. You know one "side" is length from your ears to the ceiling. Next "side" is directly above your ears on the ceiling to a proposed speaker location. You just have to flip the triangle upside down from the way they are usually shown. Very easy.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html


----------



## W3Rman

> *Wilfried Van Baelen* - Objective neutral tests in scientific research centers have already proven that color/timbre is the most important parameter for human brains to achieve the most natural sonic experience. The precise localization of sounds is nowhere near the most important parameter like our competitors often highlight in their advertisements.


:wink:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> If you mean me, I heard it from a Sound Developments guy at the Procella demo (where the Trinnov Altitude is scalable to any number of possible configurations among the 24.1.10 channels for consumer Atmos), but I don't doubt that someone at Dolby agrees or is planning around 9.1.4 in some way. However, isn't the stumbling block the DSP horsepower and choice of what can implemented by mainstream A/V manufacturers, not Dolby per se, except for scaling down the algorithm at the DSP level for Analog Devices or TI, or whomever?


Gotcha! This thread moves too quick for me to remember the little details.  

With Cirrus Logic coming out with single quad-core processor chips I would hope the horsepower will improve next year. After all, the mainstreams stuffed Atmos into chips and boxes already chosen for the 2014 model year. Atmos was almost an after thought. 

Dolby is working on other, larger fixed block configurations other than 7.1.4 or 9.1.2, so I would have to assume they got the go-ahead from their other partners that these larger configurations would work fine in upcoming gear.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KidHorn said:


> I'm going to wait on 9.1.4 to become available before taking the atmos plunge. I want front wides. My hope is the next generation of top end receivers will offer this.


Just remember, the wides are not in the positions we're used to. In a 9.1.2, 9.1.4, or 9.16 rendering mode, they are front _side wall_ surrounds (ideally) toed in towards the MLP like in the cinema layout... this was usually the case at CEDIA as well.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Gotcha! This thread moves too quick for me to remember the little details.


Funny you mention that - one reason that I post relatively infrequently is that I try to fact check everything I say as best possible, which is a good idea if you want to be taken seriously, even on a forum . Otherwise some guy like Sanjay or Markus will call you out LOL, but there's a large number of very knowledgeable folks here in general, which is a good thing.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just remember, the wides are not in the positions we're used to. In a 9.1.2, 9.1.4, or 9.16 rendering mode, they are front _side wall_ surrounds (ideally) toed in towards the MLP like in the cinema layout... this was usually the case at CEDIA as well.



I actually think of the "wides" as a second set of side surrounds, so that you have two side surrounds on each sidewall, i.e. Left/Right Main and Side Surround 1, Side Surround 2, Rear Surround (L/R). You can look at the Dolby Installer's Guide White paper for ideas about where those two side surrounds should be placed in terms of the azimuth (horizontal angle).


----------



## batpig

PoshFrosh said:


> I've submitted the question directly to Vudu support, in no unclear terms.
> 
> One telling point is that the film on Vudu is only in 5.1 DD+ (whereas Vudu offers 7.1 DD+ on many films and the BluRay will be in 7.1, so that leads me to believe that this is some dumbed down version in the audio department and will likely not include Atmos, but that's just a guess). I think being cautious as batpig advizes is wise.I'm not spending $22+ to find out though. (Although I do have this crapola movie pre-ordered on BD from Amazon )


I also submitted a question to Vudu support, we'll see what they say. It will be fun to compare notes and see if the typical clueless CSR is going to give us the same answer, or (more likely) totally contradictory answers.

My money in the betting pool is on one of us receiving an unambiguous "Yes, it has Atmos!" answer and the other receiving a confused, "WTF is Atmos?" answer. 




Scott Simonian said:


> I hear ya, man. It is not super clear but that's how this Atmos thing is going to be it seems. Just because they do not explicitly say "This Will Be In Atmos" on Vudu (even the BD for T4 doesn't mention Atmos, apparently) doesn't mean it isn't.
> 
> Say hey... If I send you $5 will you rent it on Vudu in HDX and check it on your Atmos receiver for all of us?


Unfortunately the rental option isn't available until Sep 30 so that's a no go. But if you want to give me a 20 spot I'll buy it in HDX!


----------



## NorthSky

*Marc's TV screen showing Dolby Atmos decoding.*



Scott Simonian said:


> Definitely the Red Bull Formula 1 trailer.


Scott, I think you got it. ...Because looking @ the TV's background you see the grand stand @ the racing circuit.


* Thx Marc; the Dolby Atmos demo disc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Have watched my disc a few times now.


----------



## howard68

So has any one got a Atmos receiver and played transformers 4 on Vudu and got a Dolby Atmos light up ?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Have watched my disc a few times now.


But without a Dolby Atmos decoding machine. ...Marc has though, and he showed it to us.


----------



## NorthSky

Only *two weeks* till Dolby Atmos 'Transformers: Age of Extinction', in 3D and on Blu. ...Exactly *two weeks*.

______


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Only *two weeks* till Dolby Atmos 'Transformers: Age of Extinction', in 3D and on Blu. ...Exactly *two weeks*.


I'm looking forward to hear how you like it on you atmos receiver I know your not a big transformer person.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> That's right; three layers. ...Horizontal, perpendicular (44° apex), and vertical. ...For the full 3D swing.


I can't see Auro-3D in a home environment, in the theatres though, it gives Atmos a run for the money. I can see and hear Atmos in a home environment


----------



## CinemaAndy

westmd said:


> But then Atmos in a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 is just a cut down version from the cinema and not the real deal as cinemas have a much higher amount of speakers.
> 
> Fact is Auro works really well in a 9.1 setup. Is it *better* in an 11.1 or 13.1 setup most likely. Will Atmos be [Bbetter[/B]in 9.1.6 setup most likely as well.
> 
> The sky is the limit so additional channels will for both system be good burt*not mandatory!*


Actually you are correct and incorrect. Both Atmos and Auro-3D have made what we like to refer to as "channels" as obsolete as rabbit ear antennas. They are both "object" driven. The right, center, left acronyms we know and love, are outdated and have no place in a "object" sound rendering sphere, as the program can make any speaker produce any "object" you only have to tell it where the speaker is in relation to your ear. This is also in the process of being taken a step forward by having it installed into everybody's favorite major theme park, mouse, as it can tell where you are looking and adjust accordingly. That i find very interesting, like a windowless room.


----------



## CinemaAndy

* Capable of handling up to 16 native channels and up to 256 output channels, http://www.steinwaylyngdorf.com/products/surround-processor-model-p2/specifications


----------



## Jim S.

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just remember, the wides are not in the positions we're used to. In a 9.1.2, 9.1.4, or 9.16 rendering mode, they are front _side wall_ surrounds (ideally) toed in towards the MLP like in the cinema layout... this was usually the case at CEDIA as well.


 

What is the angle for Front Side Wall Surrounds?


----------



## DS-21

action_jackson said:


> In a perfect world, all speakers would sound the same and be able to produce every frequency with perfect fidelity and zero distortion. Unfortunately, this is not the case and we have speakers built with many different types of materials and enclosures. These different materials, enclosures, ported and sealed, will each create a slightly different sound, just like a plastic clarinet will sound different than one made of wood. If you want a seamless 3D sound stage, then having all the same speakers throughout will give you that.


A bunch of vacuous assertions cut and paste from some marketing brochure that don't actually mean anything. Complete with spurious analogy to music production!



kbarnes701 said:


> But there is no compelling reason (unless you make or sell speakers) for using the same speakers as surrounds,***


In fairness, there may be one: looks. In fact, "timbre matched" is really just a dumb marketing buzzword for "similar-looking." 




Dan Hitchman said:


> ***They should (and the best demos I heard bear this out) be voiced similarly. The same or similar tweeters and drivers for the high and mid to mid-low frequencies.


That helps the eyes think the speakers are more similar, perhaps, but doesn't say much about the sound. Besides, the exact same driver complement all the way down to the upper bass can sound wildly different. See if you can find the KEF R300 and R200c as an example. The R300 has a clearly audible upper midrange dip and flatter highs. The R200c has what I consider nearly ideal performance: smoothly declining FR with frequency. (Both, due to the concentric driver, have smooth polars.)

Furthermore, let's expand your logic a step. Look at the Triad Atmos speakers. They use wildly different driver arrays for upfiring and main channels. Different axial response, different interference pattern, different polars, different phase tracking.



Dan Hitchman said:


> No EQ in the world is going to make Paradigms sound like JTR's, etc. etc. Otherwise, why have different speaker brands??


Actually, at least for one listening position and up to the dynamic limits of the less capable speaker, one can get really, really close. So close that one almost has to have prior knowledge to reliably distinguish.

Point of fact, I've _done_ it, with an older Klipsch tower and a KEF standmount. The details veer a bit off-topic, but if you're interested start a thread in the speakers or theory setup and point me to it.

As for why have speaker brands, the existence of multiple brands doesn't really have anything to do with sound any more than the number of toothpaste brands on the store shelf has anything to do with oral health.



bkeeler10 said:


> I think there's more to it, that there are qualities of speaker reproduction that are not measureable by conventional methodology but are perceptible to the human auditory system.


Unlikely.



bkeeler10 said:


> Take the example I gave above of two very different tweeter technologies. A ribbon tweeter, for example, often is described as light and airy, whereas most horn loaded compression tweeters I've heard are "in-your-face." What causes those characteristics,


The listener's eyes seeing the drivers, for the most part. 

It's a neat trick. Often companies with "exotic" tweeters will hype up the FR there to remind listeners of their exotic part, too.


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> Actually you are correct and incorrect. Both Atmos and Auro-3D have made what we like to refer to as "channels" as obsolete as rabbit ear antennas. They are both "object" driven.


You are completely incorrect.

Auro is conlpletely channel based (adding objects in the near future via MDA.)

Atmos is wholly reliant on channels in addition to objects. 

Where are you pulling this stuff out of?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I'm looking forward to hear how you like it on you atmos receiver I know your not a big transformer person.


I won't have any Atmos receiver or SSP. ...Not this batch around. 

1. 2015 will be a decisive year: a) On Atmos software (BDs for me).
...And b) Marantz AV7703 pre/pro with more advanced Atmos features.

2. I do have the first three 'Transformers' flicks. ...The last one in 3D of course.
For pure entertainment I'm all in; no different than anyone else. ...So the next two are comin' home too.

______


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> I can't see Auro-3D in a home environment, in the theatres though, it gives Atmos a run for the money. I can see and hear Atmos in a home environment


♦ Dolby Atmos: For everyone.
♦ Auro-3D: For everyone else, above.


----------



## action_jackson

DS-21 said:


> A bunch of vacuous assertions cut and paste from some marketing brochure that don't actually mean anything. Complete with spurious analogy to music production!


I came up with all that from experience, but maybe I have a hidden tallent and should be writing marketing brochures. 

I have to admit that most of my experience has been pre-REQ. Case in point my speakers have been a miss match of different brands over the years, just buying used speakers from pawn shops or classifieds when I found a good deal. My mains are Paradigm with dual 8" with dome tweeter, Center and surround were Wharfedale diamond with dual 4" drivers, surrounds being bipole. The center channel just did not match up well with the left and right speakers and it was annoying enough that I ended up getting a Paradigm center channel speaker to replace the Wharfedale and moved the old center to the rear center position for 6.1. My front sound stage improved dramaticly and I feel it was worth the investment. The term "Voiced" may be a little gimmicky and have no bearing on the actual sound produced, but it is a common term that most understand and can relate to. Seeing as the actors voices normally eminate from the LCRs you want their voices to sound the same no matter which speaker happens to be producing it, hence the term voiced. 

Another instance where matching speakers comes into play is for gamers that play in surround sound. The sound in games are inherintly object based. Characters, vehicles, weapons, etc... will move around you move through the levels or stand still and rotate. As these sounds move from speaker to speaker, differences in, tone, timber, or what have you, can be easily picked out. 

Seeing as Atmos is also an object based system similar to video games, I can see where having similar speakers all around would be beneficial. I have no experience with XT32 and it may well cure any mismatch problems that you have. My last AVR purchase has YPAO and it has improved the situation, but it is still not matched as well as I would like. This is part of the reason why I am in the process of replacing all my speakers at the moment. The other reason is my Paradigms are rear ported and not ideal for placement behing the new AT screen. I figure since I am replacing them all anyway might as well have them all the same.:grin:


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Roger are you saying that in an Atmos commercial theater, the individual speakers that represent say the Right Surround Array of the Right Surround Channel Bed, could be used individually when used to represent *objects*? For example the front 5 of said array could be lighted up, and the rear 5 not, when representing objects?


Yes. That's been the standard capability of Atmos all along. Every speaker in the cinema is individually addressable. Channels are directed to predefined subsets of these speakers.


----------



## action_jackson

pasender91 said:


> Am i smoking too much weed, or is that a fair position?
> Did any of you attending CEDIA ask this question about the AVRs knowing the speakers placement?
> Any vendor getting ready for that feature?


Yes, you are smoking waaay too much weed! You need to share a little and quit being so stingy with it, puff puff pass

Seriously though, I think Yamaha has something like that, so they very well could come out with something capable of that in their next top top tier AVRs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jim S. said:


> What is the angle for Front Side Wall Surrounds?


According to the newest white paper they are supposed to be ideally located in a range from 50 degrees to 70 degrees to the MLP.


----------



## DS-21

action_jackson said:


> ***I have to admit that most of my experience has been pre-REQ. Case in point my speakers have been a miss match of different brands over the years, just buying used speakers from pawn shops or classifieds when I found a good deal. My mains are Paradigm with dual 8" with dome tweeter, Center and surround were Wharfedale diamond with dual 4" drivers, surrounds being bipole. The center channel just did not match up well with the left and right speakers and it was annoying enough that I ended up getting a Paradigm center channel speaker***


Nobody, certainly not me, is suggesting anything but identical LCR speakers. I bet you would find a next level by replacing your current center with a third tower of the same model as your left/right speakers. If you're doing a screen, there's no excuse not to have identical LCR speakers! 

Your current center may not actually be any closer of a real match to your mains than your old one was. But seeing the same logo on the front helps your brain think it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

Surrounds are a much more open question. I suspect that a lot of issues people have with surrounds generally comes from placement. I know in my previous home any seat not dead center was annoying, because the soundfield collapsed to one side surround. Switching to bidirectional out-of-phase speakers (commonly but wrongly called "dipoles") made that system much more usable. 

Admittedly, I know nothing of gaming. Just not my thing. Literally the last video game system I owned was an Intellivision with a disk and a keypad that fit various overlays on the controller. That was maybe mid-1980s. Perhaps your experience with the world of modern gaming leads to different conclusions than my experience based primarily on listening to multichannel music recordings. But given that thus far only one Atmos-specific speaker (the Pio Elite) has even paid lip service to the notion of identical speakers for height and mains, such matching just does not seem to be a priority.



action_jackson said:


> I have no experience with XT32 and it may well cure any mismatch problems that you have.


My experience comparing different side/rear surround speakers predates room correction so my conclusions do not depend on EQing the surrounds. Also, I differ from others on this thread in that I don't apply EQ based on listening position measurements above the transition frequency of the room (500Hz give or take).


----------



## Jim S.

Dan Hitchman said:


> According to the newest white paper they are supposed to be ideally located in a range from 50 degrees to 70 degrees to the MLP.


 
Thanks Dan.

So, if I were to anticipate a 2nd generation AV pre-amp at 9.2.4, am I correct in that I should have:

-3 main LCR's
-2 Front Side Surrounds at 50-70 degrees. The speakers would be surrounds and not mains (as in Audyssey 11.2). I assume these would be at ear level+ 
-2 Side Surrounds at 90 - 110 degrees at ear level+ somewhere in the middle of 2 row seating.
-2 Rear Surrounds at ear level +, high enough to clear the second row to the MLP
-4 Ceiling speakers. 30-50 degrees to the MLP. Angled if necessary. 
-2 Subs

I have my soffits open, as well as parts of my ceiling. I previously wired for heights I will never need, I don't think. I need to finalize these runs and button it up, once and for all FOR THE SECOND TIME.

If I have missed something, anyone, please let me know.

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jim S. said:


> Thanks Dan.
> 
> So, if I were to anticipate a 2nd generation AV pre-amp at 9.2.4, am I correct in that I should have:
> 
> -3 main LCR's
> -2 Front Side Surrounds at 50-70 degrees. The speakers would be surrounds and not mains (as in Audyssey 11.2). I assume these would be at ear level+
> -2 Side Surrounds at 90 - 110 degrees at ear level+ somewhere in the middle of 2 row seating.
> -2 Rear Surrounds at ear level +, high enough to clear the second row to the MLP
> -4 Ceiling speakers. 30-50 degrees to the MLP. Angled if necessary.
> -2 Subs
> 
> I have my soffits open, as well as parts of my ceiling. I previously wired for heights I will never need, I don't think. I need to finalize these runs and button it up, once and for all FOR THE SECOND TIME.
> 
> If I have missed something, anyone, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks.


Unless FilmMixer or someone far more knowledgeable about Atmos thinks this is wrong, I would make sure all the side and rear surrounds are placed at a minimum height where they can at least clear the listners' heads in a multi-row layout. That should put them all at about the same height unless your row separations are severely steep for some reason.


----------



## sdurani

Jim S. said:


> If I have missed something, anyone, please let me know.


The "Front Surround" speakers are also labeled "Wide" speakers in the Atmos installation white paper (page 26). 

Aside from Wides, which are in a range centered at 60°, there are three other pairs of speakers along the side walls: Surround 1 (75°), Surround (90°), and Surround 2 (105°). Surround 1/2 angles are the middle of their overlapping ranges. 

There are likewise three pairs of "Rear Surround" speakers, with ranges that overlap, as well as three "Centre Surround" speakers at the very back of the circle. 

If next-gen products do offer 13.2 outputs, I hope there is flexibility to use the additional pair as either Wides or additional Surrounds or additional Height/Top speakers.


----------



## markus767

smurraybhm said:


> Markus - enjoy your posts and knowledge, but why you continue to pick at Marc - it is really getting old. Haven't we been down this road before which ended with a ban? Let's not drive away someone who has a lot to offer this thread and others in regards to Atmos and other sound tech. It hurts the community when we stop hearing from members like him. In the words of forum member from Canada, "Thank you for your cooperation."


I only said that in jest because if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it. I don't think he's that thin-skinned.

I appreciate his contributions and would love to get answers to the questions he left open. It would benefit the community a lot.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> According to the newest white paper they are supposed to be ideally located in a range from 50 degrees to 70 degrees to the MLP.


Dolby's recommendation is quite ambiguous. They define ranges but no preferred locations. This is what their 9.1 graph looks like when you draw in the recommended angles:


----------



## jacovn

I cannot meet the rear top speakers angle of 125-150 degrees.
Its only 115 degrees. The front is ok though.

Lets hope it is good enough. I did order the speakers, but the preamp will come in November so i have to wait a bit to test it out.


----------



## Skylinestar

For the top/ceiling speakers, is it a must for the drivers to aim/fireat the MLP? Is it ok for them to fire forward and aft of the MLP?


----------



## pletwals

brwsaw said:


> He's right though (g_bartman), its too bad there isn't a HT calculator that takes each of the variables (ideal speaker location, ideal seating locations, room acoustics, actual room size, etc) and say HERE... DO THIS...PUT THAT THERE!!!..SIT HERE>>>
> Not sure we'd all do it but it would remove so many variables, just let the calculator work out the trade offs and let the HT owner decide what to do, in the order of their priority.
> That would make it too easy though.


Actually, that's just it: too many variables. How are you going to put all those data in a calculator? It's not as simple as entering W/H/L of the room... What are doing with non rectangular rooms or sloped ceilings? What about furniture, windows, doors, passages?


----------



## Wookii

pletwals said:


> Actually, that's just it: too many variables. How are you going to put all those data in a calculator? It's not as simple as entering W/H/L of the room... What are doing with non rectangular rooms or sloped ceilings? What about furniture, windows, doors, passages?


You use something like this:










I'd be highly surprised if the AVR manufacturers aren't currently working on a much cheaper version of this as we speak!


----------



## pletwals

Wookii said:


> You use something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be highly surprised if the AVR manufacturers aren't currently working on a much cheaper version of this as we speak!


This 3D microphone measures where you already have speakers. OP suggested a calculator where you would enter room data and the result would be the suggested speaker positions.

I agree the 3D microphone would make things easier to optimise the end result though.


----------



## pletwals

markus767 said:


> Dolby's recommendation is quite ambiguous. They define ranges but no preferred locations. This is what their 9.1 graph looks like when you draw in the recommended angles:


Seems obvious to me since the speakers are in the preferred positions: Wides @55°, Side Surround @90°, Rear Surround @ 135°?


----------



## kbarnes701

DS-21 said:


> A bunch of vacuous assertions cut and paste from some marketing brochure that don't actually mean anything. Complete with spurious analogy to music production!
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, there may be one: looks. In fact, "timbre matched" is really just a dumb marketing buzzword for "similar-looking."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That helps the eyes think the speakers are more similar, perhaps, but doesn't say much about the sound. Besides, the exact same driver complement all the way down to the upper bass can sound wildly different. See if you can find the KEF R300 and R200c as an example. The R300 has a clearly audible upper midrange dip and flatter highs. The R200c has what I consider nearly ideal performance: smoothly declining FR with frequency. (Both, due to the concentric driver, have smooth polars.)
> 
> Furthermore, let's expand your logic a step. Look at the Triad Atmos speakers. They use wildly different driver arrays for upfiring and main channels. Different axial response, different interference pattern, different polars, different phase tracking.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, at least for one listening position and up to the dynamic limits of the less capable speaker, one can get really, really close. So close that one almost has to have prior knowledge to reliably distinguish.
> 
> Point of fact, I've _done_ it, with an older Klipsch tower and a KEF standmount. The details veer a bit off-topic, but if you're interested start a thread in the speakers or theory setup and point me to it.
> 
> As for why have speaker brands, the existence of multiple brands doesn't really have anything to do with sound any more than the number of toothpaste brands on the store shelf has anything to do with oral health.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> The listener's eyes seeing the drivers, for the most part.
> 
> It's a neat trick. Often companies with "exotic" tweeters will hype up the FR there to remind listeners of their exotic part, too.


+1. Much better explained than I could.


----------



## pasender91

^^^^^^
You read in my mind Wooki, this is what i wait for to take the plunge, now we need that in an AVR below 2K € or $, in an earlier post someone mentions Yamaha as a possible "first to release" ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Let me just understand the issue here. Are you concerned that you will purchase Transformers 4 on Blu-ray and possibly get a copy that does not have Atmos on it?
> 
> It will be Dolby TrueHD 7.1 sound. That is what ALL of the packaging and any feature list will ever say.
> 
> They may not explicitly mention Atmos at all. It will be in the TrueHD encode. You must have an Atmos capable AVR/SSP to decode that Atmos-enabled TrueHD track.
> 
> 
> This is pretty simple.


While I agree with you, I'd expect, just from a marketing POV, that they'd have an Atmos sticker somewhere on the packaging.


----------



## markus767

pletwals said:


> Seems obvious to me since the speakers are in the preferred positions: Wides @55°, Side Surround @90°, Rear Surround @ 135°?


Don't know, Dolby didn't give any explanation (yet) how they arrived at those locations. Does the renderer in AVRs assume 26°, 55°, 90° and 136°?
Does the renderer even operate on angles or just X, Y, Z coordiates that would make it virtually impossible to get a spatially undistorted representation of a mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> In my mind, what is implied when the terms "similar voicing" or "timbre matching" are thrown out there is that the speakers all sound the same. FR is a part of that (possibly the largest part of that), but I think there's more to it, that there are qualities of speaker reproduction that are not measureable by conventional methodology but are perceptible to the human auditory system.


There is nothing that we can hear that doesn't show up in measurements. Measuring gear long ago surpassed the ability of human hearing.



bkeeler10 said:


> Take the example I gave above of two very different tweeter technologies. A ribbon tweeter, for example, often is described as light and airy, whereas most horn loaded compression tweeters I've heard are "in-your-face." What causes those characteristics, and can the two tweeter types be made to sound the same by EQ or any other electronic manipulation? I don't know the answer to that question.


DS-21 has answered this whole question better than I could, and I agree with him, so there's no point rehashinhg it again.



bkeeler10 said:


> Or, let's take the example of a stereo pair of speakers. One would not even consider using an electrostat speaker for the left channel and a conventional monopole for the right channel.


Now you are erecting a straw man so that you can knock it down. Nobody said this was a good idea. In fact I explicitly said it was not a good idea.



bkeeler10 said:


> To add to this, the room can change the FR of a speaker significantly, and so a good EQ system can bring them back in line with each other. What the room may not change, however, are the intangible, difficult-to-measure-but-audible characteristics of different driver technologies.


So long as you keep believing that acoustics and sound reproduction is some sort of 'magic' with mysterious 'intangible' properties, you will play right into the hands of the marketers, the shysters, the 'audiophile' brigade and numerous other people keen to see you and your money go different ways.



bkeeler10 said:


> In my opinion, using speakers from the same line when possible will help mitigate these sorts of issues, while EQ will counteract the room's effect on FR.
> 
> Sorry for going so far OT.


Read the post from DS-21. He even gives examples of speakers from the same manufacturer that don't fit in with your theory.

Yes, we are OT now and should stop or take it elsewhere. It's worthwhile to comment because the issue of 'timbre matching' keeps coming up and it is worthwhile to point out that it is largely illusory and perpetuated for commercial gain by those making and selling speakers. The bottom line for Atmos is: get good speakers that meet the Atmos specs for FR and polar distribution, mount them according to spec and then EQ them. You will be good to go.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> That's what I was confused about on Amazon it says and has no mention of 7.1
> 
> Product Details
> Actors: Mark Wahlberg, Nicola Peltz
> Directors: Michael Bay
> Format: Multiple Formats, Blu-ray, AC-3, Dolby, Dubbed, Subtitled
> Language: English
> Subtitles: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish
> Dubbed: French, Portuguese, Spanish
> Region: Region A/1 (Read more about DVD/Blu-ray formats.)
> *Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1*
> Number of discs: 2
> Rated: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
> Studio: Paramount
> DVD Release Date: September 30, 2014


Is it really shot 'flat'? I don't think Michael bay has ever shot a movie flat in his life, so that alone calls all those specs into question for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

W3Rman said:


> :wink:


How about "color/timbre" AND precise location? He says this as though they are mutually exclusive. The more I read stuff by Van Baelen, the slipperier he seems to become.


----------



## pletwals

kbarnes701 said:


> The more I read stuff by Van Baelen, the slipperier he seems to become.


I have to agree. Have you read the interview/monologue over at Audioholics? He talks about Auro-3D 26.1 for commercial cinema, which he developed out of Auro-3D 11.1. For the Top layer (VOG) he proposes a "stereo array in front and a stereo array in the rear". Isn't that the same as Atmos' Top Front (L/R) and Top Rear (L/R)? Only difference is he talks about "arrays" and not about speakers...


----------



## laugsbach

kbarnes701 said:


> Is it really shot 'flat'?


Nope...2.40:1 AR


----------



## action_jackson

Wookii said:


> You use something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be highly surprised if the AVR manufacturers aren't currently working on a much cheaper version of this as we speak!


They could also include a small drone that flys through the house creating a 3D laser scan of the rooms and wirelessly transmits the data back the the AVR in real time. Once the scan is complete the AVR is able to calculate and direct you where to properly place the speakers using a three dimensional version of your theater that is displayed on screen. Once the speakers have been placed, the included QRC coded cards are then placed on the designated speakers and the microphone is placed in the MLP using a mic boom. The drone is set off again to scan the room and transmits the speakers actual locations and the location of the mic to the AVR. Finally after the scan is complete, the speakers start their sequence of pulses for room eq and the computations for Atmos are complete.


----------



## nagendrachalla

bargervais said:


> On the onkyo web site they say the firmware for 636, 737, 838 will be available September 29th and the 1030, 3030 will start shipping mid October. If you go to their site it's towards the bottom left. Hope this information helps.


Thank you bargervais, will check it out. I wanted to setup my media room and was waiting for these receivers to be available in the market.


----------



## sdurani

Skylinestar said:


> For the top/ceiling speakers, is it a must for the drivers to aim/fireat the MLP? Is it ok for them to fire forward and aft of the MLP?


How are your current speakers aimed? At the MLP or firing forward & aft of the MLP?


----------



## Skylinestar

sdurani said:


> How are your current speakers aimed? At the MLP or firing forward & aft of the MLP?


I haven't bought any ceiling speakers yet. I'm just worried about the extreme accuracy which might be needed. This also requires ceiling speaker will a lot of "steering". I guess something like JBL SCS8 will be nice because of the bracket. Or probably just the cheaper JBL 8281 being placed much closer to the seat as it has built in 20° tilt.


----------



## jrogers

batpig said:


> The Dolby guys have repeatedly said that precise placement isn't really THAT important. Even the white papers specify a range of angles that will work for each speaker position. I think as long as you are pretty close, and can position your speakers near the "ideal" positions, it will still sound great.


While I'm one of those who would like to have everything configured to "perfectly" reproduce the intent of the film maker, keep in mind that (for humans at least) sound localization in the median plane is not nearly as accurate as in the lateral plane, and varies significantly from person to person - so this is really not generally possible, and is probably the reason for ranges rather than exact positions from Dolby.

Not sure of original source, but this is an interesting quick read on the topic: http://digitalroomcorrection.hk/http___www.digitalroomcorrection.hk_/Reference_2.html

Also, of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization.


----------



## jrogers

Skylinestar said:


> I haven't bought any ceiling speakers yet. I'm just worried about the extreme accuracy which might be needed. This also requires ceiling speaker will a lot of "steering". I guess something like JBL SCS8 will be nice because of the bracket. Or probably just the cheaper JBL 8281 being placed much closer to the seat as it has built in 20° tilt.


See earlier post from batpig, and my post just after yours - but although often sought-after (including by myself), "extreme accuracy" is certainly not required for Atmos - and likely not achievable given the variability and subjectivity of human hearing. I have coaxial ceiling speakers "aimed" more-or-less straight down and am very much enjoying the sound (albeit without true Atmos material as yet)


----------



## smurraybhm

So from what I am reading if you are starting out with a 7.2.2 - the 2 "Atmos" speakers should be placed right in front of the MLP aiming down or towards vs. the traditional front height location. More of a middle location vs. front?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Jim S. said:


> Thanks Dan.
> 
> So, if I were to anticipate a 2nd generation AV pre-amp at 9.2.4, am I correct in that I should have:
> 
> -3 main LCR's
> -2 Front Side Surrounds at 50-70 degrees. The speakers would be surrounds and not mains (as in Audyssey 11.2). I assume these would be at ear level+
> -2 Side Surrounds at 90 - 110 degrees at ear level+ somewhere in the middle of 2 row seating.
> -2 Rear Surrounds at ear level +, high enough to clear the second row to the MLP
> -4 Ceiling speakers. 30-50 degrees to the MLP. Angled if necessary.
> -2 Subs
> 
> I have my soffits open, as well as parts of my ceiling. I previously wired for heights I will never need, I don't think. I need to finalize these runs and button it up, once and for all FOR THE SECOND TIME.
> 
> If I have missed something, anyone, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks.



Thanks to Jim and Dan, now I am thinking of a 9.2.4 configurations for my HT... You guys got to stop this as I am running out of speakers! 


Using the Synergy B-2's for the Front Side Surrounds only leaves a set of 'spare' towers.... hmmmm


----------



## krozman

smurraybhm said:


> So from what I am reading if you are starting out with a 7.2.2 - the 2 "Atmos" speakers should be placed right in front of the MLP aiming down or towards vs. the traditional front height location. More of a middle location vs. front?


Ya they are positioned more above the MLP for two atmos speakers, and for 4 speakers you create a box around the MLP pointing straight down, at least ideally. There are going to be a ton of alternatives and angles you can play with because not everyone can go perfect on dolby specs for all speakers. The "it depends" speech will get old as people experiment with fun new ways to make it sound better.


----------



## mlah384

I just saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR0V8NbmAiw&feature=youtu.be

Sitting under one of the ceiling speakers concerns me...


----------



## batpig

I don't think you would want to sit directly under a ceiling speaker. If you can only do two overhead they should be "Top Middle" and slightly in front of the listening position.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> While I agree with you, I'd expect, just from a marketing POV, that they'd have an Atmos sticker somewhere on the packaging.


Trust me. I'd like to see a listing of Atmos as a feature too. Doesn't mean every studio will advertise it.

They might think it is confusing to the average consumer. Even though it is fully backwards compatible and we know this... the average consumer will not.



kbarnes701 said:


> Is it really shot 'flat'? I don't think Michael bay has ever shot a movie flat in his life, so that alone calls all those specs into question for me.


Again. Do not read into ANY Amazon specs list (for movies), ever. They are highly inaccurate and this is general knowledge for the HT enthusiast.


----------



## sdurani

Skylinestar said:


> I haven't bought any ceiling speakers yet.


How about the non-height speakers in your current system, are they aimed at the MLP or firing forward & aft of the MLP?


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> While I agree with you, I'd expect, just from a marketing POV, that they'd have an Atmos sticker somewhere on the packaging.


Let's just hope there's an end-cap in BB Magnolia Rooms that offer at least a smattering of new ATMOS encoded Blu-rays, next to the stack of new ATMOS-ready AVRs come release day.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Trust me. I'd like to see a listing of Atmos as a feature too. Doesn't mean every studio will advertise it.
> 
> They might think it is confusing to the average consumer. Even though it is fully backwards compatible and we know this... the average consumer will not.
> 
> 
> 
> Again. Do not read into ANY Amazon specs list (for movies), ever. They are highly inaccurate and this is general knowledge for the HT enthusiast.


Personally, I think it would be extremely dumb for the studios not to label their Atmos encoded discs as having Atmos in something larger than an 8 point font. This is the next BIG thing and should be marketed as such.


----------



## audioguy

Someone above posted that they did not think that Auro would succeed. They may not succeed but the same thing was said quite some time ago about DTS!

My only concern about Auro is that it requires three layers instead of the two required for Atmos!!

My personal concern about Atmos is that the surround speakers are to be at ear level. When I built my room, the recommendation was to put them at about 2.5 feet above ear level (or at about 6 feet) and they are built into columns. While they can be moved, it would be ugly (and expensive) since I have 2 sides and 2 rears.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Personally, I think it would be extremely dumb for the studios not to label their Atmos encoded discs as having Atmos in something larger than an 8 point font. This is the next BIG thing and should be marketed as such.


_Yeah!_



I'm all for that.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Does the renderer even operate on angles or just X, Y, Z coordiates that would make it virtually impossible to get a spatially undistorted representation of a mix.


You can achieve the exact same spatial presentation whether the renderer uses x,y,z or angles. It all depends on how the speaker configuration file is defined in the playback system relative to the content creation definition. That flexibility, however, does not appear to be supported in the 1st gen AVRs. Perhaps the Altitude will be the first to support such flexibility.


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> My only concern about Auro is that it requires three layers instead of the two required for Atmos!!


Home Auro's minimum 9.1 is essentially the same as Atmos 5.1.4.



> My personal concern about Atmos is that the surround speakers are to be at ear level. When I built my room, the recommendation was to put them at about 2.5 feet above ear level (or at about 6 feet) and they are built into columns. While they can be moved, it would be ugly (and expensive) since I have 2 sides and 2 rears.


I don't want my Atmos system to be too much better than a real Atmos cinema , so I will be conforming to the cinema standards where the surrounds are elevated.


----------



## mtbdudex

Issue;


Confusion on various layouts Dolby Atmos can accommodate in home setting
Lot's of same questions get asked again-again, text based, answers given, rinse-and-repeat for very similar situation

Proposal:


The Dolby Atmos full 24.x.10 layout guide be put into 3D space so all can more easily grasp the maximum benefits to their either dedicated HT layout or multi-purpose room layout.
Use free Google SketchUp. Yes I did a search and to what I found there is no Dolby Atmos generic model in 3D cad, http://www.sketchup.com/ 

The full 24.x.10 be put onto SketchUp for 3 row "large" home theater space, with corresponding angles/et all clearly marked (Large space being say 18 ft wide x 28 ft long x 12 ft high, just over 6,000 ft^3)
Cross correlate that to Auro-3D (and DTS-UHD later) by some color scheme to show compatibility between systems visually
Inside that "large" home theater space, add 2 row home theater walls to show how the 24.x.10 would be mapped onto room of less size/volume; baseline 2 row would be 15 ft wide x 20 ft long x 9 ft high 2,700 ft^3. Having speaker to MLP vectors should show the intersection positions onto 2 row.
Save these files as templates on the sketch up server, for all community can easily access them, https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/search.html?q=home+theater&backendClass=entity
It's much easier to modify a 3D drwg than create one, so this will open up for many members to do their own Atmos study, post that here for more effective peer reviews.
Background:
After reading this thread on/off I had considered doing this 3-4 days ago, and actually started doing it myself and quickly realized I'm too busy with life/scouts/soccer dad/RH hip surgery upcoming. I'm an old tool designer draftsman from 1978-1983, and upon moving thru Engineering school and management my CAD creation days are beyond me, but to modify/tweak existing template is easy.

Therefore......Which AVS person can step up?

Markus post below triggered me to write this post, after all this is the "all things Atmos, both now and future", so why not have a generic 3D CAD model for all to use/grasp?



markus767 said:


> Dolby's recommendation is quite ambiguous. They define ranges but no preferred locations. This is what their 9.1 graph looks like when you draw in the recommended angles:


My earlier post on attempting to get a visual added to first post....it would be really nice also to have a FAQ .......



mtbdudex said:


> Wow - this thread sure has exploded and what not.
> Marcus, can you add graphic visuals that explain Atmos to your 1st post?
> Makes things easier to grasp.
> I've added these to my "moving-past-7-1-into-9-1-11-x-3d-objectaudio" thread, not sure if there are other "better" ones, which are "official" Dolby issued vs AVR Manuals, etc.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...udysseydsx-dolbypliiz-dts-neo-xa-auro-3d.html
> 
> via jdsmoothie post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> via Denon eu pdf file


----------



## kokishin

smurraybhm said:


> Correct on the speakers and 2 SVS subs, including a PC12+ cylinder. HTM's are great little speakers but my plans to cheat and use them for bouncing purposes went out the window with Batpig's less than official test over the weekend. I can't see using them as Heights (based on comments I don't think they would be worth it and room doesn't really need wides either) since someday I may want to go 7.2.4 instead of the 7.2.2 I am planning - my room is only about 12x12 with 8 foot ceiling (flat). Based on the upfiring comments I think the modules are the way to go and overheads are not an option given the downstairs location and floor joists. Just trying to figure out a way to justify keeping the HTM's, but most likely back to Ascend and towards my two modules. I here you on Dave making some modules, but my guess is Dolby's fee will keep a small company like Ascend out-of-the-game.
> 
> P.S. It doesn't help that everytime I check this forum I have to look at the Denon AVRX5200 as an add placement for Amazon - damn cookies.


Now that you are up and running with your X5200, what are using for your Atmos speakers?


----------



## zeus33

batpig said:


> I don't think you would want to sit directly under a ceiling speaker. If you can only do two overhead they should be "Top Middle" and slightly in front of the listening position.



The specified range for the top middle speakers is 65 degrees to 100 degrees. I agree it would probably sound better to be slightly forward of the MLP (still within spec) though. Even still, it will probably give the impression of "sitting under the speaker".


----------



## Irwinroad

zeus33 said:


> Sorry if it has been posted, but I haven't read through the thread. What is the recommendation for those that have their couch against the back wall? Obviously, it's not optimal but it is a very common setup for most homes. I'm assuming the "middle speakers" are for if you only use two height speakers instead of four?


Now that Dolby has released their guide and a lot of people have
heard the demos.

Is there anymore insight into the above?


----------



## krozman

If your couch is against the wall already I'm guessing you're doing a 5.1 system currently. Ceiling information might help determine what to do next. You can't really mount 5.1.4 ceiling speakers because you'd need to mount behind you for the back two speakers. However, you might be successful with the upfiring speakers to simulate a 5.1.4. Or if you prefer to directly mount speakers, 5.1.2 is possible. Beyond that you can start playing with surrounds above your head and how to classify them, etc. It's such a wild west when it comes to possibilities you'd almost need to scan your room and provide all the variables to get ideas.


----------



## kbarnes701

laugsbach said:


> Nope...2.40:1 AR


Thought so. So much for Amazon stats then


----------



## kbarnes701

krozman said:


> If your couch is against the wall already I'm guessing you're doing a 5.1 system currently. Ceiling information might help determine what to do next. You can't really mount 5.1.4 ceiling speakers because you'd need to mount behind you for the back two speakers. However, you might be successful with the upfiring speakers to simulate a 5.1.4. Or if you prefer to directly mount speakers, 5.1.2 is possible. Beyond that you can start playing with surrounds above your head and how to classify them, etc. It's such a wild west when it comes to possibilities you'd almost need to scan your room and provide all the variables to get ideas.


Or he could designate the front pair as Heights and the rear pair as Top Middle, which is a permitted combination.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> You can achieve the exact same spatial presentation whether the renderer uses x,y,z or angles. It all depends on how the speaker configuration file is defined in the playback system relative to the content creation definition. That flexibility, however, does not appear to be supported in the 1st gen AVRs. Perhaps the Altitude will be the first to support such flexibility.


Sure it can be achieved but is it achieveable with the information we have? Guess we first would need to know how the RMU is informed about speaker locations and second, we would need to know what speaker locations the renderer in AVRs assumes.


----------



## Frohlich

Roger Dressler said:


> Home Auro's minimum 9.1 is essentially the same as Atmos 5.1.4.
> 
> I don't want my Atmos system to be too much better than a real Atmos cinema , so I will be conforming to the cinema standards where the surrounds are elevated.


I am under the firm belief that the "new" layout guide for Atmos at home with surrounds are ear level is all Marketing and not because it is better/worse. As others having pointed, including Kris Deering, we are to believe that for the last ten + years surrounds were suppose to be above ear level and now somehow everyone had it wrong, including Dolby, now that Atmos is out.....I don't buy that for a second.


----------



## markus767

mtbdudex said:


> Which AVS person can step up?


In my opinion Dolby should provide a lot more information. After all they are the ones making money with Atmos, we're the ones paying and we're already providing marketing for free by posting in this very thread


----------



## Al Sherwood

Frohlich said:


> I am under the firm belief that the "new" layout guide for Atmos at home with surrounds are ear level is all Marketing and not because it is better/worse. As others having pointed, including Kris Deering, we are to believe that for the last ten + years surrounds were suppose to be above ear level and now somehow everyone had it wrong, including Dolby, now that Atmos is out.....I don't buy that for a second.




Well I will say this, for the 5.1 system I installed about 8 months ago in the LR, those are in-wall and will not be moving for any reason... The HT is another story, still in a draft phase so lots of time for this to all get sorted out.


----------



## markus767

Frohlich said:


> I am under the firm belief that the "new" layout guide for Atmos at home with surrounds are ear level is all Marketing and not because it is better/worse. As others having pointed, including Kris Deering, we are to believe that for the last ten + years surrounds were suppose to be above ear level and now somehow everyone had it wrong, including Dolby, now that Atmos is out.....I don't buy that for a second.


Well, if a sound should be perceived at ear level then there have to be speakers. Mounting speakers above ear level doesn't exactly help.


----------



## Frohlich

markus767 said:


> Well, if a sound should be perceived at ear level then there have to be speakers. Mounting speakers above ear level doesn't exactly help.


Not every sound to our left or right is exactly at ear level in the real world (some below...some above...some at ear level). So just because the person doing the mix for a specific sound puts into a side surround channel doesn't mean that sound is suppose to be exactly at ear level to the left/right..that is not how sounds are emitted in real life.

If your point is right then why haven't Dolby, DTS, etc... always supported surround channels at exactly ear height...why change your tune now that Atmos is out? Why do movie theaters have elevated surrounds for the Atmos mix...are they doing it wrong too?????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> You can achieve the exact same spatial presentation whether the renderer uses x,y,z or angles. It all depends on how the speaker configuration file is defined in the playback system relative to the content creation definition. That flexibility, however, does not appear to be supported in the 1st gen AVRs. Perhaps the Altitude will be the first to support such flexibility.


Roger, 

It will have to be the Trinnov or Datasat because at the Steinway presentation they stated their special "perfect" EQ and calibration occurs after the Atmos renderer and after the data has been converted back to PCM. So, their product does not seem to communicate with the renderer except in the most basic fashion of how many speakers are attached and where (probably manual user settings). And this is not a cheap piece of equipment!


----------



## markus767

Frohlich said:


> Not every sound to our left or right is exactly at ear level in the real world (some below...some above...some at ear level). So just because the person doing the mix for a specific sound puts into a side surround channel doesn't mean that sound is suppose to be exactly at ear level to the left/right..that is not how sounds are emitted in real life.
> 
> If your point is right then why haven't Dolby, DTS, etc... always supported surround channels at exactly ear height...why change your tune now that Atmos is out? Why do movie theaters have elevated surrounds for the Atmos mix...are they doing it wrong too?????


The simple reason is that there were no height channels in the past. So putting the surrounds slightly above ear level was the best (?) compromise. Now with top surrounds mixes can have sounds placed at ear level, at the ceiling or anywhere in between (more or less).
This creates a dilemma for mixers as virtually all cinemas are equipped with side and back surrounds mounted very high. In those movie theaters sounds can never be placed at ear level. I've heard the result when watching Apes in Atmos. In my opinion the whole surround sound stage was placed way too high.


----------



## bargervais

Frohlich said:


> I am under the firm belief that the "new" layout guide for Atmos at home with surrounds are ear level is all Marketing and not because it is better/worse. As others having pointed, including Kris Deering, we are to believe that for the last ten + years surrounds were suppose to be above ear level and now somehow everyone had it wrong, including Dolby, now that Atmos is out.....I don't buy that for a second.


i think that we need them a little lower to create separation from the ceiling speakers i thinks it's a recomendation it's not the law. try it see how it works for you either way.


----------



## Al Sherwood

markus767 said:


> The simple reason is that there were no height channels in the past. So putting the surrounds slightly above ear level was the best (?) compromise. Now with top surrounds mixes can have sounds placed at ear level, at the ceiling or anywhere in between (more or less).
> This creates a dilemma for mixers as virtually all cinemas are equipped with side and back surrounds mounted very high. In those movie theaters sounds can never be placed at ear level. I've heard the result when watching Apes in Atmos. In my opinion the whole surround sound stage was placed way too high.



Makes sense if you have heights to work with (although a little off the Atmos Topic), for a traditional 5.1 system the surrounds slightly above ear level is still valid, right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frohlich said:


> I am under the firm belief that the "new" layout guide for Atmos at home with surrounds are ear level is all Marketing and not because it is better/worse. As others having pointed, including Kris Deering, we are to believe that for the last ten + years surrounds were suppose to be above ear level and now somehow everyone had it wrong, including Dolby, now that Atmos is out.....I don't buy that for a second.


Dolby's new recommendation of ear level surrounds (or just above ear level so the sound waves can pass over the listeners' heads in a multi-seat theater and not be blocked) has more to do with the fact there isn't much distance between the mains and the overheads.

Think about it a minute. The surrounds are placed high up on the wall in a commercial cinema for security reasons as well as to broadcast a wide swath of sound in a large space. That's fine in this situation because the ceilings are TALL and even with the sides and rears mounted high on the wall, there is still plenty of distance between them and the ceiling speakers. 

99.9% of consumers don't have the luxury of theater auditoriums in their homes, so we have to compromise.


----------



## markus767

Al Sherwood said:


> Makes sense if you have heights to work with (although a little off the Atmos Topic), for a traditional 5.1 system the surrounds slightly above ear level is still valid, right?


I'd say yes.


----------



## Frohlich

markus767 said:


> The simple reason is that there were no height channels in the past. So putting the surrounds slightly above ear level was the best (?) compromise. Now with top surrounds mixes can have sounds placed at ear level, at the ceiling or anywhere in between (more or less).
> This creates a dilemma for mixers as virtually all cinemas are equipped with side and back surrounds mounted very high. In those movie theaters sounds can never be placed at ear level. I've heard the result when watching Apes in Atmos. In my opinion the whole surround sound stage was placed way too high.


I know you are very knowledgeable about HT from all your posts and certainly wasn't trying to sound argumentative. I think there are so many configuration options and different room layouts that there is no universal right answer. What if the room is very wide and suddenly having only two ceiling speakers could leave a huge gap between your right and left ceiling speakers. So I do think the concept of physical seperation between any and all of your speakers so they are evenly spread out around the room within reason ( on the X,Y and Z plane) does make sense with Atmos.


----------



## markus767

^
Mount more speakers. I mean that's the whole idea behind object-based audio. We're not really there yet as AVRs don't allow flexible speaker layouts but we will eventually get there.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Here's my latest version of our Atmos 7.4.4 set-up.










The 4 ceiling mounts are of the coaxial Volt V-10 sealed bread. They are pointed 45° downwards and 45° horizontal. They are positioned in such a way that they span the whole seating area. Since they have a 90° conical dispersion, this position and aiming puts all the listeners inside all 4 beams. Nobody sits in a hole. MLP is the best seat ofcourse.


----------



## bargervais

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Here's my latest version of our Atmos 7.4.4 set-up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 ceiling mounts are of the coaxial Volt V-10 sealed bread. They are pointed 45° downwards and 45° horizontal. They are positioned in such a way that they span the whole seating area. Since they have a 90° conical dispersion, this position and aiming puts all the listeners inside all 4 beams. Nobody sits in a hole. MLP is the best seat ofcourse.


Very nice I love visuals


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Sure it can be achieved but is it achieveable with the information we have? Guess we first would need to know how the RMU is informed about speaker locations and second, we would need to know what speaker locations the renderer in AVRs assumes.


The RMU knows where the speaker are, but as to what is relayed to the consumer playback system, that has not been explained publicly AFAIK.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> The RMU knows where the speaker are


It knows the exact angular position?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> It knows the exact angular position?


Not even the Steinway pre-amp is that sophisticated when it comes to the Atmos renderer. Many of the manufacturers are still in the learning stage. The guys from the Acurus booth said that trying to get info from Dolby on proper Atmos implementation and what software coding might be forthcoming in the near future was not an easy task.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> It will have to be the Trinnov or Datasat because at the Steinway presentation they stated their special "perfect" EQ and calibration occurs after the Atmos renderer and after the data has been converted back to PCM. So, their product does not seem to communicate with the renderer except in the most basic fashion of how many speakers are attached and where (probably manual user settings). And this is not a cheap piece of equipment!


The EQ system is not the limiting factor. But yes, the U/I is apparently similarly basic as other first-gen products. This issue is a bit academic at this point, as thus far there is no evidence that greater precision will result in a better presentation. Just too early to know.



markus767 said:


> It knows the exact angular position?


I don't know. There's what you tell the RMU, and then there's how that information is interpreted. That can be rather different. Here's an example from MDA (that may have no parallel in Atmos). The actual positions of the surround speakers has azimuth and elevation. The elevations are all mapped to 0 deg as far as the rendering engine is concerned. If the same process is used in the playback system, the sounds map correctly to the surround speakers. BTW, this is not a requirement of MDA, just an example of how it can be used when "cinema to cinema" consistency is preferred.


----------



## sdurani

Frohlich said:


> If your point is right then why haven't Dolby, DTS, etc... always supported surround channels at exactly ear height...why change your tune now that Atmos is out?


For the same reason that the location of the surrounds change when surround-backs are added.


Frohlich said:


> Why do movie theaters have elevated surrounds for the Atmos mix...are they doing it wrong too?????


Not a question of right or wrong, more a question of whether a home theatre can do better than a commercial theatre when it comes to separating sounds around you vs sounds above you. 

BTW, you don't have to follow Dolby's recommendation. If you're determined to have your surround speakers above ear height, then mount them as high up as you want. Just understand what that does to around vs above separation.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks to Jim and Dan, now I am thinking of a 9.2.4 configurations for my HT... You guys got to stop this as I am running out of speakers!
> 
> Using the Synergy B-2's for the Front Side Surrounds only leaves a set of 'spare' towers.... hmmmm


So Al, you are going to wait for the second batch (generation) of Dolby Atmos AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors?


----------



## NorthSky

I just want to mentioned one more thing about Dolby Atmos and Timbre Matched speakers:

Eleven (or more) the same tweeters and midrange drivers all around you is better than different tweeters and midrange drivers.
...All around, not just @ the front soundstage, but also to the sides, to the rears and overhead.

And! No amount of EQ, up and down, from 1kHz to 20kHz is going to help for the different driver's particular tonal voice, and their attached enclosures (cubic space and internal resonance) and electrical crossovers, none. 

Get them all speakers timbre matched, acoustically treat your room, then EQ the bass from 3Hz or so to 200-250Hz with a very good quality EQ system, one that gives you free control over its settings and in a smart way, not in a deleterious one. 
And from 200-250Hz to 1-2kHz or so, use judicious/intelligent/diligent/moderate EQ @ the last resource of acoustical fine tuning some speakers with your ears in your room @ the MLP. 

That's all. 

* I am not an expert, but I do know a thing or two about sounds, and surround envelopment.

P.S. Measurements? Of course; that's the base, the trampoline. ...Not the ultimate; your ears, the sounds are.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby's new recommendation of ear level surrounds (or just above ear level so the sound waves can pass over the listeners' heads in a multi-seat theater and not be blocked) has more to do with the fact there isn't much distance between the mains and the overheads.


Is this really a new recommendation? I couldn't begin to tell you where I got my original advice, but my entire life I've been setting my speaker heights so that the tweeters are at the same level as the listeners' ears while seated. Exceptions made only for practical reasons such as room placement or the problem of the sound being blocked by your seat mates if you have rows of seats. Cinemas obviously have always placed higher for both of those reasons.

I find it interesting that people find this recommendation on Dolby's part to be problematic, when I thought that had always been best practice all along. Did I miss a white paper from Dolby or THX somewhere along the way?


----------



## NorthSky

> There is nothing that we can hear that doesn't show up in measurements. Measuring gear long ago surpassed the ability of human hearing.
> 
> DS-21 has answered this whole question better than I could, and I agree with him, so there's no point rehashinhg it again.
> 
> Now you are erecting a straw man so that you can knock it down. Nobody said this was a good idea. In fact I explicitly said it was not a good idea.
> 
> So long as you keep believing that acoustics and sound reproduction is some sort of 'magic' with mysterious 'intangible' properties, you will play right into the hands of the marketers, the shysters, the 'audiophile' brigade and numerous other people keen to see you and your money go different ways.
> 
> Read the post from DS-21. He even gives examples of speakers from the same manufacturer that don't fit in with your theory.
> 
> Yes, we are OT now and should stop or take it elsewhere. It's worthwhile to comment because the issue of 'timbre matching' keeps coming up and it is worthwhile to point out that it is largely illusory and perpetuated for commercial gain by those making and selling speakers. The bottom line for Atmos is: get good speakers that meet the Atmos specs for FR and polar distribution, mount them according to spec and then EQ them. You will be good to go.


I pretty much disagree with all of the above.

1. Some top measurements (good or bad) simply do not correspond always with the listener's hearing.
2. Different driver's compositions don't have the same 'voicing', like a cat and a dog.
3. In Dolby Atmos parlance Timbre Matched speakers are totally on topic.
4. There is no abso!ute in manipulated equalization.
5. This is an open forum, a place to remain open to all opinions. ...To discuss, openly.


----------



## NorthSky

It looks like it means real/serious 3D business. ...Put Atmos on the label. ...Or Dolby Trinnov 3D.


----------



## RichB

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Here's my latest version of our Atmos 7.4.4 set-up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 ceiling mounts are of the coaxial Volt V-10 sealed bread. They are pointed 45° downwards and 45° horizontal. They are positioned in such a way that they span the whole seating area. Since they have a 90° conical dispersion, this position and aiming puts all the listeners inside all 4 beams. Nobody sits in a hole. MLP is the best seat ofcourse.



Apparently there were only 3 seats, so the children disposed of their parents and buried them in the basement.  


- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

*Screen's Aspect ratio for 'Transformers: Age of Extinction'*



> Is it really shot 'flat'? I don't think Michael bay has ever shot a movie flat in his life, so that alone calls all those specs into question for me.


True, _Michael Bay_ used four different ones (4 screen's aspect ratios) for this flick. 
...As mentioned in another thread from another forum of another site by Robert A. Harris, film historian and preservationist.


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> So Al, you are going to wait for the second batch (generation) of Dolby Atmos AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors?



Hmmm, forgetting for a moment the brand of AVR and not counting in those units that exceed the gross income of some households (only a slight exaggeration)... the current offerings all come up short in one area or another, some have full HDMI bandwidth but no HDCP, others trade bandwidth but make sure copyrighted material can be played back... and all but one don't even have enough amplifiers!


Sorry for getting carried away, since I have so many other things on my plate these days and a HT that resembles a storage room, yes, waiting would appear to be a prudent plan. 


How about you?


----------



## NorthSky

I know about the Onkyo 3030, and I also know about its shortcomings.

* Marantz 7703, next year.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

RichB said:


> Apparently there were only 3 seats, so the children disposed of their parents and buried them in the basement.
> 
> 
> - Rich


You didn't see me taking a nap in the adjacent bedroom? 

There can sit 7 people in the comfy lounge seat/bed plus 6 at the table behind!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I couldn't help myself, had to add two more ceiling mounts and two more side surrounds!


----------



## NorthSky

Very nice drawing Erwin.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> True, _Michael Bay_ used for different ones for this flick.
> ...As mentioned in another thread from another forum of another site by Robert A. Harris, film historian and preservationist.


Confused
Michael Bay used for different ones for this flick.


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> I know about the Onkyo 3030, and I also know about its shortcomings.
> 
> * Marantz 7703, next year.


Yes, full bandwidth HDMI and Audyssey would be nice, interesting they have not announced any 5X5X model, the 3xxx used to be one step down from their flagship... Even the Integra has yet to announce a 80.X unit, only the 70.6


----------



## Frohlich

NorthSky said:


> I know about the Onkyo 3030, and I also know about its shortcomings.
> 
> * Marantz 7703, next year.


Marantz tends to run 2 year cycles on their pre/pros so there will be no 7703 next year...likely two years from now (same with Av8803 and Denon's eventual successor to the yet released X7200...all two year cycles).


----------



## NorthSky

mlah384 said:


> I just saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR0V8NbmAiw&feature=youtu.be
> 
> Sitting under one of the ceiling speakers concerns me...


I keep seeing these two guys now all over, AVSForum. ...Are they from here or from somewhere else?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Personally, I think it would be extremely dumb for the studios not to label their Atmos encoded discs as having Atmos in something larger than an 8 point font. This is the next BIG thing and should be marketed as such.


I agree Dan, and they should even have their own section. ...Like 3D titles.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Someone above posted that they did not think that Auro would succeed. They may not succeed but the same thing was said quite some time ago about DTS!
> 
> My only concern about Auro is that it requires three layers instead of the two required for Atmos!!
> 
> My personal concern about Atmos is that the surround speakers are to be at ear level. When I built my room, the recommendation was to put them at about 2.5 feet above ear level (or at about 6 feet) and they are built into columns. While they can be moved, it would be ugly (and expensive) since I have 2 sides and 2 rears.


And that, is the big dilemma that some people have. ...You do, or you don't; advance towards elevated Dolby Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> You can achieve the exact same spatial presentation whether the renderer uses x,y,z or angles. It all depends on how the speaker configuration file is defined in the playback system relative to the content creation definition. That flexibility, however, does not appear to be supported in the 1st gen AVRs. Perhaps the Altitude will be the first to support such flexibility.


Trinnov Altitude. ... And not 1st gen Dolby Atmos 'attitude' products.


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> Issue;
> 
> 
> Confusion on various layouts Dolby Atmos can accommodate in home setting
> Lot's of same questions get asked again-again, text based, answers given, rinse-and-repeat for very similar situation
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> 
> The Dolby Atmos full 24.x.10 layout guide be put into 3D space so all can more easily grasp the maximum benefits to their either dedicated HT layout or multi-purpose room layout.
> Use free Google SketchUp. Yes I did a search and to what I found there is no Dolby Atmos generic model in 3D cad, http://www.sketchup.com/
> 
> The full 24.x.10 be put onto SketchUp for 3 row "large" home theater space, with corresponding angles/et all clearly marked (Large space being say 18 ft wide x 28 ft long x 12 ft high, just over 6,000 ft^3)
> Cross correlate that to Auro-3D (and DTS-UHD later) by some color scheme to show compatibility between systems visually
> Inside that "large" home theater space, add 2 row home theater walls to show how the 24.x.10 would be mapped onto room of less size/volume; baseline 2 row would be 15 ft wide x 20 ft long x 9 ft high 2,700 ft^3. Having speaker to MLP vectors should show the intersection positions onto 2 row.
> Save these files as templates on the sketch up server, for all community can easily access them, https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/search.html?q=home+theater&backendClass=entity
> It's much easier to modify a 3D drwg than create one, so this will open up for many members to do their own Atmos study, post that here for more effective peer reviews.
> Background:
> After reading this thread on/off I had considered doing this 3-4 days ago, and actually started doing it myself and quickly realized I'm too busy with life/scouts/soccer dad/RH hip surgery upcoming. I'm an old tool designer draftsman from 1978-1983, and upon moving thru Engineering school and management my CAD creation days are beyond me, but to modify/tweak existing template is easy.
> 
> Therefore......Which AVS person can step up?
> 
> Markus post below triggered me to write this post, after all this is the "all things Atmos, both now and future", so why not have a generic 3D CAD model for all to use/grasp?
> 
> 
> 
> My earlier post on attempting to get a visual added to first post....it would be really nice also to have a FAQ .......


It's on a room-to-room basis. ...No general rules apply to all rooms. 
It all depends of the room's size, number of movie watchers, rows of seats, height of the ceiling, etc.


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> I am under the firm belief that the "new" layout guide for Atmos at home with surrounds are ear level is all Marketing and not because it is better/worse. As others having pointed, including Kris Deering, we are to believe that for the last ten + years surrounds were suppose to be above ear level and now somehow everyone had it wrong, including Dolby, now that Atmos is out.....I don't buy that for a second.


Too bad. 

Dolby Atmos people know best, and they certainly wouldn't say that if it was the opposite from their extensive experiments.


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> Not every sound to our left or right is exactly at ear level in the real world (some below...some above...some at ear level). So just because the person doing the mix for a specific sound puts into a side surround channel doesn't mean that sound is suppose to be exactly at ear level to the left/right..that is not how sounds are emitted in real life.
> 
> If your point is right then why haven't Dolby, DTS, etc... always supported surround channels at exactly ear height...why change your tune now that Atmos is out? Why do movie theaters have elevated surrounds for the Atmos mix...are they doing it wrong too?????


*Because Dolby Atmos is the new 3D surround sound game; for better imaging between floor (ear level) sounds and overhead ones, better spatial object rendition, better differentiation between the horizontal and vertical planes, for better 3D elevated effects, for best overall performance.*


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby's new recommendation of ear level surrounds (or just above ear level so the sound waves can pass over the listeners' heads in a multi-seat theater and not be blocked) has more to do with the fact there isn't much distance between the mains and the overheads.
> 
> Think about it a minute. The surrounds are placed high up on the wall in a commercial cinema for security reasons as well as to broadcast a wide swath of sound in a large space. That's fine in this situation because the ceilings are TALL and even with the sides and rears mounted high on the wall, there is still plenty of distance between them and the ceiling speakers.
> 
> 99.9% of consumers don't have the luxury of theater auditoriums in their homes, so we have to compromise.


Or it is the other way around; large venues are compromising, smaller venues are more adequate. 

Markus is right; most large Dolby Atmos theaters should lower their side and rear surround speakers for best performance. And that, would be compromising too much. Because there are simply too many people sitting in that room, and it wouldn't work for all of them.

Welcome to Dolby Atmos @ home.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> Is this really a new recommendation? I couldn't begin to tell you where I got my original advice, but my entire life I've been setting my speaker heights so that the tweeters are at the same level as the listeners' ears while seated. Exceptions made only for practical reasons such as room placement or the problem of the sound being blocked by your seat mates if you have rows of seats. Cinemas obviously have always placed higher for both of those reasons.
> 
> I find it interesting that people find this recommendation on Dolby's part to be problematic, when I thought that had always been best practice all along. Did I miss a white paper from Dolby or THX somewhere along the way?


No you didn't.

Multichannel music listening is no different than movie watching/listening.
It's just that commercial theaters are large public venues, and they tried to replicate that experience in our own smaller rooms of our homes; that is pretty much all...with Dolby, with dts, with THX, with Audyssey DSX, but not with multichannel music DSD from SACDs. 

Yamaha, Denon, THX, ,,,they all tried to put a large cinema theater inside our small room @ home. 

It is only by advancement (Dolby Atmos) that we can discover our past mistakes. 
...Tomorrow's evolution will reveal today's infractions.


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> Apparently there were only 3 seats, so the children disposed of their parents and buried them in the basement.


Lol Rich, I thought the exact same when I first saw it, but didn't want to perturb my good friend Erwin by saying it.


----------



## RichB

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You didn't see me taking a nap in the adjacent bedroom?
> 
> There can sit 7 people in the comfy lounge seat/bed plus 6 at the table behind!


I was just having some fun. 
That is one serious design. Impressive.


- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Confused
> Michael Bay used four different ones for this flick.


Yes, google around.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, full bandwidth HDMI and Audyssey would be nice, interesting they have not announced any 5X5X model, the 3xxx used to be one step down from their flagship...
> *Even the Integra has yet to announce a 80.X unit, only the 70.6*


I've read somewhere sometimes somehow in the past of a 80.6 in the future ... but don't take my word.


----------



## NorthSky

Frohlich said:


> Marantz tends to run 2 year cycles on their pre/pros so there will be no 7703 next year...likely two years from now (same with Av8803 and Denon's eventual successor to the yet released X7200...all two year cycles).


That could well be, and so be it. But that could also well change now, with Dolby Atmos. ...Perhaps. 
It depends.


----------



## stef2

I was wondering...what is the AVS record for the highest number of posts in a row by the same member on a single AVSforum thread? ten?


----------



## batpig

Well that was just thirteen out of the last fourteen, including a mind numbing streak of 10 in a row.


----------



## DS-21

Wookii said:


> You use something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be highly surprised if the AVR manufacturers aren't currently working on a much cheaper version of this as we speak!


They wouldn't need to do much work...










("Trinnov probe" from old Sherwood R-972 AVR.)




NorthSky said:


> I just want to mentioned one more thing about Dolby Atmos and [pointless marketing buzzword deleted] speakers:
> 
> Eleven (or more) the same tweeters and midrange drivers all around you is better than different tweeters and midrange drivers.


You may find a psychic benefit from such an arrangement, to be sure. But generalizing outside of your own psyche is not that smart.



NorthSky said:


> And! No amount of EQ, up and down, from 1kHz to 20kHz is going to help for the different driver's particular tonal voice, and their attached enclosures (cubic space and internal resonance) and electrical crossovers, none.


Funny, I managed to do just that with a Klipsch Forte II (3-way tower with horn loaded mid and tweet, and paper woofer) and KEF RDM Two (2-way constant directivity stand mount with plastic woofer and concentric fabric tweeter). I took measurements (nearfield axial response, listening position sound power), applied EQ with a miniDSP, and made seat-of-the-pants adjustments. True, the illusion of matched speakers fell apart outside the main listening position, and obviously levels were carefully controlled. But as to one spot...it was honestly eerie.

Question: how much actual experience do you have here? Have you ever built speakers? Have you even taken real measurements (axial response and polar map) of a loudspeaker?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Did I miss a white paper from Dolby or THX somewhere along the way?


Must have been the same white paper that has so many folks suddenly concerned with dispersion.


----------



## krozman

sdurani said:


> Must have been the same white paper that has so many folks suddenly concerned with dispersion.


When you're pointing speakers straight down in hopes it will revolutionize your home theatre at the minimum cost of about $3,000, you get concerned about the little things like....you know.... actually hearing the speakers you mount.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Dang. 10 post in a row and I couldn't find Northsky's signature use of the word "THEM". It hits like a speed bump in the middle of "them" sentences in this thread and I can't help but smile when I stumble across its usage. 

Such classics as 


NorthSky said:


> .....
> Get them all speakers timbre matched, acoustically treat your room, then EQ the bass from 3Hz or so to 200-250Hz with a very good quality EQ system....


 and


NorthSky; said:


> Best is to simply disconnect them two back surrounds and connect them as two Dolby Atmos surrounds. ..


Just having fun! I am sure there is the back story of your ability to speak and write in 5 languages etc. All Canadians do it... or something. Thanks for your enthusiastic input.


----------



## sdurani

krozman said:


> When you're pointing speakers straight down in hopes it will revolutionize your home theatre at the minimum cost of about $3,000, you get concerned about the little things like....you know.... actually hearing the speakers you mount.


That's when you start treating them like all your other speakers and aim them towards the listening area. You don't point your other speakers at random spots on the wall, so don't point your height speakers "straight down" at random spots on the carpet.


----------



## NorthSky

stef2 said:


> I was wondering...what is the AVS record for the highest number of posts in a row by the same member on a single AVSforum thread? ten?





batpig said:


> Well that was just thirteen out of the last fourteen, including a mind numbing streak of 10 in a row.


Sorry for the off topic, but if you find only one single post of mine offensive in any which way you might think of, just tell me and I will go play somewhere else.

Thank you both for your understanding and cooperation. ...And now back on topic.


----------



## NorthSky

DS-21 said:


> You may find a psychic benefit from such an arrangement, to be sure. But generalizing outside of your own psyche is not that smart.


Please,
1. Don't edit my quote.
2. Discuss the post content, and not what you think of the poster's mental status.

Thank you for your cooperation.



> Funny, I managed to do just that with a Klipsch Forte II (3-way tower with horn loaded mid and tweet, and paper woofer) and KEF RDM Two (2-way constant directivity stand mount with plastic woofer and concentric fabric tweeter). I took measurements (nearfield axial response, listening position sound power), applied EQ with a miniDSP, and made seat-of-the-pants adjustments. True, the illusion of matched speakers fell apart outside the main listening position, and obviously levels were carefully controlled. But as to one spot...it was honestly eerie.


Congratulations.



> Question: how much actual experience do you have here? Have you ever built speakers? Have you even taken real measurements (axial response and polar map) of a loudspeaker?


I built my first speaker back in 1969-70 ...And it was a single speaker that I used later on as a mono center back surround channel speaker, during a Pink Floyd live music broadcast TV show. /// 'Live @ Pompeii'
Before that, back in 1963 (or 62) I custom made my first AM pseudo stereo r.a.d.i.o. 

* My 1st home-build speaker: It had two drivers, and crossover-free. The woofer was a ten inch one I believe, and the mid/tweet was a two inch one. The enclosure was made of 3/4" compressed plywood, the size was rather fairly large (about 24" high, by 12 by 10 deep), and I painted it white. 

And no, no measurements, by myself. ...Not calibrated enough, and just too young. 

___________

I appreciate your experience and sharing your opinion. And me too I like to share my opinion. ...If you don't mind so and without objection. 

Thanks again for you cooperation.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Sorry for the off topic, but if you find only one single post of mine offensive in any which way you might think of, just tell me and I will go play somewhere else.
> 
> Thank you both for your understanding and cooperation. ...And now back on topic.


No worries be happy


----------



## zeus33

dschulz said:


> Did I miss a white paper from Dolby or THX somewhere along the way?



Apparently, you have missed all of the white papers, because until now, with the new ATMOS spec, everyone has recommended that the surround speakers be approximately 2 ft above ear level when seated in the LP.

Here is the one from THX. It was the first one I found.

_Surround Left & Right Speakers (SL & SR): Place the SL & SR speakers between 90° to 110° to each side *and 2 feet or higher above the listener*. The SL & SR speakers recreate the enveloping sound and intense special effects that you experience in the cinema._

Link: http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/


----------



## NorthSky

No worries; but wanted to make it clear, in case some people seem to be afflicted by other's number of posts.
...In a row (chain). ...And totally unintended; just the normal flow of a normal discussion. 
- What may appear online is not representative necessarily of the real-flow life; but I'm certain everyone here knows that already. 

I'm a happy guy, or I wouldn't be here in the first place. ...And Dolby Atmos is my deep passion right now; finally a dream of mine (since many many years) is coming true. And I know now for sure that it will just keep improving. 

This has resurrected me.

* In reply to *wse* just above the above.


----------



## NorthSky

zeus33 said:


> Apparently, you have missed all of the white papers, because until now, with the new ATMOS spec, everyone has recommended that the surround speakers be approximately 2 ft above ear level when seated in the LP.
> 
> Here is the one from THX. It was the first one I found.
> 
> _Surround Left & Right Speakers (SL & SR): Place the SL & SR speakers between 90° to 110° to each side *and 2 feet or higher above the listener*. The SL & SR speakers recreate the enveloping sound and intense special effects that you experience in the cinema._
> 
> Link: http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/


Touche!  ...All gone now, with D Atmos.


----------



## krozman

NorthSky said:


> I built my first speaker back in 1969-70 ....


Since you built that speaker, has it got a word in edgewise?


----------



## batpig

Word from Vudu in response to my question about Atmos on the DD+ soundtrack for the already available "digital exclusive" Transformers AoE:

thank you for contacting VUDU support,

The press release that is available online at this time states that the soundtracks will soon be available with this option. At this time this option is not available on the content.
We have forwarded your case to our Content Department for further review. We do appreciate your inquiry into this matter, as we desire to provide only the most updated information to our users.

If you have any other questions or issues, please let us know. Thank you and have a wonderful day!

Signed,

Justin H.
VUDU Customer Care


----------



## Schwa

batpig said:


> Well that was just thirteen out of the last fourteen, including a mind numbing streak of 10 in a row.


Sometimes the "Ignore" function is your best friend.


----------



## westmd

CinemaAndy said:


> Actually you are correct and incorrect. Both Atmos and Auro-3D have made what we like to refer to as "channels" as obsolete as rabbit ear antennas. They are both "object" driven. The right, center, left acronyms we know and love, are outdated and have no place in a "object" sound rendering sphere, as the program can make any speaker produce any "object" you only have to tell it where the speaker is in relation to your ear. This is also in the process of being taken a step forward by having it installed into everybody's favorite major theme park, mouse, as it can tell where you are looking and adjust accordingly. That i find very interesting, like a windowless room.


But Auro would work with *phantom channels* if physical speakers would be missing.
Again, I heard Auro once and that was a common 9.1 setup which can easily be harmonzed with Atmos. (Pop over to the Auro forum for more information). That setup blew me away without VOG and without center height!


----------



## jacovn

As you people seem to like images, here is what i intend to do.

I previous had 7.1 at the same position and was happy with it.
G3 and G4 speakers are from Genelec. Sub is HTS4B

The back top of the room is lower due to air refresh system which is insulated to kill noise.


----------



## markus767

^
Now that is a small room. Doesn't it feel like a Apollo capsule with the felt "walls" installed?


----------



## jacovn

markus767 said:


> ^
> Now that is a small room. Doesn't it feel like a Apollo capsule with the felt "walls" installed?


I do not even know if 'Felt' is the right word in English, it is on this forum mostly called GOM (but that is a brand i think)

Small it is, but our houses are not so big over here, so i have to do with it. Sit there most of the time alone, sometimes with daughter. There is room for 3 people. Screen is only 72" But with this viewing distance it is not an issue.


----------



## markus767

^
I'm not saying it wouldn't work. It probably works pretty good. You have tons of space where you could hide ugly looking porous absorption. Most people can't do that.
I'm just curious how the room feels. Do you have pictures you could share?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Please,
> 1. Don't edit my quote.
> 2. Discuss the post content, and not what you think of the poster's mental status.
> 
> Thanks again for you cooperation.


You edited my quote and others


----------



## nagendrachalla

Can we use the front atmos speakers as the front height channel speakers in PLII z mode?


----------



## jacovn

markus767 said:


> ^
> I'm not saying it wouldn't work. It probably works pretty good. You have tons of space where you could hide ugly looking porous absorption. Most people can't do that.
> I'm just curious how the room feels. Do you have pictures you could share?


I have absorbtion and diffusion panels across all walls.

I do have pictures from the built of the room, but not from the ready room. Once i have the speakers mounted i will share a picture, the room is a mess right now with cardbord boxes etc. due to the sell of the previous setup and the re-cabling for the new setup.

It sounds good for me, but i always had my HT setup in the living room, and a dedicated room sounds better almost for everyone i guess. It is a room-in-room constuction and oddly shaped, so very little standing wave issues. Only floor ceiling is in parrallel, the rest is not (can be seen in the drawing)

I just hope Atmos sounds ok as well, due to the limited height (room is 232 cm heigh only) Lucky i sit not to high (no risers etc) so i do have the required distance between the standard/normal speakers and the top speakers. Only issue is the rear top, they are to close to the seating position, but there is no way around it. Could move the sofa 10 cm closer to the screen, but still not reach the minimum angle.


----------



## markus767

^
I woudn't worry too much about the back top surrounds but the front top surrounds look more like 37° and not 45°?

P.S. Please share some picture once you're all set up - always interested.


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> As you people seem to like images, here is what i intend to do.
> 
> I previous had 7.1 at the same position and was happy with it.
> G3 and G4 speakers are from Genelec. Sub is HTS4B
> 
> The back top of the room is lower due to air refresh system which is insulated to kill noise.


As someone else who has to use a small room for a dedicated HT, I salute your ability to get everything in and working well. Small rooms present special challenges but, with care and effort, can be made to work extremely well, with superb envelopment and immersion. Would I prefer a much bigger room? You bet. But I am constantly surprised and impressed at what can be achieved in a small space. Good luck with it all!


----------



## mtbdudex

NorthSky said:


> It's on a room-to-room basis. ...No general rules apply to all rooms.
> It all depends of the room's size, number of movie watchers, rows of seats, height of the ceiling, etc.


"S" in AVS means science, I'm attempting to quantify the subjective into the objective as a guide to help people.
If you dis-agree with that approach then AVS is not the forum for you, I suggest other "talkie" forums may be better suited.


----------



## pletwals

sdurani said:


> That's when you start treating them like all your other speakers and aim them towards the listening area.


That's why those speakers would better be having a DISPERSION wide enough to cover the whole listening area.


----------



## jacovn

markus767 said:


> ^
> I woudn't worry too much about the back top surrounds but the front top surrounds look more like 37° and not 45°?
> 
> P.S. Please share some picture once you're all set up - always interested.


Markus,


I used a laser pen and a app on my iphone for the angle, so not really a good way, but the best I could come up with.
Will measure it out and calculate.


But, I use flamco rail system, so I can move the top speakers back and foreward in the room with a simple move within some limits 
All the ceiling acoustical panels (RPG skyline) hang also flexible so I could adapt them when couch or speakers need to be moved to cover the 1st reflection point. Only the light units block the free movement.


----------



## PoshFrosh

*Vudu and Atmos; response from tech support*

I got my answer from VUDU regarding the Atmos track on TF4. I'll post it in its entirety below, by my take on it is that will wait until the 30th to announce Atmos information:



> Subject
> Atmos and Transformers
> 
> Response By Email (Justin H) (09/18/2014 03:25 AM)
> Hello Casey, and thank you for contacting VUDU support,
> 
> At this time the content is not equipped to play in a separate sound format than what is provided on the VUDU services. When the content is released to the general public on September 30, 2014, we recommend checking out the VUDU services for further information regarding this new audio feature.
> We do apologize that we are unable to provide further information at this time. Once more information is available, we will make sure our VUDU users know.
> 
> If you have any other questions or issues, please let us know. Thank you and have a wonderful day!
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Justin H.
> VUDU Customer Care
> 1-888-554-VUDU (8838)
> Hours of phone support
> 7 am to 8 pm PST, 7 days a week
> [email protected]
> Customer By CSS Web (Casey Nordell (12509278)) (09/16/2014 02:04 PM)
> Does "Transformers: Age of Extinction" on vudu feature a Dolby Atmos encoded track delivered over the DD+ stream?
> I know the BluRay will have it, I know that Atmos is deliverable over DD+, and I know VUDU will be the first service to offer Atmos streaming, but I wanted to confirm if Transformers 4, which you are offering right now before the BluRay comes out, currently has Atmos. Thanks.
> Question Reference # 140916-000504
> Date Created: 09/16/2014 02:04 PM
> Date Last Updated: 09/18/2014 03:25 AM
> Status: Waiting on Customer


----------



## tomparis

Hi fellows

in regards of the Denon X5200W would you set the front ceiling speakers to "Front Height" or to "Top Front" (see image below).

I ask, because in case of "Front Height" I could also use them for DTS Neo : X or Audyssey DSX.

Much obliged for your input.


----------



## pletwals

On first look it seems both Height and Top would work. 

Don't know if you use rear surrounds not in this picture? If you don't, you might try set the wides as surrounds and the surrounds to back surrounds. No DSX or Neo:X anymore then...


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> in regards of the Denon X5200W would you set the front ceiling speakers to "Front Height" or to "Top Front" (see image below).
> 
> I ask, because in case of "Front Height" I could also use them for DTS Neo : X or Audyssey DSX.
> 
> Much obliged for your input.



You can set the speakers to either Front Height or Top Front if they happen to be in the allowed range of permitted angles for both choices. You could just experiment and see what, if any, the difference in sound is. 

Strictly speaking, according to the Dolby Installer White Paper, if you want to run them as Front Heights, they should be mounted on the wall, or if they have to be mounted on the ceiling they should be a distance from the front wall of 1/8 the distance of the front wall to the center of the room. They don't seem to comply with that last requirement, but it might not actually matter too much.

Also, strictly speaking, for PLIIz and DSX, (IDK about Neo:X) the height speakers should be mounted on the wall. In PLIIz's case, above the L&R speakers and in DSX's case outboard of the L&R speakers. This makes one speaker position for both DSX and PLIIz incompatible with manufacturer recommendations, but again I am not sure how important or how critical it is. 
_
So bottom line seems to be that if you really want to retain Neo:X/DSX backwards compatibility you would need to relocate the front pair to the front wall, which would also comply with Atmos requirements for Front Height._

There is also the possibility that DSU will be so much better than Neo:X and DSX that you will never want to use those again, unless of course, you are wanting to use Wides in the upmixed format, which is not supported by DSU.

If it was me? I'd leave them where they are


----------



## audioguy

batpig said:


> Well that was just thirteen out of the last fourteen, including a mind numbing streak of 10 in a row.


If any of those posts added marginal value it might be partially understandable. Wasted electrons. He is on my ignore list but I can still see his post headlines.


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> As someone else who has to use a small room for a dedicated HT, I salute your ability to get everything in and working well. Small rooms present special challenges but, with care and effort, can be made to work extremely well, with superb envelopment and immersion. Would I prefer a much bigger room? You bet. But I am constantly surprised and impressed at what can be achieved in a small space. Good luck with it all!


Thanks Keith.


In fact is was more easy in this room than in my previous living room. This is a closed box, so no energy leaks away. I used to have 2 x bag end infra 18, could not get it right, moved to a Velodyn DD18, was not really happy.
In this room a Meridian SW1600 sounded great (only 12"and 150 watt)
Also mounting Top speakers, it is all gypsum ceiling, so take flamco rail screw to celing with special screws and I mount all I want on every position (besides the lights)
Only the rear top speakers is difficult, but I will install them with some adjustable wall mounts so I can adjust them freely and experiment how it sound pointed straight down, or aimed at the MLP or just behind it etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> Thanks Keith.
> 
> 
> In fact is was more easy in this room than in my previous living room. This is a closed box, so no energy leaks away. I used to have 2 x bag end infra 18, could not get it right, moved to a Velodyn DD18, was not really happy.
> In this room a Meridian SW1600 sounded great (only 12"and 150 watt)
> Also mounting Top speakers, it is all gypsum ceiling, so take flamco rail screw to celing with special screws and I mount all I want on every position (besides the lights)
> Only the rear top speakers is difficult, but I will install them with some adjustable wall mounts so I can adjust them freely and experiment how it sound pointed straight down, or aimed at the MLP or just behind it etc.


Nice idea to use the flamco rails. I am sure I will copy that idea at some time in the future. 

In some ways our little HTs can give an even better 'immersion' in the movie experience than a bigger room - the main issue is to get the sound to work well, but with careful speaker placement, sub placement, acoustic treatments, trial and error, time and patience and XT32*, I have managed to get the room to sound terrific. I am sure yours will too. 

*Plus all the help I have received from others here on AVS. You know who you are, guys, so thanks!


----------



## howieumd

Are their any Klipsch speakers that are recommended for Atmos overheads at this time? Just wondering. Still waiting for my Onkyo TX-NR3030 receiver, but want to get speakers for it as soon as it arrives. Thanks!


----------



## ss9001

jacovn said:


> But, I use flamco rail system, so I can move the top speakers back and foreward in the room with a simple move within some limits


I'd like to ask, what is a flamco rail system? if it's what I think it may be, who sells it? is it a mounting product exclusive to Europe?

the idea of flexible mounting is appealing


----------



## KidHorn

kbarnes701 said:


> As someone else who has to use a small room for a dedicated HT, I salute your ability to get everything in and working well. Small rooms present special challenges but, with care and effort, can be made to work extremely well, with superb envelopment and immersion. Would I prefer a much bigger room? You bet. But I am constantly surprised and impressed at what can be achieved in a small space. Good luck with it all!



Small rooms are much better for bass. For this reason, I would actually prefer a smaller room than my current one. We need to be careful what we wish for,


----------



## KidHorn

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> in regards of the Denon X5200W would you set the front ceiling speakers to "Front Height" or to "Top Front" (see image below).
> 
> I ask, because in case of "Front Height" I could also use them for DTS Neo : X or Audyssey DSX.
> 
> Much obliged for your input.



How did you mount the ceiling speakers? I have a cathedral ceiling and was thinking about mounting some dipoles like yours.


Are you the pilot of Voyager?


----------



## markus767

KidHorn said:


> Small rooms are much better for bass. For this reason, I would actually prefer a smaller room than my current one. We need to be careful what we wish for,


Small rooms are horrible for bass. They exhibit sparse modal distribution and the room dominates the speaker response up to fairly high frequencies.


----------



## jacovn

ss9001 said:


> I'd like to ask, what is a flamco rail system? if it's what I think it may be, who sells it? is it a mounting product exclusive to Europe?
> 
> the idea of flexible mounting is appealing


This is a NL language folder I had a link of: 
https://www.flamcogroup.com/files/datasheets/doc_nld_h14_2012.pdf


I assume you cannot read Dutch Lanaguage, but it has examples and sizes (metric system)
No idea if t his is a ninternational company, I buy the products at a local installer that does heatings airco etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I'd like to ask, what is a flamco rail system? if it's what I think it may be, who sells it? is it a mounting product exclusive to Europe?
> 
> the idea of flexible mounting is appealing


Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=f...Db7Abqj4GIBA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1284&bih=866

I'm sure they have something similar in the US.


----------



## bkeeler10

DS-21 said:


> Funny, I managed to do just that with a Klipsch Forte II (3-way tower with horn loaded mid and tweet, and paper woofer) and KEF RDM Two (2-way constant directivity stand mount with plastic woofer and concentric fabric tweeter). I took measurements (nearfield axial response, listening position sound power), applied EQ with a miniDSP, and made seat-of-the-pants adjustments. True, the illusion of matched speakers fell apart outside the main listening position, and obviously levels were carefully controlled. But as to one spot...it was honestly eerie.


I presume that I don't have to tell you that this is not a valid experiment. No matter how immutable and irrefutable you think your position is (and in fact even more so because of it) you are just as subject to bias in this exercise as I or anyone else would be. You have a preconceived notion about whether EQ will make two disparate speakers play well together, and I have a different such notion. We will both be biased toward our notions going into the listening.

Did you do a proper DBT on this experiment? Did you set up, for example, a pair of Forte II and a single KEF RDM EQ'd to the Forte, make provisions for very quick switching out of one of the Forte II for the KEF so you could instantly compare two Forte II vs one Forte and one KEF, ensure perfect level matching, and then somehow do this test without realizing that you were doing it? If not, your subjective listening results were biased. Pure and simple.

As an aside, I was recently involved in setting up a multichannel system with two subs. We were trying to find the best position for a pair of subs. One sub was fixed and the other we were moving around. One guy (a very experienced listener and loudspeaker designer) was sitting in a chair listening while I moved one of the subs to various positions down the side of one of the walls. As I moved the sub, the listener noted some changes and improvements in bass response. We found a position for the sub I was moving that sounded best to him. A few minutes later, I realized that earlier I had turned off that sub to make a connection change and had forgotten to turn it back on before we started experimenting with its position. So only the stationary sub was on during the experimentation. Bias is a powerful thing.

If we were off-topic before, now we're off-planet.


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> Small rooms are much better for bass. For this reason, I would actually prefer a smaller room than my current one. We need to be careful what we wish for,


Other way around. Small rooms are much harder to get good bass in. It's not impossible, but it is very difficult and needs a lot of time and effort put in.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> I presume that I don't have to tell you that this is not a valid experiment. No matter how immutable and irrefutable you think your position is (and in fact even more so because of it) you are just as subject to bias in this exercise as I or anyone else would be. You have a preconceived notion about whether EQ will make two disparate speakers play well together, and I have a different such notion. We will both be biased toward our notions going into the listening.


While I agree entirely with you about human bias, IIRC DS-21 said he took measurements which showed that he had similar responses from all speakers. There's no need for a DBT when measurements are used in this way: either the FR at the MLP is essentially similar for all speakers or it isn't.


----------



## krozman

howieumd said:


> Are their any Klipsch speakers that are recommended for Atmos overheads at this time? Just wondering. Still waiting for my Onkyo TX-NR3030 receiver, but want to get speakers for it as soon as it arrives. Thanks!


I'm mounting RB51ii's...others have used the RS line. I should be mounting mine this weekend and the remaining speakers arrive Monday. Should be a fun day. Will report how they sound.


----------



## sdurani

pletwals said:


> That's why those speakers would better be having a DISPERSION wide enough to cover the whole listening area.


Not just those speakers, all the speakers. Object-based audio might be new to movie sound, but the way we reproduce those sounds at home isn't new. Hence my agreeing with dschulz. When it comes to dispersion or aiming, there's no reason to treat a ceiling mounted height speaker any differently than a wall mounted surround speaker.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> While I agree entirely with you about human bias, IIRC DS-21 said he took measurements which showed that he had similar responses from all speakers. There's no need for a DBT when measurements are used in this way: either the FR at the MLP is essentially similar for all speakers or it isn't.


I don't doubt in the slightest that he was able to get a good FR match using EQ. Of course bias doesn't apply when you're looking at a FR plot. I'm referring to the listening that is implied he did in his statement. It wasn't a double-blind _listening_ test: 



DS-21 said:


> I took measurements (nearfield axial response, listening position sound power), applied EQ with a miniDSP, *and made seat-of-the-pants adjustments. True, the illusion of matched speakers fell apart outside the main listening position, and obviously levels were carefully controlled. But as to one spot...it was honestly eerie.*


And, I add, even he admits he couldn't match them for more than one location. This is fairly important in a multi-seat theater.


----------



## Al Sherwood

howieumd said:


> Are their any Klipsch speakers that are recommended for Atmos overheads at this time? Just wondering. Still waiting for my Onkyo TX-NR3030 receiver, but want to get speakers for it as soon as it arrives. Thanks!


Howieumd, what model were you thinking of? The collective wisdom in this thread favours the use of a monopole speaker (or one that acts like this).


I am months away from a functioning HT but I will using all Klipsch speakers except for the subs (DTS-10's).


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=f...Db7Abqj4GIBA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1284&bih=866
> 
> I'm sure they have something similar in the US.



You can research "Kindorf" in the USA. They have channels in a few different size/thickness.

Another one is "Super-Strut".

...Glenn


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> Well that was just thirteen out of the last fourteen, including a mind numbing streak of 10 in a row.


Wonder how many others have him on their Ignore List?

I certainly do.


----------



## ss9001

thanks, guys for rail tips...I'm struttin' to each of these websites as I write.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol! 

Well he is trying to respond to a bunch of quotes of other members posts. I know if I were to respond to that many I'd probably break it up some too.


----------



## bkeeler10

kokishin said:


> Wonder how many others have him on their Ignore List?
> 
> I certainly do.


We're not being a very friendly bunch all of a sudden . . .

You can put people on your ignore list without publicly and blatantly stating so. Let's be civil. Especially since NorthSky has not been argumentative or offensive. Seems like a nice guy actually, so why be otherwise to him? Ignore if you want, but don't be mean.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> I don't doubt in the slightest that he was able to get a good FR match using EQ. Of course bias doesn't apply when you're looking at a FR plot. I'm referring to the listening that is implied he did in his statement. It wasn't a double-blind _listening_ test:


Why would he even need a listening test to see if the speakers had a similar FR? The chart would show whether they did or didn't. In cases like that, the listening test is there to evaluate the actual listening experience revealed by the graph, not to try to establish parameters which have already been established (byu the measurements).



bkeeler10 said:


> And, I add, even he admits he couldn't match them for more than one location. This is fairly important in a multi-seat theater.


Well naturally he couldn't - he'd EQd them for one seat. As evidence of the exposure of 'timbre matching' for what it is - the province of speaker marketing departments - his experience is a valid one. He wasn't suggesting that anyone would take two entirely disparate speakers like he did and use them seriously in that way. In fact he has clearly put forward his view that *identical *speakers across the LCR are ideally required, which FWIW I happen to agree with and do it that way here. All we were discussing was whether "voicing" serves any useful purpose for decent surround speakers now that we have EQ - trying to extrapolate it to "_who'd agree that using a 6 foot electrostatic on one side of a stereo pair and a small bookshelf on the other side is a good idea_" is pointless, because nobody ever said anything remotely like that.


----------



## sdurani

Amazon has a new Kindle Fire coming in October: amzn.com/B00HCNHDN0 

_"*Rich, multi-dimensional audio* — Twice as loud as iPad Air, with crisp, clear sound and no distortion. Plus, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos for a new headphone experience."_


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Amazon has a new Kindle Fire coming in October: amzn.com/B00HCNHDN0
> 
> _"*Rich, multi-dimensional audio* — Twice as loud as iPad Air, with crisp, clear sound and no distortion. Plus, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos for a new headphone experience."_


Crazy.

I want to hear more about it's Atmos capability. Didn't think it would be this soon. I wonder if it will actually do Atmos rendering over headphones (as mentioned, sorta) or if it will output that over HDMI.


----------



## UKTexan

ss9001 said:


> thanks, guys for rail tips...I'm struttin' to each of these websites as I write.


Unistrut is the market leader, used worldwide by mechanical and electrical contractors. Great system, normally concealed above ceiling unless you are into the industrial look. Not something I would install exposed on my ceiling, personal preference I guess, not sure my missus would approve.
Depending on your supplier they also sell a plastic insert (closure strip) which tidies up the overall look.
Link to the closure strip below:


http://www.unistrut.us/index.php?WP=cat_detail&S=S05&P=P1184P


----------



## brwsaw

sdurani said:


> Amazon has a new Kindle Fire coming in October: amzn.com/B00HCNHDN0
> 
> _"*Rich, multi-dimensional audio* — Twice as loud as iPad Air, with crisp, clear sound and no distortion. Plus, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos for a new headphone experience."_





Scott Simonian said:


> Crazy.
> 
> I want to hear more about it's Atmos capability. Didn't think it would be this soon. I wonder if it will actually do Atmos rendering over headphones (as mentioned, sorta) or if it will output that over HDMI.


Too bad you couldn't skip the AVR, just send the additional channels to a separate amp.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Other way around. Small rooms are much harder to get good bass in. It's not impossible, but it is very difficult and needs a lot of time and effort put in.


Maybe he meant bass quantity, not bass quality? :devil:


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I want to hear more about it's Atmos capability.


I want to hear more about its headphone virtualization. Not many around that are truly convincing.


----------



## kokishin

sdurani said:


> Amazon has a new Kindle Fire coming in October: amzn.com/B00HCNHDN0
> 
> _"*Rich, multi-dimensional audio* — Twice as loud as iPad Air, with crisp, clear sound and no distortion. Plus, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos for a new headphone experience."_


Which leads me to believe Amazon will be one of the first to offer Dolby Atmos movies on their Instant Video streaming service.


----------



## asarose247

RE: Flamco


strongly resembles the "unistrut" components line, such as I used for my overheads. mine just happened to be laying there waiting to do something . . .


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> I want to hear more about its headphone virtualization. Not many around that are truly convincing.


That's what I meant to say. When asked about Atmos headphone rendering at the Burbank demo, it had sounded like it was at least a year away from even appearing in products.

Might be interesting. Hopefully sounds better than the DTS Headphone X I heard at CES.


----------



## redjr

NorthSky said:


> I know about the Onkyo 3030, and I also know about its shortcomings.
> 
> * Marantz 7703, next year.


Pioneer SC-89 (or 87) next year. As I was just finishing up my media room over the past few weeks, after discovering this thread - having known nothing prior to about Atmos - I decided to add 4 ceiling speakers. At the moment, they sound real good with simple 5.1/7.1 information. I hope that translates well when I take the plunge to Atmos sometime next year. To many other commitments and life constraints right now.  By then, a few more of the details will have shaken out by real users and that will be good for everyone trying to come up with the best, most effective speaker placement for Atmos and other codecs.

I've got most of my gear back up and running, and I'm adding 2 new subs this go around. I'll be using a miniDSP for best optimization and equalization of the subs into my room acoustics using REW. This will be like wandering into new territory for me, but hope to use the knowledge available in several threads about using REW with the miniDSP to get best results. - Rick


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> Amazon has a new Kindle Fire coming in October: amzn.com/B00HCNHDN0
> 
> _"*Rich, multi-dimensional audio* — Twice as loud as iPad Air, with crisp, clear sound and no distortion. Plus, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos for a new headphone experience."_


Thanks Sanjay, I just preordered one for my wife.
I was going to buy her a Kindle or iPad for her travels anyway and it will also help soften the blow when I buy my Dolby Atmos AVR & speakers next month.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Why would he even need a listening test to see if the speakers had a similar FR? The chart would show whether they did or didn't. In cases like that, the listening test is there to evaluate the actual listening experience revealed by the graph, not to try to establish parameters which have already been established (byu the measurements).


Perhaps I haven't been clear in the point I'm trying to make. Apologies if that is the case. He doesn't need a listening test to confirm that the different speakers had the same FR. He needs a listening test to determine whether a disparate pair of speakers with matched FR in fact sound the same, or at least same enough to be a coherent stereo pair. 

You're operating under the premise that, if two speakers have identical FR at the listening position, they will sound subjectively identical. That being true, then of course there is no reason to verify via listening, once you've matched their measured FR. I, however, am not treating this as a foregone conclusion, but rather surmising that perhaps FR is not the only thing that makes a speaker sound the way it does. And in order to prove or disprove such a theory, we would have to take a pair of identical speakers and a third, disparate speaker, match the FR of the disparate speaker to that of the identical speakers at the listening position, then do a DBT, alternately listening to the identical pair and the disparate pair, with provisions to eliminate bias coming from your preconceived notion that FR is all that matters, or my preconceived notion that there might be something else that has an effect. Oy, that sentence got really big! 

This was my argument from the beginning -- maybe FR is all that matters, but I'm not convinced that is the case.

If one argues that an identical LCR set is ideal for the front stage, why is it such a leap to think that you'd want to adhere to that same ideal as much as possible with the rest of the speakers? What is the goal of having identical LCR, and what benefit would it have on the front stage that you wouldn't also want to have to your sides, above and behind you? It seems inconsistent to me, but maybe I am missing something.


----------



## jacovn

UKTexan said:


> Unistrut is the market leader, used worldwide by mechanical and electrical contractors. Great system, normally concealed above ceiling unless you are into the industrial look. Not something I would install exposed on my ceiling, personal preference I guess, not sure my missus would approve.
> Depending on your supplier they also sell a plastic insert (closure strip) which tidies up the overall look.
> Link to the closure strip below:
> 
> 
> http://www.unistrut.us/index.php?WP=cat_detail&S=S05&P=P1184P


Thanks for the tip of the insert, i need to order such things as well.

The rails i have are black and installed on a black painted ceiling.
No one notices them till now.


----------



## sdurani

kokishin said:


> Which leads me to believe Amazon will be one of the first to offer Dolby Atmos movies on their Instant Video streaming service.


I'm starting to wonder if streaming will end up helping Atmos gain traction more than shiny discs will.


Scott Simonian said:


> When asked about Atmos headphone rendering at the Burbank demo, it had sounded like it was at least a year away from even appearing in products.


That's what I thought at the time. But then, who knew the Denon 5200 would be out as soon as it was?


----------



## bkeeler10

Back to Atmos/MDA . . . 

Perhaps this gives you an idea of how crazy/obsessed/pathetic I am. I was getting our baby to sleep last night, and got to thinking about Atmos vs Auro, and had this great idea for doing a system that will ideally accommodate both. Imagine, if you will, a traditional 7.1 setup on the floor, and add in a pair of "wides" (or front surrounds if you prefer). Then put in a rail system on the ceiling, with two rails running the length of the room and one additional rail on each running perpendicular and in line with the side surrounds. Put 3 pairs of speakers on the long rails to make an Atmos 9.1.6 layout. Then, when you need to play Auro, move those six on-ceiling speakers to the front, back and sides of the room to make a 13.1 Auro layout (ignore the wides I presume).

See attached picture.

Edit: blue are ear-level speakers, red are Atmos positions for overhead, and green are Auro positions for heights. Red circle is MLP. Add a VOG speaker if you'd like.


----------



## markus767

bkeeler10 said:


> maybe FR is all that matters, but I'm not convinced that is the case.


It's not just the on-axis frequency response that matters. It's also about the energy that is sent into the room at all angles. It can vary considerably between speaker designs. That's the reason why it can be beneficial to use speakers with similar power response.


----------



## BigScreen

High-Def Digest reviewed "Transformers: Age of Extinction" but didn't review the Atmos soundtrack. They did, however, provide a screenshot of the soundtrack selection screen:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/12717/transformersageofextinction.html#the-audio

The terminology used is unfortunate, because the explanatory text at the top is required for those without Atmos, but that do have 7.1 systems (or that want to select the lossless option), to choose the correct soundtrack. That screen is a mess!

I would be curious to see the back cover of that title to see what, if any, notation of Atmos is made on what the consumer would see when it's on the shelf. _Edit:_ Found a photo of the back cover on Blu-ray.com's forum.

Personally, I think they should have gone with something on the order of:
*[ ] Dolby TrueHD 7.1 + Atmos*


----------



## Scott Simonian

Excellent.


----------



## FilmMixer

I think my comment got lost from last week, but a friend who attended CEDIA sent me this. 

"Anyone can use the upfiring speakers for any mode. Yamaha does it. Denon does not. It might be an oversight, it might be fixed later. "

But that should clear up the debate Dan and I were having a couple of weeks ago (clearly in favor of Dan )

Don't really have any insight to a lot of what's being discussed here. Still haven't had a day off in almost three weeks (started August 25th on this film and have only had labor day off... And no less than 11 hour days. Ouch!!!)

It's a great film for WW2 buffs. 

Fury. 

Hella loud. Really intense. 

Back to the grind.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Very nice drawing Erwin.


Thanks!


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^

Look forward to it, bud.


----------



## Kris Deering

UKTexan said:


> Unistrut is the market leader, used worldwide by mechanical and electrical contractors. Great system, normally concealed above ceiling unless you are into the industrial look. Not something I would install exposed on my ceiling, personal preference I guess, not sure my missus would approve.
> Depending on your supplier they also sell a plastic insert (closure strip) which tidies up the overall look.
> Link to the closure strip below:
> 
> 
> http://www.unistrut.us/index.php?WP=cat_detail&S=S05&P=P1184P


I use unistrut on my ceiling for my projector mount. Makes it easy to adjust the throw of the projector without having to redo the mount for new installs. Since I review a lot of projectors with different throws it works great. I just sprayed them black and they are not an eyesore at all.


----------



## ss9001

Thanks, UKTexan & Kris. Will check out unistrut & sources. may not go that way but wanted options.


----------



## audioguy

bkeeler10 said:


> You're operating under the premise that, if two speakers have identical FR at the listening position, they will sound subjectively identical.


Not a correct assumption. Assuming a steady state sweep was used, that, for example, tells you nothing about the dynamic capability of the speakers. I had a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Seaton Catalyst matched as close as the TacT Digital room correction system would match them. Did not need double blind testing to hear the differences. The "character" of the speakers were totally different. I did the same thing with a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Dunlavy SC-IV-A. The FR was literally identical but the "weight" of the bass of the SC-VI (15 inch bass drivers vs 10 inch drivers) was much more obvious. I am not an electrical engineer so I can't tell you why but they did not sound even a little bit alike. FR is but just one ingredient in the makeup of the sound of a speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Perhaps I haven't been clear in the point I'm trying to make. Apologies if that is the case. He doesn't need a listening test to confirm that the different speakers had the same FR. He needs a listening test to determine whether a disparate pair of speakers with matched FR in fact sound the same, or at least same enough to be a coherent stereo pair.
> 
> You're operating under the premise that, if two speakers have identical FR at the listening position, they will sound subjectively identical. That being true, then of course there is no reason to verify via listening, once you've matched their measured FR. I, however, am not treating this as a foregone conclusion, but rather surmising that perhaps FR is not the only thing that makes a speaker sound the way it does. And in order to prove or disprove such a theory, we would have to take a pair of identical speakers and a third, disparate speaker, match the FR of the disparate speaker to that of the identical speakers at the listening position, then do a DBT, alternately listening to the identical pair and the disparate pair, with provisions to eliminate bias coming from your preconceived notion that FR is all that matters, or my preconceived notion that there might be something else that has an effect. Oy, that sentence got really big!
> 
> This was my argument from the beginning -- maybe FR is all that matters, but I'm not convinced that is the case.


What would be this thing that we can hear but are unable to measure?



bkeeler10 said:


> If one argues that an identical LCR set is ideal for the front stage, why is it such a leap to think that you'd want to adhere to that same ideal as much as possible with the rest of the speakers? What is the goal of having identical LCR, and what benefit would it have on the front stage that you wouldn't also want to have to your sides, above and behind you? It seems inconsistent to me, but maybe I am missing something.


Have you ever turned off all your speakers and subs and just listened to the surrounds and what work they are actually doing? If not, it's really worth doing.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Back to Atmos/MDA . . .
> 
> *Perhaps this gives you an idea of how crazy/obsessed/pathetic I am.* I was getting our baby to sleep last night, and got to thinking about Atmos vs Auro, and had this great idea for doing a system that will ideally accommodate both. Imagine, if you will, a traditional 7.1 setup on the floor, and add in a pair of "wides" (or front surrounds if you prefer). Then put in a rail system on the ceiling, with two rails running the length of the room and one additional rail on each running perpendicular and in line with the side surrounds. Put 3 pairs of speakers on the long rails to make an Atmos 9.1.6 layout. Then, when you need to play Auro, move those six on-ceiling speakers to the front, back and sides of the room to make a 13.1 Auro layout (ignore the wides I presume).
> 
> See attached picture.
> 
> Edit: blue are ear-level speakers, red are Atmos positions for overhead, and green are Auro positions for heights. Red circle is MLP. Add a VOG speaker if you'd like.


I agree with your preliminary evaluation - LOL


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Not a correct assumption. Assuming a steady state sweep was used, that, for example, tells you nothing about the dynamic capability of the speakers. I had a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Seaton Catalyst matched as close as the TacT Digital room correction system would match them. Did not need double blind testing to hear the differences. The "character" of the speakers were totally different. I did the same thing with a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Dunlavy SC-IV-A. The FR was literally identical but the "weight" of the bass of the SC-VI (15 inch bass drivers vs 10 inch drivers) was much more obvious. I am not an electrical engineer so I can't tell you why but they did not sound even a little bit alike. FR is but just one ingredient in the makeup of the sound of a speaker.


There was more bass output from one, but it didn’t show up in the measurements?????

What does the 'weight' of bass mean?


----------



## tomparis

kbarnes701 said:


> If it was me? I'd leave them where they are


That's for sure.
Thanks. I guess DSU will outperform every other upmixer, which came out up to this point.


----------



## tomparis

howieumd said:


> Are their any Klipsch speakers that are recommended for Atmos overheads at this time? Just wondering. Still waiting for my Onkyo TX-NR3030 receiver, but want to get speakers for it as soon as it arrives. Thanks!


I did it with 4x RS-42 II. Looks great, with hopes that it will sound as great, too.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> Which leads me to believe Amazon will be one of the first to offer Dolby Atmos movies on their Instant Video streaming service.


that would be nice to have Atmos content on Prime.
I too am very curious as I spend 1/2 my time on my Kindle Fire watching and reading. i would be interested to hear  how they could do atmos with ear buds


----------



## tomparis

KidHorn said:


> How did you mount the ceiling speakers? I have a cathedral ceiling and was thinking about mounting some dipoles like yours.
> 
> 
> Are you the pilot of Voyager?


Yeah, I'm Voyager's helmsman :wink:

I mounted them using the dual threaded inserts on the back with this: http://www.amazon.de/mumbi-flache-u...065613&sr=8-2&keywords=mumbi+tv+wandhalterung


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> What would be this thing that we can hear but are unable to measure?


Well, I don't know for sure. I'm just not ready to presume that everything that matters is measureable (or that we have figured out how to measure it in a meaningful way).

One thing I have thought of is spectral content. Two different human voices singing the same note, or two violins from different designers playing the same note, as examples, sound different because of differing spectral content IIUC. This is measureable, but no one does it for speakers AFAIK. Since no speaker driver is completely transparent to source, is it possible for a soft dome tweeter and a ribbon tweeter to play the same high violin note with slightly different spectral content, thus sounding a bit different even though the FR is identical?



kbarnes701 said:


> Have you ever turned off all your speakers and subs and just listened to the surrounds and what work they are actually doing? If not, it's really worth doing.


Nope, I never have. I will try it some time.



kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with your preliminary evaluation - LOL


Thanks a lot.  I guess I've done nothing to prove otherwise.  In all seriousness, I don't know quite enough about Auro to know if such a layout is getting close to ideal or not. I suppose I will investigate it. It seems like perhaps the sweet spot for Atmos though.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> There was more bass output from one, but it didn’t show up in the measurements?????
> 
> What does the 'weight' of bass mean?


You appear to be arguing that the steady state on axis frequency response completely describes how a speaker sounds? Are you?

Markus had already commented that we hear a mixture of direct sound, early reflections and late reflections so that one measurement won't tell you everything. (And even if it did you would then get into the question of how that response was generated exactly as one measurement can produce quite different responses depending on how the fft is done)

You can look at that model Harman developed (to predict speaker preferences based on measurements), it involved taking something like a 100 measurements per speaker from all sorts of angles then combining that into some weighted view.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> True, _Michael Bay_ used four different ones (4 screen's aspect ratios) for this flick.
> ...As mentioned in another thread from another forum of another site by Robert A. Harris, film historian and preservationist.





bargervais said:


> Confused
> Michael Bay used for different ones for this flick.





bargervais said:


> You edited my quote and others


I originally made a typo ("for" instead of "four"), and I fixed it thanks to you in the 2nd quote above.

* I don't edit other's posts when quoting them, but once in a while I do correct some typos.
-> And here I added the missing "u". ...I thought it was easy to realise that small typo, as "for" did not make sense. ..._"Four (4) screen's aspect ratios"_, which were used by _Michael Bay_ during the shooting of *'Transformers 4: Age of Extinction'*, in 3D, and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.

And when I asked the other member to not edit my post; that was totally different as he simply omitted the important part and replaced it by something of his own sarcastic touch. And that, wasn't what I posted, and the context was lost. ...Not a good way to operate.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I originally made a typo ("for" instead of "four"), and I fixed it thanks to you in the 2nd quote above.
> 
> * I don't edit other's posts when quoting them, but once in a while I do correct some typos.
> -> And here I added the missing "u". ...I thought it was easy to realise that small typo, as "for" did not make sense. ..._"Four (4) screen's aspect ratios"_, which were used by _Michael Bay_ during the shooting of *'Transformers 4: Age of Extinction'*, in 3D, and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> 
> And when I asked the other member to not edit my post; that was totally different as he simply omitted the important part and replaced it by something of his own sarcastic touch. And that, wasn't what I posted, and the context was lost. ...Not a good way to operate.


cheers no problem here


----------



## Wookii

I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> It's on a room-to-room basis. ...No general rules apply to all rooms.
> It all depends of the room's size, number of movie watchers, rows of seats, height of the ceiling, etc.





mtbdudex said:


> "S" in AVS means science, I'm attempting to quantify the subjective into the objective as a guide to help people.
> If you dis-agree with that approach then AVS is not the forum for you, I suggest other "talkie" forums may be better suited.


Thank you for the friendly reminder. ...Your touch is Science, and what is good for me is good for you too and all of us. ...And that I like. 

Please, do read those posts here below that I'm giving links to; it will help you to understand better where my own quote above is coming from. 

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

Thank you sir, for your time and patience.


----------



## sdurani

bkeeler10 said:


> Then, when you need to play Auro, move those six on-ceiling speakers to the front, back and sides of the room to make a 13.1 Auro layout (ignore the wides I presume).


Does it need to be that complicated, what with moving speakers and all? 

The traditional 7.1 layout is common to both Atmos and Auro, which means the main differences are in height speaker placement. And even there, some common ground can be found: speaker pairs at 30 degrees longitudinal elevation in front and behind are within the specs of both formats. So that's 11 speaker locations in common. 

If we forego Auro's centre height speaker and single VOG speaker, both of which can hopefully downmix to adjacent speakers, then that leaves a couple of height speakers at/near the main listening position. And this pair is important, because minimally elevated height speakers in front and behind you are not going to give the impression of overhead sound the way a pair of overhead speakers will. 

Auro would like this middle pair of heights at 30 degrees lateral elevation, placed above the surround speakers. Atmos would like them at a higher lateral elevation, placed slightly forward of the listening area (around 80 degrees longitudinal elevation). 

IF Auro's VOG channel can be downmixed to these speakers (but maybe not the height speakers in the back), then raising them above 30 degrees lateral elevation will help tighten the VOG phantom image above the listeners. Which should work for Atmos as well.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> cheers no problem here


Thank you, I thought so, but wasn't 100% sure. ...We're


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> That's for sure.
> Thanks. I guess DSU will outperform every other upmixer, which came out up to this point.


Well any upmixer is venturing into preference land, so it will be a personal choice thing, and for people who want to use their Wide speakers, then DSU is not going to be good for them so they will have to use DSX or Neo:X. But for people like me, who don't have Wides, then yeah, I suspect DSU will become my upmixer of choice for pretty much all content.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> There was more bass output from one, but it didn’t show up in the measurements?????
> 
> What does the 'weight' of bass mean?


Yes, the FR was as close to identical as possible. "Weight" means ..... weight, heftiness, authority, Oomph, I have no other words to use. FWIW, I sold them to a guy who upgraded from the Dunlavy SC-V for that very reason.

I know this sounds like audiophile mumbo-jumbo that comes from a few of the well know audio reviewers, but I lack the ability to describe it any better. 

Another example: from 25hz to 100+hz, the in-room response if my previous subs (Velodyne DD-18's) measured virtually identical to the the Seaton Submersives. But even on material where there was no output below, say 25 or 30 hz (actually most music), they did not sound the same in real use.

YMMV!!


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> You appear to be arguing that the steady state on axis frequency response completely describes how a speaker sounds? Are you?


No. We are talking about so-called 'timbre matching' and its value in an EQd system wrt to the surrounds. The discussion is being dragged into other areas such as ludicrous combinations of LCR speakers and so on.



3ll3d00d said:


> Markus had already commented that we hear a mixture of direct sound, early reflections and late reflections so that one measurement won't tell you everything. (And even if it did you would then get into the question of how that response was generated exactly as one measurement can produce quite different responses depending on how the fft is done)


No disagreement.



3ll3d00d said:


> You can look at that model Harman developed (to predict speaker preferences based on measurements), it involved taking something like a 100 measurements per speaker from all sorts of angles then combining that into some weighted view.


And did they discover something that they could hear but which could not be accounted for in their measurements?


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> You appear to be arguing that the steady state on axis frequency response completely describes how a speaker sounds? Are you?


As you jumped in, maybe you can explain what the 'weight' of bass is. How is bass 'weighed'?


----------



## NorthSky

Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


This is quite major "good" news. ...Very very happy to hear that.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Yes, the FR was as close to identical as possible. "Weight" means ..... weight, heftiness, authority, Oomph, I have no other words to use. FWIW, I sold them to a guy who upgraded from the Dunlavy SC-V for that very reason.


Weight, heftiness and authority are the words that audiofool reviewers use. Acoustics and sound reproduction are sciences, so the characteristics of the various elements which make up those sciences will be able to be described in proper, objective terms which mean the same thing to everyone. You said that the bass had more 'weight' which sounded to me as if you meant there was more audible bass output. If that is the case, it is very easily measurable.



audioguy said:


> I know this sounds like audiophile mumbo-jumbo that comes from a few of the well know audio reviewers, but I lack the ability to describe it any better.


Yes, that is exactly what it is. Meaningless gibberish, no offence.


----------



## mastermaybe

Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


Wow, more good stuff! Apparently Christmas has been moved to September 18th! 

James


----------



## Wookii

NorthSky said:


> This is quite major "good" news. ...


Yes! I quite suspected that to be the case, but the news has been gleefully passed over in favour of arguments about speaker timbre! . . . You can lead a horse to water . . .


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that is exactly what it is. Meaningless gibberish, no offence.


Well there certainly may be some other measurement(s) to show what any who heard the speaker could describe, but it was NOT FR!!!

Sorry you don't appreciate my attempt to describe what any one with ears could hear, but that's the best I can do. I'm sure you could describe it better.


----------



## bkeeler10

Wookii said:


> Yes! I quite suspected that to be the case, but the news has been gleefully passed over in favour of arguments about speaker timbre! . . . You can lead a horse to water . . .


Certainly didn't go unnoticed by me 

I don't suppose there was any mention of price for the Auro upgrade, or more specific timing? Seems like Auro could be ready soon, but who knows about DTS since they have been rather silent, to my knowledge.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> And did they discover something that they could hear but which could not be accounted for in their measurements?


IIRC they developed a model that offered accurate (but presumably not perfect) predications of listener preference based on measurements alone & compared against double blind listening tests. I think you can reasonably argue that the right measurements interpreted in the right way can completely describe how a speaker sounds. I think you can also reasonably argue that that sort of data is absolutely not what is being discussed so far. 

FWIW the only DRC system I'm familiar with of that works anything like that is RoomPerfect. IMV good DRC can certainly make speakers sound more alike (that's entirely the point after all) but I wouldn't go so far as to say they'll sound exactly "the same" after EQ. Is this good enough for the purpose being discussed (whether to use *exactly* the same speakers for heights as the front 3)? I'd err on the side of yes.


----------



## jacovn

Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


Wow, that would be very nice indeed.
That paid for Auro could be expensive though. I was quoted €1200 for the Auro3d license for the stormaudio processor.
If it are these kind of license prices i know someone who will skip that (see him in every mirror i look at)


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> As you jumped in, maybe you can explain what the 'weight' of bass is. How is bass 'weighed'?


frequency response inc a smooth/tight integration with the woofer/mid above it. On rereading the above posts though, I'd say the poster was talking about "impact" which I think is more of a timing thing, as in the ability of the driver to accurately track/reproduce transient material. I think it's a bit harsh to call terms like that gibberish, ultimately people are trying to convey a subjective (possibly even emotional) experience through words alone and that tends to lead one to be a bit flowery at times


----------



## Wookii

jacovn said:


> Wow, that would be very nice indeed.
> That paid for Auro could be expensive though. I was quoted €1200 for the Auro3d license for the stormaudio processor.
> If it are these kind of license prices i know someone who will skip that (see him in every mirror i look at)


I sincerely doubt it will be that much because a) that is for Auro 13.1 - not much point in that for a 7 or 9 or even 11 channel AVR, so the corresponding fee is likely to be scaled for the channels available, and b) the Storm and other high end processors have to spread their licence fees over a relatively small number if units/owners so the per user fee is higher - not necessarily the case with Denon which may have several thousand units in the field by then.


----------



## RichB

audioguy said:


> Not a correct assumption. Assuming a steady state sweep was used, that, for example, tells you nothing about the dynamic capability of the speakers. I had a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Seaton Catalyst matched as close as the TacT Digital room correction system would match them. Did not need double blind testing to hear the differences. The "character" of the speakers were totally different. I did the same thing with a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Dunlavy SC-IV-A. The FR was literally identical but the "weight" of the bass of the SC-VI (15 inch bass drivers vs 10 inch drivers) was much more obvious. I am not an electrical engineer so I can't tell you why but they did not sound even a little bit alike. FR is but just one ingredient in the makeup of the sound of a speaker.


REQ systems do not measure: distortion, dynamics, freedom from compression, dispersions over frequency, etc.
REQ cannot correct these characteristics of a speaker performance.

I believe the Dolby interview included a statement to the effect that a REQ partners tell us timbre is not an issue.
The camera was close-cropped, so the hand-waving was off camera  

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> High-Def Digest reviewed "Transformers: Age of Extinction" but didn't review the Atmos soundtrack. They did, however, provide a screenshot of the soundtrack selection screen:
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/12717/transformersageofextinction.html#the-audio
> 
> The terminology used is unfortunate, because the explanatory text at the top is required for those without Atmos, but that do have 7.1 systems (or that want to select the lossless option), to choose the correct soundtrack. That screen is a mess!
> 
> I would be curious to see the back cover of that title to see what, if any, notation of Atmos is made on what the consumer would see when it's on the shelf. _Edit:_ Found a photo of the back cover on Blu-ray.com's forum.
> 
> Personally, I think they should have gone with something on the order of:
> *[ ] Dolby TrueHD 7.1 + Atmos*


Thank you very much so for this post.


----------



## RUR

audioguy said:


> ....the TacT Digital room correction system...


Chuck are you still rockin' a 2.2XP?


----------



## jacovn

Wookii said:


> I sincerely doubt it will be that much because a) that is for Auro 13.1 - not much point in that for a 7 or 9 or even 11 channel AVR, so the corresponding fee is likely to be scaled for the channels available, and b) the Storm and other high end processors have to spread their licence fees over a relatively small number if units/owners so the per user fee is higher - not necessarily the case with Denon which may have several thousand units in the field by then.


That makes sense. With a stormaudio 16 channel processor you cannot even setup all the speakers for auro3d 13.1 and atmos 7.1.4 
So if the speaker positions of Atmos cannot be used by Auro3d or the other way around it becomes an issue with the 13.2 possible connections of the 5200.

I hope the Marantz av7702 will get the DTS uhd codec as well than.


----------



## chi_guy50

Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


Actually, I posted about the DTS-UHD firmware upgrade back on August 22, but my source asked me to delete it because of sensitivity around the issue. Good to know that it has been confirmed through other channels!


----------



## smurraybhm

chi_guy50 said:


> Actually, I posted about the DTS-UHD firmware upgrade back on August 22, but my source asked me to delete it because of sensitivity around the issue. Good to know that it has been confirmed through other channels!


I like it when I make a smart decision by accident. I guess that's why the GUI has the options available for updates and upgrades.


----------



## Frohlich

Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


That is big news...not sure if that is common knowledge...even here with us crazed nuts at AVS


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> I think my comment got lost from last week, but a friend who attended CEDIA sent me this.
> 
> "Anyone can use the upfiring speakers for any mode. Yamaha does it. Denon does not. It might be an oversight, it might be fixed later. "
> 
> But that should clear up the debate Dan and I were having a couple of weeks ago (clearly in favor of Dan )
> 
> Don't really have any insight to a lot of what's being discussed here. Still haven't had a day off in almost three weeks (started August 25th on this film and have only had labor day off... And no less than 11 hour days. Ouch!!!)
> 
> It's a great film for WW2 buffs.
> 
> *'Fury'*
> 
> Hella loud. Really intense.
> 
> Back to the grind.


Very cool Marc.  ... THX

_______






P.S. Which Dolby Atmos receiver do you have, a Yamaha or a Denon one? ...Any regret?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I think my comment got lost from last week, but a friend who attended CEDIA sent me this.
> 
> "Anyone can use the upfiring speakers for any mode. Yamaha does it. Denon does not. It might be an oversight, it might be fixed later. "
> 
> But that should clear up the debate Dan and I were having a couple of weeks ago (clearly in favor of Dan )
> 
> Don't really have any insight to a lot of what's being discussed here. Still haven't had a day off in almost three weeks (started August 25th on this film and have only had labor day off... And no less than 11 hour days. Ouch!!!)
> 
> It's a great film for WW2 buffs.
> 
> Fury.
> 
> Hella loud. Really intense.
> 
> Back to the grind.


Hey Marc! 

I chatted briefly with Craig Eggers at the AVS Forum Atmos "event" and he specifically spoke to my concern about the potential problem of consumers ending up needing Dolby, DTS, and Auro "enabled" speakers. Craig said they had wanted the Dolby "enabled" speakers to work with _any_ of the 3D formats. He couldn't answer for DTS and Auro and their marketing plans, but he thought making customers buy format specific speakers would be really stupid. 

So yes, if the manufacturers wanted to allow the enabled speakers to work with other formats, they definitely could.


----------



## bargervais

Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


That I would be very interested in, DTS-UHD is more what would like, I would suspect as most blu-rays either has Dolby or DTS


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Yes, the FR was as close to identical as possible. "Weight" means ..... weight, heftiness, authority, Oomph, I have no other words to use.


How close? Do you still have the measurements?
Any magnitude response graph is a snapshot that lumps together any effects that happen within a certain time span. Our hearing might be well aware of these effects. If you look at the spectrum of a sound and a reversed version of the very same sound then you'll find that the magnitude response will look exactly the same although it obviously sounds completely different to us.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jacovn said:


> Wow, that would be very nice indeed.
> *That paid for Auro could be expensive though.* I was quoted €1200 for the Auro3d license for the stormaudio processor.
> If it are these kind of license prices i know someone who will skip that (see him in every mirror i look at)


And that right there is why Auro will fail in the consumer marketplace unless they turn their marketing and fee scale approach around.


----------



## lgreis

Dolby Atmos® Home Theater
Installation Guidelines


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> Craig said they had wanted the Dolby "enabled" speakers to work with _any_ of the 3D formats.


So why did they put the "Dolby Atmos-certified special network" into the speakers


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> frequency response inc a smooth/tight integration with the woofer/mid above it. On rereading the above posts though, I'd say the poster was talking about "impact" which I think is more of a timing thing, as in the ability of the driver to accurately track/reproduce transient material. I think it's a bit harsh to call terms like that gibberish, ultimately people are trying to convey a subjective (possibly even emotional) experience through words alone and that tends to lead one to be a bit flowery at times


Yes, OK, 'gibberish' was too harsh, I concede. But these subjective terms really don't help IMO - the more we can use properly defined terms the easier it is to get a handle on what we are talking about. I am sure you agree with this really. You see, you are interpreting "weight" as a combination of FR and good integration with the woofer/mid driver, but others might interpret 'weight' as 'solid bass output'. OTOH if we talked about FR and SPL, or FR and woofer/mid integration, then we'd all be on the same page. But we are now so far OT I am surprised we haven't been pulled up on it, so perhaps we should leave it now...


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> I sincerely doubt it will be that much because a) that is for Auro 13.1 - not much point in that for a 7 or 9 or even 11 channel AVR, so the corresponding fee is likely to be scaled for the channels available, and b) the Storm and other high end processors have to spread their licence fees over a relatively small number if units/owners so the per user fee is higher - not necessarily the case with Denon which may have several thousand units in the field by then.


Not sure what I'd be happy to pay for Auro. Certainly not 4 figures. I guess it will depend on content availability and how well Auro will play through my speaker setup, which is primarily designed for Atmos.


----------



## mastermaybe

OOPS wrong thread! 

James


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> So why did they put the "Dolby Atmos-certified special network" into the speakers


I suspect that it pretty much resides in a specific software based DSP filter mode turned on whenever you tell the receiver or pre-amp you're using these speakers as your heights. The rest is the recommended firing angle, diffusion pattern, frequency response, and beaming standards of the top firing units, which is coming from a purely engineering standpoint.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> Not sure what I'd be happy to pay for Auro. Certainly not 4 figures. I guess it will depend on content availability and how well Auro will play through my speaker setup, which is primarily designed for Atmos.


Well ofcourse, ultimately its down to the individual! Nice to have the choice though, no?


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> I suspect that it pretty much resides in a specific software based DSP filter mode turned on whenever you tell the receiver or pre-amp you're using these speakers as your heights. The rest is the recommended firing angle, diffusion pattern, frequency response, and beaming standards of the top firing units, which is coming from a purely engineering standpoint.


Last information we got is that the HRTF-derived frequency response curve is part of the Atmos-enabled speaker electronics and not part of any AVR/pre-pro processing.


----------



## bargervais

Wookii said:


> Well ofcourse, ultimately its down to the individual! Nice to have the choice though, no?


Yes nice to have the choice. One issue with me would be the cost and then if it would sound just as good using the atmos speaker set up.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, OK, 'gibberish' was too harsh, I concede. But these subjective terms really don't help IMO - the more we can use properly defined terms the easier it is to get a handle on what we are talking about. I am sure you agree with this really. You see, you are interpreting "weight" as a combination of FR and good integration with the woofer/mid driver, but others might interpret 'weight' as 'solid bass output'. OTOH if we talked about FR and SPL, or FR and woofer/mid integration, then we'd all be on the same page.


I agree that more precise terminology has it's place, especially in conversations like this. I am also a heavy data user (and proud!) when it comes to system setup. Nevertheless it is ultimately about the smile it puts on your face/in your mind when it sounds/looks so good. I don't mind cracking out the flowery talk when necessary (I've lifted some veils in my time )



kbarnes701 said:


> But we are now so far OT I am surprised we haven't been pulled up on it, so perhaps we should leave it now...


we are miles OT yes, this is what happens when there is no actual content to listen to :grin:


----------



## brwsaw

NorthSky said:


> Very cool Marc.  ... THX
> 
> _______
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg




Got my name all over it

Yammy for me, eventually


----------



## NorthSky

brwsaw said:


> *Got my name all over it*
> 
> Yammy for me, eventually


As a contributor (to the film sound mix, or as an actor)? 

* I like Yammy; solid stuff, natural sound, five feet (5th foot underneath).


----------



## audioguy

RUR said:


> Chuck are you still rockin' a 2.2XP?


No. I gave it up a long time ago. Near as I can tell, they "skipped town"! When I listen to music, I use Dirac in my server and for now, am using the Integra for bass management. For movies, I'm using Audyssey.

I am still looking for an affordable (?) SSP that will provide improved sound and Atmos and/or Auro capability with great room correction (preferably Dirac). I am helping a dealer calibrate one of their high end home theater room and they have loaned me the Datasat. But unless they have an 80% off sale, I'm probably going in that direction. By the time you purchase the base product, the Dirac hardware/software, the Auro upgrade and the Atmos upgrade, you are at or near or over $30,000 !!!

There is a product which has caught my attention and that is the MiniDSP offering which supports HDMI-based I/O. This product supports Dirac up to 8 channels. Sooooo, I put this between my BR player and a good SSP that supports Atoms/Auro and I'm good. Not sure how I would correct all of the channels greater than 8 but by the time I get around to installing speakers and selecting an SSP, they may have come up with a new solution.

What are you using these days?


----------



## brwsaw

NorthSky said:


> As a contributor (to the film sound mix, or as an actor)?


I enjoy war movies.
I'm looking forward to hearing many with an Atmos capable receiver, just to stay on topic...
Although 5.1.5 with Auro is tempting.
DTS-UHD will be common before I can afford it, guess I'll have my pick.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Last information we got is that the HRTF-derived frequency response curve is part of the Atmos-enabled speaker electronics and not part of any AVR/pre-pro processing.


That just doesn't make any sense, especially after the CEDIA panel with Floyd Toole and the boys from Dolby, Pioneer, and Auro. The HRTF curve looks like something only a bit of computer software modeling can achieve, not something hardwired into the speaker itself.


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> How close? Do you still have the measurements?


That was about 4 years ago so, no I have no measurements



> Any magnitude response graph is a snapshot that lumps together any effects that happen within a certain time span. Our hearing might be well aware of these effects. If you look at the spectrum of a sound and a reversed version of the very same sound then you'll find that the magnitude response will look exactly the same although it obviously sounds completely different to us.


And that may be why using room correction on dissimilar speakers will not really address potentially audible differences. But what di I know ?


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> That just doesn't make any sense, especially after the CEDIA panel with Floyd Toole and the boys from Dolby, Pioneer, and Auro. The HRTF curve looks like something only a bit of computer software modeling can achieve, not something hardwired into the speaker itself.


Guess if you would want to collect licensing fees from every Atmos-enabled speaker sold then putting the filter into the speaker makes more sense even if it could be easily implemented into existing Atmos AVR processing. Why charge once when you can charge twice


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> And that may be why using room correction on dissimilar speakers will not really address potentially audible differences.


Quite correct.


----------



## pasender91

Hi all, i am in need for advice 
For my Atmos setup i will proceed with 7.1.4, using Front Height and Rear Height speakers.

I have a question regarding the placement of my Rear Heights. 
The deployment guide says that they should in the alignement of the main front speakers.
On the left side, i cannot do that due to a door, so i have no choice other than placing RHL more towards the center, the horizontal angle to the MLP will be 160°.

The question pertains to the placement of the RHR (Right) speaker. I have 3 options:
1) install symetrically, so 160° as well, but then both speakers will be quite near each other, decreasing channel separation.
2) install in the alignement of the main right speaker, as per Atmos design, then i will have an horizontal angle to MLP of 120°, better separation, but an asymetric installation that may steer the whole scene to the right side.
3) a compromise, with the RHR installed at about 140°.

I know it is not ideal, but which of those configurations do you recommend?


----------



## RUR

audioguy said:


> No. I gave it up a long time ago. Near as I can tell, they "skipped town"!


In the middle of the night.



> What are you using these days?


Way OT, so I'll shoot you a PM.


----------



## pottscb

*receiver*

So, I just saw the Marantz 7009 is available for order from Crutchfield and other forum sponsors. Do any of these Atmos receivers have a "tie breaker" feature that the others don't, something to disrupt brand loyalty ...I know there are amplification differences, room EQ differences, etc. (and one of those may be a major deal, not sure) I'm not talking about a cruddy remote control being the deal breaker...

Thanks,


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

bkeeler10 said:


> Back to Atmos/MDA . . .
> 
> Perhaps this gives you an idea of how crazy/obsessed/pathetic I am. I was getting our baby to sleep last night, and got to thinking about Atmos vs Auro, and had this great idea for doing a system that will ideally accommodate both. Imagine, if you will, a traditional 7.1 setup on the floor, and add in a pair of "wides" (or front surrounds if you prefer). Then put in a rail system on the ceiling, with two rails running the length of the room and one additional rail on each running perpendicular and in line with the side surrounds. Put 3 pairs of speakers on the long rails to make an Atmos 9.1.6 layout. Then, when you need to play Auro, move those six on-ceiling speakers to the front, back and sides of the room to make a 13.1 Auro layout (ignore the wides I presume).


If I am not mistaken, the 13.1 Auro-3D layout is based on the classic 7.1 layout but does not use the rear heights in your drawing. Only LR surround height, LCR height + VOG.


----------



## pottscb

I jusst saw the new Marantz 7009 barely weighs 30 lbs...is it Class D?!? This if a fine weight for a nice pre-amp, or a power supply for an 11 channel amp...but not an entire receiver. Looks like it may be time to take a serious look at the seperates route.


----------



## smurraybhm

pottscb said:


> I jusst saw the new Marantz 7009 barely weighs 30 lbs...is it Class D?!? This if a fine weight for a nice pre-amp, or a power supply for an 11 channel amp...but not an entire receiver. Looks like it may be time to take a serious look at the seperates route.


Damn! They took out the 10 lb lead heat sink. I love these weight quotes in a modern era of electronics. Please show me one scientific study or just a study that correlated the weight of receiver with its quality - sound or otherwise


----------



## pasender91

pottscb said:


> I jusst saw the new Marantz 7009 barely weighs 30 lbs...is it Class D?!? This if a fine weight for a nice pre-amp, or a power supply for an 11 channel amp...but not an entire receiver. Looks like it may be time to take a serious look at the seperates route.


Or you may use it as a Preamp


----------



## bkeeler10

audioguy said:


> There is a product which has caught my attention and that is the MiniDSP offering which supports HDMI-based I/O. This product supports Dirac up to 8 channels. Sooooo, I put this between my BR player and a good SSP that supports Atoms/Auro and I'm good. Not sure how I would correct all of the channels greater than 8 but by the time I get around to installing speakers and selecting an SSP, they may have come up with a new solution.


This unfortunately won't work when running Atmos. In order to do Atmos, your blu ray player has to bitstream the encode to the AVR, and the AVR would do the decoding. The miniDSP Dirac box only works on PCM data, which means the decoding would have to be done in the player. This is currently not supported on any player, and no HDMI devices I'm aware of can pass more than 8 channels of PCM anyway.

What would be needed (at this point) would be a miniDSP box with Dirac that accepts analog signals, converts them to digital, runs Dirac, and then converts back to analog. Then you could place the miniDSP between the AVR or preamp and the amplifiers. This would also require that every speaker be driven by an outboard amp (not the amps in the AVR), and it would require a miniDSP with enough channels to do the job (or two 8-channel miniDSP boxes). None of those things exist in miniDSP's lineup, but hopefully sometime they will be available.

Edit: I also don't see the practicality of having the player do the decoding. It would have to be informed about your speaker count and layout in order to do the rendering, and then send it to a receiver that would already have these abilities. Redundant and pointless IMO. So for any digital room EQ to work with Atmos, I think it will have to be built in to the receiver/pre-pro or implemented between pre-pro and amplifier, going through another A/D - D/A conversion.


----------



## bkeeler10

erwinfrombelgium said:


> If I am not mistaken, the 13.1 Auro-3D layout is based on the classic 7.1 layout but does not use the rear heights in your drawing. Only LR surround height, LCR height + VOG.


Yes, it looks like you're right. After posting that, I started researching Auro a bit more and found out the same thing. Maybe those speakers that move from Atmos top rear could be moved to the VOG position (both playing the same mono VOG signal) and the center height could be omitted for a 12.1 layout. Or maybe it's crazy.

Others have posted layouts that would work quite well for both Atmos and Auro without moving speakers. Just wouldn't want to compromise if I can help it.


----------



## jdsmoothie

pottscb said:


> I jusst saw the new Marantz 7009 barely weighs 30 lbs...is it Class D?!? This if a fine weight for a nice pre-amp, or a power supply for an 11 channel amp...but not an entire receiver. Looks like it may be time to take a serious look at the seperates route.


The new Marantz AV7702 pre/pro counterpart to the SR7009 should be available in October and both will have the same MSRP.


----------



## batpig

pottscb said:


> So, I just saw the Marantz 7009 is available for order from Crutchfield and other forum sponsors. Do any of these Atmos receivers have a "tie breaker" feature that the others don't, something to disrupt brand loyalty ...I know there are amplification differences, room EQ differences, etc. (and one of those may be a major deal, not sure) I'm not talking about a cruddy remote control being the deal breaker...
> 
> Thanks,


The biggest differentiator is likely going to be the room EQ options.

Denon/Marantz models use the top of the line Audyssey XT32 calibration software.

Pioneer models use their proprietary Advanced MCACC.

Yamaha uses their proprietary YPAO.

Onkyo dropped Audyssey to save money and bring Atmos to a a lower price point, and is using a cheap chip DSP solution called AccuEQ that doesn't EQ the mains (L/R).

Audyssey is technically the best automatic REQ but the least flexible -- you are stuck with their preset target curves. However, it has, by far, the best subwoofer calibration options with dual sub support and ultra high resolution filters. MCACC offers a lot of ability to tweak and have different presets, whereas Yamaha has built in PEQ filters that you can adjust, but AFAIK both systems have limited ability to EQ the sub channel. The early tests of AccuEQ haven't been pretty but apparently there is some more flexibility in tweaking there also.

There are probably ancillary feature differences, like multizone capability, flexibility in speaker layouts, ability to send digital audio to other zones, etc.


----------



## batpig

PoshFrosh said:


> I got my answer from VUDU regarding the Atmos track on TF4. I'll post it in its entirety below, by my take on it is that will wait until the 30th to announce Atmos information:


As an FYI, I received a similar response:

*Greetings,
The Dolby Atmos will not be available for the release of the movie unfortunately. I cannot say for certain if/when it will come as we are not at liberty to discuss this. I can say that it will not be available for the release of the movie.
James Carpenter

VUDU Customer Care*


It's pretty clear they are under NDA right now and we will probably hear more after the BD is released on Sep 30. 

So (neener neener!) I was right to urge caution and not assume that the Atmos track was secretly available in advance of the Sep 30 BD release.


----------



## pottscb

smurraybhm said:


> Damn! They took out the 10 lb lead heat sink. I love these weight quotes in a modern era of electronics. Please show me one scientific study or just a study that correlated the weight of receiver with its quality - sound or otherwise


I tend to agree...though if the SR7008 also weighed 30 lbs, and then they added 4 channels and STILL have the same weight...it doesn't instill confidence that these units will not be underpowered.

Now, I don't want manufacturers to pour 10 lbs of lead shot in the bottom and call it high end...but one of the most important parts of an amplifiers anatomy is the power supply. My old Parasound A51 had a 20+ lb power supply, and would push the earth close to the moon it felt like...a receiver that weights little more than that power supply and has more than twice as many channels, I'm not optimistic about (and I have a Marantz 6006)

I think unless you MUST have the absolute newest and best, a stronger and stronger case can be made for going with upper level gear from a few years back.


----------



## Jive Turkey

*Atmos related tangent*

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_i...seq=1&format=2

Anybody heard these? I need at least two pair for the ceiling if I do the upgrade....maybe change out the sides and rear surrounds too. I have KEF Q900's and matching center channel speaker up front. Didn't neccessarily want to spend a ton of cash on all these surrounds. Any chance these Monoprice speakers do the job half decent?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jive Turkey said:


> http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_i...seq=1&format=2
> 
> Anybody heard these? I need at least two pair for the ceiling if I do the upgrade....maybe change out the sides and rear surrounds too. I have KEF Q900's and matching center channel speaker up front. Didn't neccessarily want to spend a ton of cash on all these surrounds. Any chance these Monoprice speakers do the job half decent?


FWIW, I heard that model at CEDIA with their new $250 sub. Definitely not the best place in the world to demo gear, but they did sound pretty decent and clear (nothing horrible stood out and the sound wasn't muffled, or anything that you might get in a really cheap speaker)... for the money. Better than some of the low end Polk's I seen people buy. 

I wouldn't call them a game changer sounding like speakers twice or three times the price. Will they hold up under the brutal beating of a movie soundtrack at volume? Well, I guess you could spend $63 to find out. They definitely won't sound _anything_ like your KEF's and they're 4 ohm and not super efficient, which would make them harder to drive with a receiver. You do have 30 days, I believe. Try the coupon code CEDIA14 at checkout, just for kicks. 

Anyone else want to chime in?


----------



## Jive Turkey

Dan Hitchman said:


> FWIW, I heard them at CEDIA with their new $250 sub. Definitely not the best place in the world to demo gear, but they did sound pretty decent, not horrible or muffled, or anything that you might get in a really cheap speaker... for the money. I wouldn't call them a game changer sounding like speakers twice or three times the price. Will they hold up under the brutal beating of a movie soundtrack at volume? Well, I guess you could spend $63 to find out. They definitely won't sound _anything_ like your KEF's. You do have 30 days, I believe. Try the coupon code CEDIA14 at checkout, just for kicks.
> 
> Anyone else want to chime in?


I think I'll buy a pair for s$#ts and giggles. I crossover to dual SVS 2039-PC+ subs at 80 Hz and they spec's say they'll handle 100w, so in surround use they might not be beat up too bad. I currently have Paradigm Atoms in the rear and a pair of Dunlavy Aletha's on the side. So obviously I don't get too obsessed about timbre matching to the fronts in Home Theater! It does seem that room EQ function in my Pioneer receiver does a fairly decent job with front to rear transition.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jive Turkey said:


> I think I'll buy a pair for s$#ts and giggles. I crossover to dual SVS 2039-PC+ subs at 80 Hz and they spec's say they'll handle 100w, so in surround use they might not be beat up too bad. I currently have Paradigm Atoms in the rear and a pair of Dunlavy Aletha's on the side. So obviously I don't get too obsessed about timbre matching to the fronts in Home Theater! It does seem that room EQ function in my Pioneer receiver does a fairly decent job with front to rear transition.


I don't know if they could go up against Dunlavy's or Paradigms (that might be pushing a point), but I guess, like you said, you could try them for the hell of it. Let me know if the coupon works with the sale price or not. Good luck!

I think you'll find that with Atmos, blending similarly voiced speakers (and a lot of speakers are not "perfectly neutral" like Keith's seem to be  ) from the same or close to the same "family" of speakers will work out better as there is so much more interplay between them all to create the 3D illusion.


----------



## Selden Ball

pottscb said:


> So, I just saw the Marantz 7009 is available for order from Crutchfield and other forum sponsors. Do any of these Atmos receivers have a "tie breaker" feature that the others don't, something to disrupt brand loyalty


FWIW, the Marantz SR7009 and AV7702 have multichannel analog inputs, unlike the currently available Denon AVRs.

For me, the major tie breaker was that D+M is shipping Atmos *now* (although the first commercial Atmos BDs won't be available for at least two weeks). Firmware updates for Onkyo AVRs are due at the end of September, but I believe Pioneer and Yamaha won't be providing Atmos firmware until the end of October. Yamaha doesn't support Front Wide speakers. As previously mentioned, EQ of the lowest frequencies, including the subwoofer, is more limited in the EQ provided by Yamaha and Pioneer, and non-existent in Onkyos.


----------



## Schwa

howieumd said:


> Are their any Klipsch speakers that are recommended for Atmos overheads at this time? Just wondering. Still waiting for my Onkyo TX-NR3030 receiver, but want to get speakers for it as soon as it arrives. Thanks!


I'm planning to use Klipsch CDT-5800-C II in-ceiling speakers. I'm surprised that so many people are recommending RS-series speakers -- I would think that monopoles would work best as Atmos heights.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know if they could go up against Dunlavy's or Paradigms (that might be pushing a point), but I guess, like you said, you could try them for the hell of it. Let me know if the coupon works with the sale price or not. Good luck!
> 
> I think you'll find that with Atmos, blending similarly voiced speakers (and a lot of speakers are not "perfectly neutral" like Keith's seem to be  ) from the same or close to the same "family" of speakers will work out better as there is so much more interplay between them all to create the 3D illusion.


Yup...10% discount with CEDIA14, thanks. I bought a pair of speakers and adjustable wall mounts. I'll see how the wall mounts work up on the ceiling or beams. I don't expect them to go up against the Paradigms or, in particular, the Dunlavy's, but crossed over to dual subs like I do, I have found that the surrounds aren't AS critical as the fronts, movie wise.

Now music...another story. Dunlavy SC-IVA's in my two channel system.


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> I think my comment got lost from last week, but a friend who attended CEDIA sent me this.
> 
> "Anyone can use the upfiring speakers for any mode. Yamaha does it. Denon does not. It might be an oversight, it might be fixed later. "
> 
> But that should clear up the debate Dan and I were having a couple of weeks ago (clearly in favor of Dan )
> 
> Don't really have any insight to a lot of what's being discussed here. Still haven't had a day off in almost three weeks (started August 25th on this film and have only had labor day off... And no less than 11 hour days. Ouch!!!)
> 
> It's a great film for WW2 buffs.
> 
> Fury.
> 
> Hella loud. Really intense.
> 
> Back to the grind.


Am i warm?
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/brad-pitt-wwii-drama-fury-moves-to-october-1201281186/#


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Am i warm?
> http://variety.com/2014/film/news/brad-pitt-wwii-drama-fury-moves-to-october-1201281186/#


On fire.


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> On fire.


Outstanding!


----------



## Dhoobs

chi_guy50 said:


> Actually, I posted about the DTS-UHD firmware upgrade back on August 22, but my source asked me to delete it because of sensitivity around the issue. Good to know that it has been confirmed through other channels!


Will this include the x4100 also?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

brwsaw said:


> I enjoy war movies.
> I'm looking forward to hearing many with an Atmos capable receiver, just to stay on topic...
> Although 5.1.5 with Auro is tempting.
> DTS-UHD will be common before I can afford it, guess I'll have my pick.


I find it odd which films get the Atmos mix as opposed to those that actually should. Dolphin tale 2, life in extremes... vs. Fury, Interstellar? What would you rather see in Atmos? I don't know if directors are declining to have their films mixed in Atmos or if there is something else that determines which films get the mix... well anyway it's very strange.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dhoobs said:


> Will this include the x4100 also?


It may be that the 5200 and 7200 models have enough room on their particular chip arrangements to handle basic DTS-UHD and basic Auro decoding.

That would also mean that DTS has been in more hushed talks with the manufacturers and studios all this time while Dolby blew their Atmos trumpet loudly. I don't think these companies would bother with the time and expense of designing new code if there wasn't going to be any movies with DTS-UHD.

Is it also possible that this is why Dolby has only announced two supporting studios so far?

Big announcements for DTS at this year's CES?


----------



## brwsaw

Aras_Volodka said:


> I find it odd which films get the Atmos mix as opposed to those that actually should.


I think Dolby's ability to look ahead and put out the upmixer at the same time is going to win any war there might have been. Add to that they have brought Atmos to the masses with inexpensive entry level AVR's.
If I was a betting man my money would be on them, at least for the near future.


----------



## NorthSky

pottscb said:


> I jusst saw the new Marantz 7009 barely weighs 30 lbs...is it Class D?!? This if a fine weight for a nice pre-amp, or a power supply for an 11 channel amp...but not an entire receiver. Looks like it may be time to take a serious look at the seperates route.


Like the Marantz Dolby Atmos AV7702 SSP with some Emotiva amps. ...One XPA-5 and two XPA-3s.

Or the AV8802 with two XPA-5s and one XPA-3. 

* Then you'll have some serious weight.

>< The Marantz Atmos SR7009 receiver is 30.4 pounds.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

brwsaw said:


> I think Dolby's ability to look ahead and put out the upmixer at the same time is going to win any war there might have been. Add to that they have brought Atmos to the masses with inexpensive entry level AVR's.
> If I was a betting man my money would be on them, at least for the near future.


Oh yeah for sure... I'm not complaining about Dolby themselves & I'll be getting an Atmos set up. This complaint is for the content creators & whatever deals they have going to make terrible movies with amazing mixing technology... though thankfully we do get a few good ones every now and then... mostly without Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Damn! They took out the 10 lb lead heat sink. I love these weight quotes in a modern era of electronics. Please show me one scientific study or just a study that correlated the weight of receiver with its quality - sound or otherwise


Has an overall influence on total power output (RMS into 4 Ohm loads) with 9 channels driven simultaneously. 



pasender91 said:


> Or you may use it as a Preamp


The AV7702 SSP is the exact same price.


----------



## pletwals

sdurani said:


> Not just those speakers, all the speakers. Object-based audio might be new to movie sound, but the way we reproduce those sounds at home isn't new. Hence my agreeing with dschulz. When it comes to dispersion or aiming, there's no reason to treat a ceiling mounted height speaker any differently than a wall mounted surround speaker.


All agreed, I was trying to pull one on you since you made a remark about everybody obsessing about dispersion all of a sudden... 

There are ofcourse conflicting elements involved. It is indeed possible to position and point a wide dispersion ceiling/surround speaker in such a way that the whole listening area is covered by it in most domestic situations.This is different BTW than simply pointing every speaker towards MLP because doing thàt will certainly put some listeners outside the beam. The RC inside the processor will compensate for differences in loudness, yes. Hence MLP will get consistent SPL and FR. But the listeners sitting at the corners of the area will alaas hear some speakers to loud and others not loud enough. I am afraid this cannot be remedied, only evened somehow by adding more speakers, don't you think?


----------



## sdurani

pletwals said:


> I am afraid this cannot be remedied, only evened somehow by adding more speakers, don't you think?


Energy/intensity trading can reduce the problem. Still isn't something unique to height speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> Well of course, ultimately its down to the individual! Nice to have the choice though, no?


Definitely. I think the possibility of upgrading an existing unit to Auro and/or DTS-UHD is fabulous. Not very often we see a real measure of future-proofing. But, for me, there'd have to be a fair bit of content and some assurance that my current Atmos speaker setup would work well with Auro before I jumped in. I'm not going to add more speakers any time soon, and I also wouldn't pay a fortune for Auro for two reasons: 1. I don't think there will be considerable movie content going forward, and 2. I believe the future is object-oriented not channel oriented.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Energy/intensity trading can reduce the problem. Still isn't something unique to height speakers.


No, but for most people the distance to speakers might make it a bit hard to find speakers that fall off enough off-axis for this to work.

And I would way that they shouldn't be aimed AT MLP... MLP should be slightly off-axis, so that the farther listener would be move onto on-axis and the close listener further off.

But choosing between mounting 16 speakers on my ceiling vs. 4 "bouncers".... I would say the bouncers have merits...


----------



## kbarnes701

pottscb said:


> I jusst saw the new Marantz 7009 barely weighs 30 lbs...is it Class D?!? This if a fine weight for a nice pre-amp, or a power supply for an 11 channel amp...but not an entire receiver. Looks like it may be time to take a serious look at the seperates route.


You judge your AVR by its _weight_?


----------



## pletwals

sdurani said:


> Energy/intensity trading can reduce the problem. Still isn't something unique to height speakers.


You mean point more directly to the more remote listeners? A good practice with front speakers, I agree. The fact that there is usualy a fair bit of distance from the fronts to the listeners in relation to the width of the listeners area makes that the ideal option with constant directivity speakers. But if you try to do that with side surrounds or the Top speakers, it often will result in a/ not all listeners fall inside the beam and b/ some closer listeners also fall in the center of the beam hence it doesn't work out as intended.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> (and a lot of speakers are not "perfectly neutral" like Keith's seem to be  )


Yes, it's a long time since I was a believer in 'audiophile' or 'hi-fi' speaker brands, which have deliberate distortions introduced into them in order to give them a 'house' sound and to differentiate them from their competitors. Have favored 'pro' brands for some time now, where the emphasis is on neutrality to the source. If I want any sort of 'tone controls' in the system, I like to take charge of that aspect myself.

Of course, "perfectly neutral" is something you made up and something I never actually said.


----------



## jacovn

I stepped away from a high end brand (Meridian), for the price that my previous LCR costed i now buy a complete genelec setup in 7.1.4. These underperform on paper, higher -3dB point, 4 dB less spl. Will perhaps in real life also underperform, but now i have same speaker everywhere which i could not have realized (price, space, and not an option to do it) with Meridian.

And for transformers 4 this seem to be the audio and video specs on the bluray.

Codec Bitrate Description 
----- ------- ----------- 
MPEG-4 AVC Video 24262 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1


AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description 
----- -------- ------- ----------- 
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 4388 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 4388 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Embedded: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB)


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Definitely. I think the possibility of upgrading an existing unit to Auro and/or DTS-UHD is fabulous. Not very often we see a real measure of future-proofing. But, for me, there'd have to be a fair bit of content and some assurance that my current Atmos speaker setup would work well with Auro before I jumped in. I'm not going to add more speakers any time soon, and I also wouldn't pay a fortune for Auro for two reasons: 1. I don't think there will be considerable movie content going forward, and 2. I believe the future is object-oriented not channel oriented.


Based upon the role Dolby plays in the movie industry, I would agree with you. But I think it is a bit early to decide. I'm reminded of what happened some long time ago in the battle between Dolby and DTS. DTS was easily the underdog and clearly did quite well for themselves!!

In fact, similar battles took place in the VCR world and in the HD/Bluray battle. The "best" solution may or may not win!!


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> I stepped away from a high end brand (Meridian), for the price that my previous LCR costed i now buy a complete genelec setup in 7.1.4. These underperform on paper, higher -3dB point, 4 dB less spl. Will perhaps in real life also underperform, but now i have same speaker everywhere which i could not have realized (price, space, and not an option to do it) with Meridian.


Remember that the specs for the Genelecs will be real and may even be conservative while the specs for the Meridians may use a little more consumer 'license'.  In real life the Genelecs would be my choice over the overpriced Meridians any day. Of course, the Genelecs are as ugly as a truck load of gibbons, but in a dedicated room I don't care about that, only about performance and value.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Based upon the role Dolby plays in the movie industry, I would agree with you. But I think it is a bit early to decide. I'm reminded of what happened some long time ago in the battle between Dolby and DTS. DTS was easily the underdog and clearly did quite well for themselves!!
> 
> In fact, similar battles took place in the VCR world and in the HD/Bluray battle. The "best" solution may or may not win!!


Atmos has such a commanding lead it has to make them favorites to win the race IMO. But so long as the Atmos speaker layout would also work properly for Auro, I'd be more than happy to add Auro-mixed discs to my system if they come along. I assume Auro is backwards compatible with 7.1 anyway? So even if they didn't play too well with Atmos speaker setups, I could still buy them in anticipation of future changes in the HT.

What would I pay for Auro as an upgrade to my Denon? Well, until there is some content and it looks as if there will be a continuous stream of such content, nothing. If there is significant content, then I guess the most I would pay to upgrade to Auro is $499. And even at that, I'd think long and hard. At $199 I'd jump in I think. So somewhere between those two figures.


----------



## jacovn

Hmm, i would not pay that for Auro3d.
License for DTS and Dolby are much cheaper i think. Why would this cost so much ?
They sort of use some bits in a channel of a main channel for the height information. I assume that is inserted into the DTS encoder, and on the deconding side it is seperated again.

See: http://archive.today/wwBM4


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> No, but for most people the distance to speakers might make it a bit hard to find speakers that fall off enough off-axis for this to work.


I have yet to find ANY speaker that would have the necessary off-axis response to make time-intensity trading work. I tried hard but for me trading effects make my little brain hurt. Maybe it's just an occupational disease


----------



## pottscb

kbarnes701 said:


> You judge your AVR by its _weight_?


Please learn to read the entire thread before posting...would you buy a 2lb receiver that was class A/B? That was my point.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Has an overall influence on total power output (RMS into 4 Ohm loads) with 9 channels driven simultaneously.


Based on what? Pioneer's top end Elites from a few years ago weighed 40 lbs and many said (right or wrong) that they couldn't drive 5 or 7 channels at 4 ohm loads. Just point me to where I can read about this correlation of weight and now ability to drive 4 ohm at higher levels of power. Electronics have come a long way in the past 5 years - including receivers. Onkyo was always talked about as a great receiver since they weighed so much - that greatness and weight did me a lot of good when my HDMI board crapped out after a few years. Not enough lead in their heat sink


----------



## smurraybhm

pottscb said:


> Please learn to read the entire thread before posting...would you buy a 2lb receiver that was class A/B? That was my point.


No, you clearly took a shot at the quality of the new Marantz 7009 based on it weighing 30 lbs. To which you were asked where's the proof that a few less pounds than last year's model have any correlation in the performance of the receiver? Now if we are down to 2 lbs for the whole package then you've changed things considerably 
Based on my limited understanding of modern electronics and engineering.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dhoobs said:


> Will this include the x4100 also?


I did not specifically ask about the X4100, but based on Denon's recent history of upgrades (e.g., Airplay) I doubt that the X4100 would be left out unless there were some incompatibility issue. Again, this is *assuming *the FW upgrade is forthcoming.

Speculating now, if the X7200 doesn't make it to market until 2015 (currently projected for Dec/Jan), I would not be surprised if it either had the DTS-UHD decoding built-in or were advertised as being upgradable. I have long been intrigued by Denon's deafening silence on the subject of their new flagship, which you would think to see trumpeted as their hallmark of excellence. AFAIK, it was not hawked at CEDIA in any form. I've gone ahead and purchased the X5200, but I am very curious to see what the X7200 will eventually have to offer at a projected 50% MSRP mark-up over the X5200.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Definitely. I think the possibility of upgrading an existing unit to Auro and/or DTS-UHD is fabulous. Not very often we see a real measure of future-proofing. But, for me, there'd have to be a fair bit of content and some assurance that my current Atmos speaker setup would work well with Auro before I jumped in. I'm not going to add more speakers any time soon, and I also wouldn't pay a fortune for Auro for two reasons: 1. I don't think there will be considerable movie content going forward, and 2. I believe the future is object-oriented not channel oriented.


Keith admit it, your just trying to justify the 4100 you have coming your way. This is great news for those of us who have jumped in early to help support the Atmos cause. It also provides hope that the top line receivers for Yahama, Onkyo, and Pioneer will have a similar upgrade/update path as well. The more future proof these receivers are the easier it will be for people to buy new units. 

Last post - don't want to get shot like Northsky did yesterday.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> But so long as the Atmos speaker layout would also work properly for Auro,


Big question mark at the moment. And one of the reasons I will hold off on the SSP decision. While the two approaches are all about building a 3D sound field, their current recommend speaker placements are more dissimilar than I would like. Three layers vs two layers; center ceiling VOG speakers vs 4 to 6 ceiling speakers in a rectangular array, etc. 

And the last reason is that given all of my other speakers are by the same company, I will wait for Seaton to build some ceiling speakers (which I do know he has what he will build already in his head).

I've waited over 60 years to have 3D sound so I can wait a bit longer!!


----------



## mtbdudex

chi_guy50 said:


> I did not specifically ask about the X4100, but based on Denon's recent history of upgrades (e.g., Airplay) I doubt that the X4100 would be left out unless there were some incompatibility issue. Again, this is *assuming *the FW upgrade is forthcoming.
> 
> Speculating now, if the X7200 doesn't make it to market until 2015 (currently projected for Dec/Jan), I would not be surprised if it either had the DTS-UHD decoding built-in or were advertised as being upgradable. I have long been intrigued by Denon's deafening silence on the subject of their new flagship, which you would think to see trumpeted as their hallmark of excellence. AFAIK, it was not hawked at CEDIA in any form. I've gone ahead and purchased the X5200, but I am very curious to see what the X7200 will eventually have to offer at a projected 50% MSRP mark-up over the X5200.


I'll patiently wait for the Real flagship, X9200, expecting it to support all 3 object formats, 7.2.6 directly (11 internal amps), and up to 24.x.10 via outboard decoding and amps,
Including Audyssey 3D Pro. 
Late 2015? $5-6k?



Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## audioguy

mtbdudex said:


> I'll patiently wait for the Real flagship, X9200, expecting it to support all 3 object formats, 7.2.6 directly (11 internal amps), and up to 24.x.10 via outboard decoding and amps,
> Including Audyssey 3D Pro.
> Late 2015? $5-6k?
> 
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


So when do we get one of these with XLR connectors vs single ended???


----------



## Frohlich

audioguy said:


> Big question mark at the moment. And one of the reasons I will hold off on the SSP decision. While the two approaches are all about building a 3D sound field, their current recommend speaker placements are more dissimilar than I would like. Three layers vs two layers; center ceiling VOG speakers vs 4 to 6 ceiling speakers in a rectangular array, etc.
> 
> And the last reason is that given all of my other speakers are by the same company, I will wait for Seaton to build some ceiling speakers (which I do know he has what he will build already in his head).
> 
> I've waited over 60 years to have 3D sound so I can wait a bit longer!!


Kind of in the same boat...except I am all JTR speakers and not Seaton. JTR is also in the planning stages of creating in ceiling speakers and between that and letting this all shake out a little bit, I am torn on jumping in now or waiting until gen 2 stuff hits (HDCP 2.2 standard, all three formats [Atmos, DTS and Auro] to be standard], 4k video standard, potential bugs to be cleaned up, etc....).


----------



## Al Sherwood

mtbdudex said:


> I'll patiently wait for the Real flagship, X9200, expecting it to support all 3 object formats, 7.2.6 directly (11 internal amps), and up to 24.x.10 via outboard decoding and amps,
> Including Audyssey 3D Pro.
> Late 2015? $5-6k?
> 
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP



Sounds like a winner everywhere except for the price!


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> Hmm, i would not pay that for Auro3d.
> License for DTS and Dolby are much cheaper i think. Why would this cost so much ?
> They sort of use some bits in a channel of a main channel for the height information. I assume that is inserted into the DTS encoder, and on the deconding side it is seperated again.
> 
> See: http://archive.today/wwBM4


I was just basing it on the price Auro usually seems to cost. And, as an upgrade, it is almost like getting a separate, extra, dedicated Auro AVR as well as the one it is being upgraded into. But yeah - it isn't low cost for sure.


----------



## Frohlich

Al Sherwood said:


> Sounds like a winner everywhere except for the price!


And that I am not aware of any such unit being announced or even rumored. I assume this is dreaming/vaporware.


----------



## kbarnes701

pottscb said:


> Please learn to read the entire thread before posting...


LOL. I _have_ read this entire thread. And AFAICR nowhere has the weight of an AVR been linked to its quality (or even mentioned before). If _you_ had read the entire thread, of course, before making your 4th post in it, you'd know this already 



pottscb said:


> would you buy a 2lb receiver that was class A/B? That was my point.


Who mentioned a 2lb receiver? That can't have been your "point" because until you just mentioned it, nobody else had.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> No, you clearly took a shot at the quality of the new Marantz 7009 based on it weighing 30 lbs. To which you were asked where's the proof that a few less pounds than last year's model have any correlation in the performance of the receiver? Now if we are down to 2 lbs for the whole package then you've changed things considerably
> Based on my limited understanding of modern electronics and engineering.


If you can't give a sensible answer to the 30lb question, change it to 2lbs to try to deflect. Never mind that no such thing exists. _"Let's see the answer to that one eh? A 2lb receiver, so go on, would you buy it!" _ The issue isn't worth a response. It's OT, and it's based on nothing, which is why you can ask for ever and will never get a reply to your question _"where's the proof?"_


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I did not specifically ask about the X4100, but based on Denon's recent history of upgrades (e.g., Airplay) I doubt that the X4100 would be left out unless there were some incompatibility issue. Again, this is *assuming *the FW upgrade is forthcoming.
> 
> Speculating now, if the X7200 doesn't make it to market until 2015 (currently projected for Dec/Jan), I would not be surprised if it either had the DTS-UHD decoding built-in or were advertised as being upgradable. I have long been intrigued by Denon's deafening silence on the subject of their new flagship, which you would think to see trumpeted as their hallmark of excellence. AFAIK, it was not hawked at CEDIA in any form. I've gone ahead and purchased the X5200, but I am very curious to see what the X7200 will eventually have to offer at a projected 50% MSRP mark-up over the X5200.


If DTS-UHD is alive and kicking by January, I'll eat my hat without mustard. January 2015 I mean


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith admit it, your just trying to justify the 4100 you have coming your way. This is great news for those of us who have jumped in early to help support the Atmos cause. It also provides hope that the top line receivers for Yahama, Onkyo, and Pioneer will have a similar upgrade/update path as well. The more future proof these receivers are the easier it will be for people to buy new units.
> 
> Last post - don't want to get shot like Northsky did yesterday.


 I have actually changed my order to a 5200 and I am expecting delivery towards the back of next week. I decided to go for the X5200 for various reasons which are not important to the thread, but I am happy with the choice. I don't have to justify the purchase, but sure, anything that adds to its value is good news, and being able to add two competitive 'immersive sound' formats is a great deal IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Big question mark at the moment. And one of the reasons I will hold off on the SSP decision. While the two approaches are all about building a 3D sound field, their current recommend speaker placements are more dissimilar than I would like. Three layers vs two layers; center ceiling VOG speakers vs 4 to 6 ceiling speakers in a rectangular array, etc.
> 
> And the last reason is that given all of my other speakers are by the same company, I will wait for Seaton to build some ceiling speakers (which I do know he has what he will build already in his head).
> 
> I've waited over 60 years to have 3D sound so I can wait a bit longer!!


Good point about the waiting time 

I agree with you about the speaker placement. If Auro won’t work reasonably well with an Atmos 5.1.4 setup, then it isn't for me. I don't plan on installing any more speakers in the room for quite some time.


----------



## javanpohl

So I noticed that my Yamaha RX-A2040 already has an option to set up the front presence speakers as "front height" or "overhead", even though it hasn't gotten its Atmos firmware update yet, so I went ahead and installed them as overheads, right above the seating position. Not sure if the DSP is actually processing as though the speakers are directly overhead (the manual does not indicate if they are to be set-up like Atmos or not) but the results, for the most part, are exemplary. They give an incredible sense of space and surround pans are greatly improved.

It's funny, when I moved up to 7.1, I thought the results were negligible. When I went up to 9.1 (with front heights), I could barely tell a difference. THIS... this reminds me of watching Jurassic Park in DTS for the first time. It's just revolutionary. I've always wanted overhead speakers but I didn't think they would make this big of a difference. I can only hope that true Atmos mixes work as well as this DSP does. It's like there are no more surround speakers, it's just sound everywhere.


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> I was just basing it on the price Auro usually seems to cost. And, as an upgrade, it is almost like getting a separate, extra, dedicated Auro AVR as well as the one it is being upgraded into. But yeah - it isn't low cost for sure.


Indeed, I have been told 1200 euro for a Stormaudio processor. I have read 2500 pounds or so for Atmos and Auro3D license when the price of the new Trinnov was on a UK site.
I assume this can be asked for expensive processors, but it seems to make no sense to do in a Denon or Marantz of 2000 new price. I guess no one will pay that than.


It will depend on the content. I have this far found 2 Auro3D disks from IIL, music blu rays.
I hope Atmos titles will be more soon..


----------



## FilmMixer

audioguy said:


> Based upon the role Dolby plays in the movie industry, I would agree with you. But I think it is a bit early to decide. I'm reminded of what happened some long time ago in the battle between Dolby and DTS. DTS was easily the underdog and clearly did quite well for themselves!!
> 
> In fact, similar battles took place in the VCR world and in the HD/Bluray battle. The "best" solution may or may not win!!


Completely wrong analogies however. 

Beta/VHS, HD-DVD/BR and DTS/Dolby lossy and lossles codecs were all examples of competing way to encode the same exact type of content. In regards to this subject, Dolby and DTS were both encoding PCM masters. 

For better or worse, Atmos isn't an open format. So it's eay to see why Dolby , at this point, has a large lead in terms of access to content for the home. 

Also, Dolby makes a compelling argument for original content providers (I'm talking about networks and OTT content, ie Netflix and Amazon) because they have a huge inroad in the streaming and broadcast infrastructure. Think Dolby Digitla Plus and AC4. 

DTS has almost zero penetration in that regards. 

Auro is making some inroads with the studios...

However, it is my understanding that the fundamental basis of their encoding tech (Octopus) (squeezing 12 channels into a PCM payload of 6)) requires lossless audio encoding, which severely limits their delivery options.... 

Auromatic is great from the reports I've read, but this isn't about up mixing tech only, and I think DS is no slouch. 

While I wouldn't be foolish enough to count anyone of of a technological chance in its infancy, from an industry perspective, it's hard to see how Dolby won't be successful with this in the long term.


----------



## FilmMixer

Pioneer announced their FW for Atmos on their new AVRs will be released before the end of the month. So in less than 12 days. 

"The Elite SC-85, SC-87 and SC-89 9.2-channel audio video receivers will be Dolby Atmos upgradable via a firmware update available the end of September and will make the multi-dimensional Dolby Atmos experience a reality"


----------



## javanpohl

By the way, slightly unforeseen dilemma regarding overhead speakers: adequately making sure they aren't going to fall off the wall/ceiling and kill or seriously maim somebody. With my massively powerful torque electric screwdriver, it was a little hard to tell if all my screws went into the studs. Those wall mounts feel pretty solid, I was banging on them pretty hard and they didn't move at all off of or away from the wall, but they have a little bit of play from side-to-side, which worries me. Could just be that the 2x6s are warped but I don't like it. 

I'm going to pick up some eyebolt screws and place one in the 1/4-20 slot on the speaker and attach another one (much thicker than the screws attaching the mounts to the frame) either through the wall mount or above it but, either way, in a fashion that allows me to feel that it is really jammed into that stud (have to drill a hole for those, so I'll drill a slightly larger hold through the wall-mount so that I'll know for sure once I start to go into the stud.) Then I'll connect a safety cable, either steel or chain, from one eyebolt to the other.


----------



## pottscb

smurraybhm said:


> No, you clearly took a shot at the quality of the new Marantz 7009 based on it weighing 30 lbs. To which you were asked where's the proof that a few less pounds than last year's model have any correlation in the performance of the receiver? Now if we are down to 2 lbs for the whole package then you've changed things considerably
> Based on my limited understanding of modern electronics and engineering.


If you'd ready the entire post, as I suggested, you'd see that I own Marantz (and probably won't change), but I changed the weight from 30 to 2lbs. to make the desparity more obvious...the premise is the same. There's no such thing as adding 4 amp channels for a total of zero pounds (or negative 28 lbs) without getting rid of something. Going smaller and lighter usually costs substantially more money (in engineering), so this definitely isn't the case. The amp probably sounds fine with most speakers, but it will not stand up to the current requirements of high demand speakers without affecting sound quality.


----------



## mtbdudex

Frohlich said:


> And that I am not aware of any such unit being announced or even rumored. I assume this is dreaming/vaporware.



Of course, trying to project where the flagship AVR for dedicated ht room will be in late 2015, as this is 1st gen right now some of us will sit out round 1 for round 2. 
There is a 2-3 year business plan, and that has addressed immediate need of integrating object sound into AVR's yet not a true flagship AVR, IMO. 


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Al Sherwood

javanpohl said:


> So I noticed that my Yamaha RX-A2040 already has an option to set up the front presence speakers as "front height" or "overhead", even though it hasn't gotten its Atmos firmware update yet, so I went ahead and installed them as overheads, right above the seating position. Not sure if the DSP is actually processing as though the speakers are directly overhead (the manual does not indicate if they are to be set-up like Atmos or not) but the results, for the most part, are exemplary. They give an incredible sense of space and surround pans are greatly improved.
> 
> It's funny, when I moved up to 7.1, I thought the results were negligible. When I went up to 9.1 (with front heights), I could barely tell a difference. THIS... this reminds me of watching Jurassic Park in DTS for the first time. It's just revolutionary. I've always wanted overhead speakers but I didn't think they would make this big of a difference. I can only hope that true Atmos mixes work as well as this DSP does. It's like there are no more surround speakers, it's just sound everywhere.


We are all (at least those who embrace change and have yet to actually hear it) waiting to hear Atmos for ourselves, I too hope the sound envelopment is noticeable.


BTW, those are 'high' ceilings in the area, looks like almost 16 ft!?


----------



## tjenkins95

I know a lot of people are installing ceiling speakers but is anyone out here considering about getting the new Pioneer Dolby Atmos speakers? I know that Marc bought the whole set but has been busy at work.
Thanks.


Ray


----------



## kokishin

tjenkins95 said:


> I know a lot of people are installing ceiling speakers but is anyone out here considering about getting the new Pioneer Dolby Atmos speakers? I know that Marc bought the whole set but has been busy at work.
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Ray


I'm am. Waiting for Marc or others to provide their feedback before ordering them.

BTW, I am planning to do a 5.2.4 setup using the bookshelves as FL/FR instead of the towers and probably go with two of the AJ subs, along with the X5200.


----------



## bargervais

can these *Bic America BICHT8C 8-Inch Acoustech Series In-Ceiling Speaker *or is the 8" woofer too big just asking as i have Acoustech speakers front and surrounds.
http://www.amazon.com/America-BICHT...&qid=1411141631&sr=8-21&keywords=bic+speakers
I know they can be used i was really just asking if they would be too big.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course, "perfectly neutral" is something you made up and something I never actually said.


Overemphasizing to make a point.


----------



## cannga

FilmMixer said:


> Auro is making some inroads with the studios...
> 
> However, it is my understanding that the fundamental basis of their encoding tech (Octopus) (squeezing 12 channels into a PCM payload of 6))* requires lossless audio encoding*, which severely limits their delivery options....
> 
> Auromatic is great from the reports I've read, but this isn't about up mixing tech only, and I think DS is no slouch.
> 
> While I wouldn't be foolish enough to count anyone of of a technological chance in its infancy, from an industry perspective, it's hard to see how Dolby won't be successful with this in the long term.


 

Thanks for the good explanation & your industry insight. Quick question pls regarding squeezing 12 into 6 channels: did you mean "*lossy*" above, and not lossless?

Addendum: I just looked it up - "*virtually lossless*" (whatever this means) from Auro
http://www.auro-3d.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/Auro3D-Octopus-White-Paper-v2-7-20111117.pdf


----------



## chi_guy50

mtbdudex said:


> I'll patiently wait for the Real flagship, X9200, expecting it to support all 3 object formats, 7.2.6 directly (11 internal amps), and up to 24.x.10 via outboard decoding and amps,
> Including Audyssey 3D Pro.
> Late 2015? $5-6k?


Hah, why not dream big? And--in addition to a boatload of outboard amps for those additional channels--you'll want to run right out and grab the TiVo Mega DVR for your CTV and streaming media. After all, what's another measly $5K? 









This is BIG! Introducing the *TiVo Mega*. 24 Terabytes of storage! 4000 hours of HD capacity (24 weeks) or 26,000 hours SD capacity (3 years). RAID Array, you will not lose your content if a HD goes bad. 6 tuners, includes Lifetime Subscription Service.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> If DTS-UHD is alive and kicking by January, I'll eat my hat without mustard. January 2015 I mean


Sheesh, you Brits and your strange culinary tastes! Don't forget to wash it down with a pint of lukewarm Stout!


----------



## Roger Dressler

jacovn said:


> Hmm, i would not pay that for Auro3d.
> License for DTS and Dolby are much cheaper i think. Why would this cost so much ?
> They sort of use some bits in a channel of a main channel for the height information. I assume that is inserted into the DTS encoder, and on the deconding side it is seperated again.


If the goal was just to deliver an Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack, that could be done with DTS-HD MA without the Auro Octopus codec, no additional license fee. It's just channels, no special metadata or rendering needed. Something tells me that's not going to happen...


----------



## kokishin

krozman said:


> Since you built that speaker, has it got a word in edgewise?


^^
That cracked me up! 

Some folks can talk the ears off a brass monkey.


----------



## tractng

Anybody here with a 5.1.2 setup? Feedback please. Currently I have 5.1 and just ordered a pair of Cambridge C46 ceiling speakers. I was thinking of going 4 but its dam too much speakers in a 14x20 (8ft ceiling) living room. With already 4 recessed lights on the ceiling, adding a few more would look crowded.

Fronts/Center: Kef LS50
Rear: Cambridge Minx11
Sub: JL F113


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Auro is making some inroads with the studios...
> 
> However, it is my understanding that the fundamental basis of their encoding tech (Octopus) (squeezing 12 channels into a PCM payload of 6)) requires lossless audio encoding, which severely limits their delivery options....


Yes, in order for the Octopus codec to reconstruct the channels, the embedded data must be preserved. It can be delivered with 24-bit PCM without compression (as on a DCP), or via lossless compression. 

It would be easier, and less expensive for consumer products/consumers, to just deliver their 11.1 audio with conventional lossless or lossy codecs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Overemphasizing to make a point.


That's what I said - you're making it up.


----------



## westmd

bkeeler10 said:


> Back to Atmos/MDA . . .
> 
> Perhaps this gives you an idea of how crazy/obsessed/pathetic I am. I was getting our baby to sleep last night, and got to thinking about Atmos vs Auro, and had this great idea for doing a system that will ideally accommodate both. Imagine, if you will, a traditional 7.1 setup on the floor, and add in a pair of "wides" (or front surrounds if you prefer). Then put in a rail system on the ceiling, with two rails running the length of the room and one additional rail on each running perpendicular and in line with the side surrounds. Put 3 pairs of speakers on the long rails to make an Atmos 9.1.6 layout. Then, when you need to play Auro, move those six on-ceiling speakers to the front, back and sides of the room to make a 13.1 Auro layout (ignore the wides I presume).
> 
> See attached picture.
> 
> Edit: blue are ear-level speakers, red are Atmos positions for overhead, and green are Auro positions for heights. Red circle is MLP. Add a VOG speaker if you'd like.


I donn't think it needs to be that complicated if you head over to the Auro forum, we can discuss. (I don't want to end up on the ignore list by discussing too much Auro here)


----------



## dschulz

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, in order for the Octopus codec to reconstruct the channels, the embedded data must be preserved. It can be delivered with 24-bit PCM without compression (as on a DCP), or via lossless compression.
> 
> It would be easier, and less expensive for consumer products/consumers, to just deliver their 11.1 audio with conventional lossless or lossy codecs.


You could deliver a discrete 11.1 track on the DCP or Blu Ray, but then you lose backward compatibility to 5.1 systems (or you have to include both the 5.1 and 11.1 tracks on the same disc, or have dual inventory). The nice thing about Auro's approach is it preserves backward compatibility, without down mixing. The deliverable for authoring either the DCP or the Blu Ray is a 5.1 PCM soundtrack master, that has been encoded to carry the Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack. On the Blu Ray this 5.1 PCM track can be further encoded using either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. The DCP or Blu Ray will then play back normally in standard cinemas or home theaters, but will play back the Auro-3D soundtrack if an Auro decoder is present.


----------



## FilmMixer

cannga said:


> Thanks for the good explanation & your industry insight. Quick question pls regarding squeezing 12 into 6 channels: did you mean "*lossy*" above, and not lossless?
> 
> Addendum: I just looked it up - "*virtually lossless*" (whatever this means) from Auro
> http://www.auro-3d.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/Auro3D-Octopus-White-Paper-v2-7-20111117.pdf


The delivery must be lossless to be properly decided. 

Even if the resulting decide is "virtually" lossless.


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> The nice thing about Auro's approach is it preserves backward compatibility, without down mixing. The deliverable for authoring either the DCP or the Blu Ray is a 5.1 PCM soundtrack master, that has been encoded to carry the Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack. On the Blu Ray this 5.1 PCM track can be further encoded using either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. The DCP or Blu Ray will then play back normally in standard cinemas or home theaters, but will play back the Auro-3D soundtrack if an Auro decoder is present.


While I know that has been one of the supposed benefits of Auro, the fact is that it hasn't stopped studios from creating DCP's with multiple audio formats, be it 7.1, Auro or Atmos. 

Atmos works the same in the consumer world regarding legacy compatibility.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Sheesh, you Brits and your strange culinary tastes! Don't forget to wash it down with a pint of lukewarm Stout!


LOL. I'll have you know that hat with mustard is an ancient English delicacy. (And proper beer is served at cellar temperature not 'warm', but I bet you knew that already )


----------



## kbarnes701

javanpohl said:


> By the way, slightly unforeseen dilemma regarding overhead speakers: adequately making sure they aren't going to fall off the wall/ceiling and kill or seriously maim somebody. With my massively powerful torque electric screwdriver, it was a little hard to tell if all my screws went into the studs. Those wall mounts feel pretty solid, I was banging on them pretty hard and they didn't move at all off of or away from the wall, but they have a little bit of play from side-to-side, which worries me. Could just be that the 2x6s are warped but I don't like it.
> 
> I'm going to pick up some eyebolt screws and place one in the 1/4-20 slot on the speaker and attach another one (much thicker than the screws attaching the mounts to the frame) either through the wall mount or above it but, either way, in a fashion that allows me to feel that it is really jammed into that stud (have to drill a hole for those, so I'll drill a slightly larger hold through the wall-mount so that I'll know for sure once I start to go into the stud.) Then I'll connect a safety cable, either steel or chain, from one eyebolt to the other.


Yes, that's a useful reminder to everyone: make sure that the speakers can't fall off the ceiling and end up damaged! Oh yes, or hurt someone


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> You could deliver a discrete 11.1 track on the DCP or Blu Ray, but then you lose backward compatibility to 5.1 systems (or you have to include both the 5.1 and 11.1 tracks on the same disc, or have dual inventory). The nice thing about Auro's approach is it preserves backward compatibility, without down mixing. The deliverable for authoring either the DCP or the Blu Ray is a 5.1 PCM soundtrack master, that has been encoded to carry the Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack. On the Blu Ray this 5.1 PCM track can be further encoded using either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. The DCP or Blu Ray will then play back normally in standard cinemas or home theaters, but will play back the Auro-3D soundtrack if an Auro decoder is present.


There's always downmixing in a channel-based format. Auro does it in the encoder to make the 5.1 version, with mixer controls. 

It's not much different than the process used by DTS or Dolby as their lossless codecs are delivered in substreams. In TrueHD the entire mix is represented in a 2.0 stream (a downmix with mixer-defined coefficients), the next substream is 3.1 which is used to construct the 5.1 mix. The next substream is 2.0 to reconstruct the 7.1. This can be extended to 11.1 with another 4.0 substream. Each version (2.0, 5.1, 7.1) represents the mixer-tweaked representation. There's no loss of compatibility or need for duplicate tracks.

And, I should add, that every rendition is 100% lossless.


----------



## kbarnes701

Woohoo... looks like I will get Transformers 4 before it is even out in the US! DVD World USA often ship to me before the disc has been officially released in the States. T4 was shipped today and it usually takes about 1 week to arrive here, so my ETA for it is 26th this month. OK, only 4 days ahead of you guys, but a full 6 weeks ahead of the UK release!


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> And that right there is why Auro will fail in the consumer marketplace unless they turn their marketing and fee scale approach around.


As no one knows yet how much Stormaudio will charge for Atmos we should niot judge pitential market failure by this amount!


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hey Marc!
> 
> I chatted briefly with Craig Eggers at the AVS Forum Atmos "event" and he specifically spoke to my concern about the potential problem of consumers ending up needing Dolby, DTS, and Auro "enabled" speakers. Craig said they had wanted the Dolby "enabled" speakers to work with _any_ of the 3D formats. He couldn't answer for DTS and Auro and their marketing plans, but he thought making customers buy format specific speakers would be really stupid.
> 
> So yes, if the manufacturers wanted to allow the enabled speakers to work with other formats, they definitely could.


This is Auro's answer to Dolby enabled speakers ftom the Audioholicsnterview:

'_Wilfried: First of all, to create the most immersive sound, you don’t need sound from the ceilings but a vertical stereo field in front, sides and behind the listener between ear-level and a height of about 30°. The sound bouncing off the ceiling can never create the same quality of sound reproduction. Of course we looked into that as well, but we don’t like to make false promises. This doesn’t mean the effect won’t work, but it is not comparable with the real thing._

Conlusion: Dolby Atmos enabled speakers will work, but not as good as physical speakers. But from my IFA experience I would see it similar for Atmos....


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. I'll have you know that hat with mustard is an ancient English delicacy. (And proper beer is served at cellar temperature not 'warm', but I bet you knew that already )


Well, that's how I drink MY beer. But having lived a good portion of my life all over Europe, I've watched both Germans and Englishmen have an immersion heater plunged into their beer before drinking it._ Quelle horreur_! (And just as bad is the American custom of serving it in iced mugs.) 

But back on topic, I would not want to place a bet on when DTS-UHD will hit the field; I just want to be able to decode it on my X5200 when it does.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> This is Auro's answer to Dolby enabled speakers ftom the Audioholicsnterview:
> 
> '_Wilfried: First of all, to create the most immersive sound, you don’t need sound from the ceilings but a vertical stereo field in front, sides and behind the listener between ear-level and a height of about 30°. The sound bouncing off the ceiling can never create the same quality of sound reproduction. Of course we looked into that as well, but we don’t like to make false promises. This doesn’t mean the effect won’t work, but it is not comparable with the real thing._
> 
> Conlusion: Dolby Atmos enabled speakers will work, but not as good as physical speakers. But from my IFA experience I would see it similar for Atmos....


No offense, but do you ever get the feeling that Van Baelen has his head so firmly up his [place where the sun don't shine] that his hearing may be impaired by it?

And is the sideswipe at Dolby ("but we don't like to make false promises") really doing his cause much good?


----------



## westmd

bkeeler10 said:


> This unfortunately won't work when running Atmos. In order to do Atmos, your blu ray player has to bitstream the encode to the AVR, and the AVR would do the decoding. The miniDSP Dirac box only works on PCM data, which means the decoding would have to be done in the player. This is currently not supported on any player, and no HDMI devices I'm aware of can pass more than 8 channels of PCM anyway.
> 
> What would be needed (at this point) would be a miniDSP box with Dirac that accepts analog signals, converts them to digital, runs Dirac, and then converts back to analog. Then you could place the miniDSP between the AVR or preamp and the amplifiers. This would also require that every speaker be driven by an outboard amp (not the amps in the AVR), and it would require a miniDSP with enough channels to do the job (or two 8-channel miniDSP boxes). None of those things exist in miniDSP's lineup, but hopefully sometime they will be available.
> 
> Edit: I also don't see the practicality of having the player do the decoding. It would have to be informed about your speaker count and layout in order to do the rendering, and then send it to a receiver that would already have these abilities. Redundant and pointless IMO. So for any digital room EQ to work with Atmos, I think it will have to be built in to the receiver/pre-pro or implemented between pre-pro and amplifier, going through another A/D - D/A conversion.


If DIRAC is so great and the MiniDSP can be upgraded for *$250* why don't we see it in more oroducts?


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> No offense, but do you ever get the feeling that Van Baelen has his head so firmly up his [place where the sun don't shine] that his hearing may be impaired by it?
> 
> And is the sideswipe at Dolby ("but we don't like to make false promises") really doing his cause much good?


I can only tell you what my ears told me and that was that Auro was really amazing, and reading most comments from the CEDIA I do get the same feedback. So the product seems to work! 

I just wanted to point out with my post that Atmos enabled speakers are not necessary useless for Auro.


----------



## sdurani

pletwals said:


> But if you try to do that with side surrounds or the Top speakers, it often will result in a/ not all listeners fall inside the beam and b/ some closer listeners also fall in the center of the beam hence it doesn't work out as intended.


Then you: a) try to have as many listeners as possible fall inside the beam, and b) adjust the beam to minimize hot-spotting, which was a common complaint of tops AND surrounds at recent Atmos demos. Which was my original point: the recent concern with height speaker dispersion is as applicable to other speakers as well, like surrounds. This isn't a new problem that suddenly popped up with Atmos.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

OK!


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> I can only tell you what my ears told me and that was that Auro was really amazing, and reading most comments from the CEDIA I do get the same feedback. So the product seems to work!
> .


I'm sure it works. But is that enough for Van Baelen? He seems to find it necessary not just that Auro works, but that Atmos does not. Why else the endless snarky comments? Or is being on the losing end of a potential format war, after having invested millions of dollars, coloring his judgement?


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm sure it works. But is that enough for Van Baelen? He seems to find it necessary not just that Auro works, but that Atmos does not. Why else the endless snarky comments? Or is being on the losing end of a potential format war, after having invested millions of dollars, coloring his judgement?


Like all the snarky comments from this forum *why Auro will fail!*

Dolby is the market leader and if you want to compete against the market leader you do have to bark a little bit louder.

It's like England playing Germany! Read the tabloids before!


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> can these *Bic America BICHT8C 8-Inch Acoustech Series In-Ceiling Speaker *or is the 8" woofer too big just asking as i have Acoustech speakers front and surrounds.
> http://www.amazon.com/America-BICHT...&qid=1411141631&sr=8-21&keywords=bic+speakers
> I know they can be used i was really just asking if they would be too big.


Personally, I would rather err on the side of too big than too small since you can always adjust the trim level down, but there are other considerations too, including cost and cut-out size. 

For example, I am using Polk Audio 80FX-RT in-ceiling speakers as my TR; I originally installed them as surrounds, but I think they will work out nicely as tops. I was going to go with the RT60i but was upsold and haven't regretted it for an instant.

Also, I have the Bic America Muro MSR-PRO6 in my master bathroom, and I would say that they are fabulous performers for the price (around $75 the pair). I know that acoustics plays a role, but I could sometimes swear I'm showering in a concert hall! Which reminds me of a dream I had last night . . .


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> No offense, but do you ever get the feeling that Van Baelen has his head so firmly up his [place where the sun don't shine] that his hearing may be impaired by it?
> 
> And is the sideswipe at Dolby ("but we don't like to make false promises") really doing his cause much good?


Based on my admittedly limited reading, he does seem to enjoy taking pot shots at Atmos every chance he gets (even unsolicited). It has almost seemed like a desperate attempt to discredit a competitor in order to catch up. Although I will say that Auro sounded very good based on the demo I heard at CEDIA (and which, by the time I got to hearing it, apparently had two or three speakers that were not working, according to a report I read after the show).


----------



## scarabaeus

javanpohl said:


> I'm going to pick up some eyebolt screws and place one in the 1/4-20 slot on the speaker and attach another one (much thicker than the screws attaching the mounts to the frame) either through the wall mount or above it but, either way, in a fashion that allows me to feel that it is really jammed into that stud (have to drill a hole for those, so I'll drill a slightly larger hold through the wall-mount so that I'll know for sure once I start to go into the stud.) Then I'll connect a safety cable, either steel or chain, from one eyebolt to the other.


Try Kevlar, that won't rattle. Kite string is available for up to 2,000 pounds: http://www.emmakites.com/50-ft-of-2000-lb-braided-kevlar-line_p632.html


----------



## bkeeler10

westmd said:


> If DIRAC is so great and the MiniDSP can be upgraded for *$250* why don't we see it in more oroducts?


Well, I suspect the issue is just that: price. The miniDSP's price almost doubles when you add Dirac. And, even if a high-volume company (such as the usual Japanese AVR suspects) were to negotiate and be able to add it for, say, $100 per unit, that's a massive increase in the manufactured cost of the unit, which would likely have to be multiplied four times over in the MSRP to be profitable for the AVR manufacturer. That's a steep price to pay unless you're looking at units over, say, $2500.

Aside from that little issue  I don't know why Dirac hasn't gained the traction of, say, Audyssey. They do seem to be building some momentum though, in higher-priced units. Which makes sense given their apparent pricing structure.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Like all the snarky comments from this forum *why Auro will fail!*
> 
> Dolby is the market leader and if you want to compete against the market leader you do have to bark a little bit louder.


I don't remember reading many snarky comments saying that Atmos will fail - just reasoned arguments based on content availability, commercial theater penetration, speaker layouts and so on. 

Barking louder is OK - it's when he deliberately sets out to misinform that he loses some credibility.


----------



## javanpohl

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that's a useful reminder to everyone: make sure that the speakers can't fall off the ceiling and end up damaged! Oh yes, or hurt someone


No kidding.

Here's my fail-safe.

I think I'm going to make one additional change and then be good. I want to redo the top stud anchor screw. More like a bolt/washer scenario then what I've got now. On this one, it's not so bad, but there's a knot in the wood on the other wall mount where that screw is. Furthermore, being able to crank these eyebolt screws in by hand was a very comforting experience--knowing that I was without a doubt cranking it into the stud.

By the way, those bolts with the wingnuts on them are going to the keyhole mounts, secured with a nut on the inside. If you wanted to be extra secure, you could put a nut/washer combo on the inside and outside of the keyhole and crank them together before putting them on the mounts. However, I designed this mount so that when my 1/4-20 bolts are in (the mount and the speaker), there's no wiggle room for the keyhole bolts/nuts to slide out into their openings. That, and the wingnuts are on there pretty tight but the weakness there is that you can't get them too tight. I used needlenose pliars to hold the bolt while I tightened the wingnut.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Based on my admittedly limited reading, he does seem to enjoy taking pot shots at Atmos every chance he gets (even unsolicited). It has almost seemed like a desperate attempt to discredit a competitor in order to catch up.


Yes, that is how I see it too. He can't help himself it seems. In the current dead-tree issue of WSR he has about 6 pages of the second part of an interview with Gary Reber (a rabid anti-Dolby commentator) and it is littered with comments of the sort that make me wonder what he (VB) is on.



bkeeler10 said:


> Although I will say that Auro sounded very good based on the demo I heard at CEDIA (and which, by the time I got to hearing it, apparently had two or three speakers that were not working, according to a report I read after the show).


Oh I have no doubt that Auro works well. I haven't heard it myself but I am sure it works well, based on the reports of others. I just doubt if it can succeed in the home that's all.


----------



## kbarnes701

javanpohl said:


> No kidding.
> 
> Here's my fail-safe.
> 
> I think I'm going to make one additional change and then be good. I want to redo the top stud anchor screw. More like a bolt/washer scenario then what I've got now. On this one, it's not so bad, but there's a knot in the wood on the other wall mount where that screw is. Furthermore, being able to crank these eyebolt screws in by hand was a very comforting experience--knowing that I was without a doubt cranking it into the stud.
> 
> By the way, those bolts with the wingnuts on them are going to the keyhole mounts, secured with a nut on the inside. If you wanted to be extra secure, you could put a nut/washer combo on the inside and outside of the keyhole and crank them together before putting them on the mounts. However, I designed this mount so that when my 1/4-20 bolts are in (the mount and the speaker), there's no wiggle room for the keyhole bolts/nuts to slide out into their openings. That, and the wingnuts are on there pretty tight but the weakness there is that you can't get them too tight. I used needlenose pliars to hold the bolt while I tightened the wingnut.


And tell us, how was your experience during the last 'quake?  You surely won’t have any problems with those speakers falling from their mount.


----------



## javanpohl

scarabaeus said:


> Try Kevlar, that won't rattle. Kite string is available for up to 2,000 pounds: http://www.emmakites.com/50-ft-of-2000-lb-braided-kevlar-line_p632.html


Good to know. I'll switch it if it's bothersome.


----------



## javanpohl

Al Sherwood said:


> We are all (at least those who embrace change and have yet to actually hear it) waiting to hear Atmos for ourselves, I too hope the sound envelopment is noticeable.
> 
> 
> BTW, those are 'high' ceilings in the area, looks like almost 16 ft!?


Yeah, 16ft or so by my guess. Even if I wanted a 4 ceiling speaker set-up, it would've been tricky to pull off. Luckily I only wanted 2 and that overhead wall is perfectly placed.


----------



## javanpohl

kbarnes701 said:


> And tell us, how was your experience during the last 'quake?  You surely won’t have any problems with those speakers falling from their mount.


Haha, I like to err on the far, far side of caution.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> No, but for most people the distance to speakers might make it a bit hard to find speakers that fall off enough off-axis for this to work.


Then you do the best you can to prevent speakers from being distracting to the closest listener AND provide coverage for as many listeners as possible. Some improvement is better than no improvement. Again, my original point was that this isn't some new problem that started with Atmos.


----------



## kokishin

javanpohl said:


> Haha, I like to err on the far, far side of caution.


Then I guess Elmer's glue is out of the question.


----------



## SanchoPanza

scarabaeus said:


> Try Kevlar, that won't rattle. Kite string is available for up to 2,000 pounds: http://www.emmakites.com/50-ft-of-2000-lb-braided-kevlar-line_p632.html


How about monofilament fishing line, it's clear?


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> "*virtually lossless*" (whatever this means) from Auro


Lower resolution without the use of compression. Like having the height channels as 6-8 bit PCM. Data hasn't been discarded the way MP3 compression does, but it's not the same resolution as 16 or 20 bit audio.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> If DIRAC is so great and the MiniDSP can be upgraded for *$250* why don't we see it in more products?


Because Dirac just started moving into the consumer electronics market.


----------



## bargervais

westmd said:


> Like all the snarky comments from this forum *why Auro will fail!*
> 
> Dolby is the market leader and if you want to compete against the market leader you do have to bark a little bit louder.
> 
> It's like England playing Germany! Read the tabloids before!


i don't remember to many snarky comments from this forum about how Auro will Fail. all i got out of the comments is i think it will be a hard pill to swallow because of cost. Me personally the cost of Atmos is just about all i can swallow. I think it will all boil down to cost in the long run


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Based on what? Pioneer's top end Elites from a few years ago weighed 40 lbs and many said (right or wrong) that they couldn't drive 5 or 7 channels at 4 ohm loads. Just point me to where I can read about this correlation of weight and now ability to drive 4 ohm at higher levels of power. Electronics have come a long way in the past 5 years - including receivers. Onkyo was always talked about as a great receiver since they weighed so much - that greatness and weight did me a lot of good when my HDMI board crapped out after a few years. Not enough lead in their heat sink


I wasn't referring to any company in particular; I was simply commenting on a general sense. 

* Asian receivers with lot of features (Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, Onkyo, Integra, Yamaha, etc), nowadays are weighting less and less. Because financial compromises have to be made somewhere.

With Dolby Atmos now, we can see that even more. The lab tests for power are one thing (all channels driven), and how the receiver behave into 4 Ohm loads. And real-life performance in controlling @ high reference volume level for both movies and multichannel music, and sans sub, is part of the equation as well. 

The grip exercised on speakers that are difficult to drive, and when nine of them are driven simultaneously, by a receiver of say 30 to 40 pounds, won't be the same type of grip that two multichannel amps (for totalling 9 amps, like Emotiva, or other solid brands, or one from Yamaha, or Onkyo; separate multich amp) will have in real life with them real-life tough loads. 
And without distortion, clean sound all the way from 20Hz to 20kHz, with finesse, dexterity, control, aggression, macro and micro dynamics, with all the details, with precision, with superiority. 

But hey, that's just me.


----------



## NorthSky

javanpohl said:


> So I noticed that my Yamaha RX-A2040 already has an option to set up the front presence speakers as "front height" or "overhead", even though it hasn't gotten its Atmos firmware update yet, so I went ahead and installed them as overheads, right above the seating position. Not sure if the DSP is actually processing as though the speakers are directly overhead (the manual does not indicate if they are to be set-up like Atmos or not) but the results, for the most part, are exemplary. They give an incredible sense of space and surround pans are greatly improved.
> 
> It's funny, when I moved up to 7.1, I thought the results were negligible. When I went up to 9.1 (with front heights), I could barely tell a difference. THIS... this reminds me of watching Jurassic Park in DTS for the first time. It's just revolutionary. I've always wanted overhead speakers but I didn't think they would make this big of a difference. I can only hope that true Atmos mixes work as well as this DSP does. It's like there are no more surround speakers, it's just sound everywhere.


This is very interesting; I'll have to keep an ear open on Yamaha Dolby Atmos AV receivers and next Dolby Atmos SSP...


----------



## NorthSky

> I'll patiently wait for the Real flagship, X9200, expecting it to support all 3 object formats, 7.2.6 directly (11 internal amps), and up to 24.x.10 via outboard decoding and amps,
> Including Audyssey 3D Pro.
> Late 2015? $5-6k?
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP





> So when do we get one of these with XLR connectors vs single ended???





> Sounds like a winner everywhere except for the price!





> And that I am not aware of any such unit being announced or even rumored. I assume this is dreaming/vaporware.





> Of course, trying to project where the flagship AVR for dedicated ht room will be in late 2015, as this is 1st gen right now some of us will sit out round 1 for round 2.
> There is a 2-3 year business plan, and that has addressed immediate need of integrating object sound into AVR's yet not a true flagship AVR, IMO.
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP





> Hah, why not dream big? And--in addition to a boatload of outboard amps for those additional channels--you'll want to run right out and grab the TiVo Mega DVR for your CTV and streaming media. After all, what's another measly $5K?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is BIG! Introducing the *TiVo Mega*. 24 Terabytes of storage! 4000 hours of HD capacity (24 weeks) or 26,000 hours SD capacity (3 years). RAID Array, you will not lose your content if a HD goes bad. 6 tuners, includes Lifetime Subscription Service.


_____

♦♦♦ Even the "S" from AVS (Audio/Video SCIENCE) doesn't stop us, common human mortels, from chatting and dreaming.


----------



## NorthSky

cannga said:


> Thanks (Mark - FilmMixer) for the good explanation & your industry insight. Quick question pls regarding squeezing 12 into 6 channels: did you mean "*lossy*" above, and not lossless?
> 
> Addendum: I just looked it up - "*virtually lossless*" (whatever this means) from Auro
> *http://www.auro-3d.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/Auro3D-Octopus-White-Paper-v2-7-20111117.pdf*


Thank you sir for that link (pdf read).


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes said:


> No offense, but do you ever get the feeling that Van Baelen has his head so firmly up his [place where the sun don't shine] that his hearing may be impaired by it?
> 
> And is the sideswipe at Dolby ("but we don't like to make false promises") really doing his cause much good?


What do you truly think yourself Keith?


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> You could deliver a discrete 11.1 track on the DCP or Blu Ray, but then you lose backward compatibility to 5.1 systems (or you have to include both the 5.1 and 11.1 tracks on the same disc, or have dual inventory). The nice thing about Auro's approach is it preserves backward compatibility, without down mixing. The deliverable for authoring either the DCP or the Blu Ray is a 5.1 PCM soundtrack master, that has been encoded to carry the Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack. On the Blu Ray this 5.1 PCM track can be further encoded using either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. The DCP or Blu Ray will then play back normally in standard cinemas or home theaters, but will play back the Auro-3D soundtrack if an Auro decoder is present.





FilmMixer said:


> While I know that has been one of the supposed benefits of Auro, the fact is that it hasn't stopped studios from creating DCP's with multiple audio formats, be it 7.1, Auro or Atmos.
> 
> Atmos works the same in the consumer world regarding legacy compatibility.


Please excuse my lack of knowledge gentlemen (Dan & Marc), but what does *DCP* stand for?


----------



## dschulz

NorthSky said:


> Please forget my ignorance gentlemen (Dave & Marc), but what does *DCP* stand for?


DCP = Digital Cinema Package. This is the collection of files delivered to commercial cinemas for playback from a Digital Cinema server and projector. Usually delivered on a hard drive, sometimes via satellite download.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So is anyone going to see Maze runner this weekend? I'm thinking about it but I see it's not getting good reviews... but as usual I go to seek out my Atmos fix. I've only seen one movie in real Atmos because so many theaters get it wrong... but now I know where to go.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> I wasn't referring to any company in particular; I was simply commenting on a general sense.
> 
> * Asian receivers with lot of features (Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, Onkyo, Integra, Yamaha, etc), nowadays are weighting less and less. Because financial compromises have to be made somewhere.
> 
> With Dolby Atmos now, we can see that even more. The lab tests for power are one thing (all channels driven), and how the receiver behave into 4 Ohm loads. And real-life performance in controlling @ high reference volume level for both movies and multichannel music, and sans sub, is part of the equation as well.
> 
> The grip exercised on speakers that are difficult to drive, and when nine of them are driven simultaneously, by a receiver of say 30 to 40 pounds, won't be the same type of grip that two multichannel amps (for totalling 9 amps, like Emotiva, or other solid brands, or one from Yamaha, or Onkyo; separate multich amp) will have in real life with them real-life tough loads.


Which in typical fashion this has nothing to do with the original post and response Robert. It was the weight of the receiver and a few pounds less indicated that said receiver was inferior due to weighing slightly less. It may be difficult at times to gain consensus on AVS but no one has said the new receivers from Marantz or Denon are capable of driving 4 ohm speakers to reference. When asked nearly everyone has said a little amplification up front or all around my be of benefit/necessary. Back to Atmos please.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> There's always downmixing in a channel-based format. Auro does it in the encoder to make the 5.1 version, with mixer controls.
> 
> It's not much different than the process used by DTS or Dolby as their lossless codecs are delivered in substreams. In TrueHD the entire mix is represented in a 2.0 stream (a downmix with mixer-defined coefficients), the next substream is 3.1 which is used to construct the 5.1 mix. The next substream is 2.0 to reconstruct the 7.1. This can be extended to 11.1 with another 4.0 substream. Each version (2.0, 5.1, 7.1) represents the mixer-tweaked representation. There's no loss of compatibility or need for duplicate tracks.
> 
> And, I should add, that every rendition is 100% lossless.


Roger, it is always educative to read you, thank you sir. 

* Dolby Atmos, Auro-3D (Octopus codec), DTS-UHD, ...they all can subsist together as three major forces "downmix" to one.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> If DIRAC is so great and the MiniDSP can be upgraded for *$250* why don't we see it in more products?


It's comin' soon, in the Emotiva XMC-1 surround sound processor.
...Just have to be a little more patient, that's all.


----------



## mtbdudex

NorthSky said:


> _____
> 
> Even the "S" from AVS (Audio/Video SCIENCE) doesn't stop us, common human mortels, from chatting and dreaming.



Agreed, what I'm trying to do is get people to realize those on frontline / 1st gen will not have as many choices/features than 2nd gen.

What does this mean?

If you are in the market now for AVR, sure consider object sound.
However, IMO, if your AVR is 2-3 year recent buy may make sense to wait out the 1st gen gear for 2nd gen gear. Unless you are really that minority OCD hobbyist that must have leading edge..... And I've been there also , but that's another story too OT.

As far as the S, part of my day job is business transformation, so I do consolidate the subjective into objective to further business growth and opportunity. It's natural for me to strive and apply that here as well.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## kokishin

smurraybhm said:


> Which in typical fashion this has nothing to do with the original post and response Robert. It was the weight of the receiver and a few pounds less indicated that said receiver was inferior due to weighing slightly less. It may be difficult at times to gain consensus on AVS but no one has said the new receivers from Marantz or Denon are capable of driving 4 ohm speakers to reference. When asked nearly everyone has said a little amplification up front or all around my be of benefit/necessary. Back to Atmos please.


Bless you smurraybhm! But it's like herding cats.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> DCP = Digital Cinema Package. This is the collection of files delivered to commercial cinemas for playback from a Digital Cinema server and projector. Usually delivered on a hard drive, sometimes via satellite download.


Appreciate that, thx.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that is how I see it too. He can't help himself it seems. In the current dead-tree issue of WSR he has about 6 pages of the second part of an interview with Gary Reber (a rabid anti-Dolby commentator) and it is littered with comments of the sort that make me wonder what he (VB) is on.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have no doubt that Auro works well. I haven't heard it myself but I am sure it works well, based on the reports of others. I just doubt if it can succeed in the home that's all.


What doesn't work IMHO is the mono VOG speaker (even with four speakers, it's still split mono). From the demos I've heard, it calls attention to itself. The heights do help with the 3D immersiveness, but the mono top part kills it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Lower resolution without the use of compression. Like having the height channels as 6-8 bit PCM. Data hasn't been discarded the way MP3 compression does, but it's not the same resolution as 16 or 20 bit audio.


Auro should just come out with a 24 bit/48 kHz or 24 bit/96 kHz (for music) bit-for-bit lossless 13.1 track. No need to downgrade the fidelity so much on any channel.


----------



## howard68

I sent Denon the question about the Auro 3d upgrades. I will buy the Avr 5200w if this is true 
Have had no response from Denon so far


----------



## ambesolman

kokishin said:


> ^^
> 
> That cracked me up!
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks can talk the ears off a brass monkey.



That funky monkey?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## wse

howard68 said:


> I sent Denon the question about the Auro 3d upgrades. I will buy the Avr 5200w if this is true
> Have had no response from Denon so far


Are you saying Denon would have ATMOS & AURO 3D sweet 

But then how to you set up your speakers?

4 in the ceiling 
5 around the wall mid level
7 at ear level!

16 speakers  oh yes


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Auro should just come out with a 24 bit/48 kHz or 24 bit/96 kHz (for music) bit-for-bit lossless 13.1 track. No need to downgrade the fidelity so much on any channel.


Then it wouldn't be Auro. Their licensing revenue is based on their Octopus encoder/decoder, which folds a 9.1 or 11.1 mix into a 5.1 track using a specific approach. IF the music was delivered on disc as a 9.1 or 11.1 DTS-HD MA bitstream, why would any manufacturer license technology specifically designed to dismantle a 5.1 track in order to reconstruct the 9.1 or 11.1 original? Auro decoding would be unnecessary. Just unpack the DTS stream and play.


----------



## bargervais

mtbdudex said:


> Agreed, what I'm trying to do is get people to realize those on frontline / 1st gen will not have as many choices/features than 2nd gen.
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> If you are in the market now for AVR, sure consider object sound.
> However, IMO, if your AVR is 2-3 year recent buy may make sense to wait out the 1st gen gear for 2nd gen gear. Unless you are really that minority OCD hobbyist that must have leading edge..... And I've been there also , but that's another story too OT.
> 
> As far as the S, part of my day job is business transformation, so I do consolidate the subjective into objective to further business growth and opportunity. It's natural for me to strive and apply that here as well.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


I'm OCD I have to get a taste of all things New. But I'm holding off in replacing my main gear, then I'll wait at least till the end of 2015 early 2016 and by then I'll look for 4K TV as well. I got the 737 just to play with and get my feet wet with Atmos.


----------



## howard68

I am now set up for 4 overhead incelling speakers and 4 height speakers Auro 3d style onwall 
As well as 7.2 basis set up


----------



## batpig

Yeah baby

Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, your judgement day has come!


----------



## mike_carton

Wondering what everyone feels about the state of the play three years from now, how widespread and dominating ATMOS will be and what the level of consumer awareness and penetration it will achieve: on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest.


----------



## WayneJoy

Aras_Volodka said:


> So is anyone going to see Maze runner this weekend? I'm thinking about it but I see it's not getting good reviews... but as usual I go to seek out my Atmos fix. I've only seen one movie in real Atmos because so many theaters get it wrong... but now I know where to go.


I saw it and enjoyed it. Not as good as the Hunger Games, but much better than Divergent. The reviews haven't been that bad, 63% on the Tomatometer.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Yeah baby


One of our local HT group members here in LA just brought this home from his rental shop (blacked out to keep them from getting in trouble).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

WayneJoy said:


> I saw it and enjoyed it. Not as good as the Hunger Games, but much better than Divergent. The reviews haven't been that bad, 63% on the Tomatometer.


Cool, what did you think of the Atmos mix? I'm about to jump in the car right now to see it.


----------



## WayneJoy

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool, what did you think of the Atmos mix? I'm about to jump in the car right now to see it.


 Unfortunately no atmos for me unless I drive 3 hours into NYC just to watch a movie. I caught it on IMAX.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Yeah baby
> 
> Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, your judgement day has come!





sdurani said:


> One of our local HT group members here in LA just brought this home from his rental shop (blacked out to keep them from getting in trouble).


Cool! Can't wait to see what you guys have to say


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool! Can't wait to see what you guys have to say


Unfortunately, he doesn't have an Atmos receiver. I just wanted to show what the disc art looks like and that Atmos is mentioned clearly.


----------



## Orbitron

Are the extra features like deleted scenes also encoded with Atmos?

Would be cool if there is an extra feature explaining how they employed the use of Atmos in the Score.


----------



## LDBecker

batpig said:


> Yeah baby
> 
> Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, your judgement day has come!


 Ok - where did you get the Atmos demo disk? I remember there was hopeful speculation that such a thing might come with Atmos-capable receivers, but no such luck... 
You didn't have to sell a first-born child or anything, I hope.  Probably sworn to secrecy, I suppose...


----------



## batpig

Nothing I need to kill you about after telling you 

They were handing them out at CEDIA and a kindly friend snagged one for me.


----------



## PoshFrosh

batpig said:


> Nothing I need to kill you about after telling you
> 
> They were handing them out at CEDIA and a kindly friend snagged one for me.



Do you have a BluRay burner? j/k

In all seriousness I'd *much* rather have that demo disc than the Transformers I have on pre-order. I think they are missing an opportunity by not selling them. 

And sdurani, you still have rental shops in your area? You are so lucky.


----------



## LDBecker

batpig said:


> Nothing I need to kill you about after telling you
> 
> They were handing them out at CEDIA and a kindly friend snagged one for me.


Hah... My son tells me that all the time when I ask what he does... And he really does have a pretty high level of clearance. I quit asking... 

It couldn't happen to a nicer, more deserving forum member! Or to one better equipped to give impressions...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Nothing I need to kill you about after telling you
> 
> They were handing them out at CEDIA and a kindly friend snagged one for me.


With the three movie clips taken out. Not that they were the very best choices to show off Atmos... The least of which was T4, which no one outside of Dolby used.

The very best one would have been the Red Bull F1 short, but it was only a snippet on the disc. The JBL booth ran the full thing as part of their DCP, and it was one of the more dramatic showcases. 

Funny how DTS could put at least a handful of movie clips on their demo discs in the past, but not Dolby.


----------



## Al Sherwood

dschulz said:


> DCP = Digital Cinema Package. This is the collection of files delivered to commercial cinemas for playback from a Digital Cinema server and projector. Usually delivered on a hard drive, sometimes via satellite download.


 
From a credible online source, is this what you would refer to as a DCP?


"One bit of *VERY BIG* news is that *Sony's 4K media player, the FMP-X10*, will be upgraded this fall to include support for *ALL* 4K compatible HD video display products that have HDCP 2.2 content protection. To date the FMP-X10 has supported just Sony products. On behalf of the whole video world, we say *Thank You Sony!!!"*


----------



## WayneJoy

Al Sherwood said:


> From a credible online source, is this what you would refer to as a DCP?
> 
> 
> "One bit of *VERY BIG* news is that *Sony's 4K media player, the FMP-X10*, will be upgraded this fall to include support for *ALL* 4K compatible HD video display products that have HDCP 2.2 content protection. To date the FMP-X10 has supported just Sony products. On behalf of the whole video world, we say *Thank You Sony!!!"*


 A DCP is what is sent to movie theaters to play. The files on the Sony 4K server are not DCPs.


----------



## marky301067

batpig said:


> Yeah baby
> 
> Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, your judgement day has come!



Looks good http://www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/dolby-atmos-demo-disc-aug-2014.php :wink:


----------



## Aras_Volodka

WayneJoy said:


> Unfortunately no atmos for me unless I drive 3 hours into NYC just to watch a movie. I caught it on IMAX.


Oh man, sorry to hear that... the Atmos mix was awesome. This theater set up their sound system really well. At first I didn't really think so because I saw "into the storm" there a month ago. While I heard the Atmos effect the sound was too loud for me to enjoy, but Maze Runner was mixed just right. I can see why so many enjoy Atmos so much now!


----------



## marky301067

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool! Can't wait to see what you guys have to say



Transformers: Age of Extinction


AUDIO:



Codec Language Bitrate Description 

----- -------- ------- ----------- 

Dolby TrueHD Audio English 4388 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 4388 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Embedded: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB)

Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB

Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB / Dolby Surround

Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB

Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB

Dolby Digital Audio Portuguese 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB

Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB

:smile:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

marky301067 said:


> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> 
> 
> AUDIO:
> 
> 
> 
> Codec Language Bitrate Description
> 
> ----- -------- ------- -----------
> 
> Dolby TrueHD Audio English 4388 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 4388 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Embedded: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB)
> 
> Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB / Dolby Surround
> 
> Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> Dolby Digital Audio Portuguese 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> :smile:


It is very possible that your software isn't looking at the _entire_ TrueHD file since Atmos extension encoding is so new. The codec bitrate seems low for 7.1 plus a bunch of other audio data.


----------



## Cinema Gary

*Dolby Atmos / Ceiling Speaker Positioning ????*

I too like most people are looking forward to Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater  

I cannot seem to find an definitive answer on the minimum ceiling height and positioning of the 4 in ceiling speakers.

I was looking to get either 4 Invisa HTR 7000 or 4 Revel C763L speakers, would they be suitable and where would they need to be positioned in relation to the listener 

My room is small by comparison to some rooms featured on these forums just myself and my wife, its 14 feet long by 9 feet wide by 7 feet high. I have a current 7.1 set up and was looking to add the 4 ceiling speakers in preparation for Dolby Atmos


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yeah baby
> 
> Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, your judgement day has come!


Report! Report! Report!


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Do you have a BluRay burner? j/k
> 
> In all seriousness I'd *much* rather have that demo disc than the Transformers I have on pre-order. I think they are missing an opportunity by not selling them.


There are no movie clips on the demo disc unfortunately.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> With the three movie clips taken out. Not that they were the very best choices to show off Atmos... The least of which was T4, which no one outside of Dolby used.
> 
> The very best one would have been the Red Bull F1 short, but it was only a snippet on the disc. The JBL booth ran the full thing as part of their DCP, and it was one of the more dramatic showcases.
> 
> Funny how DTS could put at least a handful of movie clips on their demo discs in the past, but not Dolby.


Licensing issues. Dolby might be able to do a similar thing to the excellent DTS demo discs at some stage in the future. Remember all the hoohar about the clips I reported on from the first Dolby demo in London? Those are the only movie clips they have that they could use to demo home Atmos, and they weren't even allowed to show them to the trade let alone give them out to all and sundry. They have a license to show STID to people, but I guess it doesn't extend to putting it on to a disc and then giving it away for free.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cinema Gary said:


> I too like most people are looking forward to Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater
> 
> I cannot seem to find an definitive answer on the minimum ceiling height and positioning of the 4 in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I was looking to get either 4 Invisa HTR 7000 or 4 Revel C763L speakers, would they be suitable and where would they need to be positioned in relation to the listener
> 
> My room is small by comparison to some rooms featured on these forums just myself and my wife, its 14 feet long by 9 feet wide by 7 feet high. I have a current 7.1 set up and was looking to add the 4 ceiling speakers in preparation for Dolby Atmos


There's plenty of info in this thread and, as you’d imagine, this has been asked and answered numerous times. Look for the 'oft-posted diagram' showing the prescribed angles you need to meet for the overhead speakers. That is really all you need to know. Also, download from the Dolby site the Installation Guide which has more info. Oh, I got it right on my desktop as it happens, so *click here to download it*. 

7 foot ceiling height is a bit low for on or in-ceiling speakers - you might prefer the result from Atmos enabled speaker modules.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> There are no movie clips on the demo disc unfortunately.


That's fine. I just want it for diagnostic purposes.
If I'm going to tweak with my setup in any way, it'd be nice to be able to test the results with something straightforward like one of those demos.


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> That's fine. I just want it for diagnostic purposes.
> If I'm going to tweak with my setup in any way, it'd be nice to be able to test the results with something straightforward like one of those demos.


Yes, good idea. One of the Atmos trailers would make a good subjective, comparative test.


----------



## pasender91

jdsmoothie said:


> The new Marantz AV7702 pre/pro counterpart to the SR7009 should be available in October and both will have the same MSRP.


Well, not in europe, here the MSRP for 7009 is 1800€ and AV7702 is 2000€, so it is quite stupid but assuming features are identical it will be cheaper to acquire the 7009 and use it as a preamp 

Is there any difference in the circuitry that makes the AV7702 sound better?


----------



## Selden Ball

The AV7702 doesn't have power amps to add heat in the chassis and shorten the lifetime of the electronics (statistically speaking), and it has latching XLR connectors which are somewhat more reliable than the RCA outputs that are all that are on the SR7009. As a result, the pre/pro is slightly lighter. Otherwise the two are functionally _identical_. 

Oh, right, the claimed SNR is slightly better for the AV7702 (presumably just because it doesn't have the noise contributed by the amps), but it's already inaudibly low in the SR7009. This _might_ make a slight difference if you have extremely efficient speakers, but you also have to make sure that whatever amps you use are at least as quiet.


----------



## pasender91

There is a preamp mode in the 7009 that will switch off the amps, saving energy and reducing interferences.

Granted, there are the XLR outputs on the 7702, but not sure what is the real bonus to connect my power amp 1 meter away with XLR ... 

In order not to derail the Atmos thread further, i suggest we follow this discussion on the Marantz related threads


----------



## NorthSky

Dolby Atmos Marantz SR7009 AV Receiver & AV7702 Surround Sound Processor (SSP): 

www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/marantz-dolby-atmos-receivers/1574


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> 7 foot ceiling height is a bit low for on or in-ceiling speakers - you might prefer the result from Atmos enabled speaker modules.


Or considering an in-ceiling speaker that you can aim towards the MLP possibly.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Or considering an in-ceiling speaker that you can aim towards the MLP possibly.


Yes, a 7ft ceiling might be OK. Only way to know for sure is to try it out. And if the overheads are some distance fore and aft of the MLP, then of course the distance from the MLP to the speakers will be greater.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> There is a preamp mode in the 7009 that will switch off the amps, saving energy and reducing interferences.
> 
> Granted, there are the XLR outputs on the 7702, but not sure what is the real bonus to connect my power amp 1 meter away with XLR ...


None really, other than the security of the latches. And, of course, they look cool


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> There is a preamp mode in the 7009 that will switch off the amps, saving energy and reducing interferences.
> 
> Granted, there are the XLR outputs on the 7702, but not sure what is the real bonus to connect my power amp 1 meter away with XLR ...
> 
> In order not to derail the Atmos thread further, i suggest we follow this discussion on the Marantz related threads


The XLR connections are much better, more secure than RCA.


----------



## pasender91

Dan Hitchman said:


> The XLR connections are much better, more secure than RCA.


Now, you and Keith got me curious, what is "unsecure" with the RCA connects. I have had RCA connections from Preamps to the Lexicon amp for the last 10 years, what was the risk ?

Until now, the connections did not move or even try to run away !!!


----------



## NorthSky

XLR comes with a lock. ...Not RCA, which can slip away.

But the AC power chord on both doesn't come with a lock; so that one too can slip away.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Now, you and Keith got me curious, what is "unsecure" with the RCA connects. I have had RCA connections from Preamps to the Lexicon amp for the last 10 years, what was the risk ?
> 
> Until now, the connections did not move or even try to run away !!!


It's not so much that RCA are unsecure as that XLR are more secure. XLR have a little latch that clicks reasurringly when the connection is made. Unless your cable runs are very long and/or are mixed with cables which are sources of potential induced noise, I wouldn't worry about it. Like you, I've never had an RCA cable freak out on me.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> XLR comes with a lock. ...Not RCA, which can slip away.
> 
> But the AC power chord on both doesn't come with a lock; so that one too can slip away.


Sorry, but I never slipped a cable! As long as you don't lay your cables openely in the way where you walk I think slipping cables are the least of the problem. I do have very shhort connection between my processor and my amps so RCA is for me sufficient!


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Dolby Atmos Marantz SR7009 AV Receiver & AV7702 Surround Sound Processor (SSP):
> 
> www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/marantz-dolby-atmos-receivers/1574


What I find offputting is that tge 7702 does not have enough horsepower to apply Audyssey XT32 to all 11 channels but only to 9. so what happens to a 7.1.4 setup when running? I assume that Audyssey XT32 is disabled completely!


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> One of our local HT group members here in LA just brought this home from his rental shop (blacked out to keep them from getting in trouble).


Does the disc have an Atmos sound introduction. Remember back in the day when THX DVDs came out with THX sound they had that sound sample just before the movie started? Or like Lionsgate Blue Rays with all those gears turning and the sound envelopes the room just before the movie starts.


----------



## brwsaw

smurraybhm said:


> Or considering an in-ceiling speaker that you can aim towards the MLP possibly.


This is interesting...

Bryston will have a concentric "architectural" speaker with aim able tweeter. Good price too.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/bryston-introduces-ciw-architectural-loudspeaker/

From AC

"Yes sad but true I am afraid.

It appears that unless you have a Ceiling speaker no custom installer will consider using your speakers in the rest of the setup = Fronts, Centers, Surrounds etc.  So with all the limitations and performance compromises Ceiling or even Inwall speakers present I have been told we have to offer some.

I really have mixed feelings about it because the Bryston speaker project for me was about Performance First and I feel a little compromised with this. 

james"


----------



## marky301067

Dan Hitchman said:


> It is very possible that your software isn't looking at the _entire_ TrueHD file since Atmos extension encoding is so new. The codec bitrate seems low for 7.1 plus a bunch of other audio data.


Menu attached below


----------



## bargervais

marky301067 said:


> Menu attached below


Very cool can't wait till mine gets here I have to wait ten more days have you watched it yet


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> Sorry, but I never slipped a cable! As long as you don't lay your cables openly in the way where you walk I think slipping cables are the least of the problem. I do have very short connection between my processor and my amps so RCA is for me sufficient!


I was simply mentioning.  ...Me neither, I never had my RCA cables slip away from my audio/video components, ever. ...Or perhaps once, when I was fourteen or so, back in around 69. 
And I use German WBA lock-on RCA connectors for my best stuff. ...For the rest they are sturdy RCA connectors that I personally adjust for the right fit. ...I'm a very handy man when it comes to audio/video electronics, and all that music/movie jazz. 



westmd said:


> *What I find off-putting is that the 7702 does not have enough horsepower to apply Audyssey XT32 to all 11 channels but only to 9. so what happens to a 7.1.4 setup when running?*
> I assume that Audyssey XT32 is disabled completely!


I did not know that; this is troubling, to say the least. ...I want my Audyssey MultEQ XT32 to EQ my full *7.1.4* Dolby Atmos setup configuration. ...Anything less than that means something important is missing here. ...Not enough horsepower, even with four (4) DSP chips?

I hope that with the second generation of Dolby Atmos Marantz surround sound processors we won't have that deficiency (limitation) no more.


----------



## marky301067

bargervais said:


> Very cool can't wait till mine gets here I have to wait ten more days have you watched it yet



I haven't watched the disc in house yet, I will wait until I get my Atmos system set up next week.


----------



## bargervais

marky301067 said:


> I haven't watched the disc in house yet, I will wait until I get my Atmos system set up next week.


Cart before the horse LOL congratulations in advance.


----------



## Selden Ball

westmd said:


> What I find offputting is that tge 7702 does not have enough horsepower to apply Audyssey XT32 to all 11 channels but only to 9. so what happens to a 7.1.4 setup when running? I assume that Audyssey XT32 is disabled completely!


Sorry to stretch out the D+M discussion, but I couldn't let this get by:

Fortunately, you are incorrect. I suspect you're confusing it with the Denon AVR X4100, which is limited to 9 active out of 11 calibrated.

The Marantz SR7009 AVR and AV7702 pre/pro are essentially identical except for the amps. Both support up to 13 speaker channels, 11 of which can be active simultaneously. If you have 13 speakers connected, all 13 are EQ'd. You get to choose during playback which 11 produce sound (all EQ'd) -- I'm running an SR7009 with 7.1.4. (My room really isn't big enough for 9.1.4.) I agree it would be nice if all 13 could be active simultaneously.


----------



## bargervais

westmd said:


> What I find offputting is that tge 7702 does not have enough horsepower to apply Audyssey XT32 to all 11 channels but only to 9. so what happens to a 7.1.4 setup when running? I assume that Audyssey XT32 is disabled completely!


These new Marantz Dolby Atmos receivers have a whole new way of calibrating and reproducing Atmos-compatible soundtracks. For one, they have the processing power to run a 9 channel Dolby Atmos layout with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibration. This can be run in either a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration. Dolby Atmos configuration will utilize either ceiling mounted or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 5.1.4 speaker configuration adds 4 overhead speakers to a traditional 5.1 speaker layout. Alternatively, a Dolby Atmos-enabled 7.1.2 speaker system is based on a 7.1 speaker layout, but with 2 overhead (or Dolby Atmos-enabled) speakers

I didn't interpret it to say that it doesn't have enough power to run audyssey what I understood was that the receiver can only do 9.1 when Atmos is enabled.


----------



## NorthSky

I'm confused; so what is it exactly in them new Dolby Atmos Marantz AV receivers and SSPs? 
...Only nine or eleven EQued Audyssey channel speakers running simultaneously?

...Conflicting comments here.


----------



## David Susilo

Well, the real question is: who's going to CES2015? Scott Simonian? Dan Hitchman? Don't know of any Bubba over there though...only Panda Express


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> These new Marantz Dolby Atmos receivers have a whole new way of calibrating and reproducing Atmos-compatible soundtracks. For one, they have the processing power to run a 9 channel Dolby Atmos layout with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibration. This can be run in either a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration. Dolby Atmos configuration will utilize either ceiling mounted or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 5.1.4 speaker configuration adds 4 overhead speakers to a traditional 5.1 speaker layout. Alternatively, a Dolby Atmos-enabled 7.1.2 speaker system is based on a 7.1 speaker layout, but with 2 overhead (or Dolby Atmos-enabled) speakers
> 
> I didn't interpret it to say that it doesn't have enough power to run audyssey what I understood was that the receiver can only do 9.1 when in atmos...


Not yet having an Atmos disc, I can't comment on that part, but they certainly can support any 11 selected speakers out of 13 connected, all EQ'd.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I'm confused; so what is it exactly in them new Dolby Atmos Marantz AV receivers and SSPs?
> ...Only nine or eleven EQued Audyssey channel speakers running simultaneously?
> 
> ...Conflicting comments here.


I was commenting on what west said that it didn't have enough power to eq more then 9 I didn't interpret it that way all I was saying that that receiver when playing in atmos mode that it will eq 9 but if you run more when not in atmos mode that it will eq all available.
I think it has plenty of power..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

marky301067 said:


> Menu attached below


I'm talking about the software analyzer that measures bitrates, bit depth, etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> Well, the real question is: who's going to CES2015? Scott Simonian? Dan Hitchman? Don't know of any Bubba over there though...only Panda Express


I'll go if I can. What I'd like to find out now is how I can get into CES Las Vegas in 2015.


----------



## nucky

marky301067 said:


> Menu attached below


Mmm, I wonder where you got that from. :grin:


----------



## Schwa

Well, I'll say this...it'll sure make waiting for the X7200 easier if the only Atmos movies I'm missing between now and then are gems like Transformers!


----------



## NorthSky

Wait a second here: The Marantz SR7009 and AV7702 can run nine channels EQued by Audyssey when in Dolby Atmos audio mode? 
...But no eleven of them when in Dolby Atmos audio decoding mode?

I know that eleven channels can run simultaneously, and all EQued by Audyssey, but that's in Audyssey DSX mode, or/and DTS Neo:X mode.

Am I getting this right, or not?


----------



## Selden Ball

Audyssey runs on a completely separate DSP from Atmos. Neither interferes with the other. That's why D+M's Atmos-capable equipment is more expensive than Onkyo's. 

The output of the Dolby Atmos decoder DSP provides up to 11 channels of output, one for each active speaker channel. That is fed into a completely separate DSP chip which does the Audyssey equalizing for all of the active speaker channels. It can't know whether its input originated from the Dolby Surround upmixer or the Dolby Atmos decoder.


----------



## westmd

Selden Ball said:


> Audyssey runs on a completely separate DSP from Atmos. Neither interferes with the other. That's why D+M's Atmos-capable equipment is more expensive than Onkyo's.
> 
> The output of the Dolby Atmos decoder DSP provides up to 11 channels of output, one for each active speaker channel. That is fed into a completely separate DSP chip which does the Audyssey equalizing for all of the active speaker channels. It can't know whether its input originated from the Dolby Surround upmixer or the Dolby Atmos decoder.


Here is the link:

http://hometheaterreview.com/new-marantz-products-support-dolby-atmos/

I might be wrong but it states under *Flexible speaker configuration *all processors will run Audyssey MultiEQXT32 for *9 channels!* Later it states that the 7702 can run Atmos with *11 speakers* but not that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is possible for these 11 speakers!

I might be pedantic in wording but I remember at least one of the previous generation unuts ( before 7701 and 8801) which was able to dobAudyssey MultiEQXT 32 not for *the losless audio codecs!*


----------



## kokishin

Selden Ball said:


> Audyssey runs on a completely separate DSP from Atmos. Neither interferes with the other. That's why D+M's Atmos-capable equipment is more expensive than Onkyo's.
> 
> The output of the Dolby Atmos decoder DSP provides up to 11 channels of output, one for each active speaker channel. That is fed into a completely separate DSP chip which does the Audyssey equalizing for all of the active speaker channels. It can't know whether its input originated from the Dolby Surround upmixer or the Dolby Atmos decoder.


I'm not challenging you whatsoever but I was curious how you learned this? I like understanding the internals.


----------



## wse

Selden Ball said:


> Sorry to stretch out the D+M discussion, but I couldn't let this get by:
> 
> Fortunately, you are incorrect. I suspect you're confusing it with the Denon AVR X4100, which is limited to 9 active out of 11 calibrated.
> 
> The Marantz SR7009 AVR and AV7702 pre/pro are essentially identical except for the amps. Both support up to 13 speaker channels, 11 of which can be active simultaneously. If you have 13 speakers connected, all 13 are EQ'd. You get to choose during playback which 11 produce sound (all EQ'd) -- I'm running an SR7009 with 7.1.4. (My room really isn't big enough for 9.1.4.) I agree it would be nice if all 13 could be active simultaneously.


Very good, how big is you room? I am looking to do 7.1.4 as well I have the 7.1 and am getting the 4 ATMOS


----------



## westmd

Questin for the* Marantz 7702*.

According to the manual I can use the outputs marked as *Front Wides* also either as Bi-amping for the fronts or as a second pair of Fronts.
Now could I use them also for *Front Hright* speakers to have in total three arrays of ceiling speakers (rear top, front top, front height)?


----------



## Selden Ball

kokishin said:


> I'm not challenging you whatsoever but I was curious how you learned this? I like understanding the internals.


I saw a block diagram which showed where D+M had added their new Atmos DSP relative to the one that handled Audyssey. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be on the Web, or at least Google can't find it.


----------



## audioguy

It seems that no matter how one interprets this, you can not do 7.1.4 all channels getting Audyssey(ized)?

Is that correct?


----------



## Selden Ball

wse said:


> Very good, how big is you room? I am looking to do 7.1.4 as well I have the 7.1 and am getting the 4 ATMOS


It's about 16' x 12' ( about 4.9m x 3.7m).


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll go if I can. What I'd like to find out now is how I can get into CES Las Vegas in 2015.


If you do get in, don't bother looking for Denon or Marantz to be exhibiting, they're not on the list.
http://ces15.mapyourshow.com/6_0/alphalist.cfm


----------



## Selden Ball

audioguy said:


> It seems that no matter how one interprets this, you can not do 7.1.4 all channels getting Audyssey(ized)?
> 
> Is that correct?


No that is not correct. 7.1.4 is what I'm running with a Marantz SR7009 + external amp. As evidence, see my picture above of the "info" display showing 11.1 active speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> It seems that no matter how one interprets this, you can not do 7.1.4 all channels getting Audyssey(ized)?
> 
> Is that correct?


When in Dolby Atmos audio decoding mode.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> No that is not correct. 7.1.4 is what I'm running with a Marantz SR7009 + external amp. As evidence, see my picture above of the "info" display showing 11.1 active speakers.


You have the SR7009? ...Do you have a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie?


----------



## NorthSky

...Because without any Dolby Atmos material you cannot tell. And if you have a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray disc demo, then you should be able to tell if the four overhead speakers get separate "objects" sound in them. ...But that would take some work to do here; and not only from listening and listening to the same clip over and over and climbing the ladder, but also from data measurements.


----------



## Selden Ball

westmd said:


> Here is the link:
> 
> http://hometheaterreview.com/new-marantz-products-support-dolby-atmos/
> 
> I might be wrong but it states under *Flexible speaker configuration *all processors will run Audyssey MultiEQXT32 for *9 channels!* Later it states that the 7702 can run Atmos with *11 speakers* but not that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is possible for these 11 speakers!
> 
> I might be pedantic in wording but I remember at least one of the previous generation unuts ( before 7701 and 8801) which was able to dobAudyssey MultiEQXT 32 not for *the losless audio codecs!*


The exact wording is "All Dolby Atmos compatible Marantz products will have the processing power to run a more enveloping, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibrated 9 channel Dolby Atmos layout using 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configurations" Indeed they all do have that much power, but some have even more. It's just a brief preview announcement. They always leave out details.

The Marantz AV8003 pre/pro was unable to both decode HD audio and run Audyssey MultEQ (not even XT32) at the same time. That might be what you're remembering. I had an AV8003 until I upgraded to an SR7009 this past Wednesday. I configured the BD player to decode HD audio into LPCM so I could Audyssey in the AV8003.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> No that is not correct. 7.1.4 is what I'm running with a Marantz SR7009 + external amp. As evidence, see my picture above of the "info" display showing 11.1 active speakers.


Thanks for the confirmation. without the external amp it can only do 9 and adding a two channel amp bumps it to 11 and audyssey EQing all 9 or 11 if an amp is added.


----------



## Selden Ball

westmd said:


> Questin for the* Marantz 7702*.
> 
> According to the manual I can use the outputs marked as *Front Wides* also either as Bi-amping for the fronts or as a second pair of Fronts.
> Now could I use them also for *Front Hright* speakers to have in total three arrays of ceiling speakers (rear top, front top, front height)?


As best I can determine, no. Only a maximum of two pairs of simultaneous overhead Atmos channels is supported. Hopefully more will be allowed in the next generation. Of course, we don't know what Auro speaker configuration will be supported, assuming what we've heard about firmware upgrades is correct.


----------



## David Susilo

Orbitron said:


> If you do get in, don't bother looking for Denon or Marantz to be exhibiting, they're not on the list.
> http://ces15.mapyourshow.com/6_0/alphalist.cfm


They haven't been showing anything at CES for a while. Yamaha is off-site and by invitation only, Pioneer never show anything new other than their car stereo.

CES is now more of a video and headphone show.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> No that is not correct. 7.1.4 is what I'm running with a Marantz SR7009 + external amp. As evidence, see my picture above of the "info" display showing 11.1 active speakers.


So what are you using as source material to get Atmos As evidence, in your picture above of the "info" display showing 11.1 active speakers do you have a Atmos blu-ray that your using.

Are you talking about Dolby surround or Dolby Atmos
My understanding is Dolby Atmos will only do 9 (7.1.2 or 5.1.4) no matter how many speakers you got hooked up.
And Dolby surround will indeed do 11.


----------



## Selden Ball

I was sure Filmmixer posted an image several days ago showing Dolby Atmos input and full outputs. Of course, I can't find it now.  I don't have an Atmos disc yet myself.


----------



## bargervais

Marantz AV7702 Preamp Processor
The AV7702 preamp will have the processing capability to support a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos setup; taking advantage of 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configurations. A 7.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 7.1 speaker layout complemented by 4 overhead, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers.


----------



## W3Rman

Selden Ball said:


> Sorry to stretch out the D+M discussion, but I couldn't let this get by:
> 
> Fortunately, you are incorrect. I suspect you're confusing it with the Denon AVR X4100, which is limited to 9 active out of 11 calibrated.
> 
> The Marantz SR7009 AVR and AV7702 pre/pro are essentially identical except for the amps. Both support up to 13 speaker channels, 11 of which can be active simultaneously. If you have 13 speakers connected, all 13 are EQ'd. You get to choose during playback which 11 produce sound (all EQ'd) -- I'm running an SR7009 with 7.1.4. (My room really isn't big enough for 9.1.4.) I agree it would be nice if all 13 could be active simultaneously.


You could always open up the Audyssey parameters page where it shows the EQ (boost/cut) details for each channel and post em up as a visual confirmation


----------



## kingwiggi

The real deal














































Denon AVR-X5200W 7.2.4 layout using in ceiling speakers. Just using an old 2 channel amp at the moment for the 2 extra channels but it Sounds fantastic.
Picture is projected by Epson 6020UB LPE with Anamorphic lens on 120" 2.40:1 DIY screen


----------



## Roger Dressler

kokishin said:


> I'm not challenging you whatsoever but I was curious how you learned this? I like understanding the internals.


There are 4 ADI DSPs in the D&M units. The first two do the Atmos decoding, the third does the XT32, the 4th does AL32 post-processing. 

Later, when ADI issues dual core chips like TI, two of them will do the whole job.


----------



## quinn4528

bargervais said:


> Thanks for the confirmation. without the external amp it can only do 9 and adding a two channel amp bumps it to 11 and audyssey EQing all 9 or 11 if an amp is added.


Seldon...will the Marantz SR7009 do 9.1.2 Atmos configuration?


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> The exact wording is "All Dolby Atmos compatible Marantz products will have the processing power to run a more enveloping, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibrated 9 channel Dolby Atmos layout using 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configurations"
> 
> * Indeed they all do have that much power, but some have even more. It's just a brief preview announcement. They always leave out details.*


Gotcha; that place is not a reliable source of information. ...It is incomplete, and ...

* No doubt, Marantz Dolby Atmos products can do 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos with all of them channels EQued by Audyssey MultEQ XT32. ...Now I'm sure. ...That was just not a good clear link.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> The real deal


Awesome!


----------



## NorthSky

quinn4528 said:


> Selden...will the Marantz SR7009 do 9.1.2 Atmos configuration?


I am not Selden but the answer is yes (5.1.2 - 5.1.4 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 - and 9.1.2).


----------



## Skylinestar

kingwiggi said:


>


Why are the input signals different?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roger Dressler said:


> There are 4 ADI DSPs in the D&M units. The first two do the Atmos decoding, the third does the XT32, *the 4th does AL32 post-processing. *
> 
> Later, when ADI issues dual core chips like TI, two of them will do the whole job.


To clarify, that would be AL24 on the X4100W/X5200W and AL32 on the X7200W.


----------



## jdsmoothie

quinn4528 said:


> Seldon...will the Marantz SR7009 do 9.1.2 Atmos configuration?


The Marantz SR7009/AV7702/AV8802 and Denon X5200W/X7200W will all have the same 11CH configuration options: Atmos (7.1.4/9.1.2)/Dolby Surround/DTS Neo:X/Audyssey DSX.


----------



## westmd

jdsmoothie said:


> The Marantz SR7009/AV7702/AV8802 and Denon X5200W/X7200W will all have the same 11CH configuration options: Atmos (7.1.4/9.1.2)/Dolby Surround/DTS Neo:X/Audyssey DSX.


So what are the main differences between the AV7702 and the AV8802?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Details of AV8802 not likely to be released until Dec.


----------



## kokishin

Roger Dressler said:


> There are 4 ADI DSPs in the D&M units. The first two do the Atmos decoding, the third does the XT32, the 4th does AL32 post-processing.
> 
> Later, when ADI issues dual core chips like TI, two of them will do the whole job.


I had to google AL32.

Thanks Roger.


----------



## FilmMixer

Skylinestar said:


> Why are the input signals different?


I think one of them was taken when the disc was on pause (hence none of the output boxes are lit up, nor are the input indicators...) You'll also notice that one doesn't specify TrueHD..

The other when content was playing..

Saw the same thing on my Denon..


----------



## miliotov

NorthSky said:


> I am not Selden but the answer is yes (5.1.2 - 5.1.4 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 - and 9.1.2).


9.1.2...is this 7.1.2 + Front wides or 7.1.2 + Front heights?


----------



## Selden Ball

miliotov said:


> 9.1.2...is this 7.1.2 + Front wides or 7.1.2 + Front heights?


Neither. It's 9.2 at ear height plus any one of the 5 possible pairs of overhead speakers for a total of 11 active speaker channels. Or you can hook up 9.2 + 4 overhead speakers and select which 11 of them you want to have active at any given time.

eta: you do have to provide a minimum of either 2 or 4 external amplifier channels respectively.


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> The Marantz SR7009/AV7702/AV8802 and Denon X5200W/X7200W will all have the same 11CH configuration options: Atmos (7.1.4/9.1.2)/Dolby Surround/DTS Neo:X/Audyssey DSX.


...DTS Neo:X perhaps soon to become DTS-UHD. ...And dts Surround (up-mixer)?


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> So what are the main differences between the AV7702 and the AV8802?


Mainly money $$$ ... and 24 versus 32 respectively (numbers). ...DACs. ...Not sound.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> Neither. It's 9.2 at ear height plus any one of the 5 possible pairs of overhead speakers for a total of 11 active speaker channels. Or you can hook up 9.2 + 4 overhead speakers and select which 11 of them you want to have active at any given time.
> 
> eta: you do have to provide a minimum of either 2 or 4 external amplifier channels respectively.


...And the pair of Front Width speakers can be used and not be used with? 
...Like between Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround.


----------



## pasender91

Roger Dressler said:


> There are 4 ADI DSPs in the D&M units. The first two do the Atmos decoding, the third does the XT32, the 4th does AL32 post-processing.
> 
> Later, when ADI issues dual core chips like TI, two of them will do the whole job.


The DSPs used in D+M units is from the ADI Sharc family, in new models they use 4 of them as you mention.
The key point to take into account is that those circuits are quite cheap, about 10$ a piece, so going from 2 to 4 doesn't impact much the AVR cost (in fact it does due to the side-effects of adding more circuits on space, heat, ...).
Each new version brings 10-20% performance upgrade by increasing their frequency, current versions are at 450 MHz.
On the other side, going to multi-core is already possible with TigerSharc, but the costs are much higher, about 200$ for a 4-core unit, so it is much more economical to use several Sharc units in parallel, and this is what the D+M group did 

This is DSP discussion, but it is not off-track to this thread, as the DSP power is a key element to having an efficient Atmos implementation.

In relation to the other discussion regarding Atmos and Audissey on Marantzs, i hope it is clear for all now that there is no mutual impact. As Atmos and Audissey processing are done on separate DSPs, whether or not Atmos is ON or OFF does not impact the capability of the amp to do Audissey computations on all channels ...


----------



## wse

jdsmoothie said:


> To clarify, that would be AL24 on the X4100W/X5200W and AL32 on the X7200W.


How about the SR-7009?


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ...DTS Neo:X perhaps soon to become DTS-UHD. ...And dts Surround (up-mixer)?


Where did you see that?


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> The DSPs used in D+M units is from the ADI Sharc family, in new models they use 4 of them as you mention.
> The key point to take into account is that those circuits are quite cheap, about 10$ a piece, so going from 2 to 4 doesn't impact much the AVR cost (in fact it does due to the side-effects of adding more circuits on space, heat, ...).
> Each new version brings 10-20% performance upgrade by increasing their frequency, current versions are at 450 MHz.
> On the other side, going to multi-core is already possible with TigerSharc, but the costs are much higher, about 200$ for a 4-core unit, so it is much more economical to use several Sharc units in parallel.
> 
> This is DSP discussion, but it is not off-track to this thread, as the DSP power is a key element to having an efficient Atmos implementation.


Excellent to know. ...And dead on topic too. ...Technical. ...Atmos & all.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> How about the SR-7009?


DACs are 192/24



wse said:


> Where did you see that?


Nowhere, just anticipating (near future).


----------



## cardoski

Cool, I have my rears and sides on the ceiling with just a "normal" amp and find I love the way it sounds. This sounds like a really cool idea.


----------



## batpig

miliotov said:


> 9.1.2...is this 7.1.2 + Front wides or 7.1.2 + Front heights?


7.1.2 + front heights would be 7.1.4, not 9.1.2. 

In the Atmos nomenclature it's floor level speakers first and elevated speakers last.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> I think one of them was taken when the disc was on pause (hence none of the output boxes are lit up, nor are the input indicators...) You'll also notice that one doesn't specify TrueHD..
> 
> The other when content was playing..
> 
> Saw the same thing on my Denon..


Yes this is correct. 

Interestingly I found that I can deliberately select Dolby TrueHD as the surround mode when the input signal says Atmos/TrueHD and the wides go silent. Makes it very easy to A/B "flat" 5.1/7.1 sound vs Atmos in the test disc. Until I figured this out I was using the web browser interface on my iPad to manually disable the extra speakers.


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> How about the SR-7009?


The 7009 is basically the Marantz souped up version of the X4100 with 9 amps. Its capabilities are the same as the X5200. Remember Marantz models are architecturally identical to the Denons.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Dan Hitchman said:


> The XLR connections are much better, more secure than RCA.





pasender91 said:


> Now, you and Keith got me curious, what is "unsecure" with the RCA connects. I have had RCA connections from Preamps to the Lexicon amp for the last 10 years, what was the risk ?
> 
> Until now, the connections did not move or even try to run away !!!





NorthSky said:


> XLR comes with a lock. ...Not RCA, which can slip away.
> 
> But the AC power chord on both doesn't come with a lock; so that one too can slip away.



All true, and somewhat relevant however the real reason to choose XLR if your pre-amp allows for it is signal noise reduction by way of the balanced wiring, XLR use 3 lines +/- differential signal and ground where as RCA only uses one signal line plus ground.


----------



## audioguy

Al Sherwood said:


> All true, and somewhat relevant however the real reason to choose XLR if your pre-amp allows for it is signal noise reduction by way of the balanced wiring, XLR use 3 lines +/- differential signal and ground where as RCA only uses one signal line plus ground.


I have all XLR runs to my (powered) speakers. But, your comment not withstanding, the real value to XLR is for LONG runs of interconnects. For short runs, I have never had any issue ith single ended connectors.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> All true, and somewhat relevant however the real reason to choose XLR if your pre-amp allows for it is signal noise reduction by way of the balanced wiring, XLR use 3 lines +/- differential signal and ground where as RCA only uses one signal line plus ground.


The trouble is that many consumer grade products are not using fully balanced circuitry in order for the XLR connectors to be totally effective in fighting signal noise. It's more for ease and security.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> The 7009 is basically the Marantz souped up version of the X4100 with 9 amps. Its capabilities are the same as the X5200. Remember Marantz models are architecturally identical to the Denons.


What I find odd is that here in the UK at least, the 7009 is substantially less expensive than the 5200 (£1399 vs £1699), yet, as you say, they seem to be functionally identical. In fact, I am wondering now why I have ordered the 5200 instead of the 7009. Maybe it was that weird little porthole that subconsciously put me off.


----------



## kingwiggi

Skylinestar said:


> Why are the input signals different?





FilmMixer said:


> I think one of them was taken when the disc was on pause (hence none of the output boxes are lit up, nor are the input indicators...) You'll also notice that one doesn't specify TrueHD..
> 
> The other when content was playing..
> 
> Saw the same thing on my Denon..




I had to try it again to confirm it myself but FilmMixer is indeed correct.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> The 7009 is basically the Marantz souped up version of the X4100 with 9 amps. Its capabilities are the same as the X5200. Remember Marantz models are architecturally identical to the Denons.


Denon AVR-X7200W? ...One notch still higher than the Marantz SR7009, I assume.
...And them 32-bit DACs of course. ...With AL32 processing.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> What I find odd is that here in the UK at least, the 7009 is substantially less expensive than the 5200 (£1399 vs £1699), yet, as you say, they seem to be functionally identical. In fact, I am wondering now why I have ordered the 5200 instead of the 7009. Maybe it was that weird little porthole that subconsciously put me off.


You still have time to cancel your order and make a new one.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Denon AVR-X7200W? ...One notch still higher than the Marantz SR7009, I assume.
> ...And them 32-bit DACs of course (Al32 processing).


Yes the AVR-X7200W should be better, I am not sure $1,000 better


----------



## kingwiggi

An observation

The Transformers 4 Atmos mix whilst pretty amazing is really extremely busy which makes it difficult to isolate sounds. 

I don't have a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration disc myself but one thing i would have appreciated is a speaker sound check file. Like this but obviously including the ceiling/atmos up-firing speakers. 

If anyone knows if such a file exists then please share the link, this would be helpful to everyone.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Yes the AVR-X7200W should be better, I am not sure $1,000 better


For a guy like you, really! :kiss:


----------



## Roger Dressler

jdsmoothie said:


> To clarify, that would be AL24 on the X4100W/X5200W and AL32 on the X7200W.


Tnx for clarification. 

Since AL24/32 is a Denon process, do the Marantz units have it? If not, is the 4th DSP still needed for anything?


----------



## kingwiggi

These Atmos trailer files won't help much since they were ripped in DD5.1 (not by me) but they will allow you to experience some of the Atmos demo disc content.

Just search the page for Atmos.

http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php

There are numerous short but high quality clips listed on this site. Whilst they're not Atmos sound files I found them useful for testing the ceiling speakers especially.

BTW the Samsung 'Sound Demo' DD5.1 file sounds AMAZING in Dolby Surround. If you like helicopters that is.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Tnx for clarification.
> 
> Since AL24/32 is a Denon process, do the Marantz units have it?
> *If not, is the 4th DSP still needed for anything?*


Roger, the Marantz SR7009 and AV7702 have AL24, and the AV8802 has AL32.

No they don't, my mistake. ...You were right. ...And your question is an interesting one.
{The DACs are from their respective flavors, resolution, though.}


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> These Atmos trailer files won't help much since they were ripped in 5.1 (not by me) but they will allow you to experience some of the demo disc content.
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php
> 
> Just search the page for Atmos.
> 
> BTW the Samsung 'Sound Demo' DD5.1 file sounds AMAZING in Dolby Surround if you like helicopters that is.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

I am interested in setting up an Atmos 7.2.4 system with Back Surrounds and (4) Top Height speakers. My room is 12 feet wide and 21 feet long. The MLP will be 6 feet from the back wall and my ceiling height is 8 feet and I will be using a single row of (3) home theater seats. I will mount the Back surrounds at about ear height on the back wall. 

Specifically, is my 6 foot distance from the MLP to the Rear wall going to allow a proper Top Rear Height installation with the (4) Top Height Surrounds? 


...Glenn


----------



## batpig

Glenn Baumann said:


> I am interested in setting up an Atmos 7.2.4 system with Back Surrounds and (4) Top Height speakers. My room is 12 feet wide and 21 feet long. The MLP will be 6 feet from the back wall and my ceiling height is 8 feet and I will be using a single row of (3) home theater seats. I will mount the Back surrounds at about ear height on the back wall.
> 
> Specifically, is my 6 foot distance from the MLP to the Rear wall going to allow a proper Top Rear Height installation with the (4) Top Height Surrounds?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Yes, you'll be fine. Assuming 3ft seated ear height that's 5ft up to the ceiling, so 5ft back would be 45 degrees. You only need to get 3.5ft back to hit the minimum 35 degree spec. I would probably go that route so they get some more front/back separation from the back wall / surrounds. 

Then you can put the Top Front about 5ft forward so a 45 degree angle. That should work nicely.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

batpig said:


> Yes, you'll be fine. Assuming 3ft seated ear height that's 5ft up to the ceiling, so 5ft back would be 45 degrees. You only need to get 3.5ft back to hit the minimum 35 degree spec. I would probably go that route so they get some more front/back separation from the back wall / surrounds.
> 
> Then you can put the Top Front about 5ft forward so a 45 degree angle. That should work nicely.



Thank you batpig for the detailed response... you da man!

I will use a wide dispersion dual concentric speaker for the Heights. I will have to experiment and determine if I should aim the speakers staight down or to what degree of angle I should aim them... Any thoughts? 


...Glenn


----------



## smurraybhm

Always towards the MLP IMO.


----------



## wse

Glenn Baumann said:


> Thank you batpig for the detailed response... you da man! I will use a wide dispersion dual concentric speaker for the Heights. I will have to experiment and determine if I should aim the speakers staight down or to what degree of angle I should aim them... Any thoughts?  .Glenn


Experiment to what sound best to you 

I am getting these KEF 301 and will see how they sound


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I remember reading on one of these Atmos posts that bipole surrounds are bad for a surrounds in an Atmos setup. If I'm going to have my surrounds very close to the listener should I just use standard bookshelves or use surround speakers? My room is quite narrow, about 9' wide. My other speakers (chorus II's) already have very good dispersion, so I'm not sure I need surrounds to begin with... I just want the added dimension that 7.1 provides.


----------



## hexcode99

Are height/overhead channels required for Atmos? Could a existing 7.1 speaker configuration be used?
I know Atmos also includes a new upmixer that replaces PLII for 2.0 and 5.1 content.


----------



## smurraybhm

hexcode99 said:


> Are height/overhead channels required for Atmos? Could a existing 7.1 speaker configuration be used?
> I know Atmos also includes a new upmixer that replaces PLII for 2.0 and 5.1 content.


That replacement is called Dolby Surround which can be used for the more traditional configurations. Without heights or tops you will not see the Atmos symbol light up when playing something with an Atmos mix. I liked Dolby Surround before I added some speakers to go from 7.2 to 7.2.2. Without another reason to upgrade or plans to add a few speakers I would keep what you have.


----------



## bigsmoooth1414

Finally got to hear an Atmos setup yesterday. 7.2.4 GoldenEar system using a Marantz SR7009 and a two channel amp. The Atmos demo disc is a little gimmicky but I thought it was very engaging. The height channels add a lot and they blended very nicely with the surrounds. I'll be very interested to hear a movie on it as they become available. If you're in the DFW area and want to check it out it was at Stereo East in Frisco.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roger Dressler said:


> Tnx for clarification.
> 
> Since AL24/32 is a Denon process, do the Marantz units have it? If not, is the 4th DSP still needed for anything?


No, they do not. I'll ask and report back re: 4th DSP.


----------



## batpig

Some follow up thoughts on the A60's.... back when I first got the A60 modules I said this:



batpig said:


> Because of the quirks of my particular setup I am probably going to end up with a pair of Atmos modules on the console just inside the front L/R speakers. Here's a couple of photos showing before/after adding the Def Tech A60's.....
> 
> One more close-up of how they integrate into my setup (please don't mind the corner bumpers or other accoutrements of parenthood):


So, since then I've posted a few times of how I'd been a bit underwhelmed, and how I couldn't really hear THAT much difference between the "real" modules and the "fake" version of just pointing two bookshelfs up at the ceiling.

So with the Atmos test disc in hand I was able to do some more troubleshooting. I was concerned that the biggest problem was the fact that my surrounds are fairly elevated (about 6 or 6.5 ft up with 8 ft ceilings). I also wondered if maybe the A60's with their 3" full range drivers were too wimpy. Or maybe just the "elevation" effect wasn't working in my particular room for whatever reason.

What helped to test was that DSU is pretty cool with even minimalist layouts (unlike something like Audyssey DSX which requires 5.1 in place). I could delete the surrounds and center from my layout and toggle between 2.1 stereo and 2.1.2 DSU, isolating the effects of adding the height modules. I also spent some time listening to just the A60 modules in 2ch stereo. Unsurprisingly they sound a bit compressed and wimpy, with (obviously) no bass but also a steep high freq roll-off taking away any detail or "sparkle" in the treble (the Audyssey correction graphs show massive boosts above ~5kHz, maxing out the boost above ~15kHz). But the helpful part was the height effect still was vague and smeared with these latter tests, indicating it wasn't just the "interference" from the elevated surrounds. 

So last night my wife took the girls to the grandparents place for the night so I had some time last night and this morning to shut off DEQ/DV, crank that sucker up, and experiment, and I got to the root of the problem -- the Atmos modules REALLY need to be at or above ear height to effectively "trick" you. I remembered the comment to that effect in the Dolby white paper so decided to test it out. Last night I spent a lot of time with the Atmos test disc, and also watched "Gravity" on Blu-ray (first time seeing it, thankfully the Redbox rental had the DTS-HD/MA track). While it sounded pretty phenomenal upmixed with DSU to 5.1.2, it and the Atmos test material still had a very vague, ambient height effect that wasn't dramatically different from just playing in 5.1. 

So this morning I recalibrated with the Atmos modules placed on top of my FR/FL speakers, instead of on the console. The console top is about 24" high, placing the modules about a foot below ear level. Moving them on top of the speakers placed them just above ear level. I had to prop them forward a bit since my speakers are angled up on Auralex Mopads, and I didn't want the angle of the reflection to be too far forward of the MLP. Note the highly ghetto rolled up white cloth rags angling them back forward:










To sum up, the difference was shocking. I played the modules in 2ch stereo after moving them up higher, and instead of having a "smeared" stereo image leaking up the front wall, all of a sudden it sounded like I was listening to two in-ceiling speakers. The sound was somewhat more diffuse than an actual in-ceiling but the image was clearly defined above me. Replaying test clips from the demo disc and scenes from "Gravity", all of a sudden there was the coherent effect of sounds imaging above my head. 

I would still say the difference wasn't dramatic when comparing to "flat" 5.1 audio, but it was much more in line with what I was expecting from this endeavor. So my bullet point takeaways, none of them earth shattering and somewhat common sense theoretically:

1. Overall, the Atmos "elevation" effect is somewhat fragile, obviously much moreso than physically having speakers up top. Sitting in the sweet spot after the change the effect is very convincing, but it's clearly a "virtual speaker" and not going to work as well as a physical speaker in terms of solidity and imaging.

2. The Atmos modules really have to be at or above ear level to be convincing. Otherwise you are getting too much direct sound that your brain localizes at ear level, "smearing" the virtual overhead imaging and ruining the effect. This basically trashes the idea I had of sitting the modules on a below-ear-height AV console.

3. If you have elevated surrounds, adding a pair of Atmos modules up front is helpful but not an OMG dramatic change. The elevated rear surrounds are already splashing a lot of ambient sound off my ceiling, so the Atmos modules just help to "close the dome" above and forward of my head. I would imagine it would be better with physical in/on ceiling speakers, since they would "anchor" more precisely. 

4. Because of point 2 above, the Def Tech A60's are somewhat limited in utility if you aren't mounting them on the 8060ST they are intended for. Because they are designed to mate seamlessly, they are long and skinny (6" wide, 13" deep) which, as you can see in the photo above, makes for an awkward balancing act on top of many speakers. For someone like me who doesn't want to sit modules on top of their FR/FL speakers, now that I've determined that sitting them on the console is ineffective, that basically means you have to either wall mount or perhaps sit them on a decorative shelf behind and a bit above your front speakers. And the long skinny shape is simply impractical for that.

5. Compared to the upcoming AT module with a 2-way concentric design with 5.25" woofer which will presumble yield much better "raw" sound quality, and combined with the limited physical utility notd above, IMO the DT's are just a poor value. $500 for a 3" paper cone means you are paying a big premium for the Def Tech name, the aesthetics and the ability to mount on the 8060ST's. Anyone looking for an inexpensive add-on module would probably be better off with the Onkyos for 1/2 the price. And if you want something with better fidelity I would speculate the AT's are going to be a lot more impressive for the same $500 price. 

6. Even then, it's a poor value relative to physically installing speakers up top. Obviously you are paying a premium for the convenience of not having to do so, but when I think about the kind of speaker I could get for $500/pr compared to the 3" single driver in the DT A60, it seems silly. Considering that Audyssey will put the HRTF notches into the response digitally during calibration, I'd rather see if I can make a pair of small $100 bookshelf speakers work.

So not to badmouth the Atmos elevation speakers, because once I got it dialed in it really does work, and the lack of fidelity isn't really that noticeable when extracting extra ambience and whooshes and stuff above your head... but now I'm spending a lot of time while watching TV with the wife idly staring at the ceiling trying to decide how I can get wires up there unobtrusively. Because of my double compromise whammys (elevated surrounds, only can practically do two front elevated speakers) I think I would really benefit from the extra precision and coherence of physical speakers up front. 

And all of the above really confirms my skepticism that those people with 14' vaulted ceiling and elevated surrounds 10' up trying to shoehorn a couple of Atmos modules in are going to feel like they got their money's worth.

And, obviously, YMMV. I would bet that with surrounds placed closer to ear height, and four instead of two Atmos modules, the impact would be much more dramatic.


----------



## W3Rman

^ appreciate the objective analysis of your current situation and the Atmos modules


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> 5. Compared to the upcoming *AT module with a 2-way concentric design with 5.25" woofer* which will presumble yield much better "raw" sound quality, and combined with the limited physical utility notd above, IMO the DT's are just a poor value. $500 for a 3" paper cone means you are paying a big premium for the Def Tech name, the aesthetics and the ability to mount on the 8060ST's. Anyone looking for an inexpensive add-on module would probably be better off with the Onkyos for 1/2 the price. And if you want something with better fidelity I would speculate the AT's are going to be a lot more impressive for the same $500 price.


For those interested in the AT module: AT Dolby Atmos-enabled Speaker

Thanks for posting your findings. Very helpful to those of us who can't mount ceiling speakers.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> 2. The Atmos modules really have to be at or above ear level to be convincing. Otherwise you are getting too much direct sound that your brain localizes at ear level, "smearing" the virtual overhead imaging and ruining the effect. This basically trashes the idea I had of sitting the modules on a below-ear-height AV console.


Do those speakers have a barrier that tries to block the direct sound?

I wouldn't be too sure it's (just) the amount of direct sound but the level of reflected sound. In my tests I've found that the level (and frequency content) can vary drastically depending on where the reflection hits the ceiling. Did you play with different angles (besides moving the speaker up higher)?



batpig said:


> Audyssey will put the HRTF notches into the response digitally during calibration


They do? Do you have measurements that show the effect?


----------



## ThePrisoner

Thank you batpig! 

I have Definitive Technology 8060ST's in my 5.1 setup and I am considering trying the A60 modules from Crutchfield as I can easily return them within 60 days if not satisfied. I have an 8ft ceiling in my living room which is 14x12, a ceiling fan is mounted in the center. My surrounds are mounted 6.5 ft up the rear wall. My seating location is 10 ft my three front channels and my surrounds are 5-5.5 ft away. I will post some thoughts once I get the A60's along with the update for Atmos for my Onkyo receiver.


----------



## ss9001

batpig

thank you for the detailed report. real world experiences like yours are going to help us all. your conclusions seem very solid to me.

what would be interesting is if you or someone else could try the Atmos modules not at ear height but up high, similar positioning as your surrounds. see if that makes them too localizable or ruins the soundstage. in my own room, I can more easily mount them high above the Magnepan wall panels than sit them on stands, floor and wall space being the issue. this is the main reason I haven't picked speakers yet...in-ceilings vs pretty limited wall & floor space for stands while maintaining use of Magnepans. I'm seriously looking at 4 Pioneer's for the heights but still haven't figured out where to put them and not have at least 2 of them be in a walk space.

do you have a way to try a temp closer to ceiling setup?


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, good idea. One of the Atmos trailers would make a good subjective, comparative test.


I can only hope that one or more of the Atmos demos will make it onto one of the Atmos BluRays

As it stands, I can scarcely imagine myself using TF4 to make fine-tune adjustments to my setup (for instance, I want to fiddle with the levels of the overheads and see what difference it makes), but alas it looks like exactly what will be happening soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Some follow up thoughts on the A60's.... back when I first got the A60 modules I said this:


As I said in the other thread - great report batpig and I am sure it will help others in similar situations. 

Your experience shows, IMO, the importance of setup to getting a good result, and also of lowering the surrounds in order to create some good angular separation between them and the overheads.


----------



## PoshFrosh

kingwiggi said:


> An observation
> 
> The Transformers 4 Atmos mix whilst pretty amazing is really extremely busy which makes it difficult to isolate sounds.
> 
> I don't have a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration disc myself but one thing i would have appreciated is a speaker sound check file. Like this but obviously including the ceiling/atmos up-firing speakers.
> 
> If anyone knows if such a file exists then please share the link, this would be helpful to everyone.


One thing I've been thinking lately is that since Atmos can be delivered over a DD+ stream, Dolby (or someone, e.g. Vudu) _could_ post online a streaming test clip that we could use to test our Atmos systems.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> batpig
> 
> thank you for the detailed report. real world experiences like yours are going to help us all. your conclusions seem very solid to me.
> 
> what would be interesting is if you or someone else could try the Atmos modules not at ear height but up high, similar positioning as your surrounds. see if that makes them too localizable or ruins the soundstage. in my own room, I can more easily mount them high above the Magnepan wall panels than sit them on stands, floor and wall space being the issue. this is the main reason I haven't picked speakers yet...in-ceilings vs pretty limited wall & floor space for stands while maintaining use of Magnepans. I'm seriously looking at 4 Pioneer's for the heights but still haven't figured out where to put them and not have at least 2 of them be in a walk space.
> 
> do you have a way to try a temp closer to ceiling setup?


Remember Dolby's advice that the modules should remain within 3 feet of their associated speaker (presumably to aid integration around the 180Hz XO).


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> I can only hope that one or more of the Atmos demos will make it onto one of the Atmos BluRays
> 
> As it stands, I can scarcely imagine myself using TF4 to make fine-tune adjustments to my setup (for instance, I want to fiddle with the levels of the overheads and see what difference it makes), but alas it looks like exactly what will be happening soon.


I hope the trailers make it onto movie BDs too - similar to the way DTS have done it in the past. I agree with you that a very busy mix makes it quite hard to hear exactly what is going on (STID demo was the same) and that the trailers are perhaps better in this respect for analysis of the soundstage - especially the Leaf trailer IME. 

HST, there are sure to be some quieter or less busy moments somewhere in TF4 that might be useful. Stick them on a loop in the BD player and fiddle to your heart's content. That is what I propose to do too - but I will use the Leaf trailer probably to assist me.


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> Do those speakers have a barrier that tries to block the direct sound?


Yes, I posted this photo when I first got them. The top grill doesn't appear to come off completely but I could gently pry it off a bit (held in by some plastic tabs) when you look in the driver is deeply inset with a lot of foam (prob 1" thick) on the front and sides:














markus767 said:


> I wouldn't be too sure it's (just) the amount of direct sound but the level of reflected sound. In my tests I've found that the level (and frequency content) can vary drastically depending on where the reflection hits the ceiling. Did you play with different angles (besides moving the speaker up higher)?


Well, I was just speculating as to why. My assumption would be that the more your brain catches and tries to reconcile sound coming from ahead/below (where we are more sensitive than sounds from above) the more it smears the effect. Remember that the theory is somewhat corroborated by the Dolby white paper where they state: 

*For optimal effect and to minimize direct radiating audio at listener level, place Dolby 
Atmos enabled speakers at or slightly above the height of your ears when seated. 
Avoid placing the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers higher than one-half the height of 
your wall. *

And when discussing the avoidance of a proximity effect, they recommend keeping the mules 5+ ft away but then say:

*This distance may potentially be less if the upward-firing driver(s) of the Dolby Atmos 
enabled speaker is placed well above the level of the closest listener’s head. 
*
So based on my experiments and the comments above I'm pretty comfortable inferring that module height is impactful. I haven't had a chance yet to experiment too much with exact angling (the need to rerun Audyssey for serious testing is a big impediment).




markus767 said:


> They do? Do you have measurements that show the effect?


Yes, they do. Back a few weeks ago there was simultaneous dicussion about the fact that HRTF notch is IN the speaker, and the ways Dolby worked with AVR mfgrs and room EQ vendors to make sure the integration was implemented to spec; part of this was incorporting the HRTF notch into the target curve for the REQ on these speakers. 

This is a big reason why the AVR has to "know" that you are using Elevation modules instead of in-ceiling speakers. Logically, if the processor didn't "know" the notches were supposed to be there, something like Audyssey would simply attempt to iron out the notches it heard to meet its reference target curve

I asked Chris K about it on FB on the Audyssey Tech Talk page, , and then a few days later he confirmed again in this Audioholics article: http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/dolby-atmos-elevation-speaker

This is what he said on Facebook: "The changes include a custom Dolby-required tarot curve for the up-firing Atmos speakers. It’s based on HRTF cues that give the impression of virtual height. So MultEQ will calibrate those speakers to the Dolby target curve."

(EDIT - it looks like Chris and Audioholics have done some editing to that article. When the article came out he spoke more about the HRTF in the EQ but now it just redirects to "better ask Dolby", but he does note the change in target curve to meet Dolby's spec).

I am planning, before I return them, to do a nearfield measurement of the direct signal from the A60 modules to try and ascertain the impact of the filter. Interestingly, Audioholics in the article above initially assumed it would all be DSP in the receiver but (like this thread) revised their comments based on talking with Dolby reps at CEDIA. They speculate that the passive filter in the speaker must not be at full amplitude though. However, I don't know of a way to measure them with the Audyssey filter in place. It's easy to measure them un-EQ'd (just hook them up as FR/FL and send a test signal from REW) but I can think of no way to ping them discretely with the test signal as "Atmos channels" with the EQ filters running.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope the trailers make it onto movie BDs too - similar to the way DTS have done it in the past.


 THX speaker tests were included on some discs, too


> I agree with you that a very busy mix makes it quite hard to hear exactly what is going on (STID demo was the same) and that the trailers are perhaps better in this respect for analysis of the soundstage - especially the Leaf trailer IME.
> 
> HST, there are sure to be some quieter or less busy moments somewhere in TF4 that might be useful. Stick them on a loop in the BD player and fiddle to your heart's content. That is what I propose to do too - but I will use the Leaf trailer probably to assist me.


 I think we really need a suite of tests. For example, one might have a single channelized sound moving around the room so we can test speaker-to-speaker integration.

Spears & Munsil 3rd edition, maybe? But they'd probably want to include Auro and DTS UHD tests, too, which would delay it significantly.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> THX speaker tests were included on some discs, too I think we really need a suite of tests. For example, one might have a single channelized sound moving around the room so we can test speaker-to-speaker integration.
> 
> Spears & Munsil 3rd edition, maybe? But they'd probably want to include Auro and DTS UHD tests, too, which would delay it significantly.


Good ideas. Yes, an S&M update would be useful. It's all academic to me right now, as I sit here frustratedly with 4 overhead speakers installed, all wiring to their amps in place and everything ready, but no AVR! Hopefully it is still on target for delivery towards the end of this week.


----------



## Bigham16

Was tinkering over the weekend. 

I moved my side and back surrounds down about 7". The middle of the speaker was originally at 5' 8" from the floor and I moved them down to 5' 1" (10' ceilings). I didn't really want to move them at ear level, thought this would be annoying for those sitting to the right and left because the side surrounds are not that far from those positions. The other reason was because I didn't have enough slack to move them down any further . 

EDIT: At the original side and back surround height, I only had one wall mount on the top of each speaker which created about a 2" tilt into the MLP. This worked well for phantom height sounds before Dolby Surround. After lowering all 4 surrounds, I installed the bottom wall mounts so all speakers no longer have the slight tilt inwards, they are straight up and down. Making this change also helped with height separation.

I also tilted the top front and top back speakers inward, about 2-1/2" towards the listing position..

After running Audyssey, I lowered the trim levels for the side and back surrounds by 1 dB. After lowering them I notice that the top back speakers were over powering now. So I bumped those down 1 dB.

Then I raised the top front speakers 1 dB because they just sounded a little underpowered. 

In my room, this gave me even better results than how I had originally set everything up with Dolby Surround. I really really like the sound.

Oh, last week I had the pleasure of meeting Sandy Gross and demo Atmos with GoldenEar Speakers at Stereo East in Frisco, TX. Their theater room was about 18' x 25' with 10' ceiling (best guess) with two rows. I only listen to the Atmos demo once but I sat in the middle on the front row. From what I could tell, it was the same demo disc that was used at CEDIA. Having only heard Dolby Surround, which I think is fantastic, true Atmos content is absolutely amazing!!!! I cannot wait for future Atmos releases!!!


----------



## Frohlich

The Parasound zonemaster Model 1250 might be a pretty cool solution for Atmos (and other new formats with ceiling speakers that require additional amp channels) as it can power up to 12 channels. I have a Parasound Halo A51 but this might be a good solution for those looking for 4 or more additional overhead speakers. Can also bridge any 2 channels for 160 watts per channel power. Pretty flexible item:

http://www.audioholics.com/amplifier-reviews/parasound-zonemaster-model-1250


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> So based on my experiments and the comments above I'm pretty comfortable inferring that module height is impactful. I haven't had a chance yet to experiment too much with exact angling


Module height ultimately changes the angle too. Would be great if you could find the time to experiment with different angles.



batpig said:


> Yes, they do.


So Audyssey should be able to "convert" any speaker to an Atmos-enabled one? Looks like we need more data.



batpig said:


> I am planning, before I return them, to do a nearfield measurement of the direct signal from the A60 modules


Yes, please!


----------



## bargervais

kingwiggi said:


> An observation
> 
> The Transformers 4 Atmos mix whilst pretty amazing is really extremely busy which makes it difficult to isolate sounds.
> 
> I don't have a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration disc myself but one thing i would have appreciated is a speaker sound check file. Like this but obviously including the ceiling/atmos up-firing speakers.
> 
> If anyone knows if such a file exists then please share the link, this would be helpful to everyone.


Thanks for your report are there any Atmos trailers on this disc.


----------



## krozman

Thanks to batpig's beautiful setup I'm not posting pics of my 7.1.4 until I clean up the room. Even then it will look like a deep, dark dungeon compared to yours though.


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Lower resolution without the use of compression. Like having the height channels as 6-8 bit PCM. Data hasn't been discarded the way MP3 compression does, but it's not the same resolution as 16 or 20 bit audio.


Very interesting thanks. "*Virtually* lossless" - I didn't quite understand but sensed a hundred doublespeak red flags flying around that term. 

So the data is cut, either by lossy compression (lossy), or by reducing bit (virtually lossless in Auro language), if I understand it correctly. Strictly speaking, the quality of sound is decreased either way right? Is there efficiency advantage to going one way or the other?


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> So Audyssey should be able to "convert" any speaker to an Atmos-enabled one? Looks like we need more data.


In the podcast and other info Dolby has stated that they worked closely with room EQ partners to make sure they implemented the Elevation speakers to spec. So I would assume any EQ system that does full range correction should try and preserve the HRTF notches if you tell the processor you are using Dolby-enabled speakers. So to me that also implies that if a system like Audyssey MultEQ "listens" to the response and doesn't detect the HRTF notches, it will try to digitally filter them in since they are incorporated into the target curve for those speakers. Now I would imagine it may still not "convert' another speaker completely if the directivity is too broad, I can only assume the effect will be very diffuse with a more typically wide directivity speaker.

Unfortunately I can't think of a way to measure them with MultEQ filters applied. No way to send a discrete signal to the FDL/FDR channels that I can tell, and any other means to measure them (e.g. designating them as FL/FR speakers to hear them in standard stereo) means the processor won't put the nothces in. So the best I can do is the direct, un-EQ'd nearfield measurement, which I am definitely planning to do at a minimum. 

It will be interesting to see if the HRTF notches are visible on the FR graph since these speakers have a lot of HF roll-off already happening in that region. As I mentioned in my previous post the Audyssey correction graphs showed a huge amount of correction above ~5kHz, whereas when I used just a pair of standard 2-way bookshelf speakers pointed up at the ceiling there was a lot less HF correction needed. 

I'll do some more experiments with position and angle, but I won't run Audyssey every time so I'll just play 2ch music and have them in Direct mode. This has so far proven to be good enough, since as I noted before when I tried this with the speakers on the console (below ear height) I just got this smeared imaging up the front wall, without much overhead effect, whereas when I elevated them on top of my FL/FR speakers it sounded like I was listening to a pair of vague in-ceiling speakers with clear overhead effect.

In light of the above I'm also planning to retry the experiment with a pair of standard 2-way speakers pointed up, but this time sitting them on top of my FL/FR speakers to get them elevated.


----------



## westmd

Just received word from a dealer that Marantz will offer at least for their flagship the AV8802 an upgrade to full HDMI capability and HDCP 2.2 at availability of the new chipsets scheduled for summer 2015!


----------



## ThePrisoner

kbarnes701 said:


> Your experience shows, IMO, the importance of setup to getting a good result, and also of lowering the surrounds in order to create some good angular separation between them and the overheads.


Yes, after reading the last few pages this morning I'm really thinking of lowering my surrounds which are Definitive Technology SR8040BP's that are currently 6.5 ft high, I have 8 ft ceiling since I want to try the A60's atop my 8060ST's


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> "*Virtually* lossless" - I didn't quite understand but sensed a hundred doublespeak red flags flying around that term.


With Van Baelen's comments, you have to be careful about separating fact from fiction (to put it kindly).


> So the data is cut, either by lossy compression (lossy), or by reducing bit (virtually lossless in Auro language), if I understand it correctly.


As far as I know, neither Atmos nor Auro use lossy compression on Blu-ray. In the Audioholics "interview" Van Baelen claims that TrueHD (and therefore consumer Atmos) is not 100% lossless, but that's another fabrication of his, like when he says that object based formats "will require a new Blu-ray Disc player".


----------



## nucky

Well, I will be watching transformers Dolby Atmos tonight.


----------



## RichB

westmd said:


> Just received word from a dealer that Marantz will offer at least for their flagship the AV8802 an upgrade to full HDMI capability and HDCP 2.2 at availability of the new chipsets scheduled for summer 2015!



From everything I have read, HDCP 2.2 required a hardware update.
So does that mean, shipping the unit off for the upgrade?

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Well, I will be watching transformers Dolby Atmos tonight.


Not before September 30th. ...Or unless you live in a country where it is available before then, of course.
...Like Scotland for example, unseparated, from the rest of UK.


----------



## smurraybhm

I haven't been on AVS as long as some you guys have, but isn't the rule that you never buy a unit based on a promised future upgrade? A lot can happen in a year or more.


----------



## nucky

NorthSky said:


> Not before September 30th. ...Or unless you live in a country where it is available before then, of course.
> ...Like Scotland for example, unseparated, from the rest of UK.


I will be watching it tonight, I've got the disc here. It's from DVD world USA


----------



## Aras_Volodka

RichB said:


> From everything I have read, HDCP 2.2 required a hardware update.
> So does that mean, shipping the unit off for the upgrade?
> 
> - Rich


One question I have about HDCP... can an adaptor be manufactured that could convert HDMI to HDCP or something along those lines?


----------



## westmd

RichB said:


> From everything I have read, HDCP 2.2 required a hardware update.
> So does that mean, shipping the unit off for the upgrade?
> 
> - Rich


Either shipping or DIY. Sorry I did not get anymore infomation but I find the perspective great especially bearing in mind how much one has to invest for the AV8802. So with Atmos on board as well as Auro and DTS UHD upgrades possible + HDCP 2.2 + Audyssey pro capability I think if all of that is confirmed this will be the unit to go for!


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> One question I have about HDCP... can an adaptor be manufactured that could convert HDMI to HDCP or something along those lines?


Unfortunately, no. HDCP V2.2 is an encryption method. All of the devices in the chain, from disc player, through receiver, to display, have to support it in order for it to allow a high resolution video signal to get through.


----------



## Selden Ball

smurraybhm said:


> I haven't been on AVS as long as some you guys have, but isn't the rule that you never buy a unit based on a promised future upgrade? A lot can happen in a year or more.


Yup, you are very right. Many people have been burnt by getting a device which had many promised future upgrades which never materialized. Make sure whatever you get has what you want now. If future upgrades come along, so much the better.


----------



## Frohlich

westmd said:


> Just received word from a dealer that Marantz will offer at least for their flagship the AV8802 an upgrade to full HDMI capability and HDCP 2.2 at availability of the new chipsets scheduled for summer 2015!


This makes it the leading candidate to replace my AV8801


----------



## kbarnes701

nucky said:


> Well, I will be watching transformers Dolby Atmos tonight.


And we, I hope, will be reading about your experience soon!


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I haven't been on AVS as long as some you guys have, but isn't the rule that you never buy a unit based on a promised future upgrade? A lot can happen in a year or more.


That is a good rule IMO. But the upgrade of the Denon/Marantz units to Auro and DTS-UHD seems pretty certain, based on the announcement made at CEDIA. Mind you, I think that buying a new D&M unit just for Atmos is worthwhile regardless of whether you would want to upgrade it to Auro (at probably significant cost) or DTS-UHD (after probably a huge delay).


----------



## Al Sherwood

Selden Ball said:


> Yup, you are very right. Many people have been burnt by getting a device which had many promised future upgrades which never materialized. Make sure whatever you get has what you want now. If future upgrades come along, so much the better.


Exactly why I am still waiting, promises are sometimes not fulfilled... Full bandwidth/colour space HDMI with Full HDCPv2.2 out of the gate or I wait!


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> But the upgrade of the Denon/Marantz units to Auro and DTS-UHD seems pretty certain, based on the announcement made at CEDIA.


Just to be nit-picky, there was no "announcement". There was just hearesay from a poster on this thread talking to a Denon UK dealer, then corroborated by chi_guy50 who had some other source. Nothing official has been announced by D&M.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> I haven't been on AVS as long as some you guys have, but isn't the rule that you never buy a unit based on a promised future upgrade? A lot can happen in a year or more.


Yes totally agree if I wait for a future proof any thing... if it's a TV, receiver or what ever I would never buy anything because next years gear will always have new stuff that is new. If I wait I maybe waiting forever


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just to be nit-picky, there was no "announcement". There was just hearesay from a poster on this thread talking to a Denon UK dealer, then corroborated by chi_guy50 who had some other source. Nothing official has been announced by D&M.


Ah right, then I stand corrected. I have a good friend who is a UK Denon dealer, so I'll ask him if he has heard the same.


----------



## Selden Ball

Yup. Just let the upgradeitis pressure build and build and build until you can'ts stands its nomore. Then get something new 

I managed to hold off 5 whole years, this last time!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> With Van Baelen's comments, you have to be careful about separating fact from fiction (to put it kindly). As far as I know, neither Atmos nor Auro use lossy compression on Blu-ray. In the Audioholics "interview" Van Baelen claims that TrueHD (and therefore consumer Atmos) is not 100% lossless, but that's another fabrication of his, like when he says that object based formats "will require a new Blu-ray Disc player".


From what I'm gleaning, it sounds like Atmos uses lossless beds and lossy "spatially coded" objects in order to have the ability to cram all 118 possible objects and up to a 9.1 channel bed into a data packet 20% larger than before, on average. 

Auro3D is not totally transparent to the PCM multi-track master either as it uses bit depth reduction for the extra height channels, so it ends up being partially lossy too, but without the flexibility and precision of objects and pan-through arrays.

Pick your poison.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nucky said:


> Well, I will be watching transformers in Dolby Atmos tonight.


My condolences.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> That is a good rule IMO. But the upgrade of the Denon/Marantz units to Auro and DTS-UHD seems pretty certain, based on the announcement made at CEDIA. Mind you, I think that buying a new D&M unit just for Atmos is worthwhile regardless of whether you would want to upgrade it to Auro (at probably significant cost) or DTS-UHD (after probably a huge delay).


I would almost put money on a DTS announcement at CES. Almost.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would almost put money on a DTS announcement at CES. Almost.


My money is on this time next year before we see it in AVRs. And then who knows when/if we will have content?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I'm gleaning, it sounds like Atmos uses lossless beds and lossy "spatially coded" objects in order to have the ability to cram all 118 possible objects and up to a 9.1 channel bed into a data packet 20% larger than before, on average.


Which is why I said that neither one uses lossy compression.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> My money is on this time next year before we see it in AVRs. And then who knows when/if we will have content?


Ah yes, but there may still be a reason why there are only two studios listed in the Atmos support camp so far. If others were on board, why would they not trumpet this fact just like WB and Paramount? 

I still think DTS might have been biding their time. Let Dolby blink first, and then get in their. If DTS-UHD plugin-in's are cheaper and easier to implement, like DTS's other software suites, then it may be a reason for other studios to hold off. 

Since it's so early in the game, there may yet be three immersive audio players on the scene, which will cause massive confusion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Which is why I said that neither one uses lossy compression.


_Both_ use a type of lossy compression coupled with lossless home delivery via disc. Dolby Atmos with a TrueHD container and Auro with a DTS Master-Audio container. Both have to throw out audio data of some sort to pack more objects or channels into a smaller package. Parts are totally lossless and other parts are lossy packed in a lossless wrapper.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Both_ use a type of lossy compression coupled with lossless home delivery via disc.


Which compression codec do they use that is lossy?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Which compression codec do they use that is lossy?


Dolby uses the sly term "spatially coded" to describe their object delivery method. And Auro3D uses bit depth reduction (Van Baelen cleverly calls it "virtually" lossless). Both eliminate audio data from the original PCM files to save space for home delivery (and in Auro's case, theatrical delivery too).


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> Yup. Just let the upgradeitis pressure build and build and build until you can'ts stands its nomore. Then get something new
> 
> I managed to hold off 5 whole years, this last time!


Wish I had the will power


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby uses the sly term "spatially coded" to describe their object delivery method.


That's different from "lossy compression", like MP3. Do you understand what "compression" is in the context of audio?


----------



## pasender91

sdurani said:


> That's different from "lossy compression", like MP3. Do you understand what "compression" is in the context of audio?


As far as we know (the exact recipe is private), Atmos reduces the bandwidth of the home-theater version compared to the cinema version by "grouping" objects that are located in nearby locations. Let's take an example:

- Let's say there is a pack of 4 cars approaching from far away.
- in Cinema version we have 4 objects, each with their PCM soundtrack.
- in HT version, when the cars are still far away, they are very near in terms of angles in relation to the viewer, so Atmos will group them and combine the PCMs.
- The net result is 1 object instead of 4 and the PCM bandwidth required is divided by 4, here is the compression gain, it is not directly compressing the PCM data but combining the objects. I guess this can be called "spatial compression" 
- Of course this is made at the expense of the precision of the signal, but Dolby says the impact is minimal as the cars are almost at the same angular location. 
- As the cars approach the viewer, they separate in angular terms, so Atmos will at some point go back to the individual objects, as cars pass by around the viewer.
- All those objects groups will be created and destroyed dynamically during the HT authoring process, but the filmmixer can also manually group the objects.
- This is also a way for Atmos to fit 118 cinema objects into 58 HT objects 

This process is described in the Atmos patent document.


----------



## Selden Ball

And, of course, Dolby's recommended speaker placement in the home is rather generous (low precision), so that goes hand-in-hand with using less accurate coordinates for the objects.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> That's different from "lossy compression", like MP3. Do you understand what "compression" is in the context of audio?


Absolutely. More than once Roger Dressler has mentioned that due to the extreme amount of data as much as 118 individual objects could potentially take up, that Dolby would probably use a form of lossy compression on the extension file to fit the entire Atmos soundtrack on a Blu-ray disc. That would then be coupled to metadata coordinate combining and object blending as mentioned by pasender91 in order to further reduce the file size.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I'm gleaning, it sounds like Atmos uses lossless beds and lossy "spatially coded" objects in order to have the ability to cram all 118 possible objects and up to a 9.1 channel bed into a data packet 20% larger than before, on average.
> 
> Auro3D is not totally transparent to the PCM multi-track master either as it uses bit depth reduction for the extra height channels, so it ends up being partially lossy too, but without the flexibility and precision of objects and pan-through arrays.
> 
> Pick your poison.


I'll take a mix of them all; Atmos, Auro, and dts-UHD. ...Lossy, lossless, one, or the other, or both.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos.*



nucky said:


> I will be watching it tonight, I've got the disc here. It's from DVD world USA


You are one very lucky individual.  ...Tell us all about it tomorrow, please. 
...It should be totally awesome!


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Well, I will be watching *'Transformers 4' Dolby Atmos* tonight.





Dan Hitchman said:


> My condolences.


I don't think so Dan; it should be an abso!ute blast, a fantastic experience for the senses (eyes and ears).


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ah yes, but there may still be a reason why there are only two studios listed in the Atmos support camp so far. If others were on board, why would they not trumpet this fact just like WB and Paramount?
> 
> I still think DTS might have been biding their time. Let Dolby blink first, and then get in their. If DTS-UHD plugin-in's are cheaper and easier to implement, like DTS's other software suites, then it may be a reason for other studios to hold off.
> 
> Since it's so early in the game, there may yet be three immersive audio players on the scene,
> which will cause *massive confusion*.


...Or massive jubilation, exhilaration.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Absolutely. More than once Roger Dressler has mentioned that due to the extreme amount of data as much as 118 individual objects could potentially take up, that Dolby would probably use a form of lossy compression on the extension file to fit the entire Atmos soundtrack on a Blu-ray disc. That would then be coupled to metadata coordinate combining and object blending as mentioned by pasender91 in order to further reduce the file size.


That, and Wilfried is not so wrong after all (he's a good man).


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Both_ use a type of lossy compression coupled with lossless home delivery via disc. Dolby Atmos with a TrueHD container and Auro with a DTS Master-Audio container. Both have to throw out audio data of some sort to pack more objects or channels into a smaller package. Parts are totally lossless and other parts are lossy packed in a lossless wrapper.


 
I though that Atmos includes the objects within the channel beds. If the objects are lossy, does that translate into some lossy sound when played on a non-Atmos system?

For Auro-3D, the dynamic range is reduced to 18-bits which limits dynamics to 108 DB. Are their soundtracks louder than that?

- Rich


----------



## westmd

batpig said:


> Just to be nit-picky, there was no "announcement". There was just hearesay from a poster on this thread talking to a Denon UK dealer, then corroborated by chi_guy50 who had some other source. Nothing official has been announced by D&M.


But Auro announced colaboration with D&M on Auro integration already during this years CES!

_Auro Technologies’ official partners have earned a widespread reputation for offering the highest quality sound reproduction available in home cinema, gaming, automotive and mobile platforms. Some of Auro Technologies’ official partners include: Audiokinetic, California Audio Technology (CAT), Continental, Datasat Digital Entertainment, *Denon & Marantz*, McIntosh Laboratory, Steinway Lyngdorf (SL Audio) and StormAudio_

http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2014/0...-home-entertainment-car-and-mobile-platforms/


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> More than once Roger Dressler has mentioned that due to the extreme amount of data as much as 118 individual objects could potentially take up, that Dolby would probably use a form of lossy compression on the extension file to fit the entire Atmos soundtrack on a Blu-ray disc.


Lossy compression? That's not how he described it:


Roger Dressler said:


> In Dolby's spatial coding, there is no "lossy coding" of the traditional type involved. The bitrate reduction comes from audio summing, which is quite pure sonically.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> I remember reading on one of these Atmos posts that bipole surrounds are bad for a surrounds in an Atmos setup.


Is there some definitive statement from Dolby or other authority saying that bipole surrounds are inappropriate for Atmos? I would have thought otherwise.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> I though that Atmos includes the objects within the channel beds. If the objects are lossy, does that translate into some lossy sound when played on a non-Atmos system?
> 
> For Auro-3D, the dynamic range is reduced to 18-bits which limits dynamics to 108 DB. Are their soundtracks louder than that?
> 
> - Rich


No, the sounds in the object file extension are also in the beds to create a complete 7.1 track, but when played through an Atmos renderer, the object sounds are phase reversed and "eliminated" from the beds. The extension objects are then added to the newly reconstituted bed layer to create the Atmos mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> I don't think so Dan; it should be an abso!ute blast, a fantastic experience for the senses (eyes and ears).


Only if you like these kinds of Baysplosion films. They drive me up the wall. They're IMHO rubbish. The Atmos mix isn't all that good either. Way too busy to create a well defined 3D space.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Lossy compression? That's not how he described it:


So, are the objects then blended into the space of a few linear, lossless compressed channels and picked apart and positioned by the metadata when necessary? 

Someone will have to describe in layman's terms what Roger is talking about.


----------



## nucky

Well what can I say, I'm a bit lost for words. Dolby Atmos is the real deal, I've just been blown away. It sounds as if my room is 10x bigger and all my speakers have just melted away. The sound just floats all around the room and I feel as i am in one big bubble of sound. And I did enjoy Transformers the sound was just immense, there was a lot of effects and music in the over head speakers and i liked that. It just adds a whole new dimension. I watched this film in the cinema and wasn't that impressed. So im glad that the home version is better for me.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Only if you like these kinds of Baysplosion films. They drive me up the wall. They're IMHO rubbish. The Atmos mix isn't all that good either. Way too busy to create a well defined 3D space.


But did you see the entire movie? ...How would that be possible before September 30th? 

* I understand that "professional Blu-ray reviewers" would receive their copy a week or two before the general public, for "financial gains" (positive publicity/free copy), but how can a regular person receive a BD copy before the release date???


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> This process is described in the Atmos patent document.


Thanx. Looked through the document when it was first posted in this thread. I don't see how it helps the discussion by conflating the terms "lossy compression" and "spatial coding" benefits the discussion when they're two different technologies, like MP3 and SAOC, respectively. They can be used together, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Hence my reply to Dan.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, are the objects then blended into the space of a few linear, lossless compressed channels and picked apart and positioned by the metadata when necessary?
> 
> Someone will have to describe in layman's terms what Roger is talking about.


Before yesterday I posted a question requesting concrete proofs, real data with measurements and graphs, regarding Dolby TrueHD + Dolby Atmos, and Auro-3D, and Lossless, and Lossy. ...But yesterday I deleted my post because everyone seems to be on the ignore list of everyone. ...Like this thread is a phantom thread. ...I even deleted more posts of mine because of that, and now I just feel so much confusion about Atmos, Auro-3D, DTS-UHD, Dolby people, Wilfried from Auro, Widescreen Review, Audioholics, Lossless and Lossy, ...that it gives me a bad headache, and I don't know who to believe and count on for the truth. 

It feels like everyone is all by them own selves talking and trying to give you their own facts. 
...Almost like a machine who has financial control over other machines. 

All I want is to be happy, have fun, learn the real stuff, about Atmos, Auro-3D, and DTS-UHD, and Blu-ray 4K, and HDMI v. 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, and how many more channels can we expect beyond eleven in future and affordable products with Atmos, Auro, DTS-UHD and all that surround sound jazz.

It seems that simplicity wants you to buy a product right now and see (hear) for yourself, and then buy again next year for an upgrade.


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Well what can I say, I'm a bit lost for words. Dolby Atmos is the real deal, I've just been blown away. It sounds as if my room is 10x bigger and all my speakers have just melted away. The sound just floats all around the room and I feel as i am in one big bubble of sound. And I did enjoy Transformers the sound was just immense, there was a lot of effects and music in the over head speakers and i liked that. It just adds a whole new dimension. I watched this film in the cinema and wasn't that impressed. So im glad that the home version is better for me.


I'm sold! ...That's all I need to know.


----------



## AUDIOandME

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Well, good luck with your Atmos firmware update!


Will most/all receivers that are compatible with TrueHD/Master Audio, be compatible with Atmos/Auro? Is this simply a firmware thing or is there a hardware requirement?


----------



## batpig

AUDIOandME said:


> Will most/all receivers that are compatible with TrueHD/Master Audio, be compatible with Atmos/Auro? Is this simply a firmware thing or is there a hardware requirement?


It's new hardware. Atmos requires a new decoder and increased DSP horsepower to handle the decoding and rendering. 

You don't need a new Blu-ray player (since all you need is to bitstream TrueHD and the processor does the rest) but you WILL need a new receiver/processor.


----------



## AUDIOandME

batpig said:


> It's new hardware. Atmos requires a new decoder and increased DSP horsepower to handle the decoding and rendering.
> 
> You don't need a new Blu-ray player (since all you need is to bitstream TrueHD and the processor does the rest) but you WILL need a new receiver/processor.


Thanks batpig. I was afraid of that. What a bummer. I wonder how long before most of the new content being released utilizes these new formats and drops the others.

I was only concerned about the AVR part since I have all my devices set to bitstreaming.


----------



## pasender91

sdurani said:


> Thanx. Looked through the document when it was first posted in this thread. I don't see how it helps the discussion by conflating the terms "lossy compression" and "spatial coding" benefits the discussion when they're two different technologies, like MP3 and SAOC, respectively. They can be used together, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Hence my reply to Dan.


Fully agree they are different things, for sure Atmos objects use "spatial coding" (what i called "spatial compression"). Now do they use "PCM data lossy compression" in addition, this is the part that is not so clear i guess ...

And to explain further the fact that "spatial compression" is supposed to NOT impact the quality of the sound, as Roger mentioned, here is another example:
- one object with CD-quality drums
- one object with CD-quality guitar
- one object with CD-quality bass guitar
- one object with CD-quality voice
- in Atmos, if those objects are near of each other they will get combined into a group, forming a musical group , and the resulting CD-quality PCM will combine the instruments without impacting overall quality, as each instrument has different frequency, phase and dynamics.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Someone will have to describe in layman's terms what Roger is talking about.


Already done very well by pasender91 a few posts up. In a nutshell: objects are combined to save space, with instructions in the metadata on how to pry the objects apart during playback. The prying apart isn't perfect, so there could be crosstalk between objects. 

Any artifacts that could result from spatial coding should be imperceptible on a lossless track. But that's not the case when spatial coding is combined with lossy compression (this is why I wanted to make the distinction between those two terms). 

Since lossy compression uses louder sounds to mask the discarding of data from quieter sounds, prying apart the objects could lead to audible artifacts as quieter sounds are unmasked when the louder sounds are separated sent elsewhere. Will be interesting to see what happens when Atmos is streamed using DD+.


----------



## Selden Ball

AUDIOandME said:


> Thanks batpig. I was afraid of that. What a bummer. I wonder how long before most of the new content being released utilizes these new formats and drops the others.


 Bear in mind that Atmos and Auro3D encodings _add_ their information to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtracks respectively. Those older audio formats are _not_ dropped. Presumably DTS UHD will work similarly. Decoders which don't recognize the new encodings will simply not render them. All of the sounds are included in the base soundtracks, they just won't appear in your room exactly where the audio mixer intended them to be. This is similar to what happens when you play a current 7.1 (or DTS Neo:X) soundtrack on a system with fewer speakers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> Exactly why I am still waiting, promises are sometimes not fulfilled... Full bandwidth/colour space HDMI with Full HDCPv2.2 out of the gate or I wait!


I was thinking the same way, but I was thinking about what the wait would be for? The only thing that I care about with future 4k TV's will be the expanded color space & contrast... but there is no content to take advantage of it. Content that's at least years away. TV's with FALD are hitting the market... I think that's good enough for a while until content catches up... unless if I've missed something. The only thing I might miss out on would be Ultra D but it might be wise to let that Tech mature for a while as well. 

I'm a bit biased though... I was way overdo for an upgrade though because I'm several generations behind... so I took the dive and am going for a 7.1.4 setup with the Denon X5200. I figure the cost of the receiver makes up for all those past versions of Surround I missed out on... I'm still currently on my 5.1 receiver from 12 years ago.


----------



## brwsaw

Anyone else waiting to hear Star Trek episodes using the upmixer? 
I always liked the background sounds of the ship while watching TNG, definitely on my to do list.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Already done very well by pasender91 a few posts up. In a nutshell: objects are combined to save space, with instructions in the metadata on how to pry the objects apart during playback. The prying apart isn't perfect, so there could be crosstalk between objects.


I don't think the new "clustered objects" are ever pried apart. They are just presented, just like any other objects are presented, by rendering based on their directional coordinates. 

Based on that, there ought to be no unmasking from the rendering process, per se. If the subtraction process is in effect for lossy coding, there could be some artifacts there, but those only become audible when the whole soundtrack is not being presented (like when isolating a channel), but there may be other coding strategies involved to mitigate that.


----------



## markus767

pasender91 said:


> Fully agree they are different things, for sure Atmos objects use "spatial coding" (what i called "spatial compression"). Now do they use "PCM data lossy compression" in addition, this is the part that is not so clear i guess ...
> 
> And to explain further the fact that "spatial compression" is supposed to NOT impact the quality of the sound, as Roger mentioned, here is another example:
> - one object with CD-quality drums
> - one object with CD-quality guitar
> - one object with CD-quality bass guitar
> - one object with CD-quality voice
> - in Atmos, if those objects are near of each other they will get combined into a group, forming a musical group , and the resulting CD-quality PCM will combine the instruments without impacting overall quality, as each instrument has different frequency, phase and dynamics.


Downmixing a stereo track to mono will impact overall quality hence object grouping will have a similar effect.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I don't think the new "clustered objects" are ever pried apart. They are just presented, just like any other objects are presented, by rendering based on their directional coordinates.


That's also my understanding. "Spatial coding" groups objects to reduce the overall number of objects. They will never be ungrouped in playback and remain a single object. An object can change an object group though.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> - in Atmos, if those objects are near of each other they will get combined into a group, forming a musical group , and the resulting CD-quality PCM will combine the instruments without impacting overall quality, as each instrument has different frequency, phase and dynamics.


I admire your understanding and explanation of the spatial coding. I would just comment that it does not matter if the several sounds are different in character or not. All that matters is where they are in space at the moment, and which is the loudest at the moment (which influences the directional metadata).


----------



## sharkypuffs

NorthSky said:


> But did you see the entire movie? ...How would that be possible before September 30th?
> 
> * I understand that "professional Blu-ray reviewers" would receive their copy a week or two before the general public, for "financial gains" (positive publicity/free copy), but how can a regular person receive a BD copy before the release date???


I'm a "regular person" and know of several Mom & Pop Video stores that sometimes get product early and break release date. 

I live in New York and there are a few places in the city (most of which primarily sell a adult videos) that break release date and sell DVDs and blu-rays for major studio releases early.

I was the envy of many friends when I paid $40 for TDK & TDKR when such stores had them 3 weeks before release date.

I seldom do that anymore because you're basically paying retail to get something before the masses do. Often, I visit just to get an early look at the box art of new releases and wait until street date when chains like Best Buy or a Target have their sales.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Thanx. Looked through the document when it was first posted in this thread. I don't see how it helps the discussion by conflating the terms "lossy compression" and "spatial coding" benefits the discussion when they're two different technologies, like MP3 and SAOC, respectively. They can be used together, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Hence my reply to Dan.


"MP3" and "spatial coding" are technologies, they both reduce the amount of information in order to reduce bandwidth requirements. So they both fit the definition of "lossy compression".


----------



## pasender91

Roger Dressler said:


> I admire your understanding and explanation of the spatial coding. I would just comment that it does not matter if the several sounds are different in character or not. All that matters is where they are in space at the moment, and which is the loudest at the moment (which influences the directional metadata).


Thanks for the praise , and for the info on the loudest object impacting directional metadata.

Maybe it it going to much in the details for this thread, but the fact that they are different in character actually does also impact the quality, positively.
On the other hand, if you have several objects with the same character being grouped, there could be a clear impact on quality: in the worst case, if 2 objects sound the same and use full dynamics, then the objects cannot be combined in the PCM data and one of them "disappears". This should never happen as 2 objects will not have the same sound, even if they are of the same character, but some degree of audio quality degradation may appear. And as you understood by now i like examples, here is one for this problem: 
- let's imagine we have an object "bee" with a typical constant buzz (narrow frequencies, low level)
- now if we have 10 bee objects combined, the frequencies being identical, the combined volume will go up to the maximum, but now we cannot distinguish the individual bees anymore.
- now if we have 50 bee objects combined, then the system cannot insert the new bees because there is no more dynamics available, so they will sound the same as the 10-bee group, and we will have lost info compared to the original 50 bee's.
- Personally, i don't like to have many bee's near me, so i'm ok with the loss !!


----------



## NorthSky

sharkypuffs said:


> I'm a "regular person" and know of several Mom & Pop Video stores that sometimes get product early and break release date.
> 
> I live in New York and there are a few places in the city (most of which primarily sell a adult videos) that break release date and sell DVDs and blu-rays for major studio releases early.
> 
> I was the envy of many friends when I paid $40 for TDK & TDKR when such stores had them 3 weeks before release date.
> 
> I seldom do that anymore because you're basically paying retail to get something before the masses do. Often, I visit just to get an early look at the box art of new releases and wait until street date when chains like Best Buy or a Target have their sales.


It's true that video stores get their copies (of newest BD releases) few days in advance, usually.

I don't live in New York, but you do, so you know better than I.

And! There are no more rental video stores (major ones) on my island; they're all gone, to the four winds of the globe. And the little guys; they still rent VHS movie tapes, DVDs, and I guess Blu-rays too. ...I don't know because I never go there, and last time was just too long ago. 

But now you just reopen my eyes, and I can see that few people (from the general public, with connections; vendors and sellers, and ...) can indeed have viewed that flick a day or two or three ago. 

You are abso!utely right. ...Three weeks in advance is quite a long time indeed, in advance. ...But it is also New York, ...close to Montreal. ...And Boston, Chicago, LA, San Diego, Miami, Houston, Reno, ...

In eight more days I'll have my own, in 3D, with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and without a Dolby Atmos (or/& Auro-3D + DTS-UHD) machine. ...But it'll come; when the time is just right. /// My time.


----------



## tomparis

brwsaw said:


> Anyone else waiting to hear Star Trek episodes using the upmixer?
> I always liked the background sounds of the ship while watching TNG, definitely on my to do list.


Count me definitely in. :smile:


----------



## jacovn

NorthSky said:


> But did you see the entire movie? ...How would that be possible before September 30th?
> 
> * I understand that "professional Blu-ray reviewers" would receive their copy a week or two before the general public, for "financial gains" (positive publicity/free copy), but how can a regular person receive a BD copy before the release date???


 P2P networks, Usenet ..


----------



## Hugo S

pasender91 said:


> Thanks for the praise , and for the info on the loudest object impacting directional metadata.
> 
> Maybe it it going to much in the details for this thread, but the fact that they are different in character actually does also impact the quality, positively.
> On the other hand, if you have several objects with the same character being grouped, there could be a clear impact on quality: in the worst case, if 2 objects sound the same and use full dynamics, then the objects cannot be combined in the PCM data and one of them "disappears". This should never happen as 2 objects will not have the same sound, even if they are of the same character, but some degree of audio quality degradation may appear. And as you understood by now i like examples, here is one for this problem:
> - let's imagine we have an object "bee" with a typical constant buzz (narrow frequencies, low level)
> - now if we have 10 bee objects combined, the frequencies being identical, the combined volume will go up to the maximum, but now we cannot distinguish the individual bees anymore.
> - now if we have 50 bee objects combined, then the system cannot insert the new bees because there is no more dynamics available, so they will sound the same as the 10-bee group, and we will have lost info compared to the original 50 bee's.
> - Personally, i don't like to have many bee's near me, so i'm ok with the loss !!


Excellent, merci. 

Hugo


----------



## maikeldepotter

I have a hard time believing that putting your overheads in line with the fronts - as per Dolby's 'Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide' - will always give you optimal results. Depending on your set-up, the vertical spread of the two overheads arrays varies from smaller than 50 degrees to larger than 100 degrees (measured from listener's plane). My gut feeling says that the optimal range is smaller than that. My guess would be between 50 to 70 degrees. But I don't know. Anyone?


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> And as you understood by now i like examples, here is one for this problem:
> - let's imagine we have an object "bee" with a typical constant buzz (narrow frequencies, low level)
> - now if we have 10 bee objects combined, the frequencies being identical, the combined volume will go up to the maximum, but now we cannot distinguish the individual bees anymore.
> - now if we have 50 bee objects combined, then the system cannot insert the new bees because there is no more dynamics available, so they will sound the same as the 10-bee group, and we will have lost info compared to the original 50 bee's.
> - Personally, i don't like to have many bee's near me, so i'm ok with the loss !!


I love your examples - they make it very easy for a non-techie person like me to follow along. Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

sharkypuffs said:


> I'm a "regular person" and know of several Mom & Pop Video stores that sometimes get product early and break release date.
> 
> I live in New York and there are a few places in the city (most of which primarily sell a adult videos) that break release date and sell DVDs and blu-rays for major studio releases early.
> 
> I was the envy of many friends when I paid $40 for TDK & TDKR when such stores had them 3 weeks before release date.
> 
> I seldom do that anymore because you're basically paying retail to get something before the masses do. Often, I visit just to get an early look at the box art of new releases and wait until street date when chains like Best Buy or a Target have their sales.


Here in the UK there is a website called DVD World USA which offers US releases of Blurays. Because movies are often released in the US well before they are in the UK (eg Transformers 4 release date here is November 17) I often buy movies from this source - and very often the discs arrive well ahead of the US released date. However, note that they do not supply to US addresses! This means that not only is it possible to get the discs well ahead of the UK release date, but often well ahead of the *US *release date too. 

So anyone in the UK (or maybe in Europe as a whole) who wants to get releases early, check out DVD World USA.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> And, of course, Dolby's recommended speaker placement in the home is rather generous (low precision), so that goes hand-in-hand with using less accurate coordinates for the objects.


I have a hard time believing that putting your overheads in line with the fronts - as per Dolby's 'Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide' - will always give you optimal results. Depending on your set-up, by following Dolby's instructions the vertical spread between the overheads arrays can get smaller than 50 degrees or larger than 100 degrees (measured from listener's plane). The optimal range must be smaller than that. My guess would be between 50 to 70 degrees. But I don't know. Anyone?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> I have a hard time believing that putting your overheads in line with the fronts - as per Dolby's 'Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide' - will always give you optimal results. Depending on your set-up, the vertical spread of the two overheads arrays varies from smaller than 50 degrees to larger than 100 degrees (measured from listener's plane). My gut feeling says that the optimal range is smaller than that. My guess would be between 50 to 70 degrees. But I don't know. Anyone?


I don't know either. But I assume Dolby does  Why would they say to place them in line with the front L&R if that was not optimal? I assume they are working on the basis that our front speakers are at the correct angles from MLP? And if so, that placing the overheads in line is the way to go. I'm not sure I'd want to follow as closely as possible all their recommendations for speaker placement, but one.


----------



## Nightlord

maikeldepotter said:


> I have a hard time believing that putting your overheads in line with the fronts - as per Dolby's 'Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide' - will always give you optimal results. Depending on your set-up, by following Dolby's instructions the vertical spread between the overheads arrays can get smaller than 50 degrees or larger than 100 degrees (measured from listener's plane). The optimal range must be smaller than that. My guess would be between 50 to 70 degrees. But I don't know. Anyone?


I could very well believe it has to do with some shortcuts they've made in the 'compression' they've had to make to fit it onto the media. "If we can assume they are in line, then we could do this...."


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't know either. But I assume Dolby does  Why would they say to place them in line with the front L&R if that was not optimal? I assume they are working on the basis that our front speakers are at the correct angles from MLP? And if so, that placing the overheads in line is the way to go. I'm not sure I'd want to follow as closely as possible all their recommendations for speaker placement, but one.


Starting with a 5.1 set-up according to all ITU 5.1 standards and adding Atmos overheads following all of Dolby's recommendations, you can - depending on your specific set-up - still end up with either less than a 50 degrees or more than a 100 degrees spread in-between the two arrays of overheads. Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that there will be no noticeable difference in the way Atmos will be performing?


----------



## markus767

^
No, you're not the only one


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Starting with a 5.1 set-up according to all ITU 5.1 standards and adding Atmos overheads following all of Dolby's recommendations, you can - depending on your specific set-up - still end up with either less than a 50 degrees or more than a 100 degrees spread in-between the two arrays of overheads. Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that there will be no noticeable difference in the way Atmos will be performing?


Yeah, sure, I follow what you are describing and also read your detailed post in the Auro thread. I can understand why you are questioning it too. But Dolby have repeatedly said that precise location of the overheads isn't important wrt to getting a good result. I guess someone might have the facility to locate and relocate their overheads in different positions to see if the angles you are concerned with do in fact yield substantially different results sound-wise. In my room, placement options are limited if I am to stay with the suggested recommendations in the Installation WP, but they 'look' as though they are in the logical and expected position and they are in line with the front L&R. But my room is small, and someone with a much bigger room might feel differently. 

I have yet to hear what they sound like - I have Atmos content ready to play, the speakers are in place, all the wiring to the external amps is made - I am just waiting on delivery of my AVR. Very frustrating!


----------



## pletwals

maikeldepotter said:


> I have a hard time believing that putting your overheads in line with the fronts - as per Dolby's 'Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide' - will always give you optimal results. Depending on your set-up, by following Dolby's instructions the vertical spread between the overheads arrays can get smaller than 50 degrees or larger than 100 degrees (measured from listener's plane). The optimal range must be smaller than that. My guess would be between 50 to 70 degrees. But I don't know. Anyone?


Based on the theatrical guidelines, which are more precise, the elevation of the top "array" should be at least 45° if the side surrounds are at ear level. This means maximum 90° of separation between the two top "arrays" (top speakers). I would suggest, in line with your preference that a 60/60/60° separation between surround left/top left/top right/ surround right would be indeed ideal, but maybe not possible for everyone's room.

If the side surrounds are not at ear level, the elevation of the top "arrays" should be augmented by half the elevation of the side surrounds. Say, the sides are 30° up, then you should add 15° to the elevation of the top array's: 45+15 = 60° (minimum). So, 60° is probably golden for almost everybody, if possible.


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> So anyone in the UK (or maybe in Europe as a whole) who wants to get releases early, check out DVD World USA.


Thks Keith. 

H.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was thinking the same way, but I was thinking about what the wait would be for? The only thing that I care about with future 4k TV's will be the expanded color space & contrast... but there is no content to take advantage of it. Content that's at least years away. TV's with FALD are hitting the market... I think that's good enough for a while until content catches up... unless if I've missed something. The only thing I might miss out on would be Ultra D but it might be wise to let that Tech mature for a while as well.
> 
> I'm a bit biased though... I was way overdo for an upgrade though because I'm several generations behind... so I took the dive and am going for a 7.1.4 setup with the Denon X5200. I figure the cost of the receiver makes up for all those past versions of Surround I missed out on... I'm still currently on my 5.1 receiver from 12 years ago.



Well I am not quite that far back, only about 7 years, but obviously not Atmos ready yet. I have the space and all of the speakers for a 7.1.4 setup as well, so that is the goal for the home theatre. I am sure that a 'current' generation Atmos AVR will be fine for now, I just loath the idea of buying 'today' and finding out in a couple of months there are AVR's available with the full bandwidth HDMI and HDCP included built in. There is no way I am going to get into the situation where I need to by-pass the AVR to connect the Blu-ray player to the display to get HDCP content to play while connecting a second HDMI to the AVR for sound, these two data streams go hand in hand and the AVR at it's cost/position in the system has to be able to handle both chores up front.


I have the luxury (or burden) of waiting as my HT was gutted to allow for a kitchen renovation to get completed because power and HVAC go through that area and it all got upgraded.


Don't get me wrong, I think that the Denon will be a great AVR, I just prefer not to be forced to have multiple HDMI cables for sound and video (if needed), and extra amps for the 10th and 11th channels... I will wait as long as I can stand to be on the sideline hear about the Atmos experience!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> But did you see the entire movie? ...How would that be possible before September 30th?
> 
> * I understand that "professional Blu-ray reviewers" would receive their copy a week or two before the general public, for "financial gains" (positive publicity/free copy), but how can a regular person receive a BD copy before the release date???


I've, unfortunately, had to see all three previous Transformers movies at the cinema. I keep reading that this is probably the worst of the lot. If it's a lesser sequel in the already dreadful series, then it truly is junk. No need for me to be subjected to another waste of two and a half hours... I refuse to see it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've, unfortunately, had to see all three previous Transformers movies at the cinema. I keep reading that this is probably the worst of the lot. If it's a lesser sequel in the already dreadful series, then it truly is junk. No need for me to be subjected to another waste of two and a half hours... I refuse to see it.


LOL. I think we have gotten this message loud and clear, Dan 

While Michael Bay's movies are generally pretty poor wrt to plot, characterisation and script, there is a lot more to a movie than those three elements, and I find that he usually excels at visual excitement, sound design and quality, spectacle, effects and overall technical merit. Sometimes that is enough for an enjoyable, although admittedly not uplifting or intellectually stimulating, experience. But most important for many of us right now, it's the only darn Atmos content (other than the demo disc) that we can get our ears on!

I feel the same way about Woody Allen as you do about Michael Bay  You’d have to drag me kicking and screaming to a Woody Allen movie, and even then I'd escape the moment you loosened your grip. No denying Allen makes good movies, of a sort, but I would rather be waterboarded than sit through one.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, sure, I follow what you are describing and also read your detailed post in the Auro thread. I can understand why you are questioning it too. But Dolby have repeatedly said that precise location of the overheads isn't important wrt to getting a good result. I guess someone might have the facility to locate and relocate their overheads in different positions to see if the angles you are concerned with do in fact yield substantially different results sound-wise. In my room, placement options are limited if I am to stay with the suggested recommendations in the Installation WP, but they 'look' as though they are in the logical and expected position and they are in line with the front L&R. But my room is small, and someone with a much bigger room might feel differently.
> 
> I have yet to hear what they sound like - I have Atmos content ready to play, the speakers are in place, all the wiring to the external amps is made - I am just waiting on delivery of my AVR. Very frustrating!



Keith,

Believe me, we are all frustrated because you are frustrated! 

Can't wait to hear your impressions with some real Atmos content... bring it on!


...Glenn


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> But most important for many of us right now, it's the only darn Atmos content (other than the demo disc) that we can get our ears on!


Something keeps tickling the back of my brain. Why are there only two studios stating they're on board with Atmos content? I'm still wondering if there are certain other studios that cut deals with DTS or are at least in talks with them and, heck, possibly even Auro while we were so wrapped up in the Atmos hoopla... as good as the format seems to be. Then again, there could be a few that just don't care that much about immersive audio. Sony seems to be dragging their heels and even possibly considering Auro's proposals, whether or not they'll bite, which remains to be seen. 

We really are still only at the beginning of this audio "revolution." Many things can change behind the scenes.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've, unfortunately, had to see all three previous Transformers movies at the cinema. I keep reading that this is probably the worst of the lot. If it's a lesser sequel in the already dreadful series, then it truly is junk. No need for me to be subjected to another waste of two and a half hours... I refuse to see it.


I will get it and watch it, I'm no big transformer fan person and its sad that this is the first atmos Blu-Ray but i want to see and hear what atmos sounds like in my little HT there is no value in these movies it's just stimulus for the sences, mindless as it is.i was hoping Godzilla would have been the first, another pointless movie but alot of stimuli.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Keith,
> 
> Believe me, we are all frustrated because you are frustrated!
> 
> Can't wait to hear your impressions with some real Atmos content... bring it on!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


You and me both! Surely can't be long now. Nucky lives in the UK (Scotland) and he has his unit, so mine must surely be on its way soon...


----------



## Frohlich

Dan Hitchman said:


> Something keeps tickling the back of my brain. Why are there only two studios stating they're on board with Atmos content? I'm still wondering if there are certain other studios that cut deals with DTS or are at least in talks with them and, heck, possibly even Auro while we were so wrapped up in the Atmos hoopla... as good as the format seems to be. Then again, there could be a few that just don't care that much about immersive audio. Sony seems to be dragging their heels and even possibly considering Auro's proposals, whether or not they'll bite, which remains to be seen.
> 
> We really are still only at the beginning of this audio "revolution." Many things can change behind the scenes.


That would stink for a lot of us if the companies fracture and some are supporting only Atmos, some only Auro and some only DTS since the suggested speaker layout to support each will likely differ (we don't know about DTS yet). This would likely lead to low acceptance in the market place as it is confused and adoption would likely not be very high...leading ultimately to none of them succeeding.


----------



## kaotikr1

Hey all, 

Was hoping I could get some initial advice. I am thinking about moving forward and installing two in ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have included a link to my room pictures, and the easiest way for me to install the speakers would be to pull the canned lights that you see over the seating area and fish wire from there. I would likely install the speakers just ahead of the lights. I don't have exact measurements with me on where those lights are but they are just a bit forward of the seating area. Thoughts? Advice? 

The room is 15x12x8. 

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/TW1SM/library/New Media Room?sort=6&page=1


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I have Atmos content ready to play, the speakers are in place, all the wiring to the external amps is made - I am just waiting on delivery of my AVR. Very frustrating!


Allow me to make you feel a whole lot better.

I've had my speakers all installed, wired up and ready to go (all 13 of them!) for three weeks now as well as the external amps, and I'm waiting for the replacement for my original X5200 that arrived DOA 11 days ago. 

There now, doesn't that cheer you up? 

Full disclosure: The replacement is due to be delivered this afternoon. Not that I'm counting the minutes. Or standing by the front door, box-cutters in hand.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> You and me both! Surely can't be long now. Nucky lives in the UK (Scotland) and he has his unit, so mine must surely be on its way soon...


Do you have any pics of your speaker setup? 


...Glenn


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Something keeps tickling the back of my brain. Why are there only two studios stating they're on board with Atmos content? I'm still wondering if there are certain other studios that cut deals with DTS or are at least in talks with them and, heck, possibly even Auro while we were so wrapped up in the Atmos hoopla... as good as the format seems to be. Then again, there could be a few that just don't care that much about immersive audio. Sony seems to be dragging their heels and even possibly considering Auro's proposals, whether or not they'll bite, which remains to be seen.
> 
> We really are still only at the beginning of this audio "revolution." Many things can change behind the scenes.


No way of knowing. I can’t really see studios being partisan the way you envisage, and some issuing movies in Atmos, some in Auro and some in DTS. I’d have thought it would make more sense for them to be format agnostic and release them in the format they were originally mixed in - why go to the extra trouble and expense to remix a movie from one to the other for the BD release? 

And of course, any that are going to wait 12 months (at least) for DTS to wake up are going to be so far behind the curve. But it isn’t even as simple as that - there is Bluray distribution to consider and that seems to be where things get decided for Bluray release, which is why we get the same movie on BD with vastly different extras, formats sometimes (scope or not), sound codecs (sometimes you get DTS in the USA and we get TrueHD in Europe) and channels (often we get 5.1 where you get 7.1 for example). All that seems to be determined not by the studio that made the movie but by the distributor for the BD. 

All speculation and thus, ultimately, pointless.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> That would stink for a lot of us if the companies fracture and some are supporting only Atmos, some only Auro and some only DTS since the suggested speaker layout to support each will likely differ (we don't know about DTS yet). This would likely lead to low acceptance in the market place as it is confused and adoption would likely not be very high...leading ultimately to none of them succeeding.


Absolutely. Commercial suicide.


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Was hoping I could get some initial advice. I am thinking about moving forward and installing two in ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have included a link to my room pictures, and the easiest way for me to install the speakers would be to pull the canned lights that you see over the seating area and fish wire from there. I would likely install the speakers just ahead of the lights. I don't have exact measurements with me on where those lights are but they are just a bit forward of the seating area. Thoughts? Advice?
> 
> The room is 15x12x8.
> 
> http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/TW1SM/library/New Media Room?sort=6&page=1


Difficult to give advice without measurements. The important thing with Atmos are the angles from MLP to the speakers. As you will be going for Top Middle, the angles are 65-100° from MLP. Do your proposed locations fall within that range? If so, you are all set.


----------



## SpenceJT

Dear Dolby,

If you are monitoring this thread, how about throwing us early adopters a freak'n bone! Make your Dolby Atmos demo disc available as a downloadable ISO file which we can burn, and use to demonstrate our new equipment which would in turn, help with adoption of the format by other potential purchasers!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Allow me to make you feel a whole lot better.
> 
> I've had my speakers all installed, wired up and ready to go (all 13 of them!) for three weeks now as well as the external amps, and I'm waiting for the replacement for my original X5200 that arrived DOA 11 days ago.
> 
> There now, doesn't that cheer you up?


In a sort of schadenfreude-ish way  Of course, the same might happen to me...


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Do you have any pics of your speaker setup?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Not as such. The overheads are mounted in line with the front L&R speakers within the angles prescribed for Front Height and Top Middle. 

This is a picture of one of them on the ceiling - not sure how it adds much value though.


----------



## kaotikr1

kbarnes701 said:


> Difficult to give advice without measurements. The important thing with Atmos are the angles from MLP to the speakers. As you will be going for Top Middle, the angles are 65-100° from MLP. Do your proposed locations fall within that range? If so, you are all set.


I have a strong feeling I am within those parameters, my next question is the install documents show the speakers in line with the FL/FR, is that something I should stick to or would them being off a bit affect the sound? I would think I should try and have them as far out from the seating as I can, but with me having two rows of canned lights in the same path in my ceiling i would have to cut less to run the new wires...


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> Not as such. The overheads are mounted in line with the front L&R speakers within the angles prescribed for Front Height and Top Middle.
> 
> This is a picture of one of them on the ceiling - not sure how it adds much value though.






Yes, I remember now, you were going with those Tannoy Dual Concentric speakers!


I will be very interested in your impressions regarding these particular speakers! 


Thanks!


...Glenn


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frohlich said:


> That would stink for a lot of us if the companies fracture and some are supporting only Atmos, some only Auro and some only DTS since the suggested speaker layout to support each will likely differ (we don't know about DTS yet). This would likely lead to low acceptance in the market place as it is confused and adoption would likely not be very high...leading ultimately to none of them succeeding.


DTS has stated that their MDA (or consumer UHD) codec is speaker layout agnostic. One of their tests for SMPTE had their renderer play back a single soundtrack mix through both Atmos and Auro speaker configurations. Though, with such a limited amount of processing power in these early 3D audio products I wonder if DTS-UHD will be constricted to one layout or the other to start. Perhaps different manufacturers will decide on their own if it will play through an Atmos or Auro layout.

Though, I agree that fractured studio support will ultimately hurt adoption of 3D immersive audio.


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> I have a strong feeling I am within those parameters, my next question is the install documents show the speakers in line with the FL/FR, is that something I should stick to or would them being off a bit affect the sound? I would think I should try and have them as far out from the seating as I can, but with me having two rows of canned lights in the same path in my ceiling i would have to cut less to run the new wires...


It's hard to say from the photos but yes it looks as if you are within the required angles. Ideally they should be in line with front L&R - how much out will you be? Probably not too important unless it's a huge amount.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> All speculation and thus, ultimately, pointless.


Then why have an AVS Forum to begin with?  All we can do is speculate until probably CES. I dare say that if DTS and Auro have nothing new to announce by then we'll have a better idea of the state of things.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Yes, I remember now, you were going with those Tannoy Dual Concentric speakers!
> 
> 
> I will be very interested in your impressions regarding these particular speakers!
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


I can tell you, from testing the speakers in my 2ch music system (high quality Class A amps, Naim CD player), that they sound excellent. No significant bass of course, as expected, but that isn't an issue. The main thing is that they have 90° all-round dispersion and can play at 106dB all day long if called upon. In the music system I was especially pleased with how they handled the human voice (Norah Jones and Eva Cassidy were my test discs). So I expect they will serve very well for Atmos overheads. But of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I will report back once the danged AVR arrives.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then why have an AVS Forum to begin with?


Well hopefully, most of the posts are not just speculation!



Dan Hitchman said:


> All we can do is speculate until probably CES. I dare say that if DTS and Auro have nothing new to announce by then we'll have a better idea of the state of things.


Sure - but just because it is "all we can do" for now doesn't mean it is any less pointless 

I am sure Auro will be out of the gate pretty soon - it's DTS who are a million miles behind it seems.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Well hopefully, most of the posts are not just speculation!
> 
> 
> 
> Sure - but just because it is "all we can do" for now doesn't mean it is any less pointless
> 
> I am sure Auro will be out of the gate pretty soon - it's DTS who are a million miles behind it seems.


FilmMixer did mention that DTS MDA software was beginning to show up in the market place. We are surely not privy to all the sausage making going on behind closed doors. Final decisions are usually down to cost and ease of use (time vs money), not just how good a format is. If DTS "does it again" like with their Blu-ray audio codecs, things could get interesting for Dolby.


----------



## smurraybhm

Since we are sharing photos of our Atmos setups, here are mine - 7.2.2 (top middle). Room is about 12' x 14' with 8' ceilings. Far from ideal and I may add FH or atmos modules depending on how things sound with Transformers. I will say I have thoroughly enjoyed Dolby Surround since I move my speakers from FH to TM. More depth and detail vs. Neo, DSX, etc. More tweaks likely later, and for me its all about the MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> FilmMixer did mention that DTS MDA software was beginning to show up in the market place. We are surely not privy to all the sausage making going on behind closed doors. Final decisions are usually down to cost and ease of use (time vs money), not just how good a format is. If DTS "does it again" like with their Blu-ray audio codecs, things could get interesting for Dolby.


It's not the BD side of things that is of concern IMO - it's original movie content. So far, for DTS, it numbers 0.


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> No way of knowing. I can’t really see studios being partisan the way you envisage, and some issuing movies in Atmos, some in Auro and some in DTS. I’d have thought it would make more sense for them to be format agnostic and release them in the format they were originally mixed in - why go to the extra trouble and expense to remix a movie from one to the other for the BD release?
> 
> And of course, any that are going to wait 12 months (at least) for DTS to wake up are going to be so far behind the curve. But it isn’t even as simple as that - there is Bluray distribution to consider and that seems to be where things get decided for Bluray release, which is why we get the same movie on BD with vastly different extras, formats sometimes (scope or not), sound codecs (sometimes you get DTS in the USA and we get TrueHD in Europe) and channels (often we get 5.1 where you get 7.1 for example). All that seems to be determined not by the studio that made the movie but by the distributor for the BD.
> 
> All speculation and thus, ultimately, pointless.


We shouldn't also forget that with the late announcement of the BluRay 4K standard and in order to enhance its appeal, some Studios/Editors (at least their Marketing dept...  ) could be also considering that it's on this new 4K standard where all the efforts should be directed... Atmos/Auro and probably DTS MDA encodings, which would though give a direct complementary Audio value for this new BRD 4K standard, in addition to its natural Video attraction. 

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> We shouldn't also forget that with the late announcement of the BluRay 4K standard and in order to enhance its appeal, some Studios/Editors (at least their Marketing dept...  ) could be also considering that it's on this new 4K standard where all the efforts should be directed... Atmos/Auro and probably DTS MDA encodings, which would though give a direct complementary Audio value for this new BRD 4K standard, in addition to its natural Video attraction.
> 
> Hugo


I can see your point Hugo, but if we're waiting for 4K video, then it's all doomed!


----------



## action_jackson

sharkypuffs said:


> I'm a "regular person" and know of several Mom & Pop Video stores that sometimes get product early and break release date.
> 
> I live in New York and there are a few places in the city (most of which primarily sell a adult videos) that break release date and sell DVDs and blu-rays for major studio releases early.
> 
> I was the envy of many friends when I paid $40 for TDK & TDKR when such stores had them 3 weeks before release date.
> 
> I seldom do that anymore because you're basically paying retail to get something before the masses do. Often, I visit just to get an early look at the box art of new releases and wait until street date when chains like Best Buy or a Target have their sales.


So you only go to the adult video stores to look at the box art?


----------



## Hugo S

Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> I can see your point Hugo, but if we're waiting for 4K video, then it's all doomed!


I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong... but the way things have been evolving lately... IMHO the above seems to have a very high level of probability... 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

... and in between, we'll still have DSU and Auro upmixers to adequately play with our little toys... 

H.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong... but the way things have been evolving lately... IMHO the above seems to have a very high level of probability...
> 
> Hugo


And content??


----------



## AUDIOandME

Selden Ball said:


> Bear in mind that Atmos and Auro3D encodings _add_ their information to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtracks respectively. Those older audio formats are _not_ dropped. Presumably DTS UHD will work similarly. Decoders which don't recognize the new encodings will simply not render them. All of the sounds are included in the base soundtracks, they just won't appear in your room exactly where the audio mixer intended them to be. This is similar to what happens when you play a current 7.1 (or DTS Neo:X) soundtrack on a system with fewer speakers.


My apologies Selden, I should have been more careful with my verbiage selection. When I said "dropped" I really meant to say the TrueHD and HD-MA encodings will start encompassing Atmos and Auro data. Because once that happens, per what batpig stated, receivers will no longer render the audio. So basically, for all of those folks which have receivers that are compatible with TrueHD and HD-MA codecs, will no longer function once the Atmos and Auro data is thrown in there. The users which bought receivers recently but were not compatible with those new formats are SOL (me), which is very frustrating despite not needing/wanting/able to actually take advantage of it (i.e. 7.1.2, 9.2.4, etc.). Once most new content being released reaches the point that those are the only 2 formats being used, those folks will be forced to upgrade/update/replace their AVRs.


----------



## kbarnes701

AUDIOandME said:


> My apologies Selden, I should have been more careful with my verbiage selection. When I said "dropped" I really meant to say the TrueHD and HD-MA encodings will start encompassing Atmos and Auro data. Because once that happens, per what batpig stated, receivers will no longer render the audio. So basically, for all of those folks which have receivers that are compatible with TrueHD and HD-MA codecs, will no longer function once the Atmos and Auro data is thrown in there. The users which bought receivers recently but were not compatible with those new formats are SOL (me), which is very frustrating despite not needing/wanting/able to actually take advantage of it (i.e. 7.1.2, 9.2.4, etc.). Once most new content being released reaches the point that those are the only 2 formats being used, those folks will be forced to upgrade/update/replace their AVRs.


You've missed that Atmos is fully backwards compatible with legacy AVRs. Any AVR that can process TrueHD will work with an Atmos Bluray.


----------



## AUDIOandME

kbarnes701 said:


> You've missed that Atmos is fully backwards compatible with legacy AVRs. Any AVR that can process TrueHD will work with an Atmos Bluray.


Based on what batpig said, this is not the case. Also, how do you explain not being able to use the TrueHD soundtrack on the new Transformers bluray? It seems to confirm what batpig stated.


----------



## Selden Ball

AUDIOandME said:


> My apologies Selden, I should have been more careful with my verbiage selection. When I said "dropped" I really meant to say the TrueHD and HD-MA encodings will start encompassing Atmos and Auro data. Because once that happens, per what batpig stated, receivers will no longer render the audio. So basically, for all of those folks which have receivers that are compatible with TrueHD and HD-MA codecs, will no longer function once the Atmos and Auro data is thrown in there. The users which bought receivers recently but were not compatible with those new formats are SOL (me), which is very frustrating despite not needing/wanting/able to actually take advantage of it (i.e. 7.1.2, 9.2.4, etc.). Once most new content being released reaches the point that those are the only 2 formats being used, those folks will be forced to upgrade/update/replace their AVRs.


 I think you are overly pessimistic. Atmos currently is distributed on BD as a base Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack with supplemental Atmos information. Auro apparently is integrated even more tightly into DTS-HD MA soundtracks, using low-order bits somewhat similarly to how HDCD audio is encoded on some CDs. In both cases, non-Atmos/non-Auro Dolby and DTS decoders simply ignore the supplemental information. My understanding is that the same thing will happen with DTS UHD.

Whether that'll still be the case for some future 4KBD standard is another matter entirely, of course.


----------



## smurraybhm

AUDIOandME said:


> Based on what batpig said, this is not the case. Also, how do you explain not being able to use the TrueHD soundtrack on the new Transformers bluray? It seems to confirm what batpig stated.


I read Batpig's post and that is not what he said. He told you that you would not be able to play the Atmos mix, but the legacy formats as Keith mentioned above would play just fine on your "outdated" receiver 
Those legacy mixes will still be on the disks with Atmos mixes (or Auro), you will see them when you go to the audio select menu (example of Transformers audio selection menu is posted on the Hi-Def site).


----------



## sdurani

AUDIOandME said:


> Also, how do you explain not being able to use the TrueHD soundtrack on the new Transformers bluray?


I watched Transformers 4 over the weekend using the TrueHD track. Every review I've read, including the one here at AVS, used the legacy TrueHD track.


----------



## Selden Ball

AUDIOandME said:


> Based on what batpig said, this is not the case. Also, how do you explain not being able to use the TrueHD soundtrack on the new Transformers bluray? It seems to confirm what batpig stated.


My understanding is such that your description is incorrect. People have had no problems hearing the TrueHD soundtrack on the Transformers 4 BD when using non-Atmos systems. See Ralph Potts' review, for example. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...on-3d-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review-2.html


----------



## kokishin

AUDIOandME said:


> My apologies Selden, I should have been more careful with my verbiage selection. When I said "dropped" I really meant to say the TrueHD and HD-MA encodings will start encompassing Atmos and Auro data. Because once that happens, per what batpig stated, receivers will no longer render the audio. So basically, for all of those folks which have receivers that are compatible with TrueHD and HD-MA codecs, will no longer function once the Atmos and Auro data is thrown in there. The users which bought receivers recently but were not compatible with those new formats are SOL (me), which is very frustrating despite not needing/wanting/able to actually take advantage of it (i.e. 7.1.2, 9.2.4, etc.). Once most new content being released reaches the point that those are the only 2 formats being used, those folks will be forced to upgrade/update/replace their AVRs.


Relax! It's all good! No problem! No worries! Be happy!

If Atmos (and the other 3D audio formats) were not backwards compatible, this thread would be 500 times longer.


----------



## batpig

AUDIOandME said:


> My apologies Selden, I should have been more careful with my verbiage selection. When I said "dropped" I really meant to say the TrueHD and HD-MA encodings will start encompassing Atmos and Auro data. Because once that happens, per what batpig stated, receivers will no longer render the audio. So basically, for all of those folks which have receivers that are compatible with TrueHD and HD-MA codecs, will no longer function once the Atmos and Auro data is thrown in there..


Yeah, that's totally NOT what I said. 

*You asked:* Will most/all receivers that are compatible with TrueHD/Master Audio, be compatible with Atmos/Auro? Is this simply a firmware thing or is there a hardware requirement?

*I answered: *It's new hardware. Atmos requires a new decoder and increased DSP horsepower to handle the decoding and rendering. You don't need a new Blu-ray player (since all you need is to bitstream TrueHD and the processor does the rest) but you WILL need a new receiver/processor.

All of the above is addressing FORWARD compatibility with new Atmos content. I said ATMOS required a new receiver/processor. All of these are designed to be fully backwards compatible, just like TrueHD and DTS-HD are compatible with legacy DD/DTS decoders. 

In fact, as I noted in my test with the Atmos demo BD, even though my receiver has the Atmos decoder I can manually select standard Dolby TrueHD as the surround mode with an Atmos/TrueHD input stream.

Your fears are 100% unfounded


----------



## AUDIOandME

batpig said:


> Yeah, that's totally NOT what I said.
> 
> *You asked:* Will most/all receivers that are compatible with TrueHD/Master Audio, be compatible with Atmos/Auro? Is this simply a firmware thing or is there a hardware requirement?
> 
> *I answered: *It's new hardware. Atmos requires a new decoder and increased DSP horsepower to handle the decoding and rendering. You don't need a new Blu-ray player (since all you need is to bitstream TrueHD and the processor does the rest) but you WILL need a new receiver/processor.
> 
> All of the above is addressing FORWARD compatibility with new Atmos content. I said ATMOS required a new receiver/processor. All of these are designed to be fully backwards compatible, just like TrueHD and DTS-HD are compatible with legacy DD/DTS decoders.
> 
> In fact, as I noted in my test with the Atmos demo BD, even though my receiver has the Atmos decoder I can manually select standard Dolby TrueHD as the surround mode with an Atmos/TrueHD input stream.
> 
> Your fears are 100% unfounded


I stand corrected. Thank you all for clarifying that. My apologies for my lack of knowledge/information. That is why I come here. Thanks again.


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> Since we are sharing photos of our Atmos setups, here are mine - 7.2.2 (top middle). Room is about 12' x 14' with 8' ceilings. Far from ideal and I may add FH or atmos modules depending on how things sound with Transformers. I will say I have thoroughly enjoyed Dolby Surround since I move my speakers from FH to TM. More depth and detail vs. Neo, DSX, etc. More tweaks likely later, and for me its all about the MLP.


Honestly, considering your room layout with couch against the back wall, I'm not sure how much benefit you would get from adding another pair of "front height" type elevated speakers. They would be so far in front of you (plus your fronts are already a bit elevated) that I'm not sure you'd get a lot of angular separation from the front soundstage. Your side surrounds and top middle speakers are already a bit in front of MLP toed in, and then you've got the back covered with those bipole/dipole wall mounted speakers on the back wall. That's a lot of surround coverage to place you in the surround field. 

It would be one thing if you could skootch the couch forward a few feet, and move the top middle a bit behind you, opening up the front elevated position for extra coverage, but failing that I think you've done a darn good job of optimizing the room. It looks great!

Is there any acoustic diffusion/absorption in the bookshelf cubbies behind the front speakers in the entertainment wall unit? I can't tell what that stuff is behind the speakers.


----------



## batpig

AUDIOandME said:


> I stand corrected. Thank you all for clarifying that. My apologies for my lack of knowledge/information. That is why I come here. Thanks again.


No worries. It's a lot of new info to take in. That's why forums like this are awesome.


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> And content??


Again IMHO, the real large and definitive availability of 3D Audio, either Atmos or Auro (DTS UHD being only an encoding media through MDA and an upmixer through an enhanced DTS Neo X xx), will be done through the BRD 4K standard @ Q1/16... with hopefully the Bilbo trilogy as an early technological demonstrator. 

In between and next year 2015, we could have @ 5/6 Atmos titles that could become available in (standard) Bluray, just as regular Audio teasers of this next 4K standard, which will then definitively bear the full 3D Audio identity.

Now I'd love that this analysis and forecast end up being wrong, but very unfortunately... this is what will probably happen.  

Hugo


----------



## wse

If I can only do a single pair of ATMOS speakers on ceiling where should I put them? Front, Middle, Back? I feel the front might be best, suggestions!


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> If I can only do a single pair of ATMOS speakers on ceiling where should I put them? Front, Middle, Back? I feel the front might be best, suggestions!


Personally, I'd do middle but I'm not sure if there is hardware support for that or not. It seems the frequent posting of documents suggest a forward overhead (top) for those doing only 2ch ceiling surrounds.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> Maybe it it going to much in the details for this thread, but the fact that they are different in character actually does also impact the quality, positively.
> 
> On the other hand, if you have several objects with the same character being grouped, there could be a clear impact on quality: in the worst case, if 2 objects sound the same and use full dynamics, then the objects cannot be combined in the PCM data and one of them "disappears".


No matter how many objects exist in a mix, they all add up to a certain SPL in the dubbing stage. That SPL has to be no louder than will exist in a 5.1 cinema. Immersive movie formats technically have more headroom, but if they use it, people leave the cinemas, or the cinemas get a visit from local health authorities as is already happening in Europe. Seriously, there are loudness police. AES is hard at work trying to develop recommendations to address these concerns.

Looking at it another way, the objects are just the same as the elementary components that previously merged on the dubbing stage to make the 5.1 mix. Delivering them individually (or in any subset groups) does not make them louder once recombined (rendered) into the immersive system's speakers at the playback side.


----------



## smurraybhm

batpig said:


> Honestly, considering your room layout with couch against the back wall, I'm not sure how much benefit you would get from adding another pair of "front height" type elevated speakers. They would be so far in front of you (plus your fronts are already a bit elevated) that I'm not sure you'd get a lot of angular separation from the front soundstage. Your side surrounds and top middle speakers are already a bit in front of MLP toed in, and then you've got the back covered with those bipole/dipole wall mounted speakers on the back wall. That's a lot of surround coverage to place you in the surround field.
> 
> It would be one thing if you could skootch the couch forward a few feet, and move the top middle a bit behind you, opening up the front elevated position for extra coverage, but failing that I think you've done a darn good job of optimizing the room. It looks great!
> 
> Is there any acoustic diffusion/absorption in the bookshelf cubbies behind the front speakers in the entertainment wall unit? I can't tell what that stuff is behind the speakers.


Thanks for the suggestions, trust me you mention nothing I haven't wanted to do. If I had MY way I would flip the room so I could get things out of the bookshelf unit I constructed during a major home remodel project prior to my A/V habit kicking into high gear. It would be great if I could slide the coach forward, seems like such a simple thing, right? If I could just lose the damn table lamp which isn't even plugged in. See wife. Plan is to drop bookshelf speakers down (ex center) when time permits for minor demo/rebuild. I hear you on the heights, but will see what is required as more Atmos material is released, Auro/UHD come into being, and I can make a few tweaks to the room. Without a doubt my room is a great example of why good room correction like XT32 is so important. Despite all its faults, I will say that the way things are right now, the sound is pretty darn good. 

By the way the material behind the bookshelf is corrugated steel - definitely not high up in the acoustic improvement department unless I'm bouncing sound off them


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

wse said:


> If I can only do a single pair of ATMOS speakers on ceiling where should I put them? Front, Middle, Back? I feel the front might be best, suggestions!


Top middle, slightly before MLP


----------



## kbarnes701

AUDIOandME said:


> Based on what batpig said, this is not the case. Also, how do you explain not being able to use the TrueHD soundtrack on the new Transformers bluray? It seems to confirm what batpig stated.


I know that batpig fully understands this, so I am sure he didn't say what you think he said. But no doubt he will clarify it for himself.


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> Personally, I'd do middle but I'm not sure if there is hardware support for that or not. It seems the frequent posting of documents suggest a forward overhead (top) for those doing only 2ch ceiling surrounds.


Granted my speakers are not in-ceiling, but after experimenting with them located up front and a few other locations using some step ladders (now I know why I had two, and so does the wife) I settled on top middle. If my sofa was up 4 feet or more then top front. If you are only going to go with 2 speaker locations then I think where they go is based on the room and MLP. The only thing I can't see doing under any circumstances is placing them in the back if using only 2 "tops."


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Again IMHO, the real large and definitive availability of 3D Audio, either Atmos or Auro (DTS UHD being only an encoding media through MDA and an upmixer through an enhanced DTS Neo X xx), will be done through the BRD 4K standard @ Q1/16... with hopefully the Bilbo trilogy as an early technological demonstrator.
> 
> In between and next year 2015, we could have @ 5/6 Atmos titles that could become available in (standard) Bluray, just as regular Audio teasers of this next 4K standard, which will then definitively bear the full 3D Audio identity.
> 
> Now I'd love that this analysis and forecast end up being wrong, but very unfortunately... this is what will probably happen.
> 
> Hugo


I have to admit to scant knowledge of 4K and all its machinations. 4K is just something that isn't on my personal radar. If it comes along, and all new BD discs and BD players come with it, then of course I will adopt it when I eventually change my PJ - all this is assuming the content is there. But in the meantime, I sit about 8 feet from a 95 inch (diagonal) screen and can see no pixels or any other artefacts induced by a mere 1080p image, so I can't really see how I’d benefit from 4K, unless I could move to a bigger room with a much bigger screen.

Of course I realise it's not just about resolution and we will have other benefits such as greater color depth etc but again, I am not really crying out for that personally.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> If I can only do a single pair of ATMOS speakers on ceiling where should I put them? Front, Middle, Back? I feel the front might be best, suggestions!


Top Middle.


----------



## kaotikr1

kbarnes701 said:


> Difficult to give advice without measurements. The important thing with Atmos are the angles from MLP to the speakers. As you will be going for Top Middle, the angles are 65-100° from MLP. Do your proposed locations fall within that range? If so, you are all set.


Went home and did some measuring, it seems I could hit all the recommended locations. The seats all located about 3' off the back wall, so my thoughts initially are 7.1.2 with them slightly in front of MLP, I get the feeling with 7.1.4 there would be a whole lot of audio information coming from the 2 back corners with 3 speakers in each corner...Opening up the ceiling and installing speakers is a good sized task so have to get my ducks in a row!

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/TW1SM/library/New Media Room?sort=6&page=1


----------



## noah katz

westmd said:


> But Auro announced colaboration with D&M on Auro integration already during this years CES!


That doesn't guarantee that current products will be upgradable to include Auro.


----------



## dschulz

Hugo S said:


> Again IMHO, the real large and definitive availability of 3D Audio, either Atmos or Auro (DTS UHD being only an encoding media through MDA and an upmixer through an enhanced DTS Neo X xx), will be done through the BRD 4K standard @ Q1/16... with hopefully the Bilbo trilogy as an early technological demonstrator.
> 
> Hugo


Just a note on DTS-UHD, that is the decoding package (not just an upmixer along the lines of Neo:X). The object-based file format that has been proposed for adoption by the motion picture industry by DTS is MDA (Multi-Dimensional Audio). DTS-UHD is a consumer electronics decoder that can render object-based MDA soundtracks.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that there will be no noticeable difference in the way Atmos will be performing?


A good reason for positional rendering. Until then, just use common sense (IF you feel the overhead speakers are too far apart, bring them a little closer together).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> Well I am not quite that far back, only about 7 years, but obviously not Atmos ready yet. I have the space and all of the speakers for a 7.1.4 setup as well, so that is the goal for the home theatre. I am sure that a 'current' generation Atmos AVR will be fine for now, I just loath the idea of buying 'today' and finding out in a couple of months there are AVR's available with the full bandwidth HDMI and HDCP included built in. There is no way I am going to get into the situation where I need to by-pass the AVR to connect the Blu-ray player to the display to get HDCP content to play while connecting a second HDMI to the AVR for sound, these two data streams go hand in hand and the AVR at it's cost/position in the system has to be able to handle both chores up front.
> 
> 
> I have the luxury (or burden) of waiting as my HT was gutted to allow for a kitchen renovation to get completed because power and HVAC go through that area and it all got upgraded.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think that the Denon will be a great AVR, I just prefer not to be forced to have multiple HDMI cables for sound and video (if needed), and extra amps for the 10th and 11th channels... I will wait as long as I can stand to be on the sideline hear about the Atmos experience!


Summer 2015 would be the earliest you'd see new chipsets with both. There are some apparent limitations for processing with HDCP 2.2 because even the Integra is slower than the Denon. Worst case scenario... what would the resale value of the Denon be at the point in time that 4k Bluray specs are released? 

I think processing power will be the most important thing when 4k bluray comes out... something tells me that even the new HDCP AVR's now won't be able to handle it anyhow.
My plan is to perhaps buy something like the Vizio reference series or other 4k FALD TV with 3D... if the Denon can't handle 4k bluray content I will either sell it or wait a while & replace/ sell. If 4k blurays are really at least a year a way, I'd imagine it would be wise to wait that first year out anyway. So that would = 3 years with the AVR (at least hopefully). 

I have a feeling 4k bluray will be largely pointless until those making the content adopt the larger color space, unless if you are desperately waiting for 4k 3D content. There is some material that's been graded for HDR Dolbyvision but we'll have to see how much is available at release. I could be patient & wait on that but Atmos was too much to resist!


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> Went home and did some measuring, it seems I could hit all the recommended locations. The seats all located about 3' off the back wall, so my thoughts initially are 7.1.2 with them slightly in front of MLP, I get the feeling with 7.1.4 there would be a whole lot of audio information coming from the 2 back corners with 3 speakers in each corner...Opening up the ceiling and installing speakers is a good sized task so have to get my ducks in a row!


As the two speakers are relatively easy to install once you remove the lights, and as they meet the angles, I'd go with Top Middle.


----------



## brwsaw

There's still a few details I'd like confirmed...

For example, when mixing objects instead of channels what is the mixers reference point/ location in room?. To make it work in *any* room they couldn't just use the MLP/ sweet spot in their room, they would have to work around the room instead wouldn't they?
The details shown in the Atmos white papers confirm speaker layouts from a single listeners ears but would this produce the theoretical best results?
I've tried mapping locations from the floor, centered across the width and 2/3 into the room (1/3 from the back wall) using 22.5 degrees increments on both the horizontal and vertical planes. This worked incredibly well for speaker placement mapping, with exception to the front Atmos pair which did not line up. I didn't complete the drawing, it led to more tweaks and considerations and I've decided to start over.
Thoughts?


----------



## ThePrisoner

If one is going to use the Atmos modules for front speakers, how low should my surround speakers be? Currently they are on my back wall mounted 6.5 ft high. My ceiling is 8 ft. I plan on lowering them but by how much, 2ft lower?


----------



## Glenn Baumann

ThePrisoner said:


> If one is going to use the Atmos modules for front speakers, how low should my surround speakers be? Currently they are on my back wall mounted 6.5 ft high. My ceiling is 8 ft. I plan on lowering them but by how much, 2ft lower?



Ear Level has been stated!

The basic idea is to provide some separation from the overheads and the rest of the speakers.


...Glenn


----------



## ThePrisoner

Glenn Baumann said:


> Ear Level has been stated!
> 
> The basic idea is to provide some separation from the overheads and the rest of the speakers.
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



Thanks Glenn! Looks like they coming way down. Time to break the news to my wife😳.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

ThePrisoner said:


> Thanks Glenn! Looks like they coming way down. Time to break the news to my wifeí ½í¸³.



For the record, I want to state that I myself do not have an Atmos setup yet. I am just stating what has been basically bandied about!

I myself am a bit skeptical about having to lower the speakers quite that much. When the time comes for me to set up my Atmos system, I will be sure to experiment a bit to be convinced that the Rear Surrounds truly have to be that low!

I would like to hear others hands on experiences with Side and Back Surround mounting heights! 


...Glenn


----------



## Al Sherwood

Aras_Volodka said:


> Summer 2015 would be the earliest you'd see new chipsets with both. There are some apparent limitations for processing with HDCP 2.2 because even the Integra is slower than the Denon. Worst case scenario... what would the resale value of the Denon be at the point in time that 4k Bluray specs are released?
> 
> I think processing power will be the most important thing when 4k bluray comes out... something tells me that even the new HDCP AVR's now won't be able to handle it anyhow.
> My plan is to perhaps buy something like the Vizio reference series or other 4k FALD TV with 3D... if the Denon can't handle 4k bluray content I will either sell it or wait a while & replace/ sell. If 4k blurays are really at least a year a way, I'd imagine it would be wise to wait that first year out anyway. So that would = 3 years with the AVR (at least hopefully).
> 
> I have a feeling 4k bluray will be largely pointless until those making the content adopt the larger color space, unless if you are desperately waiting for 4k 3D content. There is some material that's been graded for HDR Dolbyvision but we'll have to see how much is available at release. I could be patient & wait on that but Atmos was too much to resist!


Given the speed at which I get things done the Summer of 2015 sounds like it is not far off! 


As for buying then selling a 1 or 2 year old AVR, I doubt I would even consider that, too much money out the window for me. 


The HT equipment I have is all 1080p, no 4K stuff yet, 3D is unimportant to me but 4K represents a goal. Depending how the projector market shakes out I will likely have a 4K TV for the LR before I can find/afford a 4K projector and the LR is strictly a 5.1 system. The HT is where Atmos will come alive, so the challenges are a bit in flux right now, but as I said before waiting is something that will happen for my install no matter my desire to have it all now! 


I follow the thread with great interest and to know when I can wait no longer...


----------



## zeus33

Glenn Baumann said:


> I would like to hear others hands on experiences with Side and Back Surround mounting heights!



The Dolby spec clearly shows surrounds and surround backs at ear level. The drawings have been posted multiple times throughout the thread.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Glenn Baumann said:


> For the record, I want to state that I myself do not have an Atmos setup yet. I am just stating what has been basically bandied about!
> 
> I myself am a bit skeptical about having to lower the speakers quite that much. When the time comes for me to set up my Atmos system, I will be sure to experiment a bit to be convinced that the Rear Surrounds truly have to be that low!
> 
> I would like to hear others hands on experiences with Side and Back Surround mounting heights!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



It does seem proper to have them low since, as you said, to have separation from the height channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ThePrisoner said:


> It does seem proper to have them low since, as you said, to have separation from the height channels.


But if you intend on having multiple people sitting in a row, potentially, you should move them up until the main layer surrounds at least clear the tops of their heads.


----------



## Bigham16

This is what I did. I moved my side and back surrounds down about 7"s which ended up being a little higher than my head, maybe a foot higher. They were at 5' 8" from the floor and now at 5' 1" from the floor, 10' ceiling. Couldn't go any lower because I ran out of speaker wire slack and honesty, I didn't want to go any lower. I got a noticeable increase in separation from the top speakers. I would suggest at least trying it if possible. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> But if you intend on having multiple people sitting in a row, potentially, you should move them up until the main layer surrounds at least clear the tops of their heads.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if you intend on having multiple people sitting in a row, potentially, you should move them up until the main layer surrounds at least clear the tops of their heads.





Bigham16 said:


> This is what I did. I moved my side and back surrounds down about 7"s which ended up being a little hire than my head, maybe a foot higher. They were at 5' 8" from the floor and now at 5' 1" from the floor, 10' ceiling. Couldn't go any lower because I ran out of speaker wire slack and honesty, I didn't want to go any lower. I got a noticeable increase in separation from the top speakers. I would suggest at least trying it if possible.


I do see your point. I'll be extra careful in moving them down, my speaker wire is in-wall for the surrounds. Now, does it matter that they are bipole (Definitive Technology SR-8040BP)?


----------



## NorthSky

No higher than 1.25 times the height of your front main speakers (according to Dolby's guidelines).

* Bipoles: My own personal opinion; I believe that Monopoles are still preferable.


----------



## kingwiggi

Couldn't find a release date for the US/UK English version of this Blu-Ray but this Japanese website is reporting on a BBC Earth release of 'Nature' which includes a Dolby Atmos soundtrack. 









https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fav.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fnews%2F20140909_665912.html

Slated for release in Japan on Nov 6.


----------



## batpig

ThePrisoner said:


> I do see your point. I'll be extra careful in moving them down, my speaker wire is in-wall for the surrounds. Now, does it matter that they are bipole (Definitive Technology SR-8040BP)?


I don't know if you saw my post detailing my experiences with the Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, but I will second the recommendation on lowering surrounds. I am in a very similar position to you, with surrounds elevated about 6.5ft, and a 5.1 setup (5.1.2 with Atmos modules). Unfortunately I don't have an easy path towards lowering the surround in my setup, so I'm kind of stuck with what I have.

My experience was that the elevated surrounds really do detract from the "virtual speaker" experience of the Atmos modules. Because my surrounds are already elevated there is already a bunch of sound bouncing around up above my head, so the difference between 5.1 and 5.1.2 was often subtle in my tests. And, since you asked, in my opinion the fact that they are bipoles makes this even worse. If you think about it, the Atmos modules work by reflecting sound off the ceiling. But bipoles also work by reflecting sound to create a more "spacious" surround field. So you have elevated speakers, that are firing sound in multiple directions above your head, and then you are going to try to add two "virtual" speakers that are also reflecting sound above your head. Logically this is going to "smear" the imaging with the stuff going on up there.

So I would strongly recommend lowering the surrounds if possible to greate better separation between the vertical "layers" of sound. You don't have to go all the way to ear level (as others have noted slightly above ear level is better since you will get clearance over the heads of all listeners) but I would want a few feet of separation from the ceiling.


----------



## doublewing11

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if you intend on having multiple people sitting in a row, potentially, you should move them up until the main layer surrounds at least clear the tops of their heads.


Aaaaaa........the pleasures of hot-spotting! Dolby Atmos white papers or not........no way am I going to have tweeters at ear level!  

18-24" above ear level will suffice for me............besides, not being height challenged sure helps. My surround tweeters are 3-4 ft from ceiling and am not worried about channel separation. Dolby Atmos white papers are are very helpful, yet are not end all for all applications. 

Many of us are guilty of "over-thinking" speaker placement. Just agreeing with your statement.....


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> Not as such. The overheads are mounted in line with the front L&R speakers within the angles prescribed for Front Height and Top Middle.
> 
> This is a picture of one of them on the ceiling - not sure how it adds much value though.


Hi Keith, question about how your speakers are placed. How are they oriented? In referrance to the MLP. Are they horizontal/wide to the front of room or are they long? 


I am also think about getting those tannoy speakers, once I hear your thoughts on them. Likely di8. There isn't big price difference between them di6 and di8 if I get the b stock http://www.proaudiosolutions.com/Di8-DCT-B-STOCK-BLACK-p/di8-dct-black-bstk.htm. Any big difference between them other than the size?

Thanks

Dan lee


----------



## LDBecker

*New Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 has Atmos?*

I'm more of an iPad person, but a friend pointed this out (knowing I'd just purchased the Denon 5200 and am trying to sort speakers out). The literature isn't clear to me whether this is a headphone version of Atmos (I'd read speculation about such a thing), or if it just passes the Atmos information along in its audio stream for playing on a larger system. 
Might be interesting to see where this goes... 
(I searched the thread and didn't see find a Kindle reference in it - sorry if this already came up. 
Now back to your regularly scheduled speculation


----------



## ThePrisoner

batpig said:


> I don't know if you saw my post detailing my experiences with the Def Tech A60 Atmos modules, but I will second the recommendation on lowering surrounds. I am in a very similar position to you, with surrounds elevated about 6.5ft, and a 5.1 setup (5.1.2 with Atmos modules). Unfortunately I don't have an easy path towards lowering the surround in my setup, so I'm kind of stuck with what I have.
> 
> My experience was that the elevated surrounds really do detract from the "virtual speaker" experience of the Atmos modules. Because my surrounds are already elevated there is already a bunch of sound bouncing around up above my head, so the difference between 5.1 and 5.1.2 was often subtle in my tests. And, since you asked, in my opinion the fact that they are bipoles makes this even worse. If you think about it, the Atmos modules work by reflecting sound off the ceiling. But bipoles also work by reflecting sound to create a more "spacious" surround field. So you have elevated speakers, that are firing sound in multiple directions above your head, and then you are going to try to add two "virtual" speakers that are also reflecting sound above your head. Logically this is going to "smear" the imaging with the stuff going on up there.
> 
> So I would strongly recommend lowering the surrounds if possible to greate better separation between the vertical "layers" of sound. You don't have to go all the way to ear level (as others have noted slightly above ear level is better since you will get clearance over the heads of all listeners) but I would want a few feet of separation from the ceiling.



Thank you & yes I did go back to see your post. I plan on using the A60's with my BP-8060ST's. I'm going to measure where the surrounds will be just above head level and move the speaker.


----------



## DS-21

NorthSky said:


> 2. Discuss the post content, and not what you think of the poster's mental status.


Go back and reread what I wrote. I clearly did not discuss anyone's "mental status." ("Psychic" is not a mental status.) I was discussing aesthetic preference. And when we're talking "timbre matching," what we're really discussing is an aesthetic preferences packaged as a sonic thing by canny marketers, and unfortunately it seems defended by the gullible as a real thing.

As for editing quoted text, I reserve my right to do so, either to truncate or to remove pointless blather, constrained only by an insistence on transparency, e.g. "***" for truncation and "[]" for added/replaced text. 



bkeeler10 said:


> I presume that I don't have to tell you that this is not a valid experiment.


It is entirely valid for what I intended to do. I only mention it to point out that there are a lot of people spitting out stupid marketing lines who don't have much actual experience.




bkeeler10 said:


> Did you do a proper DBT on this experiment? Did you set up, for example, a pair of Forte II and a single KEF RDM EQ'd to the Forte, make provisions for very quick switching out of one of the Forte II for the KEF so you could instantly compare two Forte II vs one Forte and one KEF, ensure perfect level matching, and then somehow do this test without realizing that you were doing it?


No. It was a stereo pair. One used for the right channel, the other used for the left channel. An RDM Two sat atop each Klipsch tower.

As to your point about only one spot, remember we're talking about *mains* here not just surround channels. Surrounds just don't matter that much, as long as they're minimally competent. Even on things where they ostensibly should, such as a multichannel recording of Mahler 8, with the brasses in the balcony. Even for things I don't care about, such as flyovers, the need for identical timbre kind of falls by the wayside when you consider that there's usually Doppler shift in the effect anyway...



bkeeler10 said:


> This was my argument from the beginning -- maybe FR is all that matters, but I'm not convinced that is the case.


Studies show that FR is most of what matters. But that's not just _axial_ FR, of course. 



bkeeler10 said:


> If one argues that an identical LCR set is ideal for the front stage, why is it such a leap to think that you'd want to adhere to that same ideal as much as possible with the rest of the speakers?


1) Main channels and ambient channels carry different stuff.
2) We hear differently right in front of us vs. to our sides and behind us. 

As for heights, as a practical matter, how is one to have identical Atmos height channels and mains? Even if the drive-units are the same, the baffles will be different, which means the crossover must be different if they are a competent design.

Also, just as Dr. Toole doesn't consider "matching" ambient channels to mains in _Sound Reproduction[/b], it's worth not in that most of the Atmos-certified speakers are vastly different for heights than mains.



audioguy said:



Not a correct assumption. Assuming a steady state sweep was used,

Click to expand...

Don't assume something when you were spoon fed the answer. (HINT: "sound power" ≠ "steady state sweep").



audioguy said:



that ***tells you nothing about the dynamic capability of the speakers. I had a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Seaton Catalyst matched as close as the TacT Digital room correction system would match them. Did not need double blind testing to hear the differences. The "character" of the speakers were totally different. ***

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that, based on what you used (an automated system with no manual tweaking) and the peculiarities of the Dunlavy. Because of the late Mr. Dunlavy's on 1st order acoustic slopes, the dispersion is decidedly irregular. Lots of lobes. The axial response may have been postcard-worthy, but just walking around one and hearing the sound change as one moves around (i.e. very inconsistent polar response) betrayed John Dunlavy's designs as being products of theory without much confirmation of audibility.

Even before I learned about the importance of polars, I never thought of the big Dunlavies as loudspeakers. I always considered them coffin-sized headphones. They should've come with a chin-rest.



3ll3d00d said:



***IMV good DRC can certainly make speakers sound more alike (that's entirely the point after all)

Click to expand...

FWIW, I would not use "room correction" at all in the mids and highs of any loudspeaker. For one thing, this "timbre matching" just isn't required for ambient channels unless the loudspeakers used are just grossly incompetent. Also, IMO, room correction is best used to fix the room, i.e. bandwidth-limited up to the transition region. Perhaps full-band can work well, but outside of parlor tricks I don't want to EQ speakers in the statistical region based on listening-position measurements. If a room correction system combined nearfield measurements of each speaker to correct the direct field and listening position measurements to correct the modal region and below, that would be a different matter. (I think HK had a 2-channel integrated amp that did that. I've never seen one in the wild.)_


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> No higher than 1.25 times the height of your front main speakers (according to Dolby's guidelines).
> 
> * Bipoles: My own personal opinion; I believe that Monopoles are still preferable.


They talked about Bipoles @ the Cedia Atmos panel discussion (video was posted on AVS yesterday). Monopoles are preferable. For panning purposes I guess it makes the transition smoother. 

I'm curious about my setup because I have the Klipsch RS 62 which I believe is bipole... however the speakers are quite large/ have horns which make it sound almost like a front firing speaker... so I'm wondering if I'm in the clear?


----------



## sikclown

Aras_Volodka said:


> They talked about Bipoles @ the Cedia Atmos panel discussion (video was posted on AVS yesterday). Monopoles are preferable. For panning purposes I guess it makes the transition smoother.
> 
> I'm curious about my setup because I have the Klipsch RS 62 which I believe is bipole... however the speakers are quite large/ have horns which make it sound almost like a front firing speaker... so I'm wondering if I'm in the clear?


I am using RS-52IIs which Klipsch uses what they call Wide Dispersion Surround Technology. According to them it offers best of both worlds in that it will put out immersive surround sound but it can also put out precise localization effects. Atmos white paper says this:

"Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a *wide dispersion pattern *are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system. This will ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead speakers are placed high above the listeners. "

My choice of speakers are the best possible choice for my current setup so I am rolling the dice on them and going for it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sikclown said:


> I am using RS-52IIs which Klipsch uses what they call Wide Dispersion Surround Technology. According to them it offers best of both worlds in that it will put out immersive surround sound but it can also put out precise localization effects. Atmos white paper says this:
> 
> "Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a *wide dispersion pattern *are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system. This will ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead speakers are placed high above the listeners. "
> 
> My choice of speakers are the best possible choice for my current setup so I am rolling the dice on them and going for it.


Ahh ok so you and I have very similar speakers then! Well that puts my mind @ ease  Which overheads / modules will you be going for?


----------



## sikclown

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ahh ok so you and I have very similar speakers then! Well that puts my mind @ ease  Which overheads / modules will you be going for?


I am going to run with Top Fronts and Tops rears. Hopefully I can get to the wiring this week. 14.6 foot ceiling mean a whole lot of speaker wire to run


----------



## W3Rman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ahh ok so you and I have very similar speakers then! Well that puts my mind @ ease  Which overheads / modules will you be going for?


Ahh..., you underestimate sikclowns setup. He ain't settling for just any walmart/bestbuy/swapmeet DS-21 calibrated speaker, he's using the real deal the RS-52 II's *are on* the ceiling :wink:


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sikclown said:


> I am going to run with Top Fronts and Tops rears. Hopefully I can get to the wiring this week. 14.6 foot ceiling mean a whole lot of speaker wire to run


OMFG no kidding... I just bought a spool of 100' today, I thought I'd be left over with extra... I didn't realize it takes more than 20 feet to connect my rears & rear heights... I had to do some creative things to make it happen. I also had an extra spool of 20' and used that just to connect the front heights. 



W3Rman said:


> Ahh..., you underestimate sikclowns setup. He ain't settling for just any walmart/bestbuy/swapmeet DS-21 calibrated speaker, he's using the real deal the RS-52 II's *are on* the ceiling :wink:


Oh no showing off on my part... I'm guessing my system is one of the most poorly setup on this site... but that might change with Atmos (haha). Right now the issue is I don't have much in the way of acoustic treatments, aside from too much furniture, bookshelves with books & some paintings I made up on the walls.

I'm also not sure if I should switch out my rear speakers (chorus II's)... I would have thought the Chorus II's would be way louder than the RS 62's, but it's the other way around.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sikclown said:


> I am going to run with Top Fronts and Tops rears. Hopefully I can get to the wiring this week. 14.6 foot ceiling mean a whole lot of speaker wire to run


I also did a lot of labeling & color coding to make sure all the positive wires line up. My ocean of cables behind the receiver looks like the gay pride parade.


----------



## audioguy

DS-21 said:


> I don't doubt that, based on what you used (an automated system with no manual tweaking)


Don't recall you being there when I used the SigTech. (1) I worked for SigTech for 10 years (2) there was *ZERO* automation (3) At setup, I had TOTAL control of what did or did not get corrected and if so how much.

So please don't try to impress me on how informed you are when you clearly have ZERO knowledge on what you are talking about in this regard. Go try and impress someone else.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> They talked about Bipoles @ the Cedia Atmos panel discussion (video was posted on AVS yesterday). Monopoles are preferable. For panning purposes I guess it makes the transition smoother.
> 
> I'm curious about my setup because I have the Klipsch RS 62 which I believe is bipole... however the speakers are quite large/ have horns which make it sound almost like a front firing speaker... so I'm wondering if I'm in the clear?


You are always in the clear, question is; how far clear?

* Play with what you got, and if not totally certain, experiment, with monopoles. 
...Best way to find out for yourself, in your room with your ears.


----------



## NorthSky

Impressive.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

DS-21 said:


> FWIW, I would not use "room correction" at all in the mids and highs of any loudspeaker. For one thing, this "timbre matching" just isn't required for ambient channels unless the loudspeakers used are just grossly incompetent. Also, IMO, room correction is best used to fix the room, i.e. bandwidth-limited up to the transition region. Perhaps full-band can work well, but outside of parlor tricks I don't want to EQ speakers in the statistical region based on listening-position measurements. If a room correction system combined nearfield measurements of each speaker to correct the direct field and listening position measurements to correct the modal region and below, that would be a different matter. (I think HK had a 2-channel integrated amp that did that. I've never seen one in the wild.)


Fwiw you can use the correction system I use (acourate) in that way, the approach is described in http://www.computeraudiophile.com/c...e-alignment-driver-linearization-walkthrough/ . PC only though (albeit there is a cut down version that runs on opendrc).


----------



## westmd

One question that has been discussed already in length but I did not find the clear answer that quickly.
*Fron Wides* as output by eg the *Marantz AV 7702* are in Dolby's Atmos technical description are now *Front Surrounds* and can be placed also on the side wall, correct? Now within Atmos they are supported but within Dolby Surround not? Is that correct how I understood it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> One question that has been discussed already in length but I did not find the clear answer that quickly.
> *Fron Wides* as output by eg the *Marantz AV 7702* are in Dolby's Atmos technical description are now *Front Surrounds* and can be placed also on the side wall, correct? Now within Atmos they are supported but within Dolby Surround not? Is that correct how I understood it?


Correct. They are front _side_ surround speakers, not front screen wall speakers. These are not used exactly like in DTS Neo:X and those sorts of post processing modes. In Atmos, they're supported by objects and any bed channels spread to these "extra" speakers (mix dependent). Dolby Surround upmixing is not output through these speakers.


----------



## pasender91

I think an interesting question regarding the front wides and front surrounds is "from which setting or angle will DSU activate the speakers?"

My understanding was front wides are OFF but front surrounds are ON in DSU.

Front surround is not a position available in D+M shipping units, forcing you to setup those speakers as front wides, so OFF in DSU. 
This may change in future units if they allow for more flexible positioning, either by creating a "front surround" setting or by allowing positioning based on angles.
... circling back to the fact that dolby explained clearly that the front stage speakers others than LCR are off in DSU, but they didn't say to which extent this front stage goes in terms of angles.


----------



## tomparis

pasender91 said:


> I think an interesting question regarding the front wides and front surrounds is "from which setting or angle will DSU activate the speakers?"
> 
> My understanding was front wides are OFF but front surrounds are ON in DSU.
> 
> Front surround is not a position available in D+M shipping units, forcing you to setup those speakers as front wides, so OFF in DSU.
> This may change in future units if they allow for more flexible positioning, either by creating a "front surround" setting or by allowing positioning based on angles.
> ... circling back to the fact that dolby explained clearly that the front stage speakers others than LCR are off in DSU, but they didn't say to which extent this front stage goes in terms of angles.


This discussion is very interesting, since I have wides and was quite disappointed to hear that DSU doesn't support them. If this could change in the future since these could also be configured as front surrounds, that would be nice


----------



## maikeldepotter

pletwals said:


> Based on the theatrical guidelines, which are more precise, the elevation of the top "array" should be at least 45° if the side surrounds are at ear level. This means maximum 90° of separation between the two top "arrays" (top speakers). I would suggest, in line with your preference that a 60/60/60° separation between surround left/top left/top right/ surround right would be indeed ideal, but maybe not possible for everyone's room.
> 
> If the side surrounds are not at ear level, the elevation of the top "arrays" should be augmented by half the elevation of the side surrounds. Say, the sides are 30° up, then you should add 15° to the elevation of the top array's: 45+15 = 60° (minimum). So, 60° is probably golden for almost everybody, if possible.


Thanks for that.

I have reached the conclusion that with Dolby's (rigidly formulated) guideline to put the overheads in line with your fronts (see Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines), they are specifically targeting the home theaters equipped with 50" (or so) flat panels. Home theaters with 100" (or so) projection screens will be better off with the rule of thumb from the 'Dolby Atmos Cinema Technical Guidelines' to put the top surrounds in line with the left-center and right-center positions. It would be really helpful for people with big screens if Dolby could confirm this. Thank you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Look what just arrived...

I must now be the only person on the planet who has an Atmos movie, the Atmos demo disc, 4 overhead speakers - and no freakin' AVR!!


----------



## pasender91

I would be crazy, i hope you keep cool 

Seeing the good side of it, you can watch it with a non-Atmos soundtrack, so that when you watch it again in Atmos you can better feel and report the differences


----------



## dmorgus

kbarnes701 said:


> Look what just arrived...
> 
> I must now be the only person on the planet who has an Atmos movie, the Atmos demo disc, 4 overhead speakers - and no freakin' AVR!!


Its karma for being the only person on the average guy planet to have gone to two home Atmos demos


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I would be crazy, i hope you keep cool
> 
> Seeing the good side of it, you can watch it with a non-Atmos soundtrack, so that when you watch it again in Atmos you can better feel and report the differences


The only fly in the ointment there is that I'd have to watch Transformers 4 _twice_. 

(J/K really - I expect I will probably enjoy the movie - I like Michael Bay's style really). 

Your suggestions is a good one in fact...


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> I have reach the conclusion that with Dolby's (rigidly formulated) guideline to put the overheads in line with your fronts (see Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines), they are specifically targeting the home theaters equipped with 50" (or so) flat panels. Home theaters with 100" (or so) projection screens will be better off with the rule of thumb from the 'Dolby Atmos Cinema Technical Guidelines' to put the top surrounds in line with the left-center and right-center positions. It would be really helpful for people with big screens if Dolby could confirm this. Thank you.


That is an interesting observation. All the Dolby demos were with a 50 inch TV. Your idea makes a lot of sense - not sure if it would work in practice but I can see where you are coming from - for a really big screen, like many people on AVS have, it may make a lot of sense to follow the cinema-style guidelines rather than the domestic wrt to the lateral position of the overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Hi Keith, question about how your speakers are placed. How are they oriented? In referrance to the MLP. Are they horizontal/wide to the front of room or are they long?


That photo was taken from, roughly, the MLP. So they are wide to the front of the room. But as they have a 90° all-round dispersion pattern, it doesn't really matter 



mp5475 said:


> I am also think about getting those tannoy speakers, once I hear your thoughts on them.


I have already auditioned them, just not as overheads yet. When I got them, during my evaluation window, I hooked them up to my separate 2ch music system and listened to a couple of CDs through them. Other than the lack of deep bass, as expected, I was impressed enough to keep them. If they play well on full range content such as Norah Jones, then I am sure they will serve well as overheads for Atmos.



mp5475 said:


> Likely di8. There isn't big price difference between them di6 and di8 if I get the b stock http://www.proaudiosolutions.com/Di8-DCT-B-STOCK-BLACK-p/di8-dct-black-bstk.htm. Any big difference between them other than the size?


Oh for sure - get the big ones if you have space for them! I don't - I couldn't even use the Di6 DCs on my ceiling (although I now have a pair on surround duty). You can see the differences in the full specs on Tannoy's website. I'd have used the Di6 on the ceiling if I could have!

Another benefit of the design is that they come with C brackets which makes mounting them the simplest and most secure of any speaker I have ever owned I think.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Given the speed at which I get things done the Summer of 2015 sounds like it is not far off!
> 
> 
> As for buying then selling a 1 or 2 year old AVR, I doubt I would even consider that, too much money out the window for me.
> 
> 
> The HT equipment I have is all 1080p, no 4K stuff yet, 3D is unimportant to me but 4K represents a goal. Depending how the projector market shakes out I will likely have a 4K TV for the LR before I can find/afford a 4K projector and the LR is strictly a 5.1 system. The HT is where Atmos will come alive, so the challenges are a bit in flux right now, but as I said before waiting is something that will happen for my install no matter my desire to have it all now!
> 
> 
> I follow the thread with great interest and to know when I can wait no longer...


Al, you have the most patience of any guy I have ever known!


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> There's still a few details I'd like confirmed...
> 
> For example, when mixing objects instead of channels what is the mixers reference point/ location in room?. To make it work in *any* room they couldn't just use the MLP/ sweet spot in their room, they would have to work around the room instead wouldn't they?
> The details shown in the Atmos white papers confirm speaker layouts from a single listeners ears but would this produce the theoretical best results?


Not 100% sure if I have understood you, but if the mixer decides a sound object should be placed, say, two-thirds in from the left of his mixing room and two-thirds in from the front, and one-third of the room height, and he places that sound object in the appropriate x,y z coordinates, then why would it not reproduce in the same relative position in your own room, assuming you have enough speakers to render it precisely?


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> That photo was taken from, roughly, the MLP. So they are wide to the front of the room. But as they have a 90° all-round dispersion pattern, it doesn't really matter
> 
> 
> 
> I have already auditioned them, just not as overheads yet. When I got them, during my evaluation window, I hooked them up to my separate 2ch music system and listened to a couple of CDs through them. Other than the lack of deep bass, as expected, I was impressed enough to keep them. If they play well on full range content such as Norah Jones, then I am sure they will serve well as overheads for Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for sure - get the big ones if you have space for them! I don't - I couldn't even use the Di6 DCs on my ceiling (although I now have a pair on surround duty). You can see the differences in the full specs on Tannoy's website. I'd have used the Di6 on the ceiling if I could have!
> 
> Another benefit of the design is that they come with C brackets which makes mounting them the simplest and most secure of any speaker I have ever owned I think.


Thanks Keith!


----------



## action_jackson

LDBecker said:


> I'm more of an iPad person, but a friend pointed this out (knowing I'd just purchased the Denon 5200 and am trying to sort speakers out). The literature isn't clear to me whether this is a headphone version of Atmos (I'd read speculation about such a thing), or if it just passes the Atmos information along in its audio stream for playing on a larger system.
> Might be interesting to see where this goes...
> (I searched the thread and didn't see find a Kindle reference in it - sorry if this already came up.
> Now back to your regularly scheduled speculation


The Atmos enabled speakers use a modified frequency response (the notch filter) to trick the ears into thinking the sounds are coming from overhead. My best guess is that they will manipulate the sound that would normally go to the overhead speakers with the same notch filter to trick your ears with a standard set of headphones. This sounds plausible anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

dmorgus said:


> Its karma for being the only person on the average guy planet to have gone to two home Atmos demos


Haha. That's one way to look at it  But just think - if the *&^*&ing AVR would come, I could have a home Atmos demo every day!


----------



## tomparis

kbarnes701 said:


> Look what just arrived...
> 
> I must now be the only person on the planet who has an Atmos movie, the Atmos demo disc, 4 overhead speakers - and no freakin' AVR!!


Not the only one. Me, too.


----------



## audioguy

Keith: Just bring your disk to Atlanta. I have a borrowed RS20i that supports Auro and soon Atmos and, we can just listen here


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> Not the only one. Me, too.


That's good... I feel better now knowing I am not alone


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Keith: Just bring your disk to Atlanta. I have a borrowed RS20i that supports Auro and soon Atmos and, we can just listen here


If it wasn't so far, I would too


----------



## tjenkins95

I have a question about setting up the Pioneer Dolby Atmos SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers that I purchased.
My theater ceiling has sound absorbing "ISC Black Cinetile Matte" acoustical tiles from http://www.iscsupply.com
The MLP seat is 10' from the screen so the Pioneer surround speakers will be placed at 11' on each side of the couch.
How do I determine where the sound from the up-firing speakers is going to hit the ceiling?
I will need to replace those tiles with diffusive material so that the sound will bounce off the ceiling.
I checked the Pioneer speakers manual but couldn't find this type of information. 
Thanks.

Ray


----------



## pasender91

i say laser beam from the speaker location and on atmos speaker axis ...
Then place a mirror there and you can see where the sound will go at the end of its travel


----------



## wse

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...oring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/e...les/Home/Frequently-Asked-Questions_Atmos.pdf


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> Not 100% sure if I have understood you, but if the mixer decides a sound object should be placed, say, two-thirds in from the left of his mixing room and two-thirds in from the front, and one-third of the room height, and he places that sound object in the appropriate x,y z coordinates, then why would it not reproduce in the same relative position in your own room, assuming you have enough speakers to render it precisely?


In theory they are mixing how those coordinates sound from their sweet spot which will likely not scale down because of different room acoustics and in turn different sweet spots.
It shouldn't matter but if its true would that mean its still not as good/natural as it could/should be?
I have a year to over think this, I'll try a little harder to leave my thoughts on paper until I've heard Atmos in a home.


----------



## kaotikr1

I am still toying with the idea of 7.1.4 in my room. Here is a sketch that I made up. Right at 3' to the back wall from MLP and then 3' forward for the top fronts. Opinions? You can see the rear surrounds are in wall so moving them down would be a lot of work and would mess with my panels, I could if needed replace the bipole/dipole side surrounds.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Not as such. The overheads are mounted in line with the front L&R speakers within the angles prescribed for Front Height and Top Middle.
> 
> This is a picture of one of them on the ceiling - not sure how it adds much value though.


do you have these pointed at the MLP or are they pointed just in front of your MLP


----------



## smurraybhm

kaotikr1 said:


> I am still toying with the idea of 7.1.4 in my room. Here is a sketch that I made up. Right at 3' to the back wall from MLP and then 3' forward for the top fronts. Opinions? You can see the rear surrounds are in wall so moving them down would be a lot of work and would mess with my panels, I could if needed replace the bipole/dipole side surrounds.


I would swap the rear backs with the side surround bipoles/dipoles. Move side surrounds down to ear level. Not knowing how much room is from the MLP to the fronts you may be better off going with top front and top middle with the rear surrounds being above ear level. I would also line those tops up with the fronts - which may be reflected in your drawing. I have my rears mounted a few feet above the MLP ear level and so far so good, I also dropped my side surrounds down to ear level and went with a monopole - after previously using a biopole - those got moved to the RS. Big improvement and our rooms look to be similar in size. If you go with top backs try to not have them too close to the back wall - reflections - may also want to line them up above the di/bi to see if the downward sound "splits" the between what the backs are putting out for sound.

Isn't this fun


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> I am still toying with the idea of 7.1.4 in my room. Here is a sketch that I made up. Right at 3' to the back wall from MLP and then 3' forward for the top fronts. Opinions? You can see the rear surrounds are in wall so moving them down would be a lot of work and would mess with my panels, I could if needed replace the bipole/dipole side surrounds.


hard to judge from a photo but it looks OK - so long as your overheads meet the spec for the angles you should be OK. Ideally the surrounds should be lower, but I’d try it out first and see if it all works. If it does, you can leave them where they are and just enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> do you have these pointed at the MLP or or they pointed just in front of your MLP


They are loosely pointed 'towards' the MLP. With their wide dispersion I don't think it matters much.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I would swap the rear backs with the side surround bipoles/dipoles. Move side surrounds down to ear level. Not knowing how much room is from the MLP to the fronts you may be better off going with top front and top middle with the rear surrounds being above ear level. I would also line those tops up with the fronts - which may be reflected in your drawing. I have my rears mounted a few feet above the MLP ear level and so far so good, I also dropped my side surrounds down to ear level and went with a monopole - after previously using a biopole - those got moved to the RS. Big improvement and our rooms look to be similar in size. If you go with top backs try to not have them too close to the back wall - reflections - may also want to line them up above the di/bi to see if the downward sound "splits" the between what the backs are putting out for sound.
> 
> Isn't this fun


Good recommendations - just one point - TF and TM isn't a possible combination. He could try configuring them as FH + TM though.


----------



## kaotikr1

kbarnes701 said:


> hard to judge from a photo but it looks OK - so long as your overheads meet the spec for the angles you should be OK. Ideally the surrounds should be lower, but I’d try it out first and see if it all works. If it does, you can leave them where they are and just enjoy!


I mainly posted the picture for reference on where things would sit, as my biggest concern was the current height of my surrounds. The rears are actually in-walls so as stated, tougher to move down. Another small issue is I don't remember how much slack I left the cables, so I might be limited on how far I can bring them down. 

I use all emotiva speakers and the UACs have amiable tweeters so would I then aim all for towards the row of seats?


----------



## kaotikr1

smurraybhm said:


> I would swap the rear backs with the side surround bipoles/dipoles. Move side surrounds down to ear level. Not knowing how much room is from the MLP to the fronts you may be better off going with top front and top middle with the rear surrounds being above ear level. I would also line those tops up with the fronts - which may be reflected in your drawing. I have my rears mounted a few feet above the MLP ear level and so far so good, I also dropped my side surrounds down to ear level and went with a monopole - after previously using a biopole - those got moved to the RS. Big improvement and our rooms look to be similar in size. If you go with top backs try to not have them too close to the back wall - reflections - may also want to line them up above the di/bi to see if the downward sound "splits" the between what the backs are putting out for sound.
> 
> Isn't this fun


It would be easier for me just to sell the sides and get the same in-walls that I have on the rear, would save me from having to patch up my back wall. I do have the 4 speakers lined up with the FL/FR as my room is just around 15x12x8, so my MLP is around 11-12' from the screen. 

So to summarize.. 

1. Get Denon X5200W
2. Get mono pole for sides and lower them down closer to ear level. 
3. Install 4 ceiling speakers within Dolby Spec. 
4. Profit?

I live in a small town and no place to Demo ATMOS, I feel excited about it, but lots of work on something i haven't heard.


----------



## batpig

kaotikr1 said:


> I am still toying with the idea of 7.1.4 in my room. Here is a sketch that I made up. Right at 3' to the back wall from MLP and then 3' forward for the top fronts. Opinions? You can see the rear surrounds are in wall so moving them down would be a lot of work and would mess with my panels, I could if needed replace the bipole/dipole side surrounds.


Are your surrounds behind the row of seats? Depending on how far back your seating is I might think about shifting them forward (i.e. in front of the side panel instead of behind) and then, as others have noted, shifting them down a couple of feet so they are just above ear level. Leaving aside Atmos, that would help place you within the surround field (i.e. closing the gap between the fronts and surrounds). If the perspective of the photo is deceiving and they are actually closer to being directly at the sides, then no worries.


----------



## kaotikr1

batpig said:


> Are your surrounds behind the row of seats? Depending on how far back your seating is I might think about shifting them forward (i.e. in front of the side panel instead of behind) and then, as others have noted, shifting them down a couple of feet so they are just above ear level. Leaving aside Atmos, that would help place you within the surround field (i.e. closing the gap between the fronts and surrounds). If the perspective of the photo is deceiving and they are actually closer to being directly at the sides, then no worries.


The side surrounds are directly beside the row of seats, the picture throws it off a bit.


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> I mainly posted the picture for reference on where things would sit, as my biggest concern was the current height of my surrounds. The rears are actually in-walls so as stated, tougher to move down. Another small issue is I don't remember how much slack I left the cables, so I might be limited on how far I can bring them down.


Sure. The surrounds are all rather higher than Atmos seems to require. I’d follow smurray's advice to lower the sides though as that will be easier than lowering the rears. Wrt to cable slack, it is perfectly OK to join cables, despite what 'audiophiles' tell us - so long as the joint has good mechanical integrity it will pass all the current that an unjoined cable would. You can solder the joints if you have a soldering iron, or use those screw down wire connector things. It may be possible to lower the surrounds and then reposition the acoustic treatments to cover the holes?



batpig said:


> I use all emotiva speakers and the UACs have amiable tweeters so would I then aim all for towards the row of seats?


Yes, I’d aim them towards the general area of the MLP.

I did spot the ERD-1s. A truly remarkable surround speaker IMO. I used to use those too - along with Emo 6.3s across the front - fabulous Vance Dickason designs. Only swapped them to get a different form factor that would go under my screen so I could go with a wider screen. I still have them in storage along with the ERD-1s. So good I couldn’t bear to part with them and hope I will find another role for them one day.


----------



## kingwiggi

SpenceJT said:


> Dear Dolby,
> 
> If you are monitoring this thread, how about throwing us early adopters a freak'n bone! Make your Dolby Atmos demo disc available as a downloadable ISO file which we can burn, and use to demonstrate our new equipment which would in turn, help with adoption of the format by other potential purchasers!


I requested a copy of the Atmos Demo disc via the contact us link on Dolby's website a few days ago. I'm not really expecting anything but *perhaps if enough people request that disc* then they might make it available via a download or create a section on their website with Atmos encoded demo files as they do for their other codecs.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> They are loosely pointed 'towards' the MLP. With their wide dispersion I don't think it matters much.


thats the way i'm doing mine as well mind you i'm only doing two for now top middle and then i'll play with the pointing. thanks again for your input in this thread.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> I would swap the rear backs with the side surround bipoles/dipoles. Move side surrounds down to ear level. Not knowing how much room is from the MLP to the fronts you may be better off going with top front and top middle with the rear surrounds being above ear level. I would also line those tops up with the fronts - which may be reflected in your drawing. I have my rears mounted a few feet above the MLP ear level and so far so good, I also dropped my side surrounds down to ear level and went with a monopole - after previously using a biopole - those got moved to the RS. Big improvement and our rooms look to be similar in size. If you go with top backs try to not have them too close to the back wall - reflections - may also want to line them up above the di/bi to see if the downward sound "splits" the between what the backs are putting out for sound.
> 
> Isn't this fun


I agree; & IMO the dipole/bipole surrounds should simply be replaced by monopoles and the four overhead speakers positioned a little more inside, farther away from the side walls. 

* If your two front L & R main flankers are widely separated see if they can get if not a little bit more closer @ least toed-in towards the MLP (I bet they are), and the four overhead Atmos speakers don't have to follow Dolby Atmos' guidelines to the letter, here in your case, and in my opinion. ...A little more inside, I think.

** I would lower your four surrounds by about a foot.


----------



## tjenkins95

kingwiggi said:


> I requested a copy of the Atmos Demo disc via the contact us link on Dolby's website a few days ago. I'm not really expecting anything but *perhaps if enough people request that disc* then they might make it available via a download or create a section on their website with Atmos encoded demo files as they do for their other codecs.




I also sent Dolby a request. Thanks for posting the link!


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Al, you have the most patience of any guy I have ever known!



Thanks Keith, I am sure by the time I am ready to take the plunge you guys will have this all sorted out...


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks Keith, I am sure by the time I am ready to take the plunge you guys will have this all sorted out...


Al - by the time you are ready to take the plunge, your wife will be ready for a(nother) new kitchen, and the whole thing will start over LOL.


----------



## Kris Deering

kingwiggi said:


> I requested a copy of the Atmos Demo disc via the contact us link on Dolby's website a few days ago. I'm not really expecting anything but *perhaps if enough people request that disc* then they might make it available via a download or create a section on their website with Atmos encoded demo files as they do for their other codecs.


Dolby stated at the show that they are working on a demo disc that is more consumer driven and hope to have it in the coming month. The demo they had at CEDIA was different than the disc that some people got at the show. The demo menus looked the same, but the booth demos had clips from 3 movies (Oblivion, STID, TF4) whereas the discs did not. The demos also had clips that compared standard 5.1 to Atmos. I REALLY wanted the comparison clips but the disc they gave to some only had the trailers and marketing material. One of the rooms even had a longer Red Bull F1 clip than the one on the disc. Maybe the forthcoming disc will be made available on their site or at least at CES as I'm sure they'll have demos going there.


----------



## kingwiggi

kingwiggi said:


> I requested a copy of the Atmos Demo disc via the contact us link on Dolby's website a few days ago. I'm not really expecting anything but *perhaps if enough people request that disc* then they might make it available via a download or create a section on their website with Atmos encoded demo files as they do for their other codecs.





Kris Deering said:


> Dolby stated at the show that they are working on a demo disc that is more consumer driven and hope to have it in the coming month. The demo they had at CEDIA was different than the disc that some people got at the show. The demo menus looked the same, but the booth demos had clips from 3 movies (Oblivion, STID, TF4) whereas the discs did not. The demos also had clips that compared standard 5.1 to Atmos. I REALLY wanted the comparison clips but the disc they gave to some only had the trailers and marketing material. One of the rooms even had a longer Red Bull F1 clip than the one on the disc. Maybe the forthcoming disc will be made available on their site or at least at CES as I'm sure they'll have demos going there.


Thanks Kris sounds like even more reason for people to request a Disc. This way Dolby knows there are multiple people clamoring for it.


----------



## kingwiggi

^^^

Anyways CES is far far too long to have to wait


----------



## Roger Dressler

tjenkins95 said:


> I have a question about setting up the Pioneer Dolby Atmos SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers that I purchased.
> My theater ceiling has sound absorbing "ISC Black Cinetile Matte" acoustical tiles from http://www.iscsupply.com
> The MLP seat is 10' from the screen so the Pioneer surround speakers will be placed at 11' on each side of the couch.
> How do I determine where the sound from the up-firing speakers is going to hit the ceiling?


Assuming the upfiring speakers are roughly at ear level, the reflection point is midway between the speakers and the ears (on the ceiling of course). 



> I will need to replace those tiles with diffusive material so that the sound will bounce off the ceiling.
> I checked the Pioneer speakers manual but couldn't find this type of information.


Dolby uses 1/2" foam core to replace the acoustic tiles. The whole ceiling at their CEDIA demo used that. Cheap, light weight, can be painted, and _not_ diffusive but reflective.


----------



## krozman

Since everyone is sharing.


----------



## batpig

fLooks awesome  I assume you are not married, because my wife would slap me silly if I had wires running up the wall and across the ceiling like that ! 

Is your TV sitting directly on your center channel? They make risers (like this one) that you can put your TV on so the CC sits underneath.


----------



## krozman

The advantage of I beams that go left to right (making mounting of ceiling speakers possible) is the disadvantage of going the opposite direction (speaker wire). I'll probably cover up the wire with something at some point, so it's a work in progress.


The TV looks like crap on purpose so my wife says "why don't you just get a TV that fits that space now." And ya I'm building a box for that purpose batpig b/c it's not likely my wife will actually say that.


----------



## batpig

krozman said:


> The advantage of I beams that go left to right (making mounting of ceiling speakers possible) is the disadvantage of going the opposite direction (speaker wire). I'll probably cover up the wire with something at some point, so it's a work in progress.


I hear you on that. I'm in the exact same situation, with my ceiling beams going parallel to the front/back walls. When I ran the wire for my surround speakers I actually ended up going outside the house (the side of the living room faces the back yard) and ran the wire along the exterior wall and then drilled a hole through to re-enter at the correct bay in between two studs. I did NOT want to have to rip open the whole ceiling nor did I want to have conduit or wire raceways running all over the ceiling. I used burial grade wire so I didn't have to worry about corrosion from elements and ran it behind the trip of our glass sliding door and painted it the same color as the exterior so it's almost invisible outside, worked out great. 

But now I'm regretting not running more wire so I could mount ceiling speakers! I'm mulling over in my mind how hard it would be to repeat the process. I hate patching drywall and spackling/painting so I'm trying to concoct a way that would be minimally invasive.




krozman said:


> The TV looks like crap on purpose so my wife says "why don't you just get a TV that fits that space now."


That sir is a clever plan


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Assuming the upfiring speakers are roughly at ear level, the reflection point is midway between the speakers and the ears (on the ceiling of course).


Doesn't the fact that the upfiring drivers are on a tilted baffle change things? For example, if you had someone in the front of the room holding a flashlight, you could pull a mirror across the ceiling to find where you see the reflection of his hand that's holding the flashlight. Having established the reflection point on the ceiling, you ask him to turn on the flashlight, only to find that the beam is lighting up a different spot on the ceiling. Which is more important, the first reflection point of the driver or the spot that the driver is aimed at?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Doesn't the fact that the upfiring drivers are on a tilted baffle change things? For example, if you had someone in the front of the room holding a flashlight, you could pull a mirror across the ceiling to find where you see the reflection of his hand that's holding the flashlight. Having established the reflection point on the ceiling, you ask him to turn on the flashlight, only to find that the beam is lighting up a different spot on the ceiling. Which is more important, the first reflection point of the driver or the spot that the driver is aimed at?


Agreed. The angle of the upfiring driver is fixed, so it's not necessarily true that the reflection point is going to be half-way in between speaker and listener.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The angle of the upfiring driver is fixed, so it's not necessarily true that the reflection point is going to be half-way in between speaker and listener.


Also, I'm not sure every manufacturer uses the same tilt.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Also, I'm not sure every manufacturer uses the same tilt.


I'm pretty sure they don't. They are probably all in the 20-30 degree range but if you are aiming at a specific 12" or 18" square ceiling tile it's going to be tricky.


----------



## RUR

Also also, I should think the height of the ceiling will affect the point where the reflection will be. Higher ceiling = farther from wall, all else being equal.


----------



## pasender91

i dont understand why they don't do additional Atmos module where you could adjust the angle of the cabinet, pretty easy to achieve with adjustable legs like they have on projectors.

Because for sure a fixed angle cannot fit all rooms due to different speaker-ceiling and speaker-listener distances


----------



## LDBecker

*Friendly Tweeters?*




kaotikr1 said:


> ...the UACs have amiable tweeters


 
They have pleasant, friendly tweeters? Sorry... I know, AIMable, which doesn't seem to be an actual word. Or AI Mable? I guess it's fun to have a hobby that you have to make up words for. 


Scottsbluff, NE? I lived in GI, NE a couple of decades ago - nice place to raise my kids, good schools.


----------



## Kain

Sorry for an off-topic question but what is the different between DTS-UHD and DTS-MDA?


----------



## action_jackson

batpig said:


> fLooks awesome  I assume you are not married, because my wife would slap me silly if I had wires running up the wall and across the ceiling like that !
> 
> Is your TV sitting directly on your center channel? They make risers (like this one) that you can put your TV on so the CC sits underneath.


I am definitely not showing these pictures to my wife when I tell her we are going Atmos. I will wait to show her afterward and say "At least it didn't end up looking like this..." as she is cousing me for all the new speakers attached to our ceiling. I keed ,I keed. I bet it sounds good though!

I hope no kids are in the house, that TV teetering on the center channel is an accident waiting to happen.


----------



## krozman

It looks worse than it is. The RC 62ii is actually pretty big and the TV is more than secure there. My wife definitely raised her eyebrows on the ceiling speakers, but I showed her the quarter inch steel plates double bolted into the speakers and triple bolted into the ceilings. There's a bigger chance of an asteroid coming from space and hitting her on the head than those speakers.


----------



## batpig

Getting hit on the head with the speaker would NOT be the thing my wife would be b!tching at me about


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Doesn't the fact that the upfiring drivers are on a tilted baffle change things? For example, if you had someone in the front of the room holding a flashlight, you could pull a mirror across the ceiling to find where you see the reflection of his hand that's holding the flashlight. Having established the reflection point on the ceiling, you ask him to turn on the flashlight, only to find that the beam is lighting up a different spot on the ceiling. Which is more important, the first reflection point of the driver or the spot that the driver is aimed at?


If you want to hear the sound of the reflective speaker, you have to sit in the area serviced by the reflection. It is a diverging cone. If you want to sit in the middle of the reflection, as one in the MLP of the sofa might prefer, then one wants to be in the middle of the known cone zone. 

That spot on the ceiling needs to be exactly where I described, because the angle of reflection is identical to the angle of incidence, and that remains true regardless of the baffle angle. If the sound is not optimal because of the particular distance to the speaker, or the height of the ceiling, or the baffle angle, then there's only 2 solutions: tilt the speaker, or move it, so that the center of the beam hits the ceiling at the mid-point. 

The cone is not a narrow beam, so it of course does not require precision. But the O/P was asking where to put the reflective tiles, and to get the best effect, those must go in the same place one sees the hand of the flashlight holder.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Kain said:


> Sorry for an off-topic question but what is the different between DTS-UHD and DTS-MDA?


MDA is an object-based audio content production format. It can also be used for cinema delivery. UHD is an object/channel-based consumer delivery system comprising audio bitrate compression codecs, spatial coding, dynamic range and loudness support (e.g., for FCC CALM act), and surround upmixing.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> i dont understand why they don't do additional Atmos module where you could adjust the angle of the cabinet, pretty easy to achieve *with adjustable legs like they have on projectors*.
> 
> Because for sure a fixed angle cannot fit all rooms due to different speaker-ceiling and speaker-listener distances


Beats me too. ...Why are they not thinking smartly?


----------



## DS-21

audioguy said:


> Don't recall you being there when *I used the SigTech.* [emph. added] (1) I worked for SigTech for 10 years (2) there was *ZERO* automation (3) At setup, I had TOTAL control of what did or did not get corrected and if so how much.


Interesting. Let's see how these statements compare to your prior statements (with emph. added):



audioguy said:


> ***I had a Dunlavy SC-VI and a Seaton Catalyst matched as close *as the TacT Digital room correction system would match them*.***


Not to belabor the obvious, it's...interesting that in your second telling the DSP box you used changed.

More importantly, the competent interpretation of your above text is *not* that an operator used a DSP box to manually do anything, but that the "digital room correction system" did the matching. Just basic grammar. 

Lastly, but I note you didn't bother to address the second prong of my statement, which was that due to the highly irregular polars of the giant Dunlavy headphone-coffins, what you allegedly attempted (your switcharoo on the DSP box used, especially since you claim long term employment at one of the firms involved, obviously calls your whole tale into question) was a fool's errand.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kingwiggi said:


> I requested a copy of the Atmos Demo disc via the contact us link on Dolby's website a few days ago. I'm not really expecting anything but *perhaps if enough people request that disc* then they might make it available via a download or create a section on their website with Atmos encoded demo files as they do for their other codecs.


Sounds like a good plan!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

krozman said:


> Since everyone is sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



It's hard to tell from that photo, but is each ceiling speaker wired separately?


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> If the sound is not optimal because of the particular distance to the speaker, or the height of the ceiling, or the baffle angle, then there's only 2 solutions: tilt the speaker, or move it, so that the center of the beam hits the ceiling at the mid-point.


Seems one advantage of height modules, where wedges/shims can be used to adjust the tilt without affecting the downstairs neighbor.


----------



## tjenkins95

Roger Dressler said:


> If you want to hear the sound of the reflective speaker, you have to sit in the area serviced by the reflection. It is a diverging cone. If you want to sit in the middle of the reflection, as one in the MLP of the sofa might prefer, then one wants to be in the middle of the known cone zone.
> 
> That spot on the ceiling needs to be exactly where I described, because the angle of reflection is identical to the angle of incidence, and that remains true regardless of the baffle angle. If the sound is not optimal because of the particular distance to the speaker, or the height of the ceiling, or the baffle angle, then there's only 2 solutions: tilt the speaker, or move it, so that the center of the beam hits the ceiling at the mid-point.
> 
> The cone is not a narrow beam, so it of course does not require precision. But the O/P was asking where to put the reflective tiles, and to get the best effect, those must go in the same place one sees the hand of the flashlight holder.


 
Thanks for the input. The plot thickens since I just purchased the 2 matching Pioneer Atmos front speakers (along with the center speaker) to go with the Atmos surrounds.
According to the Pioneer speaker manual, the MLP (the couch) is between the front and back surrounds. I originally thought that the surrounds went to the sides of the couch but apparently the MLP resides "in the middle of the cone zone." The front left and back left speakers are in line with each other, etc...


----------



## Roger Dressler

tjenkins95 said:


> According to the Pioneer speaker manual, the MLP (the couch) is between the front and back surrounds.


The diagram shows a traditional 5.1 setup where the 4 corner speakers are upfiring. They are placed exactly as they have always been for a 5.1 system.


----------



## kingwiggi

krozman said:


> Since everyone is sharing.


Your wife must be an absolute Angel. 

Here's a tip for you, live like this for a month then out of the blue tell the wife that your sick of the eyesore and you want to clean it up. She will be so happy when you cut those 4 holes in that drywall ceiling.

It might seem scary if your not a DIY'er but even if you have beams running across the room, make your holes where you want the speakers to go and fish the cables underneath the beams, a 4x8 piece of drywall has a fair bit of flex in it. If you can't do that then cut some channels in the drywall and bed the cables up into the channels then just spackle over and sand. It really isn't that difficult to patch or fix small sections of drywall. If the ceiling is textured then it's a little more difficult to finish but still doable.

Sorry to get a little of topic.


----------



## JeppeP

I am very new to the HT scene and am thinking about implementing Dolby atmos to my setup.

But I dont know if these inceiling speaker is suitable for atmos. Where I live there is not much choices.

I basically have these to choose from:

Martin Logan Helos 12: http://www.piyanas.com/?page_id=4338
Martin Logan Helos 22: http://www.piyanas.com/?page_id=4343
NHT iC2 ARC: http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC2-ARC.html
NHT iC3 ARC http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC3-ARC.html
NHT iC2 http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC2-In-Ceiling-Speaker.html

My to be setup will be: havent bought it yet though

Yamaha RX-A3040
PSB Image B6 - front
PSB Image C5 - Center
PSB Image B5 - Surround
PSB Image B5 - Surround back
SVS PB2000 - Subwoofer

Any comments would be helpfull.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JeppeP said:


> I am very new to the HT scene and am thinking about implementing Dolby atmos to my setup.
> 
> But I dont know if these inceiling speaker is suitable for atmos. Where I live there is not much choices.
> 
> I basically have these to choose from:
> 
> Martin Logan Helos 12: http://www.piyanas.com/?page_id=4338
> Martin Logan Helos 22: http://www.piyanas.com/?page_id=4343
> NHT iC2 ARC: http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC2-ARC.html
> NHT iC3 ARC http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC3-ARC.html
> NHT iC2 http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC2-In-Ceiling-Speaker.html
> 
> My to be setup will be: havent bought it yet though
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3040
> PSB Image B6 - front
> PSB Image C5 - Center
> PSB Image B5 - Surround
> PSB Image B5 - Surround back
> SVS PB2000 - Subwoofer
> 
> Any comments would be helpfull.


What kind of room do you have? How large? Dimensions? A dedicated room? 

In the PSB range, there are the C-LCR fully enclosed in-ceilings with angled drivers, though they are voice matched to the next step up, the Imagine line. I don't see anything that goes with the Image line. 

Perhaps those concentric Tannoy Di Series outdoor speakers Keith is using and seems to like (Roger Dressler went with the next larger model) might work for the overhead surrounds as long as you don't have really low basement ceilings.


----------



## smurraybhm

JeppeP said:


> I am very new to the HT scene and am thinking about implementing Dolby atmos to my setup.
> 
> But I dont know if these inceiling speaker is suitable for atmos. Where I live there is not much choices.
> 
> I basically have these to choose from:
> 
> Martin Logan Helos 12: http://www.piyanas.com/?page_id=4338
> Martin Logan Helos 22: http://www.piyanas.com/?page_id=4343
> NHT iC2 ARC: http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC2-ARC.html
> NHT iC3 ARC http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC3-ARC.html
> NHT iC2 http://www.conice.co.th/Products/NHT/NHT-iC2-In-Ceiling-Speaker.html
> 
> My to be setup will be: havent bought it yet though
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3040
> PSB Image B6 - front
> PSB Image C5 - Center
> PSB Image B5 - Surround
> PSB Image B5 - Surround back
> SVS PB2000 - Subwoofer
> 
> Any comments would be helpfull.


Since you've got all PSB ex the subs why not one of these?

http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/round-in-ceiling


----------



## JeppeP

smurraybhm said:


> Since you've got all PSB ex the subs why not one of these?
> 
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/round-in-ceiling


I would if I could, but they dont sell them here in Thailand, and if i had to import them it would be very expensive with taxes, duty and so on


----------



## NorthSky

Where did you get all your PSB speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JeppeP said:


> I would if I could, but they dont sell them here in Thailand, and if i had to import them it would be very expensive with taxes, duty and so on


Can you still get the Image B4 mini bookshelfs? You could do a jury-rigged flush ceiling mount and angle them towards the Main Listening Position. They have mount threads on the back and have a fairly small profile.


----------



## JeppeP

NorthSky said:


> Where did you get all your PSB speakers?


I get them from here http://www.conice.co.th/Products/PSB/New-Image-Series


----------



## JeppeP

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can you still get the Image B4 mini bookshelfs? You could do a jury-rigged flush ceiling mount and angle them towards the Main Listening Position. They have mount threads on the back and have a fairly small profile.


I can get the B4 bookshelf speakers, if these are mini or not I dont know.


http://www.conice.co.th/Products/PSB/New-Image-Series/PSB-Image-B4.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JeppeP said:


> I can get the B4 bookshelf speakers, if these are mini or not I dont know.
> 
> 
> http://www.conice.co.th/Products/PSB/New-Image-Series/PSB-Image-B4.html


They're 9 1/4" (232 mm) tall. No worse than what many use for wall height speakers in a DTS Neo:X setup. Since they would be angled on the ceiling, a bit of the size issue would be diminished... unless you have inordinately low ceilings.


----------



## NorthSky

JeppeP said:


> I can get the B4 bookshelf speakers, if these are mini or not I dont know.
> 
> 
> http://www.conice.co.th/Products/PSB/New-Image-Series/PSB-Image-B4.html


That would work: www.psbspeakers.com/products/image/Image-B4-Compact-Bookshelf


----------



## smurraybhm

Here's a great deal on some PSBs
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-NbyAA7FFVnQ/p_760CW50R/PSB-CW50R.html

And I disagree with Dan about the need to be that anal about timber matching. It's been debated already - solution is EQ. My setup is far from perfect but after running Audyssey it blends perfectly.


----------



## NorthSky

Timbre matching is better.


----------



## krozman

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's hard to tell from that photo, but is each ceiling speaker wired separately?


yes. The first speaker wire is exactly 25 feet, the next two were 32 feet......then the final was 39 feet long. With the ceiling mounts done the way I constructed them they had to be mounted already wired into the speaker. Then it was just a matter of keeping everything together and, eventually, hidden underneath some form of material so the copper isn't showing.


----------



## krozman

kingwiggi said:


> Your wife must be an absolute Angel.
> 
> Here's a tip for you, live like this for a month then out of the blue tell the wife that your sick of the eyesore and you want to clean it up. She will be so happy when you cut those 4 holes in that drywall ceiling.
> 
> It might seem scary if your not a DIY'er but even if you have beams running across the room, make your holes where you want the speakers to go and fish the cables underneath the beams, a 4x8 piece of drywall has a fair bit of flex in it. If you can't do that then cut some channels in the drywall and bed the cables up into the channels then just spackle over and sand. It really isn't that difficult to patch or fix small sections of drywall. If the ceiling is textured then it's a little more difficult to finish but still doable.
> 
> Sorry to get a little of topic.


I finished the basement myself (with help when needed) so it wouldn't necessarily scare me to make them in ceiling, but if you look at the picture I have a soffit for my ductwork on the entire side of that room. Making them in ceiling would make the two speakers close to that ductwork bounce signals off that side wall. The way it's done here the speaker hangs below the soffit, thus not making any difference before it gets to my ear. Yes it technically makes the speakers 12 inches closer to my ear, but just about every speaker is already that way and it's semi proportional as it stands. If you wanted to nitpick I should probably adjust all of my sides and rear surrounds, but they are basically sitting on books right now and it's not the final product. Every HT is always a work in progress! 


Maybe it brings out the weird in me, but I like the wires showing. When I show off what is probably the only working Atmos theatre in Spokane, WA I can also show them the huge wire made out of four 12 gauge wires bound together and sent to the receiver. It's a Borg thing. They don't mind showing off their wires b/c they know they're technically superior. Then I pop in a movie and prove it. 


My wife would let me do anything I wanted. The two Thomas Kinkade Wizard of Oz paintings are worth more than my entire home theatre, and I didn't put up much of a fight when she had to have those. I still have wife currency that is better spent on a new TV when the plasma breaks (hopefully never). Besides.....it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission so HT installs are timed appropriately.


----------



## JeppeP

Dan Hitchman said:


> What kind of room do you have? How large? Dimensions? A dedicated room?
> 
> In the PSB range, there are the C-LCR fully enclosed in-ceilings with angled drivers, though they are voice matched to the next step up, the Imagine line. I don't see anything that goes with the Image line.
> 
> Perhaps those concentric Tannoy Di Series outdoor speakers Keith is using and seems to like (Roger Dressler went with the next larger model) might work for the overhead surrounds as long as you don't have really low basement ceilings.


 
My room is a dedicated HT. The dimensions are 26 feet long *13 feet wide* 8 feet height


----------



## JeppeP

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're 9 1/4" (232 mm) tall. No worse than what many use for wall height speakers in a DTS Neo:X setup. Since they would be angled on the ceiling, a bit of the size issue would be diminished... unless you have inordinately low ceilings.


Yes, maybe it would be a better option to buy the b4s for atmos, so the timber matching is good. Though the B5 is even cheaper... 

Do you know where I could be these mounting brackets for the ceiling? And who would also be willing to ship to Thailand


----------



## Dan Hitchman

krozman said:


> yes. The first speaker wire is exactly 25 feet, the next two were 32 feet......then the final was 39 feet long. With the ceiling mounts done the way I constructed them they had to be mounted already wired into the speaker. Then it was just a matter of keeping everything together and, eventually, hidden underneath some form of material so the copper isn't showing.


Wire channel mold painted to match the color of the ceiling?


----------



## NorthSky

JeppeP said:


> My room is a dedicated HT. The dimensions are 26 feet long *13 feet wide* 8 feet height


Good size room. But I noticed that 26 is a multiple of 13. ...Multiples are less than preferable. ...Just sayin'.



JeppeP said:


> Yes, maybe it would be a better option to buy the b4s for atmos, so the timber matching is good. Though the B5 is even cheaper...
> 
> Do you know where I could be these mounting brackets for the ceiling? And who would also be willing to ship to Thailand


The B5 would also do. For brackets I'm sure they are avail in Thailand.


----------



## JeppeP

NorthSky said:


> Good size room. But I noticed that 26 is a multiple of 13. ...Multiples are less than preferable. ...Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> The B5 would also do. For brackets I'm sure they are avail in Thailand.


I will go with the Image B4, I found this bracket in my homecountry Denmark, http://www.av-connection.dk/?PGr=665, i think it will work with the Image B4

Now I just need to figure where to put the speaker... Lol.. I am really a noob as this is my first HT. Thank you for helping me out, greatly appreciated


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JeppeP said:


> I will go with the Image B4, I found this bracket in my homecountry Denmark, http://www.av-connection.dk/?PGr=665, i think it will work with the Image B4
> 
> Now I just need to figure where to put the speaker... Lol.. I am really a noob as this is my first HT. Thank you for helping me out, greatly appreciated


Have you looked at the Atmos installation white papers? 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

http://www.cotytech.com/content-pro...cket_for_large_satellite_speaker_sp_os03.html


----------



## JeppeP

Dan Hitchman said:


> Have you looked at the Atmos installation white papers?
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Yes, Dan I looked at them and from what I can read I need to mount them in an 45 degree angle.

My ceiling is 8 feet high would that then mean that I should mount the speakers 8 feet away from the MLP?

And they should also be in a straight line with my front L/R speaker, but my F/R is only 6 inches from the sidewall


----------



## wse

I am getting two KEF E301 soon that I will mount on the ceiling and see if at home ATMOS is so good, I hope so


----------



## JeppeP

wse said:


> I am getting two KEF E301 soon that I will mount on the ceiling and see if at home ATMOS is so good, I hope so


Awsome setup you have there. And then I sit and mingle with my Image B4/5/6 idea


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JeppeP said:


> Yes, Dan I looked at them and from what I can read I need to mount them in an 45 degree angle.
> 
> My ceiling is 8 feet high would that then mean that I should mount the speakers 8 feet away from the MLP?
> 
> And they should also be in a straight line with my front L/R speaker, but my F/R is only 6 inches from the sidewall


Those brackets you mentioned look like they're for wall mounting only. I would possibly call PSB Speakers and ask for their recommendations on B4 ceiling mounts considering that you want to use them for Atmos overheads.

These might work too:

http://www.cotytech.com/content-pro...cket_for_large_satellite_speaker_sp_os03.html

I'll leave your other questions to those with better math skills than myself.


----------



## JeppeP

Dan Hitchman said:


> Those brackets you mentioned look like they're for wall mounting only. I would possibly call PSB Speakers and ask for their recommendations on B4 ceiling mounts considering that you want to use them for Atmos overheads.
> 
> These might work too:
> 
> http://www.cotytech.com/content-pro...cket_for_large_satellite_speaker_sp_os03.html
> 
> I'll leave your other questions to those with better math skills than myself.


Thank you Dan


----------



## NorthSky

JeppeP said:


> I will go with the Image B4, I found this bracket in my homecountry Denmark, http://www.av-connection.dk/?PGr=665, i think it will work with the Image B4
> 
> Now I just need to figure where to put the speaker... Lol.. I am really a noob as this is my first HT. Thank you for helping me out, greatly appreciated


Awesome! ...I would have also picked the B4. 

* Just put them where according to Dolby Atmos Speakers Positioning Guideline.


----------



## NorthSky

JeppeP said:


> ...
> And they should also be in a straight line with my front L/R speaker,
> *but my F/R is only 6 inches from the sidewall*


Just put your two front L & R mains further away from the side walls. ...Say couple feet.


----------



## Jim S.

It appears that everyone using on-ceiling speakers has a drop of almost a foot from the ceiling. With a typical 8 foot ceiling, that seems like a significant loss of separation from the surrounds and MLP, even after lowering the surrounds. So, I've started looking at in-ceiling speakers as an option, to gain that foot of separation back. 

I would be looking for in-ceiling speakers that would be considered neutral sounding. Does anybody have a recommedation for a decent in-ceiling speaker? I just started looking, so I'm really not familiar with what's out there.

I don't even know if that foot makes a noticeable difference or not. Any thoughts on that?


----------



## pasender91

JeppeP said:


> Awsome setup you have there. And then I sit and mingle with my Image B4/5/6 idea


Hi, i'm sorry but i have a dissonnant opinion on using B4 for ceiling, because those speakers are back-ported, and i assume the speaker will be very near or right next to the ceiling.

So using a front-ported or closed-box looks like a better idea for ceiling application?

But i also read from you that you will mount them at 45°, so maybe this allows you to proceed with B4s after all...


----------



## Frank714

I‘m notsure whether it’s palatable that my first post at the AVS is of a somewhat heretical nature, but yesterday I read about an idea of a large screen owner to apply the installation guidelines for commercial theaters for large screen projection and not the Dolby Atmos “home theater installation guidelines”. 

Is this really a good idea? Apparently, Dolby Atmos redefines traditional speaker placement, but the one thing I learned in the 1990’s is that the front mains should always be within the vertical borders of the (projected) image, because object localization and speaker assignment is essentially the same in both the commercial and the home theater.

However, Dolby’s home theater installation guidelines obviously illustrate a flat screen setup where L & R are outside these aforementioned (recommended) vertical image borders. For a front projection user as myself, the locations would vaguely match my screen, so I don’t think deviating from the Atmos home theater installation guidelines is a good idea for any front projection user with an average sized home theater room.

From what I believe to be able to read between the lines in the various Dolby papers, a 7.1.4 speaker arrangement is the optimal recommendation for a home theater with only one row of seats.

Apparently, Dolby illustrated rigid overhead speakers in its drawings. I still have 6 circular wall speakers with an aimable tweeter, which I intend to use as center backs and top fronts and rears. Do I assume correctly that tweeter aiming should then follow the "ITU-circle" recommendation with preferrably an equal distance to the main listening Position (MLP)?

Thanx for listening.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Frank714 said:


> I‘m notsure whether it’s palatable that my first post at the AVS is of a somewhat heretical nature, but yesterday I read about an idea of a large screen owner to apply the installation guidelines for commercial theaters for large screen projection and not the Dolby Atmos “home theater installation guidelines”.
> 
> Is this really a good idea? Apparently, Dolby Atmos redefines traditional speaker placement, but the one thing I learned in the 1990’s is that the front mains should always be within the vertical borders of the (projected) image, because object localization and speaker assignment is essentially the same in both the commercial and the home theater.
> 
> However, Dolby’s home theater installation guidelines obviously illustrate a flat screen setup where L & R are outside these aforementioned (recommended) vertical image borders. For a front projection user as myself, the locations would vaguely match my screen, so I don’t think deviating from the Atmos home theater installation guidelines is a good idea for any front projection user with an average sized home theater room.
> 
> Thanx for listening.


The idea that the Dolby Atmos Home Theater guideline to put the overhead speakers in-line with the fronts might not be the optimal approach for big projection screens came up after comparing two possible set-ups following ITU standard and Dolby guidelines:

_Big Screen and Small Screen, both in a room with 8 feet ceilings and a MLP at 3 feet from the floor. Front speakers are 10 feet apart for Big Screen, versus 5 feet for Small Screen. Big Screen uses small bookshelf speakers at an effective 7 feet from the floor. Small Screen in-ceiling speakers. The resulting lateral elevation angles are for Big Screen 38,7 degrees (5' to the side and 4' up) and for Small Screen around 63,4 degrees (2.5' to the side and 5' up). In other words, the vertical spread between the two arrays of overhead speakers goes from 53 degrees (Small Screen) to 109 degrees (Big Screen)._

Some people on this forum find it hard to believe that such a wide range of lateral separation will not have a noticeable effect on the way Atmos will be performing. That was the reason to question whether for big screens one should hold on to this (rigidly formulated) rule of thumb to put the overhead speakers in line with the fronts. It seems to become more widely accepted on this forum that specifying lateral elevation or separation is a better way to go. Of course, it would be nice if Dolby could confirm this apparent limitation of their current guidelines.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Here's a great deal on some PSBs
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-NbyAA7FFVnQ/p_760CW50R/PSB-CW50R.html
> 
> And I disagree with Dan about the need to be that anal about timber matching. It's been debated already - solution is EQ. My setup is far from perfect but after running Audyssey it blends perfectly.


It's also worth noting that in the interview with Scott W, the two Dolby guys commented on timbre matching and said that EQ would work well enough that it wasn't really an issue.


----------



## JeppeP

Have no one seen the new transformer movie with atmos yet?


----------



## maikeldepotter

*No Atmos for 'couch close to back wall' set-ups?*

I cannot seem to figure this one out: Imagine you have a hard 8' ceiling and a one row set-up with a 2-3 seat couch that is closer than 4 feet from the back wall. A situation close to what many of us will have, at least I do. If you want to respect a minimum speaker distance of 5-6' to avoid localization for the closest listener, you will not be able to use surround rears and be forced to stick to standard 5.1, which is perfectly OK. However, you will also not be able to install two equidistant pairs of Atmos overheads, not even one pair of Atmos overheads within the specified elevation ranges. It seems that for Atmos you either need a room long enough to accommodate a 7.1 lay-out at ear level so you can install two pairs of Atmos overheads at lower elevation (starting with 30 degrees), or a room higher than 8' to accommodate one pair of overheads with higher elevation (at least 65 degrees). Am I overlooking anything here (apart from applying upfiring speakers)?


----------



## Wookii

wse said:


> I am getting two KEF E301 soon that I will mount on the ceiling and see if at home ATMOS is so good, I hope so


Wouldn't some nice B & W Signature 8NT's be a better match to your quite incredible speaker set-up?


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> I cannot seem to figure this one out: Imagine you have a hard 8' ceiling and a one row set-up with a 2-3 seat couch that is closer than 4 feet from the back wall. A situation close to what many of us will have, at least I do. If you want to respect a minimum speaker distance of 5-6' to avoid localization for the closest listener, you will not be able to use surround rears and be forced to stick to standard 5.1, which is perfectly OK. However, you will also not be able to install two equidistant pairs of Atmos overheads, not even one pair of Atmos overheads within the specified elevation ranges. It seems that for Atmos you either need a room long enough to accommodate a 7.1 lay-out at ear level so you can install two pairs of Atmos overheads at lower elevation (starting with 30 degrees), or a room higher than 8' to accommodate one pair of overheads with higher elevation (at least 65 degrees). Am I overlooking anything here (apart from applying upfiring speakers)?


I guess I don't understand all the continued questions about where Atmos recommends speakers and room size. Is this an attempt to continue your effort to shoehorn Auro specs as being better for Atmos (even though most of us don't have Auro as an option on our receivers - yet) or just demonstrate how Atmos doesn't work as well as Auro? Have you heard either? More importantly Atmos or Dolby Surround?

If you look at my room (pictures are posted a few days ago) and a few other members who have Atmos receivers you've got more than a few that fit what you are questioning - and I am running 7.2.2 - and it sounds *really* good. Tweaking and using a good room correction system can help eliminate the localization you continue to be concerned about. Soundstage is blended and seemless even with my surrounds 6 feet away from the MLP at ear level


----------



## redjr

Glenn Baumann said:


> For the record, I want to state that I myself do not have an Atmos setup yet. I am just stating what has been basically bandied about!
> 
> I myself am a bit skeptical about having to lower the speakers quite that much. When the time comes for me to set up my Atmos system, I will be sure to experiment a bit to be convinced that the Rear Surrounds truly have to be that low!
> 
> I would like to hear others hands on experiences with Side and Back Surround mounting heights!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


You're not alone. I'm having the same reservations. I've been listening to my surround system for years with elevated side and rear speakers. Maybe I've been missing alot!  I can adjust downward a little, but since I don't have a dedicated HT room I'm constrained by the real world.  My Atmos upgrade won't happen till next year anyway, so I'm not too worried. My sides However, since I just moved into some new space, I plan to experiment/tune by using DSP - especially for my 2 subs. At the moment I've got my side surrounds angled down towards the MLP and the rears are in the ceiling. -Rick


----------



## maikeldepotter

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I don't understand all the continued questions about where Atmos recommends speakers and room size. Is this an attempt to continue your effort to shoehorn Auro specs as being better for Atmos (even though most of us don't have Auro as an option on our receivers - yet) or just demonstrate how Atmos doesn't work as well as Auro? Have you heard either? More importantly Atmos or Dolby Surround?
> 
> If you look at my room (pictures are posted a few days ago) and a few other members who have Atmos receivers you've got more than a few that fit what you are questioning - and I am running 7.2.2 - and it sounds *really* good. Tweaking and using a good room correction system can help eliminate the localization you continue to be concerned about. Soundstage is blended and seemless even with my surrounds 6 feet away from the MLP at ear level


Just trying to give and get answers on subjects that interest all of us in this forum in order to get to the kind of knowledge that will help me and others to get the most out of this fascinating hobby. Not aware of me trying to disqualify either Atmos or Auro or both. Yes, I have heard both, not in the same venue and at the same day, so I would not dare to qualify one against the other in any absolute way. Yes, I am a hair splitter, research background (not in sound or anything related), it is my nature. Yes, ultimately I want both Atmos and Auro. Yes, I want to know exactly how it works best, what are the caveats, and what the experiences are of people like you. Currently I have a 5.2 set-up with two front height speakers added. All equidistant from MLP at 7.5 feet, with a minimum of 6 feet for the closest listener to any speaker. My questions put in other words: 1. Am I right in assuming that it make no sense to try and add 4 overheads to a 5.1 system which has no possibilities for rears? 2. Has anyone experienced localization from overheads at around 5' which could not be overcome? So it is really good to hear that your system works fine. How many feet you have from MLP to overhead speaker?
Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> However, you will also not be able to install two equidistant pairs of Atmos overheads, not even one pair of Atmos overheads within the specified elevation ranges.


Why not? The range for Top Middle speakers is about 2 feet forward of the listening area to 1 foot rearward of the listener (65-100 degrees elevation). If you are going to do a 5.1.2 set-up, then Dolby recommends placing the Top Middles slightly forward of the listening area (80 degrees elevation). If you're going to do a 5.1.4 configuration, then you can place the Top Middle speakers on the ceiling slightly behind you and do Front Heights at 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## sikclown

sdurani said:


> Why not? The range for Top Middle speakers is about 2 feet forward of the listening area to 1 foot rearward of the listener (65-100 degrees elevation). If you are going to do a 5.1.2 set-up, then Dolby recommends placing the Top Middles slightly forward of the listening area (80 degrees elevation). If you're going to do a 5.1.4 configuration, then you can place the Top Middle speakers on the ceiling slightly behind you and do Front Heights at 45 degrees elevation.



+1 for this answer


----------



## NorthSky

> It's also worth noting that in the interview with Scott W, the two Dolby guys commented on timbre matching and said that EQ would work well enough that it wasn't really an issue.


Yeah, but the Dolby guys are not from the the Dolby bible. ...And not all EQ systems are created equal.
And ... so much more.

* Get timbre matched speakers all around; it's the best. If you don't want the best, then it's up to you. 

- Someone has to make a living somewhere... ...Selling something, anything.


----------



## batpig

+1

You basically have a few paths you could choose:

Option 1 = what Sanjay just recommended. 5.1.4 with Top Middle a bit behind the couch and spread out a bit to the sides, toed in, with Front Height speakers about 45 degrees forward of the MLP

Option 2 = 5.1.5 with Dolby enabled speakers like the Pioneer Elite bookshelfs for the two side surround channels, combined with Front Height speakers about 45 degrees forward of the MLP

Option 3 = the smurraybhm option, 7.1.2 with flush wall mounted bipole/dipole type surround speakers as Surr.Back channels, mounted on the back wall spread and slightly elevated from the couch, with side Surrounds and Top Middle a bit forward of MLP and toed in.

I think any of these three paths could yield a really nice Atmos experience.


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> Just trying to give and get answers on subjects that interest all of us in this forum in order to get to the kind of knowledge that will help me and others to get the most out of this fascinating hobby. Not aware of me trying to disqualify either Atmos or Auro or both. Yes, I have heard both, not in the same venue and at the same day, so I would not dare to qualify one against the other in any absolute way. Yes, I am a hair splitter, research background (not in sound or anything related), it is my nature. Yes, ultimately I want both Atmos and Auro. Yes, I want to know exactly how it works best, what are the caveats, and what the experiences are of people like you. Currently I have a 5.2 set-up with two front height speakers added. All equidistant from MLP at 7.5 feet, with a minimum of 6 feet for the closest listener to any speaker. My questions put in other words: 1. Am I right in assuming that it make no sense to try and add 4 overheads to a 5.1 system which has no possibilities for rears? 2. Has anyone experienced localization from overheads at around 5' which could not be overcome? So it is really good to hear that your system works fine. How many feet you have from MLP to overhead speaker?
> Thanks.


Lucky you on the demos, 5 days to go for me on Atmos, but whose counting 
I hope Auro comes to D&M sooner instead of later, I will take the plunge assuming the cost isn't off the chart to just have the ability to experiment and seek the best sound for my room. 
I am using only TM after doing some extensive speaker placement experimenting on Saturday by using stepladders. I moved from having front height to top middles because the sound was much better in my small room (not as small as yours though). I may add heights to have additional flexibility with other modes like Auro, DSX or Neo X, but will most likely have some more thinking to do regarding the heights or modules plus cost benefit of each or neither. Right now based on my comparisons Dolby Surround is my go to surround mode, not even close, so it may be all about maximizing Atmos/DS unless Auro gains traction.
If you look at my pictures you can see I have some smaller speakers from Ascend mounted on the ceiling, about 6 to 7 feet from the MLP. Without being at home and the ability to look up my speaker distances on the receiver or use a tape measure I reserve the right to be slightly off.
Personally I believe Atmos is more forgiving then a lot think regarding speaker placement. That comment is based on only using Dolby Surround with some quality mixes and the speaker/step ladders experiment - wish I had taken a picture of my wife's face when she saw me doing that exercise.
Without a doubt I believe I will be moving speakers around for a while based on what we have for options going forward.


----------



## NorthSky

JeppeP said:


> Have no one seen the new transformer movie with atmos yet?


It is supposed to be totally awesome. ...Both the picture and sound. 
...The movie? ...Yes that too, best Transformers yet.


----------



## mastermaybe

Hi gang:

Please tell me where I'm going wrong with my intentions here with my room and its current limitations, a pic to start:










Now what you DON'T see are two towers being used as wides atop the subwoofers, two BPVX's (identical to the front HEIGHTS) mounted high on the back wall, currently serving as rear surrounds, AND two in-ceiling speakers being used currently as surrounds- yeah, I know, but it's the ONLY way I can put side surrounds in. Basically a DSX array with wides and heights.

The heights and back surrounds are L and R apart and angled down.

So then, what I propose is:

1. Leave L C R.

2. Leave in-ceiling surrounds as surrounds.

3. Turn the current Heights into FRONT HEIGHTS.

4. Turn the current REAR SURROUNDS into REAR HEIGHTS.

5. Move the WIDES back to the L and R corners and have them act as REAR SURROUNDS.

Does this make sense? I believe my other option would to be to leave the WIDES in place and just use the current heights as FRONT HEIGHTS and leave all else alone??? Wait- no- I cannot run WIDES with an ATMOS array.

I also know there's the obvious ambition to use the in-ceilings as REAR heights, but then what do I do for surrounds? Perhaps use the WIDES as surrounds near the back corners? SO basically making the in-ceilings as REAR HEIGHTS and the current REAR SURROUNDS as is? 


Sorry for the mess, I guess it basically comes down to:

1. Are the in ceilings better left as surrounds with the four HEIGHTS being what I have in place

OR

2. Utilizing the in-ceilings as HEIGHTS and keeping the BACK SURROUNDS as is.


Seems to me the front to back spacing is better with the in ceilings being used, but the L to R spacing is better with the current REAR and HEIGHTS being used.

Argh!!!

thanks for any advice...

James


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> I cannot seem to figure this one out: Imagine you have a hard 8' ceiling and a one row set-up with a 2-3 seat couch that is closer than 4 feet from the back wall. A situation close to what many of us will have, at least I do. If you want to respect a minimum speaker distance of 5-6' to avoid localization for the closest listener, you will not be able to use surround rears and be forced to stick to standard 5.1, which is perfectly OK. However, you will also not be able to install two equidistant pairs of Atmos overheads, not even one pair of Atmos overheads within the specified elevation ranges. It seems that for Atmos you either need a room long enough to accommodate a 7.1 lay-out at ear level so you can install two pairs of Atmos overheads at lower elevation (starting with 30 degrees), or a room higher than 8' to accommodate one pair of overheads with higher elevation (at least 65 degrees). Am I overlooking anything here (apart from applying upfiring speakers)?


I don't follow. My room forces me to sit about 2.5ft from the back wall. This puts me at just 8 feet or so from the screen (small room!), but I am able to mount front overheads well within the specified angles for both Front Height (30-45°) and Top Front (30-55°). I could, if I chose, easily install a single pair, as Top Middle, and again have a good range of choice on the ceiling while respecting the specified angles for TM (65-100°).

In fact, I have chosen to install 4 overheads, configured as Top Front Front Height + Top Middle, and all speakers comply with Dolby placement requirements.

BTW, my ceiling is 8ft high. All speakers are at least 5 feet from my ears.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I don't understand all the continued questions about where Atmos recommends speakers and room size. Is this an attempt to continue your effort to shoehorn Auro specs as being better for Atmos (even though most of us don't have Auro as an option on our receivers - yet) or just demonstrate how Atmos doesn't work as well as Auro? Have you heard either? More importantly Atmos or Dolby Surround?
> 
> If you look at my room (pictures are posted a few days ago) and a few other members who have Atmos receivers you've got more than a few that fit what you are questioning - and I am running 7.2.2 - and it sounds *really* good. Tweaking and using a good room correction system can help eliminate the localization you continue to be concerned about. Soundstage is blended and seemless even with my surrounds 6 feet away from the MLP at ear level


I too failed to understand his point. There is something very wrong with his geometry/math.


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> You're not alone. I'm having the same reservations. I've been listening to my surround system for years with elevated side and rear speakers. Maybe I've been missing alot!


No - the point is that before we had speakers on the ceiling, elevating the surrounds was a good idea as it helped give some extra dimensionality to the 'bubble' for a more immersive experience. But now we have speakers up there, there is no requirement for the surrounds to add any sort of additional 'height' to the soundstage. Hence the advice to lower them somewhat to create greater angular separation from the speakers overhead.




redjr said:


> I can adjust downward a little, but since I don't have a dedicated HT room I'm constrained by the real world.


Sure - practicalities are important too - but because you can't accommodate something doesn't make it a bad idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Just trying to give and get answers on subjects that interest all of us in this forum in order to get to the kind of knowledge that will help me and others to get the most out of this fascinating hobby. Not aware of me trying to disqualify either Atmos or Auro or both. Yes, I have heard both, not in the same venue and at the same day, so I would not dare to qualify one against the other in any absolute way. Yes, I am a hair splitter, research background (not in sound or anything related), it is my nature. Yes, ultimately I want both Atmos and Auro. Yes, I want to know exactly how it works best, what are the caveats, and what the experiences are of people like you. Currently I have a 5.2 set-up with two front height speakers added. All equidistant from MLP at 7.5 feet, with a minimum of 6 feet for the closest listener to any speaker. My questions put in other words: 1. *Am I right in assuming that it make no sense to try and add 4 overheads to a 5.1 system *which has no possibilities for rears? 2. Has anyone experienced localization from overheads at around 5' which could not be overcome? So it is really good to hear that your system works fine. How many feet you have from MLP to overhead speaker?
> Thanks.


No, you are not right, and neither is your math


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why not? The range for Top Middle speakers is about 2 feet forward of the listening area to 1 foot rearward of the listener (65-100 degrees elevation). If you are going to do a 5.1.2 set-up, then Dolby recommends placing the Top Middles slightly forward of the listening area (80 degrees elevation). If you're going to do a 5.1.4 configuration, then you can place the Top Middle speakers on the ceiling slightly behind you and do Front Heights at 45 degrees elevation.


Bingo. You just described my overhead speaker layout to perfection


----------



## kbarnes701

Woohoo.

This...










... arrives tomorrow!

(Denon X5200W).


----------



## sikclown

mastermaybe said:


> Hi gang:
> 
> Please tell me where I'm going wrong with my intentions here with my room and its current limitations, a pic to start:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now what you DON'T see are two towers being used as wides atop the subwoofers, two BPVX's (identical to the front HEIGHTS) mounted high on the back wall, currently serving as rear surrounds, AND two in-ceiling speakers being used currently as surrounds- yeah, I know, but it's the ONLY way I can put side surrounds in. Basically a DSX array with wides and heights.
> 
> The heights and back surrounds are L and R apart and angled down.
> 
> So then, what I propose is:
> 
> 1. Leave L C R.
> 
> 2. Leave in-ceiling surrounds as surrounds.
> 
> 3. Turn the current Heights into FRONT HEIGHTS.
> 
> 4. Turn the current REAR SURROUNDS into REAR HEIGHTS.
> 
> 5. Move the WIDES back to the L and R corners and have them act as REAR SURROUNDS.
> 
> Does this make sense? I believe my other option would to be to leave the WIDES in place and just use the current heights as FRONT HEIGHTS and leave all else alone??? Wait- no- I cannot run WIDES with an ATMOS array.
> 
> I also know there's the obvious ambition to use the in-ceilings as REAR heights, but then what do I do for surrounds? Perhaps use the WIDES as surrounds near the back corners? SO basically making the in-ceilings as REAR HEIGHTS and the current REAR SURROUNDS as is?
> 
> 
> Sorry for the mess, I guess it basically comes down to:
> 
> 1. Are the in ceilings better left as surrounds with the four HEIGHTS being what I have in place
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. Utilizing the in-ceilings as HEIGHTS and keeping the BACK SURROUNDS as is.
> 
> 
> Seems to me the front to back spacing is better with the in ceilings being used, but the L to R spacing is better with the current REAR and HEIGHTS being used.
> 
> Argh!!!
> 
> thanks for any advice...
> 
> James


Just to the point on Wides. Dolby Atmos DOES utilize wides if you have them and the amp channels available to run them. Dolby Surround does NOT use wides. I was confused about all of this until I got my X5200W set up. In order to use your wides with matrixed content you would need to Run Audyssey DSX or Neo since Dolby Surround dropped the wides. But Atmos content will absolutely utilize your wides.


----------



## batpig

So this morning I had a few minutes (wife in the shower, babies momentarily under control) to zap a few REW measurements of the Def Tech A60 module. I tried three nearfield distances, with the UMIK-1 mic at 0-degree calibration profile, pointed as close as possible to the center of the driver on-axis (I had to do my best since the grill is non-removable). Receiver set to "Direct" mode so no EQ or bass management in the loop. I took measurements with the mic basically touching the grill (1cm distance), then 2" away, and 10" away. The driver of course is reccesed by few inches so add 2-3" to the distance. The ones with the mic nearly touching the grill looked a bit wonky in the high frequencies, but the 2" and 10" were fairly consistent so I think are capturing the real response up high.

Here is the full range graph of the trace at 2" (red) and 10" (blue) from the grill. I used the minimum (1/48) smoothing to try and not iron out any of the HF notches in the response.










And here is the same data but zoomed in to the 1kHz-20kHz range, again 1/48 smoothed.










As you can see, it's obvious that the HRTF notches are built into the speaker, as Dolby reps explained to folks at CEDIA.

Here is the Dropbox download link for the full MDAT file for those who want to poke around more: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5bc2x5o43sn9sgj/14.09.25 Def Tech A60 Nearfield.mdat?dl=0


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Woohoo.
> 
> This...
> 
> 
> 
> ... arrives tomorrow!
> 
> (Denon X5200W).



Wait, wahT?!?!

I thought you _just_ got the 4100?

What did I miss? This thread moves too fast.


----------



## nucky

Just watched Gravity with the Dolby Atmos up mix, unbelievable absolutely brilliant, the sound was everywhere, Front, top font and back and from the surrounds this is the best that I've heard in my room.


----------



## NorthSky

> Woohoo.
> 
> This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... arrives tomorrow!
> 
> (Denon X5200W).


It looks very nice, and organized.


----------



## Scott Simonian

nucky said:


> Just watched Gravity with the Dolby Atmos up mix, unbelievable absolutely brilliant, the sound was everywhere, Front, top font and back and from the surrounds this is the best that I've heard in my room.


Nice.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Wait, wahT?!?!
> 
> I thought you _just_ got the 4100?
> 
> What did I miss? This thread moves too fast.


Where have you been Scott?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Wait, wahT?!?!
> 
> I thought you _just_ got the 4100?
> 
> What did I miss? This thread moves too fast.


I was intending to get the 4100 but changed my mind and decided to go for the 5200 instead - this was after it was announced that the units would be Auro-upgradeable and maybe even DTS-UHD upgradeable (if it comes out before the next millennium). I thought that news would maybe give the units a longer lifespan, so decided to go for more channels, just in case I can ever shoehorn another pair of speakers into the room (unlikely). And did you see that photo? Drool.... that was instrumental in my choice too. I am so shallow sometimes...


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Just watched Gravity with the Dolby Atmos up mix, unbelievable absolutely brilliant, the sound was everywhere, Front, top font and back and from the surrounds this is the best that I've heard in my room.


This is the type of post that inspires you. ...To go to the bank and make a bank withdrawal.


----------



## ambesolman

MasterMaybe

What are those front heights sitting on? Looks like test tubes in a case


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## mastermaybe

ambesolman said:


> MasterMaybe
> 
> What are those front heights sitting on? Looks like test tubes in a case
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Those (testubes) are just decorative cylinders filled with colored water...the speakers are on speaker stands I made.

I have to say my temptation to use the in-ceiling speakers as rear heights and moving the wides to the back corners as surrounds is my strongest lean right now. Yeah, I suppose my rear surrounds will (remain) elevated, but it seems like a better play to me than having the side surrounds in the ceiling. ???

Thoughts? 

James


----------



## batpig

IMO - using in-ceiling surrounds with an Atmos setup is bad news. It's going to be muddled and largely amerliorate any of the gains in "precise 3D imaging" you get from going to Atmos. If that is the only option I would be tempted to recommend just sticking with a really well executed 11ch Neo:X setup vs. a poorly executed, shoehorned in, Atmos setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Where have you been Scott?


I've been around. Just not posting that much in _here_. 



kbarnes701 said:


> I was intending to get the 4100 but changed my mind and decided to go for the 5200 instead - this was after it was announced that the units would be Auro-upgradeable and maybe even DTS-UHD upgradeable (if it comes out before the next millennium). I thought that news would maybe give the units a longer lifespan, so decided to go for more channels, just in case I can ever shoehorn another pair of speakers into the room (unlikely). And did you see that photo? Drool.... that was instrumental in my choice too. I am so shallow sometimes...


Ah, alright. Good luck with that 'Auro/DTS-UHD upgradable' part.


----------



## SoundChex

This Sept 24, 2014, *IBC 2014* show report on *The Register* (_link_) characterized the _*DTS Object Audio interactive broadcast demo*_ it details as "*DTS-UHD*" . . . although I did *not* see any references to the demo elsewhere which used that name...?!

Nonetheless this seems to indicate that the competition to deliver _hybrid channel|object-based audio_ as a part of *ATSC 3.0* TV (_or perhaps even earlier through some mechanism akin to _*HbbTV*) will likely include offerings from *Dolby*, *Fraunhofer*, and *DTS* at a minimum...?!

*User-interactive*_ object-based broadcast audio_ in a *2.x* (or other *non*_ 3Daudio_) environment will no doubt influence consumer expectations regarding *BD* playback in the same environment. The pertinent question would seem to be how much relative importance will the studios assign to those expectations versus the _immersive__ experience_ delivered to the likely smaller pool of buyers with in-home _3Daudio_ environments_ . . . and how might that affect the choice of __object-based audio codec on *BD*...?!
_
_


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I've been around. Just not posting that much in _here_.


Ya, it's the "phantom levitated" thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah, alright. Good luck with that 'Auro/DTS-UHD upgradable' part.


I don't think there's much doubt that we will see, at a price, the Auro upgrade in the next few months. The dubious one is DTS-UHD. I don't even know that I want Auro TBH - it will really depend on content. If there are plenty of movies being released with Auro soundtracks, I will probably go for it, so long as my Atmos speaker layout will meet the Auro requirements. If not, the I will still buy the movies of course, but will rely on DSU to make the most of them with my Atmos layout.


----------



## chi_guy50

*Corrections department*



kbarnes701 said:


> I don't follow. My room forces me to sit about 2.5ft from the back wall. This puts me at just 8 feet or so from the screen (small room!), but I am able to mount front overheads well within the specified angles for both Front Height (30-45°) and Top Front (30-55°). I could, if I chose, easily install a single pair, as Top Middle, and again have a good range of choice on the ceiling while respecting the specified angles for TM (65-100°).
> 
> In fact, I have chosen to install 4 overheads, *configured as Top Front + Top Middle*, and all speakers comply with Dolby placement requirements.
> 
> BTW, my ceiling is 8ft high. All speakers are at least 5 feet from my ears.


That's not an acceptable combination. I think you meant to write Front Height + Top Middle, no?



batpig said:


> IMO - using in-ceiling surrounds with an Atmos setup is bad news. It's going to be muddled and largely* amerliorate* any of the gains in "precise 3D imaging" you get from going to Atmos. If that is the only option I would be tempted to recommend just sticking with a really well executed 11ch Neo:X setup vs. a poorly executed, shoehorned in, Atmos setup.


I think your point is otherwise clear, but I wanted to point out that "ameliorate" means to improve and doesn't make sense to me in this context. Did you perhaps mean "mitigate"?


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> This Sept 24, 2014, *IBC 2014* show report on *The Register* (_link_) characterized the _*DTS Object Audio interactive broadcast demo*_ it details as "*DTS-UHD*" . . . although I did *not* see any references to the demo elsewhere which used that name...?!
> 
> Nonetheless this seems to indicate that the competition to deliver _hybrid channel|object-based audio_ as a part of *ATSC 3.0* TV (_or perhaps even earlier through some mechanism akin to _*HbbTV*) will likely include offerings from *Dolby*, *Fraunhofer*, and *DTS* at a minimum...?!
> 
> *User-interactive*_ object-based broadcast audio_ in a *2.x* (or other *non*_ 3Daudio_) environment will no doubt influence consumer expectations regarding *BD* playback in the same environment. The pertinent question would seem to be how much relative importance will the studios assign to those expectations versus the _immersive__ experience_ delivered to the likely smaller pool of buyers with in-home _3Daudio environments . . . and how might that affect the choice of __object-based audio codec on *BD*...?!
> _
> _


You always get the latest news.  ...Someone has to do it, and you are the chosen one. 

Thanks a big bunch for sharing.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That's not an acceptable combination. I think you meant to write Front Height + Top Middle, no?


Yes! Sorry. All this TF and TM and FH and TR sometimes fuddles my poor brain. But you are, of course correct and I will fix my earlier post. Thanks.



chi_guy50 said:


> I wanted to point out that "ameliorate" means to improve and doesn't make sense to me in this context. Did you perhaps mean "mitigate"?


Good catch. Another thing I missed. From the Latin for 'better' of course.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think there's much doubt that we will see, at a price, the Auro upgrade in the next few months. The dubious one is DTS-UHD. I don't even know that I want Auro TBH - it will really depend on content. If there are plenty of movies being released with Auro soundtracks, I will probably go for it, so long as my Atmos speaker layout will meet the Auro requirements. If not, the I will still buy the movies of course, but will rely on DSU to make the most of them with my Atmos layout.


I wouldn't count on much native Auro content. Especially movies. 

Though the upmixer would be interesting to use. Would be cool to compare Auromatic and Dolby Surround upmixers.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes! Sorry. All this TF and TM and FH and TR sometimes fuddles my poor brain.


Tell me about it. I sometimes find myself transposing the two-letter acronyms for the top locations since I'm accustomed to having the first letter designate the position and the second the function (e.g., *F*ront *H*eight, *R*ear *S*urround). But just to keep things interesting and in their infinite wisdom, Dolby (or whoever decreed this nomenclature) turned that convention on its ear for the new Atmos-specific speaker locations (e.g., *T*op *R*ear). Let the confusion reign (or is that "rain" since we're talking about tops?).


----------



## SoundChex

chi_guy50 said:


> Tell me about it. I sometimes find myself transposing the two-letter acronyms for the top locations since I'm accustomed to having the first letter designate the position and the second the function (e.g., *F*ront *H*eight, *R*ear *S*urround). But just to keep things interesting and in their infinite wisdom, Dolby (or whoever decreed this nomenclature) turned that convention on its ear for the new Atmos-specific speaker locations (e.g., *T*op *R*ear). Let the confusion reign (or is that "rain" since we're talking about tops?).



*Report ITU-R BS.2159-6 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications* (_link_) *FIGURE 60* and *TABLE 7* "summarize" *IEC 62574 “Audio, video and multimedia systems – General channel assignment of multichannel audio"* and similar|related *SMPTE* speaker naming standards (among others), but_--like the Pirate Code--_the contents of these docs are "more like suggestions"!

I tend to stick with the *FIGURE 60|TABLE 7* nomenclature when writing for myself (except that my preference would be to use the more consistent terms *SL|SR|SLd|SRd|TpSL|TpSR* in place of the "approved" names *LS|RS|LSd|RSd|TpLS|TpRS*...!)

_*For extra confusion,*_ be sure also to read *Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_link_) . . . which at least has the mitigating factor of being the 'first release' of this particular doc!
_


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Would be cool to compare Auromatic and Dolby Surround upmixers.


Abso!utely.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Tell me about it. I sometimes find myself transposing the two-letter acronyms for the top locations since I'm accustomed to having the first letter designate the position and the second the function (e.g., *F*ront *H*eight, *R*ear *S*urround). But just to keep things interesting and in their infinite wisdom, Dolby (or whoever decreed this nomenclature) turned that convention on its ear for the new Atmos-specific speaker locations (e.g., *T*op *R*ear). Let the confusion reign (or is that "rain" since we're talking about tops?).


AVS members understand the confusion; regular/normal people don't.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I wouldn't count on much native Auro content. Especially movies.


Not sure. I tend to agree with you, emotionally, but logically, they are making Auro movies I believe so I'd expect them to appear on `BD eventually. But I will be waiting to see before I jump in. With Atmos I am confident enough that content will follow theatrical success.



Scott Simonian said:


> Though the upmixer would be interesting to use. Would be cool to compare Auromatic and Dolby Surround upmixers.


Yes, although Auromatic (sounds like the name of our washing machine) isn't something that I can't live without. If DSU is as good as they say (and by this weekend I will know) then I think I’d be happy to upmix with that.


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> IMO - using in-ceiling surrounds with an Atmos setup is bad news. It's going to be muddled and largely amerliorate any of the gains in "precise 3D imaging" you get from going to Atmos. If that is the only option I would be tempted to recommend just sticking with a really well executed 11ch Neo:X setup vs. a poorly executed, shoehorned in, Atmos setup.



Well thankfully it is not the only option. I can make them the "REAR HEIGHTS" while leaving the current front heights stay where they are. Then the current REAR SURROUNDS stay as such and the current front wides get moved to the back corners...which is prolly a better spot for the side surrounds than the current in-ceilings.

Until I have a bona fide dedicated/semi-dedicated space for ~ dozen speakers I'm prolly going to have to do what the other 98% will: make do with what I have.

thanks
James


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Tell me about it. I sometimes find myself transposing the two-letter acronyms for the top locations since I'm accustomed to having the first letter designate the position and the second the function (e.g., *F*ront *H*eight, *R*ear *S*urround). But just to keep things interesting and in their infinite wisdom, Dolby (or whoever decreed this nomenclature) turned that convention on its ear for the new Atmos-specific speaker locations (e.g., *T*op *R*ear). Let the confusion reign (or is that "rain" since we're talking about tops?).


 I have often though the same. FH and TM... not HF and MT... or.... you get the idea...


----------



## batpig

mastermaybe said:


> Well thankfully it is not the only option. I can make them the "REAR HEIGHTS" while leaving the current front heights where they are. Then the current REAR SURROUNDS stay as such and the current front wides get moved to the back corners...which is prolly a better spot for the side surrounds than the current in-ceilings.
> 
> Until I have a bona fide dedicated/semi-dedicated space for a ~ dozen speakers I'm prolly going to have to do what the other 98% will: make do with what I have.
> 
> thanks
> James


Where are the in-ceilings located with respect to the MLP? If you are going to leave the current Front Heights in the same place, I'd want the second pair of "top" speakers to be designated as a more central position (Rear Height is the rearmost of the five options) so the rendering will place overhead sounds above me. If they are only slightly behind MLP then I'd call them "Top Middle", if they are more than 30 degrees back then "Top Rear". I'd only designate them as "Rear Height" if they were way back there.... but ideally you could go with "Top Middle".


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> Where are the in-ceilings located with respect to the MLP? If you are going to leave the current Front Heights in the same place, I'd want the second pair of "top" speakers to be designated as a more central position (Rear Height is the rearmost of the five options) so the rendering will place overhead sounds above me. If they are only slightly behind MLP then I'd call them "Top Middle", if they are more than 30 degrees back then "Top Rear". I'd only designate them as "Rear Height" if they were way back there.... but ideally you could go with "Top Middle".


Yes, I forgot you can be a bit more "precise" with the locale so I think I will go with TOP FRONT and TOP MIDDLE.

It'd be nice if measurements from an MLP could make such determinations for yah, heh?  

James


----------



## Kain

Any news on Atmos or Auro-3D in games?


----------



## ambesolman

mastermaybe said:


> Those (testubes) are just decorative cylinders filled with colored water...the speakers are on speaker stands I made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James



Pretty slick looking


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Any news on Atmos or Auro-3D in games?


Nope. I asked about this at the Burbank Demo last month and they said that they are working with developers to get this technology into gaming.

Fairly generic answer but it means they are working on it. I'm wondering about the implementation, for sure. Games have been object based forever. At least a couple of decades now. The first console with true 5.1 *encoding* was the first Xbox. Games were output in 5.1 with mixing done on-the-fly. This is how it works still but some more recent consoles even output as pure PCM. The Playstation 3 and 4 do this, IIRC. However, Dolby Atmos works with TrueHD and as far as I know there are no previsions for such encoding on any console or computer gaming system. I'd probably know if there were!  

So, how this is utilized in gaming is still a mystery at this point.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You just described my overhead speaker layout to perfection


Which makes me wonder why Maikel feels a similar configuration is not possible in his situation.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> No, you are not right, and neither is your math


Now that is a clear answer! Thanks for that. Will sleep over all the responses I got and come back to it tomorrow, with a cleared mind I hope...


----------



## Bigham16

I am excited to hear your reactions to DSU. After all the help you have given on the forum but haven't had the pleasure to experience how great it is, kind of sucks 

Here's to the weekend with a virtual cheers of beers 



kbarnes701 said:


> If DSU is as good as they say (and by this weekend I will know) then I think I’d be happy to upmix with that.


----------



## batpig

mastermaybe said:


> Yes, I forgot you can be a bit more "precise" with the locale so I think I will go with TOP FRONT and TOP MIDDLE.


Technically that's not a permissable combination (you can't have two adjacent positions among the five options). But, besides, if you aren't moving your current Front Height speakers from their perch atop those decorative cylinders, they really are best designated as Front Height anyway. Top Front would be in/on the ceiling in front of the MLP. I can't imagine they achieve a 45 degree elevation in that position relative to MLP. So you are in TM+FH land.

BTW the room is beautiful, that's as WAF friendly and aesthetically pleasing as you could get it considering the number of giant black boxes you've got. What subs are those?


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I forgot you can be a bit more "precise" with the locale so I think I will go with TOP FRONT and TOP MIDDLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically that's not a permissable combination (you can't have two adjacent positions among the five options). But, besides, if you aren't moving your current Front Height speakers from their perch atop those decorative cylinders, they really are best designated as Front Height anyway. Top Front would be in/on the ceiling in front of the MLP. I can't imagine they achieve a 45 degree elevation in that position relative to MLP. So you are in TM+FH land.
> 
> BTW the room is beautiful, that's as WAF friendly and aesthetically pleasing as you could get it considering the number of giant black boxes you've got. What subs are those?
Click to expand...

Thanks BP- subs are custom jobs I made. 

Re my Atmos config: the fact of the matter is I'm just plain ignorant when it comes to the positioning and options made available for the Atmos array. 

It sounds as if height and overhead "fronts" are two different options altogether while staying within an "Atmos" config (and being able to use Dolby Surround).??? I will definitely take a minute to look at things become more familiar with them before my 7009 arrives.

James


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> What subs are those?


MasterMaybe uses these in his DIY enclosures: http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-rss460ho-4-18-reference-ho-subwoofer-4-ohm--295-472


----------



## batpig

mastermaybe said:


> Thanks BP- subs are custom jobs I made.


I thought they might be custom, I didn't recognize them. They look awesome and beastly 




mastermaybe said:


> Re my Atmos config: the fact of the matter is I'm just plain ignorant when it comes to the positioning and options made available for the Atmos array.
> 
> It sounds as if height and overhead "fronts" are two different options altogether while staying within an "Atmos" config (and being able to use Dolby Surround).???


Yes, here's the short explanation....

Atmos for home supports up to 10 overhead speakers in 5 pairs (plus 24 ear level locations, for 34 total). The Denon/Marantz height speakers designations allow you to use any two pairs of the five permissable, as long as they are non-adjacent. The D&M nomenclature for these five pairs is front height, top front, top middle, top rear, rear height, from front to back. 

The attached diagram shows the recommended layout and angles. As you can see I think you fit pretty well with Front Height + Top Middle. 

The side advantage of having the forward pair be designated as "Front Height" is that it still supports legacy upmix modes like Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X, if you still want to be able to use them.


----------



## petetherock

Apart from Transformers, there has been no new software so far?
I really hope they can do better than the 2-3 discs that were mastered in DTS-Neo X... that will keep Atmos going strong...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Woohoo.
> 
> This...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... arrives tomorrow!
> 
> (Denon X5200W).


Wow, Keith, Denon is sure starting to skimp on their receiver chassis!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wow, Keith, Denon is sure starting to skimp on their receiver chassis!


It's part of their new, radical cooling method.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> It's part of their new, radical cooling method.


Yeah, baby: Topless!!!


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks BP- subs are custom jobs I made.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought they might be custom, I didn't recognize them. They look awesome and beastly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re my Atmos config: the fact of the matter is I'm just plain ignorant when it comes to the positioning and options made available for the Atmos array.
> 
> It sounds as if height and overhead "fronts" are two different options altogether while staying within an "Atmos" config (and being able to use Dolby Surround).???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, here's the short explanation....
> 
> Atmos for home supports up to 10 overhead speakers in 5 pairs (plus 24 ear level locations, for 34 total). The Denon/Marantz height speakers designations allow you to use any two pairs of the five permissable, as long as they are non-adjacent. The D&M nomenclature for these five pairs is front height, top front, top middle, top rear, rear height, from front to back.
> 
> The attached diagram shows the recommended layout and angles. As you can see I think you fit pretty well with Front Height + Top Middle.
> 
> The side advantage of having the forward pair be designated as "Front Height" is that it still supports legacy upmix modes like Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X, if you still want to be able to use them.
Click to expand...


Bang on. That was my thought- I of course am used to "front height" kinda being a DSX/NEO term and thought this MAY disallow them in a ATMOS config. Great to hear it does not and affords a user like me to set something up that "kinda" tries to meet things half way the best we can.

Thanks for the compliment on the subs- didn't take real long nor a lot of $$$ so I'm happy. 

James


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Yeah, baby: Topless!!!


Right on!


----------



## UKTexan

Looks as though we have another Atmos Blu Ray coming.........


http://hd-report.com/2014/09/25/hercules-early-digital-release-blu-ray-dvd-follow/


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> Looks as though we have another Atmos Blu Ray coming.........
> 
> http://hd-report.com/2014/09/25/hercules-early-digital-release-blu-ray-dvd-follow/


Nice find! Hadn't seen it in the theatres (came out same week as another Atmos release, Lucy, which my local Atmos theatre was showing), but willing to give it a chance at home.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

UKTexan said:


> Looks as though we have another Atmos Blu Ray coming.........
> 
> 
> http://hd-report.com/2014/09/25/hercules-early-digital-release-blu-ray-dvd-follow/


Yet another junk title.  

This is not a great start.


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> Nice find! Hadn't seen it in the theatres (came out same week as another Atmos release, Lucy, which my local Atmos theatre was showing), but willing to give it a chance at home.


 I have it on pre order with Amazon, looking forward to it. All I need now is my equipment and a house to go with it, luckily we close towards the end of next month, so not much longer to wait.
Guardians of the Galaxy is out on Blu ray December 9th, will be interesting to see if Marvel studios announces support for an Atmos mix, the theatrical Atmos mix was ok.


----------



## Frohlich

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yet another junk title.
> 
> This is not a great start.


Not to mention AVS members have to go find the info...shouldn't Dolby be advertising the heck out of any and all Atmos releases


----------



## smurraybhm

A few posts ago it was complaining there is only one, now another crap title. Good news is the titles just grew by 100%. As others have said more are on the way. By the way have you guys upgraded to an Atmos unit yet? As if we have some just looking to throw darts, half empty or half full. Right - AVS, running on empty just like JB (Jackson Browne for the younger members). 

Where's there is one, there's two, then three - you get the idea. And for the uptenth time Dolby isn't the one driving what the studios decide to use for sound options on those shiny disks


----------



## UKTexan

smurraybhm said:


> A few posts ago it was complaining there is only one, now another crap title. Good news is the titles just grew by 100%.


Exactly! What do some people expect? Action movies recently released in a theatrical Atmos mix are going to be the most likely early releases, other genres to follow. I doubt gone with wind is high on any studios priority list. I'm looking forward to hearing which back catalogue titles will be the first to be remixed in Atmos, but for now, I'm just happy to find studios are starting to make good on Dolby's promise.
Let the good news continue, this thread is like a morgue at times.


----------



## mry110

NorthSky said:


> Abso!utely.





UKTexan said:


> I have it on pre order with Amazon, looking forward to it. All I need now is my equipment and a house to go with it, luckily we close towards the end of next month, so not much longer to wait.
> Guardians of the Galaxy is out on Blu ray December 9th, will be interesting to see if Marvel studios announces support for an Atmos mix, the theatrical Atmos mix was ok.


I'm hoping for the exact same thing!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mry110 said:


> I'm hoping for the exact same thing!


It's Disney and they are not listed as a supporting studio.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think there's much doubt that we will see, at a price, the Auro upgrade in the next few months. The dubious one is DTS-UHD. I don't even know that I want Auro TBH - it will really depend on content.


Based on CEDIA reports I'm more interested in it as an upmixer potentially superior to DS.


----------



## NorthSky

UKTexan said:


> Looks as though we have another Atmos Blu Ray coming.........
> 
> http://hd-report.com/2014/09/25/hercules-early-digital-release-blu-ray-dvd-follow/


Just great; the perfect flick we all have been waiting for with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack. 

Yeah, give us more in that genre.


----------



## NorthSky

UKTexan said:


> Exactly! What do some people expect? Action movies recently released in a theatrical Atmos mix are going to be the most likely early releases, other genres to follow. I doubt gone with wind is high on any studios priority list. I'm looking forward to hearing which back catalogue titles will be the first to be remixed in Atmos, but for now, I'm just happy to find studios are starting to make good on Dolby's promise.
> Let the good news continue, *this thread is like a morgue at times*.


Despicable me, 3.


----------



## W3Rman

NorthSky said:


> Just great; the perfect flick we all have been waiting for with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> 
> Yeah, give us more in that genre.


just clicked on the link to see the box art and busted out :laugh: thx ... BFTE


----------



## NorthSky

Just gimme an elevated break! ...For crying overhead loud.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Just great; the perfect flick we all have been waiting for with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> 
> Yeah, give us more in that genre.


*Please God, noooooooo!!!!*


----------



## NorthSky

But Dan, I wasn't truly serious.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> But Dan, I wasn't truly serious.


Hard to tell sarcasm with text only.


----------



## NorthSky

Hercules? ...The Rock? ...In Dolby Atmos? ...Are you nuts!


----------



## W3Rman

NorthSky said:


> Hercules? ...The Rock? ...In Dolby Atmos? ...Are you nuts!


I read it loud and clear. BTW while we're at it i would be interested in getting this in ATMOS



Spoiler



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_(film_series)


----------



## NorthSky

I like the first original one (1976) which I saw on Granville street in Vancouver back then with Roxanne (girlfriend). 

But no, no Dolby Atmos here please. ...'Gravity' yes, I would repurchase it again, in 3D of course.


----------



## Orbitron

Like most here, looking forward to doing an Atmos set-up but i must say - watched Captain Phillips today in 5.1 and the last half hour was a room rocking ride. At no time did i feel like i needed more sound or elevated sound. Good to be happy with what you have as technology evolves.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think there's much doubt that we will see, at a price, the Auro upgrade in the next few months. The dubious one is DTS-UHD. I don't even know that I want Auro TBH - it will really depend on content. If there are plenty of movies being released with Auro soundtracks, I will probably go for it, so long as my Atmos speaker layout will meet the Auro requirements. If not, the I will still buy the movies of course, but will rely on DSU to make the most of them with my Atmos layout.


So you bought the Denon rather than the Marantz?


----------



## kbarnes701

Bigham16 said:


> I am excited to hear your reactions to DSU. After all the help you have given on the forum but haven't had the pleasure to experience how great it is, kind of sucks
> 
> Here's to the weekend with a virtual cheers of beers


Thanks!! I am really looking forward to experiencing here at home for sure!


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> So you bought the Denon rather than the Marantz?


Yes - the 5200. AFAICT the Marantz units aren't available yet here in the UK and I didn’t want to wait any longer. I am sure the Marantz units are as good - but my 5200 will be here today!


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Based on CEDIA reports I'm more interested in it as an upmixer potentially superior to DS.


The big 'if' seems to be speaker layout. Auromatic might be a superior upmixer to DSU (don't know) but if it won’t fit in with an Atmos speaker layout, then it's not likely to work as well as DSU. This won't matter to those who are prepared to add yet more speakers for Auro, but I am stopping at the Atmos 5.1.4 layout for the foreseeable, personally.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> Not to mention AVS members have to go find the info...shouldn't Dolby be advertising the heck out of any and all Atmos releases


It's the job of the studios and/or Bluray distributors to promote content, not Dolby's.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yet another junk title.
> 
> This is not a great start.


Dan - you need to get over the fact that your taste in movies is not a universal given.  For some those two discs will indeed be a good, if not 'great' start.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Apart from Transformers, there has been no new software so far?
> I really hope they can do better than the 2-3 discs that were mastered in DTS-Neo X... that will keep Atmos going strong...


Neo:X is an upmixer - it isn't appropriate to try to draw comparisons between that and Atmos. No movies were ever mixed for theatrical release at all, in Neo:X. The three movies that were released with special coding optimising them for Neo:X were 'experimental' in nature. Already some 160 movies have been mixed for the theater in Atmos, which is a greater rate of takeup than 5.1 achieved at the same stage in the cycle, and there is every reason to believe that Atmos mixes will become more and more commonplace as the new tech finds its way into the production facilities and cinemas. Once that happens, expect to see every Atmos theatrical mix on Bluray - just like we see every 5.1 mix appear on Bluray.


----------



## loekf

Forgive me my ignorance, but a copy of Transformers 3 with TrueHD Atmos track has already been leaked/showed up on the usual sources.

I also saw that ffmpeg needs a patch to be able to handle the updated headers in the TrueHD stream... otherwise it can't decode the TrueHD data. Just wondering, is the TrueHD format really backwards compatible so that existing TrueHD capable devices (BD players, receivers) can still play the TrueHD track and skip the Atmos extensions ?

I found some clips at the ffmpeg site, which also in VLC result in no audio. But... AFAIK VLC also uses ffmpeg.


----------



## Frohlich

kbarnes701 said:


> It's the job of the studios and/or Bluray distributors to promote content, not Dolby's.


We can agree to disagree. Dolby has the most skin in the game here and they want Atmos to succeed. When you own the product, you do whatever it takes to promote the product...especially in the early days. If Atmos falls flat on its face in the home market, the movie studio won't give much of squat...Dolby would be much more heavily impacted. You own it...you manage it....you promote it...you go the extra mile...you reap the potential profits....business 101. If you don't want to eat your lunch, somebody else will


----------



## audioguy

Frohlich said:


> We can agree to disagree. Dolby has the most skin in the game here and they want Atmos to succeed. When you own the product, you do whatever it takes to promote the product...especially in the early days. If Atmos falls flat on its face in the home market, the movie studio won't give much of squat...Dolby would be much more heavily impacted. You own it...you manage it....you promote it...you go the extra mile...you reap the potential profits....business 101.


I agree. Based on what we heard at CEDIA, Dolby NEEDS this to succeed which is more than WANTS this to succeed. The Dolby guy at CEDIA seemed quite concerned about the state of the falling theater business and are betting (hoping) that this new technology will drive the market. In fact there seemed to be desparation in his voice. So whether it is or is not their responsibility, Dolby seems to have a huge stake in the success and will do whatever they think is necessary to make this a success.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frohlich said:


> We can agree to disagree. Dolby has the most skin in the game here and they want Atmos to succeed. When you own the product, you do whatever it takes to promote the product...especially in the early days. If Atmos falls flat on its face in the home market, the movie studio won't give much of squat...Dolby would be much more heavily impacted. You own it...you manage it....you promote it...you go the extra mile...you reap the potential profits....business 101.


While I can't disagree with your sentiments in general, anything which is subject to IP rights is always more complicated. Dolby may, for example, be expressly forbidden to promote any discs at all. The image of the disc, the cover art, the title of the movie etc are all subject to strict IP controls. It is entirely illegal, for example, for me or you to post an image of a disc, for commercial gain, unless we have the consent of the copyright owner to do so. Now I am not saying that Dolby would not be able to get this consent, just pointing out that there are other issues once IP-controlled property is involved. I would imagine that the deal Dolby have with studios/distributors is that the latter promote the content. This would be fairly normal in the media world - when someone publishes a book, it's the publisher that promotes it, not the people who printed it or the people who invented the machine it was printed on. 

As far as Dolby is concerned, Atmos HAS succeeded. It has the fastest take up of any new sound format in cinemas since the days prior to 5.1. BD releases will follow naturally.

One final point - when was the last time you saw DTS promote a movie on Bluray?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Dan - you need to get over the fact that your taste in movies is not a universal given.  For some those two discs will indeed be a good, if not 'great' start.



"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” 
― H.L. Mencken, _ Notes on Democracy _(1926)


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> "No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
> ― H.L. Mencken, _ Notes on Democracy _(1926)


PT Barnum expressed it much more simply.

But in my view, intellectual snobbishness is still snobbishness, which is an undesirable trait amongst people, IMO of course.

Many people clearly derive great pleasure from movies like Transformers 4, which is backed by its status as the most successful movie of the year, and maybe ever. To look down on them for that is not becoming IMO.


----------



## tjenkins95

UKTexan said:


> Exactly! What do some people expect? Action movies recently released in a theatrical Atmos mix are going to be the most likely early releases, other genres to follow. I doubt gone with wind is high on any studios priority list. I'm looking forward to hearing which back catalogue titles will be the first to be remixed in Atmos, but for now, I'm just happy to find studios are starting to make good on Dolby's promise.
> Let the good news continue, this thread is like a morgue at times.


 

I think what some people are waiting for is the release of a blu-ray containing a good movie along with its Atmos soundtrack.
Perhaps Gravity, or Gravity, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Oblivion, Gravity, Star Trek, Gravity, Man of Steel,Gravity, Elysium,
Thor, Hunger Games, The Hobbit, etc....
Catch my drift? 


Ray


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> PT Barnum expressed it much more simply.
> 
> But in my view, intellectual snobbishness is still snobbishness, which is an undesirable trait amongst people, IMO of course.
> 
> Many people clearly derive great pleasure from movies like Transformers 4, which is backed by its status as the most successful movie of the year, and maybe ever. To look down on them for that is not becoming IMO.


I don't think Dan was being snobbish--if that was your reference. Now if your opinion were that a flick like Transformers 4 is a great movie, then I would grant your point. But I know you don't believe that; you're just saying that some people (including yourself, perhaps) find guilty enjoyment in such movies. I think that's quite a different perspective from assessing its stature in the annals of cinema.

OTOH, this thread is devoted to an advanced and highly technical audio development aimed (to this point) at a small group of discriminating, relatively sophisticated and well-heeled A/V enthusiasts. With only these run-of-the-mill blockbuster action flicks available in the initial run of Atmos BRD's, it seems somewhat disappointing to know that we are deploying all this time, effort and money in the service of pedestrian content. But I, for my part, am willing to assume that there will be a much wider range of titles to choose from in the very near future.

BTW, although I love to quote Mencken and consider him one of the last century's great social commentators, he was a notorious curmudgeon and certainly no great humanitarian. I myself cringe each time I read that reference to "the plain people" (ouch!). Now *that*'s snobbishness. But the basic observation still holds true--today just as much as it did 90 years ago.


----------



## smurraybhm

tjenkins95 said:


> I think what some people are waiting for is the release of a blu-ray containing a good movie along with its Atmos soundtrack.
> Perhaps Gravity, or Gravity, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Oblivion, Gravity, Star Trek, Gravity, Man of Steel,Gravity, Elysium,
> Thor, Hunger Games, The Hobbit, etc....
> Catch my drift?
> 
> 
> Ray


Ray - on titles that have already been released I wouldn't expect to see those released again by the studios just to provide us with an Atmos mix until you see Atmos out for at least another year or possibly two. Market has to grow, if Atmos continues to show up on devices as it has this year, they develop the tech for sound bars, headphones and televisions; then possibly we will see them. I hate to say this since I am all about shiny disks, but where we may see some of these movies released with Atmos mixes is via streaming. Much more economical/cost effective for the studios. Just IMHO. Steve


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I think what some people are waiting for is the release of a blu-ray containing a good movie along with its Atmos soundtrack.
> Perhaps Gravity, or Gravity, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Oblivion, Gravity, Star Trek, Gravity, Man of Steel,Gravity, Elysium,
> Thor, Hunger Games, The Hobbit, etc....
> Catch my drift?
> 
> 
> Ray


I do catch your drift. And I personally know several people who say that every one of those movies was 'rubbish'. Aside from objective evaluation of acting, direction, cinematography, script etc, 'liking' a movie, or not, is entirely subjective.


----------



## Petedwitt

I just watched Oblivion in 7.1.4 Dolby Surround upmixed on a Denon 5200 and its realy amazing. The part where those cables snap in the library sounded over the top real. Never noticed that even tho i have a top notch Klipsch setup and 2 SVS subs. I installed 4 Klipsch RB-51's as top front and top rear.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't think Dan was being snobbish--if that was your reference. Now if your opinion were that a flick like Transformers 4 is a great movie, then I would grant your point. But I know you don't believe that; you're just saying that some people (including yourself, perhaps) find guilty enjoyment in such movies. I think that's quite a different perspective from assessing its stature in the annals of cinema.


I wasn't singling anyone out. I don't feel at all 'guilty' for enjoying a movie like Transformers 4 - it is what it is and I enjoy that sort of movie. I also enjoy Bergman, Lars von Trier, 40s and 50s B&W movies and so on. I have no problem with anyone saying that they don't like or don't enjoy a particular movie. What I find less than uplifting is any implication that others should not enjoy a movie simply because the person passing the opinion does not enjoy that movie. I personally greatly dislike Woody Allen movies, but I would never call them 'rubbish' or unworthy because of my own preference.



chi_guy50 said:


> OTOH, this thread is devoted to an advanced and highly technical audio development aimed (to this point) at a small group of discriminating, relatively sophisticated and well-heeled A/V enthusiasts. With only these run-of-the-mill blockbuster action flicks available in the initial run of Atmos BRD's, it seems somewhat disappointing to know that we are deploying all this time, effort and money in the service of pedestrian content.


It is only 'pedestrian' in your personal opinion. I know that I, for example, will enjoy Transformers 4 and Hercules simply because of their spectacle, effects, sound, cinematography, score (possibly) and so on, all of which will not be in the least pedestrian. The very word 'pedestrian' carries connotations which I am currently railing against and in itself shows bias.

I honestly cannot imagine what Atmos would bring to films which you might consider 'worthy'. Would it add much to The Seventh Seal, Scenes from a Marriage, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Withnail & I, My Beautiful Launderette, Secrets & Lies, or any of the other 'worthy' movies staring blankly at me on my shelves right now? I doubt it. So it is more than likely that, initially at least, most if not all of the Atmos releases will be of the 'action' or 'blockbuster' genre. I expect this will change with time.



chi_guy50 said:


> But I, for my part, am willing to assume that there will be a much wider range of titles to choose from in the very near future.


And I heartily concur.



chi_guy50 said:


> BTW, although I love to quote Mencken and consider him one of the last century's great social commentators, he was a notorious curmudgeon and certainly no great humanitarian. I myself cringe each time I read that reference to "the plain people" (ouch!). Now *that*'s snobbishness. But the basic observation still holds true--today just as much as it did 90 years ago.


Indeed, and it will for all time, because the 'average guy in the street' will always be 'average' by definition. Does that make him less worthy? Less valuable? Less useful even? I know that you will agree with me on my response to that


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> I do catch your drift. And I personally know several people who say that every one of those movies was 'rubbish'. Aside from objective evaluation of acting, direction, cinematography, script etc, 'liking' a movie, or not, is entirely subjective.


OT (off topic) and WC (who cares or water closet):

When it comes to movies, humans are definitely subjective. Keith can't stand Woody Allen movies . I can't stand Martin Scorsese movies . In the NAFT (no accounting for taste) department, I love Animal House (directed by John Landis)! Always cracks me up. Perfect casting, especially John Belushi (RIP: rest in peace) as Bluto. Makes me want to _Shout!_




BTW (by the way), I declare this post to be my IP (intellectual property) even if I am not permitted to declare this post to be my IP.

*The use of acronyms OT, WC, and NAFT, RIP, BTW, IP are a nod to Keith who is a master of acronyms.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> 'liking' a movie, or not, is entirely subjective.


Somewhat like audio!


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> I think what some people are waiting for is the release of a blu-ray containing a good movie along with its Atmos soundtrack.
> Perhaps Gravity, or Gravity, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Oblivion, Gravity, Star Trek, Gravity, Man of Steel,Gravity, Elysium,
> Thor, Hunger Games, The Hobbit, etc....
> Catch my drift?
> 
> 
> Ray


to me Gravity was a *horrible* *Unbelievale* movie for believable content _Sandra Bullock_ should have died many times, but then makes it at the last second too many times, but i would watch it again in Atmos as i think that the sound was very good, now Pacific Rim that one just sucked.. i agree Oblivion, Elysium, and Star Trek would be great.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> ot (off topic) and wc (who cares or water closet):
> 
> When it comes to movies, humans are definitely subjective. Keith can't stand woody allen movies . I can't stand martin scorsese movies . In the naft (no accounting for taste) department, i love animal house (directed by john landis)! Always cracks me up. Perfect casting, especially john belushi (rip: Rest in peace) as bluto. Makes me want to _shout!_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg7kcoo76wc
> 
> btw (by the way), i declare this post to be my ip (intellectual property) even if i am not permitted to declare this post to be my ip.
> 
> *the use of acronyms ot, wc, and naft, rip, btw, ip are a nod to keith who is a master of acronyms.


LOL! TYVM. And FWIW, I mostly agree. BYAKT!


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Neo:X is an upmixer - it isn't appropriate to try to draw comparisons between that and Atmos. No movies were ever mixed for theatrical release at all, in Neo:X. The three movies that were released with special coding optimising them for Neo:X were 'experimental' in nature. Already some 160 movies have been mixed for the theater in Atmos, which is a greater rate of takeup than 5.1 achieved at the same stage in the cycle, and there is every reason to believe that Atmos mixes will become more and more commonplace as the new tech finds its way into the production facilities and cinemas. Once that happens, expect to see every Atmos theatrical mix on Bluray - just like we see every 5.1 mix appear on Bluray.


As much as I totally agree that DTS-Neo X is an upmixer, the main thrust is that software is what will determine if a format becomes popular. And that's one-strong right now on the ground.
I look forward to releases, not in the future, but now, and that will keep the interest levels high.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Somewhat like audio!


Well for sure, nobody can argue with a listener's _preferences_.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> As much as I totally agree that DTS-Neo X is an upmixer, the main thrust is that software is what will determine if a format becomes popular.


Of course. But the comparison between NEO:X and Atmos isn't a valid one. No movies have been mixed in Neo:X - 160 have, so far, in Atmos, with hundreds to come. Once the movie has been mixed for the cinema there is no reason at all not to release it that way on disc. But for Neo:X they had to go back and do a whole load of additional work (at time and money cost) - they don't need to with Atmos, hence the comparison not being valid.



petetherock said:


> And that's one-strong right now on the ground.


That always applies to the first of anything I guess 




petetherock said:


> I look forward to releases, not in the future, but now, and that will keep the interest levels high.


I am sure there will be many.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> . . . [T]he 'average guy in the street' will always be 'average' by definition. Does that make him less worthy? Less valuable? Less useful even? I know that you will agree with me on my response to that


Actually, I do not agree. I blame "the average guy in the street" for most of the eminently preventable ills in society. And that was the crux of Mencken's gibe (and Barnum's [alleged] "There's a sucker born every minute" to which you presumably referred earlier): the mass of people are easily manipulated to promote their own exploitation.

Now, to bring the matter out of the philosophical realm and back on topic: Do you really think we would have Dolby Atmos technology in the first place if "the average guy in the street" were the marketing focus? I'm grateful that there is a sector, no matter how small, that aims higher--whether in technology, the arts, or in any other human endeavor. I would like to encourage aiming higher and discourage mediocrity. As Robert would undoubtedly say: Atmos = aiming higher.


----------



## maikeldepotter

In science it is a common habit to try and find evidence for the opposite of what you want to prove. If you want to prove that something will work, try and find evidence that it will not. If you cannot find it, you have proven that it will work. I am addressing this introduction to those to who may perceive my question (posed as a statement) as being overly negative. It is not intended.

I do realize that in my continuing quest for perfection, I might be creating some hurdles that are either non-existent or insignificant with regard to achieving the intended immersive sound. One is the notion that being closer than 5-6' introduces speaker localization (Dolby specifies 5 feet as the ideal minimum to prevent this). The second one (debatable, not specified by Dolby) is the that the lateral elevation of the Atmos overheads should be around 60 degrees for ideal effect. The third one is that two pairs of overheads should be equidistant to MLP (can't remember where this recommendation came from).

Now, acknowledging all the knowledge and experience of you and others on this forum, I realize it might be time for me to forget about ideal situations and just start experimenting with the suggested options, including compromises, and prepare myself to being mesmerized by the sound quality that can be achieved with Atmos in a 'small room, big screen, two people' set-up. Below a reaction to your suggestions which will explain my expressed doubts.



sdurani said:


> Why not? The range for Top Middle speakers is about 2 feet forward of the listening area to 1 foot rearward of the listener (65-100 degrees elevation). If you are going to do a 5.1.2 set-up, then Dolby recommends placing the Top Middles slightly forward of the listening area (80 degrees elevation).


With the overheads 4 feet above listener's pane and a lateral separation of 60 degrees, this will put MLP at 4,7 distance from either speaker. With two people watching (in my case is most often) the 1,5 feet shift to either side of MLP brings the distance to closest speaker further down to 4,1 feet. This is significantly lower than the ideal 5 feet minimum Dolby mentions. 

Going to 45 degrees lateral separation (the minimum Dolby specifies for cinema's with surrounds at ear level), these distances will increase to 5,7 and 4,8 respectively. Finding the best compromise between these two conflicting ideal situations would be best done by just trying I guess.



sdurani said:


> If you're going to do a 5.1.4 configuration, then you can place the Top Middle speakers on the ceiling slightly behind you and do Front Heights at 45 degrees elevation.


With 3 feet to back wall I can go for a maximum of about 105 degrees elevation. With a 60 degrees spread the listener to speaker distances will then be 4,7 and 4,2 respectively. Again, going to the minimum of 45 degrees separation, these distances increase to 5,8 and 4,8. In fact, only the 45 degrees elevated front heights will be above Dolby's ideal minimum of 5 feet (6,1 and 5,7 respectively) at a spread of 60 degrees.


----------



## truwarrior22

chi_guy50 said:


> Actually, I do not agree. I blame "the average guy in the street" for most of the eminently preventable ills in society. And that was the crux of Mencken's gibe (and Barnum's [alleged] "There's a sucker born every minute" to which you presumably referred earlier): the mass of people are easily manipulated to promote their own exploitation.
> 
> Now, to bring the matter out of the philosophical realm and back OT: Do you really think we would have Dolby Atmos technology in the first place if "the average guy in the street" were the marketing focus? I'm grateful that there is a sector, no matter how small, that aims higher--whether in technology, the arts, or in any other human endeavor. I would like to encourage aiming higher and discourage mediocrity. As Robert would undoubtedly say: Atmos = aiming higher.


Any new opinions of in ceiling speakers vs Atmos enabled speakers? Dolby stated that on ceiling speakers can draw listeners attention to the ceiling speakers which I would find very annoying.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't think Dan was being snobbish--if that was your reference. Now if your opinion were that a flick like Transformers 4 is a great movie, then I would grant your point. But I know you don't believe that; you're just saying that some people (including yourself, perhaps) find guilty enjoyment in such movies. I think that's quite a different perspective from assessing its stature in the annals of cinema.
> 
> OTOH, this thread is devoted to an advanced and highly technical audio development aimed (to this point) at a small group of discriminating, relatively sophisticated and well-heeled A/V enthusiasts. With only these run-of-the-mill blockbuster action flicks available in the initial run of Atmos BRD's, it seems somewhat disappointing to know that we are deploying all this time, effort and money in the service of pedestrian content. But I, for my part, am willing to assume that there will be a much wider range of titles to choose from in the very near future.
> 
> BTW, although I love to quote Mencken and consider him one of the last century's great social commentators, he was a notorious curmudgeon and certainly no great humanitarian. I myself cringe each time I read that reference to "the plain people" (ouch!). Now *that*'s snobbishness. But the basic observation still holds true--today just as much as it did 90 years ago.


If there were some Disney/PIXAR or even good Dreamworks animated titles like HTTYD 1 & 2, and a decent selection of higher quality catalog remixes (I don't mean _Mr. Smith Goes to Washington_ or _King Kong_ 1933 in Atmos - titles that were at least stereo or surround to begin with), I would be more than happy. This would really get the Atmos ball rolling.

We already know _Die Hard_ was remixed, though Fox is again not listed as a supporting studio. 

I would kill for_ The Lord of the Rings Extended Trilogy _with a superb Atmos remix. That title _does_ come from Warner Brothers.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Actually, I do not agree. I blame "the average guy in the street" for most of the eminently preventable ills in society. And that was the crux of Mencken's gibe (and Barnum's [alleged] "There's a sucker born every minute" to which you presumably referred earlier): the mass of people are easily manipulated to promote their own exploitation.
> 
> Now, to bring the matter out of the philosophical realm and back on topic: Do you really think we would have Dolby Atmos technology in the first place if "the average guy in the street" were the marketing focus? I'm grateful that there is a sector, no matter how small, that aims higher--whether in technology, the arts, or in any other human endeavor. *I would like to encourage aiming higher and discourage mediocrity*. As Robert would undoubtedly say: Atmos = aiming higher.


Couldn’t agree more. But by definition, there will always be 'average' people. They are no less worthy as human beings, IMO, because of that.

But we are now so far OT we will incur the wrath of others - no to mention dreaded Moderator intervention - if we continue...


----------



## chi_guy50

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions of in ceiling speakers vs Atmos enabled speakers? Dolby stated that on ceiling speakers can draw listeners attention to the ceiling speakers which I would find very annoying.


I'm using in-ceiling (as opposed to on-ceiling) speakers. With DSU I have found the result very satisfying and not at all annoying. I can't say whether on-ceilings would present a different result by the very nature of their installation type. And I (regrettably) have no experience yet with Atmos-encoded sources.


----------



## UKTexan

The first dual Atmos/Auro 3D Blu ray pure audio - Magnificat, will be available from 10/1/14: 


https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/439809


Would make for an interesting comparison test between the two formats, possibly for the Trinnov and Datasat guys once they have their firmware releases. 
For the "average guy in the street" we may have to wait a little longer until our receivers are hopefully upgradeable to Auro 3D.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> I do realize that in my continuing quest for perfection, I might be creating some hurdles that are either non-existent or insignificant with regard to achieving the intended immersive sound. One is the notion that being closer than 5-6' introduces speaker localization (Dolby specifies 5 feet as the ideal minimum to prevent this). The second one (debatable, not specified by Dolby) is the that the lateral elevation of the Atmos overheads should be around 60 degrees for ideal effect. The third one is that two pairs of overheads should be equidistant to MLP (can't remember where this recommendation came from).
> 
> 
> 
> With the overheads 4 feet above listener's pane and a lateral separation of 60 degrees, this will put MLP at 4,7 distance from either speaker. With two people watching (in my case is most often) the 1,5 feet shift to either side of MLP brings the distance to closest speaker further down to 4,1 feet. This is significantly lower than the ideal 5 feet minimum Dolby mentions.
> 
> Going to 45 degrees lateral separation (the minimum Dolby specifies for cinema's with surrounds at ear level), these distances will increase to 5,7 and 4,8 respectively. Finding the best compromise between these two conflicting ideal situations would be best done by just trying I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> With 3 feet to back wall I can go for a maximum of about 105 degrees elevation. With a 60 degrees spread the listener to speaker distances will then be 4,7 and 4,2 respectively. Again, going to the minimum of 45 degrees separation, these distances increase to 5,8 and 4,8. In fact, only the 45 degrees elevated front heights will be above Dolby's ideal minimum of 5 feet (6,1 and 5,7 respectively) at a spread of 60 degrees.



I really can't follow your math. With my speakers within the Dolby-specified angles, my front pair are at 2.4m from my ears and my rear pair are 1.9m from my ears, as measured with a laser measure accurate to a billionth of a gnat's hind leg or something. So that places my ears 7.9 feet from the front overhead pair and 6.25 feet from the rear overhead pair. So both are comfortably beyond the 5-6ft distance you mention regarding possible localisation. The overheads fully comply with the specified angles and are placed in line with the front L & R as also specified.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

UKTexan said:


> The first dual Atmos/Auro 3D Blu ray pure audio - Magnificat, will be available from 10/1/14:
> 
> 
> https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/439809
> 
> 
> Would make for an interesting comparison test between the two formats, possibly for the Trinnov and Datasat guys once they have their firmware releases.
> For the "average guy in the street" we may have to wait a little longer until our receivers are hopefully upgradeable to Auro 3D.


It's great music. I'll buy it just for that. When I do upgrade my Onkyo 805, it will be even better! Guess I'll have to import it somewhere, somehow.


----------



## kbarnes701

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions of in ceiling speakers vs Atmos enabled speakers? Dolby stated that on ceiling speakers can draw listeners attention to the ceiling speakers which I would find very annoying.


I have heard both in a typical domestic setting and both worked well. The Atmos speakers gave a slightly more diffuse presentation and the physical speakers on the ceiling gave a slightly more precise presentation of the sounds in space. Both were very good, just a little different. The ceiling height was 8 feet. I never found my attention was "drawn to" the ceiling speakers. Of course I only heard a few clips from a few movies and a few trailers, so I couldn't say that this experience would be reflected (NPI) 100% of the time. I will tell you after the weekend if my own ceiling-mounted speakers cause any issues in my small room. If they work well here, they will work well anywhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> We already know _Die Hard_ was remixed, though Fox is again not listed as a supporting studio.


We only know that_ part of it_ was remixed for sure.



Dan Hitchman said:


> I would kill for_ The Lord of the Rings Extended Trilogy _with a superb Atmos remix. That title _does_ come from Warner Brothers.


Given the number of releases of movies like that, to encourage quintuple-dipping, I think you may, eventually, get your wish. And without even having to commit homicide


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's great music. I'll buy it just for that. When I do upgrade my Onkyo 805, it will be even better! * Guess I'll have to import it somewhere, somehow*.


The European and Asian Amazon sites can be your friend when looking for alternative or hard-to-find BD releases. Amazon.co.jp even lets you shop in English. Of course you may need to modify your BD player to be universal, but that is easily done with a kit off eBay (at least it is for the Oppos).

Here's a movie you'll enjoy, direct from the Land of the Rising Sun


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> We only know that_ part of it_ was remixed for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the number of releases of movies like that, to encourage quintuple-dipping, I think you may, eventually, get your wish. And without even having to commit homicide


_Master and Commander_ with proper bass track added back to an Atmos remix is practically calling out to be made!!! Double points because it's a solid story too.

Oh, I've killed for less...


----------



## Selden Ball

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions of in ceiling speakers vs Atmos enabled speakers? Dolby stated that on ceiling speakers can draw listeners attention to the ceiling speakers which I would find very annoying.


Any unexpected sounds coming from overhead certainly will be distracting. You'll have to get used to the new experience.

My personal experience with (somewhat mis-positioned) Front Height and Top Middle speakers is that the sound is quite enveloping and not as localizable as one might expect. However, in my case the overhead speakers (DefTech ProMonitor 1000) are essentially hanging on the walls (actually from the supporting poles of extremely tall bookcases), not actually in or on the ceiling, so Your Milage Certainly Might Vary. Yes, I'm "violating" a strict interpretation of Dolby's speaker placement guidelines. So what?

I carefully compared _Powaqqatsi_ (music by Philip Glass) upmixed from the Elektra CD and from Criterion's 5.1 DTS-HD MA Blu-ray. I slightly preferred the upmixed stereo to the upmixed 5.1 soundtrack.


----------



## smurraybhm

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions of in ceiling speakers vs Atmos enabled speakers? Dolby stated that on ceiling speakers can draw listeners attention to the ceiling speakers which I would find very annoying.


I'm using on-ceiling speakers (ceiling mounted to be exact) for top middles and they work great. It's all about implementation - as in placement, speaker selection, the room, and of course what your using for room corrections assuming one doesn't have the perfect sounding room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Master and Commander_ with proper bass track added back to an Atmos remix is practically calling out to be made!!! Double points because it's a solid story too.
> 
> Oh, I've killed for less...


I agree! (On the movie not your homicidal impulses LOL).


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree! (On the movie not your homicidal impulses LOL).


Quick edit! The system didn't even notate it.


----------



## Homebrew101

little known factoid: that's Robert Cray on bass guitar in Otis Day's band






kokishin said:


> OT (off topic) and WC (who cares or water closet):
> 
> When it comes to movies, humans are definitely subjective. Keith can't stand Woody Allen movies . I can't stand Martin Scorsese movies . In the NAFT (no accounting for taste) department, I love Animal House (directed by John Landis)! Always cracks me up. Perfect casting, especially John Belushi (RIP: rest in peace) as Bluto. Makes me want to _Shout!_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG7KCOO76Wc
> 
> BTW (by the way), I declare this post to be my IP (intellectual property) even if I am not permitted to declare this post to be my IP.
> 
> *The use of acronyms OT, WC, and NAFT, RIP, BTW, IP are a nod to Keith who is a master of acronyms.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I really can't follow your math. With my speakers within the Dolby-specified angles, my front pair are at 2.4m from my ears and my rear pair are 1.9m from my ears, as measured with a laser measure accurate to a billionth of a gnat's hind leg or something. So that places my ears 7.9 feet from the front overhead pair and 6.25 feet from the rear overhead pair. So both are comfortably beyond the 5-6ft distance you mention regarding possible localisation. The overheads fully comply with the specified angles and are placed in line with the front L & R as also specified.


My math tells me that you probably have your front overhead pair at about 35 degrees elevation, assuming a lateral separation between the two of about 45 degrees, listener's height at 3 feet, and overhead speaker 7 feet from the floor. Am I close?


----------



## brwsaw

Correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't movies originally mixed for Atmos (theater mix) be damn near perfect for the up-mixer and not need to be re released? Dolby's already stated nothing is left out of the mix. The information will be in the bed channels and the up-mixer should be damn near as good as the real deal? No?

Ideally someone who seen it (pick any movie already mixed) in the theater would confirm at home.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I really can't follow your math. With my speakers within the Dolby-specified angles, my front pair are at 2.4m from my ears and my rear pair are 1.9m from my ears, as measured with a laser measure accurate to a billionth of a gnat's hind leg or something. So that places my ears 7.9 feet from the front overhead pair and 6.25 feet from the rear overhead pair. So both are comfortably beyond the 5-6ft distance you mention regarding possible localisation. The overheads fully comply with the specified angles and are placed in line with the front L & R as also specified.


My math tells me that you probably have your front overhead pair at about 35 degrees elevation, assuming a lateral separation between the two of about 90 degrees (i.e. 45 degrees lateral elevation), listener's height at 3 feet, and overhead speaker 7 feet from the floor. Am I close?


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> My math tells me that you probably have your front overhead pair at about 35 degrees elevation, assuming a lateral separation between the two of about 45 degrees, listener's height at 3 feet, and overhead speaker 7 feet from the floor. Am I close?


You are taking the white paper way to literally. As you said earlier its time to move on and experiment in your small room with placement. There are more than a few of us with speaker placements that are not perfect, linear, etc. who are getting great results - or should I say sound. Everyone's room is different (and their av equipment) - you need to see what is going to work best in yours. Guidelines are just that, no one has suggested at any point during the discussion of Atmos that they need to be taken literally - except maybe you.


----------



## Selden Ball

brwsaw said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't movies originally mixed for Atmos (theater mix) be damn near perfect for the up-mixer and not need to be re released? Dolby's already stated nothing is left out of the mix. The information will be in the bed channels and the up-mixer should be damn near as good as the real deal? No?
> 
> Ideally someone who seen it (pick any movie already mixed) in the theater would confirm at home.


It's not at all obvious that the Dolby Surround Upmixer will chose to position the same sounds overhead as the person who mixed it intended. After all, it places sounds overhead when the person mixing a stereo soundtrack would never have planned for that.


----------



## Jacob305

here is a review of the dolby atmos 3d for transformers 4.

thought some might enjoy the review.

Jacob


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/13547/transformersageofextinction3d.html


----------



## westmd

smurraybhm said:


> I would swap the rear backs with the side surround bipoles/dipoles. Move side surrounds down to ear level. Not knowing how much room is from the MLP to the fronts you may be better off going with top front and top middle with the rear surrounds being above ear level. I would also line those tops up with the fronts - which may be reflected in your drawing. I have my rears mounted a few feet above the MLP ear level and so far so good, I also dropped my side surrounds down to ear level and went with a monopole - after previously using a biopole - those got moved to the RS. Big improvement and our rooms look to be similar in size. If you go with top backs try to not have them too close to the back wall - reflections - may also want to line them up above the di/bi to see if the downward sound "splits" the between what the backs are putting out for sound.
> 
> Isn't this fun


How would dipoles sound on the back wall as back surround speaker?


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> My math tells me that you probably have your front overhead pair at about 35 degrees elevation, assuming a lateral separation between the two of about 90 degrees (i.e. 45 degrees lateral elevation), listener's height at 3 feet, and overhead speaker 7 feet from the floor. Am I close?


While I and I'm sure many others in an enthusiast forum like this appreciate your obsessive pursuit of perfection, I'm afraid you are falling into the trap / fallacy of false precision.

You are attempting to draw precise conclusions based on differences of, literally, inches, however the input variables in your model are rules of thumb and/or estimates that themselves lack the precision needed to make such specific determinations. For example, you assume a 4 foot distance for the overhead speakers above the listener plane. Is this precise to the inch? Perhaps it's actually more like 56 inches in the y-axis once your ass sinks into the couch? And does this account for any shifting in seating position while viewing, maybe you can gain another four inches by slouching? I am thinking to account for the differential geometry of the lateral seating positions, you could build a three-tier variable height couch much like an Olympic medal winner pedestal, with the inner seat cushion several inches higher than the outer such that the hypotenuse distance to the overhead speaker is equalized for each listener?

And is the 5ft minimum distance recommendation a deep chasm, across which sound suddenly changes from awful to blissful? Is that figure going to be precise for all speaker types and/or models, all directivities, all room acoustics? 

This is a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It is natural human tendency for an obsessive type to seek this sort of precision in order to quell their inner second guessing, but any inner peace gained from these exact calculations is a delusion. The reality is that you are ignoring many variables, and estimating many others, so the precision of your conclusions is illusory. You can't reach exact conclusions if the inputs of the model are inexact, and other variables are ommitted.

Now, obviously, you should aim for the ideal if at all possible. But just realize that pretty much EVERY room is compromised in some way, so you do the best you can, and I bet it will still sound awesome. If you are so deeply concerned, you would be better served to engage in empirical testing in your own room, with your own ears and speakers, to determine if the theoretical differences you are fretting about are actually meaningful within the context of your actual, real world listening environment.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I wasn't singling anyone out. I don't feel at all 'guilty' for enjoying a movie like Transformers 4 - it is what it is and I enjoy that sort of movie. I also enjoy Bergman, Lars von Trier, 40s and 50s B&W movies and so on. I have no problem with anyone saying that they don't like or don't enjoy a particular movie. What I find less than uplifting is any implication that others should not enjoy a movie simply because the person passing the opinion does not enjoy that movie. I personally greatly dislike Woody Allen movies, but I would never call them 'rubbish' or unworthy because of my own preference.


You may be one of the few people that could claim to enjoy Lars von Trier. I've appreciated some of his movies as works of art or high concept (specifically Dogville, Manderlay, and Melancholia), but I wouldn't use the term "enjoy" in the same sentence with his name. 

As for Woody, he gets brilliant performances out of his actors (think Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine), and while his current work is only vaguely connected to his classic screwball comedies like Sleeper back in the 1970's, or his relationship films that he starred a few years later, the films he released from Vicky Cristina Barcelona to Blue Jasmine represents his strongest, most accessible work IMO as a director. You could in theory get Atmos mixes of these movies and enjoy some object effects for actor dialogue on-screen, but the Dolby Surround upmixer will be just as useful IMO if you want more than two-channel tracks.



kbarnes701 said:


> It is only 'pedestrian' in your personal opinion. I know that I, for example, will enjoy Transformers 4 and Hercules simply because of their spectacle, effects, sound, cinematography, score (possibly) and so on, all of which will not be in the least pedestrian. The very word 'pedestrian' carries connotations which I am currently railing against and in itself shows bias.


If you plan on buying Atmos releases to a) support the category as an "Dolby evangelist" or b) because you consider the aesthetic comparison of Atmos mixes to be an endeavor worthy of your time, rather than the plot or interest in the story per se, you're at least being intellectually consistent.

I'll buy Transformers just to have an Atmos demo BluRay when the time comes, and our kids will appreciate Guardians if/when that comes out in Atmos, but I'd be lying to say I'm watching it for anything other than the Atmos effects. I fully expect that the movies I enjoy most may never come out on Atmos mixes (art films like those I mention), but having a few sci-fi blockbusters or war films with Atmos will make the native mixes worth it for me, as well as for music content (something Dolby demonstrated to us at CEDIA might be an option with the Triphonic cut they played). 

Even so, the "average" consumer is going to want "average movies" to be released in Atmos, which by definition will be the top-selling or at least most popular releases from the summer. I don't think that should be a surprise to anybody here. My own prediction is that you're going to see a slow trickle of Atmos releases - maybe two a month, ramping up to four or six a month - for at least another year, until you've had a production cycle or two of AVRs with Atmos on the consumer market. Just be thankful that there wasn't a 2014 Twilight movie with an Atmos mix, or Keith might well be learning to appreciate the acting talent of Kristen Stewart.

I'll pass on Hercules, thank you very much, though. But if you put a gun to my head, I might buy Noah LOL if it came out on Atmos for the effects.


----------



## kokishin

Jacob305 said:


> here is a review of the dolby atmos 3d for transformers 4.
> 
> thought some might enjoy the review.
> 
> Jacob
> 
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/13547/transformersageofextinction3d.html


Seemed like a very thorough and well thought out review.

Thanks!


----------



## maikeldepotter

smurraybhm said:


> You are taking the white paper way to literally. As you said earlier its time to move on and experiment in your small room with placement. There are more than a few of us with speaker placements that are not perfect, linear, etc. who are getting great results - or should I say sound. Everyone's room is different (and their av equipment) - you need to see what is going to work best in yours. Guidelines are just that, no one has suggested at any point during the discussion of Atmos that they need to be taken literally - except maybe you.


Yes, I know. But this one is different. No white papers this time, just trying to demonstrate the potential power (and ease) of math for playing with speaker placement options...


----------



## smurraybhm

westmd said:


> How would dipoles sound on the back wall as back surround speaker?


If I had a pair I'd be happy to try them. I imagine soon someone will have a chance to answer your question as we all work on figuring out what works best in our situations. Good news is Atmos seems to be forgiving in regards to placement (I guess technically for now I will say DS, since most of us of yet to get our hands on Transformers or the demo disk). Hopefully we will see the same when Auro arrives to the masses.


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, I know. But this one is different. No white papers this time, just trying to demonstrate the potential power (and ease) of math for playing with speaker placement options...


I guess I'm confused and being well educated I (and a few others) have had a hard time following your math to be honest. Maybe the exercise would be of benefit if you were trying to get a bunch of grade school kids interested in math (I would have liked it 40 years ago) assuming they understood what you're doing, but I would guess most of us on this thread and buying Atmos receivers tend to be older then that. Trying to conduct such an exercise without the aid of visuals makes it even tougher as well.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> This is significantly lower than the ideal 5 feet minimum Dolby mentions.


Since Dolby's minimum distance recommendation is important to you... 

You can put the Top Middle speakers where the back wall meets the ceiling. The back wall is 3 feet away, the ceiling is 4 feet above, so that's 5 feet to the speakers. Spread them at least 6 feet apart and you'll have the minimum 60 degree separation. I would also point each speaker to the opposite listener (time/energy trading) to make it less distracting. 

For the Top Front speakers, do the same or push them a foot or so further away (doesn't have to be exact).


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> You may be one of the few people that could claim to enjoy Lars von Trier. I've appreciated some of his movies as works of art or high concept (specifically Dogville, Manderlay, and Melancholia), but I wouldn't use the term "enjoy" in the same sentence with his name.
> 
> As for Woody, he gets brilliant performances out of his actors (think Emma Thompson in Blue Jasmine), and while his current work is only vaguely connected to his classic screwball comedies like Sleeper back in the 1970's, or his relationship films that he starred a few years later, the films he released from Vicky Cristina Barcelona to Blue Jasmine represents his strongest, most accessible work IMO as a director. You could in theory get Atmos mixes of these movies and enjoy some object effects for actor dialogue on-screen, but the Dolby Surround upmixer will be just as useful IMO if you want more than two-channel tracks.
> 
> If you plan on buying Atmos releases to a) support the category as an "Dolby evangelist" or b) because you consider the aesthetic comparison of Atmos mixes to be an endeavor worthy of your time, rather than the plot or interest in the story per se, you're at least being intellectually consistent.
> 
> I'll buy Transformers just to have an Atmos demo BluRay when the time comes, and our kids will appreciate Guardians if/when that comes out in Atmos, but I'd be lying to say I'm watching it for anything other than the Atmos effects. I fully expect that the movies I enjoy most may never come out on Atmos mixes (art films like those I mention), but having a few sci-fi blockbusters or war films with Atmos will make the native mixes worth it for me, as well as for music content (something Dolby demonstrated to us at CEDIA might be an option with the Triphonic cut they played).
> 
> I'll pass on Hercules, thank you very much, though. But if you put a gun to my head, I might buy Noah LOL if it came out on Atmos for the effects.


Well said.

I fully concur with your sentiments with the exception of your praise of Emma Thompson's work in Blue Jasmine. I thought her characterization was so vacant as to be totally missing. 

(I think you meant to refer to Cate Blanchett, no?)


----------



## batpig

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions of in ceiling speakers vs Atmos enabled speakers? Dolby stated that on ceiling speakers can draw listeners attention to the ceiling speakers which I would find very annoying.


While I don't have in/on ceiling speakers with which to compare, I can describe the perspective of the 5.1.2 setup with Atmos-enabled speakers added up front. I can that I have not once heard anything that I would describe as annoying or distracting coming from above me. Based on my experience, I think Chris K was basically spot on when he expressed the opinion that a single pair of "virtual height" speakers would mostly be delivering ambience and can't really provide precise imaging. The addition of these Atmos-enabled speakers in general serves to extend ambience overhead, and if you are looking for a more diffuse presentation that doesn't call attention to what's happening overhead, they are an excellent choice. Now, this is not a criticism per se, as the result is that you are more deeply immersed and "in" the content. I often find myself wondering if it's doing much, and then when I turn it off I definitely find myself missing that little "extra something" that the vertical immersion provides.

There are, of course, some big caveats. First is that I have precious little native Atmos content, just the Atmos demo disc, so much of my experience is with DSU upmix which, by nature as an upmixer, is not going to deliver precise overhead effects. Second is that my surround speakers are elevated (maybe 3ft above ear level, about 6ft up from the floor) which diminishes the relative impact of some more sound bouncing off the ceiling (even if purposeful) in front of me. Third of course is that I only have two Atmos-enabled height channels; Dolby strongly recommends four if possible and, considering the inherent limitations of a virtual speaker, I can see why, as it could only help to solidify what is inherently an illusion.

The best examples of actual "discrete" Atmos effects have been (no surprise) the purpose designed Atmos trailers on the demo disc, specifically "Leaf" and "Amaze". I have spent more time than I would prefer (sigh.... need more native content!) comparing these trailers with the "flat" TrueHD input vs. Atmos, and there are moments when I can really pinpoint a bird chirp or a fly buzzing distincly appearing over my head with the Atmos speakers engaged, as opposed to appearing sort of vaguely above and behind me with just the two surrounds engaged. But in real life we're not going to listen to carefully mixed clips of insects and leaves fluttering over our heads. In a full movie mix, you will probably hear things zap or whoosh over your head, and the Atmos-enabled speakers will definitely deliver that effect.


----------



## westmd

smurraybhm said:


> If I had a pair I'd be happy to try them. I imagine soon someone will have a chance to answer your question as we all work on figuring out what works best in our situations. Good news is Atmos seems to be forgiving in regards to placement (I guess technically for now I will say DS, since most of us of yet to get our hands on Transformers or the demo disk). Hopefully we will see the same when Auro arrives to the masses.


I have monopoles on the back and dipoles on the side and you think it is worth a try changing this to monopoles @ side and dipoles @ back!


----------



## smurraybhm

westmd said:


> I have monopoles on the back and dipoles on the side and you think it is worth a try changing this to monopoles @ side and dipoles @ back!


If you can do it easily - definitely. Then you can know for sure what works best and in general how they work. I've said eariler in this thread that I spent a lot of time experimenting and moving speakers around last weekend. Well worth the time and weird looks from my wife, but after all these years I'm use to that.


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> Would make for an interesting comparison test between the two formats, possibly for the Trinnov and Datasat guys once they have their firmware releases.


Assuming the speakers are in the correct locations to give each format a fair shake.


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> Well said.
> 
> I fully concur with your sentiments with the exception of your praise of Emma Thompson's work in Blue Jasmine. I thought her characterization was so vacant as to be totally missing.
> 
> (I think you meant to refer to Cate Blanchett, no?)


 Sorry, correction noted. Right idea, wrong actress. But the vacancy was the point - she was a broken vessel filled up by her imagination to project the life she wanted to lead (and in some ways, a fantasized version of what she had lost), and she clearly had given up her tenuous connection to reality by the end of the film.

Hey, she won Best Actress for it. So call it well-executed vacancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jasmine


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> My math tells me that you probably have your front overhead pair at about 35 degrees elevation, assuming a lateral separation between the two of about 45 degrees, listener's height at 3 feet, and overhead speaker 7 feet from the floor. Am I close?


Almost - they’re more like 40° (so can be configured as FH or TF). You’re slightly off on ears height and ceiling height which probably explains the small discrepancy.


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't movies originally mixed for Atmos (theater mix) be damn near perfect for the up-mixer and not need to be re released? Dolby's already stated nothing is left out of the mix. The information will be in the bed channels and the up-mixer should be damn near as good as the real deal? No?
> 
> Ideally someone who seen it (pick any movie already mixed) in the theater would confirm at home.


I doubt if any upmixer will be as good as the 'real thing'. PLIIx and PLIIz upmix 2.0 to 5/7.1 here very well indeed - but not as good as a native 5.1 mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> You are taking the white paper way to literally. As you said earlier its time to move on and experiment in your small room with placement. There are more than a few of us with speaker placements that are not perfect, linear, etc. who are getting great results - or should I say sound. Everyone's room is different (and their av equipment) - you need to see what is going to work best in yours. Guidelines are just that, no one has suggested at any point during the discussion of Atmos that they need to be taken literally - except maybe you.


+1. And there is a lot of flexibility anyway wrt to the angles specified.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> While I and I'm sure many others in an enthusiast forum like this appreciate your obsessive pursuit of perfection, I'm afraid you are falling into the trap / fallacy of false precision.
> 
> You are attempting to draw precise conclusions based on differences of, literally, inches, however the input variables in your model are rules of thumb and/or estimates that themselves lack the precision needed to make such specific determinations. For example, you assume a 4 foot distance for the overhead speakers above the listener plane. Is this precise to the inch? Perhaps it's actually more like 56 inches in the y-axis once your ass sinks into the couch? And does this account for any shifting in seating position while viewing, maybe you can gain another four inches by slouching? I am thinking to account for the differential geometry of the lateral seating positions, you could build a three-tier variable height couch much like an Olympic medal winner pedestal, with the inner seat cushion several inches higher than the outer such that the hypotenuse distance to the overhead speaker is equalized for each listener?
> 
> And is the 5ft minimum distance recommendation a deep chasm, across which sound suddenly changes from awful to blissful? Is that figure going to be precise for all speaker types and/or models, all directivities, all room acoustics?
> 
> This is a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It is natural human tendency for an obsessive type to seek this sort of precision in order to quell their inner second guessing, but any inner peace gained from these exact calculations is a delusion. The reality is that you are ignoring many variables, and estimating many others, so the precision of your conclusions is illusory. You can't reach exact conclusions if the inputs of the model are inexact, and other variables are ommitted.
> 
> Now, obviously, you should aim for the ideal if at all possible. But just realize that pretty much EVERY room is compromised in some way, so you do the best you can, and I bet it will still sound awesome. If you are so deeply concerned, you would be better served to engage in empirical testing in your own room, with your own ears and speakers, to determine if the theoretical differences you are fretting about are actually meaningful within the context of your actual, real world listening environment.


A great post and a reminder to us all that obsessing over fine details can be counterproductive. Dolby have repeatedly said - they told it to me in person, twice, they have referred to it in various written communications and they reconfirmed in Scott W's interview - that the speaker placement has more flexibility than we might imagine. In fact, in the interview with Scott W, one of the Dolby guys said you’d have to work pretty hard to make Atmos *NOT *work well.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> You may be one of the few people that could claim to enjoy Lars von Trier. I've appreciated some of his movies as works of art or high concept (specifically Dogville, Manderlay, and Melancholia), but I wouldn't use the term "enjoy" in the same sentence with his name.


Haha - IKWYM! I enjoy them for their strangeness as much as for any other qualities (of which there are several IMO).



sdrucker said:


> As for Woody, he gets brilliant performances out of his actors (think Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine), and while his current work is only vaguely connected to his classic screwball comedies like Sleeper back in the 1970's, or his relationship films that he starred a few years later, the films he released from Vicky Cristina Barcelona to Blue Jasmine represents his strongest, most accessible work IMO as a director. You could in theory get Atmos mixes of these movies and enjoy some object effects for actor dialogue on-screen, but the Dolby Surround upmixer will be just as useful IMO if you want more than two-channel tracks.


Couldn’t agree more. It's just that I can't stand his movies. I’d pay to not have to see one. It's just a personal preference thing. I can appreciate where he coming from as a Director or auteur - it's just that I loathe the end result.




sdrucker said:


> If you plan on buying Atmos releases to a) support the category as an "Dolby evangelist" or b) because you consider the aesthetic comparison of Atmos mixes to be an endeavor worthy of your time, rather than the plot or interest in the story per se, you're at least being intellectually consistent.


It's more than in my obsession with movies as the great 20th century art form, I like to encompass every aspect of a movie not just plot etc. I can enjoy a really badly written movie, for example, if it has brilliant cinematography or an exceptional score or even amazing editing. Most people focus on the story/plot and the acting and maybe the quality if the script and I can understand that. But I watch almost every movie multiple times and concentrate on a different aspect each time quite often. I accept this is not how most people watch movies of course 



sdrucker said:


> I'll buy Transformers just to have an Atmos demo BluRay when the time comes, and our kids will appreciate Guardians if/when that comes out in Atmos, but I'd be lying to say I'm watching it for anything other than the Atmos effects.


No problem there - if the Atmos effects blow your frock up (float your boat) then that is a good reason to enjoy the movie IMO. And I am sure you could find more if you looked hard - the effects for example will be spectacularly good I expect. And it may have a good score - it is by long-time Bay composer Steve Jablonsky who did all the Transformers movies I think, as well as Lone Survivor, Pain & Gain, Ender's Game, to mention some recent efforts). Even Bay's frenetic editing is worth studying IMO for the way he uses it to keep the action moving forwards - probably because he knows the script is so freakin' dire (assumption based on the other Transformer movies, except maybe the first one which wasn't actually all that bad IMO).



sdrucker said:


> I fully expect that the movies I enjoy most may never come out on Atmos mixes (art films like those I mention), but having a few sci-fi blockbusters or war films with Atmos will make the native mixes worth it for me, as well as for music content (something Dolby demonstrated to us at CEDIA might be an option with the Triphonic cut they played).


Well I never said, in all my enthusiasm, that Atmos is for everyone. If I tended to only enjoy Indie movies from Europe, for example, I'd pass on Atmos. 



sdrucker said:


> Even so, the "average" consumer is going to want "average movies" to be released in Atmos, which by definition will be the top-selling or at least most popular releases from the summer. I don't think that should be a surprise to anybody here. My own prediction is that you're going to see a slow trickle of Atmos releases - maybe two a month, ramping up to four or six a month - for at least another year, until you've had a production cycle or two of AVRs with Atmos on the consumer market. Just be thankful that there wasn't a 2014 Twilight movie with an Atmos mix, or Keith might well be learning to appreciate the acting talent of Kristen Stewart.


LOL. I have to admit to not having watched any in that series. But I do enjoy the Underworld series for various reasons (besides Kate B in tight leather).



sdrucker said:


> I'll pass on Hercules, thank you very much, though. But if you put a gun to my head, I might buy Noah LOL if it came out on Atmos for the effects.


Hahaha. I have Noah on BD. It's not as bad as the reviews would have you believe. Well, not totally  Brett Ratner directed Hercules didn’t he? He's not a bad director... and Dwayne Johnson is actually a better actor than many give him credit for IMO. OK, he's no Pacino, but he's not terrible either.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> You are taking the white paper way to literally. As you said earlier its time to move on and experiment in your small room with placement. There are more than a few of us with speaker placements that are not perfect, linear, etc. who are getting great results - or should I say sound. Everyone's room is different (and their av equipment) - you need to see what is going to work best in yours. Guidelines are just that, no one has suggested at any point during the discussion of Atmos that they need to be taken literally - except maybe you.


totally agree the white paper is writen for the perfect set up i don't fall into that perfect set up or placement of speakers but i will experiment and see what sound the best for me.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> Sorry, correction noted. Right idea, wrong actress. But the vacancy was the point - she was a broken vessel filled up by her imagination to project the life she wanted to lead (and in some ways, a fantasized version of what she had lost), and she clearly had given up her tenuous connection to reality by the end of the film.
> 
> Hey, she won Best Actress for it. So call it well-executed vacancy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jasmine


Stuart,

I was trying to make a joke (as in Emma Thompson's _absence_ from the cast of the movie), but your precis of the character's arc is nonetheless illuminating and, again, well written.


----------



## tjenkins95

Jacob305 said:


> here is a review of the dolby atmos 3d for transformers 4.
> 
> thought some might enjoy the review.
> 
> Jacob
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/13547/transformersageofextinction3d.html


 
Thanks for posting that link. I totally agree with the review. Dolby Atmos 5.0 Stars!


Ray


----------



## dan webster

Has anyone heard atmos with top ceiling speakers less than 8 ft high? I am on the fence with my ceiling only being 6' 10" high.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Hahaha. I have Noah on BD. It's not as bad as the reviews would have you believe. Well, not totally  Brett Ratner directed Hercules didn’t he? He's not a bad director... and Dwayne Johnson is actually a better actor than many give him credit for IMO. OK, he's no Pacino, but he's not terrible either.


the only Pacino movies i liked were Godfather and Godfather II other then those most of his stuff his acting IMHO he is Too loud and Obnoxious say hello to my little friend


----------



## BigScreen

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would kill for_ The Lord of the Rings Extended Trilogy _with a superb Atmos remix. That title _does_ come from Warner Brothers.


I am a big fan of the LOTR series, and I've purchased the trilogy multiple times (without regret), but the only way that I would want them to re-release those movies with an Atmos mix is if the original team got back together (the mixers, editors, and director) and decided how it should be done to best take advantage of the technology. 

It's fun to consider what could be done (hearing the breath and movement of the wraith above the hobbits as they are hiding in the tree roots in Fellowship, for example), but unless it's done well, it shouldn't be done at all. The last thing I would want is for some guy to hit the "export as Atmos soundtrack" button and walk away until it was done processing. That serves no one, and it doesn't do anything that using the DSU on the receiver can't already do at the option of the viewer.

That said, I would (without hesitation) repurchase any movie in my collection that was originally done in Atmos and re-released on Blu-ray with the sound format added.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> the only Pacino movies i liked were Godfather and Godfather II other then those most of his stuff his acting IMHO he is Too loud and Obnoxious say hello to my little friend


See - that's what I mean. Its all subjective preference. I know people who would have you burned at the stake for that view of yours


----------



## smurraybhm

dan webster said:


> Has anyone heard atmos with top ceiling speakers less than 8 ft high? I am on the fence with my ceiling only being 6' 10" high.


Dan - My speakers are ceiling mounted, 8' ceiling with a mount that adds a few inches from the ceiling and then a speaker that is 11" long and then tilted slightly towards MLP. Assuming you have your mains at ear level or surrounds depending on what your going to do for tops (front, middle, back) I think it could work. If you've been reading the thread today and since we've had members getting Atmos receivers, one thing that is evident is that with Atmos you have flexibility.


----------



## sdrucker

Originally Posted by *bargervais*  
_the only Pacino movies i liked were Godfather and Godfather II other then those most of his stuff his acting IMHO he is Too loud and Obnoxious say hello to my little friend_




kbarnes701 said:


> See - that's what I mean. Its all subjective preference. I know people who would have you burned at the stake for that view of yours


Get out the pitchforks....do you know the first DVD I bought was The Devil's Advocate? . Say what you want about the film being too long, but an Atmos mix of Al at his blowhardy, scenery-chewing best, complete with some of the effects during his monologue with Keanu Reeves and the demons moving on his wall (as per the original cut), would be kind of fun. 

I don't think anybody's salivating for an Atmos version of Godfather III, though. Not even Sofia Coppola (whose performance falls into "if you have to ask, you don't want to know").


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *tjenkins95*  
_I think what some people are waiting for is the release of a blu-ray containing a good movie along with its Atmos soundtrack._
_ Perhaps Gravity, or Gravity, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Oblivion, Gravity, Star Trek, Gravity, Man of Steel,Gravity, Elysium,_
_ Thor, Hunger Games, The Hobbit, etc...._
_ Catch my drift? _ 



kbarnes701 said:


> I do catch your drift. And I personally know several people who say that every one of those movies was 'rubbish'. Aside from objective evaluation of acting, direction, cinematography, script etc, 'liking' a movie, or not, is entirely subjective.


 
I couldn't agree with you more. As you know, we both have an eclectic collection of movies. My list of movies above was just a short list of what I would like to see first on Atmos. It doesn't bother me if people don't like the movies I like - everyone has their own preferences. I own over 1400 blu-rays and dvds - very diverse collection. I cannot wait to be at the store next Tuesday to buy a copy of Transformers 4 so I can experience the Atmos soundtrack. I am a big fan of Michael Bay but after Transformers 3, I just wasn't getting the same good feeling as the first two!


Ray


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I do catch your drift. And I personally know several people who say that every one of those movies was 'rubbish'. Aside from objective evaluation of acting, direction, cinematography, script etc, 'liking' a movie, or not, is entirely subjective.





sdrucker said:


> Get out the pitchforks....do you know the first BluRay I bought was The Devil's Advocate? . Say what you want about the film being too long, but an Atmos mix of Al in his blowhardy best, complete with some of the effects during his monologue with Keanu Reeves and the demons moving on his wall (as per the original cut), would be kind of fun.
> 
> I don't think anybody's salivating for an Atmos version of Godfather III, though. Not even Sofia Coppola (whose performance falls into "if you have to ask, you don't want to know").





I love The Devil's Advocate! Great movie!


----------



## sdrucker

tjenkins95 said:


> I love The Devil's Advocate! Great movie!


Also a great homage to New York at a high point of the "greed is good" era, especially about the New York press and cynicism at the top of the world's second oldest profession. Minor correction: I see you clicked before I edited my post. Devil's Advocate was my first DVD (not BluRay, which would put us WAY behind the curve) back when. You guys sometimes respond faster than I post!

I'm generally a Pacino fan (even his work in Angels as Roy Cohn), but draw the line at The Recruit, though. It's 2/3 of a decent movie before the plot reversal, which made no sense, WRT Pacino's character. 

One thing we all can probably agree on is Kate Beckinsale in her, um, attire in the Underworld movies (especially the first two). Hot, hot, hot. And about the only good thing in Van Helsing.


----------



## dan webster

smurraybhm said:


> Dan - My speakers are ceiling mounted, 8' ceiling with a mount that adds a few inches from the ceiling and then a speaker that is 11" long and then tilted slightly towards MLP. Assuming you have your mains at ear level or surrounds depending on what your going to do for tops (front, middle, back) I think it could work. If you've been reading the thread today and since we've had members getting Atmos receivers, one thing that is evident is that with Atmos you have flexibility.


Thanks. I may give it a try. I may try something alittle unusual. I have golden ear triton 7 fronts and a golden ear xl supercenter. I currently use 3 pairs of emotiva erd-1 speakers for surround, surround back and front wides. I really love these little emotiva speakers. They blend in nicely with the golden ear front speakers. I have always had timber matched speakers but this sounds fantastic. ( audyssey from my denon 4250 helps ). 
I plan on getting a marantz 7009 and replacing the erd-1 surround speakers with my old emotiva 8.3 towers and replacing the erd-1 surround bacls with a single emotiva 6.3 center. All surrounds will be at ear level. The front wides will stay as they are. I would then have very full range surround speakers, Now the fun part. I now have 4 erd-1 speakers left over to go into the ceiling. I have a drop down black acoustical ceiling in my basement theater. I will experiment on raising 4 of the panels and mounting the erd speakers directly to the joists appx 8 inches above the ceiling. Then i can fabricate the ceiling tiles to go around the speakers and cover all the empty space. I have extra tiles so this may be possible, but not easy. The erd are bipolar with one woofer and 2 tweeters. I have no idea how they will work with atmos but it wont cost me anything to give it a try. They would certainly have a wide sound dispersion. If that works all my surround and top speakers will be perfectly timber matched with the surround speakers full range. I am open to any ideas concerning this. I know i could just buy 4 in ceiling speakers but i dont they will have the dynamics and low end these erd speakers have.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Get out the pitchforks....do you know the first DVD I bought was The Devil's Advocate? . Say what you want about the film being too long, but an Atmos mix of Al at his blowhardy, scenery-chewing best, complete with some of the effects during his monologue with Keanu Reeves and the demons moving on his wall (as per the original cut), would be kind of fun.


I love that movie too. I especially like the almost subliminal cutting where you briefly see the 'real' faces of the characters. I’d sort of forgotten Keanu was in it - well even he didn't spoil it for me.  Ages since I watched that - I have it here on DVD - well, ripped to disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. As you know, we both have an eclectic collection of movies. My list of movies above was just a short list of what I would like to see first on Atmos. It doesn't bother me if people don't like the movies I like - everyone has their own preferences. I own over 1400 blu-rays and dvds - very diverse collection. I cannot wait to be at the store next Tuesday to buy a copy of Transformers 4 so I can experience the Atmos soundtrack. I am a big fan of Michael Bay but after Transformers 3, I just wasn't getting the same good feeling as the first two!
> 
> 
> Ray


We are on the same page, Ray.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I love that movie too. I especially like the almost subliminal cutting where you briefly see the 'real' faces of the characters. I’d sort of forgotten Keanu was in it - well even he didn't spoil it for me.  Ages since I watched that - I have it here on DVD - well, ripped to disc.


Free will, eh? 

(that's an inside joke from the film, BTW, but still relevant when it comes to our discussion of personal taste and Atmos).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> One thing we all can probably agree on is Kate Beckinsale in her, um, attire in the Underworld movies (especially the first two). Hot, hot, hot. And about the only good thing in Van Helsing.


Ah, I’d managed to forget Van Helsing. Was it as bad as I recall? Other than Kate of course. I know she takes on some schlocky roles, but she is a consummate professional in her approach to them. Have you ever noticed, especially in the Underworld movies, but also in the Total Recall remake, how whenever she falls on to her face in an action sequence, she always takes a second to stick her butt up into the air? Once you've noticed it, you can see that it is a totally calculated move on her part. I love it.


----------



## tjenkins95

sdrucker said:


> Also a great homage to New York at a high point of the "greed is good" era, especially about the New York press and cynicism at the top of the world's second oldest profession. Minor correction: I see you clicked before I edited my post. Devil's Advocate was my first DVD (not BluRay, which would put us WAY behind the curve) back when. You guys sometimes respond faster than I post!
> 
> I'm generally a Pacino fan (even his work in Angels as Roy Cohn), but draw the line at The Recruit, though. It's 2/3 of a decent movie before the plot reversal, which made no sense, WRT Pacino's character.
> 
> One thing we all can probably agree on is Kate Beckinsale in her, um, attire in the Underworld movies (especially the first two). Hot, hot, hot. And about the only good thing in Van Helsing.


 
I originally owned the DVD version but tossed it out when I got the blu-ray.
Also liked the Underworld series.
Here's a link to my collection: http://www.raysdvds.org


Ray


----------



## NorthSky

Petedwitt said:


> I just watched Oblivion in *7.1.4 Dolby Surround upmixed* on a Denon 5200 and its realy amazing. The part where those cables snap in the library sounded over the top real. Never noticed that even tho i have a top notch Klipsch setup and 2 SVS subs. I installed 4 Klipsch RB-51's as top front and top rear.


Just that, is good reason enough for me to keep my attention concentrated for the next twelve months or so, and then take the smart plunge, when and if and depending. 

And I truly hope that in twelve months from now we'll have a bunch of smart films on Blu-ray and embedded with Dolby Atmos. ...Like say one hundred BD titles by September 30th 2015. ...And then much much more in 2016, and so on.


----------



## kbarnes701

Talking of movies, I just got a secondhand BD copy of The Descent for a song - I bet that is a good candidate for DSU. It has a good soundtrack and, IIRC, there are several overhead effects moments in the movie. I'm not massively into the Horror genre, but I always enjoyed that movie.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah, I’d managed to forget Van Helsing. Was it as bad as I recall? Other than Kate of course. I know she takes on some schlocky roles, but she is a consummate professional in her approach to them. Have you ever noticed, especially in the Underworld movies, but also in the Total Recall remake, how whenever she falls on to her face in an action sequence, she always takes a second to stick her butt up into the air? Once you've noticed it, you can see that it is a totally calculated move on her part. I love it.



Argh....just for that I'm going to have to watch Underworld: Evolution again. Maybe it's just how she stands up when she falls on her face LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Argh....just for that I'm going to have to watch Underworld: Evolution again. Maybe it's just how she stands up when she falls on her face LOL.


Like I said, there's something for everyone in every movie ever made


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> ... As Robert would undoubtedly say: Atmos = aiming higher.


Always aim @ the top best of what you can achieve; living life to its fullest, for you, and for all around you. 

Dolby Atmos or bust.


----------



## NorthSky

Jacob305 said:


> here is a review of the dolby atmos 3d for transformers 4.
> 
> thought some might enjoy the review.
> 
> Jacob
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/13547/transformersageofextinction3d.html


Thx a bunch for that Jacob; very very interesting...his own scores (personal opinion) as he is a well respected reviewer (_Michael S. Palmer_). ...On both the video (2D & 3D) and audio (DD Atmos & DD TrueHD) aspects.


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of movies, I just got a secondhand BD copy of The Descent for a song - I bet that is a good candidate for DSU. It has a good soundtrack and, IIRC, there are several overhead effects moments in the movie. I'm not massively into the Horror genre, but I always enjoyed that movie.


 I'm a huge horror fan, well amongst many other genres. Looking forward to trying El Orfanato (The Orphanage) produced by Guillermo Del Toro , with DSU -a great movie IMO, more of a suspense/mystery than true horror but great nonetheless. The film sounded awesome with the original DTS HD MA 7.1 track so I'm sure DSU will add another dimension, literally.


----------



## RichB

UKTexan said:


> I'm a huge horror fan, well amongst many other genres. Looking forward to trying El Orfanato (The Orphanage) produced by Guillermo Del Toro , with DSU -a great movie IMO, more of a suspense/mystery than true horror but great nonetheless. The film sounded awesome with the original DTS HD MA 7.1 track so I'm sure DSU will add another dimension, literally.


I wonder if the DSU takes the pressure off the studios to deliver native Atmos mixes.
That would be ironic.


- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

brwsaw said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't movies originally mixed for Atmos (theater mix) be damn near perfect for the up-mixer and not need to be re released? Dolby's already stated nothing is left out of the mix. The information will be in the bed channels and the up-mixer should be damn near as good as the real deal? No?
> 
> Ideally someone who seen it (pick any movie already mixed) in the theater would confirm at home.


It depends. ...Of who did the mix, and how well, and how it was transferred to the physical medium, 
and @ which facilities with which console sound mixing/recording/mastering/transferring machines.


----------



## UKTexan

RichB said:


> I wonder if the DSU takes the pressure off the studios to deliver native Atmos mixes.
> That would be ironic.
> 
> 
> - Rich


I doubt DSU will have any bearing on studios decisions to re release titles or new ones for that matter. I'm sure back catalogue titles will begin to emerge but not necessarily just for an Atmos remix. If there is a business case for a special edition, 10th anniversary, double dippers delight, whatever, then they may decide to remix in Atmos and include it as a part of the package. I just don't see studios rushing to remix for the sake of it. New releases that already have a theatrical Atmos mix is another story. I just hope titles such as Dawn of the planet of the apes are released in Atmos on Blu ray. Depending on the studio there are no guarantees at this stage of the game.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> I have monopoles on the back and dipoles on the side and you think it is worth a try changing this to monopoles @ side and dipoles @ back!


Me truly think that monopoles are best all around, and @ or near ear level; for best integration/separation/coordinated balance with the overhead Atmos speakers in a top notch performing full Dolby Atmos home theater system setup. ...Say 7.1.4 configuration (with two or more subs, depends).


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> to me Gravity was a *horrible* *Unbelievale* movie for believable content _Sandra Bullock_ should have died many times, but then makes it at the last second too many times, but i would watch it again in Atmos as i think that the sound was very good, now Pacific Rim that one just sucked.. i agree Oblivion, Elysium, and Star Trek would be great.


I hate that movie what a farce  George Clunny tried as best he could but Sandra was so pathetic and ridiculous no one could help this!


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks for posting that link. I totally agree with the review. Dolby Atmos 5.0 Stars!
> 
> Ray


♪ Audio:

♦ Dolby Atmos: *4.5* Stars.
♦ Dolby TrueHD (7.1): *5.0* Stars.

________

* Video:

♦ 3D: *4.5* Stars.
♦ 2D: *5.0* Stars.

________


----------



## NorthSky

Full Review (post link): https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> I hate that movie what a farce  George Clunny tried as best he could but Sandra was so pathetic and ridiculous no one could help this!



It's completely unrealistic, but her performance was intense, and the audio and cinematography were top notch. This is one film where I'll adopt Keith's ethic of the plot being secondary to the overall quality of the movie. OTOH, there's movies that are top notch plot-wise and make my head hurt, such as Inception.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> I am a big fan of the *LOTR* series, and I've purchased the trilogy multiple times (without regret), but the only way that I would want them to re-release those movies with an Atmos mix is if the original team got back together (the mixers, editors, and director) and decided how it should be done to best take advantage of the technology.
> 
> It's fun to consider what could be done (hearing the breath and movement of the wraith above the hobbits as they are hiding in the tree roots in Fellowship, for example), but unless it's done well, it shouldn't be done at all. The last thing I would want is for some guy to hit the "export as Atmos soundtrack" button and walk away until it was done processing. That serves no one, and it doesn't do anything that using the DSU on the receiver can't already do at the option of the viewer.
> 
> That said, I would (without hesitation) repurchase any movie in my collection that was originally done in Atmos and re-released on Blu-ray with the sound format added.


Smart Dolby Atmos audio remastering, smart 4K remastering, 60fps (@ least 48fps), 3D,
and all for the Extended Edition Trilogy.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of movies, I just got a secondhand BD copy of The Descent for a song - I bet that is a good candidate for DSU. It has a good soundtrack and, IIRC, there are several overhead effects moments in the movie. I'm not massively into the Horror genre, but I always enjoyed that movie.


 

That's a very good suggestion. I will put that on my list to check out. I enjoyed that movie.
The Orphanage is also a very good movie. I have enjoyed most of Guillermo Del Toro's movies.
His movie Pan's Labyrinth is also very good!
I watched the first 5 episodes of his TV series "The Strain" but found some of the acting to be pretty awful and had to stop watching it. I will revisit it when it is out on Netflix.


Ray


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> Originally Posted by *bargervais*
> _the only Pacino movies i liked were Godfather and Godfather II other then those most of his stuff his acting IMHO he is Too loud and Obnoxious say hello to my little friend_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get out the pitchforks....do you know the first DVD I bought was *The Devil's Advocate*? . Say what you want about the film being too long, but *an Atmos mix* of Al at his blowhardy, scenery-chewing best, complete with some of the effects during his monologue with Keanu Reeves and the demons moving on his wall (as per the original cut), would be kind of fun.
> 
> I don't think anybody's salivating for an Atmos version of Godfather III, though. Not even Sofia Coppola (whose performance falls into "if you have to ask, you don't want to know").


That flick would benefit from an Atmos mix, most definitely.


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> I love The Devil's Advocate! Great movie!


Me too!


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> I wonder if the DSU takes the pressure off the studios to deliver native Atmos mixes.
> That would be ironic.
> 
> 
> - Rich


It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the timing of the authoring tools being made available, duplication being ready and a given studios penchant for doing it. 

I know of two titles that are recent releases that will be re released on BR with Atmos. 

DSU has nothing to do with it. 

So no, Rich, it isn't ironic.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> A great post and a reminder to us all that obsessing over fine details can be counterproductive. Dolby have repeatedly said - they told it to me in person, twice, they have referred to it in various written communications and they reconfirmed in Scott W's interview - that the speaker placement has more flexibility than we might imagine. In fact, in the interview with Scott W, one of the Dolby guys said you’d have to work pretty hard to make Atmos *NOT *work well.


That's great to know! Do you think that 4 ATMOS speakers in a small room is overkill! 12 x 13 x 9?


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> I wonder if the DSU takes the pressure off the studios to deliver native Atmos mixes.
> That would be ironic.
> 
> - Rich


Very very valid point Rich; and it has been on my mind for quite a while already. 

* That would not be good, not good @ all. ...But this is life, and with a $ sign.


----------



## wse

sdrucker said:


> It's completely unrealistic, but her performance was intense, and the audio and cinematography were top notch. This is one film where I'll adopt Keith's ethic of the plot being secondary to the overall quality of the movie. OTOH, there's movies that are top notch plot-wise and make my head hurt, such as Inception.


Inception was outstanding


----------



## FilmMixer

brwsaw said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't movies originally mixed for Atmos (theater mix) be damn near perfect for the up-mixer and not need to be re released? Dolby's already stated nothing is left out of the mix. The information will be in the bed channels and the up-mixer should be damn near as good as the real deal? No?
> 
> Ideally someone who seen it (pick any movie already mixed) in the theater would confirm at home.


Films mixed in Atmos and then down mixed to 7.1 or 5.1 obviously lose the height information. 

However, those films tend to have more complex surround imagery (and overall content) and more movement... Many mixers really like the ability to mix for re cinema with full range bass managed surrounds and as such have gotten used to using tem more aggressively. 

A film like Oblivion had a really cool overhead percussion pan that made a circle eight. 

Things like that should be grabbed by the up mixer and make for a more immersive experience.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the timing of the authoring tools being made available, duplication being ready and a given studios penchant for doing it.
> 
> I know of two titles that are recent releases that will be re released on BR with Atmos.
> 
> DSU has nothing to do with it.
> 
> So no, Rich, it isn't ironic.


Excellent counterpoint, Marc.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> That's great to know! Do you think that 4 ATMOS speakers in a small room is overkill! 12 x 13 x 9?


Yes and no, it depends.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Inception was outstanding


Which one?


----------



## tbaucom

Has anybody heard an atmos demo using a 9.1.2 configuration? I realize the dolby surround upmixer doesn't support this configuration for now but it is a valid setup in the dolby atmos specs. I currently have an 11.1 setup using Neo:X. I greatly enjoy the sound stage. I feel that if I have this and have direct overhead effects it would be the best of both worlds. Every review of atmos I've seen makes no mention of how a 9.1.2 setup sounds. They all seem to concentrate on 4 overhead speakers. Have there been any demos of a 9.1.2 setup at all?


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Me truly think that monopoles are best all around, and @ or near ear level; for best integration/separation/coordinated balance with the overhead Atmos speakers in a top notch performing full Dolby Atmos home theater system setup. ...Say 7.1.4 configuration (with two or more subs, depends).


Bob - we will let you have an opinion when you finally take the plunge and get Atmos in your home. There are already a few of us proving that theory wrong, at least using bipoles. Dipoles may work, where's that open mind? You of all people, sometimes I think when reading some of your posts that I am reading what Major Tom would be posting on AVS if that spaceship ever returned


----------



## smurraybhm

wse said:


> That's great to know! Do you think that 4 ATMOS speakers in a small room is overkill! 12 x 13 x 9?


Not Mr. Barnes, but I'm just using top middles and so far am very satisfied. My room is very similar to yours regarding size. If I was to add 2 more speakers they would be front heights to give me flexibility in regards to Neo X, DSX and more importantly the hopeful coming to our AVR soon Auro. I really like DS, so the heights are most likely to come into play if/when Auro does and if/what tweaks it may require me to make. First priority will be Atmos - unless Auro catches up from behind - that's going to be tough.


----------



## smurraybhm

tbaucom said:


> Has anybody heard an atmos demo using a 9.1.2 configuration? I realize the dolby surround upmixer doesn't support this configuration for now but it is a valid setup in the dolby atmos specs. I currently have an 11.1 setup using Neo:X. I greatly enjoy the sound stage. I feel that if I have this and have direct overhead effects it would be the best of both worlds. Every review of atmos I've seen makes no mention of how a 9.1.2 setup sounds. They all seem to concentrate on 4 overhead speakers. Have there been any demos of a 9.1.2 setup at all?


There are few of us using 7.2.2; When you say DS doesn't support 9.1.2, I am assuming the extra speakers you're referencing are wides?


----------



## tbaucom

tbaucom said:


> Has anybody heard an atmos demo using a 9.1.2 configuration? I realize the dolby surround upmixer doesn't support this configuration for now but it is a valid setup in the dolby atmos specs. I currently have an 11.1 setup using Neo:X. I greatly enjoy the sound stage. I feel that if I have this and have direct overhead effects it would be the best of both worlds. Every review of atmos I've seen makes no mention of how a 9.1.2 setup sounds. They all seem to concentrate on 4 overhead speakers. Have there been any demos of a 9.1.2 setup at all?





smurraybhm said:


> There are few of us using 7.2.2; When you say DS doesn't support 9.1.2, I am assuming the extra speakers you're referencing are wides?


Yes. if you go to dolby's website and look at the dolby atmos setup guide, you will see the 9.1.2 configuration. I assume this means that atmos blurays will play information out of these speakers.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> I hate that movie what a farce  George Clunny tried as best he could but Sandra was so pathetic and ridiculous no one could help this!


I thought I was the only person in the world that thought the same but the sound track would be great for Atmos


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> I thought I was the only person in the world that thought the same but the sound track would be great for Atmos


Who cares about what others think this is just opinions and not exact science like mathematics


----------



## wse

Video
Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 2.40:1
Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1

AUDIO: English: Dolby Atmos


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Video
> Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
> Resolution: 1080p
> Aspect ratio: 2.40:1
> Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1
> 
> AUDIO: English: Dolby Atmos


I'll have to pre-order


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> I'll have to pre-order


Done!


----------



## brwsaw

FilmMixer said:


> Films mixed in Atmos and then down mixed to 7.1 or 5.1 obviously lose the height information.
> 
> However, those films tend to have more complex surround imagery (and overall content) and more movement... Many mixers really like the ability to mix for re cinema with full range bass managed surrounds and as such have gotten used to using tem more aggressively.
> 
> A film like Oblivion had a really cool overhead percussion pan that made a circle eight.
> 
> Things like that should be grabbed by the up mixer and make for a more immersive experience.


Waiting for the next year is going to be tough.
That said I'll likely have Atmos at home before any commercial theater within a 5 hours drive(...deep sign...).
I guess I could enlarge my BD collection while I wait but then the question becomes should I watch them or wait.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - we will let you have an opinion when you finally take the plunge and get Atmos in your home. There are already a few of us proving that theory wrong, at least using bipoles. Dipoles may work, where's that open mind? You of all people, sometimes I think when reading some of your posts that I am reading what Major Tom would be posting on AVS if that spaceship ever returned


Steve, I appreciate your scientific explanation, it just that I am so ecstatic about Dolby Atmos that I have to form my opinion based on my own reading evaluation.  

I am certain that bipoles might/do work, it just that IMO monopoles should work best, and timbre matched too with the the rest of the gang.  

I am not that anal; so I say to the people who already have bipole speakers to use their own common sense and best judgement according to their own particular situation. ...Put them in the rear, instead of @ the sides. 

As for dipoles; I truly think it's best to discard them. ...Now is the time to improve your lifestyle with Dolby Atmos.  ...Use them dipoles in another room, like in the secondary family room, or the den room, or the bedroom, or the bathroom ...  ...But not in the main home theater room, or living room, with Atmos.

And if you are totally broke (no money @ all), and that's all what you have (dipoles); then you don't even have money for a new Dolby Atmos receiver either.


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> Argh....just for that I'm going to have to watch *Underworld: Evolution* again. Maybe it's just how she stands up when she falls on her face LOL.


Stuart, don't watch that; it's pure crap man.


----------



## krozman

So at what point can we ask the AVS forum gods to create a sticky "Blu Ray's mixed in Dolby Atmos" thread, so I can refer to all future new releases in a main post without having to check 5 pages of this thread every day. I have to devote an hour to catch up at the end of my day~!


----------



## Roger Dressler

smurraybhm said:


> There are already a few of us proving that theory wrong, at least using bipoles.


Could you point me to the proof that bipoles don't work for Atmos systems? Thanks!


----------



## sdrucker

krozman said:


> So at what point can we ask the AVS forum gods to create a sticky "Blu Ray's mixed in Dolby Atmos" thread, so I can refer to all future new releases in a main post without having to check 5 pages of this thread every day. I have to devote an hour to catch up at the end of my day~!


How about a companion "Content that could benefit from an Atmos remix" thread?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tbaucom said:


> Has anybody heard an atmos demo using a 9.1.2 configuration? I realize the dolby surround upmixer doesn't support this configuration for now but it is a valid setup in the dolby atmos specs. I currently have an 11.1 setup using Neo:X. I greatly enjoy the sound stage. I feel that if I have this and have direct overhead effects it would be the best of both worlds. Every review of atmos I've seen makes no mention of how a 9.1.2 setup sounds. They all seem to concentrate on 4 overhead speakers. Have there been any demos of a 9.1.2 setup at all?


I heard two 9.1.*4* configurations at CEDIA. I would say that's what the minimum Atmos setup should be (the Dolby engineers seem to agree that either a 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 layout is the best compromise, at least that's what they said at one of the demos), especially hearing it with the Steinway processor and speakers! I don't think the two overhead approach is really recommended if you can help it because you don't get the proper overhead panning. You really need at least four. I would wire for four overheads in the proper positions (and more if you have a larger room) because the Dolby guys did say at CEDIA that mainstream products should be getting a 9.1.4 rendering block soon. Maybe for the next generation of gear.

The 9.1.2 and 9.1.4 layouts used two side surrounds for a pan-through array... one pair could not IMHO really be considered a front wide speaker configuration. They're not in the same spot as DTS Neo:X or any other previous upmixer.

And yes, just like at the theater, there were specific sounds coming out of each pair of side speakers.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Homebrew101 said:


> little known factoid: that's Robert Cray on bass guitar in Otis Day's band


I didn't know that! Big Cray fan here....call that a fun fact!


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of movies, I just got a secondhand BD copy of The Descent for a song - I bet that is a good candidate for DSU. It has a good soundtrack and, IIRC, there are several overhead effects moments in the movie. I'm not massively into the Horror genre, but I always enjoyed that movie.


A favorite of mine!


----------



## doublewing11

wse said:


> Who cares about what others think this is just opinions and not exact science like mathematics


John von Neumann would tend to disagree with the notion pure, unadulterated mathematics being exact!


----------



## sdurani

Scott Wilkinson interviews HT designer (and AVS member) Dennis Erskine: 





 
Worth watching for some of Dennis' comments on how he would implement consumer Atmos.


----------



## wse

LG answers to ATMOS

http://www.lg.com/us/home-audio-video/lg-BH9431PW-home-theater-system


----------



## Craig Mecak

Regarding DSU, which apparently will _replace_ all existing PL/PLII/PLIIx/Movie/Music/Game etc modes on compatible receivers.....a question...

What if currently _you really LIKE_ Dolby PLIIx Music for listening to music, with its wraparound/dimension effect?

Then suddely DSU comes along, and you no longer have access to a music mode you really liked the sound of? Not saying that DSU will be bad, but what if you prefer PLIIx Music for music listening? Why won't they allow for regular old ProLogic I/II/IIx to remain in receivers as an option?

Craig.


----------



## sdurani

Craig Mecak said:


> Not saying that DSU will be bad, but what if you prefer PLIIx Music for music listening?


As and when you get an Atmos receiver or pre-pro, make sure it has 7.1 analogue inputs on the back. Plug a pre-pro with PLIIx into those 7.1 analogue inputs. Use the Atmos receiver or pre-pro as normal, but switch to the 7.1 passthrough when you want to listen to music. I'm considering doing something similar down the road, in order to continue using the proprietary music processing on my old Lex processor.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Who cares about what others think this is just opinions and not exact science like mathematics


Me I think that Dolby Atmos is the best thing to have happened recently since french toast with maple syrup.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I heard two 9.1.*4* configurations at CEDIA. I would say that's what the minimum Atmos setup should be (the Dolby engineers seem to agree that either a 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 layout is the best compromise, at least that's what they said at one of the demos), especially hearing it with the Steinway processor and speakers! I don't think the two overhead approach is really recommended if you can help it because you don't get the proper overhead panning. You really need at least four. I would wire for four overheads in the proper positions (and more if you have a larger room) because the Dolby guys did say at CEDIA that mainstream products should be getting a 9.1.4 rendering block soon. Maybe for the next generation of gear.
> 
> The 9.1.2 and 9.1.4 layouts used two side surrounds for a pan-through array... one pair could not IMHO really be considered a front wide speaker configuration. They're not in the same spot as DTS Neo:X or any other previous upmixer.
> 
> And yes, just like at the theater, there were specific sounds coming out of each pair of side speakers.


That sounds perfectly right to me; I'd go with a 9.1.6 setup if my room was larger.
But my room is smaller so I'll contend with a 7.1.4 setup. 

* 9.1.4 --- in next gen Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D mass produced products; I'm perfectly fine with that too.
And I would certainly experiment with it. ...Two pair of side surrounds and one pair of rears, @ ear level (or near - no more than a foot above). ...Three for the front soundstage (regular trio), and four in the sky (lateral and front/back axis image panning). ...Two subs, no less. ...And three are better than only two.


----------



## NorthSky

> As and when you get an Atmos receiver or pre-pro, make sure it has 7.1 analogue inputs on the back. Plug a pre-pro with PLIIx into those 7.1 analogue inputs. Use the Atmos receiver or pre-pro as normal, but switch to the 7.1 passthrough when you want to listen to music. I'm considering doing something similar down the road, in order to continue using the proprietary music processing on my old Lex processor.


Too much. ...For the average people, but yes a possibility for few, like you. 

* Multichannel analog input; yes, that I want, but for a universal HD/HR player (7.1).
...With a Dolby Pro Logic IIx decoder inside, for both flicks and zizic (Movie/Music/Game modes).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

The next "wonderful" Blu-ray to get Atmos seems to be LionsGate's _Step Up: All In_.

And the hits just keep coming. 

At least the supporting studio tally now stands at three.


----------



## truwarrior22

I have a NAD M25 amp so I'll likely try a 5.1.2 configuration first to ensure everything is seamlessly amplified.

I think just having the front ceiling speakers should make a noticeable difference. Also my rear surrounds are bipolar and are up high on the side walls. If I don't have rear ceiling speakers, will it just pan from the front ceiling to the rear surround, etc? I'm not really a fan of speakers in the rear sence I never really notice them much.


----------



## NorthSky

It'll work; that is the minimum Atmos configuration. 
It's just that 5.1.4 would give you front/back image 'up' panning. ...In addition of/instead of only sideways.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> While I and I'm sure many others in an enthusiast forum like this appreciate your obsessive pursuit of perfection, I'm afraid you are falling into the trap / fallacy of false precision.


While I fully agree with the point you are trying to make on false precision, I do not recognize a whole lot in the views or statements you are trying to put on my account. It may be that you are confusing my quest for perfection with a quest for precision. These are different things though.



> You are attempting to draw precise conclusions based on differences of, literally, inches, ...


Where did I ever mention inches? For me speakers are equidistant if the difference is not more that half a foot. I use a rope with two nots when I experiment with different lay-outs, no laser.



> ... however the input variables in your model are rules of thumb and/or estimates that themselves lack the precision needed to make such specific determinations. For example, you assume a 4 foot distance for the overhead speakers above the listener plane. Is this precise to the inch? Perhaps it's actually more like 56 inches in the y-axis once your ass sinks into the couch? And does this account for any shifting in seating position while viewing, maybe you can gain another four inches by slouching? I am thinking to account for the differential geometry of the lateral seating positions, you could build a three-tier variable height couch much like an Olympic medal winner pedestal, with the inner seat cushion several inches higher than the outer such that the hypotenuse distance to the overhead speaker is equalized for each listener?


Yes, these kind of question sound like coming from an inch guy. Not me.



> [ And is the 5ft minimum distance recommendation a deep chasm, across which sound suddenly changes from awful to blissful? Is that figure going to be precise for all speaker types and/or models, all directivities, all room acoustics?


Dolby says to "make sure" that the speakers are at least at 3 feet away from listening positions, ideally 5 feet or more. Doesn't sound like a deep chasm to me. You can use this advice coming from sound experts, or not. People striving for optimal results will probably do.



> This is a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It is natural human tendency for an obsessive type to seek this sort of precision in order to quell their inner second guessing, but any inner peace gained from these exact calculations is a delusion.


The case you are making up, yes. Not my case.



> The reality is that you are ignoring many variables, and estimating many others, so the precision of your conclusions is illusory. You can't reach exact conclusions if the inputs of the model are inexact, and other variables are omitted.


I am surprised that in applying a normal scientific practice in presenting calculation results, that is adding one decimal more than is significantly relevant (like 5.8 instead of 6 feet), is causing so much confusion in a forum that has Science in its name.



> Now, obviously, you should aim for the ideal if at all possible. But just realize that pretty much EVERY room is compromised in some way, so you do the best you can, and I bet it will still sound awesome. If you are so deeply concerned, you would be better served to engage in empirical testing in your own room, with your own ears and speakers, to determine if the theoretical differences you are fretting about are actually meaningful within the context of your actual, real world listening environment.


Again, hard time to recognize to the person you are addressing to be me. Agreeing though with the general message you are trying to bring across.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> The next "wonderful" Blu-ray to get Atmos seems to be LionsGate's _Step Up: All In_.
> 
> And the hits just keep coming.
> 
> At least the supporting studio tally now stands at three.


I think that two new title announcements this week should be encouraging for many... it shows that Paramount has gotten on board, and we know LFG has other titles that were mixed in the format... I can tell you that I hear of a bunch of catalog titles are coming down the pike, with many remixes happening...

It's obvious to see what new releases are coming down the pike that might include an Atmos track... for example, Paramount has done three titles theatrically this year in Atmos... 2 of which has been announced as having an Atmos track for the home... and the third title hasn't yet been announced.

I anticipate 15 titles by years end... which I think is a rather encouraging number..

That you seem to be the arbiter of taste on what constitutes an acceptable title seems odd, and quite snarky, if I do say so myself..

_*TF4 just passed $1B... *_

_*Hercules*_ has grossed almost _*$220 million *_WW... 

*SUAI* is over _*$82 million*_..

Profitable films? Absolutely... both Herc and SUAI might actually be considered "hits...." Not to mention TF4... 

Critical darlings? Maybe not...

But all you seem to have been doing the last couple of days is passing judgement on the film announced so far, knowing full well there are many more coming down the pike.. 

So many around here seem so entitled...

I'm thrilled there will be content in the stores for the launch of the decoders... even if it's one title.

And with two titles announced this week, I think the train is leaving the station... 

Don't know what else you expected...

Dolby isn't in control of the content.

I can tell you, however, that they are working tirelessly to help the studios prepare product...

It's up to the content providers, however, to announced their plans and intentions..

I spoke to another studios "in charge" person about their plans... they are most definitely going to release their theatrical titles again with Atmos..

Maybe I'm tired, Dan... but I expect more from some around here, and don't understand what you expectations are.

Just my .02


----------



## NorthSky

You can be a bit tough @ times Marc.  Dan is not in love with them movie titles; nothin's wrong with that.


----------



## Waboman

I'm behind on my movie acronyms. What's SUAI?


----------



## NorthSky

Step Up All In


----------



## maikeldepotter

wse said:


> That's great to know! Do you think that 4 ATMOS speakers in a small room is overkill! 12 x 13 x 9?


Don't think so. If your MLP is close to the back wall, you can put a pair of overheads at 30-45 degrees ('front heights'), and a pair of overheads at 100 degrees elevation ('top middle').


----------



## kokishin

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - we will let you have an opinion when you finally take the plunge and get Atmos in your home. There are already a few of us proving that theory wrong, at least using bipoles. Dipoles may work, where's that open mind? You of all people, sometimes I think when reading some of your posts that I am reading what Major Tom would be posting on AVS if that spaceship ever returned


More like Tiny Tim (_Tiptoe Through the Tulips_) on crack.


----------



## Kain

In one of the HTG episodes (where Scott had the Dolby crew for the show), they stated that Dolby Atmos movies are not defined as 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 (etc.) but instead there is just one Atmos track that scales to the number of speakers you have. My question is what about the bed channels? Won't some movies have a 7.1 bed and others a 5.1 bed? Wouldn't this mean there actually is pre-defined speaker requirement for the best experience?


----------



## pasender91

In Atmos HT specs, the beds are up to 7.1.2.

For the 2 released disks up to now, the info displayed and reported here is 7.1 so that's an indication.
As the display software is not yet updated for Atmos, it may be the case that the .2 is there too but not reported .

Only someone in the know like FilmMixer could shed some light regarding the actual presence or not in HT mixes of the .2 height beds


----------



## Selden Ball

BDs support only one LFE soundtrack, which is what the .1. signifies. You can send that to as many subwoofers as you want. Dolby's mixing of source soundtracks with speaker channels in their numbering scheme is, well, unfortunate and confusing.


----------



## pasender91

We're not speaking about LFE here, but height channels, so it is really 7.1*.2*


----------



## wse

Waboman said:


> I'm behind on my movie acronyms. What's SUAI?


----------



## wse

maikeldepotter said:


> Don't think so. If your MLP is close to the back wall, you can put a pair of overheads at 30-45 degrees ('front heights'), and a pair of overheads at 100 degrees elevation ('top middle').


MLP? Main Listening Position yes?

I only have two seats in this room about atwo feet from the back wall


----------



## maikeldepotter

wse said:


> MLP? Main Listening Position yes?
> 
> I only have two seats in this room about atwo feet from the back wall


Yes.

Sitting 2 feet from the back-wall, you can with a ceiling of 9 feet indeed put one pair overheads at 100 degrees elevation. If the distance between (the middle of) the seats does not exceed 3 feet, both listeners will still be more than 5 feet away from both speakers, which Dolby considers to be ideal.


----------



## wse

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes.
> 
> Sitting 2 feet from the back-wall, you can with a ceiling of 9 feet indeed put one pair overheads at 100 degrees elevation. If the distance between (the middle of) the seats does not exceed 3 feet, both listeners will still be more than 5 feet away from both speakers, which Dolby considers to be ideal.


So front 45 degree elevation and back 100 degree


----------



## RichB

sdurani said:


> Scott Wilkinson interviews HT designer (and AVS member) Dennis Erskine:
> 
> http://youtu.be/j23aG6pSYok
> 
> Worth watching for some of Dennis' comments on how he would implement consumer Atmos.


At 47:43:



> What Dolby will tell you and Auro as well is that all the speakers need to be timbre matched.


He also mentions the importance of wide dispersion in ceiling speakers.

- Rich


----------



## tbaucom

Dan Hitchman said:


> I heard two 9.1.*4* configurations at CEDIA. I would say that's what the minimum Atmos setup should be (the Dolby engineers seem to agree that either a 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 layout is the best compromise, at least that's what they said at one of the demos), especially hearing it with the Steinway processor and speakers! I don't think the two overhead approach is really recommended if you can help it because you don't get the proper overhead panning. You really need at least four. I would wire for four overheads in the proper positions (and more if you have a larger room) because the Dolby guys did say at CEDIA that mainstream products should be getting a 9.1.4 rendering block soon. Maybe for the next generation of gear.
> 
> The 9.1.2 and 9.1.4 layouts used two side surrounds for a pan-through array... one pair could not IMHO really be considered a front wide speaker configuration. They're not in the same spot as DTS Neo:X or any other previous upmixer.
> 
> And yes, just like at the theater, there were specific sounds coming out of each pair of side speakers.



According to the dolby atmos setup guide, the extra pair of side surrounds or wide speakers go at a 60 degree angle to the seated position. That is basically the exact same angle as both Neo:x and DSX wide speakers. I realize the atmos wide speakers are not meant to widen the soundstage but make front to rear tracking more seemless. Though Neo:x very much does this also. 


I don't see why the same speakers could not used for either DSX and NEO:X wide configuration and dolby atmos 9.1.2 setup. In my room, the wide speakers are not on the front wall but between the fronts and surrounds in order to achieve a 60 degree angle from the seated position. Both Audyssey and DTS have said that is fine as long as the speakers are at the proper angle.


In my room, 4 ceiling speakers are not possible. It is a bonus room over a garage with angle ceiling on either side. The only flat area is in the middle of the room where I could install atmos top middle speakers. Maybe I should rethink this as you seem to believe it may not be worthwhile without 4 overhead speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

wse said:


> So front 45 degree elevation and back 100 degree


Yes.


----------



## bkeeler10

tbaucom said:


> In my room, 4 ceiling speakers are not possible. It is a bonus room over a garage with angle ceiling on either side. The only flat area is in the middle of the room where I could install atmos top middle speakers. Maybe I should rethink this as you seem to believe it may not be worthwhile without 4 overhead speakers.


So do the slopes run front to back, or side to side (as viewed when seated at the listening position)? If front to back, that seems to be an ideal way to place in-ceiling speakers in front of and behind you that will automatically be aimed more or less at you.


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> I don't see why the same speakers could not used for either DSX and NEO:X wide configuration and dolby atmos 9.1.2 setup.


No reason why they can't. Audio objects will pan through the wides as they move from front to back. 

A 9.1.2 layout favours tightening the circle around you at the expense of the bubble above you. 7 speakers can create a fairly seamless soundfield around you. Adding another pair of speakers to that ring won't make as much difference as doubling the number of speakers above you. With the current 11-speaker limit, I think 7.1.4 is a better distribution of speakers than 9.1.2.


----------



## tbaucom

bkeeler10 said:


> So do the slopes run front to back, or side to side (as viewed when seated at the listening position)? If front to back, that seems to be an ideal way to place in-ceiling speakers in front of and behind you that will automatically be aimed more or less at you.



The slopes run front to back. The problem is my seating is only 3 feet from the back wall. There is not enough room behind to install top rear speakers at the proper angle without them only being a foot above the listeners head. I could do top front and top middle but I understand that is not an acceptable configuration. My current height speakers are located about where top front speakers would go.


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes.
> 
> Sitting 2 feet from the back-wall, you can with a ceiling of 9 feet indeed put one pair overheads at 100 degrees elevation. If the distance between (the middle of) the seats does not exceed 3 feet, both listeners will still be more than 5 feet away from both speakers, which Dolby considers to be ideal.


You are being way to literal with the specs and what is optimal. Time to put away the rope and move the speakers to different spots to see what works best for you.

Whether it's post like this making it seem that distance and angles are written in stone, saying that 9.x.4 is the best and implying anything else is inferior or stating you can't use bipoles/dipoles, etc. - this is all just making someone think we are dealing with the literal when we are not. Most posting this information are not trying things out in their own rooms or with different kinds of speakers. It's been said a lot already - Atmos is flexible and I suspect Auro will be as well (see Bland's comments regarding not needing VOG).

For someone thinking about Atmos, rest assured that to enjoy it you have a lot of config/placement options. The only limitation is one's willingness to test/experiment to figure out what config and speaker placements work best in their room. I have no doubt someone using a 5.x.2 setup will enjoy Atmos and DS and get some great sound as well.

P.S. I have my doubts on dipoles, but until it's tried I'm willing to keep an open mind.


----------



## Selden Ball

tbaucom said:


> The slopes run front to back. The problem is my seating is only 3 feet from the back wall. There is not enough room behind to install top rear speakers at the proper angle without them only being a foot above the listeners head. I could do top front and top middle but I understand that is not an acceptable configuration. My current height speakers are located about where top front speakers would go.


Front Height with Top Middle is an acceptable Dolby Atmos overhead speaker configuration. I've attached the tables of overhead speaker pairs supported by Denon/Marantz receivers. While they might be a bit close together in your room, you should give them a try.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I think that two new title announcements this week should be encouraging for many... it shows that Paramount has gotten on board, and we know LFG has other titles that were mixed in the format... I can tell you that I hear of a bunch of catalog titles are coming down the pike, with many remixes happening...
> 
> It's obvious to see what new releases are coming down the pike that might include an Atmos track... for example, Paramount has done three titles theatrically this year in Atmos... 2 of which has been announced as having an Atmos track for the home... and the third title hasn't yet been announced.
> 
> I anticipate 15 titles by years end... which I think is a rather encouraging number..
> 
> That you seem to be the arbiter of taste on what constitutes an acceptable title seems odd, and quite snarky, if I do say so myself..
> 
> _*TF4 just passed $1B... *_
> 
> _*Hercules*_ has grossed almost _*$220 million *_WW...
> 
> *SUAI* is over _*$82 million*_..
> 
> Profitable films? Absolutely... both Herc and SUAI might actually be considered "hits...." Not to mention TF4...
> 
> Critical darlings? Maybe not...
> 
> But all you seem to have been doing the last couple of days is passing judgement on the film announced so far, knowing full well there are many more coming down the pike..
> 
> So many around here seem so entitled...
> 
> I'm thrilled there will be content in the stores for the launch of the decoders... even if it's one title.
> 
> And with two titles announced this week, I think the train is leaving the station...
> 
> Don't know what else you expected...
> 
> Dolby isn't in control of the content.
> 
> I can tell you, however, that they are working tirelessly to help the studios prepare product...
> 
> It's up to the content providers, however, to announced their plans and intentions..
> 
> I spoke to another studios "in charge" person about their plans... they are most definitely going to release their theatrical titles again with Atmos..
> 
> Maybe I'm tired, Dan... but I expect more from some around here, and don't understand what you expectations are.
> 
> Just my .02


Maybe it's my age showing, but I'm tired too Marc, I'm tired of the kind of "foreign market safe" commercial stuff Hollywood keeps pumping out these days with only a few that rise above the fray that dare to add a little substance along the way. A few of my classes I'm taking in A/V production and film analysis have some younger students in them and surprisingly even many of them are fed up with the same ol' same ol' Marvel this, Marvel that, sequel this, sequel that. Quite a few discussions have centered around the lack of quality and somewhat original material. McDonald's makes billions too, but that doesn't make it great food. All I can hope for is that this trend starts dying and dying soon or ticket sales will continue trending downwards.

I love superb sound mixes (not just noisy and bombastic) too, but there needs to be more story and acting "meat" to go along with the audio and special effects orgies. You hearten me when you say catalog titles are starting to get prepped and even remixed in Atmos. It would be great to know what they were, so I (and others) had something to look forward to. 

Sorry you think I'm being snarky, but this is how I feel.


----------



## tbaucom

Selden Ball said:


> Front Height with Top Middle is an acceptable Dolby Atmos overhead speaker configuration. I've attached the tables of overhead speaker pairs supported by Denon/Marantz receivers. While they might be a bit close together in your room, you should give them a try.



I know I could use front height but I'm not sure that is an official atmos speaker. It is not listed on the dolby website setup guide. I think this may just be a matrixed speaker from the dolby surround upmixer. I also don't think front height would do anything for front to rear overhead panning. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Selden Ball

tbaucom said:


> I know I could use front height but I'm not sure that is an official atmos speaker. It is not listed on the dolby website setup guide. I think this may just be a matrixed speaker from the dolby surround upmixer. I also don't think front height would do anything for front to rear overhead panning. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


 Please look at the tables I posted. Top Front works fine. Dolby does discourage the use of Top Front and Top Rear if you have Top Middle because they'd normally be too close together. That's also their excuse for not supporting Front Wide in Dolby Surround, although that pair is used by Atmos.

Edited to add: In a post to the Dolby Atmos FAQ page, Dolby Lab's Managing Editor Edward Albro explicitly mentions that Front Height speakers are supported by Atmos, although they'd rather you use Top speaker channels. See http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


----------



## tbaucom

Selden Ball said:


> Please look at the tables I posted. Top Front works fine. Dolby does discourage the use of Top Front and Top Rear if you have Top Middle because they'd normally be too close together. That's also their excuse for not supporting Front Wide in Dolby Surround, although that pair is used by Atmos.



Thanks. I see the tables in the AVR manual. I was going by the setup guide on the dolby website. If you read the installation guide, it says that most AVR will allow front height or prologic IIz speakers during atmos playback but they don't recommend it. I guess I interpreted this wrong. I took it as you could use these legacy speakers but they are not part of an official atmos setup.


----------



## maikeldepotter

smurraybhm said:


> You are being way to literal with the specs and what is optimal. Time to put away the rope and move the speakers to different spots to see what works best for you.
> 
> Whether it's post like this making it seem that distance and angles are written in stone, saying that 9.x.4 is the best and implying anything else is inferior or stating you can't use bipoles/dipoles, etc. - this is all just making someone think we are dealing with the literal when we are not. Most posting this information are not trying things out in their own rooms or with different kinds of speakers. It's been said a lot already - Atmos is flexible and I suspect Auro will be as well (see Bland's comments regarding not needing VOG).
> 
> For someone thinking about Atmos, rest assured that to enjoy it you have a lot of config/placement options. The only limitation is one's willingness to test/experiment to figure out what config and speaker placements work best in their room. I have no doubt someone using a 5.x.2 setup will enjoy Atmos and DS and get some great sound as well.
> 
> P.S. I have my doubts on dipoles, but until it's tried I'm willing to keep an open mind.


Are you really implying that it is NOT a good idea to start with speaker positions that Dolby denotes as being optimal when experimenting to find out what works best for you?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Maybe it's my age showing, but I'm tired too Marc, I'm tired of the kind of "foreign market safe" commercial stuff Hollywood keeps pumping out these days with only a few that rise above the fray that dare to add a little substance along the way. A few of my classes I'm taking in A/V production and film analysis have some younger students in them and surprisingly even many of them are fed up with the same ol' same ol' Marvel this, Marvel that, sequel this, sequel that. Quite a few discussions have centered around the lack of quality and somewhat original material. McDonald's makes billions too, but that doesn't make it great food. All I can hope for is that this trend starts dying and dying soon or ticket sales will continue trending downwards.
> 
> I love superb sound mixes (not just noisy and bombastic) too, but there needs to be more story and acting "meat" to go along with the audio and special effects orgies. You hearten me when you say catalog titles are starting to get prepped and even remixed in Atmos. It would be great to know what they were, so I (and others) had something to look forward to.
> 
> Sorry you think I'm being snarky, but this is how I feel.


I don't diagree with you about the state of the business. 

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.

Just pointing out that three fairly successful films have been announced, and that's been within the span of 3 weeks since CEDIA. 

At this pace I know there will be something for everyone.


----------



## GalvatronType_R

Noob question here.

I have an Onkyo 3008 with 2 fronts, 1 center, 2 heights, 2 surrounds, and 1 sub.

So if I get Atmos, that means that I have to get front wides, keep the heights for the Atmos channels, and gain 2 back height channels?

Also, I'm inclined to wait for the dts version of MDA before I jump on the upgrade bandwagon.


----------



## Selden Ball

GalvatronType_R said:


> Noob question here.
> 
> I have an Onkyo 3008 with 2 fronts, 1 center, 2 heights, 2 surrounds, and 1 sub.
> 
> So if I get Atmos, that means that I have to get front wides, keep the heights for the Atmos channels, and gain 2 back height channels?


No, you don't *have* to get them, but you can. Atmos will work with your current speaker configuration. Adding a pair of overhead speakers toward the rear of your room will add support for front-to-back overhead pans.


> Also, I'm inclined to wait for the dts version of MDA before I jump on the upgrade bandwagon.


 Lots of people have decided to wait for the second generation of Atmos/Auro/UHD-enabled equipment. Others have decided they'd rather experience Atmos ASAP, while still others don't think it's worth getting excited over. It's entirely up to you.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I don't diagree with you about the state of the business.
> 
> Of course you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Just pointing out that three fairly successful films have been announced, and that's been within the span of 3 weeks since CEDIA.
> 
> At this pace I know there will be something for everyone.


And, for my part, I will try harder to bite my tongue when a particular title gets announced.  

I just recently got yo-yo'd with (of all things) Marvel's_ Captain America: The Winter Soldier. _It actually started strong with a small opening homage to _Marathon Man _(a brilliant classic!) and even tied a few issues that real veterans go through after coming home from war with these comic book characters, very briefly (almost too briefly) touched upon military might vs. freedom, and even sort-of tied up the very loose strings from the first film with Cap and "his girl" (though, that scene was abruptly cut off as if footage had been savagely trimmed out - don't want too much sentimentality or heart or even character development in an action movie!), but then it quickly de-evolved into a cookie cutter, by the books Marvel or [insert your standard action film here] feel with stock bad guys, a gunship battle conclusion more than a little reminiscent of _The Avengers_... etc. etc. 

Argh!!! So close, and yet so far!


----------



## SubSolar

Anyone else notice Dolby Surround seems hit or miss? For instance in Master and Commander there's a scene where the camera is below deck and it correct placed the sounds of people running above deck on the top speakers. However other movies even rain isn't coming the tops. Also disappointed that tops aren't used when I play Battlefield 4 and a heli or plane is above me.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> Lots of people have decided to wait for the second generation of Atmos/Auro/UHD-enabled equipment. Others have decided they'd rather experience Atmos ASAP, while still *others don't think it's worth getting excited over*. It's entirely up to you.


I don't blame them; "others". ...Without Dolby Atmos material. And just forget it about TF4AOI, H, and SUAI.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SubSolar said:


> Anyone else notice Dolby Surround seems hit or miss? For instance in Master and Commander there's a scene where the camera is below deck and it correct placed the sounds of people running above deck on the top speakers. However other movies even rain isn't coming the tops. Also disappointed that tops aren't used when I play Battlefield 4 and a heli or plane is above me.


It's not a smart format, no matrixed upmixer is. What is steered to which speakers depends on how much sound manipulation was done to create the illusion of height on the original mix that the upmixer picks up on. If an effect doesn't have a strong Doppler effect or height transfer function type EQ applied, then Dolby Surround doesn't know where it's supposed to go.


----------



## NorthSky

SubSolar said:


> Anyone else notice Dolby Surround seems hit or miss? For instance in Master and Commander there's a scene where the camera is below deck and it correct placed the sounds of people running above deck on the top speakers. *However other movies even rain isn't coming the tops*. Also disappointed that tops aren't used when I play Battlefield 4 and a heli or plane is above me.


In real life we don't hear rain from above, but hitting surfaces around us; the ground, the rooftops, ...
car's roofs, buildings, streets (pavement), ,,, ...

Go in the middle of an empty field, and listen to the rain falling down; where are the sounds coming from?

But! If a chopper (helicopter) is flying above our head, ...

Nothin's perfect; some stuff we're happy with, no matter what. Other stuff don't ring right to us; we're free.



P.S. Dan just above is abso!utely right.


----------



## NorthSky

Just a thought: A new Dolby Atmos digital DSP soundmix console recording/mixing machine with object rendition in a 3D space; good enough?

Or! 
Positioning microphones, in real life, all around, and above; so that we can discretely record and reproduce them real life recorded sounds in our real life 3D space inside our home theater and living rooms? 

Like I said, just a thought, a smart thought. ...Just like we try to reproduce music as the most accurately possible to the real life event. 

After all; isn't it what sound reproduction is all about; to duplicate/replicate the emotional impact of a real live music concert, or moving experience? ...In the most realistic way.

...If we are truly aiming for accuracy, precision, small minute details, realism, naturalness, ... and all that jazz.


----------



## tractng

Contemplating if I should place 4 ceiling speakers for Atmos. I just cut two 3" holes on the ceiling today (for Minx CL46 speakers). My living room measures 14x20 with 8 ft ceiling.

Current setup is 5.1. Anybody with a 5.1.2 setup can give some feedback.

Thanks,
TT


----------



## Glenn Baumann

I am unclear as to the various configurations of the Top Height Speakers and how to utilize them. The current generation of Atmos receivers can only do a total of (4) Top Height speakers, although for consideration are Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear Heights. Why are there three pairs of Top Height Speakers when only (4) can be used at any one time , is it that they will be used for future processors to help improve overhead panning transitions?

Are the three types of available Top Height speakers a function of where in the room the MLP is placed? For example, if your seating position is in the middle of the room you would utilize Top Fronts and Top Rears and if your seating was in the back third of the room you would then utilze the Top Middle and Top Rear Heights and if your seating was in the front third of the room you would utilize the Top Front and Top Middle Heights?

Is the Top Height speaker choice convention tied to the logistics of the seating in regards to where in the actual room your seating is placed?

I am obviously confused! 


...Glenn


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Scott Wilkinson interviews HT designer (and AVS member) Dennis Erskine:
> 
> http://youtu.be/j23aG6pSYok
> 
> Worth watching for some of Dennis' comments on how he would implement consumer Atmos.


Thanks for the link.

At 45:25 Dennis says something very interesting- that having two subs at different locations is the same modes-wise as having one sub at the point midway between them, and that that point can be moved by varying their relative levels.

This may be the case, as a sub out in the room will excite less modes than when near the walls, but I'm surprised that I've never heard it stated this way before. 



SubSolar said:


> Anyone else notice Dolby Surround seems hit or miss? For instance in Master and Commander there's a scene where the camera is below deck and it correct placed the sounds of people running above deck on the top speakers. However other movies even rain isn't coming the tops.


Perhaps there wasn't anything high for the raindrops to hit before the ground.


----------



## jamin

noah katz said:


> At 45:25 Dennis says something very interesting- that having two subs at different locations is the same modes-wise as having one sub at the point midway between them, and that that point can be moved by varying their relative levels.
> 
> This may be the case, as a sub out in the room will excite less modes than when near the walls, but I'm surprised that I've never heard it stated this way before.


It is a cool trick and has been taught in HAA classes for years. Known colloquially as virtual sub.


----------



## sdurani

Glenn Baumann said:


> Are the three types of Top Height speakers a function of where in the room the MLP is placed?


Everything is based on the MLP. Once you decide where to place the MLP, then figure out number and location of height speakers, and look to see which range they fall into (or closest to).


----------



## kbarnes701

Just very quickly...

Set up the Denon ... A.W.E.S.O.M.E.

Full report later - but initial observations:

DSU - very, very good. Better on movies mixed originally in Atmos, but great on legacy content so far tested.

No - as in none - localisation of the overhead speakers. No distraction. Just sound from above like it was at Dolby in London.

Timbre match - in the Transformers movie there is a scene where Mark Walhberg and his character's daughter is talking to Optimus Prime, and he stands up and you see them looking up to him. She asks him why humans were hunting him down and he replies with his character off-screen and above. All of his voice comes from the overheads - and then, in mid-sentence, the angle of the shot changes and he is back on the screen, slightly to left of centre. The voice follows the on-screen action and his voice is now coming from where we can see him on the screen. Whether his voice is up in the overheads, or down in the mains, I could detect no timbral change in it.

Denon - fabulous. Amazingly easy setup with the new Setup Assistant. You could pull someone off the street and they could set it up! Literally.

Anyone who has the Transformers 4 disc - don't mess about - go directly to Chapter 20, wind the MV up and prepare to be AMAZED.

Finally for now - I want to get back to the HT - XT32. IDK if Audyssey have changed anything other than the obvious Atmos stuff - but my Pro Kit is going up for sale next week. I did the 8 position calibration real fast, just to get started. No obsessing where the mic was after position No 1.

To see my bass response, from *7Hz* up, click the spoiler... this is an unsmoothed graph, with DEQ off, the Submersives in Pgm2, and crossovers set at 90Hz.



Spoiler















I'll write a proper report in the next 48 hours. For now, consider me 100% satisfied.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> At 45:25 Dennis says something very interesting- that having two subs at different locations is the same modes-wise as having one sub at the point midway between them, and that that point can be moved by varying their relative levels. This may be the case, as a sub out in the room will excite less modes than when near the walls, but I'm surprised that I've never heard it stated this way before.


It is a particular use case for two subs with a particular goal: replace a single sub somewhere in the room with two subs placed elsewhere. Alternatively, we may prefer to use two subs for a different goal: improve response uniformity over a larger seating area. Different goals with different solutions.

Also note that the substitution result is not universally achievable, there are dependencies. A draft paper from Gerald Lemay of Quest Acoustical Interiors, states: 


> The process is not fool-proof and becomes less useful in non-symmetrical rooms. The best case for use of the principal is when the two sub-woofers are placed on adjacent walls.
> 
> This discussion is not complete. The experimental data taken to date has not been compiled and is a necessary part of the discussion. Experimental data using a variety of rooms would add credibility to the suitability of this procedure for sub-woofer mechanical equalization. If anecdotal data is acceptable, the procedure has met with mostly good results under the caveat that is a starting point for calibration of two subwoofers. The process has analogies using more than two speakers, again based upon the vector summing of positions between all the sources. In an industry filled with rules of thumb, this rule of thumb while not infallible appears to be have its place.


 I do not have permission to post this paper, and cannot find it on the net, so if anyone wants to see it, probably best to contact Mr. Lemay at QuestAI or via Linkedin.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Just very quickly...
> 
> Set up the Denon ... A.W.E.S.O.M.E.
> 
> Full report later - but initial observations:
> 
> DSU - very, very good. Better on movies mixed originally in Atmos, but great on legacy content so far tested.
> 
> No - as in none - localisation of the overhead speakers. No distraction. Just sound from above like it was at Dolby in London.
> 
> Timbre match - in the Transformers movie there is a scene where Mark Walhberg and his character's daughter is talking to Optimus Prime, and he stands up and you see them looking up to him. She asks him why humans were hunting him down and he replies with his character off-screen and above. All of his voice comes from the overheads - and then, in mid-sentence, the angle of the shot changes and he is back on the screen, slightly to left of centre. The voice follows the on-screen action and his voice is now coming from where we can see him on the screen. Whether his voice is up in the overheads, or down in the mains, I could detect no timbral change in it.
> 
> Denon - fabulous. Amazingly easy setup with the new Setup Assistant. You could pull someone off the street and they could set it up! Literally.
> 
> Anyone who has the Transformers 4 disc - don't mess about - go directly to Chapter 20, wind the MV up and prepare to be AMAZED.
> 
> Finally for now - I want to get back to the HT - XT32. IDK if Audyssey have changed anything other than the obvious Atmos stuff - but my Pro Kit is going up for sale next week. I did the 8 position calibration real fast, just to get started. No obsessing where the mic was after position No 1.
> 
> To see my bass response, from *7Hz* up, click the spoiler... this is an unsmoothed graph, with DEQ off, the Submersives in Pgm2, and crossovers set at 90Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll write a proper report in the next 48 hours. For now, consider me 100% satisfied.


♦ WoW WoW WoW!


----------



## kingwiggi

FilmMixer said:


> Films mixed in Atmos and then down mixed to 7.1 or 5.1 obviously lose the height information.
> 
> However, those films tend to have more complex surround imagery (and overall content) and more movement... Many mixers really like the ability to mix for re cinema with full range bass managed surrounds and as such have gotten used to using tem more aggressively.
> 
> A film like Oblivion had a really cool overhead percussion pan that made a circle eight.
> 
> Things like that should be grabbed by the up mixer and make for a more immersive experience.


A bit of a spoiler here but a great example of this is Edge of Tomorrow after you hear this upmixed using Dolby Surround you won't beleive your ears. IMHO If there was any doubt how good DS up mixer is this movie will put that to rest. I would almost say it sounds better than T4 in atmos.


----------



## Orbitron

In a quiet scene where there is just conversation, what is heard from the Atmos speakers?


----------



## audioguy

Keith:

I don't understand why you will dump Audyssey Pro. Is it just that you were so pleased with the audio not using it?

That's a nice job of Photoshopping your FR! Just kidding but that looks ridiculous. Wouldn't have been the same with your previous prepro?


----------



## batpig

Orbitron said:


> In a quiet scene where there is just conversation, what is heard from the Atmos speakers?


Probably nothing, or perhaps ambient background noise (wind, rustling leaves, soft music, etc) depending on what the mixer intended.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Keith:
> 
> I don't understand why you will dump Audyssey Pro. Is it just that you were so pleased with the audio not using it?


I have thought for some time that Pro does not bring much *audible* benefit. Sure, it lets you save and reload configurations but I can do that now with the Denon anyway. And Pro lets you adjust the target curve a little - but it is crude and limited. It lets you use 32 mic positions but I always found 8 or 9 to be sufficient with no audible gains from using more. I have come to the conclusion, and of course ICBW, that Pro is a way for Audyssey to make money off the back of the installer market, and for installers to be able to create an additional line of income. I have no problem with either of those. However, in terms of purely audible results, the regular XT32 seems to deliver all I need. I think my FR demonstrates that. After seeing that graph, my first thought was _"what could Pro possibly do to improve on that?"_. My second thought was _"nothing"_ and my third thought was _"WOW!!"._ If I sell the Pro Kit, plus whatever I get for my Onkyo 5509, my upgrade to Atmos will have been zero-cost. 




audioguy said:


> That's a nice job of Photoshopping your FR! Just kidding but that looks ridiculous. Wouldn't have been the same with your previous prepro?


I will dig out my old FR graphs taken after Pro calibration on the Onkyo 5509. But I can say now, for sure, that none of them is better than that one in the spoiler. IDK if Audyssey have improved XT32 in some way beyond whatever they had to do for Atmos, but I honestly have never seen -- or heard -- a better response here.

It is very late here now - I will make a full report over the next day or so and post it asap. Suffice it to say, I am massively happy.

BTW, I just watched Neil Marshall's 'The Descent' using DSU and it was magnificent. DSU really added to the movie and I was totally immersed in sound and hence in the movie itself. 

It is early days - I have only had the unit up and running for 12 hours - but from my experience so far, I'd have to say to everyone: it is every bit as good as I hoped (better even) and I would recommend, without hesitation, that anyone who can upgrade, upgrades. I thought my room sounded really good before - now it has gone to a new level (literally). I know that is a cliché, but it really describes how I feel.


----------



## kbarnes701

Orbitron said:


> In a quiet scene where there is just conversation, what is heard from the Atmos speakers?


Nothing.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> That's a very good suggestion. I will put that on my list to check out. I enjoyed that movie.
> The Orphanage is also a very good movie. I have enjoyed most of Guillermo Del Toro's movies.
> His movie Pan's Labyrinth is also very good!
> 
> Ray


Agreed very much on The Orphanage, and Del Toro in general.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> That's great to know! Do you think that 4 ATMOS speakers in a small room is overkill! 12 x 13 x 9?


My room is smaller than that. I have 4 overhead speakers. So, no. See my initial thoughts just above.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The next "wonderful" Blu-ray to get Atmos seems to be LionsGate's _Step Up: All In_.
> 
> And the hits just keep coming.
> 
> At least the supporting studio tally now stands at three.


I'm starting to think that Atmos isn't really for you, Dan...


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> I will dig out my old FR graphs taken after Pro calibration on the Onkyo 5509. But I can say now, for sure, that none of them is better than that one in the spoiler. IDK if Audyssey have improved XT32 in some way beyond whatever they had to do for Atmos, but I honestly have never seen -- or heard -- a better response here.


Would you mind posting your pre-Audyssey response too, when you get a chance? Very interested in seeing how much work XT32 had to do.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I have thought for some time that Pro does not bring much *audible* benefit. Sure, it lets you save and reload configurations but I can do that now with the Denon anyway. And Pro lets you adjust the target curve a little - but it is crude and limited. It lets you use 32 mic positions but I always found 8 or 9 to be sufficient with no audible gains from using more. I have come to the conclusion, and of course ICBW, that Pro is a way for Audyssey to make money off the back of the installer market, and for installers to be able to create an additional line of income. I have no problem with either of those. However, in terms of purely audible results, the regular XT32 seems to deliver all I need. I think my FR demonstrates that. After seeing that graph, my first thought was _"what could Pro possibly do to improve on that?"_. My second thought was _"nothing"_ and my third thought was _"WOW!!"._ If I sell the Pro Kit, plus whatever I get for my Onkyo 5509, my upgrade to Atmos will have been zero-cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will dig out my old FR graphs taken after Pro calibration on the Onkyo 5509. But I can say now, for sure, that none of them is better than that one in the spoiler. IDK if Audyssey have improved XT32 in some way beyond whatever they had to do for Atmos, but I honestly have never seen -- or heard -- a better response here.
> 
> It is very late here now - I will make a full report over the next day or so and post it asap. Suffice it to say, I am massively happy.
> 
> BTW, I just watched Neil Marshall's 'The Descent' using DSU and it was magnificent. DSU really added to the movie and I was totally immersed in sound and hence in the movie itself.
> 
> It is early days - I have only had the unit up and running for 12 hours - but from my experience so far, I'd have to say to everyone: it is every bit as good as I hoped (better even) and I would recommend, without hesitation, that anyone who can upgrade, upgrades. I thought my room sounded really good before - now it has gone to a new level (literally). I know that is a cliché, but it really describes how I feel.


Great report, Keith! Is the 5200 part of the model lineup that may get Auro3D (for a fee) and possibly DTS-UHD or do you have to get the 7200 for that option (with enough horsepower)?


----------



## Jacob305

kbarnes701 said:


> Just very quickly...
> 
> Set up the Denon ... A.W.E.S.O.M.E.
> 
> Full report later - but initial observations:
> 
> DSU - very, very good. Better on movies mixed originally in Atmos, but great on legacy content so far tested.
> 
> No - as in none - localisation of the overhead speakers. No distraction. Just sound from above like it was at Dolby in London.
> 
> Timbre match - in the Transformers movie there is a scene where Mark Walhberg and his character's daughter is talking to Optimus Prime, and he stands up and you see them looking up to him. She asks him why humans were hunting him down and he replies with his character off-screen and above. All of his voice comes from the overheads - and then, in mid-sentence, the angle of the shot changes and he is back on the screen, slightly to left of centre. The voice follows the on-screen action and his voice is now coming from where we can see him on the screen. Whether his voice is up in the overheads, or down in the mains, I could detect no timbral change in it.
> 
> Denon - fabulous. Amazingly easy setup with the new Setup Assistant. You could pull someone off the street and they could set it up! Literally.
> 
> Anyone who has the Transformers 4 disc - don't mess about - go directly to Chapter 20, wind the MV up and prepare to be AMAZED.
> 
> Finally for now - I want to get back to the HT - XT32. IDK if Audyssey have changed anything other than the obvious Atmos stuff - but my Pro Kit is going up for sale next week. I did the 8 position calibration real fast, just to get started. No obsessing where the mic was after position No 1.
> 
> To see my bass response, from *7Hz* up, click the spoiler... this is an unsmoothed graph, with DEQ off, the Submersives in Pgm2, and crossovers set at 90Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll write a proper report in the next 48 hours. For now, consider me 100% satisfied.



I remember when I saw man of steel in the theatre with dolby atmos. there was a scene where Zod is talking to the world. part of that conversation was coming from the left back speaker. does that happen when up do the mix on the denon? since it was atmos in the theatre?

thanks

Jacob


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I think that two new title announcements this week should be encouraging for many... it shows that Paramount has gotten on board, and we know LFG has other titles that were mixed in the format... I can tell you that I hear of a bunch of catalog titles are coming down the pike, with many remixes happening...
> 
> It's obvious to see what new releases are coming down the pike that might include an Atmos track... for example, Paramount has done three titles theatrically this year in Atmos... 2 of which has been announced as having an Atmos track for the home... and the third title hasn't yet been announced.
> 
> I anticipate 15 titles by years end... which I think is a rather encouraging number..
> 
> That you seem to be the arbiter of taste on what constitutes an acceptable title seems odd, and quite snarky, if I do say so myself..
> 
> _*TF4 just passed $1B... *_
> 
> _*Hercules*_ has grossed almost _*$220 million *_WW...
> 
> *SUAI* is over _*$82 million*_..
> 
> Profitable films? Absolutely... both Herc and SUAI might actually be considered "hits...." Not to mention TF4...
> 
> Critical darlings? Maybe not...
> 
> But all you seem to have been doing the last couple of days is passing judgement on the film announced so far, knowing full well there are many more coming down the pike..
> 
> So many around here seem so entitled...
> 
> I'm thrilled there will be content in the stores for the launch of the decoders... even if it's one title.
> 
> And with two titles announced this week, I think the train is leaving the station...
> 
> Don't know what else you expected...
> 
> Dolby isn't in control of the content.
> 
> I can tell you, however, that they are working tirelessly to help the studios prepare product...
> 
> It's up to the content providers, however, to announced their plans and intentions..
> 
> I spoke to another studios "in charge" person about their plans... they are most definitely going to release their theatrical titles again with Atmos..
> 
> Maybe I'm tired, Dan... but I expect more from some around here, and don't understand what you expectations are.
> 
> Just my .02


No apologies for quoting in full. Well said, Marc. 100% agreement from me FWIW. And thanks,. as always, for the 'insider' perspective.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm starting to think that Atmos isn't really for you, Dan...


Atmos will be for me when (what I consider) good movies have it included.  

Marc says some catalog titles are getting re-released with theatrical or remixed Atmos tracks. I'll hold off purchasing an Atmos product until I'm satisfied there are enough movies available I would want to add or re-buy for my collection.

Why upgrade my receiver if there's nothing worth having?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Don't think so. If your MLP is close to the back wall, you can put a pair of overheads at 30-45 degrees ('front heights'), and a pair of overheads at 100 degrees elevation ('top middle').


Which I can now say from personal experience works very well indeed.


----------



## kbarnes701

tbaucom said:


> The slopes run front to back. The problem is my seating is only 3 feet from the back wall. There is not enough room behind to install top rear speakers at the proper angle without them only being a foot above the listeners head. I could do top front and top middle but I understand that is not an acceptable configuration. My current height speakers are located about where top front speakers would go.


Why not do as I have done and go for Front Height + Top Middle?


----------



## kbarnes701

tbaucom said:


> Thanks. I see the tables in the AVR manual. I was going by the setup guide on the dolby website. If you read the installation guide, it says that most AVR will allow front height or prologic IIz speakers during atmos playback but they don't recommend it. I guess I interpreted this wrong. I took it as you could use these legacy speakers but they are not part of an official atmos setup.


Dolby specify angles for the front pair of overheads which encompasses both Front Height and Top Front - in fact there is a huge overlap between the two, as the oft-posted diagram shows.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Would you mind posting your pre-Audyssey response too, when you get a chance? Very interested in seeing how much work XT32 had to do.


Dang. I did graph that but didn't save the result. Despite my room being very well treated, Audyssey does do a fair bit of work to smooth the FR. Next time I measure I will make that graph and post it. Probably in the next few days. Remind me if I forget.


----------



## tbaucom

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby specify angles for the front pair of overheads which encompasses both Front Height and Top Front - in fact there is a huge overlap between the two, as the oft-posted diagram shows.



I suppose I could do that and it may be where I wind up. I've never been very impressed with height speakers. I have always thought wides added much more to the soundstage. I suppose with atmos there is a good chance that would be different. Another reason for wanting to try the 9.1.2 setup is that my current wide speakers are floor standing so they would be kinda hard to use for heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Great report, Keith! Is the 5200 part of the model lineup that may get Auro3D (for a fee) and possibly DTS-UHD or do you have to get the 7200 for that option (with enough horsepower)?


Thanks Dan. Yes, we are led to believe that the 5200 will get Auro as a paid upgrade. DTS-UHD is less certain as it is apparently so far away that nobody is prepared to commit.


----------



## Skylinestar

kbarnes701 said:


> I will dig out my old FR graphs taken after Pro calibration on the Onkyo 5509. But I can say now, for sure, that none of them is better than that one in the spoiler. IDK if Audyssey have improved XT32 in some way beyond whatever they had to do for Atmos, but I honestly have never seen -- or heard -- a better response here.


Denon's XT32 sounds better than Onkyo's XT32 ?


----------



## kbarnes701

Jacob305 said:


> I remember when I saw man of steel in the theatre with dolby atmos. there was a scene where Zod is talking to the world. part of that conversation was coming from the left back speaker. does that happen when up do the mix on the denon? since it was atmos in the theatre?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Jacob


IDK - but I have the disk and will try to get around to testing it. If the sound is coming from the left surround channel, I'd expect so regardless of Atmos though.


----------



## Skylinestar

kbarnes701 said:


> I will dig out my old FR graphs taken after Pro calibration on the Onkyo 5509. But I can say now, for sure, that none of them is better than that one in the spoiler. IDK if Audyssey have improved XT32 in some way beyond whatever they had to do for Atmos, but I honestly have never seen -- or heard -- a better response here.


Denon X5200 XT32 sounds better than Onkyo 5509 XT32 ?


----------



## smurraybhm

Dan Hitchman said:


> Great report, Keith! Is the 5200 part of the model lineup that may get Auro3D (for a fee) and possibly DTS-UHD or do you have to get the 7200 for that option (with enough horsepower)?


Dan - the 5200 is suppose to be able to be upgraded to Auro and when it comes hopefully - UHD. The Marantz 7009 since it shares should also be able to be upgraded.

Keith - I'm glad to here your comments about XT32. Besides the improvement with dialogue via the center channel I kept thinking even when not using DS that the 5200 sounded better than my 4311. One reason I decided to wait on a pro kit which was available for $550 early this week.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos will be for me when (what I consider) good movies have it included.


Sure - that is true of any AV tech I guess - eg 4K... not much to get excited about when there is virtually no content, even all this time after launch. I think that what Marc (and I) were getting at is that you seem very keen to almost disparage the concept of Atmos as it relates to the current crop of BD releases. I am sure that in the fullness of time every movie released theatrically in Atmos will also be released on BD in Atmos, so any movie you have been to see in the cinema will also be available for you at home. But after just 3 weeks since launch, I think you are expecting too much.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Marc says some catalog titles are getting re-released with theatrical or remixed Atmos tracks. I'll hold off purchasing an Atmos product until I'm satisfied there are enough movies available I would want to add or re-buy for my collection.


And that is a totally valid approach. It is, for example, the reason I won’t be upgrading to 4K here.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Why upgrade my receiver if there's nothing worth having?


Again, nobody could argue with that. It's when you mention the Marvel catalog in the same breath as "low quality" movies that we part company. The MCU movies are, IMO, some of the highest quality movies ever made, in all sorts of respects (some obviously more so than others). The fact that you don't _like_ a movie does not speak to its quality.


----------



## kbarnes701

Skylinestar said:


> Denon's XT32 sounds better than Onkyo's XT32 ?


I didn’t say that or even imply that.

And TBH it is years since I did a straight consumer XT32 cal on my Onkyo. But I wasn't suggesting what you imply I was suggesting. I was saying that the _current consumer XT32 is delivering, here, a result as good as the Pro Kit_. Which makes the Pro Kit a pointless exercise, hence my decision to sell mine. I wasn't comparing Denon's XT32 with Onkyo's - I was comparing consumer XT32 with Pro.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - that is true of any AV tech I guess - eg 4K... not much to get excited about when there is virtually no content, even all this time after launch. I think that what Marc (and I) were getting at is that you seem very keen to almost disparage the concept of Atmos as it relates to the current crop of BD releases. I am sure that in the fullness of time every movie released theatrically in Atmos will also be released on BD in Atmos, so any movie you have been to see in the cinema will also be available for you at home. But after just 3 weeks since launch, I think you are expecting too much.
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a totally valid approach. It is, for example, the reason I won’t be upgrading to 4K here.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nobody could argue with that. It's when you mention the Marvel catalog in the same breath as "low quality" movies that we part company. The MCU movies are, IMO, some of the highest quality movies ever made, in all sorts of respects (some obviously more so than others). The fact that you don't _like_ a movie does not speak to its quality.


Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes quality... what speaks to them that certain attributes of a film are of merit, whether it be: acting, script, storyline, editing, lighting, music, cinematography or all of the above. 

As I mentioned earlier, I just saw Marvel's Capt. America 2 and the first part was fine and then it IMHO went downhill from there. It was inconsistent. 

Now, considering your high opinion of Marvel, you'll probably think I'm cracked when I say the overall finest superhero film is still _Superman: The Movie_. It hasn't been beaten yet. Runner-up would be Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Review of Transformers-4 with an Atmos AVR.


"Atmos object-based effects definitely compliment an already outstanding sound mix. That said, while walking around to each speaker to hear when the upwards-facing driver was actually firing, I was surprised by how infrequently the overhead channels were used. Granted, I don't know what this mix would sound like with in-ceiling speakers, but, despite being able to pick out some bonus effects…

The Atmos mix is not overwhelmingly different from the 7.1 mix."


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/12717/transformersageofextinction.html


----------



## Jive Turkey

Orbitron said:


> In a quiet scene where there is just conversation, what is heard from the Atmos speakers?


Hopefully nothing.


----------



## kingwiggi

nucky said:


> Just watched Gravity with the Dolby Atmos up mix, unbelievable absolutely brilliant, the sound was everywhere, Front, top font and back and from the surrounds this is the best that I've heard in my room.


I didn't see Gravity at the movies and when I first saw/heard it on my old 7.2 onkyo system I wasn't really impressed with it then either but listening to it using the DS upmixer its like having an aural orgasm. If your family guests didn't know about your ceiling speakers before they certainly will after watching this movie. For a movie that was down mixed to 5.1 it's amazing how much detailed sound is coming out of the ceiling speakers. And not just any sound those sounds sound like they were meant to be there not just through the result of some clever algorithm.

Very, very impressed with the upmixer.


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm starting to think that Atmos isn't really for you, Dan...


There is a right time for each one of us.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kingwiggi said:


> I didn't see Gravity at the movies and when I first saw/heard it on my old 7.2 onkyo system I wasn't really impressed with it then either but listening to it using the DS upmixer its like having an aural orgasm. If your family guests didn't know about your ceiling speakers before they certainly will after watching this movie. For a movie that was down mixed to 5.1 it's amazing how much detailed sound is coming out of the ceiling speakers. And not just any sound those sounds sound like they were meant to be there not just through the result of some clever algorithm.
> 
> Very, very impressed with the upmixer.


Another film I wasn't all that enthralled with, but I did see Gravity in Atmos. Let's just say that if you liked what DSU did to the film, you'll die of joy when you hear the Atmos version. It's by far one of (if not the) best examples of 3D audio yet released. 

It's not so busy a mix that you cannot tell where every single effect, music cue, or dialog track is coming from. It richly deserved the two Academy Awards the soundtrack engineers received.


----------



## sgibson

kbarnes701 said:


> Just very quickly...
> 
> Set up the Denon ... A.W.E.S.O.M.E.
> 
> Full report later - but initial observations:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello KBarnes 701,
> Thanks for sharing your info and photos on the Denon and Dolby Atmos.
> Been following your post since photo of Denon AVR-X4100W:
> I thought I would post a link to Denon, which I found most helpful:
> http://manuals.denon.com/avrx4100w/na/en/BIAJSYjhudqdih.php
> When time permits, would you please share your speaker connection details.
> I have a Front High L&R about 3ft above the main Front L&R.
> Also a Wide High L&R and 2 Rear surrounds. Sounds pretty good using Dolby PLIIz for Height on Onkyo TX-NR709.
> Front Highs and LCR are Klipsch, High Wides are Martin-Logan ML65 mounted in-wall with tweeters positioned on bottom as recommended by Martin Logan
> HomeTheater area 11'W x 12'L x 7'H (Drop Ceiling Panels)
> I look forward to your coming posts on the Denon 4100.
> Regards,
> sgibson


----------



## helvetica bold

I've been absent from these forums this week because of work now I'm catching up. Anyhoo, has anyone tried any PS4 or Xbox one game with the DSU? 
I'm really curious to see what it brings to the table.


----------



## zeus33

kbarnes701 said:


> I'll write a proper report in the next 48 hours. For now, consider me 100% satisfied.



That's great kb. Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you are enjoying the upgrade. That's a nice "curve"!


----------



## zeus33

sgibson said:


> I look forward to your coming posts on the Denon 4100.
> Regards,
> sgibson



kbarnes actually has the 5200. He changed his mind and changed his order from the 4100 to the 5200.


----------



## kingwiggi

Orbitron said:


> In a quiet scene where there is just conversation, what is heard from the Atmos speakers?





batpig said:


> Probably nothing, or perhaps ambient background noise (wind, rustling leaves, soft music, etc) depending on what the mixer intended.


Yep ambient sounds mainly, not that many totally quite scenes.


----------



## Jacob305

Dan Hitchman said:


> Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes quality... what speaks to them that certain attributes of a film are of merit, whether it be: acting, script, storyline, editing, lighting, music, cinematography or all of the above.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I just saw Marvel's Capt. America 2 and the first part was fine and then it IMHO went downhill from there. It was inconsistent.
> 
> Now, considering your high opinion of Marvel, you'll probably think I'm cracked when I say the overall finest superhero film is still _Superman: The Movie_. It hasn't been beaten yet. Runner-up would be Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2.


+1 on superman the movie. I prefer the burton batman over nolan.
I like the new amazing spider-man over the original series. 

Jacob


----------



## Spizz

kbarnes701- What speakers are you using? And can you post a photo of your overhead speaker setup? Glad to read your enjoying to X5200W. Still awaiting stock to arrive.


----------



## SubSolar

helvetica bold said:


> I've been absent from these forums this week because of work now I'm catching up. Anyhoo, has anyone tried any PS4 or Xbox one game with the DSU?
> I'm really curious to see what it brings to the table.



Doesn't seem to use overheads for me in BF4 for PS4.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

Now that we have more users on the ground, may I ask:

- I intend to use ceiling speakers (2 fronts + 2 rears, and probably one more VOG speaker for Auro too)

But they are a bit wider than the front L & R... will this be a problem? 

I hope users can share their experience?

Thank you


----------



## FilmMixer

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Review of Transformers-4 with an Atmos AVR.
> 
> 
> "Atmos object-based effects definitely compliment an already outstanding sound mix. That said, while walking around to each speaker to hear when the upwards-facing driver was actually firing, I was surprised by how infrequently the overhead channels were used. Granted, I don't know what this mix would sound like with in-ceiling speakers, but, despite being able to pick out some bonus effects…
> 
> The Atmos mix is not overwhelmingly different from the 7.1 mix."
> 
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/12717/transformersageofextinction.html


1, the film was mixed without overhead bed channels.

2. the mixes shouldn't be "overwhelmingly different."

3. the Pioneer system he heard it on is not capable of 7.1.4... so he's comparing a 5.1.4 to a 7.1

Some films are going to make more obvious use of the overheads... 

It's one film.. while it's the first, you can hardly draw conclusions about the format from one mix.

You also left out some of the other comments, which I think offer a more balanced commentary than your selected cherry pick.

"The Atmos mix is not overwhelmingly different from the 7.1 mix.

I have a few theories about this. First, my 7.1 side and rear surround speakers are above ear level so that might cancel out some of the need for rear height channels (though when I was comparing 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 later in my demo, I definitely missed the rear heights). 

Second, in my personal experience, Atmos is best suited in delicate moments or precise panning effects. It fills a room with the sensation of drizzling rain punctuated by thunder claps. A single arrow or bullet or jet streaks over our heads. *Yet, in full blown action sequences, in movies like 'Age of Extinction' or 'Edge of Tomorrow', it's sometimes more challenging to pick out these individual effects as the sound field becomes complex and crowded. *

Third, this mix is exactly how the filmmakers want it to sound. _*There's no reason for them to jam a gimmick down our throats when it doesn't serve their needs."*_


----------



## Orbitron

Can we get some details on how Atmos was implemented in the upcoming WW11 flick?


----------



## Snowmanick

Dan Hitchman said:


> Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes quality... what speaks to them that certain attributes of a film are of merit, whether it be: acting, script, storyline, editing, lighting, music, cinematography or all of the above.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, I just saw Marvel's Capt. America 2 and the first part was fine and then it IMHO went downhill from there. It was inconsistent.
> 
> Now, considering your high opinion of Marvel, you'll probably think I'm cracked when I say the overall finest superhero film is still _Superman: The Movie_. It hasn't been beaten yet. Runner-up would be Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2.


I always liked the first half of Superman, but could never get past the ending being so hackneyed. This sums it up pretty well for me as a better ending. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yavK0mnE3wI

Back on topic, great to read some of these first hand reports. Thanks to everyone contributing.


----------



## tomparis

Saw a really interesting interview with Brett Crockett from Dolby and Wilfried van Baelen from Auro.
It's kind of a battle between them, if you like.
Because it's from a German site the questions are in German, but the answers from Brett and Wilfried are in English.
So enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=U...&feature=player_embedded&v=XRr5ksGyvdk#t=2390


----------



## krozman

Watched Nightmare Before Christmas with 7.1.4 upmixer. This soundtrack was already one of my favorite 7.1 audio movies out there for discrete channel focus (not bass), and the upmixer did not disappoint. One of the things I've been noticing, whether it is an action sequence or crowd noise during an NFL game, is that the sound stage has expanded beyond the MLP with the upmixer. I can get up to go to the bathroom or whatever, and standing 15 feet from the MLP I still feel like I'm part of what's going on. With standard 7.1 if you get out of the surround stages at ear level (at least for me, my 7.1 setup was always at ear level and not elevated), you lose pretty much everything but the mains/center. 


One thing I have NOT heard, however, is the upmixer being intelligent enough to provide good overhead sound when it's intended to be overhead just using the upmixer. Any suggestions?


----------



## brwsaw

FilmMixer said:


> 1Atmos is best suited in delicate moments or precise panning effects. It fills a room with the sensation of drizzling rain punctuated by thunder claps. A single arrow or bullet or jet streaks


Terminator 2 would be a perfect candidate for an Atmos remix.
Star Trek the (original) motion picture also had plenty of ambiant/refected noise.
Watched part of both today and noted the amount of detail in their audio recordings.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> Second, in my personal experience, Atmos is best suited in delicate moments or precise panning effects. It fills a room with the sensation of drizzling rain punctuated by thunder claps. A single arrow or bullet or jet streaks over our heads. *Yet, in full blown action sequences, in movies like 'Age of Extinction' or 'Edge of Tomorrow', it's sometimes more challenging to pick out these individual effects as the sound field becomes complex and crowded. *
> 
> Third, this mix is exactly how the filmmakers want it to sound. _*There's no reason for them to jam a gimmick down our throats when it doesn't serve their needs."*_



When I did my consumer Atmos demos at CEDIA, I found that I most appreciated the subtle effects, i.e. the leaf floating and sonicly moving around the room in sync with the on-screen motion during the Dolby: Leaf demo, or the height envelopment of the volcano, a shuttlecraft moving in space, and dialog having a more solid feel when Spock was speaking about still being alive on ST: Into Darkness.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> I didn't see Gravity at the movies and when I first saw/heard it on my old 7.2 onkyo system I wasn't really impressed with it then either but listening to it using the DS upmixer its like having an aural orgasm.


Aurgasm?



kingwiggi said:


> If your family guests didn't know about your ceiling speakers before they certainly will after watching this movie. For a movie that was down mixed to 5.1 it's amazing how much detailed sound is coming out of the ceiling speakers. And not just any sound those sounds sound like they were meant to be there not just through the result of some clever algorithm.
> 
> Very, very impressed with the upmixer.


Yes, your impressions of Gravity via DSU are the same as mine. Exceptionally good.


----------



## kbarnes701

sgibson said:


> Hello KBarnes 701,
> Thanks for sharing your info and photos on the Denon and Dolby Atmos.
> Been following your post since photo of Denon AVR-X4100W:
> I thought I would post a link to Denon, which I found most helpful:
> http://manuals.denon.com/avrx4100w/na/en/BIAJSYjhudqdih.php
> When time permits, would you please share your speaker connection details.
> I have a Front High L&R about 3ft above the main Front L&R.
> Also a Wide High L&R and 2 Rear surrounds. Sounds pretty good using Dolby PLIIz for Height on Onkyo TX-NR709.
> Front Highs and LCR are Klipsch, High Wides are Martin-Logan ML65 mounted in-wall with tweeters positioned on bottom as recommended by Martin Logan
> HomeTheater area 11'W x 12'L x 7'H (Drop Ceiling Panels)
> I look forward to your coming posts on the Denon 4100.
> Regards,
> sgibson


I changed my mind and went with the 5200, but the 4100 will do the same job I am sure (so long as it suits your needs wrt to number of channels).

I have a 5.1.4 layout - my room is small and there is no room behind the MLP for rear surrounds unfortunately. My ear level speakers are laid out according to the usual guidelines, with the surrounds at 110°. The 4 overheads are configured as Front Height and Top Middle, following the Dolby recommendations in their WP and the oft-posted diagram. My front overheads are on the ceiling at about 42° and the rear pair are just behind the MLP at 100°. 

The front LCR are M&K S150s. The overheads are Tannoy Di5 and the surrounds are Tannoy Di6 DC - both the latter being dual concentric designs with very wide dispersion patterns. All speakers are powered by external Emotiva amps - XPA-3 for the LCR, XPA200 for the surrounds, and two UPA-2s for the front and rear overhead pairs. Subwoofers are dual Seaton Submersives in a master/slave arrangement with the 6,000 watt amp.

In your room you should be able to accommodate 4 overheads. Oh yes - I lowered my surrounds to just above ear level to gain maximum angular separation from the overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Spizz said:


> kbarnes701- What speakers are you using? And can you post a photo of your overhead speaker setup? Glad to read your enjoying to X5200W. Still awaiting stock to arrive.


See my reply just above for speaker details. I can’t post a photo showing all 4 speakers on the ceiling as the room is too small to get far enough back. 

This is one of the speakers on the ceiling, if this helps..










The photo makes the room look lighter than it is - the speaker grilles are black in reality, and the walls/ceiling a much darker shade of gray.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Another film I wasn't all that enthralled with, but I did see Gravity in Atmos. Let's just say that if you liked what DSU did to the film, you'll die of joy when you hear the Atmos version. It's by far one of (if not the) best examples of 3D audio yet released.
> 
> It's not so busy a mix that you cannot tell where every single effect, music cue, or dialog track is coming from. It richly deserved the two Academy Awards the soundtrack engineers received.


Blimey, Dan! We've found a movie we both agree on! LOL. And yes, in Atmos it is truly breathtaking. When I heard it in a cinema, my heartrate became elevated and I started to perspire slightly in that opening sequence when everything starts to go wrong for the astronauts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes quality... what speaks to them that certain attributes of a film are of merit, whether it be: acting, script, storyline, editing, lighting, music, cinematography or all of the above.


True. Quality is a subjective thing.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Now, considering your high opinion of Marvel, you'll probably think I'm cracked when I say the overall finest superhero film is still _Superman: The Movie_. It hasn't been beaten yet. Runner-up would be Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2.


I enjoyed both of those movies too. IDK about them being No1 and No2 but they are certainly exceptional movies. By contrast, I disliked the latest Superman movie quite a bit and find the latest Spidey movie just meh...


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Now that we have more users on the ground, may I ask:
> 
> - I intend to use ceiling speakers (2 fronts + 2 rears, and probably one more VOG speaker for Auro too)
> 
> But they are a bit wider than the front L & R... will this be a problem?
> 
> I hope users can share their experience?
> 
> Thank you


Define 'bit' in 'bit wider'. If it is really just a 'bit' then I am sure you will be good to go. How close will the overheads be to the side walls?


----------



## kbarnes701

krozman said:


> One thing I have NOT heard, however, is the upmixer being intelligent enough to provide good overhead sound when it's intended to be overhead just using the upmixer. Any suggestions?


I'll be including that in my upcoming review of Atmos in my own HT.


----------



## yorkyal

kbarnes701 said:


> Anyone who has the Transformers 4 disc - don't mess about - go directly to Chapter 20, wind the MV up and prepare to be AMAZED.



I thought you`d like that scene Keith, watched the full film last night and it has some brilliant audio filling what seems to me to be every part of the room the panning sweeps around the room are something else


been told that the upmixed version of Edge of Tomorrow is even better so I might have to give that a whirl very soon I`ve skipped through clips of it and it looks quite watchable 


catchya later :wink:


----------



## kbarnes701

yorkyal said:


> I thought you`d like that scene Keith, watched the full film last night and it has some brilliant audio filling what seems to me to be every part of the room the panning sweeps around the room are something else


 Chapter 20 is just unbelievable. I haven't had time to watch the whole movie yet - just dipped in and out. Say what you like about Michael Bay, he knows what movie sound is all about. Transformers 4 also seems to include a subwoofer upgrade as part of the experience. I feared setting off quake detectors.



yorkyal said:


> been told that the upmixed version of Edge of Tomorrow is even better so I might have to give that a whirl very soon I`ve skipped through clips of it and it looks quite watchable


Not got that yet but it is on my list. Live. Die. Repeat. How much better a name is that than the romcom-sounding Edge of Tomorrow eh?!


----------



## ss9001

Someone in the UK finally got his Denon & rockin' Atmos 
Congrats! 

Keith, after running Audyssey, how do the Tannoys blend in?


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Someone in the UK finally got his Denon & rockin' Atmos
> Congrats!


Thanks Steve!



ss9001 said:


> Keith, after running Audyssey, how do the Tannoys blend in?


From my earlier post:

_Timbre match - in the Transformers movie there is a scene where Mark Walhberg and his character's daughter is talking to Optimus Prime, and he stands up and you see them looking up to him. She asks him why humans were hunting him down and he replies with his character off-screen and above. All of his voice comes from the overheads - and then, in mid-sentence, the angle of the shot changes and he is back on the screen, slightly to left of centre. The voice follows the on-screen action and his voice is now coming from where we can see him on the screen. Whether his voice is up in the overheads, or down in the mains, I could detect no timbral change in it._

So, in a nutshell: very well indeed. No worries. XT32 did the job  (And talking of XT32, see that graph of 7Hz-150Hz in the earlier post linked above!).


----------



## PeterK

Keith - sorry for stupid question as I have not totally followed this thread.
Are you saying that when watching "normal" 5.1 and 7.1 movies your receiver is creating an Atmos like sound pattern utilizing the overhead speakers?
If so then maybe I should seriously consider an upgrade. 
Pete


----------



## Selden Ball

Yorkal,

I'm not BP, but...

Atmos expects the traditional Surrounds (both Side and Rear) to be close to ear height. If they're overhead, then sounds sent to them would be coming from the wrong direction along with the sounds that are intended to be overhead. You wouldn't be able to tell which are which. This is not so bad if you don't have an Atmos system and thus don't have any "real" overhead channels. If you do have Atmos and Dolby Surround, though, it's better to have the Surround speakers down low, away from the overhead sound sources, so that the sounds intended to be near ear height are coming from an appropriate direction.


----------



## kingwiggi

krozman said:


> One thing I have NOT heard, however, is the upmixer being intelligent enough to provide good overhead sound when it's intended to be overhead just using the upmixer. Any suggestions?


That's an easy one 'Gravity'


----------



## pasender91

PeterK said:


> Keith - sorry for stupid question as I have not totally followed this thread.
> Are you saying that when watching "normal" 5.1 and 7.1 movies your receiver is creating an Atmos like sound pattern utilizing the overhead speakers?
> If so then maybe I should seriously consider an upgrade.
> Pete


Hi Peter, short answer is YES, and it is called Dolby Surround.
It will upmix any 2.0 or 5.1 or 7.1 signal to whatever Atmos config you have, including top speakers.
And the feedback until now is ecstatic, everyone that had a chance to test is is very positive.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterK said:


> Keith - sorry for stupid question as I have not totally followed this thread.
> Are you saying that when watching "normal" 5.1 and 7.1 movies your receiver is creating an Atmos like sound pattern utilizing the overhead speakers?
> If so then maybe I should seriously consider an upgrade.
> Pete


Yes. It is Atmos-like rather than Atmos of course, as it is upmixed content. But the Dolby Surround Upmixer seems, so far at least, to be doing a great job. Of course it is not like the real thing, any more than 2.0 is 5.1 when upmixed with PLII. But just as the latter does a very creditable job upmixing 2.0 to 5.1, so does DSU upmixing 2.0 or 5.1 to 5.1.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> That's an easy one 'Gravity'


Agreed. I am going to try some others that have 'overhead' sounds when I finish my evaluation period. If anyone has any suggestions for movies to try with, let me know.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Orbitron said:


> Can we get some details on how Atmos was implemented in the upcoming WW11 flick?


The one with Brad Pitt? I don't think that has an Atmos mix... there's a list of all the future Atmos releases here (click on 2014 tab):

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## kingwiggi

If you take a look at what filmmixer said in this post when he spoke of the more complex imagery being inherent in Atmos titles. That made so much sense to me.

After watching both 'Gravity' and 'Edge of tomorrow' I am now of the opinion that most if not all of the previously released cinematic Atmos mixes are going to be the best starting point for fokes to audition and show off the DSU.

And that's a fair sized back catalog to get through.


----------



## Skylinestar

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I am going to try some others that have 'overhead' sounds when I finish my evaluation period. If anyone has any suggestions for movies to try with, let me know.


Red Tails (used to be popular with Auro3D)


----------



## kingwiggi

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I am going to try some others that have 'overhead' sounds when I finish my evaluation period. If anyone has any suggestions for movies to try with, let me know.





Skylinestar said:


> Red Tails (used to be popular with Auro3D)


Good suggestion. 

I do have that movie, good one to watch this evening.


----------



## Orbitron

If only select titles will have their theatrical release with Dolby Atmos, curious if there will be an Atmos mix just for Blu-Ray.
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> True. Quality is a subjective thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed both of those movies too. IDK about them being No1 and No2 but they are certainly exceptional movies. By contrast, I disliked the latest Superman movie quite a bit and find the latest Spidey movie just meh...


Oh, I disliked MoS with a passion and the two latest Spidey films were a disappointment to be sure.

I think there is something to be said for combining the best (and most complete) segments of the Lester and Donner versions of Superman 2 (using the old ABC TV international cut as a rough blue-print, but with the original Marlon Brando footage used in The Donner Cut). That would make it just as good as the first Superman film. 

Then remix both Superman films in Atmos and expand Williams' wonderful score (from the original session stems) using the extra screen channels and height channels for added dramatic effect. Just like with Spielberg and Lucas, Donner always wanted John Williams' soaring music to rise above the sound effects and not be drowned out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> If only select titles will have their theatrical release with Dolby Atmos, curious if there will be an Atmos mix just for Blu-Ray.
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


Marc did mention that a few catalog titles are getting remixed in Atmos.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> No apologies for quoting in full. Well said, Marc. 100% agreement from me FWIW. And thanks,. as always, for the 'insider' perspective.


I do think it's a little bit unfair to label those waiting for decent titles "entitled". I mean these releases are great if you like transformers or dancing movies... but I think it wouldn't have been too much to ask to have 4 titles announced at the get go, perhaps with a little variety that would appeal to a wider audience.


----------



## jacked

kbarnes701 said:


> Just very quickly...
> 
> Set up the Denon ... A.W.E.S.O.M.E.
> 
> Full report later - but initial observations:
> 
> DSU - very, very good. Better on movies mixed originally in Atmos, but great on legacy content so far tested.
> 
> No - as in none - localisation of the overhead speakers. No distraction. Just sound from above like it was at Dolby in London.
> 
> Timbre match - in the Transformers movie there is a scene where Mark Walhberg and his character's daughter is talking to Optimus Prime, and he stands up and you see them looking up to him. She asks him why humans were hunting him down and he replies with his character off-screen and above. All of his voice comes from the overheads - and then, in mid-sentence, the angle of the shot changes and he is back on the screen, slightly to left of centre. The voice follows the on-screen action and his voice is now coming from where we can see him on the screen. Whether his voice is up in the overheads, or down in the mains, I could detect no timbral change in it.
> 
> Denon - fabulous. Amazingly easy setup with the new Setup Assistant. You could pull someone off the street and they could set it up! Literally.
> 
> Anyone who has the Transformers 4 disc - don't mess about - go directly to Chapter 20, wind the MV up and prepare to be AMAZED.
> 
> Finally for now - I want to get back to the HT - XT32. IDK if Audyssey have changed anything other than the obvious Atmos stuff - but my Pro Kit is going up for sale next week. I did the 8 position calibration real fast, just to get started. No obsessing where the mic was after position No 1.
> 
> To see my bass response, from *7Hz* up, click the spoiler... this is an unsmoothed graph, with DEQ off, the Submersives in Pgm2, and crossovers set at 90Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll write a proper report in the next 48 hours. For now, consider me 100% satisfied.


 
Hi Keith,

I totally agree with you.

I was at Allan`s yesterday and got my very first experience of Dolby Atmos as he was finishing installing the Denon X5200

I`ve always been a fan of Denon over the years, even though I`ve chopped and changed a bit, but I think what they`ve achieved with this X5200 is pretty special for the price-point.
The setup and onscreen GUI is so simplistic, if this is your first system you should have no trouble following the steps at all.

I thought you were limited in the pre-out / amp options of the Denon and how you could set it up but Allan has the normal 7 channel layout being driven by a Sunfire amp and the Denon`s internal amps handles the 4 ceiling speakers.

The ceiling speakers look to be installed perfectly and match exactly the Dolby guidelines, but the basement ceiling is relatively low and both sofas are off-centre a bit so I thought it would be a good test to try and notice any speaker localisation from above.
I didn`t notice anything distracting or off-putting at all from the height layer, it was just another layer of audio that adds more to the experience.

The Dolby Atmos Demo Disc, such that it is, is just a great showcase of Atmos and the ability to move sounds all around you in a 3D space.

The Enrique Iglesias track is superbly-well recorded, you really get a great sense of some of the upper frequency sounds from above you - it sounded amazing !

Transformers has an OTT sound mix and might / might not be the best showcase of Dolby Atmos, but it does sound incredible - without question.
I only watched a few clips of it so can`t evaluate on specific overhead sounds in general, but chapter 20 has all manner of objects being sucked-up into the sky. I have never experienced such dynamics and weight of sound above my head, it was just phenomenal !!

The Dolby Surround upmixer will be a fantastic sound mode to use for non-Atmos films, Oblivion really did sound fantastic. It just made the whole soundfield more immersive.
I don`t know how it does it but in the same way Auro 3D upmixed Jurassic Park to incredible levels when I saw that, the Dolby Surround mode is something to use all the time and just adds to the viewing experience.

I know to some this Denon might be lacking in its channel-count and advanced speaker setup options, but judging by performance alone I wouldn`t class this X5200 as "entry-level Atmos" or lacking in any way.
From what I heard it`s a superb piece of kit.

We now just need the studios to ramp-up their bluray release strategy. I know the first 3 titles might not inspire us but the Atmos discs are coming.
It will only be 6-8 months before Paramount release Interstellar on bluray in Dolby Atmos, and how good will that be............................

Dave


----------



## Orbitron

Dan Hitchman said:


> Marc did mention that a few catalog titles are getting remixed in Atmos.


At this point i was expecting 100 movies a year in Dolby Atmos. I think the list is incomplete but what do i know.


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I am going to try some others that have 'overhead' sounds when I finish my evaluation period. If anyone has any suggestions for movies to try with, let me know.


Does Battle:LA have atmos? There is a bit of overhead stuff going on in that move.


----------



## FilmMixer

jacked said:


> It will only be 6-8 months before Paramount release Interstellar on bluray in Dolby Atmos, and how good will that be............................
> 
> Dave


Interstellar was mixed in 5.1.

There will be no Atmos mix.


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Can we get some details on how Atmos was implemented in the upcoming WW11 flick?


We mixed "Fury" in 5.1.

No Atmos.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Well I just got done re-wiring my surrounds, I had to lower them down my back wall by about 2.5ft. They are just above head clearance. Wednesday I should be receiving my Def Tech A60 modules along with TF4. Monday the Atmos firmware should be ready for my Onkyo NR838


----------



## nirvy111

I thought Gravity sounded great in 5.1, one of the best I've heard in a while, it was unnervingly realistic at times, I can only imagine what it would be like in Dolby Atmos though. Damn it, looks like I will be getting another receiver before the years out and here's me thinking my Denon x4000 was going to hold me over for the next few years.


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> We mixed "Fury" in 5.1.
> 
> No Atmos.


Not being in the business, what are the considerations whether to do an Atmos mix to new releases or just 5.1?


----------



## FilmMixer

Orbitron said:


> Not being in the business, what are the considerations whether to do an Atmos mix to new releases or just 5.1?


Too many things to give an answer on any given film.

Most of the supporting studios consider budget and schedules.. at this point in time it adds about 2-3 days to the mixing schedule.

Since there is still a relatively small number of theatrical venues, it's also dependent on how crowded the marketplace is going to be on a given films release schedule.

We didn't do this film for complicated political issues... that's all I can share.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> We mixed "Fury" in 5.1.
> 
> No Atmos.


When was this? 15 years ago?


----------



## jacked

FilmMixer said:


> Interstellar was mixed in 5.1.
> 
> There will be no Atmos mix.


 Gutted. Ok thanks Marc.


----------



## Orbitron

Nightlord said:


> When was this? 15 years ago?


Some of us are old enough to remember Fury - a horse.


----------



## kokishin

Nightlord said:


> When was this? 15 years ago?


Hey, be cool (as in respectful). 

This was a film that Marc (aka FilmMixer) worked on.

In theaters Oct 17th.

I'm looking forward to seeing it.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> It is a particular use case for two subs with a particular goal: replace a single sub somewhere in the room with two subs placed elsewhere. Alternatively, we may prefer to use two subs for a different goal: improve response uniformity over a larger seating area. Different goals with different solutions.


Erskine made a point about multiple subs increasing seat-to-seat uniformity, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it applied to his further remarks on the virtual sub.

In any event, I don't see that there's a distinction in the result - besides high variation of SPL in the freq domain, there is also high spatial variation of SPL around the mode freq, so reducing the modal amplitude will also decrease this as well.

This idea of a virtual speaker location being moved through the room with attendant varying modal behavior make me wonder if panning between satellite speakers isn't as really smooth as it sounds, but maybe it would take a single freq right on a mode for it to be noticeable.



FilmMixer said:


> 1, the film was mixed without overhead bed channels."


I didn't realize there were overhead bed channels; I thought the bed channels were regular 5.1 or 7.1.


----------



## yorkyal

Selden Ball said:


> Yorkal,
> 
> I'm not BP, but...
> 
> Atmos expects the traditional Surrounds (both Side and Rear) to be close to ear height. If they're overhead, then sounds sent to them would be coming from the wrong direction along with the sounds that are intended to be overhead. You wouldn't be able to tell which are which. This is not so bad if you don't have an Atmos system and thus don't have any "real" overhead channels. If you do have Atmos and Dolby Surround, though, it's better to have the Surround speakers down low, away from the overhead sound sources, so that the sounds intended to be near ear height are coming from an appropriate direction.



thanks for the reply, maybe I should have left the post on but removed it thinking it would serve no purpose. I was just wondering why it was said that in ceiling Atmos speakers would be a mistake as that is what myself and Keith heard at Dolby labs and what I`ve chosen to install and it sounds stellar, well it does to me anyway 


I can see/know that having the rear/side surrounds mounted too high will interfere with the Atmos speakers but I didn`t see that in the post I originally replied to, hence decided to delete the post


my own rear/sides are a foot above seated position and the 4 dolby atmos in-ceiling ones are within the guidelines given and to me create the most enveloping soundstage I`ve ever heard in my dark room 


to say i`m chuffed to bits is an understatement they should call it "Dolby Atmosphericle"


----------



## Nightlord

kokishin said:


> Hey, be cool (as in respectful).
> 
> This was a film that Marc (aka FilmMixer) worked on.
> 
> In theaters Oct 17th.
> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing it.


I guessed as much, but why the heck would anyone produce something in 5.1 in 2014? I've had 7.1 setup for a decade now and I wasn't even a frontliner on it...


----------



## BillY2KFRC

I received my Marantz SR-7009 last week and have been messing around with it ever since. I just moved into a new home and decided to use the loft areas for the overhead channels. My current 5.1 speaker setup was SVS SCS-01 with a PB13 Ultra sub running in 15hz mode. Mostly due to size and previous experience with them at my friend's house, I went with Def Tech 800s for my overhead speakers. Since I don't have TF4 yet, I have only had the Audessey and Dolby Surround upmixed Blu-rays to use for my testing, but thus far I am very impressed and am really excited to hear a true Atmos track. While the movie was so-so, Amazing Spiderman 2 sounded especially good with DSU, lots of sounds from above!

I've attached two pictures of my room setup. As you can see, running ceiling speakers or Atmos modules would be impossible in my space. So I placed the height speakers at the edge of the front and rear loft areas and used some blocks of wood to angle them towards the listening position. What are everybody's thoughts on how well this setup is actually going to convey the Atmos experience? My thought if I wanted to improve things was I would buy some Omnimount speaker mounts designed for the ceiling, mount them to the top of the loft and then point the speakers over the edge and downward. Would that be worth the effort you think?

Thank you for any opinions and advice you can provide!


----------



## wse

kingwiggi said:


> If you take a look at what filmmixer said in this post when he spoke of the more complex imagery being inherent in Atmos titles. That made so much sense to me.
> 
> After watching both 'Gravity' and 'Edge of tomorrow' I am now of the opinion that most if not all of the previously released cinematic Atmos mixes are going to be the best starting point for fokes to audition and show off the DSU.
> 
> And that's a fair sized back catalog to get through.


Over a 150 movies


----------



## kokishin

Nightlord said:


> I guessed as much, but why the heck would anyone produce something in 5.1 in 2014? I've had 7.1 setup for a decade now and I wasn't even a frontliner on it...


Marc already provided a response: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-188.html#post27787482


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> I didn't realize there were overhead bed channels; I thought the bed channels were regular 5.1 or 7.1.


The theatrical system employs a 9.1 bed... 7.1 + 2 overhead arrays.

Those overheads are encoded as objects in the home version.

For TF4, the mixers used the overheads for objects only, and put nothing in the overhead bed channels.


----------



## NorthSky

BillY2KFRC said:


> I received my Marantz SR-7009 last week and have been messing around with it ever since. I just moved into a new home and decided to use the loft areas for the overhead channels. My current 5.1 speaker setup was SVS SCS-01 with a PB13 Ultra sub running in 15hz mode. Mostly due to size and previous experience with them at my friend's house, I went with Def Tech 800s for my overhead speakers. Since I don't have TF4 yet, I have only had the Audessey and Dolby Surround upmixed Blu-rays to use for my testing, but thus far I am very impressed and am really excited to hear a true Atmos track. While the movie was so-so, Amazing Spiderman 2 sounded especially good with DSU, lots of sounds from above!
> 
> I've attached two pictures of my room setup. As you can see, running ceiling speakers or Atmos modules would be impossible in my space. So I placed the height speakers at the edge of the front and rear loft areas and used some blocks of wood to angle them towards the listening position. What are everybody's thoughts on how well this setup is actually going to convey the Atmos experience? My thought if I wanted to improve things was I would buy some Omnimount speaker mounts designed for the ceiling, mount them to the top of the loft and then point the speakers over the edge and downward. Would that be worth the effort you think?
> 
> Thank you for any opinions and advice you can provide!


You have a very nice home. That living room is beautiful; I love wood. 

1. Your sub; is it in the front left corner?
2. Do I see four smaller height (front and rear) speakers?
3. Your back surround speakers; are they clearing your couch high enough?

♦ Here are some of my own personal suggestions, if you don't mind:

1. I would use the Marantz SR7009 as a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration.
2. By adding two side surround speakers.
3. By adding four overhead Atmos speakers using adjustable shaft (metal tube) mounts so that they are the four of them @ the same height level.
4. By adding a stereo amplifier (to make it eleven). 
5. By adding a second subwoofer in the other front corner.

* Now, I can tell that your room is also your living space and a nice view on the outside through them beautiful windows.

At night it would be nice to have curtains so that they absorb sounds a bit. 
Also, a larger HDTV (or UH DTV), say 70 to 90" (approx) would be a nice option in the future. ...Or a front projector with very high brightness & contrast (dual bulbs, or laser).

If I would have that room, I would bargain heavily with my wife.
And if not possible, I would build an external building specially for a home theater house.

Earlier in that thread there were links provided for the type of ceiling speaker's mounts for the high ceilings like yours (and mine too) at escalating angles. 
- I can search for them if you are interested; they are only ten or fifteen pages back or so.

And, if you want to keep a 5.1 floor setup; @ least put them rear speakers @ approximatively 110-120° (from dead front center).


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I do think it's a little bit unfair to label those waiting for decent titles "entitled". I mean these releases are great if you like transformers or dancing movies... but I think it wouldn't have been too much to ask to have 4 titles announced at the get go, perhaps with a little variety that would appeal to a wider audience.


Can't disagree - the more content the better. It will come...


----------



## rnewste

Well now the speaker upgrade bug has hit - to mate up to my Denon X5200 AVR. As this is a "shared" Family Room (wife / grandchildren during the day - MY AV room at night), in-wall / ceiling Surrounds were the best compromise solution. 

So, now replacing the Def Tech UIW55 Sides and Surround Backs with larger DI 5.5BPS units at ear level. These should compliment the UIW BP/A units I currently have for Top Front and Back speaker pairs for an Atmos 7.1.4 setting.

Using a Def Tech CLR3000 center and a pair of CLR2000 for the Front Left / Right. A Sunfire TrueSub rounds out the system.

While not placed specifically according to the Dolby Atmos specs - I view these more as guidelines when adapting an existing 7.1 setup to Atmos. The proof will be how it sounds to the individual.

Raybo


----------



## kbarnes701

jacked said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> I totally agree with you.
> 
> I was at Allan`s yesterday and got my very first experience of Dolby Atmos as he was finishing installing the Denon X5200


Ah - Hi Dave - Allan has spoken to me about you. I had about an hour on the phone with him yesterday afternoon - he called just the exact moment I had finished demoing the various things to myself. Psychic!



jacked said:


> I`ve always been a fan of Denon over the years, even though I`ve chopped and changed a bit, but I think what they`ve achieved with this X5200 is pretty special for the price-point.


Absolutely agreed. This is my first Denon and I am blown away by it - and that post-Audyssey LF graph speaks for itself. I am done with the Pro Kit I think.



jacked said:


> The setup and onscreen GUI is so simplistic, if this is your first system you should have no trouble following the steps at all.


Also agreed. The Setup Assistant is a huge step forward for AVRs.



jacked said:


> I thought you were limited in the pre-out / amp options of the Denon and how you could set it up but Allan has the normal 7 channel layout being driven by a Sunfire amp and the Denon`s internal amps handles the 4 ceiling speakers.


Ah right, I wasn't aware of that. All my channels are independently amped, so the (great) amps in the 5200 are just sitting there waiting for something to do.



jacked said:


> The ceiling speakers look to be installed perfectly and match exactly the Dolby guidelines, but the basement ceiling is relatively low and both sofas are off-centre a bit so I thought it would be a good test to try and notice any speaker localisation from above.
> I didn`t notice anything distracting or off-putting at all from the height layer, it was just another layer of audio that adds more to the experience.


Yes, Al's ceiling is a bit low - which shows that it isn't a limiting factor. Dolby are clearly correct when they say that it is hard to make Atmos NOT work well.



jacked said:


> The Dolby Atmos Demo Disc, such that it is, is just a great showcase of Atmos and the ability to move sounds all around you in a 3D space.


Yeah - pity there are no movie clips on it, like the great demo discs DTS release every now and then. Maybe 'coming soon'?



jacked said:


> Transformers has an OTT sound mix and might / might not be the best showcase of Dolby Atmos, but it does sound incredible - without question.
> I only watched a few clips of it so can`t evaluate on specific overhead sounds in general, but chapter 20 has all manner of objects being sucked-up into the sky. I have never experienced such dynamics and weight of sound above my head, it was just phenomenal !!


Same here. Chapter 20 is the go-to track on that disc. Awesome sound - and somehow Michael bay has managed to sneak a subwoofer upgrade into the disc too 



jacked said:


> The Dolby Surround upmixer will be a fantastic sound mode to use for non-Atmos films, Oblivion really did sound fantastic. It just made the whole soundfield more immersive.
> I don`t know how it does it but in the same way Auro 3D upmixed Jurassic Park to incredible levels when I saw that, the Dolby Surround mode is something to use all the time and just adds to the viewing experience.


I have yet to try Oblivion. On the list...



jacked said:


> I know to some this Denon might be lacking in its channel-count and advanced speaker setup options, but judging by performance alone I wouldn`t class this X5200 as "entry-level Atmos" or lacking in any way.
> From what I heard it`s a superb piece of kit.


I was staggered at the final sound. I am coming from an Onkyo flagship prepro but I have zero regrets. 



jacked said:


> We now just need the studios to ramp-up their bluray release strategy. I know the first 3 titles might not inspire us but the Atmos discs are coming.
> It will only be 6-8 months before Paramount release Interstellar on bluray in Dolby Atmos, and how good will that be............................
> 
> Dave


I am sure that the stuff in the pipeline will keep the smile on our faces. And DSU is so good that all of our legacy disks are getting a new lease of life it seems. Last night I watched The Descent, upmixed and it is really superb. Sound everywhere - and it really enhances the scenes with the Crawlers in them.

Nice to type to you. I am coming up to Al's next week (probably) to measure his room and show him the basics of using REW.


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> Does Battle:LA have atmos? There is a bit of overhead stuff going on in that move.


Ah yes - good one. And maybe Battleship too - so-so movie but great sound IIRC.


----------



## NorthSky

Let see:

1. 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' = Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and chapter 20 is awesome (I believe it).
2. 'Edge of Tomorrow' = With Dolby Surround up-mixer it should totally rock, and I bet it does too.
3. 'Gravity' = With Dolby Surround up-mixer it has to be totally awesome, no doubt.
4. 'Oblivion' = Same as the two above.
5. LOTR EE Trilogy = Should be real fun.

Not too bad @ all so far, I'd say.  

♦ It's going to be real tough for me to wait for the second generation of Dolby Atmos products (SSPs & receivers), because I do have an extensive collection of Blu-ray movies (over 4,000 titles), and many of them I would LOVE to test with Dolby Surround up-mixer. 
But I'll wait; it is smart, more economical ($), most probability to have Auro-3D and Auromatic (up-mixer) in it (next year). ...And also DTS-UHD, and with their own dts 3D up-mixer (not much talk so far...and I believe it's comin'). 

-> But one thing I'm sure of; I'll get there eventually. ...Because best surround sound envelopment is big part of my life. ...With movies, and with music concerts too.
...Same as with people and wildlife and nature and music, ...all that jazz. ♪ ♫


----------



## SubSolar

4,000 blurays!? That would take about a year to watch them all if you did so 24/7.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Erskine made a point about multiple subs increasing seat-to-seat uniformity, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it applied to his further remarks on the virtual sub.


Only insofar as the "optimal" position of the one sub may have included benefit for more than one seat, and thus so does the virtual sub.



> In any event, I don't see that there's a distinction in the result - besides high variation of SPL in the freq domain, there is also high spatial variation of SPL around the mode freq, so reducing the modal amplitude will also decrease this as well.


I am suggesting that if you come at the question from the alternate perspective, you do get a different, and possibly better result than the virtual sub provides. The virtual sub uses 2 subs to achieve what one sub can do. One sub cannot do what 2 subs can do when these 2 subs are used for cross-modal cancellation. There may be cases where there's a similar outcome, but as Lemay noted, there are limitations. Welti's data implies that the virtual sub theory does not hold true for all cases, and that dual subs can exceed the performance of a single sub in those cases.


----------



## NorthSky

SubSolar said:


> 4,000 blurays!? That would take about a year to watch them all if you did so 24/7.


There is @ least one other member here @ AVS who watch in his home theater room, and @ least twelve hours a day, every day. ...He is in my own thread (posting occasionally) of movies watching; forgot his name but I believe it is _Ellis_, a very nice/friendly and retired gentleman. 

And I know another gentleman with over 25,000-30,000 DVD/Blu-ray movies collection. 

When you love music and movies there are forums on the Internet where you can share with other hobbyists like you.

♦ My own Movies thread @ AVS: 
=> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

♦♦ Ellis' post (in my thread): 
=> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## nucky

NorthSky said:


> Let see:
> 
> 1. 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' = Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and chapter 20 is awesome (I believe it).
> 2. 'Edge of Tomorrow' = With Dolby Surround up-mixer it should totally rock, and I bet it does too.
> 3. 'Gravity' = With Dolby Surround up-mixer it has to be totally awesome, no doubt.
> 4. 'Oblivion' = Same as the two above.
> 5. LOTR EE Trilogy = Should be real fun.
> 
> Not too bad @ all so far, I'd say.
> 
> ♦ It's going to be real tough for me to wait for the second generation of Dolby Atmos products (SSPs & receivers), because I do have an extensive collection of Blu-ray movies (over 4,000 titles), and many of them I would LOVE to test with Dolby Surround up-mixer.
> But I'll wait; it is smart, more economical ($), most probability to have Auro-3D and Auromatic (up-mixer) in it (next year). ...And also DTS-UHD, and with their own dts 3D up-mixer (not much talk so far...and I believe it's comin').
> 
> -> But one thing I'm sure of; I'll get there eventually. ...Because best surround sound envelopment is big part of my life. ...With movies, and with music concerts too.
> ...Same as with people and wildlife and nature and music, ...all that jazz. ♪ ♫


Why wait? Get it now. You don't know what you are missing.


----------



## brwsaw

Virtual subs...needs its own thread, a dedicated DSP and seperate amplification for each sub.
Picture 8 subs, 4 top 4 bottom all at their respective 1/3 distances(from front and rear walls). The DSP would steer the peaks, nulls, volume, etc.
The brown note just needed to be more realistic, aggressive, in your face(literally) when you least expect it.
It might mean higher/more cross overs.
Atmos...
There, on topic...

Edit: forget goose bumps, you'll literally hit your pants


----------



## smurraybhm

I just finished watching Oblivion using Dolby Surround and as a few others have said before me the sound is spectacular. I just spent 2 hours with a big smile on my face, I may not be retired or able to spend 12 hours a day watching movies, but I have a lot of movies in my collection to watch or should I say listen to again.

At least as far as HT is concerned, the Denon 5200 is a bargain, not missing my 4311 or older Elite at all. Now to get the shipping notice from Amazon regarding T4.


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> At 45:25 of that video interview* Dennis says something very interesting- that having two subs at different locations is the same modes-wise as having one sub at the point midway between them, and that that point can be moved by varying their relative levels.
> 
> This may be the case, as a sub out in the room will excite less modes than when near the walls, but I'm surprised that I've never heard it stated this way before.





Roger Dressler said:


> It is a particular use case for two subs with a particular goal: replace a single sub somewhere in the room with two subs placed elsewhere. Alternatively, we may prefer to use two subs for a different goal: improve response uniformity over a larger seating area. Different goals with different solutions.
> 
> Also note that the substitution result is not universally achievable, there are dependencies. A draft paper from Gerald Lemay of Quest Acoustical Interiors, states: I do not have permission to post this paper, and cannot find it on the net, so if anyone wants to see it, probably best to contact Mr. Lemay at QuestAI or via Linkedin.





noah katz said:


> Erskine made a point about multiple subs increasing seat-to-seat uniformity, but I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it applied to his further remarks on the virtual sub.
> 
> In any event, I don't see that there's a distinction in the result - besides high variation of SPL in the freq domain, there is also high spatial variation of SPL around the mode freq, so reducing the modal amplitude will also decrease this as well.
> 
> {This idea of a virtual speaker location being moved through the room with attendant varying modal behavior make me wonder if panning between satellite speakers isn't as really smooth as it sounds, but maybe it would take a single freq right on a mode for it to be noticeable.}





Roger Dressler said:


> Only insofar as the "optimal" position of the one sub may have included benefit for more than one seat, and thus so does the virtual sub.
> 
> I am suggesting that if you come at the question from the alternate perspective, you do get a different, and possibly better result than the virtual sub provides. The virtual sub uses 2 subs to achieve what one sub can do. One sub cannot do what 2 subs can do when these 2 subs are used for cross-modal cancellation. There may be cases where there's a similar outcome, but as Lemay noted, there are limitations. Welti's data implies that the virtual sub theory does not hold true for all cases, and that dual subs can exceed the performance of a single sub in those cases.


♦ Just adding up (a simple link) to an interesting conversation:

=> www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...system-Take-1&p=287061&viewfull=1#post=287061

________

* And that video interview that first started it all from:


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Why wait? Get it now. You don't know what you are missing.


1. To save money (don't have to repurchase again next year).
2. I also want Auro-3D and Auromatic up-mixer, and most probably DTS-UHD and dts 3D up-mixer.

* Patience is sometimes the smart approach.  But Bravo to the ones who are already swimming with sharks; they are the ones who aren't afraid to lead, the Atmos pro-leaders.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> Only insofar as the "optimal" position of the one sub may have included benefit for more than one seat, and thus so does the virtual sub.
> 
> I am suggesting that if you come at the question from the alternate perspective, you do get a different, and possibly better result than the virtual sub provides. The virtual sub uses 2 subs to achieve what one sub can do. One sub cannot do what 2 subs can do when these 2 subs are used for cross-modal cancellation. There may be cases where there's a similar outcome, but as Lemay noted, there are limitations. Welti's data implies that the virtual sub theory does not hold true for all cases, and that dual subs can exceed the performance of a single sub in those cases.


Two subs creating a virtual one may well be in the locations that give cross-modal cancellation, though not necessarily; is that what you're saying?



NorthSky said:


> ♦ Just adding up (a simple link) to an interesting conversation:
> 
> => www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...system-Take-1&p=287061&viewfull=1#post=287061


Thanks, that will be useful.


----------



## NorthSky

> Last night I watched *The Descent*, upmixed (Dolby Surround) and it is really superb. Sound everywhere - and it really enhances the scenes with the Crawlers in them.


I bet it does, and Part 2 as well: 








---------------------


----------



## FilmMixer

Pioneer released the FW for the Elite Atmos upgradable AVR's today. 

I am getting my Pioneer Dolby Enabled speakers tomorrow.

On a third note, I returned the Denon and am going to stick with the Yamaha A3040...

Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. Yamaha, however, is set to deliver the FW for Atmos by the end of October.. so it will be a while until I can try it out.


----------



## gbaby

NorthSky said:


> 1. To save money (don't have to repurchase again next year).
> 2. I also want Auro-3D and Auromatic up-mixer, and most probably DTS-UHD and dts 3D up-mixer.
> 
> * Patience is sometimes the smart approach.  But Bravo to the ones who are already swimming with sharks; they are the ones who aren't afraid to lead, the Atmos pro-leaders.


You seem to be a smart, rational and pragmatic individual; just like me.


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> ... *Thanks, that will be useful.*


I knew you would like, Noah.


----------



## NorthSky

gbaby said:


> You seem to be a smart, rational and pragmatic individual; just like me.


Not only I seem to fit the part, but I am.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Two subs creating a virtual one may well be in the locations that give cross-modal cancellation, though not necessarily; is that what you're saying?


That is indeed part of it. The other part is that by focusing on using 2 subs to simulate one (virtual sub), the system installer may miss out on exploiting the other tools for tuning 2 subs, e.g., individual levels, delays, and EQ, aside from alternate positions.

The question then becomes, once someone decides a virtual sub is to be implemented (by 2 separate subs), should one take a fresh look at the question of how the get the best overall result from 2 subs? Is there any preferred solution for 2 subs that is inferior to the performance of the virtual sub? If so, then the process of optimizing the 2 subs seems flawed. And if not, why would anyone use 2 subs to simulate one when a better solution exists?


----------



## dan webster

FilmMixer said:


> Pioneer released the FW for the Elite Atmos upgradable AVR's today.
> 
> I am getting my Pioneer Dolby Enabled speakers tomorrow.
> 
> On a third note, I returned the Denon and am going to stick with the Yamaha A3040...
> 
> Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. Yamaha, however, is set to deliver the FW for Atmos by the end of October.. so it will be a while until I can try it out.


Could you give a brief reason why you chose the 3040 over the denon. I will be getting the yamaha 3040 or marantz 7009 soon. The marantz is tempting since there will not a wait for atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

♫ Previously, from Bill:

https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs



NorthSky said:


> You have a very nice home. That living room is beautiful; I love wood.
> 
> 1. Your sub; is it in the front left corner?
> 
> *2. Do I see four smaller height (front and rear) speakers?
> ...And that you use as your four overhead Atmos speakers???*
> 
> 3. Your back surround speakers; are they clearing your couch high enough?
> 
> ♦ Here are some of my own personal suggestions, if you don't mind:
> 
> 1. I would use the Marantz SR7009 as a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration.
> 2. By adding two side surround speakers.
> 3. By adding four overhead Atmos speakers using adjustable shaft (metal tube) mounts so that they are the four of them @ the same height level.
> 4. By adding a stereo amplifier (to make it eleven).
> 5. By adding a second subwoofer in the other front corner.
> 
> * Now, I can tell that your room is also your living space and a nice view on the outside through them beautiful windows.
> 
> At night it would be nice to have curtains so that they absorb sounds a bit.
> Also, a larger HDTV (or UH DTV), say 70 to 90" (approx) would be a nice option in the future. ...Or a front projector with very high brightness & contrast (dual bulbs, or laser).
> 
> If I would have that room, I would bargain heavily with my wife.
> And if not possible, I would build an external building specially for a home theater house.
> 
> *Earlier in that thread there were links provided for the type of ceiling speaker's mounts for the high ceilings like yours (and mine too) at escalating angles.
> - I can search for them if you are interested; they are only ten or fifteen pages back or so.*
> 
> And, if you want to keep a 5.1 floor setup; @ least put them rear speakers @ approximatively 110-120° (from dead front center).


♦ The two links were actually 72 and 71 pages back! 
...Very tough to relocated them, but I did in that one post (on page 247): 
=> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

* That could give you some very good ideas.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Pioneer released the FW for the Elite Atmos upgradable AVR's today.
> 
> I am getting my Pioneer Dolby Enabled speakers tomorrow.
> 
> On a third note, I returned the Denon and am going to stick with the Yamaha A3040...
> 
> Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. Yamaha, however, is set to deliver the FW for Atmos by the end of October.. so it will be a while until I can try it out.


I too would love to know what pushed you in the direction of retaining the Yamaha and sending the Denon back.


----------



## BillY2KFRC

Thanks for all the great advice, my comments are in red.



NorthSky said:


> You have a very nice home. That living room is beautiful; I love wood. - Thank you very much! Just moved in, really enjoying the home.
> 
> 1. Your sub; is it in the front left corner? Yes, it is.
> 2. Do I see four smaller height (front and rear) speakers? Correct, those are the Definitive Tech 800s.
> 3. Your back surround speakers; are they clearing your couch high enough? Yes, they clear the height of the couch.
> 
> ♦ Here are some of my own personal suggestions, if you don't mind:
> 
> 1. I would use the Marantz SR7009 as a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration.
> 2. By adding two side surround speakers.
> 3. By adding four overhead Atmos speakers using adjustable shaft (metal tube) mounts so that they are the four of them @ the same height level.
> 4. By adding a stereo amplifier (to make it eleven).
> 5. By adding a second subwoofer in the other front corner.
> 
> - I would love to add the side surround speakers, but the way the room is open concept and where the front door is located would make that challenge. Perhaps down the road I'll try something, but for now, I probably need to stick with 5.1.4. A second sub would be great if you want lend me the $1600, lol, I little tapped after just moving in.
> 
> * Now, I can tell that your room is also your living space and a nice view on the outside through them beautiful windows.
> 
> At night it would be nice to have curtains so that they absorb sounds a bit.
> Also, a larger HDTV (or UH DTV), say 70 to 90" (approx) would be a nice option in the future. ...Or a front projector with very high brightness & contrast (dual bulbs, or laser).
> 
> - Curtains aren't a bad idea, hadn't thought about the sound absorption they could provide... may be something I add down the line. For now, at least the wood blinds the sellers left behind block out most of the light during the day, plus the ceiling and walls are dark which is helpful as well. Current TV is a Sharp Elite 70", which I love to death. Looks smaller because of the big room I think. JVC RS4910 is coming hopefully by the end of the year, saving up now. Going to do an electric screen to drop down in front of the 70".
> 
> If I would have that room, I would bargain heavily with my wife.
> And if not possible, I would build an external building specially for a home theater house.
> 
> - Fiance is super easy going, so I luckily have no issues with that in my home. Cash and the limits of the space are all that hold me back.
> 
> Earlier in that thread there were links provided for the type of ceiling speaker's mounts for the high ceilings like yours (and mine too) at escalating angles.
> - I can search for them if you are interested; they are only ten or fifteen pages back or so.
> 
> - I don't want to put any holes in the ceiling logs, so those are out. The loft walls are just conventional studs and sheetrock though, so I can put something up on there.
> 
> And, if you want to keep a 5.1 floor setup; @ least put them rear speakers @ approximatively 110-120° (from dead front center).
> 
> - Great point, I didn't think about doing that. I think I was more concerned with lining up with the fronts for some odd reason. The left rear is limited by that closet in the corner and is already as far it can go. But the right rear I can move out another 3 or 4 feet, so I'll give that try. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## BillY2KFRC

NorthSky said:


> ♫ Previously, from Bill:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ The two links were actually 72 and 71 pages back!
> ...Very tough to relocated them, but I did in that one post (on page 247):
> => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> * That could give you some very good ideas.


Thanks for digging out the links! Appreciate it!


----------



## NorthSky

That's what good friends are for.


----------



## FilmMixer

dan webster said:


> Could you give a brief reason why you chose the 3040 over the denon. I will be getting the yamaha 3040 or marantz 7009 soon. The marantz is tempting since there will not a wait for atmos.


Dan and Dan...

"Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. "

The Denon won't use the Elevation speakers for anything other than Atmos and DSU...

The Yamaha will for both of those, _and_ their own DSP processing.

It should give me a taste of how they might work out "down the line" as other decoding solutions become available.


----------



## SoundChex

FilmMixer said:


> I returned the Denon and am going to stick with the Yamaha A3040... Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. Yamaha, however, is set to deliver the FW for Atmos by the end of October.. so it will be a while until I can try it out.



Wasn't there a rumor about a _home _*Auro-3D* roll-out in October? Perhaps the *3040* FW update will be an *Atmos|Auro-3D* combo...?  
_


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Dan and Dan...
> 
> "Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. "
> 
> The Denon won't use the Elevation speakers for anything other than Atmos and DSU...
> 
> The Yamaha will for both of those, _and_ their own DSP processing.
> 
> It should give me a taste of how they might work out "down the line" as other decoding solutions become available.


'Highly' (pun intended) justifiable reason.


----------



## bkeeler10

So is there any further insight on whether the Yammy 3040 will be able to locate (or be told) the precise placement of the speakers, as has been speculated before? That would potentially be another good reason.


----------



## DaJoJo

FilmMixer said:


> Dan and Dan...
> "Want to be able to see how well the Yamaha DSP works with the Elevation speakers.. "
> The Denon won't use the Elevation speakers for anything other than Atmos and DSU...
> The Yamaha will for both of those, _and_ their own DSP processing.
> It should give me a taste of how they might work out "down the line" as other decoding solutions become available.


it does a very good job, you won't be dissapointed. this yammie rulez em all for sure. atmos firmware suppose to come end of october


----------



## DaJoJo

bkeeler10 said:


> So is there any further insight on whether the Yammy 3040 will be able to locate (or be told) the precise placement of the speakers, as has been speculated before? That would potentially be another good reason.


it has YPAO with speaker angle detection and it does very well at measuring the speaker distance. u can add those distances manually too, but i did not find the angle setting in the settings menu. the thing has so many options its insain.


----------



## Miamiredhawks

*Should I keep TX-NR3010*

I don't know if I should post my question here or in some other thread. However, this thread is very active and at least somewhat relevant to my question. Last year I started to build a media room. I had the projector, screen and speakers put in along with a cheaper Onkyo receiver (TX-NR 616 - with the HDMI issue). Then I started reading about Audyssey and wanted to get an 11-channel receiver. Back in March of 2014 I bought Onkyo TX-NR3010 for $1,400. I still have not opened it.

Back in July of this year I first heard about Dolby Atmos. What amazes me is that I had never heard of it until then. Of course when I came to know about it I wanted to get a receiver with Dolby Atmos. I cannot do that with a brand new Onkyo receiver sitting in my media room. I posted the TX-NR3010 on Craigslist for $999. Not even an enquiry. I checked E-bay and didn't find one that was successfully sold.

I was going to initially ask the forum if I should try to sell it on E-bay but now I think the issue is moot as there is no demand for it. The way I was rationalizing keeping the receiver was that I could perhaps get $800 from E-bay if I did sell it. However, if I kept it, the drop in price for the new Atmos receivers would be at least $500 in another year. By that time, the dust would settle vis a vis Auro and DTS MTA. So I would be at most $300 off short if I kept my TX-NR3010.


What I am looking for is some sympathy and assurance that keeping TX-NR3010 is not that bad. This issue has consumed me for the last two months. Thanks.


----------



## smurraybhm

There's nothing bad about your 3010. I would suggest posting it for sale here on AVS. I have sold two receivers that way this year. Otherwise enjoy/relax.


----------



## DaJoJo

yeah sell it now its still new in box.. on the other hand atmos isn't going to be mainstream until next year so you won't miss out that much. i mean we did years without it so a few years extra won't hurt.


----------



## FilmMixer

DaJoJo said:


> it does a very good job, you won't be dissapointed. this yammie rulez em all for sure. atmos firmware suppose to come end of october


You have Dolby Enabled speakers? 

From your sig it doesn't appear so, nor does it say you have presence speakers... which is the only thing the angle measurement works for... curious how you are setup.

I know about the end of October..... I'm the one who reported it.


----------



## wse

Let's see when it happens but no HDCP2.2 so this means we will have to buy new receivers again next year í ½í±€ í ½í±Ž


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Miamiredhawks said:


> I was going to initially ask the forum if I should try to sell it on E-bay but now I think the issue is moot as there is no demand for it. The way I was rationalizing keeping the receiver was that I could perhaps get $800 from E-bay if I did sell it. However, if I kept it, the drop in price for the new Atmos receivers would be at least $500 in another year. By that time, the dust would settle vis a vis Auro and DTS MTA. So I would be at most $300 off short if I kept my TX-NR3010.
> 
> 
> What I am looking for is some sympathy and assurance that keeping TX-NR3010 is not that bad. This issue has consumed me for the last two months. Thanks.





smurraybhm said:


> There's nothing bad about your 3010. I would suggest posting it for sale here on AVS. I have sold two receivers that way this year. Otherwise enjoy/relax.


Someone will buy it. There are people who like to be a generation behind to save on gear cost.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> Interstellar was mixed in 5.1.
> 
> There will be no Atmos mix.





jacked said:


> Gutted. Ok thanks Marc.


I'm sad to hear that as well... though Interstallar is an IMAX movie right? Aren't IMAX theaters equipped with a specific sound system that isn't Atmos? 

I'm curious if either the old or the next Star Wars will be mixed in Atmos?


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm sad to hear that as well... though Interstallar is an IMAX movie right? Aren't IMAX theaters equipped with a specific sound system that isn't Atmos?
> 
> I'm curious if either the old or the next Star Wars will be mixed in Atmos?


You can bet that SW will be in Atmos.

IMAX uses a 6.0 channel proprietary sound system.

3 LCR speakers, 2 rear corner surrounds (full range) and a VOG/OH/Top Center speaker (which isn't used for digital IMAX AFAIK..).. there is no dedicated LFE/.1 channel

So really we deliver a 5.0..

The LFE from the 5.1/7.1 or Atmos mixes are folded into the L and R main channels..

The LF content from all channels is then bass managed into the subs...

The "remix" for IMAX consists of filtering the mains and managing the bass build up... usually we start at 60-70 Hz filtering and open up or close down depending on how big it gets.. the LFE isn't filtered as a normal practice, but it is most certainly riden to taste...

I'm finishing up the IMAX mix for "Fury" tomorrow... it's quite a thunderous version of the soundtrack, and the full range surrounds are really great to have... alas, no NA release for it, just international..


----------



## NorthSky

Marc, where do you find the bass most impactful, @ 40Hz?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> I'm finishing up the IMAX mix for "Fury" tomorrow... it's quite a thunderous version of the soundtrack, and the full range surrounds are really great to have... alas, no NA release for it, just international..


Cool! Can't wait to hear the mix  

Thanks for all the info, that's a pretty cool job you have there!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> The LFE from the 5.1/7.1 or Atmos mixes are folded into the L and R main channels..
> 
> The LF content from all channels is then bass managed into the subs...
> 
> The "remix" for IMAX consists of filtering the mains and managing the bass build up... usually we start at 60-70 Hz filtering and open up or close down depending on how big it gets.. the LFE isn't filtered as a normal practice, but it is most certainly riden to taste...


So basically a film's mix can be easily adjusted to fit both formats... cool that makes sense, as I just remembered GOTG was released in IMAX & Atmos. I saw both versions, though I can't really compare because the Atmos theaters in my area (Marcus) don't work :/


----------



## kbarnes701

Miamiredhawks said:


> I don't know if I should post my question here or in some other thread. However, this thread is very active and at least somewhat relevant to my question. Last year I started to build a media room. I had the projector, screen and speakers put in along with a cheaper Onkyo receiver (TX-NR 616 - with the HDMI issue). Then I started reading about Audyssey and wanted to get an 11-channel receiver. Back in March of 2014 I bought Onkyo TX-NR3010 for $1,400. I still have not opened it.
> 
> Back in July of this year I first heard about Dolby Atmos. What amazes me is that I had never heard of it until then. Of course when I came to know about it I wanted to get a receiver with Dolby Atmos. I cannot do that with a brand new Onkyo receiver sitting in my media room. I posted the TX-NR3010 on Craigslist for $999. Not even an enquiry. I checked E-bay and didn't find one that was successfully sold.
> 
> I was going to initially ask the forum if I should try to sell it on E-bay but now I think the issue is moot as there is no demand for it. The way I was rationalizing keeping the receiver was that I could perhaps get $800 from E-bay if I did sell it. However, if I kept it, the drop in price for the new Atmos receivers would be at least $500 in another year. By that time, the dust would settle vis a vis Auro and DTS MTA. So I would be at most $300 off short if I kept my TX-NR3010.
> 
> 
> What I am looking for is some sympathy and assurance that keeping TX-NR3010 is not that bad. This issue has consumed me for the last two months. Thanks.


First off, the 3010 is a great unit. All that it lacks is Atmos. So the question really is how badly do you want Atmos right now? If the answer to that is "I want it TODAY" then. unfortunately, the 3010 will have to go and you will have to buy an new AVR. If the answer is "I can wait until the Atmos dust settles" then you can keep the 3010 until the time comes when, in your view, the dust has settled. 

I am surprised that there is no eBay demand for a brand new, unused, unboxed 3010. Maybe you should try it and put a reserve on it, or do a 'buy it now' for $999 or whatever you want for it. 

If you decide to keep the 3010, you will be impressed by Audyssey's XT32 compared with the current AVR you are using, so all is not lost.


----------



## bargervais

OK I woke up this morning checked my 737 and there is a firmware update via net I downloaded it and upgraded my AVR I don't have any Atmos content until tomorrow when I get transformers 4 I will check out Dolby surround till then it's too early to try a blu-ray but I'll check tonight when I get back from work very excited.


----------



## bargervais

I'll try godzilla with dolby surround and see how upmixing sounds. will Dolby HD upmix better to dolby surround then DTSMA? I'LL try both and let you all know my impressions. I'm very excited about this.


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> I'll try godzilla with dolby surround and see how upmixing sounds. will Dolby HD upmix better to dolby surround then DTSMA? I'LL try both and let you all know my impressions. I'm very excited about this.


On discs which have both type of soundtracks, both *should* sound the same. Both produce lossless audio.There's always the possibility that the two soundtracks were mixed differently, however.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> On discs which have both type of soundtracks, both *should* sound the same. Both produce lossless audio.There's always the possibility that the two soundtracks were mixed differently, however.


Thanks I'll give a try it a little later, I don't want to get tripped off this morning and be late for work.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> OK I woke up this morning checked my 737 and there is a firmware update via net I downloaded it and upgraded my AVR I don't have any Atmos content until tomorrow when I get transformers 4 I will check out Dolby surround till then it's too early to try a blu-ray but I'll check tonight when I get back from work very excited.


I shall be really interested to read your first impressions. You have waited a long time for this so you have every right to be excited.


----------



## htpcforever

Miamiredhawks said:


> What I am looking for is some sympathy and assurance that keeping TX-NR3010 is not that bad. This issue has consumed me for the last two months. Thanks.


Wait a few years for the dust to settle wrt ceiling mounted sound and use your receiver in the meantime. I have that exact model and love it every day. I would also check its serial number to see if it has the bad chip in it. You can find a link to the site to check it here:


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...units-extending-warrranties-until-2018-a.html


You have to lie and say you are having issues (if you are not) and it will tell you if it is eligible for a free repair. You do not actually have to complete the warranty return if you do not want, but saying you have a problem allows you to check. Gives a peace of mind that if you DO have issues you know you are covered. Part way through the 3010 model year they found the problem and fixed it, so you might not have the bad chip.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> Scott Wilkinson interviews HT designer (and AVS member) Dennis Erskine:
> 
> Worth watching for some of Dennis' comments on how he would implement consumer Atmos.





RichB said:


> At 47:43:
> 
> 
> 
> He also mentions the importance of wide dispersion in ceiling speakers.
> 
> - Rich


 
Great interview! Thanks for providing the link.


Regarding Atmos, good advice to consider when choosing speakers and determining their install locations. I know that I will be using all timbre matching speakers including the ceiling mounted units (which will have very wide dispersion characteristics), in fact after watching that portion of the interview I am going to scare up another pair in case one day I can implement 6 ceiling speakers... although it might be a while before 'affordable' enter the consumer market.


----------



## sikclown

Al Sherwood said:


> Great interview! Thanks for providing the link.
> 
> 
> Regarding Atmos, good advice to consider when choosing speakers and determining their install locations. I know that I will be using all timbre matching speakers including the ceiling mounted units (which will have very wide dispersion characteristics), in fact after watching that portion of the interview I am going to scare up another pair in case one day I can implement 6 ceiling speakers... although it might be a while before 'affordable' enter the consumer market.


What speakers are you going to use for your ceiling mounts?


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Would you mind posting your pre-Audyssey response too, when you get a chance? Very interested in seeing how much work XT32 had to do.


OK - I measured again just for you...

This graph shows the result with and without Audyssey. Unsmoothed, DEQ Off. The red trace is Audyssey ON and the blue trace is without Audyssey.


----------



## Selden Ball

That's an amazing subwoofer response.

What's happening at the higher frequencies?


----------



## pasender91

Not sure we needed another proof, but XT32 really does wonders for low frequencies.

In your environment the benefit is clear. The max-min was 19 dB before => 7 dB after, and without any peaks


----------



## 3ll3d00d

The dip introduced in the low teens is an odd one though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> That's an amazing subwoofer response.
> 
> What's happening at the higher frequencies?


Oh they're OK. XT32 doesn't mess too much with the HF and the room is well treated. I didn’t take a full range measurement, or rather I didn't save one. The graph above (audyssey ON) differs slightly from the one I took over the weekend, which shows how moving the mic even an inch or so makes a difference. It's slight but it's there. This was the weekend graph:










TBH I am happy with either, but you can see the small differences.

It was this graph that made me decide to sell my Pro Kit soon. How can Pro improve on that?


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> The dip introduced in the low teens is an odd one though.


See my remarks to Selden.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Not sure we needed another proof, but XT32 really does wonders for low frequencies.


Indeed. And it has convinced me that the Pro Kit is, for me anyway, not needed.




pasender91 said:


> In your environment the benefit is clear. The max-min was 19 dB before => 7 dB after, and without any peaks


Yep. And


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> OK - I measured again just for you...
> 
> This graph shows the result with and without Audyssey. Unsmoothed, DEQ Off. The red trace is Audyssey ON and the blue trace is without Audyssey.


Thanks 

I agree with Selden that this is a pretty good starting place for EQ, especially for a fairly small room. Very flat in the bottom couple octaves, and the only boosting needed is in the higher frequencies, which won't chew up headroom like a boost in the lower frequencies would.

Regardless, an excellent post-EQ result. Had you ever tried implementing a sort of house curve using Pro. Like, for example, having a smooth rise in output from, say, 80 Hz down to 20 Hz, with 20 Hz being a few dB hotter? I hear the curve fit feature of Pro is a little rudimentary and not all that great, but would it allow such a modification without too much effort?

And I'll stop asking Audyssey questions here after this


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Thanks
> 
> I agree with Selden that this is a pretty good starting place for EQ, especially for a fairly small room. Very flat in the bottom couple octaves, and the only boosting needed is in the higher frequencies, which won't chew up headroom like a boost in the lower frequencies would.


That'll be the benefit of all the treatments and the dual sub optimisation (as much as you can optimise placement in a room this small).



bkeeler10 said:


> Regardless, an excellent post-EQ result. Had you ever tried implementing a sort of house curve using Pro. Like, for example, having a smooth rise in output from, say, 80 Hz down to 20 Hz, with 20 Hz being a few dB hotter? I hear the curve fit feature of Pro is a little rudimentary and not all that great, but would it allow such a modification without too much effort?
> 
> And I'll stop asking Audyssey questions here after this



I've experimented with PEQ - I find the Pro curve editor a crude and useless thing TBH. But I listen close to Reference (-6dB) and DEQ adds enough to bring it back to flat. For me, flat at Reference is all the bass I want!


----------



## maikeldepotter

I want to share a remarkable observation I made listening to my recordings of a forum session at the IBC 2014 event in Amsterdam: 'Immersive audio? From the big screen to the small screen'.

The session was chaired by Julian Pinn (MD Julian Pinn Ltd). The invited speakers (of which the last two were initially not mentioned in the programme) were:
- Gérard Loupias (Director Commercial Development DTS), 
- Wilfried van Baelen (CEO Auro Technologies), 
- William Files (Re-recording Mixer, Skywalker Sound), 
- Brian Claypool (Sr. Director Strategic Business Development, Barco), and 
- Stuart Bowling (Director, Market Developments, Dolby Laboratories).

The gentlemen from DTS, Auro, Barco, and Dolby were all given the opportunity to present their sales pitch, and William Files elaborated on his experiences with immersive audio, illustrated by some fragments from the movie "The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". 

Stuart Bowling summarized the features of Atmos versus standard 5.1. He named respectively 1) providing consistent play-back by intelligent rendering, 2) having height channels, and 3) using full-range surrounds which are individually addressable. He elaborated on the feature of consistent playback by explaining that standard 5.1 can sound different from room-to-room-to-room, because its technology wasn't really helping in providing better consistency in theater playback. With Atmos, they wanted to give better control to people like Willam Files, so that what he and filmmaker hear in their studios, is going to be be accurately reflected no matter where it goes around in the world. 

Now, that in that very same forum, this very same William Files said 15 minutes later the following: 



(And than he continued, this is literally what he said, including hums and accentuations)

'And the final piece of the puzzle, for ME, is consistency of reproduction, hum, specifically in terms of object playback, hum, which to me makes perfect sense, hum, the wonderful thing is that, as a, it's a, it's a thing you have to get used to as a mixer to trust that the computer is going to take the intent in what you try to do, and do his very best version of it in the configuration of the room as it is. But once you swallowed that idea, and you get used to this idea that it is NOT going to be exactly the same every time, but it will FEEL the same way every time, hum, that is actually even better in many ways'. End of statement.

So when Stuart Bowling was talking about ATMOS' consistent play-back and its accurate reflection of sound, he was not specifically referring to its being object based, but to the other game-changing features of Atmos (following William Files' comments)? This was not my understanding at all up till now. Anyone who can shine some light on this? I am totally confused...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> I want to share a remarkable observation I made listening to my recordings of a forum session at the IBC 2014 event in Amsterdam: 'Immersive audio? From the big screen to the small screen'.
> 
> The session was chaired by Julian Pinn (MD Julian Pinn Ltd). The invited speakers (of which the last two were initially not mentioned in the programme) were:
> - Gérard Loupias (Director Commercial Development DTS),
> - Wilfried van Baelen (CEO Auro Technologies),
> - William Files (Re-recording Mixer, Skywalker Sound),
> - Brian Claypool (Sr. Director Strategic Business Development, Barco), and
> - Stuart Bowling (Director, Market Developments, Dolby Laboratories).
> 
> The gentlemen from DTS, Auro, Barco, and Dolby were all given the opportunity to present their sales pitch, and William Files elaborated on his experiences with immersive audio, illustrated by some fragments from the movie "The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes".
> 
> Stuart Bowling summarized the features of Atmos versus standard 5.1. He named respectively 1) providing consistent play-back by intelligent rendering, 2) having height channels, and 3) using full-range surrounds which are individually addressable. He elaborated on the feature of consistent playback by explaining that standard 5.1 can sound different from room-to-room-to-room, because its technology wasn't really helping in providing better consistency in theater playback. With Atmos, they wanted to give better control to people like Willam Files, so that what he and filmmaker hear in their studios, is going to be be accurately reflected no matter where it goes around in the world.
> 
> Now, that in that very same forum, this very same William Files said 15 minutes later the following:
> 
> 
> 
> (And than he continued, this is literally what he said, including hums and accentuations)
> 
> 'And the final piece of the puzzle, for ME, is consistency of reproduction, hum, specifically in terms of object playback, hum, which to me makes perfect sense, hum, the wonderful thing is that, as a, it's a, it's a thing you have to get used to as a mixer to trust that the computer is going to take the intent in what you try to do, and do his very best version of it in the configuration of the room as it is. But once you swallowed that idea, and you get used to this idea that it is NOT going to be exactly the same every time, but it will FEEL the same way every time, hum, that is actually even better in many ways'. End of statement.
> 
> So when Stuart Bowling was talking about ATMOS' consistent play-back and its accurate reflection of sound, he was not specifically referring to its being object based, but to the other game-changing features of Atmos (following William Files' comments)? This was not my understanding at all up till now. Anyone who can shine some light on this? I am totally confused...


It is _because_ Atmos is object based they can pinpoint sounds in individual speakers and not just arrays (that makes them stand out more... more audio "resolution"... rather than being buried with a bunch of other sounds), and make the soundtrack that much more consistent from theater to theater, each being a different playback environment.

Any word from DTS about their plans?


----------



## Al Sherwood

sikclown said:


> What speakers are you going to use for your ceiling mounts?


Klipsch Synergy S-2's (or S-20's; newer model) they are part of the complete system I am gathering.


----------



## sikclown

Al Sherwood said:


> Klipsch Synergy S-2's (or S-20's; newer model) they are part of the complete system I am gathering.


I actually was going to use S-20s as well but got a bit of the purchase bug and went with RS-52IIs.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any word from DTS about their plans?


Gérard Loupias said that the tools for their standardized object based open format were available, and that it would be agnostic to the speaker lay-out being used during playback. Later at the DTS boot I spoke to a technical guy who said that the current and upcoming Atoms (and Atmos upgradable) AVRs will also be upgradable to DTS-UHD early 2015, but it's name will be different and not yet to be disclosed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It really should just be called Neo:X still. The *X* in the name has meant to imply that it had an infinite amount of speaker locations to support.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sikclown said:


> I actually was going to use S-20s as well but got a bit of the purchase bug and went with RS-52IIs.


 
Cool, I am looking forward to getting this all set up myself. From your signature we are both Klipsch fans.


I also have home built Klipschhorns (now only used for stereo music) that I used to use in my HT, but when I went to an AT screen I was looking for something a little my flexible in their placement, so I picked up 5 Synergy F-3 towers for placement as R&L front wide and L-C-R speakers, 4 S-2's as surrounds. Two DTS-10's are slated for the subwoofer duties. 


Since Atmos was announced I have obtained a set of B-2's ( possible front heights), 4 S-3's to replace the S-2's which will move to the ceiling (so far looking at front and rear height locations). I figure that with a single woofer flanked by 2 in-phase tweeters, with dispersion rated at 180 degrees the S-2's, should work well in those locations .


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> It really should just be called Neo:X still. The *X* in the name has meant to imply that it had an infinite amount of speaker locations to support.


 My impression was that this was supposed to be an open standard. As a result, my guess would be that the other members of the design group would not want DTS to be a part of the name.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> It is _because_ Atmos is object based they can pinpoint sounds in individual speakers and not just arrays (that makes them stand out more... more audio "resolution"... rather than being buried with a bunch of other sounds)


Yes, very much in line with what William Files said.



> , and make the soundtrack that much more consistent from theater to theater, each being a different playback environment.


William files said: '... specifically in terms of object playback ... you get used to this idea that it is *NOT going to be exactly the same every time, but it will FEEL the same way every time* ...

Slip of the tongue or my misinterpretation? 
Either way, I'd better forget about it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Selden Ball said:


> My impression was that this was supposed to be an open standard. As a result, my guess would be that the other members of the design group would not want DTS to be a part of the name.


MDA is the open standard. The AVR application will have a DTS name.


----------



## Kain

General question...

What is making Atmos so much more popular than Auro-3D (commercial and home)? Is it timing of release, availability, is it simply the superior format, etc.?


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> It really should just be called Neo:X still. The *X* in the name has meant to imply that it had an infinite amount of speaker locations to support.




_Not quite..._



SoundChex said:


> *The story behind the "X"*, as described in a very small 'puff piece' interview with *DTS* about *Neo:X* dated April 12, 2009, on *TechRadar com* (_link_):
> 
> "_When we showed 11.1, we came up with a concept called 'Neo:X' – where 'X' could be any number within reason. 'X' for CES [2009] was 11. [ . . . ] [11.1] was what we showed. It could be 11, it could be 9, it could be 13, it could be 366. The Master Audio algorithm is very expandable._"




In any event, I think of *Neo:X"2015"* as the *DTS* equivalent of the *Dolby Surround Upmixer* . . . but hopefully without the *DSU*'s "annoying limitation" that any available *Front Wide speakers* are *not* usable!  
_


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> General question...
> 
> What is making Atmos so much more popular than Auro-3D (commercial and home)? Is it timing of release, availability, is it simply the superior format, etc.?


Well, in the home environment, Atmos is the first to market in affordable home entertainment equipment. Auro3D was available first in uber-expensive models.

I can't speak to the commercial environment except to guess that since Dolby has had a presence in theaters for far longer than Auro has, that would give them an advantage as being a known quantity.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> General question...
> 
> What is making Atmos so much more popular than Auro-3D (commercial and home)? Is it timing of release, availability, is it simply the superior format, etc.?



Titles actually being mixed in this (Dolby Atmos) sure is helping. 

Also adoption of it is much more wide than Auro.

Technically speaking, they are quite close especially now that supposedly Auro has adopted a hybrid channel+objects approach which is similar to Dolby Atmos. Their differences mostly lie in the speaker layout ideology.

What makes Atmos more popular is that it is much more prolific in both content creation (sound mixing) and content reproduction (sound system in cinema).


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> _Not quite..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any event, I think of *Neo:X"2015"* as the *DTS* equivalent of the *Dolby Surround Upmixer* . . . but hopefully without the *DSU*'s "annoying limitation" that any available *Front Wide speakers* are *not* usable!
> _


Exactly. So I'm not sure why you say, "not quite" as it is mentioned that it pretty much is just how I said. 

But yes. A new, same named algorithm would be annoying... at first.

"I've got Neo:X in my system" 

"Oh yeah! I've got that too!" 

"Nah. You have that _old_ version." 

"Wah?"


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Technically speaking, they are quite close especially now that supposedly Auro has adopted a hybrid channel+objects approach which is similar to Dolby Atmos. Their differences mostly lie in the speaker layout ideology.


In addition to this, when I attended the afore named forum session at IBC Amsterdam (that was held in a auditorium that for the occasion was transformed into an Atmos cinema), I was sitting right behind the sound engineer that controlled the Atmos speakers. Before the session began, I asked him some questions about the speaker lay-out. This led him to explaning the far from ideal acoustics of the auditorium (too reflective), but that they nevertheless managed to achieve a reasonably good result. 

This gentleman also then claimed (uninvitedly and remarkably considering his apparent role of optimizing Atmos in that venue) that he liked Auro more, and that Auro was based upon a much more scientific approach with regard to the way we perceive sound. I did not get his business card, but Gérard Loupias from DTS came to personally say hello to him. He was also the guy that, after the session, was talking to some other people about things to be changed/improved if they "would like to continue doing demonstrations like this". FWIW


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Later at the DTS boot I spoke to a technical guy who said that the current and upcoming Atoms (and Atmos upgradable) AVRs will also be upgradable to DTS-UHD early 2015, but it's name will be different and not yet to be disclosed.





Scott Simonian said:


> It really should just be called Neo:X still. The *X* in the name has meant to imply that it had an infinite amount of speaker locations to support.


Scott, you think DTS-UHD should be called DTS Neo:X in consumer gear?


----------



## Scott Simonian

The upmixer? Yes. Why not?

The name Dolby Surround is totally cool for everyone at this point. 

EDIT: I see now that I was responding to the issue of DTS-UHD and not necessarily it's blind upmixer to which I was referring. Idk what DTS should call their new object system. Call it something other than UHD which is confusing but if we're used to Dolby Surround then hey... what the hell.


----------



## jacked

bargervais said:


> I'll try godzilla with dolby surround and see how upmixing sounds. will Dolby HD upmix better to dolby surround then DTSMA? I'LL try both and let you all know my impressions. I'm very excited about this.



I was wondering that actually, if anyone had yet tried Godzilla in Dolby Surround.


I`m sure it will amaze, especially if the upmixing directs some of the roars to the height channels.


Enjoy !!!!!!!!!


Dave


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> The upmixer? Yes. Why not?


I thought Maikel was talking about the name of their object-based codec (DTS-UHD) being changed, I didn't know that the name of the upmixer (Neo:X) was up in the air as well. 

EDIT: just saw your edit. Nevermind.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Updated my post.

Thanks, Sanjay for keeping it clear around here.


----------



## jacked

kbarnes701 said:


> I am coming up to Al's next week (probably) to measure his room and show him the basics of using REW.



Hi Keith,


I won`t pretend to understand about using REW and taking measurements but I know what you mean about that FR graph you`ve done, it doesn`t get much flatter than that surely !


If you really believe that the Audyssey Pro setup doesn`t really improve the audio in your room now I think I can follow that advice when I update my own AVR.
I know Allan said he probably doesn`t need to do a Pro Cal on the X5200, and he wondered does he even need to bother going for the Marantz AV8802 he has pre-ordered, considering how superb the Denon is !?


I really look forward to reading your more in-depth findings about the Denon and the updates as-and-when you demo more of your bluray collection.


Cheers Keith,


Dave


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Titles actually being mixed in this (Dolby Atmos) sure is helping.
> 
> Also adoption of it is much more wide than Auro.
> 
> Technically speaking, they are quite close especially now that supposedly Auro has adopted a hybrid channel+objects approach which is similar to Dolby Atmos. Their differences mostly lie in the speaker layout ideology.
> 
> What makes Atmos more popular is that it is much more prolific in both content creation (sound mixing) and content reproduction (sound system in cinema).


From everything I heard at CEDIA about Auro from the "main dudes," I don't expect them to release the new channel+object based version to homes any time soon. Van Baelen thought objects were only worth having if you had 15 or more speakers (something he seemed to almost have disdain for... yes, he's very European  ). Auro3D may only show up as 9.1. There was little mention of Auro3D 13.1 using a 7.1 channel base. I think Barco may be allowing DTS to take that lead since their MDA standards partner will be going for the channel+object approach like Dolby Atmos. 

Since Dolby is already using Atmos's advantage of system scalability to 34.1 outputs, it stands to reason they have objects included.

DTS needs to put some white papers into the wild (like Dolby, if not more specific) and other marketing stuff for their new object based system for general consumption and guarantee some titles... especially if current equipment will be firmware upgradeable in early 2015! 

So far, their silence is deafening.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, really. I want to know more about this elusive new format of theirs.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> From everything I heard at CEDIA about Auro from the "main dudes," I don't expect them to release the new channel+object based version to homes any time soon. Van Baelen thought objects were only worth having if you had 15 or more speakers (something he seemed to almost have disdain for... yes, he's very European  ). Auro3D may only show up as 9.1. There was little mention of Auro3D 13.1 using a 7.1 channel base. I think Barco may be allowing DTS to take that lead since their MDA standards partner will be doing the channel+object approach like Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Since Dolby is already using 34.1 outputs, it stands to reason they have objects included.




From a September 16, 2014, *Audioholics* article, "*Auro-3D® Immersive Sound Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen*" (_link_):



> _*Future-proof speaker layouts*_ _In commercial theaters, more is possible. For that reason I designed the Auro 22.1 format which uses the same speaker layout as the Auro 11.1 cinematic install, but deploys more zones naturally spread over the hemisphere. I always found it illogical to have the long side walls of a theater lined with an array of speakers creating a mono field, and then adding a stereo field on the back wall to create 7.1 surround. A better starting point would have been 6.1 with L/C/R along with side surrounds and a single back channel. From there, you can then make a stereo field at the sides and rear to create a 9.1 horizontal layer. The key to immersive sound is to mirror that same 9.1 layer, creating the Auro-3D Height Layer. The ceiling channels would be divided in the same way, creating a Top Front in stereo array as well a Top Back array in stereo. The end result is the Auro 22.1 speaker layout, which is an easy expansion by just adding a few amplifiers on top of the Auro 11.1 cinematic setup. The final option is the addition of the wide screen surrounds in lower and height layer, *which creates the Auro 26.1 system.* _


_


----------



## FilmMixer

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, very much in line with what William Files said.
> 
> William files said: '... specifically in terms of object playback ... you get used to this idea that it is *NOT going to be exactly the same every time, but it will FEEL the same way every time* ...
> 
> Slip of the tongue or my misinterpretation?
> Either way, I'd better forget about it.


Some theaters will have 10 channels on the auditorium, some 40. 

So if you have a sound traveling up a wall that has 5 speakers vs 10 it won't be exactly the same. But the rendering engine uses the available resources it has to make it sound as good as can be with the amount of speakers present. 

its different than what we have had in the past.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> General question...
> 
> What is making Atmos so much more popular than Auro-3D (commercial and home)? Is it timing of release, availability, is it simply the superior format, etc.?


Atmos have far more movies mixed in Atmos than Auro have mixed in Auro. Ultimately this is what will decide which does best and which becomes the de facto standard. Auro have already had to massively backpedal it seems and move towards an object-based system. The main problem with Auro in the home is that they use a different speaker layout to Atmos, but as the latter has the benefit of 'getting there first' this will be an obstacle which Auro will have to overcome. Not many people will be able to have two different speaker layouts, one for Auro and one for Atmos, so first-mover advantage may be strong here, as it usually is. You said it yourself in your question: "Atmos [is] so much more popular than Auro".


----------



## kbarnes701

jacked said:


> If you really believe that the Audyssey Pro setup doesn`t really improve the audio in your room now I think I can follow that advice when I update my own AVR.


Hey Dave... I have thought for quite some time that Pro does not bring much in the way of audible benefits. Pro does offer other benefits though, some of which may be of use to some people, but not to me. I have carried on using Pro for a long time since I have the Kit and so may as well use it - the XT32 calibration I did with the 5200 was the first regular XT32 cal I have done for years. And IIRC I have never measured the result of a regular XT32 calibration, only the Pro calibration, as I had the Pro Kit before OmniMic or REW. But I am now convinced that I no longer need Pro.



jacked said:


> I know Allan said he probably doesn`t need to do a Pro Cal on the X5200, and he wondered does he even need to bother going for the Marantz AV8802 he has pre-ordered, considering how superb the Denon is !?


Yes he said the same to me. TBH my view is that modern electronics, room EQ aside, contribute very little to overall SQ, so I’d expect the 5200 with XT32 to 'sound' as good as the Marantz AV8802 with XT32. There may be other reasons of course why someone prefers the Marantz but it isn't SQ IMO. I had to laugh when Allan said to me that he never wants to change a thing any more in his room - it i*s done*. That's how good he is finding Atmos and the 5200 - mind you, so am I, here and I know what he means.



jacked said:


> I really look forward to reading your more in-depth findings about the Denon and the updates as-and-when you demo more of your bluray collection.
> 
> 
> Cheers Keith,
> 
> 
> Dave



Yes, thanks, I have started my latest review and will post it soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS needs to put some white papers into the wild (like Dolby, if not more specific) and other marketing stuff for their new object based system for general consumption and guarantee some titles...* especially if current equipment will be firmware upgradeable in early 2015*!


I have my doubts about that, based on information I am not free to reveal at this stage, but I hope it is so!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> From a September 16, 2014, *Audioholics* article, "*Auro-3D® Immersive Sound Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen*" (_link_):
> 
> 
> 
> _


I'm using what I gleaned from the Atmos/Auro talk at CEDIA. It came across as he was poo-pooing Dolby's approach and saying that 9.1 was about all you needed for the home (he said he wanted high fidelity over a lot of speaker channels). Objects were only beneficial if you had about 15 channels or more, but then that seems to be more for cinema Auro. Of course, he's speaking in marketing double talk too because the way Auro works, the added channels are bit depth/resolution reduced. 

The heads of Auro and Dolby's design and engineering departments do not seem to have a very cordial relationship... they got their hackles up more than a few times. Both have salient points... and both have weaknesses in each others approach to 3D sound, as Floyd Toole pointed out. 

We're talking about home delivery formats in this thread, I thought.


----------



## bootman_head_fi

Onkyo has their Atmos firmware update up.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-upgrade-now-available-onkyo-avrs.html


----------



## Bigham16

Did you try and change the audio settings in the PS4? Here is what I noticed but only on the PS4 home screen (didn't test in game sounds). PCM only played 5.1, Bitstream(Dolby) played all channels, Bitstream(DTS) played all channels but was noticeable louder in the back surrounds. Might try it. 



SubSolar said:


> Anyone else notice Dolby Surround seems hit or miss? For instance in Master and Commander there's a scene where the camera is below deck and it correct placed the sounds of people running above deck on the top speakers. However other movies even rain isn't coming the tops. Also disappointed that tops aren't used when I play Battlefield 4 and a heli or plane is above me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I have my doubts about that, based on information I am not free to reveal at this stage, but I hope it is so!


I don't think a lot of the Dolby Atmos models will qualify for a DTS-? update. It will probably be the same upper tier models that could get an Auro3D update. The base models with only two or so DSP chips probably wouldn't have the horsepower. 2nd gen product will probably more easily allow for Dolby, DTS, and maybe Auro to coexist on a whole swath of models. Onkyo's first gen products are definitely a big question mark.

Now, DTS needs white papers, a name, and a list of studio support and upcoming titles.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> ...why would anyone use 2 subs to simulate one when a better solution exists?


No reason I can think of 



maikeldepotter said:


> Stuart Bowling summarized the features of Atmos versus standard 5.1... using full-range surrounds which are individually addressable.


It's been pointed out here several times that we've always had them, albeit bass-managed.

Yet here's another reference to Atmos' full-range surrounds by an industry insider.

Is there something different in Atmos commercial implementations that we don't know about?


----------



## SubSolar

Bigham16 said:


> Did you try and change the audio settings in the PS4? Here is what I noticed but only on the PS4 home screen (didn't test in game sounds). PCM only played 5.1, Bitstream(Dolby) played all channels, Bitstream(DTS) played all channels but was noticeable louder in the back surrounds. Might try it.


I'll check but I believe it's right. When I play movies the receiver says DTS-MA + Dolby Surround or something like that. Video games are Multi Channel + Dolby Surround.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> No reason I can think of
> 
> 
> 
> It's been pointed out here several times that we've always had them, albeit bass-managed.
> 
> Yet here's another reference to Atmos' full-range surrounds by an industry insider.
> 
> Is there something different in Atmos commercial installations that we don't know about?


I think sound mixers were afraid to push the boundaries of frequency response in the surrounds due to the array factor in basic channel based formats where sounds got all lumped together. Put them in separate metadata controlled objects and you can pull them out of the mix and send them to specific quadrants that wont cause an overload. You also can have bass managed surround subs that are separate from the front subs in Dolby Atmos processors... that will lessen the distortion factor.

Dolby is encouraging the industry to take a leap forward.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> It's been pointed out here several times that we've always had them, albeit bass-managed.
> 
> Yet here's another reference to Atmos' full-range surrounds by an industry insider.
> 
> Is there something different in Atmos commercial installations that we don't know about?


Just that in cinemas the lowest octave or two were not heard from the surrounds. Now, it is improved such that only the bottom octave (20-40 Hz) will remain mostly unheard in cinemas. But as always, we can heard every last drop at home if we really want to do so.


----------



## Bigham16

Cool. I just thought it was weird even with the receiver on "DTS/Mutli/Dolby + Dolby Surround" that by switching the PS4 settings would change what speakers fired up. But if you already have it on "DTS" then I am scratching my head with you. 



SubSolar said:


> I'll check but I believe it's right. When I play movies the receiver says DTS-MA + Dolby Surround or something like that. Video games are Multi Channel + Dolby Surround.


----------



## SubSolar

Bigham16 said:


> Cool. I just thought it was weird even with the receiver on "DTS/Mutli/Dolby + Dolby Surround" that by switching the PS4 settings would change what speakers fired up. But if you already have it on "DTS" then I am scratching my head with you.


Well it works, just not all movies. I think that's just how it is, the Dolby Surround is just guessing what it thinks should be redirected to the overheads. But not always right.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think sound mixers were afraid to push the boundaries of frequency response in the surrounds due to the array factor in basic channel based formats where sounds got all lumped together. Put them in separate metadata controlled objects and you can pull them out of the mix and send them to specific quadrants that wont cause an overload. You also can have bass managed surround subs that are separate from the front subs in Dolby Atmos processors... that will lessen the distortion factor.
> 
> Dolby is encouraging the industry to take a leap forward.


We've never really filtered what was going there. 

But Atmos also gives us 3 db more headroom as they are SPLd at 85 as arrays vs 82.


----------



## Selden Ball

In the past, people have made a major point of claiming that surround channels are not sent much sound, and that they're primarily used for ambiance. These reiterations of needing full-bandwidth surround-sound speaker systems seem to me to be a reaction to that. Atmos objects define full-amplitude, full-bandwidth signals, and your surround speakers have to be able to cope with such an object being steered through and past them. Low efficiency speakers driven by low power amps might have been OK for ambiance, but they aren't going to be appropriate for many Atmos productions. 

Bass management can redirect the lower frequencies, but can your subwoofer(s) handle the summed amplitude of all of the surround channels, both ear-level and overhead? I'm not at all sure mine can.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Is there something different in Atmos commercial implementations that we don't know about?


Full range playback of surrounds recently arrived in commercial cinema via bass management that Atmos introduced, so naturally it is one of the new features being cited constantly by those in the industry. We're left scratching our heads why they're getting so excited about a feature we consumers have had for almost a quarter century, making us wonder if we missed something important about the commercial version of Atmos. Still, if it leads to positive changes in how movies are mixed, then that's worth getting excited about.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think Barco may be allowing DTS to take that lead since their MDA standards partner will be going for the channel+object approach like Dolby Atmos.


All that could go out the window with Barco purchasing Iosono, which is completely object based (like MDA). Keep in mind that Barco handles Auro on the commercial side only, has nothing to do with the implementation and licensing on consumer electronics. But whether we're talking commercial or consumer, Auro playback is completely channel based, no positional rendering of objects.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> All that could go out the window with Barco purchasing Iosono, which is completely object based (like MDA). Keep in mind that Barco handles Auro on the commercial side only, has nothing to do with the implementation and licensing on consumer electronics. But whether we're talking commercial or consumer, Auro playback is completely channel based, no positional rendering of objects.


Holy crap! Now there could potentially be at least FOUR competing products in the immersive sound arena??


----------



## vagos1103gr1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Holy crap! Now there could potentially be at least FOUR competing products in the immersive sound arena??


Hello, I have a question. What you mean dolby surround upmixed? It will arrive my new amp onkyo tx-nr636 tomorrow. Do I have to put him in Dolby surround mode? Do I have to do something in settings of the source of the content to archive dsu?


----------



## batpig

vagos1103gr1 said:


> Hello, I have a question. What you mean dolby surround upmixed? It will arrive my new amp onkyo tx-nr636 tomorrow. Do I have to put him in Dolby surround mode? Do I have to do something in settings of the source of the content to archive dsu?


Think of it this way: incoming content will either be native Atmos, or it won't be. If it's NOT native Atmos, then it's standard 5.1/7.1 type channel based material. If you want this non-Atmos content to make noise out of your overhead Atmos speakers, it need to be UPMIXED. That is what Dolby Surround Upmixer does -- it takes non Atmos content and upmixes it to make noise out of all the speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dolby Surround replaces the various flavors of Dolby Prologic II. You'd select in the same way you would select Prologic. It expands stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks to use all of your speakers, including overheads.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> Holy crap! Now there could potentially be at least FOUR competing products in the immersive sound arena??



NO. NATO wants ONE theatrical 3Daudio standard. The MDA Alliance suggests an open standard, i.e., 'MDA object content mixed on a device from any vendor can be rendered on theater hardware from any vendor'.
_


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Now there could potentially be at least FOUR competing products in the immersive sound arena??


In cinemas, Barco will likely attempt to combine features from Auro with features from Iosono, though I can't see what the former brings to the table. As for Iosono's method of rendering, I think Dolby experimented with sound field synthesis back in the '70s and found it problematic for listeners way off axis in a movie theatre, which led to them eventually using a version of the Hafler matrix for Dolby Stereo. Who knows whether any of this will make it to consumer gear.


----------



## batpig

Forgive my ignorance but I'm a little confused. I know a lot more about HT receivers than I do about cinema reproduction standards, but I thought that every channel in a standard 5.1 discrete multichannel track was techincally "full range" and always has been, with bass management taking care of the rest. 

Beyond the obvious part about being able to address individual speakers in arrays, what exactly has changed about Atmos that is suddenly creating this "full range surrounds!! OMG!!" buzz?


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Forgive my ignorance but I'm a little confused. I know a lot more about HT receivers than I do about cinema reproduction standards, but I thought that every channel in a standard 5.1 discrete multichannel track was techincally "full range" and always has been, with bass management taking care of the rest.
> 
> Beyond the obvious part about being able to address individual speakers in arrays, what exactly has changed about Atmos that is suddenly creating this "full range surrounds!! OMG!!" buzz?


Cinema sound has never utilized bass management until Atmos. 

So the recordings have always been full range.. Howver the B-chain surrounds have only been specsd out to around 80/100-12k IIRC. 

So the introduction of bass management and newer full range surround speakers has been a big change.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Cinema sound has never utilized bass management until Atmos.
> 
> So the recordings have always been full range.. Howver the B-chain surrounds have only been specsd out to around 80/100-12k IIRC.
> 
> So the introduction of bass management and newer full range surround speakers has been a big change.


Ah, thanks Marc. So the concept of bass management (meaning redirected bass, not the .1 LFE channel) until now has essentially been unique to home theater processors? So you as the mixer know there's no point of putting anything below ~80Hz in the surround arrays.

Did this hold true when remixed for home or would they place full range sounds in the Blu-ray soundtracks?

Are these new "full range surrounds" because there are now surround subwoofers and bass management directly on those arrays? Or are they actually using better "full range" speakers in cinemas too?


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> No reason I can think of
> 
> 
> 
> It's been pointed out here several times that we've always had them, albeit bass-managed.
> 
> Yet here's another reference to Atmos' full-range surrounds by an industry insider.
> 
> Is there something different in Atmos commercial implementations that we don't know about?





sdurani said:


> Full range playback of surrounds recently arrived in commercial cinema via bass management that Atmos introduced, so naturally it is one of the new features being cited constantly by those in the industry. We're left scratching our heads why they're getting so excited about a feature we consumers have had for almost a quarter century, making us wonder if we missed something important about the commercial version of Atmos. Still, if it leads to positive changes in how movies are mixed, then that's worth getting excited about.


Noah. It is exactly this.

Bass management is a rather new thing in the commercial cinema. It's an odd thing that bass management has not been used in commercial cinema but that was the case now remedied with mandatory bass management for speakers unable to reproduce a 'full range' signal. I do believe that the screen channel mains are still full range and not bass managed but I am not 100% sure about that and it might be dependent on a per installation basis.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Ah, thanks Marc. So the concept of bass management (meaning redirected bass, not the .1 LFE channel) until now has essentially been unique to home theater processors? So you as the mixer know there's no point of putting anything below ~80Hz in the surround arrays.
> 
> Did this hold true when remixed for home or would they place full range sounds in the Blu-ray soundtracks?
> 
> Are these new "full range surrounds" because there are now surround subwoofers and bass management directly on those arrays? Or are they actually using better "full range" speakers in cinemas too?


Most mixers have never shied away from putting in full range info into the surrounds. Usually it's only addressed if you clip them. 

One of the reasons to do a near field HT mix is to make sure there isn't any build up and that the experience translates as expected. Since HT uses a 3db hotter surround reference, sometimes an adjustment is warranted. And we usually monitor with bass redirection when doing HT and adjust if needed. 

The answer to your last questions is both. 

The new surrounds that we are using in our studios, for example, are larger cabinets with 12" woofers. Even then, they are bass managed to 3 2x18" in ceiling overhead subwoofers. 

The larger cabinets also allow for us to hit a reference spl for each auditorium speaker when playing individual source sounds. 

In addition each auditorium speaker requires discrete amplification which raises headroom and obviously capability.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I thought that every channel in a standard 5.1 discrete multichannel track was techincally "full range" and always has been, with bass management taking care of the rest.


It's not the channels themselves that have changed but how they are played back, since Atmos introduced bass management for the surround speakers in commercial cinemas. 

If you were mixing a movie and knew that those small surround speakers at your local cinema couldn't reproduce the bottom two octaves, it could affect the way you mixed, at least when it comes to panning bass-heavy sounds from the screen to the surround field. 

This could change if you knew that the surround field would reproduce bass as well as the screen speakers, because you would start taking advantage of the full range capability that has always been available for the surround channels.


----------



## ambesolman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Holy crap! Now there could potentially be at least FOUR competing products in the immersive sound arena??



I thought I'd read that there was some industry governing body that's supposed to be making everyone work together to come up with one single format to be the new standard. Or am I just making things up?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> It's not the channels themselves that have changed but how they are played back, since Atmos introduced bass management for the surround speakers in commercial cinemas.
> 
> If you were mixing a movie and knew that those small surround speakers at your local cinema couldn't reproduce the bottom two octaves, it could affect the way you mixed, at least when it comes to panning bass-heavy sounds from the screen to the surround field.
> 
> This could change if you knew that the surround field would reproduce bass as well as the screen speakers, because you would start taking advantage of the full range capability that has always been available for the surround channels.


Roger that, thanks.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> One of the reasons to do a near field HT mix is to make sure there isn't any build up and that the experience translates as expected. Since HT uses a 3db hotter surround reference, sometimes an adjustment is warranted.


OK, final question since we are kind of OT anyway. I've never exactly understood this "surrounds are 82dB not 85dB in cinemas" thing.

Does that relate to how the soundtracks are mixed, or how the theaters are calibrated?

So, for example, if I'm sitting there in the sweet spot with an SPL meter playing a pink noise test tone in each channel, if I'm in my HT playing a 30dbfs tone, I'd calibrate each channel to 75dB. So does this mean that in the cinema, they would calibrate the surround channels 3dB lower (i.e. 72dB with a 30dbfs tone)? Thus, a sound that was intended to be heard at 92dB would play back at 89dB (3dB lower) in the cinema, but at 92dB at home with the surrounds calibrated at the same level as the front channels?

Or does it have to do with how they are mixed, and the cinema calibrates all channels to the same SPL?


----------



## FilmMixer

ambesolman said:


> I thought I'd read that there was some industry governing body that's supposed to be making everyone work together to come up with one single format to be the new standard. Or am I just making things up?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Not making it up.... But it's not correct. 

They aren't trying to standardize to one single format. 

They are striving for interoperability between the formats. 

So an Atmos mix should be playable or be able to be translated to an MDA room for example.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> So the concept of bass management (meaning redirected bass, not the .1 LFE channel) until now has essentially been unique to home theater processors?


Just an FYI, the .1/LFE channel was invented _because_ there was no bass management in commercial cinema. Why have an extra channel of just bass when that same bass could have be carried by multiple main channels? It's because they couldn't get the bass from the main channels to the subs. So the subs had to be fed by their own channel.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> OK, final question since we are kind of OT anyway. I've never exactly understood this "surrounds are 82dB not 85dB in cinemas" thing.
> 
> Does that relate to how the soundtracks are mixed, or how the theaters are calibrated?
> 
> So, for example, if I'm sitting there in the sweet spot with an SPL meter playing a pink noise test tone in each channel, if I'm in my HT playing a 30dbfs tone, I'd calibrate each channel to 75dB. So does this mean that in the cinema, they would calibrate the surround channels 3dB lower (i.e. 72dB with a 30dbfs tone)? Thus, a sound that was intended to be heard at 92dB would play back at 89dB (3dB lower) in the cinema, but at 92dB at home with the surrounds calibrated at the same level as the front channels?
> 
> Or does it have to do with how they are mixed, and the cinema calibrates all channels to the same SPL?


Correct abou the calibration. 

LCR at 85, LS and RS arrays at 82, sub at 89-91. 

The sound will play back as intended in the cinema.... Since you're hearing a calibrated system it plays at the level you are hearing. 

If not compensatied for when mastering for the home, it will be 3 db hotter relative to the other channels... However, the codecs have a setting to say whether or not to compensate if mastering from a theatrical recoding. 

In many cases, I leave the surrounds where they are at because even at the higher level, it often translated as the same intention as when I mixed it. Voices and discrete sound effects are usually in need of some compensation. Ambiences and music not so much.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Correct abou the calibration.
> 
> LCR at 85, LS and RS arrays at 82, sub at 89-91.
> 
> The sound will play back as intended in the cinema.... Since you're hearing a calibrated system it plays at the level you are hearing.


So does that imply the mixing room is calibrated to the same standards when mixing for commercial cinema? Because if the surrounds were calibrated to 85dB in the mixing room but 82dB in the cinema anything in the surrounds would be 3dB too soft right?


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> So does that imply the mixing room is calibrated to the same standards when mixing for commercial cinema? Because if the surrounds were calibrated to 85dB in the mixing room but 82dB in the cinema anything in the surrounds would be 3dB too soft right?


Yes. Mixing stages are set the same as cinemas.


----------



## DaJoJo

FilmMixer said:


> You have Dolby Enabled speakers?
> From your sig it doesn't appear so, nor does it say you have presence speakers... which is the only thing the angle measurement works for... curious how you are setup.
> I know about the end of October..... I'm the one who reported it.


i had the 2 rears as presence heights before current setup and 2 old sony as rear at the time of measure. as theres no real need for presence for me at the time being, i set it up as in sig. going to get 4 rb81II as presence when atmos is comming to town. the october date mentioned by me is for europe models, US have same release date then as u mentioned. didn't read through the pages so i guess i missed ur report, sorry for that  hopefully we can enjoy atmos soon, looking forward to it. 3D cinema dsp is pretty good and i espect atmos to be better with its positional audio.


----------



## vagos1103gr1

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby Surround replaces the various flavors of Dolby Prologic II. You'd select in the same way you would select Prologic. It expands stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks to use all of your speakers, including overheads.


So the only think I have to do is to select Dolby surround to the onkyo right?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> I think Dolby experimented with sound field synthesis back in the '70s and found it problematic for listeners way off axis in a movie theatre, which led to them eventually using a version of the Hafler matrix for Dolby Stereo. Who knows whether any of this will make it to consumer gear.


In the '70s Dolby experimented with 1st-order Ambisonics, with the now-well known poor results. Even HOA (higher-order Ambisonics) is tough in a cinema environment. I don't think they did Hafler, per se, but went with the Sansui QS (but in a diamond layout, not square) for a while before other iterations based on Tate chips, landing on their own logic system in 1976, later known as Pro Logic in consumer circles.


----------



## bargervais

vagos1103gr1 said:


> Hello, I have a question. What you mean dolby surround upmixed? It will arrive my new amp onkyo tx-nr636 tomorrow. Do I have to put him in Dolby surround mode? Do I have to do something in settings of the source of the content to archive dsu?


Once you get your receiver and you have downloaded to the latest firmware, you will have listening mode options one of which will be dolby surround. For me what I have set up is 5.1.2 I'm using top front so when I'm listening in dolby surround my ceiling speakers are used, As well as my 5.1 lower speakers and that makes it 5.1.2 dolby surround...


----------



## vagos1103gr1

bargervais said:


> Once you get your receiver and you have downloaded to the latest firmware, you will have listening mode options one of which will be dolby surround. For me what I have set up is 5.1.2 I'm using top front so when I'm listening in dolby surround my ceiling speakers are used, As well as my 5.1 lower speakers and that makes it 5.1.2 dolby surround...


Thank this is covered me. I can't wait until Wednesday to arrive.


----------



## bargervais

vagos1103gr1 said:


> Thank this is covered me. I can't wait until Wednesday to arrive.


Cheers


----------



## UKTexan

Roger Dressler said:


> In the '70s Dolby experimented with 1st-order Ambisonics, with the now-well known poor results. Even HOA (higher-order Ambisonics) is tough in a cinema environment. I don't think they did Hafler, per se, but went with the Sansui QS (but in a diamond layout, not square) for a while before other iterations based on Tate chips, landing on their own logic system in 1976, later known as Pro Logic in consumer circles.


Roger, Dolby acquired IMM sound in 2012, mainly to deal with another competing format but also to further develop and refine Atmos. IMM used an object based approach but wasn't this a hybrid system using elements of higher order Ambisonics?


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Forgive my ignorance but I'm a little confused. I know a lot more about HT receivers than I do about cinema reproduction standards, but I thought that every channel in a standard 5.1 discrete multichannel track was technically "full range" and always has been, with bass management taking care of the rest.


When digital 5.1 first came to cinemas via 35mm optical, the audio codecs were indeed full range. However, the DTS system was 5.0, and to deliver a 5.1 soundtrack, the LFE was recorded into the surround channels. At playback, the surround channels were split into 100 Hz for the surrounds. 

And since those 5.1 mixes also had to work with the Lt/Rt matrixed analog optical tracks, which were only expected to cover down to ~100 Hz in the surrounds, the bass rolloff was fairly standard. Only once D-Cinema took over from optical did the full bandwidth in the surrounds become available, but I imagine there were concerns that swapping out the booth gear would put an extra strain on the surrounds, so mixers may have exercised caution, if not bass rolloffs, for a while, until surround speakers were upgraded.


----------



## SoundChex

UKTexan said:


> Dolby acquired IMM sound in 2012, mainly to deal with another competing format but also to further develop and refine Atmos. IMM used an object based approach but wasn't this a hybrid system using elements of higher order Ambisonics?



Looking at the "recommended" *imm sound 23.1 configuration*, I don't see any signs of *Ambisonics*. 







With regard to *Ambisonics*, it will be interesting to see what *Barco* does with their recent acquisition of *IOSONO*.
_


----------



## Roger Dressler

UKTexan said:


> Roger, Dolby acquired IMM sound in 2012, mainly to deal with another competing format but also to further develop and refine Atmos. IMM used an object based approach but wasn't this a hybrid system using elements of higher order Ambisonics?


You are correct, they used both HOA and object audio.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Yes. Mixing stages are set the same as cinemas.


Thanks for the education Marc (and Roger and Sanjay too!). 

What is/was the reason for the 3dB lower surround calibration? Headroom concerns? So the surrounds would only be asked to play up to 102dB max peak vs. 105dB, thus halving the power handling requirements?


----------



## UKTexan

SoundChex said:


> With regard to *Ambisonics*, it will be interesting to see what *Barco* does with their recent acquisition of *IOSONO*.
> _


The Auro format will most certainly benefit from the acquisition:


*Innovators joining forces
*Wilfried Van Baelen, CEO of Auro Technologies, adds: “Being a pioneer in cinema sound is a privilege and an honor. We are so excited to be able to work together with more innovators like IOSONO to *further develop, the tools and processes that make the object based part of the Auro-3D format a truly magical experience.* IOSONO and Barco are the perfect complementary partners to further develop the Auro 3D listening experience and we look forward to showing the world what this new element of collaboration will yield for the industry.”


http://www.iosono-sound.com/news/detailansicht/iosono-joining-barco/


I posted the above in another thread but seems fitting regarding the overall discussion relating to Dolby Atmos and the competitive nature of Auro with object based rendering.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> What is/was the reason for the 3dB lower surround calibration? Headroom concerns? So the surrounds would only be asked to play up to 102dB max peak vs. 105dB, thus halving the power handling requirements?


Remember Fiddler On The Roof? "Tradition...Tradition!" Original Dolby Stereo was L/C/R/S, mono surround channel. Each of those 4 channels was calibrated to same SPL, 85 dB. Then along came digital with stereo surrounds. Each surround channel thus uses 1/2 the speakers as before. Driven from the same electrical signal, that's 3 dB lower SPL, 82 dB. So that's where they were cal'd so as to not ask the power amp gains to be changed, which would require compensation for optical. Probably also a good idea just to make sure the surrounds would not be taxed further as you noted.

The practice was carried over for 7.1, all 4 surround channels set to 82 dB. All that is now gone with object audio. Same SPL cal everywhere.


----------



## HTinParadise

Hi Folks,

Quickly, one real question. 

This being the ATMOS thread, and this relates directly to ATMOS setup here goes:

I am building a new dedicated ATMOS HT with a soundproof room within a room. The outside room is 5.5 X 4 X 3 meters, it is all concrete. Think HT bunker.

I want to use coaxial ceiling mount speakers. How do I mount the Top Height ceiling speakers in a soundproof room, while also maintaining a soundproof space? 

Your thoughts please?

Most kindest regards,

HTinP


----------



## UKTexan

It appears Mary Kom, a Viacom 18 Motion Pictures (Bollywood production) of the life of the Indian female boxing champion, is the 4th Blu ray title with an Atmos mix.
This may not be everyone's cup of tea, but to see the first studio in India supporting Dolby Atmos on Blu ray is another positive step forward for global adoption of the technology. Bollywood studios have been ardent supporters of Auro 3D for cinema releases thus far so this is very promising.
Thinking of films shot in India, Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle, would be a great candidate for an Atmos remix, IMO.


----------



## FilmMixer

Cross post, but finally.....

They're here.


----------



## bkeeler10

FilmMixer said:


> Cross post, but finally.....
> 
> They're here.


Hooray! 'bout time I would say. Now if only you had an Atmos AVR (you sent the Denon back right?)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Anyone else who can give their impressions? I'll be getting my receiver Friday or monday potentially... though I'm holding out a while for the Atlantic tech modules... but hopefully I get to test it's 7.1.4 Atmos set up with satellite speakers instead of the overheads potentially.


----------



## Orbitron

FilmMixer said:


> Cross post, but finally.....
> 
> They're here.


Nice boxes. Are you doing any additional room treatments?


----------



## Miamiredhawks

kbarnes701 said:


> First off, the 3010 is a great unit. All that it lacks is Atmos. So the question really is how badly do you want Atmos right now? If the answer to that is "I want it TODAY" then. unfortunately, the 3010 will have to go and you will have to buy an new AVR. If the answer is "I can wait until the Atmos dust settles" then you can keep the 3010 until the time comes when, in your view, the dust has settled.
> 
> I am surprised that there is no eBay demand for a brand new, unused, unboxed 3010. Maybe you should try it and put a reserve on it, or do a 'buy it now' for $999 or whatever you want for it.
> 
> If you decide to keep the 3010, you will be impressed by Audyssey's XT32 compared with the current AVR you are using, so all is not lost.


Thanks for all the helpful replies. I don't think that I have to have Atmos right now. I will just wait. My improvement in sound will be even better (with the 3010) than what you might have thought as I am using the SPDIF connection from a PS3 to the current receiver. It drops the video every few minutes so the HDMI cable is directly connected to the projector. In other words, I am only getting DTS signal. I have not tried Audyssey calibration on the 616 yet.

I will have eleven channels and outboard amplifiers for almost all channels. It would be ok but just not state of the art.


----------



## Miamiredhawks

htpcforever said:


> Wait a few years for the dust to settle wrt ceiling mounted sound and use your receiver in the meantime. I have that exact model and love it every day. I would also check its serial number to see if it has the bad chip in it. You can find a link to the site to check it here:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to lie and say you are having issues (if you are not) and it will tell you if it is eligible for a free repair. You do not actually have to complete the warranty return if you do not want, but saying you have a problem allows you to check. Gives a peace of mind that if you DO have issues you know you are covered. Part way through the 3010 model year they found the problem and fixed it, so you might not have the bad chip.


Thanks so much for your reply. I checked the serial number briefly and it came up with a not subject to recall message. I will check tomorrow more carefully. I didn't know about the bad chip issue until you mentioned it. I have decided to keep the TX-NR3010.


----------



## Al Sherwood

HTinParadise said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> Quickly, one real question.
> 
> This being the ATMOS thread, and this relates directly to ATMOS setup here goes:
> 
> I am building a new dedicated ATMOS HT with a soundproof room within a room. The outside room is 5.5 X 4 X 3 meters, it is all concrete. Think HT bunker.
> 
> I want to use coaxial ceiling mount speakers. How do I mount the Top Height ceiling speakers in a soundproof room, while also maintaining a soundproof space?
> 
> Your thoughts please?
> 
> Most kindest regards,
> 
> HTinP



I guess that it depends on what kind of height speakers you are going to use and what type of framing the 'inner' room uses...


----------



## zoop44

I currently have 7.1 setup where i am using a pair of ceiling speakers as my side surrounds due to room limitations. I am getting another pair or ceiling speakers and an Atmos receiver. Would it make more sense to set it up as a 5.1.4 system or 7.1.2? 
I would have to reposition the existing 2 ceiling speakers for 5.1.4 (not ideal) whereas 7.1.2 I wouldnt have to. Factors in my decision would b:

-ideal sound in each respective setup - is 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 the ideal setup or does it matter? 
-how the speakers sound when playing normal 7.1 mixes. How does Atmos handle normal 7.1 mixes?

Im curious if anyone else is going through the same process...
I am getting a pioneer SC-85 btw.


----------



## noah katz

Thanks everyone for the elucidation on the BM is cinema's.

I now remember that a few months back someone, Roger or Marc (sorry for my poor memory) pointed out to me that theaters hadn't used it.

I wonder if it was because of the much greater distances between the surrounds and the subs, and attendant phase cancellations.


----------



## pasender91

zoop44 said:


> I currently have 7.1 setup where i am using a pair of ceiling speakers as my side surrounds due to room limitations. I am getting another pair or ceiling speakers and an Atmos receiver. Would it make more sense to set it up as a 5.1.4 system or 7.1.2?
> I would have to reposition the existing 2 ceiling speakers for 5.1.4 (not ideal) whereas 7.1.2 I wouldnt have to. Factors in my decision would b:
> 
> -ideal sound in each respective setup - is 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 the ideal setup or does it matter?
> -how the speakers sound when playing normal 7.1 mixes. How does Atmos handle normal 7.1 mixes?
> 
> Im curious if anyone else is going through the same process...
> I am getting a pioneer SC-85 btw.


Atmos should sound better in 5.1.4 than 7.1.2. With 4 top speakers the objects panning will be much more natural.

It involves repositioning your current speakers if those are right over the MLP, as this would mean Top Middle in Atmos, not a good position in a .4 configuration. But if those speakers are either front or back of the MLP then no need to move them.

When playing a 7.1 track, the Atmos AVR will engage DSU, upmix the sound, and make use of the 4 top speakers to give further immersion


----------



## pletwals

HTinParadise said:


> I am building a new dedicated ATMOS HT with a soundproof room within a room. The outside room is 5.5 X 4 X 3 meters, it is all concrete. Think HT bunker.
> 
> I want to use coaxial ceiling mount speakers. How do I mount the Top Height ceiling speakers in a soundproof room, while also maintaining a soundproof space?


When you build a box-in-box construction, using at least a decoupled frame with a double layer of drywall (preferably with GreenGlue in between), you want to avoid perforating it if you can. So if your amps are in the room and the ceiling mount speakers also, it's best practice to keep the speaker wires also inside the room. If you want to hide the wires, you will have to add decorative coves, soffits and wall panels.

With in-ceiling speakers, backer boxes are mandatory.


----------



## Chaospling

I can't seem to find this anywhere: is there a recommended frequency range for the top speakers?

Is it correct understood that since Atmos has bass management (I don't know what this actually means), this makes higher demands to our speakers' lower frequency border/limit?


----------



## Roger Dressler

^^ Shoot for the same LF capability you use for all the other surround speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

...40-60Hz or so.


----------



## zoop44

pasender91 said:


> Atmos should sound better in 5.1.4 than 7.1.2. With 4 top speakers the objects panning will be much more natural.
> 
> It involves repositioning your current speakers if those are right over the MLP, as this would mean Top Middle in Atmos, not a good position in a .4 configuration. But if those speakers are either front or back of the MLP then no need to move them.
> 
> When playing a 7.1 track, the Atmos AVR will engage DSU, upmix the sound, and make use of the 4 top speakers to give further immersion


Thanks for the response that certainly helps! I didn't realize that 7.1 tracks are unconverted.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> ...40-60Hz or so.


Any particular reason why you would want to have your surrounds go lower than 80-100 Hz?


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Any particular reason why you would want to have your surrounds go lower than 80-100 Hz?


Always good to have full range all around; music, and movies. 

It's not essential but me personally I prefer. ...I like all speakers able to reproduce the piano lowest note @ 27Hz @ the front soundstage, and the low bass note of an acoustic bass guitar (42Hz) in the surrounds.
It's just me. ...Music ♪

Also, if you want to cross all your speakers @ 80Hz, it is a good general rule that they are good @ 40Hz (-3dB). ...Makes for an even blend, a smoother transition/integration/balance. ...Movies ♫

That's me, and from what I have learned over the years. ...From the true pros.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> Also, if you want to cross all your speakers @ 80Hz, it is a good general rule that they are good @ 40Hz (-3dB). ...Makes for an even blend, a smoother transition/integration/balance. ...Movies ♫


Mostly due to practical reasons, I became used to adding about 20 Hz to the -3dB lowest frequency for cross-over. Didn't know that for best results you should set it even higher. My surrounds go down to 85hz (-3db), I have them crossed over at 100 Hz. Could try 120 Hz and listen how that sounds (hoping that in my room localization will not become noticeable).


----------



## kbarnes701

Chaospling said:


> I can't seem to find this anywhere: is there a recommended frequency range for the top speakers?
> 
> Is it correct understood that since Atmos has bass management (I don't know what this actually means), this makes higher demands to our speakers' lower frequency border/limit?


Choose speakers for the ceiling the same way you’d choose speakers for anywhere else - but for Atmos try to get speakers with a wide dispersion pattern.

Bass management simply means handing off some of the low frequencies from the main speakers in a system to the subwoofer. This is done by way of a 'crossover' to the sub. You will see people say they have set a crossover of, for example, 80Hz. This means their main speakers will handle all the frequencies down to 80Hz or so, and then everything below 80Hz will be sent to the subwoofer. Bass managing the system means the main speakers have less work to do in the region where they struggle the hardest (the low bass) and BM can also relieve strain on the amplifiers too. A subwoofer has been purpose-designed to reproduce low frequencies so will almost always do it better than 'full range' speakers. And another benefit is that the subwoofer can be placed in the best place in the room to optimise bass, whereas the main speakers have to be placed for imaging.


----------



## sgibson

kbarnes701 said:


> I changed my mind and went with the 5200, but the 4100 will do the same job I am sure (so long as it suits your needs wrt to number of channels).
> 
> I have a 5.1.4 layout - my room is small and there is no room behind the MLP for rear surrounds unfortunately. My ear level speakers are laid out according to the usual guidelines, with the surrounds at 110°. The 4 overheads are configured as Front Height and Top Middle, following the Dolby recommendations in their WP and the oft-posted diagram. My front overheads are on the ceiling at about 42° and the rear pair are just behind the MLP at 100°.
> 
> The front LCR are M&K S150s. The overheads are Tannoy Di5 and the surrounds are Tannoy Di6 DC - both the latter being dual concentric designs with very wide dispersion patterns. All speakers are powered by external Emotiva amps - XPA-3 for the LCR, XPA200 for the surrounds, and two UPA-2s for the front and rear overhead pairs. Subwoofers are dual Seaton Submersives in a master/slave arrangement with the 6,000 watt amp.
> 
> In your room you should be able to accommodate 4 overheads. Oh yes - I lowered my surrounds to just above ear level to gain maximum angular separation from the overheads.


 
kbarnes701,
Thanks for sharing your Atmos layout. That's a great system you have. Look forward to your experiences with Dolby Atmos. I may wait for "Black Friday" sales (or early 2015) to jump on board the Atmos bandwagon.
Meanwhile I'll stay tuned to the forum (great member participation here...lots of good info/photos)
Regards,
sgibson


----------



## Chaospling

Thanks guys for all the answers. I asked because I'll be using the speakers which I had for my back surrounds for top speakers and their range are only 58-30k Hz. Hehe again I'm not sure what is meant by dispersion pattern but I guess everything will work out okay.

By the discussion in this thread I got the impression that Atmos demands more of our speakers, but if all are set to "small" during setup on the receiver and bass as usual are send to the sub woofer then I don't see change - but I guess I'm still some kind of newbie.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> ...40-60Hz or so.


Thats not been my experience. In my first full fledge surround system, I had Dunlavy SC-VI's in front and Dunlavy SC-V's as surrounds (which were very serious "surround" speakers and had great output to well below 20hz). I eventually ended up with Dunlavy SC-I's in the back (a relatively small 2 way) and I could not hear a lick of difference when properly bass managed.

In my currently theater, while my surrounds go to well below 70z with wall reinforcement, I cross them over at 120 because that is where the crossover is the most linear. 

My plan for the ceiing speakers are the midrange/tweeter driver from from LCR's in a very small box. The ceiing mounting will provide some bass reinforcement and again, with proper bass management, it will easily be the most appropriate solution. I would image the eventuall crossover will be well north of 100hz

So while all 11 speakers will have the same midrange/tweeter, NONE will be full range.

I've done a lot of room audio calibration in many many rooms and the idea that all speakers should be full range is just not accurate, nor necessary nor practical (and in every case I can recall, nor optimal). There may be exceptions.

One caution:: one must have enough "woofage" to insure that bass management and the LFE duties are fullfilled appropriately --- and I have more than enough woofage.


----------



## kbarnes701

sgibson said:


> kbarnes701,
> Thanks for sharing your Atmos layout. That's a great system you have. Look forward to your experiences with Dolby Atmos. I may wait for "Black Friday" sales (or early 2015) to jump on board the Atmos bandwagon.
> Meanwhile I'll stay tuned to the forum (great member participation here...lots of good info/photos)
> Regards,
> sgibson


You’re welcome! I will be posting my detailed report later today, in the Atmos thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chaospling said:


> Thanks guys for all the answers. I asked because I'll be using the speakers which I had for my back surrounds for top speakers and their range are only 58-30k Hz. Hehe again I'm not sure what is meant by dispersion pattern but I guess everything will work out okay.


Dispersion pattern is the way the sound is 'dispersed' by the speaker. Imagine a flashlight - this has a narrow beam and would be a narrow dispersion speaker if the light beam was sound waves instead. Now imagine a regular light bulb which throws light in all directions. That would be a wide dispersion speaker. Dolby recommends the latter for on or in-ceiling use with Atmos. Unfortunately, few speaker manufacturers share with us their dispersion pattern charts. AS few do - usually those involved in the Pro audio world such as Tannoy, JBL and so on.

Your FR of 58-30kHz is more than fine so long as you have a subwoofer and are using bass management.


----------



## gbaby

NorthSky said:


> Not only I seem to fit the part, but I am.


There's nothing wrong with that. Touche.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> Some theaters will have 10 channels on the auditorium, some 40.
> 
> So if you have a sound traveling up a wall that has 5 speakers vs 10 it won't be exactly the same. But the rendering engine uses the available resources it has to make it sound as good as can be with the amount of speakers present.
> 
> its different than what we have had in the past.


Thanks. I was anticipating/hoping that 'someone from the industry' could clarify this statement coming from 'someone from the industry'.

As most of us, giving their specific limitations (space, budget etc.), want to get our sound as close as possible to the original intent of the filmmaker, what can you say about the amount and the lateral elevation of surrounds, and the amount and lateral elevation of ceiling speakers, in a typical Atmos re-recording studio?


----------



## Kris Deering

Official press release for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was released today. DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 only. This is a title that would have been a great one for Atmos. One of the few that really impressed in the theater with its Atmos mix.


----------



## mtbdudex

Kris Deering said:


> Official press release for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was released today. DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 only. This is a title that would have been a great one for Atmos. One of the few that really impressed in the theater with its Atmos mix.



Same with "Edge of Tomorrow " coming 10/7, what's up with no Atmos mix?


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## kbarnes701

*First impressions of the Denon X5200W AVR and Dolby Atmos.*

Having been a long time user of Onkyo AVRs and processors, I, like many people, was dismayed when they dropped Audyssey room correction across their entire range. Audyssey’s XT32 is not something I want to be without, even in my heavily-treated room. So when the time came to upgrade to Atmos and replace my former flagship Onkyo PR-SC5009 processor, Denon became my go-to choice. Of all the current mainstream AVRs now available, only Denon & Marantz continue to offer Audyssey. My HT system is powered by 4 Emotiva external amplifiers, so the amp sections of AVRs are of little interest to me. 

*System setup.*

My LCR M&K S150 speakers are 4 ohm units and receive about 300 watts from an Emotiva XPA-3, while an Emotiva XPA-200 (150 watts/8 ohms) powers the surrounds (8 ohm Tannoy Di6 Dual Concentrics) and 2 Emotiva UPA-2 amplifiers (125 watts/8 ohms) power the two pairs of overhead speakers installed for Atmos (8 ohm Tannoy Di5 Dual Concentrics – the ‘baby brother’s of my much bigger surround speakers. Finally dual Seaton Submersive F2s provide ample woofage and are installed as a ‘master/slave’ pair with the powerful 6,000 watt amp giving effortless bass and almost infinite headroom. As you can see, my Atmos configuration is 5.1.4 and unfortunately, in my small room I cannot accommodate rear surround speakers.

My Atmos speakers are configured as Front Height and Top Middle. This is because I have no room behind me to configure the rear pair as Top Rear. All speakers are on the ceiling and all meet the prescribed angles recommended by Dolby – FH being at about 42° and the TM being at about 100°. I say ‘about’ because I am not obsessive about this, and the angles change as my seating position changes depending on how much I have reclined the chair, how much I slump in the seat and how much I move around during a movie. I am comforted by the many reassurances from Dolby that the speaker locations are more flexible than we might imagine and their assertion that it is “hard to make Amos not work”. This does seem to be borne out by my experience in my own room.

The Tannoy Di5 DC speakers have the very wide dispersion characteristics suggested by Dolby (90° all round) and have terrific power handling capability, being able to play continuously at 106dB if required! Amazing performance from a fairly compact speaker. The front pair are angled towards the MLP and the rearmost pair point directly down (being only slightly to the rear of the MLP in my room, at 100°).

*Installing the Denon AVR X5200W.*

My AVR of choice for my initial venture into Atmos was the Denon X5200W, a 9-channel unit which can be expanded to 11 channels with the addition of external amplification. 

When the unit arrived and I unpacked it, the first thing I noticed was that it is very much smaller, both in height and depth, than the outgoing Onkyo 5009 unit. This actually assists me as there is very little room behind the unit in my gear closet so wiring the 5200 is made much easier. The second thing I noticed is that the build quality is very good indeed. It falls a little short of the Onkyo 5009, but then we need to remember that there is a huge price difference between the two units. Nonetheless, I am satisfied with the apparent build quality of the Denon.

Installation of the unit was simple and took about 20 minutes as all the amps were already wired properly for the installed Atmos overhead speakers, so it was just a matter of connecting 5 HDMI leads for my sources and the RCA leads from the amplifiers, followed by the trigger cables for the amps and finally, the power lead. Then it was time to run what Denon call their “Setup Assistant”. I have to take my hat off to Denon for this incredibly easy-to-use setup routine. Basically, the on-screen display asks you a series of questions about your system and your speaker layout and as you answer them, so the unit configures itself accordingly. A simple hook-up to my network followed and took seconds. A nice touch is that after the speakers have been configured the Setup Assistant then plays a pleasant tone though each speaker and asks you to confirm that you can hear it and that it is coming from the correct place. Similarly, once the Network has been connected, the unit connects to the Internet and plays some music as proof that all is working properly. This really is foolproof. Finally, the unit instructs you to insert the Audyssey mic into the front jack and Audyssey calibration begins.

*Audyssey.*

Having used Audyssey Pro for years now, I was surprised at how quickly the automated XT32 setup runs. The Denon walks you through the process, advising where to place the mic for each of the 8 steps and when the last mic position has been measured, the unit calculates the filters and you are now all set to use the unit.

But before I do a listening test, I always like to measure the calibrated in-room response from the MLP to see how effective (or not) XT32 has been in taming the malign influences present in any room, even a heavily-treated one like mine. I usually use REW for measuring, but for quick and easy measurements, nothing beats my OmniMic kit, so I broke this out, played the test tones and measured the response. To say I was shocked at the result is an understatement. When the measuring was complete and the graph available, I sat staring at it for quite some time, in disbelief at what I was seeing.










This response was at least the equal of anything I had ever achieved with the much more complex, and costly, Pro routine, which takes about 2 hours to run in my room. After 15 minutes, the built-in XT32 had achieved a super-flat bass response from 7Hz to 150hz, with a 90Hz crossover in place. So good was this graph, that my initial response was to deliberately futz with it to see if everything was working as it should. To this end, I switched Audyssey on and off, and Dynamic EQ on and off and sure enough, the graph changed as expected, confirming indeed that the measurement was sound.

I followed this with my listening tests and my method for this was to evaluate Dolby Surround Upmixer and Atmos using a variety of content as explained below.

But before I did this, I went to my usual go-to evaluation track after making any system changes. This is Chapter 17 of the Transformers – Dark of the Moon Bluray where our intrepid heroes are battling the Decepticons in downtown Chicago. This track has excellent bass, makes full use of the surrounds, is extremely well recorded and goes the full gamut from dialog through to huge explosions and buildings falling over – typical Michael Bay fare. I initially played this in ‘straight’ Dolby TrueHD and my ears confirmed that it sounded at least as good as I expected it to, with powerful, deep bass, clear dialog, good surround effects and panning and so on. So far so good – the installation of the Denon had not ‘cost’ me any of my former sound quality in the least.

*Evaluating Dolby Surround Upmixer and Atmos.*

I decided on the following test protocol - I would audition three types of content:

*•	Movies not originally mixed in Atmos
•	Movies mixed in Atmos but only available to me on ‘regular’ 5.1/7.1 Blurays
•	Content mixed in Atmos (Transformers 4 and the Dolby Demo disc).*

This seemed to me to cover all of the content we are likely to have in our collections.

*Movies not originally mixed in Atmos.*

The first movie in this category was already in the Bluray player: *'Transformers – Dark of the Moon'*. I now played the same track, Chapter 17, again but this time with Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) engaged. And wow – what a difference. If I had thought that I was immersed in the movie before, I was even more immersed now! Sounds were coming at me from all directions, including above, and while most of the time it was not possible to pinpoint overhead sounds, the additional diffuseness and ambiance added a huge amount to the enjoyment of the movie. And even better, there were also overhead effects from time to time which matched what I was seeing onscreen.

So next up, I watched the entire movie, *‘The Descent’*, a fairly good horror type movie where almost all the action takes place in underground caves. This movie makes excellent use of the surrounds for ‘scare moments’ and has great ambient effects from the dark caves, dripping with water and so on. Again, I was shocked at how much more DSU added to the enjoyment of the movie. Once again I was more fully immersed in the movie than I had ever been before. Again, the overhead speakers were used more for ambient effects than precise positional information, as expected, but the overall enjoyment of the sound was vastly increased. The caves echoed nicely where appropriate and were cloyingly claustrophobic where the action necessitated it. The sound of water dropping from above came from above me and after a while I entirely forgot about my speaker arrangements and was just enjoying this movie more than I ever remember enjoying it before. 

The following night, it was the turn of *'Jurassic park – The Lost World' *to grace the Oppo 93. While not being nearly as good a movie as the original, this movie does have a terrific soundtrack with huge surround channel use and was always remembered by me as an immersive experience. This made it a good candidate for further auditioning in my ‘category 1’ movies. Much of the movie is set in torrential rain and one of the first things I noticed was just how well the thunder and rain came at me from above. DSU really did its job well there and added greatly to the experience of being ‘in the movie’. Again, the extra immersion from sound all around and above me was stunning. However, DSU is an upmixer and it works from a pre-programmed algorithm, so it is never going to always ‘get it right’. A good example of this is in the opening scenes of the movie where a little girl has been surrounded by baby velociraptors. Now as you know, velociraptors chirp like birds. And where do we normally find birds? Yep, in trees, and that is exactly where DSU placed many of the creatures’ chirps! It didn’t at all spoil the effect as there were more chirps on the ground where the creatures actually were but it highlights a limitation of the algorithm of any upmixer. However, by way of total contrast there is a scene later in the movie where a plane takes off towards camera and passes up and over the viewer and this was reproduced just perfectly. The plane astonished me as it flew directly overhead, causing me almost to duck, and it is hard to see how this would have been more effective even in a true Atmos mix. Overall, another win for DSU and it added hugely to my enjoyment of this movie’s brilliant soundtrack.

*Next up –category 2: movies mixed in Atmos but only available to me on regular 5.1/7.1 Bluray disc.*

My theory is that movies originally mixed in Atmos might sound better when played via DSU than movies not originally mixed in Atmos, and this section of the review sets out to determine if this theory holds water.

First up was *'300: Rise of an Empire'*. Immediately I noticed that this was a definite step up in sonic quality with regard to the use of Dolby Surround. Huge swathes of the movie are set against a backdrop of storms, heavy rain, thunder and lightning, and all of this came directly from above. And not just as a homogenous ‘mass’ of overhead sound, but with individual thunderclaps coming from different speakers. I could have been convinced that this was an actual Atmos disc and I can’t wait to double dip this if it is ever released in the Atmos format, just to see how much better it can be. All through the movie, these storm effects raged above my head, adding hugely to the enjoyment and the sense of ‘being there’. I have never had so much immersion in sound in my HT. 

At no time did I ever feel that I could localize the overhead speakers, except when it was intended. This was an initial concern of many – that their ceilings would be too low for physical on-ceiling speakers, but I can say that here in my room, with 4 speakers on an 8ft ceiling, localization is definitely not an issue. I am just immersed in a sphere of sound. 

Of course, no review in this section would be complete without auditioning the Poster Boy for Atmos movies: Alfonse Cuarón’s *‘Gravity’*. I have heard this movie presented theatrically in Atmos and it is an awesome experience. In the theater, during the opening sequence when the spacewalk has to be aborted due to incoming debris, I felt my heart rate elevate and I actually started to perspire lightly, so involved was I with the movie. For 10 or 15 minutes, I was ‘out there’ in space, with Clooney and Bullock. So I was interested to see how I was affected when I played this disc at home, using just DSU to light up all my speakers.

I can say that I was not disappointed. While not as good as a true Atmos experience, the 5.1 upmixed with DSU was nonetheless outstanding. The height speakers lit up constantly and, again, not just with ‘random’ effects or ambience, but with sounds which appear to be intentionally placed in the overhead speakers. It does seem, from my initial evaluations, that movies mixed in Atmos are handled better by DSU than movies not mixed in Atmos. Maybe this was to be expected and is obvious, but my listening tests so far seem to confirm it.

I would say, having heard this in genuine Atmos and upmixed via DSU that the upmix delivers a far more immersive and exciting experience than the regular 5.1 mix. Clearly, the genuine Atmos Bluray, if there was one, would sound even better, but nobody need feel short-changed by the DSU experience. 

Finally in this category, *‘The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey ‘* and in particular, the ‘cave’ scene with Gollum and Bilbo. 

Again, this is a movie which I have seen presented theatrically, and this was my impression at the time, from an earlier review.

_“But nothing, nothing I have heard before prepared me for this Atmos mix. The sound came from above, from the left, from the centre, from the above left, from the left-centre, from everywhere Gollum jumped to in the scene. The precision of the placement of his voice to reflect his physical location on the screen was excellent. I found myself moving my head towards his voice. In some parts of the scene we can’t see the character as he is obscured by shadows. But each time he spoke, before we could see him, we knew exactly where he was. Exactly. And when he came out of the shadows to reveal himself, he was exactly where we knew he would be. 

“Amazing though this was, and amazed as I was at the way the Atmos-enabled speakers ‘just worked’, this was not actually the most impressive part of this scene.

*“Much, much more than ‘height effects’.*

“No, the most impressive part was the sheer scale of the space we were now ’sitting in’. The walls and ceiling of the room had gone. They had just vanished. In their place instead were the confines of a massive cave, hundreds of feet wide and high. There is a lot of ambient sound and echoes in this scene and Atmos’s ability to add a height dimension was just breath-taking. I don’t want to ‘gush’ over this, but there is no other way to describe what I was hearing. I had been transported to a huge, echoing cave with an evil little creature taunting me as he hid and revealed himself over and over in this huge space. I closed my eyes. Yes, I was sitting in a massive cave, not a small demo room in central London. If Dolby had blown a cold blast of aircon into the room, the illusion would have been total.”
_
That was the genuine Atmos experience and I repeat it all here because in no small part it is also the experience I heard from the regular Bluray upmixed with Dolby Surround! OK, there wasn’t the precision of sound placement that I heard in the theater, but the presentation was hugely more impressive than the 7.1 version and especially so in the way that the sense of space was conveyed. The walls and ceiling in my room simply vanished, very much the way I remember it from the theatrical version and in this sense DSU can be considered a triumph.

*Finally, category 3 – content mixed in Atmos and available on Atmos Bluray.*

This final category is the one I had been waiting for. Genuine Atmos content on Bluray. At this time, this limits my review to just two discs: The Dolby Atmos Demo Disc and *'Transformers – Age of Extinction'*. 

The Dolby Atmos Demo disc contains, among other content, the 4 Atmos trailers used in movie theaters and was also used extensively in both of the Dolby demos I was invited to. There was the initial thrill of seeing ‘Dolby Atmos’ light up on the AVR, along with the excellent information displayed on screen when you hit the Info button on the Denon remote – all my speakers were lit up in the display which proudly stated: Sound – Dolby Atmos.

I selected the ‘Leaf’ trailer which is then one that had impressed me the most at Dolby’s own demos and sat back to enjoy this short Atmos marvel. And I was not disappointed. I was able to follow the leaf as it moves around the room, just as I could in the cinema. As the leaf falls to the forest floor it is transported around by the wind and you can clearly identify where it is at any point in the proceedings. Wind howls and whistles all around, birds sing around you and above you, a tree frog chirps to your left. Overall it is an incredibly immersive and involving experience.

By way of experiment, I switched off all the amps other than those driving the overhead speakers. An astonishing amount of content was revealed to be ‘up there’, all adding enormously to the sense of scale, of place, of ambience and height. And this being a true Atmos disc, it was easy to hear the very discrete and well separated sounds being placed with precision in each of my 4 overhead speakers. 

Next up was the ‘Amaze’ trailer and it lived up to its name. I was duly amazed. I was also amazed at the sheer depth of the bass in these clips. For those unfamiliar with the clip it features a forest scene and a thunderstorm. Wildlife sounds swirl all around the room, rain pours from above and you would swear when the thunderclaps come that you had subwoofers on your ceiling too. Total immersion in the content is guaranteed!

The other material on the demo disc is less impressive to be honest. And the two Red Bull clips seem to have found their way onto the disc by mistake: when I had the top speakers isolated I soon discovered that there is almost zero content ‘up there’ in either of the Red Bull clips. Even when the racing car speeds through a tunnel and you might expect to hear the engine sound reflecting off the roof, there is nothing there. So, always, don’t expect Atmos to be a panacea – how good it sounds will depend on how well it was mixed, just as we know is the case with regular 5.1.

Finally, the true Atmos experience: a full length feature film mixed in Atmos and out on Bluray! *‘Transformers – Age of Extinction’ * may not be the greatest movie ever made but trust me, it has a totally blistering soundtrack. If you buy the disc, skip directly to Chapter 20. In this insane 10 minutes of _M_ichael-B_ayhem_ the world is turned upside down, literally. Giant alien robots tower above you, cars and even huge ships are flung into the air and rain down on you, rockets explode, weapons are fired. And every sound is placed precisely where the onscreen action dictates. You will be overwhelmed with sounds from in front of you, behind you, to your left and right and, crucially, above you. Never before will you have been so immersed in the action you see on screen. You will duck and dive as the mayhem surrounds you, all the time pounded by the most incredible bass too: it feels like Bay has squeezed a free subwoofer upgrade into your system while you weren’t looking! For sure, the mix is incredibly busy, but play it two or three times to get a feel for it and then just sit back with your jaw on the carpet and your eyes goggled wide open, as I did. If this is a taste of what is to come, then all I can say is _“I can’t wait!”_. 

*Conclusion.*

Call me mightily impressed. Not just with Atmos, but with DSU too. On all types of content, DSU brings a new level of immersion and involvement to your favourite movies. All of your legacy disc collection will benefit from your new AVR and speakers thanks to DSU. And as Atmos Blurays start to appear, Transformers 4 gives us a taste of what we can expect from the genuine article. I fail to see how anyone will regret spending the money on a new AVR and speakers – once properly installed, following Dolby’s fairly flexible recommendations, the result will astonish and amaze you. You will be transported inside the movie for the first time ever. So I say, if you are on the fence, go for it. And if you already have, then you will know that I am not exaggerating with my comments above. The Denon X5200W and Tannoy Dual Concentric speakers, coupled with DSU and genuine Atmos Bluray content is a winning combination – and in no small part as result of the fantastic room EQ provided by Audyssey’s XT32. I am a happy movie geek!


----------



## ss9001

great write-up Keith! literally, I'm copying your text into Word for future use


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> great write-up Keith! literally, I'm copying your text into Word for future use


Thanks Steve. I may add more examples as time goes on - but for now I want to stop evaluating and just start enjoying my movies all over again! So far every one I have played via DSU has been significantly improved.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> The theatrical system employs a 9.1 bed... 7.1 + 2 overhead arrays.
> 
> Those overheads are encoded as objects in the home version.
> 
> For TF4, the mixers used the overheads for objects only, and put nothing in the overhead bed channels.


Am I right in my understanding that phantom imaging is only used in the channel bed, and not applied to objects during playback? In other words, the sound of an object is always coming from one or more specific speaker locations, and not from a stereo image between two speakers?


----------



## tjenkins95

Rhode Island now has Dolby Atmos in the house 
via Denon 5200W and Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos enabled speakers and Transformers 4!


----------



## mastermaybe

Hi all:

Well, I'll be entering the fray tomorrow with my Marantz 7009, and while I'm excited, does anyone else find it a bit surprising- goofy even- that Dolby named their new up-mix tech "Dolby Surround"? I mean this is precisely the name they gave to the FIRST home surround tech back in 82, correct? DOLBY SURROUND was plastered on everything as I recall.

It's not awful, but don't you think a new product would be fashioned with a distinct name for a ton of reasons?

Maybe I'm missing something here???

Still though, it sounds like people are really liking the DS upmixing thus far, would anyone like to speak to it vs DSX and/or NEO? To be perfectly honest, I really think PLIIZ does a better job than either of the aforementioned on most media. Truly do.

thanks!
James


----------



## mastermaybe

Very nice shot on the post above, Keith. My bar is pretty high for DS but I really don't think I'm going to be disappointed.  

James


----------



## Scott Simonian

Keith, you never fail to impress. Excellent write, my friend. I know you of many of us are most thrilled to get this technology home and I'm glad that you are able to report about these first days for us who can not.

Keep it coming but most of all... enjoy!


----------



## sikclown

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Steve. I may add more examples as time goes on - but for now I want to stop evaluating and just start enjoying my movies all over again! So far every one I have played via DSU has been significantly improved.


Definitely a great write up. I have been following your lead and Watched Lost World last night. Definitely a more immersive experience than before. As I type this my mailman has just delivered my copy of Transformers Age of Extinction. Might be time to "fall ill" and head home from work "to rest"


----------



## pasender91

mastermaybe said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Well, I'll be entering the fray tomorrow with my Marantz 7009, and while I'm excited, does anyone else find it a bit surprising- goofy even- that Dolby named their new up-mix tech "Dolby Surround"? I mean this is precisely the name they gave to the FIRST home surround tech back in 82, correct? DOLBY SURROUND was plastered on everything as I recall.
> 
> It's not awful, but don't you think a new product would be fashioned with a distinct name for a ton of reasons?
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something here???
> 
> Still though, it sounds like people are really liking the DS upmixing thus far, would anyone like to speak to it vs DSX and/or NEO? To be perfectly honest, I really think PLIIZ does a better job than either of the aforementioned on most media. Truly do.
> 
> thanks!
> James


You're not alone, i am also a happy PL IIz user 
If anyone upgrade from PL IIz to DS, please tell us if it is better or not, and what are the differences ...


----------



## mastermaybe

^ People get sick, you know (sikclown). You cannot control the time, locale, or duration of such. Please, consider the welfare of others around you, go home, and get well. The work will be there tomorrow...or Thursday.

It's really all for the best.

James


----------



## sikclown

mastermaybe said:


> ^ People get sick, you know (sikclown). You cannot control the time, locale, or duration of such. Please, consider the welfare of others around you, go home, and get well. The work will be there tomorrow...or Thursday.
> 
> It's really all for the best.
> 
> James


Who am I to argue with such logical and responsible advice?


----------



## Scott Simonian

mastermaybe said:


> ^ People get sick, you know (sikclown). You cannot control the time, locale, or duration of such. Please, consider the welfare of others around you, go home, and get well. The work will be there tomorrow...or Thursday.
> 
> It's really all for the best.
> 
> James





sikclown said:


> Who am I to argue with such logical and responsible advice?


You _do_ own a Denon x5200 and a copy of T4 now.

It think Mastermaybe is giving sound advice.  Do it for the people.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> *First impressions of the Denon X5200W AVR and Dolby Atmos.*
> . . .
> My Atmos speakers are configured as Front Height and Top Middle. This is because I have no room behind me to configure the rear pair as Top Rear. All speakers are on the ceiling and all meet the prescribed angles recommended by Dolby – FH being at about 42° and the TM being at about 100°. I say ‘about’ because I am not obsessive about this, and the angles change as my seating position changes depending on how much I have reclined the chair, how much I slump in the seat and how much I move around during a movie. I am comforted by the many reassurances from Dolby that the speaker locations are more flexible than we might imagine and their assertion that it is “hard to make Amos not work”. This does seem to be borne out by my experience in my own room. . .


Keith, Many thanks for that detailed report on your initial impressions. It is sure to be very informative for those who are uninitiated and highly confirmative for those of us who have been following the Atmos HT development for some time.

On a side note, I realized in reading your above comment that I should change my TR speaker designation to TM like you. The angles I am dealing with are probably very similar, but I also have SB speakers which makes me think that a TM location designator might result in better sound separation/localization.

If you have a chance, I would be interested to hear your impressions, when in Atmos mode, whether changing from TM to TR and back has any noticeable effect and, if so, what kind. It seems you have a finely tuned ear for audio fidelity. 

Thanks again for all the time you've put into providing us your feedback and guidance!


----------



## smurraybhm

pasender91 said:


> You're not alone, i am also a happy PL IIz user
> If anyone upgrade from PL IIz to DS, please tell us if it is better or not, and what are the differences ...


No comparison in my opinion, every movie I have played since getting the Denon 5200x using Dolby Surround has sounded much better than using PLIIz, Neo X or DSX. To put it simply, Dolby Surround is just much more immersive and helps the movie sound as more realistic with the sound coming from you all around as you would hear it if you were there yourself. The only thing I have yet to decide is the music part, in particular SACDs or DVD-As with 5.1 mixes. I am leaning towards DS with 2 channel music, but to be honest I normally listen to those in stereo 2.1 or pure direct.


----------



## FilmMixer

Kris Deering said:


> Official press release for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was released today. DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 only. This is a title that would have been a great one for Atmos. One of the few that really impressed in the theater with its Atmos mix.


Understand the disappointment..

Remember, however, that disc release date doesn't coincide with the authoring of the BR..

I am in the middle of finishing the HT mixes for "Fury..." 

TF 4 was being mastered when I was at the press event the second week of August.. 

Just a guess on my part, but the work on those titles might have been completed well before the tools for mastering, and the mass duplication of Atmos discs was finalized..

I've been told both those studies are on board for home Atmos (remember that Fox has been releasing almost all of their films in the format..)


----------



## FilmMixer

mastermaybe said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Well, I'll be entering the fray tomorrow with my Marantz 7009, and while I'm excited, does anyone else find it a bit surprising- goofy even- that Dolby named their new up-mix tech "Dolby Surround"? I mean this is precisely the name they gave to the FIRST home surround tech back in 82, correct? DOLBY SURROUND was plastered on everything as I recall.
> 
> It's not awful, but don't you think a new product would be fashioned with a distinct name for a ton of reasons?
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something here???
> 
> James


At my last meeting with Dolby, it was discussed...

Marketing wanted it simple and to the point..

While us old timers remember DS well, it should have little meaning to the general consumer base.


----------



## krozman

Nobody in this thread reports waiting at WalMart until Midnight for their ATMOS disc to go on sale.


I am disappointed.


----------



## bargervais

krozman said:


> Nobody in this thread reports waiting at WalMart until Midnight for their ATMOS disc to go on sale.
> 
> 
> I am disappointed.


LOL I just have to wait for the postman or UPS to drop it off no need anymore to stand in line or camp out over night.
I just got a text saying the postman has it and i'll have it when i get home>>


----------



## smurraybhm

Way off topic - but who can shop in Wal-Mart given how they treat their employees? Stores where I live usually look like a bomb went off in them too. 
I am waiting for mine to be delivered, cough cough, I believe I may be coming down with something, don't want to spread whatever it is to others at work.


----------



## kokishin

krozman said:


> Nobody in this thread reports waiting at WalMart until Midnight for their ATMOS disc to go on sale.
> 
> 
> I am disappointed.


Ray Dolby [RIP] must have been smiling down from up above (perhaps Top Middle?).


----------



## NorthSky

Kudos Keith! ...For an awesome _apercu_ that you shared with everyone. 
{ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs } 

Every single day is a beautiful day.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> At my last meeting with Dolby, it was discussed...
> 
> Marketing wanted it simple and to the point..
> 
> While us old timers remember DS well, it should have little meaning to the general consumer base.


1982 (Dolby Surround) was the year of my prime.  ...Very strong, very good looking, and in touch with all the forests of the jungle.


----------



## kbarnes701

mastermaybe said:


> Very nice shot on the post above, Keith. My bar is pretty high for DS but I really don't think I'm going to be disappointed.
> 
> James


Do please report your impressions!


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> ... In my first full fledge surround system, I had Dunlavy SC-VI's in front and Dunlavy SC-V's as surrounds (which were very serious "surround" speakers and had great output to well below 20hz). I eventually ended up with Dunlavy SC-I's in the back (a relatively small 2 way) and I could not hear a lick of difference when properly bass managed.
> 
> In my currently theater, while my surrounds go to well below 70z with wall reinforcement, I cross them over at 120 because that is where the crossover is the most linear.
> 
> My plan for the ceiing speakers are the midrange/tweeter driver from from LCR's in a very small box. The ceiing mounting will provide some bass reinforcement and again, with proper bass management, it will easily be the most appropriate solution. I would image the eventuall crossover will be well north of 100hz
> 
> So while all 11 speakers will have the same midrange/tweeter, NONE will be full range.
> 
> I've done a lot of room audio calibration in many many rooms and the idea that all speakers should be full range is just not accurate, nor necessary nor practical (and in every case I can recall, nor optimal). There may be exceptions.
> 
> One caution:: one must have enough "woofage" to insure that bass management and the LFE duties are fullfilled appropriately --- and I have more than enough woofage.


Yes Chuck; all of that and even more.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, you never fail to impress. Excellent write, my friend. I know you of many of us are most thrilled to get this technology home and I'm glad that you are able to report about these first days for us who can not.
> 
> Keep it coming but most of all... enjoy!


Thanks Scott!


----------



## kbarnes701

sikclown said:


> Definitely a great write up. I have been following your lead and Watched Lost World last night. Definitely a more immersive experience than before. As I type this my mailman has just delivered my copy of Transformers Age of Extinction. Might be time to "fall ill" and head home from work "to rest"


Thanks. Lost World really does benefit from DSU doesn't it. I think all tracks like that will, where there is already an immersive mix. Enjoy Chapter 20 of TF4!


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> You're not alone, i am also a happy PL IIz user
> If anyone upgrade from PL IIz to DS, please tell us if it is better or not, and what are the differences ...


I used to use PLIIz all the time. DSU is much better IMO. With PLIIz there was just 'ambient' noise in the Height speakers. With DSU there seems to be more content in the overhead speakers that 'belongs there' IYKWIM.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Official press release for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was released today. DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 only. This is a title that would have been a great one for Atmos. One of the few that really impressed in the theater with its Atmos mix.


That is a real shame, a "dawn" drag.  ...We'll have to up-mix that one (DSU) I guess, for now, till dts comes up with somethin' in the near future, and till that it get re-released again (DotPotA).


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, Many thanks for that detailed report on your initial impressions. It is sure to be very informative for those who are uninitiated and highly confirmative for those of us who have been following the Atmos HT development for some time.
> 
> On a side note, I realized in reading your above comment that I should change my TR speaker designation to TM like you. The angles I am dealing with are probably very similar, but I also have SB speakers which makes me think that a TM location designator might result in better sound separation/localization.
> 
> If you have a chance, I would be interested to hear your impressions, when in Atmos mode, whether changing from TM to TR and back has any noticeable effect and, if so, what kind. It seems you have a finely tuned ear for audio fidelity.
> 
> Thanks again for all the time you've put into providing us your feedback and guidance!


Thanks for the kind words - appreciated.

I suggest you do change your rearmost speakers to TM to create more angular separation from the SBs. Definitely worth a try.

I will try your suggestion, but when I went to do this the other day, redesignating the speakers causes Audyssey to think you have changed something and switches itself off, demanding a new calibration before you can re-engage it. As I didn't want to do a new cal at that stage, I swapped the top 4 back to their original configs and thus re-enabled Audyssey. I guess I could run it without Audyssey just to evaluate the difference in the top speaker performance if any - my room is fairly good anyway.


----------



## sikclown

Well due to suddenly coming down with a case of Atmositis, I left my office and came home for some "relaxation" and all I can say is I am blown away. As per Keith's recommendation I put in my copy of T4 and went right to Chapter 20. I put my X5200W to -10db and then just patiently waited for the action to get moving. I have been concerned that my choice of overhead speakers was not going to work out and was already anticipating having to sell them and maybe go with some RB-51IIs (although I worry about their dispersion considering my ceiling heights)..... And then my sound stage came alive. I have experienced flashes of this with Jurassic Park but the sound field was so enveloping, it was all around me. My concerns have evaporated almost completely (I need more testing or "relaxation" to really put them to rest). And the bass..... My SVS was quaking with pure joy. I can honestly say that in all my years of watching movies at home I have never experienced anything quite like this. And I likely do not even have things set up as well as could be but Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 has no doubt corrected much of that.


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> Same with *"Edge of Tomorrow"* coming 10/7, what's up with no Atmos mix?
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


Mike, I am looking so much forward to that flick on Blu and in 3D (next week), and it would have been so much awesome to be in DTS-UHD 3D elevated audio. ...Or in Dolby Atmos.  

* Perhaps in 2016-17 or more, when all of us we'll have new Dolby Atmos receivers in our homes;
then we'll see some serious content. We all hope the day will come...at the edge of tomorrow.


----------



## krozman

FYI: Purchased a Costco copy of T4, and it clearly says "English Dolby Atmos" on the back cover. Not sure if other versions are out there.


----------



## Selden Ball

There are at least 9 different versions of TF4 packaging available in the US. 

See http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html


----------



## sikclown

Also worth noting, my copy of T4 ( I purchased the 3D + Bluray + DVD + Digital Copy version) does not have any trailers on it for any other Atmos content.


----------



## kbarnes701

sikclown said:


> Well due to suddenly coming down with a case of Atmositis, I left my office and came home for some "relaxation" and all I can say is I am blown away. As per Keith's recommendation I put in my copy of T4 and went right to Chapter 20. I put my X5200W to -10db and then just patiently waited for the action to get moving. I have been concerned that my choice of overhead speakers was not going to work out and was already anticipating having to sell them and maybe go with some RB-51IIs (although I worry about their dispersion considering my ceiling heights)..... And then my sound stage came alive. I have experienced flashes of this with Jurassic Park but the sound field was so enveloping, it was all around me. My concerns have evaporated almost completely (I need more testing or "relaxation" to really put them to rest). And the bass..... My SVS was quaking with pure joy. I can honestly say that in all my years of watching movies at home I have never experienced anything quite like this. And I likely do not even have things set up as well as could be but Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 has no doubt corrected much of that.


Excellent. Told you... Chapter 20... it rocks!! And the bass is as impressive as the immersion! Way to go!


----------



## batpig

Hmmm, I see only a single SVS PB12-Plus listed in his sig? If I remember correctly that's a pretty spacious room, time for sub #2 eh??? 
@sikclown -- I see you went with bipole Klipsch RS-52II for the four top speakers. Obviously you can't easily hang four different speakers to compare but I'm curious how you feel about such wide dispersion speakers given your extreme ceiling height?


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> Hmmm, I see only a single SVS PB12-Plus listed in his sig? If I remember correctly that's a pretty spacious room, time for sub #2 eh???


Hahaha one day but for now I am just going to be happy with my current setup....OK let's be honest, that will only last a week. All kidding aside though, I am pretty sure my neighbors would lobby to get me out of here (Condo) pretty quickly if I added a second sub.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Understand the disappointment..
> 
> Remember, however, that disc release date doesn't coincide with the authoring of the BR..
> 
> I am in the middle of finishing the HT mixes for "Fury..."
> 
> TF 4 was being mastered when I was at the press event the second week of August..
> 
> Just a guess on my part, but the work on those titles might have been completed well before the tools for mastering, and the mass duplication of Atmos discs was finalized..
> 
> I've been told both those studies are on board for home Atmos (remember that Fox has been releasing almost all of their films in the format..)



Yes Marc, it's good to know; thx.

* Also, it would have been nice that them titles; 'Dawn Planet Apes' and 'Edge Tomorrow' from them studios, if they would have take the lead in innovation, in introducing, in planning ahead, in anticipating the new surround sound evolution/revolution, ...by being ahead of the cultural/entertainment curve.

This was a long time plan (Atmos in our homes), and I truly believe that major hollywood studios are having the biggest part, biggest impact on all of that. 
If I would be an investor, or an executive, or a president of them studios, I will always keep on the edge of the latest and most innovative news when it comes to sound and picture quality. 
But that's me, and the way I invest not only my money but also my always being ahead one step or two before everyone else. 

No big deal right now, not the end of the world, but the future depends on what them studios are going to do...
Innovation, and being fast @ espousing the best is always good financial business, and with it comes huge monetary rewards. ...For both the movie studios, the investors, and the customers (us, with our money from our wallets going into theirs). ...Quickly, efficiently, and that's the way.


----------



## Chucka

kbarnes701 said:


> *First impressions of the Denon X5200W AVR and Dolby Atmos.*
> 
> *Installing the Denon AVR X5200W.*
> 
> My AVR of choice for my initial venture into Atmos was the Denon X5200W, a 9-channel unit which can be expanded to 11 channels with the addition of external amplification.
> .......
> 
> *Conclusion.*
> 
> Call me mightily impressed. Not just with Atmos, but with DSU too. On all types of content, DSU brings a new level of immersion and involvement to your favourite movies. All of your legacy disc collection will benefit from your new AVR and speakers thanks to DSU. And as Atmos Blurays start to appear, Transformers 4 gives us a taste of what we can expect from the genuine article. I fail to see how anyone will regret spending the money on a new AVR and speakers – once properly installed, following Dolby’s fairly flexible recommendations, the result will astonish and amaze you. You will be transported inside the movie for the first time ever. So I say, if you are on the fence, go for it. And if you already have, then you will know that I am not exaggerating with my comments above. The Denon X5200W and Tannoy Dual Concentric speakers, coupled with DSU and genuine Atmos Bluray content is a winning combination – and in no small part as result of the fantastic room EQ provided by Audyssey’s XT32. I am a happy movie geek!


Thank you Keith for sharing your review with us. You are doing a great service for these forums and we appreciate your time and efforts. I hope you have much enjoyment with your system.

Though your might not want to mess with you system for a while but rather just enjoy it, we would be interested in hearing your impression of the amplifiers within this receiver vs the use of external amplifiers. How much of a difference do you hear at lower sound levels compared to your external amps and at what (SPL) point do the external amps shine over the internal amps? (I would expect that at reference levels that the external amps would have more headroom and be the better choice).

Thank You!


----------



## batpig

An interesting question but probably more reelvant in the Denon owner's thread for the model vs. the Atmos general thread.

I would assume that the internal amps of the 5200 could run the Tannoy surrounds / tops to refernece level without any effort, but the front 3 M&K S150's probably like the extra juice. But Keith already has all the amps so not much of a concern for him.


----------



## batpig

sikclown said:


> Hahaha one day but for now I am just going to be happy with my current setup....OK let's be honest, that will only last a week. All kidding aside though, I am pretty sure my neighbors would lobby to get me out of here (Condo) pretty quickly if I added a second sub.


Oh wow that's a condo? Pretty sick condo setup  

Are you going to keep the wides in play? If you are up for it you could try disables the surr.backs and rewatching Chapter 20 with 7.1.4 using FW instead of SB.


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> Well due to suddenly coming down with a case of Atmositis, I left my office and came home for some "relaxation" and all I can say is I am blown away. As per Keith's recommendation I put in my copy of T4 and went right to Chapter 20. I put my X5200W to -10db and then just patiently waited for the action to get moving. I have been concerned that my choice of overhead speakers was not going to work out and was already anticipating having to sell them and maybe go with some RB-51IIs (although I worry about their dispersion considering my ceiling heights)..... And then my sound stage came alive. I have experienced flashes of this with Jurassic Park but the sound field was so enveloping, it was all around me. My concerns have evaporated almost completely (I need more testing or "relaxation" to really put them to rest). And the bass..... My SVS was quaking with pure joy. I can honestly say that in all my years of watching movies at home I have never experienced anything quite like this. And I likely do not even have things set up as well as could be but Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 has no doubt corrected much of that.


That makes me burn with impatience, I don't like that @ all. I don't want to spend money right now and then again next year for Auro-3D and dts 3D.  ...And of course with 4K (HDCP 2.2 with true HDMI 2.0).

But heck do I feel to go out right now and set myself all up with 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' in full Dolby Atmos experience! 
You should be a salesman, just like Keith.  ...You guys would form a good team.


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> Oh wow that's a condo? Pretty sick condo setup
> 
> Are you going to keep the wides in play? If you are up for it you could try disables the surr.backs and rewatching Chapter 20 with 7.1.4 using FW instead of SB.


Yup! I am on the 3rd floor (top floor) of an old grocery store here in New Orleans. It is an open/loft Floor plan (1300sq ft)and I just have two neighbors I share walls with. Some sound proofing was done a handful of years ago but the bass really runs right through it. 

And you just read my mind... That is exactly what I am going to do right now.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I will try your suggestion, but *when I went to do this the other day, redesignating the speakers causes Audyssey to think you have changed something and switches itself off, demanding a new calibration before you can re-engage it. *As I didn't want to do a new cal at that stage, I swapped the top 4 back to their original configs and thus re-enabled Audyssey. I guess I could run it without Audyssey just to evaluate the difference in the top speaker performance if any - my room is fairly good anyway.


You should be able to go to Speakers > Manual Setup > > Amp Assign and change the selection for "-Height Layout" without impacting the Audyssey calibration. Just make sure you're in Manual Setup vice Audyssey Setup.


----------



## gtbdevs

Now that I have ordered most of the equipment, now is time to ask the questions, makes sense.....

I will be doing a 5.1.4 setup, and have the Denon X4100 coming(sometime today), have also the Pioneer Atmos speakers, 2 towers, and 2 bookshelf coming. already have the Pioneer center.

I ordered the Audio source amp-100, this amp will be sufficient?

To confirm, my only choice for amp assign is Dolby Atmos?

Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> An interesting question but probably more reelvant in the Denon owner's thread for the model vs. the Atmos general thread.
> 
> I would assume that the internal amps of the 5200 could run the Tannoy surrounds / tops to refernece level without any effort, but the front 3 M&K S150's probably like the extra juice. But Keith already has all the amps so not much of a concern for him.


Is the 5200 a pre-pro or a receiver? ...Both? ...What's the very best use of it? 

1. Say for someone with an ultra hi-end setup of speakers inside a golden home theater room.

2. For someone with Andrew Jones Pioneer's speakers, inside a room the size of Keith's room.

3. For between them two above.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chucka said:


> Thank you Keith for sharing your review with us. You are doing a great service for these forums and we appreciate your time and efforts. I hope you have much enjoyment with your system.


Thank you - appreciate your remarks.



Chucka said:


> Though your might not want to mess with you system for a while but rather just enjoy it, we would be interested in hearing your impression of the amplifiers within this receiver vs the use of external amplifiers. How much of a difference do you hear at lower sound levels compared to your external amps and at what (SPL) point do the external amps shine over the internal amps? (I would expect that at reference levels that the external amps would have more headroom and be the better choice).
> 
> Thank You!


That is a really big deal to do, here. All the gear is in a very restricted closet and is a nightmare to wire unfortunately. I can tell you what I woukd _expect _to find though, based on experience.

First off, my main speakers - the M&K S150s are 4 ohm units and about 89 dB sensitivity. AVRs aren't generally brilliant at driving 4 ohm speakers but I'd expect the fairly nice amps in the 5200 to cope with them, especially as nowadays all my other speakers are 8 ohms. 

Other than that, I do listen at high SPLs - when watching Transformers 4 the other night, my SPL meter was peaking at 107dB. This represents about -5dB on the MV in my heavily-treated room.

I would expect the amps in the 5200 to be able to drive all my speakers perfectly well to more 'normal' listening levels that most seem to use - about -10dB to -15dB seeming quite common from what I read. So long as amps are not driven into clipping, my view is that all decent modern SS versions sound similar once DSP or room EQ is taken out of the equation. So at lower levels I would expect the internal amps to perform as well, sonically, as the externals.

But in my case, with the high SPLs I feel more comfortable with external amps. And once upon a time I had 4 ohms speakers that were difficult to drive and did trip the protection sometimes on my, then, Onkyo 3007 AVR, which in itself was no slouch wrt to amplification. That is the reason I initially went the external route. Then my last unit was a processor so of course external amps were mandated. Now, I have 9 great amps that I never use!

My external amps have more power than the internal amps too. The 5200 amps are rated at 140 watts IIRC (ICBW) but this is with just two channels driven. The all-channels driven figure is probably more like 80 watts. By comparison my XPA-3 is 200 watts into 8 ohms, with ACD. So that is a difference in terms of headroom of about 4dB. The other amps are roughly 125 watts ACD into 8 ohms, so only about an additional 2dB of headroom which is negligible really. Remember that you have to double amp power to get 3 more dB.

So the answer is, it depends... if you listen at more modest levels than I do, the 5200's amps will be more than fine. Amps only show audible differences if one is pushed to or beyond its design parameters and clips, and the other doesn't. Keep away from clipping and the 5200 amps will sound the same as my Emotiva amps. If OTOH you want fearsome levels, and have 4 ohm speakers and maybe a big room (bigger distance to MLP) then externals might be better. Only the individual can say which will suit his needs better. But I have no doubt at all that the amps in the 5200 are high quality components. Most of the time, I'd never hear a difference - when I am peaking at 107dB, maybe... maybe the externals and their extra bit of headroom will sound cleaner at the peaks.


----------



## NorthSky

...The Denon AVR-X5200W;
It has nine (9) internal amps, right? ...Are they good enough for a 5.1.4 (or 7.1.2) Dolby Atmos configuration? ...Like power wise; enough of it. ...When running all them nine power amplifiers simultaneously.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> An interesting question but probably more reelvant in the Denon owner's thread for the model vs. the Atmos general thread.
> 
> I would assume that the internal amps of the 5200 could run the Tannoy surrounds / tops to refernece level without any effort, but the front 3 M&K S150's probably like the extra juice. But Keith already has all the amps so not much of a concern for him.


More or less exactly what I told the OP in my reply. I am sure that the arrangement you suggest would work really well.


----------



## loekf

It was a bit of a struggle, because ffmpeg has (had) a bug causing it to parse the TrueHD track with Atmos info incorrectly. Quick check:

- XBMC 14.0 alpha 3 still uses an older ffmpeg build.

No sound when you select a TrueHD track with Atmos info.

- Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre 6

Streams the TrueHD track to your receiver

- MPC-HC nightly built uses LAV filters 0.63.

Fixes TrueHD with Atmos, streams ok to your receiver.

So what does my Onkyo TX-NR636 does when you offer it the TrueHD track with Atmos from TF4 (yes it is around.. if you look for it). Well, it indicates a TrueHD track and clearly operates in DSU mode. AFAIK, the Onkyo 2014 models will only operate in Atmos mode if you connect a height/back speaker, so when you connect 7 speakers (so surround speakers with either 2 up firing speakers).

I have to play with more Blurays, if you hear any difference with the new Dolby Surround (DSU) upmixing mode.

Small question..... what about all these standalone BD players in the market ? Will they be able to bitstream the (appearently) updated TrueHD stream ? Appearently some SW players had/have issues and had to be updated.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You should be able to go to Speakers > Manual Setup > > Amp Assign and change the selection for "-Height Layout" without impacting the Audyssey calibration. Just make sure you're in Manual Setup vice Audyssey Setup.


I am sure that is what I did the other day. In the manual setup - and because Audyssey has calibrated my speakers as Front Height and Top Middle, if you change them to Top Front and Top Rear, it assumes you are using different speakers which have not been calibrated. So it shuts itself off (sensibly as it happens).


----------



## kbarnes701

loekf said:


> Small question..... what about all these standalone BD players in the market ? Will they be able to bitstream the (appearently) updated TrueHD stream ? Appearently some SW players had/have issues and had to be updated.


All Bluray players that meet the current Bluray spec (which is almost all of them) will bitstream the TrueHD Atmos track plus metadata without problems. Even my ancient Panasonic backup player has no problems with Atmos.


----------



## smurraybhm

loek - I guess I'm confused, you're expecting Atmos from a non-Atmos configuration?


----------



## loekf

smurraybhm said:


> loek - I guess I'm confused, you're expecting Atmos from a non-Atmos configuration?


I'm just stupid ;-)

All this Atmos stuff is very confusing and the Onkyo manuals are not really clear on when to expect what.


----------



## Sammie2980

Great review Keith

I noticed that you said you are running 5.2.4 because you cannot accommodate rear surrounds. Question I have is is you could accommodate rear surrounds would you pot for 7.2.2 or stay with 5.2.4? Do you feel you are getting a much wider range of immersion with the X.X.4?

Only reason I ask is because Im trying to debate on if I want to run 7.2.2 or in a sense downsize to 5.2.4


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I am sure that is what I did the other day. In the manual setup - and because Audyssey has calibrated my speakers as Front Height and Top Middle, if you change them to Top Front and Top Rear, it assumes you are using different speakers which have not been calibrated. So it shuts itself off (sensibly as it happens).


I thought we were talking about changing just the rearmost speaker designation, i.e., keeping FH and switching between TM and TR? I have done so myself without issue.

I would expect that if you tell the AVR you are going from a height location to a top or vice versa, it would then assume a different speaker were in play as opposed to scooching a top speaker one position back or forwards, no?


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> Hmmm, I see only a single SVS PB12-Plus listed in his sig? If I remember correctly that's a pretty spacious room, time for sub #2 eh???
> @sikclown -- I see you went with bipole Klipsch RS-52II for the four top speakers. Obviously you can't easily hang four different speakers to compare but I'm curious how you feel about such wide dispersion speakers given your extreme ceiling height?


I think they work great but can't help but wonder what a different type of speaker may sound like. I am completely enveloped in sound though, and I like it. The only other speakers I could think to try would be RB-51IIs which would be an easy swap out to test (same mounting setup would work perfectly and leave room for the rear port) but I don't have a set. I could try my RB-61IIs but they wouldn't work with my mounts and actually have no easy way to be mounted. In ceiling speakers aren't a real viable option for me either due to the way my ceiling actually doesn't have much separation from the roof. Timbre matching was very important to me as was at least some wide dispersion. Not sure what other speakers tick off all the check boxes.

Also I just turned off my back surrounds and ran my sides on T4. It was just as immersive and it seems as if the top rears just pick up the back surrounds slack along with the side surrounds. Anyone who has to run without back surrounds will be perfectly happy using wides instead in my opinion.


----------



## Selden Ball

NorthSky said:


> Is the 5200 a pre-pro or a receiver? ...Both?


It's a first-generation Atmos-capable receiver with 13 preamp outputs. It has 9 internal amps but can support more speakers if you add 4 or more external amps.
http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX5200W/EU/EN/ (or provide your native language code as the last field)



> ...What's the very best use of it?
> 
> 1. Say for someone with an ultra hi-end setup of speakers inside a golden home theater room.
> 
> 2. For someone with Andrew Jones Pioneer's speakers, inside a room the size of Keith's room.
> 
> 3. For between them two above.


It doesn't have XLR outputs, but otherwise is equivalent to the Marantz AV7702 pre/pro plus amps. 

People with "golden" setups probably would rather get a Trinnov Altitude32 (for $32K or the equivalent.)


----------



## PoshFrosh

kbarnes701 said:


> *First impressions of the Denon X5200W AVR and Dolby Atmos* ... I am a happy movie geek!


Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Keith. I have a couple questions:


I will have Transformers 4 BD tonight. Thanks for recommending the boom-y chapter to check out. My question is, do you know of a spot in the film where there is a quieter scene that has noticeable Atmos directionality? (I haven't seen the movie yet, so please correct me if there *are* no quieter parts, LOL). As you know I'm looking for a nice scene for demo and diagnostic purposes (really, I just wish I had one of the Atmos demos).
Has Mrs. Keith heard the Atmos or DSU yet? As we all know, the S.O. saying that something "sounds good" means a ton. I know my gf can usually not tell the difference (i.e. "but it sounded good before") sigh

Thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

loekf said:


> I'm just stupid ;-)
> 
> All this Atmos stuff is very confusing and the Onkyo manuals are not really clear on when to expect what.


Hopefully they're providing updated manuals to correspond to the new Atmos firmware.

Essentially, though, Atmos won't be enabled unless you have at least two overhead speakers. Logically it could work with just ear-height speakers, but that's not the way they designed the first-generation decoders. If any of your surrounds are up high, you might try designating them as Top Rear speakers, just for testing. You'll need to move some of them down to ear-height to get the best vertical separation, though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Sammie2980 said:


> Great review Keith
> 
> I noticed that you said you are running 5.2.4 because you cannot accommodate rear surrounds. Question I have is is you could accommodate rear surrounds would you pot for 7.2.2 or stay with 5.2.4? Do you feel you are getting a much wider range of immersion with the X.X.4?
> 
> Only reason I ask is because Im trying to debate on if I want to run 7.2.2 or in a sense downsize to 5.2.4


I would stay with 5.1.4 without question. My reasoning is this: if I ran 7.1.2 I would have 7 out of 9 speakers at ear level and only two at overhead level. But if I run 5.1.4 I have 5 speakers at ear level and 4 at overhead level, which seems to me to be a much better balance.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I thought we were talking about changing just the rearmost speaker designation, i.e., keeping FH and switching between TM and TR? I have done so myself without issue.
> 
> I would expect that if you tell the AVR you are going from a height location to a top or vice versa, it would then assume a different speaker were in play as opposed to scooching a top speaker one position back or forwards, no?


Maybe  Your suggestion might work if Audyssey believes it has already calibrated the speaker regardless of its designation. But as Top Rear would be miles out of spec for me, I can't see it working better than Top Middle, which is in spec.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> It's a first-generation Atmos-capable receiver with 13 preamp outputs. It has 9 internal amps but can support more speakers if you add 4 or more external amps.
> http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX5200W/EU/EN/ (or provide your native language code as the last field)
> 
> It doesn't have XLR outputs, but otherwise is equivalent to the Marantz AV7702 pre/pro plus amps.
> 
> People with "golden" setups probably would rather get a Trinnov Altitude32 (for $32K or the equivalent.)


That truly looks like an impressive pre-pro/receiver. ...Denon should sell a bunch of them, I think. 
If I would be in a rush, I would get one myself, or the Marantz SR7009 receiver/pre-pro.

Which of them two has multichannel analog In? ...The 5200? 

And the 5200 has Alpha All Channels 24 (Al24 - 24-bit/192kHz) processing (in all channels); not the 7009. 
But then, the 5200 is $200 more. ... MSRP


----------



## kbarnes701

PoshFrosh said:


> Thanks for taking the time to write that up, Keith. I have a couple questions:
> 
> I will have Transformers 4 BD tonight. Thanks for recommending the boom-y chapter to check out. My question is, do you know of a spot in the film where there is a quieter scene that has noticeable Atmos directionality? (I haven't seen the movie yet, so please correct me if there *are* no quieter parts, LOL). As you know I'm looking for a nice scene for demo and diagnostic purposes (really, I just wish I had one of the Atmos demos).


Sorry - I haven't watched the movie all the way through yet, and just hopped about looking for loud and raucous content  I am sure there must be some quiet bits - even Michael Bay has to pause for breath sometimes 



PoshFrosh said:


> Has Mrs. Keith heard the Atmos or DSU yet? As we all know, the S.O. saying that something "sounds good" means a ton. I know my gf can usually not tell the difference (i.e. "but it sounded good before") sigh


She has had a quick demo. If it hasn't got 4 legs, a mane and a long face she isn’t usually interested in my hobbies  She did say that it sounded "brilliant" and was better than she remembered it being. But she might just have been humoring me of course - she is very tolerant of my hobbies and has the patience of a saint.


----------



## Selden Ball

The differences between the X5200 and the SR7009 all are trivial (a difference which makes no difference is no difference), except that the SR7009 has preamp inputs. None of the currently available Denon receivers have them. The X7200 is expected to have them, but it won't be available for several months. In the US, the X5200 and SR7009 have exactly the same list price ($2K). It's only outside the US that the SR7009 is cheaper. Nobody knows why.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> I thought we were talking about changing just the rearmost speaker designation, i.e., keeping FH and switching between TM and TR? I have done so myself without issue.
> 
> I would expect that if you tell the AVR you are going from a height location to a top or vice versa, it would then assume a different speaker were in play as opposed to scooching a top speaker one position back or forwards, no?


That's interesting. Typically (as Keith has found) if you change an amp assign and/or speaker config setting that implies a "new" speaker(s) for the setup, Audyssey deactives and gives you a "Please Run Audyssey" error message when you try to turn it on. The general rule of thumb is that if Audyssey doesn't have an EQ filter calculated for a speaker that is active in config, it forces you to re-run. So it's odd that switching between TM and TR does NOT trigger this behavior.


----------



## wse

Interesting


----------



## batpig

sikclown said:


> Also I just turned off my back surrounds and ran my sides on T4. It was just as immersive and it seems as if the top rears just pick up the back surrounds slack along with the side surrounds. Anyone who has to run without back surrounds will be perfectly happy using wides instead in my opinion.


Thanks for testing FW vs SB. It's good to know that with native Atmos content the FW speakers get a good workout and you can run that 7.1.4 config. It's a viable option for those whose side surrounds are by necessity a bit behind MLP, creating a bigger gap between FL/FR and SL/SR. Adding those FW in means you can create extra wraparound immersion in the front, and still have four speakers behind you (Surrounds + Top Rear) to cover the back hemisphere. It's just too bad DSU can't treat the wides as "front surrounds" and upmix to them, but you still have the option of Neo:X upmix.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> The 4 overheads are configured as Front Height and Top Middle, following the Dolby recommendations in their WP and the oft-posted diagram. My front overheads are on the ceiling at about 42° and the rear pair are just behind the MLP at 100°.


I'd be curious to know if you changed the designations from Front Height and Top Middle to Top Front and Top Rear does it alter the effect in any noticeable way. Probably more for flyovers than for ambience.

OOps, I see that's a problem:


kbarnes701 said:


> I am sure that is what I did the other day. In the manual setup - and because Audyssey has calibrated my speakers as Front Height and Top Middle, if you change them to Top Front and Top Rear, it assumes you are using different speakers which have not been calibrated. So it shuts itself off (sensibly as it happens).


----------



## wse

So what do you think of this?

"You’ve probably heard all about Dolby Atmos, the new immersive audio format hitting the consumer market. Everyone is jumping on board, from big box retailers to custom high-end outfits. Atmos, in its cinematic form, supports a dauntingly large number of channels; how do you integrate that in the limited confines of consumer spaces?

First off, you’re going to see some HTiB solutions and speaker add-on modules. These are great for consumers and enthusiasts, but not for your clients. You’re going to be dealing with a few more speakers and amplifiers. How many more? At this point, I would consider two wide speakers and two ceiling speakers the minimum for a high-end Atmos installation. This would be called a “9.1.2” configuration using the current nomenclature. To be on the safe side, you should pre-wire for at least two more ceiling speakers. Audible improvement will decrease incrementally as you add more speakers, so don’t go overboard just yet.

Wide speakers, placed at about 60 degrees from center, are arguably more important than the heavily hyped ceiling element. One of the most challenging areas of the sound field to reproduce correctly is the transition from the screen speakers to the sidewall surrounds. All too often, pans jump abruptly from one to the other instead of moving smoothly. Wide speakers address this by adding a physical sound source between the two points rather than relying entirely on phantom imaging. Ceiling speakers (particularly toward the front of the room) perform a similar function in the vertical plane. They create smooth pans from the screen speakers over the audience and eventually to the back wall of surrounds. Thus far, vertical flyovers in mixes are less common than the ubiquitous off-screen side pans; hence the reason I would prioritize width speakers rather than ceiling speakers.

The jury is still out on the exact performance requirements for wide and ceiling speakers, but we know enough to get started. Because the wide speakers will be working closely with the screen speakers, it’s important that they have similar sonic characteristics and amplifier power. I’ll stop short of saying you should make all five speakers and amps identical, but your best bet is to do just that. At the very least, wides should be higher performance with higher directivity than the surrounds. Ceiling speakers typically will receive less energy from the mix and can be similar to the surrounds in performance and amplifier power. Assuming that you’re using bass management (and shame on you if you aren’t), it’s not necessary to use giant speakers. The subwoofers will take care of the heavy bass lifting, allowing even relatively small ceiling speakers to play plenty loud.

As with any speaker, placement, coverage, and aiming are critical. Wides should go at an angle that is roughly midway between the left or right speaker and the first surround speaker on the side wall. In most rooms, this will be about +/- 55-60 degrees from front center. If you’re dealing with a narrow room, be careful that this doesn’t put the wides excessively close to the seats. Remember, you don’t want to blast people in the face. 

Most screen speakers have wide horizontal dispersion, but it never hurts to confirm they are wide enough to cover the entire audience side to side from a closer distance. It should be self-evident by this point, but you must aim the wides at the audience like a screen speaker. Don’t just sink them flush in the wall to fire across the room at each other. This would put the entire audience at an extreme off-axis angle with poor frequency response and spray sound in parts of the room it’s not needed.

The first pair of ceiling speakers should go midway along the lines between the primary listening position and the L/R screen speakers–perhaps slightly closer together. If you opt for a second pair, they should go over the audience the same distance apart as the first pair. 

The ceiling speakers must also cover the entire audience and avoid spraying sound unnecessarily into places no one is sitting. It might be possible to get away with traditional “round” in-ceiling speakers, as long as the woofer and tweeter element can both be angled significantly to fire the audience area. 

However, I recommend angled-baffle in-ceiling speakers that typically offer superior dispersion control and aiming capabilities." Anthony Grimani


----------



## batpig

gtbdevs said:


> Now that I have ordered most of the equipment, now is time to ask the questions, makes sense.....
> 
> I will be doing a 5.1.4 setup, and have the Denon X4100 coming(sometime today), have also the Pioneer Atmos speakers, 2 towers, and 2 bookshelf coming. already have the Pioneer center.
> 
> I ordered the Audio source amp-100, this amp will be sufficient?
> 
> To confirm, my only choice for amp assign is Dolby Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


This is probably a better topic for the Denon 4100/5200 owner's thread rather than the general Atmos thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...tmos-xt32-model-thread-x4100-x5200-x7200.html

I'm going to put together an amp assign FAQ because we are getting so many of these types of questions!  It's a new confoosing place.


----------



## ss9001

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd be curious to know if you changed the designations from Front Height and Top Middle to Top Front and Top Rear does it alter the effect in any noticeable way. Probably more for flyovers than for ambience.


I've had similar thoughts what if you designate them differently, what's the impact?


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> That's interesting. Typically (as Keith has found) if you change an amp assign and/or speaker config setting that implies a "new" speaker(s) for the setup, Audyssey deactives and gives you a "Please Run Audyssey" error message when you try to turn it on. The general rule of thumb is that if Audyssey doesn't have an EQ filter calculated for a speaker that is active in config, it forces you to re-run. So it's odd that switching between TM and TR does NOT trigger this behavior.


Your post prompted me to double-check my findings.

I do not get the "Please Run Audyssey" message when changing the position of *any *of the two pairs of elevated speakers, and I can verify that "MultEQ XT32: Reference" is still being applied. However, on further inspection I find that the speaker pair that was changed is no longer shown as active! That bit of information had escaped me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I'd be curious to know if you changed the designations from Front Height and Top Middle to Top Front and Top Rear does it alter the effect in any noticeable way. Probably more for flyovers than for ambience.


I tried that very thing Roger, but it required me to re-run Audyssey (as the AVR thinks I am using a new pair of uncalibrated speakers) so I abandoned it for now as I have setupitis. But it is on my to-do list for the future. 

What would you expect the difference to be, given my room and angles (FH=42°, TM=100°)?


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> The differences between the X5200 and the SR7009 all are trivial (a difference which makes no difference is no difference), except that the SR7009 has preamp inputs. None of the currently available Denon receivers have them. The X7200 is expected to have them, but it won't be available for several months. In the US, the X5200 and SR7009 have exactly the same list price ($2K). It's only outside the US that the SR7009 is cheaper. Nobody knows why.


Oh it's the 7009 that has multichannel analog In. I was almost certain that Denon had that. 

And I also thought that the 7009 was $1,799 USD (MSRP).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I'm going to put together an amp assign FAQ because we are getting so many of these types of questions!  It's a new confoosing place.


Praise the Lord, for he is batpig! That would be exceptionally useful, especially to Denon virgins like me.


----------



## ss9001

Selden Ball said:


> The differences between the X5200 and the SR7009 all are trivial (a difference which makes no difference is no difference), except that the SR7009 has preamp inputs. None of the currently available Denon receivers have them. The X7200 is expected to have them, but it won't be available for several months. In the US, the X5200 and SR7009 have exactly the same list price ($2K). It's only outside the US that the SR7009 is cheaper. Nobody knows why.


I admit I haven't paid as much attention to the Denon models as Pioneer's 

And found that the 5200 doesn't have multichannel analogs while the upcoming 7200 will. If the Marantz version has them, that makes it a good compromise between the 2 models. Only the Marantz may not have AL32 (or AL24); I know several have tried to find out if it's an unadvertised feature due to branding but to the best of my knowledge no one has, at least being able to post the answer.


----------



## NorthSky

ss9001 said:


> I admit I haven't paid as much attention to the Denon models as Pioneer's
> 
> And found that the 5200 doesn't have multichannel analogs while the upcoming 7200 will. If the Marantz version has them, that makes it a good compromise between the 2 models. Only the Marantz may not have AL32 (or AL24); I know several have tried to find out if it's an unadvertised feature due to branding but to the best of my knowledge no one has, at least being able to post the answer.


Say you have an Oppo BDP-105D universal BD player; Marantz products seem to be a better fit;
analogically speaking.

And Denon receivers, with AL24 and AL32; a better fit for an Oppo BDP-103D universal BD player;
digitally speaking.


----------



## Selden Ball

NorthSky said:


> Oh it's the 7009 that has multichannel analog In. I was almost certain that Denon had that.
> 
> And I also thought that the 7009 was $1,799 USD (MSRP).


 Nope. I think you are confusing it with the incorrect price which Marantz briefly posted for the AV7702 pre/pro. That was fixed the next day. All three models (X5200, SR7009 and AV7702) have identical list prices in the US: $1999.00. You can do a Web search to confirm this.


----------



## NorthSky

I don't have to Selden; you already did, and you are mostly trustable.


----------



## batpig

ss9001 said:


> I admit I haven't paid as much attention to the Denon models as Pioneer's
> 
> And found that the 5200 doesn't have multichannel analogs while the upcoming 7200 will. If the Marantz version has them, that makes it a good compromise between the 2 models. Only the Marantz may not have AL32 (or AL24); I know several have tried to find out if it's an unadvertised feature due to branding but to the best of my knowledge no one has, at least being able to post the answer.


Considering the Marantz 7009/7200 is based on the X4100/X5200 architecture, it won't have AL32. The full 32-bit processing (DDSC-HD32 32-bit DSP signal processing, AL32 Processing Multi Channel and high grade 32-bit/192 kHz DACs) will only be found on the 7200 and the related Marantz 8802 processor (EDIT: forgot that the AL32 part won't be on Marantz models since it's Denon proprietary... but Marantz has their own proprietary HDAM modules and stuff).


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> *First impressions of the Denon X5200W AVR and Dolby Atmos. *QUOTE]
> 
> Keith,
> 
> 
> Great review, thank you for the time and effort you put into providing the information!
> Your experience with Gravity + DSU echoed my own at the demo I attended.
> T4 arrives today, but no equipment for me for another month. Oh well, something to look forward to.
> All the best.


----------



## bargervais

My TX-NR 737 with firmware updated as of Sept. 29th running 5.2.2 top front ceiling speakers positioned between fronts and surrounds. Just got transformers 4 I'm totally sold I thought doby surround upmix sounded good. Keith you sold me I was going to wait till next year I'm so excited that I jumped in now I know the 737 is not a x5200w but I'm very pleased. 
Keith I enjoyed reading your review wish I had that kind of writing skills


----------



## smurraybhm

ss9001 said:


> I admit I haven't paid as much attention to the Denon models as Pioneer's
> 
> And found that the 5200 doesn't have multichannel analogs while the upcoming 7200 will. If the Marantz version has them, that makes it a good compromise between the 2 models. Only the Marantz may not have AL32 (or AL24); I know several have tried to find out if it's an unadvertised feature due to branding but to the best of my knowledge no one has, at least being able to post the answer.


Steve - I believe JD answered this already. AL24/32 is a Denon only feature (magic light comes on the display when its being used, or it use to on my 4311, I admit to not checking on my new Denon for it). I would also respectfully state that no one will be able to tell the difference between a receiver using AL24 vs. AL32. That was also said earlier, don't buy based on that feature only.


----------



## HTinParadise

pletwals said:


> When you build a box-in-box construction, using at least a decoupled frame with a double layer of drywall (preferably with GreenGlue in between), you want to avoid perforating it if you can. So if your amps are in the room and the ceiling mount speakers also, it's best practice to keep the speaker wires also inside the room. If you want to hide the wires, you will have to add decorative coves, soffits and wall panels.
> 
> With in-ceiling speakers, backer boxes are mandatory.


Great information, pletwals, and thank you.


----------



## pasender91

7009 vs X5200 => The 7009 has the Pre-in, uses better components for amps & power supply, and for us in europe it is cheaper. 

So it's a kind of "no brainer" to me, i am at my fourth Denon now, but thinking about taking the Atmos dive => the 7009 is my first choice right now.

I only wait for the Yamaha 3040 Atmos update, if it does allow speaker placement by angles in Atmos, then it will go with the 3040, else i will go with the 7009.

Even at the same price the 7009 is more desirable than X5200 i believe.


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> 7009 vs X5200 => The 7009 has the Pre-in, uses better components for amps & power supply, and for us in europe it is cheaper.
> 
> So it's a kind of "no brainer" to me, i am at my fourth Denon now, but thinking about taking the Atmos dive => the 7009 is my first choice right now.
> 
> I only wait for the Yamaha 3040 Atmos update, if it does allow speaker placement by angles in Atmos, then it will go with the 3040, else i will go with the 7009.
> 
> Even at the same price the 7009 is more desirable than X5200 i believe.


I wouldn't be sure the 7009 uses "better amps and power supply". The Marantz propritary HDAM modules and other proprietary analog circuitry are there, but the 7009 is really more like an X4100 with 9 amps than an X5200. 

Note:

- Marantz 7009 is made in China like the X4100, not Japan like the X5200
- Marantz 7009 spec'd at 125W/ch like the X4100, not 140W/ch like the X5200. This implies it doesn't have the upgraded "discrete monolithic amplifier with custom made DHCT (Denon High Current Transistors)" of the X5200, but rather has the same amp section as the X4100 (just 9 instead of 7). 
- If you compare the back panel layouts it's clear the SR7009 is more closely related to the X4100 than the X5200
- X5200 has a larger power supply rating (730W vs 710W) than the SR7009
- X5200 is slightly heavier than the SR7009 (14.2kg vs 13.8kg)

Now I'm not suggesting that the X5200 is a no brainer over the SR7009, but you seem to be making some assumptions about the component quality of the Marantz being superior to the 5200 that simply aren't true.

And who still cares about multich analog pre-ins these days anyway? I guess if that's a huge feature then Marantz is for you (this "legacy appeal" is definitely a brand differentiation vs Denon cousins).


----------



## sdrucker

smurraybhm said:


> Steve - I believe JD answered this already. AL24/32 is a Denon only feature (magic light comes on the display when its being used, or it use to on my 4311, I admit to not checking on my new Denon for it). I would also respectfully state that no one will be able to tell the difference between a receiver using AL24 vs. AL32. That was also said earlier, don't buy based on that feature only.



Not just that, but isn't Audyssey XT32, which would be included on the new Atmos units from D&M, processing at 24/48? It makes paying for AL32 a bit moot if you're going to use the built-in room correction algorithm (which you would be strongly advised to with an Atmos-capable pre/pro or AVR).


----------



## FilmMixer

TMNT on BR.

Dec 16th.

Dolby Atmos...

While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> TMNT on BR.
> 
> Dec 16th.
> 
> Dolby Atmos...
> 
> While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


OMG next it will be power rangers


----------



## David Susilo

FilmMixer said:


> TMNT on BR.
> 
> Dec 16th.
> 
> Dolby Atmos...
> 
> While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


Yessssssss!!


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> TMNT on BR.
> 
> Dec 16th.
> 
> Dolby Atmos...
> 
> While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


 
I think Keith's going to wake up, and within 10 seconds of reading your post, be itching to pre-order what would be his third Atmos BD....

As for Dawn of the POTA (which was mentioned earlier today as being DTS-Master 7.1 only, and getting released on 12/2), there's going to be a few different versions of the release, including the "Warrior Collection" for hard-core fans, for a mere $129.99:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dawn-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-3D-Blu-ray/109989/

Get your bust of Caesar's head....or your gorilla action figures, I guess.

At any rate, we can always hold out hope that there will be an Atmos BD of the movie next year or in 2016, once the limited edition collector's stuff is off the shelves with the holiday season.

Given that we're the bleeding edge here, and that some think that Atmos was shoehorned into existing AVR designs in a rush to get it to market before the next production cycle for the major manufacturers, I'd regard every Atmos BD release in the next calendar year as a bonus, and look to the summer of 2015 and the holiday season a year from now as the first time that a non-trickle of Atmos releases hit the Amazon, Netflix (streaming), or B&M shelves. Who knows, maybe by the time that your (insert your favorite legacy movie) has an Atmos mix in, say, 2017, mainstream AVRs will be able to handle 9.1.4 on pre-outs. 
What's the over/under that Game of Thrones will be out for at least one season's episodes in Atmos in that timeframe? 

Meanwhile, nothing wrong with kicking back and enjoying Dolby Surround upmixing. It's still an improvement over native 5.1 content regardless. I hope I'm not too pessimistic, but it's still very early in the game.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I guess I am one of those rare species who has the Atmos Disk (Transformers) right now, but neither Atmos AVR nor Atmos speakers...


----------



## audioguy

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess I am one of those rare species who has the Atmos Disk (Transformers) right now, but neither Atmos AVR nor Atmos speakers...


That would be two of us!!


----------



## sikclown

OK here is my Atmos setup for anyone interested. And it looks like my top fronts are crooked but I just need to rerun the speaker wire container (I mounted it last and was exhausted, terrible combination). Also excuse the mess, I am not quite done so I have stuff everywhere:


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> I wouldn't be sure the 7009 uses "better amps and power supply". The Marantz propritary HDAM modules and other proprietary analog circuitry are there, but the 7009 is really more like an X4100 with 9 amps than an X5200.
> 
> Note:
> 
> - Marantz 7009 is made in China like the X4100, not Japan like the X5200
> - Marantz 7009 spec'd at 125W/ch like the X4100, not 140W/ch like the X5200. This implies it doesn't have the upgraded "discrete monolithic amplifier with custom made DHCT (Denon High Current Transistors)" of the X5200, but rather has the same amp section as the X4100 (just 9 instead of 7).
> - If you compare the back panel layouts it's clear the SR7009 is more closely related to the X4100 than the X5200
> - X5200 has a larger power supply rating (730W vs 710W) than the SR7009
> - X5200 is slightly heavier than the SR7009 (14.2kg vs 13.8kg)
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting that the X5200 is a no brainer over the SR7009, but you seem to be making some assumptions about the component quality of the Marantz being superior to the 5200 that simply aren't true.
> 
> And who still cares about multich analog pre-ins these days anyway? I guess if that's a huge feature then Marantz is for you (this "legacy appeal" is definitely a brand differentiation vs Denon cousins).


Good stuff man.  ...I too am more inclined towards the Marantz SR7009. ...Multichannel analog In is still a very highly desirable feature in my book. ...Everything else (other differences) between them too receivers is small peanuts. 

I also prefer the Marantz looks, with that hublot (sailing) window @ front.


----------



## sikclown

A few more angles:


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> OK here is my Atmos setup for anyone interested. And it looks like my top fronts are crooked but I just need to rerun the speaker wire container (I mounted it last and was exhausted, terrible combination). Also excuse the mess, I am not quite done so I have stuff everywhere:
> 
> 
> View attachment 288601
> 
> 
> View attachment 288609
> 
> 
> View attachment 288617
> 
> 
> View attachment 288625


Very nice setup, very nice room, nice bar, looks very cozy.


----------



## Skylinestar

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess I am one of those rare species who has the Atmos Disk (Transformers) right now, but neither Atmos AVR nor Atmos speakers...


There are many who own 5.1 system but playing a 7.1 Bluray movies.


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> A few more angles:
> 
> View attachment 288633
> 
> 
> View attachment 288641
> 
> 
> View attachment 288649


Awesome job, looks very solid and secure. ...I like a lot.


----------



## sikclown

NorthSky said:


> Very nice setup, very nice room, nice bar, looks very cozy.


Thanks, thanks. I almost made the bar my MLP


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess I am one of those rare species who has the Atmos Disk (Transformers) right now, but neither Atmos AVR nor Atmos speakers...





audioguy said:


> That would be two of us!!


Me three.


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> Thanks, thanks. I almost made the bar my MLP


Lol, you should have! :grin:


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> TMNT on BR.
> 
> Dec 16th.
> 
> Dolby Atmos...
> 
> While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


Ok, what is "TMNT"? ...Anything to do with Teenage, and Mutant, and Ninja, and Turtles?


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> Not just that, but isn't Audyssey XT32, which would be included on the new Atmos units from D&M, be processing at 24/48? It makes paying for AL32 a bit moot if you're going to use the built-in room correction algorithm (which you would be strongly advised to with an Atmos-capable pre/pro or AVR).


I believe you are 100% correct here Stuart. ...For 32-bit/192kHz processing (for all thirteen channels) you would need a whole lot more DSP processing power.


----------



## NorthSky

*TMNT with Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, Raphael, and Atmos.*



David Susilo said:


> Yessssssss!!


You serious David?


----------



## David Susilo

Yup! Although the movie sucks, I really like the soundtrack. At least it's better than Transformers...which I dislike both the movie and the overly busy soundtrack.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Yup! Although the movie sucks, I really like the soundtrack. At least it's better than Transformers...which I dislike both the movie and the overly busy soundtrack.


Ok, I'll have to check on that.

Btw, I have the first one on Blu.  ...But I never watched it, just yet.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I have started a thread in Speakers forum for recommendations for ceiling speakers. Please do visit and provide the information that you may have.


----------



## sdrucker

David Susilo said:


> Yup! Although the movie sucks, I really like the soundtrack. At least it's better than Transformers...which I dislike both the movie and the overly busy soundtrack.



It's all caveat emptor (Hi David, by the way!). Our local paper gave Transformers 1 1/2 stars today, calling it an incoherent mess. OTOH, they don't have an Atmos AVR AFAIK.


----------



## Orbitron

sdrucker said:


> It's all caveat emptor (Hi David, by the way!). Our local paper gave Transformers 1 1/2 stars today, calling it an incoherent mess. OTOH, they don't have an Atmos AVR AFAIK.


Agreed, Walhberg is just abysmal as well as the script. Explosions seem to keep repeating the same bass note.


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Agreed, Walhberg is just abysmal as well as the script. Explosions seem to keep repeating the same bass note.


You like more 'Godzilla'?


----------



## Orbitron

NorthSky said:


> You like more 'Godzilla'?


Yes, and it's not 2 hrs and 45 minutes which is nuts.


----------



## NorthSky

Orbitron said:


> Yes, and it's not 2 hrs and 45 minutes which is nuts.


Wow, amazing!


----------



## Orbitron

NorthSky said:


> Wow, amazing!


A movie in search of someone who knows how to edit.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> I believe you are 100% correct here Stuart. ...For 32-bit/192kHz processing (for all thirteen channels) you would need a whole lot more DSP processing power.


No. The AL32 (or AL24) is the last step in the chain before feeding the DAC, so it does not impact any algorithms prior. This is unlike Meridian's Apodizing process, that upsamples first so that all the subsequent processes may benefit.


----------



## batpig

Thanks Roger. I was just going to note that. The AL24/32 processing is upsampling / bit depth expansion process that "prepares" the digital signal for the DAC. Theoretically providing a smoother waveform so a "purer" analog signal.


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky, there is a multi quote botton for a reason.


----------



## sdrucker

Roger Dressler said:


> No. The AL32 (or AL24) is the last step in the chain before feeding the DAC, so it does not impact any algorithms prior. This is unlike Meridian's Apodizing process, that upsamples first so that all the subsequent processes may benefit.


Thanks for clarifying Roger.


----------



## smurraybhm

A lot is being said about Atmos and our first release T4. When it started up tonight it was pretty cool to see Dolby Atmos displayed on my receiver.

Keith has posted some great comments about Atmos as have a number of other members. I am going to say we should all be hoping Atmos succeeds. All the posts about 5.1 or 7.1 is enough, who wants to install overhead speakers, etc. I am hear to tell all it's worth it. My HT has never sounded better tonight, crappy acting, busy surround mix and other negative comments aside - by the way I like Transformers and Mr. Bay's movies. No regrets jumping in early, worth the investment and set up time. By the way Atmos in the home is much better than in the theatre IMO.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Quick question regarding modules... I'm waiting on the Atlantic tech module release but will have the Atmos AVR soon. I'm wondering in the mean time if I use small crappy satellite speakers as a placeholder if that might sound sort of ok for a while? Or would it just make it sound worse? Has anyone tried that yet/ in the same boat as me?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> No. The AL32 (or AL24) is the last step in the chain before feeding the DAC, so it does not impact any algorithms prior. This is unlike Meridian's Apodizing process, that upsamples first so that all the subsequent processes may benefit.


Then it's the Audyssey chip? /// And that was what I meant.
* Did not formulate well.


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> NorthSky, there is a multi quote botton for a reason.


Why don't you also tell the other two million members here @ AVS.  
...Am I so different than anyone else, really?

Please discuss the topic, and not the poster.

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## Spanglo

smurraybhm said:


> No regrets jumping in early, worth the investment and set up time. By the way Atmos in the home is much better than in the theatre IMO.


You guys are creating sales with the positive feedback. I'm hopping in on the fun too.

Theater Atmos is amazing, but lacking in the low frequencies. I can imagine liking it more at home too since I get tactile response from my subs. We'll see in a few days.


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky said:


> ...Am I so different than anyone else, really?


Ummm, little bit. 



> Please discuss the topic, and not the poster.


It's easier to discuss the topic when I don't have to surf through 15 of your posts in a row to find new information. If you want to rack up your post count, do it in the test section.


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> Ummm, little bit.
> 
> It's easier to discuss the topic when I don't have to surf through 15 of your posts in a row to find new information. If you want to rack up your post count, do it in the test section.


Again, if you have a personal issue with another member please do so privately, thank you. 
...You have a PM.

__________

* @ Roger: Why is that that Audyssey is limited to 48kHz?

And, what is more important; the bit depth, or the sampling rate?


----------



## petetherock

Selden Ball said:


> The differences between the X5200 and the SR7009 all are trivial (a difference which makes no difference is no difference), except that the SR7009 has preamp inputs. None of the currently available Denon receivers have them. The X7200 is expected to have them, but it won't be available for several months. In the US, the X5200 and SR7009 have exactly the same list price ($2K). It's only outside the US that the SR7009 is cheaper. Nobody knows why.


Isn't the 5200 supposed to inherit the better amps section from the 4520?
That amp had some muscle, rather than a current limiting solution ala the 4810...
I though the SR 7009 had a weaker current limited amp section.


----------



## smurraybhm

Spanglo said:


> You guys are creating sales with the positive feedback. I'm hoping in on the fun too.
> 
> Theater Atmos is amazing, but lacking in the low frequencies. I can imagine liking it more at home too since I get tactile response from my subs. We'll see in a few days.


It's something else. More releases is only going to make it better. In 16 years of marriage this is the first time my wife has commented on the good sound - she has said numerous positive comments about DNice's work my displays. As someone who went to USD for a year - I wouldn't lie to a guy from SD CA.


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> Good stuff man.  ...I too am more inclined towards the Marantz SR7009. ...Multichannel analog In is still a very highly desirable feature in my book. ...Everything else (other differences) between them too receivers is small peanuts.
> 
> I also prefer the Marantz looks, with that hublot (sailing) window @ front.


+1 on the multi-inputs..
Using them on my legacy SR 12 right now...


BTW, I hate you early adopters... not a whisper down under... the earliest for the Denon might be the AV show or a trip to Singapore might be needed...


----------



## Spanglo

smurraybhm said:


> It's something else. More releases is only going to make it better. In 16 years of marriage this is the first time my wife has commented on the good sound - she has said numerous positive comments about DNice's work my displays. As someone who went to USD for a year - I wouldn't lie to a guy from SD CA.


I believe you. 

I felt my HT was better than the theaters until I saw Lord of the Rings in Atmos. Glad it hit the home market so soon. 

Plan to use a 5.1.4 config, TF + RH.


----------



## Worf

sdrucker said:


> It's all caveat emptor (Hi David, by the way!). Our local paper gave Transformers 1 1/2 stars today, calling it an incoherent mess. OTOH, they don't have an Atmos AVR AFAIK.


They don't need one. The problem is that reviewers basically have a hate on for Bay. Because when you look at the numbers, his past few movies have all scored terribly. Yet they did bring in the bacon consistently, something most people who make 1-2 star movies do. He's basically at the point where the studios say "Go ahead" when he pitches an idea.

Bay gets dinged because he makes movies people want to see, but reviewers don't (because honestly, movies that have meaning or are otherwise trying to elevate the human condition aren't what people normally want to watch). 

And Bay knows it, and he actually has a talent for composition of a shot as well that appeals to the eye. I saw a critique by a Bay hater on YouTube where he basically applauds his filmmaking and directing because he knows how to appeal to the masses.

Edit: 




Of course, while Transformers is not the first movie to use Atmos (he also loves technology and will play with the latest and greatest), I suppose there's a very good reason why his is among the first to feature it in the home.


----------



## batpig

Worf said:


> Bay gets dinged because he makes movies people want to see, but reviewers don't (because honestly, movies that have meaning or are otherwise trying to elevate the human condition aren't what people normally want to watch).


Not to go OT, but the thumb-your-nose-at-the-elistist-critics stance of "they just hate on Bay cuz he's popular and makes big booms!" is a total red herring. There are plenty of action flicks that have no problem garnering critical acclaim because they actually pay attention to acting, witty script writing, etc. It's not because he makes bombastic action movies, it's because he makes bombastic action movies with horrendously insipid writing, contrived storylines, awful acting, and a seizure-inducing editing style that makes complex action sequencs virtually impossible to follow. 

Yes, he is spectacular at the spectacle, and the visuals and soundtracks can be stunning, but just because it's an action movie doesn't mean it is license for garbage in all other respects. He doesn't even make a token effort at the other stuff.


----------



## dragonleepenn

Here are some pictures of my setup, just watched transformer 4 and just loved it.
The atmos effect from my denon 5200 and 4 ceiling speakers is stunning.
The movie sound track is busy, that's the purpose! Lots of fun can't wait for more 
atmos encoded movies/sound track.



PeterV


----------



## sikclown

dragonleepenn said:


> Here are some pictures of my setup, just watched transformer 4 and just loved it.
> The atmos effect from my denon 5200 and 4 ceiling speakers is stunning.
> The movie sound track is busy, that's the purpose! Lots of fun can't wait for more
> atmos encoded movies/sound track.
> 
> 
> 
> PeterV


Awesome! I bet it sounds amazing in there.


----------



## Jacob305

batpig said:


> Not to go OT, but the thumb-your-nose-at-the-elistist-critics stance of "they just hate on Bay cuz he's popular and makes big booms!" is a total red herring. There are plenty of action flicks that have no problem garnering critical acclaim because they actually pay attention to acting, witty script writing, etc. It's not because he makes bombastic action movies, it's because he makes bombastic action movies with horrendously insipid writing, contrived storylines, awful acting, and a seizure-inducing editing style that makes complex action sequencs virtually impossible to follow.
> 
> Yes, he is spectacular at the spectacle, and the visuals and soundtracks can be stunning, but just because it's an action movie doesn't mean it is license for garbage in all other respects. He doesn't even make a token effort at the other stuff.



amen.

Jacob


----------



## dragonleepenn

Here is the front pair. Hope I don't get any flack for not using the multi post function.




PeterV


----------



## Selden Ball

Acting? There was acting? All I can remember are flashy machines crashing through buildings and blowing one another up!

Unlike Keith, though, I was somewhat disappointed in how Atmos was used in several of the scenes. I guess I had over-inflated expectations. I saw a number of scenes where I felt the viewpoint was unnecessarily tilted up, thus moving the sound down into the front mains. I think many of those would have been more entertaining if the space- and other -craft could be heard flying overhead and then have them fly into view with only a minimal camera tilt. There were several brief scenes where I thought it was especially effective, though. For example, I particularly liked the scene in the theater where the football went flying out of sight and crashed into the mezzanine overhead.

Edited to add: personally, I thought too many of the crashes were muted and drowned out by the music.


----------



## audioguy

dragonleepenn said:


> Here are some pictures of my setup, just watched transformer 4 and just loved it.
> The atmos effect from my denon 5200 and 4 ceiling speakers is stunning.
> The movie sound track is busy, that's the purpose! Lots of fun can't wait for more
> atmos encoded movies/sound track.
> 
> 
> 
> PeterV


What are your ceiling speakers?


----------



## Orbitron

Elite Atmos manual
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/Manuals/Home/SC-87_OperatingInstructions092914.pdf


----------



## dragonleepenn

sikclown said:


> Awesome! I bet it sounds amazing in there.


Yes it is amazing! Not bragging just stating that with my 9 lower JTR
Speakers , 4 ceiling speakers and 8 Rythmik subs the sound has gone to a new higher level provided by Atmos.
I did have the setup at reference level for the entire T4 blu ray.
My room was just in harmony with the picture and sound.
Ok maybe I am bragging a little hehehe.... 



PeterV


----------



## batpig

That's a jealousy inducing room there  phenomenal!


----------



## dragonleepenn

audioguy said:


> What are your ceiling speakers?


They are diy's designed to fit into the ceiling cavity using bms cd's and eminence coaxial drivers. They are closed back sealed and are set to 80hz by auddysey after calibration.


PeterV


----------



## channelserf

Reality is for those who can't handle Bay! Very much worth the cost to upgrade. 

A VERY big thanks to Scott Wilkinson for the great podcasts that got me convinced to jump in.


----------



## audioguy

I'm not a movie critic and have no particular feelings about Michael Bay one way or the other. (I am *also very easily entertained* by all kinds of different films). That said, he clearly follows the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" strategy. Crashes, explosions, fast action, good vs evil, and attractive or semi-attractive females (depending on taste) have been the key ingredients in each of the Transformer movies. Well thought out story line and/or great acting, are clearly not important (apparently) if you have the other ingredients. 

My guess would be there will continue to be more of the same until such time as the viewing public says "enough".

My next door neighbor and her husband, both over 70, are HUGE fans of the Transformer movies and have an open invite to our theater to watch the next in line. And the louder the better!!!


----------



## dragonleepenn

batpig said:


> That's a jealousy inducing room there  phenomenal!


If you mean mine thank you . 



PeterV


----------



## audioguy

dragonleepenn said:


> They are diy's designed to fit into the ceiling cavity using bms cd's and eminence coaxial drivers. They are closed back sealed and are set to 80hz by auddysey after calibration.
> 
> 
> PeterV


bms cd's ??

I give up. What are those?


----------



## dragonleepenn

audioguy said:


> bms cd's ??
> 
> I give up. What are those?


They are a speaker co. From Europe,I am using their compression driver. 
www.bmsspeakers.com


4540ND
1" HIGH FREQUENCY NEODYMIUM COMPRESSION DRIVER
FEATURES :
Unique Patented Design
Neodymium Magnet Assembly
114 dB Sensitivity 1 W / 1 m
Extended high frequency response up to 30 kHz
Very small Size and low Weight
38 mm Voice Coil
1 3/8" - 18N Screw or 1" Flange Adapter
8 or 16 Ohm
BMS 4540ND is a powerful 1" professional compression driver that delivers superb sonic quality in a very small package. The unique BMS annular diaphragm together with the high energy neodymium magnet achieve very high sensitivity and linear frequency response up to 30 kHz.


PeterV


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Quick question regarding modules... I'm waiting on the Atlantic tech module release but will have the Atmos AVR soon. I'm wondering in the mean time if I use small crappy satellite speakers as a placeholder if that might sound sort of ok for a while? Or would it just make it sound worse? Has anyone tried that yet/ in the same boat as me?


Yes, go for it. Although crappy speakers still will sound crappy of course, just less discrete, more diffuse crap bounced off the ceiling 

In all seriousness, I returned the DT Atmos modules and am using a pair of KEF "egg" speakers aimed at the ceiling. Before I got the DT's I did a similar test (with different speakers, now at a friends place) and assumed that the "real" Atmos modules would work a lot better. Now, after having tried "fake" modules both before and after the DT's, I will recant that assumption and say you can get a very good result with a pair of decent small satellite speakers bouncing off the ceiling. 

We've also learned that Audyssey (and presumably other auto EQ) incorporates the high frequency notches into its target curve for Atmos enabled speakers, so a "non Atmos" speaker will be calibrated to the response that Dolby specified for actual "Atmos enabled" speakers. With the high filter resolution of XT32 the room EQ tries to "convert" what it hears into the way an Atmos speaker should sound. 

Anyway, to the point, with the caveat that YMMV and not having much discrete Atmos content to work with, I think I'm comfortable saying that the "fake" Atmos speakers can deliver 80-90% of the experience. The vast majority or viewing will still be DSU upmix where the overheads are mostly getting ambiance, so a small deficit in precision vs "the real thing" isn't noticeable. But I get very convincing overhead effects, and testing with the "Leaf" Atmos trailer for example I still notice the flies buzzing over my head just like with the DT's. 

Now, I'm hoping the AT module is significantly higher fidelity than the DT's, which may make them even better. But I'm not really missing the DT's I returned right now. Especially because the speakers I'm using, bought used locally, cost a tiny fraction of the $500+Tax the A60's cost. And, Atmos aside, they are just much better speakers.


----------



## audiofan1

Am understanding correctly you early adopters of Atmos for home get Transformers 4 as the first release and I've heard only perhaps two good comments ? Ok sure there other fine examples of movie making but shouldn't the focus be on the Atmos capabilities? And I'd be stoked if I was setup for Atmos and had T4 as the first movie, even after viewing it in 5.1 it has more than peaked Atmos curiosity as I found it a very unique sounding mix


----------



## batpig

Don't get me wrong. I'd still watch the hell out of it to demo a new Atmos setup. 

And there have been more than two effusive reviews of the experience.


----------



## NorthSky

dragonleepenn said:


> Here are some pictures of my setup, just watched transformer 4 and just loved it.
> *The atmos effect from my denon 5200 and 4 ceiling speakers is stunning*.
> The movie sound track is busy, that's the purpose! Lots of fun can't wait for more
> atmos encoded movies/sound track.
> 
> PeterV


Hi Peter,

Abso!utely believable, and what a nice home theater room you have.


----------



## NorthSky

PeterV said:


> Yes it is amazing! Not bragging just stating that with my 9 lower JTR
> Speakers , 4 ceiling speakers and 8 Rythmik subs the sound has gone to a new higher level provided by Atmos.
> I did have the setup at reference level for the entire T4 blu ray.
> My room was just in harmony with the picture and sound.
> Ok maybe I am bragging a little hehehe....
> 
> _______
> 
> 2.They are diy's designed to fit into the ceiling cavity using bms cd's and eminence coaxial drivers. They are closed back sealed and are set to 80hz by auddysey after calibration.
> 
> _______
> 
> 3.They are a speaker co. From Europe,I am using their compression driver.
> www.bmsspeakers.com
> 
> 
> 4540ND
> 1" HIGH FREQUENCY NEODYMIUM COMPRESSION DRIVER
> FEATURES :
> Unique Patented Design
> Neodymium Magnet Assembly
> 114 dB Sensitivity 1 W / 1 m
> Extended high frequency response up to 30 kHz
> Very small Size and low Weight
> 38 mm Voice Coil
> 1 3/8" - 18N Screw or 1" Flange Adapter
> 8 or 16 Ohm
> BMS 4540ND is a powerful 1" professional compression driver that delivers superb sonic quality in a very small package. The unique BMS annular diaphragm together with the high energy neodymium magnet achieve very high sensitivity and linear frequency response up to 30 kHz.
> 
> PeterV


♦ Peter, you have a serious entertainment setup. ...My highest calibrated kudos!


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> Yes, go for it. Although crappy speakers still will sound crappy of course, just less discrete, more diffuse crap bounced off the ceiling
> 
> In all seriousness, I returned the DT Atmos modules and am using a pair of KEF "egg" speakers aimed at the ceiling. Before I got the DT's I did a similar test (with different speakers, now at a friends place) and assumed that the "real" Atmos modules would work a lot better. Now, after having tried "fake" modules both before and after the DT's, I will recant that assumption and say you can get a very good result with a pair of decent small satellite speakers bouncing off the ceiling.
> 
> We've also learned that Audyssey (and presumably other auto EQ) incorporates the high frequency notches into its target curve for Atmos enabled speakers, so a "non Atmos" speaker will be calibrated to the response that Dolby specified for actual "Atmos enabled" speakers. With the high filter resolution of XT32 the room EQ tries to "convert" what it hears into the way an Atmos speaker should sound.
> 
> Anyway, to the point, with the caveat that YMMV and not having much discrete Atmos content to work with, I think I'm comfortable saying that the "fake" Atmos speakers can deliver 80-90% of the experience. The vast majority or viewing will still be DSU upmix where the overheads are mostly getting ambiance, so a small deficit in precision vs "the real thing" isn't noticeable. But I get very convincing overhead effects, and testing with the "Leaf" Atmos trailer for example I still notice the flies buzzing over my head just like with the DT's.
> 
> Now, I'm hoping the AT module is significantly higher fidelity than the DT's, which may make them even better. But I'm not really missing the DT's I returned right now. Especially because the speakers I'm using, bought used locally, cost a tiny fraction of the $500+Tax the A60's cost. And, Atmos aside, they are just much better speakers.


Is the Leaf Trailer on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc? Hopefully they put out something like that for the masses.


----------



## pasender91

batpig said:


> I wouldn't be sure the 7009 uses "better amps and power supply". The Marantz propritary HDAM modules and other proprietary analog circuitry are there, but the 7009 is really more like an X4100 with 9 amps than an X5200.
> 
> Note:
> 
> - Marantz 7009 is made in China like the X4100, not Japan like the X5200
> - Marantz 7009 spec'd at 125W/ch like the X4100, not 140W/ch like the X5200. This implies it doesn't have the upgraded "discrete monolithic amplifier with custom made DHCT (Denon High Current Transistors)" of the X5200, but rather has the same amp section as the X4100 (just 9 instead of 7).
> - If you compare the back panel layouts it's clear the SR7009 is more closely related to the X4100 than the X5200
> - X5200 has a larger power supply rating (730W vs 710W) than the SR7009
> - X5200 is slightly heavier than the SR7009 (14.2kg vs 13.8kg)
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting that the X5200 is a no brainer over the SR7009, but you seem to be making some assumptions about the component quality of the Marantz being superior to the 5200 that simply aren't true.
> 
> And who still cares about multich analog pre-ins these days anyway? I guess if that's a huge feature then Marantz is for you (this "legacy appeal" is definitely a brand differentiation vs Denon cousins).


I had assumed the 7009 was based on the same chassis than the X5200, this was obviously wrong, i stand corrected thanks to you Batpig 

But now i have a doubt in my mind again, should i get 7009 or X5200? 
The analog prein is still useful to read DVD-A for example.
I guess if someone needs the prein the 7009 is the better choice even if the general specs are a bit below.


----------



## pletwals

NorthSky said:


> ...Am I so different than anyone else, really?


You know you are! 

Keep posting, Bob. I like.


----------



## pasender91

Orbitron said:


> Elite Atmos manual
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/Manuals/Home/SC-87_OperatingInstructions092914.pdf


Reading thru the doc, i noted the following:
There is a 11ch Pre-out 
BUT
There is nowhere the mention of support for 11ch Atmos, all the diagrams and settings for Atmos max out at 9ch, with 5.1.4 or 7.1.2


----------



## SoundChex

_Interesting|informative article_ . . . "*Object-Based Audio: In search of an experience*" (_link_).



_


----------



## pletwals

dragonleepenn said:


> Yes it is amazing! Not bragging just stating that with my 9 lower JTR
> Speakers , 4 ceiling speakers and 8 Rythmik subs the sound has gone to a new higher level provided by Atmos.
> I did have the setup at reference level for the entire T4 blu ray.
> My room was just in harmony with the picture and sound.
> Ok maybe I am bragging a little hehehe....
> 
> 
> 
> PeterV





dragonleepenn said:


> They are diy's designed to fit into the ceiling cavity using bms cd's and eminence coaxial drivers. They are closed back sealed and are set to 80hz by auddysey after calibration.
> 
> 
> PeterV


Good work! You have quantity AND quality there. I don't get people who dismiss Atmos or anything with more than the usual amount of speakers on the basis of "get better speakers, not more speakers". A "better" speaker is a speaker that can play loud enough without distortion and has exemplary frequency response which it dsiplays over a wide dispersion... But for seamless panning and precision object placement, you simply need *more* (good) speakers.

Did you design your own passive crossover for the top speakers? They seem to be like the Volt but with annother CD? Which size are the eminence, 8" or 10"?


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First impressions of the Denon X5200W AVR and Dolby Atmos. *QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> Keith,
> 
> 
> Great review, thank you for the time and effort you put into providing the information!
> Your experience with Gravity + DSU echoed my own at the demo I attended.
> T4 arrives today, but no equipment for me for another month. Oh well, something to look forward to.
> All the best.
Click to expand...

Thanks! That is going to be one loooooong month!


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> My TX-NR 737 with firmware updated as of Sept. 29th running 5.2.2 top front ceiling speakers positioned between fronts and surrounds. Just got transformers 4 I'm totally sold I thought doby surround upmix sounded good. Keith you sold me I was going to wait till next year I'm so excited that I jumped in now I know the 737 is not a x5200w but I'm very pleased.
> Keith I enjoyed reading your review wish I had that kind of writing skills


Thanks buddy! Glad that you are enjoying it all.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I think Keith's going to wake up, and within 10 seconds of reading your post, be itching to pre-order what would be his third Atmos BD....


LOL. TMNT... hmmm... I will I guess, but it's not my usual sort of movie... 

I am quietly confident that there will be many discs to choose from in the not-too-distant... and with some re-releases of Atmos movies already released on BD in 5.1/7.1 coming sooner than perhaps people expect.


----------



## kbarnes701

Worf said:


> They don't need one. The problem is that reviewers basically have a hate on for Bay. Because when you look at the numbers, his past few movies have all scored terribly. Yet they did bring in the bacon consistently, something most people who make 1-2 star movies do. He's basically at the point where the studios say "Go ahead" when he pitches an idea.
> 
> Bay gets dinged because he makes movies people want to see, but reviewers don't (because honestly, movies that have meaning or are otherwise trying to elevate the human condition aren't what people normally want to watch).
> 
> And Bay knows it, and he actually has a talent for composition of a shot as well that appeals to the eye. I saw a critique by a Bay hater on YouTube where he basically applauds his filmmaking and directing because he knows how to appeal to the masses.
> 
> Of course, while Transformers is not the first movie to use Atmos (he also loves technology and will play with the latest and greatest), I suppose there's a very good reason why his is among the first to feature it in the home.


Mostly agreed there. Sometimes reviewers forget that movies are _entertainment_. Many people find Bay's movies, and other in a similar vein, hugely _entertaining_. Reviewers might lament that we don't all sit at home watching The Seventh Seal on repeat, but the fact is, most don't.

The reverse of the Reviewer-Bay Syndrome is a movie like 12 Years A Slave. It was average in every way from the POV of movie-making. And look at the Oscars it collected - because it had a 'worthy', cathartic theme, making all you Americans feel guilty about that foreign country which is the past.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Not to go OT, but the thumb-your-nose-at-the-elistist-critics stance of "they just hate on Bay cuz he's popular and makes big booms!" is a total red herring. There are plenty of action flicks that have no problem garnering critical acclaim because they actually pay attention to acting, witty script writing, etc. It's not because he makes bombastic action movies, it's because he makes bombastic action movies with horrendously insipid writing, contrived storylines, awful acting, and a seizure-inducing editing style that makes complex action sequencs virtually impossible to follow.
> 
> Yes, he is spectacular at the spectacle, and the visuals and soundtracks can be stunning, but just because it's an action movie doesn't mean it is license for garbage in all other respects. He doesn't even make a token effort at the other stuff.


The OP didn't say that Bay's movies had great writing, great acting, great storylines etc. He just said that they entertained a lot of people and made a lot of money - and they do. Bemoaning the 'average' guy's lack of taste or intellect or whatever is just another form of intellectual elitism (not directing this at you BTW). If a movie is the most successful, in terms of box office, of any movie made this year, then a heck of a lot of people must like what Bay is doing. Unlike most reviewers, they paid their own coin to watch the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Acting? There was acting? All I can remember are flashy machines crashing through buildings and blowing one another up!
> 
> Unlike Keith, though, I was somewhat disappointed in how Atmos was used in several of the scenes. I guess I had over-inflated expectations. I saw a number of scenes where I felt the viewpoint was unnecessarily tilted up, thus moving the sound down into the front mains. I think many of those would have been more entertaining if the space- and other -craft could be heard flying overhead and then have them fly into view with only a minimal camera tilt. There were several brief scenes where I thought it was especially effective, though. For example, I particularly liked the scene in the theater where the football went flying out of sight and crashed into the mezzanine overhead.
> 
> Edited to add: personally, I thought too many of the crashes were muted and drowned out by the music.


Selden - I have only seen Chapter 20 so far. I find it hard to schedule the time for a movie so long, and I refuse to watch a movie in two separate sessions (unless it was designed that way with an Intermission like the great Epics).


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Since Dolby's minimum distance recommendation is important to you...
> 
> You can put the Top Middle speakers where the back wall meets the ceiling. The back wall is 3 feet away, the ceiling is 4 feet above, so that's 5 feet to the speakers. Spread them at least 6 feet apart and you'll have the minimum 60 degree separation. I would also point each speaker to the opposite listener (time/energy trading) to make it less distracting.
> 
> For the Top Front speakers, do the same or push them a foot or so further away (doesn't have to be exact).


Thanks for your advice. 

This is what I decided to be the optimal 2-pair ATMOS overhead speaker lay-out for my particular room: 

Top Fronts at 50 elevation, and Top Rears at 120 degrees elevation (maximum I can achieve in the back), both with a 60 degrees lateral separation. Resulting minimal speaker distances to closest listeners' positions (left and right from MLP) respectively 5.7 and 4.7 feet.

Following Dolby's guidelines, with these positions the Top Fronts fall 5 degrees short to be classified as Front Heights, and the Top Rears are placed in the 'anonymous zone' between 100 and 125. I figure though that as long the separation between the two front and rear pairs is larger than 70 degrees, this is the optimal way to go for a 5.1.4 ATMOS set-up in my room. Also, it leaves me the option to add an extra pair of Top Middle speakers at 80 degrees, if I would ever like to go that way once the 5.1.6 capable AVRs appear...


----------



## Pondipper

Hmmm. Big focus on in-ceiling speakers on this site but you guys have generally bigger listening spaces than we do. The UK's first Dolby Atmos review (the Onkyo TX-NR838, written by from Steve May, ex-Home Cinema Choice editor) suggests that reflective satellites might be easier to get working well than ceiling speakers...


----------



## action_jackson

kbarnes701 said:


> Selden - I have only seen Chapter 20 so far. I find it hard to schedule the time for a movie so long, and I refuse to watch a movie in two separate sessions (unless it was designed that way with an Intermission like the great Epics).


I think they need to start building in intermissions again, I find it extremely uncomfortable to drink a large cola and sit through a 2-3 hour movie.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Pondipper said:


> Hmmm. Big focus on in-ceiling speakers on this site but you guys have generally bigger listening spaces than we do.


Since current consumer AVRs do not support more than 4 ceiling speakers, it may actually be easier to make things work in smaller rooms. Big rooms are more subject to experiencing localization caused by differences in listening distance to each overhead speaker across the room.



> The UK's first Dolby Atmos review (the Onkyo TX-NR838, written by from Steve May, ex-Home Cinema Choice editor) suggests that reflective satellites might be easier to get working well than ceiling speakers...


Avoiding speakers with narrow dispersion, and keeping a minimum speaker distance of 3 feet (more than 5 feet ideally) should make in/on ceiling speakers superior in overall sound quality than reflective speakers.


----------



## toothsavers

*7.1.2or 5.1.4*

With everyone's new and current Atmos experience ,if one has a 7.1 with rear surrounds in my slanted rear ceiling (known problem) would one keep it at 7.1.2 or change the rear surrounds to Atmos rear heights and change my configuration to 5.1.4??How does Dolby surround mode treat 7.1 .2 or 5.1.4 Which configure would you permanently set your speaker config to , to get the biggest bang? I am sure with everyone's experimentation with the release of T 4 I can be guided correctly when I do my set up. By the way ,what is the easiest and best Uni remote to consider for a new Atmos AVR?THX


----------



## Pondipper

Daresay your room size/shape will have big influence, but I suspect 5.1.4 will be preferred to 7.1.2 wherever possible...


----------



## Jacob305

has anyone tried to use the dolby surround on titles in trueHD that had audio issues? I wonder if that fixes the issues. the total recall remake, monsters, inc, star trek into darkness imax version? can someone give a try?

thanks

Jacob


----------



## pasender91

Pondipper said:


> Daresay your room size/shape will have big influence, but I suspect 5.1.4 will be preferred to 7.1.2 wherever possible...


+1 on 5.1.4, it allows the effects to be much more realistic if you have a high object panning from front to back (or back to front)


----------



## jkasanic

batpig said:


> Not to go OT, but the thumb-your-nose-at-the-elistist-critics stance of "they just hate on Bay cuz he's popular and makes big booms!" is a total red herring. There are plenty of action flicks that have no problem garnering critical acclaim because they actually pay attention to acting, witty script writing, etc. It's not because he makes bombastic action movies, it's because he makes bombastic action movies with horrendously insipid writing, contrived storylines, awful acting, and a seizure-inducing editing style that makes complex action sequencs virtually impossible to follow.
> 
> Yes, he is spectacular at the spectacle, and the visuals and soundtracks can be stunning, but just because it's an action movie doesn't mean it is license for garbage in all other respects. He doesn't even make a token effort at the other stuff.


I suggest Bay take a page out of Michael Mann's book ala Heat. I still think that action sequence in the street is one of the best choreographed scenes in a movie with a better than average plot but I digress...


----------



## RichB

batpig said:


> In all seriousness, I returned the DT Atmos modules and am using a pair of KEF "egg" speakers aimed at the ceiling. Before I got the DT's I did a similar test (with different speakers, now at a friends place) and assumed that the "real" Atmos modules would work a lot better. Now, after having tried "fake" modules both before and after the DT's, I will recant that assumption and say you can get a very good result with a pair of decent small satellite speakers bouncing off the ceiling.
> 
> We've also learned that Audyssey (and presumably other auto EQ) incorporates the high frequency notches into its target curve for Atmos enabled speakers, so a "non Atmos" speaker will be calibrated to the response that Dolby specified for actual "Atmos enabled" speakers. With the high filter resolution of XT32 the room EQ tries to "convert" what it hears into the way an Atmos speaker should sound.


Interesting results, Atmos speakers are not an option for me, but wall-mounted speakers bouncing off the ceiling are possible.

Did you measure standard speakers connected as up-firing speakers to see if the notch filters are also applied in the AVR DSP's?

- Rich


----------



## dragonleepenn

NorthSky said:


> Hi Peter,
> 
> Abso!utely believable, and what a nice home theater room you have.





NorthSky said:


> ♦ Peter, you have a serious entertainment setup. ...My highest calibrated kudos!


Thanks!



PeterV


----------



## bargervais

Jacob305 said:


> has anyone tried to use the dolby surround on titles in trueHD that had audio issues? I wonder if that fixes the issues. the total recall remake, monsters, inc, star trek into darkness imax version? can someone give a try?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Jacob


what were the audio issues that your talking about. i have into darkness when i get home later i'll give a listen and let you know.


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> Interesting results, Atmos speakers are not an option for me, but wall-mounted speakers bouncing off the ceiling are possible.
> 
> Did you measure standard speakers connected as up-firing speakers to see if the notch filters are also applied in the AVR DSP's?
> 
> - Rich


I still think the recommendation for such speakers, i.e. non in ceiling, is that they need to be located in fairly close proximity to another larger "main" channel.


----------



## BigScreen

FilmMixer said:


> TMNT on BR.
> 
> Dec 16th.
> 
> Dolby Atmos...
> 
> While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


I just finished posting an article about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles release: "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Coming to Home Video December 16, 2014 and came to post the news of another Atmos release here, and saw that I was beaten to the punch. 

The movie will be on streaming services starting on November 25th, so time will tell if it will get the Atmos treatment via streaming (no sound details available on Vudu yet, and it doesn't look like Amazon Instant Video posts sound details for any movies).


----------



## FilmMixer

Jacob305 said:


> has anyone tried to use the dolby surround on titles in trueHD that had audio issues? I wonder if that fixes the issues. the total recall remake, monsters, inc, star trek into darkness imax version? can someone give a try?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Jacob


I'm sorry, but why would you think DS would solve and issues with a corrupt bitstream?

DS is a post process... if the TrueHD is dropping out, etc because of a faulty encode (Total Recall,) DS can't magically fix that.


----------



## dragonleepenn

pletwals said:


> Good work! You have quantity AND quality there. I don't get people who dismiss Atmos or anything with more than the usual amount of speakers on the basis of "get better speakers, not more speakers". A "better" speaker is a speaker that can play loud enough without distortion and has exemplary frequency response which it dsiplays over a wide dispersion... But for seamless panning and precision object placement, you simply need *more* (good) speakers.
> 
> Did you design your own passive crossover for the top speakers? They seem to be like the Volt but with annother CD? Which size are the eminence, 8" or 10"?


I agree,I have two rows of side speakers and would feel empty without that extra fill. In fact I intend to have an Auro speaker setup
In my room when they come out with either a dual processor/both Atmos&Auro or if not I will get an Auro avr and have both formats in my theater. 
The crossover is a beyma fd250 that I purchased and works nicely.
The bms cd is the same used in my 
JTR speakers, just trying to keep that timbre matched. I used the eminence 8" 8cx coaxial for now. I may change them to the bms coaxial again for a better match to my JTR's.




Peterv


----------



## blackssr

Orbitron said:


> Elite Atmos manual
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/Manuals/Home/SC-87_OperatingInstructions092914.pdf


I was hoping Pioneer would improve the on screen setup looks. It appears to be the same as my SC-77.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> TMNT on BR.
> 
> Dec 16th.
> 
> Dolby Atmos...
> 
> While it's not everyones cup of tea, I can tell you it's a great and very active Atmos mix.


Ah. Not too surprised about this one. Predicted TMNT to be Atmos about a month ago. Good mix, this one!  I wonder what music track will accommodate the credits on home video. Hope it's the same one we heard at the AMC Prime. 

So hey...

That's about four movies now. Transformers 4 is out. Hercules, Step Up and now TMNT are on the way. Keep em coming ya studios!


----------



## Kris Deering

So at this rate of adoption on the software side I wonder if we should place bets on who has the most pre-recorded content on the market by year's end, Atmos or Auro? At CEDIA I was told there would be a large number of Dreamworks titles re-released with Auro soundtracks by year's end. Sounds like mostly animated titles at this point. They also said they're working to bring Sony on board as well. So for DW I would wager Turbo, The Croods, Rise of the Guardians and maybe the Mr. Peabody one? Should be interesting to see how the next year pans out for new audio codecs and studio support. I have no doubt that Atmos will be showing up more and more going forward, but if we see split support from studios with some going Auro then a re-evaluation of speaker setups may be in need. And who knows what DTS has up their sleeves.


----------



## Jacob305

bargervais said:


> what were the audio issues that your talking about. i have into darkness when i get home later i'll give a listen and let you know.


audio drop out. it starts in the opening prologue when spock goes down to the planet.

Jacob


----------



## MX48

jkasanic said:


> I suggest Bay take a page out of Michael Mann's book ala Heat. I still think that action sequence in the street is one of the best choreographed scenes in a movie with a better than average plot but I digress...


Agreed. My favorite action scene of all time. 
If only the ending didn't suck it would have been one of my top 5 all time favorites. Could you imagine how good that movie would have been if it had ended with DeNiro walking away leaving his girlfriend and Pacino to wonder what just happened. Would have been a top 5 movie ending. So sad.


Sorry for off topic, I am still upset about that ending .


Moto


----------



## Hugo S

Keith,

Superbe... félicitaions, comme toujours. 

Hugo

PS: we'll be watching T4 this evening - thanks to the DVD link you gave above -, but alas it'll be only in DTS Neo X 11...


----------



## Orbitron

Posting this here because this thread has a large following. I'd like to see a thread started that is dedicated to legacy titles that are played using Dolby Surround? An in-depth analysis of the presentation.

Where best to introduce this thread?

Edit-Update, i started the thread in Receivers, Amps & Processors "The Official Dolby Surround Upmixing Thread"
Thanks Scott.


----------



## MikeK78

sdurani said:


> Why not? The range for Top Middle speakers is about 2 feet forward of the listening area to 1 foot rearward of the listener (65-100 degrees elevation). If you are going to do a 5.1.2 set-up, then Dolby recommends placing the Top Middles slightly forward of the listening area (80 degrees elevation). If you're going to do a 5.1.4 configuration, then you can place the Top Middle speakers on the ceiling slightly behind you and do Front Heights at 45 degrees elevation.


So just to clarify this point here. I currently have 5.1 with additional front heights firing at about 45 degrees downward, so these would be considered front heights for atmos, in terms of 5.1.2?

I guess I am confused by the front height and front top nomenclature being thrown around.

Mike


----------



## SoundChex

Kris Deering said:


> So at this rate of adoption on the software side I wonder if we should place bets on who has the most pre-recorded content on the market by year's end, Atmos or Auro? At CEDIA I was told there would be a large number of Dreamworks titles re-released with Auro soundtracks by year's end. Sounds like mostly animated titles at this point. They also said they're working to bring Sony on board as well. So for DW I would wager Turbo, The Croods, Rise of the Guardians and maybe the Mr. Peabody one? Should be interesting to see how the next year pans out for new audio codecs and studio support. I have no doubt that Atmos will be showing up more and more going forward, but if we see split support from studios with some going Auro then a re-evaluation of speaker setups may be in need. *And who knows what DTS has up their sleeves.*



Recently, some _soi-disant_ "insider" posters have suggested that the *DTS* home theater _object-based audio_ 'strategy' has refocused away from 'packaged' and toward 'broadcast' (_and other_) content. So then perhaps we might gain some insight from this article by Ted Laverty, Senior Director of Corporate Strategy and Development for DTS (and DTS representative at the DVB) in *DVB Scene Issue No. 44, September 2014*, "*Sounds Good - Where next for audio?*" (_link+see Page 10_).

I'm under the impression that _object-based audio_ is 'under consideration' for inclusion in *ATSC 3.0*, but *not* in *ATSC 2.0*. However, it sounds like there is some suggestion of providing an option for "adding" *HbbTV* to *ATSC 2.0* and it seems to me that _object-based audio_ could be provided in *ATSC 2.0* through the 'broadband sidecar' element of *HbbTV*...?! (_Perhaps someone with better tech info about the field might know about that?_) In any event, I still don't have an idea about how soon we might reasonably expect to see some form of broadcast _object-based audio_ in service...!

_


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> ..
> 
> So hey...
> 
> That's about four movies now. *1.* *Transformers 4* is out.
> *2.* *Hercules 3. Step Up All In* and now *4.* *TMNT 2014* are on the way. Keep em coming ya studios!


You are like me Scott; keeping track of the great Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> Recently, some _soi-disant_ "insider" posters have suggested that the *DTS* home theater _object-based audio_ 'strategy' has refocused away from 'packaged' and toward 'broadcast' (_and other_) content. So then perhaps we might gain some insight from this article by Ted Laverty, Senior Director of Corporate Strategy and Development for DTS (and DTS representative at the DVB) in *DVB Scene Issue No. 44, September 2014*, "*Sounds Good - Where next for audio?*" (_link+see Page 10_).
> 
> I'm under the impression that _object-based audio_ is 'under consideration' for inclusion in *ATSC 3.0*, but *not* in *ATSC 2.0*. However, it sounds like there is some suggestion of providing an option for "adding" *HbbTV* to *ATSC 2.0* and it seems to me that _object-based audio_ could be provided in *ATSC 2.0* through the 'broadband sidecar' element of *HbbTV*...?! (_Perhaps someone with better tech info about the field might know about that?_) In any event, I still don't have an idea about how soon we might reasonably expect to see some form of broadcast _object-based audio_ in service...!
> 
> _


Seems to me that what we have been knowing already for a long time is comin' up:
Physical movie and music mediums are going the way of the dodo. 

* Time to readjust, adapt to the new business/financial concept of the computer world we live in. 

Good, bad? ...I'd say both. ...Because we are not there yet (for the general masses) on high definition picture (including UHD - 4K, and 3D), and high resolution audio (including 7.1 Lossless and Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D), from streaming and downloading and all that Ethernet, Flix, Vudu Magic, High-Res Music, DSD Pure, ...from our highway network. ...Fiber optics, higher speeds, congestion, traffic jams, time, high monthly costs, and all that computerized jazz.


----------



## jkasanic

MikeK78 said:


> So just to clarify this point here. I currently have 5.1 with additional front heights firing at about 45 degrees downward, so these would be considered front heights for atmos, in terms of 5.1.2?
> 
> I guess I am confused by the front height and front top nomenclature being thrown around.
> 
> Mike


Reference the attached diagram for the distinction. It's all relative to the angle from MLP.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> So at this rate of adoption on the software side I wonder if we should place bets on who has the most pre-recorded content on the market by year's end, Atmos or Auro? At CEDIA I was told there would be a large number of Dreamworks titles re-released with Auro soundtracks by year's end. Sounds like mostly animated titles at this point. They also said they're working to bring Sony on board as well. So for DW I would wager Turbo, The Croods, Rise of the Guardians and maybe the Mr. Peabody one?
> 
> *Should be interesting to see how the next year pans out for new audio codecs and studio support*. I have no doubt that Atmos will be showing up more and more going forward, but if we see split support from studios with some going Auro then a re-evaluation of speaker setups may be in need. And who knows what DTS has up their sleeves.


Kris, I am thinking the exact same thing (in red).


----------



## UKTexan

SoundChex said:


> So then perhaps we might gain some insight from this article by Ted Laverty, Senior Director of Corporate Strategy and Development for DTS (and DTS representative at the DVB) in *DVB Scene Issue No. 44, September 2014*, "*Sounds Good - Where next for audio?*" (_link+see Page 10_).
> _


 

Taken directly from the article:


"
The Phase 2 shopping list includes High Dynamic Range (HDR), Higher Bit Depth, Higher Frame Rate (HFR), Wide Color Gamut, and an *Advanced Sound System (ASS)."*​ 
What an unfortunate choice of words....​
 
I consider myself an ass man, although that's a little different to immersive audio.......​


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> what were the audio issues that your talking about. i have into darkness when i get home later i'll give a listen and let you know.


Dropouts (On Total Recall 2012). It seems to be player-dependent. My Oppo 93 (latest FW) will not play the disc, yet my ancient Panasonic Dm35 (ancient FW) plays it flawlessly.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Keith,
> 
> Superbe... félicitaions, comme toujours.
> 
> Hugo
> 
> PS: we'll be watching T4 this evening - thanks to the DVD link you gave above -, but alas it'll be only in DTS Neo X 11...


Mercie bien Hugo! TF4 is insane. Chapter 20 will endanger the structure of your house.


----------



## NorthSky

...It should have been "BASS" (Best Advanced Sound System), methinks. 

* In reply to post number 9749


----------



## BigScreen

SoundChex said:


> Recently, some _soi-disant_ "insider" posters have suggested that the *DTS* home theater _object-based audio_ 'strategy' has refocused away from 'packaged' and toward 'broadcast' (_and other_) content. So then perhaps we might gain some insight from this article by Ted Laverty, Senior Director of Corporate Strategy and Development for DTS (and DTS representative at the DVB) in *DVB Scene Issue No. 44, September 2014*, "*Sounds Good - Where next for audio?*" (_link+see Page 10_).


I read the article and it doesn't seem to confirm any kind of shift from packaged media to broadcast media for DTS. Did I miss something? My take was that they were trying to take what they are learning in D-Cinema and Blu-ray and apply it to broadcast media.

But I do agree with the sentiment that they need a better name than "OBA" or "MDA" for the technology. They need something on the order of what Apple did with IEEE 1394 by calling it FireWire. Much more catchy and consumer-friendly.



NorthSky said:


> Seems to me that what we have been knowing already for a long time is comin' up:
> Physical movie and music mediums are going the way of the dodo.
> 
> * Time to readjust, adapt to the new business/financial concept of the computer world we live in.


I don't think packaged media is anywhere as close to death as the mainstream media and some people would like us to believe. When it comes to movies, streaming media and downloads have quite a few technical challenges in addition to the social challenges. 

The infrastructure isn't in place in the U.S. to support a fully digital delivery process across the board that matches the level of satisfaction of having that movie on a disc in your collection, and the lack of next-generation formats like Atmos (so far) demonstrates that it's not yet ready for the spotlight.

Aside from the technical obstacles, another significant issue is the value that people perceive in having something physical vs. something in digital form. When you have a physical disc in your collection, you can show it off. You can display the extras that came with it (sculptures, special cases, etc.). You can take it off the shelf and look at the artwork and booklet/materials. You can lend it to a friend to share your love for that movie. It's something that can be touched and moved and arranged. An electronic copy of that movie is just that -- electronic, cold, and non-tactile. A copy of the movie that you have to select from a screen, in a list of other movies, where the only thing to differentiate it from everything else is the difference in the thumbnail image of some artwork that is the very same size as that for every other movie. 

Losing access to a downloaded movie is as simple as a hard drive crash, and when that happens, your entire collection disappears in the same instant. You'd have to have a house fire to have the same disaster happen to a physical movie collection. Losing access to a streamed movie (rental or purchased) is as simple as not having good network connectivity, or a policy change on the part of the service you use that the movie you want to see is no longer available.

The connection between the consumer and the product is greatly diminished with electronic versions. As a result, the value assigned to the product is also reduced. Will someone that is willing to pay $80-100 for the "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug™ Limited Edition Collector's Gift Set" be just as happy with his/her purchase of the movie-only copy from Vudu for $23?

The music industry has moved away from this physical connection (people collecting albums and looking through the materials while spinning the records, etc.), but in there are so many differences between enjoying music and enjoying movies that a comparison is almost foolish to make. However, the music industry has suffered as a result of the commoditization of their product. People feel so little of a connection to the product that they're willing to listen to crappy YouTube compilations of music because it's free. Listening to music has gone from having a deep physical connection between the artist and the consumer to a case where music services offer up tracks willy-nilly for $5 per month.

Bringing this diatribe somewhat back on-topic, it is precisely advances like Atmos, Auro3D, and DTS whatever-they're-gonna-callit, that demonstrate where innovation can happen. If digital was so right-now, Atmos would already be available on the streaming and download services. For these and other reasons, I don't see physical media going away any time soon, and it will be a sad day should that day ever come while I still care about such things.


----------



## NorthSky

Great post Scott.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Yes, go for it. Although crappy speakers still will sound crappy of course, just less discrete, more diffuse crap bounced off the ceiling


Ty so much Batpig, I hope those modules do sound significantly better than my crappy mini speakers (haha!) for 1,000 bucks vs. 40 dollars worth of speaker I hope it's more than 10% difference (haha). 

Time to order a preamp!


----------



## bargervais

Jacob305 said:


> audio drop out. it starts in the opening prologue when spock goes down to the planet.
> 
> Jacob


cool i'll check it out when i get home


----------



## BillY2KFRC

jkasanic said:


> Reference the attached diagram for the distinction. It's all relative to the angle from MLP.


I have another question or two about how to configure my setup with Audyssey.

From looking at the Atmos speaker placement diagram and my room photos below (Atmos speakers are the little DT Monitor 800s on top of the loft areas, angled at 30 degrees), I now believe I should set my Atmos speakers as front height and rear height, instead of top front and top rear. Following the "Dolby Atmos" Amp Assign, I currently have them as top front/rear, but believe I should re-run Audyssey and change this. Is that correct? 

How much does this designation during the initial setup actually matter? Will it actually affect which sounds are sent to my height speakers during an Atmos movie? Will DSU behave any differently? I think the DSU sounds fantastic currently, so I don't wanna mess it up. 

Thank you!
Bill


----------



## Selden Ball

Bill,

At this point, none of us really knows how much difference there will be between the sounds sent to the two different sets of speakers  Dolby has not provided that information. Somebody probably is going to have to make careful measurements to find out what, if any, difference there is.

ETA: if you do recable and/or change their designations, you should rerun Audyssey so the calibrations are associated with the new channel names. Whether or not you actually do change their designations is up to you.


----------



## zeus33

BillY2KFRC said:


> From looking at the Atmos speaker placement diagram and my room photos below (Atmos speakers are the little DT Monitor 800s on top of the loft areas, angled at 30 degrees), I now believe I should set my Atmos speakers as front height and rear height, instead of top front and top rear. Following the "Dolby Atmos" Amp Assign, I currently have them as top front/rear, but believe I should re-run Audyssey and change this. Is that correct?



Correct. As you saw in the recommended speaker location diagram, the angles that you have are more in line with the front and rear height angle, not top front and rear. Technically, you are within both specs. It's an easy fix, why not try to make it as accurate as possible?


----------



## nucky

Just watched the legend of hercules, with the Dolby Atmos up mix tonight. My jaw hit the floor, I've never heard sound like this before. And I've had expensive equipment before the Denon, for example Anthem D2v.


----------



## zeus33

Selden Ball said:


> ETA: if you do recable and/or change their designations, you should rerun Audyssey so the calibrations are associated with the new channel names. Whether or not you actually do change their designations is up to you.



If he reassigns them, Audyssey will make him rerun the calibration.


----------



## sdurani

MikeK78 said:


> I guess I am confused by the front height and front top nomenclature being thrown around.


Front Height is for speakers elevated between 30-45 degrees. Top Front is for speakers elevated 30-55 degrees. Since your height speakers are at 45 degrees, they can be designated as either one.


----------



## BillY2KFRC

Selden Ball said:


> Bill,
> 
> At this point, none of us really knows how much difference there will be between the sounds sent to the two different sets of speakers  Dolby has not provided that information. Somebody probably is going to have to make careful measurements to find out what, if any, difference there is.
> 
> ETA: if you do recable and/or change their designations, you should rerun Audyssey so the calibrations are associated with the new channel names. Whether or not you actually do change their designations is up to you.





zeus33 said:


> Correct. As you saw in the recommended speaker location diagram, the angles that you have are definitely in the front and rear height angle, not top front and rear. It's an easy fix, why not try to make it as accurate as possible?


Thank you both for the sanity check, I figured as much, I'll re-run the calibration tonight.


----------



## zeus33

BillY2KFRC said:


> Thank you both for the sanity check, I figured as much, I'll re-run the calibration tonight.



Technically Bill, you are within spec for top front and rear, but the angle seems more appropriate to heights than tops. If you do reassign them, report back and let us know if you can tell any difference. I would imagine it would be minimal at best, but I would assign them as heights.


----------



## jkasanic

sdurani said:


> Front Height is for speakers elevated between 30-45 degrees. Top Front is for speakers elevated 30-55 degrees. *Since your height speakers are at 45 degrees, they can be designated as either one*.


Good point...should've mentioned that in my response as well.


----------



## chi_guy50

UKTexan said:


> Taken directly from the article:
> "The Phase 2 shopping list includes High Dynamic Range (HDR), Higher Bit Depth, Higher Frame Rate (HFR), Wide Color Gamut, and an *Advanced Sound System (ASS)."*
> 
> What an unfortunate choice of words....​
> I consider myself an ass man, although that's a little different to immersive audio.......​


I believe this is exclusively relevant to the Rear Surrounds.


----------



## BigScreen

NorthSky said:


> Great post Scott.


Thanks! I ended up turning those comments into an article, as I felt that it was worth the time to make some edits and turn it into a standalone piece.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Kris, I am thinking the exact same thing (in red).


And while you're thinking Bob we are all enjoying DS and Atmos - sorry but we have to keep poking trying to get you to join us on the Dark Side (DS)


----------



## bargervais

Jacob305 said:


> audio drop out. it starts in the opening prologue when spock goes down to the planet.
> 
> Jacob


I didn't notice any audio drops while listen in DSU sorry


----------



## mry110

I bought two pairs of DT A60s, and they are placed on my Martin Logan 60XTs. The 60XTs slope backwards on top. Can someone tell me how the A60s are supposed to sit (level with ground or tilted forward x degrees I think would be the two selections)?


----------



## Jacob305

bargervais said:


> I didn't notice any audio drops while listen in DSU sorry


that is good news.
thanks for looking into it. 
Jacob


----------



## Spanglo

I have Denon X5200 on the way.  Does this setup look ok to you guys?

It will be a 5.1.4 config in a 12x16 room that opens up to a kitchen, with 8ft. ceilings.

I can't install ceiling speakers, so I'm going to mount a pair of surrounds high on the wall half way between the screen and MLP.

The rear heights will rest on the shelf where the projector is located.

90 degree side surrounds are sitting on top of subs for now but I plan to mount those slightly above ear level.


----------



## ThePrisoner

mry110 said:


> I bought two pairs of DT A60s, and they are placed on my Martin Logan 60XTs. The 60XTs slope backwards on top. Can someone tell me how the A60s are supposed to sit (level with ground or tilted forward x degrees I think would be the two selections)?


My A60's are level, they are atop my DT 8060ST's


----------



## rprice54

I'm on my phone and can't search- sorry if this has been answered- what about a DTS track on an Atmos capable AVR? Can I use the Dolby Surround mode or will it default to DTS and not use the top speakers? I'm debating 5.2.4 vs 7.2.4 which will require an additional amp and speakers. I lean towards 7.2.4 so I can still watch the 7.1 tracks I already own, but if I can mix everything to Dolby Surround I may just go with 5.2.4.


----------



## batpig

rprice54 said:


> I'm on my phone and can't search- sorry if this has been answered- what about a DTS track on an Atmos capable AVR? Can I use the Dolby Surround mode or will it default to DTS and not use the top speakers? I'm debating 5.2.4 vs 7.2.4 which will require an additional amp and speakers. I lean towards 7.2.4 so I can still watch the 7.1 tracks I already own, but if I can mix everything to Dolby Surround I may just go with 5.2.4.


It's been discussed many times. DSU is no different than DTS Neo:X, Dolby Pro Logic, Audyssey DSX, or any other post-processing scheme. It doesn't care what codec was used to compress space on the disc, once the soundtrack is decoded it's all multich PCM anyway. 

There is zero advantage to "matching" the upmixer brand to the codec brand.

All a codec like DTS TrueHD or DTS-HD/MA does is compress the audio track so it takes up less space on the disc. Once decoded any post-processing has no idea what the codec was.


----------



## Selden Ball

Spanglo said:


> I have Denon X5200 on the way.  Does this setup look ok to you guys?
> 
> It will be a 5.1.4 config in a 12x16 room that opens up to a kitchen, with 8ft. ceilings.
> 
> I can't install ceiling speakers, so I'm going to mount a pair of surrounds high on the wall half way between the screen and MLP.


That's reasonable. Top Front probably would be the appropriate designation. (I've done something similar, but mine are aligned with the fronts, so I designated them Front Height.)


> The rear heights will rest on the shelf where the projector is located.


 If the projector is actually sitting on the shelf, sitting speakers on that same shelf probably is not a good idea. Speakers will induce vibrations in the shelf, which will cause the projector to shake. It's likely to blur the projected image, cause cables to loosen , and perhaps introduce other mechanical problems in the projector, too.


> 90 degree side surrounds are sitting on top of subs for now but I plan to mount those slightly above ear level.


That's seems reasonable to me.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> And while you're thinking Bob we are all enjoying DS and Atmos - sorry but we have to keep poking trying to get you to join us on the Dark Side (DS)


It's one thing to fantasize about what atoms will sound like but it's another thing to really have it and experience it. Just watched Godzilla in DS I must say I'm glad I jumped in.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> And while you're thinking Bob we are all enjoying DS and Atmos - sorry but we have to keep poking trying to get you to join us on the Dark Side (DS)


Oh I will, all in due time, my time. ...Meanwhile I'm reading all of you guys, early adopters.  

* What is truly tempting is not Dolby Atmos (just one released BD title) but Dolby Surround up-mixer.

And what are you guys going to do when Auro-3D will appear, and DTS-UHD? 
Are you going to sell your present units (receivers) and buy new ones, next year?


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Just watched *The Legend of Hercules*, with the Dolby Atmos up mix tonight. My jaw hit the floor, I've never heard sound like this before. And I've had expensive equipment before the Denon, for example Anthem D2v.


How did you like it; not the sound from the Dolby Surround up-mixer but the film itself?


----------



## Spanglo

Selden Ball said:


> If the projector is actually sitting on the shelf, sitting speakers on that same shelf probably is not a good idea. Speakers will induce vibrations in the shelf, which will cause the projector to shake. It's likely to blur the projected image, cause cables to loosen , and perhaps introduce other mechanical problems in the projector, too.


Great point. I will try isolation, or wall mount if necessary. Fortunately there's room for a mount above or below the shelf.

Thank you for the feedback.


----------



## mlah384

Spanglo said:


> I have Denon X5200 on the way.  Does this setup look ok to you guys?
> 
> It will be a 5.1.4 config in a 12x16 room that opens up to a kitchen, with 8ft. ceilings.
> 
> I can't install ceiling speakers, so I'm going to mount a pair of surrounds high on the wall half way between the screen and MLP.
> 
> The rear heights will rest on the shelf where the projector is located.
> 
> 90 degree side surrounds are sitting on top of subs for now but I plan to mount those slightly above ear level.


Jeeeez! I need to learn how to Sketch my room like that!


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Oh I will, all in due time, my time. ...Meanwhile I'm reading all of you guys, early adopters.
> 
> * What is truly tempting is not Dolby Atmos (just one released BD title) but Dolby Surround up-mixer.
> 
> And what are you guys going to do when Auro-3D will appear, and DTS-UHD?
> Are you going to sell your present units (receivers) and buy new ones, next year?


You do realize that it's been confirmed that the Denon 5200 and likely the Marantz 7009 will be upgradeable to Auro and most likely UHD/DTS or whatever it's called when it comes eventually. Sources have the Auro upgrade coming possibly before year-end - cost of it unknown but no need for a new receiver. I'm surprised you've missed that, it's been discussed for the past two weeks on this thread and the Denons, plus the Marantz 7702 thread. 

So we are enjoying Dolby Surround now, our one Atmos flick to-date and have some future proof receivers at least until the speaker count expands beyond 11. Sometimes being an early adaptor isn't so bad after all


----------



## ambesolman

smurraybhm said:


> You do realize that it's been confirmed that the Denon 5200 and likely the Marantz 7009 will be upgradeable to Auro and most likely UHD/DTS or whatever it's called when it comes eventually. Sources have the Auro upgrade coming possibly before year-end - cost of it unknown but no need for a new receiver. I'm surprised you've missed that, it's been discussed for the past two weeks on this thread and the Denons, plus the Marantz 7702 thread.



Hard to believe with all those posts isn't it


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Kwikas

So, a question I have is what will constitute an optimal speaker count for home cinema when we are at a stage where our pre-pro's can deliver Atmos material to a larger number of transducers than they are able to at present?


I know this will be dictated by room size to some extent but my guess would be that the law of diminishing returns will apply.


Those who have posted here who are using 4 over heads seem very happy. So, what will 6 overheads really get us...or 6 over heads AND front heights and back heights?


----------



## noah katz

smurraybhm said:


> You do realize that it's been confirmed that the Denon 5200 and likely the Marantz 7009 will be upgradeable to Auro and most likely UHD/DTS or whatever it's called when it comes eventually.


I believe "most likely UHD/DTS" is a bit of a stretch; AFAIK nothing has been said by D-M either way.


----------



## smurraybhm

noah katz said:


> I believe the "most likely UHD/DTS" part is a bit of a stretch; AFAIK there is nothing has been side by D-M either way.


We will see. With no details about DTS-UHD I'm not losing any sleep over whether it happens or not. On the other hand if D&M can deliver receivers that are Atmos ready, upgradeable to Auro, is it a stretch? Besides a quality DTS-MASTER 7.1 or 5.1 mix sounds even better using Dolby Surround.


----------



## Spanglo

mlah384 said:


> Jeeeez! I need to learn how to Sketch my room like that!


Sweet Home 3D.

Way easier to use than others I've tried.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> You do realize that it's been confirmed that the Denon 5200 and likely the Marantz 7009 will be upgradeable to Auro and most likely UHD/DTS or whatever it's called when it comes eventually. Sources have the Auro upgrade coming possibly before year-end - cost of it unknown but no need for a new receiver. I'm surprised you've missed that, it's been discussed for the past two weeks on this thread and the Denons, plus the Marantz 7702 thread.
> 
> So we are enjoying Dolby Surround now, our one Atmos flick to-date and have some future proof receivers at least until the speaker count expands beyond 11. Sometimes being an early adaptor isn't so bad after all


Steve, I did not miss a thing, not a single thing; I've read this thread like the bible. 

Everything is vaporware so far, the facts aren't here yet, and neither the cost.
Denon is one thing, Marantz another.

This is the brand new beginning; most people (99%) are waiting a year or so before committing for good.
They want all the new audio codecs, not just Atmos.

Give us a chance to be wise, be patient, give us more software we can use before getting the hardware.

But thanks to you guys, we are learning early in the game. 

* And I'm waiting for our leader, Markus' opinion.

P.S. Steve, not everyone here @ AVS has a Denon Atmos receiver like yours; other members have Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha Atmos receivers; and I was thinking of them. 
Yes, I have read about a possible future upgrade for your Denon 5200 receiver.
But not everyone here in this "universal" Dolby Atmos thread is a 5200's owner. 

So, what are most folks doing to do when Auro-3D shows up next year? 
Yes, we know, you, you are well covered, so you, don't have to worry about it @ all. 
It's just that you aren't alone Steve; many members have Dolby Atmos receivers; just not the 5200 like you.


----------



## bass addict

Selden Ball said:


> If the projector is actually sitting on the shelf, sitting speakers on that same shelf probably is not a good idea. Speakers will induce vibrations in the shelf, which will cause the projector to shake. It's likely to blur the projected image, cause cables to loosen , and perhaps introduce other mechanical problems in the projector, too.


I've been running 8 subs full tilt for over a year now; and unless I am trying , I have yet to see image blurring in my pj, let alone cables loosening on their own. It's a bookshelf crossed over at 80 hz for goodness sakes, not a buttkicker sitting there.


----------



## action_jackson

I wonder if the DSU will be able upmix Auro or DTS-UHD audio tracks to your Atmos configured speaker system? Let's say the speakers are setup for a 7.1.4 configuration and you play a movie with an Auro or DTS-UHD track, maybe it will be able to inteligently emulate it with your current speakers. Hopefully it can do this with enough accuracy that you would not feel the need to add more speaker configurations to encompass each audio encoding format.


----------



## sdurani

action_jackson said:


> I wonder if the DSU will be able upmix Auro or DTS-UHD audio tracks to your Atmos configured speaker system?


DTS-UHD is object-based audio that will render to all available speakers. Why (let alone how) would you upmix a soundtrack that is already using all the speakers? 

Since Auro is channel-based, there is a possibility that upmixing could be used IF there are more playback speakers than source channels. It remains to be seen if DSU can accept more than 7.1 incoming channels (Auro soundtracks start at 9.1).


----------



## maikeldepotter

Kwikas said:


> So, a question I have is what will constitute an optimal speaker count for home cinema when we are at a stage where our pre-pro's can deliver Atmos material to a larger number of transducers than they are able to at present?
> 
> 
> I know this will be dictated by room size to some extent but my guess would be that the law of diminishing returns will apply.
> 
> 
> Those who have posted here who are using 4 over heads seem very happy. So, what will 6 overheads really get us...or 6 over heads AND front heights and back heights?


For a two-seater start with 5.1.2 and add 2 surrounds and 2 overheads for every additional pair of listeners. So a small room with 4 seats: 7.1.4, and a big room with 8 seats: 11.1.8. For this big room you probably want to add front heights, wides, and top center bringing you to 16.1.8. 
(Edit 1: apart from using more than 1 sub in any of those situations)
(Edit 2: above is referring to home theaters with 8-10' ceilings)

Just my 2 cts.


----------



## nucky

NorthSky said:


> How did you like it; not the sound from the Dolby Surround up-mixer but the film itself?


I liked it, to tell you the truth i will watch just about any film. That's what I enjoy doing. I watched Noah the other night and enjoyed that as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Cool man; you're an easy movie goer/watcher. ...No fuss no muss no coconuts.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I read the article and it doesn't seem to confirm any kind of shift from packaged media to broadcast media for DTS. Did I miss something? My take was that they were trying to take what they are learning in D-Cinema and Blu-ray and apply it to broadcast media.
> 
> But I do agree with the sentiment that they need a better name than "OBA" or "MDA" for the technology. They need something on the order of what Apple did with IEEE 1394 by calling it FireWire. Much more catchy and consumer-friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think packaged media is anywhere as close to death as the mainstream media and some people would like us to believe. When it comes to movies, streaming media and downloads have quite a few technical challenges in addition to the social challenges.
> 
> The infrastructure isn't in place in the U.S. to support a fully digital delivery process across the board that matches the level of satisfaction of having that movie on a disc in your collection, and the lack of next-generation formats like Atmos (so far) demonstrates that it's not yet ready for the spotlight.
> 
> Aside from the technical obstacles, another significant issue is the value that people perceive in having something physical vs. something in digital form. When you have a physical disc in your collection, you can show it off. You can display the extras that came with it (sculptures, special cases, etc.). You can take it off the shelf and look at the artwork and booklet/materials. You can lend it to a friend to share your love for that movie. It's something that can be touched and moved and arranged. An electronic copy of that movie is just that -- electronic, cold, and non-tactile. A copy of the movie that you have to select from a screen, in a list of other movies, where the only thing to differentiate it from everything else is the difference in the thumbnail image of some artwork that is the very same size as that for every other movie.
> 
> Losing access to a downloaded movie is as simple as a hard drive crash, and when that happens, your entire collection disappears in the same instant. You'd have to have a house fire to have the same disaster happen to a physical movie collection. Losing access to a streamed movie (rental or purchased) is as simple as not having good network connectivity, or a policy change on the part of the service you use that the movie you want to see is no longer available.
> 
> The connection between the consumer and the product is greatly diminished with electronic versions. As a result, the value assigned to the product is also reduced. Will someone that is willing to pay $80-100 for the "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug™ Limited Edition Collector's Gift Set" be just as happy with his/her purchase of the movie-only copy from Vudu for $23?
> 
> The music industry has moved away from this physical connection (people collecting albums and looking through the materials while spinning the records, etc.), but in there are so many differences between enjoying music and enjoying movies that a comparison is almost foolish to make. However, the music industry has suffered as a result of the commoditization of their product. People feel so little of a connection to the product that they're willing to listen to crappy YouTube compilations of music because it's free. Listening to music has gone from having a deep physical connection between the artist and the consumer to a case where music services offer up tracks willy-nilly for $5 per month.
> 
> Bringing this diatribe somewhat back on-topic, it is precisely advances like Atmos, Auro3D, and DTS whatever-they're-gonna-callit, that demonstrate where innovation can happen. If digital was so right-now, Atmos would already be available on the streaming and download services. For these and other reasons, I don't see physical media going away any time soon, and it will be a sad day should that day ever come while I still care about such things.


Scott - what a terrific post. You have articulated brilliantly all of my own thoughts about this. A couple of observations which you touched on: music has seen a big shift to mp3 etc but we have to look at the way the content is delivered to the listener - it is consumed 'on the move', 'on the beach', while working out, walking the dog, driving the car and so on. None of that applies to movies on Bluray and IMO is a significant difference, as you suggested. Also, there is the issue of quality. Where I live, and millions of others in the UK have similar issues, I doubt we will _ever _have broadband speeds sufficient to deliver a Dolby Atmos track in TrueHD, with 1080p high resolution video, let alone 4K. So if I went the download route, it would also be the downgrade route and there is no way I am going to do that, having spent a fortune on my HT hardware precisely to get the best SQ and PQ available.

Few people have articulated the emotional aspect of ownership of physical product as well as you did in your post. Thank you!


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> I've been running 8 subs full tilt for over a year now; and unless I am trying , I have yet to see image blurring in my pj, let alone cables loosening on their own.


How many of your 8 subs are on the same shelf as the PJ?


----------



## kbarnes701

FWIW, I watched *'Blade' *last night with DSU. Once again, it sounded fabulous - better than I have ever heard in my room. The immersion is just so exceptional with those 4 overhead speakers. Every movie I have watched with DSU, so far, has been significantly enhanced. Some have more obvious 'height effects' up there (probably those originally mixed in Atmos, judging by my brief initial tests anyway) in the overheads than others, but all have enjoyed a huge extra step up in immersion in the sound. I am still considering this one of my very best upgrades - right there alongside installing the dual Seaton Submersives and moving up from a flat panel TV to a PJ.


----------



## action_jackson

sdurani said:


> DTS-UHD is object-based audio that will render to all available speakers. Why (let alone how) would you upmix a soundtrack that is already using all the speakers?
> 
> Since Auro is channel-based, there is a possibility that upmixing could be used IF there are more playback speakers than source channels. It remains to be seen if DSU can accept more than 7.1 incoming channels (Auro soundtracks start at 9.1).


I have to admit that I am not very familiar with Auro or DTS-UHD, but I have seen discussion of multiple speaker setups for running either Atmos and Auro depending on the source material. To me it seems more reasonable that the AVR would somehow take advantage of whatever speaker configuration that you have. The height information would go where it needs to go as long as you have height speakers of some sort configured into your system. This may not be done using DSU but through a 3D sound field like Yamaha uses. I guess we will have to wait and see how everything plays out.


----------



## action_jackson

kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, I watched *'Blade' *last night with DSU. Once again, it sounded fabulous - better than I have ever heard in my room. The immersion is just so exceptional with those 4 overhead speakers. Every movie I have watched with DSU, so far, has been significantly enhanced. Some have more obvious 'height effects' up there (probably those originally mixed in Atmos, judging by my brief initial tests anyway) in the overheads than others, but all have enjoyed a huge extra step up in immersion in the sound. I am still considering this one of my very best upgrades - right there alongside installing the dual Seaton Submersives and moving up from a flat panel TV to a PJ.


You are making it very hard to resist getting into Atmos. 
I keep finding myself staring at the ceiling, feeling like I am missing something. If I could somehow do it without the wife finding out, lol. Maybe I could switch out the old AVR with a new one and tell her there was a major update to the software


----------



## kbarnes701

action_jackson said:


> You are making it very hard to resist getting into Atmos.


I can see the argument for waiting to see what is coming down the line, but I am of the view that waiting for future developments is always pointless. Might as well enjoy what is here right now rather than wait for things that may never happen. 



action_jackson said:


> I keep finding myself staring at the ceiling, feeling like I am missing something.


You _are_ missing something! You’re missing the biggest development in home audio in about a decade. And you are missing this amazing sense of immersion which puts you _inside the movie_. 



action_jackson said:


> If I could somehow do it without the wife finding out, lol. Maybe I could switch out the old AVR with a new one and tell her there was a major update to the software


Would she even notice a different AVR in the rack? Do _you _notice when she has a new purse or new shoes? And if you do mention them doesn't she say, _"what, these old things - I've had them for ever..._"


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, I watched *'Blade' *last night with DSU. Once again, it sounded fabulous - better than I have ever heard in my room. The immersion is just so exceptional with those 4 overhead speakers. Every movie I have watched with DSU, so far, has been significantly enhanced. Some have more obvious 'height effects' up there (probably those originally mixed in Atmos, judging by my brief initial tests anyway) in the overheads than others, but all have enjoyed a huge extra step up in immersion in the sound. I am still considering this one of my very best upgrades - right there alongside installing the dual Seaton Submersives and moving up from a flat panel TV to a PJ.


Keith, 

Thanks for being so effusive with your feedback. 

You've been very emphatic about the immersive "height effects" of Atmos/DSU playback in your HT and I've been wondering--just to put your impressions into context--had you been previously using any height speakers in this space? In other words, are you comparing your current experience to listener-level-only surround sound or to a similar conventional set-up (e.g., 5.1 + HT)?


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for being so effusive with your feedback.
> 
> You've been very emphatic about the immersive "height effects" of Atmos/DSU playback in your HT and I've been wondering--just to put your impressions into context--had you been previously using any height speakers in this space? In other words, are you comparing your current experience to listener-level-only surround sound or to a similar conventional set-up (e.g., 5.1 + HT)?


Just my $.02 
To me it's not just 5.1 + HT it's 5.1.2 DSU gives you an immersive enveloping experience not just adding The ceiling speakers to the 5.1 base. To me DSU is more than just adding heights maybe Keith can explain it better.


----------



## mp5475

Just ordered four tannoy di8 dc for my top speakers. Thanks for the Advice Keith! 

Will be getting the emotiva amps soon. Hope to get the receiver early next year. 

By then, I hope we will know what second generation will be capable of. I would really like to do 9.1.4, but if second gen can't do that, then I will get the denon.

I want to use my wides.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> The theatrical system employs a 9.1 bed... 7.1 + 2 overhead arrays.
> 
> Those overheads are encoded as objects in the home version.
> 
> For TF4, the mixers used the overheads for objects only, and put nothing in the overhead bed channels.


If mixers decide to use the left and right overhead arrays exclusively for objects, and not as part of the channel bed, how do they create the sense of 'ambiance' and 'being in that space' which is generated by spatial cues? Do those remain in the listener-level surround field, or are they also treated as objects to be put in the overhead arrays? And related to that, I wonder whether these spatial cues were part of the overhead channel bed or overhead objects during the famous cave scene in 'The Hobbit', which seems to be a very successful example of (re)producing ambiance.

Edit: All the above is referring to the theatrical mix.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> Just my $.02
> To me it's not just 5.1 + HT it's 5.1.2 DSU gives you an immersive enveloping experience not just adding The ceiling speakers to the 5.1 base. To me DSU is more than just adding heights maybe Keith can explain it better.


Of course. My question is designed to put Keith's experience into context. I believe he's already given us ample feedback concerning his evaluation of DSU vs. PLII, but I don't recall whether he had previously had any height speakers in his HT.


----------



## sdurani

action_jackson said:


> This may not be done using DSU but through a 3D sound field like Yamaha uses.


Yamaha 3D soundfields add reverb and early reflections that weren't in the soundtrack in order to simulate a larger room. You want to layer that on an object-based soundtrack that is already using all the available speakers? That's the part I don't understand about your idea: with object-based soundtracks already using all available speakers, what do you want to upmix to?


----------



## action_jackson

sdurani said:


> action_jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may not be done using DSU but through a 3D sound field like Yamaha uses.
> 
> 
> 
> Yamaha 3D soundfields add reverb and early reflections that weren't in the soundtrack in order to simulate a larger room. You want to layer that on an object-based soundtrack that is already using all the available speakers? That's the part I don't understand about your idea: with object-based soundtracks already using all available speakers, what do you want to upmix to?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm just wondering how the AVR will handle the different formats. It seems that each company has approached speaker placement differently. If we place our speakers according to Atmos specs, they will not be in spec for Auro. Will the AVR be able to conform an Auro soundtrack to playback on an Atmos speaker configuration while maintaining the correct imaging? I guess it's not really upmixing but rather it is conforming to a single speaker layout for all formats.


----------



## Selden Ball

maikeldepotter said:


> If mixers decide to use the left and right overhead arrays exclusively for objects, and not as part of the channel bed, how do they create the sense of 'ambiance' and 'being in that space' which is generated by spatial cues? Do those remain in the listener-level surround field, or are they also treated as objects to be put in the overhead arrays? And related to that, I wonder whether these spatial cues were part of the overhead channel bed or overhead objects during the famous cave scene in 'The Hobbit', which seems to be a very successful example of (re)producing ambiance.


My understading is that most Cinema Atmos soundtracks have 9 bed tracks, two of which are overhead. The overhead beds are converted to objects in home Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Steve, I did not miss a thing, not a single thing; I've read this thread like the bible.
> 
> Everything is vaporware so far, the facts aren't here yet, and neither the cost.
> Denon is one thing, Marantz another.
> 
> This is the brand new beginning; most people (99%) are waiting a year or so before committing for good.
> They want all the new audio codecs, not just Atmos.
> 
> Give us a chance to be wise, be patient, give us more software we can use before getting the hardware.
> 
> But thanks to you guys, we are learning early in the game.
> 
> * And I'm waiting for our leader, Markus' opinion.
> 
> P.S. Steve, not everyone here @ AVS has a Denon Atmos receiver like yours; other members have Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha Atmos receivers; and I was thinking of them.
> Yes, I have read about a possible future upgrade for your Denon 5200 receiver.
> But not everyone here in this "universal" Dolby Atmos thread is a 5200's owner.
> 
> So, what are most folk doing to do when Auro-3D shows up next year?
> Yes, we know, you, you are well covered, so you, don't have to worry about it @ all.
> It's just that you aren't alone Steve; many members have Dolby Atmos receivers; just not the 5200 like you.


Bob - since your post was less than specific and replying to my post I believe it isn't hard to understand why I would think you asking me what I would do with my current receiver once those options become available, thank you for the clarification. While we are lacking important details, like cost and supported channels it is encouraging that D&M is able to support an upgrade to Auro on nearly all of their Atmos ready units ex the Denon 4100 and possibly DTS-UHD. I believe Chris Walker has posted over on the Pioneer thread that he was going to see what the Elites might be upgradeable to as well. I wouldn't expect the lower level Onkyos to support such an upgarde, but maybe on the 1030 and up. 

You have to be impressed when companies offer this type of "flexibility" on first generation products. Hopefully it will encourage more to jump on the Atmos (or Auro) bandwagon which will help ensure the success of both. After hearing the first Atmos disk a few nights ago, as I posted yesterday, if you are a HT enthusiast, you want Atmos to be successful because its that good. I'm confident if I heard a demo of Auro, I would say the same for that technology based on the comments of those who have heard them at CEDIA and overseas. Thanks again. Steve


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> My understading is that most Cinema Atmos soundtracks have 9 bed tracks, two of which are overhead. The overhead beds are converted to objects in home Atmos soundtracks.


Yes, that is my understanding as well. My question was referring to TF4, in which the overheads are apparently NOT part of the theatrical channel bed, and what this means for the way spatial cues are distributed in the theatrical mix.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> P.S. Steve, encouraging a troll's comment is not positive to the AVS community.



Bob - Since you decided to take this out into the forum, as I explained in my reply to your PM regarding my "like" - by the way I'll just stop using that damn function if it causes this type of crap (sorry but at my old age I call at as I see it) - I apologize for the like if it offended you and for not keeping up with the rapid number of posts in this thread made by a lot of different members of our community and the content of each and their intent - written or implied, negative or positive towards other forum members. I thought the member was just razzing you in good fun - that still happens around here once in a while - right? Obviously I am not the only member (troll, good person or bad person) who thought you were talking about the Denon and given your level of participation on this thread and others on AVS thought you would know about D&M's upgrade. 

Anyway, my "like" has been removed since harmony is something I "like" (see old age comment). Now let's get back to Atmos and continue what's become a helpful and informative thread here on the AVS. Thanks. Steve


----------



## mastermaybe

Hi all:

So is my understanding about Dolby Surround (name still bothers me, lol) correct: that it only up-mixes to 9 channels-- or at least it won't utilize "FRONT HEIGHTS"?

thanks
James


----------



## SoundChex

Kwikas said:


> So, a question I have is *what will constitute an optimal speaker count for home cinema when we are at a stage where our pre-pro's can deliver Atmos material to a larger number of transducers than they are able to at present?* I know this will be dictated by room size to some extent but my guess would be that the law of diminishing returns will apply. Those who have posted here who are using 4 over heads seem very happy. So, what will 6 overheads really get us...or 6 over heads AND front heights and back heights?




Section *7 Quality performance of the multichannel sound systems* (starting on page 48) of *Report ITU-R BS.2159-6 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications* (_link_) summarizes the results of some research pertinent to that issue.

_


----------



## markrubin

move on please: posts may be deleted...


----------



## mastermaybe

And another question if I may:

with my "front heights" being just inches (literally) from the ceiling, would I be better off specifying them as "TOP FRONTS" and the in-ceilings as "TOP REARS" (as I believe I cannot spec them as "TOP MIDDLES" due to those being consecutive to "TOP FRONTS".

My intuition is that I will be told to leave them as is: FRONT HEIGHTS and TOP MIDDLE, but it would be interesting to hear what actually _sounds_ better. 

thanks again,
James


----------



## bkeeler10

mastermaybe said:


> Hi all:
> 
> So is my understanding about Dolby Surround (name still bothers me, lol) correct: that it only up-mixes to 9 channels-- or at least it won't utilize "FRONT HEIGHTS"?
> 
> thanks
> James


It its configuration in the mainstream receivers, Dolby Surround will upmix to any and all channels available in the system, _except_ the so-called "wides" which would be added to a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layout to make a 9.1.2 or 9.1.4 layout (or a 7.1.4 layout with "wides" instead of surround backs).

In a system with a whole bunch of speakers (say, 13.1.8), I presume it would still use every overhead speaker (including heights), but not speakers between the LCR, or the speakers to the immediate outside of the LCR. There's probably a limit on how close a speaker can be to the front stage (measured in angle) before DSU will stop using it. IIRC the goal for DSU was to not significantly affect the front soundstage.


----------



## bkeeler10

mastermaybe said:


> And another question if I may:
> 
> with my "front heights" being just inches (literally) from the ceiling, would I be better off specifying them as "TOP FRONTS" and the in-ceilings as "TOP REARS" (as I believe I cannot spec them as "TOP MIDDLES" due to those being consecutive to "TOP FRONTS".
> 
> My intuition is that I will be told to leave them as is: FRONT HEIGHTS and TOP MIDDLE, but it would be interesting to hear what actually _sounds_ better.
> 
> thanks again,
> James


The location relative to the ceiling is not what matters -- it is the angular separation from the listening position that matters. If it were me, I would be taking a look at the oft-posted Denon layout map, measuring and doing some trigonometry to determine at what angles the speakers are, and then determining which official positions they most closely align with. In the case of the rears. if they fall within the range of top middle better than top rear, then your only choice for the fronts will be front height, as you noted. If, however, the rears are within the spec for top rear, and the fronts are within the spec for top fronts, I would think the top front designation would be better (unless you're right on the edge of the spec for top front, then front height might be better).

All this IMO and without personal experience with Atmos in my own room, unfortunately.


----------



## mastermaybe

^ Everything you said is correct as I understand it.

That said, would not the "HEIGHTS" be included as "speakers between the LCR"? And if not them, what others would? Really, the WIDES actually fall outside that caveat- or should anyway, lol, so long as we are understanding "between" to mean speakers in the same plane, parallel to the main LP.

I havent' messed around with my 7009 much yet, but the HEIGHTS appear clearly disengaged with DS and immediately light up upon the selection of NEO.

Is this perhaps an on-the-fly "judgment" made by DS? Or a one time decision made from the start after measuring? I wouldn't think so but I'm learning, here.

thanks

James


----------



## mastermaybe

bkeeler10 said:


> The location relative to the ceiling is not what matters -- it is the angular separation from the listening position that matters. If it were me, I would be taking a look at the oft-posted Denon layout map, measuring and doing some trigonometry to determine at what angles the speakers are, and then determining which official positions they most closely align with. In the case of the rears. if they fall within the range of top middle better than top rear, then your only choice for the fronts will be front height, as you noted. If, however, the rears are within the spec for top rear, and the fronts are within the spec for top fronts, I would think the top front designation would be better (unless you're right on the edge of the spec for top front, then front height might be better).
> 
> All this IMO and without personal experience with Atmos in my own room, unfortunately.


Thanks and I know what you mean, I was kind of implying that they could very well be fine as TOP FRONTS given that they are so high up. I'll look at things closer tonight.

James


----------



## bkeeler10

mastermaybe said:


> ^ Everything you said is correct as I understand it.
> 
> That said, would not the "HEIGHTS" be included as "speakers between the LCR"? And it not them, what others would? Really, the WIDES actually fall outside that caveat- or should anyway, lol.
> 
> I havent' messed around with my 7009 much yet, but the HEIGHTS appear clearly disengaged with DS and immediately light up upon the selection of NEO.
> 
> Is this perhaps an on-the-fly "judgment" made by DS? Or a one time decision made from the start after measuring? I wouldn't think so but I'm learning, here.
> 
> thanks
> 
> James


Hmm, not sure. It was my understanding that the heights would be used. Since Keith is using front heights in his system, hopefully he will chime in on whether DSU used them or not, but I suspect it did for him since he did not say otherwise. He has done a lot of testing and messing around with it, including shutting off all speakers except his overheads (which I presume included his front heights).


----------



## mastermaybe

I hope I have done something worn but reading just as you have, the note of "in between the LCR" make me think they do not.

Still though, seeing they produced TWO technologies- PLIIZ (an another up-mixing tech, no less) and ATMOS- that use them all, HEIGHTS included- one would think they could still employ a pair of HEIGHTS for the better, right?    

James


----------



## smurraybhm

mastermaybe said:


> ^ Everything you said is correct as I understand it.
> 
> That said, would not the "HEIGHTS" be included as "speakers between the LCR"? And if not them, what others would? Really, the WIDES actually fall outside that caveat- or should anyway, lol, so long as we are understanding "between" to mean speakers in the same plane, parallel to the main LP.
> 
> I havent' messed around with my 7009 much yet, but the HEIGHTS appear clearly disengaged with DS and immediately light up upon the selection of NEO.
> 
> Is this perhaps an on-the-fly "judgment" made by DS? Or a one time decision made from the start after measuring? I wouldn't think so but I'm learning, here.
> 
> thanks
> 
> James


James - Heights are clearly part of the DS equation as pointed out by another forum member Keith is using FH and TM for his Atmos setup. Right now I am TM, but FH is my next project after I get back from a business trip. How do you have AMP ASSIGN set up on your Marantz? I am wondering if it is an issue there or maybe your choice of a movie(s) for checking the heights wasn't sending much that way.


----------



## brwsaw

I can't wait until speakers don't need to be assigned, that the AVR will do a sweep and know whats where and what to do with it.


----------



## brwsaw

Has anyone tested the DSU with on air content? Satellite? Radio?


----------



## jrogers

kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, I watched *'Blade' *last night with DSU. Once again, it sounded fabulous - better than I have ever heard in my room. The immersion is just so exceptional with those 4 overhead speakers. Every movie I have watched with DSU, so far, has been significantly enhanced. Some have more obvious 'height effects' up there (probably those originally mixed in Atmos, judging by my brief initial tests anyway) in the overheads than others, but all have enjoyed a huge extra step up in immersion in the sound. I am still considering this one of my very best upgrades - right there alongside installing the dual Seaton Submersives and moving up from a flat panel TV to a PJ.


If I remember correctly, you're running 5.1.4 in a relatively small room configured as Front Height & Top Middle, and had all the speakers in place before your 5200 finally arrived, so I'm guessing the answer is no; but was wondering if you happened to do any listening at std atmos 5.1.2 config before moving to 5.1.4? Not sure if changing that config would require re-calibration or not - so won't ask you to try it just on my account ;-)

I've been very much enjoying the DSU with 5.1.2 in my small theater - but given the improvement over 5.1/7.1 of 5.1.2 with DSU, am getting tempted now to buy an amp, run some more wire and cut a couple more holes for front heights - and was curious if you (or anyone) had done a comparison between the two. It seems Dolby might make good use of those front heights given their history with IIz.


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> How many of your 8 subs are on the same shelf as the PJ?


Seriously? So apparently I have a magic bubble around my projector so that the subwoofer sound waves can't affect it. 

If I try, I can throw the projector out of alignment from the subs. I'm pretty sure that there are more vibrations induced from my subs at normal volume, then a bookshelf speaker at reference. If you can get your projector cable to undo on it's own from the vibrations; I'll eat my hat. :kiss:

For the record; years ago, I used to have my two back surrounds sitting on the same shelf as my pj with no ill effects.


----------



## smurraybhm

mastermaybe said:


> I hope I have done something worn but reading just as you have, the note of "in between the LCR" make me think they do not.
> 
> Still though, seeing they produced TWO technologies- PLIIZ (an another up-mixing tech, no less) and ATMOS- that use them all, HEIGHTS included- one would think they could still employ a pair of HEIGHTS for the better, right?
> 
> James


James - see the chart below. Front Heights are clearly active during the selection of Dolby Surround on the Denon 5200 and I would expect exactly the same on your Marantz 7009. If we can help with setup let us know, GUI as Batpig and others have pointed out, while vastly improved, can trip one up with just one wrong selection.


----------



## smurraybhm

brwsaw said:


> I can't wait until speakers don't need to be assigned, that the AVR will do a sweep and know whats where and what to do with it.


Actually the auto Audyssey setup on at least the new Denons does that or is very very close to doing what you seek. It will attempt to send a test tone to each speaker that is an option for the Amp Assign mode selected to see if it is there. Once its completed it lists the speakers that it found as well as those that it didn't find. You then confirm to continue or can cancel and start all over if something is missed/not functioning correctly.


----------



## htpcforever

BigScreen said:


> I read the article and it doesn't seem to confirm any kind of shift from packaged media to broadcast media for DTS. Did I miss something? My take was that they were trying to take what they are learning in D-Cinema and Blu-ray and apply it to broadcast media.
> 
> But I do agree with the sentiment that they need a better name than "OBA" or "MDA" for the technology. They need something on the order of what Apple did with IEEE 1394 by calling it FireWire. Much more catchy and consumer-friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think packaged media is anywhere as close to death as the mainstream media and some people would like us to believe. When it comes to movies, streaming media and downloads have quite a few technical challenges in addition to the social challenges.
> 
> The infrastructure isn't in place in the U.S. to support a fully digital delivery process across the board that matches the level of satisfaction of having that movie on a disc in your collection, and the lack of next-generation formats like Atmos (so far) demonstrates that it's not yet ready for the spotlight.
> 
> Aside from the technical obstacles, another significant issue is the value that people perceive in having something physical vs. something in digital form. When you have a physical disc in your collection, you can show it off. You can display the extras that came with it (sculptures, special cases, etc.). You can take it off the shelf and look at the artwork and booklet/materials. You can lend it to a friend to share your love for that movie. It's something that can be touched and moved and arranged. An electronic copy of that movie is just that -- electronic, cold, and non-tactile. A copy of the movie that you have to select from a screen, in a list of other movies, where the only thing to differentiate it from everything else is the difference in the thumbnail image of some artwork that is the very same size as that for every other movie.
> 
> Losing access to a downloaded movie is as simple as a hard drive crash, and when that happens, your entire collection disappears in the same instant. You'd have to have a house fire to have the same disaster happen to a physical movie collection. Losing access to a streamed movie (rental or purchased) is as simple as not having good network connectivity, or a policy change on the part of the service you use that the movie you want to see is no longer available.
> 
> The connection between the consumer and the product is greatly diminished with electronic versions. As a result, the value assigned to the product is also reduced. Will someone that is willing to pay $80-100 for the "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug™ Limited Edition Collector's Gift Set" be just as happy with his/her purchase of the movie-only copy from Vudu for $23?
> 
> The music industry has moved away from this physical connection (people collecting albums and looking through the materials while spinning the records, etc.), but in there are so many differences between enjoying music and enjoying movies that a comparison is almost foolish to make. However, the music industry has suffered as a result of the commoditization of their product. People feel so little of a connection to the product that they're willing to listen to crappy YouTube compilations of music because it's free. Listening to music has gone from having a deep physical connection between the artist and the consumer to a case where music services offer up tracks willy-nilly for $5 per month.
> 
> Bringing this diatribe somewhat back on-topic, it is precisely advances like Atmos, Auro3D, and DTS whatever-they're-gonna-callit, that demonstrate where innovation can happen. If digital was so right-now, Atmos would already be available on the streaming and download services. For these and other reasons, I don't see physical media going away any time soon, and it will be a sad day should that day ever come while I still care about such things.



While I agree with your statements, history does not agree with either of us. People said the exact same thing about the CD when the first MP3 players came out. People also said the same thing about Steam (with regards to computer games) when it first came out. Most people buy their music and games electronically these days without any thought to the physical media at all.


Of course, streaming is a different beast than a digital download...when the bluray makers start selling full version digital downloads (after allowing them to exist at all legally), then we will see the death of movie physical media. Until then, you are spot on.


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> Actually the auto Audyssey setup on at least the new Denons does that or is very very close to doing what you seek. It will attempt to send a test tone to each speaker that is an option for the Amp Assign mode selected to see if it is there. Once its completed it lists the speakers that it found as well as those that it didn't find. You then confirm to continue or can cancel and start all over if something is missed/not functioning correctly.


But you still have to manually define the speaker positions before. It won't "intelligently" decide for example based on measured elevation angle that your front height speakers should actually be top fronts for more accurate rendering.


----------



## mastermaybe

smurraybhm said:


> James - Heights are clearly part of the DS equation as pointed out by another forum member Keith is using FH and TM for his Atmos setup. Right now I am TM, but FH is my next project after I get back from a business trip. How do you have AMP ASSIGN set up on your Marantz? I am wondering if it is an issue there or maybe your choice of a movie(s) for checking the heights wasn't sending much that way.


Thanks- and I thought of the amp assign side of things. I actually PRE OUT everything but the center channel, but I think I took the amp-assign option of pre-outting the L and R on the MENU. Still, this drives me a bit bonkers as I probably don't put much thought into the aforementioned and instead, just think: "well, since the NEO lights up the heights, Dolby should too".

James


----------



## mastermaybe

smurraybhm said:


> James - see the chart below. Front Heights are clearly active during the selection of Dolby Surround on the Denon 5200 and I would expect exactly the same on your Marantz 7009. If we can help with setup let us know, GUI as Batpig and others have pointed out, while vastly improved, can trip one up with just one wrong selection.



Great, so then I'm happy to learn I'm just an idiot one way or another and I'm jacking this up, somewhere.  I'll take a close look at my amp assign. I believe I just selected to pre out everything and still powered the CC with my Denon 4311 and all was fine...maybe that's what I should do, here? Or is that not an option? I was in a hurry and may have simply missed it.

thanks again all.

James


----------



## smurraybhm

^ Another good check on what's active during DS is to push the info button on the remote and see what channels are active if you haven't done that already. Not that I have looked closely on my receivers screen, but I believe that it doesn't always display all of the channels actually in use during DS or Atmos. Just remember I could be wrong on that, but I don't sit that close to the receiver to see the speaker detail and the info button puts it all up on your display - assuming you are not using two outputs from your player, one to the display and the other to the receiver (something I do with my Oppo and will most likely undo since I like the on screen volume and other info).

P.S. Plus on the Denon you have the option of displaying what channels are coming in or going out, I wish both would fit personally.


----------



## sdurani

action_jackson said:


> Will the AVR be able to conform an Auro soundtrack to playback on an Atmos speaker configuration while maintaining the correct imaging?


No. To do something like that would require a speaker re-mapping feature like Trinnov has.


----------



## mastermaybe

smurraybhm said:


> ^ Another good check on what's active during DS is to push the info button on the remote and see what channels are active if you haven't done that already. Not that I have looked closely on my receivers screen, but I believe that it doesn't always display all of the channels actually in use during DS or Atmos. Just remember I could be wrong on that, but I don't sit that close to the receiver to see the speaker detail and the info button puts it all up on your display - assuming you are not using two outputs from your player, one to the display and the other to the receiver (something I do with my Oppo and will most likely undo since I like the on screen volume and other info).
> 
> P.S. Plus on the Denon you have the option of displaying what channels are coming in or going out, I wish both would fit personally.


Yep, that's what I'm doing, currently: hitting "INFO" and seeing the heights are not active...then they are upon selection of NEO.

James


----------



## batpig

mastermaybe said:


> Great, so then I'm happy to learn I'm just an idiot one way or another and I'm jacking this up, somewhere.  I'll take a close look at my amp assign. I believe I just selected to pre out everything and still powered the CC with my Denon 4311 and all was fine...maybe that's what I should do, here? Or is that not an option? I was in a hurry and may have simply missed it.
> 
> thanks again all.
> 
> James


James - The "pre out" setting shouldn't matter since you have all channels on external amps.

For your config IMHO it's unambiguous that you are running Front Height + Top Middle. Your FH speakers are directly above your front speakers (well, literally on TOP of them!) so they aren't overhead and don't have a lot of angular separation from the FR/FL channels. The minimum elevation for Top Front would be 45 degrees, and I doubt you are there. It's possible you just aren't noticing them as much because the DSU upmix is a bit more ambient with the content you've tested and they don't "stand out" relatively due to proximity to the fronts.

For your setup (7.1.4 now right?) you would set the amp assign settings as follows:

Amp Assign = 11.1ch
Height Speakers = 4 Height Speakers
Height Layout = Front Height & Top Middle
The "Wide/Height2" and "Pre-Out" settings shouldn't matter and can be left at default since you are using all external amps

A couple of tests you can try:

1) since you are using external amps, just turn them off for all channels but the 4 overheads and play some content with DSU (or better yet native Atmos) and listen to the overhead speakers only

2) DSU actually works without surrounds/center -- you can manually go into speaker config, for example, and disable all speakers but fronts + front heights (a 2.1.2 config!) and then listen to stereo music. Toggling between Stereo (2.1) and DSU (2.1.2) surround modes should present a noticeable change in "vertical ambiance" with most music.




mastermaybe said:


> Yep, that's what I'm doing, currently: hitting "INFO" and seeing the heights are not active...then they are upon selection of NEO.
> 
> James


If they aren't lighting up according to the INFO button then something is configured wrong. Check the amp assign settings.

Did you move your wides to surrounds? Just to confirm there are only 11 speakers connected.


----------



## Bumper

*Best DSU example*

Yesterday I watched "Alien Abduction". Yes I know...
But 29 minutes into the movie (2014) a young boy is using his video cam to film from within the SUV he is sitting in how hundreds of large birds fall out of the sky and onto the SUV's roof. These birds actually came falling down my TM's and made me duck by reflex
Not a true Atmos movie obviously but something that stuck out on DSU which I had not heard before in many other movies I have seen since I got the 5200.


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, so then I'm happy to learn I'm just an idiot one way or another and I'm jacking this up, somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take a close look at my amp assign. I believe I just selected to pre out everything and still powered the CC with my Denon 4311 and all was fine...maybe that's what I should do, here? Or is that not an option? I was in a hurry and may have simply missed it.
> 
> thanks again all.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> James - The "pre out" setting shouldn't matter since you have all channels on external amps.
> 
> For your config IMHO it's unambiguous that you are running Front Height + Top Middle. Your FH speakers are directly above your front speakers (well, literally on TOP of them!) so they aren't overhead and don't have a lot of angular separation from the FR/FL channels. The minimum elevation for Top Front would be 45 degrees, and I doubt you are there. It's possible you just aren't noticing them as much because the DSU upmix is a bit more ambient with the content you've tested and they don't "stand out" relatively due to proximity to the fronts.
> 
> For your setup (7.1.4 now right?) you would set the amp assign settings as follows:
> 
> Amp Assign = 11.1ch
> Height Speakers = 4 Height Speakers
> Height Layout = Front Height & Top Middle
> The "Wide/Height2" and "Pre-Out" settings shouldn't matter and can be left at default since you are using all external amps
> 
> A couple of tests you can try:
> 
> 1) since you are using external amps, just turn them off for all channels but the 4 overheads and play some content with DSU (or better yet native Atmos) and listen to the overhead speakers only
> 
> 2) DSU actually works without surrounds/center -- you can manually go into speaker config, for example, and disable all speakers but fronts + front heights (a 2.1.2 config!) and then listen to stereo music. Toggling between Stereo (2.1) and DSU (2.1.2) surround modes should present a noticeable change in "vertical ambiance" with most music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what I'm doing, currently: hitting "INFO" and seeing the heights are not active...then they are upon selection of NEO.
> 
> James
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they aren't lighting up according to the INFO button then something is configured wrong. Check the amp assign settings.
> 
> Did you move your wides to surrounds? Just to confirm there are only 11 speakers connected.
Click to expand...


First, I have all but the CC pre-outted, but again, I don't think that matters, right? 

I'm glad you added that last bit: yes I still only have my 11 speakers, and I'm trying to keep my perception out of things and just look at what's being displayed.

I guess I haven't put a ton of though into it, but if indeed I messed up the amp assign, why would all 11 work with NEO but not Dolby?

It very clearly does just that upon switching.

EDIT: And just an FYI: All eleven speakers are recognized and properly labeled as desired by the 7009.

Thanks.

James


----------



## dschulz

smurraybhm said:


> You do realize that it's been confirmed that the Denon 5200 and likely the Marantz 7009 will be upgradeable to Auro


Has this been confirmed definitively by someone at D+M or one of their dealers who has seen a timeline? I hope it has been - I think competition is healthy and I would love to see both Atmos and Auro widely available to consumers (and DTS-UHD when the time comes) - but I've not seen definitive confirmation on Auro upgradability for these specific products, just informed speculation. Did I miss a post?


----------



## Nightlord

brwsaw said:


> I can't wait until speakers don't need to be assigned, that the AVR will do a sweep and know whats where and what to do with it.


Or you get a locator device that you can use to input all the wall/ceiling and speaker coordinates before measuring.

"Please put the locator in the uppermost righthand corner of the room and tap its button"


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> DTS-UHD is object-based audio that will render to all available speakers. Why (let alone how) would you upmix a soundtrack that is already using all the speakers?


Perhaps he meant if you have only Atmos decoding.



brwsaw said:


> I can't wait until speakers don't need to be assigned, that the AVR will do a sweep and know whats where and what to do with it.


Trinnov does that now, perhaps later generations of more accessible products w/Atmos will as well.



dschulz said:


> Has [Auro upgradability] this been confirmed definitively by someone at D+M or one of their dealers who has seen a timeline?


SteveH posted in the affirmative to "someone at D+M" in the AV8802 or 7702 thread (or both).


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - since your post was less than specific and replying to my post I believe it isn't hard to understand why I would think you asking me what I would do with my current receiver once those options become available, thank you for the clarification. While we are lacking important details, like cost and supported channels it is encouraging that D&M is able to support an upgrade to Auro on nearly all of their Atmos ready units ex the Denon 4100 and possibly DTS-UHD. I believe Chris Walker has posted over on the Pioneer thread that he was going to see what the Elites might be upgradeable to as well. I wouldn't expect the lower level Onkyos to support such an upgarde, but maybe on the 1030 and up.
> 
> You have to be impressed when companies offer this type of "flexibility" on first generation products. Hopefully it will encourage more to jump on the Atmos (or Auro) bandwagon which will help ensure the success of both. After hearing the first Atmos disk a few nights ago, as I posted yesterday, if you are a HT enthusiast, you want Atmos to be successful because its that good. I'm confident if I heard a demo of Auro, I would say the same for that technology based on the comments of those who have heard them at CEDIA and overseas. Thanks again. Steve





smurraybhm said:


> ...
> Bob - Since you decided to take this out into the forum, as I explained in my reply to your PM regarding my "like" - by the way I'll just stop using that damn function if it causes this type of crap (sorry but at my old age I call at as I see it) - I apologize for the like if it offended you and for not keeping up with the rapid number of posts in this thread made by a lot of different members of our community and the content of each and their intent - written or implied, negative or positive towards other forum members. I thought the member was just razzing you in good fun - that still happens around here once in a while - right? Obviously I am not the only member (troll, good person or bad person) who thought you were talking about the Denon and given your level of participation on this thread and others on AVS thought you would know about D&M's upgrade.
> 
> Anyway, my "like" has been removed since harmony is something I "like" (see old age comment). Now let's get back to Atmos and continue what's become a helpful and informative thread here on the AVS. Thanks. Steve


Excellent Steve, on all counts. I truly appreciate your integrity and understanding. 

* Reading all the fabulous comments of members having a Dolby Atmos receiver is very tough to not buy a new receiver right now. Keith in particular; his reviews are fantastic, but also the other members commenting on the new Dolby Surround up-mixer. 
...Very tough indeed to exercise patience right now; but I still want a Dolby Atmos pre-pro (SSP). 
So I still have to wait, and make sure it has all that I want; no need to tell you as you already know.  

Thank you very much.


----------



## tbaucom

mastermaybe said:


> First, I have all but the CC pre-outted, but again, I don't think that matters, right?
> 
> I'm glad you added that last bit: yes I still only have my 11 speakers, and I'm trying to keep my perception out of things and just look at what's being displayed.
> 
> I guess I haven't put a ton of though into it, but if indeed I messed up the amp assign, why would all 11 work with NEO but not Dolby?
> 
> It very clearly does just that upon switching.
> 
> EDIT: And just an FYI: All eleven speakers are recognized and properly labeled as desired by the 7009.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> James


Maybe I am misunderstanding something but how are all 11 working with NEO:X if you are running front height and top middle? I thought NEO:X only worked front height and wide.


----------



## vagos1103gr1

bargervais said:


> Once you get your receiver and you have downloaded to the latest firmware, you will have listening mode options one of which will be dolby surround. For me what I have set up is 5.1.2 I'm using top front so when I'm listening in dolby surround my ceiling speakers are used, As well as my 5.1 lower speakers and that makes it 5.1.2 dolby surround...


So, the onkyo tx-nr 636 came and I setup my 2 ceiling speakers as top middle. I should set them as top front? Mine are in the middle of the ceiling. So far so good. The only problem is when I turn on the pj that is in Hdmi sub out of the amp is opening the tv that is in the main Hdmi out. I turned off the cec on the onkyo as in all of my sourses but the problem insist. Is little annoying using activities with the harmony controler.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*Streaming*



kbarnes701 said:


> Also, there is the issue of quality. Where I live, and millions of others in the UK have similar issues, I doubt we will _ever _have broadband speeds sufficient to deliver a Dolby Atmos track in TrueHD, with 1080p high resolution video, let alone 4K. So if I went the download route, it would also be the downgrade route and there is no way I am going to do that...


Up until a week or two ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed. Since then, Netflix has been introduced over here. While we only have mediocre broadband speed via telephone wire (downloading usually tops at 750 kbps), it still works perfect and it's 1080P which is visually better that the 1080i (or 720P) from normal broadcast via satellite (or telephone, or cable). 

Add to this that local cable provider Telenet (which already has the best broadband performance) recently announced that they will be investing €500,000,000 in "Gigabit" internet in the next five years, making Belgium the first country as a whole to have this super fast internet. They claim a 4K movie could be downloaded in seconds (!)

press (dutch):
http://corporate.telenet.be/nl/nieu...de-uitbouw-van-een-giga-netwerk-voor-iedereen

BTW: Netflix is great for series! No adds alone is worth €9 each month. We watch via an AppleTV connected to the UMC-1 and the daughter can simultaneously watch a different series via her iMac.

In the new house, I think I would run via an Oppo 103 for an even better image.

Hence my conclusion is that I am not worried about discs or streaming, I will take what I can get. Atmos will work just fine on both!


----------



## batpig

vagos1103gr1 said:


> So, the onkyo tx-nr 636 came and I setup my 2 ceiling speakers as top middle. I should set them as top front? Mine are in the middle of the ceiling.


If they are in the middle.... they are Top Middle. Common sense dude


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> ....Keith's experience ........ but I don't recall whether he had previously had any height speakers in his HT.



IIRC, previously he had front heights and he used DTS Neo X.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Well, after 2 days of listening to my Def Tech A60's I'm disappointed. I disconnected my rears just so I could hear what the A60's were doing atop my 8060ST's. Well, not much. I'am not getting a good reflection from my 8ft ceiling. My surrounds are about 1.5 ft above my head. I was wondering that maybe because they are bipoles that they are spreading sound throughout. After much reading here and on the internet I decided to pack up and return my A60's, from everything I read they are over priced and not great quality. I think I will try the Atlantic Technology modules since they seem to be very high quality. I'm also thinking of picking up a cheap pair of bookshelf's to place atop my speakers and try to get a good 45 degree angle. My home is 80 years old, I don't have access in the ceiling because another room is above me. I was thinking about speakers that are on a bracket like the Tannoy's I've seen here.

Thanks to everyone in this great thread and to batpig for all the excellent knowledge and set-up curves we must deal with.


----------



## bargervais

vagos1103gr1 said:


> So, the onkyo tx-nr 636 came and I setup my 2 ceiling speakers as top middle. I should set them as top front? Mine are in the middle of the ceiling. So far so good. The only problem is when I turn on the pj that is in Hdmi sub out of the amp is opening the tv that is in the main Hdmi out. I turned off the cec on the onkyo as in all of my sourses but the problem insist. Is little annoying using activities with the harmony controler.


go to onkyo.com download the manual.
Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for maximizing effects in
Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround listening mode. Install
Top Front speakers midway between the position just
above the listening position and the position just above the
front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers just above the
listening position. You can select ab or cd on the unit.
For connection with the unit, use the SPEAKERS BACK or
HEIGHT terminals.
you can see placement of speakers if you read through this thread again.
placement of speakers have been talked about alot.i would suggest re-reading through this thread again and you will find most of your questions have already been discussed and answered here 
as far as when you turn on the pj that is in Hdmi sub out of the amp is opening the tv that is in the main Hdmi out. can't help you there may be a question for onkyo tech support.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> For a two-seater start with 5.1.2 and add 2 surrounds and 2 overheads for every additional pair of listeners. So a small room with 4 seats: 7.1.4, and a big room with 8 seats: 11.1.8. For this big room you probably want to add front heights, wides, and top center bringing you to 16.1.8.
> (Edit 1: apart from using more than 1 sub in any of those situations)
> (Edit 2: above is referring to home theaters with 8-10' ceilings)
> 
> Just my 2 cts.


I would always start with 5.1.4 (and not 5.1.2) if the ceiling permits it, since 2 overheads is so... one-dimensional! 
That's the configuration I will settle for in this house.

For the big multimedia-multi-functional space (60 m2, front row 7-seater, back row 6 chairs) in the house build, I think it will be 9.4.6 in the end (starting with 7.2.4). 11.4.8 is physically possible, but I think the law of diminishing returns will apply. Presumably such a 24-channel processor will always be über-expensive. I guess the bridge from 7.1.4 to 9.1.6 is €3K (pre-pro+speakers+amps) while adding another 4 to 11.1.8 could require €6-7K (and not bringing that much in SQ)

Top center is Auro, not Atmos.


----------



## TweakerInWA

Quick question, 

If I'm currently running a DIY dolby module type setup (using two Paradigm S2's on top of my B & W's until I get my in-ceiling's complete) what should I have them set as in the AVR. Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle? I currently have them set as top middle, but due to their location, was thinking top front kinda makes more sense? 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## mastermaybe

tbaucom said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I have all but the CC pre-outted, but again, I don't think that matters, right?
> 
> I'm glad you added that last bit: yes I still only have my 11 speakers, and I'm trying to keep my perception out of things and just look at what's being displayed.
> 
> I guess I haven't put a ton of though into it, but if indeed I messed up the amp assign, why would all 11 work with NEO but not Dolby?
> 
> It very clearly does just that upon switching.
> 
> EDIT: And just an FYI: All eleven speakers are recognized and properly labeled as desired by the 7009.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am misunderstanding something but how are all 11 working with NEO:X if you are running front height and top middle? I thought NEO:X only worked front height and wide.
Click to expand...

Valid question and I thought the same: all I know is all 11 speakers are illuminated as "active" when I select it.

Ill be home in a couple hours and will know much more, lol.

Thanks
James


----------



## bargervais

TweakerInWA said:


> Quick question,
> 
> If I'm currently running a DIY dolby module type setup (using two Paradigm S2's on top of my B & W's until I get my in-ceiling's complete) what should I have them set as in the AVR. Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle? I currently have them set as top middle, but due to their location, was thinking top front kinda makes more sense?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


don't you have Dolby Enabled Speaker (Front) Dolby Enabled Speaker (Surround) as an option as well as the Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle.
i would think if you are using reflective speakers you wouldn't use Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle but you would choose Dolby Enabled Speaker, at least those are the choices on my onkyo 737


----------



## TweakerInWA

bargervais said:


> don't you have Dolby Enabled Speaker (Front) Dolby Enabled Speaker (Surround) as an option as well as the Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle.
> i would think if you are using reflective speakers you wouldn't use Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle but you would choose Dolby Enabled Speaker, at least those are the choices on my onkyo 737


Good question, I'll have to look when I get home. I'm sure my 838 is pretty much the same as the 737..

Sent from my SM-N900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


----------



## NorthSky

Bumper said:


> Yesterday I watched *"Alien Abduction"*. Yes I know...
> But 29 minutes into the movie (2014) a young boy is using his video cam to film from within the SUV he is sitting in how hundreds of large birds fall out of the sky and onto the SUV's roof. These birds actually came falling down my TM's and made me duck by reflex
> Not a true Atmos movie obviously but something that stuck out on DSU which I had not heard before in many other movies I have seen since I got the 5200.


♦ Would you recommend this flick? 



dschulz said:


> Has this been confirmed definitively by someone at D+M or one of their dealers who has seen a timeline? I hope it has been - I think competition is healthy and I would love to see both Atmos and Auro widely available to consumers (and DTS-UHD when the time comes) - but I've not seen definitive confirmation on Auro upgradability for these specific products, just informed speculation. Did I miss a post?


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Bumper

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Would you recommend this flick?
> 
> 
> IMDB sets it @ 4.8 so not really but it hits my genre so I watched it anyways and thought it was ok. The birds hitting the car from above are really something special. Beyond rain hitting a tree I would say. Download it, goto 29 mins and be impressed. Do it again and again and delete the movie or keep it for a nice demo.. So the scene in the car I would definately recommend!


----------



## BornSlippyZ

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Would you recommend this flick?



For the month of October, why not! But I am biased towards Horror movies this time of year.


----------



## bargervais

TweakerInWA said:


> Good question, I'll have to look when I get home. I'm sure my 838 is pretty much the same as the 737..
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2


hope that helped


----------



## batpig

TweakerInWA said:


> Quick question,
> 
> If I'm currently running a DIY dolby module type setup (using two Paradigm S2's on top of my B & W's until I get my in-ceiling's complete) what should I have them set as in the AVR. Front Heights, Top Front, Top Middle? I currently have them set as top middle, but due to their location, was thinking top front kinda makes more sense?


As bargervais correctly informed you, there is a specific setting in the processor for "Dolby enabled" speakers that reflect off the ceiling. You need to use this setting (not just designating them as physical ceiling speakers) because it invokes additional processing necessary to enhance the "virtual" height effects.


----------



## Kini62

What is the angle of the speaker/driver in the atmos modules speakers like the Def Tech, Onkyo etc...? 

I have some NHT SuperZeros that I could use to set on top my towers. If I could get the angle the same would they work like the a fore mentioned atmos speakers? 

Thanks.


----------



## Kini62

What is the angle of the speaker/driver in the atmos modules speakers like the Def Tech, Onkyo etc...? 

I have some NHT SuperZeros that I could use to set on top my towers. If I could get the angle the same would they work like the a fore mentioned atmos speakers? 

Thanks.


----------



## tbaucom

mastermaybe said:


> Valid question and I thought the same: all I know is all 11 speakers are illuminated as "active" when I select it.
> 
> Ill be home in a couple hours and will know much more, lol.
> 
> Thanks
> James


Please let me know what you find out. If I can get NEO:X to work with all 11 speakers playing in a 9.1.2 configuration with the .2 assigned as top middle, I will be ecstatic! Maybe it just duplicates the signal to all height speakers like it does the surrounds to surround backs when when playing a DTSHD 5.1 track.


----------



## mastermaybe

tbaucom said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valid question and I thought the same: all I know is all 11 speakers are illuminated as "active" when I select it.
> 
> Ill be home in a couple hours and will know much more, lol.
> 
> Thanks
> James
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know what you find out. If I can get NEO:X to work with all 11 speakers playing in a 9.1.2 configuration with the .2 assigned as top middle, I will be ecstatic! Maybe it just duplicates the signal to all height speakers like it does the surrounds to surround backs when when playing a DTSHD 5.1 track.
Click to expand...

Will do. Ok, so this indicates the HEIGHTS are NOT active, correct?

I just check amp assign: I'm set up for 11 channel, 4 heights.

???

James


----------



## tbaucom

mastermaybe said:


> Will do. Ok, so this indicates the HEIGHTS are NOT active, correct?
> 
> I just check amp assign: I'm set up for 11 channel, 4 heights.
> 
> ???
> 
> James


I'm not familiar with your AVR. I currently have a Denon 4520. I do see in the diagram to the left of your image a speaker labeled FWR. Are you sure it doesn't think your front heights are wides? That would explain all 11 working in Neo:x and no front heights in dolby surround.


----------



## vagos1103gr1

bargervais said:


> go to onkyo.com download the manual.
> Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for maximizing effects in
> Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround listening mode. Install
> Top Front speakers midway between the position just
> above the listening position and the position just above the
> front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers just above the
> listening position. You can select ab or cd on the unit.
> For connection with the unit, use the SPEAKERS BACK or
> HEIGHT terminals.
> you can see placement of speakers if you read through this thread again.
> placement of speakers have been talked about alot.i would suggest re-reading through this thread again and you will find most of your questions have already been discussed and answered here
> as far as when you turn on the pj that is in Hdmi sub out of the amp is opening the tv that is in the main Hdmi out. can't help you there may be a question for onkyo tech support.


Thanks a lot, what you mean you can select ab or cd on the unit?


----------



## mastermaybe

tbaucom said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will do. Ok, so this indicates the HEIGHTS are NOT active, correct?
> 
> I just check amp assign: I'm set up for 11 channel, 4 heights.
> 
> ???
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with your AVR. I currently have a Denon 4520. I do see in the diagram to the left of your image a speaker labeled FWR. Are you sure it doesn't think your front heights are wides? That would explain all 11 working in Neo:x and no front heights in dolby surround.
Click to expand...

I could have been wrong on that-- see pic. There are now wides.

Still, when I run audyssey it chirps and labels all speakers appropriately.

Question:

As I have and as BP said earlier:

I run 11.1 and choose FRONT HEIGHT AND TOP MIDDLE

or

ATMOS with 4 HEIGHTS? No way.


I haven't been lost in AV in awhile but I'm afraid I am.

Heights workf for NEO. Heights don't engage with DOLBY SURROUND.

James


----------



## mastermaybe

See pic here: clearly I have top middles and front heights here with no wides, correct?

Thanks
James


----------



## tbaucom

mastermaybe said:


> See pic here: clearly I have top middles and front heights here with no wides, correct?
> 
> Thanks
> James



It certainly looks that way. Maybe someone more familiar with your AVR will chime in. I am definitely intrigued. Being able to run a 9.1.2 atmos config with wides and top middle and upmixing to all 11 channels is exactly what I want. If NEO:X can do it on current models I will jump in.


----------



## batpig

James - can you please show us your Amp Assign screen (with all the sub settings for Height Speakers, Pre-out, etc)?

Keith just posted about a similar issue with a friend who couldn't get 11ch output with Atmos/DSU, and I think I've figured it out. The "Pre-out" setting is the likely culprit. Even though you are using almost all external amps, the Denon needs to "think" that only 9 speakers could potentially be connected to internal amps. On the picture with the room and the speakers laid out in speaker config it needs to show "PRE" as the label next to at least two of the active speakers.

(honestly we probalby should be in the 4100/5200 owner's thread anyway, it's a Denon specific thing not an Atmos thing).


----------



## mastermaybe

You're right- it's a bit OT- I keep bouncing between the threads in my phone and forget where I am, my apologies- I have the sister 7009 btw.

This is the correct amp assign mode, correct?

Now, when I audyssey in this mode it wants to chirp wides but of course I don't have any of them. It then drops them the rest of the calibration and end up showing "none". 

I truly, truly, have no f'n clue where I'm going wrong here. I will say that going through audyssey and having all the correct speakers "chirped" and then the speaker layout showing precisely what I to be correct only adds to the madness when the heights don't show up on playback.

I keep thinking I have something wrong somewhere as far as this thing thinking I can only run 9 speakers: hence the no HEIGHTS on Dolby and the ability to run DSX with HEIGHTS just fine.

this is awful.

James


----------



## mastermaybe

Until someone confirms HEIGHTS work with Dolby Surround when paired with TOP MIDDLES, I am through, I believe. 

Just for poops I'm tempted to run this as front and rear tops just to see what happens when heights are dropped.

I did this: both the front and rears output. All 11. 

So then: can I really run heights with Dolby Surround when HEIGHTS AND TOP MIDDLE are selected?

I am not trying to be difficult and I REALLY hope to be wrong, but I don't know what other conclusion to arrive at, now.

Thanks!

James


----------



## batpig

mastermaybe said:


> You're right- it's a bit OT- I keep bouncing between the threads in my phone and forget where I am, my apologies- I have the sister 7009 btw.
> 
> This is the correct amp assign mode, correct?
> 
> Now, when I audyssey in this mode it wants to chirp wides but of course I don't have any of them. It then drops them the rest of the calibration and end up showing "none".
> 
> I truly, truly, have no f'n clue where I'm going wrong here. I will say that going through audyssey and having all the correct speakers "chirped" and then the speaker layout showing precisely what I to be correct only adds to the madness when the heights don't show up on playback.
> 
> I keep thinking I have something wrong somewhere as far as this thing thinking I can only run 9 speakers: hence the no HEIGHTS on Dolby and the ability to run DSX with HEIGHTS just fine.
> 
> this is awful.
> 
> James


James - I was right, it's the exact same issue as with Keith's friend. It's the "Pre-out" setting. The fact that it's set on "Front Wide" implies that all 11 of the channels active could POSSIBLY be run with internal amps, and as such the Denon (with only 9 amps) limits you to 9ch simultaneous output.

Change the Pre-out setting to Front+FrontWide and I'm pretty sure you are golden. You will probably have to re-run Audyssey though.

You can definitely run FH+TM with DSU/Atmos, Keith (and others) have already done it.


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> James - I was right, it's the exact same issue as with Keith's friend. It's the "Pre-out" setting. The fact that it's set on "Front Wide" implies that all 11 of the channels active could POSSIBLY be run with internal amps, and as such the Denon (with only 9 amps) limits you to 9ch simultaneous output.
> 
> Change the Pre-out setting to Front+FrontWide and I'm pretty sure you are golden. You will probably have to re-run Audyssey though.
> 
> You can definitely run FH+TM with DSU/Atmos, Keith (and others) have already done it.



This is probably very much correct. However,I don't understand how all 11 channels could have been active with NEO:X since the Denon is limiting to 9 channels output when set up this way.


----------



## batpig

tbaucom said:


> This is probably very much correct. However,I don't understand how all 11 channels could have been active with NEO:X since the Denon is limiting to 9 channels output when set up this way.


Well, that's the next mystery to solve  first I want to get James rocking with 11ch Atmos!


----------



## bargervais

tbaucom said:


> This is probably very much correct. However,I don't understand how all 11 channels could have been active with NEO:X since the Denon is limiting to 9 channels output when set up this way.


It's possible when you use an external amp for the additional two channels.


----------



## tbaucom

bargervais said:


> It's possible when you use an external amp for the additional two channels.



Not the way batpig explained it with the way he had his preout setup with his speaker assignments. 


I still want to know if NEO:X will in fact upmix to more than just the front height overhead channels. can someone please try it?


----------



## NorthSky

*'Alien Abduction'*



Bumper said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Would you recommend this flick?
> 
> IMDB sets it @ 4.8 so not really but it hits my genre so I watched it anyways and thought it was ok. The birds hitting the car from above are really something special. Beyond rain hitting a tree I would say. Download it, goto 29 mins and be impressed. Do it again and again and delete the movie or keep it for a nice demo.. So the scene in the car I would definately recommend!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BornSlippyZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the month of October, why not! But I am biased towards Horror movies this time of year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks; sounds like a good plan (October fest Alienation - Halloween).
> 
> * I always wished to be abducted.  ...From above.
Click to expand...


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right- it's a bit OT- I keep bouncing between the threads in my phone and forget where I am, my apologies- I have the sister 7009 btw.
> 
> This is the correct amp assign mode, correct?
> 
> Now, when I audyssey in this mode it wants to chirp wides but of course I don't have any of them. It then drops them the rest of the calibration and end up showing "none".
> 
> I truly, truly, have no f'n clue where I'm going wrong here. I will say that going through audyssey and having all the correct speakers "chirped" and then the speaker layout showing precisely what I to be correct only adds to the madness when the heights don't show up on playback.
> 
> I keep thinking I have something wrong somewhere as far as this thing thinking I can only run 9 speakers: hence the no HEIGHTS on Dolby and the ability to run DSX with HEIGHTS just fine.
> 
> this is awful.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> James - I was right, it's the exact same issue as with Keith's friend. It's the "Pre-out" setting. The fact that it's set on "Front Wide" implies that all 11 of the channels active could POSSIBLY be run with internal amps, and as such the Denon (with only 9 amps) limits you to 9ch simultaneous output.
> 
> Change the Pre-out setting to Front+FrontWide and I'm pretty sure you are golden. You will probably have to re-run Audyssey though.
> 
> You can definitely run FH+TM with DSU/Atmos, Keith (and others) have already done it.
Click to expand...

Lmfao. Dead nuts. The hilarity comes in when you consider that I did this VERY thing yesterday out of lack of any other ideas--but I never finished as my I got busy with my daughter and it reverted back.

It's a shame- this could REALLY send someone into delirium.

Watching the Tiger/Oriole game right now- never heard this kind of crowd ambiance before!

Thanks all. Hope somone else can avoid this plight.

James


----------



## batpig

SWEET  

Don't feel bad, you aren't the first to have been tripped up by this! The new amp assign menus are a dizzying array of new options.

Now we just have to figure out how you were running Neo:X with 11 channels? Did it think the top rears were the wides??


----------



## ambesolman

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - Since you decided to take this out into the forum, as I explained in my reply to your PM regarding my "like" - by the way I'll just stop using that damn function if it causes this type of crap (sorry but at my old age I call at as I see it) - I apologize for the like if it offended you and for not keeping up with the rapid number of posts in this thread made by a lot of different members of our community and the content of each and their intent - written or implied, negative or positive towards other forum members. I thought the member was just razzing you in good fun - that still happens around here once in a while - right? Obviously I am not the only member (troll, good person or bad person) who thought you were talking about the Denon and given your level of participation on this thread and others on AVS thought you would know about D&M's upgrade.
> 
> Anyway, my "like" has been removed since harmony is something I "like" (see old age comment). Now let's get back to Atmos and continue what's become a helpful and informative thread here on the AVS. Thanks. Steve



North Sky,

Since you brought it out here...

As steve said below, I was just "razzing" you in good fun. You're too sensitive and seem to think the world will implode if a negative/razzing comment is made on this forum. This is AVS, disagreements happen all the time yet no one else is mimicking your behavior. You may not appreciate my sense of humor, that's fine, but I've already told you before that I'm a bit of a smartass. But sending me three PMs asking me to remove my posts and threatening to go to the mods if I don't is ridiculous. This ain't preschool, but even at our ages nobody likes a tattle tale. Grow up, get some thicker skin and pop a Valium or something


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

Alright then, all in good fun; gotcha.


----------



## dan webster

When i use DSU with my Marantz 7009 it will only process a maximum of 9 channels. Is this the limit for dsu or am i doing something wrong in the amp assign menu? I have a 8.2.4 setup with only 1 surround back speaker.


----------



## mastermaybe

batpig said:


> SWEET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feel bad, you aren't the first to have been tripped up by this! The new amp assign menus are a dizzying array of new options.
> 
> Now we just have to figure out how you were running Neo:X with 11 channels? Did it think the top rears were the wides??


I was probably wrong, here. I WAS though getting the HEIGHTS with NEO and not DOLBY S.

Again, for the reason we are now aware of.

James


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Perhaps he meant if you have only Atmos decoding.


IF you can't decode UHD and Auro, then how can you apply an upmixer to UHD and Auro?


----------



## mastermaybe

dan webster said:


> When i use DSU with my Marantz 7009 it will only process a maximum of 9 channels. Is this the limit for dsu or am i doing something wrong in the amp assign menu? I have a 8.2.4 setup with only 1 surround back speaker.


8.2.4?

What is the config, precisely? I'm assuming: L C R RW LW LS RS CRS AND THE 4 heights?

Check my issue and yes, make sure you're sorted in the amp assign area.

What two channels are you "missing" out of your ten? Make sure they're properly accounted for in the amp assign setting.

James


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> IF you can't decode UHD and Auro, then how can you apply an upmixer to UHD and Auro?


I was thinking w/o the decoder it would default to 5.1 or 7.1, or does that automatically mean it's Dolby and not UHD/Auro?


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I was thinking w/o the decoder it would default to 5.1 or 7.1, or does that automatically mean it's Dolby and not UHD/Auro?


It means it is a 5.1 or 7.1 downmix, not UHD or Auro. But he was asking about combining object-based rendering with upmixing, which makes no sense.


----------



## dan webster

mastermaybe said:


> 8.2.4?
> 
> What is the config, precisely? I'm assuming: L C R RW LW LS RS CRS AND THE 4 heights?
> 
> Check my issue and yes, make sure you're sorted in the amp assign area.
> 
> What two channels are you "missing" out of your ten? Make sure they're properly accounted for in the amp assign setting.
> 
> James


My exact configuration is LRC RFW LFW RS LS SB(1) plus 4 ceiling speakers and 2 subs. 8.2.4 Setting up the amp assign menu with my 7 channel amp was a pain in the butt. Lots of trial and error. I use 5 of the internal amps, 4 for ceiling and 1 for rear surround.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> It means it is a 5.1 or 7.1 downmix, not UHD or Auro.


OK; but might not a DSU'd downmixed UHD or Auro soundtrack track sound better than regular 5.1/7.1?


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> OK; but might not a DSU'd downmixed UHD or Auro soundtrack track sound better than regular 5.1/7.1?


I don't see what that has to do with UHD or Auro. Good surround processing (upmixing) can be beneficial to any channel based soundtrack, irrespective of number of channels. Again, what does Auro or UHD have to do with it?


----------



## noah katz

They both have encoded height information, which though noy decoded as intended, may still give a better upmixed result.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> They both have encoded height information, which though noy decoded as intended, may still give a better upmixed result.


Personally, I think I'll definitely wait for product that includes all three natively decoded formats. There are too many unknown variables at this early stage of the "immersive audio" game.

It's far too likely that some studios will release in Atmos, some in Auro, and some in whatever format DTS has in store for us. Confusing as hell for the lay person, but who said studios worked smart?


----------



## Kressilac

*9.2.4 viable yet with a single AVR?*

Last I checked on this a few months ago, 7.2.4 or 7.1.4 was about the best a single AVR would do for Atmos in the home. IS this still the case. I'm about ready to plunk down the coin for in-wall speaker mounts and then the speakers themselves. I'd like to go 9.1.4 or 9.2.4 but would like to be sure that I can buy an AVR in the $1K range that will support the number of speakers.


Thoughts appreciated.


----------



## jacovn

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Add to this that local cable provider Telenet (which already has the best broadband performance) recently announced that they will be investing €500,000,000 in "Gigabit" internet in the next five years, making Belgium the first country as a whole to have this super fast internet. They claim a 4K movie could be downloaded in seconds (!)
> 
> press (dutch):
> http://corporate.telenet.be/nl/nieu...de-uitbouw-van-een-giga-netwerk-voor-iedereen


Very nice, but do the get rid of the xx GB/month cap as well ?
I 'only' have 536 mbps down currently and downloading a TB is not too much work anymore. This is in NL, so no caps.


----------



## zeus33

Kressilac said:


> I'd like to go 9.1.4 or 9.2.4 but would like to be sure that I can buy an AVR in the $1K range that will support the number of speakers.



It will cost you more than double that.


----------



## NorthSky

Kressilac said:


> Last I checked on this a few months ago, 7.2.4 or 7.1.4 was about the best a single AVR would do for Atmos in the home. IS this still the case. I'm about ready to plunk down the coin for in-wall speaker mounts and then the speakers themselves. I'd like to go 9.1.4 or 9.2.4 but would like to be sure that I can buy an AVR in the $1K range that will support the number of speakers.
> 
> Thoughts appreciated.


No can do. ... 7.1.4 is the best right now for below two grands. 
...And for one grand; I'm not too sure but I think 5.1.4 is.


----------



## Kressilac

Fair enough. I can go $2K on the AVR. I'll drop the speaker build out to 7.2.4 or 7.1.4. Saves me money anyway but it would be nice...


----------



## NorthSky

zeus33 said:


> It will cost you more than double that.


Nothing can do 9.1.4 right now, not even for four grands.


----------



## NorthSky

Kressilac said:


> Fair enough. I can go $2K on the AVR. I'll drop the speaker build out to 7.2.4 or 7.1.4. Saves me money anyway but it would be nice...


 Many folks here would love 9.1.6 and even 11.1.6 for roughly three grands or so, but helas, not today.

♦ Twelve channels is the max; eleven satellites plus the LFE channel. ...For the type of $$ we talk 'bout.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> They both have encoded height information, which though noy decoded as intended, may still give a better upmixed result.


That information is not "encoded", let alone using the inverse of any current upmixer, so applying those upmixers won't send "encoded height information" to the overhead speakers. It's wishful thinking to believe that the upmixer somehow knows which 7.1 tracks were originally mixed in Atmos and which ones weren't.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Yamaha 3D soundfields add reverb and early reflections that weren't in the soundtrack in order to simulate a larger room. You want to layer that on an object-based soundtrack that is already using all the available speakers? That's the part I don't understand about your idea: with object-based soundtracks already using all available speakers, what do you want to upmix to?


If I could layer the Sony cinema DSP effect on top of an Atmos presentation, I'd enjoy that option. It worked really well on a 5.1 system, so it might work even better with 7.1.4. Not sure how the Yamaha effects sound, but the same principle ought to apply.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zeus33 said:


> It will cost you more than double that.


9.1.4 in regular equipment is coming, but probably not until the next 2nd gen wave of product in 2015. The OP better hold off.

Otherwise, he'll be spending as much as a new car.


----------



## batpig

I find it amusing that forever the reference standard for ht was a kick ass 7.1 setup, and now a lot of people are in a tizzy that they can only supplement this with 4 overheads. In a few shorts years we've reached indignation that we can't affordably do 13 or 15 channels. Most people can't be bothered to budge beyond 5.1. 

Pretty sure, unless you have mega bucks and a mega room, you can still enjoy the heck out of a kick ass 7.1.4 for quite some time while the dust settles.


----------



## batpig

Just got back from seeing Maze Runner in my local Atmos theater. It's an Arclight Cinema and the sound system is about as good (if not the best) I've ever heard in a commercial movie theater. None of that grating, borderline painful ow-the-horns-are-too-loud and thud thud thud bass crud I often get in commercial theaters that makes me wish I was at home. Smooth, powerful detailed sound and a gorgeous wide curved screen. And the bass system is spectacular, rich and powerful without nasty boomy distortion. 

Anyway, this is the second actual Atmos flick I've seen, the first being Guardians. While Guardians was definitely a better movie, Maze Runner just crushed it as a demonstration of Atmos sound. The soundtrack was just insane, the bass effects were thunderous and the soundtrack was all over the "dome of sound" without being confusingly busy. One of the most impressive things -- especially in light of my earlier questions about here newfangled "full range surrounds" -- was that there were a few moments where I could literally feel a powerful wave of bass circle around the theater. Not just slamming all around me at once, but like a subsonic wave tracking in a 360 degree pan around me. I've never ever heard that in a movie theater before. Sure I've heard big bad booms but never such powerful subsonic waves that also had clear directional cues. Rock on, full range surrounds and you newly empowered film mixers! 

There were more than a few moments where I thought to myself, sequentially, this scene will be an insane Atmos demo, and man is it going to shame/expose my meager subwoofer setup. Those of you with 7.1.4 and slamming monster multiple subwoofer setups should be salivating over the release of this movie in Atmos on BD.


----------



## Wilber

Right now, most amp max support only 7.1.4, the layout doesn't utilize front height but I'm building compatible auro 3d and it utilizes front height. 

So I just leave the front height as it is until there're amps that can support more channels?

I mean mainstream amps, not high-end processor like datasats.


----------



## pletwals

mastermaybe said:


> Until someone confirms HEIGHTS work with Dolby Surround when paired with TOP MIDDLES, I am through, I believe.


Hereby officialy confirmed.


----------



## Selden Ball

Wilber said:


> Right now, most amp max support only 7.1.4, the layout doesn't utilize front height but I'm building compatible auro 3d and it utilizes front height.
> 
> So I just leave the front height as it is until there're amps that can support more channels?
> 
> I mean mainstream amps, not high-end processor like datasats.


Current Atmos-capable AVRs costing less than $2K do support Front Height, if they're what you have. They support as many as two pairs of overhead speakers from the five pairs named (from front to back) Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. They just can't be adjacent pairs (e.g. Front Height and Top Front are not an allowed combination.)

People like to argue over whether Atmos and Auro speaker positions are compatible, but I doubt very much that slight variations from their official positions will make an audible difference.

The current top-of-the-line D+M AVRs support connecting up to 9.1.4, but they can't all be active simultaneously.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for being so effusive with your feedback.
> 
> You've been very emphatic about the immersive "height effects" of Atmos/DSU playback in your HT and I've been wondering--just to put your impressions into context--had you been previously using any height speakers in this space? In other words, are you comparing your current experience to listener-level-only surround sound or to a similar conventional set-up (e.g., 5.1 + HT)?


That’s a good question and I should have remembered to make it clear:

I have used Front height speakers with PLIIz for as long as I can remember. The experience with DSU and 5.14 is vastly better.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Just ordered four tannoy di8 dc for my top speakers. Thanks for the Advice Keith!
> 
> Will be getting the emotiva amps soon. Hope to get the receiver early next year.
> 
> By then, I hope we will know what second generation will be capable of. I would really like to do 9.1.4, but if second gen can't do that, then I will get the denon.
> 
> I want to use my wides.


Sounds like it's coming together for you. If there is no 2nd gen news by the time you are ready, TBH I'd just pull the trigger. The 1st generation is so darn good it would be a pity to miss out on it waiting for the 2nd gen, which even when it comes might only offer more features, but no more audible benefits.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Hmm, not sure. It was my understanding that the heights would be used. Since Keith is using front heights in his system, hopefully he will chime in on whether DSU used them or not, but I suspect it did for him since he did not say otherwise. He has done a lot of testing and messing around with it, including shutting off all speakers except his overheads (which I presume included his front heights).


Yes, DSU upmixes to all my speakers, including all the top speakers. The only speakers DSU does not upmix to are Wides, which (currently) I am not running. If I run a 2.0 source, all of my 9 speakers light up - it is very impressive.


----------



## kbarnes701

mastermaybe said:


> I hope I have done something worn but reading just as you have, the note of "in between the LCR" make me think they do not.
> 
> Still though, seeing they produced TWO technologies- PLIIZ (an another up-mixing tech, no less) and ATMOS- that use them all, HEIGHTS included- one would think they could still employ a pair of HEIGHTS for the better, right?
> 
> James


James - what is important is that you meet the specified angles for the overhead speakers (see the oft posted diagram). For the front overhead pair there is a substantial overlap in permitted angles - Top Front - 30-55° and Front Height 30-45°. My own front overhead pair are at ~42° so they could be designated as either if used in conjunction with Top Rear. In your case, you may well find the same. If so, you could try using FH+TR or TF+TR and just see which you thought gave the best result for you, in your room. I cannot accommodate TR due to the room, so I am using FH+TM and I am delighted with the result.


----------



## kbarnes701

jrogers said:


> If I remember correctly, you're running 5.1.4 in a relatively small room configured as Front Height & Top Middle, and had all the speakers in place before your 5200 finally arrived, so I'm guessing the answer is no; but was wondering if you happened to do any listening at std atmos 5.1.2 config before moving to 5.1.4? Not sure if changing that config would require re-calibration or not - so won't ask you to try it just on my account ;-)


You guessed right. And because I have positioned my TM with the knowledge that there is a front overhead pair, they are not in a great position to use just as TM on their own, so it wouldn't be useful to test it. If I was only having one pair of overheads (TM) I would have positioned them much further forward than they are currently.



jrogers said:


> I've been very much enjoying the DSU with 5.1.2 in my small theater - but given the improvement over 5.1/7.1 of 5.1.2 with DSU, am getting tempted now to buy an amp, run some more wire and cut a couple more holes for front heights - and was curious if you (or anyone) had done a comparison between the two. It seems Dolby might make good use of those front heights given their history with IIz.


I think that 5.1.2 will work well, but 5.1.4 will work better. If you can arrange 4 speakers and meet the prescribed angles, I'd say it will be worthwhile.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> Seriously? So apparently I have a magic bubble around my projector so that the subwoofer sound waves can't affect it.
> 
> If I try, I can throw the projector out of alignment from the subs. I'm pretty sure that there are more vibrations induced from my subs at normal volume, then a bookshelf speaker at reference. If you can get your projector cable to undo on it's own from the vibrations; I'll eat my hat. :kiss:
> 
> For the record; years ago, I used to have my two back surrounds sitting on the same shelf as my pj with no ill effects.


Yes, all fair comments. I was pointing out that the OP was using speakers on the same shelf as the PJ. I agree it is unlikely to move the PJ physically, but it is a possibility and the surest way to avoid the possibility is not to do it. I can well believe that with 8 subs running you can move more than just the PJ!


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> Sounds like it's coming together for you. If there is no 2nd gen news by the time you are ready, TBH I'd just pull the trigger. The 1st generation is so darn good it would be a pity to miss out on it waiting for the 2nd gen, which even when it comes might only offer more features, but no more audible benefits.


I agree. I don't know if I can hold off if there is no news by early next year. Just need to know if 2 nd gen will do 9.1.4

I don't need anything else other than audyssey.


----------



## kbarnes701

zeus33 said:


> IIRC, previously he had front heights and he used DTS Neo X.


Correct. I used PLIIz mostly, but did use Neo:X as well. IMO DSU clearly beats them both.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> James - can you please show us your Amp Assign screen (with all the sub settings for Height Speakers, Pre-out, etc)?
> 
> Keith just posted about a similar issue with a friend who couldn't get 11ch output with Atmos/DSU, and I think I've figured it out. The "Pre-out" setting is the likely culprit. Even though you are using almost all external amps, the Denon needs to "think" that only 9 speakers could potentially be connected to internal amps. On the picture with the room and the speakers laid out in speaker config it needs to show "PRE" as the label next to at least two of the active speakers.
> 
> (honestly we probalby should be in the 4100/5200 owner's thread anyway, it's a Denon specific thing not an Atmos thing).


My buddy is doing work things today, so he hasn't gotten back to me yet. I will let the thread know the moment I hear. I am sure you are right - thinking it through it makes sense anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just got back from seeing Maze Runner in my local Atmos theater. It's an Arclight Cinema and the sound system is about as good (if not the best) I've ever heard in a commercial movie theater. None of that grating, borderline painful ow-the-horns-are-too-loud and thud thud thud bass crud I often get in commercial theaters that makes me wish I was at home. Smooth, powerful detailed sound and a gorgeous wide curved screen. And the bass system is spectacular, rich and powerful without nasty boomy distortion.
> 
> Anyway, this is the second actual Atmos flick I've seen, the first being Guardians. While Guardians was definitely a better movie, Maze Runner just crushed it as a demonstration of Atmos sound. The soundtrack was just insane, the bass effects were thunderous and the soundtrack was all over the "dome of sound" without being confusingly busy. One of the most impressive things -- especially in light of my earlier questions about here newfangled "full range surrounds" -- was that there were a few moments where I could literally feel a powerful wave of bass circle around the theater. Not just slamming all around me at once, but like a subsonic wave tracking in a 360 degree pan around me. I've never ever heard that in a movie theater before. Sure I've heard big bad booms but never such powerful subsonic waves that also had clear directional cues. Rock on, full range surrounds and you newly empowered film mixers!
> 
> There were more than a few moments where I thought to myself, sequentially, this scene will be an insane Atmos demo, and man is it going to shame/expose my meager subwoofer setup. Those of you with 7.1.4 and slamming monster multiple subwoofer setups should be salivating over the release of this movie in Atmos on BD.


Thanks bp. Added to my list!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> That’s a good question and I should have remembered to make it clear:
> 
> I have used Front height speakers with PLIIz for as long as I can remember. The experience with DSU and 5.14 is vastly better.


That you are so fulsomely impressed with DSU when your point of reference is PLIIz/Neo:X 7.1 lends even more weight to your comments.

I realize that much of this commentary is subjective, but I will be using your evaluation as a benchmark for my DSU/Atmos listening to determine whether I have my system properly set up to maximize the impact. Thanks, Keith.


----------



## mtbdudex

Dan Hitchman said:


> 9.1.4 in regular equipment is coming, but probably not until the next 2nd gen wave of product in 2015. The OP better hold off.
> 
> Otherwise, he'll be spending as much as a new car.



Thx for the heads up Dan.
I look fwd to seeing the early adopters of 9.x.4 and their impressions in 2015.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> Just got back from seeing Maze Runner in my local Atmos theater...Those of you with 7.1.4 and slamming monster multiple subwoofer setups should be salivating over the release of this movie in Atmos on BD.


and hopefully, it will be in Atmos on BD!  we've missed a number of good potential ones already.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks bp. Added to my list!


Might be playing at the Atmos theatre near you. Have you been back to that theatre since seeing Planet of the Apes?


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> If I could layer the Sony cinema DSP effect on top of an Atmos presentation, I'd enjoy that option. It worked really well on a 5.1 system, so it might work even better with 7.1.4. Not sure how the Yamaha effects sound, but the same principle ought to apply.


That's not really upmixing as much as processing the sound for room simulation. In any case, that's just not my bag, baby.


----------



## Wilber

Selden Ball said:


> Current Atmos-capable AVRs costing less than $2K do support Front Height, if they're what you have. They support as many as two pairs of overhead speakers from the five pairs named (from front to back) Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. They just can't be adjacent pairs (e.g. Front Height and Top Front are not an allowed combination.)
> 
> People like to argue over whether Atmos and Auro speaker positions are compatible, but I doubt very much that slight variations from their official positions will make an audible difference.
> 
> The current top-of-the-line D+M AVRs support connecting up to 9.1.4, but they can't all be active simultaneously.


thus, waiting for gen 2 receiver/processor. hopefully can solve my issue, running front height with top as i don't have space to fit wides. i've 9.2.4 + VOG . waiting for gen 2 to fully utilize all.

possible?


----------



## jamin

sdurani said:


> That's not really upmixing as much as processing the sound for room simulation. In any case, that's just not my bag, baby.


Hah-just had a James Brown flashback!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Has anyone built an Atmos system yet using active speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Might be playing at the Atmos theatre near you. Have you been back to that theatre since seeing Planet of the Apes?


Not yet - but just checked - The Maze Runner is on next week. About to book ticket.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That you are so fulsomely impressed with DSU when your point of reference is PLIIz/Neo:X 7.1 lends even more weight to your comments.
> 
> I realize that much of this commentary is subjective, but I will be using your evaluation as a benchmark for my DSU/Atmos listening to determine whether I have my system properly set up to maximize the impact. Thanks, Keith.


In that case, Chi, I hope it lives up to your expectations! It has certainly exceeded mine. I knew what to expect from Atmos, but DSU was a step into the unknown.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> and hopefully, it will be in Atmos on BD!  we've missed a number of good potential ones already.


Bound to be. I will show my ass in Trafalgar Square if it isn't!


----------



## Bigham16

Okay, I thought with the original position of my ceiling speakers, vertical/flat with about a 2.5" tilt up, it sounded good but I felt it was lacking somewhere. I had mentioned before, I was getting a lot of action in the back of the room (Ha! that sounds funny). But I wasn't really getting the front overhead effect I was really wanting or thinking would be there. It was there but I thought it could be better. So I did some tinkering last night and re-angled the ceiling speakers as shown in the pictures.

EDIT: The on-ceiling speakers are not pointing straight down. They are slightly tilted into the listening area.

With my new angles I went straight for chapter 20 in TF4. What a HUGE difference in sound this made!!!  I now have that complete "dome" sound and it is very very impressive. The front and back ceiling speakers are completely even in sound. I didn't think it would have made this much difference but I am sure glad I tried.


----------



## Bigham16

Sorry, double post.


----------



## Bigham16

I just posted twice and it keeps disappearing??

EDIT: they are there now.


----------



## jrogers

Bigham16 said:


> Okay, I thought with the original position of my ceiling speakers, vertical/flat with about a 2.5" tilt up, it sounded good but I felt it was lacking somewhere. I had mentioned before, I was getting a lot of action in the back of the room (Ha! that sounds funny). But I wasn't really getting the front overhead effect I was really wanting or thinking would be there. It was there but I thought it could be better. So I did some tinkering last night and re-angled the ceiling speakers as shown in the pictures.
> 
> EDIT: The on-ceiling speakers are not pointing straight down. They are slightly tilted into the listening area.
> 
> With my new angles I went straight for chapter 20 in TF4. What a HUGE difference in sound this made!!!  I now have that complete "dome" sound and it is very very impressive. The front and back ceiling speakers are completely even in sound. I didn't think it would have made this much difference but I am sure glad I tried.


Thanks for the post - just wondering if those are GoldenEar speakers? If so, I have the same and have been wondering how best to position the overhead speakers given their HVFR tweeters have fairly narrow "vertical" dispersion and very wide "horizontal" dispersion. Your results make me think I may actually need to reposition and recalibrate.


----------



## Bigham16

Yes, they are the GoldenEar SuperSat 3's. I would have to agree 100% on the narrow vertical and very wide horizontal dispersion after moving them. The height sounds were there when they were vertical but after moving them in or more horizontal, it sounds a ton better.



jrogers said:


> Thanks for the post - just wondering if those are GoldenEar speakers? If so, I have the same and have been wondering how best to position the overhead speakers given their HVFR tweeters have fairly narrow "vertical" dispersion and very wide "horizontal" dispersion. Your results make me think I may actually need to reposition and recalibrate.


----------



## jrogers

Bigham16 said:


> Yes, they are the GoldenEar SuperSat 3's. I would have to agree 100% on the narrow vertical and very wide horizontal dispersion after moving them. The height sounds were there when they were vertical but after moving them in or more horizontal, it sounds a ton better.


Great - thanks. I think I'll re-aim mine along the lines of your photos and see what happens.


----------



## bass addict

Would Atmos still be beneficial for those of us with narrower rooms? 

I am currently running 9.3 (Surround, Rears, Heights) and have been thoroughly impressed with the immersion; even not being true 9.3. My surrounds I am currently using are Axiom QS8's which are a quadpolar design. These work very well, and put surround all around you. These also are beneficial as I'm running 2 rows of seating. 

My room is only 10 6 wide and I'm wondering if the overheads will work any better than the Axioms currently are and provide enough separation from the surrounds. My front speakers are about app. 8' apart (and can't go any narrower due to the subs), so they are a bit wider than Atmos specs. So if I keep the overheads inline with the mains there would only be about 1-1/2' separation between them. I know they are overhead; I just wasn't sure if there would be any complications this way. 

I'd also like to keep the Axioms as they are custom flush mounted in the wall area.I'm thinking based on their height and quadpolar design this might present a problem though? If I do replace them with a DR, I'm trying not to move the speakers any lower than I have to to keep as much walking space available as possible. So I might look at doing an angled design. My concern is with the rear seats though and if I'm going to kill the surround effects in the back row by going direct radiating. 

I'd also keep my front heights and just run a single pair of overhead speakers. I fortunately ran wiring for front wides when I finished the theater up a couple years ago, so I can tap into that and run a pair of heights without destroying too much lol. 

Thoughts?


----------



## 74Sooner

Bigham16 said:


> Okay, I thought with the original position of my ceiling speakers, vertical/flat with about a 2.5" tilt up, it sounded good but I felt it was lacking somewhere. I had mentioned before, I was getting a lot of action in the back of the room (Ha! that sounds funny). But I wasn't really getting the front overhead effect I was really wanting or thinking would be there. It was there but I thought it could be better. So I did some tinkering last night and re-angled the ceiling speakers as shown in the pictures.
> 
> EDIT: The on-ceiling speakers are not pointing straight down. They are slightly tilted into the listening area.
> 
> With my new angles I went straight for chapter 20 in TF4. What a HUGE difference in sound this made!!!  I now have that complete "dome" sound and it is very very impressive. The front and back ceiling speakers are completely even in sound. I didn't think it would have made this much difference but I am sure glad I tried.


Nice ceiling speaker mounts! What are you using?


----------



## ambesolman

jamin said:


> Hah-just had a James Brown flashback!



Why? Thought that was from Austin Powers?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> That's not really upmixing as much as processing the sound for room simulation. In any case, that's just not my bag, baby.


Scrounging the internet now for that book that you wrote with you on the cover. I think it was called: 'CinemaDSP: That sort of thing IS my bag, baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.


----------



## Bigham16

Thanks, they are great wall/ceiling mounts! I am using the Def Tech ProMount 80 but they do have a bigger mount, the ProMount 90. Both have ball joints which work great for my application. 



74Sooner said:


> Nice ceiling speaker mounts! What are you using?


----------



## jamin

ambesolman said:


> Why? Thought that was from Austin Powers?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Why? Uh, dunno why free association works the way it does, but I blew back past Austin Powers to "Papa's got a brand new bag".


----------



## bargervais

can i run my ceiling speakers this way my receiver is a TX-NR737 and will only do 5.2.2 i have the ceiling speakers in the top front position.
can I add two more speakers and place them in the top front and top middle postion running eithe in series/parallel 
i know if i hook the two top right speakers in series the two 8ohms speakers become 16ohms and the volume basically cuts in half???? if i hook them up parallel the two 8ohms speakers become 4ohms the volume should stay about the same and will it make the AVR run harde?
or would that be a waist of time


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Scrounging the internet now for that book that you wrote with you on the cover. I think it was called: 'CinemaDSP: That sort of thing IS my bag, baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Scrounging the internet now for that book that you wrote with you on the cover. I think it was called: 'CinemaDSP: That sort of thing IS my bag, baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.



Swedish-made Cinema Enlarger DSP: That Sort of Thing IS My Bag, Baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> That information is not "encoded"...


What is it then? Semantics notwithstanding, it's there.



sdurani said:


> ...applying those upmixers won't send "encoded height information" to the overhead speakers...


I didn't say it would, but as you know early indications are that it does a pretty good imitation.



sdurani said:


> It's wishful thinking to believe that the upmixer somehow knows which 7.1 tracks were originally mixed in Atmos and which ones weren't.


Not what I said.

The thought germinated with people saying how Atmos tracks exhibited height effects even when played back on a 5.1 or 7.1 system.

Therefore it seems possible that a similar effect may occur with Auro/UHD, and moreso when DSU'd.


----------



## Selden Ball

I watched both _Winter Soldier_ and the new _Godzilla_ last night. Both are DTS-HD MA,and I had DSU enabled. In both cases, the sounds of aircraft flying overhead distinctly came from overhead.


----------



## Selden Ball

noah katz said:


> Therefore it seems possible that a similar effect may occur with Auro/UHD, and moreso when DSU'd.


 Bear in mind that DSU only works if there are speakers which are not being used by the original soundtrack. Like Atmos, Auro and UHD will (or should) use all speakers, so there'll be nothing for DSU to do.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Scrounging the internet now for that book that you wrote with you on the cover. I think it was called: 'CinemaDSP: That sort of thing IS my bag, baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.


Link, please?


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> Would Atmos still be beneficial for those of us with narrower rooms?
> 
> I am currently running 9.3 (Surround, Rears, Heights) and have been thoroughly impressed with the immersion; even not being true 9.3. My surrounds I am currently using are Axiom QS8's which are a quadpolar design. These work very well, and put surround all around you. These also are beneficial as I'm running 2 rows of seating.
> 
> My room is only 10 6 wide and I'm wondering if the overheads will work any better than the Axioms currently are and provide enough separation from the surrounds. My front speakers are about app. 8' apart (and can't go any narrower due to the subs), so they are a bit wider than Atmos specs. So if I keep the overheads inline with the mains there would only be about 1-1/2' separation between them. I know they are overhead; I just wasn't sure if there would be any complications this way.
> 
> I'd also like to keep the Axioms as they are custom flush mounted in the wall area.I'm thinking based on their height and quadpolar design this might present a problem though? If I do replace them with a DR, I'm trying not to move the speakers any lower than I have to to keep as much walking space available as possible. So I might look at doing an angled design. My concern is with the rear seats though and if I'm going to kill the surround effects in the back row by going direct radiating.
> 
> I'd also keep my front heights and just run a single pair of overhead speakers. I fortunately ran wiring for front wides when I finished the theater up a couple years ago, so I can tap into that and run a pair of heights without destroying too much lol.
> 
> Thoughts?


My room is the same width as yours. I am running 5.1.4 and am totally delighted with the result. Just follow the angles in the oft posted diagram.


----------



## noah katz

Selden Ball said:


> Bear in mind that DSU only works if there are speakers which are not being used by the original soundtrack. Like Atmos, Auro and UHD will (or should) use all speakers, so there'll be nothing for DSU to do.


The discussion is about using DSU on Auro/UHD soundtracks in the absence of decoders for them, or at I thought it was.


----------



## Selden Ball

noah katz said:


> The discussion is about using DSU on Auro/UHD soundtracks in the absence of decoders for them, or at I thought it was.


In that case, the receiver will detect them as DTS-HD MA soundtracks, presumably 7.1. Auro and UHD metadata, channels and objects will be ignored. DSU will upmix from 7.1 to however many speakers you have, except for Front Wides.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> I watched both _Winter Soldier_ and the new _Godzilla_ last night. Both are DTS-HD MA,and I had DSU enabled. In both cases, the sounds of aircraft flying overhead distinctly came from overhead.


Same here, watched both in DSU very impressed. I'm seeing more immersion and with the over heads completing the bubble.


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> can i run my ceiling speakers this way my receiver is a TX-NR737 and will only do 5.2.2 i have the ceiling speakers in the top front position.
> can I add two more speakers and place them in the top front and top middle postion running eithe in series/parallel
> i know if i hook the two top right speakers in series the two 8ohms speakers become 16ohms and the volume basically cuts in half???? if i hook them up parallel the two 8ohms speakers become 4ohms the volume should stay about the same and will it make the AVR run harde?
> or would that be a waist of time


Ha! Mr. "I'm just going to get my feet wet with 5.1.2" is already pining for more speakers! 

In all seriousness though that sounds like a bad idea. You CAN do it, but it's not going to simulate a true 5.1.4 setup. It will put MORE sound above you because there are four speakers instead of two, but the renderer will still believe there are only two overhead speakers in the position you have told the receiver. So if you put another pair of overheads above you, but still tell the receiver you have two "top front" speakers, than info that is supposed to be in front and above you will now be duplicated directly above you as well.

I think you should just bite the bullet and get a 9ch capable receiver since it sounds like that's what you really want 

If you DO decide to do what you propose, I would space the speakers in front and behind you, and then designate them as "Top Middle" so that you are getting sounds that are supposed to be directly above you, split in "quadraphonic stereo" to the four speakers (so in theory they "average" to the right location). But don't expect it to be a substitute for "true" 5.1.4 Atmos.


----------



## mp5475

bass addict said:


> Would Atmos still be beneficial for those of us with narrower rooms?
> 
> I am currently running 9.3 (Surround, Rears, Heights) and have been thoroughly impressed with the immersion; even not being true 9.3. My surrounds I am currently using are Axiom QS8's which are a quadpolar design. These work very well, and put surround all around you. These also are beneficial as I'm running 2 rows of seating.
> 
> My room is only 10 6 wide and I'm wondering if the overheads will work any better than the Axioms currently are and provide enough separation from the surrounds. My front speakers are about app. 8' apart (and can't go any narrower due to the subs), so they are a bit wider than Atmos specs. So if I keep the overheads inline with the mains there would only be about 1-1/2' separation between them. I know they are overhead; I just wasn't sure if there would be any complications this way.
> 
> I'd also like to keep the Axioms as they are custom flush mounted in the wall area.I'm thinking based on their height and quadpolar design this might present a problem though? If I do replace them with a DR, I'm trying not to move the speakers any lower than I have to to keep as much walking space available as possible. So I might look at doing an angled design. My concern is with the rear seats though and if I'm going to kill the surround effects in the back row by going direct radiating.
> 
> I'd also keep my front heights and just run a single pair of overhead speakers. I fortunately ran wiring for front wides when I finished the theater up a couple years ago, so I can tap into that and run a pair of heights without destroying too much lol.
> 
> Thoughts?


I have the axiom m80s and the qs8 for my sides and backs. While I think they are good surrounds, I don't think they will be good for atmos ceiling speakers. They are not DR like you already stated. I have ordered the tannoy di8 for four top speakers. I also plan to lower my surrounds and backs, they are near the ceiling. Unlike you I don't get that immersive feel with these speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Ha! Mr. "I'm just going to get my feet wet with 5.1.2" is already pining for more speakers!
> 
> 
> I think you should just bite the bullet and get a 9ch capable receiver since it sounds like that's what you really want


Agree with all your points. If it were me, I'd sell the Onk right away - there will be plenty of buyers as Atmos-fever continues to grow - and get a Denon. Either the 4100 plus an external 2ch amp or the 5200. He will also be able to ditch Accu-EQ and enjoy the wonders of XT32. Win-win.

Bargervais - FWIW, I agree with batpig that using 4 speakers in a psuedo-5.1.4 arrangement is a Bad Idea (sorry!).


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> That's not really upmixing as much as processing the sound for room simulation.


No it's not, but it offers a possible answer to your question: >>You want to layer that on an object-based soundtrack that is already using all the available speakers?


----------



## thestoneman

bass addict said:


> Would Atmos still be beneficial for those of us with narrower rooms?
> 
> Thoughts?



Based on the Geeks episode with the Dolby guys discussing Atmos in detail, almost everyone can benefit from an Atmos system. They commented on how versatile it really is. You don't have to have perfect room dimensions/dynamics. Just good wide dispersion coaxial speakers will do just fine for tight spaces.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> Would Atmos still be beneficial for those of us with narrower rooms?
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



Absolutely! I have the same width dimension in my room and though I don't have Atmos right now I will eventually and will benefit greatly from it. Now if you had really, really low ceiling then that might be an issue for Atmos use. Atmos as it stands now is adding to the vertical dimension of sound so having a narrow room will not impact that benefit.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Agree with all your points. If it were me, I'd sell the Onk right away - there will be plenty of buyers as Atmos-fever continues to grow - and get a Denon. Either the 4100 plus an external 2ch amp or the 5200. He will also be able to ditch Accu-EQ and enjoy the wonders of XT32. Win-win.
> 
> Bargervais - FWIW, I agree with batpig that using 4 speakers in a psuedo-5.1.4 arrangement is a Bad Idea (sorry!).


Thanks Keith and batpig no need for sorry all is good. I'm going to keep my 737 and just leave it 5.2.2 but then come the first of the year I will be replacing my TX-NR 818 with XT32 in the living room, with more space in that room it will be easier to do 7.2.4 
I appreciate all your feedback and advice.


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> My room is the same width as yours. I am running 5.1.4 and am totally delighted with the result. Just follow the angles in the oft posted diagram.


That is great to hear. 



mp5475 said:


> I have the axiom m80s and the qs8 for my sides and backs. While I think they are good surrounds, I don't think they will be good for atmos ceiling speakers. They are not DR like you already stated. I have ordered the tannoy di8 for four top speakers. I also plan to lower my surrounds and backs, they are near the ceiling. Unlike you I don't get that immersive feel with these speakers.


That's interesting. I love the QS8's for surround effects. I am running M2's for the rears, but have a feeling I will need to upgrade these as well. Seeing as there is very little discreet rear content up until now, I haven't worried about it. 



thestoneman said:


> Based on the Geeks episode with the Dolby guys discussing Atmos in detail, almost everyone can benefit from an Atmos system. They commented on how versatile it really is. You don't have to have perfect room dimensions/dynamics. Just good wide dispersion coaxial speakers will do just fine for tight spaces.


Here is what I'm working with. Not the greatest angle but you get the idea. As you can see, I have a stepped ceiling. Floor to top of ceiling is 9' and about 8' 6" to the blue stepped portion. My thoughts were (in keeping the ceiling speakers even with the mains) to cut into the stepped area (in blue) and semi flush the speakers into that. I thought about going with a semi angled design, pointing them to the center of the first row of seats. 



















I'm not sure how much to lower the side surrounds as the rear surrounds can't really get much lower due to the riser and rear seats.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Absolutely! I have the same width dimension in my room and though I don't have Atmos right now I will eventually and will benefit greatly from it. Now if you had really, really low ceiling then that might be an issue for Atmos use. Atmos as it stands now is adding to the vertical dimension of sound so having a narrow room will not impact that benefit.


Scott, you are very enthusiastic about Atmos, so what is holding you back? You've probably mentioned it already but this thread is had to keep on top of...


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> That is great to hear.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much to lower the side surrounds as the rear surrounds can't really get much lower due to the riser and rear seats.


Nice room! Justifies your AVS screen name 

I'd lower the side surrounds as much as you can - until they are more or less at ear level. And lower the rear surrounds as much as is feasible in your room. All indications are that the more angular separation between the ear-level speakers and the overhead speakers, the better. 

All other indications also tell us that Atmos is fairly flexible and will give a good result even in less than perfect spaces. That is certainly my own experience in my Hobbit-sized HT. The Dolby guy that Scott W interviewed said it was "hard to make it NOT work well".


----------



## sgibson

sgibson said:


> kbarnes701,
> Thanks for sharing your Atmos layout. That's a great system you have. Look forward to your experiences with Dolby Atmos. I may wait for "Black Friday" sales (or early 2015) to jump on board the Atmos bandwagon.
> Meanwhile I'll stay tuned to the forum (great member participation here...lots of good info/photos)
> Regards,
> sgibson



Hello kbarnes701,
So I put T4 on trusty old Oppo 93, selected Scene 20 and was totally blown-away!!!
I have never heard some much action all around and above!
I too, used Dolby PLIIz before on Onkyo. But it doesn't even come close to the Dolby Atmos experience. Sheer immersion and enjoyment!
Oh, almost forgot to mention... I know I said I'd wait and see, but all the praise and excitement...just had to have it. I'm thrilled with Denon AVR-X4100W. I was thinking Onkyo, but they dropped Audyssey and that was a deal breaker for me.
Now, if I can just get my external Audiosource AMP 100 to carry the High Wides. Still learning and currently enjoying 5.2.4
Regards,
sgibson


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Scott, you are very enthusiastic about Atmos, *so what is holding you back?* You've probably mentioned it already but this thread is had to keep on top of...


----------



## kbarnes701

sgibson said:


> Hello kbarnes701,
> So I put T4 on trusty old Oppo 93, selected Scene 20 and was totally blown-away!!!


Insane isn't it? The two chapters before it are pretty good too  Note how the Transformer dude (can’t recall which one) goes out of shot up and to the left in one scene and his voice follows him up to the top left overhead speaker. Then, the screen action cuts back to a low shot of him and his voice goes back to the centre speaker (with maybe a little still in the L&R overhead fronts). It's a good test for timbre match after running EQ, as well as a really cool Atmos effect. They do the same thing at various places in the movie, so watch out for them.



sgibson said:


> I have never heard some much action all around and above!


Michael Bay really knows how to deliver a soundtrack!



sgibson said:


> I too, used Dolby PLIIz before on Onkyo. But it doesn't even come close to the Dolby Atmos experience. Sheer immersion and enjoyment!


That's right. PLIIz now seems like height effects for the kiddies. Real men have Atmos - LOL!



sgibson said:


> Oh, almost forgot to mention... I know I said I'd wait and see, but all the praise and excitement...just had to have it. I'm thrilled with Denon AVR-X4100W. I was thinking Onkyo, but they dropped Audyssey and that was a deal breaker for me.


And for me and many others I suspect. The new Denons really rock IMO.



sgibson said:


> Now, if I can just get my external Audiosource AMP 100 to carry the High Wides. Still learning and currently enjoying 5.2.4
> Regards,
> sgibson


I am sure you will - we just solved some amp assign problems (thanks to batpig) on the Denon 2014 thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


>


Ah - the M word. OK, thanks. Understood! 

BTW, do you have two working kidneys?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Plus I'm sitting it out to watch this stuff mature. A blessing in disguise as I would buy that Yammy in a heartbeat!

I guess it gives me time to set up some overheads. For my room, I want the hardware to do 7.1.6 and at that point I think I would be done with speakers for a very long time. I'd just fill in all the empty spots with subwoofers.


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, do you have two working kidneys?


Naw, he's down to 1. He had to sell the other one to fund his LLT's.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> Naw, he's down to 1. He had to sell the other one to fund his LLT's.


Nah. You got my system(s) backwards. The LLT system was the 'cheap' one. The newest multi-sealed system was the bank account drainer. 

Oye. Glad that's all paid for now.


----------



## asarose247

per Scott Simonian: Plus I'm sitting it out to watch this stuff mature. A blessing in disguise as I would buy that Yammy in a heartbeat!


Given the OMG list for the 7702 in post 120 of that thread, it will be interesting to see what Pavlovian response the 3040 announcement in the next 2 weeks or so will elicit . . .


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


>


that always the biggest Issue MONEY LOL
I'm almost done Paying off Speakers and an AVR that i got from Amazon with intrest free for 6/12 months, then i'll be able to pull the trigger on my next upgrade all i'll need is a new Atmos AVR for the Living Room


----------



## Selden Ball

Bear in mind that almost all of the OMG list entries also apply to the already-available SR7009, plus it has amps!

Pre/pro aficionados most likely would point out that the HDAM circuits in the AV7702 probably are more elaborate than those in the receiver, and that eliminating the amps reduces the over-all noise level in the pre/pro's output signals. And XLR connections tend to be better in some ways than the SR7009's RCA connections.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Bear in mind that almost all of the OMG list entries also apply to the already-available SR7009, plus it has amps!
> 
> Pre/pro aficionados most likely would point out that the HDAM circuits in the AV7702 probably are more elaborate than those in the receiver, and that eliminating the amps reduces the over-all noise level in the pre/pro's output signals. And XLR connections tend to be better in some ways than the SR7009's RCA connections.


And, speaking as former prepro aficionado, none of those will likely make a jot of difference wrt to audible improvements.

I had a flagship processor that cost almost $4,000 over here in the good ole' UK. And now I have a very nice, much less costly AVR, used as a prepro. Can I hear any difference? No, none at all. In fact, the system sounds better than it ever has, but that is down to Atmos and DSU. But my very first listening tests were with regular 5.1 content, played in 5.1 and the audible difference I could discern between the Denon 5200 and the Onkyo 5009 was zero. And that was also with a regular XT32 calibration as opposed to the Pro calibration on the Onkyo. And those listening tests were backed up with measurements too - and they are better than I used to get with the Onkyo in place - I won't post the graph again, but YKWIM I am sure.

Worth repeating one more time I guess: audible differences come from speakers, subs, placement of the latter, and dealing with the issues caused by the room - not electronics.


----------



## Bigham16

Would be eager to hear if you come up with similar results or something better 

(I meant to quote your other post) 



jrogers said:


> Thanks for the post - just wondering if those are GoldenEar speakers? If so, I have the same and have been wondering how best to position the overhead speakers given their HVFR tweeters have fairly narrow "vertical" dispersion and very wide "horizontal" dispersion. Your results make me think I may actually need to reposition and recalibrate.


----------



## noah katz

bass addict, I can't imagine that having real height content wouldn't be an improvement.

And I don't see why the QS8's wouldn't work just as well for heights as they do for conventional surrounds; in fact, their ability to not call attention to their location is just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Scrounging the internet now for that book that you wrote with you on the cover. I think it was called: 'CinemaDSP: That sort of thing IS my bag, baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.





ambesolman said:


> Swedish-made Cinema Enlarger DSP: That Sort of Thing IS My Bag, Baby' Authored by Sanjay Durani.


Seriously babes, that's not mine. You can tell because it didn't include my middle name (Danger). You cats shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. I don't know what Swidish-made Cinema DSP is. I don't even watch Swedish movies (too depressing for a groovy guy like me).


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> What is it then?


Downmix. For example: 4 channels (L/C/R/S) can be downmixed to 2 channels or can be encoded in a 2-channel matrix for later decoding by a Pro Logic circuit. The difference isn't semantic. The height information of an Atmos mix is downmixed, not encoded into the legacy 7.1 track for subsequent decoding.


> The thought germinated with people saying how Atmos tracks exhibited height effects even when played back on a 5.1 or 7.1 system.


Plenty of soundtracks prior to Atmos exhibited height effects.


----------



## audioguy

batpig said:


> Pretty sure, unless you have mega bucks and a mega room, you can still enjoy the heck out of a kick ass 7.1.4 for quite some time while the dust settles.


And long after the dust settles. 

Maybe if your room is 30 feet long and 23 feet wide with 13 foot ceilings you can realistically expect worthy increases in envelopment with a 14.2.8 or equivalent.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. PLIIz now seems like height effects for the kiddies. Real men have Atmos - LOL!


*Which one prefers Atmos?*​





*Atmos aficionado:*​


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> *Which one prefers Atmos?*​


LOL. We see that sort of thing all the time here in the heart of the English countryside...


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. We see that sort of thing all the time here in the heart of the English countryside...


Not directed at you whatsoever. I did like your comment about "real men have Atmos...". I was actually thinking about the Atmos vs Auro debate that occurs here on occasion.

I could have substituted Auro, tube amps, vinyl, external amps, Monster cables, etc., for "Atmos" but those would have been OT.

I plan to jump into Atmos soon. Most likely X5200 with the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers. I hope JD doesn't hang up on me when I call him based on my posts. ;-)


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Downmix.


Ah; I was referring to the Auro/UHD track originally inquired about.


----------



## bass addict

noah katz said:


> bass addict, I can't imagine that having real height content wouldn't be an improvement.
> 
> And I don't see why the QS8's wouldn't work just as well for heights as they do for conventional surrounds; in fact, their ability to not call attention to their location is just what the doctor ordered.


Hmmm, you make a good point there. That might be worth experimenting with. I could move the QS8's to the ceiling and install new direct radiating for the surrounds.


----------



## sdrucker

kokishin said:


> Not directed at you whatsoever. I did like your comment about "real men have Atmos...". I was actually thinking about the Atmos vs Auro debate that occurs here on occasion.
> 
> I could have substituted Auro, tube amps, vinyl, external amps, Monster cables, etc., for "Atmos" but those would have been OT.
> 
> I plan to jump into Atmos soon. Most likely X5200 with the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers. I hope JD doesn't hang up on me when I call him based on my posts. ;-)


 

One thing about Keith: he doesn't mince words, and go for solutions willy-nilly. He's 100% all in for Atmos as the true faith


----------



## ss9001

sdrucker said:


> One thing about Keith: he doesn't mince words, and go for solutions willy-nilly. He's 100% all in for Atmos as the true faith


very true...on all counts!  no hesitations, he just jumps in. unlike some of us who are still deciding on how best to implement in the room & setup they have...that would be like me! 

seriously, keith has been a guiding light for us all, along with many others of course.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I was referring to the Auro/UHD track originally inquired about.


No, while the original inquiry was about applying upmixing to Auro/UHD tracks, you changed the discussion to the legacy tracks:


noah katz said:


> Perhaps he meant if you have only Atmos decoding.


----------



## jdsmoothie

kokishin said:


> Not directed at you whatsoever. I did like your comment about "real men have Atmos...". I was actually thinking about the Atmos vs Auro debate that occurs here on occasion.
> 
> I could have substituted Auro, tube amps, vinyl, external amps, Monster cables, etc., for "Atmos" but those would have been OT.
> 
> I plan to jump into Atmos soon. Most likely X5200 with the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers. I hope JD doesn't hang up on me when I call him based on my posts. ;-)


Not at all ... in fact AVScience has just recently become an authorized Pioneer dealer as well.


----------



## jdsmoothie

*Atmos on Redbox rentals*

For those of you who have no real love for the Transformers movies but want to demo Atmos on your new setup, as it turns out (very much to my surprise) I am listening to my first Atmos disc (mind you I don't have the Dolby enabled speakers yet) for a mere $1.50 via a Transformers 4 Redbox rental.


----------



## Scott Simonian

jdsmoothie said:


> For those of you who have no real love for the Transformers movies but want to demo Atmos on your new setup, as it turns out (very much to my surprise) I am listening to my first Atmos disc (mind you I don't have the Dolby enabled speakers yet) for a mere $1.50 via a Transformers 4 Redbox rental.


This is, indeed, good news!

So full TrueHD track from Redbox Transformers 4? Good!


----------



## zeus33

jdsmoothie said:


> For those of you who have no real love for the Transformers movies but want to demo Atmos on your new setup, as it turns out (very much to my surprise) I am listening to my first Atmos disc (mind you I don't have the Dolby enabled speakers yet) for a mere $1.50 via a Transformers 4 Redbox rental.



The Blu Ray from Netflix has Atmos as well.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> This is, indeed, good news!
> 
> So full TrueHD track from Redbox Transformers 4? Good!


That's a blu-Ray disc rental correct from red box all the transformer 4 blu-ray disc should have Atmos whether you rent or buy it


----------



## NorthSky

Redbox; do they rent the 3D version? ...Or just the 2D one?


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> That's a blu-Ray disc rental correct from red box all the transformer 4 blu-ray disc should have Atmos whether you rent or buy it


In theory yes, but the reason this is noteworthy is that often the "Rental version" of these Blu-rays available via Redbox or Netflix has a dumbed down lossy audio track. I've found it hit and miss.

This is great news because I sure didn't want to pay full price for that movie! I'll definitely be renting it soon, thanks JD


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> One thing about Keith: he doesn't mince words, and go for solutions willy-nilly. He's 100% all in for Atmos as the true faith


Now, just to set the record straight, Keith was originally going to "wimp out" on the X4100 thinking that he would hedge his bets awaiting the 2nd generation AVR's.

We used peer pressure and questioned his manhood until he finally relented and stepped up to the X5200 for the long haul. Now he's got true religion, hallelujah!


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> In theory yes, but the reason this is noteworthy is that often the "Rental version" of these Blu-rays available via Redbox or Netflix has a dumbed down lossy audio track. I've found it hit and miss.
> 
> This is great news because I sure didn't want to pay full price for that movie! I'll definitely be renting it soon, thanks JD


LOL unfortunately I paid the full $17.99 price for the 2D blu-ray version at that price they must have sold Alot of copies.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> That's a blu-Ray disc rental correct from red box all the transformer 4 blu-ray disc should have Atmos whether you rent or buy it


Well. Not necessarily. Have you not heard of the many many annoyed A/V enthusiasts renting movies and getting stripped audio? No lossless audio.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...thout-dts-hd-master-audio-dd-5-1-instead.html


----------



## pasender91

Please do not hit me too hard 
I don't have something smart to say, but i wanted to celebrate post 10000 !!!
Always a pleasure to read this thread, a lot of useful info to prepare my 2015 Atmos 7.1.4 setup


----------



## NorthSky

Do you get full hi-res 1080p picture quality from Redbox? ...And Spacial Features?

* And for the 2nd time; 3D or only 2D?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Redbox; do they rent the 3D version? ...Or just the 2D one?


3D???? I hate to stereo type people that go to the red box kiosks to rent their DVD' s
I don't think many can even afford a blu-Ray player much less a full blown 3D set up, just my opinion.,,


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> 3D???? I hate to stereo type people that go to the red box kiosks to rent their DVD' s
> I don't think many can even afford a blu-Ray player much less a full blown 3D set up, just my opinion.,,


Alright; @ least one member here can still read my posts. 

* I know knothing 'bout Redbox. ...They are very very rare here in my surrounding. 
...And they cost more than in the United States of America. ...A fair chunk more, to rent.
And I did read in the past that the audio is not always what there is on the Blu-ray that you purchase.
...But inferior; lossy audio (plain DD or dts).


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Do you get full hi-res 1080p picture quality from Redbox? ...And Spacial Features?
> 
> * And for the 2nd time; 3D or only 2D?


1080p? Of course. 3D? No. Well.... damn. I swear I saw one once or twice. I'll keep an eye out for you.



bargervais said:


> 3D???? I hate to stereo type people that go to the red box kiosks to rent their DVD' s
> I don't think many can even afford a blu-Ray player much less a full blown 3D set up, just my opinion.,,


Think again. People who get new tv's (if it wasn't a dirt cheap one) have 3D capability and they love to brag about it.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Well. Not necessarily. Have you not heard of the many many annoyed A/V enthusiasts renting movies and getting stripped audio? No lossless audio.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...thout-dts-hd-master-audio-dd-5-1-instead.html


thanks for that info I never knew.. I'm not a big renter.. I stream or I buy. That would make me very upset to get a stripped down version


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Alright; @ least one member here can still read my posts.
> 
> * I know knothing 'bout Redbox. ...They are very very rare here in my surrounding.
> ...And they cost more than in the United States of America. ...A fair chunk more, to rent.
> And I did read in the past that the audio is not always what there is on the Blu-ray that you purchase.
> ...But inferior; lossy audio (plain DD or dts).


LOL some of us still love you


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> thanks for that info I never knew.. I'm not a big renter.. I stream or I buy. That would make me very upset to get a stripped down version


I usually don't rent either. I know what I like and buy. Though I do like to rent when I'm not single, while I'm dating the Redbox sees me quite a bit. As long as it's 5.1 I'll be happy. If I buy it better be lossless. I rarely stream rentals but occasionally I do from Amazon.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Think again. People who get new tv's (if it wasn't a dirt cheap one) have 3D capability and they love to brag about it.


Very true but you still need a 3D blu-ray player and I do agree things are a lot cheaper or should I say you get more for your money now than in the beginning of 3D...
So this should encourage us all I mean us early adopters of atmos. And those that that wait a year or two you should get more for your money... That's why I'll wait a year or two to upgrade my other AVR..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> bass addict, I can't imagine that having real height content wouldn't be an improvement.
> 
> And I don't see why the QS8's wouldn't work just as well for heights as they do for conventional surrounds; in fact, their ability to not call attention to their location is just what the doctor ordered.


Which is the exact opposite of what is called for in these 3D formats. There's a reason Dolby and others are saying wide dispersion *MONOPOLES* for surrounds, timbre matched (if you can swing it) even better.


----------



## doublewing11

Scott Simonian said:


> I usually don't rent either. I know what I like and buy. Though I do like to rent when I'm not single, while I'm dating the Redbox sees me quite a bit. As long as it's 5.1 I'll be happy. If I buy it better be lossless. I rarely stream rentals but occasionally I do from Amazon.



Try being married to a HOT BABE for 28 years!


Buy, buy, BUY!

Just preparing you for the inevitable!


----------



## DaJoJo

Scott Simonian said:


> Think again. People who get new tv's (if it wasn't a dirt cheap one) have 3D capability and they love to brag about it.


i never brag about my ole 2012 3D tv, just complaining about the batteries of my 6 active glasses running out of juice once in a while


----------



## action_jackson

sdurani said:


> No, while the original inquiry was about applying upmixing to Auro/UHD tracks, you changed the discussion to the legacy tracks:


Yes, I originally questioning about upmixing with DSU.

I understand that some the current AVRs could be upgraded to decode these formats, or they could come with the next gen AVRs. What I really want to know is once the current AVRs are upgraded with the ability to decode Auro or DTS-UHD, will they be able to play these using the Atmos speaker configuration? I just don't want to have to have multiple speaker configurations depending on what format is being decoded. I believe Auro has a single overhead speaker plus two levels of surrounds, one at ear level and another above. I imagine most plan to do either 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, will Auro or DTS-UHD play on these once decoding is available or will we have to add more speakers and switch between?

Also, if Auro cannot use the Atmos speaker configuration, I was questioning if there would be an alternative method to getting the sound where it needs to go?


----------



## action_jackson

NorthSky said:


> Do you get full hi-res 1080p picture quality from Redbox? ...And Spacial Features?
> 
> * And for the 2nd time; 3D or only 2D?


I've never encountered a 3D version of a movie at any of my local kiosks. I'm usually lucky to find a blu-ray. My wife is always coming home with DVDs I don't mind if it is just one of her chick flicks, but I get a little irritated when it is something I have been waiting to see.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

action_jackson said:


> Yes, I originally questioning about upmixing with DSU.
> 
> I understand that some the current AVRs could be upgraded to decode these formats, or they could come with the next gen AVRs. What I really want to know is once the current AVRs are upgraded with the ability to decode Auro or DTS-UHD, will they be able to play these using the Atmos speaker configuration? I just don't want to have to have multiple speaker configurations depending on what format is being decoded. I believe Auro has a single overhead speaker plus two levels of surrounds, one at ear level and another above. I imagine most plan to do either 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, will Auro or DTS-UHD play on these once decoding is available or will we have to add more speakers and switch between?
> 
> Also, if Auro cannot use the Atmos speaker configuration, I was questioning if there would be an alternative method to getting the sound where it needs to go?


It will be up to the manufacturers, I suspect, to come up with a re-mapping feature depending on the speaker installation you choose.


----------



## DaJoJo

with auro3D you gonna miss out on the 3rd layer when not using a VOG speaker. they probably make a virtual VOG speaker out of the 4 overhead speakers.


----------



## ambesolman

action_jackson said:


> I've never encountered a 3D version of a movie at any of my local kiosks. I'm usually lucky to find a blu-ray. My wife is always coming home with DVDs I don't mind if it is just one of her chick flicks, but I get a little irritated when it is something I have been waiting to see.



My old lady will still BUY a damn DVD. When I inevitably give her that "wtf, we've already had this conversation" look, she always says "but it was $5!" It's almost always something I'll never watch, plus she's well aware of the benefits of BR/HD and only buys me those. Regardless, were still running out of room...


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> LOL some of us still love you


Thank you; I was slowly fading away, like a dead rose.


----------



## sdurani

action_jackson said:


> What I really want to know is once the current AVRs are upgraded with the ability to decode Auro or DTS-UHD, will they be able to play these using the Atmos speaker configuration?


Assuming current AVRs are upgradable to decode Auro or UHD, nothing will prevent you from playing back any of the immersive formats on any speaker configuration. Question is, will you hear something close to what was intended? Unofficial word so far is that UHD is layout agnostic; that is, it will map to any speaker layout (within reason), assuming it knows where your speakers are. So it comes down to the Auro layout vs the Atmos layout.


> I imagine most plan to do either 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, will Auro or DTS-UHD play on these once decoding is available or will we have to add more speakers and switch between?


The base layer of 5 or 7 speakers seems common to all the immersive formats. So it comes down to where to put the 4 height speakers. Is it not possible for compromise locations be found for those speakers in order to serve Auro and Atmos reasonably well?


> Also, if Auro cannot use the Atmos speaker configuration, I was questioning if there would be an alternative method to getting the sound where it needs to go?


Yes, but it (speaker re-mapping) is currently expensive.


----------



## sdurani

DaJoJo said:


> with auro3D you gonna miss out on the 3rd layer when not using a VOG speaker. they probably make a virtual VOG speaker out of the 4 overhead speakers.


Auro says the VOG speaker is optional in consumer set-ups, for the reason you state. So that's one less speaker to worry about when trying to find common ground between Atmos and Auro.


----------



## brwsaw

bass addict said:


> I love the QS8's for surround effects.


I'm not making any decisions until I hear it for myself.
Obviously they won't be on my ceiling (I would try if I had the extra height, at least once) but they're too valuable (to me) to discard until I'm sure they won't work with Atmos. 
In all the rooms I've had them the QS4's and QS8's disappear when appropriate (most of the time) and are as good as any monopole (better actually)I've had as surrounds when location specific sound is called for. Many goosebump moments. All credit to the Q's.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Auro says the VOG speaker is optional in consumer set-ups, for the reason you state. So that's one less speaker to worry about when trying to find common ground between Atmos and Auro.


The VOG is optional for Auro-3D, which is helpful. OTOH, if you have configured a room for Atmos playback you will have 2 or 4 ceiling speakers (assuming here actual ceiling speakers and not Elevation speakers). Assuming the AVR or pre-pro has the flexibility, there is no reason you couldn't spread the Auro-3D mono VOG channel across your whole ceiling array.

The catch is going to be in the Auro height layer - from my experience that height layer is really, really critical - it is the key to the whole effect that Auro-3D is creating. ISTM that a dual-use layout is going to have some speakers used for Auro-3D playback that will be mute when playing back an Atmos track, namely the Surround Height speakers. Perhaps in the future DTS-UHD or even Atmos itself will make use of those additional height speakers for object rendering.


----------



## Roger Dressler

I cannot think of anything sillier than to put up two sets of height speakers and switch between them for Auro and Atmos. The idea that such nuances are critical to enjoying a movie is balderdash. 

Consider we enjoy movies thoroughly in 5.1 or 7.1. Height effects are icing on the cake. 

Consider that some movies are mixed in both formats. Let's assume that because the speakers are in different places they sound different in their respective cinemas. Yet each represents the "intention" of the mixer. And so did the 7.1 or 5.1 mix. They all represent the intention. Seems to me the intention (whichever of the 4 one wants to focus on) is not the goal we should be concerned about at home. We should be concerned with hearing an involving, engaging, exciting immersive soundfield. Height speakers are now part of that equation, and as Atmos has shown, height speakers of various capabilities and positions meet that requirement. And as good as DSU may be, specific height effects are needed if we want to hear discrete height effects, either elevated or panned overhead. 

Any set of elevation speakers sourced from Auro and Atmos can deliver VOG effects (even the upfiring speakers), and can pan from front to top, rear to top, or side to top, and that means overarching flyovers are supported, regardless of speaker geometry. 

My advice: put the height speakers where they give the best elevation coverage for your seats, and feed all of them everything you can, be it from Auro, Atmos, DSU, or what may come, and enjoy.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

On a sad note, I hear 2L music has dropped the Dolby Atmos track from their Magnificat audio Blu-ray at the last minute!  They had a response to a query on their Facebook page with this bit of news. 

I hope I was able to cancel my order in time. It's still great music, but pricey. I will probably get it anyway at a later time, but my reason for ordering it _right now_ was my over excitement of the impending Atmos and Auro3D comparison tracks of the same content on the same disc.

That enthusiasm, hearing that it was pulled, has subsided.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> No, while the original inquiry was about applying upmixing to Auro/UHD tracks, you changed the discussion to the legacy tracks:


I did, but I assume you knew that.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Which is the exact opposite of what is called for in these 3D formats. There's a reason Dolby and others are saying wide dispersion *MONOPOLES* for surrounds, timbre matched (if you can swing it) even better.


I believe they dictate against dipoles; seems to me a wider dispersion multipole would be even better, or at least preferred by a lot of people.

The lesser proportion of on-axis SPL would make them harder to localize, a known problem for monopole ceiling speakers.



Roger Dressler said:


> ...My advice: put the height speakers where they give the best elevation coverage for your seats, and feed all of them everything you can, be it from Auro, Atmos, DSU, or what may come, and enjoy.


Hear hear!


----------



## UKTexan

Dan Hitchman said:


> On a sad note, I hear 2L music has dropped the Dolby Atmos track from their Magnificat audio Blu-ray at the last minute!  They had a response to a query on their Facebook page with this bit of news.
> 
> I hope I was able to cancel my order in time. It's still great music, but pricey. I will probably get it anyway at a later time, but my reason for ordering it _right now_ was my over excitement of the impending Atmos and Auro3D comparison tracks of the same content on the same disc.
> 
> That enthusiasm, hearing that it was pulled, has subsided.


I contacted 2L today after seeing no mention of Dolby Atmos on their website as I was about to place my order.
2L replied to my email very quickly, they basically stated they were working on the Atmos mix up until a week ago but unfortunately due to "technical difficulties" they have decided to drop the Atmos mix, Auro 9.1 and DTS HD MA 5.1 remain.
I asked if they will be re releasing in Atmos or if they have plans to release any other productions in Atmos - they stated there are no plans at this time to release any music in Atmos, they will continue to support Auro. 2L also mentioned they are working with Dolby's technical team - I'm curious what the problem was that led them to drop the Atmos mix only one week before release?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I cannot think of anything sillier than to put up two sets of height speakers and switch between them for Auro and Atmos. The idea that such nuances are critical to enjoying a movie is balderdash.
> 
> Consider we enjoy movies thoroughly in 5.1 or 7.1. Height effects are icing on the cake.
> 
> Consider that some movies are mixed in both formats. Let's assume that because the speakers are in different places they sound different in their respective cinemas. Yet each represents the "intention" of the mixer. And so did the 7.1 or 5.1 mix. They all represent the intention. Seems to me the intention (whichever of the 4 one wants to focus on) is not the goal we should be concerned about at home. We should be concerned with hearing an involving, engaging, exciting immersive soundfield. Height speakers are now part of that equation, and as Atmos has shown, height speakers of various capabilities and positions meet that requirement. And as good as DSU may be, specific height effects are needed if we want to hear discrete height effects, either elevated or panned overhead.
> 
> Any set of elevation speakers sourced from Auro and Atmos can deliver VOG effects (even the upfiring speakers), and can pan from front to top, rear to top, or side to top, and that means overarching flyovers are supported, regardless of speaker geometry.
> 
> My advice: put the height speakers where they give the best elevation coverage for your seats, and feed all of them everything you can, be it from Auro, Atmos, DSU, or what may come, and enjoy.


I totally agree with you Roger; simplicity is the best policy, for everybody. 
...All together in a common harmony, @ similar (same) position up above in the sky.


----------



## NorthSky

UKTexan said:


> I contacted 2L today after seeing no mention of Dolby Atmos on their website as I was about to place my order.
> 2L replied to my email very quickly, they basically stated they were working on the Atmos mix up until a week ago but unfortunately due to "technical difficulties" they have decided to drop the Atmos mix, Auro 9.1 and DTS HD MA 5.1 remain.
> I asked if they will be re releasing in Atmos or if they have plans to release any other productions in Atmos - they stated there are no plans at this time to release any music in Atmos, they will continue to support Auro. 2L also mentioned they are working with Dolby's technical team - I'm curious what the problem was that led them to drop the Atmos mix only one week before release?


I have a theory. ...Need more time to develop ....


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I did, but I assume you knew that.


I did, which is why I was surprised to see you suddenly say:


noah katz said:


> I was referring to the Auro/UHD track originally inquired about.


So which is it? What were you talking about upmixing, the legacy tracks you brought up or the Auro/UHD track originally inquired about?


----------



## Pondipper

action_jackson said:


> Yes, I originally questioning about upmixing with DSU.
> 
> I understand that some the current AVRs could be upgraded to decode these formats, or they could come with the next gen AVRs. What I really want to know is once the current AVRs are upgraded with the ability to decode Auro or DTS-UHD, will they be able to play these using the Atmos speaker configuration? I just don't want to have to have multiple speaker configurations depending on what format is being decoded. I believe Auro has a single overhead speaker plus two levels of surrounds, one at ear level and another above. I imagine most plan to do either 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, will Auro or DTS-UHD play on these once decoding is available or will we have to add more speakers and switch between?
> 
> Also, if Auro cannot use the Atmos speaker configuration, I was questioning if there would be an alternative method to getting the sound where it needs to go?


Can't imagine that Auro is going to be a big player once Dolby Atmos gets traction on Blu-ray, surely?


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Not directed at you whatsoever. I did like your comment about "real men have Atmos...". I was actually thinking about the Atmos vs Auro debate that occurs here on occasion.
> 
> I could have substituted Auro, tube amps, vinyl, external amps, Monster cables, etc., for "Atmos" but those would have been OT.
> 
> I plan to jump into Atmos soon. Most likely X5200 with the Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers.


 No worries. I thought the commercials were very funny. And beautifully made too (speaking as someone who used to make commercials for a living).

You will not be disappointed with the 5200 I can promise.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> One thing about Keith: he doesn't mince words, and go for solutions willy-nilly. He's 100% all in for Atmos as the true faith


 Always been the same. See something I like - go for it. Life's too short to prevaricate. Like John Lennon said - life is what happens while you're busy making plans.

I have zero regrets about plunging straight in to Atmos. Atmos and DSU have magnified the pleasure I am getting from watching movies by a huge margin and, to be honest, I'd have been just as happy if it had cost me twice as much. The moment I heard the demo at Dolby I knew I had to have it


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> very true...on all counts!  no hesitations, he just jumps in. unlike some of us who are still deciding on how best to implement in the room & setup they have...that would be like me!
> 
> seriously, keith has been a guiding light for us all, along with many others of course.


Thanks Steve - see my reply to Stuart for elaboration 

Having a dedicated room that I can do what I want with is a big help of course. No WAF etc. And using the room solely for movies, no music, is also a help. And when you have a small room like mine, you are limited on where you can put speakers, so in a way that is a help too. I can understand the reasons people give for waiting a while but waiting just isn't for me. I see it, and if I like it and want it, I go for it. Been the story of my life - and maybe the reason I've been married three times too LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Now, just to set the record straight, Keith was originally going to "wimp out" on the X4100 thinking that he would hedge his bets awaiting the 2nd generation AVR's.


I confess that this is true.  And I still commend the 4100 to people for whom their needs are met by it. Subconsciously, maybe I always hankered after squeezing a set of Wides in and going for 11 channels. I have all these amplifiers and speakers and by god I want to use them! 



chi_guy50 said:


> We used peer pressure and *questioned his manhood;*) until he finally relented and stepped up to the X5200 for the long haul. Now he's got true religion, hallelujah!


LOL. Well, yeah. That's the _real _reason!


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I cannot think of anything sillier than to put up two sets of height speakers and switch between them for Auro and Atmos. The idea that such nuances are critical to enjoying a movie is balderdash.


C'mon Roger, don't mince your words - tell it like it is LOL. Agreed totally.



Roger Dressler said:


> We should be concerned with hearing an involving, engaging, exciting immersive soundfield. Height speakers are now part of that equation, and as Atmos has shown, height speakers of various capabilities and positions meet that requirement. And as good as DSU may be, specific height effects are needed if we want to hear discrete height effects, either elevated or panned overhead.


Agreed again - people seem to forget why they are installing all this stuff in the first place. It is to be _entertained _in a more exciting (etc) way than we were before.



Roger Dressler said:


> My advice: put the height speakers where they give the best elevation coverage for your seats, and feed all of them everything you can, be it from Auro, Atmos, DSU, or what may come, and enjoy.


Right on!


----------



## markrubin

thread cleanup


----------



## wse

sdurani said:


> Assuming current AVRs are upgradable to decode Auro or UHD, nothing will prevent you from playing back any of the immersive formats on any speaker configuration. Question is, will you hear something close to what was intended? Unofficial word so far is that UHD is layout agnostic; that is, it will map to any speaker layout (within reason), assuming it knows where your speakers are. So it comes down to the Auro layout vs the Atmos layout. The base layer of 5 or 7 speakers seems common to all the immersive formats. So it comes down to where to put the 4 height speakers. Is it not possible for compromise locations be found for those speakers in order to serve Auro and Atmos reasonably well? Yes, but it (speaker re-mapping) is currently expensive.


They will not be upgradable unfortunately they need different chips


----------



## Glenn Baumann

brwsaw said:


> I'm not making any decisions until I hear it for myself.
> Obviously they won't be on my ceiling (I would try if I had the extra height, at least once) but they're too valuable (to me) to discard until I'm sure they won't work with Atmos.
> In all the rooms I've had them the QS4's and QS8's disappear when appropriate (most of the time) and are as good as any monopole (better actually)I've had as surrounds when location specific sound is called for. Many goosebump moments. All credit to the Q's.


brwsaw,

I will be most curious to see how you fare using your more diffusive type speakers!

I myself have been known to fly in the face of convention... With fine results at times!

These early days of Atmos are certainly ripe for bold experimentation and we would welcome your input... you would be a true pioneer and would love to see you prove em' wrong!

Please do report back.


...Glenn


----------



## wse

Has any one compared 7.2.2 vs 7.2.4?


----------



## Contuzzi

Is there any YouTube video floating around that show's the GUI setup process of Atmos with any of the current supported receivers? Or maybe even pictures of the setup menus?

I'm dying to see how that works. Do you tell the receiver where all the speakers are located or what? Very curious.


----------



## FilmMixer

Contuzzi said:


> Is there any YouTube video floating around that show's the GUI setup process of Atmos with any of the current supported receivers? Or maybe even pictures of the setup menus?
> 
> I'm dying to see how that works. Do you tell the receiver where all the speakers are located or what? Very curious.


No. The current AVRs expect the speakers to be close to the suggested locations. 

There is no change from previous models in this regard. 

Setup on the current models remains the same as last years models.


----------



## dschulz

Roger Dressler said:


> I cannot think of anything sillier than to put up two sets of height speakers and switch between them for Auro and Atmos. The idea that such nuances are critical to enjoying a movie is balderdash.
> 
> Consider we enjoy movies thoroughly in 5.1 or 7.1. Height effects are icing on the cake.


But Auro has a height layer that Atmos doesn't have at all, and it is completely central to the Auro sound design. I think that's not always clear because we all keep saying "height" interchangeably for overheads or front heights, when in Auro parlance the "height" speakers are on the vertical plane, in line with the lower 5.1 or 7.1 layer, separate and distinct from the overhead speakers (which in Auro are just a mono VOG). If you build a room without the height layer of speakers (as defined by Auro) you can't play back anything resembling a native Auro mix.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

wse said:


> Has any one compared 7.2.2 vs 7.2.4?


I will get the chance this week. I just got my 5200 last night but only have 2 overhead "modules" (crappy satellite speakers I'm using as placeholders until I get the atmos enabled speakers I want). I'll be using 7.2.2 until my preamp comes next week, at which point I'll switch to 7.2.4... I'll let you know what differences I hear. 

I only got to play with it for a few hours last night, so I may have set it up wrong... but for whatever it's worth I think Atmos enabled will be necessary to get the right sound... when I turn up the module channels they sound a bit just like extra height speakers as opposed to overhead... but... I do get the sensation of "height" a bit. I still have to do the audyssey calibration (a few times haha).


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Consider we enjoy movies thoroughly in 5.1 or 7.1. Height effects are icing on the cake.


The same could be said for stereo or surround. I'm not going to laugh harder at _'Airplane!'_ if the soundtrack is 5.1 instead of mono. If height effects are icing on the cake, then so is surround sound. But that's not an excuse for sloppy placement of height speakers.


> Seems to me the intention (whichever of the 4 one wants to focus on) is not the goal we should be concerned about at home. We should be concerned with hearing an involving, engaging, exciting immersive soundfield.


The two aren't mutually exclusive, though I can see personal preference sometimes conflicting with best practices for a format. It's not unreasonable for someone to want to hear an Auro music mix as it was intended to be heard, with height speakers elevated around you rather than overhead. Same for Atmos. 

The difference in speaker layout between those two is not inaudible, and both might conflict with the listener's own preferences. A problem to be sorted through rather than dismissed for placement that is "involving, engaging, exciting". How do you translate those subjective qualities into objective placement recommendations for height speakers?


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> I did, which is why I was surprised to see you suddenly say:
> 
> Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
> I was referring to the Auro/UHD track originally inquired about.
> 
> So which is it? What were you talking about upmixing, the legacy tracks you brought up or the Auro/UHD track originally inquired about?


I've always been talking about DSU'ing a downmixed Auro/UHD track.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I've always been talking about DSU'ing a downmixed Auro/UHD track.


Which are no different than channel-based 5.1 or 7.1 tracks, even when applying DSU.


----------



## brwsaw

Glenn Baumann said:


> I will be most curious to see how you fare using your more diffusive type speakers!
> 
> Please do report back.
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Glenn, I'm a year away at best. The AVR I'm looking for doesn't exist at the moment, at least not at a price I consider to be justifiable.
I've got a great set up now and with a baby a month away I'm going to hang tight and enjoy things as they are.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Pondipper said:


> Can't imagine that Auro is going to be a big player once Dolby Atmos gets traction on Blu-ray, surely?


One could say it is a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Which are no different than channel-based 5.1 or 7.1 tracks, even when applying DSU.


Hmm...OK


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> One could say it is a solution looking for a problem.


Vice versa; a problem looking for a solution, in coexisting with Atmos configuration/elevation.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> But Auro has a height layer that Atmos doesn't have at all, and it is completely central to the Auro sound design. I think that's not always clear because we all keep saying "height" interchangeably for overheads or front heights, when in Auro parlance the "height" speakers are on the vertical plane, in line with the lower 5.1 or 7.1 layer, separate and distinct from the overhead speakers (which in Auro are just a mono VOG).





> If you build a room without the height layer of speakers (as defined by Auro) you can't play back anything resembling a native Auro mix.


Auro says that a successful consumer Auro system can be comprised of 9.1 speakers, with the VOG layer spread across the 4 height speakers. QED. 

But wait, there's more.  

This "3 layer" speak is a case of semantics. Allow me to illustrate in the cinema. Let's start with the screen channels, the normal L/C/R. If we sit in the stadium seats we can say they are roughly 0° elevation. Auro adds screen height speakers at what, 15°? Continuing up from there, we encounter the VOG channel produced by a cluster of speakers nominally 90° overhead. 3 layers: 0°, 15°, 90°.

In Atmos, there's the screen speakers at 0°. Continue up, and there's the first pair of speakers at the end of the top arrays at ~25°. Then there's several more such pairs in these arrays, at 30°, 38°, 48°, 65°, 84° at the top of the room. If these speakers were all place on the surface of a dome, each angle would intersect speakers at different heights (z), in this example 6 different layers. So Atmos could be said to have many height/top layers, if one likes that terminology. Me, I prefer to talk about the angles of incidence, as the brain watching a movie does not care about whether the room is a dome or a cube.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> The difference in speaker layout between those two is not inaudible, and both might conflict with the listener's own preferences. A problem to be sorted through rather than dismissed for placement that is "involving, engaging, exciting". How do you translate those subjective qualities into objective placement recommendations for height speakers?


If it turns out that an Auro spatial perspective is more compelling for a given listener than the results of direct playback on an Atmos speaker setup, there are a number of ways to bridge that gap without installing separate sets of height speakers. Here's two:

1) Since the Atmos system understands sounds with directional positions, the Auro height signals could be encoded into an Atmos bitstream as objects with ~30° elevation. The Atmos system will render those sounds to those positions. 

2) The playback system receiving an Auro program can automatically perform a similar positional rendering process (be it with VBAP panning or fancier remapping technology) and present the desired soundfield over the available speakers in the room.


----------



## wse

As always thank you Roger great explanation!


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Which are no different than channel-based 5.1 or 7.1 tracks, even when applying DSU.


Electrically, they are the same. But we are already seeing that Atmos mixes played in normal 7.1 systems can sound quite different, in that it is easier to detect sounds panning laterally and most interestingly, overhead. I presume just a byproduct of the Atmos mixers taking full advantage of the 3D pallette. Perhaps those same emphasized positions we are hearing in the 7.1 mix will influence DSU to yield a better result than we normally hear from 5.1 or 7.1 sources.


----------



## wse

So today I went to see the ATMOS demo at my dealer he had all KEFs around! A 7.4.4 oh my, it was incredible I loved it.

I need to do that except my mini KEF cinema, which has 7 KEF LS50s is too small for 4 ATMOS speakers (13 x 11 x 9) so if I only place two ATMOS speakers where should I put them?

I have one row of seats!


----------



## Roger Dressler

wse said:


> I need to do that except my mini KEF cinema, which has 7 KEF LS50s is too small for 4 ATMOS speakers (13 x 11 x 9) so if I only place two ATMOS speakers where should I put them?
> 
> I have one row of seats!


Follow the Dolby guidelines.


----------



## NorthSky

Up above your head, 10° forward. ...And in line with your two front mains (floor speakers).


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> ...Since the Atmos system understands sounds with directional positions, the Auro height signals could be encoded into an Atmos bitstream as objects with ~30° elevation. The Atmos system will render those sounds to those positions.


Who would do that encoding?


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Who would do that encoding?


That would be part of the authoring process for the consumer release. A similar process already happens when Atmos movies are prepared for consumer delivery.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> That would be part of the authoring process for the consumer release. A similar process already happens when Atmos movies are prepared for consumer delivery.


Ah, so presumably the authoring is done by a 3rd party, and collaboration between Dolby and Auro isn't required.


----------



## dschulz

Roger Dressler said:


> Auro says that a successful consumer Auro system can be comprised of 9.1 speakers, with the VOG layer spread across the 4 height speakers. QED.
> 
> But wait, there's more.
> 
> This "3 layer" speak is a case of semantics. Allow me to illustrate in the cinema. Let's start with the screen channels, the normal L/C/R. If we sit in the stadium seats we can say they are roughly 0° elevation. Auro adds screen height speakers at what, 15°? Continuing up from there, we encounter the VOG channel produced by a cluster of speakers nominally 90° overhead. 3 layers: 0°, 15°, 90°.


The Auro 9.1 system leaves out the VOG - it has height speakers (at 40 degrees give or take) corresponding to the Left and Right mains and the Left and Right Surrounds.

Not trying to be argumentative, just conveying that the entirety of the Auro-3D format is keyed to the critical importance of those height channels (for both screen channels and the surround channels), with the VOG as a relatively minor contributor needed for flyover effects. This is very, very different from Dolby's approach, which requires only 2 or 4 overhead speakers in addition to the 5.1. or 7.1 base array.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I presume just a byproduct of the Atmos mixers taking full advantage of the 3D pallette.


Was talking to a friend yesterday who summed it up nicely: Atmos showed up and mixers discovered their pan pots. It's not like we haven't heard aggressive surround mixes before, even with occasional height imaging, but if a side effect of immersive formats turns out to be a more adventurous approach to mixing in general, then that's a net positive.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Ah, so presumably the authoring is done by a 3rd party, and collaboration between Dolby and Auro isn't required.


It is that way for non-Atmos titles. I presume that will be the case in future for Atmos titles once "the machinery" is more established.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> The Auro 9.1 system leaves out the VOG - it has height speakers (at 40 degrees give or take) corresponding to the Left and Right mains and the Left and Right Surrounds.


Understood. But I was just inferring that if Auro recommends 9.1 as one of the suitable configurations, they would not say "you can't play back anything resembling a native Auro mix" from it.



> Not trying to be argumentative, just conveying that the entirety of the Auro-3D format is keyed to the critical importance of those height channels (for both screen channels and the surround channels), with the VOG as a relatively minor contributor needed for flyover effects. This is very, very different from Dolby's approach, which requires only 2 or 4 overhead speakers in addition to the 5.1. or 7.1 base array.


Also, I understand what you are saying. My inference from that statement is that Auro wants to cater to a specific aesthetic, a certain sense of elevation or scale (particularly evident with Wilfried's live recordings). To me, this is analogous to the way DSX prescribes wide speakers to create a certain proscenium effect with their early reflections, etc. 

Dolby, on the other hand, appears to have taken the approach that given a fixed set of resources, what would be the best way to facilitate a 3D space in which movie mixers could craft whatever sort of effects they wanted. It is not pre-ordained to any specific aesthetic.


----------



## helvetica bold

Anyone here has know of an Atmos demo for the home at a retailer in NYC?
We have plenty of Atmos theaters but I can't seem to find a retail demo just yet.


----------



## NorthSky

> Was talking to a friend yesterday who summed it up nicely: Atmos showed up and mixers discovered their pan pots. It's not like we haven't heard aggressive surround mixes before, even with occasional height imaging, but if a side effect of immersive formats turns out to be a more adventurous approach to mixing in general, then that's a net positive.


Is indeed, is indeed.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Electrically, they are the same. *But we are already seeing that Atmos mixes played in normal 7.1 systems can sound quite different, in that it is easier to detect sounds panning laterally and most interestingly, overhead. *I presume just a byproduct of the Atmos mixers taking full advantage of the 3D pallette. Perhaps those same emphasized positions we are hearing in the 7.1 mix will influence DSU to yield a better result than we normally hear from 5.1 or 7.1 sources.



Roger, any specific example of this please? Are you referring to what I am thinking about?


----------



## snooktarpon

*Will Atmos Content Pass-Through a HDMI Matrix Switcher*

I have a Oppo BDP-93 going into an Intelix 4x4 HMDI Matrix Switcher (http://www.intelix.com/intlx_prod_details.php?pitem=DIGI-HD-4X4#tabs-4). My plans are to have 1 of the outputs from the matrix switcher going to a Denon AVR-X4100 Atmos capable receiver (direct HDMI cable from matrix switcher to the AVR, no cat5/balun).

So will there be any issues of the Atmos content passing through matrix switcher?


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Roger, any specific example of this please? Are you referring to what I am thinking about?


Just referring to my own experience with the Atmos demo disc in my 7.1 system. I think others have made similar observations, possibly with Transformers or other content on the "clips equipped" demo disc.


----------



## Roger Dressler

snooktarpon said:


> So will there be any issues of the Atmos content passing through matrix switcher?


No. It complies with current HDMI.


----------



## ellisr63

snooktarpon said:


> I have a Oppo BDP-93 going into an Intelix 4x4 HMDI Matrix Switcher (http://www.intelix.com/intlx_prod_details.php?pitem=DIGI-HD-4X4#tabs-4). My plans are to have 1 of the outputs from the matrix switcher going to a Denon AVR-X4100 Atmos capable receiver (direct HDMI cable from matrix switcher to the AVR, no cat5/balun).
> 
> So will there be any issues of the Atmos content passing through matrix switcher?


Why are you going through a switcher... Don't you have enough inputs on the Denon?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> The catch is going to be in the Auro height layer - from my experience that height layer is really, really critical - it is the key to the whole effect that Auro-3D is creating.


It is critical (don't know about "really, really") to the effect Van Baelen is trying to create with live music recordings that use his Auro microphone tree to capture height reflections. Unfortunately for Auro, this is not how any movie soundtracks nor most music recordings are created. Instead, they're constructed piece by piece in studios, using hundreds of separate elements. Folks should consider carefully whether they want to dedicate speaker placement for something so niche.


dschulz said:


> But Auro has a height layer that Atmos doesn't have at all, and it is completely central to the Auro sound design.


Movie soundtracks have a centre channel that stereo music recordings don't. But that doesn't stop those music recordings from imaging sounds in the middle of the soundstage, right where the centre speaker would have been. Assuming appropriate remapping, an Atmos speaker set-up can likewise image sounds between the surround speakers and top speakers, right where the Auro height layer would have been.


dschulz said:


> This is very, very different from Dolby's approach, which requires only 2 or 4 overhead speakers in addition to the 5.1. or 7.1 base array.


It is different (don't know about "very, very") from Atmos, though I think the difference is more philosophical than technical. Auro wants to create a tall wall of sound around the listener, where the heights are about 30 degrees elevation and around 15 degrees above their respective main speakers. By comparison, Atmos wants to create a dome, where speakers outside the L/C/R are shared equally between surrounds and overhead speakers. Still, they do have some speaker placement in common, so it's not impossible to create a compromise set-up that will serve both. Question is, will there be enough compelling content in Auro to justify the compromise?


----------



## wse

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## helvetica bold

This might have been mentioned already but the new Kindel Fire HDX will be the first table w/ Atmos! 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/categories/tablet.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> So today I went to see the ATMOS demo at my dealer he had all KEFs around! A 7.4.4 oh my, it was incredible I loved it.
> 
> I need to do that except my mini KEF cinema, which has 7 KEF LS50s is too small for 4 ATMOS speakers (13 x 11 x 9) so if I only place two ATMOS speakers where should I put them?
> 
> I have one row of seats!


How is it possible that a room is large enough for SEVEN listener level speakers but too small to accommodate four overheads?

But anyway, the 7.1.2 setup is clearly described in the home Atmos white paper.


----------



## wse

batpig said:


> How is it possible that a room is large enough for SEVEN listener level speakers but too small to accommodate four overheads?
> 
> But anyway, the 7.1.2 setup is clearly described in the home Atmos white paper.


Got it thanks I posted the PDF


----------



## NorthSky

I asked a simple question in another thread, but it seems that or people missed it or simply ignored it.

It's fine; but let me try here:

Dolby Surround Up-mixer; is it universal for all listening modes like Movies, Music and Games?
Or does it have them three respective modes?

And, can we expect this to improve in future Dolby Atmos product's generations?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The same could be said for stereo or surround. I'm not going to laugh harder at _'Airplane!'_ if the soundtrack is 5.1 instead of mono. If height effects are icing on the cake, then so is surround sound. But that's not an excuse for sloppy placement of height speakers. The two aren't mutually exclusive, though I can see personal preference sometimes conflicting with best practices for a format. It's not unreasonable for someone to want to hear an Auro music mix as it was intended to be heard, with height speakers elevated around you rather than overhead. Same for Atmos.


That is true - but it doesn't negate Roger's comments IMO. What he said was "silly" was mounting two different sets of speakers for two different systems, Atmos and Auro. I can tell you for sure one person who won't be doing that! When Auro content is released, I will audition it (assuming I do the upgrade on my Denon) using my Atmos speakers. If it doesn't play well with those speakers, in those positions, then I will forget about it and just upmix Auro discs using DSU. There is no way I will be adding a separate set of speakers, and that was Roger's point I think.



sdurani said:


> The difference in speaker layout between those two is not inaudible, and both might conflict with the listener's own preferences. A problem to be sorted through rather than dismissed for placement that is "involving, engaging, exciting". How do you translate those subjective qualities into objective placement recommendations for height speakers?


Again, I think Roger was saying that if the listening experience was involving, engaging and exciting, then that will be more than enough for many people. Unless we were in the mixing suite when the content was mixed, we have no way of knowing if we are hearing what the content creator intended, so as long as we are happy with the results, that is what matters.

Note that you and I are not very far apart on this whole matter in general - I believe in getting the Atmos speakers mounted in accordance with Dolby's specification, and have done so for my own. But to have to mount a whole separate set for Auro is indeed "silly" IMO, and absent that decision then Auro content will perforce be compromised in its playback if a set of Atmos-located speakers are used for it. But - that compromise may yet be involving, exciting etc and if it is, that's great.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It is critical (don't know about "really, really") to the effect Van Baelen is trying to create with live music recordings that use his Auro microphone tree to capture height reflections. Unfortunately for Auro, this is not how any movie soundtracks nor most music recordings are created. Instead, they're constructed piece by piece in studios, using hundreds of separate elements. Folks should consider carefully whether they want to dedicate speaker placement for something so niche.


I've missed this in my admittedly peripatetic readings about Auro. So does Auro have to be recorded in a special way then, using a special sort of mic? If so then this makes it a non-stater for movies where production sound is captured on set using mics that work practically in that situation and where the rest of the soundtrack is recorded and added separately later, eg foley, music and library.



sdurani said:


> Question is, will there be enough compelling content in Auro to justify the compromise?


So far, we know the answer to that. And from what you say above, it seems unlikely to change. Was Auro originally envisaged as a means to make music recordings sound better when played back, rather than as a purpose-agnostic system that Atmos seems to be? As you know, I am only interested in movies in the HT, so it seems, from the recent discussion, that Auro may be no loss to me whatever happens.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> I asked a simple question in another thread, but it seems that or people missed it or simply ignored it.
> 
> It's fine; but let me try here:
> 
> Dolby Surround Up-mixer; is it universal for all listening modes like Movies, Music and Games? Or does it have them three respective modes?
> 
> And, can we expect this to improve in future Dolby Atmos product's generations?


Great question I think there is only one option for DSUM 

Page 309 http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7009/NA/EN/WBSPSYdjnkeccz.php


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> I asked a simple question in another thread, but it seems that or people missed it or simply ignored it.
> 
> It's fine; but let me try here:
> 
> Dolby Surround Up-mixer; is it universal for all listening modes like Movies, Music and Games?
> Or does it have them three respective modes?
> 
> And, can we expect this to improve in future Dolby Atmos product's generations?


DSU is a one size fits all solution with the option of having centre channel being spred to FL and FR.


----------



## pasender91

In PL IIx, we have a choice Music or Cinema.

The main difference was for 2.0 sources:
- Music would play the original sound on FL and FR, and then build surround effects on other speakers.
- Cinema would play all common mono signal on the Center speaker and treat other speakers including FL and FR for surround effects.
I prefer much more the Music mode, which does not alter FL and FR signals.

So, for those that listen to it already, what is DS doing, more like the old Music or more like the old Cinema?


----------



## batpig

It's really kind of neither, with its frequency based steering there is some secret sauce that prevents everything from collapsing to the center like if you tried to use PLII Cinema mode with stereo music while still anchoring vocals well. 

There is a Center Spread setting for those who prefer the "music mode" effect of spreading the center image across the front three speakers. This will be most faithful to the old PLII Music mode. But I can tell you that after forgetting to change this setting several times when switching from movie to music playback, I realized that I don't need to turn it on to enjoy music upmix. Like I said, whatever they are doing effectively prevents the soundstage from collapsing to the center. But the setting is there if you need it.


----------



## pasender91

bat or pig or duck or whatever , thanks for the answer.

So contrary to what was said before, it is not strictly speaking "one size fits all".
If i understood correctly:
DS, center spread ON => similar to PL IIx Music
DS, center spread OFF => similar to PL IIx Cinema

I understood, it is not the same algorithm, hence the word similar.
This is still good news that DS allows for some kind of tuning


----------



## David Susilo

That's what I said though


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I asked a simple question in another thread, but it seems that or people missed it or simply ignored it.
> 
> It's fine; but let me try here:
> 
> Dolby Surround Up-mixer; is it universal for all listening modes like Movies, Music and Games?
> Or does it have them three respective modes?
> 
> And, can we expect this to improve in future Dolby Atmos product's generations?


I would say yes 
I'm listening to directv sonic Tap station 70's Hits input from directv PCM 2.0 ch 48 kHz it's upmixing to Dolby Surround 5.1.2 
Can't help answer if games will as I don't play games, but I would guess that it will upmix


----------



## dan webster

NorthSky said:


> I asked a simple question in another thread, but it seems that or people missed it or simply ignored it.
> 
> It's fine; but let me try here:
> 
> Dolby Surround Up-mixer; is it universal for all listening modes like Movies, Music and Games?
> Or does it have them three respective modes?
> 
> And, can we expect this to improve in future Dolby Atmos product's generations?


I tested this out last night for several hours I watched alot of different content and could hear zero difference between the 3 modes. I watched the last half of Star Trek Into Darkness with DSU and WOW what a difference from regular surround modes. It is really hard to explain unless you hear it. It is not just the overhead speakers that make the difference. The other surrounds are much more active as well as more dynamic. I am really enjoying my new upgrade.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> So does Auro have to be recorded in a special way then, using a special sort of mic? If so then this makes it a non-stater for movies where production sound is captured on set using mics that work practically in that situation and where the rest of the soundtrack is recorded and added separately later, eg foley, music and library.


No, the mixing tools will allow the mixers to place all of the production sound (even if recorded with standard mics), foley, music, library FX etc. anywhere in the soundtrack. Just like you don't have to have a 5.1 mic to record sounds for a 5.1 mix, you don't have to have an Auro-3D mic to record sounds for an Auro-3D mix. 

That said, there is such a thing as an Auro mic tree, and sound captured using it and played back on an Auro system do have a remarkable lifelike quality.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

When I went to cancel my Magnificat order from 2L, due to them dropping the Atmos track from their release, I received an e-mail from Morten Lindberg where he stated:

*All the way up to a week ago we were working on the Atmos. Unfortunately it did not work out right. Most traditional studio recordings are multiple mono sources. Our recordings are true 9.1 where all channels are time-correlated. The spatial encoding in Atmos combined with local rendering posed some unforeseen challenges... We'll continue to work with the technical team at Dolby in their development of Atmos, but currently we will not release music in the Atmos encoding.*

I don't know if it was because using the Auro mic "tree" arrangement doesn't jibe with Atmos (sounds like it was an Auro mix session being repurposed for Atmos) speaker configurations or if objects and the Atmos DAW actually don't work well with live music and ambient recordings. Maybe there is an unforeseen issue with the spatial encoding method used in consumer Atmos (something the commercial version does not have to use). 

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what could be going wrong?


----------



## bargervais

I did an experiment I originally had top front speakers for atmos it was incredible, so as I listened I thought what if middle top would sound better to me than top front so I tacked up speakers middle top position and gave it a whirl. What I decided was front top was better for my room the separation for my MLP IS much better.
So my conclusion is that separation is the key.
When I had them top middle it didn't give my ears the separation that the top fronts do.
So I put everything back to top front.
If my room would be a few feet longer then top middle would be ideal.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> No, the mixing tools will allow the mixers to place all of the production sound (even if recorded with standard mics), foley, music, library FX etc. anywhere in the soundtrack. Just like you don't have to have a 5.1 mic to record sounds for a 5.1 mix, you don't have to have an Auro-3D mic to record sounds for an Auro-3D mix.
> 
> That said, there is such a thing as an Auro mic tree, and sound captured using it and played back on an Auro system do have a remarkable lifelike quality.


Thanks.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

wse said:


> Has any one compared 7.2.2 vs 7.2.4?


The "Report ITU-R BS.2159-6" (11/2013) described thorough testing how many top speakers were enough. 

"Middle" layer (as they call ear level) was 7.0 and using 9 top speakers for reference, they tried 4, 3, 2 and 0 top speakers. With 3 top speakers, there was a single rear center top speaker. Turned out, 3 tops was about as good as anything. 2 was better than none. 9 (actually 8 + VOG) was still best (score 90+) and most consistent for all listeners regardless where the sat, but the paper claimed it was "imperceptible" since it scored 80 (2 tops scored 70).

Hence 4 elevated speakers (since 3 isn't supported) would be something anybody should aim for in a post 2014 surround layout...


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> When I went to cancel my Magnificat order from 2L, due to them dropping the Atmos track from their release, I received an e-mail from Morten Lindberg where he stated: *All the way up to a week ago we were working on the Atmos. Unfortunately it did not work out right. Most traditional studio recordings are multiple mono sources. Our recordings are true 9.1 where all channels are time-correlated. The spatial encoding in Atmos combined with local rendering posed some unforeseen challenges... We'll continue to work with the technical team at Dolby in their development of Atmos, but currently we will not release music in the Atmos encoding.*
> 
> I don't know if it was because using the Auro mic "tree" arrangement doesn't jibe with Atmos (sounds like it was an Auro mix session being repurposed for Atmos) speaker configurations or if objects and the Atmos DAW actually don't work well with live music and ambient recordings. Maybe there is an unforeseen issue with the spatial encoding method used in consumer Atmos (something the commercial version does not have to use). * Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what could be going wrong?*




The problem would appear to be that the mikes at a live concert recording do not in general capture 'individual *positional* object' sounds. Consider a recording session "in the round" with strings in front of, and brass behind the mike stand. The front height mikes hear 'loud' strings and 'quiet' brass, plus 'early' wall reflections from the strings and 'late' wall reflections from the brass. The reverse relationships hold true for the rear height mikes.

For Auro playback, the height speakers are arranged in the same configuration as the (height) mikes, but for Atmos playback, the "loud strings|soft brass" content recorded by one pair of height mikes matches only one speaker position relative to the MLP, and it's hard to see how VBAP might correct for a different relative position; for example, a middle top speaker pair should be playing back 'equal loudness' strings and brass, plus a mixture of both early and late wall reflections from both strings and brass.

_


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> That is true - but it doesn't negate Roger's comments IMO. What he said was "silly" was mounting two different sets of speakers for two different systems, Atmos and Auro.


I was replying specifically to the part I quoted, about height effects being icing on the cake (the cake being 5.1 or 7.1 playback). Everything (sound, colour, digital) was icing on the cake at some point in cinema history when they were new. My point was that I wouldn't dismiss differences between Auro and Atmos height speaker placement just because height is something new (icing on the cake).


> Again, I think Roger was saying that if the listening experience was involving, engaging and exciting, then that will be more than enough for many people.


Again, my point was that "involving", "engaging" and "exciting" are not speaker locations. They're descriptions of a subjective experience, an end result. Both Atmos and Auro have definite ideas on height speaker placement, and 'put them where you enjoy them' is not on the list of recommendations.


----------



## NorthSky

*Clarification*



NorthSky said:


> I asked a simple question in another thread, but it seems that or people missed it or simply ignored it.
> 
> It's fine; but let me try here:
> 
> Dolby Surround Up-mixer; is it universal for all listening modes like Movies, Music and Games?
> Or does it have them three respective modes?
> 
> And, can we expect this to improve in future Dolby Atmos product's generations?





David Susilo said:


> DSU is a one size fits all solution with the option of having centre channel being spred to FL and FR.





pasender91 said:


> In PL IIx, we have a choice Music or Cinema.
> 
> The main difference was for 2.0 sources:
> - Music would play the original sound on FL and FR, and then build surround effects on other speakers.
> - Cinema would play all common mono signal on the Center speaker and treat other speakers including FL and FR for surround effects.
> I prefer much more the Music mode, which does not alter FL and FR signals.
> 
> So, for those that listen to it already, what is DS doing, more like the old Music or more like the old Cinema?





batpig said:


> It's really kind of neither, with its frequency based steering there is some secret sauce that prevents everything from collapsing to the center like if you tried to use PLII Cinema mode with stereo music while still anchoring vocals well.
> 
> There is a Center Spread setting for those who prefer the "music mode" effect of spreading the center image across the front three speakers. This will be most faithful to the old PLII Music mode. But I can tell you that after forgetting to change this setting several times when switching from movie to music playback, I realized that I don't need to turn it on to enjoy music upmix. Like I said, whatever they are doing effectively prevents the soundstage from collapsing to the center. But the setting is there if you need it.





pasender91 said:


> bat or pig or duck or whatever , thanks for the answer.
> 
> So contrary to what was said before, it is not strictly speaking "one size fits all".
> If i understood correctly:
> DS, center spread ON => similar to PL IIx Music
> DS, center spread OFF => similar to PL IIx Cinema
> 
> I understood, it is not the same algorithm, hence the word similar.
> This is still good news that DS allows for some kind of tuning





David Susilo said:


> That's what I said though





bargervais said:


> I would say yes
> I'm listening to directv sonic Tap station 70's Hits input from directv PCM 2.0 ch 48 kHz it's upmixing to Dolby Surround 5.1.2
> Can't help answer if games will as I don't play games, but I would guess that it will upmix





dan webster said:


> I tested this out last night for several hours I watched alot of different content and could hear zero difference between the 3 modes. I watched the last half of Star Trek Into Darkness with DSU and WOW what a difference from regular surround modes. It is really hard to explain unless you hear it. It is not just the overhead speakers that make the difference. The other surrounds are much more active as well as more dynamic. I am really enjoying my new upgrade.


________

♦ And: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

So, let me clarify my small confusion:

Dolby Surround up-mixer has three (3) separate listening audio modes;
1. Cinema
2. Music
3. Games

And with separate audio adjustment parameters?

And! You can use with two-channel stereo material, as well with 5.1 and 7.1 original material?
...Just like you could do before with Dolby Pro Logic IIx Cinema, Music, and Game mode. ...And PLIIz.
...And with Music mode you could expand the soundstage, the panorama, etc.

Again, my question is this: *Dolby Surround up-mixer; do you have those three modes, or is it one-mode-fits-all (universal) for all sources - movies, music and games?*

I am sorry, but I am still confused a little. ...A page, a graph, a technical paper, ...where it is well indicated with the various options or not, audio parameters or not, listening audio modes or not, would greatly help. 

When you watch a movie with a 5.1 DD or dts audio soundtrack (or 7.1) and/or in Dolby TrueHD & DTS-HD Master Audio, that is easy to understand; you simply engage _Dolby Surround up-mixer_ and voila, overhead sounds coming from the sky above.

But! When listening to a Hybrid Multichannel SACD (5.1), or a CD music stereo, or anything else having music, any number of channels, gaming consoles, any type of other source, for our viewing and listening pleasure; *What do you do exactly* with that new up-mixing Dolby Surround from Dolby Atmos products? ...What are your options? ...In clear language so that we can all understand without any confusion.

And that, was exactly my question(s).


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> When I went to cancel my Magnificat order from 2L, due to them dropping the Atmos track from their release, I received an e-mail from Morten Lindberg where he stated:
> 
> *All the way up to a week ago we were working on the Atmos. Unfortunately it did not work out right. Most traditional studio recordings are multiple mono sources. Our recordings are true 9.1 where all channels are time-correlated. The spatial encoding in Atmos combined with local rendering posed some unforeseen challenges... We'll continue to work with the technical team at Dolby in their development of Atmos, but currently we will not release music in the Atmos encoding.*
> 
> I don't know if it was because using the Auro mic "tree" arrangement doesn't jibe with Atmos (sounds like it was an Auro mix session being repurposed for Atmos) speaker configurations or if objects and the Atmos DAW actually don't work well with live music and ambient recordings. Maybe there is an unforeseen issue with the spatial encoding method used in consumer Atmos (something the commercial version does not have to use).
> 
> Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what could be going wrong?


Dan, this is most interesting. And I don't know the details or reasons why new last minute decisions were made. 

But I do have a question though: *Do you know (or anyone else here reading this) if when you purchase this 2L Blu-ray music title "Magnificat"; does it come with brief instructions inside on how to properly position all your speakers, including overhead ones, for best music performance in your own room?*

That, should be a clue, as to whether Atmos or/and Auro-3D was first thought of. 
...And consequently indicating a new music listening direction. ...In a new surround sound music listening experience with height information, properly done; finally.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> The problem would appear to be that the mikes at a live concert recording do not in general capture 'individual *positional* object' sounds. Consider a recording session "in the round" with strings in front of, and brass behind the mike stand. The front height mikes hear 'loud' strings and 'quiet' brass, plus 'early' wall reflections from the strings and 'late' wall reflections from the brass. The reverse relationships hold true for the rear height mikes.
> 
> For Auro playback, the height speakers are arranged in the same configuration as the (height) mikes, but for Atmos playback, the "loud strings|soft brass" content recorded by one pair of height mikes matches only one speaker position relative to the MLP, and it's hard to see how VBAP might correct for a different relative position; for example, a middle top speaker pair should be playing back 'equal loudness' strings and brass, plus a mixture of both early and late wall reflections from both strings and brass.
> 
> _


Ok, I just now finished reading your post. ...Very interesting what you're saying.

Best would be to have exact specifics from 2L studios; their sound recording/engineering team.


----------



## David Susilo

According to Dolby's answer during AVS Dolby meet at CEDIA (someone from AVS asked Dolby about this); the answer was: There is no more music, games, movie modes. It is now just called Dolby Surround with the option to have centre spread on or off. Also it was insinuated that the FL and FR are NOT processed.

Therefore, my take from the conversation is that DSU is essentially DPL Music with the ability of putting the vocal/dialog on the centre channel should you choose to.


----------



## David Susilo

PS: I never liked the DPL Movie/Music to begin with. I use DTS Neo Music when I want to create surround from any of my 2-ch stuff. Both movie and music.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ________
> 
> 
> Dolby Surround up-mixer has three (3) separate listening audio modes;
> 1. Cinema
> 2. Music
> 3. Games
> 
> And with separate audio adjustment parameters?
> 
> 
> Again, my question is this: *Dolby Surround up-mixer; do you have those three modes, or is it one-mode-fits-all (universal) for all sources - movies, music and games?*


*
Ok
Let me put it like this you have.
1. Cinema
2. Music
3. Games
And with each Dolby surround is in each one
I also have 
4.THX
Which doesn't have a Dolby surround option
Hope that explains and helps you understand I don't have any papers but I'm sure you could download a manual for whatever AVR you have questions about that could clear it up for you.*


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> According to Dolby's answer during AVS Dolby meet at CEDIA (someone from AVS asked Dolby about this); the answer was: There is no more music, games, movie modes. It is now just called Dolby Surround with the option to have centre spread on or off. Also it was insinuated that the FL and FR are NOT processed.
> 
> Therefore, my take from the conversation is that DSU is essentially DPL Music with the ability of putting the vocal/dialog on the centre channel should you choose to.


Ok, that is quite clear to me. ...For the new DSU.
{Some people said the opposite before, with three distinctive audio modes; I guess they were in error.}

By the way David, movies are also music (sounds); so the Dolby Atmos receiver probably doesn't care if it is from movies, or specifically music, or games. ...It is an "Universal" audio mode for all sources no matter where they are coming from. ...Or if they are Mono, Stereo, or Multichannel. 

Thank you.



David Susilo said:


> PS: I never liked the DPL Movie/Music to begin with. I use DTS Neo Music when I want to create surround from any of my 2-ch stuff. Both movie and music.


Me, personally I prefer Dolby Pro Logic family over dts family. 
I always use DPLIIx with movies (Cinema mode), even with 5.1 audio soundtracks, and PLIIx Music mode, very often, with stereo CDs (two-channel) and multichannel hybrid SACDs (3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 5.1-channel). ...And with Blu-ray (and DVD) music concerts (2-channel and 5.1-channel). 

That's me, with my own set of ears, in my own room, with my own gear, and how I'm setup for everything, for now, part of my music/movie life. ...For my own personal pleasure on a day-to-day living basis, in the mood. 

This, is now going to change, "slightly', or "enormously", with Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround up-mixer.
...Soon.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So does Auro have to be recorded in a special way then, using a special sort of mic?


No, but those type of recordings were their primary demonstration material at CEDIA. By comparison, the Atmos demos were all studio creations (movie soundtracks & pop music). Make of that what you will.


> Was Auro originally envisaged as a means to make music recordings sound better when played back, rather than as a purpose-agnostic system that Atmos seems to be?


There was a video of Van Baelen giving a tour of Galaxy Sudios, where he mentioned using elevated mics to capture height reflections over the course of a couple hundred music recording sessions. During playback, he played the recorded height information via a pair of height speakers above the L/R mains and thought he was on to something. But it wasn't until he added a pair of height speakers above the L/R surrounds that realized he had the makings of an immersive audio format, with the simplest iteration being what he was listening to: 5.1 plus quad heights. 

So those are its roots, with VOG and centre height added for movie soundtracks. Unfortunately for Auro, a few months after releasing an 11.1-channel theatrical mix, here comes the 800lb gorilla of movie sound introducing technology that could eventually transition away from channels altogether. And unlike Auro, Dolby was less interested in a particular aesthetic than giving mixers an expanded canvas that improved coverage to every surface of a movie theatre (there were just as many speakers on the ceiling as there were on the side walls).


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Ok
> Let me put it like this you have.
> 1. Cinema
> 2. Music
> 3. Games
> And with each Dolby surround is in each one
> I also have
> 4.THX
> Which doesn't have a Dolby surround option
> Hope that explains and helps you understand I don't have any papers but I'm sure you could download a manual for whatever AVR you have questions about that could clear it up for you.


You just contradicted what David just said.

Do you now understand the confusion that some of us have?


----------



## NorthSky

> No, but those type of recordings were their primary demonstration material at CEDIA. By comparison, the Atmos demos were all studio creations (movie soundtracks & pop music). Make of that what you will. There was a video of Van Baelen giving a tour of Galaxy Studios, where he mentioned using elevated mics to capture height reflections over the course of a couple hundred music recording sessions. During playback, he played the recorded height information via a pair of height speakers above the L/R mains and thought he was on to something. But it wasn't until he added a pair of height speakers above the L/R surrounds that realized he had the makings of an immersive audio format, with the simplest iteration being what he was listening to: 5.1 plus quad heights.
> 
> So those are its roots, with VOG and centre height added for movie soundtracks. Unfortunately for Auro, a few months after releasing an 11.1-channel theatrical mix, here comes the 800lb gorilla of movie sound introducing technology that could eventually transition away from channels altogether. And unlike Auro, Dolby was less interested in a particular aesthetic than giving mixers an expanded canvas that improved coverage to every surface of a movie theatre (there were just as many speakers on the ceiling as there were on the side walls).


I can see clearer the 'dischordance' between Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D. 

Interesting to see what will come up from this; Auro-3D own speaker's positioning, and Auro-3D own music/movie's recordings. 

Quantity is one thing, quality is more important. ...To me. ...And affordability, and simplicity, and harmony.


----------



## Roger Dressler

David Susilo said:


> According to Dolby's answer during AVS Dolby meet at CEDIA (someone from AVS asked Dolby about this); the answer was: There is no more music, games, movie modes. It is now just called Dolby Surround with the option to have centre spread on or off. Also it was insinuated that the FL and FR are NOT processed.


For 2-ch content, the only way to steer vocals to center is to process the L/R. And I doubt there's any spreading of C to L/R. If it's like PLII, the vocal originates in the L/R, so the difference between Movies/Music is only in the degree of center that is removed from L/R. 

The reason PLII(x) has a game mode was due to the particular way PLII handled bass management in the movie/music modes, which was to deliberately _not _feed the surround signals to the bass manager. PLII is a "wideband" system in that the steering mechanism has no frequency selectivity. The signals derived from the source and presented to the surrounds are always sums/differences of the L and R source, and that means the same bass in the 2 source channels gets spread to all the PLII outputs (5 or 7). If all those signals are used to derive the subwoofer signal, the bass level would appear to modulate (especially audible with music content) as the sum is varying as the decoder alters the sums/differences in the surrounds. The remedy was simple and effective: only use L/C/R for bass management. 

The "problem" was that there are many occasions in video games where some big effect was positioned hard to the surrounds. When the bass is omitted, it loses the intended effect. So Game mode taps all the PLII outputs for bass management, reasoning that the bass modulation effects would not be noticed in the heat of game play. 

In the case of Dolby Surround, the frequency selectivity of the steering means that bass modulation can be avoided, hence the Game mode is no longer needed. 



David Susilo said:


> PS: I never liked the DPL Movie/Music to begin with. I use DTS Neo Music when I want to create surround from any of my 2-ch stuff. Both movie and music.


Just curious, David, are you using Neo:6 or Neo:X?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> You just contradicted what David just said.
> 
> Do you now understand the confusion that some of us have?


All I can tell you is that my AVR listening mode has 
MOVIE/TV
MUSIC
GAME
THX
And in each one except for THX....
(Dolby Surround is a choice)

Not sure if David and me are talking about two different things.
To me a listening mode is what I see on this receiver..


----------



## FilmMixer

DSU has one mode... On the Denons it is accessed via any of the three mode keys. 

I've not listened to it on filmed content. Howver, it is the best 2.0 music up mixer I have heard so far. 

More than adding spaciousness, it pulls out individual parts of the music mix and sterers them in a very tasteful manner 

Very impressive. 

And very similar to the Penteo Surround processing which I am very fond of using for music in films. 

If you want an example of Penteo processing listen to either the opening Christopher Cross song in Anchorman 2, or the final Kimbra end credit song on The Heat.


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> All I can tell you is that my AVR listening mode has
> MOVIE/TV
> MUSIC
> GAME
> THX
> And in each one except for THX....
> (Dolby Surround is a choice)
> 
> Not sure if David and me are talking about two different things.
> To me a listening mode is what I see on this receiver..


You're talking about something totally different. We (the rest of us ) are talking about DSU only. And, unlike Dolby PLII or DTS Neo, there is no longer any movie/music/game mode distinction. There is only ONE mode of DSU, with the only optional setting being the Center Spread which is a Yes/No setting.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ________
> Again, my question is this: *Dolby Surround up-mixer; do you have those three modes, or is it one-mode-fits-all (universal) for all sources - movies, music and games?*
> 
> I am sorry, but I am still confused a little. ...A page, a graph, a technical paper, ...where it is well indicated with the various options or not, audio parameters or not, listening audio modes or not, would greatly help.
> 
> But! When listening to a Hybrid Multichannel SACD (5.1), or a CD music stereo, or anything else having music, any number of channels, gaming consoles, any type of other source, for our viewing and listening pleasure; *What do you do exactly* with that new up-mixing Dolby Surround from Dolby Atmos products? ...What are your options? ...In clear language so that we can all understand without any confusion.
> 
> And that, was exactly my question(s).


There is only one DSUM no more freedom unless you call center SPREAD an option!


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> All I can tell you is that my AVR listening mode has
> MOVIE/TV
> MUSIC
> GAME
> THX
> And in each one except for THX....
> (Dolby Surround is a choice)
> 
> Not sure if David and me are talking about two different things.
> To me a listening mode is what I see on this receiver..


My specific question was regarding Dolby Surround.

* MOVIE/TV, MUSIC, GAME, and THX are totally separate audio modes. 
And with Dolby Surround, I thought that Pro Logic Movie, Music, and Game modes were no more? 
Am I missing something here, is your receiver conformed to the latest/newest Dolby Atmos specs? 

Are those audio modes you just mentioned above part of Onkyo's proprietary scheme? 
...Like Onkyo's own Movie/TV, Music, and Game modes? 
Because your receiver is not supposed to have Dolby Pro Logic anymore, or does it? 
And if it does how come Denon does not? 

I truly thought that with a new Dolby Atmos receiver; that Dolby Surround was the new audio up-mixer, replacing the entire Dolby Pro Logic family? ...We've talked about that months ago, and it was very clear.

Roger just said that DPL IIx Game mode is no more, what about DPL IIx Music mode?
It can't be because DPL is now dead with them new Dolby Atmos receivers.

*So, does Dolby Surround up-mixer have a separate Movie and Music audio mode?*
Or is it the same for both, with the now new distinction/option of *turning On/Off* the center spread information? ...For both music listening and movie watching? 

To me, it seems way less complicated now with Dolby Surround than it was before with the Dolby Pro Logic family. ...PL, PLII, PLIIx, PLIIz, and with the three modes; Movie, Music, and Game. ...And with the option of adjusting PLIIx Music mode Panorama (On/Off), Dimension, and Center Width.

This is the Dolby Atmos thread, Dolby Pro Logic is dead, passed, from old units, history, dinosaur's age, ice age, extinction. 

And if Dolby Pro Logic is truly dead (that I 100% believe), then the question is Dolby Surround new audio up-mixer; does it have, or not, any other options (like Movie, Music, Game mode) other than only On/Off Center Width? ....For EVERYTHING. 

It is now my understanding that no, it does not. ...It is a "universal" audio up-mixer mode for all sources (Music, Movies, and Games); all equally. ...Without no more distinction; sounds are sounds. ...Music is music. ...And music and sounds are parts of movies, and games. 

Am I on the right track?

♦ EDIT: Yes I am, after just reading the three posts above mine. ...Thank you, very clear now.


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> I did an experiment I originally had top front speakers for atmos it was incredible, so as I listened I thought what if middle top would sound better to me than top front so I tacked up speakers middle top position and gave it a whirl. What I decided was front top was better for my room the separation for my MLP IS much better.
> So my conclusion is that separation is the key.
> When I had them top middle it didn't give my ears the separation that the top fronts do.
> So I put everything back to top front.
> If my room would be a few feet longer then top middle would be ideal.



How big is your room? 

I am thinking may be I should do first a pair of ATMOS for the front and later a pair for the back!


----------



## NorthSky

*bargervais*, which receiver of yours are you referring to; Onkyo 818 or Onkyo 737? ...I hope it is the 737.

Because Dolby Atmos is the new thing from this thread, and with it Movie/TV, Music, Game, and THX audio modes are totally separate own Onkyo's audio listening modes. 
They cannot be from the Dolby Pro Logic's family because your 737 receiver doesn't have Pro Logic anymore.

Or is Onkyo different?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Again, my point was that "involving", "engaging" and "exciting" are not speaker locations. They're descriptions of a subjective experience, an end result. Both Atmos and Auro have definite ideas on height speaker placement, and 'put them where you enjoy them' is not on the list of recommendations.


But nobody is saying "put them where you enjoy them". I advocate, as do you, putting Atmos speakers where Dolby recommends you put them. The problem is, that if you carry that creed over to Auro, then you also have to put Auro speakers where Auro recommends to put them. And that is not the same place as with the Atmos speakers. So what do you do? Do you install two sets of speakers (Roger's "silly" point), or do you optimise for one or the other? If the latter, then one set of speakers will be in the wrong place, but, and this is the point, if they sound good and make an enjoyable experience, then that is as good as one can hope for. Whatever you do, unless you have two sets of speakers, both installed according to Atmos and Auro recommendations, then one set will be placed "where you enjoy them" by default. Of course, if one sticks with just Atmos or just Auro, then it would be madness to place them "where you enjoy them" because you should then follow the installation mandates.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No, but those type of recordings were their primary demonstration material at CEDIA. By comparison, the Atmos demos were all studio creations (movie soundtracks & pop music). Make of that what you will.


Hmmmm. If Auro didn't feature movies in their demos, then that tells me something.



sdurani said:


> Unfortunately for Auro, a few months after releasing an 11.1-channel theatrical mix, here comes the 800lb gorilla of movie sound introducing technology that could eventually transition away from channels altogether. And unlike Auro, Dolby was less interested in a particular aesthetic than giving mixers an expanded canvas that improved coverage to every surface of a movie theatre (there were just as many speakers on the ceiling as there were on the side walls).


Yeah. The 800lb gorilla seems to me explain why Van Baelen is so defensive and inventive when he is interviewed. He's running from the gorilla.


----------



## NorthSky

This audio hobby of ours (surround sound) is not so simple, sometimes.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *bargervais*, which receiver of yours are you referring to; Onkyo 818 or Onkyo 737? ...I hope it is the 737.
> 
> Because Dolby Atmos is the new thing from this thread, and with it Movie/TV, Music, Game, and THX audio modes are totally separate own Onkyo's audio listening modes.
> They cannot be from the Dolby Pro Logic's family because your 737 receiver doesn't have Pro Logic anymore.
> 
> Or is Onkyo different?


On my 737 
North sky the 818 in not an Atmos AVR
I know that atmos is a new thing here I'm enjoying 5.2.2 top front ceiling speakers 

North Sky what atmos set up are you enjoying 

On my 737 I can select 
Movie/TV, 
Music,
Game
And in these listening modes I have the Dolby Surround as a choice


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> On my 737
> North sky the 818 in not an Atmos AVR
> I know that atmos is a new thing here I'm enjoying 5.2.2 top front ceiling speakers
> 
> North Sky what atmos set up are you enjoying


Nothing, yet. ...I want a pre/pro, a Marantz one. 
And if I was shopping for a receiver; I would most likely pick the X7200 or the X5200 (Denon).
But even better I would wait for the 2nd gen. 



> On my 737 I can select
> Movie/TV,
> Music,
> Game
> And in these listening modes I have the Dolby Surround as a choice


Those are Onkyo's own proprietary audio listening modes? ...Are they for THX? ...They got to be.


----------



## snooktarpon

ellisr63 said:


> Why are you going through a switcher... Don't you have enough inputs on the Denon?


It is a whole-house setup where I have a central location of sources (such as the Oppo BD player) feeding 3 rooms. The 3rd room is with the Denon Atmos AVR.


----------



## pasender91

bargervais said:


> On my 737
> North sky the 818 in not an Atmos AVR
> I know that atmos is a new thing here I'm enjoying 5.2.2 top front ceiling speakers
> 
> North Sky what atmos set up are you enjoying
> 
> On my 737 I can select
> Movie/TV,
> Music,
> Game
> And in these listening modes I have the Dolby Surround as a choice


NorthSky, bargervais, i can explain 
On the Onkyo there is a set of 3 buttons on the remote Movie / Music / Game.
From there you can select a set of related audio modes, but the initial button is just a shortcut or filter. When you select DS from any of those 3 categories you activate the SAME DS.
Choosing Movie=>DS or Music=>DS or Game=>DS brings the same result, just 3 different paths to activate DS in the menu.

*DS is one mode only, with only one option "Center Spread" to control the amount of signal sent to the center.*

Can we conclude this discussion now?


----------



## bargervais

pasender91 said:


> NorthSky, bargervais, i can explain
> On the Onkyo there is a set of 3 buttons on the remote Movie / Music / Game.
> From there you can select a set of audio modes, but the initial button is just a shortcut or filter. When you select DS from any of those 3 categories you activate the SAME DS.
> 
> DS is only one mode, coosing Movie=>DS or Music=>DS is the same result, just a different path to get there in the menu.
> 
> *DS is one mode only, with only one option "Center Spread" to control the amount of signal sent to the center.*
> 
> Can we conclude this discussion now?


Yes please


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Ok, that is quite clear to me. ...For the new DSU.
> 
> .It is an "Universal" audio mode for all sources no matter where they are coming from. ...Or if they are Mono, Stereo, or Multichannel.
> 
> Me, personally I prefer Dolby Pro Logic family over dts family.
> I always use DPLIIx with movies (Cinema mode), even with 5.1 audio soundtracks, and PLIIx Music mode, very often, with stereo CDs (two-channel) and multichannel hybrid SACDs (3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 5.1-channel). ...And with Blu-ray (and DVD) music concerts (2-channel and 5.1-channel).
> 
> That's me, with my own set of ears, in my own room, with my own gear, and how I'm setup for everything, for now, part of my music/movie life. ...For my own personal pleasure on a day-to-day living basis, in the mood. This, is now going to change, "slightly', or "enormously", with Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround up-mixer...Soon.


Same here I love using DolbyIIx for surround sound and convert 5.1 to 7.1


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Hmmmm. If Auro didn't feature movies in their demos, then that tells me something, Yeah. The 800lb gorilla seems to me explain why Van Baelen is so defensive and inventive when he is interviewed. He's running from the gorilla.


There is a French song from George Brassens called "Gare au Gorille". Listen to the words I love it I think that's what Van B is running from. Did you know Van was for royalty may be he has blue blood


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> The problem would appear to be that the mikes at a live concert recording do not in general capture 'individual *positional* object' sounds. Consider a recording session "in the round" with strings in front of, and brass behind the mike stand. The front height mikes hear 'loud' strings and 'quiet' brass, plus 'early' wall reflections from the strings and 'late' wall reflections from the brass. The reverse relationships hold true for the rear height mikes.
> 
> For Auro playback, the height speakers are arranged in the same configuration as the (height) mikes, but for Atmos playback, the "loud strings|soft brass" content recorded by one pair of height mikes matches only one speaker position relative to the MLP, and it's hard to see how VBAP might correct for a different relative position; for example, a middle top speaker pair should be playing back 'equal loudness' strings and brass, plus a mixture of both early and late wall reflections from both strings and brass.
> 
> _


So, coming right down to it, Atmos is not designed for live recordings? Is that the gist of it?

I think Dolby made one mistake by not including a TrueHD version with 9.1 or 11.1 high res. lossless channels specifically for this task. Basically, Atmos would be for movies & documentaries and that sort of thing, and TrueHD 9.1 or 11.1 would be for music.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Dan, this is most interesting. And I don't know the details or reasons why new last minute decisions were made.
> 
> But I do have a question though: *Do you know (or anyone else here reading this) if when you purchase this 2L Blu-ray music title "Magnificat"; does it come with brief instructions inside on how to properly position all your speakers, including overhead ones, for best music performance in your own room?*
> 
> That, should be a clue, as to whether Atmos or/and Auro-3D was first thought of.
> ...And consequently indicating a new music listening direction. ...In a new surround sound music listening experience with height information, properly done; finally.


It's recorded in the standard 9.1 Auro3D layout.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, coming right down to it, Atmos is not designed for live recordings? Is that the gist of it?
> 
> I think Dolby made one mistake by not including a TrueHD version with 9.1 or 11.1 high res. lossless channels specifically for this task. Basically, Atmos would be for movies & documentaries and that sort of thing, and TrueHD 9.1 or 11.1 would be for music.


ATMOS is true HD uncompressed


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> ATMOS is true HD uncompressed


Actually, it's not. 

TrueHD, in its channel based form is bit-for-bit lossless compressed and based on Meridian Lossless Packing. TrueHD with Atmos extensions is more like a hybrid approach. 

Auro3D is not exactly full fidelity either due to how it folds extra channels into a 5.1 or 7.1 PCM bed. 

However, if Dolby had come out with an 11.1 (7.1 plus front wides and two overheads that can comply with the Atmos layout) channel-based TrueHD version with full 24/96 resolution as a companion to Dolby Atmos, Dolby would have beaten Auro on the music front. They instead seemed to focus solely on the movie side of things.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> NorthSky, bargervais, i can explain
> On the Onkyo there is a set of 3 buttons on the remote Movie / Music / Game.
> From there you can select a set of related audio modes, but the initial button is just a shortcut or filter. When you select DS from any of those 3 categories you activate the SAME DS.
> Choosing Movie=>DS or Music=>DS or Game=>DS brings the same result, just 3 different paths to activate DS in the menu.
> 
> *DS is one mode only, with only one option "Center Spread" to control the amount of signal sent to the center.*
> 
> Can we conclude this discussion now?


Yes, but Onkyo sure makes things complicated.


----------



## LowellG

OK, I went and checked out the Dolby Atmos demo at Bjorn's Audio Video today in San Antonio. I must say it impressed me more than I thought it would. It was enough to say I am looking at my Christmas present. 


The room looked like it was about 22x18. The had 4 Mythos GemXLs mounted to the ceiling with 8060STs up front and BP6 for sides. It was a 5.2.4 setup. The room had acoustic drop down ceiling tiles, one all was 3, 4x4 acoustic panels and the other wall was one of those according pull in and out conf room dividers. It seemed just a little bit of an echo and over reflection, but not a lot. I am curious to see what it will sound like in my more acoustically treated room. Now I have to figure out placement options and whether to go in ceiling speakers or something like they did. They were using a Denon X5200 and had a custom Dolby Atmos demo disc. I hope that demo disc is something they put out for sale or package with new receivers. 


There was a scene with rain and it was just awesome. Also an F1 racing scene in a tunnel. The best effect from that was that it seemed like you were in the tunnel or also in the storm. Overall, very immersive as advertise. My only concern is how the actual movies will sound. They are having the Dolby reps come out for a demo in Nov, I plan on going to it.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, coming right down to it, Atmos is not designed for live recordings? Is that the gist of it?



Not at all . . . but depending on what kinds of _object-based manipulation_ are to be performed|allowed in the playback environment, it seems clear that the selection criteria for what might constitute "an encapsulated object" compatible with that intended _object-based manipulation_ need to be both determined and followed: One cannot simply mike an arbitrary portion of some live event and have it become an object by fiat!

_


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, it's not.
> 
> TrueHD, in its channel based form is bit-for-bit lossless compressed and based on Meridian Lossless Packing. TrueHD with Atmos extensions is more like a hybrid approach.
> 
> Auro3D is not exactly full fidelity either due to how it folds extra channels into a 5.1 or 7.1 PCM bed.
> 
> However, if Dolby had come out with an 11.1 (7.1 plus front wides and two overheads that can comply with the Atmos layout) channel-based TrueHD version with full 24/96 resolution as a companion to Dolby Atmos, Dolby would have beaten Auro on the music front. They instead seemed to focus solely on the movie side of things.


Because the music industry is fading fast into hi-res audio from MP3, but even there Dolby Atmos Headphones has its presence.  

Home theater is for movies; music is old fashion. 

The true music audiophiles are the Stereo Hi-fi people. ...First analog crowd, then few digital guys. 
But always stereo, tubes or solid state, it depends. ...Of their favorite music poison mediums. ...The drug of their choosing. ...The heroin that suits them. ...White, or black. 

Dolby likes simple life, not mixing with stereo drug addicts or analog ex-junkies. 

Atmos was invented mostly for movie freaks, like us, above the average crowd, in our elevated surround sound standards.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> There is a French song from George Brassens called "Gare au Gorille". Listen to the words I love it I think that's what Van B is running from. Did you know Van was for royalty may be he has blue blood


Got a youtube video?


----------



## nikecmh

Just me or did the Atmos upgrade mess up my PlayStation 4?

Got the Atmos update and now when I load a game on the PS4, there is signifigant on screen lag that makes it unplayable. When I turn off 4k upscaling and switch it to 1080p, same thing. The only way to correct it is by using my HDMI 30hz input on the tv instead of the 60. I have the new Vizio P series TV and the Onkyo 737.

This was not the case before the upgrade. Everything was flawless. Anyway to downgrade?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> TrueHD, in its channel based form is bit-for-bit lossless compressed and based on Meridian Lossless Packing. TrueHD with Atmos extensions is more like a hybrid approach.


Let's separate the audio codec from Spatial Audio Processing (SAP). TrueHD remains a totally lossless codec, even when delivering content processed with SAP. 

As to SAP, it is not a lossy codec. Consider a mixing console. It blends lots of sounds into fewer outputs. That is how SAP works. I don't think downmixing is normally associated with the term lossy coding. 



> However, if Dolby had come out with an 11.1 (7.1 plus front wides and two overheads that can comply with the Atmos layout) channel-based TrueHD version with full 24/96 resolution as a companion to Dolby Atmos, Dolby would have beaten Auro on the music front. They instead seemed to focus solely on the movie side of things.


It should be noted that it has always been possible to add more channels to TrueHD, there just was no content or playback hardware that justified it. Now that the channel count for playback systems is increasing, I suppose some enterprising content creator might want to take advantage of it. But that would again assume there's a market for it. From what I can see, there is no 11.1 "music front." Nor is there a 7.1 or even a 5.1 music front. 5.1 music is a novelty that came and went.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But nobody is saying "put them where you enjoy them".


Then where do you place height speakers to get an involving, engaging and exciting experience?


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> music is old fashion.


I assume you are not really serious!!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The 800lb gorilla seems to me explain why Van Baelen is so defensive and inventive when he is interviewed.


You win by having a better product, not by being inventive with the facts. DTS demonstrated this by dominating on Blu-ray. It can be done, even by a relatively small company.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> I assume you are not really serious!!


I enjoy a great weekend here on the Island, and with a good sense of humor.

You know that I love music, and in stereo too. ...Classical music, Jazz, Blues, World/International, New Age, Folk, etc.
{I used to post my music selections; music I was listening to @ the time, and you know where to, Chuck.} 

Music has been with us since the Ice age, Dolby Atmos only recently. 

♪ Listening to Jazz right now, on the r.a.d.i.o. --- KPLU Seattle/Port Angeles/Victoria. ...Analog, solid state. 
Yesterday I was into Bill Frisell ... on CDs (Nonesuch records label). That's my style of own ♫ playing myself.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, coming right down to it, Atmos is not designed for live recordings? Is that the gist of it?


It's like one of those purist recordings where two microphones are arranged in a Blumlein pair to capture a true stereo soundstage of a live event. It's difficult to manipulate parts of that recording later in the studio because the recording was not made up of parts (like typical music recordings are). So the mixer can't move certain instruments around to create the soundstage he wants. 

Likewise the Magnificat recording, which I'm guessing was captured using a microphone tree (Auro or Decca or otherwise), to record the horizontal and vertical soundfield of the musical performance. This leaves little room for later manipulation at the studio. Not like you can isolate the piano as an audio object, import it to the Atmos bus and move the object to the opposite side of the soundstage. The location of the piano and its reflections in the hall have already been captured by ALL the microphones (even the ones pointing away from the piano). Some things just aren't compatible with object based mixing. 

For a typical pop recording, like the one on the Atmos demo disc, each element is recorded dry in a studio and built track-by-track into a soundfield. The room ambience and decay tail for each voice and each instrument is created on the mixing console and often kept as separate elements to maintain better control. This allows, for example, the vocals to be kept as a small object at the middle of the front soundstage while a smeared/reverby version of those same vocals is turned into a large object that comes from all the surround and top speakers at a very low level to give a sense of space. 

I can see why the purist recordings that the _2L_ label makes wouldn't lend themselves to object-based mixing.


> I think Dolby made one mistake by not including a TrueHD version with 9.1 or 11.1 high res. lossless channels specifically for this task.


Let's not confuse the limitations of the Blu-ray format with the capabilities of TrueHD. 

See second paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD


----------



## aaranddeeman

LowellG said:


> Now I have to figure out placement options and whether to go in ceiling speakers or something like they did.


I am seriously thing of using on-ceiling speakers than tearing off the ceiling.
I am planning to re-use by JBL E10s for that duty.. I know this may sound crazy to some but once the Atmos is mature, we'll have clear picture. Till then I will refrain from doing irreversible things..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Let's separate the audio codec from Spatial Audio Processing (SAP). TrueHD remains a totally lossless codec, even when delivering content processed with SAP.
> 
> As to SAP, it is not a lossy codec. Consider a mixing console. It blends lots of sounds into fewer outputs. That is how SAP works. I don't think downmixing is normally associated with the term lossy coding.
> 
> It should be noted that it has always been possible to add more channels to TrueHD, there just was no content or playback hardware that justified it. Now that the channel count for playback systems is increasing, I suppose some enterprising content creator might want to take advantage of it. But that would again assume there's a market for it. From what I can see, there is no 11.1 "music front." Nor is there a 7.1 or even a 5.1 music front. 5.1 music is a novelty that came and went.


I'm just thinking of what Auro was trying to do on both the movie and music front and look at it in a competitive light. Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio, for that matter, don't have to do bit sample reduction and other fidelity robbing tricks to fold extra channels into 5.1 or 7.1 PCM. You can start with 11.1 PCM at 24 bit/96 kHz for each channel and then just use TrueHD or DTS Master Audio to losslessly compress it. You don't need to worry as much about space because this would be used for music only discs.

As far as Dolby is concerned, they could have said to Auro, we'll take your "fuzzy" 9.1 or 13.1 format and raise you in audiophile sound quality. We beat you in the sound for movie biz and we just beat you in the ultra high fidelity 3D music biz.

I thought the whole point of this new Renaissance in 3D audio was to not only elevate the movie experience, but the music experience as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Movie sound ok; that is universal surround envelopment. ...Movie theaters, etc.

Music in surround; tougher sell. It's just the way it is. ...Much rarer in reproduction.


----------



## noah katz

I'm having trouble imagining what could have better separation with tops placed further way at a low elevation angle than when closer with a much greater elevation angle.



bargervais said:


> I did an experiment I originally had top front speakers for atmos it was incredible, so as I listened I thought what if middle top would sound better to me than top front so I tacked up speakers middle top position and gave it a whirl. What I decided was front top was better for my room the separation for my MLP IS much better.
> So my conclusion is that separation is the key.
> When I had them top middle it didn't give my ears the separation that the top fronts do.
> So I put everything back to top front.
> If my room would be a few feet longer then top middle would be ideal.


----------



## dan webster

I finally got my 4 on ceiling speakers in the spots that i believe sound best. Unfortunately i have a low 7ft ceiling in my basement theater. I moved my full range emotiva speakers to surround duty and was left with 4 emotiva erd-1 surround speakers. I did not want to buy any more speakers until i gave these a try. They have 2 tweeters and on 5" woofer. I removed one of the tweeters on each speaker to make it more of a monopole design instead of a bipole. I tested them out on their own and i was happy with the results. Originally i tried putting the speakers above the ceiling facing down with some speaker grill fabric made into a 2x2 ceiling tile to let the sound through. It actually worked great except the floor above them would actually shake and vibrate no matter how much insulation i used. Plus with 4 2x2 openings the sound from all speakers traveled through the floor. All that meant wife not pleased and many hours of work down the drain.

My next step was to mount the speakers on the drop ceiling with supports behind the ceiling tiles. This was much quicker then the the other way. I was able to move the speakers from grid to grid easily and determine what sounded best to me. This technique worked great except i lost about 8 inches of height compared to having them above the ceiling tiles.. I do hear a slight difference with the speakers lower. The bottom of the speakers are now only 6.5 ft. However the tweeters fire on a appx 90 degree angle which i think compensates somewhat for the low ceiling. I was prepared to sell the erd-1 speakers if i was not happy with the sound and get goldenear in ceiling speakers to match my front soundstage. I am happy to say i wont be needing to spend any nore money on speakers because these sound fantastic. I did not expect to be this satisfied with atmos due to my low ceilings. I am sure it would be even better with higher ceilings.


----------



## wse

Am looking forward to install on ceiling speakers as well any innovative cables that you guys are using? Any flat speaker wire?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Then where do you place height speakers to get an involving, engaging and exciting experience?


Atmos or Auro?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You win by having a better product, not by being inventive with the facts. DTS demonstrated this by dominating on Blu-ray. It can be done, even by a relatively small company.


Totally agree. Van Baelen will never outrun that 800lb gorilla. Best he can hope for is that when it catches up to him, it doesn't squash him.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Am looking forward to install on ceiling speakers as well any innovative cables that you guys are using? Any flat speaker wire?


What's "innovative cable"?


----------



## dmorgus

I have a cheapskate question.
I'm renting so don't know how long I can be here.
I am seriously thinking of getting the Denon 5200-7200 or Yamaha 3040 (big delay in Australia which allows Yam to catch up with Denon given October Atmos update for Yam). My holding pattern UMC has done its job better than I thought
But ... I want to put four speakers in the ceiling (insert the usual Atmos drool here). I don't think I'll have any trouble if I argue that these will be permanent (ie I won't rip them out if forced to leave). 11x15x8 room (what's with Imperial, US?); top front/ top rear; I'm 3/4 to 2/3 in from back wall (yea, yeah, nuzzled up to Sub1) 
But ... that means they have to basically be throwaway
A co I have dealt with before is offering 4x 8" 150 peak/ say 40 rms for 119 poly/ 139 carbon/ 159 Kevlar; downfiring. they have another model in same line which is angled slightly (179 pr); all with aimable tweeters
The chart is flat from 100-15000 (big drop off at both ends) which would seem to make them perfect for Dolby tops (given 150 crossover).
Given my systems 200 rms power, would this be too powerful for these cheap speakers acting as tops (so what is the power requirements for Atmos tops given the objects projected)? 
The 119 four 4 poly is of course the ultimate throwaway; do you think I need anything else to get an idea about Atmos?
Would you think the Kevlar over the poly is "worth" it, soundwise?
Given the aimable tweeters, is an angled speaker necessary? (comparative experiences, anyone?)

Or is it just a matter of suck it and see?


----------



## ambesolman

kbarnes701 said:


> What's "innovative cable"?



Made out of bees knees


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## kbarnes701

ambesolman said:


> Made out of bees knees


I can sell him some of that - $9,000 a yard currently. Real bargain. 

Alternatively, he can schlep over to Monoprice and buy some 14 or 12 AWG for, er, rather less, and I guarantee it will do the job just as well.


----------



## pasender91

Hi all,

I have a new question for debate, and a good one i believe 

What about Atmos for Headphones?

We know that something is cooking at Dolby regarding that subject, to replace Dolby Headphones.
If they find a way no nicely reproduce DS and Atmos on headphones, they may have a big winner.

Many people could be interested with such a system if it is good, for the following reasons:
1) space => no need to explain further.
2) portability => no need to explain further.
3) cost & quality => headphones are miles ahead of stereo speakers in terms of quality for the same cost, so against a 7.1.4, there is simply no comparison. A high-end Grado or Fostex or Seinheiser simply cannot be matched by conventional speakers.
4) no need for passive room treatment.

Of course there are also negative points, like small scene, uncomfort after some time, ...

Does anyone here know where is Dolby going on that subject and when something can be expected?


----------



## NorthSky

Dolby Atmos Headphones is for music. ...The other business side of the movie equation; earlier discussed.

Most people nowadays listen to their favorite music through a pair of headphones; so Dolby thought of them too.
I'm sure you can find more by using goggle. 

And who knows; perhaps in the future there will be some refinements with Dolby Surround up-mixer. ...I'm sure.
...And with a dedicated Music audio listening mode. ...Same for Dolby Atmos. ...Cinema, Music, and Game modes. ...Maybe?


----------



## pasender91

Why limit Atmos Headphones to music?

I gave plenty of reasons above to use it in an home environment. I actually forgot another important one:
5) No noise going to the neighbours if you live in a flat.

The articles i could find on that date from early 2014, but since then nothing new. The release date was mentioned as end 2014, which is coming close now, but still no news about it


----------



## NorthSky

You're right; Dolby Atmos Headphones is both for Movies, Music, and Games. 

* We need a Dolby man to let us know when it will be available. ...And in what products. ...HTIB, receivers, pre/pros, UH DTVs, soundbars, iPods, iPads, iPhones, tablets, smartphones, iMacs, PCs, laptops, car stereos, etc.


----------



## bargervais

noah katz said:


> I'm having trouble imagining what could have better separation with tops placed further way at a low elevation angle than when closer with a much greater elevation angle.


when i placed them top middle it just seemed that i was not getting a good enough seperation as my surrounds, My MLP is next to the back wall and my surrounds are just a little bit behind me. They say to place the top middle just above the MLP i just didn't get that seperation from the surrounds and top middle as i do when i placed them top front.


----------



## yorkyal

jacked said:


> I was wondering that actually, if anyone had yet tried Godzilla in Dolby Surround.
> 
> I`m sure it will amaze, especially if the upmixing directs some of the roars to the height channels.
> 
> Enjoy !!!!!!!!!
> 
> Dave


 I might have to give that a go tonight Dave 


have you got the holes cut in yet


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos or Auro?


Not critical, it just has to result in an involving, engaging and exciting experience.


----------



## yorkyal

kbarnes701 said:


> I can sell him some of that - $9,000 a yard currently. Real bargain.



I use the bees knees cable as well Keith, I can whole heartedly recommend it 


it gives a real buzz to Atmos soundtracks and much better than the not so bees knees cable i`ve used in the past


----------



## Scott Simonian

Damn!

Guardians of the Galaxy was announced to have DTS-MA 7.1 sound and not Atmos. Ugh! Thought for sure it would have Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Damn!
> 
> Guardians of the Galaxy was announced to have DTS-MA 7.1 sound and not Atmos. Ugh! Thought for sure it would have Atmos.


It could be that either it was prepped prior to getting the Atmos mastering tools or possibly Disney might have decided to go another immersive audio route or perhaps they're holding out until 4k Blu-ray. The other option, which I don't really want to think about: they don't give two sh-ts about these new 3D formats for consumer use.


----------



## ambesolman

There you go thinkin again Scotty 


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It could be that either it was prepped prior to getting the Atmos mastering tools or possibly Dolby might have decided to go another immersive audio route or perhaps they're holding out until 4k Blu-ray. The other option, which I don't really want to think about: they don't give two sh-ts about these new 3D formats for consumer use.


Definitely the first or the last. 



ambesolman said:


> There you go thinkin again Scotty
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Lol yeah


----------



## Wookii

Dan Hitchman said:


> It could be that either it was prepped prior to getting the Atmos mastering tools or possibly Dolby might have decided to go another immersive audio route or perhaps they're holding out until 4k Blu-ray. The other option, which I don't really want to think about: they don't give two sh-ts about these new 3D formats for consumer use.


Since it was released in commercial cinemas with an Atmos track, it must have been mastered with Atmos mastering tools, and since your option 3 is quite possibly a long way off (or may indeed never happen at all), that leaves your final option 4 as the only likely explanation, sadly.

It does make you wonder though. If they created the original master in Atmos, and Atmos can be contained in a standard True HD bit stream file, why would they go to the effort of converting it to a standard channel based DTS-MA track? . . .


----------



## Scott Simonian

Wookii said:


> Since it was released in commercial cinemas with an Atmos track, it must have been mastered with Atmos mastering tools, and since your option 3 is quite possibly a long way off (or may indeed never happen at all), that leaves your final option 4 as the only likely explanation, sadly.
> 
> It does make you wonder though. If they created the original master in Atmos, and Atmos can be contained in a standard True HD bit stream file, why would they go to the effort of converting it to a standard channel based DTS-MA track? . . .


Dan meant *Blu-ray* authoring tools for Atmos. These just barely became available for studios to use in their home video division(s).


----------



## Kris Deering

That may be true but I find it hard to believe that Paramount can get the ball rolling for titles like TF4 and TMNT but Disney can't get it for GOTG. Maybe they are playing the wait and see game, maybe not. I still feel like this is a no value add for studios since I imagine sales won't get effected enough either way (with or without it). I've said before the best I think Atmos fans can hope for is that the cost of adding an Atmos track to a Blu-ray is near nothing so studios just include it because why not. Atmos is a great upsell for AVRs and lots of other components, but I don't see it doing anything to the bottom line of a software sale, especially with tentpole titles that are going to sell big numbers regardless.


----------



## Wookii

Scott Simonian said:


> Dan meant *Blu-ray* authoring tools for Atmos. These just barely became available for studios to use in their home video division(s).


Ah right, gotcha!


----------



## Wookii

Kris Deering said:


> That may be true but I find it hard to believe that Paramount can get the ball rolling for titles like TF4 and TMNT but Disney can't get it for GOTG. Maybe they are playing the wait and see game, maybe not. I still feel like this is a no value add for studios since I imagine sales won't get effected enough either way (with or without it). I've said before the best I think Atmos fans can hope for is that the cost of adding an Atmos track to a Blu-ray is near nothing so studios just include it because why not. Atmos is a great upsell for AVRs and lots of other components, but I don't see it doing anything to the bottom line of a software sale, especially with tentpole titles that are going to sell big numbers regardless.


That's a very goods point,and one i hadn't really considered! When you stand back objectively, and shake off the enthusiast excitement, in pure business terms there is little reason for the movie studios from even bothering with Atmos in the home. As you say, if people want to watch the blu-ray, they'll buy it regardless.

What do movie studios incur in terms of a licence fee to Dolby for releasing an Atmos or TrueHD track on blu-ray? Is this cost significantly lower for DTS-MA?


----------



## Kris Deering

From what Filmmixer has posted it sounds like there is no cost difference at all between the different solutions. Blu-ray has certainly seen far more support for DTS soundtracks on discs than Dolby, which may be an ease of use thing or perception thing, I have no idea. 

What I'd be curious to know is the cost associated with adding Atmos to your home mixing to a studio. Again, I don't see a value add at all to the studio's sales by including Atmos. At best your talking about less than 5% of global sales audience. Nothing against Atmos at all here, just trying to be realistic to the big picture of people buying movies compared to people with an Atmos system. So if the studio sees a reasonably significant cost for adding Atmos to a Blu-ray, it may not make any sense from a business perspective. Hopefully that isn't the case and the cost is negligable if not free and we'll start to see Atmos being added to every soundtrack that was mastered that way to begin with.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> It could be that either it was prepped prior to getting the Atmos mastering tools or possibly Dolby might have decided to go another immersive audio route or perhaps they're holding out until 4k Blu-ray. The other option, which I don't really want to think about: they don't give two sh-ts about these new 3D formats for consumer use.


And you have to remember, as I've said in the past, the release date for the BR has nothing to do with the authroing time frame. 

Almost all of the work on the feature film mastering (not special features, etc) is done as the films are finishing post. We just finished the HT masters got "Fury" and the master audio packages were being authored and completed as we wrapped the stage.

So while GOTG might we'll be coming in December, it was finished right before Transformers... amd Dolby had to work very hard to author and master TF4 in time for its release. 

And as I've said many time before, the summer films of 2014 were finishing as the authoring tools for Atmos were coming on line. 

I've been told that Disney as well as Fox and WB are committed to releasing titles. I also believe the Sony is looking into it in the future. 

But all this outsider speculation has nothing to do with the realities of finishing a film.... There are so many other pieces to the puuzzle than you know. 


Take a deep breath everyone. Titles are coming.


----------



## Kris Deering

FilmMixer said:


> And you have to remember, as I've said in the past, the release date for the BR has nothing to do with the authroing time frame.
> 
> Almost all of the work on the feature film mastering (not special features, etc) is done as the films are finishing post. We just finished the HT masters got "Fury" and the master audio packages were being authored and completed as we wrapped the stage.
> 
> So while GOTG might we'll be coming in December, it was finished right before Transformers... amd Dolby had to work very hard to author and master TF4 in time for its release.
> 
> And as I've said many time before, the summer films of 2014 were finishing as the authoring tools for Atmos were coming on line.
> 
> I've been told that Disney as well as Fox and WB are committed to releasing titles. I also believe the Sony is looking into it in the future.
> 
> But all this outsider speculation has nothing to do with the realities of finishing a film.... There are soany other pieces to the puuzzle than you know.
> 
> 
> Take a deep breath everyone. Titles are coming.


Speak of the devil! Great post! Glad to hear that more studios are coming onboard. If it is simply an issue of the tools becoming available I'm sure that by next year when all the new summer movies are hitting Blu-ray this won't be an issue. On your end of things, have you heard anything about Auro adoption? I know Sony was mentioned at CEDIA but it sounded like it was more of a want than a deal.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> And you have to remember, as I've said in the past, the release date for the BR has nothing to do with the authroing time frame.
> 
> Almost all of the work on the feature film mastering (not special features, etc) is done as the films are finishing post. We just finished the HT masters got "Fury" and the master audio packages were being authored and completed as we wrapped the stage.
> ....
> I've been told that Disney as well as Fox and WB are committed to releasing titles. I also believe the Sony is looking into it in the future.
> 
> But all this outsider speculation has nothing to do with the realities of finishing a film.... There are soany other pieces to the puuzzle than you know.
> 
> Take a deep breath everyone. Titles are coming.


 
I just hope you're right. Otherwise there's been over 10,000 posts in four months about what's currently a new version of Dolby upmixing, with some isolated exceptions (I have two: T4 and the Dolby Atmos demo from CEDIA). Maybe we're all better off enjoying our DS upmixers for legacy content, once we've bought an AVR or pre/pro with Atmos capabilities, and see where we are next summer. 


I'm not getting mine until December/January at the earliest, so hopefully there will actually be one movie coming out that has Atmos by then which I'd actually *want* to watch...


----------



## UKTexan

pasender91 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have a new question for debate, and a good one i believe
> 
> What about Atmos for Headphones?
> 
> We know that something is cooking at Dolby regarding that subject, to replace Dolby Headphones.
> If they find a way no nicely reproduce DS and Atmos on headphones, they may have a big winner.
> 
> Many people could be interested with such a system if it is good, for the following reasons:
> 1) space => no need to explain further.
> 2) portability => no need to explain further.
> 3) cost & quality => headphones are miles ahead of stereo speakers in terms of quality for the same cost, so against a 7.1.4, there is simply no comparison. A high-end Grado or Fostex or Seinheiser simply cannot be matched by conventional speakers.
> 4) no need for passive room treatment.
> 
> Of course there are also negative points, like small scene, uncomfort after some time, ...
> 
> Does anyone here know where is Dolby going on that subject and when something can be expected?


The Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 is the first product with Atmos for headphones. I have one on pre order for my wife, due to arrive Oct 21st. Amazon instant video will be streaming Atmos content using Dolby digital plus, just not sure when that side of the equation will come online. Not sure if there is any form of up mixing DSU style?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Damn!
> 
> Guardians of the Galaxy was announced to have DTS-MA 7.1 sound and not Atmos. Ugh! Thought for sure it would have Atmos.





Dan Hitchman said:


> It could be that either it was prepped prior to getting the Atmos mastering tools or possibly Dolby might have decided to go another immersive audio route or perhaps they're holding out until 4k Blu-ray. The other option, which I don't really want to think about: they don't give two sh-ts about these new 3D formats for consumer use.



Man that's a drag... I'm really waiting for a an Atmos bluray I can stomach. I was counting on GOTG to save the day... that release date would have been perfect for the arrival of my module speakers.


----------



## pasender91

UKTexan said:


> The Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 is the first product with Atmos for headphones. I have one on pre order for my wife, due to arrive Oct 21st. Amazon instant video will be streaming Atmos content using Dolby digital plus, just not sure when that side of the equation will come online. Not sure if there is any form of up mixing DSU style?


I really hope hope that this feature could make it in Atmos AVRs either by firmware update or in 2nd generation models.
The AVR already decodes Atmos, it just has to collapse it back to 2 channels using the Headphone algorithms to take care of HRTFs.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> And you have to remember, as I've said in the past, the release date for the BR has nothing to do with the authroing time frame.
> 
> Almost all of the work on the feature film mastering (not special features, etc) is done as the films are finishing post. We just finished the HT masters got "Fury" and the master audio packages were being authored and completed as we wrapped the stage.
> 
> So while GOTG might we'll be coming in December, it was finished right before Transformers... amd Dolby had to work very hard to author and master TF4 in time for its release.
> 
> And as I've said many time before, the summer films of 2014 were finishing as the authoring tools for Atmos were coming on line.
> 
> I've been told that Disney as well as Fox and WB are committed to releasing titles. I also believe the Sony is looking into it in the future.
> 
> But all this outsider speculation has nothing to do with the realities of finishing a film.... There are so many other pieces to the puuzzle than you know.
> 
> 
> Take a deep breath everyone. Titles are coming.


So any film mixed in Atmos after August will probably get an Atmos bluray release? I'm wondering if upon the Hobbit: 5 armies release on BD if they'll have the whole trilogy with Atmos on the discs?


----------



## CinemaAndy

FilmMixer said:


> I also believe the Sony is looking into it in the future. )


I guess with Sony's money problems they can't be pickers and choosers anymore. I still can't believe Sony wasn't the first to offer lower cost Atmos AVR's. Sony Pictures went with Atmos and Aurora-3D, even when some, myself included, said that wouldn't happen. If Sony had offered some form of home SDDS AVR, then that format would still be lingering around. Really seems as if Sony's management is dropping the ball a lot lately.


----------



## tomparis

I have a theory.
All studios which used Dolby TrueHD for their releases in the past, like Paramount for example, will use Atmos in the future.
All Studios which used DTS-HD MA for their releases in the past, like a whole lot of them, will use DTS-UHD in the future.
Sounds ridiculous? Maybe. 
BUT, considering how many titles, that could be released in Atmos, because the Atmos mix is already there (Guardians of the Galaxy), are released in DTS-HD MA instead, makes me wonder.
So let's see when the first DTS-UHD gear comes out, how many titles will be released in that format then.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tomparis said:


> I have a theory.
> All studios which used Dolby TrueHD for their releases in the past, like Paramount for example, will use Atmos in the future.
> All Studios which used DTS-HD MA for their releases in the past, like a whole lot of them, will use DTS-UHD in the future.
> Sounds ridiculous? Maybe.
> BUT, considering how many titles, that could be released in Atmos, because the Atmos mix is already there (Guardians of the Galaxy), are released in DTS-HD MA instead, makes me wonder.
> So let's see when the first DTS-UHD gear comes out, how many titles will be released in that format then.


Not that simple.



FilmMixer said:


> And you have to remember, as I've said in the past, the release date for the BR has nothing to do with the authroing time frame.
> 
> Almost all of the work on the feature film mastering (not special features, etc) is done as the films are finishing post. We just finished the HT masters got "Fury" and the master audio packages were being authored and completed as we wrapped the stage.
> 
> So while GOTG might we'll be coming in December, it was finished right before Transformers... amd Dolby had to work very hard to author and master TF4 in time for its release.
> 
> And as I've said many time before, the summer films of 2014 were finishing as the authoring tools for Atmos were coming on line.
> 
> I've been told that Disney as well as Fox and WB are committed to releasing titles. I also believe the Sony is looking into it in the future.
> 
> But all this outsider speculation has nothing to do with the realities of finishing a film.... There are so many other pieces to the puuzzle than you know.
> 
> 
> Take a deep breath everyone. Titles are coming.


----------



## thestoneman

I, like many here, are like kids in a candy store went it comes to Atmos. I had planned the 1st movie to be Gravity 3D, but then Atmos came out. I keep wondering what my 1st Atmos movie will be when my project is done. I definitely had GOTG as the front runner, but looks like TF4 will have to suffice.

Anyone have any info on what Netflix will be able to do w/ Atmos? Wondering if they will be able to stream 7.1.4.


----------



## Selden Ball

Remember that an Atmos soundtrack doesn't have to know anything about your speaker arrangement. That's the whole point. Audio objects get appropriatel directed to whatever speakers you have, whether 5.1.2 or (someday) 24.1.10. 

(The audio data streams currently are distributed as 7.1 TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks, but in some future incarnation, it might be possible to eliminate the 7.1 channels from the soundtracks.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Wookii said:


> Since it was released in commercial cinemas with an Atmos track, it must have been mastered with Atmos mastering tools, and since your option 3 is quite possibly a long way off (or may indeed never happen at all), that leaves your final option 4 as the only likely explanation, sadly.
> 
> It does make you wonder though. If they created the original master in Atmos, and Atmos can be contained in a standard True HD bit stream file, why would they go to the effort of converting it to a standard channel based DTS-MA track? . . .


Well, as Marc has said in the past that some Blu-ray's were already being prepped before the home Atmos "conversion" software and Sony Blu-ray mastering tools were ready. This may have been one of them... who knows? 

4k Blu-ray is, as of right now, scheduled for late 2015 as per the BDA. That's not far off. 

Archive audio files still reside in the PCM domain, so Disney probably used the 7.1 PCM mix down track as the basis for the Blu-ray's near-field mix and then compressed it with DTS Master Audio.


----------



## westmd

What would an inzüteresting exercise to use the dipole speakers for the front wide position if located on the side walls.


----------



## kbarnes701

yorkyal said:


> I use the bees knees cable as well Keith, I can whole heartedly recommend it
> 
> 
> it gives a real buzz to Atmos soundtracks and much better than the not so bees knees cable i`ve used in the past


Best I have used is the Dog's Bo!!ocks cable...


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> That's a very goods point,and one i hadn't really considered! When you stand back objectively, and shake off the enthusiast excitement, in pure business terms there is little reason for the movie studios from even bothering with Atmos in the home. As you say, if people want to watch the blu-ray, they'll buy it regardless.
> 
> What do movie studios incur in terms of a licence fee to Dolby for releasing an Atmos or TrueHD track on blu-ray? Is this cost significantly lower for DTS-MA?


No cost at all (source: FilmMixer). When you say "bother", what do you mean? Atmos on BD is s standard TrueHD track. It's no more "bother" to put the disc out in Atmos than it is in TrueHD, if it was an Atmos theatrical mix.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Damn!
> 
> Guardians of the Galaxy was announced to have DTS-MA 7.1 sound and not Atmos. Ugh! Thought for sure it would have Atmos.


You still have your safety line Scott: Dolby Surround up-mixer.


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> I have a theory.
> All studios which used Dolby TrueHD for their releases in the past, like Paramount for example, will use Atmos in the future.
> All Studios which used DTS-HD MA for their releases in the past, like a whole lot of them, will use DTS-UHD in the future.
> Sounds ridiculous? Maybe.
> BUT, considering how many titles, that could be released in Atmos, because the Atmos mix is already there (Guardians of the Galaxy), are released in DTS-HD MA instead, makes me wonder.
> So let's see when the first DTS-UHD gear comes out, how many titles will be released in that format then.


This has been covered many times in the thread. DTS gained supremacy for BD authoring purely because it has a quicker workflow. The studios don't care which codec they use, so they picked the fastest. Now, that has changed.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> No cost at all (source: FilmMixer). When you say "bother", what do you mean? Atmos on BD is s standard TrueHD track. It's no more "bother" to put the disc out in Atmos than it is in TrueHD, if it was an Atmos theatrical mix.


You say this but if it was "no bother" than why isn't everything coming out in Atmos? Obviously it takes tools to do and a mastering suite that is setup to ensure (or check) that the mix is correct. So it obviously isn't completely plug and play. Hopefully the tools that are coming out now that FilmMixer is talking about truly makes it that way.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> This has been covered many times in the thread. DTS gained supremacy for BD authoring purely because it has a quicker workflow. The studios don't care which codec they use, so they picked the fastest. Now, that has changed.


Now, that "MAY" change. I'd probably wait until it is the norm, even with nothing but the utmost respect to FilmMixer on this. I remember when it was Dolby will be announcing a bunch at the show, or right after, and here we are a month after CEDIA with 4 confirmed (and by all standards of measure crappy) films. I love that FilmMixer puts out that things are coming along and we'll see more, but I'll hold off on the fireworks until we see a bit more evidence. Especially considering that the ship has already sailed on all of the summer 2014 releases so now you're waiting for the handful of titles that would really utilize Atmos that are gonna hit theaters this holiday season or we're looking at late Summer before next year's bigger releases start dropping. Unless of course the studios start double dipping, which I find unlikely for just a soundtrack unless there is already a bigger special edition already in the works for other reasons. And given how little this ever happened with 3D (which had and will continue to have WAY more adoption since it is hard to buy a Blu-ray player or new TV that isn't 3D anyways) I find it unlikely.

Also, by your sentence, are you saying that the new process that would allow Dolby Atmos to be included is "faster" than the DTS tools already in place?? Does the scale of economics justify a longer workflow to their bottom line by going with the Dolby option now?? I know this all sounds a bit doom and gloom by me, but I'm trying my best to stay a bit grounded in my expectation, similar to how I felt about 3D when it was released (and similarly hyped by many 3D aficianados).


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> No cost at all (source: FilmMixer). When you say "bother", what do you mean? Atmos on BD is s standard TrueHD track. It's no more "bother" to put the disc out in Atmos than it is in TrueHD, if it was an Atmos theatrical mix.


It's true that there's no difference in licensing cost, as both have no fees. But there is a difference in production cost between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, having to do with encoding time and QC, and that tipped the balance toward DTS. 

The new Atmos encoder is apparently much faster, but even so, there are additional costs in preparing the consumer Atmos release compared to a standard 7.1 release, such as for additional authoring time and extra QC. Not saying it's huge, but it's not zero either.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> You still have your safety line Scott: Dolby Surround up-mixer.


Meh. I'm sure that it's great and all but I think I speak for everybody here when I say: I'd rather it be native Atmos.


----------



## Kris Deering

Roger Dressler said:


> It's true that there's no difference in licensing cost, as both have no fees. But there is a difference in production cost between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, having to do with encoding time and QC, and that tipped the balance toward DTS.
> 
> The new Atmos encoder is apparently much faster, but even so, there are additional costs in preparing the consumer Atmos release compared to a standard 7.1 release, such as for additional authoring time and extra QC. Not saying it's huge, but it's not zero either.


But do you thing the additional costs are enough to warrant hesitation from the studios? I'm sure they have bean counters to have to weigh this out and figure if there will be enough upsales for including Atmos vs what they've been doing. 

Filmmixer, does a theatrical Atmos mix have to get redone for a near field enviroment? Is this any more work or cost intensive than a standard home mix for a movie??


----------



## Roger Dressler

Kris Deering said:


> But do you think the additional costs are enough to warrant hesitation from the studios? I'm sure they have bean counters to have to weigh this out and figure if there will be enough upsales for including Atmos vs what they've been doing.


Every cost warrants hesitation by the studios.


----------



## Kris Deering

So then it comes to whether Dolby is willing to subsidize that cost to get more content out there to create buzz that takes the financial risk away from the studio. FilmMixer mentioned that Dolby had to scramble to get TF4 ready for Blu-ray, does that mean that it was done by Dolby and not the normal mixers that Paramount uses?? Was this a case where Dolby covered the costs to have a big summer title available??


----------



## hogues

Quick question to see if Atmos is even realistic for me. My room is not finished, so I'm still trying to nail down the specifics of the layout. It's a basement living room/media room area, so not a proper theater. As it stands now, I have a JTR setup with the 228's as the LCR and two slant 8's as the surrounds. The plan is to mount the slant 8's on the ceiling with the slanted portion angled down and towards the listener, but above ear height. The ceiling would be about 7 and 1/2 feet high. I was considering a 5.2.4 setup and I know that Dolby recommends lower side surrounds. I was wondering if the angle of the slant 8's and the fact that thew will be a few inches below the four atmos speakers would make a difference or am I just wasting money? Also, is the 7.5 feet height a deal breaker as well? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## jacked

yorkyal said:


> I might have to give that a go tonight Dave
> 
> 
> have you got the holes cut in yet



No holes cut yet, I`m lagging behind a bit !!


Ideally I still want to wait and figure out the best way to implement Atmos in my room. But with all the glowing opinions of the Denon X5200 it`s hard to ignore.


Ultimately, resistance is futile. 


Dave


----------



## batpig

hogues said:


> Quick question to see if Atmos is even realistic for me. My room is not finished, so I'm still trying to nail down the specifics of the layout. It's a basement living room/media room area, so not a proper theater. As it stands now, I have a JTR setup with the 228's as the LCR and two slant 8's as the surrounds. The plan is to mount the slant 8's on the ceiling with the slanted portion angled down and towards the listener, but above ear height. The ceiling would be about 7 and 1/2 feet high. I was considering a 5.2.4 setup and I know that Dolby recommends lower side surrounds. I was wondering if the angle of the slant 8's and the fact that thew will be a few inches below the four atmos speakers would make a difference or am I just wasting money? Also, is the 7.5 feet height a deal breaker as well? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!


So far from anecdotal reports a 7.5ft ceiling height is NOT a deal breaker for ceiling mounted speakers. Obviously in-ceiling gives you a few more precious inches than on-ceiling mounted speakers, but you'll also get some physical separation from the speakers being a few feet in front of and behind you (trigonometry!). 

Any specific reason the Slant 8's are going to be mounted on the ceiling as opposed to a bit lower? The angled baffle will definitely help, and of course because of that you don't want them TOO low, but any separation will help.

Even with the surrounds mounted high you still have a big "hole" the "dome of sound" above your head and especially above and in front of you, so I don't think it's a waste at all to mount 4 Atmos speakers. First off, mo speakers mo betta, at least in terms of creating a convincing illusion of surround immersion. Plus, those speakers direct firing so they aren't bouncing a bunch of sound off the ceiling like elevated bipole/dipole types would. 

Room width could also help, but you didn't mention that. If the room is wide-ish then there will be more angular separation between the speakers above you and the surrounds to either side.

My feeling is go for it


----------



## Roger Dressler

Kris Deering said:


> So then it comes to whether Dolby is willing to subsidize that cost to get more content out there to create buzz that takes the financial risk away from the studio.


That is between Dolby and the studios. Each studio decides its own risk/reward equilibrium.



> FilmMixer mentioned that Dolby had to scramble to get TF4 ready for Blu-ray, does that mean that it was done by Dolby and not the normal mixers that Paramount uses??


It could mean any of several things, none of which would need to involved the mixers, even if the encoding were done at Dolby, e.g. their encoder tools needed finalizing; their encoder tools needed to be installed in new facilities; other technical issues involved in the final product (how much bitrate will be allocated to audio).



> Was this a case where Dolby covered the costs to have a big summer title available??


Dunno. But it would not surprise me, as in "start-up" mode the costs are typically absorbed by the technology advocate.


----------



## mp5475

Just got my Tannoy di8 dc for my top speakers. Looked at the specs but a lot bigger than I thought. Not complaining.


----------



## aaranddeeman

mp5475 said:


> Just got my Tannoy di8 dc for my top speakers. Looked at the specs but a lot bigger than I thought. Not complaining.


You gonna put "that thing" on the ceiling......?????


----------



## mp5475

aaranddeeman said:


> You gonna put "that thing" on the ceiling......?????


Yes. Four of them. My ceiling 10 feet so I should be ok


----------



## aaranddeeman

This thread is really good but the information is scattered in zillions of pages.
I guess it's time to create an FAQ thread for Atmos .....


----------



## Orbitron

Edge of Tomorrow streets tomorrow so if anyone here listens using Dolby Surround Upmixing, FYI, I started an Official Thread for Dolby Surround Upmixing of "legacy" titles. A go to place to find this type of review. In the Receivers, Amps & Processors section.


----------



## wse

mp5475 said:


> Just got my Tannoy di8 dc for my top speakers. Looked at the specs but a lot bigger than I thought. Not complaining.


These are massive how big is your room!


----------



## wse

aaranddeeman said:


> This thread is really good but the information is scattered in zillions of pages.
> I guess it's time to create an FAQ thread for Atmos .....


Yes please


----------



## wse

Do you think that using a Parasound A23 is over kill just for the ATMOS speakers?


----------



## mp5475

wse said:


> These are massive how big is your room!


15 by 19


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> Do you think that using a Parasound A23 is over kill just for the ATMOS speakers?



I think you need to remove the word "humble" from your signature 

"Overkill" is hard to determine without knowing exactly what speakers are being driven and to what SPL you are trying to drive them too. But, probably, yes.


----------



## dragonleepenn

wse said:


> Do you think that using a Parasound A23 is over kill just for the ATMOS speakers?


The Parasound A23 will not be overkill should make a fantastic combination . I'm curious what speakers do you plan on using in your super cool layout for ceiling/atmos? Those B&W are very impressive in your very impressive setup/room.




PeterV


----------



## action_jackson

hogues said:


> Quick question to see if Atmos is even realistic for me. My room is not finished, so I'm still trying to nail down the specifics of the layout. It's a basement living room/media room area, so not a proper theater. As it stands now, I have a JTR setup with the 228's as the LCR and two slant 8's as the surrounds. The plan is to mount the slant 8's on the ceiling with the slanted portion angled down and towards the listener, but above ear height. The ceiling would be about 7 and 1/2 feet high. I was considering a 5.2.4 setup and I know that Dolby recommends lower side surrounds. I was wondering if the angle of the slant 8's and the fact that thew will be a few inches below the four atmos speakers would make a difference or am I just wasting money? Also, is the 7.5 feet height a deal breaker as well? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!


I plan to do a similar setup in my theater once I upgrade. I will be using my Volt 10s in the slanted boxes mounted on the ceiling angled toward MLP in a 5.4.4 configuration. My sectional is around 12 foot wide and the room is 14 1/2 foot wide, so that only leaves a narrow walk through into the living room on one side. Lowering the side surrounds will place them into a heavy traffic area, so not a great idea.

I would lower the side surrounds as much as possible and hope for the best. I'm sure it will be more immersive than without the overheads.


----------



## doublewing11

wse said:


> Do you think that using a Parasound A23 is over kill just for the ATMOS speakers?



You need to drive those ceiling speakers with close to same watts as rest of your surrounds. At a minimum, I typically plan on 1.5 times speaker rms for amps........most of time I double. My 150 watt rms surrounds have 300 watts on tap and have never complained. Better to be slightly over than under. 

BTW, I like my Halos better than my Krells........Halos are absolutely great amps!


----------



## wse

dragonleepenn said:


> The Parasound A23 will not be overkill should make a fantastic combination . I'm curious what speakers do you plan on using in your super cool layout for ceiling/atmos? Those B&W are very impressive in your very impressive setup/room. PeterV


Actualy this is for a mini cinema I made for the kids with seven KEF LS50, the Marantz SR7009, a 96" 16:9 screen and a JVC RS2 I just recycled some older equipment and the kids love it. That room is only 13 x 11 x 9 and I am planning to use the B&W AM-1 for ATMOS I am not sure I can get in ceiling due to no access 



The B&W room is 18 x 20 x 10 and I have a pair of B&W 7NT in the ceiling.

- http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Downloads/Product/Archive/ENG_FP13102_Signature-7-NT_info_sheet.pdf


----------



## petetherock

IMHO
Maybe Mr Bay has friends and is willing to stick his neck out to support a nascent sound format.
I don't think Disney is like that...
And if they release it later, they reap the benefits of doubling dipping.. 



Kris Deering said:


> That may be true but I find it hard to believe that Paramount can get the ball rolling for titles like TF4 and TMNT but Disney can't get it for GOTG. Maybe they are playing the wait and see game, maybe not. I still feel like this is a no value add for studios since I imagine sales won't get effected enough either way (with or without it). I've said before the best I think Atmos fans can hope for is that the cost of adding an Atmos track to a Blu-ray is near nothing so studios just include it because why not. Atmos is a great upsell for AVRs and lots of other components, but I don't see it doing anything to the bottom line of a software sale, especially with tentpole titles that are going to sell big numbers regardless.


----------



## tomparis

kbarnes701 said:


> This has been covered many times in the thread. DTS gained supremacy for BD authoring purely because it has a quicker workflow. The studios don't care which codec they use, so they picked the fastest. Now, that has changed.


But why aren't new BDs authored in Atmos, when an Atmos Master already exists?


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> But why aren't new BDs authored in Atmos, when an Atmos Master already exists?


Again, this has been explained several times, including recently. The companies which produce the discs are only now getting the equipment necessary to make the Atmos disc.


----------



## Frank714

Frankly and after having read your graphic reports, I'm currently more interested in the Dolby Surround Upmixer and how it will improve the sound of my existing DVD and BD library.

I still don't understand why Dolby didn't give DSU more exposure, considering how well it obviously works. But then again, I always felt that the advances of Dolby Pro Logic weren't publicised that well, either. 

I have to admit that I felt it to be surprising, that Atmos recorded titles (but not encoded on BD) "somehow" do sound more immersive than "ordinary" multi-channel recordings.

Heck, I look forward revisiting OBLIVION and GRAVITY with DSU and reserve additional excitement for later when these are hopefully Dolby Atmos encoded with the next BD release.

As for the HOBBIT trilogy it could possibly become a bonus feature for the inevitable Special Edition, although I'd prefer a director-approved _trimmed_ version, then.


----------



## DaJoJo

doublewing11 said:


> You need to drive those ceiling speakers with close to same watts as rest of your surrounds. At a minimum, I typically plan on 1.5 times speaker rms for amps........most of time I double. My 150 watt rms surrounds have 300 watts on tap and have never complained. Better to be slightly over than under.
> BTW, I like my Halos better than my Krells........Halos are absolutely great amps!


it's best to keep it equal.. speaker rms & amp rms. and what most people forget... the peak-power the amp delivers. Halos rulez.. no suprise comming from john curl who was top-engineer at mark levinson for a while.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Frankly and after having read your graphic reports, I'm currently more interested in the Dolby Surround Upmixer and how it will improve the sound of my existing DVD and BD library.


Yes - DSU is fabulous and of course adds significantly to the enjoyment of your entire collection. Until more Atmos discs filter through, DSU nicely fills the gap IMO. I have been impressed so far by every disc I have played with DSU engaged. Last night was *Prometheus*. Anyone who has the disc, listen to the beginning of the movie, right after the main title fades out - then go to chapter 12 and listen to the 'storm' sequence. Wow. Just wow!



Frank714 said:


> I still don't understand why Dolby didn't give DSU more exposure, considering how well it obviously works. But then again, I always felt that the advances of Dolby Pro Logic weren't publicised that well, either.


I guess they don't want to distract from Atmos itself.



Frank714 said:


> I have to admit that I felt it to be surprising, that Atmos recorded titles (but not encoded on BD) "somehow" do sound more immersive than "ordinary" multi-channel recordings.


Yes I am finding this too. I assume it is because the new Atmos tools give the mixer more creative freedom, which reflects in the entire track, even when played via legacy 5.1 disc.



Frank714 said:


> Heck, I look forward revisiting OBLIVION and GRAVITY with DSU and reserve additional excitement for later when these are hopefully Dolby Atmos encoded with the next BD release.


I have watched Gravity with DSU and it is remarkable. Oblivion is on my 'soon' list.



Frank714 said:


> As for the HOBBIT trilogy it could possibly become a bonus feature for the inevitable Special Edition, although I'd prefer a director-approved _trimmed_ version, then.


I’d buy that for a dollar!


----------



## sikclown

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - DSU is fabulous and of course adds significantly to the enjoyment of your entire collection. Until more Atmos discs filter through, DSU nicely fills the gap IMO. I have been impressed so far by every disc I have played with DSU engaged. Last night was *Prometheus*. Anyone who has the disc, listen to the beginning of the movie, right after the main title fades out - then go to chapter 12 and listen to the 'storm' sequence. Wow. Just wow!
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they don't want to distract from Atmos itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am finding this too. I assume it is because the new Atmos tools give the mixer more creative freedom, which reflects in the entire track, even when played via legacy 5.1 disc.
> 
> 
> 
> I have watched Gravity with DSU and it is remarkable. Oblivion is on my 'soon' list.
> 
> 
> 
> I’d buy that for a dollar!


And now I have to watch Prometheus again... followed by Robocop . Thanks for that!


----------



## Selden Ball

Personally I prefer the long leisurely director's cut when it's a universe I want to spend more time in. I just wish they'd publish them sooner, and not wait until just before the next movie in the series.


----------



## wse

westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.
> 
> Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.
> 
> Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.
> 
> Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.
> 
> The following row of speaker is the *front top speaker*. Now whilst the middle top was not really that important for Atmos the front top row has little to none importance for Auro. Therfore my suggestion for this row would be in-ceiling or Dolby enabled speakers. If the overall amount of channels is of relevance this row could be muted during Auro playback and the amplifier could be used to drive front height speakers.
> 
> The last row according to the Denon sheet is the *front height speaker* which again like the rear height are direct firing speakers tilted to the MLP. The difference between Atmos and Auro for this row would be that the speakers should be attached 30-45 degrees which leave them sometimes in the middle of the room (in my case for instance) Auro requires them to be in line with front row speakers / the screen and not much relevance is given to the angle. As these speakers do not hold much relevance for Atmos, my suggestion would be to install them by the screen and maybe even mute them for Atmos. As suggested above front top for Atmos and front height for Auro could be run over the same amp using a switch in between.
> 
> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.
> 
> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...
> 
> *Addition on September 12th* In the meantime I got feedback from Auro tgemselves. I forwarded this post to them and they replied that they don't see any issue with using this setup for Auro!


A picture is worth a 1000 words


----------



## Selden Ball

wse said:


> A picture is worth a 1000 words


And if you're reluctant to expose your housekeeping to the world, you can use something like SweetHome3D to show an idealized view.

It's a free 3D multi-platform house design package which is surprisingly easy to use. http://www.sweethome3d.com/


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> But nobody is saying "put them where you enjoy them". I advocate, as do you, putting Atmos speakers where Dolby recommends you put them. The problem is, that if you carry that creed over to Auro, then you also have to put Auro speakers where Auro recommends to put them. And that is not the same place as with the Atmos speakers. So what do you do? Do you install two sets of speakers (Roger's "silly" point), or do you optimise for one or the other? If the latter, then one set of speakers will be in the wrong place, but, and this is the point, if they sound good and make an enjoyable experience, then that is as good as one can hope for. Whatever you do, unless you have two sets of speakers, both installed according to Atmos and Auro recommendations, then one set will be placed "where you enjoy them" by default. Of course, if one sticks with just Atmos or just Auro, then it would be madness to place them "where you enjoy them" because you should then follow the installation mandates.


Keith - I value all your comments and insight on this thread. It must be the only thing you do!  I have a hard time just keeping up with the daily posts. 

I was watching a little of Xformers AOI last night in 7.1. Before I finished up my new media room, I installed 4 overhead speakers (in the ceiling) - as best I could complying to the Dolby spec for future Atmos duty. Even without Atmos, the all of the speakers were working fantastically and made for a very enjoyable experience with sounds coming from everywhere. I haven't even tuned my subs properly yet, so I feel it will only get better once that's done. As it stands now, I'm not likely to upgrade to a new AVR until next year. I'm eyeing the Pioneer SC-87, as this line of new AVR's may be the last under the Elite badge.


----------



## Bigham16

What if you/someone/me built tracks for your ceiling speakers?? Then you could pull them in for Atmos then spread them out for Auro!! That would be a sight to see 



kbarnes701 said:


> But nobody is saying "put them where you enjoy them". I advocate, as do you, putting Atmos speakers where Dolby recommends you put them. The problem is, that if you carry that creed over to Auro, then you also have to put Auro speakers where Auro recommends to put them. And that is not the same place as with the Atmos speakers. So what do you do? Do you install two sets of speakers (Roger's "silly" point), or do you optimise for one or the other? If the latter, then one set of speakers will be in the wrong place, but, and this is the point, if they sound good and make an enjoyable experience, then that is as good as one can hope for. Whatever you do, unless you have two sets of speakers, both installed according to Atmos and Auro recommendations, then one set will be placed "where you enjoy them" by default. Of course, if one sticks with just Atmos or just Auro, then it would be madness to place them "where you enjoy them" because you should then follow the installation mandates.


----------



## redjr

NorthSky said:


> You're right; Dolby Atmos Headphones is both for Movies, Music, and Games.
> 
> * We need a Dolby man to let us know when it will be available. ...And in what products. ...HTIB, receivers, pre/pros, UH DTVs, soundbars, iPods, iPads, iPhones, tablets, smartphones, iMacs, PCs, laptops, car stereos, etc.


Don't know about the headphones themselves.... but Amazon's new tablet is said to feature Dolby Atmos.

Rich, multi-dimensional audio—Twice as loud as iPad Air, with crisp, clear sound and no distortion. Plus, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos for a new headphone experience


----------



## action_jackson

Bigham16 said:


> What if you/someone/me built tracks for your ceiling speakers?? Then you could pull them in for Atmos then spread them out for Auro!! That would be a sight to see


The look on their wives face after install, now that would be epic


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> Keith - I value all your comments and insight on this thread. It must be the only thing you do!  I have a hard time just keeping up with the daily posts.


Thanks! I am a fast typer 



redjr said:


> I was watching a little of Xformers AOI last night in 7.1. Before I finished up my new media room, I installed 4 overhead speakers (in the ceiling) - as best I could complying to the Dolby spec for future Atmos duty. Even without Atmos, the all of the speakers were working fantastically and made for a very enjoyable experience with sounds coming from everywhere. I haven't even tuned my subs properly yet, so I feel it will only get better once that's done. As it stands now, I'm not likely to upgrade to a new AVR until next year. I'm eyeing the Pioneer SC-87, as this line of new AVR's may be the last under the Elite badge.


Yes - the Dolby Surround Upmixer has not let me down yet on any movie I have watched with it. These range from some quite old 5.1 movies through to those originally mixed in Atmos. The latter seem to upmix better, and that may be as expected, but the former are also considerably more immersive and involving and thus more enjoyable too. 

Originally, I was concerned that legacy movies would be 'second class citizens' in my collection, but DSU has convinced me that they are far from that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bigham16 said:


> What if you/someone/me built tracks for your ceiling speakers?? Then you could pull them in for Atmos then spread them out for Auro!! That would be a sight to see


Not a bad idea for anyone who can do it I guess.

I just ordered Red Tails - the first movie mixed in Auro3D - so am looking forward to see how DSU handles that one.


----------



## bkeeler10

Bigham16 said:


> What if you/someone/me built tracks for your ceiling speakers?? Then you could pull them in for Atmos then spread them out for Auro!! That would be a sight to see


You mean, like this? 

Atmos 9.1.4 layout converted to Auro 11.1 layout.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

can anyone recommend a cheap in ceiling speaker that would work nicely for atmos?

would the monoprice ones work well? Im thinking with auddy xt32 and the lack of total sound coming out of them a super high quality speaker is not needed....thoughts?


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Let's separate the audio codec from Spatial Audio Processing (SAP). TrueHD remains a totally lossless codec, even when delivering content processed with SAP.
> 
> As to SAP, it is not a lossy codec. *Consider a mixing console. It blends lots of sounds into fewer outputs. That is how SAP works.* I don't think downmixing is normally associated with the term lossy coding.
> 
> It should be noted that it has always been possible to add more channels to TrueHD, there just was no content or playback hardware that justified it. Now that the channel count for playback systems is increasing, I suppose some enterprising content creator might want to take advantage of it. But that would again assume there's a market for it. From what I can see, there is no 11.1 "music front." Nor is there a 7.1 or even a 5.1 music front. 5.1 music is a novelty that came and went.


 

Thanks for the nice explanation of SAP. An analogy would be the merging of 2 channels of rear and side surrounds, to a single channel of side surround (downgrading of 7.1 to 5.1)? Not lossless in the "standard" definition of the word, but you do lose "directional resolution"?


----------



## hogues

action_jackson said:


> I plan to do a similar setup in my theater once I upgrade. I will be using my Volt 10s in the slanted boxes mounted on the ceiling angled toward MLP in a 5.4.4 configuration. My sectional is around 12 foot wide and the room is 14 1/2 foot wide, so that only leaves a narrow walk through into the living room on one side. Lowering the side surrounds will place them into a heavy traffic area, so not a great idea.
> 
> I would lower the side surrounds as much as possible and hope for the best. I'm sure it will be more immersive than without the overheads.


Thanks, jackson and Batpig!. Jackson, your room sounds like it is a carbon copy of mine, dimensions and all. And foot traffic is exactly why I'm putting the slant 8's in the ceiling instead of going with side surrounds. I'm going to try it and see what happens. It would only cost me the two forward speakers since i'd just use the rears in a traditional 7.2 setup if it doesn't work, so I'll give it a try. thanks!


----------



## batpig

Brian Fineberg said:


> can anyone recommend a cheap in ceiling speaker that would work nicely for atmos?
> 
> would the monoprice ones work well? Im thinking with auddy xt32 and the lack of total sound coming out of them a super high quality speaker is not needed....thoughts?


What are your other speakers? And how cheap is "cheap"? While there are decent cheap speakers out there I would want to make sure the speakers you use can keep up with the approximate SPL and dynamics as your surround speakers.

These PSB in-ceilings are only $180/pr and have pivoting tweeters: http://www.crutchfield.com/p_760CW60R/PSB-CW60R.html?tp=193

There are also smaller 5.25" woofer versions for $30 less. 

PSB is a reputable company that makes very neutral, good measuring speakers that punch above their price class. 

Crutchfield has a big selection and there are other good brands like Infinity, Klipsch etc. that have inexpensive offerings: http://www.crutchfield.com/g_101500/In-ceiling-Speakers.html?tp=193


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Thanks for the nice explanation of SAP. An analogy would be the merging of 2 channels of rear and side surrounds, to a single channel of side surround (downgrading of 7.1 to 5.1)? Not lossless per se, but you do lose "directional resolution"?


Possibly. But can you hear that? AFAIK, the loss is confined within clusters of space, and only occurs when there are competing objects in the same cluster. In that case, the loudest one may influence the sound positioning within the cluster, presuming the quieter sounds are masked sufficiently to prevent detecting the directional shift. It's one of those psychoacoustic processes that the likes of Dolby have been dealing with since their inception. I hope they got it right, but as it is controlled by the encoder, the performance could be improved over time, and if certain sounds need to be delivered independently for positional purposes or total isolation (like dialog), the content maker also has that option.
[/raw speculation]


----------



## bigjoexxl

What about some decent ON ceiling speakers? I have the EMP Tek Impression Series.


----------



## hogues

batpig said:


> What are your other speakers? And how cheap is "cheap"? While there are decent cheap speakers out there I would want to make sure the speakers you use can keep up with the approximate SPL and dynamics as your surround speakers.
> 
> These PSB in-ceilings are only $180/pr and have pivoting tweeters: http://www.crutchfield.com/p_760CW60R/PSB-CW60R.html?tp=193
> 
> There are also smaller 5.25" woofer versions for $30 less.
> 
> PSB is a reputable company that makes very neutral, good measuring speakers that punch above their price class.
> 
> Crutchfield has a big selection and there are other good brands like Infinity, Klipsch etc. that have inexpensive offerings: http://www.crutchfield.com/g_101500/In-ceiling-Speakers.html?tp=193


How important are directional in ceiling speakers? I was planning to use the JBL Control 226C/T because it is my understanding that they would match my JTR speakers because of the compression drivers. They would be about 4 feet in front and in back of the MLP. Thanks!


----------



## brwsaw

I think my first DSU movie will be Disney's Planes. In our room it sounded/felt incredibly life like the first time around.


----------



## asoofi1

Brian Fineberg said:


> can anyone recommend a cheap in ceiling speaker that would work nicely for atmos?
> 
> would the monoprice ones work well? Im thinking with auddy xt32 and the lack of total sound coming out of them a super high quality speaker is not needed....thoughts?


Monoprice has some great values on their speakers, but it all depends subjective factors. Their in-walls and in-ceilings particular. Ideally, you want to timbre match all the surrounds, so I highly suggest 2 speakers of same model as your current surrounds or something that has similar specs and type of speaker.


----------



## Nightlord

bigjoexxl said:


> What about some decent ON ceiling speakers? I have the EMP Tek Impression Series.


No one knows. It's still early days. Just try if you have them and let us know. If you already have them, there's no additional cost (just trouble  ) to try them.


----------



## sdurani

brwsaw said:


> I think my first DSU movie will be Disney's Planes. In our room it sounded/felt incredibly life like the first time around.


Disney's _'Planes'_ was an aggressive Atmos mix in the theatres. Hope they eventually release that mix on Blu-ray.


----------



## brwsaw

sdurani said:


> Disney's _'Planes'_ was an aggressive Atmos mix in the theatres. Hope they eventually release that mix on Blu-ray.


It was quite impressive at home.


----------



## sdurani

brwsaw said:


> It was quite impressive at home.


Wait till you hear it in Atmos.


----------



## bigjoexxl

Nightlord said:


> bigjoexxl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about some decent ON ceiling speakers? I have the EMP Tek Impression Series.
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows. It's still early days. Just try if you have them and let us know. If you already have them, there's no additional cost (just trouble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to try them.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.. I was trying to say is EMP Tek Impression Series are the speakers I'm using in 7.2 setup. I was hoping to get some recommendations for on ceiling speakers. Something small I could mount on the ceiling with a bracket. Any suggestions??


----------



## Selden Ball

Can you define "small"? Size? Weight?


----------



## bargervais

bigjoexxl said:


> I'm sorry.. I was trying to say is EMP Tek Impression Series are the speakers I'm using in 7.2 setup. I was hoping to get some recommendations for on ceiling speakers. Something small I could mount on the ceiling with a bracket. Any suggestions??


size wise are you thinking something like these
http://www.amazon.com/Leviton-AESS5..._sbs_e_41?ie=UTF8&refRID=0XPMN5BH6MVFM1DC16GC


----------



## bigjoexxl

I originally was thinking about going with Def Tech ProMonitor 800 for ceiling speakers. So around that size. But honestly I'm open for anything. Ideally I would like to find something that I could hang/mount from the ceiling that would look proper..not just hanging there from the wall out of place. Know what I mean???


----------



## bigjoexxl

I like the size of these. Something flat I could just mount straight onto the ceiling.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002778FAQ/ref=pd_aw_sims_5?pi=SY115&simLd=1


----------



## Selden Ball

I'm using DefTech ProMonitor 1000 speakers which are effectively hanging from the wall (from ceiling-height bookcases, actually). They're only slightly larger than their 800, but they do look somewhat out of place.  ProMonitors are available in either white or black, so if your ceiling is white they might not be too objectionable.


----------



## bargervais

bigjoexxl said:


> I like the size of these. Something flat I could just mount straight onto the ceiling.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002778FAQ/ref=pd_aw_sims_5?pi=SY115&simLd=1


there are these little baby's

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0018QNYXA?psc=1


----------



## corndogggy

Two things, first of all can someone tell me if four overhead speakers are really worth the effort or is two more than enough? 

Secondly, I don't know if it is Atmos doing it or what, but the new Transformers movie is the craziest mess I have ever heard in my life, and I don't even have ceiling speakers yet. The subwoofer output is much more powerful and clear than usual, surround effects are more powerful and distinct as well, such as gunshots. When Lockdown jumps down onto the street is is pretty scary. I feel that the mix is way beyond what people are used to nowadays.


----------



## batpig

Four is better. If you can do it, do it right.


----------



## batpig

bigjoexxl said:


> I originally was thinking about going with Def Tech ProMonitor 800 for ceiling speakers. So around that size. But honestly I'm open for anything. Ideally I would like to find something that I could hang/mount from the ceiling that would look proper..not just hanging there from the wall out of place. Know what I mean???


Get the Tannoy Di5-DC that kbarnes is using. They are cheap, high performance, neutral, wide dispersion, compact -- and easy to ceiling mount and aim because they use a simple C bracket like an outdoor speaker.


----------



## wse

corndogggy said:


> Two things, first of all can someone tell me if four overhead speakers are really worth the effort or is two more than enough? Secondly, I don't know if it is Atmos doing it or what, but the new Transformers movie is the craziest mess I have ever heard in my life, and I don't even have ceiling speakers yet. The subwoofer output is much more powerful and clear than usual, surround effects are more powerful and distinct as well, such as gunshots. When Lockdown jumps down onto the street is is pretty scary. I feel that the mix is way beyond what people are used to nowadays.


Great "I want more"!  Ever watched Interview with a Vampire?


----------



## Selden Ball

With 4 overhead speakers, you can get both front-to-back and side-to-side pans. You'll have to decide how important that is to you.

Michael Bay likes energetic sound mixes. TF4 is a very good example of that. On the other hand, it's a poor example if you like movies with well written scripts.  (Although I'm not sure if it's as bad as _Prometheus_)


----------



## bigjoexxl

What about something similar to these?? That's just a little out of my price range. But I like the design.
http://www.axiomaudio.com/m3-on-wall-speaker


----------



## Selden Ball

With many home speaker designs, you're paying at least as much for their appearance as for their sound. That seems not to be the case with the Tannoy speakers.


----------



## wse

Selden Ball said:


> With many home speaker designs, you're paying at least as much for their appearance as for their sound. That seems not to be the case with the Tannoy speakers.


That's for sure.

B&W AM-1

 


B&W AM-1

or Tannoy Di5DC


----------



## bigjoexxl

I really like the style of the BW AW-1. But surely there something similar for half that price. Would anybody no something similar? I really like the mounting bracket in the back.


----------



## batpig

bigjoexxl said:


> I really like the style of the BW AW-1. But surely there something similar for half that price. Would anybody no something similar? I really like the mounting bracket in the back.


It would be amazing if not only was there something similar for half the price, but it was ALSO something which was already suggested to you!  



batpig said:


> Get the Tannoy Di5-DC that kbarnes is using. They are cheap, high performance, neutral, wide dispersion, compact -- and easy to ceiling mount and aim because they use a simple C bracket like an outdoor speaker.


http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white

Probably the same or better performance, you just don't have to pay the surcharge for the "B&W" brand name 

EDIT: or if you are ok with black, even cheaper on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TANNOY-Di5DC-WEATHERPROOF-SURFACE-MOUNT-SPEAKERS-PAIR-BLACK-/141429322627


----------



## chi_guy50

bigjoexxl said:


> I like the size of these. Something flat I could just mount straight onto the ceiling.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002778FAQ/ref=pd_aw_sims_5?pi=SY115&simLd=1


Those are the Polk Audio OWM5's, of which I actually have three pairs--one pair for the surrounds, one for the SB's, and one for the FH's. In my case, however, they are a timbre match with my LCR (and FW's); I can't speak to how well they would team up with your speakers. However, they are solid performers, reasonably priced, and look good. They also have the advantage of offering nine (!) different mounting methods, which makes them a very flexible option where location and aiming are problematic. Each of my three pairs is mounted differently:

My FH's are wall-mounted using the Def Tech ProMount 90 . . .









while the surrounds are flush-mounted to the face of built-in cabinets . . .









and the SB's are standing on the fireplace mantel using the included vertical shelf mount.









Here's an ensemble view of the rear sound stage:












bargervais said:


> there are these little baby's
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0018QNYXA?psc=1


Those are the OWM5's little brother, the OWM3 which only  provide seven different mounting solutions. I also have a pair of those; I was originally using them as SB's but have since moved them into my dining room as zone 2 stereo speakers:












Selden Ball said:


> With many home speaker designs, you're paying at least as much for their appearance as for their sound. That seems not to be the case with the Tannoy speakers.


I assume you meant that in a good way, but the Tannoys certainly are anything but stylish. OTOH, if it's a dark HT like Keith's then they're just going to disappear against the black ceiling anyway and it's only the sound reproduction (and budget) that matters.


----------



## jkasanic

bigjoexxl said:


> I really like the style of the BW AW-1. But surely there something similar for half that price. Would anybody no something similar? I really like the mounting bracket in the back.


As the saying goes, they all look the same with the lights out!


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - DSU is fabulous and of course adds significantly to the enjoyment of your entire collection. Until more Atmos discs filter through, DSU nicely fills the gap IMO. I have been impressed so far by every disc I have played with DSU engaged. Last night was *Prometheus*. Anyone who has the disc, listen to the beginning of the movie, right after the main title fades out - then go to chapter 12 and listen to the 'storm' sequence. Wow.


Agree Thanks for suggesting Prometheus with DSU engaged I love it. Mind you I have been watching everything with DSU engaged.


----------



## bigjoexxl

batpig said:


> It would be amazing if not only was there something similar for half the price, but it was ALSO something which was already suggested to you!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> Probably the same or better performance, you just don't have to pay the surcharge for the "B&W" brand name
> 
> EDIT: or if you are ok with black, even cheaper on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TANNOY-Di5DC-WEATHERPROOF-SURFACE-MOUNT-SPEAKERS-PAIR-BLACK-/141429322627


The TAN-DI5DC comes with that mounting bracket correct? The ones that are being sold on eBay has anyone purchased from that seller before?


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> It would be amazing if not only was there something similar for half the price, but it was ALSO something which was already suggested to you!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> Probably the same or better performance, you just don't have to pay the surcharge for the "B&W" brand name
> 
> EDIT: or if you are ok with black, even cheaper on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TANNOY-Di5DC-WEATHERPROOF-SURFACE-MOUNT-SPEAKERS-PAIR-BLACK-/141429322627


I also hate that brand name upcharge I'm very confident that as Atmos matures there will be more and more choices for ceiling speakers.


----------



## bigjoexxl

That's very true I might just hold off and wait. But I hate waiting. Lol


----------



## batpig

Why would you wait? Those speakers are available for purchase right NOW and are being used by Keith as Atmos ceiling speakers in his very high end setup, so their performance is vouched for. And, yes, they come with the C-mount brackets.

PS - there are already a bazillion ceiling speakers out there, especially if you expand the criteria to include these "outdoor/indoor" type C-bracket speakers. The demand for in-ceiling speakers has existed long before Atmos was even a twinkle in Dolby's eyes.


----------



## bargervais

bigjoexxl said:


> That's very true I might just hold off and wait. But I hate waiting. Lol


I hope you didn't think that I suggested you wait as there are plenty of speakers too choose from there is no reason to wait


----------



## LDBecker

bigjoexxl said:


> I'm sorry.. I was trying to say is EMP Tek Impression Series are the speakers I'm using in 7.2 setup. I was hoping to get some recommendations for on ceiling speakers. Something small I could mount on the ceiling with a bracket. Any suggestions??


I bought a pair of white B&W M1 speakers - nice wall bracket included. Made for mounting on a wall, but I put them HIGH on the wall so they were in effect on the ceiling. My room is only 12' wide, carpeted livingroom, cluttered with furniture with a popcorn ceiling - absolutely optimal for discerning listening  The M1s have decent FR, look ok, and really add a nice dimension to DSU and Atmos (Transformers 4) - other speakers 7.1 Veritas, Denon X5200W, Energy Microstar 12.1 sub (1500w)


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Possibly. But can you hear that? AFAIK, the loss is confined within clusters of space, and only occurs when there are competing objects in the same cluster. In that case, the loudest one may influence the sound positioning within the cluster, presuming the quieter sounds are masked sufficiently to prevent detecting the directional shift. It's one of those psychoacoustic processes that the likes of Dolby have been dealing with since their inception. I hope they got it right, but as it is controlled by the encoder, the performance could be improved over time, and if certain sounds need to be delivered independently for positional purposes or total isolation (like dialog), the content maker also has that option.
> [/raw speculation]


 
Thanks. One error with my example of similarity of SAP's object grouping to downmixing of 7.1 to 5.1 is that side and rear surround channels are far apart in space, whereas SAP would only group objects that are closer together, IOW the ones approaching listener at similar angle of incidence?


----------



## mp5475

batpig said:


> It would be amazing if not only was there something similar for half the price, but it was ALSO something which was already suggested to you!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> Probably the same or better performance, you just don't have to pay the surcharge for the "B&W" brand name
> 
> EDIT: or if you are ok with black, even cheaper on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TANNOY-Di5DC-WEATHERPROOF-SURFACE-MOUNT-SPEAKERS-PAIR-BLACK-/141429322627


Also, you will never see them when you turn the light off. So who cares. Unless, these are for your living room.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Thanks. One error with my example of similarity of SAP's object grouping to downmixing of 7.1 to 5.1 is that side and rear surround channels are far apart in space, whereas SAP would only group objects that are closer together, IOW the ones approaching listener at similar angle of incidence?


Yes, the clustering has to do with proximity. It also appears to be dynamic. The only info we have thus far is what's in *their patent* (see ¶49-53), and that does not necessarily ensure what is being built.


----------



## aaranddeeman

asoofi1 said:


> Ideally, you want to timbre match all the surrounds, so I highly suggest 2 speakers of same model as your current surrounds or something that has similar specs and type of speaker.


For this reason I am leaning towards using my current surrounds for the Atmos duty by installing them on ceiling.
I have JBL northridge E series speakers. 
FL/FR => E80
C => EC25
FWL/FWR => E60 (now moved as ear level SL and SR)
SL/SR => E10 (will move on ceiling)
SBL/SBR => E10 (will move on ceiling)

So I may begin atmos with 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 and go to 7.1.4 once I find a pair of E10/20/30 on craigslist for the right price..
Oh. I forgot. I don't have the Atmos receiver yet...


----------



## UKTexan

Expendables 3 on Blu ray with Atmos, due for release November 25th.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/07/the-expendables-3-blu-ray-getting-unrated-cut


----------



## batpig

Barf

Thank goodness for DSU


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> And if you're reluctant to expose your housekeeping to the world, you can use something like SweetHome3D to show an idealized view.
> 
> It's a free 3D multi-platform house design package which is surprisingly easy to use. http://www.sweethome3d.com/


This is cool Selden, thx.


----------



## Scott Simonian

UKTexan said:


> Expendables 3 on Blu ray with Atmos, due for release November 25th.
> 
> http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/07/the-expendables-3-blu-ray-getting-unrated-cut


Too bad it had an utterly unremarkable sound mix.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Those are the Polk Audio OWM5's, of which I actually have three pairs--one pair for the surrounds, one for the SB's, and one for the FH's. In my case, however, they are a timbre match with my LCR (and FW's); I can't speak to how well they would team up with your speakers. However, they are solid performers, reasonably priced, and look good. They also have the advantage of offering nine (!) different mounting methods, which makes them a very flexible option where location and aiming are problematic. Each of my three pairs is mounted differently:
> 
> My FH's are wall-mounted using the Def Tech ProMount 90 . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while the surrounds are flush-mounted to the face of built-in cabinets . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the SB's are standing on the fireplace mantel using the included vertical shelf mount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an ensemble view of the rear sound stage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the OWM5's little brother, the OWM3 which only  provide seven different mounting solutions. I also have a pair of those; I was originally using them as SB's but have since moved them into my dining room as zone 2 stereo speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you meant that in a good way, but the Tannoys certainly are anything but stylish. OTOH, if it's a dark HT like Keith's then they're just going to disappear against the black ceiling anyway and it's only the sound reproduction (and budget) that matters.


I like it, everything.


----------



## NorthSky

> *Expendables 3* on Blu ray with Atmos, due for release November 25th.
> 
> http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/07/the-expendables-3-blu-ray-getting-unrated-cut


De only problem...is dat de movie sucks, totally. ...And I truly mean dat.


----------



## UKTexan

NorthSky said:


> De only problem...is dat de movie sucks, totally. ...And I truly mean dat.


I have no interest in watching the movie, just posting about another Atmos title to be released, which is a positive thing.

Strange reply Northsky, keep smoking that pipe......


----------



## bargervais

UKTexan said:


> I have no interest in watching the movie, just posting about another Atmos title to be released, which is a positive thing.
> 
> Strange reply Northsky, keep smoking that pipe......


Wacky tobacco 
Expandable II was bad but it had a lot of action, that maybe why Expandable 3 was another atmos choice. At least they are coming slowly but they are coming and maybe soon there will be something good


----------



## Aras_Volodka

wse said:


> Has any one compared 7.2.2 vs 7.2.4?


I got to compare... sort of. The only film I've heard both in was the opening to Star Wars III... I did notice a difference. Worth it for a few extra hundred imo. 

I put this post on the Denon 5200 thread as well... I figured some of you might possibly be interested about how I feel regarding Atmos upmixing & 7.1.4. 
I don't have dolby modules yet... I'm using junky satellites pointed upwards until the atlantic techs come out. However, it still sounds pretty good even with those... the 7.2.4 adds a lot more dimension to the sound vs 7.2.2. If you are trying to figure out what setup to get... go with 7.2.4... it's worth it. My room is pretty small but movies sound great:

"Tonight I just got my preamp so I was able to hook up rear heights for 7.1.4 as opposed to 7.1.2 (I did it within a half hour of getting home... haha). I don't have any dolby modules yet... but even with adding just my crappy 2" satellite speakers as the rear "modules" the sound opened up a TON. I'm definitely glad I sprung for the extra channels. I even ran the calibration badly (setting for "height" as opposed to "dolby"... because when I switched Amp assign it altered the calibration settings). 

So anyways... for those of you who have the Denon 5200x I'd recommend the Star Trek into darkness opening... holy cow! That is the best my system has ever sounded. Period. I'm blown away by how good this sounds! 

I tried it on Star Wars Episode III opening sequence with multiple calibration settings (7.1.2 & 7.1.4)... I've got to say that sound was a tad of a let down. There's a lot of cool directional things going on but the mix sounds a little bright to me... like when ships whizz by it's a little harsh on the ears, everything else sounds great though. But the opening crawl did sound fantastic... the music sounds good. 

I also watched T2 skynet edition first 40 min last night. The sound / music quality is the other way around... the sfx sound amazing, the motorcycle sounds like a real motorcycle is in the room. The digital music sounds corny compared to that though... I always wondered why Cameron could never spring for a real orchestra... especially on Titanic... those fake strings sound just awful. (Did he finally get a real orchestra for Avatar? I forget). Well anyways... I'm a happy camper. I can't really speak any more highly of the 5200 & the Atmos upmixer."


----------



## NorthSky

> I have no interest in watching the movie, just posting about another Atmos title to be released, which is a positive thing.
> 
> Strange reply Northsky, keep smoking that pipe......


My post has nothing to do with you; only with that flick. 

Thank you for your understanding, and sharing.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> De only problem...is dat de movie sucks, totally. ...And I truly mean dat.





UKTexan said:


> I have no interest in watching the movie, just posting about another Atmos title to be released, which is a positive thing.
> 
> Strange reply Northsky, keep smoking that pipe......





bargervais said:


> Wacky tobacco
> Expandable II was bad but it had a lot of action, that maybe why Expandable 3 was another atmos choice. At least they are coming slowly but they are coming and maybe soon there will be something good


Maybe they want all the initial Atmos bluray releases to be the worst selections possible for a reason? I'm still sore about GOTG... I just hope we get that, Star Trek, or the Hobbit within a year. Maybe with 3D? Haha.


----------



## HTinParadise

I have a suggestion for Atmos end user opinions; I'm thinking that a great blu-disk to check out for DS upmix might be U-571.

Regards,

HTinP


----------



## NorthSky

HTinParadise said:


> I have a suggestion for Atmos end user opinions;
> I'm thinking that a great blu-disk to check out for DS upmix might be *U-571*.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> HTinP


That would be an excellent Blu-ray movie title to be re-mixed in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HTinParadise said:


> I have a suggestion for Atmos end user opinions; I'm thinking that a great blu-disk to check out for DS upmix might be U-571.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> HTinP


Or better yet, the director's cut of _Das Boot_! It was already powerfully re-mixed in 8 channel with five front speaker channels for its limited SDDS run... this mix could be a template and then expanded from there using the benefits of object based anchoring and panning.


----------



## bargervais

HTinParadise said:


> I have a suggestion for Atmos end user opinions; I'm thinking that a great blu-disk to check out for DS upmix might be U-571.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> HTinP


Das Boot I think would be good DSU will be pleasing on most movies


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Or better yet, the director's cut of _Das Boot_! It was already powerfully re-mixed in 8 channel with five front speaker channels for its limited SDDS run... this mix could be a template and then expanded from there using the benefits of object based anchoring and panning.


Great minds you beet me LOL DAS BOOT


----------



## Scott Simonian

There were a quite a few native 8ch SDDS tracks made. I wonder how Sony archived them. Hopefully in 8ch LPCM and not saved in SDDS's ATRAC compression algorithm. Probably not but that is how SDDS is delivered before decoding.


----------



## noah katz

Dan Hitchman said:


> Or better yet, the director's cut of _Das Boot_!


Oh yeah, good one - I've never heard anything louder or more dynamic from the surrounds than the part where they descend to where the bolts start popping.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Get the Tannoy Di5-DC that kbarnes is using. They are cheap, high performance, neutral, wide dispersion, compact -- and easy to ceiling mount and aim because they use a simple C bracket like an outdoor speaker.


I can endorse all that. I am very happy indeed with them. And once mounted on the ceiling, they look pretty good too IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It would be amazing if not only was there something similar for half the price, but it was ALSO something which was already suggested to you!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> *Probably the same or better performance, you just don't have to pay the surcharge for the "B&W" brand name
> *
> EDIT: or if you are ok with black, even cheaper on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TANNOY-Di5DC-WEATHERPROOF-SURFACE-MOUNT-SPEAKERS-PAIR-BLACK-/141429322627


That's right. And also, unlike 'consumer' speakers, the Tannoys come with a full specification, including response graphs and polar response graphs, so you know exactly what you are buying. If anyone can see a difference between the Tannoys and those B&W designs once they are installed on the ceiling, then their theater is too bright.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Agree Thanks for suggesting Prometheus with DSU engaged I love it. Mind you I have been watching everything with DSU engaged.


If you have 300: Rise of an Empire, you might care to watch that with DSU engaged too. Most of the movie takes place in a storm...


----------



## kbarnes701

bigjoexxl said:


> The TAN-DI5DC comes with that mounting bracket correct? The ones that are being sold on eBay has anyone purchased from that seller before?


They come with the bracket and all required fixings to connect it to the speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

There must be something wrong with me. Yesterday I watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ and _enjoyed_ it.


----------



## DaJoJo

hellraiser
the machinist
wonder how these sound with DSU


----------



## chi_guy50

*No comment*



kbarnes701 said:


> There must be something wrong with me. Yesterday I watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ and _enjoyed_ it.


----------



## bigjoexxl

bargervais said:


> I hope you didn't think that I suggested you wait as there are plenty of speakers too choose from there is no reason to wait


I'm back.. I'm really considering buying TAN-DI5DC from eBay after reading what everyone has said about them. My only concern purchasing from eBay. Has anyone purchased from the eBay seller before??


----------



## DaJoJo

bigjoexxl said:


> I'm back.. I'm really considering buying TAN-DI5DC from eBay after reading what everyone has said about them. My only concern purchasing from eBay. Has anyone purchased from the eBay seller before??


don't worry about that. just look at the stars rating the guy has and if things not correct deal with the guy, otherwise complain at ebay and u get money back and things will be solved to ur satisfaction. pay with paypal if u can. look at the comments section on his page and see what others say about him too.
if ur talking about this one http://www.ebay.com/itm/TANNOY-Di5DC-WEATHERPROOF-SURFACE-MOUNT-SPEAKERS-PAIR-BLACK-/141429322627 he looks ok and got a decent rating. also paypal and money back guarantee


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> If you have 300: Rise of an Empire, you might care to watch that with DSU engaged too. Most of the movie takes place in a storm...


Yes I have 300 just popped it in thank you Keith


----------



## Brian Fineberg

what about these BIC speakers? I know their subs are well thought of as a bargain...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIC-INDOOR-...05&prg=10778&rk=2&rkt=6&sd=141429322627&rt=nc


----------



## DaJoJo

Brian Fineberg said:


> what about these BIC speakers? I know their subs are well thought of as a bargain...
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIC-INDOOR-OUTDOOR-100-WATT-Home-Theater-Party-Speakers-FREE-SHIP/111477144725?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D25805%26meid%3D46c1f12f895d4e11b7c4e990899017c6%26pid%3D100005%26prg%3D10778%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D141429322627&rt=nc


ey brian.. long time 
i think ur better off with PSB Imagine Mini Bookshelf's
edit: with the PSB PWB-1 wall mount


----------



## Brian Fineberg

haha...yeah Im trying to do this as cheaply as possible right now...


----------



## bargervais

DaJoJo said:


> ey brian.. long time
> i think ur better off with PSB Imagine Mini Bookshelf's
> edit: with the PSB PWB-1 wall mount


i Googled them and am i missing something are these $800.00 a pair.
http://www.audiogurus.com/psb-imagi...tore=default&gclid=CLSp19eencECFTQQ7Aodlw4Abg


----------



## Brian Fineberg

yup thats them...and exactly why i WONT bw purchasing them haha


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> yup thats them...and exactly why i WONT bw purchasing them haha


i don't blame you im having a hard time getting up the money for the TAN-DI5DC the only thing i could say about the Bic line they are a good bang for the buck not sure about these http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIC-INDOOR-O...29322627&rt=nc
but for the cost it's almost worth it to test them
I have the Bic 350 Watt 6.5IN 2 Way Bookshelf for left and right front and BIC America FH6-LCR Dual 6.5-Inch 175-Watt LCR Speaker with Mid/High Frequency Horn for my center they sound very nice.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

just pulled the trigger on the x4100 avr. I used amazon Prime so I can test it out to see if its worth the upgrade...then I can always return it if I am less than impressed....gonna rig up some old Klipsch Quintets to try it our for now...if i like it I will order 4 of the tannoy's

gonna be a fun weeknd


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> There must be something wrong with me. Yesterday I watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ and _enjoyed_ it.


Yes, there is.


----------



## Kressilac

*My Atmos Theater is officially in progress*

So.... yesterday I picked up 12 shiny brand new speakers for my Dolby Atmos setup in my home theater. Am excited to get these things installed. It's killing me that my basement remodel is probably still a year away from being completed.


Good things come to those that wait I guess. I bought 12 Episode 500 series in wall speakers from the guys over at Vivid Sight and Sound in Louisville, KY. Bob was very helpful and gave me a great price. Can't thank him enough. 


http://www.vividsightsound.com/


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> just pulled the trigger on the x4100 avr. I used amazon Prime so I can test it out to see if its worth the upgrade...then I can always return it if I am less than impressed....gonna rig up some old Klipsch Quintets to try it our for now...if i like it I will order 4 of the tannoy's
> 
> gonna be a fun weeknd


I guess you know this... to run 4 ceiling speakers you'll need a two channel amp to run an additional two speakers so you can do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Correct. 

I initially will try 5.2.2. If it's a go I'll order two more speakers. And use my xpa5 for fr c fl and tr l/r

Then the x4100 for sr sl and Tf r/l

For a 5.2.4


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Correct.
> 
> I initially will try 5.2.2. If it's a go I'll order two more speakers. And use my xpa5 for fr c fl and tr l/r
> 
> Then the x4100 for sr sl and Tf r/l
> 
> For a 5.2.4


I'm running a TX-NR 737. 5.1.2 top front speakers I just wanted to get my feet wet and I'm not disappointed enjoying it in my little den.. and your x4100 will sound nice with XT32 congratulations.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

bargervais said:


> I'm running a TX-NR 737. 5.1.2 top front speakers I just wanted to get my feet wet and I'm not disappointed enjoying it in my little den.. and your x4100 will sound nice with XT32 congratulations.


Thank you.  I'll report back.


----------



## wse

noah katz said:


> Oh yeah, good one - I've never heard anything louder or more dynamic from the surrounds than the part where they descend to where the bolts start popping.


What a sleeper! Sorry not my cup of tea


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. And also, unlike 'consumer' speakers, the Tannoys come with a full specification, including response graphs and polar response graphs, so you know exactly what you are buying. If anyone can see a difference between the Tannoys and those B&W designs once they are installed on the ceiling, then their theater is too bright.


Well let me ask this what If you could get the B&W and TANNOY at the same price which would you choose 

Also am I missing any thing by having on ceiling speakers rather than in-ceiling beside the esthetics


----------



## mp5475

When should we expect news/specs on generation 2 AVRs?


----------



## wse

mp5475 said:


> when should we expect news/specs on generation 2 avrs?


cedia 2015:d


----------



## mp5475

In oct? Hope we get some real news before then, like second gen doing 9.1.4.


----------



## Scott Simonian

mp5475 said:


> When should we expect news/specs on generation 2 AVRs?


Probably Spring/Summer when all these come out usually.


----------



## mp5475

Scott Simonian said:


> Probably Spring/Summer when all these come out usually.


Great. Thx


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hoping for more speaker outs and possibly some form of re-mapping. 

If we can get even some rudimentary re-mapping and outputs for more speakers then doing Auro3D and Atmos will be very doable.

For example: a "simple" 7.1.6 layout will give you four surround heights to work with (Auro) along with being overhead surrounds (Atmos). The front two heights work for both Atmos and Auro as well. An additional speaker output could possibly be utilized for that front height center but you could also get phantom imaging from the front two heights. Easy.

Imho, a minimum of 7.1.6 could give you everything from all surround formats.

DTS-UHD would work on all of this because they are layout agnostic. Hence the need for remapping.


----------



## Selden Ball

wse said:


> Well let me ask this what If you could get the B&W and TANNOY at the same price which would you choose


 If they have comparable audio quality, I'd go with the ones that look better.


> Also am I missing any thing by having on ceiling speakers rather than in-ceiling beside the esthetics


When you hang speakers from the ceiling (which I assume is what you mean by on-ceiling) you can point the entire speaker assembly toward the main listening position to get the best sound. You can't do that with in-ceiling speakers, although some do include pointable tweeters.


----------



## jkasanic

Selden Ball said:


> If they have comparable audio quality, I'd go with the ones that look better.
> 
> When you hang speakers from the ceiling (which I assume is what you mean by on-ceiling) you can point the entire speaker assembly toward the main listening position to get the best sound. You can't do that with in-ceiling speakers, although some do include pointable tweeters.


Some also include woofers that can be aimed towards the listening area as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Or on-ceiling (in-ceiling) subwoofers. ...For flicks like *'U-571'*. ...Or *'Das Boot'*. ...Or *'Black Hawk Down'*.


----------



## bargervais

mp5475 said:


> In oct? Hope we get some real news before then, like second gen doing 9.1.4.


We just gave birth to the first generation Atmos AVRs 
I would say middle of next year ????? Your guess is as good as mine


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Hoping for more speaker outs and possibly some form of re-mapping.
> 
> If we can get even some rudimentary re-mapping and outputs for more speakers then doing Auro3D and Atmos will be very doable.
> 
> For example: a "simple" 7.1.6 layout will give you four surround heights to work with (Auro) along with being overhead surrounds (Atmos). The front two heights work for both Atmos and Auro as well. An additional speaker output could possibly be utilized for that front height center but you could also get phantom imaging from the front two heights. Easy.
> 
> Imho, a minimum of 7.1.6 could give you everything from all surround formats.
> 
> DTS-UHD would work on all of this because they are layout agnostic. Hence the need for remapping.


Remember the AVS Forum Dolby Atmos meet at CEDIA, Scott? I asked about 9.1.4 and one of the engineers on the consumer Atmos project said he was working on it. Does that mean there will be 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 or other mainstream configurations above 9.1.2 or 7.1.4... I don't know. Perhaps, but a lot depends on what the manufacturers like D+M and Onkyo will want to support in the near future.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Remember the AVS Forum Dolby Atmos meet at CEDIA, Scott? I asked about 9.1.4 and one of the engineers on the consumer Atmos project said he was working on it. Does that mean there won't be 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 or other mainstream configurations above 9.1.2 or 7.1.4... I don't know. Perhaps, but a lot depends on what the manufacturers like D+M and Onkyo will want to support in the near future.


And that there makes you think that there wouldn't be anything beyond x.x.4? 

You do remember that Atmos has support for 24.x.10, right? They already have graphics for this. DTS-UHD would as well if not infinite. Auro is ...whatever it feels like.

The question you had asked was of a simple diagram block for set up purposes. Not that there wouldn't be anything beyond.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> And that there makes you think that there wouldn't be anything beyond x.x.4?
> 
> You do remember that Atmos has support for 24.x.10, right? They already have graphics for this. DTS-UHD would as well if not infinite. Auro is ...whatever it feels like.
> 
> The question you had asked was a simple diagram block for set up purposes. Not that there wouldn't be anything beyond.


Scott, I made a small typo and had edited my post seemingly while you were commenting. Please re-read it. The context has changed.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I hope someone will release a software decoder/renderer for HTPC use. That way we could expand to whatever number of speakers we want. I would love a 12.1.6 setup with 30 degrees separation between the horizontal speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I think I caught you just as you changed it cuz your quoted bit in my post is exactly as it's shown now.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> I think I caught you just as you changed it cuz your quoted bit in my post is exactly as it's shown now.


Actually, it's not.  Refresh the page.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, there is.


I knew it!


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Well let me ask this what If you could get the B&W and TANNOY at the same price which would you choose


The Tannoys. The main reason would be that the Tannoys are Pro speakers so I know what I am getting - and I know their dispersion characteristics, the FR characteristics and that they can play at 106dB all day long without any issues, and so on. Now the B&Ws may also be able to do all that, but for whatever reason, B&W won't give me the information I need to know for sure. Check out what Tannoy consider to be important to know by taking a look at the specification sheet, *here*. Now try to get that info on the B&Ws.

Of course, I am not dissing the B&W speakers. I used to be a big fan of B&W back in the day when I was an 'audiophile' (as opposed to an informed buyer) and they make great speakers. But they are overpriced IMO for their performance. HST, they do look way better than the Tannoys, but that isn't important in my HT because I can't see any of my speakers when watching a movie. But I know that appearance is important to many people and I respect that - I just don't want to pay for nice looks. I'd rather spend the money on performance. All my speakers are butt-ugly.



wse said:


> Also am I missing any thing by having on ceiling speakers rather than in-ceiling beside the esthetics


On-ceilings are easier to mount (and re-mount) if you change your mind. And they can be aimed better than in-ceilings, even those with aimable tweeters usually. And you probably have more choice for on-ceiling speakers. And the power-handing of in-ceiling speakers may be compromised. But I am prejudiced: I just don't like in-ceiling speakers at all and would never consider them for any serious application here. That's just personal opinion/prejudice so don't treat it as anything more.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, it's not.  Refresh the page.


I have. Many times. The quote from you in my previous post shows exactly how your post is _post_-edit.

So idk, bro.


----------



## bsoko2

kbarnes701 thanx for your info on the Tannoys. I will be changing over to Atmos by spring.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> I have. Many times. The quote from you in my previous post shows exactly how your post is _post_-edit.
> 
> So idk, bro.


Anyway, it's not exactly all up to Dolby and what they would like to see implemented in mainstream devices. Sure, the ultra high end can do just about the complete home Atmos configuration because they cost as much as a new car. Dolby's roadblock happens to be the "Joe-Schmo" manufacturers like Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, and Yamaha and whether they want to bother with receivers and pre-amps that can go beyond 7.1.4 or even 9.1.4. It takes more powerful processors and they seem hesitant to use these new quad-core chips across the board due to costs, or even change the fundamental designs of their products. We've discussed in the past that smart phones have more horsepower than most surround processors these days. 

Me, personally, I would like to see manufacturers start to move towards a lot more modular pre-amp/processors than trying to shove and cram these scalable codecs into traditional receivers. They would be capable of rendering more speaker/sub outputs than before, have speaker re-mapping for the possible three 3D formats, less space taken up with legacy analog inputs (since Hollywood has moved us towards digital connections), and it would be up to us as to how many amps and speakers/subs we would want to add.


----------



## Scott Simonian

You and me both, Dan.

Give me 7/9.1.6 and I'm a happy camper for life.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> Anyway, it's not exactly all up to Dolby and what they would like to see implemented in mainstream devices. Sure, the ultra high end can do just about the complete home Atmos configuration because they cost as much as a new car. Dolby's roadblock happens to be the "Joe-Schmo" manufacturers like Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, and Yamaha and whether they want to bother with receivers and pre-amps that can go beyond 7.1.4 or even 9.1.4. It takes more powerful processors and they seem hesitant to use these new quad-core chips across the board due to costs, or even change the fundamental designs of their products. We've discussed in the past that smart phones have more horsepower than most surround processors these days.
> 
> Me, personally, I would like to see manufacturers start to move towards a lot more modular pre-amp/processors than trying to shove and cram these scalable codecs into traditional receivers. They would be capable of rendering more speaker/sub outputs than before, have speaker re-remapping for the possible three 3D formats, less space taken up with legacy analog inputs (since Hollywood has moved us towards digital connections), and it would be up to us as to how many amps and speakers/subs we would want to add.


I agree manufacturers should get rid of all the old stuff in their new AVR.

THINGS LIKE
- component video
- the plethora of imput for CD, DVD, DAT, VCR, LASER DISC....

IT SHOULD BE ALL HDMI for movies


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> I agree manufacturers should get rid of all the old stuff in their new AVR.
> 
> THINGS LIKE
> - component video
> - the plethora of imput for CD, DVD, DAT, VCR, LASER DISC....
> 
> IT SHOULD BE ALL HDMI for movies


I think they should have gone with fiber optic. HDMI is crap.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> The Tannoys. The main reason would be that the Tannoys are Pro speakers so I know what I am getting - and I know their dispersion characteristics, the FR characteristics and that they can play at 106dB all day long without any issues, and so on. Now the B&Ws may also be able to do all that, but for whatever reason, B&W won't give me the information I need to know for sure. Check out what Tannoy consider to be important to know by taking a look at the specification sheet, *here*. Now try to get that info on the B&Ws.
> 
> Of course, I am not dissing the B&W speakers. I used to be a big fan of B&W back in the day when I was an 'audiophile' (as opposed to an informed buyer) and they make great speakers. But they are overpriced IMO for their performance. HST, they do look way better than the Tannoys, but that isn't important in my HT because I can't see any of my speakers when watching a movie. But I know that appearance is important to many people and I respect that - I just don't want to pay for nice looks. I'd rather spend the money on performance. All my speakers are butt-ugly.
> 
> On-ceilings are easier to mount (and re-mount) if you change your mind. And they can be aimed better than in-ceilings, even those with aimable tweeters usually. And you probably have more choice for on-ceiling speakers. And the power-handing of in-ceiling speakers may be compromised. But I am prejudiced: I just don't like in-ceiling speakers at all and would never consider them for any serious application here. That's just personal opinion/prejudice so don't treat it as anything more.


Thank you greatly appreciate the feed back!

I usually can get very very good prices on B&W which is why I have so many B&W speakers.

I love the look of the new TANNOY as well but don't anywhere near the deal I can get on B&W!

I would not mind a pair of those http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1509






I will try to get that data for the AM-1 from B&W but I am not holding my breath


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think they should have gone with fiber optic. HDMI is crap.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


>


Can it do audio too? Nice hair, by the way!


----------



## Scott Simonian

It sure can. And 4K video. It does this right now with one single cable that is similar in size to HDMI.



> DisplayPort version 1.3 was released on September 15, 2014.[17] This standard increases overall transmission bandwidth to 32.4 Gbit/s with the new HBR3 mode featuring 8.1 Gbit/s per lane (up from 5.4 Gbit/s with HBR2 in version 1.2), totalling 25.92 Gbit/s with overhead removed. This bandwidth allows for 5K displays (5120×2880 px) in RGB mode, and UHD 8K television displays at 7680×4320 (16:9, 33.18 megapixels) using 4:2:0 subsampling. The bandwidth also allows for two 4K (3840×2160 px) computer monitors at 60 Hz in 24-bit RGB mode using Coordinated Video Timing, a 4K stereo 3D display, or a combination of 4K display and SuperSpeed USB 3.0 as allowed by DockPort. The new standard features HDMI 2.0 compatibility mode with HDCP 2.2 content protection. It also supports VESA Display Stream Compression, which uses a visually lossless low-latency algorithm to increase resolutions and color depths and reduce power consumption.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Any possibilities that HTTYD 2 will be blessed with Atmos? Still no word on the soundtrack specs.

That would be my first Atmos title to snag, if so.


----------



## pasender91

The switch to DisplayPort is obviously NOT going to happen, so why even mention it?
Watching too much Sci-Fi lately ?

Yes, some legacy i/o could be removed on new AVRs, composite as example, but keeping a few RCAs makes sense.

What i'm wondering about is how they will manage to increase the number of channels to say 9.1.6? Having 15 amps inside the AVR is not sensible, isn't it better to keep 9 amps inside and then rely on external amps for the rest?


----------



## wse

They really look great



That furniture finish makes me crack, I wish I could get decent pricing on those


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> The switch to DisplayPort is obviously NOT going to happen, so why even mention it?
> Watching too much Sci-Fi lately ?
> 
> Yes, some legacy i/o could be removed on new AVRs, composite as example, but keeping a few RCAs makes sense.
> 
> What i'm wondering about is how they will manage to increase the number of channels to say 9.1.6? Having 15 amps inside the AVR is not sensible, isn't it better to keep 9 amps inside and then rely on external amps for the rest?


Receivers would have to have a lot of pre-amp outs in addition to any onboard amps.


----------



## Scott Simonian

pasender91 said:


> The switch to DisplayPort is obviously NOT going to happen, so why even mention it?


Because Dan said, "should have gone with fiber optic"?

I know it's not going to happen, for semi-obvious reasons.

As for more speaker outs, that's super easy.

First of all, why is it a requirement that there must be an equivalent amount of amps? It's doable, actually but not necessary at all. Just put 6-8ch of power and do the rest with preouts.

Second, just put preouts. They are so small! If not, put a single ethernet port to hook up to an external box with more outputs on it. This is exactly how it works now on the actual Dolby Atmos cinema processor. Just not with ethernet and instead it's an ancient serial port.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> They really look great
> 
> 
> 
> That furniture finish makes me crack, I wish I could get decent pricing on those


High gloss finishes are definitely not home theater friendly. May be cool for a music only system.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> High gloss finishes are definitely not home theater friendly. May be cool for a music only system.


Agreed, I cover the Marlan Heads when I watch a movie


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any possibilities that HTTYD 2 will be blessed with Atmos? Still no word on the soundtrack specs.
> 
> That would be my first Atmos title to snag, if so.


I think this has a better chance of being an Auro title than an Atmos title since DW is a big supporter of Auro and Auro stated at CEDIA that they'd have a few DW titles by year's end with Auro soundtracks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> I think this has a better chance of being an Auro title than an Atmos title since DW is a big supporter of Auro and Auro stated at CEDIA that they'd have a few DW titles by year's end with Auro soundtracks.


Crap. 

None of the movie demos at the Auro booth sounded remarkably better than standard 5.1, just basically good due to the speakers being used. At least most of Atmos mixes had a definite immersive 3D effect. Could be the type of mixes used. Any track that gets really busy just turns into a mass wall of jumbled sounds... a cacophony with no definitive location of sounds and dialog and music in space. 

It takes real skill to mix with the 3D audio palette.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, just a quick question: Can you truly get 120dB @ 10Hz? ...From your sig. [email protected] home.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. And that was with my old system.

It was two 18's before. Now it's twelve of them.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> Crap.
> 
> None of the movie demos at the Auro booth sounded remarkably better than 5.1, just basically good due to the speakers being used. At least most of Atmos mixes had a definite immersive 3D effect.


I thought the movie demos for Atmos were a joke at best. The only exception was the Harmon demo, which I feel wasn't a realistic home theater demo by any stretch of the imagination. The only compelling clips were the Dolby demos, which were doing a lot to emphasize the Atmos experience. This seemed to be the concensus with everyone I was with or talked to as well. The Auro demos were impressive to me but I agree the movie clips weren't the highlight there either. I would have preferred some A/B comparisons of the movie clips (both Auro and Atmos) to try and hear a difference. Auro did a great job with this with parts of their demo, but I don't remember them doing anything like this with the movie clips.


----------



## Kris Deering

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. And that was with my old system.
> 
> It was two 18's before. Now it's twelve of them.


We've measured the sub response in my room a few times and I'm flat to well below 10 Hz, but I've never been brave enough to see how loud I can go and still maintain that without compression taking over. Something about my eardrums, walls and windows giving way that scares me.


----------



## bkeeler10

Kris Deering said:


> I think this has a better chance of being an Auro title than an Atmos title since DW is a big supporter of Auro and Auro stated at CEDIA that they'd have a few DW titles by year's end with Auro soundtracks.


That's what I was thinking too. But I did watch it in Atmos in the theater so there's a mix for it 

Auro will probably get it though.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kris Deering said:


> We've measured the sub response in my room a few times and I'm flat to well below 10 Hz, but I've never been brave enough to see how loud I can go and still maintain that without compression taking over. Something about my eardrums, walls and windows giving way that scares me.


Oh, same here. I can't say I've been brave enough to push the whole system to reproduce this amount of output but it is certainly capable of it.

Each main speaker up front in my room can do 125dB throughout the entire bandwidth. No way am I going to subject myself to that though. Just nice that I can.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> I thought the movie demos for Atmos were a joke at best. The only exception was the Harmon demo, which I feel wasn't a realistic home theater demo by any stretch of the imagination. The only compelling clips were the Dolby demos, which were doing a lot to emphasize the Atmos experience. This seemed to be the concensus with everyone I was with or talked to as well. The Auro demos were impressive to me but I agree the movie clips weren't the highlight there either. I would have preferred some A/B comparisons of the movie clips (both Auro and Atmos) to try and hear a difference. Auro did a great job with this with parts of their demo, but I don't remember them doing anything like this with the movie clips.


I heard almost every Atmos setup at CEDIA. A couple were just okay (like the Onkyo demo), but the one that really showcased the format was the Steinway/Lyngdorf presentation. It was pretty fantastic... and the closest to a cinema Atmos recreation. I think the 9.1.4 configuration helped there. Another cohesive demo was the Marantz booth with old Snell speakers. I could more easily discern various elements in 3D space... even the Star Trek clip with the shuttle pod descending from the clouds and spears flying over your head. 

Except for Dolby, no one used the Transformers clip, for good reason. 

I do agree that The Hobbit Part 1 and Gravity would have been much, much better Atmos mixes to snag clips from than Oblivion, Star Trek, and T4. The Atmos trailers on the demo disc were the best parts. The Enrique Iglesias music video was fun and spread out even further in 9.1.4, but did suffer from typical modern pop recording issues of too hot treble and dynamic compression.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh, same here. I can't say I've been brave enough to push the whole system to reproduce this amount of output but it is certainly capable of it.
> 
> Each main speaker up front in my room can do 125dB throughout the entire bandwidth. No way am I going to subject myself to that though. Just nice that I can.


Every time I look at the pictures of your subs I think oh my god! Please post one to remind every one :eeksurprise:


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. And that was with my old system.
> 
> It was two 18's before. Now it's twelve of them.


Wow, cool man.  

* But why twelve (that many); does it enhance the overall experience? ...It must.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, just a quick question: Can you truly get 120dB @ 10Hz? ...From your sig. [email protected] home.





wse said:


> Every time I look at the pictures of your subs I think oh my god! Please post one to remind every one :eeksurprise:


Not to sway the thread but since you asked, this is my current system (not in my sig): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1505963-here-s-lil-tease-what-s-come.html


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh, same here. I can't say I've been brave enough to push the whole system to reproduce this amount of output but it is certainly capable of it.
> 
> Each main speaker up front in my room can do 125dB throughout the entire bandwidth. No way am I going to subject myself to that though. Just nice that I can.


I know a guy, him and his son, put a pair of protective headphones, and measured *142dB* in his home theater room! 

His name is _Ivan Messer_ (Masterlu is his username) and he is the owner of Audioaficionado (McIntosh gear and all) audio website. His main home theater room is packed with McIntosh audio gear, many subwoofers, and is quite something else; beautiful, well planed, well constructed, and well everything. The guy ain't cheap when it comes to audio, home theater, cars, homes, cigars, you name it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> I know a guy, him and his son, put a pair of protective headphones, and measured *142dB* in his home theater room!
> 
> His name is _Ivan Messer_ (Masterlu is his username) and he is the owner of Audioaficionado (McIntosh gear and all) audio website. His main home theater room is packed with McIntosh audio gear, many subwoofers, and is quite something else; beautiful, well planed, well constructed, and well everything. The guy ain't cheap when it comes to audio, home theater, cars, home, cigars, you name it.


Nice! I'm sure that is the whole system going full bore though and probably not full bandwidth. Mine could probably get close to that. Before I was quoting *per speaker, full bandwidth*.


----------



## action_jackson

Scott Simonian said:


>


What is up with all these memes with the crazy ancient aliens guy?

I would rather have everything HDBaseT, video, sound, power internet, and IR all over Cat5e or Cat6 cable.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> Not to sway the thread but since you asked, this is my current system (not in my sig): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1505963-here-s-lil-tease-what-s-come.html


 Love it not very wife friendly that's all


----------



## Scott Simonian

action_jackson said:


> What is up with all these memes with the crazy ancient aliens guy?
> 
> I would rather have everything HDBaseT, video, sound, power internet, and IR all over Cat5e or Cat6 cable.


Agreed.

And cuz he is funny to look at. 



wse said:


> Love it not very wife friendly that's all


Actually it's pretty wife friendly. The whole thing is covered by a screen. Will incorporate a full false wall/baffle soon.

Neither will be as "pretty" as your room though.


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> Not to sway the thread but since you asked, this is my current system (not in my sig):


Very cool, but where are the ceiling speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice! I'm sure that is the whole system going full bore though and probably not full bandwidth. Mine could probably get close to that. Before I was quoting *per speaker, full bandwidth*.


Yes Scott; you are right...the entire overall surround sound system; subs & all. 

* Scott, you are a young fella; do you have a good job to afford such a high caliber surround sound system with all them big subwoofers? 
And, do you have a supportive family in this passionate hobby of yours; like your wife (girlfriend) she can tolerate that much amount of subwoofing @ home? ...Kids are sleeping sound & tight, or afraid & stressed with nightmares?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Spanglo said:


> Very cool, but where are the ceiling speakers?


Don't have any (yet). Spent on my money on that stuff.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Yes Scott; you are right...the entire overall surround sound system, subs & all.
> 
> * Scott, you are a young fella; do you have a good job to afford such a high caliber surround sound system with all them big subwoofers?
> And, do you have a supportive family in this passionate hobby of yours, like your wife (girlfriend) she can tolerate that much amount of subwoofing @ home? ...Kids are sleeping sound & tight, or afraid& stressed with nightmares?


Thanks. I have a decent job but not anything that pays super great. Took me many, many years of investing in this equipment (much of which is used) and all sorts of tax returns.  Girlfriend loves it! 

It's all mostly headroom. I don't tax a system like this. If I were I'd probably have blood shooting out my eyes and ears and lose my hearing. Would love to keep my hearing. Built it crazy overdone so I'd not have to upgrade it ever again. The bonus is utterly effortless sound.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks. I have a decent job but not anything that pays super great. Took me many, many years of investing in this equipment (much of which is used) and all sorts of tax returns.  Girlfriend loves it!
> 
> It's all mostly headroom. I don't tax a system like this. If I were I'd probably have blood shooting out my eyes and ears and lose my hearing. Would love to keep my hearing.
> *Built it crazy overdone so I'd not have to upgrade it ever again.* The bonus is utterly effortless sound.


_"Never to upgrade ever again"_ ... Yeah right; the story of all our lives here @ AVS.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> I heard almost every Atmos setup at CEDIA. A couple were just okay (like the Onkyo demo), but the one that really showcased the format was the Steinway/Lyngdorf presentation. It was pretty fantastic... and the closest to a cinema Atmos recreation. I think the 9.1.4 configuration helped there. Another cohesive demo was the Marantz booth with old Snell speakers. I could more easily discern various elements in 3D space... even the Star Trek clip with the shuttle pod descending from the clouds and spears flying over your head.
> 
> Except for Dolby, no one used the Transformers clip, for good reason.
> 
> I do agree that The Hobbit Part 1 and Gravity would have been much, much better Atmos mixes to snag clips from than Oblivion, Star Trek, and T4. The Atmos trailers on the demo disc were the best parts. The Enrique Iglesias music video was fun and spread out even further in 9.1.4, but did suffer from typical modern pop recording issues of too hot treble and dynamic compression.


Unfortunately I didn't attend the Steinway demo. I wanted to but never had the chance. I heard good things though.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> _"Never to upgrade ever again"_ ... Yeah right; the story of all our lives here @ AVS.


Well now... I do have some new surrounds to get. 

And an Atmos processor. 

And a new screen. 

And a new projector. 

And a new BD player

And some new seats. 

And some acoustic treatment.

Whew.

Then I think I'm done. 

Ah crap! At some point a whole new UHD video format might come out.

And a new collection of movies.


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't have any (yet). Spent on my money on that stuff.


Well here's hoping the ceiling speakers match the mains!

Got my receiver today, yay! Yesterday nobody was home to sign for the delivery so I missed out  Speakers are in place and wired up, so if all goes well I'll be watching flicks tonight on a 4.4.4 setup.


----------



## Kris Deering

Sometimes I do think life would be easier and less stressful if I just folded my cards and walked away from all this stuff. I have a world class audio and video system by any standard of measurement but I'm still always looking for new stuff or tempted to try other things. If I just folded and walked away from that and just enjoyed my system the way it is I'd probably have a less stressful life and just sat back and enjoyed the fruits of my labor. But who are we kidding.


----------



## NorthSky

We're never done till we get incinerated and our ashes spread to the four winds of the globe.


----------



## Kris Deering

Or I go broke or get robbed. Okay maybe the former, the latter just means I get new stuff!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kris Deering said:


> Sometimes I do think life would be easier and less stressful if I just folded my cards and walked away from all this stuff. I have a world class audio and video system by any standard of measurement but I'm still always looking for new stuff or tempted to try other things. If I just folded and walked away from that and just enjoyed my system the way it is I'd probably have a less stressful life and just sat back and enjoyed the fruits of my labor. But who are we kidding.





Kris Deering said:


> Or I go broke or get robbed. Okay maybe the former, the latter just means I get new stuff!!



No fun!


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Sometimes I do think life would be easier and less stressful if I just folded my cards and walked away from all this stuff. I have a world class audio and video system by any standard of measurement but I'm still always looking for new stuff or tempted to try other things. If I just folded and walked away from that and just enjoyed my system the way it is I'd probably have a less stressful life and
> *just sat back and enjoyed the fruits of my labor*. But who are we kidding.


And just exactly what would that be Kris?


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> And just exactly what would that be Kris?


I was referring to my current setup. It has taken years to get what I have and dial it in to the degree I have. So essentially just walking away from stuff like forums and just enjoying what I have.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I was referring to my current setup. It has taken years to get what I have and dial it in to the degree I have. So essentially just walking away from stuff like forums and just enjoying what I have.


Gotcha now.

But thank you very much, a big bunch directly from the heart, to share with all of us your knowledge, experience, expertise, talent, love, of your audio/video passion. 

Yes, we can all go home, stay there, not posting anymore in Audio/Video forums, probably be more happy (less stress) and live forever happy ever after. 

But no way, we love our lives full of challenges; and that keeps us alive, and we learn more too that way, we meet way way way more people like us who share the same passion, than in real life.
Real life is for baseball games and barbecues. 

Capitch?


----------



## NorthSky

...And what we learn new here we put it in practice in our real life; Atmos home theaters.

Plus new music and movies always keep being released; so we share what we know and see if we like what someone else likes too. 

After all; it is the Music and the Movies we're all after; the emotional and sensorial (vision and hearing) impacts. And if we can improve that; then it is all the essence we're after. 

We are a very very small minority of people from all active parts of life. ...We are more sensitive than most; the blood that runs through our veins and makes our heart pumping is the blood of true art lovers; musically and cinematically. We are unique, and we are the source of peace in the entire world. We are ourselves, the best this planet can get.


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Not to sway the thread but since you asked, this is my current system (not in my sig): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1505963-here-s-lil-tease-what-s-come.html
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Hallelujah!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> We're never done till we get incinerated and our ashes spread to the four winds of the globe.


Well that's a cheerful thought


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> Well that's a cheerful thought


"You can't take it with you."

"He who dies with the most toys wins."


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Thank you greatly appreciate the feed back!
> 
> I usually can get very very good prices on B&W which is why I have so many B&W speakers.


There's no denying that, for those for whom aesthetics is important, B&W do make absolutely beautiful looking speakers. And they sound great too IME. And if you can get them for a good price, then I say go for them, so long as they perform to the standards needed for a Reference Level kick-ass HT.


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Very cool, but where are the ceiling speakers?


Those ARE Scott's ceiling speakers


----------



## kbarnes701

Tonight's movie was *Twister*.

If you don't have it - buy it.

Then play the first 5 minutes using DSU. 

*Could this be any better if it had been mixed in Atmos and released as an Atmos Bluray?* I mean, just WTF WOW! I intended to watch just the opening scene and stayed for the whole movie. Every tornado scene is just stunningly upmixed. At times it was downright scary and I could feel my pulse rate elevating.


----------



## action_jackson

A local theater installer was trying to talk me into getting some of the custom theater speakers from B&W. They use the same drivers as the beautifuly sculptured speakers that B&W is known for, but come in plain black boxes that are designed to be hidden behind a screen or built into cabinetry. I think he said that they are about half the price of the comparable models.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Well that's a cheerful thought


What can I say; it's the true reality for most of us here.


----------



## NorthSky

> Those ARE Scott's ceiling speakers


Good one!  ...He only needs one more (I counted only three overhead on-ceiling Dolby Atmos speakers).


----------



## NorthSky

> Tonight's movie was *Twister*.
> 
> If you don't have it - buy it.
> 
> Then play the first 5 minutes using DSU.
> 
> *Could this be any better if it had been mixed in Atmos?* I mean, just WTF WOW! I intended to watch just the opening scene and stayed for the whole movie. Every tornado scene is just stunningly upmixed. At times it was downright scary and I could feel my pulse rate elevating.


♦ *Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (48kHz/16-bit)* ... Blu-ray


----------



## kbarnes701

*Installation note.*

Those who have been following along will know that I installed my ceiling speakers as a Front Height + Top Middle combination, due to the constraints of my room. The FHs are on the ceiling at 42°, so within the spec of 30-45°. My TMs were at 100°, also within spec of 65-100°.

However...

Today I spent the best part of the day relocating the TMs to be more forward than originally positioned. The job was non-trivial as it involved cutting away the drywall on the ceiling in order to conceal the relocated wires, and then making good. Painting is scheduled for the weekend when the repair has dried and been sanded smooth.

The TMs ended up at 85°, which isn't much but it moves them forward about 18 inches and creates more angular separation from my surrounds, which are mounted just above ear height at 110°. My feeling was the overhead effects from the TMs were getting too merged with the sound from the surrounds. This was causing me to hear sounds intended for the FH speakers very clearly, but not so much the sound intended for the TMs. Relocating the TMs has separated them more - this perhaps shows the importance of angular separation between the overheads and the other speakers. Also, at the original position of 100°, the TMs were slightly behind the MLP, whereas now they are slightly in front of it.

The result is that the overhead sound stage is now more cohesive and neither set of overhead speakers is dominating the other set, as was the case before.

Lessons learned: 1) On-ceiling speakers give the flexibility to make these fine tuning adjustments after having listened for a week or so to a variety of content, whereas in-ceiling designs would be almost impossible to relocate once huge holes had been cut in the ceiling. 2) There is scope for fine tuning, post-listening-tests, and, in my case at least, the improvement is very worthwhile.

Based on this experience, I would recommend staying within the prescribed angles but to be aware that there is a range of angle possibilities, and some places within the range may be better than others. The differences I describe above may be peculiar to a FH+TM setup, so do not assume that, for example, the same applies to a TF+TR setup. It seems to me that perhaps TMs work best when somewhat forward of the MLP if the room permits this. The name Top _Middle_ would seem to reinforce that.


----------



## Spanglo

kbarnes701 said:


> *Installation note.*
> 
> The result is that the overhead sound stage is now more cohesive and neither set of overhead speakers is dominating the other set, as was the case before.


Are you using any demo scene in particular for testing purposes?


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> *Installation note.*
> 
> Those who have been following along will know that I installed my ceiling speakers as a Front Height + Top Middle combination, due to the constraints of my room. The FHs are on the ceiling at 42°, so within the spec of 30-45°. My TMs were at 100°, also within spec of 65-100°.
> 
> However...
> 
> Today I spent the best part of the day relocating the TMs to be more forward than originally positioned. The job was non-trivial as it involved cutting away the drywall on the ceiling in order to conceal the relocated wires, and then making good. Painting is scheduled for the weekend when the repair has dried and been sanded smooth.
> 
> The TMs ended up at 85°, which isn't much but it moves them forward about 18 inches and creates more angular separation from my surrounds, which are mounted just above ear height at 110°. My feeling was the overhead effects from the TMs were getting too merged with the sound from the surrounds. This was causing me to hear sounds intended for the FH speakers very clearly, but not so much the sound intended for the TMs. Relocating the TMs has separated them more - this perhaps shows the importance of angular separation between the overheads and the other speakers. Also, at the original position of 100°, the TMs were slightly behind the MLP, whereas now they are slightly in front of it.
> 
> The result is that the overhead sound stage is now more cohesive and neither set of overhead speakers is dominating the other set, as was the case before.
> 
> Lessons learned: 1) On-ceiling speakers give the flexibility to make these fine tuning adjustments after having listened for a week or so to a variety of content, whereas in-ceiling designs would be almost impossible to relocate once huge holes had been cut in the ceiling. 2) There is scope for fine tuning, post-listening-tests, and, in my case at least, the improvement is very worthwhile.
> 
> Based on this experience, I would recommend staying within the prescribed angles but to be aware that there is a range of angle possibilities, and some places within the range may be better than others. The differences I describe above may be peculiar to a FH+TM setup, so do not assume that, for example, the same applies to a TF+TR setup. It seems to me that perhaps TMs work best when somewhat forward of the MLP if the room permits this. The name Top _Middle_ would seem to reinforce that.


I did that experiment also I originally had top front speakers for atmos it was incredible, so as I listened I thought what if middle top would sound better to me than top front so I tacked up speakers middle top position and gave it a whirl. What I decided was front top was better for my room the separation for my MLP IS much better.
So my conclusion is that separation is the key.
When I had them top middle it didn't give my ears the separation between my surrounds that the top fronts do.
So I put everything back to top front.


----------



## Radio Centre

A question please

Although I specifically have an Onkyo 636 i assume this would apply to all Onkyo,s at least...

For those that have enables Atmos on your receiver and have Transformers or other true Atmos content, have you ever listed to your height speakers and if so are there sounds coming directly out of them?

I have my heights (actual in ceiling) hooked up, I have ran the setup mic and there are sounds coming from them while that is happening, or if i just go into the level calibration they are there as well, I have done the update as well to be clear, yet when I listen to the Dolby clips ( I have the demo disc) I do not hear anything coming from those speakers even if I put my ear right up to them, Dolby Atmos is enabled as it does show that on the display.... Am i missing something or ?? I hear nothing from Transformers from the heights or the Rain demo as examples, and lord knows there is a ton of stuff falling from the sky in transformers....

Any insight, help, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Joe


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> *Installation note.*
> 
> Those who have been following along will know that I installed my ceiling speakers as a Front Height + Top Middle combination, due to the constraints of my room. The FHs are on the ceiling at 42°, so within the spec of 30-45°. My TMs were at 100°, also within spec of 65-100°.
> 
> However...
> 
> Today I spent the best part of the day relocating the TMs to be more forward than originally positioned. The job was non-trivial as it involved cutting away the drywall on the ceiling in order to conceal the relocated wires, and then making good. Painting is scheduled for the weekend when the repair has dried and been sanded smooth.
> 
> The TMs ended up at 85°, which isn't much but it moves them forward about 18 inches and creates more angular separation from my surrounds, which are mounted just above ear height at 110°. My feeling was the overhead effects from the TMs were getting too merged with the sound from the surrounds. This was causing me to hear sounds intended for the FH speakers very clearly, but not so much the sound intended for the TMs. Relocating the TMs has separated them more - this perhaps shows the importance of angular separation between the overheads and the other speakers. Also, at the original position of 100°, the TMs were slightly behind the MLP, whereas now they are slightly in front of it.
> 
> The result is that the overhead sound stage is now more cohesive and neither set of overhead speakers is dominating the other set, as was the case before.
> 
> Lessons learned: 1) On-ceiling speakers give the flexibility to make these fine tuning adjustments after having listened for a week or so to a variety of content, whereas in-ceiling designs would be almost impossible to relocate once huge holes had been cut in the ceiling. 2) There is scope for fine tuning, post-listening-tests, and, in my case at least, the improvement is very worthwhile.
> 
> Based on this experience, I would recommend staying within the prescribed angles but to be aware that there is a range of angle possibilities, and some places within the range may be better than others. The differences I describe above may be peculiar to a FH+TM setup, so do not assume that, for example, the same applies to a TF+TR setup. It seems to me that perhaps TMs work best when somewhat forward of the MLP if the room permits this. The name Top _Middle_ would seem to reinforce that.



Is angular separation important between surrounds and the top speakers only ? I assume your front height and your front speakers are close ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Radio Centre said:


> A question please
> 
> Although I specifically have an Onkyo 636 i assume this would apply to all Onkyo,s at least...
> 
> For those that have enables Atmos on your receiver and have Transformers or other true Atmos content, have you ever listed to your height speakers and if so are there sounds coming directly out of them?
> 
> I have my heights (actual in ceiling) hooked up, I have ran the setup mic and there are sounds coming from them while that is happening, or if i just go into the level calibration they are there as well, I have done the update as well to be clear, yet when I listen to the Dolby clips ( I have the demo disc) I do not hear anything coming from those speakers even if I put my ear right up to them, Dolby Atmos is enabled as it does show that on the display.... Am i missing something or ?? I hear nothing from Transformers from the heights or the Rain demo as examples, and lord knows there is a ton of stuff falling from the sky in transformers....
> 
> Any insight, help, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Joe


Sounds like you might have assigned the ceiling speakers incorrectly. You have to choose to assign certain built-in amps as either Back Surrounds or Height Surrounds. You must choose the Height setting in order to enable Dolby Atmos decoding... the 636 only has a 5.1.2 rendering block without back surround decoding during Atmos soundtrack playback. That's one place to look.

Did you have the receiver hooked up differently before installing the firmware update?

Another possibility is that your Blu-ray player has Secondary Audio turned on in its setup menu. Be sure it's turned off.


----------



## batpig

mp5475 said:


> Is angular separation important between surrounds and the top speakers only ? I assume your front height and your front speakers are close ?


Given that you are within the angular range specs for a channel, IMO it's important for all of your speakers. It's common sense -- you are trying create a dome of sound. The better coverage you have across that dome, the more effectively your brain will be tricked, the more realistic and immersive it will sound.


----------



## mp5475

batpig said:


> Given that you are within the angular range specs for a channel, IMO it's important for all of your speakers. It's common sense -- you are trying create a dome of sound. The better coverage you have across that dome, the more effectively your brain will be tricked, the more realistic and immersive it will sound.


I guess what doesn't make sense for me is that Keith thought he didn't have enough separation between the top middle and surrounds. But I would guess there is less separation between his fronts and the front heights.


----------



## batpig

Gotcha. I know what his room looks like so know that your assumption is false. Which lessens the confusion


----------



## Brian Fineberg

What is the best way to calculate where the proper placement is for the ceiling speakers (I know the angles for the specs but how do you calculate that?)


----------



## sdurani

Brian Fineberg said:


> What is the best way to calculate where the proper placement is for the ceiling speakers (I know the angles for the specs but how do you calculate that?)


What is your seated ear height and ceiling height?


----------



## batpig

Brian Fineberg said:


> What is the best way to calculate where the proper placement is for the ceiling speakers (I know the angles for the specs but how do you calculate that?)


Trigonometry baby.

As Sanjay is leading you, one leg of the triangle is the distance from your ears to the ceiling. If your seated ear height is 3 feet and your ceiling is 8 feet, that's a 5 foot rise. 

So then go to an online trig calculator like this: http://www.pagetutor.com/trigcalc/trig.html

Input 5ft for one leg (side B in this calculator) and the angle you want. For example, if you want to put your Top Rears at 125 degrees, that would be 35 degrees behind you (90 degrees being straight up). So I pop in 5 for side B, 35 for angle X, and it spits out that the speakers should be 3.5ft (side A) behind you.


----------



## SubSolar

Brian Fineberg said:


> What is the best way to calculate where the proper placement is for the ceiling speakers (I know the angles for the specs but how do you calculate that?)


Google right angle calculator


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Trigonometry baby.
> 
> As Sanjay is leading you, one leg of the triangle is the distance from your ears to the ceiling. If your seated ear height is 3 feet and your ceiling is 8 feet, that's a 5 foot rise.
> 
> So then go to an online trig calculator like this: http://www.pagetutor.com/trigcalc/trig.html
> 
> Input 5ft for one leg (side B in this calculator) and the angle you want. For example, if you want to put your Top Rears at 125 degrees, that would be 35 degrees behind you (90 degrees being straight up). So I pop in 5 for side B, 35 for angle X, and it spits out that the speakers should be 3.5ft (side A) behind you.


Ah. Thanks.
Now how far away they should be from the side walls. e.g. with a room width of about 12 feet with 120 inch diag screen in the middle and the FL and FR on either side of the screen.
Do they have to be in line with FL and FR or they can be mounted bit inwards (away from side wall)


----------



## mailiang

From Sound&Vision today:



> *Dolby Releases Atmos Testimonial Video*Three Blu-ray titles featuring Dolby Atmos soundtracks were announced this week. Paramount Pictures will release _Hercules_ on November 4 and _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ on December 16. Lionsgate announced the November 4 release of _Step Up All In_ on Blu-ray.
> Dovetailing with this week’s Blu-ray release of _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, the first movie with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack, Dolby has produced a behind-the-scenes testimonial video featuring Greg P. Russell, the re-recording mixing engineer. The video is available here.
> “I was absolutely astounded with the home theater version in Dolby Atmos—all the imagery was dead-on and, sonically, it had the exact same experience as the cinema,” Russell says.



Ian


----------



## brwsaw

batpig said:


> ...you are trying create a dome of sound. The better coverage you have across that dome, the more effectively your brain will be tricked, the more realistic and immersive it will sound.


I was going to ask at the start of the thread but figured it would come up on its own (maybe it did, I can't remember) that and I was somewhat scared of the confusion the answer would bring...

I think we're ready...

Is there a list or layout that confirms the names and or abbreviations for all 24.1.10 speaker locations.

I can't wait to read..."my fltmh speakers..." 24 positions. Crazy.

Still working (slowly) on a new room and new layout. Specifically trying to decide on a set separation that will work between all speakers keeping them uniform and evenly spaced.


----------



## Radio Centre

Dan

First thank you for the reply. Secondly I messed up in my question I actually have a 838 not a 636. In speaker settings I have height selected as top middle as that is where the speakers are, I do have fronts as well but for now the 838 only has 1 height option, I will soon be getting a 1030 and will then add the fronts. So right now it is 7.1.2 with the height, again set to middle. 

Yes it was hooked up differently before as all the speakers were in ceiling, as a 7.1. 

I have secondary audio turned off.

So as for hookup it's 

Fronts and centre and surrounds and surround back all hooked up as they should be, all floor standing and then as stated on the height channel (it's own on the 838 fronts are set to normal no bi-amped) and again while running set up I do get sounds from the heigh appropriately, but again during playback there is nothing coming out, the rest are fine again as the leaf falls in the demo clip you can hear it from all the floor speakers, but nothing height, and the same goes for transformers, lots out of everything else, nothing from the heights, and surely there should be something right. I actually called Onkyo they said maybe the clip has nothing coming out of it, I asked if he has seen scene 20 from Transformers  there is stuff falling all over the place. I even called Dolby but they don't take commercial questions.

Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, do others have sounds from their heights ? Also again to clarify Atmos is working as it comes up on the receiver for true content...

It sounds great don't get me wrong, but the reason I started to check was it seemed like no falling objects were there.

Thanks all in advance.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Sounds like you might have assigned the ceiling speakers incorrectly. You have to choose to assign certain built-in amps as either Back Surrounds or Height Surrounds. You must choose the Height setting in order to enable Dolby Atmos decoding... the 636 only has a 5.1.2 rendering block without back surround decoding during Atmos soundtrack playback. That's one place to look.
> 
> Did you have the receiver hooked up differently before installing the firmware update?
> 
> Another possibility is that your Blu-ray player has Secondary Audio turned on in its setup menu. Be sure it's turned off.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Radio Centre said:


> Dan
> 
> First thank you for the reply. Secondly I messed up in my question I actually have a 838 not a 636. In speaker settings I have height selected as top middle as that is where the speakers are, I do have fronts as well but for now the 838 only has 1 height option, I will soon be getting a 1030 and will then add the fronts. So right now it is 7.1.2 with the height, again set to middle.
> 
> Yes it was hooked up differently before as all the speakers were in ceiling, as a 7.1.
> 
> I have secondary audio turned off.
> 
> So as for hookup it's
> 
> Fronts and centre and surrounds and surround back all hooked up as they should be, all floor standing and then as stated on the height channel (it's own on the 838 fronts are set to normal no bi-amped) and again while running set up I do get sounds from the heigh appropriately, but again during playback there is nothing coming out, the rest are fine again as the leaf falls in the demo clip you can hear it from all the floor speakers, but nothing height, and the same goes for transformers, lots out of everything else, nothing from the heights, and surely there should be something right. I actually called Onkyo they said maybe the clip has nothing coming out of it, I asked if he has seen scene 20 from Transformers  there is stuff falling all over the place. I even called Dolby but they don't take commercial questions.
> 
> Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, do others have sounds from their heights ? Also again to clarify Atmos is working as it comes up on the receiver for true content...
> 
> It sounds great don't get me wrong, but the reason I started to check was it seemed like no falling objects were there.
> 
> Thanks all in advance.


Hmmm... could there be some glitch in the firmware that Onkyo sent out? Have you tried looking at the receiver forum threads under the new Onkyo line? Other people may be having similar issues. All the Atmos demos I've heard had DEFINITE overhead effects.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ficial-onkyo-tx-nr535-636-737-838-thread.html


----------



## Roger Dressler

Radio Centre said:


> Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, do others have sounds from their heights ? Also again to clarify Atmos is working as it comes up on the receiver for true content...


Ok, so you see the word Atmos on the Onkyo display -- and that changes to TrueHD or DTS-HD MA for other BD discs?

Have you tried playing the DD+ Atmos demo tracks? If they create height sounds, it tells us something useful. If not, we learn nothing much.

BTW, what BD player are you using? Do you have another to try?


----------



## noah katz

*No recommended azimuth angles for top speakers?*

I decided to get an AV7702 sooner rather than later and for the first time looked in detail at the recommended locations for the top speakers; I'm going to 7.1.4 with Top Front and Top Rear *.

Much to my surprise, neither Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf, nor the 7702 manual, nor the setup info at the Dolby site give recommended azimuth angles, only elevation.

Anyone know?

I wouldn't sweat it given that speaker locations are supposed to be forgiving, but Kurt at Trinnov is going to do a bit of custom programming for my Optimizer to add an Atmos speaker layout to remap to, and presumably needs to input hard numbers.

* I thought this was Dolby's nomenclature, but Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf calls them Front Overhead and Rear Overhead


----------



## pasender91

As Denon and Marantz are the same company and implementing the same Atmos, i assume the Denon Numbers from 5200W are valid for 7702 as well.

So, from the 5200W manual this gives:
Front Height => 30 to 45 °
Rear Height => 135 to 150 °


----------



## noah katz

Those are the elevation/vertical angles; I'm asking about azimuth/horizontal.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Much to my surprise, neither Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf, nor the 7702 manual, nor the setup info at the Dolby site give recommended azimuth angles, only elevation.
> 
> Anyone know?


Don't know. But mine happen to fall on the angle shown in their cinema guidelines. My surrounds are at 20°, so 20/2+45=55°. This elevation intersects the imaginary "array" line between TFL and TRL.


----------



## pasender91

Sorry for the confusion.

They don't give horizontal angles because Dolby documents mention top speakers should be aligned with the FL and FR speakers. 
BTW i'm not sure this is optimal for all room configurations


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> We are a very very small minority of people from all active parts of life. ...We are more sensitive than most; the blood that runs through our veins and makes our heart pumping is the blood of true art lovers; musically and cinematically. We are unique, and we are the source of peace in the entire world. We are ourselves, the best this planet can get.


The truth put into pure poetry.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> They don't give horizontal angles because Dolby documents mention *top speakers should be aligned with the FL and FR speakers*.


I've been trying to find that in the Dolby documents, but could not. Can you tell me where to look? Tnx!


----------



## Frank714

wse said:


> I agree manufacturers should get rid of all the old stuff in their new AVR.
> 
> THINGS LIKE
> - component video
> - the plethora of imput for CD, DVD, DAT, VCR, LASER DISC....
> 
> IT SHOULD BE ALL HDMI for movies


What the ... ? I may still need component video for a couple of reasons, which are S-video playback of personal recordings (I have an S-video > component video converter so I don't have to downgrade video quality to composite), gameplay of the original _Metal Gear Solid_ (still nowhere remastered on the horizon) from my GameCube and gameplay of my PS2.

However, I'd dare to say that one composite input for "exotic" applications would probably suffice in future AVRs.


----------



## jacovn

Roger Dressler said:


> I've been trying to find that in the Dolby documents, but could not. Can you tell me where to look? Tnx!


In the pdf file: Dolby Atmos specification, chapter 4.9 page 10/17:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf

The top surround loudspeaker pairs must be placed symmetrically with respect to the screen center line. The top surround arrays should typically be placed in line with the left center and right center screen loudspeakers, which is the minimum width. 

This is for a cinema setup though..


----------



## Frank714

mailiang said:


> From Sound&Vision today:
> 
> "Three Blu-ray titles featuring Dolby Atmos soundtracks were announced this week. Paramount Pictures will release _*Hercules*_ on November 4 and _*Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*_ on December 16. Lionsgate announced the November 4 release of _*Step Up All* In_ on Blu-ray.
> Dovetailing with this week’s Blu-ray release of _*Transformers: Age of Extinction*_, the first movie with a Dolby Atmos Soundtrack."
> 
> Ian


Am I the only one who doesn't like the Atmos titles we'll see until the end of the year?

Reminds me of these "4K encoded BDs" Sony presented last year. I would have hoped, at least, _Lawrence of Arabia_ was among them, but apparently the studios are holding all the "good" stuff back for later and just issue titles they know early adopters will _have_ to buy. 

IMO, the success of a new home format depends largely on word-of-mouth recommendation, and I don't see it with those titles.

Or is anyone inviting friends and/or relatives over to experience _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ in Dolby Atmos ("Mommy, daddy, we need to get a Dolby Atmos setup for our home")?

Thanks Keith for providing alternatives (even if these are just DSU'ed). I hope I can also provide some, once I'm done with the re-modelling of my home theater.


----------



## pasender91

Roger Dressler said:


> I've been trying to find that in the Dolby documents, but could not. Can you tell me where to look? Tnx!


In the "Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines" document, pages 16 18 20 22 24 regarding overhead speaker setups, there are 2 straight lines drawn from FL and FR towards all top speakers. Those lines are at 0°, parallel to the line from Center to MLP.
This is confirmed on page 34, with the Rear Height also in the same alignment of the FL and FR.


----------



## Frank714

"Tonight's movie was *Twister*. If you don't have it - buy it.

Then play the first 5 minutes using DSU. *Could this be any better if it had been mixed in Atmos?"*



NorthSky said:


> ♦ *Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (48kHz/16-bit)* ... Blu-ray


Unless I'm mistaken, there is a difference. The US Version is Dolby TrueHD while the Euro version (for the UK and Continental Europe) is DTS-HD.

Now which one is probably going to sound better with DSU, and which was the one you tested, Keith?


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Are you using any demo scene in particular for testing purposes?


Well for Atmos I only have two sources: TF4 and the Dolby Demo disc. I am using both - pretty much any scene from TF4 and the Leaf and Amaze trailers from the demo disc. For DSU testing I used any of the recent movies which have performed well with DSU, which is really all of them that I have tried so far - The Descent is good, Twister is good, so is Blade II, Jurassic Park: The Lost World, 300: Rise of an Empire etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I did that experiment also I originally had top front speakers for atmos it was incredible, so as I listened I thought what if middle top would sound better to me than top front so I tacked up speakers middle top position and gave it a whirl. What I decided was front top was better for my room the separation for my MLP IS much better.
> So my conclusion is that separation is the key.
> When I had them top middle it didn't give my ears the separation between my surrounds that the top fronts do.
> So I put everything back to top front.


I agree that separation is very important. This sort of experiment is worthwhile IMO for anyone who can do it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Radio Centre said:


> A question please
> 
> Although I specifically have an Onkyo 636 i assume this would apply to all Onkyo,s at least...
> 
> For those that have enables Atmos on your receiver and have Transformers or other true Atmos content, have you ever listed to your height speakers and if so are there sounds coming directly out of them?


Yes, I have done this several times. I have all external amplification so it is real easy to isolate the overhead speakers.



Radio Centre said:


> I have my heights (actual in ceiling) hooked up, I have ran the setup mic and there are sounds coming from them while that is happening, or if i just go into the level calibration they are there as well, I have done the update as well to be clear, yet when I listen to the Dolby clips ( I have the demo disc) I do not hear anything coming from those speakers even if I put my ear right up to them, Dolby Atmos is enabled as it does show that on the display.... Am i missing something or ?? I hear nothing from Transformers from the heights or the Rain demo as examples, and lord knows there is a ton of stuff falling from the sky in transformers....
> 
> Any insight, help, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Joe


That is most odd, Joe. There should definitely be significant content in the overheads - especially on the Dolby Leaf and Amaze trailers. And on pretty much any scene from TF4. 

I am not familiar with the current Onkyos so can't suggest what could be happening, sorry. But to answer your question, yes, there should be a ton of stuff coming from those overhead speakers, not just with Atmos content, but with legacy content upmixed with Dolby Surround.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

batpig said:


> Trigonometry baby.
> 
> As Sanjay is leading you, one leg of the triangle is the distance from your ears to the ceiling. If your seated ear height is 3 feet and your ceiling is 8 feet, that's a 5 foot rise.
> 
> So then go to an online trig calculator like this: http://www.pagetutor.com/trigcalc/trig.html
> 
> Input 5ft for one leg (side B in this calculator) and the angle you want. For example, if you want to put your Top Rears at 125 degrees, that would be 35 degrees behind you (90 degrees being straight up). So I pop in 5 for side B, 35 for angle X, and it spits out that the speakers should be 3.5ft (side A) behind you.


Well that makes sense. How did I not wrap my head around that. Lol. Math is my strong point. I guess not using it for all these years you forget a lot. Haha

Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Is angular separation important between surrounds and the top speakers only ? I assume your front height and your front speakers are close ?


I am coming to the conclusion that angular separation between the overheads and all the ear-level speakers is very important indeed - perhaps even more so than the actual position of the speakers on the ceiling.

My FH and main speakers are not close - the FHs are ceiling mounted and, again, there is a good angle of separation between them and the mains.

What I am finding is that if the ceiling speakers are directly overhead the ear-level speakers, or close to being so, then the effect is diminished. Get the angular separation and boom - it all comes into focus. Dolby say that FHs can be installed on the front wall (30° would facilitate this for many, depending on the room) but I am suggesting that this is not perhaps the best place and mounting them on the ceiling is better. When the speakers are mounted that way they can be designated FH or TF (angles overlap so much). I am designating them FH because I don't have room behind me for TR and so I am using FH+TM. (TF+TM is not a permitted combination).


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> I guess what doesn't make sense for me is that Keith thought he didn't have enough separation between the top middle and surrounds. But I would guess there is less separation between his fronts and the front heights.


Yes, but your guess is wrong  The separation between my FH and mains is actually greater than between the TM and surrounds, even after rearranging the TMs.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Gotcha. I know what his room looks like so know that your assumption is false. Which lessens the confusion


Yep - I think he was thinking that my FHs were on the front wall, not on the ceiling.


----------



## fredl

After doing som A+B testing with both overhead placement and switching seats from MLP to a seat in the front row in our home theater I have drawn these early conclusions (I reserve to change my mind). For the tests I used the Dolby Atmos BD demo in a loop (forest with rain and thunder clip).

With a 5.2.2 setup with top middle (situated at 0 degrees directly over MLP), overhead effects suffer greatly in the front row. The mounts for my speakers are articulating so I could change the angle and position without taking the speakers down. From ear level when seated on the back riser to the ceiling its only 37". I only have a 7 ft ceiling height in the basement. I have the top middle speakers angled slightly to they point towards the MLP. This creates a very convincing dome. Also, my surrounds are di-pole and the null is placed directly in line with my ears. I haven't tried a monopole design in a while in this room (I have monopoles in the living room), but this works so well I will keep them on for now.

The theater is 16 ft by approx 9 ft.

During this session I also tried out some of the material on the reference bd. It seems like Perfect Storm (if you can stomach it) might be a good candidate for DSU upmixing.

For rooms with more than one row I would think six overheads is a must. Atleast if you want everyone to be able to enjoy front to back panning effects in the top layer.

Atmos has turned out to be a great upgrade and seeing as me and DW most often watch alone I will stick with 5.2.2 for now. An added benefit with Atmos is that our buttkickers seems to get more exercise now.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> What is the best way to calculate where the proper placement is for the ceiling speakers (I know the angles for the specs but how do you calculate that?)


You're getting good help from the math wizards, but, not being especially brilliant at trigonometry and stuff, I have a nice simple way to do it.

Draw a plan of your room, looking from the side so to speak. Do it on graph paper (you can print some off the net if you don't have any) and make each square represent a given distance - eg 1 square to 6 inches or whatever.

Measure in your room where your ears are when you are sitting down in your normal listening position. Mark them on the graph paper.

Now take your old school protractor (you did keep that didn't you? - if not you can buy one for a dollar or so from Amazon, or borrow one from any school-age kid you know) and overlay it on your graph paper, and draw the angles as required, from the MLP ears position you already marked. Where the lines intersect the ceiling is where the speaker goes - you can then use the squares to measure where that will be in the actual room.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Ah. Thanks.
> Now how far away they should be from the side walls. e.g. with a room width of about 12 feet with 120 inch diag screen in the middle and the FL and FR on either side of the screen.
> Do they have to be in line with FL and FR or they can be mounted bit inwards (away from side wall)


Roughly in line with the FL and FR. Don't sweat it too much if you can't quite make it, but keep as close as you can to the Dolby spec.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Thanks Keith for providing alternatives (even if these are just DSU'ed). I hope I can also provide some, once I'm done with the re-modelling of my home theater.


TBH, I am finding DSU so good that I have stopped worrying about Atmos titles for now. The upgrade is, IMO, worthwhile just for DSU. So far, every title I have played via DSU has sounded better than when played in its original format. *Twister *last night was insane. I really did feel that I was in the heart of the storm - in that scene where Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt's characters are hiding under a bridge when their pickup gets sucked into the tornado, my pulse rate went up! And the opening scene, where the young Helen Hunt character is in the underground bunker before her dad gets sucked into the tornado is also insane - right from the first opening seconds of the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> "Tonight's movie was *Twister*. If you don't have it - buy it.
> 
> Then play the first 5 minutes using DSU. *Could this be any better if it had been mixed in Atmos?"*
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, there is a difference. The US Version is Dolby TrueHD while the Euro version (for the UK and Continental Europe) is DTS-HD.
> 
> Now which one is probably going to sound better with DSU, and which was the one you tested, Keith?


The version I have is DTS-HD. There will be no difference between that and the TrueHD version of course.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> *Twister *last night was insane. I really did feel that I was in the heart of the storm


Very dynamic soundtrack - I'm sure it does sound awesome with DSU 

Personal note - I saw Twister in the cinema and bought & watched it on laserdisc. And bought the blu-ray. But I haven't brought myself to watch it again....when you live in a tornado zone like metro Atlanta and watch the storm tracks on TV when the storm sirens go off in the middle of the night and see how close the "tornadic storm" gets to where you live & wonder if your house is going to blow up, the entertainment value of the movie isn't quite as much.

The track of the same storm that demolished Tuscaloosa Alabama several years ago literally came within several miles of our area and also damaged a town to the NE of us. You can drive up Interstate 75 about 15 miles north of us and see wide swaths of trees missing on both sides. We're not Tornado Alley but the Southeast US in the spring is what they call Dixie Alley. In the 22 yrs we've lived in Atlanta, we've had a number of tornado incidents. It's not much fun as watching the movie 

There's a small town about 45 miles north of us which was torn up by a tornado, demolishing an industrial park. I'm watching the news and seeing this blown apart plant and it was once an account of mine! Gone.

Let us not forget that it can get personal not just entertainment.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Very dynamic soundtrack - I'm sure it does sound awesome with DSU


Awesomely awesome.



ss9001 said:


> Personal note - I saw Twister in the cinema and bought & watched it on laserdisc. And bought the blu-ray. But I haven't brought myself to watch it again....when you live in a tornado zone like metro Atlanta and watch the storm tracks on TV when the storm sirens go off in the middle of the night and see how close the "tornadic storm" gets to where you live & wonder if your house is going to blow up, the entertainment value of the movie isn't quite as much.


I had similar thoughts when watching it last night. The terror of the storm comes across amazingly well at reference level with DSU engaged and the sheer destructive power of the tornado does leave you humbled, respectful and terrified of the power of nature. Do you have one of those storm bunkers like they do in the movie?



ss9001 said:


> The track of the same storm that demolished Tuscaloosa Alabama several years ago literally came within several miles of our area and also damaged a town to the NE of us. You can drive up Interstate 75 about 15 miles north of us and see wide swaths of trees missing on both sides. We're not Tornado Alley but the Southeast US in the spring is what they call Dixie Alley. In the 22 yrs we've lived in Atlanta, we've had a number of tornado incidents. It's not much fun as watching the movie


I can well believe it. We complain eternally about the weather in the UK, but at least we never have anything severe like you describe.



ss9001 said:


> Let us not forget that it can get personal not just entertainment.


I agree generally, although the _movie _is just entertainment. It's not a documentary I mean.


----------



## htpcforever

Radio Centre said:


> Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, do others have sounds from their heights ? Also again to clarify Atmos is working as it comes up on the receiver for true content...
> 
> It sounds great don't get me wrong, but the reason I started to check was it seemed like no falling objects were there.
> 
> Thanks all in advance.


You can also do a system factory reset and start over fully after the firmware upgrade is complete. That way you know there isn't anything left over from your previous setup to muck up your current setup.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

so to be clear for 5.1.2 the overheads should be between 100 and 80 degrees...this angle is from listening position correct?


----------



## KidHorn

Does DSU work with any soundtrack? 5.1? 2.0?


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> In the "Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines" document, pages 16 18 20 22 24 regarding overhead speaker setups, there are 2 straight lines drawn from FL and FR towards all top speakers. Those lines are at 0°, parallel to the line from Center to MLP.
> This is confirmed on page 34, with the Rear Height also in the same alignment of the FL and FR.


I had the same question as OP too. Based on those pictures, it appeared it should be aligned to FL and FR. However like elevation angles (e.g for Top front 35-45 degree), there is no lee-way mentioned. Like how much in-ward one can bring them if there are any structural issues aligning them to FL and FR..


----------



## kbarnes701

KidHorn said:


> Does DSU work with any soundtrack? 5.1? 2.0?


Yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> so to be clear for 5.1.2 the overheads should be between 100 and 80 degrees...this angle is from listening position correct?


What designation for the overheads will you be using? Top Middle is 65-100° for example. From the listening position, yes.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

yes I will be using for the time being 5.2.2...

so by my calculations the TM speakers should be about half a foot in front of the top of my head...

3 feet (ears off the ground)...7.5 feet to ceiling


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Tonight's movie was *Twister*.
> 
> If you don't have it - buy it.
> 
> Then play the first 5 minutes using DSU.
> 
> *Could this be any better if it had been mixed in Atmos and released as an Atmos Bluray?* I mean, just WTF WOW! I intended to watch just the opening scene and stayed for the whole movie. Every tornado scene is just stunningly upmixed. At times it was downright scary and I could feel my pulse rate elevating.


I'm learning to quickly dislke you. I was really planning on waiting for more content, more choices (hardware) and more time before I pulled the trigger. Now I've already started trying to find appropriate speakers, evaluating SSP's, figuring out where to put the speakers, planning on moving my LR speakers and my seats, etc. I used to blame CriagJohn for causing me to spend money - now it's YOUR fault !!


----------



## audioguy

Keith: have you tried upmixing any 2 channel stuff yet?


----------



## Selden Ball

KidHorn said:


> Does DSU work with any soundtrack? 5.1? 2.0?


Yes. And monaural tracks properly come from only the center channel speaker.


----------



## KidHorn

I have a room is 24'x16' and the TV is against a 16' long wall. I want to optimize for the middle of the room. The ceiling is cathedral goes from 8' to 13' 9" in the middle (12' from the TV) and back to 8'.


Anyone have suggestions for what I should do for 4 ceiling mounted speakers? I'm hoping to keep the cost under $1,000.


----------



## audioguy

When stereo first came about, a lot of experimentation was done over manyyears to determine the very best postion for the speakers. Same thing for surround.

Now we are adding ceiling speakers and, as Keith has found out, some experimintatin is necessary to optimally place the speakers. Seem the plan ought to be to use tracks (for both left/right and front/back motion) so easy tuning can be more easily accomplished. Might be a bit time consuming and messy but it seems it would beat dismounting and mounting speakers multiple times.


----------



## KidHorn

audioguy said:


> When stereo first came about, a lot of experimentation was done over manyyears to determine the very best postion for the speakers. Same thing for surround.
> 
> Now we are adding ceiling speakers and, as Keith has found out, some experimintatin is necessary to optimally place the speakers. Seem the plan ought to be to use tracks (for both left/right and front/back motion) so easy tuning can be more easily accomplished. Might be a bit time consuming and messy but it seems it would beat dismounting and mounting speakers multiple times.



I was thinking the same thing. Can you buy a track kit for speakers similar to track lighting?


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I'm learning to quickly dislke you. I was really planning on waiting for more content, more choices (hardware) and more time before I pulled the trigger. Now I've already started trying to find appropriate speakers, evaluating SSP's, figuring out where to put the speakers, planning on moving my LR speakers and my seats, etc. I used to blame CriagJohn for causing me to spend money - now it's YOUR fault !!


And I haven’t even sent you my invoice yet! 

There is a good argument for waiting. But while those who wait, wait, those of us who didn’t wait are enjoying the amazing benefits of DSU and, soon, a bigger choice of Atmos content...


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Keith: have you tried upmixing any 2 channel stuff yet?


I've briefly upmixed 2 channel movies (very good) but I suspect you mean music content. I am about to try this as a friend has asked the same question recently, although my HT is set up and used solely for movies. I will report back.

Meanwhile, FilmMixer, whose opinion can be trusted, has said that he finds DSU to be the best music upmixer he has ever heard and how it compares favorably with some pro upmixer he uses at work.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> When stereo first came about, a lot of experimentation was done over manyyears to determine the very best postion for the speakers. Same thing for surround.
> 
> Now we are adding ceiling speakers and, as Keith has found out, some experimintatin is necessary to optimally place the speakers. Seem the plan ought to be to use tracks (for both left/right and front/back motion) so easy tuning can be more easily accomplished. Might be a bit time consuming and messy but it seems it would beat dismounting and mounting speakers multiple times.


It's not a bad idea. In my case, I was very happy with the original placement, but am even happier now (as I reported earlier). Following the prescribed angles is a good way to proceed, but ultimately we will be satisfied by our ears and mine are now more satisfied than before. It's not a huge change or anything but it is significant. I only moved the TMs about 18 inches forward, but it seems this was enough to make a clearly audible difference. I suspect that moving them from slightly behind me to slightly in front of me is the main differentiator, and creating more angular separation between the TMs and the surrounds, rather than the distance itself being the most significant factor.

On a slightly separate note, anyone with a 5.1 system who has their side surrounds at 90° to the MLP might benefit, as I did, by moving them to 110° for Atmos in order to create more angular separation from the overhead rear pair. It seems to me that having the overheads directly overhead the surrounds, or close to, is not the best plan. And in order to create vertical separation, move the surrounds to close to ear level at the same time. I did this and the sound here is amazingly good (5.1.4 FH+TM).


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> I am coming to the conclusion that angular separation between the overheads and all the ear-level speakers is very important indeed - perhaps even more so than the actual position of the speakers on the ceiling.
> 
> My FH and main speakers are not close - the FHs are ceiling mounted and, again, there is a good angle of separation between them and the mains.
> 
> What I am finding is that if the ceiling speakers are directly overhead the ear-level speakers, or close to being so, then the effect is diminished. Get the angular separation and boom - it all comes into focus. Dolby say that FHs can be installed on the front wall (30° would facilitate this for many, depending on the room) but I am suggesting that this is not perhaps the best place and mounting them on the ceiling is better. When the speakers are mounted that way they can be designated FH or TF (angles overlap so much). I am designating them FH because I don't have room behind me for TR and so I am using FH+TM. (TF+TM is not a permitted combination).


Thanks Keith. This is very helpful when I put up my top speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Thanks Keith. This is very helpful when I put up my top speakers.


You are very welcome.

If I was doing it again, I’d mount them temporarily at first, with exposed wires (ugh) and then spend a day or two listening to a variety of content. Then it would be easy to adjust them a little if you felt it was needed, before making a permanent installation.

In my case, I spent a lot of time pulling wires through the ceiling, only to have to change things later. And because the wire came in on the 'wrong' side of a joist, the only solution when moving the speakers forward was to cut a channel 18 inches long x half an inch deep (or so) in the ceiling drywall to accommodate the wires once I was happy with the position. You would not believe how much dust and mess it makes to cut two 18 inch channels in ceiling drywall. Not to mention later filling, sanding and painting.


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> You are very welcome.
> 
> If I was doing it again, I’d mount them temporarily at first, with exposed wires (ugh) and then spend a day or two listening to a variety of content. Then it would be easy to adjust them a little if you felt it was needed, before making a permanent installation.
> 
> In my case, I spent a lot of time pulling wires through the ceiling, only to have to change things later. And because the wire came in on the 'wrong' side of a joist, the only solution when moving the speakers forward was to cut a channel 18 inches long x half an inch deep (or so) in the ceiling drywall to accommodate the wires once I was happy with the position. You would not believe how much dust and mess it makes to cut two 18 inch channels in ceiling drywall. Not to mention later filling, sanding and painting.


I definitely know how pain in the butt that is. Lucky for me, I I have an attic above, so this should be relatively simple.

I need to figure out how to separate the top front from my wides now with this new info.


----------



## audioguy

Kris Deering said:


> Sometimes I do think life would be easier and less stressful if I just folded my cards and walked away from all this stuff. I have a world class audio and video system by any standard of measurement but I'm still always looking for new stuff or tempted to try other things. If I just folded and walked away from that and just enjoyed my system the way it is I'd probably have a less stressful life and just sat back and enjoyed the fruits of my labor. But who are we kidding.


Amen! Amen! and Amen!

I was (am?) perfectly content with my theater. Like you, I have spent countless hours fine tuning it. It sounds incredible and not just to me but to a number of folks who do these for a living.

I had been reading about Atmos and Auro on AVS and was not particulary moved to go in that direction. Then I did the equivalent of being a drug addict and put into a locked room with all of the addictive drugs at my disposal -- I attended CEDIA.

That was a huge mistake. And to finish things off, I started reading posts from folks who had Atmos running and raving about it even for non Atmos movies. Not fair.

And then comes the stress part: what speakers do I buy; where do I place them; what SSP will I purchase; what external amps?

I don't think I've watched but one movie since I returned from CEDIA. HELP !!!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I suspect that moving them from slightly behind me to slightly in front of me is the main differentiator, and creating more angular separation between the TMs and the surrounds, rather than the distance itself being the most significant factor.


At this point are all 4 of your overhead speakers forward of your listening position?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

audioguy said:


> Amen! Amen! and Amen!
> 
> I was (am?) perfectly content with my theater. Like you, I have spent countless hours fine tuning it. It sounds incredible and not just to me but to a number of folks who do these for a living.
> 
> I had been reading about Atmos and Auro on AVS and was not particulary moved to go in that direction. Then I did the equivalent of being a drug addict and put into a locked room with all of the addictive drugs at my disposal -- I attended CEDIA.
> 
> That was a huge mistake. And to finish things off, I started reading posts from folks who had Atmos running and raving about it even for non Atmos movies. Not fair.
> 
> And then comes the stress part: what speakers do I buy; where do I place them; what SSP will I purchase; what external amps?
> 
> I don't think I've watched but one movie since I returned from CEDIA. HELP !!!



haha this is awesome....I didnt attend CEDIA...had NO intentions of going with ATMOS and here i am taking delivery of an atmos reciever tomorrow....I am rigging (literally) some old quintet speakers for ceiling speakers...if I love it...I will be buying 4 tannoy's

still its somthing to get excited about all over again...and that i beleive is what we are addicted to haha


----------



## audioguy

Brian Fineberg said:


> still its somthing to get excited about all over again...and that i beleive is what we are addicted to haha


That is what all addicts are "addicted" to: the rush that comes from acting out the addiction.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

so im addicted to being addicted? lol


----------



## noah katz

pasender91 said:


> In the "Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines" document, pages 16 18 20 22 24 regarding overhead speaker setups, there are 2 straight lines drawn from FL and FR towards all top speakers. Those lines are at 0°, parallel to the line from Center to MLP.
> This is confirmed on page 34, with the Rear Height also in the same alignment of the FL and FR.


That does not define the azimuth angles; the top speakers can be anywhere between the front wall and back wall and still be on those lines.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> That does not define the azimuth angles; the top speakers can be anywhere between the front wall and back wall and still be on those lines.


Azimuth angles are not defined. In a commercial theatre, the arrays for the Top speakers are in line with the LoC and RoC speakers (or where they would have been). For home theatre, the Top speakers are in line with the front L/R speakers, which Dolby assumes are around ±30° from centre line. 

Of course, this means that the azimuth changes as the Top speakers get closer to the listening position (the angular separation gets wider). Also, as you spread them wider, the elevation becomes lower.


----------



## bargervais

Radio Centre said:


> Dan
> 
> First thank you for the reply. Secondly I messed up in my question I actually have a 838 not a 636. In speaker settings I have height selected as top middle as that is where the speakers are, I do have fronts as well but for now the 838 only has 1 height option, I will soon be getting a 1030 and will then add the fronts. So right now it is 7.1.2 with the height, again set to middle.
> 
> Yes it was hooked up differently before as all the speakers were in ceiling, as a 7.1.
> 
> I have secondary audio turned off.
> 
> So as for hookup it's
> 
> Fronts and centre and surrounds and surround back all hooked up as they should be, all floor standing and then as stated on the height channel (it's own on the 838 fronts are set to normal no bi-amped) and again while running set up I do get sounds from the heigh appropriately, but again during playback there is nothing coming out, the rest are fine again as the leaf falls in the demo clip you can hear it from all the floor speakers, but nothing height, and the same goes for transformers, lots out of everything else, nothing from the heights, and surely there should be something right. I actually called Onkyo they said maybe the clip has nothing coming out of it, I asked if he has seen scene 20 from Transformers  there is stuff falling all over the place. I even called Dolby but they don't take commercial questions.
> 
> Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, do others have sounds from their heights ? Also again to clarify Atmos is working as it comes up on the receiver for true content...
> 
> It sounds great don't get me wrong, but the reason I started to check was it seemed like no falling objects were there.
> 
> Thanks all in advance.


I have the TX-NR737 my set up is 5.1.2 using top front ceiling speakers
Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for maximizing effects in 
Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround listening mode. Install 
Top Front speakers midway between the position just 
above the listening position and the position just above the 
front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers just above the 
listening position. You can select 
a/b top front or 
c/d top middle
on the unit. 
For connection with the unit, use the SPEAKERS HEIGHT/ Bi-AMP terminals

i'm happy to report that yes my ceiling speakers do sing.
i thought that the 636 737 and 838 can only do 5.1.2 are you using an external amp for 7.1.2 ????
have you tried just hooking things up 5.1.2 just to see if by chance when your set up for 7.1.2 it maybe disabling the atmos ceiling speakers??? just a thought can't hurt to try that

i know the 1030 can do 7.1.2 or (7.1.4 when you use an external amp). 
i know by reading you post that you have the correct firmware as you said you upgraded it. i would double check that you indeed have the correct and latest version hope you solve your issue soon because Atmos is the real deal.
Latest Firmware Version:* 2000-5110-1001-0401-0102*


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, but your guess is wrong  The separation between my FH and mains is actually greater than between the TM and surrounds, even after rearranging the TMs.


Any chance of you posting a pic of your HT space?


----------



## batpig

KidHorn said:


> I have a room is 24'x16' and the TV is against a 16' long wall. I want to optimize for the middle of the room. The ceiling is cathedral goes from 8' to 13' 9" in the middle (12' from the TV) and back to 8'.
> 
> Anyone have suggestions for what I should do for 4 ceiling mounted speakers? I'm hoping to keep the cost under $1,000.


Well, this is actually a good layout because if you're optimizing for the middle you already have your ceiling speakers angled towards the MLP. So for example even if you used an in-ceiling speaker without an aimable tweeter, the speakers would be pointing inward since the cathedral is working to your favor. There are many in-ceiling speakers out there but for your $1000 budget you could get four of these for example: http://www.axiomaudio.com/m3-in-ceiling-speakers#t-3

If you are looking for on-ceiling but low profile you could go with the Axiom in/on-wall hybrid speakers: http://www.axiomaudio.com/m3-on-wall-speaker

If you don't mind speakers protruding more, the oft recommended Tannoy dual concentrics are inexpensive and come with an easy C-bracket for mounting, allowing you to also adjust the aim slightly; four of them would be well under your budget: http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white

If you want to keep it uber budget friendly these will do the tricks: http://baltimore.craigslist.org/ele/4705412609.html

Compact, high quality dual concentric satellites with easy mounting and aiming options. A steal for $150, I actually bought a set of these myself recently and the sound quality is great considering their size.


----------



## Chucka

Has anyone tried to use four speakers in the front height and rear height positions to cope with a sloped or cathederial ceiling for their 4 Atmos speaker positions? How well did this work?


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> Any chance of you posting a pic of your HT space?


In this pic you can’t make out the rear overheads. Since moving them forwards a little, they are now just to the left of the grey acoustic panel in the wall-ceiling corner facing the camera.


----------



## Radio Centre

Yes it does change to TrueHD

Yup just tried them and nothing.

I was using a Panasonic 230 and have now also tried a 360

still nothing from height at all, even re ran set up and again sounds there in setup, but nothing during playback....




Roger Dressler said:


> Ok, so you see the word Atmos on the Onkyo display -- and that changes to TrueHD or DTS-HD MA for other BD discs?
> 
> Have you tried playing the DD+ Atmos demo tracks? If they create height sounds, it tells us something useful. If not, we learn nothing much.
> 
> BTW, what BD player are you using? Do you have another to try?


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> In this pic you can’t make out the rear overheads. Since moving them forwards a little, they are now just to the left of the grey acoustic panel in the wall-ceiling corner facing the camera.


Hey thanks Keith. I guess I'll have to wait until I get home tonight to view it. I'm behind a firewall at work and pictures get filtered out - sadly. I do see some, but not others. I think it's the way they are attached or put inside the thread itself. Rick


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> In this pic you can’t make out the rear overheads. Since moving them forwards a little, they are now just to the left of the grey acoustic panel in the wall-ceiling corner facing the camera.


Wow. Is that your room, Keith?


----------



## Radio Centre

bargervais said:


> I have the TX-NR737 my set up is 5.1.2 using top front ceiling speakers
> Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for maximizing effects in
> Dolby Atmos or Dolby Surround listening mode. Install
> Top Front speakers midway between the position just
> above the listening position and the position just above the
> front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers just above the
> listening position. You can select
> a/b top front or
> c/d top middle
> on the unit.
> For connection with the unit, use the SPEAKERS HEIGHT/ Bi-AMP terminals
> 
> *i'm happy to report that yes my ceiling speakers do sing.
> i thought that the 636 737 and 838 can only do 5.1.2 are you using an external amp for 7.1.2 ????
> have you tried just hooking things up 5.1.2 just to see if by chance when your set up for 7.1.2 it maybe disabling the atmos ceiling speakers??? just a thought can't hurt to try that
> *
> i know the 1030 can do 7.1.2 or (7.1.4 when you use an external amp).
> i know by reading you post that you have the correct firmware as you said you upgraded it. i would double check that you indeed have the correct and latest version hope you solve your issue soon because Atmos is the real deal.
> Latest Firmware Version:* 2000-5110-1001-0401-0102*


So i disabled the surround backs an walla height is working, I guess i read wrong wherever I read the 838 allowed for 7.1.2 i guess when the 1030 gets here I can do that, or more likely 5.1.4 and forgo the surround backs. 

I hope not to many of you will be calling me a dumbass  The rule is i guess how many amplified zones do you have, then hook up accordingly 

Thank you everyone for your help!! This place is great!

Im going to now go listen to scene 20 again


----------



## bargervais

Radio Centre said:


> Yes it does change to TrueHD
> 
> Yup just tried them and nothing.
> 
> I was using a Panasonic 230 and have now also tried a 360
> 
> still nothing from height at all, even re ran set up and again sounds there in setup, but nothing during playback....


*i have an older Panasonic DMP-BDT220 Integrated Wi-Fi 3D Blu-ray DVD Player*

when you put the Transformers4 Atmos Blu-Ray in are you seeing the Thru HD Atmos as an option on your blu-ray in the setting 

also make sure your panasonic is set to play in Bitstream


----------



## bargervais

Radio Centre said:


> So i disabled the surround backs an walla height is working, I guess i read wrong wherever I read the 838 allowed for 7.1.2 i guess when the 1030 gets here I can do that, or more likely 5.1.4 and forgo the surround backs.
> 
> I hope not to many of you will be calling me a dumbass  The rule is i guess how many amplified zones do you have, then hook up accordingly
> 
> Thank you everyone for your help!! This place is great!
> 
> Im going to now go listen to scene 20 again


cheers glad you solved it i knew it was something simple


----------



## bargervais

Radio Centre said:


> So i disabled the surround backs an walla height is working, I guess i read wrong wherever I read the 838 allowed for 7.1.2 i guess when the 1030 gets here I can do that, or more likely 5.1.4 and forgo the surround backs.
> 
> I hope not to many of you will be calling me a dumbass  The rule is i guess how many amplified zones do you have, then hook up accordingly
> 
> Thank you everyone for your help!! This place is great!
> 
> Im going to now go listen to scene 20 again


No one will call you a bumbass it's all good this is all new territory and everyone here is still learning and glad when we are helping each other.


----------



## pasender91

noah katz said:


> That does not define the azimuth angles; the top speakers can be anywhere between the front wall and back wall and still be on those lines.


As already confirmed by Srudani, the Top speaker location is NOT defined by their azimuth.
It is defined by being on this line coming from FR or FL, and by their altitude angle, this is enough to define their position.


----------



## Spanglo

kbarnes701 said:


> Well for Atmos I only have two sources: TF4 and the Dolby Demo disc. I am using both - pretty much any scene from TF4 and the Leaf and Amaze trailers from the demo disc. For DSU testing I used any of the recent movies which have performed well with DSU, which is really all of them that I have tried so far - The Descent is good, Twister is good, so is Blade II, Jurassic Park: The Lost World, 300: Rise of an Empire etc.


Thanks, I'm impressed you're able to keep up with all the questions being asked!

Nice movie suggestions... the only ones I don't have are Blade and Descent. I was also thinking Sanctum would be another good one for cave atmosphere.

My X5200 arrived yesterday, so after work I installed and calibrated. Running a 4.4.4 setup with TF + RH.

+1 on the DSU. last night I listened to a wide variety of music, watched various live and recorded Tv shows, demo scenes from many movies, and I preferred to have DS running. For music that's a big departure, as normally I would prefer 2ch music 9 times out of ten, but last night I thoroughly enjoyed tracks with DSU engaged.

Watched the intro and chapter 20 of T4, and it lived up to the hype.


----------



## smurraybhm

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how great Edge of Tomorrow sounded using Dolby Surround. Returned mid afternoon yesterday from a business trip (Montreal - to our Canadian members I enjoyed my 3rd visit to the north immensely) and took advantage of the empty house to enjoy it with the volume up. Like others would like some more Atmos material, but Dolby Surround is worth the upgrade itself.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

smurraybhm said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned how great Edge of Tomorrow sounded using Dolby Surround. Returned mid afternoon yesterday from a business trip (Montreal - to our Canadian members I enjoyed my 3rd visit to the north immensely) and took advantage of the empty house to enjoy it with the volume up. Like others would like some more Atmos material, but Dolby Surround is worth the upgrade itself.



reading this is making me even more excited!! sooo glad its a long weekend!


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> You are very welcome.
> 
> If I was doing it again, I’d mount them temporarily at first, with exposed wires (ugh) and then spend a day or two listening to a variety of content. Then it would be easy to adjust them a little if you felt it was needed, before making a permanent installation.
> 
> In my case, I spent a lot of time pulling wires through the ceiling, only to have to change things later. And because the wire came in on the 'wrong' side of a joist, the only solution when moving the speakers forward was to cut a channel 18 inches long x half an inch deep (or so) in the ceiling drywall to accommodate the wires once I was happy with the position. You would not believe how much dust and mess it makes to cut two 18 inch channels in ceiling drywall. Not to mention later filling, sanding and painting.


With all that work why not install in ceiling!


----------



## himey

Can someone with the Dark Side of the Moon blu ray, comment on how the Quad (4.0) mix sounds upmixed to DSU? Also, what is the least expensive receiver with Atmos and pre outs? Is it the Onkyo? TIA


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> In this pic you can’t make out the rear overheads. Since moving them forwards a little, they are now just to the left of the grey acoustic panel in the wall-ceiling corner facing the camera.


Nice room, how close are you to the screen?


----------



## pasender91

Spanglo, Smurraybhm , 2 more guys being impressed with real installations, this is looking more and more like a winner technology isn't it?

As several people like Audioguy already mentioned, it's going to be hard to resist the temptation to have the same "smile on the face" than the "Atmos gang" members


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Wow. Is that your room, Keith?


Yeah - it's Hobbit-sized but has everything in it that I need: 3 x M&K S150s for LCR, dual Submersive F2s (with 6,000 watts of amp power between them), Tannoy Di6 for surrounds and 4 x Tannoy Di5s for overheads. Plus an Epson 5030UB PJ, chosen because it throws a decent sized image from a relatively short distance, onto a 16:9 screen that has a diagonal of 95 inches. Plus of course it is very well treated acoustically. Power is from Emotiva XPA-3 for LCR (300 wpc into 4 ohms), XPA-200 for surrounds (150 wpc into 8 ohms) and 2 x UPA-2 for the overheads (125 wpc into 8 ohms). Viewing distance is about 8 feet, so the effect is very immersive. All gear is in a separate closet behind the screen wall, accessed from outside the room. Sources are Oppo 93, Panasonic BD35 (R1), Toshiba A35 HD-DVD (for my collection of 100+ discs) and Mede8er media player for the legacy collection of ripped DVDs stored on 2 x 4TB hard drives in a RAID array. Oh, not forgetting the Denon X5200W of course for all that fantastic Atmos and DSU sound!


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Thanks, I'm impressed you're able to keep up with all the questions being asked!
> 
> Nice movie suggestions... the only ones I don't have are Blade and Descent. I was also thinking Sanctum would be another good one for cave atmosphere.
> 
> My X5200 arrived yesterday, so after work I installed and calibrated. Running a 4.4.4 setup with TF + RH.
> 
> +1 on the DSU. last night I listened to a wide variety of music, watched various live and recorded Tv shows, demo scenes from many movies, and I preferred to have DS running. For music that's a big departure, as normally I would prefer 2ch music 9 times out of ten, but last night I thoroughly enjoyed tracks with DSU engaged.
> 
> Watched the intro and chapter 20 of T4, and it lived up to the hype.


Great stuff. I am sure you will love DSU the more you use it. As someone else just said, it's worth the price of the upgrade for DSU alone IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> With all that work why not install in ceiling!


I just don't like in-ceiling speakers. It's a prejudice of mine. And if I had installed in-ceilings, there is NFW I'd have been able to move them forward 18 inches, as I just did with the Tannoys!


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Nice room, how close are you to the screen?


Thanks. 8 feet.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Spanglo, Smurraybhm , 2 more guys being impressed with real installations, this is looking more and more like a winner technology isn't it?
> 
> As several people like Audioguy already mentioned, it's going to be hard to resist the temptation to have the same "smile on the face" than the "Atmos gang" members


I have _literally_ got a smile on my face during half of the movies I have been watching. I feel like a little kid on Christmas day


----------



## JChin

Radio Centre said:


> So i disabled the surround backs an walla height is working,


Hi Radio Centre, from the OM under Speaker layout

To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Surround back speakers, Height speakers or Wide speakers need to be installed. The example above uses front 
Height speakers. As other types of Height speakers are also applicable, see the next page for details.

1/2 Front speakers
3 Center speakers
4/5 Surround speakers
6' Subwoofer
7 / 8 Surround back speakers
9 / 10 Height speakers
11 / 12 Wide speakers
 
• *Although you can connect all the pairs of 7/8, 9/10 and 11/12 speakers, only one pair of them can output audio at one time.* When two or more pairs are 
connected, you can switch speakers to play in the Quick Setup menu that appears when you press Q SETUP on the remote controller (Speaker 
Layout function). For details, see the section 5 "Using Quick Setup menu" of "Step 3: Playing Back".


----------



## Brian Fineberg

awesome! Kb...cant wait to set mine up tomorrow night! its because of you and your glowing reviews and insight


----------



## kbarnes701

Here's a view from the front to the back.










What I am really pleased with is that the room shows what can be done in a very small space. When the lights are out and the movie is playing and all that DSU/Atmos godness is all around me, the result is incredibly immersive.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> awesome! Kb...cant wait to set mine up tomorrow night! its because of you and your glowing reviews and insight


Gee - in that case I hope it lives up to your expectations. I can't see that it won't, if you are hearing what I am hearing


----------



## batpig

himey said:


> Can someone with the Dark Side of the Moon blu ray, comment on how the Quad (4.0) mix sounds upmixed to DSU? Also, what is the least expensive receiver with Atmos and pre outs? Is it the Onkyo? TIA


Onkyo 838 is the cheapest Onk with pre-outs, if you only want 7 channels max (has 7.2 pre-outs).

The Denon X4100 is only a couple hundred $$ more expensive and can run 9 channels max and has 13.2 pre-outs so you can connect extra speakers and switch between different configs. Plus you get Audyssey XT32 instead of Onkyo's cheap-out AccuEQ room correction. IMHO if you need pre-outs and might EVER consider going to a 9ch config, that's a no brainer.

I don't know which Yammy/Pio models have pre-outs I'm afraid.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> I just don't like in-ceiling speakers. It's a prejudice of mine. And if I had installed in-ceilings, there is NFW I'd have been able to move them forward 18 inches, as I just did with the Tannoys!


I have the same prejudice 

Precise placement, rattling ceilings, rumbles in the room above, can't take them with you w/o patching big holes. 

I worry most about vibration & rattles in the ceiling. Most in-ceilings are not closed boxes, all need insulation stuffed around them, and my experience with FG insulation is NFW 6-10" of normal FG is stopping bass freq's from propagating.

When I put subs in the room, I spent a lot of time tracking down bass rattles & fixing them. I put on a test disc, did test tones, turned up the volume and the room buzzed & rattled at specific freq's. One by one, I had to use weatherstripping on faux window inserts, caulking, nailed down some not well nailed dry wall, put strips around HVAC grilles, pads on objects, etc to silence the noises. 

I can see 4 in-ceilings adding rattle noises that aren't fixable because of no access to the other side. Many people don't think of this stuff before they start cutting 

With on-ceiling mounted speakers, you can put a thin strip of weatherstrip on the C bracket before you screw it into the ceiling stud...bracket & speaker is "insulated" from the ceiling & problem minimized before it starts. And it's tightly screwed into a stud vs hanging by tabs in an unsealed big hole and hope for the best 

Stu Rucker went to his local Magnolia and heard an Atmos demo with some inceilings and said their ceiling rattled! That's in a store who should know how to optimize the installation.

I've vacillated on this for several months but if I don't go Dolby enabled, it's going to be ON ceilings like your Tannoys. Everytime I think I want in-ceiling like the Martin Logan Electromotions, I know I'll hate the unavoidable buzzing sounds from drywall that may not be rock solidly fastened to the studs  

If it's new construction or a new HT room and you can use all the soundproofing tricks like green glue, isolation, etc. that's great. But for a 20+ yr old house that has seen nail pops, typical framing "issues", I think properly installing in-ceilings without having some sound quality headaches is going to be challenging.

Fishing wire for either is about the same so why not pick the option that you have more control over, including positioning.
If I want to adjust the position of a bracketed speaker, a small screw hole is easier to patch than a 8"+ circle 

my opinion - fwiw


----------



## kokishin

*DSU with Streaming Content?*

Anyone tried streaming content (e.g., Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, etc.) with the DSU and did it work well?


----------



## LDBecker

smurraybhm said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned how great Edge of Tomorrow sounded using Dolby Surround. Returned mid afternoon yesterday from a business trip (Montreal - to our Canadian members I enjoyed my 3rd visit to the north immensely) and took advantage of the empty house to enjoy it with the volume up. Like others would like some more Atmos material, but Dolby Surround is worth the upgrade itself.


 There's a whole thread on this movie on the review section of this site... More on that thread is made of some incredible bass content in the first minute or so of the movie than anything else over there. I have to agree, though, this is a great movie for DSU. First rate sound and my X5200W handled it all nicely! I have my sub pretty conservatively set, so I didn't pop any windows out of my house in the first part of the movie. Highly recommended Sci-Fi flick.


----------



## sdrucker

ss9001 said:


> I have the same prejudice
> Stu Rucker went to his local Magnolia and heard an Atmos demo with some inceilings and said their ceiling rattled! That's in a store who should know how to optimize the installation.


 
Actually it's Drucker, Steve . And the demo material was Chapter 20 of Transformers, which our local Magnolia Design Center had cued up to demo Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> I have the same prejudice
> 
> Precise placement, rattling ceilings, rumbles in the room above, can't take them with you w/o patching big holes.


Yep - all of that is on my list too. Plus the total rigidity of 'fix once and that's it for ever'. No way to change your mind or make adjustments later after listening for a while like I just did.



ss9001 said:


> I worry most about vibration & rattles in the ceiling. Most in-ceilings are not closed boxes, all need insulation stuffed around them, and my experience with FG insulation is NFW 6-10" of normal FG is stopping bass freq's from propagating.
> 
> When I put subs in the room, I spent a lot of time tracking down bass rattles & fixing them. I put on a test disc, did test tones, turned up the volume and the room buzzed & rattled at specific freq's. One by one, I had to use weatherstripping on faux window inserts, caulking, nailed down some not well nailed dry wall, put strips around HVAC grilles, pads on objects, etc to silence the noises.
> 
> I can see 4 in-ceilings adding rattle noises that aren't fixable because of no access to the other side. Many people don't think of this stuff before they start cutting


All agreed. And to add to this, the in-ceilings I have actually heard have always been crap, sonically. Now I admit that I haven't heard every example in the world, and that there will be some that are way better than those I have heard - but that’s my experience. And I did say it was straight out and out prejudice 



ss9001 said:


> With on-ceiling mounted speakers, you can put a thin strip of weatherstrip on the C bracket before you screw it into the ceiling stud...bracket & speaker is "insulated" from the ceiling & problem minimized before it starts.


That's a neat idea. I never thought of that. I have to dismount mine again tomorrow to sand and paint the drywall repair, so I will adopt that idea - thanks.



ss9001 said:


> And it's tightly screwed into a stud vs hanging by tabs in an unsealed big hole and hope for the best


Yes - a very important consideration.



ss9001 said:


> Stu Rucker went to his local Magnolia and heard an Atmos demo with some inceilings and said their ceiling rattled! That's in a store who should know how to optimize the installation.


They didn't see your critique above in time 



ss9001 said:


> I've vacillated on this for several months but if I don't go Dolby enabled, it's going to be ON ceilings like your Tannoys. Everytime I think I want in-ceiling like the Martin Logan Electromotions, I know I'll hate the unavoidable buzzing sounds from drywall that may not be rock solidly fastened to the studs


Yeah - why make life more difficult than it is already?



ss9001 said:


> If it's new construction or a new HT room and you can use all the soundproofing tricks like green glue, isolation, etc. that's great. But for a 20+ yr old house that has seen nail pops, typical framing "issues", I think properly installing in-ceilings without having some sound quality headaches is going to be challenging.


Agreed again. I can understand the appeal in a multipurpose room, but never, ever in a dedicated room.



ss9001 said:


> Fishing wire for either is about the same so why not pick the option that you have more control over, including positioning.


Actually it is easier to fish wire when the hole you are fishing through is 8 inches diameter  So that's one plus in a long list of minuses.



ss9001 said:


> If I want to adjust the position of a bracketed speaker, a small screw hole is easier to patch than a 8"+ circle


Which latter is almost impossible and you'd have to call in a tradesman to fix that I reckon. I am pretty good (read, experienced) at patching drywall but I wouldn’t even contemplate patching huge holes like that.



ss9001 said:


> my opinion - fwiw


And mine, also FWIW.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

kbarnes701 said:


> Here's a view from the front to the back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am really pleased with is that the room shows what can be done in a very small space. When the lights are out and the movie is playing and all that DSU/Atmos godness is all around me, the result is incredibly immersive.


Is that an ISCO lens I see on the table there? 

I take it the throw of the pj means you can't use it for scope. You wall is wide enough and with your seating at around 2xIH, the immersion would be even greater.

Perhaps sell the lens and put the money towards a 4K pj and zoom? 

Gary.


----------



## SpenceJT

After returning my defective (intermittent static sound from left surround channel), and replacing with a new (so far) non-defective SR-7009, I have my "poor man's" (experimental) Dolby Atmos up and running and it sounds great to me, but keep in mind I have yet to have a "true" Dobly Atmos experience.

Outdated image shows original speaker placement. I have since moved the wedges to the back side, reorienting them to aim more directly toward the ceiling.
http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showpic&id=1494


The sound on Atmos converted content really expands the audio experience. In viewing a recently recorded iHeartRadio event, it appears to have de-localized the audio, and sound from images on-screen come out where you would expect them to originate, there is now a "wall-of-sound", making it feel as though I am at the concert and the stage is ..."there" in front of me.

I next popped in the first Atmos released for Home Video having purchased it against my better judgement as I had heard horrible things about Transformers: Age of Extinction. WOW! I am impressed. The opening bombardment scene, as well as the modern-day excavation with the helicopter fly-over was full, and active. I'm still not sure if I was imagining sound from overhead, or if it is my psyche playing tricks with me, having spent a month's wages on an upgrade to my home theater system.

I am, like the rest of you, awaiting additional Atmos encoded content with which to test. Does anyone know if the August 2014 Dolby Demo media is available for sale or download anywhere? I would love to see what it all sounds like.

I hope to get out to my local Magnolia this weekend, and if they have their Atmos demo set up (they only just opened their dedicated store within a store) for a listen and see how true Dolby modules and dedicated overhead speakers compare to my DIY solution.

Cheers!

Spence


----------



## Ralph Potts

Greetings,

I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:










Niles CM7FX

They will be installed in the Top Middle position and should perform nicely. I am going to wait for the Marantz AV8802 and look forward to integrating and setting the system up.

I am glad to hear all the positive feedback from members in this thread and others.


Regards,


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Azimuth angles are not defined. In a commercial theatre, the arrays for the Top speakers are in line with the LoC and RoC speakers (or where they would have been). For home theatre, the Top speakers are in line with the front L/R speakers, which Dolby assumes are around ±30° from centre line.
> 
> Of course, this means that the azimuth changes as the Top speakers get closer to the listening position (the angular separation gets wider). Also, as you spread them wider, the elevation becomes lower.


 
To my pleasant surprise, it took only a couple minutes and a quick Wikipedia azimuth diagram review to decipher your second paragraph completely.  Questions please:


1. LoC and RoC refer to the 4th and 5th front speakers that are between the Center and either Left or Right main speakers in commercial theaters?


2. In commercial theaters, what is the specified, or standard, lateral elevation angle of the Side Surround in non-Atmos setup? Has this changed with Atmos conversion? Thanks.


----------



## UKTexan

kbarnes701 said:


> Here's a view from the front to the back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am really pleased with is that the room shows what can be done in a very small space. When the lights are out and the movie is playing and all that DSU/Atmos godness is all around me, the result is incredibly immersive.


That's a nice room Keith. You've done a sterling job with your treatments and system in general.
I will be going with a more modest setup very soon, decided upon using 11 B&W M-1 satellites, 2 of B&W PV1D subs with the Denon X5200. It's a living room with 14ft (4.27m) triple tray ceiling so I have some challenges, the M-1's and PV1D's have been chosen for the high WAF.
Luckily I have a another space set aside for a dedicated home theater, hoping to kit that out next year with either Procella or DIY speakers, no WAF to deal with on that one.
All the best.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Radio Centre said:


> So i disabled the surround backs an walla height is working, I guess i read wrong wherever I read the 838 allowed for 7.1.2 i guess when the 1030 gets here I can do that, or more likely 5.1.4 and forgo the surround backs.
> 
> I hope not to many of you will be calling me a dumbass  The rule is i guess how many amplified zones do you have, then hook up accordingly
> 
> Thank you everyone for your help!! This place is great!
> 
> Im going to now go listen to scene 20 again


Yeah, the 838 is limited to 5.1.2 just like the lower model, it just has pre-amp outs added. You need a 9.1 or 11.1 processing receiver or pre-amp to do anything above that configuration.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Is that an ISCO lens I see on the table there?
> 
> I take it the throw of the pj means you can't use it for scope. You wall is wide enough and with your seating at around 2xIH, the immersion would be even greater.
> 
> Perhaps sell the lens and put the money towards a 4K pj and zoom?
> 
> Gary.


Exceptionally observant of you Gary. Yes, it is an ISCO. And yes, you are right - the throw of the PJ won't let me use it. I bought it because I am right on the cusp of being able to use it, so I thought that it might just work. But when I tried, it just wouldn’t. But I love the idea of a CIH screen and I have hung onto the lens in the hope that I will be able to use it one day. All I need is an additional 12 inches of throw distance - and I have a vague idea of how I might accomplish that. I’d love to go bigger on the screen one day.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:
> 
> They will be installed in the Top Middle position and should perform nicely. I am going to wait for the Marantz AV8802 and look forward to integrating and setting the system up.
> 
> I am glad to hear all the positive feedback from members in this thread and others.
> 
> Regards,


Great to see you here, Ralph, and thanks for all those Bluray reviews! Keep 'em coming! Maybe in future you can comment in your reviews on how well they upscale with DSU, or how good, or not, they sound in original Atmos, as more titles come online.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> That's a nice room Keith. You've done a sterling job with your treatments and system in general.
> I will be going with a more modest setup very soon, decided upon using 11 B&W M-1 satellites, 2 of B&W PV1D subs with the Denon X5200. It's a living room with 14ft (4.27m) triple tray ceiling so I have some challenges, the M-1's and PV1D's have been chosen for the high WAF.
> Luckily I have a another space set aside for a dedicated home theater, hoping to kit that out next year with either Procella or DIY speakers, no WAF to deal with on that one.
> All the best.


Thanks! It shows what can be done with a really, really small space. Of course, I hardly ever see it like it is in the photos - with the lights out it is pitch black and all I can see is the screen. The gray walls are actually darker than they look in the photos, as is the red of the chairs.

Procella! Outstanding choice IMO. I love Pro speakers, and active speakers.


----------



## bkeeler10

So lately I have been a little more aware of overhead sounds in my non-Atmos 5.1 system. Last night the kids wanted to watch Shrek Forever After. Toward the end, when the roof of the castle cracks and comes crashing down, I was surprised at how much information seemed to be coming from above me. It wasn't terribly well-defined, but far more so than I would have expected possible.

Anyone with an Atmos setup who has that title should run that scene through DSU and compare to how it sounds without DSU.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. 8 feet.


I converted the kids play room (now that they are older) into a mini cinema as well  13 x11 x 9 and also included a 16:9 95" screen the immersion is fabulous. 

They sit about seven feet from the screen 

Still on the fence about what I am going to do about ATMOS speakers!


----------



## wse

ss9001 said:


> I have the same prejudice
> 
> Precise placement, rattling ceilings, rumbles in the room above, can't take them with you w/o patching big holes.
> 
> I worry most about vibration & rattles in the ceiling. Most in-ceilings are not closed boxes, all need insulation stuffed around them, and my experience with FG insulation is NFW 6-10" of normal FG is stopping bass freq's from propagating.
> 
> When I put subs in the room, I spent a lot of time tracking down bass rattles & fixing them. I put on a test disc, did test tones, turned up the volume and the room buzzed & rattled at specific freq's. One by one, I had to use weatherstripping on faux window inserts, caulking, nailed down some not well nailed dry wall, put strips around HVAC grilles, pads on objects, etc to silence the noises.
> 
> I can see 4 in-ceilings adding rattle noises that aren't fixable because of no access to the other side. Many people don't think of this stuff before they start cutting
> 
> With on-ceiling mounted speakers, you can put a thin strip of weatherstrip on the C bracket before you screw it into the ceiling stud...bracket & speaker is "insulated" from the ceiling & problem minimized before it starts. And it's tightly screwed into a stud vs hanging by tabs in an unsealed big hole and hope for the best
> 
> Stu Rucker went to his local Magnolia and heard an Atmos demo with some inceilings and said their ceiling rattled! That's in a store who should know how to optimize the installation.
> 
> I've vacillated on this for several months but if I don't go Dolby enabled, it's going to be ON ceilings like your Tannoys. Everytime I think I want in-ceiling like the Martin Logan Electromotions, I know I'll hate the unavoidable buzzing sounds from drywall that may not be rock solidly fastened to the studs
> 
> If it's new construction or a new HT room and you can use all the soundproofing tricks like green glue, isolation, etc. that's great. But for a 20+ yr old house that has seen nail pops, typical framing "issues", I think properly installing in-ceilings without having some sound quality headaches is going to be challenging.
> 
> Fishing wire for either is about the same so why not pick the option that you have more control over, including positioning.
> If I want to adjust the position of a bracketed speaker, a small screw hole is easier to patch than a 8"+ circle
> 
> my opinion - fwiw


I never thought about all that, thank you I thing I will go with on ceiling now the questions is which one? Tannoy or B&W!


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> I converted the kids play room (now that they are older) into a mini cinema as well  13 x11 x 9 and also included a 16:9 95" screen the immersion is fabulous.


I bet - not too different dimensions from my own room. Although at about 11 ft x 11ft I am even more constrained for space!



wse said:


> They sit about seven feet from the screen
> 
> Still on the fence about what I am going to do about ATMOS speakers!


Best to take time and get it right...


----------



## gbaby

On a typical movie like Transformer Extinction, how many minutes of ceiling sound does one have with ATMOS?


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> In the "Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines" document, pages 16 18 20 22 24 regarding overhead speaker setups, there are 2 straight lines drawn from FL and FR towards all top speakers. Those lines are at 0°, parallel to the line from Center to MLP.
> This is confirmed on page 34, with the Rear Height also in the same alignment of the FL and FR.


Thanks! Yes, those diagrams do answer the question nicely. Funny, they never seemed to have articulated that info in text. But no matter.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gbaby said:


> On a typical movie like Transformer Extinction, how many minutes of ceiling sound does one have with ATMOS?


Most of the movie, actually. This is a Michael Bay movie after all. There is no subtly.

Now, on some mixes that probably started with a 7.1 layout, they sometimes just pull a few select effects out of the mix and steer them willy nilly around the room (sort of like the occasional pop-out effect in a 3D movie). When a movie soundtrack was conceived with 3D surround in mind, you tend to get a lot more precise placement of sound and the ceiling speakers are used a great deal to create atmospheric envelopment besides a few hard overhead pans.

Some movies are starting to utilize the extra speaker locations for the musical score as well by spreading the orchestra and the choral elements into the five screen wall speakers, side wall locations, and up into the ceiling speakers.

_Gravity_ is still the best example of using Atmos to its greatest advantage. I just wish it had been a better film.


----------



## batpig

SpenceJT said:


> After returning my defective (intermittent static sound from left surround channel), and replacing with a new (so far) non-defective SR-7009, I have my "poor man's" (experimental) Dolby Atmos up and running and it sounds great to me, but keep in mind I have yet to have a "true" Dobly Atmos experience.
> 
> Outdated image shows original speaker placement. I have since moved the wedges to the back side, reorienting them to aim more directly toward the ceiling.
> http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showpic&id=1494


Spence -- I know I advised you earlier to try and get "real" Atmos modules, but I've softened my stance somewhat in light of my experience. If you recall I was also using "fake" Atmos modules (a random pair of extra speakers I had aimed up at the ceiling) and then I got the Def Tech A60 Atmos modules. I kept the modules for 2 weeks and then returned them, and since then have been running a pair of KEF 2001.2 "egg" satellites speakers as fake Atmos modules. They are tucked discretely behind some photographs on the console under the TV, just inside the FR/FL speakers, aimed at the ceiling. 

I have to say, now having gone through this sequence of changes, that a quality pair of "fake" Atmos modules provides at least 80-90% of the effect as the "true" Atmos modules, at least for my 5.1.2 setup. Since I started this process I have since learned that the Audyssey XT32 in our receivers incorporates the special Dolby high freq HRTF notches into the target curve for the "Dolby enabled" speakers -- in other words, MultEQ can somewhat "convert" a standard speaker into an Atmos speaker even though that speaker doesn't have the filters built in.

I have the Atmos test demo disc and the "Leaf" and "Amaze" trailers are great tests for overhead imaging. "Leaf" especially has some moments where bugs buzz above right above your head and birds chirp, and I can clearly pinpoint these sounds overhead as easily as I could with the DT A60's, whereas when I just listen in straight 5.1 TrueHD they image sort of vaguely behind me (being reproduced by the two surrounds).

Now the big variable when "faking it" is probably dispersion characteristics, but I can say that the KEF eggs work phenomenally well in my setup and I actually prefer them to the DT's. I'm sure part of it is their dual concentric design meaning they have a nice coherent "beam" to bounce off the ceiling. But the big thing is they are simply better speakers than the DT's, which sounded kind of wimpy with its little 3" paper cone driver (I compared in stereo too). I'm not going to generalize to all Atmos modules because it's possible something like the Atlantic Tech version with higher quality drivers, a bigger woofer and a 2-way concentric design will perform much better. But I can say right now, having had actual Atmos modules in house for a couple of weeks, I am perfectly satisfied with the "fake" Atmos modules and am in no rush to change anything at the moment.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Radio Centre said:


> Yes it does change to TrueHD
> 
> Yup just tried them and nothing.
> 
> I was using a Panasonic 230 and have now also tried a 360
> 
> still nothing from height at all, even re ran set up and again sounds there in setup, but nothing during playback....


 Very sorry for no joy. Have you checked the dedicated Onkyo owner's thread to see how others are doing?

Funny, I cannot find any evidence to prove Panasonic BD players are Atmos compatible. I assume they are, but was just looking for confirmation to reduce the number of variables.


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Very sorry for no joy. Have you checked the dedicated Onkyo owner's thread to see how others are doing?


Roger, keep reading. The problem was resolved -- he is running surr.backs and didn't realize his receiver doesn't support 9 ch playback.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Azimuth angles are not defined. In a commercial theatre, the arrays for the Top speakers are in line with the LoC and RoC speakers (or where they would have been). For home theatre, the Top speakers are in line with the front L/R speakers, which Dolby assumes are around ±30° from centre line.
> 
> Of course, this means that the azimuth changes as the Top speakers get closer to the listening position (the angular separation gets wider). Also, as you spread them wider, the elevation becomes lower.





sdurani said:


> Azimuth angles are not defined. In a commercial theatre, the arrays for the Top speakers are in line with the LoC and RoC speakers (or where they would have been). For home theatre, the Top speakers are in line with the front L/R speakers, which Dolby assumes are around ±30° from centre line.
> 
> Of course, this means that the azimuth changes as the Top speakers get closer to the listening position (the angular separation gets wider). Also, as you spread them wider, the elevation becomes lower.


I just realized that there are implied azimuth angles, or at least ranges.

The elevation angles are shown in a plane parallel to the side walls, and positions in this plane are determined by a speaker's height and distance from the front wall.

Intersecting a line perpendicular to the sidewalls through this point with the lines through the L/R speakers defines the 3rd coordinates of the points, from which azimuth can be calculated.



pasender91 said:


> As already confirmed by Srudani, the Top speaker location is NOT defined by their azimuth.
> It is defined by being on this line coming from FR or FL, and by their altitude angle, this is enough to define their position.


After thinking about it per the above, I now see that indeed you are correct


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Originally Posted by *ss9001*
> _With on-ceiling mounted speakers, you can put a thin strip of weatherstrip on the C bracket before you screw it into the ceiling stud...bracket & speaker is "insulated" from the ceiling & problem minimized before it starts._





> That's a neat idea. I never thought of that. I have to dismount mine again tomorrow to sand and paint the drywall repair, so I will adopt that idea - thanks.


I did the same after I found that I could induce a buzz by tapping on the speaker. I had a thin mouse pad so I cut it into strips and Bob's your uncle.


----------



## gbaby

Dan Hitchman said:


> Most of the movie, actually. This is a Michael Bay movie after all. There is no subtly.
> 
> Now, on some mixes that probably started with a 7.1 layout, they sometimes just pull a few select effects out of the mix and steer them willy nilly around the room (sort of like the occasional pop-out effect in a 3D movie). When a movie soundtrack was conceived with 3D surround in mind, you tend to get a lot more precise placement of sound and the ceiling speakers are used a great deal to create atmospheric envelopment besides a few hard overhead pans.
> 
> Some movies are starting to utilize the extra speaker locations for the musical score as well by spreading the orchestra and the choral elements into the five screen wall speakers, side wall locations, and up into the ceiling speakers.
> 
> _Gravity_ is still the best example of using Atmos to its greatest advantage. I just wish it had been a better film.


If its most of the movie, thats not too bad. But, for me, with my decorative ceiling, I cannot see placing speakers in the ceiling.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> As already confirmed by Sdurani, the Top speaker location is NOT defined by their azimuth.
> It is defined by being on this line coming from FR or FL, and by their altitude angle, this is enough to define their position.


The problem, in my mind, with this method for positioning the height speakers, is that the angle of incidence to the listener varies with ceiling height. I think the best way to define an elevated source location is with elevation and azimuth. Then it does not matter what ceiling height is used.


----------



## ss9001

sdrucker said:


> Actually it's Drucker, Steve .


Sorry, Stu...embarrassing not to get a name right. For some reason, I missed the D.


----------



## pasender91

^^^

Hey Roger i'm not the one making this rule, it is Dolby, i'm just the messenger here 
As i said earlier i'm not sure that this method to define top speaker placement is adequate for all rooms.

You're correct that with these rules, the azimuth angle becomes a variable, but i'm not so sure this is a big issue as top speakers are to be firing straight down anyway.

We ought to be more concerned about the fact that top speakers should be aligned with FR and FL, this might be a problem for some configurations.


----------



## ss9001

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers. I am glad to hear all the positive feedback from members in this thread and others.
> Regards,


Hi Ralph!

I enjoy all your reviews. They are some I check b4 deciding to buy 

I haven't yet joined the Team Atmos but I've been in this thread since the beginning. I've had some things come up with vacations & the like so didn't get the chance to be one of the Early Adopters like Keith. But my time is coming, hopefully by end of year.

Good choices for gear. Even the ceiling mounts  Just kidding....we were just discussing pros & cons of in-ceilings. Some will have an easier time of it & better rooms for it than others.

Hope you can stay involved in the thread with your experiences


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gbaby said:


> If its most of the movie, thats not too bad. But, for me, with my decorative ceiling, I cannot see placing speakers in the ceiling.


On ceilings, such as the outdoor pro Tannoy's some people are getting, are even better because you can more precisely place and aim the drivers. And then move them if you need to (as long as you had extra wire slack left up in the ceiling). With in-ceiling's you're kind of stuck.


----------



## conan48

Will the Onkyo 838 allow for a 7.1.2 config if I use it with my 5 channel emotiva amp? I know without an amp it's only capable of 5.1.2. but I'm not clear if it can do 7.1.2 with amp


----------



## Dan Hitchman

conan48 said:


> Will the Onkyo 838 allow for a 7.1.2 config if I use it with my 5 channel emotiva amp? I know without an amp it's only capable of 5.1.2. but I'm not clear if it can do 7.1.2 with amp


No. It's limited to 5.1.2. You have to go to a 9.1 capable Atmos processor or greater. The Denon 4100 looks like a decent one.


----------



## noah katz

pasender91 said:


> You're correct that with these rules, the azimuth angle becomes a variable, but i'm not so sure this is a big issue as top speakers are to be firing straight down anyway.


Whichever way they're firing, the sound comes from where they are.

Anyway, it sure seems odd how Dolby has specified speaker positioning.


----------



## conan48

Dan Hitchman said:


> No. It's limited to 5.1.2. You have to go to a 9.1 capable Atmos processor or greater. The Denon 4100 looks like a decent one.


Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for 

I don't know why more receivers don't let you expand with an amp and just handle more processing? Seems like a no brainer, and you could easily do something like a 9.1.6 setup or something for people with big rooms


----------



## Scott Simonian

conan48 said:


> Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for
> 
> I don't know why more receivers don't let you expand with an amp and just handle more processing? Seems like a no brainer, and you could easily do something like a 9.1.6 setup or something for people with big rooms


Seriously. I guess there is just no market for we enthusiasts. That or the just love to the annoy the living **** out of us.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

conan48 said:


> Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for
> 
> I don't know why more receivers don't let you expand with an amp and just handle more processing? Seems like a no brainer, and you could easily do something like a 9.1.6 setup or something for people with big rooms


The heart of the chip must have an Atmos "block" installed that is able to render to a lot more speakers (with a parallel amount of high quality DAC's onboard) and then receivers will have to have more pre-amp outs. You can then scale to a number of different sized systems. I keep harping on the "we need more scalable pre-amp choices nowadays" stance with Atmos, Auro3D, and DTS immersive sound formats! Receivers, except for the most basic models, are kind of long in the tooth as far as an A/V component design.


----------



## ThePrisoner

batpig said:


> Spence -- I know I advised you earlier to try and get "real" Atmos modules, but I've softened my stance somewhat in light of my experience. If you recall I was also using "fake" Atmos modules (a random pair of extra speakers I had aimed up at the ceiling) and then I got the Def Tech A60 Atmos modules. I kept the modules for 2 weeks and then returned them, and since then have been running a pair of KEF 2001.2 "egg" satellites speakers as fake Atmos modules. They are tucked discretely behind some photographs on the console under the TV, just inside the FR/FL speakers, aimed at the ceiling.
> 
> I have to say, now having gone through this sequence of changes, that a quality pair of "fake" Atmos modules provides at least 80-90% of the effect as the "true" Atmos modules, at least for my 5.1.2 setup. Since I started this process I have since learned that the Audyssey XT32 in our receivers incorporates the special Dolby high freq HRTF notches into the target curve for the "Dolby enabled" speakers -- in other words, MultEQ can somewhat "convert" a standard speaker into an Atmos speaker even though that speaker doesn't have the filters built in.
> 
> I have the Atmos test demo disc and the "Leaf" and "Amaze" trailers are great tests for overhead imaging. "Leaf" especially has some moments where bugs buzz above right above your head and birds chirp, and I can clearly pinpoint these sounds overhead as easily as I could with the DT A60's, whereas when I just listen in straight 5.1 TrueHD they image sort of vaguely behind me (being reproduced by the two surrounds).
> 
> Now the big variable when "faking it" is probably dispersion characteristics, but I can say that the KEF eggs work phenomenally well in my setup and I actually prefer them to the DT's. I'm sure part of it is their dual concentric design meaning they have a nice coherent "beam" to bounce off the ceiling. But the big thing is they are simply better speakers than the DT's, which sounded kind of wimpy with its little 3" paper cone driver (I compared in stereo too). I'm not going to generalize to all Atmos modules because it's possible something like the Atlantic Tech version with higher quality drivers, a bigger woofer and a 2-way concentric design will perform much better. But I can say right now, having had actual Atmos modules in house for a couple of weeks, I am perfectly satisfied with the "fake" Atmos modules and am in no rush to change anything at the moment.



batpig, 

could you take a pic please on how those KEF's are setup? I just returned my A60's also. Mine were atop my 8060ST's and I didn't get a great sense of height in my living room which has 8ft ceilings. I listened to them for about a week with TF4. I wish I had the Dolby demo disc because I read that the demos on that are very good and subtle. TF4 sounded fantastic but the height channels didn't stand out. My rear surrounds stood out, very discrete. I lowered my surrounds so they are 1.5ft above my ear while seated right before I received my A60's. Im looking forward to trying the Atlantic Technology's or getting me a small pair of satellite speakers and trying again. It turned out not to bad, I returned the A60's to Crutchfield and picked myself up another SVS PC12-NSD from SVS in the outlet store.


----------



## conan48

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niles CM7FX
> 
> They will be installed in the Top Middle position and should perform nicely. I am going to wait for the Marantz AV8802 and look forward to integrating and setting the system up.
> 
> I am glad to hear all the positive feedback from members in this thread and others.
> 
> 
> Regards,


Those look perfect for a mid to small size 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup! Dual tweeters angled in different directions would be perfect for smaller theaters and negate the need of 4 ceiling speakers as these would cover a nice large area.

Are there any other in ceiling speakers with this design?


----------



## doublewing11

conan48 said:


> Those look perfect for a mid to small size 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup! Dual tweeters angled in different directions would be perfect for smaller theaters and negate the need of 4 ceiling speakers as these would cover a nice large area.
> 
> Are there any other in ceiling speakers with this design?


I wonder if tweeters are out of phase........if so, not a good idea.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> ^^^ Hey Roger i'm not the one making this rule, it is Dolby, i'm just the messenger here


Understood. Just used your post as a jumping off point. 



> You're correct that with these rules, the azimuth angle becomes a variable, but i'm not so sure this is a big issue as top speakers are to be firing straight down anyway.


a) Whether a speaker points down or to the MLP has no bearing on the apparent source direction. b) Dolby allows for tilting the ceiling mount speakers toward the listeners, even if it is lukewarm support. 



> We ought to be more concerned about the fact that top speakers should be aligned with FR and FL, this might be a problem for some configurations.


That's why it is missing the point when Dolby implies that aligning with L/R is the goal.


----------



## Roger Dressler

doublewing11 said:


> I wonder if tweeters are out of phase........if so, not a good idea.


They are in phase, for wide dispersion.


----------



## bargervais

conan48 said:


> Will the Onkyo 838 allow for a 7.1.2 config if I use it with my 5 channel emotiva amp? I know without an amp it's only capable of 5.1.2. but I'm not clear if it can do 7.1.2 with amp


No 5.1.2 is the best you can do but it does sound very amazingly good


----------



## DaJoJo

i would say that the 90 degrees radiating area of the heights cover just about the whole above the head area, just make sure the radiating area of the frontheight don't overlap too much with those of the rear. otherwise you might loose some of the directional soundfield above the head.


----------



## noah katz

DaJoJo said:


> ...just make sure the radiating area of the frontheight don't overlap too much with those of the rear. otherwise you might loose some of the directional soundfield above the head.


But that's exactly the intention of phantom imaging.


----------



## noah katz

DaJoJo said:


> ...just make sure the radiating area of the frontheight don't overlap too much with those of the rear. otherwise you might loose some of the directional soundfield above the head.


Which is exactly the intention of phantom imaging.


----------



## DaJoJo

noah katz said:


> But that's exactly the intention of phantom imaging.





noah katz said:


> Which is exactly the intention of phantom imaging.


just one phantom imaging is ok i think 
i was more thinking in like x-y-z axis. avoiding that it becomes a x-y-y looking thing
i have to wait for the yamaha to get its atmos update and then i plan to use my 20yr old salora tv speakers and hang em all around the room in every spot i can and see what sounds best. they're once used as surrounds and they have 90-degrees radiation and are monopoles, just about good for the job i guess


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Understood. Just used your post as a jumping off point.
> 
> a) Whether a speaker points down or to the MLP has no bearing on the apparent source direction. b) Dolby allows for tilting the ceiling mount speakers toward the listeners, even if it is lukewarm support.
> 
> That's why it is missing the point when Dolby implies that aligning with L/R is the goal.


And all these discussions regarding azimuth would not be as necessary if/when next generation Atmos renderer/surround processor knows exact location of height speakers, right? The beauty of object based surround.


----------



## DaJoJo

cannga said:


> And all these discussions regarding azimuth would not be as necessary if/when next generation Atmos renderer/surround processor knows exact location of height speakers, right? The beauty of object based surround.


just when i finally found something to spin my head with...


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> And all these discussions regarding azimuth would not be as necessary if/when next generation Atmos renderer/surround processor knows exact location of height speakers, right? The beauty of object based surround.


Yes and no. Regardless of whether a sound can be rendered "correctly" based on any given speaker locations, it is still important to physically position speakers where they offer the most advantageous effect. No amount of clever rendering can make up for poorly positioned speakers.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> LoC and RoC refer to the 4th and 5th front speakers that are between the Center and either Left or Right main speakers in commercial theaters?


Correct. The recommendation to line them up with the front L/R speakers is for home Atmos only. 











> In commercial theaters, what is the specified, or standard, lateral elevation angle of the Side Surround in non-Atmos setup?


Don't know if there is a specified elevation angle, they just have to be in a straight line from the front speakers to the rear speakers. 











> Has this changed with Atmos conversion?


Not that I know of. The recommendation to lower the surrounds seems for home Atmos only.


----------



## noah katz

DaJoJo said:


> just one phantom imaging is ok i think
> i was more thinking in like x-y-z axis. avoiding that it becomes a x-y-y looking thing


I don't understand.



DaJoJo said:


> ...they have 90-degrees radiation and are monopoles, just about good for the job i guess


I would be surprised if that were true, and in general I get the impression that a lot of speakers that are claimed to have 90 deg patterns do not.

To behave that way the cone would have to have the proper profile, otherwise the dispersion varies continuously with freq.

Another thing is that directivity is only maintained down to a freq whose wavelength is on the order of the cone diameter, below which it becomes essentially omnidirectional.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

action_jackson said:


> A local theater installer was trying to talk me into getting some of the custom theater speakers from B&W. They use the same drivers as the beautifuly sculptured speakers that B&W is known for, but come in plain black boxes that are designed to be hidden behind a screen or built into cabinetry. I think he said that they are about half the price of the comparable models.


Which series? CT-800 or CT-700? Both cost more actually than their in-room counterparts but are more sensitive hence need less power. The CT-700 can be compared to the CM-series. The CT-800 compare to the 800 Diamond series.

The CT-700 was my first choice for the HT, years ago. These sound very good, even with music. But I kept lusting for the CT-800, which are way over my budget (each LCR cost 15K including the separate crossover box). Hence I am going the DIY route with a budget ending up slightly over the CT-700 (which is 1.5K each).


----------



## sdurani

Ralph Potts said:


> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:


Isn't that a bit unbalanced, having a full 9 speakers around you and only 2 speakers above you?


----------



## nikolouzosr

Apologies for the off-topic... 

I've read very good reviews about the DSU on Denon (specifically the x5200) and it sounds like the real deal.

I haven't been a fan of DSP processing but I'll keep an open mind (the reviews in here help a lot with this).

I'm leaning towards the Onkyo tx-nr737. My question is: Is there different "quality" in the way DSU is processed by different receivers?

Could Denon for example be doing a very good job with it as opposed to let's say Onkyo? Or is it just the same?


----------



## noah katz

No, they all use the same Dolby Surround upmixer, not their own.


----------



## nikolouzosr

Thanks for that. I thought so, but had to make sure.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> The elevation angles are shown in a plane parallel to the side walls, and positions in this plane are determined by a speaker's height and distance from the front wall.
> 
> Intersecting a line perpendicular to the sidewalls through this point with the lines through the L/R speakers defines the 3rd coordinates of the points, from which azimuth can be calculated.


According to Dolby's Brett Crockett, elevation angles are determined by a speaker's height relative to the listener. 

Let's use my set-up as an example. My ears are 5 feet from the ceiling and 10 feet from the front wall. To spread my L/R speakers 60 degrees on the front wall, they would have to be 11.5 feet apart. 

A point on the ceiling 2.3 feet forward of my listening position is 65 degrees elevation, which is within the range of the Top Middle speaker. However, if I spread a pair of speakers 11.5 feet apart (in line with my L/R speaker) at that point on the ceiling, those speakers are now almost 93 degrees apart. The distance to that 65 degree elevation point was 5.5 feet. The distance to the speakers, after spreading them apart, is 8.5 feet. That makes their elevation, relative to my listening height, under 43 degrees. 

So not only does the azimuth change as you elevate the speakers, but spreading them to be in line with L/R speakers reduces their elevation. In this example, it goes from the Top Middle range not just to the adjacent Top Front range but all the way into the Front Height range. That's some drop. 

Worrying about azimuth is going down a rabbit hole. Dolby has published a white paper describing best practices for home Atmos. Getting your set-up as close to their recommendations as possible will likely be enough to get an experience that delivers the intent of the sound mix.


----------



## NorthSky

Keith, your home theater room is awesome. ...And that big screen ...


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned how great *Edge of Tomorrow* sounded using Dolby Surround. Returned mid afternoon yesterday from a business trip (Montreal - to our Canadian members I enjoyed my 3rd visit to the north immensely) and took advantage of the empty house to enjoy it with the volume up. Like others would like some more Atmos material, but Dolby Surround is worth the upgrade itself.


Steve, there are few dedicated threads regarding that flick; did you have a look.
...It has a lot to do with that bass sweep @ the beginning. 

But true, with Dolby Surround up-mixer it should be an excellent surround sound experience.

* Montreal has good things to offer.  ...I lived in that neighborhood for twenty years, and have a bunch of relatives living there. ...And tons of friends. 
- Victoria (on Vancouver Island) is very very nice too.


----------



## batpig

ThePrisoner said:


> batpig,
> 
> could you take a pic please on how those KEF's are setup?



Here you go. First, for context, the photos with (first) the A60 sitting on the console and (second) the A60 sitting on top of my speakers. I found the A60 to be much more effective in the latter position.




















And then here's the current setup with the KEF eggs sitting on the console concealed behind photos and chotchkes.... very high WAF on this, she hasn't even made a snide comment about them yet  and they are barely visible when actually seated on the couch. Best part is the A60's were $500/pr and the KEF eggs I bought off craigslist, the complete setup (5.1 speakers) for under $200.


----------



## Apgood

Spanglo said:


> Nice movie suggestions... the only ones I don't have are Blade and Descent. I was also thinking Sanctum would be another good one for cave atmosphere.


Another good one would be "The Cave" 2005. Not a particularly great movie but good cave effects.

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


----------



## jacovn

KidHorn said:


> I was thinking the same thing. Can you buy a track kit for speakers similar to track lighting?


I have a system from the brand flamco and can move the top speakers throughout a large part of the room. Earlier in this thread links to it were given. They come in black. I originally made it to have the skyline panels flexible for the first reflections when i was not sure of the seating position an the speakers yet.
There are 2 rails running front back, and you attach side to side rails over it (2 meter wide) since my room is small 2 meters is just wide enough to cover the screen withd (72")


----------



## Apgood

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niles CM7FX
> 
> They will be installed in the Top Middle position and should perform nicely. I am going to wait for the Marantz AV8802 and look forward to integrating and setting the system up.
> 
> I am glad to hear all the positive feedback from members in this thread and others.
> 
> 
> Regards,


I just took delivery of 4 of these for overhead speakers for the HT room I'm building, but it'll probably be a few more months before it's all setup and I'm in a position to appreciate it. Still haven't decided which atmos capable av receiver/ processor to use, but interested to see how yamaha's implementation will perform.

I'll be very interested to hear your impressions of these speakers used as atmos top speakers.

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> So not only does the azimuth change as you elevate the speakers, but spreading them to be in line with L/R speakers reduces their elevation. In this example, it goes from the Top Middle range not just to the adjacent Top Front range but all the way into the Front Height range. That's some drop.


Yup. A good illustration of the flaw of this method.

It really seems weird that the position of the top speakers should move around if the distance to the front wall or to the ceiling changes, when neither of those things affect the sound from the main speakers. I suspect Dolby just wanted something simple to say/understand, and since the height effect is apparently tolerant of position, no need to get crazy over splitting hairs. The Audyssey DSX diagram (azimuth/elevation) seemed quite easy to understand, so why not use that model?


----------



## pasender91

^^^

Roger, you just said it yourself, *Dolby wanted something easy for the top speaker placement and installation*.

Just draw a line from FR and FL, place speakers anywhere on those lines and assign them in the amp based on their elevation angles. Pretty simple for the average consumer.

Now the azimuth/elevation model is not the same story at all. It leads to the top speakers not being aligned on a line, but instead they would be positioned on a "virtual ellipse" drawn on the ceiling, to calculate the correct positions would be a nightmare.

For DSX it was only 2 speakers in front so it was easy, with Atmos it is up to 10 speakers on the ceiling, as an ellipse 
So i think they were right to simplify installation a bit in this way, to augment adoption chances.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Roger, you just said it yourself, *Dolby wanted something easy for the top speaker placement and installation*.
> 
> Just draw a line from FR and FL, place speakers anywhere on those lines and assign them in the amp based on their elevation angles. Pretty simple for the average consumer.
> 
> Now the azimuth/elevation model is not the same story at all. It leads to the top speakers not being aligned on a line, but instead they would be positioned on a "virtual ellipse" drawn on the ceiling, to calculate the correct positions would be a nightmare.


No virtual ellipse needed at all. It's very simple. If the elevation is, say, 45°, then just place the speaker the same distance away as between ears and ceiling. In Sanjay's example, 5 feet. Yes, it must be positioned at some azimuth angle, and that's not hard to do either, be it ±60° or whatever. And certainly there's be no harm in offering this information even if Dolby offers a "simpler" method. Just consider all the unnecessary questions this simple method is generating.



> For DSX it was only 2 speakers in front so it was easy, with Atmos it is up to 10 speakers on the ceiling, as an ellipse
> So i think they were right to simplify installation a bit in this way, to augment adoption chances.


No matter now many speakers are in the height arrays, once you locate the front pair, and rear pair, all others can just fall in line with equal spacing. No need to define every speaker's specific coordinates.

Once the intent is known, it becomes possible to devise simple ways to get there. The current model Dolby has provided does not tell us the actual intent. We are left to guess.


----------



## fredl

I use a non-AT screen which is as wide as the front wall. Therefore my front speakers are mounted on the side walls approx 1 ft in front of the screen. This is a compromise in many ways, but my wife insisted on going with the largest possible screen (117").

I could have mounted my Atmos on-ceiling speakers the same way, but I opted to put them about 21" in from the side wall. I think this helped separate the surrounds from the overheads.

Down the road I will probably build a screen wall with an AT screen enabling the use of larger front speakers.


----------



## ThePrisoner

batpig said:


> Here you go. First, for context, the photos with (first) the A60 sitting on the console and (second) the A60 sitting on top of my speakers. I found the A60 to be much more effective in the latter position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then here's the current setup with the KEF eggs sitting on the console concealed behind photos and chotchkes.... very high WAF on this, she hasn't even made a snide comment about them yet  and they are barely visible when actually seated on the couch. Best part is the A60's were $500/pr and the KEF eggs I bought off craigslist, the complete setup (5.1 speakers) for under $200.


Thank you! I keep wondering why the A60's didn't sound good in my living room. Is the Dolby Demo disc better at conveying what Atmos can achieve (better separation & imaging) than TF4? But than again, even when using DSU on 5.1 blu-rays I never got an impression of height. I want to give it another go but along the lines of what you accomplished, before I decide to go pick-up some outdoor speakers with the C-bracket and go from there.


----------



## Ralph Potts

Greetings,




kbarnes701 said:


> Great to see you here, Ralph, and thanks for all those Bluray reviews! Keep 'em coming! Maybe in future you can comment in your reviews on how well they upscale with DSU, or how good, or not, they sound in original Atmos, as more titles come online.


Thanks Keith. I look forward to reviewing Dolby Atmos titles in all their splendor and plan on adding a snippet to provide feedback on DSU performance for non Atmos discs. 



conan48 said:


> Those look perfect for a mid to small size 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup! Dual tweeters angled in different directions would be perfect for smaller theaters and negate the need of 4 ceiling speakers as these would cover a nice large area.
> 
> Are there any other in ceiling speakers with this design?


There are a number of these types from several manufacturers. These looked to be perfectly suited from my needs. 



ss9001 said:


> Hi Ralph!
> 
> I enjoy all your reviews. They are some I check b4 deciding to buy
> 
> I haven't yet joined the Team Atmos but I've been in this thread since the beginning. I've had some things come up with vacations & the like so didn't get the chance to be one of the Early Adopters like Keith. But my time is coming, hopefully by end of year.
> 
> Good choices for gear. Even the ceiling mounts  Just kidding....we were just discussing pros & cons of in-ceilings. Some will have an easier time of it & better rooms for it than others.
> 
> Hope you can stay involved in the thread with your experiences


Thanks so much for reading! I gave it some thought and having heard the Atmos demo at Dolby in NYC I felt that in-ceiling speakers was the way I wanted to go. I won't be ready until year's end either as my hardware of choice won't be available until then at the earliest. I will of course post back here afterward.. 



sdurani said:


> Isn't that a bit unbalanced, having a full 9 speakers around you and only 2 speakers above you?


Hey Sanjay, my front wides are actually mounted up above ear level when seated as are my surrounds. Mounting the top speakers overhead slightly in front of the MLP will put them right in the cone between the wides and surrounds. The CM7FX's can be set for Bipole or Dipole operation. I will set them in phase and believe that their placement should coincide nicely with the other speakers in my system. If not, I have the option to utilize my wides differently but we'll see, 



Apgood said:


> I just took delivery of 4 of these for overhead speakers for the HT room I'm building, but it'll probably be a few more months before it's all setup and I'm in a position to appreciate it. Still haven't decided which atmos capable av receiver/ processor to use, but interested to see how yamaha's implementation will perform.
> 
> I'll be very interested to hear your impressions of these speakers used as atmos top speakers.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


Sounds good and I will report back.


Regards,


----------



## Brian Fineberg

well, I got prepped for the delivery of my atmos AVR today...I hung my klipsch quintets on the ceiling and was able to wire one (ran out of speaker wire..but more is being delivered today)...

only issue i came across is, my left Top Middle speaker (im using TM as I am testing this all out with 5.2.2) is about 3-4" off to the center from the direct line of my front L main speaker...this is due to my HVAC line in the way (right now the ceiling is unfinished) The Top Right middle speaker..is right online with the Right front main. Do youthink this will effect the sound distribution?


either way the x4100 comes today....so I should be able to hook her up tonight and run some demo's...fingers crossed!!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Not that I know of. The recommendation to lower the surrounds seems for home Atmos only.


Presumably because in a cinema there is already good separation between surrounds and overheads due to the much greater ceiling height?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> only issue i came across is, my left Top Middle speaker (im using TM as I am testing this all out with 5.2.2) is about 3-4" off to the center from the direct line of my front L main speaker...this is due to my HVAC line in the way (right now the ceiling is unfinished) The Top Right middle speaker..is right online with the Right front main. Do youthink this will effect the sound distribution?


I doubt that 3-4 inches will make much difference. You could consider mounting the right side speaker 3-4 inches 'off' to create symmetry in the layout.


----------



## kbarnes701

Last night's DSU test: *Dredd*.

No need to watch the whole movie (although it is very enjoyable if you like comic book movies as I do). Watch from the main opening title, where Dredd's kickass motorcycle roars from behind you on the right, across to the left and then swoops onto screen - he rides through a tunnel and under an overpass. Listen to how the sound reflects off the concrete roof, via the overhead speakers, as he passes underneath, and then disappears as he comes out into the open again. Keep watching until the perps' vehicle crashes and rolls over, and listen to the overhead effect as the vehicle 'passes over you'.

If you want to keep watching, as I did, there are numerous other direct overhead effects like those, as well as overhead ambient effects throughout. I did wonder if the fact that this movie was 'optimised' for Neo:X would make any difference, but it doesn't seem to upmix any better than any other of the movies I have watched with DSU engaged.

Tonight, if time permits for such a long movie, I fancy *Saving Private Ryan*, which I haven't seen for a few years now.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> I doubt that 3-4 inches will make much difference. You could consider mounting the right side speaker 3-4 inches 'off' to create symmetry in the layout.


good thought...I will test it out tonight and see what it sounds like...they will be very eash to move...as they are being hung with eye hooks and heavy duty picture wire (ghetto I know...but very temporary)


----------



## redjr

*BB Atmos Demo*

Last night my son and I stopped by our local Best Buy store to hear a demo of Atmos. I've been reading for a couple of months now how great it sounds, lurking around this thread, trying to soak up as much info as possible. I was also trying to future proof my recently finished media room to accommodate ceiling speakers. Well, were we in for a real shocker.

I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone here on AVS, but let's just say the attempt at giving us a demo was simply, pure folly at just about every level. We had been to the store about 10 days earlier and literally saw (and spoke to) two Geek Squad employees while they were hooking up a Denon (Atmos) receiver in one of their demo rooms. They said come back in about a week and we'll be ready. We were excited to see a couple of the new Atmos ready receivers in stock from Denon and Pioneer, looked around a bit more and left.

So when we returned last night I was expecting a rather straight-forward demo of this great sounding new surround/immersive system. Let me just say that I would have normally walked-out as fast as I walked in, but since my son was with me I restrained myself a bit since he is interested in Atmos too. The level of incompetence shown by the fellows in the Magnolia Room trying to give us the demo was just short of horrifying!

We walked into the same room where we had seen them working early last week, sat down on big round ottoman and asked for a demo of Atmos. We made some small talk with the guys as they proceeded to get things going. Well, after about 5 minutes of them working with their automated selection panel that allows them to select source, AVR and speakers, giving us multiple and conflicting reasons, they said you know what, "Let's go in the other room, where you can see/hear Transformers - AOI". Ok.

We proceeded with the same drill... we sat down, they fiddle with the AVR for quite sometime and finally the Red Bull demo started. We'll sort of started. We could hear the sound whizzing all around us, but nothing whizzed overhead! I could see on the AVR that is was displaying W Surround Mode. I questioned the guy and he said, "Oh that's just what it displays, we have it hooked up right and can rename our DSP modes." Humm? I said okay, being as friendly as I could.  He put in AOI got it started and left the room. We watched, and listened to the opening scene, but nothing was coming out of the overhead speakers, or even being panned across them! He later popped in and said, "I have the demo working in the other room." So we left back to the original room.

Once again he tried to start the demo and he could not get any sound along with the demo clips. He spent another 5 minutes trying to get it all working and finally did. Whether it was working correctly we'll never know. We watch the 'Silent' demo , which buy the way is pretty awesome. In the end, there was nothing they could do to salvage the demo with any respect at all. I thought to my myself, they'll never Atmos like this! My son and I left rather bewildered by the whole experience, but in truthfulness I can say I wasn't too surprised.

Full disclosure: I have nothing against BB or this store in particular. This is the store we shop at and have had many good conversations with the staff and manufacturers reps that hang out in the Magnolia Room. We've bought many audio, video and phone related stuff from this store since our move to CT last year. But this experience was beyond the pale for a store that SHOULD have been able to do a better job.

I know this is a negative review, but it's not about Atmos, so please don't take it as such. My son and I are completely sold on Atmos and just wanted to hear and experience for ourselves the real thing. In the process, BB failed to even come close and consequently (and sadly) they will loose some initial sales. BB had better wake up and smell the roses if they want to have any hope of increasing their TVs, AVRs and speaker sales by promoting Atmos. As it stands today - at least at this store - they have a long way to go. And since it couldn't have gotten any worse they only have one direction to go and that's UP! Let's hope they rise to challenge, get their collective Magnolia Room sh*& together and put up a well sounding Atmos demo. And with their automated and custom selection panel they should be able to demo using either Atmos-enabled up-firing speakers or ceiling speakers. Right now they can't do either.


----------



## Irwinroad

conan48 said:


> Those look perfect for a mid to small size 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 setup! Dual tweeters angled in different directions would be perfect for smaller theaters and negate the need of 4 ceiling speakers as these would cover a nice large area.
> 
> Are there any other in ceiling speakers with this design?


I have narrowed my search down to the Niles DS7FX to take advantage of the "Fully Pivoting Woofer Assembly"

Or the Current Audio model FIT651FL The 651 has a
Frequency Response of 40Hz- 20kHz and a little more $$.

Does any one know whether or not a moveable woofer
is a good idea for aiming?


----------



## smurraybhm

IMO overhead speakers are more effective providing their effect when you can aim them towards the MLP based on my experiments - wide dispersion pattern or not. I would go with something if possible that allows you to aim both the woofer and tweeter. At least that way you have the ability to tweak both until your pleased with the sound.


----------



## thestoneman

smurraybhm said:


> IMO overhead speakers are more effective providing their effect when you can aim them towards the MLP based on my experiments - wide dispersion pattern or not. I would go with something if possible that allows you to aim both the woofer and tweeter. At least that way you have the ability to tweak both until your pleased with the sound.


I have my (4) Atmos overheads (with pivoting tweeters) positioned pretty tightly around the MLP. I labored over the decision to move the rears back behind the 2nd row, but I decided to focus on the front row. I hope this was the right call.


----------



## smurraybhm

thestoneman said:


> I have my (4) Atmos overheads (with pivoting tweeters) positioned pretty tightly around the MLP. I labored over the decision to move the rears back behind the 2nd row, but I decided to focus on the front row. I hope this was the right call.


Atmos setup is pretty darn flexible in regards to speaker placement, speaker type, many of us have proved that. I'm sure it will sound great or sounds great - I too focused on forward, but then my MLP is close to the back wall. I am just all about having flexibility until things are settled since we are dealing with a first gen product and waiting to see what Auro offers and/or DTS-UHD.


----------



## sdurani

Ralph Potts said:


> I will set them in phase and believe that their placement should coincide nicely with the other speakers in my system. If not, I have the option to utilize my wides differently but we'll see,


It's not the quality of the overhead speakers I was questioning but the quantity. Down the road, you might find that having a couple more speakers overhead evens out the coverage between sounds around you vs sounds above you.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> A good illustration of the flaw of this method.


But you're replicating a flaw (parallel height arrays) from the environment where the soundtrack was mixed. Maybe not optimal, but at least it's consistent. Rather than doing something different and possibly better for the home version, they seemed to have adapted the commercial version, right down to tying the height array separation to a pair of screen speakers.


> It really seems weird that the position of the top speakers should move around if the distance to the front wall or to the ceiling changes, when neither of those things affect the sound from the main speakers.


Probably the easiest way to insure that the overhead speakers are at least 30 degrees from the centre line to minimize reversals.


----------



## htpcforever

Roger Dressler said:


> Once the intent is known, it becomes possible to devise simple ways to get there. The current model Dolby has provided does not tell us the actual intent. We are left to guess.


This is the reason I tell myself I am not moving to Atmos yet. Money is the real reason, but this reason makes me feel better about it. Oh, and waiting for the next generation also is a reason that makes me feel better even though it is not really true.


----------



## htpcforever

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:
> 
> Niles CM7FX
> 
> They will be installed in the Top Middle position and should perform nicely. I am going to wait for the Marantz AV8802 and look forward to integrating and setting the system up.
> 
> I am glad to hear all the positive feedback from members in this thread and others.
> 
> 
> Regards,



Do these come with a built in back box on them? I cannot find any side or rear shots of the speaker.


----------



## Alan P

batpig said:


>


Hey batpig,

How high off the floor are those eggs and what height is your ceiling? Where do you have the rear pair? This looks like the perfect solution for me!

Got a link to where you got 'em off Ebay?


----------



## Ralph Potts

sdurani said:


> It's not the quality of the overhead speakers I was questioning but the quantity. Down the road, you might find that having a couple more speakers overhead evens out the coverage between sounds around you vs sounds above you.


Greetings,

I understood what you meant Sanjay. In my room, based on my speaker arrangement, I believe that top middle speakers will provide a good mix and balance. I will have to see...


Regards,


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> ...Worrying about azimuth is going down a rabbit hole.


Not worried, just need to tell the more math-oriented Trinnov what it needs to know.


----------



## Irwinroad

htpcforever said:


> Do these come with a built in back box on them? I cannot find any side or rear shots of the speaker.



If you look at the Spec Sheet for the DS7FX is shows a RWE7C
rear enclosure.

However the Spec Sheet for the CM7FX does not show the enclosure.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Last night's DSU test: *Dredd*.
> 
> No need to watch the whole movie (although it is very enjoyable if you like comic book movies as I do). Watch from the main opening title, where Dredd's kickass motorcycle roars from behind you on the right, across to the left and then swoops onto screen - he rides through a tunnel and under an overpass. Listen to how the sound reflects off the concrete roof, via the overhead speakers, as he passes underneath, and then disappears as he comes out into the open again. Keep watching until the perps' vehicle crashes and rolls over, and listen to the overhead effect as the vehicle 'passes over you'.
> 
> If you want to keep watching, as I did, there are numerous other direct overhead effects like those, as well as overhead ambient effects throughout. I did wonder if the fact that this movie was 'optimised' for Neo:X would make any difference, but it doesn't seem to upmix any better than any other of the movies I have watched with DSU engaged.
> 
> Tonight, if time permits for such a long movie, I fancy *Saving Private Ryan*, which I haven't seen for a few years now.


Thank you! Very good one to try on DSU.

I think it's one of the better 7.1 mixes out there. Whether or not NeoX has anything to do with. I just think they had inter-channel spread in mind and it is just fantastic sounding.


And yes please! Do SPR.


----------



## action_jackson

erwinfrombelgium said:


> action_jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> A local theater installer was trying to talk me into getting some of the custom theater speakers from B&W. They use the same drivers as the beautifuly sculptured speakers that B&W is known for, but come in plain black boxes that are designed to be hidden behind a screen or built into cabinetry. I think he said that they are about half the price of the comparable models.
> 
> 
> 
> Which series? CT-800 or CT-700? Both cost more actually than their in-room counterparts but are more sensitive hence need less power. The CT-700 can be compared to the CM-series. The CT-800 compare to the 800 Diamond series.
> 
> The CT-700 was my first choice for the HT, years ago. These sound very good, even with music. But I kept lusting for the CT-800, which are way over my budget (each LCR cost 15K including the separate crossover box). Hence I am going the DIY route with a budget ending up slightly over the CT-700 (which is 1.5K each).
Click to expand...

They were from the CT-700 series. He had some in his demo room, they sounded great but a little out of my price range. My wife kept giving me impatient looks while we were talking shop, know not to bring her along next time. I could have sworn he said they were less expensive but maybe he had them on sale or something.


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> Last night my son and I stopped by our local Best Buy store to hear a demo of Atmos. I've been reading for a couple of months now how great it sounds, lurking around this thread, trying to soak up as much info as possible. I was also trying to future proof my recently finished media room to accommodate ceiling speakers. Well, were we in for a real shocker.


It is a real pity that you got such a bad experience of such a great product. I hope that you find someplace else to get a good demo. Failing that, take it on trust from those of us who have it all set up properly: it's a game changer.


----------



## kbarnes701

thestoneman said:


> I have my (4) Atmos overheads (with pivoting tweeters) positioned pretty tightly around the MLP. I labored over the decision to move the rears back behind the 2nd row, but I decided to focus on the front row. I hope this was the right call.


How does it sound?


----------



## kbarnes701

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I understood what you meant Sanjay. In my room, based on my speaker arrangement, I believe that top middle speakers will provide a good mix and balance. I will have to see...
> 
> 
> Regards,


I think Sanjay is right, Ralph. 9 at ear level and only two up top is giving a huge sonic bias to the ear level sound. And if you want to experience front to rear (and v-v) panning as well as left to right (and v-v) panning (and believe me you do!), then 4 speakers on the ceiling are essential. Might be something to consider while you are cutting holes in the ceiling - it's hard to reverse that once it's done.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Thank you! Very good one to try on DSU.
> 
> I think it's one of the better 7.1 mixes out there. Whether or not NeoX has anything to do with. I just think they had inter-channel spread in mind and it is just fantastic sounding.


And, IMO, it is also a kickass movie. I love it!



Scott Simonian said:


> And yes please! Do SPR.


Will do. If tonight doesn't work out for such a long movie, I will do it over the weekend. The alternative for tonight is Red Tails.


----------



## Alan P

I've got these Micca MB42X bookshelf speakers in my office (iPod Dock/Lepai T-amp) and they sound great. Just wondering if you guys think they would make good surround/elevation and/or ceiling speakers?

http://www.amazon.com/Micca-MB42X-Bookshelf-Speakers-Tweeter/dp/B00E7H8GG2

Thinking about replacing my 4, 20 year old Polk LS f/x speakers and adding 2 more for elevation (placed on top of my Khorns). What do you guys think?

Trying to find a cost effective solution.


----------



## Ralph Potts

kbarnes701 said:


> I think Sanjay is right, Ralph. 9 at ear level and only two up top is giving a huge sonic bias to the ear level sound. And if you want to experience front to rear (and v-v) panning as well as left to right (and v-v) panning (and believe me you do!), then 4 speakers on the ceiling are essential. Might be something to consider while you are cutting holes in the ceiling - it's hard to reverse that once it's done.


Greetings,

Understood Keith. I have the option to convert my wides to front height should I find there is a need. Top rear really doesn't work for me. As I said I will have to see..


Regards,


----------



## kbarnes701

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> Understood Keith. I have the option to convert my wides to front height should I find there is a need. Top rear really doesn't work for me. As I said I will have to see..
> 
> 
> Regards,



Sure - I am not trying to pressure you into going with more speakers than you feel is necessary - but if the placement of the first two would need to be different if you decide later to add another two, it is going to be difficult to repair those big holes left by the first pair!

I worked out my speaker positions for my 4 overheads really carefully, taking every piece of advice I could find, reading everything I could, attending not one but two Dolby demos in London, working out the angles really diligently... and still, after all that, I ended up relocating my rear pair of overheads (see earlier posts) to be slightly in front of me instead of slightly behind me, after about a week of high intensity listening sessions. So all I am saying, Ralph, is be careful when you cut those holes! HST, I still think mo' speakers overhead is mo' better


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> Understood Keith. I have the option to convert my wides to front height should I find there is a need. Top rear really doesn't work for me. As I said I will have to see..
> 
> 
> Regards,


Ralph, how about front height and middle top?


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - I am not trying to pressure you into going with more speakers than you feel is necessary - but if the placement of the first two would need to be different if you decide later to add another two, it is going to be difficult to repair those big holes left by the first pair!
> 
> I worked out my speaker positions for my 4 overheads really carefully, taking every piece of advice I could find, reading everything I could, attending not one but two Dolby demos in London, working out the angles really diligently... and still, after all that, I ended up relocating my rear pair of overheads (see earlier posts) to be slightly in front of me instead of slightly behind me, after about a week of high intensity listening sessions. So all I am saying, Ralph, is be careful when you cut those holes! HST, I still think mo' speakers overhead is mo' better


So your four ATMOS speakers are in front of you?


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> So your four ATMOS speakers are in front of you?


Keith has posted a picture (two) of his home theater room, yesterday; you saw them, and the rear overheads are near the rear corners, slightly (a foot or two or so) behind the MLP. ...Hard to see but looking attentively you can see the left rear overhead one.


----------



## NorthSky

@ Ralph,

Greetings Ralph.

I still think you would be best served by four overhead Atmos speakers, sir. 

Regards,


----------



## Ralph Potts

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - I am not trying to pressure you into going with more speakers than you feel is necessary - but if the placement of the first two would need to be different if you decide later to add another two, it is going to be difficult to repair those big holes left by the first pair!
> 
> I worked out my speaker positions for my 4 overheads really carefully, taking every piece of advice I could find, reading everything I could, attending not one but two Dolby demos in London, working out the angles really diligently... and still, after all that, I ended up relocating my rear pair of overheads (see earlier posts) to be slightly in front of me instead of slightly behind me, after about a week of high intensity listening sessions. So all I am saying, Ralph, is be careful when you cut those holes! HST, I still think mo' speakers overhead is mo' better





Scott Simonian said:


> Ralph, how about front height and middle top?


Greetings,

I absolutely get your point and I don't feel as though you're applying any pressure Keith.  As I stated I am going to begin as noted and have the option to convert my current front wides to front height if I feel it's necessary.

Top rear placement isn't a viable option so I am trying to avoid that. The top middle placement is something that I have looked at and feel it offers the best option. I can fully appreciate the mo' speakers overhead and careful cutting those holes advice. Trust me.. 


Regards,


----------



## thestoneman

kbarnes701 said:


> How does it sound?



Can't wait to find out! I'm still probably 4 weeks away from sitting down and flipping the switch for the first time in the HT. It's been a much longer process than I had hoped.


----------



## BigScreen

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I am going to go with a 9.2.2 Atmos setup and am going with a pair of Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niles CM7FX
> 
> They will be installed in the Top Middle position and should perform nicely. I am going to wait for the Marantz AV8802 and look forward to integrating and setting the system up.


I like the flexibility of being able to aim the tweeters, and also to choose between bipole and dipole operation. I know that both configurations were dismissed early on in this thread, but there hasn't been any experimentation done either.

With all of this being so relatively new, it's difficult to be confident in placing in-ceiling speakers for the heights. However, flush-mounting speakers on the ceiling isn't for everyone aesthetically (myself included), but it does provide for a lot of flexibility to experiment and move things around.

I have been leaning towards the Boston Acoustics VSi 560, due to the fact that it uses a 1" VR tweeter, which would be a nice match to the other speakers in the system, and that the tweeter can be pivoted.









The fact that it can go down to 58 Hz is nice, but from what I have seen in Dolby's specs, they mention only the need to go down to 100 Hz. If they are rolling off the frequency response for the height channels, anything dipping too far below that is just going to be left unused (which would negate any need to go for something with even more bass response in the line, such as the VSi 570/580). I wonder if they are specifying such a high frequency to make things easy on people, and if you have speakers that reach lower (like your CM7FX's will) there will be a benefit.

Does anyone have any experience with where the frequency cutoff is on the height channels? Is Audyssey showing where it's cutting things off on those channels? If not, until there are test patterns actually encoded in Atmos, it may not be possible to know for sure...

The thought of installing a relatively large speaker onto the ceiling (the Tannoy Di5 looks to be 9x6x6", plus the spacing the bracket introduces) doesn't appeal to me. The ceiling in my home theater is 7', so dropping into that space would be a challenge. There are soffits to each side of the seating, so mounting onto the ceiling near the side of the soffit would be the only way I could see that working out. 

The Boston Bravo 20 could be a possibility. It's intended to be a flush-mounted speaker, but it still has a 1" VR tweeter and can still reach to 80 Hz. It's still a little big (14.25x6.5x5.25") but I think it has the potential of blending in a little better than something with a C-bracket.








At the risk of being run out of the thread, I would even be curious to try BA's SoundWare cube speaker. It has a 3/4" tweeter, a 4.5" bass driver, and is rated to go down to 90 Hz.








The natural first reaction would be that it couldn't possibly be up to the task, and comparisons to Bose Acoustimass modules (which are much smaller) will likely follow, but if we're looking at a speaker whose primary duty is going to be 100 Hz and above, then the bass response of 90 Hz is going to be fine. Personally, I'd like to see a 1" tweeter, but I think that's out of the range for what this speaker is intended for. Do I think it would be up to the task? I can't imagine it, but it would be cool if it was.


----------



## prince.nothing

*Economy in-ceiling Speakers for Atmos*

Hey folks,
I have a Klipsch Reference II 5.2 HT, and wanted to add four ceiling speakers to achieve an atmos setup. Problem is, I don't have the budget to buy the Klipsch Reference in-ceiling speakers so am looking to more economical options. The two that I am interested in are are the Monoprice 8-inch Kevlar PID4104 (80W, Frequency Response 43 Hz - 20 kHz) and the Micca M-8C 8" (100W, Frequency Response: 40Hz - 20kHz). I'm leaning towards the later as it has the pivoting 1" dome tweeter, plus has very good reviews on Amazon.

Has anyone used either of these speakers, preferably in an atmos setup? I really appreciate your inputs. Are there any other economical speakers that you can recommend?

Thanks.


----------



## toothsavers

*Dts immersive sound on the horzion*

See article on avforum released last nite. Dolby Atmos vs DtsMda vs Auro3d. It's soon to arrive!


----------



## nowknown

When I first turned on my X4100 and was going through the surround modes, Dolby Atmos was one of the available choices. I have had to reset the processor my times to trouble shoot a network problem (bad NIC card it appears - no connectivity at all). I have the 'Transformers' Blu Ray with Atmos and the PS4 set on Dolby bitstream. There is no Atmos mode showing when I hold the green movie button on the remote. And, btw, is there an actual Atmos light that appears on the Denon display?


----------



## BigScreen

redjr said:


> Last night my son and I stopped by our local Best Buy store to hear a demo of Atmos. I've been reading for a couple of months now how great it sounds, lurking around this thread, trying to soak up as much info as possible. I was also trying to future proof my recently finished media room to accommodate ceiling speakers. Well, were we in for a real shocker.
> 
> I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone here on AVS, but let's just say the attempt at giving us a demo was simply, pure folly at just about every level.


I had a very similar experience at a Magnolia section of a local Best Buy about a week ago. I wasn't expecting them to be able to demo Atmos successfully, but they were the only game in town (a local specialty retailer still doesn't have any capable equipment or a room setup for demos).

There was an Atmos sign at the entrance to the Magnolia section, which gave me some hope. Getting into the demo room, I saw a Denon X4100W and Def Tech A60's, so more hope. No one was manning the area, which was not a good sign. Someone finally came up to the desk and was fiddling on the POS terminal, and I asked for some help with an Atmos demo.

He got this look in his eyes that didn't convey confidence, but he said that he thought they got it working, so he said he could help. As soon as someone else was in sight, though, he called to that guy and asked for assistance. They both poked at the touchscreen of the demo system, they had the Atmos demo disc cued up and playing. Except that there was no height information coming out. They poked at it some more, chose different items from the disc's menu, and then gave up.

I'll be in the area on Monday, so I'll probably give them another try because I am curious to hear anything at this point, but I'm not holding my breath that they can succeed.

Home Theater has always been about the demo. Everyone that has ever talked to me about the hobby has left my demo session with a smile on their face! If you can't demo it, you can't convince people of its benefits. If Atmos can't be demoed, how can it be sold? These stores need to do better.


----------



## sgibson

nowknown said:


> When I first turned on my X4100 and was going through the surround modes, Dolby Atmos was one of the available choices. I have had to reset the processor my times to trouble shoot a network problem (bad NIC card it appears - no connectivity at all). I have the 'Transformers' Blu Ray with Atmos and the PS4 set on Dolby bitstream. There is no Atmos mode showing when I hold the green movie button on the remote. And, btw, is there an actual Atmos light that appears on the Denon display?





The front panel will show Dolby Atmos and speaker icons, only if the source supports Dolby Atmos. Best way to see what's going on is to press the Info button on the Denon remote. See pic. attached.


Hope this helps.
sgibson


----------



## Selden Ball

nowknown said:


> When I first turned on my X4100 and was going through the surround modes, Dolby Atmos was one of the available choices. I have had to reset the processor my times to trouble shoot a network problem (bad NIC card it appears - no connectivity at all). I have the 'Transformers' Blu Ray with Atmos and the PS4 set on Dolby bitstream. There is no Atmos mode showing when I hold the green movie button on the remote. And, btw, is there an actual Atmos light that appears on the Denon display?


Make sure the disc player is configured for bitstreaming and has "subchannel audio mix" set to Off.

To see the receiver's current decoding mode, press the "Info" button on the remote. It should produce an on-screen display. On the left side, it shows details about the input signal and the processing being applied to it. On the right is a graphic showing which speaker channels are active.

When an Atmos soundtrack is being received (i.e. while the disc is playing) it says "Atmos" in the lower left where it otherwise would have a graphic showing which channels are being supplied by the player, and all of the speaker channels should be illuminated. The inactive channels are shown just with outlines. If the disc player is paused or stopped, you'll see outlined channel indicators at the left. If it's receiving multichannel audio (LPCM, Dolby, or DTS) the active channels will be filled in.


----------



## wse

BigScreen said:


> I had a very similar experience at a Magnolia section of a local Best Buy about a week ago. I wasn't expecting them to be able to demo Atmos successfully, but they were the only game in town (a local specialty retailer still doesn't have any capable equipment or a room setup for demos).
> 
> There was an Atmos sign at the entrance to the Magnolia section, which gave me some hope. Getting into the demo room, I saw a Denon X4100W and Def Tech A60's, so more hope. No one was manning the area, which was not a good sign. Someone finally came up to the desk and was fiddling on the POS terminal, and I asked for some help with an Atmos demo.
> 
> He got this look in his eyes that didn't convey confidence, but he said that he thought they got it working, so he said he could help. As soon as someone else was in sight, though, he called to that guy and asked for assistance. They both poked at the touchscreen of the demo system, they had the Atmos demo disc cued up and playing. Except that there was no height information coming out. They poked at it some more, chose different items from the disc's menu, and then gave up.
> 
> I'll be in the area on Monday, so I'll probably give them another try because I am curious to hear anything at this point, but I'm not holding my breath that they can succeed.
> 
> Home Theater has always been about the demo. Everyone that has ever talked to me about the hobby has left my demo session with a smile on their face! If you can't demo it, you can't convince people of its benefits. If Atmos can't be demoed, how can it be sold? These stores need to do better.


These stores are a joke it will take six months for them to be able to demo anything! My dealer had it as soon as he came back from CEDIA


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> So your four ATMOS speakers are in front of you?


Well, barely. The Front Height are of course. The Top Middle are now _just_ in front of MLP. Not quite directly overhead. Before they were just behind MLP. They still comply with the specified angles, as they did before. 

What I found before I relocated them was that the sounds from the Top Middle were being overwhelmed to some extent by the sounds from the Front Height and, possibly, also the Surrounds. Couple that with our hearing being less sensitive to sounds from behind us and I felt I could improve things. 

There are two possible reasons for the improvement I can hear: 1) the angular separation between the Surrounds and the TMs has been increased and 2) the TMs are now just slightly in front of MLP so I can hear them better. Bear in mind we are talking subtle differences here. I have not yet recalibrated with Audyssey (tomorrow's job) and not changed the trim levels or distances of the TMs. They may not need much, if any change in those parameters - I’ll see once Audyssey has sorted them out tomorrow.

Also bear in mind that this is in my room, and may not apply elsewhere, and that in my room I have insufficient space behind MLP for any speakers, hence my FH+TM arrangement. Those running TF+TR may well have an entirely different result. The very name Top Middle implies, to me, that the speakers will be more 'in the middle' of the room, even though the specified angles allow for 100° which in my case put them just behind MLP. Before they were at 100° - right on the limit of the recommended range. Now they are at 85° - much more in the center of the allowable range. Maybe Atmos speakers work better when they are more central in their permitted range of angles?

I think we are all pioneers currently, so some adjustments are bound to occur following listening tests. In my case I listened intensively for several days before I came to any conclusion. I am now happier with the sound than I was before - but again, remember we are talking subtle differences.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I absolutely get your point and I don't feel as though you're applying any pressure Keith.  As I stated I am going to begin as noted and have the option to convert my current front wides to front height if I feel it's necessary.
> 
> Top rear placement isn't a viable option so I am trying to avoid that. The top middle placement is something that I have looked at and feel it offers the best option. I can fully appreciate the mo' speakers overhead and careful cutting those holes advice. Trust me..
> 
> 
> Regards,


 OK Ralph. I too cannot accommodate Top Rears. Front Height + Top Middle is working really, really well for me though. I shall look forward to your listening impressions once you are all set.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Does anyone have any experience with where the frequency cutoff is on the height channels? Is Audyssey showing where it's cutting things off on those channels? If not, until there are test patterns actually encoded in Atmos, it may not be possible to know for sure...


With physical on or in-ceiling speakers, Audyssey doesn't care about Atmos, so it just measures the -3dB point as normal. With the Atmos modules, Audyssey does care because it has to introduce special processing to enable the Atmos modules to work properly.



BigScreen said:


> The thought of installing a relatively large speaker onto the ceiling (the Tannoy Di5 looks to be 9x6x6", plus the spacing the bracket introduces) doesn't appeal to me.


Fair enough. Here they look pretty small when they are installed. But my ceiling height is 8ft.



BigScreen said:


> The natural first reaction would be that it couldn't possibly be up to the task, and comparisons to Bose Acoustimass modules (which are much smaller) will likely follow, but if we're looking at a speaker whose primary duty is going to be 100 Hz and above, then the bass response of 90 Hz is going to be fine. Personally, I'd like to see a 1" tweeter, but I think that's out of the range for what this speaker is intended for. Do I think it would be up to the task? I can't imagine it, but it would be cool if it was.


Could work. If you can cross them at about 110-120Hz to the sub(s) they might just do the job (assuming that their performance in other respects is compliant with spec - eg power handling, maximum sustained SPL, dispersion pattern etc.


----------



## batpig

BigScreen said:


> The fact that it can go down to 58 Hz is nice, but from what I have seen in Dolby's specs, they mention only the need to go down to 100 Hz. If they are rolling off the frequency response for the height channels, anything dipping too far below that is just going to be left unused (which would negate any need to go for something with even more bass response in the line, such as the VSi 570/580). I wonder if they are specifying such a high frequency to make things easy on people, and if you have speakers that reach lower (like your CM7FX's will) there will be a benefit.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with where the frequency cutoff is on the height channels? Is Audyssey showing where it's cutting things off on those channels? If not, until there are test patterns actually encoded in Atmos, it may not be possible to know for sure...)


FYI - the special high freq cutoff only applies to Atmos enabled speakers. Physical height channels get normal bass management so your assumptions about not needing the extra bass capability don't apply.


----------



## batpig

nowknown said:


> When I first turned on my X4100 and was going through the surround modes, Dolby Atmos was one of the available choices. I have had to reset the processor my times to trouble shoot a network problem (bad NIC card it appears - no connectivity at all). I have the 'Transformers' Blu Ray with Atmos and the PS4 set on Dolby bitstream. There is no Atmos mode showing when I hold the green movie button on the remote. And, btw, is there an actual Atmos light that appears on the Denon display?


This type of question is probably better addressed in the Denon owners thread as it's not really a general Atmos issue. 

But, as others have already told you, it's almost certainly the settings on the player. If the receiver was receiving an Atmos input signal it would automatically register that and Atmos would be one of the surround mode options. The fact that Atmos isn't being reported by the receiver means the SOURCE isn't sending it.


----------



## JChin

nowknown said:


> I have the 'Transformers' Blu Ray with Atmos and the PS4 set on Dolby bitstream. There is no Atmos mode showing when I hold the green movie button on the remote. And, btw, is there an actual Atmos light that appears on the Denon display?


Hi nowknown, possible the PS4 is not set to Bitstream. 

When playing the Transformers Blu Ray movie press the "option" on the PS4 controller and under "audio format" select Bitstream.


----------



## kbarnes701

JChin said:


> Hi nowknown, possible the PS4 is not set to Bitstream.
> 
> When playing the Transformers Blu Ray movie press the "option" on the PS4 controller and under "audio format" select Bitstream.


I think he said he'd already set the PS4 to bitstream the output. And if he has secondary audio set to OFF, as required, then it's hard to see how TF4 isn’t lighting up Atmos on the unit's front panel. I'm assuming of course that he has set up the Denon properly.

Dolby spec dictates that the Bluray player must fully conform to the required standards for BD playback. I ass-u-me that the PS4 does?


----------



## action_jackson

BigScreen said:


> At the risk of being run out of the thread, I would even be curious to try BA's SoundWare cube speaker. It has a 3/4" tweeter, a 4.5" bass driver, and is rated to go down to 90 Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural first reaction would be that it couldn't possibly be up to the task, and comparisons to Bose Acoustimass modules (which are much smaller) will likely follow, but if we're looking at a speaker whose primary duty is going to be 100 Hz and above, then the bass response of 90 Hz is going to be fine. Personally, I'd like to see a 1" tweeter, but I think that's out of the range for what this speaker is intended for. Do I think it would be up to the task? I can't imagine it, but it would be cool if it was.


I purchased a pair of these for the bedroom last year and am not impressed with them. They almost sound like they are muffled compared to the Infinity SM185's that they replaced. They may just require more power, I am only using a little Dayton DTA-120 to power them. I may try feeding them more power and see how they sound. They are just sitting in the closet right now, I plan to move them outside to use on the patio sometime.

Edit:

Out of curiosity, I just connected them to a Crown X1000 amp. They sound better than they did powered by the Dayton, but I still would not recommend them. It looks as though they have a solid membrane covering the speakers beneath the metal grill. This may be blocking the higher frequencies and making them sound muffled. The low end starts to distort before getting to what most would consider normal listening levels.


----------



## batpig

ThePrisoner said:


> Thank you! I keep wondering why the A60's didn't sound good in my living room. Is the Dolby Demo disc better at conveying what Atmos can achieve (better separation & imaging) than TF4? But than again, even when using DSU on 5.1 blu-rays I never got an impression of height. I want to give it another go but along the lines of what you accomplished, before I decide to go pick-up some outdoor speakers with the C-bracket and go from there.


Obviously the Dolby Atmos demo clips are specifically designed to emphasize the height effect, but TF4 should be giving you PLENTY of height action. And DSU upmix should at minimum be throwing a good amount of ambiance up top. If you aren't getting any real sense of height effect then something is off.

I would experiment with positioning and angle -- a good test is to play the A60's in 2ch stereo without any other speakers playing, and if placed properly they should sound like a vague, slightly diffuse pair of in-ceiling speakers. I found with my first positioning (having them on the console) that I didn't get much height impact, and it was much better when I sat them on top of my speakers. Remember, these are "virtual" speakers so by nature the effect is going to be more fragile/sensitive than physical ceiling speakers.

It's although worth noting that, in general, the "virtual" Atmos enabled speakers are never going to give the precise directionality of true ceiling speakers, but that said, you should still be getting SOME height effect. I find the height effect is actually very obvious with DSU upmixing 2ch music, it really extends the ambience overhead effectively. On my Denon I have found that DSU even works with a "2.1.2" configuration -- disabling all speakers other than the front L/R mains and the two Atmos speakers. In this mode toggling between Stereo (2.1) and DSU (2.1.2) should make the difference pretty obvious.



Alan P said:


> Hey batpig,
> 
> How high off the floor are those eggs and what height is your ceiling? Where do you have the rear pair? This looks like the perfect solution for me!
> 
> Got a link to where you got 'em off Ebay?


I have a standard 8ft, painted drywall ceiling. The console is about 24" tall, and I my seated height is approximately 36". With the shorter Def Tech A60's being only 4" high, and also their position placing the driver at the front of the console, the effect didn't work well for me. The KEF's are about 6" deep and the stand adds another 2-3" or so when affixed to the back to enable them to point upwards, so the drivers are about 4-5" higher (around 32-33" total height) than with the A60's, and also about 20" further back. Probably also helps that they are concealed behind some obstructions (pictures and stuff). 

Another nice thing about the KEF eggs is that, being a dual concentric design, orientation is irrelevant as the dispersion is the same in all directions. 

I got them off local craigslist so no ebay link. There is a 5 speaker set on ebay in black right now, $249 OBO: http://www.ebay.com/itm/KEF-KHT2005-2-Speaker-array-5-peice-/331287467192

$249 is too much considering they are a bit scratched up but maybe you can negotiate.


----------



## Spanglo

I was running 7.1 prior to atmos, although technically 6.1 sans a center. My atmos configuration is considered 5.1.4, but because of no center I'm calling it a 4.4.4.

My experience so far is positive, but I've come to the conclusion I'll need a few more speakers before I'm satisfied.

I find the 5.1.4 somewhat lacking in comparison to my former 7.1 setup due to the few number of surrounds. The overhead speakers no doubt add to the experience, but after getting used to side + rear surrounds, the absence of 2 speakers definitely has a negative effect on the presentation of material I'm familiar with.

For example, the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 - Spheres V2 clip... dramatic with rear surrounds but not so much with sides. http://www.demolandia.net/vob-trailers/dolby-digital/page-8.html

Think I'm going to try a 7.1.2 config since I have the speakers, but looking go 7.1.4.


----------



## wse

How about using these ORB AUDIO?


----------



## nowknown

kbarnes701 said:


> I think he said he'd already set the PS4 to bitstream the output. And if he has secondary audio set to OFF, as required, then it's hard to see how TF4 isn’t lighting up Atmos on the unit's front panel. I'm assuming of course that he has set up the Denon properly.


Okay got it, the PS4 audio out option in the Dashboard had to to be set to bitstream Dolby AND when in playback you have to bring up the PS4 BluRay option overlay and choose bitstream there in the audio output menu too!? What the hell!? Anyway, thanks a lot guys! Btw, there's no inconspicuous icon or whatever to look for - it just says DOLBY ATMOS in big letters on the X4100W.


----------



## JChin

kbarnes701 said:


> I think he said he'd already set the PS4 to bitstream the output.


Hi Keith, on the PS4 there are two audio settings for Bitstream. One from the home screen and the other audio setting for bluray is set after a movie disc in inserted.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Ok. All is hooked up and ready to roll. I ran test tones and all is hooked up correctly. 

Had to come back to work for a little bit. Just have to run audyssey and then it's demo time!! Gonna try dsu first. Then tf4. 

I'll be back in a few hours


----------



## jdsmoothie

nowknown said:


> Okay got it, the PS4 audio out option in the Dashboard had to to be set to bitstream Dolby AND when in playback you have to bring up the PS4 BluRay option overlay and choose bitstream there in the audio output menu too!? What the hell!? Anyway, thanks a lot guys! Btw, there's no inconspicuous icon or whatever to look for - it just says* DOLBY ATMOS in big letters on the X4100W*.


Correct. It's just another surround mode.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Spanglo said:


> I was running 7.1 prior to atmos, although technically 6.1 sans a center. My atmos configuration is considered 5.1.4, but because of no center I'm calling it a 4.4.4.
> 
> My experience so far is positive, but I've come to the conclusion I'll need a few more speakers before I'm satisfied.
> 
> I find the 5.1.4 somewhat lacking in comparison to my former 7.1 setup due to the few number of surrounds. The overhead speakers no doubt add to the experience, but after getting used to side + rear surrounds, the absence of 2 speakers definitely has a negative effect on the presentation of material I'm familiar with.
> 
> For example, the* Dolby TrueHD 7.1 - Spheres V2 clip... dramatic with rear surrounds but not so much with sides. *http://www.demolandia.net/vob-trailers/dolby-digital/page-8.html
> 
> Think I'm going to try a 7.1.2 config since I have the speakers, but looking go 7.1.4.



If you haven't already, try moving your sides back to about 110 degrees. Having done so in my setup, the Spheres demo is quite dramatic indeed.


----------



## Spanglo

jdsmoothie said:


> If you haven't already, try moving your sides back to about 110 degrees. Having done so in my setup, the Spheres demo is quite dramatic indeed.


Would if I could but unfortunately I can't go beyond 90 with the sides.

Picking up another set of speakers tomorrow for 7.1.4. 

Will I need a 2 or 4ch amp? 

Curious, since I'm not using a center ch, can I assign that amp to single rear surround?


----------



## DaJoJo

Spanglo said:


> Would if I could but unfortunately I can't go beyond 90 with the sides.
> Picking up another set of speakers tomorrow for 7.1.4.
> Will I need a 2 or 4ch amp?
> Curious, since I'm not using a center ch, can I assign that amp to single rear surround?


no, i wouldn't know if atmos is using the rear channels as stereo. some dsp programs use them as stereo though.
depending on ur avr you need 2 or 4 ch amp for the heights if ur gonna use 4 speakers for it


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BigScreen said:


> I like the flexibility of being able to aim the tweeters, and also to choose between bipole and dipole operation. I know that both configurations were dismissed early on in this thread, but there hasn't been any experimentation done either.
> 
> With all of this being so relatively new, it's difficult to be confident in placing in-ceiling speakers for the heights. However, flush-mounting speakers on the ceiling isn't for everyone aesthetically (myself included), but it does provide for a lot of flexibility to experiment and move things around.
> 
> I have been leaning towards the Boston Acoustics VSi 560, due to the fact that it uses a 1" VR tweeter, which would be a nice match to the other speakers in the system, and that the tweeter can be pivoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it can go down to 58 Hz is nice, but from what I have seen in Dolby's specs, they mention only the need to go down to 100 Hz. If they are rolling off the frequency response for the height channels, anything dipping too far below that is just going to be left unused (which would negate any need to go for something with even more bass response in the line, such as the VSi 570/580). I wonder if they are specifying such a high frequency to make things easy on people, and if you have speakers that reach lower (like your CM7FX's will) there will be a benefit.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with where the frequency cutoff is on the height channels? Is Audyssey showing where it's cutting things off on those channels? If not, until there are test patterns actually encoded in Atmos, it may not be possible to know for sure...
> 
> The thought of installing a relatively large speaker onto the ceiling (the Tannoy Di5 looks to be 9x6x6", plus the spacing the bracket introduces) doesn't appeal to me. The ceiling in my home theater is 7', so dropping into that space would be a challenge. There are soffits to each side of the seating, so mounting onto the ceiling near the side of the soffit would be the only way I could see that working out.
> 
> The Boston Bravo 20 could be a possibility. It's intended to be a flush-mounted speaker, but it still has a 1" VR tweeter and can still reach to 80 Hz. It's still a little big (14.25x6.5x5.25") but I think it has the potential of blending in a little better than something with a C-bracket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of being run out of the thread, I would even be curious to try BA's SoundWare cube speaker. It has a 3/4" tweeter, a 4.5" bass driver, and is rated to go down to 90 Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural first reaction would be that it couldn't possibly be up to the task, and comparisons to Bose Acoustimass modules (which are much smaller) will likely follow, but if we're looking at a speaker whose primary duty is going to be 100 Hz and above, then the bass response of 90 Hz is going to be fine. Personally, I'd like to see a 1" tweeter, but I think that's out of the range for what this speaker is intended for. Do I think it would be up to the task? I can't imagine it, but it would be cool if it was.


It's the add-on height modules and "enabled" speakers that are severely bass reduced by design with bass routed to the main level "channels". The regular top speakers (when selected in the setup menu) can still get full range information.


----------



## kokishin

*Online Atmos Demos*

DaJoJo posted this website in another thread. Could be useful for those that don't have the Atmos demo disc or TF4.

http://www.demolandia.net/vob-trailers/dolby-digital/page-6.html


----------



## DaJoJo

kokishin said:


> DaJoJo posted this website in another thread. Could be useful for those that don't have the Atmos demo disc or TF4.
> http://www.demolandia.net/vob-trailers/dolby-digital/page-6.html


yeah i got this from this link @Spanglo posted a few post back here


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> DaJoJo posted this website in another thread. Could be useful for those that don't have the Atmos demo disc or TF4.
> 
> http://www.demolandia.net/vob-trailers/dolby-digital/page-6.html


Only if these clips have the full Atmos encoded Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track rip. Otherwise, they're of no use.


----------



## Spanglo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Only if these clips have the full Atmos encoded Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track rip. Otherwise, they're of no use.


Unfortunately they're not Atmos.


----------



## DaJoJo

Spanglo said:


> Unfortunately they're not Atmos.


just wonder now why they call it atmos then, they are truehd coded though. i have no means yet to test if it is atmos or not.
so so far we have the demo disc and TS4 and soon Hercules, teenage mutant ninja turtles, step up all in ?
atmos data uses about 20% more additional space compared to truehd, perhaps this is a nice indicator if it has atmos or not.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> just wonder now why they call it atmos then, they are truehd coded though.
> so so far we have the demo disc and TS4 and soon Hercules, teenage mutant ninja turtles, step up all in ?


Yup.


----------



## DaJoJo

some nice pioneer atmos enabled floors 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00MQEWQK0/panandscathed-20


----------



## smurraybhm

If you get a chance check out the November Sound & Vision - 2 very positive articles about Atmos. One calls it the best advancement since 5.1.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Running audyssey now. Oh boy!!!


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yup.


and possibly godzilla, noah, dawn of the planet of the apes, edge of tomorrow ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> and possibly godzilla, noah, dawn of the planet of the apes, edge of tomorrow ?


Maybe if they're re-released next year. None of them have Atmos tracks this time around.


----------



## NorthSky

If Dolby Atmos truly catches on, say a year or two from now; we certainly can expect to see double dippings in some of them Blu-ray movies. ...But from the ones with a Dolby TrueHD audio soundtrack. ...Say two years from now, to be more accurately realistic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> If Dolby Atmos truly catches on, say a year or two from now; we certainly can expect to see double dippings in some of them Blu-ray movies. ...*But from the ones with a Dolby TrueHD audio soundtrack*. ...Say two years from now, to be more accurately realistic.


Not necessarily. Studios can switch audio formats on a whim. The soundtrack masters are PCM anyway.

One add-on to the DTS immersive audio format package is supposed to be a fully lossless version of DTS with no core structure as previous iterations of DTS have been (not backwards compatible). Perhaps for audiophile music purposes or even some added format choice for 4k Blu-ray?


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not necessarily. Studios can switch audio formats on a whim. The soundtrack masters are PCM anyway.
> 
> One add-on to the DTS immersive audio format package is supposed to be a fully lossless version of DTS with no core structure as previous iterations of DTS have been (not backwards compatible). Perhaps for audiophile music purposes or even some added format choice for 4k Blu-ray?


that would be nice. perhaps they gonna use that as core for dts-uhd


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not necessarily. Studios can switch audio formats on a whim. The soundtrack masters are PCM anyway.
> 
> One add-on to the DTS immersive audio format package is supposed to be a fully lossless version of DTS with no core structure as previous iterations of DTS have been (not backwards compatible). Perhaps for audiophile music purposes or even some added format choice for 4k Blu-ray?


But Dan, why are the movie studios not switching on right now? ...Money, that's why.

- Next year: DTS-UHD (dts-MDA).
- Year after next: Blu-ray 4K ... maybe.


----------



## MichLinton

*Atmos Dangerously Loud?*

I'm at the Los Angeles AES conference - first time at the show, thanks to my generous employer.

I attended a session today where two european engineers were presenting research on how loud movies are now. I agree with their observations, and analysis - the movies now are much louder than they used to be.

One of the engineers said something that I expect is completely true, and will come as a shock to Dolby Atmos. He said that he had been in an Atmos theater, and it was the loudest experience he had ever had in his life. A stunning statement.

He then went on to suggest that many of the european governments will be banning Dolby Atmos as a health and safety issue. 

They pointed out that even regular films are now subject to government regulation in several european countries.

I too have found Atmos presentations to be uncomfortably loud - when people start covering their ears during a movie, you know you've got a problem. 

I believe the AES eventually makes these sessions available for audio download. Probably worth another listen.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MichLinton said:


> I'm at the Los Angeles AES conference - first time at the show, thanks to my generous employer.
> 
> I attended a session today where two european engineers were presenting research on how loud movies are now. I agree with their observations, and analysis - the movies now are much louder than they used to be.
> 
> One of the engineers said something that I expect is completely true, and will come as a shock to Dolby Atmos. He said that he had been in an Atmos theater, and it was the loudest experience he had ever had in his life. A stunning statement.
> 
> He then went on to suggest that many of the european governments will be banning Dolby Atmos as a health and safety issue.
> 
> They pointed out that even regular films are now subject to government regulation in several european countries.
> 
> I too have found Atmos presentations to be uncomfortably loud - when people start covering their ears during a movie, you know you've got a problem.
> 
> I believe the AES eventually makes these sessions available for audio download. Probably worth another listen.


It has little to do with Atmos per se, but the volume knob getting turned up at the theaters. CEDIA was full of Atmos demos - all at reasonable sound levels.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> One add-on to the DTS immersive audio format package is supposed to be a fully lossless version of DTS with no core structure as previous iterations of DTS have been (not backwards compatible). Perhaps for audiophile music purposes or even some added format choice for 4k Blu-ray?


DTS-HD MA has always had the ability to encode without the compatible core (DTS CA), but it was not permitted on Blu-ray for hardware compatibility reasons.


----------



## DaJoJo

we have a 100dB limit here in netherlands for cinema's as well as disco's, not conforming to this would mean closing of the place. nevertheless still good enough for hearing-damage .. anything above 85dB is.
i think something like this would be nice to have as atmos heights https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lightfreq/lightfreq-the-first-genius-light-bulb-with-hd-audi


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> DTS-HD MA has always had the ability to encode without the compatible core (DTS CA), but it was not permitted on Blu-ray for hardware compatibility reasons.


So, it looks like DTS thinks some new format will allow it if they are including it in their suite of upcoming decoding products.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

MichLinton said:


> I'm at the Los Angeles AES conference - first time at the show, thanks to my generous employer.
> 
> I attended a session today where two european engineers were presenting research on how loud movies are now. I agree with their observations, and analysis - the movies now are much louder than they used to be.
> 
> One of the engineers said something that I expect is completely true, and will come as a shock to Dolby Atmos. He said that he had been in an Atmos theater, and it was the loudest experience he had ever had in his life. A stunning statement.
> 
> He then went on to suggest that many of the european governments will be banning Dolby Atmos as a health and safety issue.
> 
> They pointed out that even regular films are now subject to government regulation in several european countries.
> 
> I too have found Atmos presentations to be uncomfortably loud - when people start covering their ears during a movie, you know you've got a problem.
> 
> I believe the AES eventually makes these sessions available for audio download. Probably worth another listen.





Dan Hitchman said:


> It has little to do with Atmos per se, but the volume knob getting turned up at the theaters. CEDIA was full of Atmos demos - all at reasonable sound levels.


I think Dan's right... I saw 2 films in Atmos at the same theater, one as you said was insanely loud (into the storm)... the other (maze runner) was played at a lower volume. A friend of mine did see Atmos show at a chicago theater nearby and she said it was so loud she wanted to throw up. There might be some truth to the findings but it has nothing to do with Atmos itself... and more simply to do with that volume knob. I think it's a generic symptom of theaters though, some of them are just too loud either way.


----------



## WayneJoy

Also, the "Loudness Wars" that has destroyed dynamics in popular music has somewhat moved into movies recently, not nearly as bad as with music, but waveforms are beginning to be clipped.


----------



## NorthSky

When I went to see 'Gravity' with five other friends, @ our local IMAX theater, the two ladies accompanying us were uncomfortable with the loud volume; to the point of having an unpleasant movie experience.

I agree; understanding the dialog of the actors is one thing; blasting your audience with very loud sound effects (unrealistically), and with total bloated bass of extreme dysfunctionality and unbalance, @ overloaded high decibels, becomes extremely hazardous to our own natural and normal emancipated health. 

Doctors, lawyers, law makers, judges, ... are all going to profit from that; not just the money machine from the Hollywood movie studios. 

There is a balance in everything, with everyone. ...So I agree with the poster above, *MichLinton*.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

So far so good with atmos although at this point not blown away. But I need to do more testing. But a very good movie to try out for upmixing is u571

Tf4 was pretty sweet. Maybe I'm not blown away because of only the two overhead speakers I'll see if I can borrow two to setup to see if going to 5.2.4 is better. 

But needless to say. I'm keeping it haha


----------



## HTinParadise

Brian, please let us non-Atmos enabled know how the movie functions with DS?

I also have hope that Kbarnes will do a quick report on either U-571 or Das Boot in his wicked Star-Trek shuttle craft style HT.


----------



## asoofi1

NorthSky said:


> When I went to see 'Gravity' with five other friends, @ our local IMAX theater, the two ladies accompanying us were uncomfortable with the loud volume; to the point of having an unpleasant movie experience.
> 
> I agree; understanding the dialog of the actors is one thing; blasting your audience with very loud sound effects (unrealistically), and with total bloated bass of extreme dysfunctionality and unbalance, @ overloaded high decibels, becomes extremely hazardous to our own natural and normal emancipated health.
> 
> Doctors, lawyers, law makers, judges, ... are all going to profit from that; not just the money machine from the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> There is a balance in everything, with everyone. ...So I agree with the poster above, *MichLinton*.



You need new friends 

Each person is different, but IMAX and Atmos generally are not going to hurt anyone and not 'overloaded.' Its actually louder at clubs and concerts.


----------



## redjr

asoofi1 said:


> You need new friends
> 
> Each person is different, but IMAX and Atmos generally are not going to hurt anyone and not 'overloaded.' Its actually louder at clubs and concerts.


Precisely the reason I stay out of clubs!


----------



## NorthSky

asoofi1 said:


> You need new friends
> 
> Each person is different, but IMAX and Atmos generally are not going to hurt anyone and not 'overloaded.' Its actually louder at clubs and concerts.


No sweat; I wasn't talking about kids with their multitude of subs, or the ones going to Heavy Metal Rock music concerts, etc., but about movie theaters, strictly, and the exaggerated volume levels @ them venues; several of them, most of them, in the overall average. ...With Atmos, and without Atmos; don't really matter; they are still too loud. ...For normal mental/natural/human health development and _"epanouissement"_ (sweet ecstasy).


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, it looks like DTS thinks some new format will allow it if they are including it in their suite of upcoming decoding products.


External decoders have always had the ability to decode "coreless lossless." The only way a new format could even think about exercising the option would be if the signals were compatible with current AVRs. The hardware limitation I alluded to was that of the BD player itself. 

But I have not heard any plans that a new format would do that. Is there some news?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger, use goggle. :nerd:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> External decoders have always had the ability to decode "coreless lossless." The only way a new format could even think about exercising the option would be if the signals were compatible with current AVRs. The hardware limitation I alluded to was that of the BD player itself.
> 
> But I have not heard any plans that a new format would do that. Is there some news?


According to one of the new partnership announcements with LG, the DTS-UHD (probably going to be renamed) decoders will also include: DTS Digital Surround™, DTS Coreless Lossless, DTS Express™ and DTS-HD Master Audio™. 

I would assume DTS is hoping that some of the near future media will include more than just their object and legacy codecs, otherwise they wouldn't have included Coreless Lossless into their upcoming decoders.


----------



## brwsaw

I was thinking about it some more and figured a guy should try a stereo center pair by removing the center channel and moving/narrowing up all the remaining speakers accordingly. 
All other locations in the sound field are paired...
Stereo pairs have incredible potential...
Object based steering...
I really really want a receiver that can use what its given, to have the freedom to move drivers around, add or remove at will.
A quick count gives me 28 positions in a symmetrical predictable layout.
29 does sound better...


----------



## brwsaw

Similarly 5 per wall could be used with alternating heights, think W on front and rear with side wall units in an up side down W.
Corners would end up with heights and ear level speakers.
20.1.4. 
Better fits how they would fit in/ on a globe. Google said to use the word icosahedral or term unfolded myriahedron to further describe this layout.

Interestingly still an even # speaker layout.


----------



## Skylinestar

DaJoJo said:


> nevertheless still good enough for hearing-damage .. anything above 85dB is.


Inside my car, while driving at 80km/h, is 80dB.


----------



## jacovn

I made some photos of the flamco rails so you can see how I intend to mount the top speakers.
The front mount has the Genelec speaker wall mounts already attached. 


I use rails in the length of the room, I have attached rails in the width of the room and there is a T-rail attached where the Genelec mount is already connected to.
This way I can position the top front speakers in 3 directions, but I will limit the length of the T-Rail when I have the speaker, so it is closer to the ceiling (if needed)


For the rear mount I need less angle (at 110 degrees) so I will attach the Genelec wall mount to the 2 rails. That will give me 2 axis movement. But that is enough for the angle I need to make with the wall mount.


Power and XLR cabling are still hanging loose, as I will connect them, pull back the over length and than Velcro the cables better.


----------



## nikolouzosr

Can anyone comment on these speakers? Yamaha NS-IC800.

I know that Yamaha is not a preferred brand for speakers but I have to say, I'm quite happy with my existing Yamaha's and I'm a bit surprised no one is talking about them. Wouldn't they be a good choice for in ceilings? I realise they aren't Klipsch or Definitive but the price is quite on the low side.
I'm thinking of ordering them but don't wanna realise that I made a mistake after I made the holes in the ceiling.

http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-NSIC800.../dp/B0046RE02W


----------



## kbarnes701

JChin said:


> Hi Keith, on the PS4 there are two audio settings for Bitstream. One from the home screen and the other audio setting for bluray is set after a movie disc in inserted.


Thanks for the info. Hopefully the OP has tried both!


----------



## markus767

FYI, just received an email from Oppo customer service stating that their current line of players doesn't have the processing power to decode Atmos.


----------



## Wookii

Speaking of the PS4, and given that audio in games has always been object based, does anyone know if there are plans by Sony to allow the PS4 to utilise Atmos configurations (I.e. without having to apply DSU)?

Partly answering my own question, I'm guessing this may be reliant in Sony adopting Atmos, which I don't think they have yet have they?

Playing a game that can actively render it audio objects to an Atmos speaker layout would seem to me to be potentially awesome!


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> FYI, just received an email from Oppo customer service stating that their current line of players doesn't have the processing power to decode Atmos.


My Oppo 93 works with Atmos here.

But what does that even mean - _"doesn't have the processing power to decode Atmos"_. The BD player doesn't 'decode' Atmos - it just passes the TrueHD bitstream. The 'decoding' is done in the AVR. 

Or do you mean you asked them if they were intending to bring out an Oppo player that could do the decoding instead of doing it in the AVR, so that legacy AVRs could be used with it? If that is what was meant, then they haven't answered the question - they have answered a question about their *current l*ine of players, which we already know can't decode Atmos discs. 

The better question would be _"do you intend to develop a player which can decode Atmos titles?_" If they do, chances are it will cost as much as an Atmos AVR, so it would be pointless.


----------



## Selden Ball

Quite a few people would like to avoid having to use an AVR at all, connecting the Oppo directly to amps. With the current hardware's output connectivity, this would have limited it to a 5.1.2 configuration, which might be acceptable. But that's moot now, at least with current models.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Quite a few people would like to avoid having to use an AVR at all, connecting the Oppo directly to amps. With the current hardware's output connectivity, this would have limited it to a 5.1.2 configuration, which might be acceptable. But that's moot now, at least with current models.


Yeah, I can see that. But the question was apparently about their current units, which we know do not have the grunt to decode Atmos titles internally. And, as you suggest, would be limited to 5.1.2 anyway. If they make a player which can decode Atmos into 7.1.4 then chances are it will cost as much as a new Atmos AVR anyway, so what would be the point? You'd sacrifice all the other features of the AVR - or Oppo would have to include them, which would mean they would be making an AVR with a built-in Bluray player. That seems like a pointless exercise to me and would almost certainly cost more than a Denon X5200W plus an Oppo player.


----------



## ThePrisoner

batpig said:


> Obviously the Dolby Atmos demo clips are specifically designed to emphasize the height effect, but TF4 should be giving you PLENTY of height action. And DSU upmix should at minimum be throwing a good amount of ambiance up top. If you aren't getting any real sense of height effect then something is off.
> 
> I would experiment with positioning and angle -- a good test is to play the A60's in 2ch stereo without any other speakers playing, and if placed properly they should sound like a vague, slightly diffuse pair of in-ceiling speakers. I found with my first positioning (having them on the console) that I didn't get much height impact, and it was much better when I sat them on top of my speakers. Remember, these are "virtual" speakers so by nature the effect is going to be more fragile/sensitive than physical ceiling speakers.
> 
> It's although worth noting that, in general, the "virtual" Atmos enabled speakers are never going to give the precise directionality of true ceiling speakers, but that said, you should still be getting SOME height effect. I find the height effect is actually very obvious with DSU upmixing 2ch music, it really extends the ambience overhead effectively. On my Denon I have found that DSU even works with a "2.1.2" configuration -- disabling all speakers other than the front L/R mains and the two Atmos speakers. In this mode toggling between Stereo (2.1) and DSU (2.1.2) should make the difference pretty obvious.


I'm going to look around for some small quality bookshelf speakers today. I have already returned the A60's. I had the A60's atop my 8060ST's, which are all set in my room (toe-in, about 20" from wall). I don't know how else I could play around with angle on the A60's since they lock into my floor standing speakers. If I go bookshelf, I'm sure Im going to have to have those bookshelf speakers at least as high as my 8060's correct? When seated, my tweeters from the main speakers is roughly ear level.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

HTinParadise said:


> Brian, please let us non-Atmos enabled know how the movie functions with DS?
> 
> I also have hope that Kbarnes will do a quick report on either U-571 or Das Boot in his wicked Star-Trek shuttle craft style HT.


Well the rain scenes were great. But the two best scenes were when the go as deep as they can. The creaks of the hull bending came from everywhere. And then the plane flying overhead for the German destroyer recon was outstanding as well. 

I didn't get to try too much if TF4 cause the wife was complaining it was too loud lol


----------



## kbarnes701

MichLinton said:


> He then went on to suggest that many of the european governments will be banning Dolby Atmos as a health and safety issue.


What total nonsense. The EU already has limitations on SPL for public performance venues and all movie theaters are subject to those limits. Whether the movie is in Atmos, IMAX. 5.1 or mono, the maximum SPLs allowed are strictly controlled, and enforced, over here by law.

It is ludicrous to think that an Atmos movie loudness cannot be 'turned down' with a volume control, just like any other movie.

I hope the other presentations you went to at AES were made by people rather better informed!


----------



## jdsmoothie

ThePrisoner said:


> I'm going to look around for some small quality bookshelf speakers today. I have already returned the A60's. I had the A60's atop my 8060ST's, which are all set in my room (toe-in, about 20" from wall). *I don't know how else I could play around with angle on the A60's since they lock into my floor standing speakers.* If I go bookshelf, I'm sure Im going to have to have those bookshelf speakers at least as high as my 8060's correct? When seated, my tweeters from the main speakers is roughly ear level.


As the A60 modules can sit atop any flat surface, you didn't necessarily have to "lock them in" to the 8060, but rather could have played with the angle to see if a different angle produced better results. Keep in mind that we don't all have the same ceiling height nor do we sit the same distance from the FL/FR speakers so it makes sense to experiment with the angle when using any Dolby up-firing speakers regardless of whether they are designed to fit on the tower speaker or not. It would also help to experiment with height of the module as well as you may find they work better on their own dedicated stands.


----------



## kbarnes701

HTinParadise said:


> Brian, please let us non-Atmos enabled know how the movie functions with DS?
> 
> I also have hope that Kbarnes will do a quick report on either U-571 or Das Boot in his wicked Star-Trek shuttle craft style HT.


Good idea. Both are movies I haven't watched for a while so I will add them to the schedule.

Last night's movie in the PodTheater was Saving Private Ryan. DSU struggled a bit with this one as there isn't, surprisingly, all that much action from above if you think about it. The score was nicely 'ambient' in the overheads though throughout. And in the scene in the French village where it is raining, the rain and thunder was handled well. The best part for DSU was in the final battle on the bridge where there is quite a reasonable amount of stuff coming from above. DSU handled this very well for the most part, but overall I'd say that SPR was not the best movie to demo DSU with. Certainly not as good as the others I have reported on in this thread - Twister being probably the most amazing, with The Descent a close second IIRC. To recap, I have tested those movies, plus Dredd, 300 Rise of an Empire, Prometheus, Die Hard 4.0, Blade, Blade II, Predators, Star Trek First Contact, Total Recall 2012, Jurassic Park The Lost World - all of which were hugely enhanced by DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> You need new friends
> 
> Each person is different, but IMAX and Atmos generally are not going to hurt anyone and not 'overloaded.' Its actually louder at clubs and concerts.


Much louder. When I did a lot of clubbing several years back, I used to pop in a pair of Musician's Ear Plugs. These reduce the SPL but don't alter the relative frequencies of the music - very effective and all but invisible in use. Available for peanuts from Amazon.


----------



## ThePrisoner

jdsmoothie said:


> As the A60 modules can sit atop any flat surface, you didn't necessarily have to "lock them in" to the 8060, but rather could have played with the angle to see if a different angle produced better results. Keep in mind that we don't all have the same ceiling height nor do we sit the same distance from the FL/FR speakers so it makes sense to experiment with the angle when using any Dolby up-firing speakers regardless of whether they are designed to fit on the tower speaker or not. It would also help to experiment with height of the module as well as you may find they work better on their own dedicated stands.


Thank you for the information. The more I'm learning about Atmos installations I can see that experimentation is key, not just set it & forget it. 

Thanks again


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Good idea. Both are movies I haven't watched for a while so I will add them to the schedule.
> 
> Last night's movie in the PodTheater was Saving Private Ryan. DSU struggled a bit with this one as there isn't, surprisingly, all that much action from above if you think about it. The score was nicely 'ambient' in the overheads though throughout. And in the scene in the French village where it is raining, the rain and thunder was handled well. The best part for DSU was in the final battle on the bridge where there is quite a reasonable amount of stuff coming from above. DSU handled this very well for the most part, but overall I'd say that SPR was not the best movie to demo DSU with. Certainly not as good as the others I have reported on in this thread - Twister being probably the most amazing, with The Descent a close second IIRC. To recap, I have tested those movies, plus Dredd, 300 Rise of an Empire, Prometheus, Die Hard 4.0, Blade, Blade II, Predators, Star Trek First Contact, Total Recall 2012, Jurassic Park The Lost World - all of which were hugely enhanced by DSU.


Keith - you need to add Oblivion, Godzilla (latest version), and Edge of Tomorrow to the must watch list. Oblivion is a completely new experience with DS and Edge of Tomorrow has a lot of height action that DS handles perfectly. Troops are deployed numerous times using Ospreys - no imagination necessary to guess how it sounds. Without doubt Oblivion and Edge are demo material for DS. Plus they are both good movies that Tom happens to star in.

I will be checking out Twister today as well as Black Hawk Down - surprised no one else has done that one yet. Steve


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith - you need to add Oblivion, Godzilla (latest version), and Edge of Tomorrow to the must watch list. Oblivion is a completely new experience with DS and Edge of Tomorrow has a lot of height action that DS handles perfectly. Troops are deployed numerous times using Ospreys - no imagination necessary to guess how it sounds. Without doubt Oblivion and Edge are demo material for DS. Plus they are both good movies that Tom happens to star in.


I forgot I'd watched Gravity with DSU as well. Brilliant. Oblivion is on my list - but I only re-watched it recently so I've pushed it down the priorities. Godzilla and EoT (Live Die Repeat as it's called here) aren't available yet in the UK. Next week I think, so they will definitely be on the list. 



smurraybhm said:


> I will be checking out Twister today as well as Black Hawk Down - surprised no one else has done that one yet. Steve


If you don't fancy watching all of Twister, just demo the opening scene with the 'young Jo' and then FF to the scene where Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton are sheltering under the bridge after crashing their pickup into it.

BHD is on my list!


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> That's a nice room Keith. You've done a sterling job with your treatments and system in general.
> I will be going with a more modest setup very soon, decided upon using 11 B&W M-1 satellites, 2 of B&W PV1D subs with the Denon X5200. It's a living room with 14ft (4.27m) triple tray ceiling so I have some challenges, the M-1's and PV1D's have been chosen for the high WAF.
> Luckily I have a another space set aside for a dedicated home theater, hoping to kit that out next year with either Procella or DIY speakers, no WAF to deal with on that one.
> All the best.


Just thought, for the sake of completeness, that you might like to see the gear closet lineup too. The gear is housed outside the HT room in a separate closet.

The first pic shows the top of the rack, with the Denon X5200W unit at the top, and the 4 x Emotiva amps below, which power the LCR, surrounds and 4 overheads.

The second pic shows the bottom half of the rack, from the top down: Sat TV box, Panasonic DM35 Bluray player, Toshiba A35 HD-DVD player, Oppo 93 Bluray Player, Media8er medial player sitting on top of the drives which house the ripped legacy DVD collection, and a spare Emotiva UPA-2 amp, currently unused.


----------



## bargervais

​


Brian Fineberg said:


> Well the rain scenes were great. But the two best scenes were when the go as deep as they can. The creaks of the hull bending came from everywhere. And then the plane flying overhead for the German destroyer recon was outstanding as well.
> 
> I didn't get to try too much if TF4 cause the wife was complaining it was too loud lol


Transformers 4 was loud I could only listen at -10 for a while but mostly at -15 anyway it was very loud to the point it messed up my 20 year old klipsch sub the foam surrounds in the speaker cracked LOL mind you they were on their way out anyway but transformers 4 did them in hope my ear drums won't suffer the same fait.


----------



## crazyhog

Sorry if it has been asked before, to new owner of ATMOS AVR and whose speaker placement of the surrounds are 3ft or more, above listeners ear level.....

did u change its original height position to exactly ear level when you go for Atmos or as is? 





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

crazyhog said:


> Sorry if it has been asked before, to new owner of ATMOS AVR and whose speaker placement of the surrounds are 3ft or more, above listeners ear level.....
> 
> did u change its original height position to exactly ear level when you go for Atmos or as is?


If possible, you should lower the surround speakers so they're slightly above ear height: so they're not obstructed by anyone when everybody is sitting down. The more separation there is between "ear-height" speakers and the overhead speakers, the better the effect is.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Can't answer. My surrounds are about a foot above ear level and about at 105 degrees


----------



## mark_anderson_u

*Will Atmos Work in my Room?*

Hi All

I'm wondering if i'll be able to make atmos work in my room.

I have a challenging room with 9.1 currently (see diagrams). the extra 2 channels are front wides. my rears are currently overhead and downfiring (see red dots on 3d2.jpg)

My speakers are mirage omnisats (FS for fronts, bookshelf for wide and surround, nano's for rears). Have an SVS PB-13 Ultra subwoofer (not shown) and mirage OMD-C1 center (not shown)

The sofa is inches from back wall and cannot be moved forward. I was wondering if I could re-purpose the rears for atmos "ceiling" speakers and if it's worth installing in-ceiling (wiring would be difficult)

If I got up firing atmos speakers, there's no where to locate them equidistant from listening position. All current speakers have rounded tops (see images). I was wondering how a job audessey would do in compensation for differences in distance and angles if I put up-firing speakers on fireplace on left and cabinet (red) on right

Anyone care to comment?

Regards

mark


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> External decoders have always had the ability to decode "coreless lossless." The only way a new format could even think about exercising the option would be if the signals were compatible with current AVRs. The hardware limitation I alluded to was that of the BD player itself.
> 
> But I have not heard any plans that a new format would do that. Is there some news?


Roger could you please explain what "coreless lossless" means? Thanks.


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Correct. The recommendation to line them up with the front L/R speakers is for home Atmos only.
> 
> Don't know if there is a specified elevation angle, they just have to be in a straight line from the front speakers to the rear speakers.
> 
> Not that I know of. The recommendation to lower the surrounds seems for home Atmos only.


Thanks. Regarding Atmos's rec. to lower the surround - was this in the white paper, or some video?

Unrelated question: I've googled images of film mixing studios, and it seems all the (non Atmos) surround speakers are hung up rather high on the side wall - almost at ceiling height it seems. I assume this is their attempt to duplicate as best possible the setup/environment of commercial cinemas, and not necessarily the home theaters, where "our" setups tend to be lower, at 5-6 feet?


----------



## pasender91

mark_anderson_u said:


> Hi All
> 
> I'm wondering if i'll be able to make atmos work in my room.
> 
> I have a challenging room with 9.1 currently (see diagrams). the extra 2 channels are front wides. my rears are currently overhead and downfiring (see red dots on 3d2.jpg)
> 
> My speakers are mirage omnisats (FS for fronts, bookshelf for wide and surround, nano's for rears). Have an SVS PB-13 Ultra subwoofer (not shown) and mirage OMD-C1 center (not shown)
> 
> The sofa is inches from back wall and cannot be moved forward. I was wondering if I could re-purpose the rears for atmos "ceiling" speakers and if it's worth installing in-ceiling (wiring would be difficult)
> 
> If I got up firing atmos speakers, there's no where to locate them equidistant from listening position. All current speakers have rounded tops (see images). I was wondering how a job audessey would do in compensation for differences in distance and angles if I put up-firing speakers on fireplace on left and cabinet (red) on right
> 
> Anyone care to comment?
> 
> Regards
> 
> mark


Hi Mark,

My remarks:
- Yes you can reallocate your back surrounds, if your drawing is to scale they will be Top Middle in Atmos
- In this case you would be in 7 (5+2 wides).1.2, which Atmos supports
- For the front Atmos, can't you place 2 additional NanoSats on the front wall, as high as you can above the FR and FL? This way you could assign those as Front Height in Atmos, and achieve a 7.1.4 configuration


----------



## htpcforever

I misunderstood the proper location of the surrounds in my 9.2 setup and have already installed them at ear height. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than brilliant.


----------



## kbarnes701

mark_anderson_u said:


> Hi All
> 
> I'm wondering if i'll be able to make atmos work in my room.
> 
> I have a challenging room with 9.1 currently (see diagrams). the extra 2 channels are front wides. my rears are currently overhead and downfiring (see red dots on 3d2.jpg)
> 
> My speakers are mirage omnisats (FS for fronts, bookshelf for wide and surround, nano's for rears). Have an SVS PB-13 Ultra subwoofer (not shown) and mirage OMD-C1 center (not shown)
> 
> The sofa is inches from back wall and cannot be moved forward. I was wondering if I could re-purpose the rears for atmos "ceiling" speakers and if it's worth installing in-ceiling (wiring would be difficult)


They look like they might be within spec for Rear Heights - 135-150°.



mark_anderson_u said:


> If I got up firing atmos speakers, there's no where to locate them equidistant from listening position. All current speakers have rounded tops (see images). I was wondering how a job audessey would do in compensation for differences in distance and angles if I put up-firing speakers on fireplace on left and cabinet (red) on right



Audyssey will do a good job of measuring the distances (delays) and adjusting for them. A combination of upfiring modules at the front and the Rear Heights might work well for you. However, the upfiring modules have to be within 3 feet max of the 'associated' main speakers, so the fireplace would be no good by the looks of it. Can you not install a couple of small shelves above or to the side of your main speakers for the modules?


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> Regarding Atmos's rec. to lower the surround - was this in the white paper, or some video?


White papers, videos, podcasts, interviews, etc. Been discussed in this very thread.


> I've googled images of film mixing studios, and it seems all the (non Atmos) surround speakers are hung up rather high on the side wall - almost at ceiling height it seems. I assume this is their attempt to duplicate as best possible the setup/environment of commercial cinemas, and not necessarily the home theaters, where "our" setups tend to be lower, at 5-6 feet?


Movie mixing facilities attempt to duplicate commercial theatres, since that's what they're mixing for. Also, due to differences in room size between commercial theatres and home theatres, it is meaningless to compare surround height placement in number of feet above the floor. Instead, you have to look at elevation angles of the surrounds (how many degrees above ear level).


----------



## mark_anderson_u

pasender91 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> My remarks:
> - Yes you can reallocate your back surrounds, if your drawing is to scale they will be Top Middle in Atmos
> - In this case you would be in 7 (5+2 wides).1.2, which Atmos supports
> - For the front Atmos, can't you place 2 additional NanoSats on the front wall, as high as you can above the FR and FL? This way you could assign those as Front Height in Atmos, and achieve a 7.1.4 configuration


Thanks Pasender. I have a spare pair of mirage bookshelves but no nano's. (not too expensive though). Problem is, putting anything high at front is going to meet with a very low WAF (i.e. not gonna happen), as it's the main living room. Not just her though: I would the like look either. In-ceiling I could live with.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

A very intersting video concerning the definition of MDA and the possible difference and/or interaction between Auro 3D and Atmos : 

http://vimeo.com/106700577

See at 27'55 and 41'25

Hugo


----------



## mark_anderson_u

kbarnes701 said:


> They look like they might be within spec for Rear Heights - 135-150°.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey will do a good job of measuring the distances (delays) and adjusting for them. A combination of upfiring modules at the front and the Rear Heights might work well for you. However, the upfiring modules have to be within 3 feet max of the 'associated' main speakers, so the fireplace would be no good by the looks of it. Can you not install a couple of small shelves above or to the side of your main speakers for the modules?


Thanks kbarnes701

I don't think anything is going to look very good high up on that wall (i.e wife would never go for it, and even I would have a problem living with it). I may just have to bite the bullet and go with in-ceilings (just gonna be a bear to wire them, also not that easy to test locations easily.). When i do my dedicated room will definitely go all-out, but that a year or two away


----------



## mark_anderson_u

kbarnes701 said:


> Audyssey will do a good job of measuring the distances (delays) and adjusting for them. A combination of upfiring modules at the front and the Rear Heights might work well for you. However, the upfiring modules have to be within 3 feet max of the 'associated' main speakers, so the fireplace would be no good by the looks of it. Can you not install a couple of small shelves above or to the side of your main speakers for the modules?


I do have a coffee table that's about 8 foot wide and almost touches the FL and FR at each end, wonder if i could put small up-firing speakers on that right next to FL and FR? Would be in exactly same front to back plane and about two feet lower than top of mains (see attached - red items )


----------



## Selden Ball

Dolby Atmos Enahanced speakers work best if they're above ear-height. You need to minimize the amount of sound reaching your ears directly from them. Most coffee tables are much too low.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> What total nonsense. The EU already has limitations on SPL for public performance venues and all movie theaters are subject to those limits. Whether the movie is in Atmos, IMAX. 5.1 or mono, the maximum SPLs allowed are strictly controlled, and enforced, over here by law.
> 
> It is ludicrous to think that an Atmos movie loudness cannot be 'turned down' with a volume control, just like any other movie.


The issue is real. Who exactly is the person who will turn down the volume? The cinema manager has no idea how to juggle the trailers and movies to make them right. And unless the content is made to a certain loudness standard, the old 5.1 and the new Atmos formats are both capable of exceeding the loudness limits. It's even easier for Atmos because it has more delivery signals feeding more amplifiers, with each individual speaker being capable of almost full volume. It has been noticed that even if the SPL in the middle of the room is ok, it can be much higher near the surrounds, as they are not always spreading the sound over a wide array anymore.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dolby provides calibration standards for the sound levels in theaters using their equipment. The large variations in sound levels among theaters when playing the same movie titles indicates that many theaters are not setting their volume levels correctly.


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *tjenkins95*  
_I have a question about setting up the Pioneer Dolby Atmos SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers that I purchased._
_ My theater ceiling has sound absorbing "ISC Black Cinetile Matte" acoustical tiles from http://www.iscsupply.com_
_ The MLP seat is 10' from the screen so the Pioneer surround speakers will be placed at 11' on each side of the couch._
_ How do I determine where the sound from the up-firing speakers is going to hit the ceiling?_




Roger Dressler said:


> Assuming the upfiring speakers are roughly at ear level, the reflection point is midway between the speakers and the ears (on the ceiling of course).
> 
> Dolby uses 1/2" foam core to replace the acoustic tiles. The whole ceiling at their CEDIA demo used that. Cheap, light weight, can be painted, and _not_ diffusive but reflective.


 
Yesterday I ordered a box of the black foam core to place "over" my reflective acoustical ceiling tiles. I ordered the 3/16" size because 3/16" is close to 4/16" which equals 1/2"!  I hadn't had my caffeine yet! So before I cancel the order, is it the opinion of you experienced "sound" people that I will be better off getting the 1/2" thickness? I just went to the hobby store to take a look at foam core boards and the 3/16" ones aren't very thick. Since I was planning to just cover the existing reflective ones, will the 3/16" still do the reflective job? Also, would it be advisable to keep some of the absorbent tiles on the ceiling and just put the reflective foam core around the corners of the room, above the 4 Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers ?

Thanks.


Ray


----------



## wse

So for those of us early adopters next year if we want DTS UHD we will need to reach into our wallets to buy a new AVR! if we want it

DTS, demonstration of the new DTS-UHD™ decoder on a single-chip, high-performance audio DSP from Cirrus Logic at the 2014 CES! 

This is old news why didn't we see any AVR with DTS-UHD at CEDIA 2014? I don't get it except that since DTS was bought the company has been in constant re-org! 

DTS-UHD is the first object-based audio format designed for consumer delivery. NOT ANY MORE, ATMOS beat them to it!


"We see object-based audio playing a large role in the future of our industry, and are excited to be working with Cirrus Logic to demonstrate their powerful quad-core audio DSP with the capabilities of decoding object-based audio content delivered in the DTS-UHD codec," said Joanna Skrdlant, senior director, IC solutions licensing at DTS.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> So for those of us early adopters next year if we want DTS UHD we will need to reach into our wallets to buy a new AVR! if we want it
> 
> DTS, demonstration of the new DTS-UHD™ decoder on a single-chip, high-performance audio DSP from Cirrus Logic at the 2014 CES!
> 
> This is old news why didn't we see any AVR with DTS-UHD at CEDIA 2014? I don't get it except that since DTS was bought the company has been in constant re-org!
> 
> DTS-UHD is the first object-based audio format designed for consumer delivery. NOT ANY MORE, ATMOS beat them to it!
> 
> 
> "We see object-based audio playing a large role in the future of our industry, and are excited to be working with Cirrus Logic to demonstrate their powerful quad-core audio DSP with the capabilities of decoding object-based audio content delivered in the DTS-UHD codec," said Joanna Skrdlant, senior director, IC solutions licensing at DTS.


It sounds like DTS is spending their energy on the cinema again (they had dropped out of that game for a while to focus on consumer gear), trying to get MDA to become the defacto open based immersive standard. Dolby doesn't want that, obviously. I would not be surprised if they made sure the SMPTE is spinning its wheels for years because the organization must have 100% agreement from its members before there is ratification of standards. DTS MDA and Auro's Octopus encoder already integrate together for cinema mixing. It's just that Auro doesn't have MDA included in their consumer based format. Van Baelen seems to think consumers don't need object based audio for the home.

Dolby wants their proprietary format because they can set and control the prices and make sure they're involved in the mixes and at the installations of Atmos (and they don't want a competitor's format on their processor), but as the DTS guy (who looks a lot like James Cameron's brother) stated in the conference on the Vimeo video, chain owners want a VALUE based product or they simply will not implement immersive audio _at all_. They're already balking at it due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars per auditorium cost. The chains will keep buying more leather recliners instead rather than new sound systems because they think that's what audiences will pay an upcharge for (besides premium food and drink), not a new audio format.

I think DTS's approach is the smarter one from an immersive audio survival stand point. They seem to be going for quantity of lower priced installations (lower over all cost of processors -- from a variety of brands licensing MDA -- and other necessary equipment to reproduce 3D audio) over a select few premium priced installations controlled by one company creating all their revenue (like with Dolby Atmos). The chains like DTS's formula.

If DTS succeeds then you might see them turn their sites on consumer gear again.


----------



## HTinParadise

I do not believe this relevant link has been posted in this thread as yet; though dated, it is a very interesting read:

https://www.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=454


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HTinParadise said:


> I do not believe this relevant link has been posted in this thread as yet; though dated, it is a very interesting read:
> 
> https://www.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=454


This has been posted before, but still worth another perusal.


----------



## NorthSky

Question: Filmmixers; when they do Dolby Atmos mixing for 3D movies...do they wear 3D glasses for better accuracy of their Dolby Atmos sound mixes?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Question: Filmmixers; when they do Dolby Atmos mixing for 3D movies...do they wear 3D glasses for better accuracy of their Dolby Atmos sound mixes?


Is that a real question


----------



## Orbitron

Only for Auro 3D


----------



## NorthSky

Marc (FilmMixer) will be able to seriously answer my question with real science behind.

Laugh all you want, but a film in 3D is serious business when you mix its soundtrack. ...With Dolby Atmos it is even more 3D immersive.


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Marc (FilmMixer) will be able to seriously answer my question with real science behind.
> Laugh all you want, but a film in 3D is serious business when you mix its soundtrack. ...With Dolby Atmos it is even more 3D immersive.


most 3D movies i've seen are more going inside the screen then out of the screen.. i wonder what soundtrack will do the same thing.


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> most 3D movies i've seen are more going inside the screen then out of the screen.. i wonder what soundtrack will do the same thing.


Gravity? ...Prometheus? ...Live - Die - Repeat?


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Gravity? ...Prometheus? ...Live - Die - Repeat?


yeah but those have a lot of environmental sounds not per say 3D objects sound. allthough the soundtracks are really nice , i didn't see things popping out of the screen, not like for example the end title of depicable me or this imax under the sea fish.
i guess what i try to say is that the movie on the screen is like looking through a window outside and the sound is like all around you.. there is a perspective and placement issue here. it would be nicer if it pops out of the screen in front of you and then have the acompanying sound around you. then it would make sense to align the sound objects to the movies perceptived objects.


----------



## brwsaw

DaJoJo said:


> most 3D movies i've seen are more going inside the screen then out of the screen.. i wonder what soundtrack will do the same thing.


I like the theory. Those of us with space behind our screens could add more speakers adding to the overall feel/immersion.


----------



## DaJoJo

brwsaw said:


> I like the theory. Those of us with space behind our screens could add more speakers adding to the overall feel/immersion.


that would be something good yes. i like that idea too. how bout turning a 2nd set of those atmos topspeakers towards the frontwall and create this way a behind the tv sound. something for atmos3D the new standard lol it can be used on the same hardware for atmos and turning the rear heights into ontop speakers that bounce sound against the frontwall for extra immersion and for those that have room behind the screen can use top-behind-screen frontfiring speakers. why didnt they think of that before it not that its rocketscience or anything  they could use the same technique as qsound 3D (http://www.qsound.com/demos/3d-audio.htm) and invert the principle.


----------



## MUDCAT45

DaJoJo said:


> that would be something good yes. i like that idea too. how bout turning a 2nd set of those atmos topspeakers towards the frontwall and create this way a behind the tv sound. something for atmos3D the new standard lol it can be used on the same hardware for atmos and turning the rear heights into ontop *speakers that bounce sound against the frontwall *for extra immersion and for those that have room behind the screen can use top-behind-screen frontfiring speakers. why didnt they think of that before it not that its rocketscience or anything  they could use the same technique as qsound 3D (http://www.qsound.com/demos/3d-audio.htm) and invert the principle.


Bose thought of it year ago.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> ...chain owners want a VALUE based product or they simply will not implement immersive audio _at all_.


Theatre owners also don't want to go back to the '90s, where they had to have Dolby Digital and DTS and SDDS decoders in the booth. They've gotten used to DCI with uncompressed PCM and have no desire to go back to buying multiple decoder boxes.


----------



## Djoel

Haven't read the entire thread but any CEC have been talks of making a multi/universal decoder box? I would think this would be ideal and save from format crashing and burning from back lash and certain absoluteness!

Just curious.

djoel


----------



## zeus33

Roger Dressler said:


> External decoders have always had the ability to decode "coreless lossless." The only way a new format could even think about exercising the option would be if the signals were compatible with current AVRs. The hardware limitation I alluded to was that of the BD player itself.
> 
> But I have not heard any plans that a new format would do that. Is there some news?





Dan Hitchman said:


> According to one of the new partnership announcements with LG, the DTS-UHD (probably going to be renamed) decoders will also include: DTS Digital Surround™, DTS Coreless Lossless, DTS Express™ and DTS-HD Master Audio™.
> 
> I would assume DTS is hoping that some of the near future media will include more than just their object and legacy codecs, otherwise they wouldn't have included Coreless Lossless into their upcoming decoders.



Article: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...s-versatile-dts-hd-decoder-into-product-line/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Theatre owners also don't want to go back to the '90s, where they had to have Dolby Digital and DTS and SDDS decoders in the booth. They've gotten used to DCI with uncompressed PCM and have no desire to go back to buying multiple decoder boxes.


And that's why the SMPTE wants an interoperable object based format or at least compatibility between Dolby, Auro, and DTS immersive formats. Auro and DTS already have combined forces (or at least are willing to). The hold out, seemingly, is Dolby. 

Theater owners buy a reasonably priced decoder box from Brand X and it can accept multiple formats... just like consumer gear today. The revenue to Dolby, Auro, and DTS comes from the licensing of said formats and the selling of DAW plug-in's to the studios. If a certain title's DCP only has one 3D format and/or the theater is only configured for a particular format, then the decoder will re-map the soundtrack by reading and translating the objects' metadata instructions no matter the format.

If they don't start playing nice with each other and keeping prices in check... 3D audio is dead... just like 3D video, and by the same token, Dolby, DTS, and Auro are hurt badly and may never recover. As you said, theater owners like having straight-up uncompressed PCM audio without all the fussing with Dolby, et al, thanks to digital cinema technology. SMPTE and DTS seem to realize this fact. I don't know if Dolby has come to the same realization or not. 

As was stated on the panel, the chain owners are starting to dictate terms again as they did before the studio practice of ticket revenue front loading. They don't like getting screwed out of a larger slice of the ticket profits, and they're doing an end run around it with premium auditorium branding that allows them to up-charge their customers and pocket the difference. Some of the terms are lower cost premium audio solutions or they stick with the food, beer, and comfy recliner route. That leaves Dolby, DTS, and Auro sucking air.

Of course, I personally think that if Hollywood stopped stamping out the same ol' sh-t year after year (one of the things I'm looking at is you, Marvel!) the chains wouldn't have to be doing what they're doing to keep audiences coming to the cinema, and everyone wouldn't be in this frantic state to find the next new draw. However, that's another loooong discussion.


----------



## brwsaw

With steerable objects can rain drop bloobs/drips/splashes or 50 cal. shells bouncing/ricocheting/clinking be heard below the ear as if it were hitting the ground in front of you?
I can't wait to hear a bullet streak by.
Can it get close?
I heard of the spear in Star Trek and of steering bass as in concussion, location specific chaos.
Nothing says brown note like feeling the dud hit the mud beside you.Cigarette?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> With steerable objects can rain drop bloobs/drips/splashes or 50 cal. shells bouncing/ricocheting/clinking be heard below the ear as if it were hitting the ground in front of you?
> I can't wait to hear a bullet streak by.
> Can it get close?
> I heard of the spear in Star Trek and of steering bass as in concussion, location specific chaos.
> Nothing says brown note like feeling the dud hit the mud beside you.Cigarette?


It depends on the mixing tricks the audio engineers come up with. If there are Height Transfer Function stimulants, there probably are similar audio manipulations to give the sensation of sound coming from below. Of course, that's usually with lower frequencies.


----------



## DaJoJo

MUDCAT45 said:


> Bose thought of it year ago.


no wonder it didn't get off the ground then... they heard bose, freaked out and flee in panic


----------



## Roger Dressler

tjenkins95 said:


> Since I was planning to just cover the existing reflective ones, will the 3/16" still do the reflective job?


The thickness is not important. Didn't Dennis Erskine say (in the webcast with Scott Wilkinson) that you could use 2 mil plastic?



> Also, would it be advisable to keep some of the absorbent tiles on the ceiling and just put the reflective foam core around the corners of the room, above the 4 Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers ?


Around the corners?? They need to be where the sound reflects.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Roger could you please explain what "coreless lossless" means? Thanks.


One strategy for coding lossless audio is to start with lossy coding, in this case, DTS's original DVD codec, then subtract the decoded audio from the source, and also deliver that difference information to the decoder. Joining the two back together recovers the original source, losslessly. 

That lossy coded audio is called the core. It can be used alone (thru S/PDIF) for legacy decoders.

In contrast, it is not necessary to build on top of an extractable core, which is how MLP and TrueHD work. So that can be called "coreless." In the case of DTS, coreless reduces decoding complexity and can also improve compression efficiency (assuming one does not need the compatible signal anymore).


----------



## wse

Has any one used the KEF R50 speakers? 

I am also curious about the Andrew Jones Speakers ATMOS enabled, are they any good?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Has any one used the KEF R50 speakers?
> 
> I am also curious about the Andrew Jones Speakers ATMOS enabled, are they any good?



From what I heard at Pioneer's demo at CEDIA, the AJ Atmos speakers are quite good for the money. If you're going the "enabled" route, I don't think you'd be disappointed.


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> yeah but those have a lot of environmental sounds not per say 3D objects sound. although the soundtracks are really nice , i didn't see things popping out of the screen, not like for example the end title of Despicable Me or this IMAX Under the Sea fish.
> 
> *I guess what i try to say is that the movie on the screen is like looking through a window outside and the sound is like all around you.. there is a perspective and placement issue here. it would be nicer if it pops out of the screen in front of you and then have the accompanying sound around you. then it would make sense to align the sound objects to the movies perceptive objects.*


That's what I'm talking about. ...Film sound mixers matching the 3D Dolby Atmos sound with the onscreen 3D picture, in & out & above. 
So, then for that, are film mixers wearing 3D glasses when working on such 3D films with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack? 
Simply put; when viewing a 3D film, are they watching it in 3D when working their surround sound "object placement" magic...3D sound (Atmos)? 

My question is very valid, nothing bizarre about it. Marc (FilmMixer) would know, and he would be able to comment in a new direction era; now that we live in a Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D world, with both 3D picture and 3D sound. ...The evolution of picture and sound, both better matching/blending in 3D. 

*'Gravity'* directed by _Alfonso Cuaron_ and presented in IMAX 3D and with Dolby Atmos 3D sound is the perfect example. ....This film is a tour-de-force. ...A good leader for others to follow.


----------



## brwsaw

Dan Hitchman said:


> It depends on the mixing tricks the audio engineers come up with. If there are Height Transfer Function stimulants, there probably are similar audio manipulations to give the sensation of sound coming from below. Of course, that's usually with lower frequencies.


Not necessarily from below just lower that the mains. Enough to fool the mind. Maybe equivalent in height to the bottom of the screen?
This would be using Atmos overheads, no additional speakers.
I don’t think it would work in a real cinema but in a 1/2/3 row HT with appropriate risers it could work.


----------



## jdsmoothie

wse said:


> Has any one used the KEF R50 speakers?
> 
> I am also curious about the Andrew Jones Speakers ATMOS enabled, are they any good?


Forum member JoeRod was the first to provide a review of the Marantz SR7009 and also has the Pioneer AJ Atmos 5.1 speaker setup.


----------



## NorthSky

I always enjoy Joe's reviews.


----------



## brwsaw

I wonder how DTS will layout their speakers.
Auro took the obvious route, Atmos is ingenious, question is what's left.
THX hasn't said anything yet either.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> I wonder how DTS will layout their speakers.
> Auro took the obvious route, Atmos is ingenious, question is what's left.
> THX hasn't said anything yet either.


DTS says they're "agnostic." You can mix the audio to whatever layout you choose in the DAW plug-in.


----------



## wse

jdsmoothie said:


> Forum member JoeRod was the first to provide a review of the Marantz SR7009 and also has the Pioneer AJ Atmos 5.1 speaker setup.


link please!


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
You can PM him.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> link please!


♦ http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homest...by-Atmos-Receiver-Review.html?_=1409517748063


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homest...by-Atmos-Receiver-Review.html?_=1409517748063


Oh I saw that before how about the KEF R50?


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Oh I saw that before how about the KEF R50?


You mean the LS50? ...And reviewed by Joe? /// Or the R500? ...Reviewed by any pro reviewer? 

The Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos speakers; pro reviews?


----------



## markus767

wse said:


> Has any one used the KEF R50 speakers?
> 
> I am also curious about the Andrew Jones Speakers ATMOS enabled, are they any good?


They can't be angled manually which might be a desirable feature. Please see the Dolby patent at
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014107714A1.html

By the way, the patent shows a slightly different version of the height filter than what was discussed before in this thread.


----------



## CBdicX

*Onkyo Atmos speakers*

What do you think of these Atmos speakers ?


http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/skh-410-118692.html


Not to high in price, special if you want 4 like me.
I want two behinde the TV screen (Samsung65HU8500) and two, 2 meters behinde the sitting spot and driven by a yet to receive Integra DTR 70.6 so i will get 7.1.4.........


----------



## Nightlord

brwsaw said:


> I wonder how DTS will layout their speakers.
> Auro took the obvious route, Atmos is ingenious, question is what's left.


The adaptible?


----------



## markus767

CBdicX said:


> What do you think of these Atmos speakers ?
> 
> 
> http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/skh-410-118692.html
> 
> 
> Not to high in price, special if you want 4 like me.
> I want two behinde the TV screen (Samsung65HU8500) and two, 2 meters behinde the sitting spot and driven by a yet to receive Integra DTR 70.6 so i will get 7.1.4.........


Critical performance parameters are unknown so any opinion on these speakers is rather meaningless. They must have passed Dolby inspection though.


----------



## jdsmoothie

CBdicX said:


> What do you think of these Atmos speakers ?
> 
> 
> http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/skh-410-118692.html
> 
> 
> Not to high in price, special if you want 4 like me.
> *I want two behinde the TV screen *(Samsung65HU8500) and two, 2 meters behinde the sitting spot and driven by a yet to receive Integra DTR 70.6 so i will get 7.1.4.........


Currently these are the lowest Atmos modules on the market (just now being released), although may be too far from the main listening position if placed behind the display instead of on or closer to your FL/FR speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

mark_anderson_u said:


> I do have a coffee table that's about 8 foot wide and almost touches the FL and FR at each end, wonder if i could put small up-firing speakers on that right next to FL and FR? Would be in exactly same front to back plane and about two feet lower than top of mains (see attached - red items )


The two principal requirements for placement of the upfiring modules are that they are _above_ their associated speakers and no more than 3 feet away from them. There may be some latitude for experimentation within these principals - if you could buy a pair of modules from somewhere with a good returns policy, you could try them in different positions and see how well they work for you. I know you cannot place modules directly on top of your speakers, but could you not fix a very small shelf to the wall, just above the main speakers, and stand each module on that? Would that be aesthetically viable?


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> The issue is real. Who exactly is the person who will turn down the volume? The cinema manager has no idea how to juggle the trailers and movies to make them right. And unless the content is made to a certain loudness standard, the old 5.1 and the new Atmos formats are both capable of exceeding the loudness limits. It's even easier for Atmos because it has more delivery signals feeding more amplifiers, with each individual speaker being capable of almost full volume. It has been noticed that even if the SPL in the middle of the room is ok, it can be much higher near the surrounds, as they are not always spreading the sound over a wide array anymore.


Yes, I agree with all that Roger. What is nonsense is that Atmos will be banned in Europe because it is "too loud". IDK about the US but in the EU there are strictly enforced limitations on loudness levels at public performances and these are monitored by government officials (on a random basis) to ensure compliance. Legally, here in the EU anyway, the law is not concerned with how the cinema achieves compliance, only that it does. A persistent offender would be eventually be closed down but the entire concept of Atmos would not be banned. In fact, the law would not be at all concerned with whether the sound was generated by an Atmos movie, a 5.1 movie, a mono movie or an aircraft engine - all they are concerned with is how loud it is. So, the suggestion that the EU might ban Atmos movies for "being too loud" is just plain silly.

I’d have thought that the cinemas, in order to meet Dolby specifications, would be properly calibrated to ensure that SPLs are appropriate, and with regard for the laws of the particular country re maximum permitted SPLs. If they are not so calibrated, then they run the risk of being shut down, in the EU at least - but this would be on a venue by venue basis, not on a content type basis.

Our live performances of music and our cinemas are strictly regulated - the problem is in clubs where, despite being subject to the same laws, the club owners often choose to ignore them. I guess this is because clubs are usually independent businesses and don't always concern themselves too much with legal niceties, whereas movie theaters and live performance venues are mostly parts of large corporate bodies who pay more attention to these things.

The idea that Atmos movies would be specifically targeted for banning is crazy - the OP didn’t reveal who is supposed to have said this, but there is a lot of disinformation coming from certain competitors of Atmos and this sounds very much like that to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby provides calibration standards for the sound levels in theaters using their equipment. The large variations in sound levels among theaters when playing the same movie titles indicates that many theaters are not setting their volume levels correctly.


This is indeed true. I know of one cinema operator personally who does not use Reference Level standards because he thinks it is "too loud"! So presumably the reverse also applies. But here in the UK, and Europe, it is simple: there are maximum SPLs permitted - exceed them and you are in trouble. Keep exceeding them and, presumably, you will be shut down. What I was saying was ludicrous was the notion that these regulations somehow applied_ only_ to Atmos movies. That notion is laughable as the law has no interest whatsoever in the content, only in the loudness of it. It's like saying that the EU is going to ban records by the Chemical Brothers from being played in clubs, because their music is "too loud"


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Yesterday I ordered a box of the black foam core to place "over" my reflective acoustical ceiling tiles. *I ordered the 3/16" size because 3/16" is close to 4/16" which equals 1/2"! *  I hadn't had my caffeine yet! So before I cancel the order, is it the opinion of you experienced "sound" people that I will be better off getting the 1/2" thickness? I just went to the hobby store to take a look at foam core boards and the 3/16" ones aren't very thick. Since I was planning to just cover the existing reflective ones, will the 3/16" still do the reflective job? Also, would it be advisable to keep some of the absorbent tiles on the ceiling and just put the reflective foam core around the corners of the room, above the 4 Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers ?


IDK the answer to your question, but 4/16ths of an inch is 1/4 of an inch, not 1/2 of an inch. That would be 8/16ths.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course, I personally think that if Hollywood stopped stamping out the same ol' sh-t year after year (one of the things I'm looking at is you, Marvel!) the chains wouldn't have to be doing what they're doing to keep audiences coming to the cinema, and everyone wouldn't be in this frantic state to find the next new draw. However, that's another loooong discussion.


LOL. Would that be the same ol' sh-t that kept audiences coming to the cinema to the tune of $17,160,000,000? That's seventeen billion dollars! I bet there are plenty of business which wish their customers were staying away to the tune of 17 billion dollars of revenue over the last 15 years!

I admire the way you never let a good fact get in the way of a personal prejudice, Dan, but the information to discredit your position is too readily available


----------



## Hugo S

Hin Dan,



Dan Hitchman said:


> And that's why the SMPTE wants an interoperable object based format *or at least compatibility between Dolby, Auro, and DTS immersive formats.* Auro and DTS already have combined forces (or at least are willing to). The hold out, seemingly, is Dolby.
> ...


This compatibility/interoperability between Atmos/Auro 3D and possibly MDA, is very interesting. And the more so in our HT environment.

This is why in the original link I posted above (here), it's really interesting to listen to what Wilfried VB is explaining (41'25) on the philosophies and fundamental differences in sound reproduction between Atmos and DTS/MDA. Something that _could possibly_ directly impact the result of a perceived reproduction in a non adapted speakers configuration (initially built for Atmos or Auro 3D and used with the non adapted mixing).

Even if in our HT context, I would personally prefer/privilege a DTS spherical approach _à la_ Audyssey DSX, a type of configuration that we are enjoying at home since 5 yrs now. 

Hugo


----------



## CBdicX

markus767 said:


> Critical performance parameters are unknown so any opinion on these speakers is rather meaningless. They must have passed Dolby inspection though.


 
This is wat Onkyo says:


*Dolby Atmos-Certified Special Network Inside*

so they must be ok.......


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Recommendations. 

16x11.5x8' room. Would you suggest 5.2.4 or 7.2.2

I can add one more set of speakers to my current 5.2.2. But trying to figure which to go with.


----------



## pasender91

5.2.4 will give you a better immersion, top sounds will be able to pan front back


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian Fineberg said:


> Recommendations.
> 
> 16x11.5x8' room. Would you suggest 5.2.4 or 7.2.2
> 
> I can add one more set of speakers to my current 5.2.2. But trying to figure which to go with.


I currently have 7.1 setup in the similar sized room. When I started thinking about Atmos I was thinking 7.1.4 but slowly realising that the rear surrounds are not adding any value (may be), so I am leaning towards 5.1.4 instead.
If you can add, I will go with x.x.4 instead of x.x.2. But that is again my theory. I have yet to "immerse" in Atmos..


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I grew up with Marvel Comics, and although not all their films have been wonderful, considering the core material from Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko etc all came from the very early 60s, they've done a pretty good job in the most part bringing those characters to the big screen. IMHO 

Waaugh 

Gary.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Recommendations.
> 
> 16x11.5x8' room. Would you suggest 5.2.4 or 7.2.2
> 
> I can add one more set of speakers to my current 5.2.2. But trying to figure which to go with.


5.1.4.

If you go with 7.1.2 you have 7 speakers at listener level and just two overhead. You will surely get a better balance from having 5 speakers at listener level and 4 overhead. Plus, with 4 overhead you will experience front-back pans as well as just left-right pans.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I grew up with Marvel Comics, and although not all their films have been wonderful, considering the core material from Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko etc all came from the very early 60s, they've done a pretty good job in the most part bringing those characters to the big screen. IMHO
> 
> Waaugh
> 
> Gary.


Same here. The creation of MCU has been very cleverly and creatively handled IMO and has resulted in many really fine movies in recent times.


----------



## markus767

CBdicX said:


> This is wat Onkyo says:
> 
> 
> *Dolby Atmos-Certified Special Network Inside*
> 
> so they must be ok.......


If you believe this is what makes a loudspeaker good then buy them.

But, how loud can they play at what distortion levels? How flat is the frequency response? How good do they follow the Dolby specs? Does their angle fit your particular room? ...


----------



## DaJoJo

brian fineberg said:


> recommendations.
> 16x11.5x8' room. Would you suggest 5.2.4 or 7.2.2
> i can add one more set of speakers to my current 5.2.2. But trying to figure which to go with.


5.2.4


----------



## tjenkins95

wse said:


> Has any one used the KEF R50 speakers?
> 
> I am also curious about the Andrew Jones Speakers ATMOS enabled, are they any good?


 


They are excellent! I purchased the whole set of the Andrew Jones speakers - except for the sub - a few weeks ago. They are connected to my Denon 5200 in a 5.1.4 setup. I have been playing around with them in a room with a plastered ceiling. When I get the reflective, foam core material this week, I will cover up the absorbent ceiling tiles in my actual Home Theater room and move the Denon and the Pioneers into that room.


I've tested the system with alot of the same movies that Keith Barnes has used and they do sound great with the new Dolby Surround Upmixer.


Ray


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> That's what I'm talking about. ...Film sound mixers matching the 3D Dolby Atmos sound with the onscreen 3D picture, in & out & above.
> So, then for that, are film mixers wearing 3D glasses when working on such 3D films with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack?
> Simply put; when viewing a 3D film, are they watching it in 3D when working their surround sound "object placement" magic...3D sound (Atmos)?
> My question is very valid, nothing bizarre about it. Marc (FilmMixer) would know, and he would be able to comment in a new direction era; now that we live in a Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D world, with both 3D picture and 3D sound. ...The evolution of picture and sound, both better matching/blending in 3D.
> *'Gravity'* directed by _Alfonso Cuaron_ and presented in IMAX 3D and with Dolby Atmos 3D sound is the perfect example. ....This film is a tour-de-force. ...A good leader for others to follow.


i don't think its a bizarre question, but would take a lot of knowledge of mixing and balance in the place where the sounds are positioned.. its hard to do when the sound is around you and the picture is inside the screen so to say. then again it's possible to get the picture out of the screen, i didn't see any proper implementation of this yet though.. most 3D is pretty crappy and consist of layers .. only latest 3D movies start to come to a point that it becomes more a whole instead of layered. there is special trickery needed to get it out of the screen and most 3D camera's just don't do this.. so i guess it gonna take some while before both sound and vision will match.


----------



## tjenkins95

Roger Dressler said:


> The thickness is not important. Didn't Dennis Erskine say (in the webcast with Scott Wilkinson) that you could use 2 mil plastic?
> 
> Around the corners?? They need to be where the sound reflects.


Thanks Roger. 
The word 'corners' was perhaps a bad choice but they will be placed in the 4 areas where the sound reflects.
Ray


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> Recommendations.
> 
> 16x11.5x8' room. Would you suggest 5.2.4 or 7.2.2
> 
> I can add one more set of speakers to my current 5.2.2. But trying to figure which to go with.


 

Definitely go with the 5.2.4!


Ray


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Gret! Thanks for the recommendation. 5.2.4 it is!!


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Gret! Thanks for the recommendation. 5.2.4 it is!!


I would do the same 5.2.4 like Keith has his positioned but I personally would experiment and see what 7.2.2 would sound like just so there wouldn't be any regrets leaving me wondering if I made the right choice. But that's just me


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I would do the same 5.2.4 like Keith has his positioned but I personally would experiment and see what 7.2.2 would sound like just so there wouldn't be any regrets leaving me wondering if I made the right choice. But that's just me


Certainly no harm in trying different layouts if it's practical to do so. I can’t have rear surrounds so take the following FWIW, but I do wonder how much they add to the experience. By way of example, a few days ago I was with a friend of mine (Hi Allan) who has an extremely high-end setup and we were setting up his Atmos 7.1.4 system with the new Denon 5200. We listened and were both blown away by the experience, using Transformers 4 as the demo material. Both of us commented that we had never heard his room sound as good and that all of the effects were coming from exactly where the on-screen action determined them to be. Powerful weapons exploded behind us and tracked perfectly over our shoulder and over our heads to the requisite spot on the screen. Precision of placement of the sounds was superlative. We had just never heard better.

Then, we went into the 5200 menus to confirm something and we were both stunned to see that, due to a configuration error, the Back Surrounds had been silent all the time! Yet neither of us had noticed this at all. Now, if the surrounds had been silent, we would surely have noticed - but not so with the back surrounds - in this case expensive M&K speakers (like all of the speakers in the setup, including the astonishing S300s across the front). My buddy found it hard to believe we were not hearing the back Surrounds and it was amusing to see him go and bury his ears into them for 'proof' that they were working, or silent, as the case may be. 

This experience made me wonder. If two highly experienced listeners could not detect the absence of Back Surrounds, in a Dolby Atmos system with 4 overhead (M&K) speakers, then just how much were they contributing to the experience?

It may be that without the 4 overhead speakers we would be able to tell if the BS speakers had been shut off - but once you add in the excitement of the overheads, is the role of the BS speakers diminished? Whatever the reasons, it brought me to the firm conclusion that if the choice has to be 5.14 or 7.1.2 then I would without hesitation choose 5.1.4.

Incidentally, my friend has now reconfigured his connections to his external amps/internal amps combination and has a full 7.14 system working again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Would that be the same ol' sh-t that kept audiences coming to the cinema to the tune of $17,160,000,000? That's seventeen billion dollars! I bet there are plenty of business which wish their customers were staying away to the tune of 17 billion dollars of revenue over the last 15 years!
> 
> I admire the way you never let a good fact get in the way of a personal prejudice, Dan, but the information to discredit your position is too readily available


However, overall ticket sales have continued to decline. This was one of the worst summers since 1997. I can see why GotG got away with murder looking at the slate of films it was up against. I've recently gone back to school for some retraining (as have a lot of people) and even many of the younger crowd have been grumbling that they're getting tired of the sameness. 

And, Keith, _you_ always seem to go back to the argument that box office gross somehow makes a movie somehow great. That's the worst possible means of judging a film's qualities on the merits. 

One of my classes analyzes film and I brought in Hitchcock's "The Birds" because of the Halloween season. Though I only showed a few select minutes, the class wanted to watch the entire thing (interesting watching their reactions as they looked at the scene). These were mostly 19 to 20-something's. The consensus was that Hitchcock's film and its style of slowly building suspense was deemed "fresh and original" compared to clips from modern summer action movies with their short-attention-span construction that some of the class brought. We're talking about a film from 1963!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> And, Keith, you always seem to go back to the argument that box office gross somehow makes a movie somehow great. That's the worst possible means of judging a film's qualities on the merits.



Not at all Dan. Your contention was that Marvel-type movies were keeping people away from the cinema. That is clearly entirely false as demonstrated by the box-office figures. I never once mentioned 'quality' of the movies. I was simply countering, irrefutably, that your proposition did not stand up to scrutiny of the factual evidence. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> One of my classes analyzes film and I brought in Hitchcock's "The Birds" because of the Halloween season. Though I only showed a few select minutes, the class wanted to watch the entire thing (interesting watching their reactions as they looked at the scene). These were mostly 19 to 20-something's. The consensus was that Hitchcock's film and its style of slowly building suspense was deemed "fresh and original" compared to clips from modern summer action movies with their short-attention-span construction that some of the class brought. We're talking about a film from 1963!


A neat red herring but entirely irrelevant to your statement that you counted Marvel as responsible for keeping the movie-going public away from cinemas! Yeah - they are staying away to the tune of a billion dollars of ticket sales a year! I wish my own customers had stayed away from my own business that much!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Not at all Dan. Your contention was that Marvel-type movies were keeping people away from the cinema. That is clearly entirely false as demonstrated by the box-office figures. I never once mentioned 'quality' of the movies. I was simply countering, irrefutably, that your proposition did not stand up to scrutiny of the factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> A neat red herring but entirely irrelevant to your statement that you counted Marvel as responsible for keeping the movie-going public away from cinemas! Yeah - they are staying away to the tune of a billion dollars of ticket sales a year! I wish my own customers had stayed away from my own business that much!


You look at movie making from a business standpoint only. We won't ever get better films if that's the basis on how a movie is made. What Hollywood ought to do is start going back to the basic essentials of storytelling and moving away from expensive CGI-fests with little to no plot and weak dialog, and no sense of pacing and style. They'll recoup more money in the long term, however they're acting instead like meth addicts... we need more effects, more WOW, more explosions, more more more. Daddy's got to have his fix! 

Kids need exposure to master works in film and maybe they'll start to see that the latest Marvel film stamped out of a mold isn't the end all be all of movies. That's what some of my profs are trying to do.


----------



## ambesolman

Dan Hitchman said:


> One of my classes analyzes film and I brought in Hitchcock's "The Birds" because of the Halloween season. Though I only showed a few select minutes, the class wanted to watch the entire thing (interesting watching their reactions as they looked at the scene). These were mostly 19 to 20-something's. The consensus was that Hitchcock's film and its style of slowly building suspense was deemed "fresh and original" compared to clips from modern summer action movies with their short-attention-span construction that some of the class brought. We're talking about a film from 1963!



That's why he's the master of suspense 


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> You look at movie making from a business standpoint only. We won't ever get better films if that's the basis on how a movie is made. What Hollywood ought to do is start going back to the basic essentials of storytelling and moving away from expensive CGI-fests with little to no plot and weak dialog, and no sense of pacing and style. They'll recoup more money in the long term, however they're acting instead like meth addicts... we need more effects, more WOW, more explosions, more more more. Daddy's got to have his fix!
> Kids need exposure to master works in film and maybe they'll start to see that the latest Marvel film stamped out of a mold isn't the end all be all of movies. That's what some of my profs are trying to do.


so true.. its why i like these animation movies so much, at least they have a nice story to it and on a side-note the fx. imho they do a far better job then nowadays adult(no not porn)/summer/family movies.


----------



## mark_anderson_u

kbarnes701 said:


> The two principal requirements for placement of the upfiring modules are that they are _above_ their associated speakers and no more than 3 feet away from them. There may be some latitude for experimentation within these principals - if you could buy a pair of modules from somewhere with a good returns policy, you could try them in different positions and see how well they work for you. I know you cannot place modules directly on top of your speakers, but could you not fix a very small shelf to the wall, just above the main speakers, and stand each module on that? Would that be aesthetically viable?


thanks KB. Unfortunately any shelf wouldn't pass muster


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Certainly no harm in trying different layouts if it's practical to do so. I can’t have rear surrounds so take the following FWIW, but I do wonder how much they add to the experience. By way of example, a few days ago I was with a friend of mine (Hi Allan) who has an extremely high-end setup and we were setting up his Atmos 7.1.4 system with the new Denon 5200. We listened and were both blown away by the experience, using Transformers 4 as the demo material. Both of us commented that we had never heard his room sound as good and that all of the effects were coming from exactly where the on-screen action determined them to be. Powerful weapons exploded behind us and tracked perfectly over our shoulder and over our heads to the requisite spot on the screen. Precision of placement of the sounds was superlative. We had just never heard better.
> 
> Then, we went into the 5200 menus to confirm something and we were both stunned to see that, due to a configuration error, the Back Surrounds had been silent all the time! Yet neither of us had noticed this at all. Now, if the surrounds had been silent, we would surely have noticed - but not so with the back surrounds - in this case expensive M&K speakers (like all of the speakers in the setup, including the astonishing S300s across the front). My buddy found it hard to believe we were not hearing the back Surrounds and it was amusing to see him go and bury his ears into them for 'proof' that they were working, or silent, as the case may be.
> 
> This experience made me wonder. If two highly experienced listeners could not detect the absence of Back Surrounds, in a Dolby Atmos system with 4 overhead (M&K) speakers, then just how much were they contributing to the experience?
> 
> It may be that without the 4 overhead speakers we would be able to tell if the BS speakers had been shut off - but once you add in the excitement of the overheads, is the role of the BS speakers diminished? Whatever the reasons, it brought me to the firm conclusion that if the choice has to be 5.14 or 7.1.2 then I would without hesitation choose 5.1.4.
> 
> Incidentally, my friend has now reconfigured his connections to his external amps/internal amps combination and has a full 7.14 system working again.


Thanks Keith you are always so insightful with a plethora of information.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> One of my classes analyzes film and I brought in Hitchcock's "The Birds" because of the Halloween season. Though I only showed a few select minutes, the class wanted to watch the entire thing (interesting watching their reactions as they looked at the scene). These were mostly 19 to 20-something's. The consensus was that Hitchcock's film and its style of slowly building suspense was deemed "fresh and original" compared to clips from modern summer action movies with their short-attention-span construction that some of the class brought. We're talking about a film from 1963!





Dan Hitchman said:


> We won't ever get better films if that's the basis on how a movie is made. What Hollywood ought to do is start going back to the basic essentials of storytelling and moving away from expensive CGI-fests with little to no plot and weak dialog, and no sense of pacing and style. They'll recoup more money in the long term, however they're acting instead like meth addicts... we need more effects, more WOW, more explosions, more more more. Daddy's got to have his fix!
> 
> Kids need exposure to master works in film and maybe they'll start to see that the latest Marvel film stamped out of a mold isn't the end all be all of movies. That's what some of my profs are trying to do.


As a long-time film buff, I agree with you 100%; however, I am resigned to the fact that in a mass-market, profit-driven industry there is little hope that the major studios will forsake formulaic box-office smash hits for quality cinema. If one percent of the movies that Hollywood churns out are what I would consider watchable I'll be happy and leave the other 99% to those who appreciate them. If that means that I might not get to hear a Dolby Atmos soundtrack at home for another year or more, then so be it. I'll just keep visualizing the Dolby Atmos selection on my AVR-X5200W's sound mode menu as I select Dolby Surround.  

As for "The Birds," if your classmates were enthralled with this lesser effort from the master, just think what their response might be to one of his chefs-d'oeuvre (and one of my favorite films of all time), "Vertigo." Come to think of it, this would a great candidate for an Atmos (or, more likely, DTS-UHD) remix with its high drama, height effects, and--not least of all--the magnificent, soaring Bernard Herrmann score. 

What could say Atmos better than a movie entitled "Vertigo"?


----------



## Jim S.

Having read all 359 pages of this thread over the last 4 months, I still have absolutely no clue why you guys put multiples of this:

_*To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*_

at the end of your posts. Apparantly, I missed the memo. Could someone explain this?


----------



## petetherock

Hi Keith 
Consider these to try as well?

- The Cave (great Foley Effects, even in DVD)
- Book of Eli - the gunfight scene in town
- If you are into Hong Kong movies, the shows "Breaking News" + "The Sparrow" have lots of ambient effects which put you in the middle of a busy Hong Kong Street (nice stories too)
- Sherlock Holmes (The Robert D Jr) movies - try the scene in the abattoir 



kbarnes701 said:


> Good idea. Both are movies I haven't watched for a while so I will add them to the schedule.
> 
> Last night's movie in the PodTheater was Saving Private Ryan. DSU struggled a bit with this one as there isn't, surprisingly, all that much action from above if you think about it. The score was nicely 'ambient' in the overheads though throughout. And in the scene in the French village where it is raining, the rain and thunder was handled well. The best part for DSU was in the final battle on the bridge where there is quite a reasonable amount of stuff coming from above. DSU handled this very well for the most part, but overall I'd say that SPR was not the best movie to demo DSU with. Certainly not as good as the others I have reported on in this thread - Twister being probably the most amazing, with The Descent a close second IIRC. To recap, I have tested those movies, plus Dredd, 300 Rise of an Empire, Prometheus, Die Hard 4.0, Blade, Blade II, Predators, Star Trek First Contact, Total Recall 2012, Jurassic Park The Lost World - all of which were hugely enhanced by DSU.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Certainly no harm in trying different layouts if it's practical to do so. I can’t have rear surrounds so take the following FWIW, but I do wonder how much they add to the experience. By way of example, a few days ago I was with a friend of mine (Hi Allan) who has an extremely high-end setup and we were setting up his Atmos 7.1.4 system with the new Denon 5200. We listened and were both blown away by the experience, using Transformers 4 as the demo material. Both of us commented that we had never heard his room sound as good and that all of the effects were coming from exactly where the on-screen action determined them to be. Powerful weapons exploded behind us and tracked perfectly over our shoulder and over our heads to the requisite spot on the screen. Precision of placement of the sounds was superlative. We had just never heard better.
> 
> Then, we went into the 5200 menus to confirm something and we were both stunned to see that, due to a configuration error, the Back Surrounds had been silent all the time! Yet neither of us had noticed this at all. Now, if the surrounds had been silent, we would surely have noticed - but not so with the back surrounds - in this case expensive M&K speakers (like all of the speakers in the setup, including the astonishing S300s across the front). My buddy found it hard to believe we were not hearing the back Surrounds and it was amusing to see him go and bury his ears into them for 'proof' that they were working, or silent, as the case may be.
> 
> This experience made me wonder. If two highly experienced listeners could not detect the absence of Back Surrounds, in a Dolby Atmos system with 4 overhead (M&K) speakers, then just how much were they contributing to the experience?
> 
> It may be that without the 4 overhead speakers we would be able to tell if the BS speakers had been shut off - but once you add in the excitement of the overheads, is the role of the BS speakers diminished? Whatever the reasons, it brought me to the firm conclusion that if the choice has to be 5.14 or 7.1.2 then I would without hesitation choose 5.1.4.
> 
> Incidentally, my friend has now reconfigured his connections to his external amps/internal amps combination and has a full 7.14 system working again.


One question the position of his 4 overheads are they the same or similar to your set up 5.1.4 I know he has 7.1.4 now. But when you were listening to them when the back surrounds were silent.


----------



## SubSolar

kbarnes701 said:


> Certainly no harm in trying different layouts if it's practical to do so. I can’t have rear surrounds so take the following FWIW, but I do wonder how much they add to the experience. By way of example, a few days ago I was with a friend of mine (Hi Allan) who has an extremely high-end setup and we were setting up his Atmos 7.1.4 system with the new Denon 5200. We listened and were both blown away by the experience, using Transformers 4 as the demo material. Both of us commented that we had never heard his room sound as good and that all of the effects were coming from exactly where the on-screen action determined them to be. Powerful weapons exploded behind us and tracked perfectly over our shoulder and over our heads to the requisite spot on the screen. Precision of placement of the sounds was superlative. We had just never heard better.
> 
> Then, we went into the 5200 menus to confirm something and we were both stunned to see that, due to a configuration error, the Back Surrounds had been silent all the time! Yet neither of us had noticed this at all. Now, if the surrounds had been silent, we would surely have noticed - but not so with the back surrounds - in this case expensive M&K speakers (like all of the speakers in the setup, including the astonishing S300s across the front). My buddy found it hard to believe we were not hearing the back Surrounds and it was amusing to see him go and bury his ears into them for 'proof' that they were working, or silent, as the case may be.
> 
> This experience made me wonder. If two highly experienced listeners could not detect the absence of Back Surrounds, in a Dolby Atmos system with 4 overhead (M&K) speakers, then just how much were they contributing to the experience?
> 
> It may be that without the 4 overhead speakers we would be able to tell if the BS speakers had been shut off - but once you add in the excitement of the overheads, is the role of the BS speakers diminished? Whatever the reasons, it brought me to the firm conclusion that if the choice has to be 5.14 or 7.1.2 then I would without hesitation choose 5.1.4.
> 
> Incidentally, my friend has now reconfigured his connections to his external amps/internal amps combination and has a full 7.14 system working again.


This makes me want to experiment with trying my system out in 5.1.4 mode (it's 7.1.4). Because my kitchen is in back of my living room I couldn't put rear surrounds at ear level. I had to put them in-ceiling, using the same speakers as much top front and top rears. They are only about 3 fee behind the top rears and obviously on the same plane since they are all in the ceilings. Sometimes it's hard to tell if sounds are supposed to be overheard or just in the rear because of this. The only issue with not having rear surrounds is that if you are not in the middle it won't "phantom" the rear surround sounds properly, similar to how you can go without a Center channel if you are in the middle too but if you are to the sides slightly then the sound doesn't seem to come from the center if you use just Left and Rights.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> You look at movie making from a business standpoint only. We won't ever get better films if that's the basis on how a movie is made.


Nice attempt at deflection. I didn’t mention a single thing about movies other than to refute your incorrect assertion that Marvel movies were keeping people out of cinemas. As I showed, it isn't true.



Dan Hitchman said:


> What Hollywood ought to do is start going back to the basic essentials of storytelling and moving away from expensive CGI-fests with little to no plot and weak dialog, and no sense of pacing and style.


Well maybe they will, once the movie-going public gets tired of movies like the ones you describe. Currently, they are selling a billion dollars' worth of tickets a year, thus proving beyond doubt that the public wants to see movies like this. Just because you deplore such movies doesn't mean everyone else does, or should. And clearly, the evidence shows they don't.



Dan Hitchman said:


> They'll recoup more money in the long term, however they're acting instead like meth addicts... we need more effects, more WOW, more explosions, more more more. Daddy's got to have his fix!


Yes - movie making is a business. That's why it exists. And sales of a billion dollars a year on Marvel movies shows how well that business model is currently working. Movie studios aren't Rembrandts and Mozarts. They are a business.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Kids need exposure to master works in film and maybe they'll start to see that the latest Marvel film stamped out of a mold isn't the end all be all of movies. That's what some of my profs are trying to do.


Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But it isn't relevant to your incorrect assertion that Marvel movies are driving people away from cinemas. They are, so it seems, staying away in droves!

I never passed any comment on the quality of movies. And there is no need to. Hundreds of independent movies are made every year which come up to the standards you and your professors have decided are 'worthy'. They are already there for the watching. Because there are also comic book movies doesn't prevent these other movies from existing. If 'kids' want to see them, they are out there already.

It seems to me that what you and your professors would prefer is that Marvel made no movies at all, as if this would then suddenly and automatically cause a huge upsurge in ticket sales for the 'worthy' movies you crave. It wouldn't. It would just lead to a collapse in sales and profits and then the Indies would find their own funds dry up too.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d have thought that the cinemas, in order to meet Dolby specifications, would be properly calibrated to ensure that SPLs are appropriate, and with regard for the laws of the particular country re maximum permitted SPLs.


Let's distinguish calibration from loudness compliance. Dolby calibration is about ensuring the presentation will match the production. The studios/producers decide how loud the movie will be. 

I have not encountered movie mixers who take loudness laws into account (they may be out there -- my sampling is pretty small). A) the laws are poorly defined, and B) they vary with territory. The large variation in loudness is not all attributable to calibration errors or fiddling with volume controls. Movies also vary by design. Compare "Chef" with "TF4". 

Loudness is easy to measure on a dubbing stage as it is best done in 2 parts -- what is the dialog level, and what is the maximum level. The dialog can go to a separate meter as the stems remain isolated. Both TC Electronics (LM6) and Waves Audio (WLM Plus) have suitable meters. These are recommended for the MDA creation process. 

AES and SMPTE are quite aware of the growing loudness issue, and will be working on it a lot more in the next several months. I hope they succeed.


----------



## kbarnes701

DaJoJo said:


> so true.. its why i like these animation movies so much, at least they have a nice story to it and on a side-note the fx. imho they do a far better job then nowadays adult(no not porn)/summer/family movies.


The point is, there are already numerous movies being made of the sort Dan craves. He likes to pretend that there aren't any because it suits his stance that Marvel movies are unworthy rubbish.

The fact is, the studios don't decide what people watch - people decide what people watch. If studios start making movies nobody goes to watch, they will soon stop making them and make something else. Currently, ticket sales show that the movies Dan deplores are the ones people want to watch. He doesn't like it, but that doesn’t matter. There are movies being made to suit all tastes and they are there for the watching. The very fact of existence of Iron Man 3 does not stop Lars von Trier from making Nymphomaniac.


----------



## kbarnes701

mark_anderson_u said:


> thanks KB. Unfortunately any shelf wouldn't pass muster


Oh well. It seems then that you are what we Limey's call 'stuffed'.  Short of in-ceiling speakers I can't see a solution that will pass WAF and also stand a chance of working.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Thanks Keith you are always so insightful with a plethora of information.


Very kind of you to say so - thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> As a long-time film buff, I agree with you 100%; however, I am resigned to the fact that in a mass-market, profit-driven industry there is little hope that the major studios will forsake formulaic box-office smash hits for quality cinema.


Again, the fallacy of this position is that the two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jim S. said:


> Having read all 359 pages of this thread over the last 4 months, I still have absolutely no clue why you guys put multiples of this:
> 
> _*To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*_
> 
> at the end of your posts. Apparantly, I missed the memo. Could someone explain this?


AVS software must be adding it just for you. It's the first time I have ever seen that.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Hi Keith
> Consider these to try as well?
> 
> - The Cave (great Foley Effects, even in DVD)
> - Book of Eli - the gunfight scene in town
> - If you are into Hong Kong movies, the shows "Breaking News" + "The Sparrow" have lots of ambient effects which put you in the middle of a busy Hong Kong Street (nice stories too)
> - Sherlock Holmes (The Robert D Jr) movies - try the scene in the abattoir


Thanks Pete - some good suggestions there. I will try them for the movies I have. I love _The Book of Eli _BTW. And no, I didn't work it out until the very end of the first time I saw it. And seeing it again, once you know, is fascinating. A bit like _The Sixth Sense_.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> One question the position of his 4 overheads are they the same or similar to your set up 5.1.4 I know he has 7.1.4 now. But when you were listening to them when the back surrounds were silent.


He has way more room than I do so he is using TF+TR for the overheads. IOW, his rear overheads are further back than my TMs, which are now at 85° - ie not quite directly overhead but just slightly forward of MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> This makes me want to experiment with trying my system out in 5.1.4 mode (it's 7.1.4). Because my kitchen is in back of my living room I couldn't put rear surrounds at ear level. I had to put them in-ceiling, using the same speakers as much top front and top rears. They are only about 3 fee behind the top rears and obviously on the same plane since they are all in the ceilings. Sometimes it's hard to tell if sounds are supposed to be overheard or just in the rear because of this. The only issue with not having rear surrounds is that if you are not in the middle it won't "phantom" the rear surround sounds properly, similar to how you can go without a Center channel if you are in the middle too but if you are to the sides slightly then the sound doesn't seem to come from the center if you use just Left and Rights.


Given my belief that separation of the speakers is very important for the Atmos effect, I personally don't think that rear surrounds in-ceiling would work with TRs also in-ceiling. As you suggest, it will be very difficult (impossible?) to separate sounds intended to come from overhead with sounds intended to come from behind. It would be interesting to learn what you discover if you disable the Back Surrounds for a while.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Let's distinguish calibration from loudness compliance. Dolby calibration is about ensuring the presentation will match the production. The studios/producers decide how loud the movie will be.
> 
> I have not encountered movie mixers who take loudness laws into account (they may be out there -- my sampling is pretty small). A) the laws are poorly defined, and B) they vary with territory. The large variation in loudness is not all attributable to calibration errors or fiddling with volume controls. Movies also vary by design. Compare "Chef" with "TF4".
> 
> Loudness is easy to measure on a dubbing stage as it is best done in 2 parts -- what is the dialog level, and what is the maximum level. The dialog can go to a separate meter as the stems remain isolated. Both TC Electronics (LM6) and Waves Audio (WLM Plus) have suitable meters. These are recommended for the MDA creation process.
> 
> AES and SMPTE are quite aware of the growing loudness issue, and will be working on it a lot more in the next several months. I hope they succeed.


Good info Roger, thanks. I do see where you are coming from. But regardless of how loud, or not, the movie makers make the movies, in the EU at least the reproduction of them at ear-damaging SPLs is forbidden by law. So whether the movie makers take this into account during production or not, it will be enforced in EU theaters. HST, that I don't know how the theater managers enforce this. Next time I go to my local theater I will ask the manager there who has become known to me for various reasons 

It's IMAX theaters where I have had the most problem with excessive loudness. The Dark Knight Rises was almost painfully loud and it ruined my enjoyment of the movie. I was glad to get out of the theater at the end. And I like loud. But there is loud and there is ludicrous and TDKR fell into the latter category.


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> You look at movie making from a business standpoint only.


I don't know if Keith does, but Hollyood most certainly does. And they have for as long as I can remember. (My father was in the business for 25 years.) They are businesses first and foremost. Hollywood will produce what audiences will pay to see. 

But I too would love to see more high quality films. But rare is the studio who will produce a film for just the quality of the material/acting/cinematagraphy, et al without an eagle eye on the prospective bottom line. That we get any really great movies is a blessing to me.

As for Alfred HItchcock, I grew up on his films and TV shows. Too bad there are not Hitchcock clones around today.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I don't know if Keith does, but Hollyood most certainly does. And they have for as long as I can remember. (My father was in the business for 25 years.) They are businesses first and foremost. *Hollywood will produce what audiences will pay to see. *


Exactly. It is the paying customer who has the power. If Hollywood is producing movies nobody wants, then they will soon change their stance when box-office receipts drop off. The fact that Marvel movies are so lucrative proves that these are the movies people want to see - the opposite of Dan's earlier stance. I think what Dan et al deplore really is that people really like the movies he so dislikes


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice attempt at deflection. I didn’t mention a single thing about movies other than to refute your incorrect assertion that Marvel movies were keeping people out of cinemas. As I showed, it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe they will, once the movie-going public gets tired of movies like the ones you describe. Currently, they are selling a billion dollars' worth of tickets a year, thus proving beyond doubt that the public wants to see movies like this. Just because you deplore such movies doesn't mean everyone else does, or should. And clearly, the evidence shows they don't.
> 
> Yes - movie making is a business. That's why it exists. And sales of a billion dollars a year on Marvel movies shows how well that business model is currently working. Movie studios aren't Rembrandts and Mozarts. They are a business.
> 
> Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But it isn't relevant to your incorrect assertion that Marvel movies are driving people away from cinemas. They are, so it seems, staying away in droves!
> 
> I never passed any comment on the quality of movies. And there is no need to. Hundreds of independent movies are made every year which come up to the standards you and your professors have decided are 'worthy'. They are already there for the watching. Because there are also comic book movies doesn't prevent these other movies from existing. If 'kids' want to see them, they are out there already.
> 
> It seems to me that what you and your professors would prefer is that Marvel made no movies at all, as if this would then suddenly and automatically cause a huge upsurge in ticket sales for the 'worthy' movies you crave. It wouldn't. It would just lead to a collapse in sales and profits and then the Indies would find their own funds dry up too.


Yes, forget the Sundance, the Indies, and so on they are as the say in French NAVETS!

Bring all the Marvel movies they are the best entertaining movies ever


----------



## Nightlord

audioguy said:


> Hollywood will produce what audiences will pay to see.


No, Hollywood will produce what the *US* audiences will pay to see. They still don't give a rats ass about what Europe or the rest of the world will pay to see. Most the marvel movies probably never even made it to the screens here.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Good info Roger, thanks. I do see where you are coming from. But regardless of how loud, or not, the movie makers make the movies, in the EU at least the reproduction of them at ear-damaging SPLs is forbidden by law. So whether the movie makers take this into account during production or not, it will be enforced in EU theaters. HST, that I don't know how the theater managers enforce this. Next time I go to my local theater I will ask the manager there who has become known to me for various reasons


It would be best for all concerned if content makers worked within certain loudness limits. I think the goal is to do that with well-defined, effective criteria so that local jurisdictions and theater owners will not have to intervene. This may be "the impossible dream."



> It's IMAX theaters where I have had the most problem with excessive loudness. The Dark Knight Rises was almost painfully loud and it ruined my enjoyment of the movie. I was glad to get out of the theater at the end. And I like loud. But there is loud and there is ludicrous and TDKR fell into the latter category.


I agree. When I have the choice, I avoid IMAX'dSPL.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Let's distinguish calibration from loudness compliance.


Can you give a quick description separating objective SPL from subjective loudness?


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> The point is, there are already numerous movies being made of the sort Dan craves. He likes to pretend that there aren't any because it suits his stance that Marvel movies are unworthy rubbish.
> 
> The fact is, the studios don't decide what people watch - people decide what people watch. If studios start making movies nobody goes to watch, they will soon stop making them and make something else. Currently, ticket sales show that the movies Dan deplores are the ones people want to watch. He doesn't like it, but that doesn’t matter. There are movies being made to suit all tastes and they are there for the watching. The very fact of existence of Iron Man 3 does not stop Lars von Trier from making Nymphomaniac.



True, but they appeal to radically different audiences. And using the term "the studios" implies that they're a monopoly on film-making. The likes of Sundance and other international film festivals are testimony that Hollywood is only part of the picture.


However, right now the sexiness of Atmos is going to be the height effects and the "you are there" aspect, which lends itself to action/sci-fi and possibly horror movies. I'm perfectly happy to use Dolby Surround upmixing to get the added height info for my usual movies, and have native Atmos mixes for the stuff where the object effects really enhance the movie, at least for the films already with commercial Atmos mixes. Although I won't complain if "The Fountain" or "Gladiator" get an Atmos facelift someday .


On a different note, is there an "Atmos remix wish list" thread somewhere on AVS? If not maybe I can start one .


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> No, Hollywood will produce what the *US* audiences will pay to see. They still don't give a rats ass about what Europe or the rest of the world will pay to see. Most the marvel movies probably never even made it to the screens here.


“Audiences have had a lot of great exposure with the introduction of Captain America in the 2011 film and an integral role in ‘Marvel's The Avengers,’ which is the third biggest film of all time,” Disney distribution chief Dave Hollis told TheWrap Tuesday. “The Marvel films are like interlocking puzzle pieces, so we expect to see increased interest.”

The original 2011 film was a hit. “Captain America,” distributed by Paramount and produced for $140 million, opened to an impressive $65 million in North America. It went on to take in $176 million domestically and another $194 million from overseas.

That was pre-”Avengers,” though — and that 2012 film's $1.5 billion global haul greatly changed the game for all subsequent films in Marvel's cinematic universe.


----------



## Archaea

Has anyone compared 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 and how much difference is there?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> No, Hollywood will produce what the *US* audiences will pay to see. They still don't give a rats ass about what Europe or the rest of the world will pay to see. Most the marvel movies probably never even made it to the screens here.


I think most of them made it to the UK. I'm not sure I agree that Hollywood isn't interested in Europe as a market - they derive considerable revenue from overseas sales. I think it may be more that the European market is less interested in American movies - possibly because they are 'foreign language' movies to the French, Italians, Germans and so on (not so with you Scandinavians and the Dutch who all seem to speak excellent English). Certainly, the French and Italians have always had a vibrant movie industry of their own, to my own personal knowledge, and indigenous taste in those countries is very much at odds with US (and UK to some extent) tastes - not just in movies but in food, clothes, culture etc too).

And there is the Scandinavian movie industry too of course - I have hugely enjoyed movies like Jo Nesbo's Headhunters, Insomnia, the Dragon Tatto trilogy and so on. And in every case, the US remakes have been inferior - but of course they can be viewed without subtitles, and many people really dislike subtitles.

I also have a substantial collection of Chinese and Hong Kong movies and again, these are very different to US made movies. I think there are movies out there to suit all tastes, including Dan's, if only one searches for them. As they say, if you want to find gold, dig.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> It would be best for all concerned if content makers worked within certain loudness limits. I think the goal is to do that with well-defined, effective criteria so that local jurisdictions and theater owners will not have to intervene. This may be "the impossible dream."


Absolutely.



Roger Dressler said:


> I agree. When I have the choice, I avoid IMAX'dSPL.


I haven't bothered much with IMAX since I got a local Atmos theater much closer to my home. I prefer better sound to bigger picture TBH. Apart from being overloud, IMAX sound has never impressed me much.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> True, but they appeal to radically different audiences. And using the term "the studios" implies that they're a monopoly on film-making. The likes of Sundance and other international film festivals are testimony that Hollywood is only part of the picture.


I agree. There are movies for everyone.



sdrucker said:


> However, right now the sexiness of Atmos is going to be the height effects and the "you are there" aspect, which lends itself to action/sci-fi and possibly horror movies. I'm perfectly happy to use Dolby Surround upmixing to get the added height info for my usual movies, and have native Atmos mixes for the stuff where the object effects really enhance the movie, at least for the films already with commercial Atmos mixes. Although I won't complain if "The Fountain" or "Gladiator" get an Atmos facelift someday .


I think Atmos lends itself to those sort of movies right now - but as the techniques of Atmos mixing become more widespread, and mixers gain more experience, I'd expect a huge variety of movies would benefit from Atmos mixes. The ability to more precisely locate sounds on the stage could be useful in any movie where atmosphere plays a large part. An example from 5.1 that I often use is David Fincher's _Zodiac_. This police procedural is largely a 'talky' movie but the way that the sound designer uses the whole range of speakers is exceptionally impressive and adds hugely to the ambience and effects of every scene. For example, take any scene in the newspaper office and just listen to the incredible richness of sound around you, contributing massively to placing you 'in the movie'. It's not an obvious candidate for a surround mix, but when you hear it you realise how important the surround mix is to the movie as a whole. I expect Atmos, when it matures, will provide similar opportunities.



sdrucker said:


> On a different note, is there an "Atmos remix wish list" thread somewhere on AVS? If not maybe I can start one .


Great idea.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> No, Hollywood will produce what the *US* audiences will pay to see. They still don't give a rats ass about what Europe or the rest of the world will pay to see. Most the marvel movies probably never even made it to the screens here.


Or China will pay to see. Action is easy to translate, high quality, nuanced dialog is not. Hollywood makes movies more for other countries who seem to like those types movies. As I've stated, I've heard more than a few times some grumbling from various movie goers who are getting tired of the same ol same ol.

I happen to like action movies, but I tend to re-watch titles that have something other than just explosions or mass destruction... or even the best sound ever, though it helps. those with perhaps memorable characters, witty dialog or good editing, lighting, cinematography. A lot of critical viewers can usually see why an action movie like Raiders is better crafted than a movie like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or even Iron Man 3. I keep Raiders in my collection and never watch Iron Man 3 again.

And I pick on a lot of modern Marvel and DC type movies because I find the writing to be lazy. They take no chances with their screenplays, the plot beats are similar, even some of the action sequences seem recycled.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> True, but they appeal to radically different audiences. And using the term "the studios" implies that they're a monopoly on film-making. The likes of Sundance and other international film festivals are testimony that Hollywood is only part of the picture.
> 
> 
> However, right now the sexiness of Atmos is going to be the height effects and the "you are there" aspect, which lends itself to action/sci-fi and possibly horror movies. I'm perfectly happy to use Dolby Surround upmixing to get the added height info for my usual movies, and have native Atmos mixes for the stuff where the object effects really enhance the movie, at least for the films already with commercial Atmos mixes. Although I won't complain if "The Fountain" or "Gladiator" get an Atmos facelift someday .
> 
> 
> On a different note, is there an "Atmos remix wish list" thread somewhere on AVS? If not maybe I can start one .


I second an Atmos remix suggestion thread.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I second an Atmos remix suggestion thread.



OK, I'll set one up later in "Other areas of interest" under the Movies, Concert and Music Discussion sub-forum. That should keep some of us busy while the likes of Hercules get the Atmos BD treatment.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> OK, I'll set one up later in "Other areas of interest" under the Movies, Concert and Music Discussion sub-forum. That should keep some of us busy while the likes of Hercules get the Atmos BD treatment.


One of them would be The Abyss.


----------



## mark_anderson_u

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh well. It seems then that you are what we Limey's call 'stuffed'.


I am, in fact, a limey, just living in US. 

My only concern with in-ceiling (besides wiring being a PITA), is that it's hard to test before I start hacking holes.


----------



## audioguy

Nightlord said:


> No, Hollywood will produce what the *US* audiences will pay to see. They still don't give a rats ass about what Europe or the rest of the world will pay to see. Most the marvel movies probably never even made it to the screens here.


Then let me say it differently. Hollywood will produce what will make them the most money. To the extent that excludes everyone but the US they care not and it changes nothing. It's all about the money. Period. They are businesses.

I suspect SOME actors and actresses would like to make more meaningful films but apparently not enough to bankroll them! And if they do make some and don't make money, that would be a short-lived project. 

I am hopeful that eventually audiences will tire of CGI and explosions and car crashes and giant robots and .......... but i wouldn't count on it any time soon.


----------



## sdrucker

Be careful what you wish for: 


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-mo...we-wish-would-get-atmos-mix.html#post28163154


I'll add my own list of films once I have a hard think about it


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> One of them would be The Abyss.


Oh yeah - the storm sequence when the rig collapses and the whole thing plunges to the bottom of the ocean - that would be awesomely awesome.


----------



## kbarnes701

mark_anderson_u said:


> I am, in fact, a limey, just living in US.


I couldn’t tell from your accent 



mark_anderson_u said:


> My only concern with in-ceiling (besides wiring being a PITA), is that it's hard to test before I start hacking holes.


Yeah - this is the really big drawback with in-ceiling designs. If you've been following along, you'll have perhaps seen that I relocated my Top Middles from 100° to 85° with good effect, following extended listening tests. That would have been wholly impossible if they had been in the ceiling. Pulling wires for in-ceilings is actually easier than for on-ceilings IME - it's much easier to work through a hole 8 inches diameter than one 3/4 of an inch diameter. Unless you're an obstetrician of course


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> i don't think its a bizarre question, but *would take a lot of knowledge of mixing and balance in the place where the sounds are positioned*.. its hard to do when the sound is around you and the picture is inside the screen so to say. then again it's possible to get the picture out of the screen, i didn't see any proper implementation of this yet though.. *most 3D is pretty crappy and consist of layers .. only latest 3D movies start to come to a point that it becomes more a whole instead of layered*. there is special trickery needed to get it out of the screen and most 3D camera's just don't do this.. so i guess it gonna take some while before both sound and vision will match.


I agree with you. And I appreciate our mature exchange on the subject of improving 3D picture with well matched 3D sound. ...The future of 3D sound (Atmos & Auro) augurs well, I think.
Plus I am a big fan of true 3D moving pictures; a la James Cameron's 'Avatar', and Michael Bay's latest 'TF4'. 
...They both used the real 3D cameras, and the more experience the better it'll get. 

* Sorry, I wasn't referring to your comment or anyone else when I mentioned the word _"bizarre"_.
I was simply anticipating what 'some' people might have thought.  ...Regarding my own question about wearing 3D glasses when doing a professional Dolby Atmos sound mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I am hopeful that eventually audiences will tire of CGI and explosions and car crashes and giant robots and .......... but i wouldn't count on it any time soon.


Again, I don't follow this line of thinking. Do you think that the mere existence of this sort of movie precludes the possibility of other, more plot-driven movies? It's as though people think that if Iron Man 4 is on the cards, then no other sort of movie can be made. IMO you hit it on the head when you said Hollywood will make the movies that people want to pay to see. Don't blame Hollywood for the kind of movies they're making, blame the moviegoers (if you want to blame anyone of course).


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Great! Thanks for the recommendation. 5.2.4 it is!!



You can also count me in as one who believes more in a 5.1.4 than a 7.1.2 Dolby Atmos configuration. 

...And two subs of course, no less.


----------



## wse

3D sound any day 3D pictures no thanks it makes me nauseated


----------



## CBdicX

markus767 said:


> If you believe this is what makes a loudspeaker good then buy them.
> 
> But, how loud can they play at what distortion levels? How flat is the frequency response? How good do they follow the Dolby specs? Does their angle fit your particular room? ...


The first 3 parts of your answer is always up for debate, and what is good ? 
Do not think Onkyo will make any "bad" speakers. 
Think Dolby Atmos speakers will soon show up where the user can adjust the angle, would make sense to me. But angles can be changed to the needit angle for a specific spot you want the DA speakers to be.
If you connect the DA speakers to speaker wall mounts, the angle vertical and horizontal can be adjusted.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Can you give a quick description separating objective SPL from subjective loudness?


I'm not sure how to answer. One is what the SPL meter shows, the other is how a human perceives it. The difficulty is in how to use the former to predict the latter.


----------



## markus767

CBdicX said:


> The first 3 parts of your answer is always up for debate, and what is good ?
> Do not think Onkyo will make any "bad" speakers.
> Think Dolby Atmos speakers will soon show up where the user can adjust the angle, would make sense to me. But angles can be changed to the needit angle for a specific spot you want the DA speakers to be.
> If you connect the DA speakers to speaker wall mounts, the angle vertical and horizontal can be adjusted.


No, it's not "up for debate", it's unknown.
Regarding Dolby Atmos specs see post number 1.


----------



## pasender91

Come on be serious, Atmos cannot work good on Abyss, it is supposed to render sound on top, but in this movie all the action takes place down below !!!!


----------



## NorthSky

> It is the paying customer who has the power. If Hollywood is producing movies nobody wants, then they will soon change their stance when box-office receipts drop off. The fact that Marvel movies are so lucrative proves that these are the movies people want to see - the opposite of Dan's earlier stance. I think what Dan et al deplore really is that people really like the movies he so dislikes


Dan might be part of a small minority, but @ least it is a normal/sane minority.


----------



## htpcforever

Nightlord said:


> No, Hollywood will produce what the *US* audiences will pay to see. They still don't give a rats ass about what Europe or the rest of the world will pay to see. Most the marvel movies probably never even made it to the screens here.


The US Population is the third highest on the planet, behind only that of China and India (interestingly enough, India will soon pass China as the most populous nation). Of the top three, the US is the richest by far. The population of Sweden, for example, is barely more than the megalopolis of New York City...


Due to this, Hollywood is going to make movies for the highest population of people who can afford to pay the high prices for their movies. The rest of the world will enjoy them too, maybe not as much as we do in the US, but enough to make them a lot of money. It is simple economics in action.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Come on be serious, Atmos cannot work good on Abyss, it is supposed to render sound on top, but in this movie all the action takes place down below !!!!


About installing Dolby Atmos speakers @ all the planetariums?


----------



## ThePrisoner

I have finally decided to go front heights in my living room, I can not do in-ceiling or on ceiling. I have also met the WAF. I can only do 5.2.2 as I have the Onkyo 838. I experimented with a cheap pair of Polk Audio T15's mounted on my front wall above my main L & R speakers. The speaker tops are 1ft from the ceiling, ceiling height is 8ft. Mind you they are firing straight forward (I know they should be 30-40 degrees aimed at MLP). I placed an order for Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800's along with their wall mounts that will let me aim them down to MLP. I usually leave my levels alone, including the sub after auto set-up/EQ but was wondering how many bump up the levels for the height/overhead channels for some more effect.


----------



## pasender91

htpcforever said:


> The US Population is the third highest on the planet, behind only that of China and India (interestingly enough, India will soon pass China as the most populous nation). Of the top three, the US is the richest by far. The population of Sweden, for example, is barely more than the megalopolis of New York City...
> 
> 
> Due to this, Hollywood is going to make movies for the highest population of people who can afford to pay the high prices for their movies. The rest of the world will enjoy them too, maybe not as much as we do in the US, but enough to make them a lot of money. It is simple economics in action.


Not only for HTPCforever but for several people, i really think you have a big mis-conception of the market, Hollywood is NOT making movies for the US market !!!
Take a look at the table that Keith shared a couple of pages back, you will see that the US account for only 1/3 of the total revenues, global market for 2/3. Believe me, the studios have seen this too 
When a big blockbuster comes out, it is designed to appeal to the WORLD, not to the US.
And if you believe the chinese population cannot afford a cinema ticket, i suggest you visit Shanghai very soon 

Unrelated, but last time i visited the US of A, a chap asked me if we had internet in europe ????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Not only for HTPCforever but for several people, i really think you have a big mis-conception of the market, Hollywood is NOT making movies for the US market !!!
> Take a look at the table that Keith shared a couple of pages back, you will see that the US account for only 1/3 of the total revenues, global market for 2/3. Believe me, the studios have seen this too
> When a big blockbuster comes out, it is designed to appeal to the WORLD, not to the US.
> And if you believe the chinese population cannot afford a cinema ticket, i suggest you visit Shanghai very soon
> 
> Unrelated, but last time i visited the US of A, a chap asked me if we had internet in europe ????


And that's why movies are getting more dumb, more mass commodity oriented, and less nuanced. Not because the world _is_ dumb, necessarily, but because multi-dimensional dialog doesn't translate well. Hollywood's about the bottom line irrespective of whether the movie is any good or not. The U.S. audience and what it really wants is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We're almost becoming third-world to the big multi-nationals as our buying power dwindles.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Ok. So today I have realized the true benefit of dsu. You are fully immersed in the sound field. Not necessarily panning effects but ambiance. Including the soundtrack and such. It's phenomenol. Just watched RIO with my son and I was enveloped. I can't wait to add two more channels to the front (TF) 

And can't wait even more for fully encoded bluerays. Really debating returning the x4100 and getting the 5200 for a couple hundo more.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Unrelated, but last time i visited the US of A, a chap asked me if we had internet in europe ????


Some parts of Europe have some of the fastest Internet speeds; over 1,000 MBPS. 
Me, in my Canadian igloo, in comparison, on a good smooth snowy day, I got 2 MBPS. 
In a blizzard, about .69 MBPS. ...And even zero, for about few weeks, when we lose power (ten to twelve times a year). ...Then we play bowling. ...Or scrabble.


----------



## DaJoJo

Brian Fineberg said:


> Ok. So today I have realized the true benefit of dsu. You are fully immersed in the sound field. Not necessarily panning effects but ambiance. Including the soundtrack and such. It's phenomenol. Just watched RIO with my son and I was enveloped. I can't wait to add two more channels to the front (TF)
> And can't wait even more for fully encoded bluerays. Really debating returning the x4100 and getting the 5200 for a couple hundo more.


i would do it.. exchange the avr while u still can return it.


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Some parts of Europe have some of the fastest Internet speeds; over 1,000 MBPS.
> Me, in my Canadian igloo, in comparison, on a good smooth snowy day, I got 2 MBPS.
> In a blizzard, about .69 MBPS. ...And even zero, for about few weeks, when we lose power (ten to twelve times a year). ...Then we play bowling. ...Or scrabble.


the building i live in has dark fiber internetconnection, unlimited bandwidth currently capped at 40gbit/s up and down. i have 1gbit local network in the whole building and 100mbit full duplex (up and down at the same time)internet in my home. but we can have 120mbit from cablecompany as well.. and another 60mbit from adsl line.


----------



## DS-21

pasender91 said:


> Not only for HTPCforever but for several people, i really think you have a big mis-conception of the market, Hollywood is NOT making movies for the US market !!!
> Take a look at the table that Keith shared a couple of pages back, you will see that the US account for only 1/3 of the total revenues, global market for 2/3. Believe me, the studios have seen this too
> When a big blockbuster comes out, it is designed to appeal to the WORLD, not to the US.


Yep. Less interestingly-written dialog, more CGI. Also, less comedy (don't do well outside the US) more boom boom. One would have to be Tommy not to see those trends. (Though I bet even pinball machines are getting more tactile transducers these days.)

Atmos (as opposed to DSU, which if it's good will be the real star of the show) won't interest me until the program material improves.



pasender91 said:


> Unrelated, but last time i visited the US of A, a chap asked me if we had internet in europe ????


It's really mind-boggling how provincial some people are. For the record, I actually had faster cable internet from Chello in Vienna ca. 2002 than I do from Comcast in ATL in almost 2015...


----------



## batpig

Brian Fineberg said:


> Ok. So today I have realized the true benefit of dsu. You are fully immersed in the sound field. Not necessarily panning effects but ambiance. Including the soundtrack and such. It's phenomenol. Just watched RIO with my son and I was enveloped. I can't wait to add two more channels to the front (TF)
> 
> And can't wait even more for fully encoded bluerays. Really debating returning the x4100 and getting the 5200 for a couple hundo more.


Totally agree. A lot of cynics are like, who cares if I hear a helicopter fly over my head? What a gimmick! But the real benefit is the amazing increase in immersion / envelopment. If the goal is to feel like you are IN the movie, slapping on some DSU icing really takes it to another level.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Observation about Transformers 4.
If says to select the "Dolby Atmos" in their menu for "Atmos" or "DB THD 7.1". 
But if you do not have the atmos AVR, it only plays in DD5.1
I don't have the atmos AVR yet and wanted to get at least THD 7.1, but it did not work (AVR is Onkyo TX-NR809)
Has anyone able to get THD on their non-Atmos AVR?


----------



## wse

pasender91 said:


> ?...When a big blockbuster comes out, it is designed to appeal to the WORLD, not to the US.
> And if you believe the chinese population cannot afford a cinema ticket, i suggest you visit Shanghai very soon
> 
> Unrelated, but last time i visited the US of A, a chap asked me if we had internet in europe ????


It reminds me when I was in college in the US and a student in my class asked if we had cows in France


----------



## chi_guy50

DS-21 said:


> Yep. Less interestingly-written dialog, more CGI. Also, less comedy (don't do well outside the US) more boom boom. One would have to be Tommy not to see those trends. (Though I bet even pinball machines are getting more tactile transducers these days.)


Agreed, although I believe there are still plenty of (mediocre to bad) comedies. But comedy is probably the hardest thing to write well, so really good comedies have always been a scarce commodity.



DS-21 said:


> Atmos (as opposed to DSU, which if it's good will be the real star of the show) won't interest me until the program material improves.


Agreed again.



DS-21 said:


> It's really mind-boggling how provincial some people are. For the record, I actually had faster cable internet from Chello in Vienna ca. 2002 than I do from Comcast in ATL in almost 2015...


Ah ha, so that's why we're so much in agreement. I lived and studied in Vienna for five years and also currently live in Atlanta. Aber wie klein ist doch die Welt!


----------



## wse

Questions: if a movie is encoded DTS MA 7.1 and one choose DOLBY SURROUND does it lower the quality of the sound by compressing it and re-processing it or does it derive the ATMOS channels out of the surround channels and leaves the sound uncompressed at 24 bit/92 ?


----------



## DaJoJo

wse said:


> Questions: if a movie is encoded DTS MA 7.1 and one choose DOLBY SURROUND does it lower the quality of the sound by compressing it and re-processing it or does it derive the ATMOS channels out of the surround channels and leaves the sound uncompressed at 24 bit/92 ?


no it just decodes it to pcm and then upmixes it with dolby surround upmixer


----------



## DaJoJo

chi_guy50 said:


> Ah ha, so that's why we're so much in agreement. I lived and studied in Vienna for five years and also currently live in Atlanta. Aber wie klein ist doch die Welt!


Es gibt nichts, was es nicht gibt doch immer


----------



## brwsaw

Too bad mixers didn't mix audio for distant sounds in front if you.
If the 3D image is inside the screen 3D sound should be (perceived to be) to.
I wonder what a Trinnov unit would output were it told the front Atmos speakers were 3'-6' behind the mains.
Assuming Gen 2 AVR's are capable I could have TF, TM and TR all evenly spaced (in both directions) and my chair would be in the right spot.


----------



## Nightlord

htpcforever said:


> The US Population is the third highest on the planet, behind only that of China and India (interestingly enough, India will soon pass China as the most populous nation). Of the top three, the US is the richest by far. The population of Sweden, for example, is barely more than the megalopolis of New York City...


Sure, but third highest still only make it around 4.5% of the world population. 

When will Hollywood occupy some other government building than the White House? Or use a non-US location for a disaster movie? It's quite possible to make a good movie still; the non-Hollywood production "Flood" being a good example.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Totally agree. A lot of cynics are like, who cares if I hear a helicopter fly over my head? What a gimmick! But the real benefit is the amazing increase in immersion / envelopment. If the goal is to feel like you are IN the movie, slapping on some DSU icing really takes it to another level.


Now if they would use tools that would really make you feel "in the movie". Is there something like a 9-channel IR-based reverb used in film mixing? Simply placing a lot of sounds around the listener doesn't necessarily create a sense of envelopment but is rather perceived as noise.


----------



## Frank714

HTinParadise said:


> I also have hope that Kbarnes will do a quick report on either U-571 or Das Boot in his wicked Star-Trek shuttle craft style HT.


But to qualify as Star Trek shuttlecraft "style" I'd think he would have to use SONEXone acoustic panels to come along nicely with a cup of hot Earl Grey:

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x17/samaritan_snare_hd_208.jpg

 According to my ongoing research efforts (prior to DSU and DA I need to improve the acoustics of my home theater) SONEXone panels available in Europe are pre-cut in a way that will enable uniform and seamless paneling.

Unfortunately, it appears that SONEXjunior is not available in Europe, but I definitely look forward to panel smaller and critical areas with it, also because it had been used in the transporter chambers of ST-TNG and ST VI:

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x02/the_ensigns_of_command_hd_139.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuchd/tuchd0510.jpg


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Again, I don't follow this line of thinking. Do you think that the mere existence of this sort of movie precludes the possibility of other, more plot-driven movies? It's as though people think that if Iron Man 4 is on the cards, then no other sort of movie can be made. IMO you hit it on the head when you said Hollywood will make the movies that people want to pay to see. Don't blame Hollywood for the kind of movies they're making, blame the moviegoers (if you want to blame anyone of course).



Of course I don't think the existence of these kinds of movies preclude creating better films. That said, the studios are profit driven and while they have deep pockets, they are not infinitely deep. They will spend the large majority of their money where the probabilitly for large return is the greatest. 

If, for example, they are offered two scripts, one of which is an action flick that falls within the kind that audiences are currently going to see and the other is a film that has "promise" and is a movie that maybe has the better plot, I'm comfortable saying that they will most likely pick the action flick.

Will there be exceptions? Of course. But that does not alter my position. I think the chart you posted tells the whole story.


----------



## tjenkins95

aaranddeeman said:


> Observation about Transformers 4.
> If says to select the "Dolby Atmos" in their menu for "Atmos" or "DB THD 7.1".
> But if you do not have the atmos AVR, it only plays in DD5.1
> I don't have the atmos AVR yet and wanted to get at least THD 7.1, but it did not work (AVR is Onkyo TX-NR809)
> Has anyone able to get THD on their non-Atmos AVR?


I have played Transformers 4 on my Denon 4311 and after selecting the Dolby Atmos option, it played a-okay in 7.1.


Ray


----------



## kingwiggi

batpig said:


> Totally agree. A lot of cynics are like, who cares if I hear a helicopter fly over my head? What a gimmick! But the real benefit is the amazing increase in immersion / envelopment. If the goal is to feel like you are IN the movie, slapping on some DSU icing really takes it to another level.


Aura sound transducers or butt kickers might also be considered a gimmick but for those who want to feel even more immersed in the action I highly recommend these especially for action movies. Now thats like the royal icing decorations on the cake.


----------



## aaranddeeman

tjenkins95 said:


> I have played Transformers 4 on my Denon 4311 and after selecting the Dolby Atmos option, it played a-okay in 7.1.
> 
> 
> Ray


Thanks. I will try it one more time I guess..


----------



## BigScreen

For those that are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the Dolby Surround Upmixer, have you watched any sporting events, such as NFL Football?

Each network does a varying effort with their 5.1 sound mix, but there have been times when games in enclosed stadiums really provide a convincing stadium-like reverb. Monday Night Football usually does a decent job, and tonight's game is in the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis.

Golf isn't exactly going to raise any eyebrows, that's for sure, but baseball might (I'm not a baseball fan, so I'm not very familiar with how they do sound for MLB games). NASCAR might be interesting if the DSU can do something with the car noise, especially when they do the road-level cam that the cars essentially run over as they go by.

If the DSU can provide some additional fun for a sporting event, the appeal of Atmos-equipped setups expands significantly. Anything that would provide more of a "you are there" experience would be a great upgrade for many people.

Can someone with an Atmos setup give it a listen and post some impressions?

Thanks!


----------



## htpcforever

It is not just the US that is provincial, but everywhere. How many Europeans think most Americans own guns and that the US is still the Wild West? Ignorance knows no political boundaries. 

Whenever a European mocks an American for not knowing the names and capitals of most of Western Europe, I always ask him how many US States and Capitals he knows. Many of our States are bigger than European nations, so the comparison stands. 


But sorry for the derail, back to Atmos and me living vicariously through others.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> 3D sound any day 3D pictures no thanks it makes me nauseated


Just wait; free 3D glasses-less are coming.


----------



## jacovn

DaJoJo said:


> the building i live in has dark fiber internetconnection, unlimited bandwidth currently capped at 40gbit/s up and down. i have 1gbit local network in the whole building and 100mbit full duplex (up and down at the same time)internet in my home. but we can have 120mbit from cablecompany as well.. and another 60mbit from adsl line.


Hmm direct connection to the ams-ix than, ? Not much ISP's will work with 40 gbps. I work for rather large usa based telco, and we do 10 or 100 gbps and not 40.
Dark fiber to ams-ix in Amsterdam is possible and the connection rate is doable sort of i guess 

I have only 500 mbps down here, the poorest area of our country, so we got even a free highway from the eu


----------



## truwarrior22

jacovn said:


> Hmm direct connection to the ams-ix than, ? Not much ISP's will work with 40 gbps. I work for rather large usa based telco, and we do 10 or 100 gbps and not 40.
> Dark fiber to ams-ix in Amsterdam is possible and the connection rate is doable sort of i guess
> 
> I have only 500 mbps down here, the poorest area of our country, so we got even a free highway from the eu


Any new opinions on 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 when using ceiling speakers? Curious if 5.1.4 is worth x2 the work and cost?


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Observation about Transformers 4.
> If says to select the "Dolby Atmos" in their menu for "Atmos" or "DB THD 7.1".
> But if you do not have the atmos AVR, it only plays in DD5.1
> I don't have the atmos AVR yet and wanted to get at least THD 7.1, but it did not work (AVR is Onkyo TX-NR809)
> Has anyone able to get THD on their non-Atmos AVR?


I no have no Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) and when I watched 'TF4' it automatically defaulted to the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack. 
You no even need to go in the 'Setup Audio' menu, none needed @ all. 

Try it, you'll see.  ...When the Main Menu appears, simply click on 'Play'.


----------



## Selden Ball

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions on 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 when using ceiling speakers? Curious if 5.1.4 is worth x2 the work and cost?


Yes, it is worth it.

5.1.2 gives you only left-to-right overhead panning.
5.1.4 adds front-to-back.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> Aura sound transducers or butt kickers might also be considered a gimmick but for those who want to feel even more immersed in the action I highly recommend these especially for action movies. Now thats like the royal icing decorations on the cake.


...And D-BOX.

___________


----------



## jacovn

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions on 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 when using ceiling speakers? Curious if 5.1.4 is worth x2 the work and cost?


You must have quoted the wrong person, as i have no current audio setup.

I will do 7.1.4.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ...And D-BOX. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBbEaEUqtnY


I get sea sick just watching the video ! Do they provide the bags as well as the salty air


----------



## truwarrior22

Selden Ball said:


> Yes, it is worth it.
> 
> 5.1.2 gives you only left-to-right overhead panning.
> 5.1.4 adds front-to-back.


True, I do like the idea of front to back maybe even more then left to right panning.. should the fronts be about 1/2 distance from the mains and MLP assuming the ceiling is high enough to get the proper degree?


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> I no have no Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) and when I watched 'TF4' it automatically defaulted to the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> You no even need to go in the 'Setup Audio' menu, none needed @ all.
> 
> Try it, you'll see.  ...When the Main Menu appears, simply click on 'Play'.


Thanks for confirming. I will try it out at some point.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ...And D-BOX.
> 
> ___________
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBbEaEUqtnY


Add a little mist smells and you would think your in Disney world I remember back in the day Disney had all this in one of their 3D presentations at Disney world. It had it all smell, fog, motion, 3D all the senses were stimulated.


----------



## kingwiggi

bargervais said:


> Add a little mist smells and you would think your in Disney world I remember back in the day Disney had all this in one of their 3D presentations at Disney world. It had it all smell, fog, motion, 3D all the senses were stimulated.


Pretty sure thats the Shrek 3D Show


----------



## DaJoJo

jacovn said:


> Hmm direct connection to the ams-ix than, ? Not much ISP's will work with 40 gbps. I work for rather large usa based telco, and we do 10 or 100 gbps and not 40.
> Dark fiber to ams-ix in Amsterdam is possible and the connection rate is doable sort of i guess
> I have only 500 mbps down here, the poorest area of our country, so we got even a free highway from the eu


yes indeed, via utrecht university backbone direct to ams-ix. our building has 2 dark fiber line. dont ask why, its absurd lol. so 2x unlimited bandwith capped at 40gbps 
with current setup and technology it could do a insain 200gbps up and down simultanious. 500mbs should do fine though
gezellig hier nederlanders te zien trouwens


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> ...And D-BOX. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBbEaEUqtnY


cool ! do they have something like that for a livingroom couch and working with normal soundtracks from a movie ? in like it just works without having to make a motion-track with some software. so u can put it on the sub out and can turn it off.. i dont like my but kicked when i play some loud progressive house.. my ass would not appreciate that too much lol


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kingwiggi said:


> Pretty sure thats the Shrek 3D Show


Way before that was honey I shrunk the audience


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dolby updated their Atmos film releases... of course in the tradition of Atmos releases the absolute worst movies are the ones that get Atmos mixes (instead of perhaps Interstellar or the Brad Pitt WW2 flick, you know... films that might actually take advantage of a 3 dimensional soundscape?)... though at least a different WWII film was added. 

I have zero interest in book of life or yet another irritating Penguins venture. I'm done going to see awful movies just so that I can hear an Atmos mix... Dolphin Tale 2 sufficed.


----------



## wse

kingwiggi said:


> Pretty sure thats the Shrek 3D Show


You mean like when he is in the swamps


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> I get sea sick just watching the video ! Do they provide the bags as well as the salty air


Yes, everything is included in the packaging.

By the way, Odyssee D-BOX motion controller was invented in Canada, Quebec. ...I was born there.  
...Some of the best world's DSP programmers, and DACs developers are from Canada.


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> Dolby updated their Atmos film releases... of course in the tradition of Atmos releases the absolute worst movies are the ones that get Atmos mixes (instead of perhaps Interstellar or the Brad Pitt WW2 flick, you know... films that might actually take advantage of a 3 dimensional soundscape?)... though at least a different WWII film was added.


Mr. Nolan didn't want Atmos..

We didn't do "Fury" for a number of reasons.. none of which had anything to do with Dolby.


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> cool ! do they have something like that for a living room couch and working with normal soundtracks from a movie ? in like it just works without having to make a motion-track with some software. so u can put it on the sub out and can turn it off.. i dont like my but kicked when i play some loud progressive house.. my ass would not appreciate that too much lol


Of course, Odyssee D-Box Motion Controller system has been around for quite a long time.
And many Blu-ray movies are encoded with D-Box (most of all FOX studios BD titles, and from other movie studios too). ...I must have 400-600 Blu-ray movies with D-Box encoding in my library. ...You can see their logo on the back of the Blu-ray case's insert picture & info.

* Just for example; *'Edge of Tomorrow'*, the Blu-ray disc is D-Box encoded, and in 3D. ...But not with Dolby Atmos, very unfortunately (it was @ the theater though). 
I only have one flick with Dolby Atmos audio encoding; *'Transformers: Age of Extinction'* on Blu-ray. ...Comes also in 3D (IMAX), of course.


♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/d-bo...and-standalone-series-iv-bd-motion-controller

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> Mr. Nolan didn't want Atmos..
> 
> We didn't do "Fury" for a number of reasons.. none of which had anything to do with Dolby.


So strange about Mr. Nolan... I wonder why not? 

It's nothing against Dolby or anyone in particular... just venting frustration at the wasted potential. But at least there's the hobbit! Chances are I'll be seeing some of those animated features anyhow because of my stepdaughter. Though I don't hesitate calling some of the theaters displaying "Atmos" as criminal... I've been to several shows advertised as Atmos, but the Atmos definitely was *NOT* active. I'm wondering if there is someway to notify the theater... I would feel a little silly calling the ticket counter and being like "could you send someone back there to change the receiver setting?"


----------



## helvetica bold

I'm very surprised Disney's Big Hero Number 6 isn't getting Atmos treatment. 
I thought Disney was a big Atmos supporter. Was Frozen released in Atmos? 
Is it me or the number of films Atmos films are shrinking?


----------



## NorthSky

And Disney is abandoning 3D Blu-ray in North America.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> I'm very surprised Disney's Big Hero Number 6 isn't getting Atmos treatment.
> I thought Disney was a big Atmos supporter. Was Frozen released in Atmos?
> Is it me or the number of films Atmos films are shrinking?


Frozen was in Atmos.

Apparently, so is Big Hero 6, according to the El Capitan:


----------



## Selden Ball

truwarrior22 said:


> True, I do like the idea of front to back maybe even more then left to right panning.. should the fronts be about 1/2 distance from the mains and MLP assuming the ceiling is high enough to get the proper degree?


 What matters is the direction from your primary listening position toward the various speakers. The actual distances between speakers differs depending on the shape of the room and ceiling. Dolby's requirements for the speaker directions actually are quite generous. They're included in the manuals for Atmos-capable equipment. The diagrams from Denon's manuals have been reproduced here quite frequently, but I've attached some below.


----------



## action_jackson

Aras_Volodka said:


> So strange about Mr. Nolan... I wonder why not?
> 
> It's nothing against Dolby or anyone in particular... just venting frustration at the wasted potential. But at least there's the hobbit! Chances are I'll be seeing some of those animated features anyhow because of my stepdaughter. Though I don't hesitate calling some of the theaters displaying "Atmos" as criminal... I've been to several shows advertised as Atmos, but the Atmos definitely was *NOT* active. I'm wondering if there is someway to notify the theater... I would feel a little silly calling the ticket counter and being like "could you send someone back there to change the receiver setting?"


There has been several times that the picture has been out of focus and a few times there has been problems with the audio. I have gotten into the habbit of letting an usher know anything that I feel is not right about the movies settings. Usually they are fairly prompt at getting word to the projectionist and resolving the issues. YMMV


----------



## Selden Ball

Ushers? Your local theater has _ushers_? Lucky you.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

ok question...to make sure my speakers are in the right place and I am hearing what I am supposed to hear...

towardsthe end of the last scene in TF4...there is a flyover from leftback to front that goes through my TM left speaker...I know this because i turned off the amp- to all other speakers...

when I have the full soundrtrack playing...I cannot specifically tell its flying overhead...but more of a very defined surround sound...which is enveloping and more robust...is this how its supposed to sound?

or should it be...

that it sounds like the plane flew directly over my head? I am confused and not sure if I should start tinkering again


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Of course I don't think the existence of these kinds of movies preclude creating better films. That said, the studios are profit driven and while they have deep pockets, they are not infinitely deep. They will spend the large majority of their money where the probabilitly for large return is the greatest.
> 
> If, for example, they are offered two scripts, one of which is an action flick that falls within the kind that audiences are currently going to see and the other is a film that has "promise" and is a movie that maybe has the better plot, I'm comfortable saying that they will most likely pick the action flick.
> 
> Will there be exceptions? Of course. But that does not alter my position. I think the chart you posted tells the whole story.


I watch more than 350 movies every year. I never seem unable to find a movie that suits my mood at the time. Of course there are action movies, some good some not so good, but there are literally hundreds of recently-made movies that come into all of the other genre classes too. The idea that Hollywood only turns out actioners and CGI-fests is ludicrous. And if someone really cannot find the kind of movies he likes from Hollywood output, then there is a whole world out there making great movies too. Europe, China, Scandinavia, Australia, etc, are all making movies...

The chart I posted doesn't even tell a small percentage of the story, let alone the whole story. It was a chart showing the box-office receipts for not only one specific genre of movies (comic book) but just one specific sub-genre of that genre (Marvel). It was posted to refute Dan's error in asserting that Marvel was keeping people out of cinemas (the exact opposite is the reality) not to make some sort of qualitative assessment of Marvel movies - but if you think one studio's output of one type of movie represents the "whole story", then something is amiss.


----------



## kbarnes701

truwarrior22 said:


> Any new opinions on 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 when using ceiling speakers? Curious if 5.1.4 is worth x2 the work and cost?


Covered at length in recent replies.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Selden Ball said:


> Ushers? Your local theater has _ushers_? Lucky you.



Ushers? Not only are they Ushers but the same person is the ticket collector, concession attendant, theater cleaner and yikes, even the PROJECTIONIST (if you want to call them that)! 


...Glenn


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Yes, everything is included in the packaging.By the way, Odyssee D-BOX motion controller was invented in Canada, Quebec. ...I was born there.
> ...Some of the best world's DSP programmers, and DACs developers are from Canada.


Nationalistic are we!


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Nationalistic are we!


We built the space shuttle arm we have long winters which helps the creative juices flow LOL


----------



## truwarrior22

Selden Ball said:


> What matters is the direction from your primary listening position toward the various speakers. The actual distances between speakers differs depending on the shape of the room and ceiling. Dolby's requirements for the speaker directions actually are quite generous. They're included in the manuals for Atmos-capable equipment. The diagrams from Denon's manuals have been reproduced here quite frequently, but I've attached some below.


 OK, so the question should really be is it really worth doing a 5.1.6 over a 5.1.4? Is it even possible to a 5.1.6 with current AVRs? I'm generally not that impressed with rear speakers so I'm wondering if rear ceiling speakers would be worth it. Looks like in a 5.1.4 the middle speakers are already towards the rear and the rear surrounds should help fill in if rear ceiling speakers are not used. Thoughts?


----------



## pasender91

No, you cannot do 5.1.6 in current "affordable" AVRs, the maximum is 7.1.4.
And for me the next step up from 7.1.4 when it will be available is 9.1.4 with Front Wides, not 7.1.6 ...


----------



## batpig

5.1.6 isn't even possible. You can do 7.1.4 with current higher end AVR's (although AFACT it's not allowed on Pioneer) but I would imagine the incremental from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 is sort of minimal, especially if you subjectively have found that surr. backs aren't that impactful for you. 

If you think about it, with 5.1.4, if you place two surrounds to the sides and a bit behind you, and top rears above you and behind you, you have 4 speakers to cover the rear hemisphere that can image both horizontall and vertically. Then you have four speakers overhead for front-to-back and side-to-side coverage, and five speakers in front (3 low / 2 high). So that gives you a lot of coverage to pan sounds around the "dome".


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Nationalistic are we!


David is on vacation; someone has to temporarily step in.


----------



## sdurani

Looks like DTS is starting to promote its object-based audio format to the movie industry: 

http://www.dts.com/professionals/sound-technologies/mda.aspx?tracking=mda 

No info yet on the consumer version.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

what is the recomendation of the placement of the surrounds for 5.2.4? i thought I saw them at up to 110 degrees ..but what is the minimum


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Looks like DTS is starting to promote its object-based audio format to the movie industry:
> 
> http://www.dts.com/professionals/sound-technologies/mda.aspx?tracking=mda
> 
> No info yet on the consumer version.


Not much info on the pro side either. 

I guess we can say again that they are working on it.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

I entered the world of home ATMOS on the 3rd of Oct and I am loving it, I am very impressed with how it handles upmixing to 5.2.2 and I would say of everything I have listened to, Music has been by far my biggest enjoyment. I just cant wait until other movies NOT done by Bay start rolling out with ATMOS and some older films that had ATMOS in theaters.. fingers crossed get re-released with ATMOS mixes. One film that I dont think ever had ATMOS but I feel would sound amazing would be Pacific Rim.


----------



## wse

I hope the new Denon will be able to do 9.2.4!


----------



## kbarnes701

*Experiment. DSU and Atmos comparison.*

This review can now be seen *here*.


----------



## wse

*Thank you*



kbarnes701 said:


> This is interesting, and gave some unexpected results. Today I decided to listen to two movies with all speakers/subs switched off, other than the 4 overheads. For the Atmos movie, I only have one choice at this time of course, and that is Transformers: Age of Extinction. For this movie I chose Chapter 20 as it has considerable action taking place 'in the air'. This movie was obviously reproduced via Dolby Atmos. For the other movie, I chose Transformers, Dark of the Moon, as I thought that this might give me the closest comparison in terms of sound design and mix. This movie was auditioned via Dolby Surround and I chose Chapter 17, as again there is considerable 'in the air' action in this section of the movie.
> 
> *Transformers: Age of Extinctio*n.
> 
> Before playing the chosen track, I skipped through some of the earlier Chapters just to hear what was coming from the 4 overhead speakers. I was shocked to hear nothing at all on my first few random selections. At first I thought that I had some sort of configuration problem and halted the test to check my setup. All was well. But the overheads were still totally silent. I skipped on to Chapter 20 and again, at the beginning of the chapter, silent overheads. I mean totally silent: no sound from them at all. As the Chapter progressed, the overheads did start to make noise, occasionally. But far less than I had expected given the nature of the content in that Chapter. Finally, when the alien craft starts to suck metal objects up into the air, I heard some activity from the overheads. And when the SUV that the characters are in starts to get lifted, the overheads finally started to make some decent noise.
> 
> *Transformers, Dark of the Moon.*
> 
> Following the same procedure as above, I first skipped through some sections of the movie at random. All 4 overheads made noise almost all the time. Music was certainly 'up there' on every selected section, but so were effects and other sounds. Skipping on to Chapter 17 revealed the same. All 4 overhead speakers made noise almost all the time. I could hear the 'tail end' of lots of effects, as the skydivers exit the chopper and start their descent. Wind noise, music, various weapons, bullets whooshing past etc all came from the overhead speakers to some extent.
> 
> *Conclusion.*
> 
> On a true Atmos movie there will be times when the overhead speakers are totally silent. Transformers 4 does not seem to be making the most of Atmos in its mix. There were numerous occasions in Chapter 20 when I could have seen the overheads being used to great effect, matching the action onscreen well. But the reality of this mix is that for the majority of the whole movie, the overheads are silent.
> 
> By comparison, if you upmix Transformers 3 using DSU, your overhead speakers will be making sound throughout almost the entirety of the movie. Now of course, the DSU effects will be ambient and music a lot of the time, with pseudo-discrete effects occasionally, whereas the Atmos effects are always 100% discrete and placed precisely by the mixer. And Transformers 4 does have a better overall sound than the earlier movie, which may be a direct result of the mixer being able to work in Atmos at the beds level. But overall, the use of the overheads in the new movie has to be regarded as disappointing IMO. It is surely a kickass soundtrack, but the overheads could, IMO, have been deployed to much better effect.
> 
> I will look forward to conducting this experiment again with the next Atmos soundtrack that is released. Meanwhile, it is very easy to see what batpig calls the 'in the movie' effect that he is getting from DSU upmixed soundtracks. Looking solely at immersion as the desired characteristic, DSU is actually more effective than Atmos on these two Transformers movies.
> 
> It is easy for anyone to conduct this same test if they own these two movies, using the same Chapters as I did. It is real simple if, like me, you have separate amplification - just turn all the amps off (including the subs) except for those powering the overhead speakers. If you don't have external amps, disconnect the ear-level speakers at the speaker end, being very careful to ensure that the terminal wires don't touch each other. Wrap them in electrical tape - and make sure the AVR is off before you touch any connections of course. And remember to turn off the subs or they will distract you.


Thank you for sharing that it's nice to see that DSU is so good too bad the ATMOS mix was so poor but then again it is the first BR in ATMOS hopefully they will improve in time! In the mean time I will enjoy the DSU when I get the overhead speakers.


----------



## brwsaw

Some of the earliest comments in this thread, specifically links to Dolby info, suggested drivers should be fired straight down. Only after a press conference or two did it seem they were accepting that people wanted to aim them at their seats (my read on it).
How would you get accurate reproduction of specific sound locations if the speaker isn't covering the intended location?
This is specific to the Atmos TF/TM/TR speakers that are mounted above or in the ceilings, not FH or RH locations being used as Atmos location specified speakers.

Any one care to clarify, given the potential/nature of object based recordings with XYZ coordinates, should the ceiling mounted Atmos specific speakers have their woofer directed at the MLP? I'd vote no given my current understanding of an ideal installation. Please confirm....


----------



## mike_carton

kbarnes701 said:


> *Experiment. DSU and Atmos comparison.*
> 
> This is interesting, and gave some unexpected results.


 Any difference in level of overhead speaker activity while watching *Transformers: Age of Extinction* with ATMOS on versus with DSU on?


----------



## NM20

mike_carton said:


> Any difference in level of overhead speaker activity while watching *Transformers: Age of Extinction* with ATMOS on versus with DSU on?


Good question...


----------



## Selden Ball

brwsaw said:


> Some of the earliest comments in this thread, specifically links to Dolby info, suggested drivers should fired straight down. Only after a press conference or two did it seem they were accepting that people wanted to aim them at their seats (my read on it).
> How would you get accurate reproduction of specific sound locations if the speaker isn't covering the intended location?
> This is specific to the Atmos TF/TM/TR speakers that are mounted above or in the ceilings, not FH or RH locations being used as Atmos location specified speakers.
> 
> Any one care to clarify, given the potential/nature of object based recordings with XYZ coordinates, should the ceiling mounted Atmos specific speakers have their woofer directed at the MLP? I'd vote no given my current understanding of an ideal installation. Please confirm....


Dolby's specs for overhead speakers require a 90 degree dispersion. They don't mean a total dispersion angle of 90 degrees, but rather 90 degrees from the central axis. With that kind of dispersion you just have to be able to see the front surface of the speaker to get the full effect. I dunno where they thought anyone would be able to get speakers like that.

The speakers that most people use have far narrower dispersion angles. They have to be pointed toward the seating.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

kbarnes701, I completely agree, I have everything set to upmix to 5.1.2 and especially in MUSIC, I hear the above speakers and it just overall sounds amazing and when I watch various movies and upmix, I am impressed at how well it does the job, I hear more impressive sound from it upmixing then I did in T4 and not in the manner of just being noise or general sound but target sound getting placed correctly in the top speakers... I too cant wait for better ATMOS mixes to come out... sadly the next release is that horrible sorry excuse of a Turtles movie... hopefully better directors and movies get released soon..


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> This is interesting, and gave some unexpected results.
> 
> *Conclusion.*
> 
> On a true Atmos movie there will be times when the overhead speakers are totally silent. Transformers 4 does not seem to be making the most of Atmos in its mix. There were numerous occasions in Chapter 20 when I could have seen the overheads being used to great effect, matching the action onscreen well. But the reality of this mix is that for the majority of the whole movie, the overheads are silent.
> 
> By comparison, if you upmix Transformers 3 using DSU, your overhead speakers will be making sound throughout almost the entirety of the movie. Now of course, the DSU effects will be ambient and music a lot of the time, with pseudo-discrete effects occasionally, whereas the Atmos effects are always 100% discrete and placed precisely by the mixer. And Transformers 4 does have a better overall sound than the earlier movie, which may be a direct result of the mixer being able to work in Atmos at the beds level. But overall, the use of the overheads in the new movie has to be regarded as disappointing IMO. It is surely a kickass soundtrack, but the overheads could, IMO, have been deployed to much better effect.
> 
> I will look forward to conducting this experiment again with the next Atmos soundtrack that is released. Meanwhile, it is very easy to see what batpig calls the 'in the movie' effect that he is getting from DSU upmixed soundtracks. Looking solely at immersion as the desired characteristic, DSU is actually more effective than Atmos on these two Transformers movies.
> 
> It is easy for anyone to conduct this same test if they own these two movies, using the same Chapters as I did. It is real simple if, like me, you have separate amplification - just turn all the amps off (including the subs) except for those powering the overhead speakers. If you don't have external amps, disconnect the ear-level speakers at the speaker end, being very careful to ensure that the terminal wires don't touch each other. Wrap them in electrical tape - and make sure the AVR is off before you touch any connections of course. And remember to turn off the subs or they will distract you.


i'm very surprised your conclusion is spot on i'll have to have a listen out in my livingroom to see what it does sound like on my 9.1 TX-NR818


----------



## asoofi1

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby's specs for overhead speakers require a 90 degree dispersion. They don't mean a total dispersion angle of 90 degrees, but rather 90 degrees from the central axis. With that kind of dispersion you just have to be able to see the front surface of the speaker to get the full effect. I dunno where they thought anyone would be able to get speakers like that.
> 
> The speakers that most people use have far narrower dispersion angles. They have to be pointed toward the seating.


Just to clarify, it's 45 degrees recommended from center axis per their white paper, making it 90 degrees total dispersion. Otherwise, you sound as if saying dolby requires 180 degree dispersion speakers.


----------



## bargervais

Daniel Chaves said:


> kbarnes701, I completely agree, I have everything set to upmix to 5.1.2 and especially in MUSIC, I hear the above speakers and it just overall sounds amazing and when I watch various movies and upmix, I am impressed at how well it does the job, I hear more impressive sound from it upmixing then I did in T4 and not in the manner of just being noise or general sound but target sound getting placed correctly in the top speakers... I too cant wait for better ATMOS mixes to come out... sadly the next release is that horrible sorry excuse of a Turtles movie... hopefully better directors and movies get released soon..


i will not get the turtle movie i'm sorry..Hercules maybe_.*.*_ but thats not till november 4th


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Anyone know if there is a list of upcoming bluray movies that will have an ATMOS soundtrack?

I know Dolby has something like that for movies coming to Theater but it sure would be nice and reassuring if we had a similar list for upcoming blurays.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Thank you for sharing that it's nice to see that DSU is so good too bad the ATMOS mix was so poor but then again it is the first BR in ATMOS hopefully they will improve in time! In the mean time I will enjoy the DSU when I get the overhead speakers.


You're welcome. It certainly means that DSU is no 'poor relation'. In fact, in terms of 'sound for the buck' from your new overhead speakers, it's beating genuine Atmos mixes ATM.


----------



## kbarnes701

mike_carton said:


> Any difference in level of overhead speaker activity while watching *Transformers: Age of Extinction* with ATMOS on versus with DSU on?


You can't engage DSU when a genuine Atmos track is playing (nothing to upmix).


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby's specs for overhead speakers require a 90 degree dispersion. They don't mean a total dispersion angle of 90 degrees, but rather 90 degrees from the central axis. With that kind of dispersion you just have to be able to see the front surface of the speaker to get the full effect. *I dunno where they thought anyone would be able to get speakers like that.*


Tannoy?


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> kbarnes701, I completely agree, I have everything set to upmix to 5.1.2 and especially in MUSIC, I hear the above speakers and it just overall sounds amazing and when I watch various movies and upmix, I am impressed at how well it does the job, I hear more impressive sound from it upmixing then I did in T4 and not in the manner of just being noise or general sound but target sound getting placed correctly in the top speakers... I too cant wait for better ATMOS mixes to come out... sadly the next release is that horrible sorry excuse of a Turtles movie... hopefully better directors and movies get released soon..


I didn’t get to see TF4 in the cinema so had no idea until today that the overhead speakers are used so little. When I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in the cinema I was very taken with the good Atmos effects, so it is a shame that this wasn't the first movie released on BD as Atmos. Hopefully we'll see better examples of what Atmos can do coming along soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> i'm very surprised your conclusion is spot on i'll have to have a listen out in my livingroom to see what it does sound like on my 9.1 TX-NR818


If you can't isolate the overhead speakers, try standing on something and putting your ear to one of the overhead speakers. Most of the time it will be totally silent with TF4.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> i'm very surprised your conclusion is spot on i'll have to have a listen out in my livingroom to see what it does sound like on my 9.1 TX-NR818


Just for comparison sake? ...Please do, because you're one of the very few members here having two great receivers @ home; the 818 (XT32) and the 737 (Dolby Atmos + AccuEQ). ...In two different room's setups. 

* Keith would make a good Dolby Surround up-mixer audio dealer.  ...His positive influence helps people spending their money, now.


----------



## Selden Ball

asoofi1 said:


> Just to clarify, it's 45 degrees recommended from center axis per their white paper, making it 90 degrees total dispersion. Otherwise, you sound as if saying dolby requires 180 degree dispersion speakers.


My understanding is that they indeed meant 90 degress from the axis, not 90 degrees total. Thanks for the correction. Speakers with only 90 degrees total dispersion aren't going to work well as Top Front or Top Rear speakers if they're near the limits of the recommended directions: they're well outside that dispersion angle.


----------



## asoofi1

truwarrior22 said:


> OK, so the question should really be is it really worth doing a 5.1.6 over a 5.1.4? Is it even possible to a 5.1.6 with current AVRs? I'm generally not that impressed with rear speakers so I'm wondering if rear ceiling speakers would be worth it. Looks like in a 5.1.4 the middle speakers are already towards the rear and the rear surrounds should help fill in if rear ceiling speakers are not used. Thoughts?


Not worth it unless you have a room over 30 feet long and have over 3 rows of seating. 4 seems to be the sweet spot. 2 is not enough to get the front to back panning.


----------



## NorthSky

Daniel Chaves said:


> Anyone know if there is a list of upcoming bluray movies that will have an ATMOS soundtrack?
> 
> I know Dolby has something like that for movies coming to Theater but it sure would be nice and reassuring if we had a similar list for upcoming blurays.


No, but we do have our own wish list.  ...Stuart started it.

* Here => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> This is interesting, and gave some unexpected results.
> 
> Today I decided to listen to two movies with all speakers/subs switched off, other than the 4 overheads. For the Atmos movie, I only have one choice at this time of course, and that is Transformers: Age of Extinction. For this movie I chose Chapter 20 as it has considerable action taking place 'in the air'. This movie was obviously reproduced via Dolby Atmos. For the other movie, I chose Transformers, Dark of the Moon, as I thought that this might give me the closest comparison in terms of sound design and mix. This movie was auditioned via Dolby Surround and I chose Chapter 17, as again there is considerable 'in the air' action in this section of the movie.
> 
> *Transformers: Age of Extinctio*n.
> 
> Before playing the chosen track, I skipped through some of the earlier Chapters just to hear what was coming from the 4 overhead speakers. I was shocked to hear nothing at all on my first few random selections. At first I thought that I had some sort of configuration problem and halted the test to check my setup. All was well. But the overheads were still totally silent. I skipped on to Chapter 20 and again, at the beginning of the chapter, silent overheads. I mean totally silent: no sound from them at all. As the Chapter progressed, the overheads did start to make noise, occasionally. But far less than I had expected given the nature of the content in that Chapter. Finally, when the alien craft starts to suck metal objects up into the air, I heard some activity from the overheads. And when the SUV that the characters are in starts to get lifted, the overheads finally started to make some decent noise.
> 
> *Transformers, Dark of the Moon.*
> 
> Following the same procedure as above, I first skipped through some sections of the movie at random. All 4 overheads made noise almost all the time. Music was certainly 'up there' on every selected section, but so were effects and other sounds. Skipping on to Chapter 17 revealed the same. All 4 overhead speakers made noise almost all the time. I could hear the 'tail end' of lots of effects, as the skydivers exit the chopper and start their descent. Wind noise, music, various weapons, bullets whooshing past etc all came from the overhead speakers to some extent.
> 
> *Conclusion.*
> 
> On a true Atmos movie there will be times when the overhead speakers are totally silent. Transformers 4 does not seem to be making the most of Atmos in its mix. There were numerous occasions in Chapter 20 when I could have seen the overheads being used to great effect, matching the action onscreen well. But the reality of this mix is that for the majority of the whole movie, the overheads are silent.
> 
> By comparison, if you upmix Transformers 3 using DSU, your overhead speakers will be making sound throughout almost the entirety of the movie. Now of course, the DSU effects will be ambient and music a lot of the time, with pseudo-discrete effects occasionally, whereas the Atmos effects are always 100% discrete and placed precisely by the mixer. And Transformers 4 does have a better overall sound than the earlier movie, which may be a direct result of the mixer being able to work in Atmos at the beds level. But overall, the use of the overheads in the new movie has to be regarded as disappointing IMO. It is surely a kickass soundtrack, but the overheads could, IMO, have been deployed to much better effect.
> 
> I will look forward to conducting this experiment again with the next Atmos soundtrack that is released. Meanwhile, it is very easy to see what batpig calls the 'in the movie' effect that he is getting from DSU upmixed soundtracks. Looking solely at immersion as the desired characteristic, DSU is actually more effective than Atmos on these two Transformers movies.
> 
> It is easy for anyone to conduct this same test if they own these two movies, using the same Chapters as I did. It is real simple if, like me, you have separate amplification - just turn all the amps off (including the subs) except for those powering the overhead speakers. If you don't have external amps, disconnect the ear-level speakers at the speaker end, being very careful to ensure that the terminal wires don't touch each other. Wrap them in electrical tape - and make sure the AVR is off before you touch any connections of course. And remember to turn off the subs or they will distract you.


Have you tried selecting the non-Atmos track for TF4 and used Dolby Surround to compare? Maybe you'll like it better that with since it sounds like the algorithm is more aggressive than the native mix might be.


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> You can't engage DSU when a genuine Atmos track is playing (nothing to upmix).


You can disable the bitstream mode in your Blu-ray player, and output decoded 7.1 PCM from the TrueHD track into the AVR.


----------



## truwarrior22

asoofi1 said:


> Not worth it unless you have a room over 30 feet long and have over 3 rows of seating. 4 seems to be the sweet spot. 2 is not enough to get the front to back panning.


Thanks what I was thinking too. I can see if you have more seating for sure, but I'd probably be better of with sides assuming there is one MLP.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Have you tried selecting the non-Atmos track for TF4 and used Dolby Surround to compare? Maybe you'll like it better that with since it sounds like the algorithm is more aggressive than the native mix might be.


Now, that's a good question.


----------



## Kris Deering

Also, maybe the sound designers decided that doing too much from the overhead speakers would come off as gimmicky similar to exaggerated 3D effects in movies. You've stated in the past how amazing and engaging this chapter was before you did this test, so maybe the sound designers felt the same way and used the overheads sparingly. Even the Auro guy said they rarely use their VOG channel because people aren't used to sound coming from directly above them.


----------



## Selden Ball

FWIW, I found the DSU upmix of the 2 channel Elektra CD of _Powaqqatsi_ (music by Philip Glass) to be more engaging than the 5.1 channel Criterion BD, whether upmixed by DSU or not.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> You're welcome. It certainly means that DSU is no 'poor relation'. In fact, in terms of 'sound for the buck' from your new overhead speakers, it's beating genuine Atmos mixes ATM.


How will DSU effect be on non Atmos movies, is this worth the Atmos money ?
Did you try DSU in music and TV content ?
How many Atmos speakers do you use ?


----------



## Daniel Chaves

NorthSky said:


> No, but we do have our own wish list.  ...Stuart started it.
> 
> * Here => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


it is so weird I dont see the link to the post in your comment but when I went to quote it to ask you for the link, I can see it in the quote lol...


----------



## pasender91

Keith you're the man, your tests are very valuable.

But please would you be kind enough to try to do this test of DSU on TF4 scene 20?
Isn't it possible to select the standard 5.1 track, or select a different language for which there is only 5.1 available ... 

This would be a very valid test, DSU vs Atmos on the same scene !!!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Just for comparison sake? ...Please do, because you're one of the very few members here having two great receivers @ home; the 818 (XT32) and the 737 (Dolby Atmos + AccuEQ). ...In two different room's setups.
> 
> * Keith would make a good Dolby Surround up-mixer audio dealer.  ...His positive influence helps people spending their money, now.


Came home from work popped the transformers 4 disc in... listening as close as I could I pulled out the disc went to the living room to see what it sounds like out there the listening mode on the 818 neo x running 9.1 basically 5.1 with highs and wides I didn't notice that much of a difference... I still feel the atmos running on my 737 does sound a little better not really sure why maybe it's because I want it to.... the 737 Atmos sound is very immersive..


----------



## kingwiggi

wse said:


> I hope the new Denon will be able to do 9.2.4!


Current Denons will do 9.2.4 with additional external amps its just that the front wides are not used in the Atmos mix.

I reconfigured my setup at the weekend for 9.2.4 and a new menu item called something like 'DTS neoX 
Extra wide' appeared on the menu. Sounded pretty good.


----------



## RichB

Kris Deering said:


> Also, maybe the sound designers decided that doing too much from the overhead speakers would come off as gimmicky similar to exaggerated 3D effects in movies. You've stated in the past how amazing and engaging this chapter was before you did this test, so maybe the sound designers felt the same way and used the overheads sparingly. Even the Auro guy said they rarely use their VOG channel because people aren't used to sound coming from directly above them.


A sound design may not want to overdue surround and height channels.
After all, you do not want the viewers to look in back or above, which in real life is the appropriate reaction.


- Rich


----------



## sikclown

kingwiggi said:


> Current Denons will do 9.2.4 with additional external amps its just that the front wides are not used in the Atmos mix
> I reconfigured my setup at the weekend for 9.2.4 and a new menu item called something like 'DTS neoX
> Extra wide' appeared on the menu. Sounded pretty good.



No, even though you can hook up 13 speakers the most any Denon can do is 11.1, 9.1.2, or 7.1.4 (all the same thing, basically 11 channels at once with external amp. Yes you can add a second Sub).


----------



## asoofi1

kingwiggi said:


> Current Denons will do 9.2.4 with additional external amps its just that the front wides are not used in the Atmos mix.
> 
> I reconfigured my setup at the weekend for 9.2.4 and a new menu item called something like 'DTS neoX
> Extra wide' appeared on the menu. Sounded pretty good.



Which model does 9.2.4?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> This is interesting, and gave some unexpected results.
> 
> Today I decided to listen to two movies with all speakers/subs switched off, other than the 4 overheads. For the Atmos movie, I only have one choice at this time of course, and that is Transformers: Age of Extinction. For this movie I chose Chapter 20 as it has considerable action taking place 'in the air'. This movie was obviously reproduced via Dolby Atmos. For the other movie, I chose Transformers, Dark of the Moon, as I thought that this might give me the closest comparison in terms of sound design and mix. This movie was auditioned via Dolby Surround and I chose Chapter 17, as again there is considerable 'in the air' action in this section of the movie.
> 
> *Transformers: Age of Extinctio*n.
> 
> Before playing the chosen track, I skipped through some of the earlier Chapters just to hear what was coming from the 4 overhead speakers. I was shocked to hear nothing at all on my first few random selections. At first I thought that I had some sort of configuration problem and halted the test to check my setup. All was well. But the overheads were still totally silent. I skipped on to Chapter 20 and again, at the beginning of the chapter, silent overheads. I mean totally silent: no sound from them at all. As the Chapter progressed, the overheads did start to make noise, occasionally. But far less than I had expected given the nature of the content in that Chapter. Finally, when the alien craft starts to suck metal objects up into the air, I heard some activity from the overheads. And when the SUV that the characters are in starts to get lifted, the overheads finally started to make some decent noise.
> 
> *Transformers, Dark of the Moon.*
> 
> Following the same procedure as above, I first skipped through some sections of the movie at random. All 4 overheads made noise almost all the time. Music was certainly 'up there' on every selected section, but so were effects and other sounds. Skipping on to Chapter 17 revealed the same. All 4 overhead speakers made noise almost all the time. I could hear the 'tail end' of lots of effects, as the skydivers exit the chopper and start their descent. Wind noise, music, various weapons, bullets whooshing past etc all came from the overhead speakers to some extent.
> 
> *Conclusion.*
> 
> On a true Atmos movie there will be times when the overhead speakers are totally silent. Transformers 4 does not seem to be making the most of Atmos in its mix. There were numerous occasions in Chapter 20 when I could have seen the overheads being used to great effect, matching the action onscreen well. But the reality of this mix is that for the majority of the whole movie, the overheads are silent.
> 
> By comparison, if you upmix Transformers 3 using DSU, your overhead speakers will be making sound throughout almost the entirety of the movie. Now of course, the DSU effects will be ambient and music a lot of the time, with pseudo-discrete effects occasionally, whereas the Atmos effects are always 100% discrete and placed precisely by the mixer. And Transformers 4 does have a better overall sound than the earlier movie, which may be a direct result of the mixer being able to work in Atmos at the beds level. But overall, the use of the overheads in the new movie has to be regarded as disappointing IMO. It is surely a kickass soundtrack, but the overheads could, IMO, have been deployed to much better effect.
> 
> I will look forward to conducting this experiment again with the next Atmos soundtrack that is released. Meanwhile, it is very easy to see what batpig calls the 'in the movie' effect that he is getting from DSU upmixed soundtracks. Looking solely at immersion as the desired characteristic, DSU is actually more effective than Atmos on these two Transformers movies.
> 
> It is easy for anyone to conduct this same test if they own these two movies, using the same Chapters as I did. It is real simple if, like me, you have separate amplification - just turn all the amps off (including the subs) except for those powering the overhead speakers. If you don't have external amps, disconnect the ear-level speakers at the speaker end, being very careful to ensure that the terminal wires don't touch each other. Wrap them in electrical tape - and make sure the AVR is off before you touch any connections of course. And remember to turn off the subs or they will distract you.


Keith, you just laid out the reason we need more consumer products that allow for front, side, and rear wall pan-through arrays. I've notice on more than one Atmos mix at the theater that specific speakers on the side and rear walls were used far more often than the overheads (sometimes even the two extra screen wall speakers were more noticeable). I find it almost silly that Dolby spent most of their time and emphasis on the overheads and almost nothing on the front, side, and rear arrays for mainstream products, where most of the object panning and anchoring action takes place.

It's also possible that these fixed rendering blocks designed for "mainstream" products are being told to fold some of the metadata controlled objects with various overhead positional cues into the wall speakers, taking some of the "action" away from the overheads that was in the original theatrical mix. It would be great to compare a 7.1.4 system to a full on Trinnov produced Atmos system with most or all the speakers set up and get a taste for the difference in how these Blu-ray Atmos soundtracks are rendered out.

As I mentioned from my CEDIA experience, even 9.1.4 from the Trinnov and Steinway/Lyngdorf processors changed the way the demo clips behaved from the many 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 presentations I had heard... and in a good way.


----------



## kingwiggi

asoofi1 said:


> Which model does 9.2.4?


OK I should probably make a correction here before I get flamed, the Denon AVR-X5200W will do 11 channels simultaneously with External Amps. Although you can have all 13 speakers connected aka 9.2.4. 

At some point Dolby decided use of the front wides would somehow cause a distraction to the front soundstage so the front wides are not available during Atmos playback. 

IMO if you actually have a large enough room use of the front wides would actually improve object panning.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kingwiggi said:


> OK I should probably make a correction here before I get flamed, the Denon AVR-X5200W will do 11 channels simultaneously with External Amps. Although you can have all 13 speakers connected aka 9.2.4.
> 
> At some point Dolby decided use of the front wides would somehow cause a distraction to the front soundstage so the front wides are not available during Atmos playback.
> 
> IMO if you actually have a large enough room use of the front wides would actually improve object panning.


The wides don't work for Dolby Surround in these current products because they aren't exactly keyed to the same positional content as other previous home formats like DTS Neo:X. 

Dolby is currently working on a 9.1.4 (and possibly 9.1.6) rendering block for regular products. Maybe for next year. 

9.1.2 and 9.1.4 layouts create the start of a side wall pan-through array and it did help expand the demo soundtracks at CEDIA. The extra pair of speakers line up with the front side surround locations as in the cinema version of Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

kingwiggi said:


> OK I should probably make a correction here before I get flamed, the Denon AVR-X5200W will do 11 channels simultaneously with External Amps. Although you can have all 13 speakers connected aka 9.2.4.
> 
> At some point Dolby decided use of the front wides would somehow cause a distraction to the front soundstage so the front wides are not available during Atmos playback.
> 
> IMO if you actually have a large enough room use of the front wides would actually improve object panning.


Hi King, yes you came very close to being flamed, but you posted this correction just in time 
Indeed, current models support a max of 11 channels in Atmos (7.1.4 or 9.1.2)

But you're still wrong on wides, they can be used on Atmos, it is only when playing DSU that they are not available


----------



## wse

kingwiggi said:


> Current Denons will do 9.2.4 with additional external amps its just that the front wides are not used in the Atmos mix. I reconfigured my setup at the weekend for 9.2.4 and a new menu item called something like 'DTS neoX Extra wide' appeared on the menu. Sounded pretty good.


DTS Extra I wonder if the Maranz has that? I thought none of them could do DSU 9.2.4?

Oh I see you corrected no 9.2.4 maybe next year at CEDIA 2015? Or DATASAT might do it for $20,000


----------



## chi_guy50

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, I found the DSU upmix of the 2 channel Elektra CD of _Powaqqatsi_ (music by Philip Glass) to be more engaging than the 5.1 channel Criterion BD, whether upmixed by DSU or not.


Selden, that is a very intriguing program selection. I would interested in your impressions of a comparison using Neo:X on the same source material.

FWIW, after about a month of listening, I am more and more impressed with Neo:X 11.1 for music on CD, LP, or streaming and have limited my use of DSU to video sources.


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> Hi King, yes you came very close to being flamed, but you posted this correction just in time
> Indeed, current models support a max of 11 channels in Atmos (7.1.4 or 9.1.2)
> 
> But you're still wrong on wides, they can be used on Atmos, it is only when playing DSU that they are not available


Just to be double clear, because it's confusing -- wides CAN be used with Atmos, and NOT with DSU.... but, if you have a 9.1.4 layout, when you engage Atmos surround mode it will NOT use the wides, dropping them in favor of the S.Back speakers. So the 11ch max processing will utilize 7.1.4 with S.Back and FW will be silent. If you disable the SB speakers then the 7.1.4 Atmos content will engage the FW speakers.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Selden Ball said:


> What matters is the direction from your primary listening position toward the various speakers. The actual distances between speakers differs depending on the shape of the room and ceiling. Dolby's requirements for the speaker directions actually are quite generous. They're included in the manuals for Atmos-capable equipment. The diagrams from Denon's manuals have been reproduced here quite frequently, but I've attached some below.


Thanks for those diagrams as they will help me also. Tomorrow my Def Tech ProMonitor 800's will be here, I'm installing them as front height channels.


----------



## asoofi1

Wides are the first ones I would get rid of...it's just not worth it in most rooms.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. I'd personally want a middle overhead instead of wides but every room is different and placement is key.


----------



## htpcforever

sikclown said:


> No, even though you can hook up 13 speakers the most any Denon can do is 11.1, 9.1.2, or 7.1.4 (all the same thing, basically 11 channels at once with external amp. Yes you can add a second Sub).


Front heights have been considered the extra 2 in the 9.1. With Atmos, are they still part of the 9.1 or do they turn into 7.1.2? I ask because eventually I will have 2 top front speakers pointed towards the listening position and want to use the front heights to have a 7.1.4


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asoofi1 said:


> Wides are the first ones I would get rid of...it's just not worth it in most rooms.


Not so with Atmos. They're actually front side surrounds. You get better, more precise sound placement and panning.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I'd personally want a middle overhead instead of wides but every room is different and placement is key.


Same here. If I had a 7.1.4 system and you offered me 2 more speakers, they'd go above me. Only after that would I add wides.


----------



## BigScreen

I gave our Best Buy Magnolia store another shot at an Atmos demonstration last night, and this time, they were able to get sound out of the A60's. That was after they reconnected the loose wires on the back of one of them...

They played several tracks from the Dolby Demo disc, as well as Chapter 20 from Transformers 4.

However, the demonstration did nothing to excite me about Atmos. I suspect something was still wrong with their setup, but it might have been the room as well. The room was quite shallow, maybe 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, and the ceiling was probably 12 feet high. Given the placement of the A60 on top of the floorstanding Def Tech speakers, that probably wasn't optimal to get any kind of reflections going. Also not helping was the popcorn-textured drop-ceiling panels.

There was sound coming from the A60's, but I never once got any kind of height-based effects. I tried crouching down to sitting height to try and get the A60's above ear level, and that didn't help any. There was plenty of sound coming from the rear surrounds, especially in the Leaf demo, but I got nothing height-wise from the front.

I suspect that the receiver (X4100W) was not receiving an Atmos signal, because the display never showed "Atmos" but rather "Dolby D + []S" See the attached photo that I took of the receiver while the demo was playing. When I questioned them about it, they just said that sometimes the display doesn't show what you'd expect because of the setup they have, which sounded like mumbo-jumbo for "I don't know".

Unfortunately, they don't have the output of the receiver up on the display device, so I couldn't have them bring up an info screen to show more details. Can anyone tell me if the receiver's display is correct for playing an Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not so with Atmos. They're actually front side surrounds. You get better, more precise sound placement and panning.


True. That will work all over the room with object sound.

Though I'd personally rather have 7.1.6 over 9.1.4 layout. More of a coherent soundfield imo that way.

Ignoring the center and LFE with 7.1.6 we have:

Front stereo imaging + height stereo imaging
Sidewall stereo imaging + height stereo imaging
Rear stereo imaging + height stereo imaging


----------



## DaJoJo

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I'd personally want a middle overhead instead of wides but every room is different and placement is key.


+1
i stil wonder how they gonna implement this VOG speaker, auro3D promised sort off that they gonna come with some affordable avr and that it gonna come in avr end of the year. still not much news on that. besides this, there is this thing that filmmixers are not going to make real use if it coz people watching movies get scared of the sound of things falling down and gonna look up to the ceiling instead of watching the screen . if it was me i would like the whole 9 and get this feeling the ceiling comes down


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Same here. If I had a 7.1.4 system and you offered me 2 more speakers, they'd go above me. Only after that would I add wides.


Damn right you would!  

I look at it as 6ch sound at ear level with identical coverage for height. Front, mid and rear. Ear level and height.


----------



## batpig

htpcforever said:


> Front heights have been considered the extra 2 in the 9.1. With Atmos, are they still part of the 9.1 or do they turn into 7.1.2? I ask because eventually I will have 2 top front speakers pointed towards the listening position and want to use the front heights to have a 7.1.4


The Atmos designation puts listener level speakers first (before the .1 LFE) and elevated speakers last. So if you have a 7.1 setup with front heights, in Atmos terms that's 7.1.2. And, yes, you can use Front Heights in Atmos (the 5 pairs of elevated speakers are Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height).

However... You can't mix Top Front and Front Height as the four Atmos speakers can't be using adjacent pairs. I don't know why you'd want to do that anyway because all four Atmos speakers would be way in front of you. If you want to supplement existing Front Height speakers with two more overhead speakers for Atmos, they should be Top Middle or Top Rear.


----------



## zeus33

sdurani said:


> Same here. If I had a 7.1.4 system and you offered me 2 more speakers, they'd go above me. Only after that would I add wides.



But that's not possible with the current crop of receivers. You can't do 7.1.6. You can however use wides with current receivers.


----------



## batpig

BigScreen said:


> I suspect that the receiver (X4100W) was not receiving an Atmos signal, because the display never showed "Atmos" but rather "Dolby D + []S" See the attached photo that I took of the receiver while the demo was playing. When I questioned them about it, they just said that sometimes the display doesn't show what you'd expect because of the setup they have, which sounded like mumbo-jumbo for "I don't know".
> 
> Unfortunately, they don't have the output of the receiver up on the display device, so I couldn't have them bring up an info screen to show more details. Can anyone tell me if the receiver's display is correct for playing an Atmos soundtrack?


They are full of it. The display would say "Dolby Atmos" if it was receiving Dolby Atmos. That is clearly a Dolby Digital input with DSU upmix.


----------



## DaJoJo

BigScreen said:


> I gave our Best Buy Magnolia store another shot at an Atmos demonstration last night, and this time, they were able to get sound out of the A60's. That was after they reconnected the loose wires on the back of one of them...
> They played several tracks from the Dolby Demo disc, as well as Chapter 20 from Transformers 4.
> However, the demonstration did nothing to excite me about Atmos. I suspect something was still wrong with their setup, but it might have been the room as well. The room was quite shallow, maybe 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, and the ceiling was probably 12 feet high. Given the placement of the A60 on top of the floorstanding Def Tech speakers, that probably wasn't optimal to get any kind of reflections going. Also not helping was the popcorn-textured drop-ceiling panels.
> There was sound coming from the A60's, but I never once got any kind of height-based effects. I tried crouching down to sitting height to try and get the A60's above ear level, and that didn't help any. There was plenty of sound coming from the rear surrounds, especially in the Leaf demo, but I got nothing height-wise from the front.
> I suspect that the receiver (X4100W) was not receiving an Atmos signal, because the display never showed "Atmos" but rather "Dolby D + []S" See the attached photo that I took of the receiver while the demo was playing. When I questioned them about it, they just said that sometimes the display doesn't show what you'd expect because of the setup they have, which sounded like mumbo-jumbo for "I don't know".
> Unfortunately, they don't have the output of the receiver up on the display device, so I couldn't have them bring up an info screen to show more details. Can anyone tell me if the receiver's display is correct for playing an Atmos soundtrack?


that doesn't seem right.. keith said this TS4 movie doesn't have a lot going on in the heights. you probably want to audition DSU in the meanwhile


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Same here. If I had a 7.1.4 system and you offered me 2 more speakers, they'd go above me. Only after that would I add wides.


Not me. I'm with DHitch on this. Atmos is great and all but most of the action is going to be happening around you in the horizontal plane.


----------



## batpig

DaJoJo said:


> that doesn't seem right.. keith said this TS4 movie doesn't have a lot going on in the heights. you probably want to audition DSU in the meanwhile


He DID audition DSU.... it's just that the sales rep didn't know it


----------



## Scott Simonian

The tune will change when the hardware comes out, oh I'm sure.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zeus33 said:


> But that's not possible with the current crop of receivers. You can't do 7.1.6. You can however use wides with current receivers.


Waiting for the products and then it is possible.

Would it have been dumb to set one self up for 7.1.4 last summer? Atmos didn't exist then did it?


----------



## DaJoJo

batpig said:


> He DID audition DSU.... it's just that the sales rep didn't know it


lol !
i don't know what the setting on screen is supposed to be, but isn't it that someone said the DSU couldn't be used on 7.1 atmos track ? unless the bitstream was turned off and decoded by the player that is.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh btw, if you really wanted to do 7.1.6 right now you could if you wanted to. Granted it wouldn't be ideal but you could set up for 7.1.6 and have a 7.1.4 Atmos processor in use. Then pick up a couple of PL2 capable receivers or any device that can matrix process a stereo signal. Route your preouts of the front and rear heights from the Atmos processor to these matrix processors. Have them extract the similar content between the front and rear and with the matrix processor you will feed that signal to an amplifier to power the center overhead speakers. You now have 7.1.6 sound. Stuff meant to be up front will still be up front and rear content will still come out from only the rear heights. When ever there is content shared between the front and rear (sound that is supposed to image directly overhead) it will only come out from these new middle overheads.

This is the same process that one would do back in the 2000's for 6.1 EX surround sound. Just doubled and using different outputs. This process still works for any adjacent channels in systems today, including Atmos.


----------



## asoofi1

kingwiggi said:


> OK I should probably make a correction here before I get flamed, the Denon AVR-X5200W will do 11 channels simultaneously with External Amps. Although you can have all 13 speakers connected aka 9.2.4.
> 
> At some point Dolby decided use of the front wides would somehow cause a distraction to the front soundstage so the front wides are not available during Atmos playback.
> 
> IMO if you actually have a large enough room use of the front wides would actually improve object panning.


I honestly thought I may have missed something because I'd rather get a receiver with 9.2.4 capability. My speakers don't need separate amps, but I might start out with 7.2.4, as that's the best value without having to buy more speakers as I have 8 surrounds already.


----------



## asoofi1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not so with Atmos. They're actually front side surrounds. You get better, more precise sound placement and panning.


I hope so. With conventional wides, there has to be enough displacement between LR speakers and wides to have decent separation to perceive a wider soundstage...and to get this, one needs a room wide enough to take advantage. Because most rooms don't have enough space, wides are a waste. I've tested only wides and heights connected while playing different demos, and there is decent sound coming thru at reference levels...where they are just extending front LR effects. I'll benefit more by moving them up to the ceiling for atmos duties. If atmos and object oriented sound makes a diff with wides, I'm all ears...but again, I wouldn't bet on it with most rooms. 7.2.4 will be the sweet spot.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Isn't it obvious we need full blown 9.1.6 rather than merely 7.1.6 or 9.1.4? 

I know I do... My big wide room begs for it!


----------



## asoofi1

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Isn't it obvious we need full blown 9.1.6 rather than merely 7.1.6 or 9.1.4?
> 
> I know I do... My big wide room begs for it!


You mean 11.2.6


----------



## dan webster

I have been watching several of my blu rays with DSU engaged over the past 2 weeks. I am quite sick of T4 and may never watch it again. I just discovered that Kingdom of Heaven is my new favorite movie using DSU.. IMO this sounds better than T4 as well as any of the other movies i have tried including many of the movies discussed here. Chapter 30 where Orlando Bloom and his knights ride their horses to intercept the enemy is amazing This is easily the best use of my 4 overhead speakers i have heard to date. This will be my new demo for guests. I am really impressed with what DSU can do with the right content. If any of you have this disk you should give it a try.


----------



## bargervais

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Isn't it obvious we need full blown 9.1.6 rather than merely 7.1.6 or 9.1.4?
> 
> I know I do... My big wide room begs for it!


I think that 9.1.4 would be best for me and my thinking. why would you need 6 overhead speakers the only benefit I see is for a home with a home theater that has multiple rows of seating. I think the separation would get lost with too many ceiling speakers in a small room like the one I have. I think less is more...great separation is the key


----------



## DaJoJo

dan webster said:


> I have been watching several of my blu rays with DSU engaged over the past 2 weeks. I am quite sick of T4 and may never watch it again. I just discovered that Kingdom of Heaven is my new favorite movie using DSU.. IMO this sounds better than T4 as well as any of the other movies i have tried including many of the movies discussed here. Chapter 30 where Orlando Bloom and his knights ride their horses to intercept the enemy is amazing This is easily the best use of my 4 overhead speakers i have heard to date. This will be my new demo for guests. I am really impressed with what DSU can do with the right content. If any of you have this disk you should give it a try.


great , can't wait to test it out myself. i liked kingdom of heaven , its a good movie. u tried cloudy with a chance of meatballs or john carter or journey 2 mysterious island or jack the giant slayer or percy jackson by any chance ?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Atmos speaker placement says your surrounds and back surrounds to be at ear level.
Those who have Atmos setup, have them exactly at ear level, like 3 feet from ground?
The problem here is at that height the viewers can not sit in line as the person on side will block the sound for those towards the middle.
Would it make a difference if they are placed like 4-5 feet from ground and aimed at MFP (in the usual rooms of 8 feet ceilings)??


----------



## DaJoJo

aaranddeeman said:


> Atmos speaker placement says your surrounds and back surrounds to be at ear level.
> Those who have Atmos setup, have them exactly at ear level, like 3 feet from ground?
> The problem here is at that height the viewers can not sit in line as the person on side will block the sound for those towards the middle.
> Would it make a difference if they are placed like 4-5 feet from ground and aimed at MFP (in the usual rooms of 8 feet ceilings)??


have not yet atmos but i have my sides at little above earlevel and 100 degrees angle. they're klipsch rs with 180 degrees radiation, think this would work ok. can't tell u if it would work. can't u put them a little backwards ?


----------



## sikclown

htpcforever said:


> Front heights have been considered the extra 2 in the 9.1. With Atmos, are they still part of the 9.1 or do they turn into 7.1.2? I ask because eventually I will have 2 top front speakers pointed towards the listening position and want to use the front heights to have a 7.1.4


They turn into the .2. Front Heights and Top Fronts are not a config Denon does. You can do Front Heights and Top Middles though.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> No, but we do have our own wish list.  ...Stuart started it.
> 
> * Here => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs





Daniel Chaves said:


> it is so weird I don't see the link to the post in your comment but when I went to quote it to ask you for the link, I can see it in the quote lol...


Probably because I added the link eight minutes later.

When you quoted me the link wasn't there, but @ exactly the same moment (eight minutes) the link magically appeared. ...The timing was simply perfect; pure coincidence.


----------



## aaranddeeman

DaJoJo said:


> have not yet atmos but i have my sides at little above earlevel and 100 degrees angle. they're klipsch rs with 180 degrees radiation, think this would work ok. can't tell u if it would work. can't u put them a little backwards ?


Yes. But I am moving forward. 
May be 110 degree would be better than 90.


----------



## DaJoJo

aaranddeeman said:


> Yes. But I am moving forward.
> May be 110 degree would be better than 90.


lol
i donno man, i just put them on 100 degrees coz it holds the middle between dts and dolby speakerlayout.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Keith you're the man, your tests are very valuable.
> 
> But please would you be kind enough to try to do this test of DSU on TF4 scene 20?
> Isn't it possible to select the standard 5.1 track, or select a different language for which there is only 5.1 available ...
> 
> This would be a very valid test, DSU vs Atmos on the same scene !!!





bargervais said:


> Came home from work popped the transformers 4 disc in... listening as close as I could I pulled out the disc went to the living room to see what it sounds like out there the listening mode on the 818 neo x running 9.1 basically 5.1 with highs and wides I didn't notice that much of a difference... I still feel the atmos running on my 737 does sound a little better not really sure why maybe it's because I want it to.... the 737 Atmos sound is very immersive..


♦ On *TF4* the first audio option is _Dolby Atmos_.
Then the second audio soundtrack is _Dolby TrueHD 7.1_
Then there are about five-six more or so. 

- If you have the Denon 5200 (like Keith and few others), you should be able to select manually the second audio soundtrack: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 - And same with the first one: Dolby Atmos.
- If you have a Denon 4520, when you hit "Play" the audio soundtrack automatically defaults to Dolby TrueHD 7.1 - And you cannot manually select the first one: Dolby Atmos, of course not.


----------



## aaranddeeman

DaJoJo said:


> lol
> i donno man, i just put them on 100 degrees coz it holds the middle between dts and dolby speakerlayout.


Sure.. Whatever works... 
The only problems what other formats are dictating entirely different layout is yet to be seen..
May be we should install the speakers on motorized mounts with a remote that has buttons like "Atmos", "Legacy 7.1", "DTS-UHD", "Auro"........


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> *Just to be double clear, because it's confusing -- wides CAN be used with Atmos, and NOT with DSU.... but, if you have a 9.1.4 layout, when you engage Atmos surround mode it will NOT use the wides, dropping them in favor of the S.Back speakers. So the 11ch max processing will utilize 7.1.4 with S.Back and FW will be silent. If you disable the SB speakers then the 7.1.4 Atmos content will engage the FW speakers.*


This is worth quoting, to remember well.


----------



## NorthSky

> If I had a 7.1.4 system and you offered me 2 more speakers, they'd go above me.
> Only after that would I add wides.


So a *9.1.6* Dolby Atmos setup configuration would be your ideal. ...I like it; I would go for that too.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> I gave our Best Buy Magnolia store another shot at an Atmos demonstration last night, and this time, they were able to get sound out of the A60's. That was after they reconnected the loose wires on the back of one of them...
> 
> They played several tracks from the Dolby Demo disc, as well as Chapter 20 from Transformers 4.
> 
> However, the demonstration did nothing to excite me about Atmos. I suspect something was still wrong with their setup, but it might have been the room as well. The room was quite shallow, maybe 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, and the ceiling was probably 12 feet high. Given the placement of the A60 on top of the floorstanding Def Tech speakers, that probably wasn't optimal to get any kind of reflections going. Also not helping was the popcorn-textured drop-ceiling panels.
> 
> There was sound coming from the A60's, but I never once got any kind of height-based effects. I tried crouching down to sitting height to try and get the A60's above ear level, and that didn't help any. There was plenty of sound coming from the rear surrounds, especially in the Leaf demo, but I got nothing height-wise from the front.
> 
> I suspect that the receiver (X4100W) was not receiving an Atmos signal, because the display never showed "Atmos" but rather "Dolby D + []S" See the attached photo that I took of the receiver while the demo was playing. When I questioned them about it, they just said that sometimes the display doesn't show what you'd expect because of the setup they have, which sounded like mumbo-jumbo for "I don't know".
> 
> Unfortunately, they don't have the output of the receiver up on the display device, so I couldn't have them bring up an info screen to show more details. Can anyone tell me if the receiver's display is correct for playing an Atmos soundtrack?


They simply screwed up; they had the DD+ 5.1 audio soundtrack with Dolby Surround up-mixer.
* Go back and ask your money back. 

______


----------



## DaJoJo

aaranddeeman said:


> Sure.. Whatever works...
> The only problems what other formats are dictating entirely different layout is yet to be seen..
> May be we should install the speakers on motorized mounts with a remote that has buttons like "Atmos", "Legacy 7.1", "DTS-UHD", "Auro"........


lmao 
i hope not that far off otherwise i end up with filling a lot of holes here.
yes it somewhat not that unrealistic.. reminds me of the satelite days with motors, allthough that actually made sense somehow.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I look at it as 6ch sound at ear level with identical coverage for height. Front, mid and rear. Ear level and height.


I'm not as worried about symmetry as I am figuring out where to place limited resources for (what I consider) best coverage. To that end, I'd rather plug a gap above me than around me, where my hearing is better.


zeus33 said:


> But that's not possible with the current crop of receivers.


I wasn't talking specifically about 1st generation Atmos receivers but generally where I would place speakers, given the choice.


----------



## batpig

The fact that your hearing is better in the horizontal plane is precisely why it's more important to plug the gaps. It's easier to fool your brain where it is less sensitive.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Not me. I'm with DHitch on this. Atmos is great and all but most of the action is going to be happening around you in the horizontal plane.


I'd rather add speakers where our hearing needs the additional support. Which is why I have 4 surrounds and 3 fronts, despite most of the action happening up front. Likewise, I would rather have greater imaging stability above me than around me, where my ability to create phantom images is better (especially where the wides would be located). 

BTW, why did you change your mind from last month?


batpig said:


> The thing is though that 9.2.4 may not be much of an improvement over 7.2.4 regardless with these models. The Front Wide speakers are NOT active with Dolby Surround upmixer (DSU) so with any upmix of legacy content (which will be the vast majority of your listening for a long time) to your 4 height speakers will leave them silent. And with native Atmos content the FW speakers do not receive any "bed" content, so will only make noise when needed to render an object passing through that space.
> 
> So it seems they will provide minimal benefit with Atmos/DSU playback. And thus the most benefit will probably be to those who still want to use legacy 11ch upmix on some content (Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X), i.e. switching between two 11ch setups (7.1.4 Atmos/DSU and 11.1ch DSX/Neo:X with FW+FH). And that scenario IS supported on the 11ch D&M models.
> 
> IMO the best use case for 13ch will not be 9.1.4, but rather 7.1.6, for people with long rooms and/or multiple rows of seats where three pairs of height speakers will be practical / beneficial. And unlike the FW speakers, Atmos for home / DSU has no theoretical restrictions on rendering/upmixing to three pairs of heights.


----------



## batpig

That quote is in the context of the practical implication of DSU not being able to utilize the wides and Atmos not utilizing the beds. This could imply a different, not contradictory conclusion than a more theoretical discussion.

Also I reserve the right to change my mind depending on my whims


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Just to be double clear, because it's confusing -- wides CAN be used with Atmos, and NOT with DSU.... but, if you have a 9.1.4 layout, when you engage Atmos surround mode it will NOT use the wides, dropping them in favor of the S.Back speakers. So the 11ch max processing will utilize 7.1.4 with S.Back and FW will be silent. If you disable the SB speakers then the 7.1.4 Atmos content will engage the FW speakers.


So does this mean that DSU will never ever use the FW if it is available. e.g. if you have 7.x.4, in that it is usual 5.x and FW, the DSU will still disengage FW and run in 5.x.4 ?
I know this kind of 7.x.4 setup would be rare but possible, hence the question..


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The fact that your hearing is better in the horizontal plane is precisely why it's more important to plug the gaps.


To me that feels like prescribing glasses for people with good vision or giving crutches to people with strong legs. I'd rather add support where our hearing is weaker rather than where it is better. 

A single pair of speakers in front of you is capable of reproducing a soundstage that can extend beyond the width of the speakers themselves, with a sense of depth and even occasional height. Try moving that pair of speakers to your sides or above you to see if things sound as good. 

I get plenty of imaging between my fronts and sides, as do most people I know with 7.1-speaker set-ups. It's not that I wouldn't use wides, it's just that there are other locations higher up on my list that could use the spatial resolution.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh btw, if you really wanted to do 7.1.6 right now you could if you wanted to. Granted it wouldn't be ideal but you could set up for 7.1.6 and have a 7.1.4 Atmos processor in use. Then pick up a couple of PL2 capable receivers or any device that can matrix process a stereo signal. Route your preouts of the front and rear heights from the Atmos processor to these matrix processors. Have them extract the similar content between the front and rear and with the matrix processor you will feed that signal to an amplifier to power the center overhead speakers. You now have 7.1.6 sound. Stuff meant to be up front will still be up front and rear content will still come out from only the rear heights. When ever there is content shared between the front and rear (sound that is supposed to image directly overhead) it will only come out from these new middle overheads.
> 
> This is the same process that one would do back in the 2000's for 6.1 EX surround sound. Just doubled and using different outputs. This process still works for any adjacent channels in systems today, including Atmos.


You could probably do a 24.8.10 like that too.


----------



## NorthSky

dan webster said:


> I have been watching several of my blu rays with DSU engaged over the past 2 weeks. I am quite sick of T4 and may never watch it again. I just discovered that * Kingdom of Heaven* is my new favorite movie using DSU.. IMO this sounds better than T4 as well as any of the other movies i have tried including many of the movies discussed here. Chapter 30 where Orlando Bloom and his knights ride their horses to intercept the enemy is amazing This is easily the best use of my 4 overhead speakers i have heard to date. This will be my new demo for guests. I am really impressed with what DSU can do with the right content. If any of you have this disk you should give it a try.


This Blu-ray disc title shows signs of "Disc Rot" issues for some people. My own copy has a slight "bronze" circle on its outside periphery. 
I luv that movie by the way, and its musical score.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Atmos speaker placement says your surrounds and back surrounds to be at ear level.
> Those who have Atmos setup, have them exactly at ear level, like 3 feet from ground?
> The problem here is at that height the viewers can not sit in line as the person on side will block the sound for those towards the middle.
> Would it make a difference if they are placed like 4-5 feet from ground and aimed at MFP (in the usual rooms of 8 feet ceilings)??


Four feet should be fine.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> I'm not as worried about symmetry as I am figuring out where to place limited resources for (what I consider) best coverage. To that end, I'd rather plug a gap above me than around me, where my hearing is better. I wasn't talking specifically about 1st generation Atmos receivers but generally where I would place speakers, given the choice.




Symmetry isn't the reason why I'd do it that way it's just a side effect of the configuration. I would do it for the exact reason you mention and what I had listed before. Fill all the gaps.


----------



## wse

Ok I need a cheap silent two channel amp for the ATMOS speakers any suggestions?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> You could probably do a 24.8.10 like that too.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> Ok I need a cheap silent two channel amp for the ATMOS speakers any suggestions?


Behringer a500.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Good luck with that.


Got a bunch of spare wires and amps and speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Got a bunch of spare wires and amps and speakers?


I do but you don't want to matrix an already matrixed signal. Add in a matrixed "channel" between two real outputs, max.


----------



## NorthSky

Ok Scott; you make sense.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BigScreen said:


> I gave our Best Buy Magnolia store another shot at an Atmos demonstration last night, and this time, they were able to get sound out of the A60's. That was after they reconnected the loose wires on the back of one of them...
> 
> They played several tracks from the Dolby Demo disc, as well as Chapter 20 from Transformers 4.
> 
> However, the demonstration did nothing to excite me about Atmos. I suspect something was still wrong with their setup, but it might have been the room as well. The room was quite shallow, maybe 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, and the ceiling was probably 12 feet high. Given the placement of the A60 on top of the floorstanding Def Tech speakers, that probably wasn't optimal to get any kind of reflections going. Also not helping was the popcorn-textured drop-ceiling panels.
> 
> There was sound coming from the A60's, but I never once got any kind of height-based effects. I tried crouching down to sitting height to try and get the A60's above ear level, and that didn't help any. There was plenty of sound coming from the rear surrounds, especially in the Leaf demo, but I got nothing height-wise from the front.
> 
> I suspect that the receiver (X4100W) was not receiving an Atmos signal, because the display never showed "Atmos" but rather "Dolby D + []S" See the attached photo that I took of the receiver while the demo was playing. When I questioned them about it, they just said that sometimes the display doesn't show what you'd expect because of the setup they have, which sounded like mumbo-jumbo for "I don't know".
> 
> Unfortunately, they don't have the output of the receiver up on the display device, so I couldn't have them bring up an info screen to show more details. Can anyone tell me if the receiver's display is correct for playing an Atmos soundtrack?


Nope. No Atmos here. It was a Dolby Digital signal with Dolby Surround upmixing turned on instead. Best Buy really are a bunch of incompetent boobs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> True. That will work all over the room with object sound.
> 
> Though I'd personally rather have 7.1.6 over 9.1.4 layout. More of a coherent soundfield imo that way.
> 
> Ignoring the center and LFE with 7.1.6 we have:
> 
> Front stereo imaging + height stereo imaging
> Sidewall stereo imaging + height stereo imaging
> Rear stereo imaging + height stereo imaging


But as I mentioned and Keith mentioned... the ceiling speakers are not used very often unless it's a really aggressive Atmos mix or at least a well designed one. The object panning through an array of speakers on the walls and screen are.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asoofi1 said:


> I hope so. With conventional wides, there has to be enough displacement between LR speakers and wides to have decent separation to perceive a wider soundstage...and to get this, one needs a room wide enough to take advantage. Because most rooms don't have enough space, wides are a waste. I've tested only wides and heights connected while playing different demos, and there is decent sound coming thru at reference levels...where they are just extending front LR effects. I'll benefit more by moving them up to the ceiling for atmos duties. If atmos and object oriented sound makes a diff with wides, I'm all ears...but again, I wouldn't bet on it with most rooms. 7.2.4 will be the sweet spot.


The Dolby guys at CEDIA stated 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 is the sweet spot they're aiming for in regular equipment. When I say "regular" I mean something that doesn't cost as much as a new car.


----------



## Spanglo

wse said:


> Ok I need a cheap silent two channel amp for the ATMOS speakers any suggestions?


I'm also shopping for an amp. Silent and small are what I'm looking for since I don't have the rack space for another component. 

Thinking something like this but higher wattage: http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-dta-120-class-t-digital-mini-amplifier-60-wpc--300-3800


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Atmos speaker placement says your surrounds and back surrounds to be at ear level.
> Those who have Atmos setup, have them exactly at ear level, like 3 feet from ground?
> The problem here is at that height the viewers can not sit in line as the person on side will block the sound for those towards the middle.
> Would it make a difference if they are placed like 4-5 feet from ground and aimed at MFP (in the usual rooms of 8 feet ceilings)??


Dolby was a little more "reasonable" with this recommendation at CEDIA. They said just high enough so as not to block the sound in a row of seats.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> So does this mean that DSU will never ever use the FW if it is available. e.g. if you have 7.x.4, in that it is usual 5.x and FW, the DSU will still disengage FW and run in 5.x.4 ?
> I know this kind of 7.x.4 setup would be rare but possible, hence the question..


I'm sure Dolby Surround can be used in speaker "slots" between the front screen speakers and the traditional side surround locations, just not in the limited rendering blocks we get with normal consumer gear. Trinnov and Steinway/Lyngdorf processors have a lot more speaker outputs available to work with and are far more flexible. And far more expensive.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> But as I mentioned and Keith mentioned... the ceiling speakers are not used very often unless it's a really aggressive Atmos mix or at least a well designed one. The object panning through an array of speakers on the walls and screen are.


I disagree.

Aggressive or not, if the overheads are being used then having a gap of space directly overhead filled will net just as good a result as adding more speakers around you at ear level.

With 7 or 9.1.4 there are more than enough vector points for sound to originate from but all those configurations have very little precision on the height plane. I want, at minimum, a front, middle and rear point for sound to originate from both at ear level and high up. Sonic bubble, much? 

You guys and your love for them "wides". 

Ya'll should get some t-shirts that read: "I love Neo:X"


----------



## petetherock

Interesting review, thanks Keith
So do you think that the DSU is adding more than it should?
i.e. it enhances beyond what is supposed to be there?

As a comparison, I found the surround that Dolby PL IIx created was quite pleasant, and I never got used to DSX.

To use a food analogy, some people dump salt and peper into their chips even before tasting, so most of what they taste is that of the salt / pepper, rather than the true taste of those chips.

(Chips = fries since we are in an North American forum  )



kbarnes701 said:


> This is interesting, and gave some unexpected results.
> 
> Today I decided to listen to two movies with all speakers/subs switched off, other than the 4 overheads. For the Atmos movie, I only have one choice at this time of course, and that is Transformers: Age of Extinction. For this movie I chose Chapter 20 as it has considerable action taking place 'in the air'. This movie was obviously reproduced via Dolby Atmos. For the other movie, I chose Transformers, Dark of the Moon, as I thought that this might give me the closest comparison in terms of sound design and mix. This movie was auditioned via Dolby Surround and I chose Chapter 17, as again there is considerable 'in the air' action in this section of the movie.
> 
> *Transformers: Age of Extinctio*n.
> 
> Before playing the chosen track, I skipped through some of the earlier Chapters just to hear what was coming from the 4 overhead speakers. I was shocked to hear nothing at all on my first few random selections. At first I thought that I had some sort of configuration problem and halted the test to check my setup. All was well. But the overheads were still totally silent. I skipped on to Chapter 20 and again, at the beginning of the chapter, silent overheads. I mean totally silent: no sound from them at all. As the Chapter progressed, the overheads did start to make noise, occasionally. But far less than I had expected given the nature of the content in that Chapter. Finally, when the alien craft starts to suck metal objects up into the air, I heard some activity from the overheads. And when the SUV that the characters are in starts to get lifted, the overheads finally started to make some decent noise.
> 
> *Transformers, Dark of the Moon.*
> 
> Following the same procedure as above, I first skipped through some sections of the movie at random. All 4 overheads made noise almost all the time. Music was certainly 'up there' on every selected section, but so were effects and other sounds. Skipping on to Chapter 17 revealed the same. All 4 overhead speakers made noise almost all the time. I could hear the 'tail end' of lots of effects, as the skydivers exit the chopper and start their descent. Wind noise, music, various weapons, bullets whooshing past etc all came from the overhead speakers to some extent.
> 
> *Conclusion.*
> 
> On a true Atmos movie there will be times when the overhead speakers are totally silent. Transformers 4 does not seem to be making the most of Atmos in its mix. There were numerous occasions in Chapter 20 when I could have seen the overheads being used to great effect, matching the action onscreen well. But the reality of this mix is that for the majority of the whole movie, the overheads are silent.
> 
> By comparison, if you upmix Transformers 3 using DSU, your overhead speakers will be making sound throughout almost the entirety of the movie. Now of course, the DSU effects will be ambient and music a lot of the time, with pseudo-discrete effects occasionally, whereas the Atmos effects are always 100% discrete and placed precisely by the mixer. And Transformers 4 does have a better overall sound than the earlier movie, which may be a direct result of the mixer being able to work in Atmos at the beds level. But overall, the use of the overheads in the new movie has to be regarded as disappointing IMO. It is surely a kickass soundtrack, but the overheads could, IMO, have been deployed to much better effect.
> 
> I will look forward to conducting this experiment again with the next Atmos soundtrack that is released. Meanwhile, it is very easy to see what batpig calls the 'in the movie' effect that he is getting from DSU upmixed soundtracks. Looking solely at immersion as the desired characteristic, DSU is actually more effective than Atmos on these two Transformers movies.
> 
> It is easy for anyone to conduct this same test if they own these two movies, using the same Chapters as I did. It is real simple if, like me, you have separate amplification - just turn all the amps off (including the subs) except for those powering the overhead speakers. If you don't have external amps, disconnect the ear-level speakers at the speaker end, being very careful to ensure that the terminal wires don't touch each other. Wrap them in electrical tape - and make sure the AVR is off before you touch any connections of course. And remember to turn off the subs or they will distract you.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> To me that feels like prescribing glasses for people with good vision or giving crutches to people with strong legs. I'd rather add support where our hearing is weaker rather than where it is better.


I've seen you make this analogy frequently and IMO it's a pretty bad one. Where it fails is that surround sound is not a prosthetic or palliative remedy. It's an ILLUSION. 

You are much more likely to notice something "wrong" where you are more sensitive. Thus its most important to maintain the coherence of the illusion in these zones. Your ears face forward, your eyes face forward-- basically the entire sensory/cognitive system is optimized to deal with stuff that is mostly in front of you. If two speakers are insufficient to maintain the illusion, it's going to more annoying and disruptive to the illusion where you are better able to detect it. 

As a better analogy, let's say you were creating a hypothetical display which had limited resources for resolution, brightness, contrast, etc. If you had to choose, your logic would dictate that the outer edges of the screen should be optimized because our peripheral vision is so much worse than the primary visual axis. You would "support" your vision where it is worse, because hey you can already see so well in the middle! But the reality is exactly the opposite -- your eye/brain system is much more tolerant of crap at the periphery than in the centerfield, it would be much more annoying if the center image was blurry and dim than the edges. Because we look at stuff that's in front of us. That is why all optics (binoculars, telescopes, camera lenses) optimize for the centerfield and can tolerate off axis aberrations. 

And none of that takes into account where content is actually placed by the creators. Just from a practical perspective, the vast majority of the sound is coming from in front of you. As it should, because that's where the visuals that you are focused on are taking place. Why wouldn't you put more speakers where stuff is happening?

I just don't understand that line of thought. I'm not trying to augment my hearing to create perfect theoretical 360 degree imaging precision. I'm trying to create a thrilling and immersive movie experience. Why do I care if I can pinpoint a sound over my shoulder at the same level of angular precision as sounds in front of me? Explosion somewhere behind me will work just fine. 

The practical problem is that Dolby has set things up such that wides are minimally useful due to the oft discussed restrictions. But if you could designate those as forward surrounds instead of wides, and have them be active in both DSU and Atmos, receiving surround bed content and assisting in horizontal pans, I would think that would be more impactful in terms of immersion, i.e. selling the illusion, than an extra pair of speakers filling in some more overhead ambiance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The practical problem is that Dolby has set things up such that wides are minimally useful due to the oft discussed restrictions. But if you could designate those as forward surrounds instead of wides, and have them be active in both DSU and Atmos, receiving surround bed content and assisting in horizontal pans, I would think that would be more impactful in terms of immersion, i.e. selling the illusion, than an extra pair of speakers filling in some more overhead ambiance.


Or just move the side surrounds slightly forward.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Or just move the side surrounds slightly forward.


Which is an implicit acknowledgment of the problem of the gap between Fronts and Surrounds. 

In a perfect world you could do 9.1.6 and have your cake and eat it to. 

And BTW - I happen to think that a well implemented 7.1.4 is going to be plenty sufficient for any typical single row HT environment. I think a lot of this is just theoretical hand wringing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh for sure. 7.1 has been more than adequate until very recently. Now some of us are looking at the next edge. 

Imho, I still think having _only_ 4ch heights is not enough. Exactly like I think traditional 5.1 is not enough. I want front, side and rear. With proper speaker placement and a good mix I can get sounds to originate from between all these points with phantom imaging. Just as we do now. Do all that up top and I've that that allusive "bubble" of sound.


----------



## fredl

My wife is not happy with out current setup so I will experiment some. Currently we are using a 5.2.2 setup with one traditional sub and buttkickers for the second row. We have two armchairs in the front row without buttkickers. When seated in front, the Atmos effect is only audible from somewhere "behind".

I have ordered another pair of the on ceiling satellites I used with good results for the back row. Since my Onkyo 636 can only do 5.2.2 I will connect two speakers in series. I will keep them assigned as top middle.

Will it work? I don't know, but if this doesn't satisfy my wife, we will have to look in to getting another AVR, perhaps the SR7009. The Denon X5200 is not an option since it's way more expensive than the 7009 here in Sweden.

All of this has made me think if I should put up some kind of rail in the ceiling to be able to move the speakers forwards and backwards. This way I should only need to use two or three screws for each side and can make easily make adjustments forward and backwards. As an added bonus I can run the speaker wire inside the rail and add more speakers when our AVR permits so.

Is there anyone else with more than one row of seating who has plunged into Atmos yet?


----------



## pletwals

bargervais said:


> I think that 9.1.4 would be best for me and my thinking. why would you need 6 overhead speakers the only benefit I see is for a home with a home theater that has multiple rows of seating. I think the separation would get lost with too many ceiling speakers in a small room like the one I have. I think less is more...great separation is the key


Number of seating rows are important, I agree. In a small room such as Keith's fine room, I would not go past 4 overheads. 

But if MLP is like 10 feet away from a large projection screen, the extra pair (Front Height) is worth the investment. Say Front Height L/R are @ 30° elevation, positioned above the Front L/R speakers. This ensures a great 3D front soundstage. I tried Front Heights years ago on a Yamaha AVR and it was really adding depth.

Then the Top Fronts L/R would best be positioned @ the halfway angle between Top Rear and Front Height, probably somewhere between 50-60° elevation.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Since I have T4 and I have a 5.2.2 Atmos setup, I will try chapter 20 with its Native ATMOS mix and again with DSU and see which sounds more pleasing, I think I will also get some of my friends for a blind comparison so they wont know which is which.


----------



## pletwals

wse said:


> Ok I need a cheap silent two channel amp for the ATMOS speakers any suggestions?


Emotiva mini X a-100:

https://emotiva.com/products/amplifiers/mini-x-100

Turns on automatically. Half rack width. $219


----------



## pletwals

sdurani said:


> To me that feels like prescribing glasses for people with good vision or giving crutches to people with strong legs. I'd rather add support where our hearing is weaker rather than where it is better.
> ...
> I get plenty of imaging between my fronts and sides, as do most people I know with 7.1-speaker set-ups. It's not that I wouldn't use wides, it's just that there are other locations higher up on my list that could use the spatial resolution.


I am with Batpig on this one. I remember the ITU paper where tests proved that the position of the rear surrounds in a 7.1 set-up is uncritical, presumably because our hearing is more diffuse behind us.


----------



## pasender91

Regarding the optimal Low vs Top count of speakers, its worth to note that Dolby defined 24 and 10 as optimal targets !!! 

No one wonder why there is much more speaker in the Low row?
Maybe because we need more speakers there to fill audition gaps than in the Top circle, which is smaller?

So for me, in theory, going beyond 7.1.4 and to keep a ratio close to the target 24/10 = 2.4, we should do: 7.1.4 => 9.1.4 => 11.1.4 => 11.1.6 ...


----------



## kbarnes701

scarabaeus said:


> You can disable the bitstream mode in your Blu-ray player, and output decoded 7.1 PCM from the TrueHD track into the AVR.


True - good point. I'd expect it to sound like all the other 5.1/7.1 movies I have tried via DSU then - that is, a lot of activity from the overhead speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> How will DSU effect be on non Atmos movies, is this worth the Atmos money ?


I've reported on at least half a dozen non-Atmos movies played via DSU in this thread. And, of course, Transformers Dark of the Moon is a non-Atmos movie, as reported on in the post you are referencing. Yes, DSU is worth the money IMO.



CBdicX said:


> Did you try DSU in music and TV content ?


Not much. My HT is movies only.



CBdicX said:


> How many Atmos speakers do you use ?


5.1.4 - the overheads are FH+TM at 42° and 85° from MLP respectively.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Keith you're the man, your tests are very valuable.
> 
> But please would you be kind enough to try to do this test of DSU on TF4 scene 20?
> Isn't it possible to select the standard 5.1 track, or select a different language for which there is only 5.1 available ...
> 
> This would be a very valid test, DSU vs Atmos on the same scene !!!


Thanks, OK - I will give this a try later today. I honestly expect it will be the same as any other 7.1 track played via DSU, but I will report back as to which I prefer. That should be interesting - if I prefer DSU to a genuine Atmos track, then where does that leave us!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

pasender91 said:


> Regarding the optimal Low vs Top count of speakers, its worth to note that Dolby defined 24 and 10 as optimal targets !!!
> 
> No one wonder why there is much more speaker in the Low row?
> Maybe because we need more speakers there to fill audition gaps than in the Top circle, which is smaller?
> 
> So for me, in theory, going beyond 7.1.4 and to keep a ratio close to the target 24/10 = 2.4, we should do: 7.1.4 => 9.1.4 => 11.1.4 => 11.1.6 ...


I would say 12.1.6 as that gives us rear centre as well and all the low speakers can be evenly distributed with a 30 degree separation.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Interesting review, thanks Keith
> So do you think that the DSU is adding more than it should?
> i.e. it enhances beyond what is supposed to be there?


Thanks Pete. It's hard to say what 'should' be there. Much of the DSU-ed sound from above is music IME. When there are 'real' overhead sounds, they are handled pretty well - sometimes uncannily so. In Twister, for example, the thunder and storm sounds are really well defined in the overheads - hard to see how Atmos would do it better. I recall the same sort of thing from Jurassic Park The Lost World and 300 Rise of an Empire too. Whether it's 'accurate' or not, DSU certainly adds a huge extra sense of immersion into the movie, which I personally really like and enjoy.




petetherock said:


> As a comparison, I found the surround that Dolby PL IIx created was quite pleasant, and I never got used to DSX.


Same here. I really dislike DSX but I was very happy with PLIIz.



petetherock said:


> To use a food analogy, some people dump salt and peper into their chips even before tasting, so most of what they taste is that of the salt / pepper, rather than the true taste of those chips.
> 
> (Chips = fries since we are in an North American forum  )


IKWYM and I think we are probably on the same wavelength on this (DSU not chips - well chips too in fact!).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> As a better analogy, let's say you were creating a hypothetical display which had limited resources for resolution, brightness, contrast, etc. If you had to choose, your logic would dictate that the outer edges of the screen should be optimized because our peripheral vision is so much worse than the primary visual axis. You would "support" your vision where it is worse, because hey you can already see so well in the middle! But the reality is exactly the opposite -- your eye/brain system is much more tolerant of crap at the periphery than in the centerfield, it would be much more annoying if the center image was blurry and dim than the edges.


But if the centre was already good, and you had some 'leftover' resources, it might make more sense to apply them where there was already a deficiency - the edges - rather than the centre, where they aren’t needed.



batpig said:


> Because we look at stuff that's in front of us. That is why all optics (binoculars, telescopes, camera lenses) optimize for the centerfield and can tolerate off axis aberrations.


Lenses aren't 'optimised' for the centrefield as such. The reason the centre of the lens is the sharpest is that it costs a fortune to extend the same sharpness to the edges. Very high quality lenses, for this reason, exhibit much better edge to edge sharpness than 'regular' lenses. I cite Canon L lenses as my example.



batpig said:


> And none of that takes into account where content is actually placed by the creators. Just from a practical perspective, the vast majority of the sound is coming from in front of you. As it should, because that's where the visuals that you are focused on are taking place. Why wouldn't you put more speakers where stuff is happening?


Because they are not needed there, as Sanjay explained. Three speakers across the front (in a home environment) already give great width, depth and to some extent height cues. Adding more at the front might improve all three, but only marginally. We already hear so well from the front, for the biological reasons you mentioned, that additional support via more speakers isn't really needed. But overhead, we hear poorly, and can localise only poorly, so by placing the additional speakers there, we help ourselves hear sounds which we might otherwise not hear, or hear poorly.



batpig said:


> I just don't understand that line of thought. I'm not trying to augment my hearing to create perfect theoretical 360 degree imaging precision. I'm trying to create a thrilling and immersive movie experience. Why do I care if I can pinpoint a sound over my shoulder at the same level of angular precision as sounds in front of me? Explosion somewhere behind me will work just fine.


That is your acceptance of the current situation. The idea is to improve on the current situation, so that you do hear (and do care) about those sounds from above and behind. 



batpig said:


> The practical problem is that Dolby has set things up such that wides are minimally useful due to the oft discussed restrictions. But if you could designate those as forward surrounds instead of wides, and have them be active in both DSU and Atmos, receiving surround bed content and assisting in horizontal pans, I would think that would be more impactful in terms of immersion, i.e. selling the illusion, than an extra pair of speakers filling in some more overhead ambiance.


If the current speaker set is well-deployed, and 4 surrounds are used, with the side surrounds somewhat forward of MLP and the rear surrounds behind MLP, then the sound is pretty seamless from centre front to back on either side IME thanks to phantom imaging. Of course, a physical speaker is always going to beat a phantom image, but the discussion here is about allocation of resources: if resources are limited I can see Sanjay's point of allocating them where human hearing is weakest, not where it is strongest.


----------



## htpcforever

batpig said:


> The Atmos designation puts listener level speakers first (before the .1 LFE) and elevated speakers last. So if you have a 7.1 setup with front heights, in Atmos terms that's 7.1.2. And, yes, you can use Front Heights in Atmos (the 5 pairs of elevated speakers are Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height).
> 
> However... You can't mix Top Front and Front Height as the four Atmos speakers can't be using adjacent pairs. I don't know why you'd want to do that anyway because all four Atmos speakers would be way in front of you. If you want to supplement existing Front Height speakers with two more overhead speakers for Atmos, they should be Top Middle or Top Rear.





sikclown said:


> They turn into the .2. Front Heights and Top Fronts are not a config Denon does. You can do Front Heights and Top Middles though.


Thanks! Yeah, I meant Top Middle but my fingers decided to rebel against the brain.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks, OK - I will give this a try later today. I honestly expect it will be the same as any other 7.1 track played via DSU, but I will report back as to which I prefer. That should be interesting - if I prefer DSU to a genuine Atmos track, then where does that leave us!


That's exactly why i believe this test is very relevant.
Personally, i want to move to an Atmos AVR to get the best possible immersion.

So 2 scenarios after comparative tests (yourself, Daniel Chaves, ...):
Atmos sounds better => i delay my purchase until there is Atmos Bluray for movies that are worth it in my opinion (TF4 is NOT one of them).
DSU sounds better => i buy a Marantz 7009 now and benefit from the best available immersion on all my legacy material, and Atmos will come as icing on the cake.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> That's exactly why i believe this test is very relevant.
> Personally, i want to move to an Atmos AVR to get the best possible immersion.
> 
> So 2 scenarios after comparative tests (yourself, Daniel Chaves, ...):
> Atmos sounds better => i delay my purchase until there is Atmos Bluray for movies that are worth it in my opinion (TF4 is NOT one of them).
> DSU sounds better => i buy a Marantz 7009 now and benefit from the best available immersion on all my legacy material, and Atmos will come as icing on the cake.


Of course they might both sound good, but different. I'll do the test later today for sure.

Incidentally, IMO, DSU is worth the ugrade on its own.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

watched XMEN-DOFP last night with DSU engaged...and it was awesoem!!

again,....MOST of the time it was music put into the heights but there were quite a few effects tossedup there...and again...it was more of a sound bubble from surround sounds...very cool

my favorite scene is chapter 15 (time in a bottle) the immersion was fantastic!!!


----------



## RajinderGill

pasender91 said:


> That's exactly why i believe this test is very relevant.
> Personally, i want to move to an Atmos AVR to get the best possible immersion.
> 
> So 2 scenarios after comparative tests (yourself, Daniel Chaves, ...):
> Atmos sounds better => i delay my purchase until there is Atmos Bluray for movies that are worth it in my opinion (TF4 is NOT one of them).
> DSU sounds better => i buy a Marantz 7009 now and benefit from the best available immersion on all my legacy material, and Atmos will come as icing on the cake.



I think you are correct. Atmos is object based and its steering of effects should be more precise than any upsampled/pseudo mode. Of course, subjective opinion will rule at the end of the day. Personally I do not care if the overhead speakers are not on most of the time. What matters to me is that they engage when they should and help create a sense of immersion.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

RajinderGill said:


> I think you are correct. Atmos is object based and its steering of effects should be more precise than any upsampled/pseudo mode. Of course, subjective opinion will rule at the end of the day. Personally I do not care if the overhead speakers are not on most of the time. What matters to me is that they engage when they should and help create a sense of immersion.


very true...I mean are our surrounds on all the time? no...but they are the standard


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> And Disney is abandoning 3D Blu-ray in North America.


Predicted by many. 3D was popular in the 50's and died. The current version, in my opinion, will die as well. When/if they get glassless 3D working, it may rise again.

3D can be very fun and exciting but, as least for me, adds little to the telling of the story.

Time will tell.


----------



## kbarnes701

RajinderGill said:


> I think you are correct. Atmos is object based and its steering of effects should be more precise than any upsampled/pseudo mode. Of course, subjective opinion will rule at the end of the day. Personally I do not care if the overhead speakers are not on most of the time. What matters to me is that they engage when they should and help create a sense of immersion.


Fully agreed. It's just that they could have perhaps picked a better disc to kick it off with. One that makes more than occasional use of the overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> very true...I mean are our surrounds on all the time? no...but they are the standard


They aren't on all the time, Brian, it's true. But if they were totally silent for 85% of the movie (my guess) you'd probably complain, rightly, of a poor 5.1 mix, making poor use of the surrounds. That's all I am doing wrt to TF4 - not suggesting in any way that Atmos is not doing a great job because it is. _When _the mixer allows it to. All I am complaining about is that TF4 doesn't make very good _use _of Atmos, which is a pity as it is the first (and so far, only) disc. I agree entirely with Rajinder.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> I've reported on at least half a dozen non-Atmos movies played via DSU in this thread. And, of course, Transformers Dark of the Moon is a non-Atmos movie, as reported on in the post you are referencing. Yes, DSU is worth the money IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much. My HT is movies only.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1.4 - the overheads are FH+TM at 42° and 85° from MLP respectively.



Thx for your reply, and sorry for asking about stuff you reported before, i am jumping around in this thread and not folowing the pages, stupid me.......


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> They aren't on all the time, Brian, it's true. But if they were totally silent for 85% of the movie (my guess) you'd probably complain, rightly, of a poor 5.1 mix, making poor use of the surrounds. That's all I am doing wrt to TF4 - not suggesting in any way that Atmos is not doing a great job because it is. _When _the mixer allows it to. All I am complaining about is that TF4 doesn't make very good _use _of Atmos, which is a pity as it is the first (and so far, only) disc. I agree entirely with Rajinder.


I understand...sorry if it came off as my thinking you were complaining  I understand what you were trying to say...and I agree


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Predicted by many. 3D was popular in the 50's and died. The current version, in my opinion, will die as well. When/if they get glassless 3D working, it may rise again.
> 
> 3D can be very fun and exciting but, as least for me, adds little to the telling of the story.
> 
> Time will tell.


Even worse, I finds that far from immersing me more in the movie, 3D actually takes me out of the movie all the time because the 3D effect is so unnatural. It will always be unnatural because despite it appearing to have 3 dimensions, the image is still in reality all in one, 2 dimensional plane. I think this is what makes it tiring to watch - the brain is constantly having to fight the unnaturalness of seeing something with apparent depth, but still in a 2 dimensional plane. Where 3D will come into its own and really add to the enjoyment is when we have genuine holography.

Atmos, by way of contrast, adds to the enjoyment and immersion because it enables us to hear sounds all around and above us, just as in real life.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I understand...sorry if it came off as my thinking you were complaining  I understand what you were trying to say...and I agree


No worries. I wasn't really complaining - well I was I guess - but not about Atmos as such, but about how they used it in TF4. It is a shame that the first disc released doesn't showcase Atmos better. Gravity and The Hobbit were excellent examples for instance, that I have actually heard presented in Atmos and where Atmos was used to brilliant effect, adding considerably to the enjoyment and realism of the movie sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thx for your reply, and sorry for asking about stuff you reported before, i am jumping around in this thread and not folowing the pages, stupid me.......


No problem. I wasn't chastising you - just pointing out that I already reported on several movies and how DSU worked with them.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Can anyone tell me what the technical triggers are in a stereo/5.1/7.1 signal that tells the DSU to put audio into the height/ceiling speakers?

With old ProLogic II/IIx surround, the out-of-phase content in the signal was steered to the rear speakers. But how are the height elements embedded into a stereo signal? What is the cue/s in the 2 channel signal that causes DSU to put that information into the heights?

Cheers,

Craig.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Why wouldn't you put more speakers where stuff is happening?


Because that isn't where our human hearing needs it. For example, our ability to create phantom images is weakest at our sides, so it helps to have a pair of speakers there for imaging stability. By comparison, "where stuff is happening" changes on a moment by moment basis.


> Why do I care if I can pinpoint a sound over my shoulder at the same level of angular precision as sounds in front of me?


It doesn't matter whether you care because you're not creating the content. Those that are have gone from a mono surround channel to four surround channels in the last couple decades. And now each surround _speaker_ is individually addressable in order to provide the same level of pinpoint angular precision as sounds in front of you.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Because that isn't where our human hearing needs it. For example, our ability to create phantom images is weakest at our sides, so it helps to have a pair of speakers there for imaging stability. By comparison, "where stuff is happening" changes on a moment by moment basis. It doesn't matter whether you care because you're not creating the content. Those that are have gone from a mono surround channel to four surround channels in the last couple decades. And now each surround _speaker_ is individually addressable in order to provide the same level of pinpoint angular precision as sounds in front of you.


That all seems to argue for the importance of a front/back pair of side wall surrounds.


----------



## wse

pasender91 said:


> .........DSU sounds better => i buy a Marantz 7009 now and benefit from the best available immersion on all my legacy material, and Atmos will come as icing on the cake.


DSU seams to be where it's at!


----------



## pasender91

wse said:


> DSU seams to be where it's at!


The jury is still deliberating on Atmos vs DSU on the same scene 
We can wait a few more days for the report of Keith, Daniel, and maybe others ...


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> That all seems to argue for the importance of a front/back pair of side wall surrounds.


I see it as a more general case for moving towards greater spatial/angular resolution around and above us rather than up front. You don't have to care for it, I'm just pointing out that someone (the movie industry) does. Keep in mind that Auro doesn't use wides at all; Dolby limits them to object pan-throughs; DTS is changing Neo:X to allow swapping wides for additional heights. 

To me, this comes down to a philosophical difference more than a logistical one. It is the same difference of opinion I used to have with ChrisK of Audyssey. Given 9 speakers, he would place 7 of them up front, leaving only 2 to describe the entire surround field. Why waste resources where our hearing is not so good (or, as you mentioned, where less action is happening)? 

I get that argument for adding resources where our hearing is best. I just feel it is more important to add support where our hearing is deficient. To that end, pinpoint angular precision for sounds around & above has already arrived.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby's specs for overhead speakers require a 90 degree dispersion. They don't mean a total dispersion angle of 90 degrees, but rather 90 degrees from the central axis. With that kind of dispersion you just have to be able to see the front surface of the speaker to get the full effect. I dunno where they thought anyone would be able to get speakers like that.
> 
> The speakers that most people use have far narrower dispersion angles. They have to be pointed toward the seating.





asoofi1 said:


> Just to clarify, it's 45 degrees recommended from center axis per their white paper, making it 90 degrees total dispersion. Otherwise, you sound as if saying dolby requires 180 degree dispersion speakers.


I think that the point here is a speaker that will offer up the sound queues as required, Dolby specs a wide dispersion speaker to assist in this exercise. 90 defrees seems reasonable to be used here but wider would also work as well. I think if a narrow dispersion speaker is used then the overall effect may be a bit diminished, that being a smooth pan of sound across the overhead array.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> No problem. I wasn't chastising you - just pointing out that I already reported on several movies and how DSU worked with them.


Perhaps you or batpig can post links to these reviews or FAQs on Atmos somewhere in the first few threads..

I can see how the info can be lost in this very large thread...

Eventually I would like that a AVS knowledge based section might be handy...


----------



## Zen Traveler

asoofi1 said:


> Not worth it unless you have a room over 30 feet long and have over 3 rows of seating. 4 seems to be the sweet spot. 2 is not enough to get the front to back panning.


I was happy to see Keith's review of DSU on legacy 5.1 material given I've been pleased with my AVR-4311ci and using Heights with Dolby PLIIz...That said, our small, 2000 cu ft room can't accommodate in/on ceiling speakers in the front because of a large A-Frame ceiling so the upfiring speakers would be out as well...

What I am curious about is that our Height speakers are approximately 10 ft up angled towards the (limited) MLP, but we do have a smaller area behind our LP with a lower ceiling which could do on-ceiling speakers--Would we be able use our current Height speakers along with speakers slightly behind our seat and get the front to back panning with Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zen Traveler said:


> I was happy to see Keith's review of DSU on legacy 5.1 material given I've been pleased with my AVR-4311ci and using Heights with Dolby PLIIz...That said, our small, 2000 cu ft room can't accommodate in/on ceiling speakers in the front because of a large A-Frame ceiling so the upfiring speakers would be out as well...
> 
> What I am curious about is that our Height speakers are approximately 10 ft up angled towards the (limited) MLP, but we do have a smaller area behind our LP with a lower ceiling which could do on-ceiling speakers--Would we be able use our current Height speakers along with speakers slightly behind our seat and get the front to back panning with Atmos?


Certain receivers and pre-amps seem to allow for front height and rear overhead top-surround speaker amp assignments... at least some of the Denon/Marantz's do. The front height locations work best if they fall within the recommended listening angle ranges.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Lenses aren't 'optimised' for the centrefield as such. The reason the centre of the lens is the sharpest is that it costs a fortune to extend the same sharpness to the edges. Very high quality lenses, for this reason, exhibit much better edge to edge sharpness than 'regular' lenses. I cite Canon L lenses as my example.


Yes, there are technical reasons why it's easier to optimize the center axis of optics than the edges. But the point is you can get away with it at the edges, whereas you couldn't in the center, because that's where you are focused. Do you think it would be more troublesome to have poor resolution, or chromatic aberration or asigmatic distortions, right in the middle of the photo or the telescope/binocular view, or at the edges? 

Again, the failing here is the paradigm of surround sound as corrective augmentation. It's not -- improving our hearing where it's weak is not the goal, the goal is to create the illusion of reality. And you are much more likely to notice a breakdown of the illusion where your hearing/vision is most sensitive. Might I remind you of your own experience watching TF4 at your friend's house and not even noticing that the surround backs were silent? Do you think you would have failed to notice if of one of the front speakers was silent?

It's not about adding resolution to supplement where your hearing is weak. You want to add resolution where your hearing is sensitive and precise, because that's where you'd be most likely to notice the lack of resolution.



kbarnes701 said:


> Because they are not needed there, as Sanjay explained.


But I don't agree with Sanjay's explanation.  And you shouldn't either, as your personal experience belies the assertion that we need more "help" in places where our hearing is poorer. Again, I will cite the experience with your friend's setup and the lack of SB speakers failing to be noticed. And in your own setup, you currently have only two speakers covering the sides and rear, and then two more above you. Do you feel like the lack of rearward precision detracts the realism and immersion of all the action that's happening in front of you?

If it's more important to augment the deficiencies of our hearing above and behind you, why do you argue so vehemently that you can "get away with" surrounds that are much less capable than the front speakers? Shouldn't you have better speakers above and behind you to compensate for the lesser sensitivity of your hearing there? Of course not, because the most important part of the movie experience is optiming the visual/auditory experience in that zone in front of you (and I don't just mean the center, but wrapping to the sides and above you).


----------



## kbarnes701

*Comparison between DSU and Atmos on Transformers: Age of Extinction*

This is a short report comparing the same section (parts of Chapter 20) of the movie, *Transformers: Age of Extinction* when played back via Atmos and via DSU.

I set the Oppo to A-B repeat the section of Chapter 20 where the main characters are trying to escape in a SUV up to the point where there SUV is lifted into the air by the giant alien ship and then dropped back to the ground. This section has good Atmos overhead effects so it is a good comparison of how well Atmos and DSU both handle the same content.

As before, the amps and subs were turned off, except for the two amps driving the four overhead speakers.

*Using Atmos - overhead speakers only.*

I first played the clip using Atmos and noted where the overhead speakers were completely silent and where they were making a noise. Examples of total silence were when the SUV is being reversed, when Stanley Tucci is screaming in close-up and when the SUV backs into the noodle factory. Examples of noise being made overhead were various short sections throughout and a sustained section as the SUV is lifted aloft.

*Using DSU - overhead speakers only.
*
I then played the same section back via DSU and noted that the overhead speakers were making noise for virtually the entire clip, with only the very briefest of moments when they were silent. In the 'silent' sections noted above, via DSU there was constant overhead speaker activity. Music was ever-present and various random sound effects were also being placed overhead. Compared with the Atmos version, frankly it sounded a bit of a mess. However, in the scene where the SUV is lifted aloft, DSU did a very good job of reproducing many of the sound effects noted in the Atmos playback. I was quite impressed with that.

*Listening to both clips with all speakers engaged.*

I then played back the sections with all speakers/subs engaged and compared the overall listening experience. Here, I have to say that Atmos is the clear winner. There is much more precision to the sound whereas with DSU it does sound a little 'random' as the overheads do their stuff. HST, the effect of immersion with DSU was still good, but the precision was lost and the end result 'smeared' by comparison with Atmos) - for example when the SUV is being lifted up, in the DSU version I could clearly hear the characters' voices as they screamed and shouted whereas with the Atmos version all I could hear were the intended overhead effects. The addition of the voices and other sounds that should have remained 'down below' contributed to the 'smearing' effect that DSU gave.

*Conclusion: we have a clear winner.*

My conclusion is that it is very clear that Atmos renders a significantly superior effect when listening via all speakers. DSU does very well but really there is no comparison: the overhead sound is very 'ambient' and diffuse by comparison. I was here alone so I had nobody to switch the soundtracks so I could attempt to identify Atmos or DSU 'blind' but I am 100% sure that I would have been able to do so fairly easily. The difference, to me at least, was clear. Atmos gives a much more 'precise' sound whereas DSU gives a much more ambient sound overhead. Also, and this may just be pure placebo, it seemed to me that this precision also extended to the whole soundstage when the Atmos track was engaged, but we'll leave that for another day


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> I see it as a more general case for moving towards greater spatial/angular resolution around and above us rather than up front. You don't have to care for it, I'm just pointing out that someone (the movie industry) does. Keep in mind that Auro doesn't use wides at all; Dolby limits them to object pan-throughs; DTS is changing Neo:X to allow swapping wides for additional heights.


To be clear, I'm really arguing (like DHitch) about the front surround more than the DSX/Neo:X version of "wides". There is a huge gap between the front L/R mains and the first pair of surrounds in most HT setups. At best it's 60 degrees (+/- 30 degree fronts and 90 degree surrounds) but most of the time it's more like 80-90 degrees, as I bet the vast majority have their mains narrower than +/- 30 degrees (due to room constraints and/or having their speakers flanking their display) and their surrounds a bit behind them.

And as I noted with Scott, the argument of "move the surrounds further forward" is itself an implicit acknowledgement that this gap is a problem. You are a lot more likely to notice a side pan "jumping" from the front speaker than the surround speaker than something not imaging super precisely behind you. 

And if you're going to bring up "the movie industry" in your argument, it's worth pointing out that any commercial theater contains a side-wall array of multiple speakers. In a typical Atmos theater, there are as many speakers on each side wall array as there are in the overhead arrays. My local Arclight has 6 speakers on each side wall, and two lines of 6 speakers above me. Yet you are arguing it's more optimal in the home to have ONE speaker to each side and THREE speakers in each overhead array? Wouldn't two and two make more sense if you are going to point to the industry intent as the exemplar?

And, again, this is without even acknowledging the point that more of the content is in front of you than behind/above you. Why put more speakers where there is less content?



sdurani said:


> To me, this comes down to a philosophical difference more than a logistical one. It is the same difference of opinion I used to have with ChrisK of Audyssey. Given 9 speakers, he would place 7 of them up front, leaving only 2 to describe the entire surround field. Why waste resources where our hearing is not so good (or, as you mentioned, where less action is happening)?


And I would agree that 7 front / 2 back is too imbalanced. But Chris K / Audyssey was dead on in pointing out that (1) more speakers is better, 5.1 is not enough to fully convince the brain of the reality of the sound bubble and (2) extending the soundfield around and above you will increase immersion. DSX itself may have been a mediocre attempt to deal with these deficiencies, but we are moving towards that path of more speakers from more angles. And Chris would very much agree with the concept of adding even more speakers to keep closing gaps.

And, as you can tell, I vehemently disagree that you are "wasting resources" by adding more speakers where your hearing is good. If you are trying to fool the brain, you need to expend resources where your senses are most precise, because that's where you are most able to notice errors and disrupt the illusion. Why did Keith and his front (and many others I'm sure) not even notice that the surround backs were missing? Why can you get away with making a binocular or telescope with razor sharp resolution on axis but blurry, astigmatic edges? Why when you use lossy compression do you throw away data where our senses are less sensitive and optimize the portions where we are more sensitive?


----------



## pasender91

Thanks Keith for one more very clear and "scientific" report 
So it seems after all that Atmos still brings value over DSU, that's logical but still good to confirm it !!! 
Other people will confirm your conclusion (or not), we'll see...


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> And if you're going to bring up "the movie industry" in your argument, it's worth pointing out that any commercial theater contains a side-wall array of multiple speakers. In a typical Atmos theater, there are as many speakers on each side wall array as there are in the overhead arrays. My local Arclight has 6 speakers on each side wall, and two lines of 6 speakers above me. *Yet you are arguing it's more optimal in the home to have ONE speaker to each side and THREE speakers in each overhead array? Wouldn't two and two make more sense if you are going to point to the industry intent as the exemplar?*


Just like I said about two or three times now... put a height version of these ear level speakers. We at home don't use full arrays for our surround channels. 

Here you say that in the cinema there is an overhead speaker for each surround speaker. Why is this so hard to get for the overheads at home? We have two front left and right. So have two front and left heights. We have two surround speakers. Now let's have two surround heights. We also have two rear surrounds. Lets have two rear surround heights.

All that content at the wide/front surround can image from between the sides and fronts. This I can get just fine with current 7.1 surround. *You know what I can't get? Precise imagining up above me.* At best I can get a fuzzy "somethings above me" sensation.


----------



## batpig

Scott - you are arguing for the Auro layout. A height speaker "pairing" for each ear level channel.



Scott Simonian said:


> Here you say that in the cinema there is an overhead speaker for each surround speaker.


No, in the Atmos cinema there is an overhead speaker for each SIDEWALL surround speaker. In addition, there are speakers on the front wall, and also the surround back speakers on the side wall. In the example of my local Arclight Atmos theater there are an additional 6 speakers on the back wall, so 6 on each side wall, 12 overhead (2 arrays of 6 speakers), and then 6 more speakers behind you. You and Sanjay are arguing that the home theater would be more optimal with 6 overhead speakers and only 2 side speakers and 2 back speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Scott - you are arguing for the Auro layout.


I am not arguing anything. Auro is not like what I describe. Similar, maybe. 

What I describe is Atmos in a 7.1.6 configuration to a 't'.

Btw, Auro 13.1 home would include a center front height and a single mono VOG overhead. I don't think the center front height is necessary nor would I want a single mono VOG channel up above me.


----------



## HTRules

*"Widescreen Review" article*

Let me throw a grenade into the midst of our little gathering round the campfire: plz read the current Widescreen Review Magazine (issue 190 October 2014) article "Reprise of the Sound Wars Part II: Auro-3D versus Dolby Atmos" and report back your interpretation of what you read.


What the article said to me was that my planned purchase this month of the Marantz 7702 must be put on hold until the 1st quarter of next year in the hopes of a unifying solution that will support both formats....to say nothing of a pending DTS challenge.


Cannot afford to go through another format war (I was an early supporter of HD-DVD, for example!).


----------



## Brian Fineberg

thanks Keith...I have to agree...i found atmos to be VERY good all around the soundstage as compared to a 7.1 counterpart


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I am not arguing anything.


You're clearly arguing SOMETHING. Otherwise why are you posting? 



Scott Simonian said:


> Auro is not like what I describe. Similar, maybe.


The concept of each floor level speaker having an elevated "buddy" speaker is the Auro concept. Atmos AFAIK doesn't imply any correspondance between the overhead speakers and specific listener level speakers.



Scott Simonian said:


> What I describe is Atmos in a 7.1.6 configuration to a 't'.


Sure, you're describing it (although as I note your logic is more Auro-ish than Atmos-ish) but you could also describe a 9.1.4 or any other layout. Describing doesn't do much -- the question is WHY would one be better, more optimal than the other? To me, six overhead surrounds and four listener level surrounds seems skewed too much towards the overheads, where there is not only less content, but also is less similar to the cinematic layout. I'd rather close the side-wall gaps, where there is more content and better hearing sensitivity.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yes, there are technical reasons why it's easier to optimize the center axis of optics than the edges. But the point is you can get away with it at the edges, whereas you couldn't in the center, because that's where you are focused. Do you think it would be more troublesome to have poor resolution, or chromatic aberration or asigmatic distortions, right in the middle of the photo or the telescope/binocular view, or at the edges?


More troublesome at the centre - but the lens analogy isn't a good one because the aberrations at the edge are manufacturing byproducts and not easily resolved except at great cost whereas it costs no more to place the same two speakers either above or to the side of you. 



batpig said:


> Again, the failing here is the paradigm of surround sound as corrective augmentation. It's not -- improving our hearing where it's weak is not the goal, the goal is to create the illusion of reality. And you are much more likely to notice a breakdown of the illusion where your hearing/vision is most sensitive.


And we create the illusion of reality by ensuring that sounds above us and around us get equal consideration. It is more difficult for us to reliably hear and localise sounds from behind us and above us, so that is where we need most help. It is not giving us most help to remove speakers from those locations to place them where we actually need no help at all.



batpig said:


> Might I remind you of your own experience watching TF4 at your friend's house and not even noticing that the surround backs were silent? Do you think you would have failed to notice if of one of the front speakers was silent?


That is the entire point - because we need more help to hear sounds from behind us, we need speakers there and they need to be working. It's a good argument for having _more_ speakers behind us not less. As you say, I’d have easily noticed a deficiency at the front, which proves that we need no help there.



batpig said:


> It's not about adding resolution to supplement where your hearing is weak. You want to add resolution where your hearing is sensitive and precise, because that's where you'd be most likely to notice the lack of resolution.


No no no... where my hearing is sensitive I don't need any help to hear everything! If I am hearing 100% of the sound from the front, adding another speaker set isn't going to enable me to hear 120%. But if I am only hearing 80% from above or behind me, then adding more there may well fill in the missing 20%.



batpig said:


> But I don't agree with Sanjay's explanation.  And you shouldn't either, as your personal experience belies the assertion that we need more "help" in places where our hearing is poorer.


I see that as demonstrating the opposite of what you see it as.



batpig said:


> Again, I will cite the experience with your friend's setup and the lack of SB speakers failing to be noticed. And in your own setup, you currently have only two speakers covering the sides and rear, and then two more above you. Do you feel like the lack of rearward precision detracts the realism and immersion of all the action that's happening in front of you?


I have 2 speakers covering the sides and rear and 4 speakers, not 2, covering the above. That is the point - I need more speakers above me - in a 9 speaker setup, it makes no sense to me to have 7 at listener level and only 2 above. This is similar to what Audyssey tried to convince us we needed - 7 at the front and only 2 for the rest of the soundstage - and DSX is a mess as a result. Tomlinson Holman disliked precise sound from the surround channels and preferred a more front-centric soundstage, which then rubbed off on Chris K and Audyssey. But I digress...



batpig said:


> If it's more important to augment the deficiencies of our hearing above and behind you, why do you argue so vehemently that you can "get away with" surrounds that are much less capable than the front speakers? Shouldn't you have better speakers above and behind you to compensate for the lesser sensitivity of your hearing there? Of course not, because the most important part of the movie experience is optiming the visual/auditory experience in that zone in front of you (and I don't just mean the center, but wrapping to the sides and above you).


No - the reason I say you don't need such competent full range speakers on surround duty is due to the content being placed in them, at the levels used. For mostly ambient sound at a much lower level than the mains, you don't need such competent speakers. The centre channel is the most important as it carries 75% or more of the entire sound of the movie, followed by the Left and Right - surrounds come in a distant poor relation in that sense. It has nothing to do with how we hear the sounds from behind us - all to do with the content sent there by the mixer. (This may change with the advent of Atmos but it's too early to say yet). But to your point, it's the reason we need to spend quite a lot on the subwoofer if we are to hear the deep bass at the level and depth that the content creator intended: precisely because our hearing is weaker for bass frequencies, which is why we need better speakers (subs) to handle it.


----------



## batpig

Subs aren't more expensive because our hearing is less sensitive to bass, it's because bass is physically harder to reproduce. Whether or not our ears and brain were in the room, it takes more resources to produce 100dB at 10Hz than 100dB at 10kHz. That's a poor example.

I see we are at loggerheads. Utilizing the same data to reach exactly opposite conclusions 

I would point out one flaw -- I don't think you are "hearing 100% of the sound from the front". There is a lateral gap between your fronts and surrounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

HTRules said:


> Let me throw a grenade into the midst of our little gathering round the campfire: plz read the current Widescreen Magazine (issue 190 October 2014) article "Reprise of the Sound Wars Part II: Auro-3D versus Dolby Atmos" and report back your interpretation of what you read.
> 
> 
> What the article said to me was that my planned purchase this month of the Marantz 7702 must be put on hold until the 1st quarter of next year in the hopes of a unifying solution that will support both formats....to say nothing of a pending DTS challenge.
> 
> 
> Cannot afford to go through another format war (I was an early supporter of HD-DVD, for example!).


Don't be too quick to believe WSR on Atmos - Gary Reber has a big down on it. And be even more circumspect believing everything you read by Wilfrid van Baelen, whose utterances contain many half-truths and even downright falsehoods.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> You're clearly arguing SOMETHING. Otherwise why are you posting?


WTF?! Seriously? Am I not allowed to post about Atmos in the Atmos thread here at AVS now?  There about half a dozen people in this thread that even understand Atmos and I am one of them.




batpig said:


> The concept of each floor level speaker having an elevated "buddy" speaker is the Auro concept. Atmos AFAIK doesn't imply any correspondance between the overhead speakers and specific listener level speakers.


Yeah, maybe but my thoughts are not aligned to Auro's tall, wall-of-sound where I describe a bubble. Auro wants an additional speaker directly above the lower half *on the wall*. My description is exactly how home Atmos works now. Many here are doing 'middle top' heights. Is that suddenly "Auro-like" because of that? No. My thoughts on the matter are to put a sound vector point at the front, mid and rear. It's pretty easy. I guess it will make more sense and there will be plenty of applause when Sanjay comes in and describes exactly what I have been saying. 




batpig said:


> Sure, you're describing it (although as I note your logic is more Auro-ish than Atmos-ish) but you could also describe a 9.1.4 or any other layout. Describing doesn't do much -- the question is WHY would one be better, more optimal than the other? To me, six overhead surrounds and four listener level surrounds seems skewed too much towards the overheads, where there is not only less content, but also is less similar to the cinematic layout. I'd rather close the side-wall gaps, where there is more content and better hearing sensitivity.


I don't get why you think there is six overheads and four surrounds. It's six overheads, four of which reside in the part of the with ....*ding ding* the four surrounds. Then there are two "overheads" that are up front with the .... front speakers.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> More troublesome ." - because we need more help to hear sounds adding more there may well fill in the missing 20%.
> 
> I have 2 speakers covering the sides and rear and 4 speakers, not 2, covering the above.
> 
> That is the point - I need more speakers above me - in a 9 speaker setup, it makes no sense to me to have 7 at listener level and only 2 above.
> 
> 
> No - the reason I say you don't need such competent full range speakers on surround duty is due to the content being placed in them, at the levels used. For mostly ambient sound at a much lower level than the mains, you don't need such competent speakers. The centre channel is the most important as it carries 75% or more of the entire sound of the movie, followed by the Left and Right - surrounds come in a distant poor relation in that sense. It has nothing to do with how we hear the sounds from behind us - all to do with the content sent there by the mixer. (This may change with the advent of Atmos but it's too early to say yet). But to your point, it's the reason we need to spend quite a lot on the subwoofer if we are to hear the deep bass at the level and depth that the content creator intended: precisely because our hearing is weaker for bass frequencies, which is why we need better speakers (subs) to handle it.


Well I agree with most of it. I like four surround speakers two on the side two on the back. I would not mind wide as well but can live without it if the 4 ATMOS deliver


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Subs aren't more expensive because our hearing is less sensitive to bass, it's because bass is harder to reproduce. That's a poor example.
> 
> I see we are at loggerheads. Utilizing the same data to reach exactly opposite conclusions


Bass isn't harder to reproduce as such - it's because our hearing is insensitive to bass that we need a big full-fat dedicated speaker with a big full-fat amp to drive it. Only in that sense is it 'harder' to reproduce.

Yes, we just don't see eye to eye on this and I guess we never will.  I am firmly in the Sanjay camp, that it makes most sense to put extra speakers where we have the most difficulty hearing sounds from. If we agree that sounds from above and behind are more difficult to hear well, then how can putting more speakers there be the wrong thing to do? If we don't put more speakers there, then we are just accepting that we will never really hear the sounds from those locations very well. Adding more speakers at the front clearly can't help us hear sounds better from behind.

The false premise that the reverse is true is precisely why DSX is so awful. It creates a massive wall of sound at the front and all sense of immersion disappears entirely. Which is not surprising if out of 9 speakers, 7 of them are the the front!


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> WTF?! Seriously? Am I not allowed to post about Atmos in the Atmos thread here at AVS now?


Of course you are allowed to post. But don't claim that you are "not arguing anything" when you clearly are. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue



Scott Simonian said:


> There about half a dozen people in this thread that even understand Atmos and I am one of them.


Well, la de frickin da! Congratulations! Don't hurt your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Subs aren't more expensive because our hearing is less sensitive to bass, it's because bass is physically harder to reproduce. Whether or not our ears and brain were in the room, it takes more resources to produce 100dB at 10Hz than 100dB at 10kHz. That's a poor example.
> 
> I see we are at loggerheads. Utilizing the same data to reach exactly opposite conclusions
> 
> I would point out one flaw -- I don't think you are "hearing 100% of the sound from the front". There is a lateral gap between your fronts and surrounds.


I meant I was hearing all of the sound not all of it from the front. Clearly I am hearing some of the sound from elsewhere. The lateral gap can be neatly eliminated in a system with 4 surrounds by the simple expedient of placing the side surrounds slightly forward and the rear surrounds slightly rearwards to create a seamless sound all around the MLP. This is a recommended ITU setup too.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Bass isn't harder to reproduce as such - it's because our hearing is insensitive to bass that we need a big full-fat dedicated speaker with a big full-fat amp to drive it. Only in that sense is it 'harder' to reproduce.
> 
> Yes, we just don't see eye to eye on this and I guess we never will.  I am firmly in the Sanjay camp, that it makes most sense to put extra speakers where we have the most difficulty hearing sounds from. If we agree that sounds from above and behind are more difficult to hear well, then how can putting more speakers there be the wrong thing to do? If we don't put more speakers there, then we are just accepting that we will never really hear the sounds from those locations very well. Adding more speakers at the front clearly can't help us hear sounds better from behind.
> 
> The false premise that the reverse is true is precisely why DSX is so awful. It creates a massive wall of sound at the front and all sense of immersion disappears entirely. Which is not surprising if out of 9 speakers, 7 of them are the the front!


You mean five speakers are in the front unless you count side speakers at front?

I agree we need more speakers where our ears are not as efficient the rear and the top! Unfortunately we don't have rabbit ears


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Well I agree with most of it. I like four surround speakers two on the side two on the back. I would not mind wide as well but can live without it if the 4 ATMOS deliver


You may like it even more if you could move one pair of your surrounds forward of the MLP a bit. I wish I could accommodate 4 surrounds so that I could do just that. Phantom imaging between my surrounds and mains is very good - but phantom can never beat physical speaker.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Of course you are allowed to post. But don't claim that you are "not arguing anything" when you clearly are. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue
> 
> 
> 
> Well, la de frickin da! Congratulations! Don't hurt your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back



*sigh*

Sooo...

You've been going on and on about "filling a gap" between the super ultra important 'wide' position where we can image just fine with the use of side surrounds and front surrounds which everybody will be using now. What I'm just trying to say is that with that super wicked cool 9.1.4 system there is giant gap directly above the listener that is not being populated with sound. That's all.


----------



## HTRules

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't be too quick to believe WSR on Atmos - Gary Reber has a big down on it. And be even more circumspect believing everything you read by Wilfrid van Baelen, whose utterances contain many half-truths and even downright falsehoods.


The impetus for my post is my belief I should wait on my purchase until manufacturers (D&M) release products that support both (Atmos, Auro) formats. Right now the unit I'm lusting after - Marantz 7702 - only supports Atmos, and they won't be able to change that with only firmware updates, I don't think.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Bass isn't harder to reproduce as such - it's because our hearing is insensitive to bass that we need a big full-fat dedicated speaker with a big full-fat amp to drive it. Only in that sense is it 'harder' to reproduce.


I'm sorry Keith but you are flat out wrong on this point. Bass IS harder to reproduce. It takes more amplification, bigger enclosures, bigger woofers to create the same SPL at lower frequencies than higher frequencies. That's a physical fact, and what we can or cannot hear is irrelevant to that. The measurement of sound pressure level is objective and not related to our subjective impression of it.



kbarnes701 said:


> If we agree that sounds from above and behind are more difficult to hear well, then how can putting more speakers there be the wrong thing to do? If we don't put more speakers there, then we are just accepting that we will never really hear the sounds from those locations very well. Adding more speakers at the front clearly can't help us hear sounds better from behind.


To be clear, putting more speakers there isn't "wrong", it's a question of resource allocation. If you could put more speakers above AND to the sides, by all means go for it. But once you have 7.1.4, where do the next two speakers bring the most impact? I think closing the side gap, and creating a more seamless arc from the front to the sides, is more important than having another pair of speakers above you.

And also, you keep referring to front vs. back. I'm really talking about above vs. to the side. There is a lack of side coverage with only one sidewall surround speaker.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Sooo...
> 
> You've been going on and on about "filling a gap" between the super ultra important 'wide' position where we can image just fine with the use of side surrounds and front surrounds which everybody will be using now. What I'm just trying to say is that with that super wicked cool 9.1.4 system there is giant gap directly above the listener that is not being populated with sound. That's all.


Which is a valid.............. argument 

It's not that the "wide" gap is "super ultra important". It's a question of, once you have the basic 7.1.4 coverage, which is the next gap that is most important to fill -- the gap between the front and side speakers, or the gap above you. That is what we, *ahem*, are _arguing _about.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aight Mr. Smartypants. 

So just move your side surround a bit forward, fill that gap and put some more speakers above you. Done deal.


----------



## Selden Ball

Personally, I think we should have uniform, high quality audio _and video_ available to us in all directions. The need for high quality audio in the front seems to be to be predicated on already having high quality video there. Certainly in my system, the addition of high quality audio elsewhere has made the front-centrism of the video image almost painfully obvious to me. It sometimes feels as if I'm watching things at the far end of a tunnel. And I'm using an 80" screen about 9' away.

Unfortunately, all-wall video is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Selden Ball said:


> Personally, I think we should have uniform, high quality audio _and video_ available to us in all directions. The need for high quality audio in the front seems to be to be predicated on already having high quality video there. Certainly in my system, the addition of high quality audio elsewhere has made the front-centrism of the video image almost painfully obvious to me. It sometimes feels as if I'm watching things at the far end of a tunnel. And I'm using an 80" screen about 9' away.
> 
> Unfortunately, all-wall video is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.


For that, a more reasonable expectation would be to implement something like Microsoft's Illumiroom to extend the the boundaries of the screen. Obviously it would not be practical to have a screen that completely envelopes the room but with this you can get a similar effect using much less resources and not have to rely and super high resolution/bandwidth either. Would be pretty cool for effects driven movies but I bet somewhat distracting as well. But a _good_ distracting.


----------



## kbarnes701

HTRules said:


> The impetus for my post is my belief I should wait on my purchase until manufacturers (D&M) release products that support both (Atmos, Auro) formats. Right now the unit I'm lusting after - Marantz 7702 - only supports Atmos, and they won't be able to change that with only firmware updates, I don't think.


It has already been confirmed that the Denon and Marantz Atmos units will be FW upgradeable, at a cost, by the end of the year.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I'm sorry Keith but you are flat out wrong on this point. Bass IS harder to reproduce. It takes more amplification, bigger enclosures, bigger woofers to create the same SPL at lower frequencies than higher frequencies. That's a physical fact, and what we can or cannot hear is irrelevant to that. The measurement of sound pressure level is objective and not related to our subjective impression of it.


It is no 'harder' to reproduce than any other frequency. It just requires bigger drivers and amps. What is 'hard' about that? The science and the physics is identical to that for any other speaker. The only reason we need subs is because of the way our hearing works.




batpig said:


> To be clear, putting more speakers there isn't "wrong", it's a question of resource allocation. If you could put more speakers above AND to the sides, by all means go for it. But once you have 7.1.4, where do the next two speakers bring the most impact? I think closing the side gap, and creating a more seamless arc from the front to the sides, is more important than having another pair of speakers above you.


It is if you aren't all that interested in the sounds above you. I can phantom image sounds to my sides. Without speakers above me phantom imaging there is impossible.



batpig said:


> And also, you keep referring to front vs. back. I'm really talking about above vs. to the side. There is a lack of side coverage with only one sidewall surround speaker.


Not here - the phantom image is very clear.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Predicted by many. 3D was popular in the 50's and died. The current version, in my opinion, will die as well. When/if they get glassless 3D working, it may rise again.
> 
> 3D can be very fun and exciting but, as least for me, adds little to the telling of the story.
> 
> Time will tell.


Chuck, Disney and PIXAR Blu-rays in 3D are totally awesome. ...And I would love to see them adopt 3D Dolby Atmos sound. ...Or Auro-3D, or DTS-UHD (MDA). ...It don't matter which, as long as it is good 3D surround sound immersion created with good/smart artistic taste.
Just imagine; 'Ratatouille', 'The Incredibles', 'Toy Story' trilogy, 'UP', ...all in 3D picture and sound.
Right now only 'Toy Story' and 'UP' are available with 3D picture here in North America. 
And all the latest Disney animation and action titles are gone by the seaside, in Blu-ray 3D. 

I don't know exactly what's going on today with the new world of technologies.
Is it about money, or simply that the true creative art form is simply disappearing?

I am worry, @ times. ...From the decline of the American empire. ...And all other stuff from all over the world. 
Other times I still find happiness, of course, but sadness too. ...I guess I'm living my times, now, the way it truly surrounds me, us.


----------



## NorthSky

> *Conclusion: we have a clear winner.*
> 
> My conclusion is that it is very clear that Atmos renders a significantly superior effect when listening via all speakers. DSU does very well but really there is no comparison: the overhead sound is very 'ambient' and diffuse by comparison. I was here alone so I had nobody to switch the soundtracks so I could attempt to identify Atmos or DSU 'blind' but I am 100% sure that I would have been able to do so fairly easily. The difference, to me at least, was clear. Atmos gives a much more 'precise' sound whereas DSU gives a much more ambient sound overhead. Also, and this may just be pure placebo, it seemed to me that this precision also extended to the whole soundstage when the Atmos track was engaged, but we'll leave that for another day


Good, very good; I'll wait for more/better Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles. Then I'll get the hardware. ...No rush.


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> For that, a more reasonable expectation would be to implement something like Microsoft's Illumiroom to extend the the boundaries of the screen. Obviously it would not be practical to have a screen that completely envelopes the room but with this you can get a similar effect using much less resources and not have to rely and super high resolution/bandwidth either. Would be pretty cool for effects driven movies but I bet somewhat distracting as well. But a _good_ distracting.


Unfortunately, I left out a crucial adjective: "affordable". Sorry. 

Researchers have been using all-wall video systems for many years, with rear-projection screens on every surface. e.g. http://www.christiedigital.com/en-u...ll-medical-college-3d-digital-projection.aspx

Until their prices come way down, though, it seems unlikely to me that the entertainment industry would consider the expense of actually producing the equivalent of movies to make use of such an environment. Except, of course, in special venues like dedicated theme parks where the expense is more easily amortized.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, I left out a crucial adjective: "affordable". Sorry.
> 
> Researchers have been using all-wall video systems for many years, with rear-projection screens on every surface. e.g. http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/3d/3d-and-advanced%20visualization-case-studies/3d-and-advanced-visualization-projector-installations/pages/weill-cornell-medical-college-3d-digital-projection.aspx
> 
> Until their prices come way down, though, it seems unlikely to me that the entertainment industry would consider the expense of actually producing the equivalent of movies to make use of such an environment. Except, of course, in special venues like dedicated theme parks where the expense is more easily amortized.


Woah! That's cool. 

That being said the link I provided is supposed to be (if it ever comes out) an affordable solution.


----------



## NorthSky

> Don't be too quick to believe WSR on Atmos - Gary Reber has a big down on it. And be even more circumspect believing everything you read by Wilfrid van Baelen, whose utterances contain many half-truths and even downright falsehoods.


It is still a very good thing to have an open vision, to gather all info from all over, and to not be restricted by a narrow field of view.
It's good to expand our horizons; mentally and physically.


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> Woah! That's cool.
> 
> That being said the link I provided is supposed to be (if it ever comes out) an affordable solution.


I'm not sure I'd call it a solution, since it produces random patterns somehow similar to what's on screen. But it could be entertaining in its own right


----------



## Scott Simonian

Random? Did you watch the video? Certainly not random.


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> watched *XMEN-DOFP* last night with DSU engaged...and it was awesoem!!
> 
> again,....MOST of the time it was music put into the heights but there were quite a few effects tossedup there...and again...it was more of a sound bubble from surround sounds...very cool
> 
> my favorite scene is chapter 15 (time in a bottle) the immersion was fantastic!!!


Did you like the flick itself? ...And did you watch the 2D or the 3D version?


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Personally, I think we should have uniform, high quality audio _and video_ available to us in all directions. The need for high quality audio in the front seems to be to be predicated on already having high quality video there. Certainly in my system, the addition of high quality audio elsewhere has made the front-centrism of the video image almost painfully obvious to me. It sometimes feels as if I'm watching things at the far end of a tunnel. And I'm using an 80" screen about 9' away.
> (


No room for a PJ, Selden? You could readily watch a 100 inch diagonal screen from 9 feet... much more immersive.


----------



## mtbdudex

Via my facebook feed:
*Hands On: Dolby Atmos a Game Changer in Home Theater Market*

Peter Tribeman of Atlantic Technology says Dolby Atmos is the most exciting audio format to hit the home theater market in a number of years. 
By Robert Archer, October 15, 2014
http://www.cepro.com/article/hands_on_dolby_atmos_game_changer_home_theater_market/K454


> A recent assignment to review Onkyo’s TX-NR636 A/V receiver sparked my interest in learning more about Dolby Atmos. Before writing the article, I requested a visit with a company local to _CE Pro_, Atlantic Technology, and its president and founder Peter Tribeman. Meeting Tribeman at his company’s facilities, we discussed Atlantic Tech’s new Dolby Atmos speaker modules and the impact of Atmos on the home theater market before hearing the demo. Tribeman, as expected, proved to be wealth of information on the topics of Atmos, speaker design and market trends.
> Spending an afternoon with him, he explained how Atmos delivers his “acoustic bubble” of immersion, which the home theater market has been trying to hone for decades he says.
> “Atmos produces something that is three-dimensional,” he points out. “It’s as close to a commercial theater as I’ve ever heard.”
> Sitting through a series of Atmos-encoded clips that are a part of a Dolby Atmos demonstration disc, I have to admit that any skepticism I had about the technology quickly evaporated. Best of all is the point that Tribeman makes on the Atmos’ rendering engine, which is called Dolby Surround (Dolby Surround is a term Dolby is using once again). He said this technology is so good that it can take soundtracks embedded with other formats to produce Atmos-like soundtracks to add value to existing media libraries. “This is the remarkable hidden gem of the new Dolby technology,” he states. “It provides an added dimension to existing soundtracks. That is worth the price of admission.”
> *Related: Read More About Dolby Atmos from CE Pro*
> To prove his point, he popped in the Sandra Bullock movie _Gravity_, which is encoded with DTS HD Master Audio to let me hear for myself how powerful the rendering engine is within the whole Atmos platform. (He used a Marantz A/V receiver in his system.)
> Moving on to the topic of his company’s 44-DA Atmos modules ($499 per pair), he says these speakers can be placed nearly anywhere—aesthetically the modules match the physical dimensions and industrial design of Atlantic Tech’s 4400 bookshelf speaker—but they can be used with any loudspeaker. Tribeman recalls that it took about six months of development to come up with the final design for the modules.
> He adds that his initial conversations with Dolby date back approximately two years, and once his company received the specs for the speaker, a few design revisions were made, including the use of a coaxial driver array. But Atlantic Tech’s close relationship with Dolby enabled his engineers to act quickly to implement these revisions.
> Knowing the uncertainty that confronts any new home theater format launch, Tribeman acknowledges there are some risks with Atlantic Tech being one of a handful of Atmos early adopter manufacturers. But as he noted, Atmos is the best audio technology to hit the home theater market in many years. It could have the same impact as Dolby Digital 5.1 back in the late 1990s.
> Shifting gears to take a dealer perspective of Atmos, he says the technology has the potential to offer dealers revenues in the categories of retrofitting existing systems, and the obvious—new system installations. Depending on the scenario and the newness of clients’ A/V receivers, dealers can perform firmware updates to recent A/V receivers and add modules like Atlantic Tech’s 44-DAs for simple and cost effective state-of-the-art system upgrade. Or they can update clients’ A/V receivers or preamplifier/processors and add modules as a complete system upgrades.
> Another great thing about Atmos modules like the 44-DAs is that they typically locate on top of the front left/right speakers/and or on top of the rear surrounds. This means they won’t take up additional floor space within a home. Alternatively, because of their size, they could be placed on bookshelf near the front speakers or rear speakers.
> The only scenario that concerns Tribeman—and I agree with his assessment—is that Atmos will not be effective in home theater systems made up entirely of in-ceiling speakers.
> “Atmos won’t work acoustically with systems with a complete array of in-ceiling [L,C,R] speakers, but systems can be mixed with in-room and in-ceilings,” he states.
> After having this conversation with Tribeman I went home and setup the Onkyo receiver and a pair of Atlantic Tech modules. Based on his recommendations, I placed the modules on top of my Monitor Audio PL-100 speakers, which are my main left/right speakers to form a 5.1.2 system. I also boosted the levels on the modules by about 4dB above the reference of the left and right speakers. He also recommended that I try to move the modules around to see if any moves provide a greater immersiviness.
> Before making the visit to Atlantic Tech’s office, I was skeptical of Atmos. Within five minutes of hearing the demo, I was convinced it is worthy of the hype. Based on my experience with Atmos and my conversations with Tribeman, I believe dealers and consumers will be convinced that Atmos is as good as its advanced billing.
> Now, all we need is some Atmos-encoded Blu-ray discs, but that’s another topic for another day.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> No room for a PJ, Selden? You could readily watch a 100 inch diagonal screen from 9 feet... much more immersive.


 I'm using a projector. Not having enough room for a significantly larger screen is the problem. I haven't investigated what's available in pull-up screens for a while, though.


----------



## HTRules

kbarnes701 said:


> It has already been confirmed that the Denon and Marantz Atmos units will be FW upgradeable, at a cost, by the end of the year.


That's excellent news; thanks, Keith.


Can you point me towards a source for the FW upgrade info, plz?


----------



## NorthSky

> Even worse, I finds that far from immersing me more in the movie, 3D actually takes me out of the movie all the time because the 3D effect is so unnatural. It will always be unnatural because despite it appearing to have 3 dimensions, the image is still in reality all in one, 2 dimensional plane. I think this is what makes it tiring to watch - the brain is constantly having to fight the unnaturalness of seeing something with apparent depth, but still in a 2 dimensional plane. Where 3D will come into its own and really add to the enjoyment is when we have genuine holography.
> 
> Atmos, by way of contrast, adds to the enjoyment and immersion because it enables us to hear sounds all around and above us, just as in real life.


Is your front projector of the 3D variety? ...Is your Blu-ray player 3D capable? ...Oppo 93 is. 
Do you have 3D Blu-ray titles? 

You have a great room with a nice big screen, and you sit eight feet from it; 3D should simply be awesome. ...Did you experiment (that is if your projector is 3D capable and up to it - quality 3D wise)? 

* You don't have to reply if you don't want to; it's up to you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It has already been confirmed that the Denon and Marantz Atmos units will be FW upgradeable, at a cost, by the end of the year.


Confirmed? Or just a strong, circulated rumor?


----------



## kbarnes701

HTRules said:


> That's excellent news; thanks, Keith.
> 
> 
> Can you point me towards a source for the FW upgrade info, plz?


The info was made available at CEDIA by word of mouth. It's documented in this thread somewhere.

But like I said, it will not be here until closer to the end of the year.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Confirmed? Or just a strong circulated rumor?


It's confirmed. I can't say more than that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I'm using a projector. Not having enough room for a significantly larger screen is the problem. I haven't investigated what's available in pull-up screens for a while, though.


Ah right. Sorry, I ass-u-med you were using an 80 inch TV. One of the best upgrades I ever made was shoehorning a PJ into my H(obbit) Theater.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It's confirmed. I can't say more than that.


Hmph.

Saying that says a whole lot more than you might think.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> You've been going on and on about "filling a gap" between the super ultra important 'wide' position where we can image just fine with the use of side surrounds and front surrounds which everybody will be using now. What I'm just trying to say is that with that super wicked cool 9.1.4 system there is giant gap directly above the listener that is not being populated with sound. That's all.


I'm with ya Scott; *9.1.6* is a good surround sound balance, I think. ...Gimme Wides and gimme six heights (overheads Atmos). ...Just for the completist in all of us. 



HTRules said:


> The impetus for my post is my belief I should wait on my purchase until manufacturers (D&M) release products that support both (Atmos, Auro) formats. Right now the unit I'm lusting after - Marantz 7702 - only supports Atmos, and they won't be able to change that with only firmware updates, I don't think.


I'm on the exact same sailing cruise ship than you. ...Waiting for my meal to be served just right. 
...Time is on my side.

_______


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Aight Mr. *Smartypants*.
> 
> So just move your side surround a bit forward, fill that gap and put some more speakers above you. Done deal.


Dave is here, where? Is he getting a new Dolby Atmos receiver to replace his 805? ...That'll be the day!


----------



## NorthSky

That is extremely cool; I want one!


----------



## mtn-tech

Craig Mecak said:


> Can anyone tell me what the technical triggers are in a stereo/5.1/7.1 signal that tells the DSU to put audio into the height/ceiling speakers?
> 
> With old ProLogic II/IIx surround, the out-of-phase content in the signal was steered to the rear speakers. But how are the height elements embedded into a stereo signal? What is the cue/s in the 2 channel signal that causes DSU to put that information into the heights?


I doubt that the DSU is going to be adding any sounds to the height channels for a stereo source. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the DSU is going to be looking at common sounds in front, surround and back channels and adding it to height speakers to give a more diffuse sound field. A sound moving from the left surround channel to the left surround back may not imply any height so that sound may not be mixed into the height channels. But sounds that are "atmospheric" and present in both surrounds and rears (like rain or wind) may be added to the height channels to envelope the listener. It will be interesting so see how well this works - Dolby Pro Logic IIz does something similar - I don't have it in my system, but I liked the effect in demos that I've heard.


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> WTF?! Seriously? Am I not allowed to post about Atmos in the Atmos thread here at AVS now?  There about half a dozen people in this thread that even understand Atmos and I am one of them.


Scott - enjoy your posts, but seriously only 6 people on AVS understand Atmos and of course your one and an expert. Give me a minute while I get down on my knees and bow down towards the west. Just when you thought you've read it all on AVS. Nice post.


----------



## Scott Simonian

smurraybhm said:


> Scott - enjoy your posts, but seriously only 6 people on AVS understand Atmos and of course your one and an expert. Give me a minute while I get done on my knees and bow down towards the west. Just when you thought you've read it all on AVS. Nice post.


That's not what I meant, sir. 

But whatever. I seem to be on a 'pay no mind' list anyway.

Enjoy. I'll bow out.


----------



## noah katz

Keith,

Thanks for doing comparison of T4 with Atmos and DSU.

It would be interesting to do a similar comparison where rather than looking at specificity of discrete overhead events, the focus would be on general ambiance/immersion in the environment.



kbarnes701 said:


> It is no 'harder' to reproduce than any other frequency. It just requires bigger drivers and amps. What is 'hard' about that? The science and the physics is identical to that for any other speaker. The only reason we need subs is because of the way our hearing works.


Most people consider it harder if achieving a goal requires more money and space.

You're also missing batpig's point that even if our ears weren't less sensitive at low freq, it would still require more resources to produce the same SPL as at higher freq.


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> That's not what I meant, sir.
> 
> But whatever. I seem to be on a 'pay no mind' list anyway.
> 
> Enjoy. I'll bow out.


If I misread what was written I apologize. Hopefully you'll stick around, you've added plenty to the discussion. I also enjoy the updates regarding your massive HT speaker project.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> That's not what I meant, sir.
> 
> But whatever. I seem to be on a 'pay no mind' list anyway.
> 
> Enjoy. I'll bow out.


Scott, don't worry be happy. 

* Often here we are talking to an empty telephone; this is the new wave. ...Peace man. 
It seems that @ times only the "experts" have all the answers to newcomers' questions. 
Perhaps they do; they certainly appear so when half of the other members are "invisible", to them. 

Welcome to the new wave; Dolby Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I'm really arguing (like DHitch) about the front surround more than the DSX/Neo:X version of "wides".


What's the difference?


> There is a huge gap between the front L/R mains and the first pair of surrounds in most HT setups.


There might be a physical gap, due to the MLP often being in the back half of the room, but the angular gap (60 degrees) is no more huge than the one between the sides and rears or between the sides and tops or between both rear speakers.


> My local Arclight has 6 speakers on each side wall, and two lines of 6 speakers above me. Yet you are arguing it's more optimal in the home to have ONE speaker to each side and THREE speakers in each overhead array? Wouldn't two and two make more sense if you are going to point to the industry intent?


I brought up movie theatres because the number of surround channels (not speakers) changed from 1 to 4 over the last two decades, indicating the industry was concentrating on more precise localization in the surround field rather than up front (where there is more content, where our hearing is better). 

 Why would they do that? What did the movie industry think was going in the surround field that compelled them to subdivide the surround arrays by quadrupling the number of surround channels? Ambience? 

I've already explained the reason for having a single speaker to each side: it's where our ability to create stable phantom images is weakest so it helps to have a hard source anchoring sounds to that location. With that in mind, I don't see the benefit of using two speakers to create a phantom image at that same location.


> Why put more speakers where there is less content?


Because in modern movies mixes, content moves to those locations.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> you may like it even more if you could move one pair of your surrounds forward of the mlp a bit. I wish i could accommodate 4 surrounds so that i could do just that. Phantom imaging between my surrounds and mains is very good - but phantom can never beat physical speaker.


mlp?


----------



## Selden Ball

wse said:


> mlp?


Main Listening Position -- where you sit.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for doing comparison of T4 with Atmos and DSU.
> 
> It would be interesting to do a similar comparison where rather than looking at specificity of discrete overhead events, the focus would be on general ambiance/immersion in the environment.


I did do that in the latest test - after focusing on the overhead effects, I played both tracks, Atmos and DSU, back to back several times and just listened to the whole thing. They are, as you'd expect, both different and both good, but the Atmos track had the clear edge in terms of overall immersion - mainly I think because of the extra precision - not just wrt to the overheads but there seemed to be extra precision overall, throughout the entire soundstage. This may be just placebo though, brought on by the earlier listening tests where extra precision was easily noted in the overhead speakers, Atmos vs DSU. Although, HST, I am confident I would be able to discern whether the track was Atmos or DSU, every time. What gives it away? The DSU track lacks precision and the overheads are full of sound - often just music - whereas the Atmos presentation was just more 'focused' - listener level as well as overhead. 

But at the end of the day, this is just one person's subjective report. I'd be glad to see others do the same experiment and see if their conclusions agree with or differ from my own.




noah katz said:


> Most people consider it harder if achieving a goal requires more money and space.
> 
> You're also missing batpig's point that even if our ears weren't less sensitive at low freq, it would still require more resources to produce the same SPL as at higher freq.


I think 'harder' has a semantic interpretation that bp and I are seeing differently. To me, a subwoofer is a speaker and an amplifier combination, just like any other speaker + amp in the system. There is no difference other than in the driver size and, possibly, the amplifier power output. it is no harder to make a big woofer than a small woofer (up to a point) not harder to make a poweful amp than a less powerful amp. Cost is the differentiator I agree. But it isn't, as I see it, inherently any harder to make a good sub than it is a good main speaker.

I agree that it would still require more power to achieve a given SPL at a given low frequency regardless of our hearing. Heck, even if the sub played in the proverbial forest where nobody was, that would be true  But the only purpose of the sub is _because_ our hearing works that way - if we could easily hear LF sound, we wouldn't need to play it any louder than any other frequency in order to hear it. A good example of this is the Audyssey test tone (chirp) where the main speakers sound much, much louder than the sub, even though we know both are outputting the same level.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Chuck, Disney and PIXAR Blu-rays in 3D are totally awesome.


I'm not a fan. I've had PJ's for the last 3 or 4 years and a Bluray player for as long that will play 3D. I have zero interest. And pride myself in never watching one even though I have a few 3D Blurays that were included in the package I purchased. Its interesting technology but (a) it does not add to the film for me and (b) as Keith said, it can actually distract from the film. The fact that I don't like it or that you do will have zero impact on if it succeeds.

I think it's doomed.


----------



## mike_carton

kbarnes701 said:


> Fully agreed. It's just that they could have perhaps picked a better disc to kick it off with. One that makes more than occasional use of the overheads.


My suspicion is that it is movies like TF4 that'll make the most of the overheads. Generally speaking, action movies, horror and Sci-Fi movies will have more stuff happening overhead than regular dramas or romantic comedies. So, it is likely - IMO - that the percentage of movies that'll need overhead speakers and the percentage of time they'll use them are both going to be small. Of course, this varies based on one's taste which determines the mix of genres one watches. Then there is the question of how much additional information is being pumped out of these overheads. Even when they're in use, do they have unique sonic information not being transmitted through other speakers and what is the relative dbSPL output of these speakers relative to the rest of the speakers at the MLP? This might be like 3D - suitable for some movies but not all and where suitable, highly dependent on the skills and creativity of individuals involved.

It is through DSU that one might be able to recoup the effort and expense involved in this upgrade.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> For that, a more reasonable expectation would be to implement something like Microsoft's Illumiroom to extend the the boundaries of the screen. Obviously it would not be practical to have a screen that completely envelopes the room but with this you can get a similar effect using much less resources and not have to rely and super high resolution/bandwidth either. Would be pretty cool for effects driven movies but I bet somewhat distracting as well. But a _good_ distracting.


Versions of this have been attempted in movies theaters as well.

ScreenX:





https://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movi...creen-coming-soon-theater-near-230353353.html

Barco "Escape":





http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/how-maze-runner-barcos-new-728641?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/cinemacon-barco-introduces-tri-screen-691206


----------



## dfergie

audioguy said:


> I'm not a fan. I've had PJ's for the last 3 or 4 years and a Bluray player for as long that will play 3D. I have zero interest. And pride myself in never watching one even though I have a few 3D Blurays that were included in the package I purchased. Its interesting technology but (a) it does not add to the film for me and (b) as Keith said, it can actually distract from the film. The fact that I don't like it or that you do will have zero impact on if it succeeds.
> 
> I think it's doomed.


I've had FPTV's for almost 10 years and pride myself in watching every 3D BD in 3D ... adding Atmos to the mix will make things better...


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> I think 'harder' has a semantic interpretation that bp and I are seeing differently. To me, a subwoofer is a speaker and an amplifier combination, just like any other speaker + amp in the system. There is no difference other than in the driver size and, possibly, the amplifier power output. it is no harder to make a big woofer than a small woofer (up to a point) not harder to make a poweful amp than a less powerful amp. Cost is the differentiator I agree. But it isn't, as I see it, inherently any harder to make a good sub than it is a good main speaker.


I see where you are coming from now -- but in my mind, the fact that these longer wavelengths require a bigger woofer, bigger box, more power, and therefore more money is a pretty decent working definition for "harder" when talking about transducers. It would cost you, the end user, more money and more physical space to get clean 100dB output at 10Hz than 10kHz. That's "harder" in my book.



kbarnes701 said:


> But the only purpose of the sub is _because_ our hearing works that way - if we could easily hear LF sound, we wouldn't need to play it any louder than any other frequency in order to hear it.


No, you're still missing the point. The sub is NOT playing louder than the other speakers, it is calibrated to the SAME level as the other speakers. But for the reasons noted above it is "harder" to produce reference SPL at the lower frequencies. 

Subwoofers don't exist because of how our hearing works. Rather, that's why loudness compensation exists. Subwoofers exist because the physical demands for producing bass are "harder" and thus make it more practical to offload those functions into a separate box, rather than trying to get a single loudspeaker to reproduce them. The LFE channel wasn't invented because of human hearing, it was because it lessened the demands on the other speakers by removing need to reproduce the... ahem... HARDER frequencies to reproduce


----------



## Daniel Chaves

okay guys, lets take a step back and breath, there is no need to attack each other for ones own opinions, lets take it all and use each bit to advance our collective knowledge.


----------



## batpig

Who's "attacking" anyone? We are just friends arguing about HT  This is what people like us do for fun


----------



## wse

Question what do you guys think about this for ATMOS speakers how much power do I need?

Would the new Onkyo M-5010 be sufficient 
- http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier&source=prodClass 

or do I need more like the Marantz MM7025
- http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/P...?CatId=AVSeparates&SubCatId=&ProductId=MM7025

or may be even this Parasound A23
- http://www.parasound.com/halo/a23.php

Cheaper and smaller would be best


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> WTF?! Seriously? Am I not allowed to post about Atmos in the Atmos thread here at AVS now?  There about half a dozen people in this thread that even understand Atmos and I am one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, maybe but my thoughts are not aligned to Auro's tall, wall-of-sound where I describe a bubble. Auro wants an additional speaker directly above the lower half *on the wall*. My description is exactly how home Atmos works now. Many here are doing 'middle top' heights. Is that suddenly "Auro-like" because of that? No. My thoughts on the matter are to put a sound vector point at the front, mid and rear. It's pretty easy. I guess it will make more sense and there will be plenty of applause when Sanjay comes in and describes exactly what I have been saying.
> 
> 
> I don't get why you think there is six overheads and four surrounds. It's six overheads, four of which reside in the part of the with ....*ding ding* the four surrounds. Then there are two "overheads" that are up front with the .... front speakers.


Dolby needs to allow for a more balanced approach to side, rear, and overhead surrounds (as is in cinema version) than they currently are limited to because of the manufacturers and their 1st gen approach to Atmos.


----------



## Spanglo

wse said:


> Question what do you guys think about this for ATMOS speakers how much power do I need?
> 
> Would the new Onkyo M-5010 be sufficient
> - http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier&source=prodClass
> 
> or do I need more like the Marantz MM7025
> - http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/P...?CatId=AVSeparates&SubCatId=&ProductId=MM7025
> 
> or may be even this Parasound A23
> - http://www.parasound.com/halo/a23.php


The effects from the overheads seem quiet in comparison to the mains & surrounds, so one might be able to get away with a lower powered amp. 

The small form of this one is very appealing: https://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=306:dda-100&Itemid=962


----------



## brwsaw

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, all-wall video is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.


The new 3D, literally inside the scene. That would be awesome.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Who's "attacking" anyone? We are just friends arguing about HT  This is what people like us do for fun


And a well reasoned, erudite, and intellectually satisfying argument it is. 

Once more unto the breach, dear friends! (The game's afoot and Keith and Sanjay must be shown the error of their ways.)


----------



## wse

Spanglo said:


> The effects from the overheads seem quiet in comparison to the mains & surrounds, so one might be able to get away with a lower powered amp.
> 
> The small form of this one is very appealing: https://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=306:dda-100&Itemid=962


That NuForce is an integrated, so that won't do!


----------



## Spanglo

wse said:


> That NuForce is an integrated, so that won't do!


Oops.

Yeah that wouldn't work, but the size is right. They have another one that would fit the bill: https://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=655:sta-100&Itemid=2631

Just found out that I can add another 2ch amp module to the amp I own, without having to upgrade the existing power supply and transformer. The amp has no fans, so runs silent, and there's room for the extra module in the the case I'm using.

http://classdaudio.com/audio-amplifiers/sds-470c-custom-class-d-amplifier.html


----------



## pasender91

I guess the correct choice also depends on:
- How many Atmos speakers you're going to install: 2 or 4 ?
- Which model of speakers you're installing?

If you go for 4 "normal" speakers, the Emotiva UPA-500 5-channel amp could be sweet and cheap , or UPA-200 if you go with 2 speakers only ...


----------



## NorthSky

dfergie said:


> I've had FPTV's for almost 10 years and *pride myself in watching every 3D BD in 3D ... adding Atmos to the mix will make things even 3D better...*


Right on right on right on!


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Question what do you guys think about this for ATMOS speakers how much power do I need?
> 
> Would the new Onkyo M-5010 be sufficient
> - http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier&source=prodClass
> 
> or do I need more like the Marantz MM7025
> - http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/P...?CatId=AVSeparates&SubCatId=&ProductId=MM7025
> 
> or may be even this Parasound A23
> - http://www.parasound.com/halo/a23.php
> 
> *Cheaper and smaller would be best*


- Halo is the Smallest. ...And the most expensive and most probably the best sounding of them three.
- Onkyo is the Biggest and Cheapest. 

Me, I wouldn't go for neither one of them three. ...I'd still be lookin' around for an even smaller one, even cheaper one ($), and good sounding one. ...I would even consider the second-hand market, or open boxes; check with your local audio dealers. ...Or, google: *Best Affordable Stereo Amplifiers* 

♦ 100 watts aside into 8 Ohms (150 @ 4 Ohms) is a good target curve.

www.themasterswitch.com/best-stereo-amplifiers-2014 ....Check the Dayton Audio DTA-120 @ $106


----------



## NorthSky

Try to beat that small Dayton DTA-120 ($106) for size, $, power, and sound quality if you can; good luck!  

* For your Dolby Atmos speakers; it is PERFECT! ...Them overhead Atmos speakers need no audiophile prestige.


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Try to beat that small Dayton DTA-120 ($106) for size, $, power, and sound quality if you can; good luck!
> * For your Dolby Atmos speakers; it is PERFECT! ...Them overhead Atmos speakers need no audiophile prestige.


not so sure about that.. it suffers from background hiss and is not quiet when needed and atm the atmos speakers don't make much noise and are quiet most of the time.


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> not so sure about that.. it suffers from background hiss and is not quiet when needed and atm the atmos speakers don't make much noise and are quiet most of the time.


You read few comments, from nearfield? 

Then perhaps it is no good to you; but others might just be totally satisfy with it. 
We're all different in life, and our home theater rooms too. Some people like small things (amps) and inexpensive ones ($106), and good enough for the intended purpose (powering small overhead, or module Dolby Atmos speakers). 

We all free to choose, select, suggest, purchase, accept, adapt, and live the way we see fit for ourselves. 

Love the one you wish.


----------



## krozman

Hey, I haven't been able to keep up on the thread for 2 weeks or so.....any new Atmos titles announced yet for blu ray?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Wow. Prometheus. Wow

Just watched it tonight after moving my TM speaker slightly closer to 90 degrees. Huge difference. And man that is one awesome movie for dsu. 

Anyone on the fence needs to demo this movie!!


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Wow. Prometheus. Wow
> 
> Just watched it tonight after moving my TM speaker slightly closer to 90 degrees. Huge difference. And man that is one awesome movie for dsu.
> 
> Anyone on the fence needs to demo this movie!!


*Prometheus* in 3D is an awesome viewing experience, and a total feast for the ears too. 
...One of my own personal favorite sci-fi 3D Blu-ray flicks from my fair movie collection.


----------



## NorthSky

krozman said:


> Hey, I haven't been able to keep up on the thread for 2 weeks or so.....any new Atmos titles announced yet for blu ray?


Nope, the same three upcoming usual boring suspects. 
...Plus *The Expendables 3* to make four boring upcoming Atmos flicks now.

* With *TF4* already released, we'll get a full hand (five).


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Wow. Prometheus. Wow
> 
> Just watched it tonight after moving my TM speaker slightly closer to 90 degrees. Huge difference. And man that is one awesome movie for dsu.
> 
> Anyone on the fence needs to demo this movie!!


Yes watched it Loved it I have my speakers top front love the separation I tried top middle didn't get the same separation like I do now with top front


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Nope, the same three upcoming usual boring suspects.
> ...Plus *The Expendables 3* to make four boring upcoming Atmos flicks now.
> 
> * With *TF4* already released, we'll get a full hand (five).


Hercules another epic in Atmos


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Steve. I may add more examples as time goes on - but for now I want to stop evaluating and just start enjoying my movies all over again! So far every one I have played via DSU has been significantly improved.


That is one of the biggest takeaways from this, it really makes it a value added proposition to get one of these AVRs right now, as opposed to waiting for content.

I also loved The Descent for the creepy clostrophobic atmosphere and am looking forward to hearing it again myself on DSU. There was a sequel, wasn't there? I might have to check that one out too.


----------



## NorthSky

RLBURNSIDE said:


> That is one of the biggest takeaways from this, it really makes it a value added proposition to get one of these AVRs right now, as opposed to waiting for content...


...And Auro-3D (with Auromatic).  ...HDMI 2.0 (HDCP 2.2) ... dts ... MDA ... UHD ... 4K ... 

Step Up All In ... TMNT


----------



## UKTexan

NorthSky said:


> Nope, the same three upcoming usual boring suspects.
> ...Plus *The Expendables 3* to make four boring upcoming Atmos flicks now.
> 
> * With *TF4* already released, we'll get a full hand (five).


Well, there are actually 8 titles currently announced worldwide, 5 of which are Hollywood movies. In no particular order:


*US*


1. TF4
2. Step up all in
3. Teenage Mutant ninja turtles
4. Expendables 3
5. Hercules


*India*


6. Mary Kom


http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=873614


*Japan*


7. Enchanted Kingdom 3D (known as "Nature" in Japan) A BBC earth production narrated by Idris Elba, focusing on the beautiful wildlife of Africa.
The Atmos soundtrack is in English, so this title is of interest to me and I'm sure many others on this forum.


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/111242/
http://www.pinewoodgroup.com/production/enchanted-kingdom-3d


8. Transcendence (The Japanese release includes an Atmos soundtrack)


http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=875671


----------



## zeus33

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just watched it tonight after moving my TM speaker slightly closer to 90 degrees. Huge difference.!



Sorry if you already posted it in this encyclopedia we call a thread, but were they originally further forward or backward Brian?


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> Transcendence (The Japanese release includes an Atmos soundtrack)


One of my favourite Atmos mixes this year. Too bad we're not getting it in the US.


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> I did do that in the latest test - after focusing on the overhead effects, I played both tracks, Atmos and DSU, back to back several times and just listened to the whole thing. They are, as you'd expect, both different and both good, but the Atmos track had the clear edge in terms of overall immersion - mainly I think because of the extra precision - not just wrt to the overheads but there seemed to be extra precision overall, throughout the entire soundstage.


My thought was that having said earlier that DSU had the heights active a lot more of the time than Atmos, that imprecise immersion would be better than no immersion (at least that contributed by the overhead speakers) at all.


----------



## NorthSky

> One of my favourite Atmos mixes this year. Too bad we're not getting it in the US.


But the film, 'Transcendance', totally sucks.


----------



## CBdicX

Can someone please explain how this works, i am lost in translation, i have a 7.1 setup, now can i do 7.1.4 or can i not do this ?
The receiver is the Integra DTR 70.6 with 11 amps.


----------



## Selden Ball

The 70.6 has 11 amps, so it can do 7.1.4 without external amps. It's just that Onkyo's restrictions on Height2 are very poorly written and (apparently) somewhat more restrictive than D+M's. First pick the Height1 speaker pair ( Front High, Top Front or Dolby Enabled Front), then pick one of the allowed Height 2 speaker pairs from the pairs that are not adjacent to the pair that you selected for Height1. Hopefully step 1 of the setup wizard will be somewhat less confusing than the manual. Note that the overheads must use amps that are in the receiver. Only the ear-level speaker channels have preamp outputs.


----------



## kenoh89

Is there any upcoming consumer receivers that will support both Auro-3D and Atmos? Is the Onkyo the only receiver that can do true 9.2 surround? "Wide-surround"


----------



## Selden Ball

Apparently D+M will be providing Auro-3D firmware upgrades in the not too distant future (for a fee). Pictures have been posted which were taken at a demo given in Germany.

ETA: See the Auro thread for details. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...read-home-theater-version-9.html#post28263666


----------



## Wookii

kenoh89 said:


> Is there any upcoming consumer receivers that will support both Auro-3D and Atmos? Is the Onkyo the only receiver that can do true 9.2 surround? "Wide-surround"


----------



## kenoh89

Do you know if Onkyo and Yamaha supports both?


----------



## Selden Ball

kenoh89 said:


> Do you know if Onkyo and Yamaha supports both?


Unknown, but I suspect it's likely, although they use different chipsets. D+M uses DSP chips from Analog Devices, who have been faster at coding for the new codecs. Onkyo uses TI. Hopefully it's just a matter of time before TI has implemented Auro-3D.


----------



## CBdicX

Selden Ball said:


> The 70.6 has 11 amps, so it can do 7.1.4 without external amps. It's just that Onkyo's restrictions on Height2 are very poorly written and (apparently) somewhat more restrictive than D+M's. First pick the Height1 speaker pair ( Front High, Top Front or Dolby Enabled Front), then pick one of the allowed Height 2 speaker pairs from the pairs that are not adjacent to the pair that you selected for Height1. Hopefully step 1 of the setup wizard will be somewhat less confusing than the manual. Note that the overheads must use amps that are in the receiver. Only the ear-level speaker channels have preamp outputs.



Thx for your reply 


Ehhhhhhhhh........


English is not my native language, so please make this a bit easier for me (if possible).
I connect the 7.x to the speaker posts marked Front L/R, Center, Surround L/R and Surround Back L/R


Now for my coming 4 Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers.
Both speaker pairs are aimed to the ceiling at the MLP.
The MLP is almost in the middle of the room so the distance between my front speakers and surround back is almost 50/50
The surrounds are just about to the sides of the MLP.


For Atmos front i use Height1 and for the Atmos back i use Height2.
Correct ?


----------



## Selden Ball

Correct.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I'm not a fan. I've had PJ's for the last 3 or 4 years and a Bluray player for as long that will play 3D. I have zero interest. And pride myself in never watching one even though I have a few 3D Blurays that were included in the package I purchased. Its interesting technology but (a) it does not add to the film for me and (b) as Keith said, it can actually distract from the film. The fact that I don't like it or that you do will have zero impact on if it succeeds.
> 
> I think it's doomed.


I agree with you FWIW. Doomed. Just like the other times they've tried to convince us 3D is the next big thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

mike_carton said:


> My suspicion is that it is movies like TF4 that'll make the most of the overheads. Generally speaking, action movies, horror and Sci-Fi movies will have more stuff happening overhead than regular dramas or romantic comedies.


I don't agree. Just as with 5.1 it will take time for the better mixers to get used to it and how to use it to the best advantage. There is much more to Atmos than helicopter flyovers etc. Many, maybe even most, movies will benefit from overhead ambience in all sorts of ways. Take David Fincher's _Zodiac_ for example - this isn't an action movie of any sort and is rerally a police procedural where a lot of the action takes place in offices and homes and so on. It is also one of the best movies I have heard for the way it makes use of the surround channels.



mike_carton said:


> So, it is likely - IMO - that the percentage of movies that'll need overhead speakers and the percentage of time they'll use them are both going to be small. Of course, this varies based on one's taste which determines the mix of genres one watches. Then there is the question of how much additional information is being pumped out of these overheads. Even when they're in use, do they have unique sonic information not being transmitted through other speakers and what is the relative dbSPL output of these speakers relative to the rest of the speakers at the MLP? This might be like 3D - suitable for some movies but not all and where suitable, highly dependent on the skills and creativity of individuals involved.


You can say all that about 5.1 and surround channels - but almost every movie made these days makes good use of the surrounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I see where you are coming from now -- but in my mind, the fact that these longer wavelengths require a bigger woofer, bigger box, more power, and therefore more money is a pretty decent working definition for "harder" when talking about transducers. It would cost you, the end user, more money and more physical space to get clean 100dB output at 10Hz than 10kHz. That's "harder" in my book.


OK - we're not really in disagreement then - just using the word differently.




batpig said:


> No, you're still missing the point. The sub is NOT playing louder than the other speakers, it is calibrated to the SAME level as the other speakers. But for the reasons noted above it is "harder" to produce reference SPL at the lower frequencies.


True - but to hear 20Hz as subjectively loud as 500Hz, the sub has to play it much louder. Not for calibration, but for real content.



batpig said:


> Subwoofers don't exist because of how our hearing works. Rather, that's why loudness compensation exists. Subwoofers exist because the physical demands for producing bass are "harder" and thus make it more practical to offload those functions into a separate box, rather than trying to get a single loudspeaker to reproduce them. The LFE channel wasn't invented because of human hearing, it was because it lessened the demands on the other speakers by removing need to reproduce the... ahem... HARDER frequencies to reproduce


Yes, I agree with that - we are at cross-purposes because of two different interpretations of the word 'harder'. You are correct in what you say in the above paragraph. And I am correct that our hearing requires that for a given subjective loudness of a 20Hz sound, it needs to be played at much higher SPL than the same subjective loudness of a 500Hz sound.

Shall we move on?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Who's "attacking" anyone? We are just friends arguing about HT  This is what people like us do for fun


+1. I can never imagine a situation where I would attack you, or indeed where you would attack me.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Question what do you guys think about this for ATMOS speakers how much power do I need?
> 
> Would the new Onkyo M-5010 be sufficient
> - http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier&source=prodClass
> 
> or do I need more like the Marantz MM7025
> - http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/P...?CatId=AVSeparates&SubCatId=&ProductId=MM7025
> 
> or may be even this Parasound A23
> - http://www.parasound.com/halo/a23.php
> 
> Cheaper and smaller would be best


The Marantz would be my choice out of the three. Onk is a bit underpowered for the money, Parasound is too expensive for what it is.

Personally, I'd buy an Emotiva UPA model - in fact I did!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

zeus33 said:


> Sorry if you already posted it in this encyclopedia we call a thread, but were they originally further forward or backward Brian?



no problem..

they were about 14 inches forward of where they are now...they were closer to 75 degrees...now they are just a shade under 90 degrees...and what a huge difference..

I have two more speakers coming in on monday and I will be installing them as top fronts..

I will then experiment whch avr setup sounds better...TF/TR or FH/TM


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Wow. Prometheus. Wow
> 
> Just watched it tonight after moving my TM speaker slightly closer to 90 degrees. Huge difference. And man that is one awesome movie for dsu.
> 
> Anyone on the fence needs to demo this movie!!


Brian - remind us where that TM was before you moved it....thanks.

Agree about Prometheus BTW. DSU really works well on it.


----------



## kbarnes701

RLBURNSIDE said:


> That is one of the biggest takeaways from this, it really makes it a value added proposition to get one of these AVRs right now, as opposed to waiting for content.
> 
> I also loved The Descent for the creepy clostrophobic atmosphere and am looking forward to hearing it again myself on DSU. There was a sequel, wasn't there? I might have to check that one out too.


The Descent is a great movie for DSU. The cave scenes (ie most of the movie) are exceptionally well-handled by DSU IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> One of my favourite Atmos mixes this year. Too bad we're not getting it in the US.


Amazon Japan will happily sell it to you.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> My thought was that having said earlier that DSU had the heights active a lot more of the time than Atmos, that imprecise immersion would be better than no immersion (at least that contributed by the overhead speakers) at all.


That makes sense but it isn't how I heard it. The Atmos presentation was just 'better' all round. By only shoving discrete effects up top, the effect was actually enhanced. Maybe when the overheads are silent and then suddenly burst into life, appropriately every time, it enhances the experience more than having a bit of a jumble up there _all_ the time? I definitely preferred the Atmos presentation. This is something anyone can try for themselves, with a bit of effort, so maybe others will report.

Of course, for non-Atmos tracks, I agree entirely with you - having DSU engaged definitely, without question, makes the movie much more enjoyable via the additional immersion.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Can someone please explain how this works, i am lost in translation, i have a 7.1 setup, now can i do 7.1.4 or can i not do this ?
> The receiver is the Integra DTR 70.6 with 11 amps.


As the diagram shows 11 speakers connected, my guess is that the answer is 'yes'.  Just connect them as shown.

This is OT for the thread and would perhaps be dealt with better in the thread for the AVR.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Keith,

after I install the second set of ceiling speakers (to go 5.2.4) I will do the same test on TF4 and report back...figure tuesday of next week


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> no problem..
> 
> they were about 14 inches forward of where they are now...they were closer to 75 degrees...now they are just a shade under 90 degrees...and what a huge difference..
> 
> I have two more speakers coming in on monday and I will be installing them as top fronts..
> 
> I will then experiment whch avr setup sounds better...TF/TR or FH/TM


I’d love to hear the results of that experiment Brian. See if it coincides with my own similar experiment.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Keith,
> 
> after I install the second set of ceiling speakers (to go 5.2.4) I will do the same test on TF4 and report back...figure tuesday of next week


Excellent!


----------



## UKTexan

sdurani said:


> One of my favourite Atmos mixes this year. Too bad we're not getting it in the US.


It appears Transcendence will be released with Atmos in other markets also. Taken directly from the Dolby investor press release:

"The Transcendence Blu-ray Disc featuring a Dolby Atmos soundtrack will be released in Japan before it is released in other countries"


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> It appears Transcendence will be released with Atmos in other markets also. Taken directly from the Dolby investor press release:
> 
> "The Transcendence Blu-ray Disc featuring a Dolby Atmos soundtrack will be released in Japan before it is released in other countries"


Not released in Japan until 2nd December according to Amazon, Japan.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Tonight's movie to try dsu with will be Life of Pi


----------



## noah katz

That puts things in perspective, thanks, Keith.



kbarnes701 said:


> That makes sense but it isn't how I heard it. The Atmos presentation was just 'better' all round. By only shoving discrete effects up top, the effect was actually enhanced. Maybe when the overheads are silent and then suddenly burst into life, appropriately every time, it enhances the experience more than having a bit of a jumble up there _all_ the time? I definitely preferred the Atmos presentation. This is something anyone can try for themselves, with a bit of effort, so maybe others will report.
> 
> Of course, for non-Atmos tracks, I agree entirely with you - having DSU engaged definitely, without question, makes the movie much more enjoyable via the additional immersion.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> That puts things in perspective, thanks, Keith.


You're welcome, Noah!


----------



## CBdicX

If i want to buy "Atmos" speakers, say standard speakers with the Atmos stuff on top, how would a speaker be called, a 3D speaker, a Atmos speaker, a ??? speaker.....


----------



## Brian Fineberg

atmos enabled speaker


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> As the diagram shows 11 speakers connected, my guess is that the answer is 'yes'.  Just connect them as shown.
> 
> This is OT for the thread and would perhaps be dealt with better in the thread for the AVR.


Thanks for your help, seems clear now


----------



## batpig

Brian Fineberg said:


> Tonight's movie to try dsu with will be Life of Pi


I watched a good chunk of it the other night on Blu-ray. Really excellent with DSU, obviously no missiles flying overhead but a great example of how DSU makes the movie so much more immersive. The swelling of the music, the environmental noises, weather. A great scene is the one where the giant school of flying fish blasts through, you are enveloped by splats and whooshes!


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Tonight's movie to try dsu with will be Life of Pi


Life of Pi yes very nice in DSU... i picked up 3D X-Men DOFP and a copy of 3D Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (in the Discount Shelf $12.99) i'm going to give these a listen.. i think both should do very well in DSU. the only time i buy Blu-Ray's in 3D is if the price is right i like the Multi Disc sets. 
to tell you the truth i very rarely watch in 3D makes my eyes and head fatigued but i have them (only if the price is right) and if i have company and they want to watch.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

batpig said:


> I watched a good chunk of it the other night on Blu-ray. Really excellent with DSU, obviously no missiles flying overhead but a great example of how DSU makes the movie so much more immersive. The swelling of the music, the environmental noises, weather. A great scene is the one where the giant school of flying fish blasts through, you are enveloped by splats and whooshes!



nice!! so it sounds like it will meet my expectations...and why i want to re-screen it tonight

Ill post thoughts tomorrow morning


----------



## bargervais

I'm like a Kid in a candy store it reminds me of when i first got 3D didn't matter what the movie was i just wanted to see and experience it on my new gear....
now with Atmos and DSU i'm doing the same thing listening for the effects and hardly watching the movie LOL...


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I watched a good chunk of it the other night on Blu-ray. Really excellent with DSU, obviously no missiles flying overhead but a great example of how DSU makes the movie so much more immersive. The swelling of the music, the environmental noises, weather. A great scene is the one where the giant school of flying fish blasts through, you are enveloped by splats and whooshes!


I've yet to try this movie with DSU. One for the list.

The more I think about my little experiment the other day, the more I am coming to the realisation that Atmos is about much more than overhead effects. The differences between TF4 Chapter 20 in DSU and in Atmos were primarily a 'tightening' of the sound in Atmos - the entire soundstage benefited from what seemed to be greater precision of placement of sounds. I am wondering if what I initially took to be a 'sparse' use of the overheads is, in fact, all that we need and the odd little bits of sound that do get placed 'up top' are also contributing greatly to the sounds down below, when combined with the other sounds from the mains and surrounds? HST, I still think more could have been done with sounds from above in that movie, but I am also now seeing a confirmation of what I said in my original Atmos demo report in London: Atmos is much more than just overhead 'effects'.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Life of Pi yes very nice in DSU... i picked up 3D X-Men DOFP and a copy of 3D Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (in the Discount Shelf $12.99) i'm going to give these a listen.. i think both should do very well in DSU. the only time i buy Blu-Ray's in 3D is if the price is right i like the Multi Disc sets.
> to tell you the truth i very rarely watch in *3D makes my eyes and head fatigued* but i have them (only if the price is right) and if i have company and they want to watch.


Same here. 

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is a real fun movie IMO (sorry, Dan, LOL) and has some great effects. I haven't tried it with DSU yet, but it's on the list now.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> now with Atmos and DSU i'm doing the same thing listening for the effects and hardly watching the movie LOL...


I was the same at first. It's settling down now and I am more and more just 'forgetting' the speakers etc and simply enjoying the movie with all the extra immersion.


----------



## Selden Ball

I have to admit that I think that the heady enjoyment that early Atmos adopters are experiencing is very similar to a kid with a new toy. Or, rather, *exactly* like a kid with a new toy  After a while we're all going to be rather blasé about it


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Selden Ball said:


> I have to admit that I think that the heady enjoyment that early Atmos adopters are experiencing is very similar to a kid with a new toy. Or, rather, *exactly* like a kid with a new toy  After a while we're all going to be rather blasé about it


ill disagree, cause I bought an ATMOS AVR out of curiousity (i was a skeptic) and am thrilled by it (surprisingly) I was never excited about getting it...but now i am enthralled and not sure it will ever go away...especially when that magical moment happens in each movie that uses the ATMSO so well...that just makes you smile.

just as my dual subs never get old..and my 130" screen never get old...they constantly make me smile and shake my head how awesome they are


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I have to admit that I think that the heady enjoyment that early Atmos adopters are experiencing is very similar to a kid with a new toy. Or, rather, *exactly* like a kid with a new toy  After a while we're all going to be rather blasé about it


I am just now coming to the point where I can start choosing movies again based on what I feel like watching rather than on the basis of "I wonder how DSU will handle this..."  I am now convinced that DSU adds enjoyment, through increased immersion, to pretty much any movie played through it.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Transcendence' in Dolby Atmos (Blu-ray)*



> Amazon Japan will happily sell it to you.


That's right; you can order any 3D Blu-ray movie, and/or with Dolby Atmos, from anywhere in the amazonian jungle of the world. ...So if it ain't available in your own country of choice, or living; no sweat, the world doesn't stop @ your doorstep.  

Methinks it's great; the world we live in now. ...Expansion.


----------



## kaotikr1

Maybe this has been asked, but has anyone tried DSU with VideoGames?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Life of Pi yes very nice in DSU... i picked up 3D X-Men DOFP and a copy of 3D Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (in the Discount Shelf $12.99) i'm going to give these a listen.. i think both should do very well in DSU. the only time i buy Blu-Ray's in 3D is if the price is right i like the Multi Disc sets.
> to tell you the truth i very rarely watch in 3D makes my eyes and head fatigued but i have them (only if the price is right) and if i have company and they want to watch.


Do you also have *'Godzilla'* in 3D, on Blu? ...Try DSU with it.


----------



## Anthony*gw

Long time lurker here... I'm really eager to hear your impressions for the movie U571, this movie has a very good 5.1 mix, a lot of ambient sounds in this track. Curious to know how it sounds with DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

> *Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter* is a real fun movie IMO (sorry, Dan, LOL) and has some great effects. I haven't tried it with DSU yet, but it's on the list now.


It's interesting how film taste can vary so much from one to another. 
I got this flick, in 3D on Blu, and I simply found that it totally sucks. ...Everything.

But like I said; we're all different when it comes to films, music, and all that jazz. 
And that's what makes our world more interesting and diversified.


----------



## mike_carton

Edit: Talking about ATMOS here, not DSU.



kbarnes701 said:


> I don't agree...There is much more to Atmos than helicopter flyovers etc. Many, maybe even most, movies will benefit from overhead ambience in all sorts of ways.


I can't think of many scenarios. What example situations can you think of in romantic comedies, situational comedies, regular dramas etc?



kbarnes701 said:


> Take David Fincher's _Zodiac_ for example - this isn't an action movie of any sort and is rerally a police procedural where a lot of the action takes place in offices and homes and so on. It is also one of the best movies I have heard for the way it makes use of the surround channels.
> 
> You can say all that about 5.1 and surround channels - but almost every movie made these days makes good use of the surrounds.


You're talking here about surrounds and I agree unconditionally. Whatever be the genre of a movie, the subjects of any given shot are almost always supposedly in the middle of a fictional space; to that extent there is almost always something happening in their surroundings which will play out as sound in our surround speakers.

But my post was about overheads. And those are different qualitatively from surrounds. In most shots in most movie genres, there is little of interest going on above the heads of the subjects of the shot. Most action is happening in the same plane more-or-less as the subject (and therefore the audience) 

Think about it this way: How often do you look around versus how often do you look up?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Anthony*gw said:


> Long time lurker here... I'm really eager to hear your impressions for the movie U571, this movie has a very good 5.1 mix, a lot of ambient sounds in this track. Curious to know how it sounds with DSU.




Watched it earlier this week. It was awesome. Rain and creaking sounds were great!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is a real fun movie IMO (sorry, Dan, LOL) and has some great effects. I haven't tried it with DSU yet, but it's on the list now.


We all have different tastes in movies, that's for damn sure. 

The Hunger Games... _really_, Keith? You're not actually a 16-year-old girl, are you? 

Next you'll be saying Twilight was fantastic!! Oh, the humanity.


----------



## Selden Ball

There are plenty of overhead ambient sounds appropriate for many movies. Remember, providing that kind of ambiance is one of the reasons surround speakers traditionally have been placed high up on the walls, often using bipole or dipole configurations to expand the overhead ambiance even more. 

As a result, it seems to me that it is valid to say that what Atmos and DSU actually provide are ear-level ambient sounds. Where previously we were encouraged to use high surround speakers, now we are encouraged to have some of them down at ear-level.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mike_carton said:


> Edit: Talking about ATMOS here, not DSU.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of many scenarios. What example situations can you think of in romantic comedies, situational comedies, regular dramas etc?
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking here about surrounds and I agree unconditionally. Whatever be the genre of a movie, the subjects of any given shot are almost always supposedly in the middle of a fictional space; to that extent there is almost always something happening in their surroundings which will play out as sound in our surround speakers.
> 
> But my post was about overheads. And those are different qualitatively from surrounds. In most shots in most movie genres, there is little of interest going on above the heads of the subjects of the shot. Most action is happening in the same plane more-or-less as the subject (and therefore the audience)
> 
> Think about it this way: How often do you look around versus how often do you look up?


Wind through the trees. Bird calls... all sorts of things. The distant rumble of thunder. Ambient noises happen all around us all the time.


----------



## skads_187

does the pioneer sc-87 do 7.1.4?


----------



## Selden Ball

skads_187 said:


> does the pioneer sc-87 do 7.1.4?


 No. It has only 9 channels.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> No. It has only 9 channels.


You will need an external amp to do 7.1.4


----------



## bargervais

skads_187 said:


> does the pioneer sc-87 do 7.1.4?


You'll need an external amp


----------



## NorthSky

Same with the Denon 5200 (only nine internal amps).


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> You'll need an external amp


Unfortunately, even that won't do it. 9 active channels is their max. See page 21 of the SC-87/89 owner's manual. They have 11 connections, but only 9 of them can be active at a given time. This is the same configuration limitation that Denon's X4100 has.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Unassigned-Content/Manuals/SC-89+OPERATING+INSTRUCTIONS


----------



## ss9001

bargervais, adding an ext amp won't work. Selden is correct.

Pioneer's are limited to 9 channels on the preamp outs. even with 11 outs, you can only use 9 of them at a time. Been this way for a number of years and this year is no different; it's hardware/software limited to 9 max.

skads_187 - 
The available Atmos options in the SC-87/89 even using preamp outs are 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Can't do 7.2.4 even with an ext amp, sorry.


----------



## NorthSky

A thought, that has been on my mind for quite a while now:

2014 is the year for Denon/Marantz AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors. ...With Atmos & Audyssey.
They are certainly taking a big lead, @ number one spot. ...And 2015 is also their year as well. 

Number two: Yamaha. 

I'm talking in these price brackets here; less than 3-4 grands.


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> We all have different tastes in movies, that's for damn sure.
> 
> The Hunger Games... _really_, Keith? You're not actually a 16-year-old girl, are you?
> 
> Next you'll be saying Twilight was fantastic!! Oh, the humanity.


Oy, let's not lump The Hunger Games and Twilight together. I hope even a hater of both of them would reach the conclusion that Hunger Games is vastly superior. 

Unless you _are_ a hormone-raged, teenage girl.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bkeeler10 said:


> Oy, let's not lump The Hunger Games and Twilight together. I hope even a hater of both of them would reach the conclusion that Hunger Games is vastly superior.
> 
> Unless you _are_ a hormone-raged, teenage girl.


Neither series "does it" for me, though in practically anything else Jennifer Lawrence is a wonderful young (and beautiful) actress and worth seeing for her performance. In The Hunger Games, she just sleepwalks through these utterly forgettable films.


----------



## sikclown

Looks like Atmos and Auto are going to live in perfect harmony on the latest Denon and Marantz models:

http://www.audiophile.no/news/item/1418-marantz-and-denon-with-auro-3d-upgrade


----------



## UKTexan

Dan Hitchman said:


> We all have different tastes in movies, that's for damn sure.
> 
> The Hunger Games... _really_, Keith? You're not actually a 16-year-old girl, are you?
> 
> Next you'll be saying Twilight was fantastic!! Oh, the humanity.


Regarding The Hunger Games, not a bad series of films. I'm sure your not in the demographic that type of film is aimed at, probably by about 30 plus years I'm guessing. I'm in my mid thirties so still have a few years left, hopefully, before the bitterness sets in, a la Victor Meldrew; Keith will understand that one
Not everyone on this forum is a coffin dodger or anywhere close, it's not really becoming to judge others taste; allow people with different age groups, levels of intellect, various ethnic and social backgrounds to enjoy the films they choose, without being judged.
Well, time to go watch A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey or One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, or maybe I'll just kick back and relax with TF4....


----------



## NorthSky

Keith is free to like any film he likes. ...And we're free to disagree once in a blue moon with some of his choices, that's all.  ...And always with full respect; because after all it is not the person, but certain films.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Installed my Def Tech ProMonitor 800's today as front height. So far they sound excellent. I have them mounted on a pivoting wall mount, would it make sense to toe them in to match my front L&R speakers? They are mounted directly above my main speakers but aimed straight ahead at an angle down toward MLP.
A movie I've been enjoying using DSU is Man Of Steel. Tomorrow night I plan on watching X-Men: Days Of Future Past using DSU


----------



## NorthSky

sikclown said:


> Looks like Atmos & Auro are going to live in perfect harmony on the latest Denon & Marantz models:
> 
> http://www.audiophile.no/news/item/1418-marantz-and-denon-with-auro-3d-upgrade


What a great "official" news!


----------



## bargervais

ss9001 said:


> bargervais, adding an ext amp won't work. Selden is correct.
> 
> Pioneer's are limited to 9 channels on the preamp outs. even with 11 outs, you can only use 9 of them at a time. Been this way for a number of years and this year is no different; it's hardware/software limited to 9 max.
> 
> skads_187 -
> The available Atmos options in the SC-87/89 even using preamp outs are 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Can't do 7.2.4 even with an ext amp, sorry.


Sorry I stand corrected I just assumed on the spec sheet in listening modes 11.1 advanced....
sorry if I mistook that for adding external amp for a two grand receiver that surprised me


----------



## audioguy

sikclown said:


> Looks like Atmos and Auto are going to live in perfect harmony on the latest Denon and Marantz models:
> 
> http://www.audiophile.no/news/item/1418-marantz-and-denon-with-auro-3d-upgrade


Now THAT is a good piece of news!!!!


----------



## kokishin

sikclown said:


> Looks like Atmos and Auto are going to live in perfect harmony on the latest Denon and Marantz models:
> 
> http://www.audiophile.no/news/item/1418-marantz-and-denon-with-auro-3d-upgrade


Not sure about perfect harmony. One advantage that Atmos has is the Dolby Atmos Enabled (DAE) speakers. Not aware that Auro can utilize the DAE speakers. Haven't heard of Auro Enabled speakers either.


----------



## dan webster

kaotikr1 said:


> Maybe this has been asked, but has anyone tried DSU with VideoGames?


My son and i played " outlast " last night on his xbox one he brought over to try out my new atmos system. It was fantastic with DSU engaged. Normally i use dts NEO x 9.2 for games however the DSU was the easy winner here. This is an incredibly creepy game with dripping water and screams everywhere. With DSU it actually sounded like you were locked in the old prison with the characters. It was such an engulfing sound that my daughter actually left the theater due to the games content. It was truly kind if scary. Now my son wants to upgrade his theater to atmos. I told him to wait a year and he can buy my Marantz 7009 for a nice price when i upgrade again.


----------



## doublewing11

Dan Hitchman said:


> We all have different tastes in movies, that's for damn sure.
> 
> The Hunger Games... _really_, Keith? You're not actually a 16-year-old girl, are you?
> 
> Next you'll be saying Twilight was fantastic!! Oh, the humanity.



Leave the poor fella alone! Heck, one my my favorite movies is "Sleepless in Seattle!" Does that make me feminine? No!

Many on football field tried to infer that notion.........many were trucked!


----------



## NorthSky

doublewing11 said:


> Leave the poor fella alone! Heck, one my my favorite movies is "Sleepless in Seattle!" Does that make me feminine? No!
> 
> Many on football field tried to infer that notion.........many were trucked!


*'Sleepless in Seattle'* is not bad; I actually like it. And I wouldn't mind @ all to see it remastered with an Auro-3D (or Dolby Atmos) audio soundtrack. ...Lol


----------



## noah katz

The D+M Auro upgrade news isn't all good:

"The Auro-3D upgrade includes 9.1 and 10.1 with "Voice Of God".

So those of us doing 7.1.4 will only be able to use two of the lower layer surrounds, in many cases located suboptimally with the side/front surrounds ahead of the listening position and leaving no lower layer rear surround coverage.



Selden Ball said:


> Here's a German Web site reporting the presentation, translated by Google
> 
> https://translate.google.com/transl...tierte-top-av-komponenten/&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## mike_carton

audioguy said:


> Predicted by many. 3D was popular in the 50's and died. The current version, in my opinion, will die as well. When/if they get glassless 3D working, it may rise again.
> 
> 3D can be very fun and exciting but, as least for me, adds little to the telling of the story.
> 
> Time will tell.


It is the availability, IMO. If people can see and enjoy it in their homes, they're more likely to buy more 3D display devices and media. As it is, you can't rent through Redbox or Netflix; you have to buy 3D BDs which are more expensive than BDs which are more expensive than DVDs which look alright when upscaled. Not exactly incentivizing the consumers there. The studios might adopt this attitude with all future tech, I fear.

Given the absence of lossless audio on some rental discs, I wouldn't be surprised if ATMOS is not available on rental discs. Anyone have experience with rental TF4 or other ATMOS movies?


----------



## batpig

TF4 rental has been confirmed as having atmos. 

I don't buy the availability excuse. Pretty much every TV or BdP is 3D now. There is plenty of hardware penetration. It's not availability, it's because it's gimmicky, often annoying and a pain in the ass to watch TV wearing silly glasses.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

doublewing11 said:


> Leave the poor fella alone! Heck, one my my favorite movies is "Sleepless in Seattle!" Does that make me feminine? No!
> 
> Many on football field tried to infer that notion.........many were trucked!


Notice the smiley face in my post. 

I happen to like Sleepless in Seattle (and When Harry Met Sally and The Princess Bride too -- all written or co-ghost-written by Rob Reiner). It isn't a typical "chick flick" in my book either because it's a well written and well acted comedy and doesn't insult its audience with dumb dialog and crassness as many films these days do. So my son, with my blessing, you can be secure in your manhood while watching this classic. LOL! 

Keith would probably shake his head at some of the movies I like too.


----------



## WiWavelength

What are thoughts on the efficacy of the Dolby Surround "upmixer" for 2.0 channel surround processing in a more traditional 5.1.0 channel system? In other words, with no additional speakers outside of the standard ITU 5.1 channel placements, has the Dolby Surround "upmixer" proven to be superior to Dolby Pro Logic II?

AJ


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> TF4 rental has been confirmed as having atmos.
> 
> I don't buy the availability excuse. Pretty much every TV or BdP is 3D now. There is plenty of hardware penetration. It's not availability, it's because it's gimmicky, often annoying and a pain in the ass to watch TV wearing silly glasses.


Notice how the novelty of 3D always wears off (in the 50's, the 80's, and now), but great surround sound never seems to.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

WiWavelength said:


> What are thoughts on the efficacy of the Dolby Surround "upmixer" for 2.0 channel surround processing in a more traditional 5.1.0 channel system? In other words, with no additional speakers outside of the standard ITU 5.1 channel placements, has the Dolby Surround "upmixer" proven to be superior to Dolby Pro Logic II?
> 
> AJ


That would be interesting to test. I think everyone who's demoed Dolby Surround has done so on an Atmos setup. It's possible that in your scenario it would work just like ProLogic II.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

UKTexan said:


> Regarding The Hunger Games, not a bad series of films. I'm sure your not in the demographic that type of film is aimed at, probably by about 30 plus years I'm guessing. I'm in my mid thirties so still have a few years left, hopefully, before the bitterness sets in, a la Victor Meldrew; Keith will understand that one
> Not everyone on this forum is a coffin dodger or anywhere close, it's not really becoming to judge others taste; allow people with different age groups, levels of intellect, various ethnic and social backgrounds to enjoy the films they choose, without being judged.
> Well, time to go watch A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey or One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, or maybe I'll just kick back and relax with TF4....


No not bitterness, but disappointment in the way things are trending with modern movies. It reminds me of a lot of the trend of the low budget teen-oriented films of the 1950's and early 1960's that were not exactly high caliber either. These new ones just slap slick special effects over the top.


----------



## mike_carton

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wind through the trees. Bird calls... all sorts of things. The distant rumble of thunder. Ambient noises happen all around us all the time.


Not exactly the stuff movie audio tracks are made of. If you doubt it, the next time you watch a movie (non-action, non-scifi movie,) try to keep track of how many scenes have (or should have) overhead sounds.

I'm beginning to think it is important to precisely place the 7.1 sounds as well (in addition to overhead sounds) and eschew the "bed channels" business for this to impress the regular people who alone can make this a success; that and rental availability with rental discs prominently marked with ATMOS logo.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mike_carton said:


> Not exactly the stuff movie audio tracks are made of. If you doubt it, the next time you watch a movie (non-action, non-scifi movie,) try to keep track of how many scenes have (or should have) overhead sounds.
> 
> I'm beginning to think it is important to precisely place the 7.1 sounds as well (in addition to overhead sounds) and eschew the "bed channels" business for this to impress the regular people who alone can make this a success; that and rental availability with rental discs prominently marked with ATMOS logo.


It really depends on each individual film and how realistic the filmmakers want the sonic environment. 

Sure, dramas like _Apocalypse Now _or _Platoon_ would practically be screaming for Atmos audio while something like _When Harry Met Sally _might not. However, subtle ambient sound cues can be recreated using Atmos a lot better than traditional formats. 

There is definitely a learning curve at play with these new 3D formats. It may be that the mixing and sounds effects recording traditions of the past need to be thrown out the window. 

A street scene in New York, for instance, would be heightened by a sense of the "spatial" sounds of the city all around you (even if they are subtly added to the dialog almost like walla recordings using voices of people as environmental white noise). It's almost like creating binaural and ambisonic headphone recordings for a mass audience. That was quite evident during the Auro3D demo at CEDIA that live ambient recordings of certain environments, when carefully miked, really brought you into that place and time. That would be a whole new arena for movie field recordists to go into.


----------



## skads_187

ss9001 said:


> bargervais, adding an ext amp won't work. Selden is correct.
> 
> Pioneer's are limited to 9 channels on the preamp outs. even with 11 outs, you can only use 9 of them at a time. Been this way for a number of years and this year is no different; it's hardware/software limited to 9 max.
> 
> skads_187 -
> The available Atmos options in the SC-87/89 even using preamp outs are 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Can't do 7.2.4 even with an ext amp, sorry.



Damn had a feeling , maybe next year? So for now only marantz and denon from the brands I know of. Either way was gonna wait till next year anyway.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

skads_187 said:


> Damn had a feeling , maybe next year? So for now only marantz and denon from the brands I know of. Either way was gonna wait till next year anyway.


Good idea. Maybe by that time we'll have a sense of what requirements 4k Blu-ray will have and what products will be compatible. That's one more reason to wait.


----------



## smurraybhm

Well I just watched the new X-Men movie, I know another damn comic book movie, but even at 54 I enjoy just about any old and new movie - even the Hunger Games and Twilight 

Anyway I continue to be amazed at what Dolby Surround does with a good audio mix. The movie definitely has plenty of action sequences but also a number of regular scenes were DS really provides a degree of immersion that no other surround mode comes close. Traffic sounds, birds chirping or just a subway scene. I could be very happy with the up mixer only and look forward to what Auro may add to the surround options we have with our D&M units - they have delivered the goods this year with XT32, Atmos, Auro and speaker config options ex the missing wides for DS.

Noah, as I posted on the Auro thread in response to your post about speaker configs, it's too early to pass judgment on how Auro will work with our Atmos configs. We have seen a lot of different speaker layouts and sub-optimal speaker locations with Atmos that have delivered some excellent results to those forced to "compromise" from the "ideal." I expect Auro may surprise us as well with its flexibility too.


----------



## WiWavelength

Dan Hitchman said:


> That would be interesting to test. I think everyone who's demoed Dolby Surround has done so on an Atmos setup. It's possible that in your scenario it would work just like ProLogic II.


Is there a white paper available on the technical operation of the Dolby Surround "upmixer"? And what parameters are user adjustable a la Dolby Pro Logic II (e.g. Center Width, Dimension, etc.)?

AJ


----------



## michaelscott73

sdurani said:


> No reason why they can't. Audio objects will pan through the wides as they move from front to back.
> 
> A 9.1.2 layout favours tightening the circle around you at the expense of the bubble above you. 7 speakers can create a fairly seamless soundfield around you. Adding another pair of speakers to that ring won't make as much difference as doubling the number of speakers above you. With the current 11-speaker limit, I think 7.1.4 is a better distribution of speakers than 9.1.2.


Has anyone heard both a 9.1.2 and 7.1.4? I've also read somewhere you can upmix with shutting the backs off and running wides with .4


----------



## asoofi1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Notice how the novelty of 3D always wears off (in the 50's, the 80's, and now), but great surround sound never seems to.



Not quite. Both have been steadily improved in their respective areas. 3D sales are still going strong...in fact, majority of pj and av support the technology more than ever, so certainly not a novelty as consumer demand is still driving the supply of both hardware and content.


----------



## bargervais

skads_187 said:


> Damn had a feeling , maybe next year? So for now only marantz and denon from the brands I know of. Either way was gonna wait till next year anyway.


I know the onkyo Tx-nr1030 can do 7.1.4 using an external amp but then you have accuEq but that may not be a deal breaker compared to the Pioneer


----------



## audioguy

asoofi1 said:


> Not quite. Both have been steadily improved in their respective areas. 3D sales are still going strong...in fact, majority of pj and av support the technology more than ever, so certainly not a novelty as consumer demand is still driving the supply of both hardware and content.


I still think it is a solution looking for a problem. While the 3Dness is better than it was in the 50's, it is a tiny niche and the glasses are a huge stumbling block. And has been noted by several posters (including me) it can actually pull me out of the film.

Time will tell but I still maintain it is doomed.


----------



## FilmMixer

WiWavelength said:


> Is there a white paper available on the technical operation of the Dolby Surround "upmixer"? And what parameters are user adjustable a la Dolby Pro Logic II (e.g. Center Width, Dimension, etc.)?
> 
> AJ


No...

There is only one parameter.. Center Spread.

DSU is a completely different animal that PLII... on much of the two channel music I have listened to, it pulls out instruments and background vocals and steers them in a very "discrete" sounding manner...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asoofi1 said:


> Not quite. Both have been steadily improved in their respective areas. 3D sales are still going strong...in fact, majority of pj and av support the technology more than ever, so certainly not a novelty as consumer demand is still driving the supply of both hardware and content.


However, the industry is seeing overall diminishing 3D ticket sales and they also consider consumer 3D video to have been a bust.


----------



## skads_187

bargervais said:


> I know the onkyo Tx-nr1030 can do 7.1.4 using an external amp but then you have accuEq but that may not be a deal breaker compared to the Pioneer


thats right forgot about that one, but im not an onkyo fan, im just gonna wait and see. will Anthem ever get on board with this? (maybe in 3 years? lol)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audioguy said:


> I still think it is a solution looking for a problem. While the 3Dness is better than it was in the 50's, it is a tiny niche and the glasses are a huge stumbling block. And has been noted by several posters (including me) it can actually pull me out of the film.
> 
> Time will tell but I still maintain it is doomed.


Even the best native 3D can still have that pop-up-book, layered flat image look in certain scenes (which throws off the suspense of disbelief) and it forces your eyes to stare at fixed points on the screen designated by the filmmakers. That's not how people view the world. Very unnatural, as you've pointed out. I'd rather have great 2D cinematography and superb 3D immersive audio.


----------



## vagos1103gr1

I have a question. I have the onkyo tx-nr636 with Polk audio sub. When I configured the amp with the mic I had the sub in the 1/3 of the volume. The onkyo configured my sub with +6 volume. But in the movies it is too loud. If anybody knows what is the phase management on the amp? When I put it on I hear the sub lounder. Should I have it on?


----------



## sdurani

michaelscott73 said:


> I've also read somewhere you can upmix with shutting the backs off and running wides with .4


Keep in mind that Dolby Surround does upmix to the backs but does not upmix to the wides.


----------



## doublewing11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Notice the smiley face in my post.
> 
> I happen to like Sleepless in Seattle (and When Harry Met Sally and The Princess Bride too -- all written or co-ghost-written by Rob Reiner). It isn't a typical "chick flick" in my book either because it's a well written and well acted comedy and doesn't insult its audience with dumb dialog and crassness as many films these days do. So my son, with my blessing, you can be secure in your manhood while watching this classic. LOL!
> 
> Keith would probably shake his head at some of the movies I like too.


Glad I received........










Just protecting my British brotheren............. 

BTW, I've received tons of flack having "Sleepless in Seattle" as one of my all time favorites. Great script, music...........big guys can have a heart too.  

Sometimes sarcasm tends to skip a beat in these forums.............


----------



## bargervais

vagos1103gr1 said:


> I have a question. I have the onkyo tx-nr636 with Polk audio sub. When I configured the amp with the mic I had the sub in the 1/3 of the volume. The onkyo configured my sub with +6 volume. But in the movies it is too loud. If anybody knows what is the phase management on the amp? When I put it on I hear the sub lounder. Should I have it on?


I have a 737 and I also have a polk 505 12" sub I have my volume at 1/4 and onkyo set subwoofer level at -6db that gives me room to turn it up if I wish but it sounds good there +6 might be a bit loud but you bring that down some try it a 0db


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> *Well I just watched the new X-Men movie, I know another damn comic book movie, but even at 54 I enjoy just about any old and new movie* - even the Hunger Games and Twilight
> 
> Anyway I continue to be amazed at what Dolby Surround does with a good audio mix. The movie definitely has plenty of action sequences but also a number of regular scenes were DS really provides a degree of immersion that no other surround mode comes close. Traffic sounds, birds chirping or just a subway scene. I could be very happy with the up mixer only and look forward to what Auro may add to the surround options we have with our D&M units - they have delivered the goods this year with XT32, Atmos, Auro and speaker config options ex the missing wides for DS.


In 2D or in 3D? And did you enjoy that film; only the film itself (forget the sound and CGI effects for now)?


----------



## noah katz

smurraybhm said:


> Noah, as I posted on the Auro thread in response to your post about speaker configs, it's too early to pass judgment on how Auro will work with our Atmos configs. We have seen a lot of different speaker layouts and sub-optimal speaker locations with Atmos that have delivered some excellent results to those forced to "compromise" from the "ideal." I expect Auro may surprise us as well with its flexibility too.


We can hope, but missing bed channel speakers might be more noticeable than non-optimally placed height speakers.


----------



## Worf

batpig said:


> TF4 rental has been confirmed as having atmos.
> 
> I don't buy the availability excuse. Pretty much every TV or BdP is 3D now. There is plenty of hardware penetration. It's not availability, it's because it's gimmicky, often annoying and a pain in the ass to watch TV wearing silly glasses.


It's not just glasses, it's the fact that it's almost impossible to second or third screen with them on.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the release of glasses-free 3D screens. I've seen them in action (at least the Ultra D one) and it is quite an experience. I think there's a review elsewhere here about it. They're less hokey than the Nintendo 3DS and definitely work in a modern lifestyle.


----------



## batpig

mike_carton said:


> Not exactly the stuff movie audio tracks are made of. If you doubt it, the next time you watch a movie (non-action, non-scifi movie,) try to keep track of how many scenes have (or should have) overhead sounds.


I think you are seriously underestimating the impact that the overhead ambiance has on enhancing the realism and therefore immersiveness of the soundscape. It's not just about crap flying over your head in action or sci-fi movies. 

Sure, there are rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle or character focused dialogue fests like Woody Allen movies that don't really benefit, but many more genres will benefit than just action and sci-fi. Dramas especially -- anything where the sound design is attempting to immerse you in the world of the movie will feel more envelopment and realistic with the sound extending overhead, as it does in real life.

And if you're going to judge the success or worthiness of a surround sound format on how it copes with Sleepless in Seattle or Annie Hall, well....


----------



## batpig

asoofi1 said:


> Not quite. Both have been steadily improved in their respective areas. 3D sales are still going strong...in fact, majority of pj and av support the technology more than ever, so certainly not a novelty as consumer demand is still driving the supply of both hardware and content.


I don't think it's consumer demand so much as trickle down technology becoming affordable, and therefore creating market saturation in the hardware. As I noted above, you can't buy any (excepting the most entry level) display, PJ or BDP that DOESN'T support 3D. So if you've gone shopping for new gear in the past few years, you've already got the hardware.

It's analogous to how nearly every receiver these days supports hi-def audio formats, 7 or more channels, and exotic speaker locations like heights and wides. Even though the overwhelming majority consumers are not exceeding 5.1 (and most of them probably have stereo setups or surround bars). In a few years you probably won't be able to buy a non entry level receiver that doesn't have Atmos decoders, but that won't necessarily mean consumer demand has crowned it a success.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> I think you are seriously underestimating the impact that the overhead ambiance has on enhancing the realism and therefore immersiveness of the soundscape. It's not just about crap flying over your head in action or sci-fi movies.
> 
> Sure, there are rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle or character focused dialogue fests like Woody Allen movies that don't really benefit, but many more genres will benefit than just action and sci-fi. Dramas especially -- anything where the sound design is attempting to immerse you in the world of the movie will feel more envelopment and realistic with the sound extending overhead, as it does in real life.
> 
> And if you're going to judge the success or worthiness of a surround sound format on how it copes with Sleepless in Seattle or Annie Hall, well....


The sound of music the hills are alive with the sound of music


----------



## vagos1103gr1

bargervais said:


> I have a 737 and I also have a polk 505 12" sub I have my volume at 1/4 and onkyo set subwoofer level at -6db that gives me room to turn it up if I wish but it sounds good there +6 might be a bit loud but you bring that down some try it a 0db


Thanks for the answer, what about the pm management under qsetup/audio, you have It on or off ? ( on sounds deeper the bass ) do you have any clue why with the mic set up put me the sub +6 and to you -6?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

doublewing11 said:


> BTW, I've received tons of flack having "Sleepless in Seattle" as one of my all time favorites. Great script, music...........big guys can have a heart too.
> 
> Sometimes sarcasm tends to skip a beat in these forums.............


Dudes have to stick together when defending their right to watch _Sleepless in Seattle_.  

And yes, text does not convey sarcasm and a host of other emotions on web forums. You're right about that.


----------



## fredl

After watching 'The Conjuring (2013)' in 5.1 in our living room the other night, I am very curious to try it out in the home teater with DSU. Since it's not a genre I usually watch I opted to see it on our 60" plasma instead of 117" FP and I think my heart is grateful. One of the best used surround soundtracks I have heard.


----------



## kbarnes701

mike_carton said:


> Edit: Talking about ATMOS here, not DSU.
> 
> 
> I can't think of many scenarios. What example situations can you think of in romantic comedies, situational comedies, regular dramas etc?


Really? Outdoor scenes, storms, birds in trees, wind rustling leaves, street sounds, ambiance in large buildings etc etc etc etc. The additional use of the overhead speakers, _combined with the sounds coming from the listener-level speakers_, improves the entire soundstage (see my comments on TF4 elsehwere - esp. in my reply to Noah). Atmos is not just about 'overhead effects'.



mike_carton said:


> You're talking here about surrounds and I agree unconditionally. Whatever be the genre of a movie, the subjects of any given shot are almost always supposedly in the middle of a fictional space; to that extent there is almost always something happening in their surroundings which will play out as sound in our surround speakers.


Do you not think that this fictional space usually has a vertical dimension too?



mike_carton said:


> But my post was about overheads. And those are different qualitatively from surrounds. In most shots in most movie genres, there is little of interest going on above the heads of the subjects of the shot. Most action is happening in the same plane more-or-less as the subject (and therefore the audience)


You are thinking that Atmos is for overhead effects only. I am saying it isn’t. It is also about an improvement in the entire soundstage thanks to the greater precision with which sounds can be rendered into a three-dimensional space - like where we actually exist 100% of the time.



mike_carton said:


> Think about it this way: How often do you look around versus how often do you look up?


Not relevant. It isn’t about looking up to where the sound is coming from - it is about creating a realistic illusion of a space that exists above us as well as around us. If you stand in a room and speak, it will sound different to if you stand in the same room but with the ceiling removed. No need to look up to appreciate that difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> We all have different tastes in movies, that's for damn sure.
> 
> The Hunger Games... _really_, Keith? You're not actually a 16-year-old girl, are you?
> 
> Next you'll be saying Twilight was fantastic!! Oh, the humanity.


I have seen both Hunger Games movies and enjoyed them both. I found much to enjoy in both of them too. What was it that you disliked about them?

Odd comment about 16 year old girls. Do you think that unless you are the same age and gender as the main protagonist that a movie can’t be enjoyed? That is a really odd position, if you don't mind my saying so. Did you have to make yourself an insane Oedipal loner to enjoy 'Psycho'?  

I passed on Twilight though - haven’t seen it so can’t comment.


----------



## kbarnes701

UKTexan said:


> Regarding The Hunger Games, not a bad series of films. I'm sure your not in the demographic that type of film is aimed at, probably by about 30 plus years I'm guessing. I'm in my mid thirties so still have a few years left, hopefully, before the bitterness sets in, a la Victor Meldrew; Keith will understand that one


I don't belieeeeeeeeve it! LOL.



UKTexan said:


> Not everyone on this forum is a coffin dodger or anywhere close, it's not really becoming to judge others taste; allow people with different age groups, levels of intellect, various ethnic and social backgrounds to enjoy the films they choose, without being judged.
> Well, time to go watch A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey or One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, or maybe I'll just kick back and relax with TF4....


Agreed entirely, even though I am much closer to being a coffin dodger than you are (and probably older than Dan). Age is just a number etc - mostly it exists in the mind IMO and IME.

Agreed on that choice of movies too. Love them all, for different reasons, different moods.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Keith would probably shake his head at some of the movies I like too.


Try me. So far I only know the movies you don't like (other than those you just mentioned). I like movies of all kinds (except Woody Allen movies) so I would imagine we have many in common.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> No not bitterness, but disappointment in the way things are trending with modern movies. It reminds me of a lot of the trend of the low budget teen-oriented films of the 1950's and early 1960's that were not exactly high caliber either. These new ones just slap slick special effects over the top.


So did that earlier trend mean that the 50s and 60s didn’t produce some amazingly good movies then? Of course it didn't. This is the part I never understand with you, Dan. You seem to think that if bad movies exist then that precludes the existence of good movies, like they are somehow mutually exclusive. Do you really think that just because Transformers Age of Extinction is made that movies like The Skin I live In, or The Secret In Their Eyes, or The Devil's Backbone, or The Orphanage, or any of the numerous other non-Hollywood movies can't co-exist?

If you look at all the movies made last year, or any year, 99% of them are pure, unadulterated crap. As my old grandaddy used to say, if you want to find gold, dig...

There is no 'trend' towards what you believe are bad movies. Most movies are bad movies and always have been.


----------



## kbarnes701

mike_carton said:


> Not exactly the stuff movie audio tracks are made of. If you doubt it, the next time you watch a movie (non-action, non-scifi movie,) try to keep track of how many scenes have (or should have) overhead sounds.


I promise this is the last time I will say this (to you) - do not focus on 'overhead sounds'. Atmos is not just above 'overhead effects'. If you can’t see that, then more listening to Atmos movies should bring it home.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It really depends on each individual film and how realistic the filmmakers want the sonic environment.
> 
> Sure, dramas like _Apocalypse Now _or _Platoon_ would practically be screaming for Atmos audio while something like _When Harry Met Sally _might not. However, subtle ambient sound cues can be recreated using Atmos a lot better than traditional formats.
> 
> There is definitely a learning curve at play with these new 3D formats. It may be that the mixing and sounds effects recording traditions of the past need to be thrown out the window.
> 
> A street scene in New York, for instance, would be heightened by a sense of the "spatial" sounds of the city all around you (even if they are subtly added to the dialog almost like walla recordings using voices of people as environmental white noise). It's almost like creating binaural and ambisonic headphone recordings for a mass audience. That was quite evident during the Auro3D demo at CEDIA that live ambient recordings of certain environments, when carefully miked, really brought you into that place and time. That would be a whole new arena for movie field recordists to go into.


Agreed. We live in a three dimensional space and sounds, including ambient reflected sounds, are all around us and also above is. Atmos aims to recreate that to give more realism to soundtracks. If someone thinks it is just for helicopter flyovers, I can understand their confusion and disappointment.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Life of Pi- 

first off this is the second time I have screened this...and I remember it being alot better movie the first time (and I didnt remember too much about the movie at all surprissingly)...maybe it was too close to the Kon-Tiki story?

anyhow...this is a perfect example of DSU and ATMOS....not a ton of use of the whole soundstage but when it does its amazing...

flying fish...huge thunder storms..creaking boats...just awesome immersion...to the point you melted away into the scene and didnt even notice speakers...

I am reallt looking forard to monday or tuesday when I have the ful 5.2.4 setup...only thing Im NOT looking foraward to is running audyssey again (as well as setting PEQ for the bass) its so tedious..ahhhhh

but well worth it in the end 

tonight I start the expendable trilogy in prep for the expendables 3


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> I have seen both Hunger Games movies and enjoyed them both. I found much to enjoy in both of them too. What was it that you disliked about them?...
> I passed on Twilight though - haven’t seen it so can’t comment.


agree completely with your opinion!

1st, I'm a big scifi fan, movies & novels since I was pre-teen.

2nd, I like apocalyptic, dystopian future stories, from Brave New World & 1984, THX1138, Mad Max, post nuclear war (On the Beach, etc), When Worlds Collide to post-viral pandemic themes (12 Monkeys, Survivors, 28 Days Later, etc, *current news*), to modern ones like Hunger Games

3rd, after watching Movie 1, I read the novels. Sure, I can see the appeal to teenagers, esp women. But, I liked them & And I'm in my 60's!! I thought they were well-written for the intended audience(s), and had an interesting story.

4th, I thought the movies were very well done, capturing the essence of the novels for characters, story backdrop and the vision of a corrupt dictatorship govt which exploits the 99% for the 1%. A nice parable for post-2008 Wall St collapse times.

I know I"m a sucker for most anything that's scifi 

But like you, I'm not doing Twilight 

I for one, do want Hunger Games in Atmos! The dome scenes would be amazing.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

full disclosure...I read the twilight novels (im a middle school teacher) andwatched all the movies...yes appeals to a certain gender and age..but they were great reads and well done movies...


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> agree completely with your opinion!
> 
> 1st, I'm a big scifi fan, movies & novels since I was pre-teen.
> 
> 2nd, I like apocalyptic, dystopian future stories, from Brave New World & 1984, THX1138, Mad Max, post nuclear war (On the Beach, etc), When Worlds Collide to post-viral pandemic themes (12 Monkeys, Survivors, 28 Days Later, etc, *current news*), to modern ones like Hunger Games
> 
> 3rd, after watching Movie 1, I read the novels. Sure, I can see the appeal to teenagers, esp women. But, I liked them & And I'm in my 60's!! I thought they were well-written for the intended audience(s), and had an interesting story.
> 
> 4th, I thought the movies were very well done, capturing the essence of the novels for characters, story backdrop and the vision of a corrupt dictatorship govt which exploits the 99% for the 1%. A nice parable for post-2008 Wall St collapse times.
> 
> I know I"m a sucker for most anything that's scifi
> 
> But like you, I'm not doing Twilight
> 
> I for one, do want Hunger Games in Atmos! The dome scenes would be amazing.


+1 to that. And the reason I am not doing Twilight is that from what I have read, they are just not very good movies. The original Hunger Games movie got an IMDB Metascore of 67 against 56 for the original Twilight movie. I find the Metascores to be fairly accurate. Hunger Games Catching Fire got a very high Metascore of 75. Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn got a truly abysmal Metascore of 45. 

So we are not alone in our thinking


----------



## CBdicX

Will it be possible to use a set of 4 small surround speakers, turn them on the back (on top of the front and surround back speakers) and put them in a 20 degree angle to the ceiling, and so try Atmos before buying speakers ?
Will this give a fair test of Atmos ?


Thx......


----------



## Brian Fineberg

go for it...cant hurt if you arent purchasing them


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> go for it...cant hurt if you arent purchasing them


Trying them can't hurt I have recycled many a speaker and if it not satisfactory then you can buy something I recycled a couple satellite speakers and placed them top front toed in slightly to MLP I'm very pleased with them but I still have that nagging feeling what better speakers would sound like....


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> In 2D or in 3D? And did you enjoy that film; only the film itself (forget the sound and CGI effects for now)?


I am not a fan of 3D - at all. Wearing glasses, the "fake" look and you can almost predict when they provide the "effects" for 3D - like Gravity and the floating nuts/bolts. I have always maintained a well filmed/quality transfer coupled with a calibrated display also of high quality provides a 3D like image that is much more natural. IMO.

By the way the movie is very good. Reference sound and picture, Ralph Potts' review of the film is dead on.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I am not a fan of 3D - at all. Wearing glasses, the "fake" look and you can almost predict when they provide the "effects" for 3D - like Gravity and the floating nuts/bolts. I have always maintained a well filmed/quality transfer coupled with a calibrated display also of high quality provides a 3D like image that is much more natural. IMO.
> 
> By the way the movie is very good. Reference sound and picture, Ralph Potts' review of the film is dead on.


The main problem I have with 3D video is that it takes you out of the movie so easily. It's the exact opposite of 3D sound like Atmos, which immerses you _more _in the movie. 

Your example of the floating nuts and bolts is a good one - as soon as they start floating towards me, I am immediately and totally captivated by the sight, marvelling at how the nuts and bolts are actually floating towards my face - and I have consequently now lost interest in the story, the characters on-screen and pretty much everything other than those floating nuts and bolts. Just like when I read a novel I don't have to have someone actually read out loud the dialogue, I don't seem to feel the need for objects in a movie to 'pop out' of the movie in this way for me to be able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie. Maybe it's just me. Well, and you too it seems 

However, with 3D sound like Atmos, the extra immersion makes the whole thing much more enjoyable and 'real' for me.


----------



## smurraybhm

After a month of running 7.2.2, I took the plunge and ordered another pair of speakers last night to put in the FH position. While I have thoroughly enjoyed the one Atmos movie and DS with only TMs, I have a feeling that I will enjoy it all even more with 4 "up top." Planning a few other minor tweaks in the continued quest for even better sound. Should have it all done by the end of the weekend, and as Brian said I am also not looking forward to another Audyssey run/adjusting the subs.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> The main problem I have with 3D video is that it takes you out of the movie so easily. It's the exact opposite of 3D sound like Atmos, which immerses you _more _in the movie.
> 
> Your example of the floating nuts and bolts is a good one - as soon as they start floating towards me, I am immediately and totally captivated by the sight, marvelling at how the nuts and bolts are actually floating towards my face - and I have consequently now lost interest in the story, the characters on-screen and pretty much everything other than those floating nuts and bolts. Just like when I read a novel I don't have to have someone actually read out loud the dialogue, I don't seem to feel the need for objects in a movie to 'pop out' of the movie in this way for me to be able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie. Maybe it's just me. Well, and you too it seems
> 
> However, with 3D sound like Atmos, the extra immersion makes the whole thing much more enjoyable and 'real' for me.


I agree, it just feels like a gimmick when you have things "pop out" out of the screen. Now if they could make 3D so it doesn't require glasses and only adds depth to the films as if you were watching through a window then I would consider giving it a go again. 

However you get a decent 3D depth effect simply by having a very good screen. I watched Avatar on my 7.7" OLED tablet and it looked real compared to the 3D experience at the cinema.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

congrats!! we should be experiencing the same thing then...lets compare notes...

also on the 3d thing

I love it...but obviously only when done right...and as a caveat...I Didn't enjoy it at all on my 65" plasma..but since moving to a 130" 2.35 screen I LOVE it...

gotta love the difference in opinion......on the contrary my wife hates 3d so i have to watch alone...and I DO hate wearing the glasses...but oh well


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Try me. So far I only know the movies you don't like (other than those you just mentioned). I like movies of all kinds (except Woody Allen movies) so I would imagine we have many in common.


I like a lot of Woody Allen films.  Yes, some are better than others (like Midnight in Paris, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Sleeper). 

As you might have noted I enjoyed the Rob Reiner/Norah Ephron/William Goldman stuff like _The Princess Bride_, _When Harry Met Sally_, and _Sleepless in Seattle_ (You've Got Mail... not so much). I even liked the Dustin Hoffman/Bill Murray/Jessica Lange vehicle _Tootsie._ 

I like like _Die Hard_ as an action film more than any Michael Bay movie, even his only IMHO half-way good one, _The Rock_. 

And, Keith, you did ignore my smiley face about _The Hunger Games_ and having to be a teenage girl to watch them.  I just don't think they're well written or particularly well acted (the villains, in particular, are ludicrous). Jennifer Lawrence looks like she was bored and cashing in on a quick multi-million dollar paycheck.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> The main problem I have with 3D video is that it takes you out of the movie so easily. It's the exact opposite of 3D sound like Atmos, which immerses you _more _in the movie.
> 
> Your example of the floating nuts and bolts is a good one - as soon as they start floating towards me, I am immediately and totally captivated by the sight, marvelling at how the nuts and bolts are actually floating towards my face - and I have consequently now lost interest in the story, the characters on-screen and pretty much everything other than those floating nuts and bolts. Just like when I read a novel I don't have to have someone actually read out loud the dialogue, I don't seem to feel the need for objects in a movie to 'pop out' of the movie in this way for me to be able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie. Maybe it's just me. Well, and you too it seems
> 
> However, with 3D sound like Atmos, the extra immersion makes the whole thing much more enjoyable and 'real' for me.


I "look" at 3D video as very much a gimmick. It was in the 1950's, in the early 1980's, and it is today. It is not even close to how humans perceive the world and it only lessens the quality of the cinematography because it's used as a gimmick too often. 

And the majority of live action 3D movies are conversions anyway.


----------



## Josh Z

If this is going to be a 3D thread now, perhaps a moderator should change the title and move it to the correct forum.


----------



## sdurani

mike_carton said:


> What example situations can you think of in romantic comedies, situational comedies, regular dramas etc?


ANY situation can make use of immersive audio, assuming you prefer to hear a 3D bubble of sound rather than a 2D ring of sound around you. Which is why Atmos was used for the buddy cop comedy _'The Heat'_, romantic comedy _'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty'_, dramas _'Trance'_ and _'Million Dollar Arm'_, musicals _'Frozen'_ and _'Jersey Boys'_, etc. I just saw a documentary, _'On Any Sunday, The Next Chapter'_, and it made excellent use of Atmos' unique capabilities. It's not just for sci-fi action blockbusters.


> Think about it this way: How often do you look around versus how often do you look up?


How often have you turned your head due to ambience at a concert hall? Should that be a justification for not recording and reproducing music in surround? Doesn't matter how often you look up, what matters is whether sound is coming from that direction.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Josh Z said:


> If this is going to be a 3D thread now, perhaps a moderator should change the title and move it to the correct forum.


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd rather have great 2D cinematography and superb 3D immersive audio.


+1


----------



## CBdicX

For a 7.x system, will (4x) Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers always be front speakers and surround back speakers, or can front and surround also be an option ?

My fronts are 2.5 meter from MLP, surround back is also arround 3 meter from MLP, surrounds are left 2.5 meter, right 1.5 meter from MLP.


Is there "need" for 4x Atmos or will 2x on the front do the same as 4x around ?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

audioguy said:


> +1


++1 for me on this statement


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> go for it...cant hurt if you arent purchasing them


Trying them can't hurt I have recycled many a speaker and if it not satisfactory then you can buy something I recycled a couple satellite speakers and placed them top front toed in slightly to MLP I'm very pleased with them but I still have that nagging feeling what would better speakers sound like....


----------



## bargervais

Love the dialog in this forum I watched Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter last night lots of action a very fun movie for DSU I know the movie itself is very bad but I wanted to give it a shot 90 minutes??? Of sight and sound


----------



## batpig

CBdicX said:


> Will it be possible to use a set of 4 small surround speakers, turn them on the back (on top of the front and surround back speakers) and put them in a 20 degree angle to the ceiling, and so try Atmos before buying speakers ?
> Will this give a fair test of Atmos ?


Atmos enabled speakers have built in filters to add some special high frequency response "notches" that enhance the illusion of the speakers being above you. However, these notches are also incorporated into the target curve of the room EQ on the receivers, so with good room EQ like Audyssey XT32 it will "correct" the speakers response to make sure those notches are preserved. That means that, in a way, it will "convert" the normal speakers into Atmos enabled speakers. 

They may or may not work as well as the real deal, especially if they don't have the right dispersion characteristics, and you will have to experiment a bit with placement and angle to find the combo that gives the best simulation of overhead effects. But in my experience (I am currently using two normal speakers as "fake" Atmos speakers) just repurposing a pair of normal speakers and running XT32 gives a very convincing overhead effect and is at least 80-90% as good as the Def Tech Atmos modules I tried.



CBdicX said:


> For a 7.x system, will (4x) Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers always be front speakers and surround back speakers, or can front and surround also be an option ?


Yes, Front Dolby + Surround Dolby is an allowed option (see attached snapshot from pg 219 of the Denon X5200W manual). However, if you have S.Back speakers it's recommended to place the rear pair of Atmos enabled speakers back there, because then you get the equivalent of Top Front + Top Rear and the "virtual" speakers are more in a line above you like the recommended physical setup.




CBdicX said:


> Is there "need" for 4x Atmos or will 2x on the front do the same as 4x around ?


How could 2 speakers "do the same" as 4 speakers? Of course 4 is better than 2! The only reason NOT to go with 4 is due to some constraints you have (budget, WAF, aesthetics, physical limitations, etc).


----------



## hexcode99

I have a question about the Dolby Surround Upmixer that comes with Atmos.
Can that only be used for upmixing to an atmos speaker setup or can it also be used for upmixing stereo or 5.1 to traditional 7.1 speaker config?


----------



## CBdicX

batpig said:


> )


 
Thanks Batbig !


Is the distance between the DA speakers and the MLP a big deal or will it work say from 1 to 3 meters from the MLP ?
I see on DA speakers that the Dolby speaker has a fixed degree....


----------



## Selden Ball

hexcode99 said:


> I have a question about the Dolby Surround Upmixer that comes with Atmos.
> Can that only be used for upmixing to an atmos speaker setup or can it also be used for upmixing stereo or 5.1 to traditional 7.1 speaker config?


 Although DSU does not require overhead speakers, it does not upmix to speakers which you have configured as Front Wides. Otherwise, it'll upmix from stereo to 5.1 or 7.1, and from 5.1 to 7.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I like a lot of Woody Allen films.  Yes, some are better than others (like Midnight in Paris, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Sleeper).


There you are then - no hope for you at all LOL. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> As you might have noted I enjoyed the Rob Reiner/Norah Ephron/William Goldman stuff like _The Princess Bride_, _When Harry Met Sally_, and _Sleepless in Seattle_ (You've Got Mail... not so much). I even liked the Dustin Hoffman/Bill Murray/Jessica Lange vehicle _Tootsie._


I’d agree with most of those too - movies I would very happily watch again, anytime.



Dan Hitchman said:


> I like like _Die Hard_ as an action film more than any Michael Bay movie, even his only IMHO half-way good one, _The Rock_.


Well yeah. Cant disagree that Die Hard is a very good movie of its type. I liked Bad Boys from Michael Bay, as well as The Rock. Pain & Gain is quite good fun too. And I enjoyed The Island. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> And, Keith, you did ignore my smiley face about _The Hunger Games_ and having to be a teenage girl to watch them.  I just don't think they're well written or particularly well acted (the villains, in particular, are ludicrous). Jennifer Lawrence looks like she was bored and cashing in on a quick multi-million dollar paycheck.


I didn’t ignore the smiley, Dan, I just didn’t notice it, sorry. I understand that you and I have different tastes, but I would guess that there are more movies we both like in common than movies I like that you dislike and v-v. The main thing I disagree with you on is that there are fewer good movies being made just because there are movies like Transformers and Marvel Comic Universe movies being made. I don't see any evidence to support that view.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Love the dialog in this forum I watched Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter last night lots of action a very fun movie for DSU I know the movie itself is very bad but I wanted to give it a shot 90 minutes??? Of sight and sound


I like that movie. It is what it is, and as such it does OK IMO. It's just 105 (not 90) minutes of fun, is all.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Atmos enabled speakers have built in filters to add some special high frequency response "notches" that enhance the illusion of the speakers being above you. However, these notches are also incorporated into the target curve of the room EQ on the receivers, so with good room EQ like Audyssey XT32 it will "correct" the speakers response to make sure those notches are preserved. That means that, in a way, it will "convert" the normal speakers into Atmos enabled speakers.


Is that right? Will XT32 actually _add _the notch as opposed to just preserving it if it sees it there and knows that Atmos-enabled speakers are being used?


----------



## Selden Ball

It occurred to me that one way of preserving the notch would be simply not to EQ at all in the appropriate frequency range. I think Batpig's successful use of nonEnabled speakers makes this theory unlikely, though.

Of course, using REW to measure the preamp outputs would be one way to find out for sure.


----------



## Tfleming675

michaelscott73 said:


> Has anyone heard both a 9.1.2 and 7.1.4? I've also read somewhere you can upmix with shutting the backs off and running wides with .4


I recently heard a demo of 5.1.4 and was blown away for ATOMS content and upmixed content. After hearing this I think that 7.2.4 and certainly 9.1.2 would be massive overkill. I do not see any value with hights when I have 4 speakers in the celling. You really have to hear this to understand it in my opinion. I will no longer be looking at hights or even rear speakers for that matter it is just that good.


----------



## Selden Ball

Tfleming675 said:


> I recently heard a demo of 5.1.4 and was blown away for ATOMS content and upmixed content. After hearing this I think that 7.2.4 and certainly 9.1.2 would be massive overkill. I do not see any value with hights when I have 4 speakers in the celling. You really have to hear this to understand it in my opinion. I will no longer be looking at hights or even rear speakers for that matter it is just that good.


If you already have speakers in the ceiling, then those should become the overheads used by Atmos. If you want to get the 3D experience, though, you'll need to add speakers near ear height, whether in-wall, on-wall or free standing. If you've been convinced by the 5.1.4 configuration, though, it seems you won't have to add many.


----------



## smurraybhm

Tfleming675 said:


> I recently heard a demo of 5.1.4 and was blown away for ATOMS content and upmixed content. After hearing this I think that 7.2.4 and certainly 9.1.2 would be massive overkill. I do not see any value with hights when I have 4 speakers in the celling. You really have to hear this to understand it in my opinion. I will no longer be looking at hights or even rear speakers for that matter it is just that good.


A lot of us use heights for what you would consider the FT, no holes and the ability to move things around in the future. The 9.x.2 configuration usually refers to someone having wides, not heights since Atmos/DS considers those (FH) to be one of the pairs of Atmos speakers. The other plus about having heights may be with Auro, but we will have to wait on details regarding that one and how speaker configs work or don't work with it. Personally I think 7.2.4 is perfect - I want my back surrounds, I realize this is a personal preference but X-Men is a great example of a very good 7.1 mix that uses them extensively. Plus IMO it provides the true bubble of sound


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> It occurred to me that one way of preserving the notch would be simply not to EQ at all in the appropriate frequency range. I think Batpig's successful use of nonEnabled speakers makes this theory unlikely, though.
> 
> Of course, using REW to measure the preamp outputs would be one way to find out for sure.


batpig isn't saying that the notch is preserved though - he is saying that the notch is_ created _by XT32. I am wondering if it is.


----------



## Selden Ball

I agree: some movies do make good use of all 7.1 channels, so the rear surrounds are good for more than just expanding the ambiance. I certainly agree about _X-Men: Days of Future Past_ being one such. Having watched it last night, it's fresh in my memory.


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> batpig isn't saying that the notch is preserved though - he is saying that the notch is_ created _by XT32. I am wondering if it is.


I doubt it. As XT32 corrects high frequencies gently the target with a notch will hardly create a lot of deviation. Sure it will affect the general response a little, but only to allowed degree, and notch required is probably much sharper. On the other side if the notch with Atmos enabled speaker is slightly shifted in frequency this would also help XT32 to avoid overcorrection trying to "move" it in frequency (and creating a lot of boost/cut and a lot of ringing as a result). Audyssey XT would be really bad at attempting to correct that... Audyssey learned the lesson quite some time ago and I don't think they will ever return to aggressively correcting anything at high frequencies based on in-room measurements.


----------



## Spanglo

kbarnes701 said:


> The main problem I have with 3D video is that it takes you out of the movie so easily. It's the exact opposite of 3D sound like Atmos, which immerses you _more _in the movie.


I feel the same way about Cinema 3D. The uncomfortable glasses, dim & always fuzzy picture, definitely has a novelty feel, and doesn't do well to immerse. 

However, my opinion of 3D in home on a DLP projector with active shutter glasses is far different. The home 3D the glasses more comfortable for starters (I still wouldn't want to wear them for a double feature, but 1 movie is fine), the picture brighter, and the focus is razor sharp. Home 3D is a different animal, and has completely changed my opinion of 3D in general. my2cents.

T4's 3D picture is ridiculously good on every level for those that are interested.

Back to topic; I'm absolutely loving upmixed music. Wasn't a big fan before, but now I'm on board with multi channel tunes.


----------



## wse

Great news, except they are charging for it 

_"Denon and Marantz said this week that they will add three-dimensional audio format Auro-3D to select receivers of both brands later this year. 

The upgrade will arrive in December for the AVR-X5200W and the AVR-X4100W models, *which will arrive via a paid firmware upgrade. *

“We are proud that our customers will be able to upgrade their A/V receivers to incorporate Auro-3D as an additional feature”, Yoshinori Yamada, global business team leader audio and video at D+M Group, said as part of the announcement.

“It demonstrates our constant ambition to offer brand new technologies to existing products, adding value for the proud owner as well.”_


----------



## Spanglo

Tfleming675 said:


> I recently heard a demo of 5.1.4 and was blown away for ATOMS content and upmixed content. After hearing this I think that 7.2.4 and certainly 9.1.2 would be massive overkill. I do not see any value with hights when I have 4 speakers in the celling. You really have to hear this to understand it in my opinion. I will no longer be looking at hights or even rear speakers for that matter it is just that good.


For what's worth I came from a 7.1 setup, where I simply took my rear surrounds and moved those higher for a 5.1.4 setup. 5.1.4 was awesome, but I missed having the rear surrounds so much that reconfigured the setup to 7.1.2. That only lasted a few days before I went to 7.1.4 which leaves me satisfied. 

So yeah, 5.1.4 & 7.1.2 although great, felt like there were missing a little something. So far not the case with 7.1.4.


----------



## Selden Ball

You do realize that people who would rather buy Pioneer are not made happy by such a comparison, right? (The current generation of Pioneers are limited to 9 channels: 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.) The OP, Tfleming675, currently has a Pioneer receiver, so I suspect he might be in that camp. The competing Pioneer models also cost substantially more than their D+M competition.


----------



## CBdicX

sorry for asking the second time, but is distance between the DA speakers and the MLP importent, or is there a margin in distance, or how big will the sweetspot be for DA ?


Thx !


----------



## smurraybhm

Selden Ball said:


> You do realize that people who would rather buy Pioneer are not made happy by such a comparison, right? (The current generation of Pioneers are limited to 9 channels: 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.) The OP, Tfleming675, currently has a Pioneer receiver, so I suspect he might be in that camp. The competing Pioneer models also cost substantially more than their D+M competition.


I don't agree, based on MSRP you have the Denon 4100 at $1499 and the Pioneer Elite SC-85 at $1500; Denon 5200 at $1999 and the Pioneer SC-87 $2000; the Denon 7200 MSRP unknown, Pioneer SC-89 $3,000. To me that looks pretty darn similar and I would imagine that retailers have room on both when pricing for purchase. The only negatives I see with this year's Pioneer is the possible inability to have an upgrade path similar to Denon regarding Auro (though I don't believe that has been confirmed one way or the other) and then their poor decision to limit even the SC-89 to only 5.x.4 or 7.x.2. The inability to 7.x.4 on their top two Elites is a strange decision, especially given the ability of Denon and Marantz to do so on their upper level models. That decision is the reason why I went with Denon - at the time it was lack of clarity on the speaker configs that had me go with D&M - based on what was learned later I'm glad I did.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I like that movie. It is what it is, and as such it does OK IMO. It's just 105 (not 90) minutes of fun, is all.


thanks for the correction it went by fast and i just assumed it was 90 sorry about that


----------



## smurraybhm

CBdicX said:


> sorry for asking the second time, but is distance between the DA speakers and the MLP importent, or is there a margin in distance, or how big will the sweetspot be for DA ?
> 
> 
> Thx !


Check out the white paper - it has distances, etc. AVS search will bring it right up or Google will bring it up on the Dolby website.


----------



## Selden Ball

smurraybhm said:


> Check out the white paper - it has distances, etc. AVS search will bring it right up or Google will bring it up on the Dolby website.


To put it briefly, it's the angular separation between speakers which matters the most, not the distance from them to the MLP.

p.s. thanks for the correction on the pricing. I thought the Pioneers were much more expensive than that.


----------



## UKTexan

Just received an email from my dealer regarding the Auro upgrade for Denon receivers. Current estimated price for the US market is $250 to $300, final pricing is not yet confirmed.


----------



## CBdicX

smurraybhm said:


> Check out the white paper - it has distances, etc. AVS search will bring it right up or Google will bring it up on the Dolby website.



Thanks, found it


----------



## NorthSky

*'Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter' - 3D Blu-ray - DTS-HD MA 7.1*



> I like that movie, it's what it is, and as such it does OK IMO. It's just 105 (not 90) minutes of fun, is all.





bargervais said:


> thanks for the correction it went by fast and i just assumed it was 90 sorry about that


98-99 minutes; when taking the end rolling credits out.


----------



## NorthSky

UKTexan said:


> Just received an email from my dealer regarding the Auro upgrade for Denon receivers. Current estimated price for the US market is $250 to $300, final pricing is not yet confirmed.


Wow, good deal.


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> However, my opinion of 3D in home on a DLP projector with active shutter glasses is far different. The home 3D the glasses more comfortable for starters (I still wouldn't want to wear them for a double feature, but 1 movie is fine), the picture brighter, and the focus is razor sharp. Home 3D is a different animal, and has completely changed my opinion of 3D in general. my2cents.
> 
> T4's 3D picture is ridiculously good on every level for those that are interested.


+1 ... I totally agree with you, right on man! :thumbsup: 
... Put 3D sound with that and we're in heaven, above, over our head. :wink:


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> Love the dialog in this forum I watched Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter last night lots of action a very fun movie for DSU I know the movie itself is very bad but I wanted to give it a shot 90 minutes??? Of sight and sound


 

I love this movie! I don't think it is bad at all. I have watched it several times. It is a great escape. So aren't the Twilight movies, and the Lone Ranger, etc.... 
Plus Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is a true story and based on fact!


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> I love this movie! I don't think it is bad at all. I have watched it several times. It is a great escape. So aren't the Twilight movies, and the Lone Ranger, etc....
> *Plus Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is a true story and based on fact!*


Right.


----------



## chi_guy50

UKTexan said:


> Just received an email from my dealer regarding the Auro upgrade for Denon receivers. Current estimated price for the US market is $250 to $300, final pricing is not yet confirmed.


That seems steep; certainly not worth it to me given the proven worth of Atmos/DSU, and I'd be surprised if it turned out to be a popular upgrade option at that cost.



NorthSky said:


> Wow, good deal.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Wow. I was expecting no more than $199 for an upgrade to Auro. 

Pretty steep considering there is very little to no native content. Paying mostly for the upmixer which may or may not yield results anymore likable than DSU which is getting high praise.


----------



## wse

*Drawing please*



westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.
> 
> Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.
> 
> Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.
> 
> Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.
> 
> The following row of speaker is the *front top speaker*. Now whilst the middle top was not really that important for Atmos the front top row has little to none importance for Auro. Therfore my suggestion for this row would be in-ceiling or Dolby enabled speakers. If the overall amount of channels is of relevance this row could be muted during Auro playback and the amplifier could be used to drive front height speakers.
> 
> The last row according to the Denon sheet is the *front height speaker* which again like the rear height are direct firing speakers tilted to the MLP. The difference between Atmos and Auro for this row would be that the speakers should be attached 30-45 degrees which leave them sometimes in the middle of the room (in my case for instance) Auro requires them to be in line with front row speakers / the screen and not much relevance is given to the angle. As these speakers do not hold much relevance for Atmos, my suggestion would be to install them by the screen and maybe even mute them for Atmos. As suggested above front top for Atmos and front height for Auro could be run over the same amp using a switch in between.
> 
> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.
> 
> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...
> 
> *Addition on September 12th* In the meantime I got feedback from Auro tgemselves. I forwarded this post to them and they replied that they don't see any issue with using this setup for Auro!


Drawing please


----------



## wse

tjenkins95 said:


> .... Plus Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is a true story and based on fact!


Yes so is Santa


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> That seems steep; certainly not worth it to me given the proven worth of Atmos/DSU, and I'd be surprised if it turned out to be a popular upgrade option at that cost.


Alright, I'm easy; stiff a little. ...Perhaps.

'Bout $149?


----------



## Nightlord

UKTexan said:


> Just received an email from my dealer regarding the Auro upgrade for Denon receivers. Current estimated price for the US market is $250 to $300, final pricing is not yet confirmed.


Upgrade for which models?


----------



## ambesolman

I don't see why there's a fee to upgrade to Auro at all. It's nothing more than an upmixer at this point. If they want widespread adoption, there should be no up charge.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Selden Ball

Presumably Auro wants their cut of the profits, at least in the form of license fees. Bear in mind that the Auro upgrades for the expensive high-end equipment cost 10x what D+M wants.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Wow. I was expecting no more than $199 for an upgrade to Auro.
> 
> Pretty steep considering there is very little to no native content. Paying mostly for the upmixer which may or may not yield results anymore likable than DSU which is getting high praise.


Yeah. I wonder why it is cheaper in Europe then? 149 Euros is about 200 bucks. I want to see some content before I bother with it I think. And even then it's ass-u-ming that an Atmos speaker layout is going to work with it.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Plus Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is a true story and based on fact!


It's a _story_?! I thought it was a documentary. You've spoiled it for me now


----------



## mp5475

You would think that for 3 grand, Denon 7200 would do 9.1.4. What is the big difference between it and 5200?


----------



## bargervais

ambesolman said:


> I don't see why there's a fee to upgrade to Auro at all. It's nothing more than an upmixer at this point. If they want widespread adoption, there should be no up charge.
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


+1 i don't think there should be a fee DSU is good enough for me for now i would assume that future ARV's will have it on the 2nd or 3rd generation when they find out that there will be few takers.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah. I wonder why it is cheaper in Europe then? 149 Euros is about 200 bucks.


We make less and have higher taxes, so it will still hit us the most, so stop complaining!


----------



## Tfleming675

Selden Ball said:


> You do realize that people who would rather buy Pioneer are not made happy by such a comparison, right? (The current generation of Pioneers are limited to 9 channels: 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.) The OP, Tfleming675, currently has a Pioneer receiver, so I suspect he might be in that camp. The competing Pioneer models also cost substantially more than their D+M competition.


True, I do have a Pioneer receiver, however, it is an SC-65 that does not support ATOMS. I was more interested in the discussion than the product. The 5.x.4 setup was very impressive, however, I have not heard 7.x. 2 or 4 so I can't compare it. My home theatre is a dedicated room with easy access to the celling and is currently running a 5.1 setup. I am pre-wired for rear and hights as well.


----------



## UKTexan

Nightlord said:


> Upgrade for which models?


The information I received is for the Denon X5200W and X4100W although I understand the Marantz SR7009 and AV7702 will also be upgradeable. 
The price of $250 to $300 is an estimate, I agree with other members, it's a little steep for what is essentially a firmware upgrade. I will probably hold off until actual Blu ray movies are announced with Auro soundtracks. If the upgrade is available in December I presume content will shortly follow, we may hear announcements very soon. 
Less than two weeks until I pick up my X5200 and can finally install a 7.2.4 Atmos system, can't wait!

http://www.dealerscope.com/article/denon-marantz-add-auro-3d-sound-receivers/1


----------



## NorthSky

> I don't see why there's a fee to upgrade to Auro at all. It's nothing more than an upmixer at this point. If they want widespread adoption, there should be no up charge.


You kidding right? ...Free lunch, really, in this passionate audio hobby/business of ours.


----------



## Tfleming675

NorthSky said:


> You kidding right? ...Free lunch, really, in this passionate audio hobby/business of ours?


Pioneer is a FREE upgrade to ATMOS.


----------



## NorthSky

> Yeah. I wonder why it is cheaper in Europe then? 149 Euros is about 200 bucks. I want to see some content before I bother with it I think. And even then it's ass-u-ming that an Atmos speaker layout is going to work with it.


Probably for a similar reason that Disney 3D Blu-rays aren't available no more here in North America, but they are in the UK and @ other world's regions. ...Like Japan, France, Brazil, Italy, Australia, Germany, etc.


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> You would think that for 3 grand, Denon 7200 would do 9.1.4.
> What is the big difference between it and 5200?


$$$


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> It's a _story_?! I thought it was a documentary. You've spoiled it for me now


It is a documentary told in story format to keep the listener engaged - many will not even realize they are actually sitting in a type of history class!


----------



## NorthSky

Tfleming675 said:


> Pioneer is a FREE upgrade to ATMOS.


Not the same; just like Onkyo and Yamaha have free Atmos upgrades too. ...Different, that's all. 

And I said it hundred times before; wait for the second wave (gen) of 3D sound receivers and SSPs. 

And it ain't just over yet; DTS-UHD and true 4K video implementation. It's just the way it is; we are flying faster and higher now than the speed @ what new technologies are comin' up @ in our neighborhoods. 
It's our money, it's their products, it's all our choices; in time, and in space. ...Spatial.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> We make less and have higher taxes, so it will still hit us the most, so stop complaining!


LOL. True. I wasn't complaining though. Gloating would be a better word


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> It is a documentary told in story format to keep the listener engaged - many will not even realize they are actually sitting in a type of history class!


I can certainly see why Mr Lincoln is held in such high regard.


----------



## noah katz

ambesolman said:


> I don't see why there's a fee to upgrade to Auro at all.


Some people don't like to work for free.



Tfleming675 said:


> Pioneer is a FREE upgrade to ATMOS.


No, people paid what they did for for the receivers with the understanding that the Atmos upgrade was forthcoming.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> I don't see why there's a fee to upgrade to Auro at all. It's nothing more than an upmixer at this point. If they want widespread adoption, there should be no up charge.
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


If they want/desire "widespread adoption" they are going to need to do a lot more than what they're doing currently.... which is not a whole lot.


----------



## asoofi1

noah katz said:


> Some people don't like to work for free.
> 
> 
> 
> No, people paid what they did for for the receivers with the understanding that the Atmos upgrade was forthcoming.


It's not about working for free...it's about the business model Auro is following to gain market share. Their current model is a step backward, be it lack licensing agreement or just bad timing to ship with units. Customers will be turned off by the nuisance and less likely to adopt. I am.

If Pioneer has licensed in time and priced auro into their units like dolby has for decades, great. Milestones are being met, where they could not with D&M for whatever reason.


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> We make less and have higher taxes, so it will still hit us the most, so stop complaining!


LOL you make more to pay all the high taxes but then end up with less


----------



## ambesolman

NorthSky said:


> You kidding right? ...Free lunch, really, in this passionate audio hobby/business of ours?



Atmos was included or a free FW update. I see no reason why auro should be any different. If I want these new audio enhancements, I already pony up for a new receiver and more speakers. I'll be damned of I'm going to pay AGAIN to use it all. 
I'm waiting for 2nd or 3rd gen regardless, maybe Auro will have gotten a reality check by then.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## pasender91

You don't get ATMOS for free, you pay for it in the high price of the AVR, with a nice sticker "Atmos upgradable" for some brands, or included for D+M group, but in any case there is an associated cost 

Auro has a license cost attached to it, so Denon "cannot" provide the upgrade for free.
And as already mentioned, this Auro license is 10x more expensive in some high-end AVRs, so consider yourself lucky , hehe


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> Sorry I stand corrected I just assumed on the spec sheet in listening modes 11.1 advanced....
> sorry if I mistook that for adding external amp for a two grand receiver that surprised me


My feeling as well, you are not alone on this...


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Is that right? Will XT32 actually _add _the notch as opposed to just preserving it if it sees it there and knows that Atmos-enabled speakers are being used?





Selden Ball said:


> It occurred to me that one way of preserving the notch would be simply not to EQ at all in the appropriate frequency range. I think Batpig's successful use of nonEnabled speakers makes this theory unlikely, though.





kbarnes701 said:


> batpig isn't saying that the notch is preserved though - he is saying that the notch is_ created _by XT32. I am wondering if it is.


"Preserving" and "creating" are really the same thing in this context -- the notch is incoporated into the target curve for the Atmos enabled speakers. Remember we had a whole discussion about this, especially in light of the revelation that the Atmos enabled speakers had the HRTF notch physically built into the speaker with passive analog filters. Thus if the notch wasn't part of the target curve then the room EQ would try to "flatten" it out when calibrating to the standard target curve. 

So if it's an "official" Atmos enabled speaker with the HRTF notch built in, the room EQ will "preserve" what it hears. If the notch isn't there it will try to put it in, i.e. "create" it as part of the response. The point is that the notch is part of the target curve, so the correction algorithm will just do its best to make sure it's incorporated into the final, corrected response. 

As a reminder I asked Chris K about this on FB which is the first we heard about this, and he confirmed it again in an Audioholics article (although that was later edited out with a "talk to Dolby" rephrasing). Here's what he said on FB (with my highlights).....

*Chris Kyriakakis:* The changes include a custom Dolby-required target curve for the up-firing Atmos speakers. It’s based on HRTF cues that give the impression of virtual height. *So MultEQ will calibrate those speakers to the Dolby target curve*.

We know from Chris and other sources that Dolby worked very closely with the various room EQ partners to make sure the REQ was "certified" to work with the Dolby enabled speakers. This process almost certainly included making sure the HRTF cues were preserved during calibration.

The open question is how much work the room EQ will do to meet the target curve. If it "hears" a non Dolby enabled speaker (like my setup) is it authorized to apply enough narrow boost/cut to fully recreate the notches? Or will it be a little less aggressive and merely nudge it along towards the target (with the assumption that some of the notch is already supplied by the physical filters in the speaker)? But either way it's unambiguous that that MultEQ will TRY to make the corrected response incorporate the notches.



Selden Ball said:


> Of course, using REW to measure the preamp outputs would be one way to find out for sure.


I can't think of a way to discretely measure those channels with MultEQ filters applied. Can you?


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> I no have no Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) and when I watched 'TF4' it automatically defaulted to the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> You no even need to go in the 'Setup Audio' menu, none needed @ all.
> 
> Try it, you'll see.  ...When the Main Menu appears, simply click on 'Play'.


Okay. I checked. And it does not work for the 3D Disk.
It does get the D-THD with the 2D though.
Strange..


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. I checked. And it does not work for the 3D Disk.
> It does get the D-THD with the 2D though.
> Strange..


Strange indeed because I was referring to the 3D disc version. The player I used @ that time was an Oppo 103. That's one of the main players I use normally for 3D stuff (I got three other 3D Blu-ray players). 

Which 3D BD player you use?

- Option 2: Press the "Audio" button on your remote control, to access Dolby TrueHD 7.1
- Option 3: Select Setup in TF4 Main disc Menu, then select the appropriate audio soundtrack.
- Option 4: When in the Audio Setup menu of TF4, do nothing, come back to the Main Menu, and click on 'Play'.

And of course Option 1 was automatic default, just like I first told you. And for me it was D TrueHD 7.1 with the 3D disc version. What was it for you? 

Also, what pre/pro (or receiver) is yours? ...And last, which 3D HDTV (or 3D front projector)? 
{I'm trying to locate a handshake issue, or an incompatibility perhaps somehow somewhere...}

The entire "route" has to be 3D here. Then the sound should just follow its own usual routine.


----------



## Selden Ball

> Originally Posted by Selden Ball
> Of course, using REW to measure the preamp outputs would be one way to find out for sure.





batpig said:


> I can't think of a way to discretely measure those channels with MultEQ filters applied. Can you?


Calibrate the system (including upfiring speakers) with Audyssey as usual. Afterward, use REW to record the frequency response of the preamp output (not the in-room microphone response) of one of the Dolby Atmos Enabled channels with and without Audyssey. Without Audyssey, the preamp output should be perfectly flat. With Audyssey engaged, the preamp output should be the inverse of the room response, including the HRTF curve.


----------



## Selden Ball

People might be getting a little tired of this, but I though I'd provide another testimonial of the quality of the DSU upmixer for another non-Atmos soundtrack.

I watched _Cloverfield_ this evening. It has a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with extremely intense bass/LFE during large fractions of the movie. DSU enhanced the experience to an amazing degree. The Rear Surround channels were quite active at appropriate times, for example. When the protagonists ran through a short tunnel not long after the beginning of the movie, echoes came from all around, including overhead. The final act also had many overflights of jets and helicopters, not to mention roars of the monster, the majority of which came from above, all traveling in appropriate directions.

It was fun


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> Calibrate the system (including upfiring speakers) with Audyssey as usual. Afterward, use REW to record the frequency response of the preamp output (not the in-room microphone response) of one of the Dolby Atmos Enabled channels with and without Audyssey. Without Audyssey, the preamp output should be perfectly flat. With Audyssey engaged, the preamp output should be the inverse of the room response, including the HRTF curve.


But how do I feed a test signal to that channel to measure? That's the problem.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

batpig said:


> But how do I feed a test signal to that channel to measure? That's the problem.


your AVR should be able to send a test signal to each channel, each AVR is a little distance but the levels options for each speaker should play a test tone that you might be able to use.


----------



## batpig

Daniel Chaves said:


> your AVR should be able to send a test signal to each channel, each AVR is a little distance but the levels options for each speaker should play a test tone that you might be able to use.


Sorry but you're not understanding. The internal pink noise test tones are useless for what we are discussing. And there is no way to use them with Audyssey EQ engaged.


----------



## batpig

Just to back up what Keith reported recently....

I picked up TF4 (couldn't bring myself to pay full price but stumbled upon one for 10 bucks on craigslist) and am watching it now. Besides the fact that the dialogue and acting is as insipid as I feared, it is somewhat entertaining for the spectacle and the visual effects and whatnot are of course top notch. 

However, this is largely a sh!tty showcase for Atmos. Not that it's a bad sound mix -- the sound is gnarly -- but I am just shocked at how little the overhead speakers are used. I mean, they are just dead silent the vast majority of the time. Thankfully I don't have to pay much attention to the plot so I don't feel guilty about standing by the up firing speakers to listen more closely. But man, it's just so friggin sparse. No ambiance, no whooshes, no music, no explosions or shrapnel fragments, just a very occasional tail end of a zap effect. The effects, when present, are very discrete, and as Keith noted are totally unlike the constant ambient enhancement of DSU, but the problem is they are barely there. 

Honestly, I don't think think this is intentional sparseness, I think this is just a half assed Atmos effort. Once I started paying attention to this, I would replay moments tailormade for obvious discrete Atmos-ness like planes, helicopters, missiles zooming directly overhead. Atmos speakers? Dead silent. We aren't even talking about just artistic discretion to not extend music or ambiance overhead. I mean, a friggin jet fighter flies from the direct center of the screen straight at you, over you, and then behind you, and there is zilch in the Atmos speakers. That's just lazy. 

So those of you who have been underwhelmed by the lack of Atmos-osity in TF4 demos, it's not you. Now I understand why the review that was linked a week or two ago was underwhelmed by the Atmos mix vs the standard 7.1 THD presentation. It's because the Atmos mix barely adds anything. 

I mean, if the alien mothership looming over skyscrapers and dropping a giant cruise ship or pickup truck directly on the characters heads isn't enough incentive to throw a little bone to the overhead channels, you know they aren't even trying. 

Reference audio? Yes. But barely a token Atmos effort.


----------



## pasender91

Selden Ball said:


> People might be getting a little tired of this, but I though I'd provide another testimonial of the quality of the DSU upmixer for another non-Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I watched _Cloverfield_ this evening. It has a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with extremely intense bass/LFE during large fractions of the movie. DSU enhanced the experience to an amazing degree. The Rear Surround channels were quite active at appropriate times, for example. When the protagonists ran through a short tunnel not long after the beginning of the movie, echoes came from all around, including overhead. The final act also had many overflights of jets and helicopters, not to mention roars of the monster, the majority of which came from above, all traveling in appropriate directions.
> 
> It was fun


No, we are never tired of DSU reviews, this brings info whether this technology is good or not.
One more positive review btw 

Bring them on !!!! (as an inglorious bastard once said )


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> "Preserving" and "creating" are really the same thing in this context -- the notch is incoporated into the target curve for the Atmos enabled speakers. Remember we had a whole discussion about this, especially in light of the revelation that the Atmos enabled speakers had the HRTF notch physically built into the speaker with passive analog filters. Thus if the notch wasn't part of the target curve then the room EQ would try to "flatten" it out when calibrating to the standard target curve.


Yep - so far, so good...



batpig said:


> So if it's an "official" Atmos enabled speaker with the HRTF notch built in, the room EQ will "preserve" what it hears. If the notch isn't there it will try to put it in, i.e. "create" it as part of the response. The point is that the notch is part of the target curve, so the correction algorithm will just do its best to make sure it's incorporated into the final, corrected response.


Gotcha. Thanks.



batpig said:


> The open question is how much work the room EQ will do to meet the target curve. If it "hears" a non Dolby enabled speaker (like my setup) is it authorized to apply enough narrow boost/cut to fully recreate the notches? Or will it be a little less aggressive and merely nudge it along towards the target (with the assumption that some of the notch is already supplied by the physical filters in the speaker)? But either way it's unambiguous that that MultEQ will TRY to make the corrected response incorporate the notches.


Yep - makes sense.



batpig said:


> I can't think of a way to discretely measure those channels with MultEQ filters applied. Can you?


Hmmm. Well REW hasn't yet caught up with Atmos speaker layouts and is still limited to measuring the surrounds. I guess you could run XT32 which will create the required filters for the 2 upfiring channels and then swap the speaker leads over so that the upfirers are temporarily designated as surrounds. Then go into REW and send tones to the 'surrounds', which will now be the upfirers. Oh - thinking out loud here - that won’t work because with Audyssey engaged it will understand the surrounds as surrounds and apply the filters incorrectly, applying those it created for the surrounds. So the answer is, no I can't


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> People might be getting a little tired of this, but I though I'd provide another testimonial of the quality of the DSU upmixer for another non-Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I watched _Cloverfield_ this evening. It has a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with extremely intense bass/LFE during large fractions of the movie. DSU enhanced the experience to an amazing degree. The Rear Surround channels were quite active at appropriate times, for example. When the protagonists ran through a short tunnel not long after the beginning of the movie, echoes came from all around, including overhead. The final act also had many overflights of jets and helicopters, not to mention roars of the monster, the majority of which came from above, all traveling in appropriate directions.
> 
> It was fun


Not getting tired here - I think all these reports from personal experience add value to the thread. Cloverfield is a great movie - I will give that a spin. Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just to back up what Keith reported recently....
> 
> I picked up TF4 (couldn't bring myself to pay full price but stumbled upon one for 10 bucks on craigslist) and am watching it now. Besides the fact that the dialogue and acting is as insipid as I feared, it is somewhat entertaining for the spectacle and the visual effects and whatnot are of course top notch.
> 
> However, this is largely a sh!tty showcase for Atmos. Not that it's a bad sound mix -- the sound is gnarly -- but I am just shocked at how little the overhead speakers are used. I mean, they are just dead silent the vast majority of the time. Thankfully I don't have to pay much attention to the plot so I don't feel guilty about standing by the up firing speakers to listen more closely. But man, it's just so friggin sparse. No ambiance, no whooshes, no music, no explosions or shrapnel fragments, just a very occasional tail end of a zap effect. The effects, when present, are very discrete, and as Keith noted are totally unlike the constant ambient enhancement of DSU, but the problem is they are barely there.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think think this is intentional sparseness, I think this is just a half assed Atmos effort. Once I started paying attention to this, I would replay moments tailormade for obvious discrete Atmos-ness like planes, helicopters, missiles zooming directly overhead. Atmos speakers? Dead silent. We aren't even talking about just artistic discretion to not extend music or ambiance overhead. I mean, a friggin jet fighter flies from the direct center of the screen straight at you, over you, and then behind you, and there is zilch in the Atmos speakers. That's just lazy.
> 
> So those of you who have been underwhelmed by the lack of Atmos-osity in TF4 demos, it's not you. Now I understand why the review that was linked a week or two ago was underwhelmed by the Atmos mix vs the standard 7.1 THD presentation. It's because the Atmos mix barely adds anything.
> 
> I mean, if the alien mothership looming over skyscrapers and dropping a giant cruise ship or pickup truck directly on the characters heads isn't enough incentive to throw a little bone to the overhead channels, you know they aren't even trying.
> 
> Reference audio? Yes. But barely a token Atmos effort.


100% right. With all my amps save for the overheads turned off, there are incredibly long periods where nothing at all comes from the overheads. The room is just dead silent. Then there might be an occasional little swoosh or something, but again, spread out infrequently. I was shocked to hear all this silence, especially, as you rightly say, there are so many opportunities to bring the overheads into play. A poor demo of the capabilities of Atmos and one that will do Dolby no good IMO if people are going to judge Atmos on this basis.

HST, it is a kickass soundtrack as you note - but not because of Atmos unfortunately.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Selden Ball said:


> People might be getting a little tired of this, but I though I'd provide another testimonial of the quality of the DSU upmixer for another non-Atmos soundtrack.


A few new Onkyo Atmos AVR owners with only 7.1 setups (ie. no height speakers) would disagree on the effectiveness of DSU vs. DD PLIIx so much so that they are reinstalling the previous non-Atmos firmware update in order to remove the DSU and restore DD PLIIx.


----------



## ss9001

batpig said:


> Just to back up what Keith reported recently....I picked up TF4 (couldn't bring myself to pay full price but stumbled upon one for 10 bucks on craigslist)


LOL 

I didn't get the deal you did but I wasn't going to pay $33 for the combo @amazon. Found a new copy on Ebay for 25, in anticipation of getting into Atmos soon 

Sorry to read from you & Keith it isn't the experience you had hoped. 

I keep checking various sites like digitalbits, hidefdigest & dvdtalk for more Atmos announcements. I hope the 4 aren't it for this yr.

keeping fingers crossed for more B4 Christmas


----------



## ss9001

jdsmoothie said:


> A number of new Onkyo Atmos AVR owners with only 7.1 setups (ie. no height speakers) would disagree on the effectiveness of DSU vs. DD PLIIx so much so that they are reinstalling the previous non-Atmos firmware update in order to remove the DSU and restore DD PLIIx.


I didn't think reverting back to old FW was doable. 

Where did they get it? I"m not familiar with how Onkyo does it, but some mfgs I do follow don't put previous FW on their web sites for either AVRs or players. I know there's ways to get FW backdoor but it's usually dependent on some insider making it available to those that find out about the person and contact them directly; IOW not freely available to all. At least that's been my experience with Pioneer products 

and with players, the ones I'm familiar with (Pioneer, Oppo, Toshiba) wouldn't allow older FW installations.

was the dissatisfaction with DSU with movies or with music? 

I have the same minor "concern" with it on music since sounds in music aren't expected to be projected from overhead & I'm a surround music junkie since the 70's quad era. Some audiophile purists won't embrace surround because to them it's not natural to hear sounds from behind you and this would only add to that. So are we talking about 2 channel music purists or people who enjoy surround with music?

or do they prefer IIx with movies, too?


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Not getting tired here - I think all these reports from personal experience add value to the thread. Cloverfield is a great movie - I will give that a spin. Thanks.


 I found both the script and the soundfield entertaining. The camera work, on the other hand, not so much. The "found footage" paradigm, with an atrociously unstable handheld viewpoint, was carried just a bit too far. No, not "just a bit", absurdly too far. It seems to me that a mumble at the beginning about "Ooh, fancy camera!" to imply things like auto-stabilization, etc, would have been enough to justify providing a much better visual experience. Supposedly they had to keep reminding the cameramen to do a poor job.


----------



## jdsmoothie

ss9001 said:


> I didn't think reverting back to old FW was doable.
> 
> Where did they get it? I"m not familiar with how Onkyo does it, but some mfgs I do follow don't put previous FW on their web sites for either AVRs or players. I know there's ways to get FW backdoor but it's usually dependent on some insider making it available to those that find out about the person and contact them directly; IOW not freely available to all. At least that's been my experience with Pioneer products
> 
> and with players, the ones I'm familiar with (Pioneer, Oppo, Toshiba) wouldn't allow older FW installations.
> 
> was the dissatisfaction with DSU with movies or with music?
> 
> I have the same minor "concern" with it on music since sounds in music aren't expected to be projected from overhead & I'm a surround music junkie since the 70's quad era. Some audiophile purists won't embrace surround because to them it's not natural to hear sounds from behind you and this would only add to that. So are we talking about 2 channel music purists or people who enjoy surround with music?
> 
> or do they prefer IIx with movies, too?


Yes, it turns out it is very doable as confirmed by one owner who did it already as well as an Onkyo rep I spoke with; however, you must have kept the previous update as Onkyo has removed it from their website, listing only the Atmos update at this time. Reinstalling the old firmware removes both Atmos and DSU. The reasons given to revert are for both movies and music.


----------



## Selden Ball

jdsmoothie said:


> A number of new Onkyo Atmos AVR owners with only 7.1 setups (ie. no height speakers) would disagree on the effectiveness of DSU vs. DD PLIIx so much so that they are reinstalling the previous non-Atmos firmware update in order to remove the DSU and restore DD PLIIx.


Sorry. I probably should have emphasized that I have a 7.1.4 speaker configuration. I'll admit that I was surprised at how much was moved from the Side Surrounds to the Rear Surround channels, given that it was a 5.1 soundtrack. It would be nice if they could restore the ability for the end-user to adjust both front spread and front-to-back balancing. Maybe that'll be available in later generation products, along with the ability to up-mix to Front Wides. One can wish!


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Yeh, no issue when 2 or 4 heights are used. With my current 7.2 setup (Front Wide), I will continue using DTS Neo:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> A number of new Onkyo Atmos AVR owners with only 7.1 setups (ie. no height speakers) would disagree on the effectiveness of DSU vs. DD PLIIx so much so that they are reinstalling the previous non-Atmos firmware update in order to remove the DSU and restore DD PLIIx.


Makes you wonder why they did an update to add Atmos if they don't intend having any overhead speaker capability.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> LOL
> 
> I didn't get the deal you did but I wasn't going to pay $33 for the combo @amazon. Found a new copy on Ebay for 25, in anticipation of getting into Atmos soon
> 
> Sorry to read from you & Keith it isn't the experience you had hoped.


Don't get me wrong - it is a fantastic aural experience, and there is some good overhead content. But it could have been so much more. And when I compared TF4 in Atmos vs TF4 in DSU, the Atmos presentation was a clear winner - not just for overhead effects but a 'crisper' experience throughout the entire soundstage.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I found both the script and the soundfield entertaining. The camera work, on the other hand, not so much. The "found footage" paradigm, with an atrociously unstable handheld viewpoint, was carried just a bit too far. No, not "just a bit", absurdly too far. It seems to me that a mumble at the beginning about "Ooh, fancy camera!" to imply things like auto-stabilization, etc, would have been enough to justify providing a much better visual experience. Supposedly they had to keep reminding the cameramen to do a poor job.


IKWYM and generally dislike 'found footage' movies but in the case of Cloverfield it didn't spoil it for me. I was too busy being scared  Especially when those rates start running down the tunnel... wow! And the sound is sublime...


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Makes you wonder why they did an update to add Atmos if they don't intend having any overhead speaker capability.


 Quite a few people always update to the most recently released firmware, whether or not they need the fixes or features that it provides. And some people have been writing glowing testimonials for DSU, which is bound to have some effect. (I can't imagine who _they_ might be.  ) I think this might lead to a public-relations problem, though, if Onkyo forces people to upgrade to Atmos when they release firmware that also includes important bug fixes.


----------



## bargervais

jdsmoothie said:


> A number of new Onkyo Atmos AVR owners with only 7.1 setups (ie. no height speakers) would disagree on the effectiveness of DSU vs. DD PLIIx so much so that they are reinstalling the previous non-Atmos firmware update in order to remove the DSU and restore DD PLIIx.


Can you clarify why they would do that I think DSU on my 737 for 
blu-ray listening is excellent....


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Strange indeed because I was referring to the 3D disc version. The player I used @ that time was an Oppo 103. That's one of the main players I use normally for 3D stuff (I got three other 3D Blu-ray players).
> 
> Which 3D BD player you use?


PS3
I can try with another BD player I have but it's not 3D capable.



> - Option 2: Press the "Audio" button on your remote control, to access Dolby TrueHD 7.1
> - Option 3: Select Setup in TF4 Main disc Menu, then select the appropriate audio soundtrack.
> - Option 4: When in the Audio Setup menu of TF4, do nothing, come back to the Main Menu, and click on 'Play'.


I have Onkyo NR809 receiver and I cycled through the audio, the best it comes up with the DD-EX (with the 3D disk) once the movie kicks in. For 2D though it does automatically show D-THD
One more thing to try is PS3's audio menu (but far as I remember the PJ does blocks all OSD when playing 3D. But I will give it a shot)




> And of course Option 1 was automatic default, just like I first told you. And for me it was D TrueHD 7.1 with the 3D disc version. What was it for you?


When I don't bother to select the audio track from disk menu, it always defaults to DD 5.1



> Also, what pre/pro (or receiver) is yours? ...And last, which 3D HDTV (or 3D front projector)?
> {I'm trying to locate a handshake issue, or an incompatibility perhaps somehow somewhere...}
> 
> The entire "route" has to be 3D here. Then the sound should just follow its own usual routine.


Onkyo NR809 and PJ is Acer H9500BD
Looks like that audio is hiding somewhere. I will hunt it down.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't get me wrong - it is a fantastic aural experience, and there is some good overhead content. But it could have been so much more. And when I compared TF4 in Atmos vs TF4 in DSU, the Atmos presentation was a clear winner - not just for overhead effects but a 'crisper' experience throughout the entire soundstage.


I've been thinking (always dangerous!) a little about the soundstaging of DSU. One of its effects seems to be to often make it hard to say that "that sound came from that speaker." The soundstages of monopole speakers (at least in my room) don't seem as distinct as one might expect. In other words, it often seems to be smearing sounds between two appropriately adjacent speakers. I suppose one could describe it as creating a "phantom speaker" effect with different locations for that phantom, but that description doesn't feel quite right. It doesn't always seem to do that, though. Vocals usually stay properly centered in front when that's appropriate. Also, to pick a recent example, the directionality of the aircraft overflights (e.g. from front to back on the right side) seemed highly appropriate while I was watching the later scenes in _Cloverfield_. Of course, a lot of that has to be attributed to how the original soundtrack was mixed. 

It'd be really nice if Dolby would release a white paper describing how DSU is designed to work.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Quite a few people always update to the most recently released firmware, whether or not they need the fixes or features that it provides. And some people have been writing glowing testimonials for DSU, which is bound to have some effect. (I can't imagine who _they_ might be.  ) I think this might lead to a public-relations problem, though, if Onkyo forces people to upgrade to Atmos when they release firmware that also includes important bug fixes.


Good points. Personally, I never, ever update FW unless I need the feature or the fix which the update provides. I once bricked a player with a FW update, despite following the update procedure to the letter, and of course the manufacturer then just points you to the warning that if the FW update bricks your unit, well, tough sh!t. So before I do an update I find out what the update is for, and if I don't need it (new feature/s) or am not having a problem (bug fixes), I pass. I always remember an Onkyo update that people were rushing to apply - all that it did was add Chinese menu support! The sole exception to this is my Oppo 93 which is set to update automatically after checking at switch-on. I let the Oppo do it because a) updates are often needed to remain compatible with new Bluray discs and b) Oppo has a stellar reputation. I was caught out by my Denon 5200 which did an update when I was playing around the menus the day I installed it and I selected something that kicked off an update via the Internet - fortunately it all went as planned but I doubt if I needed it.

As for the glowing testimonials for DSU, they were all for content played back via a full Atmos, 4-overhead-speaker, system, not a 5.1 or 7.1 system! It seems entirely bizarre to me that anyone with no overhead speakers would install an update whose sole purpose is to add support for, er, overhead speakers. No wonder some of them were disappointed. My advice to them would be to install some overhead speakers and then try DSU again.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Can you clarify why they would do that I think DSU on my 737 for
> blu-ray listening is excellent....


They probably think PLIIx sounds different to DSU on a legacy system. It might - but it would be really amusing if Dolby were to confirm that on a legacy system DSU retains the 'core' PLII and there is no difference at all - only in the mind of the listener. It may be the usual subjective _"I can hear a night and day difference and so can my dog, and my girlfriend who isn’t even in the same room at the time..."_ I suspect.

Of course, there is always the possibility that DSU and the older ProLogic are totally and utterly different when passed by a legacy system, but AFAIK Dolby haven't released any info on that.


----------



## Selden Ball

Well, DSU is missing some features when compared to later generations of PLII. One in particular is the ability to adjust front-to-back balance.

ETA, they seem to be taking a "we know what's best for you" stance, much like Microsoft did with Windows 8. So far it hasn't had quite the same backlash, but it certainly is a disappointment.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I've been thinking (always dangerous!) a little about the soundstaging of DSU. One of its effects seems to be to often make it hard to say that "that sound came from that speaker." The soundstages of monopole speakers (at least in my room) don't seem as distinct as one might expect. In other words, it often seems to be smearing sounds between two appropriately adjacent speakers. I suppose one could describe it as creating a "phantom speaker" effect with different locations for that phantom, but that description doesn't feel quite right. It doesn't always seem to do that, though. Vocals usually stay properly centered in front when that's appropriate. Also, to pick a recent example, the directionality of the aircraft overflights (e.g. from front to back on the right side) seemed highly appropriate while I was watching the later scenes in _Cloverfield_. Of course, a lot of that has to be attributed to how the original soundtrack was mixed.
> 
> It'd be really nice if Dolby would release a white paper describing how DSU is designed to work.


IDK. Certainly the centre channel alwas seems to be 'anchored'. And, batpig-like, I have been known to stand on my chair with my ear to one of the ceiling speakers while DSU is on. Quite often the overheads are entirely silent, eg if the scene is just dialogue or there is nothing to put up in the overheads - and equally as often, the overheads are playing away with vigor, almost always when music is being played. I can't figure out what it is doing, but I know I like it! Sooner or later I will stop all this futzing around and just sit back and enjoy the movie and the extra immersion without trying to figure where it is all coming from. In my book, if you can hear where the sound is coming from (ie localisable to a speaker) that is not a good thing generally. I expect my speakers to simply disappear, to melt away and just leave sound in the room. But when you are desperately trying to identify where every darn sound is coming from, this illusion is sure to be broken.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Well, DSU is missing some features when compared to later generations of PLII. One in particular is the ability to adjust front-to-back balance.
> 
> ETA, they seem to be taking a "we know what's best for you" stance, much like Microsoft did with Windows 8. So far it hasn't had quite the same backlash, but it certainly is a disappointment.



True - this could make a difference if someone routinely deviates from the default. I think Roger explained some of this, but as is often the case with me, I followed it 100% at the time but can now no longer remember exactly what he said. The bottom line was that they did it for a reason I think.


----------



## jdsmoothie

bargervais said:


> Can you clarify why they would do that I think DSU on my 737 for
> blu-ray listening is excellent....


Uh no. You'd have to ask them, keeping in mind we're only talking setups with no current height speakers, rather only Surr Backs.


----------



## aaranddeeman

westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.
> 
> Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.
> 
> Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.
> 
> Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.
> 
> The following row of speaker is the *front top speaker*. Now whilst the middle top was not really that important for Atmos the front top row has little to none importance for Auro. Therfore my suggestion for this row would be in-ceiling or Dolby enabled speakers. If the overall amount of channels is of relevance this row could be muted during Auro playback and the amplifier could be used to drive front height speakers.
> 
> The last row according to the Denon sheet is the *front height speaker* which again like the rear height are direct firing speakers tilted to the MLP. The difference between Atmos and Auro for this row would be that the speakers should be attached 30-45 degrees which leave them sometimes in the middle of the room (in my case for instance) Auro requires them to be in line with front row speakers / the screen and not much relevance is given to the angle. As these speakers do not hold much relevance for Atmos, my suggestion would be to install them by the screen and maybe even mute them for Atmos. As suggested above front top for Atmos and front height for Auro could be run over the same amp using a switch in between.
> 
> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.
> 
> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...
> 
> *Addition on September 12th* In the meantime I got feedback from Auro tgemselves. I forwarded this post to them and they replied that they don't see any issue with using this setup for Auro!


Very nice and thank you.
This essentially means if you have a 5.x or 7.x and add 
TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR, FHL and FHR (with witching between TFL,TFR and FHL, FHR) for achiving Atmos and Auro

The only question is about the "Height center speakers". Some of us (like me) have their Center already above the screen. What happens in this situation. Will the same center do double duty or we need to add another just nearby?


----------



## ss9001

Selden Ball said:


> It'd be really nice if Dolby would release a white paper describing how DSU is designed to work.


agreed.

on PLIIx vs DSU, I'm probably in a quasi-unique situation in that I fully intend to keep my Pioneer SC-09TX with IIx along with the Atmos AVR. If I don't like DSU with music, I have a fallback position with hi-quality players connected to it.

I can choose which algorithms to use for various sources. It requires switching and 1 set of multichannel analog inputs, which the SC-09 has, but I already have that capability and use the SC-68 that way so changing to a new AVR will be no big deal.

Stu has also done this with his Sherwood 972 so he can use its Trinnov with his Denon 4311 amps.

I realize I'm lucky to be able to keep IIx just in case. The vast majority won't be able to do this. Hopefully DSU will please most of us on music.

But words like "smearing" concern me on its effect on music.


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> Well, DSU is missing some features when compared to later generations of PLII. One in particular is the ability to adjust front-to-back balance..


That's only in music mode. In cinema mode there is no adjustment just like DSU. And realistically how many people tweak the music settings and even realize they are adjustable? And especially for cinema content? So I'm not really sure what's happening because JD says it's not just music upmix. 

If you are talking about just matrixing 5.1 to 7.1 that is trivial, and I'm sure DSU doesnt touch the front 3 channels just like PLIIx (or probably NeoX). How different could it possibly be from PLIIx just extracting 4 surround channels from 2? I would be willing to beg most people couldn't pick out DSU vs NeoX vs PLIIx in a blind test performing this function. 

And, even with 2ch upmix of video content I can't imagine DSU is THAT much different from PLIIx. If I'm watching a TV show or a movie I find PLII and NeoX virtually indistinguishable in cinema mode upmixing to 5.1. So I am a bit boggled as to what people are unhappy about. I tend to think it's just unrealistic expectations.


----------



## westmd

aaranddeeman said:


> Very nice and thank you.
> This essentially means if you have a 5.x or 7.x and add
> TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR, FHL and FHR (with witching between TFL,TFR and FHL, FHR) for achiving Atmos and Auro


Yes and Yamaha even offers two different speaker setups that can be assigned to a sound format, so perfect for installing these two pairs of speakers!



> The only question is about the "Height center speakers". Some of us (like me) have their Center already above the screen. What happens in this situation. Will the same center do double duty or we need to add another just nearby?


I honestly don't think that two speakers next to each other make much sense. I would try to install a center below the screen and assign that to the main center and the one above to center height. Obviously this is only if center height is even suppirted which is not the case with D&M AFAIK!


----------



## Selden Ball

Well, DSU does seem to be doing more than simple matrix decoding, since overhead speakers do generate output. Still, I find the attitude of "We know what's best. Don't worry your little head about it." rather aggravating. They're our entertainment systems. Upmixing is already producing sounds which were not intended by the mixers of the original soundtracks. We should be able to adjust that output to meet our own requirements in more ways than they're currently making available. *grump*


----------



## aaranddeeman

westmd said:


> I honestly don't think that two speakers next to each other make much sense. I would try to install a center below the screen and assign that to the main center and the one above to center height. Obviously this is only if center height is even suppirted which is not the case with D&M AFAIK!


Oh, That's true. So if someone spends that $300 for Auro upgrade, then it's a waste (At least partly)


----------



## westmd

aaranddeeman said:


> Oh, That's true. So if someone spends that $300 for Auro upgrade, then it's a waste (At least partly)


IMHO auro already works brilliantly in a 9.1 setup without center height and without VOG, so I wouldn't say it is partly waste! I am really looking forward for the first AUROMATIC / DSU comparisons on exactly the same material and the same setup!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> IMHO auro already works brilliantly in a 9.1 setup without center height and without VOG, so I wouldn't say it is partly waste! I am really looking forward for the first AUROMATIC / DSU comparisons on exactly the same material and the same setup!


Denon and the other companies need to have some sort of speaker remapping in place along with these Auro3D (and hopefully DTS) upgrades, so that you can use Atmos speaker locations for Auro (and DTS) and vice versa. If they expect you to re-arrange your speaker layout for each format, that isn't going to go over well.


----------



## kingwiggi

UKTexan said:


> Just received an email from my dealer regarding the Auro upgrade for Denon receivers. Current estimated price for the US market is $250 to $300, final pricing is not yet confirmed.


Personally I'm much more likely to save my money and upgrade to next years model when the time comes than pay circa $250-$300 for just the Auro firmware upgrade.


----------



## RichB

asoofi1 said:


> Not quite. Both have been steadily improved in their respective areas. 3D sales are still going strong...in fact, majority of pj and av support the technology more than ever, so certainly not a novelty as consumer demand is still driving the supply of both hardware and content.


 
3D on DirecTV is gone. There are no in-store demos because retailers and manufacturers do not believe it moves product.
Some new BD's are coming with a 3D version with the 2D, this is likely due limited sales for the 3D only version (especially at a premium).
3D video support inexpensive to implement and required to match competitors, so it will not go away. 
It is ubiquitous but not a significant success because it does not drive sales nor increases the market size.

Will 3D audio, drive sales and increase the market size beyond enthusiasts? 
Only time will tell.

- Rich


----------



## cannga

I enjoy lurking in this thread and my problem is it moves so fast I have a hard time keeping up. 

Thought I saw a recent post, linking to some other post perhaps, about next generation Atmos renderer will NOT have capacity to find and store the exact speaker position in 3D space. Is that true? And if so is it NOT, or NEVER? TIA


----------



## westmd

kingwiggi said:


> Personally I'm much more likely to save my money and upgrade to next years model when the time comes than pay circa $250-$300 for just the Auro firmware upgrade.


Big question is if auro ever going to be for *free *with the initial purchase or will stay a payable upgrade like Audyssey Pro.


----------



## Wookii

RichB said:


> Will 3D audio, drive sales and increase the market size beyond enthusiasts?
> Only time will tell.
> 
> - Rich


Sadly, I don't think it will. I think it will become as ubiquitous as 3D video though once every TV and soundbar has an Atmos mode and a couple of up firing drivers in it.

Our only hope as enthusiasts can be that that is enough for the movie studios to make 3D formats ubiquitous too and make them a wholesale replacement for 5.1 and 7.1 formats.


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> Denon and the other companies need to have some sort of speaker remapping in place along with these Auro3D (and hopefully DTS) upgrades, so that you can use Atmos speaker locations for Auro (and DTS) and vice versa. If they expect you to re-arrange your speaker layout for each format, that isn't going to go over well.


Patrick Schappert from the Grobi store got both Atmos and Auro in his store and says Atmos sounds great with an Auro speaker setup!


----------



## jdsmoothie

westmd said:


> Big question is if auro ever going to be for *free *with the initial purchase or *will stay a payable upgrade* like Audyssey Pro.


At this point, the latter due to Auro 3D licensing costs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> Patrick Schappert from the Grobi store got both Atmos and Auro in his store and says Atmos sounds great with an Auro speaker setup!


How about the other way 'round?


----------



## kingwiggi

westmd said:


> Big question is if auro ever going to be for *free *with the initial purchase or will stay a payable upgrade like Audyssey Pro.


Well thats like shooting yourself in the foot with a high calibre rifle. 

Nothing wrong with trying to be a niche product but are content creators going to produce consumer content for such a small audience.


----------



## doublewing11

This question is directed to kbarnes701.............

I'm assuming you are using Tannoy Di 5 DC speakers in your set up........with that assumption, here are a barrage of questions.

How far are each speaker mounted on ceiling speaker from MLP?

What are your listening habits......are you a reference type of guy? With this question, mainly looking for how dynamic the Tannoys are.
I would assume the Tannoy's in ceiling are capable keeping up with rest of your system?

So my conundrum.......

Still waiting on hearing about Roger Dressler's experience with his Di 6 DC'a once he receives Marantz 7702. If Roger allows me, plan to visit his room once all is dialed in and working. 

Roger is using the 6.......you are using the 5..........my ceiling cloud has room only for the Di 5 DC. If the 5 is dynamic enough for my room, I plan to purchase immediately.......but if not, I'm forced to implement Tannoy CMS 601 DC speakers and build backer boxes myself. 

Front speakers will be 9 ft/3m from MLP while rear will be 8 ft. I'm hoping your feedback on Di 5 DC's will help with decision.......giving up 3 db's between models is not much.....and with speakers close to MLP and the 5's fitting in cloud hidden away........I'm looking to get by with 5's.

BTW, most listening levels on current processor soon to be replaced Marantz 8801 are at -10 db's so it seems Di 5 DC's should be fine. 

Thanks


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> How about the other way 'round?


I didn't ask but thing is that the height speakers are supported by both Auro and Atmos whilst the 'classic' Atmos top speakers will most likely be silent for Auro as they are not being supported!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> I didn't ask but thing is that the height speakers are supported by both Auro and Atmos whilst the 'classic' Atmos top speakers will most likely be silent for Auro as they are not being supported!


But, couldn't the Atmos overheads get the "height" signals and blended VOG from Auro?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It seems entirely bizarre to me that anyone with no overhead speakers would install an update whose sole purpose is to add support for, er, overhead speakers.


It isn't all about overhead sound. Dolby has talked about DSU as new & improved surround processing. To that end it isn't unreasonable for people to want to use it for playing back 2-channel music on a 5.1 set-up, like they did with PLII.


kbarnes701 said:


> It might - but it would be really amusing if Dolby were to confirm that on a legacy system DSU retains the 'core' PLII and there is no difference at all - only in the mind of the listener.


I doubt any of Fosgate's PLII design is present in DSU, considering the former used full-band steering and the latter uses multi-band.


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> But, couldn't the Atmos overheads get the "height" signals and blended VOG from Auro?


If you have them arranged top middle there should be nothing wrong with assigning them as stereo VOG, bur you would still need front and back heights!


----------



## Roger Dressler

ambesolman said:


> Atmos was included or a free FW update. I see no reason why auro should be any different. If I want these new audio enhancements, I already pony up for a new receiver and more speakers. I'll be damned of I'm going to pay AGAIN to use it all.


The situations are different. Any receiver awaiting an Atmos upgrade already has the paid Dolby technology suite installed (TrueHD, DD+, PLIIz). No need to pay them again for Atmos.

OTOH, there's no current Auro technology in these AVRs. In that case, even though it will be made available to every owner, only some fraction will do the upgrade (even if it were free). Usually the technology suppliers prefer a 1:1 pay for play system rather than a blanket fee, especially when attach rate is so unpredictable.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> That's only in music mode. In cinema mode there is no adjustment just like DSU. And realistically how many people tweak the music settings and even realize they are adjustable? And especially for cinema content? So I'm not really sure what's happening because JD says it's not just music upmix.
> 
> If you are talking about just matrixing 5.1 to 7.1 that is trivial, and I'm sure DSU doesnt touch the front 3 channels just like PLIIx (or probably NeoX). How different could it possibly be from PLIIx just extracting 4 surround channels from 2? I would be willing to beg most people couldn't pick out DSU vs NeoX vs PLIIx in a blind test performing this function.
> 
> And, even with 2ch upmix of video content I can't imagine DSU is THAT much different from PLIIx. If I'm watching a TV show or a movie I find PLII and NeoX virtually indistinguishable in cinema mode upmixing to 5.1. So I am a bit boggled as to what people are unhappy about. I tend to think it's just unrealistic expectations.


I concur. It's expectation bias in all probability.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> Well thats like shooting yourself in the foot with a high calibre rifle.
> 
> Nothing wrong with trying to be a niche product but are content creators going to produce consumer content for such a small audience.


They are producing it for the movie theaters. It is then a fairly trivial matter to put it out on Bluray.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I concur. It's expectation bias in all probability.


I have to wonder, Keith, if you played something like T4 through a much larger Trinnov or Steinway/Lyngdorf processor based speaker system if more of the overhead signal might actually come from the overheads. I've been thinking about how these lower output rendering blocks re-interpret the object metadata instructions and whether or not much of the overhead information isn't getting folded into the main layer speakers either by a coding mistake on the part of Dolby or by design. 

The other possibility is that there was an Atmos conversion and/or authoring glitch in the soundtrack. If you view the Soundworks Collection video blurb about T4's soundtrack mixing, the engineers specifically state they used the overheads quite a bit. You and a few others are saying the Blu-ray has almost no overhead usage. Something doesn't jive.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kingwiggi said:


> Personally I'm much more likely to save my money and upgrade to next years model when the time comes than pay circa $250-$300 for just the Auro firmware upgrade.


I guess so. The more and more I go on reading this thread, it looks like waiting for another year would be worth .
Early adoption has it's advantages and disadvantages. May be later is better..


----------



## kbarnes701

doublewing11 said:


> This question is directed to kbarnes701.............
> 
> I'm assuming you are using Tannoy Di 5 DC speakers in your set up........with that assumption, here are a barrage of questions.


Correct assumption.



doublewing11 said:


> How far are each speaker mounted on ceiling speaker from MLP?


I can tell you that but it won’t be useful unless your room is the same as mine and you sit the same distance from the front wall. What is important are the angles. My Front Height set is mounted at 42° and my Top Middle set is at 85°. In my room, that puts the FH on the ceiling and the TM on the ceiling just slightly (5°) in front of MLP. It makes the speakers about 5ft apart front to back and, of course, in line with the front L&R laterally - all within Dolby spec.



doublewing11 said:


> What are your listening habits......are you a reference type of guy? With this question, mainly looking for how dynamic the Tannoys are.
> I would assume the Tannoy's in ceiling are capable keeping up with rest of your system?


I listen to movies only (no music) in the HT at a typical setting of -6dB on the MV. Room is heavily treated, system calibrated with XT32. The Tannoys will play at 106dB all day long so they have no problems at -6dB from Reference. See the spec sheet, *here*. 



doublewing11 said:


> So my conundrum.......
> 
> Still waiting on hearing about Roger Dressler's experience with his Di 6 DC'a once he receives Marantz 7702. If Roger allows me, plan to visit his room once all is dialed in and working.


That would be good.



doublewing11 said:


> Roger is using the 6.......you are using the 5..........my ceiling cloud has room only for the Di 5 DC. If the 5 is dynamic enough for my room, I plan to purchase immediately.......but if not, I'm forced to implement Tannoy CMS 601 DC speakers and build backer boxes myself.


Roger's room is a lot bigger than mine. I would use the Di6 probably if my room was bigger, but it isn't. I am 100% happy with the Di5. Also, consider what the speakers are doing: on the only Atmos disc we currently have (TF4) they are doing almost nothing 90% of the time, and for the other 10% they make very little noise compared with the mains. On DSU they are doing more but it is ambient sounds. Pretty much any half-decent speaker will work in those conditions, so long as it has the wide dispersion pattern Dolby mandate (90° all round for the Di5 - polar response graphs in the spec sheet).



doublewing11 said:


> Front speakers will be 9 ft/3m from MLP while rear will be 8 ft. I'm hoping your feedback on Di 5 DC's will help with decision.......giving up 3 db's between models is not much.....and with speakers close to MLP and the 5's fitting in cloud hidden away........I'm looking to get by with 5's.


Your speakers are significantly further away from MLP than mine are, but according to the specs, the Di5 will have no problem with that. I haven't put an SPL meter on the isolated overheads but I’d be amazed if they ever get to 85dB. I can do that test for you if you would find it useful - let me know. I can use TF4 Chapter 20 for Atmos and anything with a lot of overhead noise for DSU, all at -6dB on the MV.



doublewing11 said:


> BTW, most listening levels on current processor soon to be replaced Marantz 8801 are at -10 db's so it seems Di 5 DC's should be fine.
> 
> Thanks


Gosh, yes. -10dB is more than halving the power handling requirement compared with my listening levels. AAMOI before installing the Di5s I hooked them up to my (high performance) 2ch stereo music system and cranked them up to ear-bleeding levels and they handled it beautifully - no distortion and a love quality on human voice which belies their size. Only the low bass was lacking, as expected.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It isn't all about overhead sound. Dolby has talked about DSU as new & improved surround processing. To that end it isn't unreasonable for people to want to use it for playing back 2-channel music on a 5.1 set-up, like they did with PLII.


Fair comment. I always forget people listen to music in their HT. It's a common failing of mine.



sdurani said:


> I doubt any of Fosgate's PLII design is present in DSU, considering the former used full-band steering and the latter uses multi-band.


Good point.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> They probably think PLIIx sounds different to DSU on a legacy system. It might - but it would be really amusing if Dolby were to confirm that on a legacy system DSU retains the 'core' PLII and there is no difference at all - only in the mind of the listener. It may be the usual subjective _"I can hear a night and day difference and so can my dog, and my girlfriend who isn’t even in the same room at the time..."_ I suspect.
> 
> Of course, there is always the possibility that DSU and the older ProLogic are totally and utterly different when passed by a legacy system, but AFAIK Dolby haven't released any info on that.


I can assure you that DSU shares nothing with PLIIx. I only hope it sounds equal or better than PLIIx for 2-ch music. I'll know soon after the 7702 arrives.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> The situations are different. Any receiver awaiting an Atmos upgrade already has the paid Dolby technology suite installed (TrueHD, DD+, PLIIz). No need to pay them again for Atmos.
> 
> OTOH, there's no current Auro technology in these AVRs. In that case, even though it will be made available to every owner, only some fraction will do the upgrade (even if it were free). Usually the technology suppliers prefer a 1:1 pay for play system rather than a blanket fee, especially when attach rate is so unpredictable.


I've read that licensing fee for Atmos for small high-end companies like Classe/Theta/Datasat/etc. would be a lot higher per unit than for Japanese big manufacturers. Is it true, and if so I assume this means technology suppliers may use different price structures, per unit for large companies, but some fixed rate for small companies and therefore causing a larger charge? Any estimate on "typical" fees based on past experience, for large (Onkyo) vs. small (Classe/Theta)? 

The licensing fee would likely be larger for Auro (smaller company) than for Dolby? TIA


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have to wonder, Keith, if you played something like T4 through a much larger Trinnov or Steinway/Lyngdorf processor based speaker system if more of the overhead signal might actually come from the overheads. I've been thinking about how these lower output rendering blocks re-interpret the object metadata instructions and whether or not much of the overhead information isn't getting folded into the main layer speakers either by a coding mistake on the part of Dolby or by design.


You mean that some gear is 'more Atmos' than others? I'd be astonished if that was so. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> The other possibility is that there was an Atmos conversion and/or authoring glitch in the soundtrack. If you view the Soundworks Collection video blurb about T4's soundtrack mixing, the engineers specifically state they used the overheads quite a bit. You and a few others are saying the Blu-ray has almost no overhead usage. Something doesn't jive.


The difference is one of interpretation of what "quite a bit" means I guess. A mixer may well believe that the use of the overheads in TF4 is "quite a bit" whereas lay people like me may have been expecting much more. I have no idea how much _should_ be 'up there' of course - all I can tell you is what* is* up there.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess so. The more and more I go on reading this thread, it looks like waiting for another year would be worth .
> Early adoption has it's advantages and disadvantages. May be later is better..


True of all technology purchases. Wait a year and by the time that comes around, there will be a good reason to wait another year. And another after that. Sometimes, we have to stop walking around the pool and just dive in and join in the fun.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I can assure you that DSU shares nothing with PLIIx. I only hope it sounds equal or better than PLIIx for 2-ch music. I'll know soon after the 7702 arrives.


Thanks for clearing that up then. I, and everyone I am sure, will be very interested in your findings. FilmMixer was hugely enthusiastic about DSU and its abilities with music, even comparing it with Pro gear in his workplace so your view will add to his, or not, as the case may be. It's moot to me because I don't listen to music in my HT (and listen in _stereo _would you believe!) and DSU is fabulous with, so far, every movie I have used it with.


----------



## smurraybhm

Without going into a lot of details I wanted to post some impressions regarding DS and 2 channel music. We already have Filmixers very positive statements regarding DS and a stereo mix.

Last night I played Tears For Fears - The Hurting - Pure Audio Blu-Ray for the first time after receiving it earlier this week. Started out in stereo mode and was pleased with the quality of the sound, it's been a long time since I've listened to Tears For Fears, but the songs where still easy to recognize. After the first few tracks I started trying a few different surround modes, long story short the DS mode was excellent. I could shut my eyes and feel as if the band was playing in the same room. 

In the past I have usually listened to my hi-rez 2-channel media in Pure Direct or Stereo. Going forward if the other disks I have sound as good as this one did using DS, DS will be my go to mode. Still debating what I like for 5.1 mixes and once I add my FHs back in to the mix later this weekend I plan on doing some testing. First up will be Roxy Music's Avalon.


----------



## chi_guy50

Selden Ball said:


> People might be getting a little tired of this, but I though I'd provide another testimonial of the quality of the DSU upmixer for another non-Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I watched _Cloverfield_ this evening. It has a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with extremely intense bass/LFE during large fractions of the movie. DSU enhanced the experience to an amazing degree. The Rear Surround channels were quite active at appropriate times, for example. When the protagonists ran through a short tunnel not long after the beginning of the movie, echoes came from all around, including overhead. The final act also had many overflights of jets and helicopters, not to mention roars of the monster, the majority of which came from above, all traveling in appropriate directions.
> 
> It was fun


I had a similar reaction to the flying fish scene in Life of Pi. My curiosity was piqued by a recent comment from batpig regarding using DSU with a Blu-Ray edition of this movie, so I recorded a DD5.1 CTV broadcast on my TiVo DVR and gave the scene in question a listen in both DSU 7.1.4 and Neo:X 11.1. As expected, Neo:X provided an expanded front sound stage, but the DSU rendition was more globally immersive. Like Selden, I noticed a significant employment of the rear surround channels (also with Neo:X, to be fair). In particular, just before the flying fish arrive on the scene, the RS is almost completely silent save for a very faint lapping of the ocean current, but it then jumps alive with the crashing, screeching, and overall chaos as the boat and its occupants are pummeled by the fish. 

If this very small sample is any indication, those who have room and the budget to add rear surrounds to the mix should find themselves amply rewarded.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I can tell you that but it won’t be useful unless your room is the same as mine and you sit the same distance from the front wall.


I think he was asking for the direct path "throw" distance from the speaker to the MLP. In my room it is 6' for the front tops and 5' for the rear tops. 



> Roger's room is a lot bigger than mine. I would use the Di6 probably if my room was bigger, but it isn't.


It's not often I hear my room cocoon is the bigger one!  My choice for the Di6 was based on frequency response more than SPL, plus they happen to fit. Like you, I never run anywhere close to "ref" level. 



> I am 100% happy with the Di5. Also, consider what the speakers are doing: on the only Atmos disc we currently have (TF4) they are doing almost nothing 90% of the time, and for the other 10% they make very little noise compared with the mains.


The issue is not the percentage of time they are used, but whether they are ever used, even for an instant, at max level in the soundtrack. Again, a moot point in our proper "-10 dB" theaters. 



> Gosh, yes. -10dB is more than halving the power handling requirement compared with my listening levels.


In fact, it's just 10% of the power.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to wonder, Keith, if you played something like T4 through a much larger Trinnov or Steinway/Lyngdorf processor based speaker system if more of the overhead signal might actually come from the overheads. I've been thinking about how these lower output rendering blocks re-interpret the object metadata instructions and whether or not much of the overhead information isn't getting folded into the main layer speakers either by a coding mistake on the part of Dolby or by design.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that some gear is 'more Atmos' than others? I'd be astonished if that was so.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other possibility is that there was an Atmos conversion and/or authoring glitch in the soundtrack. If you view the Soundworks Collection video blurb about T4's soundtrack mixing, the engineers specifically state they used the overheads quite a bit. You and a few others are saying the Blu-ray has almost no overhead usage. Something doesn't jive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is one of interpretation of what "quite a bit" means I guess. A mixer may well believe that the use of the overheads in TF4 is "quite a bit" whereas lay people like me may have been expecting much more. I have no idea how much _should_ be 'up there' of course - all I can tell you is what* is* up there.
Click to expand...

The mixers did not use the overhead bed channels on TF4.... For all intents and purposes it is a 7.1 + objects mix.


----------



## doublewing11

kbarnes701 said:


> Correct assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that but it won’t be useful unless your room is the same as mine and you sit the same distance from the front wall. What is important are the angles. My Front Height set is mounted at 42° and my Top Middle set is at 85°. In my room, that puts the FH on the ceiling and the TM on the ceiling just slightly (5°) in front of MLP. It makes the speakers about 5ft apart front to back and, of course, in line with the front L&R laterally - all within Dolby spec.
> 
> 
> 
> I listen to movies only (no music) in the HT at a typical setting of -6dB on the MV. Room is heavily treated, system calibrated with XT32. The Tannoys will play at 106dB all day long so they have no problems at -6dB from Reference. See the spec sheet, *here*.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be good.
> 
> 
> 
> Roger's room is a lot bigger than mine. I would use the Di6 probably if my room was bigger, but it isn't. I am 100% happy with the Di5. Also, consider what the speakers are doing: on the only Atmos disc we currently have (TF4) they are doing almost nothing 90% of the time, and for the other 10% they make very little noise compared with the mains. On DSU they are doing more but it is ambient sounds. Pretty much any half-decent speaker will work in those conditions, so long as it has the wide dispersion pattern Dolby mandate (90° all round for the Di5 - polar response graphs in the spec sheet).
> 
> 
> 
> Your speakers are significantly further away from MLP than mine are, but according to the specs, the Di5 will have no problem with that. I haven't put an SPL meter on the isolated overheads but I’d be amazed if they ever get to 85dB. I can do that test for you if you would find it useful - let me know. I can use TF4 Chapter 20 for Atmos and anything with a lot of overhead noise for DSU, all at -6dB on the MV.
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, yes. -10dB is more than halving the power handling requirement compared with my listening levels. AAMOI before installing the Di5s I hooked them up to my (high performance) 2ch stereo music system and cranked them up to ear-bleeding levels and they handled it beautifully - no distortion and a love quality on human voice which belies their size. Only the low bass was lacking, as expected.


Thanks for your quick insightful response..........

By transitive property, Roger's room is larger than yours and Roger has mentioned to me my room is twice as large as his........maybe CMS 601 DC's would be better........but Di 5 DC's fit perfectly behind acoustic fabric ceiling cloud and are aimable.

Just another reason why we all hope Roger gets his Marantz 7702 sooner rather than later!


----------



## asarose247

keeping up with the variety of discussion here is informative and a challenge . . . 


wrt to movies being "re-reviewed " and evaluated and obviously having a good range of re-discovery, 
and I apologize in advance if I missed it , BUT
Has anyone give "Apocalypse Now-Redux" a re-discovery spin?
How did the DS do, say compared to a Neo:X?


thanks


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> I've read that licensing fee for Atmos for small high-end companies like Classe/Theta/Datasat/etc. would be a lot higher per unit than for Japanese big manufacturers. Is it true, and if so I assume this means technology suppliers may use different price structures, per unit for large companies, but some fixed rate for small companies and therefore causing a larger charge? Any estimate on "typical" fees based on past experience, for large (Onkyo) vs. small (Classe/Theta)?
> 
> The licensing fee would likely be larger for Auro (smaller company) than for Dolby? TIA


I have no information about Atmos or Auro licensing. If Atmos is anything like the previous Dolby licensing model, it is based on "licensed device" volume. Each technology carries a certain number of "devices" as a weighting factor -- loosely tied to the number of channels. I suspect that this 1:1 correspondence may be less relevant in a system where the number of outputs is so scalable. But no matter. The rate drops as the licensed device volume increases, on a quarterly cycle. So yes, the larger manufacturers indeed enjoy an economy of scale. The idea was not to penalize the smaller companies, but to find a way to cover the fixed support costs which do not vary by manufacturing volume.


----------



## kingwiggi

Selden Ball said:


> People might be getting a little tired of this, but I though I'd provide another testimonial of the quality of the DSU upmixer for another non-Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I watched _Cloverfield_ this evening. It has a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with extremely intense bass/LFE during large fractions of the movie. DSU enhanced the experience to an amazing degree. The Rear Surround channels were quite active at appropriate times, for example. When the protagonists ran through a short tunnel not long after the beginning of the movie, echoes came from all around, including overhead. The final act also had many overflights of jets and helicopters, not to mention roars of the monster, the majority of which came from above, all traveling in appropriate directions.
> 
> It was fun


Aargh, for me this was one of the worst movies I can ever remember watching, purchased it when it was first released and have never watched it again. Perhaps I should try listening to the soundtrack with the TV off .


----------



## jacked

Roger Dressler said:


> I can assure you that DSU shares nothing with PLIIx. I only hope it sounds equal or better than PLIIx for 2-ch music. I'll know soon after the 7702 arrives.


Hi Roger,
When are you hoping to get the 7702 and have everything working ?

I`m very interested to know how the 7702 performs, particularly with the Tannoys.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## aaranddeeman

Has anyone considered using pendent speakers instead of in-ceiling. That should give experimentation flexibility. (Next to using tracks...)


----------



## Michael James

I am attaching pictures, but what I have is a 7.2 system right now using all BG Radia speakers. The front Right Center Left are a BG Radia soundbar they custom created for me ($5k) using 3 SA-200's under the Panasonic 65" TV. The right and left side surrounds are at ear level and the rear channels are at ear level straight behind me. The in wall subs are left corner mounted 6 inches above the ground. The TV is sloped toward the primary listening position along with sound bar. Now the tricky part: The ceiling is a cathedral ceiling going above my head with no access. Could I replace the can lights above the TV and have them shoot towards the listening position (basically a speaker/light combo that would have to have a wirless transmitter? Or can I mount speakers to the top of the tv or in back of the TV and have them fire upwards and reflect down? Or am I just wasting a lot of money and time and just stick with 7.2 and maybe go Dirac or Audessey 32 or something else?


I blew up my B&K Ref 70 and looking to replace. Looking to spend $1000-3000.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dolby Atmos Enabled reflecting speakers really don't work with cathedral ceilings. If you want overheads, you'll need to consider in-ceiling, on-ceiling, high on-wall, or speakers hanging from something like a track-lighting support structure.

You do seem to have lots of room on the wall above the TV. You might want to consider mounting a pair of speakers up high there, configured as Front Heights. Four overhead speakers are better than two, but it would give you a good start.


----------



## Roger Dressler

jacked said:


> Hi Roger,
> When are you hoping to get the 7702 and have everything working ?
> I`m very interested to know how the 7702 performs, particularly with the Tannoys.


Hi Dave, 

I have a friend who is a Marantz dealer, so as soon as he gets them I'm in line.


----------



## Stanton

kbarnes701 said:


> True of all technology purchases. Wait a year and by the time that comes around, there will be a good reason to wait another year. And another after that. Sometimes, we have to stop walking around the pool and just dive in and join in the fun.


Normally I would agree, but I think this year's crop of AVR's (and Yamaha in particular) are the exception. Not only do we have a "new" implementation on the audio side with Atmos (I can't imagine there won't be fixes/tweaks to a product who's target firmware/software is released AFTER the product is released), but we have the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 issue on the the video side (and future 4k compatibility). As someone who upgrades/buys AVR's every 10 years or so, I don't think the chips/features were quite ready for this product cycle; however, next year I'm probably "all in".


----------



## himey

jdsmoothie said:


> A few new Onkyo Atmos AVR owners with only 7.1 setups (ie. no height speakers) would disagree on the effectiveness of DSU vs. DD PLIIx so much so that they are reinstalling the previous non-Atmos firmware update in order to remove the DSU and restore DD PLIIx.



I would like to hear this discussion. Is this on another forum? Does a few mean very few? TIA


----------



## himey

smurraybhm said:


> Without going into a lot of details I wanted to post some impressions regarding DS and 2 channel music. We already have Filmixers very positive statements regarding DS and a stereo mix.
> 
> Last night I played Tears For Fears - The Hurting - Pure Audio Blu-Ray for the first time after receiving it earlier this week. Started out in stereo mode and was pleased with the quality of the sound, it's been a long time since I've listened to Tears For Fears, but the songs where still easy to recognize. After the first few tracks I started trying a few different surround modes, long story short the DS mode was excellent. I could shut my eyes and feel as if the band was playing in the same room.
> 
> In the past I have usually listened to my hi-rez 2-channel media in Pure Direct or Stereo. Going forward if the other disks I have sound as good as this one did using DS, DS will be my go to mode. Still debating what I like for 5.1 mixes and once I add my FHs back in to the mix later this weekend I plan on doing some testing. First up will be Roxy Music's Avalon.



Maybe I haven't looked in the right place but I haven't seen much about the DSU for music. Looking forward to your impressions of the Roxy Music and any 5.1 music. Dark Side of the Moon and any "spacey" music that might get the overhead speaks moving would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## NorthSky

*Sony PS3 and 3D Blu-ray movies with Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio (eg.; 'TF4')*



aaranddeeman said:


> *PS3*
> I can try with another BD player I have but it's not 3D capable.


No need, it wouldn't work.



> For 2D though it does automatically show D-THD


No sweat, the PS3 works with 2D Blu-rays.



> Looks like that audio is hiding somewhere (with 3D BD and Dolby TrueHD). I will hunt it down.


No need: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

* The problem is the *PS3*


----------



## doublewing11

Roger Dressler said:


> I think he was asking for the direct path "throw" distance from the speaker to the MLP. In my room it is 6' for the front tops and 5' for the rear tops.
> 
> It's not often I hear my room cocoon is the bigger one!  My choice for the Di6 was based on frequency response more than SPL, plus they happen to fit. Like you, I never run anywhere close to "ref" level.
> 
> The issue is not the percentage of time they are used, but whether they are ever used, even for an instant, at max level in the soundtrack. Again, a moot point in our proper "-10 dB" theaters.
> 
> In fact, it's just 10% of the power.


You are correct Roger, I was referring to direct line distances.

Good to know rationale behind your Di 6 DC selection...........my problem is they are 1/2" too deep. 

Looking forward to your feedback once your system is set up! I will most definitely follow suit in short order!


----------



## NorthSky

...And, the Oppo BDP-83 won't play the last X-Men Blu-ray (FOX studios) 2D version. 
And it will not access the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (from Dolby Atmos*) of 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' (Paramount) Blu-ray 2D version.

* Dolby Atmos plays fine from the BDP-83, with a Dolby Atmos receiver, of course.


----------



## jacked

Roger Dressler said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> I have a friend who is a Marantz dealer, so as soon as he gets them I'm in line.


Cheers Roger, I look forward to reading your comments about the setup.

I`m awaiting info about the UK release date for the 7702 so might well be going for this as well, can`t wait !!!

Dave


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> No need, it wouldn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> No sweat, the PS3 works with 2D Blu-rays.
> 
> 
> 
> No need: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> * The problem is the *PS3*



Yup. Just discovered that as well... (as the input coming to Onkyo was showing DD5.1)
I should be able to decode at PS3 though. Hopefully..

I now wonder if it would play Atmos at all??


----------



## dschulz

aaranddeeman said:


> Yup. Just discovered that as well... (as the input coming to Onkyo was showing DD5.1)
> I should be able to decode at PS3 though. Hopefully..
> 
> I now wonder if it would play Atmos at all??


Depends on which PS3 you have. The first model (PS3 Fat) always decodes a DTS or Dolby soundtrack and passes it on to your AVR as PCM. So if you have a PS3 Fat you won't get Atmos, because the PS3 will be decoding the Dolby TrueHD track and sending it out as straight 5.1 or 7.1 PCM.

If you have a Gen 2 (PS3 Slim) or Gen 3 (PS3 Super Slim) you'll be fine so long as you set the audio output to bitstream rather than PCM. Then the Dolby TrueHD track will bitstream over to HDMI to your AVR, which, if it has Atmos, will decode the Atmos soundtrack inside the TrueHD bitstream.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Yup. Just discovered that as well... (as the input coming to Onkyo was showing DD5.1)
> I should be able to decode at PS3 though. Hopefully..


With HDMI Audio Out set to LPCM; no sweat.



> I now wonder if it would play Atmos at all??


Just check in the PS3 Official Owner's Thread; you'll find out quick enough. 
That is if an owner has a Dolby Atmos receiver; I'm sure someone does.

My guess: No sweat, it will.


----------



## Spanglo

Flight of the Phoenix barrel roll scene is demo worthy for both bass and upmix. Lots going on in that scene.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> Depends on which PS3 you have. The first model (PS3 Fat) always decodes a DTS or Dolby soundtrack and passes it on to your AVR as PCM. So if you have a PS3 Fat you won't get Atmos, because the PS3 will be decoding the Dolby TrueHD track and sending it out as straight 5.1 or 7.1 PCM.
> 
> If you have a Gen 2 (PS3 Slim) or Gen 3 (PS3 Super Slim) you'll be fine so long as you set the audio output to bitstream rather than PCM. Then the Dolby TrueHD track will bitstream over to HDMI to your AVR, which, if it has Atmos, will decode the Atmos soundtrack inside the TrueHD bitstream.


Hmmm, complicated them PS3 machines. ...Lovely for gamers and all of that virtuosity stuff Blus,
but still not ABC easy for all.  

PS4?


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> *Flight of the Phoenix* (2004) barrel roll scene is demo worthy for both bass and upmix.
> Lots going on in that scene.


So, basically, Dolby Surround Upmixer is cool enough to re-explore all them Blu-ray flicks with lots of good surround action.  ...In the interim, while waiting for the real stuff; Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks on Blu-ray...intelligently mixed and recorded. 

Did anyone of you here, with a Dolby Atmos receiver, tried *'The LOTRs: The Return of the King*' on Blu? 
...With that Dolby Surround upmixer.


----------



## htpcforever

I may have missed it in this rapidly moving and large thread, but I am wondering if having speakers which can be pointed towards the listening area is needed or recommended with Atmos or not. Due to my seats being VERY close to the rear wall, I will be using Front Heights and Top Fronts when I do get around to doing Atmos. I already have the Front Heights setup with my Onkyo 3010. My seats are 19 feet from the screen.


So, if the speakers should be angled towards the listeners, does anyone have any recommended in ceiling speakers with a backer box built into them? I am currently running Paradigm Millenium 100s for the fronts and Axiom Audio M3's and M2s for the surrounds.


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Hmmm, complicated them PS3 machines. ...Lovely for gamers and all of that virtuosity stuff Blus,
> but still not ABC easy for all.
> PS4?


my modded PS3 fat version does only up till 5.1 sound with bitstream, the rest is PCM 8 channel for games. movies played with a "special" player can be played with bitstream though.
PS4 does all formats


----------



## DaJoJo

htpcforever said:


> I may have missed it in this rapidly moving and large thread, but I am wondering if having speakers which can be pointed towards the listening area is needed or recommended with Atmos or not. Due to my seats being VERY close to the rear wall, I will be using Front Heights and Top Fronts when I do get around to doing Atmos. I already have the Front Heights setup with my Onkyo 3010. My seats are 19 feet from the screen.
> So, if the speakers should be angled towards the listeners, does anyone have any recommended in ceiling speakers with a backer box built into them? I am currently running Paradigm Millenium 100s for the fronts and Axiom Audio M3's and M2s for the surrounds.


it is better to set them as top middle instead of top rears. klipsch makes some nice ones but they will not timbre match, since u got different speakers it prolly doesn't matter for you i guess.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up then. I, and everyone I am sure, will be very interested in your findings. FilmMixer was hugely enthusiastic about DSU and its abilities with music, even comparing it with Pro gear in his workplace so your view will add to his, or not, as the case may be. It's moot to me because I don't listen to music in my HT (and listen in _stereo _would you believe!) and DSU is fabulous with, so far, every movie I have used it with.


DSU was a small part of Dolby's event at CEDIA. In the short time they played 2-channel music with and without DSU it was apparent it really expanded the sound stage, and not in a gimmicky way. I agree with Marc's assessment.


----------



## batpig

htpcforever said:


> Due to my seats being VERY close to the rear wall, *I will be using Front Heights and Top Fronts* when I do get around to doing Atmos.


Not sure if that was a brain fart / typo, but you CAN'T do Front Height + Top Front. You can do any 2 of the 5 possible overhead pairs but they can't be adjacent. So if you already have FH, the next available location is Top Middle. 

Note that Top Middle can be up to 25 degrees in front of the listening position. To get to Top Rear you need 30+ degrees separation behind you. Several folks with seating close to the back wall are doing FH+TM/TR and it seems to work fine.


----------



## batpig

asarose247 said:


> keeping up with the variety of discussion here is informative and a challenge . . .
> 
> 
> wrt to movies being "re-reviewed " and evaluated and obviously having a good range of re-discovery,
> and I apologize in advance if I missed it , BUT
> Has anyone give "Apocalypse Now-Redux" a re-discovery spin?
> How did the DS do, say compared to a Neo:X?


Didn't watch the whole thing but I did watch a good chunk of the Redux streaming off Netflix the other night. Predictably awesome. Helicopters, music, guns, drugs.... perfect for DSU 

Can't compare to Neo:X since I don't have traditional heights or wides, but I have yet to hear ANYONE report a movei that DSU didn't make better. Shoot, I just watched "Silver Linings Playbook" with my wife, which is about the furthest thing from an action / sci-fi romp, and it was still better with DSU. It helps that the movie has kick ass music of course.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> With HDMI Audio Out set to LPCM; no sweat.
> 
> 
> 
> Just check in the PS3 Official Owner's Thread; you'll find out quick enough.
> That is if an owner has a Dolby Atmos receiver; I'm sure someone does.
> 
> My guess: No sweat, it will.


Mine is Gen2 PS3 I guess (as I can get any format bitstream with 2D) So looks like am covered.
Cant imagine TrueHD 7.1 takes so much bandwidth and not Atmos or DTS-HD MA 7.1


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> The mixers did not use the overhead bed channels on TF4.... For all intents and purposes it is a 7.1 + objects mix.


But that shouldn't have an effect on the activity level of the overheads if the sound mixers supposedly used them a lot, but the Blu-ray has hardly anything happening overhead, should it?


----------



## batpig

himey said:


> Maybe I haven't looked in the right place but I haven't seen much about the DSU for music. Looking forward to your impressions of the Roxy Music and any 5.1 music. Dark Side of the Moon and any "spacey" music that might get the overhead speaks moving would be greatly appreciated.


Music upmix is always going to be the most subjective element, but I have been extremely impressed with DSU on music so far in my 5.1.2 setup. And I was never in love with PLII or Neo:X Music modes (although they could sound really awesome if they met the right song). For me, it does just the right stuff, kind of pulling the ambiance of the music around and over you to envelop you in the song, but without any distracting "oops that guitar lick ended up over your right shoulder" moments. And it seems to preserve the coherence of the front soundstage while somewhat "lifting" the details so they almost sound more separated. 

An example -- I've been watching a lot of "Tiny Desk" concerts (essentially performances by awesome bands among the cubicles of NPR studios office) since it was added as a channel to my Roku. I have a typical living room setup with center below the display, and bookshelf speakers to either side, all of the tweeters a but below screen height. It certainly sounded good before, but with when you stretch the ambiance up with DSU it actually "lifts" the vocals and instruments, elevating the imaging, so the sounds feel more in alignment with the on screen action. I imagine this is somewhat akin to the "center lift" function of Yamaha DSP that uses the "presence" speakers to achieve a similar effect with dialogue. That, plus the little hint of "global ambiance " (stealing that phrase, I like it!) makes it feel like I'm literally sitting in the office next to the other NPR staffers watching the show. 

Anyhoo, long winded thoughts, but I'll close by coming back to your final questions -- spacey music is MADE for DSU upmix. My personal experience is that other upmixers (PLII/Neo:X Music modes) sometimes get "fooled" by phasey, spacey songs and extract too much ambiance to the surrounds channels, to the point where it can make certain songs sound excessively diffuse and distractingly "spread out". DSU seems to do a much better job of not overdoing it, while still really pulling out the ambiance. I haven't listened to DSOTM but I've listened a lot to bands like Radiohead, The National, Sigur Rios, My Morning Jacket, Wilco, etc. and they sounds better than ever to me with DSU. YMMV.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> The other possibility is that there was an Atmos conversion and/or authoring glitch in the soundtrack. If you view the Soundworks Collection video blurb about T4's soundtrack mixing, the engineers specifically state they used the overheads quite a bit. You and a few others are saying the Blu-ray has almost no overhead usage. Something doesn't jive.





kbarnes701 said:


> The difference is one of interpretation of what "quite a bit" means I guess. A mixer may well believe that the use of the overheads in TF4 is "quite a bit" whereas lay people like me may have been expecting much more. I have no idea how much _should_ be 'up there' of course - all I can tell you is what* is* up there.





FilmMixer said:


> The mixers did not use the overhead bed channels on TF4.... For all intents and purposes it is a 7.1 + objects mix.





Dan Hitchman said:


> But that shouldn't have an effect on the activity level of the overheads if the sound mixers supposedly used them a lot, but the Blu-ray has hardly anything happening overhead, should it?


I have zero hard evidence for this, but my alarmist, speculative conclusion after sleeping on it is that it's a bad encode and something got F'd up, and most of the object metadata either didn't get encoded properly or who knows what, but a lot of the object sounds are getting left in the bed channels that shouldn't be. 

It's one thing to say there were no overhead beds, so yeah, you don't get that ambient environmental noise or rumblings from explosions or swelling music overhead... but like I said, this movie is full of airplanes zooming directly overhead straight over you, missiles and laser beams zapping over you, giant chunks of dangerous stuff crashing down on top of you, and robot muther freaking dinosaurs towering over you. And all of this accompanied by dead silence in the Atmos channels. I mean, absolutely nothing. I was really shocked at what I heard when I started hanging out by the Atmos speakers. 

Filmmixer, I really want to know if you have the TF4 BD and have tried it because I want to hear a professional opinion of whether what's there (or more importantly, not there) is abnormal or not. 

To emphasize, these are often moments where the crap falling on you from the sky is directly propelling the plot at that moment, where the presence of the overhead sound effect would be critical to conveying that moment. In the (in)famous Chapter 20 sound orgy, THE M'F'ING ALIEN MOTHERSHIP IS FLOATING OVERHEAD, sucking up cars and buses and container ships and autobots and scraps of metal into the sky (sorry if I ruined this plot twist for those who haven't seen it). There is all sorts of crap floating up into the sky and then big chunks of it are dropped directly on you and smash into buildings and almost flatten main characters (no worries, everyone you like lives! they barely escape being crushed every time). And literally the only sound in the Atmos channels during this onslaught is a soft force-field "whooo whooo whooo" effect. 

I would be pretty surprised if this is how it was supposed to be.


----------



## CBdicX

Please help........


I think i want to buy Atmos speakers as i complete set where the Atmos speaker is build in the main speaker.
This to avoid placing problems with lose Atmos speakers, and the WAF !


Teufel, a German speaker builder, is coming with a Atmos set that has Atmos front, a center speaker, a subwoofer and 2 Atmos surround speakers in 1 set.
I have now a 7.1 setup and i have this option:


*1)* 
Use the Teufel set like a 5.1 setup and use on the back the leftover surround back speakers,
or
*2)* 
use the Teufel set and put the Teufel surround on surround back and use the leftover as surround ?


Version 2 will give maybe a better Atmos effect (Atmos front and Atmos surround back face each other) but with version *1)* i have "better" speakers on the surround as my current surround back will be a lesser quality speaker compared to the Teufel.


So do a go for a maybe better Atmos effect, or do i keep quality in mind and keep the Teufel set in the 5.1 field so i get a better quality surround speaker and leave the lesser quality speaker on the back ?


*PS*. no option to buy lose speakers at Teufel as they only sell complete sets, so i am stuck with the leftover speakers.


Thanks for your thoughts


----------



## petetherock

Stanton said:


> Normally I would agree, but I think this year's crop of AVR's (and Yamaha in particular) are the exception. Not only do we have a "new" implementation on the audio side with Atmos (I can't imagine there won't be fixes/tweaks to a product who's target firmware/software is released AFTER the product is released), but we have the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 issue on the the video side (and future 4k compatibility). As someone who upgrades/buys AVR's every 10 years or so, I don't think the chips/features were quite ready for this product cycle; however, next year I'm probably "all in".


Do those of you who use ceiling speakers:
I am going to use some Anthony Gallo A'Diva speakers for my Atmos Top Front and Rears, plus the VOG. They will be 35 degrees off the centre in front and behind my MLP.

Do you point it at your MLP or just downwards?

Thanks


----------



## Gurba

Nightlord said:


> We make less and have higher taxes, so it will still hit us the most, so stop complaining!


Stop complaining!! Compare swedish prices on ANYTHING With what we pay in Norway.


----------



## Roger Dressler

petetherock said:


> Do you point it at your MLP or just downwards?


As seen from the speaker, aim to the centroid of the heads in the listening area. That results in the most listeners being the most on-axis of the speakers.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Gurba said:


> Stop complaining!! Compare swedish prices on ANYTHING With what we pay in Norway.


You have much higher salaries in Norway though.


----------



## Gurba

Mashie Saldana said:


> You have much higher salaries in Norway though.




Not everyone... 


Pluss do you know how much cars cost in Norway? 2-3x what they cost in other countries. A normal Family car cost £40-50.000. Gas cost £1.50/liter. Same With milk. Norway is a great country for those who ake a lot of Money. For the rest of us? Not so much.


----------



## Lesmor

batpig said:


> I have zero hard evidence for this, but my alarmist, speculative conclusion after sleeping on it is that it's a bad encode and something got F'd up, and most of the object metadata either didn't get encoded properly or who knows what, but a lot of the object sounds are getting left in the bed channels that shouldn't be.
> 
> I would be pretty surprised if this is how it was supposed to be.


For the first Dolby Atmos release it certainly doesn't seem right that it wouldn't be an awesome overhead experience.
Has anyone seen it in Dolby Atmos in the cinema for comparison?

Heaven forbid it could be the AVR, has there been comparisons using T4 with different AVR manufacturers?


----------



## petetherock

Roger Dressler said:


> As seen from the speaker, aim to the centroid of the heads in the listening area. That results in the most listeners being the most on-axis of the speakers.


Thanks Roger.. yes shoot the head... will do. 
Thankfully the AGs can be moved around a bit..


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I think he was asking for the direct path "throw" distance from the speaker to the MLP. In my room it is 6' for the front tops and 5' for the rear tops.


I couldn't quite see what he wanted that for - the angles are what matter and so the distances will vary for a given angle depending on the room size, ceiling height etc. So long as he follows the angles he will be OK. At least that is what someone told me  But in my room, that 'throw' distance is 7ft from the front and 4.5ft from the rear.



Roger Dressler said:


> It's not often I hear my room cocoon is the bigger one!  My choice for the Di6 was based on frequency response more than SPL, plus they happen to fit. Like you, I never run anywhere close to "ref" level.


I think _every _room is bigger than mine!  My choice was based on your choice  But also on the fantastic spec sheet that Tannoy provide, showing the FR and polar response and so on - plus the amazing power handling capability that the Di5s have for such a small speaker. Mine will also never be run to their limit but it's good to know that I will never overdrive them.



Roger Dressler said:


> The issue is not the percentage of time they are used, but whether they are ever used, even for an instant, at max level in the soundtrack. Again, a moot point in our proper "-10 dB" theaters.


Yep.



Roger Dressler said:


> In fact, it's just 10% of the power.


Sorry - I didn't explain that very well. The difference between his setting of -10dB and my setting of -6dB is what I meant was requiring less than half the power (4dB).


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> The mixers did not use the overhead bed channels on TF4.... For all intents and purposes it is a 7.1 + objects mix.


Any insight Marc on why they seemed to use the overhead channels so little? As batpig commented earlier, there seem to be many opportunities that were missed, where the on-screen action seemed to almost _demand_ some participation of the overhead speakers, but where they remain silent.


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> I may have missed it in this rapidly moving and large thread, but I am wondering if having speakers which can be pointed towards the listening area is needed or recommended with Atmos or not. Due to my seats being VERY close to the rear wall, I will be using Front Heights and Top Fronts when I do get around to doing Atmos. I already have the Front Heights setup with my Onkyo 3010. My seats are 19 feet from the screen.
> 
> 
> So, if the speakers should be angled towards the listeners, does anyone have any recommended in ceiling speakers with a backer box built into them? I am currently running Paradigm Millenium 100s for the fronts and Axiom Audio M3's and M2s for the surrounds.


19 feet from the screen?? How big is the screen?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Didn't watch the whole thing but I did watch a good chunk of the Redux streaming off Netflix the other night. Predictably awesome. Helicopters, music, guns, drugs.... perfect for DSU


Drugs because, presumably, the characters, like the speakers, are high?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Filmmixer, I really want to know if you have the TF4 BD and have tried it because I want to hear a professional opinion of whether what's there (or more importantly, not there) is abnormal or not.
> 
> To emphasize, these are often moments where the crap falling on you from the sky is directly propelling the plot at that moment, where the presence of the overhead sound effect would be critical to conveying that moment. In the (in)famous Chapter 20 sound orgy, THE M'F'ING ALIEN MOTHERSHIP IS FLOATING OVERHEAD, sucking up cars and buses and container ships and autobots and scraps of metal into the sky (sorry if I ruined this plot twist for those who haven't seen it). There is all sorts of crap floating up into the sky and then big chunks of it are dropped directly on you and smash into buildings and almost flatten main characters (no worries, everyone you like lives! they barely escape being crushed every time). And literally the only sound in the Atmos channels during this onslaught is a soft force-field "whooo whooo whooo" effect.
> 
> I would be pretty surprised if this is how it was supposed to be.


An excellent summary of that chapter of the movie. Like you, I'd love to hear Marc's take on it. If they really did FUBAR it in production, I wonder if they will re-release it and enable us to swap discs? One or two studios, in the UK anyway, have done this in the past - almost always, IIRC, due to movies being released on BD in the wrong aspect ratio, although Gladiator was swapped out for us just because it was such a bloody awful transfer with, literally, bits of the action missing (eg flaming arrows appearing and disappearing and re-appearing, all in one shot).


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Please help........
> 
> 
> I think i want to buy Atmos speakers as i complete set where the Atmos speaker is build in the main speaker.
> This to avoid placing problems with lose Atmos speakers, and the WAF !
> 
> 
> Teufel, a German speaker builder, is coming with a Atmos set that has Atmos front, a center speaker, a subwoofer and 2 Atmos surround speakers in 1 set.
> I have now a 7.1 setup and i have this option:
> 
> 
> *1)*
> Use the Teufel set like a 5.1 setup and use on the back the leftover surround back speakers,
> or
> *2)*
> use the Teufel set and put the Teufel surround on surround back and use the leftover as surround ?
> 
> 
> Version 2 will give maybe a better Atmos effect (Atmos front and Atmos surround back face each other) but with version *1)* i have "better" speakers on the surround as my current surround back will be a lesser quality speaker compared to the Teufel.
> 
> 
> So do a go for a maybe better Atmos effect, or do i keep quality in mind and keep the Teufel set in the 5.1 field so i get a better quality surround speaker and leave the lesser quality speaker on the back ?
> 
> 
> *PS*. no option to buy lose speakers at Teufel as they only sell complete sets, so i am stuck with the leftover speakers.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts


Follow the recommendations in the Dolby Installer White Paper.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Follow the recommendations in the Dolby Installer White Paper.



Thanks Keith, but will you not think using better speakers on the surround back, instade of on surround, i will make a step back in "quality" as the better speakers will be on the back instade of the more used surround channel ?


----------



## Selden Ball

I'm not Keith, but... the Dolby Surround upmixer makes full use of all of the speakers that you have connected (except for Front Wide). It's important that they all be high quality and timbre matched if you want to minimize the dependence on room EQ software.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith, but will you not think using better speakers on the surround back, instade of on surround, i will make a step back in "quality" as the better speakers will be on the back instade of the more used surround channel ?


I doubt it will make much difference TBH. Surround and overhead channels don't do much 'heavy lifting'. If you isolate your surround channels and play some content with good surround usage, you will be surprised at how little they really have to do, compared with the front LCR.

If you are concerned about it, I would use the better speakers for surrounds and the less good speakers for back surrounds, but I honesty doubt you would hear any difference.


----------



## Selden Ball

So now you have the two contrarian views  FWIW, I've always been of the opinion that all of the speakers should be of reasonably high quality. Just because the surrounds are seldom used often does not mean that they're never used. Multichannel music usually uses them all, for example. Remember that Keith primarily listens to music on a very high quality stereo system. He only listens to music in his multichannel theater when people plead with him to make comparisons.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> So now you have the two contrarian views  FWIW, I've always been of the opinion that all of the speakers should be of reasonably high quality. Just because the surrounds are seldom used often does not mean that they're never used. Multichannel music usually uses them all, for example. Remember that Keith primarily listens to music on a very high quality stereo system. He only listens to music in his multichannel theater when people plead with him to make comparisons.


Good point to remind me that I always forget to caveat my replies with "this is for movies only". 

It's not so much that they are seldom used, as what they actually do when they _are_ being used. A good experiment I'd recommend to anyone is to turn off all speakers except surrounds and then play a movie track which makes good use of the surrounds, and listen. I would be amazed if people were not surprised at just how little demand is placed on those surround speakers. IMO any half-decent speaker with a reasonable FR would be OK on surround duty. I am not advocating that people use rubbish speakers for their surrounds, just that they do not need to be nearly as competent as the LCR set. Heck, my pal, also a very experienced listener, and I, evaluated his high quality HT a couple of weeks ago, following his Atmos install, and we didn't even realise that the surround backs weren't playing_ at all_ (config error). That is the sort of contribution they are making.

As for timbre matching, I have come to the view that this is more of a marketing term than anything else, designed to keep buyers 'within the family' for speakers. In the days before effective room EQ, timbre matching was surely important, but these days, with terrific REQ systems like Audyssey's XT32, all the speakers in the system will be brought towards the target curve anyway, thus minimising the importance and effect of any 'voicing' differences.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Remember that Keith primarily listens to music on a very high quality stereo system. He only listens to music in his multichannel theater when people plead with him to make comparisons.


I've made a macro:

Please be aware that my HT is used only for watching movies, and not for playing music. Thus, all my comments are with reference *only* to the playback of movie content.

All I need to do now is to remember to use it


----------



## NM20

Keith, what are you actually using for the TM and TF are they the DI5 Dc or just the DI5?


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> Thanks Roger.. yes shoot the head... will do.
> Thankfully the AGs can be moved around a bit..



Are those pendent speakers? What make/model? How high is your ceiling?


----------



## kbarnes701

NM20 said:


> Keith, what are you actually using for the TM and TF are they the DI5 Dc or just the DI5?


Di5 DC. I have always been a fan of dual concentric drivers, going back years. For me, that design was the icing on the cake for these exceptionally competent small speakers.


----------



## petetherock

aaranddeeman said:


> Are those pendent speakers? What make/model? How high is your ceiling?


http://www.roundsound.com/a-diva-se-loudspeaker.html

3metres..


----------



## NM20

Thanks Keith. What are the differences? Both state 90 degree dispersion. The reason I ask is that I just picked up some DI6 non DC, just wondering if I but some DI5 DC will they play nice together?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Selden Ball said:


> It's important that they all be high quality and timbre matched if you want to minimize the dependence on room EQ software.


I know timber matching has it's value and as far as possible one must. But most of us going to Atmos already have the 5.1/7.1 once setup that was bought since years and finding a timber match for those speakers is gonna be hard. If you replace the entire speaker set (which is going to be awfully expensive), then it's a different story. Other option is to look for in the used market, if at all you can find something of the same mode/series. But then again we are talking about in-ceiling speakers here so that is another blocker.
So to me it looks like we have to live with non matching speakers..


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> http://www.roundsound.com/a-diva-se-loudspeaker.html
> 
> 3metres..


Thank you for that info.


----------



## qwerty_88

in a 5.1.4 setup can the ceiling speakers be set to top front and top mid? i won't be able to place a top rear because my sofa is against the wall.


----------



## Selden Ball

qwerty_88 said:


> in a 5.1.4 setup can the ceiling speakers be set to top front and top mid? i won't be able to place a top rear because my sofa is against the wall.


You can use Front Height + Top Middle.

Unfortunately Top Front + Top Middle is not an allowed configuration. The four overhead speakers can only occupy combinations of the five overhead positions which are not adjacent to one another: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I doubt it will make much difference TBH. Surround and overhead channels don't do much 'heavy lifting'. If you isolate your surround channels and play some content with good surround usage, you will be surprised at how little they really have to do, compared with the front LCR.
> 
> If you are concerned about it, I would use the better speakers for surrounds and the less good speakers for back surrounds, but I honesty doubt you would hear any difference.


I also think that the overheads do not do any real heavy lifting either.
As far as transformers 4 do you or would you even hear things falling from the sky (what sound does a falling object make unless the engine is running in those things falling) in chapter 20 what sound would it make until it hits the ground but I do agree there should have been more sound in the ceiling speakers....


----------



## Selden Ball

aaranddeeman said:


> I know timber matching has it's value and as far as possible one must. But most of us going to Atmos already have the 5.1/7.1 once setup that was bought since years and finding a timber match for those speakers is gonna be hard. If you replace the entire speaker set (which is going to be awfully expensive), then it's a different story. Other option is to look for in the used market, if at all you can find something of the same mode/series. But then again we are talking about in-ceiling speakers here so that is another blocker.
> So to me it looks like we have to live with non matching speakers..


Unfortunately, you are correct, although as Keith pointed out, this is not a serious issue if you use room EQ. To the extent that the room EQ is successful at flattening (making more accurate) the sound reaching you from all of the speakers, it is making them all sound very similar to one another. As a result, EQ'd sounds which travel around the room don't change significantly as they move from one speaker to another. 

Of course, placing identical speakers in different locations in the room does make them sound noticeably different, so good room EQ is necessary, anyhow. When I upgraded from 5.1 to 7.1.4, all 6 of the new speakers were identical models, different from the existing speakers. The crossovers resulting from Audyssey's f3 detection differ depending on where the new speakers are in the room. In other words, their low frequency extension is not the same.


----------



## redjr

Dan Hitchman said:


> .....If they expect you to re-arrange your speaker layout for each format, that isn't going to go over well.


How about, go over at all!


----------



## qwerty_88

Selden Ball said:


> You can use Front Height + Top Middle.
> 
> Unfortunately Top Front + Top Middle is not an allowed configuration. The four overhead speakers can only occupy combinations of the five overhead positions which are not adjacent to one another: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height.


so it will be a 7.1.2 config in that case?

is it advisable to have a ceiling mounted Front Height?


----------



## Selden Ball

qwerty_88 said:


> so it will be a 7.1.2 config in that case?


 Dolby calls that a 5.1.4 configuration. 


> is it advisable to have a ceiling mounted Front Height?


 It doesn't matter if the speakers are mounted on the wall or the ceiling, so long as they're high enough relative to the main listening position. What Dolby cares about is the angular elevation. You can use whichever is easier. Note that there's a large overlap between Front Height and Top Front positions.


----------



## kbarnes701

NM20 said:


> Thanks Keith. What are the differences? Both state 90 degree dispersion. The reason I ask is that I just picked up some DI6 non DC, just wondering if I but some DI5 DC will they play nice together?


They are different speakers. IDK what the exact differences are but the *full spec i*s on the Tannoy site and will presumably make it clear. I would expect them to be highly compatible with the Di5. FWIW I am suing Di6 DCs for my surrounds and Di5 DCs for the overheads. Seems like a sweet combination to me.


----------



## petetherock

I know members here are early adopters, whilst the rest of the world sleeps unawares, watching their DVDs and other compressed youtube videos, but I really wish the makers help give us a break and give us free Auro upgrades and fix that @#$% HDCP 2.2 issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I also think that the overheads do not do any real heavy lifting either.
> As far as transformers 4 do you or would you even hear things falling from the sky (what sound does a falling object make unless the engine is running in those things falling) in chapter 20 what sound would it make until it hits the ground but I do agree there should have been more sound in the ceiling speakers....


You are right that a falling object (eg rain) does not generally make a sound until it hits something, but in the case of TF4, there is, as batpig so eloquently described it, a huge mother freakin spaceship above our heads, sucking things as large as cruise ships up into its gigantic magnet. I would expect the ship to make a noise as it does this but that noise is strangely absent from the TF4 overhead speakers. There are many other similar moments - for example, when that huge cylinder thing smacks down on to the elevated train, there could have been a 'whoosh' from overhead as it descended, and then when it hit the train, the viewpoint was from below the train, so there could have been some remnants of the sound of it hitting the train and destroying it placed up in the overheads, as well as in the LCR.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Of course, placing identical speakers in different locations in the room does make them sound noticeably different, so good room EQ is necessary, anyhow. When I upgraded from 5.1 to 7.1.4, all 6 of the new speakers were identical models, different from the existing speakers. The crossovers resulting from Audyssey's f3 detection differ depending on where the new speakers are in the room. In other words, their low frequency extension is not the same.


That is a good point IMO and often overlooked when discussing so-called timbre matching. The simple act of putting one speaker in one place in room and its identical twin in another place can cause significant and audible differences in frequency response. For example, if identical surround speakers (to the front LCR) are placed into or near a corner, they will sound different to the LCR speakers. And if they are placed higher up, they will also sound different. This emphasises the point that 'timbre matching' is a futile exercise _per se_, and that EQ is needed if one wants to bring all the speakers sonically into line with each other.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I know members here are early adopters, whilst the rest of the world sleeps unawares, watching their DVDs and other compressed youtube videos, but I really wish the makers help give us a break and give us free Auro upgrades and fix that @#$% HDCP 2.2 issue.


Remember that licenses or royalties have to be paid for all these codecs. Atmos isn't free either - its cost is built into the cost of the AVR it is found in. Same with Auro - if Auro had been included from the get-go, then the AVR would have cost more in the first place. 

I personally applaud the concept that we can choose which bits we want and pay accordingly. Those who don't want Auro don't end up paying for it. I'd love to see that notion extended to other aspects of an AVR - given that I probably use only about 10% of the features, I'd be getting a huge bargain


----------



## petetherock

@ keith
Do try out LOTR I - the part in the dwarf caves... there should be some serious ambience there, and lotsa echoes when the bucket drops into the well


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> I doubt it will make much difference TBH. Surround and overhead channels don't do much 'heavy lifting'. If you isolate your surround channels and play some content with good surround usage, you will be surprised at how little they really have to do, compared with the front LCR.
> 
> If you are concerned about it, I would use the better speakers for surrounds and the less good speakers for back surrounds, but I honesty doubt you would hear any difference.



Thanks Keith and Selen Ball.


So it would be better to use the Atmos speakers (the better speakers) for sure on the front and on de back, and use the leftover speakers (not a bad one, but a "real" surround speaker, the Magnat Needle Super Tower) on the surround possition.......


Thanks for clearing this up for me !


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> I have zero hard evidence for this, but my alarmist, speculative conclusion after sleeping on it is that it's a bad encode and something got F'd up, and most of the object metadata either didn't get encoded properly or who knows what, but a lot of the object sounds are getting left in the bed channels that shouldn't be.
> 
> It's one thing to say there were no overhead beds, so yeah, you don't get that ambient environmental noise or rumblings from explosions or swelling music overhead... but like I said, this movie is full of airplanes zooming directly overhead straight over you, missiles and laser beams zapping over you, giant chunks of dangerous stuff crashing down on top of you, and robot muther freaking dinosaurs towering over you. And all of this accompanied by dead silence in the Atmos channels. I mean, absolutely nothing. I was really shocked at what I heard when I started hanging out by the Atmos speakers.
> 
> Filmmixer, I really want to know if you have the TF4 BD and have tried it because I want to hear a professional opinion of whether what's there (or more importantly, not there) is abnormal or not.
> 
> To emphasize, these are often moments where the crap falling on you from the sky is directly propelling the plot at that moment, where the presence of the overhead sound effect would be critical to conveying that moment. In the (in)famous Chapter 20 sound orgy, THE M'F'ING ALIEN MOTHERSHIP IS FLOATING OVERHEAD, sucking up cars and buses and container ships and autobots and scraps of metal into the sky (sorry if I ruined this plot twist for those who haven't seen it). There is all sorts of crap floating up into the sky and then big chunks of it are dropped directly on you and smash into buildings and almost flatten main characters (no worries, everyone you like lives! they barely escape being crushed every time). And literally the only sound in the Atmos channels during this onslaught is a soft force-field "whooo whooo whooo" effect.
> 
> I would be pretty surprised if this is how it was supposed to be.


+1 

That was one point they seemed to emphasize on the making of blurb about the spaceship sucking metal pieces up into its "mouth" - they used the overheads to create the illusion of the objects flying up into the ceiling above the audience. Now, to me, that would mean the overheads would be pretty active. However, from reports of the actual Blu-ray track there is almost nothing going on overhead.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lesmor said:


> For the first Dolby Atmos release it certainly doesn't seem right that it wouldn't be an awesome overhead experience.
> Has anyone seen it in Dolby Atmos in the cinema for comparison?
> 
> Heaven forbid it could be the AVR, has there been comparisons using T4 with different AVR manufacturers?


I remember people that went to see T4 in Atmos said the mix was pretty unhinged. I think something isn't right with either the discs or the hardware... or maybe both.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> You are right that a falling object (eg rain) does not generally make a sound until it hits something, but in the case of TF4, there is, as batpig so eloquently described it, a huge mother freakin spaceship above our heads, sucking things as large as cruise ships up into its gigantic magnet. I would expect the ship to make a noise as it does this but that noise is strangely absent from the TF4 overhead speakers. There are many other similar moments - for example, when that huge cylinder thing smacks down on to the elevated train, there could have been a 'whoosh' from overhead as it descended, and then when it hit the train, the viewpoint was from below the train, so there could have been some remnants of the sound of it hitting the train and destroying it placed up in the overheads, as well as in the LCR.


Yes I agree that ship sucking up all the metal should have been making my ceiling speakers sing....they seem to sing and are very active when using DSU so for us early adapters this is the bonus... as Atmos blu-ray disc come out let's hope the mixing rooms will at least listen to what is or isn't coming from above. Hopefully there are those that will do a final listen before the release the blu-rays....


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> a huge mother freakin spaceship above our heads, sucking things as large as cruise ships up into its gigantic magnet. I would expect the ship to make a noise as it does this but that noise is strangely absent from the TF4 overhead speakers.


I watched TF4 in D-TrueHD 7.1 (no Atmos yet). And I was very impressed with the roar coming from up as though I have ceiling speakers. May be that my surround (side and back) are both are little higher (6 feet from ground) and so is my center that is mounted above the screen, if that has contributed for that elevation.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I couldn't quite see what he wanted that for - the angles are what matter and so the distances will vary for a given angle depending on the room size, ceiling height etc. So long as he follows the angles he will be OK. At least that is what someone told me  But in my room, that 'throw' distance is 7ft from the front and 4.5ft from the rear.


I figured Cory was thinking about the SPL at the MLP, which diminishes as distance increases, and with his room being rather larger than ours, this would add more stress to the speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

Gurba said:


> Stop complaining!! Compare swedish prices on ANYTHING With what we pay in Norway.


Bryston has to be imported from Norway to here. Also the measurement hardware from AudioTools. That's about +30% on the Norwegian prices. But I'm willing to waver the normal price differences if we switch national deficit and you sign over Statoil to us.


----------



## NorthSky

...Or you can move to Montreal, Canada.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith and Selen Ball.
> 
> 
> So it would be better to use the Atmos speakers (the better speakers) for sure on the front and on de back, and use the leftover speakers (not a bad one, but a "real" surround speaker, the Magnat Needle Super Tower) on the surround possition.......
> 
> 
> Thanks for clearing this up for me !


I do not think that you could really go wrong with doing it that way.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> +1
> 
> That was one point they seemed to emphasize on the making of blurb about the spaceship sucking metal pieces up into its "mouth" - they used the overheads to create the illusion of the objects flying up into the ceiling above the audience. Now, to me, that would mean the overheads would be pretty active. However, from reports of the actual Blu-ray track there is almost nothing going on overhead.


I confess I haven't seen this video yet, but yes, if they say that, then there seems to be something amiss someplace. The way they describe it would be perfect, but it isn’t what’s happening. Makes me wonder if our winged porcine mammal is onto something when he suggests that the transfer is FUBAR.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I remember people that went to see T4 in Atmos said the mix was pretty unhinged. I think something isn't right with either the discs or the hardware... or maybe both.


I can’t see it being a hardware issue - the Atmos demo disc works just fine.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> I watched TF4 in D-TrueHD 7.1 (no Atmos yet). And I was very impressed with the roar coming from up as though I have ceiling speakers. May be that my surround (side and back) are both are little higher (6 feet from ground) and so is my center that is mounted above the screen, if that has contributed for that elevation.


Sure - 'overhead' effects as a psychoacoustic phenomenon, allied to compelling visual stimulus, has always delivered that effect to some extent, especially when 'listener level' speakers are mounted higher up. Indeed, one of the reasons for the recommendation to mount surrounds 5-6 feet up the wall was to create some of the 'bubble' above us, back in the days when we had no physical, discrete speakers on the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I figured Cory was thinking about the SPL at the MLP, which diminishes as distance increases, and with his room being rather larger than ours, this would add more stress to the speakers.


Ah right. Bingo. Thanks


----------



## pasender91

I went to a Hifi and HT show in Paris today, and visited the several stands, here is the info i gathered on 3D sound:

1) Most importantly, because it is a question still lurking in the thread, again yesterday it was asked, rougly as "is there is no 1st gen Atmos AVR that is able to place speakers precisely?"
I believe this is important. Atmos places objects precisely in space, but then our speakers are placed in legacy FH or TM unprecise locations????? come on !!!
During my visit on the Yamaha stand, i had a discussion with a tech rep that tested the Beta Atmos FW for the 3040. He assured me that this AVR will be able to place speakers precisely using azimuth and elevation angles , like it does on non-Atmos modes.
For people like me that have speakers in strange locations (in my case i have assymetric Top Rears due to room shape), this is very good news, and available at the end of this month.

2) Had a demo of Auro-3D on a Denon 5200W, with the Beta upgrade that will be available for 150€ in Europe. I was not completely impressed, maybe this was due to a poor setup (5.2.4 with polk audio speakers but not installed optimaly i believe)

3) Had a demo of Atmos 5.1.2 on high-end headphones connected thru a high-end system for converting multichannel for headphones, the Smyth Realizer A8. This worked pretty well, the immersion is good including the .2 top channels, they played the now famous TF4 chapter 20, and i was impressed. At 3000€ for the encoder it is not for everyone, but if you listen to movies alone it becomes an alternative to installing an HT room.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have to wonder, Keith, if you played something like T4 through a much larger Trinnov or Steinway/Lyngdorf processor based speaker system if more of the overhead signal might actually come from the overheads. I've been thinking about how these lower output rendering blocks re-interpret the object metadata instructions and whether or not much of the overhead information isn't getting folded into the main layer speakers either by a coding mistake on the part of Dolby or by design.
> 
> The other possibility is that there was an Atmos conversion and/or authoring glitch in the soundtrack. _*If you view the Soundworks Collection video blurb about T4's soundtrack mixing, the engineers specifically state they used the overheads quite a bit. *_ You and a few others are saying the Blu-ray has almost no overhead usage. Something doesn't jive.


Um... they didn't say that at all... 

So you're starting from a false premise. 

I listened to the one section where Erik specifically talks about a sound in the overheads.. and it's right there on the BR.

I also spoke to Greg Russell after he approved the BR encode... 

It's also a good idea to remember that objects don't equal overheads... some mixers might use the format differently... there is plenty of overhead stuff from the 20 minutes I spot checked (dripping water, music pans, etc..) It's easy for me to quickly disconnect my mains (which I did for this request...) 

Also I listened to all of the trailers on the two demo discs I happen to have... one of them has nothing in the overheads ("Silent") and the others exactly what I would expect..

Some titles by some mixers might benefit more from being played back on > 7.1 "bed" systems... some might have crazy amounts of overhead material...

In regards to TF4, knowing those mixers and having many conversations with them while they were mixing the films, I think the disc is absolutely as intended...

EDIT TO ADD: those larger systems might render the in room pans more precisely.. but the overhead steering should not change.


----------



## Gurba

Nightlord said:


> Bryston has to be imported from Norway to here. Also the measurement hardware from AudioTools. That's about +30% on the Norwegian prices. But I'm willing to waver the normal price differences if we switch national deficit and you sign over Statoil to us.


I realize Electronics isn't expensive in Norway but everything else is.


Some decades ago Sweden was given the opportunity to get a part of Norwegian oil in Exchange for a part of Volvo. Sweden said no an Norway has been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Um... they didn't say that at all...
> 
> So you're starting from a false premise.
> 
> I listened to the one section where Erik specifically talks about a sound in the overheads.. and it's right there on the BR.
> 
> I also spoke to Greg Russell after he approved the BR encode...
> 
> It's also a good idea to remember that objects don't equal overheads... some mixers might use the format differently... there is plenty of overhead stuff from the 20 minutes I spot checked (dripping water, music pans, etc..) It's easy for me to quickly disconnect my mains (which I did for this request...)
> 
> Also I listened to all of the trailers on the two demo discs I happen to have... one of them has nothing in the overheads ("Silent") and the others exactly what I would expect..
> 
> Some titles by some mixers might benefit more from being played back on > 7.1 "bed" systems... some might have crazy amounts of overhead material...
> 
> In regards to TF4, knowing those mixers and having many conversations with them while they were mixing the films, I think the disc is absolutely as intended...
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: those larger systems might render the in room pans more precisely.. but the overhead steering should not change.


I watched the video again and you're right on that point. Faulty memory, but they had mentioned they were using the overheads to create a pulling effect upwards during the mothership sequence and Keith and another member was mentioning that the overheads barely did anything. 

Now you're saying that there was plenty of overhead action going on when you listened to the Blu-ray track. I'm left scratching my head as to why there is such a discrepancy.

You're using which receiver again? The Yammie or the Denon? Are you doing a 7.1.4 setup? If it's the Yamaha, could there possibly be an issue with Denon's Atmos decoding or how it was implemented in their products? Keith is using a Denon in a 5.1.4 configuration. Might that be creating an issue of where sound objects are being placed? I'm just trying to lock this down.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I went to a Hifi and HT show in Paris today, and visited the several stands, here is the info i gathered on 3D sound:
> 
> 1) Most importantly, because it is a question still lurking in the thread, again yesterday it was asked, rougly as "is there is no 1st gen Atmos AVR that is able to place speakers precisely?"
> I believe this is important. Atmos places objects precisely in space, but then our speakers are placed in legacy FH or TM unprecise locations????? come on !!!
> During my visit on the Yamaha stand, i had a discussion with a tech rep that tested the Beta Atmos FW for the 3040. He assured me that this AVR will be able to place speakers precisely using azimuth and elevation angles , like it does on non-Atmos modes.
> For people like me that have speakers in strange locations (in my case i have assymetric Top Rears due to room shape), this is very good news, and available at the end of this month.


If that is correct, it would be good news indeed. But I’d be careful in assuming these guys know as much as they think they do - Onkyo told me - not once but three times (I asked three times) that their units would render to the locations the speakers were at, and it wasn't so then and isn’t so now. I have read that Yamaha cannot do so either, even though they have the facility with their special mic etc - the process just isn’t supported by the AVR tech. I hope that your source was right and that I am wrong though.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> In regards to TF4, knowing those mixers and having many conversations with them while they were mixing the films, I think the disc is absolutely as intended...


In that case, Marc, why do you think they didn't make more use of overhead effects, especially in TF4 Chapter 20, which seems to cry out for it?

Having totally silent overhead speakers for the majority of the movie, and especially in scenes like Ch 20, isn't what I think most of us expected.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I watched the video again and you're right on that point. Faulty memory, but they had mentioned they were using the overheads to create a pulling effect upwards during the mothership sequence and Keith and another member was mentioning that the overheads barely did anything.


That's right. Chapter 20 is the only chapter I have auditioned with all the other amps turned off. Marc may have checked out a different section, or even the later part of Ch 20 where the overheads are more active.



Dan Hitchman said:


> You're using which receiver again? The Yammie or the Denon? Are you doing a 7.1.4 setup? If it's the Yamaha, could there possibly be an issue with Denon's Atmos decoding or how it was implemented in their products? Keith is using a Denon in a 5.1.4 configuration. Might that be creating an issue of where sound objects are being placed? I'm just trying to lock this down.


I've pretty much ruled out hardware as a possible issue because the Atmos 'Leaf', 'Amaze' and 'Triangles' trailers (I always forget the name of that one) all play as expected.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. Chapter 20 is the only chapter I have auditioned with all the other amps turned off. Marc may have checked out a different section, or even the later part of Ch 20 where the overheads are more active.
> 
> 
> 
> I've pretty much ruled out hardware as a possible issue because the Atmos 'Leaf', 'Amaze' and 'Triangles' trailers (I always forget the name of that one) all play as expected.



Things that make you go: Hmmm... 

Marc seems to think there is quite a bit of overhead usage, and you say that there isn't. Head...about...to...explode.  That's why I had the question about what a Yamaha receiver might be doing versus a Denon receiver and any possible speaker layout differences that could cause such a discrepancy.


----------



## kokishin

Dan Hitchman said:


> I watched the video again and you're right on that point. Faulty memory, but they had mentioned they were using the overheads to create a pulling effect upwards during the mothership sequence and Keith and another member was mentioning that the overheads barely did anything.
> 
> Now you're saying that there was plenty of overhead action going on when you listened to the Blu-ray track. I'm left scratching my head as to why there is such a discrepancy.
> 
> You're using which receiver again? The Yammie or the Denon? Are you doing a 7.1.4 setup? If it's the Yamaha, could there possibly be an issue with Denon's Atmos decoding or how it was implemented in their products? Keith is using a Denon in a 5.1.4 configuration. Might that be creating an issue of where sound objects are being placed? I'm just trying to lock this down.


In a prior post from Marc, he said he had switched back to the X5200 and was still using the Pioneer AJ Dolby Atmos Enhanced speakers in a 5.1.4 config.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> In a prior post from Marc, he said he had switched back to the X5200 and was still using the Pioneer AJ Dolby Atmos Enhanced speakers in a 5.1.4 config.


Thanks!


----------



## Billybobjimbob

I think a lot of you guys maybe expecting way too much from Atmos, at this stage. Transformers 4 is the first Atmos disc, I'm sure with time, the use of the heights speakers will improve and become more effective. 

As an example, even on some 5 and 7 channel tracks, the surrounds are sometimes pretty quite depending on the nature of the content on screen..sometimes we hope for more, but you do get hits and misses. However, with major releases, more often than not we get a reference pic and audio. 

I say give it time. Atmos will not transform audio tracks with bombastic overhead speakers, it will however add and contribute to a more cohesive and immersive audio experience..in time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Things that make you go: Hmmm...
> 
> Marc seems to think there is quite a bit of overhead usage, and you say that there isn't. Head...about...to...explode.


It depends which section he is listening to I suppose. We need to specify the exact time codes on the disc. I was using Chapter 20.



Dan Hitchman said:


> That's why I had the question about what a Yamaha receiver might be doing versus a Denon receiver and any possible speaker layout differences that could cause such a discrepancy.


By speaker layout you mean whether they are designated as FH or TM or TF or whatever? I guess that could make a difference if different sounds are steered differently to different speaker configs. I doubt it but it could be. I can redesignate my speakers as TF and TR and try it again, but I bet it makes no difference. Batpig isn’t even using ceiling speakers - just upfirers, and he is finding the same thing. If I can find time tomorrow to do that experiment I will try it.

I’d like to know the answer to that question though - does Atmos send different sound content to the speakers if they are designated as FH +TM as compared with TF + TR?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It depends which section he is listening to I suppose. We need to specify the exact time codes on the disc. I was using Chapter 20.
> 
> 
> 
> By speaker layout you mean whether they are designated as FH or TM or TF or whatever? I guess that could make a difference if different sounds are steered differently to different speaker configs. I doubt it but it could be. I can redesignate my speakers as TF and TR and try it again, but I bet it makes no difference. Batpig isn’t even using ceiling speakers - just upfirers, and he is finding the same thing. If I can find time tomorrow to do that experiment I will try it.
> 
> I’d like to know the answer to that question though - does Atmos send different sound content to the speakers if they are designated as FH +TM as compared with TF + TR?


That, plus a 7.1.4 vs a 5.1.4 config, etc. For instance, if you have rear surrounds or not. 

It would be interesting information to find out, for sure.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. Chapter 20 is the only chapter I have auditioned with all the other amps turned off. Marc may have checked out a different section, or even the later part of Ch 20 where the overheads are more active.
> 
> 
> 
> I've pretty much ruled out hardware as a possible issue because the Atmos 'Leaf', 'Amaze' and 'Triangles' trailers (I always forget the name of that one) all play as expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things that make you go: Hmmm...
> 
> Marc seems to think there is quite a bit of overhead usage, and you say that there isn't. Head...about...to...explode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I had the question about what a Yamaha receiver might be doing versus a Denon receiver and any possible speaker layout differences that could cause such a discrepancy.
Click to expand...

I never said a lot. Again you're quoting things that were never stated. 

You need less coffee. 

I said plenty. 

I watched chapter 20. The sound that Erik specifically talks about in the SW video is present and accounted for. 

I watched the first 10 minutes. Overheads were going where I expected. 

One of the other sections I spoke to Greg about is the domes at night hovering as they approach the ship. All there. 

No offense to all, but you guys are making way too much out of this. 

Everything is working as I expect.

I know in TF 4 the objects were used extensively to move things into the room... Not necessarily overhead. 

Why they didn't use more on top was their style and taste. And what they happened to do on this film in particular.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> No offense to all, but you guys are making way too much out of this.
> 
> Everything is working as I expect.


Thanks. I guess it wasn't working as_ we _expect  Maybe we are expecting too much?



FilmMixer said:


> I know in TF 4 the objects were used extensively to move things into the room... Not necessarily overhead.


It is definitely the case here that I do notice that. I commented in my initial and subsequent short reports on this (which sparked the debate) where I compared TF4 with Atmos and then in 5.1 with DSU, that the Atmos track sounded much better, with more precision in the way the sounds were placed in the entire soundstage, and your remark seems to confirm that my listening impression was correct. The Atmos track is just superb in the way sounds move around the room here - better than I have ever heard. It was just a surprise to see so little in the overheads. Overall, as I said before, this is one hell of a soundtrack.

(For the record, it was Dan you were replying too, although the quoting got messed up somewhere).


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> I never said a lot. Again you're quoting things that were never stated.
> 
> You need less coffee.
> 
> I said plenty.
> 
> I watched chapter 20. The sound that Erik specifically talks about in the SW video is present and accounted for.
> 
> I watched the first 10 minutes. Overheads were going where I expected.
> 
> One of the other sections I spoke to Greg about is the domes at night hovering as they approach the ship. All there.
> 
> No offense to all, but you guys are making way too much out of this.
> 
> Everything is working as I expect.
> 
> I know in TF 4 the objects were used extensively to move things into the room... Not necessarily overhead.
> 
> Why they didn't use more on top was their style and taste. And what they happened to do on this film in particular.


It's like when 3D first came out they had 3D blu-rays that things that were popping out of the screen very gimmicky then reality came along and depth was the more the norm with less gimmicky popping out effects and people complained that it wasn't good enough.... but I do agree with Keith that the ceiling speakers could have been used more but was that what was intended by the producers of the film...just my $.02..... but one thing I do feel is that T4 is very immersive and way better then 9.2 that I listened to on my 818 system using Neo:X but in Atmos the sound just fills the room and I'm very pleased...


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> I never said a lot. Again you're quoting things that were never stated.
> 
> You need less coffee.
> 
> I said plenty.
> 
> I watched chapter 20. The sound that Erik specifically talks about in the SW video is present and accounted for.
> 
> I watched the first 10 minutes. Overheads were going where I expected.
> 
> One of the other sections I spoke to Greg about is the domes at night hovering as they approach the ship. All there.
> 
> No offense to all, but you guys are making way too much out of this.
> 
> Everything is working as I expect.
> 
> I know in TF 4 the objects were used extensively to move things into the room... Not necessarily overhead.
> 
> Why they didn't use more on top was their style and taste. And what they happened to do on this film in particular.


I believe you, your professional opinion certainly quells my conspiracy theory. But you don't find it odd that the overheads are dead silent when the friggin mothership is cruising directly overhead, and when giant chunks of metal and trucks and ships are crashing down into buildings directly on top of the characters? 

You say "overheads were going where I expected" but I would have expected more. All due respect, what I'm hearing is not "plenty" and this is with my ear literally pressed against the grill of the Atmos speaker. I don't think it's unrealistic to have expected direct overhead action visually to have some corresponding overhead sound. All I can hear in the overheads in the Chapter 20 scene discussed is the rythmik "woo wooo wooo" pulsing of the forcefield. And most of the time besides that they are dead silent.

Can you suggest a specific scene (chap and/or timestamp) in which you think the overheads are well engaged and utilized?


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> 19 feet from the screen?? How big is the screen?


106 inches, give or take a little.


----------



## htpcforever

DaJoJo said:


> it is better to set them as top middle instead of top rears. klipsch makes some nice ones but they will not timbre match, since u got different speakers it prolly doesn't matter for you i guess.


Thanks!


The Axioms and the Paradigms sound great together. I will look into the klipsch.


EDIT: They appear to be infinite baffle speakers - the dome enclosing the speaker is perforated and they sell enclosures separately.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I believe you, your professional opinion certainly quells my conspiracy theory. But you don't find it odd that the overheads are dead silent when the friggin mothership is cruising directly overhead, and when giant chunks of metal and trucks and ships are crashing down into buildings directly on top of the characters?


You make a compelling case, with great eloquence. I just said to Marc that maybe we were expecting too much - but are we being unreasonable in expecting what you describe above? I don't think so. When a huge spaceship passes overhead, in real life or a movie (OK, I am guessing for the real life bit) we kinda expect it will make a helluva lot of noise from its gigantic engines. And when that same spaceship sucks up an ocean liner into its belly, I'd expect that ocean liner to make at least a little noise as it makes contact. If I had been a mixer, I am sure I'd have gone _"wow - what a great opportunity to use those new overhead speakers!". _



batpig said:


> You say "overheads were going where I expected" but I would have expected more. All due respect, what I'm hearing is not "plenty" and this is with my ear literally pressed against the grill of the Atmos speaker. I don't think it's unrealistic to have expected direct overhead action visually to have some corresponding overhead sound. All I can hear in the overheads in the Chapter 20 scene discussed is the rythmik "woo wooo wooo" pulsing of the forcefield. And most of the time besides that they are dead silent.


Yep. I hear the woo wooo wooo too. It's nice. But the sound of a billion horsepower engine driving a kickass alien spaceship while it sucked ocean liners up to a gigantic magnet would have been nicer still.



batpig said:


> Can you suggest a specific scene (chap and/or timestamp) in which you think the overheads are well engaged and utilized?


I’d be interested in Marc's professional take on that too.


----------



## asoofi1

batpig said:


> I believe you, your professional opinion certainly quells my conspiracy theory. But you don't find it odd that the overheads are dead silent when the friggin mothership is cruising directly overhead, and when giant chunks of metal and trucks and ships are crashing down into buildings directly on top of the characters?
> 
> You say "overheads were going where I expected" but I would have expected more. All due respect, what I'm hearing is not "plenty" and this is with my ear literally pressed against the grill of the Atmos speaker. I don't think it's unrealistic to have expected direct overhead action visually to have some corresponding overhead sound. All I can hear in the overheads in the Chapter 20 scene discussed is the rythmik "woo wooo wooo" pulsing of the forcefield. And most of the time besides that they are dead silent.
> 
> Can you suggest a specific scene (chap and/or timestamp) in which you think the overheads are well engaged and utilized?


Perhaps just a not so great remix?
Does increasing the atmos speaker levels help any with this particular movie?


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> 106 inches, give or take a little.


It's none of my business, but why do you sit so far from the screen?


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> Perhaps just a not so great remix?
> Does increasing the atmos speaker levels help any with this particular movie?


No - it's not an issue of the overheads being too quiet. It's an issue of them being mostly silent.


----------



## cannga

pasender91 said:


> I went to a Hifi and HT show in Paris today, and visited the several stands, here is the info i gathered on 3D sound:
> 
> 1) Most importantly, because it is a question still lurking in the thread, again yesterday it was asked, rougly as "is there is no 1st gen Atmos AVR that is able to place speakers precisely?"
> I believe this is important. Atmos places objects precisely in space, but then our speakers are placed in legacy FH or TM unprecise locations????? come on !!!
> During my visit on the Yamaha stand, i had a discussion with a tech rep that tested the Beta Atmos FW for the 3040. *He assured me that this AVR will be able to place speakers precisely using azimuth and elevation angles* , like it does on non-Atmos modes.
> For people like me that have speakers in strange locations (in my case i have assymetric Top Rears due to room shape), this is very good news, and available at the end of this month.




Thanks for asking, very good and interesting news. Did you ask how this would be accomplished? 
*1.* Speaker's location will be determined automatically by a microphone hooked to the Yamaha? 
*2.* For a 7.1.4 system for example, location will be determined for all 11 speakers, both ground and height?

I wouldn't think Yamaha is sadistic enough  to make consumers measure and enter *manually* azimuth and elevation angles for 11 speakers?


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> It's none of my business, but why do you sit so far from the screen?


I have two rows of seats, that is the back seats on the riser. We have a nice area in the front to play the Wii, do exercise videos, let kids sit a few feet from the screen, etc. It is quite comfortable there.


----------



## bsoko2

You guys forget that sound does not travel in space. Ship going overhead in atmosphere that is different.


----------



## htpcforever

In space, no one can hear you scream...unless it is the battle cry of the US MARINES!!!


----------



## pasender91

cannga said:


> Thanks for asking, very good and interesting news. Did you ask how this would be accomplished?
> *1.* Speaker's location will be determined automatically by a microphone hooked to the Yamaha?
> *2.* For a 7.1.4 system for example, location will be determined for all 11 speakers, both ground and height?
> 
> I wouldn't think Yamaha is sadistic enough  to make consumers measure and enter *manually* azimuth and elevation angles for 11 speakers?


Question 1) => The Yamaha 3040 is already shipped with a microphone and a special tripod with 4 slots where you can re-position the microphone. For each speaker, you have to position the microphone in each of the 4 slots in sequence, this makes the whole calibration 4 times longer but allows the AVR to compute the angles. this is already used for the non-atmos modes, what the Yamaha guys told me is that the same procedure will be used for Atmos.
Question 2) => He confirmed this would be for all speakers @Keith => At this stage, this is not marketing roadmap talk, it is a Yamaha tech having tested the Beta Firmware less than 2 weeks before release, so i just hope he did not lie to me


----------



## bsoko2

htpcforever said:


> In space, no one can hear you scream...unless it is the battle cry of the US MARINES!!!


 
True, nothing more deadly than a 19 year-old pissed off Marine with his rifle!


USMC Sgt retired, '62 - '67.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

pasender91 said:


> I went to a Hifi and HT show in Paris today, and visited the several stands, here is the info i gathered on 3D sound:
> 
> 1) Most importantly, because it is a question still lurking in the thread, again yesterday it was asked, rougly as "is there is no 1st gen Atmos AVR that is able to place speakers precisely?"
> I believe this is important. Atmos places objects precisely in space, but then our speakers are placed in legacy FH or TM unprecise locations????? come on !!!
> During my visit on the Yamaha stand, i had a discussion with a tech rep that tested the Beta Atmos FW for the 3040. He assured me that this AVR will be able to place speakers precisely using azimuth and elevation angles , like it does on non-Atmos modes.



We'll know for sure soon, but if it turns out to be true I'm claiming to have called it first


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I never said a lot. Again you're quoting things that were never stated.
> 
> You need less coffee.
> 
> I said plenty.
> 
> I watched chapter 20. The sound that Erik specifically talks about in the SW video is present and accounted for.
> 
> I watched the first 10 minutes. Overheads were going where I expected.
> 
> One of the other sections I spoke to Greg about is the domes at night hovering as they approach the ship. All there.
> 
> No offense to all, but you guys are making way too much out of this.
> 
> Everything is working as I expect.
> 
> I know in TF 4 the objects were used extensively to move things into the room... Not necessarily overhead.
> 
> Why they didn't use more on top was their style and taste. And what they happened to do on this film in particular.


I never said "a lot" either. "Quite a bit" (what I said) and "plenty of overhead stuff" (what you said) are pretty close to each other. It makes it seem like Keith's experience of almost no overhead usage to be a 180 of what to expect on this particular soundtrack. I think we all need better descriptors to describe the overhead activity. 

And either way, it does sound like there were some big missed opportunities to use the overheads throughout for an even greater 3D effect.


----------



## wse

htpcforever said:


> 106 inches, give or take a little.


Whoa that is far away 

I sit seven feet from a 96" 16:9 

and 

10 feet from a 10 feet wide 2:35 screen


----------



## FilmMixer

pasender91 said:


> Question 1) => The Yamaha 3040 is already shipped with a microphone and a special tripod with 4 slots where you can re-position the microphone. For each speaker, you have to position the microphone in each of the 4 slots in sequence, this makes the whole calibration 4 times longer but allows the AVR to compute the angles. _this is already used for the non-atmos modes_, what the Yamaha guys told me is that the same procedure will be used for Atmos.
> Question 2) => He confirmed this would be for all speakers
> @Keith => At this stage, this is not marketing roadmap talk, it is a Yamaha tech having tested the Beta Firmware less than 2 weeks before release, so i just hope he did not lie to me


I had a 3040 briefly.. you don't measure any more than one time per slot... that is simply incorrect.

Angle measurement, from what I understand, will only be used to calculate DSP processing..


----------



## batpig

bsoko2 said:


> You guys forget that sound does not travel in space. Ship going overhead in atmosphere that is different.


Not sure if you are being facetious or not but all the action takes place on earths surface.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> No - it's not an issue of the overheads being too quiet. It's an issue of them being mostly silent.


For sure. Soft subtle cues I could be on board with. But dead silence most of the time in the overheads? Just seems odd to me.

And even when there are some overhead effects, they tend to be pretty low key.

If that's actually how it's supposed to be then it's simply a big missed opportunity IMO.


----------



## Selden Ball

FilmMixer said:


> I had a 3040 briefly.. you don't measure any more than one time per slot... that is simply incorrect.
> 
> Angle measurement, from what I understand, will only be used to calculate DSP processing..


According to the manual four microphone positions are used when you select the calculation of speaker angle/height. Does this happen only at one of the measurement locations?


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> I believe you, your professional opinion certainly quells my conspiracy theory. But you don't find it odd that the overheads are dead silent when the friggin mothership is cruising directly overhead, and when giant chunks of metal and trucks and ships are crashing down into buildings directly on top of the characters?
> 
> You say "overheads were going where I expected" but I would have expected more. All due respect, what I'm hearing is not "plenty" and this is with my ear literally pressed against the grill of the Atmos speaker. I don't think it's unrealistic to have expected direct overhead action visually to have some corresponding overhead sound. All I can hear in the overheads in the Chapter 20 scene discussed is the rythmik "woo wooo wooo" pulsing of the forcefield. And most of the time besides that they are dead silent.
> 
> Can you suggest a specific scene (chap and/or timestamp) in which you think the overheads are well engaged and utilized?


I'm not going to start giving subjective critiques, positive or negative, about my peers work. 

Listening to the overheads only and then saying the sound isn't as it should be is throwing out 90% of what makes that spaceship sound and isn't really fair....

As I stated, and I also heard the film in Atmos and IMAX theatrically, there is nothing I can hear missing from the BR encode.

No offense, but all the comments that starting coming earlier about how the decoders might be faulty, the encode might be off, etc.. came from a comment you falsely remembered being made.. 

Much of a mountain out of a mole hill if you ask me.


----------



## FilmMixer

Selden Ball said:


> According to the manual four microphone positions are used when you select the calculation of speaker angle/height. Does this happen only at one of the measurement locations?


I only did single seat.. but yes, only once.


----------



## doublewing11

htpcforever said:


> 106 inches, give or take a little.


Crickey! I sit 12.5 ft from 12 ft screen and love it! Even sitting in second row at 18.5 ft, 12 ft screen seems small......


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I'm not going to start giving subjective critiques, positive or negative, about my peers work.
> 
> Listening to the overheads only and then saying the sound isn't as it should be is throwing out 90% of what makes that spaceship sound and isn't really fair....
> 
> As I stated, and I also heard the film in Atmos and IMAX theatrically, there is nothing I can hear missing from the BR encode.
> 
> No offense, but all the comments that starting coming earlier about how the decoders might be faulty, the encode might be off, etc.. came from a comment you falsely remembered being made..
> 
> Much of a mountain out of a mole hill if you ask me.


I guess we all have different expectations from these new 3D formats. When I saw "Gravity" I didn't think much of the movie itself, but the Atmos soundtrack wow'd me unlike most film mixes I had heard in the past. It was very aggressive and yet very tasteful too. The Atmos mix fit particular scenes, it fit the movie as a whole. I loved the use of directionalized dialog where they shifted vocals to where the actors actually were on or off screen. That had been missing from far too many films... almost all are monaural dialog plunked into the center speaker...and with Atmos they could do this with precision using a single speaker or a small group of speakers anywhere in the room. 

Now, I do wish mixers would take a tip from these particular sound engineers when using tools like Atmos. When a sound doesn't come from where one would actually expect it to come from realistically (especially with speakers all over the place and above you) that, to me, is more distracting than having dead silence. It doesn't have to necessarily be loud and obnoxious, just at appropriate levels taking into consideration what the filmmakers wanted to emphasize narratively. 

I had an issue with some of the thunder effects I heard in the Atmos demos. It mostly sounded like a big mono, blobbish boom from above. When you _actually _hear peals of distant thunder, there is a kind of rolling, rippling sound with a distinct stereo-ized Doppler effect above you in "natural surround." There's something to be said for a new type of ambient field recordist who needs to be brought on board to capture more realistic 3D environmental and atmospheric effects for these new surround formats. That's one more improvement audio post companies should consider.

There definitely seems to be a learning curve with 3D surround.


----------



## Trigen

I have not watched any movie in atmos (Brisbane sucks for cinema) only in 6.1 and based on film mixer the top speakers in the atmos track is correct.

Has anyone run the Dolby 7.1 HD track and DSU and compared the difference between with the atmos track. 

Sorry if this has been done but I couldn't find it.


----------



## doublewing11

Roger Dressler said:


> I figured Cory was thinking about the SPL at the MLP, which diminishes as distance increases, and with his room being rather larger than ours, this would add more stress to the speakers.


You are correct once again Roger.

Doing my home work ie. measuring twice before I mark, cut or purchase.

Vector for 45 degrees on either side of axis line located between each row and centered covers all seating quite well. My SPL concerns stems from distances covering all seats. Axis vector is approximately a hair over 8.5 ft to MLP and 7, 9.5 ft respectively for front row adjacent seats which would be fine with Tannoy Di 5 DC published specs.. Math gets interesting for second row seating. Dispersion from Tannoys are fine but 14 ft from left front ceiling heights to right 2nd row seat is concerning. 14 ft equates to more than 12 db's lost due to distance. CMS 601 DC's have 2-3 db's more to give than Di 5 DC's........just questioning if I can get away with Di 5 DC's due to fitting in ceiling cloud perfectly.


Probably overthinking issue due to wife and I are in room 95% of time! Translation..........sound for front row seats is paramount............second row can take a back seat.....literally.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

okay Edge of Tomorrow upmixed to DSU sound amazing and the bass at the beginning is intense and the biggest wow was when the helicopters were flying around and the engine noise was coming from the ceiling speakers making it sound like the helicopters were indeed above flying around, simply fantastic...


----------



## DaJoJo

htpcforever said:


> Thanks!
> The Axioms and the Paradigms sound great together. I will look into the klipsch.
> EDIT: They appear to be infinite baffle speakers - the dome enclosing the speaker is perforated and they sell enclosures separately.


yup they seem to sell those enclosures separatly, but i didn't think this was an issue. have you looked at axiom's site ? http://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/axioms-newest-speaker-the-in-ceiling-m3/ these seem nice and according to their blabla should be good for atmos and will also timbre match


----------



## Ccondo1

Quick question, given I refuse to put 11 speakers in a setup, which setup would people recommend 5.2.2, 5.2.4 or 7.2.2?
Theater has 2 rows if that factors in..
I appreciate any input.


----------



## WayneJoy

Ccondo1 said:


> Quick question, given I refuse to put 11 speakers in a setup, which setup would people recommend 5.2.2, 5.2.4 or 7.2.2?
> Theater has 2 rows if that factors in..
> I appreciate any input.


 5.2.4 especially with the 2 rows of seats.


----------



## Ccondo1

WayneJoy said:


> 5.2.4 especially with the 2 rows of seats.


Thank you. Would I be wrong to go dipole for the rear speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ccondo1 said:


> Thank you. Would I be wrong to go dipole for the rear speakers?


Yes. No dipoles are recommended for the 3D surround formats.


----------



## Ccondo1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes. No dipoles are recommended for the 3D surround formats.


So would the best bet be to place monopoles on the sidewall adjacent to the second row? Any further back and I'm afraid the first row would be impacted negatively.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ccondo1 said:


> So would the best bet be to place monopoles on the sidewall adjacent to the second row? Any further back and I'm afraid the first row would be impacted negatively.


How about placing the sides between the front and second row? And don't set them any higher than just enough to not get blocked by anyone's head while seated. 

Any particular reason why you "refuse" to put more than 11 speakers in your system? I would wire for the back surrounds and front "wides." Don't limit yourself because you'll probably change your mind later. Dolby is coming out with a 9.1.4 speaker configuration that allows for a front pair of side surrounds (the "wide" location) for a side wall pan-through array... a good bump up in 3D immersion. I heard this layout at CEDIA.


----------



## Ccondo1

Dan Hitchman said:


> How about placing the sides between the front and second row? And don't set them any higher than just enough to not get blocked by anyone's head while seated.
> 
> Any particular reason why you "refuse" to put more than 11 speakers in your system? I would wire for the back surrounds and front "wides." Don't limit yourself because you'll probably change your mind later. Dolby is coming out with a 9.1.4 speaker configuration that allows for a front pair of side surrounds (the "wide" location) for a side wall pan-through array... a good bump up in 3D immersion. I heard this layout at CEDIA.


I don't want to do more than 9 speakers because of cost. Not so much the speaker but amplification...


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Dan Hitchman said:


> How about placing the sides between the front and second row? And don't set them any higher than just enough to not get blocked by anyone's head while seated.
> 
> Any particular reason why you "refuse" to put more than 11 speakers in your system? I would wire for the back surrounds and front "wides." Don't limit yourself because you'll probably change your mind later. Dolby is coming out with a 9.1.4 speaker configuration that allows for a front pair of side surrounds (the "wide" location) for a side wall pan-through array... a good bump up in 3D immersion. I heard this layout at CEDIA.


Dan,

What do you mean by "Dolby is coming out with a 9.1.4 speaker configuration"?

Are you referring to the 2nd generation of Dolby Atmos enabled receivers/pre-pro's? 

Where has that been confirmed? 


...Glenn


----------



## noah katz

Ccondo1 said:


> I don't want to do more than 9 speakers because of cost. Not so much the speaker but amplification...


That's not a good reason; you can get a new stereo amp for $125 ( http://www.amazon.com/AudioSource-A...3776867&sr=8-1&keywords=audiosource+amplifier ) or a used amp or receiver for $50 or less from ebay, craigslist, Goodwill, etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Glenn Baumann said:


> Dan,
> 
> What do you mean by "Dolby is coming out with a 9.1.4 speaker configuration"?
> 
> Are you referring to the 2nd generation of Dolby Atmos enabled receivers/pre-pro's?
> 
> Where has that been confirmed?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


At CEDIA. They mentioned that a 9.1.4 rendering block was being worked on when I asked. I would assume for future generation products.


----------



## Ccondo1

noah katz said:


> That's not a good reason; you can get a new stereo amp for $125 ( http://www.amazon.com/AudioSource-A...3776867&sr=8-1&keywords=audiosource+amplifier ) or a used amp or receiver for $50 or less from ebay, craigslist, Goodwill, etc.


But I'd need a receiver that has preamp outputs for 11 channels


----------



## Roger Dressler

doublewing11 said:


> Vector for 45 degrees on either side of axis line located between each row and centered covers all seating quite well. My SPL concerns stems from distances covering all seats. Axis vector is approximately a hair over 8.5 ft to MLP and 7, 9.5 ft respectively for front row adjacent seats which would be fine with Tannoy Di 5 DC published specs.. Math gets interesting for second row seating. Dispersion from Tannoys are fine but 14 ft from left front ceiling heights to right 2nd row seat is concerning.


You can take comfort in knowing that only the MLP needs to be factored in when calculating speaker power, as that's where the gains are set. If the sound drops off in further seats, that's physics that cannot be overcome with a more powerful speaker.


----------



## noah katz

Ccondo1 said:


> I don't want to do more than 9 speakers because of cost. Not so much the speaker but amplification...





Ccondo1 said:


> But I'd need a receiver that has preamp outputs for 11 channels


Yes, you would.


----------



## pasender91

Selden Ball said:


> According to the manual four microphone positions are used when you select the calculation of speaker angle/height. Does this happen only at one of the measurement locations?


Filmmixer, Selden ball, this procedure of using the special tripod to do 4 measures at each spot in order to compute speaker angle & elevation is a standard feature of the 3040, it is called YPAO 3D.
By default it is OFF when launching YPAO, set the option "Angle/Height" to yes before launching the measures.

Since yesterday, this is also confirmed from another Yamaha source that YPAO 3D can be used during Atmos setup. (go to 3040 thread for details)


----------



## Apgood

kbarnes701 said:


> It depends which section he is listening to I suppose. We need to specify the exact time codes on the disc. I was using Chapter 20.
> 
> 
> 
> By speaker layout you mean whether they are designated as FH or TM or TF or whatever? I guess that could make a difference if different sounds are steered differently to different speaker configs. I doubt it but it could be. I can redesignate my speakers as TF and TR and try it again, but I bet it makes no difference. Batpig isn’t even using ceiling speakers - just upfirers, and he is finding the same thing. If I can find time tomorrow to do that experiment I will try it.
> 
> I’d like to know the answer to that question though - does Atmos send different sound content to the speakers if they are designated as FH +TM as compared with TF + TR?


It might not even be intentional. It is even possible that there might be a bug in a particular ave model's implementation of atmos in that an object here and there doesn't get render depending on the combination of speaker assignments. Not saying there is, but I imagine the rendering logic is quite complex and it is still early days for the feature and associated firmwares.

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> I have two rows of seats, that is the back seats on the riser. We have a nice area in the front to play the Wii, do exercise videos, let kids sit a few feet from the screen, etc. It is quite comfortable there.


OK. It just seems way too far from the screen to me to get full immersion, but if you prefer it that way, that's all that matters.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> @Keith => At this stage, this is not marketing roadmap talk, it is a Yamaha tech having tested the Beta Firmware less than 2 weeks before release, so i just hope he did not lie to me


Yes, it was an Onkyo tech who told me the same thing. He was still wrong


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I never said "a lot" either. "Quite a bit" (what I said) and "plenty of overhead stuff" (what you said) are pretty close to each other. It makes it seem like Keith's experience of almost no overhead usage to be a 180 of what to expect on this particular soundtrack. I think we all need better descriptors to describe the overhead activity.
> 
> And either way, it does sound like there were some big missed opportunities to use the overheads throughout for an even greater 3D effect.


"Almost no overhead" usage is a bit strong - I think I said that 90% of the time the overheads are silent - that still means that 10% of the time they aren't. And it may be that only 10% of the movie calls for overhead sounds? But yes, I agree with you that my real gripe is that when overhead effects *are* called for, the soundtrack seems to have missed some great opportunities.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> For sure. Soft subtle cues I could be on board with. But dead silence most of the time in the overheads? Just seems odd to me.
> 
> And even when there are some overhead effects, they tend to be pretty low key.
> 
> If that's actually how it's supposed to be then it's simply a big missed opportunity IMO.


Yes - the missed opportunity is my beef too. We can't expect Marc to critique the work of his colleagues (and I am sure you weren't) so it seems we will get no further with this other than to agree that the opportunity was largely missed. Hopefully, films on the horizon will make better use of the overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> I'm not going to start giving subjective critiques, positive or negative, about my peers work.


Fully understand that and I don't think anyone expected you to do that, Marc.



FilmMixer said:


> Listening to the overheads only and then saying the sound isn't as it should be is throwing out 90% of what makes that spaceship sound and isn't really fair....


90% of what makes the spaceship sound may well be in the listener-level speakers. The problem is that there is 0% of the sound in the overheads for the spaceship sound, most of the time. That's what seems odd to us lay guys.



FilmMixer said:


> As I stated, and I also heard the film in Atmos and IMAX theatrically, there is nothing I can hear missing from the BR encode.


Then it is good to know that everything is working as intended. Our gripe I guess is that we expected the intention to make more use of the overheads.



FilmMixer said:


> No offense, but all the comments that starting coming earlier about how the decoders might be faulty, the encode might be off, etc.. came from a comment you falsely remembered being made..


I think that was Dan, not batpig.



FilmMixer said:


> Much of a mountain out of a mole hill if you ask me.


Not to us lay guys. I can see that you will see it from an entirely different perspective - but surely you can also see our POV, which is that it was surprising to us that when there were obvious overhead effects on screen, the overhead speakers remained entirely silent (eg the mothership flyover when it was sucking cruise liners up to a giant magnet thing)? We expected a big effect there from the overhead speakers and it is absent.

Given that currently we have just one movie in Atmos on Bluray, TF4 perhaps was not the best movie to kick off with, given the absence of sound from the overheads where it would be expected by almost all non-industry people. Hopefully, future releases will be more satisfying.


----------



## kbarnes701

Trigen said:


> I have not watched any movie in atmos (Brisbane sucks for cinema) only in 6.1 and based on film mixer the top speakers in the atmos track is correct.
> 
> Has anyone run the Dolby 7.1 HD track and DSU and compared the difference between with the atmos track.
> 
> Sorry if this has been done but I couldn't find it.


I did exactly that test and reported on it a few pages back.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ccondo1 said:


> Quick question, given I refuse to put 11 speakers in a setup, which setup would people recommend 5.2.2, 5.2.4 or 7.2.2?
> Theater has 2 rows if that factors in..
> I appreciate any input.


As as has been said - 5.1.4 would be better than the other configurations. 4 overheads enables front to back panning as well as left to right. And it will give a more immersive experience too.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Dan,
> 
> What do you mean by "Dolby is coming out with a 9.1.4 speaker configuration"?
> 
> Are you referring to the 2nd generation of Dolby Atmos enabled receivers/pre-pro's?
> 
> Where has that been confirmed?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Dolby has already 'come out' with a 24.1.10 configuration for the home version of Atmos, so I don't really understand the talk about 9.1.4. It is entirely up to the AVR manufacturers how 'much' of this spec they choose to implement in hardware, but 24.1.10 is already permitted by Dolby and has been from the get-go.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Filmmixer, Selden ball, this procedure of using the special tripod to do 4 measures at each spot in order to compute speaker angle & elevation is a standard feature of the 3040, it is called YPAO 3D.
> By default it is OFF when launching YPAO, set the option "Angle/Height" to yes before launching the measures.
> 
> Since yesterday, this is also confirmed from another Yamaha source that YPAO 3D can be used during Atmos setup. (go to 3040 thread for details)


I hope you are right. But just because YPAO 3D can be used during an Atmos setup is not the same thing as saying that the unit will use the information to calculate speaker positions and then pass that information to the Atmos renderer. A valid way of reading that statement would be that the unit can continue to calculate angles and elevation for the Yamaha modes that use it, even when doing an Atmos setup. 

What needs to be confirmed is that the angles and elevations so captured will then be passed to the Atmos renderer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby has already 'come out' with a 24.1.10 configuration for the home version of Atmos, so I don't really understand the talk about 9.1.4. It is entirely up to the AVR manufacturers how 'much' of this spec they choose to implement in hardware, but 24.1.10 is already permitted by Dolby and has been from the get-go.


I asked one of the Dolby engineers at CEDIA about a 9.1.4 Atmos configuration and he stated they were working on a rendering block like that. Since this is a fixed block, I would assume it's for "mainstream" product. Whether it's coming next year or not, I don't know. 

There had been some talk that 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 was Dolby's _sweet spot_ configuration for the majority of home users. 9.1.4 was demoed at Steinway/Lyngdorf and Procella's booths. It was apparent, especially at the Steinway demo, that 9.1.4 did help spread out the sound field for a more immersive experience with a wider sweep of object anchoring and panning. Both booths had the so-called "front wide" configured as a front pair of side surrounds, much like in the cinema Atmos config where front side surrounds help smooth-in the sonic gap from screen speakers to the traditional side surround array locations.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I asked one of the Dolby engineers at CEDIA about a 9.1.4 Atmos configuration and he stated they were working on a rendering block like that. Since this is a fixed block, I would assume it's for "mainstream" product. Whether it's coming next year or not, I don't know.
> 
> There had been some talk that 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 was Dolby's _sweet spot_ configuration for the majority of home users. 9.1.4 was demoed at Steinway/Lyngdorf and Procella's booths. It was apparent, especially at the Steinway demo, that 9.1.4 did help spread out the sound field for a more immersive experience with a wider sweep of object anchoring and panning. Both booths had the so-called "front wide" configured as a front pair of side surrounds.


I still don't understand. Dolby has released Atmos 24.1.10 already. It's the AVR manufacturers who decided what to include in their units. They can already go for 9.1.4 or 11.1.8 or anything else up to 24.1.10 if they choose to. In fact, some high-end units are already catering for going well beyond 7.1.4 IIRC. What am I missing?

From the Dolby blog:
_
"Many hardware partners are building or planning to build Dolby Atmos enabled A/V receivers and speakers. Those partners decide what product configurations make the most sense for their customers. But the Dolby Atmos system itself is almost unlimited. If you have the space and budget, you can build a Dolby Atmos system with as many as 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead speakers. One of our hardware partners is planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels._"


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I still don't understand. Dolby has released Atmos 24.1.10 already. It's the AVR manufacturers who decided what to include in their units. They can already go for 9.1.4 or 11.1.8 or anything else up to 24.1.10 if they choose to. In fact, some high-end units are already catering for going well beyond 7.1.4 IIRC. What am I missing?



Trinnov, Datasat, Steinway, and other "ultra" high end companies got the whole home Atmos rendering "kit and caboodle" and can choose to use the software anyway they see fit (within Dolby's specs., of course) because they have powerful processing capabilities and the proper amount of outputs. Dolby has worked with them extensively, and in fact I believe they had focused their attention on the high end first during the behind-the-scenes development of home Atmos, just like Auro.

The mainstream fixed blocks utilized by Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo and the like are coded differently... probably due to the limited processing resources made available by the cheaper consumer-grade chips they buy in bulk. 

Dolby has to take the metadata instructions for a 24.1.10 track and fold or down-convert it all properly into a smaller, fixed amount of speaker locations: 5.1.2, 7.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.4, 9.1.2, etc. etc. That takes separate software development and implementation, and final listening tests, and then they hand the created rendering engine to these companies to integrate them into their products. Dolby has to create these smaller blocks from scratch as called for by the "mainstream" manufacturers.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

second set of overhead speakers come in today..!

i will be starting with top front (about 3ft in front of MLP) and top rears (about 2 feet behind)...they are klipsch quintets with horn loaded tweeter...woudl I need to angle them towards the mlp?

very excited...I will post thoughts tomorrow on how they sound


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Trinnov, Datasat, Steinway, and other "ultra" high end companies got the whole home Atmos rendering "kit and caboodle" and can choose to use the software anyway they see fit (within Dolby's specs., of course) because they have powerful processing capabilities and the proper amount of outputs. Dolby has worked with them extensively, and in fact I believe they had focused their attention on the high end first, just like Auro.
> 
> The mainstream fixed blocks utilized by Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo and the like are coded differently... probably due to the limited processing resources made available by the cheaper consumer-grade chips they buy in bulk.
> 
> Dolby has to take the metadata instructions for a 24.1.10 track and fold or down-convert it all properly into a smaller, fixed amount of speaker locations: 5.1.2, 7.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.4, 9.1.2, etc. etc. That takes separate software development and implementation and then they hand the created rendering engine to these companies to integrate them into their products. Dolby has to create these smaller blocks from scratch as called for by the "mainstream" manufacturers.


OK - this isn't what Dolby in London told me. They said 24.1.10 was already available to all manufacturers already (August) and it was up to the AVR manufacturers to decide how to implement it. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that Dolby are working on something new which will allow manufacturers like Denon etc to more easily implement 9.1.4 into their AVRs. It's just not what Dolby said in London IIRC. No problem - it's not something I am craving anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> second set of overhead speakers come in today..!
> 
> i will be starting with top front (about 3ft in front of MLP) and top rears (about 2 feet behind)...they are klipsch quintets with horn loaded tweeter...woudl I need to angle them towards the mlp?
> 
> very excited...I will post thoughts tomorrow on how they sound


Angle them to MLP if that is what Klipsch suggest. Stay within Dolby mandated angles of course, for the chosen config.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> OK - this isn't what Dolby in London told me. They said 24.1.10 was already available to all manufacturers already (August) and it was up to the AVR manufacturers to decide how to implement it. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that Dolby are working on something new which will allow manufacturers like Denon etc to more easily implement 9.1.4 into their AVRs. It's just not what Dolby said in London IIRC. No problem - it's not something I am craving anyway.


Yes, that's what it sounds like. Dolby is developing a way for 9.1.4 (9.1.6 ??) to be fully integrated into Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha, etc. products if they wish to implement it in future ware (sounds like some of them do, otherwise Dolby probably wouldn't be spending time and resources on the project). Steinway/Lyngdorf, Trinnov and others already have the capability because they worked with Dolby in designing their products to fit "high end" Atmos requirements.

Denon, et al tried cramming Atmos into already designed product. The exact opposite of what Dolby probably would have liked. 

If you heard 9.1.4 for yourself, Keith, you would want it.  I know I do! It made home Atmos seem that much closer to the cinema experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, that's what it sounds like. Dolby is developing a way for 9.1.4 (9.1.6 ??) to be fully integrated into Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha, etc. products if they wish to implement it in future ware (sounds like some of them do, otherwise Dolby probably wouldn't be spending time and resources on the project). Steinway/Lyngdorf, Trinnov and others already have the capability because they worked with Dolby in designing their products to fit "high end" Atmos requirements.
> 
> Denon, et al tried cramming Atmos into already designed product. The exact opposite of what Dolby probably would have liked.
> 
> If you heard 9.1.4 for yourself, Keith, you would want it.  I know I do! It made home Atmos seem that much closer to the cinema experience.


Oh I want it. I want 24.1.10. The problem is I don't have room for it! 

I want a night with Sienna Miller too. But I have to be realistic and practical in what is achievable


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Denon, et al tried cramming Atmos into already designed product. The exact opposite of what Dolby probably would have liked.
> 
> If you heard 9.1.4 for yourself, Keith, you would want it.  I know I do! It made home Atmos seem that much closer to the cinema experience.


What I'd like more, personally, is for the units to measure the angles and elevations of the overhead speakers and report these to the Atmos renderer. That would be of more use to me, personally.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh I want it. I want 24.1.10. The problem is I don't have room for it!
> 
> I want a night with Sienna Miller too. But I have to be realistic and practical in what is achievable


Time to break out the ol' sledgehammer and bulldozer and get to work on a remodel! I'm sure your neighbors would approve. 

Hey! I saw Sienna first! Back off, man! :devil:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> What I'd like more, personally, is for the units to measure the angles and elevations of the overhead speakers and report these to the Atmos renderer. That would be of more use to me, personally.


I'd buy _that_ for a dollar! Heh heh heh. 

Yup, I am a sucker for the original _Robocop_.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Angle them to MLP if that is what Klipsch suggest. Stay within Dolby mandated angles of course, for the chosen config.


the 3fti in front and 2ft behind puts them in the exact recommendation angles..

i will have to look up the quintets dispersion


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Time to break out the ol' sledgehammer and bulldozer and get to work on a remodel! I'm sure your neighbors would approve.


Oh bugger the neighbours (as we Limeys innocently say) - I just don't have the room, period. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Hey! I saw Sienna first! Back off, man! :devil:


OK OK... I'll be happy with Scarlett....


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd buy _that_ for a dollar! Heh heh heh.
> 
> Yup, I am a sucker for the original _Robocop_.


Me too. Brilliant movie. Dead or alive you're coming with me! I love that line.  I must try this movie with DSU...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Me too. Brilliant movie. Dead or alive you're coming with me! I love that line.  I must try this movie with DSU...


Haven't broken out my remastered version yet. I wonder if they did much of a remix to commemorate this 4k restoration effort. Can't wait to read your report.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> the 3fti in front and 2ft behind puts them in the exact recommendation angles..


Then you seem to be good to go...



Brian Fineberg said:


> i will have to look up the quintets dispersion


My Tannoy Di5s have 90° all-round dispersion but I still angle them towards MLP. I can't see why Atmos would change the habit of a lifetime. I have to admit to not having tried them pointing directly down, as they were in both the Dolby demos I went to. Easy to test for any difference though.


----------



## smurraybhm

UI have no problem understanding why some want 9.x.4 or more, but in my room I don't know what benefit 2 more speakers (assume wides) would add, plus there is the additional cost and need for amplification.

When I was at 7.2.2 my wife was taking pictures of my HT to share with her friends because they couldn't understand why one person would need all those speakers. Yesterday when I added front heights she asked again about the number of speakers required for one individual. As others have said, as much as I liked DS with just TMs, having the FHs just makes it better. If you can go with 4 tops, do it. I am off to do some listening - took a day off to listen to some things with the new setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Haven't broken out my remastered version yet. I wonder if they did much of a remix to commemorate this 4k restoration effort. Can't wait to read your report.


I have that version too. The picture is much better than on previous versions. But do be aware, if you are a grain-hater, that the grain is even more noticeable in the remaster, simply because the whole picture is resolving much more detail than before. The sound is the same lossless 5.1 track featured on the earlier Bluray release and is pretty good for a movie of this age. I doubt you will be disappointed - it's the best you will have ever seen and heard this movie at home, by some margin IMO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I have that version too. The picture is much better than on previous versions. But do be aware, if you are a grain-hater, that the grain is even more noticeable in the remaster, simply because the whole picture is resolving much more detail than before. The sound is the same lossless 5.1 track featured on the earlier Bluray release and is pretty good for a movie of this age. I doubt you will be disappointed - it's the best you will have ever seen and heard this movie at home, by some margin IMO.


Cool! Anything's better than the remake... _my opinion only!!_


----------



## Glenn Baumann

smurraybhm said:


> UI have no problem understanding why some want 9.x.4 or more, but in my room I don't know what benefit 2 more speakers (assume wides) would add, plus there is the additional cost and need for amplification.
> 
> When I was at 7.2.2 my wife was taking pictures of my HT to share with her friends because they couldn't understand why one person would need all those speakers. Yesterday when I added front heights she asked again about the number of speakers required for one individual. As others have said, as much as I liked DS with just TMs, having the FHs just makes it better. If you can go with 4 tops, do it. I am off to do some listening - took a day off to listen to some things with the new setup.



We will anxiously be waiting for your listening impressions! 


...Glenn


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cool! Anything's better than the remake... _my opinion only!!_


 I quite like the remake. It's a different sort of movie and it has pros and cons, but it doesn't stand comparison with the satirical and subversive original. I like the way the remake explores more of what makes a person human, and the effects etc are, as expected, much better of course. And it has a kickass soundtrack too. Two different movies with a shared title.

Mind you, I also don't dislike Total Recall 2012, a much-reviled movie. I never look at remakes in comparison with the movie that went before it, especially when that former movie was an absolute classic. I try to judge solely on the basis of the movie as a movie. And again, while I prefer the original with Arnie, I find much to like in the remake and fail to understand why it is so reviled, other than by way of comparison with the original.

No discussion of remakes would be complete without mentioning Dredd, which is just totally wonderful and so easily surpasses the dreadful (NPI!!) earlier version. Dredd also sounds sublime via DSU and the latter greatly adds to its enjoyment.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

pasender91 said:


> Filmmixer, Selden ball, this procedure of using the special tripod to do 4 measures at each spot in order to compute speaker angle & elevation is a standard feature of the 3040, it is called YPAO 3D.


why would it measure angles at each spot (assuming you mean measurement position)? there can be 1 and only 1 reference position to set timing/angles for.


----------



## jkasanic

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, that's what it sounds like. Dolby is developing a way for 9.1.4 (9.1.6 ??) to be fully integrated into Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha, etc. products if they wish to implement it in future ware (sounds like some of them do, otherwise Dolby probably wouldn't be spending time and resources on the project). Steinway/Lyngdorf, Trinnov and others already have the capability because they worked with Dolby in designing their products to fit "high end" Atmos requirements.
> 
> Denon, et al tried cramming Atmos into already designed product. The exact opposite of what Dolby probably would have liked.
> 
> If you heard 9.1.4 for yourself, Keith, you would want it.  I know I do! It made home Atmos seem that much closer to the cinema experience.


I think you have to consider that most of the mass manufacturers offering Atmos in their current AVR's haven't done it from the ground up. Instead, they've sort of shoe-horned Atmos into their current design making incremental changes (like Denon upgrading their DSP's to accommodate Atmos and Audyssey, Onkyo offering a firmware update for some current AVRs as well as dropping Audyssey in favor of AccuEQ presumably for the lower resources required and lower cost etc) for these first gen Atmos capable units. If there's any merit towards waiting for 2nd gen receivers, then I believe it will be to see if the likes of D&M, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo/Integra etc. release a new platform built to handle the additional requirements of Atmos (and Auro) as well as offer the capability of positional rendering based on actual (instead of predetermined or "ideal") speaker locations as Keith mentions above.


----------



## pasender91

3ll3d00d said:


> why would it measure angles at each spot (assuming you mean measurement position)? there can be 1 and only 1 reference position to set timing/angles for.


You're right, i checked the doc again, YPAO does all listening positions with 1 measure each (for EQ), and then once more from the MLP with 4 measures to capture all the angles and elevations.

Why would it do that in Atmos setup if not to feed the renderer?
Let's hope this is not captured just to be sent to the dustbin ..


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> You're right, i checked the doc again, YPAO does all listening positions with 1 measure each (for EQ), and then once more from the MLP with 4 measures to capture all the angles and elevations.
> 
> Why would it do that in Atmos setup if not to feed the renderer?
> Let's hope this is not captured just to be sent to the dustbin ..


Maybe the Atmos rendered in Gen 1 units cannot make use of the information? I’ll eat my hat if the Yamaha can calculate angles and elevations of the speakers and pass the info to the renderer. I’d love to be wrong though.


----------



## DaJoJo

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe the Atmos rendered in Gen 1 units cannot make use of the information? I’ll eat my hat if the Yamaha can calculate angles and elevations of the speakers and pass the info to the renderer. I’d love to be wrong though.


they're used for the yammies dsp programs. as atmos is not a dsp, it probably won't make use of it. yammie uses this data to calculate the roomsize, delays and reflections for its dsp processor. atmos is decoded to pcm so i guess the dsp could be usefull here , but the current gen lacks processorpower to do so i guess. love to be wrong also nevertheless 
auro3D firmware is also comming and the a3040 can do 7.2.4 so im excited to have it soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

DaJoJo said:


> they're used for the yammies dsp programs. as atmos is not a dsp, it probably won't make use of it. yammie uses this data to calculate the roomsize, delays and reflections for its dsp processor. atmos is decoded to pcm so i guess the dsp could be usefull here , but the current gen lacks processorpower to do so i guess. love to be wrong also nevertheless
> auro3D firmware is also comming and the a3040 can do 7.2.4 so im excited to have it soon.


What is it about the impending arrival of Auro FW that excites you?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby has to take the metadata instructions for a 24.1.10 track and fold or down-convert it all properly into a smaller, fixed amount of speaker locations: 5.1.2, 7.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.4, 9.1.2, etc. etc. That takes separate software development and implementation, and final listening tests, and then they hand the created rendering engine to these companies to integrate them into their products. Dolby has to create these smaller blocks from scratch as called for by the "mainstream" manufacturers.


I hope that's not the case. The whole idea of object audio is the adaptability to any speaker layout. For example, in MDA (I'm more familiar with that), you just load the desired speaker configuration, and it renders. There's no software development for each configuration. What you are describing sounds a lot more like a tailored channel downmix scenario (something Auro lets content makers do when folding down to 5.1), but again, that would not make sense in a general decoder as it would need to be dynamic because downmixing is content sensitive.


----------



## DaJoJo

kbarnes701 said:


> What is it about the impending arrival of Auro FW that excites you?


well i'm a very curious person , i like any new technology and have a house full of technical beyond 2000 stuff. i like to know how the VOG channel implementation is going to turn out and hearing the difference between auro3D and atmos. i listened to both setups in 13 channel version at stassen.nl and i found the auro3D a bit better sounding and a little more 3D sounding then atmos. but yeah as you allready noted , it has to be implemented right.and there is this thing that a3040 doesn't have room for a VOG speaker. i heared that in the first atmos titles they ommited certain voices of god or the top speakers to get the crowd used to it. also in the atmos cinema they are afraid that people gonna look up and be scared of sound of stuff falling from the ceiling and thus so miss part of the movie and perhaps going to run to the exit 
i think the main thing that gets me excited is that it wasn't sure the yammie would even get auro3D and now its comming also to a3040. buying a 2200€ top of line avr you kinda expect it to do the whole 9. in the end it turned out to be a good investment. now im gonna wonder if dts-uhd is going to be implemented as well hehe.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe the Atmos rendered in Gen 1 units cannot make use of the information? I’ll eat my hat if the Yamaha can calculate angles and elevations of the speakers and pass the info to the renderer. I’d love to be wrong though.



Well you did post the following in your Atmos demo report...



kbarnes701 said:


> With regard to hardware, I asked Stephen and JJ some questions about the way Atmos is being implemented in current AVRs from the mainstream manufacturers such as Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha and Pioneer.
> 
> JJ went into some detail to answer my question concerning the angles that the rendering engine will render to and how current units handle this. *JJ confirmed that Dolby are giving full capability to the AVR manufacturers to be able to use full speaker positional information. It is entirely up to the manufacturer to implement this or not*, either by allowing the user to enter details manually or allowing the AVR to handle it through the measuring process which is part of the setup routine...


----------



## DaJoJo

kriktsemaj99 said:


> Well you did post the following in your Atmos demo report...


so it basicly says we do not know what parts of that are used in current avr. so the question still remains


----------



## pasender91

Atmos HAS to compute audio objects placement using a position for each speaker, it will not cost more DSP power to do it from a real speaker position than it takes to compute it from a pre-defined constant position  => the "not enough DSP power" argument does not hold.

We'll know for sure in less than 2 weeks now, it depends of the implementation Yamaha did in the firmware, but again the fact that they allow YPAO 3D setup for Atmos smells good


----------



## kbarnes701

DaJoJo said:


> well i'm a very curious person , i like any new technology and have a house full of technical beyond 2000 stuff. i like to know how the VOG channel implementation is going to turn out and hearing the difference between auro3D and atmos. i listened to both setups in 13 channel version at stassen.nl and i found the auro3D a bit better sounding and a little more 3D sounding then atmos. but yeah as you allready noted , it has to be implemented right.and there is this thing that a3040 doesn't have room for a VOG speaker. i heared that in the first atmos titles they ommited certain voices of god or the top speakers to get the crowd used to it. also in the atmos cinema they are afraid that people gonna look up and be scared of sound of stuff falling from the ceiling and thus so miss part of the movie and perhaps going to run to the exit
> i think the main thing that gets me excited is that it wasn't sure the yammie would even get auro3D and now its comming also to a3040. buying a 2200€ top of line avr you kinda expect it to do the whole 9. in the end it turned out to be a good investment. now im gonna wonder if dts-uhd is going to be implemented as well hehe.


Fair enough. And what content will you be using to evaluate these differences you mention?


----------



## kbarnes701

kriktsemaj99 said:


> Well you did post the following in your Atmos demo report...


Yes indeed. It is up to the manufacturers. The question ATM is whether Yamaha will be one of the manufacturers who, in a Gen 1 unit, has the capability to pass angles and elevations and distances to the Atmos renderer. I know it is_ possible _to do this (they do it in the theatrical version and always have) - the issue is whether any Gen 1 AVR manufacturer has the capability, not whether Dolby has.


----------



## DaJoJo

pasender91 said:


> Atmos HAS to compute audio objects placement using a position for each speaker, it will not cost more DSP power to do it from a real speaker position than it takes to compute it from a pre-defined constant position  => the "not enough DSP power" argument does not hold.
> We'll know for sure in less than 2 weeks now, it depends of the implementation Yamaha did in the firmware, but again the fact that they allow YPAO 3D setup for Atmos smells good


indeed, ur right. but the thing is that it has to calculate the atmos stuff and on top of that in realtime the dsp program, so i guess it is where the problem is. yup it does.. yammie can find the angle of all speakers, so you would guess it could do the same for atmos. i wonder if audyssey xt32 can do the same.


----------



## DaJoJo

kbarnes701 said:


> Fair enough. And what content will you be using to evaluate these differences you mention?


yeah that is gonna be tricky lol. it gonna require something that has a atmos mix and a auro3D mix. i can make some demo stuff at my work though, we're gonna have both encoders soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

DaJoJo said:


> indeed, ur right. but the thing is that it has to calculate the atmos stuff and on top of that in realtime the dsp program, so i guess it is where the problem is. yup it does.. yammie can find the angle of all speakers, so you would guess it could do the same for atmos. i wonder if audyssey xt32 can do the same.


Because Yamaha calculates angles for its own proprietary DSPs doesn’t mean that they will be usable with its Atmos renderer.

Audyssey doesn't really care where the speakers are. It simply measures the sound which arrives from the speakers to its mic. Of course it measures the distances from the mic to the speakers but that is trivial. Audyssey can't measure angles because it would require, at least, a new mic something like the Trinnov or Yamaha.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

pasender91 said:


> Atmos HAS to compute audio objects placement using a position for each speaker, it will not cost more DSP power to do it from a real speaker position than it takes to compute it from a pre-defined constant position  => the "not enough DSP power" argument does not hold.


Do you know that or do you hope that? Generally speaking, making an algorithm less flexible enables you to make it simpler which makes it less (computationally) expensive to execute. Hence it is certainly easy to believe they don't have the horsepower to render it as opposed to simply not having the user interface (inc mic) to dial it in. Of course if Yamaha do have it then it opens the door to the possibility of future firmware upgrades for other products.


----------



## DaJoJo

kbarnes701 said:


> Because Yamaha calculates angles for its own proprietary DSPs doesn’t mean that they will be usable with its Atmos renderer.
> Audyssey doesn't really care where the speakers are. It simply measures the sound which arrives from the speakers to its mic. Of course it measures the distances from the mic to the speakers but that is trivial. Audyssey can't measure angles because it would require, at least, a new mic something like the Trinnov or Yamaha.


no, it doesn't but there is hope and tech that the yammie would be able do it in theory. as for the others it is likely not ?


----------



## Selden Ball

DaJoJo said:


> yeah that is gonna be tricky lol. it gonna require something that has a atmos mix and a auro3D mix. i can make some demo stuff at my work though, we're gonna have both encoders soon.


Do you think you'd be able to make such demos publicly available?

Test tones for all of the channels (using moving objects in Atmos, of course) in either or both formats is highly desirable. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be anything like that available. Test tones generated by receivers bypass room correction, making them less than optimal.


----------



## DaJoJo

Selden Ball said:


> Do you think you'd be able to make such demos publicly available?
> Test tones for all of the channels (using moving objects in Atmos, of course) in either or both formats is highly desirable. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be anything like that available. Test tones generated by receivers bypass room correction, making them less than optimal.


no i can't , as it's the company's property and there is this copyright crap that prevent me from publish anything at all comming from the equipment.
i'm not sure what you would accomplish with these testtones ?


----------



## kbarnes701

DaJoJo said:


> no, it doesn't but there is hope and tech that the yammie would be able do it in theory. as for the others it is likely not ?


I hope you are right.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe the Atmos rendered in Gen 1 units cannot make use of the information? I’ll eat my hat if the Yamaha can calculate angles and elevations of the speakers and pass the info to the renderer. I’d love to be wrong though.


Don't you think they already knew how to do that? If you have the info, it would not be too complicated to translate that into the format Atmos would need. 

If you look at it in reverse: 
If they didn't - why would they need that mic setup?


----------



## DaJoJo

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope you are right.


so do i 
would suck for non a3040 owners though, if it's true.


----------



## DaJoJo

Nightlord said:


> Don't you think they already knew how to do that? If you have the info, it would not be too complicated to translate that into the format Atmos would need.
> If you look at it in reverse:
> If they didn't - why would they need that mic setup?


for the dsp programs that require those parameters to function better (get the roomdimensions,reflections etc.). it just so happens to be that it would give a huge benefit for atmos setups that do not confirm to standard speaker-layouts. so in a way it's not that required as it looks like at first look.


----------



## jacked

Could I please ask for some guidance and a second opinion on the ceiling layout for 4 Overhead Speakers for Atmos.

My ceiling is 9ft, and the MLP is 3ft 3" away from the back wall and 3ft 3" up off the floor.
Using Keith`s graph paper and protractor method, I`ve worked out that having the Front Overheads at the nearest position to the MLP at 55° as per Dolby Specs makes this speaker 4ft in front of the MLP.

But to do the same for the Rear Overheads can`t work at 4ft behind the MLP as I only have 3ft 3" behind me.
I`ve moved the seating forward to make a bit more room behind so the Rear Overheads can be effective but according to my measurements this won`t be within the Atmos Spec !

I know the Dolby Guideline is just that and they have said it`s hard to make it not work but I wanted to check that I have my measurements done right and it makes sense. I have ceiling spotlights to consider as well so I want to get the ceiling speaker positioning correct the first time.

Or can I just have the Overheads just in front and just behind the MLP and not need to bother checking what angle they will be at. The Dolby white paper shows the rears directly behind the seating and the fronts a bit further forward which I can achieve but my rears would not be at 125° in doing this.

Thanks very much.

Dave


----------



## Selden Ball

DaJoJo said:


> no i can't , as it's the company's property and there is this copyright crap that prevent me from publish anything at all comming from the equipment.
> i'm not sure what you would accomplish with these testtones ?


Maybe your company could be persuaded to create a low-cost commercial product?

I know several people who've explicitly mentioned on the forum would like to be able to test the capabilities of the Atmos decoder in their equipment (Two such are Keith and myself.)

One serious question is "What is the distribution of sound among the speakers for an object defined to be at a particular direction?"

For example, does an object that's defined to be high toward the rear produce any sound in the Top Middle speakers when they're the rearmost overhead speakers, or are they entirely silent? Does that sound get downmixed to just the rear-most ear-level speakers?

Another is "What has the room EQ software done for the in-room frequency response of each speaker?" Currently, there is no way at all to measure this for the overhead speakers. Software products like REW can only generate frequency sweeps to measure the traditional 7.1 speaker channels. There's no way to generate frequency sweeps for any of the ten overheads or for the two Front Wides.

Also, it'd be nice to be able to listen to an object work its way around the room among all the speakers. At the very least it'd be a way to listen for timbre mis-matches.

My personal hope has been that a v3 Spears & Munsil calibration disc might include such tests, but it seems unlikely to me that they'd release such a thing before the availability of DTS UHD. That's just too far in the future for us Atmos enthusiasts.


----------



## DaJoJo

Selden Ball said:


> Maybe your company could be persuaded to create a low-cost commercial product?
> I know several people who've explicitly mentioned on the forum would like to be able to test the capabilities of the Atmos decoder in their equipment (Two such are Keith and myself.)
> One serious question is "What is the distribution of sound among the speakers for an object defined to be at a particular direction?"
> For example, does an object that's defined to be high toward the rear produce any sound in the Top Middle speakers when they're the rearmost overhead speakers, or are they entirely silent? Does that sound get downmixed to just the rear-most ear-level speakers?
> Another is "What has the room EQ software done for the in-room frequency response of each speaker?" Currently, there is no way at all to measure this for the overhead speakers. Software products like REW can only generate frequency sweeps to measure the traditional 7.1 speaker channels. There's no way to generate frequency sweeps for any of the ten overheads or for the two Front Wides.
> Also, it'd be nice to be able to listen to an object work its way around the room among all the speakers. At the very least it'd be a way to listen for timbre mis-matches.
> My personal hope has been that a v3 Spears & Munsil calibration disc might include such tests, but it seems unlikely to me that they'd release such a thing before the availability of DTS UHD. That's just too far in the future for us Atmos enthusiasts.


mm no we do work for the tv networks and they don't do this kinda things, would be totally out of our league. i see what u mean now though, thnx for explaining. i think it would be difficult for REW software to do atmos coding, the pc doesn't have any licenced audiodevices to do that. but you could however attach the top/height speaker to the front speaker terminals and do a sweep like that, i don't think it will be much different then doing a sweep on the top/height channels. the object tracking would be another thing though.


----------



## Nightlord

Gurba said:


> I realize Electronics isn't expensive in Norway but everything else is.
> 
> 
> Some decades ago Sweden was given the opportunity to get a part of Norwegian oil in Exchange for a part of Volvo. Sweden said no an Norway has been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.


Never heard of that before. Any clues to how I get more facts about that?

I guess it all boiled down to Volvo being a private company, so that would not have been possible without martial law being put to use...


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Don't you think they already knew how to do that? If you have the info, it would not be too complicated to translate that into the format Atmos would need.
> 
> If you look at it in reverse:
> If they didn't - why would they need that mic setup?


The need that mic for their YPAO 3D and their proprietary DSPs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Maybe your company could be persuaded to create a low-cost commercial product?
> 
> I know several people who've explicitly mentioned on the forum would like to be able to test the capabilities of the Atmos decoder in their equipment (Two such are Keith and myself.)
> 
> One serious question is "What is the distribution of sound among the speakers for an object defined to be at a particular direction?"
> 
> For example, does an object that's defined to be high toward the rear produce any sound in the Top Middle speakers when they're the rearmost overhead speakers, or are they entirely silent? Does that sound get downmixed to just the rear-most ear-level speakers?
> 
> Another is "What has the room EQ software done for the in-room frequency response of each speaker?" Currently, there is no way at all to measure this for the overhead speakers. Software products like REW can only generate frequency sweeps to measure the traditional 7.1 speaker channels. There's no way to generate frequency sweeps for any of the ten overheads or for the two Front Wides.
> 
> Also, it'd be nice to be able to listen to an object work its way around the room among all the speakers. At the very least it'd be a way to listen for timbre mis-matches.
> 
> My personal hope has been that a v3 Spears & Munsil calibration disc might include such tests, but it seems unlikely to me that they'd release such a thing before the availability of DTS UHD. That's just too far in the future for us Atmos enthusiasts.


I'd certainly be happy to pay for a disc that allowed me to do those things. I am especially interested in what, if any, differences there are between the sounds rendered to TF speakers as opposed to FH speakers, and the same for TM and TR.


----------



## jkasanic

DaJoJo said:


> mm no we do work for the tv networks and they don't do this kinda things, would be totally out of our league. i see what u mean now though, thnx for explaining. i think it would be difficult for REW software to do atmos coding, the pc doesn't have any licenced audiodevices to do that. *but you could however attach the top/height speaker to the front speaker terminals and do a sweep like that,* *i don't think it will be much different then doing a sweep on the top/height channels.* the object tracking would be another thing though.


The difference would be that he couldn't measure the corrected response being applied by REQ (in his case Audyssey). If he was only interested in the raw response this would work.


----------



## Selden Ball

DaJoJo said:


> mm no we do work for the tv networks and they don't do this kinda things, would be totally out of our league.


 The Atmos object/speaker tests could be encoded in Dolby Digital Plus, which I suspect they would be interested in. That encoding format supposedly is going to be used to stream Atmos titles. (Rumors are that VUDU will be doing that in the not too distant future.)



> i see what u mean now though, thnx for explaining. i think it would be difficult for REW software to do atmos coding, the pc doesn't have any licenced audiodevices to do that.


Exactly. There is hope that the commercial movie player software packages might someday include Atmos, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It'd probably require support for HDMI v2's 32 audio channel option, which is nowhere in sight.


> but you could however attach the top/height speaker to the front speaker terminals and do a sweep like that, i don't think it will be much different then doing a sweep on the top/height channels. the object tracking would be another thing though.


 As has already been pointed out, changing speaker connections wouldn't allow a particular speaker channel's room equalization curve to be measured. If things are working correctly, that EQ is unique to each speaker channel.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> I hope that's not the case. The whole idea of object audio is the adaptability to any speaker layout. For example, in MDA (I'm more familiar with that), you just load the desired speaker configuration, and it renders. There's no software development for each configuration. What you are describing sounds a lot more like a tailored channel downmix scenario (something Auro let's content makers do when folding down to 5.1), but again, that would not make sense in a general decoder as it would need to be dynamic because downmixing is content sensitive.


I still wonder if part of this building customized rendering blocks for each Atmos speaker configuration has to do with the less capable processing chips in these "regular Joe" products (as opposed to Trinnov, etc.), and the lack of higher level calibration software/Atmos renderer communications for proper or at least more sophisticated soundtrack rendering and re-mapping. It could tie into the reasoning behind having these "recommended" speaker positions (especially the overheads) for Atmos for each type of layout.


----------



## Roger Dressler

DaJoJo said:


> i listened to both setups in 13 channel version at stassen.nl and i found the auro3D a bit better sounding and a little more 3D sounding then atmos.


Same content in both cases?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Same content in both cases?


It would be nice to get the same content for a format comparison. At CEDIA anyway, I came to the conclusion (from my limited experience with Auro3D and given the fact that the demos had different material) that for movies and studio made music mixes Atmos had the more 3D effect and Auro was better for live ambient recordings and some live-event music recordings. 

I was not impressed with the single VOG with Auro - way too hot-spotty, and the movie clips Auro used at their demo really had nothing in the way of 3D positional panning effects that I could easily discern. It was just a wall of 5.1 sound. I hope that isn't the case with any future Auro3D Blu-ray titles.


----------



## Gurba

Nightlord said:


> Never heard of that before. Any clues to how I get more facts about that?
> 
> I guess it all boiled down to Volvo being a private company, so that would not have been possible without martial law being put to use...


http://e24.no/kommentarer/spaltiste...paa-at-volvo-avtalen-ikke-ble-noe-av/22585212


----------



## bargervais

DaJoJo said:


> no, it doesn't but there is hope and tech that the yammie would be able do it in theory. as for the others it is likely not ?


Can you explain why YPAO measuring the angles are important not really clear on how or why that it even matters


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Just finished wiring up second set of on ceiling speakers. 3 ft in front and 2 ft behind to get to Dolby recommended angles for top front and too rear. No audussey cal just spl adjusted all speakers and threw in tf4. 

One word 

AMAZING. 

WOW WHAT A difference with having 4 overhead speakers. Incredibly immersive. Anyone in the fence between 5.2.2 and 5.2.4......GO FOR THE 4!!

The sounds were actually in 3d space instead of coming from a local. 

In chapter 20 there are small prices of metal that first get drawn up. These are coming from mid air. Not from the ceiling or the side walls or behind. But suspended about a foot over my head

Pure audio nirvana. 

Now when the kids go to bed, I will run audussey then watch a legacy movie. Not sure which one yet though


----------



## bootman_head_fi

bargervais said:


> Can you explain why YPAO measuring the angles are important not really clear on how or why that it even matters


I thought it was to compensate for speakers not being all at ear level as per Dolby recommendations.

Is everyone here is lowering their surrounds down to ear level on their Atmos setups to comply?

Is X32 doing this on the Denon units?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I lowered them


----------



## bass addict

bootman_head_fi said:


> I thought it was to compensate for speakers not being all at ear level as per Dolby recommendations.
> 
> Is everyone here is lowering their surrounds down to ear level on their Atmos setups to comply?
> 
> Is X32 doing this on the Denon units?


That is correct. I would love to see Yammy implement speaker angle measuring along with Atmos. One thing that I am not looking forward to is lowering my surrounds to comply. I have a narrower room (10 6) and I have my surrounds mounted up higher on the wall. A giant surround speaker at ear height would really look out of place and get in the way when walking between the rows. 

My A5000 is the best surround sound I've heard to date. The front heights are much more immersive than they were with my Onkyo. I don't know if this has more to do with how Yammy implements the presence speakers compared to DSX, but whatever they are doing it works. 

I keep kicking around upgrading, but every time I listen to a movie on the Yammy, I'm pretty happy. We'll see I guess.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> My A5000 is the best surround sound I've heard to date. The front heights are much more immersive than they were with my Onkyo. I don't know if this has more to do with how Yammy implements the presence speakers compared to DSX, but whatever they are doing it works.


Definitely. 

Keep that 5000, bud. Then once you have figured out your surround situation things will have matured and you'll better off.


----------



## pasender91

I'll try to explain how i see why this is important:

Without precise placement Atmos must work with preset speaker placement, let's assume the surround right is placed at 90° (We don't even know that as Atmos speaker positions are not made public, they only share placement ranges)

Now let's imagine you have a sound object placed at 90° too, it will be emitted purely by the surround.

What happens if you can't place the surround at the perfect position for whatever reason, let's say you place it at 120° => The system will play the sound supposed to be at 90° from the speaker at 120°, shifting the whole scene, and this same shifting can happen to all channels distorting the whole sound message.

Now comes a system where you can precisely input the angles, like the 3040 MAY do (btw this feature is already available on the ultra-high-end Trinnov Altitude). The speaker will be detected at the real position, 120°. The object at 90° will then be matrixed correctly between the front speaker and the surround, and will sound as coming from it's real direction, 90°, no more signal shifting.

*One of the main target concepts behind the object-oriented placement of objects in 3D is to place them precisely in space !!! to achieve that speakers also need to be placed precisely, else it defeats the concept.*

This will come for sure at some stage, it is guaranteed, but if an AVR does it in 2014 at less than 3000$, it will end up in my room, this is why i am following this question very closely.

In the case of the 3040, YPAO 3D is surely used for DSP programs, agreed and verified, i don't refute that.
But then why is it made available in Atmos setup too?
The only reason i can see is for the Atmos speaker placement 

The net gain for all of us is that the system would in theory emit perfect sounds in terms of angles wherever your speakers are located !!!!
*There would still be an optimal speaker placement*, as described in the deployment guide, but it would allow to put surrounds higher or lower, top speakers at any angle, have asymetric placement due to doors or windows, ....


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Definitely.
> 
> Keep that 5000, bud. Then once you have figured out your surround situation things will have matured and you'll better off.


Scott,

I'm really leaning that direction at this point. There is a rumor floating around that the A5000 could get an update enabling Auros which would really be pretty sweet. I could then wait till the dust settles a bit and upgrade then. Even if we don't get full compatibility, a feature similar to DSU would really be icing on the cake. We'll have to wait and see. 

I think I've pretty much decided on going with Volt 10's for my sides, rears, and ceiling speakers. Talking with Matt, he says these model really well in an IB setup which would work great incorporating them into my tiered ceiling. The surrounds will all be sealed. 

Once again that's another reason I'd love to see angle measurements for all speakers on Atmos/Auro. I'd love to be able to push my surrounds up a bit and let the eq compensate.


----------



## smurraybhm

Pasender91 - Even Dolby has said that speaker placement is not that rigid. I don't see 5 or 10 degrees being fatal or causing things to sound poorly. I see the desire for this feature, I am not losing any sleep over what I have done with DS and Atmos speaker configs in my HT - it sounds pretty damn great - even better with the addition of two more tops yesterday (also known as FH).


----------



## bass addict

smurraybhm said:


> Pasender91 - Even Dolby has said that speaker placement is not that rigid. I don't see 5 or 10 degrees being fatal or causing things to sound poorly. I see the desire for this feature, I am not losing any sleep over what I have done with DS and Atmos speaker configs in my HT - it sounds pretty damn great - even better with the addition of two more tops yesterday (also known as FH).


My concern is with those of us running slightly different configs. For example, I'd like to keep my current FH's and just add a pair of overhead speakers as opposed to 2 sets of overheads. Dolby, from what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), does not provide separate sourcing for FH and front overhead speakers. So I would theoretically get a much different sound stage using 4 overheads as opposed to FH's and 2 overheads. Yes? 

Also, the recommendation is that you should utilize a ceiling speakers that allows you to point the tweeter towards the listening position. In my case this wouldn't be possible as I'd be incorporating them into a stepped ceiling, so once again, I'd think angle implementation would have an advantage. 

I really think there could be a huge benefit to adding angle measuring. If one is going to all the trouble of incorporating multiple speakers, it only makes sense we'd want to maximize the sound stage as much as possible.


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> Can you explain why YPAO measuring the angles are important not really clear on how or why that it even matters


Many people do not have nicely rectangular rooms, or might have large open passage-ways in inconvenient positions. As a result, they cannot put speakers anywhere near their ideal locations. Sometimes some, but not all, of the speakers have to offset to one side from where they ought to be. For example, a Top Middle Right speaker that's supposed to be well off to the right of the main listening position might have to be almost overhead, while the Top Middle Left is in a more appropriate location. Measuring where the speakers actually are should make it possible to improve the accuracy of the soundstage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> Scott,
> 
> I'm really leaning that direction at this point. There is a rumor floating around that the A5000 could get an update enabling Auros which would really be pretty sweet. I could then wait till the dust settles a bit and upgrade then. Even if we don't get full compatibility, a feature similar to DSU would really be icing on the cake. We'll have to wait and see.
> 
> I think I've pretty much decided on going with Volt 10's for my sides, rears, and ceiling speakers. Talking with Matt, he says these model really well in an IB setup which would work great incorporating them into my tiered ceiling. The surrounds will all be sealed.
> 
> Once again that's another reason I'd love to see angle measurements for all speakers on Atmos/Auro. I'd love to be able to push my surrounds up a bit and let the eq compensate.


Not sure about Auro but I talked with the Yamaha guys at CEDIA and they confirmed with me that the 5000 will not get an update for Atmos. Could be the same situation for Auro. You'd think it had the DSP horsepower for such but alas it's not that simple. They did, however, clue me in that there could very well be another flagship pre/pro in the near future and it would have such capability.

Good choice on the V10's. I will (eventually) have the exact same for surrounds in my room which is nearly identically sized to your room. Gonna start with two pairs and then work from there.


----------



## NorthSky

...The CX-A5500. ...Perhaps.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Not sure about Auro but I talked with the Yamaha guys at CEDIA and they confirmed with me that the 5000 will not get an update for Atmos. Could be the same situation for Auro. You'd think it had the DSP horsepower for such but alas it's not that simple. They did, however, clue me in that there could very well be another flagship pre/pro in the near future and it would have such capability.
> 
> Good choice on the V10's. I will (eventually) have the exact same for surrounds in my room which is nearly identically sized to your room. Gonna start with two pairs and then work from there.


This was posted in the official Yammy thread. All I can do is hope. 



> *NEWSFLASH*
> Just received from a 100% reliable source that Yama will offer an *AURO 3D* upgrade in November. No word yet if only the new Atmos capable recivers or also other modells. As the CXA5000 already support the same speaker setup as Auro 9.1 in theory an upgrade could be possible!


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> This was posted in the official Yammy thread. All I can do is hope.


Ah okay. Maybe it's because Auro is a channel based system where the Yamaha supports >7.1 anyway. Atmos is object so that makes it different from Auro in this case. The Yamaha guys said no Atmos for the 5000.

Since you already have the 5000, I wouldn't be all the excited for a new format that there is no content for and that you have to pay to get.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Since you already have the 5000, I wouldn't be all the excited for a new format that there is no content for and that you have to pay to get.


Who is this and what have you done with Scott? Since when have you ever been the voice of reason when it comes to theater upgrades?


----------



## DaJoJo

Selden Ball said:


> The Atmos object/speaker tests could be encoded in Dolby Digital Plus, which I suspect they would be interested in. That encoding format supposedly is going to be used to stream Atmos titles. (Rumors are that VUDU will be doing that in the not too distant future.)
> Exactly. There is hope that the commercial movie player software packages might someday include Atmos, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It'd probably require support for HDMI v2's 32 audio channel option, which is nowhere in sight. As has already been pointed out, changing speaker connections wouldn't allow a particular speaker channel's room equalization curve to be measured. If things are working correctly, that EQ is unique to each speaker channel.


yes DD+ is the most interesting for us as it will be used for DVB and both the atmos and the auro3D is an option for the mobile audio-streams, live concerts for example. you can allready see that the DD+ version is going to be the primary choice as we allready have most audio in DD+ streams. 


Roger Dressler said:


> Same content in both cases?


nope, there isn't any. i have listened to music video there. must say the auro3D is more realistic then the atmos , but auro3D is not objectbased so there is a point that it will be more suitable for movies then auro3D is.


Dan Hitchman said:


> It would be nice to get the same content for a format comparison. At CEDIA anyway, I came to the conclusion (from my limited experience with Auro3D and given the fact that the demos had different material) that for movies and studio made music mixes Atmos had the more 3D effect and Auro was better for live ambient recordings and some live-event music recordings.
> I was not impressed with the single VOG with Auro - way too hot-spotty, and the movie clips Auro used at their demo really had nothing in the way of 3D positional panning effects that I could easily discern. It was just a wall of 5.1 sound. I hope that isn't the case with any future Auro3D Blu-ray titles.


auro3D doesn't do objectbased panning, so it's probably why. nevertheless it creates a nice realistic soundfield vs atmos and it can't be beat for live performances and music tracks. if used with the right techniques, im sure auro3D wins the battle of 3D sound though atmos has objectbased audio so more movies soundtracks will be easier to fit into that format. the fact that it cost extra to have auro3D in ones avr is certainly a dealbreaker for most and will cause atmos to be in favour. as 10.1&13.1 auro3D isn't available on current avr's , its gonna be very tough for auro3D to win this from atmos. another dealbreaker thing is that auro3D speaker layout was designed for front&rear heights, and atmos can do both top and heights. so it would require a speakerlayout that not everyone is capable of having in the house. this besides the fact that a lot of people aren't able to place them on the right spot and some angle-measure option would be required. for auro3D it is crucial to have the speakers on the right spot and for atmos not so much. atmos has also an option for dolby enabled speakers.


----------



## DaJoJo

bass addict said:


> Who is this and what have you done with Scott? Since when have you ever been the voice of reason when it comes to theater upgrades?


hehehe good one, but he is right as he is most of the time 
but there ain't gonna be atmos for the a5000.. and i doubt there will be auro3D for it.


----------



## bass addict

DaJoJo said:


> hehehe good one, but he is right as he is most of the time
> but there ain't gonna be atmos for the a5000.. and i doubt there will be auro3D for it.


You're all a bunch of Debbie Downers.  

It's all good. I'll keep enjoying my A5000 till Yammy takes more of my money on the A5xxx, or the Denon 7200 comes with a built in rainbow maker.


----------



## batpig

To all the people hoping for the exact positional mapping, thinking this is going to be some panacea for poor speaker placement a la Trinnov remapping.... do we really have any actual evidence this is going to be coming to consumer receivers any time soon? To this point this kind of re-mapping has been the sole province of extremely expensive boutique processors (Trinnov). It seems like many people are sitting out the 1st gen with the assumption that a year from now this measuring/re-mapping functionality is going to be ready to rock. I'm skeptical.

Filmmixer has already corrected the misconception that they do this in commerical Atmos installations -- rather, (as I understood what he said) they adhere to one of the predefined Atmos templates and then get the theater certified. The render "knows" the locations of the speakers because it knows the template that was used. So, in essence, this is much more similar to picking a predefined receiver template (7.1 + FH + TM for example),

Now, of course, the difference is that Atmos actually has a rendering engine for native material, so the foundational infrastructure for rendering audio to specific locations as opposed to assumed locations is there. But even if it does happen, that is going to do zilch for anything but native Atmos material. It's not going to fix poorly placed surrounds for any channel based material or even DSU upmix, since that would require a remapping engine. You can't push a channel based soundtrack (which even in a year or two will still be the VAST majority of what's out there) through the Atmos renderer.

I could potentially see more flexibility in placement a la the 5 potential overhead pairs, e.g. you could "place" your surrounds at one of 3 or 4 predefined location templates (e.g. forward surround, side surround, etc). But I'm pretty skeptical that full 3D positional location of elevation/azimuth is coming any time soon.... and, like I said already, even if it does come, it's only going to be relevant to native object audio.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just finished wiring up second set of on ceiling speakers. 3 ft in front and 2 ft behind to get to Dolby recommended angles for top front and too rear. No audussey cal just spl adjusted all speakers and threw in tf4.
> 
> One word
> 
> AMAZING.
> 
> WOW WHAT A difference with having 4 overhead speakers. Incredibly immersive. Anyone in the fence between 5.2.2 and 5.2.4......GO FOR THE 4!!


Totally... I got the 7.1.4 setup, even with the upmixer using 4 non-atmos enabled modules I hear a lot of overhead stuff going on. When the atlantic tech's become available I'll have 2 pairs... and hopefully an Atmos disc. 

I did hear an Atmos for home demo @ the local BB... they set it up wrong so it's hard to get a sense of what I should have been hearing, but with the def tech A 60's I did hear overhead information but the A60's were very quiet in comparison to their matched floor speakers. I think the Demo would have been better if the A60's had been turned up. For a 5.1.2 setup they put the rear surrounds up high so it was very hard to tell which height information I was hearing. They did at least activate the Atmos, though I think the poor setup was due more to the store's constraints than the BB employees. They had the Dolby Atmos demo disc & I offered to buy it from them (haha). Even though it wasn't set up right it still sounded great... though the Dolby Atmos demos sound good even on my 2 channel computer speaker setup.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Any new Atmos BD's announced recently btw? Or are we still stuck with those 5 titles?


----------



## David Susilo

With all the rah-rah about Atmos I'm very disappointed with the title quantity and quality announced thus far.


----------



## doublewing11

Roger Dressler said:


> You can take comfort in knowing that only the MLP needs to be factored in when calculating speaker power, as that's where the gains are set. If the sound drops off in further seats, that's physics that cannot be overcome with a more powerful speaker.



Very true........

SPL at MLP would be fine with Di 5 DC.....

Now have to consider your rationale choosing Di 6 DC for frequency response. Much better reason for selecting 6's over 5's.


----------



## DaJoJo

bass addict said:


> You're all a bunch of Debbie Downers.
> It's all good. I'll keep enjoying my A5000 till Yammy takes more of my money on the A5xxx, or the Denon 7200 comes with a built in rainbow maker.


lol please don't shoot me, i'm just a lousy ol' messenger 
it be worth the wait for sure. perhaps u even get dts-uhd as a bonus and then laugh at us in the end.


----------



## bass addict

David Susilo said:


> With all the rah-rah about Atmos I'm very disappointed with the title quantity and quality announced thus far.


I'm surprised as well. Couple big titles released that I would have been certain would have included it. 

This is probably a completely stupid question; but those of us without Atmos receivers, would it still be possible to play an Atmos track and take advantage of discreet FH audio? I am running 9.3 and would love to hear a complete 9 channel discreet setup without upgrading to Atmos yet.


----------



## DaJoJo

bass addict said:


> I'm surprised as well. Couple big titles released that I would have been certain would have included it.
> This is probably a completely stupid question; but those of us without Atmos receivers, would it still be possible to play an Atmos track and take advantage of discreet FH audio? I am running 9.3 and would love to hear a complete 9 channel discreet setup without upgrading to Atmos yet.


yes but it will do 7.1 . so no discreet 9 channel, but you have a nice yammie dsp that will make it sound more 3D


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Just for reference. Here is my temp setup. Until the Ht is finished. Same area though

5.2.4

My setup. In my unfinished theater (will start finishing in about 2 months)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

David Susilo said:


> With all the rah-rah about Atmos I'm very disappointed with the title quantity and quality announced thus far.


Same here... though film mixer has said patience... more titles will be announced soon. My frustration is that the two films I thought for sure would be released with Atmos BD were G.O.T.G. & Xmen D.O.F.P. I'm guessing a re-release might take quite a while. So far each release seems to be in the 20%-ile of the rottom tomatoes scoreboard. I will be very happy if at least one good title comes out before Xmas. Here's to hoping?  ?


----------



## DaJoJo

i can't wait to see "Matrix" and "Wanted" movies with DSU. think this kinda genre would be very good fit for some 3D uplifting. no doubt they will come up with some atmos enabled titles for christmas


----------



## kokishin

DaJoJo said:


> auro3D doesn't do objectbased panning, so it's probably why. nevertheless it creates a nice realistic soundfield vs atmos and it can't be beat for live performances and music tracks. if used with the right techniques, im sure auro3D wins the battle of 3D sound though atmos has objectbased audio so more movies soundtracks will be easier to fit into that format. the fact that it cost extra to have auro3D in ones avr is certainly a dealbreaker for most and will cause atmos to be in favour. as 10.1&13.1 auro3D isn't available on current avr's , its gonna be very tough for auro3D to win this from atmos. another dealbreaker thing is that auro3D speaker layout was designed for front&rear heights, and atmos can do both top and heights. so it would require a speakerlayout that not everyone is capable of having in the house. this besides the fact that a lot of people aren't able to place them on the right spot and some angle-measure option would be required. for auro3D it is crucial to have the speakers on the right spot and for atmos not so much. atmos has also an option for dolby enabled speakers.


Also, Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers make it easier to implement Atmos for those that cannot implement top mounted speakers.


----------



## DaJoJo

kokishin said:


> Also, Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers make it easier to implement Atmos for those that cannot implement top mounted speakers.


yes indeed. also auro3D seems to bring difficulties for some music(video) producers. so far atmos is winning this "battle" until dts comes with something good.


----------



## kokishin

DaJoJo said:


> yes indeed. also auro3D seems to bring difficulties for some music(video) producers. so far atmos is winning this "battle" until dts comes with something good.


DTS may trump them all but they seem to be moving slower than an Onkyo recall.


----------



## bsoko2

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just for reference. Here is my temp setup. Until the Ht is finished. Same area though
> 
> 5.2.4
> 
> My setup. In my unfinished theater (will start finishing in about 2 months)


I hope you are wearing a face mask with all that insulation floating in the air?


----------



## DaJoJo

kokishin said:


> DTS may trump them all but they seem to be moving slower than an Onkyo recall.


like the turtle and the hare racing


----------



## Roger Dressler

doublewing11 said:


> Now have to consider your rationale choosing Di 6 DC for frequency response. Much better reason for selecting 6's over 5's.


Interesting how Tannoy does their model numbers. The Di5 has a 4.5" woofer, and the Di6 has a 6.5" woofer. Round up or round down... Anyway, the difference in diameter is 2", not the 1" as implied by the model numbers.

The specs say the -3 dB LF response difference is 75Hz vs. 90 Hz. It does not look exactly like that in their response plots, see the red dots.

I like all my surrounds crossed over at 80 Hz, and the Di6 allows that. My other surrounds have 7" woofers, FWIW. Sort of a similar ballpark. 

The iW6 TDC has the same 6.5" woofer and 75 Hz response as the Di6. Unfortunately, you'd be stuck making custom speaker boxes, shooting for similar internal volume and porting, but after building those subs, should be a piece of cake.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> To this point this kind of re-mapping has been the sole province of extremely expensive boutique processors (Trinnov).


Was done on the Sherwood 972 receiver in 2008. In the 6 years since, processing power has multiplied. If anything, it should be easier to do today.


----------



## wse

Aras_Volodka said:


> Any new Atmos BD's announced recently btw? Or are we still stuck with those 5 titles?


5 discs I thought only three?


----------



## wse

Roger Dressler said:


> Interesting how Tannoy does their model numbers. The Di5 has a 4.5" woofer, and the Di6 has a 6.5" woofer. Round up or round down... Anyway, the difference in diameter is 2", not the 1" as implied by the model numbers. The specs say the -3 dB LF response difference is 75Hz vs. 90 Hz. It does not look exactly like that in their response plots, see the red dots.
> 
> I like all my surrounds crossed over at 80 Hz, and the Di6 allows that. My other surrounds have 7" woofers, FWIW. Sort of a similar ballpark. The iW6 TDC has the same 6.5" woofer and 75 Hz response as the Di6. Unfortunately, you'd be stuck making custom speaker boxes, shooting for similar internal volume and porting, but after building those subs, should be a piece of cake.


Sounds like the Di6 is the way to go!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

wse said:


> 5 discs I thought only three?


Sorry I meant "announced"... so TF4, the dance movie, Hercules, Teenage mutant ninja turtles... and I thought there was another. There's also 2 foreign BD's, one from India and one from Japan?


----------



## aaranddeeman

OSD PC850 (available only in white unfortunately) or PC690 speakers may be a very good idea in this experimentation stage of Atmos.
Former is 8" driver and later is 6.5". Both with 1 inch tweeter and 140 degree dispersion.
It would be worth a try


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just for reference. Here is my temp setup. Until the Ht is finished. Same area though
> 
> 5.2.4
> 
> My setup. In my unfinished theater (will start finishing in about 2 months)



Brian,

I have sent you an URGENT PM! 


...Glenn


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Was done on the Sherwood 972 receiver in 2008. In the 6 years since, processing power has multiplied. If anything, it should be easier to do today.


Fair point, Stu's gonna spank me for forgetting about the Sherwood!


----------



## wse

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just for reference. Here is my temp setup. Until the Ht is finished. Same area though
> 
> 5.2.4
> 
> My setup. In my unfinished theater (will start finishing in about 2 months)


http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/home/resources/fiberglass.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/15/u...lass-and-lung-illnesses.html?pagewanted=print

Better safe than sorry!


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Fair point, Stu's gonna spank me for forgetting about the Sherwood!


Whack!

It was a flawed, but very unique product as long as you respected it was SOTA for 2008, and was worth the trouble to experience Trinnov Optimizer and Remapping. 

But at the moment no AVR or pre/pro affordable for ordinary pocketbooks has Trinnov and Atmos, for spatially accurate rendering of Atmos for 7.1.4, let alone up to 32 channels. That's only a feature in the new Trinnov Altitude that's starting to make its way into users hands over the next few months, hopefully.


----------



## UKTexan

Latest information regarding allowable Atmos/Auro speaker configurations for D&M products including 10.1 for the X5200:


http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/more-audio-components-combine-atmos-auro-3d/54425


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Was done on the Sherwood 972 receiver in 2008. In the 6 years since, processing power has multiplied. If anything, it should be easier to do today.


Actually the 972 fiasco demonstrates how hard it was to integrate the Trinnov workings.

If the it had had sufficient processing power for a more complete Trinnov implemenation, it likely would have suffered even greater delays before appearing.


----------



## pasender91

smurraybhm said:


> Pasender91 - Even Dolby has said that speaker placement is not that rigid. I don't see 5 or 10 degrees being fatal or causing things to sound poorly. I see the desire for this feature, I am not losing any sleep over what I have done with DS and Atmos speaker configs in my HT - it sounds pretty damn great - even better with the addition of two more tops yesterday (also known as FH).


I agree 100% with you, if all your speakers are within 10° of the reference placement, then you DO NOT need this feature, you can have a good sleep 

But for people placing speakers away from reference locations, it is a different story !
In my case i will be forced to place the Top Rear in asymetric way due to a door, they will respectively be at +20° and -50° from the rear axis, this is a 30° difference, and outside the reference range. Precise placement of speakers will take that into account and avoid the rear scene to be steered to one side.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Actually the 972 fiasco demonstrates how hard it was to integrate the Trinnov workings.


I think the difficulty was not the Trinnov technology, but that the Inkel engineering team did a mass exodus before it was finished.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> At CEDIA anyway, I came to the conclusion (from my limited experience with Auro3D and given the fact that the demos had different material) that for movies and studio made music mixes Atmos had the more 3D effect and *Auro was better for live ambient recordings and some live-event music recordings. *


If that is all it works well on, it will have a severely limited range of content/appeal.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> In chapter 20 there are small prices of metal that first get drawn up. These are coming from mid air. Not from the ceiling or the side walls or behind. But suspended about a foot over my head
> 
> Pure audio nirvana.


Brian - glad you are so pleased with it!

Can you give the exact time code for that effect you mention please?


----------



## kbarnes701

bootman_head_fi said:


> I thought it was to compensate for speakers not being all at ear level as per Dolby recommendations.
> 
> Is everyone here is lowering their surrounds down to ear level on their Atmos setups to comply?
> 
> Is X32 doing this on the Denon units?


I lowered mine as much as possible (just above head height when seated). It is important to maximise the separation between surrounds and overheads.

Is XT32 doing what exactly?


----------



## CBdicX

After talking and talking, debating, pointing out the "benefits", i final have my wife KO and i have the green light on buying Atmos speakers, and what a great day in my life..... 
The front and surround back will have the Atmos Enabled speakers build in on top, and this was the most important part for the WAF, no extra modules/speakers ! 


But.........
I need to make (well, lose is more the case) some money first and sell the excisting speakers.
I do need to sell my SVS subwoofer (SB 2000 19Hz -3 dB) as the surround Atmos set has also a maching subwoofer, keeping or using both is not an option at this moment.

*And here the question:*
The set has a (ported) subwoofer and this can do 30Hz -3 dB.
Will this be a big differents for movie use compared to the SVS 19Hz or will 30Hz be more then enough in a 40-45 cubic meter room ?


Maybe a bit of Topic but its Atmos related ;-)


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Pasender91 - Even Dolby has said that speaker placement is not that rigid. I don't see 5 or 10 degrees being fatal or causing things to sound poorly. I see the desire for this feature, I am not losing any sleep over what I have done with DS and Atmos speaker configs in my HT - it sounds pretty damn great - even better with the addition of two more tops yesterday (also known as FH).


Yes, but Pasender is right - it will be even better if the AVR can render to the precise locations of the intended sound objects, and it can only do that if it knows where the speakers are.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> To all the people hoping for the exact positional mapping, thinking this is going to be some panacea for poor speaker placement a la Trinnov remapping.... do we really have any actual evidence this is going to be coming to consumer receivers any time soon? To this point this kind of re-mapping has been the sole province of extremely expensive boutique processors (Trinnov). It seems like many people are sitting out the 1st gen with the assumption that a year from now this measuring/re-mapping functionality is going to be ready to rock. I'm skeptical.
> 
> Filmmixer has already corrected the misconception that they do this in commerical Atmos installations -- rather, (as I understood what he said) they adhere to one of the predefined Atmos templates and then get the theater certified. The render "knows" the locations of the speakers because it knows the template that was used. So, in essence, this is much more similar to picking a predefined receiver template (7.1 + FH + TM for example),
> 
> Now, of course, the difference is that Atmos actually has a rendering engine for native material, so the foundational infrastructure for rendering audio to specific locations as opposed to assumed locations is there. But even if it does happen, that is going to do zilch for anything but native Atmos material. It's not going to fix poorly placed surrounds for any channel based material or even DSU upmix, since that would require a remapping engine. You can't push a channel based soundtrack (which even in a year or two will still be the VAST majority of what's out there) through the Atmos renderer.
> 
> I could potentially see more flexibility in placement a la the 5 potential overhead pairs, e.g. you could "place" your surrounds at one of 3 or 4 predefined location templates (e.g. forward surround, side surround, etc). But I'm pretty skeptical that full 3D positional location of elevation/azimuth is coming any time soon.... and, like I said already, even if it does come, it's only going to be relevant to native object audio.


Great points. I can't see speaker remapping coming to affordable AVRs either. But it would be nice to have some way to input (or calculate) angles for the overhead speakers, which is a different thing as you note. Atmos can only render to one specific point in space at a time, and currently, because the engine has no way of knowing where the speakers actually are, it can only 'guess', based on the knowledge that the speakers should be within the ranges specified by Dolby. But those ranges are fairly huge and if you mount your speakers at one end of the range but the object is intended to be rendered to the opposite end of the range, then the result is sure to be less precise.

I’d happily settle for manual user input of the angles - no need for a fancy mic like Trinnov and Yamaha use.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> With all the rah-rah about Atmos I'm very disappointed with the title quantity and quality announced thus far.


Only 5 weeks since launch, David.


----------



## kbarnes701

doublewing11 said:


> Very true........
> 
> SPL at MLP would be fine with Di 5 DC.....
> 
> Now have to consider your rationale choosing Di 6 DC for frequency response. Much better reason for selecting 6's over 5's.


The significant difference is at the lower end of the frequency range. Just set the XO a little higher for the Di5s. Assuming you have good sub(s).


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> After talking and talking, debating, pointing out the "benefits", i final have my wife KO and i have the green light on buying Atmos speakers, and what a great day in my life.....
> The front and surround back will have the Atmos Enabled speakers build in on top, and this was the most important part for the WAF, no extra modules/speakers !
> 
> 
> But.........
> I need to make (well, lose is more the case) some money first and sell the excisting speakers.
> I do need to sell my SVS subwoofer (SB 2000 19Hz -3 dB) as the surround Atmos set has also a maching subwoofer, keeping or using both is not an option at this moment.
> 
> *And here the question:*
> The set has a (ported) subwoofer and this can do 30Hz -3 dB.
> Will this be a big differents for movie use compared to the SVS 19Hz or will 30Hz be more then enough in a 40-45 cubic meter room ?
> 
> 
> Maybe a bit of Topic but its Atmos related ;-)


30Hz for movies is, IMO, woefully inadequate. Figure a way to keep the SVS.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> 30Hz for movies is, IMO, woefully inadequate. Figure a way to keep the SVS.


 
Thanks Keith, do you ever sleep........ ? 

I read also that 20 Hz and below is used a lot in movie, not for music for movie it is.
Would there be any gain in using both ?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> As as has been said - 5.1.4 would be better than the other configurations. 4 overheads enables front to back panning as well as left to right. And it will give a more immersive experience too.





Glenn Baumann said:


> Brian,
> 
> I have sent you an URGENT PM!
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


got it THANK YOU!!



wse said:


> http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/home/resources/fiberglass.html
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/15/u...lass-and-lung-illnesses.html?pagewanted=print
> 
> Better safe than sorry!


true, however all reports I read are not with undisturbed insulation but rather working with it etc...the basement has been untouched for 6 months...and there is a full HVAC system there that filters those rooms out with a seperate filter...I SHOULD be good...but thank you!



kbarnes701 said:


> Brian - glad you are so pleased with it!
> 
> Can you give the exact time code for that effect you mention please?


I am more than pleased...

I will check the timestamp tonight and get back to you!


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith, do you ever sleep........ ?
> 
> I read also that 20 Hz and below is used a lot in movie, not for music for movie it is.
> Would there be any gain in using both ?


If you are primarily interested in music, then 30Hz will be OK for most content. But if you want movies to play the way their creators intended you need solid bass down to 20Hz. If the sub you are considering can play only down to 30Hz (and IIRC that was its -3dB point, so it will not really play all that satisfactorily to 30Hz anyway) then it just isn't up to the task for movies if you want realistic reproduction of the makers' intentions.

I can't answer this in any better way. Keep the SVS. You will be hugely disappointed if you switch from that to a sub with a -3dB of 30Hz. Maybe you could sell the other sub, or use it in another, less demanding, application, in another room maybe. This is the problem with speaker 'packages' IMO - it's like set menus in restaurants - there is always one course that you don't like.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I am more than pleased...
> 
> I will check the timestamp tonight and get back to you!


Thanks Brian. BTW, unless the insulation material is years old or you bought it on the cheap from Russia or someplace , you shouldn't have any real worries over it once it has been installed and is just sitting there. When building my own treatment panels I always use material that uses Ecose technology. This material has been classed as safe to use by pretty much all of the world's health watchdogs and any fibres you inhale are harmlessly dissolved in the lungs with no permanent ill-effect on health. There is much info on it from google. I highly recommend that anyone working with insulation material chooses a brand with the Ecose stamp on it. Of course it is still good practice to wear gloves and suitable mask when working with it.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are primarily interested in music, then 30Hz will be OK for most content. But if you want movies to play the way their creators intended you need solid bass down to 20Hz. If the sub you are considering can play only down to 30Hz (and IIRC that was its -3dB point, so it will not really play all that satisfactorily to 30Hz anyway) then it just isn't up to the task for movies if you want realistic reproduction of the makers' intentions.
> 
> I can't answer this in any better way. Keep the SVS. You will be hugely disappointed if you switch from that to a sub with a -3dB of 30Hz. Maybe you could sell the other sub, or use it in another, less demanding, application, in another room maybe. This is the problem with speaker 'packages' IMO - it's like set menus in restaurants - there is always one course that you don't like.


Clear, thanks, i will keep the SVS and see if i can buy just the speakers and not the sub........


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith, do you ever sleep........ ?


I do have to be back in the grave before sunrise...


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Clear, thanks, i will keep the SVS and see if i can buy just the speakers and not the sub........


Good plan. If you can't, then tell your wife you will be able to sell the sub for a good price later  Point out how much you would _lose_ financially if you sold the SVS. And how it makes more sense to keep the SVS and sell the brand new, unwanted sub.


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just for reference. Here is my temp setup. Until the Ht is finished. Same area though
> 
> 5.2.4
> 
> My setup. In my unfinished theater (will start finishing in about 2 months)


 


Nice setup. I like the screen. What are the dimensions and what brand are you using?


Ray


----------



## Brian Fineberg

tjenkins95 said:


> Nice setup. I like the screen. What are the dimensions and what brand are you using?
> 
> 
> Ray


thank you! I cant wait for it to be finished!!

its a DIY spandex screen. I used millskin matte White over Matte Black...its incredible! very easy to make and cost about 150$ total...its 56"x120" or 130" 2.35:1

makes for a great AT screen...nothing like having the sound from the movie come FROM the screen


----------



## David Susilo

kbarnes701 said:


> Only 5 weeks since launch, David.


I know, but I was expecting something like "these 20 titles will be available in the next 6 months" as opposed a trickle here and there type of announcement.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

forgot to mention...I watched half of Dredd last night...(as well as XMEN DOFP again) but when Ma Ma makes the announcemnets to the block..in Dredd the overhead effect is amazing...sounds as if you are in the block..and she is talking to you...very very awesome use of DSU


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Actually the 972 fiasco demonstrates how hard it was to integrate the Trinnov workings.


Irrelevant. The discussion was about re-mapping. If it could be done in a consumer receiver 6 years ago, it can be done now. Besides, it's not even as difficult as re-mapping existing speakers using some wavefront synthesis approach, it's pan-pot rendering of objects. IF manufacturers wanted to do it, there's no technological reason why they can't. Atmos receiver are already rendering, just that those locations are pre-determined and fixed rather than variable and input by the user.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> I know, but I was expecting something like "these 20 titles will be available in the next 6 months" as opposed a trickle here and there type of announcement.


I'd guess studios will announce upcoming titles in their usual timeframe (although IDK what this is). Most of the Atmos movies released on BD had already been released or scheduled or announced before the launch - thus making it impossible to release them as Atmos discs. So it will only be new movies that will get announcements going forward (I doubt we will see many reissues soon). My barometer is therefore tuned to Atmos movies released post December 2014 - this is to allow for time for movies in theaters at launch to get into the production schedules for BD releases. What I mean by that is that if a movie was in theaters at the time of launch (mid September 2014) the BD releases of those would possibly already be in production, so it will only be totally new movies that make it to BD as Atmos mixes. If post-December 2014, we are not seeing every Atmos theatrical mix that is released on BD, released as an Atmos mix, then I will share your disappointment.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

although TF4, Hercules, TMNT were ALL announced for release day but then later updated they will include ATMOS...so there is still hope for all movies with ATMOS to have it on the blu-ray up until it is actually released


----------



## bargervais

pasender91 said:


> I'll try to explain how i see why this is important:
> 
> Without precise placement Atmos must work with preset speaker placement, let's assume the surround right is placed at 90° (We don't even know that as Atmos speaker positions are not made public, they only share placement ranges)
> 
> Now let's imagine you have a sound object placed at 90° too, it will be emitted purely by the surround.
> 
> What happens if you can't place the surround at the perfect position for whatever reason, let's say you place it at 120° => The system will play the sound supposed to be at 90° from the speaker at 120°, shifting the whole scene, and this same shifting can happen to all channels distorting the whole sound message.
> 
> Now comes a system where you can precisely input the angles, like the 3040 MAY do (btw this feature is already available on the ultra-high-end Trinnov Altitude). The speaker will be detected at the real position, 120°. The object at 90° will then be matrixed correctly between the front speaker and the surround, and will sound as coming from it's real direction, 90°, no more signal shifting.
> 
> *One of the main target concepts behind the object-oriented placement of objects in 3D is to place them precisely in space !!! to achieve that speakers also need to be placed precisely, else it defeats the concept.*
> 
> This will come for sure at some stage, it is guaranteed, but if an AVR does it in 2014 at less than 3000$, it will end up in my room, this is why i am following this question very closely.
> 
> In the case of the 3040, YPAO 3D is surely used for DSP programs, agreed and verified, i don't refute that.
> But then why is it made available in Atmos setup too?
> The only reason i can see is for the Atmos speaker placement
> 
> The net gain for all of us is that the system would in theory emit perfect sounds in terms of angles wherever your speakers are located !!!!
> *There would still be an optimal speaker placement*, as described in the deployment guide, but it would allow to put surrounds higher or lower, top speakers at any angle, have asymetric placement due to doors or windows, ....


thanks for the great explaination this forum moves so fast


----------



## jkasanic

sdurani said:


> Irrelevant. The discussion was about re-mapping. If it could be done in a consumer receiver 6 years ago, it can be done now. Besides, it's not even as difficult as re-mapping existing speakers using some wavefront synthesis approach, it's pan-pot rendering of objects. IF manufacturers wanted to do it, there's no technological reason why they can't. Atmos receiver are already rendering, just that those locations are pre-determined and fixed rather than variable and input by the user.


I have a feeling said manufacturers are trying to keep things "simple". Per Keith's point about inputting the positions manually vs. a fancy mic that can do it automatically, I'm guessing the manufacturers want to keep their "automated" REQ as simple as possible. This leaves two possibilities, 1) they introduce a new fancy mic with next gen receivers that requires no user input or 2) they continue with using the predetermined locations on next gen receivers. As I mentioned before, none of the current AVR offerings from the mass producers are ground up Atmos (or Auro) designs so perhaps there's still hope for option 1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> If that is all it works well on, it will have a severely limited range of content/appeal.


That may be expected in some ways because Auro, I believe, was started on the basis of making more realistic live music recordings (with a Decca surround tree-like set of microphones plus an overhead mic). It then shifted gears into the studio-based, artificial movie soundtrack mixing side of things.


----------



## Lesmor

jkasanic said:


> I have a feeling said manufacturers are trying to keep things "simple". Per Keith's point about inputting the positions manually vs. a fancy mic that can do it automatically, I'm guessing the manufacturers want to keep their "automated" REQ as simple as possible. This leaves two possibilities, 1) they introduce a new fancy mic with next gen receivers that requires no user input or 2) they continue with using the predetermined locations on next gen receivers. As I mentioned before, none of the current AVR offerings from the mass producers are ground up Atmos (or Auro) designs so perhaps there's still hope for option 1.


Yamaha AVR's were measuring speaker angles 20yr ag, L/C/R etc
The mic wasn't special it was all down to the "Boomerang" that the mic was placed on and its correct positioning at the MLP

Whether this has been refined to accommodate Atmos speaker positions perhaps with a more refined microphone is the big question.
Perhaps a query to Yamaha support will give the definitive answer?
If yes then they are one step ahead of the competition.


----------



## jkasanic

Lesmor said:


> Yamaha AVR's were measuring speaker angles 20yr ag, L/C/R etc
> The mic wasn't special it was all down to the "Boomerang" that the mic was placed on and its correct positioning at the MLP
> 
> Whether this has been refined to accommodate Atmos speaker positions perhaps with a more refined microphone is the big question.
> Perhaps a query to Yamaha support will give the definitive answer?
> If yes then they are one step ahead of the competition.


Well, to Sanjay's point above, it's not about the technology being available but more about whether or not it gets implemented. My point was simply that I don't see the manufacturers taking a perceived step backwards when it comes to automated REQ (despite demand from users that would prefer it if it provides a superior listening experience).


----------



## pjvader

I might be missing something here, I'm looking primarily at the onkyo 3030 I currently have a onkyo 5010 running 11 channels and want to add 4 ceiling speakers 
My understanding is the DSU will only use the ceiling speakers (heights and wides will cut out) heights and wides will only be used if I revert to dsx or neo:x right? 
Is there a mode or a receiver that can utilise the wides+heights+ceilings or do we have to wait for dts-UHD to see if they take advantage of all the channels! 
Thx


----------



## Lesmor

pjvader said:


> I might be missing something here, I'm looking primarily at the onkyo 3030 I currently have a onkyo 5010 running 11 channels and want to add 4 ceiling speakers
> My understanding is the DSU will only use the ceiling speakers (heights and wides will cut out) heights and wides will only be used if I revert to dsx or neo:x right?
> Is there a mode or a receiver that can utilise the wides+heights+ceilings or do we have to wait for dts-UHD to see if they take advantage of all the channels!
> Thx


Being a Onkyo 5010 owner using 11.2 I am also keen to know as well
If I understand it correct the existing Heights will be suitable for atmos just need to add rear tops or rear Dolby enabled speakers/modules.
Personally I may hold out for a 9.2.4 AVR and still utilise my Emotiva XPA5 G2 power amp


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Good plan. If you can't, then tell your wife you will be able to sell the sub for a good price later  Point out how much you would _lose_ financially if you sold the SVS. And how it makes more sense to keep the SVS and sell the brand new, unwanted sub.



You sound like you have also a wife or a lot of experians with woman in general.........


----------



## Nightlord

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith, do you ever sleep........ ?


Haven't you figured it out yet? Keith is an AI that passes the Turing test with subject matter reduced to home theater.


----------



## marky301067

@ Kbarnes: Hi Keith, I'm up and running 5.1.4 and really enjoying the experience so far, especially with DSU, I'm just wondering if you let Audyssey set your speaker levels for you, or have you gone in and adjusted them manually, I ran MCACC PRO earlier on this afternoon, the EQ set my in ceiling a lot lower than 75db, should the overheads be set to 75DB?


Thanks

Mark


----------



## pjvader

have you all tried TF4 around the 2hr 11mins mark (i bet most of you didn't make it that far ) the "john goodman robut" is walking around whilst the camera is on the humans sheltering behind a wall, as his head is off camera the voice (at least on my neo:X system) definitely comes from my front heights, that might be a scene worth trying in atmos, going to check out some atmos material later fingers crossed including my demo disc (see my sig) in DSU :nerd:


----------



## bsoko2

marky301067 said:


> @ Kbarnes: Hi Keith I'm up and running 5.1.4 and really enjoying the experience so far, especially with DSU, I'm just wondering if you let Audyssey set your speaker levels for you, or have you gone in and adjusted them manually, I ran MCACC PRO earlier on this afternoon, the EQ set my in ceiling a lot lower than 75db, should the overheads be set to 75DB?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mark



I would set it up with THX specs of 80 Hz crossovers for all speakers and let the sub(s) do the bass from 80 Hz down. I always set mine up that way no matter what Audyssey or MCACC says.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> I think the difficulty was not the Trinnov technology, but that the Inkel engineering team did a mass exodus before it was finished.


Didn't know that; perhaps the Trinnov task drove them away.



sdurani said:


> Irrelevant. The discussion was about re-mapping. If it could be done in a consumer receiver 6 years ago, it can be done now.


Perhaps it's irrelevant, or perhaps not depending whether the difficulty was due to something unfriendly about Trinnov s/w and/or any s/w that does remapping.

My point, which I admit is speculative, is that yes, it was done, but with great difficulty, and that more DSP muscle doesn't necessarily make the s/w integration task easier.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Haven't you figured it out yet? Keith is an AI that passes the Turing test with subject matter reduced to home theater.


That's a very interesting statement, , what makes you think that? Can you prove that you are self-aware?


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> You sound like you have also a wife or a lot of experians with woman in general.........


LOL. Well, I have had three wives... so far....


----------



## kbarnes701

marky301067 said:


> @ Kbarnes: Hi Keith, I'm up and running 5.1.4 and really enjoying the experience so far, especially with DSU, I'm just wondering if you let Audyssey set your speaker levels for you, or have you gone in and adjusted them manually, I ran MCACC PRO earlier on this afternoon, the EQ set my in ceiling a lot lower than 75db, should the overheads be set to 75DB?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mark


Hi Mark - I always let Audyssey set my levels as it seems to be very accurate in that regard. AFAIK, the ceiling speakers are calibrated to the same reference as all the others, which is 75dB for Audyssey, to give 85dB average, 105dB peak, 115dB peak LFE at 0dB on the Master Volume.

If you test using the internal tones, bear in mind these may well bypass the MCACC correction and thus be innacurate when using an external SPL meter. That's how it works with Audyssey anyway, so we have to use a disc with tones if we want to double-check the levels Audyssey has set. Whenever I have done this I have been very impressed at how accurately Audyssey sets them.


----------



## kbarnes701

pjvader said:


> have you all tried TF4 around the 2hr 11mins mark (i bet most of you didn't make it that far ) the "john goodman robut" is walking around whilst the camera is on the humans sheltering behind a wall, as his head is off camera the voice (at least on my neo:X system) definitely comes from my front heights, that might be a scene worth trying in atmos, going to check out some atmos material later fingers crossed including my demo disc (see my sig) in DSU :nerd:


Yes- there is a scene earlier on too with a similar effect.


----------



## bass addict

Lesmor said:


> Being a Onkyo 5010 owner using 11.2 I am also keen to know as well
> If I understand it correct the existing Heights will be suitable for atmos just need to add rear tops or rear Dolby enabled speakers/modules.
> Personally I may hold out for a 9.2.4 AVR and still utilise my Emotiva XPA5 G2 power amp


Yup. FW's will cut out but FH can be assigned to front top. That is the direction I will be going as I will be keeping my current DIY FH speakers and will add rear top. My only concern as mentioned in this thread already, is the concern of not being able to calculate speaker angles with Atmos. Even though you can assign FT as a FH; I can't imagine the imaging would be the same.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Stanton said:


> Normally I would agree, but I think this year's crop of AVR's (and Yamaha in particular) are the exception. Not only do we have a "new" implementation on the audio side with Atmos (I can't imagine there won't be fixes/tweaks to a product who's target firmware/software is released AFTER the product is released), but we have the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 issue on the the video side (and future 4k compatibility). As someone who upgrades/buys AVR's every 10 years or so, I don't think the chips/features were quite ready for this product cycle; however, next year I'm probably "all in".


We think the same way... I can't image dropping over $2000 on a current AVR and finding out in less then possibly a years time that HDCP is there along with host of other improvements that I wish I had waited for!  


But the waiting is killing me!


----------



## kbarnes701

bsoko2 said:


> I would set it up with THX specs of 80 Hz crossovers for all speakers and let the sub(s) do the bass from 80 Hz down. I always set mine up that way no matter what Audyssey or MCACC says.


Bill - it wasn't the XO he was querying - it was the levels.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> Even though you can assign FT as a FH; I can't imagine the imaging would be the same.


I wish we could get a definitive answer on that.


----------



## ss9001

Has yamaha released its Atmos FW yet for the 3040 & other AVR's with Atmos capability?

I'm getting conflicting info from Oppo on compatibility of an older player and they claim they're testing with a Yamaha AVR.


----------



## Selden Ball

ss9001 said:


> Has yamaha released its Atmos FW yet for the 3040 & other AVR's with Atmos capability?


 Not yet. My understanding is that they're hoping for the end of the month, maybe a week or two later.


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> I wish we could get a definitive answer on that.


You and me both. This has been one of the bits of info that is keeping me from jumping on the first wave of Atmos receivers. Angle measurement is a big deal to me for a few different reasons (aforementioned and surrounds). 



ss9001 said:


> Has yamaha released its Atmos FW yet for the 3040 & other AVR's with Atmos capability?


Slated for November.


----------



## bsoko2

Hey guys, I want to get t his right the first time and after reviewing all the discussion on ceiling mounted Atmos speakers. I plan on doing 7.1.4 layout and my ceilings are 7.6 ft tall. Room is 12 ft across and 20 ft long and I plan on wall mounting front height #1 angled 55 degrees at 9 ft to MLP. Rear height #2 will be wall mounted angled at 55 degrees at 7 ft to MLP. All 4 speakers will be at ceiling height. Is this workable instead of ceiling mounted as my ceilings are 7.6 ft? You can see my room http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wh...ration/1416077-bsoko2-new-ht-june-2012-a.html

Thanx, Bill


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> Who is this and what have you done with Scott? Since when have you ever been the voice of reason when it comes to theater upgrades?


I killed him and buried him with his wallet somewhere in a field just outside of Brokeville which is near Bankrupt, CA.

He owed me money.

I never got that money.



Spoiler


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> ... I doubt any of Fosgate's PLII design is present in DSU, considering the former used full-band steering and the latter uses multi-band.


I searched wikipedia and below is what I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS_(sound_system)
Unlike Dolby Pro Logic II's broadband logic steering, Neo:6 is a* multi-band decoder, meaning that the decoder can enhance more than one predominant signal at a time* — provided each predominant signal lies in a different frequency band than the others.

I don't understand the above at all, the part about "enhance more than one predominant signal at a time," but I guess it could be safely assumed that multi-band steering is more advanced and better? If so, is there an easy-to-understand explanation for that pls? TIA.


----------



## thezaks

I apologize in advance if this has been addressed in the 390 pages of this thread, but I'm just jumping in and had a couple of questions.

My setup is in a "great" room, so there is not really a back to the room. The back of the room opens up to a dining area and the kitchen. The only place for me to put the sides and rears in my 7.1 setup was in the ceiling - so, there are four rear speakers in the ceiling and none on the floor (can't put any there). Up front, I have floor standing L/R speakers and a sub, and the center channel is above the TV (about 5' from floor) in a room with a 9' ceiling. 

Will Dolby Atmos work in my kind of room? In the rear of my room, I cannot do both high/low speakers, only high ones.


Thanks,
Dave


----------



## batpig

pjvader said:


> I might be missing something here, I'm looking primarily at the onkyo 3030 I currently have a onkyo 5010 running 11 channels and want to add 4 ceiling speakers
> My understanding is the DSU will only use the ceiling speakers (heights and wides will cut out) heights and wides will only be used if I revert to dsx or neo:x right?
> Is there a mode or a receiver that can utilise the wides+heights+ceilings or do we have to wait for dts-UHD to see if they take advantage of all the channels!
> Thx


One important thing you are missing is that heights ARE considered to be "ceiling speakers" according to Atmos. The Atmos layout makes a distinction between listener level and elevated speaker "layers", and Front Height and Rear Height are two of the five acceptable elevated speaker locations (with the three ceiling positions Front/Middle/Rear being in between). 

So, technically, an 11ch DSX/Neo:X layout with FW and FH is already a 9.1.2 Atmos/DSU layout, with the Front Height speakers "shared" amongst these modes. So all you have to do is add a second pair of overhead speakers (preferably Top Middle or Top Rear) to pair with Front Height and you have 7.1.4 Atmos (the wides will then be dropped for Atmos/DSU modes).


----------



## batpig

thezaks said:


> I apologize in advance if this has been addressed in the 390 pages of this thread, but I'm just jumping in and had a couple of questions.
> 
> My setup is in a "great" room, so there is not really a back to the room. The back of the room opens up to a dining area and the kitchen. The only place for me to put the sides and rears in my 7.1 setup was in the ceiling - so, there are four rear speakers in the ceiling and none on the floor (can't put any there). Up front, I have floor standing L/R speakers and a sub, and the center channel is above the TV (about 5' from floor) in a room with a 9' ceiling.
> 
> Will Dolby Atmos work in my kind of room? In the rear of my room, I cannot do both high/low speakers, only high ones.


No, you are basically screwed with respect to Atmos if you are not willing to place at least a pair of surrounds at a lower level. There is no point in Atmos if there is literally zero vertical separation between the surrounds and the overheads.

If you can somehow manage to put a pair of side surrounds lower down (e.g. floorstanders, bookshelf speakers on stands, or perhaps speakers mounted to the walls or support columns) then the four ceiling speakers can become Atmos overheads. But otherwise, just enjoy your 7.1 setup.


----------



## thezaks

batpig said:


> No, you are basically screwed with respect to Atmos if you are not willing to place at least a pair of surrounds at a lower level. There is no point in Atmos if there is literally zero vertical separation between the surrounds and the overheads.
> 
> If you can somehow manage to put a pair of side surrounds lower down (e.g. floorstanders, bookshelf speakers on stands, or perhaps speakers mounted to the walls or support columns) then the four ceiling speakers can become Atmos overheads. But otherwise, just enjoy your 7.1 setup.


Perfect - thanks so much for the info! So, in sticking with a 7.1 setup, I thought I read somewhere that a Dolby Atmos enabled receiver/processor will make a typical 5.1/7.1 setup sound better than current generation receiver/processors - is that true?

Dave


----------



## Selden Ball

thezaks said:


> Perfect - thanks so much for the info! So, in sticking with a 7.1 setup, I thought I read somewhere that a Dolby Atmos enabled receiver/processor will make a typical 5.1/7.1 setup sound better than current generation receiver/processors - is that true?
> 
> Dave


Many of us think that the new Dolby Surround upmixer provides a more pleasing environment than its predecessor Dolby ProLogic IIz, but not everyone agrees. In particular, my understanding is that there were some Onkyo owners who tried the Atmos firmware update (which replaced DPLII with DS) but decided to revert to the older firmware with DPLII.


----------



## thezaks

Selden Ball said:


> Many of us think that the new Dolby Surround upmixer provides a more pleasing environment than its predecessor Dolby ProLogic IIz, but not everyone agrees. In particular, my understanding is that there were some Onkyo owners who tried the Atmos firmware update (which replaced DPLII with DS) but decided to revert to the older firmware with DPLII.


Great info - thanks so much! I think I'll just stick with my current setup.

Dave


----------



## jacovn

Will the atmos sound field be less good/limited if you use FH in stead of TF ?
The speakers will be slightly lower positioned perhaps.

This will than work with Auro3d at least. If i look at the dolby install pdf i see 30-55 degrees for TF and FH would be 30 degrees above left and right.

I am quite flexible to install the front speakers, but i would prefer to dot FH for the (limited) Auro3d option. But if the Atmos spunds get worse i will not do it.


----------



## KidHorn

Al Sherwood said:


> We think the same way... I can't image dropping over $2000 on a current AVR and finding out in less then possibly a years time that HDCP is there along with host of other improvements that I wish I had waited for!
> 
> 
> But the waiting is killing me!



I agree. No HDCP 2.2 compliance is a deal breaker for me. If I go atmos, it will be with the next generation of receivers.


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> One important thing you are missing is that heights ARE considered to be "ceiling speakers" according to Atmos. The Atmos layout makes a distinction between listener level and elevated speaker "layers", and Front Height and Rear Height are two of the five acceptable elevated speaker locations (with the three ceiling positions Front/Middle/Rear being in between).


We're not missing that. But you can't tell me the soundfield is going to be the same with a down firing and forward firing speaker. That's like saying I can mount my surround pointing up down or in between with no worries of sound degradation.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> Many of us think that the new Dolby Surround upmixer provides a more pleasing environment than its predecessor Dolby ProLogic IIz, but not everyone agrees. In particular, my understanding is that there were some Onkyo owners who tried the Atmos firmware update (which replaced DPLII with DS) but decided to revert to the older firmware with DPLII.


That is very sad why would anyone upgrade to Atmos with no intention on using it and then complain they lost PLIIz.... this was known from the beginning that DSU would replace it as Keith stated many pages back..... I have a onkyo Tx-nr737 with top front ceiling speakers and lm very happy with the results, and I will not turn back the clock...


----------



## batpig

bass addict said:


> We're not missing that. But you can't tell me the soundfield is going to be the same with a down firing and forward firing speaker. That's like saying I can mount my surround pointing up down or in between with no worries of sound degradation.


Um, I wasn't responding to you. The person to whom I was responding WAS missing that. It's a common misconception to say "I already have a 9.1 system with front heights, can I add four Atmos speakers to go to 9.1.4?" I was just pointing out that the 2 height speakers actually would be "counted" as two of the four possible Atmos speakers.

Whether or not Front Height is as effective as Top Front is really not the point I was addressing. It's really about whether you can meet the specified angles. If you have FH speakers just a few feet above your mains so that they are only at like a 30 degree elevation relative to the LP, obviously it's not going to give you as effective of an "overhead" effect as if they were higher up at a ~45 degree angle to LP.


----------



## nucky

Just watched I Frankenstein with DSU brilliant. I'm surprised no one has mentioned chapter 14 on transformers 4, when they are crossing the cables from the ship, have a listen to that scene it sounds good in Atmos, it shows off the sound from the ceiling speakers.


----------



## batpig

nucky said:


> Just watched I Frankenstein with DSU brilliant. I'm surprised no one has mentioned chapter 14 on transformers 4, when they are crossing the cables from the ship, have a listen to that scene it sounds good in Atmos, it shows off the sound from the ceiling speakers.


That was actually a scene I noted as NOT making good use of the overheads. For example, when they are clinging to the cables and the jet plane flies from the distance and then passes directly over the characters' heads (from your perspective as the viewer) the sound pans through the surrounds but the overheads are dead silent, which is odd considering the plan is flying right over you.

Did you actually listen closely to the ceiling speakers to confirm they are making noise there and it's not just a psychoacoustic effect? I think you might be surprised.


----------



## ThePrisoner

batpig said:


> That was actually a scene I noted as NOT making good use of the overheads. For example, when they are clinging to the cables and the jet plane flies from the distance and then passes directly over the characters' heads (from your perspective as the viewer) the sound pans through the surrounds but the overheads are dead silent, which is odd considering the plan is flying right over you.
> 
> Did you actually listen closely to the ceiling speakers to confirm they are making noise there and it's not just a psychoacoustic effect? I think you might be surprised.


I noticed this to in that exact same scene. Im running front heights and when I stood right under the front soundstage I heard nothing when those jets fly over. My subs on the other hand vibrated the floor boards.


----------



## nucky

batpig said:


> That was actually a scene I noted as NOT making good use of the overheads. For example, when they are clinging to the cables and the jet plane flies from the distance and then passes directly over the characters' heads (from your perspective as the viewer) the sound pans through the surrounds but the overheads are dead silent, which is odd considering the plan is flying right over you.
> 
> Did you actually listen closely to the ceiling speakers to confirm they are making noise there and it's not just a psychoacoustic effect? I think you might be surprised.


I've just doubled checked that scene and switched off all the other channels apart from the ceiling speakers. And there is music and a lot of wind playing on those channels and you can hear the cables cracking and creaking and there were two planes flying by. And when they are fighting each other you hear the gun ships as well, and you also hear it hitting the ground when they get shot down.


----------



## Selden Ball

nucky said:


> I've just doubled checked that scene and switched off all the other channels apart from the ceiling speakers. And there is music and a lot of wind playing on those channels and you can hear the cables cracking and creaking and there were two planes flying by. And when they are fighting each other you hear the gun ships as well, and you also hear it hitting the ground when they get shot down.


Which disk pressing are you listening to? Too often different regions get different audio mixes. Maybe this is one such.

Are you listening to an Atmos decoding or a Dolby Surround upmix? The latter moves lots of sounds to the overheads.


----------



## nucky

Selden Ball said:


> Which disk pressing are you listening to? Too often different regions get different audio mixes. Maybe this is one such.
> 
> Are you listening to an Atmos decoding or a Dolby Surround upmix? The latter moves lots of sounds to the overheads.


Atmos it is TF4. The sound cuts out and back again, but the ceiling speakers are definitely getting used. Its the U.S. disc


----------



## batpig

Fascinating. I'll have to recheck that scene. I only have 5.1.2 (front Dolby) so that is another variable to consider. 

Keith, you should test this scene as well since you have 5.1.4.


----------



## tjenkins95

nucky said:


> I've just doubled checked that scene and switched off all the other channels apart from the ceiling speakers. And there is music and a lot of wind playing on those channels and you can hear the cables cracking and creaking and there were two planes flying by. And when they are fighting each other you hear the gun ships as well, and you also hear it hitting the ground when they get shot down.


 

I totally agree with Nucky. I have 4 of the Pioneer Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers and I just played Chapter 14 and there is plenty of sound coming from the ceiling. Cables clanging, wind noise, jets, etc...


Ray


----------



## doublewing11

kbarnes701 said:


> The significant difference is at the lower end of the frequency range. Just set the XO a little higher for the Di5s. Assuming you have good sub(s).


That is certainly doable.......

All 9 current speakers are crossed over at 80 Hz. With Di 5 DC -3 db's at 90 hz and -10 db's at 80 Hz, well..........that is quite the frequency hole.

I have toyed with idea of crossing all speakers at 100 Hz due to having four large 18" subs placed at 1/4 wall space front and rear. Localization shouldn't be an issue............and would make the all current Triads much more dynamic.

Food for thought......


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> That was actually a scene I noted as NOT making good use of the overheads. For example, when they are clinging to the cables and the jet plane flies from the distance and then passes directly over the characters' heads (from your perspective as the viewer) the sound pans through the surrounds but the overheads are dead silent, which is odd considering the plan is flying right over you.
> 
> Did you actually listen closely to the ceiling speakers to confirm they are making noise there and it's not just a psychoacoustic effect? I think you might be surprised.


Sounds like you need to check your setup.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Perhaps it's irrelevant, or perhaps not depending whether the difficulty was due to something unfriendly about Trinnov s/w and/or any s/w that does remapping.
> 
> My point, which I admit is speculative, is that yes, it was done, but with great difficulty, and that more DSP muscle doesn't necessarily make the s/w integration task easier.


You're complicating things unnecessarily. We're not talking about recreating Trinnov room correction and Trinnov speaker re-mapping in a new AVR. Instead, we're talking about deleting the pre-defined angles that the Atmos decoder is currently rendering to and replacing those numbers with user-defined angles. It's not like rendering to 90 degrees azimuth requires more DSP muscle than rendering to 110 degrees.


----------



## aaranddeeman

jacovn said:


> Will the atmos sound field be less good/limited if you use FH in stead of TF ?
> The speakers will be slightly lower positioned perhaps.
> 
> This will than work with Auro3d at least. If i look at the dolby install pdf i see 30-55 degrees for TF and FH would be 30 degrees above left and right.
> 
> I am quite flexible to install the front speakers, but i would prefer to dot FH for the (limited) Auro3d option. But if the Atmos spunds get worse i will not do it.


Interesting question. I would like to know as well.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> I guess it could be safely assumed that multi-band steering is more advanced and better?


And potentially more artifacty, since sounds are sliced into frequency bands in order to have quicker steering, with the hope that they sum correctly at the listening position.


----------



## petetherock

I'm a little confused:
So if I have put four ceiling speakers (TF + TR), these positions won't be compatible with Auro?
What will be needed to add Auro?
If it has been asked before, can someone post a link?
Thanks


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> I'm a little confused:
> So if I have put four ceiling speakers (TF + TR), these positions won't be compatible with Auro?
> What will be needed to add Auro?
> If it has been asked before, can someone post a link?
> Thanks


Remote controlled motorised speaker mounts with free installation $15000 only. Offer ends Oct 31, 2014... 
Macro buttons for 
Atmos
Auro
DTS-UHD
B1
B2

(B1 and B2 for future use)


----------



## batpig

petetherock said:


> I'm a little confused:
> So if I have put four ceiling speakers (TF + TR), these positions won't be compatible with Auro?
> What will be needed to add Auro?
> If it has been asked before, can someone post a link?
> Thanks


Unfortunately no. At least not based on the Denon/Marantz implementation which is the only one announced. 

Auro uses "height" speakers not "top" apeakers. So in order to share the forward pair they need to be Front Height designation. Not Top Front. 

The rear pair can't be shared. You either go with Surround Height for Auro or one of the Atmos speakers (like Top Rear). So running 5.1.4 Atmos means Auro will be limited to 5.1.2 (front height only). And vice versa. 

If you want to add VOG speaker for Auro directly overhead you have to use the SW2 pre out.


----------



## kingwiggi

nucky said:


> I've just doubled checked that scene and switched off all the other channels apart from the ceiling speakers. And there is music and a lot of wind playing on those channels and you can hear the cables cracking and creaking and there were two planes flying by. And when they are fighting each other you hear the gun ships as well, and you also hear it hitting the ground when they get shot down.


The wind swooshing around your head at the start of that scene is very pleasant followed by the chains playing a little melody but after that its a little disappointing. Batpig was right when he mentioned that plane flying right over Mark Wahlbergs head should surely have made some sound and when the chains broke and they were free failing through the air where was the wind then. 

I wish there was some way of us sharing exactly what we are hearing since try as I did I could not hear the planes hitting the ground.

I timecoded a few scenes that I listened to where the overheads were active and sounded particularly good. (All other speakers turned off)

12 - 01:24:00 - helicopter flyby
13 - 01:33:00 - armour falling into place
14 - 01:37:25 - wind swirling around
19 - 02:18:22 - jump
20 - 02:25:30 - pulsing sound
21 - 02:35:10 - jet flyby


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> You're complicating things unnecessarily. We're not talking about recreating Trinnov room correction and Trinnov speaker re-mapping in a new AVR. Instead, we're talking about deleting the pre-defined angles that the Atmos decoder is currently rendering to and replacing those numbers with user-defined angles. It's not like rendering to 90 degrees azimuth requires more DSP muscle than rendering to 110 degrees.


I'm talking about the s/w aspect, not the DSP resources required to run it, nor did I mention RC.

I'm only using Trinnov as a point of comparison because they're the only ones doing remapping, and remapping is what we're talking about.

Or perhaps I'm mistaken in assuming that flexible rendering of object locations to the installed speaker locations is the similar to remapping, or of similar complexity.


----------



## sdurani

jkasanic said:


> This leaves two possibilities, 1) they introduce a new fancy mic with next gen receivers that requires no user input or 2) they continue with using the predetermined locations on next gen receivers.


Or a 3rd possibility: you pull up an interface that looks something like this: 










Use your remote control to highlight the 7 or 9 or 11 speakers in the diagram that most closely match your physical speaker locations.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Or a 3rd possibility: you pull up an interface that looks something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your remote control to highlight the 7 or 9 or 11 speakers in the diagram that most closely match your physical speaker locations.


This is, I think, the most likely outcome. Definitely for a company like D+M committed to Audyssey's REQ. I can't foresee a fancy pants mic fitting in with what is a mature calibration process. And position is really irrelevant to Audyssey anyway.


----------



## Steve Goff

It is too bad the rear "height" channels can't be share. I could see sending a single signal to side and rear "height" speakers and panning between them with a balance control or gain controls for the best effect based on format.


----------



## Josh Z

I don't have an Atmos receiver yet but I'm making plans for the upgrade, one step at a time. My current step is to bring in my electrician to run wires through the walls, and I'm stressing about speaker placement. I want to minimize the number of holes I drill in the walls, so I need to know exactly where I'll put the speakers.

I currently have a 7.1 system. The three front speakers are floorstanding.










My main surrounds are currently high on the sides of the room, 90 degrees next to my seats. The surround back channels are mounted to the ceiling behind me.










All of the speakers I currently have are going to stay where they are. I want to go to 7.1.4 by adding two overhead speakers to the front of the room, add two speakers on stands at ear level to become my new main surrounds, and repurpose my current main surrounds that are up high as overhead channels. The back surrounds on the ceiling will remain as is.

I cannot add anything new either to the ceiling or inset in the ceiling. Instead, I want to put the new front speakers high on the sides, in line with my old surrounds, and angled toward the listening position. 

My first question is whether I should put them directly next to (but above) my front speakers, or move them forward more toward the listening position? It almost seems like it would be better to move them forward a little to fill the open space in that part of the room, but maybe that's a bad idea.










When I program the receiver, would these be designated as Front Height, or Top Front, or Top Middle?

Next, when I put in the new main surrounds, I have an option of putting them either to the left or right of this support pole. 










The left would essentially be directly underneath the speaker that will be a new overhead channel (Top Middle? Top Rear?) and 90 degrees to my side. The right would be a little bit behind my seat.

My inclination is to put them to the right, slightly behind me. But would that screw up imaging if an object moved, for example, from the main surround to the overhead?

I've looked at the Dolby installation guidelines, but none of their suggestions quite fit my room constraints.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Or perhaps I'm mistaken in assuming that flexible rendering of object locations to the installed speaker locations is the similar to remapping, or of similar complexity.


Nowhere near. Trinnov's speaker re-mapping uses wave field synthesis, like Gerzon did with higher order Ambisonics. By comparison, Atmos renders using pan-pot techniques. It's also not something that needs to be added to Atmos decoders in AVRs, since they're doing it already, just to fixed numbers in a look-up table.


----------



## noah katz

I see, thanks for the explanation.


----------



## batpig

nucky said:


> Just watched I Frankenstein with DSU brilliant. I'm surprised no one has mentioned chapter 14 on transformers 4, when they are crossing the cables from the ship, have a listen to that scene it sounds good in Atmos, it shows off the sound from the ceiling speakers.


Just to update my thoughts -- just now I rewatched chapter 14 and 20, but this time completely disabling all speakers except the front Dolby-enabled channels. After this experiment, I will walk back my suprise/disappointment a bit. There is indeed plenty of overhead action, although there are also very long periods of complete silence and most definitely IMO big missed opportunities.

The problem before was I was focusing on specific effects and then being suprised at their total absence in the overhead speakers. For example, in chapter 14 when they are traversing the cables, I noted the fighter jet flyover directly overhead which had no overhead presence. And in chapter 20, when a pickup truck is dropped on top of the characters and you can see it crashing into and bouncing off of buildings and structures overhead, there is nothing (although, curiously, there are a couple of seemingly arbitrary times when you DO hear the sound of a couple of cars falling, but most of the falling debris is absent from the overheads). My intense focus on the absence of the overhead on these moments biased me negatively and caused me to overreach on my conclusion.

In chapter 14, I definitely hear the wind swirling, metallic "zapping" sounds from the cables creaking, some of the music and occasional bits of ambient effect, plus the initial jet flyover (which makes it curious why the second flyover which is directly overhead was not present). And during the aerial battle that follows there are a few moments where a ship or debris whooshes right overhead. 

Chapter 20 seems almost exclusively reserved for the whirring and pulsing of the forcefield effect. Now, this effect is indeed impressive. But, not to belabor it again, it felt like lots of missed opportunities.

Overall, it felt like the mixers definitely chose deliberate, precise moments to engage the overheads for specific effect. Obviously, I feel they could have done even more in many cases where the action was clearly overhead, and it still is quite surprising how often the Atmos channels are dead silent, but I'll recant most of my criticism in light of the tests. It's most definitely a spectacular soundtrack overall, but still IMO not the best demo of Atmos if you are looking for frequent, super duper splashy overhead action.

As a sanity check, I also played the three best clips (Leaf, Amaze, Unfold) from the Atmos demo disc, and all three had significant, nearly constant overhead action, but of course these are purpose designed demos.

On a final note, the experience was also an opportunity for subjective, isolated assessment of the efficacy of two "fake" Atmos modules (I am using a pair of KEF 2001.2 "egg" satellites pointed up at the ceiling). While there were moments when the image "smeared" and I could detect the ear level sound, for the most part they were remarkably effective at imaging as though they were truly in-ceiling speakers placed at the reflection point about 30 degrees in front of me (60 degrees elevation). Although as expected they sound a bit more diffuse than a true, physically in-ceiling speaker. 

The fidelity at certain moments (especially things like the pulsing of the force field in chp 20) made me very happy I am using them as opposed to the Def Tech modules I returned. The A60's sounded cute puny and constricted when isolated, as you would expect from a single 3" full range driver. The KEF's with their much more refined sound and dual concentric 2-way driver array more than make up for any deficit in Atmos-ness with their signficantly better sound quality. I don't know how much the dual concentric design improves their feasiblity as "fake" Atmos modules but given that other reputed brands (Pioneer, Atlantic Tech) are doing it that way for their Atmos modules, it seems telling. Considering you can grab entire 5 speaker sets of the older 2005.2 package for $200ish used, and the individual satellites from the newer 2005.3 package for $120 from Accessories4less, plus the compact size and incredibly flexibly integrated mount/stand that makes aiming them upward a breeze, they make a phenomental value proposition for someone looking to get 4 "fake" Atmos speakers for the price (or less) of a single pair of "real" Atmos modules.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Unlike Dolby Pro Logic II's broadband logic steering, Neo:6 is a* multi-band decoder, meaning that the decoder can enhance more than one predominant signal at a time* — provided each predominant signal lies in a different frequency band than the others.
> 
> I don't understand the above at all, the part about "enhance more than one predominant signal at a time," but I guess it could be safely assumed that multi-band steering is more advanced and better? If so, is there an easy-to-understand explanation for that pls? TIA.


A logic decoder starts by creating more outputs than inputs. A 2-ch source feeding 5 outputs. L and R pass through, C is L+R, Ls is L-kR, and Rs is R-kL. (k is a coefficient, say, 0.5). 

Now we have mush, with dialog coming from every speaker. How to fix that? When dialog is strong (dominant), the decoder will realize it is easily heard. It will mix -R into the L out, and that will cancel the dialog and leave the difference signal. It will mix -L to the R output to do the same. The same process in the surrounds. Now the dialog only comes from the C speaker. That is logic steering. The direction of the steering in this case was to the C speaker, but it can be in any direction among the speakers. The decoder operates in a few milliseconds, so it can multiplex among different sounds in different places quickly. 

In PLII (and Logic7) the steering uses the entire L or R channel to cancel the unwanted "dominant" sounds from the various speakers. What if the steering process could be confined to just the voice signals? Then the voice is still focused to center as before, but the rest of the audible spectrum, remains unaffected. The effect of this is the soundfield remains more open even when steering vocals or dialog to the center speaker.

Now, while the decoder is steering vocal signals, there might be another sound that predominates in a different frequency range, positioned in another direction -- a car door slam in the right. The decoder is able to steer these other frequencies without affecting either the dialog or any other parts of the spectrum. If the spectrum is divided into 10 bands, they can all operate independently. 

But as Sanjay mentioned, if you do not hear all the speakers equally, some wild side effects may ensue.


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> My first question is whether I should put them directly next to (but above) my front speakers, or move them forward more toward the listening position? It almost seems like it would be better to move them forward a little to fill the open space in that part of the room, but maybe that's a bad idea.


Could you give both positions a try before committing to the final installation? Would a temporary run of external cabling be acceptable? Hearing the differences between the two probably is the best way to find out which you prefer. However see my comment below about the other overheads.



> When I program the receiver, would these be designated as Front Height, or Top Front, or Top Middle?


 If you choose the location closest to the front speakers, I'd suggest designating them as Front Height, while the position closer to the seating might be better designated Top Front. 



> Next, when I put in the new main surrounds, I have an option of putting them either to the left or right of this support pole.
> 
> The left would essentially be directly underneath the speaker that will be a new overhead channel (Top Middle? Top Rear?) and 90 degrees to my side. The right would be a little bit behind my seat.


 The new overhead is close to the seating, so Top Middle, which means the front speakers would have to be designated Front Height, which suggests that closer to the front main speakers would be a better position for them. Current implementations of Atmos do not allow the use of adjacent overhead designations. If you decided to designate the front overheads as Top Front, then the designation Top Rear would be required for the more centrally located overheads, which suggests they would have been better on the right of the pole. I suspect changing them would be difficult.



> My inclination is to put them to the right, slightly behind me. But would that screw up imaging if an object moved, for example, from the main surround to the overhead?


Dolby's guidelines don't care. 

I'd be biased toward placing the new Side Surrounds on the left side of the pole, designating the previous Side Surrounds as Top Middle, having the front overheads close to the front speakers, and designating them Front Heights. That also makes the front overheads more nearly compatible with the requirements for Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X. 

If at all possible, I think you need to listen to the options, though, and decide which you prefer. It's your entertainment system, and you're the one who will be living with the results.


----------



## pasender91

Hi Josh Z,

I would move the front high speakers in the forward position you mention, it will improve the immersion.
Calculate the elevation angle from MLP to this location, if it is 30-40° it will map to FH position, if it is more than 40°, it will be TF

For the back of you room, you have a problem in your proposal as you would have no high speakers in the back. i suggest another option:
- you move the surrounds down to slightly over ear-level, they are much too high now, and to the left of the pole (as you have back surrounds, it is recommended to have the surrounds at 90° or slightly below)
- you transfer your current back surrounds to RH Atmos usage
- you get a new pair of back surrounds that you place at ear level, maybe on stands, we don't see clearly the back of your room in the pictures...


----------



## dmorgus

Selden Ball said:


> Could you give both positions a try before committing to the final installation? Would a temporary run of external cabling be acceptable? Hearing the differences between the two probably is the best way to find out which you prefer. However see my comment below about the other overheads.
> 
> If you choose the location closest to the front speakers, I'd suggest designating them as Front Height, while the position closer to the seating might be better designated Top Front.
> 
> The new overhead is close to the seating, so Top Middle, which means the front speakers would have to be designated Front Height, which suggests that closer to the front main speakers would be a better position for them. Current implementations of Atmos do not allow the use of adjacent overhead designations. If you decided to designate the front overheads as Top Front, then the designation Top Rear would be required for the more centrally located overheads, which suggests they would have been better on the right of the pole. I suspect changing them would be difficult.
> 
> Dolby's guidelines don't care.
> 
> I'd be biased toward placing the new Side Surrounds on the left side of the pole, designating the previous Side Surrounds as Top Middle, having the front overheads close to the front speakers, and designating them Front Heights. That also makes the front overheads more nearly compatible with the requirements for Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.
> 
> If at all possible, I think you need to listen to the options, though, and decide which you prefer. It's your entertainment system, and you're the one who will be living with the results.


Before he goes anywhere, we need some information about whether (1) a bi-pole speaker (is it a Klipsch 52?) can effectively function as an overhead Atmos speaker and (2) whether it can do so 3 feet off to the side of MLP. It strikes me (being in the same position with 62's) that two sets of sounds being fired at 80 degrees to each other will result in a very smeared sound since the overhead sound generated will be coming from in front and behind MLP. there is no way to focus and therefore precise imaging is lost (?)

So, the question would be - has anyone actually used bipoles as overheads? (I was at best going to use them as rear surround)

Another problem is how wide is his sound area across the top (I'm thinking it is something like 10 feet). I really do not think using speakers off to the side is going to cover that area.

There is another problem that need addressing and that is proximity of Right Front Height speaker to the beam. I can see diffraction being a problem that needs investigating.

Which supports the idea that you need to get the receiver first before committing to permanent wiring.


----------



## pasender91

duplicated ;(


----------



## jdsmoothie

So then based on the Twice.com article published on Monday, it looks like the only possible combined speaker configurations using D&M units and if both Atmos and Auro3D formats are desired will be the following:











The VOG channel will come from the Subwoofer pre-out #2 on all models except the X4100W as the VOG channel will not be available on that model.

Keep in mind that if willing to use a speaker switch, you could have a full layout for both formats and use the D&M SAVE feature to then save each configuration to a PC file, noting it would take about 10 minutes to then reload a different configuration.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

batpig said:


> Just to update my thoughts -- just now I rewatched chapter 14 and 20, but this time completely disabling all speakers except the front Dolby-enabled channels. After this experiment, I will walk back my suprise/disappointment a bit. There is indeed plenty of overhead action, although there are also very long periods of complete silence and most definitely IMO big missed opportunities.
> 
> The problem before was I was focusing on specific effects and then being suprised at their total absence in the overhead speakers. For example, in chapter 14 when they are traversing the cables, I noted the fighter jet flyover directly overhead which had no overhead presence. And in chapter 20, when a pickup truck is dropped on top of the characters and you can see it crashing into and bouncing off of buildings and structures overhead, there is nothing (although, curiously, there are a couple of seemingly arbitrary times when you DO hear the sound of a couple of cars falling, but most of the falling debris is absent from the overheads). My intense focus on the absence of the overhead on these moments biased me negatively and caused me to overreach on my conclusion.
> 
> In chapter 14, I definitely hear the wind swirling, metallic "zapping" sounds from the cables creaking, some of the music and occasional bits of ambient effect, plus the initial jet flyover (which makes it curious why the second flyover which is directly overhead was not present). And during the aerial battle that follows there are a few moments where a ship or debris whooshes right overhead.
> 
> Chapter 20 seems almost exclusively reserved for the whirring and pulsing of the forcefield effect. Now, this effect is indeed impressive. But, not to belabor it again, it felt like lots of missed opportunities.
> 
> Overall, it felt like the mixers definitely chose deliberate, precise moments to engage the overheads for specific effect. Obviously, I feel they could have done even more in many cases where the action was clearly overhead, and it still is quite surprising how often the Atmos channels are dead silent, but I'll recant most of my criticism in light of the tests. It's most definitely a spectacular soundtrack overall, but still IMO not the best demo of Atmos if you are looking for frequent, super duper splashy overhead action.
> 
> As a sanity check, I also played the three best clips (Leaf, Amaze, Unfold) from the Atmos demo disc, and all three had significant, nearly constant overhead action, but of course these are purpose designed demos.
> 
> On a final note, the experience was also an opportunity for subjective, isolated assessment of the efficacy of two "fake" Atmos modules (I am using a pair of KEF 2001.2 "egg" satellites pointed up at the ceiling). While there were moments when the image "smeared" and I could detect the ear level sound, for the most part they were remarkably effective at imaging as though they were truly in-ceiling speakers placed at the reflection point about 30 degrees in front of me (60 degrees elevation). Although as expected they sound a bit more diffuse than a true, physically in-ceiling speaker.
> 
> The fidelity at certain moments (especially things like the pulsing of the force field in chp 20) made me very happy I am using them as opposed to the Def Tech modules I returned. The A60's sounded cute puny and constricted when isolated, as you would expect from a single 3" full range driver. The KEF's with their much more refined sound and dual concentric 2-way driver array more than make up for any deficit in Atmos-ness with their signficantly better sound quality. I don't know how much the dual concentric design improves their feasiblity as "fake" Atmos modules but given that other reputed brands (Pioneer, Atlantic Tech) are doing it that way for their Atmos modules, it seems telling. Considering you can grab entire 5 speaker sets of the older 2005.2 package for $200ish used, and the individual satellites from the newer 2005.3 package for $120 from Accessories4less, plus the compact size and incredibly flexibly integrated mount/stand that makes aiming them upward a breeze, they make a phenomental value proposition for someone looking to get 4 "fake" Atmos speakers for the price (or less) of a single pair of "real" Atmos modules.



could it be..(guessing here) that the "lack" of overhead sounds or large amount of sound coming from the overheads is done on purpose...remember the idea of using ceilings is to get the 3d effect...thus I am assuming the designers used the object base as in mid air...so there is a phantom image in midair as opposed to directly from over head...this would need a sound coming from both ceiling speakr and surround speakers both a lower levels to acheive the effect...again just speculation on my part..

anyhow I watched neighbors last night...which was insanely funnny...but the DSU on this was a 9 out of 10!! yes for a comedy...there is one scene during a party...where they are playing a rap song...the beat and main music are coming from the front soundstage...but the back up lyric track is surrounding you in a big bubble...such an awesome awesome effect...

I am loving this DSU more and more...you get surprised in movies you thought it would have no bearing...

also birds chirping etc...are always done well with DSU


----------



## tjenkins95

Josh Z said:


> I don't have an Atmos receiver yet but I'm making plans for the upgrade, one step at a time. My current step is to bring in my electrician to run wires through the walls, and I'm stressing about speaker placement. I want to minimize the number of holes I drill in the walls, so I need to know exactly where I'll put the speakers.
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 system. The three front speakers are floorstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My main surrounds are currently high on the sides of the room, 90 degrees next to my seats. The surround back channels are mounted to the ceiling behind me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the speakers I currently have are going to stay where they are. I want to go to 7.1.4 by adding two overhead speakers to the front of the room, add two speakers on stands at ear level to become my new main surrounds, and repurpose my current main surrounds that are up high as overhead channels. The back surrounds on the ceiling will remain as is.
> 
> I cannot add anything new either to the ceiling or inset in the ceiling. Instead, I want to put the new front speakers high on the sides, in line with my old surrounds, and angled toward the listening position.
> 
> My first question is whether I should put them directly next to (but above) my front speakers, or move them forward more toward the listening position? It almost seems like it would be better to move them forward a little to fill the open space in that part of the room, but maybe that's a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I program the receiver, would these be designated as Front Height, or Top Front, or Top Middle?
> 
> Next, when I put in the new main surrounds, I have an option of putting them either to the left or right of this support pole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left would essentially be directly underneath the speaker that will be a new overhead channel (Top Middle? Top Rear?) and 90 degrees to my side. The right would be a little bit behind my seat.
> 
> My inclination is to put them to the right, slightly behind me. But would that screw up imaging if an object moved, for example, from the main surround to the overhead?
> 
> I've looked at the Dolby installation guidelines, but none of their suggestions quite fit my room constraints.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice.


 
Is your ceiling reflective? If so, why not get a pair of Dolby Atmos enabled up-firing speakers and place them on top of your current front speakers. Then get a second pair and place them on top of the new floor standing surrounds? There are a couple of speaker vendors
coming out with new "addon" modules in the next few months.


Ray


----------



## chi_guy50

*Reposted FWIW*

Further clarification confirmed by jdsmoothie:



chi_guy50 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jdsmoothie*
> _So then based on the above article, it looks like the only possible speaker configurations if both formats are desired will be the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The VOG channel will come from the Subwoofer pre-out #2 ; however, will NOT be available on the X4100W._
> 
> 
> 
> If I am reading this table correctly, then my 11.1/7.1.4 layout (7.1 + FW + FH + TM) should be compatible for an Auro 3D 7.1 playback (FW and TM not utilized) without having to add any other speakers or redesignate any assignments? Aside from the question of optimal placement for either system, it appears that the salient factor for versatility is the sharing of the basic listener-level 5.1 plus the top-level FH, correct?
> 
> And, even though I've already got 13 speakers connected on my X5200, I could even add a VOG (with additional external amplification) without having to resort to a speaker switch? Not that I'm particularly tempted to do so, but it's nice to know what options our units will provide us.





jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Correct on both points.


----------



## Josh Z

Thanks for your input, Selden.



Selden Ball said:


> Could you give both positions a try before committing to the final installation? Would a temporary run of external cabling be acceptable? Hearing the differences between the two probably is the best way to find out which you prefer. However see my comment below about the other overheads.


Unfortunately, regardless of the wiring, the only way to try both positions would be to mount the speaker to the beam. And if I don't like it in the first attempt, I have to pull it out and remount it somewhere else. As mentioned, I'm trying to limit the number of holes I drill.



> The new overhead is close to the seating, so Top Middle, which means the front speakers would have to be designated Front Height, which suggests that closer to the front main speakers would be a better position for them. Current implementations of Atmos do not allow the use of adjacent overhead designations.


I wasn't aware of that last point. Preventing use of Top Front and Top Middle together seems a little inconvenient in my specific situation, and perhaps short-sighted. 



> If you decided to designate the front overheads as Top Front, then the designation Top Rear would be required for the more centrally located overheads, which suggests they would have been better on the right of the pole. I suspect changing them would be difficult.


The current surround speakers were installed a while ago, long before any thought of Atmos. I can add new speakers below them to become my main surrounds, but the overheads are not moving from where they are.



> I'd be biased toward placing the new Side Surrounds on the left side of the pole, designating the previous Side Surrounds as Top Middle, having the front overheads close to the front speakers, and designating them Front Heights. That also makes the front overheads more nearly compatible with the requirements for Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.


Would designating the front overheads as Front Height mean a reduction in the number of sounds that get steered there?

For example (theoretically), would a jet flyover effect pan from Front Height to Top Middle, or would the Front Height be reserved for ambience?


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> Thanks for your input, Selden.


 You're very welcome.


> Would designating the front overheads as Front Height mean a reduction in the number of sounds that get steered there?
> 
> For example (theoretically), would a jet flyover effect pan from Front Height to Top Middle, or would the Front Height be reserved for ambience?


Unfortunately, that is unknown. At this point there is only one commercially available Atmos title: _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ (often abbreviated TF4). Its use of the overheads is much more limited than people had anticipated. There's also a Dolby Atmos demo disc, but it's not easily obtainable. There are no Atmos speaker calibration discs available, either. As a result, discovering exactly how sounds are steered for the different speaker configurations is not (yet?) possible. 

The new Dolby Surround upmixer does make good use of whatever overhead speakers you have, but its algorithms haven't been published, either. *sigh*

FWIW, my overheads are designated Front Height and Top Middle and are quite enjoyable. However, my room is small and the sofa is very close to the rear wall, so that differs from your situation.


----------



## Josh Z

I don't want to clutter this thread too much, so I'll combine some responses together.



pasender91 said:


> For the back of you room, you have a problem in your proposal as you would have no high speakers in the back. i suggest another option:
> - you move the surrounds down to slightly over ear-level, they are much too high now, and to the left of the pole (as you have back surrounds, it is recommended to have the surrounds at 90° or slightly below)
> - you transfer your current back surrounds to RH Atmos usage
> - you get a new pair of back surrounds that you place at ear level, maybe on stands, we don't see clearly the back of your room in the pictures...


Unfortunately, moving the existing speakers down is not an option. The wiring runs through the beam and comes out right behind where that speaker is now. Also, I actually can't mount anything to the pole. I can put a new speaker on a stand at ear level on either side of it, though.

Putting new back surrounds on stands behind the seats is an interesting idea, but not convenient for my room. I'd have to either put them right up against the back of the seats practically touching my head, or put them out into the middle of the floor where they'd block the entrance and restrict movement in the room.



dmorgus said:


> Before he goes anywhere, we need some information about whether (1) a bi-pole speaker (is it a Klipsch 52?) can effectively function as an overhead Atmos speaker


It's not Klipsch or bipole. Those surround speakers actually have a switch that allows me to choose bipole, dipole or direct-firing dispersions. They're set for Direct.



> Another problem is how wide is his sound area across the top (I'm thinking it is something like 10 feet). I really do not think using speakers off to the side is going to cover that area.


You guessed right, it's about 10'. I don't have any problem with those speakers covering the area now when used as main surrounds.



> There is another problem that need addressing and that is proximity of Right Front Height speaker to the beam. I can see diffraction being a problem that needs investigating.


Even if I put a direct-firing speaker there aimed toward the listening position?



tjenkins95 said:


> Is your ceiling reflective? If so, why not get a pair of Dolby Atmos enabled up-firing speakers and place them on top of your current front speakers. Then get a second pair and place them on top of the new floor standing surrounds? There are a couple of speaker vendors coming out with new "addon" modules in the next few months.


It's a fair question, but: 

1) I like my existing speakers, and neither want to nor can afford to replace them. 

2) The manufacturer (Cambridge Soundworks) has actually exited the home theater market and no longer makes HT speakers, so they won't be making any Atmos-enabled speakers or add-on modules. Even if I wanted to mix-and-match add-on modules from another brand with my current speakers (which is not something I'm inclined to do), the front mains have a curved design and I can't set anything on top of them.

3) Via Craig's List, I found a used set of four small speakers matching the ones I already have for very cheap. That pretty much locked-in the decision to mount overheads.

4) A couple months ago, I got an Atmos demo at Dolby headquarters. They compared ceiling-mounted overheards to upfiring modules. I felt that the mounted overheads sounded a little better (though the difference wasn't huge and the upfiring modules were also quite convincing).


----------



## Josh Z

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, that is unknown. At this point there is only one commercially available Atmos title: _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ (often abbreviated TF4). Its use of the overheads is much more limited than people had anticipated. There's also a Dolby Atmos demo disc, but it's not easily obtainable.


I already have both TF4 and the Atmos demo disc. The demo disc sounds pretty good downmixed to 7.1, but it's definitely missing something. 



> The new Dolby Surround upmixer does make good use of whatever overhead speakers you have, but its algorithms haven't been published, either.


Given the dearth of true Atmos content thus far, I'm actually more concerned with the way DSU draws sounds to Front Height as opposed to Top Front.


----------



## brwsaw

Selden Ball said:


> You're very welcome.
> 
> Unfortunately, that is unknown. At this point there is only one commercially available Atmos title: _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ (often abbreviated TF4). Its use of the overheads is much more limited than people had anticipated. There's also a Dolby Atmos demo disc, but it's not easily obtainable. There are no Atmos speaker calibration discs available, either. As a result, discovering exactly how sounds are steered for the different speaker configurations is not (yet?) possible.
> 
> The new Dolby Surround upmixer does make good use of whatever overhead speakers you have, but its algorithms haven't been published, either. *sigh*
> 
> FWIW, my overheads are designated Front Height and Top Middle and are quite enjoyable. However, my room is small and the sofa is very close to the rear wall, so that differs from your situation.


I'd be curious to see what difference there may be between different brands of AVR's. You'd think it would be minimal but then realize each company will have made different decisions prior to and once the chip sets were in their hands.
That and at least in theory Gen 1 AVR's would not have been designed around implementing the addition of Atmos, perhaps it/they should have been?
There has to be a simple answer...
Perhaps the actual surround positions and heights are affecting the rendering to the overall presentation?

FWIW, there were only a few instances where I noticed overhead sounds/locations from TF4 (non Atmos theater, have heard lots from various other movies). I was somewhat shocked by the visuals and sound, perhaps it was my player? (was running Robots on a loop from the previous night). It looked like 720P and sounded somewhat muted during much of the movie. I was glad the mix wasn't hot, I cringed a time or two expecting/thinking this is going to be bad (for my speakers and ears).

I do feel somewhat guilty though. My kids asked me what my favorite part was and I had to tell them I couldn't tell them. I feel like more of a perv than I am, how old is/was she?


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> A logic decoder starts by creating more outputs than inputs. A 2-ch source feeding 5 outputs. L and R pass through, C is L+R, Ls is L-kR, and Rs is R-kL. (k is a coefficient, say, 0.5).
> 
> Now we have mush, with dialog coming from every speaker. How to fix that? When dialog is strong (dominant), the decoder will realize it is easily heard. It will mix -R into the L out, and that will cancel the dialog and leave the difference signal. It will mix -L to the R output to do the same. The same process in the surrounds. Now the dialog only comes from the C speaker. That is logic steering. The direction of the steering in this case was to the C speaker, but it can be in any direction among the speakers. The decoder operates in a few milliseconds, so it can multiplex among different sounds in different places quickly.
> 
> In PLII (and Logic7) the steering uses the entire L or R channel to cancel the unwanted "dominant" sounds from the various speakers. What if the steering process could be confined to just the voice signals? Then the voice is still focused to center as before, but the rest of the audible spectrum, remains unaffected. The effect of this is the soundfield remains more open even when steering vocals or dialog to the center speaker.
> 
> Now, while the decoder is steering vocal signals, there might be another sound that predominates in a different frequency range, positioned in another direction -- a car door slam in the right. The decoder is able to steer these other frequencies without affecting either the dialog or any other parts of the spectrum. If the spectrum is divided into 10 bands, they can all operate independently.
> 
> But as Sanjay mentioned, if you do not hear all the speakers equally, some wild side effects may ensue.


 
Thanks Roger (and Sanjay) for taking time to explain. Very nice summary; you are better than Wikipedia.


----------



## redjr

kingwiggi said:


> The wind swooshing around your head at the start of that scene is very pleasant followed by the chains playing a little melody but after that its a little disappointing. Batpig was right when he mentioned that plane flying right over Mark Wahlbergs head should surely have made some sound and when the chains broke and they were free failing through the air where was the wind then.
> 
> I wish there was some way of us sharing exactly what we are hearing since try as I did I could not hear the planes hitting the ground.
> 
> I timecoded a few scenes that I listened to where the overheads were active and sounded particularly good. (All other speakers turned off)
> 
> 12 - 01:24:00 - helicopter flyby
> 13 - 01:33:00 - armour falling into place
> 14 - 01:37:25 - wind swirling around
> 19 - 02:18:22 - jump
> 20 - 02:25:30 - pulsing sound
> 21 - 02:35:10 - jet flyby


Could all of this prove - wrong speaker hook-up aside - that speaker placement may be more critical than originally thought to accurately re-create the illusion of the mixer's intent? I don't have Atmos yet, but it seems to me based on the descrpency between what batpig and nucky heard, something is amiss somewhere. Both have turned off all speakers but the overheads and hear different sounds!  Some setting(s) in their respective AVRs must need tweaking.


----------



## petetherock

Using the sub 2 output for VOG just doesn't make sense 

I have installed that speaker, but it might turn out to be a white elephant, considering that I have two subs....


----------



## kingwiggi

I won't link to the actual files however for those of you who do not have the Atmos Demonstration Disc (myself included), I can confirm that four of the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos encoded files from the Demonstration Disc can be found somewhere on this page.

Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos


----------



## wse

kingwiggi said:


> I won't link to the actual files however for those of you who do not have the Atmos Demonstration Disc (myself included), I can confirm that four of the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos encoded files from the Demonstration Disc can be found somewhere on this page.
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos



Thanks it says 
PLEASE USE A DOWNLOADMANAGER - FILE NOT FOUND ? LEAVE ME A MAIL !!
ENJOY THE SERVICE AND HELP ME TO KEEP THE SERVER COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE !


----------



## zeus33

wse said:


> Thanks it says
> PLEASE USE A DOWNLOADMANAGER - FILE NOT FOUND ? LEAVE ME A MAIL !!
> ENJOY THE SERVICE AND HELP ME TO KEEP THE SERVER COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE !



Look underneath the image. ► Trailer Download


----------



## Brian Fineberg

if anyone is willing to burn them to a BR disc for me I will pay them for their efforts as well as postage...pm me please


----------



## Selden Ball

Be careful to get the right ones. The older "Atmos" videos don't have Atmos soundtracks. They're lossy Dolby Digital 5.1


----------



## Lesmor

How does the speaker angles in this recommendation diagram translate into a real Home Theater?
They are measured from the room centre which is the worst place to have a LP for bass reproduction.
Usually 1/3 room length is the best starting point for a LP for which these angles dont work.
Might already have answered amongst the 1170 posts so apologies in advance


----------



## Brian Fineberg

they arent measured from room center...they are measured from MLP ear level


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^

Correct. Most people do not sit directly in the middle of a perfectly square room where all the speakers are equidistant from one another. I'd wish this picture was not posted over and over as users tend to take it 100% literal and not simple as a guideline.

It's pretty simple really. You want to place these speakers where this is a gap and where to anchor sound. It's pretty obvious that the center channel should be directly in front of you. The left and right are to the ...left and right of the center. Place them wide enough out to be practical and give a sense of stereo separation. If we are talking about a 7.1 set up then place the side surrounds to your side. They should not be well behind you nor next to the left and right speakers. Ideally somewhere in between. The rear surrounds should be behind you and separated. You now how a circle of sound around you. This is ideal but now the whole top of the room is left with no sound. Enter Dolby Atmos. If you can do a full four channel overhead system then a nice place for the front heights is anywhere from ahead of your side surrounds to the front speakers. Fill this gap. Don't take the angle crap so literal. Do the same for the rear heights. Oh wait. Are we calling them tops based on the angle? Oh f**k off.  Just put them in that half dome of no sound in the rear overhead area and call them whatever. Heights, tops, overhead. It's all the same s**t. 

This stuff is so easy. All this nonsense about exact angles is driving me nuts just listening to it.


----------



## batpig

So much.


----------



## Spanglo

wse said:


> Thanks it says
> PLEASE USE A DOWNLOADMANAGER - FILE NOT FOUND ? LEAVE ME A MAIL !!
> ENJOY THE SERVICE AND HELP ME TO KEEP THE SERVER COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE !


Further down the page is a direct link for the download.


----------



## batpig

redjr said:


> Could all of this prove - wrong speaker hook-up aside - that speaker placement may be more critical than originally thought to accurately re-create the illusion of the mixer's intent? I don't have Atmos yet, but it seems to me based on the descrpency between what batpig and nucky heard, something is amiss somewhere. Both have turned off all speakers but the overheads and hear different sounds!  Some setting(s) in their respective AVRs must need tweaking.


Two points:

1. Speaker placement is irrelevant when you are talking about the presence or absence of a specific sound. Now, obviously, there is the theoretical possibility that different speaker locations as the processor sees it (e.g. Front Height vs. Top Middle) could render different results, but it's not about the difference between your Top Front speaker being at 30 degrees vs 40 degrees elevation. 

2. Please check out my extensive follow-up post. There is really no discrepancy between what we heard and nothing is amiss. It's really about the expectation of when there SHOULD have been overhead sound accompanying the visuals at certain, specific moments.


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> Now, obviously, there is the theoretical possibility that different speaker locations as the processor sees it (e.g. Front Height vs. Top Middle) could render different results...


If the results aren't different, the mfgr's have spent resources to deceive us.

Either way it could be settled by an enterprising Atmos owner reassigning speakers from say, FH to TF or TM, silence all other speakers, and compare the results.


----------



## Lesmor

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Correct. Most people do not sit directly in the middle of a perfectly square room where all the speakers are equidistant from one another. I'd wish this picture was not posted over and over as users tend to take it 100% literal and not simple as a guideline.
> 
> It's pretty simple really. You want to place these speakers where this is a gap and where to anchor sound. It's pretty obvious that the center channel should be directly in front of you. The left and right are to the ...left and right of the center. Place them wide enough out to be practical and give a sense of stereo separation. If we are talking about a 7.1 set up then place the side surrounds to your side. They should not be well behind you nor next to the left and right speakers. Ideally somewhere in between. The rear surrounds should be behind you and separated. You now how a circle of sound around you. This is ideal but now the whole top of the room is left with no sound. Enter Dolby Atmos. If you can do a full four channel overhead system then a nice place for the front heights is anywhere from ahead of your side surrounds to the front speakers. Fill this gap. Don't take the angle crap so literal. Do the same for the rear heights. Oh wait. Are we calling them tops based on the angle? Oh f**k off.  Just put them in that half dome of no sound in the rear overhead area and call them whatever. Heights, tops, overhead. It's all the same s**t.
> 
> This stuff is so easy. All this nonsense about exact angles is driving me nuts just listening to it.


Lol calm down dear nobody died
If it is so easy why is there coming up to 12k of posts on this thread

I totally agree though this guideline, given by Dolby is pants, gets worse when you try and implement it from a normal LP which in my case makes my existing legacy FH 20deg from LP I am not even going to mention trying to implement TF,TM,TR
Thanks to all who responded


----------



## jkasanic

sdurani said:


> Or a 3rd possibility: you pull up an interface that looks something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your remote control to highlight the 7 or 9 or 11 speakers in the diagram that most closely match your physical speaker locations.


I suppose this hybrid approach is possible. Basically, it would just be a finer splicing of the current approach though wouldn't it? Afterall, we're not exactly certain how the current rendering engine works (i.e. does it take the average of the recommended angles for each speaker designation and render accordingly?). Also, would just defining the angles be enough or do the room dimensions come into play as well (in particular ceiling height)?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Settle down, babydoll. 

You obviously missed the smilies.

There are a lot of posts because this is an interesting discussion often. 

It is easy. Just two to four more speakers up above. Not brain surgery.


----------



## sdurani

jkasanic said:


> Basically, it would just be a finer splicing of the current approach though wouldn't it?


It would be the same as the current approach, with one exception: the pre-defined speaker angles in the renderer's look-up table would be replaced by user-defined angles. 

You know how you get to choose which pair(s) of overhead locations to render to? Imagine similarly choosing which pairs of ear level locations to render to. Main difference is that the ear level speaker ranges are smaller (15 degrees) than the Top speaker ranges (25-35 degrees).


> Also, would just defining the angles be enough or do the room dimensions come into play as well (in particular ceiling height)?


Room dimensions don't come into play, since all the angles are relative to the ears of the listener in the main listening position.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> It is easy. Just two to four more speakers up above. Not brain surgery.


Indeed, I don't get some of the consternation. Most people should have open real estate on the ceiling for placement of overhead speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> Using the sub 2 output for VOG just doesn't make sense
> 
> I have installed that speaker, but it might turn out to be a white elephant, considering that I have two subs....


You'll have to do a Y-split on Sub 1 for the subs, leaving Sub 2 for the Auro VOG.


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> if anyone is willing to burn them to a BR disc for me I will pay them for their efforts as well as postage...pm me please


 

Brian - 


Are you referring to just the 4 downloads - 


Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 


on the demoworld webpage?
If so, you can just download them and put them on a USB drive and play them on your Oppo 103.


Ray


----------



## clipper57

the movie fury should have some nice scenes for the dsu upmixer if it's not released in atmos. by the way nice job filmixer audio was outstanding!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

tjenkins95 said:


> Brian -
> 
> 
> Are you referring to just the 4 downloads -
> 
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> 
> 
> on the demoworld webpage?
> If so, you can just download them and put them on a USB drive and play them on your Oppo 103.
> 
> 
> Ray


Now THIS is some awesome news!!


----------



## batpig

clipper57 said:


> the movie fury should have some nice scenes for the dsu upmixer if it's not released in atmos. by the way nice job filmixer audio was outstanding!


Marc already said the movie was mastered in 5.1, so no Atmos.


----------



## FilmMixer

clipper57 said:


> the movie fury should have some nice scenes for the dsu upmixer if it's not released in atmos. by the way nice job filmixer audio was outstanding!


Thank you. Very proud of the film.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

tjenkins95 said:


> Brian -
> 
> 
> Are you referring to just the 4 downloads -
> 
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> 
> 
> on the demoworld webpage?
> If so, you can just download them and put them on a USB drive and play them on your Oppo 103.
> 
> 
> Ray


I have looked and looked and looked, how do you download them? do you have direct links?


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> Brian -
> 
> 
> Are you referring to just the 4 downloads -
> 
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> 
> 
> on the demoworld webpage?
> If so, you can just download them and put them on a USB drive and play them on your Oppo 103.
> 
> 
> Ray





Brian Fineberg said:


> Now THIS is some awesome news!!


♦ If you have a Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) will they be decoded as such; 
in Dolby Atmos surround sound (up to 7.1.4)?


----------



## NorthSky

*'Fury'*



FilmMixer said:


> Thank you. Very proud of the film.


Can't wait to get it Marc, on Blu. ...That, will have your footprint all over.


----------



## rnewste

tjenkins95 said:


> Brian -
> 
> 
> Are you referring to just the 4 downloads -
> 
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> 
> 
> on the demoworld webpage?
> If so, you can just download them and put them on a USB drive and play them on your Oppo 103.
> 
> 
> Ray



How would one go about formatting these downloaded demo files on a Blu-ray disc? I have burned them as "data files" using Nero - but when put into the Blu-ray player I am getting the message: Disc Error - "Playback feature may not be available on this Disc". 

Do I need to render them to the Blu-ray disc in a different format?

thanks,

Raybo


----------



## NorthSky

In a supported audio format, yes.


----------



## bargervais

Just watched the Legend of Hercules the one that was released last year in DSU very nice.... I really like that DTS logo splash just before the movie starts that sends waves of sound singing through all the speakers.... very cool.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

I have email and contacted everyone I could to try and get my hands on the dolby atmos demo disc so I can have more ref material to test my setup and now I see someone saying you can download these, could someone please tell me how? I see the demo disc info but no links, I go under trailers where you can download trailers but again I see no listings of such. You have no idea how grateful I would be if someone could please tell me how I can get these or provide direct links?


----------



## NorthSky

Is that a good flick; 'The Legend of Hercules'? ...In 3D? ...Or in 2D; no matter to me, only that I prefer with extra dimensional depth, that's really all.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Is that a good flick; 'The Legend of Hercules'? ...In 3D? ...Or in 2D; no matter to me, only that I prefer with extra dimensional depth, that's really all.


Yes it's not too bad your typical legendary flick...and yes I have it in 3D and listening in DSU IS a treat...


----------



## Nalleh

Daniel Chaves said:


> I have email and contacted everyone I could to try and get my hands on the dolby atmos demo disc so I can have more ref material to test my setup and now I see someone saying you can download these, could someone please tell me how? I see the demo disc info but no links, I go under trailers where you can download trailers but again I see no listings of such. You have no idea how grateful I would be if someone could please tell me how I can get these or provide direct links?



Go to "trailers" on top of page,
Choose "HD 2D Demo trailers",
Scroll down to Dolby,
Choose files with Atmos sound,
"Trailer download" under picture.

Enjoy


----------



## Spanglo

Daniel Chaves said:


> I have email and contacted everyone I could to try and get my hands on the dolby atmos demo disc so I can have more ref material to test my setup and now I see someone saying you can download these, could someone please tell me how? I see the demo disc info but no links, I go under trailers where you can download trailers but again I see no listings of such. You have no idea how grateful I would be if someone could please tell me how I can get these or provide direct links?


http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php


----------



## jacked

Daniel Chaves said:


> I have email and contacted everyone I could to try and get my hands on the dolby atmos demo disc so I can have more ref material to test my setup and now I see someone saying you can download these, could someone please tell me how? I see the demo disc info but no links, I go under trailers where you can download trailers but again I see no listings of such. You have no idea how grateful I would be if someone could please tell me how I can get these or provide direct links?


On the Demoworld website go to Trailers, then HD 2D Demo trailers and you will see all the Dolby trailers listed when you scroll down the page.


http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php


Click on any trailer and that will load another page, click on the Trailer Download in the middle of the page near the bottom to download it to your computer.


Dave


*** the post above beat me to it ***


----------



## kingwiggi

Daniel Chaves said:


> I have email and contacted everyone I could to try and get my hands on the dolby atmos demo disc so I can have more ref material to test my setup and now I see someone saying you can download these, could someone please tell me how? I see the demo disc info but no links, I go under trailers where you can download trailers but again I see no listings of such. You have no idea how grateful I would be if someone could please tell me how I can get these or provide direct links?


I wasn't sure if providing direct links would get me a ban so I just linked to the page. 

Just click on this link scroll down a little the files are there with a red highlight next to them. 

On the next screen click 'Trailer Download' and bobs your uncle.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Nalleh said:


> Go to "trailers" on top of page,
> Choose "HD 2D Demo trailers",
> Scroll down to Dolby,
> Choose files with Atmos sound,
> "Trailer download" under picture.
> 
> Enjoy





Spanglo said:


> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php





jacked said:


> On the Demoworld website go to Trailers, then HD 2D Demo trailers and you will see all the Dolby trailers listed when you scroll down the page.
> 
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php
> 
> 
> Click on any trailer and that will load another page, click on the Trailer Download in the middle of the page near the bottom to download it to your computer.
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> *** the post above beat me to it ***





kingwiggi said:


> I wasn't sure if providing direct links would get me a ban so I just linked to the page.
> 
> Just click on this link scroll down a little the files are there with a red highlight next to them.
> 
> On the next screen click 'Trailer Download' and bobs your uncle.



Thank you, all of you, much appreciated.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Legend of Hercules'*



bargervais said:


> Yes it's not too bad your typical legendary flick...and yes I have it in 3D and listening in DSU IS a treat...


Directed by _Renny Harlin_, one of my least favorite movie directors. 
...You think it's worth ten bucks from that budget 3D bin sale over @ Wally? 

* Some of you guys have to come out with better stuff material to demo with your them new receivers;
because right now some of that stuff is plainly scary/painful to watch.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> I wasn't sure if providing direct links would get me a ban so I just linked to the page.
> 
> Just click on this link scroll down a little the files are there with a red highlight next to them.
> 
> On the next screen click 'Trailer Download' and bobs your uncle.


When not sure, always post the link first.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> And you have to remember, as I've said in the past, the release date for the BR has nothing to do with the authroing time frame.
> 
> 
> And as I've said many time before, the summer films of 2014 were finishing as the authoring tools for Atmos were coming on line.


This question is unrelated to the quoted post (sort of)... I'm curious if it's possible to get Atmos mixing capabilities in a simple recording studio? Am I right in assuming that all which is needed would be the AAX plugin for Protools? Or is there some prohibitively expensive component, software, or license which might be needed to get Atmos mixing capability at home? I'd like to try making some Atmos music mixes just to see what it's like.


----------



## tjenkins95

rnewste said:


> How would one go about formatting these downloaded demo files on a Blu-ray disc? I have burned them as "data files" using Nero - but when put into the Blu-ray player I am getting the message: Disc Error - "Playback feature may not be available on this Disc".
> 
> Do I need to render them to the Blu-ray disc in a different format?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Raybo


 
Sorry but I don't know how to put the files on a blue-ray disc. I know that an actual blu-ray disc requires several special folders and the demo video files would need to be put inside one of the special folders. Some blu-ray players, like the Oppo, allow you play blu-ray video files - 
aka M2TS files - directly from a usb drive.


Ray


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> This question is unrelated to the quoted post (sort of)... I'm curious if it's possible to get Atmos mixing capabilities in a simple recording studio? Am I right in assuming that all which is needed would be the AAX plugin for Protools? Or is there some prohibitively expensive component, software, or license which might be needed to get Atmos mixing capability at home? I'd like to try making some Atmos music mixes just to see what it's like.


You need either an RMU or the software rendering engine and associated hardware.

On the production side of things, the PT needs to communicate with the rendering engine... the panner plug in by itself does nothing.


----------



## Figarou

rnewste said:


> How would one go about formatting these downloaded demo files on a Blu-ray disc? I have burned them as "data files" using Nero - but when put into the Blu-ray player I am getting the message: Disc Error - "Playback feature may not be available on this Disc".
> 
> Do I need to render them to the Blu-ray disc in a different format?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Raybo



Try again. But this time, make a Data DVD from those files you downloaded. It'll still play in 1080p and Dolby TrueHD Atmos

Pop in the Data DVD and access it from the Movie film icon in the Oppo 103/105 main menu screen. Pick "Data disc." You should see your files. Play one of them. If you get no sound, try another file. (I had to do that with mine.) Then go back to the play the previous file. Hope this helps.


----------



## NorthSky

Figarou said:


> Try again. But this time, make a Data DVD from those files you downloaded. It'll still play in 1080p and Dolby TrueHD Atmos
> 
> Pop in the Data DVD and access it from the Movie film icon in the Oppo 103/105 main menu screen. Pick "Data disc." You should see your files. Play one of them. If you get no sound, try another file. (I had to do that with mine.) Then go back to the play the previous file. Hope this helps.


Awesome man!


----------



## kingwiggi

NorthSky said:


> ♦ If you have a Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) will they be decoded as such;
> in Dolby Atmos surround sound (up to 7.1.4)?



Yes, 

I checked the files before providing the link, the TrueHD 7.1 version of those files posted (Amaze, Conductor, Leaf & Unfold), contain the Atmos metadata.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> Yes,
> 
> I checked the files before providing the link, the TrueHD 7.1 version of those files posted (Amaze, Conductor, Leaf & Unfold), contain the Atmos metadata.


That, is the best news so far regarding Dolby Atmos, ...I think.


----------



## kingwiggi

NorthSky said:


> That, is the best news so far regarding Dolby Atmos, ...I think.


Someone needs to leak the actual 'Dolby Atmos Demonstration disk' onto a torrent site. 

That would be the best news. 

Second only to having more Atmos movie releases.


----------



## NorthSky

I agree, 100%.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Figarou said:


> Try again. But this time, make a Data DVD from those files you downloaded. It'll still play in 1080p and Dolby TrueHD Atmos
> 
> Pop in the Data DVD and access it from the Movie film icon in the Oppo 103/105 main menu screen. Pick "Data disc." You should see your files. Play one of them. If you get no sound, try another file. (I had to do that with mine.) Then go back to the play the previous file. Hope this helps.


You mean a data Blu-ray, I would assume?


----------



## kingwiggi

Dan Hitchman said:


> You mean a data Blu-ray, I would assume?


Should still work if you use a regular DVD, no reason to waste a BR disc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kingwiggi said:


> Should still work if you use a regular DVD, no reason to waste a BR disc.


Cool beans. I'll have to try it.


----------



## chi_guy50

kingwiggi said:


> I won't link to the actual files however for those of you who do not have the Atmos Demonstration Disc (myself included), I can confirm that four of the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos encoded files from the Demonstration Disc can be found somewhere on this page.
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos


Many thanks for passing this along. With these demo clips I am now FINALLY able to hear the real McCoy on my 7.1.4 set-up and can judge for myself how effective it is with an Atmos source.

Answer: Very, very impressive! If you don't believe me, just ask my cat. He went crazy looking around the room for where the sounds were coming from. And each time I played "Amaze" with the heavy bass toward the end, he made a beeline for the SW and seemed to want to get to something inside it.

Hoping for some interesting source material in the not too distance future. Poor kitty!


----------



## kingwiggi

chi_guy50 said:


> Many thanks for passing this along. With these demo clips I am now FINALLY able to hear the real McCoy on my 7.1.4 set-up and can judge for myself how effective it is with an Atmos source.
> 
> Answer: Very, very impressive! If you don't believe me, just ask my cat. He went crazy looking around the room for where the sounds were coming from. And each time I played "Amaze" with the heavy bass toward the end, he made a beeline for the SW and seemed to want to get to something inside it.
> 
> Hoping for some interesting source material in the not too distance future. Poor kitty!


You're Welcome


----------



## dan webster

kingwiggi said:


> You're Welcome


I also thank you. They worked fantastic. At first my oppo said file not supported but then it buffered and the atmos icon went on and superb real atmos sound. My marantz 7009 and I thank you again.


----------



## rnewste

Figarou said:


> Try again. But this time, make a Data DVD from those files you downloaded. It'll still play in 1080p and Dolby TrueHD Atmos
> 
> Pop in the Data DVD and access it from the Movie film icon in the Oppo 103/105 main menu screen. Pick "Data disc." You should see your files. Play one of them. If you get no sound, try another file. (I had to do that with mine.) Then go back to the play the previous file. Hope this helps.


I do not have a Oppo player - just an older Denon BDP2010. My data disc (both Blu-ray and DVD) give me a disc error message. Any other suggestions?

Raybo


----------



## NorthSky

Buy an Oppo?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rnewste said:


> I do not have a Oppo player - just an older Denon BDP2010. My data disc (both Blu-ray and DVD) give me a disc error message. Any other suggestions?
> 
> Raybo


I tried the files on a Panasonic Blu-ray player for sh-ts 'n' giggles and it won't read 'em either.

Since the site is ripping files anyway, why not just post an ISO of the whole thing? A lot of stuff won't play M2TS files due to copy protection issues. 

The basic demo disc is sans big Hollywood movie clips anyway... I don't understand why Dolby doesn't make a small batch of them available to order on their site since there isn't much to play in Atmos yet.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Dan Hitchman said:


> I tried the files on a Panasonic Blu-ray player for sh-ts 'n' giggles and it won't read 'em either.
> 
> Since the site is ripping files anyway, why not just post an ISO of the whole thing? A lot of stuff won't play M2TS files due to copy protection issues.
> 
> The basic demo disc is sans big Hollywood movie clips anyway... I don't understand why Dolby doesn't make a small batch of them available to order on their site since there isn't much to play in Atmos yet.


I agree its idiotic not to share the demo disc, I show off my atmos system to at least 40 different people so far and I wish I had more content designed for it, to show it off. Dolby never had issue sending out their normal demo discs, use to get them all the time but for some reason they dont want to send out the ATMOS demo disc, what makes it so special compared to the rest...


----------



## NorthSky

Maybe Dolby made a deal with Disney?


----------



## Figarou

Dan Hitchman said:


> You mean a data Blu-ray, I would assume?


You can put small Blu-Ray files on DVDs as a Data disc. I used a DVD-RW. This way you won't waste BD-Rs on small files. That or place the files on a USB stick.


----------



## Figarou

rnewste said:


> I do not have a Oppo player - just an older Denon BDP2010. My data disc (both Blu-ray and DVD) give me a disc error message. Any other suggestions?
> 
> Raybo


Oh. I thought you had an Oppo 103. Those players are worth having in this situation. Even the new Denon DBT-3313UDCI can play the files. (I have both players) 

The best method is USB from an Oppo 103. You can get a large USB stick and format it as ex-fat. This way you can put files larger than 4GB on it. 

Your player is not designed to play these files outside a BD-ROM disc. Unless you get the iso and put it on a BD-R.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kingwiggi said:


> I won't link to the actual files however for those of you who do not have the Atmos Demonstration Disc (myself included), I can confirm that four of the TrueHD 7.1 Atmos encoded files from the Demonstration Disc can be found somewhere on this page.
> 
> Amaze TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Conductor TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf TrueHD 7.1 Atmos
> Unfold TrueHD 7.1 Atmos



A big thank you! I haven't visited their site in a long time. I use to be really into hunting down demo discs on Ebay and such. The only ones I have now are the THX Ultimate Demo Disc and the THX Calibrator Disc. The Atmos trailers sound great, what a difference from just listening to TF4. Okay, now I'm ready to upgrade my AVR to a 9 channel model so I can add TM speakers.

Figarou, I agree, the Oppo models are so great for playing any types of format.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

very awesome demos! really shows off ATMOS...you really cannot tell where your speakers are..the sound comes from everywhere...behind you..above you...surrounding your head....very incredible stuff

Amaze is by far my favorite...then fold


----------



## Selden Ball

rnewste said:


> I do not have a Oppo player - just an older Denon BDP2010. My data disc (both Blu-ray and DVD) give me a disc error message. Any other suggestions?
> 
> Raybo


Does your computer have an HDMI output?

If so, you should be able to play the trailers on the computer with the HDMI output connected to the receiver or pre/pro. Of course, you'll have to use media player software which supports bitstreaming and which has been updated with current versions of ffmpeg and LAV. Getting some players to bitstream can be a challenge, but under Windows, one of the players which supports WASAPI should be able to pass Atmos metadaa (although XBMC/Kodi doesn't. *grump*)


----------



## tjenkins95

chi_guy50 said:


> Many thanks for passing this along. With these demo clips I am now FINALLY able to hear the real McCoy on my 7.1.4 set-up and can judge for myself how effective it is with an Atmos source.
> 
> Answer: Very, very impressive! If you don't believe me, just ask my cat. He went crazy looking around the room for where the sounds were coming from. And each time I played "Amaze" with the heavy bass toward the end, he made a beeline for the SW and seemed to want to get to something inside it.
> 
> Hoping for some interesting source material in the not too distance future. Poor kitty!


 


That is too funny! I played the demo clips on my system last night and my dog was also looking around the room for the sounds. On my second listen he left the room - he was not liking the heavy bass. That is understandable since he is 16.5 years old!


Ray


----------



## asoofi1

For those having issues playing the demo files thru their BD player, you might have better luck trying a WD or Roku player. I have been able to these type of files using a WD HD Live.


----------



## Figarou

ThePrisoner said:


> A big thank you! I haven't visited their site in a long time. I use to be really into hunting down demo discs on Ebay and such. The only ones I have now are the THX Ultimate Demo Disc and the THX Calibrator Disc. The Atmos trailers sound great, what a difference from just listening to TF4. Okay, now I'm ready to upgrade my AVR to a 9 channel model so I can add TM speakers.
> 
> Figarou, I agree, the Oppo models are so great for playing any types of format.


I'm ready to upgrade my AVR. Its just the model I want is not yet available. (Denon AVR-X7200W)


----------



## brwsaw

Anyone crawl around during the demo to see how low objects/sound has been placed?


----------



## Figarou

brwsaw said:


> Anyone crawl around during the demo to see how low objects/sound has been placed?


Heh, if someone saw you doing that, what would you say to him/her?


----------



## brwsaw

Figarou said:


> Heh, if someone saw you doing that, what would you say to him/her?


"Don't look..."
"I dropped a contact"
"My last Cheetos!"

XYZ has me exited. Its a shame it'll (I will) need a new room, a real shame...


----------



## sikclown

NorthSky said:


> Directed by _Renny Harlin_, one of my least favorite movie directors.
> ...You think it's worth ten bucks from that budget 3D bin sale over @ Wally?
> 
> * Some of you guys have to come out with better stuff material to demo with your them new receivers;
> because right now some of that stuff is plainly scary/painful to watch.


I tried to watch it..... it is absolutely terrible. I couldn't even get through 20 minutes of it; Renny Harlin strikes again!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Fascinating. I'll have to recheck that scene. I only have 5.1.2 (front Dolby) so that is another variable to consider.
> 
> Keith, you should test this scene as well since you have 5.1.4.


Will do. Will report back.


----------



## Kris Deering

Daniel Chaves said:


> I agree its idiotic not to share the demo disc, I show off my atmos system to at least 40 different people so far and I wish I had more content designed for it, to show it off. Dolby never had issue sending out their normal demo discs, use to get them all the time but for some reason they dont want to send out the ATMOS demo disc, what makes it so special compared to the rest...


Based on what Dolby said at CEDIA the demo disc that is currently circulating was designed more for retail or show demos and not for consumer use. They stated they were working on more of a traditional demo disc similar to what they've released in the past and were hoping to have it out later in the year. I would imagine this will be available come CES. 

I have the Atmos demo disc. What I find odd is that when I try to rip the disc via MakeMKV it never shows the soundtracks as TrueHD. When you go into the files to select the soundtrack you want it shows Dolby Surround 5.1 and Dolby Digital Plus 4.0. If I select either or even both and try and playback the clips on my Oppo from a hard drive the audio is just a loud tone. I will download these clips tonight and try them. I like having demo clips on an attached drive to my player so I don't have to keep loading different discs. These Dolby trailers sound great even without Atmos playback capability.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> And in chapter 20, when a pickup truck is dropped on top of the characters and you can see it crashing into and bouncing off of buildings and structures overhead, there is nothing (although, curiously, there are a couple of seemingly arbitrary times when you DO hear the sound of a couple of cars falling, but most of the falling debris is absent from the overheads).


It's odd isn’t it that the mixer picked two cars falling from above to place sound in the overheads but ignored a dozen or more similar opportunities with other heavy objects falling from above? It is almost arbitrary, or it seems that way. Why those two cars and nothing else in that chapter - the cruise ship for example. If anything deserved a woosh overhead, it's the freakin cruise ship.


----------



## steelman1991

Kris Deering said:


> Based on what Dolby said at CEDIA the demo disc that is currently circulating was designed more for retail or show demos and not for consumer use. They stated they were working on more of a traditional demo disc similar to what they've released in the past and were hoping to have it out later in the year. I would imagine this will be available come CES.
> 
> I have the Atmos demo disc. What I find odd is that when I try to rip the disc via MakeMKV it never shows the soundtracks as TrueHD. When you go into the files to select the soundtrack you want it shows Dolby Surround 5.1 and Dolby Digital Plus 4.0. If I select either or even both and try and playback the clips on my Oppo from a hard drive the audio is just a loud tone. I will download these clips tonight and try them. I like having demo clips on an attached drive to my player so I don't have to keep loading different discs. These Dolby trailers sound great even without Atmos playback capability.


I believe the author of MakeMKV only recently (yesterday I think) launched a new version which correctly rips Atmos tracks. Might want to try downloading the newer version.


----------



## Kris Deering

steelman1991 said:


> I believe the author of MakeMKV only recently (yesterday I think) launched a new version which correctly rips Atmos tracks. Might want to try downloading the newer version.


I'll take a look. When I went on his site last night to download the latest version the site's server was saying the site was down. I'll check again tonight. Thanks!


----------



## Kris Deering

Guess not, still get the same message when I visit the site:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.


----------



## steelman1991

Just tried and its still down.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> If the results aren't different, the mfgr's have spent resources to deceive us.
> 
> Either way it could be settled by an enterprising Atmos owner reassigning speakers from say, FH to TF or TM, silence all other speakers, and compare the results.


I'll do that at the weekend. I currently have FH+TM as I cannot meet the angles for TR and TF+TM is not permitted. I will reconfig as TF+TR and play Ch 20 of TF4 with the overheads isolated and report any differences in content in the different configs, if there is any. Easy for me to do.


----------



## tjenkins95

Kris Deering said:


> Based on what Dolby said at CEDIA the demo disc that is currently circulating was designed more for retail or show demos and not for consumer use. They stated they were working on more of a traditional demo disc similar to what they've released in the past and were hoping to have it out later in the year. I would imagine this will be available come CES.
> 
> I have the Atmos demo disc. What I find odd is that when I try to rip the disc via MakeMKV it never shows the soundtracks as TrueHD. When you go into the files to select the soundtrack you want it shows Dolby Surround 5.1 and Dolby Digital Plus 4.0. If I select either or even both and try and playback the clips on my Oppo from a hard drive the audio is just a loud tone. I will download these clips tonight and try them. I like having demo clips on an attached drive to my player so I don't have to keep loading different discs. These Dolby trailers sound great even without Atmos playback capability.


 


I did some research concerning MKV format and Dolby Atmos a couple of weeks ago and found out that the code needed to be updated and somebody was working on it. I will do some more research and see if there have been any new changes.


Ray


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Directed by _Renny Harlin_, one of my least favorite movie directors.
> ...You think it's worth ten bucks from that budget 3D bin sale over @ Wally?
> 
> * Some of you guys have to come out with better stuff material to demo with your them new receivers;
> because right now some of that stuff is plainly scary/painful to watch.


Ten dollars for a 3D blu-ray I think it is worth it, I also got dredd 3D as well for under ten dollars also a very good playing with DSU Sound.... love those discount shelves ten dollars is always better then$30++++ dollars...


----------



## SoundChex

jdsmoothie said:


> So then based on the Twice.com article published on Monday, it looks like the only possible combined speaker configurations using D&M units and if both Atmos and Auro3D formats are desired will be the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The VOG channel will come from the Subwoofer pre-out #2 on all models except the X4100W as the VOG channel will not be available on that model.
> 
> Keep in mind that if willing to use a speaker switch, you could have a full layout for both formats and use the D&M SAVE feature to then save each configuration to a PC file, noting it would take about 10 minutes to then reload a different configuration.




My own _first thought_ after reading that there will be *no H2* setting to allow a _rear height__ speaker pair_ to be "shared" by *Auro3D* and *Dolby Atmos* is that this seems like a solution to the question of how to choose between the *Atmos 9.x.2* and *Atmos 7.x.4* speaker configurations!

Although the setup is not mentioned in the *Twice* article, it looks to me like it will be possible to configure the *X5200W* for *Dolby Atmos 9.1.2* plus *Auro3D 9.1*(10.1?) . . . and *DTS Neo:X 11.1*.*..?!

_
*


----------



## Kris Deering

tjenkins95 said:


> I did some research concerning MKV format and Dolby Atmos a couple of weeks ago and found out that the code needed to be updated and somebody was working on it. I will do some more research and see if there have been any new changes.
> 
> 
> Ray


Site is back up and latest rev says its for Atmos. It is two days old. I will try it tonight or tomorrow with the Atmos demo disc and see if it works.


----------



## tjenkins95

Kris Deering said:


> Site is back up and latest rev says its for Atmos. It is two days old. I will try it tonight or tomorrow with the Atmos demo disc and see if it works.


 

Thanks. That's the one! I kept getting the "out of bandwidth" message too so I gave up. Good luck!


----------



## ThePrisoner

Figarou said:


> I'm ready to upgrade my AVR. Its just the model I want is not yet available. (Denon AVR-X7200W)


Once I pay off some of my upgrades I'm looking at getting the Denon 5200 or Marantz 7009 from AVS


----------



## DualEdge

Hi all,
I'm a few months away from pulling the trigger on a Dolby Atmos receiver but I'm currently looking into what to do about the height speakers. Here's my situation: my basement is pretty small, yet currently houses a 9.1 setup. I also do have plans to move in the next year or two, which is hindering my ability to decide what kind of height speakers to go with. I have pretty much narrowed my search to the Klipsch KS-7502-THX in-ceiling speakers as this seems comparable to the rest of my equipment (see my sig) and I could get them for a pretty good price or going with the Pioneer SP-EBS73-LR Atmos-enabled add-on module. Obviously, going with the latter would not impact my moving timetable at all and allows me some flexibility setup-wise, but I question whether they would do well in my listening environment. From the Dolby white pages, it sounds like you get best results with a minimum 8' ceiling, and while that's fine for the units that would sit on my fronts, my rear heights would be affected by a low hanging ceiling that reduces that 8' to about 6.5'. If I got the Klipsch in-ceiling speakers, it would largely be to take advantage of a deal, but I'm not going to chop up a ceiling just to turn around and sell it within a year or two. My concern with the Pioneers is that 1) I haven't heard them in person and 2) that they will be dwarfed by the rest of my speakers once I get them in a room that is more suitable for a home theater than what I have now. Any thoughts that might help me out?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Just an FYI .. but those Pioneer EBS73 surround speakers are stand alone bookshelf speakers "integrated" with the up-firing speaker as opposed to an "add-on" module (eg. Def Tech A60) that is placed on top of an existing speaker.


----------



## kokishin

*Your Atmos Configuration*

I think it would be quite helpful if everyone with an Atmos setup would put their system configuration in their signature. 
Please minimally include:

Atmos AVR or Prepro
Fronts, Center, Sides, Backs, Tops, Sub. If you use an external amp, state which speakers are connected to the external amp.

Of course, you can include more details if you like.

Here is a brief example:
Denon AVR-X5200W
Pioneer Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers: FR: SP-EFS73 , Center: SP-EC73, Sides: SP-EBS73LR, Sub: SW-E10


----------



## ThePrisoner

^^^^ Since following this thread I have been checking out some system sig's to get an idea of what we are doing with our set-ups. Those Dolby Atmos trailers finally let me rest easy on my front height set-up. The trailers sound great as does TF4, it just the Atmos trailers were designed to show off the height/ceiling channels along with the core 5.1/7.1 channels.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Ten dollars for a 3D blu-ray I think it is worth it, I also got dredd 3D as well for under ten dollars also a very good playing with DSU Sound.... love those discount shelves ten dollars is always better then$30++++ dollars...


Ok.


----------



## Craig Peer

SoundChex said:


> Although the setup is not mentioned in the *Twice* article, it looks to me like it will be possible to configure the *X5200W* for *Dolby Atmos 9.1.2* plus *Auro3D 9.1*(10.1?) . . . and *DTS Neo:X 11.1*.*..?!*
> 
> *_*



Now that would be great if possible !


----------



## steelman1991

Kris Deering said:


> Guess not, still get the same message when I visit the site:
> 
> Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
> The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.



Site seems to be back up - just downloaded the latest version.

EDIT - sorry missed your earlier post.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kokishin said:


> I think it would be quite helpful if everyone with an Atmos setup would put their system configuration in their signature.
> Please minimally include:
> 
> Atmos AVR or Prepro
> Fronts, Center, Sides, Backs, Tops, Sub. If you use an external amp, state which speakers are connected to the external amp.
> 
> Of course, you can include more details if you like.
> 
> Here is a brief example:
> Denon AVR-X5200W
> Pioneer Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers: FR: SP-EFS73 , Center: SP-EC73, Sides: SP-EBS73LR, Sub: SW-E10


I know this is a dumb question but how do you setup a signature? Do you have do be a premium member of AVS?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know this is a dumb question but how do you setup a signature? Do you have do be a premium member of AVS?


Top of screen....

Tools:
User CP:
Edit Signature:

Profit!


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I think it would be quite helpful if everyone with an Atmos setup would put their system configuration in their signature.
> Please minimally include:
> 
> Atmos AVR or Prepro
> Fronts, Center, Sides, Backs, Tops, Sub. If you use an external amp, state which speakers are connected to the external amp.
> 
> Of course, you can include more details if you like.
> 
> Here is a brief example:
> Denon AVR-X5200W
> Pioneer Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers: FR: SP-EFS73 , Center: SP-EC73, Sides: SP-EBS73LR, Sub: SW-E10


Like mine?????


----------



## Apgood

tjenkins95 said:


> I did some research concerning MKV format and Dolby Atmos a couple of weeks ago and found out that the code needed to be updated and somebody was working on it. I will do some more research and see if there have been any new changes.
> 
> 
> Ray


It works via bitstreaming if you use the latest LAV filters (0.63 I think). They are incorporated into jriver if you use red october HQ. Not sure if the patch has been incorporated into ffmpeg (?) mainline and what the status for other players (e.g. XBMC/kodi) is.

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> Like mine?????


To vague. Describe your Atmos speaker setup as requested in my prior post.


----------



## bargervais

Downloaded the four atmos trailers couldn't get them to work...tried it on my Panasonic blu-ray player no.... plugged it into my computer tried it vlc played but all I could get was DSU upmix from PCM 2.0 sounded good but no atmos so then I tried playing it with cyberlink 13 and holy carp what a difference Dolby Atmos in lights up and now it's playing in Dolby Atmos 5.2.2 ......
I thought transformers 4 was great but these trailers are amazing......


----------



## NorthSky

Alright, four Dolby Atmos demos (few minutes @ most -> 3), and now I'm real tempted to jump in.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> To vague. Describe your Atmos speaker setup as requested in my prior post.


Like this????
Receiver.... TX-NR 737 5.2.2 ..
Speakers...using JBL Satalite top front ceiling. Using Bic 350 Watt 6.5IN 2 Way Bookshelf front.... left, right, and surrounds
CENTER speaker...BIC America FH6-LCR Dual 6.5-Inch 175-Watt LCR Speaker with Mid/High Frequency Horn
And klipsch 8" SUBWOOFERS


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Alright, four Dolby Atmos demos (few minutes @ most -> 3), and now I'm real tempted to jump in.


Yes four I said three my mistake they are amazing in Atmos they need to put one of these on atmos blu-rays like DTS does.....just before the start of movies with Atmos sound track


----------



## sikclown

FYI to anyone playing these trailers and not getting Atmos to light up, check your player's options while playing. I couldn't get my Sony BDP-6200 to play these files in Atmos but then I pressed Audio on my Sony Remote and it switched to Audio Track 2 and BOOM! Atmos all around me.


----------



## rnewste

sikclown said:


> FYI to anyone playing these trailers and not getting Atmos to light up, check your player's options while playing. I couldn't get my Sony BDP-6200 to play these files in Atmos but then I pressed Audio on my Sony Remote and it switched to Audio Track 2 and BOOM! Atmos all around me.


Good to know - I have a Sony BDP-S3200 on the way to me from Amazon. Are you using a USB drive, or were you able to burn a DVD/ Blu-ray?

Raybo


----------



## ThePrisoner

Quick question for those that have there speakers on mounts/brackets that articulate. Have you used the Atmos trailers to help tweak speaker placement?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Alright, four Dolby Atmos demos (few minutes @ most -> 3), and now I'm real tempted to jump in.


Bob you need to jump in you only live once and time is flying by and up


----------



## Daniel Chaves

okay so I played the ATMOS trailers through cyberlink 12, and bam detected ATMOS mix and the Amaze trailer is by far the best of the four in my opinion.


----------



## bargervais

ThePrisoner said:


> Quick question for those that have there speakers on mounts/brackets that articulate. Have you used the Atmos trailers to help tweak speaker placement?


Not me they are so short.... but I'm very happy with my placement top front ceiling slightly angled towards MLP.. they sounded great when I first tried but all I could get was Dolby Surround.. So I went into my audio settings in my cyberlink setting changed to nonedecoded Dolby and vala atmos all around...


----------



## ThePrisoner

^^^ Mine are front heights and I have roughly angled 45 degrees down to MLP. I can't wait until I can unload my Onkyo and get a 9ch receiver so I can do top middle


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Bob you need to jump in you only live once and time is flying by and up


1. Not before some smart Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies are available in fair quality, and volume (36 or so).
2. DSU is no strong reason enough for me to spend money now.
3. The smartest strategy is to wait; a year or so. Meanwhile I'm still living and enjoying life.
4. I'm glad other people like you can share their findings; it's the first step in the process.
5. And 3 minutes of Dolby Atmos demos (four trailers) won't do it. 

Therefore, for the time being it's nice to learn some.


----------



## UKTexan

Amazon delivered my wife's Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 yesterday, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos. All I can say is WOW!!
For a headphone experience, the results are fantastic. My wife listened to the "Amaze" Atmos trailer which by the way is available on Amazon Instant Video via Dolby Digital Plus. The look on my wife's face of pure amazement as she listened to the trailer was priceless. She is by no means an audio buff but in her words" This is the best pair of headphones I have ever listened to!"
I explained it was not the headphones (B&W P3) that were the reason for her amazement. But suffice to say, anyone who may travel for work as my wife and I do, an Atmos capable tablet is a welcome addition to a planes boring cabin or a hotel room.
There are various trailers on Amazon instant video in Atmos, although some are almost hidden as test files. So far I have found Amaze, Unfold, a clip from Transformers, a couple of musical demos - all available via the kindle using headphones.
I then checked on my Panasonic TV's in built Amazon app and sure enough some of the trailers are there. There are also, interestingly, different trailers available with the same name on the TV app, compared to the Kindle. I am waiting till next week when I can install my 7.2.4 Atmos setup to try the actual sound output via the Amazon app on my Sony Blu ray player. Some of you may be able to search for Dolby Atmos on Amazon instant and test out the trailers for yourselves.
I spoke with an Amazon tech yesterday, he mentioned Transformers should be available to stream tomorrow (10/24/14) with the Atmos soundtrack, it took him a while to confirm this so no guarantee's this is accurate.


----------



## primetimeguy

I guess I don't see how Atmos would impact two channel audio from headphones. I'm leaning more toward better head phones and or expectation bias.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

ATMOS headphone version which creates distortions and time delays and so on to simulate how audio is altered when it hits your ears to determine where sound is just like DTS Headphone X tech, if you guys want try something similar look up Z+ on your iOS or Android device, such concepts have been in the works since like the 70s...


----------



## primetimeguy

Daniel Chaves said:


> ATMOS headphone version which creates distortions and time delays and so on to simulate how audio is altered when it hits your ears to determine where sound is just like DTS Headphone X tech, if you guys want try something similar look up Z+ on your iOS or Android device, such concepts have been in the works since like the 70s...


Ok, that makes more sense, with additional processing going on. Thanks.


----------



## UKTexan

primetimeguy said:


> I guess I don't see how Atmos would impact two channel audio from headphones. I'm leaning more toward better head phones and or expectation bias.




Dolby don't seem to agree with you and neither do I. 
Binaural headphone rendering and object based audio:


http://blog.dolby.com/2014/09/dolby-atmos-goes-mobile/


I have listened to the DTS interpretation with headphone X (The Soundgarden demo) on my iPhone with the same headphones, no comparison.


The Kindle will not rival a true Atmos setup, but for those on the go, I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## primetimeguy

UKTexan said:


> Dolby don't seem to agree with you and neither do I.
> Binaural headphone rendering and object based audio:
> 
> 
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/09/dolby-atmos-goes-mobile/
> 
> 
> I have listened to the DTS interpretation with headphone X (The Soundgarden demo) on my iPhone with the same headphones, no comparison.
> 
> 
> The Kindle will not rival a true Atmos setup, but for those on the go, I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised.


Right, agree with you now. Atmos Headphones is totally different than the theater and home theater version. It is essentially processing applied to the output. Without that I didn't see how it could sound any different.


----------



## bargervais

ThePrisoner said:


> ^^^ Mine are front heights and I have roughly angled 45 degrees down to MLP. I can't wait until I can unload my Onkyo and get a 9ch receiver so I can do top middle
> 
> 
> View attachment 327850


I too will replace my 818 by this time next year...I'm thinking of maybe a X5200W but I may get the TX-NR 1030 and use my 2channel amp and run 7.2.4 that would be sweet... I know a lot of us don't like that onkyo dropped audyssey I don't and I'm still leaning to the 1030


----------



## rmerlano

asoofi1 said:


> For those having issues playing the demo files thru their BD player, you might have better luck trying a WD or Roku player. I have been able to these type of files using a WD HD Live.


Hi! 

Somebody have tried mede8er media player?


----------



## sikclown

rnewste said:


> Good to know - I have a Sony BDP-S3200 on the way to me from Amazon. Are you using a USB drive, or were you able to burn a DVD/ Blu-ray?
> 
> Raybo


I actually streamed it via PlayOn Media Server, which I have set to not transcode M2TS files. I also tried it via USB and it was the same result.


----------



## maikeldepotter

redjr said:


> Could all of this prove - wrong speaker hook-up aside - that speaker placement may be more critical than originally thought to accurately re-create the illusion of the mixer's intent? I don't have Atmos yet, but it seems to me based on the descrpency between what batpig and nucky heard, something is amiss somewhere. Both have turned off all speakers but the overheads and hear different sounds!  Some setting(s) in their respective AVRs must need tweaking.


It would in this regard be very helpful to know the (standardized?) speaker configuration used by the re-recording mixer that is preparing Atmos-for-home discs. I for one will not drill any hole in my ceiling without having any such information, and I have not found it (yet). Anyone?


----------



## Trigen

UKTexan said:


> Amazon delivered my wife's Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 yesterday, the first tablet with Dolby Atmos. All I can say is WOW!!
> For a headphone experience, the results are fantastic. My wife listened to the "Amaze" Atmos trailer which by the way is available on Amazon Instant Video via Dolby Digital Plus. The look on my wife's face of pure amazement as she listened to the trailer was priceless. She is by no means an audio buff but in her words" This is the best pair of headphones I have ever listened to!"
> I explained it was not the headphones (B&W P3) that were the reason for her amazement. But suffice to say, anyone who may travel for work as my wife and I do, an Atmos capable tablet is a welcome addition to a planes boring cabin or a hotel room.
> There are various trailers on Amazon instant video in Atmos, although some are almost hidden as test files. So far I have found Amaze, Unfold, a clip from Transformers, a couple of musical demos - all available via the kindle using headphones.
> I then checked on my Panasonic TV's in built Amazon app and sure enough some of the trailers are there. There are also, interestingly, different trailers available with the same name on the TV app, compared to the Kindle. I am waiting till next week when I can install my 7.2.4 Atmos setup to try the actual sound output via the Amazon app on my Sony Blu ray player. Some of you may be able to search for Dolby Atmos on Amazon instant and test out the trailers for yourselves.
> I spoke with an Amazon tech yesterday, he mentioned Transformers should be available to stream tomorrow (10/24/14) with the Atmos soundtrack, it took him a while to confirm this so no guarantee's this is accurate.


Does the kindle fire have the Dolby surround upmixer as well or does the atmos only engage with native atmos tracks?


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> To vague. Describe your Atmos speaker setup as requested in my prior post.


No more room to add anything to my sig unfortunately.


----------



## ThePrisoner

bargervais said:


> I too will replace my 818 by this time next year...I'm thinking of maybe a X5200W but I may get the TX-NR 1030 and use my 2channel amp and run 7.2.4 that would be sweet... I know a lot of us don't like that onkyo dropped audyssey I don't and I'm still leaning to the 1030


I was looking at the 1030 due to the price point, it looks solid at 45lbs. I don't have any complaints about my 838. I really do like having a pure analog path that the Onkyo's provide for when I'm listening to my turntable or if I ever decide and go with an outboard DAC. What is pushing me toward Denon 5200 or the Marantz 7009 is Audyssey, only because I'm finally running dual subs and really love what I'm hearing. Could it get any better? Everything I read or people I talk to say SubEq is highly recommended with dual subs.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> It would in this regard be very helpful to know the (standardized?) speaker configuration used by the re-recording mixer that is preparing Atmos-for-home discs. I for one will not drill any hole in my ceiling without having any such information, and I have not found it (yet). Anyone?


It may vary by studio. But I heard some will use 7.1.4.


----------



## gerchy

Recently, I went through this thread hoping to find as many Atmos configurations for an easier decision.
That's why I'm posting mine in case someone would find it useful.
Big thanks to Roger for all his help.


----------



## Wookii

I know it may not be of much interest to many, even less so given the movie itself, but I couldn't help noticing that 'Step It Up - All In' is available for download with an Atmos mix:

https://store.kaleidescape.com/movie/details/21303811


----------



## bsoko2

maikeldepotter said:


> It would in this regard be very helpful to know the (standardized?) speaker configuration used by the re-recording mixer that is preparing Atmos-for-home discs. I for one will not drill any hole in my ceiling without having any such information, and I have not found it (yet). Anyone?



Dolby Atmos makes the audio come alive. And along with Atmos, Dolby Surround does a very good job in doing near the same with Master HD.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> It may vary by studio.


This would imply that at this moment there does not exist a standard configuration which is being used by studios creating Atmos material for the home.

That is not so good news for those of us aiming at more than recreating the same 'feeling', and wanting a play-back that most closely represents the sound as it was intended/ heard by the mixer and his director.


----------



## Lesmor

gerchy said:


> Recently, I went through this thread hoping to find as many Atmos configurations for an easier decision.
> That's why I'm posting mine in case someone would find it useful.
> Big thanks to Roger for all his help.


Thanks for that looks great, how long to completion?
It would be nice to see some more pics of how members have implemented Atmos speakers into their rooms
Hopefully as a sticky so it would be easy to find
I personally always enjoy viewing pics of AV rooms anyway.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

ok need a movie to watch tonight using DSU..(I am fine with going through my catalog again) but I cant decide what to watch...any suggestions ...mind you I have watched all the usual suspects that have been disussed here (by keith Et Al)


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for that
> It would be nice to see some more pics of how members have implemented Atmos speakers into their rooms
> Hopefully as a sticky so it would be easy to find
> I personally always enjoy viewing pics of AV rooms anyway.


posted this a few pages back...


----------



## Lesmor

Brian Fineberg said:


> posted this a few pages back...


Thanks Brian
I now remember seeing that
Those 4 ceiling speakers look well positioned, bet you cannot drag yourself away to finish the room now
Mods
Any chance of a sticky for pics, might well have missed some others amongst the many posts
Regards
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

*Test of difference between FH+TM and TF+TR*

As regular readers will know, I am using FH+TM because I cannot meet the angle spec for TR. The FH are designated as FH but are ceiling-mounted at 42°. The TM are at 85°. This puts both sets within Dolby spec.

There has been some speculation as to what the difference is between FH+TM and TF+TR configs.

I tested it this way:

I switched off all amps except those driving the overhead speakers, and switched off the sub. I used Transformers 4, Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 for evaluation. Audyssey was OFF for both evaluations, as it is not available for the TF+TR config because I have never calibrated for that config. To remove the variable all tests were conducted with Audyssey off, and all levels were checked to ensure they were the same for both configs.

It isn't entirely simple to switch configs. I had assumed that if I turned Audyssey off and simply changed the speaker config in Amp Assign from FH+TM to TF+TR I would be good to go. But not so. This resulted in no overhead speakers working at all and none indicated in the Denon Info on-screen display. What I had to do was go into Setup and reconfigure for TF+TR.

Chapter 1 of TF4 has some good effects as various spaceships fly from back to front in the room. Chapter 20 is the well-known scene with the ship sucking metal objects into the air and dropping them on various people.

I first played both tracks, listening carefully to tone, positional effects and pans. I then repeated this with the speaker config changed to TF+TR. I did the same with Chapter 20. I repeated both tracks several times.

The result is that I could not really detect any significant differences between the FH+TM layout and the TF+TR layout. If there were differences, then they were too subtle for me to remember as I reconfigged the speaker layout each time (which takes a minute or two). There was definitely no difference in actual content. I could detect no apparent differences in level or tone. If there were differences in panning effects, they were too subtle to discern here.

I was a little surprised. If there is no difference, or virtually no difference, between FH+TM and TF+TR why do Dolby give us the two config possibilities?

Of course, this test is purely subjective and, so far, a sample of 1. I would be interested to hear other people's results if they can perform this test. All I can say here is that I would have been quite happy to have either config as they sounded so close to each other I cannot really, reliably, report any audible differences.

The next question, assuming there must be a difference if Dolby give us different config options, is what _should_ I have heard? I would have expected the main difference would be in pans, front to back. Maybe my room is too small to appreciate the subtle differences that I’d expect to exist? Any other takers for repeating the test?


----------



## kbarnes701

DSU movie report. Another one for evaluation of DSU if anyone has the disc:_* Cowboys & Aliens.*_ A less than brilliant movie considering the potential of the concept, but some terrific audio. Go to the scene where the posse arrive at the inverted paddle steamer and spend the night there sheltering from the rain. DSU is just brilliant with this scene. It takes place inside the ship, with steady rain pouring down onto the structure from above. There are numerous effects such as noises-off, creaks, creature noises and so on and all are handle brilliantly by DSU, adding hugely to the enjoyment of this scene. Then skip along to the scene where Daniel Craig's character meets up with his old gang and is later attacked by airborn aliens, leading to the unlikely action where he leaps onto the top of a moving spacecraft in order to try to rescue Olivia Wilde (well, I would have too...). Both these scenes are perfect demos of what DSU can add.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Lesmor said:


> Thanks Brian
> I now remember seeing that
> Those 4 ceiling speakers look well positioned, bet you cannot drag yourself away to finish the room now
> Mods
> Any chance of a sticky for pics, might well have missed some others amongst the many posts
> Regards
> Andy


thanks!

yeah they are within spec...besides the left tops being slightly inside the front mains...but oh well..

yeah its tough now that its all setup...bu the silver lining is I cant afford to finish the room just yet anyhow..so iwll be doing it little by little.. this tides me over


----------



## Lesmor

Hi Keith
First I must say I am enjoying your posts and the insight you and others have on Atmos
All this makes someone who was determined to sit it out till 2nd generation get itchy ears and wishing they had it installed now.

Would I be correct in thinking that all Atmos Height/ ceiling speakers are receiving the same content, albeit discrete to the Left and Right
If so the positioning and amount of speakers required is only necessary to cover the room plan and ensure full coverage.
If this can be done with a TM layout then that's all the speakers you would need.
I imagine when you assign this in the amp then it is rendered to suit.
Just trying to get my head around it

Edit: Cloud Atlas on the DSU would be interesting


----------



## Trigen

brian fineberg said:


> ok need a movie to watch tonight using dsu..(i am fine with going through my catalog again) but i cant decide what to watch...any suggestions ...mind you i have watched all the usual suspects that have been disussed here (by keith et al)


1408


----------



## chi_guy50

Brian Fineberg said:


> ok need a movie to watch tonight using DSU..(I am fine with going through my catalog again) but I cant decide what to watch...any suggestions ...mind you I have watched all the usual suspects that have been disussed here (by keith Et Al)


Well, as it happens yesterday I rewatched The Savages (2007) and, since there is little action and no special effects, I was quite surprised at how rich and immersive the soundtrack was with DSU. It's one of only two feature films (alongside Slums of Beverly Hills (1998)) written and directed by the talented Tamara Jenkins, and I found it equally rewarding the second time around.

It's the type of non-blockbuster movie, and I think Dan Hickman will concur, that I am hoping we will see routinely made available in Dolby Atmos on Blu-Ray in the near future. It has first-rate writing, directing, and acting (featuring Laura Linney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Philip Bosco) coupled with a sensitively told storyline, atmospheric cinematography, and--not least of all for our purposes here--a musical score that wonderfully complements the action without becoming intrusive. It's a small gem well worth checking out IMO. 

*Synopsis: A sister and brother face the realities of familial responsibility as they begin to care for their ailing father.*


----------



## pasender91

^^^^^
Lesmor, you're wrong.

The top signal is composed of:
- a 2-channel bed that is played on all potential 10 speakers (optional)
- the "matrixing" of Atmos objects onto the 10 channels inidividually, based on their position and size. As a result each individual speaker will have it's own signal.

In Keith demo context, it is slightly strange that he could not hear a difference, i would have expected the contrary. 
For example, assigning a given speaker to FHR or TFR changes its reference position and impacts the way the objects are played and panned.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Hi Keith
> First I must say I am enjoying your posts and the insight you and others have on Atmos
> All this makes someone who was determined to sit it out till 2nd generation get itchy ears and wishing they had it installed now.


Thanks. Go on - jump right in - you'll like it! 



Lesmor said:


> Would I be correct in thinking that all Atmos Height/ ceiling speakers are receiving the same content, albeit discrete to the Left and Right


All overhead speakers receive their own discrete content depending on the mix. Any combination of the 4 can make sound at any point, depending on how the content was mixed.



Lesmor said:


> If so the positioning and amount of speakers required is only necessary to cover the room plan and ensure full coverage.
> If this can be done with a TM layout then that's all the speakers you would need.
> I imagine when you assign this in the amp then it is rendered to suit.
> Just trying to get my head around it


Nobody seems to know. If Dolby give us all these different configurations, you’d expect some difference between them. I will email my contact at Dolby in London and see if he can shed any light on it.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> I was a little surprised. If there is no difference, or virtually no difference, between FH+TM and TF+TR why do Dolby give us the two config possibilities?
> 
> Of course, this test is purely subjective and, so far, a sample of 1. I would be interested to hear other people's results if they can perform this test. All I can say here is that I would have been quite happy to have either config as they sounded so close to each other I cannot really, reliably, report any audible differences.
> 
> The next question, assuming there must be a difference if Dolby give us different config options, is what _should_ I have heard? I would have expected the main difference would be in pans, front to back. Maybe my room is too small to appreciate the subtle differences that I’d expect to exist? Any other takers for repeating the test?


Purely speculation on my part but perhaps the reason you didn't hear a difference is because the speakers remained in the same physical location and rather than the difference being in what the speaker outputs, the different designations are designed to accommodate different setups to achieve a "similar" result at the MLP and perhaps surrounding seating locations? In this case, someone who was using TF+TR due to their specific speaker layout would hear something similar to what you have with FH+TM with the same source material?


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> ^^^^^
> Lesmor, you're wrong.
> 
> The top signal is composed of:
> - a 2-channel bed that is played on all potential 10 speakers (optional)
> - the "matrixing" of Atmos objects onto the 10 channels inidividually, based on their position and size. As a result each individual speaker will have it's own signal.
> 
> In Keith demo context, it is slightly strange that he could not hear a difference, i would have expected the contrary.
> For example, assigning a given speaker to FHR or TFR changes its reference position and impacts the way the objects are played and panned.


Exactly. Although my front overhead speaker, at 42° can be either FH or TF. But I still expected some difference from two different configs (FH+TM and TF+TR).


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Purely speculation on my part but perhaps the reason you didn't hear a difference is because the speakers remained in the same physical location and rather than the difference being in what the speaker outputs, the different designations are designed to accommodate different setups to achieve a "similar" result? In this case, someone who was using TF+TR due to their specific speaker layout would hear something similar to what you have with FH+TM with the same source material?


The location of the speakers doesn't affect what sound comes out of them. They seemed to be playing the exact same sounds, in the exact same way regardless of their designation.


----------



## gerchy

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for that looks great, how long to completion?


Are those rooms ever finished? 
Joke aside, not sure at this moment. The sooner the better.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> The location of the speakers doesn't affect what sound comes out of them. They seemed to be playing the exact same sounds, in the exact same way regardless of their designation.


I know, that was my point. The true difference would be as a result of the actual physical speaker locations with the intent of reproducing the same effect at the listening space (MLP). It would explain why there is some overlap between speaker positions but apparently no real detriment in what you hear. Like in your case, the TF and FH speakers fall in the same range but TM and TR do not. It also explains why you can't use adjacent speaker locations. The point being that it's the relative separation of the speaker pairs that results in the desired effect.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> I know, that was my point. The true difference would be as a result of the actual physical speaker locations with the intent of reproducing the same effect at the listening space (MLP). It would explain why there is some overlap between speaker positions but apparently no real detriment in what you hear. Like in your case, the TF and FH speakers fall in the same range but TM and TR do not. It also explains why you can't use adjacent speaker locations. The point being that it's the relative separation of the speaker pairs that results in the desired effect.


If the sound coming from the speakers is identical in each config, why would it make any difference where the speakers were located? The sole thing which could affect the sound we hear would be different levels but AFAICT the levels were the same in both configs, from every speaker. We could really use a test disc with calibration tones for this - but subjectively there was no difference in level in either config. IOW, each speaker seemed to be playing the exact same content, at the exact same level, regardless of how they were configured in the AVR.

I may not be explaining this very well. If, for example, I dismounted each speaker and placed them side by side on the floor and then played back the content through all 4, using first config 1 and then config 2, it seems there is no difference in any material way. Thus, regardless of their mounting positions, why would they sound different when mounted? One could say that if the TR pair were mounted further back, I should raise their levels to compensate, but in my test that would simply mean that the TM pair were playing (relatively) too loud, but at the seating position this wasn't noticeable.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

maybe the timing with the mains/surrounds is different and you wont know this by turning all of those speakers during your tests...there HAS to be somthing going on...unfortunatly despite your great efforts, your testing methods have flaws (not to say they are not appreciated) and are nto showing whats going on...


----------



## chi_guy50

jkasanic said:


> I know, that was my point. The true difference would be as a result of the actual physical speaker locations with the intent of reproducing the same effect at the listening space (MLP). It would explain why there is some overlap between speaker positions but apparently no real detriment in what you hear. Like in your case, the TF and FH speakers fall in the same range but TM and TR do not. It also explains why you can't use adjacent speaker locations. *The point being that it's the relative separation of the speaker pairs that results in the desired effect.*


I've long suspected that this is a salient factor in the Atmos playback fidelity: the relative separation of the top pairs combined with positioning vis-a-vis the MLP. If the former is more important than the latter, it would explain why there is little discernible difference between FH + TM vs. TF + TR.


----------



## Selden Ball

This is one of the reasons we need Atmos calibration soundtracks.

At any rate, I'd expect that there would be some phantom-speaker effects in Keith's circumstances. For example, if there are distant rear overhead sounds, and your system has Top Middle but no Rear Height, then there should be a small amount of sound coming from the Top Middle speakers, but more coming from the Rear Surrounds, providing some height info plus some rear info.


----------



## bsoko2

Another good Movie for DSU, Olympus Down, the takeover of the White House.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> If the sound coming from the speakers is identical in each config, why would it make any difference where the speakers were located? The sole thing which could affect the sound we hear would be different levels but AFAICT the levels were the same in both configs, from every speaker. We could really use a test disc with calibration tones for this - but subjectively there was no difference in level in either config. IOW, each speaker seemed to be playing the exact same content, at the exact same level, regardless of how they were configured in the AVR.
> 
> I may not be explaining this very well. If, for example, I dismounted each speaker and placed them side by side on the floor and then played back the content through all 4, using first config 1 and then config 2, it seems there is no difference in any material way. Thus, regardless of their mounting positions, why would they sound different when mounted? One could say that if the TR pair were mounted further back, I should raise their levels to compensate, but in my test that would simply mean that the TM pair were playing (relatively) too loud, but at the seating position this wasn't noticeable.


Another possible reason for having the same sound on FH and TF for example, would be if the Atmos objects in TF4 are very large. Small objects are mostly localized into a single speaker, but large objects are going to be played in the same way from adjacent speakers, more like a diffuse signal ...


----------



## CCSchoch

I am on a 5.1 still too (well, 5.2 if you take into acct I have dual SVS's )

In reading different threads, it sounds like that for peeps on a 5.1, the Dolby Atmos is a nice upgrade, but for peeps already on the 7.1 or 9.1 train, not so much. Fair statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
... however, the upmixing I can assure you is quite amazing.
When you say upmixing, does that mean that the AVR will take non Atmos soundtracks on CD's or BluRays and utilize the new Atmos speakers I install in the ceiling? I have an Onkyo Receiver now so would most likely stick with Onkyo, Maybe move to Denon. So they'll have pre-set sound selections to utilize the Atmos speakers?

If I make the jump, I'd install 4 ceiling speakers to go to a 5.1.4 system. I thought I read on another thread that on a Onkyo receiver that only 2 of the atmos speakers can be powered with the AVR, and the other 2 have to be powered with a seperate amp. 
Is that accurate? 

Thanks for any assistance.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

CCSchoch said:


> I am on a 5.1 still too (well, 5.2 if you take into acct I have dual SVS's )
> 
> In reading different threads, it sounds like that for peeps on a 5.1, the Dolby Atmos is a nice upgrade, but for peeps already on the 7.1 or 9.1 train, not so much. Fair statement?


Some people with the rear surronds up by the ceiling in 7.1 systems seems better off going 5.1.4 but if you have all the surround speakers at ear level I don't see why 5.1.4 would add more then 7.1.4. Now 9.1 is a bit limited as none of the consumer AVR's can do 9.1.4 yet so they have to go 9.1.2 or start moving the speakers around for 7.1.4.


----------



## sdurani

jkasanic said:


> Purely speculation on my part but perhaps the reason you didn't hear a difference is because the speakers remained in the same physical location and rather than the difference being in what the speaker outputs, the different designations are designed to accommodate different setups to achieve a "similar" result at the MLP and perhaps surrounding seating locations?


Suppose you swapped the L/R channel feeds to your L/R speakers without moving the speakers. When you listened again, you couldn't hear a difference. Wouldn't you wonder why imaging hasn't change? Wouldn't you wonder whether those channels have the same content? 

Replace the L/R speakers in my example with the left Front Height and left Top Middle in Keith's room. If you change the feeds going to them with the left Top Front and left Top Rear, shouldn't the sound change? IF it didn't, wouldn't you wonder whether those outputs have the same content?


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> The result is that I could not really detect any significant differences between the FH+TM layout and the TF+TR layout. If there were differences, then they were too subtle for me to remember as I reconfigged the speaker layout each time (which takes a minute or two). There was definitely no difference in actual content. I could detect no apparent differences in level or tone. If there were differences in panning effects, they were too subtle to discern here.
> 
> I was a little surprised. If there is no difference, or virtually no difference, between FH+TM and TF+TR why do Dolby give us the two config possibilities?


I expect Dolby defined Atmos FH support for those that already had FH's installed for Dolby PL IIz. Two less speakers to buy or move. Also a good thing that you could not detect any sound differences between FH+TM vs TF+TR. Indicates both configs provide the same listening experience (at least in your room).


----------



## pasender91

CCSchoch said:


> I am on a 5.1 still too (well, 5.2 if you take into acct I have dual SVS's )
> 
> In reading different threads, it sounds like that for peeps on a 5.1, the Dolby Atmos is a nice upgrade, but for peeps already on the 7.1 or 9.1 train, not so much. Fair statement?
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
> ... however, the upmixing I can assure you is quite amazing.
> When you say upmixing, does that mean that the AVR will take non Atmos soundtracks on CD's or BluRays and utilize the new Atmos speakers I install in the ceiling? I have an Onkyo Receiver now so would most likely stick with Onkyo, Maybe move to Denon. So they'll have pre-set sound selections to utilize the Atmos speakers?
> 
> If I make the jump, I'd install 4 ceiling speakers to go to a 5.1.4 system. I thought I read on another thread that on a Onkyo receiver that only 2 of the atmos speakers can be powered with the AVR, and the other 2 have to be powered with a seperate amp.
> Is that accurate?
> 
> Thanks for any assistance.


I don't feel your statement is fair, whether you're in 5.1.0 or 7.1.0 or 9.1.0, you will surely benefit from adding 4 channels on the top level.

Yes the AVR will use the top speakers on legacy 2.0 or 5.1 soundtracks, this is called Dolby Surround, and from several reports it seems to work very well 

If your goal is to 5.1.4, then the Onkyo 636 737 or 838 are NOT for you, they are limited to 5.1.2. What you need is the Onkyo 1030. 
Alternatives if you dont want an external amp are Pioneer Elite, Denon 5200, Marantz 7009 , or Yamaha 2040.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> maybe the timing with the mains/surrounds is different and you wont know this by turning all of those speakers during your tests...there HAS to be somthing going on...unfortunatly despite your great efforts, your testing methods have flaws (not to say they are not appreciated) and are nto showing whats going on...


Yep. I'd expect something is going on - but it so subtle, here, that it seems to not matter.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> This is one of the reasons we need Atmos calibration soundtracks.
> 
> At any rate, I'd expect that there would be some phantom-speaker effects in Keith's circumstances. For example, if there are distant rear overhead sounds, and your system has Top Middle but no Rear Height, then there should be a small amount of sound coming from the Top Middle speakers, but more coming from the Rear Surrounds, providing some height info plus some rear info.


I'd expect that too but it just didn't seem like that in my tests. Of course, one thing that I didn't test is the different configs with all the other speakers playing. That might make a difference if different content is steered to the surrounds, depending on the config. I was really only trying to establish if the overheads received different content depending on the config, and clearly they don't. But the mix of that content with the surrounds might be different.

I may repeat the test with all speakers working and see if I can hear any differences - but it will be very subjective and may be inconclusive if the effect is subtle.


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> As regular readers will know, I am using FH+TM because I cannot meet the angle spec for TR. The FH are designated as FH but are ceiling-mounted at 42°. The TM are at 85°. This puts both sets within Dolby spec.
> 
> There has been some speculation as to what the difference is between FH+TM and TF+TR configs.
> 
> I tested it this way:
> 
> I switched off all amps except those driving the overhead speakers, and switched off the sub. I used Transformers 4, Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 for evaluation. Audyssey was OFF for both evaluations, as it is not available for the TF+TR config because I have never calibrated for that config. To remove the variable all tests were conducted with Audyssey off, and all levels were checked to ensure they were the same for both configs.
> 
> It isn't entirely simple to switch configs. I had assumed that if I turned Audyssey off and simply changed the speaker config in Amp Assign from FH+TM to TF+TR I would be good to go. But not so. This resulted in no overhead speakers working at all and none indicated in the Denon Info on-screen display. What I had to do was go into Setup and reconfigure for TF+TR.
> 
> Chapter 1 of TF4 has some good effects as various spaceships fly from back to front in the room. Chapter 20 is the well-known scene with the ship sucking metal objects into the air and dropping them on various people.
> 
> I first played both tracks, listening carefully to tone, positional effects and pans. I then repeated this with the speaker config changed to TF+TR. I did the same with Chapter 20. I repeated both tracks several times.
> 
> The result is that I could not really detect any significant differences between the FH+TM layout and the TF+TR layout. If there were differences, then they were too subtle for me to remember as I reconfigged the speaker layout each time (which takes a minute or two). There was definitely no difference in actual content. I could detect no apparent differences in level or tone. If there were differences in panning effects, they were too subtle to discern here.
> 
> I was a little surprised. If there is no difference, or virtually no difference, between FH+TM and TF+TR why do Dolby give us the two config possibilities?
> 
> Of course, this test is purely subjective and, so far, a sample of 1. I would be interested to hear other people's results if they can perform this test. All I can say here is that I would have been quite happy to have either config as they sounded so close to each other I cannot really, reliably, report any audible differences.
> 
> The next question, assuming there must be a difference if Dolby give us different config options, is what _should_ I have heard? I would have expected the main difference would be in pans, front to back. Maybe my room is too small to appreciate the subtle differences that I’d expect to exist? Any other takers for repeating the test?


Here's my take on it:

Given that you only have two height-related pairs to work with (due to the limitations of your receiver's configuration options), and that the relative angular separation between them is not that large, my guess is that the steering logic works out to be the same or very nearly so. You have an overhead resolution of four speakers in both configs, so there's only so much the processor can do and still reproduce height-related sound. 

I would imagine that if the sound object were to get closer to one of the ear-level speakers (something like 20-30°), perhaps the angular separation would be great enough to keep that sound from being reproduced from a TF speaker that the processor believes is further away.

In a hypothetical situation where you could have FH, TF, TM, and TR installed and operating, my guess is that the sound coming from FH and TF would be different if the location of the object was at 45°, for example.

I believe that two overhead pairs is probably not enough to differentiate between a FH and TF speaker position. Once we get into the ability to have at least FH, TF, TR, and RH, then I think the difference in the signals between adjacent pairs will become more evident.

There's no real way to know until some test samples come out which provide for some angular sweeps from front to back. It would be fantastic to have the ability to gauge the effectiveness of speaker positioning with test signals of known intention instead of trying to use trailers and movie clips, where we have no specific knowledge of where the sound is supposed to be coming from at any specific point in time.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I expect Dolby defined Atmos FH support for those that already had FH's installed for Dolby PL IIz. Two less speakers to buy or move. Also a good thing that you could not detect any sound differences between FH+TM vs TF+TR. Indicates both configs provide the same listening experience (at least in your room).


Yes, that was a good result for me as I can only have FH+TM if I want to stay in spec. I’d like to know what is really the difference though. I'll email my contact at Dolby and see if he can shed any light.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I don't feel your statement is fair, whether you're in 5.1.0 or 7.1.0 or 9.1.0, you will surely benefit from adding 4 channels on the top level.


Quite right. Whether you have 5.1 or 7.1 or 9.1, the common factor is you have zero sound emanating from above. Adding 2 or 4 speakers above will improve all of those configurations.


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. Go on - jump right in - you'll like it!
> 
> 
> 
> All overhead speakers receive their own discrete content depending on the mix. Any combination of the 4 can make sound at any point, depending on how the content was mixed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to know. If Dolby give us all these different configurations, you’d expect some difference between them. I will email my contact at Dolby in London and see if he can shed any light on it.


Thanks guys I stand corrected then on it being the same content per pair.
By looking at the array of overhead speakers in a cinema I concluded that there were so many just to give coverage of the floor plan not that each one was giving a different signal.
That being the case so does that mean someone sitting in the front seat of a cinema hears a different mix than someone on a rear seat?
Or because of scale Home Atmos overhead is different.
As someone already said it is simple, so I must be dumb


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Here's my take on it:
> 
> Given that you only have two height-related pairs to work with (due to the limitations of your receiver's configuration options), and that the relative angular separation between them is not that large, my guess is that the steering logic works out to be the same or very nearly so. You have an overhead resolution of four speakers in both configs, so there's only so much the processor can do and still reproduce height-related sound.
> 
> I would imagine that if the sound object were to get closer to one of the ear-level speakers (something like 20-30°), perhaps the angular separation would be great enough to keep that sound from being reproduced from a TF speaker that the processor believes is further away.
> 
> In a hypothetical situation where you could have FH, TF, TM, and TR installed and operating, my guess is that the sound coming from FH and TF would be different if the location of the object was at 45°, for example.


Good analysis. Only problem I see is that both FH and TF can legitimately be at 45° (mine are at 42°), so where does that leave us?



BigScreen said:


> I believe that two overhead pairs is probably not enough to differentiate between a FH and TF speaker position. Once we get into the ability to have at least FH, TF, TR, and RH, then I think the difference in the signals between adjacent pairs will become more evident.


Could be. And my room is small so there is not a huge distance between the front overheads and the rear (middle) overheads, which may or may not be significant. All the speakers are within Dolby spec though. I am not overly worried or anything - the sound is fabulous. But I like to know what is going on, if possible.



BigScreen said:


> There's no real way to know until some test samples come out which provide for some angular sweeps from front to back. It would be fantastic to have the ability to gauge the effectiveness of speaker positioning with test signals of known intention instead of trying to use trailers and movie clips, where we have no specific knowledge of where the sound is supposed to be coming from at any specific point in time.


Amen to that!


----------



## Scott Simonian

bsoko2 said:


> Another good Movie for DSU, Olympus Down, the takeover of the White House.


That must be the special inter-studio-directors-extended-mashup cut of both Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> That must be the special inter-studio-directors-extended-mashup cut of both Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down.


Hahaha. Amazing that two movies with almost identical themes can get made at the same time like that.


----------



## batpig

Honestly, I don't find Keith's results that surprising. 

First of all, as others have discussed, the angular separation between the two options isn't that great. The mean recommendation for FH is 37.5 degrees elevation, whereas for TF it is 42.5 degrees. Only 5 degrees. If you go by min separation from MLP (as opposed to elevation) the TF should be >35 degrees in front of you, whereas FH should be >45 degrees in front of you. Only 10 degrees. So, with respect to the renderer, can the assumed elevational delta between these two locations be more than 10 degrees? 

It's a little greater with TM vs TR, where TM is assumed to be basically directly overhead whereas TR is >35 degrees behind you. So that's where I'd expect most of the difference to lie.

Second, I have to imagine the slight differences in rendering elevational angle would only be audible with very directional effects. In my experience, most of the overhead effects in TF4 fall into two categories: either ambient effects like music, wind swirling, or the pulsing of the magnetic forcefield above you; or quick overhead pans like a spaceship whooshing over you from front to back.

In the former case, there SHOULDN'T be any difference because these effects are basically taking place all over the overhead "zone". Either way you'd want to create that obvious overhead ambient sensation, so I would imagine all 10 overhead speakers will potentially receive similar content. 

In the latter case, the effect is so brief, and not very precisely directional. If a spaceship whooses directly overheard from front to back, is it really going to be that audibly different if it pans through FH and then TM vs panning through TF and then TR? Either way it's passing over your head front front to back. So it should theoretically progress through all 5 pairs of overhead speakers. As others have noted the relative separation between the forward and rear pair isn't that different, so perhaps the only difference here would be the timing with respect to the floor level speakers.

And then, when you factor in the time delay in switching configurations, would any subtle difference really be that audible in these two situations, given the fallability of auditory memory?

IMO the only time you'd really notice a difference with a VERY directional effect, and probably only one to the rear given how close FH and TM are. This is basically what Selden theorized above. For example, (and I'm just making stuff up) let's say a bird was chirping in a tree directly behind you and slightly elevated. If had TR or RH speakers, they would assist the surrounds in imaging this sound behind and above you, because the renderer knows those speakers are physically behind you. Whereas if you had TM speakers as the 2nd pair, the renderer would place any of that sound in those two speakers because then it sound like it was above you, so it would solely rely on the surrounds to image the sound behind you. 

As Selden notes, this is something that would probably need a specific Atmos test disc to demonstrate, where it would have specific test tracks to verify the accuracy object panning in various dimensions. Akin to how many 7.1 test discs can pan a sound around the room and place specific sounds between the speakers to test phantom imaging. I don't think a busy soundtrack like TF4 with crap flying over your head is going to be a reliable way to test this.


----------



## batpig

I think the more important point is that this is another strike against the obsessive-hand-wringing-over-precise-angles crowd who are sitting anxiously with their protracters and laser pointers on the sidelines waiting for the hypothetical panacea of 2nd gen product  The rest of us will be enjoying ourselves in the meantime


----------



## Selden Ball

What about using one of the Atmos demos instead?

They seem to have sounds which circle around the listener.

I'm not sure how much of that is overhead, though. There certainly seem to be some, but it's rather inconvenient for me to turn off all but the overhead channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Selden Ball said:


> What about using one of the Atmos demos instead?
> 
> They seem to have sounds which circle around the listener.
> 
> I'm not sure how much of that is overhead, though. There certainly seem to be some, but it's rather inconvenient for me to turn off all but the overhead channels.


The helicopter and thunderstorm demos were put on from Dolby at their demos and not put on disk. It should be said that these demos were not really Dolby Atmos but 11.1 PCM straight from the computer. It would be pretty useful (and neat!) to have got an encoded version of these demos on disk.


----------



## Selden Ball

I was thinking of Amaze -- the one with the twirling seed.


----------



## bsoko2

Oblivion when the ship circles around the stadium ruins. That made me a Atmos believer.


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> I was thinking of Amaze -- the one with the twirling seed.


That's "Leaf", not "Amaze".

I actually played this demo when I had all my other speakers disconnected (when I was testing TF4 again) and the left/seed fluttering 360 degrees around you didn't get into the overheads at all. Just ambient stuff (wind whooshing, birds chirping, leaves rustling etc). I will caveat by noting that I only have front Dolby speakers, no middle or rear overheads, so YMMV.


----------



## redjr

I may be all wet here, but is it a fair to state that if speakers are disconnected, or amps turned off to certain channels that both the Atmos and DSU decoders will behave in different ways. Or, is there not that level of AI built-into the whole Atmos ecosystem. Don't you have to tell the AVR what speakers you have and how you want the bed-channels configured during setup?

Since we already know that there is a lot of pychoacoustics at play, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that if the sound intended to come out of 2 speakers only has 1 speaker connected that that channel would put out more signal/volume to compensate for the intended effect at the MLP?


----------



## batpig

You're all wet. The processor has no idea what's happening downstream once the signal leaves the DAC and heads to the amp stage (whether internal or internal). It has nothing to do with the "Atmos ecosystem", it would be true with any surround mode.

You aren't changing internal settings, just physicall disconnecting a speaker / turning off an amp well downstream from the pre/pro stage.


----------



## rnewste

So from Keith's work and other comments, I conclude if your "upper front" speakers are close to the recommended angle, always designate them as Front Height (even if they are ceiling mounted) to get maximum sonic _microseconds_ separation from the Top Rear speakers.

Likewise, one would always designate the upper rear ceiling mounted speakers as Top Rear (rather than selecting Top Middle) for maximum front-to-rear pans.

Raybo


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> In a supported audio format, yes.



I can play them on my laptop (VLC mediaplayer) but hear no sound, am i doing something wrong or will it only work on a Atmos receiver ?
I know my laptop has no Atmos but i thought at least to hear sound........


----------



## NorthSky

bsoko2 said:


> Oblivion when the ship circles around the stadium ruins. That made me a Atmos believer.


...You mean a "Dolby Surround" upmixer believer.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Honestly, I don't find Keith's results that surprising.


Excellent analysis. It wasn't meant to be a thorough test of course - I just wanted to see if the content was very different with the different configs and clearly it isn't. That doesn't preclude subtle differences which the crude test couldn't show up. If in reality there is little practical, audible difference even between very different speaker configs, this would point to Dolby's assertion that speaker placement isn't critical to getting a great Atmos effect, so maybe all the angst over it in this thread is somewhat over the top? I’d love a proper test disc though!


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> I can play them on my laptop (VLC mediaplayer) but hear no sound, am i doing something wrong or will it only work on a Atmos receiver ?
> I know my laptop has no Atmos but i thought at least to hear sound........


If you want to play some Dolby Atmos material (any material @ all, like TF4 and them four Dolby Atmos demo/trailers); yes, you do need a Dolby Atmos decoder/renderer/receiver.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I was thinking of Amaze -- the one with the twirling seed.


While I agree with batpig that TF4 is very busy, the opening scene isn't. I couldn't discern any real audible difference there either. This scene has space vehicles traveling from back to front, one at a time and the effect is very clearly heard coming from Left TM/TR to Left/Centre front and same for the right side, with one flyover directly overhead and in both L&R sets of overheads at the same time. It's a great minute or so of demo material and the effect is very clear and obvious. I couldn’t discern any noticeable, audible difference regardless of which of the two speaker configs I used.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

time stamp?? (I owe you a timestamp as well..ill get that for you tonight)


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> time stamp?? (I owe you a timestamp as well..ill get that for you tonight)


Time stamp is 00.00  It's the first scene in the movie - with the titles over it.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

haha i thought it was into chapter one


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> If you want to play some Dolby Atmos material (any material @ all, like TF4 and them four Dolby Atmos demo/trailers); yes, you do need a Dolby Atmos decoder/renderer/receiver.


 
And i thought Atmos whas backwards compatible, so you can play Atmos stuff but do not get the Height1 and 2 channels on non Atmos receivers ect.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> I couldn’t discern any noticeable, audible difference regardless of which of the two speaker configs I used.


Sorry, could you clarify, you tried 2 configurations but the speakers remained in the same positions?


----------



## fredl

NorthSky said:


> ...You mean a "Dolby Surround" upmixer believer.


there is a clip from Oblivion on the atmos demo disk.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Scott Simonian said:


> The helicopter and thunderstorm demos were put on from Dolby at their demos and not put on disk. It should be said that these demos were not really Dolby Atmos but 11.1 PCM straight from the computer. It would be pretty useful (and neat!) to have got an encoded version of these demos on disk.




I just took a look at movies that have a theatrical Atmos mix. Not sure if I cared to watch most of those movies regardless on whether they are eventually issued on Bluray in Atmos.


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> I just took a look at movies that have a theatrical Atmos mix. Not sure if I cared to watch most of those movies regardless on whether they are eventually issued on Bluray in Atmos.
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html



Okay.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Amazing that two movies with almost identical themes can get made at the same time like that.


Armageddon and Deep Impact, Antz and Bug's Life, Volcano and Dante's Peak. All released within months of each other. IF you've seen Dredd, check out Raid: Redemption. Freaky how similar two concurrent movies can be.


----------



## FilmMixer

CBdicX said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to play some Dolby Atmos material (any material @ all, like TF4 and them four Dolby Atmos demo/trailers); yes, you do need a Dolby Atmos decoder/renderer/receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And i thought Atmos whas backwards compatible, so you can play Atmos stuff but do not get the Height1 and 2 channels on non Atmos receivers ect.
Click to expand...

You are correct and Bob is wrong. 

Any TrueHD Atmos track should playback on any Dolby decider.


----------



## NorthSky

fredl said:


> there is a clip from Oblivion on the atmos demo disk.


Ha! Thank you.


----------



## NorthSky

> Armageddon and Deep Impact, Antz and Bug's Life, Volcano and Dante's Peak. All released within months of each other. IF you've seen Dredd, check out Raid: Redemption. Freaky how similar two concurrent movies can be.


Excellent observation.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Armageddon and Deep Impact, Antz and Bug's Life, Volcano and Dante's Peak. All released within months of each other. IF you've seen Dredd, check out Raid: Redemption. Freaky how similar two concurrent movies can be.


Of those I've only seen Armageddon and Dredd. But they do look very similar from their IMDB synopses. Weird isn't it?


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> And i thought Atmos whas backwards compatible, so you can play Atmos stuff but do not get the Height1 and 2 channels on non Atmos receivers ect.


It is. If you buy TF4 in Atmos and play it on old gear, you get the 7.1 track.


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> Sorry, could you clarify, you tried 2 configurations but the speakers remained in the same positions?


Correct. The test was to determine if the different configs used different content. They don't.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> Correct. The test was to determine if the different configs used different content. They don't.



Isn't it safe to assume the lack of a difference was because the speakers didn't move?


----------



## batpig

brwsaw said:


> Isn't it safe to assume this is because the speakers didn't move?


Of course not. How could the processor know the speakers didn't move? 

Sanjay made the point above how if you swapped your left and right front speaker wires, or swapped a surround speaker wire with a front speaker, you would probably notice. Even if the speakers didn't move. The question is what CONTENT is being sent to a given output channel.


----------



## brwsaw

batpig said:


> Of course not. How could the processor know the speakers didn't move?
> 
> Sanjay made the point above how if you swapped your left and right front speaker wires, or swapped a surround speaker wire with a front speaker, you would probably notice. Even if the speakers didn't move. The question is what CONTENT is being sent to a given output channel.



I understand what you're trying to say, I think my point has been missed.

This an Atmos system, trying to place objects where appropriate given the speakers available. The speakers didn't move why would the sound be different?


----------



## brwsaw

batpig said:


> Of course not. How could the processor know the speakers didn't move?
> 
> Sanjay made the point above how if you swapped your left and right front speaker wires, or swapped a surround speaker wire with a front speaker, you would probably notice. Even if the speakers didn't move. The question is what CONTENT is being sent to a given output channel.



If the AVR doesn't know the position (through calibration), why use Atmos? it totally negates the point?
Is it just me?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> You are correct and Bob is wrong.
> 
> Any TrueHD Atmos track should playback on any Dolby decider.


I meant to playback as Dolby Atmos original sound.

Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly.

And of course that any Dolby Atmos stuff is compatible with old gear; example, I can play TF4 on Blu-ray in my old gear, as TrueHD sound.

See, it was what I meant; to play them Dolby Atmos demo/trailers (in all their original/flamboyant glory), you do need a Dolby Atmos decoder. ...Of course that if you don't have a decoder that it will simply play the TrueHD or DD+ audio soundtrack (5.1 or 7.1 or even 2.1). 

So to say that "Bob is wrong" ...yeah I see your aspect of it, but you dismissed the other aspect, the real one, the smart one, the one that reestablishes my comprehensible/logical intelligence level, Marc.


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> And i thought Atmos whas backwards compatible, so you can play Atmos stuff but do not get the Height1 and 2 channels on non Atmos receivers ect.


Oh yes it is compatible; you are abso!utely right, but I meant in its full glory, Dolby Atmos, with elevated object renditions. ...Height info from real physical height channels (overhead speakers or bouncing ceiling sounds from them Dolby Atmos modules specially designed for that sound bouncing purpose).

P.S. Marc, it sounded so radical, when you said "Bob is wrong".


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> Isn't it safe to assume the lack of a difference was because the speakers didn't move?


The content won’t change because you move the speaker! The imaging might, but I wasn't testing that.


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> And i thought Atmos whas backwards compatible, so you can play Atmos stuff but do not get the Height1 and 2 channels on non Atmos receivers ect.


Atmos is backward compatible.

Unfortunately, the older computer bitstreaming software packages are not forward compatible. They see the additional metadata and barf. You need to upgrade to a version which includes the current, updated versions of ffmpeg and LAV. They were fixed within the past few of weeks. Even so, few media players still don't work. XBMC, for example, just strips off the metadata and passes the core TrueHD audio.  The developer responsible for that part of the XBMC code doesn't have an Atmos-capable receiver to test it with.


----------



## noah katz

Keith, thanks for the effort to investigate the difference in top speakers.

I think batpig's analysis of the inconclusive results nails it.



Brian Fineberg said:


> maybe the timing with the mains/surrounds is different and you wont know this by turning all of those speakers during your tests...


Good catch; perhaps a solid front-rear pan would be a bit smoother with the "correct" speaker configuration.



batpig said:


> Akin to how many 7.1 test discs can pan a sound around the room and place specific sounds between the speakers to test phantom imaging.


Could you name some specific ones?



brwsaw said:


> This an Atmos system, trying to place objects where appropriate given the speakers available. The speakers didn't move why would the sound be different?


Because they are sent different signals, or so we thought.


----------



## sdurani

brwsaw said:


> If the AVR doesn't know the position (through calibration), why use Atmos? it totally negates the point? Is it just me?


It's not just you; a few of us were similarly disappointed when initial details about home Atmos started surfacing back in June. But the Atmos experience isn't "totally" negated without positional rendering, especially if you can get your speakers within reasonable range of the predetermined locations. The object-based nature of Atmos also allows it to scale the rendering from small 5.1.2 set-ups to larger 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 layouts. Would be nice to have positional rendering, since I consider it one of the most important aspects of object-based audio, but it's not totally pointless without it.


----------



## pasender91

brwsaw said:


> If the AVR doesn't know the position (through calibration), why use Atmos? it totally negates the point?
> Is it just me?


The AVR uses a *predefined *position for each speaker, so Atmos still makes sense even if the positions are an approximation of reality at this stage. Some of us have hope this might change in a few days 

But don't get we wrong, from all reports Atmos and DS work very well already, it will just go to the AWESOME status


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> The content won’t change because you move the speaker! *The imaging might, but I wasn't testing that.*


This is a more succinct way of saying what I was trying to earlier. I also think that your statement about not having the other speakers playing may have something to do with not noticing a difference. As BP noted, it's not surprising in this case that the signal output to FH and TF is nearly identical but I wonder if there's any processing involved for the spatial cues that would dictate using one setting over the other in a given setup (assuming these speakers overlap in the Dolby setup guide as they do in your room)? I realize now the point of your experiment was simply to determine if these channels receive different output based on their designation.


----------



## redjr

sdurani said:


> ....Would be nice to have positional rendering, since I consider it one of the most important aspects of object-based audio, but it's not totally pointless without it.


I thought the whole point with Atmos was that it DID do positional rendering vis a via phantom imaging by using DSP and Dolby trickery? Maybe positional rendering and phantom imaging are two different animals? Atmos strives to place the sound wherever the final mixer wants it to be. Whether or not we can re-create that illusion precisely (or not) depends on our equipment, speaker # and placement and a whole host of other things.


----------



## Selden Ball

redjr said:


> I thought the whole point with Atmos was that it DID do positional rendering vis a via phantom imaging by using DSP and Dolby trickery? Maybe positional rendering and phantom imaging are two different animals?


I think by "positional rendering" he means determining exactly where the user's speakers actually are located and rendering relative to those positions.

Currently available cost-effective Atmos-capable receivers render relative to specific predefined speaker locations, just as has always been the case for the vast majority of AVRs and pre/pros. We don't know for certain whether Yamaha's high-end Atmos-capable AVRs will use measured or predetermined speaker locations for Atmos. There have been rumors on both sides of that fence.



> Atmos strives to place the sound wherever the final mixer wants it to be. Whether or not we can re-create that illusion precisely (or not) depends on our equipment, speaker # and placement and a whole host of other things.


 Yup.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> It is. If you buy TF4 in Atmos and play it on old gear, you get the 7.1 track.



So why do i not get any sound on the Atmos files ?


----------



## maikeldepotter

redjr said:


> I thought the whole point with Atmos was that it DID do positional rendering vis a via phantom imaging by using DSP and Dolby trickery? Maybe positional rendering and phantom imaging are two different animals?


Yes, different animals. Atmos does not apply phantom imaging to position objects, but amplitude-based panning between available speakers. Positional rendering is the calculation in which the position of all of the speakers is combined with the intended position of each object.


----------



## zeus33

sdurani said:


> Armageddon and Deep Impact, Antz and Bug's Life, Volcano and Dante's Peak. All released within months of each other. IF you've seen Dredd, check out Raid: Redemption. Freaky how similar two concurrent movies can be.



"The Illusionist" (September 1, 2006) and "The Prestige" (October 20, 2006) 
Battle: Los Angeles & Skyline (4 months apart)


----------



## Glenn Baumann

pasender91 said:


> The AVR uses a *predefined *position for each speaker, so Atmos still makes sense even if the positions are an approximation of reality at this stage. Some of us have hope this might change in a few days
> 
> But don't get we wrong, from all reports Atmos and DS work very well already, it will just go to the AWESOME status



"Some of us have hope that this might change in a few days"

Is this in reference to some some sort of manufacturer release of some new hardware or a firmware update?


...Glenn


----------



## batpig

I think he's referring to the impending Yamaha release of Atmos firmware. Some are hoping that the ability to precisely measure speaker location will be incorporated into the Atmos renderer.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

batpig said:


> I think he's referring to the impending Yamaha release of Atmos firmware. Some are hoping that the ability to precisely measure speaker location will be incorporated into the Atmos renderer.


Ahhhhhh... thanks batpig!

...Glenn


----------



## pasender91

Yes, it COULD be a feature of the Yamaha 3040 (and only 3040) Atmos firmware.


----------



## bargervais

CCSchoch said:


> I am on a 5.1 still too (well, 5.2 if you take into acct I have dual SVS's )
> 
> In reading different threads, it sounds like that for peeps on a 5.1, the Dolby Atmos is a nice upgrade, but for peeps already on the 7.1 or 9.1 train, not so much. Fair statement?
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
> ... however, the upmixing I can assure you is quite amazing.
> When you say upmixing, does that mean that the AVR will take non Atmos soundtracks on CD's or BluRays and utilize the new Atmos speakers I install in the ceiling? I have an Onkyo Receiver now so would most likely stick with Onkyo, Maybe move to Denon. So they'll have pre-set sound selections to utilize the Atmos speakers?
> 
> If I make the jump, I'd install 4 ceiling speakers to go to a 5.1.4 system. I thought I read on another thread that on a Onkyo receiver that only 2 of the atmos speakers can be powered with the AVR, and the other 2 have to be powered with a seperate amp.
> Is that accurate?
> 
> Thanks for any assistance.


 no the 636 737 and 838 can only do 7.1 no matter what you do...
you would need to get the tx-nr 1030 9.2 then you can do 5.1.4 you can add an amp to this one to do 7.1.4 if you wish


----------



## Lesmor

CBdicX said:


> So why do i not get any sound on the Atmos files ?


@ CBdicX Don't know if its of any help but when I downloaded the Atmos Demos to my laptop there is no sound
Burn onto a DVD as data and it plays back on my Oppo 103 and Onkyo 5010 with sound no problem
Obviously no Atmos content but it confirms backward compatability


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> Atmos is backward compatible.
> 
> *Unfortunately, the older computer bitstreaming software packages are not forward compatible. They see the additional metadata and barf. You need to upgrade to a version which includes the current, updated versions of ffmpeg and LAV. They were fixed within the past few of weeks. Even so, few media players still don't work.* XBMC, for example, just strips off the metadata and passes the core TrueHD audio.  The developer responsible for that part of the XBMC code doesn't have an Atmos-capable receiver to test it with.





CBdicX said:


> So why do i not get any sound on the Atmos files ?


Maybe because of the above?


----------



## SubSolar

CBdicX said:


> I can play them on my laptop (VLC mediaplayer) but hear no sound, am i doing something wrong or will it only work on a Atmos receiver ?
> I know my laptop has no Atmos but i thought at least to hear sound........



VLC doesn't work. Plex didn't work for me either. Finally got it working with Media Browser 3 (installed both server and the home theater interface).


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> So why do i not get any sound on the Atmos files ?





Lesmor said:


> @ CBdicX Don't know if its of any help but when I downloaded the Atmos Demos to my laptop there is no sound
> Burn onto a DVD as data and it plays back on my Oppo 103 and Onkyo 5010 with sound no problem
> Obviously no Atmos content but it confirms backward compatability


I answered this once already: it's because you're using obsolete media player software. Shortly after Atmos soundtracks became available, it was discovered that ffmpeg and other decoder libraries were written incorrectly. They were unable to cope with the additional metadata. Updated media players using modified versions of those libraries are now available, although some of them just discard the Atmos metadata instead of using it.


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> no the 636 737 and 838 can only do 7.*1* no matter what you do...
> you would need to get the tx-nr 1030 9.2 then you can do 5.1.4 you can add an amp to this one to do 7.1.4 if you wish


 
Actually wouldn't that be 7.1.*2* for those models... 


And as you say, the NR1030 or NR3030 for 4 height speakers.


----------



## batpig

Al Sherwood said:


> bargervais said:
> 
> 
> 
> no the 636 737 and 838 can only do 7.*1* no matter what you do...
> you would need to get the tx-nr 1030 9.2 then you can do 5.1.4 you can add an amp to this one to do 7.1.4 if you wish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually wouldn't that be 7.1.*2* for those models...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you say, the NR1030 or NR3030 for 4 height speakers.
Click to expand...

No he is correct. They are 7ch models so running 2 heights means foregoing back surrounds.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

One of the best so far at dsu is hurt locker!

In the humvee tons of overhead panning of heli's and jets. Just awesome awesome use of the upmixer! And a great movie to boot! Check it out!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> I had an issue with some of the thunder effects I heard in the Atmos demos. It mostly sounded like a big mono, blobbish boom from above. When you _actually _hear peals of distant thunder, there is a kind of rolling, rippling sound with a distinct stereo-ized Doppler effect above you in "natural surround." There's something to be said for a new type of ambient field recordist who needs to be brought on board to capture more realistic 3D environmental and atmospheric effects for these new surround formats. That's one more improvement audio post companies should consider.


Fully agree. 

I believe the key for optimizing ambience effects lies in a more clever combination of stereo (channel based) sound for the two overhead arrays, together with object steered sound for the x amount of overhead speakers: a marriage between the Atmos and Auro approach.

Edit: About the much discussed T4 soundtrack and it's 'silent' overheads during some scenes where you would expect them to be active, I remember reading that the mixers for this particular movie decided not to apply channel based information to the two overhead arrays and use the overhead speakers exclusively for objects. Now I can imagine that for very 'large' overhead sounds you need some kind of stereo sound, which can by definition not be delivered by objects.


----------



## LowellG

Hello, I am been debating whether to go Atmos or no so I thought I would check with those who have done it. One of my major question is do you use direct radiating or bipolar? I went to my local AV store and they were using Mythos Gem XLs attached to the ceiling for Atmos. It sounded great, but what did Dolby's original design call for? Also, I have my current surrounds mounted at 6'. Will I need to move them down to ear level?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> Hello, I am been debating whether to go Atmos or no so I thought I would check with those who have done it. One of my major question is do you use direct radiating or bipolar? I went to my local AV store and they were using Mythos Gem XLs attached to the ceiling for Atmos. It sounded great, but what did Dolby's original design call for? Also, I have my current surrounds mounted at 6'. Will I need to move them down to ear level?


Wide dispersion monopole surrounds that are timbre matched to the front speakers are highly recommended for the best possible 3D audio experience, if you can help it. You will need to lower your surrounds to just high enough to clear the listeners' heads. The ceiling level and main level speakers should have as much distance between them as possible.


----------



## UKTexan

Trigen said:


> Does the kindle fire have the Dolby surround upmixer as well or does the atmos only engage with native atmos tracks?


It does not have DSU but does a fine job with Dolby digital plus via headphones.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I can imagine that for very 'large' overhead sounds you need some kind of stereo sound, which can by definition not be delivered by objects.


Why not? Did someone hide the 'object size' parameter?


----------



## Steve Goff

I would have been surprise had Keith's experiment turned out otherwise. The renderer has only four overhead channels to work with, so it would be expected that sounds would be sent to the same speaker regardless of whether it is designated front or top. Listening only to the height channels, no difference in sound placement could be heard. The only likely difference, then, would be a slight change in level relative to the listener-level speakers. With all of the speakers playing, this might change the apparent placement of the sounds. But the slight level change probably wouldn't be heard as such listening serially to the two height setups alone.


----------



## CBdicX

Thank you all for the replies and help on the Atmos files


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, different animals. Atmos does not apply phantom imaging to position objects, but amplitude-based panning between available speakers.


These are indeed the same thing.



> Positional rendering is the calculation in which the position of all of the speakers is combined with the intended position of each object.


Positional rendering of a point source object is confined to the smallest number of speakers that can achieve the result. If the object location overlaps a speaker position, one speaker is used. If the position falls somewhere on the line between 2 speakers, 2 speakers are used, just as in a typical phantom image. If the object position is in neither of those positions, 3 speakers will be used to reproduce the phantom image.



sdurani said:


> Why not? Did someone hide the 'object size' parameter?


I think the issue is that a huge mono object sounds different than a spatially recorded (multi-signal) sound even when using the same number of speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I think the issue is that a huge mono object sounds different than a spatially recorded (multi-signal) sound even when using the same number of speakers.


In this particular case (TF4), you'd have to find a spatially recorded (multi-signal) sound of a huge space ship to use in the overhead channel beds. Sounds like a job for the Auro microphone tree. I still don't see why very large overhead sounds can _"not be delivered by objects"_ (plural).


----------



## Trigen

UKTexan said:


> It does not have DSU but does a fine job with Dolby digital plus via headphones.


Thank you. I am considering purchasing one myself.

On a side note, the DSU is an upgrade option to the Dolby digital plus right? Thus it could theoretically be possible in the future if Dolby release it? I don't want to buy now and have the next model out with DSU.

On a side-side note, just watched Fury and it just goes to show how good a 5.1 mix still is. Those with DSU will like it even more than I did in the cinema.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> I still don't see why very large overhead sounds can _"not be delivered by objects"_ (plural).


Oh yes, that's what I was assuming. One large vs 2 or more, for the rolling thunder example.


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> Isn't it safe to assume the lack of a difference was because the speakers didn't move?


How does moving a speaker change the content that is sent to it by the AVR?


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> I understand what you're trying to say, I think my point has been missed.
> 
> This an Atmos system, trying to place objects where appropriate given the speakers available. The speakers didn't move why would the sound be different?


The test was to determine if different content was sent to the speakers when the speaker config changed. Your point hasn't been missed but it isn’t relevant to the discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Keith, thanks for the effort to investigate the difference in top speakers.
> 
> I think batpig's analysis of the inconclusive results nails it.


You're welcome, and I agree.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> This is a more succinct way of saying what I was trying to earlier. I also think that your statement about not having the other speakers playing may have something to do with not noticing a difference. As BP noted, it's not surprising in this case that the signal output to FH and TF is nearly identical but I wonder if there's any processing involved for the spatial cues that would dictate using one setting over the other in a given setup (assuming these speakers overlap in the Dolby setup guide as they do in your room)? I realize now the point of your experiment was simply to determine if these channels receive different output based on their designation.


I'll try to do the test again but this time with all the speakers playing and see if I can hear any, or much, difference. It's not easy because all the faffing about needed to change the configs (running Setup Assistant again every time) creates a longish gap between tests. I did make written notes of what I was hearing but it's real difficult if you can't do instantaneous switching. We need test discs!


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> I thought the whole point with Atmos was that it DID do positional rendering vis a via phantom imaging by using DSP and Dolby trickery? Maybe positional rendering and phantom imaging are two different animals? Atmos strives to place the sound wherever the final mixer wants it to be. Whether or not we can re-create that illusion precisely (or not) depends on our equipment, speaker # and placement and a whole host of other things.


If current AVRs had positional rendering, knowing the exact locations of each speaker, then speaker placement wouldn’t be quite so critical as it is now, where the renderer has to assume that the speakers have been mounted appropriately.


----------



## kbarnes701

zeus33 said:


> "The Illusionist" (September 1, 2006) and "The Prestige" (October 20, 2006)
> Battle: Los Angeles & Skyline (4 months apart)


I love both _The Illusionist_ and _The Prestige_, but apart from both featuring conjurers I can’t see much connection between them TBH. Maybe a coincidence that two 'magic act' movies were released at similar times though I agree.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I think he's referring to the impending Yamaha release of Atmos firmware. Some are hoping that the ability to precisely measure speaker location will be incorporated into the Atmos renderer.


We ought to have a gambling thread  I'd bet that this isn't going to happen.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> I would have been surprise had Keith's experiment turned out otherwise. The renderer has only four overhead channels to work with, so it would be expected that sounds would be sent to the same speaker regardless of whether it is designated front or top. Listening only to the height channels, no difference in sound placement could be heard. The only likely difference, then, would be a slight change in level relative to the listener-level speakers. With all of the speakers playing, this might change the apparent placement of the sounds. But the slight level change probably wouldn't be heard as such listening serially to the two height setups alone.


This is the conclusion I have now arrived at, after considering the various comments in the thread. So the next test will be with FH_TM vs TF+TR and all the speakers playing, but as I just said, it's not an easy test to do and unlikely to yield definitive results as I think any differences will be subtle. In many ways, this is good news as it shows that overhead speaker placement isn't all that critical to achieving a good Atmos result (something which, to be fair, Dolby have said all along - I imagine Dolby have done all these tests properly and scientifically before announcing that speaker placement is less critical than many seem to think it is).


----------



## jacovn

Thanks for testing Keith. Will make sure i have the speakers at an angle in the dolby pdf. Front height and top mid it will be with me. Cannot make the rear agle with top mounting. Could do rear high with the angle, but than the speaker would be too close to my ears as ift has to come down.

Well next week speakers will arrive finally, so i can actually mount the. To see what the exact angles are. Using cardboard boxes gave me an idea, but it is nt the real thing


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Why not? Did someone hide the 'object size' parameter?


Valid point. I have heard an Atmos helicopter hovering through the auditorium and it sounded quite convincing, also size-wise. 

My reasoning however was that for even larger objects, e.g. a space ship the size of a small town, you might need the kind of accompanying reverberation patterns that can only be convincingly achieved by using stereo sound fields. Choosing to not include the overhead arrays in the channel bed (like they did with T4) then forces you to use the ear level speakers to accomplish this.

It is just my 2 cts to try and find an explanation for the apparent lack of sounds coming from the overheads in some T4 overhead scenes which feature very large (bigger than a helicopter) objects.


----------



## Lesmor

All this theory and what we have been trying to achieve might be changed by this video and SMPTE report.
It basically found that when tested the recording and calibration standards we are trying to achieve in reality don't exist in dubbing studios and major cinemas.






Most shocking is that THX got it completely wrong using X curve and EQ

Its a damning video and report which can be downloaded from SMPTE


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> Thanks for testing Keith. Will make sure i have the speakers at an angle in the dolby pdf. Front height and top mid it will be with me. Cannot make the rear agle with top mounting. Could do rear high with the angle, but than the speaker would be too close to my ears as ift has to come down.
> 
> Well next week speakers will arrive finally, so i can actually mount the. To see what the exact angles are. Using cardboard boxes gave me an idea, but it is nt the real thing


I am very happy with FH+TM (FH are on the ceiling at 42°). Initially I had the TM at 100° which put them slightly behind me (90° obviously being right overhead) but I moved them forward to 85° so they are now just slightly in front of me and I found this to be slightly better in my room. I’d suggest that you don't finalise the speaker mounting and wiring if possible until you've listened for a week or so - it was a PITA to move my TM speakers because all the wiring had been concealed in the ceiling already.


----------



## jacovn

I have no issues sliding them fore- and back-ward between 80 -120 degrees i think.
Only need to take a diffusion part off the flamco rails for that (3x skyline)

Might change it to absorbtion anyway and do AT felt over it to cover the cabling and rails. But i never see it when viewing a movie, so that would be wasting money.


----------



## Spizz

Is there anyway to get the Atmos CEDIA demo Blu-Ray disc much cheaper than the $400 odd dollars they are going for on Ebay?


----------



## kingwiggi

spizz said:


> is there anyway to get the atmos cedia demo blu-ray disc much cheaper than the $400 odd dollars they are going for on ebay?


wow


----------



## bargervais

SubSolar said:


> VLC doesn't work. Plex didn't work for me either. Finally got it working with Media Browser 3 (installed both server and the home theater interface).


Cyberlink 13 ultra worked for me just fine


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wide dispersion monopole surrounds that are timbre matched to the front speakers are highly recommended for the best possible 3D audio experience, if you can help it. You will need to lower your surrounds to just high enough to clear the listeners' heads. The ceiling level and main level speakers should have as much distance between them as possible.




So that would be for all surrounds, correct? I was debating whether or not to trade my 4 SR8080BPs and get 8 Promonitor 800 for he 4 surrounds and 4 Atmos. I just feel like I would be downgrading. My other option was 8 of the Def Tech 5.5 inwall speakers but I don't know if I want to cut all those holes in my theater.


----------



## kbarnes701

LowellG said:


> So that would be for all surrounds, correct? I was debating whether or not to trade my 4 SR8080BPs and get 8 Promonitor 800 for he 4 surrounds and 4 Atmos. I just feel like I would be downgrading. My other option was 8 of the Def Tech 5.5 inwall speakers but I don't know if I want to cut all those holes in my theater.


There is no need to have identical speakers for surrounds and overheads. So long as the overheads are monopoles with a wide dispersion pattern and can meet the SPL requirements etc then they are fit for purpose. Timbre matching isn't so much of an issue these days if you are using good room EQ software such as Audyssey MultEQ XT32, as this will match the speakers very effectively when it creates the correction filters.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Correct. I have done tweeters of psb imagine series for mains and surrounds. And horn loaded klipsch quintets for ceiling speakers. And you cannot detect a timbre mismatch at all


----------



## pasender91

LowellG said:


> So that would be for all surrounds, correct? I was debating whether or not to trade my 4 SR8080BPs and get 8 Promonitor 800 for he 4 surrounds and 4 Atmos. I just feel like I would be downgrading. My other option was 8 of the Def Tech 5.5 inwall speakers but I don't know if I want to cut all those holes in my theater.


Confirm you don't need to have exactly the same speakers all around.
You could keep your 4 current surrounds and purchase 4 Promonitor 800 to put on top channels, they are a good fit as they are monopole.


----------



## ThePrisoner

LowellG said:


> So that would be for all surrounds, correct? I was debating whether or not to trade my 4 SR8080BPs and get 8 Promonitor 800 for he 4 surrounds and 4 Atmos. I just feel like I would be downgrading. My other option was 8 of the Def Tech 5.5 inwall speakers but I don't know if I want to cut all those holes in my theater.





pasender91 said:


> Confirm you don't need to have exactly the same speakers all around.
> You could keep your 4 current surrounds and purchase 4 Promonitor 800 to put on top channels, they are a good fit as they are monopole.


Keep your 4 SR8080's as pasender91 suggests. I have ProMonitor 800's mounted as front height on my front wall (as high as I could go) and they work great. Once I upgrade to a 9ch receiver I'm going with another pair of ProMonitor 800's for top middle speakers. I also had to lower my surrounds, now the are about 1.5ft above seated ear level. Lowering the surrounds is a must as stated throughout this thread.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Spizz said:


> Is there anyway to get the Atmos CEDIA demo Blu-Ray disc much cheaper than the $400 odd dollars they are going for on Ebay?


Wha.....? Are they selling? I've got two unopened. I need to go check that out.


----------



## nunyabiziz

I would like to add The Fifth Element to the list of great sounding movies being up-mixed.


----------



## Figarou

Spizz said:


> Is there anyway to get the Atmos CEDIA demo Blu-Ray disc much cheaper than the $400 odd dollars they are going for on Ebay?



Of course. You make a bid then hope no one out bids you.  People who put that demo on Ebay now will get big bucks for it knowing that someone out there is desperate for one. Especially since that demo disc just came out. If you wait until no one has any interest in that disc, you'll probably pay $25 for it on Ebay.



7channelfreak said:


> Wha.....? Are they selling? I've got two unopened. I need to go check that out.


And there is an example of someone interested in making big bucks.


----------



## LowellG

Great advice from everybody. One other question. For those who upgraded to Atmos, is it worth it? There is only one movie. How do other movies matrixed to surround do?


----------



## Trigen

To mods: Can there be a sticky thread with the reviews of different movies with DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

LowellG said:


> Great advice from everybody. One other question. For those who upgraded to Atmos, is it worth it? There is only one movie. How do other movies matrixed to surround do?


More movies are in the pipeline.

For mini-reviews of DSU and how it works with various titles, go back through the thread and you'll find quite a few. I've made notes on several myself, as have others. In a nutshell, nobody has yet been disappointed with DSU on any movie tried with it so far. I am hugely impressed personally with all the movies I have tried it with. It is my default sound mode now for all movies (except Atmos obviously).


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> VLC doesn't work. Plex didn't work for me either. Finally got it working with Media Browser 3 (installed both server and the home theater interface).


VLC works with all 4 trailers here on my Mac. It downmixes the sound to 2 channels as that is what my Mac is running, and it sounds terrific.

I had to select Ch 2 from the Audio menu (it defaults to Ch1).


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> I can play them on my laptop (VLC mediaplayer) but hear no sound, am i doing something wrong or will it only work on a Atmos receiver ?
> I know my laptop has no Atmos but i thought at least to hear sound........


VLC works fine - select Ch2 from the Audio menu.


----------



## sdurani

Trigen said:


> DSU is an upgrade option to the Dolby digital plus right?


They're unrelated. DSU is surround processing. DD+ is lossy compression.


----------



## SubSolar

bargervais said:


> Cyberlink 13 ultra worked for me just fine


Nice, although Media Browser 3 is free.


----------



## batpig

If anyone wants the Atmos demo disc for an amazing 25% off I will sell mine for $300. 

But wait, there's more! I'll even include free shipping!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> *There is no need to have identical speakers for surrounds and overheads.*


But if you _can_ have "model family voiced" speakers for Atmos or Auro or DTS's format and you can afford to buy them, why wouldn't you?  There is no such thing as a "neutral" speaker and even EQ can only get you so far. A Paradigm speaker still won't sound like a Def Tech. A KEF won't sound like a Monitor or RBH, etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

7channelfreak said:


> Wha.....? Are they selling? I've got two unopened. I need to go check that out.


Why don't you just send an unused copy to Spizz and help the guy out? He can pay for shipping.  It's the neighborly thing to do.


----------



## pasender91

Of course it is better to have identical or same-family speakers to minimize EQ impact.
But sometime you can't do it.
In this case, LowellG has bipolar speakers as surrounds, for sure you don't want the same ones on the ceiling !!! 
So the monopole bookshelf from the same vendor and family are the best choice ...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Of course it is better to have identical or same-family speakers to minimize EQ impact.
> But sometime you can't do it.
> In this case, LowellG has bipolar speakers as surrounds, for sure you don't want the same ones on the ceiling !!!
> So the monopole bookshelf from the same vendor and family are the best choice ...


Sure, if he can get more monopole Def Tech's for the ceiling, then Lowell is pretty much good to go.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> My reasoning however was that for even larger objects, e.g. a space ship the size of a small town, you might need the kind of accompanying reverberation patterns that can only be convincingly achieved by using stereo sound fields.


Where would you get such a sound effect recording in stereo with accompanying reverberation patterns?


> Choosing to not include the overhead arrays in the channel bed (like they did with T4) then forces you to use the ear level speakers to accomplish this.


Why would you need to place overhead sound effects at ear level? Objects can be made large enough to light up the entire overhead array.


> It is just my 2 cts to try and find an explanation for the apparent lack of sounds coming from the overheads in some T4 overhead scenes which feature very large (bigger than a helicopter) objects.


In this case, it might have to do with which mix came first. TF4 started off as a 7.1 mix that subsequently had elements moved to the Atmos bus for height placement. The mixer could light up as many or as few of the overhead speakers by adjusting the size of the objects.


----------



## Figarou

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if you _can_ have "model family voiced" speakers for Atmos or Auro or DTS's format and you can afford to buy them, why wouldn't you?  There is no such thing as a "neutral" speaker and even EQ can only get you so far. A Paradigm speaker still won't sound like a Def Tech. A KEF won't sound like a Monitor or RBH, etc.


If I had matching speakers, there would be 4 Klipsch RF-7II hanging off the ceiling.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Valid point. I have heard an Atmos helicopter hovering through the auditorium and it sounded quite convincing, also size-wise.
> 
> My reasoning however was that for even larger objects, e.g. a space ship the size of a small town, you might need the kind of accompanying reverberation patterns that can only be convincingly achieved by using stereo sound fields.


Agreed.



> Choosing to not include the overhead arrays in the channel bed (like they did with T4) then forces you to use the ear level speakers to accomplish this.


It does not. Objects can deliver reverb returns same as bed channels.



> It is just my 2 cts to try and find an explanation for the apparent lack of sounds coming from the overheads in some T4 overhead scenes which feature very large (bigger than a helicopter) objects.


Methinks they concentrated on other aspects of the mix -- such as the lateral plane. Even big budget movies have time constraints for audio post.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> If anyone wants the Atmos demo disc for an amazing 25% off I will sell mine for $300.
> 
> But wait, there's more! I'll even include free shipping!!


And people say that batpig never does anything for us!


----------



## Figarou

batpig said:


> If anyone wants the Atmos demo disc for an amazing 25% off I will sell mine for $300.
> 
> But wait, there's more! I'll even include free shipping!!


I'll wait until you offer 93.75% off. Plus free shipping.


----------



## markus767

Lesmor said:


> All this theory and what we have been trying to achieve might be changed by this video and SMPTE report.
> It basically found that when tested the recording and calibration standards we are trying to achieve in reality don't exist in dubbing studios and major cinemas.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?t=1574386&goto=newpost
> 
> Most shocking is that THX got it completely wrong using X curve and EQ
> 
> Its a damning video and report which can be downloaded from SMPTE


Your link doesn't go to a video or report?


----------



## NM20

Kbarnes, I am thinking of using my M&K LCR55 for my TF speakers. Do you think these would be any good? 

I may pick up some Tannoy DI5DC instead, but if I can save £150 I will.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if you _can_ have "model family voiced" speakers for Atmos or Auro or DTS's format and you can afford to buy them, why wouldn't you?


That would be my preference as well: the more I can accomplish acoustically, the less I leave for electronic correction later. Using speakers from the same family means more than just voicing, it means similar off-axis response, similar dispersion pattern, etc. Things that can't be accomplished with equalization. If you cannot use speakers from the same model line, that's understandable. But if you can, why wouldn't you?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> But if you _can_ have "model family voiced" speakers for Atmos or Auro or DTS's format and you can afford to buy them, why wouldn't you?


Several reasons come to mind: they may not fit in with the Atmos spec for dispersion, they may be far to expensive for use as surround speakers, they may not have the power handling you need relative to their overall size... In my case, for example, M&K don't make a speaker that is suitable, IMO, for use with Atmos. They do an in-wall design that comes close, but it is way more expensive than my chosen overhead speaker, and that latter also meets the Atmos spec much better. If M&K made a speaker similar to the Tannoy Di5 DC, I’d have bought it, if it was the same price (fat chance) but as M&K have never made a dual concentric design, which I specifically wanted, and almost certainly never will, I didn’t have that choice. I'd guess most people will be in a similar boat. But yeah, if there is a perfect speaker from the same manufacturer, go for it I say.



Dan Hitchman said:


> There is no such thing as a "neutral" speaker and even EQ can only get you so far. A Paradigm speaker still won't sound like a Def Tech. A KEF won't sound like a Monitor or RBH, etc.


If the speakers are effectively brought into line - that is the EQ delivers a substantially similar target curve from each speaker (XT32 does this) - then what is it that would make them sound substantially different to each other? Is there some 'magic bit' that I have missed that makes a specific FR curve from Speaker A sound different to Speaker B delivering the same FR curve?


----------



## kbarnes701

NM20 said:


> Kbarnes, I am thinking of using my M&K LCR55 for my TF speakers. Do you think these would be any good?
> 
> I may pick up some Tannoy DI5DC instead, but if I can save £150 I will.


I am familiar with the LCR55 having owned them in the past. They may well work well - I do not know what the dispersion characteristics are, but if you aim them at the listening area that probably isn't going to be a dealbreaker. I would try to check out the dispersion characteristics if possible because M&K have a fairly unique approach to that on most of the range. They are quite heavy speakers for their size so mounting them securely on the ceiling may be an issue. But yeah, if you have them and can mount them, why not? All you can lose is some time. If they don't work to your satisfaction you can sell them and try something else. LCR55s still fetch a good price on the secondhand market. The Tannoys are real nice because they met Atmos spec, can play at 106dB average and 112dB peak, are small and inexpensive (for the spec), come with a detailed spec sheet so you know what you are buying and they are supremely easy to mount.

Incidentally, I recently sold a pair of LCR55s for £150, so you could go that route too if you wanted to. My main concern with the LCR55s is how you would mount them on the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That would be my preference as well: the more I can accomplish acoustically, the less I leave for electronic correction later. Using speakers from the same family means more than just voicing, it means similar off-axis response, similar dispersion pattern, etc. Things that can't be accomplished with equalization. If you cannot use speakers from the same model line, that's understandable. But if you can, why wouldn't you?


True - but Atmos spec is for speakers with a 90° dispersion pattern. Few speakers do that AFAICT.


----------



## pasender91

There are other characteristics to speakers than FR.
I'm not an expert in this area, but for sure there are other parameters like how they "attack" a note, resonances, decay, ...

I also had to laugh to the comments regarding how to make a stereo recording of a spaceship , not sure many sound engineers have those at their disposal . 
They are obviously synthetic soundtracks, then i don't see what's preventing the audio team from modeling a huge one using several audio objects, this is not an issue.


----------



## snyderkv

Can someone test the difference between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 for us and let us know how substantial or subtle the differences are?

Also if anyone can listen to Silent Hill upmixed on the rain scene in the beginning with the burning babies that would be awsome. I'm wondering if those rain effects would make it to the hight speakers.


----------



## NM20

Thanks Keith.

They are indeed heavy, I have some as front heights, but these are on the wall at about 25 degrees elevation. I bought some btech b33 mounts, however the speakers are too wide for me to get good direction when changing the angle of the mounts. I agree about the weight too.

If I can get good money for them I may sell them and get the Tannoy, do you get any commission?


----------



## Lesmor

Lesmor said:


> All this theory and what we have been trying to achieve might be changed by this video and SMPTE report.
> It basically found that when tested the recording and calibration standards we are trying to achieve in reality don't exist in dubbing studios and major cinemas.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qZ3MWsOhvo
> 
> Most shocking is that THX got it completely wrong using X curve and EQ
> 
> Its a damning video and report which can be downloaded from SMPTE


Apologies guys for the wrong link
I have edited and should be ok
It is a long video but I thought interesting, you will possible disagree
The URL for the SMPTE report is in the video


----------



## Lesmor

markus767 said:


> Your link doesn't go to a video or report?


Changed the link so should be good now


----------



## dominica

*Atmos Help.*

My current Setup is a 9.1 / 11.1 setup. I am thinking of getting a Atmos receiver. How do I go about using the speakers that I have? Maybe use the extra speakers that I kept and integrate them into the new Atmos setup? However I cannot open up the ceiling to put new speakers ( Wife will kill me :laugh

My Setup:

Front Polk Audo VM30 ( http://www.procinema.hu/termekkepek/polk-audio-vm-30_big.jpg )
Center Emotiva ERM-6.3 
Surround Emotiva ERD-1 ( http://images4.static-bluray.com/products/13/9_1_large.jpg )
Front Wide Emotiva UAW-8.2 ( http://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uaw-82 )
Front Height Emotiva UAW-8.2 ( http://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uaw-82 )
Surround Back Polk Audio VM20 ( http://static.bootic.com/_pictures/1573135/polk-audio-vm20.jpg )
Sub-woofer LFM-1 Plus 

Receiver/ Amp: Onkyo Receiver & Three Emotiva Amps.


Extra Speakers. They are not in use (maybe I can use them for the Atmos speakers ??) or do I have to buy Atmos speakers?

Polk Audio VM10 BookShelf ( http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-Satellite-Speaker-Single/dp/B000VWRXZM/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top )
HTD level 3 Bookshelf ( http://www.htd.com/Products/bookshelf-speakers/Level-THREE-Bookshelf-Speakers )
HTD Middy Compact Speakers ( http://www.htd.com/Products/bookshelf-speakers/middy-compact-speaker )


Thanks.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

snyderkv said:


> Can someone test the difference between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 for us and let us know how substantial or subtle the differences are?
> 
> Also if anyone can listen to Silent Hill upmixed on the rain scene in the beginning with the burning babies that would be awsome. I'm wondering if those rain effects would make it to the hight speakers.



I recently went from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4. And the difference is pretty big

While x.x.2 is a nice addition to a regular 5.1 setup. The immersion is much more pronounced with x.x.4. It really puts the sounds in a 3d like floating state.


----------



## SoundChex

Brian Fineberg said:


> I recently went from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4. And the difference is pretty big
> While x.x.2 is a nice addition to a regular 5.1 setup. The immersion is much more pronounced with x.x.4. It really puts the sounds in a 3d like floating state.



Were there any differences between the _improvement_ in playback of *Atmos* _encoded_ content, and the effect on _non Atmos_ content upmixed with *Dolby Surround*...? 

_


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Both were equally improved.


----------



## himey

So what would work better, timbre matched, larger more expensive speakers directed towards the ceiling or smaller (less bass), lighter, not timbre matched speakers pointed down, mounted on ceiling?


----------



## markus767

Lesmor said:


> Apologies guys for the wrong link
> I have edited and should be ok
> It is a long video but I thought interesting, you will possible disagree
> The URL for the SMPTE report is in the video


Fantastic interview. Finally the industry has to admit that their standards haven't been so meaningful as they tried to make people believe.

Here's the link to the report:
https://www.smpte.org/sites/default...OF THEATRES AND DUBBING STAGES 1 Oct 2014.pdf

Definitely a must read.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

IMHO I would say he ceiling speakers. But I have never heard the first option. 

Remember atmos utilizes the bass management in the avr. So the extension will go to the sub


----------



## himey

Brian Fineberg said:


> IMHO I would say he ceiling speakers. But I have never heard the first option.
> 
> Remember atmos utilizes the bass management in the avr. So the extension will go to the sub



Since I have not heard an Atmos setup, I am only theorizing, but because of the angles, smaller, quality, ceiling mounted speakers seems like the way to go. Looking forward to checking out future atmos setups and comparisons.


----------



## himey

Brian Fineberg said:


> IMHO I would say he ceiling speakers. But I have never heard the first option.
> 
> *Remember atmos utilizes the bass management in the avr*. So the extension will go to the sub



Are you able to set all speakers to large other than the top ones so the bass management only affects them or do you have to set all to small like in older processors?


----------



## snyderkv

Brian Fineberg said:


> I recently went from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4. And the difference is pretty big
> 
> While x.x.2 is a nice addition to a regular 5.1 setup. The immersion is much more pronounced with x.x.4. It really puts the sounds in a 3d like floating state.


Thanks for the review. Since I don't know what gear others are using to achieve these results, I want to ask if mine is sufficient. I have 4 Martin Logan IC in-ceiling speakers. They have angled folded motion tweeters to point in the listener direction but two of those in the front hight point directly toward me while the ones in the rear don't because they aren't angled enough. Do all four have to point towards the listening in order to achieve the best results or is a little difusion ok?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

himey said:


> Are you able to set all speakers to large other than the top ones so the bass management only affects them or do you have to set all to small like in older processors?


I will have to check. But I am thinking yes this is an option. 


snyderkv said:


> Thanks for the review. Since I don't know what gear others are using to achieve these results, I want to ask if mine is sufficient. I have 4 Martin Logan IC in-ceiling speakers. They have angled folded motion tweeters to point in the listener direction but two of those in the front hight point directly toward me while the ones in the rear don't because they aren't angled enough. Do all four have to point towards the listening in order to achieve the best results or is a little difusion ok?


Your welcome 

Do you have any speakers at listening level?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> True - but Atmos spec is for speakers with a 90° dispersion pattern. Few speakers do that AFAICT.


My surround speakers aren't spec'd for surround duties, they're either the same speakers I use up front or smaller versions. When it comes time to add heights, I'll do the same. Atmos doesn't change the physics of sound reproduction. When Sandra Bullock's voice moves from the screen to the surround field to overhead, there's no reason for the dispersion pattern to change. 

If your entire listening area is a love seat, then you need enough dispersion from your overhead speakers to cover those two listeners. But that holds true for the other 5 or 7 speakers. If your listening area is 2 rows of 4 seats each, then your overhead speakers need to have enough dispersion to cover all 8 listeners. But so do the other 7 or 9 speakers. 

Making sure your speakers can provide coverage for all listeners isn't some new concept that started with Atmos. It's always been this way (for those who care about such things). There is nothing Atmos-related about a 90° dispersion pattern. If your seating is a small couch, then why would you need such wide dispersion? Unless you prefer lighting up the walls with early reflections.


----------



## himey

Anyone think there is a chance that the pc software companies will introduce media players with built in Atmos in the software. My sound card is 7.1 and it would be great to install a 5.1.2 temporary atmos setup until I am ready to upgrade my processor.


----------



## snyderkv

Brian Fineberg said:


> Do you have any speakers at listening level?


Haha yeah I do I just thought it was irrelevant. I have Martin Logan EFX trading for ML Ethos towers and looking at buying KEF Ci4100ql for surrounds. I'm hoping ATMOS will still work without a center


----------



## bsoko2

Brian Fineberg said:


> I will have to check. But I am thinking yes this is an option.
> 
> Your welcome
> 
> Do you have any speakers at listening level?



I had changed all my speakers to a 80 Hz crossover and watched some scenes from TF4. I changed speakers back to what Audyssey originally had set them at and found that what Audyssey had set was much better. It seems to me that Audyssey does a better calibration job with the x5200w then earlier AVR versions. But, that is just me.


----------



## Lesmor

markus767 said:


> Fantastic interview. Finally the industry has to admit that their standards haven't been so meaningful as they tried to make people believe.
> 
> Here's the link to the report:
> https://www.smpte.org/sites/default...OF THEATRES AND DUBBING STAGES 1 Oct 2014.pdf
> 
> Definitely a must read.


Explains how dialogue is sometimes hard to distinguish from the centre channel and how the extra headroom given to the LFE channel is being abused as in Noah  and how the EU are intervening in Cinemas due the abuse of volume levels.
Looks like things are going to have to change


----------



## markus767

Lesmor said:


> Explains how dialogue is sometimes hard to distinguish from the centre channel and how the extra headroom given to the LFE channel is being abused as in Noah  and how the EU are intervening in Cinemas due the abuse of volume levels.
> Looks like things are going to have to change


We've just reached the point where people are finally allowed to talk about it. Will take just another couple of decades until the really important studies are made that would allow for meaningful standards


----------



## Aras_Volodka

himey said:


> Anyone think there is a chance that the pc software companies will introduce media players with built in Atmos in the software. My sound card is 7.1 and it would be great to install a 5.1.2 temporary atmos setup until I am ready to upgrade my processor.


I'm not sure, but in the Atmos home theater geeks episode (just prior to CEDIA) they said Atmos for PC gaming is definitely in the works... so I'd imagine soon we might be hearing about sound cards with Atmos capability & games that use Atmos.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

bsoko2 said:


> I had changed all my speakers to a 80 Hz crossover and watched some scenes from TF4. I changed speakers back to what Audyssey originally had set them at and found that what Audyssey had set was much better. It seems to me that Audyssey does a better calibration job with the x5200w then earlier AVR versions. But, that is just me.


Nope. Both Keith and I agree and think this version of audussey is much better tHan previous xt32. I no longer need peq for my subs with the x4100. That was never the case with my x4000



snyderkv said:


> Haha yeah I do I just thought it was irrelevant. I have Martin Logan EFX trading for ML Ethos towers and looking at buying KEF Ci4100ql for surrounds. I'm hoping ATMOS will still work without a center


I think it will work just fine then.


----------



## SubSolar

kbarnes701 said:


> VLC works fine - select Ch2 from the Audio menu.


That's not optimal though. If you play the trailers through Media Browser 3 or other software it will say "Dolby Atmos" on your receiver, just like TF4.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> VLC works fine - select Ch2 from the Audio menu.


 
Great tip Keith, thanks, indeed on CH2 i get sound 


And:
i copied the files to my HDD with mediaplayer and they played without a problem.
And what a great demo is this, even in "just" 7.1, even my wife whas very impressed, extreem nice surround effect, and this even without Atmos !!
I told here with Atmos it will be better, i get the green light to buy Atmos speakers for sure, and she is going to get.......:kiss:


----------



## Roger Dressler

Lesmor said:


> All this theory and what we have been trying to achieve might be changed by this video and SMPTE report.


What will you do differently in a home system based on the results of this report?



> It basically found that when tested the recording and calibration standards *we are trying to achieve* in reality don't exist in dubbing studios and major cinemas.


Are you operating a dubbing stage or major cinema?



> Most shocking is that THX got it completely wrong using X curve and EQ


Did you see the part that says: 
>>This report demonstrates that the X-curve is being used as the basis for system tuning by both dubbing stages and theatres>The application of the ‘standard’ X-curve is plainly apparent in the plots.


----------



## NorthSky

Lesmor said:


> All this theory and what we have been trying to achieve might be changed by this video and SMPTE report.
> It basically found that when tested the recording and calibration standards we are trying to achieve in reality don't exist in dubbing studios and major cinemas.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qZ3MWsOhvo
> 
> Most shocking is that THX got it completely wrong using X curve and EQ
> 
> Its a damning video and report which can be downloaded from SMPTE





markus767 said:


> Your link doesn't go to a video or report?


It has been fixed. 

_______


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Fantastic interview. Finally the industry has to admit that their standards haven't been so meaningful as they tried to make people believe.
> 
> Here's the link to the report:
> https://www.smpte.org/sites/default...OF THEATRES AND DUBBING STAGES 1 Oct 2014.pdf
> 
> Definitely a must read.


Awesome! THX Markus. ...Very


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Making sure your speakers can provide coverage for all listeners isn't some new concept that started with Atmos. It's always been this way (for those who care about such things). There is nothing Atmos-related about a 90° dispersion pattern. If your seating is a small couch, then why would you need such wide dispersion? Unless you prefer lighting up the walls with early reflections.


In a sense there's very little one can do to prevent a speaker from lighting up the walls, regardless of what they claim for dispersion. It's only a matter of what spectrum is hitting those walls. The idea of wide dispersion, and more particularly equal dispersion in vertical and horizontal axes, is to attempt to spray a relatively smooth spectrum to those walls. 

In our traditional "flat earth" stereo-7.1 systems, we would concentrate on off-axis response in the lateral direction, so as to help the early reflections sound nice. But some of us recall the THX loudpseakers which deliberately reduced the off-axis response in the vertical direction to reduce floor/ceiling energy. Problem was, the method used did not yield a smooth off-axis response -- it had deep nulls and hills. They were highly regarded for movie intelligibility, and widely reviled for music enjoyment. 

In a room with a couple rows of seats, the usual "lateral dispersion" of good 2-way speakers is often not so good in the vertical direction. And while carpets and ceiling treatments can mitigate that, some listeners of ceiling mounted speakers will be off axis of them in the vertical, horizontal or both directions. Hence the attraction to coaxial speakers for this application.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Figarou said:


> If I had matching speakers, there would be 4 Klipsch RF-7II hanging off the ceiling.


Never heard of bookshelf monitors, I see.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> What will you do differently in a home system based on the results of this report?
> 
> Are you operating a dubbing stage or major cinema?
> 
> Did you see the part that says:
> >>This report demonstrates that the X-curve is being used as the basis for system tuning by both dubbing stages and theatres>The application of the ‘standard’ X-curve is plainly apparent in the plots.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> In a room with a couple rows of seats, the usual "lateral dispersion" of good 2-way speakers is often not so good in the vertical direction. And while carpets and ceiling treatments can mitigate that, some listeners of ceiling mounted speaker will be off axis of them in the vertical, horizontal or both directions. Hence the attraction to coaxial speakers for this application.


No disagreement about dispersion characteristics, my main point being that having listeners in the cone of good sound isn't unique to Atmos nor solely a consideration for overhead speakers (though I get the part about them needing smoother vertical dispersion).


----------



## kbarnes701

snyderkv said:


> Can someone test the difference between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 for us and let us know how substantial or subtle the differences are?
> 
> Also if anyone can listen to Silent Hill upmixed on the rain scene in the beginning with the burning babies that would be awsome. I'm wondering if those rain effects would make it to the hight speakers.


Rain effects seem to always make it to the overhead speakers when upmixed with DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

NM20 said:


> Thanks Keith.
> 
> They are indeed heavy, I have some as front heights, but these are on the wall at about 25 degrees elevation. I bought some btech b33 mounts, however the speakers are too wide for me to get good direction when changing the angle of the mounts. I agree about the weight too.
> 
> If I can get good money for them I may sell them and get the Tannoy, do you get any commission?


I wish  Incidentally, if everyone is really pleased with their Tannoys, I am happy to take the credit. But if people aren't so happy, then remember it was all Roger's idea  LOL.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Can we do better? Of course...
> 
> Is it broken? Yes... I can attest to the variations from cinema to cinema.


Is it you? "The Times They Are a-Changin'"


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> My surround speakers aren't spec'd for surround duties, they're either the same speakers I use up front or smaller versions. When it comes time to add heights, I'll do the same. Atmos doesn't change the physics of sound reproduction. When Sandra Bullock's voice moves from the screen to the surround field to overhead, there's no reason for the dispersion pattern to change.
> 
> If your entire listening area is a love seat, then you need enough dispersion from your overhead speakers to cover those two listeners. But that holds true for the other 5 or 7 speakers. If your listening area is 2 rows of 4 seats each, then your overhead speakers need to have enough dispersion to cover all 8 listeners. But so do the other 7 or 9 speakers.


True - and I am forgetting that Dolby do not exclusively specify 90° dispersion. This is from the White Paper:

_"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."_

But like I said, if the maker of your main speakers has something that fits Atmos's requirements, then I say go for them. My mains are M&K and they don't unfortunately.



sdurani said:


> Making sure your speakers can provide coverage for all listeners isn't some new concept that started with Atmos. It's always been this way (for those who care about such things). There is nothing Atmos-related about a 90° dispersion pattern. If your seating is a small couch, then why would you need such wide dispersion? *Unless you prefer lighting up the walls with early reflections.*


That isn't something I have to worry about


----------



## NM20

kbarnes701 said:


> I wish  Incidentally, if everyone is really pleased with their Tannoys, I am happy to take the credit. But if people aren't so happy, then remember it was all Roger's idea  LOL.


I am now looking at buying a pair of M&K LCR35 as these will be small and easy to hang, these will be my TF. I will use Tannoy DI6 as my TR and then use the LCR55 as Rear Height. 

The more speakers the merrier....


----------



## kbarnes701

bsoko2 said:


> I had changed all my speakers to a 80 Hz crossover and watched some scenes from TF4. I changed speakers back to what Audyssey originally had set them at and found that what Audyssey had set was much better. It seems to me that Audyssey does a better calibration job with the x5200w then earlier AVR versions. But, that is just me.


My AVR sets some speakers to Large and some to 40Hz crossover after running Audyssey. Large is clearly useless in a bass-managed system so they have to be changed. And 40hz is asking something cruel and demanding of the others when I have two Submersives and 6,000 watts of amp driving them, just sitting there waiting to strut their stuff. So I set them all to 100Hz (It was Mark Seaton who originally set me on that road). Given I know what woofage you have, Bill, why do you set yours lower?



bsoko2 said:


> It seems to me that Audyssey does a better calibration job with the x5200w then earlier AVR versions. But, that is just me.


You are not alone in that.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> This is from the White Paper:
> 
> _"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees *from the acoustical reference axis*..." _


Are they describing a 180-degree dispersion pattern?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Nope. Both Keith and I agree and think this version of audussey is much better tHan previous xt32. I no longer need peq for my subs with the x4100. That was never the case with my x4000


It's purely anecdotal of course. If Audyssey had improved XT32, I'd expect they would publish that info. But yeah, some of us are finding that we are getting the best results ever from an Audyssey XT32 calibration and the X5200.X4100.


----------



## kbarnes701

SubSolar said:


> That's not optimal though. If you play the trailers through Media Browser 3 or other software it will say "Dolby Atmos" on your receiver, just like TF4.


Oh sorry - I thought the OP was asking about playing the trailers on legacy gear. I was confirming that they play just fine on my legacy 2ch Mac, using VLC.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we do better? Of course...
> 
> Is it broken? Yes... I can attest to the variations from cinema to cinema.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it you? "The Times They Are a-Changin'"
Click to expand...

If rooms are properly setup to our industry standard, they have provided a satidfactory translation. I am not here to debate the merits of said standards. 

I've never stated anything differently in the past.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Are they describing a 180-degree dispersion pattern?


90° all round dispersion as far as I understand it.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> If rooms are properly setup to our industry standard, they have provided a satidfactory translation.


People like Toole and others from that SMPTE/AES working group seem to disagree


----------



## Lesmor

Roger Dressler said:


> What will you do differently in a home system based on the results of this report?
> 
> Are you operating a dubbing stage or major cinema?
> 
> Did you see the part that says:
> >>This report demonstrates that the X-curve is being used as the basis for system tuning by both dubbing stages and theatres>The application of the ‘standard’ X-curve is plainly apparent in the plots.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rooms are properly setup to our industry standard, they have provided a satidfactory translation.
> 
> 
> 
> People like Toole and others from that SMPTE/AES working group seem to disagree
Click to expand...

Actually Markus they don't. 

The standard as it exists today isn't being properly implemented in many cases. 

When it is, my experience has shown that the it is satisfacory. 

Satisfacory isn't a definite, so for me as a film professional it might be defined as something totally different that others. 

Not really up for debate IMO.


----------



## himey

With first generation Atmos recievers/processors, can you run 6 "height" speakers and get the benefits from both atmos encoded movies and DSU? The .4 could be Top Middles and Top Rears with the addition of Front Heights? Or could you have Rear Heights with the .4 being Top Fronts and Top Middles? Thanks


----------



## pasender91

dominica said:


> My current Setup is a 9.1 / 11.1 setup. I am thinking of getting a Atmos receiver. How do I go about using the speakers that I have? Maybe use the extra speakers that I kept and integrate them into the new Atmos setup? However I cannot open up the ceiling to put new speakers ( Wife will kill me :laugh
> 
> My Setup:
> 
> Front Polk Audo VM30 ( http://www.procinema.hu/termekkepek/polk-audio-vm-30_big.jpg )
> Center Emotiva ERM-6.3
> Surround Emotiva ERD-1 ( http://images4.static-bluray.com/products/13/9_1_large.jpg )
> Front Wide Emotiva UAW-8.2 ( http://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uaw-82 )
> Front Height Emotiva UAW-8.2 ( http://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uaw-82 )
> Surround Back Polk Audio VM20 ( http://static.bootic.com/_pictures/1573135/polk-audio-vm20.jpg )
> Sub-woofer LFM-1 Plus
> 
> Receiver/ Amp: Onkyo Receiver & Three Emotiva Amps.
> 
> 
> Extra Speakers. They are not in use (maybe I can use them for the Atmos speakers ??) or do I have to buy Atmos speakers?
> 
> Polk Audio VM10 BookShelf ( http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-Satellite-Speaker-Single/dp/B000VWRXZM/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top )
> HTD level 3 Bookshelf ( http://www.htd.com/Products/bookshelf-speakers/Level-THREE-Bookshelf-Speakers )
> HTD Middy Compact Speakers ( http://www.htd.com/Products/bookshelf-speakers/middy-compact-speaker )
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Looking at your impressive speaker list, i would do the following:
- re-use the Polk Audio VM10 in the rear as TR or RH speakers, they are providing similar sound to the VM20 you have as back surrounds, and are able to go down to 90 Hz.
- In Atmos setup, the current Front Height Emotiva UAW-8.2 will be used directly.
- And there you go and reach a 7.1.4 setup, the wides will not be used in Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> 90° all round dispersion as far as I understand it.


Just to clarify, 90 degrees total dispersion (45 degrees from centre) or 90 degrees from centre? The paper seems to be saying the latter.


----------



## bsoko2

kbarnes701 said:


> My AVR sets some speakers to Large and some to 40Hz crossover after running Audyssey. Large is clearly useless in a bass-managed system so they have to be changed. And 40hz is asking something cruel and demanding of the others when I have two Submersives and 6,000 watts of amp driving them, just sitting there waiting to strut their stuff. So I set them all to 100Hz (It was Mark Seaton who originally set me on that road). Given I know what woofage you have, Bill, why do you set yours lower?
> 
> You are not alone in that.



The bass integration between subs and speakers was so much better by using the Audyssey original crossovers. My mains and center can do full range but I do 60 Hz crossover. The Tannoy Height 1 & 2 have a good dispersion as they are suitable for use in Malls and stores for piped in music so they do well as overheads for Atmos. My Db output for LFE and channel bass is just as good with the 60 crossover as it is for 80. Makes me a happy camper!


----------



## brwsaw

markus767 said:


> Fantastic interview. Finally the industry has to admit that their standards haven't been so meaningful as they tried to make people believe.
> 
> Here's the link to the report:
> https://www.smpte.org/sites/default...OF THEATRES AND DUBBING STAGES 1 Oct 2014.pdf
> 
> Definitely a must read.



In theory, once they've got it figured out it will be like getting a major upgrade for free.


----------



## redjr

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, different animals. Atmos does not apply phantom imaging to position objects, but amplitude-based panning between available speakers. Positional rendering is the calculation in which the position of all of the speakers is combined with the intended position of each object.


Now I understand. Thx.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Lesmor said:


> I am not qualified to claim or counter claim the content of the video or report.
> Maybe you have that qualification?


Yes. I can read the plain text of the report. As for Mr. McCarty... 



> Shoot the messenger if you want and it makes you feel good.


Did I shoot? Seems to me you were doing the shooting. I am merely asking you some questions.



> What is clear Filmmaker and yourself with your years involved with Dolby know better so you must have been responsible for the invention /development of all things Audio from speaker design, EQ to decoders, Auro, Atmos and must surely be a member of AES and SMPTE


My, what brings on such sarcasm?



> I am just a lowly consumer who is stupid enough to spend a not inconsiderable amount on trying to reproduce what was recorded in the studio in a home environment. So all the THX certified cinemas and equipment meant diddley.


Well, once again, your reading skills may be questionable. The report makes no reference to THX certification, nor to which rooms were certified. So on what do you base your diddley comment?



> Now Dolby issue licences but leave the Manufacturer to do whatever they want,with no standard for decoding etc.


The report does not talk about consumer products. What are you referring to?



> Obviously I'm easily conned into thinking you guys worked to an industry standard that an enthusiast could try and replicate, but instead it seems to be preference not reference.


The only preference I see in operation here is what one chooses to believe, regardless of the facts.



> That brings me to your question of "What will I do differently"
> Easy ignore the BS


How soon can you start?  Start by ignoring the video.


----------



## zeus33

himey said:


> With first generation Atmos recievers/processors, can you run 6 "height" speakers and get the benefits from both atmos encoded movies and DSU? The .4 could be Top Middles and Top Rears with the addition of Front Heights? Or could you have Rear Heights with the .4 being Top Fronts and Top Middles? Thanks



No. 4 is the maximum amount of top/height speakers you can run with the current generation of receivers.

Also, you can't run adjacent pairs, like top front and top middle. You can run front heights and top middle, or top front and top rear, etc.


----------



## Kwikas

kbarnes701 said:


> 90° all round dispersion as far as I understand it.


Keith,
What dispersion pattern are your side surrounds?


----------



## Apgood

kbarnes701 said:


> It's purely anecdotal of course. If Audyssey had improved XT32, I'd expect they would publish that info. But yeah, some of us are finding that we are getting the best results ever from an Audyssey XT32 calibration and the X5200.X4100.


If you are using a new Mic (I.e. the one that came with it) then it's possible that the specifications of it are better and so you are getting better readings as a result. 

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> Just to clarify, 90 degrees total dispersion (45 degrees from centre) or 90 degrees from centre? The paper seems to be saying the latter.



FWIW, I am going to try speakers that have a much wider pattern ~ 180 degrees. (no, not dipoles either)


----------



## himey

zeus33 said:


> No. 4 is the maximum amount of top/height speakers you can run with the current generation of receivers.
> 
> Also, you can't run adjacent pairs, like top front and top middle. You can run front heights and top middle, or top front and top rear, etc.


 Thanks. Is that for both atmos encoded bluray discs and the DSU upmixer?


----------



## sikclown

Al Sherwood said:


> FWIW, I am going to try speakers that have a much wider pattern ~ 180 degrees. (no, not dipoles either)


I am using RS-52IIs for Top Front and Top rear. They have 180 degree dispersion and are also designed to localize effects. I love the immersion of my system. I played the trailers for my girlfriend last night and the look on her face was priceless. She immediately went to my Bluray case and started picking out movies she wants to watch.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sikclown said:


> I am using RS-52IIs for Top Front and Top rear. They have 180 degree dispersion and are also designed to localize effects. I love the immersion of my system. I played the trailers for my girlfriend last night and the look on her face was priceless. She immediately went to my Bluray case and started picking out movies she wants to watch.



Thanks for the awesome feedback, the exact placement mine are intended for. I am looking forward to getting my system up and running!


----------



## sikclown

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks for the awesome feedback, the exact placement mine are intended for. I am looking forward to getting my system up and running!



In case you missed my setup:


----------



## Al Sherwood

sikclown said:


> In case you missed my setup:
> 
> View attachment 330673



Thanks for the picture, I hadn't seen it until now. Quick question, your RS-52IIs is the dispersion set to go across the width of the room? From what I can see they are waaaayy up there!


----------



## FilmMixer

Lesmor said:


> I am not qualified to claim or counter claim the content of the video or report.
> Maybe you have that qualification?
> Shoot the messenger if you want and it makes you feel good.
> 
> What is clear Filmmaker and yourself with your years involved with Dolby know better so you must have been responsible for the invention /development of all things Audio from speaker design, EQ to decoders, Auro, Atmos and must surely be a member of AES and SMPTE


Don't know why you decided to drag me into this.. but... 

For the record, I was personally asked by Brian Vessa (the chair of the group that commissioned and did the research) to join the SMPTE working group that did the research and completed the report.

He thought my perspective and experience would be a good data point along with all the others... while I declined the invitation, I did join SMPTE.

If they only tried to find those who are self proclaimed experts in all aspects of the subject, don't you think that would be short sighted? 

Personally, I think your comments are a bit out of line and disrespectful of Roger, his experience or contributions to the HT world.



> I am just a lowly consumer who is stupid enough to spend a not inconsiderable amount on trying to reproduce what was recorded in the studio in a home environment.
> *So all the THX certified cinemas and equipment meant diddley*.


Belittle yourself to help bolster your argument? 

Again, you obviously didn't read the paper and it seems as if you are only going by the video that Scott posted... for full disclosure, I have personally never met Mr. McCarty... however, as has been related to me, he has been proclaiming loudly for years that the x-curve is worthless as is room equalization... in the research I could find, and asking those in the business I respect, I haven't gotten the rosiest of endorsements of his working style or his experience in the production or exhibition of feature films.. 

Now I only point this out, which is my personal opinion, because he accepted the offer to discuss his opinion of the report in a public forum (HT Geeks podcast.) 

If I were to make a subjective commentary about the podcast, is that with him as the sole guest, it is about as fairly well right or left of what most people would consider center... I've suggested to Scott that he find a qualified counterpoint.

Here are my credits in regards to film sound production experience in the last 24 years:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279892/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

I am also a member of AMPAS, and "consult" for a couple of the industry movers and shakers..

Here is a link to Brian McCarty's

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0565388/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

He also built a studio in AU..

http://www.coralseastudios.com/index.html

I don't know any of his other credentials except he is a member of AES, and I believe a char on one of their committees...

While I am by no means an expert in all things film sound related, I post the above to show you that I have a breadth of work to go by and think my practical experience in the last decade is fairly consistent and substantial.

Regarding the bolded statement... 

You obviously didn't read the paper... you just went on to believe someone else who did. Mr. McCarty's views on the x-curve and EQ aren't universally shared (they are the subject, moving forward, of study and debate..)

THX or it's implementation have nothing to do with it.

All of the six venues were measured in a way in which meaningful comparisons could be made between venues...

One of the findings was that the methodology and techniques used were inconsistent... not the standard itself.

Note that one of the most respected engineers in the business helped with the measurements.. he is also the person responsible for tuning all of our dubbing stages, as well as other facilities in town.

However, he doesn't tune all of them, and some studies sound departments still have their engineers tune the rooms "in house..." and not everyone was doing it in the same consistent manner...

This is one of the things leading to the inconsistencies across the board.. and it gets even more varied as you go out into the tens of thousands of theaters across the country...

In the end, I found the differences between the six rooms, on paper, not to be horrifying.. and I'd be interested to hear the subjective commentary as well..

For you to proclaim the whole process up until now worthless ("means diddly") means you don't understand the purpose and findings of the report in a meaningful way, IMO.

Also of note, and important in the overall state of the cinema industry, is that there has been a radical change in the way commercial cinemas have been run in the last 10 years... this is important when we don't have qualified and trained theater personal (most importantly projectionists) to maintain any kind of standard what so ever.. that the 4 theaters measured as they did is hardly surprising...



> Now Dolby issue licences but leave the Manufacturer to do whatever they want,with no standard for decoding etc.


This comment obviously shows you have no understanding of what Dolby decoders do, howe they are implemented, and how that could or couldn't affect what comes out of the speakers...

Dolby, and DTS, certifications are very strict and have no bearing on what a manufacturer can or cannot do, especially in regards to this conversation.



> Obviously I'm easily conned into thinking you guys worked to an industry standard that an enthusiast could try and replicate, but instead it seems to be preference not reference.
> 
> That brings me to your question of "What will I do differently"
> Easy ignore the BS


As I said to Markus, we have a bit of work to do.

The industry standard, as it currently stands and as it is implemented in a great many production environments, gets us to a place where I am _reasonably_ satisfied when we go out in the real world and setup a room to the same standard. Even in vastly different rooms (size, b-chain variance, reverberation characteristics, etc...)

Like all technology based fields, new measurement techniques and research will move us closer to a goal of greater consistency and translation.

But I will still stand the conclusion that, subjectively, my work, in a variety of different venues, including home setups, play with a reasonable degree of fidelity to my intention when the room is tuned close to our standard... it's not perfect, but it's also not worth throwing out common sense and saying it's all been rubbish up to this point because of said conceit.


----------



## Trigen

sdurani said:


> They're unrelated. DSU is surround processing. DD+ is lossy compression.


I was referring to this: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-digital-plus.html

It has virtual surround sound for use through headphones. I have that in my laptop and it works fairly good.


----------



## ack_bk

Lesmor said:


> I am not qualified to claim or counter claim the content of the video or report.
> Maybe you have that qualification?
> Shoot the messenger if you want and it makes you feel good.
> 
> What is clear Filmmaker and yourself with your years involved with Dolby know better so you must have been responsible for the invention /development of all things Audio from speaker design, EQ to decoders, Auro, Atmos and must surely be a member of AES and SMPTE
> 
> I am just a lowly consumer who is stupid enough to spend a not inconsiderable amount on trying to reproduce what was recorded in the studio in a home environment.
> So all the THX certified cinemas and equipment meant diddley.
> Now Dolby issue licences but leave the Manufacturer to do whatever they want,with no standard for decoding etc.
> 
> Obviously I'm easily conned into thinking you guys worked to an industry standard that an enthusiast could try and replicate, but instead it seems to be preference not reference.
> 
> That brings me to your question of "What will I do differently"
> Easy ignore the BS


Please, please, just stop...


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> VLC works fine - select Ch2 from the Audio menu.


Yes VLC Worked for me as well but like you said it only played 2channels and my receiver only played it in Dolby surround. Then I tried it with cyberlink on my PC which is hooked up to my receiver via HDMI and atmos lite up and what a difference it was 100% better four short trailers but very sweet...


----------



## sdurani

Trigen said:


> I was referring to this: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-digital-plus.html
> 
> It has virtual surround sound for use through headphones. I have that in my laptop and it works fairly good.


That's a link to a lossy compression codec. What does that have to do with Dolby Surround Upmixing?


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## Daniel Chaves

someone mentioned movie trailers on the demo disc, like on Demo-World could someone upload the movie trailers from the demo disc as well? Im still liking this torrent idea for an ISO rip, I would be happy to seed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Daniel Chaves said:


> someone mentioned movie trailers on the demo disc, like on Demo-World could someone upload the movie trailers from the demo disc as well? Im still liking this torrent idea for an ISO rip, I would be happy to seed.


I've said this all along. They should just upload the disc ISO, so no one has to do a bunch of converting that may or may not work. This wouldn't have had to have happened if Dolby had been on the ball and made the disc more readily available... or had an "official" demo disc ready at the debut of Atmos knowing full well there wouldn't be a lot of titles to start with. They're being reactive rather than proactive in some of their marketing.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger, can you provide us all with a Dolby Atmos demo disc of movie clips, and them Dolby Atmos trailers? 

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> Roger, can you provide us all with a Dolby Atmos demo disc of movie clips, and them Dolby Atmos trailers?


I do not work for Dolby. Where would I get that?


----------



## NorthSky

Connections. ...A man of your stature has ... "connections".


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Connections. ...A man of your stature has ... "connections".


DHT and peer-to-peer preferably


----------



## Trigen

sdurani said:


> That's a link to a lossy compression codec. What does that have to do with Dolby Surround Upmixing?


You are correct. Thank you.


----------



## howard68

The Atmos Demo disc sold on e bay for almost $400 yesterday I got way out bided 
Why does Dolby not just release it !!!!!!!


----------



## bsoko2

NorthSky said:


> Roger, can you provide us all with a Dolby Atmos demo disc of movie clips, and them Dolby Atmos trailers?
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation.



I just found this http://www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/dolby-atmos-demo-disc-aug-2014.php and it looks to me like the demo disc is a free download.


----------



## brwsaw

Not sure if any of you are into games but Tomb Raider on PS4 seems it was made for the DSU. You have to trust me on this.
So far its been mostly a rain storm with lightning, creaking rotten floors,rocks falling from above, arrows and bullets wizzing by, wolf howls in the distance, fires crackling...

I love this room!


----------



## NODES

howard68 said:


> The Atmos Demo disc sold on e bay for almost $400 yesterday I got way out bided
> Why does Dolby not just release it !!!!!!!



They are....1 disc at a time


----------



## brwsaw

bsoko2 said:


> I just found this http://www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/dolby-atmos-demo-disc-aug-2014.php and it looks to me like the demo disc is a free download.



$400...ha!


----------



## DaJoJo

brwsaw said:


> $400...ha!


not in this life


----------



## bargervais

bsoko2 said:


> I just found this http://www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/dolby-atmos-demo-disc-aug-2014.php and it looks to me like the demo disc is a free download.


If you downloaded these please tell me how I did not see a downloadable anything that looked atmos


----------



## bargervais

duplicate


----------



## Daniel Chaves

if anyone in the Burbank, Valley Village, Noho area and have the Dolby Atmos Disc, hit me up, I can rip an ISO image and start sharing it.


----------



## bargervais

DaJoJo said:


> not in this life


LOL I have a hard time justifying $30++++ for a blu-Ray....
.....$400


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Actually Markus they don't.
> 
> The standard as it exists today isn't being properly implemented in many cases.
> 
> When it is, my experience has shown that the it is satisfacory.
> 
> Satisfacory isn't a definite, so for me as a film professional it might be defined as something totally different that others.
> 
> Not really up for debate IMO.


You did watch the video? And you did see the slides, some of them taken from a Toole presentation? 

The point is that it's not the implementation of the standard but the standard itself is broken. There is a huge gap in our understanding how measurements related to perception. A massive scientific study with a large number of time intensive listening tests would be necessary to close that gap. 

From the report - p. 87:
"A future project should include a testing regime in which subjective listening in venues is accompanied by objective tests of system performance. This is a difficult undertaking and will require a statistically significant pool of trained listeners in order make subjective comments, as well as the cooperation of the exhibition industry and equipment manufacturers. This exercise will require a significant investment in time and scheduling, for both local and international participants. The information gained would help enormously in our understanding of the relationship between measured system performance and perceived sound quality in cinemas."


----------



## Figarou

howard68 said:


> The Atmos Demo disc sold on e bay for almost $400 yesterday I got way out bided
> Why does Dolby not just release it !!!!!!!


There is another one on Ebay now. And that one has a "reserve." Which means the seller wants some big $


----------



## marky301067

I've got Step Up All In, to look foreword today in Atmos


----------



## snyderkv

I have a question if anyone is willing to answer. I have in-walls not yet installed. Their going into a soffit with lots of empty space. Is there any material support required for in-ceilings when you have lots of volume behind it in the case of my soffit?

Thanks


----------



## marky301067

snyderkv said:


> I have a question if anyone is willing to answer. I have in-walls not yet installed. Their going into a soffit with lots of empty space. Is there any material support required for in-ceilings when you have lots of volume behind it in the case of my soffit?
> 
> Thanks



I have 4 in ceilings fitted, I also fitted 4 of these bad boys http://www.hoody-speakerhoods.co.uk/http://www.hoody-speakerhoods.co.uk/ above each speaker, they are fire retardant and help reduce noise, you can also put some additional sound proofing around the hoodys if you needed to reduce the sound even more, they work a treat.


Or, you could build or buy back boxes, if your in ceiling speakers don't already have them.


----------



## snyderkv

marky301067 said:


> I have 4 in ceilings fitted, I also fitted 4 of these bad boys http://www.hoody-speakerhoods.co.uk/http://www.hoody-speakerhoods.co.uk/ above each speaker, they are fire retardant and help reduce noise, you can also put some additional sound proofing around the hoodys if you needed to reduce the sound even more, they work a treat.
> 
> 
> Or, you could build or buy back boxes, if your in ceiling speakers don't already have them.


Thanks for the advice. I'll look into it


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> These are indeed the same thing.


I apologize for the confusion. When I said in my earlier mail that for placing objects no phantom imaging was applied, I should have referred to stereo phantom imaging as opposed to monaural. Unlike the monaural phantom, the stereo phantom uses two signals that are not quite identical, which delivers a more realistic sound and is also far more stable in its localization.


----------



## tomparis

Many of you requested, that I should install back surrounds as well. So I did.
My 9.1.4 speaker setup is now complete 
Though I have only a 7.1 AVR it's only nice to look at, for the moment.
But I'm confident, that I will make a decision, which Atmos AVR to buy. At the moment I'm leaning towards the Yamaha RX-A3040, but I want to read some reviews of the upcoming Onkyos as well.

Some pictures attached.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> I am not qualified to claim or counter claim the content of the video or report.
> Maybe you have that qualification?
> Shoot the messenger if you want and it makes you feel good.
> 
> What is clear Filmmaker and yourself with your years involved with Dolby know better so you must have been responsible for the invention /development of all things Audio from speaker design, EQ to decoders, Auro, Atmos and must surely be a member of AES and SMPTE
> 
> I am just a lowly consumer who is stupid enough to spend a not inconsiderable amount on trying to reproduce what was recorded in the studio in a home environment.
> So all the THX certified cinemas and equipment meant diddley.
> Now Dolby issue licences but leave the Manufacturer to do whatever they want,with no standard for decoding etc.
> 
> Obviously I'm easily conned into thinking you guys worked to an industry standard that an enthusiast could try and replicate, but instead it seems to be preference not reference.
> 
> That brings me to your question of "What will I do differently"
> Easy ignore the BS


I’d respectfully suggest that losing the attitude would encourage others to help you more, especially when it is directed at two of the most respected members of the community. Just sayin'...



Lesmor said:


> I am just a lowly consumer who is stupid enough to spend a not inconsiderable amount on trying to reproduce what was recorded in the studio in a home environment.


To your point, I wouldn't say that was stupid, but I would say it was probably futile. Without being in the mixing room there is no way you can ever know what the content sounded like in that place, and even if you could, attempting to reproduce it at home could be a futile quest, given that the mixer has a room that cost well over a million dollars or more in all likelihood, with money-no-object gear, and an acoustically designed and treated environment to boot. I agree that it is a worthwhile ambition, but as with many ambitions, difficult or impossible to achieve, given the huge disparity between the acoustic spaces and allocation of money to the hardware.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Just to clarify, 90 degrees total dispersion (45 degrees from centre) or 90 degrees from centre? The paper seems to be saying the latter.


I’d ass-u-me the latter.


----------



## kbarnes701

bsoko2 said:


> The bass integration between subs and speakers was so much better by using the Audyssey original crossovers. My mains and center can do full range but I do 60 Hz crossover. The Tannoy Height 1 & 2 have a good dispersion as they are suitable for use in Malls and stores for piped in music so they do well as overheads for Atmos. My Db output for LFE and channel bass is just as good with the 60 crossover as it is for 80. Makes me a happy camper!


OK - cool. If you are happy with the sound that is what matters. WRT to bass integration around the splice, do you have measuring gear, Bill (I forget if you do, sorry)? If you do, the Sub Distance Tweak can optimise the FR around the splice very neatly, regardless of the XO in use.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> Keith,
> What dispersion pattern are your side surrounds?


Same as my overheads  The side surrounds are Tannoy Di6 these days. I sit quite close to the surrounds (nature of the room) and came to the conclusion that, in those circs, surrounds with dual concentric drivers would be better due to their greater phase coherence right from the speaker, as opposed to regular two-way designs where the speaker needs a little 'distance' to the drivers to get into shape. I have been a fan of dual concentric designs since way back when I had Tannoy Westminsters and more recently when I had Kefs, so it was an easy call for me. I am very impressed with the Di range from Tannoy, although I do speak as a long-time Tannoy fan, so call me biased by all means


----------



## kbarnes701

Apgood said:


> If you are using a new Mic (I.e. the one that came with it) then it's possible that the specifications of it are better and so you are getting better readings as a result.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk


Good point. And I may have a mic that is much closer to the spec - they have a ±2dB tolerance IIRC. But even so, it is unlikely the tower mic would be better than the Audyssey Pro mic, which is individually calibrated, and the results I am now seeing from XT32 are at least as good as those I was getting before from Pro. Bottom line: IDK what is going on but I sure as heck like it!


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> You did watch the video? And you did see the slides, some of them taken from a Toole presentation?
> 
> The point is that it's not the implementation of the standard but the standard itself is broken. There is a huge gap in our understanding how measurements related to perception. A massive scientific study with a large number of time intensive listening tests would be necessary to close that gap.
> 
> From the report - p. 87:
> "A future project should include a testing regime in which subjective listening in venues is accompanied by objective tests of system performance."


In most such technical papers, it is customary to include "areas for future work." There is no assurance that such would would be undertaken. It may be that the new measurement tools simply improve the consistency of the current standard.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Yes VLC Worked for me as well but like you said it only played 2channels and my receiver only played it in Dolby surround. Then I tried it with cyberlink on my PC which is hooked up to my receiver via HDMI and atmos lite up and what a difference it was 100% better four short trailers but very sweet...


It only played in two channels on my Mac. That is because my Mac only has two channels  I (mistakenly probably) thought you were asking if the Atmos track played on legacy gear (ie non-Atmos gear like my Mac). If you play the Atmos content through an Atmos system then yeah, I’d expect it to play in Atmos


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> In most such technical papers, it is customary to include "areas for future work." There is no assurance that such would would be undertaken. It may be that the new measurement tools simply improve the consistency of the current standard.


The report shows that there's virtually no difference between steady-state pink noise measurements and swept sine with a long window.
The problem isn't the measurements but the lack of psychoacoustic knowledge, i.e. how to relate measurements and perception! Audio is still in the stone ages compared to picture.


----------



## kbarnes701

tomparis said:


> Many of you requested, that I should install back surrounds as well. So I did.
> My 9.1.4 speaker setup is now complete
> Though I have only a 7.1 AVR it's only nice to look at, for the moment.
> But I'm confident, that I will make a decision, which Atmos AVR to buy. At the moment I'm leaning towards the Yamaha RX-A3040, but I want to read some reviews of the upcoming Onkyos as well.
> 
> Some pictures attached.


Very nice job, Tom!


----------



## ss9001

tomparis said:


> Many of you requested, that I should install back surrounds as well. So I did. My 9.1.4 speaker setup is now complete  Though I have only a 7.1 AVR it's only nice to look at, for the moment....Some pictures attached.


Very nice! Great job. Is that something like unistrut channels across your ceilings? Lots of flexibility.

Your room is definitely surrounded   Ready for multiple formats too.

Thanks for sharing the photos. When the time comes for me to install my speakers this Dec., I plan to do the same. In this new world of multiple configurations and new speaker locations, pics of how real people did real rooms with a variety of different speaker types is very helpful to show possibilities folks may not have thought of.


----------



## Figarou

tomparis said:


> Some pictures attached.


I spy RF-7IIs!  

My ceiling is vaulted in one direction. Plus I have a ceiling fan. I can only have heights. I won't be able to hear how it sounds until the Denon AVR-X7200W is released.


----------



## asharma

*Help please (and thank you) speaker angle question*

I need to have my FH on a front wall angled at 30 degrees above my seating position. Seating position is 16 ft from front wall. Assume seating position is 3.5 feet (ear level) off the ground. The front wall is 7.5 ft tall...how many feet off the floor so the speaker is placed at a 30 degree angle to the seating position? Thanks folks...


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I apologize for the confusion. When I said in my earlier mail that for placing objects no phantom imaging was applied, I should have referred to stereo phantom imaging as opposed to monaural. Unlike the monaural phantom, the stereo phantom uses two signals that are not quite identical, which delivers a more realistic sound and is also far more stable in its localization.


 I do not understand the distinction, nor how it relates with the specific topic which was about the rendering of sounds based on the actual positions of speakers rather than default positions.

BTW, stereo phantom imaging uses exactly the same mechanism as mono phantom imaging, and is no more stable in localization.


----------



## Roger Dressler

asharma said:


> I need to have my FH on a front wall angled at 30 degrees above my seating position. Seating position is 16 ft from front wall. Assume seating position is 3.5 feet (ear level) off the ground. The front wall is 7.5 ft tall...how many feet off the floor so the speaker is placed at a 30 degree angle to the seating position? Thanks folks...


16Tan30+3.5 = 12.7 feet. IOW, in the room upstairs. 

You would need to put the speakers on the ceiling to achieve that angle.


----------



## asharma

Roger Dressler said:


> 16Tan30+3.5 = 12.7 feet. IOW, in the room upstairs.
> 
> You would need to put the speakers on the ceiling to achieve that angle.


Wow, thanks man, given most people don't have 12 ft high ceilings do folks mostly ceiling mount or make a compromise and hang as high as possible on the wall? These would be for ATMOS FH...I was assuming the angle should be 30 degrees to meet ATMOS spec...can it be less?


----------



## Selden Ball

asharma said:


> Wow, thanks man, given most people don't have 12 ft high ceilings do folks mostly ceiling mount or make a compromise and hang as high as possible on the wall? These would be for ATMOS FH...I was assuming the angle should be 30 degrees to meet ATMOS spec...can it be less?


30 degrees is the minimum recommended elevation angle. See the attached diagram.


----------



## asharma

Selden Ball said:


> 30 degrees is the minimum recommended elevation angle. See the attached diagram.


DANG, looks like I will need to use my upfiring front pair and sit on top of FL/FR...yuk! Not as flexible as using FH for ATMOS AND legacy formats...


----------



## Roger Dressler

asharma said:


> Wow, thanks man, given most people don't have 12 ft high ceilings do folks mostly ceiling mount or make a compromise and hang as high as possible on the wall? These would be for ATMOS FH...I was assuming the angle should be 30 degrees to meet ATMOS spec...can it be less?


Not less, but 30 or more is ok. I went with 40 even though 30 was an option, as it would be too low for the rear seats.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Selden Ball said:


> 30 degrees is the minimum recommended elevation angle. See the attached diagram.


I sit equidistant between my forward and backward ceiling speakers, but the the backward speakers end up against the rear wall. Should I assign them as top front and top rear or top front and rear height? In other words are the angles most important or does the rear speaker being against the rear wall make a difference? I am approx. 5-6" horizontally away from either speaker and approx. 5' in height from top-o-head to speaker vertically.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Jive Turkey said:


> I sit equidistant between my forward and backward ceiling speakers, but the the backward speakers end up against the rear wall. Should I assign them as top front and top rear or top front and rear height? In other words are the angles most important or does the rear speaker being against the rear wall make a difference? I am approx. 5-6" horizontally away from either speaker and approx. 5' in height from top-o-head to speaker vertically.


What I have read so far is..

*Fill the gaps(s) and you are done...*


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> Wow, thanks man, given most people don't have 12 ft high ceilings do folks mostly ceiling mount or make a compromise and hang as high as possible on the wall? These would be for ATMOS FH...I was assuming the angle should be 30 degrees to meet ATMOS spec...can it be less?


My first thought is to wonder why you're sitting so far back from the front (is there even any type of video display involved?); if you want the dual-purpose flexibility of using FH you will ideally need to rethink the seating arrangement. Of course, you can try out a more shallow angle than Dolby recommends and see how it works for you. It would represent a compromise but, depending on the locations of the rest of your speakers, you might be satisfied with the result. The key is to experiment and perform due diligence before making any decisions that would be difficult to go back on.

ETA: I know you already have wall-mounted FH speakers that you are trying to use, but another option to retain the dual-purpose flexibility I mentioned above would be go with ceiling-mounted speakers designated as FH (within the recommended range of 30 to 45 degrees). As long as they are no more than a few feet away from your front speakers they should still work with DTS Neo:X/A-DSX as well.


----------



## pasender91

asharma said:


> Wow, thanks man, given most people don't have 12 ft high ceilings do folks mostly ceiling mount or make a compromise and hang as high as possible on the wall? These would be for ATMOS FH...I was assuming the angle should be 30 degrees to meet ATMOS spec...can it be less?



That's what i did, in my room the FH are at 28°, they are at the top of the wall as ceiling mount was not an option. 28 is close to 30, right now i am using PL IIz, crossing fingers it will still work for Atmos.

Generally, in most rooms af small-average size, and sitting at 2/3 of the length, it means for most people that the FH will land on the ceiling to respect angles, while at the back there is more comfort for placement, for example i can even achieve TR angles at the rearwall-ceiling corner, not forced to use RH setting.


----------



## Selden Ball

Jive Turkey said:


> I sit equidistant between my forward and backward ceiling speakers, but the the backward speakers end up against the rear wall. Should I assign them as top front and top rear or top front and rear height? In other words are the angles most important or does the rear speaker being against the rear wall make a difference? I am approx. 5-6" horizontally away from either speaker and approx. 5' in height from top-o-head to speaker vertically.


The angles, i.e. the directions toward the speakers, are what matter, not whether they're mounted on walls or ceiling. However, you don't need to stress over them. Current evidence suggests that the overhead sounds don't vary a lot from one designated speaker position to another. One pair just needs to be toward the front, and the other toward the rear.


----------



## dominica

pasender91 said:


> Looking at your impressive speaker list, i would do the following:
> - re-use the Polk Audio VM10 in the rear as TR or RH speakers, they are providing similar sound to the VM20 you have as back surrounds, and are able to go down to 90 Hz.
> - In Atmos setup, the current Front Height Emotiva UAW-8.2 will be used directly.
> - And there you go and reach a 7.1.4 setup, the wides will not be used in Atmos.


Hi,

Thanks for the help and quick response. I got some info from the Dolby site, so I am doing some more reading up on it. Your help gave me a good starting point. The only questions I have now :smile:: What happens to the other speaker in my setup when I am not using the Atmos audio from the blu-ray source, do I lose the 9.1/11.1 setup? With my present Onkyo I can switch the Front (Wide or Height) etc.

Thanks again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bsoko2 said:


> I just found this http://www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/dolby-atmos-demo-disc-aug-2014.php and it looks to me like the demo disc is a free download.


Where do you see that it's a free download? It just lists the chapters and shows the cover, etc. There is no complete ISO file link that I can see.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Selden Ball said:


> The angles, i.e. the directions toward the speakers, are what matter, not whether they're mounted on walls or ceiling. However, you don't need to stress over them. Current evidence suggests that the overhead sounds don't vary a lot from one designated speaker position to another. One pair just needs to be toward the front, and the other toward the rear.


I'll set them as top front and top rear when my 5200 shows up Tuesday. Thank you for the help.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d ass-u-me the latter.


So that's 180-degree dispersion. Do your Tannoys have that?


----------



## sikclown

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks for the picture, I hadn't seen it until now. Quick question, your RS-52IIs is the dispersion set to go across the width of the room? From what I can see they are waaaayy up there!


Yeah I have them setup to go across the width. It is a huge room and they are 14.6 feet off the floor.


----------



## pasender91

dominica said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the help and quick response. I got some info from the Dolby site, so I am doing some more reading up on it. Your help gave me a good starting point. The only questions I have now :smile:: What happens to the other speaker in my setup when I am not using the Atmos audio from the blu-ray source, do I lose the 9.1/11.1 setup? With my present Onkyo I can switch the Front (Wide or Height) etc.
> 
> Thanks again.


If you want to do 7.1.4 Atmos and 9.1.2 DSX(?), then you have to:
- Share the FH, this is done by default.
- Have TR or RH for Atmos and wides for DSX, so you need 11 channels active and 13 channels for connectivity, i believe Denon 5200 and Onkyo 1030 fit the requirement


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> If you want to do 7.1.4 Atmos and 9.1.2 DSX(?), then you have to:
> - Share the FH, this is done by default.
> - Have TR or RH for Atmos and wides for DSX, so you need 11 channels active and 13 channels for connectivity, i believe Denon 5200 and Onkyo 1030 fit the requirement


The Denon X4100 can do this as well as the X5200. Both will allow for connection of all 13 speakers in the main zone (nine listener-level and four top-level). When using the FH designation for the forward pair of top-level speakers, you can then have a maximum of 5.1.4/7.1.4 for Atmos (X4100/X5200 respectively) and 9.1/11.1 for DTS Neo:X/A-DSX. In each case, you will need at least a 2-channel external amplifier to expand beyond the built-in amps of the 7-channel X4100 and 9-channel X5200.

For non-Atmos source material you then have the surround mode playback options of DSU, Neo:X 11.1 or A-DSX 9.1/ll.1 (inter alii), all of which are available at the press of a single button. Note, however, that in this scenario Neo:X/A-DSX 11.1 requires at least four channels of external amplification vice two.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> BTW, stereo phantom imaging uses exactly the same mechanism as mono phantom imaging, and it no more stable in localization.


Roger, in one sense, stereo imaging seems to me to be even LESS "stable"?

Mono "imaging" (if there is such a thing): one speaker, for example, center speaker. Sound is always in the middle, no matter where one sits. The center speaker "anchors" the sound there.
Stereo imaging: with 2 speakers image shifts right or left depending on where you are, right or left of center. The only correct seat is the one in exact middle of the 2 left and right speakers, whether ground or height level.

It's interesting that even as more speakers are added with immersive surround techniques, phantom imaging's one principle remains true: the (laterally) middle seat in between left and right pairs of speakers is the only "perfect" seat, with ideal imaging?


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> My first thought is to wonder why you're sitting so far back from the front (is there even any type of video display involved?); if you want the dual-purpose flexibility of using FH you will ideally need to rethink the seating arrangement. Of course, you can try out a more shallow angle than Dolby recommends and see how it works for you. It would represent a compromise but, depending on the locations of the rest of your speakers, you might be satisfied with the result. The key is to experiment and perform due diligence before making any decisions that would be difficult to go back on.
> 
> ETA: I know you already have wall-mounted FH speakers that you are trying to use, but another option to retain the dual-purpose flexibility I mentioned above would be go with ceiling-mounted speakers designated as FH (within the recommended range of 30 to 45 degrees). As long as they are no more than a few feet away from your front speakers they should still work with DTS Neo:X/A-DSX as well.


Thanks, I have a 120" 2.35 screen with an Epson 5030ub projector. Comfortable viewing distance is 16 ft but my ceilings are only 7.5 ft tall...therefore it sounds like I am will not be able to achieve proper elevation for FHs given my ear level is about 3 ft off the ground. 

So one option is to use my upfiring module instead of FH or ceiling mount my FH bookshelf speakers to the ceiling and designate as FH although given my ceiling height is only 7.5 feet, I don't think this would give me the proper angle either. Perhaps my only true option is to use my upfiring module?


----------



## markus767

cannga said:


> It's interesting that even as more speakers are added with immersive surround techniques, phantom imaging's one principle remains true: the (laterally) middle seat in between left and right pairs of speakers is the only "perfect" seat, with ideal imaging?


Yes, that's pretty much it, a single seat solution. Adding more and more speakers mitigates the problem but multichannel is basically still stereo, warts and all.


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> So that's 180-degree dispersion. Do your Tannoys have that?



The Tannoy spec for the Di6 DC is 90 degrees conical dispersion at -6 dB, which means that they maintain that dispersion for 45 degrees off axis. They beam more at higher frequencies and dispersion falls off fairly rapidly above about 10kHz. At 30 degrees off axis they are about 4 dB down at 10kHz. The manuals include complete polar responses if you need them.

Compared to the 6 the Di5 DC has a bit of a peak at about 9kHz and less low end.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> So that's 180-degree dispersion. Do your Tannoys have that?


The polar dispersion is shown in the spec sheet. 90° conical is how they describe it.


----------



## zeus33

himey said:


> Thanks. Is that for both atmos encoded bluray discs and the DSU upmixer?



Correct. They both use the same height/top speaker configuration.


----------



## dan webster

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where do you see that it's a free download? It just lists the chapters and shows the cover, etc. There is no complete ISO file link that I can see.


I was all excited until i realized there was no way i could see to download the files. Has anyone been able to download anything besides the 4 atmos demos?


----------



## dominica

pasender91 said:


> If you want to do 7.1.4 Atmos and 9.1.2 DSX(?), then you have to:
> - Share the FH, this is done by default.
> - Have TR or RH for Atmos and wides for DSX, so you need 11 channels active and 13 channels for connectivity, i believe Denon 5200 and Onkyo 1030 fit the requirement


Thanks again, Now I don't have any worries, just have to pick a new receiver now. The two receivers you noted were the ones on my list ( Denon 5200 and Onkyo 1030 )


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> Thanks, I have a 120" 2.35 screen with an Epson 5030ub projector. Comfortable viewing distance is 16 ft but my ceilings are only 7.5 ft tall...therefore it sounds like I am will not be able to achieve proper elevation for FHs given my ear level is about 3 ft off the ground.
> 
> So one option is to use my upfiring module instead of FH or ceiling mount my FH bookshelf speakers to the ceiling and designate as FH although given my ceiling height is only 7.5 feet, I don't think this would give me the proper angle either. Perhaps my only true option is to use my upfiring module?


You might well conclude that that is your best option, but it is by no means your only true option. If you aren't prepared to accept the compromise presented by wall-mounted FH, you can always go with ceiling-mounted speakers; I calculate that you would need to place them no less than 7.8 feet in front of the MLP (measured horizontally)--i.e., about half the distance to the front sound stage--in order to meet the minimum recommended angle of 30 degrees for FH. That may or may not work out acceptably for non-Atmos/DSU modes, but it's still a viable option.


----------



## 1forsnow

I have a question about Atmos that i had asked prior to atmos officially becoming implemented. So now that its live, I would like to ask it again.

Lets say you have an atmos enabled AVR and discrete Atmos content(jets, wind, rain, music,etc) is being sent to the overhead channels. Thats great. But what happens to this content(metadata) if you dont have an Atmos AVR yet? Is it just discarded by the AVR or is it re-mixed and sent to the 5,7 or 9 base channels? I guess an easy test would be to listen to these overhead sounds with atmos, then replay the scene with something like plIIz height or neo x and listen if these same sounds are played elsewhere.

If this has been asked before, my apologies...thanks in advance fellas!


----------



## aaranddeeman

1forsnow said:


> I have a question about Atmos that i had asked prior to atmos officially becoming implemented. So now that its live, I would like to ask it again.
> 
> Lets say you have an atmos enabled AVR and discrete Atmos content(jets, wind, rain, music,etc) is being sent to the overhead channels. Thats great. But what happens to this content(metadata) if you dont have an Atmos AVR yet? Is it just discarded by the AVR or is it re-mixed and sent to the 5,7 or 9 base channels? I guess an easy test would be to listen to these overhead sounds with atmos, then replay the scene with something like plIIz height or neo x and listen if these same sounds are played elsewhere.
> 
> If this has been asked before, my apologies...thanks in advance fellas!


IMHO, if you don't have Atmos AVR, then you don't get the Atmos decoded. So you will obviously get the one of the legacy codecs that disk has. It may DD-THD or simply DD-5.1.
It's the same logic when you did not have the AVR that could decode the HD codecs (like DD-THD, DTS-HDMA).


----------



## jdsmoothie

So I finally got some up-firing speakers (Def Tech A60) and am also using a set of the Focal Sib satellite speakers angled up in my 8' popcorn in a 7.1.4 setup. In both cases the speakers are placed just slightly above my ear height as DF and DS. As I wanted to focus solely on the effect of these speakers, I watched the entire T4 movie with audio going only to these 4 speakers, which was no big loss as the dialogue is so bad in this movie it was nice just being able to focus on the visual scenes. At no time did I sense the audio coming from the ceiling, rather it was easily localized from the speakers themselves. I'll reserve final judgement after using them a few more weeks.

Some interesting facts about the T4 movie:

Total movie time: 157 minutes

Total active speaker time: 30 minutes (22 min = singing/non-overhead related background music; *8 min *(planes, helicopters, what you would expect from overhead speakers))


----------



## WayneJoy

1forsnow said:


> I have a question about Atmos that i had asked prior to atmos officially becoming implemented. So now that its live, I would like to ask it again.
> 
> Lets say you have an atmos enabled AVR and discrete Atmos content(jets, wind, rain, music,etc) is being sent to the overhead channels. Thats great. But what happens to this content(metadata) if you dont have an Atmos AVR yet? Is it just discarded by the AVR or is it re-mixed and sent to the 5,7 or 9 base channels? I guess an easy test would be to listen to these overhead sounds with atmos, then replay the scene with something like plIIz height or neo x and listen if these same sounds are played elsewhere.
> 
> If this has been asked before, my apologies...thanks in advance fellas!


If you have a disc you will get Dolby True HD, if it is a download you will get DD+.


----------



## Archaea

jdsmoothie said:


> So I finally got some up-firing speakers (Def Tech A60) and am also using a set of the Focal Sib satellite speakers angled up in my 8' popcorn in a 7.1.4 setup. In both cases the speakers are placed just slightly above my ear height as DF and DS. As I wanted to focus solely on the effect of these speakers, I watched the entire T4 movie with audio going only to these 4 speakers, which was no big loss as the dialogue is so bad in this movie it was nice just being able to focus on the visual scenes. At no time did I sense the audio coming from the ceiling, rather it was easily localized from the speakers themselves. I'll reserve final judgement after using them a few more weeks.
> 
> Some interesting facts about the T4 movie:
> 
> Total movie time: 157 minutes
> 
> Total active speaker time: 30 minutes (22 min = singing/background music; 8 min (planes, helicopters, what you would expect from overhead speakers))




Were the 8 minutes of effects spread evenly throughout - or heavily loaded towards a specific scene or portion of the movie?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Selden Ball said:


> The angles, i.e. the directions toward the speakers, are what matter, not whether they're mounted on walls or ceiling. However, you don't need to stress over them. Current evidence suggests that the overhead sounds don't vary a lot from one designated speaker position to another.


 If it is the angles that matter (and I agree that is the case), then the angles matter. What does that have to do with whether the sounds fed those speakers is the same or not?



> One pair just needs to be toward the front, and the other toward the rear.


This seems to downplay that the angles matter.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Archaea said:


> Were the 8 minutes of effects spread evenly throughout - or heavily loaded towards a specific scene or portion of the movie?


Spread evenly throughout although on average only 2-4 seconds as you would likely expect. As has been previously pointed out, it was amazing how many scenes that could have taken advantage of overhead audio were completely silent, like jets flying by. If overhead time was a premium, it's a shame so much was used for background music and singing.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> The report shows that there's virtually no difference between steady-state pink noise measurements and swept sine with a long window.
> The problem isn't the measurements but the lack of psychoacoustic knowledge, i.e. how to relate measurements and perception! Audio is still in the stone ages compared to picture.


This report is from a Study Group that gathered information about the current state of cinema calibration. It is a different work group, under Brian Long of Skywalker Sound, where the actual recommendations are being developed. Those recommendations currently include use of multiple time windowed measurements for the reason you cite.

If you want to see what's happening in the kitchen, it is not difficult to join SMPTE, gain access to all the documents under development, and to offer contributions to the discussions and drafting process.


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> You might well conclude that that is your best option, but it is by no means your only true option. If you aren't prepared to accept the compromise presented by wall-mounted FH, you can always go with ceiling-mounted speakers; I calculate that you would need to place them no less than 7.8 feet in front of the MLP (measured horizontally)--i.e., about half the distance to the front sound stage--in order to meet the minimum recommended angle of 30 degrees for FH. That may or may not work out acceptably for non-Atmos/DSU modes, but it's still a viable option.


Thanks kindly for all the info. It is appreciated!! To your point, I think more testing is required on my end. I will say that I couldn't hear any difference between my FH and upfiring fronts with the ATMOS demo trailers. Sure wish there was more content


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Roger, in one sense, stereo imaging seems to me to be even LESS "stable"? Mono "imaging" (if there is such a thing): one speaker, for example, center speaker. Sound is always in the middle, no matter where one sits. The center speaker "anchors" the sound there.


It is mono _phantom _imaging at issue, as this is how objects are positioned among the many speakers available. 



> It's interesting that even as more speakers are added with immersive surround techniques, phantom imaging's one principle remains true: the (laterally) middle seat in between left and right pairs of speakers is the only "perfect" seat, with ideal imaging?


As more speakers are added, the angle to the listener gets smaller. If the mixer wanted a sound located a little off-center, say 15° to the right, that apparent position will be more fragile (subject to shift) when played from the L/R pair in a stereo system than from the C/R pair in a 5.1 system. The more speakers available, the more reliable are the mini phantom images they present.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> I do not understand the distinction, nor how it relates with the specific topic which was about the rendering of sounds based on the actual positions of speakers rather than default positions.
> 
> BTW, stereo phantom imaging uses exactly the same mechanism as mono phantom imaging, and it no more stable in localization.


To the best of my knowledge a mono phantom image (= same sound coming from both speakers) is only stable when positioned exactly in the middle between left and right speaker, and panning to either side can only be accomplished by introducing amplitude difference (pan-pot controls). In contrast, an off-center (simulated) stereo phantom image depends on adding a small delay (.1 to .7 ms) to left or right speaker which gives a more stable localization.

The relevance of explaining this difference originated from my reaction to a question of redjr:

_Originally Posted by redjr 
I thought the whole point with Atmos was that it DID do positional rendering vis a via phantom imaging by using DSP and Dolby trickery? Maybe positional rendering and phantom imaging are two different animals?_


----------



## westmd

Due to some room and equipment restrictions I have two different possibilities to implement Atmos:

1. Have one in-celing speaker pair each located at top front and top height but have only 5.1 bed speakers so no rears!

2. Have one apeaker each for front height (located only at an elevation of 16 deg) and top rear but have a full 7.1 bed setup!

What do you think is better?


----------



## pasender91

westmd said:


> Due to some room and equipment restrictions I have two different possibilities to implement Atmos:
> 
> 1. Have one in-celing speaker pair each located at top front and top height but have only 5.1 bed speakers so no rears!
> 
> 2. Have one apeaker each for front height (located only at an elevation of 16 deg) and top rear but have a full 7.1 bed setup!
> 
> What do you think is better?


Your message is not clear

1) you speak about "Top Height" where is that ?? , i assume you meant Top Middle
2) are you really speaking of ONE speaker in FH and ONE in TR, i assume you meant a pair at each location.

With those assumptions i would go with option 1), in option 2) 16° is too low, too far away from the minimum of 30°.


----------



## asharma

asharma said:


> Thanks kindly for all the info. It is appreciated!! To your point, I think more testing is required on my end. I will say that I couldn't hear any difference between my FH and upfiring fronts with the ATMOS demo trailers. Sure wish there was more content


Given the infancy of ATMOS I started second guessing the purchase of the Denon 4100w as the Denon 4000 would have also been a nice upgrade with 32xt and subeq that I didn't have before and since the 4000 is last yrs model, I thought I could pick up a close out deal.

Well, I just watched Transporter 3 with DSU using my FH and upfiring rears. Wow wow wow, DSU is also a nice upgrade!!! Farrrrrrr more info coming from FH with DSU and the upfiring rears are faaaaaaar more immersive!!! Wow!

I'm now watching Star Trek in to Darkeness on Netflix to test sound. Dolby ATMOS/surround is a movie mode option, which surprises me as the native format is DD plus. When I chose Dolby ATMOS/surround as the option, the display on the 4100 still reads DD plus + DDS...any idea why?


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> To the best of my knowledge a mono phantom image (= same sound coming from both speakers) is only stable *when positioned exactly in the middle between left and right speaker*, and panning to either side can only be accomplished by introducing amplitude difference (pan-pot controls).


Pairwise amplitude panning is the most common form of panning. The ubiquitous pan pot, for example. By stability, I think we are referring to the consistency of the perceived location as the listener moves. If the listener is not moving, the image remains stable (stationary), but it may be coming from a direction different than was intended. The famous "collapse to the nearest speaker" problem when one is not seated equidistant between a pair of speakers. In that case, the best stability happens when the sound is panned to either end, only to a single speaker. The best consistency happens when the listener is seated in the same position as the mixer.



> In contrast, an off-center (simulated) stereo phantom image depends on adding a small delay (.1 to .7 ms) to left or right speaker which gives a more stable localization.


There are indeed other forms of panning that use time delay. But this is not part of how movie content is generally created. Are there examples where this is in use?



> The relevance of explaining this difference originated from my reaction to a question of redjr:
> 
> _Originally Posted by redjr
> I thought the whole point with Atmos was that it DID do positional rendering vis a via phantom imaging by using DSP and Dolby trickery? Maybe positional rendering and phantom imaging are two different animals?_


Object audio systems have to ability to adapt the encoded positions of sounds to the available speaker positions. The range of "panners" or rendering techniques is not limited. We eventually expect to see amplitude panning (VBAP is a favorite), Ambisonics or HOA, wavefield synthesis (WFS), distance-based amplitude panning (DBAP), and who knows what else. For the moment, VBAP-type rendering is what's in use for direct object imaging, so my replies have been confined to that.


----------



## Selden Ball

asharma said:


> Given the infancy of ATMOS I started second guessing the purchase of the Denon 4100w as the Denon 4000 would have also been a nice upgrade with 32xt and subeq that I didn't have before and since the 4000 is last yrs model, I thought I could pick up a close out deal.
> 
> Well, I just watched Transporter 3 with DSU using my FH and upfiring rears. Wow wow wow, DSU is also a nice upgrade!!! Farrrrrrr more info coming from FH with DSU and the upfiring rears are faaaaaaar more immersive!!! Wow!
> 
> I'm now watching Star Trek in to Darkeness on Netflix to test sound. Dolby ATMOS/surround is a movie mode option, which surprises me as the native format is DD plus. When I chose Dolby ATMOS/surround as the option, the display on the 4100 still reads DD plus + DDS...any idea why?


Although Atmos can be transported over DD+, the streaming services are not yet providing it.


----------



## kingwiggi

I know this will be a challenge for some but if you want it enough you will find a way.

I did 

http://www.jdunion.com/thread-5138559-1-1.html

Few tips

1. Do yourself a favor and use Chrome's auto translation.
2. Click the link just below the jacket artwork. Use the password immediately below that link; on the next screen.
3. Create a Baidu account
4. Copy the file to your online drive (5GB Free, its like dropbox)
5. Install the *Baidu Drive *desktop download manager 
6. Sync
7. Be prepared to wait awhile


Yes it's the real deal 'Atmos Demonstration Disc'. If someone wants to download it and create a torrent then so be it.

BTW, You can practically forget about using a browser to download this file. I had been trying it using chrome and firefox for about 4 hours, each time it would time out on me or go into some strange download loop which kept resetting itself. Tried a few browser based download manager plugins also but they didn't help. Worked the first time after installing the Baidu Drive. You just need to be very patient, its a 4-5 hour download.

And before anyone asks, no I don't speak or read Mandarin.


----------



## rnewste

kingwiggi said:


> I know this will be a challenge for some but if you want it enough you will find a way.
> 
> I did
> 
> http://www.jdunion.com/thread-5138559-1-1.html
> 
> Couple of tips
> 
> 1. Do yourself a favor and use Chrome's auto translation.
> 2. Create a Baido account
> 3. Copy the file to your online drive (5GB Free, its like dropbox)
> 4. Install the *Baidu Drive *desktop download manager
> 5. Sync
> 6. Be prepared to wait awhile


I am sure there are several Atmos AVR owners who would be willing to pay you a reasonable price for a copy of this disc.

If this is not permitted on AVS, then you could supply them via Ebay. I'll be your first customer!

Raybo


----------



## kingwiggi

rnewste said:


> I am sure there are several Atmos AVR owners who would be willing to pay you a reasonable price for a copy of this disc.
> 
> If this is not permitted on AVS, then you could supply them via Ebay. I'll be your first customer!
> 
> Raybo


I'll leave that little enterprise to someone else.


----------



## DaJoJo

the things people would do for just 34 minutes demo ...
password is : kz8e case u need it..


----------



## rnewste

DaJoJo said:


> the things people would do for just 34 minutes demo ...
> password is : kz8e case u need it..


There is an original one on Ebay right now for over $90 with 30 bidders, so I think an enterprising person could make some good coin selling the Chinese copy.

Raybo


----------



## kingwiggi

DaJoJo said:


> the things people would do for just 34 minutes demo ...
> password is : kz8e case u need it..


Yep spent quite some time over the last few weeks searching for that sucker. But it was worth it. 

Trust me, its a very good 34 minute demo to show your system off. It should have been included with every Atmos AVR. 

Plus after watching TF4 for the umpteenth time you'll be so so so glad you have it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaJoJo said:


> the things people would do for just 34 minutes demo ...
> password is : kz8e case u need it..


Password for what pray tell.


----------



## DaJoJo

kingwiggi said:


> Yep spent quite some time over the last few weeks searching for that sucker. But it was worth it.
> Trust me, its a very good 34minute demo to show you system off. It should have been included with every Atmos AVR.
> Plus after watching TF4 for the umpteenth time you'll be so so so glad you have it.


i bet you did, it isn't easy to find indeed. thank you for that. even on my 7.2 system without atmos i can clearly hear the difference, it's so much better sounding then a normal truehd. it's really nice and i can't wait to hear it in real atmos. just watched TF4 1 time and find it's soundtrack lacking good lfe and it's a shame they didn't utilize atmos to it's capabilities, which you can clearly notice when listening to this atmos demo's even on a normal truehd system.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> Yep spent quite some time over the last few weeks searching for that sucker. But it was worth it.
> 
> *Trust me, its a very good 34minute demo to show you system off.
> It should have been included with every Atmos AVR.*
> 
> Plus after watching TF4 for the umpteenth time you'll be so so so glad you have it.


A totally agree. 

______

* Two years from now, that "sucker" (Dolby Atmos demo disc), will be available in that discount bin from Walmart for five bucks.


----------



## DaJoJo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Password for what pray tell.


----------



## JKR1963

I have just bought two pairs of Energy EAS-6C in ceiling speaker's for future Atmos/ Auro 3D and possible DTS UHD use.


I thought these may be a good match for my current speaker's.....all Energy (except my subs) RC-70 front left and right, RC-LCR center, RC-70 left and right surround and RC-50 back surrounds. This configuration currently sounds mind blowing.................


I was thinking that the EAS-6C's would be a good match as they have good reviews online and are from 2004 (Energy's API Era). 


Does anyone have any comments about adding the EAS-6C's to my current setup. The intended setup will be the "Mixing Format" 7.1.4.


I am currently using an Onkyo TX-NR3009 but will change to something newer when HDMI 2.0 (full capability) and HDCP 2.2 or whatever comes out.......I want to switch 4K Blu for sure...so I will be waiting awhile.


----------



## westmd

pasender91 said:


> Your message is not clear
> 
> 1) you speak about "Top Height" where is that ?? , i assume you meant Top Middle
> 2) are you really speaking of ONE speaker in FH and ONE in TR, i assume you meant a pair at each location.
> 
> With those assumptions i would go with option 1), in option 2) 16° is too low, too far away from the minimum of 30°.


Sorry I was not clear! 
Option 1 means top rear and top front, a pair of speakers each!
Option 2 means again a pair of speakers each, top rear and front height with given 16 degrees!


----------



## Trigen

DaJoJo said:


>


Thank you.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kingwiggi said:


> 7. Be prepared to wait awhile


It was a royal pain guessing which button to click on the sync tool but I got there in the end. It took about 20 minutes to sync up.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

are you running the file from you computer?

is this somthing I can put on a flash drive and run on my OPPO like the trailers?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Brian Fineberg said:


> are you running the file from you computer?
> 
> is this somthing I can put on a flash drive and run on my OPPO like the trailers?


Yes, if you get it look in the folder BDMV > STREAM > and you will find 11 .m2ts files. Just play them on your OPPO like you did with the other trailers.

Also I don't have any Atmos AVR to enjoy this on yet.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Lesmor said:


> Thanks Brian
> I now remember seeing that
> Those 4 ceiling speakers look well positioned, bet you cannot drag yourself away to finish the room now
> Mods
> Any chance of a sticky for pics, might well have missed some others amongst the many posts
> Regards
> Andy





Mashie Saldana said:


> Yes, if you get it look in the folder BDMV > STREAM > and you will find 11 .m2ts files. Just play them on your OPPO like you did with the other trailers.
> 
> Also I don't have any Atmos AVR to enjoy this on yet.


ok Ill give it a shot tonight...to see how it goes


----------



## Brian Fineberg

im unable to setup an account...i cant get the verification code to sms...am I doing somthing wrong?


----------



## kingwiggi

Mashie Saldana said:


> It was a royal pain guessing which button to click on the sync tool but I got there in the end. It took about 20 minutes to sync up.


20 minutes, :eeksurprise::eeksurprise:

Damm, I need to upgrade my internet connection.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Brian Fineberg said:


> im unable to setup an account...i cant get the verification code to sms...am I doing somthing wrong?


Enter your email address instead of a phone number, the translation is a bit unclear.

So the three boxes are:

Email
Password
Verification


----------



## Brian Fineberg

thank you!


----------



## jacovn

I could not registrate also, no sms message came through. Asked on a usenet forum there there it was 


If you have usenet, it is out therein the group a.b.x named DOLBY ATMOS DEMONSTRATION DISC
Might need to be quick with the DMCA takedowns though..


----------



## jacovn

Good thing it is on the open usenet, should learn those poeple aksing $200 for a free given demo disc. Also saves Dolby some distribution cost


----------



## sdurani

Steve Goff said:


> The Tannoy spec for the Di6 DC is 90 degrees conical dispersion at -6 dB, which means that they maintain that dispersion for 45 degrees off axis.


Thanx Steve.


kbarnes701 said:


> The polar dispersion is shown in the spec sheet. 90° conical is how they describe it.


In that case, you might want to re-think telling other posters that they meet Dolby's recommended dispersion of 90 degrees off axis.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

can you provide a link to usenet...I am not familiar...thanks!


----------



## kingwiggi

Brian Fineberg said:


> can you provide a link to usenet...I am not familiar...thanks!


You'll probably want to wait for a torrent to appear, usenet is quite unwieldy for the uninitiated.


----------



## kokishin

kingwiggi said:


> I know this will be a challenge for some but if you want it enough you will find a way.
> 
> I did
> 
> http://www.jdunion.com/thread-5138559-1-1.html
> 
> Few tips
> 
> 1. Do yourself a favor and use Chrome's auto translation.
> 2. Click the link just below the jacket artwork. Use the password immediately below that link; on the next screen.
> 3. Create a Baidu account
> 4. Copy the file to your online drive (5GB Free, its like dropbox)
> 5. Install the *Baidu Drive *desktop download manager
> 6. Sync
> 7. Be prepared to wait awhile
> 
> 
> Yes it's the real deal 'Atmos Demonstration Disc'. If someone wants to download it and create a torrent then so be it.
> 
> BTW, You can practically forget about using a browser to download this file. I had been trying it using chrome and firefox for about 4 hours, each time it would time out on me or go into some strange download loop which kept resetting itself. Tried a few browser based download manager plugins also but they didn't help. Worked the first time after installing the Baidu Drive. You just need to be very patient, its a 4-5 hour download.
> 
> And before anyone asks, no I don't speak or read Mandarin.


Thanks. I'm downloading the files now. Baidu file server is very slow even though I have a very fast internet connection (96Mbps down/up).


----------



## jacovn

Brian Fineberg said:


> can you provide a link to usenet...I am not familiar...thanks!


Well, here is a link to the files and the par2 files, you can save the nzb files for it.
But than you need to check if you isp gives you usenet services for free, or find a free test for 5 GB with a commercial usenet provider.
To download the nzb file you need a newsreader program like grabbit or altbinz.

After download you need to check the files with quickpar, and unrar them back to a .iso

http://www.nzbclub.com/search.aspx?q=DOLBY+ATMOS+DEMONSTRATION+DISC&st=1

Torrent is more easy indeed


----------



## Al Sherwood

jacovn said:


> Well, here is a link to the files and the par2 files, you can save the nzb files for it.
> But than you need to check if you isp gives you usenet services for free, or find a free test for 5 GB with a commercial usenet provider.
> To download the nzb file you need a newsreader program like grabbit or altbinz.
> 
> After download you need to check the files with quickpar, and unrar them back to a .iso
> 
> http://www.nzbclub.com/search.aspx?q=DOLBY+ATMOS+DEMONSTRATION+DISC&st=1
> 
> Torrent is more easy indeed



Yes, we need a torrent of this...


----------



## htpcforever

Can someone with the disc create a torrent of it? Create the ISO and just pop it out there and post a link to the .torrent file.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> ...
> There are indeed other forms of panning that use time delay. But this is not part of how movie content is generally created. Are there examples where this is in use?
> 
> Object audio systems have to ability to adapt the encoded positions of sounds to the available speaker positions. The range of "panners" or rendering techniques is not limited. We eventually expect to see amplitude panning (VBAP is a favorite), Ambisonics or HOA, wavefield synthesis (WFS), distance-based amplitude panning (DBAP), and who knows what else. For the moment, VBAP-type rendering is what's in use for direct object imaging, so my replies have been confined to that.


1. What is the advantage, or disadvantage, of time-delay panning over pan-pot amplitude panning pls?
2. Is distance-based amplitude panning (DBAP) an example of panning that uses time delay?


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> 1. What is the advantage, or disadvantage, of time-delay panning over pan-pot amplitude panning pls?


William Gardner sums it up nicely: *Link
*


> 2. Is distance-based amplitude panning (DBAP) an example of panning that uses time delay?


No. It uses more speakers than VBAP (can use all speakers at the same time), but determines the amplitude weighting to each speaker based on the distance to the sound source. I do not see much literature about its subjective performance, but this one tries to do so relative to VBAP and Ambisonics. *Link

*If this is a topic of ongoing interest, we shouldprobably move away from this thread.


----------



## CCSchoch

pasender91 said:


> I don't feel your statement is fair, whether you're in 5.1.0 or 7.1.0 or 9.1.0, you will surely benefit from adding 4 channels on the top level.
> 
> Yes the AVR will use the top speakers on legacy 2.0 or 5.1 soundtracks, this is called Dolby Surround, and from several reports it seems to work very well
> 
> If your goal is to 5.1.4, then the Onkyo 636 737 or 838 are NOT for you, they are limited to 5.1.2. What you need is the Onkyo 1030.
> Alternatives if you dont want an external amp are Pioneer Elite, Denon 5200, Marantz 7009 , or Yamaha 2040.


Thanks for this. While I don't have a back wall in my room, my surrounds are on the wall to the left and the right of my couch about 3 feet above ear level. 

SO, let me ask this... if I add 4 ceiling speakers, should I put two behind the couch for rear speakers and two in front of the couch for a 7.1.2 system 

OR

Should I put two behind the couch and 2 more in the middle of the room (about 4-5 feet in front of the couch) for a 5.1.4 system?

Thanks for any assistance.


----------



## marky301067

kingwiggi said:


> I know this will be a challenge for some but if you want it enough you will find a way.
> 
> I did
> 
> http://www.jdunion.com/thread-5138559-1-1.html
> 
> Few tips
> 
> 1. Do yourself a favor and use Chrome's auto translation.
> 2. Click the link just below the jacket artwork. Use the password immediately below that link; on the next screen.
> 3. Create a Baidu account
> 4. Copy the file to your online drive (5GB Free, its like dropbox)
> 5. Install the *Baidu Drive *desktop download manager
> 6. Sync
> 7. Be prepared to wait awhile
> 
> 
> Yes it's the real deal 'Atmos Demonstration Disc'. If someone wants to download it and create a torrent then so be it.
> 
> BTW, You can practically forget about using a browser to download this file. I had been trying it using chrome and firefox for about 4 hours, each time it would time out on me or go into some strange download loop which kept resetting itself. Tried a few browser based download manager plugins also but they didn't help. Worked the first time after installing the Baidu Drive. You just need to be very patient, its a 4-5 hour download.
> 
> And before anyone asks, no I don't speak or read Mandarin.


Many thanks, downloading just now 


Update: took me about 30 minutes all in to download, I can confirm that its working perfect on OPPO 105, playing full BBD structure with menus 


I can also confirm that step up all in Atmos soundtrack is excellent in Atmos, especially around chapter 13,14,15, some scenes are demo material, a lot more going on overhead compared with Transformers.


----------



## Selden Ball

CCSchoch said:


> Thanks for this. While I don't have a back wall in my room, my surrounds are on the wall to the left and the right of my couch about 3 feet above ear level.
> 
> SO, let me ask this... if I add 4 ceiling speakers, should I put two behind the couch for rear speakers and two in front of the couch for a 7.1.2 system
> OR
> 
> Should I put two behind the couch and 2 more in the middle of the room (about 4-5 feet in front of the couch) for a 5.1.4 system?
> 
> Thanks for any assistance.


I think you might be confusing the nomenclature. When you add 4 ceiling speakers, that's an x.1.4 configuration no matter where they're located on the ceiling. Surround speakers, whether they're Rear or Side, shouldn't go on the ceiling if you're configuring for Atmos. They should be closer to ear level. Vertical separation between surrounds and overheads is important.

Remember there are five (5) overhead speaker locations: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. The Front Height speaker location has been in use for several years by the various upmixers, although the preferred height for Atmos might be higher than in the past.


----------



## kingwiggi

jacovn said:


> I could not registrate also, no sms message came through. Asked on a usenet forum there there it was
> 
> 
> If you have usenet, it is out therein the group a.b.x named DOLBY ATMOS DEMONSTRATION DISC
> Might need to be quick with the DMCA takedowns though..


I'm not sure that usenet ISO actually works, tried the mt2s files on my oppo and VLC but they did not work. Tried burning the ISO to a Blu-Ray that didn't work either.


----------



## CCSchoch

Selden Ball said:


> I think you might be confusing the nomenclature. When you add 4 ceiling speakers, that's an x.1.4 configuration no matter where they're located on the ceiling. Surround speakers, whether they're Rear or Side, shouldn't go on the ceiling if you're configuring for Atmos. They should be closer to ear level. Vertical separation between surrounds and overheads is important.
> 
> Remember there are five (5) overhead speaker locations: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. The Front Height speaker location has been in use for several years by the various upmixers, although the preferred height for Atmos might be higher than in the past.


I don't think you understand my current setup / limitations. 

Here goes. Currently I am in a 5.1 system (5.2 really since I have 2 subs). Anyway, my surrounds are on the side of my couch as I do not have a back wall in my room, it's open to the kitchen.

I have room to add 4 ceiling speakers. I was going to go to a 5.1.4 with the .4 being Atmos speakers. But someone mentioned to me that I may want to look at going to a 7.1.2. But since I do not have a rear wall to add rears for a 7.1 system, I was asking if it'd be better to add rears in the ceiling and have a 7.1.2 OR w/ my 4 ceiling speakers stick with the 5.1.4 route.

Clearer now?

Thanks


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Pairwise amplitude panning is the most common form of panning. The ubiquitous pan pot, for example. By stability, I think we are referring to the consistency of the perceived location as the listener moves. If the listener is not moving, the image remains stable (stationary), but it may be coming from a direction different than was intended. The famous "collapse to the nearest speaker" problem when one is not seated equidistant between a pair of speakers. In that case, the best stability happens when the sound is panned to either end, only to a single speaker. The best consistency happens when the listener is seated in the same position as the mixer.


Good to know, I did not realize that in a surround mix the positioning or movement of particular sounds is hardly ever simulated by using time delays. Maybe it is a technique which is more common in making certain musical mixes. 



Roger Dressler said:


> There are indeed other forms of panning that use time delay. But this is not part of how movie content is generally created. Are there examples where this is in use?


Apart from simulating stereo phantom images, which apparently are not or rarely used in movie mixes, there are of course the recorded stereo soundtracks and surround recordings that contain all the subtle delays between speakers which create localization of numerous sounds (and also the natural reverberations that contribute to a lifelike sound). But I do understand that all this has no specific relevance for the discussion on how Atmos works or how it differs from standard surround.



Roger Dressler said:


> Object audio systems have to ability to adapt the encoded positions of sounds to the available speaker positions. The range of "panners" or rendering techniques is not limited. We eventually expect to see amplitude panning (VBAP is a favorite), Ambisonics or HOA, wavefield synthesis (WFS), distance-based amplitude panning (DBAP), and who knows what else. For the moment, VBAP-type rendering is what's in use for direct object imaging, so my replies have been confined to that.


Thanks for all that info. 

One related thing that I also have been struggling with in my mind: Are stereo objects rendered the same way as mono object? That is, if possible put in the one speaker that is closest to the intended position? And thereby losing any of the discussed localization characteristics within that specific sound?


----------



## pasender91

CCSchoch said:


> I don't think you understand my current setup / limitations.
> 
> Here goes. Currently I am in a 5.1 system (5.2 really since I have 2 subs). Anyway, my surrounds are on the side of my couch as I do not have a back wall in my room, it's open to the kitchen.
> 
> I have room to add 4 ceiling speakers. I was going to go to a 5.1.4 with the .4 being Atmos speakers. But someone mentioned to me that I may want to look at going to a 7.1.2. But since I do not have a rear wall to add rears for a 7.1 system, I was asking if it'd be better to add rears in the ceiling and have a 7.1.2 OR w/ my 4 ceiling speakers stick with the 5.1.4 route.
> 
> Clearer now?
> 
> Thanks


Yes now it's clear, it wasn't before 
And the answer is clear: if you place speakers in the ceiling, by all means declare them as top speakers, in this particular case 5.1.4 will sound MUCH better than 7.1.2 with back surrounds on the ceiling !!!
You can also declare the front ceiling speakers as wides if you like, just joking now


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> William Gardner sums it up nicely: *Link
> *
> No. It uses more speakers than VBAP (can use all speakers at the same time), but determines the amplitude weighting to each speaker based on the distance to the sound source. I do not see much literature about its subjective performance, but this one tries to do so relative to VBAP and Ambisonics. *Link
> 
> *If this is a topic of ongoing interest, we shouldprobably move away from this thread.


Great informative Links Roger; thanx a bunch.


----------



## Selden Ball

CCSchoch said:


> I don't think you understand my current setup / limitations.
> 
> Here goes. Currently I am in a 5.1 system (5.2 really since I have 2 subs). Anyway, my surrounds are on the side of my couch as I do not have a back wall in my room, it's open to the kitchen.
> 
> I have room to add 4 ceiling speakers. I was going to go to a 5.1.4 with the .4 being Atmos speakers. But someone mentioned to me that I may want to look at going to a 7.1.2. But since I do not have a rear wall to add rears for a 7.1 system, I was asking if it'd be better to add rears in the ceiling and have a 7.1.2 OR w/ my 4 ceiling speakers stick with the 5.1.4 route.
> 
> Clearer now?
> 
> Thanks


I guess I wasn't clear enough either. 

As pasender91 wrote, putting Rear Surrounds in the ceiling won't produce the intended results, since Atmos and the new Dolby Surround upmixer expect all of the Surround speakers to be at ear height. Speakers which are in the ceiling should be given overhead speaker designations so Atmos and DSU will direct sounds to the appropriate speakers.

Now, you just have to decide where to put the speakers (so they sound best) and which names to use (so the right sounds get sent to them). If you put the front-most overhead speakers relatively close to your main speakers, then you could designate them Front Height, and they'd be used by all of the upmixers available in your receiver. If you have enough room behind the seating area, I'd recommend putting the rear-most overhead speakers at an angle corresponding to Top Rear. That'd give you a noticeable front-to-rear separation.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> William Gardner sums it up nicely: *Link*http://books.google.com/books?id=u0...a=X&ei=9H5OVKz4M9TtoASm2oH4BA&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA
> 
> 
> No. It uses more speakers than VBAP (can use all speakers at the same time), but determines the amplitude weighting to each speaker based on the distance to the sound source. I do not see much literature about its subjective performance, but this one tries to do so relative to VBAP and Ambisonics. *Link*
> 
> *If this is a topic of ongoing interest, we should probably move away from this thread*.


 

Not to worry, Roger; you've scared me off with that second link . Kidding aside, thanks.


----------



## bass addict

What effect do you think it would make on imaging between a surround speaker mounted near ear height, or a surround speakers mounted higher on the wall but pointed down towards the listening position? 

Those of us with narrower rooms makes it tougher to mount speakers at ear height. Also, those of us with risers, the rear surrounds are a long ways from being mounted at ear height. I know the specs state no more than like 1.25x the height of the front surrounds, which would also require the side surrounds to be mounted higher to accomplish this. I'm going to be DIY'ing the surrounds and tops to go with my current DIY front and heights, so building an angle baffle would be pretty easy. I'd just prefer to keep it higher on the wall so it's not sticking out of the wall so much when walking between rows.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Good to know, I did not realize that in a surround mix the positioning or movement of particular sounds is hardly ever simulated by using time delays. Maybe it is a technique which is more common in making certain musical mixes.


Do music mixers add time delays? Seems that would cause comb filtering when downmixed.



> Apart from simulating stereo phantom images, which apparently are not or rarely used in movie mixes, there are of course the recorded stereo soundtracks and surround recordings that contain all the subtle delays between speakers which create localization of numerous sounds (and also the natural reverberations that contribute to a lifelike sound). But I do understand that all this has no specific relevance for the discussion on how Atmos works or how it differs from standard surround.


Yes. Time delays are of course inherent in the capture of spatial sound, so to whatever extent stereo or multichannel recordings are used in film mixing, that remains. And same goes for artificially manufactured effects processors, e.g. reverbs, flangers, etc. 



> One related thing that I also have been struggling with in my mind: Are stereo objects rendered the same way as mono object? That is, if possible put in the one speaker that is closest to the intended position? And thereby losing any of the discussed localization characteristics within that specific sound?


In MDA, a stereo object is 2 mono objects with a common position handle. Instead of positioning each object separately, they are positioned with +/- offset to a common midpoint. 

Forcing an object to the closest speaker is called "snap." As MDA does not currently have snap, I do not know how that would be interpreted for a stereo object. My guess would be each object would need to find the closest speaker, but somehow prevent them from both finding the same speaker. Or, perhaps snap is simply not supported for stereo objects.


----------



## Selden Ball

bass addict said:


> What effect do you think it would make on imaging between a surround speaker mounted near ear height, or a surround speakers mounted higher on the wall but pointed down towards the listening position?
> 
> Those of us with narrower rooms makes it tougher to mount speakers at ear height. Also, those of us with risers, the rear surrounds are a long ways from being mounted at ear height. I know the specs state no more than like 1.25x the height of the front surrounds, which would also require the side surrounds to be mounted higher to accomplish this. I'm going to be DIY'ing the surrounds and tops to go with my current DIY front and heights, so building an angle baffle would be pretty easy. I'd just prefer to keep it higher on the wall so it's not sticking out of the wall so much when walking between rows.


In that case, I'd recommend having the Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds as far back as allowed by Dolby's specs, in order to maximize the distance between them and the rear-most overhead speakers. It's a compromise, of course. 

Don't forget that current cost-effective implementations only support 4 overhead speakers. You seem to have listed more. Dolby does allow for 10 in its Atmos specs, though. One can hope that that many will be supported for less than $32K in coming years.


----------



## CCSchoch

pasender91 said:


> Yes now it's clear, it wasn't before
> And the answer is clear: if you place speakers in the ceiling, by all means declare them as top speakers, in this particular case 5.1.4 will sound MUCH better than 7.1.2 with back surrounds on the ceiling !!!
> You can also declare the front ceiling speakers as wides if you like, just joking now


Thanks!!!

Now to decide to stick with Onkyo (which I've always had and until my recent HDMI board issue that just occurred over the weekend) I loved Onkyo or make a switch to Denon.


----------



## bass addict

Selden Ball said:


> In that case, I'd recommend having the Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds as far back as allowed by Dolby's specs, in order to maximize the distance between them and the rear-most overhead speakers. It's a compromise, of course.


They are going to be where they are. I have them flushed into my columns so their position is pretty much fixed. That being said, the rears are on the back wall (about 8' behind first row and 2' behind second row) and the sides are about 18-24" behind the first row seats. 

This is one of the reasons I'm really watching the new Yamaha update closely. Speaker angle measurement will certainly help in less than ideal situations. 



> Don't forget that current cost-effective implementations only support 4 overhead speakers. You seem to have listed more. Dolby does allow for 10 in its Atmos specs, though. One can hope that that many will be supported for less than $32K in coming years.


I don't think I did list more? I will be running 7.1.4. This brings up the next question though, and I'm not sure anyone has an answer. 

Currently I'm running FH's which cost a bit to DIY (dual TD6 drivers with BMS CD). I'd like to keep these but not at expense of sound stage. 

If I continued to run the FH's would one recommend installing the remaining overhead height speaker based on only having one top, or would you mount it as if you had 2 tops?


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> What effect do you think it would make on imaging between a surround speaker mounted near ear height, or a surround speakers mounted higher on the wall but pointed down towards the listening position?


I do not think the pointing does anything for the issue of directional separation between the base layer and the height speakers. 



> Those of us with narrower rooms makes it tougher to mount speakers at ear height.


Agreed. I for one am not too swayed by the idea that the surrounds all of a sudden need to be at ear level. The reason Dolby cites, ITU listening conditions, have no bearing on this at all. The ITU specs were defined for testing audio codecs and the like in a consistent way across multiple controlled labs, not for optimizing home theaters. And cinemas are not lowering their surrounds. 

HST, the surrounds should not be so high as to crowd out the ability of the height speakers from bringing their unique directional/spatial value. A 20° elevation offset is clearly audible, and 30° is probably a good minimum. More is gravy.

*ETA: Dolby Atmos home installation guidelines states:*


> As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these
> recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
> -- The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference
> point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the
> listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be
> used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
> -- All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2
> meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITUR
> BS.1116-1).


BS.775-3 provides speaker position details for a 5.1 system: 















Notice the surrounds are shown as equal or higher than the fronts, with up to a 15° angle down to the listener. Since they recommend speakers be aimed to the listener, that implies up to 15° elevation is acceptable for the surrounds. That, indeed, is consistent with recommendations from the past.

The reference to BS.1116-1 is more restrictive on speaker height placement. Whereas 775 is for professional monitoring of 5.1 content, 1116 is specifically "_intended for use in the assessment of systems which introduce impairments so small as to be undetectable without rigorous control of the experimental conditions and appropriate statistical analysis_." In other words, for clinical assessment of sound quality, not for content creation or playback by professionals or consumers. Dragging 1116 into the justification for placing surrounds at ear level is a misapplication of 1116, and was never part of Dolby recommendations in the past.


----------



## jacovn

Hmm Hercules seems not to have Dolby Atmos.. At least the bdinfo i saw has this listed:

DTS-HD Master Audio English 5401 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 5401 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
* Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
* Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
* Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB

Sems the USA release..

Anyone with better info ?


----------



## bass addict

Roger Dressler said:


> And cinemas are not lowering their surrounds.


That's a good point. 

Here's what I find interesting, and maybe I'm way off track. The specs state not running Bi/Quad polar speakers due to separating the base layer and top layer. 

I'm not sure why though. If top cues are sent just to the top speakers, why would it matter if you had a bi polar speaker? In an effort of trying to create a seamless blend between all speakers, I'd think a little sound "bleeding" to the other speakers would be beneficial and help tie the entire sound stage together. Thoughts?


----------



## Selden Ball

bass addict said:


> They are going to be where they are. I have them flushed into my columns so their position is pretty much fixed. That being said, the rears are on the back wall (about 8' behind first row and 2' behind second row) and the sides are about 18-24" behind the first row seats.
> 
> This is one of the reasons I'm really watching the new Yamaha update closely. Speaker angle measurement will certainly help in less than ideal situations.
> 
> I don't think I did list more? I will be running 7.1.4. This brings up the next question though, and I'm not sure anyone has an answer.


I probably misread.


> Currently I'm running FH's which cost a bit to DIY (dual TD6 drivers with BMS CD). I'd like to keep these but not at expense of sound stage.


I'm probably not the best person to discuss optimal soundstages. The speaker arrangement in my room is, shall we say, compromised. I like an expanded soundstage: speakers as far apart as reasonable.


> If I continued to run the FH's would one recommend installing the remaining overhead height speaker based on only having one top, or would you mount it as if you had 2 tops?


 I'm not sure if you mean a single speaker (because of expense?) or a single speaker pair. If it's really a single speaker, you'll have to do something unusual to fake-out the AVR, since it expects them to be added in pairs.

Installing the second overhead speaker pair as Top Middle might be appropriate. For various reasons, a lot of people seem to be doing this.


----------



## CCSchoch

Selden Ball said:


> I guess I wasn't clear enough either.
> 
> As pasender91 wrote, putting Rear Surrounds in the ceiling won't produce the intended results, since Atmos and the new Dolby Surround upmixer expect all of the Surround speakers to be at ear height. Speakers which are in the ceiling should be given overhead speaker designations so Atmos and DSU will direct sounds to the appropriate speakers.
> 
> Now, you just have to decide where to put the speakers (so they sound best) and which names to use (so the right sounds get sent to them). If you put the front-most overhead speakers relatively close to your main speakers, then you could designate them Front Height, and they'd be used by all of the upmixers available in your receiver. If you have enough room behind the seating area, I'd recommend putting the rear-most overhead speakers at an angle corresponding to Top Rear. That'd give you a noticeable front-to-rear separation.


Thanks!!! This brings up the question, in my 5.1.4 setup, I have seen posts / pictures where the .4 ceiling speakers kind of surround the main viewing area, with 2 speakers in front of the couch and two speakers behind the couch. While I could do this, I'm limited in space as I have can lights in the ceiling. I'd have to put them about 2 feet in front and 2 feet in back of the couch. Not up on the lingo all the much, but think they'd be designated as Top Middle and Top Rears?

OR 

Should I put two speakers 2 feet behind the couch and then 2 speakers toward the front of the room in the ceiling above the main speakers. So this would be Top Fronts and Top Rears.

Just want to know what sounds best as once I cut the ceiling, they're there to stay.


----------



## bass addict

Selden Ball said:


> I'm not sure if you mean a single speaker (because of expense?) or a single speaker pair. If it's really a single speaker, you'll have to do something unusual to fake-out the AVR, since it expects them to be added in pairs.
> 
> Installing the second overhead speaker pair as Top Middle might be appropriate. For various reasons, a lot of people seem to be doing this.


I'm talking about a pair. If running one pair of tops they are mounted differently than two pairs. 

So I'm wondering if running FH's one should mount them behind the listener (as when running 2 pairs) or above/in front of the listener (as when running 1 pair).


----------



## bass addict

CCSchoch said:


> Just want to know what sounds best as once I cut the ceiling, they're there to stay.


That's the problem with Atmos right now. As of right now, it's all an educated guess on what's going to sound best. I have a lot of similar questions and there just aren't enough people running it (and probably won't be for quite some time) to get a good idea on what is optimal for a given situation.


----------



## Selden Ball

CCSchoch said:


> Thanks!!! This brings up the question, in my 5.1.4 setup, I have seen posts / pictures where the .4 ceiling speakers kind of surround the main viewing area, with 2 speakers in front of the couch and two speakers behind the couch. While I could do this, I'm limited in space as I have can lights in the ceiling. I'd have to put them about 2 feet in front and 2 feet in back of the couch. Not up on the lingo all the much, but think they'd be designated as Top Middle and Top Rears?
> 
> OR
> 
> Should I put two speakers 2 feet behind the couch and then 2 speakers toward the front of the room in the ceiling above the main speakers. So this would be Top Fronts and Top Rears.
> 
> Just want to know what sounds best as once I cut the ceiling, they're there to stay.


Farther apart is better, I think.

So far as designations are concerned, Top Middle + Top Rear is not an allowed combination. There are 5 predefined positions:

Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height.

You're only allowed to use designations which are not adjacent to one another. Your first combination would have to be called Top Front and Top Rear, but I do think they're too close together. I believe that your second combination would be more appropriately designated Front Height (since they're essentially above your main front speakers) and Top Rear. The rear-most speakers might also be in the range where they could be called Top Middle, depending on the height of your ceilings. Their angular elevation (the direction toward the speakers) is what matters, not the distance along the ceiling. I've attached D+M's speaker layout diagram.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CCSchoch said:


> I don't think you understand my current setup / limitations.
> 
> Here goes. Currently I am in a 5.1 system (5.2 really since I have 2 subs). Anyway, my surrounds are on the side of my couch as I do not have a back wall in my room, it's open to the kitchen.
> 
> I have room to add 4 ceiling speakers. I was going to go to a 5.1.4 with the .4 being Atmos speakers. But someone mentioned to me that I may want to look at going to a 7.1.2. But since I do not have a rear wall to add rears for a 7.1 system, I was asking if it'd be better to add rears in the ceiling and have a 7.1.2 OR w/ my 4 ceiling speakers stick with the 5.1.4 route.
> 
> Clearer now?
> 
> Thanks


In your situation, 5.2.4 is the better option.


----------



## Spongebob38

kokishin said:


> Thanks. I'm downloading the files now. Baidu file server is very slow even though I have a very fast internet connection (96Mbps down/up).


Unable to validate confirmation email, asking for Chinese characters. Translation not available.
anyone have a dl'd copy available without having to go through the United Nations.


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> The specs state not running Bi/Quad polar speakers due to separating the base layer and top layer.


Which specs say that? 



> I'm not sure why though.


I see no reason to avoid bi-pole speakers. What's a quad-pole?



> If top cues are sent just to the top speakers, why would it matter if you had a bi polar speaker?


It wouldn't. 



> In an effort of trying to create a seamless blend between all speakers, I'd think a little sound* "bleeding" to the other speakers* would be beneficial and help tie the entire sound stage together. Thoughts?


What would cause bleeding to other speakers? I see no issue either acoustically or electrically from the use of bi-pole speakers. Some have said they are not good, but no one gives a solid reason.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I see no issue either acoustically or electrically from the use of bi-pole speakers. Some have said they are not good, but no one gives a solid reason.


It will change D/R ratio which affects localization, timbre, clarity, loudness.


----------



## bass addict

Roger Dressler said:


> Which specs say that?
> 
> I see no reason to avoid bi-pole speakers. What's a quad-pole?


Dolby's. Axiom QS8's are quadpolar. 



> It wouldn't.
> 
> What would cause bleeding to other speakers? I see no issue either acoustically or electrically from the use of bi-pole speakers. Some have said they are not good, but no one gives a solid reason.





markus767 said:


> It will change D/R ratio which affects localization, timbre, clarity, loudness.


This is my concern. Why would it affect timbre, clarity, and loudness though? This makes no sense.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> It will change D/R ratio which affects localization, timbre, clarity, loudness.


Maybe so. But not enough to matter in a reasonably treated room. Has anyone reported aberrations in surround effect as a result?


----------



## RichB

Audioholics has a nice review of the Denon AVR-X5200W with some Atmos testing:

http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w

There was some Atmos testing with demo material using up-firing modules and in-ceiling speakers. 

- Rich


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> Dolby's.


Could you provide the reference?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Maybe so. But not enough to matter in a reasonably treated room. Has anyone reported aberrations in surround effect as a result?


Then what's the point in getting bipolar speakers if most of the sound energy they radiate gets absorbed anyway?


----------



## markus767

bass addict said:


> This is my concern. Why would it affect timbre, clarity, and loudness though? This makes no sense.


That's a complex topic. Here's a good start: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13686&name=harman


----------



## batpig

brwsaw said:


> I understand what you're trying to say, I think my point has been missed.
> 
> This an Atmos system, trying to place objects where appropriate given the speakers available. The speakers didn't move why would the sound be different?





RichB said:


> Audioholics has a nice review of the Denon AVR-X5200W with some Atmos testing:
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w
> 
> There was some Atmos testing with demo material using up-firing modules and in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> - Rich


Someone already posted this, but thanks again.

Gene does make a few mistakes worth pointing out:

1. He claims that DSU doesn't support front height speakers. This is not true, FH and RH are acceptable locations for elevated speakers. He is correct that it doesn't include wides but he somehow conflated that with heights as well.

2. He claims that DSU has NO adjustable parameters and then complains about too much collapse to the center channel with DSU operating on 2ch music. However, DSU does have the "Center Spread" parameter which is specifically intended for 2ch music and will prevent this effect.

I do think to some degree he also overgeneralizes his judgements on Atmos-enabled speakers based on the Def Tech A60 modules. I also found them to be pretty lackluster but I don't think that's necessarily an indictment of them as a category. He is definitely correct though (at least in my experience) that they are somewhat "fragile" in their ability to succeed in the task, but this is to be expected from virtual speakers vs. real speakers. Ceiling acoustics, ceiling height, speaker position, height, distance from listener etc. will all impact their efficacy.


----------



## noah katz

So do we know what the optimum elevation angles are for two pairs of ceiling speakers (as seen in the oft-posted side view of Dolby's suggested angles) in a 7.x.4 system?

If it's equal angular elevation distance among all speakers then it would be 45 and 135 deg, assuming the L/R are 0 deg and the surround backs at 180 deg.

Seems like it would be hard to go wrong with that, but I see that Dolby's ranges for TF and TR are not symmetric about a vertical axis at the listening position.


----------



## batpig

The diagram in the Denon manuals shows the angular ranges as symmetric with respect to the vertical axis at the LP. Top Front and Top Rear are both spec'd at 35-60 degrees from that axis, and Front Height and Rear Height are both 45-60 degrees from the vertical axis.

Top Middle is asymmetric (the mean is a bit forward of vertical) but that's because AFAIUI it should ideally be slightly forward of LP, not directly overhead.

I would agree that it would be hard to go wrong with around 40-45 degrees fore and aft of the LP if you were doing TF+TR.


----------



## bass addict

markus767 said:


> That's a complex topic. Here's a good start: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13686&name=harman


Thanks, I'll do some reading. 



Roger Dressler said:


> Could you provide the reference?


I could have sworn I read it in the Dolby speaker placement guide. If not then that's interesting, as members have been touting this entire thread that direct radiating speakers only, are to be used for the surrounds.


----------



## pasender91

noah katz said:


> So do we know what the optimum elevation angles are for two pairs of ceiling speakers (as seen in the oft-posted side view of Dolby's suggested angles) in a 7.x.4 system?
> 
> If it's equal angular elevation distance among all speakers then it would be 45 and 135 deg, assuming the L/R are 0 deg and the surround backs at 180 deg.
> 
> Seems like it would be hard to go wrong with that, I see that Dolby's ranges for TF and TR are not symmetric about a vertical axis at the listening position.


Well, Noah, i don't know which school you went too, but math was not their strong point 
In what you describe (0-45-135-180), the separation angles are 45-90-45, not really equal angles between all speakers !! 

Assuming you want equal angles, then the correct configuration would be 0-60-120-180. 
This type of angle looks quite good to me, but is this the best, i don't know ...
Actually it is quite funny to note that those angles are NOT in the ranges appearing in the official documentation!, but this is still very near a TF+TR configuration.
*This official doc clearly displays the TF+TR configuration as the reference when installing 4 ceiling speakers (twice, for 5.1.4 and 7.1.4).*


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Here is a torrent link for the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc:

Link


----------



## Gene DellaSala

batpig said:


> Someone already posted this, but thanks again.
> 
> Gene does make a few mistakes worth pointing out:
> 
> 1. He claims that DSU doesn't support front height speakers. This is not true, FH and RH are acceptable locations for elevated speakers. He is correct that it doesn't include wides but he somehow conflated that with heights as well.
> 
> 2. He claims that DSU has NO adjustable parameters and then complains about too much collapse to the center channel with DSU operating on 2ch music. However, DSU does have the "Center Spread" parameter which is specifically intended for 2ch music and will prevent this effect.
> 
> I do think to some degree he also overgeneralizes his judgements on Atmos-enabled speakers based on the Def Tech A60 modules. I also found them to be pretty lackluster but I don't think that's necessarily an indictment of them as a category. He is definitely correct though (at least in my experience) that they are somewhat "fragile" in their ability to succeed in the task, but this is to be expected from virtual speakers vs. real speakers. Ceiling acoustics, ceiling height, speaker position, height, distance from listener etc. will all impact their efficacy.


Batpig, thanks for pointing out some issues in my review.

1. I updated my comment to apply only to the wides.
2. I wasn't aware of this feature since it wasn't obvious to get to and was buried in the user manual. Not even my Denon contact knew about it!

As such I added this editorial note to my review:
*Editorial Note about Dolby Surround Upmixer Center Spread Feature*
At the time of evaluating the AVR-X5200W, I was unaware of the adjustable parameter called "Center Spread" buried in the user manual on page 176. As such, I had it set in the default (off) position during all of my two-channel listening tests with the DSU engaged. If you prefer to route the center channel signal to the left/right front channels to expand the front soundstage you will want to turn it "on". With DSU engaged, you presumably do this via the OSD since user manual doesn't tell you how specifically and there is no hot button on the remote for it either. Thanks to batpig at AVSForum for pointing this out.

​3. While I plan on testing other Dolby Atmos speakers, the basic physics of the reflective speaker tech is a compromise IMO. I am working on a very detailed article about the Dolby Atmos crossover which talks about this as well. Sadly the HRTF curve seems to be applied exclusively in the analog domain and its quite a mess, especially since it's a one design fits ALL approach. More later....


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> And cinemas are not lowering their surrounds.


That might be true, but to get their Atmos certification they will need to get their top surround arrays high enough to get a lateral elevation of at least 45 degrees + half of the elevation of the side surround arrays.


----------



## chi_guy50

bass addict said:


> What effect do you think it would make on imaging between a surround speaker mounted near ear height, or a surround speakers mounted higher on the wall but pointed down towards the listening position?





Roger Dressler said:


> *I do not think the pointing does anything for the issue of directional separation between the base layer and the height speakers. *


That's an intriguing concept, Roger. Do you think you could explain to a layman such as myself why this is so? And does this imply as a corollary that pointing a top-level speaker toward the MLP will also not impact on the sense of separation--e.g., mitigating for a less-than-ideal elevation angle?


----------



## marky301067

jacovn said:


> Hmm Hercules seems not to have Dolby Atmos.. At least the bdinfo i saw has this listed:
> 
> DTS-HD Master Audio English 5401 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 5401 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
> * Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> * Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> * Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> Sems the USA release..
> 
> Anyone with better info ?



You are correct, there is no Atmos soundtrack


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> That might be true, but to get their Atmos certification they will need to get their top surround arrays high enough to get a lateral elevation of at least 45 degrees + half of the elevation of the side surround arrays.


Seems kinda tricky to pull off, considering the height arrays stay in a fixed line but the audience gets closer to those arrays as you move back in a theatre.


----------



## Scott Simonian

marky301067 said:


> You are correct, there is no Atmos soundtrack


Ummm.

:serious:


----------



## Roger Dressler

chi_guy50 said:


> That's an intriguing concept, Roger. Do you think you could explain to a layman such as myself why this is so? And does this imply as a corollary that pointing a top-level speaker toward the MLP will also not impact on the sense of separation--e.g., mitigating for a less-than-ideal elevation angle?


The pointing of the speakers may change the frequency, depending on how much of change in angle is made, and the speaker's directional characteristics. This will not change the perceived location of the speaker. The direct arrival path remains the same regardless of the frequency response or the returns of the reflected energy. The same holds true for height speakers. 

This is why, even were Atmos renderers able to be programmed to the nth degree of positional detail, that alone will not compensate for speakers placed in less than ideal locations.


----------



## Figarou

jacovn said:


> Hmm Hercules seems not to have Dolby Atmos.. At least the bdinfo i saw has this listed:
> 
> DTS-HD Master Audio English 5401 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 5401 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
> * Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> * Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps / DN -4dB
> * Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps / DN -4dB
> 
> Sems the USA release..
> 
> Anyone with better info ?


Is it possible that each "exclusive" is different?

Take a look at the audio specs of each one.

Walmart exclusive. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-Blu-ray/109839/


----------



## sikclown

Figarou said:


> Is it possible that each "exclusive" is different?
> 
> Take a look at the audio specs of each one.
> 
> Walmart exclusive. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-Blu-ray/109839/


----------



## rnewste

Mashie Saldana said:


> Here is a torrent link for the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc:
> 
> Link


I am not familiar with torrent sites, and when I click on this link I get a site not found:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:46EC1D4804B98BF004A909E652530855F1E1A10E&dn=DOLBY%20ATMOS%20DEMONSTRATION%20DISC.rar

What do I need to do to access the correct site?

Thanks,

Raybo


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> The diagram in the Denon manuals shows the angular ranges as symmetric with respect to the vertical axis at the LP. Top Front and Top Rear are both spec'd at 35-60 degrees from that axis, and Front Height and Rear Height are both 45-60 degrees from the vertical axis.


You're right, thought I saw somewhere that they weren't.



pasender91 said:


> Well, Noah, i don't know which school you went too, but math was not their strong point
> In what you describe (0-45-135-180), the separation angles are 45-90-45, not really equal angles between all speakers !!


Right you are; it seems that I had the 90 deg position preloaded into my brain and counted it as an existing position.



pasender91 said:


> Actually it is quite funny to note that those angles are NOT in the ranges appearing in the official documentation!, but this is still very near a TF+TR configuration.
> *This official doc clearly displays the TF+TR configuration as the reference when installing 4 ceiling speakers (twice, for 5.1.4 and 7.1.4).*


Fig. 14 in Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf is blurry, but it looks like it shows the same 30 - 55 and 125 - 150 as the D+M manuals.

Or maybe you mean does not include 30 and 60 deg, in which case you're right.


----------



## Figarou

sikclown said:


> Yup, I just found all of that info as well. I pre-ordered the 3D disc set so I guess we will find out November 4th.


I guess we need to look at the Blu-Ray disc specifications very carefully in order to get the one with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

rnewste said:


> I am not familiar with torrent sites, and when I click on this link I get a site not found:
> 
> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:46EC1D4804B98BF004A909E652530855F1E1A10E&dn=DOLBY%20ATMOS%20DEMONSTRATION%20DISC.rar
> 
> What do I need to do to access the correct site?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Raybo


You need a torrent client installed on your computer, then the link will start a download: www. b i t t o r r e n t .com


----------



## RichB

Gene DellaSala said:


> Batpig, thanks for pointing out some issues in my review.
> 
> 1. I updated my comment to apply only to the wides.
> 2. I wasn't aware of this feature since it wasn't obvious to get to and was buried in the user manual. Not even my Denon contact knew about it!
> 
> As such I added this editorial note to my review:
> *Editorial Note about Dolby Surround Upmixer Center Spread Feature*
> At the time of evaluating the AVR-X5200W, I was unaware of the adjustable parameter called "Center Spread" buried in the user manual on page 176. As such, I had it set in the default (off) position during all of my two-channel listening tests with the DSU engaged. If you prefer to route the center channel signal to the left/right front channels to expand the front soundstage you will want to turn it "on". With DSU engaged, you presumably do this via the OSD since user manual doesn't tell you how specifically and there is no hot button on the remote for it either. Thanks to batpig at AVSForum for pointing this out.​




​Thanks Batpig and Gene for the updates.


Center-spread in an interesting feature, I have noticed that some spread is included in the mixing.
If memory serves, TF4 has a "wide" center.


- Rich


----------



## Scott Simonian

RichB said:


> [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]Thanks Batpig and Gene for the updates.
> 
> 
> Center-spread in an interesting feature, I have noticed that some spread is included in the mixing.
> If memory serves, TF4 has a "wide" center.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Huh? 

Center spread is used exclusively for the DSU mode when upmixing non-native Atmos content. It really should not be enabled for movie viewing. Nor would one really want to listen to a real Atmos track with DSU instead of actual Atmos.


----------



## RichB

Scott Simonian said:


> Huh?
> 
> Center spread is used exclusively for the DSU mode when upmixing non-native Atmos content. It really should not be enabled for movie viewing. Nor would one really want to listen to a real Atmos track with DSU instead of actual Atmos.


The 7.1 mix (not Atmos) did not pin the vocals entirely in the center channel even when the speaker was in the center of the screen.
This might have been done to increase the size and power of the spoken voices.
In theaters there is a very large screen and the center sounds use multiple center channels, which is a personal preference.


- Rich


----------



## Scott Simonian

Right. I get that. Was not sure what you had meant as it is an actual Atmos track.


----------



## batpig

Gene DellaSala said:


> Batpig, thanks for pointing out some issues in my review.
> 
> 1. I updated my comment to apply only to the wides.
> 2. I wasn't aware of this feature since it wasn't obvious to get to and was buried in the user manual. Not even my Denon contact knew about it!
> 
> As such I added this editorial note to my review:
> *Editorial Note about Dolby Surround Upmixer Center Spread Feature*
> At the time of evaluating the AVR-X5200W, I was unaware of the adjustable parameter called "Center Spread" buried in the user manual on page 176. As such, I had it set in the default (off) position during all of my two-channel listening tests with the DSU engaged. If you prefer to route the center channel signal to the left/right front channels to expand the front soundstage you will want to turn it "on". With DSU engaged, you presumably do this via the OSD since user manual doesn't tell you how specifically and there is no hot button on the remote for it either. Thanks to batpig at AVSForum for pointing this out.


Thanks for stopping by Gene. I was hoping you'd see my comment -- I actually looked for an email link on Audioholics' website so I could alert you to the two errors I noted privately but couldn't find it. Thanks for making the correction.

With respect to the "Center Spread" parameter, I do feel obligated to point out (only since you noted in your review your extensive experience setting these up) that it's located in the exact same place as you would have found the PLIIx Music adjustments (Panorama, Dimension etc) or the still extant DTS Neo:X Music adjustment for Center Gain -- Audio / Surround Parameter. So while I can't make any apologies for the manual, that adjustment is exactly where you should have expected it to be if you had familiarity with the old PLIIx Music adjustments.




Gene DellaSala said:


> 3. While I plan on testing other Dolby Atmos speakers, the basic physics of the reflective speaker tech is a compromise IMO. I am working on a very detailed article about the Dolby Atmos crossover which talks about this as well. Sadly the HRTF curve seems to be applied exclusively in the analog domain and its quite a mess, especially since it's a one design fits ALL approach. More later....


A few things...

1. First, a general comment -- as I already noted, I sort of agree with your take on the A60 modules from my own experience. Like you, I tested them against some regular satellite speakers aimed up (now using a pair of KEF 2005.2 "egg" speakers) and, for me, the increase in fidelity from the superior speaker far outweighs any increase on "Atmos-ness" from the A60 module. I listened to them in stereo and also found them pretty compressed and constrained trying to reproduce music. I think it will be interesting to see how they compare to the much nicer ATech modules with their 5" woofers and 2-way dual concentric design. As far as I'm concerned, my skepticism about what a single 3" full range driver can do hasn't been dispelled.

2. Second, with respect to the crossover.... you made a note in your article about the bass management on the Atmos enabled speakers and how you manually raised the crossover to 250Hz. However, several sources (Dolby included) that these speakers have a special two-tier bass management scheme where they cross over automatically to their "downstairs neighbor" speaker pair below ~180Hz. What I'm wondering is if the crossover freq reported in the speaker menu is actually in effect. Did that 110Hz xover you got override the special bass management? Or is it actually irrelevant because the special bass management for the Atmos-enabled speakers rules (in the same way that the reported distance is supplemented by extra distance assuming ceiling bounce for Atmos-enabled speakers)? Hopefully your connections at Denon/Dolby can clarify, because it's confusing to me.

3. Finally, on the HRTF being only in the analog domain -- don't we also know that it's incorporated into the room EQ target curve? Chris K discussed that in the AH interview on the Atmos-enabled speakers (although it appears to have since been redacted slightly) and also mentioned it on Facebook. Obviously, you don't want the room EQ flattening out the HRTF notches, it should preserve and/or reinforce them. Which is probably another reason why they sounded better with Audyssey engaged, and (I presume) why one can effectively use non-Atmos-enabled speakers pointed up as "fake" modules as long as you calibrate with Audyssey (or other REQ).

On a final note, Denon is definitely aware of the awkward mistake they made with the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode being fairly useless. Hopefully you are right that they fix that a bit with a firmware update.


----------



## bargervais

kingwiggi said:


> I'm not sure that usenet ISO actually works, tried the mt2s files on my oppo and VLC but they did not work. Tried burning the ISO to a Blu-Ray that didn't work either.


I used cyberlink 13 worked perfect right off the files I downloaded and put on a thumb drive... I used cyberlink played in Atmos right from the thumb drive..


----------



## bargervais

marky301067 said:


> You are correct, there is no Atmos soundtrack


That's strange go here it says it's atmos unless the UK is different then the U.S.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-3D-Blu-ray/79111/


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Then what's the point in getting bipolar speakers if most of the sound energy they radiate gets absorbed anyway?


To provide good frequency response to people in, say, 2 rows of seats. Even coverage.


----------



## bargervais

sikclown said:


> Yup, I just found all of that info as well. I pre-ordered the 3D disc set so I guess we will find out November 4th.


That sucks I will also find out November 4th I preordered the 3D multi disc... I will not be happy as I watched it on xbmc and the movie was not one I would buy if not for atmos...


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> I could have sworn I read it in the Dolby speaker placement guide. If not then that's interesting, as members have been touting this entire thread that direct radiating speakers only, are to be used for the surrounds.


Let me know if you find anything on bipoles. As for quadpoles, I'm sure Dolby has never mentioned them.

BTW, I added some additional background detail about Dolby's reference to ITU recommendations on surround speaker elevation in my *previous post*.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

batpig said:


> Thanks for stopping by Gene. I was hoping you'd see my comment -- I actually looked for an email link on Audioholics' website so I could alert you to the two errors I noted privately but couldn't find it. Thanks for making the correction.
> 
> With respect to the "Center Spread" parameter, I do feel obligated to point out (only since you noted in your review your extensive experience setting these up) that it's located in the exact same place as you would have found the PLIIx Music adjustments (Panorama, Dimension etc) or the still extant DTS Neo:X Music adjustment for Center Gain -- Audio / Surround Parameter. So while I can't make any apologies for the manual, that adjustment is exactly where you should have expected it to be if you had familiarity with the old PLIIx Music adjustments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few things...
> 
> 1. First, a general comment -- as I already noted, I sort of agree with your take on the A60 modules from my own experience. Like you, I tested them against some regular satellite speakers aimed up (now using a pair of KEF 2005.2 "egg" speakers) and, for me, the increase in fidelity from the superior speaker far outweighs any increase on "Atmos-ness" from the A60 module. I listened to them in stereo and also found them pretty compressed and constrained trying to reproduce music. I think it will be interesting to see how they compare to the much nicer ATech modules with their 5" woofers and 2-way dual concentric design. As far as I'm concerned, my skepticism about what a single 3" full range driver can do hasn't been dispelled.
> 
> 2. Second, with respect to the crossover.... you made a note in your article about the bass management on the Atmos enabled speakers and how you manually raised the crossover to 250Hz. However, several sources (Dolby included) that these speakers have a special two-tier bass management scheme where they cross over automatically to their "downstairs neighbor" speaker pair below ~180Hz. What I'm wondering is if the crossover freq reported in the speaker menu is actually in effect. Did that 110Hz xover you got override the special bass management? Or is it actually irrelevant because the special bass management for the Atmos-enabled speakers rules (in the same way that the reported distance is supplemented by extra distance assuming ceiling bounce for Atmos-enabled speakers)? Hopefully your connections at Denon/Dolby can clarify, because it's confusing to me.
> 
> 3. Finally, on the HRTF being only in the analog domain -- don't we also know that it's incorporated into the room EQ target curve? Chris K discussed that in the AH interview on the Atmos-enabled speakers (although it appears to have since been redacted slightly) and also mentioned it on Facebook. Obviously, you don't want the room EQ flattening out the HRTF notches, it should preserve and/or reinforce them. Which is probably another reason why they sounded better with Audyssey engaged, and (I presume) why one can effectively use non-Atmos-enabled speakers pointed up as "fake" modules as long as you calibrate with Audyssey (or other REQ).
> 
> On a final note, Denon is definitely aware of the awkward mistake they made with the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode being fairly useless. Hopefully you are right that they fix that a bit with a firmware update.


OK let me add the caveat that I'm intimately familiar with All Denon AV receivers and especially the AVP from the AVR-5308CI and older  I didn't see the Center adjustment in the Sur Parameter menu. Tomorrow I will look around for it before I box it up and ship it back to Denon. Even my contact at Denon was unaware of it as well 

1. Agreed 100% but again realize every "Atmos" module will be subject to the generic 8 element Dolby crossover. However, I am sure not all Dolby speakers are created equal but the crossover is a limiting factor to performance IMO.

2. Not sure about that since Denon allows adjustability but I will inquire. Unfortunately I cannot measure the XFER function for the Atmos channels since there really is no way to do it unless someone comes up with an Atmos test disc with frequency sweeps. AP won't support this so for now, we're in the dark. I seem to recall hearing a difference in bass output when playing a regular speaker through an Atmos channel. The A60s are naturally limited by default so it didn't seem to change it too much.

3. Again no way to confirm it but the bump and dip caused by the analog Atmos crossover is so minor (especially the null), that it's likely inaudible. SO Audyssey may be doing something, especially since IMO the A60s sounded better EQ'ed than not. Still even with Audyssey, I'd rather have no Atmos speakers than having the A60s; especially for music. BTW I didn't rerun Audyssey when I tested a normal speaker for Atmos but I suspect you are correct that it could improve the elevation effect of a regular speaker. I'm also thinking a horn loaded driver to limit dispersion would worth a try too.


----------



## batpig

Gene - as an FYI the Center Spread parameter would only show up with a 2ch input signal. So you probably checked the surround parameter menu when using DSU on a 5.1 multich signal when upmixing movie soundtracks.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.


Thanks I'm downloading it as we speak


----------



## rnewste

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.


Thanks to all who have made this available to us technically challenged folks! I've downloaded the files - so how best to burn them to a blu-ray disc? My BDP does not have a USB port.

thanks,

Raybo (also in Silicon Valley)


----------



## robert816

batpig said:


> 1. First, a general comment -- as I already noted, I sort of agree with your take on the A60 modules from my own experience. Like you, I tested them against some regular satellite speakers aimed up (now using a pair of KEF 2005.2 "egg" speakers) and, for me, the increase in fidelity from the superior speaker far outweighs any increase on "Atmos-ness" from the A60 module. I listened to them in stereo and also found them pretty compressed and constrained trying to reproduce music. I think it will be interesting to see how they compare to the much nicer ATech modules with their 5" woofers and 2-way dual concentric design. As far as I'm concerned, my skepticism about what a single 3" full range driver can do hasn't been dispelled.


 



I too went with KEF 2005.2 "Eggs". I looked at the A60's and decided to take a chance on the KEF's instead. Just finished calibrating my new 5.3.4 Atmos setup. Still needs some tweaking, but overall pretty happy.


----------



## Gene DellaSala

batpig said:


> Gene - as an FYI the Center Spread parameter would only show up with a 2ch input signal. So you probably checked the surround parameter menu when using DSU on a 5.1 multich signal when upmixing movie soundtracks.


Understood, that's how PLIIx works as well. For some reason I just didn't see that option when I was testing two-channel music with the DSU. I will check tomorrow. Thanks.


----------



## bargervais

rnewste said:


> Thanks to all who have made this available to us technically challenged folks! I've downloaded the files - so how best to burn them to a blu-ray disc? My BDP does not have a USB port.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Raybo (also in Silicon Valley)


I'm still downloading I'm going to stick on my network drive a access it from there because I'm not sure how big it will be once I unzip it


----------



## dan webster

kingwiggi said:


> You're Welcome





kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.


Thank you. i am also downloading it as i type this.


----------



## DaJoJo

rnewste said:


> Thanks to all who have made this available to us technically challenged folks! I've downloaded the files - so how best to burn them to a blu-ray disc? My BDP does not have a USB port.
> thanks,
> Raybo (also in Silicon Valley)


http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?/topic/9512-how-to-write-a-blu-ray-video-disc-using-imgburn/


----------



## DaJoJo

bargervais said:


> i'm still downloading i'm going to stick on my network drive a access it from there because i'm not sure how big it will be once i unzip it


3,39gb downloaded in 5 minutes from that magnet link.. use www.utorrent.com
thanx to @Mashie Saldana
http://www.utorrent.com


----------



## NorthSky

Gene DellaSala said:


> Batpig, thanks for pointing out some issues in my review.
> 
> 1. I updated my comment to apply only to the wides.
> 2. I wasn't aware of this feature since it wasn't obvious to get to and was buried in the user manual. Not even my Denon contact knew about it!
> 
> As such I added this editorial note to my review:
> *Editorial Note about Dolby Surround Upmixer Center Spread Feature*
> At the time of evaluating the AVR-X5200W, I was unaware of the adjustable parameter called "Center Spread" buried in the user manual on page 176. As such, I had it set in the default (off) position during all of my two-channel listening tests with the DSU engaged. If you prefer to route the center channel signal to the left/right front channels to expand the front soundstage you will want to turn it "on". With DSU engaged, you presumably do this via the OSD since user manual doesn't tell you how specifically and there is no hot button on the remote for it either. Thanks to batpig at AVSForum for pointing this out.
> 
> ​3. While I plan on testing other Dolby Atmos speakers, the basic physics of the reflective speaker tech is a compromise IMO. I am working on a very detailed article about the Dolby Atmos crossover which talks about this as well. Sadly the HRTF curve seems to be applied exclusively in the analog domain and its quite a mess, especially since it's a one design fits ALL approach. More later....


I enjoyed reading your review of the Denon X5200 Gene, thx.


----------



## NorthSky

marky301067 said:


> You are correct, there is no Atmos soundtrack


And I've heard that *'Hercules'* is a great film. ...That's too bad.


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> And I've heard that *'Hercules'* is a great film. ...That's too bad.


this one ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043726/?ref_=nv_sr_1
it got a 4.2 rating.. not that good apparently


----------



## bass addict

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.


Thank you so much for this. Now maybe we can keep this thread on track.


----------



## NorthSky

Figarou said:


> Is it possible that each "exclusive" is different?
> 
> Take a look at the audio specs of each one.
> 
> Walmart exclusive. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-Blu-ray/109839/


----------



## NorthSky

Figarou said:


> I guess we need to look at the Blu-Ray disc specifications very carefully in order to get the one with Dolby Atmos.


Always look for that Atmos logo on the back of the Blu-ray; that should be your pure 'elevated' indicator.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.


Thanks again I downloaded them stored them on a 8 gig thumb drive now playing them using cyberlink 13 in Atmos very nice..
So thanks again..


----------



## DaJoJo

now all i need is a Atmos enabled 3D tablet for my toilet so i can enjoy watching a movie while using TP for my bunghole


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Thanks for stopping by Gene. I was hoping you'd see my comment -- I actually looked for an email link on Audioholics' website so I could alert you to the two errors I noted privately but couldn't find it. Thanks for making the correction.
> 
> With respect to the "Center Spread" parameter, I do feel obligated to point out (only since you noted in your review your extensive experience setting these up) that it's located in the exact same place as you would have found the PLIIx Music adjustments (Panorama, Dimension etc) or the still extant DTS Neo:X Music adjustment for Center Gain -- Audio / Surround Parameter. So while I can't make any apologies for the manual, that adjustment is exactly where you should have expected it to be if you had familiarity with the old PLIIx Music adjustments.
> 
> A few things...
> 
> 1. First, a general comment -- as I already noted, I sort of agree with your take on the A60 modules from my own experience. Like you, I tested them against some regular satellite speakers aimed up (now using a pair of KEF 2005.2 "egg" speakers) and, for me, the increase in fidelity from the superior speaker far outweighs any increase on "Atmos-ness" from the A60 module. I listened to them in stereo and also found them pretty compressed and constrained trying to reproduce music. I think it will be interesting to see how they compare to the much nicer ATech modules with their 5" woofers and 2-way dual concentric design. As far as I'm concerned, my skepticism about what a single 3" full range driver can do hasn't been dispelled.
> 
> 2. Second, with respect to the crossover.... you made a note in your article about the bass management on the Atmos enabled speakers and how you manually raised the crossover to 250Hz. However, several sources (Dolby included) that these speakers have a special two-tier bass management scheme where they cross over automatically to their "downstairs neighbor" speaker pair below ~180Hz. What I'm wondering is if the crossover freq reported in the speaker menu is actually in effect. Did that 110Hz xover you got override the special bass management? Or is it actually irrelevant because the special bass management for the Atmos-enabled speakers rules (in the same way that the reported distance is supplemented by extra distance assuming ceiling bounce for Atmos-enabled speakers)? Hopefully your connections at Denon/Dolby can clarify, because it's confusing to me.
> 
> 3. Finally, on the HRTF being only in the analog domain -- don't we also know that it's incorporated into the room EQ target curve? Chris K discussed that in the AH interview on the Atmos-enabled speakers (although it appears to have since been redacted slightly) and also mentioned it on Facebook. Obviously, you don't want the room EQ flattening out the HRTF notches, it should preserve and/or reinforce them. Which is probably another reason why they sounded better with Audyssey engaged, and (I presume) why one can effectively use non-Atmos-enabled speakers pointed up as "fake" modules as long as you calibrate with Audyssey (or other REQ).
> 
> On a final note, Denon is definitely aware of the awkward mistake they made with the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode being fairly useless. Hopefully you are right that they fix that a bit with a firmware update.


Batpig, what is your take on the Impedance switch selector of the Denon?


----------



## brwsaw

DaJoJo said:


> now all i need is a Atmos enabled 3D tablet for my toilet so i can enjoy watching a movie while using TP for my bunghole



There, back on topic...


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Batpig, what is your take on the Impedance switch of the Denon?


only use that if the overload protection kicks in. i used 4 ohm speakers for years on my old yammie on 8ohm and never had a problem.


----------



## bargervais

DaJoJo said:


> this one ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043726/?ref_=nv_sr_1
> it got a 4.2 rating.. not that good apparently


I watched it on xbmc couldn't finish it another bad movie but I'm getting it the 3D set just for the atmos hopefully that should add a star to the ratings????


----------



## DaJoJo

brwsaw said:


> There, back on topic...


and a pc soundcard with atmos ! i have 16 speakers in my livingroom and there is place for more. 8 height speakers will do


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> this one ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043726/?ref_=nv_sr_1
> it got a 4.2 rating.. not that good apparently


No, the one with 'The Rock' ... Dwayne Johnson.


----------



## DaJoJo

bargervais said:


> I watched it on xbmc couldn't finish it another bad movie but I'm getting it the 3D set just for the atmos hopefully that should add a star to the ratings????


yeah it sucked a lot, soundtrack was nice though.. it just doesn't do justice to the mythical figure that hercules once was.
perhaps he means this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267297/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> No, the one with 'The Rock' ... Dwayne Johnson.


aight.. better rating yup. 3D atmos version sounds good. next on the list to watch


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> now all i need is a Atmos enabled 3D tablet for my toilet so i can enjoy watching a movie while using TP for my bunghole


Here's a good Atmos idea!


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> yeah it sucked a lot, soundtrack was nice though.. it just doesn't do justice to the mythical figure that hercules once was.
> perhaps he means this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267297/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


Yes, that's the one. ...Totally accurate, historically. ...Down to the last minute details. 
...Filmed on locations in Greece to. ...Near where the real Hercules was born and grew up.


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Here's a good Atmos idea!


yeah my old tablet in there is getting...uhm old.
i need a car-radio with atmos too, that would be awesome for music concerts while on long journeys. what's taking them so long to make such. 5.1 becomes all of a sudden oldscool stuff. i have speakers in my doors so the separation angle wise would be perfect in there.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Yes, that's the one. ...Totally accurate, historically. ...Down to last minute details.
> ...Filmed on locations in Greece to. ...Near where the real Hercules was born and grew up.


..Totally accurate, historically. ...Down to last minute details?????
What I thought he was a mythical person it may have been filmed in Greece but does that make him real.. please correct me here


----------



## ambesolman

DaJoJo said:


> now all i need is a Atmos enabled 3D tablet for my toilet so i can enjoy watching a movie while using TP for my bunghole



Great Cornholio?



DaJoJo said:


> aight.. better rating yup. 3D atmos version sounds good. next on the list to watch



Just make sure you don't get this Hercules...










Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## DaJoJo

NorthSky said:


> Yes, that's the one. ...Totally accurate, historically. ...Down to last minute details.
> ...Filmed on locations in Greece to. ...Near where the real Hercules was born and grew up.


great ! looking forward to that. i've actually been there on those locations you know. he is called "heracles" btw and son of zeus and alkmene. zeus had some deepgoing interaction with amphitrion's wife and got a twin from that .. heracles his son and iphicles the son of amphitrion. now there's a hera that had a crush on zeus and she wasn't so happy with the whole thing and she send 2 snakes to kill the child, but heracles killed them both. zeus wanted his son to have eternal life so he tricked hera into giving him her milk. etc. etc. long complicated story.. greeks are known to make this complicated with feelings and psychology. anyways here is a picture of his kingdom, mount olympus. it is said he lived ther in the city of the 7 gods. strangely enough he supposed to came from italy though. must add that that part of italy wher he supposed to came from was back in the days that he lived also greece land. the road downwards is going to the place it all happend and on the left you go to the city of the gods. the middle one is right part of mount olympus and the right one is the monument for all people that died in that big battle there. it's also where the 300 soldiers came from before they ended up in the great battle from the movie 300


----------



## NorthSky

Cool.


----------



## DaJoJo

bargervais said:


> ..Totally accurate, historically. ...Down to last minute details?????
> What I thought he was a mythical person it may have been filmed in Greece but does that make him real.. please correct me here


well that is to be said.. most greek stories of mythical figures originate from people that have really exist. they just made a nice psychological drama of it. so yes he was real, but the story was beefed up and made more appealing and they put a lesson of human psychology in it. actually most greek stories give a nice view on the internals of the human mind, how we experience things and how the things we experience in life correlate to eachother.


----------



## NorthSky

What he just said ^


----------



## DaJoJo

ambesolman said:


> Great Cornholio?
> Just make sure you don't get this Hercules...
> View attachment 335337


yes him 
oh i was drawn to this disney version actually but this new one seems nice. hopefully it is not so historical inacurate as troy was. or 300 even. allthough this newer version of 300 was pretty acurate though. i sorta dislike that they make a movie of historical important things from the past and give it a whole nother swing to it and people take it as it did really happen that way.


----------



## bass addict

Well this thread sure has regressed.


----------



## Schwa

bass addict said:


> Well this thread sure has regressed.


...and you thought the Atmos demo disc discussion was off-topic! I think these last few posts have made my IQ drop.


----------



## DaJoJo

Schwa said:


> ...and you thought the Atmos demo disc discussion was off-topic! I think these last few posts have made my IQ drop.


lol not again 
if it wasn't for the greeks we didn't have atmos in the first place though. and a whole lot of other technology. atmos is a greek word you know.


----------



## asoofi1

DaJoJo said:


> lol not again
> if it wasn't for the greeks we didn't have atmos in the first place though. and a whole lot of other technology. atmos is a greek word you know.


You're right...auro has the voice of god...atmos has the voice of zeus.


----------



## DaJoJo

asoofi1 said:


> You're right...auro has the voice of god...atmos has the voice of zeus.


ther's just one and the same entity but everywhere has a different name


----------



## rnewste

Schwa said:


> ...and you thought the Atmos demo disc discussion was off-topic! I think these last few posts have made my IQ drop.


..at least the outcome of the Atmos Demo Disc discussion *doubled* my inventory of Atmos discs to demonstrate my X5200 system (in addition to TF4).

Raybo


----------



## sharkypuffs

The new HERCULES with Dwayne Johnson, is actually a decent, quick & dirty action movie. Not much special or memorable about it. What it really has going for it is just beneath the surface, it's intentionally campy. 

There's a great running gag involving Ian McShane's character and at one moment he breaks the fourth wall. Hilarious.

I saw it in theaters with the intention of laughing at it and found myself often laughing WITH it. Can't say I'd recommend it, but was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## DaJoJo

sharkypuffs said:


> The new HERCULES with Dwayne Johnson, is actually a decent, quick & dirty action movie. Not much special or memorable about it. What it really has going for it is just beneath the surface, it's intentionally campy.
> There's a great running gag involving Ian McShane's character and at one moment he breaks the fourth wall. Hilarious.
> I saw it in theaters with the intention of laughing at it and found myself often laughing WITH it. Can't say I'd recommend it, but was pleasantly surprised.


yeah that's the problem with movies.. a picture says a thousand words, but instead they just make a movie about a oneliner. there could be so much value in telling a great story. a movie that takes you on a journey and keeps you hooked to the screen and educate as well.. no atmos or auro is gonna fix that incapability to put a story into video. its a missed opurtunity, really


----------



## DaJoJo

but yeah.. back to life.. are there any new titles that we don't know of with atmos announced/comming ? 
are there any new special for atmos designed 45 degrees off-axis (in-)ceiling speakers ?


----------



## htpcforever

DaJoJo said:


> ther's just one and the same entity but everywhere has a different name


Not really, Zeus and Jupiter are the same entity with a different name. Zeus is described as not being omnipotent whereas the Abrahamic God is defined as being omnipotent. Just one major example of how they are different entities.


But that is way way off topic.


----------



## htpcforever

DaJoJo said:


> are there any new special for atmos designed 45 degrees off-axis (in-)ceiling speakers ?


 
This is what I am looking for...with a built in backer box to contain the sound. No open baffles for me!


----------



## sikclown

htpcforever said:


> Not really, Zeus and Saturn are the same entity with a different name. Zeus is described as not being omnipotent whereas the Abrahamic God is defined as being omnipotent. Just one major example of how they are different entities.
> 
> 
> But that is way way off topic.


They all agree on the beard though. The beard is where the real power comes from, just ask Chuck Norris.


----------



## NorthSky

DaJoJo said:


> lol not again
> if it wasn't for the greeks we didn't have atmos in the first place though. and a whole lot of other technology. atmos is a greek word you know.


True; Atmos was actually a Greek God. ...The voice from the heavens. ...Highly 'elevated'. ...In the skies above.

And Auro; everyone has heard of Auro, the Voice of God. ...Another Greek, just like Hercules, with Atmos.


----------



## ambesolman

sikclown said:


> They all agree on the beard though. The beard is where the real power comes from, just ask Chuck Norris.



So true










Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## sharkypuffs

DaJoJo said:


> yeah that's the problem with movies.. a picture says a thousand words, but instead they just make a movie about a oneliner. there could be so much value in telling a great story. a movie that takes you on a journey and keeps you hooked to the screen and educate as well.. no atmos or auro is gonna fix that incapability to put a story into video. its a missed opurtunity, really


And I agree with you, however, I like a disposable, often trashy popcorn movie now and then as well. I like good wine, but sometimes I like something as simple as a beer.

HERCULES might be a missed opportunity but so have many other recent films that were based on Greek mythology. Many of them failed not just because they had poorly written stories and bad acting, but because they took themselves way too seriously. I'm a big fan of Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but despite telling great stories, those films reach a point where they start to take themselves way too seriously, almost to a point where they become unintentionally silly. (TDKR in particular.)

HERCULES isn't great, but I personally enjoyed the fact that it was somewhat campy. For this particular film, THAT held my interest. If you're going to make a movie starring someone with the acting talents of "THE ROCK" how serious can you get?


Ridley Scott's upcoming EXODUS will no doubt be compared to DeMille's TEN COMMANDMENTS and some movie lovers may feel yet another cinematic version of that story is just a waste of time, despite the fact that we have the technology today to realistically recreate just about any era in history. But there's also the possibility that his film may be just as good, if not better and I applaud the effort. 

Personally, I don't need a movie to educate me or take me on a journey EVERY TIME I step into a theater. Often what I need is something to make me forget about the real world for two hours or more and simply entertain me. 

Even missed opportunities or films that have more pluses than minuses don't feel like complete failures to me because I'm the type of film lover who can still appreciate and be impressed by the cinematography, the art, production, costume and sound designs. But that's just me. 😃

Anyway, this is going off topic. Like I said, HERCULES isn't great but I'm sure the Atmos disc will make great demo material. I remember it being a decent mix in theaters.


----------



## Evanesco

Could someone who downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc please make a torrent file out of it??


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> To provide good frequency response to people in, say, 2 rows of seats. Even coverage.


2 Rows is doable with a conventional design. Bipoles just radiate too much useless energy into the room. Besides that bipoles can suffer from severe interference problems if the drivers aren't small enough or aren't mounted close enough.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Seems kinda tricky to pull off, considering the height arrays stay in a fixed line but the audience gets closer to those arrays as you move back in a theatre.


That is why Dolby specifies this rule to be applied at 2/3 room length.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> The pointing of the speakers may change the frequency, depending on how much of change in angle is made, and the speaker's directional characteristics. This will not change the perceived location of the speaker. The direct arrival path remains the same regardless of the frequency response or the returns of the reflected energy. The same holds true for height speakers.


While this is all true for the perceived _direct_ sound, one should be aware that the perceived position of sound coming from a given a speaker can be influenced by first reflection points. In situation where such reflections exists, tilting might have an effect on the perceived position. For example, with a center channel below the screen, a hard floor in front, and a hard ceiling above, tilting the center channel upwards can move the perceived sound upwards.


----------



## pasender91

Gene DellaSala said:


> Understood, that's how PLIIx works as well. For some reason I just didn't see that option when I was testing two-channel music with the DSU. I will check tomorrow. Thanks.


Except they changed the very clear terminology "Music" and "Movie" by the terms "Center Spread:ON" and "Center Spread:OFF", this will be completely obscure for the average consumer


----------



## maikeldepotter

bass addict said:


> That's the problem with Atmos right now. As of right now, it's all an educated guess on what's going to sound best. I have a lot of similar questions and there just aren't enough people running it (and probably won't be for quite some time) to get a good idea on what is optimal for a given situation.


Like I have said before, I am not drilling any hole in my ceiling without knowing the speaker configuration that re-recording mixers are using for the Atmos blu-rays soundtracks. As for now this remains to be a well kept secret, or no standard even exists.


----------



## pasender91

Well, in terms of speaker placement, Atmos gives a lot options.

But with this flexibility comes as well the times of interpretations and choices, it is the other side of the coin. 

As a starting point, for a x.x.4 configuration Dolby recommends the TF+TR combination.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> 2 Rows is doable with a conventional design. Bipoles just radiate too much useless energy into the room. Besides that bipoles can suffer from severe interference problems if the drivers aren't small enough or aren't mounted close enough.


When I refer to bipoles, I think of these: 










Compared to the in-wall alternative, are they really so different?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Compared to the in-wall alternative, are they really so different?


They are, especially by Harman standards. You would need to look at multiple angles within the listening window. The huge dip above 10kHz is just a hint.
Driver size/distance needs to be smaller 1/4 lambda to _not_ show significant interference.

Here's a simulation of two tweeters on an infinite baffle:


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> While this is all true for the perceived _direct_ sound, one should be aware that the perceived position of sound coming from a given a speaker can be influenced by first reflection points. In situation where such reflections exists, tilting might have an effect on the perceived position. For example, with a center channel below the screen, a hard floor in front, and a hard ceiling above, tilting the center channel upwards can move the perceived sound upwards.


True. But I do not think we can make the generalization that tilting a surround speaker on a wall is a reliable way to shift its apparent position for the various listeners.


----------



## markus767

^
Quite right. The reflected sound would need to be pretty loud compared to the direct sound over a wide frequency range for image shift to occur.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Evanesco said:


> Could someone who downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc please make a torrent file out of it??


They did, a couple pages ago. *Link*


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> ^
> Quite right. The reflected sound would need to be pretty loud compared to the direct sound over a wide frequency range for image shift to occur.


Doesn't have to be louder. But I agree that unless the reflections are smooth, the image will not be clean/clear, and they will always be late, causing combing, which is why many of use do something to treat first reflections, especially from floor and ceiling.


----------



## markus767

^
For a real image shift (and not just image spread) to occur I've found the reflection always needed to be louder than the direct sound (if delays are within the range of typical, acoustically small listening rooms).
The more you treat the room the earlier the spread/shift becomes audible.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> True. But I do not think we can make the generalization that tilting a surround speaker on a wall is a reliable way to shift its apparent position for the various listeners.


I agree.


----------



## Evanesco

Mashie Saldana said:


> Here is a torrent link for the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc:
> 
> Link


Does not work. No seeders.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Evanesco said:


> Does not work. No seeders.


It was 13 seeders 20 minutes ago.


----------



## Selden Ball

htpcforever said:


> Not really, Zeus and Saturn are the same entity with a different name.


 Ummm, no. Zeus (Greek: Ζεύς) = Jupiter (Roman). Saturn (Roman) / Kronos (Greek: Κρόνος) was Jupiter's / Zeus's father.



> But that is way way off topic.


 Yup.


eta: Hercules (Roman) = Herakles (Greek: Ἡρακλῆς)


----------



## Selden Ball

maikeldepotter said:


> Like I have said before, I am not drilling any hole in my ceiling without knowing the speaker configuration that re-recording mixers are using for the Atmos blu-rays soundtracks. As for now this remains to be a well kept secret, or no standard even exists.


The standard exists but you probably can't afford it. Unless you're a movie mogul yourself.  _I.e._ to do Atmos right costs about $200,000, exclusive of the room itself.

Photographs of Atmos mixing rooms are readily available. For example, see the Web page describing how _Noah_ was mixed.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/noah-sound-editor-mixer-creating-691274


----------



## Selden Ball

maikeldepotter said:


> Like I have said before, I am not drilling any hole in my ceiling without knowing the speaker configuration that re-recording mixers are using for the Atmos blu-rays soundtracks. As for now this remains to be a well kept secret, or no standard even exists.


Pictures of Atmos mixing rooms are readily available.
See, for example, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/noah-sound-editor-mixer-creating-691274


----------



## htpcforever

sikclown said:


> They all agree on the beard though. The beard is where the real power comes from, just ask Chuck Norris.


And Brett Keisel from the Steelers. FEAR DA BEARD!!!


----------



## htpcforever

Selden Ball said:


> Ummm, no. Zeus (Greek) = Jupiter (Roman). Saturn (Roman) / Kronos (Greek) was Jupiter's / Zeus's father.



OOps, that is who I meant to type but I had just been reading about how we can potentially farm ice from Saturn for use in interstellar voyages (as well as ice from the asteroid belt). My bad, I fixed it.


----------



## CCSchoch

bass addict said:


> Dolby's. Axiom QS8's are quadpolar.


I have Axiom QS8's in my 5.1 system now. I thought I read on Dolby's website that in some instances existing speakers will be able to be used as Atmos speakers too. 

That doesn't mean that a quadpolar speaker like the QS8 will be able to double as a surround speaker AND the Top Rear at the same time does it? I wouldn't think so since there is only 1 set of terminals on the back of the speaker, but just thought I'd check.

Thankls


----------



## markus767

^
The Axiom QS8's being "quadpolar" is just marketing speak. They have 4 drivers firing in 4 directions, that's all. One would need to look at measurements showing how the whole speaker radiates. Unfortunately virtually every loudspeaker manufacturer hides such essential information from the consumer. Axiom is no exception.


----------



## chi_guy50

DaJoJo said:


> now all i need is a Atmos enabled 3D tablet for my toilet so i can enjoy watching a movie while using TP for my bunghole


Folks, we have a new, sixth Atmos speaker position: TP = Top Posterior!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> Pictures of Atmos mixing rooms are readily available.
> See, for example, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/noah-sound-editor-mixer-creating-691274


This looks to me like a mixing room for preparing the cinema sound track. Is such a room also used for re-recording the home theater (blu-ray) soundtrack?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> That is why Dolby specifies this rule to be applied at 2/3 room length.


But that makes it incorrect for all the other rows.


----------



## HT-Eman

markus767 said:


> ^
> The Axiom QS8's being "quadpolar" is just marketing speak. They have 4 drivers firing in 4 directions, that's all. One would need to look at measurements showing how the whole speaker radiates. Unfortunately virtually every loudspeaker manufacturer hides such essential information from the consumer. Axiom is no exception.


I have qs8 also that are rear surrounds and axiom m2 for side surrounds. Should I replace the qs8 ( quadpole ) for another pair of m2 (monopole ) for rear surround since the m2 are direct firing speakers ? ( I dont have a atmos enabled receiver yet to hear how it sound yet with my current setup )


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> In MDA, a stereo object is 2 mono objects with a common position handle. Instead of positioning each object separately, they are positioned with +/- offset to a common midpoint.
> 
> Forcing an object to the closest speaker is called "snap." As MDA does not currently have snap, I do not know how that would be interpreted for a stereo object. My guess would be each object would need to find the closest speaker, but somehow prevent them from both finding the same speaker. Or, perhaps snap is simply not supported for stereo objects.


Good to know. However, you are referring to MDA instead of ATMOS. This is confusing since the term MDA is commonly used for the standard that DTS is introducing/promoting. Or does DTS-MDA work the same way as ATMOS as far as the positioning of mono and stereo objects is concerned?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> But that makes it incorrect for all the other rows.


I think Dolby would say: "Less than ideal but still satisfactory" or something similar. This specification also seems to suggest that the 'sweet area' for Atmos in the cinema lies at 2/3 of the room length.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Do music mixers add time delays? Seems that would cause comb filtering when downmixed.


To be honest, I don't know. I have read about the possibility in relation to music mixing one or two times, but I cannot give you any example.


----------



## markus767

HT-Eman said:


> I have qs8 also that are rear surrounds and axiom m2 for side surrounds. Should I replace the qs8 ( quadpole ) for another pair of m2 (monopole ) for rear surround since the m2 are direct firing speakers ? ( I dont have a atmos enabled receiver yet to hear how it sound yet with my current setup )


What speakers to use depends on room acoustics, number of seats, level requirements.
Other than that it's always good to use the same speaker model for ALL channels in order to minimize phase errors between the speaker channels that could lead to localization issues.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> This specification also seems to suggest that the 'sweet area' for Atmos in the cinema lies at 2/3 of the room length.


It always has been and it always will be, as long as multichannel audio is based on stereo.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> To be honest, I don't know. I have read about the possibility in relation to music mixing one or two times, but I cannot give you any example.


Certain stereo miking techniques create interchannel time differences. But basically only interchannel level differences are used in music/movie mixing.

Those level differences will create time differences between the ear though.
A good read is Stanley Lipshitz, Stereo Microphone Techniques: Are the Purists Wrong?, JAES, Vol. 4, No. 9, 1986 September.
A short explanation can be found here (3.2).


----------



## Selden Ball

maikeldepotter said:


> This looks to me like a mixing room for preparing the cinema sound track. Is such a room also used for re-recording the home theater (blu-ray) soundtrack?


My understanding, from what FilmMixer has posted at various times, is that usually both cinema and home soundtracks are mixed at the same time. I assume that's to keep costs down. The scheduling of the release of movies on disc is strictly marketing. Of course, this used not to be the case.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Where would you get such a sound effect recording in stereo with accompanying reverberation patterns?


I would think that a stereo sound does not necessarily have to be recorded, but can also be created by a sound engineer using the appropriate effects from his sound effect library, like (stereo) reverberation patterns.



sdurani said:


> Why would you need to place overhead sound effects at ear level? Objects can be made large enough to light up the entire overhead array.


Yes, but my two assumptions were that 1) You need a stereo reverberant sound field to produce very large sounding objects in a convincingly way, and 2) to produce a very large overhead stereo sound you need the two overhead arrays to be addressed as bed channels. Deciding not to use the overhead arrays in the channel bed (like in T4) leaves you then with only the ear-level surround field to produce such large sounds. Both assumptions could be false though...



sdurani said:


> In this case, it might have to do with which mix came first. TF4 started off as a 7.1 mix that subsequently had elements moved to the Atmos bus for height placement. The mixer could light up as many or as few of the overhead speakers by adjusting the size of the objects.


You are probably right.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I think Dolby would say: "Less than ideal but still satisfactory" or something similar.


That's something to keep in mind for those stressing over precise placement to the inch. Use the placement flexibility built into home Atmos guidelines to place speakers for satisfactory results rather than worrying about what would have been ideal.


> This specification also seems to suggest that the 'sweet area' for Atmos in the cinema lies at 2/3 of the room length.


Or that might be where the mixing console is on dubbing stages. Home Atmos is the same, with placement and angles based on main listening position (not the room).


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I would think that a stereo sound does not necessarily have to be recorded, but can also be created by a sound engineer using the appropriate effects from his sound effect library, like (stereo) reverberation patterns.


In that case, I don't see why those sounds need to be played back as channels in the overhead arrays rather than rendered as objects across those same speakers.


> Yes, but my two assumptions were that 1) You need a stereo reverberant sound field to produce very large sounding objects in a convincingly way, and 2) to produce a very large overhead stereo sound you need the two overhead arrays to be addressed as bed channels. Deciding not to use the overhead arrays in the channel bed (like in T4) leaves you then with only the ear-level surround field to produce such large sounds.


Those same sounds that you want to put into the Top L/R channels can be placed up there as objects. It's the same stereo sound, the same reverberation effects, just given x,y,z locations rather than channel assignments, and stretched to an object size that lights up all the overhead speakers. Think of channels as objects that don't move.


----------



## bass addict

CCSchoch said:


> I have Axiom QS8's in my 5.1 system now. I thought I read on Dolby's website that in some instances existing speakers will be able to be used as Atmos speakers too.


Existing speakers will work in most instances, provided they meet the requirements for design and placement. 



> That doesn't mean that a quadpolar speaker like the QS8 will be able to double as a surround speaker AND the Top Rear at the same time does it? I wouldn't think so since there is only 1 set of terminals on the back of the speaker, but just thought I'd check.
> 
> Thankls


Nope for the aforementioned reason. Even if there were 2 sets of terminals it still wouldn't work as you would be sending not only concurrent signals through simultaneously; but they would both be originating from the same source. 



HT-Eman said:


> I have qs8 also that are rear surrounds and axiom m2 for side surrounds. Should I replace the qs8 ( quadpole ) for another pair of m2 (monopole ) for rear surround since the m2 are direct firing speakers ? ( I dont have a atmos enabled receiver yet to hear how it sound yet with my current setup )


This is the current debate. I'm still not 100% sold the QS8 wouldn't work still for the surround; providing it's placement isn't in too close of proximity to the tops. Comb filtering and the like is still a possibility however. The only way to find out is to try it. 

I think I'm going to start off with 4 Volt 10's in the ceiling, leaving the existing Axioms in place for testing. At that point I can decide to upgrade the sides and rears to Volt 10's as well, completely eliminating the Axioms from the system altogether.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> That's something to keep in mind for those stressing over precise placement to the inch. Use the placement flexibility built into home Atmos guidelines to place speakers for satisfactory results rather than worrying about what would have been ideal. Or that might be where the mixing console is on dubbing stages. Home Atmos is the same, with placement and angles based on main listening position (not the room).


Still, results will be better with precise placement.


----------



## bass addict

markus767 said:


> Still, results will be better with precise placement.


Agree'd. I want to make sure I'm placing speakers optimized for the encoding, especially when it comes to cutting holes in my ceiling. Moving a surround speaker around is one thing..................


----------



## markus767

bass addict said:


> Agree'd. I want to make sure I'm placing speakers optimized for the encoding, especially when it comes to cutting holes in my ceiling. Moving a surround speaker around is one thing..................


Dolby so far missed to tell us what specific angles the AVR Atmos renderer assumes. Or maybe it's just me who missed the information?


----------



## WayneJoy

Ralph posted his Hercules review and it was apparently DTS-HDMA.


----------



## bass addict

I'm also curious what DTS is going to come out with. My luck, I'd hack up my ceiling, only to have DTS come out with something superior that required completely different placement.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> I'm also curious what DTS is going to come out with. My luck, I'd hack up my ceiling, only to have DTS come out with something superior that required completely different placement.


So far DTS's new creation has been layout agnostic. They will (read: should) work with _any_ speaker layout. 

At least, this has been the case in the cinema. This may change but if they keep with up with it, it will be their edge. 

This is also one of the key benefits of object-based sound mixes.


----------



## 7channelfreak

bass addict said:


> I'm also curious what DTS is going to come out with. My luck, I'd hack up my ceiling, only to have DTS come out with something superior that required completely different placement.


I thought we had confirmation that it wasn't speaker location specific? I wonder where I saw that now!?!


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> So far DTS's new creation has been layout agnostic. They will (read: should) work with _any_ speaker layout.
> 
> At least, this has been the case in the cinema. This may change but if they keep with up with it, it will be their edge.
> 
> This is also one of the key benefits of object-based sound mixes.





7channelfreak said:


> I thought we had confirmation that it wasn't speaker location specific? I wonder where I saw that now!?!


That is good to know.


----------



## cannga

markus767 said:


> Dolby so far missed to tell us what* specific angles the AVR Atmos renderer assumes*. Or maybe it's just me who missed the information?



My thought exactly; one key issue that I am surprised has not been discussed more. The question could be posed not just to Dolby, but insiders at Denon/Marantz as well. Surely, someone must know? All doubts in these multiple pages about where to put the speakers would be laid to rest if we know this information. Primarily with the 6 prime ceiling speaker positions.

Sanjay/sdurani mentioned a look up table for rendering; should be simple to find out what values the first gen AVR's are using for this "look-up," no?

I do not know that it would make a significant difference sonically, but it would be interesting to know. Particularly for first generation AVR owners, knowing the elevation and azimuth values the renderer assume would allow you to drill the ceiling with confidence , and if you could match those values closely, then your AVR is now the equivalence of future AVR's with respect to their precise speaker location knowledge.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

cannga said:


> My thought exactly; one key issue that I am surprised has not been discussed more. The question could be posed not just to Dolby, but insiders at Denon/Marantz as well. Surely, someone must know? All doubts in these multiple pages about where to put the speakers would be laid to rest if we know this information. Primarily with the 6 prime ceiling speaker positions.
> 
> Sanjay/sdurani mentioned a look up table for rendering; should be simple to find out what values the first gen AVR's are using for this "look-up," no?
> 
> I do not know that it would make a significant difference sonically, but it would be interesting to know. Particularly for first generation AVR owners, knowing the elevation and azimuth values the renderer assume would allow you to drill the ceiling with confidence , and if you could match those values closely, then your AVR is now the equivalence of future AVR's with respect to their precise speaker location knowledge.


The spec is pretty detailed if you look at the Dolby Atmos design documents that have been linked several times already. Also I would be surprised if the consumer grade AVRs even have the capability to render sounds within a few degrees. The Trinnov Altitude32 has a calibration microphone that can locate speakers to a 2 degree resolution, now if it actually can render that accurate is anyones guess.


----------



## cannga

Mashie Saldana said:


> The spec is pretty detailed if you look at the Dolby Atmos design documents that have been linked several times already. Also I would be surprised if the consumer grade AVRs even have the capability to render sounds within a few degrees. The Trinnov Altitude32 has a calibration microphone that can locate speakers to a 2 degree resolution, now if it actually can render that accurate is anyones guess.


Did I miss it somehow? What specific angles are assumed for the ceiling speakers with current generation AVR's? 

I believe so far a *range* has only been given (the famous Denon chart); Markus and I are talking* precise/specific* angles that the AVR must "assume" the speakers to be in rendering.

Again, purely for "academic" interest that I would like to know.


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> I'm also curious what DTS is going to come out with. My luck, I'd hack up my ceiling, only to have DTS come out with something superior that required completely different placement.


DTS will not require speakers to be in different places than Dolby. Fear not.



cannga said:


> Sanjay/sdurani mentioned a look up table for rendering; should be simple to find out what values the first gen AVR's are using for this "look-up," no?


Not necessarily. Feeding a table into the processor is one thing; extracting one is another. 



> I do not know that it would make a significant difference sonically, but it would be interesting to know. Particularly for first generation AVR owners, *knowing the elevation and azimuth values* the renderer assume would allow you to drill the ceiling with confidence , and if you could match those values closely, then your AVR is now the equivalence of future AVR's with respect to their precise speaker location knowledge.


Azimuth and elevation are associated with a polar coordinate system. Another way to express 3D position is Cartesian (rectangular) coordinates, xyz. They can be interchangeable, but they can also be put to different uses.

Movie sound has always been defined by the speakers behind the screen and on the walls. The L/R speakers tie to the screen edges, regardless of the screen size. The Lss/Rss arrays (in a 7.1 system) extend to the rear corners, regardless of the length of the room. That means from a reference position (MLP), the angle to the L/R speakers or to the rear corners of the room change with the room shape. This is a room-referenced perspective. It's how the cinema world has operated since day one.

OTOH, if the delivery system presents the sounds at the same angles (azimuth, elevation) as heard in the mix room, it is a mixer-referenced perspective. MDA supports both presentation perspectives -- it can be selected at playback. (Note, even in the mixer-referenced mode, the screen audio remains mapped to the cinema's screen speaker locations to ensure the images and sounds remain perfectly aligned.)

Atmos in cinema supports room referenced playback. I do not know what options are possible in consumer Atmos, but presumably it includes room-referenced playback to carry forth the cinema mission. It may have other options, too.

Assuming room-referenced playback for Atmos, it's not about angles relative to the listener, even though the famous diagrams imply that is the case. Unlike cinemas, where all speakers are on the room surfaces, the system really wants to know the "acoustic box" defined by the speakers. Then it fills the box with the respective sounds from the mix room "box." 

I hope this makes sense...


----------



## batpig

Shhhh, Roger, you are going to ruin the party for the perfect angle crowd sitting patiently with their protracters and laser pointers 

This is so much a case of "perfect as the enemy of the good". Put the protracters down and follow the Scott Simonian plan -- use common sense and fill the gaps with speakers to get even coverage of the "acoustic box" as Roger put it. Then enjoy.


----------



## DaJoJo

batpig said:


> Shhhh, Roger, you are going to ruin the party for the perfect angle crowd sitting patiently with their protracters and laser pointers
> This is so much a case of "perfect as the enemy of the good". Put the protracters down and follow the Scott Simonian plan -- use common sense and fill the gaps with speakers to get even coverage of the "acoustic box" as Roger put it. Then enjoy.


+1
i think scott has put it in in the right angle here.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Good to know. However, you are referring to MDA instead of ATMOS. This is confusing since the term MDA is commonly used for the standard that DTS is introducing/promoting. Or does DTS-MDA work the same way as ATMOS as far as the positioning of mono and stereo objects is concerned?


I realize this is an Atmos thread. A couched my reply in MDA terms just to illustrate the concept. I have not seen the term "stereo object" in the publicly available Atmos documents.


----------



## bsoko2

DaJoJo said:


> +1
> i think scott has put it in in the right angle here.



It is all really common sense but some people don't have any and need detailed instructions.


----------



## bass addict

bsoko2 said:


> It is all really common sense but some people don't have any and need detailed instructions.


I think that's going a little overboard. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make sure things are designed/installed as accurately as possible, especially when major fabrication is involved. 

At then end of the day we all might be over thinking it; but until that's proven definitively, I prefer to error on the side of caution. 

That being said; if you are going to error, I think Scott has some very sound advice. Fill the bubble with a logical array of speakers and enjoy.

I'd still feel better with an AVR that calculates speaker angles; but that's just me.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Azimuth and elevation are associated with a polar coordinate system. Another way to express 3D position is Cartesian (rectangular) coordinates, xyz. They can be interchangeable, but they can also be put to different uses.
> 
> Movie sound has always been defined by the speakers behind the screen and on the walls. The L/R speakers tie to the screen edges, regardless of the screen size. The Lss/Rss arrays (in a 7.1 system) extend to the rear corners, regardless of the length of the room. That means from a reference position (MLP), the angle to the L/R speakers or to the rear corners of the room change with the room shape. This is a room-referenced perspective. It's how the cinema world has operated since day one.
> 
> OTOH, if the delivery system presents the sounds at the same angles (azimuth, elevation) as heard in the mix room, it is a mixer-referenced perspective. MDA supports both presentation perspectives -- it can be selected at playback. (Note, even in the mixer-referenced mode, the screen audio remains mapped to the cinema's screen speaker locations to ensure the images and sounds remain perfectly aligned.)
> 
> Atmos in cinema supports room referenced playback. I do not know what options are possible in consumer Atmos, but presumably it includes room-referenced playback to carry forth the cinema mission. It may have other options, too.
> 
> Assuming room-referenced playback for Atmos, it's not about angles relative to the listener, even though the famous diagrams imply that is the case. Unlike cinemas, where all speakers are on the room surfaces, the system really wants to know the "acoustic box" defined by the speakers. Then it fills the box with the respective sounds from the mix room "box."
> 
> I hope this makes sense...



Wow Roger thanks for ever extending my (admittedly limited) understanding of surround sound. Yes it makes sense after I've read it 4 times  - a lot less scary than that other link about DBVA, or is it BAVD...

1. Just curious: Surely object based surround *must* be mixer-reference perspective insofar as the objects are concerned? Unlike "classic" LCR and Surrounds that you've mentioned, if I understand your explanation correctly, the ceiling speakers do not define a room border, and does the mixer not enter a coordinate of where he wants an object to be, whether polar or Cartesian? Doesn't that make it mixer reference perspective? (Please don't say no because that would really mess up my understanding of object-based surround so far .)

2. You don't disagree that current AVRs' renderer must make some assumption about the ceiling speakers' positions, do you? (Real question.)


----------



## M Code

A few have asked about Dolby Atmos source material...

Be advised that @ ShowEast 2014 Show, that opened yesterday in Hollywood, FL @ the Westin Diplomat Resort/Spa, Dolby has advised that there are now 200 Atmos titles...
Including releases from DreamWorks Animation, Lionsgate, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Marvel Studios and Pixar Animation Studios. Dolby has confirmed that there are now Dolby Atmos® sound format, which has been installed or committed to in more than 750 screens worldwide. Also @ ShowEast 2014 there will be Dolby Atmos demonstrations and Dolby Digital Cinema gear on display. 

Just my $0.02..


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> ^
> The Axiom QS8's being "quadpolar" is just marketing speak. They have 4 drivers firing in 4 directions, that's all. One would need to look at measurements showing how the whole speaker radiates. Unfortunately virtually every loudspeaker manufacturer hides such essential information from the consumer. Axiom is no exception.


Axiom is a Canadian speaker company? ...And they have their own anechoic chamber plus their own music recording studio. Plus they also have their 'preachers' (spokespersons)...I think I know @ least one of them.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

M Code said:


> A few have asked about Dolby Atmos source material...
> 
> Be advised that @ ShowEast 2014 Show, that opened yesterday in Hollywood, FL @ the Westin Diplomat Resort/Spa, *Dolby has advised that there are now 200 Atmos titles...*
> Including releases from DreamWorks Animation, Lionsgate, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Marvel Studios and Pixar Animation Studios. Dolby has confirmed that there are now Dolby Atmos® sound format, which has been installed or committed to in more than 750 screens worldwide. Also @ ShowEast 2014 there will be Dolby Atmos demonstrations and Dolby Digital Cinema gear on display.
> 
> Just my $0.02..




How many of the theatrical Atmos titles are worth owning assuming they are ever released in Atmos for the home?

Here is the Atmos theatrical list by year released. I suppose someone could make a potential list of the Bluray releases that might end up in Atmos for the home. I doubt that there will be remixes of old titles to Atmos.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## robert816

M Code said:


> A few have asked about Dolby Atmos source material...
> 
> Be advised that @ ShowEast 2014 Show, that opened yesterday in Hollywood, FL @ the Westin Diplomat Resort/Spa, Dolby has advised that there are now 200 Atmos titles...
> Including releases from DreamWorks Animation, Lionsgate, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Marvel Studios and Pixar Animation Studios. Dolby has confirmed that there are now Dolby Atmos® sound format, which has been installed or committed to in more than 750 screens worldwide. Also @ ShowEast 2014 there will be Dolby Atmos demonstrations and Dolby Digital Cinema gear on display.
> 
> Just my $0.02..


Nice! I wonder if this is all new titles or a mixture of new and re-releases with Atmos soundtracks?


----------



## noah katz

Mashie Saldana said:


> The spec is pretty detailed if you look at the Dolby Atmos design documents...


Specifically which details?



Roger Dressler said:


> ...


Thanks, very interesting and informative!

Roger, re the exact positional data embedded in the 1st-gen Atmos components, might you know someone at Dolby who could illuminate the issue for us?

We get that the results will sound good for the wide range of angles given, but surely the extremes will sound different from each other, and somewhere in there must be the "correct" angle.

I understand they're leery of frightening people away by making placement requirements seem overly stringent, but maybe they'd at least say that the center of the range is optimal; not that it matters, of course


----------



## chi_guy50

cannga said:


> All doubts in these multiple pages about where to put the speakers would be laid to rest if we know this information. Primarily *with the 6 prime ceiling speaker positions*.


So, the "fab five" (FH + TF + TM + TR + RH) + *TP*? Talk about unintended consequences; I thought I was just joking! (As my father said when I asked him where I had come from: "Well, son, I was just poking fun at your mother, but she took me seriously.")



chi_guy50 said:


> Folks, we have a new, sixth Atmos speaker position: *TP = Top Posterior*!


----------



## bass addict

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How many of the theatrical Atmos titles are worth owning assuming they are ever released in Atmos for the home?


That is one thing to ponder. Kind of like how many current titles have been released in 7.1? Movies that would really have benefited from 7.1 were released in 5.1 and vice versa. Sometimes is seems as if there is no rhyme or reason to audio encoding. 

I'm hoping Atmos just doesn't get released on the big blockbusters that may or may not have any redeeming value *cough Transformers cough *.


----------



## tomparis

I thought Hercules should be one of the next Blu-rays released with an Dolby Atmos track.
"Just" DTS-HD MA 7.1 here. 
Curios.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> 1. Just curious: Surely object based surround *must* be mixer-reference perspective insofar as the objects are concerned? Unlike "classic" LCR and Surrounds that you've mentioned, if I understand your explanation correctly, the ceiling speakers do not define a room border, and does the mixer not enter a coordinate of where he wants an object to be, whether polar or Cartesian? Doesn't that make it mixer reference perspective? (Please don't say no because that would really mess up my understanding of object-based surround so far .)


During the mixing process, there is no distinction between room- or mixer-referenced perspectives, as they are the same thing. And if the movie is played in a different cinema with the same proportions and speaker arrangements, there's still no distinction in the soundfield. Only when the sound is moved to a room of different form factor does the perspective question arise. Thus far, the industry wishes to remain in the security of practices past, so it inclines to use room-referenced playback. 



> 2. You don't disagree that current AVRs' renderer must make some assumption about the ceiling speakers' positions, do you? (Real question.)


Yes, the AVRs have a limited range of adaptation to ceiling speaker positions. And even less to the main speaker positions (like none, as has always been the case). I do not see that as an issue from an end user perspective.


----------



## M Code

robert816 said:


> Nice! I wonder if this is all new titles or a mixture of new and re-releases with Atmos soundtracks?


Combination of new and re-releases..
Key point here is Dolby is pushing hard that the library of Atmos titles is _increasing..._
Regarding new formats, there always is an ongoing debate, either no hardware or no software..
Plus Dolby is pushing the cinemas' Atmos installs hard...
Though Dolby was caught sleeping a couple of times in the past and DTS jumped into the spotlight pushing their stuff...
Dolby has put significant $ & emphasis to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Especially while DTS is pursuing _other_ strategic directions including car info-tainment, personal electronics, pro-broadcasting and wireless, multi-room systems..

Just my $0.02...


----------



## Selden Ball

tomparis said:


> I thought Hercules should be one of the next Blu-rays released with an Dolby Atmos track.
> "Just" DTS-HD MA 7.1 here.
> Curios.


You have to examine the packaging carefully

_Hercules_ has been released in several "exclusive" formats, some of which are unique to the particular outlet. Apparently discs sold by WalMart all have DTS-HD MA soundtracks, while some of those sold by Best Buy might have Dolby TrueHD. Supposedly the multi-format 3D packages all have TrueHD Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## NorthSky

M Code said:


> A few have asked about Dolby Atmos source material...
> 
> Be advised that @ ShowEast 2014 Show, that opened yesterday in Hollywood, FL @ the Westin Diplomat Resort/Spa, Dolby has advised that there are now 200 Atmos titles...
> Including releases from DreamWorks Animation, Lionsgate, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Marvel Studios and Pixar Animation Studios. Dolby has confirmed that there are now Dolby Atmos® sound format, which has been installed or committed to in more than 750 screens worldwide. Also @ ShowEast 2014 there will be Dolby Atmos demonstrations and Dolby Digital Cinema gear on display.
> 
> Just my $0.02..


Like on real material; Blu-ray discs?


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Roger, re the exact positional data embedded in the 1st-gen Atmos components, might you know someone at Dolby who could illuminate the issue for us?


"Outlook not so good." 



> We get that the results will sound good for the wide range of angles given, but surely the extremes will sound different from each other, and somewhere in there must be the "correct" angle. I understand they're leery of frightening people away by making placement requirements seem overly stringent, but maybe they'd at least say that the center of the range is optimal; not that it matters, of course


Exactly. It does not matter. People may well form a preference for where ceiling speakers are positioned, a bit forward or aft, a bit wider or narrower, but the same magnitude of change programmed into the renderer will be virtually inaudible.


----------



## Kris Deering

No, Showeast is all about theatrical, not home video or their respective mixes. One just has to hope that more titles released theatrically will mean more titles eventually hitting the home.


----------



## NorthSky

It is truly pathetic that so far only one Blu-ray title (TF4) has been released with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and not even fully optimized (taking good adventage of). ...Now Hercules is coming and what we see @ several places is a DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio soundtrack.

And, TF4 and Hercules are NOT good films @ all.

Plus, that Dolby Atmos demo disc; people are going nuts in order to get it...and for only few Dolby Atmos minutes.

Dolby Surround upmixer; that's what it is truly about, right now. ...And Dolby Atmos is still a dormant audio codec format. ...Without real intelligent Atmos software we're going nowhere.

That, is truly what I think @ this moment in time. ...I will wait till we have something concrete here, before I purchase a new piece of audio electronic with a Dolby Atmos decoder inside. This first gen seems to be missing few important points.
My advice; WAIT. ...Because things are way too unclear and not well cooked @ this moment.

Everything we say we are learning, and we are speculating too, and dreaming, and with some mixed humor too.
We are only humans, and our machines plus software aren't yet fully developed and evolved and performing and optimized.

This is my frank opinion. And I truly appreciate the efforts and lessons and teachings from my peers. 
...Roger, Markus, and the rest of the gang here.


----------



## M Code

NorthSky said:


> Like on real material; Blu-ray discs?



Blu-Ray stuff is just _now_ starting to dribble out...
The 1st title was _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, and the next (3) titles are the upcoming November 4 release of _Hercules_ and the December 16 release of _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ will both include Dolby Atmos mixes. Likewise, Lionsgate has announced that the November 4 release of _Step Up All In_ will also feature an Atmos track. Also I have heard that the final release of _Fast & Furious_ will be in Atmos in the theater and home Blu-Ray as well..

To date the majority of hype by Dolby, the trade and the AVR brands are using the Atmos Blu-Ray demo disks supplied by Dolby...
Though the mass market may think that Dolby has to just throw a switch and all of a sudden there is a large supply of Atmos titles it takes alot of behind the scenes push, $ and politics with the studios to get them on-board the Atmos wagon... 

IMHO...
It will take another 6 months before the Atmos Blu-Ray releases become more plentiful.. 

Just my $0.02...


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> ...It does not matter. People may well form a preference for where ceiling speakers are positioned, a bit forward or aft, a bit wider or narrower, but the same magnitude of change programmed into the renderer will be virtually inaudible.


Very possible, in which case it could be that the next generation of components with greater positional specificity that so many are waiting for won't materialize.


----------



## bargervais

tomparis said:


> I thought Hercules should be one of the next Blu-rays released with an Dolby Atmos track.
> "Just" DTS-HD MA 7.1 here.
> Curios.


It is you just have to buy the correct ones look here
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-3D-Blu-ray/79111/
Some of the best buy and Wal-Mart are missing atmos


----------



## WayneJoy

It is absolutely ridiculous that not all versions of Hercules which are being released on the same day have the same sound formats.


From Ralph in the Hercules review thread:
I just heard back from Paramount, they advise that Hercules did not receive an Atmos soundtrack however they do plan to incorporate "the cutting-edge Dolby Atmos technology" in future releases.

So stay tuned...


----------



## bass addict

WayneJoy said:


> It is absolutely ridiculous that not all versions of Hercules which are being released on the same day have the same sound formats.
> 
> 
> From Ralph in the Hercules review thread:
> I just heard back from Paramount, they advise that Hercules did not receive an Atmos soundtrack however they do plan to incorporate "the cutting-edge Dolby Atmos technology" in future releases.
> 
> So stay tuned...


LOL. Double dipping at it's finest. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see studios not including Atmos upon initial release, only to re release it at a later date with it.


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> Very possible, in which case it could be that the next generation of components with greater positional specificity that so many are waiting for won't materialize.


Exactly the point I made a few days ago. I am extremely skeptical of this widely held assumption that 2nd gen is going to implicitly include precise positional measurement of all speakers. I think, best case scenario, there may be more flexibility in choosing from specific predefined templates / positions. 

And, frankly, that's more than good enough for the vast majority of situations. As long as you can get approximately within spec I would bet any incremental gains in angular precision aren't going to yield any meaningful audible improvement. Is anyone ever going to notice that a missile that flies over your head should have been 10 degrees further to the right?

Plus, even if it does happen, it's not going to be of any help for the vast majority of content which is going to still be "legacy" channel based material. The extra positional precision fed to the Atmos renderer isn't going to magically translate to Trinnov-esque "remapping" of your non-ideal speaker layout for the 90%+ of the time that you are listening to standard 5.1/7.1 channel based content.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Axiom is a Canadian speaker company? ...And they have their own anechoic chamber plus their own music recording studio. Plus they also have their 'preachers' (spokespersons)...I think I know @ least one of them.


That's great but does it shed any light on the issue raised?


----------



## bass addict

markus767 said:


> That's great but does it shed any light on the issue raised?


Nope, but neither do most of his responses.


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> Exactly the point I made a few days ago. I am extremely skeptical of this widely held assumption that 2nd gen is going to implicitly include precise positional measurement of all speakers. I think, best case scenario, there may be more flexibility in choosing from specific predefined templates / positions.
> 
> And, frankly, that's more than good enough for the vast majority of situations. As long as you can get approximately within spec I would bet any incremental gains in angular precision aren't going to yield any meaningful audible improvement. Is anyone ever going to notice that a missile that flies over your head should have been 10 degrees further to the right?
> 
> Plus, even if it does happen, it's not going to be of any help for the vast majority of content which is going to still be "legacy" channel based material. The extra positional precision fed to the Atmos renderer isn't going to magically translate to Trinnov-esque "remapping" of your non-ideal speaker layout for the 90%+ of the time that you are listening to standard 5.1/7.1 channel based content.


I think once again, you guys raise some very valid points. I think the next generation of Atmos receivers are going to include minor improvements at best. I don't think 9/11 (heights/wides) channel positioning was dissected nearly to the point that Atmos has been. 

I think Atmos has been hyped so much that people are failing to see the forest for the trees in a lot of installation situations. That being said; most of the rooms this is going to be installed in, I'd be willing to wager, will be far from perfect anyways. In fact, I'd probably venture to say, their current setups are far from perfect standards. 

I am fortunate to have a dedicated room, but even in my room, compromises had to be made due to seating positions, width, length, etc. Atmos really would be no different.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I am probably going to post this the wrong way, but I thought that my experience as a early adopter of Dolby Atmos might help those who are considering moving to that technology for their respective home theater. If it is in the wrong place, could someone please move it to the appropriate place. Trying to help the process here...

Dolby Atmos...so to put it all into perspective... Run, do not walk, to whatever configuration you can manage to run Dolby Atmos in your home theater! There—officially established—I am a fanboy! I will lay out my experience including myconfiguration for Dolby Atmos in my home theater. I will start with room topology, equipment used, and sample sound grabs.


I have been running 5.1 in my home theater for several years. I sat out 7.1, 9.1, etc. in all of it various combinations and permutations. I was never convinced of a significant difference.
My home theater is in the basement of our home. It is a dedicated room, that is roughly 14 ½’ wide by 19 ½’ long. The ceiling varies somewhat...going from 8’ along the right side of the room (facing the screen) for about 1/3 of the width, to full height of 9’ for leftmost 2/3 of the room. There is a 2’ by 4’ bass-trap installed in each of the front corners (2 total) of the room.
The flooring is heavy carpet on a ½” pad on a concrete slab. About 8’ of the rear of the length of the room is a raised platform of 8”. We have two rows of three recliners, one row in front and a row in back on the raised platform. The entire theater is painted a matte plum color with a few posters along the side walls and the back wall. The posters are frame mounted with matte glass on them to minimize reflections.


Reviewers on Sound & Vision (most notably Ken Pohlmann) felt that Dolby Atmos is poised to change the home theater market. Mine is one of the first implementations that I know of in a home theater and I thought that I would share my observations. I cannot speak to how Dolby Atmos may perform in a different room configuration or equipment combination, but for me, I am never looking back.
I am running a 5.1.2 speaker configuration. Equipment is as follows: 
screen, 92” Stewart Firehawk; 
projector, Sony VPL-VW50 (pearl); 
receiver, Onkyo TX-NR737 (with firmware update); 
blu-ray player, Sony BDP-S7200
fronts, 8060ST Definitive Technology towers;
front height speakers, A60 Definitive Tech 
center, Def Tech 8040HD; 
surrounds, Def Tech 8040BP (soon to be 8080BP); 
subwoofer, SVS PB12+


I set the distance from the front speaker array to the sitting area at a point in front of the back row of seats thinking that would split the difference between the front row and back row and work well for both rows of seats. The speakers are set up with the fronts as large with the x-over at 40 Hz to the sub (not full-range, more on that in a minute); the heights at 80 Hz; the center at 100 Hz; and the surrounds at 80 Hz. The subwoofer upper filter is set to 40 Hz.


I have many other movies to play with, but I thought that 2 were in particular indicative of what might be expected—Oblivion (recorded in Atmos) and The Dark Knight Rises (recorded in Dolby True HD, not Atmos). I will talk about 2 scenes in particular that I thought should render some, if any, difference in Dolby Atmos.
First, Oblivion—fairly early on Tom Cruise’s character flies his VTOL/STOL rocket/jet/whatever helicopter/plane out to check on drones. On the radar scan it shows two drones down and he lands to check on them. In that scene, in regular Dolby, the plane comes in (sound-wise) toward the top of the screen and sits down sort of in front of the screen.
With Dolby Atmos on, the plane comes in directly out of the ceiling and lands in front of you—it is uncanny. It very much places you within the movie rather than observing the action taking place several feet in front of you. I can point directly at the place that the thing landed in the room.


Second, The Dark Knight Rises—fairly early on in the movie, the renegade Bane is capture and taken aboard a small jet (Lear?). As they are flying to take Bane, et al, wherever, a C-130 (I think) swoops in from the right side of the screen and overtakes the small jet, dumps bad guys onto the smaller plane, etc. moving diagonally across the screen to the left. With Dolby True HD, it does an admirable job of tracking the C-130 (sound-wise) as it makes its approach to the smaller craft. But, it is sort of coming in from somewhere on the right and tracks left sort of across the middle of the screen.


Again, this was recorded in Dolby True HD, and not Dolby Atmos. When this scene is played in my Dolby Atmos system, the sound comes in at a very specific height on the right, sort of below your shoulder, and tracks the C-130’s progress diagonally across the middle of the screen moving from lower right to upper left with the sound seeming to emanate directly from the on-screen image of the C-130.


I suspect that any movie recorded in Dolby True HD will exhibit a similar execution in my setup. I cannot speak to DTS of any type—have not played with it yet.


I have many more movies to try, but reality has set in. In doing my speaker setup, I wanted the wire to all speakers to be matching in gauge, impedance, resistance, etc. So, I pulled drywall off of the back of the front wall of the theater to get at matching wire inside the wall to the height speaker jacks that I never used. Well, I created a super drumhead at that point in the wall. My wife was 2 floors up and said that the windows were rattling. 



I want her to be at least close to as happy as I am with my upgrade. So, I have ordered db3 soundproofing material on the framing before re-installing the drywall. Happy wife, happy life!


I had first set the 8060ST towers as full-range. The overlap between the towers in that setting and the super-sub set to 80 Hz created an exaggerated bass response from about 40 Hz to 80 Hz. So, I reset the x-overs as noted earlier.


I have seen the various discussions of why Dolby Atmos should/should not work and how many extra speakers might be required. FWIW, the Definitive Technology A60 modules clip onto the 8060 towers so you are not creating any additional speaker footprint.


Let the discussions flow regarding the virtues or lack thereof for Dolby Atmos. All that I can tell you is that with my equipment in my home theater, it works like amazingly well, and I am never going back!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> I realize this is an Atmos thread. A couched my reply in MDA terms just to illustrate the concept. I have not seen the term "stereo object" in the publicly available Atmos documents.


It is public and it does contain stereo objects: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...oring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf


----------



## smurraybhm

bass addict said:


> I think once again, you guys raise some very valid points. I think the next generation of Atmos receivers are going to include minor improvements at best. I don't think 9/11 (heights/wides) channel positioning was dissected nearly to the point that Atmos has been.
> 
> I think Atmos has been hyped so much that people are failing to see the forest for the trees in a lot of installation situations. That being said; most of the rooms this is going to be installed in, I'd be willing to wager, will be far from perfect anyways. In fact, I'd probably venture to say, their current setups are far from perfect standards.
> 
> I am fortunate to have a dedicated room, but even in my room, compromises had to be made due to seating positions, width, length, etc. Atmos really would be no different.


I guess I am missed reading something about Atmos configurations having to be perfect. From the beginning Dolby has stated that speaker placement is flexible/forgiving. Heck ya a lot of us have less than perfect setups, I'm one, but that doesn't mean that our results still don't sound damn good. Angles, precise placement, etc. - if I was still in this mode I wouldn't have enjoyed my new setup as much as I have for over a month. I think most of us looked at our rooms, the specs, and as Batpig and others have said during the past 3 or 4 pages - we filled in the holes - and have created our sound bubbles so to speak. A few of us went as far as not making any holes in the ceiling by using Tannoy or some other bracket mounted speakers for tops or heights, so if something needed to be repositioned (Top Middles being a good example where people moved them up or back) it could be without a having to do more than spackle and paint over a few holes.

By the way I'm using bipoles for my surround rears - they seem to be holding there own in the sounds good category.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> Let the discussions flow regarding the virtues or lack thereof for Dolby Atmos. All that I can tell you is that with my equipment in my home theater, it works like amazingly well, and I am never going back!


Thanx for the nice write-up, but I hope you understand that you were reviewing Dolby Surround Upmixing (their new surround processing that replaces Pro Logic II), not Atmos. The two Blu-rays you cited as examples don't have Atmos soundtracks. You were simply applying surround processing to 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks. And it's great that you enjoyed it, but let's not confuse it with Atmos.


----------



## Mastiff

I'm still waiting for Yamaha to release an 11.2.4 version of Atmos. At my cabin I have an 11.2 setup (with four subs, but split in one channel for the 12" and one for the 15" subs), and I don't want to loose the "prescence" or height channels. So I really want my next step to be 11.2.4. Am I going to die from old age before that happens? In that case could I buy a Dolby Atmos receiver to use together with my 11.2 receiver, run one HDMI cable to each of them (I already have a HDMI matrix I could use for that) and then only take the Atmos channels from that extra receiver? Or would I have problems with the timing?

Edit: Or perhaps a problem with the setup? I'm sure I can't use automated setup with this system, but maybe I could run the setup once on each receiver, first on the 11.2 with everything except for the Atmos speakers and then on the 7.2.4, with everything except for the height speakers connected to that? With both Yamaha that should theoretically give the same results.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mastiff said:


> I'm still waiting for Yamaha to release an 11.2.4 version of Atmos. At my cabin I have an 11.2 setup (with four subs, but split in one channel for the 12" and one for the 15" subs), and I don't want to loose the "prescence" or height channels. So I really want my next step to be 11.2.4. Am I going to die from old age before that happens? In that case could I buy a Dolby Atmos receiver to use together with my 11.2 receiver, run one HDMI cable to each of them (I already have a HDMI matrix I could use for that) and then only take the Atmos channels from that extra receiver? Or would I have problems with the timing?


You are already set up for Atmos. When Yamaha updates for Atmos processing you will be able to keep your front and rear presence speakers right where they are.

Also, they will not make an 11.2.4 receiver any time soon. It is simply 7.2.4 with your presence speakers producing the overhead Atmos content.

You're fine.


----------



## Mastiff

You mean that those presence speakers will work as Atmos speakers? In that case that's not good enough, I'm afraid. I'm putting ceiling speakers (B&W) to have those over my head. I would like a direct Atmos system, not a reflected sound system.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Put the protracters down and follow the Scott Simonian plan -- use common sense and fill the gaps with speakers to get even coverage of the "acoustic box" as Roger put it. Then enjoy.



_Now_ this thread is starting to breed some sense.   

Damn right! Use your head and fill those gaps.

You know.... that HUGE gap of no sound above your head.  There is a gap towards the front and there there is a gap towards the back. Unfortunately there is still one directly over your head but that can and should be filled too. If you have a 7.1 system and then do this, you know have a full bubble of sound with all the gaps filled. 

Welcome to the 21st century of sound. 

It's nice here.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mastiff said:


> You mean that those presence speakers will work as Atmos speakers? In that case that's not good enough, I'm afraid. I'm putting ceiling speakers (B&W) to have those over my head. I would like a direct Atmos system, not a reflected sound system.


Lolwut? Explain.

A moment ago you couldn't let them go.


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> Thanx for the nice write-up, but I hope you understand that you were reviewing Dolby Surround Upmixing (their new surround processing that replaces Pro Logic II), not Atmos. The two Blu-rays you cited as examples don't have Atmos soundtracks. You were simply applying surround processing to 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks. And it's great that you enjoyed it, but let's not confuse it with Atmos.


LOL! Yeah, looking back at a few reviews of the movie vs the blu-ray disk...it was recorded and shown in Dolby Atmos only in the theaters, and the disk is only Dolby Digital 5.1. 
If the upmix sounds this good, then I can hardly wait to hear the real deal. I need to go look at some of my newer disks. I believe that one or more of them feature the Dolby Atmos mix.
Thanks to your comment I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision. Thanks, again.


----------



## Mastiff

Scott, I'm not letting my presence go, and I'm putting up the B&W ceiling speakers. I want to run them at the same time! So keep the presence speakers playing while adding Atmos speakers. Go from 11.2 to 11.2.4, not to 7.2.4. Is that clearer?


----------



## bass addict

Mastiff said:


> I'm still waiting for Yamaha to release an 11.2.4 version of Atmos. At my cabin I have an 11.2 setup (with four subs, but split in one channel for the 12" and one for the 15" subs), and I don't want to loose the "prescence" or height channels. So I really want my next step to be 11.2.4. Am I going to die from old age before that happens? In that case could I buy a Dolby Atmos receiver to use together with my 11.2 receiver, run one HDMI cable to each of them (I already have a HDMI matrix I could use for that) and then only take the Atmos channels from that extra receiver? Or would I have problems with the timing?
> 
> Edit: Or perhaps a problem with the setup? I'm sure I can't use automated setup with this system, but maybe I could run the setup once on each receiver, first on the 11.2 with everything except for the Atmos speakers and then on the 7.2.4, with everything except for the height speakers connected to that? With both Yamaha that should theoretically give the same results.


I'd be in heaven with a height + 4 top arrangement. I spent a lot of money and time on my DIY seos height setup, and would love to keep it while adding the 4 tops to boot.


----------



## Mastiff

I didn't make the speakers myself, but I spent money and time on eBay to get the vintage Wharfedale E20 speakers I use for that. And then I have E70 with E50 on top of them for fronts and a pair of E30 screwed and glued together as a center. The subs are also Wharfedale, both 15" and 12". Sounds very nice in my cabin!  I'm doing the ceiling this spring, and the B&W ceiling speakers are ready to be put up. Some way or another I will manage to get 11.2(4).4!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> How many of the theatrical Atmos titles are worth owning assuming they are ever released in Atmos for the home?
> 
> Here is the Atmos theatrical list by year released. I suppose someone could make a potential list of the Bluray releases that might end up in Atmos for the home. I doubt that there will be remixes of old titles to Atmos.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


Not so, there are legacy titles that will be released with Atmos mixes. Die Hard is one of them I read. 

Star Wars OT got that 4k transfer... maybe that received an Atmos mix?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mastiff said:


> Scott, I'm not letting my presence go, and I'm putting up the B&W ceiling speakers. I want to run them at the same time! So keep the presence speakers playing while adding Atmos speakers. Go from 11.2 to 11.2.4, not to 7.2.4. Is that clearer?


You do know that you can render Atmos overhead content to those same presence speakers? You can keep the presence speakers without adding more.

It sounds like what you want is 7.2.8 which probably won't happen any time soon, unfortunately.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

M Code said:


> IMHO...
> It will take another 6 months before the Atmos Blu-Ray releases become more plentiful..
> 
> Just my $0.02...


Ugh... I'm thinking that assumption is probably correct. It would just be great if just *one* good film was released on Atmos bluray. I'm still mad about GOTG & Xmen... grrrrrr.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Thanx Steve. In that case, you might want to re-think telling other posters that they meet Dolby's recommended dispersion of 90 degrees off axis.


Dolby spec, for downward facing speakers, says this: _"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis..."_

I interpret that as 90 degrees dispersion in the same sense that the Tannoys have 90 degree dispersion. I am not seeing how the Tannoys could have wider dispersion without radiating sound equally behind them as in front of them, which would be odd. What is it that I am missing here?

The Tannoys do nevertheless meet Dolby's requirements in that they are wide dispersion speakers, given that wide dispersion speakers are not mandated in any event but only with the proviso that if they do not meet the spec quoted above, then _"speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position_."

What speaker would be better suited than the Tannoys?


----------



## pasender91

Mastiff said:


> Scott, I'm not letting my presence go, and I'm putting up the B&W ceiling speakers. I want to run them at the same time! So keep the presence speakers playing while adding Atmos speakers. Go from 11.2 to 11.2.4, not to 7.2.4. Is that clearer?


Mastiff, i confirm your current presence speakers can be used directly by Atmos, in positions that are called Front Height and Rear Height, so you can do 7.1.4 right now, that's good already no ? This is a valid configuration for Atmos and it is NOT reflected sound, it is direct sound from your current speakers.

BTW, to make it clear for all, the presence speakers that you have now are elevated, so you already run 7.1.4. You want to add 4 ceiling speakers to reach 7.1.8.

But today there is no "reasonably priced" AVR on the market that allows for more than 4 elevated speakers, and i'm not sure what you want to do combining 2 AVRs is feasible.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> LOL! Yeah, looking back at a few reviews of the movie vs the blu-ray disk...it was recorded and shown in Dolby Atmos only in the theaters, and the disk is only Dolby Digital 5.1.
> If the upmix sounds this good, then I can hardly wait to hear the real deal. I need to go look at some of my newer disks. *I believe that one or more of them feature the Dolby Atmos mix.*
> Thanks to your comment I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision. Thanks, again.


Then you must have Transformers, Age of Extinction.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> You do know that you can render Atmos overhead content to those same presence speakers? You can keep the presence speakers without adding more.
> 
> It sounds like what you want is 7.2.8 which probably won't happen any time soon, unfortunately.


That's where the angle debate came up. I thought about assigning my existing height as front top, but I can't imagine it sounding the same as 4 tops.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hmmm.

I wonder if possible.

Two Atmos capable receivers running in tandem for >x.x.4 Atmos sound.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> That's where the angle debate came up. I thought about assigning my existing height as front top, but I can't imagine it sounding the same as 4 tops.


Possibly not. Just depends on the mix, really.

Unfortunately there is not a whole lot one can do to get more than four overheads (no matter where) right now with out spending >$20k on an SSP that ..._might_. Honestly, I am not sure if the gear that supposedly can do 20+ outputs can really even do these things with native Atmos and not resorting to some Trinnov-based witchery.


----------



## kbarnes701

*Another DSU brief review. * Tonight I watched *Godzilla*. This was mixed in Atmos but the Bluray is plain old DTS-HD MA 7.1. It is an astonishing demo of what DSU can do for your system. The amount of overhead activity is simply staggering and, amazingly, most of it seems to be related with great precision to what is happening on-screen. Almost the entire movie has great overhead content - in fact it is difficult to imagine how this could be much more enjoyable even as a true Atmos disc. I'd go so far as to say that the movie sounds 'more Atmos' than Transformers 4, which is actually released as an Atmos disc! It helps that Godzilla has one of the best soundtracks I have ever heard - it is not just big gobs of noise for noise sake (as one can accuse TF4 of being) - it has subtlety as well as bombast. But what DSU does to this amazing soundtrack, again, has to be heard to be believed.

For me, if there was never a single Atmos disc released, the investment on my upgrade to 5.1.4 would still be worthwhile if we are going to have this kind of experience from modern legacy discs. IDK if a movie mixed for the theater in Atmos somehow upmixes better in DSU than a non-Atmos movie, but it seems as if it might. But what DSU accomplishes with all the legacy discs I have so far tried it with is truly astonishing.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

Selden Ball said:


> You have to examine the packaging carefully
> 
> _Hercules_ has been released in several "exclusive" formats, some of which are unique to the particular outlet. Apparently discs sold by WalMart all have DTS-HD MA soundtracks, while some of those sold by Best Buy might have Dolby TrueHD. Supposedly the multi-format 3D packages all have TrueHD Atmos soundtracks.


 



RalphPotts said that the press releases on the availability of Atmos track are not correct, so who knows what you get on each version.



**It should be noted that the original press release I received for this title indicated that it would contain a Dolby Atmos/TrueHD 7.1 mix however it arrived with a different press release that indicated DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio sound. **



http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ercules-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review.html


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Possibly not. Just depends on the mix, really.
> 
> Unfortunately there is not a whole lot one can do to get more than four overheads (no matter where) right now with out spending >$20k on an SSP that ..._might_. Honestly, I am not sure if the gear that supposedly can do 20+ outputs can really even do these things with native Atmos and not resorting to some Trinnov-based witchery.


That's unacceptable.


----------



## bargervais

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> RalphPotts said that the press releases on the availability of Atmos track are not correct, so who knows what you get on each version.
> 
> 
> 
> **It should be noted that the original press release I received for this title indicated that it would contain a Dolby Atmos/TrueHD 7.1 mix however it arrived with a different press release that indicated DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio sound. **
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ercules-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review.html


Is he supplied with a copy for... so he can review the film and they didn't send him this release
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-3D-Blu-ray/79111/
We will soon see if this one that I preordered will have Atmos that is scheduled to be here on the 4th..


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby spec, for downward facing speakers, says this: _"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis..."_


I thought this was put to bed.

That's a mistake, they mean 90 deg conical angle, or +/-45 deg off-axis.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

cannga said:


> Did I miss it somehow? What specific angles are assumed for the ceiling speakers with current generation AVR's?
> 
> I believe so far a *range* has only been given (the famous Denon chart); Markus and I are talking* precise/specific* angles that the AVR must "assume" the speakers to be in rendering.
> 
> Again, purely for "academic" interest that I would like to know.


You are correct, they are ranges. However the more interesting question is how exact the AVRs even can render the sound objects? I would guess the renderer is working on a 90 degree resolution at best (which makes sense with the Denon speaker options available where you can't use two adjacent pairs).


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> I thought this was put to bed.
> 
> That's a mistake, they mean 90 deg conical angle, or +/-45 deg off-axis.


Isn’t that what the Tannoys are?


----------



## pasender91

Mashie Saldana said:


> You are correct, they are ranges. However the more interesting question is how exact the AVRs even can render the sound objects? I would guess the renderer is working on a 90 degree resolution at best (which makes sense with the Denon speaker options available where you can't use two adjacent pairs).


Dolby provides only angle ranges in the public documentation.
BUT for sure the AVR will compute the output channels based on a given and SECRET precise angle for each speaker location .
It was confirmed by Roger that it would be difficult to get access to the actual values, but i don't see the reason for this non-disclosure.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Mashie Saldana said:


> You are correct, they are ranges. However the more interesting question is how exact the AVRs even can render the sound objects? I would guess the renderer is working on a 90 degree resolution at best (which makes sense with the Denon speaker options available where you can't use two adjacent pairs).



Is this because you think that adjacent pairs won't provide 'enough' localization, due to lack of physical separation? This would seem to follow the premise of providing separation between the surrounds and the height speakers...


----------



## brwsaw

What happened to Dolby's statement to install the bluray "and it will just work" or that the disks wouldn't be labeled for Atmos specifically.


FWIW, Ralph Potts uses QS8's (as per his equipment list included with his reviews) but not I'm sure if he's using them in an Atmos system. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts about their use in an Atmos capable system.


----------



## pasender91

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> I wonder if possible.
> 
> Two Atmos capable receivers running in tandem for >x.x.4 Atmos sound.


I wonder too.
In theory:
1) buy two 7.1.4 capable AVRs, say Marantz 7009
2) configure AVR1 as 7.1.4, 7 being 5+SB, .4 being TF+TR, calibrate
3) configure AVR2 as 7.1.4, 7 being 5+FW, .4 being FH+RH, calibrate
4) unplug the 5 main speakers from AVR2 (they are already handled from AVR1)
5) resulting config is 9.1.8 !!!! (7.1 +FW, FH + TF + TR + RH)
6) connect HDMI cables to both AVR to send Atmos signal to both, would the sound by synched ?

Any flaw to those steps?

Enjoy !!
This is much cheaper than a trinnov, but please get the trinnov and support the much-crippled french economy


----------



## Ralph Potts

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> RalphPotts said that the press releases on the availability of Atmos track are not correct, so who knows what you get on each version.
> 
> 
> 
> **It should be noted that the original press release I received for this title indicated that it would contain a Dolby Atmos/TrueHD 7.1 mix however it arrived with a different press release that indicated DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio sound. **
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ercules-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review.html





bargervais said:


> Is he supplied with a copy for... so he can review the film and they didn't send him this release
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-3D-Blu-ray/79111/
> We will soon see if this one that I preordered will have Atmos that is scheduled to be here on the 4th..


Greetings,

I believe that some of the information used to feed the various press announcements were from the initial press release which indicated that it would contain an Atmos mix. My review sample as well as the press documentation received with it now indicate a DTS-HD MA 7.1 track. I contacted the studio directly and was informed that there is currently no Atmos mix for Hercules.


Regards,


----------



## bargervais

Thanks Ralph I just cancelled my order all I wanted Hercules was for the Atmos mix I already saw the film on xbmc and I didn't think it was something I wanted a hard copy..


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> *Another DSU brief review. * Tonight I watched *Godzilla*. This was mixed in Atmos but the Bluray is plain old DTS-HD MA 7.1. It is an astonishing demo of what DSU can do for your system. The amount of overhead activity is simply staggering and, amazingly, most of it seems to be related with great precision to what is happening on-screen. Almost the entire movie has great overhead content - in fact it is difficult to imagine how this could be much more enjoyable even as a true Atmos disc. I'd go so far as to say that the movie sounds 'more Atmos' than Transformers 4, which is actually released as an Atmos disc! It helps that Godzilla has one of the best soundtracks I have ever heard - it is not just big gobs of noise for noise sake (as one can accuse TF4 of being) - it has subtlety as well as bombast. But what DSU does to this amazing soundtrack, again, has to be heard to be believed.
> 
> For me, if there was never a single Atmos disc released, the investment on my upgrade to 5.1.4 would still be worthwhile if we are going to have this kind of experience from modern legacy discs. IDK if a movie mixed for the theater in Atmos somehow upmixes better in DSU than a non-Atmos movie, but it seems as if it might. But what DSU accomplishes with all the legacy discs I have so far tried it with is truly astonishing.


I think Godzilla would be an excellent title for a blind comparison of an Atmos vs non-Atmos system. I agree with your whole opening paragraph even in my 5.1 system. Few titles have the surround presence and sound design that Godzilla provides and I was constantly noticing things around, behind and above me, even though I only have a 5.1 system. This is why I mentioned earlier that maybe this will be a big positive for soundtracks going forward in that more aggressive surround mixes will be available simply because of Atmos. This benefits everyone, Atmos equipped or not.


----------



## DaJoJo

Kris Deering said:


> I think Godzilla would be an excellent title for a blind comparison of an Atmos vs non-Atmos system. I agree with your whole opening paragraph even in my 5.1 system. Few titles have the surround presence and sound design that Godzilla provides and I was constantly noticing things around, behind and above me, even though I only have a 5.1 system. This is why I mentioned earlier that maybe this will be a big positive for soundtracks going forward in that more aggressive surround mixes will be available simply because of Atmos. This benefits everyone, Atmos equipped or not.


agree.. but they can leave out the rather 'hot' bass parts as neither my neighbours and my interior likes it too much. first time i saw it and this spider-alike thing came out of the ground the whole freaking appartment block here shook on its foundation lol


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby spec, for downward facing speakers, says this: _"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis..."_
> 
> I interpret that as 90 degrees dispersion in the same sense that the Tannoys have 90 degree dispersion.


IF you believe 90 degrees from axis is the same as a 90 degree cone, then it is a waste of keystrokes for me to discuss this any further.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> If the upmix sounds this good, then I can hardly wait to hear the real deal.


Oblivion was one of the best Atmos mixes I heard in the theatres. Hopefully that mix will make to Blu-ray.


> I need to go look at some of my newer disks. I believe that one or more of them feature the Dolby Atmos mix.


The only Blu-ray currently with an Atmos track is Transformers: Age of Extinction.


----------



## bass addict

sdurani said:


> Oblivion was one of the best Atmos mixes I heard in the theatres. Hopefully that mix will make to Blu-ray.


I'm looking forward to re purchasing all my blu rays with Atmos. 

Oblivion is still my go to movie for demo's; I can only imagine how much better it would sound in Atmos.


----------



## DaJoJo

oblivion has a very nice soundtrack indeed.
anyone tried 'live of Pi' with DSU ? i thought the 5.1 surround version was allready very immersive and it makes good use of the surrounds also.


----------



## asoofi1

Has any compared TF4 played in Atmos vs DSU, or is not possible to switch modes?


----------



## DaJoJo

still debating to get either 4 klipsch rb-81II or rs-52II for top-speakers. can't seem to find any good mounting solution for the rb-81II as it has only 2 bottom holes for screws. the discussion on wheter to use the bipoles or direct firing doesn't make it any easier too. so far i understand that ceilingmounted direct firing should have 90 degrees radiating or 45 from centeraxis and the bi-poles should fit in nicely flat on the ceiling allthough more reflections to the walls, but the direct firing can be aimed to mlp giving it the same soundfield with less reflections. putting them as heights and point to mlp sorta gives the same effect but the angle between fronts and heights will be less then , so this is a somewhat lesser option oppose to ceilingmount. the yammie a3040 manual says they should be in the corner of the room left and right from fronts/rears. the dolby spec says above the fronts/rears. somehow i have the impression that the yammie speakerlayout should work ok and is also the right spot for the dsp programs to work ok. otherwise it would be good for atmos to position the speakers above the fronts, but not for the dsp. i would think that yammie calibrates the stuff to the positions pointed out in the manual. or they gonna adjust the dsp to work for atmos speaker layout, also a posibility. anyone can shed a light on this ?


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn’t that what the Tannoys are?


You know that better than I; I was referring to Dolby as being mistaken.

As Sanjay said, 90 deg from on-axis is not a 90 deg cone; it's 2X that.


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> IF you believe 90 degrees from axis is the same as a 90 degree cone, then it is a waste of keystrokes for me to discuss this any further.



It seems fairly obvious that Dolby made a mistake, since few speakers that anyone would consider for this duty have 180 degree dispersion at mid and upper frequencies. It seems very likely that they were calling for speakers with 90 degree coverage. The Tannoys spec is 90 degrees conical at - 6dB, and their charts support this spec, at least up to about 10 or 12kHz. I suspect that is one reason Roger chose Di6 DCs as his Atmos speakers.


----------



## Maestro J

kbarnes701 said:


> *Another DSU brief review. * Tonight I watched *Godzilla*. This was mixed in Atmos but the Bluray is plain old DTS-HD MA 7.1. It is an astonishing demo of what DSU can do for your system. The amount of overhead activity is simply staggering and, amazingly, most of it seems to be related with great precision to what is happening on-screen. Almost the entire movie has great overhead content - in fact it is difficult to imagine how this could be much more enjoyable even as a true Atmos disc. I'd go so far as to say that the movie sounds 'more Atmos' than Transformers 4, which is actually released as an Atmos disc! It helps that Godzilla has one of the best soundtracks I have ever heard - it is not just big gobs of noise for noise sake (as one can accuse TF4 of being) - it has subtlety as well as bombast. But what DSU does to this amazing soundtrack, again, has to be heard to be believed.
> 
> For me, if there was never a single Atmos disc released, the investment on my upgrade to 5.1.4 would still be worthwhile if we are going to have this kind of experience from modern legacy discs. IDK if a movie mixed for the theater in Atmos somehow upmixes better in DSU than a non-Atmos movie, but it seems as if it might. But what DSU accomplishes with all the legacy discs I have so far tried it with is truly astonishing.


Agree with this completely. T4 and Godzilla were my first two watches after finishing up my 7.2.4 Atmos upgrade in my room. Amazing track!


----------



## Selden Ball

T4 usually is used as the acronym for Terminator 4. Hmm. I wonder how that would sound. It certainly has scenes which should exercise the overhead speakers....


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> It is public and it does contain stereo objects: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...oring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf


Perfect! Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

Steve Goff said:


> It seems fairly obvious that Dolby made a mistake, since few speakers that anyone would consider for this duty have 180 degree dispersion at mid and upper frequencies.


It wasn't obvious to me, since they were saying it in the context of pointing those speakers straight down (as they do at all their demos). Dispersion of 45 degrees off axis would limit downfiring speaker placement to higher than 45 degrees elevation to prevent listeners from ending up outside the cone. How can then then include elevations as low as 30 degrees for their Top Front and Top Rear speakers?


> It seems very likely that they were calling for speakers with 90 degree coverage. The Tannoys spec is 90 degrees conical at - 6dB, and their charts support this spec, at least up to about 10 or 12kHz. I suspect that is one reason Roger chose Di6 DCs as his Atmos speakers.


Because they matched the Atmos guidelines? I thought he had discussed them on this forum prior to when those guidelines were published at CEDIA.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> It wasn't obvious to me, since they were saying it in the context of pointing those speakers straight down (as they do at all their demos). Dispersion of 45 degrees off axis would limit downfiring speaker placement to higher than 45 degrees elevation to prevent listeners from ending up outside the cone. How can then then include elevations as low as 30 degrees for their Top Front and Top Rear speakers? Because they matched the Atmos guidelines? I thought he had discussed them on this forum prior to when those guidelines were published at CEDIA.


The first time I read the atmos pdf, it was quite obvious to me that they meant 45 degrees off axis, as in a 90 degree dispersion speaker. What made it obvious to me was that I don't know of many speakers that have 180 degree dispersion and that a 180 degree dispersion simply wouldn't make sense either. Even if pointed straight down down, the dispersion of 90 degree speaker spreads quite a lot...Just look at a recessed light from the ceiling and how much the light spreads below.


----------



## DaJoJo

asoofi1 said:


> The first time I read the atmos pdf, it was quite obvious to me that they meant 45 degrees off axis, as in a 90 degree dispersion speaker. What made it obvious to me was that I don't know of many speakers that have 180 degree dispersion and that a 180 degree dispersion simply wouldn't make sense either. Even if pointed straight down down, the dispersion of 90 degree speaker spreads quite a lot...Just look at a recessed light from the ceiling and how much the light spreads below.


di and bi-poles have 180 degree dispersion. direct firing don't. the idea behind the philosophy is that one would have his/her ears in the dispersion range of the speaker and spread them as much as possible within this range. it says to otherwise point the speaker towards the mlp not at the mlp. this to me indicates that it is on purpose that the part that is little off-axis is pointed at mlp so that that the speakers have ther widest possible position to the mlp. so that the front and rear ceiling speakers create a sound from front or rear and are localizable that way, to make a nice positional sound comming from it.
edit:
see it as like a person stands in front of you shouting to your face and you would hear him shout from the front. now let the person turn his head a little to the left and shout again, you can then hear it comming from his mouth but the sound goes more to the right ear. that is the positioning they try to create with atmos.
so you see now that top middle speakers is a compromise and why they're supposed to be a little behind mlp and that di- and bi-poles not gonna do right here. .


----------



## sdurani

DaJoJo said:


> di and bi-poles have 180 degree dispersion. direct firing don't. the idea behind the philosophy is that one would have his/her ears in the dispersion range of the speaker and spread them as much as possible within this range. it says to otherwise point the speaker towards the mlp not at the mlp.


Yup, that is exactly what it says: 

_"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."_ 
 
This is only time "90 degrees" is mentioned in reference to dispersion. It's still not obvious to me that they made a mistake and actually meant '45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis', since that would limit placement of speakers "mounted facing directly downward". There is no other mention of "90 degrees" in relation to dispersion.


----------



## DaJoJo

sdurani said:


> Yup, that is exactly what it says:
> 
> _"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."_
> 
> This is only time "90 degrees" is mentioned in reference to dispersion. It's still not obvious to me that they made a mistake and actually meant '45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis', since that would limit placement of speakers "mounted facing directly downward". There is no other mention of "90 degrees" in relation to dispersion.


i think they mean to say that if you have normal ceiling speakers with less then 90 degrees dispersion then you have to point em a towards the mlp . there are ceiling speakers with 2 tweeters in it that have wider dispersion from 100hz to 10khz and those are not di- or bi-poles. 
edit: to clarify... 90 degrees dispersion pattern > ceilingspeaker with 2 tweeters pointing left and right. less then 90 degrees >ceilingspeaker with aimeble tweeter. or direct firing.


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> It wasn't obvious to me, since they were saying it in the context of pointing those speakers straight down (as they do at all their demos). Dispersion of 45 degrees off axis would limit downfiring speaker placement to higher than 45 degrees elevation to prevent listeners from ending up outside the cone. How can then then include elevations as low as 30 degrees for their Top Front and Top Rear speakers? Because they matched the Atmos guidelines? I thought he had discussed them on this forum prior to when those guidelines were published at CEDIA.



If they use direct radiating drivers in those speakers they can't come anywhere close to a 180 radiation pattern at higher frequencies. Without some component to deflect higher frequencies any driver will beam increasingly as frequency goes up. Maybe the speakers they use have pivoting tweeters.


----------



## Trigen

So just to re-confirm, there is no Atmos mix on the current release batch of Hercules, irregardless of the point of purchase?


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Shhhh, Roger, you are going to ruin the party for the perfect angle crowd sitting patiently with their protracters and laser pointers
> 
> This is so much a case of "perfect as the enemy of the good". Put the protracters down and follow the Scott Simonian plan -- use common sense and fill the gaps with speakers to get even coverage of the "acoustic box" as Roger put it. Then enjoy.


If Atmos is based on a Cartesian coordinate system then that approach itself is "enemy of the good". If dubbing stages and playback rooms differ in room dimensions (and they do) then the spatial presentation is only correct in rooms having the same dimensions (or scaled), i.e. there's no reference. It's a step back for the movie industry and they end up in the same trap as the music industry: The only original that can ever exist is the room the recording was mixed in.


----------



## Mastiff

pasender91 said:


> Mastiff, i confirm your current presence speakers can be used directly by Atmos, in positions that are called Front Height and Rear Height, so you can do 7.1.4 right now, that's good already no ? This is a valid configuration for Atmos and it is NOT reflected sound, it is direct sound from your current speakers.
> 
> BTW, to make it clear for all, the presence speakers that you have now are elevated, so you already run 7.1.4. You want to add 4 ceiling speakers to reach 7.1.8.
> 
> But today there is no "reasonably priced" AVR on the market that allows for more than 4 elevated speakers, and i'm not sure what you want to do combining 2 AVRs is feasible.





Scott Simonian said:


> You do know that you can render Atmos overhead content to those same presence speakers? You can keep the presence speakers without adding more.
> 
> It sounds like what you want is 7.2.8 which probably won't happen any time soon, unfortunately.


Now you to guys don't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm just dumb? But in a Yamaha receiver the .4 you point to is a part of what Yamaha calls a 11.x setup and created by Yamaha's use of DSP, it is not mixed into any track, Atmos or not. And it has nothing at all do do with Dolby, it's used with both DTS and Dolby tracks. It's been around for a lot longer than any Atmos, the first 9.2 receiver from Yamaha was the Z9, I believe. And that has to be close to ten years ago. Then came the Z11 in 2008, with amplification for the standard 7.x setup plus four presence channels. So to me this is still an 11.2 system that should have the addition of .4 to make it 11.2.4. It's not a 7.2.4 system that I want to turn into 7.2.8.



pasender91 said:


> I wonder too.
> In theory:
> 1) buy two 7.1.4 capable AVRs, say Marantz 7009
> 2) configure AVR1 as 7.1.4, 7 being 5+SB, .4 being TF+TR, calibrate
> 3) configure AVR2 as 7.1.4, 7 being 5+FW, .4 being FH+RH, calibrate
> 4) unplug the 5 main speakers from AVR2 (they are already handled from AVR1)
> 5) resulting config is 9.1.8 !!!! (7.1 +FW, FH + TF + TR + RH)
> 6) connect HDMI cables to both AVR to send Atmos signal to both, would the sound by synched ?
> 
> Any flaw to those steps?
> 
> Enjoy !!
> This is much cheaper than a trinnov, but please get the trinnov and support the much-crippled french economy


That was what I said, only a bit more in detail!  I really don't see any flaws, especially with use of two identical or at least very similar speakers. I'm guessing that will be needed to keep the sync problems to a minium. Then again maybe the sync problems really wouldn't matter or even be a problem when keeping the main speakers on the same receiver. I don't think the presence and Atmos speakers would need to be that accurate to have the desired effect. In theory it may even be possible to expand on this by using front wide speakers in addition to the presence by using one Marantz and one Yamaha, for instance. And another nice thing about this is that I can have true x.4.x by letting one receiver feed the 15" subs and another one feed the 12" subs!

Possible or not, I'm guessing that would have to be settled by actually trying! I may be the guinea pig some day (will have to wait until spring, when I am going to mount that ceiling with the B&W ceiling speakers) since Norway has very nice rules for returning stuff: Anything that's bought online can be returned after two weeks without questions as long as it's not damaged (or opened in the case of movies, games and music). Some big retail chains even have 30 days. I watched the new LG OLED for a month before deciding that I want a bigger screen and just returned it!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> IF you believe 90 degrees from axis is the same as a 90 degree cone, then it is a waste of keystrokes for me to discuss this any further.


There seems to be some confusion, with some people saying that the Dolby WP spec is an error and that what they meant is 90 degree conical dispersion. What speakers, in your opinion, would match the Dolby spec as it is published (other than dipoles which we understand are specific ally not ideal for use as Atmos overheads? And in what way are the Tannoy's less than ideal for Atmos?


----------



## Ralph Potts

sdurani said:


> Oblivion was one of the best Atmos mixes I heard in the theatres. Hopefully that mix will make to Blu-ray. The only Blu-ray currently with an Atmos track is Transformers: Age of Extinction.


Greetings,

Sanjay, I have *Step up: All in* from Lionsgate in for review, which contains an Atmos mix. I am not currently setup for Atmos but am in the process, awaiting the release of the Marantz AV8802. 


Regards,


----------



## Ralph Potts

brwsaw said:


> FWIW, Ralph Potts uses QS8's (as per his equipment list included with his reviews) but not I'm sure if he's using them in an Atmos system. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts about their use in an Atmos capable system.


Greetings,

I do use QS8's as surrounds and will continue to use them in that capacity once I am setup for Atmos.


Regards,


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> You know that better than I; I was referring to Dolby as being mistaken.
> 
> As Sanjay said, 90 deg from on-axis is not a 90 deg cone; it's 2X that.


True - but what speakers are 90° from on-axis? The Tannoys are 90° conical dispersion, which is what Dolby meant to publish, but made an error. Isn’t that what we are saying? If Dolby meant to publish 90° conical dispersion, then the Tannoys are indeed ideal, despite Sanjay's insistence that they are not. The question hinges around the Dolby WP and whether we should be reading what they wrote, or what they meant.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

pasender91 said:


> I wonder too.
> In theory:
> 1) buy two 7.1.4 capable AVRs, say Marantz 7009
> 2) configure AVR1 as 7.1.4, 7 being 5+SB, .4 being TF+TR, calibrate
> 3) configure AVR2 as 7.1.4, 7 being 5+FW, .4 being FH+RH, calibrate
> 4) unplug the 5 main speakers from AVR2 (they are already handled from AVR1)
> 5) resulting config is 9.1.8 !!!! (7.1 +FW, FH + TF + TR + RH)
> 6) connect HDMI cables to both AVR to send Atmos signal to both, would the sound by synched ?
> 
> Any flaw to those steps?
> 
> Enjoy !!
> This is much cheaper than a trinnov, but please get the trinnov and support the much-crippled french economy


One flaw is that you will have spekers adding sound where the AVRs expect no sound to be created. The end result will most likely be that the sound effects from the top will be twice the intended volume.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> It seems fairly obvious that Dolby made a mistake, since few speakers that anyone would consider for this duty have 180 degree dispersion at mid and upper frequencies. It seems very likely that they were calling for speakers with 90 degree coverage. The Tannoys spec is 90 degrees conical at - 6dB, and their charts support this spec, at least up to about 10 or 12kHz. I suspect that is one reason Roger chose Di6 DCs as his Atmos speakers.


Indeed. And why I followed suit. Sanjay has said that I should stop telling people that the Tannoys are not ideal for Atmos/on spec for Atmos, but he is making the error of ass-u-ming that Dolby meant what they published. I did ask him which speakers would have 180° dispersion but he didn’t answer me, in order not to waste keystrokes. I stand by my former remarks that the Tannoy Di series represent a very, very close match to the Dolby spec. (The intended spec not the erroneous spec in the WP, which you have rightly said, IMO, cannot be what they meant.)


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It wasn't obvious to me, since they were saying it in the context of pointing those speakers straight down (as they do at all their demos). Dispersion of 45 degrees off axis would limit downfiring speaker placement to higher than 45 degrees elevation to prevent listeners from ending up outside the cone. How can then then include elevations as low as 30 degrees for their Top Front and Top Rear speakers?


Because the want the listener off-axis so they can't localise the speaker? Seems odd I agree, but no more odd than specifying speakers that don't exist. Can you point me to some that meet the criteria you say is what Dolby meant, and which would be suitable for purpose in the other aspects of the spec too?



sdurani said:


> Because they matched the Atmos guidelines? I thought he had discussed them on this forum prior to when those guidelines were published at CEDIA.


I think that is correct, but the choice was vindicated by the WP when it did come out. It still seems to me that the Tannoy Di series is a terrific match for Atmos of course, but in my room I aim them somewhat towards the MLP anyway because I have never owned, AFAICR, any speaker which did not benefit from such aiming.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

pasender91 said:


> Dolby provides only angle ranges in the public documentation.
> BUT for sure the AVR will compute the output channels based on a given and SECRET precise angle for each speaker location .
> It was confirmed by Roger that it would be difficult to get access to the actual values, but i don't see the reason for this non-disclosure.


It is possible the AVRs do very little calculations to start with and everything in the ceiling is simply calculated front left, front right, rear left and rear right. I think it was Roger that also tested to change the settings around for the top speakers and couldn't hear a difference between the two front positions. It would be interesting to have that test redone now that the dolby demo disc is available.



Al Sherwood said:


> Is this because you think that adjacent pairs won't provide 'enough' localization, due to lack of physical separation? This would seem to follow the premise of providing separation between the surrounds and the height speakers...


I don't think the AVRs are powerful enough to do what we hope they can do. Separation can't be the problem or the 24.1.10 option wouldn't be possible with its 15 degree separation horizontally and 25 degrees vertically along the lenght of the ceiling.


----------



## robert816

M Code said:


> Combination of new and re-releases..
> Key point here is Dolby is pushing hard that the library of Atmos titles is _increasing..._
> Regarding new formats, there always is an ongoing debate, either no hardware or no software..
> Plus Dolby is pushing the cinemas' Atmos installs hard...
> Though Dolby was caught sleeping a couple of times in the past and DTS jumped into the spotlight pushing their stuff...
> Dolby has put significant $ & emphasis to make sure this doesn't happen again.
> Especially while DTS is pursuing _other_ strategic directions including car info-tainment, personal electronics, pro-broadcasting and wireless, multi-room systems..
> 
> Just my $0.02...


Sweet! While I hate the whole double dipping thing the studios seem to prefer, I'd re-purchase Pacific Rim and Superman and a few others with an Atmos soundtrack since thats how I experienced them at the theatre.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Because the want the listener off-axis so they can't localise the speaker? Seems odd I agree, but no more odd than specifying speakers that don't exist.


At least you guys agree on the fact that Dolby's specification on this point seems odd (I would rather say crappy) no matter how you interpret it. I tend to go along with the suggestion that they made an error in defining the dispersion. This implies that, while staying within the assumed Atmos specs, you should avoid having non-aimable in-ceiling speakers lower than 45 degrees elevation. Would be nice if a Dolby rep could confirm this.


----------



## Selden Ball

I could believe that the document had multiple editors, and that one of them noticed the recommendation for using downward firing speakers and realized that a 90 degree cone wouldn't be adequate, so decided to fix the "typo".


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> If Atmos is based on a Cartesian coordinate system then that approach itself is "enemy of the good". If dubbing stages and playback rooms differ in room dimensions (and they do) then the spatial presentation is only correct in rooms having the same dimensions (or scaled), i.e. there's no reference. It's a step back for the movie industry and they end up in the same trap as the music industry: The only original that can ever exist is the room the recording was mixed in.



Your conclusion is in line what William Files (re-recoding mixer of "Dawn of the planet of the apes") said during the IBC conference last September (I have quoted him earlier in this thread), with the only difference that he actually qualifies this as a positive thing:

'And the final piece of the puzzle, for _me_ is consistency of reproduction, hum, specifically in terms of object playback, hum, which to me makes perfect sense, hum, the wonderful thing is that, as a, it's a, it's a thing you have to get used to as a mixer to trust that the computer is going to take the intent in what you try to do, and do his very best version of it in the configuration of the room as it is. But once you swallowed that idea, and you get used to this idea that it is _not_ going to be exactly the same every time, but it will _feel_ the same way every time, hum, that is actually even better in many ways'.


----------



## markus767

^
Not sure if he's referring to the same thing. Roger explained the difference between the two coordinate systems. It's beyond me why Dolby opted for Cartesian because a polar coordinate system would have worked better and probably would NOT have been computationally more expensive.


----------



## sdurani

Ralph Potts said:


> Sanjay, I have *Step up: All in* from Lionsgate in for review, which contains an Atmos mix.


Good to hear Ralph, especially after Hercules turned out not to have an Atmos mix.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

im still dumbfounded how theycan announce Hercules will have ATMOS and not tell anyone that it will NOT have it...what about us who preordered...


----------



## tomparis

Great. The upcoming 3D release of Hercules is coming with Atmos.
The 2D release doesn't come with Atmos.
Maybe they think, that if you have no 3D picture, you don't need 3D sound.

However the 2D version is also available as an extended cut. The 3D version only theatrical cut.
So one must decide, what's more important for oneself.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> ^
> Not sure if he's referring to the same thing. Roger explained the difference between the two coordinate systems. It's beyond me why Dolby opted for Cartesian because a polar coordinate system would have worked better and probably would NOT have been computationally more expensive.


I was only referring to your conclusion "The only original that can ever exist is the room the recording was mixed in" which is pretty much in line with William Files' remark on consistency of object reproduction between rooms.

BTW, I agree on your point that applying a polar coordinate system seems to would have been a better option for achieving consistent reproduction.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> What speaker would be better suited than the Tannoys?


Any speaker that you prefer and has _enough_ dispersion to cover your listening area.


kbarnes701 said:


> What speakers, in your opinion, would match the Dolby spec as it is published (other than dipoles which we understand are specific ally not ideal for use as Atmos overheads?


Any bipole (no null in the dispersion pattern like dipoles have).


kbarnes701 said:


> And in what way are the Tannoy's less than ideal for Atmos?


If you like how they sound, then they're ideal. If you don't, then they're not.


kbarnes701 said:


> True - but what speakers are 90° from on-axis?


Any bipole.


kbarnes701 said:


> Because the want the listener off-axis so they can't localise the speaker?


They want the listener outside the dispersion of the speaker?


kbarnes701 said:


> Seems odd I agree, but no more odd than specifying speakers that don't exist. Can you point me to some that meet the criteria you say is what Dolby meant, and which would be suitable for purpose in the other aspects of the spec too?


Bipole speakers exist.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The Tannoys are 90° conical dispersion, which is what Dolby meant to publish, but made an error. Isn’t that what we are saying? If Dolby meant to publish 90° conical dispersion, then the Tannoys are indeed ideal, despite Sanjay's insistence that they are not. The question hinges around the Dolby WP and whether we should be reading what they wrote, or what they meant.


How do you know Dolby made an error? Have they retracted that line? How are you privy to what Dolby "meant"?


kbarnes701 said:


> I think that is correct, but the choice was vindicated by the WP when it did come out.


The WP doesn't mention dispersion numbers that match the Tannoys.


kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay has said that I should stop telling people that the Tannoys are not ideal for Atmos/on spec for Atmos, but he is making the error of ass-u-ming that Dolby meant what they published.


I'm going by what Dolby actually published, yet I'm the one "making the error of ass-u-ming"? Seriously? I can point to where my assumption comes from in the Dolby paper. Can you?


kbarnes701 said:


> I stand by my former remarks that the Tannoy Di series represent a very, very close match to the Dolby spec. (The intended spec not the erroneous spec in the WP, which you have rightly said, IMO, cannot be what they meant.)


You keep saying that you know what Dolby "intended". What are they telling you that they're not telling the rest of us? And why wouldn't they tell everyone else?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> im still dumbfounded how theycan announce Hercules will have ATMOS and not tell anyone that it will NOT have it...what about us who preordered...


Yeah - I ordered it from the USA to get it sooner and it was already dispatched before I discovered this news. It's too expensive to return discs to the USA so I am stuck with it now. If I’d known it was non-Atmos, I'd have ordered it much more cheaply in the UK, or not at all maybe. Ho hum.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Any speaker that you prefer and has _enough_ dispersion to cover your listening area.


And examples of such a speaker would be what? Other than dipoles/bipoles, which we don't want in the ceiling so it seems, what speakers have the 180° dispersion you were describing?



sdurani said:


> Any bipole (no null in the dispersion pattern like dipoles have). If you like how they sound, then they're ideal. If you don't, then they're not. Any bipole. They want the listener outside the dispersion of the speaker? Bipole speakers exist.


I can’t find any reference from Dolby that bipoles or dipoles are what we should be using as overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> How do you know Dolby made an error? Have they retracted that line? How are you privy to what Dolby "meant"?


I don't know of course. Other than what they said doesn’t make much sense. We are told that direct radiators give the best results and I can’t find any direct radiators that have a 180° dispersion pattern, so I can only ass-u-me that they made an error.



sdurani said:


> The WP doesn't mention dispersion numbers that match the Tannoys. I'm going by what Dolby actually published, yet I'm the one "making the error of ass-u-ming"? Seriously? I can point to where my assumption comes from in the Dolby paper. Can you? You keep saying that you know what Dolby "intended". What are they telling you that they're not telling the rest of us? And why wouldn't they tell everyone else?


What the WP says doesn't appear to make sense. On the basis that Dolby don't write nonsense on purpose, what other conclusion is reasonable besides the one that they made an error?


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> *If they use direct radiating drivers in those speakers* they can't come anywhere close to a 180 radiation pattern at higher frequencies. Without some component to deflect higher frequencies any driver will beam increasingly as frequency goes up. Maybe the speakers they use have pivoting tweeters.


They did in London. I saw them. Twice. Pointing directly down and direct firing. So it is impossible for them to have followed their own WP. The most likely conclusion is that they made an error in the WP and meant to specify 90° conical not 90° off-axis.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> They did in London. I saw them. Twice. Pointing directly down and direct firing. So it is impossible for them to have followed their own WP. The most likely conclusion is that they made an error in the WP and meant to specify 90° conical not 90° off-axis.


And did any of those speakers have an elevation angle below 45 degrees?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> And did any of those speakers have an elevation angle below 45 degrees?


Difficult to be 100% sure but my guess would be 'no'. But then, they are not specifying different speaker types for different elevations either.

Which non-dipole/bipole speakers have 180° dispersion patterns? Or are you implying that Dolby are really recommending dipoles/bipoles as overhead speakers if the angle is below 45°? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere.

It seems to me that if the 90° angle is indeed off-axis, then the only speakers that could be used which would fulfil the requirements of all the permitted angles would be dipoles/bipoles. But nowhere have Dolby ever said that. So it just points to a simple error in the document. I can't see why people are going through such hoops just to try to prove that no error was made - it's hardly world-shattering news that a lengthy document might contain one or two errors.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Which non-dipole/bipole speakers have 180° dispersion patterns? Or are you implying that Dolby are really recommending dipoles/bipoles as overhead speakers if the angle is below 45°? I've not seen that mentioned anywhere.


Like I have said before, I tend to follow the line that Dolby probably made an error in specifying the off-axis dispersion to be 90 degrees instead of 45 degrees. But if that is true, IMO they also should have added a remark about not using non-aimable in-ceiling speakers for the 30-45 and 135-150 degrees elevation ranges (in effect the FH's and RH's positions).


----------



## pasender91

Regarding this discussion on dispersion angles , i didn't want to get involved in the debate with an information that is not verified, but still, i believe i should.

It may come as shocking news for some, but dolby documents seem to define the following for ceiling speakers:

Ceiling above 12 ft => "Monopole speakers with wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100Hz to 10kHz or wider)". I personally read the part underlined as 90° TOTAL dispersion, so 45° each side, but we can still debate about it if you like 

Now the important bit:
*Ceiling below 12 ft => "bipolar speakers are recommended. Speakers with narrower dispersion patterns should be angled toward the primary listening position."*

This is quite different from what the consensus was until now, in this thread.
Keith, i really appreciate all you interventions, but in this case i believe srudani is correct 
I also guess you have to remove your tannoys in your small room now, and replace them with bipolars :kiss:

Again, this has to be verified, it is an official Dolby document extract i got on another forum.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Regarding this discussion on dispersion angles , i didn't want to get involved in the debate with an information that is not verified, but still, i believe i should.
> 
> It may come as shocking news for some, but dolby documents seem to define the following for ceiling speakers:
> 
> Ceiling above 12 ft => "Monopole speakers with wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100Hz to 10kHz or wider)". I personally read the part underlined as 90° conical, so 45° each side, but we can still debate about it if you like
> 
> Now the important bit:
> *Ceiling below 12 ft => "bipolar speakers are recommended. Speakers with narrower dispersion patterns should be angled toward the primary listening position."*
> 
> This is quite different from what the consensus was here until now.
> Keith, i really appreciate all you interventions, but in this case i believe srudani is correct
> I also guess you have to remove your tannoys in your small room now :kiss:
> 
> Again, this has to be verified, it is an official Dolby document extract i got on another forum.


I’d love to see where that is stated. At the Dolby 'typical home theater' demos the ceilings were all ~8ft (2.4m) and bipoles were definitely not used. So either the new information is not correct or Dolby were ignoring their own spec at their own showcase demos, which seems unlikely.

Until I see the direct evidence, I find it hard to believe.

BTW, even it is correct there's no need to remove the Tannoys - they would just have to be angled towards MLP, as per the quote above


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Perfect! Thanks.


The manual explains that in Atmos a stereo object is composed of two mono objects which can be interlinked using three different modes:

_*Linking Stereo Panner Controls*
• None: The Left and Right channel controls operate completely independently. Actions taken in one channel do not affect the other.
• Mirrored: Any action in one channel automatically places its mirror image in the other. For example, panning from center to the left in the L channel produces a pan from center to right in the R channel.
• Copy: Any action in one channel is copied to the other. For example, panning from the center to the left in the L channel also produces a pan from center to left in the R channel._

And snapping is described as follows:

_*Speaker Snap is useful for eliminating phantom panning*. For example, in the Panner default mode (Speaker Snap mode off), the algorithm might spread the audio of one object across two or more speakers. Speaker Snap mode prevents this by snapping all of the audio to the single speaker nearest the indicated position of the object in the Panner virtual room._

Edit: My guess is that given the relative instability of a pure pan-pot phantom image, Speaker Snap mode will be mostly set to OFF for objects that are moving through the room, and ON for objects that are fixed to one location.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> And examples of such a speaker would be what?


Mirage omnipolars.


kbarnes701 said:


> Other than dipoles/bipoles, which we don't want in the ceiling so it seems, what speakers have the 180° dispersion you were describing?


I can understand not wanting dipoles, since you don't want to be in their null. But who is the "we" that made up the rule about not using bipoles? My local Atmos cinema uses a pair of Christie Vive speakers back-to-back at each height location.


kbarnes701 said:


> I can’t find any reference from Dolby that bipoles or dipoles are what we should be using as overheads.


They don't mention how you get there (i.e., what type of speaker to use), just what "there" is (dispersion). If you look at the frequency range in that sentence, 100Hz-10kHz, most speakers are already omnidirectional in the lower part of that range and likely hemispheric across some other chunk of that range (depending on tweeter size).


kbarnes701 said:


> We are told that direct radiators give the best results and I can’t find any direct radiators that have a 180° dispersion pattern, so I can only ass-u-me that they made an error.


Bipoles are direct radiators.


kbarnes701 said:


> What the WP says doesn't appear to make sense. On the basis that Dolby don't write nonsense on purpose, what other conclusion is reasonable besides the one that they made an error?


Doesn't make sense _to you_. But you not grokking it doesn't automatically make it an error. By that logic, for folks for whom it does make sense there is no error.


----------



## markus767

This page might be helpful? 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/about/contact-us/email-us.aspx


----------



## smurraybhm

I too would like to stay out of this, I'll just say for having an incorrect setup I am very happy with how it sounds. Discussions like this have no "winner" and only serve to confuse possible adopters even more. I'll just say it isn't difficult to do an Atmos setup and get good results regardless what you use for speakers.
Since when did this get so complicated? I thought the hard part about about Atmos was figuring out AMP ASSIGN with my Denon


----------



## HT-Eman

Well i'm currently re-doing my living room HT for atmos and this is what i'm using for my atmos ceiling speakers. http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ITwDkfQb1KQ/mobile/Product/Item/Research.aspx?i=022AW390BL . The have a wide pattern and can easily be mounted on the ceiling. Just bought a new sofa , painted the room a new color , had the room analysed on where to place acoustic treatment , and now just waiting to get a receiver.


----------



## HT-Eman

HT-Eman said:


> Well i'm currently re-doing my living room HT for atmos and this is what i'm using for my atmos ceiling speakers. http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ITwDkfQb1KQ/mobile/Product/Item/Research.aspx?i=022AW390BL . The have a wide pattern and can easily be mounted on the ceiling. Just bought a new sofa , painted the room a new color , had the room analysed on where to place acoustic treatment , and now just waiting to get a receiver.
> View attachment 338746


I meant they have a wide dispersion sound pattern.


----------



## Ralph Potts

HT-Eman said:


> I meant they have a wide dispersion sound pattern.


Greetings,

You could have just edited your first post.. 


Regards,


----------



## HT-Eman

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> You could have just edited your first post..
> 
> 
> Regards,


I tried but I didn't have over 5 post , since it says i'm a newbie. But it's showing now that I can edit. Thank you.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> I'm still dumbfounded how they can announce Hercules will have ATMOS and then not tell anyone that it will NOT have it...what about those of us who preordered...?


Welcome to corporate America. 

Where have you been?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mastiff said:


> Now you to guys don't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm just dumb? But in a Yamaha receiver the .4 you point to is a part of what Yamaha calls a 11.x setup and created by Yamaha's use of DSP, it is not mixed into any track, Atmos or not. And it has nothing at all do do with Dolby, it's used with both DTS and Dolby tracks. It's been around for a lot longer than any Atmos, the first 9.2 receiver from Yamaha was the Z9, I believe. And that has to be close to ten years ago. Then came the Z11 in 2008, with amplification for the standard 7.x setup plus four presence channels. So to me this is still an 11.2 system that should have the addition of .4 to make it 11.2.4. It's not a 7.2.4 system that I want to turn into 7.2.8.


Yes, I am very familiar with Yamaha's CinemaDSP programs.

Dolby Atmos, in the home setting has support for FIVE pairs of overhead speaker locations. These include front and rear 'heights' (your current presence location), front and rear 'tops' which are slightly more into the room and a pair of middle 'top' overhead. Five pairs of ten speakers total.

Here is a diagram illustrating this:










You can keep your presence speakers where they are at and tell your new Atmos capable receiver that your four overhead speakers are in these locations. 

One can toggle between Atmos and CinemaDSP modes as currently there is no support for both to be active at the same time (possibly in future products) but you do not have to move or add speakers. There will be no support for >4ch overhead until future hardware allows for this. It will not be possible to upgrade current hardware for that either.


----------



## CCSchoch

brwsaw said:


> What happened to Dolby's statement to install the bluray "and it will just work" or that the disks wouldn't be labeled for Atmos specifically.
> 
> 
> FWIW, Ralph Potts uses QS8's (as per his equipment list included with his reviews) but not I'm sure if he's using them in an Atmos system. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts about their use in an Atmos capable system.


Is this statement meant to raise a question on whether or not QS8's perform well in an Atmos system? I have QS8's in my 5.1 setup and LOVE them. 

Is there some new change in the way sounds will be sent to surrounds in an Atmos system that would question the use of QS8's in an Atmos setup? I HOPE NOT!!!


----------



## bass addict

My gosh, the more one reads on the subject, the more confusing it gets. I really wish Dolby would put out an amended document that quantified things a bit more.


----------



## batpig

It's only confusing if your goal is this fallacious pursuit of obsessive precision. 

It's not at all confusing if you follow the Scott Simonian Fill-The-Gaps Common Sense Approach (TM). Got a 5.1 or 7.1 setup? Sweet! Want to place four speakers above you? Put two of them a bit in front of you, and the other two a bit behind you.... then sit back and enjoy!


----------



## brwsaw

CCSchoch said:


> Is this statement meant to raise a question on whether or not QS8's perform well in an Atmos system? I have QS8's in my 5.1 setup and LOVE them.
> 
> Is there some new change in the way sounds will be sent to surrounds in an Atmos system that would question the use of QS8's in an Atmos setup? I HOPE NOT!!!


Not at all, QS8's are a great surround speaker. The question was already raised by many. My post was originally going to be about axiom bashing (its seems absurd to see so much hate for a brand) but I tamed it down a bit.

Its yet to be seen exactly how QS8's will work with Atmos. The QS series should be fine given their ability to be both invisible (most of the time) and place sounds accurately when called to do so. I guess the real question is how well they will work with object based reproduction with XYZ co-ordinates in our home environments. I don't recall seeing/reading any posts from a member with both Atmos and the QS8's.

I'm not completely against replacing my surrounds but would prefer to keep them, they are the best I've heard for surround duty. I am watching this closely.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> My gosh, the more one reads on the subject, the more confusing it gets. I really wish Dolby would put out an amended document that quantified things a bit
> more.


It really isn't.



batpig said:


> It's only confusing if your goal is this fallacious pursuit of obsessive precision.
> 
> It's not at all confusing if you follow the Scott Simonian Fill-The-Gaps Common Sense Approach (TM). Got a 5.1 or 7.1 setup? Sweet! Want to place four speakers above you? Put two of them a bit in front of you, and the other two a bit behind you.... then sit back and enjoy!


G'damned right.

Conventional 5/7.1 isn't all that hard to undertand, is it? 

Okay, you get that then? Cool. Do it again on the ceiling. Bam. Done.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> It really isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> G'damned right.
> 
> Conventional 5/7.1 isn't all that hard to undertand, is it?
> 
> Okay, you get that then? Cool. Do it again on the ceiling. Bam. Done.


I wasn't alluding so much to placement. In my room 45 and 135 degrees places the speakers 4' in front and 4' behind the MLP with the rear surrounds another 4' behind those. Works fine. 

The debate seems to rage on on about direct radiating, dispersion patterns, bi polar, aim or not aim, etc etc.


----------



## bass addict

brwsaw said:


> Not at all, QS8's are a great surround speaker. The question was already raised by many. My post was originally going to be about axiom bashing (its seems absurd to see so much hate for a brand) but I tamed it down a bit.
> 
> Its yet to be seen exactly how QS8's will work with Atmos. The QS series should be fine given their ability to be both invisible (most of the time) and place sounds accurately when called to do so. I guess the real question is how well they will work with object based reproduction with XYZ co-ordinates in our home environments. I don't recall seeing/reading any posts from a member with both Atmos and the QS8's.
> 
> I'm not completely against replacing my surrounds but would prefer to keep them, they are the best I've heard for surround duty. I am watching this closely.


Agree'd. I had been an Axiom fan for years (right up until going to a SEOS setup), and for a commercial speaker, they never failed to disappoint. I was running 3 M80's for my front soundstage and was very happy with the sound. 

I still think the QS8's are the dark horse in their lineup though. I've tried a lot of surround speakers, and have yet to find one that works so well in so many different scenarios as the QS8. They will eventually be replaced by Volt 10's, but in the meantime I'm really thinking about installing my 4 tops, and running them with the QS8 to see how well they integrate. I think I might be surprised. 

If nothing else, it might put to bed the debate between direct radiating and bi/quad polar speakers as surrounds.


----------



## batpig

bass addict said:


> The debate seems to rage on on about direct radiating, dispersion patterns, bi polar, aim or not aim, etc etc.


Is this any different than the debates about what you should use for surround speakers in traditional 5.1/7.1 arrangements? You have your fans of bipoles, dipoles, and direct radiators there too, with no definitive answer about what is "correct". Some people like a more diffuse, envelopment soundfield, some people like razor sharp precision, some people are in between. And so far, the ground beneath us has not ripped asunder to unleash the spawn of hell as a consequence


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> I wasn't alluding so much to placement. In my room 45 and 135 degrees places the speakers 4' in front and 4' behind the MLP with the rear surrounds another 4' behind those. Works fine.
> 
> The debate seems to rage on on about direct radiating, dispersion patterns, bi polar, aim or not aim, etc etc.


Don't read so much into all this dispersion talk lately. Treat your overheads the same as you would your surrounds.

Use what is appropriate for your room and needs. This means coverage. You, BA, have one row of seating. Am I correct? All one needs to worry about is that the surrounds have proper coverage for the seating. This is easier for those of us in small rooms and/or single row of seating. Use what ever surround topology to get the job done. Monopolar, bipolar, whatever. Dipoles should be discouraged from now on. When possible use the same kind of speakers overhead as you would for surrounds.

Pretty simple.


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> The debate seems to rage on on about direct radiating, dispersion patterns, bi polar, aim or not aim, etc etc.


What Dolby says in their white paper isn't complicated. IF your speakers have dispersion to 90 degrees off axis, then you can point them straight down (the way in-ceiling speakers often are). If they have a narrower dispersion, then aim them (or their pointable elements) towards the listening area. Common sense.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't read so much into all this dispersion talk lately. Treat your overheads the same as you would your surrounds.
> 
> Use what is appropriate for your room and needs. This means coverage. You, BA, have one row of seating. Am I correct? All one needs to worry about is that the surrounds have proper coverage for the seating. This is easier for those of us in small rooms and/or single row of seating. Use what ever surround topology to get the job done. Monopolar, bipolar, whatever. Dipoles should be discouraged from now on. When possible use the same kind of speakers overhead as you would for surrounds.
> 
> Pretty simple.


I actually have two rows of seating, hence my affinity for the qs8's. That being said; I know I'm not going to be able to install a perfect system that works for both the front, and rear rows of seating. This system will be designed around the front two seats, with everyone else taking a back seat (no pun intended) to the perfect audio setup. 

Here is a pic of my room for reference. I am looking at installing the overheads in the first tiered section (the blue painted one). My only concern is a little reflection being created from the black sofit that the speaker will sit up against seeing as the soffit will hang down lower than the speakers will. 

















The rear row will have to suffer as both the side surrounds and overhead will be in front of them, but the rear row is already lacking in the imaging department, so this will be nothing new here. They get the advantage of the riser and nearfield subs, so hopefully that offsets the lackluster audio.


----------



## bass addict

sdurani said:


> Common sense.


I'll take that tongue in cheek.


----------



## asoofi1

Some are suffering from analysis paralysis. Anyone saying the minimum recommended dispersion is supposed to be 180 degrees is completely wrong based on the released documentation.

Per installation guide:
"Mounting considerations
If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."

Definition - If using wide dispersion speaker, which is 90 degrees or greater, then mount facing directly down. Anything less than 90 degrees dispersion should be aimed at MLP. It's really quite simple. No debate necessary.

Every single Atmos studio pic I've seen has speakers facing down. No bipoles, dipoles, north poles, or south poles so far. But use whatever your little heart desires.

Carry on.


----------



## Mastiff

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, I am very familiar with Yamaha's CinemaDSP programs.
> 
> Dolby Atmos, in the home setting has support for FIVE pairs of overhead speaker locations. These include front and rear 'heights' (your current presence location), front and rear 'tops' which are slightly more into the room and a pair of middle 'top' overhead. Five pairs of ten speakers total.
> 
> You can keep your presence speakers where they are at and tell your new Atmos capable receiver that your four overhead speakers are in these locations.
> 
> One can toggle between Atmos and CinemaDSP modes as currently there is no support for both to be active at the same time (possibly in future products) but you do not have to move or add speakers. There will be no support for >4ch overhead until future hardware allows for this. It will not be possible to upgrade current hardware for that either.


I see, thanks! So what you said just now is that I *really *need two receivers! And six speakers in the ceiling instead of the four I was planning for. It's all a bit clearer now. Let's see:

Amp 1 running front, center, surround, rear surround, either front presence or rear presence and one pair of subs.

Amp 2 running the presence pair that's left, three pairs of top speakers (I will probably have to cheat on that one and have either the front top or the rear top pair defined as the presence speakers that's actually run by amp 1 since there's no mention of a 7.1.6 setup anywhere) and the other pair of subs.

Is that the logical way of doing this? I have to put up the speakers now anyway, because I'm not redoing the ceiling in three years when the real multi-channel stuff starts coming.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> I actually have two rows of seating, hence my affinity for the qs8's. That being said; I know I'm not going to be able to install a perfect system that works for both the front, and rear rows of seating. This system will be designed around the front two seats, with everyone else taking a back seat (no pun intended) to the perfect audio setup.
> 
> Here is a pic of my room for reference. I am looking at installing the overheads in the first tiered section (the blue painted one). My only concern is a little reflection being created from the black sofit that the speaker will sit up against seeing as the soffit will hang down lower than the speakers will.
> 
> View attachment 338826
> 
> 
> View attachment 338834
> 
> 
> The rear row will have to suffer as both the side surrounds and overhead will be in front of them, but the rear row is already lacking in the imaging department, so this will be nothing new here. They get the advantage of the riser and nearfield subs, so hopefully that offsets the lackluster audio.


Ah. I remember now! 

So let's say you are removing all your surrounds because you're going to build a bunch of V10's. Play along. 

In this case you can mount the two rear heights right in that soffit area that look like it is above the back row. Personally, I would mount the front heights in the same area but not further out from the seats closer to the screen but directly between the side surrounds and left and right mains. So they will be out into the room some but this will put all four heights more or less equidistant from the MLP. Place your new side surrounds directly to the side of your front row. And because of your entry door you'll have to make do with where your current rear position is. I'd recommend the rears be in the corners pointing in toward the MLP but you have a door. 

There. You have your 7.1.4 config.


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> Bipole speakers exist.


Bipole speakers have good lateral dispersion but usually not good vertical dispersion, which may be as important for coverage from a ceiling position. Still, if you can't point the speakers towards the main listening position or need extreme lateral coverage they might be a good choice.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Then you must have Transformers, Age of Extinction.


Thanks, but I will have to wait. I am not a real fan of the Transformer series. No matter how good the audio, I still need a story to carry it. 
But, I am looking forward to the real deal otherwise. I do have Guardians of the Galaxy on order. I believe that has a native Atmos mix rather than an upmix.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mastiff said:


> I see, thanks! So what you said just now is that I *really *need two receivers! And six speakers in the ceiling instead of the four I was planning for. It's all a bit clearer now. Let's see:
> 
> Amp 1 running front, center, surround, rear surround, either front presence or rear presence and one pair of subs.
> 
> Amp 2 running the presence pair that's left, three pairs of top speakers (I will probably have to cheat on that one and have either the front top or the rear top pair defined as the presence speakers that's actually run by amp 1 since there's no mention of a 7.1.6 setup anywhere) and the other pair of subs.
> 
> Is that the logical way of doing this? I have to put up the speakers now anyway, because I'm not redoing the ceiling in three years when the real multi-channel stuff starts coming.



Heheh. Nah. That's over complicating it. But... if you insist.

Just get two Atmos receivers. Let one do the full 7.1.4 and then get one more Atmos receiver and just let it do one pair of overheads. Probably the middle top. 

Everybody should feel free to prepare for >7.1.4 configuration if they think that is something that they would want to pursue. The only caveat is that we do not know for sure when this kind of hardware will surface. I hope and wish that the CE's will get around to support something like 9.1.6 as the new maximum. At least move up to there. DAC's are often packaged in 8ch variants so that would be 16ch of DAC needed. Pretty easy to implement. 9.1.6 would support all sorts of programs including DTS:NeoX, DSX, CinemaDSP, Atmos, Dolby Surround and Auro3d and more than likely any new stuff from DTS whatever they do.


----------



## Mastiff

Well, I'm nothing if not persistent!  When I decide to do something, I do it, and anything in my way is getting mowed down by my 200 rather biker-ish pounds!  I'm guessing I will start playing with two receivers this spring, if they don't say anything at CES that makes me wait until next fall. And I will put up those six top speakers. Thanks for the drawing, so I know where to put them!


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> Mirage omnipolars.



Mirage Omnipolars have wide dispersion in the lateral plane but I suspect they have large anomalies in the vertical plane. They won't provide 180 degree hemispherical coverage.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> The manual explains that in Atmos a stereo object is composed of two mono objects which can be interlinked using three different modes:


Yes. No matter what the "stereo" tool offers for positioning, once in the bitstream, the two objects are each coded just like any other individual objects. It's just for the convenience of the mixer to be able to manipulate them at the same time.



> My guess is that given the relative instability of a pure pan-pot phantom image, Speaker Snap mode will be mostly set to OFF for objects that are moving through the room, and ON for objects that are fixed to one location.


In my guesstimation, snap will remain off unless a particular stationary sound really requires ultimate focus or clarity. But of course that's up to each mixer to decide. Maybe FilmMixer will offer his thoughts.


----------



## zeus33

dvdwilly3 said:


> I do have Guardians of the Galaxy on order. I believe that has a native Atmos mix rather than an upmix.



IIRC, it's been mentioned that the Blu-Ray of GotG will not have Atmos.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Heheh. Nah. That's over complicating it. But... if you insist.
> 
> Just get two Atmos receivers. Let one do the full 7.1.4 and then get one more Atmos receiver and just let it do one pair of overheads. Probably the middle top.
> 
> Everybody should feel free to prepare for >7.1.4 configuration if they think that is something that they would want to pursue. The only caveat is that we do not know for sure when this kind of hardware will surface. I hope and wish that the CE's will get around to support something like 9.1.6 as the new maximum. At least move up to there. DAC's are often packaged in 8ch variants so that would be 16ch of DAC needed. Pretty easy to implement. 9.1.6 would support all sorts of programs including DTS:NeoX, DSX, CinemaDSP, Atmos, Dolby Surround and Auro3d and more than likely any new stuff from DTS whatever they do.



9.1.6 Now you're talking! 

I knew that those 'extra' speakers would come in handy, just need to look to the heavens for their placement...


----------



## bass addict

> In this case you can mount the two rear heights right in that soffit area that look like it is above the back row.


If you are talking about the black soffit (hard to tell in those pics I know), that would put the rear tops (heights), just above and behind the second row and right in front of the rear surrounds. Not ideal IMO. If you are talking about mounting them in the tiered part of the ceiling (blue painted area), that would put them directly over the second row of seats and app. 6' behind the MLP. This would not put them in line with the front mains as far as width (as shows in the Atmos diagram), but I'm not sure if that really matters that much. 



> Personally, I would mount the front heights in the same area but not further out from the seats closer to the screen but directly between the side surrounds and left and right mains. So they will be out into the room some but this will put all four heights more or less equidistant from the MLP.


If mounting inside the tiered area, directly to the ceiling, I would have to modify my room treatments. That picture is an old one and doesn't show the 6 acoustic panels that mostly cover the inside section of the ceiling. Reflections would be tamed down due to not sitting next to the soffit, but I'm not sure I like the fact of having a giant box stuck to the top of my ceiling. At least with the tiered section, it will blend in with the sofits a hair bit more and not stick out like a sore thumb, lol. As you can see, with those of us who are width challenged, concessions have to be made to keep things flowing well. 

That's one reason I'd like to make sure I'm following Atmos specs as much as possible. I'm hoping this will make up for a less than ideal, install/room. 



> Place your new side surrounds directly to the side of your front row.


OCD wins here. The side surrounds will stay inside the column area. Even based on where they are mounted, they fit within Dolby's spec of 90 - 110 degrees; being placed right at 106 degrees from the MLP. 



> And because of your entry door you'll have to make do with where your current rear position is. I'd recommend the rears be in the corners pointing in toward the MLP but you have a door.


Yup, the door affected the design a bit. The rear are a little narrower than I'd like, but close to Dolbys spec of 135-150 degrees, being mounted at 160 degrees.

*At the end of the day I think I'm just going to say screw it, and mount them as originally intended with maybe a few more degrees built into the front rear top height. So maybe take and mount the TF 5' forward and the TR 5' behind the MLP in the blue tiered section. I could always build the boxes with a slight angle away from the sofit to cut down on reflections.

As most people have agreed; it appears even a sub par install still sounds considerably better than the current 7/9.1 setups.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. I meant the blue area.  They will be separated in width well enough. Don't worry. Not that you have much choice!  

Yeah, I'm just going off those pics. If they are old and you have new stuff in the way, what can I do to help?  Might have to modify stuff which you will be for Atmos anyway.

OCD? Hmph. Do you want good sound or not? Lol, jk. You're fine. Just a suggestion. We want to exaggerate all the difference in angle from each speaker quadrant for the best effect.

Hmm. That damn door. That's it! Tear the whole room down and start over.


----------



## GoCaboNow

So for multi row home theater, in a 7.1.4 setup, two ceiling ATMOS speakers slightly in front of the first row, and in line with left and right mains, and back two ceiling speakers slightly behind the back row?

Any inkling if we will get 7.1.6 next year?


----------



## Nightlord

Al Sherwood said:


> 9.1.6 Now you're talking!
> 
> I knew that those 'extra' speakers would come in handy, just need to look to the heavens for their placement...


yeah, that's what I'm waiting for too...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> yeah, that's what I'm waiting for too...


Yup. Me too. Though I'd actually be just fine with 7.1.6 capability. I don't need an extra speaker between the side surrounds and front. What I _do_ need is something to fill that huge gap directly above my head.

I'd be perfectly happy with 7.1.6 sound. All the rest of the gaps? I'll fill those with subwoofers. 



GoCaboNow said:


> So for multi row home theater, in a 7.1.4 setup, two ceiling ATMOS speakers slightly in front of the first row, and in line with left and right mains, and back two ceiling speakers slightly behind the back row?
> 
> Any inkling if we will get 7.1.6 next year?


Nope. Probably not hear anything til Spring-ish and even then I am seriously starting to doubt if the CE's will have the balls to make a device with >7.1.4 support. Maaaaybe 9.1.4 because some many more people are whining, erm, desiring _that_ instead.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> If Atmos is based on a Cartesian coordinate system then that approach itself is "enemy of the good". If dubbing stages and playback rooms differ in room dimensions (and they do) then the spatial presentation is only correct in rooms having the same dimensions (or scaled)


Yes. That is why MDA supports the option for a mixer-referenced perspective. 



> It's a step back for the movie industry and they end up in the same trap as the music industry: The only original that can ever exist is the room the recording was mixed in.


I'd say it is just staying stuck with the existing paradigm of wall-mapped sound. It obviously works, as it has been with us for 100 years. But as movie sound creation can control sound positioning with much more precision than has ever been possible, it seems a shame not to allow for improved mapping to different room shapes if desired, especially without ever having evaluated the two perspectives before deciding "the correct way."


----------



## noah katz

asoofi1 said:


> Per installation guide:
> "Mounting considerations
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis ...


So Dolby has issued conflicting doc's, 45 deg in the above and 90 deg in others.

But no matter what the dispersion is, conventional direct radiators will always hotspot if pointed directly downward, as the dispersion angle is given where SPL is -6 dB.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Not sure if he's referring to the same thing. Roger explained the difference between the two coordinate systems. It's beyond me why Dolby opted for Cartesian because a polar coordinate system would have worked better and probably would NOT have been computationally more expensive.


I realize that we are using the terms polar and Cartesian as shorthand for mixer-referenced or room-referenced perspectives. But just for scientific accuracy, the coordinate system is actually not the controlling factor in how the sound is presented. MDA happens to use polar coordinates, but is equally able to present either perspective in the playback room. That comes from knowing about how the sound was created and how the playback room differs. By virtue of that, Atmos, too, can present a mixer-referenced playback perspective (Dolby even likes to use the term "ego-centric" for that in their patents), given the mix room info and the desire to render accordingly. So, just saying that this is not a permanent condition for any system so much as where the content makers feel comfortable as the onset of object-audio invades their comfy channel-based world.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Yup, that is exactly what it says:
> 
> _"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."_
> 
> This is only time "90 degrees" is mentioned in reference to dispersion. It's still not obvious to me that they made a mistake and actually meant '45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis', since that would limit placement of speakers "mounted facing directly downward". There is no other mention of "90 degrees" in relation to dispersion.


Looking at the hard copy that Dolby handed out at CEDIA and the downloaded PDF, they both state:


> Mounting considerations
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (*approximately 45 degrees* from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.


Which version are y'all reading? Which is newer? This can be determined by the publication number (S14/28246) on the back page. PDF date is 9/9/14.

The sister document, Dolby Atmos for the Home, just accessed at their website,


> Dolby recommends overhead speakers with wide dispersion patterns. If you use overhead speakers with narrow dispersion (less than 90 degrees by 90 degrees) or those with aimable drivers, angle the drivers slightly toward your listening position.


 This is not only consistent with the above "45 deg" quote, it implies symmetrical dispersion, i.e. not bipoles.


----------



## Steve Goff

Ah, the unfair resort to documentation to solve a dispute.


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> Thanks, but I will have to wait. I am not a real fan of the Transformer series. No matter how good the audio, I still need a story to carry it.
> But, I am looking forward to the real deal otherwise. I do have Guardians of the Galaxy on order. I believe that has a native Atmos mix rather than an upmix.


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-3D-Blu-ray/79118/
Check here I don't think it has Atmos


----------



## asoofi1

noah katz said:


> So Dolby has issued conflicting doc's, 45 deg in the above and 90 deg in others.
> 
> But no matter what the dispersion is, conventional direct radiators will always hotspot if pointed directly downward, as the dispersion angle is given where SPL is -6 dB.





Roger Dressler said:


> Looking at the hard copy that Dolby handed out at CEDIA and the downloaded PDF, they both state: Which version are y'all reading? Which is newer? This can be determined by the publication number (S14/28246) on the back page. PDF date is 9/9/14.
> 
> The sister document, Dolby Atmos for the Home, just accessed at their website, Which is consistent with the +/-45 deg quote.


None of the first three PDF's in the first post of this thread include the text @sdurani posted as a quote. I don't know where he is it pulling out of...

As I posted earlier, the correct quote from the third PDF posted in OP titled Installation Guide indicates "45" as seen on page 8 below, and not "90" sdurani is referring to incorrectly:


----------



## Selden Ball

Here you go: taken from Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines.pdf dated September, 2014.

"approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis"

Obviously they need someone to edit them all so they're consistent.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Everybody should feel free to prepare for >7.1.4 configuration if they think that is something that they would want to pursue. The only caveat is that we do not know for sure when this kind of hardware will surface. I hope and wish that the CE's will get around to support something like 9.1.6 as the new maximum. At least move up to there. DAC's are often packaged in 8ch variants so that would be 16ch of DAC needed. Pretty easy to implement. 9.1.6 would support all sorts of programs including DTS:NeoX, DSX, CinemaDSP, Atmos, Dolby Surround and Auro3d and more than likely any new stuff from DTS whatever they do.



Of course, one problem we face when we try to predict the _home theater spin-off_ from cinema audio innovations is that there is the current 'moving target' of _theatrical audio systems_...

For example, from an October 20, 2014, *Display Central* article titled "*IMAX Reveals New 12-Track Audio Solution*" (_link_):



> _The [existing IMAX] six-track system features front L/R, back L/R, and two center speakers. Each is driven with separate audio tracks so the helicopter sound now can move from front to back – or around the room in a circle.
> 
> In a [new] 12-track solution, IMAX added two additional side speakers and four ceiling speakers. Then, using phantom imaging techniques, the company is able to create sounds that appear to emanate from anywhere in the room – now including overhead._



This new "*IMAX 7.x.5*" configuration seems to resemble the _ill-fated_ *Harman|Lexicon* _home theater_ *12.4* _(aka_ "*7.4.5*") platform implementation of *QuantumLogic Surround (QLS) technology*...?!


_And interestingly, the article (above) also makes reference to a possible BARCO+IOSONO 20.1 sound system...?!_   

_


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> Here you go: taken from Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines.pdf dated September, 2014.
> 
> "approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis"
> 
> Obviously they need someone to edit them all so they're consistent.


The current document linked at http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html says 45°:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Case closed?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Man, SoundChex. You always got the goods. 

I've been hearing about a new IMAX format for about a year or two now but nothing so far til now but it doesn't sound all that official and more of a "here is what they are promising" or just more of the same.

You're a smart guy. Doesn't this sound almost exactly like 7.1.4 home Atmos to you?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-3D-Blu-ray/79118/
> Check here I don't think it has Atmos


Who knows maybe they will change their mind & add the atmos mix... then 15 more people would buy the disc (haha). But seriously, I hope they reconsider.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> I've been hearing about a new IMAX format for about a year or two now but nothing so far til now but it doesn't sound all that official and more of a "here is what they are promising" or just more of the same. Doesn't this sound almost exactly like 7.1.4 home Atmos to you?



_Close._ But I get the impression that *Atmos 7.x.4 + Top Front Center* (*TpFC*) speaker might be more accurate . . . which Dolby Atmos might prefer to execute with a *Front Height speaker pair plus TWO additional height speaker pairs* to give *7.x.6* . . . which we've already speculated would be an improvement (over 7.x.4), *although likely only noticeable in a home theater with already extensive room treatment...?!*

_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bass addict said:


> I actually have two rows of seating, hence my affinity for the qs8's. That being said; I know I'm not going to be able to install a perfect system that works for both the front, and rear rows of seating. This system will be designed around the front two seats, with everyone else taking a back seat (no pun intended) to the perfect audio setup.
> 
> Here is a pic of my room for reference. I am looking at installing the overheads in the first tiered section (the blue painted one). My only concern is a little reflection being created from the black sofit that the speaker will sit up against seeing as the soffit will hang down lower than the speakers will.
> 
> View attachment 338826
> 
> 
> View attachment 338834
> 
> 
> The rear row will have to suffer as both the side surrounds and overhead will be in front of them, but the rear row is already lacking in the imaging department, so this will be nothing new here. They get the advantage of the riser and nearfield subs, so hopefully that offsets the lackluster audio.


And you need to lower your side and rear surrounds closer to ear level. Not _at_, but _close to_ in your case.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. Me too. Though I'd actually be just fine with 7.1.6 capability. I don't need an extra speaker between the side surrounds and front. What I _do_ need is something to fill that huge gap directly above my head.
> 
> I'd be perfectly happy with 7.1.6 sound. All the rest of the gaps? I'll fill those with subwoofers.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Probably not hear anything til Spring-ish and even then I am seriously starting to doubt if the CE's will have the balls to make a device with >7.1.4 support. Maaaaybe 9.1.4 because some many more people are whining, erm, desiring _that_ instead.


9.1.4 (and maybe, just maybe 9.1.6) is on Dolby's current docket as per CEDIA, but I don't know how soon the mainstream A/V companies will adopt that (or those) config.

By that time there should be, oh, three, maybe four Atmos titles I would actually want to buy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan, he can't do it without people running into them.

It's just a compromise that he has to deal with.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> 9.1.4 (and maybe, just maybe 9.1.6) is on Dolby's current docket as per CEDIA, but I don't know how soon the mainstream A/V companies will adopt that (or those) config.
> 
> By that time there should be, oh, three, maybe four Atmos titles I would actually want to buy.


Lol!!! Yeah, really. I doubt we are going to get a whole lot more this year. Next year should be pretty good with releases from then on out.


----------



## asoofi1

Selden Ball said:


> Here you go: taken from Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines.pdf dated September, 2014.
> 
> "approximately 90 degrees from the acoustical reference axis"
> 
> Obviously they need someone to edit them all so they're consistent.


The one in the OP is dated September.

Dolby may have corrected it and replaced doc with a newer version...and some may still be looking at a cached version. Clear your cache and then download the one linked in the OP.

Let's all stop going back and forth. The logical answer is 45 from ref axis, aka 90 total. It's ridiculous for anyone to keep suggesting 180 is what they were suggesting in the context of everything else Dolby has provided in the installation guidelines. Bottom line, direct drivers as dolby suggested based on the dispersion of the speaker you use.

It was a typo...let's move on.


----------



## noah katz

Dan Hitchman said:


> 9.1.4 (and maybe, just maybe 9.1.6) is on Dolby's current docket as per CEDIA, but I don't know how soon the mainstream A/V companies will adopt that (or those) config.


Aren't A/V mfgr's are already free to implement the max speaker count?


----------



## sdurani

markus767 said:


> The current document linked at http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html says 45°:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> Case closed?


If it's from the Dolby website, then that's good enough for me. Case closed. (I must have the same September 2014 release that Selden posted the screen grab from.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> Aren't A/V mfgr's already free to implement the max speaker count?


Nope. It sounds like the fixed rendering blocks used by the regular A/V companies have to be individually tailored and customized. They probably have to work around a fairly limited amount of processing power compared to Trinnov and other ultra high end companies implementing the complete 24.1.10 home Atmos rendering block, which is a completely separate and more complex block design.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> It's ridiculous for anyone to keep suggesting 180 is what they were suggesting in the context of everything else Dolby has provided in the installation guidelines.


Not at all ridiculous. Saying that 45-degree off axis response allows speakers to be pointed straight down only makes sense for speakers placed higher than 45 degrees elevation. There's 15 degrees of the TF and TR range that this wouldn't work with.


----------



## asoofi1

noah katz said:


> Aren't A/V mfgr's are already free to implement the max speaker count?


Dolby has made 24.1.10 available, so yes, mfgrs are free to implement. Changing hardware design and production is likely the reason av manufacturers didn't offer more speaker support just yet...and of course, majority of consumers won't ever go over 7 surrounds and 4 overhead.

I'm waiting for 9.x.6 support...which will great for rooms around 3000 sq ft and up.
3 - LCR
6 - Two surrounds on each Side & Back Walls
6 - Overhead


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asoofi1 said:


> Dolby has made 24.1.10 available, so yes, mfgrs are free to implement. Changing hardware design and production is likely the reason av manufacturers didn't offer more speaker support just yet...and of course, majority of consumers won't ever go over 7 surrounds and 4 overhead.


From what I learned at CEDIA, it may not be as easy as "pick a speaker amount and go with it." Dolby is having to create new rendering blocks for the manufacturers as they go. They completed flexible 24.1.10 rendering for the super-high end community and 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 9.1.2 fixed blocks for everyone else, but were still working on a fixed 9.1.4 (and maybe 9.1.6.) configuration as of CEDIA, according to the discussion I had with one of the engineers working on the project.


----------



## jamin

I thought I posted this months ago but could not find it-duh. 

Anyway, I'll be holding out for either 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 but NOT Wides. I'm looking for what is called, surround 1 and surround 2 I believe it is. Or in other words 2 rows but no wides. 

As to the tops, dunno really, but probably 4 will win out as I can't quite figure how to have 6 work out in my space. A placement thing. 

I have been under the impression that the AD DSP, for example, has the processing for 16 channels but the current implementations are, as we have seen, constrained by the present chassis re-use paradigm. And no, I can not verify this 16 channel idea I have in my head--so it is probably best to ignore it till more data are available. 

Big fun thinking about it though.


----------



## Spanglo

Yes, 6 overheads please.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Selden Ball said:


> Here you go: taken from Dolby-Atmos-for-Home-Installation-Guidelines.pdf dated September, 2014.


Both versions of the doc are from September. The "45-deg" doc is Sept 9. What the date of yours? Look in File>Properties>Description for creation date.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jamin said:


> I thought I posted this months ago but could not find it-duh.
> 
> Anyway, I'll be holding out for either 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 but NOT Wides. I'm looking for what is called, surround 1 and surround 2 I believe it is. Or in other words 2 rows but no wides.
> 
> As to the tops, dunno really, but probably 4 will win out as I can't quite figure how to have 6 work out in my space. A placement thing.
> 
> I have been under the impression that the AD DSP, for example, has the processing for 16 channels but the current implementations are, as we have seen, constrained by the present chassis re-use paradigm. And no, I can not verify this 16 channel idea I have in my head--so it is probably best to ignore it till more data are available.
> 
> Big fun thinking about it though.


Neither of the two 9.1.4 layouts at CEDIA (Trinnov and Steinway) used what you could consider wides in the normal home theater sense. They consisted of two pairs of side surrounds, along with three fronts, two backs, four overheads, and the sub channel. I would assume that's what Dolby might have in mind for their 9.1.4 (and possibly 9.1.6) blocks in future consumer products. More than likely Dolby consulted with them before CEDIA on how best to show off Atmos systems beyond 7.1.4. 

And yes, 9.1.4 really helped create a more precise bubble of sound, which I found to be a lot closer to recreating the cinema Atmos experience. It does help having some sort of lateral pan through array (which home theaters have never had before), not just an array for the overheads.


----------



## jamin

Dan Hitchman said:


> And yes, 9.1.4 really helped create a more precise bubble of sound, which I found to be a lot closer to recreating the cinema Atmos experience. It does help having some sort of lateral pan through array (which home theaters have never had before), not just an array for the overheads.


Yup, the pan through is what I'm looking for. Just not going to pony up, what, 25 plus thousand bucks for the extra 2 channels ( whoops -- I mean speaker feeds) !!!

Also, can't see setting up wides to be nice and unused for the majority of my listening which will be up mixed -- legacy and all you know.


----------



## asoofi1

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I learned at CEDIA, it may not be as easy as "pick a speaker amount and go with it." Dolby is having to create new rendering blocks for the manufacturers as they go. They completed flexible 24.1.10 rendering for the super-high end community and 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 9.1.2 fixed blocks for everyone else, but were still working on a fixed 9.1.4 (and maybe 9.1.6.) configuration as of CEDIA, according to the discussion I had with one of the engineers working on the project.


I certainly wouldn't expect it be as simple as putting in more speaker terminals either...the av's need time for a solid redesign and that's expensive and time consuming...But my expectations match with what you're saying...next iteration of av's will hopefully have 9.1.6...if I bought now, it'll just be a waste...I just got my 7008 early this year. Doesn't make sense to take two upgrades within a year of each other. The lost depreciation is better spent on the 6 overheads I'll need


----------



## jaychatbonneau

I am interested in upgrading to Atmos but due to the placement of my projection screen and the geometry of my room I will not be able to place the front and back modules at the same heights. The fronts will be about three feet off the floor. The rears will be slightly less than five feet off the floor. My ceilings are something 12 to 14 feet high, flat, even, and not acoustically treated. Am I going to be okay with a 5.1.4 system?

Also, can anyone suggest the most suitable modules? I am considering these: http://www.definitivetech.com/products/a60. I will be getting a Denon AVR. My fronts and surrounds are all KEF Q100s, my center channel is a Q200c, and my subwoofer is the Q400b and I plan on adding a second subwoofer of the same model. 

Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## Selden Ball

Roger Dressler said:


> Both versions of the doc are from September. The "45-deg" doc is Sept 9. What the date of yours? Look in File>Properties>Description for creation date.


 According to the file's timestamp, I downloaded it at Noon on Sept 8.


----------



## Worf

Don't forget DSP resources - the more speakers, the bigger DSP needed. And bigger DSPs cost a lot more money and often require higher end parts to accompany them (faster memory etc).


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Not at all ridiculous. Saying that 45-degree off axis response allows speakers to be pointed straight down only makes sense for speakers placed higher than 45 degrees elevation. There's 15 degrees of the TF and TR range that this wouldn't work with.


Since Dolby is not (yet?) informing us on this evident consequence of their correction on dispersion requirements, I propose to try and get some consensus in this thread on the additional guideline to keep away from using down-firing ceiling speakers in the front height (30-45 degrees) and rear height (135-150 degrees) ranges.


----------



## batpig

jaychatbonneau said:


> I am interested in upgrading to Atmos but due to the placement of my projection screen and the geometry of my room I will not be able to place the front and back modules at the same heights. The fronts will be about three feet off the floor. The rears will be slightly less than five feet off the floor. My ceilings are something 12 to 14 feet high, flat, even, and not acoustically treated. Am I going to be okay with a 5.1.4 system?
> 
> Also, can anyone suggest the most suitable modules? I am considering these: http://www.definitivetech.com/products/a60. I will be getting a Denon AVR. My fronts and surrounds are all KEF Q100s, my center channel is a Q200c, and my subwoofer is the Q400b and I plan on adding a second subwoofer of the same model.
> 
> Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


It's not going to work well. First off, I found the Def Tech A60 modules to be wimpy, and others (including the recent Audioholics review) have been similarly unimpressed. If you have to do up firing modules I would wait for the much nicer looking Atlantic Tech 44-DA that are the same price as the DT A60s but look to offer a lot more performance. Plus the dual concentric design should be a better match for your KEFs. KEF is also coming out with a pair of Atmos modules but they are much more expensive. 

Second, more importantly, putting them that low, with ceilings that high, is asking for an underwhelming overhead experience. At 12-14 ft you are at the upper limit of effectiveness recommended by Dolby, and having the front modules at 3ft will only exacerbate that. The sound will be so diffuse that you are likely to be disappointed. Plus, I found that the virtual overhead effect was ineffective with the speakers below ear level -- too much direct sound getting to your ears ruins the psychoacoustic effect. If you are going to use modules I would strongly recommend getting them a bit higher, above ear level, which will also reduce the distance to the ceiling bounce. 

Is there no way you can physically mount speakers on or in the ceiling? With a dedicated pj screen and high ceilings, that's really the right way to go to do your system justice.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Since Dolby is not (yet?) informing us on this evident consequence of their correction on dispersion requirements, I propose to try and get some consensus in this thread on the additional guideline to keep away from using down-firing ceiling speakers in the front height (30-45 degrees) and rear height (135-150 degrees) ranges.


No need to keep away from using down-firing speakers for those locations. I think there was some mention in this thread about JBL Professional in-ceiling speakers that have a 120-degree conical dispersion. Since their coverage extends 60 degrees off-axis, you can mount them in-ceiling 60 degrees forward or rearward of your listening position (30 degrees and 150 degrees elevation, respectively) and you would still be in their dispersion range. Mounted flush in the ceiling, they'll hardly be noticeable (helpful for those that don't have dedicated theatre rooms).


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I learned at CEDIA, it may not be as easy as "pick a speaker amount and go with it." Dolby is having to create new rendering blocks for the manufacturers as they go. They completed flexible 24.1.10 rendering for the super-high end community and 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 9.1.2 fixed blocks for everyone else, but were still working on a fixed 9.1.4 (and maybe 9.1.6.) configuration as of CEDIA, according to the discussion I had with one of the engineers working on the project.


One thing that I would like to know from those engineers working on the _fixed_ rendering blocks is what _fixed_ angular spread between the overhead arrays they are (have been) putting in, since following all of Dolby's current home theater guidelines, you can (depending on your specific set-up) still end up with either less than a 50 degrees or more than a 100 degrees spread. IMO, such information is far more relevant for achieving the intended sound than simply putting the overheads in-line with your fronts.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> One thing that I would like to know from those engineers working on the _fixed_ rendering blocks is what _fixed_ angular spread between the overhead arrays they are (have been) putting in, since following all of Dolby's current home theater guidelines, you can (depending on your specific set-up) still end up with either less than a 50 degrees or more than a 100 degrees spread. IMO, such information is far more relevant for achieving the intended sound than simply putting the overheads in-line with your fronts.


That's a great question, but something that may be part of the "secret sauce" they don't want' Auro or DTS to have. They would have to pre-program the blocks with _something_, one would think, since the calibration software and/or the receiver's manual setup menus are only giving them very limited data to work with.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> No need to keep away from using down-firing speakers for those locations. I think there was some mention in this thread about JBL Professional in-ceiling speakers that have a 120-degree conical dispersion. Since their coverage extends 60 degrees off-axis, you can mount them in-ceiling 60 degrees forward or rearward of your listening position (30 degrees and 150 degrees elevation, respectively) and you would still be in their dispersion range. Mounted flush in the ceiling, they'll hardly be noticeable (helpful for those that don't have dedicated theatre rooms).


Agreed. It was not my intention to proclaim that it is impossible, just that following Dolby's present guidelines to the word (which say that 45 off-axis is sufficient) currently does not fully prevent you from ending up with an undesirable result at those positions.


----------



## sharkypuffs

HT-Eman said:


> I meant they have a wide dispersion sound pattern.


Dude, I was JUST looking at those same speakers in BEST BUY a few weeks ago and considering them for the same purpose. I got hung up on other things in "the real world" and forgot to look into their specs.

Do they really have a wide dispersion pattern? Do you consider them adequate for Atmos?


----------



## jaychatbonneau

batpig said:


> It's not going to work well. First off, I found the Def Tech A60 modules to be wimpy, and others (including the recent Audioholics review) have been similarly unimpressed. If you have to do up firing modules I would wait for the much nicer looking Atlantic Tech 44-DA that are the same price as the DT A60s but look to offer a lot more performance. Plus the dual concentric design should be a better match for your KEFs. KEF is also coming out with a pair of Atmos modules but they are much more expensive.
> 
> Second, more importantly, putting them that low, with ceilings that high, is asking for an underwhelming overhead experience. At 12-14 ft you are at the upper limit of effectiveness recommended by Dolby, and having the front modules at 3ft will only exacerbate that. The sound will be so diffuse that you are likely to be disappointed. Plus, I found that the virtual overhead effect was ineffective with the speakers below ear level -- too much direct sound getting to your ears ruins the psychoacoustic effect. If you are going to use modules I would strongly recommend getting them a bit higher, above ear level, which will also reduce the distance to the ceiling bounce.
> 
> Is there no way you can physically mount speakers on or in the ceiling? With a dedicated pj screen and high ceilings, that's really the right way to go to do your system justice.


Thank you for the advice on the speakers. I will go with the KEF modules if i do this thing. I have never regretted purchasing a KEF product.

Unfortunately, I am in China. Due to the rarity of skilled contractors here and my reinforced concrete ceiling, putting the speakers on or in the ceiling is not a realistic option. What do you think about putting the modules on speaker stands or custom-built bookcases to the side of my screen? Would the stands look weird being so tall? And how far above ear level do you think they would need to be anyway? Will the modules on my rear bookcase at five feet be okay?

Thank you so much for your help. I will post pictures when my system is running and presentable.


----------



## jaychatbonneau

jaychatbonneau said:


> Thank you for the advice on the speakers. I will go with the KEF modules if i do this thing. I have never regretted purchasing a KEF product.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am in China. Due to the rarity of skilled contractors here and my reinforced concrete ceiling, putting the speakers on or in the ceiling is not a realistic option. What do you think about putting the modules on speaker stands or custom-built bookcases to the side of my screen? Would the stands look weird being so tall? And how far above ear level do you think they would need to be anyway? Will the modules on my rear bookcase at five feet be okay?
> 
> Thank you so much for your help. I will post pictures when my system is running and presentable.


I just looked on Pinterest and I found some designs I can modify to create a bitchin' speaker stand/shelf that will accommodate my Q100s and the Atmos modules while being impossible for my cats to jump on or tip over. One of the good things about being in China is that while good contractors are basically impossible to find, skilled furniture makers are abundant. So how high should I make these things?


----------



## jdsmoothie

jaychatbonneau said:


> Thank you for the advice on the speakers. I will go with the KEF modules if i do this thing. I have never regretted purchasing a KEF product.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am in China. Due to the rarity of skilled contractors here and my reinforced concrete ceiling, putting the speakers on or in the ceiling is not a realistic option. What do you think about putting the modules on speaker stands or custom-built bookcases to the side of my screen? Would the stands look weird being so tall? *And how far above ear level do you think they would need to be anyway?* Will the modules on my rear bookcase at five feet be okay?
> 
> Thank you so much for your help. I will post pictures when my system is running and presentable.


Above ear level but not higher than 1/2 the height of the room. Experiment to determine what height produces the best effect in your room.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Mirage omnipolars.


OK - but nobody is considering those for ceiling speakers, are they?



sdurani said:


> I can understand not wanting dipoles, since you don't want to be in their null. But who is the "we" that made up the rule about not using bipoles?


It seems to be the consensus opinion of the thread. Could be wrong of course, but I haven’t seen anyone advocating the superiority of bipoles over monopoles for overhead speaker use - only people asking if they can be used, usually because it is what they already have. Answers are usually along the lines of "it might work - why not try it?".



sdurani said:


> Bipoles are direct radiators.


Yes of course - sloppy wording on my part. I meant to say 'monopoles'.



sdurani said:


> Doesn't make sense _to you_. But you not grokking it doesn't automatically make it an error. By that logic, for folks for whom it does make sense there is no error.


Most people who have commented see it as an error. I guess we won't know without confirmation from Dolby. But we do know that it isn't at all unusual for errors to be made in lengthy documents. I believe you yourself have pointed out such errors in the past, and wrt to Dolby documents, with the mitigation that the document in question was rushed out.

Edited to add: seems the dispute is solved. It was an error, later corrected by Dolby in subsequent iterations of their document.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I too would like to stay out of this, I'll just say for having an incorrect setup I am very happy with how it sounds. Discussions like this have no "winner" and only serve to confuse possible adopters even more. I'll just say it isn't difficult to do an Atmos setup and get good results regardless what you use for speakers.
> Since when did this get so complicated? I thought the hard part about about Atmos was figuring out AMP ASSIGN with my Denon


You make good points. It's more of an 'academic' discussion I guess, rather than intended as practical advice. I agree with you - most speakers seem to work pretty well and I cite (again) Dolby's own comment that it is pretty hard to make Atmos* not* work.


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> Well i'm currently re-doing my living room HT for atmos and this is what i'm using for my atmos ceiling speakers. http://www.crutchfield.com/S-ITwDkfQb1KQ/mobile/Product/Item/Research.aspx?i=022AW390BL . The have a wide pattern and can easily be mounted on the ceiling. Just bought a new sofa , painted the room a new color , had the room analysed on where to place acoustic treatment , and now just waiting to get a receiver.
> View attachment 338746


Outdoor speakers repurposed as Atmos ceiling speakers do seem to tick most of the boxes. Kudos on using room analysis to determine placement of acoustic treatments BTW.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Conventional 5/7.1 isn't all that hard to undertand, is it?
> 
> Okay, you get that then? Cool. Do it again on the ceiling. Bam. Done.


LOL. When you pit it like that.....


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> The debate seems to rage on on about direct radiating, dispersion patterns, bi polar, aim or not aim, etc etc.


This debate has also raged for years with conventional 5.1 systems. It's no different now - it's just, as Scott says, the speakers are on the ceiling this time instead of on the floor (stands). Just as some people prefer dipoles for surrounds, and some people prefer to aim LCR at MLP, or just in front of MLP, or not to aim at all, etc etc, with their 5.1 systems, so the debate will go on for ever wrt to their overhead speakers.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Dan Hitchman said:


> Neither of the two 9.1.4 layouts at CEDIA (Trinnov and Steinway) used what you could consider wides in the normal home theater sense. They consisted of two pairs of side surrounds, along with three fronts, two backs, four overheads, and the sub channel. I would assume that's what Dolby might have in mind for their 9.1.4 (and possibly 9.1.6) blocks in future consumer products. More than likely Dolby consulted with them before CEDIA on how best to show off Atmos systems beyond 7.1.4.


Were the overhead speakers in line with the side surround speakers in that setup?


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Looking at the hard copy that Dolby handed out at CEDIA and the downloaded PDF, they both state: Which version are y'all reading? Which is newer? This can be determined by the publication number (S14/28246) on the back page. PDF date is 9/9/14.
> 
> The sister document, Dolby Atmos for the Home, just accessed at their website, This is not only consistent with the above "45 deg" quote, it implies symmetrical dispersion, i.e. not bipoles.


Ah - so the 90° was an error then.  And they did mean 45°.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> Ah, the unfair resort to documentation to solve a dispute.


So I don't have to stop telling everyone that my Tannoy Di5s are in line with Dolby specifications after all!  I am glad that this has been cleared up and we can move on...


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's a great question, but something that may be part of the "secret sauce" they don't want' Auro or DTS to have. They would have to pre-program the blocks with _something_, one would think, since the calibration software and/or the receiver's manual setup menus are only giving them very limited data to work with.


With all due respect to Dolby's tactics to keep ahead of competition, not having the option to (manually) input the lateral elevation angle of your overheads (or gradual spread between them) is one thing, but being deliberately kept in the dark on applied default settings is something hard to swallow for those - like myself - that want more than optimal/good (the 'it is hard to get Atmos not working' approach) but instead strive for the ideal/best speaker lay-out in order to get as close as possible to the maker's intended sound.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> I realize that we are using the terms polar and Cartesian as shorthand for mixer-referenced or room-referenced perspectives. But just for scientific accuracy, the coordinate system is actually not the controlling factor in how the sound is presented. MDA happens to use polar coordinates, but is equally able to present either perspective in the playback room. That comes from knowing about how the sound was created and how the playback room differs. By virtue of that, Atmos, too, can present a mixer-referenced playback perspective (Dolby even likes to use the term "ego-centric" for that in their patents), given the mix room info and the desire to render accordingly. So, just saying that this is not a permanent condition for any system so much as where the content makers feel comfortable as the onset of object-audio invades their comfy channel-based world.


If I understand it well: While Atmos content makers can choose to use a mixer-referenced playback perspective during their re-recording process, this has not much relevance for playback (including it's settings) of the encoded Atmos soundtrack at home, for which Dolby apparently has chosen to apply the room-referenced perspective only.


----------



## JonStatt

I have a copy of the 3D Blu-ray of Hercules and can confirm there is no Atmos track on there (as expected really). As I believe the only comments to-date were on the 2D version (AVS review), I thought I would post.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

^^thats some BS right there


----------



## ingenue007

I am getting back into HT and will have 7.1 set up with definitive tech speakers. Due to the layout of my living room which is not optimal, the rear L and R speakers will be ceiling mounted above the listening area and the SBR and SBL will be high wall mounted behind the listening area. 

I am considering a Denon x4000 (x32 w/o Atmos) or a Denon x4100 (x32 w/Atmos). The question is that is it worth it to spend $500 more for Atmos w/only 2 ceiling speakers? Will I have that much of a difference? Does Atmos create good sound from non-Atmos 5.1/7.1 sound? (My only reference point is old Dolby IIx which was not good at creating 5.1 from that).

Thanks for input.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> It was not my intention to proclaim that it is impossible, just that following Dolby's present guidelines to the word (which say that 45 off-axis is sufficient) currently does not fully prevent you from ending up with an undesirable result at those positions.


Agreed, the dispersion number makes less sense now as a prerequisite for speakers firing straight down, since it leaves out almost half the TF and TR range. Folks considering flush-mounted in-ceiling speakers with 45-degree off-axis dispersion should forego Dolby's guideline to point them straight down and instead find in-ceiling speakers with angled drivers (at least 15 degrees).


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So I don't have to stop telling everyone that my Tannoy Di5s are in line with Dolby specifications after all!


It never was a recommendation. All they say is that IF you have speakers with a 90-degree dispersion, then you can point them straight down. You've somehow turned that into a Dolby specification for height speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It never was a recommendation. All they say is that IF you have speakers with a 90-degree dispersion, then you can point them straight down. You've somehow turned that into a Dolby specification for height speakers.


All I have said, IIRC, is that the Di5s are in line with Dolby specifications, which they are. The entire issue of their dispersion patterns was a result of an error in their documentation, which some spotted as such and some didn't. The Tannoys are excellent Atmos ceiling speakers, with the dispersion pattern Dolby says is fit for purpose, allowing them to be aimed directly down or, if preferred, angled towards the MLP. 

Your assertion above is not correct. Wide dispersion is indeed a recommendation of Dolby and the Tannoys indeed have wide dispersion.

Dolby say:
_
"Most high-power, full-frequency conventional overhead speakers with* wide dispersion characteristics* will work in a Dolby Atmos home theater."_ (My bolding)

And:

_"Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are *desirable for use* in a Dolby Atmos system. "_ (My bolding)

They do go on to say:

_"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."_

The above says that the speakers with a wide dispersion pattern may be aimed facing down, but the earlier comments clearly indicate that speakers with wide dispersion characteristics are 'desirable'. Thus, the Tannoys, with their wide dispersion characteristics, are an essentially perfect fit with Dolby requirements.


----------



## kbarnes701

ingenue007 said:


> I am getting back into HT and will have 7.1 set up with definitive tech speakers. Due to the layout of my living room which is not optimal, the rear L and R speakers will be ceiling mounted above the listening area and the SBR and SBL will be high wall mounted behind the listening area.
> 
> I am considering a Denon x4000 (x32 w/o Atmos) or a Denon x4100 (x32 w/Atmos). The question is that is it worth it to spend $500 more for Atmos w/only 2 ceiling speakers? Will I have that much of a difference? *Does Atmos create good sound from non-Atmos 5.1/7.1 sound?* (My only reference point is old Dolby IIx which was not good at creating 5.1 from that).
> 
> Thanks for input.


This has been covered extensively in this thread with many user reviews of 5.1/7/1 upmixed with Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU). A search will help you come to a decision.


----------



## robert816

ingenue007 said:


> I am getting back into HT and will have 7.1 set up with definitive tech speakers. Due to the layout of my living room which is not optimal, the rear L and R speakers will be ceiling mounted above the listening area and the SBR and SBL will be high wall mounted behind the listening area.
> 
> I am considering a Denon x4000 (x32 w/o Atmos) or a Denon x4100 (x32 w/Atmos). The question is that is it worth it to spend $500 more for Atmos w/only 2 ceiling speakers? Will I have that much of a difference? Does Atmos create good sound from non-Atmos 5.1/7.1 sound? (My only reference point is old Dolby IIx which was not good at creating 5.1 from that).
> 
> Thanks for input.


I just recently upgraded my system to an Atmos setup. Before this I was very happy with my 6.3 setup I was using.

Now I would say that I'm so much happier with the way my system sounds. I'll admit though I was about to box the new AVR up and send it back, but after a "discussion" ensued about angles and degrees of dispersion in this thread, I thought about how I was setting up my Atmos speakers and changed position and angles and re-ran the MCACC Pro setup and Wow! what a difference. To say the least, I'm keeping the new AVR and sticking with my new Atmos setup. I'm currently using a 5.3.4 configuration.

If possible it would behoove you to audition the Denon 4100 and use the speakers you already have in the ceiling that you are using for rear L and R as Atmos speakers and try for yourself what Atmos home theatre is like. You could then add two more in ceiling speakers and turn your system into a 5.1.4 system easily and really experience the difference.


----------



## jdsmoothie

ingenue007 said:


> I am getting back into HT and will have 7.1 set up with definitive tech speakers. Due to the layout of my living room which is not optimal, *the rear L and R speakers will be ceiling mounted* above the listening area and the SBR and SBL will be high wall mounted behind the listening area.
> 
> I am considering a Denon x4000 (x32 w/o Atmos) or a Denon x4100 (x32 w/Atmos). The question is that is it worth it to spend $500 more for Atmos w/only 2 ceiling speakers? Will I have that much of a difference? Does Atmos create good sound from non-Atmos 5.1/7.1 sound? (My only reference point is old Dolby IIx which was not good at creating 5.1 from that).
> 
> Thanks for input.


By "rear" I take it you mean "Side Surround" as you also indicate you have "Surround Back" speakers as well. If you can add a set of floor "side surrounds" placed on stands or mounted into the wall, you could use your existing "in-ceiling" speakers as "Top Middle" and "Surround Backs" as "Rear Height" in a 5.1.4 setup and adding an external 2CH amp to the X4100W.

http://www.amazon.com/AudioSource-AMP-100-Stereo-Power-Amplifier/dp/B00026BQJ6


----------



## Evanesco

What do you guys think of this ATMOS setup?

http://dahf.dk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=31415&sid=4216d3e5e6bdcad165c6851b35e4e2bd

It's really nice for sure, but the position of the speakers, any comments?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Wide dispersion is indeed a recommendation of Dolby and the Tannoys indeed have wide dispersion.


Wide is subjective. My point was that you've been attaching an objective number to it as "Dolby specifications" (your words, as recently as a few posts back). It would be like interpreting the second sentence of that paragraph asthough there is a Dolby specification for narrower than 90 degrees dispersion for speakers aimed towards the listening area. They're not specifying 90 degrees dispersion, they're telling you whether to toe-in IF your speakers already have that dispersion.


----------



## markus767

^
You guys seem to have way too much time on your hands...


----------



## smurraybhm

I just received an email from a ID amp maker who also sells some audio equipment. They have a limited number of the Atlantic Tech modules in stock. Hopefully that means they are coming out a little sooner then expected, it will be interesting to get some feedback on them and hopefully these will provide better effects/results than the Def Tech modules. It is also good to have another Atmos product officially released.


----------



## sdurani

smurraybhm said:


> I just received an email from a ID amp maker who also sells some audio equipment. They have a limited number of the Atlantic Tech modules in stock.


Outlaw is selling the Atlantic Technology Atmos-enabled speakers bundled with the Marantz 7702. 

http://www.outlawaudio.com/outlet/44da.html


----------



## rboster

Evanesco said:


> What do you guys think of this ATMOS setup?
> 
> http://dahf.dk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=31415&sid=4216d3e5e6bdcad165c6851b35e4e2bd
> 
> It's really nice for sure, but the position of the speakers, any comments?


Very nice set up. Thanks for sharing the pics.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mashie Saldana said:


> Were the overhead speakers in line with the side surround speakers in that setup?


No. They seemed to be spaced out wider since it was a larger exhibition room. In fact, it probably would have behooved them to use at least one more pair of overheads and more side and rear surrounds, but I think most of these companies didn't want to spend inordinate amounts shipping a lot of speakers/amps to these conventions.


----------



## NM20

robert816 said:


> I just recently upgraded my system to an Atmos setup. Before this I was very happy with my 6.3 setup I was using.
> 
> Now I would say that I'm so much happier with the way my system sounds. I'll admit though I was about to box the new AVR up and send it back, but after a "discussion" ensued about angles and degrees of dispersion in this thread, I thought about how I was setting up my Atmos speakers and changed position and angles and re-ran the MCACC Pro setup and Wow! what a difference. To say the least, I'm keeping the new AVR and sticking with my new Atmos setup. I'm currently using a 5.3.4 configuration.
> 
> If possible it would behoove you to audition the Denon 4100 and use the speakers you already have in the ceiling that you are using for rear L and R as Atmos speakers and try for yourself what Atmos home theatre is like. You could then add two more in ceiling speakers and turn your system into a 5.1.4 system easily and really experience the difference.


Can i ask what changes you made?


----------



## bass addict

sdurani said:


> Wide is subjective. My point was that you've been attaching an objective number to it as "Dolby specifications" (your words, as recently as a few posts back). It would be like interpreting the second sentence of that paragraph asthough there is a Dolby specification for narrower than 90 degrees dispersion for speakers aimed towards the listening area. They're not specifying 90 degrees dispersion, they're telling you whether to toe-in IF your speakers already have that dispersion.





markus767 said:


> ^
> You guys seem to have way too much time on your hands...


LOL. 

Based on our lower audio acuity for rear produced sounds; one would advocate toeing in the rear top speakers as well (providing they don't meet the dispersion specs)? I'd think not, but just curious.


----------



## jdsmoothie

smurraybhm said:


> I just received an email from a ID amp maker who also sells some audio equipment. They have a limited number of the Atlantic Tech modules in stock. *Hopefully that means they are coming out a little sooner then expected*, it will be interesting to get some feedback on them and hopefully these will provide better effects/results than the Def Tech modules. It is also good to have another Atmos product officially released.


Sadly, no as a premium was paid to get them early. These still expect to be available either 1st or 2nd week of December.


----------



## bargervais

JonStatt said:


> I have a copy of the 3D Blu-ray of Hercules and can confirm there is no Atmos track on there (as expected really). As I believe the only comments to-date were on the 2D version (AVS review), I thought I would post.


Thanks that confirms it I had canceled my pre-order when Ralph reported it.. all I wanted it for was the atmos audio as I have already seen it and it wasn't the film that I needed to own.


----------



## JonStatt

Apologies if this is already covered in this thread...I have my 5200 all up and running, but I had to run Audyssey twice. When I first powered on the 5200 it went through the install wizard. There was no option for Atmos front speakers, just front height so I chose that. Once I got past the calibration and set-up I went into the menus and changed the speaker set-up to 9.1 with Front Atmos speakers...but after doing so, it wiped the distance, levels and crossovers for those channels, requiring me to re-run the 8 position set-up again! Not the end of the world, but not the best of starts either. Have others experienced this pain? After installing, then there was a small software update...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JonStatt said:


> Apologies if this is already covered in this thread...I have my 5200 all up and running, but I had to run Audyssey twice. When I first powered on the 5200 it went through the install wizard. There was no option for Atmos front speakers, just front height so I chose that. Once I got past the calibration and set-up I went into the menus and changed the speaker set-up to 9.1 with Front Atmos speakers...but after doing so, it wiped the distance, levels and crossovers for those channels, requiring me to re-run the 8 position set-up again! Not the end of the world, but not the best of starts either. Have others experienced this pain? After installing, then there was a small software update...


The firmware update may have wiped your settings.  That sometimes happens depending how extensive the changes are with the EPROM.


----------



## sikclown

JonStatt said:


> Apologies if this is already covered in this thread...I have my 5200 all up and running, but I had to run Audyssey twice. When I first powered on the 5200 it went through the install wizard. There was no option for Atmos front speakers, just front height so I chose that. Once I got past the calibration and set-up I went into the menus and changed the speaker set-up to 9.1 with Front Atmos speakers...but after doing so, it wiped the distance, levels and crossovers for those channels, requiring me to re-run the 8 position set-up again! Not the end of the world, but not the best of starts either. Have others experienced this pain? After installing, then there was a small software update...


Anytime you change the Amp Assign to a different speaker set up, you have to rerun Audyssey as it wipes out the old settings.


----------



## batpig

JonStatt said:


> Apologies if this is already covered in this thread...I have my 5200 all up and running, but I had to run Audyssey twice. When I first powered on the 5200 it went through the install wizard. There was no option for Atmos front speakers, just front height so I chose that. Once I got past the calibration and set-up I went into the menus and changed the speaker set-up to 9.1 with Front Atmos speakers...but after doing so, it wiped the distance, levels and crossovers for those channels, requiring me to re-run the 8 position set-up again! Not the end of the world, but not the best of starts either. Have others experienced this pain? After installing, then there was a small software update...





Dan Hitchman said:


> The firmware update may have wiped your settings. That sometimes happens depending how extensive the changes are with the EPROM.


No, it wasn't the firmware update. It's because he manually changed the speaker setup after running calibration. When you tell the processor you have a (potentially) different speaker layout, it will disable Audyssey and force you to re-run because the old calculated filters may no longer be correct for the new speakers.

JonStatt - you may want to join us in the Denon 4100/5200/7200 owner's thread for Denon-specific setup questions like this, since it's less of a general Atmos thing. That said, it seems like you messed something up in your initial setup if "there was no option for Atmos front speakers". The Setup Wizard definitely allows you to select a wide variety of overhead speaker options including Atmos-enabled speakers (although it's not clear that's what you mean by "Atmos front speakers"). 

The new amp assign / speaker setup process can be confusing for sure, so it would help if you told us you rexact speaker layout and then I can recommend the correct settings.


----------



## robert816

NM20 said:


> Can i ask what changes you made?


First the new AVR of course. I went with the Pioneer SC-87, I like the sound of the class D3 amps and have two prior SC models. Although this years model is a little thin on features (my opinion).

I am using KEF 2005.2 eggs for the Atmos speakers, I have Polk 70 series (front and rear) and had the KEF's on top and was reflecting the sound off my ceiling. It works, but I just wasn't too happy with it. I've since moved the eggs (all 4) to near the ceiling and aimed down toward the main listening position. After running the MCACC Pro again and making some minor tweaks, I'm very happy with the final result.

After playing the Atmos demo disc, the sound is very close to what I was expecting, hope this helps.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> If I understand it well: While Atmos content makers can choose to use a mixer-referenced playback perspective during their re-recording process, this has not much relevance for playback (including it's settings) of the encoded Atmos soundtrack at home, for which Dolby apparently has chosen to apply the room-referenced perspective only.


Mixers really have no say in this, as they are simultaneoulsy hearing both perspectives. But yes, in my understanding, the cinema folks in general, and Dolby in particular, prefer the "allo-centric" room referenced playback perspective in Atmos cinemas. I cannot say the same is true for home, but based on the work done for updating CEA-861, I believe that is true.


----------



## JoeyW

I think I'll wait for second or maybe third generation atmos equipment, and atmos media that I'm actually interested in (stuff I want to see, not just for demo purposes) before I'll get on the bandwagon.


----------



## bass addict

JoeyW said:


> I think I'll wait for second or maybe third generation atmos equipment, and atmos media that I'm actually interested in (stuff I want to see, not just for demo purposes) before I'll get on the bandwagon.


I will probably give in and grab the Denon 7200 coming out, but I too am really interested to see what the 2nd gen Atmos receivers bring to the table. I know a lot are holding out for 2.2, but IMO that is pretty irrelevant to most of us at this time, and probably for at least a couple years. I know some keep receivers forever, but I generally like to upgrade at least once a year, so by the time 4k and beyond material (projectors) is affordable for the masses, I'll have gone through at least a couple more receivers.


----------



## batpig

AT LEAST once a year? You sir are a serious upgrade-a-holic!!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Wide is subjective.


No - Dolby define it. They say "_If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider)..."_



sdurani said:


> My point was that you've been attaching an objective number to it as "Dolby specifications" (your words, as recently as a few posts back). It would be like interpreting the second sentence of that paragraph as though there is a Dolby specification for narrower than 90 degrees dispersion for speakers aimed towards the listening area. They're not specifying 90 degrees dispersion, they're telling you whether to toe-in IF your speakers already have that dispersion.


When Dolby say "_Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system." _I take this as meaning that that wide dispersion speakers are, well, desirable. Not mandated for sure, but desirable. So it isn’t really a 'specification' I will concede, but it is a recommendation.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> Apologies if this is already covered in this thread...I have my 5200 all up and running, but I had to run Audyssey twice. When I first powered on the 5200 it went through the install wizard. There was no option for Atmos front speakers, just front height so I chose that. Once I got past the calibration and set-up I went into the menus and changed the speaker set-up to 9.1 with Front Atmos speakers...but after doing so, it wiped the distance, levels and crossovers for those channels, requiring me to re-run the 8 position set-up again! Not the end of the world, but not the best of starts either. Have others experienced this pain? After installing, then there was a small software update...


If you change the speaker config, Audyssey will disable itself. Clearly this is desirable behavior or Audyssey would be applying filters created for one speaker setup to a different speaker setup. Set the Atmos speaker config that you are using first, then run Audyssey, not the other way around.


----------



## Al Sherwood

bass addict said:


> I will probably give in and grab the Denon 7200 coming out, but I too am really interested to see what the 2nd gen Atmos receivers bring to the table. I know a lot are holding out for 2.2, but IMO that is pretty irrelevant to most of us at this time, and probably for at least a couple years. I know some keep receivers forever, but I generally like to upgrade at least once a year, so by the time 4k and beyond material (projectors) is affordable for the masses, I'll have gone through at least a couple more receivers.


Go ahead, buy the 7200 and then next spring I will pay the shipping for you to send it to me! 


Let's go Second generation!!! You can do it!


----------



## JimShaw

There are over 12,000 post on this thread and I am too old to read them all in hopes to find and informed answer to my question.

Will Atmos do anything using my system as is?
I was in Best Buy and heard Atmos and it sounded pretty good.

I am under the impression that with my system, Atmos would be a waste of time and money.

I have all _*in-ceiling*_ speakers and for me to switch over to Atmos. I would have to pull down the fronts and the surrounds so that the Atmos speakers would work.

Am I correct in assuming the speakers would have to come down????


----------



## NM20

robert816 said:


> First the new AVR of course. I went with the Pioneer SC-87, I like the sound of the class D3 amps and have two prior SC models. Although this years model is a little thin on features (my opinion).
> 
> I am using KEF 2005.2 eggs for the Atmos speakers, I have Polk 70 series (front and rear) and had the KEF's on top and was reflecting the sound off my ceiling. It works, but I just wasn't too happy with it. I've since moved the eggs (all 4) to near the ceiling and aimed down toward the main listening position. After running the MCACC Pro again and making some minor tweaks, I'm very happy with the final result.
> 
> After playing the Atmos demo disc, the sound is very close to what I was expecting, hope this helps.


That does help, thanks.

It seems that the early atmos enabled speakers aren't working as well as ceiling speakers. I am just about to dip my toe and want to make sure I have put my ceiling speakers in the correct position. I am learning from the mistakes of others.


----------



## Selden Ball

JimShaw said:


> There are over 12,000 post on this thread and I am too old to read them all in hopes to find and informed answer to my question.
> 
> Will Atmos do anything using my system as is?


 With no changes, Atmos can't be used: it requires both ear-level and overhead speakers. However, the new Dolby Surround upmixer can be used. Most people who've heard it prefer it to the older Dolby ProLogic variants.



> I was in Best Buy and heard Atmos and it sounded pretty good.


Would you mind describing their setup? Many people who went to some of the early Best Buy/Magnolia Atmos demos were, shall we say, underwhelmed. (They weren't configured properly and/or didn't actually have Atmos enabled.)



> I am under the impression that with my system, Atmos would be a waste of time and money.


 Only you can decide that.


> I have all _*in-ceiling*_ speakers and for me to switch over to Atmos. I would have to pull down the fronts and the surrounds so that the Atmos speakers would work.


 I'm not sure what you mean by "pull down". You wouldn't actually have to move any speakers, but you should add new speakers which are at (or slightly above) ear-level, which would become your new fronts and surrounds. Your current in-ceiling speakers could be re-designated as "Front Height" and "Top Rear". 



> Am I correct in assuming the speakers would have to come down????


 Like I wrote, I'm not sure what you mean by "come down". You wouldn't have to change your current in-ceiling speakers at all.


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> AT LEAST once a year? You sir are a serious upgrade-a-holic!!


My HT is one of my few vices. I got rid of the sports car so I don't have much else to, umm, "invest" my money in.


----------



## bass addict

JimShaw said:


> I am under the impression that with my system, Atmos would be a waste of time and money.
> 
> I have all _*in-ceiling*_ speakers and for me to switch over to Atmos. I would have to pull down the fronts and the surrounds so that the Atmos speakers would work.
> 
> Am I correct in assuming the speakers would have to come down????


If your current speakers are in-ceiling speakers; than yes, you would need to look into speakers that could be placed closer to the listening position.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> AT LEAST once a year? You sir are a serious upgrade-a-holic!!


I think you overlooked his location. There's a reason why they keep him there!


----------



## JimShaw

bass addict said:


> If your current speakers are in-ceiling speakers; than yes, you would need to look into speakers that could be placed closer to the listening position.


That is what I thought. 

Thanks for the input


----------



## JimShaw

Selden Ball said:


> With no changes, Atmos can't be used: it requires both ear-level and overhead speakers. However, the new Dolby Surround upmixer can be used. Most people who've heard it prefer it to the older Dolby ProLogic variants.
> 
> Would you mind describing their setup? Many people who went to some of the early Best Buy/Magnolia Atmos demos were, shall we say, underwhelmed. (They weren't configured properly and/or didn't actually have Atmos enabled.)
> 
> Only you can decide that. I'm not sure what you mean by "pull down". You wouldn't actually have to move any speakers, but you should add new speakers which are at (or slightly above) ear-level, which would become your new fronts and surrounds. Your current in-ceiling speakers could be re-designated as "Front Height" and "Top Rear".
> 
> Like I wrote, I'm not sure what you mean by "come down". You wouldn't have to change your current in-ceiling speakers at all.



What I meant by pull down or come down is the speakers in the ceiling would have to be re-placed by something lower oin the wall or standing on the ground.

Sorry, I cannot describe what Best Buy was using. That was extremely dumb of me. It was in one of their Magnolia Design Centers

*You wouldn't actually have to move any speakers, but you should add new speakers which are at (or slightly above) ear-level, which would become your new fronts and surrounds. Your current in-ceiling speakers could be re-designated as "Front Height" and "Top Rear"*

The above is interesting. Leave what is in the ceiling and add a few more at ear level. This I will have to consider

Thanks


----------



## bass addict

chi_guy50 said:


> I think you overlooked his location. There's a reason why they keep him there!


LOL. My wife would definitely agree with you.


----------



## kbarnes701

JimShaw said:


> I have all _*in-ceiling*_ speakers and for me to switch over to Atmos. I would have to pull down the fronts and the surrounds so that the Atmos speakers would work.
> 
> Am I correct in assuming the speakers would have to come down????


Atmos won’t work if your current speakers are ceiling mounted. You need separation between the listener level speakers (left, centre, right, plus surrounds) and the overhead speakers. So, if I am understanding you correctly, yes, the front and surround speakers in your system would need to be moved to (approximately) ear level, and then two or four ceiling speakers installed. Depending on the layout of your current ceiling speakers, you might be able to use those as Atmos overhead speakers and then simply install a typical 5.1 or 7.1 set of speakers at listener level.


----------



## Keith Mickunas

I'm looking for some input on an issue I'm running into with mounting some ceiling speakers for Atmos. My Top Rear speakers are going to be closer to 115 degrees than 125, just due to how close they are getting to the rear wall and because of some rafter placement. So should I move the Top Front speakers closer to the main listening position to make the placement symmetric, or should I go closer to the front of the room to allow for more panning?

Also, I should point out that my speakers have an adjustable tweeter that I can point in different directions, so I could aim them slightly in hopes that it'll help make up for placement being off. For instance I could point the rear tweeters towards the back of the room just a few degrees to make up for them being to far forward.


----------



## bass addict

K, you're late to the party on that response.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> K, you're late to the party on that response.


So I see - I must have missed the other replies. Odd - sometimes the AVS pages don't refresh properly - for example, sometimes I will post a reply and it is on a page I can't see! Weird bug I suppose.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> So I see - I must have missed the other replies. Odd - sometimes the AVS pages don't refresh properly - for example, sometimes I will post a reply and it is on a page I can't see! Weird bug I suppose.


Or it could be the fault of those "exotic cigarettes" you've admitted to having stashed away in the hobbit HT.


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> Or it could be the fault of those "exotic cigarettes" you've admitted to having stashed away in the hobbit HT.


Keith =


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JimShaw said:


> *You wouldn't actually have to move any speakers, but you should add new speakers which are at (or slightly above) ear-level, which would become your new fronts and surrounds. Your current in-ceiling speakers could be re-designated as "Front Height" and "Top Rear"*
> 
> The above is interesting. Leave what is in the ceiling and add a few more at ear level. This I will have to consider
> 
> Thanks


You might want to include pictures, so we can see which two pairs of in-ceilings would be best suited for the job of front and rear overhead surrounds, but yes you just need to add lower level speakers (closer to ear level) with a configuration of 5.1 or 7.1.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith =



Towelie: "that's it!"

Stan: "you remembered the combination!?"

Towelie: "what combination? That's the tune to Funky Town!"

Towelie is one of my favorite characters of all time


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Does anyone know what _How to Train Your Dragon 2_'s sound format is supposed to be? All I keep seeing in press releases is TBA. Hell, at this stage of the game I'll take Atmos _or_ Auro3D considering how few 3D audio releases of any sort have been released. IMHO it would be the first movie worth getting with an "advanced" soundtrack of any type. That is, if DreamWorks and Fox decided to add one.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Or it could be the fault of those "exotic cigarettes" you've admitted to having stashed away in the hobbit HT.


Hmm. I guess we finally have an explanation for his constant failure to read-ahead and then answer questions that have already been responded to


----------



## bass addict

When installing top speakers, would you recommend spacing both top front and rear equidistant from the MLP, or would it make more sense to space the TF and TR to divide the front and rear speakers roughly in half. 

So for example

Fronts are 12' from MLP and rears are 8' from MLP
Front tops would be placed 6' in front of MLP with RT 4' behind MLP. 

OR

Front top at 4-5' and Rear Top 4-5' behind MLP

Seeing as there obviously is no height information being sent to my height speakers (removed for tops), it doesn't seem like splitting the front and rears would be as important as placing the tops equidistant from the MLP.


----------



## AustinJerry

batpig said:


> Hmm. I guess we finally have an explanation for his constant failure to read-ahead and then answer questions that have already been responded to


Suggested forum enhancement: add a "follow-up" flag so Keith could read ahead, and then go back and post his answers.


----------



## bass addict

austinjerry said:


> suggested forum enhancement: Add a "follow-up" flag so keith could read ahead, and then go back and post his answers.


lol.


----------



## JonStatt

batpig said:


> No, it wasn't the firmware update. It's because he manually changed the speaker setup after running calibration. When you tell the processor you have a (potentially) different speaker layout, it will disable Audyssey and force you to re-run because the old calculated filters may no longer be correct for the new speakers.
> 
> JonStatt - you may want to join us in the Denon 4100/5200/7200 owner's thread for Denon-specific setup questions like this, since it's less of a general Atmos thing. That said, it seems like you messed something up in your initial setup if "there was no option for Atmos front speakers". The Setup Wizard definitely allows you to select a wide variety of overhead speaker options including Atmos-enabled speakers (although it's not clear that's what you mean by "Atmos front speakers").
> 
> The new amp assign / speaker setup process can be confusing for sure, so it would help if you told us you rexact speaker layout and then I can recommend the correct settings.


Thanks. I think I am set correctly now, but just couldn't find the same options in the initial "install wizard". I will revert to the Denon owners thread as you suggested but just for those that are interested here. I have the Onkyo Atmos speakers sitting above (but not directly ontop of) the front left and right. Then the rest is a traditional 7.1 set-up. I am not completely convinced with these Atmos speakers. If I run a white noise test tone through them, I still feel the sound is coming mostly from the direction of the speaker rather than above. But if I sit about 1 foot forwards, then more of it sounds like it is coming from above. It is almost like I want an adjustable angle speaker so that I can get the beam aimed just right!


----------



## batpig

JonStatt said:


> Thanks. I think I am set correctly now, but just couldn't find the same options in the initial "install wizard". I will revert to the Denon owners thread as you suggested but just for those that are interested here. I have the Onkyo Atmos speakers sitting above (but not directly ontop of) the front left and right. Then the rest is a traditional 7.1 set-up. I am not completely convinced with these Atmos speakers. If I run a white noise test tone through them, I still feel the sound is coming mostly from the direction of the speaker rather than above. But if I sit about 1 foot forwards, then more of it sounds like it is coming from above. It is almost like I want an adjustable angle speaker so that I can get the beam aimed just right!


Makes sense -- my experience was somewhat similar in that the effect was "fragile" depending on the exact position of the Atmos module relative to the MLP. That's what you'd expect considering they are "virtual" speakers -- the whole concept depends on tricking your brain so if something is "off" then the effect can collapse. 

A good test that I used is to play them with 2ch music. (Since you are using a Denon you can do this without re-wiring by temporarily changing the amp assign so that the Atmos modules are set as "Front B" speakers). When I had them poorly positioned they sounded like they were mostly in front of me, but with the stereo imaging sort of "smeared" upwards on the front wall. When I adjusted them so that they were higher (on top of my FR/FL speakers) and repeated the test, it suddenly sounded like they were a pair of diffuse ceiling speakers. So I would encourage you to experiment with positioning to get the effect right.

BTW - with your setup you want Amp Assign set to "9.1ch" mode, then Height Speakers set to "Using Dolby Speakers", and then obviously Height Layout set to "Front Dolby". That should have been part of the Setup Wizard too, but who knows what happened.


----------



## brwsaw

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith =



Missed 420 by 1 page.


----------



## doublewing11

bass addict said:


> I will probably give in and grab the Denon 7200 coming out, but I too am really interested to see what the 2nd gen Atmos receivers bring to the table. I know a lot are holding out for 2.2, but IMO that is pretty irrelevant to most of us at this time, and probably for at least a couple years. I know some keep receivers forever, but I generally like to upgrade at least once a year, so by the time 4k and beyond material (projectors) is affordable for the masses, I'll have gone through at least a couple more receivers.


Hey......

Some of us need 2.2 4K Atmos NOW!!!!!


----------



## bsoko2

Suffer!


----------



## DaJoJo

doublewing11 said:


> Hey......
> Some of us need 2.2 4K Atmos NOW!!!!!


nooo ... i need 9.3.6 2.2 4K Atmos yesterday !


----------



## bass addict

doublewing11 said:


> Hey......
> 
> Some of us need 2.2 4K Atmos NOW!!!!!


LOL. Well some of us grunts are used to waiting for the technology hand me downs.


----------



## DaJoJo

bass addict said:


> LOL. Well some of us grunts are used to waiting for the technology hand me downs.


nowadays the wait for money intercepts the wait for technology though.


----------



## FilmMixer

I won't take credit for it.. but... 

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/230

A more balanced view, IMO, of the recent SMPTE report.


----------



## bass addict

The one thing I'd like to see is a recommendation on separation between the top and surround speakers. Wider and narrower rooms could see a significant difference between how far apart the top and side surrounds are. I'm wondering in narrower rooms if the tops should be placed narrower than the mains to provide a little more separation from the surrounds, or if this would even matter.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> I won't take credit for it.. but...
> 
> http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/230
> 
> A more balanced view, IMO, of the recent SMPTE report.


I find that interview not less frustrating than the first one because he basically says that there has been no meaningful standard at all. Everybody is obviously doing their own thing when it comes to calibration of theaters and dubbing stages. He also says that even if there was a tighter standard definition most theaters can not "barely even make the standards we have in the X curve" 

It's great that they are now trying to level the field but when this is done (in a couple of years or decades?) then the real question still is left unanswered: "How do steady-state measurements relate to perception?"
Maybe the whole steady-state calibration method is based on a false premise.

When will this important question get answered? I mean it took them 40 years to realize that the simple steady-state pink noise standard is not well defined...


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Or it could be the fault of those "exotic cigarettes" you've admitted to having stashed away in the hobbit HT.


I toke these things very seriously


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Hmm. I guess we finally have an explanation for his constant failure to read-ahead and then answer questions that have already been responded to


I think my read-ahead is better these days. I do sometimes respond to already-answered questions, if I think the given answer is lacking or unclear or if it falls victim to the common failing of PCIPU*. And sometimes, an additional reply also confirms that other people support the already-given reply. But yeah... 

_* Perfectly Clear If Previously Understood_


----------



## maikeldepotter

bass addict said:


> The one thing I'd like to see is a recommendation on separation between the top and surround speakers. Wider and narrower rooms could see a significant difference between how far apart the top and side surrounds are. I'm wondering in narrower rooms if the tops should be placed narrower than the mains to provide a little more separation from the surrounds, or if this would even matter.


While some of Dolby's Atmos guidelines tend to make you forget this basic principle, remember that it is all about the listener-to-speaker angles in achieving the speaker placement that brings you closest to the intended sound, assuming that that matters to you.

So if you have put your surrounds at ear level, as per Dolby's recommendation, a smaller or wider room as such has no effect on the angular seperation between surrounds and overheads. Ceiling height on the other hand does: the higher the ceiling the more separation between ceiling mounted overheads and the surrounds.

While Dolby's theatrical guidelines recommend to put the overhead arrays at a minimum of 45 degrees lateral elevation + half of the elevation of the surrounds, for the home theater the recommendation is limited to put the overheads on the ceiling in line with your fronts. This obviously introduces a wide range of possible outcomes, depending on front-right speaker distance in relation to the ceiling height. Dolby does however not specify this range, not in ideal (best) nor in optimal (good) terms.

Now the question has been raised earlier: What default lateral elevation angle do the consumer Atmos AVR's use in their rendering calculations, as it has no way of knowing your room dimensions. Answer: We don't know, and we might never know if it is part of Dolby's 'secret sauce' to keep off the competition. Should be somewhere between 45 and 100 degrees though, and I would personally go for 60 degrees as best wild guess.


----------



## gigging

I started reading this thread from the 1st page, but I'm only on page 371. I'm posting because I'm in my ceiling right now running my speaker wire for a 5.2.4 setup. I already have my denon x4100w so when I get everything hooked up I'm good to go!! I have transformers 4 ready to unwrap and play.. I also have a ton of movies to play with the DSU.. Kbarnes and others have made some suggestions on movies and I've been picking those up too! Well, back to work.. I got alot to do!


----------



## maikeldepotter

bass addict said:


> When installing top speakers, would you recommend spacing both top front and rear equidistant from the MLP, or would it make more sense to space the TF and TR to divide the front and rear speakers roughly in half.
> 
> So for example
> 
> Fronts are 12' from MLP and rears are 8' from MLP
> Front tops would be placed 6' in front of MLP with RT 4' behind MLP.
> 
> OR
> 
> Front top at 4-5' and Rear Top 4-5' behind MLP
> 
> Seeing as there obviously is no height information being sent to my height speakers (removed for tops), it doesn't seem like splitting the front and rears would be as important as placing the tops equidistant from the MLP.


While Dolby's Installation Guidelines do not specify an ideal relative position for Front and Rear Overhead speakers, in the graphical display for the 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 configurations the speakers seem to be equidistant from the listener's position. E.g. for a one row 5.1.4 home theater with limited room in the back I would therefore put front overheads at 55 degrees, and rear overheads at 125 degrees. For bigger rooms with more rows you can extend this upto 30 resp. 150 degrees, but I would check if a too large spread does not create 'a hole in the middle' effect. Anyway, a symmetrical approach allows middle overheads to be put exactly in the middle of that at 90 degrees, once the 7.1.6 capable AVR's appear (IF they appear that is). Just my 2 cts, maybe those that already have listened to Atmos soundtracks using different front and rear overhead positions could also give their opinion.


----------



## bass addict

maikeldepotter said:


> While Dolby's Installation Guidelines do not specify an ideal relative position for Front and Rear Overhead speakers, in the graphical display for the 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 configurations the speakers seem to be equidistant from the listener's position. For a one row home theater I would therefore put front overheads at 55 degrees, and rear overheads at 125 degrees. This allows middle overheads to be put exactly in the middle of that at 90 degrees, once the 7.1.6 capable AVR's appear (IF they appear that is). Just my 2 cts, maybe those that already have listened to Atmos soundtracks using different front and rear overhead positions could also give their opinion.


Agree'd and that's what raises the question. If going by the diagram to the T, you would place them equidistant from the listening position. It definitely appears that there is a lot more space between the mains and front tops, then the rear tops and rears. A lot on here have been proponents of trying to equally divide all speakers. It seems like we are beating a dead horse at times; but I don't think these are unreasonable questions to have answered. 

I posed the question earlier; (which you commented on) but I really wish Dolby specified a separation angle between the side surrounds and the tops. Based on Dolbys diagram, in keeping the tops in line with the mains; narrower rooms would find the tops and surrounds much closer together than wider rooms.


----------



## cannga

FilmMixer said:


> I won't take credit for it.. but...
> 
> http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/230
> 
> A more balanced view, IMO, of the recent SMPTE report.


Fascinating, a few things that stood out from my amateur consumer's viewpoint, just for the fun of discussion. First my own impression is that immersive audio's standard is in flux, whether there is an eventual winner and how that will play out is also in flux, and aren't all eyes on DTS?

1. SMPTE seems to be "forcing" compatibility at commercial theaters between the companies. With the immersive audio part being in the "AUX TRACK" bitstream (???). With 2 of the 3 big guns, Auro and Atmos having different speaker arrangement, doesn't this mean that this bitstream *AUX TRACK by definition would be object audio (speaker position agnostic), not channel*?

2. Studio doesn't want to deal with more than one codec, so film mixer will have to choose *one* among Auro, Atmos, DTS UHD, what have you. Therefore the *ultimate determination of who wins the format may come down to the film mixer/sound team/director, no?* 

3. It was mentioned that all companies are "at the table" for the compatibility discussion. I wonder what prevents Dolby from saying "we have the most theaters, and the most movies," *shouldn't Atmos already be the* *defacto standard*? I also have this suspicion that* DTS UHD speaker arrangement* will come to be *similar to Dolby* for this reason. (DTS renderer however may just have exact speaker location determination to trump Atmos. Kidding guys.)


----------



## maikeldepotter

bass addict said:


> Based on Dolbys diagram, in keeping the tops in line with the mains; narrower rooms would find the tops and surrounds much closer together than wider rooms.


(If you mean by narrower, bringing the side walls closer together)
Positionnaly closer (less relevant): yes. 
Smaller angular separation (more relevant): no


----------



## Anthony1

How long do you guys think it will take for Atmos to trickle down to the lower priced receivers ?


I know there is a relatively inexpensive Onkyo that supports it ($600 ish ?), but I don't think it handles 11 speakers. I would want 7.1 plus the 4 ceiling speakers, but I don't want to spend 2 grand on a receiver. How many years will I need to wait to get say a $700 receiver that can legimately do the 11 speaker thing (4 speakers on the ceiling) ?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Much more likely to find one of the current Atmos 11CH models on clearance as it's being replaced before Atmos trickles down to lower models.


----------



## asoofi1

Anthony1 said:


> How long do you guys think it will take for Atmos to trickle down to the lower priced receivers ?
> 
> 
> I know there is a relatively inexpensive Onkyo that supports it ($600 ish ?), but I don't think it handles 11 speakers. I would want 7.1 plus the 4 ceiling speakers, but I don't want to spend 2 grand on a receiver. How many years will I need to wait to get say a $700 receiver that can legimately do the 11 speaker thing (4 speakers on the ceiling) ?


5.1.4/7.1.4 will likely be common within a year, just like all the other surround codecs. With competition from Auro & DTS looming, Dolby will want to maintain their market and AV manufacturers want to sell more receivers asap.


----------



## bass addict

maikeldepotter said:


> (If you mean by narrower, bringing the side walls closer together)
> Positionnaly closer (less relevant): yes.
> Smaller angular separation (more relevant): no


OK. 

Yes that is what I was inferring. Positionally in my room my surrounds will be spaced only about 2' away from the tops (when installed roughly in line with mains). 

Height wise, the bottom of the top speaker should come in right at, or just under, 8'. So in my scenario, the deciding factor will be how much I can get away with lowering my side surrounds (trying to keep as high as possible due to aforementioned width restrictions).


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> Does anyone know what _How to Train Your Dragon 2_'s sound format is supposed to be? All I keep seeing in press releases is TBA. Hell, at this stage of the game I'll take Atmos _or_ Auro3D considering how few 3D audio releases of any sort have been released. IMHO it would be the first movie worth getting with an "advanced" soundtrack of any type. That is, if DreamWorks and Fox decided to add one.


I've been wondering this too. It seems (based on what was said at the Auro demo at CEDIA) that DreamWorks has committed to Auro. OTOH, the theatrical release I saw back in June had an Atmos soundtrack.

My bet is on Auro though. They were also saying (at CEDIA or somewhere else) that there should be some Auro releases announced before the end of the year, and clips from HTTYD 2 were featured in the demo. I think the odds of it getting released for home in both formats are slim.


----------



## chi_guy50

asoofi1 said:


> 5.1.4/7.1.4 will likely be common within a year, just like all the other surround codecs. With competition from Auro & DTS looming, Dolby will want to maintain their market and AV manufacturers want to sell more receivers asap.


Yes, but IMO we are unlikely to see Atmos 7.1.4 (11ch) capability at the $700 price point anytime soon. As jdsmoothie points out, there may be an opportunity to purchase, say, a used or clearance Denon X5200 for under $1K in a year or two, but the newer 2d- or 3d-generation 11ch Atmos AVR's won't be selling for anything close to $700. I think it would take a drastic reduction in production costs to foresee such a retail price reduction.


----------



## DaJoJo

markus767 said:


> I find that interview not less frustrating than the first one because he basically says that there has been no meaningful standard at all. Everybody is obviously doing their own thing when it comes to calibration of theaters and dubbing stages. He also says that even if there was a tighter standard definition most theaters can not "barely even make the standards we have in the X curve"
> 
> It's great that they are now trying to level the field but when this is done (in a couple of years or decades?) then the real question still is left unanswered: "How do steady-state measurements relate to perception?"
> Maybe the whole steady-state calibration method is based on a false premise.
> 
> When will this important question get answered? I mean it took them 40 years to realize that the simple steady-state pink noise standard is not well defined...


well put.
imho the only working standard we have is the one the speakers stand on.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> While some of Dolby's Atmos guidelines tend to make you forget this basic principle, remember that* it is all about the listener-to-speaker angles* in achieving the speaker placement that brings you closest to the intended sound, assuming that that matters to you.


 Yes!



> Ceiling height on the other hand does: the higher the ceiling the more separation between ceiling mounted overheads and the surrounds.


The issue is angular separation, not length of signal path.



> While Dolby's theatrical guidelines recommend to put the overhead arrays at a minimum of 45 degrees lateral elevation + half of the elevation of the surrounds, for the home theater the recommendation is limited to put the overheads on the ceiling in line with your fronts.


Are they in line as in same azimuth, or in line as in same physical width? Fig 26 of the home installation guidelines shows the Lfh/Rfh at 60 deg lateral spread, on the front wall. If one's L/R speakers are also at 60 deg, but not on the front wall, then the heights are spaced wider. And that's just Fh/Rh speakers, with no mention of the top speaker spacing. 

Nor can we look the the speaker system diagrams for insight, as they show the real speaker positions in significantly different locations than where the bouncers hit the ceiling. That makes sens in that the upfiring modules are not adjustable (tied to main speaker locations) whereas real speakers are free to move.



> Now the question has been raised earlier: What default lateral elevation angle do the consumer Atmos AVR's use in their rendering calculations, as it has no way of knowing your room dimensions. Answer: We don't know, and we might never know if it is part of Dolby's 'secret sauce' to keep off the competition. Should be somewhere between 45 and 100 degrees though, and I would personally go for 60 degrees as best wild guess.


I cannot see how it impacts the competition in the least. What matters is that consumers get a good effect, and with insufficient guidance, that can add uncertainty. I am sure it is not very critical, but I agree it would help to know the optimum zones. I think we'll all find that out as a group through our empirical explorations.


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> It definitely appears that there is a lot more space between the mains and front tops, then the rear tops and rears.


That's why I think a third pair of top speakers would be useful, to bridge the gap you described.


----------



## asoofi1

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, but IMO we are unlikely to see Atmos 7.1.4 (11ch) capability at the $700 price point anytime soon. As jdsmoothie points out, there may be an opportunity to purchase, say, a used or clearance Denon X5200 for under $1K in a year or two, but the newer 2d- or 3d-generation 11ch Atmos AVR's won't be selling for anything close to $700. I think it would take a drastic reduction in production costs to foresee such a retail price reduction.


I think it will happen much faster...there's just too much competition and market share to not offer the most value. I'm thinking since 7.1 is alread so common under 1k, this could be the sweet spot for consumers, hence maybe manufacturers might focus on this cash cow segment to push av's even more...for instance, the htib market has great margins and those are mostly 7.1 currently...might be natural to add 4 satellite speakers. In contrast, anyone adding just 2 overheads/reflective won't be cost effective because a competitor will offer 4 for a few dollars more and consumers will likely just buy that...and sellers will upsell it as well. 

The used market is directly effected by the prices of new units, so they'll certainly go down respectively. Even though I'm skipping out the freshman atmos av's...I might pick up a used one in a few months to scratch the itch and save money. Waste of money to buy new one right now if you want 9.x.4. I've already seen open box and used 7.1.4/9.1.2 av's selling for $400-$500 off new pricing.


----------



## maikeldepotter

bass addict said:


> OK.
> 
> Yes that is what I was inferring. Positionally in my room my surrounds will be spaced only about 2' away from the tops (when installed roughly in line with mains).
> 
> Height wise, the bottom of the top speaker should come in right at, or just under, 8'. So in my scenario, the deciding factor will be how much I can get away with lowering my side surrounds (trying to keep as high as possible due to aforementioned width restrictions).


Yes, if you have your surrounds elevated, a narrower room _will_ decrease the angular separation between surrounds and overheads. I that case I would try and lower the surround to 10degrees elevation, and use the theatrical guideline for putting your overheads at a minimum lateral elevation of 50 degrees. Do not worry about the overhead arrays being closer together than the mains, in theaters they use the center-left, center-right positions for aligning the overhead arrays.


----------



## chi_guy50

asoofi1 said:


> I think it will happen much faster...there's just too much competition and market share to not offer the most value. I'm thinking since 7.1 is alread so common under 1k, this could be the sweet spot for consumers, hence maybe manufacturers might focus on this cash cow segment to push av's even more...for instance, the htib market has great margins and those are mostly 7.1 currently...might be natural to add 4 satellite speakers. In contrast, anyone adding just 2 overheads/reflective won't be cost effective because a competitor will offer 4 for a few dollars more and consumers will likely just buy that...and sellers will upsell it as well.
> 
> The used market is directly effected by the prices of new units, so they'll certainly go down respectively. Even though I'm skipping out the freshman atmos av's...I might pick up a used one in a few months to scratch the itch and save money. Waste of money to buy new one right now if you want 9.x.4. I've already seen open box and used 7.1.4/9.1.2 av's selling for $400-$500 off new pricing.


I can envisage an AVR capable of 5.1.4 for under $1K in the near term, but OP was asking about an 11ch AVR for around $700 (MSRP). It's largely speculation, of course, but I think that's unlikely, to say the least. We're talking about a small market segment--even in the rarefied air of this thread (!)--and one which can be expected to have to pay a premium (as I just did last month).

BTW, skillful and persistent bargain-hunters will always be able to sniff out significant savings, so don't let the posted retail prices scare you away from that shiny new Atmos-capable AVR you've been eyeballing. YOLO, as I hear the kids are s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ texting these days.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> bass addict said:
> 
> 
> 
> It definitely appears that there is a lot more space between the mains and front tops, then the rear tops and rears.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I think a third pair of top speakers would be useful, to bridge the gap you described.
Click to expand...


Although _theatrical_ *Atmos* features height speakers in "matching left|right" pairs, there would appear to be no particular _computational_ reason why a _home theater_ *Atmos* third row of heights could not consist of only *one *speaker placed above the center of the display, a *Top Front Center* (*TpFC*) speaker . . . resulting in a *7.x.5* configuration "very much like" the rumored|forthcoming *IMAX 12.x* system architecture...?!

For a _home theater_, there are several advantages which obtain from using 1|2|3 front height speakers, including: (1) the _effective coplanarity_ of the display itself with the *L|C|R|TpFC* "_speaker frame_" eliminates some of the 'VBAP computation error' likely introduced when any other *L|C|R|H1L|H1R* "_speaker frame_" is used to position 'elevated on-display sound', and (2) it more effectively provides the option to apply 'dialog lift' correction in both *Atmos* and _non-Atmos_ playback.

_


----------



## qwho51

After just completing the reading of the official Dolby Atmos papers, I am still left with the question regarding the use of Bipole/Dipole speakers for the ceiling speakers. Time and again, in the white paper, the word
"diffusive" effect is used to describe the objective of the speakers used in the top layer. If that is the case, I can't think of any other more diffuse speaker type than bipole/dipole. Am I missing something here? What would
a direct radiating speaker provide that would make them superior in their use?
Thank You to all who take the time to educate me!  
RustyBones


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> Although _theatrical_ *Atmos* features height speakers in "matching left|right" pairs, there would appear to be no particular _computational_ reason why a _home theater_ *Atmos* third row of heights could not consist of only *one *speaker placed above the center of the display, a *Top Front Center* (*TpFC*) speaker . . . resulting in a *7.x.5* configuration "very much like" the rumored|forthcoming *IMAX 12.x* system architecture...?!
> 
> For a _home theater_, there are several advantages which obtain from using 1|2|3 front height speakers, including: (1) the _effective coplanarity_ of the display itself with the *L|C|R|TpFC* "_speaker frame_" eliminates some of the 'VBAP computation error' likely introduced when any other *L|C|R|H1L|H1R* "_speaker frame_" is used to position 'elevated on-display sound', and (2) it more effectively provides the option to apply 'dialog lift' correction in both *Atmos* and _non-Atmos_ playback.
> 
> _


Easy way to accomplish this would be to integrate a matrix processor between the left and right front height outputs. That can be done fairly inexpensively. Obviously not as robust of an effect as it would be with discrete outputs but it could be done and may or may not help imaging.


----------



## JonStatt

If you were limited to 9 channels, would you choose 7.1.2 (rear surrounds) or 5.1.4? My thinking is 7.1.2 is more likely to be better at steering sounds more precisely as it has more "point" speakers but still leveraging the Atmos height speakers to "lift" the sound when needed. I will consider adding a further power amplifier in the future to allow for 7.1.4 , but for now I have to make a choice from 9 channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Definitely 7.1 first then add on. If I had no choice of 7.1 at all then I would opt for 5.1.4 audio. Reluctantly.


----------



## batpig

JonStatt said:


> If you were limited to 9 channels, would you choose 7.1.2 (rear surrounds) or 5.1.4? My thinking is 7.1.2 is more likely to be better at steering sounds more precisely as it has more "point" speakers but still leveraging the Atmos height speakers to "lift" the sound when needed. I will consider adding a further power amplifier in the future to allow for 7.1.4 , but for now I have to make a choice from 9 channels.


I would simply test for yourself. Even if you don't have the external amp to run the full 11ch setup, a current model Denon/Marantz with 11ch capability can calibrate all 11 speakers but then only run 9 at a time. So I would hook up the complete 7.1.4 setup, calibrate all 11 speakers, and then test 7.1.2 (which will use the forward pair of heights) vs. 5.1.4 (disabling the surround backs). 

Personally, I'd opt for 5.1.4 before 7.1.2, since even with 5.1.4 you have four speakers covering the rear hemisphere (two to the sides and a bit behind you, two above and behind you) as well as full overhead coverage front-to-back and side-to-side. But, again, it's pretty easy to test and decide for yourself, a lot of this is still speculative.


----------



## batpig

qwho51 said:


> After just completing the reading of the official Dolby Atmos papers, I am still left with the question regarding the use of Bipole/Dipole speakers for the ceiling speakers. Time and again, in the white paper, the word
> "diffusive" effect is used to describe the objective of the speakers used in the top layer. If that is the case, I can't think of any other more diffuse speaker type than bipole/dipole. Am I missing something here? What would
> a direct radiating speaker provide that would make them superior in their use?
> Thank You to all who take the time to educate me!
> RustyBones


Personally I would avoid dipoles, since the null could be problematic. Bipoles are a different deal -- they are still "direct radiating" but just with super wide dispersion, so I think they would work fine especially if your ceiling are lower and/or the angles to the speakers are more extreme (giving better coverage).

There is at least one person here who used 4 Klipsch bipole speakers as Top Front/Rear and seems pretty happy with it.


----------



## bargervais

Anthony1 said:


> How long do you guys think it will take for Atmos to trickle down to the lower priced receivers ?
> 
> 
> I know there is a relatively inexpensive Onkyo that supports it ($600 ish ?), but I don't think it handles 11 speakers. I would want 7.1 plus the 4 ceiling speakers, but I don't want to spend 2 grand on a receiver. How many years will I need to wait to get say a $700 receiver that can legimately do the 11 speaker thing (4 speakers on the ceiling) ?


Yes the 636 but I don't think you will see a 11 channel AVR at anywhere near $700 maybe in a few years you could find used one's from someone who is replacing theirs.... but for new one I doubt it very much


----------



## rhbblb1

qwho51 said:


> After just completing the reading of the official Dolby Atmos papers, I am still left with the question regarding the use of Bipole/Dipole speakers for the ceiling speakers. Time and again, in the white paper, the word
> "diffusive" effect is used to describe the objective of the speakers used in the top layer. If that is the case, I can't think of any other more diffuse speaker type than bipole/dipole. Am I missing something here? What would
> a direct radiating speaker provide that would make them superior in their use?
> Thank You to all who take the time to educate me!
> RustyBones


I am also in the market for in ceiling Atmos speakers. I discussed this with the Atlantic Technology in ceiling speKer designer. He recommended the AT IC-6.3 or IC-8.3. These speakers have dual tweeters and can be run in 3 ways: mono, stereo, and dipole. He also recommended that they be run in dipole mode. He said that this would give the widest dispersion. He stated that he confirmed his recommendation with Dolby Labs.


----------



## redjr

chi_guy50 said:


> ...BTW, skillful and persistent bargain-hunters will always be able to sniff out significant savings, so don't let the posted retail prices scare you away from that shiny new Atmos-capable AVR you've been eyeballing. YOLO, as I hear the kids are s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ texting these days.


By all means give Robert a call at Value Electronics for 15% off some of the new Atmos models in the Pioneer SC Elite line.


----------



## DaJoJo

batpig said:


> Personally I would avoid dipoles, since the null could be problematic. Bipoles are a different deal -- they are still "direct radiating" but just with super wide dispersion, so I think they would work fine especially if your ceiling are lower and/or the angles to the speakers are more extreme (giving better coverage).
> There is at least one person here who used 4 Klipsch bipole speakers as Top Front/Rear and seems pretty happy with it.


i have the klipsch bipoles and this has a null area too, only from closeby though. i think it works ok if you aim one side of these to the mlp, but i still have doubts about this thing radiating towards the wall more then a direct firing one does. also on a certain height you won't notice the null area i guess. im still not certain if i want to get those rs-52II for the ceiling or just go with 4 bookshelfs. mounting them is the main issue i have with them. the white paper says only that you need speakers high up the ceiling and nothing about how wide radiating they must be. bipoles are 180 degrees, white paper speaks of 90 degrees but it is regarding in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## brwsaw

I was looking at the trinnov 13.1 layout and wondered if it would be possible to mix ear height and height channels as stereo pairs (left and left height, for example). There's nowhere else more appropriate to ask, could it be done? Would there be any value to adding this ability to pan this way? Atmos aside?

Edit: lots of theory in this tread, "appropriate" might not be the right word


----------



## DaJoJo

brwsaw said:


> I was looking at the trinnov 13.1 layout and wondered if it would be possible to mix ear height and height channels as stereo pairs (left and left height, for example). There's nowhere else more appropriate to ask, could it be done? Would there be any value to adding this ability to pan this way? Atmos aside?


i don't think this would give any advantage as the left and left-height are allready different channels ?


----------



## brwsaw

In theory, if used as stereo pairs, a similar result to object based surround could be achieved.


----------



## brwsaw

I would guess Atmos is already doing it.
I guess my question is could it be achieved with much older/legacy equipment?


----------



## DaJoJo

brwsaw said:


> In theory, if used as stereo pairs, a similar result to object based surround could be achieved.


not sure if this would do any good. the left and right is swapped then and you get a reverse stereo there, which is not gonna benefit the whole surround field but mix it up rather.


----------



## DaJoJo

brwsaw said:


> I would guess Atmos is already doing it.
> I guess my question is could it be achieved with much older/legacy equipment?


no it's not, it is working with pot/pan stuff and swapping left and right would mean that the position of the object would projected at a different point in listening space.


----------



## brwsaw

DaJoJo said:


> no it's not, it is working with pot/pan stuff and swapping left and right would mean that the position of the object would projected at a different point in listening space.



Edit: Its the panning between speakers that got me thinking about it.

I didn't say anything about swapping left and right, at least that wasn't my intention.

My question was about trying to achieve a steerable stereo image between two speakers, one above the other rather than side by side to achieve a sound field similar to if not superior to that of any current technology. 

The idea expands to all speakers with a surround located above it.

Potentially every speaker could be in stereo with each of its closest speakers, on the vertical and horizontal planes.
It would be interesting to see all speakers in multiple stereo pairs. Left with right, left with left height, right with right height, right height with left height, continued around the room. I haven't forgotten about the center, just ignoring it/them for the moment for simplicities sake.
I'm not saying its possible just that the idea really stood out. If 1 pair can paint an image in your mind during a listening session imagine what 20 stereo images combining could do IF it was possible to implement.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> I toke these things very seriously


 


Hi Keith, have the 70.6 and its the first 70.6 in Holland ! 

I can buy a set of Onkyo SK H410 speakers for just 250 euro to try Atmos and wait until the "real stuff" will be availible.


But is it very important to have the speakers within 1 meter from the front and back speakers, or will this not matter when its 1.5 - 2 meter ?


In the front i can mount the SK just behinde the screen (samsung 65HU8500) and then they sit 80cm from the ceiling, on the back i have more space to play with.


Thx.......


----------



## Nightlord

brwsaw said:


> Edit: Its the panning between speakers that got me thinking about it.
> 
> I didn't say anything about swapping left and right, at least that wasn't my intention.
> 
> My question was about trying to achieve a steerable stereo image between two speakers, one above the other rather than side by side to achieve a sound field similar to if not superior to that of any current technology.
> 
> The idea expands to all speakers with a surround located above it.
> 
> Potentially every speaker could be in stereo with each of its closest speakers, on the vertical and horizontal planes.
> It would be interesting to see all speakers in multiple stereo pairs. Left with right, left with left height, right with right height, right height with left height, continued around the room. I haven't forgotten about the center, just ignoring it/them for the moment for simplicities sake.
> I'm not saying its possible just that the idea really stood out. If 1 pair can paint an image in your mind during a listening session imagine what 20 stereo images combining could do IF it was possible to implement.


still yeilds quite different results from different seats, though....


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> The issue is angular separation, not length of signal path.


Thank you, that is what I meant.



> Are they in line as in same azimuth, or in line as in same physical width? Fig 26 of the home installation guidelines shows the Lfh/Rfh at 60 deg lateral spread, on the front wall. If one's L/R speakers are also at 60 deg, but not on the front wall, then the heights are spaced wider. And that's just Fh/Rh speakers, with no mention of the top speaker spacing.


I don't know if they really meant to get the heights wider than the fronts, but you got me seriously questioning my earlier assumption, generated by looking at the diagrams, that all overheads should have the same physical width as the mains. I did some re-reading and I cannot find any such textual specification or guideline. So let's forget about that one.

Now, on page 32 it is explained that if the height speakers are ceiling mounted (instead of wall mounted) they should have a vertical angle of 45 degrees, which according to Dolby may - while keeping them at 30 degrees horizontal - put them inside the left and right main speakers. This in fact approaches the theatrical guideline to put the overheads in line with the left-center and right-center positions. So I am going to stick to that one for the time being.



> Nor can we look the the speaker system diagrams for insight, as they show the real speaker positions in significantly different locations than where the bouncers hit the ceiling. That makes sens in that the upfiring modules are not adjustable (tied to main speaker locations) whereas real speakers are free to move.


The points where the bouncers are hitting the ceiling are also more or less in line with the left-center and right-center positions. Another similarity with the theatrical guideline on this point.



> I cannot see how it impacts the competition in the least.


Neither can I. It was a possibility raised by another poster.


----------



## cannga

From Deluxe Toronto, Canada's first Atmos mixing stage. http://bobgoldpr.com/deluxe-toronto...-launch-canadas-1st-dolby-atmos-mixing-stage/

An interesting topic of discussion: *is what the film mixer hears in his mixing stage the bottom line? *Isn't his setup more appropriate than the "guideline" for hometheater Atmos, which appears deliberately generic, even ambiguous, so as not to "upset," or paradoxically, confuse, mainstream users?

The linear and fixed width row of ceiling speakers (meaning varying azimuth for each row) makes me think the most important issue for setup of ceiling speakers is the reference to the screen - even keeping in mind that with object based audio, speakers location (eventually) should not matter. Meaning, the simple linear width separation of ceiling speakers (correlating with left center and right center speakers in a large theater), is what matters. I am thinking more and more that ceiling should be closer together than main speakers's width as recommended by Dolby for home Atmos, am I wrong?


----------



## jkasanic

First thing I noticed was the toe-in on the overheads!


----------



## bargervais

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVR-X41...ie=UTF8&qid=1414849391&sr=1-1&keywords=x4100w
Is this a good deal or should I wait a month or two for prices to drop a little more.


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVR-X41...ie=UTF8&qid=1414849391&sr=1-1&keywords=x4100w
> Is this a good deal or should I wait a month or two for prices to drop a little more.


That's the current normal pricing. What you need to do is CALL authorized Internet dealers like our forum sponsor AVS to see what the real best pricing is. Denon/Marantz heavily polices the advertised pricing so there's a very good chance you can getter a better deal than that by calling.


----------



## batpig

cannga said:


> From Deluxe Toronto, Canada's first Atmos mixing stage. http://bobgoldpr.com/deluxe-toronto...-launch-canadas-1st-dolby-atmos-mixing-stage/
> 
> An interesting topic of discussion: *is what the film mixer hears in his mixing stage the bottom line? *Isn't his setup more appropriate than the "guideline" for hometheater Atmos, which appears deliberately generic, even ambiguous, so as not to "upset," or paradoxically, confuse, mainstream users?
> 
> The linear and fixed width row of ceiling speakers (meaning varying azimuth for each row) makes me think the most important issue for setup of ceiling speakers is the reference to the screen - even keeping in mind that with object based audio, speakers location (eventually) should not matter. Meaning, the simple linear width separation of ceiling speakers (correlating with left center and right center speakers in a large theater), is what matters. I am thinking more and more that ceiling should be closer together than main speakers's width as recommended by Dolby for home Atmos, am I wrong?


That looks more like a theatrical / commercial layout. Are you also going to elevate your surrounds 40 degrees? Do we know that's how the for-home mixes are done or do they use a more downscaled presentation? If your home theater goal is to mimic the theatrical presentation then AFAIK the specs are well defined. 

In a typical home environment the screen isn't going to be that wide either. If you placed the overheads in line with the L/R channels at the screen edge they would be in the corner (wall/ceiling junction) in that room. 

So if you DO have a home theater that is more "theatrical" in nature (eg screen the entire width of the front wall) then yes, obviously, the overhead array will be narrower then the L/R separation. This is when you have to use..... wait for it............ common sense.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

My ceiling speakers are about 4" inside the L/R mains due to hvac. It sounds amazing

Again all this is recommendations. Mine are within the recommendations and not ideal but the sound is incredible.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> That's the current normal pricing. What you need to do is CALL authorized Internet dealers like our forum sponsor AVS to see what the real best pricing is. Denon/Marantz heavily polices the advertised pricing so there's a very good chance you can getter a better deal than that by calling.


Thanks


----------



## intake

Today at 11am central, Bjorns Audio/Video of San Antonio will be having a Dolby Atmos presentation with Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories.

They are supposed to have a live stream of the presentation. I'll be onsite at this one to check it out. They are supposed to have an in store demo as well.

Here is the link the the Live Stream: http://new.livestream.com/bjornsav?utm_source=BU+Atmos+2&utm_campaign=BU+Atmos+2&utm_medium=email

And a copy of the email invite:

Dolby® Atmos has been referred to as the most exciting home entertainment technology to come to market since the introduction of Dolby Surround Sound more than 20 years ago. And just like back then, Bjorn's was the first place in the United States that you could experience it!

What is it? How does it work? What equipment do I need? Is there content? These are just a few questions that will be answered by our special guest presenter Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories. Click here for a full bio on Mr. Eggers.
http://www.bjorns.com/pages/craig-e...os+2&utm_campaign=BU+Atmos+2&utm_medium=email


----------



## asoofi1

intake said:


> Today at 11am central, Bjorns Audio/Video of San Antonio will be having a Dolby Atmos presentation with Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories.
> 
> They are supposed to have a live stream of the presentation. I'll be onsite at this one to check it out. They are supposed to have an in store demo as well.
> 
> Here is the link the the Live Stream: http://new.livestream.com/bjornsav?utm_source=BU+Atmos+2&utm_campaign=BU+Atmos+2&utm_medium=email
> 
> And a copy of the email invite:
> 
> Dolby® Atmos has been referred to as the most exciting home entertainment technology to come to market since the introduction of Dolby Surround Sound more than 20 years ago. And just like back then, Bjorn's was the first place in the United States that you could experience it!
> 
> What is it? How does it work? What equipment do I need? Is there content? These are just a few questions that will be answered by our special guest presenter Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories. Click here for a full bio on Mr. Eggers.
> http://www.bjorns.com/pages/craig-e...os+2&utm_campaign=BU+Atmos+2&utm_medium=email


Thanks for sharing


----------



## intake

Full room!


----------



## JimShaw

intake said:


> Today at 11am central, Bjorns Audio/Video of San Antonio will be having a Dolby Atmos presentation with Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories


I am a little envious. I would have loved to have gone.


----------



## jimim

Hi guys. I'm going to run the wire for my 4 ceiling speakers today. I'm going to use one of triads incieling offerings that is angled at 45 degrees in the enclosure. When I plot out the runs should I be aiming them at just the main chairs I. Are about in my front row or is there any other ideas u guys can give me to hit the second row also. 

Also if I inly aim at the first row seats a assume I can figure out the distance for placement on the cieling by using the 45 degree angle and the distance of top of head of a person to cieling to form a right triangle and solve for the distance they need to be away. If I shoot for the two rows what do I do then? 

Thanks,
Jimi


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> I won't take credit for it.. but...
> 
> http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/230
> 
> A more balanced view, IMO, of the recent SMPTE report.


I apologize because this question isn't exactly related to Atmos or this quoted post (though I do have the Denon x5200w with 7.1.4). 
I notice a lot of distortion on the center channel dialogue (like clipping, as if the dialogue was recorded with the preamp turned up too loud or something)... I've determined the problem isn't my receiver or the speaker (almost 100% sure as I hear the same distortion on my TV's speaker). 
I've heard distortion on both low budget & hi budget content (recent example was a scene in "the pacific" bluray where the dialogue in one scene distorts pretty badly). It doesn't happen in other content (LOTR as an example). 

My question is... is that distortion actually there in the content?


----------



## pasender91

intake said:


> Today at 11am central, Bjorns Audio/Video of San Antonio will be having a Dolby Atmos presentation with Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories.


It was an interesting speach, after the basic introduction a few of our past debates have been discussed, for example the presenter mentioned:
- The ceiling dispersion speakers should be +45/-45°
- If ceiling is low, then toe-in towards MLP is recommended.
- monopoles and bipoles are fine, dipoles are discouraged.
- .4 better than .2 (obvious)
- Surrounds should be re-located lower than in the past, no more than 1.5x ear-level.


----------



## intake

The direct 5.1.4 demo was great. I believe they were running it on a Denon x7200. The reflective 5.1.2 demo with deftech modules was not as strong. You could hear the ATMOS speakers but coupled with the rears being up near the ceiling and way out of the listening plane and acoustical drop ceiling panels eating up the reflected sound it took a lot of the effect away. Again the effect was there but the sweet spot was very tight.


----------



## Stanton

pasender91 said:


> It was an interesting speach, after the basic introduction a few of our past debates have been discussed, for example the presenter mentioned:
> - The ceiling dispersion speakers should be +45/-45°
> - If ceiling is low, then toe-in towards MLP is recommended.
> - monopoles and bipoles are fine, dipoles are discouraged.
> - .4 better than .2 (obvious)
> - Surrounds should be re-located lower than in the past, no more than 1.5x ear-level.


Funny, my (rear) surrounds have always been "low" because they are full range speakers and therefore sit on the ground (well, on tip-toes, but that's besides the point). Now, it looks like that will fit in nicely with DA when I upgrade next year. I even re-used some old wall brackets/holders to locate some (future) top-middle speakers near the ceiling.


----------



## thebland

I have 6 heights already installed for AURO and preparation for Atmos. I think I am good with my set up but I think user reviews, formal reviews, etc when the receivers and software become available will answer all placement related questions. Right now there are guidelines from Dolby but certainly user reviews will better flesh out what truly is best. 

So install best as you can, buy your receiver and once software is out and your own experience and reviews are all over the place, it will become clearer what the truly ideal set up is. 

I am fully aware I may have to move all of my heighds around in a few months or year's time. All other early adopters should expect such as well.


----------



## Mike Garrett

I have 7.1 in my room right now. Since my room is narrow and my seating is close to the back wall, my side surrounds are mounted up higher and aimed at the farthest seat. I only have one row of seating. My rear surrounds are also mounted high and aimed a little above my seating. Because of this, I plan on converting the rear surrounds to Atmos and add two more Atmos speakers in front of my seating. This will give me 5.1.4 system and will put the Atmos speakers at the correct angles. I think that will be a better choice than 7.1.2.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> If you placed the overheads in line with the L/R channels


Can you point me to a location where I can find any such written recommendation from Dolby?


----------



## Figarou

intake said:


> The direct 5.1.4 demo was great. *I believe they were running it on a Denon x7200.* The reflective 5.1.2 demo with deftech modules was not as strong. You could hear the ATMOS speakers but coupled with the rears being up near the ceiling and way out of the listening plane and acoustical drop ceiling panels eating up the reflected sound it took a lot of the effect away. Again the effect was there but the sweet spot was very tight.



Nope. An X5200. The X7200 is not yet available.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> From Deluxe Toronto, Canada's first Atmos mixing stage.
> 
> An interesting topic of discussion: *is what the film mixer hears in his mixing stage the bottom line? *Isn't his setup more appropriate than the "guideline" for hometheater Atmos, which appears deliberately generic, even ambiguous, so as not to "upset," or paradoxically, confuse, mainstream users?


I think it is confusing when you tell consumers to lower their surrounds -- especially when that's not what happens in cinemas. 



> The linear and fixed width row of ceiling speakers (meaning varying azimuth for each row) makes me think the most important issue for setup of ceiling speakers is the reference to the screen - even keeping in mind that with object based audio, speakers location (eventually) should not matter. Meaning, the simple linear width separation of ceiling speakers (correlating with left center and right center speakers in a large theater), is what matters. I am thinking more and more that ceiling should be closer together than main speakers's width as recommended by Dolby for home Atmos, am I wrong?


I tend to agree with you. But with varying ceiling heights and screen sizes at home, I prefer the angles of incidence over relating to screen. But they will all fall in place for a proper PJ screen.

I did a bit of reverse engineering and made a 3D model of a "dubbing stage" to try to ascertain the speaker positions in Deluxe Toronto. My model has the surrounds elevated 25 deg and the tops are 65 deg. Dolby's guidelines for cinema say for 25 deg surrounds, the tops should be equal or greater than 58 deg. So that all seems per plan. 





















batpig said:


> That looks more like a theatrical / commercial layout. Are you also going to elevate your surrounds 40 degrees?
> 
> If your home theater goal is to mimic the theatrical presentation then AFAIK the specs are well defined.


Not sure about Cannga, but my surrounds are at 22 deg, which seems quite in the ballpark with where home theaters have been for a long time. And IMHO the whole idea of home theater is to mimic the best aspects of a good cinema. (Well, without the texting...)



> So if you DO have a home theater that is more "theatrical" in nature (eg screen the entire width of the front wall) then yes, obviously, the overhead array will be narrower then the L/R separation. This is when you have to use..... wait for it............ common sense.


----------



## ACappo

Mashie Saldana said:


> Here is a torrent link for the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc:
> 
> Link


no one sharing anymore?


----------



## Figarou

^^ You know what could be better than that Dolby Atmos Demo disc? A disc designed for us consumers to see if we have our setup right. Instead of a "channel check," having an "object" go around the room while a diagram on the screen showing exactly where the object SHOULD be. With a few other demos on the disc, of course.


----------



## rnewste

ACappo said:


> no one sharing anymore?


I have one last Blu-ray copy left, so send me a PM with your mailing address and it is yours.

Raybo


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> The points where the bouncers are hitting the ceiling are also more or less in line with the left-center and right-center positions. Another similarity with the theatrical guideline on this point.


Yes. All the more perplexing when one compares Fig 14 to Fig 15. If the bounce points, being consistent with cinemas, were the goal, why not just put the top speakers there, too? 

The yellow dots are where the bounces hit.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I think it is confusing when you tell consumers to lower their surrounds -- especially when that's not what happens in cinemas.


What's confusing about telling people to mount speakers at locations where most sounds happen in the real world, i.e. at ear level or even below


----------



## Roger Dressler

Brian Fineberg said:


> My ceiling speakers are about 4" inside the L/R mains due to hvac. It sounds amazing
> 
> Again all this is recommendations. Mine are within the recommendations and not ideal but the sound is incredible.


I'd be curious to know exactly where "ideal" is.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> What's confusing about telling people to mount speakers at locations where most sounds happen in the real world, i.e. at ear level or even below


When one stands on the planet, most sound comes from ear level or above. Rain hits trees on the way down, too. And roofs.


----------



## LowellG

intake said:


> Today at 11am central, Bjorns Audio/Video of San Antonio will be having a Dolby Atmos presentation with Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories.
> 
> They are supposed to have a live stream of the presentation. I'll be onsite at this one to check it out. They are supposed to have an in store demo as well.
> 
> Here is the link the the Live Stream: http://new.livestream.com/bjornsav?utm_source=BU+Atmos+2&utm_campaign=BU+Atmos+2&utm_medium=email
> 
> And a copy of the email invite:
> 
> Dolby® Atmos has been referred to as the most exciting home entertainment technology to come to market since the introduction of Dolby Surround Sound more than 20 years ago. And just like back then, Bjorn's was the first place in the United States that you could experience it!
> 
> What is it? How does it work? What equipment do I need? Is there content? These are just a few questions that will be answered by our special guest presenter Craig Eggers - Director of Home Theater at Dolby Laboratories. Click here for a full bio on Mr. Eggers.
> http://www.bjorns.com/pages/craig-e...os+2&utm_campaign=BU+Atmos+2&utm_medium=email



I was there, interesting presentation. It was nice hearing the history of everything. I went up and spoke with Craig after and asked some questions. A lot dealt with mono vs bipolar speakers. I am debating whether to change out my BP8080SRs for just PM800s and lowering them. The lowering part was in the presentation. Ideally they would be 1.25 times the mains. He definitely said Dolby was designed around monopolar. I also asked him about competition considering about 70% of my BluRays are DTS-HD. He did answer and said DTS is working on their own positional audio. He was not sure how that would impact what they are doing and it's adoption. 


One of the other interesting topics he brought up was Atmos in gaming since games already use positional audio. I am curios to know if games will have to be specifically encoded for Atmos now, or since they used positional audio will the DSU take care of that? 


I had already been to the demo with the 4 Mythos Gems on the ceiling, it's very interesting. I am curious to know if monopolar have the same spaciousness. I also went into the demo with the A60 modules on top of the Def Tech 8060s. It sounded good, but they are not as good as the ceiling ones. I also don't know how in ceilings would sound vs on ceiling. 


I would have to make some minor mods to my HT in order to move speakers and put speakers in. Plus an X5200 is a pretty large investment. I am usually not an entry level adopter and still not sure whether I want to commit yet. Part of me wants to, but they would have to keep supporting the DSU very well in the future. 


Craig did mention that if we want to see more blurays with Atmos, we forum people need to keep demanding it from the studios, because they watch in here.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I think it is confusing when you tell consumers to lower their surrounds -- especially when that's not what happens in cinemas.


Do you likewise think it confusing when consumers are told to use 2-4 surrounds when cinemas are using 20-40? Commercial cinemas have different limitations than home theatres. When adding overhead speakers, we might be able improve surround to height separation to an extent that commercial cinemas can't. Why not take advantage of that? I don't think lowering the surrounds should be a requirement of Atmos installs, but I certainly think it is a valid suggestion on Dolby's part.


----------



## intake

I liked that specifically AVS forum was mentioned on several occasions. So we know that are reading and listening.

On the Denon X7200, that is purely supposition on my part. Bjorn himself did say they had Denon overnight a unit in for the demo, but he did not name a 7200 per se so I was probably reading to much into it. Still it was in a 5.1.4 configuration, so X5200 was entirely possible.

LowellG, too bad we didn't arrange an AVS meet up in store. It's would be nice to meet up with some local folks.


EDIT: Reminder, the LiveStream link that I posted earlier is still active and the recording of the event will be available for some time to come, so if you missed it, watch it!


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Do you likewise think it confusing when consumers are told to use 2-4 surrounds when cinemas are using 20-40?


Noop. Consumers don't have 20 rows of seats.



> Commercial cinemas have different limitations than home theatres. When adding overhead speakers, we might be able improve surround to height separation to an extent that commercial cinemas can't. Why not take advantage of that?


It has not been shown that lowering the surrounds from 20 to 0 degrees is a meaningful improvement. It might just as well be a detriment for anyone seated other than in the "toboggan" seats (in line with the MLP). It might also impair the presentation of 5.1 content, some of which might not be gainfully improved with Dolby Surround in the ear of the beholder.



> I don't think lowering the surrounds should be a requirement of Atmos installs, but I certainly think it is a valid suggestion on Dolby's part.


Lowering may well be important for many rooms where the surrounds were mounted rather higher than normal. 

I might be more inclined to consider Dolby's suggestions for the main surrounds if a) they were more precise in their description of where the height speakers should go, and b) did not make up a story about how "as in the past all main speakers should be at ear level per ITU-R BS.1116-3." Well, that's...err... self-serving BS.  BS.1116-3 has nothing to do with listening to surround sound in consumer or commercial production environments.

And yes, Dolby says if ear level is not possible, then the surrounds can be 1.25 times the height of the fronts. What does that mean? If the main speakers are at ear level, what is 1.25 times above ear level (listener plane) 0 inches or 0 degrees? Do we use BS.1116's 3.9'? That's higher than many floor-standing speakers, and higher than seated ear height in many chairs. But let's go with it. 3.9' is 47 ". 1.25*47=58.5" (If the surrounds are 66" from MLP as in my small room, that's a 10 deg elevation. In a wider room the angle reduces. This all comes back to placing speakers in the room relative to the H/W/D of the room rather than relative to the listener. The sound should squish and stretch based on the room's shape rather than to hit some ideal depiction of the soundfield. Not my cuppa.


----------



## asharma

*Height speakers*

Folks:

I've been trying to read all the info on here...MLP is 16 ft from 120" screen. I'm running a 5.2.4 config with front heights (16 ft away) and upfiring top rears (1 foot behind MLP). Given the distance from the FHs I'm not really feeling them and am thinking of going TM and TR either ceiling mount speakers or in ceiling speakers to "surround" myself more optimally.

Is there a common consensus on either ceiling mount or in ceiling speakers yet that would provide optimal angle dispersion etc. just need the brand and model...what are people generally happy with? I'm almost thinking in ceiling as my ceilings are only 7.5 feet high, but could be swayed...thanks folks.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

ACappo said:


> no one sharing anymore?


There are 8 seeds.


----------



## zeus33

Roger Dressler said:


> I think it is confusing when you tell consumers to lower their surrounds -- especially when that's not what happens in cinemas.




You seem to be really hung up on this. I think it's quite simple. It's not the angles that are crucial, it's the separation.

Dolby has said repeatedly that specific angles are not necessary for Atmos. Hence the wide range of acceptable angles for each of the top/height speakers. Now, the reason that home systems need the surrounds lowered has nothing to do with angles. The lower ceilings in the home environment require it.

Most homes have 8-10' ceilings. The old recommendation for surrounds was approximately 2 ft above ear level, which equals about 6 ft high, or 2 ft from the ceiling. If you leave them there, you only have 2 ft of separation between the surrounds and the Atmos speakers. That's if you use top speakers. If you use heights, they are about a foot apart. Obviously, that is not even remotely close to ideal and won't give you very good results. Hence the reason to lower them to increase the separation. I'm pretty sure that's why Dolby doesn't allow adjacent top/height positions to be used as well. They know it will produce sub optimal results. Again, they want separation between speakers for better effect.

In movie theaters, the ceilings are 3-4x the height of a home ceiling and the theater is pretty wide (very wide in the one I attend). So even though the surrounds are high up on the wall as they have been for years, they still have a huge gap of separation between the surrounds and the top speakers. This provides a great Atmos experience as witnessed by many. It's very easy to achieve the desired result when the speakers are that far apart.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

When mine is done downloading, I will continue to seed for as long as I can, since I was one of the people really voicing to get this on a torrent, least I can do is let it seed for a good while, I dont have the best of upload speeds, 5mb but every little helps.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Consumers don't have 20 rows of seats.


OK, so guidelines for consumers (e.g., lowering the surrounds) need not be the same as for cinemas. My point being that better separation shouldn't be avoided at home for the sole reason that it's not being done in commercial cinemas.


> Lowering may well be important for many rooms where the surrounds were mounted rather higher than normal.


Which would have been a better way for Dolby to have recommended it rather than saying ear level.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> OK, so guidelines for consumers (e.g., lowering the surrounds) need not be the same as for cinemas.


We are all thankful we are not limited to what cinemas do. We can have better clarity, frequency response, full presentation of all the bass from every channel, lower noise floor, all that good stuff. 



> My point being that better separation shouldn't be avoided at home for the sole reason that it's not being done in commercial cinemas. Which would have been a better way for Dolby to have recommended it rather than saying ear level.


I think it is perfectly valid to hear what the mixers heard when they made their soundtracks. I can see no basis to dispute that is the ultimate goal.

Dolby could have simply said the surrounds should be between 0 and x degrees elevation, just as they did for the height/top speakers. How is it that they are fine with elevation angles for some speakers but not others? 

For the main speakers we of course already have well established azimuth angles for all 5 or 7 speakers, again every one of which has a window range (except center of course). Dolby followed suit with that practice for the many additional surround speakers (Figs. 18-24) -- every one has specified azimuth zone. But for the top 3 pairs of speakers they tell us only elevation, and for surround speakers they tell us 0 deg to 1.5x some arbitrary height from the floor. Then at Bjorn's, Mr. Eggers said 1.5x (maybe he meant 1.25?) and then said "no more than half way up the wall," yet he also discussed rooms with high and low ceilings. Half way up any height wall? 

Aside from L/C/R, only the front/rear height speakers are fully defined: +/-30 deg azimuth, 30-45 deg elevation. Why not just do that for all the rest?


----------



## Roger Dressler

zeus33 said:


> You seem to be really hung up on this. I think it's quite simple. It's not the angles that are crucial, it's the separation.


How do you define separation? In the dark, please. 



> Dolby has said repeatedly that specific angles are not necessary for Atmos. Hence the wide range of acceptable angles for each of the top/height speakers.


I am totaly satsfied with those angles, as I agree the angles do not have to be any more precise than that. Just that front/rear axis elevation angles are insufficient without either side elevation or azimuth. Either will do nicely. 



> Now, the reason that home systems need the surrounds lowered has nothing to do with angles. The lower ceilings in the home environment require it.


I'm afraid that does not make any sense. Distance is not a factor in the ability to cover the space, just as it is not a factor for the surrounds. We use time delays to normalize all the arrivals to cancel any distance differences.



> Most homes have 8-10' ceilings. The old recommendation for surrounds was approximately 2 ft above ear level, which equals about 6 ft high, or 2 ft from the ceiling


I like to use 3' for seated ear level. 3' ears + 2' = 5' which is 3' below the 8' ceiling. But anyway, I understand the point. I wrote the Dolby setup guides in the Pro Logic days. 



> If you leave them there, you only have 2 ft of separation between the surrounds and the Atmos speakers. That's if you use top speakers.


I guess you are assuming the top speakers are at the wall/ceiling corner. I have not seen Dolby recommend that. Perhaps Auro?



> In movie theaters, the ceilings are 3-4x the height of a home ceiling and the theater is pretty wide (very wide in the one I attend). So even though the surrounds are high up on the wall as they have been for years, they still have a huge gap of separation between the surrounds and the top speakers. This provides a great Atmos experience as witnessed by many. It's very easy to achieve the desired result when the speakers are that far apart.


When it comes to localizing a sound's origin in space, people do not hear absolute distance (ignore reverb), they hear its direction, or angle.


----------



## htpcforever

ACappo said:


> no one sharing anymore?


I have been, and still am, seeding. As of right now I have a 14.267:1 seeding ratio...and am on FiOS, so I have 50M upload speed.


----------



## Roger Dressler

asharma said:


> MLP is 16 ft from 120" screen. I'm running a 5.2.4 config with front heights (16 ft away) and upfiring top rears (1 foot behind MLP). Given the distance from the FHs I'm not really feeling them and am thinking of going TM and TR either ceiling mount speakers or in ceiling speakers to "surround" myself more optimally.


You've heard of the bass crawl? Here's the height crawl. Turn on the speaker test noise for the left front height speaker. Walk along the path between the MLP and the speaker, on your knees so your head is at seated height. I suspect you will find the "hot spot" on the ceiling several feet forward of the MLP. If you are using upfiring modules, try either moving them forward, maybe you have someplace to put them along the side walls. Dolby wants them within 3' of the "downstairs neighbor" as the midbass is shunted there. But this is more about finding out what makes a good height effect for the moment. 

Could also try tilting them forward so the strongest part of the acoustic beam hits the ceiling further into the room, thus improving the effect at the MLP. (Will need to recalibrate.)


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Dolby could have simply said the surrounds should be between 0 and x degrees elevation, just as they did for the height/top speakers. How is it that they are fine with elevation angles for some speakers but not others?


Not to defend incomplete guidelines, but they've never given elevation angles for surrounds and maybe felt they didn't need to now, just plant the idea of separating speaker around you from speakers above you.


> Aside from L/C/R, only the front/rear height speakers are fully defined: +/-30 deg azimuth, 30-45 deg elevation. Why not just do that for all the rest?


Azimuth might not be all that important for height/top speakers, as long as they're in parallel rails from front to back. BTW, rear heights have the same azimuth only if the MLP is exactly between the front and back walls (usually it is closer to the back wall, putting the rear heights at a wider angle).


----------



## zeus33

Roger Dressler said:


> How do you define separation? In the dark, please.
> 
> I am totaly satsfied with those angles, as I agree the angles do not have to be any more precise than that. Just that front/rear axis elevation angles are insufficient without either side elevation or azimuth. Either will do nicely.
> 
> I'm afraid that does not make any sense. Distance is not a factor in the ability to cover the space, just as it is not a factor for the surrounds. We use time delays to normalize all the arrivals to cancel any distance differences.
> 
> I like to use 3' for seated ear level. 3' ears + 2' = 5' which is 3' below the 8' ceiling. But anyway, I understand the point. I wrote the Dolby setup guides in the Pro Logic days.
> 
> I guess you are assuming the top speakers are at the wall/ceiling corner. I have not seen Dolby recommend that. Perhaps Auro?
> 
> When it comes to localizing a sound's origin in space, people do not hear absolute distance (ignore reverb), they hear its direction, or angle.



You wrote the Pro Logic guides? That's pretty cool. Did you work for Dolby, or were you subbed out?

Anyways, the point I was trying to make before (and apparently failed LOL) was the separation between speakers. Meaning that you don't want them grouped in close proximity to each other. Theaters have a lot more space, so the speakers aren't on top of each other. When the speakers are spread further apart, it will give a better sound field. When I said distance, I meant distance between speakers, not between the listener and the speaker.

I could be completely wrong (it happens from time to time ), but it seems logical.


----------



## rnewste

Just wanted to report that the combination of AnyDVD-HD in concert with BD Rebuilder / ImgBurn perfectly preserves the Atmos track for those backing up TF4 to Media Servers, etc. The original 44 GB file actually compresses extremely well to a 25 GB single layer BD25 disc. 

Happy Camper!!

Raybo


----------



## Roger Dressler

zeus33 said:


> You wrote the Pro Logic guides? That's pretty cool. Did you work for Dolby, or were you subbed out?


I was there 25 years. 



> Anyways, the point I was trying to make before (and apparently failed LOL) was the separation between speakers. Meaning that you don't want them grouped in close proximity to each other. Theaters have a lot more space, so the speakers aren't on top of each other. *When the speakers are spread further apart, it will give a better sound field*. When I said distance, I meant distance between speakers, not between the listener and the speaker.


Consider the L/R speakers. They are usually placed at +/-30 deg for a surround system. If they are 5' away, they are 5' apart from each other. If they are 50' away like in a cinema, they are 50' apart. The sound still arrives from the same apparent direction in either case -- the soundfield is equivalent (ignoring acoustics), so one is not better than the other. That's why we define speaker separation as an angle, precisely because it remains constant regardless of distance, and as a listener in a soundfield, that's what's important.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Not to defend incomplete guidelines, but they've never given elevation angles for surrounds and maybe felt they didn't need to now, just plant the idea of separating speaker around you from speakers above you.


I am sympathetic about the danger of getting too specific. It generates all sorts of over-reaction and unnecessary precision. But just look at how the vague and sometimes conflicting information leads to its own pile of confusion and questions. 

I am at peace, my height speakers are installed.


----------



## pasender91

^^^

Roger that, Roger (always wanted an occasion to say that)

Generally, all speaker positioning should be described with angles, ir is the only way to have consistent recommendations for rooms of varying size AND shape, some of us have very small room (me, Keith, ...), some have rooms the size of a small commercial cinema , and some have rooms with non-standard shape (very long, very wide, ...)

Doesnt the old ITU recommendation of surround elevation being 0-15° still hold ?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> When one stands on the planet, most sound comes from ear level or above. Rain hits trees on the way down, too. And roofs.


Hence speakers at ear level and above sounds like a good idea. Speakers above ear level and higher, not so much.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Azimuth might not be all that important for height/top speakers, as long as they're in parallel rails from front to back.


The azimuth of ceiling mounted overhead speakers relates directly to their lateral elevation, for which Dolby's theatrical guidelines does specify minimal values, depending on surrounds elevation (e.g. 45 degrees with surround at ear level). In that sense azimuth _does_ carry importance. 

However, in the home theater guidelines there is no direct reference to such minimal elevation. Maybe Dolby's recommendation to put the surrounds at ear level was made with the same objective? Probably not, because the effectiveness of such recommendation would be extremely limited: only works for all possible overhead positions in rooms where the distance from MLP to ceiling is equal or larger than the distance to side wall.

For me this translates into: 1) lateral positioning of overhead speakers does matter, and 2) the current home theater guidelines lack information / are insufficient on this point.


----------



## asharma

Roger Dressler said:


> You've heard of the bass crawl? Here's the height crawl. Turn on the speaker test noise for the left front height speaker. Walk along the path between the MLP and the speaker, on your knees so your head is at seated height. I suspect you will find the "hot spot" on the ceiling several feet forward of the MLP. If you are using upfiring modules, try either moving them forward, maybe you have someplace to put them along the side walls. Dolby wants them within 3' of the "downstairs neighbor" as the midbass is shunted there. But this is more about finding out what makes a good height effect for the moment.
> 
> Could also try tilting them forward so the strongest part of the acoustic beam hits the ceiling further into the room, thus improving the effect at the MLP. (Will need to recalibrate.)


Thanks, can anyone recommend in ceiling speakers that "yeah most people use these, generally you'll be happy"...?


----------



## dchalfont

'Audiophiles' jumping on this horse$#!+ makes no sense to me, it's like everyone became bose fans overnight and lost their minds.

*Last 10 years*

"Have speakers at ear level and on axis for the best discrete imaging, and use room treatment to minimise reflections"

Also

"Use speakers from the same product lines so the drivers and technology are timbre matched"

*Now*

"Put them above and below ear height and have them firing onto the roof from the walls or floors and have them firing down from the roof, the sound will reflect from the walls better if you have no room treatment"

Also

"Take all the money and consideration you spent on your high end speakers and desecrate it by getting speakers with different drivers that have nothing to do with the speakers you have with different impedance and sensitivity and put them everywhere"


/s

Just buy Bipole/dipole speakers and put them above ear height if you want diffused sound, no need for this horse$#!+.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

^worst post in this thread lol


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Doesnt the old ITU recommendation of surround elevation being 0-15° still hold ?


IMO, as long as Dolby does not specifically reject ITU recommendations in their Atmos guidelines, we can safely assume that they still hold.


----------



## dchalfont

Brian Fineberg said:


> ^worst post in this thread lol


Oh ok, I'll see if I can do better.

*clears throat*

I'm going to buy a bunch of cheap in wall speakers and spent $1k having them installed so I can enjoy the truly revolutionary experience 'object based sound'(TM) can provide.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

dchalfont said:


> Oh ok, I'll see if I can do better.
> 
> *clears throat*
> 
> I'm going to buy a bunch of cheap in wall speakers and spent $1k having them installed so I can enjoy the truly revolutionary experience 'object based sound'(TM) can provide.


Haha. Much better. You may proceed hah


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> I did a bit of reverse engineering and made a 3D model of a "dubbing stage" to try to ascertain the speaker positions in Deluxe Toronto. *My model has the surrounds elevated 25 deg and the tops are 65 deg.* Dolby's guidelines for cinema say for 25 deg surrounds, the tops should be equal or greater than 58 deg. So that all seems per plan.



Hi Roger, not to nit pick or be neurotic , just very curious to get to the bottom of this for my own understanding :

*1. *Is the diagram below an accurate description of what you meant above? The 25 and 65 angle "measurements" were generated by computer based on 3D model of Deluxe Toronto Atmos mixing stage - in other words, pretty accurate?

*2.* With 3 feet high ears and 8 feet ceiling, using 50 degrees separation of ceiling/top speakers would make the* linear width/separation of top speakers closer together than front speakers? *It is around *4 1/2 feet* for the top, as opposed to 8 feet for the front of my home theater for example, per this calculator ?

*3. 25* degrees for surround and* 58 degrees minimum *for tops - is that exact Dolby's rec. for commercial theaters?


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Not to defend incomplete guidelines, but *they've never given elevation angles for surrounds* and maybe felt they didn't need to now, just plant the idea of separating speaker around you from speakers above you. Azimuth might not be all that important for height/top speakers, as long as they're in parallel rails from front to back. BTW, rear heights have the same azimuth only if the MLP is exactly between the front and back walls (usually it is closer to the back wall, putting the rear heights at a wider angle).



Great discussion between the "participants."

Before I started participating in this forum I hung the surrounds at 8 feet; then I came to the Ultra forum and was told by you/Roger that it should be 5, 6 feet, now I find out there is actually no official recommendation at all.

I can't say that I have heard a distinct difference between 8 and 6 feet surrounds, but understanding the process surely has made listening a lot more "interesting" .


----------



## Mashie Saldana

cannga said:


> Great discussion between the "participants."
> 
> Before I started participating in this forum I hung the surrounds at 8 feet; then I came to the Ultra forum and was told by you/Roger that it should be 5, 6 feet, now I find out there is actually no official recommendation at all.
> 
> I can't say that I have heard a distinct difference between 8 and 6 feet surrounds, but understanding the process surely has made listening a lot more "interesting" .


I have all the surrounds at just below 3' as that is how it was drawn in the Dolby documents back in 2009 and that is also the ear hight while reclined. I will definitely do it again once I start building my new HT.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If you are the only one in your theater, 3' is perfect as you're getting a direct and unrestricted line of sound, but if there are two or more in a row, the head of the person next to the speaker will block out a lot of the sound and restrict it from getting to the other people in the row, that's why just above ear height when seated works better.

Gary


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> I did a bit of reverse engineering and made a 3D model of a "dubbing stage" to try to ascertain the speaker positions in Deluxe Toronto. My model has the surrounds elevated 25 deg and the tops are 65 deg. Dolby's guidelines for cinema say for 25 deg surrounds, the tops should be equal or greater than 58 deg. So that all seems per plan.


Interesting exercise! I reckon you took all elevation angels as relative to MLP (which the Dolby's Theatrical Guidelines defines as being at 2/3 of the room). Let's consider this dub stage as being designed to achieve the _ideal_ Atmos listing environment, without any compromise with respect to speaker placement. Skipping for this moment the discussion on how this relates to the _ideal_ elevation of surrounds in the home theater situation, it provides us for the first time with a value for the _ideal_ lateral elevation of the overheads: 52.5 degrees + half of the surround elevation. For example: having your surrounds at home between 0 and 15 degrees (ITU specs), brings the ideal position of the overhead arrays between 52.5 and 60 degrees lateral elevation. It would be helpful if Dolby and/or any of the Atmos AVR manufacturers could confirm that the default value in their rendering blocks lies within this very range.


----------



## markus767

Gary Lightfoot said:


> If you are the only one in your theater, 3' is perfect as you're getting a direct and unrestricted line of sound, but if there are two or more in a row, the head of the person next to the speaker will block out a lot of the sound and restrict it from getting to the other people in the row, that's why just above ear height when seated works better.
> 
> Gary


Define "a lot". If there's a car sound from the left then it really doesn't matter if there's a couple of people in between.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Okay so there is a lot of talk on this and Im not sure why but according to dolby, ear level if your the only person in the room, but if there is more than one person lined up, then they recommend no more than 1.5x the ear height level, so say ear level for you is 3ft, then move them up to a maximum of 4 and half feet and you should still be good for maintaining the different levels of sound while getting the sound over the other peoples heads.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

markus767 said:


> Define "a lot". If there's a car sound from the left then it really doesn't matter if there's a couple of people in between.


A head is a substantial mass in front of a speaker compared to nothing at all. Try using a non AT screen with speakers behind and see how it sounds.

Distances may make some difference (between speaker and first head) but the head of the person next to you is masking your ear quite a bit regardless. If you think not having a clear line of sight between speakers and ears is better than an unobstructed sound path, please tell me why. I'm all ears 

Gary


----------



## markus767

Gary Lightfoot said:


> A head is a substantial mass in front of a speaker compared to nothing at all. Try using a non AT screen with speakers behind and see how it sounds.
> 
> Distances may make some difference (between speaker and first head) but the head of the person next to you is masking your ear quite a bit regardless. If you think not having a clear line of sight between speakers and ears is better than an unobstructed sound path, please tell me why. I'm all ears
> 
> Gary


A head is "a substantial mass" only if the wavelength is small compared to the head. The car sound will sound different but it will still be a car sound. In my opinion getting the direction of a sound right is way more important than having "an unobstructed sound path". If you want both then don't go to movie theaters.


----------



## yorkyal

sorry if this has been mentioned before but what are people's thoughts on using dipoles or tripole's for ceiling mounted Atmos speakers

my own installation is 11 MK direct firing radiators placed correctly within the given guidelines and I can't localise any of them, ceiling height is approx 80" 

just wondered what other people's thoughts are


----------



## Dan Hitchman

yorkyal said:


> sorry if this has been mentioned before but what are people's thoughts on using dipoles or tripole's for ceiling mounted Atmos speakers
> 
> my own installation is 11 MK direct firing radiators placed correctly within the given guidelines and I can't localise any of them, ceiling height is approx 80"
> 
> just wondered what other people's thoughts are


No to dipoles. I think that's pretty much the consensus, but there is a debate about other forms of diffuse speakers.


----------



## kokishin

ACappo said:


> no one sharing anymore?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-246.html#post28586441


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

markus767 said:


> A head is "a substantial mass" only if the wavelength is small compared to the head. The car sound will sound different but it will still be a car sound. In my opinion getting the direction of a sound right is way more important than having "an unobstructed sound path". If you want both then don't go to movie theaters.


It's still an obstruction and if you want to hear all the wavelengths equally, don't obstruct them.

Are you saying obstructing speakers is OK and maybe even preferable/desirable? 

As for the direction, are you saying that a foot to 18ins difference in height on the same vertical plane is 'the wrong direction'? You can never guarantee that, since the sounds from the sides could be a car or something from higher up - not all sounds emanate from a 3ft horizontal plane, either in real life or from a scene in a movie. They can arrive from any angle, and usually do.

Movie theaters have surrounds higher up to eliminate the issue of obstruction. Those of us with friends and/or families may want to as well.

Gary


----------



## markus767

Gary Lightfoot said:


> It's still an obstruction and if you want to hear all the wavelengths equally, don't obstruct them.
> 
> Are you saying obstructing speakers is OK and maybe even preferable/desirable?


If I have to choose between footsteps coming from above my head or having the sound slightly altered by the presence of a person next to me, then yes, "obstructing speakers is OK and maybe even preferable/desirable". If you don't want people sitting next to you obstructing speakers while watching a movie, don't go to movie theaters.



Gary Lightfoot said:


> As for the direction, are you saying that a foot to 18ins difference in height on the same vertical plane is 'the wrong direction'? You can never guarantee that, since the sounds from the sides could be a car or something from higher up - not all sounds emanate from a 3ft horizontal plane, either in real life or from a scene in a movie. They can arrive from any angle, and usually do.
> 
> Movie theaters have surrounds higher up to eliminate the issue of obstruction. Those of us with friends and/or families may want to as well.
> 
> Gary


In the real world most sounds around us originate from locations below ear level. For sounds above ear level we now have overhead speakers. Mixers can put sounds anywhere they like, as long as there are speakers. If you don't have speakers at ear level then no sound will ever come from there. Everything will come from above. Not very realistic.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

markus767 said:


> If I have to chose between footsteps coming from above my head or having the sound slightly altered by the presence of a person next to me, then yes, "obstructing speakers is OK and maybe even preferable/desirable".


Footsteps usually come from the floor, not three feet above it. Maybe we need floor speakers as well. 



markus767 said:


> If you don't want people sitting next to you while watching a movie, don't go to movie theaters.


Or don't have friends or family with you when watching a movie at home? Seems a very severe stance IMHO. Did you miss the point I made about surrounds being above ear height at commercial theaters so that sound isn't blocked by other people?



markus767 said:


> Most sounds originate from locations below ear level. For sounds above ear level we now have overhead speakers. Mixer can put sounds anywhere they like, as long as there are speakers. If you don't have speakers at ear level then no sound will ever come from there. Everything will come from above. Not very realistic.


If most sound comes from _below_ ear level, then ear level speakers are just as incorrectly placed as those placed just above, except if there is more than one person present they're obstructed, so now you have incorrectly placed sound that is obstructed as well. 

Why don't we have speakers at ground level and ceiling level and mix inbetween? Possibly because there are too many obstructions in a room below ear level when seated, like seats and people.

Dolby says this:



Dolby said:


> A Clear Path
> 
> Create a clear path between you and your speakers. If you can't see the speaker, sound is being blocked.


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/7-1-setup.html

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/9-1-setup.html

That's the point I'm trying to make. 

Gary.


----------



## markus767

^
For you "an unobstructed sound path" has highest priority, for me it's realistic location of sounds. Guess we have to agree to disagree.

About "blocking" the sound: have someone sit between you and the left or right speaker while listening to stereo music. How much of a blockage is that person? Does the stereo illusion break down? Now move one of the speakers to another location - how much does that change the stereo illusion?


----------



## Bruce Lowekamp

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm afraid that does not make any sense. Distance is not a factor in the ability to cover the space, just as it is not a factor for the surrounds. We use time delays to normalize all the arrivals to cancel any distance differences.



Roger, here you have me confused. I've always believed much of the reason theaters mount sides higher is because of the distance involved in covering 20 seats across. As sound decay is meaningful in a large auditorium, they have to be elevated and aimed at the far row to help compensate for decay to the far side and to increase the distance (elevate) from the nearby seats so the sound is approximately equal for all seats.

So I would say distance is a factor as decay is more significant in a large auditorium. At home where there is less decay (unless you have one position 2 ft from the speaker), you only need enough elevation to shoot over the heads.

Bruce


----------



## brwsaw

Placing a left or right surround slightly in front the mlp/listeners ears takes care of the height issue.
I like to place mine inline with my knees when seated, before reclining. Still at ear level.
It also helps if you like to place your arms behind your head once in a while.
No obstruction, no problem.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> Roger that, Roger (always wanted an occasion to say that)


 







> Doesn't the old ITU recommendation of surround elevation being 0-15° still hold ?


 Yes it does, in ITUR BS.775-3:


----------



## SoundChex

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Footsteps usually come from the floor, not three feet above it. Maybe we need floor speakers as well.
> 
> Why don't we have speakers at ground level and ceiling level and mix in between?




"*SCALING NEW HEIGHTS IN BROADCASTING USING AMBISONICS*" (_link_), a paper by two BBC Researchers, talks about (live) concert recording using 100+ mikes, and evaluating immersive audio speaker layout preferences while listening to a custom recording of a radio play with height cues in a specially designed test room.











_However, regardless of the results, this seems like a difficult speaker configuration to replicate correctly for every seat in a movie theater!_  



So far as I know, only the *Hamasaki 22.2* speaker configuration associated with the (_pre-production_) *NHK UHDTV* system (which features three front floor level speakers) and a few other "very experimental" speaker configurations from *NHK* and *ETRI* make use of *Bottom Layer* speakers.











And though it seems *NHK* has experimented with 'below eye line' microphone placement for 'enhanced sound capture' at live sporting events, it would appear from this *TVBEUROPE* article "*NHK tests SHV on live sports*" (_link_) that playback of those sounds is *not* intended to be limited solely to the floor level speakers...?!  

_


----------



## maikeldepotter

brwsaw said:


> Edit: Its the panning between speakers that got me thinking about it.
> 
> I didn't say anything about swapping left and right, at least that wasn't my intention.
> 
> My question was about trying to achieve a steerable stereo image between two speakers, one above the other rather than side by side to achieve a sound field similar to if not superior to that of any current technology.
> 
> The idea expands to all speakers with a surround located above it.
> 
> Potentially every speaker could be in stereo with each of its closest speakers, on the vertical and horizontal planes.
> It would be interesting to see all speakers in multiple stereo pairs. Left with right, left with left height, right with right height, right height with left height, continued around the room. I haven't forgotten about the center, just ignoring it/them for the moment for simplicities sake.
> I'm not saying its possible just that the idea really stood out. If 1 pair can paint an image in your mind during a listening session imagine what 20 stereo images combining could do IF it was possible to implement.


It may be the thing I am currently doing in my 5.1 set-up with height speakers at 35 degrees above both fronts and both surrounds. I am lifting the perceived sound of all 5 speakers from ear level to about 10 percent elevation. The fronts heights get an additional ambient extraction (Hafler matrix). Both stereo and surround sound mesmerizing. It will be my reference for future comparisons with 3D sound formats.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> IMO, as long as Dolby does not specifically reject ITU recommendations in their Atmos guidelines, we can safely assume that they still hold.


Problem is that they appear to want to use BS.1116-1's stricter elevation requirements (0 deg) to override BS.775-3's (0-15 deg). It is only with the greatest reluctance that they tolerate surrounds to be higher than the front speakers at all. (Ref p.7 of the Atmos t'home guidelines.)


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Problem is that they appear to want to use BS.1116-1's stricter elevation requirements (0 deg) to override BS.775-3's (0-15 deg). It is only with the greatest reluctance that they tolerate surrounds to be higher than the front speakers at all. (Ref p.7 of the Atmos t'home guidelines.)


I am not that familiar with the exact content of those ITU standards, but does this mean that you are OK with elevated surrounds as long as your front speakers have the same elevation above ear level (up to 15 degrees)?


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Hi Roger, not to nit pick or be neurotic , just very curious to get to the bottom of this for my own understanding :
> 
> *1. *Is the diagram below an accurate description of what you meant above? The 25 and 65 angle "measurements" were generated by computer based on 3D model of Deluxe Toronto Atmos mixing stage - in other words, pretty accurate?


I tried to be accurate, but there's imprecision involved. My test was to overlay my diagram on the photo, scaling only size. It fits well enough for gov't work. 



> *2.* With 3 feet high ears and 8 feet ceiling, using 50 degrees separation of ceiling/top speakers would make the* linear width/separation of top speakers closer together than front speakers? *It is around *4 1/2 feet* for the top, as opposed to 8 feet for the front of my home theater for example, per this calculator ?


If you are saying that the top speakers form a 50° angle to MLP, then yes I can see how they might well be closer together, but how close will depend on the elevation angle you choose, presumably in the range of 30° to 55° per the famous diagram. 



> *3. 25* degrees for surround and* 58 degrees minimum *for tops - is that exact Dolby's rec. for commercial theaters?












Given E of 25°, ≥45+(E/2) is ≥57.5°. So I rounded to ≥58°

I believe E of 25° is quite acceptable, but have not looked for a reference to cite. This diagram shows them at 30°, FWIW.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Interesting exercise! I reckon you took all elevation angels as relative to MLP (which the Dolby's Theatrical Guidelines defines as being at 2/3 of the room).


Referenced to head height (the red thing) at MLP, yes, but in this case I do not know the location of the rear wall. The MLP is however the correct distance from the screen and L/R speakers.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> If you are saying that the top speakers form a 50° angle to MLP, then yes I can see how they might well be closer together, but how close will depend on the elevation angle you choose, presumably in the range of 30° to 55° per the famous diagram.


Thank you, *everything* makes sense now.  JK.

No, I was not referring to the famous diagram anymore; that has been clear to me from the start - it's a range, with secret sauce not revealed. What I meant is in the diagram below - *lateral* distance between top speakers. And the reason I asked: we've been told the top row should line up with the main LR, which are typically 8, 9 feet apart, however, if, and only if,* we were to decide to approximate what the film mixer hears, then the top speaker pairs should be closer together, about 4 1/2 feet, correct?*

Thanks again; I am learning quite a bit and it's somehow interesting, even if in a headachy kind of way .

.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cannga said:


> Thank you, *everything* makes sense now.  JK.
> 
> No, I am not referring to the famous diagram anymore; that has been clear to me from the start - it's a range, with secret sauce not revealed. What I mean is in the diagram below, and the reason I asked you: we've been told the top row should line up with the main LR, which are typically 8, 9 feet apart, however, if, and only if,* we were to decide to approximate what the film mixer hears, then the top speaker pairs should be closer together, about 4 1/2 feet.*
> 
> Thanks again; I am learning quite a bit
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


The cinema version of Atmos has the ceiling speakers line up with the extra left and extra right screen speakers, which are still there in the 24.1.10 home configuration. I wonder if the ceiling speaker location recommendations are only for the current _basic_ layouts of home Atmos since the two extra screen speakers aren't included.


----------



## pjvader

Does anyone know if the onkyo 3030 is capable of running the four overheads using the built in power then sending the wides to an external amp so it's running 7 ch surround, 4ch overhead all from the built in speaker outputs then wides to an external amp from the preouts? Thx


----------



## Roger Dressler

Bruce Lowekamp said:


> Roger, here you have me confused. I've always believed much of the reason theaters mount sides higher is because of the distance involved in covering 20 seats across. As sound decay is meaningful in a large auditorium, they have to be elevated and aimed at the far row to help compensate for decay to the far side and to increase the distance (elevate) from the nearby seats so the sound is approximately equal for all seats.


Hi Bruce, I agree with you. Higher surrounds do help the coverage issue. They also help to give a sense of space and height cues, flyovers, when needed. Luckily for us, we have the screen telling us a lot about what we should expect to hear, spatially, and we are willing to suspend our disbelief even when the sound does not mimic reality. 



> So I would say distance is a factor as decay is more significant in a large auditorium. At home where there is less decay (unless you have one position 2 ft from the speaker), you only need enough elevation to shoot over the heads.


The decay issue was largely overcome by the use of speaker arrays (when they all carry the same signal). As you sit further from the array, more of the speakers contributed more sound to you, so the fall-off is reduced. Now with individually addressable speakers in the arrays, each with improved SPL capabilities, the decay issue becomes a hot spot issue for some seats. Some cinemas use CBT speakers to combat this effect, but not sure how well they work in practice. 

But all that is somewhat orthogonal to the point Zeus33 raised -- that we must lower our surrounds at home because our ceilings are lower.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

markus767 said:


> ^
> For you "an unobstructed sound path" has highest priority, for me it's realistic location of sounds. Guess we have to agree to disagree.


I wouldn't say it was highest priority, just a common sense choice. A bit like turning the lights off when watching a projector. With lights on you can see the picture but it's compromised.

Sounds can come from everywhere, so I don't see how ear height is any better than say 6 or 12 ins higher unless we know how the sound is mixed and if it will make a noticeable difference in where an object is placed in that soundfield (and how would we know exactly where it should be placed anyway).

Given that people can have 2, 4 or more ceiling speakers, or 5.1, 7.1 and combinations thereof, and that there is a window of angles with all of the speakers, means that no one location can be considered the most 'realistic' IMHO.




markus767 said:


> About "blocking" the sound: have someone sit between you and the left or right speaker while listening to stereo music. How much of a blockage is that person? Does the stereo illusion break down? Now move one of the speakers to another location - how much does that change the stereo illusion?


Maybe you should be asking Dolby that question too (since they say don't do it as well), but It makes the audio sound muted from that speaker, and if you have spent a lot of money on good speakers, would you want to forever play them through a sack of potatoes?


I agree, that we should agree to disagree. As long as people know the choices and consequences and are happy with their systems, that's what matters.

Gary.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

SoundChex said:


> "*SCALING NEW HEIGHTS IN BROADCASTING USING AMBISONICS*" (_link_), a paper by two BBC Researchers, talks about (live) concert recording using 100+ mikes, and evaluating immersive audio speaker layout preferences while listening to a custom recording of a radio play with height cues in a specially designed test room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _However, regardless of the results, this seems like a difficult speaker configuration to replicate correctly for every seat in a movie theater!_


Looks great for a single individual, but I can imagine volume levels for the lower speakers may have to be uncomfortably high to get through the behinds of all the other patrons in the auditorium 



SoundChex said:


> So far as I know, only the *Hamasaki 22.2* speaker configuration associated with the (_pre-production_) *NHK UHDTV* system (which features three front floor level speakers) and a few other "very experimental" speaker configurations from *NHK* and *ETRI* make use of *Bottom Layer* speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And though it seems *NHK* has experimented with 'below eye line' microphone placement for 'enhanced sound capture' at live sporting events, it would appear from this *TVBEUROPE* article "*NHK tests SHV on live sports*" (_link_) that playback of those sounds is *not* intended to be limited solely to the floor level speakers...?!
> 
> _


If there were 180 degree dispersion speakers placed under some of the seats in sections all round the theatre, the whole room could have directional ground level audio. No one would step on them and it would certainly add another level of immersion. 

I think you should send an email to Dolby with that very suggestion 

Gary


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I am not that familiar with the exact content of those ITU standards


ITU documents are free: 

link to BS.775-3
link to BS.1116-1 



> does this mean that you are OK with elevated surrounds as long as your front speakers have the same elevation above ear level (up to 15 degrees)?


I have always been ok with elevated surrounds -- have been recommending it under my Dolby hat for 25 years. I do not connect the surround advice to the front speakers. Nor do I generally recommend elevated front speakers, but sometimes a center speaker must be placed so as to not block the screen.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Thank you, *everything* makes sense now.  JK.
> 
> No, I was not referring to the famous diagram anymore; that has been clear to me from the start - it's a range, with secret sauce not revealed. What I meant is in the diagram below - *lateral* distance between top speakers. And the reason I asked: we've been told the top row should line up with the main LR, which are typically 8, 9 feet apart, however, if, and only if,* we were to decide to approximate what the film mixer hears, then the top speaker pairs should be closer together, about 4 1/2 feet, correct?*


Yes, that's correct. 

Case in point: My room has 8' ceilings, and the speakers hang below that. (I added some better diagrams at my link to show all the angles.) The front tops are at 40° elevation as viewed from the side (nicely within the recommended range of 30°-55°), and at 55° as viewed from the rear, which is correct for the 45+(21)/2 concept. They are 6' apart while the L/R are 8' apart. So they do not line up with the L/R speakers, and that's just as it should be, as to do so would disrupt the angles.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

brwsaw said:


> Placing a left or right surround slightly in front the mlp/listeners ears takes care of the height issue.
> I like to place mine inline with my knees when seated, before reclining. Still at ear level.
> It also helps if you like to place your arms behind your head once in a while.
> No obstruction, no problem.


Thanks for the suggestion. I've been thinking about this as an option as well, as I've seen it mentioned having the surrounds a little in front of the LP, and with two rows of seats, it would place the speakers between rows making them less intrusive into the aisles.

I'm going to experiment with placement before fixing anything to walls to see what works best for me in my room.

Cheers

Gary.


----------



## noah katz

brwsaw said:


> I was looking at the trinnov 13.1 layout...


Which Trinnov 13.1 layout is that?



sdurani said:


> ...Azimuth might not be all that important for height/top speakers, as long as they're in parallel rails from front to back.


Are you saying you think there's a valid reason for following that guideline?

Given the rather lax angular guidelines, it seems like an unnecessary restriction to me, and I imagine there are a lot of us who'd rather keep the the speakers on the walls rather than having to move them inward and ceiling mount them.


----------



## brwsaw

noah katz said:


> Which Trinnov 13.1 layout is that?



http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/1516103-trinnov-altitude-3.html#post24478225


----------



## noah katz

Thanks, though given remapping's flexibility it's not clear to me what the input channels are - Atmos? or Auro?

To your question of whether you could mix ear height and height channels as stereo pairs, what is your intention? 

Wouldn't that just dilute the height effect by placing a phantom image between them?

And if the higher speaker happens to be at the correct elevation angle, remapping won't feed any signal to the lower one.

I don't see what would be gained over letting the program material pan vertically as intended.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Are you saying you think there's a valid reason for following that guideline?


As opposed to using someone else's Atmos guidelines as a starting point?


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> As opposed to using someone else's Atmos guidelines as a starting point?


As opposed to sensibly dividing up speakers' angular separations as has been discussed.

Anyway, given the broad fore/aft elevation ranges, why be picky about the lateral positions of the tops relative to the L/R's?

Is a few feet, which could easily be the difference between convenient wall mounting and unsightly ceiling mounting, that important?

And having the extra distance from the tops listening area would give more even coverage for laterally noncentered listeners.


----------



## maikeldepotter

cannga said:


> And the reason I asked: we've been told the top row should line up with the main LR.


Told by whom? I have not yet found any such written recommendation from Dolby. The diagrams presented in their guidelines should be taken as illustrative, and not as containing _additional_ guidelines which are not described in the text.


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> Told by whom? I have not yet found any such written recommendation from Dolby. The diagrams presented in their guidelines should be taken as illustrative, and not as containing _additional_ guidelines which are not described in the text.


I don't agree. 
Overall the document looks more like a draft, with many missing statements in writing.
But the diagrams clearly show dotted lines connecting the FR speakers and the top speakers, those are not drawn randomly, they are there for a reason.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Overall the document looks more like a draft, with many missing statements in writing.


I agree.



> But the diagrams clearly show dotted lines connecting the FR speakers and the top speakers,


That is an indisputable fact.



> those are not drawn randomly, they are there for a reason.


I would very much like to know what that reason could be. And if it is truly meant to be an additional guideline, it better be a pretty darn good one given that positioning overheads exclusively in line with fronts conflicts with:
1) The lay-out used in Atmos mixing rooms/ dub stages;
2) The way Atmos sound is delivered in theaters (see also the Theatrical Guidelines);
3) The points of reflection using Atmos enabled speakers (same Home Theater guidelines);
4) Dolby's own recommendation on page 32 of the very same Home Theater guidelines which puts ceiling mounted height speakers also inside the left and right main speakers.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Hi Bruce, I agree with you. Higher surrounds do help the coverage issue. They also help to give a sense of space and height cues, flyovers, when needed. Luckily for us, we have the screen telling us a lot about what we should expect to hear, spatially, and we are willing to suspend our disbelief even when the sound does not mimic reality.


Most often sight completely overrides what we hear. I was always wondering how the following setup paired with one or two overhead surrounds would perform in listening tests


----------



## thebland

pasender91 said:


> I don't agree.
> Overall the document looks more like a draft, with many missing statements in writing.
> But the diagrams clearly show dotted lines connecting the FR speakers and the top speakers, those are not drawn randomly, they are there for a reason.


This how I have front height, side height and rear height speakers already placed with my DATASAT RS-20i SSP - all in a line with my L and R fronts and L and R rears.

When DATASAT releases their ATMOS upgrade, I'll post back as to 'yes' or 'no' in terms of effect.

I also hope Dolby releases some sort of test disc to objectively test a speaker configuration that 'works' and a set up that will show errors and should be modified.


----------



## westmd

I am currently in Birmingham, England and thought of going to the cinema for my first Atmos experience. According to the Odeon page they are showing Fury and from Friday on Interstellar. I thought none of these two movies are even recorded in Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> I thought none of these two movies are even recorded in Atmos?


Both are 5.1 mixes.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> As opposed to sensibly dividing up speakers' angular separations as has been discussed.


IF you've got better placement ideas for Atmos that Dolby does, then go for it.


> Anyway, given the broad fore/aft elevation ranges, why be picky about the lateral positions of the tops relative to the L/R's?


Who is being picky? My only concern would be that height content is anchored overhead, not some side-ish/above-ish direction, like Auro has.


> Is a few feet, which could easily be the difference between convenient wall mounting and unsightly ceiling mounting, that important?


Depends on how close your walls are, but what you're describing sounds more like Auro placement. IF it's logistically easier for you to use an Auro layout with "convenient wall mounting" for playback of Atmos soundtracks, then you can avoid "unsightly ceiling mounting".


> And having the extra distance from the tops listening area would give more even coverage for laterally noncentered listeners.


At the expense of overhead localization and surround vs height separation.


----------



## brwsaw

noah katz said:


> Thanks, though given remapping's flexibility it's not clear to me what the input channels are - Atmos? or Auro?
> 
> To your question of whether you could mix ear height and height channels as stereo pairs, what is your intention?
> 
> Wouldn't that just dilute the height effect by placing a phantom image between them?
> 
> And if the higher speaker happens to be at the correct elevation angle, remapping won't feed any signal to the lower one.
> 
> I don't see what would be gained over letting the program material pan vertically as intended.


The overall idea started by the idea I might achieve a higher channel count with existing and legacy equipment.

I don't think it would work either but you never know, someone capable might try it an find a way.

In real life sound is arriving from all angles simultaneously not sent from defined angles. Mixing all pairs as stereo pairs (in theory) would get us there.

With respect to mixing heights in stereo with their lower ear level speaker, this was to steer height element and objects without atmos/auro/dts capable receivers.

I really like the direction the industry is heading, I don't mean to suggest there's something wrong with it as is. I can't wait to see what the next decade will bring.


----------



## cannga

maikeldepotter said:


> I would very much like to know what that reason could be. And if it is truly meant to be an additional guideline, it better be a pretty darn good one given that positioning overheads exclusively in line with fronts conflicts with:
> 1) The lay-out used in Atmos mixing rooms/ dub stages;
> 2) The way Atmos sound is delivered in theaters (see also the Theatrical Guidelines);
> 3) The points of reflection using Atmos enabled speakers (same guidelines);
> 4) Dolby's own recommendation on page 32 of the very same guidelines which puts ceiling mounted height speakers also inside the left and right main speakers.


 

I tend to think in this general direction also . And *if* the goal is to approximate commercial cinemas and what the film mixer hears in mixing rooms, then this lateral distance between each top pair of speakers in a typical home theater (3 feet ears, 8 feet ceiling) calculates out to be around *5 feet, *closer than the typical 8-9 feet separation of main left and right.

What's interesting is technically (not necessarily sonically ) it also matters what the current generations's "blind" Atmos renderer assumes the position of these top speakers to be.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> I think my read-ahead is better these days. I do sometimes respond to already-answered questions, if I think the given answer is lacking or unclear or if it falls victim to the common failing of PCIPU*. And sometimes, an additional reply also confirms that other people support the already-given reply. But yeah...
> 
> _* Perfectly Clear If Previously Understood_


Keith,

You haven't posted since Halloween. Great Pumpkin get you? Still reading ahead? Enjoying your HT instead?

Hope all is well.


----------



## maikeldepotter

cannga said:


> And *if* the goal is to approximate commercial cinemas and what the film mixer hears in mixing rooms, then this lateral distance between each top pair of speakers in a typical home theater (3 feet ears, 8 feet ceiling) calculates out to be around *5 feet, *closer than the typical 8-9 feet separation of main left and right.


Yes. And if you have a 50" flat screen, adjacent front speakers will show the same 4-5 feet separation with which the dotted lines in Dolby's diagrams coincide. And that is most likely the reason for them being there: to illustrate Atmos set-ups using 50" flatscreens. That's all.



> What's interesting is technically (not necessarily sonically ) it also matters what the current generations's "blind" Atmos renderer assumes what the position of these top speakers to be.


Agree.


----------



## batpig

kokishin said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think my read-ahead is better these days. I do sometimes respond to already-answered questions, if I think the given answer is lacking or unclear or if it falls victim to the common failing of PCIPU*. And sometimes, an additional reply also confirms that other people support the already-given reply. But yeah...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _* Perfectly Clear If Previously Understood_
> 
> 
> 
> Keith,
> 
> You haven't posted since Halloween. Great Pumpkin get you? Still reading ahead? Enjoying your HT instead?
> 
> Hope all is well.
Click to expand...

Keith is on vacation


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> Keith is on vacation


Good for Keith!

Hope he isn't having avsforum withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## bass addict

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes. And if you have a 50" flat screen, adjacent front speakers will show the same 4-5 feet separation with which the dotted lines in Dolby's diagrams coincide. And that is most likely the reason for them being there: to illustrate Atmos set-ups using 50" flatscreens. That's all.
> 
> Agree.


I find Dolbys diagram to be vague at best. I also find very few setups matching their recommendation as you pointed out. I have a dedicated theater with a fairly large screen (120"wide), and based on my 12' seating distance (which was designed around THX viewing distances), I am nowhere near the recommended front main angle. I am shooting through an AT screen with LR main at screen edge. So I'm not sure exactly what Dolby is factoring their diagram around, based on this being adapted to a "home" theater setting.


----------



## maikeldepotter

It may all come down to Dolby's definition of a Home Theater in terms of screen size. Did anyone attend one of Dolby's Atmos-for-home demo's in which they were actually using wide projection screens?


----------



## bass addict

maikeldepotter said:


> It may all come down to Dolby's definition of a Home Theater in terms of screen size.


Exactly. To meet their requirements, one would either have to enjoy sitting less than 1 SW away, or have a much smaller display.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

westmd said:


> I am currently in Birmingham, England and thought of going to the cinema for my first Atmos experience. According to the Odeon page they are showing Fury and from Friday on Interstellar. I thought none of these two movies are even recorded in Atmos?


Unfortunately as Film mixer mentioned Nolan didn't want Atmos for Interstellar. There are some Atmos animated movies out right now I think, book of life & big hero 6? 

Just be careful to ensure the ticket is for an Atmos show. I've been to Atmos equipped theaters with Atmos films and I didn't hear the Atmos mix... I've only succesfully seen 2 Atmos features (maze runner & into the storm) I had gone to see GOTG for Atmos but the Atmos equipped theater for whatever reason didn't switch their receiver to Atmos format... I only hear surround. 

Both of the films I did see had incredible sound envelopment.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> My only concern would be that height content is anchored overhead, not some side-ish/above-ish direction, like Auro has.


You don't think phantom imaging would be effective, including creating a center image?

And on the flip side, more narrowly located tops limit the width of the upper soundfield.


----------



## cannga

noah katz said:


> And on the flip side, more narrowly located tops limit the width of the upper soundfield.


IMHO, not necessarily Noah. In theory imaging could be created anywhere on the soundfield, bounded by the boundary formed by the 11 (or what have you) speakers. For example lateral to the right top speaker, phantom images could be created by right top and right surround, etc.

What will be affected, and I believe Roger touched on this point, is the clarity and stability of the imaging. Clarity of an image is clearest and imaging most stable when the particular image is closer to any given speaker. For example, an image that is located at 30 degrees to the right will be very clear and stable because it is produced singularly by the right front speaker. Every seat in the room will hear it being there - a mono source with location "anchored." So as far as this apsect is concerned, the narrow located tops have advantage with top image, the more lateral tops have advantage with more lateral image.

Personally I would vote for narrower tops because if you look at 7.1 system from the top, the middle of the room is the area that need more speaker "pixels."


----------



## krazyscotsman

*Maybe wrong thread*

When are we going to start seeing actual blu rays mixed in Atmos. I have purchased Transformers. What I mean is I just got my Onkyo TX-NR3030 and my ceiling (speakers 7.1.4 setup) and there's one movie out that has native Atmos? And from the articles I'm seeing online, it looks like maybe 3 more by the end of the year. I do understand there's a remixing that occurs but for this is truly pathetic. Dolby needs to start working with the studios to get this to become a reason to upgrade audio. I only upgraded at this time due to a failure in my still under warranty Onkyo receiver; otherwise I would have waited - I took the trade in value since I did want to upgrade to Atmos.

Any thoughts on when we might see Atmos adopted for blu ray like DTS Master HD? I'm hoping we start with the Winter 2014 movies that will likely come out mid / late Spring and then all future titles that are mixed with Atmos for theatrical release.


----------



## bass addict

Hopefully it happens quicker than the adoption of 7.1.  I've been running a 7 speaker plus system for quite a few years now, and it was only until recently that 7.1 encoding even started becoming available.


----------



## krazyscotsman

bass addict said:


> Hopefully it happens quicker than the adoption of 7.1.  I've been running a 7 speaker plus system for quite a few years now, and it was only until recently that 7.1 encoding even started becoming available.


Exactly! My 7.1 system has had 2 speakers sitting idle mostly for years. I would have waited myself to buy into Atmos had it not been for the great deal I got - close to the price of the 1030 and the credit from Onkyo. But my fear is, we won't really see title regularly released for a year or two. which leaves 4 ceiling speakers doing nothing.


----------



## krazyscotsman

Any idea if the Onkyo NR-TX3030 will get a Auro 3D firmware upgrade? I'm guessing not, but one can hope especially since it just came out.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

krazyscotsman said:


> Exactly! My 7.1 system has had 2 speakers sitting idle mostly for years. I would have waited myself to buy into Atmos had it not been for the great deal I got - close to the price of the 1030 and the credit from Onkyo. But my fear is, we won't really see title regularly released for a year or two. which leaves 4 ceiling speakers doing nothing.



You'll be upmixing non-Atmos tracks to use all speakers. As you should be now with your current 7.1 system.


----------



## noah katz

cannga said:


> Clarity of an image is clearest and imaging most stable when the particular image is closer to any given speaker.


True, so to fully exploit that effect place the L and R right next to each other 



cannga said:


> So as far as this apsect is concerned, the narrow located tops have advantage with top image, the more lateral tops have advantage with more lateral image.


Let's not forget that originally I was talking about a few feet.

For a typically sized room I expect that for those at the sides of the listening area the improvement from not being directly under a top speaker (or close to it) would be much greater than any loss for centered listeners.


----------



## bass addict

kriktsemaj99 said:


> You'll be upmixing non-Atmos tracks to use all speakers. As you should be now with your current 7.1 system.


Granted, but I'm sure you'd agree; upmixed and discreet are two totally different experiences.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

rnewste said:


> I have one last Blu-ray copy left, so send me a PM with your mailing address and it is yours.
> 
> Raybo


Much thanks Ray, very kind of you to send me this disc. What a fantastic community the AVS forum is! I also really appreciate those of you who answered my questions over the last few months... thanks to your help I now have the home theater experience I've always wanted. 

So today was the first time I heard Atmos on my system... wow! Even with my 2 rear speakers being out of action @ the repair shop & me using crappy satellite speakers in place of the modules I'll get next month, this is sounding pretty damn good. It's not as good as the best Atmos theater I've been to or an IMAX... but the quality of my setup surpasses that of a standard theater by quite a large margin. 

When I heard the Atmos kick in & working I wouldn't say I was reduced to tears... but something like that... the envelopment of the sound created a very emotional experience for me. This is the same feeling I had when I saw Star Wars Episode I in a THX theater... when that first space ship zoomed by I remember thinking "wow!" @ the roar of the engine & how deep the bass was. Well this Wow'd me. 

The fold trailer on the disc I saw in an Atmos theater... that's the coolest thing I ever heard in a theater up until that point in time. The panning isn't as clear as what I heard in the theater... but that might change when I get the modules next month/ get my rear speakers back from the shop. However the depth & texture of the sound is all there. Soooo now I'm still very eager to see some more content announcements


----------



## batpig

bass addict said:


> Granted, but I'm sure you'd agree; upmixed and discreet are two totally different experiences.


When you are talking about a simple 5.1 > 7.1 upmix where you use PLIIx to turn 2 surrounds into 4 surrounds, without touching the other 3.1 channels, I would not agree. Those are not "totally different" as it's simple directional steering, and all of the directional cues needed are there in the two surround channels. 

Stubbornly leaving two speakers silent when you have a 7.1 layout, just because you have some "purist" adherance and most movies are mixed in 5.1, is silliness.

Obviously, 5.1/7.1 upmixed to 7.1.4 with DSU is much more fundamentally different than a fully discrete object audio track.


----------



## BigScreen

Dan Hitchman said:


> No to dipoles. I think that's pretty much the consensus, but there is a debate about other forms of diffuse speakers.


Well, the objection to dipoles might be considered a consensus, but one not based on empirical evidence, but rather supposition by those that believe that dipoles cannot possibly create a believable soundfield. According to someone who was at a recent demonstration in San Antonio, a Dolby rep also mentioned the dipoles would not be preferred.

What we are lacking is a wealth of first-hand reports testing out the various theories and configurations that are possible. We are also lacking decent source material, as well as playback hardware.

We have a grand total of one movie that has been released on Blu-ray in Atmos. Hercules is due out tomorrow, but from the sounds of it, there's no Atmos soundtrack, as originally announced. Step Up All In is also due tomorrow, but I have not seen any reports that would confirm or deny the presence of Atmos on that title. Other than that, all we have is the Dolby Demo Disc from CEDIA.

As far as hardware goes, we have the two receivers from Denon, some from Onkyo, and maybe some from Pioneer? Yamaha should be releasing their Atmos firmware real soon now, but to my knowledge, very little is available in the way of documented first-hand reviews and experiences.

All this points to the fact that Atmos in the home is in its infancy. I would dare say that it resembles something more like a pre-announce status than a fully released product launch. The fact that some participants on this thread are eating their own over the minute details of speaker positioning points to the fact that we don't have enough hardware and software available to enjoy the new format and play with it to the extent that some of the questions can be vetted through wide-scale experimentation.

Even though I brought up the idea of using a dipole radiator for Atmos height speakers quite some time ago, I'm not so sure that it would be a good idea. I'd love to try it out for myself, but I lack the hardware to do so (waiting for Yamaha's implementation at least, and quite possibly, the Auro/DTS implementations, but those are even more premature than Atmos at this point). Even if I wanted to spring for the hardware, there's not nearly enough software to make it worthwhile, as speaker positioning and types would be done with DSU engaged instead of actual, discrete source material (and from the reports of what TF4 actually does with the height speakers, one could say we have no stellar source material beyond a few minutes of demo trailers). It's possible that the height effect will be the same whether DSU is used or discrete Atmos source material is used, but we have no solid way to know at this point.

I haven't been this excited about home theater sound since Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio HD were released on HD DVD. That excitement led me to invest in a Toshiba HD-A1 and my belief in how the ensuing format war would come out led me to recommend buying the 2nd gen units to others, only to have all that blow up in my face right before that fateful CES in 2008. 

Auro and DTS could start a format war, especially if they have extensive studio support with real, shipping titles. If they were to pull that off, it doesn't matter that Atmos was first out of the gate, because it's all about the content. 

As a result, I'm on the sidelines. I'd love to hear what some here are reporting. Due to scheduling conflicts, I wasn't able to attend the Dolby events that were held back in summer. I've tried several times at local stores to get an Atmos experience and failed. Perhaps all that is for the best, as it is keeping me at bay and watching from a distance.

I'm not afraid to make an investment, but I have to do so with some confidence that the investment is worthwhile, and at this point, I'm not convinced that the time is right.


----------



## rmerlano

krazyscotsman said:


> we won't really see title regularly released for a year or two. which leaves 4 ceiling speakers doing nothing.


You can use Dolby Surround Upmixer


----------



## BigScreen

*Amazon's response re: Atmos on Amazon Instant Video*

A week or so ago, I contacted Amazon to inquire about the availability of Atmos on Amazon Instant Video, and on their stream of Hercules in particular.

On October 30th, I received a reply that said that Amazon Instant Video does not have any Atmos-encoded content at this time. Furthermore, they have no Atmos audio "live in production," which I take to mean that nothing is in the works at this time (no upcoming titles with Atmos-encoded soundtracks).

That's unfortunate news, considering that Atmos was used as a speaking point in their press releases for the latest Kindle Fire HD tablet. It's another example of how disjointed all this is. Why announce that a product has a technology, but then not have anything to take advantage of that technology?


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> When you are talking about a simple 5.1 > 7.1 upmix where you use PLIIx to turn 2 surrounds into 4 surrounds, without touching the other 3.1 channels, I would not agree. Those are not "totally different" as it's simple directional steering, and all of the directional cues needed are there in the two surround channels.


Theory and reality very rarely line up with each other.  

I can say from personal experience, 7.1 encoded discs sound entirely different than upmixed 5.1 discs. I notice the rears quite a bit more on discreet 7.1 discs. The imaging also seems to be more focused and less diffuse. 



> Stubbornly leaving two speakers silent when you have a 7.1 layout, just because you have some "purist" adherance and most movies are mixed in 5.1, is silliness.


I don't think anyone here advocated that. I know I've always taken advantage of upmixing. DTX Neo X did a great job for what it had to work with.


----------



## Spanglo

BigScreen said:


> Step Up All In is also due tomorrow, but I have not seen any reports that would confirm or deny the presence of Atmos on that title.


Step Up All In has an Atmos track confirmed.


----------



## bass addict

Spanglo said:


> Step Up All In has an Atmos track confirmed.


Well at least they're starting to include it on some blockbuster movies coming out.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

krazyscotsman said:


> When are we going to start seeing actual blu rays mixed in Atmos. I have purchased Transformers. What I mean is I just got my Onkyo TX-NR3030 and my ceiling (speakers 7.1.4 setup) and there's one movie out that has native Atmos? And from the articles I'm seeing online, it looks like maybe 3 more by the end of the year. I do understand there's a remixing that occurs but for this is truly pathetic. Dolby needs to start working with the studios to get this to become a reason to upgrade audio. I only upgraded at this time due to a failure in my still under warranty Onkyo receiver; otherwise I would have waited - I took the trade in value since I did want to upgrade to Atmos.
> 
> Any thoughts on when we might see Atmos adopted for blu ray like DTS Master HD? I'm hoping we start with the Winter 2014 movies that will likely come out mid / late Spring and then all future titles that are mixed with Atmos for theatrical release.


I think any movie with Atmos that came out after mid august will have Atmos on BD. GOTG unfortunately was released just prior to that timeline. Unfortunately not a lot of promising titles this fall, and very sparse. Maze Runner, The Hobbit 5 armies, and some animated films I think will be the only ones worth owning on BD... well if you're a guy like me anyway.


----------



## Spanglo

bass addict said:


> Well at least they're starting to include it on some blockbuster movies coming out.


As much as I want to experience atmos... think I'm going to pass on this one.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I would very much like to know what that reason could be. And if it is truly meant to be an additional guideline, it better be a pretty darn good one given that positioning overheads exclusively in line with fronts conflicts with:
> 1) The lay-out used in Atmos mixing rooms/ dub stages;


The diagram below (looking toward the screen on the front wall) shows that even in a typical consumer room it is _possible _to put the top speaker rows in line with the L/R and meet the theatrical angle (45+E/2). The problem is that if the ceiling height is increased, the front speaker have to be further away, and that may not be possible or desirable from a sound quality perspective. Is the angle too hard a concept to grasp? If that were the operative parameter, I'm sure there would be ways to make it easy for consumers to know where to put the speakers.












> 4) Dolby's own recommendation on page 32 of the very same Home Theater guidelines which puts ceiling mounted height speakers also inside the left and right main speakers.


 I see Fig 25 on that page, but that is just elevation angle.


----------



## bass addict

Roger, 

As mentioned in an earlier reply; I don't think those angles are representative of how most peoples speakers are laid out. I doubt there are too many people who have their front main at a 45degree angle from the listening position.


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> I have a dedicated theater with a fairly large screen (120"wide), and based on my 12' seating distance (which was designed around THX viewing distances), I am nowhere near the recommended front main angle.


There is no conflict between THX and other recommended L/R angles, is there?



> I am shooting through an AT screen with LR main at screen edge. So I'm not sure exactly what Dolby is factoring their diagram around, based on this being adapted to a "home" theater setting.


You've got a 52 deg angle to L/R. That seems pretty close to the nominal 60 deg we usually talk about. In fact, in cinemas, the typical L/R angle to MLP is 50 deg. You're spot on! 



bass addict said:


> As mentioned in an earlier reply; I don't think those angles are representative of how most peoples speakers are laid out. I doubt there are too many people who have their front main at a 45 degree angle from the listening position.


I suspect it varies all over the shop in consumer homes.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

BigScreen said:


> A week or so ago, I contacted Amazon to inquire about the availability of Atmos on Amazon Instant Video, and on their stream of Hercules in particular.
> 
> On October 30th, I received a reply that said that Amazon Instant Video does not have any Atmos-encoded content at this time. Furthermore, they have no Atmos audio "live in production," which I take to mean that nothing is in the works at this time (no upcoming titles with Atmos-encoded soundtracks).
> 
> That's unfortunate news, considering that Atmos was used as a speaking point in their press releases for the latest Kindle Fire HD tablet. It's another example of how disjointed all this is. Why announce that a product has a technology, but then not have anything to take advantage of that technology?


ATMOS on the tablet is not the same ATMOS process on AVRs, so the two are not even remotely related or go hand and hand, its just Dolby counter to DTS Headphone X.


----------



## krazyscotsman

> Stubbornly leaving two speakers silent when you have a 7.1 layout, just because you have some "purist" adherance and most movies are mixed in 5.1, is silliness.
> 
> Obviously, 5.1/7.1 upmixed to 7.1.4 with DSU is much more fundamentally different than a fully discrete object audio track.


I wasn't literally meaning I did not use all 7 speakers... I was just meaning discreet channels.


----------



## RichB

Audioholics: Definitive Technology A60 Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Review 


http://www.audioholics.com/soundbar...definitive-technology-a60-dolby-atmos-speaker


This review includes measurements and analysis of the driver and crossover circuitry.


- Rich


----------



## noah katz

bass addict said:


> I doubt there are too many people who have their front main at a 45degree angle from the listening position.


In Roger's graphic the L/R are at +/- 22 1/2 deg.


----------



## krazyscotsman

I saw there's a Cedia Atmos demo disc. Is that uploaded anywhere to test out or is strictly copyrighted material? If it is copyright, is there any good free Atmos demos that are worth trying at to see what the system can do. I do have Transformers but I would like to try out some more discreet sources. I literally just got my NR-TX3030 the other day, so I'm itiching to here it in action.


----------



## bass addict

Roger Dressler said:


> There is no conflict between THX and other recommended L/R angles, is there?


Umm, no. 



> You've got a 52 deg angle to L/R. That seems pretty close to the nominal 60 deg we usually talk about. In fact, in cinemas, the typical L/R angle to MLP is 50 deg. You're spot on!


Maybe my math is more rusty than yours. From what I remember on calculating angles, that would put me at 45 not 52?

I'm actually not even there. I am running 15" speakers and have them placed a little bit inside the outside screen edges to prevent any trace of reflections. The center of cone to the center of cone is closer to probably 7.5' or so. I might be able to move them a hair, but based on the depth of the box, in my narrower room, I'd be running into the corner walls pretty quick. So based again on my rusty math; 7.5-8' apart and a 12' viewing distance equals roughly 35-37 degrees. Now if my math is wrong, please correct me; College was quite a few years ago. 




noah katz said:


> In Roger's graphic the L/R are at +/- 22 1/2 deg.


I too was going by the 22-30 degree as the Dolby diagram shows.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

krazyscotsman said:


> I saw there's a Cedia Atmos demo disc. Is that uploaded anywhere to test out or is strictly copyrighted material? If it is copyright, is there any good free Atmos demos that are worth trying at to see what the system can do. I do have Transformers but I would like to try out some more discreet sources. I literally just got my NR-TX3030 the other day, so I'm itiching to here it in action.


All I know of is the August 2014 ATMOS Demo disc, not sure if there is a newer one, but the Dolby ATMOS Trailers can be found at Demo World...
http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php

There is a torrent up, the link to it is a page or so back...


----------



## ambesolman

Aras_Volodka said:


> When I heard the Atmos kick in & working I wouldn't say I was reduced to tears... but something like that... the envelopment of the sound created a very emotional experience for me. This is the same feeling I had when I saw Star Wars Episode I in a THX theater... when that first space ship zoomed by I remember thinking "wow!" @ the roar of the engine & how deep the bass was. Well this Wow'd me.



I had the same feeling when I saw Optimus transform the first time in Transformers 1 in the theater. Got a little choked up


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Roger Dressler

bass addict said:


> Umm, no.
> 
> Maybe my math is more rusty than yours. From what I remember on calculating angles, that would put me at 45 not 52?
> 
> So based again on my rusty math; 7.5-8' apart and a 12' viewing distance equals roughly 35-37 degrees.


D'oh! I plugged in 12' instead of 120". My error.



> I'm actually not even there. I am running 15" speakers and have them placed a little bit inside the outside screen edges to prevent any trace of reflections. The center of cone to the center of cone is closer to probably 7.5' or so. I might be able to move them a hair, but based on the depth of the box, in my narrower room, I'd be running into the corner walls pretty quick.


No, your screen/speakers seem just fine. But I guess what with the surrounds all in place you're not too keen to move the seating forward at this point... Best left as is.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> In Roger's graphic the L/R are at +/- 22 1/2 deg.


Sorry, my diagram is a bit confusing. It is looking forward in the room toward the screen. That 45 deg angle is the elevation to the top speakers.


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> You don't think phantom imaging would be effective, including creating a center image?
> 
> And on the flip side, more narrowly located tops limit the width of the upper soundfield.


As an FYI -- I was just relistening to part of the HT Geeks podcasy with Brett and Craig from Dolby: http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/222

And that specific question (mounting the overhead arrays in the left/right wall-ceiling junctions instead of actually overhead) is asked at the 46:45 mark. Brett's answer is that it's not ideal since (relevant to other discussions) they recommend that the overhead speakers be placed in line with the front L/R and surr.back speakers, and it wouldn't necessarily convey the "intent of the mixer" as well.

Brett says, "Well, we recommend to put the ceiling speakers in line with the left and right and the rear surrounds. So, you could use that configuration, though it will be a distortion of the soundtrack because the mixer mixed with an intention of the true overhead speakers. But they could configure it that way, it could work."


----------



## bass addict

Roger Dressler said:


> D'oh! I plugged in 12' instead of 120". My error.


LOL. I can relate. When mounting my FH speakers I calculated the angle based on the floor, instead of ear height. Needless to say they are a little low, lol. 



> No, your screen/speakers seem just fine. But I guess what with the surrounds all in place you're not too keen to move the seating forward at this point... Best left as is.


Surrounds are inset into columns so they are where they are. I could move the seating a bit, but I really like the current viewing angle where it is. Besides, I have all 8 subs dialed in perfectly at the MLP; I'd hate to go through any more subwoofer eq brain damage at this time. 

I know I will be far from the perfect setup, that's why I'm trying to dissect the recommended positions as much as possible. Any little advantage in placement will go a long ways.


----------



## HT-Eman

Daniel Chaves said:


> All I know of is the August 2014 ATMOS Demo disc, not sure if there is a newer one, but the Dolby ATMOS Trailers can be found at Demo World...
> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php
> 
> There is a torrent up, the link to it is a page or so back...


Yep !!! , using the unfold and leaf trailer in cinema experience for xbmc . Now my pre-show content have atmos sound before I watch a actual movie .


----------



## batpig

krazyscotsman said:


> Exactly! My 7.1 system has had 2 speakers sitting idle mostly for years.





krazyscotsman said:


> I wasn't literally meaning I did not use all 7 speakers... I was just meaning discreet channels.


Sorry, when you said you had "2 speakers sitting idle mostly" in the context of the lack of true 7.1 discrete content, I assumed you meant that they were, um... idle!


----------



## noah katz

I thought we agreed that angles are what's important, and I'd certainly expect there to be situations where tops on the sidewalls would satisfy them.



batpig said:


> As an FYI -- I was just relistening to part of the HT Geeks podcasy with Brett and Craig from Dolby: http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/222
> 
> And that specific question (mounting the overhead arrays in the left/right wall-ceiling junctions instead of actually overhead) is asked at the 46:45 mark. Brett's answer is that it's not ideal since (relevant to other discussions) they recommend that the overhead speakers be placed in line with the front L/R and surr.back speakers, and it wouldn't necessarily convey the "intent of the mixer" as well.
> 
> Brett says, "Well, we recommend to put the ceiling speakers in line with the left and right and the rear surrounds. So, you could use that configuration, though it will be a distortion of the soundtrack because the mixer mixed with an intention of the true overhead speakers. But they could configure it that way, it could work."


----------



## pasender91

Dolby defines top and height positions by elevation angle and alignement to FR channels, but the azimuth angle is NOT in the equation...


----------



## kingwiggi

krazyscotsman said:


> I saw there's a Cedia Atmos demo disc. Is that uploaded anywhere to test out or is strictly copyrighted material? If it is copyright, is there any good free Atmos demos that are worth trying at to see what the system can do. I do have Transformers but I would like to try out some more discreet sources. I literally just got my NR-TX3030 the other day, so I'm itiching to here it in action.


Can anyone confirm if the version with the cinema trailers is the 'Dolby Atmos Reference Disc' as apposed to the 'Demonstration Disc', which is now circulating.


----------



## noah katz

pasender91 said:


> Dolby defines top and height positions by elevation angle and alignement to FR channels, but the azimuth angle is NOT in the equation...


There is enough data to calculate the azimuth.

Once both elevation and azimuth are known, the angles will be maintained by moving the speakers along lines defined at those angles through the listening position.

This will violate the recommendation to put the tops in line with the L/R, with no ill effect that I can see.

As has been pointed out many times, it's the angle from which the sound comes from that's important, not a speaker's location in any particular dimension.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> As has been pointed out many times, it's the angle from which the sound comes from that's important, not a speaker's location in any particular dimension.


Then Dolby should not tell us to put them in line with the L/R. 

And around and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.


----------



## Selden Ball

HT-Eman said:


> Yep !!! , using the unfold and leaf trailer in cinema experience for xbmc . Now my pre-show content have atmos sound before I watch a actual movie .


Is "Atmos" being shown when you press the Info button?

The last time I checked, Kodi (XBMC V14.0 alpha) was not yet passing the Atmos metadata, just the 7.1 portion of the soundtrack.


----------



## bass addict

Roger Dressler said:


> Then Dolby should not tell us to put them in line with the L/R.
> 
> And around and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.


----------



## Keith Mickunas

Selden Ball said:


> Is "Atmos" being shown when you press the Info button?
> 
> The last time I checked, Kodi (XBMC V14.0 alpha) was not yet passing the Atmos metadata, just the 7.1 portion of the soundtrack.


I can play the four demo files via XBMC 13.2 and the Atmos soundtrack is passed just fine. However it cannot handle my mkv rip of TF4. When I choose the TrueHD track it is silent. Why this is the case I do not know, it just is.


----------



## Tnedator

I've been out of touch of late (out of town/country four of last eight weeks) and had no time to keep on top of things. 

I read the info that Dolby put out around Cedia. Has any additional info on setup been released after that? 

What about any news on sub-$20k receivers (ok, sub $5k) that will support more than 7.2.4? I'll have have an array of two sets of surrounds, one to the side of each row of seating, and am wondering if I stick with the plan of using DSPs to send the same surround signal to both sets of surrounds or if any receivers will hit anytime soon that will support those two sets of surround speakers, while still having four (or six) overhead. I need 9.2.4 or 9.2.6.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Tnedator said:


> I've been out of touch of late (out of town/country four of last eight weeks) and had no time to keep on top of things.
> 
> I read the info that Dolby put out around Cedia. Has any additional info on setup been released after that?
> 
> What about any news on sub-$20k receivers (ok, sub $5k) that will support more than 7.2.4? I'll have have an array of two sets of surrounds, one to the side of each row of seating, and am wondering if I stick with the plan of using DSPs to send the same surround signal to both sets of surrounds or if any receivers will hit anytime soon that will support those two sets of surround speakers, while still having four (or six) overhead. I need 9.2.4 or 9.2.6.


I think there's only 2 receivers that do more than 7.1.4? Trinnov & something else... if I'm not mistaken they are in the 20k range... could be wrong about that. 

There's no multiple sub receivers yet, unless if you have theater specs, which call for 4 subs I think?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Aras_Volodka said:


> So today was the first time I heard Atmos on my system... wow! Even with my 2 rear speakers being out of action @ the repair shop & me using crappy satellite speakers in place of the modules I'll get next month, this is sounding pretty damn good. It's not as good as the best Atmos theater I've been to or an IMAX... but the quality of my setup surpasses that of a standard theater by quite a large margin.


Right before I heard the disc I made changes to my setup since my 2 rear speakers are at the shop... I switched to 5.1.4 but I didn't realize that the amp assign was set to heights so the front 2 Atmos speakers weren't on when I initially demo'd the disc. When I got everything working it sounds even better.


----------



## robert816

I just finished watching Studio Ghibli's (Disney) Secret World of Arrietty on Blu-Ray using DSU and it really sounds fantastic.


I watched using the Japanese DD 5.1 soundtrack and switched to Dolby Surround and wow! What a difference!


I would actually use this disc to show off my system over the Transformers 4 disc with Dolby Atmos. While there are some great scenes in T4 with some terrific surround sound, The Secret World of Arrietty used sound that was over emphasized to give you that sense of being small in a world that was much larger than you, and with Dolby Surround, it really works well. The scene where she first enters the kitchen of the humans, the surround sounds used were nothing short of fantastic.


I would love to have this disc with an actual Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


Enjoy


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Just for the sake of grammar and spelling... discreet is not the word you're after in the context of talking about audio "channels," but *discrete*. 

Discreet: _careful and circumspect in one's speech or actions, especially in order to avoid causing offense or to gain an advantage._

Discrete: _individually separate and distinct.
_


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> Then Dolby should not tell us to put them in line with the L/R.


I hope it was apparent that that was my point.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> The diagram below (looking toward the screen on the front wall) shows that even in a typical consumer room it is _possible _to put the top speaker rows in line with the L/R and meet the theatrical angle (45+E/2).


Yes, that means that with a wide screen set-up and a 8' ceiling you can reach the _minimum_ specified theatrical angle of 45 degrees. But what about the _ideal_ angle? My earlier expressed view is that the Dolby's diagrams and the related recommendations are more closely related to 50" flat screen set-ups. Now when you accordingly decrease the fronts width in your diagram from 8 to 5 foot, the lateral elevation of the overheads gets to 58 degrees. That is why at this moment I would advice anyone striving for ideal positioning of their overhead arrays to go for 60 degrees lateral elevation, regardless of fronts width and ceiling height.












> I see Fig 25 on that page, but that is just elevation angle.


I was not referring to the diagram shown, but to what is written on that same page. Dolby explains that if height speakers are ceiling mounted they should have a vertical angle of 45 degrees, which according to Dolby may - while keeping them at 30 degrees horizontal - put them inside the left and right main speakers. This deviates from a 'putting your overheads in line with the fronts' recommendation.


----------



## BennyTurbo

Can anyone give me a valid download link or torrent for Dolby atmos demo disc please? Thanks a lot.


----------



## gerchy

Aras_Volodka said:


> I think there's only 2 receivers that do more than 7.1.4? Trinnov & something else... if I'm not mistaken they are in the 20k range... could be wrong about that.
> 
> There's no multiple sub receivers yet, unless if you have theater specs, which call for 4 subs I think?


Denon X4100 and X5200 supports two subs, so does the Marantz AV-7702.
They all feature subEQ and MultEQ XT32 which are able to handle two subs and are somehwere in the 2k range.


----------



## thebland

RichB said:


> Audioholics: Definitive Technology A60 Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Review
> 
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/soundbar...definitive-technology-a60-dolby-atmos-speaker
> 
> 
> This review includes measurements and analysis of the driver and crossover circuitry.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Something to post while waiting in line to vote... 

If this odd looking contraption with a single 3" cone is what you get for $499 this format is dead!! What a POS - if speakers wore bad hair pieces, this is what this looks like! Did thy say they tested it in an 8000 cubic ft room? That didn't help.


----------



## asoofi1

Why Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' doesn't have a very complex surround remix, like Atmos: "He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides. (Outer space, he pointed out dryly, is not known for its ambient murmurs.)"
-New York Times
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/0...ive-mind-of-christnopher-nolan.html?referrer=


----------



## plougstrup

Tnedator said:


> What about any news on sub-$20k receivers (ok, sub $5k) that will support more than 7.2.4? I'll have have an array of two sets of surrounds, one to the side of each row of seating, and am wondering if I stick with the plan of using DSPs to send the same surround signal to both sets of surrounds or if any receivers will hit anytime soon that will support those two sets of surround speakers, while still having four (or six) overhead. I need 9.2.4 or 9.2.6.


The Integra DTR-70.6 supports 11.2, and it's $2,800.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tnedator said:


> I've been out of touch of late (out of town/country four of last eight weeks) and had no time to keep on top of things.
> 
> I read the info that Dolby put out around Cedia. Has any additional info on setup been released after that?
> 
> What about any news on sub-$20k receivers (ok, sub $5k) that will support more than 7.2.4? I'll have have an array of two sets of surrounds, one to the side of each row of seating, and am wondering if I stick with the plan of using DSPs to send the same surround signal to both sets of surrounds or if any receivers will hit anytime soon that will support those two sets of surround speakers, while still having four (or six) overhead. I need 9.2.4 or 9.2.6.


There might be 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 processing next year. Hard to speculate. Dolby is working on at least a 9.1.4 block, but why would the mainstream manufacturers go all out when it doesn't look like many Atmos titles are being released in the near term? Was Dolby expecting more than this for their debut year and got sideswiped by the studios? Did they expect their studio "partners" would trumpet the release of Atmos titles and it didn't occur? Who's to say.


----------



## asoofi1

plougstrup said:


> The Integra DTR-70.6 supports 11.2, and it's $2,800.


As in 9.2.2 or 7.2.4?


----------



## Keith Mickunas

Keith Mickunas said:


> I can play the four demo files via XBMC 13.2 and the Atmos soundtrack is passed just fine. However it cannot handle my mkv rip of TF4. When I choose the TrueHD track it is silent. Why this is the case I do not know, it just is.


I downloaded a blu-ray that is 17 minutes of Dolby people talking about Atmos as well as several demos, including a song by Enrique Iglasias. That also played via XBMC just fine. So I'm not sure exactly where the problems lie with XBMC and bitstreaming XBMC, as so far it's only failed with an MKV using h.264 video, m2ts and blu-ray work fine for me.


----------



## Selden Ball

Tnedator said:


> I've been out of touch of late (out of town/country four of last eight weeks) and had no time to keep on top of things.
> 
> I read the info that Dolby put out around Cedia. Has any additional info on setup been released after that?
> 
> What about any news on sub-$20k receivers (ok, sub $5k) that will support more than 7.2.4? I'll have have an array of two sets of surrounds, one to the side of each row of seating, and am wondering if I stick with the plan of using DSPs to send the same surround signal to both sets of surrounds or if any receivers will hit anytime soon that will support those two sets of surround speakers, while still having four (or six) overhead. I need 9.2.4 or 9.2.6.





plougstrup said:


> The Integra DTR-70.6 supports 11.2, and it's $2,800.


Sorry: 11.2 = 7.2.4 or 9.2.2. A 13.2 (or greater) AVR or pre/pro would be needed. None are available this year. Maybe next generation.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dan Hitchman said:


> There might be 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 processing next year. Hard to speculate. Dolby is working on at least a 9.1.4 block, but why would the mainstream manufacturers go all out when it doesn't look like many Atmos titles are being released in the near term? Was Dolby expecting more than this for their debut year and got sideswiped by the studios? Did they expect their studio "partners" would trumpet the release of Atmos titles and it didn't occur? Who's to say.


 My impression is that the initial shipments of Atmos-capable AVRs and pre/pros are flying off the shelves. Of course, most of the early customers probably are those of us who read AVS  And, of course, the initial shipments haven't been very large.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

Keith Mickunas said:


> I can play the four demo files via XBMC 13.2 and the Atmos soundtrack is passed just fine. However it cannot handle my mkv rip of TF4. When I choose the TrueHD track it is silent. Why this is the case I do not know, it just is.



How did you make the MKV? For example the MakeMKV revision history says they only just added Atmos support a couple of weeks ago. It seems the Atmos extensions are tripping up a lot of software.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> You don't think phantom imaging would be effective, including creating a center image?


If you're going to have the height speakers spread the width of the room, as Auro does, then it would help to have VOG create the centre image rather than rely on phantom imaging.


> And on the flip side, more narrowly located tops limit the width of the upper soundfield.


You could say the same about front soundstage width being limited by L/R speakers that are not spread out to the side walls . How much width do you want?


----------



## Keith Mickunas

kriktsemaj99 said:


> How did you make the MKV? For example the MakeMKV revision history says they only just added Atmos support a couple of weeks ago. It seems the Atmos extensions are tripping up a lot of software.


Thanks for pointing that out, I'll check into it. Although it did work fine when played by my Oppo 103. 

I'm wondering just what the supposed issue is. If older blu-ray players can pass the Atmos bitstream just fine, why can't software like MakeMKV and XBMC pass it along by default? I'm wondering if the XBMC problem is more about decoding the 7.1 sound correctly from an Atmos enabled track, rather than just bitstreaming it. I've seen this kind of thing from them before, where what they define as support and what I see as support being a little different in practice. Maybe the MKV is flagged incorrectly, and the Oppo just happened to handle it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.


I see three files there. Do I need all three and how do I reconstruct the data? Is it a complete ISO? Thanks!


----------



## cannga

In case anyone is wondering. To locate any given speaker, a *"smart" Atmos renderer* needs to know altitude (elevation), azimuth, and linear distance, I think .


----------



## asoofi1

Someone should just torrent the iso...I'll try to but the software failed on my computer last time I tried.


----------



## cannga

What's interesting is that if you follow the setup of a commercial mixing room such as Deluxe Toronto, the fixed-width parallel row of top ceiling speakers mean that there is *NO* fixed or "reference" azimuth, with azimuth angle values decreasing as one moves away from the MLP (where mixer sits).


----------



## robert816

Yes you need all three files if you want to burn it as a Blu-Ray playable disc.

Using Blu-Ray burning software, select Blu-Ray Data Disc

Burn all 3 (two folders and one inf file) to the root of a Blu-ray disc.

To play the individual files without burning to a Blu-Ray disc, navigate to the BDMV folder, open it and look for the Stream folder. There are 11 files in there with the extension .mts, you can just download this folder, copy to a DVD data disc, or to a thumb drive (formatted for large files over 4 gig) and play them back in your Blu-Ray player.

It works better if they are burned to a Blu-Ray disc though.


----------



## batpig

cannga said:


> What's interesting is that if you follow the setup of a commercial mixing room such as Deluxe Toronto, the fixed-width parallel row of top ceiling speakers mean that there is *NO* fixed or "reference" azimuth, with azimuth angle values decreasing as one moves away from the MLP (where mixer sits).


This has been pointed out before. Because it's a line array overhead, maintaining a constant azimuth referenced to the MLP would imply that the overheads would form a sort of ellipse, getting more widely spaced the closer they get to the MLP. But that's not how it's done in Atmos mixing rooms or theaters -- it's a straight line of speakers. This implies to me that the hand-wringing over precise azimuth of the overheads is (like IMO most of the hand-wringing over angular precision by a few in this thread) mostly unnecessary. 

I think, as Roger has mentioned a few times, the best approach is to look at it from the perspective of the rear of the room and simply worry about elevational angle from the surrounds for the entire overhead array. Somewhere around 60 degrees elevation is probably fine for all the reasons already noted by others. If you have a typical living room setup with a 50-60" type flatscreen, that will probably place the arrays in line with the front L/R speakers, maybe a bit inside. If you have a more "theatrical" dedicated space with a giant screen, placing the FL/FR mains close to the room boundaries, the arrays will probably be more in line with the (nonexistant) positions in between C and FL/FR. The theatrical guidelines seem to be well documented so those who are striving to mimick that environment should have proper guidance.

It doesn't have to be this complicated.


----------



## bass addict

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just for the sake of grammar and spelling... discreet is not the word you're after in the context of talking about audio "channels," but *discrete*.
> 
> Discreet: _careful and circumspect in one's speech or actions, especially in order to avoid causing offense or to gain an advantage._
> 
> Discrete: _individually separate and distinct.
> _


Thanks for the grammar lesson. I almost forgot I was on AVS for a second, and somehow had wandered into an English course dissertation. I'm sure this will clear up quite a bit of confusion now as the topic at hand has been derailed due to everyone taking the subject at hand out of context. And to think this whole time everyone thought that we were discussing our speakers having a hidden agenda. Now that we know it's about separate and distinct channels, we can more forward in solving this dilemma.


----------



## robert816

It "should not" be this complicated.

I was initially concerned when I bought my AVR and after reading the documentation was confused as hell. I read the discussions in this thread to get answers and found even more complicated information. After weeding through a lot of the geek speak, I was able to setup my system (after multiple failed attempts) to the point I really enjoy the way it sounds.

Are my speakers lined up correctly? Probably not.
Do I have them at the correct angle? I doubt it.
Do they have the proper degree of dispersion? Who the hell knows?
Does my system currently bring a smile to my face? Hell yes!
Do I hear things all around and above me? Damn skippy!

My concern would be that given the current state of information available, some may find setting up a system with Atmos too daunting a task, without having even physically trying to setup the speakers and calibrating, but just from reading the info and not understanding what is needed. Making this too difficult could slow adoption by many of the non-tech savy crowd.


----------



## noah katz

Roger Dressler said:


> The diagram below (looking toward the screen on the front wall) ...


Wait a sec - do theaters specify elevation angles when viewed from the back?

Because Dolby doesn't for HT, only when viewed from the side.

Which highlights that the Dolby-specified elevation angles are only one component of the overall elevation angle, i.e. its projection on a side wall.

You could move the heights/tops a large distance sideways and that projection wouldn't change, but the overall elevation angle would approach zero.



sdurani said:


> How much width do you want?


The width issue is tangential, my point remains that putting the tops in line with L/R is an unnecessary restriction.



cannga said:


> In case anyone is wondering. To locate any given speaker, a *"smart" Atmos renderer* needs to know altitude (elevation), azimuth, and linear distance, I think .


That's one variable too many.


----------



## bass addict

LOL at the azimuth comment.


----------



## noah katz

robert816 said:


> After weeding through a lot of the geek speak, I was able to setup my system (after multiple failed attempts) to the point I really enjoy the way it sounds.


Would be interesting to know what was wrong with the failed attempts.


----------



## Nightlord

noah katz said:


> That's one variable too many.


It's a three dimensional space. No matter how you choose coordinates, you still need three.

The linear distance maps perfectly to delay time, so the choice of coordinate system seems a clever one.


----------



## pasender91

Nightlord said:


> It's a three dimensional space. No matter how you choose coordinates, you still need three.
> 
> The linear distance maps perfectly to delay time, so the choice of coordinate system seems a clever one.


Quite logically, Dolby is not enforcing distances on us, how could we manage small and large rooms then ...
So this leaves us with 2 coordinates only in defining top positions, Roger is right.
We can use either: 
- Azimuth + Elevation (polar coordinates, but NOT RETAINED)
- Elevation + Y-coordinate (Y being the alignment to main speakers, this is the official way)

They have chosen the method that is the easiest to implement for the average customer, i think it is a good idea !!!


----------



## robert816

noah katz said:


> Would be interesting to know what was wrong with the failed attempts.


Me mostly.

I initially tried to setup my Atmos speakers similar to the diagrams in the manual. I set them on top of my floor speaker and aimed them at the ceiling and calibrated. It worked, but I honestly wasn't happy with the results.

I then tried just aiming them toward the MLP and again, wasn't happy. The best way I can describe it was the sound was muddy, like the overhead sounds were at face level instead of above me.

I elevated the Atmos speakers to about 18 inches from the ceiling and again tried reflecting the sound off the ceiling and calibrating, better but still wasn't bringing a smile to my face.

Finally after reading a discussion in this thread by Roger and others about degrees of dispersion and proper angles +/-, I left the speakers at their current height, but repositioned them and aimed them toward the MLP and calibrated again. I'm now a happy camper who has shown off his current system to friends, who have all been turning their heads from side to side, up and around during the demos, and all have stated so far, "thats pretty cool!"


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> The width issue is tangential, my point remains that putting the tops in line with L/R is an unnecessary restriction.


Only as restrictive as any general guidelines are. Dolby is recommending what they consider best practices. But if you know overhead locations that work better for Atmos mixes, then you're free to use them. No restriction.


----------



## jdsmoothie

robert816 said:


> Finally after reading a discussion in this thread by Roger and others about degrees of dispersion and proper angles +/-, I left the speakers at their current height, but repositioned them *and aimed them toward the MLP and calibrated again.* I'm now a happy camper who has shown off his current system to friends, who have all been turning their heads from side to side, up and around during the demos, and all have stated so far, "thats pretty cool!"


So then effectively changing them from being "Dolby Enabled" to "Front Height". How do you have them configured as on the SC-87?


----------



## kokishin

Dan Hitchman said:


> I see three files there. Do I need all three and how do I reconstruct the data? Is it a complete ISO? Thanks!


I have added complete instructions to my original post: How to Create a Dolby Atmos Demo Disc


----------



## noah katz

Nightlord said:


> It's a three dimensional space. No matter how you choose coordinates, you still need three.


That's true if you're trying to define a 3D point in space, but in this context we're only trying to define a direction.

The perceptual 3rd dimension is created psychoacoustically by the program material, not by physical speaker locations.


----------



## audioguy

Any 2 channel guys listen to unconverted to Atmos music? Comments?


----------



## robert816

jdsmoothie said:


> So then effectively changing them from being "Dolby Enabled" to "Front Height". How do you have them configured as on the SC-87?


went with 5.2.4 setting, Top Front and Top Rear.

It seems TF and TM would be a better setting for my system, but I quickly discovered that doesn't work. I finally read some discussion by I believe yourself and others explaining that there needed to be an area of seperation between the Atmos speakers for it to work properly.

It would be nice if there were a sticky grocery list of best practices for newbies such as myself getting into Atmos at home to help with some of the misunderstandings.

I first heard Atmos in a Dallas theatre a couple of years ago, then my local Harkins converted the Cine Capri to Atmos sound, I was hooked and knew I wanted it at home, which is why I jumped in when a great deal chanced my way.


----------



## robert816

audioguy said:


> Any 2 channel guys listen to unconverted to Atmos music? Comments?


The Dolby Surround upmixing works very well with 2 channel audio.


----------



## Nightlord

noah katz said:


> That's true if you're trying to define a 3D point in space, but in this context we're only trying to define a direction.
> 
> The perceptual 3rd dimension is created psychoacoustically by the program material, not by physical speaker locations.


As far as I could see, the quote from Cannga was about locating the speaker, and that's what I responded about. Direction needs two parameters, location needs three.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

gerchy said:


> Denon X4100 and X5200 supports two subs, so does the Marantz AV-7702.
> They all feature subEQ and MultEQ XT32 which are able to handle two subs and are somehwere in the 2k range.


Yes, but it's still 7.1.4 either way. A different signal isn't sent to each sub, as in sub panning/ directional information as would be in an Atmos theater which have rear subs & front subs. (I think). I hooked up 2 subs on my setup... I don't really have any content except for the Dolby demo disc... so I guess I'll see if I hear any rear sub action going on. (I did place my 2nd sub in the back of the room). If Maze runner comes out with Atmos bd I'll test it out with that because I remember hearing rear subs in that movie pretty clearly.


----------



## gerchy

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yes, but it's still 7.1.4 either way. A different signal isn't sent to each sub, as in sub panning/ directional information as would be in an Atmos theater which have rear subs & front subs. (I think). I hooked up 2 subs on my setup... I don't really have any content except for the Dolby demo disc... so I guess I'll see if I hear any rear sub action going on. (I did place my 2nd sub in the back of the room). If Maze runner comes out with Atmos bd I'll test it out with that because I remember hearing rear subs in that movie pretty clearly.


Atmos capable AVR should support main and surround LFE channels. No?


----------



## Selden Ball

gerchy said:


> Atmos capable AVR should support main and surround LFE channels. No?


 No. There is only 1 LFE channel provided on disc. There are not separate main and surround LFE channels.

Perhaps you're confusing LFE with the receivers' support for two subwoofers? Even so, bass management merges the bass from both main and surround channels and sends the same low frequency sounds to both subwoofer channels. Your ears cannot determine what direction frequencies below 80 Hz come from. Dual subwoofers have to be carefully positioned in the room and are used to smooth the bass response throughout the room. They do not provide separate low frequency bass for fronts and surrounds. 

Alternatively, perhaps you are confusing how subwoofers are used in large commercial cinemas with how subwoofers are used in the small rooms of a home. The acoustics are quite different between those two environments.


----------



## gerchy

Selden Ball said:


> No. There is only 1 LFE channel provided on disc. There are not separate main and surround LFE channels.
> 
> Perhaps you're confusing LFE with the receivers' support for two subwoofers? Even so, bass management merges the bass from both main and surround channels and sends the same low frequency sounds to both subwoofer channels. Your ears cannot determine what direction frequencies below 80 Hz come from. Dual subwoofers have to be carefully positioned in the room and are used to smooth the bass response throughout the room. They do not provide separate low frequency bass for fronts and surrounds.
> 
> Alternatively, perhaps you are confusing how subwoofers are used in large commercial cinemas with how subwoofers are used in the small rooms of a home. The acoustics are quite different between those two environments.


I was meaning to write that there are no x.2 soundtracks but then I remembered I read somewhere that object based audio would be able to pan the objects in the room on all three axes, including the subwoofers.


----------



## pasender91

gerchy said:


> I was meaning to write that there are no x.2 soundtracks but then I remembered I read somewhere that object based audio would be able to pan the objects in the room on all three axes, including the subwoofers.



I'm afraid that's incorrect, Atmos only manages 1 LFE.

Now what you can do is install a sub for each channel if you want, using the speaker-level line and sub Xover. Some people do that to have 1 sub for LFE and 1 sub for each front channel, taking care of their bass management. And then some crazy people use this system to do a 7.8 (1 sub for LFE and 7 bass-management subs, 1 for each channel, so each surround has its own sub). Nothing prevents this from being done for top speakers too


----------



## taxman48

question about ceiling speakers: where would you put them if you have 2 rows of seats? Looking at the Pioneer 87. thanks in advance


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Top Front (between FL/FR speakers and front row) + Top Backward (between back row and Surround Back speakers) using ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters.


----------



## BigScreen

BigScreen said:


> For those that are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the Dolby Surround Upmixer, have you watched any sporting events, such as NFL Football?
> 
> :
> 
> If the DSU can provide some additional fun for a sporting event, the appeal of Atmos-equipped setups expands significantly. Anything that would provide more of a "you are there" experience would be a great upgrade for many people.
> 
> Can someone with an Atmos setup give it a listen and post some impressions?
> 
> Thanks!


Either this post got lost in the shuffle, or we have no football fans with Atmos installations. Has anyone tried viewing an NFL game with DSU engaged?


----------



## SoundChex

BigScreen said:


> BigScreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the Dolby Surround Upmixer, have you watched any sporting events, such as NFL Football?
> If the DSU can provide some additional fun for a sporting event, the appeal of Atmos-equipped setups expands significantly. Anything that would provide more of a "you are there" experience would be a great upgrade for many people.
> Can someone with an Atmos setup give it a listen and post some impressions? Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Either this post got lost in the shuffle, or we have no football fans with Atmos installations. Has anyone tried viewing an NFL game with DSU engaged?
Click to expand...


Don't know about the performance of DSUpmixing . . . but, for the longer term, plans for for both immersive and user-interactive object-based sports broadcasting are actively being pursued:

*Object-Based Audio Mixing Seeks Traction in Sports Broadcasting* (_link_) 

*Live From SMPTE: Object-Based Audio Promises To Transform Sports Broadcasting* (_link_) 

_


----------



## Jive Turkey

I've been getting a grip on Dolby Surround Upmixing, and have found that better than turning down all the other channels and listening to the ceiling speakers, use the Movie button (on the Denon models) and toggle between the DTS-MA or TrueHD track and the +Dolby Surround additive. Depending on the scene it can be very subtle (a loss of atmosphere) or very noticeable (like the sound fell five feet down to ear level).


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> If Maze runner comes out with Atmos bd I'll test it out with that because I remember hearing rear subs in that movie pretty clearly.


Yup, the movie was OK but that was one of the better soundtracks I've heard, a real showcase for Atmos. I posted about it when I saw it in the theaters -- there were several moments where incredibly deep and powerful bass sweeps actually swept 360 degrees around the theater. I've never heard that before, it was a clear demonstration of the effectiveness of the "full range surrounds" with the powerful LFE able to be really directional.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Yup, the movie was OK but that was one of the better soundtracks I've heard, a real showcase for Atmos. I posted about it when I saw it in the theaters -- there were several moments where incredibly deep and powerful bass sweeps actually swept 360 degrees around the theater. I've never heard that before, it was a clear demonstration of the effectiveness of the "full range surrounds" with the powerful LFE able to be really directional.


I wonder if that will be something that could be replicated for home theaters at some point? Or is space really the limitation that keeps low frequencies from being audibly directional? Well I guess either way there's no change of me being able to cram 4 subs into my room (haha). 

I'm actually curious what the next step will be beyond Atmos... I'm thinking floor speakers/ in floor speakers for sound coming from below (not that it would be used to often but I bet it would sound real cool for certain scenes).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Full range surround have existed for a very long time now. Whether or not a particular mixer wants to take full advantage of them is another thing. It's more common now because Atmos mandates bass management where as for the past two decades it has not been a requirement. Keep in mind while we at home have been using it for 15 years or so it's a rather new thing in the cinema audio world.

If you want that "full range surround effect", just get surrounds that can extend down to 40-50hz and bass manage the rest. You'll get that effect.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Full range surround have existed for a very long time now. Whether or not a particular mixer wants to take full advantage of them is another thing. It's more common now because Atmos mandates bass management where as for the past two decades it has not been a requirement. Keep in mind while we at home have been using it for 15 years or so it's a rather new thing in the cinema audio world.
> 
> If you want that "full range surround effect", just get surrounds that can extend down to 40-50hz and bass manage the rest. You'll get that effect.


Yeah my Chorus II's go to 40, I've got them on my fronts & rears in a 7.1.4 setup. I do hear bass coming from behind in quite a few movies, though what I heard in Maze runner was different... I can't put it into words, like the bass was *really* coming from behind (haha). Maybe it will sound good... hopefully I'll find out soon if they release it on Atmos BD. That would be a great film for showing off the sound system.


----------



## aaranddeeman

He he..
I now have Atmos Bluray (TF4) and designated JBL N24 Speakers for Atmos (to be mounted over ceiling) just picked up used from CL , to match (or at least close) to my existing JBL northridge E series 7.1 bed.
Now remains the receiver and the (may be ) PITA setting all these up..


----------



## mike_carton

bass addict said:


> Thanks for the grammar lesson. I almost forgot I was on AVS for a second, and somehow had wandered into an English course dissertation. I'm sure this will clear up quite a bit of confusion now as the topic at hand has been derailed due to everyone taking the subject at hand out of context. And to think this whole time everyone thought that we were discussing our speakers having a hidden agenda. Now that we know it's about separate and distinct channels, we can more forward in solving this dilemma.


It is always good to use the right terminology in discussing important topics. As the pre-eminent English-speaking country (or second-most,) and as a forum dedicated to science and knowledge, it is a worthwhile goal to speak and write well. Being under-educated or acting under-educated is not a laudable objective. If you're schooled, learn; if you're already knowledgeable in the matter, stay silent. No need to speak in favor of ignorance.


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> Yup, the movie was OK but that was one of the better soundtracks I've heard, a real showcase for Atmos. I posted about it when I saw it in the theaters -- there were several moments where incredibly deep and powerful bass sweeps actually swept 360 degrees around the theater. I've never heard that before, it was a clear demonstration of the effectiveness of the "full range surrounds" with the powerful LFE able to be really directional.





Aras_Volodka said:


> I wonder if that will be something that could be replicated for home theaters at some point? Or is space really the limitation that keeps low frequencies from being audibly directional? Well I guess either way there's no change of me being able to cram 4 subs into my room (haha).



I think regular BM will be fine; an 80 Hz XO has precluded localization up until now, and I don't see why it wouldn't do the same for elevated speakers.

In fact I was just listening to some DTS movie trailers so I could do before/after comparisons before installing my 7702; on a Jurassic Park (II I think) trailer the bass rumbling was definitely moving around the room.

Perhaps they don't use the same kind of BM in theaters because the long distances between the surrounds and subs would cause peaks and notches in the XO region.


----------



## bass addict

mike_carton said:


> It is always good to use the right terminology in discussing important topics. As the pre-eminent English-speaking country (or second-most,) and as a forum dedicated to science and knowledge, it is a worthwhile goal to speak and write well. Being under-educated or acting under-educated is not a laudable objective. If you're schooled, learn; if you're already knowledgeable in the matter, stay silent. No need to speak in favor of ignorance.


Save your wikipedia lecture for someone else. I can speak and communicate just fine thank you. No one is impressed by you pointing out an incorrectly placed word. As you can see; it made no difference in the discussion at hand. Go back to grading papers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Sorry I know slightly unrelated... but I'm very excited about being able to use my Atmos setup for when good content becomes available. I'm Concerned about content, because in general I don't get very excited over most releases. I think the industry should try to find young directing talent from the Indy scene just as they had with Lucas/ Spielberg/ scorcesse in the late 60's.
Imagine seeing experimental films done with Atmos mixes. Or if our generation could spawn a Kubrick of our own and hand him Atmos capability with Red EPIC cameras and the whole shabbang. I think we could hit so many horizons and taking tech to new & interesting places.


----------



## brwsaw

Star Trek TNG is now in HD on Space (Bell), at least today's episode is/was.
I love how they start the series and play them in order or production.
Episode 2 today, 3 tomorrow...Not sure why no episode 1, it should have recorded yesterday.

Now I wish I had DSU already.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert816 said:


> Yes you need all three files if you want to burn it as a Blu-Ray playable disc.
> 
> Using Blu-Ray burning software, select Blu-Ray Data Disc
> 
> Burn all 3 (two folders and one inf file) to the root of a Blu-ray disc.
> 
> To play the individual files without burning to a Blu-Ray disc, navigate to the BDMV folder, open it and look for the Stream folder. There are 11 files in there with the extension .mts, you can just download this folder, copy to a DVD data disc, or to a thumb drive (formatted for large files over 4 gig) and play them back in your Blu-Ray player.
> 
> It works better if they are burned to a Blu-Ray disc though.


The original Atmos demo disc had a folder called AACS. The downloads from the Windows Drive don't include this folder. Could this cause a problem?


----------



## Mako0312

Thinking of getting a Atmos enabled receiver now.

Is there much difference difference between a 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4? This will be the last receiver I get for a long time so I am tempted to just go with a 7.1.4.
I am also thinking of just getting one that can do it all in itself, and not be worried with a separate amplifier for the other channels.

Does anyone have any recommendations of one?


----------



## Nightlord

If you are to keep it for a long time, then I'd say you'd have to go with one with HDCP2.2, which narrows the choice quite much. My recommendation would be to wait another generation, though.


----------



## Mako0312

Nightlord said:


> If you are to keep it for a long time, then I'd say you'd have to go with one with HDCP2.2, which narrows the choice quite much. My recommendation would be to wait another generation, though.


I thought about grabbing the Denon X4000 for $800, and just waiting for next year to see what changes are made.


----------



## NorthSky

But the X4000 has no Dolby Atmos. ...Perhaps get a machine with Atmos for around that price, $800, just to give you a taste for next year.


----------



## Mako0312

NorthSky said:


> But the X4000 has no Dolby Atmos. ...Perhaps get a machine with Atmos for around that price, $800, just to give you a taste for next year.


Which takes me back to my original question. Is the difference between 5.1.2 vs .4 that big, and how does it compare to 7.1.2/.4.


----------



## gerchy

pasender91 said:


> I'm afraid that's incorrect, Atmos only manages 1 LFE.


I never thought it manages more than one. Until yesteday, when Aras_Volodka made me think that object based audio might take care of the LFE too. 

P.S.: I found the source I was reffering to:
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-atmos-for-home-cinema


----------



## audio2xs

Mako0312 said:


> Which takes me back to my original question. Is the difference between 5.1.2 vs .4 that big, and how does it compare to 7.1.2/.4.


I would suggest 5.1.2 or 7.1.2. The problem with x.1.4 systems is that there are no speakers directly overhead, and getting a phantom image directly overhead to work well is a problem, especially in any seats but the MLP. Now, if I could do 6.1.6 (not currently available in an AVR), I'd like that because I'd have a pair directly overhead, front and rear heights, and and a single back speaker. From there, I'd add L/R wides, again, not on most AVRs.  If you stayed with an x.1.2 system, you have lots of AVR choices. Denon has retained Audyssey for all channels, pretty much drives my choice. 

More important, though, would be your choice of height speakers, especially if you end up with an x.1.4 system. Either the "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers (properly located), or some rather special ceiling speakers would be needed. Conventional ceiling speakers don't cut it. Ceiling speaker choices are less critical for an x.1.2 system because you'll be sitting right under the high speakers, which can cover your position well. Timbre matching to the mains would be nice. 

"If you want a sound there, you have to put a speaker there".


----------



## maikeldepotter

audio2xs said:


> I would suggest 5.1.2 or 7.1.2. The problem with x.1.4 systems is that there are no speakers directly overhead, and getting a phantom image directly overhead to work well is a problem, especially in any seats but the MLP.
> 
> "If you want a sound there, you have to put a speaker there".


Are you suggesting that putting 1 pair of ceiling mounted overheads directly above MLP, will produce a better Atmos sound than having 2 pairs that are 2-3 feet in front respectively behind MLP?


----------



## audio2xs

maikeldepotter said:


> Are you suggesting that putting 1 pair of ceiling mounted overheads directly above MLP, will produce a better Atmos sound than having 2 pairs that are 2-3 feet in front respectively behind MLP?


The problem with the 4 ceiling speakers is twofold. 1. Finding ceiling speakers with any wider dispersion than 30 degrees is almost impossible, yet the Atmos specs call for 45 degrees from acoustic center (total of 90 degrees) from 100Hz to 10KHz. If you can find them, great, but if you can't, it's a significant issue. 2. With 4 ceilings, the directly-overhead location becomes a phantom image that will "pop" to whatever speaker you are nearest. Unless you have a 1 seat theater, 4 speakers creates the same old problem that we had in the days of "Quad"...a very tiny listening window where everything localizes properly. The exceptions are any object that is sent exactly to one speaker only, but given a 4 ceiling speaker array will always be scaled down from the original 64 speaker mix, it's very unlikely that many objects will ever be targeted for one of the 4 speakers you have. That means that exact localization simply won't happen, and phantom locations between the speakers will simply cluster about the speaker you are closest to. The problem is made much worse by a low ceiling, in fact the higher the ceiling, the better a 4-speaker array would work (which is also why I recommend the Atmos Enabled speakers over ceiling speakers for this kind of speaker plan). 

Using only two directly overhead speakers doesn't solve the problem, but since there are statistically more objects placed overhead than other locations, or at least they will more or less work there, the chances for mislocation caused by proximity to a speaker are greatly reduced. The only phantom imaging would be between the two, which is still a problem (as it is in any two-speaker system), but tolerable. 

Ideally, you want at least 6, with one pair overhead. Of course, the more you have, the less the system depends on phantom images between speakers, and the better localization will be. 

My suggestion is that 2 ceiling speakers is a better compromise than 4 because of the current lack of wide dispersion ceiling speakers, and the lower dependency on phantom images. I would further suggest that if you want 4 heights, that they be "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers, which at least gets you out of the dispersion problem. 

BTW, this is based on listening experience. I couldn't immediately figure out what was wrong with the 4 heights until I thought about it a while. I also can't emphasize enough that having speakers that sound at least similar, if not actual timbre-matched speakers, is fairly important to support the illusion of a full hemispheric soundfield. Radically different sounding heights just separate themselves from the rest of the system, and the illusion is damaged. It's also why I strongly recommend Denon Atmos AVRs because they include full Audyssey for each channel.


----------



## NorthSky

That's an interesting, and valid take, I think.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Just curious as to what kind of Atmos set-up you ended up with: 2 overheads or 4 bouncers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

audio2xs said:


> Using only two directly overhead speakers doesn't solve the problem, but since there are statistically more objects placed overhead than other locations, or at least they will more or less work there, the chances for mislocation caused by proximity to a speaker are greatly reduced. The only phantom imaging would be between the two, which is still a problem (as it is in any two-speaker system), but tolerable.


Is there any reason why a pair of overheads would perform less in creating a phantom image than say a pair of fronts? Or do you mean that fronts are equally problematic, and we therefore use a center speaker to anchor those mid-positioned sounds? In the latter case, you might in some cases (e.g. one row set-ups) be better off by adding an additional center overhead array, instead of adding more overheads to the left and right array (currently only supported by ultra expensive gear though).

_Edit: In addition, I cannot think of one reason why the creation of a centrally positioned phantom image would be performed worse by using four symmetrically positioned speakers as compared to only two. I would guess it is the other way around. Dispersion issues aside (none of which can't be tackled by appropriate tilting and toe-ing) and keeping speakers sufficiently separated to prevent response interferences, the more overhead speakers you put on your ceiling, the better Atmos sound you will get. Simple as that._


----------



## maikeldepotter

audio2xs said:


> The problem with the 4 ceiling speakers is twofold. 1. Finding ceiling speakers with any wider dispersion than 30 degrees is almost impossible, yet the Atmos specs call for 45 degrees from acoustic center (total of 90 degrees) from 100Hz to 10KHz. If you can find them, great, but if you can't, it's a significant issue.





> My suggestion is that 2 ceiling speakers is a better compromise than 4 because of the current lack of wide dispersion ceiling speakers, and the lower dependency on phantom images. I would further suggest that if you want 4 heights, that they be "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers, which at least gets you out of the dispersion problem.


I suppose that if you use aim-able ceiling speakers for the overheads, like most of us seem to be doing/planning to do, the dispersion issue becomes moot?


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Dolby states for the best ATMOS utilization you want to go for a x.x.4 setup verses a x.x.2 setup so that there is more panel of sound above you and so forth but Im very happy with my 5.2.2 setup.


----------



## snyderkv

Mako0312 said:


> Which takes me back to my original question. Is the difference between 5.1.2 vs .4 that big, and how does it compare to 7.1.2/.4.


I asked the same question and a forum member replied with their being a big difference in 3D envelopment using all 4 heights as opposed to two from what he can tell in his setup


----------



## snyderkv

audio2xs said:


> I would further suggest that if you want 4 heights, that they be "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers


This goes against a professional review stating noticeable differences in the Atmos enabled speakers vs ceiling speakers, favoring the ceiling speakers greatly.

All the bro-science in that post just confuses people even more


----------



## Selden Ball

More overheads are better than fewer. It's nice to be able to hear sounds from in front overhead as well as behind, although some of us don't have room for speakers that are very far behind. Dolby's home Atmos specs allow for up to 10 overhead speakers; maybe someday there'll be cost-effective AVRs that support having that many.

Traditional "directional" speaker work fine if your seating area is relatively small (like mine). If you have a larger area to cover, obviously greater dispersion is appropriate. On the other hand, it's no different from the speaker coverage needed for living rooms with seating scattered around the room. People have lived for years with less-than-optimal sound for those who are seated farther away from the axis. That doesn't need to change for overheads.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Mako0312 said:


> Which takes me back to my original question. Is the difference between 5.1.2 vs .4 that big, and how does it compare to 7.1.2/.4.


If going from a 7CH to 9CH setup, adding two more height/ceiling speakers (ie. 5.1.2 --> 5.1.4) is likely to be more beneficial than adding 2 rear speakers (ie. 5.1.2 --> 7.1.2).


----------



## Roger Dressler

audio2xs said:


> I would suggest 5.1.2 or 7.1.2. The problem with x.1.4 systems is that there are no speakers directly overhead, and getting a phantom image directly overhead to work well is a problem, especially in any seats but the MLP.


Happily, even with x.1.2 there are no speakers directly overhead. They are intended to be slightly forward, and of course spread apart. For good reason. A speaker directly overhead is a good way to create annoyance and confusion, as it is not easily located without "doing the doggie" head tilts.


----------



## fredl

Mako0312 said:


> Which takes me back to my original question. Is the difference between 5.1.2 vs .4 that big, and how does it compare to 7.1.2/.4.


I think this thread has de-railed. There is too much speculating and debating from what I like to call desktop-experts. Therefore many attempts to carry on a discussion where you discuss actual experiences of installing and enjoying Atmos enabled equipment gets drowned in the many repeats of recurring themes.

It is hard to give any recommendations without knowing your room layout, listening (and seating habits). For me personally, I have opted to go with a 5.1.2 channel layout. Since I have two rows of seating in my dedicated theater I am actually using 5.3.4 speakers. My four overheads are driven by two channels and are connected in series.

I am the kind of person who likes to think outside the box and experiment. If I like a result I will keep it, if not I will try something else. For example, I am using dipole side surround speakers which is a grave offence according to some.

Atmos has a huge potential for increased immersion and Dolby Surround upmixer increases the immersion from legacy material (with varying degree).


----------



## robert816

Dan Hitchman said:


> The original Atmos demo disc had a folder called AACS. The downloads from the Windows Drive don't include this folder. Could this cause a problem?


I haven't had any problems with playing the disc I created using the existing files as downloaded. All demos have played so far and my Oppo treats it as a Blu-ray disc.

An ISO would have been preferable, but beggars and choosers.

I'll double check the disc I created just to be certain, and how I created it.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

audio2xs said:


> I would suggest 5.1.2 or 7.1.2. The problem with x.1.4 systems is that there are no speakers directly overhead, and getting a phantom image directly overhead to work well is a problem, especially in any seats but the MLP. Now, if I could do 6.1.6 (not currently available in an AVR), I'd like that because I'd have a pair directly overhead, front and rear heights, and and a single back speaker. From there, I'd add L/R wides, again, not on most AVRs. If you stayed with an x.1.2 system, you have lots of AVR choices. Denon has retained Audyssey for all channels, pretty much drives my choice.
> 
> More important, though, would be your choice of height speakers, especially if you end up with an x.1.4 system. Either the "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers (properly located), or some rather special ceiling speakers would be needed. Conventional ceiling speakers don't cut it. Ceiling speaker choices are less critical for an x.1.2 system because you'll be sitting right under the high speakers, which can cover your position well. Timbre matching to the mains would be nice.
> 
> "If you want a sound there, you have to put a speaker there".



well I went from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4...in my x.x.2 setup the speakers were more or less directly verhead (in front of MLP by .5')...going to x.x.4 they becaem in front of me by 3' and behind by 2' (again NOT a big margin by any means)...the result was amazing. the hemisphere of sound became MUCH more engaging and life like...My speakers dont mathc at all (height speakers) they are horn loaded klpsch...and my mains/surrounds are metal dome tweeter PSB imagines) so I have to strongly disagree with almost all you are saying

4 ceiling speakers is MUCH better than 2....and the speakers do NOT need to be identicle and do NOT need to be in perfect position...

so please read through this thread of the many many reviews of people experimenting with all the different layouts and the findings as they are all pretty similar in results...

I MAY agree with you on the in-ceiling speakers though...definitely want to get somthing you can aim the tweeter..at the MLP


----------



## aaranddeeman

audio2xs said:


> The problem with the 4 ceiling speakers is twofold. 1. Finding ceiling speakers with any wider dispersion than 30 degrees is almost impossible, yet the Atmos specs call for 45 degrees from acoustic center (total of 90 degrees) from 100Hz to 10KHz. If you can find them, great, but if you can't, it's a significant issue. 2. With 4 ceilings, the directly-overhead location becomes a phantom image that will "pop" to whatever speaker you are nearest. Unless you have a 1 seat theater, 4 speakers creates the same old problem that we had in the days of "Quad"...a very tiny listening window where everything localizes properly. The exceptions are any object that is sent exactly to one speaker only, but given a 4 ceiling speaker array will always be scaled down from the original 64 speaker mix, it's very unlikely that many objects will ever be targeted for one of the 4 speakers you have. That means that exact localization simply won't happen, and phantom locations between the speakers will simply cluster about the speaker you are closest to. The problem is made much worse by a low ceiling, in fact the higher the ceiling, the better a 4-speaker array would work (which is also why I recommend the Atmos Enabled speakers over ceiling speakers for this kind of speaker plan).
> 
> Using only two directly overhead speakers doesn't solve the problem, but since there are statistically more objects placed overhead than other locations, or at least they will more or less work there, the chances for mislocation caused by proximity to a speaker are greatly reduced. The only phantom imaging would be between the two, which is still a problem (as it is in any two-speaker system), but tolerable.
> 
> Ideally, you want at least 6, with one pair overhead. Of course, the more you have, the less the system depends on phantom images between speakers, and the better localization will be.
> 
> My suggestion is that 2 ceiling speakers is a better compromise than 4 because of the current lack of wide dispersion ceiling speakers, and the lower dependency on phantom images. I would further suggest that if you want 4 heights, that they be "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers, which at least gets you out of the dispersion problem.
> 
> BTW, this is based on listening experience. I couldn't immediately figure out what was wrong with the 4 heights until I thought about it a while. I also can't emphasize enough that having speakers that sound at least similar, if not actual timbre-matched speakers, is fairly important to support the illusion of a full hemispheric soundfield. Radically different sounding heights just separate themselves from the rest of the system, and the illusion is damaged. It's also why I strongly recommend Denon Atmos AVRs because they include full Audyssey for each channel.


Interesting..
So based on this the 7.x.4/5.x.4 may be better served with FH + TM rather than TF + TR. Would that be a fair statement?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
TF + TM is not an allowable configuration, so if TM is desired, only FH or RH is allowed to complete the 4 height speakers.


----------



## aaranddeeman

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> TF + TM is not an allowable configuration, so if TM is desired, only FH or RH is allowed to complete the 4 height speakers.


Sorry. I actually meant TF + TR.


----------



## newfmp3

I don't know. Everything I have read so far says 4 ceiling speakers are far better then 2. Audio2xs opinion seems unique so far. Having no experience with either, I'm still learning.


This thread has gotten to be a mess though. There is more useless jargon then real info. Kind of expected with so many unknowns with Atmos I guess. We are just trying to figure it out still.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

thats why...you should listen to people whoactually have it setup in their homes..me, Keith, batpig etc...

we have tried it all out and have come to the best case scenario of what is available. please try not to listen to those who havent even tried the different setups


----------



## maikeldepotter

Brian Fineberg said:


> thats why...you should listen to people whoactually have it setup in their homes..me, Keith, batpig etc...
> 
> we have tried it all out and have come to the best case scenario of what is available. please try not to listen to those who havent even tried the different setups


Not yet having experimented with Atmos in your own home set-up does not make one's questions and remarks by definition wrong or irrelevant. The latest 'confusion' (2 better than 4 overheads) was actually initiated by one who claims to _have_ tried different set-ups.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

fair enough...but claiming to have tried it and actually doing so and having been activ in this thread since the release of AVR's with atmos are the determinig factor for me.

but ultimatly the persons asking need to try it out themselves if they are non-beleivers of those speaking from experience.

it has been the rare post of somone saying 2 overhead speakrs are better than 4...in fact that logically makes zero sense


----------



## thebland

The thread is a mess because it is all conjecture, theory, and predictions. 

We need a respected user with a high quality set up, Atmos enabled SSP, and test material to do the dirty work.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

that hasalready been done (no need for the ssp really) by a ahndful of folks and they have all reported back the same thing


----------



## audio2xs

maikeldepotter said:


> In addition, I cannot think of one reason why the creation of a centrally positioned phantom image would be performed worse by using four symmetrically positioned speakers as compared to only two. I would guess it is the other way around.


The central phantom image between two speakers only exists for listening positions on a line centered between the speakers perpendicular to the plane of the speakers. Moving the LP off that line causes the image to move towards the nearest speaker. The central phantom image between 4 speakers exists only at a single point equidistant from all of them. Moving away from that point in any direction causes the phantom center image to move towards the nearest speaker. It's one reason Quad didn't make it, but 5.1 did: it uses an actual center speaker that doesn't depend on a phantom image, so an acceptable soundstage occurs over a large area rather than a single point.


maikeldepotter said:


> Dispersion issues aside (none of which can't be tackled by appropriate tilting and toe-ing) and keeping speakers sufficiently separated to prevent response interferences, the more overhead speakers you put on your ceiling, the better Atmos sound you will get. Simple as that.[/I]


I agree in general that more speakers is better, and based on the response to my admittedly rogue post, many may feel x.1.4 is better. However, to my ears, x.1.4 it's only better in one aspect, worse in several others. I really think we need to go above 4 heights. I think there are some issues with the results of Atmos scaling down to a small array from the original 32/64 speaker plan. It's all a compromise, of course. 

I find the WOW factor in Atmos to be a bit overwhelming. We have so little demo/test material, and actually (aside from the "Silent" piece) nothing at all subtle with isolated, steady-state, non-moving objects positioned between speakers. We have a lot of objects crashing, zooming around, and thickly layered mixes, which are very impressive, but not particularly revealing. I don't think there's nearly enough material for anyone to make any decisions about the advantages or disadvantages of a particular speaker array. My comments are based on listening to all the material available, and trying to listen through the "wow" for the precision. So far most judgements (and reviews) are based on Transformers only. I'm not so sure the conclusions well be consistent across all material...unless of course, all Atmos movies are all mixed like Transformers!

Might as well add here: the adjustable tweeter in some ceiling speakers doesn't solve dispersion, it solves aim. Two different issues. It's typically a 15 degree tilt. For Atmos ceiling speakers to work well in all seats, we need careful positioning _and_ 90 degree HF dispersion. So far, no joy on that.


----------



## pasender91

For some time there is a consensus here, confirmed by Dolby officials, that .4 is better than .2 and that direct speakers are better than reflected.

Then comes one post of someone saying otherwise, and it creates havoc !!!
I have nothing personal against audio2xs, but this kind of post is very troubling for someone that may come here for the first time and take his statements as a reference.....

The issue he mentions about angles might be real, but is much better adressed by having the correct speakers with 45° dispersion installed, or with tweeters that can be tilted towards MLP. Recommending .2 or reflective speakers is not beneficial to the community.

I wish there would be a "unlike" button like there is a "like", i would have used it 

[EDIT]: this message was written before latest response from audio2xs, which shows a more balanced content. Aim is related to dispersion, as dispersion is measured FROM the direction the speaker is aimed at ...


----------



## snyderkv

pasender91 said:


> For some time there is a consensus here, confirmed by Dolby officials, that .4 is better than .2 and that direct speakers are better than reflected.
> 
> Then comes one post of someone saying otherwise, and it creates havoc !!!
> I have nothing personal against audio2xs, but this kind of post is very troubling for someone that may come here for the first time and take his statements as a reference.....
> 
> The issue he mentions about angles might be real, but is much better adressed by having the correct speakers with 45° dispersion installed, or with tweeters that can be tilte towards MLP. Recommending .2 or reflective speakers is not beneficial to the community.
> 
> I wish there would be a "unlike" button like there is a "like", i would have used it


Don't forget, they MUST BE TONAL MATCHED. And of course, send your setup to NASA to crunch the azimuth of the speakers to MLP. If it's not perfect, you're going to have serious issues


----------



## Brian Fineberg

use the ATMOS demo disc...its MUCH better at testing speakr positions setup than TF4


----------



## maikeldepotter

audio2xs said:


> Might as well add here: the adjustable tweeter in some ceiling speakers doesn't solve dispersion, it solves aim. Two different issues. It's typically a 15 degree tilt. For Atmos ceiling speakers to work well in all seats, we need careful positioning _and_ 90 degree HF dispersion. So far, no joy on that.


I was referring to on-ceiling speakers that with the appropriate ceiling mounts have no limits to their tilting and toe-ing range. Why would I need 90 degree conical dispersion if all listeners fall within a 60 degree cone of all surround and overhead speakers? (more accurately, about 60 degrees horizontal and about 20 degrees vertical for a typical rectangular bookshelf/ wall/ceiling mountable speaker).

Also, Dolby's guidelines _do_ actually allow overhead speakers with narrower dispersion patterns with the precautions mentioned. So I don't understand making the 90 degrees dispersion thing such a big issue, it isn't.


----------



## dclark

So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.


----------



## Selden Ball

dclark said:


> So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
> Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.


 Any overhead audio can make a difference in your perception of a movie. This includes rain, birds, things falling out of the sky, room ambiance, etc. Of course, what actually plays in the overhead speakers depends on the whims of the people responsible for mixing the audio soundtracks. Only two Atmos BDs are currently available, other than the demo disc, but more are promised.


----------



## philipbtz

People are debating two vs four. I think we need to think outside the box here and look at the problem. If you are not sitting in the sweetspot it doesn't matter if it's two or four speakers - either is NOT enough! Same applies for surrounds.

I have a 5.1 system but have connected three speakers per surround channel so that I have six surround speakers for 5.1(12 Ohm per speaker so in parallell about 4Ohm laod). This way you don't even need object based sound. Channel based is enough. This acutally blows any traditional setup out of the water. Also the speakers are not firing directly at you but they bounce off the cieling instead. 

So my point is why not go for the same principle for the ceiling speakers? You connect three in series or parallell per channel so that you have 6 speakers in the ceiling for a 5.1.2 system. This way the problem with getting direct sound from one speaker is greatly reduced. The trick is to find a really flat speaker with an Ohm-load that is suitable(for celing speakers). 

Just so you get the idea. For a 5.1 setup the right wall would look like this. So imagine the same on the left wall.
i57.tinypic.com/xbbamp.jpg(sorry can't post link since I'm new member. just add http)

Then with atmos 5.1.2 it would look something like this:
i59.tinypic.com/oqc0ev.jpg (sorry can't post link since I'm new member. just add http)

But the height speakers should be more spaced out and placed according to your listening position. Also a difference between the celing speakers and surround would be that the celing speakers can't be bounced off anything so they would have to be direct firing(but in great numbers). 

I think it's pretty stupid idea to have to add lots of extra amps to the recievers just to drive all the extra speakers. 5.1.2 should be enough for most people. Just add MORE speakers per channel. Simple!! Adding more channels only splits the information so it can be send to the other speakers making the reciever more expensive and they compromise on other things becasue of the heat etc. Better to just have a surround left, surround right and one up channel. Then just add 3-4 speakers per channel and you are set!

P.s. same goes for subwoofer..just add 4 subs or whatever to that .1 channel...no need for subwoofers trying to do stereo or whatever..


----------



## audioguy

dclark said:


> So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
> Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.


I will assume this is not a troll post so will try to give an answer. 

Life exits in 3 dimensions. Of all of the demos I saw at CEDIA, by far the most realsitic, impressive and enveloping had no real objects overhead. It was a huge church organ playing in the church. I have listened to every two dimensional surround sound option available (up to 9.2) and not one of them even marginally convinced me I was at the live performance. NONE!. In that organ demo, I was *IN* that church. Stunning. It is that demo and none of the others that convinced me to move toward Atmos/Auro. The reflected sounds of the organ in that church were conveyed so realistically, it was truly breathtaking.

And I would suggest you read some of the posts on what the upconverting did to non-Atmos encoded films where there were not overhead objects.

If I can get 50% in my home of what I heard at CEDIA, I am all over it.

YMMV!!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> Any overhead audio can make a difference in your perception of a movie. This includes rain, birds, things falling out of the sky, room ambiance, etc. Of course, what actually plays in the overhead speakers depends on the whims of the people responsible for mixing the audio soundtracks. Only two Atmos BDs are currently available, other than the demo disc, but more are promised.


In addition to that, objects in an Atmos soundtrack can be placed anywhere in the speaker covered space, and are not limited to overheads. Again, depends on the mixer as to where the objects are being positioned.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

dclark said:


> So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
> Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.


again as already stated...it creates a sound bubble and also allows for objects to be heard in space (i.e. just over your head to the left but not "overhead" and not on your "left") doesn't need to be a helicopter...in fact one of the best uses of DSU i heard was "neighbors" where music was being played at a frat party



Selden Ball said:


> Any overhead audio can make a difference in your perception of a movie. This includes rain, birds, things falling out of the sky, room ambiance, etc. Of course, what actually plays in the overhead speakers depends on the whims of the people responsible for mixing the audio soundtracks. Only two Atmos BDs are currently available, other than the demo disc, but more are promised.


Its MUCH more than the 2 BD out...it literally has made watching my whole collection worth re watching and like a new soundtrack has been mixed...

there should be a sticky explaining all of these misconceptions...


----------



## sdurani

Mako0312 said:


> Is the difference between 5.1.2 vs .4 that big, and how does it compare to 7.1.2/.4.


If you can hear the difference between sounds at your sides and sounds behind you, then having 7 speakers around you will make a difference. Same with the overhead speakers. If you can hear back to front directionality above you, then you'll benefit from 4 speakers overhead.


----------



## sdurani

philipbtz said:


> So my point is why not go for the same principle for the ceiling speakers?


Sending the same sound through an array of speakers would defeat the purpose of Atmos. Atmos was invented to get away from this limitation in commercial cinemas.


----------



## tjenkins95

snyderkv said:


> This goes against a professional review stating noticeable differences in the Atmos enabled speakers vs ceiling speakers, favoring the ceiling speakers greatly.
> 
> All the bro-science in that post just confuses people even more


 
And there are also many people that have indicated that they prefer the Atmos enabled speakers over the ceiling speakers. My ceiling is 7.5' and I have 4 of the Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers and I like them very much. I have no desire to put speakers in my ceiling at this time. 


Ray


----------



## Selden Ball

Brian Fineberg said:


> again as already stated...it creates a sound bubble and also allows for objects to be heard in space (i.e. just over your head to the left but not "overhead" and not on your "left") doesn't need to be a helicopter...in fact one of the best uses of DSU i heard was "neighbors" where music was being played at a frat party
> 
> 
> 
> Its MUCH more than the 2 BD out...it literally has made watching my whole collection worth re watching and like a new soundtrack has been mixed...


\
But that's the new Dolby Surround upmixer, not Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audio2xs said:


> I would suggest 5.1.2 or 7.1.2. The problem with x.1.4 systems is that there are no speakers directly overhead, and getting a phantom image directly overhead to work well is a problem, especially in any seats but the MLP. Now, if I could do 6.1.6 (not currently available in an AVR), I'd like that because I'd have a pair directly overhead, front and rear heights, and and a single back speaker. From there, I'd add L/R wides, again, not on most AVRs. If you stayed with an x.1.2 system, you have lots of AVR choices. Denon has retained Audyssey for all channels, pretty much drives my choice.
> 
> More important, though, would be your choice of height speakers, especially if you end up with an x.1.4 system. Either the "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers (properly located), or some rather special ceiling speakers would be needed. Conventional ceiling speakers don't cut it. Ceiling speaker choices are less critical for an x.1.2 system because you'll be sitting right under the high speakers, which can cover your position well. Timbre matching to the mains would be nice.
> 
> "If you want a sound there, you have to put a speaker there".


There's a problem with having a speaker directly overhead just like there would be one with a speaker directly behind you. The ear/brain "circuitry" can get confused about localizing these sounds. In the Auro3D setup at CEDIA, there were two mono VOG speakers (getting the same signal) above two rows' heads and it hot spotted like crazy, killing the illusion of movement above you in which the heights were doing a pretty good job. I didn't get the same sensation with the Atmos material and Left/Right overhead pairs not directly from above.


----------



## thebland

maikeldepotter said:


> I was referring to on-ceiling speakers that with the appropriate ceiling mounts have no limits to their tilting and toe-ing range. *Why would I need 90 degree conical dispersion if all listeners fall within a 60 degree cone of all surround and overhead speakers?* (more accurately, about 60 degrees horizontal and about 20 degrees vertical for a typical rectangular bookshelf/ wall/ceiling mountable speaker).
> 
> Also, Dolby's guidelines _do_ actually allow overhead speakers with narrower dispersion patterns with the precautions mentioned. So I don't understand making the 90 degrees dispersion thing such a big issue, it isn't.


+1


----------



## Brian Fineberg

tjenkins95 said:


> And there are also many people that have indicated that they prefer the Atmos enabled speakers over the ceiling speakers. My ceiling is 7.5' and I have 4 of the Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers and I like them very much. I have no desire to put speakers in my ceiling at this time.
> 
> 
> Ray


I have only read the opposite...the lack luster results in the atmos enabled speakers...but I have not heard them myself



Selden Ball said:


> \
> But that's the new Dolby Surround upmixer, not Atmos.


yes..but its part of the whole ATMOS experience...and a HUGE perk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dclark said:


> So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
> Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.



Actually, just as in the cinema Dolby Atmos for the home CAN have individually addressable lateral surround speaker "arrays." Currently, you have to have a Trinnov, Steinway, possibly Datasat, etc. processor to get them. So, if you have a movie with little overhead usage, you can still get a lot more pin point sound locations on the lateral plane. 

I find more Atmos mixes use multiple side and rear surrounds than the overheads, so we really need Denon, Yamaha, etc. to step up and release somewhat more reasonable processors that allow for more than one pair of sides and one pair of rears. Maybe even the extra two screen speakers. 

Many of these sound engineers need to go back to mixing school and learn how to effectively use these new tools to their greatest advantage. So many of them seem to be stuck in the traditional 5.1 or 7.1 world of sound design, not 3D audio. That's why there have been so many missed opportunities.


----------



## brwsaw

dclark said:


> So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
> Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.





Selden Ball said:


> Any overhead audio can make a difference in your perception of a movie. This includes rain, birds, things falling out of the sky, room ambiance, etc. Of course, what actually plays in the overhead speakers depends on the whims of the people responsible for mixing the audio soundtracks. Only two Atmos BDs are currently available, other than the demo disc, but more are promised.


Don't forget games...the potential with some is quite large.
I said it already but anyone really wanting to work out their Atmos system should try Tomb Raider the definitive edition. So much rain, caves, rustling leaves, etc. you won't regret it.


----------



## BigScreen

audio2xs said:


> The problem with the 4 ceiling speakers is twofold. 1. Finding ceiling speakers with any wider dispersion than 30 degrees is almost impossible, yet the Atmos specs call for 45 degrees from acoustic center (total of 90 degrees) from 100Hz to 10KHz. If you can find them, great, but if you can't, it's a significant issue. 2. With 4 ceilings, the directly-overhead location becomes a phantom image that will "pop" to whatever speaker you are nearest. Unless you have a 1 seat theater, 4 speakers creates the same old problem that we had in the days of "Quad"...a very tiny listening window where everything localizes properly. The exceptions are any object that is sent exactly to one speaker only, but given a 4 ceiling speaker array will always be scaled down from the original 64 speaker mix, it's very unlikely that many objects will ever be targeted for one of the 4 speakers you have. That means that exact localization simply won't happen, and phantom locations between the speakers will simply cluster about the speaker you are closest to. The problem is made much worse by a low ceiling, in fact the higher the ceiling, the better a 4-speaker array would work (which is also why I recommend the Atmos Enabled speakers over ceiling speakers for this kind of speaker plan).


You say that finding in-ceiling speakers with greater than 30 degree dispersion "is almost impossible" with a degree of certainty that tells me that you have some examples to back that up. Personally, I have looked at quite a few in-ceiling speakers, and have found that very few of them even mention dispersion patterns. Could you tell me the basis for your statement, as I would like to look at the resources you have found. 

Additionally, you later mentioned that pivoting drivers don't solve the dispersion issue. I'm curious about this statement, and I would like to know more. I can see that a speaker with only a pivoting tweeter might continue to have issues with low-frequency disperson, since only the higher frequency driver is changing its orientation. However, we know that sound is more localizable as frequency increases, so having a pivoting tweeter is better than not, if you are not able to position the speaker so that the listening positions are covered by the speaker's standard dispersion pattern. In the case of a speaker like Speakercraft's AIM7, both the woofer and the tweeter can be pivoted independently to fine-tune the direction in which those drivers are firing. Would that not also change the direction of the dispersion pattern of those drivers? 

I understand that their conical dispersion has not changed, but if you can direct the center of that cone towards the listening position, you are achieving the intent of Dolby's specifications, are you not? There is a possible problem of having the ceiling creating reflection points if the dispersion cone hits the ceiling, but I have no way to know if it's possible to hit that boundary at the extreme limit of the pivoting ability of that speaker, for example (no dispersion and aiming information is generally available that I have seen).



audio2xs said:


> Using only two directly overhead speakers doesn't solve the problem, but since there are statistically more objects placed overhead than other locations, or at least they will more or less work there, the chances for mislocation caused by proximity to a speaker are greatly reduced. The only phantom imaging would be between the two, which is still a problem (as it is in any two-speaker system), but tolerable.
> 
> Ideally, you want at least 6, with one pair overhead. Of course, the more you have, the less the system depends on phantom images between speakers, and the better localization will be.
> 
> My suggestion is that 2 ceiling speakers is a better compromise than 4 because of the current lack of wide dispersion ceiling speakers, and the lower dependency on phantom images. I would further suggest that if you want 4 heights, that they be "Atmos Enabled" reflecting speakers, which at least gets you out of the dispersion problem.
> 
> BTW, this is based on listening experience. I couldn't immediately figure out what was wrong with the 4 heights until I thought about it a while. I also can't emphasize enough that having speakers that sound at least similar, if not actual timbre-matched speakers, is fairly important to support the illusion of a full hemispheric soundfield. Radically different sounding heights just separate themselves from the rest of the system, and the illusion is damaged. It's also why I strongly recommend Denon Atmos AVRs because they include full Audyssey for each channel.


I'm confused. You are saying that, based on listening experience, you think that having just two overhead speakers is better than four? This runs counter to the experiences that others have had, but if you've tried it both ways, your opinion is a valid data point to consider along with the other experiences that people have reported. But then you say that 6 speakers are an ideal configuration, with two of them directly overhead. I'm assuming that this is a theory, as no consumer-grade A/V receiver has such a capability, or do you have one of the high-end processors (Trinnov)?

In contrast, I would theorize that having two speakers directly overhead would create an issue of "hot-spotting" due to the likely close proximity of those speakers to the listening position. Their level would have to be turned down so low, as I would imagine their output would be minimal when compared to the other four speakers. Personally, I would see more benefit to having speakers in the FH and RH positions in addition to the TF and TR positions, as more of the gap space between speakers is being filled. Once that is done, then yes, I could see the logic in adding a TM pair, just to fill in that gap (if there is one worth filling).

The real challenge in all of this is the lack of good source material, especially test material. Frequency sweeps, pink/white noise pans through the various channels and around the hemisphere of sound that Atmos is trying to create, etc. are all important to ironing out these types of issues. Until that's possible, all we have is anecdotal evidence and theory. The former is always better than the latter, but it's very slim at this point and those here that have experimented with placement have tweaked their setups based on their experiences. 

That was when I backed away from my original plan of in-ceiling speakers and decided to wait until more real-world testing had been done. I'm not sure that I'll go back to the idea of in-ceiling speakers, even though they are more attractive, and their low-end extension is much better than the on-ceiling products I could realistically install.

At this point in the game, it's very difficult to refer to anything as absolute. I suggest tempering any opinion stated as fact with a recognition that it is based on opinion/theory, with examples to back it up, lest anyone here that hasn't read this long thread of discussion be confused.


----------



## philipbtz

sdurani said:


> Sending the same sound through an array of speakers would defeat the purpose of Atmos. Atmos was invented to get away from this limitation in commercial cinemas.


Even if you're sitting in the sweetspot you'd always need the Atmos system to send the sound object to at least three speakers. So yes I guess Atmos would work if you have A LOT of speakers so that you have an array of speakers for each direction. Having a surround sound comming from only one speaker is *always useless even if you are sitting in sweetspot* . This is because one single sound source cannot create a proper diffuse sound field and you always have a lot of problems with this. 

The limitations of commercial cinemas is **** speakrs that are not setup properly. And 99% of the time the rooms are also really bad aucustically.


----------



## bargervais

snyderkv said:


> Don't forget, they MUST BE TONAL MATCHED. And of course, send your setup to NASA to crunch the azimuth of the speakers to MLP. If it's not perfect, you're going to have serious issues


Totally disagree I agree that the base speakers whether it's 5.1 or 7.1 should be tonal matched especially the front 3 as they do the all the real heavy lifting.... I think the ceiling speakers can be different as Brian pointed out a few posts back


----------



## noah katz

audio2xs said:


> Finding ceiling speakers with any wider dispersion than 30 degrees is almost impossible, yet the Atmos specs call for 45 degrees from acoustic center (total of 90 degrees) from 100Hz to 10KHz.


Not impossible at all; suitable coaxials have been cited in this thread.


----------



## bargervais

dclark said:


> So, if I buy a new atmos equipped receiver, mount four speakers on the ceiling, my reward will be a nice sound effect when I watch a movie that has a helicopter flyover? That's it?
> Seeing how most of what I watch doesn't have helicopter/airplane flyovers (and I bet the demo disc has those), I fail to see the merit.


Well if all you think atmos is just about overhead sound  my experience is that atmos is a more enveloping experience and yes with overhead sounds but it's more then that.... mind you I'm only doing 5.2.2 (with top front ceiling speakers) as that's all I could $pend at this point.
So please if you haven't heard it in your own room it's hard to visualize or dismiss...
I will upgrade my living room set up to 7.2.4 as my first taste has been so good


----------



## sdurani

philipbtz said:


> Even if you're sitting in the sweetspot you'd always need the Atmos system to send the sound object to at least three speakers.


Depending on object size and location, the sound could be sent to a single speaker, both in the commercial and consumer versions of Atmos. I'm not asking you to like it, just explaining what Atmos is. IF you've compared the two and still prefer 5.1 channels arrayed over multiple surrounds, then object-based audio (like Atmos) isn't for you. 

However, trying to convince others to limit their systems to your personal preference isn't going to get much traction (especially in this thread). Many of us have already heard what Atmos is capable of and it's too late to convince us to go back to 5.1 channels (irrespective of how many speakers you use for each channel).


----------



## lenkclt

sdurani said:


> Depending on object size and location, the sound could be sent to a single speaker, both in the commercial and consumer versions of Atmos. I'm not asking you to like it, just explaining what Atmos is. IF you've compared the two and still prefer 5.1 channels arrayed over multiple surrounds, then object-based audio (like Atmos) isn't for you.
> 
> However, trying to convince others to limit their systems to your personal preference isn't going to get much traction (especially in this thread). Many of us have already heard what Atmos is capable of and it's too late to convince us to go back to 5.1 channels (irrespective of how many speakers you use for each channel).


I have a 7.2.4 setup using a Marantz 7009 and Def tech speakers all the way around. The speakers in the ceiling are all 8 inch round Def tech. I am using an Oppo 103 and a Sony 1100es projector. I have a Sunfire 7 channel amp. The 4 ceiling speakers are attached to the 7009 for amplification.

I purchased and watched Step Up All In yesterday evening. The atmos mix appears to be better than the atoms mix on transformers, with much greater ability to hear what makes atmos different from a "regular" 7.1 setup. It also has a neat 15-30 second atmos demonstration just prior to movie startup. 

There difference I would say is with ambient sounds, not just airplanes flying overhead, but trucks driving by or background noise in a factory or a cafe.


----------



## batpig

snyderkv said:


> Don't forget, they MUST BE TONAL MATCHED. And of course, send your setup to NASA to crunch the azimuth of the speakers to MLP. If it's not perfect, you're going to have serious issues





bargervais said:


> Totally disagree I agree that the base speakers whether it's 5.1 or 7.1 should be tonal matched especially the front 3 as they do the all the real heavy lifting.... I think the ceiling speakers can be different as Brian pointed out a few posts back


Bro, you need to work on your sarcasm detector  Wasn't the "send your setup to NASA" enough of a clue?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Depending on object size and location, the sound could be sent to a single speaker, both in the commercial and consumer versions of Atmos. I'm not asking you to like it, just explaining what Atmos is. IF you've compared the two and still prefer 5.1 channels arrayed over multiple surrounds, then object-based audio (like Atmos) isn't for you.
> 
> However, trying to convince others to limit their systems to your personal preference isn't going to get much traction (especially in this thread). Many of us have already heard what Atmos is capable of and it's too late to convince us to go back to 5.1 channels (irrespective of how many speakers you use for each channel).


Well put. 

Although I can sympathize with the concept of using more than one speaker per channel (I am doing a similar thing, but they all are direct firing, and have their own amps), it has little or nothing to do with the way Atmos works and its effects.


----------



## jkasanic

sdurani said:


> Depending on object size and location, the sound could be sent to a single speaker, both in the commercial and consumer versions of Atmos. I'm not asking you to like it, just explaining what Atmos is. IF you've compared the two and still prefer 5.1 channels arrayed over multiple surrounds, then object-based audio (like Atmos) isn't for you.
> 
> However, trying to convince others to limit their systems to your personal preference isn't going to get much traction (especially in this thread). *Many of us have already heard what Atmos is capable of and it's too late to convince us to go back to 5.1 channels (irrespective of how many speakers you use for each channel)*.


Just a point of clarification if I understood the OP correctly. He wasn't necessarily suggesting a return to 5.1 from 5.1.x but rather suggesting that in terms of the overhead layout, an array of 2 channels driven across 3 speakers each "might" be preferable to the current max of 4 speakers considering this limitation on the more affordable Atmos offerings. At the very least, I think it's an interesting concept as one might also consider pairing a set of speakers located in the traditional TF and TM positions with a pair of TR (i.e. send the TF signal to 4 speakers in TF and TM configuration)?! Might be something worth trying for those at least wanting to prewire or install 6 sets of height speakers waiting for the next gen Atmos offerings?


----------



## asarose247

WRT on ceiling, in the .4 flavor, 
in the acoustic treatment master thread, page 351, post 10513 my posted question was mol
on my 8 foot ceiling, with the speakers cl about 4-5 inches below the popcorn, aimed down and toed in for "enery sharing" across the MLP
inside that 7 foot square, the "open" space is an irregular octagon with 4 sides being about 5 + feet, the front sides and rear edges, 
the other 4 sides cut across the faces of aimed speakers about 3+ feet in length,
so, given my well anchored trestle speaker suspension, adding a supportive grid isn't the challenge
the current hairbrained scheme is trying to figure out IF I need to/should install so kind of "treatment" in that 4-5" above the speakers gap, say maybe 2" oc 703 or 3" roxul, with a bit of air gap behind it, to Primarily mitigate the co-mingling of ceiling reflections, both HF and maybe some broadband and 
get more sound directed down into the ATMOS/DSU "bubble" caressing me at the MLP
ok I got that out.
so obviously my first failure here is lack of a clear understanding if "excessive" reflections by the TOPS in such close proximity to each other is a problem that needs "solving".


how would I start ?
(as I yet DO NOT have an ATMOS AVR, that's a good start, so $hit Sherlock, but that's a part of the answer that goes away by writing a check . . . simple... if I can make up my mind)
so looking forward to insight to part 2.


any input suggestions, sarcasm, flaming etc. its all good . . .


thank you


----------



## sdurani

jkasanic said:


> He wasn't necessarily suggesting a return to 5.1 from 5.1.x but rather suggesting that in terms of the overhead layout, an array of 2 channels driven across 3 speakers each "might" be preferable to the current max of 4 speakers considering this limitation on the more affordable Atmos offerings.


My mistake, thanx for clarifying. The point about arrays still stands, since that is the limitation that Atmos was invented to overcome in order to have more precise localization.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Bro, you need to work on your sarcasm detector  Wasn't the "send your setup to NASA" enough of a clue?


Sorry my sarcasm detector was off when I read that oops


----------



## audio2xs

pasender91 said:


> For some time there is a consensus here, confirmed by Dolby officials, that .4 is better than .2 and that direct speakers are better than reflected.
> 
> Then comes one post of someone saying otherwise, and it creates havoc !!!
> I have nothing personal against audio2xs, but this kind of post is very troubling for someone that may come here for the first time and take his statements as a reference.....


Sorry to be so troubling. 

However, if anyone uses a forum as a "reference", they've already made a critical error. What's being expressed here is opinion, and discussion of opinion. No forum, including AVS, should be considered as a reference source. I even include my one opinions in that.


----------



## audio2xs

thebland said:


> The thread is a mess because it is all conjecture, theory, and predictions.
> 
> We need a respected user with a high quality set up, Atmos enabled SSP, and test material to do the dirty work.


Even if you did, what you'd have is, again and still, opinion. As someone who has tried it, I gave mine. Seems to have bothered some. But we don't have even enough test material to verify any of this, so it's ALL conjecture, even from those of us who have had hands-on.


----------



## audio2xs

sdurani said:


> Sending the same sound through an array of speakers would defeat the purpose of Atmos. Atmos was invented to get away from this limitation in commercial cinemas.


...and it does in commercial cinemas with a lot of speakers. Our problem in the home is, not enough speakers. Do objects end up as phantoms between what speakers we have, or are the forced to a location they weren't intended for? The point is, phantom images don't work well. Hence the discussion of how many speakers and where.


----------



## audio2xs

maikeldepotter said:


> I was referring to on-ceiling speakers that with the appropriate ceiling mounts have no limits to their tilting and toe-ing range. Why would I need 90 degree conical dispersion if all listeners fall within a 60 degree cone of all surround and overhead speakers?


 Exactly. On-ceiling speakers the ability to aim would be fine. 


maikeldepotter said:


> Also, Dolby's guidelines _do_ actually allow overhead speakers with narrower dispersion patterns with the precautions mentioned. So I don't understand making the 90 degrees dispersion thing such a big issue, it isn't.


Dolby makes this point in "Home Theater Installation Guidelines", Sept. 2014, page 8, "Mounting Considerations:
_If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45
degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10
kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For
speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements
should be angled toward the primary listening position.
_
If you use in-ceiling speakers pointing straight down, you need the +/- 45 degrees. If not, and you can aim them, and you can hit all the LPs within the dispersion of the speaker, you're good. The glitch is, people assuming that you can use any ceiling speaker, or any speaker of unknown HF dispersion. Most have dispersion angles of 30 degrees above 5Khz, but if specified at all, dispersion is usually quoted mid-band, and often comes up at 90 degrees. You need a set of polars to see the real story. 



maikeldepotter said:


> (more accurately, about 60 degrees horizontal and about 20 degrees vertical for a typical rectangular bookshelf/ wall/ceiling mountable speaker).


Those would be something like THX Ultra2 speakers. Typical dispersion for bookshelves is conical, narrowing as frequency goes up, to something tighter than 30 degrees at 10KHz.


----------



## muad'dib

I have my setup in a room where unfortunately my couch is on back wall. 
Wondering if someone with different layout testing can help. 
I have 2 side speakers mounted to sides of couch about 1.5 feet ahead of couch instead of located right to sides as couch is on back wall. 
Back speakers are mounted near ceiling at each end of listening area, on back wall. 
Now with this said, 
Would a 5.1.4 setup with using front height speakers near ceiling on front wall, and use my back speakers as top middle, or 5.1.4 setup with trying to get front height speakers moved closer to couch. Maybe 3.5 feet in front mounted to ceiling as top front and using back speakers at top rear? 
Thanks


----------



## maikeldepotter

audio2xs said:


> Those would be something like THX Ultra2 speakers. Typical dispersion for bookshelves is conical, narrowing as frequency goes up, to something tighter than 30 degrees at 10KHz.


You seem to be more knowledgeable than me. I have always thought that upstanding speakers were radiating more horizontally than vertically. Do you by any chance happen to know the dispersion characteristics of the Dynaudio Contour SR, or how I could get information on that?


----------



## thestoneman

I want to pause all the geeky Atmos talk and just say I am giddy as hell knowing I'm about 3 weeks away from sitting down and watching Transformers in Atmos. For those that have experienced Atmos in their homes...is this going to be friggin sick??

I'll note that I am coming from a 50" 720p plasma with no soundbar to a 120" scope screen, Epson 6030 through a Panamorph UH480 and 7.2.4 via Denon X5200 and Emotiva amplification sitting on Fusion seats with Aura butt kickers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^

Wow! Now _that's_ an upgrade!


----------



## sdurani

audio2xs said:


> The point is, phantom images don't work well. Hence the discussion of how many speakers and where.


The problem isn't solved by sending the same sound to multiple speakers (array), since it will blur imaging, not stabilize it.


----------



## batpig

thestoneman said:


> I want to pause all the geeky Atmos talk and just say I am giddy as hell knowing I'm about 3 weeks away from sitting down and watching Transformers in Atmos. For those that have experienced Atmos in their homes...is this going to be friggin sick??
> 
> I'll note that I am coming from a 50" 720p plasma with no soundbar to a 120" scope screen, Epson 6030 through a Panamorph UH480 and 7.2.4 via Denon X5200 and Emotiva amplification sitting on Fusion seats with Aura butt kickers.


As long as you don't pay attention to the dialogue and story it will be friggin sick 

You should be aware though that TF4 doesn't have a ton of overhead content, so just be aware that nothing is wrong if you aren't hearing insane overhead effects. The soundtrack though is pretty sick overall, it will be a real workout for the low frequency portion of your system!


----------



## thestoneman

batpig said:


> As long as you don't pay attention to the dialogue and story it will be friggin sick


It can't be worse than Step it Up.


----------



## Jive Turkey

thestoneman said:


> It can't be worse than Step it Up.


 
The Redbox rental is Plain Jane Dolby Prologic. I only rented it to listen to some more Atmos recordings.

Five minutes in on a random chapter, I hit the eject button. Without the Atmos track to demo on my system, the crap factor creeped in quick.

Maybe I should thank someone for not putting Atmos on the rental. I really don't want to try sitting through this one.


----------



## philipbtz

sdurani said:


> Depending on object size and location, the sound could be sent to a single speaker, both in the commercial and consumer versions of Atmos. I'm not asking you to like it, just explaining what Atmos is. IF you've compared the two and still prefer 5.1 channels arrayed over multiple surrounds, then object-based audio (like Atmos) isn't for you.
> 
> However, trying to convince others to limit their systems to your personal preference isn't going to get much traction (especially in this thread). Many of us have already heard what Atmos is capable of and it's too late to convince us to go back to 5.1 channels (irrespective of how many speakers you use for each channel).


First of all I don't get how my suggestion would limit a persons system? All I'm saying is that if you run Atmos and find it distrubing that a speaker above you is taking you out of the action this is worth a shot. How could more speakers be worse for surround? I'm not saying run a 5.1 system I'm saying whatever you are running try to run it with more speakers per channel.

Don't get me wrong I love the idea of developing the surround format but sometimes it feels like they haven't thought a few things through. Since I know how massive of a difference multiple surround speakers per channel can make I just want to put the idea out there. Even though I'm only using 5.1 at the moment(with two subs) my six surround speakers really put me in a "bubble" with good surround mixes - in mutiple seating positions. This is just not possible with the traditional setup. 

That said, I am upgrading to Atmos as soon as it has matured a bit but until then I want to try and solve the ploblem with only having two or four speakers in the ceiling. To me the difference between the 5.1.2 setup and the 5.1.4 setup is like the difference between 5.1 and 7.1. You are putting a couple of more speakers in place. I do get that Atmos brings a lot more to the table, the fact that you can send an object to any given speaker och speakers is cool. But in a lot of situations I don't think(in theory) that the result will be that good unless you connect more speakers per channel. As soon as an ambient noise comes from only one speaker directly above you the bubble is lost. My suggestion is for those people who might want to try something new or don't want to spend the cash on a more expensive reciever.


----------



## audio2xs

BigScreen said:


> You say that finding in-ceiling speakers with greater than 30 degree dispersion "is almost impossible" with a degree of certainty that tells me that you have some examples to back that up. Personally, I have looked at quite a few in-ceiling speakers, and have found that very few of them even mention dispersion patterns. Could you tell me the basis for your statement, as I would like to look at the resources you have found.


 Sure, but quoting references would be difficult, and this answer probably won't satisfy you. My research has been over several decades searching for wide dispersion ceiling speakers for commercial sound applications. In commercial sound, having wide dispersion over full bandwidth is important to reducing speaker count in music-quality systems. I don't have data in any publishable form, but what I tripped over is the basic physics involved in producing a wide range of wavelengths with a single size diaphragm. To simplify, you can get reasonable dispersion if the diaphragm diameter is some fraction of a wavelength, but when the diaphragm becomes many wavelengths in diameter, it beams quite badly, obviously transitioning between those two extremes. Commercial ceiling speakers have reference data with a set of polar plots, and most have the dispersion of a can light. So, that took me outside the commercial sound market to survey the CI market. I found the same situation, perhaps a little worse. Having no time or resources to fully test speakers, I've been doing "pattern walk" of speakers of all kinds for many years. The results: wide band, wide dispersion is very difficult to do, and hard to find. And, almost universally, you don't get full bandwidth over much more than 30 degrees. One good reference is the off-axis response plots found at Madisound for tweeters. Some have plots at 15 degrees and 30 degrees. Try to find a flat one! And they don't use those kinds of tweeters in ceiling speakers. You have to do something "special" to the HF driver to keep it dispersed over high frequencies, and that "special" bit takes money and room, not usually going to happen.


BigScreen said:


> Additionally, you later mentioned that pivoting drivers don't solve the dispersion issue. I'm curious about this statement, and I would like to know more. I can see that a speaker with only a pivoting tweeter might continue to have issues with low-frequency disperson, since only the higher frequency driver is changing its orientation. However, we know that sound is more localizable as frequency increases, so having a pivoting tweeter is better than not, if you are not able to position the speaker so that the listening positions are covered by the speaker's standard dispersion pattern. In the case of a speaker like Speakercraft's AIM7, both the woofer and the tweeter can be pivoted independently to fine-tune the direction in which those drivers are firing. Would that not also change the direction of the dispersion pattern of those drivers?
> 
> I understand that their conical dispersion has not changed, but if you can direct the center of that cone towards the listening position, you are achieving the intent of Dolby's specifications, are you not? There is a possible problem of having the ceiling creating reflection points if the dispersion cone hits the ceiling, but I have no way to know if it's possible to hit that boundary at the extreme limit of the pivoting ability of that speaker, for example (no dispersion and aiming information is generally available that I have seen).


 Change the direction of the beam, yes, change the width of the beam, no. Pivoting tweeters usually move no more than 15 degrees. If you can hit all your LPs by doing that, great, but you probably can't, especially from a low-ish ceiling. It's still like trying to light a room evenly with a flashlight. OK, maybe not quite that bad.


BigScreen said:


> I'm confused. You are saying that, based on listening experience, you think that having just two overhead speakers is better than four? This runs counter to the experiences that others have had, but if you've tried it both ways, your opinion is a valid data point to consider along with the other experiences that people have reported. But then you say that 6 speakers are an ideal configuration, with two of them directly overhead. I'm assuming that this is a theory, as no consumer-grade A/V receiver has such a capability, or do you have one of the high-end processors (Trinnov)?


 I have not tried the 6 configuration, but my experience with 4 and 2 has lead me to think 6 would be a closer match to the theatrical experience. I find there are advantages to the x.1.2 over the x.1.4, and vice-versa, but those advantages may become more obvious if we had better test material. x.1.4 shines in the current demo material, but I feel there is a very imprecise nature to how objects localize overhead. I'm not sure how much of that will be important in the average Atmos mix...that's the real unknown.


BigScreen said:


> In contrast, I would theorize that having two speakers directly overhead would create an issue of "hot-spotting" due to the likely close proximity of those speakers to the listening position. Their level would have to be turned down so low, as I would imagine their output would be minimal when compared to the other four speakers. Personally, I would see more benefit to having speakers in the FH and RH positions in addition to the TF and TR positions, as more of the gap space between speakers is being filled. Once that is done, then yes, I could see the logic in adding a TM pair, just to fill in that gap (if there is one worth filling).


The limited speaker count is always a compromise at home, it's a question of which compromise we like. 


BigScreen said:


> The real challenge in all of this is the lack of good source material, especially test material. Frequency sweeps, pink/white noise pans through the various channels and around the hemisphere of sound that Atmos is trying to create, etc. are all important to ironing out these types of issues. Until that's possible, all we have is anecdotal evidence and theory. The former is always better than the latter, but it's very slim at this point and those here that have experimented with placement have tweaked their setups based on their experiences.


I'm just waiting for more movies! I don't need test tones at this point, I'll assume Atmos can achieve adequate channel separation.


----------



## audio2xs

sdurani said:


> The problem isn't solved by sending the same sound to multiple speakers (array), since it will blur imaging, not stabilize it.


Agreed, definitely. Adding more speakers reduces the area required for phantom images, though, since you have more actual speakers to play to.


----------



## SubSolar

So does the Hercules Blu-Ray not have Atmos?


----------



## thestoneman

SubSolar said:


> So does the Hercules Blu-Ray not have Atmos?


This I will watch...Step it Up? Not a chance. 

I've been on Amazon looking at the Atmos titles and I'm afraid to buy them without the Atmos mix. I'm wondering myself how to verify.


----------



## Jive Turkey

SubSolar said:


> So does the Hercules Blu-Ray not have Atmos?


It does not.


----------



## sdurani

philipbtz said:


> How could more speakers be worse for surround?


Not a question of better or worse, but what Atmos is trying to do. A subtle diffusion filter on a camera lens is helpful to a portrait photographer but defeats the purpose of a reconnaissance camera on a spy plane. 

Likewise, if you want the entire left wall to light up like a big diffuse wall of sound, then placing a few speakers there and feeding them the same signal will accomplish that. Atmos is attempting to place sounds at specific locations on that wall. You can keep the same speaker configuration, but Atmos will feed each one a separate signal. That specificity is at odds with array-based playback. Not better or worse, just not what Atmos is trying to do. 

Earlier you said: _"I have a 5.1 system but have connected three speakers per surround channel so that I have six surround speakers for 5.1(12 Ohm per speaker so in parallell about 4Ohm laod). This way you don't even need object based sound. Channel based is enough."_ 

What you describe is how movies are currently played back in most theatres, with each surround channel being sent to an array of surround speakers. That is what Atmos is trying to get away from by using object-based audio. Applying that to Atmos would undermine one of the main reasons it was invented.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

philipbtz said:


> First of all I don't get how my suggestion would limit a persons system? All I'm saying is that if you run Atmos and find it distributing that a speaker above you is taking you out of the action this is worth a shot. How could more speakers be worse for surround? I'm not saying run a 5.1 system I'm saying whatever you are running try to run it with more speakers per channel.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I love the idea of developing the surround format but sometimes it feels like they haven't thought a few things through. Since I know how massive of a difference multiple surround speakers per channel can make I just want to put the idea out there. Even though I'm only using 5.1 at the moment(with two subs) my six surround speakers really put me in a "bubble" with good surround mixes - in multiple seating positions. This is just not possible with the traditional setup.
> 
> That said, I am upgrading to Atmos as soon as it has matured a bit but until then I want to try and solve the problem with only having two or four speakers in the ceiling. To me the difference between the 5.1.2 setup and the 5.1.4 setup is like the difference between 5.1 and 7.1. You are putting a couple of more speakers in place. I do get that Atmos brings a lot more to the table, the fact that you can send an object to any given speaker och speakers is cool. But in a lot of situations I don't think(in theory) that the result will be that good unless you connect more speakers per channel. As soon as an ambient noise comes from only one speaker directly above you the bubble is lost. My suggestion is for those people who might want to try something new or don't want to spend the cash on a more expensive receiver.


I think you're confusing channel arrays (in traditional theaters one bank of surrounds got all the same sounds and music cues depending on where they were placed in the channel-based 5.1 or 7.1 mix) with object pan-through arrays, like with Dolby Atmos and DTS MDA, where each one of those individual speakers can be fed a distinct sound effect, music instrument, or dialog track. This creates a whole new type of pin point precision in the surround sound field. Now, for some of the ambiance or background music score where the mixer just wants a diffuse bubble of sound, they can still tell the entire array of speakers to produce the same sound. 

Since consumer Atmos can still give you a pan through array for the screen wall, side walls, rear walls, and overheads like in the cinema version, albeit at a somewhat smaller speaker count, you can get the same effect. It's only the "normal" consumer gear that is a limitation. Trinnov and other high end companies will allow for most or all of the 24.1.10 at home configuration. And with your speaker setup, that's what you would need to purchase right now... just so long as you have each of the surrounds wired separately, so they can be fed like they were individual channels.


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> The thread is a mess because it is all conjecture, theory, and predictions.
> 
> *We need a respected user with a high quality set up, Atmos enabled SSP*, and test material to do the dirty work.


You Jeff? ...Roger? ...Keith? 

The most elaborate and high-end setup is yours Jeff. 

Then Roger would be a second best bet.

And Keith is the DS up-mixer expert. ...Film's excerpts.


----------



## dclark

Selden Ball said:


> Any overhead audio can make a difference in your perception of a movie. This includes rain, birds, things falling out of the sky, room ambiance, etc. Of course, what actually plays in the overhead speakers depends on the whims of the people responsible for mixing the audio soundtracks. Only two Atmos BDs are currently available, other than the demo disc, but more are promised.


Few sounds come from the sky. For example, rain doesn't make a sound until it hits the ground.
Outside aircraft and as you mentioned- birds, what else is there? Room ambience? If you have 7.1 or 11.1, some of that sound will inevitably bounce off the ceiling.I think it a hard stretch that the ceiling speakers will see a lot of action and if they do, it will sound contrived.


----------



## noah katz

audio2xs said:


> My research has been over several decades searching for wide dispersion ceiling speakers for commercial sound applications...And, almost universally, you don't get full bandwidth over much more than 30 degrees.


What about coaxials, like this one for example file:///C:/Users/admin/Documents/8FCX51.pdf

-6 dB at +/-45 deg up to 13 kHz.

The off-axis attenuation for most of the midrange and treble is a benefit rather than a liability if the speakers can be crossfired, as it will minimize SPL variation across the listening area.


----------



## tjenkins95

dclark said:


> Few sounds come from the sky. For example, rain doesn't make a sound until it hits the ground.
> Outside aircraft and as you mentioned- birds, what else is there? Room ambience? If you have 7.1 or 11.1, some of that sound will inevitably bounce off the ceiling.I think it a hard stretch that the ceiling speakers will see a lot of action and if they do, it will sound contrived.


 


Have you been to any Atmos theaters to experience Atmos movies like The Maze Runner or Godzilla or Dawn of the Planet of the Apes? 


Ray


----------



## kokishin

noah katz said:


> What about coaxials, like this one for example file:///C:/Users/admin/Documents/8FCX51.pdf
> 
> -6 dB at +/-45 deg up to 13 kHz.
> 
> The off-axis attenuation for most of the midrange and treble is a benefit rather than a liability if the speakers can be crossfired, as it will minimize SPL variation across the listening area.



Noah,

For some reason, I could not access your C: drive. I'm fairly sure it would be an interesting read. 

Try this link instead: www.bcspeakers.com/products/coaxial/8-0/8fcx51.pdf


----------



## jlanzy

audio2xs said:


> Exactly. On-ceiling speakers the ability to aim would be fine.
> 
> Dolby makes this point in "Home Theater Installation Guidelines", Sept. 2014, page 8, "Mounting Considerations:
> _If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45_
> _degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10_
> _kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For_
> _speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements_
> _should be angled toward the primary listening position._
> 
> If you use in-ceiling speakers pointing straight down, you need the +/- 45 degrees. If not, and you can aim them, and you can hit all the LPs within the dispersion of the speaker, you're good. The glitch is, people assuming that you can use any ceiling speaker, or any speaker of unknown HF dispersion. Most have dispersion angles of 30 degrees above 5Khz, but if specified at all, dispersion is usually quoted mid-band, and often comes up at 90 degrees. You need a set of polars to see the real story.
> 
> 
> Those would be something like THX Ultra2 speakers. Typical dispersion for bookshelves is conical, narrowing as frequency goes up, to something tighter than 30 degrees at 10KHz.



Do ribbon tweeters, such as GoldenEar's, have a wider dispersion than cone tweeters? I was considering the GoldenEar Subsat 3 for the 4 on-ceiling atmos speakers.


----------



## noah katz

kokishin said:


> Noah,
> 
> For some reason, I could not access your C: drive. I'm fairly sure it would be an interesting read.
> 
> Try this link instead: www.bcspeakers.com/products/coaxial/8-0/8fcx51.pdf


That URL caught my eye too, but if I paste it in it works; must be B&C's C drive.


----------



## audio2xs

dclark said:


> Few sounds come from the sky. For example, rain doesn't make a sound until it hits the ground.


Except in an environment like a rainforest or jungle canopy, and then there's the thunder...


dclark said:


> Outside aircraft and as you mentioned- birds, what else is there? Room ambience?


Rainforest or jungle canopy, reflections and reverb from huge hard ceilings like museums and tombs, thunder, starship ambience, almost any kind of military conflict, engine rooms, airports, tunnels, subways, handball courts, wind in the pines, waterfalls, audiences in the upper balcony, and so on.


dclark said:


> If you have 7.1 or 11.1, some of that sound will inevitably bounce off the ceiling.


Except that the precedence (Haas) effect will have you localize the source speakers not the reflection, because the direct sound will get to your ears first and at a higher SPL. 


dclark said:


> I think it a hard stretch that the ceiling speakers will see a lot of action and if they do, it will sound contrived.


Any mix can sound contrived. Some of the multi-channel music remixes are just stupid. But it provides the creators a broader palette, the tools with which they can immerse the audience, if appropriate. It will be used, and abused, just like 3D, early color, all forms of surround sound, wide aspect ratios, etc., until content creators settle in on just how to use the new palette to support the plot, and not call attention to the tech. 3D has pretty much always failed at that, but current surround formats do quite well, and color is now a given. You don't see garish costumes and sets anymore, and there's no longer a "Technicolor Consultant". It's settled in, and now works pretty well. Same for 5.1. In fact, mono sounds wrong now, as does 2 channel stereo sound for picture. 

I'm confident and hopeful the new immersive technology will succeed.


----------



## audio2xs

jlanzy said:


> Do ribbon tweeters, such as GoldenEar's, have a wider dispersion than cone tweeters? I was considering the GoldenEar Subsat 3 for the 4 on-ceiling atmos speakers.


Some of the widest dispersion tweets are ribbons, but there is a range, some do narrow up quite a bit, but the basic concept seems to work well for wide dispersion.


----------



## audio2xs

kokishin said:


> Noah,
> 
> For some reason, I could not access your C: drive. I'm fairly sure it would be an interesting read.
> 
> Try this link instead: www.bcspeakers.com/products/coaxial/8-0/8fcx51.pdf


Not bad, not fantastic either.


----------



## kokishin

noah katz said:


> That URL caught my eye too, but if I paste it in it works; must be B&C's C drive.


Nope. You're pulling the pdf off your system.


----------



## kokishin

audio2xs said:


> Not bad, not fantastic either.


I have no skin in the game regarding that speaker. I was just helping Noah out by posting a link that works.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

philipbtz said:


> That said, I am upgrading to Atmos as soon as it has matured a bit but until then I want to try and solve the ploblem with only having two or four speakers in the ceiling. To me the difference between the 5.1.2 setup and the 5.1.4 setup is like the difference between 5.1 and 7.1. You are putting a couple of more speakers in place. I do get that Atmos brings a lot more to the table, the fact that you can send an object to any given speaker och speakers is cool. But in a lot of situations I don't think(in theory) that the result will be that good unless you connect more speakers per channel. As soon as an ambient noise comes from only one speaker directly above you the bubble is lost. My suggestion is for those people who might want to try something new or don't want to spend the cash on a more expensive reciever.


What you get with .4 as opposed to .2 is panning from rear to front... trust me you'd notice the difference. Same thing with 7 vs 5... I hear a lot of panning from rears to fronts, for Atmos it does make a big difference... & I've only heard about 10 min worth of Atmos content on my setup so far


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dclark said:


> Few sounds come from the sky. For example, rain doesn't make a sound until it hits the ground.
> Outside aircraft and as you mentioned- birds, what else is there? Room ambience? If you have 7.1 or 11.1, some of that sound will inevitably bounce off the ceiling.I think it a hard stretch that the ceiling speakers will see a lot of action and if they do, it will sound contrived.


In the film "into the storm" there were a few scenes where water hit the ceiling overhead. It sounded incredible. Even though the movie was awful... I'd consider buying the bd just to hear those sounds at home. 

I only have upmixed content so far, and do hear a lot of stuff overhead (except for dolby demo disc, I hear plenty of overhead action).

One example... and any of you who have the Star Wars OT bluray & Atmos receiver should try this... check out the scene in ROTJ when Emperor Palpatine lands on the Death Star & meets with Darth Vader. Guess what appears in the ceiling speakers? Tie fighters! I didn't even know those sounds were in that scene to begin with. That was pretty cool to hear


----------



## noah katz

audio2xs said:


> Some of the widest dispersion tweets are ribbons...


Only in one axis, unless they're tiny, and then they're not very useful for HT.


----------



## philipbtz

Aras_Volodka said:


> What you get with .4 as opposed to .2 is panning from rear to front... trust me you'd notice the difference. Same thing with 7 vs 5... I hear a lot of panning from rears to fronts, for Atmos it does make a big difference... & I've only heard about 10 min worth of Atmos content on my setup so far


Good point. Maybe I have go for .4 and settle with 2 speakers/channel in the celing. I think 8 would be enough..
Due to limitations to my room at the moment it would not be worth going up to a 7.1 from my current 5.1 but when I get a better room maybe a 7.1.4 would be in order. I would want to test what you're saying anyway.


----------



## thebland

NorthSky said:


> You Jeff? ...Roger? ...Keith?
> 
> The most elaborate and high-end setup is yours Jeff.
> 
> Then Roger would be a second best bet.
> 
> And Keith is the DS up-mixer expert. ...Film's excerpts.


Yes I am ready to try out Atmos with 6 heights... But Q1 for Atmos update on my DATASAT. 

I'm looking for perhaps for someone who gets something going. Trinnovs are soon to be arriving


----------



## Gurba

My 4 surrounds are mounted on the walls all the way up to the ceiling. Will roofmounted atmos-speakers still have an effec? Maybe only front roof speakers will have the desired effect?


----------



## Nightlord

jlanzy said:


> Do ribbon tweeters, such as GoldenEar's, have a wider dispersion than cone tweeters? I was considering the GoldenEar Subsat 3 for the 4 on-ceiling atmos speakers.


Only in one dimension, they can be quite beaming in the other. Like in some Apogees, if you stood up and got your ear above the speaker - treble "disappeared".


----------



## robert816

Dan Hitchman said:


> The original Atmos demo disc had a folder called AACS. The downloads from the Windows Drive don't include this folder. Could this cause a problem?


Dan,

Sorry for the late post, I double checked and no, missing the AACS folder did not affect my creating or playing back the disc. Again, burn as a Blu-Ray data disc, not a BDMV, that gave me trouble.

The only thing I left out depending on your Blu-Ray burning software is to make certain you finalize the disc.

Other than that, burn and enjoy!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Gurba said:


> My 4 surrounds are mounted on the walls all the way up to the ceiling. Will roofmounted atmos-speakers still have an effec? Maybe only front roof speakers will have the desired effect?



most likely no. there wont be enough seperation from your surrounds.

I found the biggest improvement with atmos was when I dropped my surrounds about 1'


----------



## tjenkins95

I would like to refer back to another post and I don't know how to add a link to another post. Could someone tell me how to do that?


Thanks.


Ray


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Sure. Click on the post number of the post you want to link to (upper right of post) and copy the URL at the top of the page and paste it into your post. 

This links to your post ---> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-434.html#post28829530


----------



## tjenkins95

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Sure. Click on the post number of the post you want to link to (upper right of post) and copy the URL at the top of the page and paste it into your post.
> 
> This links to your post ---> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-434.html#post28829530


 


Thanks!!


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> I have only read the opposite...the lack luster results in the atmos enabled speakers...but I have not heard them myself


 
According to the Dolby Atmos documentation certain types of rooms benefit from the up firing speakers.
I believe that when they are setup correctly they sound great. I made my final decision on puchasing the Andrew Jones (Pioneer) Dolby Atmos speakers after watching his video with Scott Wilkinsen; after reading Keith's reviews; and also because FilmMixer was buying the same set and he likes his!
Plus I did not want to mount ceiling speakers.  


Keith's articles on his Dolby Atmos experiences in two London demos can be found here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-140.html#post26586857
There are a couple of other links in his article pertaining to other reviews.


Ray


----------



## Brian Fineberg

nice! Im glad it has worked...forgive me I only read negative reviews of enabled speakers...

it definitly is a great option for those that dont want/cant have ceiling speakers


----------



## chi_guy50

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks!!


Or, even quicker, right-click on the post number, select "Copy Link Location" and then paste that into your post. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-31.html#post28829042


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Same number of clicks either way.


----------



## jkasanic

Brian Fineberg said:


> nice! Im glad it has worked...forgive me I only read negative reviews of enabled speakers...
> 
> it definitly is a great option for those that dont want/cant have ceiling speakers


You should also remember that Keith reported _most_ listeners actually preferred the upfiring speakers to the in-ceiling speakers in his Dolby demos. Of course, there could be other factors involved (e.g. dispersion characteristics of the in-ceiling speakers and the fact that they were pointed straight down similar to the other Dolby demos) but I think the significant point here (as you mentioned) is that Dolby has delivered an in-home Atmos experience that doesn't require any holes in the ceiling thus broadening the appeal of Atmos over competing formats.


----------



## batpig

Brian Fineberg said:


> nice! Im glad it has worked...forgive me I only read negative reviews of enabled speakers...
> 
> it definitly is a great option for those that dont want/cant have ceiling speakers


The unifying factor in the lackluster reviews has been either (1) the Def Tech A60 modules and/or (2) poorly executed demos at Best Buy. 

I think it's just that the A60s kind of suck. And none of the nicer options are available so far besides the AJ Pio speakers which have been well received. I can't imagine somebody dropping $1k on four of those A60 modules and ending up happy. 

I have been very happy with using my "fake" modules since returning the A60s. I would prefer physical ceiling speakers but thats not happening in my current place. I think the state of affairs will improv for people with nicer setups once the higher fidelity modules like the Atlantic Tech and KEF options are available.


----------



## jkasanic

batpig said:


> The unifying factor in the lackluster reviews has been either (1) the Def Tech A60 modules and/or (2) poorly executed demos at Best Buy.
> 
> I think it's just that the A60s kind of suck. And none of the nicer options are available so far besides the AJ Pio speakers which have been well received. I can't imagine somebody dropping $1k on four of those A60 modules and ending up happy.


Great points on the bad reviews of the upfiring modules.


----------



## Gurba

Brian Fineberg said:


> most likely no. there wont be enough seperation from your surrounds.
> 
> I found the biggest improvement with atmos was when I dropped my surrounds about 1'


I won't be able to drop my sides but my rears can be dropped. I might loose the sides and use the dropped rears only for a 5.1.4.


----------



## tjenkins95

batpig said:


> The unifying factor in the lackluster reviews has been either (1) the Def Tech A60 modules and/or (2) poorly executed demos at Best Buy.
> 
> I think it's just that the A60s kind of suck. And none of the nicer options are available so far besides the AJ Pio speakers which have been well received. I can't imagine somebody dropping $1k on four of those A60 modules and ending up happy.
> 
> I have been very happy with using my "fake" modules since returning the A60s. I would prefer physical ceiling speakers but thats not happening in my current place. I think the state of affairs will improv for people with nicer setups once the higher fidelity modules like the Atlantic Tech and KEF options are available.


I have spoken directly to Atlantic Tech concerning their new Atmos speakers and they have stated that they perform very well. Their customer service is amazing compared to the very poor support I have received from Pioneer. My first set of 5.1 home theater speakers was the "System 370" from Atlantic Tech back in 1999. I purchased them when I was living in Washington, DC at a MyerEmco store. After moving back to RI in 2004, I went to visit Atlantic Tech in Norwood, MA. I picked up 2 more speakers to upgrade to a 7.1 system. Great bunch of people working there!
When I decided to upgrade my HT, my Tweeter salesman recommended I get a set of Klipsch speakers. So I did. I gave my Atlantic Techs to a buddy of mine. After setting up the new Klispch and watching movies and TV, I was like "What the heck did I just do?!?!?"  It took me a few weeks to get used to the horns! Now, after a few years, I went out and purchased the Pioneers but I'm not getting rid of the Klipsch so quickly. 


Ray


----------



## jlanzy

Nightlord said:


> Only in one dimension, they can be quite beaming in the other. Like in some Apogees, if you stood up and got your ear above the speaker - treble "disappeared".


Well that certainly won't work for Atmos. Since I don't want to put speakers in the ceiling and the in-ceiling coaxial design seems most suited , perhaps I can make make a simple enclosure for an in-ceiling speaker and mount it on the ceiling.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Unless the English audio tracks are different in Europe and the UK from the U.S. release, _How to Train Your Dragon 2_ has a DTS-MA 7.1 track. No Atmos. No Auro3D. No DTS MDA. 

Another disappointing missed opportunity.  I'm beginning to think 2014 is going to end up being a bust for 3D audio's debut.

Is it remotely possible that some of these studios are holding off until 4k Blu-ray in late 2015 or early 2016 in order to have another "must have" feature as an enticement?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

tjenkins95 said:


> I have spoken directly to Atlantic Tech concerning their new Atmos speakers and they have stated that they perform very well. Their customer service is amazing compared to the very poor support I have received from Pioneer. My first set of 5.1 home theater speakers was the "System 370" from Atlantic Tech back in 1999. I purchased them when I was living in Washington, DC at a MyerEmco store. After moving back to RI in 2004, I went to visit Atlantic Tech in Norwood, MA. I picked up 2 more speakers to upgrade to a 7.1 system. Great bunch of people working there!
> When I decided to upgrade my HT, my Tweeter salesman recommended I get a set of Klipsch speakers. So I did. I gave my Atlantic Techs to a buddy of mine. After setting up the new Klispch and watching movies and TV, I was like "What the heck did I just do?!?!?"  It took me a few weeks to get used to the horns! Now, after a few years, I went out and purchased the Pioneers but I'm not getting rid of the Klipsch so quickly.
> 
> 
> Ray


I gotta come by to check out the enabled speaker setup! Im curious now :O)


----------



## bargervais

jkasanic said:


> Great points on the bad reviews of the upfiring modules.





lenkclt said:


> I have a 7.2.4 setup using a Marantz 7009 and Def tech speakers all the way around. The speakers in the ceiling are all 8 inch round Def tech. I am using an Oppo 103 and a Sony 1100es projector. I have a Sunfire 7 channel amp. The 4 ceiling speakers are attached to the 7009 for amplification.
> 
> I purchased and watched Step Up All In yesterday evening. The atmos mix appears to be better than the atoms mix on transformers, with much greater ability to hear what makes atmos different from a "regular" 7.1 setup. It also has a neat 15-30 second atmos demonstration just prior to movie startup.
> 
> There difference I would say is with ambient sounds, not just airplanes flying overhead, but trucks driving by or background noise in a factory or a cafe.


I swore I was not going to purchase this blu-ray step up all in but I found myself at BB this morning with the disc in my hand at checkout 
I must have had a weak moment what I'll do the hear Atmos LOL
I know this is a different animal compared to transformers 4 but let's hope I'll enjoy the sound track.... I'll give it a listen tonight when I get home..


----------



## Brian Fineberg

bargervais said:


> I swore I was not going to purchase this blu-ray step up all in but I found myself at BB this morning with the disc in my hand at checkout
> I must have had a weak moment what I'll do the hear Atmos LOL
> I know this is a different animal compared to transformers 4 but let's hope I'll enjoy the sound track.... I'll give it a listen tonight when I get home..


lmfao I can relate...I had it in my hand as well...but the little angel on my shoulder won this time...if you report its great then i will have to buy one for the "wife" yeah thats it the wife...thats the ticket!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

_Gravity _is getting a re-release in WB's Diamond-Luxe series in early 2015... _in_ _Dolby Atmos this time???

_I would actually break down and buy this less than stellar sci-fi flick just for the amazing Atmos track.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Gravity _is getting a re-release in WB's Diamond-Luxe series in early 2015... _in_ _Dolby Atmos this time???
> 
> _I would actually break down and buy this less than stellar sci-fi flick just for the amazing Atmos track.


 another thirty buck$... do they think we are made of money next thing it will be avatar so I can have a forth copy of it... I love being milked


----------



## brwsaw

We have the option to stop buying...
What are they thinking? Greed and Streaming is going to completely ruin physical sales.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Gravity _is getting a re-release in WB's Diamond-Luxe series in early 2015... _in_ _Dolby Atmos this time???
> 
> _I would actually break down and buy this less than stellar sci-fi flick just for the amazing Atmos track.


where is this info?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Gravity _is getting a re-release in WB's Diamond-Luxe series in early 2015... _in_ _Dolby Atmos this time???
> 
> _I would actually break down and buy this less than stellar sci-fi flick just for the amazing Atmos track.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

philipbtz said:


> Good point. Maybe I have go for .4 and settle with 2 speakers/channel in the celing. I think 8 would be enough..
> Due to limitations to my room at the moment it would not be worth going up to a 7.1 from my current 5.1 but when I get a better room maybe a 7.1.4 would be in order. I would want to test what you're saying anyway.


Is your couch up against the back wall or is the room too narrow? My room is very narrow, so I could just barely squeeze in the 7.1.4 setup... the surrounds are a little bit too close sometimes but having speakers in the rear just adds so much to the dimension of the sound. I might be a little too adamant that others get 7.1.4 (haha).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Gravity _is getting a re-release in WB's Diamond-Luxe series in early 2015... _in_ _Dolby Atmos this time???
> 
> _I would actually break down and buy this less than stellar sci-fi flick just for the amazing Atmos track.


Haha same here. Is Diamond-Luxe one of the distributors releasing Atmos BD's? 

It seems like another week is going by without any Atmos BD announcements... I hope something cool is announced soon.


----------



## mumbleypeg

asoofi1 said:


> I think it will happen much faster...there's just too much competition and market share to not offer the most value. I'm thinking since 7.1 is alread so common under 1k, this could be the sweet spot for consumers, hence maybe manufacturers might focus on this cash cow segment to push av's even more...for instance, the htib market has great margins and those are mostly 7.1 currently...might be natural to add 4 satellite speakers. In contrast, anyone adding just 2 overheads/reflective won't be cost effective because a competitor will offer 4 for a few dollars more and consumers will likely just buy that...and sellers will upsell it as well.
> 
> The used market is directly effected by the prices of new units, so they'll certainly go down respectively. Even though I'm skipping out the freshman atmos av's...I might pick up a used one in a few months to scratch the itch and save money. Waste of money to buy new one right now if you want 9.x.4. I've already seen open box and used 7.1.4/9.1.2 av's selling for $400-$500 off new pricing.


DenonAVR-X4100 is going for $1050 shipped right now!


----------



## mumbleypeg

bargervais said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVR-X41...ie=UTF8&qid=1414849391&sr=1-1&keywords=x4100w
> Is this a good deal or should I wait a month or two for prices to drop a little more.


Better deal:
http://www.eastcoasttvs.com/Denon-Receiver-p/avrx4100w.htm


----------



## bargervais

I purchased this blu-ray step up all in.... I think the only reason that they put atmos on this disc was too help its sales... one thing I hate more then a musical are all these competition flicks... who are these targeted towards.
I got home from work popped it in started watching it I must say that there is a lot going on in my ceiling speakers, but I also thought that about transformers, but I had to cut my viewing short as my wife came home... I didn't want to get caught watching this thing. That said I hope I'll enjoy the turtle movie when it comes out with atmos (not)....
So my conclusion is if you like dancing this ones for you for twenty dollars I gave it a shot.


----------



## bargervais

mumbleypeg said:


> DenonAVR-X4100 is going for $1050 shipped right now!


X5200W for $1500 very tempting I'm waiting till after thanksgiving to see what happens with pricing..
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00MJ9K6IG/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> where is this info?


Blu-ray.com via Warner Home Video

Release date: Feb. 10, 2015. 

2 Disc Diamond Luxe "Special Edition."


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha same here. Is Diamond-Luxe one of the distributors releasing Atmos BD's?
> 
> It seems like another week is going by without any Atmos BD announcements... I hope something cool is announced soon.


Diamond Luxe is the silly name Warner Home Video came out for their "super deluxe" edition packaging.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I only see five classic titles being released as diamond luxe. Gravity isn't one


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> I only see five classic titles being released as diamond luxe. Gravity isn't one


It's a future release for next year. The five have already been put into circulation. I'm wondering if WHV will finally use this opportunity to release the Atmos track, which won two Oscars by the way.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Gotcha


----------



## Al Sherwood

mumbleypeg said:


> DenonAVR-X4100 is going for $1050 shipped right now!





bargervais said:


> X5200W for $1500 very tempting I'm waiting till after thanksgiving to see what happens with pricing..
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00MJ9K6IG/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used



Wow, that is a lot of used units for sale, I would thought with nothing 'new' to challenge the features these units have there would only be new available?


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> Wow, that is a lot of used units for sale, I would thought with nothing 'new' to challenge the features these units have there would only be new available?


I see a lot of this on Amazon people buying and returning just to test things out with Amazon's great return policy.... which I think some take advantage of, hence a lot of used stuff in inventory.


----------



## zeus33

bargervais said:


> X5200W for $1500 very tempting I'm waiting till after thanksgiving to see what happens with pricing..
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00MJ9K6IG/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used



I know you said you were waiting, but contact JD @avs. That price is not good for a used unit.


----------



## Jive Turkey

bargervais said:


> I see a lot of this on Amazon people buying and returning just to test things out with Amazon's great return policy.... which I think some take advantage of, hence a lot of used stuff in inventory.


I think Costco tightened up their return policy a bit, though it's still a bit generous, for that reason. A lot of TV's coming back after the Super Bowl was over type of thing.


----------



## HT-Eman

Speaker placement video from Onkyo .....


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> I see a lot of this on Amazon people buying and returning just to test things out with Amazon's great return policy.... which I think some take advantage of, hence a lot of used stuff in inventory.





Jive Turkey said:


> I think Costco tightened up their return policy a bit, though it's still a bit generous, for that reason. A lot of TV's coming back after the Super Bowl was over type of thing.


Yes, people taking advantage of this is what ruins it for those that could really use it. It is a good thing that Costco changed their policy, no company should have to put up with that abuse, IMHO somewhere along the line good old honesty was lost, replaced by 'it doesn't hurt to try' and 'if you don't get caught, you did nothing wrong'...


----------



## asoofi1

mumbleypeg said:


> Better deal:
> http://www.eastcoasttvs.com/Denon-Receiver-p/avrx4100w.htm


I've heard some bait and switch stories about east coast ...becareful. Only buy from an authorized dealer listed on manufacturer website.


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> Gotcha


 

*Gravity (2013) - Diamond Luxe Edition - February 10, 2015* 


Here's the link:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369



Ray


----------



## kingwiggi

bargervais said:


> X5200W for $1500 very tempting I'm waiting till after thanksgiving to see what happens with pricing..
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00MJ9K6IG/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used


I can't speak for all of those sellers but I purchased my 5200 from IQ and whilst it was listed as used I received a brand new unit. At that time I believe the 5200 had only been available for 2-3 weeks so I was expecting it to be new.

I've seen this done before, its just a way of internet sellers staying under the manufacturers radar by discounting units further than they are suppose to. Purchased my projector in exactly the same way. (A bit like add item to cart to see the price ploy)

YMMV


----------



## ambesolman

tjenkins95 said:


> *Gravity (2013) - Diamond Luxe Edition - February 10, 2015*
> 
> 
> Here's the link:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369
> 
> 
> 
> Ray



What's the Silent Space cut?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## nirvy111

Just hooked up 5.1.4 running upmixed Dolby Surround, so far I have mixed feelings about it. It's definitely more room filling but I'm not sure I like it that much, I feel like it's creating too much sound actually, maybe a simpler setup 5.1.2 might be more to my liking. I'm kind of glad now that I got the Denon 4100 and not the 5200. I having tried any native Dolby Atmos movies yet so maybe I'll be more impressed with that.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

nirvy111 said:


> Just hooked up 5.1.4 running upmixed Dolby Surround, so far I have mixed feelings about it. It's definitely more room filling but I'm not sure I like it that much, I feel like it's creating too much sound actually, maybe a simpler setup 5.1.2 might be more to my liking. I'm kind of glad now that I got the Denon 4100 and not the 5200. I having tried any native Dolby Atmos movies yet so maybe I'll be more impressed with that.


Well easy test just turn off two of your speakers and let us know what you think, Im currently on 5.1.2 and as mentioned many times already, Im loving it. 

Watching Apollo 13 as I type this and it sound fantastic.


----------



## audio2xs

noah katz said:


> Only in one axis, unless they're tiny, and then they're not very useful for HT.


Exactly, which kinda takes them out of the running for ceiling speakers.


----------



## audioguy

nirvy111 said:


> Just hooked up 5.1.4 running upmixed Dolby Surround, so far I have mixed feelings about it. It's definitely more room filling but I'm not sure I like it that much, I feel like it's creating too much sound actually, maybe a simpler setup 5.1.2 might be more to my liking. I'm kind of glad now that I got the Denon 4100 and not the 5200. I having tried any native Dolby Atmos movies yet so maybe I'll be more impressed with that.


That's a first. How large is your room? Ceiling height? Have you carefully checked the trim levels of all of your speakers, particularly the ceiling speakers?

If those are all good, maybe 3D sound just isn't your deal! Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Aliens

I have a Def Tech 7.1 system, with the sub being the exception, so when the "boss" gives me the word, these Def Tech DI 6.5R will be my choice for in-ceiling speakers. 

_With a pivoting 1" Pure Aluminum dome tweeter featuring a specially shaped housing that avoids the diffraction distortions of traditional post-mounted tweeters, and a sophisticated adjustable crossover network, the Disappearing In-Wall models deliver the kind of lifelike sonic performance and broad even dispersion that have made Definitive Technology the most highly reviewed speaker brand in the USA._
_
With in-ceiling speakers, listeners are almost always "off-axis." You rarely sit right under an in-ceiling speaker; usually the speaker is at a 30, 45 or even 60-degree angle to the listener. We've engineered DI Series speakers to disperse sound over a very wide area so that the sound is well-balance and natural regardless of where you are relative to the speakers. BDSS technology drivers, aimable tweeters as well as the specially countoured and textured AeroRing™ around the driver all contribute to the wide angle dispersion and superior coverage capability of the DI Series models._


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> I gotta come by to check out the enabled speaker setup! Im curious now :O)


 
I will let you know when I have everything setup - still need to get reflective ceiling panels installed to get the Atmos bounce in my HT room!


----------



## nirvy111

audioguy said:


> That's a first. How large is your room? Ceiling height? Have you carefully checked the trim levels of all of your speakers, particularly the ceiling speakers?
> 
> If those are all good, maybe 3D sound just isn't your deal! Nothing wrong with that.


 
I'm still experimenting, but so far I'm not liking Dolby surround up-mixing that much. I tested the four ceiling speakers and surround speakers individually with a number of movie scenes to get an idea of what they actually do and how they compare. What I found is the ceiling speakers produce a lot of ambient sounds and music which is often constant and I find doesn't really add anything positive to the mix, the ceiling speakers also place sounds incorrectly. For example in a scene I was testing in Oblivion, gun fire was coming out of the rear ceiling speakers when it should only be coming from the front. When I listened to the rear surrounds there was no gun fire, this is just one example of Dolby surround adding sound where it shouldn't be and in my opinion lessening the sound. I think native Dolby Atmos will get it right and be much better but I haven't tried it yet.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

to play devils advocate:

I think testing by shutting off some speakers has flaws to it.

You cannot tell what content comes out of those speakers in ADDITION to other speakers result will be by doing such. If gun fire from overhead speakers PLUS from the mains are played together maybe the effect will be a sound from a certain position in space? (just a guess)

I fully respect your thoughts on DSU (albeit the exception) as it may not be for everyone.


----------



## hexcode99

I have a question about the Dolby Surround Upmixer that comes with Atmos.
Can that only be used for upmixing to an atmos speaker setup or can it also be used for upmixing stereo or 5.1 to traditional 7.1 speaker config?


----------



## Selden Ball

hexcode99 said:


> I have a question about the Dolby Surround Upmixer that comes with Atmos.
> Can that only be used for upmixing to an atmos speaker setup or can it also be used for upmixing stereo or 5.1 to traditional 7.1 speaker config?


The new Dolby Surround upmixer works whenever the incoming soundtrack has fewer channels than the number of speakers you have. It's part of the Atmos package, but works separately from it, but, unlike Atmos, does not require the presence of overhead speakers.


----------



## audioguy

Brian Fineberg said:


> to play devils advocate:
> 
> *I think testing by shutting off some speakers has flaws to it.
> 
> You cannot tell what content comes out of those speakers in ADDITION to other speakers result will be by doing such. If gun fire from overhead speakers PLUS from the mains are played together maybe the effect will be a sound from a certain position in space?* (just a guess)
> 
> I fully respect your thoughts on DSU (albeit the exception) as it may not be for everyone.


Excellent point!!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

HT-Eman said:


> Speaker placement video from Onkyo ..... http://youtu.be/orkz0nplRoM


Onkyo's interpretation of Atmos if you have have two rows of seats looks quite interesting as it allows speakers between aisles which is ideal for my set up, so of course I like it 

With a single speaker in between the two rows, it looks like bi-pole speakers could work there quite well, or perhaps multiple side surrounds. I wonder if anyone is in a position to try those choices and let us know how it sounds.

I've also just found this in the Dolby Atmos at Home pdf:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html



Dolby said:


> Left and Right Surround Speakers
> 
> Surround speakers create a lifelike sense of spaciousness, providing ambient sound within movies. Place them slightly to the rear of and angled toward your seating position,* ideally just above ear level*.


Bolding is mine. If you look at the pdf and click the '+' sign by the speakers, that's the text that comes up.

Gary


----------



## chi_guy50

nirvy111 said:


> I'm still experimenting, but so far I'm not liking Dolby surround up-mixing that much. I tested the four ceiling speakers and surround speakers individually with a number of movie scenes to get an idea of what they actually do and how they compare. What I found is the ceiling speakers produce a lot of ambient sounds and music which is often constant and I find doesn't really add anything positive to the mix, the ceiling speakers also place sounds incorrectly. For example in a scene I was testing in Oblivion, gun fire was coming out of the rear ceiling speakers when it should only be coming from the front. When I listened to the rear surrounds there was no gun fire, this is just one example of Dolby surround adding sound where it shouldn't be and in my opinion lessening the sound. I think native Dolby Atmos will get it right and be much better but I haven't tried it yet.


This could be a question of personal taste or, perhaps, one movie (Oblivion) with a soundtrack that doesn't upmix well in DSU (I haven't tried it yet myself). BTW, if you were not watching it on DVD/Blu-ray, it could be an issue with the audio as transmitted by the source.

But given the strong, veritably uniform consensus here and elsewhere that DSU performs admirably, I would suspect that there is something in your system's set-up that is not quite right. You might want to investigate by troubleshooting the AVR, speakers and connections to verify whether there is an issue inhibiting the proper DSU-upmixed output.

For my part, I prefer DTS Neo:X 11.1 for music, but DSU is my default surround mode for all video sources and I am highly pleased with the results.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> What's the Silent Space cut?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


No music.


----------



## bsoko2

chi_guy50 said:


> This could be a question of personal taste or, perhaps, one movie (Oblivion) with a soundtrack that doesn't upmix well in DSU (I haven't tried it yet myself). BTW, if you were not watching it on DVD/Blu-ray, it could be an issue with the audio as transmitted by the source.
> 
> But given the strong, veritably uniform consensus here and elsewhere that DSU performs admirably, I would suspect that there is something in your system's set-up that is not quite right. You might want to investigate by troubleshooting the AVR, speakers and connections to verify whether there is an issue inhibiting the proper DSU-upmixed output.
> 
> For my part, I prefer DTS Neo:X 11.1 for music, but DSU is my default surround mode for all video sources and I am highly pleased with the results.



Ditto! My HT room is fully treated and when we ran REW it showed that my optimum crossover is 50 Hz. Due to my room treatments and with Audyssey EQ on, the audio output from all channels was too flat and background bass was hardly present unless I cranked up the bass. I run my speakers with a 80 Hz crossover and no Audyssey EQ on. Now movies are dynamic and full with LFE upped +3 db. Happy camper now!


----------



## smurraybhm

chi_guy50 said:


> This could be a question of personal taste or, perhaps, one movie (Oblivion) with a soundtrack that doesn't upmix well in DSU (I haven't tried it yet myself). BTW, if you were not watching it on DVD/Blu-ray, it could be an issue with the audio as transmitted by the source.
> 
> But given the strong, veritably uniform consensus here and elsewhere that DSU performs admirably, I would suspect that there is something in your system's set-up that is not quite right. You might want to investigate by troubleshooting the AVR, speakers and connections to verify whether there is an issue inhibiting the proper DSU-upmixed output.
> 
> For my part, I prefer DTS Neo:X 11.1 for music, but DSU is my default surround mode for all video sources and I am highly pleased with the results.


Oblivion is a reference disk for how well Dolby Surround performs. Numerous posts on this thread and the Denon to that fact - at least with all but one of us 
I agree about the need to ensure proper setup, its easy to miss a step and one should always check behind Audyssey's settings.


----------



## robert816

smurraybhm said:


> Oblivion is a reference disk for how well Dolby Surround performs. Numerous posts on this thread and the Denon to that fact - at least with all but one of us
> I agree about the need to ensure proper setup, its easy to miss a step and one should always check behind Audyssey's settings.


I'll have to give it a try.


Been using DSU on my Xbox 360 and with some games it really fills the room with sound.


I'm thinking of trying Iron Man 3, should be a lot of surround in that one.


----------



## noah katz

nirvy111 said:


> I...the ceiling speakers also place sounds incorrectly...


Perhaps the below from the 7702 thread is relevant.



Roger Dressler said:


> ...Set the speakers to Atmos, 7.4, 4 tops. Ran the test tones to set the levels, all normal except the rear top signal came out both front/rear at same time. Played some Atmos test tones and they came out correctly...





shoresidehd said:


> yes same thing happened to me. I used dolby atmos amp assignment and got sound out both front and rear at the same time during test tone. Did it twice same thing happen. Then i switch to 11.1 and that worked.


----------



## RRF743

Has anyone updated their Yamaha RX-A3040 with the 1.60 version? Firmware came out yesterday for Dolby Atmos. I bought the Denon X5200W three weeks ago. I was too impatient. I'm a Yammy fan but couldn't hold out. I lowered my surrounds, installed in-ceiling speakers and had nightmares of Yammy coming out with their update on Dec. 31st! I was wrong! I must say I'm very happy with the Denon. The only complaint I have is when you program your Quick Select settings, it doesn't store the dolby surround setting automatically when putting in a bluray for upmixing. You have to press the "movie mode" button and select Multi + dolby surround. Just wondering if the yammy stores this in their "Scene Modes" so you don't have to press extra buttons to get the ceiling channels to play.


----------



## chi_guy50

RRF743 said:


> Has anyone updated their Yamaha RX-A3040 with the 1.60 version? Firmware came out yesterday for Dolby Atmos. I bought the Denon X5200W three weeks ago. I was too impatient. I'm a Yammy fan but couldn't hold out. I lowered my surrounds, installed in-ceiling speakers and had nightmares of Yammy coming out with their update on Dec. 31st! I was wrong! I must say I'm very happy with the Denon. *The only complaint I have is when you program your Quick Select settings, it doesn't store the dolby surround setting automatically when putting in a bluray for upmixing.* You have to press the "movie mode" button and select Multi + dolby surround. Just wondering if the yammy stores this in their "Scene Modes" so you don't have to press extra buttons to get the ceiling channels to play.


Actually, it does (see the below extract of QS settings from p. 158 of the user's manual). But in operation it can be tricky, especially when the disk's main menu is in a different audio format from the recording on it. Also, IIRC, the surround mode is memorized IAW the input source's format (i.e., separately for stereo, 5.1, 7.1, etc.). I'm not up on exactly how it works, but it does work.


----------



## wse

tjenkins95 said:


> *Gravity (2013) - Diamond Luxe Edition - February 10, 2015* Here's the link: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369 Ray


I will wait until it is in the discount bin at $5! I can't stand that movie hearing Bullocks moan and cry for two hours no thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> I will wait until it is in the discount bin at $5! I can't stand that movie hearing Bullocks moan and cry for two hours no thanks


You keep saying this. You obviously have not seen the movie.


----------



## nucky

RRF743 said:


> Has anyone updated their Yamaha RX-A3040 with the 1.60 version? Firmware came out yesterday for Dolby Atmos. I bought the Denon X5200W three weeks ago. I was too impatient. I'm a Yammy fan but couldn't hold out. I lowered my surrounds, installed in-ceiling speakers and had nightmares of Yammy coming out with their update on Dec. 31st! I was wrong! I must say I'm very happy with the Denon. The only complaint I have is when you program your Quick Select settings, it doesn't store the dolby surround setting automatically when putting in a bluray for upmixing. You have to press the "movie mode" button and select Multi + dolby surround. Just wondering if the yammy stores this in their "Scene Modes" so you don't have to press extra buttons to get the ceiling channels to play.


You don't have to keep pressing the button all the time when you want to use DSU, just press movie once and it will remember that setting.


----------



## tjenkins95

wse said:


> I will wait until it is in the discount bin at $5! I can't stand that movie hearing Bullocks moan and cry for two hours no thanks


First of all, I posted the link for another member who couldn't find it.


And seriously, the movie only won 198 awards including 7 Academy Awards for:

Best Achievement in Cinematography
Best Achievement in Directing
Best Achievement in Film Editing
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Best Achievement in Visual Effects


so I know what you mean. 
I won't watch anything unless it wins at least 8 Oscars!!


----------



## Keith Mickunas

tjenkins95 said:


> First of all, I posted the link for another member who couldn't find it.
> 
> 
> And seriously, the movie only won 198 awards including 7 Academy Awards for:
> 
> Best Achievement in Cinematography
> Best Achievement in Directing
> Best Achievement in Film Editing
> Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
> Best Achievement in Sound Editing
> Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
> Best Achievement in Visual Effects
> 
> 
> so I know what you mean.
> I won't watch anything unless it wins at least 8 Oscars!!


I gotta back wse up on this. It may have been well executed, but it was just so stupid. So far-fetched, so ridiculous. Not Transformers bad, but it was pretty close.


----------



## batpig

nucky said:


> You don't have to keep pressing the button all the time when you want to use DSU, just press movie once and it will remember that setting.


But he is using Quick Selects -- they override whatever is memorized for "auto surround mode" and revert back to whatever is memorized for the Quick Select memory bank.

Chi_guy is probably correct in his inference about what went wrong (e.g. maybe he memorized the QS during the previews when the surround mode was DOLBY SURROUND with a 2ch input). If he makes sure to rememorize the Quick Select during the actual playback of the movie it should hold the setting next time.


----------



## ahmedreda

So no 3D video.. Sorry, this is more important in my book than Atmos. 


tjenkins95 said:


> *Gravity (2013) - Diamond Luxe Edition - February 10, 2015*
> 
> 
> Here's the link:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369
> 
> 
> 
> Ray


----------



## Daniel Chaves

tjenkins95 said:


> First of all, I posted the link for another member who couldn't find it.
> 
> 
> And seriously, the movie only won 198 awards including 7 Academy Awards for:
> 
> Best Achievement in Cinematography
> Best Achievement in Directing
> Best Achievement in Film Editing
> Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
> Best Achievement in Sound Editing
> Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
> Best Achievement in Visual Effects
> 
> 
> so I know what you mean.
> I won't watch anything unless it wins at least 8 Oscars!!


Awards dont represent a movies quality, especially from something that has been rigged since almost the beginning... and come on you cant be that blind to see how bunk some of the awards that movie won compared to the movies it was up against... if Clooney and Bullock (Poster Children of Hollywood) were not in that movie, it would have been a whole different story... So yeah it was a pretty bad movie overall, with a crap story line and just when it started to get interesting the credits begin to roll... ~_~


----------



## asoofi1

Gravity was an awesome movie imo. It has to be enjoyed on a big screen with big sound. To me, it was good storytelling all around. Great flow and timing. 

The amount of work that goes into producing and directing such an amazing piece of work is no small feet. I really appreciate it more for these reasons.

Now, TF4 has tons of work put into it, but that's a perfect example of bad storytelling, bad script, and bad acting. But lots of great special effects...but this was a chore for me to watch. Mindless fun.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> You keep saying this. You obviously have not seen the movie.


It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


----------



## asoofi1

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing for 90 minutes.


Movies are like music...everyone's got diff tastes...

Some people like the suspense and no no no no's in a movie....and some like the rejected baby baby baby why why why you do me wrong in a jazz song...


----------



## kokishin

asoofi1 said:


> Gravity was an awesome movie imo. It has to be enjoyed on a big screen with big sound. To me, it was good storytelling all around. Great flow and timing.
> 
> The amount of work that goes into producing and directing such an amazing piece of work is no small feet. I really appreciate it more for these reasons.
> 
> Now, TF4 has tons of work put into it, but that's a perfect example of bad storytelling, bad script, and bad acting. But lots of great special effects...but this was a chore for me to watch. Mindless fun.


The Producers and Director should be happy to know they have no small feet.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


But @ the end, she landed on a beach, Earth.  ...Coming from the lake. ...And the space above.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


More accurate description.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I've also just found this in the Dolby Atmos at Home pdf:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> Left and Right Surround Speakers
> 
> Surround speakers create a lifelike sense of spaciousness, providing ambient sound within movies. Place them slightly to the rear of and angled toward your seating position, *ideally just above ear level*.


While it is not yet clear how much angular elevation would still be considered 'just above', this recommendation is in clear contradiction to the one in Dolby's Atmos Home Theater Guidelines, to put all listeners speakers *at ear level*. Apparently not so important after all? Which would be good news for those that do not like lowering their surrounds. Putting overheads at a lateral elevation of minimal 60 degrees, allows surrounds to be put up as high as 30 degrees according to the Atmos theatrical guidelines.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Hi Maikel,

That was what surprised me too. Until I saw that I was looking at having my speakers at ear height but slightly in front or behind the seats so that they weren't blocked by other peoples heads in the row. As you say, it's quite different to what we've been hearing and this seems a relaxation.

Atmos does seem to be changing as we go along, and maybe its because the more people play with it (including Dolby), the more they find things continue to work. I wouldn't be surprised if bi-poles start to be considered for side surrounds again too, especially after seeing Onkyos take on two rows of seating.

Gary


----------



## maikeldepotter

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Atmos does seem to be changing as we go along, and maybe its because the more people play with it (including Dolby), the more they find things continue to work.
> Gary


Maybe the current 'no fly zones' for overheads (the elevation ranges 55-65 and 100-125 degrees) will turn out to be too restrictive as well. I kind of like the concept of putting the Top-Front and Top-Rear pairs at 60 and 120 degrees vertical elevation. Together with a 60 degrees lateral elevation, this distributes all speakers evenly over the listening area being a half hemisphere. I cannot think of one reason why that would not work out ideally for Atmos.


----------



## tjenkins95

Daniel Chaves said:


> Awards dont represent a movies quality, especially from something that has been rigged since almost the beginning... and come on you cant be that blind to see how bunk some of the awards that movie won compared to the movies it was up against... if Clooney and Bullock (Poster Children of Hollywood) were not in that movie, it would have been a whole different story... So yeah it was a pretty bad movie overall, with a crap story line and just when it started to get interesting the credits begin to roll... ~_~


Yes everyone has their own tastes and I respect that but if you actually saw the movie in a real movie theater, then I am surprised that you would question the technical awards that it won. The sound and visuals were stunning. The movie was technically superior to the other movies I saw that year. And Sandra Bullock did not win Best Actress and rightfully so and Gravity did not win Best Picture either. When I watched it in my home theater I did not have the same experience as I did in the theater. If it gets released on blu-ray in Dolby Atmos then maybe other people can experience how great it sounded. 


And for the record, I am not a big Sandra Bullock fan - her voice drives me crazy.

As to the record of what real viewers thought - and I am referring to those who watched the movie in a movie theater - Rotten Tomatoes has the numbers.
81% of the audience liked it and the movie recieved a 97% overall rating from 295 of 305 reviewers.


Ray


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

maikeldepotter said:


> Maybe the current 'no fly zones' for overheads (the elevation ranges 55-65 and 100-125 degrees) will turn out to be too restrictive as well. I kind of like the concept of putting the Top-Front and Top-Rear pairs at 60 and 120 degrees vertical elevation. Together with a 60 degrees lateral elevation, this distributes all speakers evenly over the listening area being a half hemisphere. I cannot think of one reason why that would not work out ideally for Atmos.


I had a similar conversation with a dealer friend of mine who has Atmos in his main demo room, and he felt that perhaps it was more to do with 'mid air' placement when used in conjunction with the other speakers, so that the sound could be placed in a specific point between side and top.

It seems like a good argument, but I still have a niggling feeling that the ceiling speakers may still work just as well or better if they were a little closer in (as per your example) because a lot of the time I felt the audio was often more like a varying height side surround rather than something that was coming into the room more. Maybe that was the effect we were meant to be getting, but if that was the case, a layered height surround set up like Auro would do the same thing.

Interesting times ahead, and it will be good to see how it finally all ends up.

Gary.


----------



## wse

asoofi1 said:


> Gravity was an awesome movie imo. It has to be enjoyed on a big screen with big sound. To me, it was good storytelling all around. Great flow and timing.
> 
> The amount of work that goes into producing and directing such an amazing piece of work is no small feet. I really appreciate it more for these reasons.
> 
> Now, TF4 has tons of work put into it, but that's a perfect example of bad storytelling, bad script, and bad acting. But lots of great special effects...but this was a chore for me to watch. Mindless fun.


And you think Gravity had good acting! Oh my


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


And whining and snorting, I can't stand her voice she irritates me! Clonney tried to salvage it but unfortunately there was nothing he could do! Yes I love space movies and the picture was really cool but the acting was bad, the story was really imaginative and boring!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> And whining and snorting, I can't stand her voice she irritates me! Clonney tried to salvage it but unfortunately there was nothing he could do! Yes I love space movies and the picture was really cool but the acting was bad, the story was really *un*imaginative and boring!


The action was repetitive and the script needed a major fleshing out and rewrite. _Gravity_ came across, to me, as some visual effects house's pet project... with a great demo of Dolby Atmos thrown in. The screenplay itself was probably a leaflet. 

With that said, I guess I'd rather sit through _Gravity_ to demonstrate how an Atmos soundtrack _should _be mixed than TMNT or T4.


----------



## Ted99

*Lousy Magnolia Demo Room*

Checked out the Westheimer Rd Magnolia Atmos demo room. 5.1.4 with upfiring Pioneers onto 2' x 2' acoustic tile ceiling. Running the Atmos demo disc. Overhead sound completely swallowed by the acoustic ceiling. Not gonna sell many of these systems to people that don't know the setup is completely wrong.


----------



## RRF743

batpig said:


> But he is using Quick Selects -- they override whatever is memorized for "auto surround mode" and revert back to whatever is memorized for the Quick Select memory bank.
> 
> Chi_guy is probably correct in his inference about what went wrong (e.g. maybe he memorized the QS during the previews when the surround mode was DOLBY SURROUND with a 2ch input). If he makes sure to rememorize the Quick Select during the actual playback of the movie it should hold the setting next time.


Thanks guys for input and ideas on my Quick Select issue. While looking for a 7.1 movie in my collection, I found that Star Trek "Into Darkness" is not 7.1 Dolby True HD like its advertises on the back of the disc. It gives the option to select it in the discs' menu but the Denon reads a 5.1 signal input after starting the movie. Now, after spending about 2 hrs playing with different discs and sources, here is my conclusion. After reprogramming my QS buttons, the ceiling speakers are automatically selected if the sources audio input is Dolby Digital or 2CH. If you use a Dolby True HD or DTS MA disc, you always have to press "Movie Mode" once or your assigned QS button (mine is QS-2 for bluray) at least once, sometimes twice, after starting your featured bluray movie. Yes, I did reprogram the QS2 button after having a 7.1 bluray in and the movie mode on "Multi In + Dolby Surround. Here is a way you can confirm this if you want. Press QS1 then turn on your cable box. Your ceiling speakers should be highlighted if you programmed it that way. Press QS2, then put in a bluray, you can even use Transformers 4. Select Dolby Atmos in the discs audio menu. Start the movie. Press the "Info" button on the remote or look at the receivers screen and it will not have the ceiling speakers highlighted. Press QS2, now their on. Press QS1 to go back to cable, wait a few seconds, now press QS2 again. The ceiling speakers are not on. Press QS2 again or Game Mode, then they come on. It seems the receiver can't STORE the Dolby Surround setting with True HD or DTS MA signals. You always have to re-tell it turn on ceiling speakers after switching the receivers input, changing a movie, or stopping a movie. Try this and let me know if you get something different.


----------



## RRF743

RRF743 said:


> Thanks guys for input and ideas on my Quick Select issue. While looking for a 7.1 movie in my collection, I found that Star Trek "Into Darkness" is not 7.1 Dolby True HD like its advertises on the back of the disc. It gives the option to select it in the discs' menu but the Denon reads a 5.1 signal input after starting the movie. Now, after spending about 2 hrs playing with different discs and sources, here is my conclusion. After reprogramming my QS buttons, the ceiling speakers are automatically selected if the sources audio input is Dolby Digital or 2CH. If you use a Dolby True HD or DTS MA disc, you always have to press "Movie Mode" once or your assigned QS button (mine is QS-2 for bluray) at least once, sometimes twice, after starting your featured bluray movie. Yes, I did reprogram the QS2 button after having a 7.1 bluray in and the movie mode on "Multi In + Dolby Surround. Here is a way you can confirm this if you want. Press QS1 then turn on your cable box. Your ceiling speakers should be highlighted if you programmed it that way. Press QS2, then put in a bluray, you can even use Transformers 4. Select Dolby Atmos in the discs audio menu. Start the movie. Press the "Info" button on the remote or look at the receivers screen and it will not have the ceiling speakers highlighted. Press QS2, now their on. Press QS1 to go back to cable, wait a few seconds, now press QS2 again. The ceiling speakers are not on. Press QS2 again or Game Mode, then they come on. It seems the receiver can't STORE the Dolby Surround setting with True HD or DTS MA signals. You always have to re-tell it turn on ceiling speakers after switching the receivers input, changing a movie, or stopping a movie. Try this and let me know if you get something different.



I shouldn't say it can't STORE it, but it can't automatically select it after losing the lossless signal.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

tjenkins95 said:


> As to the record of what real viewers thought - and I am referring to those who watched the movie in a movie theater - Rotten Tomatoes has the numbers.
> 81% of the audience liked it and the movie recieved a 97% overall rating from 295 of 305 reviewers.
> 
> 
> Ray


Forrest Gump & the Star Wars Prequels reviewed pretty well, even though they're intolerably bad. Popularity contests do not = quality unfortunately. 
What bugged me about gravity was that the space debris just happened to take out *all* of the space stations @ the exact moment Bullock found herself at those stations. Give me a break... I was already sighing at the 2nd station and at how every possible thing that could go wrong went wrong. 
But I'm not going to knock the presentation & the sound... those were excellent, and might account for why people reviewed it favorably.


----------



## kokishin

Please stay on topic: _The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)_. 

Thanks


----------



## bargervais

I just pulled the trigger on a TX-NR 1030 couldn't resist the deal so I'm hoping my living room speakers as it's set up now will allow me to enjoy 7.2.4 I always wanted to drive 11 speakers.. so I'll use my external amp with height 2 to drive my rear speakers that are already behind my MLP IN The ceiling. I'll use my front high speakers that are on my front wall near the ceiling as top front or should I call them front high???? After reading this thread I see that front high and top rear will work for atmos. I'm very excited as I have better speakers in there and a bigger TV....


----------



## asoofi1

wse said:


> And you think Gravity had good acting! Oh my


I didn't actually mention that it did, but it was Bullock's better performances.

And just to 'stay on topic'...I hope Gravity is released in Atmos


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> I just pulled the trigger on a TX-NR 1030 couldn't resist the deal so I'm hoping my living room speakers as it's set up now will allow me to enjoy 7.2.4 I always wanted to drive 11 speakers.. so I'll use my external amp with height 2 to drive my rear speakers that are already behind my MLP IN The ceiling. I'll use my front high speakers that are on my front wall near the ceiling as top front or should I call them front high???? After reading this thread I see that front high and top rear will work for atmos. I'm very excited as I have better speakers in there and a bigger TV....


Cool, I would have probably already bought an Atmos AVR (likely Onkyo) but I have no room to use it in yet... looking forward to your feedback on how it sounds!


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> And for the record, I am not a big Sandra Bullock fan - her voice drives me crazy.


Can't stand her. ...Never had never will. 



> As to the record of what real viewers thought - and I am referring to those who watched the movie in a movie theater - Rotten Tomatoes has the numbers.
> 81% of the audience liked it and the movie recieved a 97% overall rating from 295 of 305 reviewers.
> 
> Ray


And *'Snowpiercer'* has a 95% rating @ Rotten Tomatoes. 
I trust them all pro reviewers (overall) @ full 100%.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kokishin said:


> Please stay on topic: _The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)_.
> 
> Thanks


Well, to make kokishin happy and continue talking about Atmos,  I will still state for the record (again) that I am _really_ disappointed that _How to Train Your Dragon 2_ was not released in _any_ of the 3D audio formats. 

Did Dolby expect such a poor showing for Atmos this holiday season (if you look closely at _Hercules'_ case, it clearly showed it was going to list Dolby Atmos as a feature just like on the back of T4, but the cover stencilist changed the words "Dolby Atmos" to "Dolby Audio" - so they even lost a title for some reason)? Even Van Baelen from Auro was trumpeting about how some DreamWorks animated titles would be released this year with Auro3D. No announcements as of now and it's getting kind of late to have anything new added to the roster for the critical shopping period.


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> Cool, I would have probably already bought an Atmos AVR (likely Onkyo) but I have no room to use it in yet... looking forward to your feedback on how it sounds!


I have no room for it either  but I couldn't pass it up.. now I need to unload my 616 and my 818 which I just got in April of 2013 but after getting the 737 that replaced my 616 with atmos on the 737 it has such an exciting listening enveloping... so I had to get the 1030 for the living room to complete things for now.


----------



## thebland

NorthSky said:


> But @ the end, she landed on a beach, Earth.  ...Coming from the lake. ...And the space above.





Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


Coming from the lake? Are we talking about a sexual encounter?

3 'no's always mean a 'yes' - and you mentioned 6 'no's. Are you talking about her sex dream with George Clooney in the uncut verizon?


----------



## chi_guy50

thebland said:


> Coming from the lake? Are we talking about a sexual encounter?
> 
> 3 'no's always mean a 'yes' - and you mentioned 6 'no's. Are you talking about her sex dream with George Clooney in the uncut verizon?


I'm definitely holding out for that uncut version. I understand that in that sex dream she has an explicit three-way with Clooney and Meg Ryan. All that and a Dolby Atmos soundtrack!

(Nah, on second thought, I still wouldn't pay to watch that flick again.)

*With sincere apologies to Koshikin*


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, to make kokishin happy and continue talking about Atmos,  I will still state for the record (again) that I am _really_ disappointed that _How to Train Your Dragon 2_ was not released in _any_ of the 3D audio formats.
> 
> Did Dolby expect such a poor showing for Atmos this holiday season (if you look closely at _Hercules'_ case, it clearly showed it was going to list Dolby Atmos as a feature just like on the back of T4, but the cover stencilist changed the words "Dolby Atmos" to "Dolby Audio" - so they even lost a title for some reason)? Even Van Baelen from Auro was trumpeting about how some DreamWorks animated titles would be released this year with Auro3D. No announcements as of now and it's getting kind of late to have anything new added to the roster for the critical shopping period.


But Dan, even if 'Hercules' would have been released with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, 
what is the true benefit when a flick is that bad? 

It's like taking a RAP music album and making it sound good in multichannel. ...Over your head.


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm definitely holding out for that uncut version. I understand that in that sex dream she has an explicit three-way with Clooney and Meg Ryan. All that and a Dolby Atmos soundtrack!
> 
> (Nah, on second thought, I still wouldn't pay to watch that flick again.)
> 
> *With sincere apologies to Koshikin*


*Because you're normally not an off topic blatherer, you're forgiven.* BTW, it's *kokishin*.


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> Coming from the lake? Are we talking about a sexual encounter?


If I remember correctly, her 'capsule' ended up in a lake, and she opened the latch to emerge from underwater. 

I hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone who hasn't had the amazing chance (awesome experience) yet to see it. 
Perhaps there will be a second run, in dedicated Dolby Atmos theaters?


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> *Because you're normally not an off topic blatherer, you're forgiven.* BTW, it's *kokishin*.


Again, my sincere--and this time abject--apologies.


----------



## ambesolman

thebland said:


> Coming from the lake? Are we talking about a sexual encounter?
> 
> 
> 
> 3 'no's always mean a 'yes' - and you mentioned 6 'no's. Are you talking about her sex dream with George Clooney in the uncut verizon?









Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## htpcforever

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a bunch of sniveling and saying no no no no no no! and heavy breathing and trying to grab hold of something and failing... for 90 minutes.


They should have named it Angular Momentum...it had very precious little to do with gravity. 


I would have waved good bye to her at the start when she refused to do anything I said. Movie over.


----------



## htpcforever

Ted99 said:


> Checked out the Westheimer Rd Magnolia Atmos demo room. 5.1.4 with upfiring Pioneers onto 2' x 2' acoustic tile ceiling. Running the Atmos demo disc. Overhead sound completely swallowed by the acoustic ceiling. Not gonna sell many of these systems to people that don't know the setup is completely wrong.


Did you tell them about their problem?


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> If I remember correctly, her 'capsule' ended up in a lake, and she opened the latch to emerge from underwater.
> 
> I hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone who hasn't had the amazing chance (awesome experience) yet to see it.
> Perhaps there will be a second run, in dedicated Dolby Atmos theaters?



Bob yes stop spoiling the movie...


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> I just pulled the trigger on a TX-NR 1030 couldn't resist the deal so I'm hoping my living room speakers as it's set up now will allow me to enjoy 7.2.4 I always wanted to drive 11 speakers.. so I'll use my external amp with height 2 to drive my rear speakers that are already behind my MLP IN The ceiling. I'll use my front high speakers that are on my front wall near the ceiling as top front or should I call them front high???? After reading this thread I see that front high and top rear will work for atmos. I'm very excited as I have better speakers in there and a bigger TV....


Congrats...
I am looking at 1030 as well. Haven't seen any user reports. May be you can let us know how you like it. For the money it looks a fine piece.
Oh and what was the deal like (if I may ask. May be you can PM the details if you don't mind)


----------



## Daniel Chaves

yeah most of the Magnolia demo rooms are like this, I spoke to the one here in Burbank, they are going to see about getting some reflective ceiling tiles to help reflect the sound more but even still I was able to hear the sound reflecting from the ceiling and was able to still get the intended effect.


----------



## Lee Pereira

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files. After signing into your OneDrive account, select the folder "Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc" by clicking on the checkbox in the top right corner of the folder (solid blue rectangle). Then click "Download" near the top of the OneDrive page. This will initiate a download of a zip file containing all folders and files. After the zip file is downloaded, extract the contents of the zip file. Then:


You, Sir are a good man! Thanks a ton!!!


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> Congrats...
> I am looking at 1030 as well. Haven't seen any user reports. May be you can let us know how you like it. For the money it looks a fine piece.
> Oh and what was the deal like (if I may ask. May be you can PM the details if you don't mind)


1200 New open box amazon


----------



## HT-Eman

Here's a movie server with Dolby Atmos playback support ...... http://www.fusionrd.com/premiere.htm . You can back up all your Dolby Atmos movies ( whenever they come out ... lol ) bit for bit without losing video or audio quality .


----------



## Gurba

2TB is kinda small considering 6GB HDDs are out.


----------



## HT-Eman

Gurba said:


> 2TB is kinda small considering 6GB HDDs are out.


It says that " It can hold unlimited amounts of DVD’s or Blu-rays with the 
“Add Your Own Storage” option and is controlled by either existing IP drivers from major automation companies or simple IR remote control " .


----------



## HT-Eman

When will we get good scary movies with Dolby Atmos ? I can't watch a scary movie without my kids around me and vice versa  , so a Dolby Atmos scary movie would really have me on edge at home.


----------



## Al Sherwood

HT-Eman said:


> Here's a movie server with Dolby Atmos playback support ...... http://www.fusionrd.com/premiere.htm . You can back up all your Dolby Atmos movies ( whenever they come out ... lol ) bit for bit without losing video or audio quality .


Interesting find, looks quite well thought out, currently it looks like on 1080p support.


Still can't seem to find pricing on their website...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I want one. Where can you buy it?


----------



## HT-Eman

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting find, looks quite well thought out, currently it looks like on 1080p support.
> 
> 
> Still can't seem to find pricing on their website...


Fusion Introduces the Premiere MkII Movie Server
Visit http://www.fusionrd.com for further information
Fusion Research announced that is now shipping a new version of its popular entry level movie server, the Premiere MkII. Now with removable rack ears as well as new Dolby Atmos® support.
Submitted on 11/07/14, 10:16 AM

Fusion Research announced that is now shipping a new version of its popular entry level movie server, the Premiere MkII. It features 2TB of internal storage holding up to 300 DVDs and like the all Fusion movie servers, you can expand your storage by using a standard NAS on the network.The new chassis is now a 1U unit with removable rack ears, which uses a new higher speed Blu-ray drive for significantly fast loading than the previous model. The new piece has more processing power and now features Dolby Atmos® support. Powered by Fusion's proprietary EPIC software, the new and improved unit retains the same retail ($2999) and dealer price points as the previous model. 

"As we've seen the price of HDMI matrix switches drop, a lot more integrators are installing the Premiere into racks and running them through the entire house," said Ingo Schmoldt, VP Sales of Fusion Research. "This new product will slot in without the need of an additional custom shelf kit and when the ears are removed, it looks great on its own sitting in a room." 

The Premiere can be expanded to two discrete movie sources with the addition of a zone player on the network. The Premiere ships with an IR remote and has drivers available for most major automation systems. Fusion is offering a very aggressive showroom demo program for dealers wanting to display the Premiere MkII. For more information or dealer pricing, visit www.fusionrd.com or call 925.217.1233. 


I think i'll pass on this one and wait for xbmc to support dolby atmos .


----------



## Brian Fineberg

3k$? Lol nvm


----------



## bargervais

HT-Eman said:


> Fusion Introduces the Premiere MkII Movie Server
> Visit http://www.fusionrd.com for further information
> Fusion Research announced that is now shipping a new version of its popular entry level movie server, the Premiere MkII. Now with removable rack ears as well as new Dolby Atmos® support.
> Submitted on 11/07/14, 10:16 AM
> 
> Fusion Research announced that is now shipping a new version of its popular entry level movie server, the Premiere MkII. It features 2TB of internal storage holding up to 300 DVDs and like the all Fusion movie servers, you can expand your storage by using a standard NAS on the network.The new chassis is now a 1U unit with removable rack ears, which uses a new higher speed Blu-ray drive for significantly fast loading than the previous model. The new piece has more processing power and now features Dolby Atmos® support. Powered by Fusion's proprietary EPIC software, the new and improved unit retains the same retail ($2999) and dealer price points as the previous model.
> 
> "As we've seen the price of HDMI matrix switches drop, a lot more integrators are installing the Premiere into racks and running them through the entire house," said Ingo Schmoldt, VP Sales of Fusion Research. "This new product will slot in without the need of an additional custom shelf kit and when the ears are removed, it looks great on its own sitting in a room."
> 
> The Premiere can be expanded to two discrete movie sources with the addition of a zone player on the network. The Premiere ships with an IR remote and has drivers available for most major automation systems. Fusion is offering a very aggressive showroom demo program for dealers wanting to display the Premiere MkII. For more information or dealer pricing, visit www.fusionrd.com or call 925.217.1233.
> 
> 
> I think i'll pass on this one and wait for xbmc to support dolby atmos .


Three grand I'LL pass thank you looks like a cool product but I too will wait for XBMC to have Atmos


----------



## Al Sherwood

Brian Fineberg said:


> 3k$? Lol nvm





bargervais said:


> Three grand I'LL pass thank you looks like a cool product but I too will wait for XBMC to have Atmos



Ohhhh! +3 at that price and for only 1080p support... pass. 


thanks for the update HT-Eman.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Bob yes stop spoiling the movie...


Alright, I will wait till *'Gravity'* get a new release on Blu-ray, with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack. 
And if my crystal ball is well oiled with accuracy, we should be in luck in the year 2017. 
Most of us should still be here, others won't.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

HT-Eman said:


> When will we get good scary movies with Dolby Atmos ? I can't watch a scary movie without my kids around me and vice versa  , so a Dolby Atmos scary movie would really have me on edge at home.


I think the film "mama" was released with Atmos... that movie had some spooky scenes. Weather or not distributors will ever decide to release Atmos content on bluray is a whole other matter :/ 

I agree though... I'm surprised films like Ouija didn't get the atmos treatment... maybe next year. Enough with films like Dolphin Tale 2 & dance movies.


----------



## Gurba

HT-Eman said:


> It says that " It can hold unlimited amounts of DVD’s or Blu-rays with the
> “Add Your Own Storage” option and is controlled by either existing IP drivers from major automation companies or simple IR remote control " .


Yeah but to include 2TBs is still kinda weak. Maybe they will make bigger internal HDD available at a later date.


----------



## CBdicX

Did a Atmos "test" with the Integra 70.6 (11 channels) and it whas a nice experience .
This is my setup:


Front: Boston M350
Center: Boston Mcenter
Surround: Boston M250
Surround Back: Boston M250


No subwoofer


Dolby Atmos speakers: 4x Onkyo SKH 410
Effect whas good, a nice addition to 7.0 and realy "lifts" the sound effects.
But i will send the SKH 410 back because this is a ugly speaker sitting on-top of the M serie  
I will wait until a brand comes with a nice ad-on speakers, like KEF R50, but thats to expenceive for me at the moment.


But its worth to do the Atmos upgrade


----------



## petetherock

I had a friend who is in the industry.. and for some reason, he suggested I hold back until Feb 2015 before I jump into the Atmos / Auro scene... he didn't really elaborate why, but there seems to some pow-wow in the industry between Auro / Atmos to sort the whole standard?

That's an interesting thing.. and I can hold my purchase until then..


----------



## Manni01

petetherock said:


> I had a friend who is in the industry.. and for some reason, he suggested I hold back until Feb 2015 before I jump into the Atmos / Auro scene... he didn't really elaborate why, but there seems to some pow-wow in the industry between Auro / Atmos to sort the whole standard?
> 
> That's an interesting thing.. and I can hold my purchase until then..


By then we might also see the first models with both HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 level A (full 18gb/s).


I'm still hoping that the Denon 7200W will support both thanks to a new HDMI board, as I'm not ready to give up Audissey so no other candidate right now.


I can wait too


----------



## Brian Fineberg

there has to be a reason the 7200 is being released AFTER the other two models


----------



## mark_anderson_u

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I think it is the HDMI 2.0 chips that will be in the higher priced AVR's that are delaying them.


and HDCP2.2 no doubt. I decided I'm going to hold off upgrading my AVR until HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 models are available, so probably 2015 models


----------



## mark_anderson_u

Lee Pereira said:


> You, Sir are a good man! Thanks a ton!!!


How can I make and ISO of these files?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> I had a friend who is in the industry.. and for some reason, he suggested I hold back until Feb 2015 before I jump into the Atmos / Auro scene... he didn't really elaborate why, but there seems to some pow-wow in the industry between Auro / Atmos to sort the whole standard?
> 
> That's an interesting thing.. and I can hold my purchase until then..


Hmmm... that's when the new Deluxe Edition of_ Gravity_ gets released. However, I wouldn't hold out for just one movie even if it was one of the best 3D mixes to date. Is Disney, for instance, going to start releasing their classics with Atmos remixes rather than just 7.1? They're releasing another classic from the marketing "vault" in February as well I believe.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mark_anderson_u said:


> How can I make and ISO of these files?


 I don't think you can. It's missing one of the folders from the original disc. You can, however, make a data Blu-ray disc from the two folders and inf file. Just be sure to finalize it. Kind of a waste of a blank BD-R since the files take up so little space on a 25 GB disc.


----------



## Manni01

HT-Eman said:


> Fusion Introduces the Premiere MkII Movie Server
> 
> 
> 
> I think i'll pass on this one and wait for xbmc to support dolby atmos .





bargervais said:


> Three grand I'LL pass thank you looks like a cool product but I too will wait for XBMC to have Atmos


 
Any fully compliant player able to bitstream HD Audio supports Dolby Atmos (as long as you play original blurays or rip your backups with full HD Audio). So XBMC, MPC-HC, MPC-BE, TMT, PDVD all support Dolby Atmos as long as you set them up to bitstream and not PCM. It's only the AVR that you have to upgrade, not the player.


The Premiere Movie server just added Atmos support because it's able to bitstream HD Audio. Nothing special .


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hmmm... that's when the new Deluxe Edition of_ Gravity_ gets released. However, I wouldn't hold out for just one movie even if it was one of the best 3D mixes to date. Is Disney, for instance, going to start releasing their classics with Atmos remixes rather than just 7.1? They're releasing another classic from the marketing "vault" in February as well I believe.


He is a little reticent right now, but my question was more about when I should buy my AV amp, so I think he is hinting at something else rather than just catalogue releases...

I will see what happens to the current amps, and if HDCP 2.2 issues are sorted with new chips. That's what I hope he means...


----------



## jlanzy

petetherock said:


> I had a friend who is in the industry.. and for some reason, he suggested I hold back until Feb 2015 before I jump into the Atmos / Auro scene... he didn't really elaborate why, but there seems to some pow-wow in the industry between Auro / Atmos to sort the whole standard?
> 
> That's an interesting thing.. and I can hold my purchase until then..


Besides the full hdmi 2.0, we are still awaiting DTS UHD to weigh in and be included with auro/atmos. Current implementation of auro/atmos in the denon/marantz prevents full implementation of each even with ext amp, hopefully upcoming avrs/pp will allow all 3 to be used to full configuration. The reality in the near term at least is that few people will be able or willing to place 4 ceiling speakers for atmos , and 4 height+VOG auro speakers, so the current compromise probably makes more business sense.


----------



## CBdicX

mark_anderson_u said:


> and HDCP2.2 no doubt. I decided I'm going to hold off upgrading my AVR until HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 models are available, so probably 2015 models



My Integra DTR 70.6 has HDMI 2.0 (UltraHD HDMI) and HDCP 2.2.......


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CBdicX said:


> My Integra DTR 70.6 has HDMI 2.0 (UltraHD HDMI) and HDCP 2.2.......


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the chipset Onkyo is using is an older HDMI 2.0 design. It does not have the full 4k specs available onboard. The chipset everyone is waiting for hasn't been released yet.


----------



## Ted99

htpcforever said:


> Did you tell them about their problem?


Yes, and the manager said "your comment is not without merit".


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> The theatrical system employs a 9.1 bed... 7.1 + 2 overhead arrays.
> 
> Those overheads are encoded as objects in the home version.
> 
> For TF4, the mixers used the overheads for objects only, and put nothing in the overhead bed channels.


In cases where the two overhead bed channels are encoded as objects in the home version, how are they actually positioned and in which pair of overheads they would normally end up? Allthough the sphere-shapes objects can be of different size, I have not seen the option to alter their shape to some kind of rectangular form which can subsequently be put in line with the parallel arrays present in a home theater.


----------



## Al Sherwood

CBdicX said:


> I do not know what this texteditor is doing, i can not delete, i can not edit........



Probably using Internet Explorer 11 like me, won't allow an edit of a post, I have bring up Chrome Browser for this...


----------



## redjr

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, people taking advantage of this is what ruins it for those that could really use it. It is a good thing that Costco changed their policy, no company should have to put up with that abuse, IMHO somewhere along the line good old honesty was lost, replaced by 'it doesn't hurt to try' and 'if you don't get caught, you did nothing wrong'...


I agree. Many people abuse a privilege, only to hurt the honest folks in the end. Sad.


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> In cases where the two overhead bed channels are encoded as objects in the home version, how are they actually positioned and in which pair of overheads they would normally end up? Allthough the sphere-shapes objects can be of different size, I have not seen the option to alter their shape to some kind of rectangular form which can subsequently be put in line with the parallel arrays present in a home theater.


Talking purely in theory here, but is there a limit to object size?
Because if you put a huge object quite near, then it will be almost parallel to all the top speakers....


----------



## pasender91

Al Sherwood said:


> Probably using Internet Explorer 11 like me, won't allow an edit of a post, I have bring up Chrome Browser for this...


Not that, I just edited my previous message using IE 11 ....


----------



## CBdicX

Al Sherwood said:


> Probably using Internet Explorer 11 like me, won't allow an edit of a post, I have bring up Chrome Browser for this...



Thanks i will try Firefox.........


----------



## Al Sherwood

CBdicX said:


> My Integra DTR 70.6 has HDMI 2.0 (UltraHD HDMI) and HDCP 2.2.......





Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the chipset Onkyo is using is an older HDMI 2.0 design. It does not have the full 4k specs available onboard. The chipset everyone is waiting for hasn't been released yet.



Dan you are of course correct, but at least the Onkyo implementation that is out there is compliant and will pass both 4K and copy righted signals, albeit not to the full 4K spec.


----------



## kokishin

CBdicX said:


> Thanks i will try Firefox.........


Then you can go back and edit/delete your prior posts.


----------



## Al Sherwood

pasender91 said:


> Not that, I just edited my previous message using IE 11 ....


Interesting, every time I try it won't work, I flash up Chrome and have no issues. I find so many sites that complain about IE 11, many won't even let me continue!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hmph.

It's getting dusty in here.

We need some Atmos titles announced...pronto!


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Talking purely in theory here, but is there a limit to object size?
> Because if you put a huge object quite near, then it will be almost parallel to all the top speakers....


I guess that would be a way to do it, but how to prevent in such case the risk of an object meant for the left side array only, to also be played by one or more speakers of the right-side array (and vice-versa) and thus ruining for example the effect of a stereo object?


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmph.
> 
> It's getting dusty in here.
> 
> We need some Atmos titles announced...pronto!


Couldn't agree more, before you know it we will be back to discussing angles  and not following the Simonian method of filling in the gaps


----------



## Scott Simonian

Get out your protractors. :nerd:


----------



## boontok

*How Does ATMOS Work?*

I'm a bit confused as to how ATMOS actually works. I see the specs, but it seems like more than most people would ever use. I guess what I mean is, how does this apply to a lower-range home theater user? Thanks.


----------



## CBdicX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the chipset Onkyo is using is an older HDMI 2.0 design. It does not have the full 4k specs available onboard. The chipset everyone is waiting for hasn't been released yet.



Is this not the full 4K specs for the DTR 70.6 ?


UltraHD (HDMI 2.0)Selected A/V receivers and network controllers are able to pass native 4K video captured at 60 frames per second (60 Hz) from compatible source devices to an Ultra HD display via HDMI® 2.0. As well as quadrupling the number of pixels contained in a Full HD video image for stunning clarity and detail, footage shot at 60 Hz appears smoother and more lifelike when compared to video images captured at 24/25/30 fps.


----------



## CBdicX

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting, every time I try it won't work, I flash up Chrome and have no issues. I find so many sites that complain about IE 11, many won't even let me continue!



And for me it worked for the last year, just today not, and i did not downloaded or upgraded any software........

Did this editing in Firefox, no problem, IE11 no go......


----------



## Al Sherwood

CBdicX said:


> Is this not the full 4K specs for the DTR 70.6 ?
> 
> 
> UltraHD (HDMI 2.0)Selected A/V receivers and network controllers are able to pass native 4K video captured at 60 frames per second (60 Hz) from compatible source devices to an Ultra HD display via HDMI® 2.0. As well as quadrupling the number of pixels contained in a Full HD video image for stunning clarity and detail, footage shot at 60 Hz appears smoother and more lifelike when compared to video images captured at 24/25/30 fps.


Although 4K capable/compatible, not to the full colour depth and bandwidth. ( IIRC not fully 4:4:4 colour and only 10Gbps bandwidth).


If I can find the details I will add to post.


----------



## maikeldepotter

smurraybhm said:


> Couldn't agree more, before you know it we will be back to discussing angles  and not following the Simonian method of filling in the gaps


The best approach for filling in the gaps around and above: getting an evenly *angular* separation between speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

boontok said:


> I'm a bit confused as to how ATMOS actually works. I see the specs, but it seems like more than most people would ever use. I guess what I mean is, how does this apply to a lower-range home theater user? Thanks.


Having overhead speakers produces a more enveloping soundfield which can be quite enjoyable. This is one of the reasons why 11.1 speaker systems have started to become popular in recent years. The competing 3D audio systems (Atmos, Auro3D and DTS UHD) formalize how the overhead speakers are used in movies. In principle, you no longer have to depend on "random" speaker choices being made by the various upmixers (Dolby ProLogic, DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX, Yamaha Presence, etc). Instead, the people mixing movie and music soundtracks can explicitly place sounds in particular directions, whether overhead, at ear level, or moving between them.

In a home theater, you tell the Atmos-capable receiver where your speakers are (by designating them with particular pre-defined location names). Then the receiver decodes the directions provided in the soundtrack and sends sounds to speakers which are located the closest to those directions. 

Atmos soundtracks are provided as a 7.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with some additional metadata which describes the directions involved. As a result, they play fine in a home theater system which has a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker configuration. When you add overhead speakers, though, Atmos-capable receivers move specified sounds out of the ear-level speaker channels and into appropriate overheads.

Does this help at all?


----------



## CBdicX

Al Sherwood said:


> Although 4K capable/compatible, not to the full colour depth and bandwidth. ( IIRC not fully 4:4:4 colour and only 10Gbps bandwidth).
> 
> 
> If I can find the details I will add to post.



What is "wrong" here:


----------



## Selden Ball

It's 25Hz instead of 50Hz.


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> The best approach for filling in the gaps around and above: getting an evenly *angular* separation between speakers.


You keep saying that, trust me anyone reading this thread has gotten the message loud and clear. Problem is most of use do not have the perfectly shaped room with nothing else in it which allows us to place speakers with even *angular* separation between them. It has been stated many times before that implementing Atmos in one's home isn't rocket science, even though I can respect those on this forum who want to think it is 

I am getting great results with less than perfect *angular* separation between speakers - as Dolby said, it doesn't have to be perfect and implying that it does only confuses those considering a worthwhile upgrade in the surround sound department. As Scott said, just fill in the gaps and you'll be happy with the results - or should I say sound.


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> Although 4K capable/compatible, not to the full colour depth and bandwidth. ( IIRC not fully 4:4:4 colour and only 10Gbps bandwidth).
> 
> 
> If I can find the details I will add to post.


Thanks in advance I'm waiting on delivery of my new TX-NR 1030 so that will apply as well??? I'm not that too concerned as I'm a few years away from having a 4k TV or blu-ray as both my TV's are very new one year old and two years old respectively...I'm content at the moment with 1080P I'm just very excited to get Atmos for the moment going to try 7.2.4.... a little off topic here but can I ask.... would it sound OK to move my surrounds slightly forward of my couch and my backs slightly behind and toed in towards MLP of my couch along each side wall as I don't have room for the back speakers to be behind the couch


----------



## kokishin

CBdicX said:


> What is "wrong" here:


Because of the HDMI 2.0 10Gbs bandwidth of the 2014 integra/onkyo avr's and ssp's, I believe they cannot output 4K at 50 (or 60) Hz 4:4:4. I believe they should be able to output 4K at 50 (or 60) Hz 4:2:0.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

CBdicX said:


> My Integra DTR 70.6 has HDMI 2.0 (UltraHD HDMI) and HDCP 2.2.......


Does the integra have the processing power to handle 4k material though? I think for those holding out for 4k bluray content I'd say don't hold your breath. Look at how long it took quality blurays to take off. Whatever will make 4k worth it is still years away (HDR, new color gamut, 4k 3D) The people mastering films don't even have the tech to master films with the new specs. Unless you sit less than 6 feet away from your set or have a very large projection screen, I would just stick with 1080p displays & compatible devices... don't worry about HDCP 2.2. Atmos on the other hand, even though content isn't really available, the upmixer is worth the price of admission. & supposedly Atmos bd content is coming.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So I know this isn't Atmos related... but has anyone seen Interstellar? I thought it was a fantastic film... shame it didn't get an atmos mix... but I can see why since Nolan wanted that hard core IMAX experience. It certainly delivered.


----------



## CBdicX

Selden Ball said:


> It's 25Hz instead of 50Hz.



Think thats the source, the Horizon TV box.


It can do 60 Hz acording to this text from the Integra site and for the DTR 70.6 :


_UltraHD (HDMI 2.0)Selected A/V receivers and network controllers are able to pass native 4K video captured at 60 frames per second (60 Hz) from compatible source devices to an Ultra HD display via HDMI® 2.0._


So if my source is doing 25 Hz it will do 25 Hz, or am i wrong ?


----------



## scarabaeus

kokishin said:


> Because of the HDMI 2.0 10Gbs bandwidth of the 2014 integra/onkyo avr's and ssp's, I believe they cannot output 50 (or 60) Hz at 4:4:4. I believe they should be able to output 50 (or 60) Hz at 4:4:2.


I think you mean 4:2:2, not 4:4:2. However, that would not reduce the bandwidth, since 4:2:2 on HDMI requires at least 12 bit color depth, instead of the 8 bit at 4:4:4. What would help to achieve 2160p at 50 Hz is the 4:2:0 system defined by HDMI 2.0, but older HDMI 1.4 ports won't be able to handle that format.

In the setup in question, it would be better to set up the source device according to the content, either at 1080p24, 1080p25 or 1080p30, and then keep that frame rate for the 2160p output signal (HDMI 1.4 supports 2160p 4:4:4 at those three frame rates). This will avoid any issues with judder.


----------



## boontok

Selden Ball said:


> Having overhead speakers produces a more enveloping soundfield which can be quite enjoyable. This is one of the reasons why 11.1 speaker systems have started to become popular in recent years. The competing 3D audio systems (Atmos, Auro3D and DTS UHD) formalize how the overhead speakers are used in movies. In principle, you no longer have to depend on "random" speaker choices being made by the various upmixers (Dolby ProLogic, DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX, Yamaha Presence, etc). Instead, the people mixing movie and music soundtracks can explicitly place sounds in particular directions, whether overhead, at ear level, or moving between them.
> 
> In a home theater, you tell the Atmos-capable receiver where your speakers are (by designating them with particular pre-defined location names). Then the receiver decodes the directions provided in the soundtrack and sends sounds to speakers which are located the closest to those directions.
> 
> Atmos soundtracks are provided as a 7.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack with some additional metadata which describes the directions involved. As a result, they play fine in a home theater system which has a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker configuration. When you add overhead speakers, though, Atmos-capable receivers move specified sounds out of the ear-level speaker channels and into appropriate overheads.
> 
> Does this help at all?


Actually, yes. I understand now. Thanks!


----------



## scarabaeus

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I know this isn't Atmos related... but has anyone seen Interstellar? I thought it was a fantastic film... shame it didn't get an atmos mix... but I can see why since Nolan wanted that hard core IMAX experience. It certainly delivered.


Still could have benefited from Atmos: http://www.slashfilm.com/interstellar-sound-issues/


----------



## kokishin

scarabaeus said:


> I think you mean 4:2:2, not 4:4:2. However, that would not reduce the bandwidth, since 4:2:2 on HDMI requires at least 12 bit color depth, instead of the 8 bit at 4:4:4. What would help to achieve 2160p at 50 Hz is the 4:2:0 system defined by HDMI 2.0, but older HDMI 1.4 ports won't be able to handle that format.
> 
> In the setup in question, it would be better to set up the source device according to the content, either at 1080p24, 1080p25 or 1080p30, and then keep that frame rate for the 2160p output signal (HDMI 1.4 supports 2160p 4:4:4 at those three frame rates). This will avoid any issues with judder.


Thanks for catching that. I corrected my post.


----------



## HTinParadise

CBdicX said:


> Think thats the source, the Horizon TV box.
> 
> 
> It can do 60 Hz acording to this text from the Integra site and for the DTR 70.6 :
> 
> 
> _UltraHD (HDMI 2.0)Selected A/V receivers and network controllers are able to pass native 4K video captured at 60 frames per second (60 Hz) from compatible source devices to an Ultra HD display via HDMI® 2.0._
> 
> 
> So if my source is doing 25 Hz it will do 25 Hz, or am i wrong ?


Audioholics explain it this way:

http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2

_new Onkyo receivers are listed with HDCP 2.2. What they aren't telling you is that the HDMI 2.0 implementation is limited to 10.2Gbps (just like HDMI 1.4). While this allows the Onkyo receiver to pass the HDCP 2.2 handshake, it will limit how much data can be passed, negating many of the benefits of HDMI 2.0._


----------



## Manni01

CBdicX said:


> Think thats the source, the Horizon TV box.
> 
> 
> It can do 60 Hz acording to this text from the Integra site and for the DTR 70.6 :
> 
> 
> _UltraHD (HDMI 2.0)Selected A/V receivers and network controllers are able to pass native 4K video captured at 60 frames per second (60 Hz) from compatible source devices to an Ultra HD display via HDMI® 2.0._
> 
> 
> So if my source is doing 25 Hz it will do 25 Hz, or am i wrong ?


The current AVRs supporting HDCP 2.2 only support 60hz at 4:2:0 8bits (same 10Gb/s bandwidth as HDMI 1.4). The new Silicon Image chipsets handling both HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 full bandwidth (18Gb/s) have just been delivered to manufacturers in quantity. First models with full HDMI 2.0 support are therefore expected around the end of the year / early 2015.

Edit: UHD-TV sources will be 50 or 60hz, and require a minimum of 10 bits in 4:2:0 for the first phase, so the Onkyo and other AVRs with limited HDMI 10Gb/s bandwidth will not support them.


----------



## Josh Z

RRF743 said:


> While looking for a 7.1 movie in my collection, I found that Star Trek "Into Darkness" is not 7.1 Dolby True HD like its advertises on the back of the disc. It gives the option to select it in the discs' menu but the Denon reads a 5.1 signal input after starting the movie.


The Star Trek into Darkness Blu-ray does have a TrueHD 7.1 track. Not sure why your equipment is only giving you 5.1 from it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

scarabaeus said:


> Still could have benefited from Atmos: http://www.slashfilm.com/interstellar-sound-issues/


For sure... reading those comments makes me wonder. I didn't notice a huge issue with dialogue... but I'm not opposed to Hans Zimmer's score drowning it out. I had goosebumps like crazy. It was painfully loud though... painful!


----------



## Al Sherwood

HTinParadise said:


> Audioholics explain it this way:
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2
> 
> _new Onkyo receivers are listed with HDCP 2.2. What they aren't telling you is that the HDMI 2.0 implementation is limited to 10.2Gbps (just like HDMI 1.4). While this allows the Onkyo receiver to pass the HDCP 2.2 handshake, it will limit how much data can be passed, negating many of the benefits of HDMI 2.0._



Yes, understood about the bandwidth, but the question that I thought we were talking about was the AVR's ability to correctly handle a 4K signal with HDCP, which the Onkyo can.



Manni01 said:


> The current AVRs supporting HDCP 2.2 only support 60hz at 4:2:0 8bits (same 10Gb/s bandwidth as HDMI 1.4). The new Silicon Image chipsets handling both HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 full bandwidth (18Gb/s) have just been delivered to manufacturers in quantity. First models with full HDMI 2.0 support are therefore expected around the end of the year / early 2015.



And Yes, and it is good to hear that the new chipsets are available and should be showing up in an AVR soon (I am waiting with fingers crossed!)


I know that both Denon and Onkyo wanted to get AVR's out there with Atmos ASAP, I think they both missed stepped at least a little bit with the HDMI/HDCP side of things, neither camp implemented a full set of specs, Onkyo without full HDMI capability, and Denon without HDCP, with the current offerings you have to choose your poison as the saying goes...


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> Thanks in advance I'm waiting on delivery of my new TX-NR 1030 so that will apply as well??? I'm not that too concerned as I'm a few years away from having a 4k TV or blu-ray as both my TV's are very new one year old and two years old respectively...I'm content at the moment with 1080P I'm just very excited to get Atmos for the moment going to try 7.2.4.... a little off topic here but can I ask.... would it sound OK to move my surrounds slightly forward of my couch and my backs slightly behind and toed in towards MLP of my couch along each side wall as I don't have room for the back speakers to be behind the couch


Yes, the TX-NR1030 has the same implementation as the Integra 70.6 and TX-NR3030


----------



## mark_anderson_u

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't think you can. It's missing one of the folders from the original disc. You can, however, make a data Blu-ray disc from the two folders and inf file. Just be sure to finalize it. Kind of a waste of a blank BD-R since the files take up so little space on a 25 GB disc.


Thanks


----------



## RRF743

Josh Z said:


> The Star Trek into Darkness Blu-ray does have a TrueHD 7.1 track. Not sure why your equipment is only giving you 5.1 from it.


Thanks Josh Z for replying. Don't mean to ask a silly question, but did you check the signal after starting the movie?


----------



## RRF743

By the way. Any uprade their firmware with the Yammy 3040?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

scarabaeus said:


> Still could have benefited from Atmos: http://www.slashfilm.com/interstellar-sound-issues/


For sure... reading those comments makes me wonder. I didn't notice a huge issue with dialogue... but I'm not opposed to Hans Zimmer's score drowning it out. I had goosebumps like crazy. It was painfully loud though... painful!


----------



## RRF743

RRF743 said:


> Thanks Josh Z for replying. Don't mean to ask a silly question, but did you check the signal after starting the movie?


By the way, anyone upgrade their Yammy A3040 with the new Atmos firmware?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Woops sorry (not sure what that turned into a double post).


----------



## Josh Z

RRF743 said:


> Thanks Josh Z for replying. Don't mean to ask a silly question, but did you check the signal after starting the movie?


When I pulled up the Info screen on my OPPO Blu-ray player, it confirmed the 7.1.


----------



## smurraybhm

bargervais said:


> Thanks in advance I'm waiting on delivery of my new TX-NR 1030 so that will apply as well??? I'm not that too concerned as I'm a few years away from having a 4k TV or blu-ray as both my TV's are very new one year old and two years old respectively...I'm content at the moment with 1080P I'm just very excited to get Atmos for the moment going to try 7.2.4.... a little off topic here but can I ask.... would it sound OK to move my surrounds slightly forward of my couch and my backs slightly behind and toed in towards MLP of my couch along each side wall as I don't have room for the back speakers to be behind the couch


You just described my situation with surrounds given I have a sofa that is near wall and a few open spaces on one wall. When I moved my side surrounds down to ear level I had to place my side surrounds a few feet in front of the sofa - sounds great. I have bipoles on the back wall - which is similar to your toed in approach. Picture attached.


----------



## rmerlano

smurraybhm said:


> I am getting great results with less than perfect *angular* separation between speakers - as Dolby said, it doesn't have to be perfect and implying that it does only confuses those considering a worthwhile upgrade in the surround sound department. As Scott said, just fill in the gaps and you'll be happy with the results - or should I say sound.


Could you, please, share your design? :smile:


----------



## RRF743

RRF743 said:


> By the way. Any uprade their firmware with the Yammy 3040?





Josh Z said:


> When I pulled up the Info screen on my OPPO Blu-ray player, it confirmed the 7.1.


Thanks. I re-check my movie along with other 7.1 blurays.


----------



## Selden Ball

rmerlano said:


> Could you, please, share your design? :smile:


He just did. See the post above yours.

I have to admit, I'm in a very similar situation and did the same: I put the "side surrounds" in front of the sofa. While it is unlikely to to produce the soundstage actually intended by the mixers, it sounds quite good.


----------



## rmerlano

Selden Ball said:


> He just did. See the post above yours.
> 
> I have to admit, I'm in a very similar situation and did the same: I put the "side surrounds" in front of the sofa. While it is unlikely to to produce the soundstage actually intended by the mixers, it sounds quite good.


Yes, he just post while I was writing mine!

Thank you!


----------



## WayneJoy

I saw Interstellar twice in different theaters and had trouble understanding the dialogue in both.


----------



## smurraybhm

rmerlano said:


> Yes, he just post while I was writing mine!
> 
> Thank you!


See how helpful AVSers are - we even anticipate requests 
Welcome to the thread. I have a small space with a number of challenges, but I have managed to place 11 speakers and 2 subs (much to the dismay and disbelief of my wife) in the room and they work/sound really good together - thanks in part to Audyssey and the Denon 5200. Just fill the gaps in your room as Scott suggested a few weeks ago and you'll be happy. If you can do things exactly to spec, even better, but speakers don't have to be placed perfectly to sound pretty damn good.


----------



## maikeldepotter

smurraybhm said:


> You keep saying that, trust me anyone reading this thread has gotten the message loud and clear.


Thank you. That is a comforting thought...



> Problem is most of use do not have the perfectly shaped room with nothing else in it which allows us to place speakers with even *angular* separation between them.


Nor have I.




> It has been stated many times before that implementing Atmos in one's home isn't rocket science, even though I can respect those on this forum who want to think it is


It is not, and you might have point here.



> I am getting great results with less than perfect *angular* separation between speakers - as Dolby said, it doesn't have to be perfect and implying that it does only confuses those considering a worthwhile upgrade in the surround sound department. As Scott said, just fill in the gaps and you'll be happy with the results - or should I say sound.


I don't think we are in real disagreement on this. It is not my intention to confuse, just to try and find a way of getting the best possible Atmos lay-out in each of our rooms/ situations. Perfect for me is to get as close as possible to ideal given all inevitable limitations. My approach to life in general, now I come to think of it.


----------



## smurraybhm

maikeldepotter said:


> ... just to try and find a way of getting the best possible Atmos lay-out in each of our rooms/ situations. Perfect for me is to get as close as possible to ideal given all inevitable limitations. My approach to life in general, now I come to think of it.


Agreed, but I am also a firm believer in the keep it simple approach, since some have a tendency to get so caught up in the details or in seeking perfection that it keeps them from making a decision/taking action. The good news is that unless one is putting holes in their ceiling it is easy to make adjustments. In my case it was using step ladders to see what overhead locations worked the best in my room before putting them up.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> You just described my situation with surrounds given I have a sofa that is near wall and a few open spaces on one wall. When I moved my side surrounds down to ear level I had to place my side surrounds a few feet in front of the sofa - sounds great. I have bipoles on the back wall - which is similar to your toed in approach. Picture attached.


I will give it a go I'm using BIC Acoustech PL-66 Surround Speakers with matching BIC Acoustech PL-28II Center Speaker and I'm using the bic formula bookshelf speakers for FRONTS and back that completes my base 7.2 so I'll move my surrounds slightly forward and place the backs slightly behind my couch, for what some say it's not ideal or is what is intended but it maybe pleasing. Thanks again for sharing that you think it sounds quite good...
Than I'll have .4 top front top rear. I'll report back once my receiver gets here some time the beginning of next week growl  I hate to wait I'm more of an instant gratification kind of guy that can't wait maybe that's why I have had five receivers in the last four years..


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, understood about the bandwidth, but the question that I thought we were talking about was the AVR's ability to correctly handle a 4K signal with HDCP, which the Onkyo can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Yes, and it is good to hear that the new chipsets are available and should be showing up in an AVR soon (I am waiting with fingers crossed!)
> 
> 
> I know that both Denon and Onkyo wanted to get AVR's out there with Atmos ASAP, I think they both missed stepped at least a little bit with the HDMI/HDCP side of things, neither camp implemented a full set of specs, Onkyo without full HDMI capability, and Denon without HDCP, with the current offerings you have to choose your poison as the saying goes...


Like I mentioned being an early adopter of atmos not having the full HDMI 2 or HDCP 2.2 as I think once all the dust settles in regards to 4K my new receivers will be years old I just bought two TV's within the last two years and I'm not going to upgrade for another five years unless they dump on me... so I'll be just fine, look how long it's taking to get blurays with atmos and who knows by the time the dust settles with 4K we may all be streaming or downloading it... and there will be no blu rays who knows. it just seems things change fast with electronics and my head is spinning just trying to keep current there will always be something new on the next model or two...


----------



## jdsmoothie

Al Sherwood said:


> I know that both Denon and Onkyo wanted to get AVR's out there with Atmos ASAP, I think they both missed stepped at least a little bit with the HDMI/HDCP side of things, neither camp implemented a full set of specs, Onkyo without full HDMI capability, and Denon without HDCP, with the current offerings you have to choose your poison as the saying goes...


Neither miss stepped as the new models of all the major brands are normally released summer of each year, so only next year's 2015 models will be able to be released with the new chips. The vast majority of the buying public will not see 4K video in their homes for several years to come (if at all), certainly not worth holding back a whole year's new line of models for a very small minority. The focus was on the new Atmos tech, not on 4K video.


----------



## Al Sherwood

jdsmoothie said:


> Neither miss stepped as the new models of all the major brands are normally released summer of each year, so only next year's 2015 models will be able to be released with the new chips. The vast majority of the buying public will not see 4K video in their homes for several years to come (if at all), certainly not worth holding back a whole year's new line of models for a very small minority. The focus was on the new Atmos tech, not on 4K video.



I disagree JD, neither has a complete implementation of these specs, yes new models will come out with improved specifications that is true, but both manufacturers had to make a conscious choice on what to include AND what they were *not* going to include. Remember I did say "missed stepped at least a *little bit*...". 


I wouldn't even think they would hold back just to be able to offer the complete implementation of HDMI/HDCP, as you say Atmos was the focus. But, there are a lot of us who want Atmos, and full DHCP/HDMI and do not want to 'upgrade' next year to get it. I for one will wait for both parts of this equation to be fulfilled before taking the plunge. 


For those who have deep pockets and do the upgrade dance every year or when they feel like the new model is worth it, great but not all of us can afford that.


----------



## BigScreen

I don't believe that the receiver mfrs misstepped at all, but rather they released their models with the new tech available when their model refreshes were due.

Based on the experiences people have had so far, the inclusion of Atmos was done pretty well. The fact that at least one model is going to be upgradeable to Auro is a testament to the ability of that mfr to produce a product that could receive such an upgrade instead of forcing a new hardware purchase.

As far as Atmos is concerned, I would say that it's the software side where any missteps have happened. The hardware was ready (pretty much on its original timeframe) but the fact that there are only two mainstream releases, and no test material, speaks to that. At this point, the hardware manufacturers are looking like the early adopters!

As far as 4K goes, the chips weren't ready for a full implementation when these receivers were going to be refreshed. At least we know of the limitations going into the purchase, even if the general populace does not (which is unfortunate). I'm not even sure how big a deal that not having HDCP 2.2 will be, as no content requires it yet. For all we know, they won't force the issue for quite some time, but those looking for the most future security are going to have to wait until next year at least.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> I disagree JD, neither has a complete implementation of these specs, yes new models will come out with improved specifications that is true, but both manufacturers had to make a conscious choice on what to include AND what they were *not* going to include. Remember I did say "missed stepped at least a *little bit*...".
> 
> 
> I wouldn't even think they would hold back just to be able to offer the complete implementation of HDMI/HDCP, as you say Atmos was the focus. But, there are a lot of us who want Atmos, and full DHCP/HDMI and do not want to 'upgrade' next year to get it. I for one will wait for both parts of this equation to be fulfilled before taking the plunge.
> 
> 
> For those who have deep pockets and do the upgrade dance every year or when they feel like the new model is worth it, great but not all of us can afford that.


The thing about 4k though is that you gotta ask yourself why you'd want it so soon? I don't think the content will be ready... not until those providing us with content are equipped to grade it for HDR with the next color spec. + The first 4k bluray discs won't be any larger than current bd's... I predict a repeat of what happened when 1080p bluray first hit the market. I bet it will take a few years to get all these standards & disc sizes worked out. Either that or hopefully you have a pretty damn fast internet connection!

Though I guess we early Atmos adopters are in the same boat as well... not much content available to watch @ home, unless you want to watch some ninja turtles or robot dinosaurs (lolz). But that upmixer!


----------



## kuro6010

Aras_Volodka said:


> The thing about 4k though is that you gotta ask yourself why you'd want it so soon? I don't think the content will be ready... not until those providing us with content are equipped to grade it for HDR with the next color spec. + The first 4k bluray discs won't be any larger than current bd's... I predict a repeat of what happened when 1080p bluray first hit the market. I bet it will take a few years to get all these standards & disc sizes worked out. Either that or hopefully you have a pretty damn fast internet connection!
> 
> Though I guess we early Atmos adopters are in the same boat as well... not much content available to watch @ home, unless you want to watch some ninja turtles or robot dinosaurs (lolz). But that upmixer!


Hello Gents, been reading about dolby atoms lately and excited about it. But like you said very little atoms material out there. Not to mention that some studios cancelled their blu ray Atmos blu rays. Anyways, wondering if anyone has heard the Onkyo Dolby atmos enabled speakers?
And still debating wether to go with the Marantz sr 7009 or Denon X5200?

Panasonic 65VT30
Integra DTR 70.2
L+R Dynaudio Excite X36
Dynaudio Center Excite x22
Rear L+R Cerwin Vega CMX 5
Subwoofer HSU VTF-15 
Emotiva XPA-5

Sal


----------



## petetherock

jdsmoothie said:


> Neither miss stepped as the new models of all the major brands are normally released summer of each year, so only next year's 2015 models will be able to be released with the new chips. The vast majority of the buying public will not see 4K video in their homes for several years to come (if at all), certainly not worth holding back a whole year's new line of models for a very small minority. The focus was on the new Atmos tech, not on 4K video.


Well we tend to upgrade a lot as hobbyists here, but if I were average John Smith out there, I will rue to buy something if I know the chipset is 'incomplete'.

I put in the inverted commas, because someone will jump in and say that they are, but to a typical consumer, they won't be too happy to know that they have bought something that can't another something immediately...

It's a bit akin to buying a new Toyota that can't go to 150 khp, because the throttle doesn't have a chip that can do that until a new chip comes in 2015. I reckon the consumer will skip this one..

And the fact that software on the ground is thinner than a bikini, means that John Smith is also going to be unhappy that his "Atmos" logo doesn't light up, or he can't experience Atmos all the time..
I mean, how many times will he put in Transformers 4? 
I won't buy Step It Up, it's just too painful for even one viewing. TMNT? That might be ok, but again, we need software ASAP...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kuro6010 said:


> Hello Gents, been reading about dolby atoms lately and excited about it. But like you said very little atoms material out there. Not to mention that some studios cancelled their blu ray Atmos blu rays. Anyways, wondering if anyone has heard the Onkyo Dolby atmos enabled speakers?
> And still debating wether to go with the Marantz sr 7009 or Denon X5200?
> 
> Panasonic 65VT30
> Integra DTR 70.2
> L+R Dynaudio Excite X36
> Dynaudio Center Excite x22
> Rear L+R Cerwin Vega CMX 5
> Subwoofer HSU VTF-15
> Emotiva XPA-5
> 
> Sal


I have not heard the Onkyo speakers... but I wouldn't expect much from them unless that's all you can afford. The modules that I'm looking forwards to are the atlantic techs. They are 2x as much price wise as the onkyos, but the same price as the def techs. However, they have a larger woofer, by quite a large margin. Batpig had the Def Tech A60's, he wrote about them in a very descriptive post on this thread a while back. I guess the Def Techs (& the onkyos?) have a 2 1/2" woofer, while the Atlantic has the 5". I would expect the Def Techs to be pretty similar to the Onkyos... but I've only heard the Def Techs so it's hard for me to say how different they might be. 

I have the X5200w, it's pretty awesome upgrade for me. Going 7.1.4 is pretty sweet. I did get to test out my setup with the dolby atmos disc... sounds very good but I have yet to get the actual modules... I'm using small satellite speakers pointed upwards so there is a lot more dispersion involved right now. I can't speak any more highly of the Denon... I don't know much about the Marantz, I think the 7.1.4 Marantz is more pricey if I remember correctly? Well in either case, zero regrets here... and that was a big decision for me. (first new receiver in 12 years!)

If "into the storm" or "maze runner" comes out of bluray I will test that out on my system... because I remember very clearly how that sounded in a good Atmos theater in my area. To be honest with the way I have it currently setup with the crappy fake modules, the overhead panning isn't well defined... but right now my rear speakers are in the shop so that might change considerably when everything is up and working again + when I have the atlantic techs. But when I watch movies right now I actually do hear a lot of overhead info coming from the fake modules... the upmixer really does do something magical. Especially in raining scenes with thunder... it sounds like there is a rainstorm in the room. Pretty cool.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I think they should have made the Dolby Atmos announcement a little bigger, but still...


----------



## Schwa

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think they should have made the Dolby Atmos announcement a little bigger, but still...


So I guess the current version has 3D video and this new version has 3D audio. I wonder if the Platinum Super Deluxe Edition will have both.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Schwa said:


> So I guess the current version has 3D video and this new version has 3D audio. I wonder if the Platinum Super Deluxe Edition will have both.


Given as how the 3D release was a 2D conversion... I am much more stoked about the audio. That is _all_ I'll be buying it for. 

If something like _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ came out with an Atmos remix next year... I would probably wet myself. A f--king great movie with an awesome soundtrack to go with it!! That combo is, sadly, few and far between.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Alright, I will wait till *'Gravity'* get a new release on Blu-ray, with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> And if my crystal ball is well oiled with accuracy, we should be in luck in the year 2017.
> Most of us should still be here, others won't.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I think they should have made the Dolby Atmos announcement a little bigger, but still...


Wow, awesome! 

* I'm gong to get meself a new Atmos crystal ball.

P.S. Is this in 3D? ...Because if it isn't then I'll wait for the Dolby Atmos version in 3D. 
But I bet it is both in 2D and 3D. ...The picture, with 3D elevated sound (Atmos).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Wow, awesome!
> 
> * I'm gong to get meself a new Atmos crystal ball.


Finally, though it sucks it won't have 3D! Why are the bluray gods punishing us so? I didn't like the movie but I'd still buy it for the sound... I didn't get to hear the atmos mix in theater but even the IMAX mix sounded pretty good. 

You guys want to hear something pretty? This is one of the themes from Interstellar. Good celebration music for an Atmos release announcement


----------



## HTinParadise

Schwa said:


> So I guess the current version has 3D video and this new version has 3D audio. I wonder if the Platinum Super Deluxe Edition will have both.


Then, there is still a reasonable hope that the "Hobbit" trilogy will still be (re-)released in Atmos Blu ray...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

HTinParadise said:


> Then, there is still a reasonable hope that the "Hobbit" trilogy will still be (re-)released in Atmos Blu ray...


I was thinking about that... here is my guess: When the 5 armies comes out on BD... that will come out in 2D with Atmos. Then another edition with 3D will come out, but no Atmos. Then another edition will come out with both. Then the whole trilogy will come out, in Atmos but in 2D. Then another edition with 3D but no Atmos. Then finally an edition with 3D & Atmos. Then the 4k HDR graded version in 2D with Atmos. Then the 4k HDR graded version with 3D but no Atmos. Then the 4k HDR graded version with 3D & Atmos. Then the holographic version without Atmos... etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Skylinestar

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was thinking about that... here is my guess: When the 5 armies comes out on BD... that will come out in 2D with Atmos. Then another edition with 3D will come out, but no Atmos. Then another edition will come out with both. Then the whole trilogy will come out, in Atmos but in 2D. Then another edition with 3D but no Atmos. Then finally an edition with 3D & Atmos. Then the 4k HDR graded version in 2D with Atmos. Then the 4k HDR graded version with 3D but no Atmos. Then the 4k HDR graded version with 3D & Atmos. Then the holographic version without Atmos... etc, etc, etc.


...Titanic in 4k 3D Atmos


----------



## Lee Pereira

mark_anderson_u said:


> How can I make and ISO of these files?


I am not too sure about getting it into an ISO. I would've assumed directly adding it to one suing something like Magic ISO or any ISO creation tools.

I just played the files from the Stream folder on my PC and had it output 7.1 DD+


----------



## CBdicX

Manni01 said:


> The current AVRs supporting HDCP 2.2 only support 60hz at 4:2:0 8bits (same 10Gb/s bandwidth as HDMI 1.4). The new Silicon Image chipsets handling both HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 full bandwidth (18Gb/s) have just been delivered to manufacturers in quantity. First models with full HDMI 2.0 support are therefore expected around the end of the year / early 2015.
> 
> Edit: UHD-TV sources will be 50 or 60hz, and require a minimum of 10 bits in 4:2:0 for the first phase, so the Onkyo and other AVRs with limited HDMI 10Gb/s bandwidth will not support them.



Ok, i understand, but then the source needs to be also UHD to put out minimum 50-60 Hz 10 bits 4.2.0, and when will that be, and will it be visible to the standard customer at normal vieuwing distance on a 4K ?


I use the Samsung 65HU8500 curved model and i like the overall picture quality compared to a "normal" Full HD LCD.
I do see more line flickering in content from the Horizon STB even the Horizon is putting out 1080P in 4.4.4.
Blu ray has no flickering problems........


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think they should have made the Dolby Atmos announcement a little bigger, but still...


----------



## CBdicX

kuro6010 said:


> Anyways, wondering if anyone has heard the Onkyo Dolby atmos enabled speakers?
> 
> Sal



I "had" them, they sound good but i used them on-top of Boston M350 and M250 but this whas an ugly combo.
I know its about the sound with Atmos but the eye needs also to be happy ;-)
Think Kef R50 will be a nicer, and maybe better speaker, but its in the 1000 euro pirce range for 4 speakers :-(
So i returned the Onlyo Atmos speakers and am waiting for Kef to lower the price for the R50 or see what other brands will do in the design department.


And keep in mind that the Onkyo speakers are made to be a "gift" from Onkyo with the Atmos receiver line.
They are sold online but are intended as a gift speaker.....


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Bummer that they are milking it by releasing Gravity with ATMOS but not in 3d, yeah they will probably release it yet again... ~_~


----------



## bargervais

Daniel Chaves said:


> Bummer that they are milking it by releasing Gravity with ATMOS but not in 3d, yeah they will probably release it yet again... ~_~


Look back at all the releases of Avatar, I have three releases of that one, if they remastered and release Avatar to include Atmos audio I would use my milk money and buy it again


----------



## ss9001

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think they should have made the Dolby Atmos announcement a little bigger, but still...


Very nice, even without 3D version. I will buy! I planned to have the speakers for Atmos in my AV room by end of the year so this is a must buy for me. 

This could be the real launch of home Atmos


----------



## jdsmoothie

CBdicX said:


> I "had" them, they sound good but i used them on-top of Boston M350 and M250 but this whas an ugly combo.
> I know its about the sound with Atmos but the eye needs also to be happy ;-)
> Think Kef R50 will be a nicer, and maybe better speaker, but its in the 1000 euro pirce range for 4 speakers :-(
> So i returned the Onlyo Atmos speakers and am waiting for Kef to lower the price for the R50 or see what other brands will do in the design department.
> 
> 
> *And keep in mind that the Onkyo speakers are made to be a "gift" from Onkyo with the Atmos receiver line.
> They are sold online but are intended as a gift speaker.*....


This is only true in Europe. No "gift" offer in USA.


----------



## CBdicX

jdsmoothie said:


> This is only true in Europe. No "gift" offer in USA.


*Ok, and the other way around:*


The USA gets bass plugs with the Boston M350, we in Europe do not........


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
This is an Atmos thread.


----------



## Al Sherwood

BigScreen said:


> I don't believe that the receiver mfrs misstepped at all, but rather they released their models with the new tech available when their model refreshes were due.
> 
> Based on the experiences people have had so far, the inclusion of Atmos was done pretty well. The fact that at least one model is going to be upgradeable to Auro is a testament to the ability of that mfr to produce a product that could receive such an upgrade instead of forcing a new hardware purchase.
> 
> As far as Atmos is concerned, I would say that it's the software side where any missteps have happened. The hardware was ready (pretty much on its original timeframe) but the fact that there are only two mainstream releases, and no test material, speaks to that. At this point, the hardware manufacturers are looking like the early adopters!
> 
> As far as 4K goes, the chips weren't ready for a full implementation when these receivers were going to be refreshed. At least we know of the limitations going into the purchase, even if the general populace does not (which is unfortunate). I'm not even sure how big a deal that not having HDCP 2.2 will be, as no content requires it yet. For all we know, they won't force the issue for quite some time, but those looking for the most future security are going to have to wait until next year at least.



I know about the lack of 4K chips that do it all, but when they are offering AVR's that are '4K ready', and I for one feel that should mean 'True 4K' which also include full HDCP implementation, there are many who don't frequent this forum that don't know they are getting '4K Lite'... As for Atmos, how many times has the question been asked about adding more height or high speakers at the same time, a limit of 2 pairs seems interesting considering most diagrams in the AVR manuals show 3 pairs of height speakers and 2 pars of high, could this be coming soon to an AVR near you?



Aras_Volodka said:


> The thing about 4k though is that you gotta ask yourself why you'd want it so soon? I don't think the content will be ready... not until those providing us with content are equipped to grade it for HDR with the next color spec. + The first 4k bluray discs won't be any larger than current bd's... I predict a repeat of what happened when 1080p bluray first hit the market. I bet it will take a few years to get all these standards & disc sizes worked out. Either that or hopefully you have a pretty damn fast internet connection!
> 
> Though I guess we early Atmos adopters are in the same boat as well... not much content available to watch @ home, unless you want to watch some ninja turtles or robot dinosaurs (lolz). But that upmixer!



Why do I want 4K, because it is out there, maybe not to everybody, but there are a fair amount of 4K TV's and even media players and soon streaming for it, Atmos content is only a step behind, we are seeing more announcements every day, by this time next year I think the availability of titles will be much greater.


With regards to all of this, I will give my current take on the state of Atmos and 4K in the same AVR; I will be watching with interest and saving my money for a 'True 4K' capable AVR, with all of the connectivity that requires combined with Atmos (and possibly Auro) decoding that possibly adds addition height/high channel capabilities. 


Too much, I don't think so.


----------



## Stanton

Al Sherwood said:


> With regards to all of this, I will give my current take on the state of Atmos and 4K in the same AVR; I will be watching with interest and saving my money for a 'True 4K' capable AVR, with all of the connectivity that requires combined with Atmos (and possibly Auro) decoding that possibly adds addition height/high channel capabilities.
> 
> Too much, I don't think so.


I don't think so either; in fact, I think this is what we'll see in next year's models. I will be ready-and-waiting with $$ in hand as well!


----------



## prince.nothing

hey gang, I currently have a 5.2 setup and my right and left surround speakers are a little over five feet off the ground (I have an eight feet ceiling). I am planning on adding four ceiling speakers for atmos, and was going through the specifications on the dolby website. They say that the left and right surrounds have to be as close to ear level as possible. Unfortunately, I doubt I can achieve this as that would obstruct the narrow aisle on either side of my recliner. Has anyone setup atmos with the surround speakers above ear level? Thanks for your inputs.


----------



## Gurba

There's a lot of talking about full HDCP 2.2 compliance here. What are the important bits of that for us so I know what to look for when buying stuff?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

prince.nothing said:


> hey gang, I currently have a 5.2 setup and my right and left surround speakers are a little over five feet off the ground (I have an eight feet ceiling). I am planning on adding four ceiling speakers for atmos, and was going through the specifications on the dolby website. They say that the left and right surrounds have to be as close to ear level as possible. Unfortunately, I doubt I can achieve this as that would obstruct the narrow aisle on either side of my recliner. Has anyone setup atmos with the surround speakers above ear level? Thanks for your inputs.


You should put them as close to ear level as possible without obstructing the sounds emanating from the surrounds due to peoples' heads. Dolby says no more than 1.5x ear level.


----------



## htpcforever

Gurba said:


> There's a lot of talking about full HDCP 2.2 compliance here. What are the important bits of that for us so I know what to look for when buying stuff?


Here is a good write up about HDCP 2.2. I have pulled out some of the important bits:




> So what's new? The encryption on the keys in version 2.2 is more advanced than previous versions which, in theory, makes the whole chain harder to break. One other interesting change with 2.2 is a "locality check." The source sends a signal to the sink, and if the sink doesn't get that signal within 20ms, the source kills the connection. In theory, this shouldn't cause any issues in home setups, even over long HDMI runs (unless you have more than 3,740 miles of cable).
> 
> 
> You don't need to ditch your gear just yet. HDCP 2.2 is essentially about UltraHD 4K copy protection. So for now anyone with (or buying) a non-4K 1080p TV doesn't need to worry. Once we start seeing more widely available 4K content, it will be more of an issue.
> 
> Your current devices will work fine with new HDCP 2.2 devices, presuming you're not trying to send content with 2.2. As in, your current Blu-ray player will send 1080p to a 2.2-enabled receiver, or to a 4K TV, with no issues.
> 
> 
> *Not Just TVs*
> The problem extends throughout the chain. Run your HDMI through a receiver or soundbar? They'll need to be HDCP 2.2 compliant as well. It's important to note, there are many receivers shipping this year that have HDMI 2.0, but are not HDCP 2.2 compliant. That might be an issue eventually, as we've discussed.
> 
> 
> For now, HDCP 2.2 is something to have in the back of your head, but not something worth worrying about. That is, unless you're planning on making the move to 4K, or buying something that will last a while, like a receiver. Then it's worth making sure it has HDCP 2.2 just to make it as "futureproof" as possible.


http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/#!




So if you do not plan on keeping your AVR for a long time and / or do not plan on moving the rest of your stuff to UHD (aka 4K), then you have nothing to worry about. However, if you plan on moving to UHD, you will have to replace your AVR if it is not HDCP 2.2 compliant. With BluRay players, TVs, etc., it is no big deal because you KNOW you have to replace them to go UHD (you cannot play without a UHD player and cannot view without a UHD TV)...so unless you were a bleeding edge adopter, you will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in both of them...but a non-compliant AVR is in the chain and will prevent UHD from working.


----------



## htpcforever

Skylinestar said:


> ...Titanic in 4k 3D Atmos


Charlie Chaplain in 4k 3D Atmos!


----------



## Al Sherwood

htpcforever said:


> Here is a good write up about HDCP 2.2. I have pulled out some of the important bits:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/#!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you do not plan on keeping your AVR for a long time and / or do not plan on moving the rest of your stuff to UHD (aka 4K), then you have nothing to worry about. However, if you plan on moving to UHD, you will have to replace your AVR if it is not HDCP 2.2 compliant. With BluRay players, TVs, etc., it is no big deal because you KNOW you have to replace them to go UHD (you cannot play without a UHD player and cannot view without a UHD TV)...so unless you were a bleeding edge adopter, you will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in both of them...but a non-compliant AVR is in the chain and will prevent UHD from working.



Thanks for posting this worthwhile information about important considerations around this specification!


----------



## LairdWilliams

I am at another end of the spectrum as regards Atmos and speaker placement. I have an 18' ceiling in the room where my HT is. 5.x and 7.x both sound fantastic - but it is quite clear to me that reflected sound for the ceiling for 5.x.2/4 or 7.x.2/4 will not work. I have access to the attic and can put speakers up there, but I am not confident that it will work all that well. It seems to me that the sound from the ceiling speakers would spread out too far before reaching the listening position.

Any thoughts on speakers for this setup? Perhaps something that is NOT wide dispersion? Does anyone know if the HT specs from Dolby address this kind of configuration?
Any creative thoughts on in-ceiling speakers for this application?

Fronts and surrounds are about 12' from the listening position. Rears are at about 4'.


----------



## sdurani

LairdWilliams said:


> It seems to me that the sound from the ceiling speakers would spread out too far before reaching the listening position.


Then spread the overhead speakers wider apart for better separation.


----------



## bargervais

LairdWilliams said:


> I am at another end of the spectrum as regards Atmos and speaker placement. I have an 18' ceiling in the room where my HT is. 5.x and 7.x both sound fantastic - but it is quite clear to me that reflected sound for the ceiling for 5.x.2/4 or 7.x.2/4 will not work. I have access to the attic and can put speakers up there, but I am not confident that it will work all that well. It seems to me that the sound from the ceiling speakers would spread out too far before reaching the listening position.
> 
> Any thoughts on speakers for this setup? Perhaps something that is NOT wide dispersion? Does anyone know if the HT specs from Dolby address this kind of configuration?
> Any creative thoughts on in-ceiling speakers for this application?
> 
> Fronts and surrounds are about 12' from the listening position. Rears are at about 4'.


You could suspend them by using a pole attached to the ceiling so the actual speakers would be between seven to eight feet above the MLP at the correct angles. 
Just a thought.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Keith,
> 
> You haven't posted since Halloween. Great Pumpkin get you? Still reading ahead? Enjoying your HT instead?
> 
> Hope all is well.


Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


Welcome back.


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> You could suspend them by using a pole attached to the ceiling so the actual speakers would be between seven to eight feet above the MLP at the correct angles.
> Just a thought.


Why place them so low? He isn't restricted by ceiling height, why would you want the overhead speakers at only 7-8ft if you have higher ceilings to work with? The concept is fine but I wouldn't drop them so low.

I think it will also sound fine even with speakers at ceiling height. Obviously I would avoid diffuse speakers like bipoles up there but some nice direct firing ceiling mounted options like the Tannoys that Keith and Roger are using would be great.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> thats why...you should listen to people whoactually have it setup in their homes..me, Keith, batpig etc...
> 
> we have tried it all out and have come to the best case scenario of what is available. please try not to listen to those who havent even tried the different setups


Yes - good point. I have been away and am catching up on about 40 pages of new posts which I missed. So far, most of the posts have been from people fretting about speaker angles and so on. While I don't believe one should just throw up speakers any-old-where, I do think people seem to be overthinking this. Dolby have said "it's pretty hard to make Atmos NOT work well" and in real life almost every room will force compromises on people. How many people have their listener level speakers placed perfectly according to ITU guidelines? I'd suggest not too many, yet nobody has an entire thread devoted to what happens if the front L&R are 5 degrees out, or if the side surrounds are at 120° instead of 110°. Why should it be any different with overhead speakers? Get as close as you can to the recommendations is my advice. If you can't quite manage it, well Atmos isn't suddenly going to 'stop working' because you are a few degrees out any more than the surrounds would. And given the very large permissible ranges for overhead speakers, it seems that their placement is less critical than the other speakers anyway. 

The three members you mention all have quite different rooms and speaker layouts - I’d add Selden, Roger and FilmMixer and a few others to the list as well - and we have all had to compromise in one way or another. Has it spoiled out enjoyment of Atmos and DSU? No it has not. Bottom line: stop fretting and start installing - then sit back and enjoy a huge step-up from what you have currently.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


Hope you got a good tan.

Welcome back.


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


Where in Florida? If I have known, I would have had you come to my house and help me with my setup


----------



## HTinParadise

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


WB KB, LFTI 

(Welcome Back Keith Barnes, Looking Forward To It)


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


You are forbidden to post until you've caught up on your reading.

Hope to hear from you some time after Thanksgiving.


----------



## chi_guy50

htpcforever said:


> Here is a good write up about HDCP 2.2. ./.
> So if you do not plan on keeping your AVR for a long time and / or do not plan on moving the rest of your stuff to UHD (aka 4K), then you have nothing to worry about. *However, if you plan on moving to UHD, you will have to replace your AVR if it is not HDCP 2.2 compliant.* With BluRay players, TVs, etc., it is no big deal because you KNOW you have to replace them to go UHD (you cannot play without a UHD player and cannot view without a UHD TV)...so unless you were a bleeding edge adopter, you will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in both of them...but *a non-compliant AVR is in the chain and will prevent UHD from working.*


That's a handy, concise description of the HDCP 2.2 issue.

I would only add that it should not be necessary in most cases to replace a non-compliant AVR, since you could connect the UHD video device directly to the display and run a separate connection from the video source to the AVR for audio. The key, as you've pointed out, is that all devices in the chain must comply with the encryption spec.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

bargervais said:


> Look back at all the releases of Avatar, I have three releases of that one, if they remastered and release Avatar to include Atmos audio I would use my milk money and buy it again


Yeah I have yet to buy the 3d version lol, but man I forgot about Avatar, that movie would be amazing in ATMOS...


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> (you cannot play without a UHD player and cannot view without a UHD TV)...so unless you were a bleeding edge adopter, you will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in both of them...but a non-compliant AVR is in the chain and will prevent UHD from working.


Some industry insiders are saying that it might not matter - and that so long as the source and the display can handshake with each other, the bit in the middle doesn't matter provided it can pass the signal. I've kept out of discussions on HDCP as I currently have zero interest in 4k displays and by the time I do I will likely be updating my AVR anyway. And, of course, we are OT for this thread anyway so should limit discussion.


----------



## Gurba

htpcforever said:


> Here is a good write up about HDCP 2.2. I have pulled out some of the important bits:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/#!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you do not plan on keeping your AVR for a long time and / or do not plan on moving the rest of your stuff to UHD (aka 4K), then you have nothing to worry about. However, if you plan on moving to UHD, you will have to replace your AVR if it is not HDCP 2.2 compliant. With BluRay players, TVs, etc., it is no big deal because you KNOW you have to replace them to go UHD (you cannot play without a UHD player and cannot view without a UHD TV)...so unless you were a bleeding edge adopter, you will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in both of them...but a non-compliant AVR is in the chain and will prevent UHD from working.


I have a HDCP 2.2 compliant avr so I guess I'm covered until I get a 4k TV and BD.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Welcome back.


Thank you!



kokishin said:


> Hope you got a good tan.
> 
> Welcome back.


I did thanks. The weather was terrific. Way better than our English 'summer'.



mp5475 said:


> Where in Florida? If I have known, I would have had you come to my house and help me with my setup


 Orlando. Took my daughters - they are 26 but still enjoy a vacation with their Daddy. Variou$ rea$ons for that I gue$$ 



HTinParadise said:


> WB KB, LFTI
> 
> (Welcome Back Keith Barnes, Looking Forward To It)


LOL. TYVM.



chi_guy50 said:


> You are forbidden to post until you've caught up on your reading.
> 
> Hope to hear from you some time after Thanksgiving.


It's certainly taken a while to catch up - and that's just this thread. We seem to be in a lull now, with plenty of Atmos hardware available and still not much content. The current issue of Home Cinema Choice (the UK's premier HT mag) has much of its pages devoted to Atmos things, including reviews of Pioneer, Denon and a blow by blow report on the differences between Transformers: AOE in Dolby 7.1 and in Dolby Atmos. As a magazine they are firmly behind Atmos and very enthusiastic. One of their long-time contributors, Richard Stevenson, attended the same Dolby presentation in London as I did and his question when JJ, the Dolby Evangelist, asked if anyone had any questions after the HT demo, was "Where do I buy one?". 

The HCC review of the Denon was very praiseworthy. Less so for the Pioneer which they marked down for its inability to go beyond 9 channels even if external amps were used, and its odd bass management where all speakers have to share a common crossover. Really odd that IMO - and something I'd never picked up on before. Both units got compliments on their Atmos implementations.


----------



## mp5475

Orlando. Took my daughters - they are 26 but still enjoy a vacation with their Daddy. Variou$ rea$ons for that I gue$



Nice! I am only an hour away at Tampa. I took my 2 year old son two weekends ago. Hope you guys went to the Epcot for food and wine festival.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> I know about the lack of 4K chips that do it all, but when they are offering AVR's that are '4K ready', and I for one feel that should mean 'True 4K' which also include full HDCP implementation, there are many who don't frequent this forum that don't know they are getting '4K Lite'... As for Atmos, how many times has the question been asked about adding more height or high speakers at the same time, a limit of 2 pairs seems interesting considering most diagrams in the AVR manuals show 3 pairs of height speakers and 2 pars of high, could this be coming soon to an AVR near you?


I agree and disagree. I'm not a gear head as far as understanding 4k complaint chipsets go, but I do think that there must be some type of trade off in terms of processing power vs. HCDP compliant chips. Take for example the Onkyo vs. Denon... Onkyo is HDCP compliant but can't process as much as the Denon (I'm not sure if the Integra has more processing than the Denon?). The advantage that the Denon has that you could still bypass the HDCP by hooking the receiver with a 2nd HDMI. Did you see episode 225 of home theater geeks? If memory serves me correct, in order to future proof a projector Erskine said he custom installed 4 HDMI cables to ensure it can process all the info it needs! 

If my 5200W is outdated next year by cheaper receivers that could handle 9.4.8 or something like that with 4k HDCP 2.2. with the processing to handle HDR & a 20/20-ish color gamut... then I might regret the purchase I made recently. But I was aware of that going in... I think it's fair to say anything I want out of 4k won't be ready for at least 3 years (according to my crystal ball). We'll see. I have a kid coming on the way so my logic is that when that kid turns 1 I probably won't be able to watch much TV until that kid turns 4 or 5... at which time I'm sure all the 4k specs with HDR will be worked out... perhaps even holographic displays will be hitting the market... so I'll be in 1080p land until then most likely  
I just bought a 64" f8500 plasma... so I got pretty much the best 1080 display I could afford... and I know it outperforms at least some of the 4k TV's (maybe not OLEDS or triluminos... so that's partly why I'm not bothered at all by the HDCP issue (1080p land for 4-ish years probably). I'm also taking into consideration the length of time it took for Bluray to take off. Some people are just getting into bluray right now... most average consumers probably started 3-ish years ago?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> Why do I want 4K, because it is out there, maybe not to everybody, but there are a fair amount of 4K TV's and even media players and soon streaming for it, Atmos content is only a step behind, we are seeing more announcements every day, by this time next year I think the availability of titles will be much greater.
> 
> 
> With regards to all of this, I will give my current take on the state of Atmos and 4K in the same AVR; I will be watching with interest and saving my money for a 'True 4K' capable AVR, with all of the connectivity that requires combined with Atmos (and possibly Auro) decoding that possibly adds addition height/high channel capabilities.
> 
> 
> Too much, I don't think so.


I'm not asking this to be rude, but I'm wondering which display you plan to get? You might not see any benefit to 4k unless you sit very close to your set, or have the cash for something larger than 80"/ projection? Or perhaps an OLED, triluminos, or the VIZIO R series? 

I highly recommend watching every episode on home theater geeks relating to UHD/4k if you haven't. Based on what I heard with the recent ACES color management episode, we might be a long ways off from getting 4k content with the right spec set in place. This spring is when the bluray specs will be announced... & it might not be until a year after that when the first content will come that will make use of *some* of the color that today's UHD tv's can reproduce. If you haven't bought a 4k set yet but might be in the market soon... I'd at least wait like 3 years unless you really want to be on the bleeding edge. The reason why is I think standard TV's by that point will be much more capable to play content that will really wow you in the years to come (when you see HDR you will go nuts... unless if you've seen it already).

If I had the cash I might've bought the Sony Triluminos set... that's like 7,000 dollars though! But I have zero doubts that set will instantly be dated in comparison to a really good HDR set. We'll see when the R series hits the market. 

Either way... I'm not expecting much from 4k content... unless if the online content will be better than what's on the bluray discs (which apparently will be the same size as current BD's?)
But Atmos is all set to go... if only distributors would just print the damn discs (lolz).


----------



## Al Sherwood

Aras_Volodka said:


> I agree and disagree. I'm not a gear head as far as understanding 4k complaint chipsets go, but I do think that there must be some type of trade off in terms of processing power vs. HCDP compliant chips. Take for example the Onkyo vs. Denon... Onkyo is HDCP compliant but can't process as much as the Denon (I'm not sure if the Integra has more processing than the Denon?). The advantage that the Denon has that you could still bypass the HDCP by hooking the receiver with a 2nd HDMI. Did you see episode 225 of home theater geeks? If memory serves me correct, in order to future proof a projector Erskine said he custom installed 4 HDMI cables to ensure it can process all the info it needs!
> 
> If my 5200W is outdated next year by cheaper receivers that could handle 9.4.8 or something like that with 4k HDCP 2.2. with the processing to handle HDR & a 20/20-ish color gamut... then I might regret the purchase I made recently. But I was aware of that going in... I think it's fair to say anything I want out of 4k won't be ready for at least 3 years (according to my crystal ball). We'll see. I have a kid coming on the way so my logic is that when that kid turns 1 I probably won't be able to watch much TV until that kid turns 4 or 5... at which time I'm sure all the 4k specs with HDR will be worked out... perhaps even holographic displays will be hitting the market... so I'll be in 1080p land until then most likely
> I just bought a 64" f8500 plasma... so I got pretty much the best 1080 display I could afford... and I know it outperforms at least some of the 4k TV's (maybe not OLEDS or triluminos... so that's partly why I'm not bothered at all by the HDCP issue (1080p land for 4-ish years probably). I'm also taking into consideration the length of time it took for Bluray to take off. Some people are just getting into bluray right now... most average consumers probably started 3-ish years ago?



If you are happy with running multiple HDMI cables as a work around for a situation where one should do then be my guest, I don't consider this the preferable approach. But, if either the TV or the source are HDCP 2.2 compliant then all units in the chain have to be as well which will make the preceding method a non-starter. I looked at the 65" F8500, almost bought one too, a very nice set and one that will have a beautiful image for years to come, but I decided that I have a 58" plasma, calibrated and tweaked to give an outstanding picture so I am going to upgrade it will be to 4K. So with that in mind, HDCP 2.2 compliance will be a pre-req for all units in the chain.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm not asking this to be rude, but I'm wondering which display you plan to get? You might not see any benefit to 4k unless you sit very close to your set, or have the cash for something larger than 80"/ projection? Or perhaps an OLED, triluminos, or the VIZIO R series?
> 
> I highly recommend watching every episode on home theater geeks relating to UHD/4k if you haven't. Based on what I heard with the recent ACES color management episode, we might be a long ways off from getting 4k content with the right spec set in place. This spring is when the bluray specs will be announced... & it might not be until a year after that when the first content will come that will make use of *some* of the color that today's UHD tv's can reproduce. If you haven't bought a 4k set yet but might be in the market soon... I'd at least wait like 3 years unless you really want to be on the bleeding edge. The reason why is I think standard TV's by that point will be much more capable to play content that will really wow you in the years to come (when you see HDR you will go nuts... unless if you've seen it already).
> 
> If I had the cash I might've bought the Sony Triluminos set... that's like 7,000 dollars though! But I have zero doubts that set will instantly be dated in comparison to a really good HDR set. We'll see when the R series hits the market.
> 
> 
> Either way... I'm not expecting much from 4k content... unless if the online content will be better than what's on the bluray discs (which apparently will be the same size as current BD's?)
> But Atmos is all set to go... if only distributors would just print the damn discs (lolz).



At this point the 4K set that I have in mind is the 65" LG OLED, a worthy successor to the 58" plasma I have now... heck if the 77" get to a price that make sense it may be the set I buy. For me the kids are out of the house and one of our pleasures is to watch a great picture with great sound.


BTW, I think more Atmos and 4K content is just around the corner so I want to make the changes to what I have to accommodate that avoiding as many 'in between' upgrades as possible.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


welcome back we missed you... you should have come by to see me when you were in Florida LOL


----------



## photographerBG

Hello,
I have trouble decoding Dolby Atmos with Onkyo 5530.
I have demo videos of Atmos (by Dolby) and they work fine - Dolby Atmos is decoded.
I have tried every version of Transformers, played from my HTPC - original bluray file and a lot of mkv's files. No Dolby Atmos. And sometimes XBMC or VLC crashes. 
Any idea why I cannot decode Dolby Atmos from those files?

Best regards,
Encho


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> If you are happy with running multiple HDMI cables as a work around for a situation where one should do then be my guest, I don't consider this the preferable approach. But, if either the TV or the source are HDCP 2.2 compliant then all units in the chain have to be as well which will make the preceding method a non-starter. I looked at the 65" F8500, almost bought one too, a very nice set and one that will have a beautiful image for years to come, but I decided that I have a 58" plasma, calibrated and tweaked to give an outstanding picture so I am going to upgrade it will be to 4K. So with that in mind, HDCP 2.2 compliance will be a pre-req for all units in the chain.


The problem is that HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the capability to handle all the data required to process the kinds of specs being discussed for 4k. It will probably be enough for the initial bluray 4k specs... but I think things will change. I think it has something to do with utilizing 12 or 16 bit color @ 24 fps? There might be some type of decoding like Beamr to make things work with current HDMI.


----------



## bargervais

i just had an interesting conversation with Onkyo i'm in the process of setting up for my new TX-NR1030 that will arrive Saturday.. i was a bit confussed with the terminology used in there Manual on how to hook up 7.2.4 about height 1 and height 2 terminal posts and then using the pre-outs. at first he told me that Top Front and Top back were the same and that the sound from the Top front would be the same for the Top back and that it's basically two channels but 4 speakers i was not impressed with that answer. then i asked wouldn't you want to have panning from front to back and viseversa he said no it's just set up for a bigger Home Theater where the audience in the front will hear the samething as the back of the room... to make a long story short i told him that my set up would be 7.2.4 and that i would use an external amp to drive the rear top speakers and i was calling just to get clearification on what i read in the manual..then he put me on hold came back and said i was correct and that the top front and top back are seperate and there will be panning  so we laughed and i said great we both learned something..
so im excited can't wait for saturday


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Al Sherwood said:


> At this point the 4K set that I have in mind is the 65" LG OLED, a worthy successor to the 58" plasma I have now... heck if the 77" get to a price that make sense it may be the set I buy. For me the kids are out of the house and one of our pleasures is to watch a great picture with great sound.
> 
> 
> BTW, I think more Atmos and 4K content is just around the corner so I want to make the changes to what I have to accommodate that avoiding as many 'in between' upgrades as possible.


Does the LG have 12 bit color? I'd at the least wait for that unless if the color processing on the OLED works differently than other sets. (if not I know sets will start using 12 bit color depth this upcoming year for sure) If you can get the 77" go for that sucker... that will be insane  The 65" felt huge at first but now it feels a little small. I went from 40" lcd before this set about a month ago. I gave the 40" set to my stepdaughter, I sometimes watch it and wonder how I ever put up with that (and even that was a big upgrade this year from a 32" 720p LCD!). 

That is a good point, though if you use discs Imagic & Scott joked that bluray cases might include 4 disc sets (4k atmos, 1080p atmos, etc etc). 
If any content comes out with Atmos in 4k I'll be waiting for the HDR editions, or at least a good transfer. I don't mean to sound pessimistic but I think it will be a long time before good 4k transfers are released, unless if those disc sizes go up or the online content quality surpasses that of the discs. I remember Scott talking about how the first blurays were worse quality than DVD's due to poor transfers... the 5th element was one of those films I think. The studio did remaster it & issued refunds if I remember right.


----------



## RRF743

RRF743 said:


> I shouldn't say it can't STORE it, but it can't automatically select it after losing the lossless signal.


Hey guys. I know the topic has long changed since my last post, but want to say thanks to Josh Z for informing me that Star Trek "Into Darknes" was definitely 7.1 THD. I revisited the settings in my bluray Sony S790 and found the Descriptive Audio setting was turned on. Can't believe I missed that when setting it up! It also fixed the problem I had with the Atmos speakers not automatically turning on when I selected Quick Setting-2 after initializing the memory. Now my dedicated theater room with 7.2.4 is set. The X5200W is a great piece of eaquipment. The wifi works great even behind a closed closet door upstairs while my router is downstairs. As for 4K, it will be a while because I just purchased a JVC-RS46U last year. But I must say, 4K looks really good! Mp5475, we should hook up some time and check out each others systems! I'm in Riverview, FL.


----------



## bargervais

photographerBG said:


> Hello,
> I have trouble decoding Dolby Atmos with Onkyo 5530.
> I have demo videos of Atmos (by Dolby) and they work fine - Dolby Atmos is decoded.
> I have tried every version of Transformers, played from my HTPC - original bluray file and a lot of mkv's files. No Dolby Atmos. And sometimes XBMC or VLC crashes.
> Any idea why I cannot decode Dolby Atmos from those files?
> 
> Best regards,
> Encho


so the Demo Videos are on Blu-ray??? but im not sure how you can MKV files to work so atmos lights up 
I downloaded all the demo stuff to my HTPC and was able to use cyberlink 13 and Atmos light up on my tx-nr 737 but i'm not sure how your MKV files were ripped / with the correct sound maybe some one here can help you better


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Look back at all the releases of Avatar, I have three releases of that one, if they remastered and release Avatar to include Atmos audio I would use my milk money and buy it again


I too have all three different versions of 'Avatar'; the original one, the Special Edition, and the 3D version.

And if they re-release it again, in 3D and with Dolby Atmos, I will re-buy it again.
And the same thing with 'The LOTR EE' trilogy, with both 3D picture & sound (Atmos). 
...And in 4K. [email protected] 48fps.


----------



## NorthSky

htpcforever said:


> Charlie Chaplain in 4k 3D Atmos!


You must have meant _Charlie Chaplin._


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> Been on vacation in Florida. Back now... normal posting will be resumed soon


It's nice to see you back Keith; I've missed you.


----------



## HT-Eman

Gravity with Dolby Atmos have a " Silent Space " version of the film with no music. That's going to be pretty awesome !!!


----------



## NorthSky

The way it should be I guess; because in space you cannot hear her screams (Sandra).

But inside her helmet, radio, yes you can. ...Without music (silent) this is going to be even more painful.


----------



## photographerBG

bargervais said:


> so the Demo Videos are on Blu-ray??? but im not sure how you can MKV files to work so atmos lights up
> I downloaded all the demo stuff to my HTPC and was able to use cyberlink 13 and Atmos light up on my tx-nr 737 but i'm not sure how your MKV files were ripped / with the correct sound maybe some one here can help you better


Demo videos are m2ts.
I have also tried m2ts file from Transformers bluray disk without any luck.
I don't have actual bluray disk of Transformers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> I too have all three different versions of 'Avatar'; the original one, the Special Edition, and the 3D version.
> 
> And if they re-release it again, in 3D and with Dolby Atmos, I will re-buy it again.
> And the same thing with 'The LOTR EE' trilogy, with both 3D picture & sound (Atmos).
> ...And in 4K. [email protected] 48fps.


First Cameron's gotta master his other films for bluray (True Lies & the Abyss!). 
LOTR in 3D would be awesome... lets see what Peter Jackson does now that He's done with the Hobbit. Hopefully not another King Kong-ish sort of flick (hah).


----------



## NorthSky

'King Kong' (Peter Jackson), in Dolby Atmos; now that's interesting. ...And in 3D too (picture), why not.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Skylinestar said:


> ...Titanic in 4k 3D Atmos


Haha, well they already have the 3D part nailed down!


----------



## kuro6010

CBdicX said:


> I "had" them, they sound good but i used them on-top of Boston M350 and M250 but this whas an ugly combo.
> I know its about the sound with Atmos but the eye needs also to be happy ;-)
> Think Kef R50 will be a nicer, and maybe better speaker, but its in the 1000 euro pirce range for 4 speakers :-(
> So i returned the Onlyo Atmos speakers and am waiting for Kef to lower the price for the R50 or see what other brands will do in the design department.
> 
> 
> And keep in mind that the Onkyo speakers are made to be a "gift" from Onkyo with the Atmos receiver line.
> They are sold online but are intended as a gift speaker.....


Thanks for the info, really appreciate it. I wasn't aware that the speakers i purchased were like an all inclusive package gift. Oh well, I will be sending them back. Any suggestions, i was looking at the Atlantic Tech dolby atoms speakers.


----------



## bargervais

photographerBG said:


> Demo videos are m2ts.
> I have also tried m2ts file from Transformers bluray disk without any luck.
> I don't have actual bluray disk of Transformers.


The m2ts demo files I downloaded work perfectly but who made the m2ts files for you of transformers just because they are m2ts dose not mean it was done properly just like mkv files that I have downloaded some are 5.1 and some are 2.0 but both are mkv files it's all in who and how they are ripped.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Daniel Chaves said:


> Bummer that they are milking it by releasing Gravity with ATMOS but not in 3d, yeah they will probably release it yet again... ~_~


Might be that the 3D encoding was done with the standard soundtrack profiles in mind, and there is only room for the Atmos with the 2D. Costs a lot to do another video encode.


----------



## wse

DS needs to do 9.2.4 since the number of true ATMOS disc are only going to be released very slowly 

DS is really cool


----------



## Jetson312

*Emotiva UMC-200 VS Dolby Atmos Receiver*

So I recently purchased an Emotiva UMC-200 (less than 30 days ago) and I'm starting to read a lot of positive things about Dolby Atmos. I already have 2 in-celing speakers and have room for two more so I'm not far off from having my room Atmos ready. 

My question to the forum members is did I make a mistake purchasing the UMC-200 when I did? I also purchased an XPA-5 and UPA-200 which I am happy with and would keep and incorporate with an Atmos capable receiver. A receiver that caught my eye was the Onkyo TX-NR838. It would cost me a couple hundred dollars more than the UMC-200 but I assume it would do all the same things plus allow me to run Atmos. Is this something I should consider before I can no longer return the UMC-200? Would I be sacrificing anything by going the Onkyo receiver route instead of sticking with the Emotiva pre-amp. Thanks to any forum members who can offer their input.


----------



## NorthSky

I've been reading everything about Atmos @ home, and this is the new surround sound jewel. 
Return your UMC-200 and align with the stars.

By the way, the Denon AVR-X5200W receiver would allow you to also return the XPA-5.
{It also has Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and an upgrade path to Auro-3D.}

* Unless your speakers are inefficient, and hard to drive (dipping low - impedance), the XPA-5 could become useful; then return the UPA-200.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Jetson312 said:


> So I recently purchased an Emotiva UMC-200 (less than 30 days ago) and I'm starting to read a lot of positive things about Dolby Atmos. I already have 2 in-celing speakers and have room for two more so I'm not far off from having my room Atmos ready.
> 
> My question to the forum members is did I make a mistake purchasing the UMC-200 when I did? I also purchased an XPA-5 and UPA-200 which I am happy with and would keep and incorporate with an Atmos capable receiver. A receiver that caught my eye was the Onkyo TX-NR838. It would cost me a couple hundred dollars more than the UMC-200 but I assume it would do all the same things plus allow me to run Atmos. Is this something I should consider before I can no longer return the UMC-200? Would I be sacrificing anything by going the Onkyo receiver route instead of sticking with the Emotiva pre-amp. Thanks to any forum members who can offer their input.





NorthSky said:


> I've been reading everything about Atmos @ home, and this is the new surround sound jewel.
> Return your UMC-200 and align with the stars.
> 
> By the way, the Denon AVR-X5200w receiver would allow you to also return the XPA-5.
> {It also has Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and an upgrade path to Auro-3D.}
> 
> * Unless your speakers are inefficient, and hard to drive (dipping low - impedance), the XPA-5 could become useful; then return the UPA-200.


Agreed, I'd avoid the Onkyo... go Denon x5200w if you can afford it.


----------



## NorthSky

Ask members here, who are using the Denon 5200 receiver. ...And google *Denon AVR-X5200W reviews*.


----------



## Jetson312

Thanks for the reply NorthSky. I'm starting to get the impression that if I kept the UMC-200, I'd be replacing it shortly with something that does Atmos. Is there a receiver out there under $1,000 that would be good for Atmos and not cause me to lose anything in sound quality coming from the UMC-200? I'm not too concerned with the speaker wattage ratings since I'd run the speakers through the amps. The only stipulation is that the receiver would obviously need pre-outs for all the speakers (5 traditional speakers plus 4 overhead speakers and 1-2 subwoofers). I'm very new to the idea of Atmos. Again, I appreciate the input.


----------



## Jetson312

Just saw the additional comments. Thanks Aras and NorthSky. I hadn't really considered returning all the Emotiva equipment but I guess that would be an option too. I have EmpTek speakers that I think the Denon could probably run just fine on its own. I'll start researching the Denon AVR-X5200W that was recommended. Would that be comparable if not better than my current Emotiva equipment? I'll remember the advice to stay away from the Onkyos when researching Atmos Ready receivers.


----------



## batpig

The Denon X4100 will run a 9ch setup with external amps. A very good buy at just over $1k if you don't need the 11ch capability and beefier amps of the 5200. 

Careful what you buy. None of the under $1000 Atmos models can run more than 7ch at once.


----------



## Jetson312

Thanks for pointing that out batpig. That is a mistake I need to avoid making. I appreciate all the input.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

The other thing is that the Onkyo got a lot of complaints last year... a lot of people with defective units. I was actually pretty close to buying one until I read what a lot of AVS forum users were saying about them. I'm not sure if things have changed since Atmos has come out but I don't think so because it's the same units with software upgrades... I think the higher end Onkyos are new units + the Denon has Audyssey which may or may not be important for you. I agree, the 4100 is a good bet... if you can somehow get an extra few hundred 7.1.4 is pretty nice 

The only thing is that if you've been reading the posts as of late a lot of people are talking about HDCP 2.2. Do you plan to go 4k anytime soon? You might want to do some reading about that before you buy... but no one knows what's going on with the standards and connectivity... I'm sticking with 1080p for a while so that's why I went Denon... but the Denon can potentially work with 4k as long as the connectivity is available. The Onkyo does have HDCP 2.2 while the Denon doesn't... but the Onkyo might not be able to process 4k signal anyway... the Denon will have the processing power to do it supposedly.


----------



## NorthSky

My personal opinion: Stay away from Onkyo, and Emotiva SSPs and subwoofers and their blog (Lounge, forums). 

Denon is your best bet, because of Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Upmixer and Dolby Auro-3D upgrade path. 

The 4100 is roughly a grand, street. The 5200, a grand and half ($1,500 street). 
The 4100 you can do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 max.
The 5200 you can do the same plus 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 (when adding an additional stereo amp).

Or, you can wait for the second generation of Dolby Atmos receivers and SSPs. But don't keep the UMC-200, because you'll be missing some real good stuff in surround sound newest technology and revolutionary. 

This is a new era we are just entering, and entering is the key. ...Don't stand outside the door; get prepared to enter a new 3D sound world. Perhaps not right away, but soon. And the UMC-200 is not your ticket to that new world. ...Even the XMC-1 is not that ticket either; Diracless or not. 

This, is my own personal and honest opinion.


----------



## NorthSky

Me, I am waiting, for the 2nd gen of Atmos products. I can afford to do that; time is on my side.
...And I'm smart.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> The 4100 is roughly a grand, street. The 5200, a grand and half ($1,500 street).
> The 4100 you can do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 max.
> The 5200 you can do the same plus 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 (when adding an additional stereo amp).


Can you show me or guide me to where I can get a new 4100 for a grand and a 5200 for $1,500 I've seen used one's at this price but not new ones thanks for your help


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> Can you show me or guide me to where I can get a new 4100 for a grand and a 5200 for $1,500 I've seen used one's at this price but not new ones thanks for your help


Talk to JDsmoothie, He might be able to work out a deal for you... that's where I got my 5200  If you look up the Denon Atmos post that's where you can find him, or ask Batpig


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> The other thing is that the Onkyo got a lot of complaints last year... a lot of people with defective units. I was actually pretty close to buying one until I read what a lot of AVS forum users were saying about them. I'm not sure if things have changed since Atmos has come out but I don't think so because it's the same units with software upgrades... I think the higher end Onkyos are new units + the Denon has Audyssey which may or may not be important for you. I agree, the 4100 is a good bet... if you can somehow get an extra few hundred 7.1.4 is pretty nice


Not sure if you know this but the 4100 can't do 7.1.4 no matter what you do it can only process 9
You will need the 5200 if you want 7.1.4 and you'll need an external amp to do that


----------



## photographerBG

bargervais said:


> The m2ts demo files I downloaded work perfectly but who made the m2ts files for you of transformers just because they are m2ts dose not mean it was done properly just like mkv files that I have downloaded some are 5.1 and some are 2.0 but both are mkv files it's all in who and how they are ripped.


 I can agree about mkv files, but what about original m2ts file from the bluray disk? It won't play as well (I mean with Dolby TruHD (atmos) sound, it is fine with other audios).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> Not sure if you know this but the 4100 can't do 7.1.4 no matter what you do it can only process 9
> You will need the 5200 if you want 7.1.4 and you'll need an external amp to do that


Sorry... forgot about that part. Yes, but any receiver that has that many channels would require an external pre right? Amp100... 125 bucks will amplify those last 2 channels should you decide to go for 7.1.4.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry... forgot about that part. Yes, but any receiver that has that many channels would require an external pre right? Amp100... 125 bucks will amplify those last 2 channels should you decide to go for 7.1.4.


The 4100 will not do 7.1.4 even if you use an external amp the best you can get out of the 4100 is 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 and that's with you using an external amp.


----------



## sdrucker

> The 5200 you can do the same plus 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 (when adding an additional stereo amp).
> 
> Or, you can wait for the second generation of Dolby Atmos receivers and SSPs. But don't keep the UMC-200, because you'll be missing some real good stuff in surround sound newest technology and revolutionary.
> 
> This is a new era we are just entering, and entering is the key. ...Don't stand outside the door; get prepared to enter a new 3D sound world. Perhaps not right away, but soon. And the UMC-200 is not your ticket to that new world. ...Even the XMC-1 is not that ticket either; Diracless or not.
> 
> This, is my own personal and honest opinion.


 
The question will be "why" wait for the next generation pre/pros.....meaning will they support more than 7.1.4, taking us to 9.1.2 or 9.1.4 (or if you believe some of what I heard at CEDIA, 9.1.6), or offer support for Atmos features (measuring actual speaker angles) that aren't in the 1st gen DSP-based Atmos units. If so, you buy the cheapest D&M or Yamaha unit you can afford - I'll rule out ss9001's beloved Pioneer because a hard 9 channel limit - and plan it as a short-term investment. And if not, you're set until something better comes along in a few years . That's aside from your personal interest or lack of in Auro.


This is actually a reason why the X5200 is the "sweet spot" in the D&M world for starting a typical x.1.4 setup, and maybe for Atmos curious mainstream buyers, period, due to Audyssey XT32. As Keith points out periodically, spending the extra money for the Marantz version as a pre/pro, or holding out for the X7200 (and the equivalent pre/pro from Marantz) isn't cost efficient if the maturity of the technology's trickles down to AVR owners. 


Meanwhile, with Gravity at least we FINALLY have an Atmos release I would watch....looking forward to February. It also shows that at least there's some serious content coming down the pike.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> The 4100 will not do 7.1.4 even if you use an external amp the best you can get out of the 4100 is 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 and that's with you using an external amp.


Very true;
and the UMC-200 ($539 on sale - $699 MSRP) you can do 7.1.0 max, when adding seven external amps. 
The XPA-5 is $$$ (on sale) and the UPA-200 is $$$ (on sale). ...For a grand total of roughly $1,500.
...Or roughly the street price of the Denon AVR-X5200W AV receiver (9-channel amp, but 11.2 preouts).

Atmos is your ticket (Denon).


----------



## NorthSky

> The question will be "why" wait for the next generation pre/pros.....meaning will they support more than 7.1.4, taking us to 9.1.2 or 9.1.4 (or if you believe some of what I heard at CEDIA, 9.1.6), or offer support for Atmos features (measuring actual speaker angles) that aren't in the 1st gen DSP-based Atmos units. If so, you buy the cheapest D&M or Yamaha unit you can afford - I'll rule out ss9001's beloved Pioneer because a hard 9 channel limit - and plan it as a short-term investment. And if not, you're set until something better comes along in a few years . That's aside from your personal interest or lack of in Auro.
> 
> 
> This is actually a reason why the X5200 is the "sweet spot" in the D&M world for starting a typical x.1.4 setup, and maybe for Atmos curious mainstream buyers, period, due to Audyssey XT32. As Keith points out periodically, spending the extra money for the Marantz version as a pre/pro, or holding out for the X7200 (and the equivalent pre/pro from Marantz) isn't cost efficient if the maturity of the technology's trickles down to AVR owners.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, at least we FINALLY have an Atmos release I would watch....looking forward to February. It also shows that at least there's some serious content coming down the pike.


We've been talking about dat for the last few months:

1. For people who wants Dolby Surround up-mixer now (Dolby Atmos has only two BD titles),
yeah, jump in, pick the one you think is good for you and your budget (for me, and I agree with you), the Denon 5200 is thee one receiver, and the Marantz 7702 is thee one SSP. ...Right now.

2. For people not in a rush (me included); a second gen Dolby Atmos receiver and/or SSP has the high possibility/probability to:
a) Add true HDMI v. 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 (the real 4K deal, and not quasi, like Onkyo has right now).
b) All with Auro-3D upgrade path (roughly $300 more).
c) Maybe DTS-UHD (MDA blah-blah-blah), I truly believe.
d) Better options for mapping (physically) all surround speakers including the four overhead ones. 
e) .......... (space available for future improvement on that 2nd gen of Atmos products).
f) More Dolby Atmos (& Auro-3D) Blu-ray title releases. ...Movies, and Music.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry... forgot about that part. Yes, but any receiver that has that many channels would require an external pre right? Amp100... 125 bucks will amplify those last 2 channels should you decide to go for 7.1.4.


Ahh double sorry didn't notice the "4100" part of your post. If you can afford it go with the 5200 with amp100 or some other preamp. I guess that also depends on how big your room is & how many speakers you are willing to utilize. If you have 7.1 channels now I'd do 7.1.4. If you currently have a 5.1 setup I'd say 4100 with 5.1.4 wouldn't be bad... but man having the rear channels really does add a lot if you can squeeze some speakers behind your couch.


----------



## asarose247

^
+1
thank you


in another vein
I'm interested in what's been noticed using the DS wrt to music, especially "ambient" (very relaxing)
2 of my favorite tunes are by Ray Lynch : Celestial Soda POP and The Oh of Pleasure
sitting in the mancave using the yammy 775 in full 7.1, the sound fields just move in and out and all around me, immersive as I set it up exactly for that(movies work well here also)
remember this room is kinda like kbarnes ,SMALL, less than 10 x 11
so except for the front presence, all speakers are 5 -6 feet from the MLP. 
does this qualify as a near field set-up?
so . . . who has been using DS for music, what set up do you have and what have you heard and what have you liked ?


and I can see the X5200 replacing my 5 month old X4000 as I already as set up for that


I love this stuff


----------



## multit

Are there any dedicated test tones regarding Dolby Atmos already available?
I mean e.g. sinus 200Hz with coordinates direct above MLP or sinus 300Hz with coordinates from above with 45° from the back or something similar?
It would be very helpful in order to adjust the speaker positions according to the individual implementation and rendering from the AVR.

All what we have is a recommendation from Dolby regarding the position corridor and the promise from the AVR manufacture to render correctly,
but the AVR doesn't know the exact position, because there is no angle measuring available - here with a Denon 5200W.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm very satiesfied with my setup (7.2.4 with top front at 30° and top rear at 45°), but I'm always trying to improve...


----------



## Wookii

Just noticed that Expendables 3 appeared on the Kaleidescape store for download, with an Atmos mix! 

https://store.kaleidescape.com/movie/details/21505782


----------



## pasender91

Don't forget the Marantz 7009 as a very potent Atmos AVR, it supports 7.1.4 and XT32 as does the Denon 5200, but in some regions or countries it is cheaper.

For us in europe it is about 300€ cheaper for similar functionality, so i'm about to take the plunge.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

How to train your dragon 2 - DSU

is THE best upmix I have heard so far (discount the fct that the LFE section blows on this release but thats another discussion)

dragons flying overhead everywhere...musical score complimented with overhead envelopiong sound...just incredible!!

so so so cant wait for more rue ATMOS content.

also I find it funny that what we have all been saying on this thread for the past few months..still gives people skeptisism, but get the main AVS review of ATMOS and DSU and now people are diving in lol...oh well the more the merrier


----------



## robert816

Wookii said:


> Just noticed that Expendables 3 appeared on the Kaleidescape store for download, with an Atmos mix!
> 
> https://store.kaleidescape.com/movie/details/21505782


It is listed on Blu-Ray.com as having an English Dolby Atmos soundtrack on the Blu-Ray disc also.


----------



## htpcforever

NorthSky said:


> a) Add true HDMI v. 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 (the real 4K deal, and not quasi, like Onkyo has right now).


It is not just Onkyo, all the AVR makers cannot do the real 4K deal - they all do quasi; none of the AVR makers are HDCP 2.2 compliant.


----------



## chi_guy50

Jetson312 said:


> Just saw the additional comments. Thanks Aras and NorthSky. I hadn't really considered returning all the Emotiva equipment but I guess that would be an option too. I have EmpTek speakers that I think the Denon could probably run just fine on its own. I'll start researching the Denon AVR-X5200W that was recommended. Would that be comparable if not better than my current Emotiva equipment? I'll remember the advice to stay away from the Onkyos when researching Atmos Ready receivers.





batpig said:


> The Denon X4100 will run a 9ch setup with external amps. A very good buy at just over $1k if you don't need the 11ch capability and beefier amps of the 5200.
> 
> Careful what you buy. None of the under $1000 Atmos models can run more than 7ch at once.


OP, if you are considering the Denon models and have not done much research on them (or on Dolby Atmos) as yet, you will find these posts by batpig and jdsmoothie extremely useful from The "Official" 2014 Denon Atmos+XT32 Model Thread, particularly regarding the differences between the models:

Thread Introduction

Welcome to the Official 2014 Denon Atmos models (X4100W, X5200W, X7200W) thread


----------



## Manni01

pasender91 said:


> Don't forget the Marantz 7009 as a very potent Atmos AVR, it supports 7.1.4 and XT32 as does the Denon 5200, but in some regions or countries it is cheaper.
> 
> For us in europe it is about 300€ cheaper for similar functionality, so i'm about to take the plunge.


Do we know exactly what the differences are, especially regarding IP control? Are Marantz and Denon models fully compatible?


I don't plan to buy the 7009 or the 5200 but there is a £300 difference in the UK between the two models, so if there is a Marantz equivalent to the 7200W with a similar price delta that might be a good alternative (provided I don't have to reprogram entirely my iRule panels!).


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Orlando. Took my daughters - they are 26 but still enjoy a vacation with their Daddy. Variou$ rea$ons for that I gue$
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! I am only an hour away at Tampa. I took my 2 year old son two weekends ago. Hope you guys went to the Epcot for food and wine festival.


Been to Tampa quite often - nice city. Yes, we did Epcot, and pretty much everything else - I need a vacation now to get over the vacation. And I did miss my HT!


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> welcome back we missed you... you should have come by to see me when you were in Florida LOL


Thanks! I'd have liked to visit one or two of you Floridian AVS-ers, but we only had just over a week this time and my daughters have to do everything, regardless of the length of the stay. Considering that have been to Florida at least a dozen times, this is surprising, but it's how it is  I had a home in the Orlando area for several years - very nearly bought in the Tampa area too. I do envy you guys the Florida lifestyle.


----------



## Selden Ball

Manni01 said:


> Do we know exactly what the differences are, especially regarding IP control? Are Marantz and Denon models fully compatible?


 I haven't seen any docs on that. Sorry.


> I don't plan to buy the 7009 or the 5200 but there is a £300 difference in the UK between the two models, so if there is a Marantz equivalent to the 7200W with a similar price delta that might be a good alternative (provided I don't have to reprogram entirely my iRule panels!).


The price difference will be in the other direction: the Marantz "equivalent" to the X7200W will be the AV8802 pre/pro, just as the equivalent to the AVR4250 was the AV8801.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> The 65" felt huge at first but now it feels a little small.


This is so true. I reckon it takes about a week to adjust to the new size and then it becomes 'normal' and you want something bigger! Best advice is to always go for a bigger size than you think you will really need. Same with PJ screens.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Me, I am waiting, for the 2nd gen of Atmos products. I can afford to do that; time is on my side.
> ...And I'm smart.


So we're dumb 
We will see just how much different second gen products end up being that have similar MSRPs - not much is my bet.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jetson312 said:


> So I recently purchased an Emotiva UMC-200 (less than 30 days ago) and I'm starting to read a lot of positive things about Dolby Atmos. I already have 2 in-celing speakers and have room for two more so I'm not far off from having my room Atmos ready.
> 
> My question to the forum members is did I make a mistake purchasing the UMC-200 when I did? I also purchased an XPA-5 and UPA-200 which I am happy with and would keep and incorporate with an Atmos capable receiver. A receiver that caught my eye was the Onkyo TX-NR838. It would cost me a couple hundred dollars more than the UMC-200 but I assume it would do all the same things plus allow me to run Atmos. Is this something I should consider before I can no longer return the UMC-200? Would I be sacrificing anything by going the Onkyo receiver route instead of sticking with the Emotiva pre-amp. Thanks to any forum members who can offer their input.


My view would be to return the UMC-200 and swap it for an Atmos-capable unit. There is going to be no appreciable difference in SQ between any of these modern units, but you are missing a lot by not having Atmos and DSU, especially as you are 'almost there' wrt to speakers. And going forward, as more and more Blurays are released with Atmos soundtracks, the more you will regret not being able to take advantage.


----------



## Manni01

Selden Ball said:


> I haven't seen any docs on that. Sorry.
> 
> The price difference will be in the other direction: the Marantz "equivalent" to the X7200W will be the AV8802 pre/pro, just as the equivalent to the AVR4250 was the AV8801.




Thanks. Maybe someone will know for the IP control compatibility between Marantz and Denon.


Shame that the difference is in the other direction for the higher model. I'll keep an eye on both thought, just in case. 


Thanks for the info.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jetson312 said:


> Thanks for the reply NorthSky. I'm starting to get the impression that if I kept the UMC-200, I'd be replacing it shortly with something that does Atmos. Is there a receiver out there under $1,000 that would be good for Atmos and not cause me to lose anything in sound quality coming from the UMC-200? I'm not too concerned with the speaker wattage ratings since I'd run the speakers through the amps. The only stipulation is that the receiver would obviously need pre-outs for all the speakers (5 traditional speakers plus 4 overhead speakers and 1-2 subwoofers). I'm very new to the idea of Atmos. Again, I appreciate the input.


I wouldn't worry too much about SQ differences. Room correction aside, the sonic differences between modern SS units are negligible. I believe Onkyo do an Atmos unit for less than $1,000. Do check that whatever you buy can support all the speakers you want to use - eg 7.1.4 as opposed to 5.1.2. The Denon 4100, for example, is a great unit but has only 7 channels of amplification, but can be expanded to 9 with externals. The 5200 has 9 internal channels and can be expanded to 11. Just be sure that whatever you go for has the capacity you need.


----------



## Stanton

smurraybhm said:


> We will see just how much different second gen products end up being that have similar MSRPs - not much is my bet.


Normally I would agree with you, but this time I'm thinking that "good things come to those who wait". I don't like products that are launched MISSING a major function/feature that is released as an "upgrade" (like we're seeing with AVR's and Atmos right now). That doesn't mean it won't work, but I'm willing to bet there will be other fixes/tweaks that will take place wrt set-up, etc. that are already in place for NEXT year's line; and that says nothing about the HDMI/HDCP issues (and the new chips we already know will be in the NEXT year's line). In general, I'm an early adopter, but I just think that this year's crop of AVR's would have benefitted from even a half-cycle release delay (which of course marketing at a major manufacturer would never allow).


----------



## bargervais

i have a question about my center speaker at the moment it's above my screen and the only reason it's there is it was already wired and i was too lazy to change it. I'm planning to put it under the TV tilted up slightly towards the MLP. I already have high speakers up on the front wall.almost at the ceiling height and ceiling speakers in the ceiling just behind my MLP. When i get my new Onkyo TX-NR1030 I'm going to give it a go with those four high speakers where there at before I change anything in regards to the hight channels. My question is do you think that placing my center speaker below the TV will be advantages in creating more seperation between the center speaker and the front high speakers??
I'm sitting 10 feet back from the screen


----------



## Stanton

bargervais said:


> i have a question about my center speaker at the moment it's above my screen and the only reason it's there is it was already wired and i was too lazy to change it. I'm planning to put it under the TV tilted up slightly towards the MLP.


There's no reason NOT to put center channel speakers under the TV/screen area these days, especially with the "dialog lift" function in most newer AVR's. I've had mine there for years (mostly to avoid a screen) with good results (and that's without dialog lift).


----------



## PeterTHX

Roger Dressler said:


> Might be that the 3D encoding was done with the standard soundtrack profiles in mind, and there is only room for the Atmos with the 2D. Costs a lot to do another video encode.


I don't think that's it since _*Transformers: AOE*_ 3D is nearly 3 hours long and has multiple soundtrack options._ Gravity_ is barely 90 mins.


Warner's all about saving encoding costs, they've reused the same encodes for some movies since the advent of HD media (*cough*_Batman Begins_*cough*)


----------



## Al Sherwood

htpcforever said:


> It is not just Onkyo, all the AVR makers cannot do the real 4K deal - they all do quasi; none of the AVR makers are HDCP 2.2 compliant.


The new Onkyo(s) are HDCP 2.2 compliant, it is the HDMI 2.0 spec that is not fully capable.


----------



## randyk47

I think, and Mrs. K certainly hopes, that our journey to ATMOS is at an end. Five or so weeks ago our local AV store had their annual "tent sale" and we decided to drop by to see if there were any items of interest. Have to admit that in the back of my mind was replacing a five year old Yamaha and was hoping to catch a sale on an AVR. I'm not much into chasing technology....well not obsessively so.....and thought even a "last year's" model would be fine. 


Much to my disappointment there really weren't any AVRs on sale, at least none that caught my attention. My usual sales rep caught up with us just before we were ready to leave and mentioned that we ought to come inside and hear the new and latest ATMOS setup. We were like "ATMOS, what's that?" We listened and were impression, a hard thing to do with Mrs. K as she's pretty nonchalant about such things....if you can see it and hear it that's typically good enough for her. Long story short we walked out with a Denon X5200W.


In the back of my mine is that the previous owner of our house had installed four surface mounted ceiling speakers but I'd never used them in my 7.1 setup. So I go to set up the Denon and think, even though they are really poop KLH speakers from an inexpensive home theater set, why not bring them on line to see how ATMOS sounds in our less than acoustically perfect 12' x 14' cathedral ceiling media room we use as our theater. As an aside I have to point out I did no research prior to buying the Denon so I'm learning on the fly here. Anyhow, I suffer through the install process and discover the best I can do with the Denon alone is 7.1.2. Now that sounds OK, actually quite good so I leave it alone a couple of days. Then I start thinking I wonder what 5.1.4 would sound like and switch to that configuration. Better but I'm thinking I'd really like to do 7.1.4 so I've off to the AV store for an amp and settle on the Onkyo M-5010. So now I was 7.1.4 but I'm really not pleased with the KLHs so I'm back to my AV store.


Four Definitive ProMonitors later and I'm up to speed....kind of. While installing the speakers in the place of the KLHs I discover the original owner had used some really funky speaker wire that he'd apparently installed before the room was sheet rocked. Now this is a cathedral ceiling with virtually no access so I'm initially a bit put off. After mentally fussing about it for a couple of days I go into the attic as I remembered at least half of the ceiling is accessible though with some difficulty. Much to my surprise I can actually get to all the wire and better yet they weren't stapled in place. So now I'm back to my AV store and home with some new in-wall speaker wire. With Mrs. K's help we very carefully pull wire and luckily don't lose any in the wall or ceiling. Fantastic! I'm a happy camper.......for a bit.



I run this setup for a couple of days but start hearing some strange base noise. I'm like....now what? I start to run Audyssey and immediately discover my subwoofer is rattling like a box of rocks.  Off comes the grill and I discover the foam suspension is toast. Now this is a Boston Acoustics 15-year old sub that has served me well but all good things must come to an end and I have no patience with getting it fixed so off to the AV store....they're getting to know me really well by this time. 


So me thinks we're good to go. Things sound good, certainly much better than before. Have to say at this point I was thinking, and still am, that Audyssey is doing a much better job of setting up my speakers than the old Yamaha did. A week later while having a toddy or two by the pool, bless her heart, Mrs. K asks "The towers and center speaker are as old as the subwoofer. Have you pulled the grills on them?". So I do....and find the foam on the base speakers are intact but dried out and getting a little stiff and crispy feeling. Great. Turns out it's speaker sale time at my AV store so off I go. Two new B&W CM9s and a CMC2 later I think we're done.


That's more or less the end of the story other than sitting back and enjoying what basically has turned out to be a significant upgrade of my sound. Have to say TF4 kind of left us high and dry......yes the ATMOS is good but not knock your socks off and the movie itself is just OK.....but while we're waiting for more ATMOS sources watching our existing movie library with DSU is like watching whole new movies. Even Mrs. K with her kind of "whatever" watching/listening approach is impressed. 


Oh yeah....."the more or less end of the story" part. The last piece I have to address is the heat in my rack. Between the Denon and the Onkyo it's starting to get a little on the warm side so I've just ordered a fan set to add to the back of the rack. The AV store doesn't stock those so at least this time they're not involved.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> i have a question about my center speaker at the moment it's above my screen and the only reason it's there is it was already wired and i was too lazy to change it. I'm planning to put it under the TV tilted up slightly towards the MLP. I already have high speakers up on the front wall.almost at the ceiling height and ceiling speakers in the ceiling just behind my MLP. When i get my new Onkyo TX-NR1030 I'm going to give it a go with those four high speakers where there at before I change anything in regards to the hight channels. My question is do you think that placing my center speaker below the TV will be advantages in creating more seperation between the center speaker and the front high speakers??
> I'm sitting 10 feet back from the screen


If you can install the center speaker below the screen, then I would do so. The greater the separation, the better the result is likely to be. It seems like you already have all you need for a FH + TM/TR speaker arrangement and I think it will sound good without much, if any, further intervention. All you need is an AVR with the capacity for all the speakers you want to use.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> I think, and Mrs. K certainly hopes, that our journey to ATMOS is at an end. Five or so weeks ago our local AV store had their annual "tent sale" and we decided to drop by to see if there were any items of interest. Have to admit that in the back of my mind was replacing a five year old Yamaha and was hoping to catch a sale on an AVR. I'm not much into chasing technology....well not obsessively so.....and thought even a "last year's" model would be fine.
> 
> 
> Much to my disappointment there really weren't any AVRs on sale, at least none that caught my attention. My usual sales rep caught up with us just before we were ready to leave and mentioned that we ought to come inside and hear the new and latest ATMOS setup. We were like "ATMOS, what's that?" We listened and were impression, a hard thing to do with Mrs. K as she's pretty nonchalant about such things....if you can see it and hear it that's typically good enough for her. Long story short we walked out with a Denon X5200W.
> 
> 
> In the back of my mine is that the previous owner of our house had installed four surface mounted ceiling speakers but I'd never used them in my 7.1 setup. So I go to set up the Denon and think, even though they are really poop KLH speakers from an inexpensive home theater set, why not bring them on line to see how ATMOS sounds in our less than acoustically perfect 12' x 14' cathedral ceiling media room we use as our theater. As an aside I have to point out I did no research prior to buying the Denon so I'm learning on the fly here. Anyhow, I suffer through the install process and discover the best I can do with the Denon alone is 7.1.2. Now that sounds OK, actually quite good so I leave it alone a couple of days. Then I start thinking I wonder what 5.1.4 would sound like and switch to that configuration. Better but I'm thinking I'd really like to do 7.1.4 so I've off to the AV store for an amp and settle on the Onkyo M-5010. So now I was 7.1.4 but I'm really not pleased with the KLHs so I'm back to my AV store.
> 
> 
> Four Definitive ProMonitors later and I'm up to speed....kind of. While installing the speakers in the place of the KLHs I discover the original owner had used some really funky speaker wire that he'd apparently installed before the room was sheet rocked. Now this is a cathedral ceiling with virtually no access so I'm initially a bit put off. After mentally fussing about it for a couple of days I go into the attic as I remembered at least half of the ceiling is accessible though with some difficulty. Much to my surprise I can actually get to all the wire and better yet they weren't stapled in place. So now I'm back to my AV store and home with some new in-wall speaker wire. With Mrs. K's help we very carefully pull wire and luckily don't lose any in the wall or ceiling. Fantastic! I'm a happy camper.......for a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> I run this setup for a couple of days but start hearing some strange base noise. I'm like....now what? I start to run Audyssey and immediately discover my subwoofer is rattling like a box of rocks.  Off comes the grill and I discover the foam suspension is toast. Now this is a Boston Acoustics 15-year old sub that has served me well but all good things must come to an end and I have no patience with getting it fixed so off to the AV store....they're getting to know me really well by this time.
> 
> 
> So me thinks we're good to go. Things sound good, certainly much better than before. Have to say at this point I was thinking, and still am, that Audyssey is doing a much better job of setting up my speakers than the old Yamaha did. A week later while having a toddy or two by the pool, bless her heart, Mrs. K asks "The towers and center speaker are as old as the subwoofer. Have you pulled the grills on them?". So I do....and find the foam on the base speakers are intact but dried out and getting a little stiff and crispy feeling. Great. Turns out it's speaker sale time at my AV store so off I go. Two new B&W CM9s and a CMC2 later I think we're done.
> 
> 
> That's more or less the end of the story other than sitting back and enjoying what basically has turned out to be a significant upgrade of my sound. Have to say TF4 kind of left us high and dry......yes the ATMOS is good but not knock your socks off and the movie itself is just OK.....but while we're waiting for more ATMOS sources watching our existing movie library with DSU is like watching whole new movies. Even Mrs. K with her kind of "whatever" watching/listening approach is impressed.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah....."the more or less end of the story" part. The last piece I have to address is the heat in my rack. Between the Denon and the Onkyo it's starting to get a little on the warm side so I've just ordered a fan set to add to the back of the rack. The AV store doesn't stock those so at least this time they're not involved.


 What a brilliant upgrade story that is. And how fortunate you are to have such an accommodating wife! Enjoy! And you're right - DSU is giving a whole new lease of life to all my legacy collection too.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> So we're dumb
> We will see just how much different second gen products end up being that have similar MSRPs - not much is my bet.


Great point most manufacturers don't do major changes as they are mostly in two year upgrade cycles??? So I'm thinking a second generation will be very similar to the first generation with a few tweaks it may come down to maybe the third generation 2016 / 2017. Hopefully that will be when the 4K dust settles


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> If you can install the center speaker below the screen, then I would do so. The greater the separation, the better the result is likely to be. It seems like you already have all you need for a FH + TM/TR speaker arrangement and I think it will sound good without much, if any, further intervention. All you need is an AVR with the capacity for all the speakers you want to use.


Thanks Keith that's what my thinking was I'm waiting on the arrival of my new Onkyo TX-NR 1030 to drive all these speakers I already have an external amp so I should be all set... fingers crossed with excitement. I know there has been alot of talk and frowns about Onkyo but I couldn't pass on the deal I got. I was expecting to spend 1.5 to two grand but when this came available at under 1200 I pulled the trigger. I was leaning very heavily towards the 5200 but I couldn't pass on this deal, leaving me a little wiggle room to get speaker if needed.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> So we're dumb
> We will see just how much different second gen products end up being that have similar MSRPs - not much is my bet.


You have a way with words, with interpreting the negative side of life. 

It's like I say I love red, and you say that you must be abnormal because you love blue.


----------



## Josh Z

RRF743 said:


> Hey guys. I know the topic has long changed since my last post, but want to say thanks to Josh Z for informing me that Star Trek "Into Darknes" was definitely 7.1 THD. I revisited the settings in my bluray Sony S790 and found the Descriptive Audio setting was turned on. Can't believe I missed that when setting it up! It also fixed the problem I had with the Atmos speakers not automatically turning on when I selected Quick Setting-2 after initializing the memory. Now my dedicated theater room with 7.2.4 is set.


Glad you figured it out and that I could help in some small way.


----------



## NorthSky

Wookii said:


> Just noticed that Expendables 3 appeared on the Kaleidescape store for download, with an Atmos mix!
> 
> https://store.kaleidescape.com/movie/details/21505782


Are you familiar with them three 'Expendables' flicks? ...If you are then you know that they are very very low, and any 'elevated' sound added to this third installment won't save it, or redeem it in the eyes and ears of the gods from heavens; us.


----------



## NorthSky

htpcforever said:


> It is not just Onkyo, all the AVR makers cannot do the real 4K deal - they all do quasi; none of the AVR makers are HDCP 2.2 compliant.


I know; I just mentioned Onkyo because they are the closest to the real thing but still NOT the real thing.

* I think the upcoming Marantz AV8802 SSP might be equipped with the real 4K deal, and so the upcoming Denon AVR-X7200W AV receiver. ...We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## NorthSky

PeterTHX said:


> I don't think that's it since _*Transformers: AOE*_ 3D is nearly 3 hours long and has multiple soundtrack options._ Gravity_ is barely 90 mins.
> 
> Warner's all about saving encoding costs, they've reused the same encodes for some movies since the advent of HD media (*cough*_Batman Begins_*cough*)


Excellent point Peter. ...And that is why I truly believe that we'll see 'Gravity' in 3D with Dolby Atmos.
I am fully convinced of that. 

WB is a funny studio, when it comes to sound. ...But they'll adjust for this one (and will include the 3D version), me truly thinks.
...Because we are a powerful bunch.


----------



## NorthSky

randyk47 said:


> I think, and Mrs. K certainly hopes, that our journey to ATMOS is at an end. Five or so weeks ago our local AV store had their annual "tent sale" and we decided to drop by to see if there were any items of interest. Have to admit that in the back of my mind was replacing a five year old Yamaha and was hoping to catch a sale on an AVR. I'm not much into chasing technology....well not obsessively so.....and thought even a "last year's" model would be fine.
> 
> 
> Much to my disappointment there really weren't any AVRs on sale, at least none that caught my attention. My usual sales rep caught up with us just before we were ready to leave and mentioned that we ought to come inside and hear the new and latest ATMOS setup. We were like "ATMOS, what's that?" We listened and were impression, a hard thing to do with Mrs. K as she's pretty nonchalant about such things....if you can see it and hear it that's typically good enough for her. Long story short we walked out with a Denon X5200W.
> 
> 
> In the back of my mine is that the previous owner of our house had installed four surface mounted ceiling speakers but I'd never used them in my 7.1 setup. So I go to set up the Denon and think, even though they are really poop KLH speakers from an inexpensive home theater set, why not bring them on line to see how ATMOS sounds in our less than acoustically perfect 12' x 14' cathedral ceiling media room we use as our theater. As an aside I have to point out I did no research prior to buying the Denon so I'm learning on the fly here. Anyhow, I suffer through the install process and discover the best I can do with the Denon alone is 7.1.2. Now that sounds OK, actually quite good so I leave it alone a couple of days. Then I start thinking I wonder what 5.1.4 would sound like and switch to that configuration. Better but I'm thinking I'd really like to do 7.1.4 so I've off to the AV store for an amp and settle on the Onkyo M-5010. So now I was 7.1.4 but I'm really not pleased with the KLHs so I'm back to my AV store.
> 
> 
> Four Definitive ProMonitors later and I'm up to speed....kind of. While installing the speakers in the place of the KLHs I discover the original owner had used some really funky speaker wire that he'd apparently installed before the room was sheet rocked. Now this is a cathedral ceiling with virtually no access so I'm initially a bit put off. After mentally fussing about it for a couple of days I go into the attic as I remembered at least half of the ceiling is accessible though with some difficulty. Much to my surprise I can actually get to all the wire and better yet they weren't stapled in place. So now I'm back to my AV store and home with some new in-wall speaker wire. With Mrs. K's help we very carefully pull wire and luckily don't lose any in the wall or ceiling. Fantastic! I'm a happy camper.......for a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> I run this setup for a couple of days but start hearing some strange base noise. I'm like....now what? I start to run Audyssey and immediately discover my subwoofer is rattling like a box of rocks.  Off comes the grill and I discover the foam suspension is toast. Now this is a Boston Acoustics 15-year old sub that has served me well but all good things must come to an end and I have no patience with getting it fixed so off to the AV store....they're getting to know me really well by this time.
> 
> 
> So me thinks we're good to go. Things sound good, certainly much better than before. Have to say at this point I was thinking, and still am, that Audyssey is doing a much better job of setting up my speakers than the old Yamaha did. A week later while having a toddy or two by the pool, bless her heart, Mrs. K asks "The towers and center speaker are as old as the subwoofer. Have you pulled the grills on them?". So I do....and find the foam on the base speakers are intact but dried out and getting a little stiff and crispy feeling. Great. Turns out it's speaker sale time at my AV store so off I go. Two new B&W CM9s and a CMC2 later I think we're done.
> 
> 
> That's more or less the end of the story other than sitting back and enjoying what basically has turned out to be a significant upgrade of my sound. Have to say TF4 kind of left us high and dry......yes the ATMOS is good but not knock your socks off and the movie itself is just OK.....but while we're waiting for more ATMOS sources watching our existing movie library with DSU is like watching whole new movies. Even Mrs. K with her kind of "whatever" watching/listening approach is impressed.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah....."the more or less end of the story" part. The last piece I have to address is the heat in my rack. Between the Denon and the Onkyo it's starting to get a little on the warm side so I've just ordered a fan set to add to the back of the rack. The AV store doesn't stock those so at least this time they're not involved.


That, was a great read; thanx for sharing.


----------



## Wookii

NorthSky said:


> Are you familiar with them three 'Expendables' flicks? ...If you are then you know that they are very very low, and any 'elevated' sound added to this third installment won't save it, or redeem it in the eyes and ears of the gods from heavens; us.


At this stage of the game I'm thankful for ANY native content to hit the market, no matter how well suited it is to Atmos.

Besides it shouldn't really matter how 'low' the action is in a movie the mixer should be able to make full use of the Atmos system and speaker array to audibly replicate the scene being shown on screen and increase our level or immersion in, and suspension of disbelief of, the movie - that after all is the whole point of the 3D sound codecs, not just helicopter fly-bys!


----------



## NorthSky

Wookii said:


> At this stage of the game I'm thankful for ANY native content to hit the market, no matter how well suited it is to Atmos.
> 
> Besides it shouldn't really matter how 'low' the action is in a movie the mixer should be able to make full use of the Atmos system and speaker array to audibly replicate the scene being shown on screen and increase our level or immersion in, and suspension of disbelief of, the movie - that after all is the whole point of the 3D sound codecs, not just helicopter fly-bys!


Well, you and I are different when it comes to this aspect in movie sounds; Dolby Atmos here.

Because me I won't re-watch a film that I don't like just for the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack. 

Gimme smart sound to complement smart picture and smart story.
Like 'Hercules'; ...even if it would have been released with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack like it was first originally supposed to, it wouldn't have affected me for one bit. 

'Gravity', in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos, on Blu-ray...that one I'll be buying it again.

And if The LOTR EE trilogy gets the 3D audio (Auro-3D) and video treatment (3D & 4K), you can bet that I'll be first in line to jump all over it. ...And everything else that follows.


----------



## Gurba

htpcforever said:


> It is not just Onkyo, all the AVR makers cannot do the real 4K deal - they all do quasi; none of the AVR makers are HDCP 2.2 compliant.


What exactly are the AVRs missing regarding "the real 4K deal" and HDCP compliancy? Just want to know what to look for.


----------



## NorthSky

There was a specific description on that, posted by a member before; but I don't seem to recall where it is exactly. It'll come though .... I believe that it was from a C-Net article.


----------



## Manni01

NorthSky said:


> There was a specific description on that, posted by a member before; but I don't seem to recall where it is exactly. It'll come though .... I believe that it was from a C-Net article.


http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/


There was a mistake initially in the article as the writer didn't know the difference between HDMI 2.0 level A and B, so thought that the new Onkyos were the only fully HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 compliant AVRs, but it looks like this has been corrected after I explained the difference in a comment, although there is no reference to the crucial difference between HDMI 2.0 level A and level B, for example in the following quote: "To put it another way, all HDCP 2.2 devices will have HDMI 2.0, but not all HDMI 2.0 will have HDCP 2.2. Very few receivers have 2.2 right now", which leads to think that if you buy an HDCP 2.2 receiver you're safe, which isn't the case as right now and until at least early 2015 they are only level B (same bandwidth as HDMI 1.4 with just one limited profile added - 50/60p in 4K at 420 8 bits, not enough for UHD-TV - to qualify for HDMi 2.0 support).



You also want to look at this which is the requirements for UHD-TV:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1527206-uhd-rollout-timetable-nab-2014-a.html


And this for more details between the different supported modes according to bandwidth:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/technical_blog/hdmi-2-0-and-support-for-4k-uhd-video/


----------



## SoundChex

_Seen on the net..._


In a DTS Inc. Q3 2014 Results Earnings Conference Call November 10, 2014, DTS CEO Jon Kirchner said:



> _"And lastly, we built additional industry support for MDA, and DTS UHD, positioning these next generation object-based immersive audio solutions for the cinema, home and mobile markets for launch in 2015."_



_


----------



## Noman74656

Emotiva has a sale on their 8" in ceiling speaker:

http://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uac-82

Do people think these make good Atmos ceiling speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

Manni01 said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/
> 
> There was a mistake initially in the article as the writer didn't know the difference between HDMI 2.0 level A and B, so thought that the new Onkyos were the only fully HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 compliant AVRs, but it looks like this has been corrected after I explained the difference in a comment.
> 
> You also want to look at this which is the requirements for UHD-TV:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1527206-uhd-rollout-timetable-nab-2014-a.html
> 
> And this for more details between the different supported modes according to bandwidth:
> http://www.projectorreviews.com/technical_blog/hdmi-2-0-and-support-for-4k-uhd-video/


Good man, that was exactly the c|net article I was referring to. 

Plus: 

♦ www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2

♦ www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/4k-hdmi-2-0-compatible-hdcp-2-0/2718

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

♦ www.cnet.com/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/


----------



## Manni01

NorthSky said:


> Good man, that was exactly the c|net article I was referring to.
> 
> Plus:
> 
> ♦ www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2
> 
> ♦ www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/4k-hdmi-2-0-compatible-hdcp-2-0/2718
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> ♦ www.cnet.com/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/



You've got it covered 


The audiogurus article is better than the c/net one, at least they understand the difference between level A and B. I'll use that one as a shortcut from now on.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> _Seen on the net..._
> 
> In a DTS Inc. Q3 2014 Results Earnings Conference Call November 10, 2014, DTS CEO Jon Kirchner said:
> _


MDA --- DTS-UHD is definitely drawing a clearer picture day by day, and in 2015 it should become reality.
...And in our second gen surround sound AV receivers and SSPs, DTS-UHD decoders are going to be included. ....I'll get myself one of them, just @ the right time.


----------



## NorthSky

Manni01 said:


> You've got it covered
> 
> The audiogurus article is better than the c/net one, at least they understand the difference between level A and B. I'll use that one as a shortcut from now on.


Hey, someone wants to learn more about what's important now and coming up; I'm all in.  

* A smart question requires a smart research with a smart answer (link).


----------



## NorthSky

The future looks bright, I've got to wear shades.


----------



## Jetson312

Noman74656 said:


> Emotiva has a sale on their 8" in ceiling speaker:
> 
> http://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uac-82
> 
> Do people think these make good Atmos ceiling speakers?


I'd like to hear people's input on this as well.


----------



## ThePrisoner

I included pics of the front of my room which has Def Tech ProMonitor 800's mounted as front height. They are above the L&R main speakers as high as I could go to the ceiling. My surrounds are Def Tech SR-8040 bipolar which are on my back wall. My receiver is a Denon X4100 and I need to purchase an AudioSource amp 100 for the additional speakers. I would like to add another pair of height speakers so I can do 5.2.4 but I'm not sure which direction to go in withy current set-up. Tomorrow we are taking delivery of new furniture so the love seat will be out about 2 feet from rear wall, that is the best I can do (WAF). I had my local A/V dealer over today because my original plan was to run another pair of ProMonitor 800's on my ceiling about a foot in front of the couch and use them as Top Middle. My dealer says I should go with 4 in-ceiling speakers, Top Middle & Top Rear. From my understanding reading through this thread Top Rear would not be ideal for my set-up as I'am so close to back wall. Secondly, I really don't want to lose my ProMonitor 800's. I just want to add an additional pair for height without spending a fortune. Looking at the pics provided I would like to hear some opinions on my situation. could I also put another pair of 800's as rear height, above my surrounds? I also considered trying the Onkyo Atmos Enabled speakers for rear heights even though I did try the Def Tech A60 modules and did not like them.


----------



## Jetson312

After catching up on the recent posts, I have to say thank you again for all the valuable information that's been provided. I'm not opposed to returning my UMC-200 but after a little research I'm having trouble deciding if I should just hold on to it for a year and then sell it and get a second generation Atmos pre-amp/avr that has resolved any issues with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. I'll inevitably be upgrading to 4k within the next year or so and would like to prevent having to upgrade to yet another AVR/preamp to avoid any issues when that time comes. 

If I decided not to wait and returned the UMC-200, the Denon AVR-X4100 would be the only option to possibly fit my budget and needs if it can be purchased for $1,000. I think regardless of what I do with the UMC-200, I'm very tempted to return the UPA-200 and get a UPA-500 to combine with the XPA-5. That way when I do upgrade to Atmos, I'll have my XPA-5 powering my original 5 speakers and the UPA-500 powering the 4 in-ceiling speakers. This could at least prevent me from having to pickup another UPA-200 when I upgrade to 5.1.4. 

I'm going to have to hurry up and make my decision before the end of the month. Thanks again to all the forum members for their helpful responses.


----------



## bargervais

Jetson312 said:


> After catching up on the recent posts, I have to say thank you again for all the valuable information that's been provided. I'm not opposed to returning my UMC-200 but after a little research I'm having trouble deciding if I should just hold on to it for a year and then sell it and get a second generation Atmos pre-amp/avr that has resolved any issues with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. I'll inevitably be upgrading to 4k within the next year or so and would like to prevent having to upgrade to yet another AVR/preamp to avoid any issues when that time comes.


If your going to upgrade to 4K wouldn't it make more sense to get the AVR after your set up for 4K instead of getting a second generation AVR and hope it will work properly when you get your 4K TV...
Isn't there a tread that addresses 4K ??? isn't it a little off topic in this atmos thread. I have no intention going into 4K in the near future..
I'm setting up for atmos now and planning my speakers placement to get the best result and I'm trying to learn and share about atmos.
Sorry if I'm ranting..


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> This is so true. I reckon it takes about a week to adjust to the new size and then it becomes 'normal' and you want something bigger! Best advice is to always go for a bigger size than you think you will really need. Same with PJ screens.


I don't think I'd be satisfied unless if I had my own private 6 story tall IMAX screen with a custom Atmos sound system (haha). Anything that won't fill my field of view will always be too small.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Jetson312 said:


> After catching up on the recent posts, I have to say thank you again for all the valuable information that's been provided. I'm not opposed to returning my UMC-200 but after a little research I'm having trouble deciding if I should just hold on to it for a year and then sell it and get a second generation Atmos pre-amp/avr that has resolved any issues with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. I'll inevitably be upgrading to 4k within the next year or so and would like to prevent having to upgrade to yet another AVR/preamp to avoid any issues when that time comes.
> 
> If I decided not to wait and returned the UMC-200, the Denon AVR-X4100 would be the only option to possibly fit my budget and needs if it can be purchased for $1,000. I think regardless of what I do with the UMC-200, I'm very tempted to return the UPA-200 and get a UPA-500 to combine with the XPA-5. That way when I do upgrade to Atmos, I'll have my XPA-5 powering my original 5 speakers and the UPA-500 powering the 4 in-ceiling speakers. This could at least prevent me from having to pickup another UPA-200 when I upgrade to 5.1.4.
> 
> I'm going to have to hurry up and make my decision before the end of the month. Thanks again to all the forum members for their helpful responses.


One thing to keep in mind is that 4k might not be worth it for a while. For me personally all the stuff I'm into regarding 4k is at least 3 to 5 years away... but I was in the market for a new TV... I ended up buying the 1080p f8500 Plasma a month ago. I can live with one of the best best 1080 displays ever for 5 years or so probably... the only thing that would make me regret that decision would be if a significant amount of HDR graded content starts coming out a year or two from now. I doubt it. Even content that uses 12 bit color... I'm even doubtful of that. Without those I think 4k is worthless unless if you are a gamer or plan to get a very, very large display/ projector.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Well, you and I are different when it comes to this aspect in movie sounds; Dolby Atmos here.
> 
> Because me I won't re-watch a film that I don't like just for the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> 
> Gimme smart sound to complement smart picture and smart story.
> Like 'Hercules'; ...even if it would have been released with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack like it was first originally supposed to, it wouldn't have affected me for one bit.
> 
> 'Gravity', in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos, on Blu-ray...that one I'll be buying it again.
> 
> And if The LOTR EE trilogy gets the 3D audio (Auro-3D) and video treatment (3D & 4K), you can bet that I'll be first in line to jump all over it. ...And everything else that follows.


+ if there is a terrible movie with Atmos you can just rent it if you want to hear the atmos. Like another user pointed out... redbox TF4... I might do that even though I have zero interest in that film. I'm a panned-sound-a-holic, so I've watched stuff just to hear cool things (like being desperate enough to hear atmos that I watched "dolphin tale 2"... then the theater forgot to switch the Atmos on!)


----------



## WayneJoy

Dolby Atmos for the Home won the Popular Science Grand Award for Entertainment in 2014.


http://bestofwhatsnew.popsci.com/dolby-atmos-home


----------



## htpcforever

Gurba said:


> What exactly are the AVRs missing regarding "the real 4K deal" and HDCP compliancy? Just want to know what to look for.


They are missing all the required "pieces parts" to be compliant. Others have already answered, so no reason to repeat what they said...but basically it is HDMI 2.0 level A and HDCP 2.2.


----------



## WayneJoy

Apparently it is because no current chip set supports both.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

randyk47 said:


> I think, and Mrs. K certainly hopes, that our journey to ATMOS is at an end. Five or so weeks ago our local AV store had their annual "tent sale" and we decided to drop by to see if there were any items of interest. Have to admit that in the back of my mind was replacing a five year old Yamaha and was hoping to catch a sale on an AVR. I'm not much into chasing technology....well not obsessively so.....and thought even a "last year's" model would be fine.
> 
> 
> Much to my disappointment there really weren't any AVRs on sale, at least none that caught my attention. My usual sales rep caught up with us just before we were ready to leave and mentioned that we ought to come inside and hear the new and latest ATMOS setup. We were like "ATMOS, what's that?" We listened and were impression, a hard thing to do with Mrs. K as she's pretty nonchalant about such things....if you can see it and hear it that's typically good enough for her. Long story short we walked out with a Denon X5200W.
> 
> 
> In the back of my mine is that the previous owner of our house had installed four surface mounted ceiling speakers but I'd never used them in my 7.1 setup. So I go to set up the Denon and think, even though they are really poop KLH speakers from an inexpensive home theater set, why not bring them on line to see how ATMOS sounds in our less than acoustically perfect 12' x 14' cathedral ceiling media room we use as our theater. As an aside I have to point out I did no research prior to buying the Denon so I'm learning on the fly here. Anyhow, I suffer through the install process and discover the best I can do with the Denon alone is 7.1.2. Now that sounds OK, actually quite good so I leave it alone a couple of days. Then I start thinking I wonder what 5.1.4 would sound like and switch to that configuration. Better but I'm thinking I'd really like to do 7.1.4 so I've off to the AV store for an amp and settle on the Onkyo M-5010. So now I was 7.1.4 but I'm really not pleased with the KLHs so I'm back to my AV store.
> 
> 
> Four Definitive ProMonitors later and I'm up to speed....kind of. While installing the speakers in the place of the KLHs I discover the original owner had used some really funky speaker wire that he'd apparently installed before the room was sheet rocked. Now this is a cathedral ceiling with virtually no access so I'm initially a bit put off. After mentally fussing about it for a couple of days I go into the attic as I remembered at least half of the ceiling is accessible though with some difficulty. Much to my surprise I can actually get to all the wire and better yet they weren't stapled in place. So now I'm back to my AV store and home with some new in-wall speaker wire. With Mrs. K's help we very carefully pull wire and luckily don't lose any in the wall or ceiling. Fantastic! I'm a happy camper.......for a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> I run this setup for a couple of days but start hearing some strange base noise. I'm like....now what? I start to run Audyssey and immediately discover my subwoofer is rattling like a box of rocks.  Off comes the grill and I discover the foam suspension is toast. Now this is a Boston Acoustics 15-year old sub that has served me well but all good things must come to an end and I have no patience with getting it fixed so off to the AV store....they're getting to know me really well by this time.
> 
> 
> So me thinks we're good to go. Things sound good, certainly much better than before. Have to say at this point I was thinking, and still am, that Audyssey is doing a much better job of setting up my speakers than the old Yamaha did. A week later while having a toddy or two by the pool, bless her heart, Mrs. K asks "The towers and center speaker are as old as the subwoofer. Have you pulled the grills on them?". So I do....and find the foam on the base speakers are intact but dried out and getting a little stiff and crispy feeling. Great. Turns out it's speaker sale time at my AV store so off I go. Two new B&W CM9s and a CMC2 later I think we're done.
> 
> 
> That's more or less the end of the story other than sitting back and enjoying what basically has turned out to be a significant upgrade of my sound. Have to say TF4 kind of left us high and dry......yes the ATMOS is good but not knock your socks off and the movie itself is just OK.....but while we're waiting for more ATMOS sources watching our existing movie library with DSU is like watching whole new movies. Even Mrs. K with her kind of "whatever" watching/listening approach is impressed.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah....."the more or less end of the story" part. The last piece I have to address is the heat in my rack. Between the Denon and the Onkyo it's starting to get a little on the warm side so I've just ordered a fan set to add to the back of the rack. The AV store doesn't stock those so at least this time they're not involved.


Great story!  The good to practically wonderful Atmos mixes, unless some titles drop out of the sky before year's end, will be starting with _Gravity_ in February.


----------



## htpcforever

Al Sherwood said:


> The new Onkyo(s) are HDCP 2.2 compliant, it is the HDMI 2.0 spec that is not fully capable.


Thanks, I had it backwards then. I knew it was one of the two, picked the wrong one.


----------



## RRF743

Jetson312 said:


> Thanks for the reply NorthSky. I'm starting to get the impression that if I kept the UMC-200, I'd be replacing it shortly with something that does Atmos. Is there a receiver out there under $1,000 that would be good for Atmos and not cause me to lose anything in sound quality coming from the UMC-200? I'm not too concerned with the speaker wattage ratings since I'd run the speakers through the amps. The only stipulation is that the receiver would obviously need pre-outs for all the speakers (5 traditional speakers plus 4 overhead speakers and 1-2 subwoofers). I'm very new to the idea of Atmos. Again, I appreciate the input.


 Does any know if the Yamaha RX-A2040 will run 5.2.4? A friend jus ordered one yesterday and he says it will do it without an external amp. I have not confirmed this. Does anyone know? It could be a good fit for you.


----------



## RRF743

A good fit for Jetson312.


----------



## NorthSky

htpcforever said:


> Thanks, I had it backwards then. I knew it was one of the two, picked the wrong one.


When in doubt always give your best guess shot, or just flip a coin.


----------



## Al Sherwood

htpcforever said:


> Al Sherwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Onkyo(s) are HDCP 2.2 compliant, it is the HDMI 2.0 spec that is not fully capable.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I had it backwards then. I knew it was one of the two, picked the wrong one.
Click to expand...

No worries...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RRF743 said:


> Does any know if the Yamaha RX-A2040 will run 5.2.4? A friend jus ordered one yesterday and he says it will do it without an external amp. I have not confirmed this. *Does anyone know?* It could be a good fit for you.


Yes, it will support 5.2.4. It also has front and rear subwoofer outputs, not just dual summed mono sub outputs.


----------



## chi_guy50

ThePrisoner said:


> I included pics of the front of my room which has Def Tech ProMonitor 800's mounted as front height. They are above the L&R main speakers as high as I could go to the ceiling. My surrounds are Def Tech SR-8040 bipolar which are on my back wall. My receiver is a Denon X4100 and I need to purchase an AudioSource amp 100 for the additional speakers. I would like to add another pair of height speakers so I can do 5.2.4 but I'm not sure which direction to go in withy current set-up. Tomorrow we are taking delivery of new furniture so the love seat will be out about 2 feet from rear wall, that is the best I can do (WAF). I had my local A/V dealer over today because my original plan was to run another pair of ProMonitor 800's on my ceiling about a foot in front of the couch and use them as Top Middle. *My dealer says I should go with 4 in-ceiling speakers, Top Middle & Top Rear.* From my understanding reading through this thread Top Rear would not be ideal for my set-up as I'am so close to back wall. Secondly, I really don't want to lose my ProMonitor 800's. I just want to add an additional pair for height without spending a fortune. Looking at the pics provided I would like to hear some opinions on my situation. could I also put another pair of 800's as rear height, above my surrounds? I also considered trying the Onkyo Atmos Enabled speakers for rear heights even though I did try the Def Tech A60 modules and did not like them.


I would keep what you have and just add one pair of in-ceiling speakers as TM or TR.

Note that you can not have both TM & TR--those are contiguous placements and can not be accommodated by the current generation of Atmos processors, including your X4100.


----------



## jdsmoothie

RRF743 said:


> Does any know if the Yamaha RX-A2040 will run 5.2.4? A friend jus ordered one yesterday and he says it will do it without an external amp. I have not confirmed this. Does anyone know? It could be a good fit for you.


The A2040 and A3040 are both 9CH AVRs, however, the A2040 is capped at 9CH (ie. 5.2.4 or 7.2.2) whereas the A3040 can expand to 11CH (ie. 7.2.4) with a 2CH external amp.


----------



## RRF743

Thanks JD and Hitch. Just wanting to learn as much as possibly. JD, I went to the Yamaha atmos blog and saw a number of your posts. I wanted the 3040 but had all my reconstruction done for 4 surrounds and installed 4. ceiling speakers and was impatiently waiting for the update. So I went with the x5200w. Very happy with it. I think both are great receivers.


----------



## 7channelfreak

jdsmoothie said:


> The A2040 and A3040 are both 9CH AVRs, however, the A2040 is capped at 9CH (ie. 5.2.4 or 7.2.2) whereas the A3040 can expand to 11CH (ie. 7.2.4) with a 2CH external amp.


When are we expecting the 7200 from a Denon? It's going to 11 channel with a two channel amp correct?


----------



## ThePrisoner

chi_guy50 said:


> I would keep what you have and just add one pair of in-ceiling speakers as TM or TR.
> 
> Note that you can not have both TM & TR--those are contiguous placements and can not be accommodated by the current generation of Atmos processors, including your X4100.


Thanks for reminding me that TM & TR can not be accommodated together, I remember reading about that in this thread. I'll look into adding a pair od in-ceiling speakers at the appropriate positions. Thanks again.


----------



## NorthSky

7channelfreak said:


> 1. When are we expecting the 7200 from a Denon?
> 2. It's going to 11 channel with a two channel amp correct?


1. January 2015, I believe.
2. Correct.

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## jdsmoothie

7channelfreak said:


> When are we expecting the 7200 from a Denon? It's going to 11 channel with a two channel amp correct?


Latest word (as of yesterday) is it should be released late December, and yes, it is a 9CH AVR which can be expanded to 11CH with an external amp.


----------



## Gurba

htpcforever said:


> They are missing all the required "pieces parts" to be compliant. Others have already answered, so no reason to repeat what they said...but basically it is HDMI 2.0 level A and HDCP 2.2.


Sorry for asking. The info has drowned in Tech talk that is way above what I understand. I just wanted a short answer. But I'll ask elsewhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

ThePrisoner said:


> I included pics of the front of my room which has Def Tech ProMonitor 800's mounted as front height. They are above the L&R main speakers as high as I could go to the ceiling. My surrounds are Def Tech SR-8040 bipolar which are on my back wall. My receiver is a Denon X4100 and I need to purchase an AudioSource amp 100 for the additional speakers. I would like to add another pair of height speakers so I can do 5.2.4 but I'm not sure which direction to go in withy current set-up. Tomorrow we are taking delivery of new furniture so the love seat will be out about 2 feet from rear wall, that is the best I can do (WAF). I had my local A/V dealer over today because my original plan was to run another pair of ProMonitor 800's on my ceiling about a foot in front of the couch and use them as Top Middle. My dealer says I should go with 4 in-ceiling speakers, Top Middle & Top Rear. From my understanding reading through this thread Top Rear would not be ideal for my set-up as I'am so close to back wall. Secondly, I really don't want to lose my ProMonitor 800's. I just want to add an additional pair for height without spending a fortune. Looking at the pics provided I would like to hear some opinions on my situation. could I also put another pair of 800's as rear height, above my surrounds? I also considered trying the Onkyo Atmos Enabled speakers for rear heights even though I did try the Def Tech A60 modules and did not like them.


Top Middle and Top Rear is not a permitted combination and your dealer ought to know that. With seats close to the back wall, Top Front/Front Height + Top Middle may work well for you (it does here). Check that you can meet the required angles (sounds as if you can).


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I don't think I'd be satisfied unless if I had my own private 6 story tall IMAX screen with a custom Atmos sound system (haha). Anything that won't fill my field of view will always be too small.


I agree. If it is possible to fill the field of view, go for it. Usually means a PJ of course, but a PJ adds so much to the experience that it is a good idea anyway.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kbarnes701 said:


> Top Middle and Top Rear is not a permitted combination and your dealer ought to know that. With seats close to the back wall, Top Front/Front Height + Top Middle may work well for you (it does here). Check that you can meet the required angles (sounds as if you can).


Thank you. Top Middle should be fine. Now I'm considering ProMonitor 800's attached to my ceilings with their mounts or in-ceiling speakers. Either way I have to get wire up and in my ceiling, no attic above me. May try another dealer in my area for wiring/install job.


----------



## TL5

So lets see....if my MLP is near the back wall, and I have a 5.1 system with my tower surrounds at roughly 90 degrees, where should I put ceiling speakers for Atmos?


----------



## helvetica bold

Any gamers out there who have an Atmos set up? How does it sound? I'm sure the Dolby up mixer should work wonders w/ games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> You have a way with words, with interpreting the negative side of life.
> 
> It's like I say I love red, and you say that you must be abnormal because you love blue.


Contrary - my glass is always half full, which is why I am enjoying a little Atmos content and Dolby Surround right now. We aren't getting any younger Bob, if I waited for the latest greatest in the tech and av world I would still by using my Sansui amp that I had when I was 20. Thank goodness for Gravity and HDMI worries, without those to discuss we would haven't many posts right now. The good news - remember the half full thing - is that we have a couple more movies coming with Atmos mixes, it looks like FilmMixer's comment about they are coming and be patient was right on the money.


----------



## ss9001

smurraybhm said:


> Thank goodness for Gravity and HDMI worries, without those to discuss we would haven't many posts right now. The good news - remember the half full thing - is that we have a couple more movies coming with Atmos mixes, it looks like FilmMixer's comment about they are coming and be patient was right on the money.


IMO, Digitalbits has some good advice re Gravity:

"If this edition sells well, it’s _possible_ Warner could release additional recent titles on Blu-ray with Atmos – *Man of Steel*, *Edge of Tomorrow*, *Pacific Rim*, the *Hobbit* films – these have all been released with Atmos mixes in theaters."

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/111214_1230

nothing speaks louder than to companies than money so all those craving Atmos titles should buy this one! 

I plan to setup for Atmos in Dec-Jan (unavoidable delay) and will be ordering this even tho I already have the full boat 3D/BD/DVD combo. I have 11 titles already that were Atmos movies and I had intended to double dip nearly all of them if/when they are released in Atmos.


----------



## drriddhish

would you hold off buying titles that have ATMOS track released in theaters but not on blurays? I have stopped going to theaters now..and just buy the titles when it comes through blurays..its cheaper that way and truth be told a better experience with dedicated home theater. But now with ATMOS commercial and judging from this thread- home theater success I am sincerely planning to netflix/redbox them until ATMOS titles are released.


----------



## htpcforever

Gurba said:


> Sorry for asking. The info has drowned in Tech talk that is way above what I understand. I just wanted a short answer. But I'll ask elsewhere.


In the future, when a bluray disc is true UHD (true 4k), it will also require Full HDMI 2.0 (known as HDMI 2.0 Level A) and HDCP 2.2 compliance for all the items in the chain from the source (bluray player) to the sink (TV). If you have an AVR in the middle it and that AVR is not fully compliant to both, the movie will not play. Much like what happened to people when blurays first came out and they wanted to play the movie on their computer. The computer (source) was fine, but the monitor (sink) was not HDCP compliant and therefor the movie would not play.


The question is WHEN is this going to happen. Most likely not for a long time. The problem is that people tend to keep their AVR for a long time - meaning it may still be in use when the new requirements actually start being used. In that case, you will either need to bypass the AVR for the video or get a new AVR.


----------



## batpig

TL5 said:


> So lets see....if my MLP is near the back wall, and I have a 5.1 system with my tower surrounds at roughly 90 degrees, where should I put ceiling speakers for Atmos?


You've basically got two options:

1. Add two speakers directly above and a bit in front of LP for a 5.1.2 setup with Top Middle

2. Add four speakers as Front Height + Top Middle for a 5.1.4 setup. In this case I'd shift those TM speakers back so they are ideally slightly behind you, since you've got the two extra FH speakers covering the area above and in front. 

I'm assuming you don't have enough room behind you to get 30+ degrees of angular separation for Top Rear


----------



## Gurba

htpcforever said:


> In the future, when a bluray disc is true UHD (true 4k), it will also require Full HDMI 2.0 (known as HDMI 2.0 Level A) and HDCP 2.2 compliance for all the items in the chain from the source (bluray player) to the sink (TV). If you have an AVR in the middle it and that AVR is not fully compliant to both, the movie will not play. Much like what happened to people when blurays first came out and they wanted to play the movie on their computer. The computer (source) was fine, but the monitor (sink) was not HDCP compliant and therefor the movie would not play.
> 
> 
> The question is WHEN is this going to happen. Most likely not for a long time. The problem is that people tend to keep their AVR for a long time - meaning it may still be in use when the new requirements actually start being used. In that case, you will either need to bypass the AVR for the video or get a new AVR.


Ok. Thanks.


----------



## Gurba

Got some speakerstands today so I can move the surrounds Down from the ceiling and 2 pairs of Dynavoice FX-4 EX are ordered for the ceiling. Now all I'm waiting for is the SVS PC-2000 to become available for order.


----------



## TL5

batpig said:


> You've basically got two options:
> 
> 1. Add two speakers directly above and a bit in front of LP for a 5.1.2 setup with Top Middle
> 
> 2. Add four speakers as Front Height + Top Middle for a 5.1.4 setup. In this case I'd shift those TM speakers back so they are ideally slightly behind you, since you've got the two extra FH speakers covering the area above and in front.
> 
> I'm assuming you don't have enough room behind you to get 30+ degrees of angular separation for Top Rear


Thanks for the reply! In order to get 30 degress of angular seperation for Top Rear, I'd basically have my towers I use as surrounds (PSB Synchrony 2's) firing into the rear/sides of my sofa. So I guess my best bet is 5.1.2?


----------



## kbarnes701

ThePrisoner said:


> Thank you. Top Middle should be fine. Now I'm considering ProMonitor 800's attached to my ceilings with their mounts or in-ceiling speakers. Either way I have to get wire up and in my ceiling, no attic above me. May try another dealer in my area for wiring/install job.


I know the pain of pulling wire through ceilings... one thing you might consider while you are doing it is to wire for alternative speaker combinations at the same time - eg FH and RH and TM as well as TF and TR. Future units may allow for more speakers overhead and wire is cheap...


----------



## kbarnes701

TL5 said:


> So lets see....if my MLP is near the back wall, and I have a 5.1 system with my tower surrounds at roughly 90 degrees, where should I put ceiling speakers for Atmos?


My MLP is near the back wall and I have 5 listener-level speakers. I am using on-ceiling speakers mounted at 42° for the front pair (which allows for FH or TF designations) and the rear pair is mounted at 80° and designated as TM. This enables me to use FH+TM and it sounds terrific here.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Contrary - my glass is always half full, which is why I am enjoying a little Atmos content and Dolby Surround right now. We aren't getting any younger Bob, if I waited for the latest greatest in the tech and av world I would still by using my Sansui amp that I had when I was 20. Thank goodness for Gravity and HDMI worries, without those to discuss we would haven't many posts right now. The good news - remember the half full thing - is that we have a couple more movies coming with Atmos mixes, it looks like FilmMixer's comment about they are coming and be patient was right on the money.


+1. Waiting, in the AV world, is pointless. What you are waiting for never comes, or more accurately, when it does, something else is on the horizon.


----------



## scarabaeus

Gurba said:


> Sorry for asking. The info has drowned in Tech talk that is way above what I understand. I just wanted a short answer. But I'll ask elsewhere.


You have two choices right now:


Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).

All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).

4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.

So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.

Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year.


----------



## kbarnes701

TL5 said:


> Thanks for the reply! In order to get 30 degress of angular seperation for Top Rear, I'd basically have my towers I use as surrounds (PSB Synchrony 2's) firing into the rear/sides of my sofa. So I guess my best bet is 5.1.2?


Not at all - go for 5.1.4 with a FH+TM combination.


----------



## kokishin

scarabaeus said:


> You have two choices right now:
> 
> 
> Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).
> 
> All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).
> 
> 4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.
> 
> So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.
> 
> Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year.


Most concise and thorough explanation I have seen to date. Thank you.


----------



## Gurba

scarabaeus said:


> You have two choices right now:
> 
> 
> Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).
> All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).
> 
> 4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.
> 
> So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.
> 
> Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year.


Thanks for the reply. From what I can gather my Yamaha RX-A3040 supports 4K60p 4:4:4 full color pass-thru since the latest fw update. As far as HDCP 2.2 goes I don't know.


----------



## bargervais

Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post
You have two choices right now:
Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).

All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).

4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.

So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.

Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year

Great explanation that puts that to bed


----------



## Al Sherwood

scarabaeus said:


> You have two choices right now:
> 
> 
> Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).
> All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).
> 
> 4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.
> 
> So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.
> 
> Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year.



Yes, Very well stated!


If the chip set that Onkyo/Integra uses already accommodates the 4K Blu-ray spec you quote above, are we expecting this higher colour resolution from another media, or just that Blu-ray is headed there?


----------



## Manni01

scarabaeus said:


> You have two choices right now:
> 
> 
> Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).
> 
> All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).
> 
> 4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.
> 
> So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.
> 
> Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year.


Thanks, any link/reference to the information regarding the fallback to 1080p when the path isn't protected? That's much better than a black screen or 480p, but I haven't read this anywhere re Bluray 4K.

Also would you keep the other improvements (mainly 10 bits resolution and wider gamut to start with) or would the content be downgraded to bluray quality (8 bits 4:2:0 / rec 709) along with the resolution downgrade?


----------



## Manni01

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, Very well stated!
> 
> 
> If the chip set that Onkyo/Integra uses already accommodates the 4K Blu-ray spec you quote above, are we expecting this higher colour resolution from another media, or just that Blu-ray is headed there?


The first stage of UHD-TV requires 4:2:0 10 bits in rec-709 at 50/60p, so no AVR available today can handle it in full quality (as it would also require HDCP 2.2). There might be a downconverted resolution/quality as well, but no idea which one.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Manni01 said:


> The first stage of UHD-TV requires 4:2:0 10 bits in rec-709 at 50/60p, *so no AVR available today* can handle it in full quality (as it would also require HDCP 2.2). There might be a downconverted resolution/quality as well, but no idea which one.



From above: Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)

Is it not 10 bit colour?


----------



## Manni01

Al Sherwood said:


> From above: Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> 
> Is it not 10 bit colour?


 
No, the Onkyo/Integras are limited to 4K 8bits 4:2:0 at 50/60p due to the limited HDMI 2.0 level B bandwidth, same as HDMI 1.4. They are basically using HDMI 1.4 chipsets with one HDMI 2.0 profile (4K at 8bits 4:2:0 at 50/60p, which HDMI 1.4 can't handle) with HDCP 2.2 support on top.


----------



## batpig

TL5 said:


> Thanks for the reply! In order to get 30 degress of angular seperation for Top Rear, I'd basically have my towers I use as surrounds (PSB Synchrony 2's) firing into the rear/sides of my sofa. So I guess my best bet is 5.1.2?


I'm confused. What does the positioning of your surrounds have to do with the angles for Top Rear? You either have enough room behind you for Top Rear or you don't. The angle/position of your other speakers is independent of that.




kbarnes701 said:


> Not at all - go for 5.1.4 with a FH+TM combination.


Exactly.


----------



## TL5

batpig said:


> I'm confused. What does the positioning of your surrounds have to do with the angles for Top Rear? You either have enough room behind you for Top Rear or you don't. The angle/position of your other speakers is independent of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.


It's me who was confused - I thought you were refering to the angle my L/R surrounds were at. I apologise. I guess what you're talking about is the angle of the overhead speakers for the Top Rear from my MLP?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Manni01 said:


> No, the Onkyo/Integras are limited to 4K 8bits 4:2:0 at 50/60p due to the limited HDMI 2.0 level B bandwidth, same as HDMI 1.4. They are basically using HDMI 1.4 chipsets with one HDMI 2.0 profile (4K at 8bits 4:2:0 at 50/60p, which HDMI 1.4 can't handle) with HDCP 2.2 support on top.



Ahhhh, OK, thanks for the added details, I figured something like this but could not find the 'official' specs to corroborate! 


Looks like a lot more bits and bandwidth is needed for the latest spec! It will nice when the Gen-2 AVR's have this in place...


----------



## scarabaeus

Manni01 said:


> Thanks, any link/reference to the information regarding the fallback to 1080p when the path isn't protected? That's much better than a black screen or 480p, but I haven't read this anywhere re Bluray 4K.
> 
> Also would you keep the other improvements (mainly 10 bits resolution and wider gamut to start with) or would the content be downgraded to bluray quality (8 bits 4:2:0 / rec 709) along with the resolution downgrade?


As for the fallback to 1080p with HDCP 1.4, I deducted that from the requirement for HDCP 2.2 for 2160p, imposed by the content providers for 4K content (Has been widely reported, just google "blu-ray 4k hdcp 2.2"). Downscaling to 1080p should be perfectly acceptable. This HDCP 2.2 requirement will most likely apply to other UHD sources as well, such a streaming, not just 4K Blu-ray. I do not know what requirements will apply to deep color and/or HDR.



Al Sherwood said:


> From above: Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> 
> Is it not 10 bit colour?


What I stated applies to 8 bit color only. For 10 bit (or, on the HDMI interface, rather 12 bit) color you would have a clock factor of 1.5 X, which is pushing some of the bandwidth limits. I do not think the Onkyos can do 2160p with 12 bit color in either 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0, but it should work at 2160p24 4:2:2 (where 12 bit color is achieved by a reduction in color resolution, instead of an increase in the clock).

Color resolution (4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:0 etc.) is different from color depth (8, 10, 12 bit)


----------



## batpig

TL5 said:


> It's me who was confused - I thought you were refering to the angle my L/R surrounds were at. I apologise. I guess what you're talking about is the angle of the overhead speakers for the Top Rear from my MLP?


Fair enough 

I was just confirming that you didn't have enough room behind you for Top Rear speakers (which by spec should be at least 30-35 degrees behind the LP) which, by extension, would imply that you would need to run a Front Height + Top Middle config if you wanted to do 4 Atmos speakers. 

The position of your surrounds is irrelevant to that calculus.

Long story short: if you want to run 4 overheads, you will do Front Height + Top Middle. Front Heights should be elevated 30-45 degrees, and Top Middle should be almost directly overhead, anywhere from just in front to just behind the LP. Then sit back and enjoy


----------



## Al Sherwood

scarabaeus said:


> As for the fallback to 1080p with HDCP 1.4, I deducted that from the requirement for HDCP 2.2 for 2160p, imposed by the content providers for 4K content (Has been widely reported, just google "blu-ray 4k hdcp 2.2"). Downscaling to 1080p should be perfectly acceptable. This HDCP 2.2 requirement will most likely apply to other UHD sources as well, such a streaming, not just 4K Blu-ray. I do not know what requirements will apply to deep color and/or HDR.
> 
> 
> 
> What I stated applies to 8 bit color only. For 10 bit (or, on the HDMI interface, rather 12 bit) color you would have a clock factor of 1.5 X, which is pushing some of the bandwidth limits. I do not think the Onkyos can do 2160p with 12 bit color in either 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0, but it should work at 2160p24 4:2:2 (where 12 bit color is achieved by a reduction in color resolution, instead of an increase in the clock).
> 
> Color resolution (4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:0 etc.) is different from color depth (8, 10, 12 bit)



Thanks for the additional information!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Fair enough
> 
> I was just confirming that you didn't have enough room behind you for Top Rear speakers (which by spec should be at least 30-35 degrees behind the LP) which, by extension, would imply that you would need to run a Front Height + Top Middle config if you wanted to do 4 Atmos speakers.


Yep - he's in more or less the same position as I was in when I mounted my 4 overheads. No room to meet the angles for TR but plenty of room to meet the angles for FH+TM. And I can confirm that it works beautifully here. Much better solution than settling for just 5.1.2 IMO.



batpig said:


> The position of your surrounds is irrelevant to that calculus.


Indeed. I moved mine from 90° to 110° and lowered them somewhat. My thinking on that was that it would put the surrounds slightly behind me and given that I have TMs slightly in front of me, this would increase the angular separation of those pairs of speakers and give more of a 'bubble'. Similarly, lowering them a little to just above ear height increases the distance of the surrounds to the TMs, and is in any case in line with Dolby's own practice as seen at all of their demo events.



batpig said:


> Long story short: if you want to run 4 overheads, you will do Front Height + Top Middle. Front Heights should be elevated 30-45 degrees, and Top Middle should be almost directly overhead, anywhere from just in front to just behind the LP. Then sit back and enjoy


Spot on. FWIW I found that the TMs worked best when slightly in front of me rather than slightly behind me, but this may well just be my preference. There wasn't much in it.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> My MLP is near the back wall and I have 5 listener-level speakers. I am using on-ceiling speakers mounted at 42° for the front pair (which allows for FH or TF designations) and the rear pair is mounted at 80° and designated as TM. This enables me to use FH+TM and it sounds terrific here.


So do I understand then that you have no speakers behind you (I assume 80 degrees is slightly in front) and that you still get the 3D experience??

I thought from looking at your room photo some time ago that your "back" speakers were very near the back wall.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> So do I understand then that you have no speakers behind you (I assume 80 degrees is slightly in front) and that you still get the 3D experience??
> 
> I thought from looking at your room photo some time ago that your "back" speakers were very near the back wall.


Originally I put the TM speakers at 100° (the limit of the range). Given that 90° would be over the top of my head, this placed them slightly behind me, as you remember them. However, later I moved them to 80° - about as far in front of me as they were previously behind me. This, to me, gave a better result. When the TMs were slightly behind me, they seemed to get overwhelmed by the FHs. Moving them forward a little prevented this from happening and gave me a better '3D' experience, and of course 80° is still well within spec. This was something I did not undertake lightly because it involved a lot of intrusive work into the plasterwork of the ceiling to conceal the wires (the wires had previously been pulled to the 100° location and there was a joist in the way which prevented a simple move to the 80° location). Of course, I did listen at first with the wires just dangling, until I was sure that moving the speakers was worthwhile.

IDK if the result I am now getting is anything to do with the way Atmos directs content to the various speaker locations and that for a FH+TM combination, my way is better or not, but it certainly satisfies me much more this way. My advice to anyone who has to pull wires through a ceiling is to first experiment with speaker placement before committing, using surface wiring until such time as they are convinced that their chosen locations are the optimum for their room and preferences.

I do get a wonderful 'bubble' or 'dome' of sound now, both from Atmos content and DSU and I am entirely happy with the speakers themselves and their location.

If anyone is wondering why I didn't go for FH+RH, it was because my side surrounds are at 110° and this puts then right into the corner of the side wall and rear wall, which would have meant that RHs would have been in the same vertical plane. My feeling was that the more angular separation one has, within spec, the better and since I cannot move the side surrounds, then this left me with moving the TMs (to the 80° location).


----------



## Manni01

scarabaeus said:


> As for the fallback to 1080p with HDCP 1.4, I deducted that from the requirement for HDCP 2.2 for 2160p, imposed by the content providers for 4K content (Has been widely reported, just google "blu-ray 4k hdcp 2.2"). Downscaling to 1080p should be perfectly acceptable. This HDCP 2.2 requirement will most likely apply to other UHD sources as well, such a streaming, not just 4K Blu-ray. I do not know what requirements will apply to deep color and/or HDR.
> 
> 
> 
> What I stated applies to 8 bit color only. For 10 bit (or, on the HDMI interface, rather 12 bit) color you would have a clock factor of 1.5 X, which is pushing some of the bandwidth limits. I do not think the Onkyos can do 2160p with 12 bit color in either 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0, but it should work at 2160p24 4:2:2 (where 12 bit color is achieved by a reduction in color resolution, instead of an increase in the clock).
> 
> Color resolution (4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:0 etc.) is different from color depth (8, 10, 12 bit)


The requirements for HDCP 2.2 by content providers are well-known, so that wasn't my question. I wanted to know if your statement that there would be a fallback to 1080p if there was no HDCP 2.2 in the chain was a fact or an opinion. The rest of your post was very accurate, so I wanted to know if you knew something new.


It's potentially misleading as it seems to be your opinion. I agree that it would be acceptable, but nothing would prevent content providers to ask for 720p or 480p or even a black screen instead of 1080p. After all, Bluray 4K will most likely be sold in a combo pack with a bluray for compatibility, so it's not as if they would be preventing you from watching the content. Also they could downconvert every other improvement in the 4K content (gamut mostly and color depth in bluray 4K vs bluray).


In my setup, I'd be very happy with a 1080p resolution fallback if all the other attributes (wider gamut, increased color depth and better compression) were preserved, but somehow I doubt it will be the case. I have strictly no interest in the increased resolution in 4K as the difference isn't visible on my screen at my sitting distance (88" diag 16x9 from 12 feet). However, I'm really looking forward to better compression, wider gamut and increased color depth. I see missing colors, compression artifacts and banding in bluray much more than I see individual pixels .


Regarding your second point, the Onkyos support HDMI 2.0 level B, all the supported modes are well known. AFAIK level B can't support any 4K mode in 12 bits at 24p beyond 4:2:0, so no 4:2:2 in 12 bits (not really a problem given that neither Bluray 4K nor UHD-TV will support 12 bits for a long time, both being limited to 10 bits 4:2:0 in their first phase). 


Here is a link detailing the supported modes and differences: http://www.projectorreviews.com/technical_blog/hdmi-2-0-and-support-for-4k-uhd-video/


----------



## quinn4528

kbarnes701 said:


> Originally I put the TM speakers at 100° (the limit of the range). Given that 90° would be over the top of my head, this placed them slightly behind me, as you remember them. However, later I moved them to 80° - about as far in front of me as they were previously behind me. This, to me, gave a better result. When the TMs were slightly behind me, they seemed to get overwhelmed by the FHs. Moving them forward a little prevented this from happening and gave me a better '3D' experience, and of course 80° is still well within spec. This was something I did not undertake lightly because it involved a lot of intrusive work into the plasterwork of the ceiling to conceal the wires (the wires had previously been pulled to the 100° location and there was a joist in the way which prevented a simple move to the 80° location). Of course, I did listen at first with the wires just dangling, until I was sure that moving the speakers was worthwhile.
> 
> IDK if the result I am now getting is anything to do with the way Atmos directs content to the various speaker locations and that for a FH+TM combination, my way is better or not, but it certainly satisfies me much more this way. My advice to anyone who has to pull wires through a ceiling is to first experiment with speaker placement before committing, using surface wiring until such time as they are convinced that their chosen locations are the optimum for their room and preferences.
> 
> I do get a wonderful 'bubble' or 'dome' of sound now, both from Atmos content and DSU and I am entirely happy with the speakers themselves and their location.
> 
> If anyone is wondering why I didn't go for FH+RH, it was because my side surrounds are at 110° and this puts then right into the corner of the side wall and rear wall, which would have meant that RHs would have been in the same vertical plane. My feeling was that the more angular separation one has, within spec, the better and since I cannot move the side surrounds, then this left me with moving the TMs (to the 80° location).


From your extensive experimentation, would you advise the material you used to make your determinations? I have four rows of overheads and I would like to do some experimenting before I decide on what actually sounds best.


----------



## bargervais

Onkyo says it supports in their manual
1....Supported resolution: [3840 × 2160 24/25/30/50/60 Hz] 
[4096 × 2160 24/25/30/50/60 Hz]
2....Supported resolution: [3840 × 2160 24/25/30 Hz] 
3....Supported resolution: [3840 × 2160 24/25/30 Hz], [4096 × 2160 24/25/30 Hz]


----------



## TL5

batpig said:


> Fair enough
> 
> I was just confirming that you didn't have enough room behind you for Top Rear speakers (which by spec should be at least 30-35 degrees behind the LP) which, by extension, would imply that you would need to run a Front Height + Top Middle config if you wanted to do 4 Atmos speakers.
> 
> The position of your surrounds is irrelevant to that calculus.
> 
> Long story short: if you want to run 4 overheads, you will do Front Height + Top Middle. Front Heights should be elevated 30-45 degrees, and Top Middle should be almost directly overhead, anywhere from just in front to just behind the LP. Then sit back and enjoy


Thanks! I think I get it now, but one more question: when you say "Front Heights", it doesn't have to be the type of Atmos speaker that sits on top of your front L/R, correct? I want ceiling speakers, and I would have to tell the Atmos pre/pro where they were in setup?


----------



## Selden Ball

Front Height speakers are direct-firing speakers. The Front Height designation has been used for several years for speakers which are high above the front speakers, near or at the top of the wall. They are used by Dolby ProLogic IIz, DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX upmixers. Now they're also used by Atmos, Auro3D and the new Dolby Surround upmixer.

The front-most, up-firing, reflecting "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers are called Front Dolby by Denon & Marantz.


----------



## scarabaeus

Manni01 said:


> The requirements for HDCP 2.2 by content providers are well-known, so that wasn't my question. I wanted to know if your statement that there would be a fallback to 1080p if there was no HDCP 2.2 in the chain was a fact or an opinion. The rest of your post was very accurate, so I wanted to know if you knew something new.
> 
> It's potentially misleading as it seems to be your opinion. I agree that it would be acceptable, but nothing would prevent content providers to ask for 720p or 480p or even a black screen instead of 1080p.


Yes, at this point the 1080p fallback is just my opinion. To my knowledge, the BDA(Blu-ray) and/or DCI(Hollywood) has not figured this out yet. The points you make are correct, but I hope it won't come to that.



Manni01 said:


> Regarding your second point, the Onkyos support HDMI 2.0 level B, all the supported modes are well known. AFAIK level B can't support any 4K mode in 12 bits at 24p beyond 4:2:0, so no 4:2:2 in 12 bits (not really a problem given that neither Bluray 4K nor UHD-TV will support 12 bits for a long time, both being limited to 10 bits 4:2:0 in their first phase).
> 
> Here is a link detailing the supported modes and differences: http://www.projectorreviews.com/technical_blog/hdmi-2-0-and-support-for-4k-uhd-video/


The TMDS clock frequencies are:


2160p24/25/30, 4:4:4, 8 bit: 297 MHz
2160p24/25/30, 4:4:4, 10 bit: 371.25 MHz
2160p24/25/30, 4:4:4, 12 bit: 445.5 MHz
2160p24/25/30, 4:2:2, 12 bit: 297 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:4:4, 8 bit: 594 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:4:4, 10 bit: 742.5 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:4:4, 12 bit: 891 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:2:2, 12 bit: 594 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:2:0, 8 bit: 297 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:2:0, 10 bit: 371.25 MHz
2160p50/60, 4:2:0, 12 bit: 445.5 MHz
As you can see, 4:2:2 will allow for 12 bit deep color wherever 4:4:4 8 bit is possible. 4:2:2 on HDMI only supports 12 bit, with 8 or 10 bit pixels zero-padded to 12 bit, so you might as well upsample your 10 bit content. By the way, the HDMI 2 specification allows for up to 600 MHz (as opposed to 340 MHz in HDMI 1), so that would still exclude 2160p60 4:4:4 12 bit.



We're veering off the Atmos path a bit here, I hope that's acceptable since it's still about the capabilities of the current Atmos AVRs.


----------



## kbarnes701

quinn4528 said:


> From your extensive experimentation, would you advise the material you used to make your determinations? I have four rows of overheads and I would like to do some experimenting before I decide on what actually sounds best.


I used the Dolby Atmos demo disc, Transformers: AOE and a wide variety of discs with legacy soundtracks upscaled with DSU. I posted a list of some of the discs which are good for evaluation yesterday (in this thread I think). I'll find the post number.

EDIT: It was in a different thread. This is the post.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> Front Height speakers are direct-firing speakers. The Front Height designation has been used for several years for speakers which are high above the front speakers, near or at the top of the wall. They are used by Dolby ProLogic IIz, DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX upmixers. Now they're also used by Atmos, Auro3D and the new Dolby Surround upmixer.
> 
> The front-most, up-firing, reflecting "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers are called Front Dolby by Denon & Marantz.


That's what I'm doing with my front high speakers that I used before atmos came along I have front highs that are up my front wall right almost at the ceiling. I also already had my surround back speakers in the ceiling right behind my MLP So I was already set speaker wise waiting on delivery of my new TX-NR 1030 as I track it, it looks like it will be here Saturday.. so I'm looking forward to atmos 7.2.4


----------



## nucky

helvetica bold said:


> Any gamers out there who have an Atmos set up? How does it sound? I'm sure the Dolby up mixer should work wonders w/ games.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have Atmos and play the ps4 for games, and in a word awesome.


----------



## pasender91

nucky said:


> I have Atmos and play the ps4 for games, and in a word awesome.


And today this is only using DS upmixer.
Dolby is working with game editors to have games generate Atmos native objects, when this happens sometimes next year, you will be crying of joy !!!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. If it is possible to fill the field of view, go for it. Usually means a PJ of course, but a PJ adds so much to the experience that it is a good idea anyway.


Not to go off topic... but I do have a question about good projectors. When I saw Interstellar I noticed the black levels weren't as dark as what I see at home on my plasma. Is that due to the IMAX projection? (I'm going to see the 70mm version this weekend) Or are there projectors that can get the same black levels as a plasma? I dig heavy duty contrast.

I'm not sure if projection is an option for me. I would probably have to put it in my basement... but my basement floods pretty often. Last year I had 2 feet of water in there so that definitely made me nervous about leaving anything I care about down there. With all the money I spent on the TV & the Atmos system I probably could have afforded to install a french drain or something along those lines. 

If I was to put it in my main living space... it would be up against the front window of my house... so it would have to be retractable... which I don't even know if that could be an option for decent quality screens. But I have the same problem with the TV... which blocks off the window. If I got something like an 80" or 90" a few years down the road I might never see daylight in my living room again... which might not be kosher with the lady. (I could care less)(haha).


----------



## Brian Fineberg

went to the local bestbuy and checked out their ATMOS enabled demo. it was the first time i heard atmos at home outside my home. While very impressive for upfiring modules...it no where compares to the ceiling speakers in my setup..might be the deftechs though..or the room and setup...but still a GRAT option for those who cant do ceiling speaks


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not to go off topic... but I do have a question about good projectors. When I saw Interstellar I noticed the black levels weren't as dark as what I see at home on my plasma. Is that due to the IMAX projection? (I'm going to see the 70mm version this weekend) Or are there projectors that can get the same black levels as a plasma? I dig heavy duty contrast.
> 
> I'm not sure if projection is an option for me. I would probably have to put it in my basement... but my basement floods pretty often. Last year I had 2 feet of water in there so that definitely made me nervous about leaving anything I care about down there. With all the money I spent on the TV & the Atmos system I probably could have afforded to install a french drain or something along those lines.
> 
> If I was to put it in my main living space... it would be up against the front window of my house... so it would have to be retractable... which I don't even know if that could be an option for decent quality screens. But I have the same problem with the TV... which blocks off the window. If I got something like an 80" or 90" a few years down the road I might never see daylight in my living room again... which might not be kosher with the lady. (I could care less)(haha).


Briefly, as it is OT (PM me if you want to discuss it some more), the black levels in movie theaters are invariably worse than I get at home from my PJ. No PJ will match a good plasma for black levels, but some come very close these days (the JVC models for example) and the much greater impact from a really big screen invariably compensates 100% for a slight drop in blacks. I never notice black levels these days, which shows that my PJ is doing a great job. The main benefit of a PJ is the hugely greater cinematic experience it brings - much more like a real movie theater. And dollar for dollar, a PJ and screen is way less expensive than any plasma. Imagine the cost of a 100 or 120 inch plasma!

Retractable screens come in all sorts of qualities, so there is no issue there.

Caveat: to get the best from any PJ you need to watch in a light-controlled room (fancy words for 'dark') just like in a real movie theater.


----------



## helvetica bold

nucky said:


> I have Atmos and play the ps4 for games, and in a word awesome.



Thanks Nucky!
What receiver and speaker do you have?
I have both the PS4 and Xbox 1. I can only imagine what battlefield 4 would sound like in atmos.  

Edit: Oh, never mind, i see your setup. Very Nice!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kokishin

Brian Fineberg said:


> went to the local bestbuy and checked out their ATMOS enabled demo. it was the first time i heard atmos at home outside my home. While very impressive for upfiring modules...it no where compares to the ceiling speakers in my setup..might be the deftechs though..or the room and setup...but still a GRAT option for those who cant do ceiling speaks


I would have hoped Best Buy/Magnolia was demoing the Pioneer AJ Atmos Enabled speakers. Several folks on avsforum.com who have them in their HT have said they do quite a good job.

OTOH, the Deftech Atmos modules have not impressed.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Manni01 said:


> Regarding your second point, the Onkyos support HDMI 2.0 *level B *, all the supported modes are well known. AFAIK level B can't support any 4K mode in 12 bits at 24p beyond 4:2:0, so no 4:2:2 in 12 bits (not really a problem given that neither Bluray 4K nor UHD-TV will support 12 bits for a long time, both being limited to 10 bits 4:2:0 in their first phase).
> 
> 
> Here is a link detailing the supported modes and differences: http://www.projectorreviews.com/technical_blog/hdmi-2-0-and-support-for-4k-uhd-video/



Level B? I was under the impression that they had the 10.2 Gbs implementation, so according to the chart you provided the link to it, the Onkyo should be good for 4:2:2 at 12 bits?


----------



## Manni01

Al Sherwood said:


> Level B? I was under the impression that they had the 10.2 Gbs implementation, so according to the chart you provided the link to it, the Onkyo should be good for 4:2:2 at 12 bits?


 
HDMI 2.0 Level B is the same as 10.2Gb/s 


And yes, I was wrong, I made a confusion with 4:4:4, scarabeus corrected this earlier and showed that 4:2:2 12 bits was supported at 24p. I only "liked" his post and didn't reply because I agreed with him that we were going OT in this thread with this...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Briefly, as it is OT (PM me if you want to discuss it some more), the black levels in movie theaters are invariably worse than I get at home from my PJ. No PJ will match a good plasma for black levels, but some come very close these days (the JVC models for example) and the much greater impact from a really big screen invariably compensates 100% for a slight drop in blacks. I never notice black levels these days, which shows that my PJ is doing a great job. The main benefit of a PJ is the hugely greater cinematic experience it brings - much more like a real movie theater. And dollar for dollar, a PJ and screen is way less expensive than any plasma. Imagine the cost of a 100 or 120 inch plasma!
> 
> Retractable screens come in all sorts of qualities, so there is no issue there.
> 
> Caveat: to get the best from any PJ you need to watch in a light-controlled room (fancy words for 'dark') just like in a real movie theater.


I forgot about that part... painting the walls dark grey (gray?) might not be an option... I'll pm you at some point.

Ty for the info... I've never really seen a personal high end projection system. Maybe it's time to check one out... the only problem is I just bought this plasma hahah.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

kokishin said:


> I would have hoped Best Buy/Magnolia was demoing the Pioneer AJ Atmos Enabled speakers. Several folks on avsforum.com who have them in their HT have said they do quite a good job.
> 
> OTOH, the Deftech Atmos modules have not impressed.


Our Best Buy (Burbank, CA) in the Magnolia section, their demo room used the Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers and even with drop ceiling tiles which probably were acoustic tiles it still managed to sound pretty decent, granted I dont think anything will sound as good as dedicated ceiling speakers, the effect was still pretty decent.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> went to the local bestbuy and checked out their ATMOS enabled demo. it was the first time i heard atmos at home outside my home. While very impressive for upfiring modules...it no where compares to the ceiling speakers in my setup..might be the deftechs though..or the room and setup...but still a GRAT option for those who cant do ceiling speaks


I think we need to invite some of these best buy people over to our little atmos home theaters so they can see what's possible we can offer a little consulting and some real world training..LOL


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> ...granted I dont think anything will sound as good as dedicated ceiling speakers, the effect was still pretty decent.


I think that in some circumstances the Atmos-enabled speakers can be preferred to actual on-ceiling speakers. At the two Dolby demos I attended in London, in their typical-sized HT demo room, most of the people present actually preferred the upfiring speakers to the real speakers. Now this may have been because Dolby used some rubbishy ceiling speakers (doubtful) or because they had them pointed directly facing down or for any number of reasons, but it was the case that the upfirers were very much liked and often preferred. And just as often, people found it very difficult to say which speakers were being used - upfirers or physical - when blind switching between them was undertaken.

I think that where someone is unable to use on-ceiling or in-ceiling speakers, for whatever reason (ceiling too low, WAF etc) the upfirers are a very valid alternative. HST, I think it is important also to make sure that the upfirers chosen are good examples. Some have commented that the Def Techs are poor for example. Most have said that Pioneer's Andrew Jones designs are good. And there are examples now coming along from very reputable manufacturers too. So long as the ceiling is reflective and not too high, I really do think people should consider the use of upfirers if physical speakers are a problem which is preventing them from enjoying Atmos and DSU.

Not disagreeing with you BTW - just adding another perspective based on my experiences.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> I think we need to invite some of these best buy people over to our little atmos home theaters so they can see what's possible we can offer a little consulting and some real world training..LOL


Or not.

They really don't give a crap. If they did, they would have things set up correctly for a good demo.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Contrary - my glass is always half full, which is why I am enjoying a little Atmos content and Dolby Surround right now. We aren't getting any younger Bob, if I waited for the latest greatest in the tech and av world I would still by using my Sansui amp that I had when I was 20. Thank goodness for Gravity and HDMI worries, without those to discuss we would haven't many posts right now. The good news - remember the half full thing - is that we have a couple more movies coming with Atmos mixes, it looks like FilmMixer's comment about they are coming and be patient was right on the money.


I am very happy that 'Gravity' is going to get the Dolby Atmos treatment. ...But it has to be also the 3D version; because without 3D 'Gravity' ain't the same, to me.

* I'm sixty, and true; ain't getting younger. ...In my heart I still remain young though.  
...The proof? I'm right here @ AVS Forum. 

Yeah, Marc (FilmMixer) was right; 'Gravity' ... and what else? ...Patience; not somethin' we all have.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

An interesting post on another thread regarding the Trinnov Atmos impl

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-184.html#post29011449

This post (and the ensuing few posts) say to me that it would be unwise to wait for a 2nd gen unit that can deal with arbitrary speaker positions (as it seems some people are), it sounds like there is just a set of fixed lookup takes in the decoder which is then augmented by trinnov remapping.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> My feeling was that the more angular separation one has, within spec, the better


So you feel that if the ceiling speakers are mounted inwards (than exactly in line with FL/FR) may give better sound stage?
I am in the (very) initial stages of making my feet wet in Atmos.
My room is 17'x12'. I have just moved my MFP to about 10' (from screen) from the earlier 12-13'. Also dropped all 4 surrounds to 4' from earlier 7'.
This gives me enough room for 4 overheads in any permitted combination.
My FL/FR are just close to side walls. So instead of mounting the overheads at the corner of ceiling and side wall, I was wondering if I can move them say 2' inwards from both sides.
Not sure if I should do FH+TM or simply TF+TR..


----------



## batpig

aaranddeeman said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My feeling was that the more angular separation one has, within spec, the better
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that if the ceiling speakers are mounted inwards (than exactly in line with FL/FR) may give better sound stage?
> I am in the (very) initial stages of making my feet wet in Atmos.
> My room is 17'x12'. I have just moved my MFP to about 10' (from screen) from the earlier 12-13'. Also dropped all 4 surrounds to 4' from earlier 7'.
> This gives me enough room for 4 overheads in any permitted combination.
> My FL/FR are just close to side walls. So instead of mounting the overheads at the corner of ceiling and side wall, I was wondering if I can move them say 2' inwards from both sides.
> Not sure if I should do FH+TM or simply TF+TR..
Click to expand...

This is a case where the advice to mount in line with the fronts doesn't work and common sense should overrule it. Putting the overheads near the corner wall/ceiling boundary is a bad idea for lots of reasons. Put the speakers such that they get more angular separation (as viewed from the back of the room) from the surrounds. Not directly above and in the same plane as the surrounds.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> This is a case where the advice to mount in line with the fronts doesn't work and common sense should overrule it. Putting the overheads near the corner wall/ceiling boundary is a bad idea for lots of reasons. Put the speakers such that they get more angular separation (as viewed from the back of the room) from the surrounds. Not directly above and in the same plane as the surrounds.


Thanks. I was thinking the same. Bring the overheads inwards with of course enough distance between the front (as well as rear) pair.


----------



## batpig

3ll3d00d said:


> An interesting post on another thread regarding the Trinnov Atmos impl
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-184.html#post29011449
> 
> This post (and the ensuing few posts) say to me that it would be unwise to wait for a 2nd gen unit that can deal with arbitrary speaker positions (as it seems some people are), it sounds like there is just a set of fixed lookup takes in the decoder which is then augmented by trinnov remapping.


Awesome info. Thanks. I've argued several times that I seriously doubt that this "holy grail" of feeding actual measured positional data to the renderer is going to be available in typical consumer receivers as some are assuming. Note that the bed channels are fixed spatially meaning the floor level speakers are likely to always be bound to the traditional 7.1 layout, and the 10 overhead speaker locations are already available to choose from. Best case I could see consumer AVRs offering a few more options for placing the surrounds within specific 15 degree sectors. 

And without a full remapping engine like Trinnov that exact positional data does diddly to help improve the sound the vast majority of time when you will be listening to "legacy" channel based content.


----------



## Bassplayer6

Daniel Chaves said:


> Our Best Buy (Burbank, CA) in the Magnolia section, their demo room used the Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers and even with drop ceiling tiles which probably were acoustic tiles it still managed to sound pretty decent, granted I dont think anything will sound as good as dedicated ceiling speakers, the effect was still pretty decent.


I have the set at home, but as my ceiling is not flat, i get more of ambient sound.
I decided to return them and install in ceiling instead.


----------



## NorthSky

3ll3d00d said:


> An interesting post on another thread regarding the Trinnov Atmos impl
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-184.html#post29011449
> 
> This post (and the ensuing few posts) say to me that it would be unwise to wait for a 2nd gen unit that can deal with arbitrary speaker positions (as it seems some people are), it sounds like there is just a set of fixed lookup takes in the decoder which is then augmented by trinnov remapping.


Still, nothing "unwise" about that. ...And this. 

Wiser to get Dolby Atmos right now, with only two titles? ...Or take the time to set ourselves correctly? 
Tomorrow is going to be worst than today? What we miss today won't be available tomorrow?


----------



## randyk47

I haven't bothered to listen to my local Best Buy ATMOS setup. I do know they are, or were the last time I was there, using an upfiring setup. Coversely though where I did hear ATMOS the first time happens to be Bjorns where Dolby actually sent ATMOS techs to assist setting up their ATMOS studio. Assuming usually gets you in trouble but I kind of assume with Bjorns' resources and Dolby's support their arrangement is pretty good, maybe the best or at least close to the best. Regardless it set a high bar and I'm doing the best I can with a room that certainly isn't a purpose built sound studio and not Bjorns' resources. Bottom line.....it's all I've got and it ain't bad.


----------



## RichB

Audioholics: Definitive Technology A60 Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Review 






 

There is some discussion of the design and crossovers which are said to be required for an Atmos up-firing speaker.


- Rich


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Still, nothing "unwise" about that. ...And this.
> 
> Wiser to get Dolby Atmos right now, with only two titles? ...Or take the time to set ourselves correctly?
> Tomorrow is going to be worst than today? What we miss today won't be available tomorrow?


This whole waiting thing does not fit me. I am not guaranteed a tomorrow and certainly not guaranteed a next year (and neither is anyone else). I purchased a 4K projector (Sony 600ES) NOT because there is any 4K material (and may not be for many years) but because it upscales to 4K and looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than the high end JVC it replaced.

I am getting an Atmos SSP with ceiling speakers, NOT because I expect there to be many new titles in the next year but because, even on my 7.1 system, the Dolby Upmixer sounds better than Dolby PLxII and will certainly make my existing collection improved. Furthermore, Audyssey is greatly improved. Add to that the ability to present a more 3D sound scape even without Atmos encoded discs, what is the point of waiting?

Wait. Wait. Wait and miss a year of enjoyment and then wait some more because the year after that will even be better and then wait some more.

Waiting is for 20 year olds. Not when you are any where near my age. WELL north of 60. Well north!

Jump in the pool. The water feels great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steve Goff

RichB said:


> Audioholics: Definitive Technology A60 Dolby Atmos Elevation Speaker Review
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HacX3Zld6-s
> 
> 
> There is some discussion of the design and crossovers which are said to be required for an Atmos up-firing speaker.
> 
> 
> - Rich



Where did they come up with the notion that each Atmos module must have the same Atmos "crossover" with the same component values? This seems highly unlikely to me.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> This whole waiting thing does not fit me. I am not guaranteed a tomorrow and certainly not guaranteed a next year (and neither is anyone else). I purchased a 4K projector (Sony 600ES) NOT because there is any 4K material (and may not be for many years) but because it upscales to 4K and looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than the high end JVC it replaced.
> 
> I am getting an Atmos SSP with ceiling speakers, NOT because I expect there to be many new titles in the next year but because, even on my 7.1 system, the Dolby Upmixer sounds better than Dolby PLxII and will certainly make my existing collection improved. Furthermore, Audyssey is greatly improved. Add to that the ability to present a more 3D sound scape even without Atmos encoded discs, what is the point of waiting?
> 
> Wait. Wait. Wait and miss a year of enjoyment and then wait some more because the year after that will even be better and then wait some more.
> 
> Waiting is for 20 year olds. Not when you are any where near my age. WELL north of 60. Well north!
> 
> Jump in the pool. The water feels great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You have the money ready for it right now; go for it.

I'll have the money ready for it later on; I will certainly go for it.
And meanwhile I will be acquiring more knowledge, same as you. ...But you'll be ahead true experience wise, in your own room, because the money is there, right now for you, and you are ready mentally too, Chuck.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

NorthSky said:


> Still, nothing "unwise" about that. ...And this.
> 
> Wiser to get Dolby Atmos right now, with only two titles? ...Or take the time to set ourselves correctly?
> Tomorrow is going to be worst than today? What we miss today won't be available tomorrow?


This seems something of a leap from what was written, that one reason (to wait) is unwise obviously does not make all possible reasons unwise.


----------



## nucky

helvetica bold said:


> Thanks Nucky!
> What receiver and speaker do you have?
> I have both the PS4 and Xbox 1. I can only imagine what battlefield 4 would sound like in atmos.
> 
> Edit: Oh, never mind, i see your setup. Very Nice!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's in my signature, Denon 5200 T2 T3 power amps and Dali helicon 400 front and 200 center 2 in wall and 4 ceiling speakers. It sounds brilliant with the new call of duty.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> So you feel that if the ceiling speakers are mounted inwards (than exactly in line with FL/FR) may give better sound stage?
> I am in the (very) initial stages of making my feet wet in Atmos.
> My room is 17'x12'. I have just moved my MFP to about 10' (from screen) from the earlier 12-13'. Also dropped all 4 surrounds to 4' from earlier 7'.
> This gives me enough room for 4 overheads in any permitted combination.
> My FL/FR are just close to side walls. So instead of mounting the overheads at the corner of ceiling and side wall, I was wondering if I can move them say 2' inwards from both sides.
> Not sure if I should do FH+TM or simply TF+TR..


Batpig has given you the answer I would have - bring the overheads inboard. Dolby haven't specifically said, IIRC, that the overheads MUST be in line with the mains. The angles are what are important as far as we know. I would do TF+TR if space permits.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> This whole waiting thing does not fit me. I am not guaranteed a tomorrow and certainly not guaranteed a next year (and neither is anyone else). I purchased a 4K projector (Sony 600ES) NOT because there is any 4K material (and may not be for many years) but because it upscales to 4K and looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than the high end JVC it replaced.
> 
> I am getting an Atmos SSP with ceiling speakers, NOT because I expect there to be many new titles in the next year but because, even on my 7.1 system, the Dolby Upmixer sounds better than Dolby PLxII and will certainly make my existing collection improved. Furthermore, Audyssey is greatly improved. Add to that the ability to present a more 3D sound scape even without Atmos encoded discs, what is the point of waiting?
> 
> Wait. Wait. Wait and miss a year of enjoyment and then wait some more because the year after that will even be better and then wait some more.
> 
> Waiting is for 20 year olds. Not when you are any where near my age. WELL north of 60. Well north!
> 
> Jump in the pool. The water feels great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A great post - and all so very true. Enjoy life while you can has always been my motto - tomorrow never comes.

+1000.


----------



## Manni01

@audioguy and @NorthSky,when I read your recent posts, I felt like I was hearing the little devil and the little angel voice in my own head, constantly debating the pros and cons about this Atmos upgrade .




I honestly have no idea whether I'll be strong enough to resist until next year (which is the voice of reason given the flaws in the first gen AVRs for those of us who don't upgrade every 1-2 years and have no unlimited funds), but your exchange was entertaining, so thanks to both.
Given the very positive feedback from early adopters, it's certainly getting difficult not to feel like we're missing out .
I guess if I was really strong - and sensible - I'd just stop reading this forum...


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> @audioguy and @NorthSky,when I read your recent posts, I felt like I was hearing the little devil and the little angel voice in my own head, constantly debating the pros and cons about this Atmos upgrade .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly have no idea whether I'll be strong enough to resist until next year (which is the voice of reason given the flaws in the first gen AVRs for those of us who don't upgrade every 1-2 years and have no unlimited funds), but your exchange was entertaining, so thanks to both.
> Given the very positive feedback from early adopters, it's certainly getting difficult not to feel like we're missing out .
> I guess if I was really strong - and sensible - I'd just stop reading this forum...


IDK if I am the angel or the devil, but I'd go with jumping in right now. There is no guarantee that waiting will bring the improvements you hope for - and as the recent post quoting the Theta thread shows, the things people are waiting for may _never_ happen. 

And if it's HDCP 2.2 you are waiting for, I think there's even less reason to wait. I’d bet the farm that new bluray players for 4K will have dual HDMI outputs so that you can simply connect the video output from the 4k player directly to the video input on the 4k display, thus bypassing the AVR completely, and using the 2nd HDMI out on the player to send audio to the AVR. My Oppo has had similar dual outputs for years. Not to mention that by the time 4K content becomes available you will probably have changed AVR anyway.

And all the time you are waiting you are missing the great benefits Audioguy mentioned in his terrific post. 

Life is too short to stand on the sidelines - jump in and enjoy while you can!


----------



## HT-Eman

*Luna Theater ( a multipurpose room )*

Heres a google sketchup of my new plans for my little room. I'm having a hard time deciding on if I should go TM or TR for the rear ceiling speakers. The room is 15' 6 " wide and 15' 3" long. From the rear wall to the sofa is 5 feet. One problem also that concerns me is that my room has a slope ceiling. So the front of the room wall starts a 8 feet , then rises to 11' 5". So the placement of the TF ceiling speaker would be 9 feet , ceiling above MLP is 10 feet , and behind the main listen position the ceiling height is 10' 5". So the height of the TF and TR would be at different levels. What would you guys recommend TM , TR , or RH ?


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK if I am the angel or the devil, but I'd go with jumping in right now. There is no guarantee that waiting will bring the improvements you hope for - and as the recent post quoting the Theta thread shows, the things people are waiting for may _never_ happen.
> 
> And if it's HDCP 2.2 you are waiting for, I think there's even less reason to wait. I’d bet the farm that new bluray players for 4K will have dual HDMI outputs so that you can simply connect the video output from the 4k player directly to the video input on the 4k display, thus bypassing the AVR completely, and using the 2nd HDMI out on the player to send audio to the AVR. My Oppo has had similar dual outputs for years. Not to mention that by the time 4K content becomes available you will probably have changed AVR anyway.
> 
> And all the time you are waiting you are missing the great benefits Audioguy mentioned in his terrific post.
> 
> Life is too short to stand on the sidelines - jump in and enjoy while you can!


I honestly didn't mean to start or continue the discussion, or get any help making a decision, I only meant to say that I could understand both sides .


I need my AVR to be able to switch all my sources over the next 3-5 years, because I don't plan to have only one 4K source. A dual output helps for one source. You might even chain them if a source offers an input as well, like an Oppo player, but I don't plan to buy an Oppo player. Sony server (requires HDCP 2.2), HTPC playing bluray 4K (with a GPU requiring HDCP 2.2), Bluray 4K player, UHD-TV topbox... How do you switch all these dual outputs?


I'm not buying an AVR to swap sources manually. I want to be able to, gradually over the next 3-5 years, replace my HD sources with 4K/UHD sources to play them to my (upcoming) 4K display, and projectors rarely have more than two HDMI inputs (usually one HDCP 2.2 and one legacy for compatibility).


One of the things I'm investigating at the moment is the potential issue that HDCP 2.2 requires all the parts of the chain to be HDCP 2.2 compliant. This means that we would need an HDCP 2.2 chain from the AVR to the display for HDCP 2.2 sources, and a separate chain for legacy sources going from another output of the AVR to another input of the display. Does this mean that next gen AVRs will have half their inputs HDCP 2.2 compliant and half legacy? It's too early to say, but that wouldn't be great either. I can't believe that they managed to create a new HDCP protection that is not compatible with legacy ones.


What I know is that I don't want to buy an expensive AVR that can't switch all my sources, or buy a separate switch for HDCP 2.2 sources which I won't be able to control with iRule to select the correct input remotely.


The other improvements, mainly 9.1.4 support, ideally without more than one external amp, are less important.


Buying an AVR which already supports Atmos, Auro-3D and DTS-HD without having to pay extra would also be nice (I'm interested in all 3 formats for various reasons).


We all have different priorities. I know what I should do (wait until all this HDCP 2.2 mess clears out and we know what it means for Bluray 4K when a non HDCP 2.2 compliant device is in the chain). 


I was only saying it's hard to resist the Atmos call so I might cave in despite these limitations . Not having my 4K display or any 4K protected source yet definitely helps to control my wallet, but I'm a huge Atmos fan so I'm not sure how long I'll last...


----------



## maikeldepotter

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks. I was thinking the same. Bring the overheads inwards with of course enough distance between the front (as well as rear) pair.


To get an ideal (most even) distribution of your overheads in terms of their lateral position, I would advice to put them at 1/3 of the left-to-right hemispherical spread between the surrounds. Examples:
1: Surrounds at 0 degrees elevation (ear level), overheads at 0+1/3*180=60 degrees elevation (60 degrees spread).
2: Surrounds at 15 degrees elevation, overheads at 15+1/3*(180-2*15)=65 degrees elevation (50 degrees spread).
3: Surrounds at 30 degrees elevation, overheads at 30+1/3*(180-2*30)=70 degrees elevation (40 degrees spread).


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> A great post - and all so very true. Enjoy life while you can has always been my motto - tomorrow never comes.
> 
> +1000.


Agree tomorrow comes too fast so waiting doesn't make scene we need to jump right in enjoy it. if we wait till next year then next year comes and then there are things that will be added the following year and then it will be a never ending process.... I jumped right in mind you I purchased a low end onkyo 737 to get my feet wet, and I was pleasantly surprised. I'm so impressed with atmos I ordered a TX-NR 1030 so I'll run 7.2.4 we need to enjoy life now, there are no guarantees of tomorrow..


----------



## audioguy

My recommendation about not waiting is based more than on my age. Certainly if one does not have the funds to purchase a new product, that's about as a legitimate reason to wait I can think of.

Let's do some math: I don't swap SSP's every year. I think I've had mine for 3+ and the one before that about 4 years and the one before tbat (a Theta) about 7 years. I paid around $1900 for my Integra. I should be able to get maybe $800 so it will have cost me $1100 for 3 years of use. I watch a minimum of 5 to 10 movies/concerts per month so say 250 to 300 movies during the 3 years. And during college football season, probably watch AT LEAST 20 games per month so thats about 250 to 300 college football games. Basically, then, I'm paying about a $2.00 premium for each thing I watch for enjoying this product. I spend more on Starbucks (I'm ashamed to say).

Reasons I almost did not jump in: wanted more channels since I have a fairly good sized room; wanted to see what DTS was going to do; would like to have heard how Auro will be able to make use of my Atmos speaker configuration (or no); would loved to have had an all-purpose audio/video switching SSP that was flexible enough to support the current nasty protection schemes and HDMI standards since I have a 4K server and 4K PJ; wanted more cosmetically appealing ceiling speakers (still do!); stc.

By the time THOSE abilities showed up in SSP's, there would have been NEW things I wanted. It really never ends. 

This is how I "justify" my AV purchased. I kept my previous JVC projector for a LONG time until I saw something WAAAAAAAY better. I have no reason to not believe that had I waited I could have purchased 90% of the same abilities at 60% of the price in a year or two.

Progress in AV technology is incredibly rapid. There is always the "next product" even after you decide to buy the "next product".

Sermon over. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled prgramming !!


----------



## robert816

Manni01 said:


> @audioguy and @NorthSky,when I read your recent posts, I felt like I was hearing the little devil and the little angel voice in my own head, constantly debating the pros and cons about this Atmos upgrade .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly have no idea whether I'll be strong enough to resist until next year (which is the voice of reason given the flaws in the first gen AVRs for those of us who don't upgrade every 1-2 years and have no unlimited funds), but your exchange was entertaining, so thanks to both.
> Given the very positive feedback from early adopters, it's certainly getting difficult not to feel like we're missing out .
> I guess if I was really strong - and sensible - I'd just stop reading this forum...


I on the other hand feel differently, this IS an Atmos thread.

It is a thread for and about Atmos. It is a forum to exchange information, ideas, and how to setup Atmos and the components needed to achieve Atmos in the home. It is a place for industry professionals, hobbyist, the semi-serious, and newbies alike to come together and attain that one goal, immersive audio in the home.

It should not be a place for those to campaign against purchasing a Dolby Atmos system or components, whether now or in the future. If you have relevant information on future products that may assist someone in deciding that now is not the time to purchase, by all means, please post that info so that we all can know about it. However, if you simply "feel" that people should wait for future unknown products with unknown features, then in my opinion, that is not helpful and should not clutter an already overfilled thread, stuffed with off-topic items.

This thread has reached nearly 450 pages at the time of my post. That is a lot of pages to read through for someone wanting to get information about Atmos settings, AVR's and related components.

If the MOD's feel that I have in any way violated the rules, or offended anyone personally, then please take any actions you deem necessary.


----------



## Manni01

@robert816: no offense taken, but no one is campaigning against Atmos, at least not me. On the contrary. I was saying that despite the objective limitations of the first gen Atmos AVRs it was getting difficult to resist, and I appreciated to hear the point of view of two opposite sides of the argument. 


And I agree that for those already on-board and looking for information this discussion doesn't add anything. I never realized that this thread was meant only for those who had made the jump and not also for those wondering if they should do it now or not.
Anyway, I'll step out because my intention wasn't to add noise to a busy thread or rain on anyone's parade, especially one that I'm likely to join at some point. The question isn't if, but when .


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> Heres a google sketchup of my new plans for my little room. I'm having a hard time deciding on if I should go TM or TR for the rear ceiling speakers. The room is 15' 6 " wide and 15' 3" long. From the rear wall to the sofa is 5 feet. One problem also that concerns me is that my room has a slope ceiling. So the front of the room wall starts a 8 feet , then rises to 11' 5". So the placement of the TF ceiling speaker would be 9 feet , ceiling above MLP is 10 feet , and behind the main listen position the ceiling height is 10' 5". So the height of the TF and TR would be at different levels. What would you guys recommend TM , TR , or RH ?


I would personally do TF+TR if there is room and you can meet the angles. I don't think the different ceiling heights will matter too much - your room EQ will take care of the levels and distances automatically. Nobody worries about 'ideal' distances for LCR speakers - some have them 8 feet from MLP, some 18 feet from MLP: it's the angles that matter, same with overheads. It seems you can meet the spec for TR so I’d go for that. If not, then go for TM. I’d avoid RH if possible because speakers overhead will be better than speakers mounted at the wall-ceiling junction.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> I honestly didn't mean to start or continue the discussion, or get any help making a decision, I only meant to say that I could understand both sides .
> 
> 
> I need my AVR to be able to switch all my sources over the next 3-5 years, because I don't plan to have only one 4K source. A dual output helps for one source. You might even chain them if a source offers an input as well, like an Oppo player, but I don't plan to buy an Oppo player. Sony server (requires HDCP 2.2), HTPC playing bluray 4K (with a GPU requiring HDCP 2.2), Bluray 4K player, UHD-TV topbox... How do you switch all these dual outputs?
> 
> 
> I'm not buying an AVR to swap sources manually. I want to be able to, gradually over the next 3-5 years, replace my HD sources with 4K/UHD sources to play them to my (upcoming) 4K display, and projectors rarely have more than two HDMI inputs (usually one HDCP 2.2 and one legacy for compatibility).
> 
> 
> One of the things I'm investigating at the moment is the potential issue that HDCP 2.2 requires all the parts of the chain to be HDCP 2.2 compliant. This means that we would need an HDCP 2.2 chain from the AVR to the display for HDCP 2.2 sources, and a separate chain for legacy sources going from another output of the AVR to another input of the display. Does this mean that next gen AVRs will have half their inputs HDCP 2.2 compliant and half legacy? It's too early to say, but that wouldn't be great either. I can't believe that they managed to create a new HDCP protection that is not compatible with legacy ones.
> 
> 
> What I know is that I don't want to buy an expensive AVR that can't switch all my sources, or buy a separate switch for HDCP 2.2 sources which I won't be able to control with iRule to select the correct input remotely.
> 
> 
> The other improvements, mainly 9.1.4 support, ideally without more than one external amp, are less important.
> 
> 
> Buying an AVR which already supports Atmos, Auro-3D and DTS-HD without having to pay extra would also be nice (I'm interested in all 3 formats for various reasons).
> 
> 
> We all have different priorities. I know what I should do (wait until all this HDCP 2.2 mess clears out and we know what it means for Bluray 4K when a non HDCP 2.2 compliant device is in the chain).
> 
> 
> I was only saying it's hard to resist the Atmos call so I might cave in despite these limitations . Not having my 4K display or any 4K protected source yet definitely helps to control my wallet, but I'm a huge Atmos fan so I'm not sure how long I'll last...


Those are all good points IMO. But the whole 4K/HDCP business is still up in the air, with 4K blurays not even scheduled to make an appearance for at least another year. I read only this week a reputable source which said that HDCP 2.2 may not even be required in the AVR at all, so long as the source and display can handshake and the bit in the middle can pass the signal unmolested, it will be OK. The source was a magazine so I don't have a link - I will find it later and post the quote.


----------



## maikeldepotter

3ll3d00d said:


> An interesting post on another thread regarding the Trinnov Atmos impl
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-184.html#post29011449
> 
> This post (and the ensuing few posts) say to me that it would be unwise to wait for a 2nd gen unit that can deal with arbitrary speaker positions (as it seems some people are), it sounds like there is just a set of fixed lookup takes in the decoder which is then augmented by trinnov remapping.


My guess is that for the home theater this will never happen. Dolby needs to be able to certify that Atmos will work in every situation. The way this is done in Cinema's (individual certification using actual room dimensions and speaker positions) is simply not feasible for home theaters. This equally applies to DTS-UHD.


----------



## batpig

To add fuel to the fire for those trying to resist....

Recently user Archaea organized a big get together to do blind comparisons of different SSP and especially their room EQ capabilities. Included in that array of high end units was a lowly Onkyo 636 so people could demo a "meager" 5.1.2 setup as well. 

Go read the comments. In a test with high end units running Dirac, XT32, etc the one thing most people came away buzzing about? ATMOS. At its most basic flavor running off the cheapest receiver that can do it with the lamest room EQ. And this is someone with a very high end setup to start with.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Those are all good points IMO. But the whole 4K/HDCP business is still up in the air, with 4K blurays not even scheduled to make an appearance for at least another year. *I read only this week a reputable source which said that HDCP 2.2 may not even be required in the AVR at all, so long as the source and display can handshake and the bit in the middle can pass the signal unmolested, it will be OK.* The source was a magazine so I don't have a link - I will find it later and post the quote.


[RANT]If so, that would be the first time that the content protection Mafia (i.e., Digital Content Protection LLC aka Intel) have implemented something user friendly. Wish the CE manufacturers would ban together to tell DCP that they will NOT implement user unfriendly content protection schemes. HDCP 1984.0 will probably require a chip surgically implanted in our brain that will make us blind and deaf if we watch some unauthorized copy protected content.[/RANT]


----------



## Romans828

*Klipsch THX ULTRA 2 Ceiling Speakers for Atmos*

I have the Klipsch THX Ultra 2 System. In regard to the *KL*-7502-THX or the *KS*-7502-THX ceiling speakers (http://www.klipsch.com/architectural-thx-speakers), which would be a better option for Dolby Atmos? The key difference between the two is the tweeter. Please advise.


----------



## RichB

kokishin said:


> [RANT]If so, that would be the first time that the content protection Mafia (i.e., Digital Content Protection LLC aka Intel) have implemented something user friendly. Wish the CE manufacturers would ban together to tell DCP that they will NOT implement user unfriendly content protection schemes. HDCP 1984.0 will probably require a chip surgically implanted in our brain that will make us blind and deaf if we watch some unauthorized copy protected content.[/RANT]


 
Since it is clear that HDCP it does not suppress piracy, the purpose may be force equipment churn.
Perhaps, the CE companies are complicit 


- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Romans828 said:


> I have the Klipsch THX Ultra 2 System. In regard to the *KL*-7502-THX or the *KS*-7502-THX ceiling speakers (http://www.klipsch.com/architectural-thx-speakers), which would be a better option for Dolby Atmos? The key difference between the two is the tweeter. Please advise.


It really depends on whether the dual tweeters are wired as dipole (as in out-of-phase) or bipole (dual in-phase). You should go with the latter and not the former.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> Since it is clear that HDCP it does suppress piracy, the purpose may be force equipment churn.
> Perhaps, the CE companies are complicit
> 
> 
> - Rich


You mean HDCP does _not_ suppress piracy, correct? Then you would be right. It doesn't do jack for what Hollywood claims to be the reasoning behind it, but it does piss off a lot of consumers... leading to more less-than-legal means of getting around the inconvenience. 

I still say that 4k Blu-ray has to have a lean, mean control software (unlike the sluggish Java interface now), no forced previews at the beginning, no FBI warnings (does that really stop anything?)... you load the disc and within a few seconds you're at the menu. Hit play and the screen fades to black... maybe have a genre appropriate sound format trailer and then the movie starts.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> You mean HDCP does _not_ suppress piracy, correct? Then you would be right. It doesn't do jack for what Hollywood claims to be the reasoning behind it, but it does piss off a lot of consumers... leading to more less-than-legal means of getting around the inconvenience.
> 
> I still say that 4k Blu-ray has to have a lean, mean control software (unlike the sluggish Java interface now), no forced previews at the beginning, no FBI warnings (does that really stop anything?)... you load the disc and within a few seconds you're at the menu. Hit play and the screen fades to black... maybe have a genre appropriate sound format trailer and then the movie starts.




Thanks. I meant HDCP does not combat piracy.


I agree with everything you are proposing for 4K.
Sadly, I expect none of it to come to fruition because the view is not to please and attract customers but to coral them.


- Rich


----------



## redjr

Brian Fineberg said:


> went to the local bestbuy and checked out their ATMOS enabled demo. it was the first time i heard atmos at home outside my home. While very impressive for upfiring modules...it no where compares to the ceiling speakers in my setup..might be the deftechs though..or the room and setup...but still a GRAT option for those who cant do ceiling speaks


I'm glad you had a positive experience at BB. My son and I have been there 3 times and we have yet to hear a convincing ATMOS demo. They seem to have all the right gear, speakers, etc., but are still somehow unable to pull off a simple demo.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

redjr said:


> I'm glad you had a positive experience at BB. My son and I have been there 3 times and we have yet to hear a convincing ATMOS demo. They seem to have all the right gear, speakers, etc., but are still somehow unable to pull off a simple demo.


That's why Dolby better supervise BB's demo room installations and train the under paid staff themselves. BB is an f'n joke. No wonder the company is sucking air.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

As much as I'd love to get Atmos, I gotta hold off until 2015 or maybe even 2016 until they iron out all the UHD HDCP limitations.

Some industry people are also looking at updating the HDMI spec to support Adaptive Sync just like DisplayPort, and I can't in good conscience invest in a product unless it has that feature. (they could even update the firmwares of the HDMI ports on the next gen consoles since the GPUs internally already support Freesync). 

I need full + future standards compliance for UHD generation content, and the current stuff just doesn't have it. I can't afford to spend a couple grand on an already obsolete processor.


----------



## redjr

bargervais said:


> I think we need to invite some of these best buy people over to our little atmos home theaters so they can see what's possible we can offer a little consulting and some real world training..LOL


I think my son and I could do a better job assisting with their demos.  The Magnolia Room personnel do need some help from what I can see. The best Atmos demo we did see/hear was at Value Electronics in Scarsdale, NY. Very, very good. Robert is a great person and has deals on the Pioneer Elite SC series of the latest Atmos AVRs - if I can put in a plug for him and his store.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Romans828 said:


> I have the Klipsch THX Ultra 2 System. In regard to the *KL*-7502-THX or the *KS*-7502-THX ceiling speakers (http://www.klipsch.com/architectural-thx-speakers), which would be a better option for Dolby Atmos? The key difference between the two is the tweeter. Please advise.


I wouldn't get either one, frankly. Better to get concentric drivers by another manufacturer for ceiling speakers. The 7800 THX is probably too big for ceiling use, but IMO it's better than the 7502 which looks like it has two tweeters pointing in different directions, which would probably be bad news for Atmos.


----------



## BigScreen

robert816 said:


> I on the other hand feel differently, this IS an Atmos thread.
> 
> It is a thread for and about Atmos. It is a forum to exchange information, ideas, and how to setup Atmos and the components needed to achieve Atmos in the home. It is a place for industry professionals, hobbyist, the semi-serious, and newbies alike to come together and attain that one goal, immersive audio in the home.
> 
> It should not be a place for those to campaign against purchasing a Dolby Atmos system or components, whether now or in the future. If you have relevant information on future products that may assist someone in deciding that now is not the time to purchase, by all means, please post that info so that we all can know about it. However, if you simply "feel" that people should wait for future unknown products with unknown features, then in my opinion, that is not helpful and should not clutter an already overfilled thread, stuffed with off-topic items.
> 
> This thread has reached nearly 450 pages at the time of my post. That is a lot of pages to read through for someone wanting to get information about Atmos settings, AVR's and related components.


I think having a discussion about the merits of plunging in with the 1st generation of Atmos-equipped products vs. waiting to see what the future holds is valuable. In this hobby, it is very easy to be swept up in the excitement of the latest great thing, and Atmos has stirred that excitement to a level that hasn't been seen in a while. If it were only a benefit for Atmos-encoded soundtracks, this thread would have dwindled a long time ago, because of the lack of software titles, so the Dolby Surround Upmixer has essentially saved Atmos from being just a bullet point on a marketing sheet.

Even though I have not heard Atmos (the home version) yet, I am excited by the reports of those here that have had successful installs and relayed their experiences with speaker positioning and the movies and demo material they've watched/heard. If there was a steady stream of Atmos-encoded titles in the pipeline, that excitement would likely translate into some purchases.

However...

The dearth of Atmos-encoded source material causes me to pause, take a step back, and consider the situation.

Just as with computers and other electronics, A/V receivers are always getting replaced by a newer model that does more at the same price. If anything, it's a little easier because computer hardware is constantly changing and receivers are pretty set to a yearly model refresh schedule. There will always be something new and interesting in the "next" model, so the key is to find that tipping point when there's been enough waiting and it's time to plunge in. For some, that tipping point has been reached, and for others, it has yet to come.

On a road trip to see Interstellar in 70mm IMAX last night with some friends, we got into a discussion about whether Atmos was worth the upgrade. One person's perspective was that, in concept, Atmos was nothing more than a niche product that won't work for a majority of people, so it wasn't on his radar at all. To me, that's an overly dismissive point of view, but it may reflect the attitude of the casual home theater customer more than any of us can probably relate to.

The discussion gave me a chance to consider what is really keeping me from taking the plunge:


*Lack of Atmos-encoded movie titles.* This is probably the biggest issue. It just seems like Dolby got the word out to the hardware manufacturers, but somehow, the movie studios didn't get the memo. We're coming up on two months after Transformers 4 was released with an Atmos soundtrack, and we have a grand total of two upcoming new releases (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Expendables 3) with Atmos. No Guardians of the Galaxy, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Maleficent, Edge of Tomorrow, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Maze Runner, Hercules, or X-Men: Days of Future Past. All titles that were released with Atmos in theaters, and are A-list titles that did really well in theaters. All released on Blu-ray after Transformers 4, from various studios. This lack of studio support for the format, at the least, indicates that we're very early in the process of "3D" sound implementation, and at the worst, it indicates that there isn't much studio backing for the Atmos format. It's all about the content, and we've only gotten a few releases from Paramount and Lionsgate so far.
-
*Lack of Competent Demonstrations.* It's really hard to sell a product that can't be demonstrated to interested buyers. Milwaukee might just be a wasteland of specialty shops, but there are probably more Best Buy Magnolia stores than specialty shops where people would actually have the chance to demo Atmos, and it seems that my difficulty in getting our local Magnolia store to demo Atmos successfully is not unique. Forums like this can only do so much. Home Theater is all about the demo. With a good demo, people get smiles on their faces because they understand. Without a good demo, it's just esoteric techno-jargon that they're not going to be willing to pay for. This isn't Dolby's fault, per se, but their success is being hampered when their technology can't be demonstrated to interested buyers.
-
*Auro3D on the horizon.* Atmos has competitors in Auro3D and DTS. Competitors that can't be discounted at this time. Fortunately, Denon and Marantz have indicated that they will offer Auro3D upgrades (for a fee) in their Atmos-equipped receivers around the end of 2014. Kudos to them for offering that! However, there is some healthy conflict between the speaker layouts for Atmos and Auro3D, so it forces the consumer to make a choice of which to optimize for. Auro's presence in commercial movie theaters means that it has some studio backing and some brand recognition that they may be able to use to their advantage.
-
*DTS MDA on the horizon.* DTS has been the most silent about its plans for "3D" audio in the home, but it would be a mistake to discount that silence to mean that it's not worth being concerned about. DTS took over Blu-ray sound from Dolby with such dominance that probably surprised even Dolby. The brand name is well-known in both movie theaters and home theater (anyone looking at the back of a Blu-ray jacket or the sound options menu on a movie will be familiar with the brand). DTS likely enjoys a very good relationship with studios, and Blu-ray mixers are very familiar with their tools. We're very low on details, but my understanding of DTS' approach is that it will be object-based (which gives Atmos an edge up on Auro, IMO) and it will likely be flexible in speaker placement, with the ability to adapt to a variety of surround and height channel placements. This flexibility was already present in DTS-HD Master Audio, so there's no reason to think it won't be expanded upon in their next offering.

As a result, if DTS were to come out with a coordinated introduction of hardware and software some time in 2015, it's very possible that the early introduction by Dolby won't make a bit of difference. With solid studio backing of A-list title announcements and manufacturer backing of support in their next model refreshes (which would be due in April-July), the landscape could look very different just 6-8 months from now.
-
*Partial Support for 4K/HDCP 2.2.* This subject has been debated well recently, and it was a good discussion. I'm much less concerned about this than I was a few weeks ago. However, the spectre of having to replace equipment costing over $1K is daunting for a lot of people, so not having this question fully answered by the manufacturers creates some doubt and hesitation. All it takes is for someone to read an article about how these receivers aren't really compatible, and that can stop the sale right there. Most everyone believes that the next model refresh will take care of this issue with the availability of the new fully-capable chipsets.

This post got much longer than I had anticipated, but I think it lays out the very real concerns people should have about making an investment right now. It would be exciting to "listen to all my movies in a new way" but for me, at this time, I can't take that plunge. My resolve may wither, and time will tell what comes of Auro3D and DTS (probably by January's CES), so I reserve the right to change my mind!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> To add fuel to the fire for those trying to resist....
> 
> Recently user Archaea organized a big get together to do blind comparisons of different SSP and especially their room EQ capabilities. Included in that array of high end units was a lowly Onkyo 636 so people could demo a "meager" 5.1.2 setup as well.
> 
> Go read the comments. In a test with high end units running Dirac, XT32, etc the one thing most people came away buzzing about? ATMOS. At its most basic flavor running off the cheapest receiver that can do it with the lamest room EQ. And this is someone with a very high end setup to start with.


Oh wow! I’d love to see that - got a link for it? It plays to so many of my own beliefs/prejudices/preferences/certainties.*

_* delete as appropriate._


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> [RANT]If so, that would be the first time that the content protection Mafia (i.e., Digital Content Protection LLC aka Intel) have implemented something user friendly. Wish the CE manufacturers would ban together to tell DCP that they will NOT implement user unfriendly content protection schemes. HDCP 1984.0 will probably require a chip surgically implanted in our brain that will make us blind and deaf if we watch some unauthorized copy protected content.[/RANT]


LOL... you won't find me disagreeing with your sentiment.


----------



## kbarnes701

RLBURNSIDE said:


> As much as I'd love to get Atmos, I gotta hold off until 2015 or maybe even 2016 until they iron out all the UHD HDCP limitations.
> 
> Some industry people are also looking at updating the HDMI spec to support Adaptive Sync just like DisplayPort, and I can't in good conscience invest in a product unless it has that feature. (they could even update the firmwares of the HDMI ports on the next gen consoles since the GPUs internally already support Freesync).
> 
> I need full + future standards compliance for UHD generation content, and the current stuff just doesn't have it. I can't afford to spend a couple grand on an already obsolete processor.


I'd love to think that your dream will ever be realised. But by the time you get all that, there will be another Next Best Thing on the way and you'll have to wait for that too. The upside is, you don't get to spend any money


----------



## redjr

audioguy said:


> This whole waiting thing does not fit me. I am not guaranteed a tomorrow and certainly not guaranteed a next year (and neither is anyone else). I purchased a 4K projector (Sony 600ES) NOT because there is any 4K material (and may not be for many years) but because it upscales to 4K and looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than the high end JVC it replaced.
> 
> I am getting an Atmos SSP with ceiling speakers, NOT because I expect there to be many new titles in the next year but because, even on my 7.1 system, the Dolby Upmixer sounds better than Dolby PLxII and will certainly make my existing collection improved. Furthermore, Audyssey is greatly improved. Add to that the ability to present a more 3D sound scape even without Atmos encoded discs, what is the point of waiting?
> 
> Wait. Wait. Wait and miss a year of enjoyment and then wait some more because the year after that will even be better and then wait some more.
> 
> Waiting is for 20 year olds. Not when you are any where near my age. WELL north of 60. Well north!
> 
> Jump in the pool. The water feels great !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm glad I'm not the only one around here north of 60!


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Best case I could see consumer AVRs offering a few more options for placing the surrounds within specific 15 degree sectors.


That functionality is _already_ built into consumer Atmos, waiting for manufacturers to implement it. They've done it with speakers above us (letting the user choose which of the 10 overhead positions to render to), they just need to do that for the speakers around us.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd love to think that your dream will ever be realised. But by the time you get all that, there will be another Next Best Thing on the way and you'll have to wait for that too. The upside is, you don't get to spend any money


My plan in the meanwhile is to work on an open source Atmos codec so I can use a 50 dollar USB sound card to drive my height speakers.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh wow! I’d love to see that - got a link for it? It plays to so many of my own beliefs/prejudices/preferences/certainties.*
> 
> _* delete as appropriate._


Keith, here is a link to one of the posts in the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1717346-archaea-s-auto-room-eq-avr-comparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city-4.html#post28897969

You can peruse the entire thread at your leisure. One of the key takeaways of the GTG was that the attendees really enjoyed Atmos based solely on the Onkyo 636 in a hastily configured setup.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh wow! I’d love to see that - got a link for it? It plays to so many of my own beliefs/prejudices/preferences/certainties.*
> 
> _* delete as appropriate._


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city.html

EDIT: kokishin beat me to it.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> *Lack of Atmos-encoded movie titles.* This is probably the biggest issue. It just seems like Dolby got the word out to the hardware manufacturers, but somehow, the movie studios didn't get the memo. We're coming up on two months after Transformers 4 was released with an Atmos soundtrack, and we have a grand total of two upcoming new releases (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Expendables 3) with Atmos. No Guardians of the Galaxy, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Maleficent, Edge of Tomorrow, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Maze Runner, Hercules, or X-Men: Days of Future Past. All titles that were released with Atmos in theaters, and are A-list titles that did really well in theaters. All released on Blu-ray after Transformers 4, from various studios. This lack of studio support for the format, at the least, indicates that we're very early in the process of "3D" sound implementation, and at the worst, it indicates that there isn't much studio backing for the Atmos format. It's all about the content, and we've only gotten a few releases from Paramount and Lionsgate so far.


It isn't so much a lack of studio support for those titles you mention as one of timing. All of those had already been released on Bluray before the authoring houses got their Atmos gear installed and working. The true test will be to see how many theatrical Atmos titles make it to Bluray for movies released from now going forward. My guess is 'all of them' as it isn't costly or difficult to transfer a theatrical mix to Bluray, and given the backwards compatibility with 5.1/7/1 there is no reason not to do so.



BigScreen said:


> *Lack of Competent Demonstrations.* It's really hard to sell a product that can't be demonstrated to interested buyers. Milwaukee might just be a wasteland of specialty shops, but there are probably more Best Buy Magnolia stores than specialty shops where people would actually have the chance to demo Atmos, and it seems that my difficulty in getting our local Magnolia store to demo Atmos successfully is not unique. Forums like this can only do so much. Home Theater is all about the demo. With a good demo, people get smiles on their faces because they understand. Without a good demo, it's just esoteric techno-jargon that they're not going to be willing to pay for. This isn't Dolby's fault, per se, but their success is being hampered when their technology can't be demonstrated to interested buyers.


Absolutely agreed. Until it is heard, the belief seems to be that it is only for 'helicopter flyovers' etc.



BigScreen said:


> *Auro3D on the horizon.* Atmos has competitors in Auro3D and DTS. Competitors that can't be discounted at this time. Fortunately, Denon and Marantz have indicated that they will offer Auro3D upgrades (for a fee) in their Atmos-equipped receivers around the end of 2014. Kudos to them for offering that! However, there is some healthy conflict between the speaker layouts for Atmos and Auro3D, so it forces the consumer to make a choice of which to optimize for. Auro's presence in commercial movie theaters means that it has some studio backing and some brand recognition that they may be able to use to their advantage.


Auro is so far behind the curve it seems difficult to see how it will compete. It is vastly outnumbered in theatrical releases and it is a channel-based system. Once mixers have tasted object-based audio I can't see them wanting to rush back to where they were before. Auro also has a problem that it has not yet been ported to TI chips (Denon - the sole mainsteam manufacturer to offer Auro uses SHARC), so this rules out Auro on Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo and possibly Sony (who?? ) Without a foothold in the mainstream markets it is hard to see Auro gaining traction at the front end: being available only on $20k+ gear won't cut it, and fan though I am of D&M, that represents just one slice of the big consumer market.



BigScreen said:


> *DTS MDA on the horizon.* DTS has been the most silent about its plans for "3D" audio in the home, but it would be a mistake to discount that silence to mean that it's not worth being concerned about. DTS took over Blu-ray sound from Dolby with such dominance that probably surprised even Dolby. The brand name is well-known in both movie theaters and home theater (anyone looking at the back of a Blu-ray jacket or the sound options menu on a movie will be familiar with the brand). DTS likely enjoys a very good relationship with studios, and Blu-ray mixers are very familiar with their tools. We're very low on details, but my understanding of DTS' approach is that it will be object-based (which gives Atmos an edge up on Auro, IMO) and it will likely be flexible in speaker placement, with the ability to adapt to a variety of surround and height channel placements. This flexibility was already present in DTS-HD Master Audio, so there's no reason to think it won't be expanded upon in their next offering.
> 
> As a result, if DTS were to come out with a coordinated introduction of hardware and software some time in 2015, it's very possible that the early introduction by Dolby won't make a bit of difference. With solid studio backing of A-list title announcements and manufacturer backing of support in their next model refreshes (which would be due in April-July), the landscape could look very different just 6-8 months from now.



DTS is indeed a dark horse contender. I think their speaker agnostic formula is a great idea and should give them traction when they have a consumer product. The problems to me seem to be that they have zero theatrical releases to date and they are nowhere near a consumer offering and won’t be for some time to come. They are so far behind the curve that I can only foresee their late entry being difficult or even impossible.



BigScreen said:


> *Partial Support for 4K/HDCP 2.2.* This subject has been debated well recently, and it was a good discussion. I'm much less concerned about this than I was a few weeks ago. However, the spectre of having to replace equipment costing over $1K is daunting for a lot of people, so not having this question fully answered by the manufacturers creates some doubt and hesitation. All it takes is for someone to read an article about how these receivers aren't really compatible, and that can stop the sale right there. Most everyone believes that the next model refresh will take care of this issue with the availability of the new fully-capable chipsets.


I just don't get it - it is probably just me. I can't see the point of worrying about a standard that has not even been agreed, for content that is nowhere near being ready, and which can be resolved by a player that has two HDMI outputs, one for 4k video (direct to 4k display) and one for audio (direct to AVR). Not to mention 4K is largely irrelevant to anyone with a screen smaller than 80 inches.

Good post BTW (yours, not mine LOL).


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one around here north of 60!


I think there are a lot more than you'd imagine  Time and money are often more readily available post-working age.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Keith, here is a link to one of the posts in the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1717346-archaea-s-auto-room-eq-avr-comparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city-4.html#post28897969
> 
> You can peruse the entire thread at your leisure. One of the key takeaways of the GTG was that the attendees really enjoyed Atmos based solely on the Onkyo 636 in a hastily configured setup.


Great - thanks. I shall have a look. Amazing what a cheap AVR, with a poor REQ, and limited to 2 overhead speakers can do eh?


----------



## kokishin

jkasanic said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city.html
> 
> EDIT: kokishin beat me to it.


I'm sitting here at the Toyota dealer, having just finished a doughnut and coffee, waiting on my Prius to be serviced. So I'm in avsforum hypermode until the inevitable sugar crash occurs. OST (on second thought), "crash" is probably not the best word I could think of. Time to hit the head.


----------



## Romans828

RLBURNSIDE said:


> I wouldn't get either one, frankly. Better to get concentric drivers by another manufacturer for ceiling speakers. The 7800 THX is probably too big for ceiling use, but IMO it's better than the 7502 which looks like it has two tweeters pointing in different directions, which would probably be bad news for Atmos.


The *KS*-7502-THX does have two tweeters pointing in different directions (http://www.klipsch.com/ks-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker). However, the *KL*-7502-THX only has one tweeter (http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker). I have read that diffusion is important with the ceiling speakers...especially if the ceiling is not very high. People in the demos complained that sitting directly under a speaker kind of ruined the experience. That is why I was considering the dual tweeter solution. I was also looking at the Klipsch ceiling speakers because they would match my existing Klipsch THX speakers.


----------



## IgorZep

RLBURNSIDE said:


> My plan in the meanwhile is to work on an open source Atmos codec so I can use a 50 dollar USB sound card to drive my height speakers.


Do you have specs for Atmos metadata format?


----------



## robert816

Manni01 said:


> @robert816: no offense taken, but no one is campaigning against Atmos, at least not me. On the contrary. I was saying that despite the objective limitations of the first gen Atmos AVRs it was getting difficult to resist, and I appreciated to hear the point of view of two opposite sides of the argument.
> 
> 
> And I agree that for those already on-board and looking for information this discussion doesn't add anything. I never realized that this thread was meant only for those who had made the jump and not also for those wondering if they should do it now or not.
> Anyway, I'll step out because my intention wasn't to add noise to a busy thread or rain on anyone's parade, especially one that I'm likely to join at some point. The question isn't if, but when .


Forgive me if I came across as making it sound as though this thread is for those who have already taken the plunge, I certainly didn't mean it that way, and I believe it isn't only for those who already have Atmos system, but for anyone who is interested in Atmos at home.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I think there are a lot more than you'd imagine  Time and money are often more readily available post-working age.


Maybe time not sure about the money thing LOL


----------



## bargervais

I was going suggest that someone start a thread giving all the reasons not to get an Atmos receiver...LoL
Back OT I'M an early adopter and like to hear more of the science of Atmos


----------



## bsoko2

I'm way north of 60 (71 this month) and I put in a 7.2.4 Atmos system. My front and rear ceiling speakers (TF & TR) are mounted on the side/rear walls near the ceiling 11 feet apart. Fronts are spaced between the mains and LSurround with rears just inside rear surrounds. Room is 12 x 19 and with all speakers aimed at the MLP. Played the Atmos Demo disc, Leaf Falling and the bubble effect was perfect. If you can afford it, go for it as Dolby Atmos does add to regular movies. I would recommend ceiling/wall speakers over up firing speakers. The 4 ceiling speakers are Tannoy Di5 and have a wide dispersal output as they are used for mall/store music and do a excellent job with Atmos. I got the Tannoy's here http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white.


----------



## smurraybhm

bargervais said:


> I was going suggest that someone start a thread giving all the reasons not to get an Atmos receiver...LoL
> Back OT I'M an early adopter and like to hear more of the science of Atmos


Good idea, but I'm staying here like you. For those interested in Atmos, the latest edition of Sound & Vision is doing its part to further the cause. There is also a review of the Denon 5200, S&V's first review of an Atmos ready receiver, spoiler alert....
It's a really good review along with some excellent bench test results.


----------



## NorthSky

My main and biggest interest and largest investment in time and in future financial planning and spending here @ AVS is Dolby Atmos and everything else related to it (Auro-3D, DTS-UHD and their sound upmixers).

This is the biggest thing happening since 2007 when Onkyo came up with the first Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA AV receivers.
...The TX-SR605, the TX-SR705, and the TX-SR805. ...Then the TX-SR875, and the TX-NR905. 

...Biggest innovation in surround sound in the last seven years. 

In the last few months I learned a lot, and I am still learning a lot. And it's going to make a direct sound and visual impact in my life too.
...Because with 3D sound there is also 4K picture picturing on the horizon. 

No wonder that Dolby Atmos won the 2014 award for best innovation/development of the year. 

Anytime is a good time, and right now is the best time.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Time and money are often more readily available post-working age.


And for sustained living with our "addiction" !! Heaven forbid that we would ever stop upgrading/improving/diddling/futzing !!


----------



## NorthSky

The Denon AVR-X5300W will have DTS-UHD decoder and upmixer.


----------



## bsoko2

NorthSky said:


> The Denon AVR-X5300W will have DTS-UHD decoder and upmixer.




And where is this info from?


----------



## sdurani

3ll3d00d said:


> An interesting post on another thread regarding the Trinnov Atmos impl
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-184.html#post29011449
> 
> This post (and the ensuing few posts) say to me that it would be unwise to wait for a 2nd gen unit that can deal with arbitrary speaker positions (as it seems some people are), it sounds like there is just a set of fixed lookup takes in the decoder which is then augmented by trinnov remapping.


So Trinnov can write their own Atmos code to run on the CPU inside their Altitude pre-pro, but they cannot violate the Dolby license by going beyond the same capabilities that all other licensees have access to. That is, they cannot take the precise speaker location data that the Trinnov mic measures and feed that info to the Atmos renderer. Their Atmos decoder is stuck using the same 15° arcs we've seen in the Dolby diagrams, and the user has to enter those speaker positions manually. 

Of course the precisely measured positional data will be used for their proprietary re-mapping feature, which will separate them from other manufacturers, but that doesn't change the Atmos decoding itself. 

With that in mind, I don't see why it would be unwise to wait for units that can do positional rendering. Unless you believe that feature is never coming to consumer Atmos? If it is, then having speaker location information within ±7.5° is better than having no speaker location information at all.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

IgorZep said:


> Do you have specs for Atmos metadata format?


Nope, but I know people high up in audio programming for games libraries who do  And beyond that, one can always reverse engineer a binary format, I've done it several times in my career. It would be much simpler if I had an actual Atmos AVR to validate the code works, but the first step is parsing the metadata stream from a ripped Atmos Bluray disc or demo material.

If I can score the specification document of the bitstream, that would be the ideal blueprint. Or maybe I'll keep it to myself and bring to market a super cheap embedded linux Atmos inline decoder (to update people's existing AVRs).

The real value added on these expensive name brand devices is of course upmixing legacy content via Dolby Surround, which I don't think will ever have an open source equivalent considering the complexity and R&D costs involved. 

Decoding a bitstream, on the other hand, is much easier, even if you don't have the specs document.


----------



## NorthSky

bsoko2 said:


> And where is this info from?


That's my best guess.

* We don't read much about that, because it'd slow down the sales of today's new Atmos receivers.
Some people say that waiting is no good; for them it isn't, because they have plenty of money to upgrade every year or so. 
For other people (the other type with less money) it's a wise choice to wait just a bit longer, not by very much, roughly a year, or less.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> The Denon AVR-X5300W will have DTS-UHD decoder and upmixer.


Very cool can you show a link to this information


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> That's my best guess.


You said will that's not a best guess


----------



## whitedwarf

Would a pair of Polk Audio RC80i be sufficient for the in ceiling speakers in a 7.2.2 setup?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> You said will that's not a best guess


Don't pay too much attention to what I say; enjoy life now with what you have, and be ready to upgrade again tomorrow. ...Because you will.


----------



## batpig

NorthSky said:


> Don't pay too much attention to what I say


Best post of the thread


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Unless you believe that feature is never coming to consumer Atmos? If it is, then having speaker location information within ±7.5° is better than having no speaker location information at all.


Seeing as how the Dolby Atmos theatrical system does not have positional rendering using measured speaker locations, I'm not sure why anyone would believe it is someday coming to the home theater version.


----------



## kokishin

NorthSky said:


> Don't pay too much attention to what I say





batpig said:


> Best post of the thread


Best post all time!


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Best post of the thread


What I say I mainly learn from people of your caliber.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

dschulz said:


> Seeing as how the Dolby Atmos theatrical system does not have positional rendering using measured speaker locations, I'm not sure why anyone would believe it is someday coming to the home theater version.


I'm fairly certain that the calibration step can estimate speaker locations through triangulation.

You play a low frequency sine tone out of every permutation of every pair of speakers to get their relative phase information, correlate that with the time of flight for the wavefront of each one (playing back a different tone through different speakers), and suddenly you have enough info to extra 3d coordinates for each unknown.

With three microphones in a known triangular layout, you can even estimate the position of each speaker without knowing or caring about the others. 

If the current Atmos AVRs don't calibrate using multiple speakers playing back simultaneously different low frequency tones, then I suspect the quality of Atmos rendering will be much improved as the real world speaker positions get more and more accurately determined, rather than assuming they are in a certain place and applying some delays as they probably do now.


----------



## NorthSky

RLBURNSIDE said:


> I'm fairly certain that the calibration step can estimate speaker locations through triangulation.
> 
> You play a low frequency sine tone out of every permutation of every pair of speakers to get their relative phase information, correlate that with the time of flight for the wavefront of each one (playing back a different tone through different speakers), and suddenly you have enough info to extra 3d coordinates for each unknown.
> 
> With three microphones in a known triangular layout, you can even estimate the position of each speaker without knowing or caring about the others.
> 
> If the current Atmos AVRs don't calibrate using multiple speakers playing back simultaneously different low frequency tones, then I suspect the quality of Atmos rendering will be much improved as the real world speaker positions get more and more accurately determined, rather than assuming they are in a certain place and applying some delays as they probably do now.


This is most interesting to me. I would like to know Roger's take on that.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

sdurani said:


> With that in mind, I don't see why it would be unwise to wait for units that can do positional rendering. Unless you believe that feature is never coming to consumer Atmos? If it is, then having speaker location information within ±7.5° is better than having no speaker location information at all.


I think it's unwise to wait for vapourware & the available information, such as it is, seems to point towards that feature being vapourware. 

Of course it's certainly possible that something materialise out of the vapour in the future & the risk of that happening may well tip someone over the edge (towards wait and see) but I think there are far stronger reasons to do that already hence it seems an irrelevance in the scheme of things *today*.

I do agree that exposing the full range of positions to a consumer unit and letting the user pick which one is best seems like an obvious feature to include though *if* it actually incurs no computational cost (aka is just some UI changes + some sort of static lookup table fed to the decoder).


----------



## RRF743

whitedwarf said:


> Would a pair of Polk Audio RC80i be sufficient for the in ceiling speakers in a 7.2.2 setup?


The RC80i's will work beautifully. I have 4 of them in my 7.2.4 dedicated theater. The front ceiling tweeters are aimed at my MLP. The rear tweeters are aimed between the rows of seats because I didn't want to totally exclude the back row of sound coming from the tweeters. I have 2 rows of 3 seats. I must say that the front seats sound a little better than the backs but atmos definitely enhances the sound in the back row. My other speakers are B&W's LCR and surround backs. Sides are Pheonyx Gold dipole/bipole. I'm using bipole. I stayed with these because I didn't want to deprive the 2nd row of sound. Their placed beside the first row. This is the furthest I could put them back because the room opening is shortly after that speaker. I'm using a 200W X 7 Outlaw amp and 4 channels from the X5200W. I heard the Atmos set up at my local Magnolia store with the Pioneer atmos enable dspeakers and was slightly impressed but and was going to wait until the year. But Home theater is in my DNA. So I couldn't. Plus I've been wanting to upgrade my receiver for a few years now. I was also thinking about waiting for DTS to get in the game. But I'm so glad I took the plunge. Not much Atmos content right now but the DSU does a great job. I put in Transformers 1 and those ceiling speakes were very busy. I'm on vacation next week and staying home.The wife and kids will be at work and school and I may loose some hearing next week. Cant wait to revisit some of my non atmos blurays! Ok. I know that was a bit more than you asked for but IMHO, atmos elevates surround sound so much! RC80's will be great. One more thing, I'm not bragging and saying I'm Mr. know it all, but I install home theaters on the side. All word of mouth. I've built 4 dedicated theaters (one of them for a professional Tampa Bay Bucs player), a surround sound system in a master bedroom and countless family rooms. With all do respect, I must say that some of you are being way to detailed and over thinking this atmos thing. Just follow the minor guidelines when installing your speakers to the best that your room will allow and let your receiver or pre/pro do the rest. You'll be impressed!


----------



## asoofi1

I'm going to try a 7.x.4 avr. Which one should I pick up tonight? What's the consensus so far?


----------



## Scott Simonian

asoofi1 said:


> I'm going to try a 7.x.4 avr. Which one should I pick up tonight? What's the consensus so far?


Denon x5200
Yamaha a3040
Marantz SR7009


----------



## discodol

pasender91 said:


> Don't forget the Marantz 7009 as a very potent Atmos AVR, it supports 7.1.4 and XT32.


I heard the 7009 configured at 7.1.4 today using the new DA Transformers movie and it was totally awesome. It was setup with 4 ceiling speakers and a pair of book shelf speakers for the rears, and the detail and separation definition when the the Dolby Atmos demo played almost blew my socks off! Now I am reading about Dolby Atmos seriously for the first time since it will be just around the corner for me!! I can hardly wait!! 

I also learned that there is absolutely no reason to be concerned with having to use the DA up-firing speakers as they are just another setup option like using ceiling speakers. 

I am going to wait for the 8802 preamp coming out first of the year with Dolby Atmos that will be hardware upgraded my Marantz for free to Hdcp 2.2 when it is available hopefully later in the year. 

I understand that this hardware upgrade will only be offered for free on the 8802 since it is their "flagship" model. 

Replacing my 8801 with the 8802 will enable me to very easily move up to Dolby Atmos with only having to install the 2 rear ear level surrounds since I have 11.2 already setup. 

Something to look forward to for a late Christmas present!!


----------



## chi_guy50

whitedwarf said:


> Would a pair of Polk Audio RC80i be sufficient for the in ceiling speakers in a 7.2.2 setup?


They would be more than sufficient IMO, particularly if your main speakers are in the Monitor, TSi, OWM, or other Polk series to which they are timbre-matched. They are easy to install and have aimable swivel tweeters and low-profile paintable grilles. They are durable, low-cost, all-purpose performers. And best of all, you can score a pair right now for only $105 including shipping from Polk Audio's eBay store. That's a great deal. (Their smaller siblings, the RC60i, are going for $95.)


----------



## asoofi1

Scott Simonian said:


> Denon x5200
> Yamaha a3040
> Marantz SR7009


Thanks Scott. Is your list in order of preference?


----------



## pasender91

On my side i just set my mind on Marantz 7009 today, because it is quite cheap in europe. 
The Denon 5200W is a very good alternative if you can get it at the same price where you live.

Both have 9 amps, so don't forget you need an external amp to reach 11 channels.


----------



## asoofi1

pasender91 said:


> On my side i just set my mind on Marantz 7009 today, because it is quite cheap in europe.
> The Denon 5200W is a very good alternative if you can get it at the same price where you live.
> 
> Both have 9 amps, so don't forget you need an external amp to reach 11 channels.


I'm partial to Marantz myself. So it only can power a 5.x.4 setup?


----------



## Scott Simonian

asoofi1 said:


> Thanks Scott. Is your list in order of preference?


It would be: Yamaha, Denon, Marantz.

I'm a Yamaha fan. Both Denon and Marantz are good (in fact, identical) but for the Marantz you are paying extra for the Marantz name.

Currently own an Onkyo and at this point in history probably will never own again. If they change things up and improve QC I would buy again. But as long as they aren't putting g-damn 12v triggers on zone 1 (_hello!_), then never again. Otherwise they are fine too but not recommending them anymore.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It should be mentioned that all of these will require an outboard amplifier in order to power a full 7.1.4 configuration.

I don't believe there are any 11ch amp AVR's on the market.


----------



## NorthSky

> I don't believe there are any 11ch amp AVR's on the market.


Yamaha and Onkyo/Integra have some.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> It should be mentioned that all of these will require an outboard amplifier in order to power a full 7.1.4 configuration.
> 
> I don't believe there are any 11ch amp AVR's on the market.


TX-NR 3030 is 11.2.....


----------



## Scott Simonian

11ch *amplification*

None.

EDIT: okay, maybe the Onkyo/Integra's have 11ch. This is news to me. Still would avoid them.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> TX-NR 3030 is 11.2.....


And Integra DTR-70.6 as well (11.2-channel AV receiver) with eleven internal powered amps (good for Atmos 7.2.4).


----------



## NorthSky

Yamaha RX-Z11 (eleven internal powered amps).


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Yamaha RX-Z11 (eleven internal powered amps).


Not Atmos and four of those amps are not full power.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Not Atmos and four of those amps are not full power.


True Scott. ...The Z11 does not count; no Atmos. It's an old receiver (which some people still use with great pleasure).

* I had myself before, but for a very short while. 

And that Onkyo and Integra receivers don't count either, even with Dolby Atmos, because they have now AccuEQ (no more Audyssey XT32) and that they are not a reliable company when looking back @ the last six-seven years. ...They did an irreparable mistake; ignoring their faithful customer base. 
That, I fully agree with you. ...They deserve no more recommendation; period.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Scott Simonian said:


> Denon x5200
> Yamaha a3040
> Marantz SR7009


I think the 5200 can only do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I'd double check that. The forthcoming 7200 will do 7.1.4..


----------



## htpcforever

Sigh - if they ignored the faithful customer base, why are they fixing AVRs that are out of warranty, but have an issue due to a chip a different company told them would work for their needs (but actually did not)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RLBURNSIDE said:


> My plan in the meanwhile is to work on an open source Atmos codec so I can use a 50 dollar USB sound card to drive my height speakers.


Talk to DTS.  Their MDA object format _is_ open source... if you can afford to get it from them, that is.


----------



## pasender91

7channelfreak said:


> I think the 5200 can only do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I'd double check that. The forthcoming 7200 will do 7.1.4..



The 5200 can do 11 channels, it was already mentioned, but it needs an external amp as it has only 9 internal amps, same config for the marantz 7009 or Yamaha 3040. Even the 7200 will be in this case.


----------



## aaranddeeman

maikeldepotter said:


> To get an ideal (most even) distribution of your overheads in terms of their lateral position, I would advice to put them at 1/3 of the left-to-right hemispherical spread between the surrounds. Examples:
> 1: Surrounds at 0 degrees elevation (ear level), overheads at 0+1/3*180=60 degrees elevation (60 degrees spread).
> 2: Surrounds at 15 degrees elevation, overheads at 15+1/3*(180-2*15)=65 degrees elevation (50 degrees spread).
> 3: Surrounds at 30 degrees elevation, overheads at 30+1/3*(180-2*30)=70 degrees elevation (40 degrees spread).


Thanks. I will keep that in mind.
In other words (if I understand it right), in the case where Surrounds are at ear level the angle between surround-overhead, overhead-overhead, overhead-surround is 60 degrees.
Is that right?


----------



## randyk47

7channelfreak said:


> I think the 5200 can only do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I'd double check that. The forthcoming 7200 will do 7.1.4..


I have a X5200W and it will do 5.1.4, 7.1.2 but not 7.1.4 without an amp. I run 7.1.4 with a very simple Onkyo M-5010 amp and it works and sounds great. Not much out there with ATMOS yet but the DSU is almost worth the cost by itself.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> 11ch *amplification*
> 
> None.
> 
> EDIT: okay, maybe the Onkyo/Integra's have 11ch. This is news to me. Still would avoid them.


Why would you avoid them you said there wasn't an 11ch all I did was tell you that there are atmos avr' s with 11ch you don't have to like it


----------



## NorthSky

> Sigh - if they ignored the faithful customer base, why are they fixing AVRs that are out of warranty, but have an issue due to a chip a different company told them would work for their needs (but actually did not)?


Check post number 639 from that thread.
--> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Check post number 639 from that thread.
> --> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


What are you talking about..little off topic.... this is an Atmos thread the question was asked if there were any 11ch amplification AVRs and all I said was the TX-NR 3030 has 11ch.. 7.2.4


----------



## asoofi1

NorthSky said:


> Yamaha and Onkyo/Integra have some.





bargervais said:


> TX-NR 3030 is 11.2.....


Sorry, Scott is correct. Only 9 channels can be powered by current standalone avr's. So 5.x.4 (or 7.x.2, but who wants only 2 overhead??) is maximum in an Atmos configuration if you don't use an amp.


Scott Simonian said:


> It should be mentioned that all of these will require an outboard amplifier in order to power a full 7.1.4 configuration.
> 
> I don't believe there are any 11ch amp AVR's on the market.


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> What are you talking about..little off topic.... this is an Atmos thread the question was asked if there were any 11ch amplification AVRs and all I said was the TX-NR 3030 has 11ch.. 7.2.4


I dunno what he's talking about, but...

The 3030 is last year's model. It does not support Atmos. The 3040 is this year's model. It supports Atmos if you install the latest firmware update. Both models have only 9 internal amps. To get 11 active speakers (7.1.4), you have to add an external stereo amp, just like with D+M's Atmos AVRs. See page 18 of the 3040's owner's manual.


----------



## NorthSky

> What are you talking about..little off topic.... this is an Atmos thread the question was asked if there were any 11ch amplification AVRs and all I said was the TX-NR 3030 has 11ch.. 7.2.4


Follow the discussion.


----------



## Mre_man

asoofi1 said:


> Sorry, Scott is correct. Only 9 channels can be powered by current standalone avr's. So 5.x.4 (or 7.x.2, but who wants only 2 overhead??) is maximum in an Atmos configuration if you don't use an amp.


Integra DTR 70.6 offers 11 internal amps for an 7.2.4 atmos setup
http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=DTR-70.6&class=Receiver&p=f


----------



## NorthSky

> Sorry, Scott is correct. Only 9 channels can be powered by current standalone avr's. So 5.x.4 (or 7.x.2, but who wants only 2 overhead??) is maximum in an Atmos configuration if you don't use an amp.


Nope; the Onkyo TX-NR3030 and Integra DTR-70.6 AV receivers are both 11.2-channel monsters/beasts with each eleven internal powered amps. ...No need for additional amplification; they'll do both 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos elevated virtuosity.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> I dunno what he's talking about, but...
> 
> The 3030 is last year's model. It does not support Atmos. The 3040 is this year's model. It supports Atmos if you install the latest firmware update. Both models have only 9 internal amps. To get 11 active speakers (7.1.4), you have to add an external stereo amp, just like with D+M's Atmos AVRs. See page 18 of the 3040's owner's manual.


What............... this is what he is talking about... it's not last year's model.
Onkyo TX-NR3030 11.2-Ch Dolby Atmos Network A/V Receiver w/ HDMI 2.0


----------



## NorthSky

> I dunno what he's talking about, but...
> 
> The 3030 is last year's model. It does not support Atmos. The 3040 is this year's model. It supports Atmos if you install the latest firmware update. Both models have only 9 internal amps. To get 11 active speakers (7.1.4), you have to add an external stereo amp, just like with D+M's Atmos AVRs. See page 18 of the 3040's owner's manual.


The Onkyo TX-NR3030 is a Dolby Atmos receiver with eleven (11) internal amps. 

I believe that I know some of what I'm talkin' 'bout, Selden. 

* Onkyo 3040: No go.
* Yamaha 3040: Yes go.


----------



## sdurani

3ll3d00d said:


> Of course it's certainly possible that something materialise out of the vapour in the future...


Except it wouldn't be materializing out of any vapour but instead something that is already in the current Atmos code, already being used for height speakers in mass market receivers, and going to be used for all speakers in Trinnov's upcoming pre-pro. If consumers won't get to choose which speaker locations to render to, then how is it that we already have that choice with overhead speakers?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I'm not sure why anyone would believe it is someday coming to the home theater version.


Because it is already in a high end pre-pro: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-246.html#post29011449 

Just a matter of whether that functionality will trickle down to lower priced products.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Because it is already in a high end pre-pro:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...2-official-theta-thread-246.html#post29011449
> 
> Just a matter of whether that functionality will trickle down to lower priced products.


I could be misunderstanding what Trinnov is doing then: it sounds to me as though the speaker re-mapping is happening *after* the Atmos renderer does its thing. Which makes sense - the Atmos renderer does its calculations based on which of the 24.1.10 possible speakers you have installed, following Dolby's guidelines. After that, the pre-pro or AVR does other manipulations that are at least in part dependent on the room and speaker placement - delay, level adjustments, EQ or room optimization, and, in Trinnov's case, full blown speaker remapping.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> the Atmos renderer does its calculations based on which of the 24.1.10 possible speakers you have installed, following Dolby's guidelines.


So it is rendering to the locations the user entered. You don't believe this capability will be coming to lower priced products?


----------



## zeus33

bargervais said:


> Why would you avoid them you said there wasn't an 11ch all I did was tell you that there are atmos avr' s with 11ch you don't have to like it



He was simply reiterating his previous post about never owning one again. See below:




Scott Simonian said:


> It would be: Yamaha, Denon, Marantz.
> 
> I'm a Yamaha fan. Both Denon and Marantz are good (in fact, identical) but for the Marantz you are paying extra for the Marantz name.
> 
> *Currently own an Onkyo and at this point in history probably will never own again. If they change things up and improve QC I would buy again. But as long as they aren't putting g-damn 12v triggers on zone 1 (hello!), then never again. Otherwise they are fine too but not recommending them anymore*.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> So it is rendering to the locations the user entered. You don't believe this capability will be coming to lower priced products?


It's rendering to an assumption of the location the user has entered. In other words, if I tell the renderer I have Top Front and Top Rear pairs, it takes the existence of those speakers into account. The renderer does not know if I have an 8 foot ceiling or a 10 foot ceiling, or if my Top Front are closer to my MLP than Dolby would like them to be. But, those variations from the rendering engine's assumptions can be adjusted in the usual manner by the AVR or pre/pro.

That fact that the *theatrical* system (which does not have the processing limitations of a consumer processor) does not have a re-mapping style rendering system that can render to an infinitely variable speaker layout speaks volumes about the practicality of such a system.

I don't see this as a negative, by the way, I think it is an eminently sensible approach.


----------



## bargervais

zeus33 said:


> He was simply reiterating his previous post about never owning one again. See below:


Cool thanks I understand now it never could understand why 12 volt trigger is not in zone 1 either.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

sdurani said:


> Except it wouldn't be materializing out of any vapour but instead something that is already in the current Atmos code, already being used for height speakers in mass market receivers, and going to be used for all speakers in Trinnov's upcoming pre-pro. If consumers won't get to choose which speaker locations to render to, then how is it that we already have that choice with overhead speakers?


If it is in current code then great, how do you know that though? The things I have noticed is that Dolby are creating specific implementations of the decoder for particular channel counts. Nothing that says internally it has that capability. Perhaps you have better info you can share though?


----------



## maikeldepotter

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks. I will keep that in mind.
> In other words (if I understand it right), in the case where Surrounds are at ear level the angle between surround-overhead, overhead-overhead, overhead-surround is 60 degrees.
> Is that right?


Yes, that is the idea. 

Meanwhile, a number of people on this forum would very much appreciate some information from either Dolby or the Atmos AVR manufacturers on the default overhead positions (including lateral elevations) which the Atmos renderer applies for objects. The thought behind this is that, since AVR does not know the dimensions of your room (no input parameters for this), the ATMOS renderer can only work with pre-programmed default positions based on angles towards MLP for each of its (5) overhead positions. 

We can only speculate as to why these default values are not being published. It could be part the marketing strategy of Dolby, propagating the idea (and experience) that speaker placement is not that critical and that 'it is hard to make Atmos not work'. Disclosure of the default positions used by the Atmos renderer could in that sense be confusing for the average consumer, and potentially slow down it's acceptation.


----------



## pasender91

Selden Ball said:


> I dunno what he's talking about, but...
> 
> The 3030 is last year's model. It does not support Atmos. The 3040 is this year's model. It supports Atmos if you install the latest firmware update. Both models have only 9 internal amps. To get 11 active speakers (7.1.4), you have to add an external stereo amp, just like with D+M's Atmos AVRs. See page 18 of the 3040's owner's manual.


Selden, you're confusing an Onkyo with a Yamaha 

To settle it down, the amps below can do 11 channel Atmos with the help of an external amp:
Marantz 7009
Denon 5200
Yamaha 3040

And the Onkyo 3030 can directly do 11 channel Atmos.


----------



## kokishin

Selden Ball said:


> I dunno what he's talking about, but...
> 
> The 3030 is last year's model. It does not support Atmos. The 3040 is this year's model. It supports Atmos if you install the latest firmware update. Both models have only 9 internal amps. To get 11 active speakers (7.1.4), you have to add an external stereo amp, just like with D+M's Atmos AVRs. See page 18 of the 3040's owner's manual.





bargervais said:


> What............... this is what he is talking about... it's not last year's model.
> Onkyo TX-NR3030 11.2-Ch Dolby Atmos Network A/V Receiver w/ HDMI 2.0


Seldon was referring to the Yamaha models. RX-A3030 was last year's model with 9 internal amps but no Atmos. RX-A3040 is this year's Atmos ready model with 9 internal amps and can support up to 7.2.4 with the addition of a 2 channel external amp. 

This year's Onkyo TX-NR3030 and Integra DTR-70.6 are Atmos ready, have 11 internal amps, and support up to 7.2.4.

Edit: I just saw pasender91's post after I posted. I'm leaving my post as is because Seldon is a good egg (Definition of a Good Egg) and what the heck, I already posted it.


----------



## BillyNedwell

*Pioneer lx58*

Hi Guys,
As we are very slightly off thread but still referring to the ability for processors to output 7.1.4, I thought someone would know whether the lx58 can do 7.1.4. I am currently running 7.1.2, as the processor only has 9 power amp. If I were to add additional amps, would I be able to then have 7.1.4? If so, how could it be achieved? The owners manual is no help.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
This appears to be a European model (so you may want to check on the European site AVForums.com); however, as none of the USA models can expand beyond 9CH, it is highly unlikely the LX58 would.


----------



## pasender91

BillyNedwell said:


> Hi Guys,
> As we are very slightly off thread but still referring to the ability for processors to output 7.1.4, I thought someone would know whether the lx58 can do 7.1.4. I am currently running 7.1.2, as the processor only has 9 power amp. If I were to add additional amps, would I be able to then have 7.1.4? If so, how could it be achieved? The owners manual is no help.


This is very much IN-thread, the AVRs doing Atmos are a critical part of the deal.
My list above is complete, there are no other AVRs on the market doing 11 channels, the Pioneers are limited to 9 channels.


----------



## BillyNedwell

pasender91 said:


> This is very much IN-thread, the AVRs doing Atmos are a critical part of the deal.
> My list above is complete, there are no other AVRs on the market doing 11 channels, the Pioneers are limited to 9 channels.


Thank you Pasender91, I did think that may be the case. I should have done more research before buying. I suppose I could drop the rear surrounds and install forward tops for a 5.1.4. Most comments I have read on the forums suggest 5.1.4 would sound significantly better than 7.1.2. Does anyone have experience of what sounds better?


----------



## randyk47

BillyNedwell said:


> Thank you Pasender91, I did think that may be the case. I should have done more research before buying. I suppose I could drop the rear surrounds and install forward tops for a 5.1.4. Most comments I have read on the forums suggest 5.1.4 would sound significantly better than 7.1.2. Does anyone have experience of what sounds better?


I played around with this for a couple of days with my Denon X5200W. I was running 7.1 with my Yamaha and bought the Denon. Since I had installed but unused ceiling speakers I tried both 7.1.2 and 5.1.4. 5.1.4 was better, at least in the sense that lacking a lot of ATMOS sources I was listening to DSU and that's a nice upgrade in and of itself with four overheads in play. Since the Denon will support 7.1.4 I went out and picked up an amp so that's what I'm running now.


----------



## BillyNedwell

randyk47 said:


> I played around with this for a couple of days with my Denon X5200W. I was running 7.1 with my Yamaha and bought the Denon. Since I had installed but unused ceiling speakers I tried both 7.1.2 and 5.1.4. 5.1.4 was better, at least in the sense that lacking a lot of ATMOS sources I was listening to DSU and that's a nice upgrade in and of itself with four overheads in play. Since the Denon will support 7.1.4 I went out and picked up an amp so that's what I'm running now.


 Unfortunately changing the amp will not be an option. However, as my room is much wider than it is in length, a 5.1.4 set up may well be more beneficial. If I was to remove the rear surrounds and then move the surrounds from "at the side" to "in the rear" this would allow more sound stage to place top forwards? How close can the top forwards be to the top backs?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> The renderer does not know if I have an 8 foot ceiling or a 10 foot ceiling, or if my Top Front are closer to my MLP than Dolby would like them to be.


The renderer doesn't need to know how close or far away the speaker is from you (time alignment is a separate step), it just needs to know approximate angle (in this case, elevation) relative to the MLP. First generation mass market receivers already do that for the speakers above you, so it's not unreasonable to think that future generation products could do that for the speakers around you, especially since it is already built into consumer Atmos.


> But, those variations from the rendering engine's assumptions can be adjusted in the usual manner by the AVR or pre/pro.


And that would be a nice added-value feature, IF a manufacturer decides to go the extra step (as Trinnov has). But I was talking about the positional rendering _already_ built into consumer Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

3ll3d00d said:


> If it is in current code then great, how do you know that though? The things I have noticed is that Dolby are creating specific implementations of the decoder for particular channel counts. Nothing that says internally it has that capability. Perhaps you have better info you can share though?


The info is in the post you linked to earlier, which separates the level of positional rendering done by Atmos (±7.5°) from the further refinement done by Trinnov re-mapping (down to 2 degrees). Dolby doesn't have a special secret version of consumer Atmos reserved exclusively for high end licensees nor are they creating specific implementations of the decoder for particular channel counts. Atmos decoding is Atmos decoding; chipmakers and manufacturers decide which of the features and how many of the 34 possible outputs they want to implement. Dolby doesn't create special rendering blocks for each of those implementations (any more than they create different versions of Dolby Digital decoding for 5.1-channel AVRs vs 2-channel TVs).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> The info is in the post you linked to earlier, which separates the level of positional rendering done by Atmos (±7.5°) from the further refinement done by Trinnov re-mapping (down to 2 degrees). Dolby doesn't have a special secret version of consumer Atmos reserved exclusively for high end licensees nor are they creating specific implementations of the decoder for particular channel counts. Atmos decoding is Atmos decoding; chipmakers and manufacturers decide which of the features and how many of the 34 possible outputs they want to implement.* Dolby doesn't create special rendering blocks for each of those implementations* (any more than they create different versions of Dolby Digital decoding for 5.1-channel AVRs vs 2-channel TVs).


That's not what I heard at CEDIA. Fixed, lower output level, mainstream consumer grade rendering blocks have to be custom designed. Dolby's home theater Atmos team is working on a 9.1.4 block (and possibly 9.1.6 - from info by a different AVS member at a separate Dolby demo) right now. That's from an engineer I spoke to at the AVS Forum demo confab who is part of that project.


----------



## nitro28

The only thing that the Onkyo receivers do that I like is they give 4 sub outputs. With my new room I have 4 subs, 2 in my Goldenears towers and two as separate subs. Seems like all the other receiver manufacturers only give two sub outs. I realize I can split them, but seems like less than optimum. I'm doing a 7.4.4 setup and trying to decide on which receiver. I have 3 Emotiva XPA 100s for my front three speakers so 9.2 channels works perfect. I can get the Onkyo 1030 for several hundred less than the Denon, Yamaha or Marantz. Are the other three really worth the money just for Audessy?


Also, I'm trying to get an answer from Sandy at Goldenear on why they used the Invisa 7000 speakers for their demo. These are aimable in ceiling speakers where I thought we wanted wider dispersion?? I was thinking of using something like the regular co-ax goldenear in ceiling speakers but wondering if using an aimable speaker is optimum for some reason. I have new construction so placement will be optimum anyway. Wish their was more info out there.....


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby's home theater Atmos team is working on a 9.1.4 block...


If Dolby is currently working on that capability, then how were manufacturers able to demonstrate 9.1.4 two months ago?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> If Dolby is currently working on that capability, then how were manufacturers able to demonstrate 9.1.4 two months ago?


Rendering blocks sent to high end manufacturers were customized for the hot rod processing chips they were using. They received and are using the complete 24.1.10 rendering code. That was created first and Trinnov and other companies like them were involved at the start of the consumer Atmos development. Denon, Yamaha, et al are not and were not and are using far less capable DSP chips. Dolby must take that into account when designing separate rendering software. 

Each scenario is different and has separate challenges for Dolby's tech team. 7.1.4 was all first generation consumer architectural platforms could handle because Atmos was shoe-horned into already created 2014 season receivers and pre-amps with a max of 11.1 outputs. Dolby focused on that block and 9.1.2, 7.1.2, 5.1.4, and 5.1.2. first.

That's why high end companies could decode 9.1.4 before consumer grade companies.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Rendering blocks sent to high end manufacturers were customized for the hot rod processing chips they were using.


What hot rod processing chips?


----------



## htpcforever

EDIT: No need to feel the troll


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> What hot rod processing chips?


They're using multi-core desktop PC processors because their architecture is more akin to normal computers than the mainstream companies using specialized, and far slower integrated chips. It's a figure of speech. 

Also, it was intimated that 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 rendering are Dolby engineers' "sweet spot" for consumer Atmos rendering. They may be focusing their attention on this particular block because it may be the pinnacle of Atmos for the home. I doubt most consumer A/V companies will want to go beyond a 15.1 architecture due to parts costs and not wanting to go over a certain pricing threshold that the consumer market can possibly bear. As is, 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 Atmos equipment will probably be the highest priced consumer products yet made and only for the top tier models.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

This is the sort of debate I was referring to when I made the vapourware comment. No sane CE company is going to publicly state that a future model *will* have increased capability as that then encourages people to delay the purchase & there's no public information as to whether the ability to choose from the full range of speaker positions either exists or, if it does exist, will filter down to a model that has fewer physical channels. All of this may well happen further down the line but no one here knows or if they do then presumably they're not allowed to say so publicly.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

3ll3d00d said:


> This is the sort of debate I was referring to when I made the vapourware comment. No sane CE company is going to publicly state that a future model *will* have increased capability as that then encourages people to delay the purchase & there's no public information as to whether the ability to choose from the full range of speaker positions either exists or, if it does exist, will filter down to a model that has fewer physical channels. All of this may well happen further down the line but no one here knows or if they do then presumably they're not allowed to say so publicly.


Just because Dolby is creating 9.1.4 rendering for use in consumer goods doesn't mean all companies like Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, etc. will choose to implement it. Only the ultra-high end is going whole-hog with 34.1 because their processors are luxury items for the rich and shameless.


----------



## asoofi1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just because Dolby is creating 9.1.4 rendering for use in consumer goods doesn't mean all companies like Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, etc. will choose to implement it. Only the ultra-high end is going whole-hog with 34.1 because their processors are luxury items for the rich and shameless.


I'm not rich, but I don't mind being shameless if it means I can have 6 channels overhead  

Thanks for clarifying some of the confusion on this topic btw.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're using multi-core desktop PC processors because their architecture is more akin to normal computers than the mainstream companies using specialized, and far slower integrated chips.


If a manufacturer is using a CPU then they don't need Dolby to provide them a customized rendering block since the manufacturer will port consumer Atmos to their operating system, as Trinnov did. Steinway/Lyngdorf was able to do a 9.1.4 set-up is because current Atmos chips already have 16 outputs and S/L wasn't limited by 'last year's receiver chassis'. 

Dolby doesn't need to work on something that is already in the Atmos spec and was already demonstrated by manufacturers. If Dolby can send _"the complete 24.1.10 rendering code"_ to one licensee (Trinnov), then they can send it to all licensees and DSP chipmakers. They don't have to re-invent it for Denon.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> If a manufacturer is using a CPU then they don't need Dolby to provide them a customized rendering block since the manufacturer will port consumer Atmos to their operating system, as Trinnov did. Steinway/Lyngdorf was able to do a 9.1.4 set-up is because current Atmos chips already have 16 outputs and S/L wasn't limited by 'last year's receiver chassis'.
> 
> Dolby doesn't need to work on something that is already in the Atmos spec and was already demonstrated by manufacturers. If Dolby can send _"the complete 24.1.10 rendering code"_ to one licensee (Trinnov), then they can send it to all licensees and DSP chipmakers. They don't have to re-invent it for Denon.


We seem to be going 'round robin here. I already mentioned that there are certain particulars between "ultra" home Atmos rendering and "consumer grade" home Atmos rendering that Dolby must consider with their particular software designs. They seem to be two different animals. That's why Dolby must create separate code for use in different gear.

I also doubt Cirrus Logic and TI and the various consumer A/V companies have their own Atmos customization "labs" to tweak rendering codes. They probably have Dolby do the heavy lifting and then send them the finished software that can be implemented as needed. Sometimes smaller, more nimble high end companies have an advantage.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> If a manufacturer is using a CPU then they don't need Dolby to provide them a customized rendering block since the manufacturer will port consumer Atmos to their operating system, as Trinnov did. Steinway/Lyngdorf was able to do a 9.1.4 set-up is because current Atmos chips already have 16 outputs and S/L wasn't limited by 'last year's receiver chassis'.
> 
> Dolby doesn't need to work on something that is already in the Atmos spec and was already demonstrated by manufacturers. If Dolby can send _"the complete 24.1.10 rendering code"_ to one licensee (Trinnov), then they can send it to all licensees and DSP chipmakers. They don't have to re-invent it for Denon.


Keep in mind engineering doesn't have final say on anything...Marketing does.

Marketing drives and often dictates features, releases, specs, licensing, exclusive rights...everything that affects the timing and decisions that enigineering, production, partners, and competitors have to accept.

It's not always a technical reason...usually a business one.


----------



## bargervais

nitro28 said:


> The only thing that the Onkyo receivers do that I like is they give 4 sub outputs. With my new room I have 4 subs, 2 in my Goldenears towers and two as separate subs. Seems like all the other receiver manufacturers only give two sub outs. I realize I can split them, but seems like less than optimum. I'm doing a 7.4.4 setup and trying to decide on which receiver. I have 3 Emotiva XPA 100s for my front three speakers so 9.2 channels works perfect. I can get the Onkyo 1030 for several hundred less than the Denon, Yamaha or Marantz. Are the other three really worth the money just for Audessy?
> 
> 
> Also, I'm trying to get an answer from Sandy at Goldenear on why they used the Invisa 7000 speakers for their demo. These are aimable in ceiling speakers where I thought we wanted wider dispersion?? I was thinking of using something like the regular co-ax goldenear in ceiling speakers but wondering if using an aimable speaker is optimum for some reason. I have new construction so placement will be optimum anyway. Wish their was more info out there.....


FedEx just delivered my new TX-NR 1030 I'm very excited I was able to purchase this receiver which I think was an incredible deal I got it for five hundred less then the msrp. I know there is a lot of talk that Onkyo dropped audyssey and replaced it with a their useless proprietary Accu-EQ. This doesn't bother me I will let you all know how I like it. I was leaning towards the 5200 but I couldn't for the life of me justify almost two grand just to have audyssey... I'm replacing a TX-NR 818 which has audyssey XT32 so this will slide into that slot I know how that sounds so I'll be able to hear the difference.. I was wanting to upgrade to 11 speakers, I almost pulled the trigger on a 929 but then atmos came along so I waited now today I have my TX-NR 1030... I'm setting it up 7.2.4 useing an external amp to run the top back ceiling speakers..


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> FedEx just delivered my new TX-NR 1030 I'm very excited I was able to purchase this receiver which I think was an incredible deal I got it for five hundred less then the msrp. I know there is a lot of talk that Onkyo dropped audyssey and replaced it with a their useless proprietary Accu-EQ. This doesn't bother me I will let you all know how I like it. I was leaning towards the 5200 but I couldn't for the life of me justify almost two grand just to have audyssey... I'm replacing a TX-NR 818 which has audyssey XT32 so this will slide into that slot I know how that sounds so I'll be able to hear the difference.. I was wanting to upgrade to 11 speakers, I almost pulled the trigger on a 929 but then atmos came along so I waited now today I have my TX-NR 1030... I'm setting it up 9.2.4 useing an external amp to run the top back ceiling speakers..


Congrats once again. Eagerly waiting to see your impressions. Having XT32 and non-Audyssey side by side may be the best real world difference we will see based on your report.
I was in the same situation. Getting 929 to replace my 809. But Atmos pulled me in and I am just waiting patiently (not for long), to make my decision.
I open to any AVR X5200, SR7009 or NR1030, whichever gives me best bang for the buck..
So enjoy playing with your new puppy and let's here how is the "barking"..


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's not what I heard at CEDIA. Fixed, lower output level, mainstream consumer grade rendering blocks have to be custom designed. Dolby's home theater Atmos team is working on a 9.1.4 block (and possibly 9.1.6 - from info by a different AVS member at a separate Dolby demo) right now. That's from an engineer I spoke to at the AVS Forum demo confab who is part of that project.


Dolby has in times past qualified different tiers of implementations. In the early days of Dolby Digital, when DSP computing horsepower was a fraction of today's chips, they qualified decoder implementations for low cost vs. more expensive products. The precision had to be better for the more expensive chips. The decoding algorithm was the same, but the precision in certain stages could be rounded off differently (e.g. single vs. double precision). 

There were also decoders aimed for broadcast products (TV and STB) where the bitrate was capped by ATSC to 448 kbps, vs chips for AV decoders where the bitrate could be up to 640 kbps. This impacted memory requirements. Same DD algorithm, different operational limits.

[pure speculation]The same may be happening for Atmos chips. The 7.1.4 chips have to cover a list of criteria, like 2 pair of ceiling speakers with certain spacing. The next chips, say, 9.1.6, will have additional feature requirements like the third pair of height outputs. The core algorithm may well be the same, but due to the new options, new testing and qualification requirements have to be documented. Perhaps this was put off to a later date to keep the initial 7.1.4 rollout simpler and faster. [/pure speculation]


----------



## Tech5635

is it possible to setup a dolby atmos system with all in ceiling speakers? I have floor to ceiling windows and don't want to have free standing speakers and have no place to put inwalls. I have in ceiling speakers with a 20 degree down angle, just not sure if atmos is possible with all in ceiling. Thoughts?


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> FedEx just delivered my new TX-NR 1030 I'm very excited I was able to purchase this receiver which I think was an incredible deal I got it for five hundred less then the msrp. I know there is a lot of talk that Onkyo dropped audyssey and replaced it with a their useless proprietary Accu-EQ. This doesn't bother me I will let you all know how I like it. I was leaning towards the 5200 but I couldn't for the life of me justify almost two grand just to have audyssey... I'm replacing a TX-NR 818 which has audyssey XT32 so this will slide into that slot I know how that sounds so I'll be able to hear the difference.. I was wanting to upgrade to 11 speakers, I almost pulled the trigger on a 929 but then atmos came along so I waited now today I have my TX-NR 1030... I'm setting it up 7.2.4 useing an external amp to run the top back ceiling speakers..



Wow that is an awesome price, looking forward to your impressions! 


BTW, up here the MSRP on the TX-NR1030 is $1800, the TX-NR3030 is $2500


----------



## jdsmoothie

Tech5635 said:


> is it possible to setup a dolby atmos system with all in ceiling speakers? I have floor to ceiling windows and don't want to have free standing speakers and have no place to put inwalls. I have in ceiling speakers with a 20 degree down angle, just not sure if atmos is possible with all in ceiling. Thoughts?


Without any physical separation between the normal "floor" 5.1/7.1 setup and the "height" speakers, you would not gain any real benefit and would likely be better served just keeping your current 5.1/7.1 setup configuration and not bother adding any additional speakers until you can relocate to another room capable of using floor speakers.


----------



## nitro28

bargervais said:


> FedEx just delivered my new TX-NR 1030 I'm very excited I was able to purchase this receiver which I think was an incredible deal I got it for five hundred less then the msrp. I know there is a lot of talk that Onkyo dropped audyssey and replaced it with a their useless proprietary Accu-EQ. This doesn't bother me I will let you all know how I like it. I was leaning towards the 5200 but I couldn't for the life of me justify almost two grand just to have audyssey... I'm replacing a TX-NR 818 which has audyssey XT32 so this will slide into that slot I know how that sounds so I'll be able to hear the difference.. I was wanting to upgrade to 11 speakers, I almost pulled the trigger on a 929 but then atmos came along so I waited now today I have my TX-NR 1030... I'm setting it up 7.2.4 useing an external amp to run the top back ceiling speakers..


Awesome. Let me know how you like the 1030 as I am heavily leaning toward it.


----------



## Steve Goff

We know that the Trinnov piece can render to five sets of overhead speaker pairs, but do we know that it can handle more than two sets at once? If not, I don't see how it is more capable than DSP based products in this regard. I know that it can render to more than 7 listener-level speakers; I'm only asking about overhead speakers.


----------



## Ted99

Brian Fineberg said:


> went to the local bestbuy and checked out their ATMOS enabled demo. it was the first time i heard atmos at home outside my home. While very impressive for upfiring modules...it no where compares to the ceiling speakers in my setup..might be the deftechs though..or the room and setup...but still a GRAT option for those who cant do ceiling speaks


I did the same and noticed that they were firing the speakers at an acoustic tile ceiling, so no surprise that the "overheads" were less than stunning.


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Not Atmos and four of those amps are not full power.


Still using mine and with all it's pre in/out RCA connections, I figure it'll be a great amp for a Dolby ATMOS/DTS/AURO receiver that needs extra amps to do 7.1.4/6 for Auro. I need it's heavy duty amps for my M-L LCR mains and a new, cheaper receiver will serve as a great processer for HDMI and HDCP compliance, for which my RX-Z11 is hopelessly obsolete.


----------



## Nabs17

jdsmoothie said:


> Without any physical separation between the normal "floor" 5.1/7.1 setup and the "height" speakers, you would not gain any real benefit and would likely be better served just keeping your current 5.1/7.1 setup configuration and not bother adding any additional speakers until you can relocate to another room capable of using floor speakers.


I haven't seen it anywhere but is there a standard for the separation between the floor and overhead (height) speakers for Atmos? Meaning does there have to be a certain range (in feet perhaps) between the two layers.


Thanks,


----------



## Gurba

Tech5635 said:


> is it possible to setup a dolby atmos system with all in ceiling speakers? I have floor to ceiling windows and don't want to have free standing speakers and have no place to put inwalls. I have in ceiling speakers with a 20 degree down angle, just not sure if atmos is possible with all in ceiling. Thoughts?


All my surrounds are mounted all the Way up to the ceiling and I'm waiting for ceiling speakers. I originally meant to put the surrounds on stands but it didn't really work out so well so I went back to the original setup. I'll be installing the on-ceiling speakers anyway since I have ordered them so I'm hoping I get some effekt out of them.


----------



## snyderkv

Can someone tell me whether or not I'm able to run the Atmos or DSU without a center channel? I figured it would just matrix or phantom the center into the front speakers but want to confirm first.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Yup .. you can.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Nabs17 said:


> I haven't seen it anywhere but is there a standard for the separation between the floor and overhead (height) speakers for Atmos? Meaning does there have to be a certain range (in feet perhaps) between the two layers.
> 
> 
> Thanks,


The Dolby Home Theatre Installation white paper indicates the "optimal" ceiling speaker height as being at least 2x the speaker's listening ear level height, so if the average seated ear height is roughly 3.5-4' that would mean a 7-8' separation (or 10.5'-12' ceiling) would be optimal with anything less simply providing a less optimal performance (although still doable and very acceptable as others in this thread have discussed with the more average 8' ceiling height).


----------



## snyderkv

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Yup .. you can.


Thank goodness, money saved somewhere.

If anyone is thinking of doing this I have some advice.

1) It's going to cost more than you think. Add up all the components beforehand i.e 36 banana plugs would cost $400 if purchased at a store like best buy or Fry's. Got some cheap ones online.
2) Unless you're handy and can do in-walls yourself, you'll have to contact an installer which can take two weeks just for the assessment and another 2-4 weeks for installation.
3) Doing it myself, I have since needed to buy a vacuum, dremel, saw, drill, wall outlets and associated accessories, banana plugs, spool of wire, pliers and lots of time. Now I need to hire someone to fix the peep holes I made in the drywall and then a painter.

In hindsight, I would have upgraded my speakers and get better 2 channel sound instead.


----------



## Steve Goff

Steve Goff said:


> We know that the Trinnov piece can render to five sets of overhead speaker pairs, but do we know that it can handle more than two sets at once? If not, I don't see how it is more capable than DSP based products in this regard. I know that it can render to more than 7 listener-level speakers; I'm only asking about overhead speakers.



Curt from Trinnov says that the Altitude can render to all ten overhead speakers.


----------



## jdsmoothie

snyderkv said:


> Thank goodness, money saved somewhere.
> 
> If anyone is thinking of doing this I have some advice.
> 
> 1) It's going to cost more than you think. Add up all the components beforehand i.e *36 banana plugs would cost $400 i*f purchased at a store like best buy, Fry's. Got some cheap ones online.
> 2) Unless you're handy and can do in-walls yourself, you'll have to contact an installer which can take two weeks just for the assessment and another 2-4 weeks for installation.
> 3) Doing it myself, I have since needed to buy a vacuum, dremel, saw, drill, wall outlets and associated accessories, banana plugs, spool of wire, pliers and lots of time. Now I need to hire someone to fix the peep holes I made in the drywall and a painter.
> 
> So I'm just happy I don't have to go out and buy a center channel


Take advantage of the forum sponsors. Monoprice will sell you quality banana plugs (10 pair for $18 + shipping).


----------



## snyderkv

jdsmoothie said:


> Take advantage of the forum sponsors. Monoprice will sell you quality banana plugs (10 pair for $18 + shipping).


There's more to it than that but thanks. Anyone wanting to tackle this on a weekend would have to shop for it otherwise purchasing online will take a few days


----------



## aaranddeeman

jdsmoothie said:


> Take advantage of the forum sponsors. Monoprice will sell you quality banana plugs (10 pair for $18 + shipping).


FREE SHIPPING this weekend.. :kiss:


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> Wow that is an awesome price, looking forward to your impressions!
> 
> 
> BTW, up here the MSRP on the TX-NR1030 is $1800, the TX-NR3030 is $2500


The MSRP at onkyo USA is $1699 maybe in Canada it's a little more that one of the reasons I moved south to Florida from Montreal LOL. But that's a little off topic.. but it took me about an hour to pull out the 818 and replace it with this beast. I ran Accu-EQ took about ten to fifteen minutes I ran it a couple times as I had to adjust the two subs volume. My initial impression is this thing sounds great I was worried coming from audyssey XT32 the sound on the 1030 IMHO sound just as good or better then my 818 mind you listening now mostly in Dolby Surround as opposed to neo x on the 818. I'm not going to run any kind of graphs to prove to anyone my ears are my only judge. 
I'll give this a go and report back but as I said earlier I'm basically using the set up that I already had my front high speakers that I had been using before as front high I'm just repurposing them for atmos and I had ceiling speakers in the ceiling behind my MLP. I Have 7 speakers at ear level and four up top. The separation is very good.


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> The MSRP at onkyo USA is $1699 maybe in Canada it's a little more that one of the reasons I moved south to Florida from Montreal LOL. But that's a little off topic.. but it took me about an hour to pull out the 818 and replace it with this beast. I ran Accu-EQ took about ten to fifteen minutes I ran it a couple times as I had to adjust the two subs volume. My initial impression is this thing sounds great I was worried coming from audyssey XT32 the sound on the 1030 IMHO sound just as good or better then my 818 mind you listening now mostly in Dolby Surround as opposed to neo x on the 818. I'm not going to run any kind of graphs to prove to anyone my ears are my only judge.
> I'll give this a go and report back but as I said earlier I'm basically using the set up that I already had my front high speakers that I had been using before as front high I'm just repurposing them for atmos and I had ceiling speakers in the ceiling behind my MLP. I Have 7 speakers at ear level and four up top. The separation is very good.


Thank you for the quick preview.
You are gonna help some folks some $$$ on the AVR with your positive impressions.
DSU will sure sound good (reading from all threads). It may be worth to report the non-DSU/Atmos comparison if you can to give a clear indication if one should let Audyssey go or not...
Thanks again. Looking forward to more details in coming days..


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> Thank you for the quick preview.
> You are gonna help some folks some $$$ on the AVR with your positive impressions.
> DSU will sure sound good (reading from all threads). It may be worth to report the non-DSU/Atmos comparison if you can to give a clear indication if one should let Audyssey go or not...
> Thanks again. Looking forward to more details in coming days..


I would love to compare Accu-EQ to audyssey but this would not be the thread to start this descustion here plus I don't have the science to back up what I hear no way to get or generate any graphs or even how to do it. All I can say is what I hear with this unit compared to my 818 I like.
There is a whole thread that discusses it

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html
They are a tough crowd and I wouldn't stand a chance as I have no science to back it up, if what I'm hearing is even correct. All I can say is I like this unit and its sound.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I already mentioned that there are certain particulars between "ultra" home Atmos rendering and "consumer grade" home Atmos rendering that Dolby must consider with their particular software designs.


Except Dolby has never mentioned an "ultra" version of Atmos, any more than they have a special version of TrueHD for high end manufacturers. Do you have a link to anything Dolby has said about more than one version of Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Keep in mind engineering doesn't have final say on anything...Marketing does.


Are you saying the marketing department, not engineers, came up with a second version of Atmos exclusively for high end manufacturers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Except Dolby has never mentioned an "ultra" version of Atmos, any more than they have a special version of TrueHD for high end manufacturers. Do you have a link to anything Dolby has said about more than one version of Atmos?


"Ultra" as in the kind that can work with high end products like the Trinnov and offer full 24.1.10 rendering with more precision. "Consumer grade" as in the kind that can work with Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, and Onkyo's much more limited products. Roger Dressler mentioned one of the possible reasons for differences in the coding between products.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Roger Dressler mentioned one of the possible reasons for differences in the coding between products.


Any link to Dolby saying this about multiple versions of Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Any link to Dolby saying this about multiple versions of Atmos?


It's not public knowledge that there are some coding differences for the various "grades" of Atmos products. I don't even know if the engineer was supposed to let the cat out of the bag about potential future product, like a new 9.1.4 rendering block being worked on. Everyone from Dolby was so excited and enthusiastic about Atmos' debut, so they may not have all been on their guard for hyper inquisitive consumers from the forums. A lot of these guys who flew in for CEDIA weren't trained PR people who know how to spin like a sleazy politician. They even seemed rather new to using "a bit of skirt" to help sell their wares like some of the other companies on the floor... most of the paid "eye candy" milled around yacking with each other rather than schmoozing with the expo customers.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's not public knowledge that there are some coding differences for the various "grades" of Atmos products. I don't even know if the engineer was supposed to let the cat out of the bag about potential future product, like a new 9.1.4 rendering block being worked on.


So you're the only one that knows about it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> So you're the only one that knows about it?


I don't know about being the only one (I wouldn't go that far), but I did ask a few pointed questions about Atmos product.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> Are you saying the marketing department, not engineers, came up with a second version of Atmos exclusively for high end manufacturers?


Is that what I wrote?


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> I would love to compare Accu-EQ to audyssey but this would not be the thread to start this descustion here plus I don't have the science to back up what I hear no way to get or generate any graphs or even how to do it. All I can say is what I hear with this unit compared to my 818 I like.
> There is a whole thread that discusses it
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html
> They are a tough crowd and I wouldn't stand a chance as I have no science to back it up, if what I'm hearing is even correct. All I can say is I like this unit and its sound.


Yes. I am reading that thread as well.
No science is required. It's enough of the credibility for you as you had Audyssey and now no-Audyssey (or AccuEQ). 
So personal impression would be good enough.
May be you can PM me how you like 1030 (or not) compared to the 818 with Audyssey.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Is that what I wrote?


In a discussion about different versions of Atmos, you said _"engineering doesn't have final say on anything...Marketing does"_.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know about being the only one (I wouldn't go that far), but I did ask a few pointed questions about Atmos product.


Of all the AVSers that were at CEDIA, you're the only one claiming Dolby has "customized" versions of Atmos that were sent out early to high end manufacturers. Nor have any of the press that cover consumer electronics reported on anything similar to what you're describing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Of all the AVSers that were at CEDIA, you're the only one claiming Dolby has "customized" versions of Atmos that were sent out early to high end manufacturers. Nor have any of the press that cover consumer electronics reported on anything similar to what you're describing.


It really doesn't seem to matter what I say about needing to adjust consumer Atmos to the product it's being put into. You seemed to ignore what Mr. Dressler talked about a few posts back of how coding might need to be tweaked depending on various format applications. 

It also really doesn't matter to me if you believe that Dolby is working on a 9.1.4 (and possibly a 9.1.6) rendering block for use in mainstream receivers and pre-amps. 

Nothing of these games of semantics really matters in the grand scheme as long as the damn format works and that it gets expanded upon and improved in the near future and into products that aren't the price of a car... and then shows up on more than a handful of discs. Those are the only things I care about.


----------



## JKR1963

Al Sherwood said:


> Wow that is an awesome price, looking forward to your impressions!
> 
> 
> BTW, up here the MSRP on the TX-NR1030 is $1800, the TX-NR3030 is $2500


 
Both are shown as available on the Future Shop website.......the 1030 is $1999. and the 3030 is $2699. I consider the 3030 to be a downgrade in the power dept, room correction and the remote vs. my old 3009. The only thing that is good is the Atmos.........too bad there is no 5009 equivalent with the nice lighted remote and XT32.......with the 11 amp channels and Atmos. I would likely get interested as my 3009 has been awesome (no HDMI Board Failure yet! and no outboard amps need apply).


Also, I forgot.....this Onkyo that I wish existed.....would have to have a full HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 implementation......for 4K Blu ray (and of course these HDMI Boards are not a current feature this year).


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> I'm not rich, but I don't mind being shameless if it means I can have 6 channels overhead
> 
> Thanks for clarifying some of the confusion on this topic btw.


Do you think Dan is _clarifying things_? I am of the opposite view (no offense Dan - it might be me). By stating that Dolby are 'preparing' or 'working on' 9.1.4 rendering, when 9.1.4 rendering is already available if manufacturers would just choose to incorporate it, that seems to me to be confusing not clarifying. Dan says he was given this information - not available from any other source AFAIK - by a Dolby employee. Well I too was given information by a Dolby employee (by two in fact) in London and that information was that the full Dolby Atmos for the Home spec of 24.1.10 was already offered and was entirely at the manufacturers' discretion as to 'how much' of that spec they used. Indeed, we already know that megabucks processors are offering way more than the 7.1.4 we are seeing on mainstream units.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If a manufacturer is using a CPU then they don't need Dolby to provide them a customized rendering block since the manufacturer will port consumer Atmos to their operating system, as Trinnov did. Steinway/Lyngdorf was able to do a 9.1.4 set-up is because current Atmos chips already have 16 outputs and S/L wasn't limited by 'last year's receiver chassis'.
> 
> Dolby doesn't need to work on something that is already in the Atmos spec and was already demonstrated by manufacturers. If Dolby can send _"the complete 24.1.10 rendering code"_ to one licensee (Trinnov), then they can send it to all licensees and DSP chipmakers. They don't have to re-invent it for Denon.


Both JJ and Stephen told me categorically in London that there is one spec for Home Atmos and it is 24.1.10 and it is entirely up to the manufacturers to incorporate as much or as little of this as they see fit. There was no equivocation about this and the response from both Dolby people was in response to a question much of the sort that has been discussed here recently. So yes, Dolby London confirms your own position.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> FedEx just delivered my new TX-NR 1030 I'm very excited I was able to purchase this receiver which I think was an incredible deal I got it for five hundred less then the msrp. I know there is a lot of talk that Onkyo dropped audyssey and replaced it with a their useless proprietary Accu-EQ. This doesn't bother me I will let you all know how I like it. I was leaning towards the 5200 but I couldn't for the life of me justify almost two grand just to have audyssey... I'm replacing a TX-NR 818 which has audyssey XT32 so this will slide into that slot I know how that sounds so I'll be able to hear the difference.. I was wanting to upgrade to 11 speakers, I almost pulled the trigger on a 929 but then atmos came along so I waited now today I have my TX-NR 1030... I'm setting it up 7.2.4 useing an external amp to run the top back ceiling speakers..


The thing to listen for, if you have no measuring tools, is how different the bass sounds between the XT32-equipped unit and the AccuEQ-equipped unit. Listen for bass quality and smoothness - lack of lumpiness in the response, any difference in 'boominess' or overhang. If you can, play some bass-heavy music and listen to the quality of the bass - is it as tuneful on the new unit as it was on the old unit? Do any notes seem to be emphasised or missing? If the bass quality does suffer in some way, then listen to the region above bass frequency and see if you detect any 'muddling' there - this could be caused by the lesser bass quality masking the higher frequencies.

Listening tests will not be ideal because of the significant time lag between evaluating the old unit before installing the new, but it is all you can do absent measuring gear. I’d suggest you listen hard to a particular passage with the old unit before installing the new unit, and make written notes of what you hear wrt to the bass.

I can’t recall if you have REW or similar - if you do, just run some sweeps and compare FR and waterfalls.

Good luck with the install - I know you have been eagerly awaiting the new Onkyo for some time.

EDIT: Seems I am too late!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know about being the only one (I wouldn't go that far), but I did ask a few pointed questions about Atmos product.


It hasn't been reported anywhere else though - just by you? Have you considered the possibility that the person you spoke to may have been wrong? Your report is the exact opposite of what I was told by one of Dolby's London engineering staff - Stephen Auld.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It really doesn't seem to matter what I say about needing to adjust consumer Atmos to the product it's being put into. You seemed to ignore what Mr. Dressler talked about a few posts back of how coding might need to be tweaked depending on various format applications.


And you are ignoring that Roger specifically took pains to point out that he was simply speculating.



Dan Hitchman said:


> It also really doesn't matter to me if you believe that Dolby is working on a 9.1.4 (and possibly a 9.1.6) rendering block for use in mainstream receivers and pre-amps.


It's not an issue of belief is it? Either they are, or they are not. So far, all of the evidence points to a single 24.1.10 offering which has been made available to ALL manufacturers (direct quote from JJ and Stephen Auld in London in response to a direct question). Only you are postulating this theory of yours and you have nothing to back it up other than a conversation from an unknown engineer, reported only by you. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Nothing of these games of semantics really matters in the grand scheme as long as the damn format works and that it gets expanded upon and improved in the near future and into products that aren't the price of a car... and then shows up on more than a handful of discs. Those are the only things I care about.


If that is all you care about why do you keep on insisting that there are multiple versions of Atmos? It is not an issue of semantics at all. Making a wrong or unprovable statement and then being challenged to back it up isn't an issue of semantics. Semantics is about the meaning of words and phrases - I fully understand what you _mean_, but simply disagree with you about it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Another DSU report. *Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.* Very good overhead effects but go directly to the sandstorm scene if you don't want to watch the whole movie.


----------



## Nightlord

I know nothing at all. But if we choose to believe everyone is sort of right, then what would we end up with?

Perhaps the 24.1.10 IS available to all, but most manufacturers discovered that it required too much DSP for their needs, so there DO exist a stripped down rendering device AS WELL?
And then the extra information could mean that they are doing a slightly larger stripped down version as well?

Please don't go ballistic over this - it was just an attempt at joining info together so no one would be wrong.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Another DSU report. *Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.* Very good overhead effects but go directly to the sandstorm scene if you don't want to watch the whole movie.


I have one too for you *bourne legacy* great use of DSU. What a great sounding movie as we'll. the whole thing is good for DSU. The time in the woods of Alaska. Overhead pans you name it

The first disappointing report of DSU I have is for *the croods* not much to comment about with immersion. I was actually disappointed a bit. Still sounded great just not what I have heard In literally every other movie


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I know nothing at all. But if we choose to believe everyone is sort of right, then what would we end up with?
> 
> Perhaps the 24.1.10 IS available to all, but most manufacturers discovered that it required too much DSP for their needs, so there DO exist a stripped down rendering device AS WELL?
> And then the extra information could mean that they are doing a slightly larger stripped down version as well?
> 
> Please don't go ballistic over this - it was just an attempt at joining info together so no one would be wrong.


It doesn't need a 'stripped down' version according to the info I was given. Dolby supply the 'full' home Atmos, 24.1.10, to manufacturers and it is up to them to implement it in the way they see fit. Some have chosen to implement 5.1.2, some 5.1.4, some 7.1.4 and some, higher-end manufacturers such as Trinnov and SL, much more.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I have one too for you *bourne legacy* great use of DSU. What a great sounding movie as we'll. the whole thing is good for DSU. The time in the woods of Alaska. Overhead pans you name it


Thanks Brian - I am a great fan of the Bourne Movies - will give that one a go soon.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Me too in fact I just ordered the four disc set because of watching this one haha. So now I have an extra Bourne legacy for sale


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> You seemed to ignore what Mr. Dressler talked about a few posts back of how coding might need to be tweaked depending on various format applications.


Nope, simply asking you if there has been any mention, besides your posts, of Dolby working on a 9.1.4 rendering block, since you are the only one making that claim. Not unreasonable to ask for a little corroboration.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Al Sherwood said:


> Wow that is an awesome price, looking forward to your impressions!
> 
> 
> BTW, up here the MSRP on the TX-NR1030 is $1800, the TX-NR3030 is $2500





JKR1963 said:


> Both are shown as available on the Future Shop website.......the 1030 is $1999. and the 3030 is $2699. I consider the 3030 to be a downgrade in the power dept, room correction and the remote vs. my old 3009. The only thing that is good is the Atmos.........too bad there is no 5009 equivalent with the nice lighted remote and XT32.......with the 11 amp channels and Atmos. I would likely get interested as my 3009 has been awesome (no HDMI Board Failure yet! and no outboard amps need apply).
> 
> 
> Also, I forgot.....this Onkyo that I wish existed.....would have to have a full HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 implementation......for 4K Blu ray (and of course these HDMI Boards are not a current feature this year).


Good find, and thanks for keeping me honest!  I should have confirmed with Onkyo.ca


The prices I posted were actually from NCIX, listing them at their 'regular' price (which looks even better now), and they are on sale until months end.... 


BTW, I too like the 11 channel amp feature. 


Hey maybe next year for that Onkyo that you wish existed?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Both JJ and Stephen told me categorically in London that there is one spec for Home Atmos and it is 24.1.10 and it is entirely up to the manufacturers to incorporate as much or as little of this as they see fit.


Same response I got at the press conference. The significance is that manufacturers don't have to wait for Dolby to take the next step; they can take it any time they want (any time their chipmakers are ready). The current Analogue Devices SHARC engines and Texas Instrument DSP chips already have 16 outputs. Putting those chips into last years' chassis is what limited them to 11 outputs. 

The 'one spec' scenario is evident on the Trinnov Altitude. For all the custom code writing and flexibility and cost, they still have to stick to the same 15-degree granularity that all other Atmos licensees do. They cannot, for example, take their precise measurements of speaker locations and insert them into the Atmos rendering table to get greater than ±7.5° precision. That has to be done via their exclusive re-mapping feature. 

BTW, if Trinnov has to stick to the same spec, then that clues us in to what Yamaha will and will not be able to do with their 3D positional measurements.


----------



## jsmiddleton4

I'll not be replacing my movie archives just to hear sand storm noise over head. Others are free to do so as they see fit of course. Me, not going to do so. Went from DVD to Bluray for two reasons. I'd say similar for most folks. Better picture and HD audio. Did make a big difference. The difference from HD Audio to hearing sand storm over head is not improvement enough to justify the hardware and software expense. 

Going forward? Sure. Replacing, nope.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> In a discussion about different versions of Atmos, you said _"engineering doesn't have final say on anything...Marketing does"_.


Yes, marketing determines what and when something will be released. Engineering works on what they are told to work on. A product is released in evolutionary stages...not the best possible version once. This is how businesses stay in business. Marketing determines these milestones.

So to help you understand it's relevancy to Atmos, say Dolby makes 24.1.10 available to avr manufacturers. So at the avr side, marketing determines the best way to help make the most money for the company and sustain it...so the first year they tell the engineers to release 5.x.4 avrs. They then tell the engineers, release 7.x.4 next year so we can sell more avrs. Then they say, release 9.x.6 the year after that, so we can sell even more avrs. This continues on year after year and are called 'new features'...New tech is constantly spread over years by marketing to make more money for the business and everybody gets to keep their jobs, including the engineers.

So, again, engineers are told what to work on. If it was up to an engineer to run the marketing of a product, we'd all have first generation 24.x.10 already and then some.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> So to help you understand it's relevancy to Atmos, say Dolby makes 24.1.10 available to avr manufacturers.


So do you think Dolby made 7.1.4 available to manufacturers and then worked on a 9.1.4 rendering block or do you think manufacturers are doling it out in stages?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> I know nothing at all. But if we choose to believe everyone is sort of right, then what would we end up with?
> 
> Perhaps the 24.1.10 IS available to all, but most manufacturers discovered that it required too much DSP for their needs, so there DO exist a stripped down rendering device AS WELL?
> And then the extra information could mean that they are doing a slightly larger stripped down version as well?
> 
> Please don't go ballistic over this - it was just an attempt at joining info together so no one would be wrong.


That's _exactly_ what I think is happening. The engineers have a full blown, super-duper 24.1.10 home renderer that can be used at the whim of the manufacturers. _However_, no regular consumer electronics company is implementing the complete set of Atmos features, only the cost-is-no-object ultra high end, and because the "mainstreams" are using stripped down, "wimpy" integrated DSP chips (by comparison) from Cirrus Logic and TI and Analog Devices, etc. Dolby had to tweak or create separate stripped down rendering blocks for those devices. That has to be why the engineer, who mentioned _he_ was working on a 9.1.4 block (why would he say that unless he was part of that team?), is having to create a separate version of Atmos rendering and it isn't already available for use... again, only to the high end. 

People have to put two and two together. This isn't rocket science.


----------



## asoofi1

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think Dan is _clarifying things_? I am of the opposite view (no offense Dan - it might be me). By stating that Dolby are 'preparing' or 'working on' 9.1.4 rendering, when 9.1.4 rendering is already available if manufacturers would just choose to incorporate it, that seems to me to be confusing not clarifying. Dan says he was given this information - not available from any other source AFAIK - by a Dolby employee. Well I too was given information by a Dolby employee (by two in fact) in London and that information was that the full Dolby Atmos for the Home spec of 24.1.10 was already offered and was entirely at the manufacturers' discretion as to 'how much' of that spec they used. Indeed, we already know that megabucks processors are offering way more than the 7.1.4 we are seeing on mainstream units.


Yes, it seems he's trying to help clarify things for sdurani on what he said or meant. He's just sharing his experience and just as you are sharing yours.

Regardless of what any of us say, it's all speculation on our side. What and when is something is released will only be verified by the manufacturer in an official press release. Claims are always made by reps at tradeshows and we never know what really is happening behind the curtains and what can change. So just recognize it as speculation and how for the best. You're all pretty


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It hasn't been reported anywhere else though - just by you? Have you considered the possibility that the person you spoke to may have been wrong? Your report is the exact opposite of what I was told by one of Dolby's London engineering staff - Stephen Auld.


I didn't have wax in my ears, Keith, the man clearly stated HE was working on a new 9.1.4 rendering block for consumer products when I asked about the future of consumer Atmos and why I thought it was a little disappointing there wasn't an option for some sort of pan-through array in current offerings... besides the high end.

Why are you so hung up with this? I _suppose_ there might have been an issue trying to dumb 24.1.10 instruction code down for less capable DSP chips and consumer grade architectures and Dolby is ending up having to customize Atmos for various purposes. Is that so hard to believe??


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Me too in fact I just ordered the four disc set because of watching this one haha. So now I have an extra Bourne legacy for sale


I enjoy all 4 of those movies, even the much maligned 4th one. I am led to believe that Matt Damon is coming back for the 5th movie. In fact, I think I will watch them all again, starting tonight, now you have whet my appetite for them once more.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> So do you think Dolby made 7.1.4 available to manufacturers and then worked on a 9.1.4 rendering block or do you think manufacturers are doling it out in stages?


It's very possible that because the first generation of mainstream Atmos products were not originally designed with Atmos in mind (and locked at no more than 11.1), and because Dolby is making separate "customized," "adjusted," "tweaked," "stripped down" (pick your adjective) blocks to fit the needs of companies like Denon, et al, that Dolby is creating something for a later gen upper tier model that could be based around 13.1 or even 15.1 outputs.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Same response I got at the press conference.


Yup. So that is two independent Dolby sources confirming the opposite of what Dan's source is supposed to have said.



sdurani said:


> The significance is that manufacturers don't have to wait for Dolby to take the next step; they can take it any time they want (any time their chipmakers are ready). The current Analogue Devices SHARC engines and Texas Instrument DSP chips already have 16 outputs. Putting those chips into last years' chassis is what limited them to 11 outputs.


Exactly. And why we may see a somewhat more adventurous implementation in next year's designs where they will perhaps have had time to develop a new chassis with more outputs. They aren't waiting for Dolby - they are waiting for the next step in their own dev cycle.



sdurani said:


> The 'one spec' scenario is evident on the Trinnov Altitude. For all the custom code writing and flexibility and cost, they still have to stick to the same 15-degree granularity that all other Atmos licensees do. They cannot, for example, take their precise measurements of speaker locations and insert them into the Atmos rendering table to get greater than ±7.5° precision. That has to be done via their exclusive re-mapping feature.
> 
> BTW, if Trinnov has to stick to the same spec, then that clues us in to what Yamaha will and will not be able to do with their 3D positional measurements.


Agreed. I have never thought that Yamaha will be able to use the positional information provided by their clever mic/system in order to inform the Atmos renderer. At least not anytime soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsmiddleton4 said:


> I'll not be replacing my movie archives just to hear sand storm noise over head. Others are free to do so as they see fit of course. Me, not going to do so. Went from DVD to Bluray for two reasons. I'd say similar for most folks. Better picture and HD audio. Did make a big difference. The difference from HD Audio to hearing sand storm over head is not improvement enough to justify the hardware and software expense.
> 
> Going forward? Sure. Replacing, nope.


After reading this thread, that's what you think Atmos is all about? Sand storm noise over your head? I am amazed.

And who mentioned replacing your movies? The whole point of DSU is that it brings some of the additional immersive benefits of Atmos to your legacy collection.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> Yes, it seems he's trying to help clarify things for sdurani on what he said or meant. He's just sharing his experience and just as you are sharing yours.
> 
> Regardless of what any of us say, it's all speculation on our side. What and when is something is released will only be verified by the manufacturer in an official press release. Claims are always made by reps at tradeshows and we never know what really is happening behind the curtains and what can change. So just recognize it as speculation and how for the best. You're all pretty


What I am saying is definitely not speculation. It is an almost verbatim report of what two different Dolby employees told me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yup. So that is two independent Dolby sources confirming the opposite of what Dan's source is supposed to have said.


And the person I talked to was an actual Dolby engineer. So, who's going to know more? The people creating the product or the marketers?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I didn't have wax in my ears, Keith, the man clearly stated HE was working on a new 9.1.4 rendering block for consumer products when I asked about the future of consumer Atmos and why I thought it was a little disappointing there wasn't an option for some sort of pan-through array in current offerings... besides the high end.
> 
> Why are you so hung up with this? I _suppose_ there might have been an issue trying to dumb 24.1.10 instruction code down for less capable DSP chips and consumer grade architectures and Dolby is ending up having to customize Atmos for various purposes. Is that so hard to believe??


What is hard to believe is that you are the single source of this information that Dolby are releasing home Atmos in bits, when both Sanjay and I have reported independent Dolby confirmation that they are not. Only you seem to believe there is an 'ultra' version of Atmos, and there is no corroboration for that POV anywhere on the entire net other than in this one reported conversation that you and you alone have heard. So yeah, your position is quite hard to believe


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's very possible that because the first generation of mainstream Atmos products were not originally designed with Atmos in mind (and locked at no more than 11.1), and because Dolby is making separate "customized," "adjusted," "tweaked," "stripped down" (pick your adjective) blocks to fit the needs of companies like Denon, et al, that Dolby is creating something for a later gen upper tier model that could be based around 13.1 or even 15.1 outputs.


It's possible. Anything is possible. It's just not what Dolby are saying. Other than this one guy you keep mentioning - what was his name - maybe we can email him and ask him what he meant?. I have a couple of good contacts at Dolby in London - tell me your guy's name and I'll see what I can do.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> And the person I talked to was an actual Dolby engineer. So, who's going to know more? The people creating the product or the marketers?


So tell us who he is and we can ask him.

Incidentally, Stephen Auld at Dolby in London isn't a marketing person. He's responsible for the licensing of Atmos to manufacturers - exactly the sort of person who would know.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> So do you think Dolby made 7.1.4 available to manufacturers and then worked on a 9.1.4 rendering block or do you think manufacturers are doling it out in stages?



Did I answer your engineer vs marketing question? Because it seems you've changed your line of questioning in hopes of making a point by chance or randomly picking a cherry.

Anyway, I really don't care what either one did because it's irrelevant to my daily life. Specific releases is inside information. If I want a certain feature, I am at the mercy at what products are available or have to wait. And again, reread my previous response to you, manufacturers will always release features in stages. Basic economics.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> Did I answer your engineer vs marketing question? Because it seems you've changed your line of questioning in hopes of making a point by chance or randomly picking a cherry.
> 
> Anyway, I really don't care what either one did because it's irrelevant to my daily life. Specific releases is inside information. If I want a certain feature, I am at the mercy at what products are available or have to wait. And again, reread my previous response to you, manufacturers will always release features in stages. Basic economics.


The manufacturers will - but that isn't the issue under discussion. The relevant point is whether *Dolby* are releasing Atmos in stages, as Dan says, or whether they have released the full 24.1.10 offering, as Sanjay (and I) are saying. And as Dolby themselves said to both of us, independently, on different continents.


----------



## BNestico

Ok guys I have a question about how I'd be able to upgrade my system to atmos without completely reconfiguring parts of my system. As it sits, the surround backs in my current 7.2 system are about 6ft behind me on the ceiling (7.5ft up) and aimed at my ears about 5 ft apart from each other. My surrounds are on stands at about ear level, equidistant from me on each side. Would I be able to turn my 7.2 sytem into a 5.2.4 sytem by adding two ceiling speakers in the appropriate positions (i.e. Slightly in front of the listening position) and leaving my current surround backs where they are? If it does work that way, how will my existing 7 channel movies be played back providing I don't turn on any matrix options on the AVR?


----------



## asoofi1

kbarnes701 said:


> What I am saying is definitely not speculation. It is an almost verbatim report of what two different Dolby employees told me.



Both you and Dan are sharing what you heard. It is all speculation until it becomes reality. Reality is when I can purchase the product with the features I want.


----------



## aaranddeeman

BNestico said:


> Ok guys I have a question about how I'd be able to upgrade my system to atmos without completely reconfiguring parts of my system. As it sits, the surround backs in my current 7.2 system are about 6ft behind me on the ceiling (7.5ft up) and aimed at my ears about 5 ft apart from each other. My surrounds are on stands at about ear level, equidistant from me on each side. Would I be able to turn my 7.2 sytem into a 5.2.4 sytem by adding two ceiling speakers in the appropriate positions (i.e. Slightly in front of the listening position) and leaving my current surround backs where they are? If it does work that way, how will my existing 7 channel movies be played back providing I don't turn on any matrix options on the AVR?


Far as I understood, you will not be able to use your back surrounds for double duty without physically switching the appropriate connections.
To get 5.2.4 for your situation, you will need to give 7.2 and let it be 5.2
But I will let Atmos experts chime-in.


----------



## kbarnes701

BNestico said:


> Ok guys I have a question about how I'd be able to upgrade my system to atmos without completely reconfiguring parts of my system. As it sits, the surround backs in my current 7.2 system are about 6ft behind me on the ceiling (7.5ft up) and aimed at my ears about 5 ft apart from each other. My surrounds are on stands at about ear level, equidistant from me on each side. Would I be able to turn my 7.2 sytem into a 5.2.4 sytem by adding two ceiling speakers in the appropriate positions (i.e. Slightly in front of the listening position) and leaving my current surround backs where they are? If it does work that way, how will my existing 7 channel movies be played back providing I don't turn on any matrix options on the AVR?


You cant use ceiling-mounted rear surrounds and Atmos speakers together. But what you can do is to go for a 5.1.4 system, as you suggest, by adding two overhead speakers at the front and repurposing the current rear surrounds as your rear overhead pair. All you need to do is check that the angles for the rear pair are within spec for Top Rear. This would make for a real easy setup.


----------



## smurraybhm

jsmiddleton4 said:


> I'll not be replacing my movie archives just to hear sand storm noise over head. Others are free to do so as they see fit of course. Me, not going to do so. Went from DVD to Bluray for two reasons. I'd say similar for most folks. Better picture and HD audio. Did make a big difference. The difference from HD Audio to hearing sand storm over head is not improvement enough to justify the hardware and software expense.
> 
> Going forward? Sure. Replacing, nope.


If you think that is only what Atmos is about - overhead sounds - then you haven't been paying attention


----------



## jsmiddleton4

Then please feel free to be amazed.


----------



## ambesolman

bargervais said:


> I would love to compare Accu-EQ to audyssey but this would not be the thread to start this descustion here plus I don't have the science to back up what I hear no way to get or generate any graphs or even how to do it. All I can say is what I hear with this unit compared to my 818 I like.
> There is a whole thread that discusses it
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html
> They are a tough crowd and I wouldn't stand a chance as I have no science to back it up, if what I'm hearing is even correct. All I can say is I like this unit and its sound.



Check out this thread too, archea's room eq/avr comparison. Results and graphs start about post 200.

http://www.avsforum.com/#/forumsite/3207/topics/1717346


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## asoofi1

kbarnes701 said:


> The manufacturers will - but that isn't the issue under discussion. The relevant point is whether *Dolby* are releasing Atmos in stages, as Dan says, or whether they have released the full 24.1.10 offering, as Sanjay (and I) are saying. And as Dolby themselves said to both of us, independently, on different continents.



I think it doesn't matter because the manufacturer will release what they want when they want...and companies have exclusive licensing deals and NDA's all the time, and Dolby is no different. They could have given 24.1.10 to one and less to another...who knows. So if one avr manufacturer can be first to market with a 24.1.10 and pays a premium to Dolby for an exclusive window, they can capture that market segment. Money talks.

And not everyone at the same company will have the same information. People work on different teams and have access to different information.


----------



## Selden Ball

BNestico said:


> Ok guys I have a question about how I'd be able to upgrade my system to atmos without completely reconfiguring parts of my system. As it sits, the surround backs in my current 7.2 system are about 6ft behind me on the ceiling (7.5ft up) and aimed at my ears about 5 ft apart from each other. My surrounds are on stands at about ear level, equidistant from me on each side. Would I be able to turn my 7.2 sytem into a 5.2.4 sytem by adding two ceiling speakers in the appropriate positions (i.e. Slightly in front of the listening position) and leaving my current surround backs where they are? If it does work that way, how will my existing 7 channel movies be played back providing I don't turn on any matrix options on the AVR?


If you add two overhead speakers in front of you as Top Fronts and repurpose your current Rear Surround speakers as Top Rears, then you will have a 5.2.4 speaker configuration. If you do that, I'd suggest moving your current Side Surround speakers more to the rear, if you can, to compensate for no longer having Rear Surround speakers.

With that new speaker configuration, 7.1 soundtracks will be automatically downmixed to 5.1.


----------



## jsmiddleton4

"Very good overhead effects but go directly to the sandstorm scene "

"So now I have an extra Bourne legacy for sale"

Can't imagine how I came up with either issue. I mean really, what was I paying attention to?

My 7.1 system in my home theater is more than enough for my entertainment pleasure. I'm not following the marketing generate more money for the industry lemmings this time.

Please feel free to be amazed, please feel free to make your own choice. I've made mine.

Only reason to update is going to be HDCP 2.2 and being limited in terms of media playback sources by yet one more copy protection scheme.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Did I answer your engineer vs marketing question? Because it seems you've changed your line of questioning in hopes of making a point by chance or randomly picking a cherry.


Line of questioning hasn't changed: do manufacturers have to wait for Dolby to take the next step (9.1.4 rendering) or does the Atmos spec allow manufacturers to do as many outputs as they want? I still don't see what your distraction about marketing departments has to do with the original discussion. The question was where the next step comes from, Dolby or manufacturers, not which department (engineering or marketing) makes that decision.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> So tell us who he is and we can ask him.
> 
> Incidentally, Stephen Auld at Dolby in London isn't a marketing person. He's responsible for the licensing of Atmos to manufacturers - exactly the sort of person who would know.


Then you have one up on me because it was a passing casual conversion. I wasn't going into CEDIA like a reporter, just for my own edification. I should have asked for his card or something, which was very short sighted of me. I should have had some ammunition prepared in advance since there's _always _someone on these forums who would lord one thing or another over someone else or basically call them a liar. 

There seems to be confusion of one sort of another from the various parties we talked to (or that it is _we _who are confused about what was said since neither of us is an insider). I am definitely not saying that what you heard, Keith, was in doubt. And I do know what I heard.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsmiddleton4 said:


> Then please feel free to be amazed.


I do, thanks. You misunderstood the purpose of DSU, which is precisely to avoid you having to replace all your movie archive.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> I think it doesn't matter because the manufacturer will release what they want when they want...and companies have exclusive licensing deals and NDA's all the time, and Dolby is no different. They could have given 24.1.10 to one and less to another...who knows.


So you think they were lying when they said that this was exactly what they had NOT done?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I have never thought that Yamaha will be able to use the positional information provided by their clever mic/system in order to inform the Atmos renderer.


Well, I was hoping. But being able to select which of the 24 arcs the speakers are located in is better than having no placement information at all. Brett Crocker had told me that they would be willing to consider finer granularity in the future should enough consumers/manufacturers want it.


----------



## chi_guy50

BNestico said:


> Ok guys I have a question about how I'd be able to upgrade my system to atmos without completely reconfiguring parts of my system. As it sits, the surround backs in my current 7.2 system are about 6ft behind me on the ceiling (7.5ft up) and aimed at my ears about 5 ft apart from each other. My surrounds are on stands at about ear level, equidistant from me on each side. *Would I be able to turn my 7.2 sytem into a 5.2.4 sytem by adding two ceiling speakers in the appropriate positions (i.e. Slightly in front of the listening position) and leaving my current surround backs where they are?*


Short answer: yes. I'm guesstimating that your current ceiling-mounted SB speakers are probably at around 120 degrees elevation relative to the MLP. Do some measurements and, assuming you don't want to move or replace them, you could designate these speakers as top rears (TR) for which the recommended angular range is 125 to 150 degrees. In this case, you could add a forward top pair as either front height (FH) (30 to 45 degrees) or top front (TF) (30 to 55 degrees).




BNestico said:


> If it does work that way, how will my existing 7 channel movies be played back providing I don't turn on any matrix options on the AVR?


They will be played back as 5.1 unless you can add another pair of SB speakers. However, if you engage the Dolby Surround upmixer, they would be matrixed to the full 5.1.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsmiddleton4 said:


> "Very good overhead effects but go directly to the sandstorm scene "
> 
> "So now I have an extra Bourne legacy for sale"
> 
> Can't imagine how I came up with either issue. I mean really, what was I paying attention to?
> 
> My 7.1 system in my home theater is more than enough for my entertainment pleasure. I'm not following the marketing generate more money for the industry lemmings this time.
> 
> Please feel free to be amazed, please feel free to make your own choice. I've made mine.
> 
> Only reason to update is going to be HDCP 2.2 and being limited in terms of media playback sources by yet one more copy protection scheme.


No reason at all to upgrade if you decide not to, of course. Entirely a personal choice. But to make a good, informed decision requires an understanding of the facts. And your post revealed two misunderstandings: one was that Atmos is all about 'sand storm over the head' type effects and the other was that you would need to replace your movie archive. Both of these are incorrect, so if they are the reasons you are not upgrading, then you are making a decision based on less than good information.

I was not at all amazed that you might not want to upgrade to Atmos, nor was it what I said. What amazed me was that, if you have read this thread in any sort of depth, that you would have such misconceptions.


----------



## jsmiddleton4

I guess a list of sources that take advantage of Dolby Atmos is pointless then. Let Dolby know. They seem to be wasting a lot of time compiling the list.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


"In the cinema, at home, and on the go, Dolby Atmos transports you from an ordinary moment into an extraordinary experience with breathtaking, multidimensional sound that flows all around you."

I coulda sworn that was the same justification for Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master.....

But then again I'm so don't pay attention.

Enjoy spending your money on yet one more technology and sources. Really, enjoy. I'm not and I bet I'm not the only one.....

Until that stupid HDCP 2.2 gets up and running so we'll have no choice if we want to playback some media options.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then you have one up on me because it was a passing casual conversion. I wasn't going into CEDIA like a reporter, just for my own edification. I should have asked for his card or something, which was very short sighted of me. I should have had some ammunition prepared in advance since there's _always _someone on these forums who would lord one thing or another over someone else or basically call them a liar.
> 
> There seems to be confusion of one sort of another from the various parties we talked to (or that it is _we _who are confused about what was said since neither of us is an insider). I am definitely not saying that what you heard, Keith, was in doubt. And I do know what I heard.


As the two positions are diametrically opposed, they can't both be right. I am certain that what I heard was correct and have also named the two individuals at Dolby who confirmed it. This, to me, seems to trump a single, anonymous source whom we are unable to contact to elicit further information. I’ll leave it at that


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Well, I was hoping. But being able to select which of the 24 arcs the speakers are located in is better than having no placement information at all. Brett Crocker had told me that they would be willing to consider finer granularity in the future should enough consumers/manufacturers want it.


I'd love to see it too. I was initially disappointed, as you were, that positional information was not gathered and used. Or even measured and input.


----------



## BNestico

Thanks for all the responses. is there an option when setting up Atmost that would allow me to change my system to a 7.2.2 system rather than 5.2.4?


----------



## jsmiddleton4

So the only reason I disagree with you and the need to pursue Atmos is I didn't pay attention? Really? Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand what I'm reading?

Or there is a third option. My position has some merit. And it does. Which means some of this stuff about Dolby Atmos for the typical home theater is just marketing phooey.

Which it is.

Which means folks who are defending it, have fallen for the marketing baloney.

But again that's just the opinion of someone who isn't paying attention. Right?


----------



## sdurani

jsmiddleton4 said:


> My 7.1 system in my home theater is more than enough for my entertainment pleasure. I'm not following the marketing generate more money for the industry lemmings this time.


Then why are you even participating in this discussion? To inform everyone that you're happy with your system? To convince others to not try object-based audio?


----------



## LowellG

jsmiddleton4 said:


> So the only reason I disagree with you and the need to pursue Atmos is I didn't pay attention? Really? Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand what I'm reading?
> 
> Or there is a third option. My position has some merit. And it does. Which means some of this stuff about Dolby Atmos for the typical home theater is just marketing phooey.
> 
> Which it is.
> 
> Which means folks who are defending it, have fallen for the marketing baloney.
> 
> But again that's just the opinion of someone who isn't paying attention. Right?


I haven't adopted yet and am hopefully waiting for more DTS MDA info to be announced at CES. To tell everybody it's marketing phooey though is just phooey. It does add a new dimension and sounds pretty cool. The questions right now are the cost benefit ratio and long term viability. The bottom line is it's not exactly practical, even with Dolby enabled speakers, but your argument is weak. If you don't like something either come of with some valid points or move on.


----------



## Gurba

jsmiddleton4 said:


> So the only reason I disagree with you and the need to pursue Atmos is I didn't pay attention? Really? Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand what I'm reading?
> 
> Or there is a third option. My position has some merit. And it does. Which means some of this stuff about Dolby Atmos for the typical home theater is just marketing phooey.
> 
> Which it is.
> 
> Which means folks who are defending it, have fallen for the marketing baloney.
> 
> But again that's just the opinion of someone who isn't paying attention. Right?


If you're so completely against Atmos why are you even participating in this thread? I'm sure none of those who are interested in Atmos are interested in Your negative comments. You are obviously happy With what you have and have no interest in upgrading to Atmos just leave it at that.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> As the two positions are diametrically opposed, they can't both be right. I am certain that what I heard was correct and have also named the two individuals at Dolby who confirmed it. This, to me, seems to trump a single, anonymous source whom we are unable to contact to elicit further information. I’ll leave it at that


You're incorrigible, Keith.

I riffled through my CEDIA grab bag as I knew I wasn't dumb enough to leave without getting at least one business card. It wasn't the gentleman I talked to about future rendering blocks, but it was David Fischer, the director of home theater engineering. I'm going to see if I can get some sort of clarification. He seemed like a pretty nice bloke, so hopefully he'll get back to me.


----------



## bargervais

Gurba said:


> If you're so completely against Atmos why are you even participating in this thread? I'm sure none of those who are interested in Atmos are interested in Your negative comments. You are obviously happy With what you have and have no interest in upgrading to Atmos just leave it at that.


People eager to adopt new technology will jump right in and love it, and then there are those people who look for every excuse by only seeing the negative to justify not adopting
Atmos is more then over head action way way more it's more enveloping... it's the same stuff people said about 3D.... gimmicky effects is what people though they should see but it was and still is more it's the depth of the 3D that's the key..
Same with atmos it's the depth and envelope of sound that makes it so wonderfull..
If people are in the position to update there gear DSU in itself is way worth the admission. I'm glad that I was in position to be able to upgrade to Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

Gurba said:


> If you're so completely against Atmos why are you even participating in this thread? *I'm sure none of those who are interested in Atmos are interested in Your negative comments.* You are obviously happy With what you have and have no interest in upgrading to Atmos just leave it at that.


I disagree. I would hope that there is acceptance in this forum for opposing viewpoints. (After all, there's little to be gained from preaching to the choir.) Even when less than well argued or lacking in justification, they can sometimes provoke a thoughtful discussion and even prove edifying. And, besides being entitled to his own opinion, what OP has posted is not entirely without merit.

In this instance, I would suggest that OP reexamine his dismissive evaluation of the merits of Atmos with the seemingly excessive importance he assigns to full HDCP 2.2 capabilities. If he would spend some time reading the informed discussions of both issues in just this one thread he just might find reason to temper his attitude toward both. Or not--it's all the same to me.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> Line of questioning hasn't changed: do manufacturers have to wait for Dolby to take the next step (9.1.4 rendering) or does the Atmos spec allow manufacturers to do as many outputs as they want? I still don't see what your distraction about marketing departments has to do with the original discussion. The question was where the next step comes from, Dolby or manufacturers, not which department (engineering or marketing) makes that decision.


Then why did you ask for further clarification on whether marketing dictates engineering? How is it a distraction if my answer was that marketing will dictate the release of what's next? Dolby has stated 24.1.10 has been available to manufactureres. 'Available' can mean many things...as an option, licenses, higher pricing, etc...Again I said, and again, manufacturers will release features in iterations...and again, this is marketing and economics 101. Reread my posts in order to put things in perspective. You're distracting yourself by not keeping things in context when cherry picking someone's posts. I can't believe you're not exhausted of going in a circle and making others do the same.

Go enjoy the atmos you have. Upgrade it when someone releases an official new version. Stop worrying so much about hearsay.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asoofi1 said:


> Then why did you ask for further clarification on whether marketing dictates engineering? How is it a distraction if my answer was that marketing will dictate the release of what's next? Dolby has stated 24.1.10 has been available to manufactureres. 'Available' can mean many things...as an option, licenses, higher pricing, etc...Again I said, and again, manufacturers will release features in iterations...and again, this is marketing and economics 101. Reread my posts in order to put things in perspective. You're distracting yourself by not keeping things in context when cherry picking someone's posts. I can't believe you're not exhausted of going in a circle and making others do the same.
> 
> Go enjoy the atmos you have. Upgrade it when someone releases an official new version. Stop worrying so much about hearsay.


I've sent correspondence, as I mentioned to Keith, to David Fischer of Dolby for expansion and clarification of some of these bones of contention since I did find his business card at least. I got an auto response that he will be out of the office until the 21st. Hopefully, I will receive a reply and will post it as soon as I get it.


----------



## asoofi1

kbarnes701 said:


> So you think they were lying when they said that this was exactly what they had NOT done?


I'm not saying anyone is lying necessarily. It just doesn't make a difference in our lives until we can actually go out and get it. It's all speculation and gossip until then. And great PR. Reps are always prepped with memos on what they can and can't say...even fluff or leaks...and sometimes they insert their own perspectives as facts. Again, we aren't behind the closed door meetings of the powers that be, so let's just wait and see when new product information is actually released.

Trust but verify my friend.


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> I disagree. I would hope that there is acceptance in this forum for opposing viewpoints. (After all, there's little to be gained from preaching to the choir.) Even when less than well argued or lacking in justification, they can sometimes provoke a thoughtful discussion and even prove edifying. And, besides being entitled to his own opinion, what OP has posted is not entirely without merit.
> 
> In this instance, I would suggest that OP reexamine his dismissive evaluation of the merits of Atmos with the seemingly excessive importance he assigns to full HDCP 2.2 capabilities. If he would spend some time reading the informed discussions of both issues in just this one thread he just might find reason to temper his attitude toward both. Or not--it's all the same to me.


I agree but this is a thread about atoms to help people who are interested in adopting.. how to set things up if anyone has ISSUES with how they should place speaker's etc...what's coming we are not the choir we are sharing what has interested us. This is not a thread about to adopt it or not to adopt it. we are all sharing our experience and how to improve on what we are doing..


----------



## dschulz

I think Keith and Dan are both right in a way. There is only one "version" of Atmos, which scales up to 24.1.10. And for those companies running the Atmos software package in full, on an Intel platform, (Trinnov) they can scale to that full implementation.

Most manufacturers, however, use DSPs, which are themselves manufactured by a third party (Analog Devices, Cirrus Logic, etc.) What's important to remember is that when we say the implementation of Atmos is up to the manufacturers, we are speaking as much of the DSP suppliers as the AVR/Pre-Pro manufacturers. 

The first DSPs to market topped out at 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. This is a limitation of the DSP implementation, not the Dolby code. Presumably the DSP manufacturers are now hard at work on expanding that channel count. I would imagine that Dolby is assisting in that effort, which would explain Dan's report from CEDIA.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsmiddleton4 said:


> I guess a list of sources that take advantage of Dolby Atmos is pointless then. Let Dolby know. They seem to be wasting a lot of time compiling the list.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html
> 
> 
> "In the cinema, at home, and on the go, Dolby Atmos transports you from an ordinary moment into an extraordinary experience with breathtaking, multidimensional sound that flows all around you."
> 
> I coulda sworn that was the same justification for Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master.....
> 
> But then again I'm so don't pay attention.
> 
> Enjoy spending your money on yet one more technology and sources. Really, enjoy. I'm not and I bet I'm not the only one.....
> 
> Until that stupid HDCP 2.2 gets up and running so we'll have no choice if we want to playback some media options.


As I said, it's entirely an individual choice. But you are basing yours on all sorts of misconceptions.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsmiddleton4 said:


> So the only reason I disagree with you and the need to pursue Atmos is I didn't pay attention? Really? Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand what I'm reading?


Well, you didn’t seem to understand the point about his getting an additional copy of The Bourne Legacy. It was because he has bought a box set of all 4 movies, so his original copy is now duplicated. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Atmos. I suggest you do some more reading about the topic.


----------



## J_P_A

I hope this hasn't been beat to death, but I'm finalizing my speaker layout for my dedicated theater and I'm hoping for some guidance on the overhead ATMOS speaker placement. My theater will have two rows (plus a back bar). Have any recommendations been made with regard to overhead speaker placement when two rows are being used? Also, is the DOLBY Installation Guidelines linked to in the first post the most recent set of recommendations?

As always, thanks for the info! I'm sure it's in the thread, but I can't keep up with you guys here


----------



## kbarnes701

jsmiddleton4 said:


> So the only reason I disagree with you and the need to pursue Atmos is I didn't pay attention? Really? Or maybe I'm too stupid to understand what I'm reading?
> 
> Or there is a third option. My position has some merit. And it does. Which means some of this stuff about Dolby Atmos for the typical home theater is just marketing phooey.
> 
> Which it is.
> 
> Which means folks who are defending it, have fallen for the marketing baloney.
> 
> But again that's just the opinion of someone who isn't paying attention. Right?


Pretty much, yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Then why are you even participating in this discussion? To inform everyone that you're happy with your system? To convince others to not try object-based audio?


I've come to the conclusion that it's the T word...


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're incorrigible, Keith.
> 
> I riffled through my CEDIA grab bag as I knew I wasn't dumb enough to leave without getting at least one business card. It wasn't the gentleman I talked to about future rendering blocks, but it was David Fischer, the director of home theater engineering. I'm going to see if I can get some sort of clarification. He seemed like a pretty nice bloke, so hopefully he'll get back to me.


Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere... 

EDIT: Oh, I misread... so this won’t be the guy who asserted that Dolby haven't released 24.1.10 to all manufacturers but are instead releasing it 'in parts', different versions to different manufacturers depending on their present hardware capabilities? How will it help to ask someone else what the anonymous guy said?


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> I agree but this is a thread about atoms to help people who are interested in adopting.. how to set things up if anyone has ISSUES with how they should place speaker's etc...what's coming we are not the choir we are sharing what has interested us. This is not a thread about to adopt it or not to adopt it. we are all sharing our experience and how to improve on what we are doing..


Remember, this is an open forum and there are probably as many different reasons for participating as there are posters and lurkers. You and I are eager, unremorseful first adopters, but there is still much to learn, and therefore anything that provokes a thoughtful discussion can be helpful.

Besides, there are undoubtedly plenty of users who come here with questions about whether they should consider an upgrade to Atmos. Some of them may even suspect, as OP apparently does, that it's nothing more than over-hyped marketing. Responding to this point by showing in a few words why this is untrue (as Keith has attempted) can be helpful, at least to them. It's a community and the more people we help, the richer the community.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I disagree. I would hope that there is acceptance in this forum for opposing viewpoints. (After all, there's little to be gained from preaching to the choir.) Even when less than well argued or lacking in justification, they can sometimes provoke a thoughtful discussion and even prove edifying. And, besides being entitled to his own opinion, what OP has posted is not entirely without merit.


The main problem is that the comments are uninformed, fail to measure up to objective reality and based on misconceptions which, even when pointed out, the poster refuses to acknowledge.



chi_guy50 said:


> In this instance, I would suggest that OP reexamine his dismissive evaluation of the merits of Atmos with the seemingly excessive importance he assigns to full HDCP 2.2 capabilities. If he would spend some time reading the informed discussions of both issues in just this one thread he just might find reason to temper his attitude toward both. Or not--it's all the same to me.


Quite. But I doubt we will see any forward progress there


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> I'm not saying anyone is lying necessarily. It just doesn't make a difference in our lives until we can actually go out and get it. It's all speculation and gossip until then. And great PR. Reps are always prepped with memos on what they can and can't say...even fluff or leaks...and sometimes they insert their own perspectives as facts. Again, we aren't behind the closed door meetings of the powers that be, so let's just wait and see when new product information is actually released.
> 
> Trust but verify my friend.


I did verify. So did Sanjay. We both asked respected members of Dolby's Atmos team. We both received the same answer. Either what they told us was the truth or it was not. I choose to believe the former.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> It really doesn't seem to matter what I say about needing to adjust consumer Atmos to the product it's being put into. You seemed to ignore what Mr. Dressler talked about a few posts back of how coding might need to be tweaked depending on various format applications.
> 
> It also really doesn't matter to me if you believe that Dolby is working on a 9.1.4 (and possibly a 9.1.6) rendering block for use in mainstream receivers and pre-amps.
> 
> Nothing of these games of semantics really matters in the grand scheme as long as the damn format works and that it gets expanded upon and improved in the near future and into products that aren't the price of a car... and then shows up on more than a handful of discs. Those are the only things I care about.


Exact same here.


----------



## NorthSky

JKR1963 said:


> Both are shown as available on the Future Shop website.......the 1030 is $1999. and the 3030 is $2699. I consider the 3030 to be a downgrade in the power dept, room correction and the remote vs. my old 3009. The only thing that is good is the Atmos.........too bad there is no 5009 equivalent with the nice lighted remote and XT32.......with the 11 amp channels and Atmos. I would likely get interested as my 3009 has been awesome (no HDMI Board Failure yet! and no outboard amps need apply).
> 
> 
> Also, I forgot.....this Onkyo that I wish existed.....would have to have a full HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 implementation......for 4K Blu ray (and of course these HDMI Boards are not a current feature this year).


I guess like I you are also a Canadian. ...And those prices from FS are outrageous; total rip off! 
My own personal view. ...They, and Onkyo, are not going to get my money, no way.


----------



## RRF743

J_P_A said:


> I hope this hasn't been beat to death, but I'm finalizing my speaker layout for my dedicated theater and I'm hoping for some guidance on the overhead ATMOS speaker placement. My theater will have two rows (plus a back bar). Have any recommendations been made with regard to overhead speaker placement when two rows are being used? Also, is the DOLBY Installation Guidelines linked to in the first post the most recent set of recommendations?
> 
> As always, thanks for the info! I'm sure it's in the thread, but I can't keep up with you guys here


 I have two rows of three seats. I may be able to help with your question. If you don't mind can you tell me your room dimensions and how far apart your seating positions will be? Measure the space between the head of the person sitting in the first row to the head of the person sitting in the second row.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

J_P_A said:


> I hope this hasn't been beat to death, but I'm finalizing my speaker layout for my dedicated theater and I'm hoping for some guidance on the overhead ATMOS speaker placement.


What lay out do you plan to use (5.1.2, 7.1.4, etc.)?

What is the percentage of time you will use both rows? If it is a large percentage of the time then you may want to use the midway point between the rows as your reference point when using the Dolby recommended speaker layout. If the second row is used a small percentage of the time then I would use the first row as the reference.


----------



## Steve Goff

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's _exactly_ what I think is happening. The engineers have a full blown, super-duper 24.1.10 home renderer that can be used at the whim of the manufacturers. _However_, no regular consumer electronics company is implementing the complete set of Atmos features, only the cost-is-no-object ultra high end, and because the "mainstreams" are using stripped down, "wimpy" integrated DSP chips (by comparison) from Cirrus Logic and TI and Analog Devices, etc. Dolby had to tweak or create separate stripped down rendering blocks for those devices. That has to be why the engineer, who mentioned _he_ was working on a 9.1.4 block (why would he say that unless he was part of that team?), is having to create a separate version of Atmos rendering and it isn't already available for use... again, only to the high end.
> 
> People have to put two and two together. This isn't rocket science.



It could as easily be that manufacturers couldn't come up with the space and budget to put more main channels in their products. For example, the AV7702 leaves some of its main channel DACs unused, perhaps because they didn't want to spend the extra money for DAC filters and HDAM circuits (each using 24 transistors) and couldn't easily find space on the back panel for more connectors or the boards for more circuits. Price points and development time may drive these decisions as much as anything. It seems very unlikely to me that they are waiting for Dolby to deliver something new.

And as others have pointed out Roger Dressler labeled his statement as pure speculation.


----------



## J_P_A

RRF743 said:


> I have two rows of three seats. I may be able to help with your question. If you don't mind can you tell me your room dimensions and how far apart your seating positions will be? Measure the space between the head of the person sitting in the first row to the head of the person sitting in the second row.


Awesome! Room dimensions are approximately 30'L x 18.5'W x 8.75' tall. Front row head to second row head is about 83". Front row eyes to screen is just over 12'.

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere...
> 
> EDIT: Oh, I misread... so this won’t be the guy who asserted that Dolby haven't released 24.1.10 to all manufacturers but are instead releasing it 'in parts', different versions to different manufacturers depending on their present hardware capabilities? How will it help to ask someone else what the anonymous guy said?


Well, let's say for the sake of argument I did talk with one of the engineering team. His boss or department head would more than likely be David (unless he's now misrepresenting what's typed on his card). Wouldn't this guy's boss be in the know as well?


----------



## J_P_A

Wendell R. Breland said:


> What lay out do you plan to use (5.1.2, 7.1.4, etc.)?
> 
> What is the percentage of time you will use both rows? If it is a large percentage of the time then you may want to use the midway point between the rows as your reference point when using the Dolby recommended speaker layout. If the second row is used a small percentage of the time then I would use the first row as the reference.


I would like to install at least four overheads, and I'm wiring for 7.1. Front row will be used the majority of the time with the second row being used when we have guests over for a movie. I'm most concerned about the front row, but if there's a way to get good results for both, then that would be great!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steve Goff said:


> It could as easily be that manufacturers couldn't come up with the space and budget to put more main channels in their products. For example, the AV7702 leaves some of its main channel DACs unused, perhaps because they didn't want to spend the extra money for DAC filters and HDAM circuits (each using 24 transistors) and couldn't easily find space on the back panel for more connectors or the boards for more circuits. Price points and development time may drive these decisions as much as anything. It seems very unlikely to me that they are waiting for Dolby to deliver something new.
> 
> And as others have pointed out Roger Dressler labeled his statement as pure speculation.


Or they're getting help from Dolby in order to deliver something new.


----------



## kokishin

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, let's say for the sake of argument I did talk with one of the engineering team. His boss or department head would more than likely be David (unless he's now misrepresenting what's typed on his card). Wouldn't this guy's boss be in the know as well?


Until you get confirmation from David Fischer, why don't you give it a rest?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, let's say for the sake of argument I did talk with one of the engineering team. His boss or department head would more than likely be David (unless he's now misrepresenting what's typed on his card). Wouldn't this guy's boss be in the know as well?


He might be. But he won't know what the guy said to you. See, if he told you what you say he did (and I have no reason to doubt you) he was wrong. But his boss might be able to clear it up for you. I've already done the same exercise: I asked (paraphrase) _"Do all AVR manufacturers get the same version of Atmos?"_ And the answer was (paraphrase): _"Yes. They all get 24.1.10 but how much of it they use is up to the individual manufacturer."_ Seems Sanjay asked the same sort of question and got the same sort of reply too.


----------



## RRF743

J_P_A said:


> Awesome! Room dimensions are approximately 30'L x 18.5'W x 8.75' tall. Front row head to second row head is about 83". Front row eyes to screen is just over 12'.
> 
> Thanks!


One more question... Are your BACK SURROUNDS on the back wall?( 30' from the Screen?)


----------



## J_P_A

RRF743 said:


> One more question... Are your BACK SURROUNDS on the back wall?( 30' from the Screen?)


Yes. They are at about 160 degrees with respect to the front row MLP. That's the best I could do due to the location of the door into the room.


----------



## asoofi1

kbarnes701 said:


> I did verify. So did Sanjay. We both asked respected members of Dolby's Atmos team. We both received the same answer. Either what they told us was the truth or it was not. I choose to believe the former.


With all due respect, that's all hearsay. Not verification.
It doesn't mean it's not going to be true, it just hasn't been verified.
When something officially written or announced is released to the public, that is verification.
You heard something from someone who works at Dolby...great. I believe you did.
Nothing wrong with believing what they told you. Heck, I believe most people on here.
When we can put our hands on new toys with all the features we want, we'll all be happy.

Personally, I think Dolby did make 24.1.10 available to everyone, per the Dolby documentation I've read...but under what conditions is anyone's guess. If they all have equal access, then it's just a matter of economics dictating how the manufacturers choose to release Atmos features.


----------



## Steve Goff

Dan Hitchman said:


> Or they're getting help from Dolby in order to deliver something new.



Not where I'd place my bet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steve Goff said:


> Not where I'd place my bet.


That is your prerogative to do so.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> With all due respect, that's all hearsay. Not verification.


Oh really. What do you expect me to do? Demand that Dolby let me into their R&D facilty to see it for myself. Asking two senior Dolby guys for a simple answer to a simple question is as good as anyone will ever get for 'verification'.



asoofi1 said:


> It doesn't mean it's not going to be true, it just hasn't been verified.


So you do think they were lying then? How extraordinary. You’d prefer to believe that two Dolby people would lie about the Atmos implementation, for no reason, than to believe what they said?



asoofi1 said:


> When something officially written or announced is released to the public, that is verification.


Well, it's up to you what you believe I guess.



asoofi1 said:


> You heard something from someone who works at Dolby...great. I believe you did.


Trying to trivialise it in that way makes no difference. It was a direct question, with a direct answer, from two senior employees, in front of senior industry representatives and journalists. At least I can name the guys in question.



asoofi1 said:


> Nothing wrong with believing what they told you. Heck, I believe most people on here.
> When we can put our hands on new toys with all the features we want, we'll all be happy.


I'm happy right now - did I give the impression I wasn't?


----------



## Mr. Tao

kokishin said:


> Most concise and thorough explanation I have seen to date. Thank you.


Thanks, I second that.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Then why did you ask for further clarification on whether marketing dictates engineering?


Because you introduced the marketing department into the discussion and I couldn't figure out why.


----------



## asoofi1

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh really. What do you expect me to do? Demand that Dolby let me into their R&D facilty to see it for myself. Asking two senior Dolby guys for a simple answer to a simple question is as good as anyone will ever get for 'verification'.


I never questioned if it's true or not. I'm just being objective. I have no horse in this race.



kbarnes701 said:


> So you do think they were lying then? How extraordinary. You’d prefer to believe that two Dolby people would lie about the Atmos implementation, for no reason, than to believe what they said?


You're putting words in my mouth. Again, I never said they are lying. You keep trying to make it as if I did. That's even more extraordinary.



kbarnes701 said:


> Well, it's up to you what you believe I guess.
> Trying to trivialise it in that way makes no difference. It was a direct question, with a direct answer, from two senior employees, in front of senior industry representatives and journalists. At least I can name the guys in question.


I'm not trivializing anything. I'm glad you got some information from them that you shared with all of us. We are all very grateful.



kbarnes701 said:


> I'm happy right now - did I give the impression I wasn't?


As argumentative as you're being, one can't be too sure


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> Because you introduced the marketing department into the discussion and I couldn't figure out why.


Just reread my full posts...and try quoting them entirely for sake of clarity & comprehension for everyone.


----------



## RRF743

J_P_A said:


> Yes. They are at about 160 degrees with respect to the front row MLP. That's the best I could do due to the location of the door into the room.


None of the atmos diagrams that I FOUND online showed speaker positioning for 2 rows of seats. So I consulted my local Magnolia salesman and he wasn't 100% sure where to place them. I asked if I should do 2 sets of .4 ceiling speakers(8 total speakers). He consulted with Dolby about this at their next conference call meeting and was told to do just 4 speakers. My room is 24' x 14' x 8'. I have 69" between heads of 1st row and 2nd row. You have 14" more than I. I WOULD CONFIRM THIS WITH DOLBY OR SOMEONE WHO CAN CONTACT DOLBY... but you might be able to do two sets of ceilings by splitting those four channels. My TFs' are 36" forward of my front row MLP(this doesn't include width) and the TRs' are 48" from the front row MLP. I had a tress in the way so I couldn't get them perfectly even. If you go this route I would put the first row TRs' slightly more forward about 24" away from MLP. As far as your 2nd set of ceiling speakers, I would put the TFs' 24" forward of your MLP of the second row. The sound levels might have to be turned down a little lower. The idea of all of this is to keep the 1st set of ceiling speaker's sound from interfering with the 2nd set and vice versa. You could experiment with this but it would take a lot of small temporarily mounted book shelf speakers or something similar. Hence I wouldn't want to cut out 8 holes and find out it doesn't work(sound)properly. My TRs' are slightly in front of my 2nd row. I must say the front seats sound better than the rears do to the proper positioning of the ceiling speakers. That's mainly where I sit. But the back seats don't sound bad. To me, sitting in the rear is still enhanced vs. the tradition 7.1 set up I had prior. If I had a little more spacing as you do, I would try it. Again, try to confirm this with Dolby. Hope I was of some help. Let me know if you have any other questions. I'll do my best to answer.


----------



## pasender91

Steve Goff said:


> It could as easily be that manufacturers couldn't come up with the space and budget to put more main channels in their products. For example, the AV7702 leaves some of its main channel DACs unused, perhaps because they didn't want to spend the extra money for DAC filters and HDAM circuits (each using 24 transistors) and couldn't easily find space on the back panel for more connectors or the boards for more circuits. Price points and development time may drive these decisions as much as anything. It seems very unlikely to me that they are waiting for Dolby to deliver something new.
> 
> And as others have pointed out Roger Dressler labeled his statement as pure speculation.


I believe Steve has a point.

Whether or not the mainstream manufacturers have access to 24.x.10, it does not really matter to them, for 2 main reasons:
- Not sure they wish to put on the market a 24.x.10 device, this would be too expensive for consumer market and a very small niche, in other words why would Yamaha or Denon try to compete with Trinnov?
- How do you fit 34 amps into an AVR. Obviously you can't so the only sensible way is to build a PrePro.
- Then how do you connect 34 amps to it? XLR or RCA is not an option, not enough space. So they would do like Trinnov or Datasat do, use DB25 to output the signal, but this is again a whole new territory to the mainstream vendors.
This leads me to believe we are very far away from 24.x.10 "démocratisation", and we should consider ourselves happy if we see 9.1.6 next year. 

Another funny point, the high-end systems rely on DB25 to output the signal, this is the interface we used to connect printers to PCs in the 80s !!! 
Isn't there any other analog connector that could be better than that ?


----------



## HTinParadise

asoofi1 said:


> I never questioned if it's true or not. I'm just being objective. I have no horse in this race.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting words in my mouth. Again, I never said they are lying. You keep trying to make it as if I did. That's even more extraordinary.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trivializing anything. I'm glad you got some information from them that you shared with all of us. We are all very grateful.
> 
> 
> 
> As argumentative as you're being, one can't be too sure



Seriously, I can vouch for KB, he is most happy whilst arguing.

Regards,
HTinP


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> Room dimensions are approximately 30'L x 18.5'W x 8.75' tall. Front row head to second row head is about 83".


How high off the floor are the listeners' ears in the front row and second row (I'm guessing second row is on a riser)? The Top Front speakers and Top Rear speakers each have a 25 degree range. It might be possible to find overhead locations that would be within those ranges for both rows. Also, are you planning on using in-ceiling speakers or on-ceiling speakers (hanging down from point-able speaker mounts)?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's _exactly_ what I think is happening. The engineers have a full blown, super-duper 24.1.10 home renderer that can be used at the whim of the manufacturers. _However_, no regular consumer electronics company is implementing the complete set of Atmos features, only the cost-is-no-object ultra high end, and because the "mainstreams" are using stripped down, "wimpy" integrated DSP chips (by comparison) from Cirrus Logic and TI and Analog Devices, etc. Dolby had to tweak or create separate stripped down rendering blocks for those devices. That has to be why the engineer, who mentioned _he_ was working on a 9.1.4 block (why would he say that unless he was part of that team?), is having to create a separate version of Atmos rendering and it isn't already available for use... again, only to the high end.
> 
> People have to put two and two together. This isn't rocket science.


Here you go; the final and true answer: As DSP chips get more and more powerful and more cost efficient, our AV receivers and SSPs will implement them. And they'll be available for the masses (high fidelity people) @ affordable common mortal prices.

And the Ultra High-End market will get closer and closer to the High-End market. 

With time the differences between them classes will simply disappear; sound wise.
The only main differences will be in the front face (thick aluminum billet), and in the hand-picked top quality parts inside the ultra high-end products.

But performance wise (stereo sound and surround audio decoding and processing/upmixing, and video processing) will compete between products costing say $2,000 and others costing $20,000 roughly.
That difference in sound might be perhaps 1 or 2 or 5% at most. ...Mainly for music listening, and for movies it won't make much difference.

It is up to the ultra high-end market to keep up with luring the high-heeled/hend clientele. 
...Like gold trims, silver wiring inside, triple circuit board with high purity copper and silver contacts, top DACs (hand-picked too), top op-amps, top transistors, top capacitors, etc.

@ home right now (normal size living room: say 16' by 13' by 8'), an Atmos/Auro-3D set up of 7.1.4 is truly a top-notch surround sound system; eleven (11) satellite speakers and two subwoofers.

In a dedicated and acoustically treated home theater room (say 30' by 18' by 11'), then a full TRINNOV or Datasat ultra high-end surround sound system (Atmos/Auro/UHD from dts), is what this particular clientele requires for a full blown experience in their awesome room which has been metamorphosed financially and acoustically to accomodate an ultra high-end setup of high pedigree. ...Say an 11.4.8 setup; nineteen (19) main satellite speakers, and four subwoofers.

@ the end it's all about DSP chips (more, or less but more powerful @ storing and processing), and room's size, and access to a good supply of money (bank account size). 

Ultra high-end will never die, and high fidelity stereo sound will always exist and improve.

Main thing is this: It is up to the music recording studios and the movie recording studios with the music and film recording/mixing engineers to come up with better and smarter sound mixes. 
Because those are not all created equal, and in this business (our audio/video hobby) time is money.
...Like in any other business.

Art is a luxury that is more or less affordable, depending of where you coming from, and the timing.


----------



## mtbdudex

I'm active here at AVS but not so much this thread.
Nearly 14,000 posts in this thread, so is "the team" summarizing best practices in FAQ to keep the repeat question minimized and help efficiency? 
Every time I check this thread out I see a lot of repeat Q's.

As someone who jumped into audio up-converting in 2012, I'm at 11.3 NeoX with wides/fronts, I can truly imagine the audio psychoacoustic benefits of the Dolby Surround algorithm.
Every time I am in the basement HT I'm still blown away by NeoX.
I'll dive into Atmos/object sound in mid-2016.

So it's more than "Marketing", it's a way to envelope and immersive the true HT hobbyist into audio.

If you are happy and satisfied with your 5.1 or 7.1 set-up, good for you.
Stick with that and enjoy.

If you are a hobbyist, or starting a new HT, then it's prudent to consider Atmos.

Btw, I use my basement HT 3-4 times a week for movies, sometimes more.



Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Just reread my full posts...and try quoting them entirely for sake of clarity & comprehension for everyone.


"Everyone" can read your original posts for themselves. My quoting them won't change their "clarity". Besides, just because I couldn't figure out why you brought marketing departments into this discussion doesn't mean "everyone" couldn't as well.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> "Everyone" can read your original posts for themselves. My quoting them won't change their "clarity". Besides, just because I couldn't figure out why you brought marketing departments into this discussion doesn't mean "everyone" couldn't as well.


Actually it keeps things in context. It's not a good idea to quote one line, and leave out the rest that provides an explanation. Repeatedly. Then ask a question that was already answered in what you omitted. Someone might misinterpret this as trolling.

Let me know if you or anyone else is still confused about my marketing remarks...I can link back to the posts if you have any trouble. Be happy to help


----------



## NorthSky

> I agree but this is a thread about atoms to help people who are interested in adopting.. how to set things up if anyone has ISSUES with how they should place speaker's etc...what's coming we are not the choir we are sharing what has interested us. This is not a thread about to adopt it or not to adopt it. we are all sharing our experience and how to improve on what we are doing..


It's a forum, a discussion, an open conversation, a many opinions, the official Dolby Atmos thread, where everything scientific (objective) and technical and non-scientific (subjective) and non-technical applications and theories and future developments (logical and material and assumption), a helping hand @ setup, in various rooms, various configurations, with different gear (receiver, SSP, speakers), some more or less appropriate ceilings, overhead speakers, ceiling directed reflections from floor speakers atop the main four corner ones, or nearby, it's in all open public sum of ideas and official papers (Dolby Atmos pdf), where ALL opinions are welcome, even the ones that we totally disagree with and the ones that we fully agree with. 

It's a place to discuss the content of many many ideas with the latest and newest developments in the now here, as compared to yesterday, and as to what's coming up tomorrow. It's not @ all about people (posters), it's about the content of their posts with all their agreements and objections. 
It is a place of respect for all ideas. ...All atoms and particle objects in space.


----------



## RRF743

Dan Hitchman said:


> Or they're getting help from Dolby in order to deliver something new.


Here's a great idea guys! Or just I big dream on my part. Let me know what you think. With all the talk about 9.2.4 and 9.2.6... what if manufacturers came out with a small device, say 17" x 2" x a few inches deep that can go between our bluray players and receivers/pre pros that can decode those few extra atmos channels at a much cheaper price(say $200)rather than forcing us to pay for a whole new receiver/pre pro to get the extra sound. The receiver might need a firmware update. I think this would make a lot of us home theater fans happy. Or is this even possible with the current chips in our atmos receivers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RRF743 said:


> Here's a great idea guys! Or just I big dream on my part. Let me know what you think. With all the talk about 9.2.4 and 9.2.6... what if manufacturers came out with a small device, say 17" x 2" x a few inches deep that can go between our bluray players and receivers/pre pros that can decode those few extra atmos channels at a much cheaper price(say $200)rather than forcing us to pay for a whole new receiver/pre pro to get the extra sound. The receiver might need a firmware update. I think this would make a lot of us home theater fans happy. Or is this even possible with the current chips in our atmos receivers?


I have no idea if that's even possible. 

I have, however, always advocated for an expandable/modular approach to 3D audio products where you can add-on a smaller data-linked unit (with more outputs and more DAC's) that will plug into the main console (receiver or pre-amp), so you can add on more speakers as needed. However, the main unit's renderer would need to be a more sophisticated design to begin with.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

J_P_A said:


> I would like to install at least four overheads, and I'm wiring for 7.1. Front row will be used the majority of the time with the second row being used when we have guests over for a movie. I'm most concerned about the front row, but if there's a way to get good results for both, then that would be great!


I have a 7.1 setup and intend to have a 7.1.4 sometime in the near future using 4 ceiling mounted speakers. I too have two rows but I am going to use the first row as the reference point and follow the Dolby guide for ceiling mounted 7.1.4 layout. I would believe that if you did your layout the same as mine it would sound just fine.


----------



## bargervais

^^^^^^^^^
NorthSky you mesmerized me with all that information...


----------



## RRF743

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have no idea if that's even possible.
> 
> I have, however, always advocated for an expandable/modular approach to 3D audio products where you can add-on a smaller data-linked unit (with more outputs and more DAC's) that will plug into the main console (receiver or pre-amp), so you can add on more speakers as needed. However, the main unit's renderer would need to be a more sophisticated design to begin with.


Thanks for the feed back. After just spending almost $2k for a receiver, don't want to do it again anytime soon. I guess I should stop dreaming now!


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Let me know if you or anyone else is still confused about my marketing remarks...


How would I know if "anyone else" is confused about your marketing remarks? Besides, I don't see why it is necessary for me to make sense of your posts.


----------



## RRF743

bargervais said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> NorthSky you mesmerized me with all that information...


 Was that comment for me North Sky? It was a lot of info. Made me sleepy! LOL!


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> How would I know if "anyone else" is confused about your marketing remarks? Besides, I don't see why it is necessary for me to make sense of your posts.


Easy, no one else said they are confused...that's how you would know. Obviously you find it "necessary" because you keep asking for clarification. Again, I don't mind helping you...just stop trolling.


----------



## thebland

To me, this is a purely speculation thread. 

Even though some have basic Atmos set ups here, the reading of their experiences still read as anecdotal to me.

I don't think until we have 100s of members with Atmos set ups of all kinds and speakers types and positions will we really be able to glean useful information about Atmos set up and what it can truly sound like.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Easy, no one else said they are confused...that's how you would know.


Then why ask me, since you already have the answer?


> Obviously you find it "necessary" because you keep asking for clarification.


Nope, I quit asking after one futile attempt.


> Again, I don't mind helping you...just stop trolling.


Wow, resorting to ad hominem attacks. Second time you've called me a troll.


----------



## Steve Goff

RRF743 said:


> Here's a great idea guys! Or just I big dream on my part. Let me know what you think. With all the talk about 9.2.4 and 9.2.6... what if manufacturers came out with a small device, say 17" x 2" x a few inches deep that can go between our bluray players and receivers/pre pros that can decode those few extra atmos channels at a much cheaper price(say $200)rather than forcing us to pay for a whole new receiver/pre pro to get the extra sound. The receiver might need a firmware update. I think this would make a lot of us home theater fans happy. Or is this even possible with the current chips in our atmos receivers?



Something like this could be done, but I'm not sure you could hit that price point.


----------



## RRF743

thebland said:


> To me, this is a purely speculation thread.
> 
> Even though some have basic Atmos set ups here, the reading of their experiences still read as anecdotal to me.
> 
> I don't think until we have 100s of members with Atmos set ups of all kinds and speakers types and positions will we really be able to glean useful information about Atmos set up and what it can truly sound like.


With all do respect. I don't think it takes 100's of member's comments and that many different types of speaker set ups and positions to realize that dolby atmos works great. As I said before in an earlier post, a lot of people are over thinking this thing. Their most difficult part of this entire process will be the actual installation of speakers and running wire. Trust me... Atoms or DSU will take care of the rest! I only know this because I've done it!


----------



## sdurani

RRF743 said:


> With all the talk about 9.2.4 and 9.2.6... what if manufacturers came out with a small device, say 17" x 2" x a few inches deep that can go between our bluray players and receivers/pre pros that can decode those few extra atmos channels at a much cheaper price(say $200)rather than forcing us to pay for a whole new receiver/pre pro to get the extra sound.


Unfortunately, the market for that sort of specialized decoder box would likely be too small for manufacturers to consider.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steve Goff said:


> Something like this could be done, but I'm not sure you could hit that price point.


Maybe it is possible, however it may be kludgey and less streamlined to implement. Plus companies would rather you have to buy an over $1,000 unit every year or so.


----------



## RRF743

RRF743 said:


> With all do respect. I don't think it takes 100's of member's comments and that many different types of speaker set ups and positions to realize that dolby atmos works great. As I said before in an earlier post, a lot of people are over thinking this thing. Their most difficult part of this entire process will be the actual installation of speakers and running wire. Trust me... Atoms or DSU will take care of the rest! I only know this because I've done it!


 Sorry if the last sentence sounded a little cocky. Didn't mean it that way.


sdurani and dan, I agree. It sucks!


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> NorthSky you mesmerized me with all that information...





RRF743 said:


> Was that comment for me North Sky? It was a lot of info. Made me sleepy! LOL!



I had to go back to the top of the screen to figure out what forum I was on...


----------



## Mike Garrett

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, people taking advantage of this is what ruins it for those that could really use it. It is a good thing that Costco changed their policy, no company should have to put up with that abuse, IMHO somewhere along the line good old honesty was lost, replaced by 'it doesn't hurt to try' and 'if you don't get caught, you did nothing wrong'...


I agree. For anybody that is purchasing a projector right before the Superbowl, we suspend our return policy. Had to do this a few years ago, because of abuse of our return policy. People were basically renting a projector for the super bowl, for the cost of shipping it back. Stuff like that costs a company a lot of money.


----------



## smurraybhm

asoofi1 said:


> Easy, no one else said they are confused...that's how you would know. Obviously you find it "necessary" because you keep asking for clarification. Again, I don't mind helping you...just stop trolling.


Then add me to the confused - your post said that feature decisions were made by the marketing dept, not the engineers. I don't know of any business where only the marketing dept decides how the product is configured or what it looks like. They may have something to say about the name - but in av land they tend to stick with numbers


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> Then add me to the confused - your post said that feature decisions were made by the marketing dept, not the engineers. I don't know of any business where only the marketing dept decides how the product is configured or what it looks like. They may have something to say about the name - but in av land they tend to stick with numbers


Marketing doesn't decide what or how a product is designed or configured their job is to market it once things are developed and then marketing's job is to promote, advertise etc..


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> Then why ask me, since you already have the answer?


Um, you just asked me how.



sdurani said:


> Nope, I quit asking after one futile attempt.


Just respectfully ask questions if you don't understand something. Don't ask rhetorical questions to get to another point you actually want to make. That's passive aggressive, aka trolling. Just say what you're thinking if you don't agree. You too have a right to your opinion just like the rest of us.



sdurani said:


> Wow, resorting to ad hominem attacks. Second time you've called me a troll.


No one is attacking you and I'm sorry you're offended for being called out for how you're interacting on here. But glad to see you're paying attention now to what I'm actually saying instead of cherry picking.

This is really getting old now, so let's move forward. Talk about everything Atmos, respect the opinions of others, and always keep an open mind. There's no contest or race to win here. We're all here to learn and enjoy our ht hobby.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> Just respectfully ask questions if you don't understand something.


I did, never got an answer, gave up asking.


> No one is attacking you and I'm sorry you're offended for being called out for how you're interacting on here.


Not offended, just pointing out your repeated ad hominem attacks (third time you've called me a troll).


----------



## J_P_A

Thanks for the feedback, guys! I'll have to think about this a bit. Fortunately, I'm planning to use an on-celing speaker. A coaxial mounted in an angled enclosure. I can't get it to point directly at the MLP, but at least in the general direction. sdurani's question about the ear height and Wendell's post has me thinking that I may need to plan entirely for the front row and let the second row get what they get. Front row ears are at 36", but second row ears are at 51-3/4". That gives me just over 60" to the ceiling for the front row, but only 45" for the second row. That's pretty close to the ceiling. 

I'd considered splitting the overhead channels in the past, but I'm not sure what extra processing would be required. There's enough black magic involved in decorating a side array of surrounds, I'd have no idea where to start with the overheads.

Unfortunately, there's no way to get the front and rear rows within the Dolby recommended range. Here's a side view of what I'm planning. The overheads are located in the middle of the Dolby ranges for the front row. I have to get the speaker placement finalized so I can get my acoustic treatments planned.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

J_P_A said:


> Awesome! Room dimensions are approximately 30'L x 18.5'W x 8.75' tall. Front row head to second row head is about 83". Front row eyes to screen is just over 12'.
> 
> Thanks!


With a 30' long room I would at least consider pre-wiring for six overhead speakers and some slack to re-position the four you're starting out with. One would think it would be inevitable that this will trickle down to the "lower level" consumer products.

Are you also wiring for dual side surrounds? There are some products that already handle this: 9.1.2, though unfortunately you lose two overheads. It's only a matter of time before this configuration gets upgraded without having to resort to a Trinnov or other uber expensive processor. Better to have the wires in place, just in case.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> I did, never got an answer, gave up asking. Not offended, just pointing out your repeated ad hominem attacks (third time you've called me a troll).



You did get an answer. I can't help it if you don't agree with the answer.
Again, it's not an attack if you're called out for trolling. And you still keep doing it.


----------



## sdurani

asoofi1 said:


> I can't help it if you don't agree with the answer.


Couldn't agree nor disagree with something I couldn't even figure out.


> Again, it's not an attack if you're called out for trolling. And you still keep doing it.


And you continue with the name calling even though I've never responded in kind.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Atmos.

It's serious s**t, yo.


----------



## kokishin

asoofi1 said:


> You did get an answer. I can't help it if you don't agree with the answer.
> Again, it's not an attack if you're called out for trolling. And you still keep doing it.


Come on asoofi1, give it a rest. Sanjay is no troll but a well respected member of avsforum.com and you should know that. If you feel compelled to continue this thread wasting discussion, please pm Sanjay directly. Note to Sanjay: take the high road and just stop replying to his posts.


----------



## asoofi1

sdurani said:


> Couldn't agree nor disagree with something I couldn't even figure out. And you continue with the name calling even though I've never responded in kind.



Then go back and quote the post you are having trouble understanding instead of repeating the same thing over and over. There's no name calling. You just keep trolling as a response.


----------



## sdurani

kokishin said:


> Note to Sanjay: take the high road and just stop replying to his posts.


Will do.


----------



## audioguy

Wikipedia definition of troll:



> In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


Based upon this definition, it does appear we have a troll in this thread but it sure is not sdurani.


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> sdurani's question about the ear height and Wendell's post has me thinking that I may need to plan entirely for the front row and let the second row get what they get. Front row ears are at 36", but second row ears are at 51-3/4". That gives me just over 60" to the ceiling for the front row, but only 45" for the second row.


Unfortunately, you are correct about letting the second row fall where it may. For example: the Top Front speakers can be anywhere from 30 to 55 degrees elevation. Even if you pick one extreme of that range, 55 degrees elevation for the front row, those speakers will be at a mere 19 degrees elevation for the second row. I was hoping it would at least be close to 30 degrees elevation for the second row, but the trig calculations said otherwise. So rather than compromising both rows, optimize the main listening position and let the overflow seating get what it gets.


----------



## asoofi1

smurraybhm said:


> Then add me to the confused - your post said that feature decisions were made by the marketing dept, not the engineers. I don't know of any business where only the marketing dept decides how the product is configured or what it looks like. They may have something to say about the name - but in av land they tend to stick with numbers



Marketing decides when to roll out features on a product, including what features are in demand, analyzing demographics and demand of features, etc.... People tend to think of advertising or what the product name will be when think of marketing, but that is just a tiny aspect of marketing. Marketing a product has many aspects to it. As I said before, engineering does not decide what is implemented, the marketing plan drives this. Engineering makes the product happen...they don't make business decisions, even though they provide feedback on what can and can't happen in the production of a product.

So in respect to what I shared earlier about how Atmos will be released, the avr marketing plan will not release 24.1.10 immediately for majority of avr manufacturers, even though Dolby has made it available...I believe they will release this feature in stages.

For example, this year we have 5.1.4.
Next model year they'll release avr's that can power 7.1.4
Then 9.1.6...etc etc...and so on...

They will likely also offer highest channel support in their flagship models, as they currently do with certain 'upgrade' features...such as a middle tier av having audessey xt and a higher tier having xt32. 

This is how manufacturers sustain their business. They need to keep selling avr's each year, so they have to spread out features, even if engineering could implement it now, marketing and economics doesn't make that a smart business decision. I will be shocked if someone like Onkyo or Marantz drops an avr that can support 11.x.6 next model year.

Another thing to keep in mind is manufacturers are seeing how the market reacts to the first couple iterations of atmos avr's. If it's not feasible to go beyond 9.1.4, it'll stop there or a disruptive product could be introduced to make it possible to expand further in this case.


----------



## NorthSky

> NorthSky you mesmerized me with all that information...


I'm simply inspired by all of you.


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> To me, this is a *purely speculation thread*.
> 
> Even though some have basic Atmos set ups here, the reading of their experiences still read as anecdotal to me.
> 
> I don't think until we have 100s of members with Atmos set ups of all kinds and speakers types and positions will we really be able to glean useful information about Atmos set up and what it can truly sound like.


Jeff, yourself you have one of the greatest setups of them all. Your opinion among hundred others have considerable weight. 

And you are right; we have only roughly twenty Dolby Atmos setups so far (from members who mentioned it). --- {I have read every single post of this entire thread.}
Is that enough? For some yes, for others no.
Me, I'm going Atmos 100% sure. ...But I'm just taking my time. ...And patiently waiting for that software. ...DSU seems to be real cool; not just enough for me to swing over right away.

I'm a huge sucker for software; smart software is King. ...It is the Master of all gods and kings and goddesses and queens and new audio/video gear. We upgrade our gear with new content. ...Then we can obtain new full contentment; aurally and visually and distinctively and discretely. 
...Specifically created for, intentionally made discretely for. ...Directly and not up-mixed/processed. 

That's my idea. And that's how I proceed. And I like everything that I'm reading.
...Speculation and speculation-less.


----------



## Anthony1

Is there a list of the various Atmos compatible receivers, and the modes they are compatible with ?

I'm trying to find out exactly which ones can do 7.1.4 . It just seems really confusing as to which ones are cable of that.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh, one more thing: We love to future-proof ourselves, as much as possible. ...But it is real tough in the world we now live. ...Very fast, non-stop new stuff is comin' up. 
And audio/video manufacturers are into it big time; they love to sell new products (features) every single year. ...Year after year after year.


----------



## NorthSky

> I don't think it takes 100's of member's comments and that many different types of speaker set ups and positions to realize that dolby atmos works great. As I said before in an earlier post, a lot of people are over thinking this thing. Their most difficult part of this entire process will be the actual installation of speakers and running wire. Trust me... Atoms or DSU will take care of the rest! I only know this because I've done it!


But DTS-UHD (MDA) is not even here yet.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Atmos.
> 
> It's serious s**t, yo.


What you got, Scott?


----------



## NorthSky

> Wikipedia definition of troll:
> 
> Based upon this definition, it does appear we have a troll in this thread but it sure is not sdurani.


This sure's an off-topic post.


----------



## NorthSky

> Unfortunately, you are correct about letting the second row fall where it may. For example: the Top Front speakers can be anywhere from 30 to 55 degrees elevation. Even if you pick one extreme of that range, 55 degrees elevation for the front row, those speakers will be at a mere 19 degrees elevation for the second row. I was hoping it would at least be close to 30 degrees elevation for the second row, but the trig calculations said otherwise. So rather than compromising both rows, optimize the main listening position and let the overflow seating get what it gets.


Or, in his situation, eight overheads speakers could be the ideal.


----------



## NorthSky

> Marketing decides when to roll out features on a product, including what features are in demand, analyzing demographics and demand of features, etc.... People tend to think of advertising or what the product name will be when think of marketing, but that is just a tiny aspect of marketing. Marketing a product has many aspects to it. As I said before, engineering does not decide what is implemented, the marketing plan drives this. Engineering makes the product happen...they don't make business decisions, even though they provide feedback on what can and can't happen in the production of a product.
> 
> So in respect to what I shared earlier about how Atmos will be released, the avr marketing plan will not release 24.1.10 immediately for majority of avr manufacturers, even though Dolby has made it available...I believe they will release this feature in stages.
> 
> For example, this year we have 5.1.4.
> Next model year they'll release avr's that can power 7.1.4
> Then 9.1.6...etc etc...and so on...
> 
> They will likely also offer highest channel support in their flagship models, as they currently do with certain 'upgrade' features...such as a middle tier av having audessey xt and a higher tier having xt32.
> 
> This is how manufacturers sustain their business. They need to keep selling avr's each year, so they have to spread out features, even if engineering could implement it now, marketing and economics doesn't make that a smart business decision. I will be shocked if someone like Onkyo or Marantz drops an avr that can support 11.x.6 next model year.
> 
> Another thing to keep in mind is manufacturers are seeing how the market reacts to the first couple iterations of atmos avr's. If it's not feasible to go beyond 9.1.4, it'll stop there or a disruptive product could be introduced to make it possible to expand further in this case.


♦ I totally agree with the content of that post.


----------



## NorthSky

Anthony1 said:


> Is there a list of the various Atmos compatible receivers, and the modes they are compatible with ?
> 
> I'm trying to find out exactly which ones can do 7.1.4 . It just seems really confusing as to which ones are cable of that.


"Capable of that".

If you look @ Denon/Marantz, Onkyo/Integra, Yamaha, Pioneer new 2014 Atmos AV receivers (and SSPs), you'll get your list (very short one). ...From their own respective websites. ...And that won't take long @ all.


----------



## snyderkv

I have read almost every page of this but can't remember if I read whether or not the front heights have to aim directly toward your ear. Right now my tweeters are fixed at 45 degrees which points to my feet. I have since cancelled my installation and plan on getting these dry-wall cuts patched instead of using mismatching high speakers. The rears are already in place.

I'm using Martin Logan IC with the folded motion tweeter. I'll look at their dispersion characteristics but I think they were more horizontal vertical if I remember correctly. Don't you lose lots of detail when speakers aren't aimed at your ears or would Audyssey just increase the volume enough to match the rear?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Yes, front and rear at your ears regardless of whether using Atmos or not.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Then add me to the confused - your post said that feature decisions were made by the marketing dept, not the engineers. I don't know of any business where only the marketing dept decides how the product is configured or what it looks like. They may have something to say about the name - but in av land they tend to stick with numbers





bargervais said:


> Marketing doesn't decide what or how a product is designed or configured their job is to market it once things are developed and then marketing's job is to promote, advertise etc..


While I agree with Sanjay that asoofi1 is pursuing an irrelevance wrt to the issue under discussion, on a more general note, marketing departments are usually involved in the early design stages of products (I worked in advertising all my life). For example, Marketing may conduct focus group or other research in order to assess customer priorities and wishlists. The findings of this research will be fed back into the product design area in order for the boffins to then design and produce a product which has the features and benefits that the research has indicated are desirable. This synergy will then allow Marketing to deliver a product to their Ad Agency which has all of the features that customers have indicated they want, thus permitting the creation of effective advertising, targeted around features we know customers have said are important, and which are embodied in the product. (It is an imperfect process BTW as customers often, intentionally or unwittingly, deceive, or simply don't know what they want - but there are ways to mitigate that),


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> Thanks for the feedback, guys! I'll have to think about this a bit. Fortunately, I'm planning to use an on-celing speaker. A coaxial mounted in an angled enclosure. I can't get it to point directly at the MLP, but at least in the general direction. sdurani's question about the ear height and Wendell's post has me thinking that I may need to plan entirely for the front row and let the second row get what they get. Front row ears are at 36", but second row ears are at 51-3/4". That gives me just over 60" to the ceiling for the front row, but only 45" for the second row. That's pretty close to the ceiling.
> 
> I'd considered splitting the overhead channels in the past, but I'm not sure what extra processing would be required. There's enough black magic involved in decorating a side array of surrounds, I'd have no idea where to start with the overheads.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's no way to get the front and rear rows within the Dolby recommended range. Here's a side view of what I'm planning. The overheads are located in the middle of the Dolby ranges for the front row. I have to get the speaker placement finalized so I can get my acoustic treatments planned.


I would try to stay within the Dolby spec guidelines wrt to angles, even if only for the front row. It's pretty much impossible to optimise any sort of sound for two rows so there has to be a compromise. My view would be to go for one 'perfect' row - the row that will be used most often - and let the other row fall into line. Seat those who don't care so much about great sound in the other row - they will still be blown away by the presentation because, chances are, your HT will be the best experience of a movie at home that they have ever had. 

If you don't follow that sort of line, then you run the risk of ending up with *two* compromised rows, and nobody gets 'perfect' sound. Just my 0.000066 bitcoins.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> Then go back and quote the post you are having trouble understanding instead of repeating the same thing over and over. There's no name calling. You just keep trolling as a response.


Repeatedly calling a well-respected forum member a troll is offensive IMO. Remember it was you who started this by posting an irrelevant item about marketing departments, which had no bearing on the subject under discussion, which was whether Dolby had supplied a 'complete' 24.1.10 offering to AVR manufacturers or not. 

Others, including myself, have pointed out on a number of occasions that high-level Dolby employees have stated on more than one occasion that Dolby have offered the full 24.1.10 product and it is up to AVR manufacturers to decide how to implement it. So far we have seen mainstream manufacturers, using 'last year's' chassis, implement it as a maximum of 7.1.4, due to the physical configuration of the back panel, and we have seen high-end manufacturers, not similarly constrained, go far beyond this. 

Nobody, other than one poster, who has no source for the comment, has ever said that Dolby are releasing different versions of Atmos to different kinds of AV manufacturers, and indeed Dolby have specifically stated that this is not the case. 

I respectfully suggest that you call time on this discussion and also apologise for the thread disruption so that everyone can move on and get back on topic.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> Same response I got at the press conference. The significance is that manufacturers don't have to wait for Dolby to take the next step; they can take it any time they want (any time their chipmakers are ready). The current Analogue Devices SHARC engines and Texas Instrument DSP chips already have 16 outputs. Putting those chips into last years' chassis is what limited them to 11 outputs.
> 
> The 'one spec' scenario is evident on the Trinnov Altitude. For all the custom code writing and flexibility and cost, they still have to stick to the same 15-degree granularity that all other Atmos licensees do. They cannot, for example, take their precise measurements of speaker locations and insert them into the Atmos rendering table to get greater than ±7.5° precision. That has to be done via their exclusive re-mapping feature.
> 
> BTW, if Trinnov has to stick to the same spec, then that clues us in to what Yamaha will and will not be able to do with their 3D positional measurements.


I hope we will see a prepro using all those 16 outputs in the near future. Or even better, that Dolby start selling the Atmos renderer directly to the HTPC crowd so we can put in as many sound cards as we want in the systems. After all I can't imagine the Intel CPU in a Trinnov being very powerful compared to a usual HTPC.

If Dolby did go down that route they would probably end up making the AVR manufacturers unhappy. I would be like a kid in a candy store though.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> So in respect to what I shared earlier about how Atmos will be released, the avr marketing plan will not release 24.1.10 immediately for majority of avr manufacturers, even though Dolby has made it available...I believe they will release this feature in stages.


That was not the issue. Dan was contending that Dolby have NOT released 24.1.10 immediately to all AVR manufacturers. That is what the discussion was about - have Dolby released 24.1.10 to everyone (as they told me they have), or have they not? Dan says not, everyone else says they have. How the AVR manufacturers implement Atmos was never in contention - it is, as Dolby says, entirely up to them. So all you are doing is stating what everyone (except Dan) had already agreed on.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> That was not the issue. Dan was contending that Dolby have NOT released 24.1.10 immediately to all AVR manufacturers. That is what the discussion was about - have Dolby released 24.1.10 to everyone (as they told me they have), or have they not? Dan says not, everyone else says they have. How the AVR manufacturers implement Atmos was never in contention - it is, as Dolby says, entirely up to them. So all you are doing is stating what everyone (except Dan) had already agreed on.


I never read Dan's post to mean that, actually. Sure you didn't misread between the lines there? (Or did you see some post I didn't, perchance?)


----------



## kbarnes701

Anthony1 said:


> Is there a list of the various Atmos compatible receivers, and the modes they are compatible with ?
> 
> I'm trying to find out exactly which ones can do 7.1.4 . It just seems really confusing as to which ones are cable of that.


Of the mainstream manufacturers, Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer and Yamaha all have Atmos products.

The first differentiator is the number of internal amp channels the units have - this is easily confirmed by looking at the spec sheet of any you are interested in. So a unit that has 7 internal amps (eg the Denon 4100) will be limited to Atmos 5.1.2 with just two overhead speakers, if you only wish to use the internal amps.

The next step is whether the unit can add additional channels by using an external 2 channel amp. So, sticking with the 4100, you can indeed add an external 2ch amp to that unit, allowing it to drive 9 channels - this will then allow an Atmos setup of 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. 

Other units will have 9 internal amp channels and can thus do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 'out of the box' and these can usually be supplemented with external amps to give the (current) mainstream maximum of 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. 

Exceptions are Pioneer which can not use added external amps and so are limited to 9 channels (5.1.4 or 7.1.2) and Onkyo which have one unit that has 11 internal amps.

So, start by examining the number of internal amps and then see if you can add two more. Remember the minimum Atmos experience will be 5.1.2 and the current maximum (among those mainstream manufacturers) is 7.1.4/9.1.2 (11 channels).

(Some units allow for the hookup of 13 speakers but only 11 can be used at the same time. Also, some megabucks units allow for more than the stated Atmos maximums above.)

If all that is as clear as mud, I sympathise. Which might make it easier just to tell us what units you are interested in and we can tell you what they can do  You’d also need to tell us if you have a problem using external amps. Right now, other than the Onkyo I mention, you would have to use a 9 channel unit (eg Denon 5200) with an external 2ch amp to get your desired 7.1.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I never read Dan's post to mean that, actually. Sure you didn't misread between the lines there? (Or did you see some post I didn't, perchance?)


Dan has repeatedly said that in his view Dolby have different versions of Atmos for different manufacturers - a basic version for most and an 'ultra' version for high end. He had said that Dolby are 'working on' offering 9.1.4 to mainstream manufacturers. According to Dolby themselves, this is not so - they have offered one version - 24.1.10 - to everyone and the AVR manufacturer is at liberty to implement as many of those options as they choose.


----------



## pasender91

Anthony1 said:


> Is there a list of the various Atmos compatible receivers, and the modes they are compatible with ?
> 
> I'm trying to find out exactly which ones can do 7.1.4 . It just seems really confusing as to which ones are cable of that.


I built such a list on another forum, in French. 
If you're inclined, you can follow this link => Liste des Amplis Atmos

Else, i dumped and translated my list below, sorry for the long post 
Note that each € sign means 500€ in street price in France.

==== 7 outputs (5.1.2)
Onkyo TX NR 636 - €
Onkyo TX NR 737 - €€
Onkyo TX NR 838 - €€€


==== 9 outputs (7.1.2, 5.1.4)
Denon 4100 W - €€€ - 7 amps
Pioneer SC LX 58 - €€€€
Pioneer SC LX 78 - €€€€
Pioneer SC LX 88 - €€€€€€
Yamaha RX A 2040 - €€€€


==== 11 outputs (9.1.2, 7.1.4)
Denon 5200 W - €€€€ - 9 amps
Denon 7200 W - 2015 - 9 amps
Marantz SR 7009 - €€€€ - 9 amps
Marantz AV 7702 - 2014 - XLR Preamp 
Marantz AV 8802 - 2015 - XLR Preamp 
Onkyo TX NR 1030 - €€€€ - 9 amps
Onkyo TX NR 3030 - €€€€€
Onkyo PR SC 5530 - €€€€€€ - XLR Preamp
Yamaha RX A 3040 - €€€€€ - 9 amps


Also note that Pioneer units have a different name in europe and US, they are what you call Elite xxx. Same thing for Integra, this brand doesn't exist in europe, we have them as Onkyo.


----------



## Manni01

snyderkv said:


> I have read almost every page of this but can't remember if I read whether or not the front heights have to aim directly toward your ear. Right now my tweeters are fixed at 45 degrees which points to my feet. I have since cancelled my installation and plan on getting these dry-wall cuts patched instead of using mismatching high speakers. The rears are already in place.
> 
> I'm using Martin Logan IC with the folded motion tweeter. I'll look at their dispersion characteristics but I think they were more horizontal vertical if I remember correctly. Don't you lose lots of detail when speakers aren't aimed at your ears or would Audyssey just increase the volume enough to match the rear?





jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Yes, front and rear at your ears regardless of whether using Atmos or not.


Are you sure about this? Both the Atmos speaker layout diagrams and the Auro 3D speaker layout diagrams suggest that the heights should be slightly lowered towards ear level, but not pointing directly at it.

My understanding is that ear-level speakers should be pointing directly towards MLP, Top speakers should be pointing either downwards if in-ceiling with large dispersion pattern or pointing towards MLP otherwise, and heights speakers should be pointing slightly downwards but not directly at MLP (although they should be pointing towards MLP on the horizontal plan). 

For example from the datasat speaker setup for Auro 3D (http://www.datasatdigital.com/docs/archive/speaker-tech-guide.pdf):
Auro 9.1
The minimum configuration for Auro-3D is Auro 9.1, which starts with a base 5.1 layer and adds
height speakers corresponding to the Left, Right, Left Surround and Right Surround channels. The
height speakers should be placed directly above their corresponding lower layer speakers. The ideal
height placement is 30 degrees above horizontal from the listening position. *The height speakers
may be angled down slightly, but not so much that the speakers are pointed at the listening
position.*

The often posted Atmos diagram showing the vertical angles also shows all the speakers pointing towards the MLP, except the heights for which it stipulates "pointing slightly downwards".

I'm planning to use front heights as per both Atmos and Auro 3D specs + a pair of speakers playing the role of a slightly compromised Top Middle for Atmos / Surround Heights for Auro 3D (using SH angled down a bit more than they should towards the MLP on my sloped ceiling in my loft where Auro 3D SH should be and not far from the Atmos TM position, in fact in between TM and TR in a 7.1.4 setup, very close to the TM position in a 9.1.2 setup), to be compatible with both Atmos 7.1.4/9.1.2 and Auro 3D 9.1, so I hope I didn't get that wrong. The RH/TM will be at 90 degrees horizontal (surround position when back surrounds are also in use with Atmos) and about 45 degrees vertical, but not in ceiling or on wall, rather on sloped ceiling/wall (hence the compromise).

The idea is to have a 9.1 bed (7.1 + front wides), adding FH + TM to get 7.1.4 Atmos (FW not active) or TM to get 9.1.2 Atmos (FH not active), and a 5.1 bed + FH + SH (+ possibly VOG) in Auro 3D 9.1 (or 10.1), with the FW and back SR not active. These are the modes making the most of the speakers connections / amps / channel processing abilities we have in existing or soon to come AVRs, and providing the best compatibility between the two formats (hoping DTS-HD will work with this setup as well). I plan to connect the SH/TM as Heights 2 in the pre-out to an external amp (my old Denon 1911 as my 3311 will be sold) and assign these two channels to TM in Atmos and SH in Auro 3D. Hopefully this will work with the X7200W which is the AVR I'm planning to get provided it offers an HDMI board upgrade post launch for HDCP 2.2 support.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Dan has repeatedly said that in his view Dolby have different versions of Atmos for different manufacturers - a basic version for most and an 'ultra' version for high end. He had said that Dolby are 'working on' offering 9.1.4 to mainstream manufacturers. According to Dolby themselves, this is not so - they have offered one version - 24.1.10 - to everyone and the AVR manufacturer is at liberty to implement as many of those options as they choose.


His original post said nothing about 24.1.10. It talked about other lesser variants. Why cannot this be a purchased development paid by a customer who cannot fit the full engine into their DSP? 

Everything after that first post I regard as speculation based upon that first set of information. Nothing in that would make you a liar with the info you have. They can both be valid at the same time.


----------



## mtbdudex

A few post up I read that "only" 20 actual Atmos HT installs have been documented in this 14k post thread, is that close to accurate?
Who are those people?
Is there a master post of actual Atmos HT installs keeping track?

Just for "fun", I took 2 minutes and did a post count in just this thread to see how the thread got to 14,000 posts in 5 months, just a quick scan I picked the below people:
Frequent posters, their post count, and the search URL :
Markus767 (446) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278905
Scott Simonian (371) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278913
jdsmoothie (79) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278929
Dan Hitchman (708) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278945
wse (202) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278953
sdurani (615) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278961
kbarnes701 (1000) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278969
North sky (1000) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278977

4,400 + posts from 8 people ....... wow.....

I know nearly everyone above is being value added AVS poster, from many other threads/forums here.....except 1 whom I won't name directly.....

What is known.....well Markus767 has really summarized that in his 1st post, which has been updated since initially made....

What are the un-knowns then that draw people to read/get lost in 1,000's of posts, and how to help them?

I'm off work the next 4 weeks on short term disability due to my RH side hip replacement on Nov-4th, so I'll read/gather the un-knowns that need a simple re-cap/std answer....


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> His original post said nothing about 24.1.10. It talked about other lesser variants. Why cannot this be a purchased development paid by a customer who cannot fit the full engine into their DSP?


No reason, other than Dolby categorically stating that it isn't the case.



Nightlord said:


> Everything after that first post I regard as speculation based upon that first set of information. Nothing in that would make you a liar with the info you have. They can both be valid at the same time.


I don't think anyone is lying. But the reality, according to Dolby, is that Dan's information is incorrect and that there is no 'two-tier' version of Atmos being offered to different AVR manufacturers.


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> A few post up I read that "only" 20 actual Atmos HT installs have been documented in this 14k post thread, is that close to accurate?
> Who are those people?
> Is there a master post of actual Atmos HT installs keeping track?
> 
> 
> 4,400 + posts from 8 people ....... wow.....
> 
> I know nearly everyone above is being value added AVS poster, from many other threads/forums here.....except 1 whom I won't name directly.....
> 
> What is known.....well Markus767 has really summarized that in his 1st post, which has been updated since initially made....
> 
> What are the un-knowns then that draw people to read/get lost in 1,000's of posts, and how to help them?
> 
> I'm off work the next 4 weeks on short term disability due to my RH side hip replacement on Nov-4th, so I'll read/gather the un-knowns that need a simple re-cap/std answer....


Interesting work - good job there. Most of the 'discussive' posts seem to be about speaker placement. Then there is a lot of traffic wrt to the 'Atmos experience' and if it is worthwhile/better than 5.1/better than Auro etc. But if I had to guess as to which single topic has occupied most time and energy, it'd be speaker placement.

BTW, those links don't seem to go anywhere.

EDIT: Incidentally, are there really only 20 of us who taken the plunge? I'll make s separate post for people to add to if they have an Atmos installation, so we can get a handle on it.


----------



## mtbdudex

^^^keith those links are probably saved in my web cache

For the record I'm at 27 posts in this thread

Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## kbarnes701

*Add your name to this list if you have actually installed Atmos at home*

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR 

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> ^^^keith those links are probably saved in my web cache
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


Yes, I guess so. I'm more than happy anyway to take your word for the post counts!


----------



## robert816

*Add your name to this list if you have actually installed Atmos at home*

kbarnes701 - 5.1.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.1.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.


Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR


----------



## asharma

*Using outdoor speakers for TF and TR*

Hi folks...I'm trying to choose between in ceiling speakers or outdoor speakers for TF and TR...the benefit I can see from outdoor speakers is many of them come with a tilt mounting bracket so you could aim the speaker accordingly...the other benefit is no big holes in the ceiling and if you needed to move them, no big deal...I see folks are using Tannoy Di5. I was thinking Def Tech A550...welcome your opinions if you think the A550 would produce nice sound and your thoughts on outdoor speakers for ATMOS applications in general...thanks folks


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> But the reality, according to Dolby, is that Dan's information is incorrect and that there is no 'two-tier' version of Atmos being offered to different AVR manufacturers.


Well, for the Dolby engineer working on it I assume it must at least _seem_ real.  

It might not be _offered_ no matter if it exists or not. They'd have to pay for the full thing no matter if they implement a reduced version or not, you've said that yourself. But can the manufacturers really implement the reduced set without Dolby's assistance?


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


Not sure if this idea will work as multiquoting seems to be disabled on AVS nowadays.

When replying to add your name to the list, can you please copy and paste all the former entries along with your own?


----------



## SeanUK

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Hi folks...I'm trying to choose between in ceiling speakers or outdoor speakers for TF and TR...the benefit I can see from outdoor speakers is many of them come with a tilt mounting bracket so you could aim the speaker accordingly...the other benefit is no big holes in the ceiling and if you needed to move them, no big deal...I see folks are using Tannoy Di5. I was thinking Def Tech A550...welcome your opinions if you think the A550 would produce nice sound and your thoughts on outdoor speakers for ATMOS applications in general...thanks folks


So long as the speakers have the performance capability and spec you require, I can't see that it matters much if they are called 'outdoor'. The big benefit of such speakers is that they usually have the wide dispersion that Atmos likes and, as you say, nice and easy mounting methods. Many manufacturers seem to make outdoor speakers too - B&W have some that look pretty good, as do Kef. I am delighted with my Tannoy Di5 DCs.


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 said:


> Not sure if this idea will work as multiquoting seems to be disabled on AVS nowadays.
> 
> When replying to add your name to the list, can you please copy and paste all the former entries along with your own?


kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR


----------



## randyk47

randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.


----------



## Leadem

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
> 
> SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR


How about a better option, everyone with an Atmos send a message to @markus767 and he can add your setup to the first post and the rest of us won't have to see the next 500 posts with previous post plus one entry?


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> How about a better option, everyone with an Atmos send a message to @markus767 and he can add your setup to the first post and the rest of us won't have to see the next 500 posts with previous post plus one entry?


Good idea, if everyone does it. If it's true there are only 20 reported setups though, it shouldn't take long to max out. I suggested meanwhile that people copy and paste the other names before posting their own system, but it seems to have fallen on stony ground


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR. 

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR


----------



## smurraybhm

Back to Atmos and your calling Sanjay a troll - one of the most uninformed accusations ever on AVS. I'll stop feeding with this post.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


Steve - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Back to Atmos and your calling Sanjay a troll - one of the most uninformed accusations ever on AVS. I'll stop feeding with this post.


Agreed entirely. Few members have helped as many other members as Sanjay has consistently done. He has a very wide and deep understanding of most AV matters, but especially so IME wrt to speaker and sub placement optimisation. Speaking personally, Sanjay has been largely responsible for some of the most significant changes I have made to my own HT over the years, and for the excellent SQ that I currently enjoy. The calumny you mention is disgraceful.


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR 

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

If 20 is right, we are 33% of the way to a complete list


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR 

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - Denon X4100 5.2.4 (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2014/11/denon-x4100-review.html


----------



## Movie78

I am looking purchasing Onkyo TX-NR838
Can i use any speakers for Height or i need to buy a specific speakers for the height.

Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> I am looking purchasing Onkyo TX-NR838
> Can i use any speakers for Height or i need to buy a specific speakers for the height.
> 
> Thanks!


More info please. Are you wanting on-ceiling speakers, in-ceiling speakers, Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers or Dolby Atmos-enabled modules?

And do you mean Height (as in mounted on the front or rear wall, near to the ceiling) or do you mean 'overhead' (as in mounted on or in the ceiling)?


----------



## multit

multit - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR


----------



## Brian Fineberg

technically Im 5.2.4 but i know thats not ACTUALLY correct since the sub channel is mono


----------



## Al Sherwood

J_P_A said:


> Awesome! Room dimensions are approximately 30'L x 18.5'W x 8.75' tall. Front row head to second row head is about 83". Front row eyes to screen is just over 12'.
> 
> Thanks!





Dan Hitchman said:


> With a 30' long room I would at least consider pre-wiring for six overhead speakers and some slack to re-position the four you're starting out with. One would think it would be inevitable that this will trickle down to the "lower level" consumer products.
> 
> Are you also wiring for dual side surrounds? There are some products that already handle this: 9.1.2, though unfortunately you lose two overheads. It's only a matter of time before this configuration gets upgraded without having to resort to a Trinnov or other uber expensive processor. Better to have the wires in place, just in case.



So am in the planning stages of a room 21' long x 16' wide x 8' high, too small to plan for an eventual 9.1.6?


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> Or even better, that Dolby start selling the Atmos renderer directly to the HTPC crowd so we can put in as many sound cards as we want in the systems.


Yup, and a HTPC interface would allow for easy and flexible speaker set-up: 









With an interface like the one above, just point and click on the speakers you have.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


I have a TX-NR 737 5.2.2 in my den top front on ceiling speakers
I have a TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers


----------



## Lstotland64

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR 

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - Denon X4100 5.2.4 (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2014/11/denon-x4100-review.html

LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Al Sherwood said:


> So am in the planning stages of a room 21' long x 16' wide x 8' high, too small to plan for an eventual 9.1.6?


It is all about the angles from the MLP. If available I may do 9.1.6 in a 12'x12' room next year.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> So am in the planning stages of a room 21' long x 16' wide x 8' high, too small to plan for an eventual 9.1.6?


Hmmm... it might behoove you to at least consider 9.1.4. That's one of the configurations I heard at CEDIA (Steinway/Lyngdorf), in a much larger room, and it was pretty impressive since you do get the beginnings of a side wall pan-through array. Having the four tops seemed to be pretty adequate. With a foreshortened room... not a 30' tunnel D), having six overheads might be overkill, but you'll have to be the final arbiter.


----------



## J_P_A

Is having the MLP directly on-axis to the overheads a good thing? That is, Dolby recommends that a speaker with a 90 degree pattern point straight down, so the MLP is no on-axis. How much should speakers with a narrower dispersion be toed-in towards the MLP?


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR 

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - Denon X4100 5.2.4 (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2014/11/denon-x4100-review.html

LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FHSeld

Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000


----------



## Selden Ball

J_P_A said:


> Is having the MLP directly on-axis to the overheads a good thing? That is, Dolby recommends that a speaker with a 90 degree pattern point straight down, so the MLP is no on-axis. How much should speakers with a narrower dispersion be toed-in towards the MLP?


If the speakers have a relatively narrow dispersion angle, they need to be pointed in the vicinity (or directly at) the main listening position. Speakers with wider dispersion angles don't need to be pointed as accurately.

When seated far off axis, the person who cares the most (you) will hear a distorted frequency response. Room EQ software (e.g. Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, etc) boosts frequencies that can't be heard well by the microphone. If the microphone measurements are made far off the axis of the speakers, then the high frequencies won't be heard as well, so the EQ will boost them. This often makes speaker systems sound abnormally bright.


----------



## markus767

Mashie Saldana said:


> How about a better option, everyone with an Atmos send a message to @markus767 and he can add your setup to the first post and the rest of us won't have to see the next 500 posts with previous post plus one entry?


Instead of spamming this thread with this childish chain letter you want to channel the spam solely towards me? No thanks. If you guys really need to show off your equipment then open a new thread please.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hmmm... it might behoove you to at least consider 9.1.4. That's one of the configurations I heard at CEDIA (Steinway/Lyngdorf), in a much larger room, and it was pretty impressive since you do get the beginnings of a side wall pan-through array. Having the four tops seemed to be pretty adequate. With a foreshortened room... not a 30' tunnel D), having six overheads might be overkill, but you'll have to be the final arbiter.



Thanks for the reply, can you further describe the "the beginnings of a side wall pan-through array"?


I was thinking that a 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 was a minimum, I already have the correct speakers for the ceiling front & rear and 2 more that can take me from 7 to 9 as L/R back speakers, I was just thinking that provisioning for center heights would be a prudent move regarding wiring and obtainment of the requisite matching ceiling speakers...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks for the reply, can you further describe the "the beginnings of a side wall pan-through array"?
> 
> 
> I was thinking that a 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 was a minimum, I already have the correct speakers for the ceiling front & rear and 2 more that can take me from 7 to 9 as L/R back speakers, I was just thinking that provisioning for center heights would be a prudent move regarding wiring and obtainment of the requisite matching ceiling speakers...


One of the main features of object based surround is that objects can be anchored or steered through multiple individual speakers throughout the room. It gives a heightened precision to sound localization and a more 3D effect. Having only a single pair of wall surrounds in each quadrant negates that added benefit.


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> To me, this is a purely speculation thread.
> 
> Even though some have basic Atmos set ups here, the reading of their experiences still read as anecdotal to me.
> 
> I don't think until we have 100s of members with Atmos set ups of all kinds and speakers types and positions will we really be able to glean useful information about Atmos set up and what it can truly sound like.


No. What we need is more content and time for the technology to mature. You can say the same thing about every speaker and subwoofer thread too. Tons of hyperbole, speculation and little objective science. Doesn't matter because people will still buy. People will buy Atmos. This technology just came out and there is little to no content. Give it some time.

It doesn't require for 100's of people on here to make it suddenly _not_ speculative. 

Why not contribute? Get an Atmos processor and post about your experience. 

And don't forget to be objective about it. 



NorthSky said:


> What you got, Scott?


Nothing. Just noting how this thread gets way too serious sometimes.


----------



## tjenkins95

Scott Simonian said:


> No. What we need is more content and time for the technology to mature. You can say the same thing about every speaker and subwoofer thread too. Tons of hyperbole, speculation and little objective science. Doesn't matter because people will still buy. People will buy Atmos. This technology just came out and there is little to no content. Give it some time.
> 
> It doesn't require for 100's of people on here to make it suddenly _not_ speculative.
> 
> Why not contribute? Get an Atmos processor and post about your experience.
> 
> And don't forget to be objective about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing. Just noting how this thread gets way too serious sometimes.


Totally agree with you on that!


----------



## BillyNedwell

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR 
smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
petetherock - Denon X4100 5.2.4 (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2014/1...00-review.html
LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FHSeld
Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM


----------



## nucky

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR 
smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
petetherock - Denon X4100 5.2.4 (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2014/1...00-review.html
LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FHSeld
Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM

nucky 5.2.4 using Denon 5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

up to 13


----------



## BillyNedwell

I'm feeling a little inadiquent with my last digit. One day it will be bigger, but for now it will have to do.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> No reason, other than Dolby categorically stating that it isn't the case.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is lying. But the reality, according to Dolby, is that Dan's information is incorrect and that there is no 'two-tier' version of Atmos being offered to different AVR manufacturers.


If there isn't a tiered approach would this mean every Atmos capable AVR has the potential to render the 24.1.10 content, before being limited by DSP and speaker outputs?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> technically Im 5.2.4 but i know thats not ACTUALLY correct since the sub channel is mono


Yes, I wish it was more widely acknowledged that there is only 1 x LFE channel and that no matter how many subs one has, it's still x.1.x. But I guess common practice dictates that we state our woofage in the formula.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Instead of spamming this thread with this childish chain letter you want to channel the spam solely towards me? No thanks. If you guys really need to show off your equipment then open a new thread please.


Grumpy. The point was to see if there was indeed only 20 setups listed in the thread, not to "show off".


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I wish it was more widely acknowledged that there is only 1 x LFE channel and that no matter how many subs one has, it's still x.1.x. But I guess common practice dictates that we state our woofage in the formula.


Yes and this is especially interesting recently with the new x.x.2 or 4 listing. Atmos supports x.x.10 which is what the content really is but we list based off what our own layout configuration is. It is widely accepted and even promoted by Dolby to mention it this way. I do agree and think it should just be listed as x.1.x but people like to mention how many subwoofers they have. Especially when it's more than one. *guilty*


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Grumpy. The point was to see if there was indeed only 20 setups listed in the thread, not to "show off".


Presumably there are quite a few more people on AVS who have Atmos systems than who contribute to this thread. The threads dedicated to the various Atmos-capable AVRs and pre/pros are rather busy.


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> More info please. Are you wanting on-ceiling speakers, in-ceiling speakers, Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers or Dolby Atmos-enabled modules?
> 
> And do you mean Height (as in mounted on the front or rear wall, near to the ceiling) or do you mean 'overhead' (as in mounted on or in the ceiling)?


1-Regular speakers( Can it be use as Atmos speakers)
2-It will mounted on the rear ceiling "Overhead'


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> ....Some have chosen to implement 5.1.2, some 5.1.4, some 7.1.4 and some, higher-end manufacturers such as Trinnov and SL, much more.


That makes perfect sense to me since the vast majority of home movies are watched in 5.1.2., 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 speakers setups - and which are the simpliest to extend to Atmos. Why not go after (from a price point) the largest audience?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I wish it was more widely acknowledged that there is only 1 x LFE channel and that no matter how many subs one has, it's still x.1.x. But I guess common practice dictates that we state our woofage in the formula.





Scott Simonian said:


> Yes and this is especially interesting recently with the new x.x.2 or 4 listing. Atmos supports x.x.10 which is what the content really is but we list based off what our own layout configuration is. It is widely accepted and even promoted by Dolby to mention it this way. I do agree and think it should just be listed as x.1.x but people like to mention how many subwoofers they have. Especially when it's more than one. *guilty*



exacttly...and with that being said...please update mine to say 5.2.4 haha


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> More info please. Are you wanting on-ceiling speakers, in-ceiling speakers, Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers or Dolby Atmos-enabled modules?
> 
> And do you mean Height (as in mounted on the front or rear wall, near to the ceiling) or do you mean 'overhead' (as in mounted on or in the ceiling)?


1-Can i use regular speakers as Atmos or do i need to buy Atmos enable speakers.

2-These speakers will be mounted on the ceiling 'overhead' .


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> This sure's an off-topic post.


Taken in context, it most certainly was not!


----------



## bsoko2

bsoko2 - Denon x5200w, 7.2.4 with JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
> 
> SeanUK - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> randyk47 - 7.1.4 system using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
> 
> Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon 5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR
> 
> smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon 5200 - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
> 
> petetherock - Denon X4100 5.2.4 (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
> 
> multit - 7.2.4 system using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
> 
> LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)
> 
> Bargevais - TX-NR 737 5.2.2 in my den top front on ceiling speakers
> 
> Bargevias - TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers
> 
> nucky 5.2.4 using Denon 5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.
> 
> Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM


thanks for including me i should have told you that they are Onkyo i know you know that LOL

Bargevais - Onkyo TX-NR 737 5.2.2 in my den top front on ceiling speakers

Bargevias - Onkyo TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers (using Onkyo M-5010 amp. to run top back speakers)


----------



## thebland

Scott Simonian said:


> No. What we need is more content and time for the technology to mature. You can say the same thing about every speaker and subwoofer thread too. Tons of hyperbole, speculation and little objective science. Doesn't matter because people will still buy. People will buy Atmos. This technology just came out and there is little to no content. Give it some time.
> 
> It doesn't require for 100's of people on here to make it suddenly _not_ speculative.
> 
> Why not contribute? Get an Atmos processor and post about your experience.
> 
> And don't forget to be objective about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing. Just noting how this thread gets way too serious sometimes.


I disagree to an extent. I have my system set up for AURO (and Atmos) and though I followed as closely as possible Datasat's recommendations in installing my 7.6.6 set up, they are simply recommendations. I have an Auro Demo Disc with many movie and Music tracks. I think there are like 20 clips. IT has told me a great deal about what Auro can do. Any more software would be nice but not imperative as I have a great feel for what Auro can do relative to my own set up. Frankly, it sounds terrific! But could it be improved????

When more and more advnaced users install set ups, I want to know exact angles of all speakers relative to MLP, where the speakers reside by seeing them in photographs of their room. I want to contrast such info with power and equipment choices. Knowing their set ups (e.g. 5.1.4, etc is not enough in my opinion to glean good data). We all know, small inefficient speakers at reference levels typically reach driver compression many dbs before reference output (could be 10db or more relative to LCRs). So, knowing equipment choices can help you weigh the owners subjective impressions. Like if an owner comments that rear or height info seems 'light', small heights or surrounds may be the reason. When I redesigned my room, with the help of the manufacturer, I made sure all height speakers could hit 105 db by themselves at he MLP (the main speakers as well, of course).

I am set up per Datasat's recommendations... and those are simply recommendations. I'd like to hear from many, many more enthusiasts sharing their experiences and compare that with their set up configuration. There may be a better answer, for example, for folks like my self with a tray ceiling?! But certainly, as the number of installs increase, so will software. But a good demo disc will be an excellent gauge for what these codecs can do - I know I have an excellent gauge in my own room for Auro with the one test disc..


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Presumably there are quite a few more people on AVS who have Atmos systems than who contribute to this thread. The threads dedicated to the various Atmos-capable AVRs and pre/pros are rather busy.


Quite so. I am sure there are more than 20 setups in this thread - but we will see.


----------



## CBdicX

Still waiting for a set of nice looking and good fitting Atmos speakers to be placed on top of my Boston M350 and M250.


For now i use 7.0 (no subwoofer) and use the DSU on all sources now.
What a great surround scaler this is compared to Dolby Digital, Dolby Prologic II, THX and DTS audio modes ! 
DSU is clearer, has more bass, and uses the surround and surround back speakers in a far better way then previous surround modes.


Had a set of 4 Onkyo Atmos speakers to try and that worked better then i would think. 
But i did not liked the "design" of the speakers, ugly boxed speakers.
When i tried the speakers i whas focussed on what the Atmos speakers would do, but now without the Atmos speakers i hear the full potential of DSU on 7.0 (receiver Integra DTR 70.6, Boston M350 front, Boston Mcenter, Boston M250 surround and surround back), one word:


*GREAT !!*


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> 1-Regular speakers( Can it be use as Atmos speakers)
> 2-It will mounted on the rear ceiling "Overhead'


You can use any regular sort of speaker. Dolby say that speakers with wide dispersion are preferred and they should have similar frequency response characteristics to your main speakers (but allow for bass management, so the overhead speakers don't need to go below about 80hz). If the manufacturer of your main speakers makes suitable speakers for use as overheads, consider those. And you will probably want to aim them towards the listening area.

Consider overhead speakers the same way you'd consider any other surround speakers really.


----------



## helvetica bold

Has anyone seen any reviews of Onkyo's HT-S7700 – Atmos in a Box? I know its not a sexy system but I'm curious how its sounds. 
This weekend I saw a demo at Best Buy of Pioneer's complete system. It was pretty impressive but the
bookshelf speakers are too large for my small Brooklyn apt. The rain storm Atmos demo blew me away.

Anyway Im just going to have to wait until theres some small Atmos speakers available.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

thats 19...

I noticed only two 4100's too..interesting


----------



## kbarnes701

May I suggest that members delete their listing post once someone else has updated it, to avoid the thread pollution Markus mentioned before?


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> You can use any regular sort of speaker. Dolby say that speakers with wide dispersion are preferred and they should have similar frequency response characteristics to your main speakers (but allow for bass management, so the overhead speakers don't need to go below about 80hz). If the manufacturer of your main speakers makes suitable speakers for use as overheads, consider those. And you will probably want to aim them towards the listening area.
> 
> Consider overhead speakers the same way you'd consider any other surround speakers really.


Thanks!

Will these speaker work

Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800
Onkyo SKH-410 

Or any suggestion?


----------



## kokishin

Brian Fineberg said:


> thats 19...
> 
> I noticed only two 4100's too..interesting


Here are some more that I am aware of. Hopefully, they will add themselves to the list:

@FilmMixer (Denon x5200)
@jdsmoothie (Denon x5200)
@Roger Dressler (Marantz AV7702)
@javanpohl (Yamaha rx-a2040)
@Evanesco (Yamaha rx-a2040)


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Will these speaker work
> 
> Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800
> Onkyo SKH-410
> 
> Or any suggestion?


The Def Techs look OK. There isn’t much useful info in the manufacturer's spec sheet (as usual) but I'd say they would be OK.

The Onkyos are Atmos-enabled modules, designed to sit on top of main speakers, not for ceiling-mounting.

Have a look at the Tannoy Di5 DC - I can say with certainty that they work very well indeed because they are what I am using here


----------



## batpig

Movie78 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Will these speaker work
> 
> Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800
> Onkyo SKH-410
> 
> Or any suggestion?


These are two totally different options -- the Def Tech's are "normal" speakers that you would mount up high, the Onkyos are "Atmos enabled" speakers that would sit on top or next to you regular speakers and reflect off the ceiling.

I think you need to take a step back and give us ALL the details. Your questions are sort of scattershot and contain little information, which makes people trying to help you keep asking follow up questions to pull extra information out of you.

So let's start from the beginning:

- How big is your room? Don't forget ceiling height.
- What speakers and/or receiver are you currently using?
- How many speakers do you want to run in total (e.g. 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 etc)?
- Are you able to physically mount speakers on the ceiling (sounds like yes)?

And so forth. Tell us about your gear, your setup, your goals and desires  The more info you give us, the more people can help you.


----------



## Movie78

batpig said:


> These are two totally different options -- the Def Tech's are "normal" speakers that you would mount up high, the Onkyos are "Atmos enabled" speakers that would sit on top or next to you regular speakers and reflect off the ceiling.
> 
> I think you need to take a step back and give us ALL the details. Your questions are sort of scattershot and contain little information, which makes people trying to help you keep asking follow up questions to pull extra information out of you.
> 
> So let's start from the beginning:
> 
> - How big is your room? Don't forget ceiling height.
> - What speakers and/or receiver are you currently using?
> - How many speakers do you want to run in total (e.g. 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 etc)?
> - Are you able to physically mount speakers on the ceiling (sounds like yes)?
> 
> And so forth. Tell us about your gear, your setup, your goals and desires  The more info you give us, the more people can help you.


- How big is your room? Don't forget ceiling height. Room sized : *122"W X 145"L X 104"H*
- What speakers and/or receiver are you currently using?*Pioneer VSX-70 upgrading to Onkyo TX-NR838*
- How many speakers do you want to run in total (e.g. 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 etc)*7.1.2*
- Are you able to physically mount speakers on the ceiling (sounds like yes)*Yes*


----------



## jdsmoothie

Movie78 said:


> - How big is your room? Don't forget ceiling height. Room sized : *122"W X 145"L X 104"H*
> - What speakers and/or receiver are you currently using?Pioneer VSX-70 *upgrading to Onkyo TX-NR838*
> - How many speakers do you want to run in total (e.g. 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 etc)*7.1.2*
> - Are you able to physically mount speakers on the ceiling (sounds like yes)*Yes*


The 838 is only capable of 5.1.2, so if you want 7.1.2, you'll need to upgrade to the 1030.


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn't so much a lack of studio support for those titles you mention as one of timing. All of those had already been released on Bluray before the authoring houses got their Atmos gear installed and working. The true test will be to see how many theatrical Atmos titles make it to Bluray for movies released from now going forward. My guess is 'all of them' as it isn't costly or difficult to transfer a theatrical mix to Bluray, and given the backwards compatibility with 5.1/7/1 there is no reason not to do so.


That was part of my lamentation. Titles that were in Atmos in theaters are being released more than two months after TF4 without Atmos tracks. I would allow for the fact that it will take some time for the production houses to make the TrueHD/Atmos tools part of their workflows (after probably using DTS-HD MA so much that doing so was probably not even a question), but this is an integral part to the adoption of Atmos in the marketplace. Without the content, no amount of headstart makes any difference, if a competitor manages to get their format on discs in greater numbers and with greater significance/fanfare.

Dolby's site shows the rest of the 2014 wide-release slate (post Expendables 3) to be (studio - Blu-ray release date - sound format):


Dolphin Tale 2 - Warner Bros. - 12/2/14 - DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
The Maze Runner - Fox - 12/16/14 - DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1
Book of Life - Fox - 1/?/15? - TBA
Big Hero 6 - Disney - 3/?/15? - TBA
Hunger Games - Mockingjay Pt 1 - Lionsgate - TBA - TBA
Penguins of Madagascar - Fox - TBA - TBA
Exodus: Gods and Kings - Fox - TBA - TBA
Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Warner Bros. - TBA - TBA
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb - Fox - TBA - TBA
Unbroken - Universal - TBA - TBA
So, we have 8 movies that are the most likely candidates for an Atmos release on Blu-ray, with Mockingjay as the only one from a studio that has released in Atmos so far. 8 titles is barely making a splash, much less 1, and that one probably won't see release until March.


That means that studios would have to dip into their catalogs for Atmos releases. To my knowledge, the only title announced is Gravity in Feb 2015. If Warner Bros is really going to wait and see how sales do on that title before they make any more decisions, that means that not only are no other catalog titles in the pipeline, but that it might be tight to see the final Hobbit movie get Atmos in its probable Apr 2015 release.


I could see some opportunities for catalog double-dips in conjunction with the theatrical release of movies in the same series/universe. For example, Iron Man 3 and Capt. America: Winter Soldier when Avengers: Age of Ultron is released.


All this points to the fact that Atmos is leaning heavily on DSU for Atmos to be a selling point for new receivers. It sounds like DSU is performing quite well in the reports that people have posted, so that's a good thing. However, it leaves the door open for Auro and DTS to make an entrance without having much existing product to compete against, so it would be a very level playing field should they do so in the next six months or so.


----------



## kokishin

@kbarnes701

tjenkins95 was on the list but somehow got dropped. 

tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73


----------



## noah katz

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)

multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR

Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000

LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)

Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers

Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers

nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.

Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM

bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR

RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & TR

Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.

batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules

noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture


----------



## zgeneral

...and that post above is why I really don't care about Atmos. It's mostly only available on terrible movie releases and you have some people spending thousands so they can watch a horrible transformers movie over and over again.

Wake me up in a few years when there's some actually decent movies that support Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)

multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR

Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000

LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)

Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers

Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers

nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.

Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM

bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR

RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & TR

Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.

batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules

noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture 

tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73


----------



## Spanglo

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)

multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR

Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000

LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)

Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers

Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers

nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.

Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM

bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR

RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & TR

Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.

batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules

noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture

tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73

Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro is so far behind the curve it seems difficult to see how it will compete. It is vastly outnumbered in theatrical releases and it is a channel-based system. Once mixers have tasted object-based audio I can't see them wanting to rush back to where they were before. Auro also has a problem that it has not yet been ported to TI chips (Denon - the sole mainsteam manufacturer to offer Auro uses SHARC), so this rules out Auro on Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo and possibly Sony (who?? ) Without a foothold in the mainstream markets it is hard to see Auro gaining traction at the front end: being available only on $20k+ gear won't cut it, and fan though I am of D&M, that represents just one slice of the big consumer market.
> 
> DTS is indeed a dark horse contender. I think their speaker agnostic formula is a great idea and should give them traction when they have a consumer product. The problems to me seem to be that they have zero theatrical releases to date and they are nowhere near a consumer offering and won’t be for some time to come. They are so far behind the curve that I can only foresee their late entry being difficult or even impossible.


I do not believe that Auro will gain a quick foothold as a result of the Denon/Marantz upgrade path, if D+M is the only company to offer Auro in a product until the next model refresh by manufacturers (probably mid-2015). The upgrade price being mentioned ($250 or $300?) for the D+M upgrade is another barrier to entry that will limit Auro's appeal for those that can do the upgrade. I'm not putting any confidence in their chances for success at this point, but they could play the role of spoiler; muddying the water just enough to keep people from pulling the trigger and instead waiting until at least the December upgrade has happened to see what the landscape looks like at that time.

DTS is definitely a dark horse. That's a great term to describe their position! From a technical standpoint, they seem to have the most sophisticated approach. From a marketing standpoint, they have great brand recognition and a strong history/ties on the production side. Their biggest detriment is that they don't have anything in the public eye except for their CES 2014 presence/demonstration.

As much as I would love to jump in and get either the Denon 5200 or Yamaha 3040, it's the prospect that DTS could announce something that would really shake up the marketplace that's keeping me on the sidelines. Since Atmos has not come out with real strength in respect to Atmos-encoded software titles, a coordinated effort by DTS in the next several months could change everything. 

I foresee the possibility of them coming out at CES with a lineup of hardware manufacturers that will be implementing their format in their mid-2015 model refreshes and studios that will be including it in their 2015 releases.

As I'm writing this, I'm realizing that I'm probably going to have to wait until that next model refresh to see how this is all going to shake out. Unfortunately, that means May or June 2015 before announcements are made.

I hope that my comments are not taken as putting down Atmos, its benefits, and those who have taken the plunge with Atmos-equipped setups. I admire their willingness to take that plunge and I am living vicariously through them, and hopefully learning things at the same time. However, I think that examining the situation in this way provides food for thought for those that have yet to take the plunge, so that they go into such a decision fully aware of not only the wonders that await them if they do, but also the potential pitfalls, so they can decide for themselves if they are a factor that warrant some patience for the smoke to clear.


----------



## Selden Ball

I'd be surprised if DTS-UHD-capable receivers (or firmware upgrades) are announced before there are movies with their soundtracks available to watch in commercial cinemas. After all, why buy a device to decode something that doesn't exist? None of us have done *anything* like that!


----------



## kokishin

Spanglo said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
> 
> SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
> 
> Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR
> 
> smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
> 
> petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
> 
> multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
> 
> LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)
> 
> Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers
> 
> Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers
> 
> nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.
> 
> Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM
> 
> bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR
> 
> RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & TR
> 
> Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.
> 
> batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules
> 
> noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture
> 
> Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH


Poor Ray @tjenkins95. Keith @kbarnes701just added him back and he got dropped again. To those adding to the list, please include: 
*tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73*


----------



## RAllenChristenson

zgeneral said:


> ...and that post above is why I really don't care about Atmos. It's mostly only available on terrible movie releases and you have some people spending thousands so they can watch a horrible transformers movie over and over again.
> 
> Wake me up in a few years when there's some actually decent movies that support Atmos.


The more movies I watch with Dolby Surround upmixed the more convinced I am that if there was never another Atmos movie released I would have absolutely no regrets on what I've spent to upgrade. For the first time ever I now prefer my own home theater to the local theaters. That would never have happened without the ceiling speakers and the upmix by Dolby Surround. This "bonus" feature is turning out to be beyond anything I could have ever imagined.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

RAllenChristenson said:


> The more movies I watch with Dolby Surround upmixed the more convinced I am that if there was never another Atmos movie released I would have absolutely no regrets on what I've spent to upgrade. For the first time ever I now prefer my own home theater to the local theaters. That would never have happened without the ceiling speakers and the upmix by Dolby Surround. This "bonus" feature is turning out to be beyond anything I could have ever imagined.


+10000. So true


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Nothing. Just noting how this thread gets way too serious sometimes.


I see. You're a good man Scott, I like you a lot. 

* And it's nice to see some first time posters/members in this thread.


----------



## rockhound76s

Hello everyone. I’m pleased to be able to contribute, after taking the last month to read through this entire thread with great interest (phew!). I just upgraded from 7.1 to 7.1.2 this weekend.

I’ve just started the process of experimentation with the Dolby Surround Upmixer with my legacy blu-ray content— I don’t own any Atmos blurays just yet, only the downloaded Atmos demo disc. Over the last couple of weeks, I had been listening to the Atmos demo disc repeatedly with my old non-Atmos receiver, just to have a baseline reference so that I could compare (unscientifically) to the Atmos-decoded version. 

I’m also pleased because after nearly 14,000 posts, I believe I may be the first person in this thread to have (or at least share impressions of) the Atlantic Tech 44-DA Atmos-enabled modules, which I’m using in the 'Front Dolby' position of my setup. I currently have them sitting on the media cabinet about 18” from the FL/FR channels, near ear height. The modules are larger than my FR/FL speakers so I didn’t want to stack them on top of the FR/FL. I reasoned this placement should work since it allows a bit of separation between the ceiling reflection point and my side surrounds in my somewhat narrow (14’ wide) room.

My listening space is not a dedicated theater, as many of the folks here have. It’s a living room with a strong home theater focus, so I’m excited about the purported ‘flexibility’ of the Atmos system working with my less-than-optimal setup. Going into this upgrade, I was concerned about my existing surround speaker placement, since a) both side and back surrounds are mounted higher than ear-level; b) side surrounds are are Axiom QS8s which fire in four directions —tweeters diagonally across the room, and woofers firing towards the ceiling and the floor simultaneously, and c) my rear surround is a single speaker dual-monopole design. I wanted to avoid having to reposition anything if possible, so as of now they’ve been left as-is.

So far, my worries have subsided. The system does indeed sound great—better than before. Here are some initial impressions from this weekend. Movies watched were Skyfall (bluray DTS-HD 5.1 upmixed), Hunger Games Catching Fire (bluray DTS-HD 7.1 upmixed) and Dolby Atmos demo (Atmos encoded).


The Atmos-enabled speakers do indeed create a greater sense of height—I don’t regret the purchase. This was clearly evident in the Atmos demo disc material, particularly the ‘Amaze’ and ‘Leaf’ trailers.

During the Amaze trailer, there was a moment where the sound of a bird flutters around the room in a 360 degree motion. With my non-Atmos receiver, I could always perceive a minor sense of disjointedness when the sound panned one speaker to the next, probably due to the speakers being of varying heights. With the Atmos processor, the motion was pinpoint and seamless around the room, and the timbre, to my ears, was consistent and believable. 

Also during the Amaze trailer, when the rainfall starts, both my wife and I looked straight up because we could clearly hear distinct raindrops above us, as if a speaker was directly overhead. Really cool.

With Skyfall, I had a harder time picking out discrete overhead effects in the upmixed soundtrack. The Atmos speakers didn’t draw attention to themselves in any way, so it was tough to judge here. I did notice (after putting my ear near the Atmos speakers), that much of the background music during action sequences was steered to the Atmos channels. The sound overall was totally enveloping, but it was subtle and not a huge change from what as already an engrossing standard 5.1 mix.

The Hunger Games fared better with upmixing. The scenes in the dome, particularly, were incredible, with a sense of ambience that I wasn’t prepared for. Specifically I could hear subtle ambient sounds in places were no speaker exists, which was really nice. I think there may be something to the theory that blurays that were derived from theatrical Atmos mixes do indeed fare better once they are processed with the DSU upmixer.


That’s it for now, I’ll try to report more impressions once I’ve had some more movies to watch (hopefully some native Atmos releases soon). For those who have less than ideal scenarios, and can’t commit to precise-placement according to ideal specs, I do believe you’re in for a treat, and should expect a nice upgrade to your enjoyment. Some pics, for those interested.

Oh, and for inclusion in the running list of adopters:
*rockhound76s - 7.1.2 using Marantz AV7702. Atlantic Tech Atmos-enabled modules for the 'Front Dolby' position.*


----------



## RichB

Brian Fineberg said:


> up to 13


So are 2 of 13 using Atmos enabled speakers?


- Rich


----------



## batpig

I'm glad someone finally has the AT modules! Thanks for the report, at least we have one data point indicating they are quality speakers (unlike the DTs). 

Lovely room too. Probably wouldn't get too much benefit out of rear overheads with the 4 Axioms being mounted so high.


----------



## jdsmoothie

rockhound76s said:


> I’m also pleased because after nearly 14,000 posts, I believe I may be the first person in this thread to have (or at least share impressions of) the Atlantic Tech 44-DA Atmos-enabled modules, which I’m using in the TF position in my setup.


Thanks for the feedback as you are indeed the first to report on the AT 44-DA Atmos enabled speakers. Technically the 44-DA's should be set as "Front Dolby" speakers rather than "Top Front" which would be in-ceiling/ceiling mounted speakers. Did you try both ways and find Top Front to work better for you? Also, did you try them seated on top of the FL/FR speakers just as a test?


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> === 11 outputs (9.1.2 or 7.1.4):
> 
> ♦ Denon X5200W - 2014 - 9 amps
> ♦ Denon X7200W - 2015 - 9 amps
> ♦ Marantz SR7009 - 2014 - 9 amps
> * Marantz AV7702 - 2014 - XLR Preamp (SSP)
> * Marantz AV8802 - 2015 - XLR Preamp (SSP)
> ♦ Onkyo TX-NR1030 - 2014 - 9 amps
> ♦ Onkyo TX-NR3030 - 2014 - 11 amps
> * Onkyo PR-SC5530 - 2014 - XLR Preamp (SSP)
> ♦ Integra DTR-70.6 - 2014 - 11 amps
> * Integra DHC-80.6 - 2014 - (XLR Preamp - SSP)
> ♦ Yamaha RX-A3040 - 2014 - 9 amps


Excellent!

♦ = AV Receivers (7)
* = Pre/pros (SSPs) - (4)


----------



## RRF743

kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


RRF743- 7.2.4 -Denon x5200w, Outlaw 770(200w x 7) 4 ceilings(Polk RC80i).


----------



## SSweetImpalaSS

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
 Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
 robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
 SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
 randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
 Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR
 smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
 petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
 multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR
 Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
 LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)
 Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers
 Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers
 nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.
 Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM
 bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR
 RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & TR
 Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.
 batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules
 noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture
 tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
 Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH
tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
ssweetimpalass - 7.1.4 - Denon X5200W / Emotiva XPA-3/ SVS PC-12 Plus sub / Klipsch RF-7 mains / Klipsch RC-64 Center / Klipsch R-5800-w surrounds / Klipsch CDT-5800-C TF+TR


----------



## zgeneral

RAllenChristenson said:


> The more movies I watch with Dolby Surround upmixed the more convinced I am that if there was never another Atmos movie released I would have absolutely no regrets on what I've spent to upgrade. For the first time ever I now prefer my own home theater to the local theaters. That would never have happened without the ceiling speakers and the upmix by Dolby Surround. This "bonus" feature is turning out to be beyond anything I could have ever imagined.


My favorite part of the whole Atmos thing is the horrible response you'd get from nearly anyone on this or any other AV forum when you'd talk about ceiling mounted surround speakers. Now it's en vogue and people think it's amazing now that Dolby has given them their opinion.

Maybe Atmos becomes a big thing or maybe not. I'll spend my money on other sources of short term happiness until it gets figured out and I can watch something other than a plot hole riddle Michael Bay fantasy with a plot that seems like it was written by a 9 year old after drinking 2 Red Bulls.

Don't worry, the Central Government will save you.


----------



## rockhound76s

jdsmoothie said:


> Thanks for the feedback as you are indeed the first to report on the AT 44-DA Atmos enabled speakers. Technically the 44-DA's should be set as "Front Dolby" speakers rather than "Top Front" which would be in-ceiling/ceiling mounted speakers. Did you try both ways and find Top Front to work better for you?



Thanks for pointing this out...I'll have to recheck the configuration when I get home to see if there was indeed a distinction. To my recollection, during initial setup it gave me the option of either Front Height or Front Dolby, and I selected the latter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

> A few post up I read that "only" 20 actual Atmos HT installs have been documented in this 14k post thread, is that close to accurate?
> Who are those people?
> Is there a master post of actual Atmos HT installs keeping track?
> 
> Just for "fun", I took 2 minutes and did a post count in just this thread to see how the thread got to 14,000 posts in 5 months, just a quick scan I picked the below people:
> Frequent posters, their post count, and the search URL :
> Markus767 (446) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278905
> Scott Simonian (371) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278913
> jdsmoothie (79) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278929
> Dan Hitchman (708) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278945
> wse (202) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278953
> sdurani (615) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278961
> kbarnes701 (1000) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278969
> North sky (1000) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278977
> 
> 4,400 + posts from 8 people ....... wow.....
> 
> I know nearly everyone above is being value added AVS poster, from many other threads/forums here.....except 1 whom I won't name directly.....
> 
> What is known.....well Markus767 has really summarized that in his 1st post, which has been updated since initially made....
> 
> What are the un-knowns then that draw people to read/get lost in 1,000's of posts, and how to help them?
> 
> I'm off work the next 4 weeks on short term disability due to my RH side hip replacement on Nov-4th, so I'll read/gather the un-knowns that need a simple re-cap/std answer....


Great post, excellent idea .... ...Better for another thread @ another time though. IMHO

And good luck with your recovery.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I do not believe that Auro will gain a quick foothold as a result of the Denon/Marantz upgrade path, if D+M is the only company to offer Auro in a product until the next model refresh by manufacturers (probably mid-2015). The upgrade price being mentioned ($250 or $300?) for the D+M upgrade is another barrier to entry that will limit Auro's appeal for those that can do the upgrade. I'm not putting any confidence in their chances for success at this point, but they could play the role of spoiler; muddying the water just enough to keep people from pulling the trigger and instead waiting until at least the December upgrade has happened to see what the landscape looks like at that time.
> 
> DTS is definitely a dark horse. That's a great term to describe their position! From a technical standpoint, they seem to have the most sophisticated approach. From a marketing standpoint, they have great brand recognition and a strong history/ties on the production side. Their biggest detriment is that they don't have anything in the public eye except for their CES 2014 presence/demonstration.
> 
> As much as I would love to jump in and get either the Denon 5200 or Yamaha 3040, it's the prospect that DTS could announce something that would really shake up the marketplace that's keeping me on the sidelines. Since Atmos has not come out with real strength in respect to Atmos-encoded software titles, a coordinated effort by DTS in the next several months could change everything.
> 
> I foresee the possibility of them coming out at CES with a lineup of hardware manufacturers that will be implementing their format in their mid-2015 model refreshes and studios that will be including it in their 2015 releases.
> 
> As I'm writing this, I'm realizing that I'm probably going to have to wait until that next model refresh to see how this is all going to shake out. Unfortunately, that means May or June 2015 before announcements are made.
> 
> I hope that my comments are not taken as putting down Atmos, its benefits, and those who have taken the plunge with Atmos-equipped setups. I admire their willingness to take that plunge and I am living vicariously through them, and hopefully learning things at the same time. However, I think that examining the situation in this way provides food for thought for those that have yet to take the plunge, so that they go into such a decision fully aware of not only the wonders that await them if they do, but also the potential pitfalls, so they can decide for themselves if they are a factor that warrant some patience for the smoke to clear.


Scott, I can’t disagree with most of what you say. I have been a standard-bearer for Atmos since before its launch, and I am very happy with it so far - mostly of course thanks to DSU. While I have more or less written off Auro, I too believe that DTS could well pull a rabbit out of the hat. In fact, I hope they do - so long as we can continue to use our existing speaker layouts. I believe that object-based audio (OBA) is here to stay and brings huge benefits with it, so if we have two opportunities to get content delivered in OBA, then I will be twice as happy. It may well mean that I will have to invest in a new AVR as I cannot see DTS being ready before the next round of AVR annual updates, which I assume will mean that it won't be offered as an upgrade (if that is even technically possible) to my current Denon 5200. But I knew that was a possibility going in, so I have no regrets. I don't exactly relish the thought of buying another AVR less than 2 years after the last one, but if that is what it takes, then so be it. Penalty of the early adopter!


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> *Instead of spamming this thread with this childish chain letter you want to channel the spam solely towards me? No thanks. If you guys really need to show off your equipment then open a new thread please.*


Great post Markus; right on!


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I'd be surprised if DTS-UHD-capable receivers (or firmware upgrades) are announced before there are movies with their soundtracks available to watch in commercial cinemas. After all, why buy a device to decode something that doesn't exist? None of us have done *anything* like that!


This is true of course. It is inconceivable that DTS will have an offering for the home before they have a cinematic offering IMO - and that is why I think they will be a long time a-comin'. In fact, they may never come at all, depending on the time lag. But I hope they do. As I just said to Scott, twice the number of OBA opportunities has to be twice the fun!


----------



## batpig

rockhound76s said:


> Thanks for pointing this out...I'll have to recheck the configuration when I get home to see if there was indeed a distinction. To my recollection, during initial setup it gave me the option of either Front Height or Front Dolby, and I selected the latter.


If you selected Front Dolby then you are probably OK. It's just important to be precise with terminology now that we are dealing with 16 potential "overhead" speaker locations! You said you are "using [them] in the TF position" and "Top Front" is a totally different designation (for a physical overhead speaker) than "Front Dolby".


----------



## kbarnes701

RAllenChristenson said:


> The more movies I watch with Dolby Surround upmixed the more convinced I am that if there was never another Atmos movie released I would have absolutely no regrets on what I've spent to upgrade. For the first time ever I now prefer my own home theater to the local theaters. That would never have happened without the ceiling speakers and the upmix by Dolby Surround. This "bonus" feature is turning out to be beyond anything I could have ever imagined.


I second that. For me, DSU is worth the price of the upgrade for the additional enjoyment it is bringing to my (large) library of legacy content. Not that I don't want more Atmos movies, of course, because I do. But I am more than happy so far. DSU has so far impressed me on every movie I have seen with it. Tonight's movie is Scorsese's *Shutter Island* and I am expecting big things from that soundtrack when DSU gets hold of it.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Scott, I can’t disagree with most of what you say. I have been a standard-bearer for Atmos since before its launch, and I am very happy with it so far - mostly of course thanks to DSU. While I have more or less written off Auro, I too believe that DTS could well pull a rabbit out of the hat. In fact, I hope they do - so long as we can continue to use our existing speaker layouts. I believe that object-based audio (OBA) is here to stay and brings huge benefits with it, so if we have two opportunities to get content delivered in OBA, then I will be twice as happy. It may well mean that I will have to invest in a new AVR as I cannot see DTS being ready before the next round of AVR annual updates, which I assume will mean that it won't be offered as an upgrade (if that is even technically possible) to my current Denon 5200. But I knew that was a possibility going in, so I have no regrets. I don't exactly relish the thought of buying another AVR less than 2 years after the last one, *but if that is what it takes, then so be it.* Penalty of the early adopter!



Keith, should I forward my mailing address to you then?


----------



## Movie78

jdsmoothie said:


> The 838 is only capable of 5.1.2, so if you want 7.1.2, you'll need to upgrade to the 1030.


To my understanding this reciver will do 7.1 or 5.1.2?

7.1 for DTSHD MA and TRUEHD
5.1.2 for DOLBY ATMOS

Is that correct?


----------



## kbarnes701

rockhound76s said:


> Hello everyone. I’m pleased to be able to contribute, after taking the last month to read through this entire thread with great interest (phew!). I just upgraded to from 7.1 to 7.1.2 this weekend:


Nice report! And a lovely non-dedicated room too. The only suggestion I’d make is that lowering those surrounds would add even more to your enjoyment as it would create greater separation between the overheads and the listener-level speakers. IDK how much work it would be as I can see that, like me, you dislike visible wiring, so presumably the current speakers are fed by in-wall wires, which I know from experience is a royal PITA to change.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Keith, should I forward my mailing address to you then?


LOL. Al, if you lived near me, even on the same continent, you'd be first in line for first refusal!


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> To my understanding this reciver will do 7.1 or 5.1.2?
> 
> 7.1 for DTSHD MA and TRUEHD
> 5.1.2 for DOLBY ATMOS
> 
> Is that correct?


Yes.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Movie78 said:


> To my understanding this reciver will do 7.1 or 5.1.2?
> 
> 7.1 for DTSHD MA and TRUEHD
> 5.1.2 for DOLBY ATMOS
> 
> Is that correct?


Yes, correct, either/or but not 7.1.2 as the 838 is capped at 7CH max.


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR
smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR
Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)
Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers
Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers
nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.
Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM
bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR
RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & TR
Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.
batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules
noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture
tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH
tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
ssweetimpalass - 7.1.4 - Denon X5200W / Emotiva XPA-3/ SVS PC-12 Plus sub / Klipsch RF-7 mains / Klipsch RC-64 Center / Klipsch R-5800-w surrounds / Klipsch CDT-5800-C TF+TR
RRF743- 7.2.4 -Denon x5200w, Outlaw 770(200w x 7) 4 ceilings(Polk RC80i)
rockhound76s - 7.1.2 using Marantz AV7702. Atlantic Tech Atmos-enabled modules for TF


----------



## batpig

zgeneral said:


> My favorite part of the whole Atmos thing is the horrible response you'd get from nearly anyone on this or any other AV forum when you'd talk about ceiling mounted surround speakers. Now it's en vogue and people think it's amazing now that Dolby has given them their opinion.
> 
> Maybe Atmos becomes a big thing or maybe not. I'll spend my money on other sources of short term happiness until it gets figured out and I can watch something other than a plot hole riddle Michael Bay fantasy with a plot that seems like it was written by a 9 year old after drinking 2 Red Bulls.
> 
> Don't worry, the Central Government will save you.


I'm always highly amused by these cranky hater posts.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Al, if you lived near me, even on the same continent, you'd be first in line for first refusal!



Thanks buddy! Believe it or not I am actually working on some AV stuff right now, I took the week off to get one of the equipment racks built for the AV gear at the back of the eventual HT...


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes.


What about the speakers for my settings?


----------



## nitro28

Wow, seems like Denon is winning the Atmos war so far with a huge majority of you all purchasing it. I would add my name to the list but I'm just building the room now so it will be a couple of months before completion. The plan right now for my 7.4.4 system includes this.

Fronts: Goldenear Triton 2
Center Goldenear XL center
Side: Goldenear Invisa MPX
Rear: Goldenear Sat 3
Atmos Goldenear In-ceiling 6.5"
Subs Dual 18" Maelstrom X
Receiver Onkyo tx-nr1030 with 3 Emotiva XPA 100s for the front to make 11 channels

I have everything but the receiver. Hard for me to justify the price difference for the Denon when I have had no issues with my Onkyos.


----------



## multit

Yeah, what an end... 
I just came back from watching the new episodes from Once Upon A Time, which I usually watch with my daughter on monday evening, when it is "somehow" available in Germany. At quite the end, there is a firework produced with some magic from a again happy Emma... and guess where a main part of the firework noise was coming from?
Right, from the ceiling speakers, like the DSU somehow feel, where it belongs to 
I repeated the scene with closed eyes, just to avoid psych. effects while watching the scene on the screen, but still, it's quite good from above.

Since Dolby Surround is my default option while watching tv shows and movies and listening to music (with exceptions), it already became kind of an ordinary thing, but it isn't. I mean, I have to admit, that my former setup was a flat 7.2, so no high speakers were in action, but now, I'm asking, why I did it not earlier.
So much extended stage and this great immersive feeling even with DSU, I don't regret not a single €, I spent for that!


----------



## mp5475

Ok. I give up. I can't wait until next year. This thread is killing me, especially since I have everything except for the AVR. Just got my emotiva xpa 5. Plan to put up my tannoy dc8i two weeks from now when on vacation and lower my surrounds.

Where you guys recommend I get the Denon x5200 used. I know amazon has it for about 1600.

Thanks


----------



## thestoneman

You can add me to the Denon X5200 list! Bought my X5200 last week from another AVS user.


----------



## Selden Ball

nitro28,

Quite a few people decided to switch to Denon because Onkyo dropped Audyssey. Unfortunately, it's needed in most shared-purpose rooms. Since you have good speakers in a dedicated and (hopefully) well treated room, room EQ is much less of a necessity.


----------



## Jive Turkey

mp5475 said:


> Ok. I give up. I can't wait until next year. This thread is killing me, especially since I have everything except for the AVR. Just got my emotiva xpa 5. Plan to put up my tannoy dc8i two weeks from now when on vacation and lower my surrounds.
> 
> Where you guys recommend I get the Denon x5200 used. I know amazon has it for about 1600.
> 
> Thanks


Call AVS and buy it new. You don't need to get used. :wink:


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I'm always highly amused by these cranky hater posts.


LOL - me too. I wonder where they come from and what inner angst inspires them. At least this latest one took a new angle - I haven't seen that one before - about in or on-ceiling speakers.  It's off beam of course - I’d never have put my surround speakers on the ceiling for fairly obvious reasons, but the poster ignores the fact that Atmos has been specifically designed for on-ceiling speakers. Of course he has to or his hater post doesn’t work. 

I also bet that the overwhelming majority haven’t actually heard a properly setup Atmos system working either. But hey, who needs to hear it to know it's pointless?!


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Thanks buddy! Believe it or not I am actually working on some AV stuff right now, I took the week off to get one of the equipment racks built for the AV gear at the back of the eventual HT...


Well it sure beats all that time and money you've spent on that bloody kitchen! LOL!


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> What about the speakers for my settings?


What else is it you need to know that I didn't already answer?


----------



## kbarnes701

nitro28 said:


> I have everything but the receiver. Hard for me to justify the price difference for the Denon when I have had no issues with my Onkyos.


XT32 did it for me. I have always had Onkyos until my current Denon 5200. But when Onkyo dropped XT32, that was the dealbreaker for me. I have to say I am delighted with the Denon though.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Ok. I give up. I can't wait until next year. This thread is killing me, especially since I have everything except for the AVR. Just got my emotiva xpa 5. Plan to put up my tannoy dc8i two weeks from now when on vacation and lower my surrounds.
> 
> Where you guys recommend I get the Denon x5200 used. I know amazon has it for about 1600.
> 
> Thanks


There's one in the AVS classifieds right now. Almost new. And from an impeccable source:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-a...on-avr-x5200w-9-2-channel-atmos-receiver.html

$1400 plus shipping.


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> There's one in the AVS classifieds right now. Almost new. And from an impeccable source:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-a...on-avr-x5200w-9-2-channel-atmos-receiver.html
> 
> $1400 plus shipping.


Sweet! Need to talk to my wife tonight.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> nitro28,
> 
> Quite a few people decided to switch to Denon because Onkyo dropped Audyssey. Unfortunately, it's needed in most shared-purpose rooms. Since you have good speakers in a dedicated and (hopefully) well treated room, room EQ is much less of a necessity.


So have I, but I still need REQ - and XT32 is clearly demonstrably superior to AccuEQ, hence my switch to Denon.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Taken in context, it most certainly was not!


That was simply an humorous post Chuck. 
...Just wanted to add a light touch to some of yesterday's overall "tone" (character). 
...Just for a short stretch of time. ...No big deal @ all. 

Dolby Atmos is big (new cool surround sound technology) but it's not over yet ....
...And we're all waiting for that Atmos software (real content added by the pro film sound mixers).
...On Blu.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Sweet! Need to talk to my wife tonight.


Remember to focus on how much you are _saving_, not on how much you are spending


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> What else is it you need to know that I didn't already answer?


The types of speakers needed for my setup.


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember to focus on how much you are _saving_, not on how much you are spending


Good idea


----------



## NorthSky

> Grumpy. The point was to see if there was indeed only 20 setups listed in the thread, not to "show off".


Sure that was the only point?


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember to focus on how much you are _saving_, not on how much you are spending


Ah yes......going broke saving money.....I know that well.


----------



## nitro28

Selden Ball said:


> nitro28,
> 
> Quite a few people decided to switch to Denon because Onkyo dropped Audyssey. Unfortunately, it's needed in most shared-purpose rooms. Since you have good speakers in a dedicated and (hopefully) well treated room, room EQ is much less of a necessity.


Yes, the Audyssey calibration definitely helped in my last house with a shared space theater. This time around I do have a dedicated space with all of the speakers at an optimum location so it should be less of an issue and I am going pretty extensive on the soundproofing and acoustic treatments. I had one Denon and really liked it. I actually like the look of the Marantz the best. Just a nice simple look with that round window on the front. I just keep going back to the price and 4 sub outputs on the onkyo for my needs.


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> Ok. I give up. I can't wait until next year. This thread is killing me, especially since I have everything except for the AVR. Just got my emotiva xpa 5. Plan to put up my tannoy dc8i two weeks from now when on vacation and lower my surrounds.
> 
> Where you guys recommend I get the Denon x5200 used. I know amazon has it for about 1600.
> 
> Thanks


If you're interested in using wireless speakers in other rooms of your home, Denon is including a Free Denon HEOS Link ($349 MSRP) through Dec with the purchase of a "new" Denon X4100W or X5200W. 

http://usa.denon.com/us/heos-link


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> I second that. For me, DSU is worth the price of the upgrade for the additional enjoyment it is bringing to my (large) library of legacy content. Not that I don't want more Atmos movies, of course, because I do. But I am more than happy so far. DSU has so far impressed me on every movie I have seen with it. Tonight's movie is Scorsese's *Shutter Island* and I am expecting big things from that soundtrack when DSU gets hold of it.


Should sound great Keith. I will add that I watched "How to Train Your Dragon II" yesterday and it is another disk to the Dolby Surround demo list.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember to focus on how much you are _saving_, not on how much you are spending


Sound like my wife look honey I'll save five hundred dollars and I say yes but it's still $1700 LOL


----------



## smurraybhm

mp5475 said:


> Ok. I give up. I can't wait until next year. This thread is killing me, especially since I have everything except for the AVR. Just got my emotiva xpa 5. Plan to put up my tannoy dc8i two weeks from now when on vacation and lower my surrounds.
> 
> Where you guys recommend I get the Denon x5200 used. I know amazon has it for about 1600.
> 
> Thanks


Another AVS call JD recommendation - speaking from experience you'll be VERY happy with the price. Who knows it may even be less than ^


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> I do not believe that Auro will gain a quick foothold as a result of the Denon/Marantz upgrade path, if D+M is the only company to offer Auro in a product until the next model refresh by manufacturers (probably mid-2015). The upgrade price being mentioned ($250 or $300?) for the D+M upgrade is another barrier to entry that will limit Auro's appeal for those that can do the upgrade. I'm not putting any confidence in their chances for success at this point, but they could play the role of spoiler; muddying the water just enough to keep people from pulling the trigger and instead waiting until at least the December upgrade has happened to see what the landscape looks like at that time.
> 
> DTS is definitely a dark horse. That's a great term to describe their position! From a technical standpoint, they seem to have the most sophisticated approach. From a marketing standpoint, they have great brand recognition and a strong history/ties on the production side. Their biggest detriment is that they don't have anything in the public eye except for their CES 2014 presence/demonstration.
> 
> As much as I would love to jump in and get either the Denon 5200 or Yamaha 3040, it's the prospect that DTS could announce something that would really shake up the marketplace that's keeping me on the sidelines. Since Atmos has not come out with real strength in respect to Atmos-encoded software titles, a coordinated effort by DTS in the next several months could change everything.
> 
> I foresee the possibility of them coming out at CES with a lineup of hardware manufacturers that will be implementing their format in their mid-2015 model refreshes and studios that will be including it in their 2015 releases.
> 
> As I'm writing this, I'm realizing that I'm probably going to have to wait until that next model refresh to see how this is all going to shake out. Unfortunately, that means May or June 2015 before announcements are made.
> 
> I hope that my comments are not taken as putting down Atmos, its benefits, and those who have taken the plunge with Atmos-equipped setups. I admire their willingness to take that plunge and I am living vicariously through them, and hopefully learning things at the same time. However, I think that examining the situation in this way provides food for thought for those that have yet to take the plunge, so that they go into such a decision fully aware of not only the wonders that await them if they do, but also the potential pitfalls, so they can decide for themselves if they are a factor that warrant some patience for the smoke to clear.


Scott, it's been few times that I'm reading some of your posts here, @ AVS, and they reflect my overall way of thinking quite word for word; and that one above is no exception. 

You have a professional (gentle) way to put them one after the other, and they invite full respect plus full acceptance and agreement of course. 

Your tomorrow's vision is sharp and intelligent. ...I'm glad people like you share their ideas with the rest of us. And I don't have much to add to what you just said above because you said it all already pretty much. ...You touched almost all the important points @ this time on that Atmos game.

Much more is to come ....


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> Should sound great Keith. I will add that I watched "How to Train Your Dragon II" yesterday and it is another disk to the Dolby Surround demo list.


I just got that How to Train Your Dragon II going to give it a listen tonight


----------



## javanpohl

I'm running my Yamaha 2040 in 7.2.2 with Atlantic Tech 350s up front and 2200s everywhere else.


----------



## rockhound76s

batpig said:


> I'm glad someone finally has the AT modules! Thanks for the report, at least we have one data point indicating they are quality speakers (unlike the DTs).
> 
> Lovely room too. Probably wouldn't get too much benefit out of rear overheads with the 4 Axioms being mounted so high.


Thanks! Yes, I too question how much I'd gain by further investing rear overheads (or modules) due to the Axioms placement, dispersion, and the smaller size of my room. 



batpig said:


> If you selected Front Dolby then you are probably OK. It's just important to be precise with terminology now that we are dealing with 16 potential "overhead" speaker locations! You said you are "using [them] in the TF position" and "Top Front" is a totally different designation (for a physical overhead speaker) than "Front Dolby".


Duly noted. I've edited my OP.


----------



## rockhound76s

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice report! And a lovely non-dedicated room too. The only suggestion I’d make is that lowering those surrounds would add even more to your enjoyment as it would create greater separation between the overheads and the listener-level speakers. IDK how much work it would be as I can see that, like me, you dislike visible wiring, so presumably the current speakers are fed by in-wall wires, which I know from experience is a royal PITA to change.


Thanks! You're precisely correct, going to lower, monopole side surrounds would be the next potential change to squeeze out some more performance potential. That being said, it is a fair bit of work and I have WAF to consider. Fortunately things are sounding great as-is, so I'm in no rush at this point......for now at least.


----------



## batpig

nitro28 said:


> Wow, seems like Denon is winning the Atmos war so far with a huge majority of you all purchasing it.


Well, in addition to the fact that Denon/Marantz is the only company still offering Audyssey XT32 and Atmos, remember that Denon had the "first mover advantage" by bringing Atmos capable receiver to the market before any of the other manufacturers. The Onkyo, Pioneer and Yamaha offerings didn't ship with Atmos (needed a firmware update later to enable) so if you were one of the early adopters the Denon 5200 was the ONLY option for those who wanted to jump in and do a full 11ch Atmos setup. 

Plus, Pioneer's offerings are limited to 9 channels max even with an external amp.

So Denon was first to market, with the best room EQ software, and full 11ch capability with support for wide speakers also if you want to do 9.1.2 or switch between 11ch Neo:X and 11ch (7.1.4) Atmos modes. Plus of course D+M is the only brand (at this point) offering Auro3D support.

Not being all fanboy here, just trying to explain the observed phenomenon.


----------



## batpig

rockhound76s said:


> Thanks! Yes, I too question how much I'd gain by further investing rear overheads (or modules) due to the Axioms placement, dispersion, and the smaller size of my room.


Please report more about those Atlantic Tech modules when you get a chance. Many have been unimpressed by the Def Tech offerings and the even lower budget Onkyos with both having wimpy little 3" full range drivers. The anticipation for those AT's with their bigger woofers and dual concentric 2-way design is high. Considering they are the same price ($500/pr) as the Def Techs it seems like a no-brainer for someone who wants a standalone add-on module.

If you have a chance, try playing them with 2ch stereo content to get a feel for their "raw" sound quality. If your Marantz has the same amp assign config options as the Denon models you can do this without even moving any cables by designating those speakers as "Front B" and editing the mapping assignment.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^

Exactly. First out the gate and full featured. Take notice that everybody that owns an x5200 (except for Keith) is running 7.x.4 system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rockhound76s said:


> Thanks for pointing this out...I'll have to recheck the configuration when I get home to see if there was indeed a distinction. To my recollection, during initial setup it gave me the option of either Front Height or Front Dolby, and I selected the latter.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Dolby Front Enabled selection turns on additional signal processing to enhance the sensation of overhead sound from those particular "enabled" speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.

Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR

robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers

SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR

randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.

Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR

smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.

petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)

multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR

Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000

LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)

Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers
Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers

nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.

Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM

bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR

RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & T

Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.

batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules

noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture

tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73

Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH

ssweetimpalass - 7.1.4 - Denon X5200W / Emotiva XPA-3/ SVS PC-12 Plus sub / Klipsch RF-7 mains / Klipsch RC-64 Center / Klipsch R-5800-w surrounds / Klipsch CDT-5800-C TF+TR

RRF743- 7.2.4 -Denon x5200w, Outlaw 770(200w x 7) 4 ceilings(Polk RC80i)

rockhound76s - 7.1.2 using Marantz AV7702. Atlantic Tech Atmos-enabled modules for TF

Nalleh - 7.2.4 using Denon AVR-X5200W and Emotiva XPA-5. Dynavoice S5(bookshelf) as on-ceiling FH(42') and TM(85')

That's 25 Atmos Theaters, folks !!


----------



## NorthSky

> I will add that I watched *"How to Train Your Dragon II"* yesterday and it is another disk to the Dolby Surround demo list.


What a cool flick it is! ...Picture and sound quality are awesome too. ...And in 3D it truly shines!
I bet it is formidable with DSU; you guys are all ahead of all of us in your chosen luck. 

I had a dream ....


----------



## mp5475

Awesome. This is stupid question but Where can I find the number?


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> ... That's 25 Atmos Theaters, folks !!


Yeah, couple dozens, cool. ...But more cool than that are the Atmos newcomers to this thread.


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> Awesome. This is stupid question but Where can I find the number?


Which number? ...Number for what?


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> Well, in addition to the fact that Denon/Marantz is the only company still offering Audyssey XT32 and Atmos, remember that Denon had the "first mover advantage" by bringing Atmos capable receiver to the market before any of the other manufacturers. The Onkyo, Pioneer and Yamaha offerings didn't ship with Atmos (needed a firmware update later to enable) so if you were one of the early adopters the Denon 5200 was the ONLY option for those who wanted to jump in and do a full 11ch Atmos setup.
> 
> Plus, Pioneer's offerings are limited to 9 channels max even with an external amp.
> 
> So Denon was first to market, with the best room EQ software, and full 11ch capability with support for wide speakers also if you want to do 9.1.2 or switch between 11ch Neo:X and 11ch (7.1.4) Atmos modes. Plus of course D+M is the only brand (at this point) offering Auro3D support.
> 
> Not being all fanboy here, just trying to explain the observed phenomenon.



Well maybe *just a bit* of a fanboy.... 


BTW, although not Onkyo's first Atmos capable AVR's available in the marketplace, I thought that the NR1030 and NR3030 were shipped with Atmos... mid October?


----------



## mp5475

NorthSky said:


> Which number? ...Number for what?


AVS JD phone number?


----------



## zgeneral

bargervais said:


> I just got that How to Train Your Dragon II going to give it a listen tonight


The movie made for little children???


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zgeneral said:


> The movie made for little children???


And the the young at heart. :wink:


----------



## chi_guy50

mp5475 said:


> AVS JD phone number?



It's in his sig:

_"JD" – [email protected] ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - *Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc.* _
_Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)_
_Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo_
_** Think the AVR is defective? Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times._


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> AVS JD phone number?


Oh, in his sig.

EDIT: Just saw that another member was on it.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> And the young at heart. :wink:


Like me! :grin::angel::nerd:


----------



## htpcforever

batpig said:


> So Denon was first to market, with the best room EQ software, and full 11ch capability with support for wide speakers also if you want to do 9.1.2 or switch between 11ch Neo:X and 11ch (7.1.4) Atmos modes. Plus of course D+M is the only brand (at this point) offering Auro3D support.
> 
> Not being all fanboy here, just trying to explain the observed phenomenon.


Don't you have to add an external amp to power two of those channels, though? I know the Onkyo came in later (and is missing Audyssey - dumb move), but the 3030 can power all 11 channels without needing an external amp.


----------



## mp5475

chi_guy50 said:


> It's in his sig:
> 
> _"JD" – [email protected] ; shop.avscience.com ; 585-645-1006, AVScience - *Authorized dealer for AVRs, Speakers, etc.* _
> _Daily 8am – 8pm EST (Sat/Sun too if you leave message)_
> _Call for pricing - Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Def Tech, Atlantic Tech, Oppo_
> _** Think the AVR is defective? Reset the microprocessor 4-5 times._


Thank you


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> AVS JD phone number?


Not only in my sig .. but above my avatar as well.


----------



## Al Sherwood

htpcforever said:


> Don't you have to add an external amp to power two of those channels, though? I know the Onkyo came in later (and is missing Audyssey - dumb move), but the 3030 can power all 11 channels without needing an external amp.


Opps I might has miss spoke then, didn't the 1030 and 3030 arrive late to the game but with Atmos, where as the 636 - 838 needed the firmware upgrade?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Correct.


----------



## DS-21

batpig said:


> ***The anticipation for those AT's with their bigger woofers and dual concentric 2-way design is high.


To be sure, this










is not a "dual concentric" design. It's basically a car audio coax firing up in a box. Nothing at all like the genuinely concentric designs from Tannoy, KEF, Pioneer/TAD, Gradient, Genelec, etc.

A good wideband driver is actually probably a better choice is upper midrange directivity control is important. 

Either Dolby's directivity regs are very loose or that tweeter comes in very high, because there's basically no directivity control on that tweeter at all.


----------



## kokishin

*avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet*

I've created a google docs spreadsheet which lists avsforum members atmos configurations based on those members that contributed their configs in this thread (to date). There are some holes in the spreadsheet where no data was provided or I could not glean the data from your post. Please check and provide feedback. I will add forum members' Atmos configs if provided.

avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet


----------



## aaranddeeman

kokishin said:


> I've created a google docs spreadsheet which lists avsforum members atmos configurations based on those members that contributed their configs in this thread (to date). There are some holes in the spreadsheet where no data was provided or I could not glean the data from your post. Please check and provide feedback. I will add forum members' Atmos configs if provided.
> 
> avsforum Members Atmos Configurations


Thanks.
Denon 5200w is the majority..


----------



## Keith Mickunas

kokishin said:


> I've created a google docs spreadsheet which lists avsforum members atmos configurations based on those members that contributed their configs in this thread (to date). There are some holes in the spreadsheet where no data was provided or I could not glean the data from your post. Please check and provide feedback. I will add forum members' Atmos configs if provided.
> 
> avsforum Members Atmos Configurations


I have a 7.2.4 configuration with a Denon x5200W and Klipsch KL-7800-THX and KS-7800-THX in-wall speakers for the main 7 channels and Klipsch CDT-5800-C II in-ceiling speakers setup as TF and TR. I use an XPA-5 and XPA-200 for the 7 main channels and the Denon powers the TF and TR speakers.


----------



## kingwiggi

Nalleh said:


> That's 25 Atmos Theaters, folks !!


Me too


----------



## kokishin

Keith Mickunas said:


> I have a 7.2.4 configuration with a Denon x5200W and Klipsch KL-7800-THX and KS-7800-THX in-wall speakers for the main 7 channels and Klipsch CDT-5800-C II in-ceiling speakers setup as TF and TR. I use an XPA-5 and XPA-200 for the 7 main channels and the Denon powers the TF and TR speakers.


Added to spreadsheet.


----------



## RRF743

Keith Mickunas said:


> I have a 7.2.4 configuration with a Denon x5200W and Klipsch KL-7800-THX and KS-7800-THX in-wall speakers for the main 7 channels and Klipsch CDT-5800-C II in-ceiling speakers setup as TF and TR. I use an XPA-5 and XPA-200 for the 7 main channels and the Denon powers the TF and TR speakers.


 Nice spread sheet Keith! Very thoughtful of you. I don't know if you want to make the change but I have in-ceilings. Also you sai your receiver is powering the ceilings. Do you mean their powering the surrounds? I have 7.2.4 as you and I thought the TR needed to be powered by an external amp. Left me know if you stand correct as I will re-wire mine.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks.
> Denon 5200w is the majority..


17 out of 30 - or roughly 60% ... That is quite considerable...when you consider all the Dolby Atmos receivers so far.


----------



## kokishin

RRF743 said:


> Nice spread sheet Keith! Very thoughtful of you. I don't know if you want to make the change but I have in-ceilings. Also you sai your receiver is powering the ceilings. Do you mean their powering the surrounds? I have 7.2.4 as you and I thought the TR needed to be powered by an external amp. Left me know if you stand correct as I will re-wire mine.


I posted the spreadsheet.

The X5200 has 9 internal amps. For a 7.2.4 config, a pair of speakers needs an external 2 channel amp. The X5200 can be configured so that any pair(s) of speakers as well as center can be driven by the external amp including TR. OTOH, some folks prefer to drive the Front L/R with an external amp; some folks drive all their speakers with external amps treating the X5200 like a pre-pro. IOW, the X5200 amp config is very flexible. batpig has discussed various configs in some of his posts.


----------



## redjr

asoofi1 said:


> I think it doesn't matter because the manufacturer will release what they want when they want...and companies have exclusive licensing deals and NDA's all the time, and Dolby is no different. They could have given 24.1.10 to one and less to another...who knows. So if one avr manufacturer can be first to market with a 24.1.10 and pays a premium to Dolby for an exclusive window, they can capture that market segment. Money talks.
> 
> And not everyone at the same company will have the same information. People work on different teams and have access to different information.


Not information like that. Why would Dolby do that for a consumer oriented market? It makes no sense at every level, and if they did could quite possibly cause marketing damage.


----------



## RRF743

kokishin said:


> I posted the spreadsheet.
> 
> The X5200 has 9 internal amps. For a 7.2.4 config, a pair of speakers needs an external 2 channel amp. The X5200 can be configured so that any pair(s) of speakers can be driven by the external amp including TR. OTOH, some folks prefer to drive the Front L/R with an external amp; some folks drive all their speakers with external amps treating the X5200 like a pre-pro. IOW, the X5200 amp config is very flexible. batpig has discussed various configs in some of his posts.


Cool. I will reconfigure my system so my ceilings are powered by the x5200w. Thanks!
Back to the drawing board!


----------



## HT-Eman

rockhound76s said:


> Thanks! You're precisely correct, going to lower, monopole side surrounds would be the next potential change to squeeze out some more performance potential. That being said, it is a fair bit of work and I have WAF to consider. Fortunately things are sounding great as-is, so I'm in no rush at this point......for now at least.


Good to hear they sound great with axiom qs8. I'm using qs8 for the rear and m2 for the sides. Still deciding whether or not to trade in the qs8 for another pair of m2 . I have everything ready to go except a receiver . Going for the Denon receiver and I can get the x5200 now but I want to wait another month or so to see what the x7200 will offer over the x5200.


----------



## sgibson

Nalleh said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
> 
> SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
> 
> Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR
> 
> smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
> 
> petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
> 
> multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
> 
> LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)
> 
> Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers
> Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers
> 
> nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.
> 
> Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM
> 
> bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR
> 
> RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & T
> 
> Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.
> 
> batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules
> 
> noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture
> 
> tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
> 
> Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH
> 
> ssweetimpalass - 7.1.4 - Denon X5200W / Emotiva XPA-3/ SVS PC-12 Plus sub / Klipsch RF-7 mains / Klipsch RC-64 Center / Klipsch R-5800-w surrounds / Klipsch CDT-5800-C TF+TR
> 
> RRF743- 7.2.4 -Denon x5200w, Outlaw 770(200w x 7) 4 ceilings(Polk RC80i)
> 
> rockhound76s - 7.1.2 using Marantz AV7702. Atlantic Tech Atmos-enabled modules for TF
> 
> Nalleh - 7.2.4 using Denon AVR-X5200W and Emotiva XPA-5. Dynavoice S5(bookshelf) as on-ceiling FH(42') and TM(85')
> 
> That's 25 Atmos Theaters, folks !!


Make that 26!
sgibson - 5.2.4 Denon X4100 and Emotiva 7Ch Ext. Amp total of 14 speakers. Currently using 4 Heights, Klipsch Towers LCR Surr Rears and 2-Subs


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Please report more about those Atlantic Tech modules when you get a chance. Many have been unimpressed by the Def Tech offerings and the even lower budget Onkyos with both having wimpy little 3" full range drivers. The anticipation for those AT's with their bigger woofers and dual concentric 2-way design is high. Considering they are the same price ($500/pr) as the Def Techs it seems like a no-brainer for someone who wants a standalone add-on module.
> 
> If you have a chance, try playing them with 2ch stereo content to get a feel for their "raw" sound quality. If your Marantz has the same amp assign config options as the Denon models you can do this without even moving any cables by designating those speakers as "Front B" and editing the mapping assignment.





DS-21 said:


> To be sure, this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is not a "dual concentric" design. It's basically a car audio coax firing up in a box. Nothing at all like the genuinely concentric designs from Tannoy, KEF, Pioneer/TAD, Gradient, Genelec, etc.
> 
> A good wideband driver is actually probably a better choice is upper midrange directivity control is important.
> 
> Either Dolby's directivity regs are very loose or that tweeter comes in very high, because there's basically no directivity control on that tweeter at all.


Is that in fact the case? I reserved 2 pairs of them... I'd like to eliminate any possible regrets. If they aren't "dual concentric" does that mean the sound will be more dispersed? I prefer a bit of directionality/ definition.


----------



## chi_guy50

RRF743 said:


> Nice spread sheet Keith! Very thoughtful of you. I don't know if you want to make the change but I have in-ceilings. Also you sai your receiver is powering the ceilings. Do you mean their powering the surrounds? I have 7.2.4 as you and* I thought the TR needed to be powered by an external amp*. Left me know if you stand correct as I will re-wire mine.


You might be thinking of the X4100 (7ch internal expandable to 9) for which that is indeed a limitation when using two pairs of top-level speakers in a 5.1.4 configuration.

It is not the case for the X5200.


----------



## RRF743

chi_guy50 said:


> You might be thinking of the X4100 (7ch internal expandable to 9) for which that is indeed a limitation when using two pairs of top-level speakers in a 5.1.4 configuration.
> 
> It is not the case for the X5200.


That's good to know. I do have the x5200w. I only did it this way because that's what Best Buy Magnolia told me. I should have known. Glad I didn't store away the denon shipping box and the mic in the attic just yet!


----------



## kokishin

sgibson said:


> Make that 26!
> sgibson - 5.2.4 Denon X4100 and Emotiva 7Ch Ext. Amp total of 14 speakers. Currently using 4 Heights, Klipsch Towers LCR Surr Rears and 2-Subs


Please look at this spreadsheet and let me know exactly what you want to put in the provided cells and I will add you: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_cefn4mLxGO98urdcL7f4j4y238vdsFMgCJt0WxH2Mo/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## DS-21

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is that in fact the case? I reserved 2 pairs of them... I'd like to eliminate any possible regrets. If they aren't "dual concentric" does that mean the sound will be more dispersed? I prefer a bit of directionality/ definition.


Unless that picture (taken from AT's website) is wrong, then they are clearly not concentric drivers, but the kind of post-mounted tweeter coaxial driver often seen in lower-end car audio.

Now, they could still have narrow upper midrange directivity, based on where the mid-tweet crossover is. But there's definitely going to be a bloom of energy wherever the tweeter comes in, because there's basically no way such a speaker can have a good directivity match at the crossover region.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

DS-21 said:


> Unless that picture (taken from AT's website) is wrong, then they are clearly not concentric drivers, but the kind of post-mounted tweeter coaxial driver often seen in lower-end car audio.
> 
> Now, they could still have narrow upper midrange directivity, based on where the mid-tweet crossover is. But there's definitely going to be a bloom of energy wherever the tweeter comes in, because there's basically no way such a speaker can have a good directivity match at the crossover region.


In the spec sheet it says "concentric driver array"... are you sure about this? (or is that a misleading description?) When you say "crossover region" are you talking about frequencies at a certain range? (Like subs with floor speakers set @ 40 hz?) Sorry my speaker vocabulary is severely limited... all I know is what my ears like to hear (which so far has been my Klipsch Chorus II speakers)


http://www.atlantictechnology.com/products/floor-standing-bookshelf-speaker-systems/44-da/


----------



## NorthSky

Lol, who started all this? ...Jeff (thebland), that's who.

=> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## DS-21

Aras_Volodka said:


> In the spec sheet it says "concentric driver array"... are you sure about this? (or is that a misleading description?)


I'm absolutely positive. Just look at the picture above, and in the PDF below. That's a coaxial driver with a post-mounted tweeter, not a concentric driver. 



Aras_Volodka said:


> When you say "crossover region" are you talking about frequencies at a certain range?


Yes. The midrange has a passband and the tweeter has a passband. The "crossover region" is where the two meet. 

According to their literature there is a claimed 1st order crossover between woofer and tweeter at 3.5kHz. At that frequency, the woofer will be radiating in a somewhat narrow pattern, but the tweeter will be basically omnidirectional. That's likely one reason for the foam; note that the Atmos elevation speakers with real concentric drivers, the ones built into the Pioneer Andrew Jones speakers and in KEF's standalone R50, are also the only ones without a foam shield to block the tweeter's forward radiation.

Now, this particular speaker may be perfectly adequate for the types of signals Atmos sends elevation speakers. I can't speak to that. But the marketing smoke-and-mirrors do not create an initial positive impression.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeck! Avoid those.


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> 17 out of 30 - or roughly 60% ... That is quite considerable...when you consider all the Dolby Atmos receivers so far.


I wouldn't say it's Hobson's choice... but it was the first onto the scene with 9 channels built in, 11 channel processing plus XT 32 And Atmos.. so it will be the default choice..

Being made in Japan and a reasonable price doesn't hurt either...

Ask again in a year when more amps are released and we will probably have a different answer, especially when the HDCP 2.2 solution comes out...

Out where I am, actual stock of Atmos amps are still rare, and the SR 7009 is cheaper than the 5200 by US$ 150-200...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

DS-21 said:


> I'm absolutely positive. Just look at the picture above, and in the PDF below. That's a coaxial driver with a post-mounted tweeter, not a concentric driver.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The midrange has a passband and the tweeter has a passband. The "crossover region" is where the two meet.
> 
> According to their literature there is a claimed 1st order crossover between woofer and tweeter at 3.5kHz. At that frequency, the woofer will be radiating in a somewhat narrow pattern, but the tweeter will be basically omnidirectional. That's likely one reason for the foam; note that the Atmos elevation speakers with real concentric drivers, the ones built into the Pioneer Andrew Jones speakers and in KEF's standalone R50, are also the only ones without a foam shield to block the tweeter's forward radiation.
> 
> Now, this particular speaker may be perfectly adequate for the types of signals Atmos sends elevation speakers. I can't speak to that. But the marketing smoke-and-mirrors do not create an initial positive impression.





Scott Simonian said:


> Yeck! Avoid those.


Let me talk to my sales guy... what are the best options for modules otherwise then... the KEF? (I don't plan on going tower/w extra speaker on top like the pioneer... quite happy with the Chorus II's) They look to be somewhat the same price? Maybe a tad more expensive? The KEF's woofer size looks to be the same?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

YIKES!!!! 1,200 a pair! Maybe I'll check on others... any affordable options that have the goods? or is that why the KEF's have the goods?


----------



## brwsaw

brwsaw said:


> If there isn't a tiered approach would this mean every Atmos capable AVR has the potential to render the 24.1.10 content, before being limited by DSP and speaker outputs?


I admit I don’t understand the topology or general layout inside an AVR but my question was legit. If all Atmos branded AVR's can read the meta data why can't parts be used to achieve higher speaker counts now?


----------



## markus767

DS-21 said:


> To be sure, this
> 
> [...]
> 
> is not a "dual concentric" design. It's basically a car audio coax firing up in a box. Nothing at all like the genuinely concentric designs from Tannoy, KEF, Pioneer/TAD, Gradient, Genelec, etc.
> 
> A good wideband driver is actually probably a better choice is upper midrange directivity control is important.
> 
> Either Dolby's directivity regs are very loose or that tweeter comes in very high, because there's basically no directivity control on that tweeter at all.


We would need to see measurements of that assembly. It looks like they have taken measures to shape dispersion of the tweeter (plastic surround and capping).


----------



## markus767

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is that in fact the case? I reserved 2 pairs of them... I'd like to eliminate any possible regrets. If they aren't "dual concentric" does that mean the sound will be more dispersed? I prefer a bit of directionality/ definition.


Atmos-enabled ceiling-firing speakers will always sound more spacious/diffuse because there are two delayed main sound paths - direct sound from the speaker and delayed sound from the ceiling.
One important factor is the level of the reflected sound. The ceiling reflection should be as loud as possible hence the angle of the ceiling-firing module should be adjustable in order to match your specific ceiling height, listening position and speaker height/location.


----------



## Steve Goff

brwsaw said:


> I admit I don’t understand the topology or general layout inside an AVR but my question was legit. If all Atmos branded AVR's can read the meta data why can't parts be used to achieve higher speaker counts now?



They can be, but will there be enough buyers to make the product viable?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is that in fact the case? I reserved 2 pairs of them... I'd like to eliminate any possible regrets. If they aren't "dual concentric" does that mean the sound will be more dispersed? I prefer a bit of directionality/ definition.


 Concentric:
of or denoting circles, arcs, or other shapes that share the same center, the larger often completely surrounding the smaller.

Coaxial
having a common axis.
A *coaxial loudspeaker* is a loudspeaker system in which the individual driver units radiate sound from the same point or axis.

Hair splitting. 

One of the unique advantages of the AT design is that the tweeter angle can be adjusted. That is not possible with others, and we found the Pioneers bouncing short of the target in one normal home setup, FWIW.

BTW, the AT speakers were co-developed with Dolby, and were used at their first demos of the upfiring concept at CEDIA 2013, and again by Analog Devices at CEDIA 2014. And if you don't like them, send them back for full refund.


----------



## ThePrisoner

sgibson said:


> Make that 26!
> sgibson - 5.2.4 Denon X4100 and Emotiva 7Ch Ext. Amp total of 14 speakers. Currently using 4 Heights, Klipsch Towers LCR Surr Rears and 2-Subs





Nalleh said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 using Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers
> 
> SeanUK - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Gallo Micro's speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> randyk47 - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W and Onkyo M-5010 amp. Using 4 Definitive ProMonitor 800 ceiling speakers configured as TF + TR.
> 
> Leadem - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On ceiling Sony SS-B1000's. Configured as TF + TR
> 
> smurraybhm (Steve) - 7.2.4 using a Denon X5200W - rest of the info can by found in my signature.
> 
> petetherock - 5.2.4 using Denon X4100W - (Anthony Gallo A'Divas as TF + TR)
> 
> multit - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W + Advance Acoustics MAA705. On ceiling nubert nuVero5 speakers configured as TF + TR
> 
> Selden Ball - 7.1.4 using Marantz SR7009, Marantz MM9000, 2x NHT 2.9, 1x NHT AC2, 2x Advent Heritage, 6x DefTech ProMonitor 1000
> 
> LStotland - 5.2.4 using Marantz SR7009 Sonance VP62(TM) KEF 60s (FH)
> 
> Bargevais - 5.2.2 using Onkyo TX-NR 737 - in my den top front on ceiling speakers
> Bargevias - 7.2.4 using Onkyo TX-NR 1030 - in the living room top high and top rear in ceiling speakers
> 
> nucky - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W. In ceiling Dali Kompas speakers. Configured as TF+TR.
> 
> Billynedwell - 7.1.2 using Pioneer sc-lx58 with Monitor Audio CT165 ceiling speakers configured as TM
> 
> bsoko2 - 7.2.4 using Denon X5200W - JTR speakers mains & surrounds and TannoyD5i ceiling TF & TR
> 
> RAllenChristenson - 7.1.4 using Denon X5200W - All DefTech including DI 6.5LCR's in ceiling speakers configured as TF & T
> 
> Jive Turkey - 5.2.4 using Denon X5200W, speakers hung from ceiling.
> 
> batpig - 5.2.2 using Denon X5200W - Energy RC's floor level with KEF 2005.2 satellites as "fake" Atmos modules
> 
> noah katz - 7.2.4 using Marantz AV7002 - L/C/R's are DIY SEOS-12 (AE TD12M/DNA 360 CD) ; all surrounds are B&C 8CX21 coax, TF and TR at ceiling/wall juncture
> 
> tjenkins95 - 5.1.4 system using Denon x5200 with Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73
> 
> Spanglo - 6.4.4 using Denon X5200W - 4 wall mounted Klipsch bookshelf speakers TF + RH
> 
> ssweetimpalass - 7.1.4 - Denon X5200W / Emotiva XPA-3/ SVS PC-12 Plus sub / Klipsch RF-7 mains / Klipsch RC-64 Center / Klipsch R-5800-w surrounds / Klipsch CDT-5800-C TF+TR
> 
> RRF743- 7.2.4 -Denon x5200w, Outlaw 770(200w x 7) 4 ceilings(Polk RC80i)
> 
> rockhound76s - 7.1.2 using Marantz AV7702. Atlantic Tech Atmos-enabled modules for TF
> 
> Nalleh - 7.2.4 using Denon AVR-X5200W and Emotiva XPA-5. Dynavoice S5(bookshelf) as on-ceiling FH(42') and TM(85')
> 
> That's 25 Atmos Theaters, folks !!


ThePrisoner - 5.2.2 Denon X4100. Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800's mounted front height (Audiosource Amp 100 & in-ceiling Top Middle's coming soon)


----------



## sgibson

kokishin said:


> Please look at this spreadsheet and let me know exactly what you want to put in the provided cells and I will add you: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_cefn4mLxGO98urdcL7f4j4y238vdsFMgCJt0WxH2Mo/edit?usp=sharing



Hello kokishin,
Oops, sorry I didn't use the spreadsheet. Thanks for your offer to post my Atmos layout, I accept.


sgibson 5.2.4 Denon AVR-X4100W On Ceiling TF + TR Klipsch WB-14, NXG Tech AW5B Emotiva UPA-700


regards,
sgibson (Happy Atmos convert)


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Sound like my wife look honey I'll save five hundred dollars and I say yes but it's still $1700 LOL


Yes, women think like that, so you have to match them at their own game. "Look at this amazing bargain - I just saved $600 on this new AVR!".


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Exactly. First out the gate and full featured. Take notice that everybody that owns an x5200 (except for Keith) is running 7.x.4 system.


And I would if I could, Scott!

I am guessing that the appeal of adding yet more speakers is strongest in those who have already added yet more speakers - so the appeal of Atmos was strongest in those already running 7.1 systems.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Well maybe *just a bit* of a fanboy....
> 
> 
> BTW, although not Onkyo's first Atmos capable AVR's available in the marketplace, I thought that the NR1030 and NR3030 were shipped with Atmos... mid October?


That was after Denon had released their Atmos units though.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I've created a google docs spreadsheet which lists avsforum members atmos configurations based on those members that contributed their configs in this thread (to date). There are some holes in the spreadsheet where no data was provided or I could not glean the data from your post. Please check and provide feedback. I will add forum members' Atmos configs if provided.
> 
> avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet


Cool! You can add this for me if you wish, in the 'Other info' section: all external amps - Emotiva XPA-3, XPA-200 and UPA-200.


----------



## kbarnes701

brwsaw said:


> I admit I don’t understand the topology or general layout inside an AVR but my question was legit. If all Atmos branded AVR's can read the meta data why can't parts be used to achieve higher speaker counts now?


One reason would be the physical layout of the chassis and the number of speaker outputs it has. The current mainstream units are based on existing designs - they just 'added' Atmos in order to meet delivery schedules. Next year's models may be designed from the ground up as Atmos units and could well offer more speaker outputs. The Atmos chip can handle 24.1.10 - it's just up to the AVR manufacturer to implement however much they need, or feel will sell well.


----------



## asharma

*Interesting test*

While waiting for 4 in ceiling speakers to go on sale, I returned some cheaper ones I had and decided to go back to plan old 7.2 with front heights. I decided to listen to the ATMOS 4 trailer demos that I was testing with in ceiling speakers as a 5.2.4 setup but with 7.2 instead...much to my surprise, the demo's still sound pretty darn good. The 360 degree bird flight is great, even the rain sounded immersive. My subjective conclusion is that 4 ceilings maybe added 10-15 percent 'more immersion' and that the ATMOS demo's work just fine in a 7.2 setup as the objects in the demo's must still use a lot of the standard 5.2 setup...with that being said, go forward, it will be interesting to see whether the objects are pushed to mainly a 5.2 setup or will the objects be pushed more to the in ceiling speakers? Just thought I would share my findings as I was surprise at how good the demos sounded with 7.2....


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Well ... not 7.2 if using Front Heights, but rather 5.2.2, so the difference would simply be adding 2 more height speakers and moving the heights closer to you, but still a good test for you.


----------



## JonStatt

Am I right in thinking that only the Onkyo Atmos speakers are wall mountable so far? The Kef R50 I have confirmed with Kef are not wall mountable. And from what I can see the Atlantic ones are not either but I haven't had a clear rear view of them yet to be sure. This seems like a bit of an oversight with the designs to-date. Making holes in my ceiling is not viable right now, and my front speakers don't have a viable shape to put anything on-top of them. At the moment I am using Onkyo's speakers which are "passable" but I would like to go a bit more upmarket. I guess I could put up shelves just to support the speakers, but that does seem somewhat over complicated.


----------



## chewie1

Hi my setup is

7.1.4 using Denon X5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as TH+TR


----------



## JonStatt

I am curious about other's "placement" of the flapping bird in the Dolby Amaze trailer. According to one of the online reviews, the bird flaps above you and around the room. In my set-up, the bird nicely flaps around the room, but I wouldn't really say it is above me. On the other hand, the rain sounds like its pouring down over the walls of my room from high up, exactly as it is meant to....I almost feel like I am about to get soaked. 

Is this difference in perception because I am running 7.1.2 instead of 5.1.4 or 7.1.4?


----------



## jdsmoothie

JonStatt said:


> Am I right in thinking that only the Onkyo Atmos speakers are wall mountable so far? The Kef R50 I have confirmed with Kef are not wall mountable. And from what I can see the Atlantic ones are not either but I haven't had a clear rear view of them yet to be sure. This seems like a bit of an oversight with the designs to-date. Making holes in my ceiling is not viable right now, and my front speakers don't have a viable shape to put anything on-top of them. At the moment I am using Onkyo's speakers which are "passable" but I would like to go a bit more upmarket. I guess I could put up shelves just to support the speakers, but that does seem somewhat over complicated.


AFAIK, yes that is correct. Atmos up-firing speakers are designed to be placed on a horizontal surface (ideally the F/S/SB speaker pair). You may also want to consider placing them on dedicated speaker stands.


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> One reason would be the physical layout of the chassis and the number of speaker outputs it has. The current mainstream units are based on existing designs - they just 'added' Atmos in order to meet delivery schedules. Next year's models may be designed from the ground up as Atmos units and could well offer more speaker outputs. The Atmos chip can handle 24.1.10 - it's just up to the AVR manufacturer to implement however much they need, or feel will sell well.


As it was I had to make adjustments to the back of my rack to accommodate the longer line of speaker connections on my Denon. Nothing big or complicated, just different than the Yamaha it replaced. While I could, with shelve adjustments, get a taller unit in my rack but certainly not wider and I'm guessing taller is the future. The other aspect I've been thinking about is the physical layout and installation of more speakers. Of course I'm old enough to have gone through all the stages of the home sound evolution from single speaker to stereo to quadraphonic to surround sound. I suppose at each stage I thought we'd pretty much reached the limit or pinnacle. So here I am with 13 speakers, counting the subwoofer, and wondering where in the hell would or could I mount more. Between windows, doors, furniture, a cathedral ceiling, and only a 14' x 15' room I've just about reached the max. Mrs. K is already jokingly calling our media/theater room the "speaker lab". Never say never but.........


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> Am I right in thinking that only the Onkyo Atmos speakers are wall mountable so far? The Kef R50 I have confirmed with Kef are not wall mountable. And from what I can see the Atlantic ones are not either but I haven't had a clear rear view of them yet to be sure. This seems like a bit of an oversight with the designs to-date. Making holes in my ceiling is not viable right now, and my front speakers don't have a viable shape to put anything on-top of them. At the moment I am using Onkyo's speakers which are "passable" but I would like to go a bit more upmarket. I guess I could put up shelves just to support the speakers, but that does seem somewhat over complicated.


Remember they can be up to 3 feet from their associated speaker. That might give you some more options.


----------



## mtbdudex

NorthSky said:


> Lol, who started all this? ...Jeff (thebland), that's who.
> 
> => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


not Jeff......



mtbdudex said:


> A few post up I read that "only" 20 actual Atmos HT installs have been documented in this 14k post thread, is that close to accurate?
> Who are those people?
> Is there a master post of actual Atmos HT installs keeping track?
> 
> Just for "fun", I took 2 minutes and did a post count in just this thread to see how the thread got to 14,000 posts in 5 months, just a quick scan I picked the below people:
> Frequent posters, their post count, and the search URL :
> Markus767 (446) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278905
> Scott Simonian (371) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278913
> jdsmoothie (79) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278929
> Dan Hitchman (708) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278945
> wse (202) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278953
> sdurani (615) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278961
> kbarnes701 (1000) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278969
> North sky (1000) http://www.avsforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=17278977
> 
> 4,400 + posts from 8 people ....... wow.....
> 
> I know nearly everyone above is being value added AVS poster, from many other threads/forums here.....except 1 whom I won't name directly.....
> 
> What is known.....well Markus767 has really summarized that in his 1st post, which has been updated since initially made....
> 
> What are the un-knowns then that draw people to read/get lost in 1,000's of posts, and how to help them?
> 
> I'm off work the next 4 weeks on short term disability due to my RH side hip replacement on Nov-4th, so I'll read/gather the un-knowns that need a simple re-cap/std answer....





kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting work - good job there. Most of the 'discussive' posts seem to be about speaker placement. Then there is a lot of traffic wrt to the 'Atmos experience' and if it is worthwhile/better than 5.1/better than Auro etc. But if I had to guess as to which single topic has occupied most time and energy, it'd be speaker placement.
> 
> BTW, those links don't seem to go anywhere.
> 
> EDIT: Incidentally, are there really only 20 of us who taken the plunge? I'll make s separate post for people to add to if they have an Atmos installation, so we can get a handle on it.





kbarnes701 said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers


So looks like up to 30 or so?
Markus should add a link to the "official AVS users Dolby Atmos installed tracker" *Google share doc* in *post#1*


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> I am curious about other's "placement" of the flapping bird in the Dolby Amaze trailer. According to one of the online reviews, the bird flaps above you and around the room. In my set-up, the bird nicely flaps around the room, but I wouldn't really say it is above me. On the other hand, the rain sounds like its pouring down over the walls of my room from high up, exactly as it is meant to....I almost feel like I am about to get soaked.
> 
> Is this difference in perception because I am running 7.1.2 instead of 5.1.4 or 7.1.4?


IIRC it flaps around me too. 5.1.4. I’ll play the trailer again tonight and check if my memory is right. My surrounds are just above ear level. For someone whose surrounds are higher that could give rise to a description of 'above and around' instead of just around.


----------



## RRF743

JonStatt said:


> I am curious about other's "placement" of the flapping bird in the Dolby Amaze trailer. According to one of the online reviews, the bird flaps above you and around the room. In my set-up, the bird nicely flaps around the room, but I wouldn't really say it is above me. On the other hand, the rain sounds like its pouring down over the walls of my room from high up, exactly as it is meant to....I almost feel like I am about to get soaked.
> 
> Is this difference in perception because I am running 7.1.2 instead of 5.1.4 or 7.1.4?



Hello AVSers. I noticed a number of you have downloaded copies of the atmos demo disc. I heard it at Best Buy and would love to have a copy of my own to test in my theater. I don't have a bluray burner and I am not computer savvy. Would any of you be willing to make m a copy that will play in a Sony S790 bluray player? I will pay for it. (P.S.-I'm not rich!)


----------



## thestoneman

I'm not up and running yet, but I have all the gear ready to go.

Denon X5200, Emotiva XPA-5, DefTech DI5.5R Atmos overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> As it was I had to make adjustments to the back of my rack to accommodate the longer line of speaker connections on my Denon. Nothing big or complicated, just different than the Yamaha it replaced. While I could, with shelve adjustments, get a taller unit in my rack but certainly not wider and I'm guessing taller is the future. The other aspect I've been thinking about is the physical layout and installation of more speakers. Of course I'm old enough to have gone through all the stages of the home sound evolution from single speaker to stereo to quadraphonic to surround sound. So here I am with 13 speakers, counting the subwoofer, and wondering where in the hell would or could I mount more. Between windows, doors, furniture, a cathedral ceiling, and only a 14' x 15' room I've just about reached the max. Mrs. K is already jokingly calling our media/theater room the "speaker lab". Never say never but.........


 For now I have decided I am staying with 5.1.4 unless we move house to one with a bigger HT room. I have tried everywhichway to get more speakers in but cannot do it sensibly. I’d like rear surrounds, but no room. I’d like to try 'front surrounds' as Dolby call them (wides) but physical issues in the room (eg a door mainly) prevents their placement at anything like the correct angle. And although I could have kept my old PLIIz Height speakers in place, I decided to remove them as I can’t see me wanting to use DSX or Neo:X now I have had a taste of DSU.

The only concession to speaker obsession here is that I have managed to get not one but two Seaton Submersive F2 subs into this small room - a stunning feat considering the size of the room.


----------



## asharma

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Well ... not 7.2 if using Front Heights, but rather 5.2.2, so the difference would simply be adding 2 more height speakers and moving the heights closer to you, but still a good test for you.


Yes it was a good test as I thought most of the effect was coming from the 4 in ceiling but as it turns out, it is not


----------



## SeanUK

Quote:
Originally Posted by *JonStatt*  
_I am curious about other's "placement" of the flapping bird in the Dolby Amaze trailer. According to one of the online reviews, the bird flaps above you and around the room. In my set-up, the bird nicely flaps around the room, but I wouldn't really say it is above me. On the other hand, the rain sounds like its pouring down over the walls of my room from high up, exactly as it is meant to....I almost feel like I am about to get soaked. 

Is this difference in perception because I am running 7.1.2 instead of 5.1.4 or 7.1.4?_
IIRC it flaps around me too. 5.1.4. I’ll play the trailer again tonight and check if my memory is right. My surrounds are just above ear level. For someone whose surrounds are higher that could give rise to a description of 'above and around' instead of just around. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-466.html#
 Hi, Running TF +TR on ceilings here. In my room, the bird in "amaze" clearly flaps around the room, not overhead at all. There may be some slight "lifting" of the placement as it gets to the right hand side of the room as noted when switching back and forth between straight 7.1 True HD and Atmos.


On the other hand, the bird at the start of the "conductor" clip quite clearly flaps overhead as it crosses the room from left to right. it is also positioned towards the front of the soundstage (but obviously overhead). I prefer this clip and "unfold" for obvious Atmos effects, rather than amaze and leaf. But then again my setup might not be best optimised. Just reporting my findings.


Cheers,


Sean


----------



## htpcforever

htpcforever said:


> Don't you have to add an external amp to power two of those channels, though? I know the Onkyo came in later (and is missing Audyssey - dumb move), but the 3030 can power all 11 channels without needing an external amp.





Al Sherwood said:


> Opps I might has miss spoke then, didn't the 1030 and 3030 arrive late to the game but with Atmos, where as the 636 - 838 needed the firmware upgrade?


Just to finish the thought and answer part of my own question, the Denon 5200W can only do 9 channels on its own - you have to add an external amp to do 11 channels. The Onkyo 3030 can do 11 channels, but then you lose audyssey. This is one of the reasons I am waiting, I am hoping to get both 11 channels AND audyssey. If I cannot have both, I will have to think hard about which I want more.




Denon said:


> Denon AVR-X5200W IN-Command
> 9.2 Channel Audio/Video Receiver with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth


 http://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/avreceiversht/avrx5200w


----------



## JonStatt

kbarnes701 said:


> IIRC it flaps around me too. 5.1.4. I’ll play the trailer again tonight and check if my memory is right. My surrounds are just above ear level. For someone whose surrounds are higher that could give rise to a description of 'above and around' instead of just around.


Yes that is probably what is influencing those perceptions, the positions of the surrounds. In my case, my surrounds are also just above ear height. This is my "second" home cinema set-up in the lounge. My primary set-up is still using legacy gear, Lexicon MC-12 and big Kef Reference speakers...so no Atmos there right now. But what is interesting, is how different the set-ups sound in terms of object placement. This is not really to do with the Atmos set-up, but I think its an interesting point about object localisation. In the lounge, objects are always clearly defined in where they come from, perhaps distractingly so. For example, I can clearly hear a sound coming from the rear surrounds. The high-end set-up in the cinema room generates a fuller sounding but less defined object localisation. You feel more surrounded, but less able to pin-point where a sound is coming from. In some ways this is better as you simply feel immersed rather than distracted by sounds around you.


----------



## JonStatt

SeanUK said:


> On the other hand, the bird at the start of the "conductor" clip quite clearly flaps overhead as it crosses the room from left to right. it is also positioned towards the front of the soundstage (but obviously overhead). I prefer this clip and "unfold" for obvious Atmos effects, rather than amaze and leaf. But then again my setup might not be best optimised. Just reporting my findings.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Sean


I will give the Conductor clip a try later and report back


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> For now I have decided I am staying with 5.1.4 unless we move house to one with a bigger HT room. I have tried everywhichway to get more speakers in but cannot do it sensibly. I’d like rear surrounds, but no room. I’d like to try 'front surrounds' as Dolby call them (wides) but physical issues in the room (eg a door mainly) prevents their placement at anything like the correct angle. And although I could have kept my old PLIIz Height speakers in place, I decided to remove them as I can’t see me wanting to use DSX or Neo:X now I have had a taste of DSU.
> 
> The only concession to speaker obsession here is that I have managed to get not one but two Seaton Submersive F2 subs into this small room - a stunning feat considering the size of the room.


I too, because of room restrictions, can't install front wide speakers. I tried using the old front ceiling mounted speakers years ago and wasn't impressed but then again they were up high and not in the right position so I unplugged them and left them "abandoned in place" until ATMOS came along. Of course I discovered while bringing them back to life to test ATMOS that they were POS cheap KLH speakers, that the right channel was wired wrong, and that the original owner of the house had used basically doorbell wire. As for the rest of my previous non-ATMOS 7.1 setup that kind of came about by accident. I actually was running 5.1 and decided to upgrade my surrounds. Swapped out the surrounds and stored the others away until one day I was bored and it dawned on me I could go 7.1 by bringing the old surrounds back on line. Should say that even then, or maybe more properly even now, my surrounds and back surrounds are not exactly in the textbook best position but it works. You do what you can and while Mrs. K has been amazingly accommodating with my recent upgrades she drew a line in the sand a long time ago about what would be a substantial remodel to make our room a true theater.


----------



## fredl

kokishin said:


> I've created a google docs spreadsheet which lists avsforum members atmos configurations based on those members that contributed their configs in this thread (to date). There are some holes in the spreadsheet where no data was provided or I could not glean the data from your post. Please check and provide feedback. I will add forum members' Atmos configs if provided.
> 
> avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet


fredl	5.1.2 Onkyo TX-NR636	On-ceiling	TM	OSD Audio Sphere 1 Using four on-ceiling speakers mounted TM as seen from each row driven by two channels on the AVR


----------



## RAllenChristenson

kokishin said:


> Please look at this spreadsheet and let me know exactly what you want to put in the provided cells and I will add you: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_cefn4mLxGO98urdcL7f4j4y238vdsFMgCJt0WxH2Mo/edit?usp=sharing


Great spreadsheet! In the "Other Info" section can you please add "Denon AVR990 for TR".

Thanks


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Concentric:
> of or denoting circles, arcs, or other shapes that share the same center, the larger often completely surrounding the smaller.
> 
> Coaxial
> having a common axis.
> A *coaxial loudspeaker* is a loudspeaker system in which the individual driver units radiate sound from the same point or axis.
> 
> Hair splitting.
> 
> One of the unique advantages of the AT design is that the tweeter angle can be adjusted. That is not possible with others, and we found the Pioneers bouncing short of the target in one normal home setup, FWIW.
> 
> BTW, the AT speakers were co-developed with Dolby, and were used at their first demos of the upfiring concept at CES. And if you don't like them, send them back for full refund.


What kind of crazy talk is this? I preferred the "I'm going to change my purchase decision and blindly dismiss these speakers completely because some guy on the Internet looked at a picture and told me they are going to suck" approach.


----------



## batpig

JonStatt said:


> Am I right in thinking that only the Onkyo Atmos speakers are wall mountable so far? The Kef R50 I have confirmed with Kef are not wall mountable. And from what I can see the Atlantic ones are not either but I haven't had a clear rear view of them yet to be sure. This seems like a bit of an oversight with the designs to-date. Making holes in my ceiling is not viable right now, and my front speakers don't have a viable shape to put anything on-top of them. At the moment I am using Onkyo's speakers which are "passable" but I would like to go a bit more upmarket. I guess I could put up shelves just to support the speakers, but that does seem somewhat over complicated.


If you don't have a surface nearby on which to sit them then a small decorative shelf seems like the way to go. Won't look that much different or be more complicated than directly wall mounting hem.


----------



## jdsmoothie

asharma said:


> Yes it was a good test as I thought most of the effect was coming from the 4 in ceiling but as it turns out, it is not


Exactly why, if possible, it's best for owners to experiment with different locations and number of speakers used in their own homes rather than simply going by "Dolby guidelines."


----------



## gammanuc

For all you guys running 7.X.4 set-ups with ceiling speakers... how far are your top rear speakers from your back wall?
My listening position is less than 3 feet from it. I'm trying to decide if it's better just to go with a top middle 7.1.2 set-up.
Waiting patiently for my X5200 to arrive.


----------



## batpig

gammanuc said:


> For all you guys running 7.X.4 set-ups with ceiling speakers... how far are your top rear speakers from your back wall?
> My listening position is less than 3 feet from it. I'm trying to decide if it's better just to go with a top middle 7.1.2 set-up.
> Waiting patiently for my X5200 to arrive.


It's not so much about distance from the back wall as what angles are achievable referenced to the listening position. Being close to the back wall is not a reason to settle for only 2 overheads, since you can always run a FH + TM setup if you can't meet the angular spec for TR. Many folks here are doing that because of similar physical constraints.


----------



## JonStatt

batpig said:


> If you don't have a surface nearby on which to sit them then a small decorative shelf seems like the way to go. Won't look that much different or be more complicated than directly wall mounting hem.


Indeed and this maybe what I do. Currently I have the Onkyo's sitting on either side of a fireplace, but the mantlepiece is not deep enough for something like the Atlantic or Kef speakers.


----------



## gammanuc

batpig said:


> It's not so much about distance from the back wall as what angles are achievable referenced to the listening position. Being close to the back wall is not a reason to settle for only 2 overheads, since you can always run a FH + TM setup if you can't meet the angular spec for TR. Many folks here are doing that because of similar physical constraints.


 Sounds good, I'll have give that try, it's less invasive than cutting holes in the ceiling. I'm not running FH speakers currently.


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> Just to finish the thought and answer part of my own question, the Denon 5200W can only do 9 channels on its own - you have to add an external amp to do 11 channels. The Onkyo 3030 can do 11 channels, but then you lose audyssey. This is one of the reasons I am waiting, I am hoping to get both 11 channels AND audyssey. If I cannot have both, I will have to think hard about which I want more.


It would be an easy choice for me. I’d go with Audyssey and add an external 2ch amp to make up the 11. I know you have an issue with adding an additional amp, but to retain Audyssey it would be worth it, for me anyway. AccuEQ is more or less no EQ and even in my heavily treated room I need REQ to get the response 'just so'.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonStatt said:


> Yes that is probably what is influencing those perceptions, the positions of the surrounds. In my case, my surrounds are also just above ear height. This is my "second" home cinema set-up in the lounge. My primary set-up is still using legacy gear, Lexicon MC-12 and big Kef Reference speakers...so no Atmos there right now. But what is interesting, is how different the set-ups sound in terms of object placement. This is not really to do with the Atmos set-up, but I think its an interesting point about object localisation. In the lounge, objects are always clearly defined in where they come from, perhaps distractingly so. For example, I can clearly hear a sound coming from the rear surrounds. The high-end set-up in the cinema room generates a fuller sounding but less defined object localisation. You feel more surrounded, but less able to pin-point where a sound is coming from. In some ways this is better as you simply feel immersed rather than distracted by sounds around you.


It can be a tricky line between the surrounds being distracting and being fully immersive. I think it's one of those things that you just know is right or not when you hear it.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> I too, because of room restrictions, can't install front wide speakers. I tried using the old front ceiling mounted speakers years ago and wasn't impressed but then again they were up high and not in the right position so I unplugged them and left them "abandoned in place" until ATMOS came along. Of course I discovered while bringing them back to life to test ATMOS that they were POS cheap KLH speakers, that the right channel was wired wrong, and that the original owner of the house had used basically doorbell wire. As for the rest of my previous non-ATMOS 7.1 setup that kind of came about by accident. I actually was running 5.1 and decided to upgrade my surrounds. Swapped out the surrounds and stored the others away until one day I was bored and it dawned on me I could go 7.1 by bringing the old surrounds back on line. Should say that even then, or maybe more properly even now, my surrounds and back surrounds are not exactly in the textbook best position but it works. You do what you can and while Mrs. K has been amazingly accommodating with my recent upgrades she drew a line in the sand a long time ago about what would be a substantial remodel to make our room a true theater.


We both seem blessed with partners who allow us a lot of latitude to indulge our hobbies. Which is why we have to respect that 'line in the sand' when it does eventually get drawn. It is easier when the room is a dedicated HT because then they care less about it aesthetically I think - but I still consult first before making any significant changes


----------



## kbarnes701

gammanuc said:


> For all you guys running 7.X.4 set-ups with ceiling speakers... how far are your top rear speakers from your back wall?
> My listening position is less than 3 feet from it. I'm trying to decide if it's better just to go with a top middle 7.1.2 set-up.
> Waiting patiently for my X5200 to arrive.


If you are within 3 ft of the rear wall can you even make the angles for TR? You don't have to restrict yourself to a x.x.2 setup though. Designate the rearmost pair as TM and then you have the option of designating the foremost pair as FH. You can still mount them on the ceiling and stay within spec. This is my own configuration and it works very well indeed.


----------



## RRF743

gammanuc said:


> Sounds good, I'll have give that try, it's less invasive than cutting holes in the ceiling. I'm not running FH speakers currently.


batpig is probably right about the angles. But just to answer your question... my TR are 76" from the rear wall. Back row listening position is 52" from rear wall.


----------



## kokishin

RAllenChristenson said:


> Great spreadsheet! In the "Other Info" section can you please add "Denon AVR990 for TR".
> 
> Thanks


Done

Thanks


----------



## markus767

mtbdudex said:


> Markus should add a link to the "official AVS users Dolby Atmos installed tracker" *Google share doc* in *post#1*


Done.


----------



## Jim S.

Ultimate Atmos In Seattle. From various articles. Seahawks owner Paul Allen, is about to complete a 4 month upgrade of the Seattle Cinerama Theater and reopen 11/20. A single screen upscale theater. Among the improvements, the theater’s capacity has been drastically reduced (from 798 to 570) to accommodate more plush seating, all of it reserved seating now. Cinerama has been outfitted with the first-of-its-kind Christie 6P dual laser projector in a commercial theater and outfitted with *Dolby Atmos sound* and Meyer Sound Acheron loudspeakers, (*now 110 of them, compared with about 65 before). *Can't wait to hear this full implementation.

Newspaper photo wasnt' clear, but there had to be, best guess, at least 20 speakers in each of the 2 atmos speaker rows.

This should be fun.


----------



## kokishin

*avsforum Members Atmos Configurations*

@chewie1
@fredl
@kbarnes701
@Rew452
@sgibson
@ThePrisoner
@Selden Ball
@thestoneman
@RAllenChristenson

Letting you know I updated the spreadsheet with your inputs.

Thanks

See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


----------



## rboster

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are within 3 ft of the rear wall can you even make the angles for TR? You don't have to restrict yourself to a x.x.2 setup though. Designate the rearmost pair as TM and then you have the option of designating the foremost pair as FH. You can still mount them on the ceiling and stay within spec. This is my own configuration and it works very well indeed.


Where is your front height ceiling speakers relative to the first row in your HT?

Thanks
Ron


----------



## chi_guy50

markus767 said:


> Done.


That's my cue to jump on board (with thanks to Kokishin for doing all the legwork):

7.1.4, Denon X5200, Polk Audio OWM5+80F/X-RT, on-wall/in-ceiling, FH+TM, AudioSource AMP-100 (2 ea)


----------



## JonStatt

JonStatt said:


> I will give the Conductor clip a try later and report back


Okay I gave it a try and indeed the bird flapping across the room in the Conductor clip is height elevated. I would say I perceived it like the bird was half way between the front speakers and ceiling in terms of height positioning.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> @chewie1
> 
> See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


Thanks for taking this on. It's a useful bit of info IMO, to see what people are running.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

JonStatt said:


> Okay I gave it a try and indeed the bird flapping across the room in the Conductor clip is height elevated. I would say I perceived it like the bird was half way between the front speakers and ceiling in terms of height positioning.


from my memory...this is right at head level for me

ill run it tonight and report back


----------



## kbarnes701

rboster said:


> Where is your front height ceiling speakers relative to the first row in your HT?
> 
> Thanks
> Ron


I only have one row. The FH are at 42° and the TM are at 80°. This puts the FH on the ceiling roughly 5ft 8 inches in front of MLP and the TM are, of course, at 80°, just in front of MLP. Originally I had the TM at 100° but I felt they were a little overwhelmed by the FHs so I moved them forward a little, which is where they remain. This also gave me more separation from my surrounds which are at 110° (ie just behind MLP). It's the angles that matter, so concentrate on those would be my advice.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> from my memory...this is right at head level for me
> 
> ill run it tonight and report back


It is clearly overhead here - just below ceiling height.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> I only have one row. The FH are at 42° and the TM are at 80°. This puts the FH on the ceiling roughly 5ft 8 inches in front of MLP and the TM are, of course, at 80°, just in front of MLP. Originally I had the TM at 100° but I felt they were a little overwhelmed by the FHs so I moved them forward a little, which is where they remain. This also gave me more separation from my surrounds which are at 110° (ie just behind MLP). It's the angles that matter, so concentrate on those would be my advice.


what are you using as ear height? and what is your ceiling height

I have with an 8' ceiling and 3.5' ear level....at 42 deg. the speakers being 3.5 ft in front of MLP

am I doing somthing wrong?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> what are you using as ear height? and what is your ceiling height
> 
> I have with an 8' ceiling and 3.5' ear level....at 42 deg. the speakers being 3.5 ft in front of MLP
> 
> am I doing somthing wrong?


8ft ceiling - ear height is 37 inches. Is that 4 inches the difference? I will measure again - the 5ft8in was from memory. It is definitely more thann 3ft5in though, but it would be if my seating position is lower. Incidentally, I have new chairs in my HT recently bought, so I really ought to check my ear height as well. It seems to be more or less the same as before, but it might not be. Whatever, I ain't relocating the overhead speakers 

XT32 is measuring MLP to FHs as 7ft 6in, but of course that isn’t the dimension we are discussing.


----------



## javanpohl

So Finding Nemo is pretty fantastic with the Atmos upmixer.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> 8ft ceiling - ear height is 37 inches. Is that 4 inches the difference? I will measure again - the 5ft8in was from memory. It is definitely more thann 3ft5in though, but it would be if my seating position is lower. Incidentally, I have new chairs in my HT recently bought, so I really ought to check my ear height as well. It seems to be more or less the same as before, but it might not be. Whatever, I ain't relocating the overhead speakers
> 
> XT32 is measuring MLP to FHs as 7ft 6in, but of course that isn’t the dimension we are discussing.


let me check...mind you Im using graph paper so I could be off as well...haha just curious as 2 ft seems significant


----------



## javanpohl

htpcforever said:


> Just to finish the thought and answer part of my own question, the Denon 5200W can only do 9 channels on its own - you have to add an external amp to do 11 channels. The Onkyo 3030 can do 11 channels, but then you lose audyssey. This is one of the reasons I am waiting, I am hoping to get both 11 channels AND audyssey. If I cannot have both, I will have to think hard about which I want more. http://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/avreceiversht/avrx5200w


I don't see why you'd want to try to push a single amp/receiver to do 11 channels anyways. I've been using my old Onkyo 806 as an external amp for some time now. When I upgraded to my old Denon x4000 I was going to sell the 806 and also get an external amp for the X4000 so I could do 9.2, then I had a "oh, duh" moment when I realized I could just use the multi-channel inputs on the 806. Which worked out well because they were only going for about $200 on eBay at the time and mine has the good ole HDMI troubles. So, ever since then, I've broken out the amp load between my main receiver and the 806... Mo' headroom


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> let me check...mind you Im using graph paper so I could be off as well...haha just curious as 2 ft seems significant


I'll check later and report back. Mrs K has just arrived home from work so I need to spend some time with her for the next hour or so.


----------



## K6DTX2

ThePrisoner said:


> ThePrisoner - 5.2.2 Denon X4100. Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800's mounted front height (Audiosource Amp 100 & in-ceiling Top Middle's coming soon)


K6DTX-5.2.4 Polk TL3 pairs configured as FH & RH. Marantz SR-7900.


----------



## Kris Deering

Jim S. said:


> Ultimate Atmos In Seattle. From various articles. Seahawks owner Paul Allen, is about to complete a 4 month upgrade of the Seattle Cinerama Theater and reopen 11/20. A single screen upscale theater. Among the improvements, the theater’s capacity has been drastically reduced (from 798 to 570) to accommodate more plush seating, all of it reserved seating now. Cinerama has been outfitted with the first-of-its-kind Christie 6P dual laser projector in a commercial theater and outfitted with *Dolby Atmos sound* and Meyer Sound Acheron loudspeakers, (*now 110 of them, compared with about 65 before). *Can't wait to hear this full implementation.
> 
> Newspaper photo wasnt' clear, but there had to be, best guess, at least 20 speakers in each of the 2 atmos speaker rows.
> 
> This should be fun.


I may see the new Hunger Games there but will definitely see the new Hobbit movie there in December. The Seattle area has quite a few selections for Atmos playback in theaters and I've been to all of them that I know of. So far my experiences haven't been mind blowing as far as the difference between an Atmos presentation and a non-Atmos presentation with the exception of Gravity and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I would love to arrange something with the theater owners and Dolby to do a direct A/B with scenes from different movies with these theaters. Having the ability to switch between Atmos and non-Atmos in the same theater for comparisons would be ideal but I have a sneaking suspicion that would never happen.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> And I would if I could, Scott!
> 
> I am guessing that the appeal of adding yet more speakers is strongest in those who have already added yet more speakers - so the appeal of Atmos was strongest in those already running 7.1 systems.


Most definitely. I'd say most of the people getting into Atmos right now probably had interest in surround >5.1 and possibly had 9/11.1 systems.

And no worries. I wasn't ribbing you for _not_ having 7.1.4 but just pointing out that it was a selling feature of the Denon x5200 to be able to have a full 7.1.4 system.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Scott Simonian said:


> Most definitely. I'd say most of the people getting into Atmos right now probably had interest in surround >5.1 and possibly had 9/11.1 systems.
> 
> And no worries. I wasn't ribbing you for _not_ having 7.1.4 but just pointing out that it was a selling feature of the Denon x5200 to be able to have a full 7.1.4 system.



yup..I had 5.1 in 1998  then 7.1 shortly after in a small bedroom when I lived with my parents


----------



## Jim S.

Kris Deering said:


> I may see the new Hunger Games there but will definitely see the new Hobbit movie there in December. The Seattle area has quite a few selections for Atmos playback in theaters and I've been to all of them that I know of. So far my experiences haven't been mind blowing as far as the difference between an Atmos presentation and a non-Atmos presentation with the exception of Gravity and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I would love to arrange something with the theater owners and Dolby to do a direct A/B with scenes from different movies with these theaters. Having the ability to switch between Atmos and non-Atmos in the same theater for comparisons would be ideal but I have a sneaking suspicion that would never happen.


I imagine that if this doesn't win you over, nothing will.


----------



## Irwinroad

mtbdudex said:


> 4,400 + posts from 8 people ....... wow.....


I get more than that from just 5 people

kbarnes701 1,691
NorthSky 1,236
Dan Hitchman 721
sdurani 627
bargervais 475
markus767 450
batpig 407
Scott Simonian 376
Roger Dressler 371
FilmMixer 274
Selden Ball 238
Nightlord 221
wse 202
noah katz 182
chi_guy50 162
kokishin 151


----------



## Scott Simonian

Brian Fineberg said:


> yup..I had 5.1 in 1998  then 7.1 shortly after in a small bedroom when I lived with my parents


Yeah me too though I experimented with 6.1 in 2000 when Fight Club came out on dvd. At that point there was no consumer gear that did 6.1 audio. Had an old prologic receiver hooked up to my DD/DTS 5.1 receiver and extracted the center surround. Sometimes it worked great. 7.1 came about two years later with an HK and Logic7. 

Been doing >5.1 for a long time so, for me, overhead surround was a given and I've been waiting a long, long time for it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Most definitely. I'd say most of the people getting into Atmos right now probably had interest in surround >5.1 and possibly had 9/11.1 systems.
> 
> And no worries. I wasn't ribbing you for _not_ having 7.1.4 but just pointing out that it was a selling feature of the Denon x5200 to be able to have a full 7.1.4 system.


 No worries... rib away  I did follow your drift though (and agree with it).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

markus767 said:


> Atmos-enabled ceiling-firing speakers will always sound more spacious/diffuse because there are two delayed main sound paths - direct sound from the speaker and delayed sound from the ceiling.
> One important factor is the level of the reflected sound. The ceiling reflection should be as loud as possible hence the angle of the ceiling-firing module should be adjustable in order to match your specific ceiling height, listening position and speaker height/location.





Roger Dressler said:


> Concentric:
> of or denoting circles, arcs, or other shapes that share the same center, the larger often completely surrounding the smaller.
> 
> Coaxial
> having a common axis.
> A *coaxial loudspeaker* is a loudspeaker system in which the individual driver units radiate sound from the same point or axis.
> 
> Hair splitting.
> 
> One of the unique advantages of the AT design is that the tweeter angle can be adjusted. That is not possible with others, and we found the Pioneers bouncing short of the target in one normal home setup, FWIW.
> 
> BTW, the AT speakers were co-developed with Dolby, and were used at their first demos of the upfiring concept at CEDIA 2013, and again by Analog Devices at CEDIA 2014. And if you don't like them, send them back for full refund.


I'm fine with a little diffusion as long as it's better than pointing regular speakers upwards... the way I'm picturing the modules sound pattern in my mind would be to use water & a hose as an example/angalogy (in this analogy water=sound): the AT's perhaps might be like a hose with high water pressure that might at least spray the water more directly towards the listener off the cieling... whereas a standard speaker pointed upwards would be like a sprinkler hitting the ceiling/ water going all over the place? Is that the right way to think of it? 

(if the analogy is correct, then the AT would have an adjustable hose? haha)

So my Atlantic Tech decision is still sound I take it?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> What kind of crazy talk is this? I preferred the "I'm going to change my purchase decision and blindly dismiss these speakers completely because some guy on the Internet looked at a picture and told me they are going to suck" approach.


Not at all... I quoted you in my post because I knew you'd be one of the right people to ask since you have some experience with modules. I forget... did you end up going with in ceiling speakers or are you going atlantic tech?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> What kind of crazy talk is this? I preferred the "I'm going to change my purchase decision and blindly dismiss these speakers completely because some guy on the Internet looked at a picture and told me they are going to suck" approach.


DS-21 has a very good point. 

A coax type speaker used for "Atmos enabled" is not going to have a good dispersion characteristic for proper use imho. I don't care what company hocks "designed" the speaker. It's not going to work as well as a concentric type or full range with linear off-axis response.

It's okay. Not everybody around here knows how to design speakers. It's up to the company selling it to you to convince you that you don't know any better either.


----------



## Nightlord

Irwinroad said:


> I get more than that from just 5 people
> 
> kbarnes701 1,691
> NorthSky 1,236
> Dan Hitchman 721
> sdurani 627
> bargervais 475
> markus767 450
> batpig 407
> Scott Simonian 376
> Roger Dressler 371
> FilmMixer 274
> Selden Ball 238
> Nightlord 221
> wse 202
> noah katz 182
> chi_guy50 162
> kokishin 151


Ye-haa! I made it onto a list on AVS!


----------



## scarabaeus

kokishin said:


> See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


scarabaeus: 7.1.4 with Denon X5200W and one Emotiva XPA-200, On-ceiling TF and TR, using two sets of Onkyo SKS-HT240 6.1 speakers (don't laugh...)


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> DS-21 has a very good point.
> 
> A coax type speaker used for "Atmos enabled" is not going to have a good dispersion characteristic for proper use imho. I don't care what company hocks "designed" the speaker. It's not going to work as well as a concentric type or full range with linear off-axis response.
> 
> It's okay. Not everybody around here knows how to design speakers. It's up to the company selling it to you to convince you that you don't know any better either.


Or, we could take the sensible approach of actually testing them out and seeing how they perform and not making assumptions and dismissing them based upon limited information.

For now, I'll choose to trust Atlantic Technology working with Dolby over speculation from an anonymous guy an internet forum. And also that Roger Dressler guy, I hear he knows something about HT.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> DS-21 has a very good point.
> 
> A coax type speaker used for "Atmos enabled" is not going to have a good dispersion characteristic for proper use imho. I don't care what company hocks "designed" the speaker. It's not going to work as well as a concentric type or full range with linear off-axis response.
> 
> It's okay. Not everybody around here knows how to design speakers. It's up to the company selling it to you to convince you that you don't know any better either.


Have you seen off-axis measurements of "concentric type" speakers? Have you seen off-axis responses of full range speakers? Do you know the off-axis response of the Atlantic Technology speaker? Do you know what the Dolby directivity specs for Atmos-enabled speakers are?


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not at all... I quoted you in my post because I knew you'd be one of the right people to ask since you have some experience with modules. I forget... did you end up going with in ceiling speakers or are you going atlantic tech?


Sorry, I wasn't taking a jab at you, rather I was jokingly mocking the easy dismissal of these modules based upon a photograph. 

Don't you already have an Atmos setup with "fake" modules? You should let kokishin know so he can add you to his magical spreadsheet


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> I wouldn't say it's Hobson's choice... but it was the first onto the scene with 9 channels built in, 11 channel processing plus XT 32 And Atmos.. so it will be the default choice..
> 
> Being made in Japan and a reasonable price doesn't hurt either...
> 
> Ask again in a year when more amps are released and we will probably have a different answer, especially when the HDCP 2.2 solution comes out...
> 
> Out where I am, actual stock of Atmos amps are still rare, and the SR 7009 is cheaper than the 5200 by US$ 150-200...


Who is Hobson, an AVS member here? ....Sorry, I truly don't know who he is.

I agree, the X5200W was the first Dolby Atmos machine that made (still) the most sense for most people.

Do you really believe that when a product is made in Japan it makes a difference for many folks? 

It is sometimes hard to predict the future, but in this audio/video hobby it sure is easier.
And we'll eventually have true HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 ... and most likely the first true implementation (because there will be even more) will come from the Marantz AV8802 SSP and the Denon AVR-X7200W receiver (very soon, like within couple months).

As for DTS-UHD (MDA); sure there is no content playing @ the cinema theaters, like Dolby Atmos, 
but are there films playing @ them same theaters with DTS-HD MA audio soundtracks?
And yet you have it on Blu-rays, and it is the main leader too. ...The main surround sound adopted by all Hollywood studios and beyond.

The Marantz SR7009 AV receiver is a very beautiful option to the Denon AVR-X5200W because they are both basically the same as far as features and prices are concerned, but also because the Marantz has its own attractive design (front & rear), and it has the new upgraded HDAM modules. 

Advanced Alpha32 All Plus is I believe in the upocoming Denon 7200 receiver.
Alpha24 Plus is in the Denon 5200 receiver. ...Plus both have Denon's link (if someone can plug his Oppo Universal BD player there).
*** By the way, are this year's new Denon receivers including HDCD decoders?

And the Marantz 7009 receiver has them nice HDAM modules...because music matters.
And I personally prefer the 7009's rear (back panel connections). 

The 5002 and 7009 weight basically the same (30 pounds +/-). ...So they have similar power delivery.


----------



## Selden Ball

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *JonStatt*  
_Am I right in thinking that only the Onkyo Atmos speakers are wall mountable so far? The Kef R50 I have confirmed with Kef are not wall mountable. And from what I can see the Atlantic ones are not either but I haven't had a clear rear view of them yet to be sure. This seems like a bit of an oversight with the designs to-date. Making holes in my ceiling is not viable right now, and my front speakers don't have a viable shape to put anything on-top of them. At the moment I am using Onkyo's speakers which are "passable" but I would like to go a bit more upmarket. I guess I could put up shelves just to support the speakers, but that does seem somewhat over complicated._






batpig said:


> If you don't have a surface nearby on which to sit them then a small decorative shelf seems like the way to go. Won't look that much different or be more complicated than directly wall mounting hem.


 
It is also important to note that the height of the ceiling needs to be considered to determine the most appropriate height of the Atmos up-firing speakers. For the Pioneer speakers they recommend below 1/2 the room height.


Ray


----------



## alyssanick

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL - me too. I wonder where they come from and what inner angst inspires them. At least this latest one took a new angle - I haven't seen that one before - about in or on-ceiling speakers.  It's off beam of course - I’d never have put my surround speakers on the ceiling for fairly obvious reasons, but the poster ignores the fact that Atmos has been specifically designed for on-ceiling speakers. Of course he has to or his hater post doesn’t work.
> 
> I also bet that the overwhelming majority haven’t actually heard a properly setup Atmos system working either. But hey, who needs to hear it to know it's pointless?!


Not sure if I can be lumped into the "hater" category.

I have expressed my reluctance for sure. 1.Lack of announcements for catalog remixes. 2.Users word for it DSU is amazing. 3.Not all receivers properly implemented features including hdmi 2.0, audyssey

For the well off, this atmos stuff is boys toys. Rinse repeat, as advancements are made. A lot of people have to live in the real world where value is measured and the value is sketchy so far. Some may use "false hate" dichotomy to bring about their stance. Some may just be skeptic types and provide a balanced view of the technology. Weigh the pros and cons.


----------



## batpig

Did someone reference you specifically? Measured, reasoned reluctance is one thing -- it's certainly understandable why someone who is very satifisfied with their current setup (whether 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 etc) might choose to not jump in feet first. I don't think anyone has ever given someone flack for this reasonable stance.

The "hater" comment I made was referring to those who suddenly lurch in this thread in some vitriolic, half-cocked rant, throw a few firebombs about Atmos being a huge gimmick, people who bought into it being suckers for marketing hooey, etc. And then disappear into the night. These are people for whom it's not merely good enough to be waiting while still being respectful of those who chose differently, these are the folks who actively attack the very concept as being stupid and worthless and seem to be angered by the fact that others are jumping in and enjoying themselves. Not the "I'm going to calmly participate in the discussion while gathering information and eventually making an informed decision" crowd.


----------



## rboster

alyssanick said:


> Not sure if I can be lumped into the "hater" category.
> 
> I have expressed my reluctance for sure. 1.Lack of announcements for catalog remixes. 2.Users word for it DSU is amazing. 3.Not all receivers properly implemented features including hdmi 2.0, audyssey
> 
> For the well off, this atmos stuff is boys toys. Rinse repeat, as advancements are made. A lot of people have to live in the real world where value is measured and the value is sketchy so far. Some may use "false hate" dichotomy to bring about their stance. Some may just be skeptic types and provide a balanced view of the technology. Weigh the pros and cons.


Also remember is takes early adopters to move the product development along. If we all stood on the sidelines, where would new product development be? Not saying everyone should jump in with both feet, but people shouldn't rain on the parade of those that do chose to take the first step. Sometimes I do jump in, sometimes I don't ...but I always appreciate those that do, it helps to move the product advancement along for the masses to enjoy too.


----------



## Al Sherwood

javanpohl said:


> I don't see why you'd want to try to push a single amp/receiver to do 11 channels anyways. I've been using my old Onkyo 806 as an external amp for some time now. When I upgraded to my old Denon x4000 I was going to sell the 806 and also get an external amp for the X4000 so I could do 9.2, then I had a "oh, duh" moment when I realized I could just use the multi-channel inputs on the 806. Which worked out well because they were only going for about $200 on eBay at the time and mine has the good ole HDMI troubles. So, ever since then, I've broken out the amp load between my main receiver and the 806... Mo' headroom



Although I am not htpcforever, I have a comment because I too like the idea of 11 channels, for me this makes for a cleaner design, no extra rack space or wiring. 


As for pushing the amp, many of the amplifier channels are almost at idle during most movies, as long as the power supply can bank enough energy for the short bursts required, I think they would perform just fine. Your comment about headroom is valid, but I wouldn't believe to the extent that the internal amps in the Onkyo would have trouble delivering upon their promised specs.


For me, if Onkyo had of kept Audyssey for the 1030 and 3030 I would probably already have one at home. I am now waiting to see what the CES brings out for 2015 models.


----------



## htpcforever

javanpohl said:


> I don't see why you'd want to try to push a single amp/receiver to do 11 channels anyways.



People have been doing it successfully for years. Less complexity and therefor less points for failure are good reasons to do it.


----------



## BigScreen

Selden Ball said:


> I'd be surprised if DTS-UHD-capable receivers (or firmware upgrades) are announced before there are movies with their soundtracks available to watch in commercial cinemas.


An open alternative (DTS MDA) to Atmos in theaters has been in the works for quite a while, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere very quickly, so it might be a very long time before anything is ready for release in that market. Theaters are notoriously slow to adopt new technologies, so I think it is very possible that something will happen in the home theater marketplace first.

All it would take to blow things up is a coordinated announcement of hardware support and a solid array of releases on Blu-ray. The best-case scenario in my mind would be that the DTS format would be speaker-compatible to the Atmos format, and both formats could live in harmony, much like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio do now. If DTS can implement flexible speaker placements, not only for the height channels, but also the ear-level channels, they would be onto something good for those that can't hit the recommended positions.

I don't have any firm facts to back any of this up, just my prediction based on past experience and an equal dose of fear and wishful thinking.


----------



## javanpohl

Al Sherwood said:


> Your comment about headroom is valid, but I wouldn't believe to the extent that the internal amps in the Onkyo would have trouble delivering upon their promised specs.


Considering that their spec of 135W at 8ohms is driving only two channels, I don't think they'd have trouble delivering on that promise either


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice



Thx Selden. ... _Thomas Hobson_; I did not recall him, he must have slipped under my radar.


----------



## alyssanick

batpig said:


> Did someone reference you specifically? Measured, reasoned reluctance is one thing -- it's certainly understandable


No one did. But I have been a recurring questioner. Not that being reference specifically is a requirement for weighing in 



rboster said:


> *Also remember is takes early adopters to move the product development along.* If we all stood on the sidelines, where would new product development be? Not saying everyone should jump in with both feet, but people shouldn't rain on the parade of those that do chose to take the first step. Sometimes I do jump in, sometimes I don't ...but I always appreciate those that do, it helps to move the product advancement along for the masses to enjoy too.


Definitely! I appreciate everyone taking the atmos leap. We need to see it flourish at the home. This is actually how I feel on 3D. Was an early adopter in 2010. People gave a lot more (and still do) hate to 3D than they are dolby atmos 

====

Anyway. I look forward to being brought around on atmos. Until then it'll give me time to save the moolah required! Hearing that DSU is blowing people away is comforting.


----------



## Nightlord

NorthSky said:


> Thx Selden. ... _Thomas Hobson_; I did not recall him, he must have slipped under my radar.


Me too. Just looked up where those stables he had were... and I probably walked that street a dozen times, so I think I'll remember it for the future.


----------



## Al Sherwood

javanpohl said:


> Considering that their spec of 135W at 8ohms is driving only two channels, I don't think they'd have trouble delivering on that promise either



Not unlike most every other AVR out there...


----------



## Gurba

I've got a Yamaha RX-A3040, SVS STS-01, SVS SCS-01, SVS SBS-01 + Bose Acoutimass 5 Red Line Powered side surrounds, subless pending the launching of the SVS PC2000, 4 on-ceiling Dynavoice Magic FX-4 EX TF+TR making my setup a 7.0.4.


The Dynavoices are really well suited for atmos use. With keyholes they are easily mounted and With a slight angle towars MLP they should be checked out by anyone wanting a cheap deasent alternative.


http://surround.no/Produkter/Høytta...lossy-PAR---Grå-front-100644-p0000000651.aspx


----------



## Jive Turkey

kokishin said:


> Please look at this spreadsheet and let me know exactly what you want to put in the provided cells and I will add you: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_cefn4mLxGO98urdcL7f4j4y238vdsFMgCJt0WxH2Mo/edit?usp=sharing


Jive Turkey: Paradigm Titans, ceiling mounted for Atmos TF and TR.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Or, we could take the sensible approach of actually testing them out and seeing how they perform and not making assumptions and dismissing them based upon limited information.
> 
> For now, I'll choose to trust Atlantic Technology working with Dolby over speculation from an anonymous guy an internet forum. And also that Roger Dressler guy, I hear he knows something about HT.


I'm sure you will. I on the other hand am _not_ trying to take your money. 

Although I just have to look at them to know better. 







markus767 said:


> Have you seen off-axis measurements of "concentric type" speakers? Have you seen off-axis responses of full range speakers? Do you know the off-axis response of the Atlantic Technology speaker? Do you know what the Dolby directivity specs for Atmos-enabled speakers are?


Do you?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Sorry, I wasn't taking a jab at you, rather I was jokingly mocking the easy dismissal of these modules based upon a photograph.
> 
> Don't you already have an Atmos setup with "fake" modules? You should let kokishin know so he can add you to his magical spreadsheet


Yup, I'm the "fake" module guy  7.1.4


----------



## Scott Simonian

Atlantic Tech working with Dolby:


----------



## wse

Will the 7200 have HDCP2.0 and HDMI 2.2 ?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
As has been said several times ... the chip isn't even going to be available until early 2015, so no.


----------



## kokishin

*avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet Update*

@chi_guy50
@Gurba
@Jive Turkey
@K6DTX2
@Roger Dressler
@scarabaeus

Letting you know I updated the spreadsheet with your inputs.

Thanks

See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> Sorry, I wasn't taking a jab at you, rather I was jokingly mocking the easy dismissal of these modules based upon a photograph.
> 
> Don't you already have an Atmos setup with "fake" modules? You should let kokishin know so he can add you to his magical spreadsheet


A google driverless car is "magical". If only the google docs spreadsheet could magically update itself.


----------



## DenverMDM

NorthSky said:


> Who is Hobson, an AVS member here? ....Sorry, I truly don't know who he is.
> 
> I agree, the X5200W was the first Dolby Atmos machine that made (still) the most sense for most people.
> 
> Do you really believe that when a product is made in Japan it makes a difference for many folks?
> 
> It is sometimes hard to predict the future, but in this audio/video hobby it sure is easier.
> And we'll eventually have true HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 ... and most likely the first true implementation (because there will be even more) will come from the Marantz AV8802 SSP and the Denon AVR-X7200W receiver (very soon, like within couple months).
> 
> As for DTS-UHD (MDA); sure there is no content playing @ the cinema theaters, like Dolby Atmos,
> but are there films playing @ them same theaters with DTS-HD MA audio soundtracks?
> And yet you have it on Blu-rays, and it is the main leader too. ...The main surround sound adopted by all Hollywood studios and beyond.
> 
> The Marantz SR7009 AV receiver is a very beautiful option to the Denon AVR-X5200W because they are both basically the same as far as features and prices are concerned, but also because the Marantz has its own attractive design (front & rear), and it has the new upgraded HDAM modules.
> 
> Advanced Alpha32 All Plus is I believe in the upocoming Denon 7200 receiver.
> Alpha24 Plus is in the Denon 5200 receiver. ...Plus both have Denon's link (if someone can plug his Oppo Universal BD player there).
> *** By the way, are this year's new Denon receivers including HDCD decoders?
> 
> And the Marantz 7009 receiver has them nice HDAM modules...because music matters.
> And I personally prefer the 7009's rear (back panel connections).
> 
> The 5002 and 7009 weight basically the same (30 pounds +/-). ...So they have similar power delivery.


I agree with the DTS-UHD comment. That's one of the reasons I'm on the fence debating to jump in to Atmos or not. That and my want for a true 9.1.4 system. I'm wired and set up for a 11.1 system now but only utilizing 7.1. My wait to finish my theater turned into a wait for Neo x, turned into atmos, turning into Dts to annonce something. Yes, I know!

Can someone explain HDAM to me and why and how it would matter in a dedicated movie only theater?


----------



## nucky

kokishin said:


> @chi_guy50
> @Gurba
> @Jive Turkey
> @K6DTX2
> @scarabaeus
> 
> Letting you know I updated the spreadsheet with your inputs.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


Can you add my Denon T2 T3 power amps too the list.
Thanks


----------



## kokishin

nucky said:


> Can you add my Denon T2 T3 power amps too the list.
> Thanks


Done,

You're welcome


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> BTW, the AT speakers were co-developed with Dolby, and were used at their first demos of the upfiring concept at CEDIA 2013, and again by Analog Devices at CEDIA 2014.


Speaker designer Andrew Jones talked about attending that CEDIA demo in a Scott Wilkinson podcast. He was disbelieving of the entire concept until he heard it for himself. The demo made a believer out of him, enough to prompt him to come out with his own version. The upfiring speakers he heard that changed his mind were the DA-44 prototypes.


----------



## wse

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> As has been said several times ... the chip isn't even going to be available until early 2015, so no.


So why is it that some members say it will?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BigScreen said:


> DTS is definitely a dark horse. That's a great term to describe their position! From a technical standpoint, they seem to have the most sophisticated approach. From a marketing standpoint, they have great brand recognition and a strong history/ties on the production side. Their biggest detriment is that they don't have anything in the public eye except for their CES 2014 presence/demonstration.


Not that I disagree but I'm wondering what DTS could do to increase the quality of sound? I don't know much about DTS... all I know is that my True HD blurays do sound superior to my other discs.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Speaker designer Andrew Jones talked about attending that CEDIA demo in a Scott Wilkinson podcast. He was disbelieving of the entire concept until he heard it for himself. The demo made a believer out of him, enough to prompt him to come out with his own version. The upfiring speakers he heard that changed his mind were the DA-44 prototypes.


I trust Scott, though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that other factors may have been involved. Was that the demo where they switched between the ceiling speakers & the modules?


----------



## RRF743

Keith Mickunas said:


> I have a 7.2.4 configuration with a Denon x5200W and Klipsch KL-7800-THX and KS-7800-THX in-wall speakers for the main 7 channels and Klipsch CDT-5800-C II in-ceiling speakers setup as TF and TR. I use an XPA-5 and XPA-200 for the 7 main channels and the Denon powers the TF and TR speakers.


 Hi Keith or anyone that can help. We communicated yesterday on how I have my 7.2.4 system configured. My 4 surrounds are powered by the x5200w and the 4 ceilings are powered by 4 channels from my 7 channel outlaw amp. I want to reverse this(power the surrounds by the external amp). Do I need to leave the "amp assignment" settings the same and just switch my wires or do I need to make some adjustments in the "amp assignment" also?


I tried to drag the pic of the image I took on the pjr screen in the Drag and Drop File Upload of my current settings but it didn't work. File was to large.
Here's what it currently says: 
Assign Amp: 11.1
Height Speakers: 4 Height Speakers
Height Layout: Top Front & Top Rear
Wide/Height2: Front Wide
Pre-out: Top Rear


----------



## Keith Mickunas

RRF743 said:


> Hi Keith or anyone that can help. We communicated yesterday on how I have my 7.2.4 system configured. My 4 surrounds are powered by the x5200w and the 4 ceilings are powered by 4 channels from my 7 channel outlaw amp. I want to reverse this(power the surrounds by the external amp). Do I need to leave the "amp assignment" settings the same and just switch my wires or do I need to make some adjustments in the "amp assignment" also?
> 
> 
> I tried to drag the pic of the image I took on the pjr screen in the Drag and Drop File Upload of my current settings but it didn't work. File was to large.
> Here's what it currently says:
> Assign Amp: 11.1
> Height Speakers: 4 Height Speakers
> Height Layout: Top Front & Top Rear
> Wide/Height2: Front Wide
> Pre-out: Top Rear


You need to change your pre-out setting. Right now you are saying that the Pre-out is top-rear, so it probably won't send that to one of the shared speaker outputs. Did you see the PM I sent you to the link with my settings? You'll have better luck getting your questions answered for this in the x5200W thread.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Atlantic Tech working with Dolby:


What's that pic from?


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I trust Scott, though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that other factors may have been involved.


Scott wasn't the one talking about the demo, Andrew Jones was.


> Was that the demo where they switched between the ceiling speakers & the modules?


Don't know, would have to listen to the podcast again to see if Jones described anything else about the demo.


----------



## RRF743

rboster said:


> Also remember is takes early adopters to move the product development along. If we all stood on the sidelines, where would new product development be? Not saying everyone should jump in with both feet, but people shouldn't rain on the parade of those that do chose to take the first step. Sometimes I do jump in, sometimes I don't ...but I always appreciate those that do, it helps to move the product advancement along for the masses to enjoy too.


Tell me about It! I know well. I bought 2 of those LG BH100 HD/DVD-Bluray combo players @ $1200 each! What was I SMOKIN'!


----------



## DS-21

markus767 said:


> We would need to see measurements of that assembly. It looks like they have taken measures to shape dispersion of the tweeter (plastic surround and capping).


I really don't see much in the picture to support that claim.



Roger Dressler said:


> Concentric:
> of or denoting circles, arcs, or other shapes that share the same center, the larger often completely surrounding the smaller.
> 
> Coaxial
> having a common axis.
> A *coaxial loudspeaker* is a loudspeaker system in which the individual driver units radiate sound from the same point or axis.
> 
> Hair splitting.


Not really, though your definitions make me think that "coaxial" is actually incorrect and the correct term should be something like "tweeter stuck on a damn stick protruding from the woofer cone." 

After all, if the tweeter can be adjusted as to angle, mid and tweeter actually share no axis at all unless the tweeter is aimed such that its voicecoil is parallel to the woofer's.

The physics of the difference is not hair-splitting, assuming one follows Toole, Olive, etc. and believes that a smooth off-axis response with perhaps some nulls but no peaks is desirable. A stick-tweeter, because of simple and obvious physics has a flare-out of energy at the bottom of its passband. A concentric, if designed properly - not all are, of course, both between and within brands - can have a smooth transition such that one can't even see where the crossover is when looking at a polar map.



Roger Dressler said:


> One of the unique advantages of the AT design is that the tweeter angle can be adjusted. That is not possible with others, and we found the Pioneers bouncing short of the target in one normal home setup, FWIW.


That's a fair point, but IMO it suggests more that the whole module should be adjustable. 

Also, keep in mind I never wrote anything about their suitability to purpose, except that I don't know and it probably depends on what the actual height signals are. Still, marketing a stick-tweeter as a concentric does not inspire confidence.



markus767 said:


> Have you seen off-axis measurements of "concentric type" speakers? Have you seen off-axis responses of full range speakers? Do you know the off-axis response of the Atlantic Technology speaker? Do you know what the Dolby directivity specs for Atmos-enabled speakers are?


Respectively:
Yes, many. 

Yes, a few. Don't pay much attention to widebanders. 

No, but one can draw reasonable inferences based on the pictures.

No, but as I mentioned above they must not be that stringent if a stick-mounted 1" tweeter with a claimed highpass of 3.5kHz passes muster.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^

Can't like this post enough. 

Well said. 




Aras_Volodka said:


> What's that pic from?


Insider spy shot.




Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, actually. 

But for argument sake, this is what a company that sells things does. Make money off the consumer. They don't make a product because they have a heart of gold.


----------



## jdsmoothie

wse said:


> So why is it that some members say it will?


Wishful thinking.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roger Dressler said:


> .... and we found the Pioneers bouncing short of the target in one normal home setup, FWIW.


I found the same to be true with my local Magnolia's setup of the Pioneer Atmos speakers as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> One of the unique advantages of the AT design is that the tweeter angle can be adjusted. That is not possible with others, and we found the Pioneers bouncing short of the target in one normal home setup, FWIW.


Advantage with it's own compromises.

This might be so but this 'adjust ability' is only usable within it's bandwidth. IE: >3.5khz of which there is little control over directivity and omg, most definitely below the cross. Gonna splash midrange all over the place. For this use it would be better to have a focused (but possibly adjustable) directivity. This will not be the case with this posted AT design. It may be well regarded by a few ears and maybe it coined some inspiration to Andrew Jones but from a purely 'well designed speaker' POV, it's lacking. DS-21 sees this and so do I.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Scott Simonian said:


> Advantage with it's own compromises.
> 
> This might be so but this 'adjust ability' is only usable within it's bandwidth. IE: >3.5khz of which there is little control over directivity and omg, most definitely below the cross. Gonna splash midrange all over the place.


You say that like it's a bad thing. Isn't that what every other speaker in the room is already doing?


----------



## Scott Simonian

"Splash midrange all over the place"? I'd certainly hope not but then again most people are not using speakers with very much, if any directivity control.

Oh well. 

Light up those walls with sound.

Buy treatment.

Reproduce.

Obey.


----------



## quinn4528

kokishin said:


> @chewie1
> @fredl
> @kbarnes701
> @Rew452
> @sgibson
> @ThePrisoner
> @Selden Ball
> @thestoneman
> @RAllenChristenson
> 
> Letting you know I updated the spreadsheet with your inputs.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


Lee (quinn4528) - 7.2.4 - Marantz 7009 - In ceiling - FH / TR Paradigm R60 - 13 speakers installed. Thank you for updating. Regards


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> Wishful thinking.


The world expands over the American continent.
The Denon 7200 receiver is expected to be released in Europe in January 2015. ...France.


----------



## noah katz

Is there some reason DSU shouldn't work with DTS on DVD?

I tried two DVD's, Toy Story 2 and Twister, both of which have DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 soundtracks.

I get sound from the heights with the DD tracks but not from the DTS tracks; surround mode is DTS + Dolby Surround.


----------



## NorthSky

DenverMDM said:


> Can someone explain HDAM to me and why and how it would matter in a dedicated movie only theater?


It replaces an op-amp IC (Operational Amplifier on an Integrated Circuit - Chip or Microchip).
...Hyper-Dynamic Amplifier Module.

♦ www.integral-marketing-associates.c...modules-what-are-they-and-why-you-should-care

♦ www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/?strBrand=Various&strType=Highfidelity&strPage=Info

*♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *

♦ http://ca.marantz.com/us/Support/Pages/Glossary.aspx ==> Click on the letter "H" for HDAM.


----------



## rsoares28

I'm in the process of completing my basement right now. I had a few questions to see if atmos is a worthwhile goal for me. I'd be looking at a 5.2.4 setup

My theater wont be in a dedicated room, left side will be open to the rest of the basement so my surround speakers will be wall mounted at about 6.5 feet high, pointed down towards the main seating position. Main seating position will be about 13/14ft away from a 110 inch screen.

The main problem i think is the ceiling will be left unfinished but spray painted in a flat black (wifes going for an industrial look) If i mount the 4 ceiling speakers between the joists will I be losing anything seeing the speaker isnt enclosed with drywall?

Thanks


----------



## Aras_Volodka

rsoares28 said:


> I'm in the process of completing my basement right now. I had a few questions to see if atmos is a worthwhile goal for me. I'd be looking at a 5.2.4 setup
> 
> My theater wont be in a dedicated room, left side will be open to the rest of the basement so my surround speakers will be wall mounted at about 6.5 feet high, pointed down towards the main seating position. Main seating position will be about 13/14ft away from a 110 inch screen.
> 
> The main problem i think is the ceiling will be left unfinished but spray painted in a flat black (wifes going for an industrial look) If i mount the 4 ceiling speakers between the joists will I be losing anything seeing the speaker isnt enclosed with drywall?
> 
> Thanks


I can't answer your question but if I understand Atmos setup correctly your surrounds (probably) should be @ ear level.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Scott wasn't the one talking about the demo, Andrew Jones was. Don't know, would have to listen to the podcast again to see if Jones described anything else about the demo.


Ahh sorry I misunderstood... I remember Scott mentioning that he had attended a demo as well. So Jones heard the AT's @ CEDIA 2013?


----------



## rsoares28

Ok thanks for the reply, back to the drawing board


----------



## kokishin

quinn4528 said:


> Lee (quinn4528) - 7.2.4 - Marantz 7009 - In ceiling - FH / TR Paradigm R60 - 13 speakers installed. Thank you for updating. Regards


Done and You're Welcome


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I stand corrected. The AMAZE trailer the bird flies above head level but between ceiling and head


----------



## Steve Goff

DenverMDM said:


> Can someone explain HDAM to me and why and how it would matter in a dedicated movie only theater?



Hyper Dynamic amplifier module, an operational amplifier circuit made of discrete components (transistors, resistors, capacitors) rather than a circuit on a single chip. The notion is that you can make a better circuit with discrete parts, and not have to settle for the design of the chip maker. They say they do it because they think it sounds better. It probably costs a lot more than an IC, given that they use 24 transistors for each channel.


----------



## DenverMDM

Steve Goff said:


> Hyper Dynamic amplifier module, an operational amplifier circuit made of discrete components (transistors, resistors, capacitors) rather than a circuit on a single chip. The notion is that you can make a better circuit with discrete parts, and not have to settle for the design of the chip maker. They say they do it because they think it sounds better. It probably costs a lot more than an IC, given that they use 24 transistors for each channel.


Thanks guys for the links and explanations. It seems that most on this thread don't think HDAM is a determining competitive feature vs. the Denon x5200 based on the overwhelming popularity/adoption of the Denon unit.


----------



## Steve Goff

I would choose the Marantz AV7702 if you want to run separate amps, and the 5200 if you need built-in amps.


----------



## rockhound76s

Brian Fineberg said:


> I stand corrected. The AMAZE trailer the bird flies above head level but between ceiling and head



This is my perception as well upon a few repeated viewings---a circular pattern above my head. And I'm running 2 atlantic tech modules in a 7.1.2 setup up front. Although in my case my sides and rear surrounds are well above ear level which I would think contributes to the effect. I'd imagine that my system would likely fare worse with sound objects intended to be placed below ear level to the rear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

rsoares28 said:


> I'm in the process of completing my basement right now. I had a few questions to see if atmos is a worthwhile goal for me. I'd be looking at a 5.2.4 setup
> 
> My theater wont be in a dedicated room, left side will be open to the rest of the basement so my surround speakers will be wall mounted at about 6.5 feet high, pointed down towards the main seating position. Main seating position will be about 13/14ft away from a 110 inch screen.
> 
> The main problem i think is the ceiling will be left unfinished but spray painted in a flat black (wifes going for an industrial look) If i mount the 4 ceiling speakers between the joists will I be losing anything seeing the speaker isnt enclosed with drywall?
> 
> Thanks


I don't think not having dry wall would interfere with the speaker's sound... if anything I'd think the more space a speaker has to breathe the better. I'm not a speaker expert so that's why I can't say for certain. All I know is that placement is important.

I think the reason why surrounds should be @ ear level is because it helps replicate the mixer's intent. It might muddy things up a bit if they are too close to the rear overheads. Like say if something is panning between the surrounds and rear overheads... that illusion of going up & down could be distorted. Refer to post 14089 just above 

I'd try to seek out more advice from other forum users before making any decisions... take my advice with a grain of salt... all I know is from what I've read on here. I've yet to get my Atmos setup where it should be to offer sufficient first hand experience.


----------



## Steve Goff

DenverMDM said:


> Thanks guys for the links and explanations. It seems that most on this thread don't think HDAM is a determining competitive feature vs. the Denon x5200 based on the overwhelming popularity/adoption of the Denon unit.



Or maybe the 5200 came out a few weeks earlier and folks didn't want to wait.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> So Jones heard the AT's @ CEDIA 2013?


In the Wilkinson podcast, Jones cites that demo as inspiring him to try his hand at designing Atmos-enabled speakers. As Roger mentioned earlier, the early Atmos demos used a prototype of the DA-44 modules being discussed in this thread. So, to answer your question: yes, Jones was listening to the ATs at that demo.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve Goff said:


> I would choose the Marantz AV7702 if you want to run separate amps, and the 5200 if you need built-in amps.


Steve, receiver for receiver; why the 5200 over the 7009?


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Do you?


You were the one jumping to conclusions without having any data to support it, not me.


----------



## markus767

DS-21 said:


> I really don't see much in the picture to support that claim.


What claim? You're the one making claims. I just said that we would need to look closer and have more data. The cap covers large parts of the diaphragm. What makes you think it does nothing?



DS-21 said:


> Respectively:
> Yes, many.
> 
> Yes, a few. Don't pay much attention to widebanders.
> 
> No, but one can draw reasonable inferences based on the pictures.
> 
> No, but as I mentioned above they must not be that stringent if a stick-mounted 1" tweeter with a claimed highpass of 3.5kHz passes muster.


So you don't have all necessary information yet you're jumping to conclusions.


----------



## NorthSky

Where is Marc (FilmMixer), with his hit list of Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles...


----------



## Steve Goff

NorthSky said:


> Where is Marc (FilmMixer), with his hit list of Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles...



Last I looked he was selling his system.


----------



## Steve Goff

NorthSky said:


> Steve, receiver for receiver; why the 5200 over the 7009?



I have not paid enough attention, but some others say the 5200.


----------



## JonStatt

rockhound76s said:


> This is my perception as well upon a few repeated viewings---a circular pattern above my head. And I'm running 2 atlantic tech modules in a 7.1.2 setup up front. Although in my case my sides and rear surrounds are well above ear level which I would think contributes to the effect. I'd imagine that my system would likely fare worse with sound objects intended to be placed below ear level to the rear.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think this is highlighting a fundamental issue with home cinema speaker placement and object positioning perception though that demonstrates we are far away from all hearing objects in the same position within the hemisphere!

For the Amaze trailer, we have perceptions of the bird at ear height, and half way between ear height and ceiling.
For the Conductor trailer, we have perceptions of half-way between ear height and ceiling, or just below ceiling.

Contributing factors to this
1) Height of surrounds. Is there an official guidance these days on this? I saw somewhere in this thread, that the latest info suggested that the "correct" position was at or just above ear height. It would seem to me that the higher up the wall they are, the less height range a sound object can occupy. If the fronts are low and the surrounds are high then I think you will have a hemisphere at a tilt.
2) Output level of Atmos speakers. It stands to reason that the higher the output of the Atmos speakers, the more elevated a sound will become. Is the auto-calibration for Atmos speakers consistent enough to get that level right? How much are people manually tweaking that level after auto-calibration that could give very different results of object position?
3) For reflective Atmos speakers, their installation height. Onkyo clearly say the Atmos speakers should be positioned ABOVE ear level. This means if you have particularly low front speakers and put the speakers on-top of the fronts, you may not meet this requirement. Another manufacturer says they should be below half the height of the ceiling, which is likely to conflict with the first requirement!! 

I actually have my Onkyo Atmos speakers sitting on either side of a large fireplace on the mantlepiece, which falls almost exactly half way up the wall and about 1 foot above ear height. However, I have noted that the peak diffuseness (and lack of perception of sound coming from the Atmos speaker) would be about 2 feet further back in the room than my sofa seating. This suggests that Atmos speakers should have adjustable angles, not fixed ones. This one size (angle) fits all is likely to do a dis-service to Atmos, particularly when we consider the average size of an American room compared to a European one.


----------



## JonStatt

NorthSky said:


> It replaces an op-amp IC (Operational Amplifier on an Integrated Circuit - Chip or Microchip).
> ...Hyper-Dynamic Amplifier Module.
> 
> ♦ www.integral-marketing-associates.c...modules-what-are-they-and-why-you-should-care
> 
> ♦ www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/?strBrand=Various&strType=Highfidelity&strPage=Info
> 
> *♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *
> 
> ♦ http://ca.marantz.com/us/Support/Pages/Glossary.aspx ==> Click on the letter "H" for HDAM.



In Europe the Marantz in price is half-way between the Denon X4100 and X5200. The X5200 has separate circuit boards for each amplifier channel whereas the Marantz 7009 has all the channels on one single board. The X5200 has slightly higher output and is made in Japan. Interestingly the X5200 has a smaller casing/housing but is heavier than the Marantz. The Marantz has a better backlit remote with display and has a multi-channel input. Then there are bespoke processing features like Denon AL24 and the Denon Link HD which will pair nicely with a Denon 3313UD Universal transport player. Without a side by side comparison, it would be impossible to say which of the two sounds better but D&M group made it clear that the X5200 had no sister model. Why they bother to make so many variants is beyond me.


----------



## markus767

JonStatt said:


> 1) Height of surrounds. Is there an official guidance these days on this? I saw somewhere in this thread, that the latest info suggested that the "correct" position was at or just above ear height. It would seem to me that the higher up the wall they are, the less height range a sound object can occupy.


Correct. Movie theaters do it wrong 



JonStatt said:


> 3) For reflective Atmos speakers, their installation height. Onkyo clearly say the Atmos speakers should be positioned ABOVE ear level. This means if you have particularly low front speakers and put the speakers on-top of the fronts, you may not meet this requirement. Another manufacturer says they should be below half the height of the ceiling, which is likely to conflict with the first requirement!!


Don't overthink this. Put the Atmos-enabled speakers on top of your existing speakers. Actual height is secondary. It is more important to have them close to the speaker they're sitting on top of (prevent interference effects due to additional Atmos "bass management") and to aim them correctly so the ceiling reflection is as loud as possible.


----------



## maikeldepotter

JonStatt said:


> I think this is highlighting a fundamental issue with home cinema speaker placement and object positioning perception though that demonstrates we are far away from all hearing objects in the same position within the hemisphere!


In addition to speaker placement and output levels, the perceived elevation angle of a sound image that is pan-potted between two vertically positioned speakers can vary considerably between individual listeners.


----------



## Nightlord

Denon typically sounds very little of it's own, While the Marantz-tweaking often gets characterized "more musical" (hate the term myself) by having had some kind of distortion added to it. For me - then Denon is the way to go. If there is a difference in the Marantz of it's just placebo by reputation, I really don't know.


----------



## dvdwilly3

rockhound76s said:


> This is my perception as well upon a few repeated viewings---a circular pattern above my head. And I'm running 2 atlantic tech modules in a 7.1.2 setup up front. Although in my case my sides and rear surrounds are well above ear level which I would think contributes to the effect. I'd imagine that my system would likely fare worse with sound objects intended to be placed below ear level to the rear.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


By AT modules I assume you are talking about the 44DA modules. Where did you find them? When I talked to AT about 3 weeks ago they told me that they were expecting them the 1st week of December.


----------



## randyk47

A


Steve Goff said:


> Or maybe the 5200 came out a few weeks earlier and folks didn't want to wait.


I can say that personally it was that the Denon 5200 was available at the right time and place. I actually went to my local AV store's annual tent sale looking for a replacement/upgrade of my five year old Yamaha. There were no receivers on sale that interested me but I was shown the Denon and heard ATMOS demostrated. Since I was buying a couple of other items, actually have bought several things from the store over the years, they knocked $100 off the Denon. So much for research and technical analysis.


----------



## CEGUY

dvdwilly3 said:


> By AT modules I assume you are talking about the 44DA modules. Where did you find them? When I talked to AT about 3 weeks ago they told me that they were expecting them the 1st week of December.


Outlaw paid Atlantic to fly in a quantity of 44 DA's so they could offer a complete Atmos package with the Marantz 7702. Due to the limited supply, they are not yet offering the 44 DA's as a stand-alone purchase. That will only happen when Atlantic receives its sea shipment in early December.


----------



## robert816

Wreck-It Ralph using DSU sounds great, especially during the scenes when Ralph is in the game "Hero's Duty".

Also Quigley Down Under, which on the Blu-Ray is DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0, benefits greatly from DSU.


----------



## rockhound76s

JonStatt said:


> 1) Height of surrounds. Is there an official guidance these days on this? I saw somewhere in this thread, that the latest info suggested that the "correct" position was at or just above ear height. It would seem to me that the higher up the wall they are, the less height range a sound object can occupy. If the fronts are low and the surrounds are high then I think you will have a hemisphere at a tilt.


Ear-level or slightly higher is the guideline according to the Dolby placement guides on their site. My setup is very much a forward-tilted hemisphere due to higher side/rear surround placement. I think this is where the Atmos marketers speak to adaptability with current systems. Taking the example of the bird in the Amaze trailer, the compelling aspect, for me at least, is the improved smoothness and precision of motion around the room. Moreso than the accuracy of the birds height (as intended by the sound designer). It will be interesting to see if Atmos sound designers do indeed begin to place critical aspects of movie sound design in the lower (ear level and below) rear hemisphere behind the listeners' head, such that adherence to the placement guidelines becomes super critical. I've always read diverse opinions of sound design behind the listeners head, due to the somewhat diminished ability of the human ear to localize sound behind due to the anatomy of the ear. 



JonStatt said:


> 2) Output level of Atmos speakers. It stands to reason that the higher the output of the Atmos speakers, the more elevated a sound will become. Is the auto-calibration for Atmos speakers consistent enough to get that level right? How much are people manually tweaking that level after auto-calibration that could give very different results of object position?


The owners manual for the AT speakers does in fact state that the levels should be set up to +4db hotter than other speakers to avoid being 'washed out by the other channels'. I actually emailed Audyssey support about this, and asked whether this is considered in the calibration, and they responded "yes", FWIW.


----------



## rockhound76s

dvdwilly3 said:


> By AT modules I assume you are talking about the 44DA modules. Where did you find them? When I talked to AT about 3 weeks ago they told me that they were expecting them the 1st week of December.





CEGUY said:


> Outlaw paid Atlantic to fly in a quantity of 44 DA's so they could offer a complete Atmos package with the Marantz 7702. Due to the limited supply, they are not yet offering the 44 DA's as a stand-alone purchase. That will only happen when Atlantic receives its sea shipment in early December.


Yes, purchased with the 7702 through Outlaw.


----------



## mtbdudex

Back on 09-17-2014 I recognized the need to have a 3D model for people to use as a tool to grasp speaker placement and trade-off decisions if they could not fit into the ideal Atmos guidelines....that lost traction here.....so many posts....

I found a possible solution, member Silva has offered to do google sketch-up for HT's, so I asked him to do it for Dolby Atmos in 3D space for 3 row and 2 row. Then, nearly anyone should be able to take those 2 models and adjust for their HT space.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...r-you-future-home-theater-2.html#post29164418


> Silva;
> You could do a real service to the whole AVS community related to making Dolby Atmos speaker placement more clear.
> I posted the below in the Dolby Atmos HT thread ( 09-17-2014), not realizing that we had a SME here on sketch-up.
> 
> Most people have trouble visualizing the placement of their speakers to the new Dolby guidelines.
> Having a generic 3D model that they could then take and tweak to their specific HT set-up would greatly help.
> 
> Dolby has released their specs here, http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolog...guidelines.pdf
> 
> Are you the "AVS person that can step up" that I was looking for?


My Sep-17-2014 post:


mtbdudex said:


> Issue;
> 
> 
> Confusion on various layouts Dolby Atmos can accommodate in home setting
> Lot's of same questions get asked again-again, text based, answers given, rinse-and-repeat for very similar situation
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> 
> The Dolby Atmos full 24.x.10 layout guide be put into 3D space so all can more easily grasp the maximum benefits to their either dedicated HT layout or multi-purpose room layout.
> Use free Google SketchUp. Yes I did a search and to what I found there is no Dolby Atmos generic model in 3D cad, http://www.sketchup.com/
> 
> The full 24.x.10 be put onto SketchUp for 3 row "large" home theater space, with corresponding angles/et all clearly marked (Large space being say 18 ft wide x 28 ft long x 12 ft high, just over 6,000 ft^3)
> Cross correlate that to Auro-3D (and DTS-UHD later) by some color scheme to show compatibility between systems visually
> Inside that "large" home theater space, add 2 row home theater walls to show how the 24.x.10 would be mapped onto room of less size/volume; baseline 2 row would be 15 ft wide x 20 ft long x 9 ft high 2,700 ft^3. Having speaker to MLP vectors should show the intersection positions onto 2 row.
> Save these files as templates on the sketch up server, for all community can easily access them, https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/search.html?q=home+theater&backendClass=entity
> It's much easier to modify a 3D drwg than create one, so this will open up for many members to do their own Atmos study, post that here for more effective peer reviews.
> Background:
> After reading this thread on/off I had considered doing this 3-4 days ago, and actually started doing it myself and quickly realized I'm too busy with life/scouts/soccer dad/RH hip surgery upcoming. I'm an old tool designer draftsman from 1978-1983, and upon moving thru Engineering school and management my CAD creation days are beyond me, but to modify/tweak existing template is easy.
> 
> Therefore......Which AVS person can step up?
> 
> Markus post below triggered me to write this post, after all this is the "all things Atmos, both now and future", so why not have a generic 3D CAD model for all to use/grasp?
> 
> My earlier post on attempting to get a visual added to first post....it would be really nice also to have a FAQ .......


Post from Keith a few days back on a Q I asked.....


kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting work - good job there. * Most of the 'discussive' posts seem to be about speaker placement*. Then there is a lot of traffic wrt to the 'Atmos experience' and if it is worthwhile/better than 5.1/better than Auro etc. *But if I had to guess as to which single topic has occupied most time and energy, it'd be speaker placement.*
> 
> BTW, those links don't seem to go anywhere.
> 
> EDIT: Incidentally, are there really only 20 of us who taken the plunge? I'll make s separate post for people to add to if they have an Atmos installation, so we can get a handle on it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> You were the one jumping to conclusions without having any data to support it, not me.


Jump to conclusions? Okay, sure. All I have to do is look at it to know it is not adequate for the job. Specifically as a top mounted, reflective type speaker for the purpose of a Atmos-enabled speaker. Just because one person can say, "wow, that's a great idea!" does not make it an excellent speaker.

The rest of your questions were not relevant to what I was saying and honestly don't feel like digging around for.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> All I have to do is look at it to know it is not adequate for the job.


You know that Dolby licensees have to send samples to Dolby for approval?


----------



## Scott Simonian

So what?

Do the other manufactures not do this?


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> So what?


You've claimed that the device is "not adequate for the job" yet Dolby did approve the design. Following your logic Dolby themselves would not know what is adequate for a technology they themselves invented. That's a pretty bold claim.



Scott Simonian said:


> Do the other manufactures not do this?


They have to if they are licensees.


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> We both seem blessed with partners who allow us a lot of latitude to indulge our hobbies. Which is why we have to respect that 'line in the sand' when it does eventually get drawn. It is easier when the room is a dedicated HT because then they care less about it aesthetically I think - but I still consult first before making any significant changes


Always a wise decision. That line in the sand is ususlly drawn with lots of empty Zappos boxes, and/or furniture upgrades, and/or kitchen/bath remodels.


----------



## Selden Ball

We don't know what Dolby's requirements are for certification. Given the known limitations in the audio quality of the Onkyo and DefTech upfiring speakers, it's obviously more lax than many AVS members would prefer, but still adequate for producing acceptable Atmos. 

People have always argued over whether surround-sound speakers need to be as high a quality as the main fronts. Overhead and reflective surrounds are no different in that regard. For some people, getting any sound at all from overhead is an amazing result. Others won't be satisfied without full-range timbre-matched speakers everywhere. And some are in the middle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> You've claimed that the device is "not adequate for the job" yet Dolby did approve the design. Following your logic Dolby themselves would not know what is adequate for a technology they themselves invented. That's a pretty bold claim.
> 
> 
> 
> They have to if they are licensees.


I'm sure there is a range of what is acceptable.

Just looking at it ...it only takes that to *know* that it is a lesser implementation of this 'technology'. And if somehow aiming the tweeter separate from the midwoofer is a good thing then that just tells me more. Yeah, that sonic 'image' the ceiling should be blurred more by having part of the frequencies hit one spot and the rest of it hit another. Yeah, that's rock solid sound man. No thanks, I say and I'd guarantee the rest that are not designed that way will not be worse. All I see is a manufacture see a problem and react. "Oh, I see nearly everybody is using a fullrange driver for this purpose. You know what these aren't good at? Treble. I know a cheap way to 'improve' that! Tack on a cheap dome tweeter with a simple capacitor. Now we have more of that treble guys. Leg up on the competition."  

But but...Andrew Jones thought it was a great! Oh okay. Never mind then.  Never mind that he was presented with the *idea* of it and then designed something far superior and what I'm saying is the proper way to do it and _not_ a coaxial mounted dome. Notice his aren't cheap-ass dome tweeter mounted over the mid? Yeah.

Look what I'm saying, you don't have to listen to. I'm allowed to post my opinion and that is what I am doing. It's not a bunch of hot air BS. I'm not the one trying to take your money but save you some hopefully and enjoy yourselves.


----------



## Gurba

WOW!!! This thread is almost as entertaining as a cable-thread.


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> We don't know what Dolby's requirements are for certification.


What makes you so sure this would apply to all posters in this thread?


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm allowed to post my opinion and that is what I am doing.


Yes, that's what you do but there's a difference between having an opinion and having actual knowledge.



Scott Simonian said:


> It's not a bunch of hot air BS.


I disagree.


----------



## redjr

alyssanick said:


> No one did. But I have been a recurring questioner. Not that being reference specifically is a requirement for weighing in
> 
> Definitely! I appreciate everyone taking the atmos leap. We need to see it flourish at the home. This is actually how I feel on 3D. Was an early adopter in 2010. People gave a lot more (and still do) hate to 3D than they are dolby atmos ......


I hear you on 3D. Many people have snod comments because they don't like, or see how it adds to the enjoyment. I suppose it's all relative. I got into 3D not so much intentionally, but I upgraded to one of the last Panasonic's 65" plasmas for my new media room and it just happened that 3D came along in the model.

Now that I have it, I thoroughly enjoy everything I watch in 3D. It's a spatial dimension thing for me and adds to both the story and visual experience. Gravity was fantastic in 3D! I haven't run out and bought all the latest 3D movies over the past year, but the few that I have are worth the extra $5. 

As far as Atmos..let me say this. I wired for Atmos, but have yet to jump in. The comments here about the DSU have me more intrigued about a new receiver than does Atmos at the moment.  Since I wired for Atmos, I'm using 2 of the new rear ceiling speakers as my rear surrounds so basically went to a 7.1 system. I've almost watch all my legacy content that was mastered in 7.1 TrueHD, or DTS-MA, and all I can say is WOW! Even without Atmos the sound in my new diggs is nothing short of amazing. Not sure how much better it could get than this. However, I am still eyeing the latest Pioneer offerings in the SC lineup (Atmos) and may make the move next year sometime. I'm on the fence, but have a strong feeling on which side I'll jump off on.  
.


----------



## randyk47

redjr said:


> Always a wise decision. That line in the sand is ususlly drawn with lots of empty Zappos boxes, and/or furniture upgrades, and/or kitchen/bath remodels.


Mrs. K understandably has a different line in the sand for remodels than I might left to my own priorities. We did our master bath a couple of years ago and are presently planning a kitchen remodel. Needless to say a purpose built theater is way down the list of potential projects. Considering a 12 month period where we've added leather recliners, a 70" Sharp Elite, an Oppo, B&W speakers, the Denon, and now ATMOS speakers she has let me make improvements. As she appropriately points out it's not like we're nose deep in the septic tank with our media room.


----------



## kbarnes701

alyssanick said:


> Not sure if I can be lumped into the "hater" category.
> 
> I have expressed my reluctance for sure. 1.Lack of announcements for catalog remixes. 2.Users word for it DSU is amazing. 3.Not all receivers properly implemented features including hdmi 2.0, audyssey
> 
> For the well off, this atmos stuff is boys toys. Rinse repeat, as advancements are made. A lot of people have to live in the real world where value is measured and the value is sketchy so far. Some may use "false hate" dichotomy to bring about their stance. Some may just be skeptic types and provide a balanced view of the technology. Weigh the pros and cons.


Value is entirely subjective, as you imply. For me, the upgrade was great value as DSU is adding considerably to my enjoyment of all of my movie library and I am all set for Atmos releases as they cone along. YMMV of course.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Yes, that's what you do but there's a difference between having an opinion and having actual knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.


I'll draw you a diagram in crayon next time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not that I disagree but I'm wondering what DTS could do to increase the quality of sound? I don't know much about DTS... all I know is that my True HD blurays do sound superior to my other discs.


How could that be possible do you think? Is one lossless codec more lossless than the other?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not that I disagree but I'm wondering what DTS could do to increase the quality of sound? I don't know much about DTS... all I know is that my True HD blurays do sound superior to my other discs.


Just as Keith mentions. Is one more lossless than another? No.

What you are hearing are completely different movies with completely different mixes.


----------



## kbarnes701

rockhound76s said:


> The owners manual for the AT speakers does in fact state that the levels should be set up to +4db hotter than other speakers to avoid being 'washed out by the other channels'. I actually emailed Audyssey support about this, and asked whether this is considered in the calibration, and they responded "yes", FWIW.


Then I don't understand Audyssey's response (wouldn't be the first time). After reading your post I measured the SPL of all my speakers, with Audyssey on and off, using an external source disc for the test tones, and all the speakers measure within about 0.5dB of 75dB at 0db on the MV. As I expected they would. So what do Audyssey mean when they say they have 'considered' a +4dB boost in the calibration? If the overheads were 4dB hot, then they would measure at around 79dB surely?

Or, does this apply only to Atmos-enabled speaker modules? I can believe that as a concept because of the distance involved for the reflection back of the sound - if this is what was meant, does anyone have any measurements to verify it?


----------



## bsoko2

kbarnes701 said:


> Value is entirely subjective, as you imply. For me, the upgrade was great value as DSU is adding considerably to my enjoyment of all of my movie library and I am all set for Atmos releases as they cone along. YMMV of course.



I'm with Keith on this. I don't go out to movies and pay the ridiculous prices for theater tickets and treats. What would it cost you to go to the movies once a week?


----------



## rockhound76s

kbarnes701 said:


> Then I don't understand Audyssey's response (wouldn't be the first time). After reading your post I measured the SPL of all my speakers, with Audyssey on and off, using an external source disc for the test tones, and all the speakers measure within about 0.5dB of 75dB at 0db on the MV. As I expected they would. So what do Audyssey mean when they say they have 'considered' a +4dB boost in the calibration? If the overheads were 4dB hot, then they would measure at around 79dB surely?
> 
> Or, does this apply only to Atmos-enabled speaker modules? I can believe that as a concept because of the distance involved for the reflection back of the sound - if this is what was meant, does anyone have any measurements to verify it?


That makes two of us--not fully understanding Audyssey's response, that is.

The question I posed pertained exclusively to the Atmos-enabled speakers--not the overhead direct-firing type. Since the Atlantic Tech manual stated running them +4db hot, I asked them if I should, post-Audyssey calibration, manually increase the levels of those speakers. The response was vague:



> We recommend using the calibration as measured by MultEQ. The calibration will measure and correctly match all speakers for your setup.
> 
> Best regards,
> Audyssey Support


I've not received a response to my follow up request for more detail. I think experimentation and personal preference by the enduser is the safest bet.


----------



## gpmbc

I've read many positive experiences with DSU. The worst I've ever read is that some movies weren't as effective with DSU as others. Has anyone had an experience where DSU detracted from the experience? I'm contemplating atmos but with next to no content, the biggest attraction is DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

bsoko2 said:


> I'm with Keith on this. I don't go out to movies and pay the ridiculous prices for theater tickets and treats. What would it cost you to go to the movies once a week?


Good point, Bill. And I watch about 5 or 6 movies a week, sometimes more!


----------



## kbarnes701

rockhound76s said:


> That makes two of us--not fully understanding Audyssey's response, that is.
> 
> The question I posed pertained exclusively to the Atmos-enabled speakers--not the overhead direct-firing type. Since the Atlantic Tech manual stated running them +4db hot, I asked them if I should, post-Audyssey calibration, manually increase the levels of those speakers. The response was vague:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not received a response to my follow up request for more detail. I think experimentation and personal preference by the enduser is the safest bet.


Stock answer from Audyssey: "Don't touch the settings that Audyssey delivers". If Audyssey knows that modules need to run +4dB (and this is the first time I have heard that) then they should have factored it into the calibrated result, so whatever level MultEQ sets is where it should be left. That would be my reading of their remark.


----------



## kbarnes701

gpmbc said:


> I've read many positive experiences with DSU. The worst I've ever read is that some movies weren't as effective with DSU as others. Has anyone had an experience where DSU detracted from the experience? I'm contemplating atmos but with next to no content, the biggest attraction is DSU.


So far I must have watched dozens of legacy movies with DSU engaged. My experience ranges from "wow!" (eg *Twister*, *The Descent*, *Jurassic Park: The Lost World* and various others) to less enthusiastic (eg *Shutter Island* and, oddly, *Pacific Rim*, where the score seemed to drown all the effects). But in none of the movies would I say that DSU has detracted from the experience, or made me want to turn it off. I’d say that well over 90% of the movies I have watched with DSU have been enhanced by it. It will depend to some extent on the content and the mix of course - dialogue-heavy dramas may benefit less than more overt mixes for example. But yeah, by and large, DSU is a real winner.


----------



## gpmbc

kbarnes701 said:


> So far I must have watched dozens of legacy movies with DSU engaged. My experience ranges from "wow!" (eg *Twister*, *The Descent*, *Jurassic Park: The Lost World* and various others) to less enthusiastic (eg *Shutter Island* and, oddly, *Pacific Rim*, where the score seemed to drown all the effects). But in none of the movies would I say that DSU has detracted from the experience, or made me want to turn it off. I’d say that well over 90% of the movies I have watched with DSU have been enhanced by it. It will depend to some extent on the content and the mix of course - dialogue-heavy dramas may benefit less than more overt mixes for example. But yeah, by and large, DSU is a real winner.


Thx Keith, that's exactly what I was hoping for.


----------



## rockhound76s

kbarnes701 said:


> Stock answer from Audyssey: "Don't touch the settings that Audyssey delivers". *If Audyssey knows that modules need to run +4dB (and this is the first time I have heard that)* then they should have factored it into the calibrated result, so whatever level MultEQ sets is where it should be left. That would be my reading of their remark.


I actually tried to reference owners manuals for both the Onkyo and the Def-Tech Atmos-enabled speakers, but neither has an owners manual posted on their sites. I'm curious if they'd have a similar manufacturer recommendation for speaker level that Audyssey is incorporating globally as the 'profile' for Atmos-enabled speaker types.


----------



## robert816

gpmbc said:


> I've read many positive experiences with DSU. The worst I've ever read is that some movies weren't as effective with DSU as others. Has anyone had an experience where DSU detracted from the experience? I'm contemplating atmos but with next to no content, the biggest attraction is DSU.


Yes, I watched the anime movie Akira using the Japanese Dolby TrueHD setting, on my copy (version prior to the 25th anniversary edition) that is a 192kHz 24bit audio track. After starting the movie I switched to Dolby Surround, and to say I wasn't pleased with the outcome is being kind. I will state that I did not try the other soundtrack options to see if there were any difference in in audio quality using a standard 5.1 Dolby Digital track.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll draw you a diagram in crayon next time.


Why not draw one this time? Please include Dolby requirements and measurements that show how the AT design fails the requirements and how other designs are superior.

There's one inherent weakness in the AT coax assembly though. I wonder why neither you nor DS-21 have mentioned it...


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> There's one inherent weakness in the AT coax assembly though. I wonder why neither you nor DS-21 have mentioned it...


Lol. Omg.

Well I'll be sure to call you out on it when you do.


----------



## markus767

^
What about the promised drawing?


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## robert816

Can I get that in a 24x36 borderless glossy format?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sure but it may not scale very well as a jpeg. I'll have to remaster it in vector or maybe a simple bitmap will work well enough. 

I take Paypal.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> So far I must have watched dozens of legacy movies with DSU engaged. My experience ranges from "wow!" (eg *Twister*, *The Descent*, *Jurassic Park: The Lost World* and various others) to less enthusiastic (eg *Shutter Island* and, oddly, *Pacific Rim*, where the score seemed to drown all the effects). But in none of the movies would I say that DSU has detracted from the experience, or made me want to turn it off. I’d say that well over 90% of the movies I have watched with DSU have been enhanced by it. *It will depend to some extent on the content and the mix of course - dialogue-heavy dramas may benefit less than more overt mixes for example.* But yeah, by and large, DSU is a real winner.


I'm going to go even farther than that since I tend to watch dialogue-heavy movies. Forget the localization of dialogue; DSU does a great job IMHO with the background score, sound effects, and myriad other elements in the audio besides the dialogue to create an immersive experience.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

rockhound76s said:


> Yes, purchased with the 7702 through Outlaw.


So you own the 44DA's or have possibly heard them? If so, what do you think?


----------



## robert816

Scott Simonian said:


> Sure but it may not scale very well as a jpeg. I'll have to remaster it in vector or maybe a simple bitmap will work well enough.
> 
> I take Paypal.


Well, if using vector, might as well plot to vellum instead! 

Back on topic (sort of), I've changed the audio output from the Xbox One to bitstream and Dolby Digital and am using the DSU on games. Very nice! The new Halo remaster/reissue for the Xbox One sounds great with DSU.


----------



## nitro28

For those of you that are already using your system can you speak to matching or not matching the timbre of your overhead speakers with the rest of your system. Given the sounds that end up above me, I am not thinking that timbre matching is absolutely critical. I'm hoping its not as the matched overhead speakers are far more expensive that some good quality speakers of other brands. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> How could that be possible do you think? Is one lossless codec more lossless than the other?





Scott Simonian said:


> Just as Keith mentions. Is one more lossless than another? No.
> 
> What you are hearing are completely different movies with completely different mixes.


DTS HD discs don't have more resolution than a standard 5.1 mix? Or is it just a label that's put on the case?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> DTS HD discs don't have more resolution than a standard 5.1 mix? Or is it just a label that's put on the case?


DTS-HD Master Audio = Dolby TrueHD = PCM

All of the above are > Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, DTS and DTS-HD HR


----------



## Aras_Volodka

nitro28 said:


> For those of you that are already using your system can you speak to matching or not matching the timbre of your overhead speakers with the rest of your system. Given the sounds that end up above me, I am not thinking that timbre matching is absolutely critical. I'm hoping its not as the matched overhead speakers are far more expensive that some good quality speakers of other brands. What are your thoughts?


Dolby recommended timbre matching in the home theater geeks interview a couple months ago. They said it's not critical... just ideal. It's not an option for me since I'm using Klipsch speakers... I've yet to hear the modules when they come in the first week of December  From what I've heard with my crappy speakers pointing upwards I don't think it's going to be a huge deal if not timbre matched.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> So you own the 44DA's or have possibly heard them? If so, what do you think?


Post # 13846 from 2 days ago: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-462.html#post29117417


----------



## bkeeler10

So I was recently reminded that Keith was going to try doing a 7.1.4 layout in his room at some point, with the 6th and 7th speakers being wides instead of surround backs. How about it, Keith? Several weeks of listening, followed by a long vacation, should have done the trick to alleviate your setupitis by now, right?


----------



## NorthSky

Steve Goff said:


> I have not paid enough attention, but some others say the 5200.


Did they compare them both; the 5200 and 7009 ...ABX testing? 

Or more conveniently, as was previously mentioned, because the 5200 came first. 

* If you look inside the 5200, and compared that to a dedicated multichannel amplifier, say from Rotel, or Yamaha, or Onkyo/Integra, or Emotiva, or Denon's own, ...well, it's a receiver, and no dedicated heat sinks and no microfarad capacitance for each channel, but one heatsink (fortunately not thin bended metal), and two small caps for all nine powered amplifier channels. 

And it weights just over thirty pounds. 

The 7009 weights less than one pound less, and is internally arranged a little differently, amplifier section wise. 

Would they sound differently overall, for both multichannel movies and music and stereo music?
...Probably not. ...Or you'll never know, till you do some serious ABX testing with all that jazz that is required.

Timing is everything. ...Even money. ...And with time comes more choices; all for the better...manufacturers and customers.


----------



## NorthSky

Steve Goff said:


> Last I looked he was selling his system.


FilmMixer, again! ...Is he going back with Yamaha now, or Onkyo? 
...I'm not surprised, not from a guy like Marc.  ...That's his job; to try them all.


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> DTS HD discs don't have more resolution than a standard 5.1 mix? Or is it just a label that's put on the case?





Scott Simonian said:


> DTS-HD Master Audio = Dolby TrueHD = PCM
> 
> All of the above are > Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, DTS and DTS-HD HR


The resolution (sampling rate and bit depth) is a separate choice. For example, most BDs have soundtracks which was sampled at 48K samples/sec. Some were recorded at twice that (e.g. _Barraka_ at 96K/24bits) and a few even higher (e.g. _Akira_ at 192K/24bits)


----------



## NorthSky

Nightlord said:


> Denon typically sounds very little of it's own, While the Marantz-tweaking often gets characterized "more musical" (hate the term myself) by having had some kind of distortion added to it. For me - then Denon is the way to go. If there is a difference in the Marantz of it's just placebo by reputation, I really don't know.


Would you say that in general the Denon 'sound' is more neutral, nurtured, reserved, unsophisticated?

...And that the Marantz 'sound' is more euphoric, characteristic, fabricated, pre-assembled?

...In general, over the years.


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> *Wreck-It Ralph* using DSU sounds great, especially during the scenes when Ralph is in the game "Hero's Duty".


Aesome! ...Also, if you have *'The Cabin in the Woods'* on Blu, give it a swirl. 

______










♦ I bet DSU would do some magic 'voodoo' here.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


>


Good job, especially for someone older than 2 years posting on AVS(cience)


----------



## NorthSky

JonStatt said:


> I think this is highlighting a fundamental issue with home cinema speaker placement and object positioning perception though that demonstrates we are far away from all hearing objects in the same position within the hemisphere!
> 
> For the Amaze trailer, we have perceptions of the bird at ear height, and half way between ear height and ceiling.
> For the Conductor trailer, we have perceptions of half-way between ear height and ceiling, or just below ceiling.
> 
> Contributing factors to this
> 1) Height of surrounds. Is there an official guidance these days on this? I saw somewhere in this thread, that the latest info suggested that the "correct" position was at or just above ear height. It would seem to me that the higher up the wall they are, the less height range a sound object can occupy. If the fronts are low and the surrounds are high then I think you will have a hemisphere at a tilt.
> 2) Output level of Atmos speakers. It stands to reason that the higher the output of the Atmos speakers, the more elevated a sound will become. Is the auto-calibration for Atmos speakers consistent enough to get that level right? How much are people manually tweaking that level after auto-calibration that could give very different results of object position?
> 3) For reflective Atmos speakers, their installation height. Onkyo clearly say the Atmos speakers should be positioned ABOVE ear level. This means if you have particularly low front speakers and put the speakers on-top of the fronts, you may not meet this requirement. Another manufacturer says they should be below half the height of the ceiling, which is likely to conflict with the first requirement!!
> 
> I actually have my Onkyo Atmos speakers sitting on either side of a large fireplace on the mantlepiece, which falls almost exactly half way up the wall and about 1 foot above ear height. However, I have noted that the peak diffuseness (and lack of perception of sound coming from the Atmos speaker) would be about 2 feet further back in the room than my sofa seating. This suggests that Atmos speakers should have adjustable angles, not fixed ones. This one size (angle) fits all is likely to do a dis-service to Atmos, particularly when we consider the average size of an American room compared to a European one.





JonStatt said:


> In Europe the Marantz in price is half-way between the Denon X4100 and X5200. The X5200 has separate circuit boards for each amplifier channel whereas the Marantz 7009 has all the channels on one single board. The X5200 has slightly higher output and is made in Japan. Interestingly the X5200 has a smaller casing/housing but is heavier than the Marantz. The Marantz has a better backlit remote with display and has a multi-channel input. Then there are bespoke processing features like Denon AL24 and the Denon Link HD which will pair nicely with a Denon 3313UD Universal transport player. Without a side by side comparison, it would be impossible to say which of the two sounds better but D&M group made it clear that the X5200 had no sister model. Why they bother to make so many variants is beyond me.


I enjoyed reading your posts Jon. ...Quite informative and enriching.  

* By the way, I wonder...how many people are using the Denon's Link nowadays (to connect directly with their own matching Denon universal BD player; with also that Denon Link @ the rear, of course). 

Listener-level floor/wall surrounds (side and rear): Atmos (DSU) is the new [email protected] ear level now, unobstructed. 

♦ BEST: Experiment.


----------



## Steve Goff

NorthSky said:


> FilmMixer, again! ...Is he going back with Yamaha now, or Onkyo?
> 
> ...I'm not surprised, not from a guy like Marc.  ...That's his job; to try them all.



He says in his classified ad that he is moving to a smaller space.


----------



## Spanglo

gpmbc said:


> I've read many positive experiences with DSU. The worst I've ever read is that some movies weren't as effective with DSU as others. Has anyone had an experience where DSU detracted from the experience? I'm contemplating atmos but with next to no content, the biggest attraction is DSU.


As already mentioned, DSU for movies ranges from nice to amazing, but the same thing can easily be said for music too. In fact, I've found upmixed music to be more impactful than movies. This coming from a prior 2 channel only music listener.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Correct. Movie theaters do it wrong


All along... Just a little too high; should have been generally a couple feet or so lower, I think. 



> Put the Atmos-enabled speakers on top of your existing speakers. Actual height is secondary. It is more important to have them close to the speaker they're sitting on top of (prevent interference effects due to additional Atmos "bass management") and to aim them correctly so the ceiling reflection is as loud as possible.


1. You don't want direct sound from them Atmos module speakers reaching your ears.
...So better to have them above ear-level than below or @. /// Methinks, and Dolby too. 

2. Methinks that a pivoting (manually aim-able) top module Atmos speaker would be highly desirable. 
{We're going to see them appearing eventually; I am convinced.}

3. They are selling acoustically absorbing sound panels for your ceiling;
next are reflective sound panels for them same spots on your ceiling; called Atmos ceiling panels. 
{That too; I bet we'll see them for sale, eventually.}


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> 1. You don't want direct sound from them Atmos module speakers reaching your ears.
> ...So better to have them above ear-level than below or @. /// Methinks, and Dolby too.


Nobody claimed the opposite.
Lower frequencies will always "bend" around the speaker. Doesn't matter if the speaker is below or above ear level.
The barrier seen in some designs will attenuate higher frequencies.


----------



## NorthSky

> ... And I watch about 5 or 6 movies a week, sometimes more!


@ the very least (for me). ...And with the price for Blu-rays it can easily surpass monthly cable fees, plus monthly phone bills and added on top of monthly Internet fees! 

* If you bring your own popcorn @ the theaters, it is cheaper...than @ home. 
-> I'm talking new Blu-ray releases here; not TV cable, or old DVD collections, or VHS tapes, or Netflix, 
or RedBox rentals, or downloads from any sources.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Lower frequencies will always "bend" around the speaker. Doesn't matter if the speaker is below or above ear level. The barrier seen in some designs will attenuate higher frequencies.


For "safety" (good 'sound' measure), they recommend them Dolby Atmos modules (separated from or attached to or reposing on the mains) above ear-level. ...Most preferably. 

No? ...I think yes.

* Talkin' 'bout mid/high audio frequencies here; say from 200Hz to 20kHz.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


>


:grin: Best Post in a Long Time! :grin: ...In the last two hours, @ least.


----------



## redjr

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point, Bill. And I watch about 5 or 6 movies a week, sometimes more!


Keith - You got way too much free time on your hands. Good for you!


----------



## kbarnes701

nitro28 said:


> For those of you that are already using your system can you speak to matching or not matching the timbre of your overhead speakers with the rest of your system. Given the sounds that end up above me, I am not thinking that timbre matching is absolutely critical. I'm hoping its not as the matched overhead speakers are far more expensive that some good quality speakers of other brands. What are your thoughts?


Been said many times - timbre matching was important in the old days, before room EQ was common. Nowadays, with things like Audyssey's XT32, timbre matching isn't as important. And regardless of using speakers from the same manufacturer, it's unlikely that a large speaker used for LCR will sound like a small surround speaker anyway. Not to mention that when you put one speaker on a stand at ear height and the other fastened to the ceiling, they will sound very different anyway, even if they are identical speakers. Automated EQ will aim to match the frequency response of every speaker in the system to its target curve - and given we are all using bass management (or should be), we are only concerned with response above 80Hz anyway. FWIW I use THX certified M&K S150s for LCR and small Tannoy Di5 DCs on the ceiling. When Optimus Prime's voice moves from the mains to the front overheads in *Transformers: Age of Extinction* (in Atmos), I don't hear any problems with timbre matching.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> DTS HD discs don't have more resolution than a standard 5.1 mix? Or is it just a label that's put on the case?


It's all PCM. All that the codec does is pack it, losslessly. It's not more reasonable to expect one to sound different to the other than it would be to expect a Word document packed with ZIP to be different to the same document packed with RAR, once unpacked.


----------



## bsoko2

*^ ^ ^* I have JTR Qintuples for mains and center and JTR Triple 8's for all surrounds, Tannoy D5i for the 4 overhead speakers and no problem with timbre match. 7.2.4 system.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> So I was recently reminded that Keith was going to try doing a 7.1.4 layout in his room at some point, with the 6th and 7th speakers being wides instead of surround backs. How about it, Keith? Several weeks of listening, followed by a long vacation, should have done the trick to alleviate your setupitis by now, right?


Not possible I'm afraid. I did try it - I cannot get anywhere near the required angles for Wides unfortunately. Pity because I have the amps, the speakers and the wire, so it would have been a no-cost upgrade.


----------



## kbarnes701

redjr said:


> Keith - You got way too much free time on your hands. Good for you!


Not really. I don't watch TV, for example, at all. My nightly movie is my way of relaxing after a busy day. I've been a movie fan since my mum introduced me to movies when I was about 5 years old - we used to go to the local cinema once or twice a week.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I watch a movie literally every night of the week. After the house goes to bed. Needless to say I don't watch tv any longer


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> As already mentioned, DSU for movies ranges from nice to amazing, but the same thing can easily be said for music too. In fact, I've found upmixed music to be more impactful than movies. This coming from a prior 2 channel only music listener.


I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Roger (ex-Dolby man) still prefers Dolby ProLogic IIx Music audio mode for music listening. ...From his Classe pre/pro (SSP). 

...And Dolby Atmos (he has two Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles) for movies. ...From his new Marantz AV7702 Dolby Atmos pre/pro (SSP). ...And he also likes DSU (Dolby Surround up-mixer) for movies.

One more thing: Music and movie sound are not created equal. ...More care is given to music recordings.
...In vast general. ...Auro-3D might change that though. 

______

* What is the most important thing (1) in movie sound? ...The dialog, that's what. ...Center channel.
...And the second (2) thing? ...Envelopment. ...Surround channels.
...Third (3) thing? ...Subwoofer channel (LFE). ...Low frequency effects. ...For a solid foundation.
...Fourth (4)? ...The overhead Atmos channels. ...Part of the envelopment (number two). ...Elevated space.

...For me anyway.


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> For "safety" (good 'sound' measure), they recommend them Dolby Atmos modules (separated from or attached to or reposing on the mains) above ear-level. ...Most preferably.
> 
> No? ...I think yes.


Yes. And again, nobody claimed the opposite. Why do you keep on repeating it?
Anyhow, there are other things to consider and not just having an Atmos-enabled speaker above ear level. Please go back and re-read my post what those other things are.



NorthSky said:


> * Talkin' 'bout mid/high audio frequencies here; say from 200Hz to 20kHz.


Even at 2000Hz a small 3" driver will show a very wide radiation pattern.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I watch a movie literally every night of the week. After the house goes to bed. Needless to say I don't watch tv any longer


Same here. I just don't have time (or much interest) in TV. Even the HBO stuff which is made more like movies are made doesn't interest me as I don't want to watch 20 hours of the same program. I just love movies. Always have - so HT is like a dream come true for me.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. I just don't have time (or much interest) in TV. Even the HBO stuff which is made more like movies are made doesn't interest me as I don't want to watch 20 hours of the same program. I just love movies. Always have - so HT is like a dream come true for me.


Exactly same here. I always remember going in tweeter when I was young and marveling at the super expensive rear projection screen. 

In fact we had HBO before cable was even out. We had a seperate antennae just to get HBO 

And my dad bought the first stereo vcr out and hooked it up to his high fi. So we have always been on the cutting edge (minus the laserdisc as we just couldn't afford that)


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Exactly same here. I always remember going in tweeter when I was young and marveling at the super expensive rear projection screen.
> 
> In fact we had HBO before cable was even out. We had a seperate antennae just to get HBO
> 
> And my dad bought the first stereo vcr out and hooked it up to his high fi. So we have always been on the cutting edge (minus the laserdisc as we just couldn't afford that)


I did the same - hooked up the stereo VCR to the hi-fi so that I could have 'hi-fi' 2ch sound from the movies. It was a revelation at the time - nobody realised how much information lay in the stereo soundtrack on a VHS tape until they tried this. And then when ProLogic decoders became available, I jumped all over that too. Did the Laserdisc thing as well but the discs were so expensive - and most of them I had to import, making them even more costly.


----------



## NorthSky

> Been said many times - timbre matching was important in the old days, before room EQ was common. Nowadays, with things like Audyssey's XT32, timbre matching isn't as important. And regardless of using speakers from the same manufacturer, it's unlikely that a large speaker used for LCR will sound like a small surround speaker anyway. Not to mention that when you put one speaker on a stand at ear height and the other fastened to the ceiling, they will sound very different anyway, even if they are identical speakers. Automated EQ will aim to match the frequency response of every speaker in the system to its target curve - and given we are all using bass management (or should be), we are only concerned with response above 80Hz anyway. FWIW I use THX certified M&K S150s for LCR and small Tannoy Di5 DCs on the ceiling. When Optimus Prime's voice moves from the mains to the front overheads in *Transformers: Age of Extinction* (in Atmos), I don't hear any problems with timbre matching.


Sound reproducers (loudspeakers) with proper timbre-matching has always been the preferred surround sound experience, and still is, and always will be. It is just as simple as that; a good intelligent and solid sound (audio) standard, and no matter what...amount of DSP EQ applied and all that digital jazz. 

And for both multichannel music and surround sound movies. 
...Anything above the crossover. ...Or roughly above 80 to 100Hz. 

That is my solid opinion, and also the opinion of solid audio experts. ...With preferably a less than 0.5dB tolerance in loudness and in frequency response between all channel speakers.

* We don't hear problems with non-timbre matching loudspeakers because we don't have timbre matching ones.


----------



## smurraybhm

nitro28 said:


> For those of you that are already using your system can you speak to matching or not matching the timbre of your overhead speakers with the rest of your system. Given the sounds that end up above me, I am not thinking that timbre matching is absolutely critical. I'm hoping its not as the matched overhead speakers are far more expensive that some good quality speakers of other brands. What are your thoughts?


See my sig below - my system IMO sounds excellent. My only suggestion is to make sure you timber match the front 3 speakers, after those 3 a good room eq system like XT32 will ensure a seamless soundstage, or should I say 3 dimensional soundstage.


----------



## ejhuzy

smurraybhm said:


> See my sig below - my system IMO sounds excellent. My only suggestion is to make sure you timber match the front 3 speakers, after those 3 a good room eq system like XT32 will ensure a seamless soundstage, or should I say 3 dimensional soundstage.


Murray, I see you are using HTM-200's for your top middles (TM). I have a full 7.1 Ascend setup today. With 4 200's as my surrounds. I'm still trying to figure out how to setup Atmos, but was wondering how you have the 200's attached to your ceiling?


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> I enjoyed reading your posts Jon. ...Quite informative and enriching.
> 
> * By the way, I wonder...how many people are using the Denon's link nowadays (to connect directly with their own universal BD player).
> 
> Listener-level floor/wall surrounds (side and rear): Atmos (DSU) is the new [email protected] ear level now, unobstructed.
> 
> ♦ BEST: Experiment.


Bob - you do realize that in order to use Denon Link you have to have a Denon player that has Denon link. I believe the 5200 has a update version of Denon link that renders some of the older Denon units incompatible. At one time I considered getting an older Denon dvd player that could also play SACDs when I had my Denon 4311 to see if it made a difference, but based on some other comments by those who had tried it just couldn't justify the additional expense vs. "perceived" sound benefit.

As for the Denon 5200, I bought it because I like Denon equipment. It had nothing to do do with sound, cost, etc. Only reason I would have picked Marantz is if I needed analog ins - which I don't. I have owned Marantz in the past too.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Lower frequencies will always "bend" around the speaker.
> *Doesn't matter if the speaker is below or above ear level*.
> The barrier seen in some designs will attenuate higher frequencies.





markus767 said:


> Yes. And again, nobody claimed the opposite. *Why do you keep on repeating it?*
> Anyhow, there are other things to consider and not just having an Atmos-enabled speaker above ear level. Please go back and re-read my post what those other things are.


Because, you keep repeating the same thing (in red lettering, ...above quote on top). 

And that is 'one very important' thing (sound/audio Atmos aspect), among others.
Thx for the direction/suggestion to go back. 



> Even at 2000Hz a small 3" driver will radiate in all directions.


That's what I just said: _"Between 200Hz and 20kHz."_ ...2kHz is right inside that audio range.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> ...I just don't have time (or much interest) in TV. Even the HBO stuff which is made more like movies are made doesn't interest me as I don't want to watch 20 hours of the same program. I just love movies. Always have - so HT is like a dream come true for me.


Indeed, I share the "Home theater is like a dream come true for me" phrase  Most of my financial and time efforts have been contributed to that hobby the last years since 2009, when we built our own house. And I love movies too, but since several years, I also enjoy watching tv shows like "Breaking Bad", "Person Of Interest", "Homeland", "24", "Fringe", "The Blacklist" or "True Detective", so I have quite a weekly schedule at least for the current episodes. And speaking of home theater feeling - even with tv shows, it's amazing, a well build ht is able to perform!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I think I burnt myself out with tv shows by watching breaking bad. I watched all 5 seasons in about 2 months so I felt like I had to catch up. And I loved it. So I don't want to be slave again to a show


----------



## smurraybhm

ejhuzy said:


> Murray, I see you are using HTM-200's for your top middles (TM). I have a full 7.1 Ascend setup today. With 4 200's as my surrounds. I'm still trying to figure out how to setup Atmos, but was wondering how you have the 200's attached to your ceiling?


I use these:

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Sat...id=1416436076&sr=8-38&keywords=speaker+mounts

You will have to use a drill to slightly tweak one of the "holes" that you use to mount the bracket to your HTM-200s. That mod takes about 30 seconds. You can get them from Amazon's Warehouse deals - 4 for $20 with Prime shipping. Highly recommend them - have worked perfectly for a few months now.


----------



## smurraybhm

and who's repeating who around here? It's good to see that Scott has a future in art


----------



## RAllenChristenson

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. I just don't have time (or much interest) in TV. Even the HBO stuff which is made more like movies are made doesn't interest me as I don't want to watch 20 hours of the same program. I just love movies. Always have - so HT is like a dream come true for me.


I just noticed that movies released in 7.1 have been very few this year.

2012: 89
2013: 115
2014: 36

Do you think we need to be concerned? 

Hopefully Atmos releases will increase to offer choices beyond 5.1


----------



## markus767

NorthSky said:


> Because, you keep repeating the same thing (in red lettering, ...above quote on top).
> 
> And that is 'one very important' thing (sound/audio Atmos aspect), among others.


My point was that there are other aspects that are _more_ important.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - you do realize that in order to use Denon Link you have to have a Denon player that has Denon link. I believe the 5200 has a update version of Denon link that renders some of the older Denon units incompatible. At one time I considered getting an older Denon dvd player that could also play SACDs when I had my Denon 4311 to see if it made a difference, but based on some other comments by those who had tried it just couldn't justify the additional expense vs. "perceived" sound benefit.
> 
> As for the Denon 5200, I bought it because I like Denon equipment. It had nothing to do do with sound, cost, etc. Only reason I would have picked Marantz is if I needed analog ins - which I don't. I have owned Marantz in the past too.


Steve, that is exactly what I said; "with Denon's own universal Blu-ray player."
I guess you didn't read me correctly. 

And yes, I know that the new Denon Link (RCA jack) is different than in the past (all various versions).
I still have Denon products with the Denon Link (AV receivers and Universal DVD players). 

That new Denon Link connector is for a specifically designed Denon Blu-ray player or transport model(s).
I forgot the model(s) number. ...But it has a couple "3"s in it, I think. ...And zero.

And yes, nowadays with HDMI and anti-jitter reduction feature, that Denon Link is not anymore the desirable feature it used to be.

But I asked the question because I was wondering if a member or two or more here @ AVS Forum makes use of it. ...That would mean a simple way to connect a Denon Universal Blu-ray player to their new Denon Dolby Atmos AV receiver. ...And instead of using one of them extraordinary Oppo Universal Blu-ray players using the HDMI connection, or even the multichannel analog connection (with Marantz AV receivers and SSPs, as Denon don't use them anymore, I believe). 

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough; I'm always willing to improve with better clarity.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> My point was that there are other aspects that are _more_ important.


Ok.


----------



## gpmbc

Anyone come from 7.1 and still wowed with DSU in a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration?


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Steve, that is exactly what I said; "with Denon's own universal Blu-ray player."
> I guess you didn't read me correctly.
> 
> And yes, I know that the new Denon Link (RCA jack) is different than in the past (all various versions).
> I still have Denon products with the Denon Link (AV receivers and Universal DVD players).
> 
> That new Denon Link connector is for a specifically designed Denon Blu-ray player or transport model(s).
> I forgot the model(s) number. ...But it has a couple "3"s in it, I think. ...And zero.
> 
> And yes, nowadays with HDMI and anti-jitter reduction feature, that Denon Link is not anymore the desirable feature it used to be.
> 
> But I asked the question because I was wondering if a member or two or more here @ AVS Forum makes use of it. ...That would mean a simple way to connect a Denon Universal Blu-ray player to their new Denon Dolby Atmos AV receiver. ...And instead of using one of them extraordinary Oppo Universal Blu-ray players using the HDMI connection, or even the multichannel analog connection (with Marantz AV receivers and SSPs, as Denon don't use them anymore, I believe).
> 
> Sorry if I wasn't clear enough; I'm always willing to improve with better clarity.


Bob - you post a lot and sometimes they are a little cryptic but I am sorry that is not what you said, to quote:

"By the way, I wonder...how many people are using the Denon's link nowadays (to connect directly with their own universal BD player). "

The above could be interpreted as meaning to that person's own universal BD player or to Denon's. Obviously to me it looked as if you were implying to the person's universal player which could be Oppo, Denon, Marantz, and others. That quote is a lot different than saying "connect directly to a Denon Universal Blu-Ray player." as you stated in your reply to mine. Its been a long day at work but I can still read and remember what I read 
Earlier in this thread you mentioned Denon link and connecting to an Oppo blu-ray player. So just call me confused - but its not the first time and most likely not the last as some of your posts require more thought than others. Thanks. Steve


----------



## smurraybhm

gpmbc said:


> Anyone come from 7.1 and still wowed with DSU in a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration?


Yes - next


----------



## Scott Simonian

gpmbc said:


> Anyone come from 7.1 and still wowed with DSU in a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration?


Most upgraded from 7.1 (or even 9/11.1) to Atmos and I haven't heard anyone dislike it yet. Praise across the board.


----------



## gpmbc

I just upgraded to 7.1 and was really impressed and it gets better still?! Doubt I'll be waiting long to find out.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gpmbc said:


> I just upgraded to 7.1 and was really impressed and it gets better still?! Doubt I'll be waiting long to find out.


Oh of course it would. Even though you are 7.1 it is still a two dimensional soundfield. Now there is real height content making surround now 3D surround.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. I just don't have time (or much interest) in TV. Even the HBO stuff which is made more like movies are made doesn't interest me as I don't want to watch 20 hours of the same program. I just love movies. Always have - so HT is like a dream come true for me.


I hear where you are coming from, but I have to say that a lot of modern TV shows have exceeded most movies in terms of writing, acting, production value, etc. And I love the ability to follow the story and characters over a longer span of time. Obviously I can understand not wanting to have to commit to many hours on the same program, but I personally gain a lot more enjoyment from binge watching House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, rewatching The Sopranos, etc. than the plethora of crummy movies out there. 

Obviously, there are plenty of good movies too, and plenty of crappy TV, but the quality (in all respects) of the good TV shows has really jumped (proably a lot of credit due to The Sopranos for breaking the mold and showing what could be possible). As someone who admires movies for all aspects of the craft, the level of craftsmenship in some of the great shows is as good as the best movies.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

gpmbc said:


> I just upgraded to 7.1 and was really impressed and it gets better still?! Doubt I'll be waiting long to find out.


IMHO, going from 7.1 to 7.1.4 moves the scale from a 5 to a 10. I can't stop rewatching old 7.1 Blu-rays and it's like I'm seeing them for the first time. Even the 5.1 Blu-rays sound stunning! I never expected Dolby Surround mode to be so beneficial.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Post # 13846 from 2 days ago:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-462.html#post29117417


Thanks, I must not have been online that day haha.


----------



## chi_guy50

gpmbc said:


> Anyone come from 7.1 and still wowed with DSU in a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration?


I wouldn't say "wowed," but I am suitably impressed. 

I had an 11.1 speaker set-up but my Denon AVR-3311CI limited me to 7.1, so I had to toggle between SB/FH/FW. I should think that any well-processed enlargement of the surround-sound envelope would represent a significant upgrade. DSU 7.1.4 sounds great, but of course the main course will be Atmos whenever the encoded source material becomes available.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> One reason would be the physical layout of the chassis and the number of speaker outputs it has. The current mainstream units are based on existing designs - they just 'added' Atmos in order to meet delivery schedules. Next year's models may be designed from the ground up as Atmos units and could well offer more speaker outputs. The Atmos chip can handle 24.1.10 - it's just up to the AVR manufacturer to implement however much they need, or feel will sell well.


I was thinking HTPC guys with coding skills could use any Atmos labeled reciever and build their own multichannel unit for much much less than a Trinnov unit.
It wouldn't be equal but you'd have the channel count...again assuming all Atmos chips are capable and its the manufacturer working with what they currently had/have in place.


----------



## randyk47

nitro28 said:


> For those of you that are already using your system can you speak to matching or not matching the timbre of your overhead speakers with the rest of your system. Given the sounds that end up above me, I am not thinking that timbre matching is absolutely critical. I'm hoping its not as the matched overhead speakers are far more expensive that some good quality speakers of other brands. What are your thoughts?


I "consulted" with the AV store that sold me my Denon and regular B&W speakers. No way I was hanging B&Ws from the ceiling so we went in their studio and played with four or five small speakers in combination with the B&Ws. Finally settled on Definitive ProMonitors 800s. Between sound, the size of my media room, speaker size, mounting options, and cost it was the best or at least acceptable solution. Still cost me $1K with speakers, mounts, replacing in-wall speaker wire, banana plugs, and other assorted hardware. I'm happy with them.


----------



## randyk47

gpmbc said:


> Anyone come from 7.1 and still wowed with DSU in a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration?


Yes. Been running 7.1 for a year plus and now have 7.1.4. I like it and am very happy with the immersive quality of DSU. The most impressive impact was that Mrs. K, who typically gives me the "that's nice Dear" to my attempts, actually said "wow!".


----------



## mtbdudex

Irwinroad said:


> I get more than that from just 5 people
> 
> kbarnes701 1,691
> NorthSky 1,236
> Dan Hitchman 721
> sdurani 627
> bargervais 475
> markus767 450
> batpig 407
> Scott Simonian 376
> Roger Dressler 371
> FilmMixer 274
> Selden Ball 238
> Nightlord 221
> wse 202
> noah katz 182
> chi_guy50 162
> kokishin 151


Interesting..... 1 among them post these flowery, long wordy, poetic posts.....a nice guy it seems but feels he has to answer every post and I tend to not even read his post anymore....
I'd still waiting to see his HT set-up, you know at AVS we have a saying pictures or it did not happen.....


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> I hear where you are coming from, but I have to say that a lot of modern TV shows have exceeded most movies in terms of writing, acting, production value, etc. And I love the ability to follow the story and characters over a longer span of time. Obviously I can understand not wanting to have to commit to many hours on the same program, but I personally gain a lot more enjoyment from binge watching House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, rewatching The Sopranos, etc. than the plethora of crummy movies out there.
> 
> Obviously, there are plenty of good movies too, and plenty of crappy TV, but the quality (in all respects) of the good TV shows has really jumped (proably a lot of credit due to The Sopranos for breaking the mold and showing what could be possible). As someone who admires movies for all aspects of the craft, the level of craftsmenship in some of the great shows is as good as the best movies.


Amen to that (and I'm not even religious). Breaking Bad was one of the finest TV shows ever produced; we've been rewatching the complete series on Blu-ray and DSU has made it all the more enjoyable. The last episode we watched had us ducking for cover!

And for satirical comedy, I would pit Episodes (SHO) and Veep (HBO) against the best movies of the genre. I worked for over a decade in direct contact with U.S. policymakers and their staffs from the White House on down, and I can attest to the fact that the tone of Veep--as ludicrous as the characters may sometimes seem--is absolutely (and sadly) spot-on. And that is one of the hallmarks of great satire. (Ironically, Veep is much more true to life than the enormously popular West Wing, which was played as drama.)


----------



## kokishin

mtbdudex said:


> Interesting..... 1 among them post these flowery, long wordy, poetic posts.....a nice guy it seems but feels he has to answer every post and I tend to not even read his post anymore....
> I'd still waiting to see his HT set-up, you know at AVS we have a saying pictures or it did not happen.....


And because of that, he is on a lot of members' IL.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - you post a lot and sometimes they are a little cryptic but I am sorry that is not what you said, to quote:
> 
> "By the way, I wonder...how many people are using the Denon's link nowadays (to connect directly with their own universal BD player). "
> 
> The above could be interpreted as meaning to that person's own universal BD player or to Denon's. Obviously to me it looked as if you were implying to the person's universal player which could be Oppo, Denon, Marantz, and others. That quote is a lot different than saying "connect directly to a Denon Universal Blu-Ray player." as you stated in your reply to mine. Its been a long day at work but I can still read and remember what I read
> Earlier in this thread you mentioned Denon link and connecting to an Oppo blu-ray player. So just call me confused - but its not the first time and most likely not the last as some of your posts require more thought than others. Thanks. Steve


Thing is; there is no Denon Link behind an Oppo Blu-ray player, or a Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Pioneer, Yamaha, LG, Sharp, Venture, ...and/or any other BD players.

You, and other members of this thread, know very well that fact. 

I said that I will work towards better clarity in the future. 

And what does it have to do with me "posting a lot". 

*** Denon Dolby Atmos AV receivers (some models) have a unique feature; the Denon Link...


Thank you Steve for your cooperation.


----------



## mtbdudex

^^IL = ignore list? 
Ok maybe I'll resort to that....


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Modern Times

How many of you previous 11.1 neo x and audyssey dsx guys have found a big improvement with DSU? Please be as objective and honest as possible. If you are impressed with DSU is it only in a few scenes in a movie that it's noticeable? Or more than that? I hope this wasn't asked earlier and I missed it.

Thanks


----------



## gpmbc

randyk47 said:


> Yes. Been running 7.1 for a year plus and now have 7.1.4. I like it and am very happy with the immersive quality of DSU. The most impressive impact was that Mrs. K, who typically gives me the "that's nice Dear" to my attempts, actually said "wow!".


Getting the Mrs. on board is indeed a huge endorsement


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> Interesting..... 1 among them post these flowery, long wordy, poetic posts.....a nice guy it seems but feels he has to answer every post and I tend to not even read his post anymore....
> I'd still waiting to see his HT set-up, you know at AVS we have a saying pictures or it did not happen.....


Are you working for the Police department and ministry of foreign affairs and bureau of investigation and passport pictures? 

Is there a required LAW for all AVS members to post pictures of their rigs? ...Mike? 

If you personally request pictures from me, just PM me privately; I'm not of the public show off type.
...If it really bugs you down of course. ...Just about me, very personally.


----------



## ambesolman

mtbdudex said:


> ^^IL = ignore list?
> Ok maybe I'll resort to that....
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP



Makes a world of difference


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Steve Goff

kbarnes701 said:


> One reason would be the physical layout of the chassis and the number of speaker outputs it has. The current mainstream units are based on existing designs - they just 'added' Atmos in order to meet delivery schedules. Next year's models may be designed from the ground up as Atmos units and could well offer more speaker outputs. The Atmos chip can handle 24.1.10 - it's just up to the AVR manufacturer to implement however much they need, or feel will sell well.



Aren't current DSP chips limited to 16 channels? The Atmos spec is 24.1.10, but we don't know the limitations of the DSP chips. There is no "Atmos chip" as such, but only DSP chips or CPUs that can run Atmos.


----------



## Kwikas

brwsaw said:


> I was thinking HTPC guys with coding skills could use any Atmos labeled reciever and build their own multichannel unit for much much less than a Trinnov unit.
> It wouldn't be equal but you'd have the channel count...again assuming all Atmos chips are capable and its the manufacturer working with what they currently had/have in place.


Get to work on it please...


----------



## DS-21

markus767 said:


> What claim? You're the one making claims. I just said that we would need to look closer and have more data. The cap covers large parts of the diaphragm. What makes you think it does nothing?


I don't think it "does nothing" and of course never stating that. However, basic physics informs us that a phase shield in front of the tweeter is not sufficient to allow a 1" driver to match the directivity of a 5" driver at 3.5kHz, or narrow the directivity of a 1" tweeter in any material way.

Those, and my claim that "concentric" is a misleading and inaccurate characterization of a stick-tweeter driver, are the only claims I'm making.* Do you think they're wrong? If so, why?

(I'm not quite sure what other flaw you're hinting at with the stick-tweeter driver. Diffraction?)

*I guess one could infer a fourth: Dolby's directivity specification for upfiring speakers does not require any kind of meaningful control around 3.5kHz. It may well be that a flare-out in the polar response is a good thing for an upfiring height module. I'm not commenting on the merits, just on the facts and reasonable inferences one can draw about the radiation pattern from the picture and supplied specifications. And on my distaste for some marketing buffoon promoting a stick-tweeter driver as "concentric."



markus767 said:


> ***Even at 2000Hz a small 3" driver will show a very wide radiation pattern.


To add some data to this point (which is correct), here's a normalized horizontal off-axis plot for a speaker built around a 3" widebander.










Note that the plot is normalized; the spike at ~3.5kHz is in large part due to the on-axis suckout there.



NorthSky said:


> Sound reproducers (loudspeakers) with proper timbre-matching***


Why is anyone still wasting time propagating that idiotic marketing buzz-phrase? "Timbre matching" is all about the eyes. It has nothing to do with any other thing. People see things that look similar so they imagine they sound similar. 

Let it die already. Everyone who hears with their ears already has. And repeating an idiotic bit of BS over and over again does not increase its merit.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Earlier in this thread you mentioned Denon link and connecting to an Oppo blu-ray player. So just call me confused - but its not the first time and most likely not the last as some of your posts require more thought than others. Thanks. Steve


Could you please find that mention? ...Good luck. 

Thank you Steve.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Thing is; there is no Denon Link behind and Oppo Blu-ray player, or a Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Sharp, Venture, ...and any other BD players.
> 
> You, and other members of this thread, know very well that fact.
> 
> I said that I will work towards better clarity in the future.
> 
> And what does it have to do with me "posting a lot".
> 
> *** Denon Dolby Atmos AV receivers (some models) have a unique feature; the Denon Link...
> 
> 
> Thank you Steve for your cooperation.


I may understand it and a number of others here may but at the same time there a new owners and prospective owners who don't. That's like saying everyone who owned a Denon in the past should understand AMP ASSIGN. Obviously that hasn't been the case.

You do post a lot, about 4,000 plus since this thread started. Just an observation - that's all. Thank you for your cooperation 

I'm out on this one - cheers.


----------



## epiCenter

Greetings. I've spent several years learning from people through AVS forums and now feel as though I am in position to be part of the discussion. Some day I'll take the time to create a post build/upgrade home theater thread for my experience. However, the Official Atmos thread seems appropriate for my first foray into AVS posting. I have a dedicated home theater in my walkout basement (~29 L x ~14 W x 10 H) that I just updated to a 7.2.4 Atmos system. I spent over two years designing this room with future proofing wiring and conduit before the actual build, and still found myself not completely prepared for Atmos (I.e., proper pre wiring for all present and future speaker configurations).

Basic Set-up: Onkyo PR-SC 5530, 2 x Onkyo PA-MC 5501 9Ch Amps, 2 x Behringer Europower4000 Amps, 1 x Velodyne SC-1250 subwoofer amp, 2 x DBX 234xs crossovers, Oppo 103D, Epson Pro Cinema 6020 3D projector, Seymour AV C150 (163" diagonal) acoustically transparent curved anamorphic screen on a 24" deep false wall, Panamorph UH480 scope lens and 12v trigger motor, Control 4 Automation and a few other peripherals. 

Speakers: Screen array is 3 x JBL Pro Cinema 3632Ts on JBL 4639s. This LCR array is Tri-Amped, giving it a THX rating. The x.2.x subwoofer (technically a x.1.x set up) is a JBL 4642A which are dual 18"s. The front highs and front wides were removed (wires hidden now) to make room for ceiling mounted Atmos speakers. R and L Surround, as well as R and L Back Surround are Speakercraft Cinema Aim Dipole Threes in Bipole mode. I have 4 x JBL Pro Cinema 8340A speakers, specially fitted with altered JBL 2516 mounts, attached to my ceiling in a TF and TR configuration for Atmos. 

I say all this so there is some sort of context to my statements about my Atmos experience. In short, I believe Atmos is unquestionably amazing. As everyone has stated, Atmos discretely coded content is scarce. Based on posts from this forum, I downloaded some of the CEDIA Demo Disc and watched it through the USB port on my Oppo. The content sounded completely amazing, localizing sounds NOT at individual speakers, but in 360 degree space between speakers. I also have the 3D version TF4 and share the same observations as others, not a great mix-but does have some high points (when the giant alien ship drops metal objects in China, it "felt/sounded" like objects were falling in my room in the same 3D space as I SAW them fall. 

All this said, where I am truly "sold" with this format is what Atmos systems' DSU does to any lossless content. I don't know what voodoo Dolby did to that processor, but I am hearing/feeling localized sounds that one would anticipate from an Atmos track. Some of my favorites so far are the 3D versions of Star Trek: Into Darkness and Edge of Tomorrow. One that I am almost embarrassed to claim is 3D GI Joe: Retaliation. There is a scene toward the middle/end where you can hear a "nano-firefly" robot fly/buzz in 3D space behind your left ear. When this object appears in 3D off to the viewers 10 o'clock, you actually hear the buzzing where you see it! As the firefly flys into the screen and beyond, the buzzing "trails-off" in the exact 3D space as you see it! And this is not even an Atmos track. 

In short, for the DSU alone, I would recommend AVS members update to Atmos. I have no reason to double dip and buy old blu-rays with new Atmos tracks. This gives a ton of value to my current collection. That said, I am really hoping this format takes off so Atmos tracks become more of a standard to home viewing audio mix. 

I apologize if this was too long of a post to reach these conclusions, but I thought context was important. I am totally into this hobby and can't wait for new content to come out. For those who have the cash (and the spousal support) to make the switch, there is no reason to wait for Atmos "2.0" or "3.0." A completely different experience can be had right now.


----------



## rushisrighton

Welcome to the forum epicenter, sounds like you have a nice setup going. Thanks for your review, I have been looking for others who have an atmos setup and posts like this are what I've been looking for.


----------



## brwsaw

Kwikas said:


> Get to work on it please...


Waiting for me isn't a good idea...

It was sort of in response to the multi tiered roll out of Atmos. If false it means current AVR's already have the golden ticket inside but are otherwise limited by the manufacturer. ATMOS should equal ATMOS regardless of the system using it/before its dissected and assigned fixed speaker locations.

I don't know either way, I was looking for someone to say, you know what you're right or nope, sorry buddy you're way off (now get off it). Lol.


----------



## markus767

DS-21 said:


> I don't think it "does nothing" and of course never stating that. However, basic physics informs us that a phase shield in front of the tweeter is not sufficient to allow a 1" driver to match the directivity of a 5" driver at 3.5kHz, or narrow the directivity of a 1" tweeter in any material way.


Well we don't know. You also don't know if matched directivity is even necessary. There's still a little barrier between driver and direct listening axis which will shape frequency response.
On the other hand a 5" driver goes louder with less distortion than the Atmos-enabled models we've seen so far. Probably a desirable property for home theater application.



DS-21 said:


> Those, and my claim that "concentric" is a misleading and inaccurate characterization of a stick-tweeter driver, are the only claims I'm making.* Do you think they're wrong? If so, why?


As Roger pointed out this is just semantics. I would use the term "coaxial" for both. "Concentric" seems to be a term used by marketing.



DS-21 said:


> (I'm not quite sure what other flaw you're hinting at with the stick-tweeter driver. Diffraction?)


The tweeter is mounted in front of the woofer hence there will be a delay between the two responses.
Another flaw is that the tweeter angle doesn't seem to be adjustable.



DS-21 said:


> *I guess one could infer a fourth: Dolby's directivity specification for upfiring speakers does not require any kind of meaningful control around 3.5kHz. It may well be that a flare-out in the polar response is a good thing for an upfiring height module. I'm not commenting on the merits, just on the facts and reasonable inferences one can draw about the radiation pattern from the picture and supplied specifications.


There is probably no substantial "flare-out" with a shallow 6dB crossover.



DS-21 said:


> And on my distaste for some marketing buffoon promoting a stick-tweeter driver as "concentric."


As Roger pointed out this is just semantics.


----------



## Kwikas

brwsaw said:


> Waiting for me isn't a good idea...
> 
> It was sort of in response to the multi tiered roll out of Atmos. If false it means current AVR's already have the golden ticket inside but are otherwise limited by the manufacturer. ATMOS should equal ATMOS regardless of the system using it/before its dissected and assigned fixed speaker locations.
> 
> I don't know either way, I was looking for someone to say, you know what you're right or nope, sorry buddy you're way off (now get off it). Lol.


It's an interesting question/thought. Someone at Dolby will know the answer.

I would be very happy to be able to get Atmos (domestic full channel count) out of my HTPC but I think that might be a long time off


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> As Roger pointed out this is just semantics. I would use the term "coaxial" for both. "Concentric" seems to be a term used by marketing.


Maybe it is now, but perhaps it was originally intended to have its strict meaning, which constrains one more degree of freedom, i.e. sharing the same center point.



markus767 said:


> Another flaw is that the tweeter angle doesn't seem to be adjustable.


If you tilt the tweeter only, the drivers are no longer coaxial and you have nonuniform polar response.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> The tweeter is mounted in front of the woofer hence there will be a delay between the two responses.
> Another flaw is that the tweeter angle doesn't seem to be adjustable.


At CEDIA I talked to one of the buffoons involved with the design of the AT44, and the tweeter angle can indeed be adjusted if so desired. 



noah katz said:


> If you tilt the tweeter only, the drivers are no longer coaxial and you have nonuniform polar response.


Probably. But if it improves the effect at the listening area, it might be a worthwhile tradeoff.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> At CEDIA I talked to one of the buffoons involved with the design of the AT44, and the tweeter angle can indeed be adjusted if so desired.


Very clever buffoons  I consider this a very important feature. The ceiling reflection can vary considerably if the tweeter isn't adjusted to the specific situation.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> If you tilt the tweeter only, the drivers are no longer coaxial and you have nonuniform polar response.


That's exactly why the tweeter needs to be adjustable because we want the polar response to be non-uniform in case a fixed angle doesn't hit the best spot on the ceiling.


----------



## fredl

This thread has become an off-topic beast.

My humble suggestion is to officially re-name this thread into a chat thread and start over with an atmos owners / atmos planning thread which can be kept on-topic.

Kudos to all people who try to keep the discussion focused, sadly many interesting posts gets lost in the onslaught of meta discussions.

I for one, will bow out of this thread and I will do that with a "final" DSU suggestion: Dawn of the Planets of the Apes. It was fantastic!


----------



## markus767

^
This thread is about all things Dolby Atmos at home so I expect to see a broad variety of topics discussed. It's a good thing.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Another DSU report *Tombstone*- one of my alltime favorite movies...was awesome to finally watch it on a huge 130" screen  but it had literally zero effect from DSU. again I am sure its from the mix because even the surround channels were pretty much silent...the front stage was glorious...but nothing for ambiance and immersion.

again...ZERO detraction from the movie but also didnt add anything to it.

but still Id say for every 25 movies watched with dsu...1 it does nothing for...thats pretty darn good..and worth every penny of the upgrade...looking forwrad to expendable 3 tuesday


----------



## asoofi1

Brian Fineberg said:


> Another DSU report *Tomstone*- one of my alltime favorite movies...was awesome to finally watch it on a huge 130" screen  but it had literally zero effect from DSU. again I am sure its from the mix because even the surround channels were pretty much silent...the front stage was glorious...but nothing for ambiance and immersion.
> 
> again...ZERO detraction from the movie but also didnt add anything to it.
> 
> but still Id say for every 25 movies watched with dsu...1 it does nothing for...thats pretty darn good..and worth every penny of the upgrade...looking forwrad to expendable 3 tuesday


Tombstone is one of my favorite westerns...but I haven't seen it again in my ht yet...Even none of the shootout scenes? 

Try Open Range on dvd and of course, Book of Eli...both very good demo tests.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

yeah even the shootout scenes...I was very surprised...oh well

the bourne trilogy will be the next few nights of movies after watching bourne legacy (which was phenominal for DSU)


----------



## chi_guy50

Roger Dressler said:


> At CEDIA I talked to one of the* buffoons* involved with the design of the AT44, and the tweeter angle can indeed be adjusted if so desired.


If Keith hadn't just recently used the rather rare (at least in the U.S.) term "boffin" in this thread I would have missed that clever pun entirely. Kudos!


----------



## rockhound76s

markus767 said:


> Very clever buffoons  I consider this a very important feature. The ceiling reflection can vary considerably if the tweeter isn't adjusted to the specific situation.



Yes, I can confirm that the tweeter is indeed adjustable on the Altlantic Tech 44-da module...probably hard to tell from the pic I posted earlier since I've not experimented with the aim and have left them in the center position in the same angled plane as the woofer. 

I'm not as informed in speaker design as others here but willing to learn. In theory, what would produce the optimum effect----pointing the the tweeters slightly inward towards each other so they converge at the central ceiling point above the listening area, or pointed straight ahead so they canvas the ceiling with a broader span of coverage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

rockhound76s said:


> Yes, I can confirm that the tweeter is indeed adjustable on the Altlantic Tech 44-da module...probably hard to tell from the pic I posted earlier since I've not experimented with the aim and have left them in the center position in the same angled plane as the woofer.
> 
> I'm not as informed in speaker design as others here but willing to learn. In theory, what would produce the optimum effect----pointing the the tweeters slightly inward towards each other so they converge at the central ceiling point above the listening area, or pointed straight ahead so they canvas the ceiling with a broader span of coverage?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Although audible sound can't be focused as accurately as light, you can still think of the speakers as being like flashlights, with the sound reflecting off the ceiling on its way to the audience, just as light would reflect off a mirror. The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. If you have a symmetric room, when they're pointed toward the center of the ceiling, the resulting "beam" will illuminate the speaker on the other side of the room instead of the audience. In other words, with a flat ceiling, the upfiring modules will work well if they're pointed at a location on the ceiling which is half-way between the speaker's location and the spot on the ceiling which is centered over the audience.


----------



## markus767

rockhound76s said:


> In theory, what would produce the optimum effect----pointing the the tweeters slightly inward towards each other so they converge at the central ceiling point above the listening area, or pointed straight ahead so they canvas the ceiling with a broader span of coverage?


Imagine your ceiling would be a mirror. Point the tweeter at the ceiling location where you would see the tweeter from the listening position.


----------



## Nalleh

Modern Times said:


> How many of you previous 11.1 neo x and audyssey dsx guys have found a big improvement with DSU? Please be as objective and honest as possible. If you are impressed with DSU is it only in a few scenes in a movie that it's noticeable? Or more than that? I hope this wasn't asked earlier and I missed it.
> 
> Thanks


Actually i tested this the other night. I used the movie: DREDD, the one optimized for NEO:X.
I tried it in DTS-HD 7.1, NEO:X 11.1and DSU 7.1.4.
Example: in the scene in the beginning where Mama talks trough the PA system to the Judges. In DTS 7.1, the PA sound comes mostly from the rear surround, slightly above. In DSU actually sound almost the same!!
BUT, switching to NEO:X moved her speaking clearly to the front height, more from above, a much more logical placement of the sound. 
This is the first time i have tested and found NEO better than DSU. 
Although this is the bluray optimized for NEO:X, so maybe not completely fair.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Nalleh said:


> Actually i tested this the other night. I used the movie: DREDD, the one optimized for NEO:X.
> I tried it in DTS-HD 7.1, NEO:X 11.1and DSU 7.1.4.
> Example: in the scene in the beginning where Mama talks trough the PA system to the Judges. In DTS 7.1, the PA sound comes mostly from the rear surround, slightly above. In DSU actually sound almost the same!!
> BUT, switching to NEO:X moved her speaking clearly to the front height, more from above, a much more logical placement of the sound.
> This is the first time i have tested and found NEO better than DSU.
> Although this is the bluray optimized for NEO:X, so maybe not completely fair.


weird...when I watch this with DSU her voice comes from directly overhead from the ceiling...


----------



## Nalleh

Brian Fineberg said:


> weird...when I watch this with DSU her voice comes from directly overhead from the ceiling...


Yes, it is more overhead in DSU than DTS 7.1, but still more to the rear. NEO:X is more from front and above. 
Clearly a big difference beteeen the two. Have you tried NEO:X?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

no I havnt...coupld it work with my surrent ATmOS SETUP?


----------



## sdurani

epiCenter said:


> One that I am almost embarrassed to claim is 3D GI Joe: Retaliation. There is a scene toward the middle/end where you can hear a "nano-firefly" robot fly/buzz in 3D space behind your left ear. When this object appears in 3D off to the viewers 10 o'clock, you actually hear the buzzing where you see it! As the firefly flys into the screen and beyond, the buzzing "trails-off" in the exact 3D space as you see it! And this is not even an Atmos track.


It was in Atmos theatrically and the "nano-firefly" scene was the only time you could tell this was an Atmos mix. The rest of the soundtrack was so busy (and loud) that I and several other AVS members walked out shaking our heads wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos. But the firefly scene you describe really took advantage of the technology.


----------



## nirvy111

Nalleh said:


> Yes, it is more overhead in DSU than DTS 7.1, but still more to the rear. NEO:X is more from front and above.
> Clearly a big difference beteeen the two. Have you tried NEO:X?



I never tried Neo X before getting the Denon x4100 and actually prefer it to DSU. DSU diffuses the sound stage too much for my taste. I watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes last night and preferred Neo X 7.1.


----------



## chi_guy50

Brian Fineberg said:


> no I havnt...coupld it work with my surrent ATmOS SETUP?


You will only get 5.1 in Neo:X with your current configuration using the X4100. You would have to redesignate your TF as FH and/or add FW or SB to go to 7.1 or 9.1 in this sound mode.


----------



## Nalleh

Brian Fineberg said:


> no I havnt...coupld it work with my surrent ATmOS SETUP?


I have Atmos 7.1.4, NEO:X 11.1 and Audyssey DSX 11.1 all available to switch between.

But remember this bluray was made for NEO. With normal 7.1 tracks DSU upmixes better than both NEO and A-DSX.


----------



## chi_guy50

nirvy111 said:


> I never tried Neo X before getting the Denon x4100 and actually prefer it to DSU. DSU diffuses the sound stage too much for my taste. I watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes last night and preferred Neo X 7.1.


I think that may be a first for this thread. I prefer Neo:X 11.1 for music, but that's principally due to the broadened front sound stage which seems more appropriate and natural to me than hearing the musicians producing sound over my head. DSU is still my default mode for any video source and it might even be my preference for music if it could engage the FW's.


----------



## smurraybhm

^ There's always at least one in every thread. Question is does Nirvy have an Atmos speaker config or just doing 7.1, I do remember other posts about not being a fan of DSU from them previously, to each there own, especially in the world of a/v.


----------



## Modern Times

Nalleh said:


> Actually i tested this the other night. I used the movie: DREDD, the one optimized for NEO:X.
> I tried it in DTS-HD 7.1, NEO:X 11.1and DSU 7.1.4.
> Example: in the scene in the beginning where Mama talks trough the PA system to the Judges. In DTS 7.1, the PA sound comes mostly from the rear surround, slightly above. In DSU actually sound almost the same!!
> BUT, switching to NEO:X moved her speaking clearly to the front height, more from above, a much more logical placement of the sound.
> This is the first time i have tested and found NEO better than DSU.
> Although this is the bluray optimized for NEO:X, so maybe not completely fair.


Thanks for the feed back Nalleh and nirvy111

Cheers


----------



## kokishin

*avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet Update*

@jdsmoothie

jd,

I added you to the spreadsheet based on your post of 10-26-14: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-244.html#post28551978

Is this still correct?

Thanks

See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


----------



## nirvy111

smurraybhm said:


> ^ There's always at least one in every thread. Question is does Nirvy have an Atmos speaker config or just doing 7.1, I do remember other posts about not being a fan of DSU from them previously, to each there own, especially in the world of a/v.



I had 5.1.4 initially and currently running 7.1.2. I've compared both configurations thoroughly and find myself preferring Neo X (back) 7.1. Maybe it's because Neo X is new to me but I find myself digging it more than DSU right now but I'll try 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 again when I get my hands on some Dolby Atmos movies.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> It doesn't need a 'stripped down' version according to the info I was given. Dolby supply the 'full' home Atmos, 24.1.10, to manufacturers and it is up to them to implement it in the way they see fit. Some have chosen to implement 5.1.2, some 5.1.4, some 7.1.4 and some, higher-end manufacturers such as Trinnov and SL, much more.





Steve Goff said:


> Aren't current DSP chips limited to 16 channels? The Atmos spec is 24.1.10, but we don't know the limitations of the DSP chips. There is no "Atmos chip" as such, but only DSP chips or CPUs that can run Atmos.



So given that Atmos can be offered in a format all of the way up 24.1.10 and this is only restricted by what a specific manufacturer wants to offer, any crystal balls hinting on what me might see from the 'regular' AVR manufacturers like Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer for 2015-16?


I can see that they may add more available channels but it might be tough to plan for additional speakers (should they be deemed necessary/desired) without knowing which they might add. Given that the 'standard Atmos' for 11 a channel (Dolby recommended) setup is 7.1.4, what do you think the follow on will be 7.1.6, 9.1.4? Or possibly 9.1.6...?


----------



## batpig

mtbdudex said:


> Interesting..... 1 among them post these flowery, long wordy, poetic posts.....a nice guy it seems but feels he has to answer every post and I tend to not even read his post anymore....
> I'd still waiting to see his HT set-up, you know at AVS we have a saying pictures or it did not happen.....





Al Sherwood said:


> So given that Atmos can be offered in a format all of the way up 24.1.10 and this is only restricted by what a specific manufacturer wants to offer, any crystal balls hinting on what me might see from the 'regular' AVR manufacturers like Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer for 2015-16?
> 
> 
> I can see that they may add more available channels but it might be tough to plan for additional speakers (should they be deemed necessary/desired) without knowing which they might add. Given that the 'standard Atmos' for 11 a channel (Dolby recommended) setup is 7.1.4, what do you think the follow on will be 7.1.6, 9.1.4? Or possibly 9.1.6...?


This is pure speculation on my part, but considering that we know the current consumer Atmos DSP chips have 16 outputs, it seems like a natural expansion to 15.1ch output (i.e. 9.1.6) is likely, although for marketing reasons it will probably be restricted to the flagship models with the lower level models still restricted to 9.1 or 11.1 channel output.


----------



## bargervais

Nalleh said:


> Actually i tested this the other night. I used the movie: DREDD, the one optimized for NEO:X.
> I tried it in DTS-HD 7.1, NEO:X 11.1and DSU 7.1.4.
> Example: in the scene in the beginning where Mama talks trough the PA system to the Judges. In DTS 7.1, the PA sound comes mostly from the rear surround, slightly above. In DSU actually sound almost the same!!
> BUT, switching to NEO:X moved her speaking clearly to the front height, more from above, a much more logical placement of the sound.
> This is the first time i have tested and found NEO better than DSU.
> Although this is the bluray optimized for NEO:X, so maybe not completely fair.


That's funny when I watched it and listened it felt like It came from above like being in a cave. I watched Avatar I think this movie is so good sight and sound. It's one of my favorites in any listening mode.


----------



## bargervais

nirvy111 said:


> I never tried Neo X before getting the Denon x4100 and actually prefer it to DSU. DSU diffuses the sound stage too much for my taste. I watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes last night and preferred Neo X 7.1.


WOW That's curious I prefer DSU all the time whatever I watch whether TV blu-ray or streaming from the apps on my TV or my HTPC.


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> This is pure speculation on my part, but considering that we know the current consumer Atmos DSP chips have 16 outputs, it seems like a natural expansion to 15.1ch output (i.e. 9.1.6) is likely, although for marketing reasons it will probably be restricted to the flagship models with the lower level models still restricted to 9.1 or 11.1 channel output.



Batpig thanks for weighing in, that was what I was kind of hoping for, understand that it won't be on the entry level models, but considering what I am investing in time and materials I want this version of the HT to be as capable as possible, and if at all possible, somewhat upgradable with regards to handling the as yet to be released speaker configurations! 7.1.4 will be the starting point but I want to be prepared for at least 9.1.6 in the near term.


----------



## Nalleh

bargervais said:


> That's funny when I watched it and listened it felt like It came from above like being in a cave. I watched Avatar I think this movie is so good sight and sound. It's one of my favorites in any listening mode.


Yes, the ambient sound in all the scenes inside the tower is awsome, both in NEO and DSU. But the question was about NEO or DSX, compared to DSU. So unless that is what you tested, you are not answering the question.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> @jdsmoothie
> 
> jd,
> 
> I added you to the spreadsheet based on your post of 10-26-14: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-244.html#post28551978
> 
> Is this still correct?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


Would you be kind enough to add me to the spreadsheet? I am still waiting for the Atlantic Technology 44-DA to land.
I will be running Onkyo TX-NR737; Def Tech 8060ST, FR & FL; Def Tech 8040HD, center; Def Tech 8080SR surrounds; and SVS PB-12 Plus. Then, of course, the 44-DAs for Atmos. I intend to take the cap of the 8060s and use mounting putty to secure the 44-DA on top. Home theater is approx. 14.5 x 19.5 x 8 to 9 feet. There is a soffit (12") deep that runs front to back along the right 1/3 of the ceiling (as you are facing the front).
I tried the Def Tech A-60 and the effect was there. However, I was less than thrilled with their driver. I expect better from the 44-DA.


----------



## mtbdudex

batpig said:


> This is pure speculation on my part, but considering that we know the current consumer Atmos DSP chips have 16 outputs, it seems like a natural expansion to 15.1ch output (i.e. 9.1.6) is likely, although for marketing reasons it will probably be restricted to the flagship models with the lower level models still restricted to 9.1 or 11.1 channel output.



I see you posted this for me Batpig based on my prior comments here a few months back. 
Yes, truly looking forward to early 2016 and flagship AVR with 9.x.6, then I'll upgrade my current 11.3 NeoX to DSU, no loss of my current gear and add 4 ceiling speakers.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## jkasanic

batpig said:


> This is pure speculation on my part, but considering that we know the current consumer Atmos DSP chips have 16 outputs, it seems like a natural expansion to 15.1ch output (i.e. 9.1.6) is likely, although for marketing reasons it will probably be restricted to the flagship models with the lower level models still restricted to 9.1 or 11.1 channel output.


BP, do you know if the 4100 and 5200 have "different" DSP chips to run their respective configurations or are the chips the same and just neutered in the 4100 to allow for differentiation? What confuses me is if 16 outputs is currently available then why the limitation of 11 simultaneous channels with a unit like the 5200 that has 13 pre-outs available? Please excuse me if this has already been explained or I've confused something.


----------



## kokishin

dvdwilly3 said:


> Would you be kind enough to add me to the spreadsheet? I am still waiting for the Atlantic Technology 44-DA to land.
> I will be running Onkyo TX-NR737; Def Tech 8060ST, FR & FL; Def Tech 8040HD, center; Def Tech 8080SR surrounds; and SVS PB-12 Plus. Then, of course, the 44-DAs for Atmos. I intend to take the cap of the 8060s and use mounting putty to secure the 44-DA on top. Home theater is approx. 14.5 x 19.5 x 8 to 9 feet. There is a soffit (12") deep that runs front to back along the right 1/3 of the ceiling (as you are facing the front).
> I tried the Def Tech A-60 and the effect was there. However, I was less than thrilled with their driver. I expect better from the 44-DA.


Done. Thanks for your info. To date, I have 42 members on the Atmos spreadsheet. 

See my sig for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

jkasanic said:


> BP, do you know if the 4100 and 5200 have "different" DSP chips to run their respective configurations or are the chips the same and just neutered in the 4100 to allow for differentiation? What confuses me is if 16 outputs is currently available then why the limitation of 11 simultaneous channels with a unit like the 5200 that has 13 pre-outs available? Please excuse me if this has already been explained or I've confused something.


the fact that you have a DSP that supports 16 channels does not mean that you have a DSP chip that has enough horsepower to apply the processing required, for audyssey and atmos, to each of those 16 channels concurrently. It also doesn't mean you have 16 DAC channels on the end of it.


----------



## batpig

jkasanic said:


> BP, do you know if the 4100 and 5200 have "different" DSP chips to run their respective configurations or are the chips the same and just neutered in the 4100 to allow for differentiation? What confuses me is if 16 outputs is currently available then why the limitation of 11 simultaneous channels with a unit like the 5200 that has 13 pre-outs available? Please excuse me if this has already been explained or I've confused something.





3ll3d00d said:


> the fact that you have a DSP that supports 16 channels does not mean that you have a DSP chip that has enough horsepower to apply the processing required, for audyssey and atmos, to each of those 16 channels concurrently. It also doesn't mean you have 16 DAC channels on the end of it.


Honestly, I don't REALLY know anything meaningful about this because I'm not an engineer. But AIUI the "DSP has 16 channel outputs" refers to the ATMOS processing chip, i.e. it could theoretically render a native Atmos soundtrack to 15.1 independent channel outputs. As d00d notes that doesn't mean the rest of the processing architecture downstream supports those 15.1 channels. 

As others have noted/speculated, I think it mostly comes down to implementing these for production into the existing 11ch infrastructure that was in place for Neo:X/DSX setups. 

As to why the X4100 has 9 ch output whereas the 5200 has 11.... it's likely just a marketing driven distinction. Product differentiaton and stuff.


----------



## sikclown

kokishin said:


> @jdsmoothie
> 
> jd,
> 
> I added you to the spreadsheet based on your post of 10-26-14: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-244.html#post28551978
> 
> Is this still correct?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> See my sig below for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configurations spreadsheet


Feel free to add me if you would like. My setup is the following:
Denon x5200w
Top Fronts and Top Rears are ceiling mounted Klipsch RS-52IIs running off Denon x5200 internal amps.


----------



## sdurani

jkasanic said:


> BP, do you know if the 4100 and 5200 have "different" DSP chips to run their respective configurations or are the chips the same and just neutered in the 4100 to allow for differentiation?


Not neutering the chip itself but putting it in a chassis that has fewer processed channels, fewer amps, fewer DACs, etc., to hit a lower price point. Nor does the decoding/processing need to change: e.g., Neo:X can be on a 7-channel receiver that allows you to do 5.1 plus either heights or wides or rears (but not all simultaneously). But that's not a neutered version of Neo:X, just a limitation of the hardware.


----------



## Al Sherwood

mtbdudex said:


> I see you posted this for me Batpig based on my prior comments here a few months back.
> Yes, truly looking forward to early 2016 and flagship AVR with 9.x.6, then I'll upgrade my current 11.3 NeoX to DSU, no loss of my current gear and add 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP



I sure hope it doesn't take until 2016 to see an AVR or reasonable pre-pro with the ability to do 9.1.6...


----------



## 3ll3d00d

batpig said:


> Honestly, I don't REALLY know anything meaningful about this because I'm not an engineer. But AIUI the "DSP has 16 channel outputs" refers to the ATMOS processing chip, i.e. it could theoretically render a native Atmos soundtrack to 15.1 independent channel outputs. As d00d notes that doesn't mean the rest of the processing architecture downstream supports those 15.1 channels.
> 
> As others have noted/speculated, I think it mostly comes down to implementing these for production into the existing 11ch infrastructure that was in place for Neo:X/DSX setups.
> 
> As to why the X4100 has 9 ch output whereas the 5200 has 11.... it's likely just a marketing driven distinction. Product differentiaton and stuff.


the 5200 is described as having 4 4th generation sharc chips which suggests it has 4 of one of these

http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21483/products/product.html
http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21486/products/product.html
http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21487/products/product.html
http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21488/products/product.html
http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21489/products/product.html

I have no idea which one it has but the point being they are just a digital signal processor that take a digital stream in, do stuff (within a finite processing & memory budget) and sends a digital stream out. This then has to end up coming out the box as an analogue signal. 

Even if that single DSP is powerful enough to do 16 channel atmos then there might not be enough processing power to do audyssey as well (so more DSPs might be required = added cost) and the channels still have to get out the door to the speakers (so DACs are required = added cost). Whether the per channel cost is really a big element of the manufacturing cost is another question though.


----------



## jrogers

kokishin said:


> Done. Thanks for your info. To date, I have 42 members on the Atmos spreadsheet.
> 
> See my sig for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet.


Another for you:

jrogers - 5.1.2 - Denon X4100W - GoldenEar Invisa 525 - In-ceiling - TM - (SVS PB2000 sub, Acoustimac panels, Samsung UN-75HU8550 TV)

(Based on the tremendous experience with Atmos 5.1.2, planning on moving to 5.1.4 in next few months adding GoldenEar SuperSat 3's and Emotiva XPA-200 for FH+TM)


----------



## Modern Times

It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


----------



## rboster

Modern Times said:


> (possible shills)



That's not needed


----------



## NorthSky

The Marantz Dolby Atmos AV7702 SSP has two TI BB PCM-1690 DACs (8-channel DAC times two on two chips) for a total of 16 single DACs.
So it has already the DAC counts for 9.1.6 (15.1 or 16 channels) Dolby Atmos configuration.

It would need additional Audyssey XT32 processing for 4 more channels. ...And of course 4 additional preouts. 

An AV receiver like the Denon Atmos AVR-X7200W with 9 internal amps would need 6 additional external power amps. ...No sweat, in these days and age.

Yep, I can see 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos products down the line. ...When exactly, I don't know. 

Lol, ... "Please honey, allow me to install fifteen speakers and two (or four) subwoofers in our living room." ..."Go ahead dear, but don't move my flower pots."


----------



## kokishin

sikclown said:


> Feel free to add me if you would like. My setup is the following:
> Denon x5200w
> Top Fronts and Top Rears are ceiling mounted Klipsch RS-52IIs running off Denon x5200 internal amps.


Done. Please confirm: 7.1.4?

Thanks


----------



## kokishin

jrogers said:


> Another for you:
> 
> jrogers - 5.1.2 - Denon X4100W - GoldenEar Invisa 525 - In-ceiling - TM - (SVS PB2000 sub, Acoustimac panels, Samsung UN-75HU8550 TV)
> 
> (Based on the tremendous experience with Atmos 5.1.2, planning on moving to 5.1.4 in next few months adding GoldenEar SuperSat 3's and Emotiva XPA-200 for FH+TM)


Done. Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


Hey, I resemble that remark! (I upgraded from 5.1 to 7.1.4)

Do bear in mind that Atmos and DSU can provide rear overhead audio, while the other upmixers only do that if your Rear Surround speakers are (mis-)located overhead. These days, Dolby discourages that, of course


----------



## chi_guy50

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


Logically speaking, just because going from 5.1 to 5.1.4 is a staggering improvement doesn't mean that DSU isn't spectacular. OTOH it's a purely subjective call whether/when to upgrade, and if I had had the 4520 rather than the 3311 I doubt that I would have jumped on Atmos quite so soon given the paucity of Atmos material. 

If you like your current system you can afford to wait out the production cycle for more advanced AVR/SSP's and/or more native Atmos content. In the meantime, the rest of us are going to enjoy our new toys.


----------



## Modern Times

rboster said:


> That's not needed


I didn't name names. But don't be naive, shills exist! They're on all kinds of forums. I suspect they're particularly effective on photography and AV forums. I wasn't trying to insult anybody and I don't know for sure if any are on here. I was just pointing out a very real marketing tactic and that it's possible.


----------



## RRF743

gpmbc said:


> Anyone come from 7.1 and still wowed with DSU in a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration?


Yes. I had 7.1 for 10 years now and just switched to 7.1.4 a few weeks ago and the sound is so much more enveloping. I do have that 360 degree bubble.


----------



## Modern Times

chi_guy50 said:


> Logically speaking, just because going from 5.1 to 5.1.4 is a staggering improvement doesn't mean that DSU isn't spectacular. OTOH it's a purely subjective call whether/when to upgrade, and if I had had the 4520 rather than the 3311 I doubt that I would have jumped on Atmos quite so soon given the paucity of Atmos material.
> 
> If you like your current system you can afford to wait out the production cycle for more advanced AVR/SSP's and/or more native Atmos content. In the meantime, the rest of us are going to enjoy our new toys.


Well the rational side of me tells me to wait another year or two but I'm also somewhat of an early adopter. I had a stereo VCR when they were $1000 and a 5.1 pro-logic system from the beginning and a laser disc player and an HD DVD player, an LCD Tv when they were over $3000 for a 46" etc. The love of technology is in my blood. But damn it! It costs a lot of money doing this. Money that probably should be saved or invested or spent on longer lasting things. These hobbies like home theater gear and photography equipment are huge never ending money pits. 

Btw have you ever noticed that reading forums is addictive, and it stirs up a very strong desire to consume. The more you read the more you want and the more you want the more you read/research. I bet if MRI's were done on most of us while we thought about and read about our hobbies it would show the part of the brain that governs pleasure and addiction lighting up like a pulsar. I bet dopamine production increases during the research and buying phase. Peaking on the drive home with your new toy or when the door bell rings when your delivery has arrived. Then it's a bit anticlimactic because the use of your new toy doesn't produce as much pleasure as the whole ritual leading up to it. So now you start thinking... hmmm what else do I need, and could I swing it financially, because there's always a new exciting toy that we just have to have. I'm really trying to put up a good fight this time around but I feel like I'm already starting to weaken a bit  

Does anybody want to buy a Denon 4520ci


----------



## mtbdudex

Who's first here to go 7.x.4 with the *x7200w*?



> *Dennon Announces Flagship AVR-X7200W Atmos Network A/V Receiver*
> 
> November 20, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denon, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of high-quality home entertainment products, is thrilled to announce a true flagship born from its new line of X-Series Network A/V Receivers. The AVR-X7200W features ultimate build quality, outstanding features and the finest in Denon audio quality for the most demanding home theater enthusiasts. Most remarkably, it comes with ground-breaking Dolby Atmos® to deliver captivating, multi-dimensional sound, and additionally is upgrade-ready for Auro-3D® listening format.
> The new AVR-X7200W features a powerful 9-channel amplifier with 150 watts per channel packed in a left/right-separated, symmetrical monolithic amplifier design with custom made DHCT (Denon High Current Transistors). This ultimate build-quality guarantees best-in-class sound quality with minimum interferences, astonishing clarity, power, detail, and depth. It further supports speaker setups that go beyond its 9 power amplifier stages, thanks to its 11.2 channel processing and 13.2 channel pre-outs. Its advanced audio section includes the highest resolution audio decoders like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, and also offers DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX for advanced surround experience with additional height or wide speakers. For the ultimate in audio refinement, the AVR-X7200W features Denon’s own D.D.S.C.-HD32 circuit with renowned AL32 processing multichannel, and also has Denon Link HD connection for jitter-free transmission from a supporting Denon Blu-ray player. Discerning consumers will appreciate the fact that the new receiver features the most advanced Audyssey package including Audyssey MultEQ XT 32 (Pro ready) room calibration with Sub EQ HT and LFC.
> For the ultimate in three-dimensional surround sound, the AVR-X7200W comes with the latest decoding technology Dolby Atmos® out-of-the-box, and is also ready for Auro3D® (online upgrade offer starts beginning of December; a fee is charged). With Dolby Atmos®, sound comes alive from all directions, including overhead. Thanks to its four DSP (Digital Sound Processing) engines, the AVR-X7200W has enough processing power to run an Audyssey-calibrated 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, and even a full 11 channel Dolby Atmos® setup; taking advantage of 7.1.4* or 9.1.2* Dolby Atmos® configurations (* with additional 2-channel power amplifier).
> Auro-3D® creates another unique immersive surround sound experience. Thanks to a unique configuration of ‘height channels’, acoustic reflections are generated and heard naturally due to the fact that sounds originate from around as well as above the listener. Depending on the size of the room, either 1 or 2 additional layers (HEIGHT and TOP – a.k.a. “Voice of God” channel) with speakers are mounted above the existing surround layer at ear-level to produce Auro-3D’s defining ‘vertical stereo field’.
> While offering the renowned Denon audio quality and unique sound processing technologies, all of this year’s new X-series AVRs come with a never-before-seen set of connectivity options. Most remarkably, all have built-in Wi-Fi to easily connect to a home network, and Bluetooth® to connect mobile devices with the touch of a button. Once connected, the AVR-X7200W opens up any room to literally unlimited music sources and playback options. Users can stream their own music conveniently from Apple® iDevices via AirPlay®, or access their music library on DLNA® compatible devices like a network attached storage device (NAS). Moreover, users can choose from thousands of Internet Radio stations and enjoy music from Spotify Connect® (where available; subscriptions required). For total convenience, a front USB port can be used to connect either USB storage devices, or an iDevice to playback music and charge at the same time. To keep control of all those features, there is a Denon Remote App available for iOS and Android™ devices. And also available is the improved Setup Assistant and Advanced Graphical User Interface which makes it very convenient even for beginners to set up the device with its amazing roster of facilities.
> With a total of 8 HDMI inputs and 3 HDMI outputs, the AVR-X7200W is ready to take over full control of literally all digital devices, such as Blu-ray players, media players, video cameras and more, at the same time. The AVR-X7200W’s advanced video processor is equipped to handle future 4K Ultra HD 50/60 Hz full rate content as well as featuring 4:4:4 Pure Color 4K sub-sampling pass-through, both features of the latest HDMI specification. It even has the ability to upconvert and transcode standard definition and high definition video sources up to 4k Ultra HD 50/60 Hz resolution for the ultimate viewing experience. As Denon does not want to compromise on the limited bandwidth and color capability of currently available HDCP2.2 implementations, the HDMI board of the AVR-X7200W will not be equipped with it from the start. In spring 2015, Denon will start offering a hardware upgrade to include full HDCP2.2 copy protection protocol on the AVR-X7200W.
> The AVR-X7200W owns advanced multi-zone, pre-out and custom installation options to become a true entertainer for the whole home. At the same time, Denon developed a new Eco mode featuring a unique power consumption management that adds to the company’s green environment policy without compromising on performance and sound quality. This is connectivity, versatility and power to the extreme. The AVR-X7200W will be available in a black starting in January 2015 for $2,999.
> *Key Features*
> · 150W x 9ch high quality discrete power amplifier for powerful and detailed sound
> · Symmetrical monolithic amplifier design with Denon custom made transistors
> · D.D.S.C.-HD32 with AL32 Processing Multichannel, Denon Link HD
> · Built-in Wi-Fi with dual antenna, built-in Bluetooth®
> · Latest HDMI standard with 4K Ultra HD 50/60 Hz Pass-through and 4:4:4 color resolution
> · HDCP2.2 upgradeable (scheduled for spring 2015)
> · Advanced Video Processing with upscaling up to 1080p and 4k Ultra HD 50/60Hz
> · 8 HDMI inputs (incl. 1 front), 3 HDMI outputs (2 main + zone)
> · Dolby Atmos®. (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4*, 9.1.2* configuration)
> · Auro-3D® upgradable (9.1ch, 10.1ch* with VOG (Voice of God) configuration)
> · Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X 11.1ch processing
> · Wide support for streaming formats including DSD and AIFF streaming
> · AirPlay and DLNA music streaming; Spotify Connect* (*where available, subscription may be required)
> · Advanced ECO mode with off/on/auto setting
> · Audyssey MultEQ XT32 / Sub EQ HT / LFC (Pro ready)
> · Audyssey Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ
> · RS232 control
> · Phono input
> · 11.2ch processing and 13.2ch pre-out; gold-plated terminals
> · 3 source, 3 zones
> · ISF calibration
> · Improved Setup Assistant and Graphical User Interface (Hybrid GUI, 9-languages)
> · Available in black
> *with additional power amplifier
> _Source: Press Release_


edit: AVS is blocking the URL to http://www.ultra highend review.com , why??

Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## smurraybhm

Modern Times said:


> I didn't name names. But don't be naive, shills exist! They're on all kinds of forums. I suspect they're particularly effective on photography and AV forums. I wasn't trying to insult anybody and I don't know for sure if any are on here. I was just pointing out a very real marketing tactic and that it's possible.


Why are you here? Shrills? All of us who have upgraded have posted reasons why we prefer DS to other surround formats. If you don't like it, no big deal, you just saved a bunch of money and can go post somewhere else on AVS.
For the record I ran an a 9.2 setup for a 4 weeks prior to getting my Denon 5200. Whether before or after the upgrade, there is no comparsion when watching movies - including Judge Dredd - DS is much better than Neo X and DSX (the later I don't really care for at all). DS gives you the bubble effect with the sound, and for me Neo X sounds more like the front soundstage has been enlarged. I like the all- encompassing effect of DS - 3D as others describe it. Like others I at this point I like Neo X better for my multi-channel music (SACDs, etc.), but for 2 channel mixes that I want to upmix I like DS better. FilmMixer is another who has spoken highly of DS and what it does with 2 channel sources.


----------



## chi_guy50

Modern Times said:


> *Well the rational side of me tells me to wait another year or two *but I'm also somewhat of an early adopter. I had a stereo VCR when they were $1000 and a 5.1 pro-logic system from the beginning and a laser disc player and an HD DVD player, an LCD Tv when they were over $3000 for a 46" etc. The love of technology is in my blood. But damn it! It costs a lot of money doing this. Money that probably should be saved or invested or spent on longer lasting things. These hobbies like home theater gear and photography equipment are huge never ending money pits.
> 
> Btw have you ever noticed that reading forums is addictive, and it stirs up a very strong desire to consume. The more you read the more you want and the more you want the more you read/research. I bet if MRI's were done on most of us while we thought about and read about our hobbies it would show the part of the brain that governs pleasure and addiction lighting up like a pulsar. I bet dopamine production increases during the research and buying phase. Peaking on the drive home with your new toy or when the door bell rings when your delivery has arrived. Then it's a bit anticlimactic because the use of your new toy doesn't produce as much pleasure as the whole ritual leading up to it. So now you start thinking... hmmm what else do I need, and could I swing it financially, because there's always a new exciting toy that we just have to have. I'm really trying to put up a good fight this time around but I feel like I'm already starting to weaken a bit
> 
> Does anybody want to buy a Denon 4520ci


Who ever said it was "rational" to stick 14 speakers in a living room? Rationality is beside the point; we do it because we can and it gives us pleasure.

Face it, you're crumbling and you just want someone here to talk you out of it. Not gonna happen.


----------



## Spanglo

smurraybhm said:


> Like others I at this point I like Neo X better for my multi-channel music (SACDs, etc.), but for 2 channel mixes that I want to upmix I like DS better. FilmMixer is another who has spoken highly of DS and what it does with 2 channel sources.


Multi channel Dark Side of The Moon is pretty awesome in DS. I didn't compare it with the 2 channel version, but I can't imagine it could be any better. Give it whirl.


----------



## Roger Dressler

3ll3d00d said:


> the 5200 is described as having 4 4th generation sharc chips which suggests it has 4 of one of these
> 
> http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21483/products/product.html
> http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21486/products/product.html
> http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21487/products/product.html
> http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21488/products/product.html
> http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21489/products/product.html
> 
> I have no idea which one it has but the point being they are just a digital signal processor that take a digital stream in, do stuff (within a finite processing & memory budget) and sends a digital stream out. This then has to end up coming out the box as an analogue signal.


It's the one in the middle. 21487.


----------



## bargervais

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


Well there you have it here is the voice OF reason of someone that has probably never even heard atmos and likes neo x 
I'm glad I'm weak in the knees and took the plunge..
I don't think it an a upgrade I don't have to put my ear next to my wide and high speakers to see if anything was coming out of them. DSU is much more immersive if your happy with your 4520 then that's all that matters to you and me but coming in here and say us guys are weak in the knees is a little over the top.
if you don't even have an Atmos AVR sorry you feel that way


----------



## g_bartman

I'll be moving into my new construction house next month fitted with four in ceiling speakers for future Atmos use. As much as I want to go Atmos now, I just can't justify packing up my Marantz Av8801 and taking a loss on it. Besides, I've already blown the budget on furniture, appliances etc. so for now, they will serve as high and wide channels. unless someone makes me an offer I can't refuse on the Marantz (hint hint)


----------



## Modern Times

chi_guy50 said:


> Who ever said it was "rational" to stick 14 speakers in a living room? Rationality is beside the point; we do it because we can and it gives us pleasure.
> 
> Face it, you're crumbling and you just want someone here to talk you out of it. Not gonna happen.


lol.... yeah I suppose if truth be told deep down I may have been hoping some people would say that it wasn't a great big improvement over 11.1. That way I could slow down my purchasing just a notch.


----------



## Modern Times

awe God here we go... all the people with *comprehension problems* are going to voice there displeasure of my comment. It's ok guys I don't want anybody to think that they may have been influenced by marketing. Nor do I expect personnel reflection from most of you. 

Don't worry, you bought into the greatest thing since sliced bread. I shall leave you guys alone so you can pat each other on the back and reassure yourself that DSU is absolutely amazing. 

Enjoy your toys.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Modern Times said:


> Well the rational side of me tells me to wait another year or two but I'm also somewhat of an early adopter. I had a stereo VCR when they were $1000 and a 5.1 pro-logic system from the beginning and a laser disc player and an HD DVD player, an LCD Tv when they were over $3000 for a 46" etc. The love of technology is in my blood. But damn it! It costs a lot of money doing this. Money that probably should be saved or invested or spent on longer lasting things. These hobbies like home theater gear and photography equipment are huge never ending money pits.
> 
> Btw have you ever noticed that reading forums is addictive, and it stirs up a very strong desire to consume. The more you read the more you want and the more you want the more you read/research. I bet if MRI's were done on most of us while we thought about and read about our hobbies it would show the part of the brain that governs pleasure and addiction lighting up like a pulsar. I bet dopamine production increases during the research and buying phase. Peaking on the drive home with your new toy or when the door bell rings when your delivery has arrived. Then it's a bit anticlimactic because the use of your new toy doesn't produce as much pleasure as the whole ritual leading up to it. So now you start thinking... hmmm what else do I need, and could I swing it financially, because there's always a new exciting toy that we just have to have. I'm really trying to put up a good fight this time around but I feel like I'm already starting to weaken a bit
> 
> Does anybody want to buy a Denon 4520ci


Stay strong like me! 



chi_guy50 said:


> Who ever said it was "rational" to stick 14 speakers in a living room? Rationality is beside the point; we do it because we can and it gives us pleasure.
> 
> Face it, you're crumbling and you just want someone here to talk you out of it. Not gonna happen.


I know one way to stall the process of adopting too soon, start a kitchen reno, soon all your time will be taken up looking at counters, taps and sinks, not to mention new appliances, soon you will forget about Dolby and all things Atmos because your entire HT budget will have been spent!


----------



## asoofi1

g_bartman said:


> I'll be moving into my new construction house next month fitted with four in ceiling speakers for future Atmos use. As much as I want to go Atmos now, I just can't justify packing up my Marantz Av8801 and taking a loss on it. Besides, I've already blown the budget on furniture, appliances etc. so for now, they will serve as high and wide channels. unless someone makes me an offer I can't refuse on the Marantz (hint hint)


You either take the loss now or later, it's almost the same if you get a 2014 model av later.

If you sell the 8801 now, you'll get more and you pay more on the upgrade. If you sell 8801 later at more of a depreciation, you'll pay less for the 2014 atmos av upgrade. End cost almost the same.

The only catch with later, it will likely end up costing you more than you thought. The 8801 will have more depreciation and you'll likely want the latest 2015 atmos av...and that will be a higher price...So you take a hit on both things.

Best solution: upgrade now and enjoy atmos/dsu. Life is short.


----------



## quinn4528

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


Its like I tell my friends who are the fence about buying a BMW, if you do not want to by one, do not test drive one. I transitioned from 11.2 and at the time could not imagine there would be a significant difference, there is. I am going through watching old BDs and each one sounds significantly better in DSU. Have not experimented enough with music but movies are better and it is obvious with hi resolution material. IMO


----------



## asoofi1

Gravity Atmos edition preorder available...interestingly, it also features a no-background-music soundtrack as well: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PGHUJOO/?tag=sbhz_us-20


----------



## batpig

quinn4528 said:


> Modern Times said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Its like I tell my friends who are the fence about buying a BMW, if you do not want to by one, do not test drive one. I transitioned from 11.2 and at the time could not imagine there would be a significant difference, there is. I am going through watching old BDs and each one sounds significantly better in DSU. Have not experimented enough with music but movies are better and it is obvious with hi resolution material. IMO
Click to expand...

Clearly a corporate shill


----------



## audioguy

I now have all of the components in house so hopefully by next weekend I wil have a 7.2.4 Atmos system.

My 7.2 system is all powered speakers (Seaton Catalyst 12C's for LCR, Seaton Sparks for side and rear surrounds and 4 Seaton Subs doing LFE duty). As a result I purchased the Marantz 7702. My new amp is here (5 channel Emotiva) and my new speakers are in the hallway . They are the Tannoy Di6 DC (thanks Roger and Keith).

The Marantz is up and running and sounding really good at 7.2. Using Dolby Surround for the 7.2 system and I like it better than PLIIx. 

I will say that running Audyssey directly from the 7702 did not give me the same quality I got from running Pro on my Integra 80.2 so I purchased the 7702 Pro license and with my standard amount of diddling, it came out great.

Really anxious to hear this new technology but very much not anxious to crawl into the attic to run speaker wire  or hang the speakers.

If this all turns out to be a waste of time and money, I will blame Keith!!

Put me on the list (unless it all needs to be installed).


----------



## Ash Sharma

I am working on getting ATMOS for my 9.4 theater going to 11.4.6 (or 8 ) - will be using Trinnov Altitude (24 channel) 

My sides now 6 will be 8 when I am done are Triad Silver In Walls....

I am told by my installer that we will be using up firing Triad Modules on top of the current In Walls - but I am intrigued by the fact that the up firing modules will be very small (as the Triad's are skinny in wall and the up firing modules will be small) - so my observation is that the height channels are simply a 'fill' as for sure you cannot pump high wattage in these small modules as we do in the surrounds and the front LCR (My LCR's are Aerial 20T's matched).

I am curious to know from those who have x.x.4 or higher ATMOS set ups - how much activity they hear from the height channels and if they agree that the height channels are only a fill and you should not expect loud activity from them.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ash Sharma said:


> I am working on getting ATMOS for my 9.4 theater going to 11.4.6 (or 8 ) - will be using Trinnov Altitude (24 channel)
> 
> My sides now 6 will be 8 when I am done are Triad Silver In Walls....
> 
> I am told by my installer that we will be using up firing Triad Modules on top of the current In Walls - but I am intrigued by the fact that the up firing modules will be very small (as the Triad's are skinny in wall and the up firing modules will be small) - so my observation is that the height channels are simply a 'fill' as for sure you cannot pump high wattage in these small modules as we do in the surrounds and the front LCR (My LCR's are Aerial 20T's matched).
> 
> I am curious to know from those who have x.x.4 or higher ATMOS set ups - how much activity they hear from the height channels and if they agree that the height channels are only a fill and you should not expect loud activity from them.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


An amazing theater that will only get better with addition of more surrounds and Atmos rendering!!! 

Is there a reason you're not going with actual ceiling speakers? Like in-room Triad Silver LCR's that are mounted by adjustable brackets and aimed towards the MLP area and hiding the wire using the cove trim? A lot of work, but well worth it. That's the absolute best way to experience the format.

Atmos' overhead speakers are supposed to be able to have as much full range surround activity as any other speaker in the theater... it all depends on the choices made by the sound designers. Some movies, like _Gravity_ (coming in Feb with Atmos), use every quadrant of the room to place sound effects, dialog, and music and some like T4 hardly use the overheads at all.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

mtbdudex said:


> Who's first here to go 7.x.4 with the *x7200w*?
> 
> 
> edit: AVS is blocking the URL to http://www.ultra highend review.com , why??
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


Denon couldn't make the other atmos units 2.2 upgradeable? Pfft.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Dan Hitchman said:


> An amazing theater that will only get better with addition of more surrounds and Atmos rendering!!!
> 
> Is there a reason you're not going with actual ceiling speakers? Like in-room Triad Silver LCR's that are mounted by adjustable brackets and aimed towards the MLP area and hiding the wire using the cove trim? A lot of work, but well worth it. That's the absolute best way to experience the format.
> 
> Atmos' overhead speakers are supposed to be able to have as much full range surround activity as any other speaker in the theater... it all depends on the choices made by the sound designers. Some movies, like _Gravity_ (coming in Feb with Atmos), use every quadrant of the room to place sound effects, dialog, and music and some like T4 hardly use the overheads at all.


Dan,
My understanding is that if we use overhead speakers we will screw up the aesthetics of the lovely ceiling I have...
The up firing speakers are being preferred over ceiling speakers as they sound diffused and not localized as in case of ceiling speakers.
I would love your input on this issue so I can debate with my installer to look at the option recommended by you - so please comment.
Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ash Sharma said:


> Dan,
> My understanding is that if we use overhead speakers we will screw up the aesthetics of the lovely ceiling I have...
> The up firing speakers are being preferred over ceiling speakers as they sound diffused and not localized as in case of ceiling speakers.
> I would love your input on this issue so I can debate with my installer to look at the option recommended by you - so please comment.
> Thanks.


From my understanding, the upfiring "enabled" speakers work best with a fairly flat, reflective ceiling. Your decorative, coffered ceiling with lights in just about every area of the ceiling space is anything but that. At CEDIA I listened to both types of setups, ones using "enabled" speakers that simulate an overhead presence, and setups with real overheads. In every single demo, I preferred the actual overheads. It was the best way to get the kind of positional 3D effect that I've heard at the cinema and was far more immersive. The "enabled" speakers sounded like a decent DSP concert hall mode layered on top of a standard channel-based mix, like with Yamaha height presence modes. The physical overhead speakers made the Atmos soundtracks click together nicely in a "bubble" of wrap-around sound, something I cannot say for the "enabled" speakers.

I think 3D sound quality, in this instance, trumps pure aesthetics, especially if you're going all out for a Trinnov and a hot-rod Atmos system. Anything less would be a huge compromise in surround performance. If the ceiling speakers are flat black, and not REALLY BIG, they actually can be far less noticeable than you would expect since your ceiling woodwork finish is already on the darker side. If this was my home theater, I would use the real overheads. My thoughts are this: when I'm watching a movie, the reason for the room in the first place, the lights are off anyway.


----------



## RRF743

Dan Hitchman said:


> An amazing theater that will only get better with addition of more surrounds and Atmos rendering!!!
> 
> Is there a reason you're not going with actual ceiling speakers? Like in-room Triad Silver LCR's that are mounted by adjustable brackets and aimed towards the MLP area and hiding the wire using the cove trim? A lot of work, but well worth it. That's the absolute best way to experience the format.
> 
> Atmos' overhead speakers are supposed to be able to have as much full range surround activity as any other speaker in the theater... it all depends on the choices made by the sound designers. Some movies, like _Gravity_ (coming in Feb with Atmos), use every quadrant of the room to place sound effects, dialog, and music and some like T4 hardly use the overheads at all.


I have a 7.1.4 and prefer it over atmos enabled speakers. Although I only heard them once and the setup was at Best Buy. Maybe not the best place to judge atmos enable speakers. That room is beautiful. I can see why you wouldn't want to mess up that ceiling! My brother, you have a dilemma on your hands. Sorry I was of no help.


----------



## randyk47

Ash Sharma said:


> I am working on getting ATMOS for my 9.4 theater going to 11.4.6 (or 8 ) - will be using Trinnov Altitude (24 channel)
> 
> My sides now 6 will be 8 when I am done are Triad Silver In Walls....
> 
> I am told by my installer that we will be using up firing Triad Modules on top of the current In Walls - but I am intrigued by the fact that the up firing modules will be very small (as the Triad's are skinny in wall and the up firing modules will be small) - so my observation is that the height channels are simply a 'fill' as for sure you cannot pump high wattage in these small modules as we do in the surrounds and the front LCR (My LCR's are Aerial 20T's matched).
> 
> I am curious to know from those who have x.x.4 or higher ATMOS set ups - how much activity they hear from the height channels and if they agree that the height channels are only a fill and you should not expect loud activity from them.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


First of all your theater is incredible! Envy meter is pegged! 

Now for the more mundane. Lacking a lot of ATMOS sources to listen to it's a bit early, at least for me, to know exactly what to expect. We have been using our full up, meaning with the final ATMOS speakers, 7.1.4 for the three weeks now. Other than TF4, which we own and is an ATMOS mix, we've been rewatching a lot of our favorite movies. The sound, in this case really just DSU, is incredible. Hard to explain but it seems fuller, with more depth, and more immersive. It's subtle and not an "in your face" sound affect coming from a single speaker.....like the name implies it's atmosphere. Now I don't know what studios will do with ATMOS mixes but I kind of hope and I actually will be disappointed if movies all of a sudden have a bunch of audio special effects shooting out of the ATMOS speakers just to prove they can do it.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Randy,
Thanks for the compliments... atmosphere is the word then... but I will take Dan's advice too as better have more than less just in case thats what the future holds..
Here are some more pictures:


----------



## Brian Fineberg

So it seems all of the Bourne movies are incredible for DSU

But if you want awesome overhead flybys with dsu give Metallica through the never in and play "One" holy shnikies!! I bough a Huey was in my house!!


----------



## RRF743

Dan Hitchman said:


> An amazing theater that will only get better with addition of more surrounds and Atmos rendering!!!
> 
> Is there a reason you're not going with actual ceiling speakers? Like in-room Triad Silver LCR's that are mounted by adjustable brackets and aimed towards the MLP area and hiding the wire using the cove trim? A lot of work, but well worth it. That's the absolute best way to experience the format.
> 
> Atmos' overhead speakers are supposed to be able to have as much full range surround activity as any other speaker in the theater... it all depends on the choices made by the sound designers. Some movies, like _Gravity_ (coming in Feb with Atmos), use every quadrant of the room to place sound effects, dialog, and music and some like T4 hardly use the overheads at all.


I don't know what frequency rating the atmos channels start to play at(others on here will know)but they can be very busy. Although I haven't come close to re-listening to most of my movies the few that I have were very good. For instance, I watched King Kong on bluray yesterday and from the time their ship arrived at Skull Mountain to the end of the movie, the speakers were playing lots of music and effects. I think my ceiling speakers were more busy with DSU when watching Transformers 1 vs. Transformers 4 with atmos. Hope this was of some help.


----------



## NorthSky

Ash Sharma said:


>


Is it for sale?


----------



## Ash Sharma

NorthSky said:


> Is it for sale?


Northsky,
You can pry it out of my cold dead hands...
Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## RRF743

I'll be happy just to watch one movie in that! OK, two movies!


----------



## RRF743

Ash Sharma said:


> Northsky,
> You can pry it out of my cold dead hands...
> Thanks for the compliment.


 If you don't mind me asking, what are your room dimensions?


----------



## Ash Sharma

The room is 18 feet wide 25 deep..
Ceiling is 8 foot at the minimum (back row) and 10 foot at the highest (from to the screen)..
12 foot wide Screen Stewart Cinecurve acoustically transparent 1.0 Gain.


----------



## asoofi1

Ash Sharma said:


> I am working on getting ATMOS for my 9.4 theater going to 11.4.6 (or 8 ) - will be using Trinnov Altitude (24 channel)
> 
> My sides now 6 will be 8 when I am done are Triad Silver In Walls....
> 
> I am told by my installer that we will be using up firing Triad Modules on top of the current In Walls - but I am intrigued by the fact that the up firing modules will be very small (as the Triad's are skinny in wall and the up firing modules will be small) - so my observation is that the height channels are simply a 'fill' as for sure you cannot pump high wattage in these small modules as we do in the surrounds and the front LCR (My LCR's are Aerial 20T's matched).
> 
> I am curious to know from those who have x.x.4 or higher ATMOS set ups - how much activity they hear from the height channels and if they agree that the height channels are only a fill and you should not expect loud activity from them.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Beautiful HT Ash...looking forward to hearing from someone who's getting a Trinnov. Ceiling speakers would be the most optimal effect and, of course, what Dolby recommends. I can certainly appreciate not wanting to ruin such a nice ceiling with hanging speakers on top, so you could try the reflecting speakers first and if you feel it doesn't sound good enough to you, then you can think about some ceiling options...even in-ceiling speakers....that way you finish the covers with similar ceiling finish/patterns/paint.

For me, the HT sound & visual experience is priority, so the aesthetics come after that, so I hang very good surrounds and turn off the lights. It's a matter of personal choice and what is a priority for you at the end. I mean, you have the rest of the house where aesthetics can come first 

Edit: I noticed you have a lot recessed lights...I don't feel replacing 6 with speakers won't change the look that much at all...even more reason to go for it IMO.


----------



## randyk47

I can be adopted......


----------



## RRF743

Ash Sharma said:


> The room is 18 feet wide 25 deep..
> Ceiling is 8 foot at the minimum (back row) and 10 foot at the highest (from to the screen)..
> 12 foot wide Screen Stewart Cinecurve acoustically transparent 1.0 Gain.


 My room is similar in size(slightly smaller 24' x 14' x 8') but don't have aesthetics like that!


SIMPLY GORGEOUS!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RRF743 said:


> I don't know what frequency rating the atmos channels start to play at(others on here will know)but they can be very busy. Although I haven't come close to re-listening to most of my movies the few that I have were very good. For instance, I watched King Kong on bluray yesterday and from the time their ship arrived at Skull Mountain to the end of the movie, the speakers were playing lots of music and effects. I think my ceiling speakers were more busy with DSU when watching Transformers 1 vs. Transformers 4 with atmos. Hope this was of some help.


Atmos can have full frequency sound in all speakers... that's why good bass management is warranted. It's the "enabled" speakers that seem to have a more severe roll off due to one factor or another.


----------



## zapper

Hello, just started reading about Atmos and their are to many postings for anyone to read to get updated on Atmos on this thread so wondering if anyone can direct me or post if its feasible to get 2 additional speakers on a 7.1 system with a Atmos ready receiver or have to get a 9.2 set?? Noticed that most Atmos receivers do not have a 3d pass through unless you buy a expensive system.


----------



## RRF743

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos can have full frequency sound in all speakers... that's why good bass management is warranted. It's the "enabled" speakers that seem to have a more severe roll off due to one factor or another.


OK. Thanks Dan.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Thanks Y'all for the nice compliments..

I love AVS for guys/gals like you who care to comment and help others achieve the best.

I am going to push for in ceiling speakers - aesthetics are important to me - so I will look into installing a ceiling speaker in each of the outside panels (where the lights are).. and cover them up with something which blends and hopefully improves or at the least does not reduce the look of the ceiling.

If it works out I will end up with:

11 (LCR and 8 surrounds). 1/4 (actually have four Seaton Submersive subs - two master slaves). 12 (12 ceiling speakers)

Total 24 channels - bass management for the subs in QSC instead of Trinnov (24 channel Altitude).

That would be a odd combination with more ceiling/height speakers than surrounds.. 11.1/4.12 - will check with the experts.


----------



## asoofi1

Ash Sharma said:


> Thanks Y'all for the nice compliments..
> 
> I love AVS for guys/gals like you who care to comment and help others achieve the best.
> 
> I am going to push for in ceiling speakers - aesthetics are important to me - so I will look into installing a ceiling speaker in each of the outside panels (where the lights are).. and cover them up with something which blends and hopefully improves or at the least does not reduce the look of the ceiling.
> 
> If it works out I will end up with:
> 
> 11 (LCR and 8 surrounds). 1/4 (actually have four Seaton Submersive subs - two master slaves). 12 (12 ceiling speakers)
> 
> Total 24 channels - bass management for the subs in QSC instead of Trinnov (24 channel Altitude).
> 
> That would be a odd combination with more ceiling/height speakers than surrounds.. 11.1/4.12 - will check with the experts.


Good call and good luck. Looking forward to updates...and a GTG invite


----------



## NorthSky

Ash Sharma said:


> Northsky,
> You can pry it out of my cold dead hands...
> Thanks for the compliment.


Ash, I analysed and read your inquiries regarding your situation (ceiling). Here's an idea that you can talk to your pro installer, and also with the folks here from this thread, including Dan.

♦ You have several lights in your ceiling. And those lights are installed in their own hole receptacles.
From the pictures you provided the holes seem to be large enough to accomodate coaxial speakers with a 7" or so size woofer.
And again from my perspective here, you could install four or six or eight Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D in-ceiling speakers, 
if you are willing to sacrifice four or six or eight overhead lights. 

This, is one idea I have for your situation so far. And more are on their way; from other members here in this thread. 


Your home theater room is magnificent, and me too I wouldn't want to screw up with my beautiful ceiling.
And in the same way, I also want, and I mean that; I TRULY WANT overhead (elevated) Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D speakers. 

Do you know the exact circumference (or exact diameter) of the holes in your ceiling for the lights?
{I can count 32 overhead lights: 4 wide by 8 long.}


----------



## RRF743

zapper said:


> Hello, just started reading about Atmos and their are to many postings for anyone to read to get updated on Atmos on this thread so wondering if anyone can direct me or post if its feasible to get 2 additional speakers on a 7.1 system with a Atmos ready receiver or have to get a 9.2 set?? Noticed that most Atmos receivers do not have a 3d pass through unless you buy a expensive system.


If you don't want to use an external amp:
Denon X5200
Yamaha RX- A2040 with firmware update
I believe Onkyo 1030
Pioneer Elite SC-87
Marantz SR 7009 
Integra has a model also.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Northsky,
I am leaning towards Dan's advice to have full range speakers - to answer your question - the holes are maybe 4 to 5 inch in diameter.
If I can go with my plan the entire exterior rows will have full range speakers (6 each or 12 in total) covered with aesthetically pleasing speaker grills so the ceiling keeps or improves its look.
I will confess that for my install we are in consultation with Dolby - Triad and Trinnov who will be here for calibration when it is all installed - so far the experts are telling (that is Dolby Labs - Trinnov and Triad speakers ) that the Triad up firing speakers will be adequate for ATMOS (I am not going for Auro). I will need to add amplifiers to accommodate the additional channels.
Install will be in January.
Time will tell but every one's input is appreciated.


----------



## NorthSky

I see. Thank you for showing us a top-notch reference home theater room of the highest caliber. ...This is our home theater dream, and you are living in it.


----------



## WayneJoy

The acoustician/theater designer who was on tonight's Home Theater Geeks prefers a 9.x.2 atmos configuration. He also dislikes the practice of making home theater mixes instead of using theatrical mixes in the home.


----------



## sikclown

kokishin said:


> Done. Please confirm: 7.1.4?
> 
> Thanks


Yes 7.1.4 Atmos set up


----------



## sdurani

Brian Fineberg said:


> But if you want awesome overhead flybys with dsu give Metallica through the never in and play "One" holy shnikies!! I bough a Huey was in my house!!


It was originally mixed in Atmos. 

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=3399


----------



## sdurani

Ash Sharma said:


> 12 (12 ceiling speakers)


Atmos supports 10 overhead outputs. What was your installer planning on feeding the 2 additional overhead speakers? Or are you going to be using them solely for Trinnov's re-mapping feature?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

that explains alot


----------



## Ash Sharma

sdurani said:


> Atmos supports 10 overhead outputs. What was your installer planning on feeding the 2 additional overhead speakers? Or are you going to be using them solely for Trinnov's re-mapping feature?


Current plan is to have a 24 channel Trinnov Altitude (as they have 16 and 32 channel units also) - 9 surrounds LCR (3) - 2/4 subs - 6 up firing atoms modules = 11.2.6 ATMOS ( 19 channels other not utilized).

If I go with ceiling speakers (which I doubt) 11.2.10 (23 channels) - Thanks for correcting me on the maximum ceiling channels in ATMOS at 10


----------



## thestoneman

Ash Sharma said:


> Current plan is to have a 24 channel Trinnov Altitude (as they have 16 and 32 channel units also) - 9 surrounds LCR (3) - 2/4 subs - 6 up firing atoms modules = 11.2.6 ATMOS ( 19 channels other not utilized).
> 
> If I go with ceiling speakers (which I doubt) 11.2.10 (23 channels) - Thanks for correcting me on the maximum ceiling channels in ATMOS at 10


Seems you can't future proof enough...some tech will occur that you wish you had, but just wasn't there when you executed your build. That said, while you are looking at Atmos, you might as well look into Auro3D. The speaker placements are definitely different and it's really too early to tell if one may kill the other ultimately.

I have to comment on your theater as well. Magnificent. Makes me wonder what the rest of the house looks like!


----------



## smurraybhm

Brian Fineberg said:


> So it seems all of the Bourne movies are incredible for DSU
> 
> But if you want awesome overhead flybys with dsu give Metallica through the never in and play "One" holy shnikies!! I bough a Huey was in my house!!


Careful Brian - you'll be labeled a shrill 
Not a surprise that these are good candidates for DSU - I am looking forward to the 5th installment with Matt Damon returning, not that #4 wasn't a good action flick.


----------



## shumi_9

Thinking of using supersats 3c for my Atmos speakers. Anyone else using them? Any pictures of install? Thanks


----------



## sdurani

Ash Sharma said:


> If I go with ceiling speakers (which I doubt)...


Your installer knows Atmos well enough that he's likely weighed the pros and cons of going with upfiring speakers. Still, that ceiling is designed to diffuse sound, so it will be interesting to see if changes need to be made to better accommodate the necessary reflections. Please let us know how the transformation goes.


----------



## rboster

Hopefully before Thanksgiving, I'll have a Atmos system 1.0 in place. I am in the middle of installing some the speakers...ran wires last night for the Atmos TF speakers. Here's the make up

Atmos Version 1.0 will be 7.1.2:

Denon 4100 (Sherwood Newcastle 7 ch amp)Rears will run off the Denon amp, and other 7 Ch's off SN amp)
JTR Cap sub
LCR JTR Triple 8HT's
Reaction Audio CX-8's for Sides and Rear Surrounds (rec'd 1 pair today, 2nd arrives (fingers crossed before thanksgiving)
Klipsch IC-650T's in-ceiling for TF Atmos duty. These are 11pds. Keep me in your prayers, cutting holes and installing tomorrow.


I went from 
Anthem 510 (Sherwood Newcastle 7CH amp)
JTR Cap sub
LCR JTR Triple 8HT's
JBL 8340A for sides and rears.

Really enjoy reading everyone's impressions and experiences in Atmos. 

Ron


----------



## audioguy

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


Shills because you don't agree with them? Since you don't want Atmos, only think it's a slight upgrade and apperently think it's a waste of money, why are you here?

I'd quite looking for shills. You are more likely to find a troll if you look real close!!


----------



## audioguy

Maybe we should re-lable the list of Atmos user systems as "The Shill List"


----------



## petetherock

Aras_Volodka said:


> Denon couldn't make the other atmos units 2.2 upgradeable? Pfft.


Well they have to justify the 1k price difference....


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Spoiler


Lmao. I just about spit my coffee all over my monitor.


----------



## kokishin

rboster said:


> Hopefully before Thanksgiving, I'll have a Atmos system 1.0 in place. I am in the middle of installing some the speakers...ran wires last night for the Atmos TF speakers. Here's the make up
> 
> Atmos Version 1.0 will be 7.1.2:
> 
> Denon 4100 (Sherwood Newcastle 7 ch amp)Rears will run off the Denon amp, and other 7 Ch's off SN amp)
> JTR Cap sub
> LCR JTR Triple 8HT's
> Reaction Audio CX-8's for Sides and Rear Surrounds (rec'd 1 pair today, 2nd arrives (fingers crossed before thanksgiving)
> Klipsch IC-650T's for TF Atmos duty. These are 11pds. Keep me in your prayers, cutting holes and installing tomorrow.
> 
> 
> I went from
> Anthem 510 (Sherwood Newcastle 7CH amp)
> JTR Cap sub
> LCR JTR Triple 8HT's
> JBL 8340A for sides and rears.
> 
> Really enjoy reading everyone's impressions and experiences in Atmos.
> 
> Ron


Since you plan to have your Atmos v1.0 system online by Thanksgiving, I added you to the spreadsheet.

See my sig for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet.

Enjoy!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Your installer knows Atmos well enough that he's likely weighed the pros and cons of going with upfiring speakers. Still, that ceiling is designed to diffuse sound, so it will be interesting to see if changes need to be made to better accommodate the necessary reflections. Please let us know how the transformation goes.


He'll definitely will make more money  New mains (with a questionable array assembly) and a remodeled/new ceiling instead of keeping the mains, keeping the ceiling and mounting in-ceiling speakers that have adjustable tweeters.


----------



## SeanUK

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


Hi,


I "upgraded" to the X5200 from the 4520. I run the 4520 in 11.1 (or 2 if you count both subs) with both DSX and NEO X. I never liked DSX at all...sounded like the sound was coming down a hollow tube or something. NEO X was good.


However, DSU is on a different level altogether in terms of natural spacious soundfield...in particular more 3D like.


I hope this helps.


Cheers,


Sean


----------



## rboster

kokishin said:


> Since you plan to have your Atmos v1.0 system online by Thanksgiving, I added you to the spreadsheet.
> 
> See my sig for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet.
> 
> Enjoy!


I should have been more specific, the Klipsch's (Atmos) will be in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## kokishin

rboster said:


> I should have been more specific, the Klipsch's (Atmos) will be in-ceiling speakers.


Fixed.

Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ash Sharma said:


> Thanks Y'all for the nice compliments..
> 
> I love AVS for guys/gals like you who care to comment and help others achieve the best.
> 
> I am going to push for in ceiling speakers - aesthetics are important to me - so I will look into installing a ceiling speaker in each of the outside panels (where the lights are).. and cover them up with something which blends and hopefully improves or at the least does not reduce the look of the ceiling.
> 
> If it works out I will end up with:
> 
> 11 (LCR and 8 surrounds). 1/4 (actually have four Seaton Submersive subs - two master slaves). 12 (12 ceiling speakers)
> 
> Total 24 channels - bass management for the subs in QSC instead of Trinnov (24 channel Altitude).
> 
> That would be a odd combination with more ceiling/height speakers than surrounds.. 11.1/4.12 - will check with the experts.


Are you using the extra overheads for something special like Auro3D? I know that consumer Dolby Atmos overhead outputs maxes out at 10 (what does your Trinnov processor support?).

Atmos also has Left Center and Right Center outputs. If your screen is large enough and if the positional angles fall within spec, you might want to consider five screen speakers. Unless your particular Trinnov model doesn't allow for them.


----------



## jrogers

shumi_9 said:


> Thinking of using supersats 3c for my Atmos speakers. Anyone else using them? Any pictures of install? Thanks


I'm using GoldenEars for my system. 60's for fronts and center, and 3s for surround, but using their Invisa in ceiling - and system sounds great. Bigham16 is using 3s for Atmos - and posted some suggestions on aiming awhile back. Take a look at post 9929.


----------



## cannga

Ash Sharma said:


> I am working on getting ATMOS for my 9.4 theater going to 11.4.6 (or 8 ) - will be using Trinnov Altitude (24 channel)
> 
> My sides now 6 will be 8 when I am done are Triad Silver In Walls....
> 
> I am told by my installer that we will be using up firing Triad Modules on top of the current In Walls - but I am intrigued by the fact that the up firing modules will be very small (as the Triad's are skinny in wall and the up firing modules will be small) - so my observation is that the height channels are simply a 'fill' as for sure you cannot pump high wattage in these small modules as we do in the surrounds and the front LCR (My LCR's are Aerial 20T's matched).




Another vote for in-ceiling speaker with aimable tweeter at all cost.  How about the gold wood panel right next to the fabric with the trapezoid pattern, can't you put in-ceiling there? Another possibility is on top of the side wall, and remap to the middle; not ideal but might be more precise/"better" than up firing onto the coiffured ceiling. Least desirable cosmetically but best sonically of course is replacing 4 (more if you could, but at least 4) of those lights with speakers: 11.4.4 done correctly is still better than 11.4.6 done with compromise, no?

Of course we won't know until actual listening test, but IMHO the possibility is there that up-firing speakers done with the wrong surface could end up *worsening* the sound, such as clarity of your front soundstage.


----------



## blazar

I suggest high dynamic range surrounds all around, go for as many as is affordable. Even a straightforward in wall brand like klipsch would be acceptable. I STRONGLY suggest 16+ channels plus subs since the effect is truly epic with a proper atmos system.

Currently produced mainstream receivers seem to top out at 13.x channels (new marantz 8802) but i highly doubt that will stay that way. If you are building, at least wire and plan for more speakers even if you cant afford them now...

You could order a 32 channel (including subs) processor from trinnov but must of us would balk at 25k plus processor.

Processor resale values simply dont justify the outlay, especially without sufficient content.


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> I now have all of the components in house so hopefully by next weekend I wil have a 7.2.4 Atmos system.
> my new speakers are in the hallway . They are the Tannoy Di6 DC (thanks Roger and Keith).


  I'm quite happy with the Di6 DCs. So apparently is XT32. It applied less correction there than for any of the other speakers in my system.

Have you tried the computer interface for the 7702? Look for the IP address after the wifi is activated. Mine is http://192.168.0.113. Put that into a browser and it lets you control most of the configuration functions. But nothing for Audyssey calibration is supported (just the on/off and modes). But not the ability to look at the EQ results, so one is still relegated to pointing a camera at the TV screen. Rather crude. 



> The Marantz is up and running and sounding really good at 7.2. Using Dolby Surround for the 7.2 system and I like it better than PLIIx. I will say that running Audyssey directly from the 7702 did not give me the same quality I got from running Pro on my Integra 80.2 so I purchased the 7702 Pro license and with my standard amount of diddling, it came out great.


I'm glad to hear that tweaking the XT32 improves the result. I'm not happy with what I'm hearing straight out of the Audyssey bottle, either. What sort of adjustments did you find helpful? I assume target curve tweaking, but how much and where in frequency? I'm primarily unhappy with the midbass area -- things sound too chesty and plump, then the very bottom of the bass range -- I have lost "shudder" and impact compared with the SSP-800.

As you are running your current 7.2 setup, is it mainly 5.1 sources you are using with DSU? I agree DSU works great with 5.1 sources of all kinds. I'll have to rummage through some DVDs to find some stereo movies to throw at it and see what happens.


----------



## Steve Goff

Ash Sharma said:


> Current plan is to have a 24 channel Trinnov Altitude (as they have 16 and 32 channel units also) - 9 surrounds LCR (3) - 2/4 subs - 6 up firing atoms modules = 11.2.6 ATMOS ( 19 channels other not utilized).
> 
> If I go with ceiling speakers (which I doubt) 11.2.10 (23 channels) - Thanks for correcting me on the maximum ceiling channels in ATMOS at 10



If Dennis E designed your theater I'd ask him. In a recent podcast he had some comments about doing Atmos in his theaters.


----------



## Steve Goff

Where are folks buying the Tannoy Di6DCs?


----------



## mtbdudex

Steve Goff said:


> Where are folks buying the Tannoy Di6DCs?



In the over $20k forum......
We common folk hang out here 


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Roger Dressler

Steve Goff said:


> Where are folks buying the Tannoy Di6DCs?


 *Full Compass*.


----------



## NorthSky

Ash Sharma said:


> Current plan is to have a 24 channel Trinnov Altitude (as they have 16 and 32 channel units also) - 9 surrounds LCR (3) - 2/4 subs - 6 up firing atoms modules = 11.2.6 ATMOS ( 19 channels other not utilized).
> 
> If I go with ceiling speakers (which I doubt) 11.2.10 (23 channels) - Thanks for correcting me on the maximum ceiling channels in ATMOS at 10


Methinks that your home theater room is perfect for an Atmos 9.1.6 setup configuration. /// Or @ max.; 9.4.8 Atmos setup. 
...Or an 11.4.9 setup (Auro-3D with VOG). 

- Yeah, with two rows of seats, eight (8) overhead (ceiling) speakers would do just perfectly fine. ...Even with just six (6) all the spectators would still benefit from the full surround immersion, I think. 

- Listening-floor-level speakers; nine (9) for your room's size is perfect, I think again. ...And eleven (11) would also do. 

And then, we're all different when it comes to speakers and subwoofers and how many of them in our own room; like how many cars, women, ...


----------



## NorthSky

thestoneman said:


> Seems you can't future proof enough...some tech will occur that you wish you had, but just wasn't there when you executed your build. That said, while you are looking at Atmos, you might as well look into Auro3D. The speaker placements are definitely different and it's really too early to tell if one may kill the other ultimately.
> 
> *I have to comment on your theater as well. Magnificent. Makes me wonder what the rest of the house looks like!*


I sure thought of that too; and as soon as I saw the first picture. ...And I was thinking about the kitchen and eating area, where some of the most interesting/pleasurable time is spent in one's lifetime. ...An Atmos music setup eating room? ♪ ♫


----------



## Steve Goff

Roger Dressler said:


> *Full Compass*.



Thanks, Full Compass is about the only place I'd found.

By the way, I'm thinking about using the Kef Q100s as overhead speakers. They have less midrange flare than most concentrics and otherwise perform well for the money. They are a bit more difficult to place on the ceiling, but I may have figured out a way to handle that problem.


----------



## RRF743

NorthSky said:


> Methinks that your home theater room is perfect for an Atmos 9.1.6 setup configuration. /// Or @ max.; 9.4.8 Atmos setup.
> ...Or an 11.4.9 setup (Auro-3D with VOG).
> 
> - Yeah, with two rows of seats, eight (8) overhead (ceiling) speakers would do just perfectly fine. ...Even with just six (6) all the spectators would still benefit from the full surround immersion, I think.
> 
> - Listening-floor-level speakers; nine (9) for your room's size is perfect, I think again. ...And eleven (11) would also do.
> 
> And then, we're all different when it comes to speakers and subwoofers and how many of them in our own room; like how many cars, women, ...


I like the way you think concerning the number of speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> Indeed, I share the "Home theater is like a dream come true for me" phrase  Most of my financial and time efforts have been contributed to that hobby the last years since 2009, when we built our own house. And I love movies too, but since several years, I also enjoy watching tv shows like "Breaking Bad", "Person Of Interest", "Homeland", "24", "Fringe", "The Blacklist" or "True Detective", so I have quite a weekly schedule at least for the current episodes. And speaking of home theater feeling - even with tv shows, it's amazing, a well build ht is able to perform!


Sure - I know these series are highly regarded and very well made (I have seen episodes of most of them). It's just that I don't want to devote 20 hours to a single story or program.


----------



## kbarnes701

RAllenChristenson said:


> I just noticed that movies released in 7.1 have been very few this year.
> 
> 2012: 89
> 2013: 115
> 2014: 36
> 
> Do you think we need to be concerned?
> 
> Hopefully Atmos releases will increase to offer choices beyond 5.1


I don't think there's any connection between the two things.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I hear where you are coming from, but I have to say that a lot of modern TV shows have exceeded most movies in terms of writing, acting, production value, etc. And I love the ability to follow the story and characters over a longer span of time. Obviously I can understand not wanting to have to commit to many hours on the same program, but I personally gain a lot more enjoyment from binge watching House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, rewatching The Sopranos, etc. than the plethora of crummy movies out there.


Sure - I can see the appeal to people. They are just not my cup of tea. The very things you like about them actually put me off them. I like a self-contained story. And despite the higher production values, they all seem to me to be 'made for TV', which essentially means for a smaller screen. All two-shots and close-ups etc.



batpig said:


> Obviously, there are plenty of good movies too, and plenty of crappy TV, but the quality (in all respects) of the good TV shows has really jumped (proably a lot of credit due to The Sopranos for breaking the mold and showing what could be possible). As someone who admires movies for all aspects of the craft, the level of craftsmenship in some of the great shows is as good as the best movies.


I entirely agree. It's the episodic nature I don't get along with.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> Aren't current DSP chips limited to 16 channels? The Atmos spec is 24.1.10, but we don't know the limitations of the DSP chips. There is no "Atmos chip" as such, but only DSP chips or CPUs that can run Atmos.


The limitations are imposed by the hardware manufacturers. Dolby provide 24.1.10.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> So given that Atmos can be offered in a format all of the way up 24.1.10 and this is only restricted by what a specific manufacturer wants to offer, any crystal balls hinting on what me might see from the 'regular' AVR manufacturers like Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer for 2015-16?
> 
> 
> I can see that they may add more available channels but it might be tough to plan for additional speakers (should they be deemed necessary/desired) without knowing which they might add. Given that the 'standard Atmos' for 11 a channel (Dolby recommended) setup is 7.1.4, what do you think the follow on will be 7.1.6, 9.1.4? Or possibly 9.1.6...?


IDK TBH. I think that for smallish HTs, anything more than 4 overhead speakers isn't really needed. For big, 2 row HTs maybe 6 would work well. 9.1.4 would be popular I think.


----------



## Ash Sharma

NorthSky said:


> Methinks that your home theater room is perfect for an Atmos 9.1.6 setup configuration. /// Or @ max.; 9.4.8 Atmos setup.
> ...Or an 11.4.9 setup (Auro-3D with VOG).
> 
> - Yeah, with two rows of seats, eight (8) overhead (ceiling) speakers would do just perfectly fine. ...Even with just six (6) all the spectators would still benefit from the full surround immersion, I think.
> 
> - Listening-floor-level speakers; nine (9) for your room's size is perfect, I think again. ...And eleven (11) would also do.
> 
> And then, we're all different when it comes to speakers and subwoofers and how many of them in our own room; like how many cars, women, ...


I believe I will end up with 11.4.6 (or8) - the Ceiling Speakers will be up firing or Ceiling - One way would be to finish the up firing implementation and then review the room. If it works to our satisfaction then it will be a win win of Aesthetics and Sonics.

If it does not work then we will think about ripping up the ceiling and replacing up firing speakers with ceiling speakers.


----------



## jamin

Ash Sharma said:


> I believe I will end up with 11.4.6 (or8) - the Ceiling Speakers will be up firing or Ceiling - One way would be to finish the up firing implementation and then review the room. If it works to our satisfaction then it will be a win win of Aesthetics and Sonics.
> 
> If it does not work then we will think about ripping up the ceiling and replacing up firing speakers with ceiling speakers.


Sounds like a pain free plan!


----------



## NorthSky

RRF743 said:


> I like the way you think concerning the number of speakers.


That's good because most of us do. 

♦ *11.4.8* ... + VOG (11.4.9)


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK TBH. I think that for smallish HTs, anything more than 4 overhead speakers isn't really needed. For big, 2 row HTs maybe 6 would work well. 9.1.4 would be popular I think.



That is what I was thinking too, because my HT recliners are quite wide, 4 will take up an entire row, and as it would be nice to entertain with more then one other couple on occasion I am planning for a HT layout with 2 rows.


----------



## bsoko2

Steve Goff said:


> Where are folks buying the Tannoy Di6DCs?



Steve, I have the Tannoy D5i for Atmos overhead speakers, http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white'
I'm here in Olympia and you can come by and hear them for yourself.


Bill


----------



## Steve Goff

bsoko2 said:


> Steve, I have the Tannoy D5i for Atmos overhead speakers, http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white'
> I'm here in Olympia and you can come by and hear them for yourself.
> 
> 
> Bill


Hey thanks, I may soon take you up in that!


----------



## NorthSky

Ash Sharma said:


> I believe I will end up with 11.4.6 (or8) - the Ceiling Speakers will be up firing or Ceiling - One way would be to finish the up firing implementation and then review the room. If it works to our satisfaction then it will be a win win of Aesthetics and Sonics.
> 
> If it does not work then we will think about ripping up the ceiling and replacing up firing speakers with ceiling speakers.


I'm 100% with you Ash; 11.4.6 (or 11.4.8). ...With ceiling speakers that are almost full range (-2dB @ 36Hz). ...Then cross them @ 80Hz (or 75Hz). 

There are acoustical programs that can tell you with very close accuracy what would work best; and it will work you betcha. ...So don't worry; just work with people who are good @ it, an experienced acoustician. ...Ethan, Nyal, and other professionals. 
The only new thing here is; Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and Dolby Atmos' own recommendations about all the speakers positioning, ...the floor-listening-level ones, and the ceiling ones. ...And from Dolby Atmos pdf papers on all that Atmos jazz. 

You seem to be a guy surrounded by some of the best people in surround sound experience; Atmos' own, and more. 
You will succeed, and succeed in spades. ...High elevation style.


----------



## audioguy

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm glad to hear that tweaking the XT32 improves the result. I'm not happy with what I'm hearing straight out of the Audyssey bottle, either. What sort of adjustments did you find helpful? I assume target curve tweaking, but how much and where in frequency? I'm primarily unhappy with the midbass area -- things sound too chesty and plump, then the very bottom of the bass range -- I have lost "shudder" and impact compared with the SSP-800.


One of the things that Audyssey has done since the get go is not deal with bass below 20HZ very effectively. In some cases, it actually makes it worse.(if you have a bass sweep signal, run it with Audyssey enabled and disabled and see what might be happening). In my case, I'm only down about 7db or so at 7HZ but when I use Dirac (on my server or on the Datasat) it is flatter. Unfortunately, the target curve only allows changes above 20HZ.

I really did not change the target curve in an area that deals with what you are describing. I am very sensitive to what I call mid-range glare (movies only) so I modified the 'mid range compensation" and made it a bit deeper and a bit wider. But it is REAL easy to over do it. Hence the tweaking.

If you have the ability to plot with REW, take a look at the splice between the subs and main. To the extent you think it can be improved, then start adjusting the sub distance(s). In the previous versions of Audyssey for folks that had multiple subs, it was mandatory to do so to get it to sound correctly. A few with the Denon 5200 (Keith Barnes and a friend of mine) have not had that issue - but I still do. It makes a huge difference. That coupled with diddling with the crossover between the subs and mains (and center) can do wonders for the sound. Using Pro, I let Audyssey correct as low as it will allow for a specific speaker but almost always, raise the crossover afterward. I assume you can do the same thing with the built in Audyssey. REW (or in my case, OmniMic) is invaluable in this process. This process is somewhat iterative (crossover vs distance)and time consuming but when all is complete, it makes a huge difference. I believe there is a thread (noted at the bottom of Keith's signature) that gives the details on the sub distance adjustment trick (which was actually put forth by Mark Seaton some time ago.)



> As you are running your current 7.2 setup, is it mainly 5.1 sources you are using with DSU? I agree DSU works great with 5.1 sources of all kinds. I'll have to rummage through some DVDs to find some stereo movies to throw at it and see what happens.


At the moment, it is only 5.1 sources I am running through DSU. Once I get finished with this installation (at least I got the behemoth amp in the rack today), I plan to listen to music this way. Actually, it was the organ demo at CEDIA that prompted me to go down this path more so than any of the movie demoes I watched. While I think that demo was an Auro demo, it was, in a word, spectacular. And easily the very most "you are there" audio experience I have ever heard. If I can get 75% of that with Atmos, I will be a happy camper.

Hang in there with Audyssey. It may not be perfect out of the box but it can be diddled with and produce very good results. It still won't be "perfect" but I could not live without it.


----------



## Steve Goff

bsoko2 said:


> Steve, I have the Tannoy D5i for Atmos overhead speakers, http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white'
> I'm here in Olympia and you can come by and hear them for yourself.
> 
> 
> Bill


By the way, Bill, where do you set the crossover for the Di5 DC?


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> Hang in there with Audyssey. It may not be perfect out of the box but it can be diddled with and produce very good results. It still won't be "perfect" but I could not live without it.


Thanks for all the great insights. Now that the system is stable (err... the operator is stable ), I will commence the REW tests, and evaluate the splices, etc. I have also worked out a simple (free) way to "edit" the target curve by inserting some inverse EQ in series with the mic. Takes a simple 5V biasing thing for the mic. But first I'll see what other tweaks can do.


----------



## zapper

Does ceiling height Make a huge difference with Atmos??? A knowledgeable salesperson told me that a 6'6"ceiling height would not be able to reflect a good Atmos since the distance to the ceiling from the speakers are minimal.


----------



## Ash Sharma

NorthSky said:


> I'm 100% with you Ash; 11.4.6 (or 11.4.8). ...With ceiling speakers that are almost full range (-2dB @ 36Hz). ...Then cross them @ 80Hz (or 75Hz).
> 
> There are acoustical programs that can tell you with very close accuracy what would work best; and it will work you betcha. ...So don't worry; just work with people who are good @ it, an experienced acoustician. ...Ethan, Nyal, and other professionals.
> The only new thing here is; Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and Dolby Atmos' own recommendations about all the speakers positioning, ...the floor-listening-level ones, and the ceiling ones. ...And from Dolby Atmos pdf papers on all that Atmos jazz.
> 
> You seem to be a guy surrounded by some of the best people in surround sound experience; Atmos' own, and more.
> You will succeed, and succeed in spades. ...High elevation style.


I meant 11.4.6 Upfiring - I do have the best people in business helping me Dennis Erskine (the room is but by Dennis Turnkey) , Jim Harbor for calibration and I have requested Curt from trinnov to be personally present for calibration.

Dennis is consulting with Dolby and the speaker manufacturer directly who is manufacturing the up firing speakers as per Dolby Spec.

Will start a build thread once the project date is final.


----------



## sdrucker

Ash Sharma said:


> I believe I will end up with 11.4.6 (or8) - the Ceiling Speakers will be up firing or Ceiling - One way would be to finish the up firing implementation and then review the room. If it works to our satisfaction then it will be a win win of Aesthetics and Sonics.
> 
> If it does not work then we will think about ripping up the ceiling and replacing up firing speakers with ceiling speakers.
> ...
> Dennis is consulting with Dolby and the speaker manufacturer directly who is manufacturing the up firing speakers as per Dolby Spec.
> 
> Will start a build thread once the project date is final


Hi Ash,
I'll be watching your experience using up-firing speakers with great curiosity, for Atmos and however (or if) it translates to Auro. I'm also getting the Trinnov Altitude (probably 24 channels as well) in the next couple of months. Right now, we live in a condo building with a big multipurpose living room, and ceiling speakers aren't going to fly given a) there's heat conduit and electrical wiring between floors we'd have to watch out for and b) we're putting our place on the market in the next couple of months, with an eye toward hopefully having a room I can use to sculpt a dedicated HT space (plus having one more bedroom for a very curious toddler) , so I'm not about to rip up ceilings while we try to make the place presentable .

I spoke with Curt a while back, and we were planning on going for the bounce (up-firing) route with maybe a 7.2.4 setup before I found out it's a good time to sell in our local area due to supply/demand. However, I think that unless our sale hits a snag, I'll probably wait for doing a full-blown Atmos configuration until we move to the new place this spring/summer. If we get the right room and space, I'll probably aim for a 11.2.6 setup, with a few channels left over to help with any placement issues where Remapping is helpful (e.g. a top and bottom center setup to anchor a single center channel image). 

Waiting's going to drive me nuts, but at least I can follow the learnings from you and other bleeding edge Altitude adopters when we do our own space late this spring or summer. And aside from Atmos, the Altitude's hardly a slouch in other areas, so I'll keep busy regardless while guys like you rave about the Gravity Atmos experience in your rooms .

BTW gorgeous setup - I can only envy you for having the ability to spend so much time and effort into creating a truly memorable space.


----------



## javanpohl

Modern Times said:


> It sounds like most of you guys that are weak at the knees over DSU previously only had 5.1 or 7.1 systems. Unless more people chime in I'm beginning to think that DSU is at best only a slight upgrade from 11.1 Neo X and DSX. Maybe not worth a few thousand dollars for me to upgrade my Denon 4520ci and buy ceiling speakers. If there was Atmos content then maybe, but that sure doesn't look promising in the near future. I have to stop reading internet forums, the over enthusiastic (possible shills) get me all wound to spend more money lol.


I was running 9.2 with heights before with my Denon x4000. No, DSU is a significant upgrade. I'm now running a Yamaha 2040 with 7.2.2 and it's waaay above and beyond what the front heights did. Honestly, I typically had a hard time telling if they were even doing anything. I imagine wides would be a different story (they'd be more obvious), but, then again, overheads aren't comparable to wides at all.

With overheads (and I might be partial to Yamaha's 3d DSP over DSU, still deciding, but the overall effect of overheads is the same), it's like you're in a surround bubble--everything just blends together perfectly. Sound seems to come from EVERYWHERE at times. Neo X may have been able to expand the soundstage but it never pulled off the effect of total immersion like overheads do.


----------



## javanpohl

zapper said:


> Does ceiling height Make a huge difference with Atmos??? A knowledgeable salesperson told me that a 6'6"ceiling height would not be able to reflect a good Atmos since the distance to the ceiling from the speakers are minimal.


It all depends on how far away your other speakers are.


----------



## NorthSky

> One of the things that Audyssey has done since the get go is not deal with bass below 20HZ very effectively. In some cases, it actually makes it worse.(if you have a bass sweep signal, run it with Audyssey enabled and disabled and see what might be happening). In my case, I'm only down about 7db or so at 7HZ but when I use Dirac (on my server or on the Datasat) it is flatter. Unfortunately, the target curve only allows changes above 20HZ.
> 
> I really did not change the target curve in an area that deals with what you are describing. I am very sensitive to what I call mid-range glare (movies only) so I modified the 'mid range compensation" and made it a bit deeper and a bit wider. But it is REAL easy to over do it. Hence the tweaking.
> 
> If you have the ability to plot with REW, take a look at the splice between the subs and main. To the extent you think it can be improved, then start adjusting the sub distance(s). In the previous versions of Audyssey for folks that had multiple subs, it was mandatory to do so to get it to sound correctly. A few with the Denon 5200 (Keith Barnes and a friend of mine) have not had that issue - but I still do. It makes a huge difference. That coupled with diddling with the crossover between the subs and mains (and center) can do wonders for the sound. Using Pro, I let Audyssey correct as low as it will allow for a specific speaker but almost always, raise the crossover afterward. I assume you can do the same thing with the built in Audyssey. REW (or in my case, OmniMic) is invaluable in this process. This process is somewhat iterative (crossover vs distance)and time consuming but when all is complete, it makes a huge difference. I believe there is a thread (noted at the bottom of Keith's signature) that gives the details on the sub distance adjustment trick (which was actually put forth by Mark Seaton some time ago.)
> 
> At the moment, it is only 5.1 sources I am running through DSU. Once I get finished with this installation (at least I got the behemoth amp in the rack today), I plan to listen to music this way. Actually, it was the organ demo at CEDIA that prompted me to go down this path more so than any of the movie demoes I watched. While I think that demo was an Auro demo, it was, in a word, spectacular. And easily the very most "you are there" audio experience I have ever heard. If I can get 75% of that with Atmos, I will be a happy camper.
> 
> Hang in there with Audyssey. It may not be perfect out of the box but it can be diddled with and produce very good results. It still won't be "perfect" but I could not live without it.


Great informative post.  ...That, working in tandem with Dolby Atmos, is for sure a great recipe for elevated success (3D spatial sound envelopment).


----------



## Daniel Chaves

audioguy said:


> One of the things that Audyssey has done since the get go is not deal with bass below 20HZ very effectively. In some cases, it actually makes it worse.(if you have a bass sweep signal, run it with Audyssey enabled and disabled and see what might be happening). In my case, I'm only down about 7db or so at 7HZ but when I use Dirac (on my server or on the Datasat) it is flatter. Unfortunately, the target curve only allows changes above 20HZ.
> 
> I really did not change the target curve in an area that deals with what you are describing. I am very sensitive to what I call mid-range glare (movies only) so I modified the 'mid range compensation" and made it a bit deeper and a bit wider. But it is REAL easy to over do it. Hence the tweaking.
> 
> If you have the ability to plot with REW, take a look at the splice between the subs and main. To the extent you think it can be improved, then start adjusting the sub distance(s). In the previous versions of Audyssey for folks that had multiple subs, it was mandatory to do so to get it to sound correctly. A few with the Denon 5200 (Keith Barnes and a friend of mine) have not had that issue - but I still do. It makes a huge difference. That coupled with diddling with the crossover between the subs and mains (and center) can do wonders for the sound. Using Pro, I let Audyssey correct as low as it will allow for a specific speaker but almost always, raise the crossover afterward. I assume you can do the same thing with the built in Audyssey. REW (or in my case, OmniMic) is invaluable in this process. This process is somewhat iterative (crossover vs distance)and time consuming but when all is complete, it makes a huge difference. I believe there is a thread (noted at the bottom of Keith's signature) that gives the details on the sub distance adjustment trick (which was actually put forth by Mark Seaton some time ago.)
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, it is only 5.1 sources I am running through DSU. Once I get finished with this installation (at least I got the behemoth amp in the rack today), I plan to listen to music this way. Actually, it was the organ demo at CEDIA that prompted me to go down this path more so than any of the movie demoes I watched. While I think that demo was an Auro demo, it was, in a word, spectacular. And easily the very most "you are there" audio experience I have ever heard. If I can get 75% of that with Atmos, I will be a happy camper.
> 
> Hang in there with Audyssey. It may not be perfect out of the box but it can be diddled with and produce very good results. It still won't be "perfect" but I could not live without it.


I think I understand what you are saying, I wonder if anyone would be interested in doing an instructional video of such adjustments for clarity???


----------



## wse

Ash Sharma said:


> Randy,
> Thanks for the compliments... atmosphere is the word then... but I will take Dan's advice too as better have more than less just in case thats what the future holds..
> Here are some more pictures:


OH my your room is magnificent


----------



## WayneJoy

The latest Home Theater Geeks. Very relevant to this thread.


----------



## epiCenter

sdurani said:


> It was in Atmos theatrically and the "nano-firefly" scene was the only time you could tell this was an Atmos mix. The rest of the soundtrack was so busy (and loud) that I and several other AVS members walked out shaking our heads wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos. But the firefly scene you describe really took advantage of the technology.


That is interesting. I did not see it in the theater. However, based on your report, I think the mix through the DSU must be much better than the theater. I was hearing a lot of localized sounds, particularly during the gun battles where shots were being fired from rear to front. Again, not a great movie, but an interesting view from a home Dolby Atmos DSU perspective.


----------



## epiCenter

chi_guy50 said:


> Who ever said it was "rational" to stick 14 speakers in a living room? Rationality is beside the point; we do it because we can and it gives us pleasure.
> 
> Face it, you're crumbling and you just want someone here to talk you out of it. Not gonna happen.


I agree with Chi_Guy50. You aren't going to get me to talk you out of it either. Granted, I updated amps and speakers when I transitioned to 7.2.4 Atmos, so the over-all emotional quotient of my theater increased with power as well as my new "bubble." That said, I myself a pretty emotionally stable person, and I was reduced to "dude tears" the first time I blasted the opening scene to 3D Star Trek: Into Darkness, with my 7.2.4 Atmos in DSU. Truth be told, I was alone in my room at the time. But the only way to really feel it is at a Demo you can control, or just go own it.


----------



## epiCenter

asoofi1 said:


> Beautiful HT Ash...looking forward to hearing from someone who's getting a Trinnov. Ceiling speakers would be the most optimal effect and, of course, what Dolby recommends. I can certainly appreciate not wanting to ruin such a nice ceiling with hanging speakers on top, so you could try the reflecting speakers first and if you feel it doesn't sound good enough to you, then you can think about some ceiling options...even in-ceiling speakers....that way you finish the covers with similar ceiling finish/patterns/paint.
> 
> For me, the HT sound & visual experience is priority, so the aesthetics come after that, so I hang very good surrounds and turn off the lights. It's a matter of personal choice and what is a priority for you at the end. I mean, you have the rest of the house where aesthetics can come first
> 
> Edit: I noticed you have a lot recessed lights...I don't feel replacing 6 with speakers won't change the look that much at all...even more reason to go for it IMO.


We put man on the Moon in 1969, you can find a way to install speakers in your ceiling without throwing off your vibe. I have a coffered ceiling. Not as nice as yours, but was still special to me. I solved the esthetic problem by mounting JBL 8340As centered in the coffers.


----------



## epiCenter

kokishin said:


> Since you plan to have your Atmos v1.0 system online by Thanksgiving, I added you to the spreadsheet.
> 
> See my sig for the link to the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet.
> 
> Enjoy!


Kokishin, please add me to your list:
7.2.4 system, Onkyo PR-SC 5530, JBL Cinema Pro 8340As for Atmos, TF/TR On-ceiling configuration. Thanks


----------



## batpig

epiCenter said:


> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who ever said it was "rational" to stick 14 speakers in a living room? Rationality is beside the point; we do it because we can and it gives us pleasure.
> 
> Face it, you're crumbling and you just want someone here to talk you out of it. Not gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Chi_Guy50. You aren't going to get me to talk you out of it either. Granted, I updated amps and speakers when I transitioned to 7.2.4 Atmos, so the over-all emotional quotient of my theater increased with power as well as my new "bubble." That said, I myself a pretty emotionally stable person, and I was reduced to "dude tears" the first time I blasted the opening scene to 3D Star Trek: Into Darkness, with my 7.2.4 Atmos in DSU. Truth be told, I was alone in my room at the time. But the only way to really feel it is at a Demo you can control, or just go own it.
Click to expand...

How does Dolby afford to have so many shills on payroll?? 

The "dude tears" comment actually made me LOL.


----------



## batpig

WayneJoy said:


> The latest Home Theater Geeks. Very relevant to this thread.


Yes, in the process of watching it. This is mandatory viewing for all of us Atmos-philes.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-vs-auro

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-x5200w-av-receiver ---> Denon AVR-X5200W Review

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-here-sound-visions-first-foray-object-based-sound

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/greg-p-russell-elevates-transformers

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/space-no-one-can-hear-you-scream-atmos


----------



## asoofi1

epiCenter said:


> We put man on the Moon in 1969, you can find a way to install speakers in your ceiling without throwing off your vibe. I have a coffered ceiling. Not as nice as yours, but was still special to me. I solved the esthetic problem by mounting JBL 8340As centered in the coffers.


Agreed. The overall aesthetics of a room and the entertainment will overshadow any hanging ceiling speakers imo, granted one has good room height.

Nice install finish btw. Well done. What is the distance between the two rows of speakers?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I have also worked out a simple (free) way to "edit" the target curve by inserting some inverse EQ in series with the mic. Takes a simple 5V biasing thing for the mic.


Clever idea. If you can't tweak the output, tweak the input. Please keep us posted.


----------



## bsoko2

Steve Goff said:


> By the way, Bill, where do you set the crossover for the Di5 DC?



FH is at 100 Hz and RH at 80 Hz. Just where Audyssey set them.


----------



## fookoo_2010

batpig said:


> Yes, in the process of watching it. This is mandatory viewing for all of us Atmos-philes.


Somewhat relevant, but confusing because it makes the subject even more blurry or smeared. All Dolby Atmos mixes in the cinema theaters are not equivalent, such that, some don't even benefit much from a Dolby Atmos mix. So if the absolute standard according to Grimani is what is heard in the theater and that this is to be somehow duplicated in a home theater without a remixing for Dolby Atmos for home theater (i.e., a much more aggressive mix), then the result may not be very satisfying and not much better than the usual 7.1 loss-less mix.


----------



## nucky

Has anybody tried 9.1.2, I was listening to a podcast and they said that is the best speaker setting for Atmos. I would like to know your opinions. 
Thanks


----------



## Skylinestar

epiCenter said:


> Kokishin, please add me to your list:
> 7.2.4 system, Onkyo PR-SC 5530, JBL Cinema Pro 8340As for Atmos, TF/TR On-ceiling configuration. Thanks


How do you like your 8340A as ceiling speakers? Have you ever consider SCS8 (wider angle)?
I have 8340A as my side and rear surrounds in typical 7.1 setup. They are mounted up quite high due to the built in 20° slant.
I'm thinking of adding the cheapest 8320 for ceiling if I go the Atmos route.


----------



## markus767

WayneJoy said:


> The latest Home Theater Geeks. Very relevant to this thread.
> 
> 
> [...]


Interesting interview which explains some basics.

What I don't understand is that Grimani seems to like to have chairs put _around_ the best spot instead of putting a chair _in_ the best location. Seems to be a waste of money. After all a considerable amount of money went into optimizing this single spot.


----------



## kokishin

epiCenter said:


> Kokishin, please add me to your list:
> 7.2.4 system, Onkyo PR-SC 5530, JBL Cinema Pro 8340As for Atmos, TF/TR On-ceiling configuration. Thanks


Impressive HT! Added you to the spreadsheet. 48 members on the spreadsheet to date.

Thanks


----------



## epiCenter

asoofi1 said:


> Agreed. The overall aesthetics of a room and the entertainment will overshadow any hanging ceiling speakers imo, granted one has good room height.
> 
> Nice install finish btw. Well done. What is the distance between the two rows of speakers?


Thanks. I am out of town for a few days so I'll have to get back with you on the exact measurements. I have three rows of seating with the MLP being the center/second row. I designed the room so that the "head position" in the MLP would be at the exact center between sets of coffers. Luckily, because I did this, the MLP is at the exact center between my TF/TR Atmos set up. I'll bust out my tape measure and protractor when I get home, but my guess is that there is around 10' between speakers at around a 45/50 degree angle from the MLP. Additionally, JBL 8340As have a built in 20 degree "toe in" toward the MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

nucky said:


> Has anybody tried 9.1.2, I was listening to a podcast and they said that is the best speaker setting for Atmos. I would like to know your opinions.
> Thanks


Did I just reply to this in another thread or did my reply here go missing?


----------



## batpig

He double posted in both threads. So you're not going crazy. (Well you might be but this isn't an example of it)

More accurate to say that HE (Grimani) said it was his preference for how to use the 11 speaker layout. He's a big fan of those wide channels.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> He double posted in both threads. So you're not going crazy. (Well you might be but this isn't an example of it)


 Sometimes I post and the post goes onto a new page which I then can't access for some reason. After a while (more posts?) the new page appears. It's been doing this since the swap back to VerticalScope as the AVS platform. 



batpig said:


> More accurate to say that HE (Grimani) said it was his preference for how to use the 11 speaker layout. He's a big fan of those wide channels.


Yeah, I gave the usual reply about the benefits of using 4 overheads for Atmos. As Wides can be used with Atmos but not with DSU, then I guess that fans of Wides would want to retain DSX or Neo:X for this to matter, and/or the back surrounds would have to be foresaken for Wides. Best thing to do would be to wire for all 13 speakers and then use whichever upmixer works best for the individual I'd think (assuming AVR choice permits it). If I rear surrounds and Wides, that's what I'd do anyway.


----------



## jdsmoothie

*Home Theater Geeks 233: Acoustics of Immersive Audio Podcast*

Summary of what the acoustics specialist guest Anthony Grimani discusses:

1. The center speaker should be the best quality speaker in your setup as roughly 80% of all of the film's audio will be directed to it.
2. Consider adding Front Wides in a 9.1.2 setup to fill in the front sound stage gap as doing so can have a much bigger overall impact than an additional 2 height speakers (eg. relatively little audio was sent to the height speakers in T4).
3. Consider placing the height speakers closer together (ie. 4'-5' separation and closer to center line just as you would see in an Atmos theater) rather than in line with the FL/FR speakers as seen in the Dolby images in the Atmos AVR Owner manuals.
4. With Height speakers more center focused than FL/FR focuses, okay to place FW and Surrounds at standing height rather than seated height.
5. Surround back speakers should be behind listening position with a maximum of 4-5' separation (ie. not in line with FL/FR speakers).
6. Use height speakers with aim able tweeters.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Sometimes I post and the post goes onto a new page which I then can't access for some reason. After a while (more posts?) the new page appears. It's been doing this since the swap back to VerticalScope as the AVS platform.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I gave the usual reply about the benefits of using 4 overheads for Atmos. As Wides can be used with Atmos but not with DSU, then I guess that fans of Wides would want to retain DSX or Neo:X for this to matter, and/or the back surrounds would have to be foresaken for Wides. *Best thing to do would be to wire for all 13 speakers and then use whichever upmixer works best for the individual I'd think (assuming AVR choice permits it).* If I rear surrounds and Wides, that's what I'd do anyway.


Gee, I wish I'd thought of that!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nucky said:


> Has anybody tried 9.1.2, I was listening to a podcast and they said that is the best speaker setting for Atmos. I would like to know your opinions.
> Thanks


It should be 9.1.x (x = 4 or 6). You get the extra front sides (basic side wall pan-through) and still have the recommended four or more overheads for better audio steering. It's probably coming to mainstream devices at some point in the near future. More than likely for the top tier models. Otherwise, you have to go to the big boys and their hugely expensive processors.

Both Procella/Trinnov and Steinway/Lyngdorf had 9.1.4 configurations at CEDIA and they did provide more 3D envelopment than other lower configurations such as 7.1.4. The Steinway demo was better at showing the attendees the benefit of a pan-through array (albeit without a lot of speakers like at the cinema) because the two pairs of side surrounds were spread out a little more due to the luxury of a larger expo hall.


----------



## epiCenter

Skylinestar said:


> How do you like your 8340A as ceiling speakers? Have you ever consider SCS8 (wider angle)?
> I have 8340A as my side and rear surrounds in typical 7.1 setup. They are mounted up quite high due to the built in 20° slant.
> I'm thinking of adding the cheapest 8320 for ceiling if I go the Atmos route.


I love the 8340As as overhead Atmos speakers. But I must admit that I did not test any other models before I committed. They are not distracting and can handle the power when listening to movies at explosive reference level. They also essentially timbre matched with my JBL Cinema Pro Tri-amped LCR screen array. 

However, The weird thing with Atmos is, you really don't know what speakers your sound is coming from (object based sound not channel based). All I know is that many sounds localize in 3D space between speakers and it sounds amazing. 

Mounting the 8340As on the ceiling was not an easy undertaking though. I took the JBL 2516 mounts to a metal worker to alter them for a ceiling application. 

The JBL SCS8s would have given me about the same power, but with more flexibility in angles. However, my theater has a more traditional/contemporary vibe and the SCS8s look more "industrial." With the built-in 20 degree angle of the 8340As, all four speakers "toe-in" toward my MLP perfectly.


----------



## cannga

jdsmoothie said:


> Summary of what the acoustics specialist guest Anthony Grimani discusses:
> 
> 1. The *center speaker should be the best quality speaker in your setup as roughly 80% *of all of the film's audio will be directed to it.
> 2. Consider adding Front Wides in a 9.1.2 setup to fill in the front sound stage gap as doing so can have a much bigger overall impact than an additional 2 height speakers (eg. relatively little audio was sent to the height speakers in T4).
> 3. Consider placing the *height speakers closer together (ie. 4'-5' separation and closer to center line* just as you would see in an Atmos theater) rather than in line with the FL/FR speakers as seen in the Dolby images in the Atmos AVR Owner manuals.
> 4. With Height speakers more center focused than FL/FR focuses, okay to place FW and Surrounds at standing height rather than seated height.
> 5. Surround back speakers should be behind listening position with a maximum of 4-5' separation (ie. not in line with FL/FR speakers).
> 6. Use height speakers with aim able tweeters.


Very good summary. BTW, that bit of information about 80% of sound coming from center speaker originates from Brian Vessa, chair of SMPTE committe on "State of Cinema Sound." I agree that this is mandatory viewing for all of us; he's an eloquent and smart speaker, as befitting a seasoned veteran and ex-employee of Dolby and Lucasfilm THX.

I find the discussion starting around* 29:00 and 47:00 particularly important, *for those of us who want to skip to the meaty part and just watch for a few minutes. But really the WHOLE segment is probably the most informative and interesting discussion I've seen.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Gee, I wish I'd thought of that!


 I bet it sounds pretty good...


----------



## cannga

In view of the Grimani interview above regarding ceiling speakers being closer together than Dolby's recommendation of lining it up with main speakers, thought you might be interested in this previous discussion of Deluxe Toronto Atmos mixing room. Note that the calculation comes to the same distance as Grimani, about 5 feet.

Roger was kind enough to make a 3D model based on picture of Deluxe Toronto, and from that gave estimates of elevation angles of the surround and ceiling speakers.

Compared to Dolby's recommendation for home theater, 2 things should be obvious:
1. The side surround is a touch higher at around 6 feet (vs. home Atmos recommendation of around 4-5 feet; some of us would lower the Atmos side surround towards ground, some don't).
2. The ceiling speakers are closer together and appear more on top angularly , sitting inside of main LR (vs. home Atmos recommendation of lining up ceiling speakers in same row/width as main LR). Personally I would probably prefer this inside position as there would be more speakers populating the "middle" of the room instead of out at the outside border; but YMMV, pers. pref.

So there you have it, another data point. This is not to say that the film mixer's perspective is the "right" one, but it's there if you so choose. As mentioned, despite of my curiosity for the ideal positions, I would be happy to be close enough to either perspective. Curiously, it seems to me smart Atmos/DTS renderer, if ever released, will make these discussions less relevant: smart renderer with object audio acts like an automatic remapper, all the times, no?


----------



## randyk47

nucky said:


> Has anybody tried 9.1.2, I was listening to a podcast and they said that is the best speaker setting for Atmos. I would like to know your opinions.
> Thanks


Because of the limitations of my media room front wides are not practical but his notion of filling in that sound void makes sense. I can't implement that arrangement so testing it would be of little value so I'll stick with my 7.1.4. On the whole I came away with a better feeling about my less than perfect small and live media room. I might experiment with moving my back surrounds closer together but that's easy.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

randyk47 said:


> Because of the limitations of my media room front wides are not practical but his notion of filling in that sound void makes sense. I can't implement that arrangement so testing it would be of little value so I'll stick with my 7.1.4. On the whole I came away with a better feeling about my less than perfect small and live media room. I might experiment with moving my back surrounds closer together but that's easy.


I'd think the whole 7.1.4 thing vs 9.1.2 is a matter of taste. The panning from rear, sides, to front would be more defined with front wides, whereas the overhead panning will be more defined with the 4 heights (is my guess as to the advantage of one vs. the other?). I do think a lot of this will depend on how much Atmos content makes use of the rear heights... surely more will? I guess we'll see when Gravity comes out. 

I did finally get my rear speakers fixed so I was able to check out the Atmos demo disc with 7.1.4... I definitely noticed a huge difference compared to 5.1.4 (which I spent a lot of time listening to with 5.1.4)... anyone on the fence should consider 7.1.4 if possible! 
I can't wait to hear the real modules in a few weeks.


----------



## kokishin

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'd think the whole 7.1.4 thing vs 9.1.2 is a matter of taste. The panning from rear, sides, to front would be more defined with front wides, whereas the overhead panning will be more defined with the 4 heights (is my guess as to the advantage of one vs. the other?). I do think a lot of this will depend on how much Atmos content makes use of the rear heights... surely more will? I guess we'll see when Gravity comes out.
> 
> I did finally get my rear speakers fixed so I was able to check out the Atmos demo disc with 7.1.4... I definitely noticed a huge difference compared to 5.1.4 (which I spent a lot of time listening to with 5.1.4)... anyone on the fence should consider 7.1.4 if possible!
> I can't wait to hear the real modules in a few weeks.


I'd like to add you to the Members' Atmos Config Spreadsheet. Just need to know:
Speaker Config (7.1.4)?
AVR (Denon X5200W)?
Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?
How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
Other info (such as make/model external amp if using one)?

Thanks


----------



## Irwinroad

> 6. Use height speakers with aim able tweeters.


Starting at 46:19 Grimani says "tilt the mechanisms inside"
then at 46:47 he says "pivot the speaker towards you"

Would a "fully pivoting woofer assembly" not be better than 
an aimable tweeter since you would be focusing bass and
midrange towards the listening position?


----------



## kbarnes701

I have noticed what might be a bug in my Denon 5200 when switching between DSU and a straight decode. If I switch to regular DTS-HD MA 7.1 (as I did today when watching _X-Men: Days of Future Past_, just for evaluation purposes) I noticed that when using the Info OSD, the FHL and FHR are still illuminated, with the TML and TMR being greyed. They should, of course, all be off when playing the regular 7.1 track. I then tried a 5.1 DTS-HD MA and when switching to regular 5.1, both the FHL and FHR (and the TML and TMR) are off. I haven't had chance to try this yet with a 7.1 TrueHD track.

I’d be grateful if anyone else with the 5200 could check this and report if they see the same thing. It only happens on DTS-HD MA 7.1 tracks (TrueHD not yet being evaluated). 5.1 tracks work as expected. In all cases when playing the track via DSU it performs as expected with all overhead speakers working normally.


----------



## batpig

Keith - is any sound coming out of the heights?

This might not be a bug but a "feature" of the DTS-HD decoder. For example when you play a 5.1 DTS-HD track on a 7.1 setup the decoder automatically maps the Surr signal to the SB speakers. Much to the confusion of many users. So I'm wondering if the decoder is actually mapping SB signal to the FH to use more available speakers?


----------



## epiCenter

kokishin said:


> I'd like to add you to the Members' Atmos Config Spreadsheet. Just need to know:
> Speaker Config (7.1.4)?
> AVR (Denon X5200W)?
> Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?
> How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
> Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
> Other info (such as make/model external amp if using one)?
> 
> Thanks


Kokishin, I know this question was not directed toward me, but since I have a pre-amp (separates), you may want my external amp info for your spreadsheet: I have 2 x Onkyo PA-MC 5501 9ch amps and 2 x Europower 4000 2ch amps. 17 channels of amplification since I tri-amp my LCR (4 channels of headroom between the 2 Onkyos and 1 channel of headroom on 1 of my Euros). Ready for 9.2.6 when it comes out! Well, when it comes out for those of us who don't have 20K to spend on a receiver/pre-pro!


----------



## cannga

Irwinroad said:


> Starting at 46:19 Grimani says "tilt the mechanisms inside"
> then at 46:47 he says "pivot the speaker towards you"
> 
> Would a "fully pivoting woofer assembly" not be better than
> an aimable tweeter since you would be focusing bass and
> midrange towards the listening position?


Yes, I believe he *is* referring to speaker where BOTH tweeter and mid/woofer drivers are moveable, such as this http://www.speakercraft.com/product...e=flypage_sc.tpl&product_id=37&category_id=40


Pivoting and Rotating 8" Aluminum Cone Woofer
Pivoting 1" Aluminum Dome Tweeter
 .

And yes it's possibly/probably more desirable than just the tweeter pivoting such as the B&W CCM 683 that I have http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Custom_Installation/CI_Series/CCM683.html, because of the ability to direct both treble AND midrange sound (bass not as important as it's more omnidirectional and which you want to bass manage to your subwoof anyway) where you would like.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith - is any sound coming out of the heights?
> 
> This might not be a bug but a "feature" of the DTS-HD decoder. For example when you play a 5.1 DTS-HD track on a 7.1 setup the decoder automatically maps the Surr signal to the SB speakers. Much to the confusion of many users. So I'm wondering if the decoder is actually mapping SB signal to the FH to use more available speakers?


Excellent interpretation, batpig. You know, I didn't explicitly put my ear to the FH speakers to see if they were actually making noise. I think they were as I am fairly sure I could hear them playing. But later I will double-check that and report back.

It's a bit of a nuisance if they are indeed making noise as I suspect because what I was trying to do was evaluate the difference with DSU engaged and not engaged. I had set up the buttons for Movie Mode to use DSU and Music Mode to do the straight decode so I could switch quickly and easily between modes (a tip of yours on batpigworld I believe, so thanks for that) but if the front overheads are going to play all the time it kinda makes it impossible. I will try with a 7.1 TrueHD track and see if that is working as expected. Later...


----------



## kokishin

epiCenter said:


> Kokishin, I know this question was not directed toward me, but since I have a pre-amp (separates), you may want my external amp info for your spreadsheet: I have 2 x Onkyo PA-MC 5501 9ch amps and 2 x Europower 4000 2ch amps. 17 channels of amplification since I tri-amp my LCR (4 channels of headroom between the 2 Onkyos and 1 channel of headroom on 1 of my Euros). Ready for 9.2.6 when it comes out! Well, when it comes out for those of us who don't have 20K to spend on a receiver/pre-pro!


20 amp breakers? ;-)

Done.

Thanks


----------



## Steve Goff

bsoko2 said:


> FH is at 100 Hz and RH at 80 Hz. Just where Audyssey set them.



Interesting. Thanks!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I have noticed what might be a bug in my Denon 5200 when switching between DSU and a straight decode. If I switch to regular DTS-HD MA 7.1 (as I did today when watching _X-Men: Days of Future Past_, just for evaluation purposes) I noticed that when using the Info OSD, the FHL and FHR are still illuminated, with the TML and TMR being greyed. They should, of course, all be off when playing the regular 7.1 track. I then tried a 5.1 DTS-HD MA and when switching to regular 5.1, both the FHL and FHR (and the TML and TMR) are off. I haven't had chance to try this yet with a 7.1 TrueHD track.
> 
> I’d be grateful if anyone else with the 5200 could check this and report if they see the same thing. It only happens on DTS-HD MA 7.1 tracks (TrueHD not yet being evaluated). 5.1 tracks work as expected. In all cases when playing the track via DSU it performs as expected with all overhead speakers working normally.


I checked it out using my Spears & Munsil HD Benchmark BRD and was not able to replicate the bug you have noted.

Playing both DTS-HD MA 7.1 and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 demo material, the proper channels light up when switching from native to native + DSU and back to native.

Perhaps your AVR just suffered a momentary glitch; or could there be *gremlins in the Hobbit HT*? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

EDIT: I see that batpig has since come up with a slightly more logical explanation than mine.


----------



## epiCenter

kokishin said:


> 20 amp breakers? ;-)
> 
> Done.
> 
> Thanks


Actually yes, I spent over two years designing that room before my wife and I went to town on it. I ran 2 x 20amp circuits into the server/tower room. Both circuits are on the same phase to reduce noise. Learned to do it from the fine people on these forums. Thanks again!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith - is any sound coming out of the heights?
> 
> This might not be a bug but a "feature" of the DTS-HD decoder. For example when you play a 5.1 DTS-HD track on a 7.1 setup the decoder automatically maps the Surr signal to the SB speakers. Much to the confusion of many users. So I'm wondering if the decoder is actually mapping SB signal to the FH to use more available speakers?


OK - I just tested. With DTS-HD MA, yes, there is sound coming from the front pair of overheads, as per the Denon Info display. With TrueHD 7.1 (_Star Trek: Into Darkness)_ the 7.1 track behaves as expected: the straight decode gives me just the 5 regular channels (no SBs here remember) and the OSD gives the correct, matching info.

So it seems you could well be correct: DTS-HD MA 7.1 when playing the straight decode, and in the absence of SB speakers, directs content to the FH speakers even when you don't want it to. And, of course, in the absence of any coherent upmixing, WTF is it sending to those overhead speakers - the SB content?? Good luck with that sounding OK. It's no issue here because DSU is my sound format of choice for all movies anyway.

Incidentally, on the TrueHD track, where I can correctly switch between DSU and the straight decode, even a few minutes of listening to STID convinces me of the value of DSU in terms of creating a far more immersive experience.


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> I checked it out using my Spears & Munsil HD Benchmark BRD and was not able to replicate the bug you have noted.
> 
> Playing both DTS-HD MA 7.1 and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 demo material, the proper channels light up when switching from native to native + DSU and back to native.
> 
> Perhaps your AVR just suffered a momentary glitch; or could there be gremlins in the Hobbit HT? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)


Keith has a 5.2.4 setup. You have a 7.1.4 setup. I believe what Keith is saying that when he played a DTS-HD MA 7.1 BD, his FH's were reported to be active by his x5200 (which batpig thinks might be an undocumented feature). I think someone with a 5.x.4 setup would have to try and duplicate what Keith is experiencing.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I checked it out using my Spears & Munsil HD Benchmark BRD and was not able to replicate the bug you have noted.
> 
> Playing both DTS-HD MA 7.1 and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 demo material, the proper channels light up when switching from native to native + DSU and back to native.
> 
> Perhaps your AVR just suffered a momentary glitch; or could there be *gremlins in the Hobbit HT*? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)
> 
> EDIT: I see that batpig has since come up with a slightly more logical explanation than mine.


It won’t apply to your setup because you have SB speakers.


----------



## mtbdudex

jdsmoothie said:


> Summary of what the acoustics specialist guest Anthony Grimani discusses:
> 
> 1. The center speaker should be the best quality speaker in your setup as roughly 80% of all of the film's audio will be directed to it.
> 2. Consider adding Front Wides in a 9.1.2 setup to fill in the front sound stage gap as doing so can have a much bigger overall impact than an additional 2 height speakers (eg. relatively little audio was sent to the height speakers in T4).
> 3. Consider placing the height speakers closer together (ie. 4'-5' separation and closer to center line just as you would see in an Atmos theater) rather than in line with the FL/FR speakers as seen in the Dolby images in the Atmos AVR Owner manuals.
> 4. With Height speakers more center focused than FL/FR focuses, okay to place FW and Surrounds at standing height rather than seated height.
> 5. Surround back speakers should be behind listening position with a maximum of 4-5' separation (ie. not in line with FL/FR speakers).
> 6. Use height speakers with aim able tweeters.


Nice summary - from also watching earlier this morning I'll add:
a) The ceiling and side surround speakers should be type with a good dispersion pattern rather than beaming type (aka some horn loaded speakers w/o good waveguides beam too narrow). 
He used bi-poles almost exclusively for the side surrounds.
b) Transducers have been used in-ceiling for WAF factor with xover at 150hz for very good results (Mississippi Man has advocated those for ceiling Atmos)
>>There is a thread in the DIY speaker section where that has been discussed, I added details to that here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ing-speakers-dolby-atmos-10.html#post29254345
c) Make sure for the wides you aim them at the MLP, or the speakers you use have "aim-able" ability. He had a layout that did that, like I did with my wides, which are right at 50deg










His comments on how important the wides are echo what Audyssey found in their basic psycho acoustic research, http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dsx/faq , makes me wonder why Dolby decided for DSU to not extract info to wides.....I hope Dolby re-considers their algorithm for DSU, as my real world experience of nearly 2 years with wides "echos" what Anthony states, unless they found there are patents that DTS/Audyssey has that keeps them from doing that (they don't want to pay royalties to competition).....That's a Q I'd like to have Dolby asked and answered in a future podcast, why DSU does not feed signal info to wides.
Yes - I realize for a Atmos feed if wides are present wides will be fed a signal but not for upmixing done via DSU, there had gotta be some Intellectual Property issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Keith has a 5.2.4 setup. You have a 7.1.4 setup. I believe what Keith is saying that when he played a DTS-HD MA 7.1 BD, his FH's were reported to be active by his x5200 (which batpig thinks might be an undocumented feature).  I think someone with a 5.x.4 setup would have to try and duplicate what Keith is experiencing.


Yup. See my later post where I compare with the way TrueHD 7.1 works (correctly). It seems batpig is right (an irritating habit of his ).


----------



## wse

So waht do you think is it worth to go 7.2.4? I have installed a 7.2.2 will the two extra ATMOS speakers make that much of a difference?

My room is small 11 W x13 L x 9 H


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> So waht do you think is it worth to go 7.2.4? I have installed a 7.2.2 will the two extra ATMOS speakers make that much of a difference?
> 
> My room is small 11 W x13 L x 9 H


IME, yes, even in a small room. More immersion, better panning effects. Mo' speakers = mo' better.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kokishin said:


> I'd like to add you to the Members' Atmos Config Spreadsheet. Just need to know:
> Speaker Config (7.1.4)?
> AVR (Denon X5200W)?
> Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?
> How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
> Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
> Other info (such as make/model external amp if using one)?
> 
> Thanks


I'll get back to you about that sometime later this weekend... but yes... X5200W... no ceiling mounted speakers. My "atmos" speakers are fakes right now... will be upgrading to Atlantic Techs when those ship in a few weeks.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> IME, yes, even in a small room. More immersion, better panning effects. Mo' speakers = mo' better.


OK more, more more I know but are we talking 50% better sound or just like 10%


----------



## HT-Eman

Denon X7200W to be released in January ...... http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/3000-denons-new-avrx7200w-network-receiver-atmos/


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> OK more, more more I know but are we talking 50% better sound or just like 10%


It depends what you are after I guess. If you want pans to go from front-back and diagonally, then 2 speakers can't do it whereas 4 can. Personally, I'd want that so for me it would be more like the 50%. If you can only do 2, then setting them as Top Middle, towards the middle of the room would probably give good immersion (think rain falling on a tin roof - it would come from overhead as intended even with just two speakers). But then think alien ship flying over you from front to back of the room - has to be better with 4 speakers surely?


----------



## HT-Eman

HT-Eman said:


> Denon X7200W to be released in January ...... http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/3000-denons-new-avrx7200w-network-receiver-atmos/


It will be HDCP2.2 upgradeable (scheduled for spring 2015), so I think this would be a good investment .


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Yup. See my later post where I compare with the way TrueHD 7.1 works (correctly). It seems batpig is right (an irritating habit of his ).


Keith,

Check out the tread below. Apparently DTS-HD MA decoders are also designed to expand 5.1 to 7.1 by default. Curious if you try a DTS-HD MA 5.1 title, if it will engage your FH's? I expect it will. 

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=221025


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Keith,
> 
> Check out the tread below. Apparently DTS-HD MA decoders are also designed to expand 5.1 to 7.1 by default. Curious if you try a DTS-HD MA 5.1 title, if it will engage your FH's? I expect it will.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=221025


Only when they find that SB speakers are installed I think. Batpig's contention is that in my case, with no SBs, DTS decides instead to arbitrarily use the FHs. Really stupid decision IMO. I will try a 5.1 DTS-HD MA disc though and report back.


----------



## epiCenter

wse said:


> OK more, more more I know but are we talking 50% better sound or just like 10%


There is probably some logarithm to give you the percentages you are looking for, but I certainly do not know it. But if you consider every speaker in your Atmos setup (LCR, surrounds, ceiling/up-firing), each new speaker is another "data point" for the processor to use IOT localize sounds in 3D space between speakers. 

With DSU, I can "tell" that gun fire that originates from the rear to the front of my theater starts using my Surround Rear Right (SRR), Top Rear Right (TRR) and Surround Right (SR) at the same time, then pans to SR/TFR/TRR as it buzzes over my right ear, then uses TFR/SR/Front Right to terminate the bullet through the screen wall. 

I certainly can't tell you how the processor pulls this off, or if my assessment in the previous paragraph is 100% correct. The point is that I cannot localize sounds to a specific speaker, but I feel completely immersed with sound through DSU and Atmos coded material through my 7.2.4 system. 

I understand your concern though. At some point, depending on the dimensions of your room, you will hit the law of diminishing returns. For me, I think I will be willing to go as far as 7.2.6 or 9.2.6. Anything after that will probably not give me a juice that is worth the squeeze. All this said, my current set-up is beyond amazing! I will not feel compelled to upgrade the second Onkyo drops a pre-pro that can handle these future configurations.


----------



## Apgood

Irwinroad said:


> Starting at 46:19 Grimani says "tilt the mechanisms inside"
> then at 46:47 he says "pivot the speaker towards you"
> 
> Would a "fully pivoting woofer assembly" not be better than
> an aimable tweeter since you would be focusing bass and
> midrange towards the listening position?


I think in both instances he's talking about tilting the whole speaking not just the tweeter. Some in ceiling and in wall speakers allow you to angle/ tilt the whole speaker not just the tweeter. Personally I think this is what they should do with the upfiring atmos speakers too, so that you can fine tune the angle based on ceiling height and map position in the room.


----------



## Apgood

jdsmoothie said:


> Summary of what the acoustics specialist guest Anthony Grimani discusses:
> 
> 1. The center speaker should be the best quality speaker in your setup as roughly 80% of all of the film's audio will be directed to it.
> 2. Consider adding Front Wides in a 9.1.2 setup to fill in the front sound stage gap as doing so can have a much bigger overall impact than an additional 2 height speakers (eg. relatively little audio was sent to the height speakers in T4).
> 3. Consider placing the height speakers closer together (ie. 4'-5' separation and closer to center line just as you would see in an Atmos theater) rather than in line with the FL/FR speakers as seen in the Dolby images in the Atmos AVR Owner manuals.
> 4. With Height speakers more center focused than FL/FR focuses, okay to place FW and Surrounds at standing height rather than seated height.
> 5. Surround back speakers should be behind listening position with a maximum of 4-5' separation (ie. not in line with FL/FR speakers).
> 6. Use height speakers with aim able tweeters.


I noticed in all of the example home cinemas builds the he talked about right at the end they all had inverted surround speakers (i.e. the mid/woofer above the tweeter). 

I assume this has to do with the fact that the speakers are higher and provides better dispersion characteristics for the higher frequencies across multiple listening positions (especially when using bipoles, which he would seem to be a fan of).


----------



## cannga

Apgood said:


> I noticed in all of the example home cinemas builds the he talked about right at the end they all had inverted surround speakers (i.e. the mid/woofer above the tweeter).
> 
> I assume this has to do with the fact that the speakers are higher and provides better dispersion characteristics for the higher frequencies across multiple listening positions (especially when using bipoles, which he would seem to be a fan of).


A couple of these were retrofits with pre-existing bipoles for the surround speakers. For new installment, at least for the *wide* speaker, regular/front firing speaker was used. Ceiling speakers used in these examples seem to be bipoles. The aimable speakers mentioned earlier were not used, but it could be that they were not available yet at time of these early installments.

But he also mentioned he prefers bipoles only in small room and with large area of audience to cover, NOT for larger rooms. The explanation seems to be that bipoles help to "spread sound evenly" in smaller rooms.

At any rate, he gave a great lecture on bipole vs. direct firing; that should help to make a decision based on what one is looking for. I don't believe there is a mixed formula (personal preference).


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I have noticed what might be a bug in my Denon 5200 when switching between DSU and a straight decode. If I switch to regular DTS-HD MA 7.1 (as I did today when watching _X-Men: Days of Future Past_, just for evaluation purposes) I noticed that when using the Info OSD, the FHL and FHR are still illuminated, with the TML and TMR being greyed. They should, of course, all be off when playing the regular 7.1 track. I then tried a 5.1 DTS-HD MA and when switching to regular 5.1, both the FHL and FHR (and the TML and TMR) are off. I haven't had chance to try this yet with a 7.1 TrueHD track.
> 
> I’d be grateful if anyone else with the 5200 could check this and report if they see the same thing. It only happens on DTS-HD MA 7.1 tracks (TrueHD not yet being evaluated). 5.1 tracks work as expected. In all cases when playing the track via DSU it performs as expected with all overhead speakers working normally.


Not a 5200, but in the 7702, with speakers set for 5.1.4, feeding DTS 7.1, DSU off, the info shows FH speakers active. But no sound comes out. Change BD player to PCM, and the FH indicators go off. I used Spears&Munsil 2, and Toy Story 3.

If you run a DTS 7.1 channel ID disc (AIX, WOW, Spears/Munsil) it should be possible to find out what audio is coming out of the FH speakers.


----------



## Apgood

cannga said:


> At least a couple of these were retrofits with pre-existing bipoles for the *surround* speakers.
> For new installment, at least for the *wide* speaker, regular/front firing speaker was used; same thing for the ceiling speakers, I think (not sure - anyone pls correct me as needed).
> 
> He mentioned in small room and with multiple rows (ie large area of audience), he prefers bipole, but would not use it for large room. But again, this applies to the surround, not ceiling speaker.
> 
> At any rate, he gave a great lecture on bipole vs. direct firing.


True. He did say that is choice of speaker type and dispersion characteristics was based on the type of room. I was actually more interested in his use of inverted speakers (i.e. MT speaker).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kokishin said:


> *I'd like to add you to the Members' Atmos Config Spreadsheet. Just need to know:
> Speaker Config (7.1.4)?
> *
> 7.1.4
> 
> *AVR (Denon X5200W)?*
> 
> Yes, the X5200W
> 
> *Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?*
> 
> 4x Atlantic Tech 44DA
> 
> *How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
> *
> No ceiling
> 
> *Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
> *
> TF + TR
> 
> *Other info (such as make/model external amp if using one)?*
> 
> I only use the Amp100 externally to power the rear heights.
> 
> My speakers are 4x Klipsch Chorus II's (fronts & rears) RS 62's (surrounds) RC 64 center, & velodynne Sub.
> 
> *Thanks*


----------



## Skylinestar

epiCenter said:


> With the built-in 20 degree angle of the 8340As, all four speakers "toe-in" toward my MLP perfectly.


Do you have any photos of your ceiling (with ceiling speakers installed)?


----------



## epiCenter

Skylinestar said:


> Do you have any photos of your ceiling (with ceiling speakers installed)?


Yes, I do. Will send over a few posts since my ipad is not letting post multiple thumbnails.


----------



## epiCenter

Skylinestar said:


> Do you have any photos of your ceiling (with ceiling speakers installed)?


Here is another. I was laying down on the floor. Not 100% finished with the install. Need to darken the metal screws.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Not a 5200, but in the 7702, with speakers set for 5.1.4, feeding DTS 7.1, DSU off, the info shows FH speakers active. But no sound comes out. Change BD player to PCM, and the FH indicators go off. I used Spears&Munsil 2, and Toy Story 3.
> 
> If you run a DTS 7.1 channel ID disc (AIX, WOW, Spears/Munsil) it should be possible to find out what audio is coming out of the FH speakers.


Thanks Roger. I will check further and report back.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Aras_Volodka said:


> [/B]Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?
> 
> 4x Atlantic Tech 44DA
> 
> How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
> 
> No ceiling
> 
> Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
> 
> *TF + TR*


As a reminder, when we're talking about the "upward firing" speakers, whether stand alone like the AT 44-DA or the integrated Pioneer Atmos speakers with the built-in upward firing speaker, they are referred to (and more importantly configured) as *Front Dolby (FD), Surround Dolby (SD), and Back Dolby (BD)* so you will be using FD+BD.


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> I know; I just mentioned Onkyo because they are the closest to the real thing but still NOT the real thing.
> 
> * I think the upcoming Marantz AV8802 SSP might be equipped with the real 4K deal, and so the upcoming Denon AVR-X7200W AV receiver. ...We'll have to wait and see.


 
What is the use of having the "real" 4K deal ?
There is no 4K material exept for some YouTube stuff i stream direct to my 65HU8500.
No 4K Blu-ray or other 4K stuff, and its the question if there ever will be UHD Blu-ray (Red-ray ?).


For now my 4K will upscale DVD, Full HD, Blu-ray (through my Integra DTR 70.6), and all other content, and they look great.
Ok, real 4K content is even better, but for now i do not "need" the real 4K deal, i think no one will for the next 4-5 years........(and then i "must" buy a new receiver again )


----------



## chi_guy50

jdsmoothie said:


> Originally Posted by *Aras_Volodka*
> _[/B]Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?
> 
> 4x Atlantic Tech 44DA
> 
> How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
> 
> *No ceiling*
> 
> Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
> 
> *TF + TR*
> _
> 
> As a reminder, when we're talking about the "upward firing" speakers, whether stand alone like the AT 44-DA or the integrated Pioneer Atmos speakers with the built-in upward firing speaker, they are referred to (and more importantly configured) as *Front Dolby (FD), Surround Dolby (SD), and Back Dolby (BD)* so you will be using FD+BD.


OP is not going to get the optimal effect from those upward firing speakers without a ceiling to bounce off of!


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> What is the use of having the "real" 4K deal ?
> There is no 4K material exept for some YouTube stuff i stream direct to my 65HU8500.
> No 4K Blu-ray or other 4K stuff, and its *the question if there ever will be UHD Blu-ray* (Red-ray ?).


December 2015.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> December 2015.


A new SSP still not required. Most players today (of any consequence) have two outputs. Run one to the existing non-4K compliant SSP for audio and the other to the display. My Sony 4K media player does that and it works just fine. I really do not understand whey everyone wants all of this 4K stuff in place before moving forward. 

If that is the case, I would wait a few more years so you can have 8K!!!

But that's just me


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> December 2015.



Great, then i can buy a new receiver, new BD player, new BD collection, and get a new wife.......


----------



## cannga

jdsmoothie said:


> Summary of what the acoustics specialist guest Anthony Grimani discusses:
> 
> 1. *The center speaker should be the best quality speaker in your setup as roughly 80% of all of the film's audio will be directed to it.*
> 2. Consider adding Front Wides in a 9.1.2 setup to fill in the front sound stage gap as doing so can have a much bigger overall impact than an additional 2 height speakers (eg. relatively little audio was sent to the height speakers in T4).
> 3. Consider placing the height speakers closer together (ie. 4'-5' separation and closer to center line just as you would see in an Atmos theater) rather than in line with the FL/FR speakers as seen in the Dolby images in the Atmos AVR Owner manuals.
> 4. With Height speakers more center focused than FL/FR focuses, okay to place FW and Surrounds at standing height rather than seated height.
> 5. Surround back speakers should be behind listening position with a maximum of 4-5' separation (ie. not in line with FL/FR speakers).
> 6. Use height speakers with aim able tweeters.




FWIW, where number 1 above came from, a slide from HT Geeks' interview with Brian Vessa (chair of SMPTE's committee on "state of cinema audio":


----------



## kokishin

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'd like to add you to the Members' Atmos Config Spreadsheet. Just need to know:
> Speaker Config (7.1.4)?
> 
> 7.1.4
> 
> AVR (Denon X5200W)?
> 
> Yes, the X5200W
> 
> Atmos Speakers (make/model overheads)?
> 
> 4x Atlantic Tech 44DA
> 
> How mounted? (On-ceiling)?
> 
> No ceiling
> 
> Ceiling config (TF+TR)?
> 
> TF + TR
> 
> Other info (such as make/model external amp if using one)?
> 
> I only use the Amp100 externally to power the rear heights.
> 
> My speakers are 4x Klipsch Chorus II's (fronts & rears) RS 62's (surrounds) RC 64 center, & velodynne Sub.
> 
> Thanks


Done. BTW, TF+TR does not compute for Atmos Enabled modules unless you mounted them to your ceiling.

Thanks

Edit: In catching up on the thread, I see jd provided the proper terminology for AE modules: FD, SD, BD, and the other guy with an underscore in his handle (i.e., esteemed member @chi_guy50 (who were the other 49?)) inferred you should get a ceiling.


----------



## kokishin

CBdicX said:


> Great, then i can buy a new receiver, new BD player, new BD collection, and get a new wife.......


All are depreciating assets, some more than others.


----------



## audioguy

If you would add me to Atmos list:

7.2.4
Marantz 7702
Speakers mounted on-ceiling
External Amp = Emotiva XPA-5
On ceiling speakers = Tannoy Di6DC
TF + TR


----------



## kokishin

audioguy said:


> If you would add me to Atmos list:
> 
> 7.2.4
> Marantz 7702
> Speakers mounted on-ceiling
> External Amp = Emotiva XPA-5
> On ceiling speakers = Tannoy Di6DC
> TF + TR


DING! DING! DING!

audioguy, you just became the


Spoiler



*50th member*


 to be added to the Members' Atmos Config spreadsheet


----------



## mtbdudex

^^^who alleuded there were 20-ish?


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## kokishin

mtbdudex said:


> ^^^who alleuded there were 20-ish?
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


Huh???

BTW, I was forced to take the EIT years ago at Georgia Tech and somehow I passed. Regardless, I decided to remain an Amateur Engineer.


----------



## kokishin

*Please Help Me Fill in Your Holes*

@bargervais
@javanpohl
@smurraybhm

Gents,

I have some holes the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet regarding your Atmos system configs. See the link in my sig below to access the spreadsheet and please provided the missing info.

TIA


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> Done. BTW, TF+TR does not compute for Atmos Enabled modules unless you mounted them to your ceiling.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Edit: In catching up on the thread, I see jd provided the proper terminology for AE modules: FD, SD, BD, and the other guy with an underscore in his handle (i.e., esteemed member @chi_guy50 *(who were the other 49?)*) inferred you should get a ceiling.


There are no others; I am the one and only.

The "50" refers to the year in which my father made the grievous error in judgment of "poking fun" at my mother.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> @bargervais
> @javanpohl
> @smurraybhm
> 
> Gents,
> 
> I have some holes the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet regarding your Atmos system configs. See the link in my sig below to access the spreadsheet and please provided the missing info.
> 
> TIA


I'm using on ceiling AESS5-WH JBL Satellite Speaker, top front with my TX-NR 737 5.2.2
For my TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 I'm using MICCA M-8S fronts and top backs the back tops are powered by an external amp Onkyo M-5010
These speakers were already in place and I'm repurposing them for now or I may just keep them I'll decide once my receiver is paid off as I was able to purchase it 12 months no interest free shipping. Once paid off I'll upgrade those ceiling speakers.


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> I'm using on ceiling AESS5-WH JBL Satellite Speaker, top front with my TX-NR 737 5.2.2
> For my TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 I'm using MICCA M-8S fronts and top backs the back tops are powered by an external amp Onkyo M-5010
> These speakers were already in place and I'm repurposing them or I may just keep them I'll decide once my receiver is paid off as I was able to purchase it 12 months no interest free shipping. Once paid off I'll upgrade those ceiling speakers.


Updated the spreadsheet. Thanks


----------



## noah katz

jdsmoothie said:


> Summary of what the acoustics specialist guest Anthony Grimani discusses:
> 
> ...
> 
> 3. Consider placing the height speakers closer together (ie. 4'-5' separation and closer to center line just as you would see in an Atmos theater) rather than in line with the FL/FR speakers as seen in the Dolby images in the Atmos AVR Owner manuals.


After not a whole lot of listening that sounds like good advice; my heights are out at the walls and I'm not getting the sound from the sky effect I was hoping for, and makes me aware that there's a dead space in the soundfield down the middle of the room n(*except for C of course).

Fortunately I have beams across the width of the room and can move them inwards.


----------



## mtbdudex

kokishin said:


> Huh???
> 
> BTW, I was forced to take the EIT years ago at Georgia Tech and somehow I passed. Regardless, I decided to remain an Amateur Engineer.


Amateurs work for free, I bet you are paid quite well at your current job....

Thx for making that spreadsheet, it's a good resource for query to members on some specific Atmos items, I bet Dolby would like to have it also......as I typed that statement got me thinking to what kind of security/confidentiality has been considered for that, or is it strictly public domain and public usage?

OT/Soapbox: IMO If Wall street and banking people adhered to a code of ethics, similar to the PE code, we would not have gotten into the big 2008 bank issue
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
Hence most of what I tend to do on these forums is share information, show my method for DIY, or how I approach some problem from the scientific method to gather information to make my own decision.
I tend to refrain from telling people what to do, mostly, sometimes people don't want to learn on their own, just be told what to do. 
As I'm a HT Hobbyist, not a trained acoustician, or a trained EE, etc. I smile when some people come across as so called SME's, yet they cannot back up their statement with credentials, training, show fact based data or pictures to back up their statements, etc. Guess that's the internet, if some one says it then its true.....
Off soapbox.


----------



## javanpohl

kokishin said:


> @bargervais
> @javanpohl
> @smurraybhm
> 
> Gents,
> 
> I have some holes the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet regarding your Atmos system configs. See the link in my sig below to access the spreadsheet and please provided the missing info.
> 
> TIA


Atlantic Technology 351s and 2200s. Ceiling mounted. Not sure what the acronyms for the 3rd part are... top-middle? Mine are directly overhead.


----------



## kokishin

mtbdudex said:


> Amateurs work for free, I bet you are paid quite well at your current job....
> 
> Thx for making that spreadsheet, it's a good resource for query to members on some specific Atmos items, I bet Dolby would like to have it also......as I typed that statement got me thinking to what kind of security/confidentiality has been considered for that, or is it strictly public domain and public usage?
> 
> OT/Soapbox: IMO If Wall street and banking people adhered to a code of ethics, similar to the PE code, we would not have gotten into the big 2008 bank issue
> http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
> Hence most of what I tend to do on these forums is share information, show my method for DIY, or how I approach some problem from the scientific method to gather information to make my own decision.
> I tend to refrain from telling people what to do, mostly, sometimes people don't want to learn on their own, just be told what to do.
> As I'm a HT Hobbyist, not a trained acoustician, or a trained EE, etc. I smile when some people come across as so called SME's, yet they cannot back up their statement with credentials, training, show fact based data or pictures to back up their statements, etc. Guess that's the internet, if some one says it then its true.....
> Off soapbox.


The spreadsheet is publicly accessible but read-only if you have the link which I provide in my sig. If a Dolby employee or any company employee wants to access it, they can if they see the link on avsforum.com. Don't believe there is anything inherently worrisome wrt confidentiality or privacy in the spreadsheet. Any avsforum.com forum member can query any other member by post or pm so nothing unusual there. 

I started the spreadsheet because Keith requested members to post their Atmos system config as part of the thread. When I saw it becoming messy and disjointed, I thought it would be worthwhile to create the spreadsheet and make it accessible to members.

FWIW, I don't work for any company remotely related to our hobby nor do I receive any remuneration from anyone for compiling the spreadsheet. Having said that, anyone can make a donation to the "Kokishin Cure for NuiSance Blatherers" via my Paypal account. PM me for details. [j/k].


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> What is the use of having the "real" 4K deal ?
> There is no 4K material exept for some YouTube stuff i stream direct to my 65HU8500.
> No 4K Blu-ray or other 4K stuff, and its the question if there ever will be UHD Blu-ray (Red-ray ?).
> 
> 
> For now my 4K will upscale DVD, Full HD, Blu-ray (through my Integra DTR 70.6), and all other content, and they look great.
> Ok, real 4K content is even better, but for now i do not "need" the real 4K deal, i think no one will for the next 4-5 years........(and then i "must" buy a new receiver again )


Yes, very true. 

* Are we just making too much of a big deal with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2? 
- Life is short, might as well enjoy now what we have than what we'll have tomorrow.


----------



## Bassplayer6

audioguy said:


> A new SSP still not required. Most players today (of any consequence) have two outputs. Run one to the existing non-4K compliant SSP for audio and the other to the display. My Sony 4K media player does that and it works just fine. I really do not understand whey everyone wants all of this 4K stuff in place before moving forward.
> 
> If that is the case, I would wait a few more years so you can have 8K!!!
> 
> But that's just me


Problem is most tvs (2014) have 1 or 2 hdcp 2.2 ports max.


----------



## Nenad985

Can I find it somewhere in black friday deals 2014?


----------



## audioguy

Bassplayer6 said:


> Problem is most tvs (2014) have 1 or 2 hdcp 2.2 ports max.


And in 2014, there is no 4K content!


----------



## Bassplayer6

NorthSky said:


> Yes, very true.
> 
> * Are we just making too much of a big deal with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2?
> - Life is short, might as well enjoy now what we have than what we'll have tomorrow.


You have today:
- sony 4k media player/streamer
- direct tv
- soon comcast (jan 2015), maybe it will be an app.
Already 3 devices that would use a hdcp 2.2 port (not necessarily full specd hdmi 2.0 as the 2014 avrs)


----------



## NorthSky

> Who alleuded there were 20-ish?


Without that member ever mentioning it there probably wouldn't be an "AVSForum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet". 
And now many members appreciate it. 

So you see, the positive.


----------



## NorthSky

Bassplayer6 said:


> You have today:
> - sony 4k media player/streamer
> - direct tv
> - soon comcast (jan 2015), maybe it will be an app.
> Already 3 devices that would use a hdcp 2.2 port (not necessarily full specd hdmi 2.0 as the 2014 avrs)


And that is exactly why I and other members are waiting for the next gen. 

Not everyone is into the latest and newest and greatest.


----------



## Garchiba

kokishin said:


> I started the spreadsheet because Keith requested members to post their Atmos system config as part of the thread. When I saw it becoming messy and disjointed, I thought it would be worthwhile to create the spreadsheet and make it accessible to members.
> . [j/k].


Great spreadsheet and interesting reading. 
I was interested to see that 70% of the 9 channel systems have gone for a 5.1.4 system over a 7.1.2 configuration. Have any of you 9 channel Atmos adopters experimented with both 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 configurations and have any feedback on what you preferred?


----------



## kokishin

javanpohl said:


> Atlantic Technology 351s and 2200s. Ceiling mounted. Not sure what the acronyms for the 3rd part are... top-middle? Mine are directly overhead.


TF=Top Front
TM= Top Middle
TR= Top Rear

Here is what I surmise from your post and studying the Yamaha Atmos Additional Info pdf:

If you are running a 7.2.2 config (correct?), then are you using a pair of AT2200s as overhead presence speakers above the MLP? If so, using Dolby speak, these would be TM. 

I updated the spreadsheet based on the above. Please check and let me know if I need to revise.

Are you pleased with the A2040?


----------



## CBdicX

audioguy said:


> And in 2014, there is no 4K content!


 
On YouTube there is, but you need to stream to the tv, and when i do its f#cking nice to see........


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> And that is exactly why I and other members are waiting for the next gen.
> 
> Not everyone is into the latest and newest and greatest.



But then you can wait, wait, wait, until........
There will be allways something new on the horizon.


I have for now the latest and the newest and enjoi a great 4K picture, and a great sound, not yet Atmos, but had a tast of it and am waiting for the correct enabled speakers to appear on the (event) horizon.
Think and hope this will not take to long......


----------



## NorthSky

> But then you can wait, wait, wait, until........
> There will be allways something new on the horizon.
> 
> I have for now the latest and the newest and enjoy a great 4K picture, and a great sound, not yet Atmos, but had a taste of it and am waiting for the correct enabled speakers to appear on the (event) horizon.
> Think and hope this will not take to long......


You got all you wish for with your "great 4K picture"? 

* How come no Atmos yet? ...What type of Atmos speakers; up-firing or on-ceiling? ...How many Atmos Blu-ray titles do you have?


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> Yes, very true.
> 
> * Are we just making too much of a big deal with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2?
> - Life is short, might as well enjoy now what we have than what we'll have tomorrow.


* I think so, it is made into a big deal, HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 are not yet used, they will be, but when ?
And will my picture i get today from the Samsung curved 65HU8500 be so much better with the 2.0 and 2.2 then i see now, maybe compaed side by side (?)
Do not think i will see any differents when i see a (upcoverted to somewhere between FullHD and 4K) cable tv program, Blu-ray, or a downloaded movie from The Piratebay.


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> * How come no Atmos yet? ...What type of Atmos speakers; up-firing or on-ceiling? ...How many Atmos Blu-ray titles do you have?


 
I had the Onkyo SKH 410 Atmos speakers, 2 on the front Boston M350 and 2 on the back Boston M250.
It worked great but the Onkyo speakers are ugly on top of the Boston speakers.
I hope Boston will make some fitting Atmos speakers for the M serie.
Have asked them 3x now, but never received a reply :-(
Good speakers, bad customer support.


(and i hear Boston will step out Europe and Asia, sorry a long way off topic....)


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> Only when they find that SB speakers are installed I think. Batpig's contention is that in my case, with no SBs, DTS decides instead to arbitrarily use the FHs. Really stupid decision IMO. I will try a 5.1 DTS-HD MA disc though and report back.


That's kind of odd...wouldnt that screw up the whole sound imaging? What suppose to by from the rear...becomes the front? Well unless of course something has been done to extrapolate sound mix to suit the FH, which I seriously doubt so.


----------



## kokishin

mtbdudex said:


> ^^^who alleuded there were 20-ish?
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


Mike,

Now I understand. I can't find the original post speculating there were only 20 actual Atmos HT systems among the members (paraphrasing). That speculation got the ball rolling with Keith which lead to the spreadsheet. Fifty Atmos systems reported to date.


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> I had the Onkyo SKH 410 Atmos speakers, 2 on the front Boston M350 and 2 on the back Boston M250.
> It worked great but the Onkyo speakers are ugly on top of the Boston speakers.
> I hope Boston will make some fitting Atmos speakers for the M serie.
> Have asked them 3x now, but never received a reply :-(
> Good speakers, bad customer support.
> 
> 
> (and i hear Boston will step out Europe and Asia, sorry a long way off topic....)


We're talking Atmos speakers and you mentioned "off tropic". ...It is totally related to this tread.


----------



## javanpohl

kokishin said:


> Are you pleased with the A2040?


Yes and no. The sound quality is excellent but I dearly miss Audyssey. Fortunately my new sub seems to require a lot less eq than my prior one.


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> That's kind of odd...wouldnt that screw up the whole sound imaging? What suppose to by from the rear...becomes the front? Well unless of course something has been done to extrapolate sound mix to suit the FH, which I seriously doubt so.


Exactly. Hence my description of it as 'stupid'. When DTS does the same thing with rear surrounds, it simply copies the surround information to the rear surrounds, which at least makes a modicum of sense. But to copy surround information to front heights makes no sense at all. I may have been mistaken in saying that the FH speakers are active, as the Info OSD suggests - they may be lit up in the OSD but not actually making noise. I will test tomorrow with the S&M test disc and see what exactly comes out of the FH speakers when you force the unit to play a straight decode.


----------



## visualq

kokishin said:


> Mike,
> 
> Now I understand. I can't find the original post speculating there were only 20 actual Atmos HT systems among the members (paraphrasing). That speculation got the ball rolling with Keith which lead to the spreadsheet. Fifty Atmos systems reported to date.


Make that 52; I've had my sustem since early October, but I rarely sign-IN and post much. Here's my info for the spreadsheet for the person that has update access to it:

Member: Visualq
SpkrConfig: 5.1.4
AVR/pre-pro: Pioneer SC-85
Atmos Spkrs: AJs - 4x SP-EBS73, 1x SP-EC73
Mounted: Atmos Enabled
CeilngConfig: NA
OthrInfo: 3x Onkyo M285 amps, 2 Onkyo M-5010 amps


----------



## kokishin

visualq said:


> Make that 52; I've had my sustem since early October, but I rarely sign-IN and post much. Here's my info for the spreadsheet for the person that has update access to it:
> 
> Member: Visualq
> SpkrConfig: 5.1.4
> AVR/pre-pro: Pioneer SC-85
> Atmos Spkrs: AJs - 4x SP-EBS73, 1x SP-EC73
> Mounted: Atmos Enabled
> CeilngConfig: NA
> OthrInfo: 3x Onkyo M285 amps, 2 Onkyo M-5010 amps


Done.

Thanks for the concisely formatted inputs. Makes my job easier.

There are 52 Atmos system configs among 51 members documented. bargervais has two Atmos systems.


----------



## cannga

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The actual size of the space is not really relevant. *Two ceiling speakers only form a one-dimentional line so they can only produce sound coming from the line between them.* Four ceiling speakers form a two-dimentional plane, hence the sound they produce can come from anywhere on that plane. It will be far superior.
> 
> And ofcourse two speakers will not really give you the sense of total envelopment that four will do.


True, but only if they are the *only* 2 speakers in the room. Imaging in object audio could also form between *ceiling and front L & R*, and *ceiling and rear surrounds*. IOW there is no black hole, just not as clear of phantom images. And granted it's a downward tilt "plane," but it's still above you. In fact I hear flies buzzing in the middle of the room in Gravity without Atmos, from the images formed by conventional 7.1 arrangement.

I do agree that 4 is better than 2, just don't think that ceiling images are limited to line between top 2. 

FWIW, Grimani in that epic Home Theater Geeks video interview actually advocates 9.1.2 *over* 7.1.4. (With the 2 ceiling speakers slightly ahead of MLP and closer together than main speakers.)


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I only have one row. The FH are at 42° and the TM are at 80°. This puts the FH on the ceiling roughly 5ft 8 inches in front of MLP and the TM are, of course, at 80°, just in front of MLP. Originally I had the TM at 100° but I felt they were a little overwhelmed by the FHs so I moved them forward a little, which is where they remain. This also gave me more separation from my surrounds which are at 110° (ie just behind MLP). It's the angles that matter, so concentrate on those would be my advice.


Hi Keith I had to hunt this set up of yours as I'm going to move my top back speakers from behind me.... I think they are too far back from MLP I could move the sofa back a foot. But I like how you have yours at 80 degrees.. not trying to ask a stupid question does that translate into two feet in front of MLP???
I'm going to or hope to after the holidays to move top backs forward and call them top middle.
Now these are going to be in ceiling so should I put them closer to MLP... I know this has all been covered sorry.


----------



## Jive Turkey

I emailed Redbox and asked if "The Expendables 3" will have the Atmos track on their rental. They danced around it by saying "it's up to the Studios" and letting me know this one is Liongate, which I knew. Not answering the question outright, and me being a gambling man, suggests it's likely not to be Atmos on the rental. We shall see.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jive Turkey said:


> I emailed Redbox and asked if "The Expendables 3" will have the Atmos track on their rental. They danced around it by saying "it's up to the Studios" and letting me know this one is Liongate, which I knew. Not answering the question outright, and me being a gambling man, suggests it's likely not to be Atmos on the rental. We shall see.


With Lionsgate, 9 times out of 10 a lossy track will be used on the rental.


----------



## smurraybhm

kokishin said:


> @bargervais
> @javanpohl
> @smurraybhm
> 
> Gents,
> 
> I have some holes the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet regarding your Atmos system configs. See the link in my sig below to access the spreadsheet and please provided the missing info.
> 
> TIA


I noted when replying originally - it's all in my sig below. Thanks for keeping up the list of 20.


----------



## kokishin

smurraybhm said:


> I noted when replying originally - it's all in my sig below. Thanks for keeping up the list of 20.


7.2.4, Denon X5200W, DefTech PM1000 (FH), Ascend HTM-200 (TM), On-Wall, On-ceiling, FH+TM, Outlaw 2200 amps (x3)

Ok?


----------



## NorthSky

*@ the beginning there were .... # of Dolby Atmos systems ....*



Jeff said:


> To me, this is a purely speculation thread.
> 
> Even though some have basic Atmos set ups here, the reading of their experiences still read as anecdotal to me.
> 
> *I don't think until we have 100s of members with Atmos set ups of all kinds and speakers types and positions will we really be able to glean useful information about Atmos set up and what it can truly sound like.*





RRF743 said:


> With all do respect. *I don't think it takes 100's of member's comments and that many different types of speaker set ups and positions to realize that dolby atmos works great.* As I said before in an earlier post, a lot of people are over thinking this thing. Their most difficult part of this entire process will be the actual installation of speakers and running wire. Trust me... Atoms or DSU will take care of the rest! I only know this because I've done it!





Bob? said:


> Jeff, you yourself you have one of the greatest setups of them all. Your opinion among hundred others have considerable weight.
> 
> And you are right;
> *we have only roughly twenty (20) Dolby Atmos setups so far (from members who mentioned it).*
> Is that enough? For some yes, for others no.





Mike said:


> *A few post up I read that "only" 20 actual Atmos HT installs have been documented in this 14k post thread, is that close to accurate?*
> Who are those people?
> Is there a master post of actual Atmos HT installs keeping track?





Keith said:


> *Incidentally, are there really only 20 of us who taken the plunge? I'll make a separate post for people to add to if they have an Atmos installation, so we can get a handle on it.*





Keith said:


> kbarnes701 - 5.2.4 system using Denon 5200W. On-ceiling Tannoy Di5 speakers. Configured as FH+TM.
> 
> Brian Fineberg - 5.1.4 system using denon x4100 (XPA-5 external amp) Klipsch Quintet 4 ceiling speakers. configured as TF + TR
> 
> robert816 - 5.3.4 Pioneer SC-87 KEF KHT 2005.2 as Atmos Enabled Speakers





kokishin said:


> Mike, now I understand.
> *I can't find the original post speculating there were only 20 actual Atmos HT systems among the members (paraphrasing).*
> That speculation got the ball rolling with Keith which lead to the spreadsheet. *Fifty (50) Atmos systems reported to date*.


♦ Voila, the full story.

And like I said before, we can all be grateful to Jeff (thebland)


----------



## photographerBG

You can add me too:
I am using ONKYO *PR-SC5530*
with 4 ceiling speakers. front height and top middle (the only possible configuration to my room).

I like the sound.


----------



## kokishin

photographerBG said:


> You can add me too:
> I am using ONKYO *PR-SC5530*
> with 4 ceiling speakers. front height and top middle (the only possible configuration to my room).
> 
> I like the sound.


7.1.4?

Atmos make/model speakers?

On-wall?, On-ceiling?

External amp?


----------



## photographerBG

kokishin said:


> 7.1.4?
> 
> Atmos make/model speakers?
> 
> On-wall?, On-ceiling?
> 
> External amp?


7.1.4
7 speakers (front, center, surrounds) are Focal, the new ones are ceiling mounted EV Evid 4.2. I tried different models, but I have no other option - they have to be ceiling mounted. 
I am using two ONKYO amps - one is 2 channels for fronts, and 9 channels for the others


----------



## kokishin

photographerBG said:


> 7.1.4
> 7 speakers (front, center, surrounds) are Focal, the new ones are ceiling mounted EV Evid 4.2. I tried different models, but I have no other option - they have to be ceiling mounted.
> I am using two ONKYO amps - one is 2 channels for fronts, and 9 channels for the others


What are the model numbers for the amps?


----------



## photographerBG

kokishin said:


> What are the model numbers for the amps?


 http://www.uk.onkyo.com/en/products/pa-mc5501-59358.html
http://www.uk.onkyo.com/en/products/m-5000r-35271.html

Are you planning something similar for you?


----------



## kokishin

photographerBG said:


> http://www.uk.onkyo.com/en/products/pa-mc5501-59358.html
> http://www.uk.onkyo.com/en/products/m-5000r-35271.html
> 
> Are you planning something similar for you?


Most likely X5200 with Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers.

I updated the spreadsheet with the info your provided. See my sig for the link.


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> We're talking Atmos speakers and you mentioned "off tropic". ...It is totally related to this tread.



Oh, sorry, Boston M serie is not Atmos and i mentioned Boston is stepping out of Europian and the Asia marked, think that whas the off topic part......


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> With Lionsgate, 9 times out of 10 a lossy track will be used on the rental.


Lionsgate film studios; it was created in Vancouver, BC - Canada.

* Headquarters: Santa Monica, California - USA.


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> Oh, sorry, Boston M serie is not Atmos and i mentioned Boston is stepping out of Europian and the Asia marked, think that whas the off topic part......


Are members here generally using Dolby Atmos certified speakers?...Perhaps 13% or so (7 out of 54); from the up-firing type.
* And two of them use "F"ake" Atmos enabled speakers (we are @ less than 10% now).


----------



## mtbdudex

Jive Turkey said:


> I emailed Redbox and asked if "The Expendables 3" will have the Atmos track on their rental. They danced around it by saying "it's up to the Studios" and letting me know this one is Liongate, which I knew. Not answering the question outright, and me being a gambling man, suggests it's likely not to be Atmos on the rental. We shall see.


There's a thread on that subject, http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...thout-dts-hd-master-audio-dd-5-1-instead.html
From a post I made there......I'm guessing they won't offer Dolby TrueHD either on certain BR discs....


> Subject
> General Question
> 
> Discussion Thread
> Response Via Email (Redbox Support) 03/10/2014 0x:xx PM
> Hello Mike,
> 
> Thank you for contacting Redbox Customer Care. We're sorry that the Blu ray you rented did not have the audio that you like. Please understand that to keep rental cost low, Redbox has made agreements with studios to provide DolbyDigital 5.1 audio on some of our Blu ray discs. We just ask that going forward you keep this in mind, so not all the Blu ray discs you rent will have the audio you are asking for.
> 
> We understand how disappointing it is when you're unable to rent something in the format you want Mike. As a one time courtesy, I’ve issued you a rental credit, good for free, one-day rental of any DVD or Blu-ray Disc of your choice. The credit is valid for 30 days from today's date.
> 
> • To use a credit at a box: at checkout, touch the USE CREDITS button. Then swipe a payment card associated with your redbox.com account, confirm your credits and finish checking out.
> 
> • To use a credit on redbox.com or the mobile app: on the checkout screen, check the box that says “use credits.” Then log in to the account associated with your credits, confirm your credits and finish checking out.
> 
> If you have any more questions, please visit https://redbox.custhelp.com
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Redbox Customer Care
> 
> 
> 
> So, they have come "clean", admit they've negotiated using audio "downgrade" of DD 5.1 as cost cutting measure.
> 
> Now I've got the facts from them, so how does that make you feel?
> 
> I'd like to see a sign on all the Redbox machines:
> "Warning: Blu-ray disc may not contain lossless audio (Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, etc), may contain lossy audio format such as Dolby Digital 5.1 / DTS 5.1, you rent Blu-ray as is, no refunds given".
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Hi Keith I had to hunt this set up of yours as I'm going to move my top back speakers from behind me.... I think they are too far back from MLP I could move the sofa back a foot. But I like how you have yours at 80 degrees.. not trying to ask a stupid question does that translate into two feet in front of MLP???


Not in my room, but it might in yours. Mine are just in front of me.



bargervais said:


> I'm going to or hope to after the holidays to move top backs forward and call them top middle.
> Now these are going to be in ceiling so should I put them closer to MLP... I know this has all been covered sorry.


I would follow the angles in the oft-posted diagram personally. I think if you do that it is hard to go wrong.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

the official title of the list shouls be "the List of 20"


----------



## MGBPUFF

I have an Atmos setup that could be added to the list. 7.2.4, using the Marantz AV7702, 4 ceiling mtd Emotiva UAC-8.2 speakers in TF and TR positions. Amps - one Sherborn PA7-350 and one Emotiva UPA-7.


----------



## Potatogod93

I am in the process of building a HT and while I'm not so much worried about HDCP 2.2, as I'm not building a 4K system now so it'll be years before I upgrade, I am worried about Aura 3d and DTS-version of immersive audio. 

For those who've already taken the plunge into Dolby Atmos what are your plans once these two systems are out onto AVR's? Are you planning on upgrading then too?


----------



## Ash Sharma

High Def Digests Expendables 3 ATMOS Blu Ray Review is up...
The reviewer did not have ATMOS so went down to Dolby Labs and watched in their 7.1.4 home theater demo room with up firing speakers and raved about how awesome ATMOS sounded - worth a read.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Sweet! Looking forward to this tomorrow.


----------



## robert816

Potatogod93 said:


> I am in the process of building a HT and while I'm not so much worried about HDCP 2.2, as I'm not building a 4K system now so it'll be years before I upgrade, I am worried about Aura 3d and DTS-version of immersive audio.
> 
> For those who've already taken the plunge into Dolby Atmos what are your plans once these two systems are out onto AVR's? Are you planning on upgrading then too?


I plan to enjoy my system as much as possible and not really worry about what might be coming out in the future. Until I hear the new formats for myself and determine whether or not I want those formats, then I'll decide if upgrading is worth the time, money, effort.

The first time I heard Dolby Atmos I drove from OKC to Dallas, just for the sole purpose of listening to the Hobbit in Atmos. At that time this was the closest theatre with an Atmos Sound System to me.

Once I heard Atmos, I knew I wanted it in my home when it was available. Which is why I did not hesitate when a good deal came my way. It's possible if I hear the new formats that I may want them also, but until I hear it for myself, again, that is when I'll make a decision.


----------



## nirvy111

Watching Transformers 4 last night and comparing mixes the Dolby Atmos soundtrack sounded better than Dolby TrueHD even with the ceiling speakers switched off. If you didn't want to do ceiling speakers you could still play Dolby Atmos movies in 5.1,7.1 etc and get a better sound it seems. I noticed the receiver (Denon x4100) plays Dolby Atmos regardless of the speaker configuration.


----------



## smurraybhm

kokishin said:


> 7.2.4, Denon X5200W, DefTech PM1000 (FH), Ascend HTM-200 (TM), On-Wall, On-ceiling, FH+TM, Outlaw 2200 amps (x3)
> 
> Ok?


Looks good to me, thanks.


----------



## Al Sherwood

epiCenter said:


> Actually yes, I spent over two years designing that room before my wife and I went to town on it. I ran 2 x 20amp circuits into the server/tower room. Both circuits are on the same phase to reduce noise. Learned to do it from the fine people on these forums. Thanks again!


 
Can you provide details why it was felt that having two circuits on the same phase would reduce noise? Thanks!


----------



## Selden Ball

Hum. When the power supplied to different hifi components is on different phases of incoming power, that difference often shows up as hum in the audio output with they're interconnected.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Selden Ball said:


> Hum. When the power supplied to different hifi components is on different phases of incoming power, that difference often shows up as hum in the audio output with they're interconnected.



OK, I can see how this might happen, but would hint that there was a differential to ground in the system, and/or a poor ground. Never had that issue here, but good to be aware of.


----------



## bargervais

Ash Sharma said:


> High Def Digests Expendables 3 ATMOS Blu Ray Review is up...
> The reviewer did not have ATMOS so went down to Dolby Labs and watched in their 7.1.4 home theater demo room with up firing speakers and raved about how awesome ATMOS sounded - worth a read.


Sounds great mine should here tomorrow can't wait.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

bargervais said:


> Sounds great mine should here tomorrow can't wait.


same here


----------



## kokishin

MGBPUFF said:


> I have an Atmos setup that could be added to the list. 7.2.4, using the Marantz AV7702, 4 ceiling mtd Emotiva UAC-8.2 speakers in TF and TR positions. Amps - one Sherborn PA7-350 and one Emotiva UPA-7.


Added you before my first cup of coffee. I'm taking this way to seriously. [j/k]

Thanks


----------



## BigScreen

Ash Sharma said:


> High Def Digests Expendables 3 ATMOS Blu Ray Review is up...
> The reviewer did not have ATMOS so went down to Dolby Labs and watched in their 7.1.4 home theater demo room with up firing speakers and raved about how awesome ATMOS sounded - worth a read.


The Expendables 3_
For this portion of the review, we took a field trip to Dolby Laboratories in Burbank, CA to watch this Blu-ray in the company's "Home Theatre" room on commercially available equipment anyone can purchase right now. _

_This 7.1.4 Atmos configuration included four KEF R700 towers (front L&R and rear L&R) topped with four KEF R50 Atmos Enabled speaker modules (two pairs of stereo height channels), one KEF R600c center channel, one pair of KEF T301 side surrounds, an M&K MX-350 sub, a Denon AVR-X5200 9-channel Atmos AV Reciever, and one 2-channel ART SLA-1 amp (to power the rear speaker modules). _

_All in, if you were to buy a similar setup, you'd be looking to spend just over $17,000 on audio gear alone (display and Blu-ray player not included, sorry). There are more affordable options to achieve 7.1.4, and other ways to configure Atmos with fewer speakers, but having finally heard 7.1.4, I'm convinced this is the format's optimum configuration for all but the smallest listening environments. Most interestingly, while we watched the entire film using the speaker modules (bouncing the height channels off a flat-surface ceiling), we did also demo a few scenes in another room with actual in-ceiling speakers. To my ears, it was the exact same aural experience._​


----------



## tractng

Hello,

I just install 2 ceiling speakers for atmos (before the viewing location). I am considering installing 2 more for the back.


Will the 2 atmos speakers that I am considering for the back be to close to my existing rear wall speakers if is about 3 ft apart?

I have 8 ft ceiling. (14x20 ft living room size).


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> Are members here generally using Dolby Atmos certified speakers?...Perhaps 13% or so (7 out of 54); from the up-firing type.
> * And two of them used "Fake" Atmos enabled speakers (we are @ less than 10% now).


There is a list? If I'm not on the list, id like to be added please. I'm using Pioneer SC-85 and pioneer atmos enabled towers or the fronts and bookshelves for the rears for a 5.1.4 setup.


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> the official title of the list shouls be "the List of 20"


Before November 16, but not after.

Because before November 16 that was pretty much a good reasonable guess, only from this thread here. ..And not all the threads from AVS.
And after that it inspired a bunch of new posters to post (participate) right here in this own very thread. ...Which is a very good thing, and that list now, with 55 setups, is fun, just for the heck of it. ...And it follows Jeff's (thebland) line of thinking. ...With all of our replies after.

That number 20; it was only a number, but somehow few members here love to get stuck on that number .... Instead of being constructive ahead. 
And eventually that list will hit 100, then 200, ... it grows, like a normal thing, and twenty (20) is gone now, with time, and new posters collaborating here.

And! Without Jeff's original comment, nothing of this would have never happened in the first place.
Thank Jeff for inviting a bunch of new participants in this official Dolby Atmos thread for the home, and @ helping to create that list (the very first source of inspiration). 

So, forget 20 now; 20 was but now it is no more. ...And there is abso!utely nothing there, not a single thing. ...Past, all gone.

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## kokishin

David Susilo said:


> There is a list? If I'm not on the list, id like to be added please. I'm using Pioneer SC-85 and pioneer atmos enabled towers or the fronts and bookshelves for the rears for a 5.1.4 setup.


Done.

See my sig for the link to the spreadsheet.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

It was a joke


----------



## NorthSky

Ash Sharma said:


> High Def Digests Expendables 3 ATMOS Blu Ray Review is up...
> The reviewer did not have ATMOS so went down to Dolby Labs and watched in their 7.1.4 home theater demo room with up firing speakers and raved about how awesome ATMOS sounded - worth a read.


But the film, is it a good film?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> But the film, is it a good film?


Of course not... it's an "Expendable" movie.  If they had decided to model this send up after GOOD 80's action movies rather than straight-to-video grade schlock, then there might have been a chance.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> There is a list? If I'm not on the list, id like to be added please. I'm using Pioneer SC-85 and pioneer atmos enabled towers or the fronts and bookshelves for the rears for a 5.1.4 setup.



I guess you're in now David; that makes you member number 56 for joining in.  ...How that makes you feel?


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> It was a joke


You forgot this; :grin:


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course not... it's an "Expendable" movie.  If they had decided to model this send up after GOOD 80's action movies rather than straight-to-video grade schlock, then there might have been a chance.


Dan, I have the first two Expendables on Blu-ray, and I'm going to get this one to complete this "funny Stallone's concept" trilogy. 
We all know it's all in good fun, and nothing here seems to appear the way they are in real life; those are just simple good old fun flicks. 

So far, there is not a single smart Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title released. Not a single one. 

And I guess, that next year, in 2015, the first and "debatable" smart Blu-ray flick with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (February 2015) will be *'Gravity'*. ...And it better be in 3D because 3D sound without 3D picture is simply incomplete.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Dan, I have the first two Expendables on Blu-ray, and I'm going to get this one to complete this "funny Stallone's concept" trilogy.
> We all know it's all in good fun, and nothing here seems to appear the way they are in real life; those are just simple good old fun flicks.
> 
> So far, there is not a single smart Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title released. Not a single one.
> 
> And I guess, that next year, in 2015, the first and "debatable" smart Blu-ray flick with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (February 2015) will be *'Gravity'*. ...And it better be in 3D because 3D sound without 3D picture is simply incomplete.


At least the upcoming Diamond Luxe Atmos version doesn't seem to have 3D included, just 2D.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Okay, so I did get a brief reply back this morning from Dave Fischer, the head of Dolby's home theater engineering group. 

I did ask for further clarification about Atmos customization for various processor types, 9.1.4/9.1.6 rendering blocks, and what I had heard during Dolby's Atmos demo at CEDIA vs. what had been mentioned to other members, etc. etc. 

I also asked him about consumer-grade Dolby Atmos rendering engines and their current and possible future communication between the renderers and various calibration software (such as Audyssey, Yamaha's YPAO, etc.), and about Atmos speaker re-mapping given at least two separate speaker layouts, especially considering the debut of Auro3D and potentially DTS-MDA (UHD). I expressed concern about needing to have multiple speaker configurations in one home theater room and the added expense/complication arising from same. 

The following is his e-mail back to me, word for word. While it may reiterate what some members have already heard (and they can take heart), and not exactly answer what I was trying to uncover, perhaps at least part of his reply will encourage us all to concern ourselves less with arguing about the minutia of Dolby Atmos and the behind the scenes sausage making, and concentrate more on politely discussing amongst ourselves, and then sending clear and concise feedback to Dolby and to their manufacturing partners about future upgrades, expansions, and improvements that we would all hope to see in upcoming products that will be beneficial to everyone. 

They are most definitely reading these threads and taking what we say seriously. 

Without further ado... 

------

Hi Dan, 

Thanks for reaching out. I am glad to hear that the CEDIA trip was fruitful for you. Of course, we are also glad to see so much enthusiasm for Dolby Atmos for the home.

With regards to the home Dolby Atmos rendering solution, I can confirm that the solution that Dolby releases to our IC partners is the same for each partner. _The solution is scalable to the complexity of the processor_. While many of the current solutions used in mainstream AV Receivers may be limited to 12 processed speaker outputs (e.g. 7.1.4), this is not a Dolby restriction. Of course, I cannot comment on future roadmaps of our partners. However, I do know they monitor AVS Forum and other forums, so perhaps some of that feedback will be integrated into their future product plans.

With regards to the selection of speakers based on the results of various calibration algorithms (e.g. YPAO, MCACC, Audyssey, etc.), Dolby exposes an API to select any valid subset of the 24.1.10 speaker positions. It is worth noting that we did extensive research on calibration algorithms and user setup. Our findings led us to the conclusion that it was better to determine a superset of pre-fixed positions, as opposed to allowing truly arbitrary positions. This was intended to minimize confusion by the consumer or poor placement of speakers (e.g. in the middle of the room, etc.) that would yield poor panning results. Based on experiments, we found that our selected positions were close enough to support minor spatial distortion (e.g. 15 degrees for the floor speakers) as a result of a speaker not being placed at the perfect angle. 

Of course, we continue to look for ways to improve our technology, and seek ways to make Dolby Atmos more accessible and easy to use. We are also excited about the stream of content that is in the pipeline. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, we are excited about the recent announcement of a Gravity Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos.

Regards,
Dave


----------



## kokishin

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, so I did get a brief reply back this morning from Dave Fischer, the head of Dolby's home theater engineering group.
> 
> I did ask for further clarification about Atmos customization for various processor types, 9.1.4/9.1.6 rendering blocks, and what I had heard during Dolby's Atmos demo at CEDIA vs. what had been mentioned to other members, etc. etc.
> 
> I also asked him about consumer-grade Dolby Atmos rendering engines and their current and possible future communication between the renderers and various calibration software (such as Audyssey, Yamaha's YPAO, etc. etc.), and about Atmos speaker re-mapping given at least two separate speaker layouts, especially considering the debut of Auro3D and potentially DTS-MDA (UHD). I expressed concern about needing to have multiple speaker configurations in one home theater room and the added expense/complication arising from same.
> 
> The following is his reply, word for word. While it may reiterate what some members have already heard (and they can take heart), and not exactly answer what I was trying to uncover, perhaps at least part of his answer will encourage us all to concern ourselves less with arguing about the minutia of Dolby Atmos and the behind the scenes sausage making, and concentrate more on politely discussing amongst ourselves, and then sending clear feedback to Dolby and to their manufacturing partners about future upgrades, expansions, and improvements that we would all hope to see in upcoming products that will be beneficial to everyone.
> 
> They are most definitely reading these threads and taking what we say seriously.
> 
> Without further ado...
> 
> ------
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for reaching out. I am glad to hear that the CEDIA trip was fruitful for you. Of course, we are also glad to see so much enthusiasm for Dolby Atmos for the home.
> 
> With regards to the home Dolby Atmos rendering solution, I can confirm that the solution that Dolby releases to our IC partners is the same for each partner. _The solution is scalable to the complexity of the processor_. While many of the current solutions used in mainstream AV Receivers may be limited to 12 processed speaker outputs (e.g. 7.1.4), this is not a Dolby restriction. Of course, I cannot comment on future roadmaps of our partners. However, I do know they monitor AVS Forum and other forums, so perhaps some of that feedback will be integrated into their future product plans.
> 
> With regards to the selection of speakers based on the results of various calibration algorithms (e.g. YPAO, MCACC, Audyssey, etc.), Dolby exposes an API to select any valid subset of the 24.1.10 speaker positions. It is worth noting that we did extensive research on calibration algorithms and user setup. Our findings led us to the conclusion that it was better to determine a superset of pre-fixed positions, as opposed to allowing truly arbitrary positions. This was intended to minimize confusion by the consumer or poor placement of speakers (e.g. in the middle of the room, etc.) that would yield poor panning results. Based on experiments, we found that our selected positions were close enough to support minor spatial distortion (e.g. 15 degrees for the floor speakers) as a result of a speaker not being placed at the perfect angle.
> 
> Of course, we continue to look for ways to improve our technology, and seek ways to make Dolby Atmos more accessible and easy to use. We are also excited about the stream of content that is in the pipeline. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, we are excited about the recent announcement of a Gravity Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave


Dan,

Thanks for sharing this. Without getting into who said what, this seems to clear up the previous discussion about the scalability issue as well as what is shared with the CEMs. It also adds clarity on why Dolby chose pre-fixed positions for Atmos speaker placement.


----------



## pasender91

^^^^^ Dan you're the man !!! 

This reply from dave puts to rest one of my hopes: that the Yamaha 3040 would use real speaker positions to feed Atmos.
This is not the case, the dream is gone and Keith won the bet 

This is also confirming that with my personal criterias the Marantz 7009 is the best offer on the market, it is very simply the cheapest 7.1.4 AVR in europe.
I will order it right now, soon i will join you guys in the list


----------



## asoofi1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, so I did get a brief reply back this morning from Dave Fischer, the head of Dolby's home theater engineering group.
> 
> I did ask for further clarification about Atmos customization for various processor types, 9.1.4/9.1.6 rendering blocks, and what I had heard during Dolby's Atmos demo at CEDIA vs. what had been mentioned to other members, etc. etc.
> 
> I also asked him about consumer-grade Dolby Atmos rendering engines and their current and possible future communication between the renderers and various calibration software (such as Audyssey, Yamaha's YPAO, etc.), and about Atmos speaker re-mapping given at least two separate speaker layouts, especially considering the debut of Auro3D and potentially DTS-MDA (UHD). I expressed concern about needing to have multiple speaker configurations in one home theater room and the added expense/complication arising from same.
> 
> The following is his e-mail back to me, word for word. While it may reiterate what some members have already heard (and they can take heart), and not exactly answer what I was trying to uncover, perhaps at least part of his reply will encourage us all to concern ourselves less with arguing about the minutia of Dolby Atmos and the behind the scenes sausage making, and concentrate more on politely discussing amongst ourselves, and then sending clear and concise feedback to Dolby and to their manufacturing partners about future upgrades, expansions, and improvements that we would all hope to see in upcoming products that will be beneficial to everyone.
> 
> They are most definitely reading these threads and taking what we say seriously.
> 
> Without further ado...
> 
> ------
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for reaching out. I am glad to hear that the CEDIA trip was fruitful for you. Of course, we are also glad to see so much enthusiasm for Dolby Atmos for the home.
> 
> With regards to the home Dolby Atmos rendering solution, I can confirm that the solution that Dolby releases to our IC partners is the same for each partner. _The solution is scalable to the complexity of the processor_. While many of the current solutions used in mainstream AV Receivers may be limited to 12 processed speaker outputs (e.g. 7.1.4), this is not a Dolby restriction. Of course, I cannot comment on future roadmaps of our partners. However, I do know they monitor AVS Forum and other forums, so perhaps some of that feedback will be integrated into their future product plans.
> 
> With regards to the selection of speakers based on the results of various calibration algorithms (e.g. YPAO, MCACC, Audyssey, etc.), Dolby exposes an API to select any valid subset of the 24.1.10 speaker positions. It is worth noting that we did extensive research on calibration algorithms and user setup. Our findings led us to the conclusion that it was better to determine a superset of pre-fixed positions, as opposed to allowing truly arbitrary positions. This was intended to minimize confusion by the consumer or poor placement of speakers (e.g. in the middle of the room, etc.) that would yield poor panning results. Based on experiments, we found that our selected positions were close enough to support minor spatial distortion (e.g. 15 degrees for the floor speakers) as a result of a speaker not being placed at the perfect angle.
> 
> Of course, we continue to look for ways to improve our technology, and seek ways to make Dolby Atmos more accessible and easy to use. We are also excited about the stream of content that is in the pipeline. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, we are excited about the recent announcement of a Gravity Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave


Thanks for sharing Dan.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> With regards to the selection of speakers based on the results of various calibration algorithms (e.g. YPAO, MCACC, Audyssey, etc.), Dolby exposes an API to select any valid subset of the 24.1.10 speaker positions. It is worth noting that we did extensive research on calibration algorithms and user setup. Our findings led us to the conclusion that it was better to determine a superset of pre-fixed positions, as opposed to allowing truly arbitrary positions. This was intended to minimize confusion by the consumer or poor placement of speakers (e.g. in the middle of the room, etc.) that would yield poor panning results.


Now if we only would know which subset each manufacturer has chosen


----------



## RRF743

NorthSky said:


> I guess you're in now David; that makes you member number 56 for joining in.  ...How that makes you feel?


 Probably warm and fuzzy inside! LOL!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> ^^^^^ Dan you're the man !!!
> 
> This reply from dave puts to rest one of my hopes: that the Yamaha 3040 would use real speaker positions to feed Atmos.
> This is not the case, the dream is gone and Keith won the bet
> 
> This is also confirming that with my personal criterias the Marantz 7009 is the best offer on the market, it is very simply the cheapest 7.1.4 AVR in europe.
> I will order it right now, soon i will join you guys in the list


I hope the stakes of your bet weren't too onerous.  

I still have to wait until my funds recover to join you all in 3D audio Nirvana.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Now Dan... will you lay off spreading this stuff about the mythical 9.1.4 "rendering block" now? You know, that special super-duper-top-ultra-max-extreme secret that only you inferred about with a Dolby 'engineer'. 

It's the hardware and always has been.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Now if we only would know which subset each manufacturer has chosen


Too true!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Now Dan... will you lay off spreading this stuff about the mythical 9.1.4 "rendering block" now? You know, that special super-duper-top-ultra-max-extreme secret that only you inferred about with a Dolby 'engineer'.
> 
> It's the hardware and always has been.


I still hope what I heard does point to future, tangible product at least. I'd buy a 9.1.4 receiver for a dollar (_Robocop_ reference), wouldn't you?


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> I guess you're in now David; that makes you member number 56 for joining in.  ...How that makes you feel?


I haven't followed the forum for about a month (since after CEdIA, actually). Been really busy with writing, calibration and doing reviews. My room was done on Oct 29 actually and have been enjoying the Dolby Surround upmixer quite immensely. I alse received Expendables 3 this past Friday. The opening scene sound is astounding. Although the movie is not an intelligent one by any means, I rather enjoyed it as I can just park my brain and set my enjoyment in cruise control


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I still hope what I heard does point to future, tangible product at least. I'd buy a 9.1.4 receiver for a dollar (_Robocop_ reference), wouldn't you?


Make it 9.1.*6* with all the flavors of DSP then, yes, I would buy it. And for more than $1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

scott simonian said:


> make it 9.1.*6* with all the flavors of dsp then, yes, i would buy it. And for more than $1.


$1.50?


----------



## smurraybhm

Brian Fineberg said:


> It was a joke


Too deep Brian even for the deepest - but it's good to know all these folks that have bought systems in the last 8 days 
I think it should be called, "It all started with just 3."


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> At least the upcoming Diamond Luxe Atmos version doesn't seem to have 3D included, just 2D.


True; nowhere is there any mention of being in 3D.  /// I guess there will be eventually another release, but this time in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos of course.


----------



## jdoubleh

kokishin said:


> Added you before my first cup of coffee. I'm taking this way to seriously. [j/k]
> 
> Thanks


Yet another setup you can add if you wish. Have an Onkyo TX-NR737 with Def. Tech DI 5.5R in-ceiling speakers in a 5.1.2 TM config.
Thanks.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

David Susilo said:


> I haven't followed the forum for about a month (since after CEdIA, actually). Been really busy with writing, calibration and doing reviews. My room was done on Oct 29 actually and have been enjoying the Dolby Surround upmixer quite immensely. I alse received Expendables 3 this past Friday. The opening scene sound is astounding. Although the movie is not an intelligent one by any means, I rather enjoyed it as I can just park my brain and set my enjoyment in cruise control


This is awesome news. Can't wait for tomorrow night!!!


smurraybhm said:


> Too deep Brian even for the deepest - but it's good to know all these folks that have bought systems in the last 8 days
> I think it should be called, "It all started with just 3."


Guess so lol. 3 IS my favorite number


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I still hope what I heard does point to future, tangible product at least.
> I'd buy a 9.1.4 receiver for a dollar (_Robocop_ reference), wouldn't you?


Thank you for your cooperation. - Robocop /// I'd love to have a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos SSP, or AV receiver myself. 

And me too, I'll be joining in, soon. ...The Dolby Atmos crow.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> same here


I came home and found expandables 3 amazon must have shipped it early wasn't suppose to get it till tomorrow I'll give it a listen.


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> Thank you for your cooperation. - Robocop /// I'd love to have a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos SSP, or AV receiver myself.
> 
> And me too, I'll be joining in, soon. ...The Dolby Atmos crow.


I thought i heard you say earlier that you would be able to resist until 2015 ... ????


----------



## NorthSky

Steve said:


> Too deep Brian even for the deepest - but it's good to know all these folks that have bought systems in the last 8 days*
> I think it should be called, *"It all started with just 3."*


The Expendables 3?

* Not "bought", but totally newly mentioned. ...And some of them recently purchased too, yes, true.


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> Now if we only would know which subset each manufacturer has chosen





Dan Hitchman said:


> Too true!


Don't we already know this? 

All 10 overhead positions are available (FR, TF, TM, TR, RH) so there's no confusion there. No subset, it's all available.

As to the floor level speakers, we know they are adhering to "traditional" locations for the 7 floor level speakers for the "bed" layout right? That goes with the point about minimizing consumer confusion by sticking to the traditional positions. And since the maximal resolution is 15 degree slices, it's not too hard to infer what the render is assuming for azimuth for these 7 channels. 

Center is obviously dead center, FR/FL obviously correspond to the +/- 30° sectors. I don't think anyone would dispute that. So then it's just a question of surround channel azimuth. I think it's logical that the surrounds are the +/- 105° sectors (e.g. Denon manual specs them at 90-110°), and the SB channels are probably the +/- 135° sectors. Do we need more precise info than that to lay out the 7.1 floor speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Pretty easy. Not sure why this is getting past a couple around here.










^^^^^^^^^^

These are the available locations. Proper hardware implementation pending.... 

Then just pick the appropriate position(s).

Again... easy.

More "rendering block" talk, I guess.


----------



## audioguy

*Ceiling speaker placement*

I was planning to install my ceiling speakers tomorrow (a 7.2.4 system) and was doing some initial measuring. 

My ceiling height is 83 inches. My ears are at about 42 inches which translate to a difference of 41 inches. So if I were to choose the Front Speaker location at 45 degrees, they will then only be 41 inches forward of my ears. If I use the 30 degree number, they will be about 71 inches in front of my ears. My side surrounds are also at about 6 feet with a 17 degree angle.

I have about 8 feet between my ears and the back wall. Overall room length is 22 feet. Given I have rear surrounds that are about 6 feet high (but at an elevation of 17 degrees), I have some flexibility in placement. But am thinking about putting them at around 125 degrees for a larger angle away from the rears.

We have one row of seats with close to zero chance of adding more rows. 

Is it better to have a larger area on the ceiling covered or does it make any difference?

My first shot would be to place the fronts at about 30 degrees and the rears at 125.

Comments and recommendations are welcome.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> I thought i heard you say earlier that you would be able to resist until 2015 ... ????


The Atmos wind is always shifting, and in 2015 it'll be shifting some more, towards 'true' HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 ... and I might make my move by then.
...Meanwhile I am staying alert to any new news about integrated Auro-3D, comin' up DTS-UHD (MDA), and yes; *9.1.6* Atmos/Auro-3D setup. 
...From that eventual new generation of 3D sound/4K picture products. 

It would be nice, sooner than later, but I won't cry for not getting on the bandwagon sooner with an Atmos 7.2.4 setup. 
Also, I am keeping a very close eye (wide open) on the upcoming Denon AVR-X7200W flagship AV receiver. 
That one, and compared with the Marantz AV7702 and AV8802 SSPs will be an important determinant factor in my very near final decision. 

And all of this, will play in 2015; no doubt about it. So yes, I am very still waiting for 2015. ...And in 2015 we will also have some more news about 2016.
But if the news are not solid news, then 2015 is the year for me to start enjoying Dolby Atmos @ home.
...And with the deepest hope that we'll see some smart Dolby Atmos Blu-ray releases. ...That, is the main thing for me: Smart Software. 
Without that (smart software), I can easily afford to exercise patience in total mental and physical comfort.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kokishin said:


> Done. BTW, TF+TR does not compute for Atmos Enabled modules unless you mounted them to your ceiling.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Edit: In catching up on the thread, I see jd provided the proper terminology for AE modules: FD, SD, BD, and the other guy with an underscore in his handle (i.e., esteemed member @chi_guy50 (who were the other 49?)) inferred you should get a ceiling.


NP, thanks for the correction.


----------



## dan webster

Yo can add me to the Atmos list.

9.2 4 Marantz 7009 With a gemstone 200x7 amp and emotiva upa 500 amp. ( front wide powered by marantz)
Golden Ear Triton 7's fronts L & R Golden Ear super center XL. 4 Emotiva ERD-1 on ceiling speakers.
2 Emotiva ERD-1 speakers front wide. 2 Emotiva ERM 6.2 side surrounds. 2 Emotiva ERT 8.3 rear surrounds. SVS PB2- plus subwoofer. HSU LFM-1plus subwoofer.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, so I did get a brief reply back this morning from Dave Fischer, the head of Dolby's home theater engineering group.


What he says about going with 24 pre-defined locations makes sense, since leaving it completely random could have encouraged sloppier speaker placement. Thanx for posting the exchange.


Dan Hitchman said:


> I still hope what I heard does point to future, tangible product at least. I'd buy a 9.1.4 receiver for a dollar (_Robocop_ reference), wouldn't you?


Fischer's reply to you means there is no need to wait for Dolby to get you want. With all chipmakers _already_ having the full Atmos code, going beyond 7.1.4 in mass market products is a matter of when, not if. All three Denon receivers already have dedicated RCA outputs for the Wides (not shared with any of the 4 height jacks). Another DAC chip to feed those outputs is not going to bust the chassis.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> All three Denon receivers already have dedicated RCA outputs for the Wides (not shared with any of the 4 height jacks). Another DAC chip to feed those outputs is not going to bust the chassis.


Exactly. Now we just need to convince the CE's making this hardware to pony up the extra $18 per unit to make this a reality.

Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo... hey guys. 

Us= market

All previous posts = demand

We are ready. Are you?


----------



## kokishin

dan webster said:


> Yo can add me to the Atmos list.
> 
> 9.2 4 Marantz 7009 With a gemstone 200x7 amp and emotiva upa 500 amp. ( front wide powered by marantz)
> Golden Ear Triton 7's fronts L & R Golden Ear super center XL. 4 Emotiva ERD-1 on ceiling speakers.
> 2 Emotiva ERD-1 speakers front wide. 2 Emotiva ERM 6.2 side surrounds. 2 Emotiva ERT 8.3 rear surrounds. SVS PB2- plus subwoofer. HSU LFM-1plus subwoofer.


Done,

Thanks


----------



## kokishin

jdoubleh said:


> Yet another setup you can add if you wish. Have an Onkyo TX-NR737 with Def. Tech DI 5.5R in-ceiling speakers in a 5.1.2 TM config.
> Thanks.


Done.

Thanks


----------



## bargervais

Expandables 3 this must be a farewell tour for all the has been you pump me up actors...I wasn't sure what to think a typical shoot em up on steroids flick
Atmos was fine...can't wait for TMNT or maybe they should redo Power Rangers let's hope they come out with something descent soon..let's face it if these latest movies didn't come with an Atmos mix, I wouldn't have ever purchased them


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> What he says about going with 24 pre-defined locations makes sense, since leaving it completely random could have encouraged sloppier speaker placement. Thanx for posting the exchange. Fischer's reply to you means there is no need to wait for Dolby to get you want. With all chipmakers _already_ having the full Atmos code, going beyond 7.1.4 in mass market products is a matter of when, not if. All three Denon receivers already have dedicated RCA outputs for the Wides (not shared with any of the 4 height jacks). Another DAC chip to feed those outputs is not going to bust the chassis.


That would be cool. Hopefully, by the time I can get up the funds Denon or some other company will have added at least that capability. 9.1.4 was pretty impressive at CEDIA, albeit with a Steinway/Lyngdorf processor/speaker combo. A little too rich for my blood. Yowza!


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> What he says about going with 24 pre-defined locations makes sense, since leaving it completely random could have encouraged sloppier speaker placement. Thanx for posting the exchange. Fischer's reply to you means there is no need to wait for Dolby to get you want. With all chipmakers _already_ having the full Atmos code, going beyond 7.1.4 in mass market products is a matter of when, not if. All three Denon receivers already have dedicated RCA outputs for the Wides (not shared with any of the 4 height jacks). Another DAC chip to feed those outputs is not going to bust the chassis.



From reading the service manual for the AV7702 it looks like three of the sixteen channels on the two main eight-channel DACs are unused. The two volume control ICs also have 16 channels available. I suspect that the AV7702 shares this design with the X5200W. The AV8802 and X7200W use different DACs. On the AV7002 two more HDAM circuits (24 transistors each) would have to be added for a 9.2.4 layout. It seems likely the AV8802 will use similar circuits.


----------



## Mike Garrett

thebland said:


> I disagree to an extent. I have my system set up for AURO (and Atmos) and though I followed as closely as possible Datasat's recommendations in installing my 7.6.6 set up, they are simply recommendations. I have an Auro Demo Disc with many movie and Music tracks. I think there are like 20 clips. IT has told me a great deal about what Auro can do. Any more software would be nice but not imperative as I have a great feel for what Auro can do relative to my own set up. Frankly, it sounds terrific! But could it be improved????
> 
> When more and more advnaced users install set ups, I want to know exact angles of all speakers relative to MLP, where the speakers reside by seeing them in photographs of their room. I want to contrast such info with power and equipment choices. Knowing their set ups (e.g. 5.1.4, etc is not enough in my opinion to glean good data). We all know, small inefficient speakers at reference levels typically reach driver compression many dbs before reference output (could be 10db or more relative to LCRs). So, knowing equipment choices can help you weigh the owners subjective impressions. Like if an owner comments that rear or height info seems 'light', small heights or surrounds may be the reason. When I redesigned my room, with the help of the manufacturer, I made sure all height speakers could hit 105 db by themselves at he MLP (the main speakers as well, of course).
> 
> I am set up per Datasat's recommendations... and those are simply recommendations. I'd like to hear from many, many more enthusiasts sharing their experiences and compare that with their set up configuration. There may be a better answer, for example, for folks like my self with a tray ceiling?! But certainly, as the number of installs increase, so will software. But a good demo disc will be an excellent gauge for what these codecs can do - I know I have an excellent gauge in my own room for Auro with the one test disc..


I have the wire pulled and I already have the speakers that I will be using. My JBL Pro 8340's (side surround and ceiling speakers could have a little more coverage, but since I already own them, I will use them. I originally purchased them for rear height and front height. Room is currently 7.1. but will be changed over to 5.1.4 or I guess how people like to list their subs, then my room will be 5.6.4. Still waiting on delivery of the Marantz AV7702. 

As for reference capable, my mains are active with 1,350 watts RMS, using two 12's one 18" and horn loaded AMT tweeter. I really enjoyed listening to the Atmos setups at CEDIA and am looking forward to having it in my room.


----------



## brwsaw

We should be asking for 24.1.10, because they're listening. 
FWIW, the 34 (identical)speakers I'd use (if I were ordering today) cost half as much as the Trinnov needed to run them.


----------



## NorthSky

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I have the wire pulled and I already have the speakers that I will be using. My JBL Pro 8340's (side surround and ceiling speakers could have a little more coverage, but since I already own them, I will use them. I originally purchased them for rear height and front height. Room is currently 7.1. but will be changed over to 5.1.4 or I guess how people like to list their subs, then my room will be 5.6.4. Still waiting on delivery of the Marantz AV7702.
> 
> As for reference capable, my mains are active with 1,350 watts RMS, using two 12's one 18" and horn loaded AMT tweeter. I really enjoyed listening to the Atmos setups at CEDIA and am looking forward to having it in my room.


Mike, that's a good post, and your quote of *thebland*'s (Jeff) post was perfect.


----------



## SkyCyberguy

What I really do not understand about Atmos at home and its backward compatibility (rather technical question):
With Dolby True HD, for example, there is a Dolby Digital CORE included in the True HD stream, containing an ADDITIONAL lossy compressed version of the lossless True HD signal.
This CORE ist played back on a non-True-HD capable system (e.g. when connected via optical).
So far so good so logical.

With Atmos now, do I understand it right that the True HD signal is, in basic, a 7.1 signal like any other 7.1 True HD signal, but with additional meta-data only usable by Atmos decoders?
If so, what exactly does this meta data contain? The exact "3D-position" of any object-based effect?
If so, this object-based effect has to be encoded into the 7.1-mix already (otherwise the bullet, or whatever we are talking about would simply be missing in the 7.1-soundmix when played back on a non-Atmos-capable system) and then, when played back on an Atmos-system, through meta-data-information be "erased" from the 7.1-mix and repositioned in the proper space in the 3-dimensional room.
Basically very similar to how DTS ES Discrete 6.1 also has a matrixed rear-center contained in the surrounds which, when played back on a Discrete 6.1 capable system, is "matrixed out" and replaced by the discrete 6th channel.
Is this the case?
I really can't think of another way of doing it.
If putting all the object-based effects into a kind of an "object-box" within the metadata-container (or whatever you wanna call it), an ordinary True-HD-decoder would never be able to reassociate them to the 7.1 bed, only an Atmos-decoder could do that - which would make the Atmos-mix unreadable to older systems and thus not backward compatible.

I would be VERY grateful if someone could clarify, I simply have to understand such things!
Thanks a lot in andvance!!

Greets
SkyCyberguy


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Don't we already know this?
> 
> All 10 overhead positions are available (FR, TF, TM, TR, RH) so there's no confusion there. No subset, it's all available.
> 
> As to the floor level speakers, we know they are adhering to "traditional" locations for the 7 floor level speakers for the "bed" layout right? That goes with the point about minimizing consumer confusion by sticking to the traditional positions. And since the maximal resolution is 15 degree slices, it's not too hard to infer what the render is assuming for azimuth for these 7 channels.
> 
> Center is obviously dead center, FR/FL obviously correspond to the +/- 30° sectors. I don't think anyone would dispute that. So then it's just a question of surround channel azimuth. I think it's logical that the surrounds are the +/- 105° sectors (e.g. Denon manual specs them at 90-110°), and the SB channels are probably the +/- 135° sectors. Do we need more precise info than that to lay out the 7.1 floor speakers?


Clear as mud?  We still don't know which locations the individual manufacturers use for rendering.

Furthermore, IF the Dolby diagram is correct then the predefined locations are
L/R = ±45°
Ls/Rs = ±90°
Lrs/Rrs = ±135°

L/R at ±45°???


----------



## asarose247

a short shout out to "batpig' for his relentless patience and posts wrt to "interpreting " the 5200 manual for the 11.1 setup


thank you


----------



## markus767

SkyCyberguy said:


> I would be VERY grateful if someone could clarify, I simply have to understand such things!
> Thanks a lot in andvance!!
> 
> Greets
> SkyCyberguy


The TrueHD 7.1 channel-based signal contains a downmix of the Atmos objects. They are extracted and removed from the channel-based mix and get rendered by an Atmos-capable processor/AVR. This ensures compatibility with older receivers. Nothing gets lost.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Of course not... it's an "Expendable" movie.  If they had decided to model this send up after GOOD 80's action movies rather than straight-to-video grade schlock, then there might have been a chance.


Dan - why do you torture yourself watching movies you know you will hate? You have seen it, right?


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> ^^^^^ Dan you're the man !!!
> 
> This reply from dave puts to rest one of my hopes: that the Yamaha 3040 would use real speaker positions to feed Atmos.
> This is not the case, the dream is gone and Keith won the bet


Winning the bet gives me little pleasure (taking part is what matters - how English of me! LOL) as I would have preferred to hear that coming down the turnpike are Atmos AVRs with the ability to know the precise location of the speakers.



pasender91 said:


> This is also confirming that with my personal criterias the Marantz 7009 is the best offer on the market, it is very simply the cheapest 7.1.4 AVR in europe.
> I will order it right now, soon i will join you guys in the list


Way to go!


----------



## CBdicX

Potatogod93 said:


> I am in the process of building a HT and while I'm not so much worried about HDCP 2.2, as I'm not building a 4K system now so it'll be years before I upgrade, I am worried about Aura 3d and DTS-version of immersive audio.
> 
> For those who've already taken the plunge into Dolby Atmos what are your plans once these two systems are out onto AVR's? Are you planning on upgrading then too?


I will stick with Dolby, never liked the bassy sound of DTS, Aura is adding yet an other speaker (voice of "God") so i will stay with x.x.4 Dolby........


----------



## ss9001

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, so I did get a brief reply back this morning from Dave Fischer, the head of Dolby's home theater engineering group.
> 
> I did ask for further clarification about Atmos customization for various processor types, 9.1.4/9.1.6 rendering blocks, and what I had heard during Dolby's Atmos demo at CEDIA vs. what had been mentioned to other members, etc. etc.
> 
> I also asked him about consumer-grade Dolby Atmos rendering engines and their current and possible future communication between the renderers and various calibration software (such as Audyssey, Yamaha's YPAO, etc.), and about Atmos speaker re-mapping given at least two separate speaker layouts, especially considering the debut of Auro3D and potentially DTS-MDA (UHD). I expressed concern about needing to have multiple speaker configurations in one home theater room and the added expense/complication arising from same.
> 
> The following is his e-mail back to me, word for word. While it may reiterate what some members have already heard (and they can take heart), and not exactly answer what I was trying to uncover, perhaps at least part of his reply will encourage us all to concern ourselves less with arguing about the minutia of Dolby Atmos and the behind the scenes sausage making, and concentrate more on politely discussing amongst ourselves, and then sending clear and concise feedback to Dolby and to their manufacturing partners about future upgrades, expansions, and improvements that we would all hope to see in upcoming products that will be beneficial to everyone.
> 
> They are most definitely reading these threads and taking what we say seriously.
> 
> Without further ado...
> 
> ------
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for reaching out. I am glad to hear that the CEDIA trip was fruitful for you. Of course, we are also glad to see so much enthusiasm for Dolby Atmos for the home.
> 
> With regards to the home Dolby Atmos rendering solution, I can confirm that the solution that Dolby releases to our IC partners is the same for each partner. _The solution is scalable to the complexity of the processor_. While many of the current solutions used in mainstream AV Receivers may be limited to 12 processed speaker outputs (e.g. 7.1.4), this is not a Dolby restriction. Of course, I cannot comment on future roadmaps of our partners. However, I do know they monitor AVS Forum and other forums, so perhaps some of that feedback will be integrated into their future product plans.
> 
> With regards to the selection of speakers based on the results of various calibration algorithms (e.g. YPAO, MCACC, Audyssey, etc.), Dolby exposes an API to select any valid subset of the 24.1.10 speaker positions. It is worth noting that we did extensive research on calibration algorithms and user setup. Our findings led us to the conclusion that it was better to determine a superset of pre-fixed positions, as opposed to allowing truly arbitrary positions. This was intended to minimize confusion by the consumer or poor placement of speakers (e.g. in the middle of the room, etc.) that would yield poor panning results. Based on experiments, we found that our selected positions were close enough to support minor spatial distortion (e.g. 15 degrees for the floor speakers) as a result of a speaker not being placed at the perfect angle.
> 
> Of course, we continue to look for ways to improve our technology, and seek ways to make Dolby Atmos more accessible and easy to use. *We are also excited about the stream of content that is in the pipeline.* Of course, as I am sure you are aware, we are excited about the recent announcement of a Gravity Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave


Thanks, Dan!
Nice info to know even if some may be disappointed 

Dave's sentence that I B/U'd to me, is the most critical point about Atmos. More than the details about how it works or is implemented on a particular DSP.

If there is ample & good content, that trumps the importance of whether the speaker angles are measured or assumed. 

I'll clarify that it *would have been* slick if expensive processors that do speaker re-mapping (Trinnov) & Yamaha's stereo mic could have fed the angles into Atmos, and I imagine some are disappointed that they won't, now or forseeable future, but Dolby has done their homework on what works and making that available to all. 

I know some folks care a lot and it's nice to know the technical details (I do) but the gentle, nicely worded implication of his message is clear...it should be about enjoying movies not the sausage-making (to plagiarize a phrase some are using )

Thanks again Dan for reaching out to Dolby.


----------



## Lesmor

ss9001 said:


> Thanks, Dan!
> Nice info to know even if some may be disappointed
> 
> Dave's sentence that I B/U'd to me, is the most critical point about Atmos. More than the details about how it works or is implemented on a particular DSP.
> 
> If there is ample & good content, that trumps the importance of whether the speaker angles are measured or assumed.
> 
> I'll clarify that it *would have been* slick if expensive processors that do speaker re-mapping (Trinnov) & Yamaha's stereo mic could have fed the angles into Atmos, and I imagine some are disappointed that they won't, now or forseeable future, but Dolby has done their homework on what works and making that available to all.
> 
> I know some folks care a lot and it's nice to know the technical details (I do) but the gentle, nicely worded implication of his message is clear...it should be about enjoying movies not the sausage-making (to plagiarize a phrase some are using )
> 
> Thanks again Dan for reaching out to Dolby.


Thanks for that, and also to all posters some great information.

14.5K of posts for a system implementation that some are adamant is simple.

If as said this thread is being monitored by manufacturers please for flexibility could I/we have a 9.2.4 AVR, quite happy having an additional power amp to archive this.

As previously posted updates /upgrades are now apparently going to be more accessible with the new generation of AVR's and the lack of wide speakers with the DSU might be removed at some point.
Of course a new version of Neo:X might appear that utilises Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for that, and also to all posters some great information.
> 
> 14.5K of posts for a system implementation that some are adamant is simple.
> 
> If as said this thread is being monitored by manufacturers please for flexibility could I/we have a 9.2.4 AVR, quite happy having an additional power amp to archive this.
> 
> As previously posted updates /upgrades are now apparently going to be more accessible with the new generation of AVR's and the lack of wide speakers with the DSU might be removed at some point.
> Of course a new version of Neo:X might appear that utilises Dolby Atmos.


I would say half of those 14.5k posts don't add to the Atmos discussion unfortunately and has resulted in some posters ending up on the ignore list. 

I agree a 9.x.4 or 9.x.6 pre-pro would work just fine as well for me, or my preferred option a software renderer to run on a high spec HTPC that supports all the way up to a full DSU/Atmos 24.x.10 if we so desire.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

pasender91 said:


> ...
> This reply from dave puts to rest one of my hopes: that the Yamaha 3040 would use real speaker positions to feed Atmos...



But Yamaha could still be using measured angles to pick the nearest locations from the full set of 24.1.10, which would be pretty good. They probably aren't, but it's a possibility.


----------



## sdurani

kriktsemaj99 said:


> But Yamaha could still be using measured angles to pick the nearest locations from the full set of 24.1.10, which would be pretty good. They probably aren't, but it's a possibility.


Yup, someone there could write a routine that would take the measured location and put it in its respective 15-degree arc on the Atmos circle of speakers. So if a speaker angle was found to measure 27 degrees from centre, it would go in the arc centered at 30 degrees. Doesn't seem too difficult to automate.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Dan - why do you torture yourself watching movies you know you will hate? You have seen it, right?


Not because I wanted to, but yes.

There were a few 80's action gems to draw inspiration from (which the Expendables film makers seemed to ignore) like Lethal Weapon 1&2, Die Hard, Predator, Aliens, First Blood, etc. 

For those who liked the Expendables franchise, I do hope the Atmos mix is a lot better than T4.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Winning the bet gives me little pleasure (taking part is what matters - how English of me! LOL) as I would have preferred to hear that coming down the turnpike are Atmos AVRs with the ability to know the precise location of the speakers.


I hope one of the upgrades that _can_ occur in future electronics is some sort of effective speaker re-mapping feature that can steer speaker outputs to Auro3D or Atmos configurations without losing much in either translation, at least. I'm sure it won't be a perfect solution for either format, but at least the "idea" of each can be reproduced.

That's one potential advantage of DTS-MDA (UHD... or whatever they call it) if DTS can implement "channel" re-mapping this time.


----------



## cannga

Dan Hitchman said:


> I hope one of the upgrades that _can_ occur in future electronics is some sort of effective speaker re-mapping feature that can steer speaker outputs to Auro3D or Atmos configurations without losing much in either translation, at least. I'm sure it won't be a perfect solution for either format, but at least the "idea" of each can be reproduced.
> 
> That's one potential advantage of DTS-MDA (UHD... or whatever they call it) if DTS can implement "channel" re-mapping this time.


Dan, you are then talking about the so-called "second generation" smart renderer (one that knows precisely where speakers are) that we've been talking about right? A smart renderer, whether Atmos, Auro, or DTS is an automatic remapper and is layout agnostic. (In fact I think it eliminates the need for Trinnov remapping.)

That said, IMHO you would still like to follow as closely as possible the speaker layout of the most popular/important codec, and let the "lesser" codec be the one that be remapped. For example, if you remap or "smart-render" an Auro room, with height speakers out at the border (no VOG in small rooms), to an Atmos layout, the images in the middle of the room won't have the same clarity as if the speakers are there towards the middle. IOW, I think it's better to lay out actual speakers per Atmos specs, and remap to Auro, not the other way around.

There is a second principle of remapping (and very likely "smart rendering" as well) that's very rarely discussed, and that is you cannot remap phantom images outside of the border of existing speakers (obvious if we think about it). So for example an Atmos room that is remapped to Auro with height speakers out at the border is not as perfect since those positions are outside of the borders of the ceiling Atmos speakers. If DTS-MDA comes out with speaker recommendation that parallels that of Atmos, then that might be another nail on the Auro coffin.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cannga said:


> Dan, you are then talking about the so-called "second generation" smart renderer (one that knows precisely where speakers are) that we've been talking about right? A smart renderer, whether Atmos, Auro, or DTS is an automatic remapper and is layout agnostic. (In fact I think it eliminates the need for Trinnov remapping.)
> 
> That said, IMHO you would still like to follow as closely as possible the speaker layout of the most popular/important codec, and let the "lesser" codec be the one that be remapped. For example, if you remap or "smart-render" an Auro room, with height speakers out at the border (no VOG in small rooms), to an Atmos layout, the images in the middle of the room won't have the same clarity as if the speakers are there towards the middle. IOW, I think it's better to lay out actual speakers per Atmos specs, and remap to Auro, not the other way around.
> 
> There is a second principle of remapping (and very likely "smart rendering" as well) that's very rarely discussed, and that is you cannot remap phantom images outside of the border of existing speakers (obvious if we think about it). So for example an Atmos room that is remapped to Auro with height speakers out at the border is not as perfect since those positions are outside of the borders of the ceiling Atmos speakers. If DTS-MDA comes out with speaker recommendation that parallels that of Atmos, then that might be another nail on the Auro coffin.


Food for thought. Or as Steven Colbert would say: thought for food.


----------



## RUR

cannga said:


> So for example an Atmos room that is remapped to Auro with height speakers out at the border is not as perfect since those positions are outside of the borders of the ceiling Atmos speakers.


Don't think of the ceiling speakers as existing in a vacuum when considering remapping. Trinnov will remap between any two speakers, including ceiling + listener level.


----------



## cannga

RUR said:


> Don't think of the ceiling speakers as existing in a vacuum when considering remapping. Trinnov will remap between any two speakers, including ceiling + listener level.


In diagram below, D1 and D2 are Dolby's ceiling speakers, A1 and A2 are Auro's surround heights. A1 and A2 are outside of all speakers border and cannot be imaged by Trinnov remapping properly - basic principle of Trinnov remapping, no?

The best that Trinnov remapping could do is a position along the line connected D1 to Side Surround, or anything *WITHIN* the borders set by existing speakers. One thing needs to be mentioned also is a remapped image does not have the same stability or clarity as true speaker image, so better than nothing? Yes. Ideal? No. IMHO even with remapping or smart renderer, you would still want to layout speakers per Atmos over Auro because of the overwhelming populartiy of Atmos.



A1................D1................D2....................A2 (ceiling level)



Side Surround L........................... Side Surround R (ground level)


----------



## RUR

cannga said:


> In diagram below, D1 and D2 are Dolby's ceiling speakers, A1 and A2 are Auro's surround heights. A1 and A2 are outside of all speakers border and cannot be imaged by Trinnov remapping properly - basic principle of Trinnov remapping, no?
> 
> The best that Trinnov remapping could do is a position along the line connected D1 to Side Surround, or anything *WITHIN* the borders set by existing speakers. One thing needs to be mentioned also is a remapped image does not have the same stability or clarity as true speaker image, so better than nothing? Yes. Ideal? No. IMHO even with remapping or smart renderer, you would still want to layout speakers per Atmos over Auro because of the overwhelming populartiy of Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> A1................D1................D2....................A2 (ceiling level)
> 
> 
> 
> Side Surround L........................... Side Surround R (ground level)


You're thinking of remapping as = stereo imaging, when it's really a much more complex process.

If you want the nitty gritty details, ask Curt in the proper Trinnov thread. He's MIA for the holiday, but I'm sure he'll reply when he returns.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not because I wanted to, but yes.
> 
> There were a few 80's action gems to draw inspiration from (which the Expendables film makers seemed to ignore) like Lethal Weapon 1&2, Die Hard, Predator, Aliens, First Blood, etc.
> 
> For those who liked the Expendables franchise, I do hope the Atmos mix is a lot better than T4.


not much better this has the unfold atmos thingee at the beginning which T4 didn't.. T4 had dinosaur transformers and expandables has dinosaur actors both have a lot of bass, explosions endless gun fighting, and of course fighting sigh... couldn't tell if the atmos was better but I't did have its moments, atmos speaking. Not sure if I will ever watch it again.. when are descent blu-rays atmos mix movies coming I guess I'll have to wait for gravity and that movie was horrible as far as movies go..


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> For those who liked the Expendables franchise, I do hope the Atmos mix is a lot better than T4.


A nitpick -- TF4 has a really *excellent *sound mix, and shows off a lot of the capabilities of Atmos with respect to precise panning and placement of sound effects, etc. It just doesn't have a ton of action in the overhead channels. But when they are there they are really well done. So it's not really accurate to imply it's not a good Atmos mix, rather, it's just not a great example if your main goal is to specifically test for a bunch of overhead action.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> A nitpick -- TF4 has a really *excellent *sound mix, and shows off a lot of the capabilities of Atmos with respect to precise panning and placement of sound effects, etc. It just doesn't have a ton of action in the overhead channels. But when they are there they are really well done. So it's not really accurate to imply it's not a good Atmos mix, rather, it's just not a great example if your main goal is to specifically test for a bunch of overhead action.


Since there aren't any "reasonably priced" Atmos processors that have more than the standard 7.l speaker configuration for the main layer (whilst keeping at least four overheads), all we really have to go on is the use of the overheads to enhance the overall soundtrack.

Now, it may be that some of these titles would use multiple side and rear wall pan-through arrays (and even the extra L/R screen speakers) more so than the overheads and still recreate a fairly active lateral sound mix given multiple surround speaker locations, but then we'll have to hear from those who bought a lot of extra speakers and a Trinnov or Steinway processor and get their reviews.


----------



## RRF743

batpig said:


> A nitpick -- TF4 has a really *excellent *sound mix, and shows off a lot of the capabilities of Atmos with respect to precise panning and placement of sound effects, etc. It just doesn't have a ton of action in the overhead channels. But when they are there they are really well done. So it's not really accurate to imply it's not a good Atmos mix, rather, it's just not a great example if your main goal is to specifically test for a bunch of overhead action.


 I totally agree with batpig!


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since there aren't any "reasonably priced" Atmos processors that have more than the standard 7.l speaker configuration for the main layer (whilst keeping at least four overheads), all we really have to go on is the use of the overheads to enhance the overall soundtrack.


That's not true -- we have heard many anecdotes from industry insiders about how the new standards for Atmos theaters (full range surrounds etc) has encouraged them to be more "aggressive" about placing powerful effects in the surround field, and they also take advantage of the extra precision in placing (presumably) object based surround effects. I think it's a mistaken assumption to believe that a 7.1 Atmos mix without overheads will sound identical to if that same mix had been done with a legacy channel based mixing workflow. Different toolkit, different workflow, different outcome.

And several users have reported that the Atmos mix is better than the "flat" channel based mix even with no overhead speakers engaged, for the reasons above.


----------



## cannga

RUR said:


> You're thinking of remapping as = stereo imaging, when it's really a much more complex process.
> 
> If you want the nitty gritty details, ask Curt in the proper Trinnov thread. He's MIA for the holiday, but I'm sure he'll reply when he returns.


As far as limit of image to speakers' border, I don't need to ask. Curt has said so in the Trinnov thread and I know the same from my own demo: You cannot form images outside of border of speakers. This is one fundamental fact of Trinnov remapping; *do you not agree with this? *

As far as the phantom imaging, we will have to agree to disagree. The electronic process is indeed complex, but the end product, what finally comes out at the speakers is still good old phantom imaging to me: sound in left speaker, sound in right speaker, image in between. Even assuming I am wrong, it still doesn't void the main point: limit of remapping to speakers border.

Please note I am not here to discredit Trinnov (it's a fantastic product), but it does have its limits. Its inability to remap perfectly from Atmos layout to Auro layout is a direct result of this limit (no image outside of speakers' border), as in the diagram above.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

cannga said:


> True, but only if they are the *only* 2 speakers in the room. Imaging in object audio could also form between *ceiling and front L & R*, and *ceiling and rear surrounds*. IOW there is no black hole, just not as clear of phantom images. And granted it's a downward tilt "plane," but it's still above you. In fact I hear flies buzzing in the middle of the room in Gravity without Atmos, from the images formed by conventional 7.1 arrangement.
> 
> I do agree that 4 is better than 2, just don't think that ceiling images are limited to line between top 2.
> 
> FWIW, Grimani in that epic Home Theater Geeks video interview actually advocates 9.1.2 *over* 7.1.4. (With the 2 ceiling speakers slightly ahead of MLP and closer together than main speakers.)


I see what you mean, but, as you say, 2 is a compromise. I haven't seen the Grimani video (I will check it out, thanks for the heads up), but please note that in a 7.x.x set-up, I would put the Side Surrounds slightly ahead of MLP (around 75° off axis), as per Toole's recommendations. 

My dream set-up is 9.4.6 though... with 9.x.4 as the step-up from 7.x.4.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

Dan Hitchman said:


> For those who liked the Expendables franchise, I do hope the Atmos mix is a lot better than T4.


While not a fan of the franchise, I temporarily set my 4 in-ceiling speakers at +12db and the other 7 speakers at -12db and watched most of the movie to check out their use of Atmos. The use of ceiling speakers has to be at least 4 times that of TF4, maybe more. I doubt there's ever a full five minutes passes without something coming from the ceiling speakers. That said, thus far my favorite mode is a regular 7.1 upmix which is not at all what I expected when I upgraded from 7.1 to 7.1.4 last month. Absolutely no regrets with the upgrade though.


----------



## prince.nothing

I'm going to make holes in my ceiling to house my speakers, and wanted to get my calculations validated. My ear level is around 3.5' off the ground and my ceiling height is 8'. As per my understanding of the Dolby atmos specs the ceiling speakers should be around 4.5' in front and behind the MLP and be in line with the front towers. Please let me know if this is correct. As always, I appreciate your input.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

prince.nothing said:


> I'm going to make holes in my ceiling to house my speakers, and wanted to get my calculations validated. My ear level is around 3.5' off the ground and my ceiling height is 8'. As per my understanding of the Dolby atmos specs the ceiling speakers should be around 4.5' in front and behind the MLP and be in line with the front towers. Please let me know if this is correct. As always, I appreciate your input.


Rather than a particular distance in front and behind, I used Dolby's recommended angle of 45 degrees in front of MLP and 135 degrees behind MLP. I have 11 foot ceilings so the distance is about 13' from ear level to ceiling speakers. That puts the front ceiling speakers directly over my main towers.


----------



## sdurani

prince.nothing said:


> As per my understanding of the Dolby atmos specs the ceiling speakers should be around 4.5' in front and behind the MLP and be in line with the front towers.


IF you're doing in-ceiling Top Front and Top Rear speakers, then they can be anywhere from 3'2" to 7'9" forward (and rearward) of your listening position. The Atmos spec allow for plenty of flexibility.


----------



## harrybnbad

Hey guys, right about the time the atmos avr's were coming out, i had asked if any one was using klispch RS-52 II surround speakers, and would they still work for the new atmos setup. Seamed like afew people said that they thought they would work out good, or great, or just ok.

SO, now that the atmos avr is all up and running. Do the klispch speakers work. Or sould the be replaced. Im sure the apeakers work . But are they ideal for atmos.

Thanks.


----------



## Nightlord

RAllenChristenson said:


> Rather than a particular distance in front and behind, I used Dolby's recommended angle of 45 degrees in front of MLP and 135 degrees behind MLP. I have 11 foot ceilings so the distance is about 13' from ear level to ceiling speakers. That puts the front ceiling speakers directly over my main towers.


You mean 45 degrees behind MLP, not 135. That would be 45 degrees into the floor behind.


----------



## kokishin

harrybnbad said:


> Hey guys, right about the time the atmos avr's were coming out, i had asked if any one was using klispch RS-52 II surround speakers, and would they still work for the new atmos setup. Seamed like afew people said that they thought they would work out good, or great, or just ok.
> 
> SO, now that the atmos avr is all up and running. Do the klispch speakers work. Or sould the be replaced. Im sure the apeakers work . But are they ideal for atmos.
> 
> Thanks.


 @sikclown is using klispch RS-52 II speakers, installed on-ceiling, in a TF+TR arrangement, with a 7.1.4 config, using the Denon x5200. Check with him if you haven't already.

See my sig for the link to the Members' Atmos Config spreadsheet.


----------



## jdsmoothie

prince.nothing said:


> I'm going to make holes in my ceiling to house my speakers, and wanted to get my calculations validated. My ear level is around 3.5' off the ground and my ceiling height is 8'. As per my understanding of the Dolby atmos specs the ceiling speakers *should be around 4.5' in front and behind the MLP* and be *in line with the front towers*. Please let me know if this is correct. As always, I appreciate your input.


The average we've seen in drawings is roughly 1/2 way between the Front speakers and main listening position (eg. 4-5') with roughly the same distance to the rear, so you're pretty much spot on. Also, from the acoustics podcast recently discussed, you may want to consider moving your height speakers closer together (eg. 4-5' apart) instead of the distance between the FL and FR speakers.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

Nightlord said:


> You mean 45 degrees behind MLP, not 135. That would be 45 degrees into the floor behind.


Using Dolby's diagram they express it as 45 in front, with 90 being directly above, and extending to 135 behind using the same circle (but yes that would be 45 behind if one starts over again).


----------



## HT-Eman

Interesting article ...... http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...nearfield-mixes-for-dolby-atmos-blurays/19537


----------



## sulakd

My side and rear surround speakers in my current 7.1 setup are bipole/dipole. Are they usable in an Atmos setup if I just add overhead speakers, or do I need new speakers all around?


----------



## prince.nothing

RAllenChristenson said:


> Rather than a particular distance in front and behind, I used Dolby's recommended angle of 45 degrees in front of MLP and 135 degrees behind MLP. I have 11 foot ceilings so the distance is about 13' from ear level to ceiling speakers. That puts the front ceiling speakers directly over my main towers.



I did calculate the distance for a 45degree angle to ear level at MLP. For a 45deg angle, the distance behind and in front of the MLP should be the same as the distance from ear level to the ceilings. That's how I came up with the 4.5'. 

Thanks everyone for your inputs.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

prince.nothing said:


> I did calculate the distance for a 45degree angle to ear level at MLP. For a 45deg angle, the distance behind and in front of the MLP should be the same as the distance from ear level to the ceilings. That's how I came up with the 4.5'.
> 
> Thanks everyone for your inputs.


So depending on the spread of your speakers, are you expecting the distance from speaker to the center MLP to be roughly 7 to 8'?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> I hope one of the upgrades that _can_ occur in future electronics is some sort of effective speaker re-mapping feature that can steer speaker outputs to Auro3D or Atmos configurations without losing much in either translation, at least. I'm sure it won't be a perfect solution for either format, but at least the "idea" of each can be reproduced.
> 
> That's one potential advantage of DTS-MDA (UHD... or whatever they call it) if DTS can implement "channel" re-mapping this time.


That would only be possible if Auro content were encoded into DTS 'UHD' with the channels identified with metadata positions. That's of course technically possible, but not supported when the content is delivered using the Auro codec inside the DTS container.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> That would only be possible if Auro content were encoded into DTS 'UHD' with the channels identified with metadata positions. That's of course technically possible, but not supported when the content is delivered using the Auro codec inside the DTS container.


Wish they would deliver their 11.1 mixes as 11.1-channel tracks. Not like any of the new compression codecs (lossy or lossless) have any problems supporting that many channels. As you said, give each channel x,y,z coordinates so that UHD can map it to an Atmos speaker layout. But then, how would Van Baelen get paid (no Octopus encoding/decoding, no $).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Wish they would deliver their 11.1 mixes as 11.1-channel tracks. Not like any of the new compression codecs (lossy or lossless) have any problems supporting that many channels. As you said, give each channel x,y,z coordinates so that UHD can map it to an Atmos speaker layout. But then, how would Van Baelen get paid (no Octopus encoding/decoding, no $).


Yep. Auro3D "processing" of 11.1 PCM masters rather than using DTS's or Dolby's lossless codecs in a by-the-numbers channel-based configuration is not truly necessary. You could have an 11.1 channel DTS-MA track and it would be "bit-for-bit" lossless rather than "virtually" lossless using Auro's Octopus methodology, and would probably be easier to map as you stated. 

How much more storage space and bitrate would be needed compared to Auro's way of doing things, I don't know. Auro's position is tenuous to be sure.


----------



## batpig

sulakd said:


> My side and rear surround speakers in my current 7.1 setup are bipole/dipole. Are they usable in an Atmos setup if I just add overhead speakers, or do I need new speakers all around?


Do they sound good now? Great, they will still sound good going forward! The only change you might want to think about is lowering them slightly if they are really far above ear level. 

You should watch the latest HT Geeks podcast in which Anthony Grimani discusses many aspects of Atmos. He is a professional acoustician and theater designer and he uses bipolar surrounds in smaller rooms to get more even coverage / dispersion.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yep. Auro3D "processing" of 11.1 PCM masters rather than using DTS's or Dolby's lossless codecs in a by-the-numbers channel-based configuration is not truly necessary. You could have an 11.1 channel DTS-MA track and it would be "bit-for-bit" lossless rather than "virtually" lossless using Auro's Octopus methodology, and would probably be easier to map as you stated.
> 
> How much more storage space and bitrate would be needed compared to Auro's way of doing things, I don't know. Auro's position is tenuous to be sure.


I think that's true as far as the US and Canada go; not sure if we could say the same yet about Europe or Asia because both technologies are new to the consumer marketplace. An esoteric product with niche electronica, Norwegian sacred music, and classical performers to provide native content may appeal to some folks with deep (read: Datasat or in particular, Auro branded) pockets. They're just not us. 

That may sound weird, but think of all those odd-ball classical SACD releases you can import from Japan or overseas. It may not be a Hollywood friendly market, but it may be a discernible market if you have folks with $20K+ processors, dedicated listening rooms, and completist tastes enough where a four figure sized user base might be worth the trouble.

I don't know if this is remotely right, or if it's a particularly smart idea, but it may drive the Belgian's thinking. Basically, the hell with the US and think about other markets.

Having said that, I'm surprised he's bothering at all with having Auro licensed with D&M in the US given his philosophy, unless the licensing needs to be "worldwide" so he can try to appeal to an entry-level European consumer buying D&M receivers or pre/pros.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Wish they would deliver their 11.1 mixes as 11.1-channel tracks. Not like any of the new compression codecs (lossy or lossless) have any problems supporting that many channels. As you said, give each channel x,y,z coordinates so that UHD can map it to an Atmos speaker layout. But then, how would Van Baelen get paid (no Octopus encoding/decoding, no $).


Perhaps the AuroMatic upmixer is the killer app. Right now, it is open season for an upmixer that takes 2-ch content into the immersive space without sounding like an LG TV. Any takers?


----------



## pasender91

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps the AuroMatic upmixer is the killer app. Right now, it is open season for an upmixer that takes 2-ch content into the immersive space without sounding like an LG TV. Any takers?


Based on all the reports, isn't DSU doing a more than a decent job and taken the spot ?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps the AuroMatic upmixer is the killer app. Right now, it is open season for an upmixer that takes 2-ch content into the immersive space without sounding like an LG TV. Any takers?


Not impressed with DSU (for 2ch content), Roger?


----------



## Brian B

Curious to know if anyone has experimented with the difference between using a single set of TM speakers vs. a pair of TF and TR for a single listening position. 


I think it is time for an upgrade, but wondering if I'll need more than a 7-channel amp so I could do 5.1.4 vs. 5.1.2. Length of room is 22' and couch is about 14-17' from front to back from front of room.


Also, have read about the 45 degree angle for 2 sets from front to back, but what about the TM speakers? Do they just fire down or are people angling them towards the listening position from the side?


B.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Not impressed with DSU (for 2ch content), Roger?


 
I'm going to do a counterfactual for a minute - forget about the AVSer, more savvy crowd who's emotionally invested in Atmos (e.g. most of us posting  ), and love DSU (aside from Roger to date). 

You go to Best Buy to pick up a new AVR and they've got a bolloxed Atmos demo, with Pioneer AJ speakers or those somewhat lamented DefTech ST "cap" modules firing up at acoustic tiles. But you want a new AVR for Christmas or whatever. So...you buy it, hear about the Auro paid upgrade or possibly have a receiver with Auro built in by that point, and say "wow, I just need two or four speakers above me and not have to buy esoteric upward-firing boxy things or punch holes in my ceiling". The BB guy throws in a couple of cheapo Bose speakers or the equivalent small bookshelf jobbers from, say, DefTech.

In that context, leaving aside the pure PITA of switching between mutually exclusive Atmos and Auro configurations through save/load if you're a D&M person, maybe Auro has a slight advantage if your main interest is upmixing content. And since there's still not much native Atmos content to date, upmixing is the name of the game out of the box....Auro might not be as struggling as some would think. For native content, yes; for upmixing, maybe not so much.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Going with one or the other speaker layout is a big commitment and thinking the long-run is the smart play. Upmixer and native content, aside.

What we need is hardware that knows where the speakers are and then from there can move some of the sound for virtual speaker locations.

Like I've mentioned a few times around AVS, I firmly believe that a full 9.1.6 Atmos-style layout would be fully compatible with every >7.1 format, including upmixers, if they could create these virtual positions. If one did this all the hardware would have to do is phantom image the Auro height layer by placing sound in the ear level speakers and near most heights. You can get vertical phantom imaging so imo you should get a virtual layer of the Auro height layer without having to commit to installing them or have redundant amounts of speakers. Some in use, others not. That would be wasteful and expensive.


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> Based on all the reports, isn't DSU doing a more than a decent job and taken the spot ?


For any 5.1 content, movies or music, I'd concur. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Not impressed with DSU (for 2ch content), Roger?


No. I'm using it in 7.1.4 mode. Sounds a lot better IMHO with the rears turned down 6 dB. I have not tried it in 5.1.4 mode. Maybe it works better there. YMMV.


----------



## RichB

Audioholics: *Are HRTF’s Necessary in Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers?*

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/hrtf-and-elevated-sound-dolby-atmos

There is a good deal of technical information here as some prospective from Dr. Floyd Toole.

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> Audioholics: *Are HRTF’s Necessary in Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers?*
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/hrtf-and-elevated-sound-dolby-atmos
> 
> There is a good deal of technical information here as some prospective from Dr. Floyd Toole.
> 
> - Rich


Deja vu.


----------



## kingwiggi

New Dolby Atmos Cinema Trailer







Hopefully an m2ts TrueHD version will appear shortly


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> New Dolby Atmos Cinema Trailer
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TOlN9dLpi8
> 
> Hopefully an m2ts TrueHD version will appear shortly


Not bad; reminds me of Q-Sound.

_______


----------



## Curt_Trinnov

RUR said:


> You're thinking of remapping as = stereo imaging, when it's really a much more complex process.
> 
> If you want the nitty gritty details, ask Curt in the proper Trinnov thread. He's MIA for the holiday, but I'm sure he'll reply when he returns.





cannga said:


> As far as limit of image to speakers' border, I don't need to ask. Curt has said so in the Trinnov thread and I know the same from my own demo: You cannot form images outside of border of speakers. This is one fundamental fact of Trinnov remapping; *do you not agree with this? *
> 
> As far as the phantom imaging, we will have to agree to disagree. The electronic process is indeed complex, but the end product, what finally comes out at the speakers is still good old phantom imaging to me: sound in left speaker, sound in right speaker, image in between. Even assuming I am wrong, it still doesn't void the main point: limit of remapping to speakers border.
> 
> Please note I am not here to discredit Trinnov (it's a fantastic product), but it does have its limits. Its inability to remap perfectly from Atmos layout to Auro layout is a direct result of this limit (no image outside of speakers' border), as in the diagram above.


Aspects of what you are both getting at are correct. The limit of remapping is the area covered by loudspeakers. However, Remapping is not based alone on the principal of just using two speakers to form a phantom image between them, as given in your simple 2D example. Remapping is a 3D algorithm, and is more complex then described. Remapping will use any speakers in the 3D space to properly place the image. 

The new 3D formats have an appearance of upper and lower layers, and are described as such, ie 9.1.4. The goal of 3D formats is not to reproduce "layers of sound," but rather to potentially form coherent 3D images over a half sphere. 

Trinnov's Remapping approach works as an integrated spherical model where layers don't exist as such. Trinnov will interpret the intended spatial image location within the sphere and use any speakers needed to provide spatial accuracy. 

Historically, sources have been 2D, so 3D correction has been limited to restoring the original 2D plane of the source image. Trinnov's engineering team has been working for some time on the Remapping assumptions for the new 3D formats. It's an exciting time at Trinnov, as Altitude 32 will be the first Trinnov product to Remap 3D sources to 3D space. Given the possibilities within each format, it's quite a challenging task with great outcomes ahead.

Cheers,


----------



## Mike Garrett

Nightlord said:


> You mean 45 degrees behind MLP, not 135. That would be 45 degrees into the floor behind.


He is going by the drawing that has a starting point of a horizontal line from viewer to screen. So 125 degrees would be 45 degrees behind the viewer.


----------



## DAlba

*Where to install Atmos ceiling speakers*

Hi all, 

I currently have a 7.2 surround system and I am going to upgrade to Atmos by adding 4 ceiling speakers.

I am not sure where to install them. I have 8' ceilings. Could someone please look at my diagram and tell me where ceiling speakers should be. 

Also, as a matter of opinion. Should I worry about aligning them with AC vents for cosmetics or just install them where they should go regardless of AC vents? See pic.

I would be interested in finding a balance of best speaker layout for both Atmos and DTS-UHD for whenever that comes out...


----------



## NorthSky

I would move the entire couch by three feet (2.5') forward.

Then the four ceiling speakers in line with your four small circles, but @ angles with Dolby Atmos specs.
And of course your two Side surrounds are also moving forward with the couch.


----------



## cannga

Curt_Trinnov said:


> Aspects of what you are both getting at are correct. The limit of remapping is the area covered by loudspeakers. However, Remapping is not based alone on the principal of just using two speakers to form a phantom image between them, as given in your simple 2D example. Remapping is a 3D algorithm, and is more complex then described. *1. Remapping will use any speakers in the 3D space to properly place the image. *
> 
> The new 3D formats have an appearance of upper and lower layers, and are described as such, ie 9.1.4. The goal of 3D formats is not to reproduce "layers of sound," but rather to potentially form coherent 3D images over a half sphere.
> 
> *2. Trinnov's Remapping approach works as an integrated spherical model where layers don't exist as such.* Trinnov will interpret the intended spatial image location within the sphere and use any speakers needed to provide spatial accuracy.
> 
> Historically, sources have been 2D, so 3D correction has been limited to restoring the original 2D plane of the source image. Trinnov's engineering team has been working for some time on the Remapping assumptions for the new 3D formats. It's an exciting time at Trinnov, as Altitude 32 will be the first Trinnov product to Remap 3D sources to 3D space. Given the possibilities within each format, it's quite a challenging task with great outcomes ahead.
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks Curt for taking the time! I appreciate it. A couple of questions on your very nice explanation please:

*1.* Assuming 3 speakers are used by Trinnov remap to produce an image, what listener hears is still a "phantom image" in the classic sense of the word, based on the combination of sound from those 3 speakers? No other electronic trickery (in the good sense of the word)?
Edit: Never mind Curt and thanks Sanjay . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis

*2. *Thanks and one more question please. In case there *are* strictly 2 separate layers, top and bottom, as in diagram below. Are the TOP speakers A, B, C, D, ever used in remapping of problem *entirely* in the BOTTOM layer, for example to create apparent image at *X*? I do not think this is possible for 2 reasons, one, I could not see how any speaker in top layer could contribute sound and NOT pull image off of the ground plane, and two, X is of course outside of the borders/plane formed by A-G. Your thought on this please? 

Top/ceiling speakers A........B..........C..........D



Bottom/ground speakers *X*.........E......F...........G

*3.* What intrigues me most of all is the idea of remapping from Atmos to Auro speaker layout, or vice versa. I wonder whether an image that is remapped for the MLP, say to that corner X, stays stable for other seats in the house. In non-Trinnov speak, this is of course the advantage of actual speaker over phantom/virtual image: as an example, clarity and stability of actual center speaker for all in audience, as opposed to phantom center image that will shift depending on one's position. Is this a valid concern for why Atmos to Auro remapping may work, but might not be ideal? Thanks again.


----------



## batpig

DAlba said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I currently have a 7.2 surround system and I am going to upgrade to Atmos by adding 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> I am not sure where to install them. I have 8' ceilings. Could someone please look at my diagram and tell me where ceiling speakers should be.
> 
> Also, as a matter of opinion. Should I worry about aligning them with AC vents for cosmetics or just install them where they should go regardless of AC vents? See pic.
> 
> I would be interested in finding a balance of best speaker layout for both Atmos and DTS-UHD for whenever that comes out...


With your seating position so close to the rear wall you will be going with a Top Middle + Front Height layout. You don't have enough room behind you it appears to go Top Rear + Top Front. Even if you could squeeze it in like that placing the rear overheads so close to the back wall will give them little meaningful separation from your back surrounds. 

So Top Middle would go pretty much directly overhead, probably a bit in front of the couch, and then Front Height should have an elevation of 30-45 degrees from the LP. So around 5-7 feet in front of you on the ceiling. 

I think you know in your heart the correct answer to the "align them with the vents for cosmetics or install them where they should go for sound quality" question


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> Assuming 3 speakers are used by Trinnov remap to produce an image, what listener hears is still a "phantom image" in the classic sense of the word, based on the combination of sound from those 3 speakers?


There is another way to give the impression of a sound at that location, by using all the speakers to mimic the sound wave that would have originated from a source at that location and spread outward. 

Read the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis


----------



## Nightlord

RAllenChristenson said:


> Using Dolby's diagram they express it as 45 in front, with 90 being directly above, and extending to 135 behind using the same circle (but yes that would be 45 behind if one starts over again).


They show AT 45 degrees, AT 90 degrees and AT 135 degrees. 135 degrees BEHIND is another thing. Just getting the terminology correct here, it's confusing enough when it's right.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> There is another way to give the impression of a sound at that location, by using all the speakers to mimic the sound wave that would have originated from a source at that location and spread outward.
> 
> Read the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis


It is clear that wave field synthesis goes way beyond the mere psycho-acoustical effects of the classical phantom images we are all familiar with (stereo, pan potting). Apart from remapping speaker locations, it can also mimic sources that are much further away or much closer than any of the speakers present. My understanding is however, that this requires much more speakers than Trinnov apparently needs to do its remapping. Does Trinnov's remapping purely rely on wave field synthesis, or is it a kind of mixed form in which mentioned 'classical' phantom imaging plays a part as well? In other words: Do I exclusively have to use my ears to verify the location of the remapped speakers, or could I also use a kind of 3D microphone (like Trinnov uses to measure actual locations) to electronically locate these new positions?


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> I would move the entire couch by three feet (2.5') forward.
> 
> Then the four ceiling speakers in line with your four small circles, but @ angles with Dolby Atmos specs.
> And of course your two Side surrounds are also moving forward with the couch.



+1 with Northsky, try to move the couch forward, to create space for the rear, and move TF speakers closer to the couch.

If you can't then:
- the TR speakers stay where they are but their angle makes them TM really.
- move TF speakers closer to the couch.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> I would say half of those 14.5k posts don't add to the Atmos discussion unfortunately and has resulted in some posters ending up on the ignore list.


Very true. Using Ignore can cut 14.5k down by at least 4,000.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> With your seating position so close to the rear wall you will be going with a Top Middle + Front Height layout. You don't have enough room behind you it appears to go Top Rear + Top Front. Even if you could squeeze it in like that placing the rear overheads so close to the back wall will give them little meaningful separation from your back surrounds.
> 
> So Top Middle would go pretty much directly overhead, probably a bit in front of the couch, and then Front Height should have an elevation of 30-45 degrees from the LP. So around 5-7 feet in front of you on the ceiling.


Just to confirm: that is my own setup here, and it works brilliantly. The OP should be happy following your advice.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> New Dolby Atmos Cinema Trailer
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TOlN9dLpi8
> 
> Hopefully an m2ts TrueHD version will appear shortly


Excellent - thanks for posting. Great idea to start with 'old sound' and then contrast it with new, Atmos sound. Also a great idea to showcase the various benefits of Atmos the way they do.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since there aren't any "reasonably priced" Atmos processors that have more than the standard 7.l speaker configuration for the main layer (whilst keeping at least four overheads), *all we really have to go on is the use of the overheads to enhance the overall soundtrack.*


Not so, Dan. One of the most impressive aspects of Atmos IMO is the ability it has to give much, much more precision to the way the sounds are placed right through the soundstage, not just overhead. This gives a greater cohesion to the whole soundstage and is very obvious in the Atmos movies I have seen. As I said months back, Atmos is much more than overhead effects.

Yesterday I was invited to a screening of the *Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1*, at Dolby's London facility and this precision of sound placement was one of the most noticeable aspects of the movie's sound - especially in very 'busy' battle scenes. A full report of this event follows, with a detailed analysis of the soundtrack from notes made during the presentation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not because I wanted to, but yes.
> 
> There were a few 80's action gems to draw inspiration from (which the Expendables film makers seemed to ignore) like Lethal Weapon 1&2, Die Hard, Predator, Aliens, First Blood, etc.
> 
> For those who liked the Expendables franchise, I do hope the Atmos mix is a lot better than T4.


Blimey. You mean you saw it and it wasn't even the Atmos version? You really are a masochist 

I'm expecting to enjoy it. I like the self-deprecating humour in this franchise, and it has, allegedly, gotten much better in the third outing. I think it will be a good "fun" experience. They have already slated 4 and 5 you know, so you can feed your masochistic tendencies for at least another 3 or 4 years LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> I will stick with Dolby, never liked the bassy sound of DTS, Aura is adding yet an other speaker (voice of "God") so i will stay with x.x.4 Dolby........


OK, I'll bite. What makes you think that a soundtrack compressed losslessly with DTS will sound any different to one compressed losslessly with Dolby? Is one 'more lossless' than the other?


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> With your seating position so close to the rear wall you will be going with a Top Middle + Front Height layout. You don't have enough room behind you it appears to go Top Rear + Top Front. Even if you could squeeze it in like that placing the rear overheads so close to the back wall will give them little meaningful separation from your back surrounds.
> 
> So Top Middle would go pretty much directly overhead, probably a bit in front of the couch, and then Front Height should have an elevation of 30-45 degrees from the LP. So around 5-7 feet in front of you on the ceiling.
> 
> I think you know in your heart the correct answer to the "align them with the vents for cosmetics or install them where they should go for sound quality" question


I'd use top surrounds at the middle and the rear to "anker" these angles perceptually. Furthermore phantom images can be very fragile, therefore top surrounds at the front and middle will probably result in a rather front-centric presentation.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> OK, I'll bite. What makes you think that a soundtrack compressed losslessly with DTS will sound any different to one compressed losslessly with Dolby? Is one 'more lossless' than the other?



I am not thinking this, i am hearing this (without the "help" of Audyssey !).
I can switch fast between Dolby and DTS, no other changes made to the audio settings, and DTS has absolute more bass output, the total hearing experience is a more "darker" sound, Dolby is more clear to me. 
Special DSU, thats the "clear sound master" for me, with a boxer like bass punch......


I think (but thats me with the Disco ears...) DTS is doing someting Dolby is not, or vice versa. 
Now with my Integra i hear no specific differents in Dolby or THX modes (never did), but i do with DTS, sorry.......


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> I am not thinking this, i am hearing this (without the "help" of Audyssey !).
> I can switch fast between Dolby and DTS, no other changes made to the audio settings, and DTS has absolute more bass output, the total hearing experience is a more "darker" sound, Dolby is more clear to me.
> Special DSU, thats the "clear sound master" for me, with a boxer like bass punch......
> 
> 
> I think (but thats me with the Disco ears...) DTS is doing someting Dolby is not, or vice versa.
> Now with my Integra i hear no specific differents in Dolby or THX modes (never did), but i do with DTS, sorry.......


You're using ambiguous terminology, which might be part of the problem.

Do you mean that you're switching between Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA soundtracks on a disc which provides both soundtracks, or are you switching between Dolby Surround and DTS Neo:X upmixers? 

In the former case, there might be differences in how those soundtracks were mixed, while in the latter case, different upmixing algorithms and usually different speakers are involved, so differing results are not surprising.

Many, perhaps most, people do seem to prefer Dolby Surround to Neo:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> I am not thinking this, i am hearing this (without the "help" of Audyssey !).
> I can switch fast between Dolby and DTS, no other changes made to the audio settings, and DTS has absolute more bass output, the total hearing experience is a more "darker" sound, Dolby is more clear to me.
> Special DSU, thats the "clear sound master" for me, with a boxer like bass punch......
> 
> 
> I think (but thats me with the Disco ears...) DTS is doing someting Dolby is not, or vice versa.
> Now with my Integra i hear no specific differents in Dolby or THX modes (never did), but i do with DTS, sorry.......


What do you think is causing this? The content is PCM. It is compressed either by DTS or Dolby, losslessly. That is to say, when uncompressed, you get all of the original PCM content. So how would one sound different to another?

When you compress a Word document with ZIP and then do it again with RAR, do you find that the content of the document has changed when you decompress them both? No? I thought not 

DTS doesn't 'do something'. It's a just a compression codec. And HD-MA and TrueHD are lossless.

One thing that could make a difference to the sound is the level of each track. If one is louder than the other then it will sound different, and the bass will likely sound 'fuller'. So did you ensure that both the Dolby and DTS tracks were playing at the same level by using a SPL meter to check them? When you replay either at the same SPL they will sound identical.


----------



## CBdicX

Selden Ball said:


> You're using ambiguous terminology, which might be part of the problem.
> 
> Do you mean that you're switching between Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA soundtracks on a disc which provides both soundtracks, or are you switching between Dolby Surround and DTS Neo:X upmixers?
> 
> In the former case, there might be differences in how those soundtracks were mixed, while in the latter case, different upmixing algorithms and usually different speakers are involved, so differing results are not surprising.
> 
> Many, perhaps most, people do seem to prefer Dolby Surround to Neo:X.


 
Yes, i am switching between Dolby Surround and DTS Neo:X upmixers.
Dolby Surround (and before Dolby PLII) are more clear then DTS Neo.


Indeed TrueHD and DTS Master will not sound any different, sorry i whas not clear about the used audio mode.


----------



## mtbdudex

RichB said:


> Audioholics: *Are HRTF’s Necessary in Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers?*
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/hrtf-and-elevated-sound-dolby-atmos
> 
> There is a good deal of technical information here as some prospective from Dr. Floyd Toole.
> 
> - Rich


Light reading for the day before Thanksgiving with some coffee....thx for posting the link

While I post the conclusion below to grasp it in context pls read the article


> *Bottom Line*
> 
> Since this is a rather complex topic of discussion, I thought it would be useful to recap the main points herein as follows:
> 
> 
> Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) was first documented in 1972. Its incorporation into a Dolby elevation speaker is not a unique application.
> HRTF varies among individuals and are not predicable but can be generalized.
> If you want a sound to come from a discrete location, its most effective to put a speaker in that location rather than bouncing soundwaves off a ceiling.
> HRTF encoded into speakers is redundant and may degrade the sound quality. Timbre matching speakers is important especially when directional and distance cues are involved. Choosing speakers of similar quality and dynamic capabilities for all of your home theater speakers is recommended.
> The listening window for a reflected speaker varies significantly within the room and careful aiming is required to generate the proper effect. Sounds with insufficient high frequencies will be localized at the origin speaker locations producing those sounds.
> A controlled dispersion speaker can create the illusion of elevated sound for a narrow listening area.
> *
> Conclusion*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems very apparent that the deployment of a HRTF in a loudspeaker crossover is not only problematic but likely not necessary as well. While they are useful in applications like headphones, and sound bars, adding them to an actual discrete external sound source like a loudspeaker playing in a room, and specifically in this case, a Dolby Atmos Elevation speaker module, can in fact impact performance in a negative way. Moreover, this also unnecessarily drives up the complexity of the speaker’s crossover and thus its associated cost. The human ear already has the benefit of its own HRTF customized to each listener. Simply selecting a loudspeaker with narrow and controlled dispersion, along with careful placement relative to the seated area can create the illusion of elevated sound for a narrow listening area, though not as precisely or as consistently as having a discrete sound source located in the position of origination it was intended to mimic.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Not so, Dan. One of the most impressive aspects of Atmos IMO is the ability it has to give much, much more precision to the way the sounds are placed right through the soundstage, not just overhead. This gives a greater cohesion to the whole soundstage and is very obvious in the Atmos movies I have seen. As I said months back, Atmos is much more than overhead effects.


And if I may add, also much more than the object rendering during playback itself. Not having an Atmos capable AVR/processor (yet), my experience is that without exception movies which have been mixed in Atmos produce notably better sound in terms of cohesion, localization and fidelity.


----------



## markus767

DAlba said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I currently have a 7.2 surround system and I am going to upgrade to Atmos by adding 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> I am not sure where to install them. I have 8' ceilings. Could someone please look at my diagram and tell me where ceiling speakers should be.
> 
> Also, as a matter of opinion. Should I worry about aligning them with AC vents for cosmetics or just install them where they should go regardless of AC vents? See pic.
> 
> I would be interested in finding a balance of best speaker layout for both Atmos and DTS-UHD for whenever that comes out...


This is what I would do:










The frontal top surround is at 45°, about the middle of the room depth. If the back top surround is mounted in the rear ceiling corner it ends up at about 60°.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> This is what I would do:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The frontal top surround is at 45°, about the middle of the room depth. If the back top surround is mounted in the rear ceiling corner it ends up at about 60°.


Doesn't that put the Top Rears just in Dolby's 'no-fly' zone (running from 100 to 125 degrees). I honestly don't know why Dolby does not want us to put overheads in that range, but it clearly deviates from their guidelines...

Edit: Personally though, I like the idea of putting the overheads at 60 degrees sections and would likewise put the front tops also at 60 degrees, dividing the sound hemisphere vertically in three equal parts. Any reason why 45 degrees would work better than that?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> And if I may add, also much more than the object rendering during playback itself. Not having an Atmos capable AVR/processor (yet), my experience is that without exception movies which have been mixed in Atmos produce notably better sound in terms of cohesion, localization and fidelity.


Agreed. It seems that the superior mixing capability enables the mixers to achieve this. So even for those who don't upgrade to Atmos, there is a benefit.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

expendable 3 was awesome. the opening scene is incredible! you want flyovers...this movie has it in spades...

also the movie was MUCH better than the first 2....

still waiting for a soundtrack to have the same type of spacial effects as the demos but for now this is the go to movie ...its better than T4 imho


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Doesn't that put the Top Rears just in Dolby's 'no-fly' zone (running from 100 to 125 degrees). I honestly don't know why Dolby does not want us to put overheads in that range, but it clearly deviates from their guidelines...


What 'no-fly' zone would that be? If you want a hemispherical projection then you have to spread speakers evenly within that "dome".


----------



## Brian Fineberg

maikeldepotter said:


> Doesn't that put the Top Rears just in Dolby's 'no-fly' zone (running from 100 to 125 degrees). I honestly don't know why Dolby does not want us to put overheads in that range, but it clearly deviates from their guidelines...
> 
> Edit: Personally though, I like the idea of putting the overheads at 60 degrees sections and would likewise put the front tops also at 60 degrees, dividing the sound hemisphere vertically in three equal parts. Any reason why 45 degrees would work better than that?


am I reading this stuff wrong...but it is NOT the no fly zone...in fact its eactly where I have mine and its wonderful...hmmmm now Im confused by your post


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> Doesn't that put the Top Rears just in Dolby's 'no-fly' zone (running from 100 to 125 degrees). I honestly don't know why Dolby does not want us to put overheads in that range, but it clearly deviates from their guidelines...
> 
> Edit: Personally though, I like the idea of putting the overheads at 60 degrees sections and would likewise put the front tops also at 60 degrees, dividing the sound hemisphere vertically in three equal parts. Any reason why 45 degrees would work better than that?


Markus was replying to DAlba specific request, so it was not a general recommendation.
DAlba configuration is quite common, the couch is near the rear wall so the Dolby setup TF+TR (45° and 135°, i note 45-135 for concision) does not apply to him.
I agree with Markus that a 45-120 install would be a good approach, or maybe 50-120 even better.


On a general basis, when placing 4 top speakers we have the following ways:
- The Dolby proposition TF-TR at 45-135 , which seems a bit strange and does not seem ideal, for example it forces to have very-wide-dispersion speakers and leaves a big gap on top, especially if there is a low ceiling.
- You propose 60-120, which is "mathematically" correct to reduce angular differences, but then your outside angle ranges supported by the AVRs 
- As i believe in "intelligent compromises" , i propose to use 50-130, which is still within Dolby ranges, and minimizes the gap on top of the MLP.


----------



## sulakd

batpig said:


> Do they sound good now? Great, they will still sound good going forward! The only change you might want to think about is lowering them slightly if they are really far above ear level.
> 
> You should watch the latest HT Geeks podcast in which Anthony Grimani discusses many aspects of Atmos. He is a professional acoustician and theater designer and he uses bipolar surrounds in smaller rooms to get more even coverage / dispersion.


Ok, thanks! I started to watch it a couple days ago, but it was really long, like over an hour. I'll go back to it this weekend maybe. 

I've read that ceiling-mounted speakers for an Atmos setup work better if they have a wide dispersion pattern. Are bipoles (or maybe even quadpoles like Axiom qs4/8) a good choice, or are they too disperse? Adding Atmos modules to my fronts and rears is really not practical due to difficulty running new wires in those walls. Ceiling is easily accessible, but I don't want large speakers that would hang down too far, and I don't really want to install in-ceiling speakers because then I'd be leaking conditioned air into attic above. I think the QS4s are only about 6" deep, so they wouldn't look too intrusive on the ceiling.


----------



## Curt_Trinnov

cannga said:


> Thanks Curt for taking the time! I appreciate it. A couple of questions on your very nice explanation please:
> 
> *1.* Assuming 3 speakers are used by Trinnov remap to produce an image, what listener hears is still a "phantom image" in the classic sense of the word, based on the combination of sound from those 3 speakers? No other electronic trickery (in the good sense of the word)?
> Edit: Never mind Curt and thanks Sanjay . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis
> 
> *2. *Thanks and one more question please. In case there *are* strictly 2 separate layers, top and bottom, as in diagram below. Are the TOP speakers A, B, C, D, ever used in remapping of problem *entirely* in the BOTTOM layer, for example to create apparent image at *X*? I do not think this is possible for 2 reasons, one, I could not see how any speaker in top layer could contribute sound and NOT pull image off of the ground plane, and two, X is of course outside of the borders/plane formed by A-G. Your thought on this please?
> 
> Top/ceiling speakers A........B..........C..........D
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom/ground speakers *X*.........E......F...........G
> 
> *3.* What intrigues me most of all is the idea of remapping from Atmos to Auro speaker layout, or vice versa. I wonder whether an image that is remapped for the MLP, say to that corner X, stays stable for other seats in the house. In non-Trinnov speak, this is of course the advantage of actual speaker over phantom/virtual image: as an example, clarity and stability of actual center speaker for all in audience, as opposed to phantom center image that will shift depending on one's position. Is this a valid concern for why Atmos to Auro remapping may work, but might not be ideal? Thanks again.


I'm traveling, so will have to answer fully later...

Yes, phantom images are formed from 2 or more loudspeakers from the 3D field. Fourier Bessel Transform is used to calculate the speakers and their signals. (WFS is not used)

Can't use only top speakers only to fix a problem in the lower area, but it would be incorrect to assume the layers are independent of each other. 

The advantage of getting ideal speaker positions is to have optimal imaging beyond the MLP. You are focused on the issue of remapping errors regarding the the differing formats, based of phantom imaging errors. I would suggest that the key to great imaging, regardless, is to use more speakers, particularly where the room has two or more rows of seating. 

Cheers


----------



## Curt_Trinnov

maikeldepotter said:


> It is clear that wave field synthesis goes way beyond the mere psycho-acoustical effects of the classical phantom images we are all familiar with (stereo, pan potting). Apart from remapping speaker locations, it can also mimic sources that are much further away or much closer than any of the speakers present. My understanding is however, that this requires much more speakers than Trinnov apparently needs to do its remapping. Does Trinnov's remapping purely rely on wave field synthesis, or is it a kind of mixed form in which mentioned 'classical' phantom imaging plays a part as well? In other words: Do I exclusively have to use my ears to verify the location of the remapped speakers, or could I also use a kind of 3D microphone (like Trinnov uses to measure actual locations) to electronically locate these new positions?


You are correct about WFS and the need for many speakers to form images beyond the boundary. Trinnov relies on Fourier Bessel Transform to calculate the Remapped positions. Phantom images are formed by use of 2 or more loudspeakers that can be simple or complex in nature, depending on the correction involved.


Cheers,


----------



## rboster

sulakd said:


> Ok, thanks! I started to watch it a couple days ago, but it was really long, like over an hour. I'll go back to it this weekend maybe.
> 
> I've read that ceiling-mounted speakers for an Atmos setup work better if they have a wide dispersion pattern. Are bipoles (or maybe even quadpoles like Axiom qs4/8) a good choice, or are they too disperse? Adding Atmos modules to my fronts and rears is really not practical due to difficulty running new wires in those walls. Ceiling is easily accessible, but I don't want large speakers that would hang down too far, and I don't really want to install in-ceiling speakers because then I'd be leaking conditioned air into attic above. I think the QS4s are only about 6" deep, so they wouldn't look too intrusive on the ceiling.


Sorry, not familar with the term "conditioned air" relative to audio? If you are concerned about vibrations etc. ..wouldn't a backing box or speakers like these be appropriate?

http://www.parts-express.com/klipsc...v---100v-ceiling-speaker-pair-black--247-2005

I installed a pair last weekend, and have had no issues with ceiling or room vibrations with the backing box on the speaker. They blend nicely with my current set up (JTF Fronts and Reaction Audio sides/rears). 

Ron


----------



## cannga

Curt_Trinnov said:


> You are correct about WFS and the need for many speakers to form images beyond the boundary. Trinnov relies on Fourier Bessel Transform to calculate the Remapped positions. Phantom images are formed by use of 2 or more loudspeakers that can be simple or complex in nature, depending on the correction involved.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


 
Thank you Curt. You are always such a patient gentleman and sorry that I am "bugging" you at this busy time; I am so curious I can't help it . I found your post from ealier; I had erroneously thought Trinnov used WFS but obviously not. 



Curt_Trinnov said:


> Yes, there are similarities between HOA (Higher Order Ambisonics), Fourier-Bessel (Trinnov), and WFS (Wave Field Synthesis- Iosono) as well. The three form the most well known mathematical approaches for 3D. I am familiar with Technicolor's work, as I consulted on the design, tuning and ongoing progress of their HOA room. They have some work ahead of them to refine their tools. WFS is very compelling, but quite complicated to implement. We may see AURO or similar win the commercial cinema by way of it's simplicity. So far, having watched movies in all the formats, I find Atmos to be the most involving.
> 
> Cheers,


----------



## Selden Ball

rboster said:


> Sorry, not familar with the term "conditioned air" relative to audio? If you are concerned about vibrations etc. ..wouldn't a backing box or speakers like these be appropriate?
> 
> http://www.parts-express.com/klipsc...v---100v-ceiling-speaker-pair-black--247-2005
> 
> I installed a pair last weekend, and have had no issues with ceiling or room vibrations with the backing box on the speaker. They blend nicely with my current set up (JTF Fronts and Reaction Audio sides/rears).
> 
> Ron


I assume he meant that he did not want the cooled air in the HT, and the energy needed to keep it cool, to be wasted by letting it escape into the non-air-conditioned attic.


----------



## rboster

Selden Ball said:


> I assume he meant that he did not want the cooled air in the HT, and the energy needed to keep it cool, to be wasted by letting it escape into the non-air-conditioned attic.


Gotcha...I had my head wrapped around the issue from an audio stand point. The klipsch speakers that I linked are the ones I installed last weekend. The seal between the attic and the ceiling of the HT, combined with the fact they have a backing box on the back of the speaker I don't think will allow air to pass through.


----------



## sulakd

rboster said:


> Sorry, not familar with the term "conditioned air" relative to audio? If you are concerned about vibrations etc. ..wouldn't a backing box or speakers like these be appropriate?
> 
> http://www.parts-express.com/klipsc...v---100v-ceiling-speaker-pair-black--247-2005
> 
> I installed a pair last weekend, and have had no issues with ceiling or room vibrations with the backing box on the speaker. They blend nicely with my current set up (JTF Fronts and Reaction Audio sides/rears).
> 
> Ron


The stud cavities are full of blown-in insulation, which all has to be moved to cut large holes in the ceiling for speakers. Not a big deal, but a small hole for speaker wire would be much easier. By "conditioned air," I'm talking about the heated/cooled/humidity-controlled air in the house. Putting large holes in for speakers will allow heat loss into the attic unless everything is well sealed and insulated boxes are installed over the speakers. I've done this for non-ic and ic lights (which in my experience aren't all that insulated), and it's a pain to do it right. Also worried about timbre matching (Atmos says it matters) - if I could just buy more bipolar surround speakers that match what I already have, no worries.

So really just wondering in bipolar or quadpolar speakers are too disperse to meet Atmos ceiling-speaker requirements.


----------



## rboster

sulakd said:


> The stud cavities are full of blown-in insulation, which all has to be moved to cut large holes in the ceiling for speakers. Not a big deal, but a small hole for speaker wire would be much easier. By "conditioned air," I'm talking about the heated/cooled/humidity-controlled air in the house. Putting large holes in for speakers will allow heat loss into the attic unless everything is well sealed and insulated boxes are installed over the speakers. I've done this for non-ic and ic lights (which in my experience aren't all that insulated), and it's a pain to do it right. Also worried about timbre matching (Atmos says it matters) - if I could just buy more bipolar surround speakers that match what I already have, no worries.
> 
> So really just wondering in bipolar or quadpolar speakers are too disperse to meet Atmos ceiling-speaker requirements.


Atmos requires some localization of sounds (depending on the soundtrack), so as most of stated, quads or bipole speakers would not be preferred.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Does Trinnov's remapping purely rely on wave field synthesis, or is it a kind of mixed form in which mentioned 'classical' phantom imaging plays a part as well?


It is more like Higher Order Ambisonics than WFS. See *Curt's post*. There's no "pairwise panning" or even VBAP being used.



> In other words: Do I exclusively have to use my ears to verify the location of the remapped speakers, or could I also use a kind of 3D microphone (like Trinnov uses to measure actual locations) to electronically locate these new positions?


I'd guess that since the dominant energy will come from the intended direction, the Trinnov mic could correctly locate a sound source. Might be better to use their 8-capsule array. If you used a binaural mic (dummy head), it would hear what you hear.


----------



## smurraybhm

rboster said:


> Atmos requires some localization of sounds (depending on the soundtrack), so as most of stated, quads or bipole speakers would not be preferred.


There are a some of us using bipoles and quads should work too. Until you try you don't know what is possible or sounds the best in the confines of one's room.


----------



## gammanuc

Brian Fineberg said:


> expendable 3 was awesome. the opening scene is incredible! you want flyovers...this movie has it in spades...
> 
> also the movie was MUCH better than the first 2....
> 
> still waiting for a soundtrack to have the same type of spacial effects as the demos but for now this is the go to movie ...its better than T4 imho


I watched that opening last night amazing! 
One thing I noticed though, at one point when the camera was above the helicopter looking directly down the sound was coming out of my top speakers. Does this mean I have to install some speakers in my floor now?


----------



## pasender91

smurraybhm said:


> There are a some of us using bipoles and quads should work too. Until you try you don't know what is possible or sounds the best in the confines of one's room.


Dolby clearly opened the door to bipoles, including on the ceiling if it is below 2.6m.


----------



## gammanuc

Nm


----------



## maikeldepotter

Curt_Trinnov said:


> You are correct about WFS and the need for many speakers to form images beyond the boundary. Trinnov relies on Fourier Bessel Transform to calculate the Remapped positions. Phantom images are formed by use of 2 or more loudspeakers that can be simple or complex in nature, depending on the correction involved.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


v

Got it. Thanks.


----------



## richmagnus

rboster said:


> Atmos requires some localization of sounds (depending on the soundtrack), so as most of stated, quads or bipole speakers would not be preferred.



Tripoles and bipoles can be used as surrounds and ceiling speakers in an object based system to great effect. 

Spent many hours listening to various Atmos configurations using tripoles as surrounds and ceiling speakers. 

MSR acoustics also use bipole speakers in Atmos based systems. 

Having discussed this very topic with some top industry speaker designers they too are of the same opinion.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I finally decided to rent TF4 so I could hear an Atmos disc (aside from the Dolby demo disc). While the film was for the most part painful to sit through/ most vapid dialogue ever, I was very pleased to find the audio more than made up for it. Even if you hate Transformers films 2x as much as I do I think the film is at least worth a rental just for the sound... nothing is like it. I might buy it just to show off my sound system which is something I wouldn't have considered doing with any other format (3D included). 

Unfortunately watching the film makes me crave Atmos material more than ever before. I fear it might be years before we get additional Atmos discs. If Atmos announcements are made I hope it won't be something like Dolphin Tale 2 or Penguins of Madascar... I hope the current trend of dismal offerings won't continue!


----------



## rboster

richmagnus said:


> Tripoles and bipoles can be used as surrounds and ceiling speakers in an object based system to great effect.
> 
> Spent many hours listening to various Atmos configurations using tripoles as surrounds and ceiling speakers.
> 
> MSR acoustics also use bipole speakers in Atmos based systems.
> 
> Having discussed this very topic with some top industry speaker designers they too are of the same opinion.


I stand corrected. Thanks everyone for their insight and information. Much appreciated


Ron


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> I finally decided to rent TF4 so I could hear an Atmos disc (aside from the Dolby demo disc). While the film was for the most part painful to sit through/ most vapid dialogue ever, I was very pleased to find the audio more than made up for it. Even if you hate Transformers films 2x as much as I do I think the film is at least worth a rental just for the sound... nothing is like it. I might buy it just to show off my sound system which is something I wouldn't have considered doing with any other format (3D included).
> 
> Unfortunately watching the film makes me crave Atmos material more than ever before. I fear it might be years before we get additional Atmos discs. If Atmos announcements are made I hope it won't be something like Dolphin Tale 2 or Penguins of Madascar... I hope the current trend of dismal offerings won't continue!


Years? TMNT, Expendables 3 are coming out within weeks and Gravity re-releases in Atmos in February.

Do you really think it will be years before you find a likable movie in Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Do you really think it will be years before you find a likable movie in Atmos?


In this culture of complaint, people need to find something (anything) to be upset about.


----------



## batpig

rboster said:


> I stand corrected. Thanks everyone for their insight and information. Much appreciated


One thing that has been pointed out (both by folks like Sanjay in this thread and Anthony Grimani in that awesome HT Geeks podcast) is that a lot of these "debates" about speaker parameters -- monopole vs bipole vs dipole, dispersion characteristics, toe-in anlge, etc -- are nothing new. Atmos isn't some magical beast that has changed the fundamentals of how a speaker produces sound. 

It's really no different than the many years of debate about monopole vs bipole/dipole surrounds. Some folks argue that discrete multichannel deserves a pinpoint accurate source and like monopole surrounds. Some folks want broader coverage, or maybe sit too close to the surrounds (making a monopole "beam" too much as Grimani describes) and like bipoles/tripoles. Some prefer a difuse surround field and like dipoles. 

To me, the same concepts apply to the ceiling speakers. I think the general consensus is that you should treat the ceiling speakers in a similar fashion as your surround speakers when considering things like dispersion, freq response, power handling, etc. Want broad, even coverage and have a smallish room, placing you physically close to the surrounds and/or overheads? Then IMO bipoles/tripoles are just as valid an option for overheads as they are for side/rear surrounds.


----------



## richmagnus

batpig said:


> One thing that has been pointed out (both by folks like Sanjay in this thread and Anthony Grimani in that awesome HT Geeks podcast) is that a lot of these "debates" about speaker parameters -- monopole vs bipole vs dipole, dispersion characteristics, toe-in anlge, etc -- are nothing new. Atmos isn't some magical beast that has changed the fundamentals of how a speaker produces sound.
> 
> It's really no different than the many years of debate about monopole vs bipole/dipole surrounds. Some folks argue that discrete multichannel deserves a pinpoint accurate source and like monopole surrounds. Some folks want broader coverage, or maybe sit too close to the surrounds (making a monopole "beam" too much as Grimani describes) and like bipoles/tripoles. Some prefer a difuse surround field and like dipoles.
> 
> To me, the same concepts apply to the ceiling speakers. I think the general consensus is that you should treat the ceiling speakers in a similar fashion as your surround speakers when considering things like dispersion, freq response, power handling, etc. Want broad, even coverage and have a smallish room, placing you physically close to the surrounds and/or overheads? Then IMO bipoles/tripoles are just as valid an option for overheads as they are for side/rear surrounds.



Couldn't have put it better myself. I have listened to tripole speakers in 5.2.2 and 7.8.4 and they sound fantastic. I am an advocate of tripoles in any system and yes it is all down to preference. 

BTW thank you Batpig for saving me many hours over the years trying to decipher Denon manuals. Your work is appreciated by many sir.


----------



## Brian B

Brian B said:


> Curious to know if anyone has experimented with the difference between using a single set of TM speakers vs. a pair of TF and TR for a single listening position.
> 
> 
> I think it is time for an upgrade, but wondering if I'll need more than a 7-channel amp so I could do 5.1.4 vs. 5.1.2. Length of room is 22' and couch is about 14-17' from front to back from front of room.
> 
> 
> Also, have read about the 45 degree angle for 2 sets from front to back, but what about the TM speakers? Do they just fire down or are people angling them towards the listening position from the side?
> 
> 
> B.



Anyone? Should I try the AV7702 thread instead?


B.


----------



## batpig

Brian B - This thread is a beast so searching is difficult, but quite a few users have reported moving from 2 overheads to 4 and have unanimously declared it to be a major improvement in immersion and precision of overhead effects. The second pair is less about covering multiple seats and more about providing complete overhead coverage and the ability to pan front-to-back in addition to side-to-side with overhead sound.

If you have the resources to do it, I do not think you will be disappointed by going whole hog to 5.1.4 or even 7.1.4. Especially given that your room is fairly long.


----------



## mtbdudex

richmagnus said:


> Couldn't have put it better myself. I have listened to tripole speakers in 5.2.2 and 7.8.4 and they sound fantastic. I am an advocate of tripoles in any system and yes it is all down to preference.
> 
> BTW thank you Batpig for saving me many hours over the years trying to decipher Denon manuals. Your work is appreciated by many sir.



I see 7.8.4, you have 8 independent and calibrated subs via what, a MiniDSP?
What are they?

I have a 11.2 set-up, which for the subs is a IB line array 4 15" drivers , I call that sub 1, and then 2 more sealed subs (15" and 18" driver placed at 1/4 wall distance, level matched independent to 73db that together give 76 db) that I call together sub 2.
Audyssey SubEQ then blends those 2 feeds into my set up.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> *The Expendables 3* was awesome. the opening scene is incredible! you want flyovers...this movie has it in spades...
> 
> *also the movie was MUCH better than the first 2*....
> 
> still waiting for a soundtrack to have the same type of spacial effects as the demos but for now this is the go to movie ...its better than T4 imho


Brian, I don't have a Dolby Atmos machine (yet), but this flick totally sucks! ...I mean the film here (I watched it late last night). I personally prefer the first two, and even the first two are not my type of films @ all. ...Just for adrenaline fun of watching a bunch of old farts pumped up on testosterone, I guess it's ok. 

Smart flick it ain't. ...And the sound; machine guns, bullets, choppers, explosions ... we can all get on the front (war zone). ...The real deal. 
This flick is kids stuff, gamers stuff, people looking for fake Hollywood effects. 

This is my own personal opinion, and the fact that I don't agree with your own view doesn't make me a bad person, or someone who does not like you...to the contrary, I respect your honesty in saying what you like. 

And like I said; I don't have Dolby Atmos yet, just old fashioned 7.1-channel setup for the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround sound encoding on this Blu.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> Very true. Using Ignore can cut 14.5k down by at least 4,000.


Agree. Using IL is a godsend for filtering out NuiSance posts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I finally decided to rent TF4 so I could hear an Atmos disc (aside from the Dolby demo disc). While the film was for the most part painful to sit through/ most vapid dialogue ever, I was very pleased to find the audio more than made up for it. Even if you hate Transformers films 2x as much as I do I think the film is at least worth a rental just for the sound... nothing is like it. I might buy it just to show off my sound system which is something I wouldn't have considered doing with any other format (3D included).
> 
> Unfortunately watching the film makes me crave Atmos material more than ever before. I fear it might be years before we get additional Atmos discs. If Atmos announcements are made I hope it won't be something like Dolphin Tale 2 or Penguins of Madascar... I hope the current trend of dismal offerings won't continue!


You'll soon be getting every movie theatrically mixed in Atmos on Bluray - now that the mastering houses are catching up with the required hardware, it's just a matter of time before all new Atmos movies are released routinely on Bluray. No reason at all to think they won't be.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> In this culture of complaint, people need to find something (anything) to be upset about.


Quite. It's not as if anyone is being _forced _to upgrade to Atmos. If someone thinks there are no worthwhile movies coming along in Atmos on Bluray, my advice is to stick with the hardware they currently have and enjoy 5.1/7.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> Couldn't have put it better myself. I have listened to tripole speakers in 5.2.2 and 7.8.4 and they sound fantastic. I am an advocate of tripoles in any system and yes it is all down to preference.


Same here. Until recently I was using M&K SS150 Tripoles and was 100% delighted with them. (M&K S150s for LCR). I only sold them because I wanted to move my surrounds to 110° (from 90°) as this would give me more angular separation for my Atmos rear overhead speakers in my very small and awkward dedicated HT room. This puts them in the back corner of the room and the SS150s, in Tripole mode, wouldn’t work well in that location, so I sold them, but with great reluctance. If I had been able to keep them at 90° and move the rear overheads back more I'd definitely have kept the SS150Ts and am sure they would have worked as brilliantly with Atmos as they have done with 5.1.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

NorthSky said:


> Brian, I don't have a Dolby Atmos machine (yet), but this flick totally sucks! ...I mean the film here (I watched it late last night). I personally prefer the first two, and even the first two are not my type of films @ all. ...Just for adrenaline fun of watching a bunch of old farts pumped up on testosterone, I guess it's ok.
> 
> Smart flick it ain't. ...And the sound; machine guns, bullets, choppers, explosions ... we can all get on the front (war zone). ...The real deal.
> This flick is kids stuff, gamers stuff, people looking for fake Hollywood effects.
> 
> This is my own personal opinion, and the fact that I don't agree with your own view doesn't make me a bad person, or someone who does not like you...to the contrary, I respect your honesty in saying what you like.
> 
> And like I said; I don't have Dolby Atmos yet, just old fashioned 7.1-channel setup for the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround sound encoding on this Blu.


That's fair

I actually hate all three. But the third one I can at least stand a little but more than the others. That's what I meant by better haha. It sucked the least hahah

But the sound makes up for it


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Agree. Using IL is a godsend for filtering out NuiSance posts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> That's fair
> 
> I actually hate all three. But the third one I can at least stand a little but more than the others. That's what I meant by better haha. It sucked the least hahah
> 
> But the sound makes up for it


There must be something wrong with me - I thought T4 was pretty good fun. And I am sure I will enjoy Expendables 3 too. It can’t be Lars Von Trier and Ingmar Bergman every day of the week!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

No Keith. I liked TF4. I would watch it over again


----------



## Brian B

batpig said:


> Brian B - This thread is a beast so searching is difficult, but quite a few users have reported moving from 2 overheads to 4 and have unanimously declared it to be a major improvement in immersion and precision of overhead effects. The second pair is less about covering multiple seats and more about providing complete overhead coverage and the ability to pan front-to-back in addition to side-to-side with overhead sound.
> 
> If you have the resources to do it, I do not think you will be disappointed by going whole hog to 5.1.4 or even 7.1.4. Especially given that your room is fairly long.



Ok, I was afraid of that (for my wallet!) I will see what I can do about a set in front and behind the couch on the ceiling. 


Unfortunately I have windows to the sides and other obstructions that prevent wides, so it will have to stay 5.1.4.


Thanks for the info,
Brian


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> That's fair
> 
> *I actually hate all three*. But the third one I can at least stand a little but more than the others. That's what I meant by better haha. It sucked the least hahah
> 
> But the sound makes up for it


Ok, now we're on a very similar page; and the only thing that I like out of the three is Chuck Norris' entrance in the 2nd one, that's all (about two minutes lasting or so). And this last one (3rd) I hate the most. 

As for the sound; you're one notch more "elevated" than I.  ...But I'll be joining you, in 2015, most likely.


----------



## batpig

Brian B said:


> Ok, I was afraid of that (for my wallet!) I will see what I can do about a set in front and behind the couch on the ceiling.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I have windows to the sides and other obstructions that prevent wides, so it will have to stay 5.1.4.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info,
> Brian


Hey man, if you are limited to 5 floor level speakers, even more reason to do 4 overheads! Mo' speakers mo' better!!  

(I love spending other people's money.... says the man with the 5.1.2 setup....)


----------



## richmagnus

mtbdudex said:


> I see 7.8.4, you have 8 independent and calibrated subs via what, a MiniDSP?
> What are they?
> 
> I have a 11.2 set-up, which for the subs is a IB line array 4 15" drivers , I call that sub 1, and then 2 more sealed subs (15" and 18" driver placed at 1/4 wall distance, level matched independent to 73db that together give 76 db) that I call together sub 2.
> Audyssey SubEQ then blends those 2 feeds into my set up.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP



It's not my set up but a friends who is also an installer with his own AV business. It's at his demo facilities. 

When I say 8,the system comprises of 4 stacked 18" custom made drivers in each front corner. All 8 drivers are independently calibrated and EQ'd. All EQ is done with Behringer amps then topped of with XT32 pro. I suppose it should be described as L stack and R stack.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> You'll soon be getting every movie theatrically mixed in Atmos on Bluray - now that the mastering houses are catching up with the required hardware, it's just a matter of time before all new Atmos movies are released routinely on Bluray. No reason at all to think they won't be.


(In the spirit of the forthcoming holidays) I believe . . . I believe . . .

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg9vqw_miracle-on-34th-street-scene_shortfilms


----------



## groBschizer

Aras_Volodka said:


> I finally decided to rent TF4 so I could hear an Atmos disc...


Be mindful that many rental blu-ray discs (Netflix, Redbox, etc) DO NOT contain a Hi-Res track. They usually only contain a compressed Dolby 5.1 track. If you did not make sure of this before your viewing you may not have gotten a true "Atmos" track, but rather an up-scaled 5.1 playback that your pre/pro/AVR converted to an atoms-like sound field.

Just a word of warning. I learned this when I Redboxed "Ender's Game" on bluray. My trusty OPPO was not lying "5.1 Dolby Digital" - no option for TrueHD or DTS-MD

-Dave


----------



## gammanuc

I think posted this in the wrong forum previously....

If the spreadsheet is still being updated you can add me in.
Denon X5200 
7.1.2 now (waiting on two more speakers, for a 7.1.4) 
Atmos speakers are in ceiling cheapies Pyle Pro PDIC80. (Surprisingly good )
I have a Rotel 980BX amp to use when the extra speakers arrive. 

Very impressed with Atmos so far with the limited listening I have done.


----------



## jdsmoothie

groBschizer said:


> Be mindful that many rental blu-ray discs (Netflix, Redbox, etc) DO NOT contain a Hi-Res track. They usually only contain a compressed Dolby 5.1 track. If you did not make sure of this before your viewing you may not have gotten a true "Atmos" track, but rather an up-scaled 5.1 playback that your pre/pro/AVR converted to an atoms-like sound field.
> 
> Just a word of warning. I learned this when I Redboxed "Ender's Game" on bluray. My trusty OPPO was not lying "5.1 Dolby Digital" - no option for TrueHD or DTS-MD
> 
> -Dave


It's already been confirmed in this thread that the Redbox rental of T4 includes the Atmos track.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Years? TMNT, Expendables 3 are coming out within weeks and Gravity re-releases in Atmos in February.
> 
> Do you really think it will be years before you find a likable movie in Atmos?


Possibly... all the announcements made about Atmos titles (aside from Gravity) were made back at the beginning of October. It doesn't seem like any will be released by the holidays, and post holidays wouldn't be an ideal time for the studios to make announcements, right?


----------



## kokishin

gammanuc said:


> I think posted this in the wrong forum previously....
> 
> If the spreadsheet is still being updated you can add me in.
> Denon X5200
> 7.1.2 now (waiting on two more speakers, for a 7.1.4)
> Atmos speakers are in ceiling cheapies Pyle Pro PDIC80. (Surprisingly good )
> I have a Rotel 980BX amp to use when the extra speakers arrive.
> 
> Very impressed with Atmos so far with the limited listening I have done.


You made the list. I presumed your in-ceiling speakers are Top Middle (TM). Correct me if otherwise.

Let me know when you reconfig for 7.2.4 and I will update.

See my sig for the link to the Members' Atmos Config spreadsheet.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

groBschizer said:


> Be mindful that many rental blu-ray discs (Netflix, Redbox, etc) DO NOT contain a Hi-Res track. They usually only contain a compressed Dolby 5.1 track. If you did not make sure of this before your viewing you may not have gotten a true "Atmos" track, but rather an up-scaled 5.1 playback that your pre/pro/AVR converted to an atoms-like sound field.
> 
> Just a word of warning. I learned this when I Redboxed "Ender's Game" on bluray. My trusty OPPO was not lying "5.1 Dolby Digital" - no option for TrueHD or DTS-MD
> 
> -Dave


The video store that I go to (I don't know if this chain exists everywhere... the are called "family video") actually have the boxes for the movies they have right on the shelf... because often they sell the discs as well. I did take extra care to look and see if the discs are high res (if it's a movie I care about or that I might purchase). 

I have heard this issue about Bluray high-res audio rentals... but I know that the copy of TF4 I received is Atmos for sure, I could hear the Atmos-ishness of the audio. + it's safe if the disc itself has the Atmos logo on it, right?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> In this culture of complaint, people need to find something (anything) to be upset about.


I'm not one of those people... I still always have positive things to say about justifying my X5200W purchase & think it's worth the price of admission for upscaling alone. I've been pretty upbeat about Atmos, my only complaint is the lack of quality titles. 

I guess if you are fine with films that review terribly to be the only ones that receive the green light, then this wouldn't be an issue. But I know I'm not the only one who's been disappointed with the announcements.


----------



## gammanuc

kokishin said:


> You made the list. I presumed your in-ceiling speakers are Top Middle (TM). Correct me if otherwise.
> 
> Let me know when you reconfig for 7.2.4 and I will update.
> 
> See my sig for the link to the Members' Atmos Config spreadsheet.


Yes, that is correct, TM for the in ceiling.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> You'll soon be getting every movie theatrically mixed in Atmos on Bluray - now that the mastering houses are catching up with the required hardware, it's just a matter of time before all new Atmos movies are released routinely on Bluray. No reason at all to think they won't be.


I hope that's true... one thing that concerns me is that if recent titles are skipped for Atmos mastering, then it could be a long time for them to be remastered in Atmos. It might be expensive/not profitable for those releasing the BD's to offer multiple editions of the same film. A lot of the titles like GOTG, Maze runner, & into the storm had pretty great Atmos mixes but were skipped.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I've been pretty upbeat about Atmos, my only complaint is the lack of *quality* titles.


Your complaint was the lack of titles: _"I fear it might be years before we get additional Atmos discs."_ Which is why Scott pointed out that we've already gotten additional Atmos discs.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> (In the spirit of the forthcoming holidays) I believe . . . I believe . . .
> 
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg9vqw_miracle-on-34th-street-scene_shortfilms


:grin:


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have heard this issue about Bluray high-res audio rentals... but I know that the copy of TF4 I received is Atmos for sure, I could hear the Atmos-ishness of the audio. + *it's safe if the disc itself has the Atmos logo on it, right?*


Yes, it is your most secure bet.


----------



## mtbdudex

richmagnus said:


> It's not my set up but a friends who is also an installer with his own AV business. It's at his demo facilities.
> 
> When I say 8,the system comprises of 4 stacked 18" custom made drivers in each front corner. All 8 drivers are independently calibrated and EQ'd. All EQ is done with Behringer amps then topped of with XT32 pro. I suppose it should be described as L stack and R stack.



When you stack subs they couple together , exactly like my IB sub line array. That's the physics no way around it, therefore he's got 2 subs in that setup. It's great actually, as the bass wave being floor to ceiling eliminates modal issues in that plane.
So yes L stack and R stack is appropriate and 7.2.4 overall.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> There must be something wrong with me - I thought T4 was pretty good fun. And I am sure I will enjoy Expendables 3 too. It can’t be Lars Von Trier and Ingmar Bergman every day of the week!


Or Academy Award Nominee for best film/actor/ or ....

Too many take films too serioulsy. For me, it's all about being entertained --- at any level. The previous two were silly but entertaining. i can only think of 2 or 3 movies in the last 30 or 40 years that I thought were totally worthless. Some are clearly better than others -- and that is how I justiified spending a stupid amount of money on my theater.

If they make Expendables 4 thru 40, I'll probably watch them all.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Your complaint was the lack of titles: _"I fear it might be years before we get additional Atmos discs."_ Which is why Scott pointed out that we've already gotten additional Atmos discs.


I think all of us are painfully aware of what's available... did I really have to specify in addition to the 4 titles that are out currently?


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> Brian, I don't have a Dolby Atmos machine (yet), but this flick totally sucks! ...I mean the film here (I watched it late last night). I personally prefer the first two, and even the first two are not my type of films @ all. ...Just for adrenaline fun of watching a bunch of old farts pumped up on testosterone, I guess it's ok.
> 
> Smart flick it ain't. ...And the sound; machine guns, bullets, choppers, explosions ... we can all get on the front (war zone). ...The real deal.
> This flick is kids stuff, gamers stuff, people looking for fake Hollywood effects.
> 
> This is my own personal opinion, and the fact that I don't agree with your own view doesn't make me a bad person, or someone who does not like you...to the contrary, I respect your honesty in saying what you like.
> 
> And like I said; I don't have Dolby Atmos yet, just old fashioned 7.1-channel setup for the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround sound encoding on this Blu.


A movie with lotsa booms, bombs and bangs, very little 'acting' and angst, peppered with snappy exchanges, and a chance to see real men at work (sorry I can't think of too many in the current generation like them... The Rock perhaps..)...
Where do I sign up?

The Atmos bit is just icing on the cake for me... cheers


----------



## petetherock

I just realised that my Top Front and Top Rears are 35 degrees instead of 45 degrees to my MLP, am I looking at a serious disaster?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> There must be something wrong with me - I thought T4 was pretty good fun. And I am sure I will enjoy Expendables 3 too. It can’t be Lars Von Trier and Ingmar Bergman every day of the week!


I'll admit I'm a snob when it comes to film... but Atmos has made me more open minded. I'll watch whatever I wouldn't ordinarily just to hear it, though I did find TF4's sound fun. 

When it comes to films like TF4 though... my complaint isn't about the mindless action. I like good action flicks! Guardians of the Galaxy for example was a well produced action film. I just wish people would take the time to make quality product... you could tell whoever wrote the script for TF4 didn't try at all. The design & the look of the robots was boring. I felt like the quality of CGI was very poor... like as a point of comparison I felt the CGI in GOTG was very realistic. 

I'm probably pretty biased though because I'm an oil painter. I spend hundreds of hours on paintings agonizing over details that most people will never notice. It really drives me nuts that some make a career out of producing junk and are well compensated for it, while there's so many skilled people out there who would do a better job.


----------



## NorthSky

I am also a painter, in my spare time.


----------



## epiCenter

petetherock said:


> I just realised that my Top Front and Top Rears are 35 degrees instead of 45 degrees to my MLP, am I looking at a serious disaster?


If you love how it sounds, who cares? Guidelines are not gospel. I have yet to check the exact geometry of my 7.2.4 setup and all I hear is the best listening experience of my life (better than any commercial theater I have been to-even IMAX or Atmos). I concede that maybe I got lucky and mounted my JBL 8340As right in the EXACT sweet spot. But I mounted where I did, in major part, due to esthetic considerations. 

I am half tempted to never check it so I don't have some psycho somatic reason to think my system does not sound correct/great/awesome/amazing. Who am I kidding? Someone will guilt me into it, and then I won't be able sleep at night until I tear my ceiling apart to get the perfect angle. Give me the Placebo!


----------



## rushisrighton

I guess I'm close enough you can add me to the spreadsheet. Marantz av7702, 7.2.4, TF+TR, polk atrium5's mounted on ceiling, emotiva upa5.

My system is klipsch rf7 fronts, rc7 center, rf7 surrounds, surround backs are klipsch Inwalls all driven by an adcom 7807. Dual svs PC ultra subs.

I know it's odd to mix klipsch with polk, but I have so much power running to these ultra sensitive horns I just couldn't see adding four more horn loaded speakers on the ceiling, and found a good deal on some polk atrium 5's and decided they would make some nice atmos speakers on my ceiling.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

For those of you who have seen the Expendables 3 in Atmos... does it actually say Atmos on the case? I was at the family video tonight & was about to rent it but it just said "dolby audio" with no other specifics... I'm curious if that's the Atmos version?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> For those of you who have seen the Expendables 3 in Atmos... does it actually say Atmos on the case? I was at the family video tonight & was about to rent it but it just said "dolby audio" with no other specifics... I'm curious if that's the Atmos version?


Lionsgate normally uses Dolby lossy audio on rentals.


----------



## robert816

The retail version states English Dolby TrueHD Atmos Mix


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Possibly... all the announcements made about Atmos titles (aside from Gravity) were made back at the beginning of October. It doesn't seem like any will be released by the holidays, and post holidays wouldn't be an ideal time for the studios to make announcements, right?


It would seem so but if you look at the release schedule of cinema Atmos titles and look at what has been announced for home, including studios, things are lining up. What is frustrating is the most recent movies with Atmos were not authored for home Atmos consumption. Many 2014 titles just didn't make the cut and I like you and many others are quite annoyed. However, after the summer releases, there have been very few Atmos mixes made for cinema. It's going to be a little slow until the 2015 movie season begins and studios can integrate the latest blu-ray authoring software into their mastering suites. 

Expect a big pick up in Atmos BD's from here on out. Hopefully there is some incentive for catalog re-releases as well. Just don't expect things like Star Wars to come out next year though.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> In this culture of complaint, people need to find something (anything) to be upset about.


Complaining about complaints? I have to complain


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> ...did I really have to specify in addition to the 4 titles that are out currently?


If that's what you meant, in which case neither Scott nor I would have replied.


----------



## pasender91

petetherock said:


> I just realised that my Top Front and Top Rears are 35 degrees instead of 45 degrees to my MLP, am I looking at a serious disaster?


Best to use the standard notation, the standard 45 is actually 45-135, 0 being the front and 180 the back.
You say 35°, but in which direction?
Assuming you meant 35-145, this is quite an open angle, but still within Atmos ranges, so it should be good, just make sure the tweeters are oriented towards the MLP in this case.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> No Keith. I liked TF4. I would watch it over again


I actually have watched it all the way through twice. Once when I first got it and again with the young son of a friend. I enjoyed it both times. Sure, it is silly and the script is pretty crap but there is, iMO, much to like in it. It depends, I think, on how people watch movies. Most people watch a movie once, and for them the plot and the acting is the most important thing. But I watch most movies multiple times and am interested in all aspects of movie making, so I will concentrate on different things each time I watch - the score, the editing, the cinematography, the direction, the effects, etc etc. And TF4 has much to admire in those departments. I think that a lot of people automatically have a down on Michael Bay because he delivers popcorn movies and it seems 'smart' to attack them. I don't subscribe to that POV and am of the opinion that Bay is a master craftsman at producing the kind of movies he does. I have always enjoyed them and probably always will. I’d love to meet the guy.

I do also like, and have a large collection of, more 'worthy' titles - what I watch depends on my mood, how tired I am (I watch late at night) and so on. Sometimes I want an emotionally charged experience, sometimes I want to work my brain, sometimes I want to be cheered up, and sometimes I want to relax and enjoy gigantic metal aliens kicking the **** out of each other. 

A couple of days ago I watched Real Steel. If you haven’t seen it, I can recommend it. It has the giant robots kicking the cr&p out of each other but it also has some fine acting and a good story and reasonably good script. It is a thoroughly enjoyable movie. It won't win any Oscars but it's a good way to spend 2 hours IMO - and the sound is sensationally good too. And it has Evangeline Lily in it, whom I can stare at happily all day long


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm not one of those people... I still always have positive things to say about justifying my X5200W purchase & think it's worth the price of admission for upscaling alone. I've been pretty upbeat about Atmos, my only complaint is the lack of quality titles.
> 
> I guess if you are fine with films that review terribly to be the only ones that receive the green light, then this wouldn't be an issue. But I know I'm not the only one who's been disappointed with the announcements.


I think we are all disappointed with the announcements so far. But it's early days - Atmos was launched in September and the mastering facilities need time to get Atmos BDs on stream. They will come and soon - and every Atmos movie will likely have a BD release. We’re disappointed because we like Atmos so much we want *more*, and we want it *now*! Totally understandable.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I hope that's true... one thing that concerns me is that if recent titles are skipped for Atmos mastering, then it could be a long time for them to be remastered in Atmos. It might be expensive/not profitable for those releasing the BD's to offer multiple editions of the same film. A lot of the titles like GOTG, Maze runner, & into the storm had pretty great Atmos mixes but were skipped.


Not skipped - just came too early in the cycle to make it to Blurays. One of the beauties of Atmos is that it is scalable - once the theatrical mix has been done, there is very little extra work needed to bring it to disc, so there is no real reason why an Atmos movie should NOT be released on disc. Remember what FilmMixer said some time back - "there are plenty in the pipeline".


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Or Academy Award Nominee for best film/actor/ or ....
> 
> Too many take films too serioulsy. For me, it's all about being entertained --- at any level. The previous two were silly but entertaining. i can only think of 2 or 3 movies in the last 30 or 40 years that I thought were totally worthless. Some are clearly better than others -- and that is how I justiified spending a stupid amount of money on my theater.
> 
> If they make Expendables 4 thru 40, I'll probably watch them all.


Agreed entirely Chuck. People forget that the primary purpose of a movie is to _entertain_.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I just realised that my Top Front and Top Rears are 35 degrees instead of 45 degrees to my MLP, am I looking at a serious disaster?


I doubt it. How does it sound?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'll admit I'm a snob when it comes to film... but Atmos has made me more open minded. I'll watch whatever I wouldn't ordinarily just to hear it, though I did find TF4's sound fun.
> 
> When it comes to films like TF4 though... my complaint isn't about the mindless action. I like good action flicks! Guardians of the Galaxy for example was a well produced action film. I just wish people would take the time to make quality product... you could tell whoever wrote the script for TF4 didn't try at all. The design & the look of the robots was boring. I felt like the quality of CGI was very poor... like as a point of comparison I felt the CGI in GOTG was very realistic.


What makes you feel the CGI was poor? WRT to script, I don't think it matters for that sort of movie. The audience they are targeting isn’t interested in high quality writing - they are interested in seeing gigantic metal aliens kicking the cr&p out of each other.  The design of the aliens (not robots) is more or less fixed by the comics. TF4 *IS* a very high quality product IMO - you just don't like the product much, which is fine of course. I don't like Hershey bars, but I couldn’t say they were a low quality product.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm probably pretty biased though because I'm an oil painter. I spend hundreds of hours on paintings agonizing over details that most people will never notice. It really drives me nuts that some make a career out of producing junk and are well compensated for it, while there's so many skilled people out there who would do a better job.


I have worked with creative people all my life so I fully understand your position. But trust me, allowing the realities of life to drive you nuts will, er, drive you nuts  You have to let it go, for your own continuing sanity. Artistic skill has more or less no connection to commercial success - otherwise you wouldn't hear, every day of your life, street musicians who are 1000 times more talented than those in the Top 40 charts. I know which ones makes the most money


----------



## TL5

Based on advice I was given here, I'll be adding on 4 speakers for Atmos in a FH & TM configuration as my MLP is close to back wall. My FR/FL speakers (and also my surrounds) are about 8feet apart. Do I mount the FH speakers directly over my fronts, or go more towards the middle? How about for the TM's?


Thanks!


----------



## maximus74

Hi,
Being an Atmos thread,i think this is the right place to post this information.
This is the only test,until now, between the top of the line receivers from:Yamaha,Denon,Pioneer,Marantz and Onkyo with Atmos capabilities.
This is a German publication with a good reputation in doing tests.
http://www.testberichte.de/a/hifi-receiver/magazin/audiovision-12-2014/411219.html


----------



## petetherock

pasender91 said:


> Best to use the standard notation, the standard 45 is actually 45-135, 0 being the front and 180 the back.
> You say 35°, but in which direction?
> Assuming you meant 35-145, this is quite an open angle, but still within Atmos ranges, so it should be good, just make sure the tweeters are oriented towards the MLP in this case.


Thanks I meant 35 degrees from the perpendicular.. on either side of the vertical.


----------



## smurraybhm

maximus74 said:


> Hi,
> Being an Atmos thread,i think this is the right place to post this information.
> This is the only test,until now, between the top of the line receivers from:Yamaha,Denon,Pioneer,Marantz and Onkyo with Atmos capabilities.
> This is a German publication with a good reputation in doing tests.
> http://www.testberichte.de/a/hifi-receiver/magazin/audiovision-12-2014/411219.html


I own Pioneer and do not understand how any test could place their receiver this year at #1 with its inability to handle more the 9 channels at one time. Not a lot of details either unless I've missed a click. Sorry - doesn't look like much, rankings based off marketing speak.


----------



## maximus74

If you look at this test,you can see that this is a big minus for Pioneer LX88,but they like the sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I own Pioneer and do not understand how any test could place their receiver this year at #1 with its inability to handle more the 9 channels at one time. Not a lot of details either unless I've missed a click. Sorry - doesn't look like much, rankings based off marketing speak.


Magazine tests usually mean very little IMO and IME. Often they are entirely subjective with no measurements performed at all, and comparisons are often done under ludicrously imprecise conditions, with sloppy procedures used which invalidate the results. Also, magazines have a vested interest - they do not want to upset their primary source of income, their advertisers, so they can't really be outspoken even if they find real faults. There will be some people who will rate Pioneer as No 1, for all manner of reasons, and equally people who will rate Denon, Yamaha and Onkyo as No 1, for similar subjective reasons. I have no doubt that all of the units they tested perform excellently sonically, so it comes down to features in the end, and maybe aesthetics (I could never buy a Marantz while they have that porthole thing) and build quality. 

I am not saying there are no differences between units, just likely no audible differences (REQ and DSP aside). Build quality and aesthetics do matter to many people, and some units may use higher quality components which may have a longer life expectancy. With AVRs I expect to change my unit every 3 years anyway so ultra-long-term reliability isn't so much of an issue, and all my gear is hidden in a closet, so aesthetics aren't important to me either in this case.


----------



## smurraybhm

maximus74 said:


> If you look at this test,you can see that this is a big minus for Pioneer LX88,but they like the sound.


Which is totally subjective 
Room correction on or off? No mention of Audyssey from what I can tell. Not much info on how and why. Plus I didn't see what the listening test consisted of. While they haven't compared all 5 models yet, at least S&V and Audioholics do some bench tests, etc. 

Why is this site deemed respectable? Curious since I've never seen tests from it mentioned on AVS. Thanks.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I actually have watched it all the way through twice. Once when I first got it and again with the young son of a friend. I enjoyed it both times. Sure, it is silly and the script is pretty crap but there is, iMO, much to like in it. It depends, I think, on how people watch movies. Most people watch a movie once, and for them the plot and the acting is the most important thing. But I watch most movies multiple times and am interested in all aspects of movie making, so I will concentrate on different things each time I watch - the score, the editing, the cinematography, the direction, the effects, etc etc. And TF4 has much to admire in those departments. I think that a lot of people automatically have a down on Michael Bay because he delivers popcorn movies and it seems 'smart' to attack them. I don't subscribe to that POV and am of the opinion that Bay is a master craftsman at producing the kind of movies he does. I have always enjoyed them and probably always will. I’d love to meet the guy.
> 
> I do also like, and have a large collection of, more 'worthy' titles - what I watch depends on my mood, how tired I am (I watch late at night) and so on. Sometimes I want an emotionally charged experience, sometimes I want to work my brain, sometimes I want to be cheered up, and sometimes I want to relax and enjoy gigantic metal aliens kicking the **** out of each other.
> 
> A couple of days ago I watched Real Steel. If you haven’t seen it, I can recommend it. It has the giant robots kicking the cr&p out of each other but it also has some fine acting and a good story and reasonably good script. It is a thoroughly enjoyable movie. It won't win any Oscars but it's a good way to spend 2 hours IMO - and the sound is sensationally good too. And it has Evangeline Lily in it, whom I can stare at happily all day long


I've watched Real Steel quite a few times. I purchased it (I must confess) for the bass/fighting/kicking a$$ sequences. But I too enjoyed the story and I'm sure I will watch again. 

But then there are movies like August Rush, which my wife LOVES and everyone we have watched it with does as well. Robin Williams, nice story, wonderful music. Highly recommended. In fact, it is on my Wish List to get the Bluray version. 

And then there is the music from Burlesque. I had no idea Christine Aguilera had those kinds of pipes. And, since she wasn't attired in her usual over the top manner, turns out she is quite attractive as well. 

Sorry for the OT post. We may now go back to our regularly scheduled program!


----------



## maximus74

I didn't downloaded the test,to see in detail...but usually they are very explicit in detail about the conditions and graphs.


----------



## maximus74

I don't know if they are impartial on this test,but usually they echoes many opinions from users forums.
What is interesting is that many big publications from different country,their opinions converge in one way or another.
I don't want to defend this publication in particular and frankly i don't care...but this is the only test online between the big guns.(Yamaha,Marants,Denon,Onkyo,Pioneer)


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I actually have watched it all the way through twice. Once when I first got it and again with the young son of a friend. I enjoyed it both times. Sure, it is silly and the script is pretty crap but there is, iMO, much to like in it. It depends, I think, on how people watch movies. Most people watch a movie once, and for them the plot and the acting is the most important thing. But I watch most movies multiple times and am interested in all aspects of movie making, so I will concentrate on different things each time I watch - the score, the editing, the cinematography, the direction, the effects, etc etc. And TF4 has much to admire in those departments. I think that a lot of people automatically have a down on Michael Bay because he delivers popcorn movies and it seems 'smart' to attack them. I don't subscribe to that POV and am of the opinion that Bay is a master craftsman at producing the kind of movies he does. I have always enjoyed them and probably always will. I’d love to meet the guy.
> 
> I do also like, and have a large collection of, more 'worthy' titles - what I watch depends on my mood, how tired I am (I watch late at night) and so on. Sometimes I want an emotionally charged experience, sometimes I want to work my brain, sometimes I want to be cheered up, and sometimes I want to relax and enjoy gigantic metal aliens kicking the **** out of each other.
> 
> A couple of days ago I watched Real Steel. If you haven’t seen it, I can recommend it. It has the giant robots kicking the cr&p out of each other but it also has some fine acting and a good story and reasonably good script. It is a thoroughly enjoyable movie. It won't win any Oscars but it's a good way to spend 2 hours IMO - and the sound is sensationally good too. And it has Evangeline Lily in it, whom I can stare at happily all day long


 
I have eclectic tastes and also have a large collection of movies -


http://www.raysdvds.org 


Some very good - some not so very good.
I appreciate all of the work that these people do to create movies for me and my friends to watch on my giant screen with a super sound system!


Ray


----------



## distobj

*High/sloped ceiling*

The ceiling above my TV and front speakers is 18 feet, and slopes back to above the couch at a height of about 10 feet. I could conceivably mount speakers up on either wall, but haven't seen that done in an Atmos context. Suspension also isn't an option.

So am I S.O.L?


----------



## batpig

distobj said:


> The ceiling above my TV and front speakers is 18 feet, and slopes back to above the couch at a height of about 10 feet. I could conceivably mount speakers up on either wall, but haven't seen that done in an Atmos context. Suspension also isn't an option.
> 
> So am I S.O.L?


Not at all. With the front wall 18' high you could easily mount Front Height speakers at 30-45 degree elevation and then place a pair of in/on ceiling speakers further back as either Top Middle or Top Rear.


----------



## Al Sherwood

tjenkins95 said:


> I have eclectic tastes and also have a large collection of movies -
> 
> 
> http://www.raysdvds.org
> 
> 
> Some very good - some not so very good.
> I appreciate all of the work that these people do to create movies for me and my friends to watch on my giant screen with a super sound system!
> 
> 
> Ray



Ray, can you tell me what program you are using for that webpage? Curious, all Blu-ray, is that the entire collection?


----------



## Am_I_Evil

so i just bought a new receiver (Onkyo TX-NR636) not having any idea about ATMOS....now i trying to read/learn/etc....

my question for now: 
i currently have a 7.1 set up with my old receiver...when i get the new receiver can i/would it make sense to set this up as a "5.1 Atmos" setup? I'm assuming i'd need to move 2 speakers up....

just looking for thoughts...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Am_I_Evil said:


> so i just bought a new receiver (Onkyo TX-NR636) not having any idea about ATMOS....now i trying to read/learn/etc....
> 
> my question for now:
> i currently have a 7.1 set up with my old receiver...when i get the new receiver can i/would it make sense to set this up as a "5.1 Atmos" setup? I'm assuming i'd need to move 2 speakers up....
> 
> just looking for thoughts...


I would save up and get a 7.1.4 capable receiver instead (probably a Denon). You have 7.1 already and it's recommended that you use four overheads for the best 3D audio coverage (front to back, back to front, X-panning, and side to side object panning). 

You'll be getting the "worst" of both worlds with that Onkyo. You'll be losing your back speakers in order to have only two overhead speakers (it's a 5.1.2 Atmos capable receiver). You would definitely be downgrading just to get the minimum Atmos experience.

If something like that is way past your budget, go for a receiver with 5.1.4 capabilities. At least you'd have the four overheads.


----------



## westmd

Just got my first Atmos disc purely by chance. Recieved the HK BluRay disc trilogy of *Overheard*and found out that the third one is in Atmos!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> Just got my first Atmos disc purely by chance. Recieved the HK BluRay disc trilogy of *Overheard*and found out that the third one is in Atmos!


Never heard of Overheard.  What's it about?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> It would seem so but if you look at the release schedule of cinema Atmos titles and look at what has been announced for home, including studios, things are lining up. What is frustrating is the most recent movies with Atmos were not authored for home Atmos consumption. Many 2014 titles just didn't make the cut and I like you and many others are quite annoyed. However, after the summer releases, there have been very few Atmos mixes made for cinema. It's going to be a little slow until the 2015 movie season begins and studios can integrate the latest blu-ray authoring software into their mastering suites.
> 
> Expect a big pick up in Atmos BD's from here on out. Hopefully there is some incentive for catalog re-releases as well. Just don't expect things like Star Wars to come out next year though.


Maze Runner did come out after the summer so I would have thought it would get the Atmos BD. If titles start coming out early 2015 I'll quit my whining (haha). I can live without SW Atmos for a while. Though my thought is that when reliance media works took on the remastering project that they might have added Atmos... though maybe not because the remastering was finished prior to summer? 

I'm curious about if "the force awakens" will have an Atmos mix... because IMAX appears to be the format they are advertising. If the film found a good way to advertise an Atmos mix I'd bet that would attract a lot of people to the format. When I talk to a lot of people they don't seem to know what Atmos is (recently on facebook a tech-y user mistook it for some environmental disaster). Actually, the THX episode 1 release is what got me into HT in the first place... and I was very poor at the time, but got a 5.1 in a box. I had that surround setup until a couple months ago  



kbarnes701 said:


> I think we are all disappointed with the announcements so far. But it's early days - Atmos was launched in September and the mastering facilities need time to get Atmos BDs on stream. They will come and soon - and every Atmos movie will likely have a BD release. We’re disappointed because we like Atmos so much we want *more*, and we want it *now*! Totally understandable.


Haha, I would have been a happier camper if Xmen, GOTG, or Maze runner got the Atmos BD instead of Step up all in. I might buy the TF4 disc & Expendables 3 so that if I do need the Atmos fix I can play the cool parts again. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Not skipped - just came too early in the cycle to make it to Blurays. One of the beauties of Atmos is that it is scalable - once the theatrical mix has been done, there is very little extra work needed to bring it to disc, so there is no real reason why an Atmos movie should NOT be released on disc. Remember what FilmMixer said some time back - "there are plenty in the pipeline".


Yeah I remember... I had just thought anything post summer would be guaranteed an Atmos release. Fingers crossed


----------



## Aras_Volodka

westmd said:


> Just got my first Atmos disc purely by chance. Recieved the HK BluRay disc trilogy of *Overheard*and found out that the third one is in Atmos!


Does that have English subtitles? If so, how was it? I'll add it to my list


----------



## westmd

Dan Hitchman said:


> Never heard of Overheard.  What's it about?


Hong Kong crime/action! From the makers of Infernal Affairs which is the original (and much superior) movie of Martin Scorceeses The Departed which is just a remake.
Will watch part one tomorrow night and will tell you how it was!


----------



## kokishin

rushisrighton said:


> I guess I'm close enough you can add me to the spreadsheet. Marantz av7702, 7.2.4, TF+TR, polk atrium5's mounted on ceiling, emotiva upa5.
> 
> My system is klipsch rf7 fronts, rc7 center, rf7 surrounds, surround backs are klipsch Inwalls all driven by an adcom 7807. Dual svs PC ultra subs.
> 
> I know it's odd to mix klipsch with polk, but I have so much power running to these ultra sensitive horns I just couldn't see adding four more horn loaded speakers on the ceiling, and found a good deal on some polk atrium 5's and decided they would make some nice atmos speakers on my ceiling.


I added you.

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I've watched Real Steel quite a few times. I purchased it (I must confess) for the bass/fighting/kicking a$$ sequences. But I too enjoyed the story and I'm sure I will watch again.
> 
> But then there are movies like August Rush, which my wife LOVES and everyone we have watched it with does as well. Robin Williams, nice story, wonderful music. Highly recommended. In fact, it is on my Wish List to get the Bluray version.
> 
> And then there is the music from Burlesque. I had no idea Christine Aguilera had those kinds of pipes. And, since she wasn't attired in her usual over the top manner, turns out she is quite attractive as well.
> 
> Sorry for the OT post. We may now go back to our regularly scheduled program!


Burlesque is another movie that is universally panned - yet it is one I enjoy quite a lot. Not just because I like looking at Christina Aguilera (who woudn't?) but also because she is, as you say, a terrific singer and comes over very well in that movie. The movie itself is poor (other than Stanley Tucci's role) IMO but I don't care. I watch it as though it is a 2 hour music video and I do really enjoy the songs - and the whole thing is very well recorded so it sounds superb too. But I know people who would never even give it a go because of the subject matter, the schlocky script and the fact that CA is the star.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, I would have been a happier camper if Xmen, GOTG, or Maze runner got the Atmos BD instead of Step up all in. I might buy the TF4 disc & Expendables 3 so that if I do need the Atmos fix I can play the cool parts again.


I think we'd all rather have seen those movies released on Atmos disc than the first two! 




Aras_Volodka said:


> Yeah I remember... I had just thought anything post summer would be guaranteed an Atmos release. Fingers crossed


A bit too soon for the mastering houses I think - they had to invest in and install new equipment. Takes time I suppose. But from next year we should see this change and I do expect that all, or the vast majority, of theatrical Atmos releases will be ported to disc. I sure hope so.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Hong Kong crime/action! From the makers of Infernal Affairs which is the original (and much superior) movie of Martin Scorceeses The Departed which is just a remake.
> Will watch part one tomorrow night and will tell you how it was!


I'm into HK action movies too. I must check this one out. Thanks for the info. Agreed totally about Infernal Affairs BTW.

EDIT: Just ordered it from HK. Looks like a cool movie and in Atmos too!


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm into HK action movies too. I must check this one out. Thanks for the info. Agreed totally about Infernal Affairs BTW.
> 
> EDIT: Just ordered it from HK. Looks like a cool movie and in Atmos too!


Very good! I still don't have my Atmos receiver so it will have to wait. Tell me what you think once you have seen it!


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Very good! I still don't have my Atmos receiver so it will have to wait. Tell me what you think once you have seen it!


Will do. I wonder if it's only the HK release that has the Atmos track? The site I ordered it from has good info on the disc formats etc and confirms that the 3rd film is an Atmos release on BD. Cool!


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> Just ordered it from HK. Looks like a cool movie and in Atmos too!


 

I believe the third movie is the one with Dolby Atmos. Amazon lists it with the following Languages: Cantonese, Mandarin / Subtitles: English, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese.


I too like Japanese, Korean, and HK movies.


On the Dolby investors site they list that Japan will soon be receiving TF4, I, Frankenstein, and Transcendence in Dolby Atmos.


http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=878687


----------



## SoundChex

Aras_Volodka said:


> westmd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just got my first Atmos disc purely by chance. Recieved the HK BluRay disc trilogy of *Overheard*and found out that the third one is in Atmos!
> 
> 
> 
> Does that have English subtitles? If so, how was it? I'll add it to my list
Click to expand...


I'm under the impession that _home_ *Atmos* does not yet include _user-interactive dialog object selection|management_ . . . or at least that none of the so far released *Atmos BD*s make use of such functionality...? One possible and interesting use of this feature would be the capability to add additional language dubbed dialog objects, _after a_ *BD* _has been reseased_, through download updates _similar to_ *DTS Express* 'feature additions' . . . and the original _object based_ effects "track" could remain unchanged. 

_For additional|related info see, e.g.,_ *Object-Based Audio: Opportunities for Improved Listening Experience and Increased Listener Involvement* (_link_)

_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> Hong Kong crime/action! From the makers of Infernal Affairs which is the original (and much superior) movie of Martin Scorsese's The Departed which is just a remake.
> Will watch part one tomorrow night and will tell you how it was!


Actually, I thought The Departed was one of Scorsese's better modern films (superior to WoWS - even with the stunningly hot babe, Margot Robbie, and the outrageously good "expired 'lude overdose" scene :devil, though it was a remake or "re-imagining." Good use of black humor. Mark Wahlberg was a riot! 

I'll have to check out Overheard. Thanks!


----------



## Nalleh

westmd said:


> Hong Kong crime/action! From the makers of Infernal Affairs which is the original (and much superior) movie of Martin Scorceeses The Departed which is just a remake.
> Will watch part one tomorrow night and will tell you how it was!


Where did you order this?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> What makes you feel the CGI was poor? WRT to script, I don't think it matters for that sort of movie. The audience they are targeting isn’t interested in high quality writing - they are interested in seeing gigantic metal aliens kicking the cr&p out of each other.  The design of the aliens (not robots) is more or less fixed by the comics. TF4 *IS* a very high quality product IMO - you just don't like the product much, which is fine of course. I don't like Hershey bars, but I couldn’t say they were a low quality product.


What bothered me about the CGI is how the colors on the robots don't reflect the environments they are in... that small robot looked particularly bad to me, though he didn't get much screen time.

I'm not sure what the proper term for this would be... if one even exists... but you know how when you see something from far away vs. up close... your "focus" changes? They didn't get that right with the CGI characters in TF4. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record... but if you compare that to the CGI in Guradians of the Galaxy... they did a really good job with making the "focus" appear right... like if part of a scene goes blurry, the CGI would match that look flawlessly. Both color matching & focus are something that most films get wrong actually, so GOTG is really an exception. Other films with good CGI that come to mind are: the new Star Treks, Prometheus, Minority Report, & Pan's Labyrinth. I think Avatar looked pretty good but something felt a little stale about that presentation in comparison to the other films I mentioned. 

Here's a Vermeer painting that illustrates what I'm talking about very clearly... notice how what's in front is very clean & in focus while the people & objects have just the right amount of "blur": 

https://www.google.com/culturalinst...rocuress/EQGpQpHextOEEg?projectId=art-project

I'll give credit where credit is due though... the sound is incredible... and I have no complaints about the filming itself. I watched the 3D version & was impressed with some of the visuals... though I don't think it could compare with something like Interstellar (which oddly enough shares a similarity in that both films have scenes with vehicles driving through corn fields). 
As far as design is concerned... the problem is they made the models too complex... I think it would have looked better if they could have emulated the 80's cartoon designs which I think were pretty good but could have used a sprucing up. With all the million parts they put in it obscures the pleasing shapes of the original models. I grew up in the 80's though so I know I'm biased. 

[/QUOTE]
I have worked with creative people all my life so I fully understand your position. But trust me, allowing the realities of life to drive you nuts will, er, drive you nuts  You have to let it go, for your own continuing sanity. Artistic skill has more or less no connection to commercial success - otherwise you wouldn't hear, every day of your life, street musicians who are 1000 times more talented than those in the Top 40 charts. I know which ones makes the most money [/QUOTE]

That wasn't always the case though... Kubrick & some of the other directors who debuted in the 60's seemed to be commercially successful. There are several new directors who I think are somewhat on par with them (Spike Jonze comes to mind, though his last 2 films weren't as good as his first few). As far as street musicians go, The Beatles & Brian Wilson come to mind as well... though I know both acts had to make junk to get to the point to where they could record artsy records. But even the junk was good though!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Where did you order this?


HMV Hong Kong. The site is mostly in English.

http://www.hmv.com.hk/product/bluray.asp?sku=533943

Be aware that the disc from HK may be region-locked to a region your player can't handle. I am multi-region here so it isn't an issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> I believe the third movie is the one with Dolby Atmos. Amazon lists it with the following Languages: Cantonese, Mandarin / Subtitles: English, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese.





robert816 said:


> On the Dolby investors site they list that Japan will soon be receiving TF4, I, Frankenstein, and Transcendence in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> 
> http://investor.dolby.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=878687


That's good news but I do find that buying from Japan is expensive. The HK prices are much more reasonable.

I bet *I, Frankenstein* is a fantastic showcase for Atmos. I’d love to hear that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, I thought The Departed was one of Scorsese's better modern films


It is - but it's not as good as Infernal Affairs on which it was based.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, I thought The Departed was one of Scorsese's better modern films (superior to WoWS - even with the stunningly hot babe, Margot Robbie, and the outrageously good "expired 'lude overdose" scene :devil, though it was a remake or "re-imagining." Good use of black humor. Mark Wahlberg was a riot!
> 
> I'll have to check out Overheard. Thanks!


I too thought the Departed was one of Scorsese's best. It made it into my collection


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> What bothered me about the CGI is how the colors on the robots don't reflect the environments they are in... that small robot looked particularly bad to me, though he didn't get much screen time.
> 
> I'm not sure what the proper term for this would be... if one even exists... but you know how when you see something from far away vs. up close... your "focus" changes? They didn't get that right with the CGI characters in TF4. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record... but if you compare that to the CGI in Guradians of the Galaxy... they did a really good job with making the "focus" appear right... like if part of a scene goes blurry, the CGI would match that look flawlessly. Both color matching & focus are something that most films get wrong actually, so GOTG is really an exception. Other films with good CGI that come to mind are: the new Star Treks, Prometheus, Minority Report, & Pan's Labyrinth. I think Avatar looked pretty good but something felt a little stale about that presentation in comparison to the other films I mentioned.
> 
> Here's a Vermeer painting that illustrates what I'm talking about very clearly... notice how what's in front is very clean & in focus while the people & objects have just the right amount of "blur":
> 
> https://www.google.com/culturalinst...rocuress/EQGpQpHextOEEg?projectId=art-project
> 
> I'll give credit where credit is due though... the sound is incredible... and I have no complaints about the filming itself. I watched the 3D version & was impressed with some of the visuals... though I don't think it could compare with something like Interstellar (which oddly enough shares a similarity in that both films have scenes with vehicles driving through corn fields).
> As far as design is concerned... the problem is they made the models too complex... I think it would have looked better if they could have emulated the 80's cartoon designs which I think were pretty good but could have used a sprucing up. With all the million parts they put in it obscures the pleasing shapes of the original models. I grew up in the 80's though so I know I'm biased.
> 
> I have worked with creative people all my life so I fully understand your position. But trust me, allowing the realities of life to drive you nuts will, er, drive you nuts  You have to let it go, for your own continuing sanity. Artistic skill has more or less no connection to commercial success - otherwise you wouldn't hear, every day of your life, street musicians who are 1000 times more talented than those in the Top 40 charts. I know which ones makes the most money
> 
> That wasn't always the case though... Kubrick & some of the other directors who debuted in the 60's seemed to be commercially successful. There are several new directors who I think are somewhat on par with them (Spike Jonze comes to mind, though his last 2 films weren't as good as his first few). As far as street musicians go, The Beatles & Brian Wilson come to mind as well... though I know both acts had to make junk to get to the point to where they could record artsy records. But even the junk was good though!


I don't care even if a movie gets the CGI "right" if it has terribly, insultingly stupid writing (as the Transformers movie do in spades). It's just a bad movie. Are Kruger, Kurtzman, and Orci (the writers of the Transformers movies) actually mentally challenged 6th grade boys?


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> HMV Hong Kong. The site is mostly in English.
> 
> http://www.hmv.com.hk/product/bluray.asp?sku=533943
> 
> Be aware that the disc from HK may be region-locked to a region your player can't handle. I am multi-region here so it isn't an issue.


I bought from yesasia.com 65USD for the trilogy delivered. And they always write a customs note of 8$ for on used DVD, so no extra charg for customs!


----------



## westmd

Aras_Volodka said:


> I too thought the Departed was one of Scorsese's best. It made it into my collection


Might be the case if you only see The Departed. But I have seen Infernal Affairs when it cam out and the Departed some tome later. It is the same story with different actors in a different setting. As I found the atmosphere of the original movie quite stunning I found the remake from the atmosphere not very convincing, and I found Eric Tsang in the role so much better then Jack Nicholson.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Might be the case if you only see The Departed. But I have seen Infernal Affairs when it cam out and the Departed some tome later. It is the same story with different actors in a different setting. As I found the atmosphere of the original movie quite stunning I found the remake from the atmosphere not very convincing, and I found Eric Tsang in the role so much better then Jack Nicholson.


Spot on analysis. *The Departed *isn't bad at all - it's just that the original is so much better.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> I bought from yesasia.com 65USD for the trilogy delivered. And they always write a customs note of 8$ for on used DVD, so no extra charg for customs!


I've bought from them in the past too. Reliable company. But this time HMV HK were quite a bit cheaper for the single disc. Also, on the yesasia site they only list the sound as DTS-HD MA whereas HMV got it right - hence your surprise I guess when you got the disc.

EDIT: I forgot that yesasia included free international shipping in the price, so both sites worked out the same cost.


----------



## Kwikas

kbarnes701 said:


> ........I have no doubt that all of the units they tested perform excellently sonically, so it comes down to features in the end, and maybe aesthetics (I could never buy a Marantz while they have that porthole thing) and build quality.
> 
> .........With AVRs I expect to change my unit every 3 years anyway so ultra-long-term reliability isn't so much of an issue, and all my gear is hidden in a closet, so aesthetics aren't important to me either in this case.


Sorry Keith, but you just lost me there.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> HMV Hong Kong. The site is mostly in English.
> 
> http://www.hmv.com.hk/product/bluray.asp?sku=533943
> 
> Be aware that the disc from HK may be region-locked to a region your player can't handle. I am multi-region here so it isn't an issue.



Thanks, both of you. No worries, i have Oppo BDP103, so zonefree


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> Sorry Keith, but you just lost me there.


I mean that if aesthetics were important, I personally really dislike the marantz porthole. But in my case, as all the kit is in a closet, it doesn't really matter to me much. But if the kit were visible, then I couldn’t stand looking at that bloody porthole!


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> What bothered me about the CGI is how the colors on the robots don't reflect the environments they are in... that small robot looked particularly bad to me, though he didn't get much screen time.
> 
> I'm not sure what the proper term for this would be... if one even exists... but you know how when you see something from far away vs. up close... your "focus" changes? They didn't get that right with the CGI characters in TF4. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record... but if you compare that to the CGI in Guradians of the Galaxy... they did a really good job with making the "focus" appear right... like if part of a scene goes blurry, the CGI would match that look flawlessly. Both color matching & focus are something that most films get wrong actually, so GOTG is really an exception. Other films with good CGI that come to mind are: the new Star Treks, Prometheus, Minority Report, & Pan's Labyrinth. I think Avatar looked pretty good but something felt a little stale about that presentation in comparison to the other films I mentioned.


I can’t say that I especially noticed this. If you want to see some convincing CGI robots (and this time they are actually robots, as opposed to TF4's aliens) check out real Steel. The CGI robots are so convincing that at the end of the movie, in the big fight, I was yelling and cheering on the underdog, totally oblivious of the fact that I was emotionally connecting with a computer animation. (The big fight is just that - they are boxing robots).



Aras_Volodka said:


> I'll give credit where credit is due though... the sound is incredible... and I have no complaints about the filming itself. I watched the 3D version & was impressed with some of the visuals... though I don't think it could compare with something like Interstellar (which oddly enough shares a similarity in that both films have scenes with vehicles driving through corn fields).


I haven't seen Interstellar yet. A friend of mine saw it and said it was the slowest, most tedious movie he has seen in some time. He said it felt very realistic - in the sense that time seemed to have expanded sevenfold.



Aras_Volodka said:


> As far as design is concerned... the problem is they made the models too complex... I think it would have looked better if they could have emulated the 80's cartoon designs which I think were pretty good but could have used a sprucing up. With all the million parts they put in it obscures the pleasing shapes of the original models. I grew up in the 80's though so I know I'm biased.


I think that is a justified criticism - they move so fast you can't see what is happening as they transform. I'd have liked at least a few slow motion shots of them transforming so I could see all the 'works'.




Aras_Volodka said:


> That wasn't always the case though... Kubrick & some of the other directors who debuted in the 60's seemed to be commercially successful. There are several new directors who I think are somewhat on par with them (Spike Jonze comes to mind, though his last 2 films weren't as good as his first few). As far as street musicians go, The Beatles & Brian Wilson come to mind as well... though I know both acts had to make junk to get to the point to where they could record artsy records. But even the junk was good though!



Every age has its good directors. No different nowadays. And some are commercially successful. I didn't say that creativity and commercial success were mutually exclusive - just that the two things have no real connection.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Thanks, both of you. No worries, i have Oppo BDP103, so zonefree


Is that region-free for Bluray? I had to open mine up and surgically graft in a part I bought off eBay to make my Oppo 93 region free for Bluray.


----------



## tjenkins95

NATURE 3D&2D Blu-ray Set (Japan Version) is another Japanese blu-ray in Dolby Atmos.
I believe it was released a few weeks ago.


http://www.yesasia.com/us/nature-3d-2d-blu-ray-set-japan-version/1036919215-0-0-0-en/info.html




Ray


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Is that region-free for Bluray? I had to open mine up and surgically graft in a part I bought off eBay to make my Oppo 93 region free for Bluray.





I have the Oppo 103 and you also need to add a "region free" adapter to it. Same as the Oppo 93.


Ray


----------



## pasender91

hey Kokishin, you can add me to the table ...

Speaker config => 7.1.4
AVR => Marantz 7009
Atmos speakers => Bose 151 monitors
Mounted => On-wall
Ceiling config => FH + TR
Other info => Lexicon CX7 7-channel amp


----------



## kokishin

pasender91 said:


> hey Kokishin, you can add me to the table ...
> 
> Speaker config => 7.1.4
> AVR => Marantz 7009
> Atmos speakers => Bose 151 monitors
> Mounted => On-wall
> Ceiling config => FH + TR
> Other info => Lexicon CX7 7-channel amp


Added you to the list. I put your FH as on-wall and your TR as on-ceiling. If otherwise, let me know and I will change it.


----------



## tjenkins95

Al Sherwood said:


> Ray, can you tell me what program you are using for that webpage? Curious, all Blu-ray, is that the entire collection?


 

I have both DVDs and Blu-rays in my collection. The software that creates/manages your collection is called DVD Profiler. It runs under Windows on your PC.
You can find it here: www.invelos.com


The software that is running on my website is free and can be found here: http://www.phpmyprofiler.de/index.php?lang=EN


Ray


----------



## Al Sherwood

tjenkins95 said:


> I have both DVDs and Blu-rays in my collection. The software that creates/manages your collection is called DVD Profiler. It runs under Windows on your PC.
> You can find it here: www.invelos.com
> 
> 
> The software that is running on my website is free and can be found here: http://www.phpmyprofiler.de/index.php?lang=EN
> 
> 
> Ray



Thanks for the details Ray! I use DVD Profiler and when I followed you link, I thought " Gee, that looks awfully familiar yet not..." now I know why.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Is that region-free for Bluray? I had to open mine up and surgically graft in a part I bought off eBay to make my Oppo 93 region free for Bluray.


No, not originally, but bought from these guys:

http://www.bombayelectronics.com/Oppo_Region_Free_Blu_ray_Player_s/163.htm

A couple of remote buttons to switch region 

Enough off topic .


----------



## NorthSky

> Not skipped - just came too early in the cycle to make it to Blurays. One of the beauties of Atmos is that it is scalable - once the theatrical mix has been done, there is very little extra work needed to bring it to disc, so there is no real reason why an Atmos movie should NOT be released on disc. *Remember what FilmMixer said some time back - "there are plenty in the pipeline".*


Time is simply not on our side right now.


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> http://www.raysdvds.org
> 
> Ray


How many titles total, Ray? ...On Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

maximus74 said:


> Hi,
> Being an Atmos thread,i think this is the right place to post this information.
> This is the only test,until now, between the top of the line receivers from:Yamaha,Denon,Pioneer,Marantz and Onkyo with Atmos capabilities.
> This is a German publication with a good reputation in doing tests.
> http://www.testberichte.de/a/hifi-receiver/magazin/audiovision-12-2014/411219.html





maximus74 said:


> If you look at this test,you can see that this is a big minus for Pioneer LX88,but they like the sound.





maximus74 said:


> I didn't downloaded the test,to see in detail...but usually they are very explicit in detail about the conditions and graphs.


I used to subscribe to that mag*. Can we read the reviews online or are they charging us to download them? 

* They were very expensive @ my main book/mag store (Chapters), like $15 each (Canadian $ with tax). ...Larger size mags with lots of pictures and advertising.
I gave up after ten years or so.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> Just got my first Atmos disc purely by chance. Recieved the HK BluRay disc trilogy of *Overheard*and found out that the third one is in Atmos!


Do you have an Atmos machine (SSP or receiver)?

* Nevermind.  https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> I'm under the impession that _home_ *Atmos* does not yet include _user-interactive dialog object selection|management_ . . . or at least that none of the so far released *Atmos BD*s make use of such functionality...? One possible and interesting use of this feature would be the capability to add additional language dubbed dialog objects, _after a_ *BD* _has been reseased_, through download updates _similar to_ *DTS Express* 'feature additions' . . . and the original _object based_ effects "track" could remain unchanged.
> 
> _For additional|related info see, e.g.,_ *Object-Based Audio: Opportunities for Improved Listening Experience and Increased Listener Involvement* (_link_)
> 
> _


You always come up with the most informative posts of them all (with supplied links). ...Thanks a big bunch for that!


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't care even if a movie gets the CGI "right" if it has terribly, insultingly stupid writing (as the Transformers movie do in spades). It's just a bad movie. Are Kruger, Kurtzman, and Orci (the writers of the Transformers movies) actually mentally challenged 6th grade boys?


But Dan, the intended intention is based on who read those comic books. ...They have to stay _fidele_ to their clientele.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> But Dan, the intended intention is based on who read those comic books. ...They have to stay _fidele_ to their clientele.


There are comic book type movies that rise above their source material. This alumni from the School of J.J. Abrams are just lazy writers that came to fame because of Hollywood's current state of sloth when it comes to "event" movies.


----------



## robert816

For those with an interest, VUDU has Guardians of the Galaxy and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on sale right now for $9.99 USD, and since playback is in Dolby Digital Plus, DSU works quite well.


I've pre-ordered them both on disc for the Atmos tracks (studios please, lets not have another Hercules incident), but it's a pretty good deal anyway.


----------



## qwho51

I thought I would post the link to this article, if not for the interesting note on the speaker setup they use for the atmos mixing. I apologize if this has been posted earlier. 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...nearfield-mixes-for-dolby-atmos-blurays/19537


----------



## twinturbo11

*In-ceiling surrounds*

Hey guys,

I had a quick question for you, given that Dolby has not responded to my inquiry in over 3 months:

I currently have a 7.1 setup , with floorstanding fronts, but all my surrounds are in-ceiling, due to The Wife.

I would like to transform my system into a 7.1.2 atmos setup. If I add 2 more in-ceiling speakers for atmos, would i get the atmos experience, or any benefits?

Thanks!


----------



## WayneJoy

I still don't like the near field mixing they do nowadays.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

twinturbo11 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I had a quick question for you, given that Dolby has not responded to my inquiry in over 3 months:
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 setup , with floorstanding fronts, but all my surrounds are in-ceiling, due to The Wife.
> 
> I would like to transform my system into a 7.1.2 atmos setup. If I add 2 more in-ceiling speakers for atmos, would i get the atmos experience, or any benefits?
> 
> Thanks!


Nope. Sorry to say. There would be no noticeable separation between the main layer and the overheads. Atmos and any other 3D format would do you no good. You would need to rejigger the in-ceiling positions and then use the four of them for overhead surrounds and then place four more surround speakers closer to ear level. If you have no place to put the rear surrounds, perhaps do a 5.1.4 setup. 

Sometimes a little give and take with the significant other will go a long way toward upgrading your theater system.


----------



## Nightlord

How about some in-walls as well?


----------



## twinturbo11

Nightlord said:


> How about some in-walls as well?


my house has gypsum ceilings, but brick walls...


----------



## twinturbo11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sometimes a little give and take with the significant other will go a long way toward upgrading your theater system.


6 in-ceiling speakers was the compromise


----------



## twinturbo11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Nope. Sorry to say. There would be no noticeable separation between the main layer and the overheads. Atmos and any other 3D format would do you no good. You would need to rejigger the in-ceiling positions and then use the four of them for overhead surrounds and then place four more surround speakers closer to ear level. If you have no place to put the rear surrounds, perhaps do a 5.1.4 setup..


I am using directional inceiling speakers for my back-surrounds (goldenear INVISA HTR 7000) - they are supposed to make you feel like the speaker is at ear height. My side-surrounds are standard inceilings that are down firing (INVISA 650) however.

If , for atmos tracks, i disable my side-surrounds, enable my directional back-surrounds, and enable the 2 new atmos height speakers (standard down firing type?) - would that do the trick?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

twinturbo11 said:


> I am using directional inceiling speakers for my back-surrounds (goldenear INVISA HTR 7000) - they are supposed to make you feel like the speaker is at ear height. My side-surrounds are standard inceilings that are down firing (INVISA 650) however.
> 
> If , for atmos tracks, i disable my side-surrounds, enable my directional back-surrounds, and enable the 2 new atmos height speakers (standard down firing type?) - would that do the trick?


The Invisa HTR 7000's look like the kind of speakers you should be using for Atmos _overheads_ (like Triad angled overhead speakers) since Dolby recommends that they be firing mostly at the Main Listening Positions anyway (and no overhead speaker will really make someone think they are at ear level despite all the fancy claims from the marketing department... that would be magical physics). If you used another pair of the same model as the front pair of overheads, you would more than likely still need to add on wall surround speakers (no dipoles) for at least your sides (if you stuck with a 5.1.4 layout). 

Downward firing overheads are not recommended unless they have an inordinately wide sound dispersal pattern. That's pretty rare.

I think you're going to have to talk it over with the wife... maybe even find a place that's demoing Atmos gear, so that she knows she'll need to compromise a little more to get really fantastic sound. If she can't hear Atmos, then she doesn't know what she would be missing, and it would be harder to convince her to bend to your request... which you will need to do.


----------



## maikeldepotter

qwho51 said:


> I thought I would post the link to this article, if not for the interesting note on the speaker setup they use for the atmos mixing. I apologize if this has been posted earlier.
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...nearfield-mixes-for-dolby-atmos-blurays/19537


From that article:

_Dolby's Atmos Project Room features a 9.1.4 configuration -- left, center, right, two pairs of side surrounds, two rear surrounds, and four overhead speakers -- but all of the Atmos mixes thus far have been mixed in 7.1.4 (only one pair of side surrounds running)_

That means no wides are used for Atmos home re-mixing. And taken from the speaker plan seen from above, front heights are at 30 degrees horizontal (in line with fronts) and rear heights at 150 degrees (in line with rears). I assume these are also be the positions the current AVRs use for their object rendering when using 4 overheads. If so, this article brings us a lot closer to knowing the 'intended positions' of the overheads. Very interesting.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> From that article:
> 
> _Dolby's Atmos Project Room features a 9.1.4 configuration -- left, center, right, two pairs of side surrounds, two rear surrounds, and four overhead speakers -- but all of the Atmos mixes thus far have been mixed in 7.1.4 (only one pair of side surrounds running)_
> 
> That means no wides are used for Atmos home re-mixing. And taken from the speaker plan seen from above, front heights are at 30 degrees horizontal (in line with fronts) and rear heights at 150 degrees (in line with rears). I assume these are also be the positions the current AVRs use for their object rendering when using 4 overheads. If so, this article brings us a lot closer to knowing the 'intended positions' of the overheads. Very interesting.


Yes, "if so". We simply don't know.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> From that article:
> 
> _Dolby's Atmos Project Room features a 9.1.4 configuration -- left, center, right, two pairs of side surrounds, two rear surrounds, and four overhead speakers -- but all of the Atmos mixes thus far have been mixed in 7.1.4 (only one pair of side surrounds running)_
> 
> That means no wides are used for Atmos home re-mixing. And taken from the speaker plan seen from above, front heights are at 30 degrees horizontal (in line with fronts) and rear heights at 150 degrees (in line with rears). I assume these are also be the positions the current AVRs use for their object rendering when using 4 overheads. If so, this article brings us a lot closer to knowing the 'intended positions' of the overheads. Very interesting.


Well, given that there is positional rendering data included on each Blu-ray for a fairly large 24.1.10 setup, I have a hunch they're trying to see how well a "lower level" consumer renderer recreates the original intent of the soundtrack and make sure the audio elements will not get all bunched up, or overpower the dialog. 

They'll even do that to regular near-field 5.1 and 7.1 channel based mixes... even going so far as to conduct listening tests to decide if the mix will still sound good folded down to lowly mono or stereo. 

Do note that Dolby is ready for 9.1.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I have the Oppo 103 and you also need to add a "region free" adapter to it. Same as the Oppo 93.
> 
> 
> Ray


Ah right - thanks.


----------



## cannga

maikeldepotter said:


> From that article:
> 
> _Dolby's Atmos Project Room features a 9.1.4 configuration -- left, center, right, two pairs of side surrounds, two rear surrounds, and four overhead speakers -- but all of the Atmos mixes thus far have been mixed in 7.1.4 (only one pair of side surrounds running)_
> 
> That means no wides are used for Atmos home re-mixing. And taken from the speaker plan seen from above, front heights are at *30 degrees* horizontal *(in line with fronts) *and rear heights at *150 degrees (in line with rears)*. I assume these are also be the positions the current AVRs use for their object rendering when using 4 overheads. If so, this article brings us a lot closer to knowing the 'intended positions' of the overheads. Very interesting.


Am I missing something? The only picture I see is a diagram with yellow dots, from which the only thing that seems certain are ceiling speakers inside of main, no? And even so, it's just a diagram; I don't think we could deduce anything from it. Which picture allows you to get such detailed information?


----------



## batpig

robert816 said:


> For those with an interest, VUDU has Guardians of the Galaxy and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on sale right now for $9.99 USD, and since playback is in Dolby Digital Plus, DSU works quite well.
> 
> 
> I've pre-ordered them both on disc for the Atmos tracks (studios please, lets not have another Hercules incident), but it's a pretty good deal anyway.


Not a Hercules incident exactly but GOTG is NOT being released on BD with an Atmos track. So cancel that order if you're only buying jt for Atmos! A huge shame since we finally would have been able to watch a GOOD action movie in Atmos


----------



## markus767

cannga said:


> Am I missing something? The only picture I see is a diagram with yellow dots, from which the only thing that seems certain are ceiling speakers inside of main, no? And even so, it's just a diagram; I don't think we could deduce anything from it. Which picture allows you to get such detailed information?


Unfortunately it seems to be en vogue in this thread to deduce all kinds of things from little information whereas information that is clearly questionable (like the Dolby diagram that shows L and R at ±45°) gets ignored completely.


----------



## rboster

robert816 said:


> For those with an interest, VUDU has Guardians of the Galaxy and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on sale right now for $9.99 USD, and since playback is in Dolby Digital Plus, DSU works quite well.
> 
> 
> I've pre-ordered them both on disc for the Atmos tracks (studios please, lets not have another Hercules incident), but it's a pretty good deal anyway.


I knew TNT has an Atmos track. Does Guardians too? If so, I am even more excited about the release!!


----------



## bargervais

I thought it a bit odd I had all my wife's family over for thanksgiving showed some what atmos was all about how it sounded...people were pretty much impressed but comments I got from most were well all of them didn't have a clue what atmos was all about, and even after an explanation and demo they said that sound bars are the way to go... I believe we are in the minority they seem to have a consensus that less speakers were more of what people are doing now. I thought that they are convinced that floor and ceiling speakers took up too much room (sigh) it's hard to convince or share with people who have their minds made up that sound bars are the way to go.... anyway I'm completely sold I wish studios would get more atmos mixes into the market I watch rise of the planet of the apes and dawn of the planet of the apes very nice in DSU I also loved Avatar


----------



## maikeldepotter

cannga said:


> Am I missing something? The only picture I see is a diagram with yellow dots, from which the only thing that seems certain are ceiling speakers inside of main, no? And even so, it's just a diagram; I don't think we could deduce anything from it. Which picture allows you to get such detailed information?


The article refers to the left side of the right hand monitor (_The left window is a map of a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration as seen from above._). All I am doing is describing what this diagram shows. What this really means as far as Dolby's intended positions are concerned, we can only guess and assume. Given that this is a diagram produced by the actual Atmos mixing tool, it is not far fetched to be posing the assumption that it actually could be presenting the intended positions. That is all.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> I thought it a bit odd I had all my wife's family over for thanksgiving showed some what atmos was all about how it sounded...people were pretty much impressed but comments I got from most were well all of them didn't have a clue what atmos was all about, and even after an explanation and demo *they said that sound bars are the way to go*... I believe we are in the minority they seem to have a consensus that less speakers were more of what people are doing now. I thought that they are convinced that floor and ceiling speakers took up too much room (sigh) it's hard to convince or share with people who have their minds made up that sound bars are the way to go


There's nothing wrong with that perspective IMHO since soundbars can provide decent audio, and their compactness allows them to be used in situations where individual speakers might be intrusive or unfeasible. I have been using a soundbar w/powered SW (Sony HT-CT350) for years now in the master bedroom, and it is more than satisfactory; and, of course, at $200 it was very cost-effective compared to a speaker system plus amp.



bargervais said:


> .... anyway I'm completely sold I wish studios would get more atmos mixes into the market I watch rise of the planet of the apes and dawn of the planet of the apes very nice in DSU I also loved Avatar


Last night my wife and I watched The Producers (2005 remake w/Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick). We are not fans of most musicals, and I have stated before my preference for DTS Neo:X 11.1 over DSU for music sources; but we were both very impressed with the results using DSU on the DD 5.1 soundtrack. The experience was not only immersive but notably lent the performance an added sense of theatricality. I could truly close my eyes and believe I was in the theater audience rather than sitting in my living room.


----------



## robert816

batpig said:


> Not a Hercules incident exactly but GOTG is NOT being released on BD with an Atmos track. So cancel that order if you're only buying jt for Atmos! A huge shame since we finally would have been able to watch a GOOD action movie in Atmos


What! No ****e!?, Damn that sucks, I thought it was listed as an Atmos mix for the Blu-ray.

Oh well, I'll keep the pre-order for the better audio and the steelbook.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I thought it a bit odd I had all my wife's family over for thanksgiving showed some what atmos was all about how it sounded...people were pretty much impressed but comments I got from most were well all of them didn't have a clue what atmos was all about, and even after an explanation and demo they said that sound bars are the way to go... I believe we are in the minority they seem to have a consensus that less speakers were more of what people are doing now. I thought that they are convinced that floor and ceiling speakers took up too much room (sigh) it's hard to convince or share with people who have their minds made up that sound bars are the way to go.... anyway I'm completely sold I wish studios would get more atmos mixes into the market I watch rise of the planet of the apes and dawn of the planet of the apes very nice in DSU I also loved Avatar


Yeah - you only have to look at soundbar sales to see their impact on the market, driven by the poor quality speakers in ultra-thin TVs of course.

But HT is a minority passtime. Most people are happy with the sound their TV makes. This includes almost all of my friends - they watch a movie on a 50 inch TV with appalling sound and they think they have seen the movie. They literally have no idea that they are missing maybe 60-70% of the movie.

I think this sort of thinking applies to most things and most people though. Look at how many people listen to music on the earbuds that came free with their cellphone. They don't even upgrade those 2 dollar earbuds, so what chance is there they will spend thousands of dollars on speakers for a HT setup.

Yet oddly, when they come round to my house and watch a movie here, they are all blown away by the big picture and the great sound. Then they go home and carry on with their soundbar, completely happy. Different strokes etc...

And as Chi-guy says, soundbars do have their place. I have one under my TV in my living room because the sound the TV speakers makes is unlistenable-to - literally.


----------



## jima4a

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - you only have to look at soundbar sales to see their impact on the market, driven by the poor quality speakers in ultra-thin TVs of course.
> 
> But HT is a minority passtime. Most people are happy with the sound their TV makes. This includes almost all of my friends - they watch a movie on a 50 inch TV with appalling sound and they think they have seen the movie. They literally have no idea that they are missing maybe 60-70% of the movie.
> 
> I think this sort of thinking applies to most things and most people though. Look at how many people listen to music on the earbuds that came free with their cellphone. They don't even upgrade those 2 dollar earbuds, so what chance is there they will spend thousands of dollars on speakers for a HT setup.
> 
> Yet oddly, when they come round to my house and watch a movie here, they are all blown away by the big picture and the great sound. Then they go home and carry on with their soundbar, completely happy. Different strokes etc...
> 
> And as Chi-guy says, soundbars do have their place. I have one under my TV in my living room because the sound the TV speakers makes is unlistenable-to - literally.


Totally agree! I even lent some towers to a friend and while he thought they made his system sound great they want a soundbar for the looks (WAF) and are in no hurry to act. I actually have a soundbar in my main system which I use for regular TV either to keep the heat load down or for late at night watching.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> All I am doing is describing what this diagram shows.












When you look at the above diagram, do you see _"front heights are at 30 degrees horizontal (in line with fronts) and rear heights at 150 degrees (in line with rears)"_?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rboster said:


> I knew TNT has an Atmos track. * Does Guardians too?* If so, I am even more excited about the release!!


It does not.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> When you look at the above diagram, do you see _"front heights are at 30 degrees horizontal (in line with fronts) and rear heights at 150 degrees (in line with rears)"_?


Yes, I do. But I do realize that I made another assumption, namely that MLP is in the middle of the room, in between the side surrounds, following the reasoning 'where else could the intended MLP (mixer) position be?'.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, I do. But I do realize that I made another assumption, namely that MLP is in the middle of the room, in between the side surrounds, following the reasoning 'where else could the intended MLP (mixer) position be?'.


How can you work out the angles unless you know where the mixer sits? Also, it may just be an illustrative diagram that is common to all Atmos desks, although I agree that it is more probable that each facility has a tailor-made diagram. It's odd (to me) that it doesn't show the mixer's seating position.


----------



## Spanglo

westmd said:


> Just got my first Atmos disc purely by chance. Recieved the HK BluRay disc trilogy of *Overheard*and found out that the third one is in Atmos!


Nice find. I had recently come across this one by chance too. The Atmos-ness is a bit spotty, but it has its moments. 

I also got a advanced copy of TMNT, and give its sound a thumbs up. Some of the fight scenes were pretty intense from a sound perspective. 

Funny how I would normally not touch movies like TMNT and Step Up All In, but now I'm jumping all over 'em - and enjoying them! Still waiting on Expendables.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I do realize that I made another assumption, namely that MLP is in the middle of the room, in between the side surrounds, following the reasoning 'where else could the intended MLP (mixer) position be?'.


Exactly. That's the only location from which everything (including the lone subwoofer) lines up radially. Which makes it obvious that this is simply a symbolic diagram to show which outputs are being used, not a guide to speaker placement nor seating location. Does anyone believe that the diagram in any way indicates that Dolby's home Atmos recommendation is to place fronts and rears in the four corners of the room and seating at the absolute centre of the room?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Exactly. That's the only location from which everything (including the lone subwoofer) lines up radially. Which makes it obvious that this is simply a symbolic diagram to show which outputs are being used, not a guide to speaker placement nor seating location. Does anyone believe that the diagram in any way indicates that Dolby's home Atmos recommendation is to place fronts and rears in the four corners of the room and seating at the absolute centre of the room?


Well, when you put it like that...


----------



## aaranddeeman

twinturbo11 said:


> 6 in-ceiling speakers was the compromise


Time for new... you know what... 
Sorry just messing with you. Couldn't resist.
Yeah. I can fully understand the situation of "compromise"..


----------



## ruff pl

Hi. I am new on the forum and I have small question. How is it possible to get dolby atmos from 7.2 amp? I am thinking about buying some cheap receiver with 2 hdmi outputs f.ex Onkyo HT-RC660. From audio outputs on back panel I assume that I can only get 5.2 setup + hight speakers/ or normal 7.2 setup. There is no way to get atmos from zone 2 out?


----------



## twinturbo11

aaranddeeman said:


> Time for new... you know what...
> Sorry just messing with you. Couldn't resist.
> Yeah. I can fully understand the situation of "compromise"..


Time for an upgrade!!


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - you only have to look at soundbar sales to see their impact on the market, driven by the poor quality speakers in ultra-thin TVs of course.
> 
> But HT is a minority passtime. Most people are happy with the sound their TV makes. This includes almost all of my friends - they watch a movie on a 50 inch TV with appalling sound and they think they have seen the movie. They literally have no idea that they are missing maybe 60-70% of the movie.
> 
> I think this sort of thinking applies to most things and most people though. Look at how many people listen to music on the earbuds that came free with their cellphone. They don't even upgrade those 2 dollar earbuds, so what chance is there they will spend thousands of dollars on speakers for a HT setup.
> 
> Yet oddly, when they come round to my house and watch a movie here, they are all blown away by the big picture and the great sound. Then they go home and carry on with their soundbar, completely happy. Different strokes etc...
> 
> And as Chi-guy says, soundbars do have their place. I have one under my TV in my living room because the sound the TV speakers makes is unlistenable-to - literally.



Yup. That pretty much sums it up.
I really hate when people advice me against (spending for) a blu-ray (that has DTHD or DTS_HD etc.) and instead download the crappy torrent and watch it on your monitor..
On TV speakers. I do agree. What I have done though is attached subwooffer (that was juts lying around) to the sub out (fortunately the TV had it), that makes it much better.


----------



## bargervais

Spanglo said:


> Nice find. I had recently come across this one by chance too. The Atmos-ness is a bit spotty, but it has its moments.
> 
> I also got a advanced copy of TMNT, and give its sound a thumbs up. Some of the fight scenes were pretty intense from a sound perspective.
> 
> Funny how I would normally not touch movies like TMNT and Step Up All In, but now I'm jumping all over 'em - and enjoying them! Still waiting on Expendables.


Dam it now I have to get TMNT to add to my collection of blu rays that I wouldn't have ever for the life of me buying.... I have Step up all in, T4, and expendable 3 come on can't the studios if you reading this please start cranking out those Atmos mixes..I will buy Avatar again if you mix it in atmos... please pick something descent please there has to be something better then these I guess I should be thankful that you all did something but TMNT I'm not thirteen


----------



## kbarnes701

ruff pl said:


> Hi. I am new on the forum and I have small question. How is it possible to get dolby atmos from 7.2 amp? I am thinking about buying some cheap receiver with 2 hdmi outputs f.ex Onkyo HT-RC660. From audio outputs on back panel I assume that I can only get 5.2 setup + hight speakers/ or normal 7.2 setup. There is no way to get atmos from zone 2 out?


To get Atmos you have to have an AVR that is Atmos-enabled. The HT-RC660 is one such unit. As it only has 7 channels internally you would be limited to a 5.1.4 Atmos configuration, that is, 2 on ceiling speakers or Atmos-enabled speakers/modules. As this unit does not have multichannel preouts you cannot add an additional external 2ch amp to enable it to handle 5.1.4/7.1.2 - you are limited to 5.1.2 for Atmos.

So you are correct - you cannot do anything other than 5.1.2 or regular 7.1 and you cannot get Atmos from Zone 2 preouts.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Dam it now I have to get TMNT to add to my collection of blu rays that I wouldn't have ever for the life of me buying.... I have Step up all in, T4, and expendable 3 come on can't the studios if you reading this please start cranking out those Atmos mixes..I will buy Avatar again if you mix it in atmos... please pick something descent please there has to be something better then these I guess I should be thankful that you all did something but TMNT I'm not thirteen


They’re just releasing them as they become available, now that the mastering houses are getting their equipment installed and online. There'll be a lot more next year as more Atmos movies hit the cinemas. It isn’t a plot to drive you nuts


----------



## Nalleh

kokishin said:


> Added you to the list. I put your FH as on-wall and your TR as on-ceiling. If otherwise, let me know and I will change it.


Reached 60 Atmos HT!! When will it be 100?

Although there is a clear winner when it comes to AVR/pre-pro, with almost 50% being Denon 5200(and some more 4100's), there is no such trend when it comes to height speaker brand???

Over 50% have TF+TR, and over 50% have on-ceiling, but other than that, not too much in common. I did not expect that....


----------



## rboster

Dan Hitchman said:


> It does not.


I assumed as much, since I had not seen it on any official lists of titles coming out with atmos...but the other member mentioned it was, so I thought maybe I had missed a news release


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Reached 60 Atmos HT!! When will it be 100?
> 
> Although there is a clear winner when it comes to AVR/pre-pro, with almost 50% being Denon 5200(and some more 4100's), there is no such trend when it comes to height speaker brand???
> 
> Over 50% have TF+TR, and over 50% have on-ceiling, but other than that, not too much in common. I did not expect that....


I guess it is because of the very wide range of different rooms that members have, making speaker position, quantity, type and make much more liable to wide variation. OTOH, the choice of AVR is much more limited and room-agnostic.


----------



## pasender91

Nalleh said:


> Reached 60 Atmos HT!! When will it be 100?
> 
> Although there is a clear winner when it comes to AVR/pre-pro, with almost 50% being Denon 5200(and some more 4100's), there is no such trend when it comes to height speaker brand???
> 
> Over 50% have TF+TR, and over 50% have on-ceiling, but other than that, not too much in common. I did not expect that....


There are so many speaker vendors out there!!! It explains the huge variety of references.
It is one of the mysteries of the universe, why this market has 1000s of brands when other much larger sectors like cameras amps or cars have less than 50 

Coming back to Atmos, so the typical install is Denon 5200 with 7.1.4 using TF+TR, quite a balanced and good config i believe ...


----------



## asharma

*Bass Mgmt for ATMOS speakers*

Hi Folks...opinions wanted please and thank you...so I just bought $700 worth of Polk TF and TR in ceiling speakers. I am also running 3 sub woofers. Given the subwoofers, could the TF and TR just be an el cheapo set of speakers since I really don't need any bass mgmt. in the speaker and would probably just cross over at 150 hz anyway? My point is do I really need to drop $700 smacks on ceiling speakers or would it sound just as good with a couple hundred bucks of in ceiling speakers coupled with my subs? Thanks folks...


----------



## robert816

rboster said:


> I assumed as much, since I had not seen it on any official lists of titles coming out with atmos...but the other member mentioned it was, so I thought maybe I had missed a news release


That was my mistake, thought I remembered reading it was to be released in Atmos, or perhaps I was remembering that it was in the theatre in Atmos. Either way it was a mistake on my part. Apologies to all if I led you down a false immersion trail.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

asharma said:


> Hi Folks...opinions wanted please and thank you...so I just bought $700 worth of Polk TF and TR in ceiling speakers. I am also running 3 sub woofers. Given the subwoofers, could the TF and TR just be an el cheapo set of speakers since I really don't need any bass mgmt. in the speaker and would probably just cross over at 150 hz anyway? My point is do I really need to drop $700 smacks on ceiling speakers or would it sound just as good with a couple hundred bucks of in ceiling speakers coupled with my subs? Thanks folks...


I'm running 50$/Pr klipsch quintets for ceilings and they sound amazing


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> I'm running 50$/Pr klipsch quintets for ceilings and they sound amazing


I'm using micca M-8S ceiling speakers that I already had I think they were $70.00 each I'm just repurposing them and moving them into the correct positions to get good separation I noticed that they don't do a lot of the heavy lifting like the front three and surrounds and my subs do. so I'm going to wait till I get more money in my coffers before I think about up grading them, but I'm feeling these will most likely work just fine. 
I think you don't have to spend a ton of money on ceiling speakers as long as they do the job and your happy so to answer your question IMHO you don't need to spend that much on the top four... now your base speakers are a different story and this is still only my opinion. You just need good dispersion or proper location and you should be good.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> I'm using micca M-8S ceiling speakers that I already had I think they were $70.00 each I'm just repurposing them and moving them into the correct positions to get good separation I noticed that they don't do a lot of the heavy lifting like the front three and surrounds and my subs do. so I'm going to wait till I get more money in my coffers before I think about up grading them, but I'm feeling these will most likely work just fine.
> I think you don't have to spend a ton of money on ceiling speakers as long as they do the job and your happy so to answer your question IMHO you don't need to spend that much on the top four... now your base speakers are a different story and this is still only my opinion. You just need good dispersion or proper location and you should be good.


That's mainly because there hasn't been an Atmos mix released on Blu-ray yet that has aggressive overhead usage. It depends on the mix. There will be some that come down the pike that will test the overheads quite a bit and people will end up wishing they had better on or in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

pasender91 said:


> There are so many speaker vendors out there!!! It explains the huge variety of references.
> It is one of the mysteries of the universe, why this market has 1000s of brands when other much larger sectors like cameras amps or cars have less than 50
> 
> Coming back to Atmos, so the typical install is Denon 5200 with 7.1.4 using TF+TR, quite a balanced and good config i believe ...


I guess you are right, but with the spesific "wide dispersion" recommended speakers i did not expect such diversity. Ah well, more than one way to skin the cat, right?

Yes, that looks to be the "standard" setup: Denon 5200 with 7.x.4 (over 50% of that too) using TF+TR mounted on-ceiling.

So now the rest of you guys know what's what


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's mainly because there hasn't been an Atmos mix released on Blu-ray yet that has aggressive overhead usage. It depends on the mix. There will be some that come down the pike that will test the overheads quite a bit and people will end up wishing they had better on or in-ceiling speakers.


I sure hope so I know Keith told me to be patient as we should start seeing a lot more coming in early 2015 once that happens I'll evaluate how my ceiling speakers hold up..
By then I should be in better $hape to $pring for better $peakers.


----------



## Jeffg8

[
Yes, that looks to be the "standard" setup: Denon 5200 with 7.x.4 (over 50% of that too) using TF+TR mounted on-ceiling.


I have been surprised by the majority having the speakers mounted on-ceiling. I have a dedicated room and recently got the 7702, my plan is for ceiling speakers. Running the wire is going to be the difficult part and on-ceiling doesn't really get me out of that.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I can’t say that I especially noticed this. If you want to see some convincing CGI robots (and this time they are actually robots, as opposed to TF4's aliens) check out real Steel. The CGI robots are so convincing that at the end of the movie, in the big fight, I was yelling and cheering on the underdog, totally oblivious of the fact that I was emotionally connecting with a computer animation. (The big fight is just that - they are boxing robots).


Did you see the new Star Wars teaser? (I was blown away by that) The robot in that looked CGI but very well done CGI... as a frame of reference. The Falcon CGI I wasn't as impressed with... but it still looked pretty good.

I know this is a weird thing to complain about but I didn't like their eyes either... like how machine parts were used as eyelids. I know they were trying to express emotion on the faces so perhaps there was no way around that... I just like the eyes of the 80's bots better.



kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't seen Interstellar yet. A friend of mine saw it and said it was the slowest, most tedious movie he has seen in some time. He said it felt very realistic - in the sense that time seemed to have expanded sevenfold.


I have a high tolerance for slow paced films... being a fan of "my dinner with Andre", "the thin red line", etc. I think it depends on your area of interest... if you like outer space travel I don't think it's slow paced. I was lost in the film the whole time so I wasn't bothered by the length or pace at all.

There was some wasted space in the film (pun intended I guess). It's just gorgeous to look at on the 70mm projection if you guys have that in the UK? Highly recommended... it might not compare with the visual fidelity of your theater but the huge screen size is what makes it look great.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's mainly because there hasn't been an Atmos mix released on Blu-ray yet that has aggressive overhead usage. It depends on the mix. There will be some that come down the pike that will test the overheads quite a bit and people will end up wishing they had better on or in-ceiling speakers.


I hope I don't regret doing the modules... but I don't think in ceiling speakers are an option for me. Long story short the house I live in isn't mine... that could change, but it might be a while until I figure that out. Worst case scenario I sell the modules a year or two from now if they suck & install ceiling speakers... but based on what I read the modules seem to do a good job. My ceiling is very short too, just around 8 feet.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Exactly. That's the only location from which everything (including the lone subwoofer) lines up radially. Which makes it obvious that this is simply a *symbolic diagram to show which outputs are being used*, not a guide to speaker placement nor seating location.


Judging from the screen shot alone, that would probably have been my first conclusion too. But I was not there in that studio, and the writer of the article referred to it as _*map of a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration as seen from above*_ which triggered my assumptive reasoning. But you have me close to convinced, chances are big that this diagram gives us little to no information on what Dolby's intended speaker positions really are.


----------



## CBdicX

Do not know if this has been posted yet, i can't find it, so take a cup of coffee and enjoi, it will answer a lot of questions about Atmos......


http://vimeo.com/106033922


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Hi Folks...opinions wanted please and thank you...so I just bought $700 worth of Polk TF and TR in ceiling speakers. I am also running 3 sub woofers. Given the subwoofers, could the TF and TR just be an el cheapo set of speakers since I really don't need any bass mgmt. in the speaker and would probably just cross over at 150 hz anyway? My point is do I really need to drop $700 smacks on ceiling speakers or would it sound just as good with a couple hundred bucks of in ceiling speakers coupled with my subs? Thanks folks...


If the speakers you are considering perform well above ~120Hz and have wide dispersion, and have the sensitivity and power handling capability to meet your requirements, then the price isn't really all that material IMO. I say ~120Hz because you clearly have plenty of woofage and can bass manage whatever speakers you choose for the ceiling, giving them a fairly easy ride. FWIW, I have front LCR speakers that cost thousands of dollars and ceiling speakers that cost hundreds (Tannoy Di5 DC) and I am delighted with the results here. The ceiling speakers don't really do all that much heavy lifting - if I isolate mine and listen via DSU, it is mainly easy-to-handle ambient effects.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's mainly because there hasn't been an Atmos mix released on Blu-ray yet that has aggressive overhead usage. It depends on the mix. There will be some that come down the pike that will test the overheads quite a bit and people will end up wishing they had better on or in-ceiling speakers.


With bass management they still won’t have to do any heavy lifting. Pretty much any decently made and specced speaker can handle >120Hz. As always, the best thing to do is to look at the specifications, not the price. Unfortunately, very few speaker manufacturers, outside the Pro world, give proper specs (ever wondered why, since they clearly have them for internal use/testing etc?). One of the reasons I was attracted to my Tanny Di5 DCs is that Tannoy give pages and pages of specifications, graphs, test results etc. so you know what you are buying and that they will perform as required.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Did you see the new Star Wars teaser? (I was blown away by that) The robot in that looked CGI but very well done CGI... as a frame of reference. The Falcon CGI I wasn't as impressed with... but it still looked pretty good.
> 
> I know this is a weird thing to complain about but I didn't like their eyes either... like how machine parts were used as eyelids. I know they were trying to express emotion on the faces so perhaps there was no way around that... I just like the eyes of the 80's bots better.


This conversation is verging on the surreal 



Aras_Volodka said:


> I have a high tolerance for slow paced films... being a fan of "my dinner with Andre", "the thin red line", etc. I think it depends on your area of interest... if you like outer space travel I don't think it's slow paced. I was lost in the film the whole time so I wasn't bothered by the length or pace at all.


Yes I am happy with slow pacing too sometimes. I haven’t seen Interstellar yet - that was just what my buddy told me.



Aras_Volodka said:


> There was some wasted space in the film (pun intended I guess). It's just gorgeous to look at on the 70mm projection if you guys have that in the UK? Highly recommended... it might not compare with the visual fidelity of your theater but the huge screen size is what makes it look great.


Yes, he did say it was a spectacular looking movie. I am looking forward to seeing it. The main problem I have with Nolan is that he is so freakin' serious and takes himself and his movies very seriously, even when they involve a grown man dressing up as a bat. I really think he needs to lighten up.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I hope I don't regret doing the modules... but I don't think in ceiling speakers are an option for me. Long story short the house I live in isn't mine... that could change, but it might be a while until I figure that out. Worst case scenario I sell the modules a year or two from now if they suck & install ceiling speakers... but based on what I read the modules seem to do a good job. My ceiling is very short too, just around 8 feet.


Having heard upfirers in direct comparison with on-ceiling speakers, I doubt you will be in any way disappointed. Most people preferred the upfirers at the demos I attended.


----------



## Gurba

Aras_Volodka said:


> I hope I don't regret doing the modules... but I don't think in ceiling speakers are an option for me. Long story short the house I live in isn't mine... that could change, but it might be a while until I figure that out. Worst case scenario I sell the modules a year or two from now if they suck & install ceiling speakers... but based on what I read the modules seem to do a good job. My ceiling is very short too, just around 8 feet.


I ceiling isn't Your only option. I live in a rented house adn I mounted on-wall speakers on-ceiling. I put the screws for the keyholes between the plates in the ceiling and hope the owner won't notice it when I move out.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have a high tolerance for slow paced films... being a fan of "my dinner with Andre", "the thin red line", etc.


Those are two marvelous, intelligent films. It seems we share a fondness for dialogue-centric movies.

Yesterday I watched the wonderfully engaging Dean Spanley (2008), a period piece set in Edwardian England that has little to no special effects, and we were impressed by how nicely DSU enhanced the background musical score. It just goes to show once again that Atmos/DSU is demonstrably not only "not just about the helicopters" (© kbarnes701 ), it's not even only about the Foley or other sound effects but rather the overall immersive cinematic ambience. (BTW, the film also features a terrific performance by the late Peter O'Toole.)


----------



## harrybnbad

After watching that clip with Grimani, I was shocked at how far back he had the front wides. And it seemed he prefered a 9.2.2 system. Or, am I miss reading (SEEING) something. I'm still on the fence trying to hold off until I can run a true 9.2.4. But after seeing where I guess I SHOULD maybe have my wides, I may be just wasteing space and speakers. I could use my current wides as rear surrounds, lower my side surrounds, and have a pretty good 7.2.4 system. I only need the avr.

Then there's this last clip. Did that guy from Denon just say that they could have up graded my 4520 to atmos, but desided not to?


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Do you have an Atmos machine (SSP or receiver)?
> 
> * Nevermind.  https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


I am in the market for a processor but wouldn't mind a receiver for an interims time with the internal amps disconnected. I had Lexicon products for the last 14 years so wouldn't like too much of a quality decrease.

My user requirements in declining order are:

1. Auro (mandatory)
2. Atmos (at least upgradable)
3. Room EQ (nice to have)

Rasiest choice for an interims unit would be the *Yamaha RXA3040* once Yamaha announces Auro which should come this December, then I would wait for next gen products.

Also a possibility would be the *Datasat LS10* which was offered to me ex demo. If the price is right this could be an option.

Currently my highlight is the *Stormaudio SSP12* but until they have sold some units I won't spend the money.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I added you.
> 
> Thanks


Hi kokishin can you update my setup I noticed that someone had a bose 161 attached to their ceiling I had a pair just collecting dust wasn't worth selling and didn't want to through them in the trash, so I replaced my jbl satalite speakers with these and moved the bose a wee bit forward on the ceiling where I had the jbl,s. So my set up changes to 
TX-NR 737 5.2.2 ceiling bose 161 top fronts two 10" klipsch subs bic America formula FRONTS and surrounds.
Thanks again for your work on keeping the spread sheet going.


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> Hi kokishin can you update my setup I noticed that someone had a bose 161 attached to their ceiling I had a pair just collecting dust wasn't worth selling and didn't want to through them in the trash, so I replaced my jbl satalite speakers with these and moved the bose a wee bit forward on the ceiling where I had the jbl,s. So my set up changes to
> TX-NR 737 5.2.2 ceiling bose 161 top fronts two 10" klipsch subs bic America formula FRONTS and surrounds.
> Thanks again for your work on keeping the spread sheet going.


Done.

Thanks for the update.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> Done.
> 
> Thanks for the update.


Very fast thanks your the best.


----------



## Al Sherwood

harrybnbad said:


> After watching that clip with Grimani, I was shocked at how far back he had the front wides. And it seemed he prefered a 9.2.2 system. Or, am I miss reading (SEEING) something. I'm still on the fence trying to hold off until I can run a true 9.2.4. But after seeing where I guess I SHOULD maybe have my wides, I may be just wasteing space and speakers. I could use my current wides as rear surrounds, lower my side surrounds, and have a pretty good 7.2.4 system. I only need the avr.
> 
> Then there's this last clip. Did that guy from Denon just say that they could have up graded my 4520 to atmos, but desided not to?



Sorry, but can you point me to this clip? Thanks!


----------



## Al Sherwood

CBdicX said:


> Do not know if this has been posted yet, i can't find it, so take a cup of coffee and enjoi, it will answer a lot of questions about Atmos......
> 
> 
> http://vimeo.com/106033922


 
Thanks for posting this, very interesting of course but educational as well, I would dare say a real good primer for anyone interested in installing an Atmos system at home!


I took away few interesting points:



Full range speakers seemed to be recommended at every position by way of the comment from the Sound Mixer stating that he felt the height speakers needed to be as capable as any other in the system, using a jet or helicopter flyover as an example.
Although the speaker positions were definitively defined the ability to accommodate errors in placement was also apparent through Dolby's testing
Both AVR representatives, were careful not to offer a glimpse of what the second generation equipment might do over that of the current generation... Both did allude to the need for a certain amount of DSP horsepower to do all of the things required to implement Atmos and any included room EQ, and this dictated their implementation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> I took away few interesting points:
> 
> Full range speakers seemed to be recommended at every position by way of the comment from the Sound Mixer stating that he felt the height speakers needed to be as capable as any other in the system, using a jet or helicopter flyover as an example.


Yes - but remember that in a bass-managed system 'full range' means having capability >80Hz. You don't need big tower speakers on the ceiling for Atmos, even if you have them at the front


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - but remember that in a bass-managed system 'full range' means having capability >80Hz. You don't need big tower speakers on the ceiling for Atmos, even if you have them at the front



Phew! those 42" tall 60 lb beasts would have been a bugger to lift up there let alone hide! 


Actually I was thinking of those people putting small 'eggs' on the ceiling, I see that in the manuals for most AVR's they call anything that cannot handle 'full deep bass' a small speaker, but there is certainly a wide range of units that could find the next task in life up there as an Atmos height speaker. My choice for Atmos ceiling are rated for 83Hz - 23kHz +/-3dB with a 91 db sensitivity.


In the video, Brett, the Dolby rep specifically mentioned that Atmos and DSU benefited from fully capable speakers at every position, though not necessarily a tower on the ceiling!


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Phew! those 42" tall 60 lb beasts would have been a bugger to lift up there let alone hide!
> 
> 
> Actually I was thinking of those people putting small 'eggs' on the ceiling, I see that in the manuals for most AVR's they call anything that cannot handle 'full deep bass' a small speaker, but there is certainly a wide range of units that could find the next task in life up there as an Atmos height speaker. My choice for Atmos ceiling are rated for 83Hz - 23kHz +/-3dB with a 91 db sensitivity.
> 
> 
> In the video, Brett, the Dolby rep specifically mentioned that Atmos and DSU benefited from fully capable speakers at every position, though not necessarily a tower on the ceiling!


Yes, but a "fully capable" speaker in a bass-managed system is one that can handle >80Hz to 20Khz, with wide dispersions, sufficient power handling for the required SPL etc. You don't need a large speaker to do that. My Tannoy Di5 DCs are pretty small but if you look at the specs you will see they meet all the requirements for Atmos ceiling speakers with ease: 



FR 80Hz-54kHz, 
Sensitivity 88dB, 
Dispersion 90° conical, 
Rated max SPL 106dB average, 112dB peak, 
Rower handling 60w average, 120w programme, 240w peak, 
Nominal impedance 8 ohm,
Etc

One of the great things about Pro speakers is the spec sheet the maker provides, with full charts. You can see it *here* if you are interested.


----------



## cannga

Al Sherwood said:


> Phew! those 42" tall 60 lb beasts would have been a bugger to lift up there let alone hide!
> 
> 
> Actually I was thinking of those people putting small 'eggs' on the ceiling, I see that in the manuals for most AVR's they call anything that cannot handle 'full deep bass' a small speaker, but there is certainly a wide range of units that could find the next task in life up there as an Atmos height speaker. My choice for Atmos ceiling are rated for 83Hz - 23kHz +/-3dB with a 91 db sensitivity.
> 
> 
> In the video, Brett, the Dolby rep specifically mentioned that Atmos and DSU benefited from fully capable speakers at every position, though not necessarily a tower on the ceiling!



Yes, Crockett was clear about sending full range signals to the ceiling speakers. He gave similar example to mine in the Auro thread, of a jet flying front to back, and how you don't want it to start out a Jumbo 747 at screen and end up becoming a toy airplane as it moves towards you . Ceiling speakers of course wouldn't and couldn't match front towers, etc., but shouldn't be those egg speakers if your goal is "good sound." Really nothing surprising, this is classic/traditional audio and doesn't change with Atmos: for good sound, you want good speakers. Any system is only as good as its weak link, IOW $20,000 pre & power amps in front of bad speakers still mean bad sound.

I encourage another member to do an audiophile style shoot-out  to know exactly what the above means: don't test the egg speaker in the surround position, take it down and test it against the main tower so you could see the drastic difference in timbre, dynamic capability, etc. IMHO, if logistics and funding allow, decent sized ceiling speakers are a good idea a. for dynamic capabilities, and b. so that you could *reasonably* crossover at around 80 hz (bass becomes localize-able at 80-100 hz so not desirable to cross over too high in your surround speakers). In general and in my experience this implies a good start is a 2 way speaker with around 5 1/2 inch and up mid/bass driver.

BTW, this new-found aggressiveness in the ceiling channels could explain why an Atmos remix sounds better even when folded down to 7.1.


----------



## zebidou81

*Onkyo Dolby Atmos Speaker Placement*

Hi All


Im not sure if any of what I am asking has been discussed before as there are so many posts im having trouble finding any similar questions, I hope someone can add info I need to know with having a similar setup, or help.


I have a Onkyo txnr 636 and I am awaiting the delivery of the Atmos enabled speakers
I have researched a bit about them and as mentioned in this review
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/news/article/onkyo-tx-nr838-dolby-atmos-review/19449
The review is very favourable even stating these speakers are way better than the in ceiling speakers also reviewed.
One issue seems to be placement with the speakers being within 2 meters of listener to be of any use I just wonderd if this was the case ?
my limited positioning for these speakers is around 3-3.5meters is this still workable?
Also as my front speakers are only 3.5 feet from my ceiling, if I mount my atmos speakers above these I feel these would be to high for the reflective sound to reach me from a seating distance of 3-3.5meters ?
I am considering using a laser pen at the same angle as the speakers upfire, with a small mirror placed on ceiling to bounce laser off to seat to get mount height right, if I am to mount off to sides of L/R ?


Anybody with these speakers I would be greatfull for input thanks


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, but a "fully capable" speaker in a bass-managed system is one that can handle >80Hz to 20Khz, with wide dispersions, sufficient power handling for the required SPL etc. You don't need a large speaker to do that. My Tannoy Di5 DCs are pretty small but if you look at the specs you will see they meet all the requirements for Atmos ceiling speakers with ease:
> 
> 
> 
> FR 80Hz-54kHz,
> Sensitivity 88dB,
> Dispersion 90° conical,
> Rated max SPL 106dB average, 112dB peak,
> Rower handling 60w average, 120w programme, 240w peak,
> Nominal impedance 8 ohm,
> Etc
> One of the great things about Pro speakers is the spec sheet the maker provides, with full charts. You can see it *here* if you are interested.



Agreed Keith, no need for anything too large, but they must be 'capable'... as yours are. 



cannga said:


> Yes, Crockett was clear about sendingfull range signal to the ceiling speakers. He gave similar example to mine in the Auro thread, of a jet flying front to back, and how you don't want it to start out a Jumbo 747 at screen and end up becoming a toy airplane as it moves towards you. Ceiling speakers of course couldn't and shouldn't match front towers, etc., but should not be those egg speakers if your goal is "good sound." Really nothing surprising, this is classic/traditional audio "rule" and doesn't change with Atmos: for good sound, you want good speakers. Any system is only as good as its weak link, IOW $20,000 preamp in front of bad speakers still means bad sound.
> 
> IMHO, if logistics and funding allow, decent sized ceiling speakers are a good idea a. for dynamic capabilities, and b. so that you could reasonably crossover at around 80 hz (bass becomes localize-able at 80-100 hz so not desirable to cross over too high in your surround speakers). In general and in my experience this implies a good start is a 2 way speaker with min 5 1/2 inch mid/bass driver.



We are also in agreement, in fact my chosen speakers for ceiling have 5-1/2 bass drivers, wide dispersion characteristics and awesome sensitivity:


Frequency Response: 83Hz - 23kHz +/-3dB 
SENSITIVITY: 91dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter 
POWER HANDLING: 100 w (400 w peak) 
NOMINAL IMPEDANCE: 8 ohms 
TWEETER: Two 1" (2.5cm) aluminum dome tweeters 
HIGH FREQUENCY HORN: 2 x 5" (12.7cm) 90 x 60 Tractrix Horns 
WOOFER: 5.25" (13.3cm) woofer 
CROSSOVER FREQUENCY: 2500Hz 
ENCLOSURE TYPE: Sealed (WDST) 
DIMENSIONS: 6.85" (17.4cm) x 14.3" (36.3cm) x 5.5" (13.9cm) 
WEIGHT: 7lbs. (3.2kg) 




I just appreciated that the video interview provided some very clear information on the subject of Atmos and some tips on getting the results that you want.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> Crockett was clear about sending full range signals to the ceiling speakers. He gave similar example to mine in the Auro thread, of a jet flying front to back, and how you don't want it to start out a Jumbo 747 at screen and end up becoming a toy airplane as it moves towards you .


What is it about Dolby Atmos that makes people forget even the most common features of home theatre gear, like bass management? Soundtracks have been sending full range signals to every speaker for the last two decades. Crockett must know that consumers have been using bass managed centre, fronts, sides, rears, wides, front heights; but suddenly it's become an issue again for overhead speakers? Atmos doesn't change the way sound is reproduced. Why in the world would an airplane sound like a jumbo jet up front and end up sounding like a toy airplane in the surround field?


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> What is it about Dolby Atmos that makes people forget even the most common features of home theatre gear, like bass management? Soundtracks have been sending full range signals to every speaker for the last two decades. Crockett must know that consumers have been using bass managed centre, fronts, sides, rears, wides, front heights; but suddenly it's become an issue again for overhead speakers? Atmos doesn't change the way sound is reproduced.


I don't think that we have forgotten that bass management exists or that full range could have been sent all along to the surrounds, but rather it is even more likely now that the sound mixers will be exploiting them even more now. Still I think that it is important to have a 'capable' speaker in all of the positions to help create the proper sonic illusion...


So yes, Atmos doesn't change the way sound is reproduced, but we may experience more complete use of these speakers going forward!


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> I think that it is important to have a 'capable' speaker in all of the positions to help create the proper sonic illusion...


When was this not the case?


----------



## jlanzy

ok , so it's agreed we should have 'capable' speakers, and now hopefully not opening a can of worms, do we want enclosed 'can' ceiling speakers or open back? I have a flat roof so noise escaping above or even to other rooms isn't a concern for me, but with respect to sound quality in the theater room do the enclosed ceiling type speakers produce a 'better' sound than a similar quality open back design?


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> I am in the market for a processor but wouldn't mind a receiver for an interims time with the internal amps disconnected. I had Lexicon products for the last 14 years so wouldn't like too much of a quality decrease.
> 
> My user requirements in declining order are:
> 
> 1. Auro (mandatory)
> 2. Atmos (at least upgradable)
> 3. Room EQ (nice to have)
> 
> Rasiest choice for an interims unit would be the *Yamaha RXA3040* once Yamaha announces Auro which should come this December, then I would wait for next gen products.
> 
> Also a possibility would be the *Datasat LS10* which was offered to me ex demo. If the price is right this could be an option.
> 
> Currently my highlight is the *Stormaudio SSP12* but until they have sold some units I won't spend the money.


Interesting; the Yamaha Aventage RX-A3040 

* I'm keeping a close eye on this baby; and also the upcoming Denon AVR-X7200W ... both flagship receivers (with internal "9-ch" amplification) and much less expensive than the Datasat LS10 and Stormaudio SSP12 sound processors.


----------



## NorthSky

Do you guys think that this is going to be in Dolby Atmos:


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> When was this not the case?



When about all we heard in the surrounds was a creaking floor board or a owl's hoot in the distance... 

The sound mixers appear to be really embracing the use of the surrounds (side, rear and top) for more content, in the video they talk about the producer joking that very little sound should come from the front speakers at all and the mixers reply was they needed to cognoscente of those that do not have fully implemented home systems.


Sanjay, my comments are not meant to stir up an argument, but the surround speakers have been underutilized for years, heck even posts in this thread and other have people asking for more and better movie mixes that use these speakers, even to the point of tell you exactly as to what time stamp in the movie to experience and enjoy these sounds...


With bass management taken into account, it is my belief that all of the speakers in the home theatre should be capable of holding their own no matter the material thrown at them.


----------



## CBdicX

zebidou81 said:


> Hi All
> 
> 
> Im not sure if any of what I am asking has been discussed before as there are so many posts im having trouble finding any similar questions, I hope someone can add info I need to know with having a similar setup, or help.
> 
> 
> I have a Onkyo txnr 636 and I am awaiting the delivery of the Atmos enabled speakers
> I have researched a bit about them and as mentioned in this review
> http://www.homecinemachoice.com/news/article/onkyo-tx-nr838-dolby-atmos-review/19449
> The review is very favourable even stating these speakers are way better than the in ceiling speakers also reviewed.
> One issue seems to be placement with the speakers being within 2 meters of listener to be of any use I just wonderd if this was the case ?
> my limited positioning for these speakers is around 3-3.5meters is this still workable?
> Also as my front speakers are only 3.5 feet from my ceiling, if I mount my atmos speakers above these I feel these would be to high for the reflective sound to reach me from a seating distance of 3-3.5meters ?
> I am considering using a laser pen at the same angle as the speakers upfire, with a small mirror placed on ceiling to bounce laser off to seat to get mount height right, if I am to mount off to sides of L/R ?
> 
> 
> Anybody with these speakers I would be greatfull for input thanks


 
I used the Onkyo speakers to see if i liked Atmos, and i did !
They worked good but i did not liked the design so i send them back for a refund.
The Atmos effect whas better then i espected and a very good addition to my 7.0 setup (i had 4 on a 11 channel receiver)
Atmos is doing more then the step from 5.x to 7.x !


Onkyo speakers are very easy to place, just put them on you fronts and/or backs and your ready to go.
I had them also in front and 0.5 meter away from the speakers and it is not a big deal where you put them, at least i could not detect any change in effect, just place them nearby the fronts on the wall or where you want them, above ear hight.
My fronts and back speakers are about 4 meters distance from each other, so you would not have a problem with your distance ! 
I did put a bit more volume to them , 1.5 dB more then AccuEQ calculated, but thats personal.
I do the same with the surrounds and center.


I would like to get the KEF R50 but they are just a bit to wide to place on my Boston M350 and M250.
I hope KEF will make a say R40, a bit smaller version would be great.
Expensive speaker, the R50, but a good looker and great specs, think they will be up for the Atmos job.........


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Interesting; the Yamaha Aventage RX-A3040
> 
> * I'm keeping a close eye on this baby; and also the upcoming Denon AVR-X7200W ... both flagship receivers (with internal "9-ch" amplification) and much less expensive than the Datasat LS10 and Stormaudio SSP12 sound processors.


The Yamaha is cheap and cheerfull for the time being, but most likely only one season.
I would really love to put a little bit more money behind the counter and then have peace for some time. I had a *Lexicon MC1* a beauty of a processor. Had that for 10 years. Since then, every unit I bought didn't last very long.
I want my MC1 of Atmos/Auro processors!!! :crying:


----------



## pasender91

maybe the Marantz 8802 will fit your needs quite nicely


----------



## zebidou81

CBdicX said:


> I used the Onkyo speakers to see if i liked Atmos, and i did !
> They worked good but i did not liked the design so i send them back for a refund.
> The Atmos effect whas better then i espected and a very good addition to my 7.0 setup (i had 4 on a 11 channel receiver)
> Atmos is doing more then the step from 5.x to 7.x !
> 
> 
> Onkyo speakers are very easy to place, just put them on you fronts and/or backs and your ready to go.
> I had them also in front and 0.5 meter away from the speakers and it is not a big deal where you put them, at least i could not detect any change in effect, just place them nearby the fronts on the wall or where you want them, above ear hight.
> My fronts and back speakers are about 4 meters distance from each other, so you would not have a problem with your distance !
> I did put a bit more volume to them , 1.5 dB more then AccuEQ calculated, but thats personal.
> I do the same with the surrounds and center.
> 
> 
> I would like to get the KEF R50 but they are just a bit to wide to place on my Boston M350 and M250.
> I hope KEF will make a say R40, a bit smaller version would be great.
> Expensive speaker, the R50, but a good looker and great specs, think they will be up for the Atmos job.........



Hi Thanks for the info, I also would like the kefs as I have kef 6001s and a kef sub which would go well together I think, if I like the effect of the Onkyo Atmos speakers I may have to invest in a pair, I was unaware of many details of Atmos when I purchased the 636 a few months ago and would of liked a 5.1.4 setup which I now know the 636 cant do, if it is as good in the home as I have been demoed I will be very happy and look forward to expanding setup in future.


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> I want my Lexicon MC1 of Atmos/Auro processors!!! :crying:


Good luck; or unless Lexicon decide to put a Denon Atmos/Auro receiver (without the amp section) inside their MC-1 digital controller.


----------



## SoundChex

Al Sherwood said:


> [M]y comments are not meant to stir up an argument, but the surround speakers have been underutilized for years, heck even posts in this thread and other have people asking for more and better movie mixes that use these speakers, even to the point of tell you exactly as to what time stamp in the movie to experience and enjoy these sounds... With bass management taken into account, it is my belief that all of the speakers in the home theatre should be capable of holding their own no matter the material thrown at them.



It's perhaps worth remembering that the *Atmos*, *Auro3D*, and *'DTS-UHD'* packaged disc content we expect to see "next year" will not always be the only source of immersive audio material. The *ATSC 3.0* _'personalized|immersive audio'_ standards "should be" finalized in 2+ years, and it will be interesting to see how those broadcast audio specifications might affect things. My suspicion is that the best strategy will continue to be to err on the side of caution and to assume any speaker might be called upon to deliver any content, albeit with appropriate Bass Management support from the rest of the system!

_


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> When about all we heard in the surrounds was a creaking floor board or a owl's hoot in the distance...


Almost two decades back, movies like _'Dragonheart'_ were panning dialogue into the surround channels. The notion that ambient information is "all we heard in the surrounds" hasn't be the case in decades.


> With bass management taken into account, it is my belief that all of the speakers in the home theatre should be capable of holding their own no matter the material thrown at them.


With the advent of Atmos, it is my belief that each one of those speakers should be connected to an amplifier.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Do you guys think that this is going to be in Dolby Atmos:
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RsQd7hn9bg
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOVFvcNfvE


I hope so! The 6RsQd7hn9bg is fake.

The audio sounds very good already... I'm wondering if we are hearing a (downmixed?) Atmos track? The bass of the orchestra is very deep @ the end of the real trailer... to me it sounds superior to every recording of the theme that I've ever heard. 

But yeah Star Wars with Atmos? Yes please! Star Trek into Darkness was Atmos right? Hopefully JJ keeps working with it


----------



## Al Sherwood

Al Sherwood said:


> When about all we heard in the surrounds was a creaking floor board or a owl's hoot in the distance...
> 
> The sound mixers appear to be really embracing the use of the surrounds (side, rear and top) for more content, in the video they talk about the producer joking that very little sound should come from the front speakers at all and the mixers reply was they needed to cognoscente of those that do not have fully implemented home systems.
> 
> 
> Sanjay, my comments are not meant to stir up an argument, but the surround speakers have been *underutilized* for years, heck even posts in this thread and other have *people asking for more* and better movie mixes that use these speakers, even to the point of tell you exactly as to what time stamp in the movie to experience and enjoy these sounds...
> 
> 
> With bass management taken into account, it is my belief that all of the speakers in the home theatre should be capable of holding their own no matter the material thrown at them.





sdurani said:


> Almost two decades back, movies like _'Dragonheart'_ were panning dialogue into the surround channels. The notion that ambient information is "all we heard in the surrounds" hasn't be the case in decades. With the advent of Atmos, it is my belief that each one of those speakers should be connected to an amplifier.



Sanjay, you are answering out of context, You asked "When this was the case" I said "When... creaking and owls... was all we heard " And as I also said; "*underutilized", "people asking for more"... *Is this all getting better, for sure, no argument there! We are headed in the right direction and I want to provide the best sound stage to hear all of it! 


However, not sure what you meant by the underlined sentence above?


----------



## noah katz

Aras_Volodka said:


> The 6RsQd7hn9bg is fake.


In what way, and how do you know?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> Do you guys think that this is going to be in Dolby Atmos:


I would be really shocked if it wasn't.


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> Sanjay, you are answering out of context,


Nope, I gave an example of dialogue panned to the surrounds to point out that 'capable' speakers all around were useful a couple decades back and have nothing to do with Atmos.


> However, not sure what you meant by the underlined sentence above?


Now that Atmos has come to consumer audio, I was pointing out that each speaker will need amplification.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> Nope, I gave an example of dialogue panned to the surrounds to point out that 'capable' speakers all around were useful a couple decades back and have nothing to do with Atmos.


 OK, so we agree...capable speakers are a good thing. 




sdurani said:


> Now that Atmos has come to consumer audio, I was pointing out that each speaker will need amplification.


 OK, not sure that this hasn't been the case for quite some time.


Anyway, all good.


----------



## Skylinestar

Aras_Volodka said:


> Star Trek into Darkness was Atmos right? Hopefully JJ keeps working with it


Yes. Star Trek: Into Darkness was in Atmos. I just watched the movie yesterday and noticed the Atmos logo at the end of the credit.


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> *1. *What is it about Dolby Atmos that makes people forget even the most common features of home theatre gear, like bass management? Soundtracks have been sending full range signals to every speaker for the last two decades. Crockett must know that consumers have been using bass managed centre, fronts, sides, rears, wides, front heights; but suddenly it's become an issue again for overhead speakers? Atmos doesn't change the way sound is reproduced. *
> 2. *Why in the world would an airplane sound like a jumbo jet up front and end up sounding like a toy airplane in the surround field?


*1.* I think part of the emphasis is because of the relative higher difficulty of installing decent sized ceiling speakers, as opposed to surround speakers, as we have already seen from a few posters here.

*2.* It depends. If the jet is panned to fly overhead, straight down the middle front to back, in a system with tower speakers up front and egg speakers for ceiling, it would, no? The answer depends on the degree of mismatching - in my system I am fairly sure it would be obvious given the situation described.
It is merely an extreme scenario given to illustrate the point of using good speakers even for the ceiling.


----------



## NorthSky

> Almost two decades back, movies like _'Dragonheart'_ were panning dialogue into the surround channels. The notion that ambient information is "all we heard in the surrounds" hasn't be the case in decades.


And "height channels" were first introduced (@ the theater) in the film *'We Were Soldiers'* (2002).


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> OK, not sure that this hasn't been the case for quite some time.


Now you understand my point about 'capable' speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I hope so! The 6RsQd7hn9bg is *fake*.


You noticed that too! ...But are you truly certain like I am not?

_________

*Fake?* :






_________



> The audio sounds very good already... I'm wondering if we are hearing a (downmixed?) Atmos track? The bass of the orchestra is very deep @ the end of *the real trailer*... to me it sounds superior to every recording of the theme that I've ever heard.
> 
> But yeah Star Wars with Atmos? Yes please! *Star Trek into Darkness was Atmos right?* Hopefully JJ keeps working with it


Yes, right, but *'Star Trek: Into Darkness'* is not Dolby Atmos on the Blu. 

_________

♦ The real trailer (*Real?*) :


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> I think part of the emphasis is because of the relative higher difficulty of installing decent sized ceiling speakers, as opposed to surround speakers, as we have already seen from a few posters here.


Not sure what you mean by "decent sized" but, in a bass managed system, they need not be very large. This has been true of surround speakers and front speakers. Atmos doesn't change this.


> If the jet is panned to fly overhead, straight down the middle front to back, in a system with tower speakers up front and egg speakers for ceiling, it would, no?


But that's due to operator error, not anything to do with Atmos. The same thing would happen if you sabotaged your system with tower L/R speakers and an egg speaker for the centre.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would be really shocked if it wasn't.


Dan, did you know that *Star Wars: Episode I, II and III* are loaded with height channel material? ...On both DVD and Blu-ray mediums.


----------



## ultraflexed

Hey guys, just bought some really good open box ceiling speakers and a onko 636 av.
Should I return the ceiling speakers and just by the pioneer speaker with upfiring reflectors, do they work better then ceiling speaker for atmos?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

noah katz said:


> In what way, and how do you know?


Some scenes are taken from Star Wars video game cut scenes. The part where you hear Han talking was actually just an audio clip taken from a Ford appearance on a talk show.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> You noticed that too! ...But are you truly certain like I am not?
> 
> _________
> 
> *Fake?* :
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RsQd7hn9bg
> 
> _________
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, right, but *'Star Trek: Into Darkness'* is not Dolby Atmos on the Blu.
> 
> _________
> 
> ♦ The real trailer (*Real?*) :
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOVFvcNfvE



Yes, in fact... that pic of Ford is from Ender's game... they just attached the "Han solo" on the name tag!

I bet they'll release the Star Trek Bluray before too long... they already double dipped us with a few other editions... & will probably continue to do so with HDR grading.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

+ the part with Max Von Sydow... unless if people started wearing overcoats in the SW galaxy... that might be from minority report?


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yes, in fact... that pic of Ford is from Ender's game... they just attached the "Han solo" on the name tag!


You are abso!urely right. 



> I bet they'll release the Star Trek Bluray before too long... they already double dipped us with a few other editions... & will probably continue to do so with HDR grading.


Hell yes; Dolby Atmos is @ a turtle pace right now. 

And Disney needs to re-release Star Wars (ex-FOX), in special editions with both the theatrical and extended versions (the six of them). 
...In 3D too, and with Auro-3D.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> + the part with Max Von Sydow... unless if people started wearing overcoats in the SW galaxy... that might be from minority report?


Touche again!


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Some scenes are taken from Star Wars video game cut scenes. The part where you hear Han talking was actually just an audio clip taken from a Ford appearance on a talk show.


All very very true.


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> *1.* Not sure what you mean by "decent sized" but, in a bass managed system, they need not be very large. This has been true of surround speakers and front speakers. Atmos doesn't change this.
> 
> *2*. But that's due to operator error, not anything to do with Atmos. The same thing would happen if you sabotaged your system with tower L/R speakers and an egg speaker for the centre.


*1. *Not sure what you mean by "need not be very large" , but let me give my idea of "decent sized" and maybe we will find out that we are in agreement after all. Decent sized to me means a speaker that allows you to crossover at 80 hz or below. This of course implies certain mid/woofer driver size, but I don't want to complicate the answer at this point.

*2. *True. But now we have agreed that it *is* a possibility, that an airplane could sound different flying front to back if the ceiling speaker used has much lower dynamic capability vs. the front? As mentioned, it is merely an extreme scenario given to illustrate an important point, that of matching not just timbre, but dynamic headroom as well. And problem that exists at extreme situation *continues* to exist at "lesser" scenarios, only less so.

To be honest, I don't even know why we are in this "argumentative" circle. Speakers to be placed in the middle of the ceiling are clearly not as easily installed and not nearly as esthetically inconspicuous as wall surround speakers, and therefore Crockett's reminder that they need to be as "good" (a point that we BOTH agree to) is entirely reasonable to me.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> Decent sized to me means a speaker that allows you to crossover at 80 hz or below.


That definition is fine by me. But what does that have to do with Atmos? Speakers that go down to 80Hz can work well for fronts, centre or surrounds. Was this unknown until now?


> But now we have agreed that it *is* a possibility right, that an airplane could sound different flying front to back if the ceiling speaker used has much lower dynamic capability vs. the front?


It would be a problem with sounds moving across the front soundstage if one of the speakers has much lower dynamic capability. There are more ways to sabotage a home theatre system than deliberately using severely mis-matched speakers. Again, what does that have to do with Atmos? 

In last week's Home Theatre Geeks podcast, Anthony Grimani wondered why there is suddenly so much concern about speaker dispersion, for the least important speakers no less. Heights get relatively little content compared to the L/C/R speakers and, as Grimani pointed out, where was all the similar buzz about dispersion for the front speakers? 

Likewise, is object-based audio making people suddenly think about using speakers that can reproduce the dynamics of a movie soundtrack? Was that somehow not important before?


----------



## noah katz

Aras_Volodka said:


> Some scenes are taken from Star Wars video game cut scenes. The part where you hear Han talking was actually just an audio clip taken from a Ford appearance on a talk show.


I see, thanks.



sdurani said:


> In last week's Home Theatre Geeks podcast, Anthony Grimani wondered why there is suddenly so much concern about speaker dispersion, for the least important speakers no less. Heights get relatively little content compared to the L/C/R speakers and, as Grimani pointed out, where was all the similar buzz about dispersion for the front speakers?


It's a valid concern because the heights' closer distance means that some listeners will be much farther off axis.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> It's a valid concern because the heights' closer distance means that some listeners will be much farther off axis.


Side surrounds are usually even closer to some of the listeners.


----------



## Roger Dressler

^^ I think the issue for height speakers is that people will be off-axis not just in the horizontal axis, but the vertical axis. That's why having a speaker with good dispersion in both axes (like all these concentric units) is optimal, whereas any of the main speakers can get by with just good horizontal dispersion.


----------



## NorthSky

...Maybe an Atmos setup for one listener, then another setup for two (love seat), then three (couch), four (larger couch), six (two rows of seats), nine (three rows of seats), twenty-four (theater), ...?


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> That definition is fine by me. But *what does that have to do with Atmos?*
> Speakers that go down to 80Hz can work well for fronts, centre or surrounds. *Was this unknown until now?* It would be a problem with sounds moving across the front soundstage if one of the speakers has much lower dynamic capability. There are more ways to sabotage a home theatre system than deliberately using severely mis-matched speakers. Again, *what does that have to do with Atmos?*


There are two points in my original post, a confirmation of points by panel discussion with Crockett et al.:
1. Need decent sized speaker for the ceiling.
2. Airplane sound that flies front to back *could* change if speakers quality change front to back, more obvious if the difference in quality is larger.
"Sabotaged" or not, having to do with Atmos or not, unknown until now or not,  *we have now agreed on both of these main points, right? *

Now to the puzzling sideline firework:
Your multiple questions in bold just drew a shoulder shrug from me (who cares?), but, as I have mentioned already,it has to do with Atmos because of *the CEILING speakers - installation, logistics, and esthetics are clearly more challenging than side-wall mounted surround *(sorry I have to bold face for you now since you don't seem to see the first round) - *temptation to go "tiny" is there, and the reminder therefore entirely reasonable*. Judging by the continued questions on these topics even now, it is eminently reasonable. You could ask that same question 10 more times and I will bold face 10 more same answers. 

And no it's not necessarily sabotage because first, *someone in the Auro forum was going to do exactly that - *matching his $3000 mini tower front speakers with $250 ceiling "egg" speakers. Second, in my system, I could hear very well the different dynamics between front and back sound fields using Thiel towers front and "decent sized" Thiel bookshelves in back (given the right test pan, I know I will hear it). These are both actual users' experience, no terrorist involved.  Regardless, Sanjay you are going nuts over nothing. Relax - please.


----------



## CBdicX

ultraflexed said:


> Hey guys, just bought some really good open box ceiling speakers and a onko 636 av.
> Should I return the ceiling speakers and just by the pioneer speaker with upfiring reflectors, do they work better then ceiling speaker for atmos?



Look at this and make your decision:


http://vimeo.com/106033922


I will go for upfiring as i can not use ceiling speakers, so for me its only one choice.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Agreed Keith, no need for anything too large, but they must be 'capable'... as yours are.


Yes, that was my point really: it isn’t the price of the speakers that matters nor is it the size of the speakers. What matters is the _performance_ of the speakers. In my fully bass-managed system I have no interest in frequency response for any speaker being below 80Hz. My mains are MK Sound S150 THX Ultra 2 certified, so by definition they roll off dramatically below 80Hz. This of course is why they are such excellent speakers for their size and cost: much of the cost of a speaker is its cabinet, where bigger equals more expensive, and making the speaker work well at lower frequencies. By not having to care about anything much below 80Hz, the S150s thus represent excellent value as well as excellent sound - and it isn't a huge box either.

Same applies to all speakers in the system. "Full range" is a misnomer in a bass-managed system and the Atmos speakers simply need to meet the criteria which is applied to the other speakers. The big problem is that most speaker manufacturers do not (or dare not) publish proper specifications, so it is can be difficult to know how the speakers will perform other than by buying and installing them and making in-room measurements, which is something most can't or won't do. 

So yes, the guy is right in saying that we want "full range" speakers for Atmos - but that means speakers with a satisfactory performance from ~80Hz - 20kHz in a B-M system. I am sure that most readers of this thread have speakers that meet that criterion.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> I don't think that we have forgotten that bass management exists or that full range could have been sent all along to the surrounds, but rather it is even more likely now that the sound mixers will be exploiting them even more now. *Still I think that it is important to have a 'capable' speaker in all of the positions to help create the proper sonic illusion...*


That has always been the case though, Al. Nobody has, AFAIK, ever advocated that someone use an "incapable" speaker in any part of the system.



Al Sherwood said:


> So yes, Atmos doesn't change the way sound is reproduced, but we may experience more complete use of these speakers going forward!


There are no circumstances where a plane will start as a jumbo in the front speakers and end up as a toy plane in the rears, in a properly setup and bass-managed system. Never has been. Atmos won’t change that. When you have a capable subwoofer in the system, then ALL speakers are "full range" so what one earth the guy meant with that example is a mystery.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Sanjay, my comments are not meant to stir up an argument, but the surround speakers have been underutilized for years, heck even posts in this thread and other have people asking for more and better movie mixes that use these speakers, even to the point of tell you exactly as to what time stamp in the movie to experience and enjoy these sounds...


Because they may have been under-utilised by the mixer doesn’t mean that they are incapable of producing full range signal in a bass-managed system though. How many people here have surround speakers that cannot handle 80Hz-20kHz properly? 

I think the whole discussion is pretty arcane TBH and was sparked by a less than helpful remark about needing "full range" speakers which then in some people induced a bout of audio-amnesia wrt to bass management


----------



## kbarnes701

cannga said:


> *1.*
> *2.* It depends. If the jet is panned to fly overhead, straight down the middle front to back, in a system with tower speakers up front and egg speakers for ceiling, it would, no? .


If it does then there would be something seriously wrong with the setup or the sub.


----------



## kbarnes701

cannga said:


> Speakers to be placed in the middle of the ceiling are clearly not as easily installed and not nearly as esthetically inconspicuous as wall surround speakers, and therefore Crockett's reminder that they need to be as "good" (a point that we BOTH agree to) is entirely reasonable to me.


I find it bizarre TBH. When has it ever been different? When has anyone ever said "some of your speakers need to be rubbish"? Of course we want good speakers in all positions. I know you and I agree on that, which is why I find this whole issue so arcane.


----------



## kbarnes701

cannga said:


> And no it's not necessarily sabotage because first, *someone in the Auro forum was going to do exactly that - *matching his $3000 mini tower front speakers with $250 ceiling "egg" speakers.


If the chosen ceiling speakers could competently handle >80Hz, then what would be the problem there? Assuming a bass-managed system with EQ used?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> And Disney needs to re-release Star Wars (ex-FOX), in special editions with both the theatrical and extended versions (the six of them).
> ...In 3D too, and with Auro-3D.


I guess we'll see with the reliance media works 4k remaster! The prequels didn't get the remaster... is it possible to convert something filmed @ 1080 p to 4k? 

I didn't see TPM in 3D but I heard the 3D transfer was bad... but I agree it would be cool to get the 3D conversions... maybe Disney will get someone to do a 3D transfer and quadruple dip us.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> If the chosen ceiling speakers could competently handle >80Hz, then what would be the problem there? Assuming a bass-managed system with EQ used?


A possible problem of small speakers is not being able to cover full dynamic range above cross-over frequency (80-120 Hz) without distortion. I agree however that this discussion is relevant, and has always been, for all surrounds at home, and not unique for Atmos.


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> Good luck; or unless Lexicon decide to put a Denon Atmos/Auro receiver (without the amp section) inside their MC-1 digital controller.


As they already put Brystons Canadian doubtfull quality  into Lexicon housings, why not Denon.

Just a joke!


----------



## winwinc81

cannga said:


> There are two points in my original post, a confirmation of points by panel discussion with Crockett et al.:
> 1. Need decent sized speaker for the ceiling.
> 2. Airplane sound that flies front to back *could* change if speakers quality change front to back, more obvious if the difference in quality is larger.
> "Sabotaged" or not, having to do with Atmos or not, unknown until now or not,  *we have now agreed on both of these main points, right? *
> 
> Now to the puzzling sideline firework:
> Your multiple questions in bold just drew a shoulder shrug from me (who cares?), but, as I have mentioned already,it has to do with Atmos because of *the CEILING speakers - installation, logistics, and esthetics are clearly more challenging than side-wall mounted surround *(sorry I have to bold face for you now since you don't seem to see the first round) - *temptation to go "tiny" is there, and the reminder therefore entirely reasonable*. Judging by the continued questions on these topics even now, it is eminently reasonable. You could ask that same question 10 more times and I will bold face 10 more same answers.
> 
> And no it's not necessarily sabotage because first, *someone in the Auro forum was going to do exactly that - *matching his $3000 mini tower front speakers with $250 ceiling "egg" speakers. Second, in my system, I could hear very well the different dynamics between front and back sound fields using Thiel towers front and "decent sized" Thiel bookshelves in back (given the right test pan, I know I will hear it). These are both actual users' experience, no terrorist involved.  Regardless, Sanjay you are going nuts over nothing. Relax - please.


I guess im the one being mentioned as an example here... 

Now after all these readings...i've cooled down pretty much getting the "eggs". i have to think of alternative to get a decent bookshelf Same KEF range matching timbre... am considering the R100 (http://www.kef.com/html/en/showroom/hi-fi_series/r_series/fact_sheet/Bookshelf/r100/index.html) and wall mount it using VideoSecu One Pair of Side Clamping Speaker Mounting Bracket with Tilt and Swivel... however... how "good" will be consider good enough for all to match, can cannga help to see the specs if R100 fits the bill for surround height?.... guess I cant possibly wall mount a tower speaker LOL


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Because they may have been under-utilised by the mixer doesn’t mean that they are incapable of producing full range signal in a bass-managed system though. How many people here have surround speakers that cannot handle 80Hz-20kHz properly?
> 
> I think the whole discussion is pretty arcane TBH and was sparked by a less than helpful remark about needing "full range" speakers which then in some people induced a bout of audio-amnesia wrt to bass management



Hmmmm, trying to understand how my comments got twisted to the point where from "under-utilized" becomes "doesn't mean they are capable of producing full sound..."? 


Come on Keith, arcane? really... no audio-amnesia at work either, I thank that the panelists comments were meant as a guideline to all, remember not everybody lives on the AVS Forum, sure we may know that through proper bass management smaller surround speakers can handle the task, but remember there are those that may joining this now that do not.



maikeldepotter said:


> A possible problem of small speakers is not being able to cover full dynamic range above cross-over frequency (80-120 Hz) without distortion. I agree however that this discussion is relevant, and has always been, for all surrounds at home, and not unique for Atmos.



Relevant is a good way to put it.


----------



## westmd

Not really part of the topic but saw the first part of *Overheard* on Friday. Not action at all but more of a police drama.
Very good movie with really good and tight sound recording but without many sound effects. Don't think Atmos would have brought much to the movie.


----------



## Al Sherwood

winwinc81 said:


> I guess im the one being mentioned as an example here...
> 
> Now after all these readings...i've cooled down pretty much getting the "eggs". i have to think of alternative to get a decent bookshelf Same KEF range matching timbre... am considering the R100 (http://www.kef.com/html/en/showroom/hi-fi_series/r_series/fact_sheet/Bookshelf/r100/index.html) and wall mount it using VideoSecu One Pair of Side Clamping Speaker Mounting Bracket with Tilt and Swivel... however... how "good" will be consider good enough for all to match, can cannga help to see the specs if R100 fits the bill for surround height?.... guess I cant possibly wall mount a tower speaker LOL



That's the spirit, if we can't discuss these options and what they mean for our environment at home then for the forum looses a lot of it value!


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> A possible problem of small speakers is not being able to cover full dynamic range above cross-over frequency (80-120 Hz) without distortion. I agree however that this discussion is relevant, and has always been, for all surrounds at home, and not unique for Atmos.


That's why I said "can _*competently*_ handle > 80Hz". As you and others have said, Atmos speakers are no different to any other speaker and the same criteria for choosing them applies as it always has.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmmm, trying to understand how my comments got twisted to the point where from "under-utilized" becomes "doesn't mean they are capable of producing full sound..."?


You misunderstand me, or I didn't explain well enough. I was trying to say that just because mixers in the past may not have sent full range signals to the surrounds does not mean that our surrounds were not capable of handling them (if they did).



Al Sherwood said:


> Come on Keith, arcane? really... no audio-amnesia at work either, I thank that the panelists comments were meant as a guideline to all, remember not everybody lives on the AVS Forum, sure we may know that through proper bass management smaller surround speakers can handle the task, but remember there are those that may joining this now that do not.


Even more reason for the panelists to get things right and explain things properly. Saying that people need "full range" speakers for Atmos on-ceiling duty isn't helpful and is downright misleading IMO, as well as being unnecessary. Any AVR user with a subwoofer in the system does not need "full range" speakers. The very fact that this has generated so much discussion here, with an educated audience, shows the potential for misleading the rest of the potential Atmos users.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Not really part of the topic but saw the first part of *Overheard* on Friday. Not action at all but more of a police drama.
> Very good movie with really good and tight sound recording but without many sound effects. Don't think Atmos would have brought much to the movie.


I hope you will let us know how Overhead 3 sounds too. Mine is on the way from HK.


----------



## winwinc81

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmmm, trying to understand how my comments got twisted to the point where from "under-utilized" becomes "doesn't mean they are capable of producing full sound..."?
> 
> 
> Come on Keith, arcane? really... no audio-amnesia at work either, I thank that the panelists comments were meant as a guideline to all, remember not everybody lives on the AVS Forum, sure we may know that through proper bass management smaller surround speakers can handle the task, but remember there are those that may joining this now that do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relevant is a good way to put it.


what is "proper bass mgmt" means? 

i have my 2 custom sub powered by external amp and set all speakers to small... crossed over at 80hz..., this means proper bass mgmt?


----------



## Selden Ball

winwinc81 said:


> what is "proper bass mgmt" means?
> 
> i have my 2 custom sub powered by external amp and set all speakers to small... crossed over at 80hz..., this means proper bass mgmt?


Yes.


----------



## westmd

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope you will let us know how Overhead 3 sounds too. Mine is on the way from HK.


Will do but only in standard sound as I don't think that I will manage my speaker installation this year.many christmas visitors and hard to convince my wife that at that time I have to drill holes in our concrete ceiling.

Nevertheless my speakers finally came!


----------



## winwinc81

Selden Ball said:


> Yes.


Tks Selden Ball!


----------



## Jive Turkey

If I can backup to prior discussion for a moment, it's been noted in the forum that TF/TR vs. TM/RH doesn't make a noticeable difference in what's sent to the channels (please don't ask me to dig up the post that answered that question), so then what's the point in having a different setting in the menu to accomplish one or the other? I can do either in my setup with minor change, and the angles would be close to similar.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> If I can backup to prior discussion for a moment, it's been noted in the forum that TF/TR vs. TM/RH doesn't make a noticeable difference in what's sent to the channels (please don't ask me to dig up the post that answered that question), so then what's the point in having a different setting in the menu to accomplish one or the other? I can do either in my setup with minor change, and the angles would be close to similar.


This is one of the known unknowns. 

I am configured as FH+TM with the FH at 42° which places them in spec but on the ceiling. I briefly tried reconfigging as TF+TR even though my rearmost pair of speakers are at 85° which is in spec for TM but miles out of spec for TR, yet I couldn't really detect any audible difference. I couldn't discern any difference in the content that was sent to the speakers in either configuration (this was listening to the ceiling speakers isolated from the rest of the system). 

One would expect there to be a difference or, as you say, what is the point in the different designations. But whatever the difference is, it seems it is pretty subtle. I would add that I didn’t spend a lot of time on this, as I prefer to use designations where I can meet the recommended angles, and it is, of course, just one data point, so I'd welcome further input from anyone else who cares to try this experiment.


----------



## Al Sherwood

winwinc81 said:


> what is "proper bass mgmt" means?
> 
> i have my 2 custom sub powered by external amp and set all speakers to small... crossed over at 80hz..., this means proper bass mgmt?





Selden Ball said:


> Yes.


 
Yes as Selden answered, proper crossover settings to prevent deep bass from being sent to any speaker that can't handle it, it is generally accepted that below 80 Hz, the bass becomes increasingly less direction so the audience can not perceive the source, essentially it does not need to be in the small speaker to be perceived as coming from there.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes as Selden answered, proper crossover settings to prevent deep bass from being sent to any speaker that can't handle it, it is generally accepted that below 80 Hz, the bass becomes increasingly less direction so the audience can not perceive the source, essentially it does not need to be in the small speaker to be perceived as coming from there.


I am fortunate that I am unable to localise bass at 100Hz, or even slightly higher, which enables me to set a 100Hz XO, thus relieving my amps and speakers of even more heavy lifting, which is then passed to the dual Submersives and their combined 6 kilowatts of grunt.


----------



## wse

cannga said:


> There are two points in my original post, a confirmation of points by panel discussion with Crockett et al.:
> 1. Need decent sized speaker for the ceiling.
> 2. Airplane sound that flies front to back *could* change if speakers quality change front to back, more obvious if the difference in quality is larger.
> "Sabotaged" or not, having to do with Atmos or not, unknown until now or not,  *we have now agreed on both of these main points, right? *
> 
> Now to the puzzling sideline firework:
> Your multiple questions in bold just drew a shoulder shrug from me (who cares?), but, as I have mentioned already,it has to do with Atmos because of *the CEILING speakers - installation, logistics, and esthetics are clearly more challenging than side-wall mounted surround *(sorry I have to bold face for you now since you don't seem to see the first round) - *temptation to go "tiny" is there, and the reminder therefore entirely reasonable*. Judging by the continued questions on these topics even now, it is eminently reasonable. You could ask that same question 10 more times and I will bold face 10 more same answers.
> 
> And no it's not necessarily sabotage because first, *someone in the Auro forum was going to do exactly that - *matching his $3000 mini tower front speakers with $250 ceiling "egg" speakers. Second, in my system, I could hear very well the different dynamics between front and back sound fields using Thiel towers front and "decent sized" Thiel bookshelves in back (given the right test pan, I know I will hear it). These are both actual users' experience, no terrorist involved.  Regardless, Sanjay you are going nuts over nothing. Relax - please.


 I wished I could hang four 802Diamond from the ceiling but I am not sure how


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> I wished I could hang four 802Diamond from the ceiling but I am not sure how


And being unsure is saving you wasting a fortune!


----------



## Ted99

westmd said:


> The Yamaha is cheap and cheerfull for the time being, but most likely only one season.
> I would really love to put a little bit more money behind the counter and then have peace for some time. I had a *Lexicon MC1* a beauty of a processor. Had that for 10 years. Since then, every unit I bought didn't last very long.
> I want my MC1 of Atmos/Auro processors!!! :crying:


One wonders if we are not seeing the home audio equivalent of the "defective Chinese capacitors" that computer motherboards suffered from a few years back. Today, any quality MB advertises "military grade" capacitors. I've just had an otherwise excellent plate amp for my sub "upgraded" with the replacement of it's Chinese capacitors. I wonder which Receivers are being manufactured with better quality capacitors?


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> Judging by the continued questions on these topics even now, it is eminently reasonable.


The continued questions are a results of apparently forgetting how full range signals have been played back at home (bass management) and also the result of inventing a problem (severely mismatched speakers) in order to advocate a solution. "Doctor, it hurts when I bend my arm this way." "Don't bend your arm that way. That'll be fifty bucks."


> ...in my system, I could hear very well the different dynamics between front and back sound fields using Thiel towers front and "decent sized" Thiel bookshelves in back (given the right test pan, I know I will hear it).


That mismatch in dynamics has to do with choice of speakers, not Dolby Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Even more reason for the panelists to get things right and explain things properly. Saying that people need "full range" speakers for Atmos on-ceiling duty isn't helpful and is downright misleading IMO, as well as being unnecessary.


Indeed, which is why, in my original reply to cannga, I was criticizing the comment made by Crockett (not Can).


sdurani said:


> Soundtracks have been sending full range signals to every speaker for the last two decades. Crockett must know that consumers have been using bass managed centre, fronts, sides, rears, wides, front heights; but suddenly it's become an issue again for overhead speakers?


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes as Selden answered, proper crossover settings to prevent deep bass from being sent to any speaker that can't handle it, it is generally accepted that below 80 Hz, the bass becomes increasingly less direction so the audience can not perceive the source, essentially it does not need to be in the small speaker to be perceived as coming from there.


Another benefit to what you are doing is the ability to place the subs at locations in your room that give best bass reproduction while still being able to place your speakers where they give best soundstage and imaging. Can't do that with full range speakers (unless you're handy with a saw).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Indeed, which is why, in my original reply to cannga, I was criticizing the comment made by Crockett (not Can).


I have just watched that section of the video again and, to be fair to Crockett, he does mention bass management in conjunction with his 'full range' remark - but he then goes on to talk about the side arrays in theaters, which aren't bass-managed, and this is where the confusion has come from I think. Bottom line though is we all know that "full range" speakers are not required for Atmos, or for any other purpose in a bass-managed system such as most of us have.


----------



## cannga

kbarnes701 said:


> *1. *Yes, that was my point really: it isn’t the price of the speakers that matters *nor is it the size of the speakers*. What matters is the _performance_ of the speakers.
> 
> *2.* In my fully bass-managed system *I have no interest in frequency response for any speaker being below 80Hz.*


*1.*  Keith, go to any speaker company, as the performance rating of any speaker design/line goes up, does the speaker in general become bigger or smaller? 
*2. * So now you are matching the 4.5 inch Tannoy with dual 15 inch Submersive? Do you think the 4.5 inch Tannoy has the dynamic headroom in the range of 100 to 200 hz to match Submersive? Sonically, might there be a "hole" in the middle? Do you think the sound might be better if you had used, say the D6? Yes you have great sound now, but is there room for improvement had you used the larger D6?

First my apology if this comes across as criticism of your system - I do not mean it that way & use it merely because the example is an easy one to understand. A bass managed system does NOT mean you could go out and throw any small speaker in the system, think to yourself, great I got to the 80 hz mark, I now have great sound. There are multiple other considerations such as integration, dynamic headroom, and in general, yes, a bigger speaker is better; there is also the question of "what if I could get bigger speaker and crossover at 60 hz, will it be better"; all topics well discussed in 2 channel audio forum, unfortunately way beyond the scope of this thread, but I could tell you that I've never seen a small 4.5 inch speaker crossed to a 15 inch woofer in the many demos and systems I've come across over the last 20 years plus, not with good result anyway.

I would like to emphasize again that if space and budget are a concern, I have zero criticism - any speaker no matter how small is good. OTOH, if you have a chance to choose a larger speaker with better performance and opt not to, then you've lost me.


----------



## kbarnes701

cannga said:


> *1.*  Keith, go to any speaker company, as the performance rating of any speaker design/line goes up, does the speaker in general become bigger or smaller?


It depends. If they want to make a sensitive speaker then the box will be bigger. If they want to make a small speaker then it will be less sensitive. If they want good bass performance it will be big. If they want a small box the bass will be less. The size of the speaker isn’t an indication of quality - it is an indication of which of the different compromises the designer chose as priorities. I guess you must rate amplifiers by their weight too? 



cannga said:


> *2. * So now you are matching the 4.5 inch Tannoy with dual 15 inch Submersive? Do you think the 4.5 inch Tannoy has the dynamic headroom in the range of 100 to 200 hz to match Submersive? Might there be a hole in the middle? Do you think the sound might be better if you had used, say the D6? Yes you have great sound now, but is there room for improvement had you used a larger speaker?


I am not 'matching' the Tannoy to the Submersive, no. I am handing off the frequency response below 100Hs to the Submersive. All that the Tannoy has to do is the fairly easy job of reproducing frequencies above 100Hz (and having the power handling and SPL capability I need, which it does).

You seem to believe that the size of a speaker is the best indication of its quality, but this is not so.



cannga said:


> This is not meant to be criticism of your system in any way, I use it merely because the example is a good one. A bass managed system does NOT mean you could go out and throw any small speaker in the system,


Where did I say that bass management meant you could _"throw any small speaker into the system"_? Please quote that back to me, and if you cannot (and you cannot), please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say - thanks.



cannga said:


> think to yourself, great I got to the 80 hz mark and expect *good* sound. There are multiple other considerations such as integration, dynamic headroom,


Indeed there are. And the size of the box isn't a reliable indicator of any of them.



cannga said:


> and in general, yes, a bigger speaker is better; there is also the question of "what if I could get bigger speaker and crossover at 60 hz, will it be better";


No - it would be substantially worse because there is no speaker made that is as capable of handling bass as well as two Submersives can.



cannga said:


> all topics well discussed in 2 channel audio forum, unfortunately way beyond the scope of this thread.


I have no interest in discussing 2 channel, so that is irrelevant.



cannga said:


> I would like to emphasize again that if space and budget are a concern, I have zero criticism - any speaker no matter how small is good.


I have the financial resources to buy the speakers I want - space I am not so fortunate with. I could accommodate the Di6 on my ceiling but it would be disproportionate aesthetically. However that would not sway me if I believed I was seriously compromising the sound in any way. 



cannga said:


> OTOH, if you have a chance to choose a larger speaker with better performance and opt not to, then you've lost me.


I don't agree with you that the performance of the bigger speaker, above 100Hz (my XO) is better for the purpose of reproducing the sound of the overheads in an Atmos system. Please feel free to disagree, but I won't reply as IMO there is nothing more I can add.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> And being unsure is saving you wasting a fortune!


Agreed, I don't think it would be worth it at all, in fact good in ceiling or on ceiling will do for ATMOS


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Side surrounds are usually even closer to some of the listeners.


That doesn't change my point, which yes, applies with or without Atmos.


----------



## himey

kbarnes701, I gotta agree with cannga, and you are either missing his points or being hard headed for some reason. Your comment about 2 channel sound is ridiculous. I do appreciate your input and opinions in this thread however.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Agreed, I don't think it would be worth it at all, in fact good in ceiling or on ceiling will do for ATMOS


Yup


----------



## kbarnes701

himey said:


> kbarnes701, I gotta agree with cannga, and you are either missing his points or being hard headed for some reason. Your comment about 2 channel sound is ridiculous.


Please feel as free to agree with him as I feel to disagree with him.

My comment that I have no interest in discussing 2 channel sound in this thread is ridiculous? Let me put it another way: I have no interest in discussing 2 channel sound. OK?



himey said:


> I do appreciate your input and opinions in this thread however.


Thanks - I appreciate your saying so


----------



## rhbblb1

This Friday I am having 4 ceiling speakers installed (TF and TR). I already have my Denon 5200 up and running. What is the forum members' consensus about lateral placement of these speakers? In other words, in line with left and right mains as Dolby suggests or more centered as Grimani has suggested?


----------



## groBschizer

rhbblb1 said:


> This Friday I am having 4 ceiling speakers installed (TF and TR). I already have my Denon 5200 up and running. What is the forum members' consensus about lateral placement of these speakers? In other words, in line with left and right mains as Dolby suggests or more centered as Grimani has suggested?


Check out the forum "Acoustics for Immersive Audio" on the AVS home page. Watch the Youtube video "Home Theater Geeks." That will give you guidance.


----------



## groBschizer

rhbblb1 said:


> This Friday I am having 4 ceiling speakers installed (TF and TR). I already have my Denon 5200 up and running. What is the forum members' consensus about lateral placement of these speakers? In other words, in line with left and right mains as Dolby suggests or more centered as Grimani has suggested?


----------



## rhbblb1

groBschizer said:


> Check out the forum "Acoustics for Immersive Audio" on the AVS home page. Watch the Youtube video "Home Theater Geeks." That will give you guidance.


Thanks for your reply, but it was that video which has caused me to question the proper speaker placement. Dolby's recommendation is different than Grimani's.


----------



## groBschizer

rhbblb1 said:


> Thanks for your reply, but it was that video which has caused me to question the proper speaker placement. Dolby's recommendation is different than Grimani's.


If you have a processor that will let you run 4 hight speakers AND front wides at the same time then I would say proceed.

If you are choosing 4 heights in lieu of two front wides and two heights, I would then ask: How large is your room.

I personally set my room up with 2 heights about 4-5 feet in front of the listening position and set out wide (just past my Front LR).

If you are dead-set on 4 height channels, I think that placing a set just behind the listening position and then another set at the front 1/3 line of your room from the TV/Projector.

Anyone else?


----------



## SoundJunky

I'm looking to dive into Atmos and am in need of 4 overhead speakers. I'm leaning toward on-ceiling instead of in-ceiling since I like that I can aim the speaker toward the MLP. Can someone more familiar with Tannoy speakers than I please tell me the difference between these two Di5 speakers?

This one is labeled Di5 (pair)…

http://www.markertek.com/product/tan-di5-bk/tannoy-di5-weatherproof-ip64-surface-mount-speaker-pair-black

This one is labeled Di5DC…

http://www.markertek.com/product/tan-di5dc-white/tannoy-di5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white

I'm looking for the model without the transformer, which I thought was the Di5DC, but the Di5 is throwing me for a loop. I tried checking the manual on tannoy's website, but I don't see any mention of just a "Di5".


----------



## rhbblb1

groBschizer said:


> If you have a processor that will let you run 4 hight speakers AND front wides at the same time then I would say proceed.
> 
> If you are choosing 4 heights in lieu of two front wides and two heights, I would then ask: How large is your room.
> 
> I personally set my room up with 2 heights about 4-5 feet in front of the listening position and set out wide (just past my Front LR).
> 
> If you are dead-set on 4 height channels, I think that placing a set just behind the listening position and then another set at the front 1/3 line of your room from the TV/Projector.
> 
> Anyone else?


For the moment, I have decided against front wides because Atmos and DSU do not utilize front wides. Thus, I am going with 4 height speakers. I can add front wides in the future if they will be utilized. 
The issue for me is whether to place the height speakers at the same width as the left and right mains or to put the height speakers closer together (i.e. about 5 feet apart). My room is 20x28x10.5. The left and right mains are about 10 feet apart.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope you will let us know how Overhead 3 sounds too. Mine is on the way from HK.


If you like such movies look up director Johnnie To's works.. Eg PTU, Breaking News have very solid sound engineering and great plots. You will feel like you are in the middle of hong kong with ATMOS. 
Cheers


----------



## groBschizer

rhbblb1 said:


> For the moment, I have decided against front wides because Atmos and DSU do not utilize front wides. Thus, I am going with 4 height speakers. I can add front wides in the future if they will be utilized.
> The issue for me is whether to place the height speakers at the same width as the left and right mains or to put the height speakers closer together (i.e. about 5 feet apart). My room is 20x28x10.5. The left and right mains are about 10 feet apart.


Sound logic on the heights (no pun intended).

I can only tell you what I did with regard to my heights; Im no expert nor have I toyed around with different positioning (shame on me).

I have a 115" screen so my Front LRs are pretty far out. I did not do this on purpose, but my ceiling speakers ended up being in line with each edge of my screen. This basically covers 3 well spaced seats with the speakers just outside the left and right seats (center is "sweet spot" so to speak).


----------



## jacked

SoundJunky said:


> I'm looking to dive into Atmos and am in need of 4 overhead speakers. I'm leaning toward on-ceiling instead of in-ceiling since I like that I can aim the speaker toward the MLP. Can someone more familiar with Tannoy speakers than I please tell me the difference between these two Di5 speakers?
> 
> This one is labeled Di5 (pair)…
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...erproof-ip64-surface-mount-speaker-pair-black
> 
> This one is labeled Di5DC…
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> I'm looking for the model without the transformer, which I thought was the Di5DC, but the Di5 is throwing me for a loop. I tried checking the manual on tannoy's website, but I don't see any mention of just a "Di5".



The model to go for is the DI5DC. This has the Dual Concentric drivers and will perform better than the standard DI5. A few on here are using the DI5DC for Atmos speakers, including me.


Dave


----------



## Selden Ball

rhbblb1 said:


> For the moment, I have decided against front wides because Atmos and DSU do not utilize front wides. Thus, I am going with 4 height speakers. I can add front wides in the future if they will be utilized.
> The issue for me is whether to place the height speakers at the same width as the left and right mains or to put the height speakers closer together (i.e. about 5 feet apart). My room is 20x28x10.5. The left and right mains are about 10 feet apart.


It's up to you.

Personally, I'd use the wider separation, both because it's what Dolby suggests and because I prefer a wide soundstage.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> If you like such movies look up director Johnnie To's works.. Eg PTU, Breaking News have very solid sound engineering and great plots. You will feel like you are in the middle of hong kong with ATMOS.
> Cheers


Yes I have some of his... Election 2, Full Time Killer and, of course, the brilliant Mad Detective. You remind me though that I do need to explore his stuff more, so thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

rhbblb1 said:


> This Friday I am having 4 ceiling speakers installed (TF and TR). I already have my Denon 5200 up and running. What is the forum members' consensus about lateral placement of these speakers? In other words, in line with left and right mains as Dolby suggests or more centered as Grimani has suggested?


Who would you think would know more about Dolby Atmos: Dolby, or Grimani?


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundJunky said:


> I'm looking to dive into Atmos and am in need of 4 overhead speakers. I'm leaning toward on-ceiling instead of in-ceiling since I like that I can aim the speaker toward the MLP. Can someone more familiar with Tannoy speakers than I please tell me the difference between these two Di5 speakers?
> 
> This one is labeled Di5 (pair)…
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/tan-di5-bk/tannoy-di5-weatherproof-ip64-surface-mount-speaker-pair-black
> 
> This one is labeled Di5DC…
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/tan-di5dc-white/tannoy-di5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> I'm looking for the model without the transformer, which I thought was the Di5DC, but the Di5 is throwing me for a loop. I tried checking the manual on tannoy's website, but I don't see any mention of just a "Di5".


The DC stands for Dual Concentric. You can get the DC with or without the transformer. You don't need the transformer, so the one you want is the Di5 DC.


----------



## kbarnes701

rhbblb1 said:


> For the moment, I have decided against front wides because Atmos and DSU do not utilize front wides. Thus, I am going with 4 height speakers. I can add front wides in the future if they will be utilized.
> The issue for me is whether to place the height speakers at the same width as the left and right mains or to put the height speakers closer together (i.e. about 5 feet apart). My room is 20x28x10.5. The left and right mains are about 10 feet apart.


Atmos uses Front Wides. DSU does not.


----------



## Modern Times

SoundJunky said:


> I'm looking to dive into Atmos and am in need of 4 overhead speakers. I'm leaning toward on-ceiling instead of in-ceiling since I like that I can aim the speaker toward the MLP. Can someone more familiar with Tannoy speakers than I please tell me the difference between these two Di5 speakers?
> 
> This one is labeled Di5 (pair)…
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/tan-di5-bk/tannoy-di5-weatherproof-ip64-surface-mount-speaker-pair-black
> 
> This one is labeled Di5DC…
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/tan-di5dc-white/tannoy-di5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white
> 
> I'm looking for the model without the transformer, which I thought was the Di5DC, but the Di5 is throwing me for a loop. I tried checking the manual on tannoy's website, but I don't see any mention of just a "Di5".


You might want to also take a look at the Definitive Technology AW6500. They go down to 40hz and can handle 200 watts. I picked up 2 pair for a total of $600 CAD (Half price sale). Read the reviews on them. I have them crossed over at 60hz and just finished watching the Expendables 3 at reference level. They sounded great. I didn't hear any strain or distortion.


----------



## SoundJunky

jacked said:


> The model to go for is the DI5DC. This has the Dual Concentric drivers and will perform better than the standard DI5. A few on here are using the DI5DC for Atmos speakers, including me.
> 
> 
> Dave


Thank you, Dave.



kbarnes701 said:


> The DC stands for Dual Concentric. You can get the DC with or without the transformer. You don't need the transformer, so the one you want is the Di5 DC.


Excellent. Thank you, sir.



Modern Times said:


> You might want to also take a look at the Definitive Technology AW6500. They go down to 40hz and can handle 200 watts. I picked up 2 pair for a total of $600 CAD (Half price sale). Read the reviews on them. I have them crossed over at 60hz and just finished watching the Expendables 3 at reference level. They sounded great. I didn't hear any strain or distortion.


Any idea on the dispersion specs for that speaker? I ask only because that is what has been drilled into my head after reading thread after thread about Atmos for the past month or so. Despite this being my second dedicated HT, I'm admittedly a novice when it comes to audio. When diving into Atmos I'm using the suggestions of those on this forum that know much more than I, and I do greatly appreciate all of your input. It looks like the Def Tecs go for around $250ea, which would be about $300 more than the tannoys. Hmmm...


----------



## smurraybhm

I would go with the Tannoys - a number of members using them and specs are accurate. Based on my personal experience with Def Tech - their specs are not.


----------



## Modern Times

SoundJunky said:


> Thank you, Dave.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent. Thank you, sir.
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea on the dispersion specs for that speaker? I ask only because that is what has been drilled into my head after reading thread after thread about Atmos for the past month or so. Despite this being my second dedicated HT, I'm admittedly a novice when it comes to audio. When diving into Atmos I'm using the suggestions of those on this forum that know much more than I, and I do greatly appreciate all of your input. It looks like the Def Tecs go for around $250ea, which would be about $300 more than the tannoys. Hmmm...


I Phoned tech support at definitive technologies and they said it had a very wide dispersion pattern. He said about 90 degrees but I'm not sure if he really knew or just guessed. I think most outdoor speakers do have a wide dispersion pattern. I put one bolt in the center of the included bracket so that they can be tilted up and down and swiveled from left to right for easy aiming to the main listening position. I have seen them at Best Buy website in the states for 200 each I think. you should be able to find them cheaper than $250 each depending on where you live. They have a wide frequency response and were a decent match with my polk audio LSI'M's (frequency response and wattage) speakers. They have a passive radiator in them which allows them to give you deeper base then some of these other ones mentioned in the forum. I like to cross over my speakers lower than some of the other guys do. I think they sound better. I have 4 SVS subs and have experimented with crossing over all of my speakers at 80 Hz and at 60 Hz and at 40 Hz. I like the sound of them best at 60 Hz. My main speakers the polk audio LSiM 707 I have set too large.


----------



## Jeffg8

I just took the time to watch the complete you tube acoustics immersive video and found it quite interesting. I have a traditional 5.1 with B&W 803D in a 14X24 room with 2 rows of 3 chairs each. The second row is against the back wall. For the most part its just me when watching movies. I have the 7702 in place and my plan was to add 4 B&W683 in ceiling and perhaps add a pair of B&W DS3 for back rear surrounds and upgrade my side surrounds from older NHT's. After the video I'm wondering if I shouldn't think about some type of front wide speakers. Grimani seemed more enamored with 9.2 rather than 4 in ceiling. I have a quote for the new items and labor but just wondering aloud.


----------



## rhbblb1

kbarnes701 said:


> Who would you think would know more about Dolby Atmos: Dolby, or Grimani?


Good point!,


----------



## Modern Times

smurraybhm said:


> I would go with the Tannoys - a number of members using them and specs are accurate. Based on my personal experience with Def Tech - their specs are not.


I'm curious what your experience was that led you to believe that Def Tech are deceitful with their published specifications?


----------



## rhbblb1

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos uses Front Wides. DSU does not.


Of course, you are correct. My bad. I was thinking that for now when there is little Atmos content, most of what I will be listening to will be DSU. When there are alot of Atmos encoded discs, I will add front wides.


----------



## alfa1

After major negotiations with my wife, I finally took the plunge and set up an atmos system. I just purchased two def tech 8060st's for the fronts, Pioneer Elite SC-85 receiver, and def tech A60 modules to go on top of the 8060's, to go with my 8040hd center and def tech in-ceiling rear surrounds, to make a 5.1.2 system. 

I would have liked to do 5.1.4, but my wife would not go for listener-level rear surrounds, so I had to leave my in-ceiling rear speakers as surrounds and go with 5.1.2. After setting everything up and running pioneer's room correction, I popped in TF4 and hoped for the best

All I can say I WOW. The sound was incredible, the surround effects seemed so much more clear and accurately placed compared with my previous 5.1 system. The overhead effects were stunning, though like others I didn't feel they were used enough. In fact, I believe TF4 on my home atmos system was the best sound experience I have ever had watching a movie, commercial cinemas included, definitely better than Guardians of the galaxy at my local atmos cinema. I am incredibly happy with my setup even though it is just 5.1.2.

I know the A60 modules have gotten mixed reviews, so I wanted to let people know how happy I am with them. I do have an 8 foot highly reflective ceiling, so it may be that they only work well with that type of ideal situation. Anyway, I can't wait to try the dolby surround upmixer on some non-atmos movies and music.


----------



## asharma

*Expendables 3*

I'd be interested in seeing feedback from anyone who has watched this in ATMOS with ceiling speakers. More ATMOS content that transformers. Some good overhead helicopter pans. I'm starting to think ATMOS isn't as much about the overhead stuff as it is about the discreet placement of objects. For some reason the soundtrack sounded very discreet in some scenes to me like the first scene where u meet Antonio banderas with some very discreet bank ground sounds that are actually placed in the fronts and center. Anywhhhoooooo welcome other comments from anyone who has watched the ATMOS mix. Thanks


----------



## Mike Garrett

Slowly working on getting my room converted over from 7.1 to 5.1.4. My .1 is six subs. I have the wire pulled for the Atmos speakers and today I lowered my side surrounds down. I also figured how I am going to mount my JBL 8340's to the ceiling. My JBL Pro speakers are pretty big and heavy at 39.5 pounds. They have four inserts on the back. I took two small pieces of 1/2" x 1/2" channel. Cut the angle four inches wider than the speaker and bolted to the back of the speaker using the inserts. With the angle extending a couple inches wider than the speaker, gives me a way secure the speaker to the ceiling. Next, I have to go up into the attic space above the theater and place wood blocking. Then I just hold the back of the speaker to the ceiling in the correct location and screw through the channel, into the blocking. Hope to finish all of this up by the end of this week and have it ready by the time my AV7702 and XLR cables arrive. 

The vertical dispersion of the 8340's are not as wide as recommended, but based on mounting location (35 degrees) and the 15 degree angle built into the speaker, looks to me that they will be fine. Also, since I have six of these already, I am going to try them.


----------



## kokishin

Modern Times said:


> You might want to also take a look at the Definitive Technology AW6500. They go down to 40hz and can handle 200 watts. I picked up 2 pair for a total of $600 CAD (Half price sale). Read the reviews on them. I have them crossed over at 60hz and just finished watching the Expendables 3 at reference level. They sounded great. I didn't hear any strain or distortion.


Like to add your Atmos config to the spreadsheet. Please check the link in my sig and me know your system config based on the spreadsheet.

Thanks


----------



## ResonantEcho

*Xbox One / Dolby Atmos*

I apologize if this question has been answered in this massive thread. I did do a search and didn't come up with anything.


My question is, do streaming movies via Xbox Video on the Xbox One support Dolby Atmos? I noticed the last three movies I watched showed at the end of the credits they are encoded with Dolby Atmos (Guardians of the Galaxy, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). My receiver (Onkyo TX-NR1030) supports Dolby Atmos. If the streaming versions of these movies, via the Xbox One: Xbox Video, will work with Dolby Atmos I will have to purchase some speakers that support it as well.


Thank you.


----------



## aaranddeeman

ResonantEcho said:


> I apologize if this question has been answered in this massive thread. I did do a search and didn't come up with anything.
> 
> 
> My question is, do streaming movies via Xbox Video on the Xbox One support Dolby Atmos? I noticed the last three movies I watched showed at the end of the credits they are encoded with Dolby Atmos (Guardians of the Galaxy, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). My receiver (Onkyo TX-NR1030) supports Dolby Atmos. If the streaming versions of these movies, via the Xbox One: Xbox Video, will work with Dolby Atmos I will have to purchase some speakers that support it as well.
> 
> 
> Thank you.


I don't think streaming will support Atmos (as yet..)


----------



## kokishin

alfa1 said:


> After major negotiations with my wife, I finally took the plunge and set up an atmos system. I just purchased two def tech 8060st's for the fronts, Pioneer Elite SC-85 receiver, and def tech A60 modules to go on top of the 8060's, to go with my 8040hd center and def tech in-ceiling rear surrounds, to make a 5.1.2 system.
> 
> I would have liked to do 5.1.4, but my wife would not go for listener-level rear surrounds, so I had to leave my in-ceiling rear speakers as surrounds and go with 5.1.2. After setting everything up and running pioneer's room correction, I popped in TF4 and hoped for the best
> 
> All I can say I WOW. The sound was incredible, the surround effects seemed so much more clear and accurately placed compared with my previous 5.1 system. The overhead effects were stunning, though like others I didn't feel they were used enough. In fact, I believe TF4 on my home atmos system was the best sound experience I have ever had watching a movie, commercial cinemas included, definitely better than Guardians of the galaxy at my local atmos cinema. I am incredibly happy with my setup even though it is just 5.1.2.
> 
> I know the A60 modules have gotten mixed reviews, so I wanted to let people know how happy I am with them. I do have an 8 foot highly reflective ceiling, so it may be that they only work well with that type of ideal situation. Anyway, I can't wait to try the dolby surround upmixer on some non-atmos movies and music.


I added you to the Atmos Config spreadsheet. See my sig for the link.


----------



## ResonantEcho

aaranddeeman said:


> I don't think streaming will support Atmos (as yet..)


Thanks, aaranddeeman. I guess I'll need to purchase actual Blu-rays if I want to see what Dolby Atmos is all about. Well, at least until the Xbox One catches up.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I guess this may be a similar situation for those w/o in-wall LCR speakers.
Just wondering if you have mounted center on top of your screen, would that affect the Atmos sound stage in any way.
Should the center be mounted below the screen to avoid that issue?


----------



## Modern Times

kokishin said:


> Like to add your Atmos config to the spreadsheet. Please check the link in my sig and me know your system config based on the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks


Done... I sent you a message.

Thanks


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I added you to the Atmos Config spreadsheet. See my sig for the link.


hi kokishin could you fix my vset up my tx-nr1030 should be FH / TM 
sorry about that thanks as always


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> hi kokishin could you fix my vset up my tx-nr1030 should be FH / TM
> sorry about that thanks as always


Are your FHs wall mounted and your TM in-ceiling?


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> Are your FHs wall mounted and your TM in-ceiling?


sorry yes and yes


----------



## bargervais

I watched Bourne identity tonight in DSU was very impressive I continue to be amazed.


----------



## ultraflexed

Aras_Volodka said:


> Did you see the new Star Wars teaser? (I was blown away by that) The robot in that looked CGI but very well done CGI... as a frame of reference. The Falcon CGI I wasn't as impressed with... but it still looked pretty good.
> 
> I know this is a weird thing to complain about but I didn't like their eyes either... like how machine parts were used as eyelids. I know they were trying to express emotion on the faces so perhaps there was no way around that... I just like the eyes of the 80's bots better.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a high tolerance for slow paced films... being a fan of "my dinner with Andre", "the thin red line", etc. I think it depends on your area of interest... if you like outer space travel I don't think it's slow paced. I was lost in the film the whole time so I wasn't bothered by the length or pace at all.
> 
> There was some wasted space in the film (pun intended I guess). It's just gorgeous to look at on the 70mm projection if you guys have that in the UK? Highly recommended... it might not compare with the visual fidelity of your theater but the huge screen size is what makes it look great.





kbarnes701 said:


> Is that region-free for Bluray? I had to open mine up and surgically graft in a part I bought off eBay to make my Oppo 93 region free for Bluray.





alfa1 said:


> After major negotiations with my wife, I finally took the plunge and set up an atmos system. I just purchased two def tech 8060st's for the fronts, Pioneer Elite SC-85 receiver, and def tech A60 modules to go on top of the 8060's, to go with my 8040hd center and def tech in-ceiling rear surrounds, to make a 5.1.2 system.
> 
> I would have liked to do 5.1.4, but my wife would not go for listener-level rear surrounds, so I had to leave my in-ceiling rear speakers as surrounds and go with 5.1.2. After setting everything up and running pioneer's room correction, I popped in TF4 and hoped for the best
> 
> All I can say I WOW. The sound was incredible, the surround effects seemed so much more clear and accurately placed compared with my previous 5.1 system. The overhead effects were stunning, though like others I didn't feel they were used enough. In fact, I believe TF4 on my home atmos system was the best sound experience I have ever had watching a movie, commercial cinemas included, definitely better than Guardians of the galaxy at my local atmos cinema. I am incredibly happy with my setup even though it is just 5.1.2.
> 
> I know the A60 modules have gotten mixed reviews, so I wanted to let people know how happy I am with them. I do have an 8 foot highly reflective ceiling, so it may be that they only work well with that type of ideal situation. Anyway, I can't wait to try the dolby surround upmixer on some non-atmos movies and music.


Why do you have the A60's if you already have ceiling speakers in a 5.1.2 set-up, the a60's act in place of ceiling speakers, but you have them already and the 5.1.2 only accountsfor 2 ceiling speaker?


----------



## nirvy111

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Slowly working on getting my room converted over from 7.1 to 5.1.4. My .1 is six subs. I have the wire pulled for the Atmos speakers and today I lowered my side surrounds down. I also figured how I am going to mount my JBL 8340's to the ceiling. My JBL Pro speakers are pretty big and heavy at 39.5 pounds. They have four inserts on the back. I took two small pieces of 1/2" x 1/2" channel. Cut the angle four inches wider than the speaker and bolted to the back of the speaker using the inserts. With the angle extending a couple inches wider than the speaker, gives me a way secure the speaker to the ceiling. Next, I have to go up into the attic space above the theater and place wood blocking. Then I just hold the back of the speaker to the ceiling in the correct location and screw through the channel, into the blocking. Hope to finish all of this up by the end of this week and have it ready by the time my AV7702 and XLR cables arrive.
> 
> The vertical dispersion of the 8340's are not as wide as recommended, but based on mounting location (35 degrees) and the 15 degree angle built into the speaker, looks to me that they will be fine. Also, since I have six of these already, I am going to try them.


 
I'd be curious to hear how it sounds for you. I went from 7.1 to 5.1.4 initially but ended up with 7.1.2. I didn't like the way my setup sounded without back rears so I found myself prefering 7.1.2.


----------



## epiCenter

asharma said:


> I'd be interested in seeing feedback from anyone who has watched this in ATMOS with ceiling speakers. More ATMOS content that transformers. Some good overhead helicopter pans. I'm starting to think ATMOS isn't as much about the overhead stuff as it is about the discreet placement of objects. For some reason the soundtrack sounded very discreet in some scenes to me like the first scene where u meet Antonio banderas with some very discreet bank ground sounds that are actually placed in the fronts and center. Anywhhhoooooo welcome other comments from anyone who has watched the ATMOS mix. Thanks


I agree with your assessment. I watched the Atmos mix through my 7.2.4 system last night and found much of the sound to be discrete. I did enjoy the mix in some areas, particularly with the helicopters panning through areas of my room. However, I found the gunfire, which there is A LOT of, a bit more discrete then some of the movies I have watched with DSU (particularly isolated to SL and SR surrounds). 

It was actually a pretty interesting sound experience from an Atmos sound perspective, although a campy action movie at heart. Still worth the money to stretch the new "Atmos Legs."


----------



## epiCenter

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Slowly working on getting my room converted over from 7.1 to 5.1.4. My .1 is six subs. I have the wire pulled for the Atmos speakers and today I lowered my side surrounds down. I also figured how I am going to mount my JBL 8340's to the ceiling. My JBL Pro speakers are pretty big and heavy at 39.5 pounds. They have four inserts on the back. I took two small pieces of 1/2" x 1/2" channel. Cut the angle four inches wider than the speaker and bolted to the back of the speaker using the inserts. With the angle extending a couple inches wider than the speaker, gives me a way secure the speaker to the ceiling. Next, I have to go up into the attic space above the theater and place wood blocking. Then I just hold the back of the speaker to the ceiling in the correct location and screw through the channel, into the blocking. Hope to finish all of this up by the end of this week and have it ready by the time my AV7702 and XLR cables arrive.
> 
> The vertical dispersion of the 8340's are not as wide as recommended, but based on mounting location (35 degrees) and the 15 degree angle built into the speaker, looks to me that they will be fine. Also, since I have six of these already, I am going to try them.


Wow, I have mad-respect for you finding a way to mount your 8340s on the ceiling! It was a bit of an ordeal to mount my 8340As, and they were "only" 19 pounds each. 

I love the look and sound of mine where they are mounted. I am sure you will love yours. I sure hope you have them mounted well though, if one fell you would get more than just a headache.


----------



## kuro6010

Hello gents, 
can anyone give me some advise as to what type of speakers are the best for Dolby Atmos Enables Speakers. Im looking at Atlantic Technology's speakers. I think they will be available soon. The reason as to why I'm doing the firing up speakers is because I am currently renting. I will also be purchasing the Denon X7200 when avail. 
This is my current set-up. My future set up will be 7.1.4 can't freakin wait. Just wish there was more Atmos content. 

Panasonic 65VT30 ( D nice calibrated)
Integra DTR 70.2
Front L&R Dynaudio Excite X-36
Center Dynaudio Contour SC
L&R Side Surround Dynaudio Excite X-12
Back L&R Surround Cerwin Vega CMX-5
Emotiva XPA-5.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I guess we'll see with the reliance media works 4k remaster! The prequels didn't get the remaster... is it possible to convert something filmed @ 1080 p to 4k?
> 
> I didn't see TPM in 3D but I heard the 3D transfer was bad... *but I agree it would be cool to get the 3D conversions... maybe Disney will get someone to do a 3D transfer* and quadruple dip us.


But are they going to be available here in North America? ...They'd better be, and with Dolby Atmos, or Auro-3D audio soundtracks (dts-UHD?).


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> As they already put Brystons Canadian doubtfull quality  into Lexicon housings, why not Denon.
> 
> Just a joke!


They put an Oppo BD player (non-Atmos model) inside their own Universal BD player. ...What a move!


----------



## Daniel Chaves

So I watched Expendables three, that opening scene and the big battle at the end was mind blowing, I think it was better use of Atmos compared to T4, just really enjoyable.


----------



## jacovn

I watched expendables 3 also, but it forgot to listen technicaly for how it sounded. Was sucked into the movie. 
This far i only listened to the Dolby Demo disc and expendables 3, but i like the system (new speakers so they have to play some hour also to get better)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> But are they going to be available here in North America? ...They'd better be, and with Dolby Atmos, or Auro-3D audio soundtracks (dts-UHD?).


Sorry I'm too lazy to google... has Disney confirmed they will never again do 3D blurays? 

I'm curious... I've read here on the forums that 3D disney BD's can be found in the UK... are those good quality/ not prohibitively expensive? I have the Oppo which can play region locked discs right?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Daniel Chaves said:


> So I watched Expendables three, that opening scene and the big battle at the end was mind blowing, I think it was better use of Atmos compared to T4, just really enjoyable.





jacovn said:


> I watched expendables 3 also, but it forgot to listen technicaly for how it sounded. Was sucked into the movie.
> This far i only listened to the Dolby Demo disc and expendables 3, but i like the system (new speakers so they have to play some hour also to get better)


Does anyone know if it can be rented from somewhere with the Atmos mix? Or did all you guys buy it? 

As a side note: I checked out the new Hunger games in Atmos... not bad... though I wish there was more rear stuff going on. Maze Runner had some awesome rear action going on which adds so much! IMO not worth the 15 bucks... but the movie wasn't bad if you need an Atmos fix. 

There is some cool overhead stuff happening... like when the dropship lifts off... man that sounded cool. But when the ship is "underneath" I crave sound that could potentially come from underneath... perhaps the next step / ATMOS 2.0? (if someone could figure out how to place speakers beneath the audience... or bounce the sound from up above?) 

Unfortunately I heard one of the speakers was blown out... I guess the advantage to Atmos is that since there's so many speakers in the theater it reduces the likelihood of hearing the blown out speaker (haha... I only heard it in 2 scenes).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kuro6010 said:


> Hello gents,
> can anyone give me some advise as to what type of speakers are the best for Dolby Atmos Enables Speakers. Im looking at Atlantic Technology's speakers. I think they will be available soon. The reason as to why I'm doing the firing up speakers is because I am currently renting. I will also be purchasing the Denon X7200 when avail.
> This is my current set-up. My future set up will be 7.1.4 can't freakin wait. Just wish there was more Atmos content.
> 
> Panasonic 65VT30 ( D nice calibrated)
> Integra DTR 70.2
> Front L&R Dynaudio Excite X-36
> Center Dynaudio Contour SC
> L&R Side Surround Dynaudio Excite X-12
> Back L&R Surround Cerwin Vega CMX-5
> Emotiva XPA-5.


There is another forum member here who has them and gave his impressions... they are good. Could someone link that for Kuro? (I don't know how to do post citations or to search for them yet). 

His impression was good and from all the available resources I could check into, they are a good bet. Batpig had the A60's and returned them... I think those are the only other speakers at that price point? I'm confident enough about the Atlantic Techs that I reserved a couple pairs


----------



## jacovn

Aras_Volodka said:


> Does anyone know if it can be rented from somewhere with the Atmos mix? Or did all you guys buy it?


I found it on usenet, so i did not pay for it, but it has nasty anti copy protection, so i even needed a patch for the playlist (i think at least that it patched that)


----------



## Frank714

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have the Oppo which can play region locked discs right?


Not by default, though. I had to have my BDP-93 modified to be capable of doing that. Now, while in standby mode, I either push "1" (region code A) or "2" (region code B) and it will turn on with the proper region code setting.

Just haven't dared to perform any software updates since 2011, being afraid I might loose this comfort.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Who would you think would know more about Dolby Atmos: Dolby, or Grimani?


If memory serves correct I think Grimani had another interview from a few years back where he sort of dissed Audyssey calibration... though I don't remember specifics. Though in some ways I agreed with him that there's no way it could do nearly as good of a job as an acoustician could, but for many here (myself included) my space is so small that bringing in an acoustician would be WAAAAAY too expensive & totally pointless. I haven't listened to this week's episode... I don't know if they talked about that at all again?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Who would you think would know more about Dolby Atmos: Dolby, or Grimani?


If memory serves correct I think Grimani was interviewed a few years back on home theater geeks... was he the one who was dissing Audyssey?


----------



## jdsmoothie

rhbblb1 said:


> For the moment, I have decided against front wides because Atmos and DSU do not utilize front wides. Thus, I am going with 4 height speakers. I can add front wides in the future if they will be utilized.
> The issue for me is *whether to place the height speakers at the same width as the left and right mains or to put the height speakers closer together* (i.e. about 5 feet apart). My room is 20x28x10.5. The left and right mains are about 10 feet apart.


Personally, I would go with what the acoustics professional Grimani uses in his professional installs which is closer together which makes more sense as it would provide a wider separation from the floor speakers and place the audio closer to the MLP, especially in your case with the mains so far apart.


----------



## NorthSky

winwinc81 said:


> what is "proper bass mgmt" means?


Say you're going to your nearest airport, and that's a big one. ...You are standing at the end of the runaway, when a 747 just flew over your head.
Where is the bass coming from when that jet plane is traversing over you? Where is the total immersion/vibration? ...All over; under your feet on/in the ground, above your head, in front, behind, at the sides, in all directions in a 3D immersive perspective following the movement in time and in space of that jet plane coming way ahead in front of you, getting closer, and right there above, in that most prominent instant, to now passed behind, and fading away in that distant rear, eventually. 

But for that short distance just in front, above and behind, you are totally engulfed from all directions in those very low bass audio frequencies, and loud decibels with all the ground and the air around you trembling of very high pressure and incidentally pressurizing all your bones and muscles and blood of your entire body. 

And that, is good/natural bass management; the way to look @ it when you want to reproduce that same impact @ home in your theater room. 

Some people put subwoofers in their ceiling. Others put four of them in front and two more behind, plus two on each side. 
In a normal smaller room we usually put one or three (two). ...And certainly not in the ceiling.

For multichannel music listening (5.1 from SACD), they recommend five equal full range speakers, plus the the subwoofer for the .1/LFE channel only.
Why not follow that guide for movies too? Why do we have to copy the theaters and put the three big guns (FL, C & FR) plus the two subs (or more) in the front sound stage, and all the smaller surround speakers @ the sides and rears? ...Because we tend to believe that it replicates the cinema experience. 

In theaters the surround speakers are high because there are 500+ people in the room. And they have twenty surround speakers, that can play down to 40Hz. But if they want to play them down to 20Hz they'll have to spend more money on better and stronger speaker brackets. 

Anyway, we use common sense, and we try to put speakers around and above us to fit our decors. Some will use mini cubes, others a 5.1 soundbar on front, others decent size surrounds with a 5 to 8" woofer's size. 

There are no rules, just good acoustic common sense guidelines for each room's size. 

Personally, I like to have speakers that can all do 40Hz (+/- 2.5dB), all around, and cross them all @ 80Hz. 

But true good bass management is an acoustical art, and the slope, and the frequency point, and the harmony between multiple subwoofers, and THX (24/12dB octave, high and low pass), and music with a 6dB slope, with the less influential speaker's electronic crossover inside (keep it simple with minimum phase), and the exact x-over point, down to a half hertz, ... ask leblanc (Jeff), ask the AVS members who hired the pros to construct their rooms, acoustically and sound wise, ask the audiophile experts on music listening, ask the pro acousticians with all the room treatments they use and the tools and the digital EQs. ...The frequency, the phase, the timing, the togetherness of all sounds from all frequencies arriving @ you in the most coherent way you can get... Indeed, it is an art to master proper bass management, just like if it would happen in real life standing @ the end of that airport's runaway. ...Everything gels perfectly, nothing is taking over, only when ask for. 


Can you get this inside a one thousand dollars (or two) receiver? ...Or pre/pro? ...And you'd need some more help.


----------



## jdsmoothie

kuro6010 said:


> Hello gents,
> can anyone give me some advise as to what type of speakers are the best for Dolby Atmos Enables Speakers. Im looking at *Atlantic Technology's speakers. I think they will be available soon. *The reason as to why I'm doing the firing up speakers is because I am currently renting. I will also be *purchasing the Denon X7200 when avail.*
> This is my current set-up. My future set up will be 7.1.4 can't freakin wait. Just wish there was more Atmos content.
> 
> Panasonic 65VT30 ( D nice calibrated)
> Integra DTR 70.2
> Front L&R Dynaudio Excite X-36
> Center Dynaudio Contour SC
> L&R Side Surround Dynaudio Excite X-12
> Back L&R Surround Cerwin Vega CMX-5
> Emotiva XPA-5.


I too am renting and likely using the upward firing speakers as well. The Atlantic Tech DA-44 speakers should be available either this week or next week for shipment and the X7200W should be available at the end of the month. AVScience is taking pre-orders now on both items if interested.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry I'm too lazy to google... has Disney confirmed they will never again do 3D blurays?
> 
> I'm curious... I've read here on the forums that 3D disney BD's can be found in the UK... are those good quality/ not prohibitively expensive? I have the Oppo which can play region locked discs right?


There are few threads discussing that exact subject (3D Blu-rays from Disney, here in North America, and from all over the world); you'll have all comments there from all AVS folks, lovers of 3D Blu-rays, and Disney/PIXAR studios. 

I mainly mentioned because we were talking Star Wars movies. ...Re-mastered, possibly in 3D, 4K, and with new 3D sound. 
FOX studios and George Lucas have switched to the new dark side; Disneyland. ...Very lucrative. 
But Disney, big 3D promoters, are now not so promoters anymore around here. ...Key word: Strategy. ...Financial one; but most of us (99%) we just don't see it.

P.S. 500 pages (30 posts/page), almost 15,000 posts now here, in Atmos territory.


----------



## NorthSky

rhbblb1 said:


> Thanks for your reply, but it was that video which has caused me to question the proper speaker placement. Dolby's recommendation is different than Grimani's.


Go with Dolby.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Aras_Volodka said:


> If memory serves correct I think Grimani was interviewed a few years back on home theater geeks... was he the one who was dissing Audyssey?


Well he did point out that certain things can't be fixed with a DSP (such as room mode nulls as it will remain a null regrdless how much you crank up the volume).

Just look at Acoustics 102:


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> There are few threads discussing that exact subject (3D Blu-rays from Disney, here in North America, and from all over the world); you'll have all comments there from all AVS folks, lovers of 3D Blu-rays, and Disney/PIXAR studios.
> 
> I mainly mentioned because we were talking Star Wars movies. ...Re-mastered, possibly in 3D, 4K, and with new 3D sound.
> FOX studios and George Lucas have switched to the new dark side; Disneyland. ...Very lucrative.
> But Disney, big 3D promoters, are now not so promoters anymore around here. ...Key word: Strategy. ...Financial one; but most of us (99%) we just don't see it.
> 
> P.S. 500 pages (30 posts/page), almost 15,000 posts now here, in Atmos territory.


Oddly enough Disney still puts out 3D movies (like we just saw Big Hero 6 in 3D today... with the Star Wars trailer... which was in 3D btw!!!)    

I don't understand why they wouldn't put their discs out in 3D... like does it cost a lot to make 3D discs? Or do not enough people do it to make it worth it? I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be lucrative... the theater I was at was at least half full, and the movie's been out for a while now.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BTW Star Wars: The Force Awakens looks pretty good in 3D... I think JJ's filming crew has learned a thing or two since into Darkness  

Now the dilemma... opening night... see the force awakens in IMAX 3D or in a theater equipped with Atmos? Too bad IMAX can't have an Atmos sound system


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Mashie Saldana said:


> Well he did point out that certain things can't be fixed with a DSP (such as room mode nulls as it will remain a null regrdless how much you crank up the volume).
> 
> Just look at Acoustics 102:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_DQWB0mAOo


Haha I'm not dissin' Grimani... I actually agreed with him when I heard him/ respect his opinion, I just didn't want to paraphrase because I always fail at that... the only problem is for people with my budget & room size, hiring an acoustician is WAAAAY too expensive... and the idea of me trying to guess what would sound best (randomly placing acoustic treatments in the room without understanding the complex nature of sound waves) doesn't seem like a good prospect either. If I do remember correctly he said something about people with low budget HT's should work something like 1/5th of their budget into acoustic treatments... preferably bass traps in the corners to start with? I dunno though... if I had done that I wouldn't have the 7.1.4. As great as my setup might sound with random acoustic treatment, I think I'd rather have 7.1.4 without *serious* treatment as opposed to 5.1.2 with.

I do hang my own artwork up in my living room... it's done on heavy duty linen which I'm assuming would deaden some of the high frequency reflections... and a couple bookcases with blurays & books of varying sizes which I've heard helps. I probably need bass traps... but I spent waaay more than I planned to on my home theater this year (Thanks Atmos... haha). I'm not sure if Bass traps will be within my budget for a while!


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oddly enough Disney still puts out 3D movies (like we just saw Big Hero 6 in 3D today... with the Star Wars trailer... which was in 3D btw!!!)
> 
> I don't understand why they wouldn't put their discs out in 3D... like does it cost a lot to make 3D discs? Or do not enough people do it to make it worth it? I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be lucrative... the theater I was at was at least half full, and the movie's been out for a while now.


Thing is that Disney now has roughly ten 3D Blu-ray titles that you cannot get here in North America, but only from overseas, and the quality can vary, as the audio could also be incomplete. It is very strange, and most of us we don't understand like Disney seems like to understand themselves. 
{Some of them are region locked, others are not; best is to have a world unlocked BD player --> plays all world regions.}

It's no big deal, but for many of us it is, still. ...To have to order from overseas, or from down south (Mexico and South America), and also to do more research about stuff we don't usually have to look for here; like languages, lock or not, audio (7.1 or 5.1), subtitles, picture transfer, price, shipping, timing, tralala...plus I don't want to deal with Mexico.

Anywow, Star Wars would be cool in 3D sound, one of them three anyway...Dolby Atmos, Auro-3D, and ***-***.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> BTW Star Wars: The Force Awakens looks pretty good in 3D... I think JJ's filming crew has learned a thing or two since into Darkness
> 
> Now the dilemma... opening night... see the force awakens in IMAX 3D or in a theater equipped with Atmos? Too bad IMAX can't have an Atmos sound system


Yeah, funny isn't it, that we can have both. ...It is like they are forcing us to go twice @ the theater $!


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I would go with the Tannoys - a number of members using them and specs are accurate. Based on my personal experience with Def Tech - their specs are not.


I'd also personally be a bit concerned about a big 'bass radiator' on any speaker but especially on one attached to the ceiling, with the bass radiator right up close to the ceiling. But that might just be me - I am prejudiced against things like bass radiators.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Not by default, though. I had to have my BDP-93 modified to be capable of doing that. Now, while in standby mode, I either push "1" (region code A) or "2" (region code B) and it will turn on with the proper region code setting.
> 
> Just haven't dared to perform any software updates since 2011, being afraid I might loose this comfort.


Hardware mods should be immune to FW updates. I have the hardware mod which works in the way you describe and I have FW-updated my BDP93 a few times with no problems.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> If memory serves correct I think Grimani had another interview from a few years back where he sort of dissed Audyssey calibration... though I don't remember specifics. Though in some ways I agreed with him that there's no way it could do nearly as good of a job as an acoustician could, but for many here (myself included) my space is so small that bringing in an acoustician would be WAAAAAY too expensive & totally pointless. I haven't listened to this week's episode... I don't know if they talked about that at all again?


Grimani is an entertaining speaker but I find myself frequently disagreeing with his opinions.


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> Personally, I would go with what the acoustics professional Grimani uses in his professional installs which is closer together which makes more sense as it would provide a wider separation from the floor speakers and place the audio closer to the MLP, especially in your case with the mains so far apart.


Do you think Dolby Labs don't have any "acoustics professionals"?

I find the idea that someone knows more about Atmos than Dolby somewhat bemusing I must say.


----------



## kbarnes701

Just posted on the Oppo BDP-93 thread:

_Well, Oppo 93 owners, as promised the answer from Oppo Support - Read it and Weep.
The full reply from Oppo:
"There is no firmware that is necessary to enable Atmos, it is available out of box.
It is not guaranteed that Atmos will work with the BDP-93 since this player lacks Seamless Branching support. This can result in random audio dropouts. Only the BDP-10x series of players are guaranteed to playback Atmos properly.
Best Regards,
Customer Service
OPPO Digital, Inc.
2629B Terminal Blvd.
Mountain View, CA 94043"_

Original post *here*.

This was in response to a question about audio dropouts with *Expendables 3*. Anyone else with an Oppo 93 and that disc having problems?


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think Dolby Labs don't have any "acoustics professionals"?
> 
> I find the idea that someone knows more about Atmos than Dolby somewhat bemusing I must say.


On the whole I agree but also know from my real life profession that it's not unusual for actual use or implementation to be a bit different that what the originator, in my case drug companies, tell me. I suspect the "truth" is some where in between.


----------



## Modern Times

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd also personally be a bit concerned about a big 'bass radiator' on any speaker but especially on one attached to the ceiling, with the bass radiator right up close to the ceiling. But that might just be me - I am prejudiced against things like bass radiators.


You can rotate them so that the bass radiator either faces up or down. The bass radiator obviously works very well in these speakers. All you have to do is read the reviews (there are lots of them). They're all very very positive. Quite possibly the best outdoor speaker for the money. So there is no need to be prejudiced, it's illogical


----------



## audioguy

randyk47 said:


> On the whole I agree but also know from my real life profession that it's not unusual for actual use or implementation to be a bit different that what the originator, in my case drug companies, tell me. I suspect the "truth" is some where in between.



"Truth" being the operative word. While there are "truths" in audio, we mostly deal with "preference". Grimani's "preference" is closer together than Dolby's. 

If one is curious enough, OCD enough, anal enough and patient enough, put rails on the ceiling that run width wise in the room, mount the speakers on the rails and try various spacing.

For me, they are going to go near where Dolby told me to put them AND where they fit because I have acoustic panels on the ceiling.

And if it is as good as those who already have it installed, it's good enough for me.

Too much over-thinking for me is bsd for my health - too much stress!!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> On the whole I agree but also know from my real life profession that it's not unusual for actual use or implementation to be a bit different that what the originator, in my case drug companies, tell me. I suspect the "truth" is some where in between.


I hear you, but in this case I find it hard to believe that one 'expert' is believed over the combined 'experts' at Dolby Labs, where they invented Atmos. It's up to the individual to follow whoever he believes most - personally I'll be following Dolby's guidelines.


----------



## Modern Times

kokishin said:


> Like to add your Atmos config to the spreadsheet. Please check the link in my sig and me know your system config based on the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks


Hey have you thought about adding an on-ceiling speaker angle column?


----------



## kbarnes701

Modern Times said:


> You can rotate them so that the bass radiator either faces up or down. The bass radiator obviously works very well in these speakers. All you have to do is read the reviews (there are lots of them). They're all very very positive. Quite possibly the best outdoor speaker for the money. So there is no need to be prejudiced, it's illogical


Well prejudice is illogical by its nature  I dislike bass radiators - just a personal thing as I said. And there is no need for the overhead speaker to jump through hoops to get very low bass anyway - that's what the subwoofers are for. If the purpose of the bass radiator is to extend the response below 80Hz, then it has no purpose at all for most people, who will be redirecting those frequencies to their subs. Of course, this may also mean that the bass radiator is not actually doing anything, but if that is the case, then paying for it is a waste of money. Sorry, whichever way I look at it, I can't get enthusiastic. I am sure it is a good speaker for its intended application but not perhaps the best choice for an Atmos overhead. Just IMO.


----------



## robert816

I watched Expendables 3 in Atmos and suffered from audio dropout and was going to ask if anyone was experiencing this also, guess that answers that!

And yes, I have the OPPO BDP-93 with the latest firmware and the dropouts are indeed very random.


----------



## alfa1

ultraflexed said:


> Why do you have the A60's if you already have ceiling speakers in a 5.1.2 set-up, the a60's act in place of ceiling speakers, but you have them already and the 5.1.2 only accountsfor 2 ceiling speaker?


Because the Dolby installation guide says that existing in-ceiling speakers can only be repurposed as height speakers if additional surround speakers can be installed at listener level to replace them. Since I could not add rear surrounds (WAF) to replace my in-ceiling rear surrounds, Dolby says I should leave the in-ceilings as rear surrounds and add height speakers (in-ceiling or atmos enabled) at th front.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> "Truth" being the operative word. While there are "truths" in audio, we mostly deal with "preference". Grimani's "preference" is closer together than Dolby's.
> 
> If one is curious enough, OCD enough, anal enough and patient enough, put rails on the ceiling that run width wise in the room, mount the speakers on the rails and try various spacing.
> 
> For me, they are going to go near where Dolby told me to put them AND where they fit because I have acoustic panels on the ceiling.
> 
> And if it is as good as those who already have it installed, it's good enough for me.
> 
> Too much over-thinking for me is bsd for my health - too much stress!!!!


Wise words, Chuck. I guess it will also depend on many other factors, such as the size of the room. The idea of spacing the overheads more narrowly than in line with front L&R seems to have come from observation of how they are spaced in control rooms and cinemas. However, our spaces at homes are usually much smaller. And given that Dolby know full well how Atmos speakers are positioned in control rooms and theaters, and they still produce a guide* for the home installer* which says to put them in line with the front L&R, then I am guessing they have a reason for this. So my own view is to follow the guide for the home installation as closely as you can, but don't fret too much if individual circumstances means you have to deviate a bit - eg for acoustic panels.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> I watched Expendables 3 in Atmos and suffered from audio dropout and was going to ask if anyone was experiencing this also, guess that answers that!


Was this on an Oppo 93 or something else? I don't have this disc yet - next week in the UK - so haven't had chance to test it. I have an Oppo 93 and an ancient Panasonic BD35 which, so far, has played every disc thrown at it, including discs which the Oppo dislikes (eg Total Recall 2012).

When I get the disc I will test it on both players but it looks as if the Oppo isn't going to like it in Atmos.


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> Was this on an Oppo 93 or something else? I don't have this disc yet - next week in the UK - so haven't had chance to test it. I have an Oppo 93 and an ancient Panasonic BD35 which, so far, has played every disc thrown at it, including discs which the Oppo dislikes (eg Total Recall 2012).
> 
> When I get the disc I will test it on both players but it looks as if the Oppo isn't going to like it in Atmos.


Yes, it is an OPPO BDP-93, and I had problems with the 2012 Total Recall also.


----------



## Modern Times

kbarnes701 said:


> Well prejudice is illogical by its nature  I dislike bass radiators - just a personal thing as I said. And there is no need for the overhead speaker to jump through hoops to get very low bass anyway - that's what the subwoofers are for. If the purpose of the bass radiator is to extend the response below 80Hz, then it has no purpose at all for most people, who will be redirecting those frequencies to their subs. Of course, this may also mean that the bass radiator is not actually doing anything, but if that is the case, then paying for it is a waste of money. Sorry, whichever way I look at it, I can't get enthusiastic. I am sure it is a good speaker for its intended application but not perhaps the best choice for an Atmos overhead. Just IMO.


Are you a politician or are you on Dolby's payroll? You love to argue and spin things. BTW... have you ever heard of "weasel words". Google it if you haven't. It seems like every second post of yours is argumentative with an air of superiority full of weasel words! You also go out of your way to promote Atmos and put down Auro 3D. In fact you're a broken record with Auro and you haven't even heard it. 

I'm sure you have lots of knowledge to share with people but you're very biased. I suspect you might gain more respect with forum members if you try to be less confrontational and argumentative.

I hear a difference crossing over my system at 60 Hz so please don't tell me I don't or can't. And why on earth would anyone want a speaker that has a lower frequency range and less bass if they don't have to. Of course price and size etc. are considered. 

Anyway I have already figured out your forum personality and you're going to retaliate with a broken up/separated quote of my post replying to everything I have said..... it's your AVS persona.

Oh yah one more thing.... I'm also waiting for your buddy to jump to your defense and confirm your absolutes of cross over points and bass radiators.
I will not respond to any reply you may have.

Enjoy your 80 Hz cross over point.


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> This was in response to a question about audio dropouts with *Expendables 3*. Anyone else with an Oppo 93 and that disc having problems?


My HDI dune has the same issues. I hoped my oppo 93 would do better.. No need to try the oppo i guess..


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> I hear you, but in this case I find it hard to believe that one 'expert' is believed over the combined 'experts' at Dolby Labs, where they invented Atmos. It's up to the individual to follow whoever he believes most - personally I'll be following Dolby's guidelines.


Again I agree and indeed I consider the Dolby recommendations/guidelines to be probably the best implementation. Then I look at my room and of course it's not a purpose built theater and certainly no Dolby lab. I did the best I could with Dolby recommendations, and I'm still "adjusting", but would probably horrify both Dolby and Grimani. Of course I also have to satisfy my other consultant aka Mrs. K. We did a bit of a Hobbit marathon, which in DSU is pretty cool, this weekend in preparation for the release of the new movie and I mused outloud about what I would or could do with 9.1.6 or whatever. That got "The Look".


----------



## bargervais

Modern Times said:


> Are you a politician or are you on Dolby's payroll? You love to argue and spin things. BTW... have you ever heard of "weasel words". Google it if you haven't. It seems like every second post of yours is argumentative with an air of superiority full of weasel words! You also go out of your way to promote Atmos and put down Auro 3D. In fact you're a broken record with Auro and you haven't even heard it.
> 
> I'm sure you have lots of knowledge to share with people but you're very biased. I suspect you might gain more respect with forum members if you try to be less confrontational and argumentative.
> 
> I hear a difference crossing over my system at 60 Hz so please don't tell me I don't or can't. And why on earth would anyone want a speaker that has a lower frequency range and less bass if they don't have to. Of course price and size etc. are considered.
> 
> Anyway I have already figured out your forum personality and you're going to retaliate with a broken up/separated quote of my post replying to everything I have said..... it's your AVS persona.
> 
> Oh yah one more thing.... I'm also waiting for your buddy to jump to your defense and confirm your absolutes of cross over points and bass radiators.
> I will not respond to any reply you may have.
> 
> Enjoy your 80 Hz cross over point.


That was not an attack on you..Keith said and what I understood was he doesn't like bass reflex speakers in above on ceiling speakers and was saying let's just let the subs do the job. It makes perfect sense to me no need to attack he was just sharing how he feels but if you like how they sound to you on the ceiling it's your system.


----------



## audioguy

Modern Times said:


> Are you a politician or are you on Dolby's payroll? You love to argue and spin things. BTW... have you ever heard of "weasel words". Google it if you haven't. It seems like every second post of yours is argumentative with an air of superiority full of weasel words! You also go out of your way to promote Atmos and put down Auro 3D. In fact you're a broken record with Auro and you haven't even heard it.
> 
> I'm sure you have lots of knowledge to share with people but you're very biased. I suspect you might gain more respect with forum members if you try to be less confrontational and argumentative.
> 
> I hear a difference crossing over my system at 60 Hz so please don't tell me I don't or can't. And why on earth would anyone want a speaker that has a lower frequency range and less bass if they don't have to. Of course price and size etc. are considered.
> 
> Anyway I have already figured out your forum personality and you're going to retaliate with a broken up/separated quote of my post replying to everything I have said..... it's your AVS persona.
> 
> Oh yah one more thing.... I'm also waiting for your buddy to jump to your defense and confirm your absolutes of cross over points and bass radiators.
> I will not respond to any reply you may have.
> 
> Enjoy your 80 Hz cross over point.


WOW!!! Aren't we just a tad uptight this morning?


----------



## harrybnbad

Jeffg8 said:


> I just took the time to watch the complete you tube acoustics immersive video and found it quite interesting. I have a traditional 5.1 with B&W 803D in a 14X24 room with 2 rows of 3 chairs each. The second row is against the back wall. For the most part its just me when watching movies. I have the 7702 in place and my plan was to add 4 B&W683 in ceiling and perhaps add a pair of B&W DS3 for back rear surrounds and upgrade my side surrounds from older NHT's. After the video I'm wondering if I shouldn't think about some type of front wide speakers. Grimani seemed more enamored with 9.2 rather than 4 in ceiling. I have a quote for the new items and labor but just wondering aloud.



Ya, I too found front wide and the 2 ceiling speaker placement odd. Makes me thinks im waisting my wide speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> Again I agree and indeed I consider the Dolby recommendations/guidelines to be probably the best implementation. Then I look at my room and of course it's not a purpose built theater and certainly no Dolby lab. I did the best I could with Dolby recommendations, and I'm still "adjusting", but would probably horrify both Dolby and Grimani. Of course I also have to satisfy my other consultant aka Mrs. K. We did a bit of a Hobbit marathon, which in DSU is pretty cool, this weekend in preparation for the release of the new movie and I mused outloud about what I would or could do with 9.1.6 or whatever. That got "The Look".


LOL. I think there is considerable comfort to be taken from Dolby's often repeated remark that it is very difficult to make Atmos NOT work.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> That was not an attack on you..Keith said and what I understood was he doesn't like bass reflex speakers in above on ceiling speakers and was saying let's just let the subs do the job. It makes perfect sense to me no need to attack he was just sharing how he feels but if you like how they sound to you on the ceiling it's your system.


Exactly. I went out of my way to stress that my dislike of bass radiators was nothing more than a personal opinion and prejudice even of mine. I dislike ported speakers too as it happens. But I know that many people use speakers with ports and bass radiators and are perfectly happy with them. Different strokes etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

jacovn said:


> My HDI dune has the same issues. I hoped my oppo 93 would do better.. No need to try the oppo i guess..





robert816 said:


> Yes, it is an OPPO BDP-93, and I had problems with the 2012 Total Recall also.


I must admit I will be less than amused if I have to buy a new BD player. I'll see how my Panny handles it first.


----------



## tjenkins95

Modern Times said:


> Are you a politician or are you on Dolby's payroll? You love to argue and spin things. BTW... have you ever heard of "weasel words". Google it if you haven't. It seems like every second post of yours is argumentative with an air of superiority full of weasel words! You also go out of your way to promote Atmos and put down Auro 3D. In fact you're a broken record with Auro and you haven't even heard it.
> 
> I'm sure you have lots of knowledge to share with people but you're very biased. I suspect you might gain more respect with forum members if you try to be less confrontational and argumentative.
> 
> I hear a difference crossing over my system at 60 Hz so please don't tell me I don't or can't. And why on earth would anyone want a speaker that has a lower frequency range and less bass if they don't have to. Of course price and size etc. are considered.
> 
> Anyway I have already figured out your forum personality and you're going to retaliate with a broken up/separated quote of my post replying to everything I have said..... it's your AVS persona.
> 
> Oh yah one more thing.... I'm also waiting for your buddy to jump to your defense and confirm your absolutes of cross over points and bass radiators.
> I will not respond to any reply you may have.
> 
> Enjoy your 80 Hz cross over point.


 
Seriously dude! Take a chill pill.


----------



## Mike Garrett

nirvy111 said:


> I'd be curious to hear how it sounds for you. I went from 7.1 to 5.1.4 initially but ended up with 7.1.2. I didn't like the way my setup sounded without back rears so I found myself prefering 7.1.2.


I have thought about this and may try it both ways, but my back wall is close to my seating, so I think 5.1.4 will be better for me.


----------



## Mike Garrett

rhbblb1 said:


> This Friday I am having 4 ceiling speakers installed (TF and TR). I already have my Denon 5200 up and running. What is the forum members' consensus about lateral placement of these speakers? In other words, in line with left and right mains as Dolby suggests or more centered as Grimani has suggested?



I don't think it is that critical. Dolby shows them in line with the mains, when using ceiling speakers, but clearly the spacing is closer, when using reflected speakers. I think you have to look at the room and see what works best for you. In my room, the Atmos speakers will not be in line with the mains. My mains are close to my side walls, but my mains have controlled directivity and they are toed-in. If I place the Atmos speaker in line with my mains, then they will be very close to the side walls and with the wide horizontal coverage of the speaker, will have first reflections hitting my ear very close to the direct sound. This is why mine will be spaced closer together.


----------



## jacovn

kbarnes701 said:


> I must admit I will be less than amused if I have to buy a new BD player. I'll see how my Panny handles it first.


I did get a remuxed version, no more seamless branching 


If you buy the title here, you will have no Atmos, it comes in DTS-HD..


----------



## smurraybhm

Modern Times said:


> Are you a politician or are you on Dolby's payroll? You love to argue and spin things. BTW... have you ever heard of "weasel words". Google it if you haven't. It seems like every second post of yours is argumentative with an air of superiority full of weasel words! You also go out of your way to promote Atmos and put down Auro 3D. In fact you're a broken record with Auro and you haven't even heard it.
> 
> I'm sure you have lots of knowledge to share with people but you're very biased. I suspect you might gain more respect with forum members if you try to be less confrontational and argumentative.
> 
> I hear a difference crossing over my system at 60 Hz so please don't tell me I don't or can't. And why on earth would anyone want a speaker that has a lower frequency range and less bass if they don't have to. Of course price and size etc. are considered.
> 
> Anyway I have already figured out your forum personality and you're going to retaliate with a broken up/separated quote of my post replying to everything I have said..... it's your AVS persona.
> 
> Oh yah one more thing.... I'm also waiting for your buddy to jump to your defense and confirm your absolutes of cross over points and bass radiators.
> I will not respond to any reply you may have.
> 
> Enjoy your 80 Hz cross over point.


Unlike Keith I have a number of Def Tech speakers and even use a pair in my Atmos setup - I have more that I use upstairs where the WF is substantial and some floor standers in the garage that I bought in 1995 when Sandy was still working for them. I like Def Tech, but if you spend some time talking with their tech staff they will even tell you to cross at 80 - assuming you are using bookshelf or Pro Monitors. Audyssey crossed my PM 1000s at 100 - which is where I left them. Nothing wrong with a discussion, its not personal 

By the way, if it sounds good to you at 60 great, just keep in mind that wherever Audyssey set them originally (80 or 100) you're not EQ'd for anything below that assuming you're using room EQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

Modern Times said:


> Are you a politician or are you on Dolby's payroll? You love to argue and spin things. BTW... have you ever heard of "weasel words". Google it if you haven't. It seems like every second post of yours is argumentative with an air of superiority full of weasel words! You also go out of your way to promote Atmos and put down Auro 3D. In fact you're a broken record with Auro and you haven't even heard it.
> 
> I'm sure you have lots of knowledge to share with people but you're very biased. I suspect you might gain more respect with forum members if you try to be less confrontational and argumentative.
> 
> I hear a difference crossing over my system at 60 Hz so please don't tell me I don't or can't. And why on earth would anyone want a speaker that has a lower frequency range and less bass if they don't have to. Of course price and size etc. are considered.
> 
> Anyway I have already figured out your forum personality and you're going to retaliate with a broken up/separated quote of my post replying to everything I have said..... it's your AVS persona.
> 
> Oh yah one more thing.... I'm also waiting for your buddy to jump to your defense and confirm your absolutes of cross over points and bass radiators.
> I will not respond to any reply you may have.
> 
> Enjoy your 80 Hz cross over point.


Good heavens. I made it really clear I was expressing my personal opinion. Clearly you have a different opinion. But that in no way excuses the unwarranted personal attacks, which I find quite distasteful.


----------



## harrybnbad

kbarnes701 said:


> Good heavens. I made it really clear I was expressing my personal opinion. Clearly you have a different opinion. But that in no way excuses the unwarranted personal attacks, which I find quite distasteful.


Distasteful. That would be a understatement. As i read that reaction, i was waiting for the punch line. I hate to hear the response i'd get for mounting my klispch rf-62, rear port on my front wall.....


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> And given that Dolby know full well how Atmos speakers are positioned in control rooms and theaters, and they still produce _a guide* for the home installer* which says to put them in line with the front L&R_, then I am guessing they have a reason for this.


The guide does actually not put this practice into any kind of words. Alternatively, the recommendation reveals itself by looking at the accompanying pictures, which are supposed to say more than a thousand words. My advice therefore would be to move your overheads arrays closer together if your set-up resembles more closely a mixing studio (big projection screen) than the one in the diagrams (relatively small flat screen).


----------



## winwinc81

NorthSky said:


> Say you're going to your nearest airport, and that's a big one. ...You are standing at the end of the runaway, when a 747 just flew over your head.
> Where is the bass coming from when that jet plane is traversing over you? Where is the total immersion/vibration? ...All over; under your feet on/in the ground, above your head, in front, behind, at the sides, in all directions in a 3D immersive perspective following the movement in time and in space of that jet plane coming way ahead in front of you, getting closer, and right there above, in that most prominent instant, to now passed behind, and fading away in that distant rear, eventually.
> 
> But for that short distance just in front, above and behind, you are totally engulfed from all directions in those very low bass audio frequencies, and loud decibels with all the ground and the air around you trembling of very high pressure and incidentally pressurizing all your bones and muscles and blood of your entire body.
> 
> And that, is good/natural bass management; the way to look @ it when you want to reproduce that same impact @ home in your theater room.
> 
> Some people put subwoofers in their ceiling. Others put four of them in front and two more behind, plus two on each side.
> In a normal smaller room we usually put one or three (two). ...And certainly not in the ceiling.
> 
> For multichannel music listening (5.1 from SACD), they recommend five equal full range speakers, plus the the subwoofer for the .1/LFE channel only.
> Why not follow that guide for movies too? Why do we have to copy the theaters and put the three big guns (FL, C & FR) plus the two subs (or more) in the front sound stage, and all the smaller surround speakers @ the sides and rears? ...Because we tend to believe that it replicates the cinema experience.
> 
> In theaters the surround speakers are high because there are 500+ people in the room. And they have twenty surround speakers, that can play down to 40Hz. But if they want to play them down to 20Hz they'll have to spend more money on better and stronger speaker brackets.
> 
> Anyway, we use common sense, and we try to put speakers around and above us to fit our decors. Some will use mini cubes, others a 5.1 soundbar on front, others decent size surrounds with a 5 to 8" woofer's size.
> 
> There are no rules, just good acoustic common sense guidelines for each room's size.
> 
> Personally, I like to have speakers that can all do 40Hz (+/- 2.5dB), all around, and cross them all @ 80Hz.
> 
> But true good bass management is an acoustical art, and the slope, and the frequency point, and the harmony between multiple subwoofers, and THX (24/12dB octave, high and low pass), and music with a 6dB slope, with the less influential speaker's electronic crossover inside (keep it simple with minimum phase), and the exact x-over point, down to a half hertz, ... ask leblanc (Jeff), ask the AVS members who hired the pros to construct their rooms, acoustically and sound wise, ask the audiophile experts on music listening, ask the pro acousticians with all the room treatments they use and the tools and the digital EQs. ...The frequency, the phase, the timing, the togetherness of all sounds from all frequencies arriving @ you in the most coherent way you can get... Indeed, it is an art to master proper bass management, just like if it would happen in real life standing @ the end of that airport's runaway. ...Everything gels perfectly, nothing is taking over, only when ask for.
> 
> 
> Can you get this inside a one thousand dollars (or two) receiver? ...Or pre/pro? ...And you'd need some more help.


wow bro.... tks for spending time to explain to me all these!!!!! while some of the above you mentioned is difficult to understand ("and THX (24/12dB octave,....a 6dB slope") ....but i do appreciate your effort!

with all these explanation, recommendations, blah blah blah~ i am really steering away from the eggs... Looks like i am compromising BIG TIME achieving the kind of sound experience i am looking towards to...

Though i am geared more towards Auro 3D setup, but i want to set up in a way where i can enjoy atmos as well (minimally 5.2.2...)

which means if i might need to use 3 way bass reflex bookshelf (Same KEF R series, either the R100 or R300) to act as heights all around (subject to wife's approval, not forgetting having deep pockets also) sigh....

and yes..i do have 2 x ported subs using TC Sounds ultra 5400 drivers connecting to a behringer 6k dsp that can go down to 15hz...currently crossed over at 80hz, using LX86 pioneer AVR... i will change to X7200w when the time comes. 

anyway...tks for the explanation really appreciate it. i can almost "hear" the plane flying over while you describe them!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Thing is that Disney now has roughly ten 3D Blu-ray titles that you cannot get here in North America, but only from overseas, and the quality can vary, as the audio could also be incomplete. It is very strange, and most of us we don't understand like Disney seems like.
> {Some of them are region locked, others are not; best is to have a world unlocked BD player --> plays all world regions.}
> 
> It's no big deal, but for many of us it is, still. ...To have to order from overseas, or from down south (Mexico and South America), and also to do more research about stuff we don't usually have to look for here; like languages, lock or not, audio (7.1 or 5.1), subtitles, picture transfer, price, shipping, timing, tralala...plus I don't want to deal with Mexico.
> 
> Anywow, Star Wars would be cool in 3D sound, one of them three anyway...Dolby Atmos, Auro-3D, and ***-***.


I have a suspicion that Star Wars will be in Atmos based on what I heard in the trailer... which I believe *could have been* downmixed Atmos. What I mean by that is that I think content which is originally mixed in Atmos might contain additional bass information than what you might have otherwise heard if it was just mixed in 5.1 or 7.1. The reason why I think that's the case is because when I watch the Atmos demo disc trailer for "conductor" on my 2 channel PC system without a sub, the bass (which is nada) sounded surprisingly beefy for that particular clip. 
At the end of the Star Wars teaser when the theme music blasts away, I notice the bass of the orchestra is much deeper than it had ever been compared to previous recordings of the same theme. The tympani & (Tuba?) both sound particularly beefy. 

There is a high probability that I'm wrong about this... could Film Mixer or someone else in the know please fill us in ? (haha) But something does sound special about this... I think sometimes in Atmos equipped theaters, trailers are delivered in Atmos as well, though it can be hard to detect if nothing atmos-ish happens in the trailer. When I go to see the Hobbit in Atmos, if they play the SW teaser maybe that will be in Atmos... I'll let you know if I hear anything. If anyone plans to see an Atmos movie in one of the theaters that's playing the teaser... please let me know! 

Thanks for the info btw... I guess we'll see if Disney changes it's policy... I'd imagine Star Wars will push a lot of people towards 3D displays because a lot of people will want it in 3D when it comes out in BD. 3D displays will be a lot more affordable to the mass consumer at that point in the future I'd imagine... in many cases it already is. Even if people might not have the money for glasses free displays... I think that will boost the interest for 3D in general. When I was dirt poor just a few years ago I *almost* bought a 3D bluray player even though I had a 2D display, because I had anticipated that I might get a 3D display (which I did). I would have bought it if the salesman hadn't talked me out of it... kind of strange if you think about it (haha).


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> The guide does actually not put this practice into any kind of words. Alternatively, the recommendation reveals itself by looking at the accompanying pictures, which are supposed to say more than a thousand words. My advice therefore would be to move your overheads arrays closer together if your set-up resembles more closely a mixing studio (big projection screen) than the one in the diagrams (relatively small flat screen).


I agree that each individual room needs to be taken on its own merit and commonsense also used. I agree the guide is less than clear on this but Dolby have made various statements indicating that 'in line with the front L & R' is the recommended way. But yeah, the room needs to be taken into account for sure. What I was really attacking, I guess, is the notion that Grimani seems to be becoming 'the law' on this and that just because he says something doesn’t make it so.


----------



## Modern Times

kbarnes701 said:


> Good heavens. I made it really clear I was expressing my personal opinion. Clearly you have a different opinion. But that in no way excuses the unwarranted personal attacks, which I find quite distasteful.


Comon Keith I've read many of your posts as of late and you are very confrontational and authoritative with lots of people, continually spinning things and trying to win arguments through the use of "weasel words". I think you basically just like to argue. 

You plain and simple didn't like my choice of ceiling speakers and my post to consider the AW6500, even though you have no experience with them. So you proceeded to denounce passive radiators then you tried to dismiss the wider frequency response of the Def Techs as being completely unnecessary because of crossovers being set at 80 Hz. You wanted your recommendation of the Tannoy's to be taken as the best of the two therefore elevating your status and equipment choices above mine. 

Anybody that has ventured into the Auro 3D thread will know what I'm talking about regarding the constant put down of Auro. In fact I recall you saying something about Auro sounding like an unholy mess. It was something to do with speaker placement or something similar. Your choice of words and the extremes you paint are very biased and inflammatory. 

I'm not surprised that you have a few friends on here that come to your defense. They may not even we aware of your conversational motives or tactics.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@Aras_Volodka

Star Wars isn't coming out til December 2015. A final mix or anything even resembling one is a far way off. What you heard was cool sound effects. Nothing to do with Atmos, whatsoever.

Not that the mix from a trailer is any indicator of a final mix either. It's just the mix for ... the trailer.

"There is a high probability that I am wrong about this...." 

Correct.


----------



## mike_carton

Modern Times said:


> Comon Keith I've read many of your posts as of late and you are very confrontational and authoritative with lots of people, continually spinning things and trying to win arguments through the use of "weasel words". I think you basically just like to argue.
> ...
> I'm not surprised that you have a few friends on here that come to your defense. They may not even we aware of your conversational motives or tactics.


Like amirm, especially from the HD-DVD vs BD days. Obviously knowledegable but with unfortunate online persona that diminishes the forum experience for me. So, I took the the obvious step.


----------



## bargervais

Modern Times said:


> Comon Keith I've read many of your posts as of late and you are very confrontational and authoritative with lots of people, continually spinning things and trying to win arguments through the use of "weasel words". I think you basically just like to argue.
> 
> You plain and simple didn't like my choice of ceiling speakers and my post to consider the AW6500, even though you have no experience with them. So you proceeded to denounce passive radiators then you tried to dismiss the wider frequency response of the Def Techs as being completely unnecessary because of crossovers being set at 80 Hz. You wanted your recommendation of the Tannoy's to be taken as the best of the two therefore elevating your status and equipment choices above mine.
> 
> Anybody that has ventured into the Auro 3D thread will know what I'm talking about regarding the constant put down of Auro. In fact I recall you saying something about Auro sounding like an unholy mess. It was something to do with speaker placement or something similar. Your choice of words and the extremes you paint are very biased and inflammatory.
> 
> I'm not surprised that you have a few friends on here that come to your defense. They may not even we aware of your conversational motives or tactics.


Keith never said that the Tannoy's were the holy grail of speakers he got them and liked them for the wide dispersion please don't be offended he didn't like your choice of speakers he wasnt trying to dismiss them he just doesn't prefer them that's all. if you look at the spread sheet and see what we are using you'll see a wide range of speakers used for atmos. Your choice is yours in what to buy I think Keith also said why spend $$$`s on bass reflex speakers when the subs will do the job he's was trying to help not criticize.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> @Aras_Volodka
> 
> Star Wars isn't coming out til December 2015. A final mix or anything even resembling one is a far way off. What you heard was cool sound effects. Nothing to do with Atmos, whatsoever.
> 
> Not that the mix from a trailer is any indicator of a final mix either. It's just the mix for ... the trailer.
> 
> "There is a high probability that I am wrong about this...."
> 
> Correct.


I'm aware of that since mixing is one of the last steps in production... but is it possible that the teaser itself may have been mixed in Atmos? Keep in mind the music was recorded specifically for the teaser... and that's what I was thinking may have had an Atmos touch. (not the sfx... though anything is possible since whoever made the teaser probably had access to the individual sounds apart from the music).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm aware of that since mixing is one of the last steps in production... but is it possible that the teaser itself may have been mixed in Atmos? Keep in mind the music was recorded specifically for the teaser... and that's what I was thinking may have had an Atmos touch. (not the sfx... though anything is possible since whoever made the teaser probably had access to the individual sounds apart from the music).


What you said was:


> "The reason why I think that's the case is because when I watch the Atmos demo disc trailer for "conductor" on my 2 channel PC system without a sub, the bass (which is nada) sounded surprisingly beefy for that particular clip.
> At the end of the Star Wars teaser when the theme music blasts away, I notice the bass of the orchestra is much deeper than it had ever been compared to previous recordings of the same theme. The tympani & (Tuba?) both sound particularly beefy."


This does not equal Dolby Atmos.

The teaser _might_ be presented in Atmos but what you heard was not. Hearing what you heard has no relation to Dolby Atmos whether or not the trailer even has a mix for one, downmixed or not. No relation to what you heard. You just like the way it sounds. Simple.


----------



## Kysersose

Keep the personal jabs off the form or I'll be forced to remove individuals from this thread.

Thanks,

K


----------



## kbarnes701

Modern Times said:


> Comon Keith I've read many of your posts as of late and you are very confrontational and authoritative with lots of people, continually spinning things and trying to win arguments through the use of "weasel words". I think you basically just like to argue.


Holding a different opinion and expressing it, while explicitly stating that it is just a personal opinion, is not being 'confrontational' and does not justify a blatant personal attack. If you, or anyone else, does not want to see my posts, then there is the handy Ignore function at AVS and I commend its use. Repeating the ad hominem attacks hardly improves things either.



Modern Times said:


> You plain and simple didn't like my choice of ceiling speakers and my post to consider the AW6500, even though you have no experience with them.


That's correct. As I said, I dislike speakers with 'passive bass radiators'. That is my opinion. I did not say a single thing against your personal choice of speaker. I just said I don't like bass radiators personally and you sort of exploded.



Modern Times said:


> So you proceeded to denounce passive radiators then you tried to dismiss the wider frequency response of the Def Techs as being completely unnecessary because of crossovers being set at 80 Hz.


Yes - that is correct. If someone is crossing at 80hz, there is no value in a speaker being able to play at 40Hz. 



Modern Times said:


> You wanted your recommendation of the Tannoy's to be taken as the best of the two therefore elevating your status and equipment choices above mine.


You are just inventing things now which I never said or implied. It is my OPINION that the Tannoys are more suitable. You clearly have a different opinion and that is fine by me, although clearly not fine by you.



Modern Times said:


> Anybody that has ventured into the Auro 3D thread will know what I'm talking about regarding the constant put down of Auro. In fact I recall you saying something about Auro sounding like an unholy mess. It was something to do with speaker placement or something similar. Your choice of words and the extremes you paint are very biased and inflammatory.


Again you are inventing and taking what I said out of context as the thread's posts will witness. I have never commented on how Auro sounds - simply because I have not heard it. My negative comments about Auro are because of the lack of theatrical content, which I do not see improving, and the rigidity of the Auro speaker placements which is incompatible with Atmos layouts. Recently I said that this would mean that, *for me*, Auro is a non-starter. I did not say that Auro sounded like an unholy mess and I suggest you go back and read what I did say, which is that it would *probably sound like an unholy mess if I used my FH speakers as Auro speakers since my FH speakers are nowhere near Auro spec for placement.* IOW, that is my fault not Auro's fault. No need to apologize.



Modern Times said:


> I'm not surprised that you have a few friends on here that come to your defense. They may not even we aware of your conversational motives or tactics.


If you make any further personal remarks like that you will leave me with no alternative but to report your posts, which I do very, very rarely and never do with relish.

EDIT: I see a Mod has already intervened, so I am not even sure that I should leave this reply extant. I have not made any personal attacks on you, despite the provocation, but if the Moderator wishes to remove this post, I am grateful for his guidance.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm aware of that since mixing is one of the last steps in production... but is it possible that the teaser itself may have been mixed in Atmos? Keep in mind the music was recorded specifically for the teaser... and that's what I was thinking may have had an Atmos touch. (not the sfx... though anything is possible since whoever made the teaser probably had access to the individual sounds apart from the music).


I'm also thinking it will be Atmos mixed but we are still a year away till it hits the theaters so we may be waiting till early 2016 before it hits the blu-ray shelves we have a long way till we see that and that's if we still have blu-rays by then (we may start to see streaming) and we should be starting to see 4K let's hope 2015 will be the year of atmos...


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> The teaser _might_ be presented in Atmos but what you heard was not.


I was really curious about this so I asked - the teaser was not mixed in Atmos.

Given the historically close relationship between LucasFilm, SkyWalker Sound and Dolby (all based in the Bay Area) I should think that the feature being released in Dolby Atmos is as close to a sure thing as there could be. Not to mention that Disney is now the distributor, and Disney are also Atmos supporters.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> I was really curious about this so I asked - the teaser was not mixed in Atmos.
> 
> Given the historically close relationship between LucasFilm, SkyWalker Sound and Dolby (all based in the Bay Area) I should think that the feature being released in Dolby Atmos is as close to a sure thing as there could be. Not to mention that Disney is now the distributor, and Disney are also Atmos supporters.


Good to know, thanks for finding out.

I would definitely say the movie will be in Atmos. No worry there.


----------



## Roger Dressler

rhbblb1 said:


> This Friday I am having 4 ceiling speakers installed (TF and TR). I already have my Denon 5200 up and running. What is the forum members' consensus about lateral placement of these speakers? In other words, in line with left and right mains as Dolby suggests or more centered as Grimani has suggested?





kbarnes701 said:


> Who would you think would know more about Dolby Atmos: Dolby, or Grimani?


The problem is that Dolby's advice for the cinema leads to a consistent result, but for the home it varies with room shape. Why should the distance to the front speakers have any bearing on the placement of the height speakers? Hence I think Mr. Grimani has the better advice, which more closely follows Dolby's cinema concept.

Dolby's cinema diagram:










What I did in my case:


----------



## kokishin

I woke up this morning to this OT blathering???

In no particular order: 3D grieving, Star Wars crack, nuisance drivel, trash talking Keith by two posters whose combined post count


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> The problem is that Dolby's advice for the cinema leads to a consistent result, but for the home it varies with room shape. _Why should the distance to the front speakers have any bearing on the placement of the height speakers?_ Hence I think Mr. Grimani has the better advice, which more closely follows Dolby's cinema concept.


It wasn't the distance to the front speakers I was taking issue with Roger - it was whether the overheads should be in line laterally with the front L&R or not. Dolby advise in line, Grimani advises narrower. I think it's meaningless anyway to give a blanket suggestion for home theaters because they are all so different in size and shape. In my room, for example, bringing them in narrower to the mains would be clearly absurd. But in a very wide room, not so much.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> What you said was:This does not equal Dolby Atmos.
> 
> The teaser _might_ be presented in Atmos but what you heard was not. Hearing what you heard has no relation to Dolby Atmos whether or not the trailer even has a mix for one, downmixed or not. No relation to what you heard. You just like the way it sounds. Simple.


Sorry, I swear I'm not trying to be obnoxious: Are you absolutely positive about this? Haven't people mentioned that movies mixed in Atmos but released without it on BD still sound better than other content upmixed? 
I've found that to be the case for a few films... Star Trek into Darkness for example, the overhead info is substantially different on that disc when compared to others. I remember some on the forum saying the same thing about the Gravity bd. 

I know that downmixing is different... but I do believe that if someone was to play a film mixed in Atmos on a 2 channel system, there could be a potential benefit to the overall sound/

If I put the headphones on when watching that conductor trailer... it sounds way more 3D than anything else I've ever heard (specifically computer games) which already have object based sound if I'm not mistaken? I know that my PC's soundcard can't interpret Atmos, but I think there is something different than just the mix being good. As an example... compare THX's "amazing life" to the Conductor trailer... doesn't the conductor trailer sound more immersive?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dschulz said:


> I was really curious about this so I asked - the teaser was not mixed in Atmos.
> 
> Given the historically close relationship between LucasFilm, SkyWalker Sound and Dolby (all based in the Bay Area) I should think that the feature being released in Dolby Atmos is as close to a sure thing as there could be. Not to mention that Disney is now the distributor, and Disney are also Atmos supporters.


Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dschulz said:


> I was really curious about this so I asked - the teaser was not mixed in Atmos.


BTW... do you know if other films have Atmos trailers? I actually listen for that when I go to the movies and am wondering if I'm wasting my ear's effort?


----------



## Scott Simonian

But that's not what you were saying before. 

A good mix is a good mix, my friend.

Watch Dredd. It was not mixed in Atmos is one of the most 'holographic' 3-dimensional 7.1 mixes available. It's just a good mix with aggressive use of surround and intra-channel (phantom imaging) sound placement.

With the advent of Atmos in the cinema mixing world, there has been more mixers wanting to be creative wrt placement of sound. This translates to the home. This isn't new. Just the tools have made things easier for some and that's why there has been a steady flow of "cool sounding" mixes as of late. 

Atmos did not invent this. Same said for 'full range' surrounds or content of such in them.


----------



## Potatogod93

Anyone's thoughts on DSU for sports/HDTV watching? From what I gather from reading some of this thread is that DSU > Normal TrudHD/DTS-MA 7.1. And many reviewed pieces of DSU are of action movies or atleast movies with a lot going on in the audio mix. What about movies that may not... like for example Dumb and Dumber or a random drama say 500 Days of Summer? Are the increases in DSU still "worth it"? ( I know that is subjective)


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> It wasn't the distance to the front speakers I was taking issue with Roger - it was whether the overheads should be in line laterally with the front L&R or not.


That is indeed the point I am addressing. If my L/R are close, the heights will be narrower than if the L/R are farther away if I use Dolby's advice. Yet the ±30° angle to L/R would be the same in both cases. Listeners hear the angle to the speaker, not the distance. 



> I think it's meaningless anyway to give a blanket suggestion for home theaters because they are all so different in size and shape.


 Yet we can successfully apply ITU's 5.1 "blanket" setup in almost any consumer space regardless of shape. That's because room shape is not the operative factor in setting up a sound room. It's the speakers relative to the listeners.



> In my room, for example, bringing them in narrower to the mains would be clearly absurd.


The difference between Dolby's advice and Grimani's (follow the Dolby cinema plan) perfectly converge in certain cases. The figure shows that even in a typical consumer room it is _possible _to put the top speaker rows in line with the L/R and meet the theatrical angle (45+E/2).. That may well be the case in your room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That is indeed the point I am addressing. If my L/R are close, the heights will be narrower than if the L/R are farther away if I use Dolby's advice. Yet the ±30° angle to L/R would be the same in both cases. Listeners hear the angle to the speaker, not the distance.


Ah yes, of course. I missed the point 



Roger Dressler said:


> Yet we can successfully apply ITU's 5.1 "blanket" setup in almost any consumer space regardless of shape. That's because room shape is not the operative factor in setting up a sound room. It's the speakers relative to the listeners.


I see what you mean - it's the angles that matter.



Roger Dressler said:


> The difference between Dolby's advice and Grimani's (follow the Dolby cinema plan) perfectly converge in certain cases. The figure shows that even in a typical consumer room it is _possible _to put the top speaker rows in line with the L/R and meet the theatrical angle (45+E/2).. That may well be the case in your room.


I think that is what has happened here. It's a sort of serendipitous arrangement. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## thetman

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I don't think it is that critical. Dolby shows them in line with the mains, when using ceiling speakers, but clearly the spacing is closer, when using reflected speakers. I think you have to look at the room and see what works best for you. In my room, the Atmos speakers will not be in line with the mains. My mains are close to my side walls, but my mains have controlled directivity and they are toed-in. If I place the Atmos speaker in line with my mains, then they will be very close to the side walls and with the wide horizontal coverage of the speaker, will have first reflections hitting my ear very close to the direct sound. This is why mine will be spaced closer together.


I'm in the same boat. even though room is still unfinished and still able to make changes. the ceiling speakers ( 4) will be in slightly more than the mains due to the mains nearer to side walls and toed in. Also thinking about wiring up for two added pair of side surrounds ( 9.1.4) just in case down the road 13 channels can be used at the same time. but as of now setting up for 7.1.4.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> But that's not what you were saying before.
> 
> A good mix is a good mix, my friend.
> 
> Watch Dredd. It was not mixed in Atmos is one of the most 'holographic' 3-dimensional 7.1 mixes available. It's just a good mix with aggressive use of surround and intra-channel (phantom imaging) sound placement.
> 
> With the advent of Atmos in the cinema mixing world, there has been more mixers wanting to be creative wrt placement of sound. This translates to the home. This isn't new. Just the tools have made things easier for some and that's why there has been a steady flow of "cool sounding" mixes as of late.
> 
> Atmos did not invent this. Same said for 'full range' surrounds or content of such in them.


I'm aware my original point was rendered inaccurate when I was informed the teaser wasn't mixed in Atmos. Just because the bass wouldn't be any different doesn't mean that other aspects of an Atmos mix wouldn't be discernible on a stereo system or other forms of surround without Atmos processing. I'm not saying that I'm right... I'm just not convinced that there wouldn't be a difference until someone has had a chance to test it out and confirm there isn't a difference. To my knowledge no one on this forum has conducted a test like that, correct? 

I will try to see if I can get Dredd in my HT & compare it to Into Darkness. Has anyone else had experience with using the DSU with both films? If I do get it I'd like to try it out on my PC with the headphones as well to hear if there is a difference in stereo.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I will try to see if I can get Dredd in my HT & compare it to Into Darkness. Has anyone else had experience with using the DSU with both films?


Yes - DSU is brilliant with both of them. Dredd is spectacularly so.


----------



## smurraybhm

Potatogod93 said:


> Anyone's thoughts on DSU for sports/HDTV watching? From what I gather from reading some of this thread is that DSU > Normal TrudHD/DTS-MA 7.1. And many reviewed pieces of DSU are of action movies or atleast movies with a lot going on in the audio mix. What about movies that may not... like for example Dumb and Dumber or a random drama say 500 Days of Summer? Are the increases in DSU still "worth it"? ( I know that is subjective)


Definitely and for someones thoughts on sports, etc. besides mine:

http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homest...by-Atmos-Receiver-Review.html?_=1409517748063


----------



## SoundChex

Potatogod93 said:


> Anyone's thoughts on DSU for sports/HDTV watching?



Don't know about the performance of DSUpmixing . . . but, for the longer term, plans for for both immersive and user-interactive object-based sports broadcasting are actively being pursued:

*Object-Based Audio Mixing Seeks Traction in Sports Broadcasting* (_link_) 

*Live From SMPTE: Object-Based Audio Promises To Transform Sports Broadcasting* (_link_) 

_


----------



## mp5475

Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


----------



## rboster

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


Nice work!! Looks great. Let us know how it sounds?


----------



## mp5475

rboster said:


> Nice work!! Looks great. Let us know how it sounds?


Most definitely! About in Two weeks.


----------



## Modern Times

smurraybhm said:


> Unlike Keith I have a number of Def Tech speakers and even use a pair in my Atmos setup - I have more that I use upstairs where the WF is substantial and some floor standers in the garage that I bought in 1995 when Sandy was still working for them. I like Def Tech, but if you spend some time talking with their tech staff they will even tell you to cross at 80 - assuming you are using bookshelf or Pro Monitors. Audyssey crossed my PM 1000s at 100 - which is where I left them. Nothing wrong with a discussion, its not personal
> 
> By the way, if it sounds good to you at 60 great, just keep in mind that wherever Audyssey set them originally (80 or 100) you're not EQ'd for anything below that assuming you're using room EQ.


Yes that is true and thanks for pointing it out. I cross over my polk Audio LSIM speakers at 60. Audyssey sets them to 40 Hz except the 706 and 707 which it says are full range speakers. I change my 706/center channel to 60 Hz but leave my 707 at fullrange. Audyssey sets the Def Tech AW6500 at 60 Hz. They sounded fine during Expendable 3 at reference level, there was no distortion or strain that I detected.

Regards


----------



## batpig

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


Out of curiosity why did you go with the goliath 8DC's vs the more manageable sized 6? The overheads dwarf your surround speakers! (presumably Axiom QS?)


----------



## batpig

With respect to the perpetual discussion on lateral spacing of the overheads, I think it's important to remember that Grimani is living in the world of high end custom HT's which are basically small theaters, and in that sense he is probably shooting for something closer to the commercial cinema design goals. In a large room with a huge screen that spans basically the entire front wall, with the L/R mains by extension near the screen boundaries (behind the AT screen), it would seem illogical to place the overhead arrays in line with the front L/R because they would basically end up at the wall/ceiling corner, very wide relative to the seating. In this context, placing the overheads a bit narrower, as in the commercial cinema, makes sense. 

I feel like Dolby's home guidelines are aimed more at the "typical" living room HT with the front speakers sort of flanking a flat panel, not much wider than the listening zone.

Regardless, I feel like as with many things on this thread, it's probably not a big deal and you can use common sense to dictate your final decisions. I think Roger's points about creating lateral angular separation from the surrounds is a smart way to go (e.g. the more elevated the surrounds, the narrower the overheads should be).


----------



## mp5475

batpig said:


> Out of curiosity why did you go with the goliath 8DC's vs the more manageable sized 6? The overheads dwarf your surround speakers! (presumably Axiom QS?)


Bigger is better!? It was about the same price as 6dc so I said why not. I figure I would get even wider dispersion with 8 inch woofers. JK. I actually like the look. No one can miss it. Look at my damn ceiling speakers!!!


----------



## mp5475

batpig said:


> With respect to the perpetual discussion on lateral spacing of the overheads, I think it's important to remember that Grimani is living in the world of high end custom HT's which are basically small theaters, and in that sense he is probably shooting for something closer to the commercial cinema design goals. In a large room with a huge screen that spans basically the entire front wall, with the L/R mains by extension near the screen boundaries (behind the AT screen), it would seem illogical to place the overhead arrays in line with the front L/R because they would basically end up at the wall/ceiling corner, very wide relative to the seating. In this context, placing the overheads a bit narrower, as in the commercial cinema, makes sense.
> 
> I feel like Dolby's home guidelines are aimed more at the "typical" living room HT with the front speakers sort of flanking a flat panel, not much wider than the listening zone.
> 
> Regardless, I feel like as with many things on this thread, it's probably not a big deal and you can use common sense to dictate your final decisions. I think Roger's points about creating lateral angular separation from the surrounds is a smart way to go (e.g. the more elevated the surrounds, the narrower the overheads should be).


Completely agree. With 150 inch screen, my fronts are at 12 feet. My room width is 15 feet. In my case dolby guideline makes no sense. But in typical living room where people are using 50 to 60 inch tv, guideline makes a lot of sense.


----------



## HT-Eman

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


Nice !!! Very similar to my setup with the qs8 which I use in the rear only. I have m2 for side surrounds. I'm waiting on the x7200 or later for purchasing my receiver so you will get yours before me . I would like to know how it sound using the qs8 that you have.


----------



## batpig

mp5475 said:


> Bigger is better!? It was about the same price as 6dc so I said why not. I figure I would get even wider dispersion with 8 inch woofers. JK. I actually like the look. No one can miss it. Look at my damn ceiling speakers!!!


Ha! Obviously you didn't feel the same way about those surrounds eh? They are feeling inadequate now


----------



## HT-Eman

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


I'm glad someone posted pics of their setup . It's good to have a visual alongside all the technical conversations.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Ha! Obviously you didn't feel the same way about those surrounds eh? They are feeling inadequate now


Forced upgrade path. 

He is a smart man.


----------



## mp5475

batpig said:


> Ha! Obviously you didn't feel the same way about those surrounds eh? They are feeling inadequate now


I know. I should change them to 8DC


----------



## mp5475

HT-Eman said:


> Nice !!! Very similar to my setup with the qs8 which I use in the rear only. I have m2 for side surrounds. I'm waiting on the x7200 or later for purchasing my receiver so you will get yours before me . I would like to know how it sound using the qs8 that you have.


Sure.I hope they work out well. I have also have the qs8s.


----------



## mp5475

HT-Eman said:


> Nice !!! Very similar to my setup with the qs8 which I use in the rear only. I have m2 for side surrounds. I'm waiting on the x7200 or later for purchasing my receiver so you will get yours before me . I would like to know how it sound using the qs8 that you have.


Also using M22s for front wides but I guess I will need to wait for Gen 2 to do 9.1.4


----------



## mp5475

Scott Simonian said:


> Forced upgrade path.
> 
> He is a smart man.


Haha. Yes. My thoughts exactly.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have a suspicion that Star Wars will be in Atmos based on what I heard in the trailer... which I believe *could have been* downmixed Atmos. What I mean by that is that I think content which is originally mixed in Atmos might contain additional bass information than what you might have otherwise heard if it was just mixed in 5.1 or 7.1. The reason why I think that's the case is because when I watch the Atmos demo disc trailer for "conductor" on my 2 channel PC system without a sub, the bass (which is nada) sounded surprisingly beefy for that particular clip.
> At the end of the Star Wars teaser when the theme music blasts away, I notice the bass of the orchestra is much deeper than it had ever been compared to previous recordings of the same theme. The tympani & (Tuba?) both sound particularly beefy.
> 
> There is a high probability that I'm wrong about this... could Film Mixer or someone else in the know please fill us in ? (haha) But something does sound special about this... I think sometimes in Atmos equipped theaters, trailers are delivered in Atmos as well, though it can be hard to detect if nothing atmos-ish happens in the trailer. When I go to see the Hobbit in Atmos, if they play the SW teaser maybe that will be in Atmos... I'll let you know if I hear anything. If anyone plans to see an Atmos movie in one of the theaters that's playing the teaser... please let me know!
> 
> Thanks for the info btw... I guess we'll see if Disney changes it's policy... I'd imagine Star Wars will push a lot of people towards 3D displays because a lot of people will want it in 3D when it comes out in BD. 3D displays will be a lot more affordable to the mass consumer at that point in the future I'd imagine... in many cases it already is. Even if people might not have the money for glasses free displays... I think that will boost the interest for 3D in general. When I was dirt poor just a few years ago I *almost* bought a 3D bluray player even though I had a 2D display, because I had anticipated that I might get a 3D display (which I did). I would have bought it if the salesman hadn't talked me out of it... kind of strange if you think about it (haha).


Star Wars: Episodes I to VI, on Blu-ray, are in DTS-HD MA 6.1 surround sound.
So I highly doubt that Dolby Atmos is going to play in that territory here; most likely the upcoming DTS-UHD (MDA) audio soundtracks for them Lucas' Star War flicks, re-remastered. ...And same for the next generation of Episodes VII, VIII and IX. But it's only a wild guess.


----------



## Mike Garrett

winwinc81 said:


> wow bro.... tks for spending time to explain to me all these!!!!! while some of the above you mentioned is difficult to understand ("and THX (24/12dB octave,....a 6dB slope") ....but i do appreciate your effort!
> 
> with all these explanation, recommendations, blah blah blah~ i am really steering away from the eggs... Looks like i am compromising BIG TIME achieving the kind of sound experience i am looking towards to...
> 
> Though i am geared more towards Auro 3D setup, but i want to set up in a way where i can enjoy atmos as well (minimally 5.2.2...)
> 
> which means if i might need to use 3 way bass reflex bookshelf (Same KEF R series, either the R100 or R300) to act as heights all around (subject to wife's approval, not forgetting having deep pockets also) sigh....
> 
> and yes.*.i do have 2 x ported subs using TC Sounds ultra 5400 drivers connecting to a behringer 6k dsp* that can go down to 15hz...currently crossed over at 80hz, using LX86 pioneer AVR... i will change to X7200w when the time comes.
> 
> anyway...tks for the explanation really appreciate it. i can almost "hear" the plane flying over while you describe them!


Sweet subs.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Star Wars: Episodes I to VI, on Blu-ray, are in DTS-HD MA 6.1 surround sound.
> So I highly doubt that Dolby Atmos is going to play in that territory here; most likely the upcoming DTS-UHD (MDA) audio soundtracks for them Lucas' Star War flicks, re-remastered. ...And same for the next generation of Episodes VII, VIII and IX. But it's only a wild guess.


But Bad Robot seems to be in charge in determining what formats to use... so far everything is lining up with the formats from Into Darkness. Film Mixer had said too that he thinks VII will be Atmos. + Haven't all the big profile Disney flicks come out in Atmos? + if Ben Burtt has anything to say about it I bet it will be as well  

Have any other Reliance Media works remasters been done in Atmos/ slated to be in Atmos? I'm guessing you are right about the OT remaster... but one can dream. I bet one day it will get a 3D audio mix... but probably will make us wait till the 8k edition or something.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Roger Dressler said:


> The problem is that Dolby's advice for the cinema leads to a consistent result, but for the home it varies with room shape. Why should the distance to the front speakers have any bearing on the placement of the height speakers? Hence I think Mr. Grimani has the better advice, which more closely follows Dolby's cinema concept.
> 
> Dolby's cinema diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I did in my case:


I am doing very close to the same.


----------



## Jeffg8

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.





Refresh my memory...when did lowering the surrounds become the norm. Is that an ATMOS suggestion or have I missed something. My current 5.1 dipole surrounds are 6' or so from the floor. I'm not sure visually what I think about possibly lowering them.


----------



## Mike Garrett

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


Looks good. Looking forward to getting mine set up.


----------



## mp5475

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Looks good. Looking forward to getting mine set up.


Thanks. Post pics of those huge JBL pros when you put them up.


----------



## mp5475

Jeffg8 said:


> Refresh my memory...when did lowering the surrounds become the norm. Is that an ATMOS suggestion or have I missed something. My current 5.1 dipole surrounds are 6' or so from the floor. I'm not sure visually what I think about possibly lowering them.



Yes. I believe it's in the white paper but others can chime in. It is to increase the angular separation between the tops and surrounds.

Mine was near the ceiling. Make sense but not required.


----------



## Mike Garrett

mp5475 said:


> Thanks. Post pics of those huge JBL pros when you put them up.


People were talking about your speakers being big. Mine weigh 39.5 pounds each. 
If I was buying speakers, I would have used something smaller, but since I already have these, I decided to use them.


----------



## David Susilo

Jeffg8 said:


> Refresh my memory...when did lowering the surrounds become the norm. Is that an ATMOS suggestion or have I missed something. My current 5.1 dipole surrounds are 6' or so from the floor. I'm not sure visually what I think about possibly lowering them.


Since forever, actually. Most 5.1 mixing studios have their rear speakers at the same height as the fronts. Convenience makes people put their rear speakers higher than the fronts.


----------



## mp5475

Yeah. I think that is the double the weight of the tannoy 8 dc. I think they will work great. I looked at some JBL pro speakers but was beyond my budget.


----------



## gammanuc

Jeffg8 said:


> Refresh my memory...when did lowering the surrounds become the norm. Is that an ATMOS suggestion or have I missed something. My current 5.1 dipole surrounds are 6' or so from the floor. I'm not sure visually what I think about possibly lowering them.


The advice I would give based on my experience concerning speaker placement is to leave everything as you have set up and try it out first. I got all excited after reading up on Atmos and the proper placement of speakers and I lowered my side and surround back (SB) while waiting for my gear to be shipped only to move it back again after hearing it. In my case having the SB at ear level meant the back of the seats would block some of the sound (and I'm using dipoles for SB by the way). My side surrounds are mounted even higher because of room layout limitations and are pointed at the main listening position. This layout worked for my previous 7.1 and is amazing now with Atmos 7.1.2. So if you're not completely convinced your current layout is the best after you've heard it then start moving things toward Dolby recommendations if possible.


----------



## brwsaw

I like the cinema layout and will be using it.
The 1/3 positioning (across the room specifically) makes perfect sense.
Already posted but as a reference to my comment.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...IQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEi3gbr5_16rmX2FMIPC6_6T7MORQ

It does seem to be scalable to a smaller setting.

I also like the idea of using the Theatrical audio mixes at home. I'd like to compare in my own room someday.


----------



## zeus33

David Susilo said:


> Since forever, actually. Most 5.1 mixing studios have their rear speakers at the same height as the fronts. Convenience makes people put their rear speakers higher than the fronts.



That's incorrect for home setups. It has always been recommended by Dolby and THX to place your surround speakers at 2 feet or more above the listener. It has only recently changed with the new Atmos speaker placement guidelines.

Quote directly from the THX page here: http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/

_Surround Left & Right Speakers (SL & SR): Place the SL & SR speakers between 90° to 110° to each side and *2 feet or higher above the listener*. The SL & SR speakers recreate the enveloping sound and intense special effects that you experience in the cinema._


----------



## noah katz

mp5475 said:


> It was about the same price as 6dc so I said why not. I figure I would get even wider dispersion with 8 inch woofers. JK. I actually like the look. No one can miss it. Look at my damn ceiling speakers!!!


Actually what the larger size does with respect to dispersion is maintain controlled directivity (less dispersion) down to a lower freq, which increases the effectiveness of time/intensity trading, if used (by toeing in).


----------



## NorthSky

> If someone is crossing at 80hz, there is no value in a speaker being able to play at 40Hz.


Actually there is; and more particularly if you have active speakers with active separate crossovers of the first order (gentle slope: 6dB/octave). 

It allows for a smoother transition (blend) between the loudspeaker and subwoofer @ the approximate 80Hz x-over point chosen. 
And in music listening it is important for audiophiles. ...For movies too. 

As a good general use you want a speaker able to reproduce cleanly audio frequencies two times lower than the cutoff point (80Hz); here meaning able to play down @ 40Hz. 
And same if you cross @ say 100Hz; good to have the speakers able to play down @ 50Hz.
And if you cross your mains @ 40Hz,; good to have them able to play full range (20Hz).


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> ... *and we should be starting to see 4K let's hope 2015 will be the year of atmos...*


Right on!


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


You did an excellent job; I think you are going to collect the rewards now.


----------



## sharkypuffs

NorthSky said:


> Star Wars: Episodes I to VI, on Blu-ray, are in DTS-HD MA 6.1 surround sound.
> So I highly doubt that Dolby Atmos is going to play in that territory here; most likely the upcoming DTS-UHD (MDA) audio soundtracks for them Lucas' Star War flicks, re-remastered. ...And same for the next generation of Episodes VII, VIII and IX. But it's only a wild guess.



You seem to forget the previous Episodes were under FOX. Episode VII is Disney all the way. Now, if DTS were to get their asses in gear with this UHD object based audio system next year, then maybe we'll get Episode VII on blu-Ray that way. 

Sixteen to eighteen months from now, it's more than likely that Dolby Atmos will be in full swing and we'll already have numerous titles available in the format on blu-Ray. If the studios find the authoring tool for Atmos easier to work with (as rumored) it's doubtful they'll switch to DTS-UHD just to release any of the SW films in the format. Depends on how advanced in the game DTS gets with their tech. At that point, they could be neck and neck with Dolby or playing catch-up. 

Star Trek Into Darkness was mixed and released theatrically in Atmos so it's a safe bet so will Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Abrams has just about every cinematic tool at his disposable come post-production. 

It's still rumor at this point that the original (unaltered) & prequel trilogies will be re-released on blu-ray let alone re-mixed for object based audio. Disney would also have to work out a home video joint distribution deal with Fox, but when guaranteed profits are involved, I'm sure it will happen.

Whatever the studio is planning to push the promotion of this new Star Wars film, the next six to twelve months should prove to be interesting.


----------



## NorthSky

> With respect to the perpetual discussion on lateral spacing of the overheads, I think it's important to remember that Grimani is living in the world of high end custom HT's which are basically small theaters, and in that sense he is probably shooting for something closer to the commercial cinema design goals. In a large room with a huge screen that spans basically the entire front wall, with the L/R mains by extension near the screen boundaries (behind the AT screen), it would seem illogical to place the overhead arrays in line with the front L/R because they would basically end up at the wall/ceiling corner, very wide relative to the seating. In this context, placing the overheads a bit narrower, as in the commercial cinema, makes sense.
> 
> I feel like Dolby's home guidelines are aimed more at the "typical" living room HT with the front speakers sort of flanking a flat panel, not much wider than the listening zone.
> 
> Regardless, I feel like as with many things on this thread, it's probably not a big deal and you can use common sense to dictate your final decisions. I think Roger's points about creating lateral angular separation from the surrounds is a smart way to go (e.g. the more elevated the surrounds, the narrower the overheads should be).


One thing I would like to add here, on top of what you just said, and that I agree with: How do we define the MLP; like how truly wide is it, or narrow? 
And from that we design our concept.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> But Bad Robot seems to be in charge in determining what formats to use... so far everything is lining up with the formats from Into Darkness. Film Mixer had said too that he thinks VII will be Atmos. + Haven't all the big profile Disney flicks come out in Atmos? + if Ben Burtt has anything to say about it I bet it will be as well
> 
> Have any other Reliance Media works remasters been done in Atmos/ slated to be in Atmos? I'm guessing you are right about the OT remaster... but one can dream. I bet one day it will get a 3D audio mix... but probably will make us wait till the 8k edition or something.


We are only at the edge of a new threshold in movie sound/picture 3D concept/content objects reproduction. ...Here we are the pioneers; customers working with the innovators (we all have ideas, and experimentation), and coincidentally becoming part of that team of advanced technological inventors. 

We are a big part of the new trends, and we all follow the improvements, and let the money flows, above, and below, freely.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeffg8 said:


> Refresh my memory...when did lowering the surrounds become the norm. Is that an ATMOS suggestion or have I missed something. My current 5.1 dipole surrounds are 6' or so from the floor. I'm not sure visually what I think about possibly lowering them.


1. Ditch them dipoles. ...Kiss them good bye.
2. Get new monopoles, and install them @ ear level, or very slightly just above (like say six inches, and less than a foot). 

♦ If you want to climb the new Dolby Atmos ladder, that's what you need to do.


----------



## NorthSky

mp5475 said:


> Yes. I believe it's in the white paper but others can chime in. *It is to increase the angular separation between the tops and surrounds.*
> 
> Mine was near the ceiling. Make sense but not required*.


That, is the main sauce.

* It might not be required but it sure is advisable.


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> Actually what the larger size does with respect to dispersion is maintain controlled directivity (less dispersion) down to a lower freq, which increases the effectiveness of time/intensity trading, if used (by toeing in).


Excellent point.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> I mainly mentioned because we were talking Star Wars movies. ...Re-mastered, possibly in 3D, 4K, and with new 3D sound.
> *FOX studios and George Lucas have switched to the new dark side; Disneyland.* ...Very lucrative.





sharkypuffs said:


> You seem to forget the previous Episodes were under FOX. Episode VII is Disney all the way.
> Now, if DTS were to get their asses in gear with this UHD object based audio system next year, then maybe we'll get Episode VII on blu-Ray that way.
> 
> Sixteen to eighteen months from now, it's more than likely that Dolby Atmos will be in full swing and we'll already have numerous titles available in the format on blu-Ray. If the studios find the authoring tool for Atmos easier to work with (as rumored) it's doubtful they'll switch to DTS-UHD just to release any of the SW films in the format. Depends on how advanced in the game DTS gets with their tech. At that point, they could be neck and neck with Dolby or playing catch-up.
> 
> Star Trek Into Darkness was mixed and released theatrically in Atmos so it's a safe bet so will Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Abrams has just about every cinematic tool at his disposable come post-production.
> 
> It's still rumor at this point that the original (unaltered) & prequel trilogies will be re-released on blu-ray let alone re-mixed for object based audio. Disney would also have to work out a home video joint distribution deal with Fox, but when guaranteed profits are involved, I'm sure it will happen.
> 
> Whatever the studio is planning to push the promotion of this new Star Wars film, the next six to twelve months should prove to be interesting.


Indeed it should prove to be.


----------



## NorthSky

...And the vast majority of Disney Blu-ray titles are encoded in DTS-HD Master Audio (5.1 and 7.1).

* FOX studios are DTS-HD MA all the way.


----------



## sharkypuffs

Ha ha! True. Disney gets a bad rap. It's actually a fun place to work. I was a film critic for 12 years (with Latino Review.com) and have several friends who are either happy with the creative atmosphere there or trying to work their way up the ladder through different departments. Even by initially getting their feet in the door with jobs at the theme park! (no kidding)

I think Lucas recognized that when he approached them to buy his company and when the news first broke I knew SW was in good hands. Yes, they are a corporation, in the business of making money, but with the addition of Marvel Studios, you know they care very much about the quality of product.

I'm disappointed with their recent lapse in support of 3D blu-Ray titles, -- I don't know the sales numbers, so maybe they feel consumer interest has waned -- so I think converting any more of the Star Wars films to 3D is a long shot. At least not in the immediate future. Remember, Lucas was already working on 3D re-releases of Eps. II & III, which Disney put a halt on after the acquisition.

What fans seem to really want are HD releases of the original trilogy, unaltered and it's starting to look like it's close to happening sometime next year as a way to promote and warm audiences up to Episode VII. All they gotta do is work it out with Fox, which they will. A Dolby Atmos or object based remix? Ahhh, it all depends. The home video release of VII will definitely have one in some form or another.

4K I won't get into. Depends on whether or not major studios really want consumers having a version of their films that's nearly identical to the original master. Despite the fact that 4K is coming, I don't think the studios have really thought out the pluses and minuses, or that fact that whatever copy protection is involved will inevitably be hacked. Especially with a property as hot as Star Wars. A 4K re-release of any of the films BEFORE Episode VII hits seems less likely. 

*Sorry for going off-topic at times. I guess I'm a Star Wars nut. 😃


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## htpcforever

If you want a HD release of Episodes 4, 5, and 6 - as they were originally intended (none of the new specialized additions), then look no further than here. Harmy is the man!


http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...ed-Edition-HD-V25-MKV-IS-OUT-NOW/topic/12713/
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...-MKV-and-AVCHD-v20-NOW-AVAILABLE/topic/12511/
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...SC-DVD5-available-SEE-FIRST-POST/topic/12905/


To get an idea of the magic that has been done, watch this youtube clip:


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess this may be a similar situation for those w/o in-wall LCR speakers.
> Just wondering if you have mounted center on top of your screen, would that affect the Atmos sound stage in any way.
> Should the center be mounted below the screen to avoid that issue?


Sorry, I have to bump it as this seem to have got lost in the other comments/discussions.


----------



## gammanuc

If you can angle the center down toward you, there should not be any ill effects. My center is mounted below my screen and is quite low so I had to do the opposite.


----------



## nitro28

Looking at our spreadsheet of what everyone is installing it looks like the majority of you did on ceiling speakers. Was this simply because you didn't want to try to run wires and rip up your current ceilings or do you feel that aiming on ceiling speakers (like the commercial theaters do) gives you a better effect? I have 4 coax speakers I was going to use in ceiling, but am toying with using on-ceiling speakers and aiming them. Sandy at Goldenear stated that they had a better response by using their aimable in-ceiling speakers than they did using a regular wide dispersion coax which was opposite of what Dolby said.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Update to Atmos or not ??*

Just wondering if I'm too early to make the leap into Atmos territory. I'll have to buy a new Denon probably the 5200 model
and add the 4 ceiling speakers. I need a new receiver anyway as mine has failed and figured might as well spend the little 
extra and jump on board. I know there is little content but, just as well to embrace it now I figure. I did so with 4K on the 
Projector side and I'm happy enough with that purchase.

Anyway, some thoughts if you don't mind??


----------



## mtbdudex

htpcforever said:


> If you want a HD release of Episodes 4, 5, and 6 - as they were originally intended (none of the new specialized additions), then look no further than here. Harmy is the man!
> 
> 
> http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...ed-Edition-HD-V25-MKV-IS-OUT-NOW/topic/12713/
> http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...-MKV-and-AVCHD-v20-NOW-AVAILABLE/topic/12511/
> http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/to...SC-DVD5-available-SEE-FIRST-POST/topic/12905/
> 
> 
> To get an idea of the magic that has been done, watch this youtube clip:
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHfLX_TMduY


1,000 thx for posting this !!


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> Just wondering if I'm too early to make the leap into Atmos territory. I'll have to buy a new Denon probably the 5200 model
> and add the 4 ceiling speakers. I need a new receiver anyway as mine has failed and figured might as well spend the little
> extra and jump on board. I know there is little content but, just as well to embrace it now I figure. I did so with 4K on the
> Projector side and I'm happy enough with that purchase.
> 
> Anyway, some thoughts if you don't mind??


So you self-identify as an early adopter, you need to buy a new AVR right now, and you're wondering whether it's "too early" to move up to Atmos?

At least 65 members of this forum would find that question puzzling. And that's just those who have volunteered their info for the spreadsheet. Go for it and don't look back.


----------



## randyk47

nitro28 said:


> Looking at our spreadsheet of what everyone is installing it looks like the majority of you did on ceiling speakers. Was this simply because you didn't want to try to run wires and rip up your current ceilings or do you feel that aiming on ceiling speakers (like the commercial theaters do) gives you a better effect? I have 4 coax speakers I was going to use in ceiling, but am toying with using on-ceiling speakers and aiming them. Sandy at Goldenear stated that they had a better response by using their aimable in-ceiling speakers than they did using a regular wide dispersion coax which was opposite of what Dolby said.


I had two situations that steered me to ceiling mounted speakers. One, the previous owner of the house had ceiling mounted jury-rigged speakers from a KHL home theater system. The good thing is that he ran in-wall speaker wire during construction of the house. Two, our media room, I hesitate to call it a "theater", has a cathedral ceiling so upward firing Dolby enabled speakers was not an option. For our relatively small 14' x 15' room I'm pleased with the Definitive ProMonitor 800s I mounted in place of the old KHLs.


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> So you self-identify as an early adopter, you need to buy a new AVR right now, and you're wondering whether it's "too early" to move up to Atmos?
> 
> At least 65 members of this forum would find that question puzzling. And that's just those who have volunteered their info for the spreadsheet. Go for it and don't look back.


I'll take that as a yes and go ahead as planned, which I kind of intended to do anyway. If someone had given me a red flag and said absolutely not I would have revisited my decision .

Thanks, one Denon AVR-X5200W is being ordered today.

What about the ceiling speakers, are light duty ceiling speakers enough ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> I'll take that as a yes and go ahead as planned, which I kind of intended to do anyway. If someone had given me a red flag and said absolutely not I would have revisited my decision .
> 
> Thanks, one Denon AVR-X5200W is being ordered today.
> 
> What about the ceiling speakers, are light duty ceiling speakers enough ?


If it's a long term installation... no. You want overheads with more substance and quality than that.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

htpcforever said:


> If you want a HD release of Episodes 4, 5, and 6 - as they were originally intended (none of the new specialized additions), then look no further than here. Harmy is the man!


How much of a Jerk do you have to be to force your fans to do this? 

I'm shocked that they didn't color correct the scenes in the death star... those corrected scenes look waaaaaaaaaay better! 
Hopefully reliance media works fixed it up nicely with Atmos to boot


----------



## asharma

asharma said:


> I'd be interested in seeing feedback from anyone who has watched this in ATMOS with ceiling speakers. More ATMOS content that transformers. Some good overhead helicopter pans. I'm starting to think ATMOS isn't as much about the overhead stuff as it is about the discreet placement of objects. For some reason the soundtrack sounded very discreet in some scenes to me like the first scene where u meet Antonio banderas with some very discreet bank ground sounds that are actually placed in the fronts and center. Anywhhhoooooo welcome other comments from anyone who has watched the ATMOS mix. Thanks


I'm surprised there has not been more feedback on this flick. As a test I cranked the TRs last night...wow, can really hear those choppers now!! Seemed like a good balance of various ATMOS effects to speakers other that ceiling speakers also. It's almost like there should be an ATMOS light on the receiver flash on and off when ATMOS is being used so the viewer can tell where ATMOS has been implemented...anywhooooo much better use of ATMOS than Transformers and was looking for general feedback on your experience...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sharkypuffs said:


> I'm disappointed with their recent lapse in support of 3D blu-Ray titles, -- I don't know the sales numbers, so maybe they feel consumer interest has waned -- so I think converting any more of the Star Wars films to 3D is a long shot. At least not in the immediate future. Remember, Lucas was already working on 3D re-releases of Eps. II & III, which Disney put a halt on after the acquisition.
> 
> What fans seem to really want are HD releases of the original trilogy, unaltered and it's starting to look like it's close to happening sometime next year as a way to promote and warm audiences up to Episode VII. All they gotta do is work it out with Fox, which they will. A Dolby Atmos or object based remix? Ahhh, it all depends. The home video release of VII will definitely have one in some form or another.
> 
> 4K I won't get into. Depends on whether or not major studios really want consumers having a version of their films that's nearly identical to the original master. Despite the fact that 4K is coming, I don't think the studios have really thought out the pluses and minuses, or that fact that whatever copy protection is involved will inevitably be hacked. Especially with a property as hot as Star Wars. A 4K re-release of any of the films BEFORE Episode VII hits seems less likely.
> 
> *Sorry for going off-topic at times. I guess I'm a Star Wars nut. 😃


I didn't see Episode I 3D but if I understand correctly, wasn't the 3D particularly bad? I remember hearing that on home theater geeks if I recall. Perhaps they put the 3D transfers of the PT on hold in order to go about it the right way? Though I have heard 3D post processing is insanely expensive... but Gene Dolgoff has developed some sort of solution for that if I recall. 

I mentioned this the other day: if glasses free 3D displays start coming out next year then perhaps it will pique Disney's interest in 3D bd's again. With 4k displays being a part of the market now 1080p prices are falling, which would allow a lot of consumers to afford 3D displays. So more people would probably be interested in the discs as well. 

Reliance Media works did the 4k transfer of the original trilogy... it's already done. If 4k blurays start coming out next winter I'm guessing you'd be right... but maybe they will try to time the release prior to Episode 7's premier. Perhaps that might have been the point of remastering the OT... maybe they will do theatrical releases next Fall/Winter... & then do the disc releases along with Episode 7... like I could see a 4 disc set edition = Disney milking us for all we're worth. 

I can't wait to hear Ben Burtt's stuff in Atmos


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> I'll take that as a yes and go ahead as planned, which I kind of intended to do anyway. If someone had given me a red flag and said absolutely not I would have revisited my decision .


You're not likely to find many contrarian viewpoints on this thread; we're pretty much all keenly interested in the Atmos technology and have either already installed systems or are planning to do so in the near term. The question of timing is another issue entirely, but one that seemingly does not pertain to your situation since you need a new AVR now.



roxiedog13 said:


> What about the ceiling speakers, are light duty ceiling speakers enough ?



There are various factors, and opinions, regarding the ceiling speakers. You would be well served to skim through this thread and the referenced resources for guidance. Or you can post your current system and requirements,and perhaps someone knowledgeable can respond more specifically to your needs.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> I'll take that as a yes and go ahead as planned, which I kind of intended to do anyway. If someone had given me a red flag and said absolutely not I would have revisited my decision .
> 
> Thanks, one Denon AVR-X5200W is being ordered today.


Congrats!


----------



## GoCaboNow

nitro28 said:


> Looking at our spreadsheet of what everyone is installing it looks like the majority of you did on ceiling speakers. Was this simply because you didn't want to try to run wires and rip up your current ceilings or do you feel that aiming on ceiling speakers (like the commercial theaters do) gives you a better effect? I have 4 coax speakers I was going to use in ceiling, but am toying with using on-ceiling speakers and aiming them. Sandy at Goldenear stated that they had a better response by using their aimable in-ceiling speakers than they did using a regular wide dispersion coax which was opposite of what Dolby said.


Let us know what you end up doing. I am planning in ceiling coaxials, Volt 10 or something. On ceiling would be so much easier but the wife does not want that look. 

I will install them on ceiling first for testing and then cut the ceiling and install backer box etc. to mitigate sound proofing degradation.

Just not imminently...


----------



## smurraybhm

nitro28 said:


> Looking at our spreadsheet of what everyone is installing it looks like the majority of you did on ceiling speakers. Was this simply because you didn't want to try to run wires and rip up your current ceilings or do you feel that aiming on ceiling speakers (like the commercial theaters do) gives you a better effect? I have 4 coax speakers I was going to use in ceiling, but am toying with using on-ceiling speakers and aiming them. Sandy at Goldenear stated that they had a better response by using their aimable in-ceiling speakers than they did using a regular wide dispersion coax which was opposite of what Dolby said.


I think most of us have found that there is a benefit to being able to aim speakers towards the MLP when it comes to Atmos or DS. I am not aware of a wide dispersion coax that Golden Ear makes, so maybe there is a reason to push a different solution  even though I believe at least one forum member is using Sat 3s and liking the results. I don't think in-ceiling vs. on-ceiling matters as long as they offer wide dispersion and are aimable. Besides issues that some of us may have with installing in-ceiling speakers (floor joists or ceiling height), its a lot easier to move on on-ceiling speaker. If you've kept up with this thread there are a number of us who have changed speaker locations from where they were originally - tweaking factor.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> How much of a Jerk do you have to be to force your fans to do this?
> 
> I'm shocked that they didn't color correct the scenes in the death star... those corrected scenes look waaaaaaaaaay better!
> Hopefully reliance media works fixed it up nicely with Atmos to boot


I doubt it more than a remaster of the latest "Special" Editions. Lucas may have had a clause in the contract with Disney to never release the original, unaltered versions. And if the distribution rights to the trilogy stayed with Fox, it was probably the same deal.

I would be more than happy to be completely wrong in this instance.


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> Congrats!


Well maybe not. Now wondering if I should wait for the Marantz 8802 since it will be able to pass the 4K HDCP2.2 , the Denon AVR-X5200W cannot pass 4K .

I do have the Sony 4K projector and Sony 4K server that I have run direct and not through the receiver, which I will still have to do with the Denon AVR-X5200W 
if I go that route. The Denon is half the price and available now, the Marantz not available until early 2015 as I understand. Hmmmmm decisions ?????


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> I doubt it more than a remaster of the latest "Special" Editions. Lucas may have had a clause in the contract with Disney to never release the original, unaltered versions. And if the distribution rights to the trilogy stayed with Fox, it was probably the same deal.
> 
> I would be more than happy to be completely wrong in this instance.


Haha. 

The OT release thing has been an issue for a while, like going back to the DVD era. I think this was always a Lucas-ish thing, I remember reading that the unaltered films were painful for him to watch... like literally... he showed signs of discomfort when attending a screening of ANH unaltered. I totally get that... but I show signs of discomfort when watching CGI Jabba & that stupid singing alien in Jedi... god! 

Sorry for going off topic... I'm a star wars nut too. Hopefully it can be forgiven since we just got our first glimpse at VII.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> Well maybe not. Now wondering if I should wait for the Marantz 8802 since it will be able to pass the 4K HDCP2.2 , the Denon AVR-X5200W cannot pass 4K .
> 
> I do have the Sony 4K projector and Sony 4K server that I have run direct and not through the receiver, which I will still have to do with the Denon AVR-X5200W
> if I go that route. The Denon is half the price and available now, the Marantz not available until early 2015 as I understand. Hmmmmm decisions ?????


You could just attach an HDMI from the projector to the receiver right? I think there might be a work around.


----------



## gammanuc

asharma said:


> I'm surprised there has not been more feedback on this flick. As a test I cranked the TRs last night...wow, can really hear those choppers now!! Seemed like a good balance of various ATMOS effects to speakers other that ceiling speakers also. It's almost like there should be an ATMOS light on the receiver flash on and off when ATMOS is being used so the viewer can tell where ATMOS has been implemented...anywhooooo much better use of ATMOS than Transformers and was looking for general feedback on your experience...


 I prefer the Transformers in terms of sound although both sound amazing. The scene in TF4 where the space ship is pulling the vehicles and ships up and dropping them is excellent, the overhead sound was crazy!
That being said, Atmos, I believe, is a mix which involves all the speakers not just the overheads so it's always implemented if that's what you have selected on your receiver.


----------



## Selden Ball

roxiedog13 said:


> Well maybe not. Now wondering if I should wait for the Marantz 8802 since it will be able to pass the 4K HDCP2.2 , the Denon AVR-X5200W cannot pass 4K .
> 
> I do have the Sony 4K projector and Sony 4K server that I have run direct and not through the receiver, which I will still have to do with the Denon AVR-X5200W
> if I go that route. The Denon is half the price and available now, the Marantz not available until early 2015 as I understand. Hmmmmm decisions ?????


 You haven't mentioned the Denon X7200 receiver, which also is scheduled to get the HDCP update. The 7200 will be available sooner than the 8802 and at a lower price. 



Aras_Volodka said:


> You could just attach an HDMI from the projector to the receiver right? I think there might be a work around.


I think you mean from the projector to the player. That doesn't work so well (is much more inconvenient) if you have multiple video sources (perhaps not all 4K) all of which need to be switched through the receiver.


----------



## kokishin

*Add Your Atmos System to the Members' Atmos Config Spreadsheet*

Currently, there are 64 Atmos systems documented in the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet since I started the spreadsheet on 11/17/2014. If you have an Atmos system not listed on the spreadsheet, please provide the following info and I will add you:

Speaker Config:

AVR/Pre-pro:

Atmos Speakers:

Mounted:

Ceiling Config:

Other Info:

See the link in my sig below to view the spreadsheet.

Thanks


----------



## pgroner

Looking at getting a Marantz SR7009 or Denon X7200. I have Martin Logan motion 30's and 40's I have 4 top in ceiling martin logan speakers (atmos) and two rear Speakercraft in walls so 9 speakers total. *My Question:* How can I Bi-Amp my two Martin Logan Motion 40's and Still do Dolby ATMOS at the same time?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> Currently, there are 64 Atmos systems documented in the avsforum



Wow! 

Not bad for just a few months in.


----------



## asharma

kokishin said:


> Currently, there are 64 Atmos systems documented in the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet since I started the spreadsheet on 11/17/2014. If you have an Atmos system not listed on the spreadsheet, please provide the following info and I will add you:
> 
> Speaker Config:
> 
> AVR/Pre-pro:
> 
> Atmos Speakers:
> 
> Mounted:
> 
> Ceiling Config:
> 
> Other Info:
> 
> See the link in my sig below to view the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks



Speaker Config: 5.3.4

AVR/Pre-pro: Denon 4100, Niles 2 channel external amp

Atmos Speakers: polk vs70-rt

Mounted: in ceiling

Ceiling Config: TF TR

Other Info:


----------



## kokishin

asharma said:


> Speaker Config: 5.3.4
> 
> AVR/Pre-pro: Denon 4100, Niles 2 channel external amp
> 
> Atmos Speakers: polk vs70-rt
> 
> Mounted: in ceiling
> 
> Ceiling Config: TF TR
> 
> Other Info:


Added you to the spreadsheet. 

You have 3 subs? Just confirming.

Thanks


----------



## Spanglo

kokishin said:


> Currently, there are 64 Atmos systems documented in the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet since I started the spreadsheet on 11/17/2014. If you have an Atmos system not listed on the spreadsheet, please provide the following info and I will add you:
> 
> See the link in my sig below to view the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks


Great resource, thanks kokishin.

I'm on the list, but a couple of the fields below could use an edit.

Speaker Config: 6.4.4

AVR/Pre-pro: 

Atmos Speakers: Klipsch XB-10, Klipsch KSB 1.1

Mounted: On-wall/At-ceiling 

Ceiling Config:

Other Info: Sewell Silverback 2ch Amp

Thanks again.


----------



## asharma

kokishin said:


> Added you to the spreadsheet.
> 
> You have 3 subs? Just confirming.
> 
> Thanks


That is correct...thanks


----------



## kokishin

Spanglo said:


> Great resource, thanks kokishin.
> 
> I'm on the list, but a couple of the fields below could use an edit.
> 
> Speaker Config: 6.4.4
> 
> AVR/Pre-pro:
> 
> Atmos Speakers: Klipsch XB-10, Klipsch KSB 1.1
> 
> Mounted: On-wall/At-ceiling
> 
> Ceiling Config:
> 
> Other Info: Sewell Silverback 2ch Amp
> 
> Thanks again.


I applied the edits.

Thanks


----------



## roxiedog13

Selden Ball said:


> You haven't mentioned the Denon X7200 receiver, which also is scheduled to get the HDCP update. The 7200 will be available sooner than the 8802 and at a lower price.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean from the projector to the player. That doesn't work so well (is much more inconvenient) if you have multiple video sources (perhaps not all 4K) all of which need to be switched through the receiver.


Once again I get great information, thanks. I did not know the Denon X7200 would have the update for 4K and HDCP 2.2 . If this is correct, available sooner and cheaper I know what I have to do then. I have a local Denon dealer so it's a no brainer.


----------



## kokishin

roxiedog13 said:


> Once again I get great information, thanks. I did not know the Denon X7200 would have the update for 4K and HDCP 2.2 . If this is correct, available sooner and cheaper I know what I have to do then. I have a local Denon dealer so it's a no brainer.


AIUI, HDCP 2.2 will require a new HDMI board requiring the owner to send his X7200 back to Denon for the upgrade.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> Added you to the spreadsheet.
> 
> You have 3 subs? Just confirming.
> 
> Thanks


Kokishin, I apologize for sort of piggybacking here...but I need to ask you to change my configuration in the spreadsheet. I told you earlier that I was going with 44DA for the Dolby-enabled speakers.
I decided to go with Supersat 3s mounted top of Sanus sat stands using Definitive Technology Promount 90s.
I will do a detailed write up for the forum, including my rationale and results, but I am more than satisfied with them in my setup and would highly recommend them to anyone considering such an approach.

Thanks


----------



## kokishin

dvdwilly3 said:


> Kokishin, I apologize for sort of piggybacking here...but I need to ask you to change my configuration in the spreadsheet. I told you earlier that I was going with 44DA for the Dolby-enabled speakers.
> I decided to go with Supersat 3s mounted top of Sanus sat stands using Definitive Technology Promount 90s.
> I will do a detailed write up for the forum, including my rationale and results, but I am more than satisfied with them in my setup and would highly recommend them to anyone considering such an approach.
> 
> Thanks


I presume this is a "fake" Atmos enabled speaker config? "Fake" meaning the Supersat 3s are not true Atmos enabled speakers.

Please check the edits in the spreadsheet.

Thanks


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> I presume this is a "fake" Atmos enabled speaker config? "Fake" meaning the Supersat 3s are not true Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> Please check the edits in the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks


That would be correct. But, I have to tell you that they work better than the A60s that I started with...


----------



## roxiedog13

kokishin said:


> AIUI, HDCP 2.2 will require a new HDMI board requiring the owner to send his X7200 back to Denon for the upgrade.


Darn, so the X7200 does not have HDCP 2.2, only 4K pass through ? My dealer just called not 5 minutes ago to advise he can get the X7200 by end of year so I ordered it.
I was sure it was 2.2 compliant so will now have to verify that too . The brochure for the X7200 is probably in my inbox now, will have a look and report back later.


----------



## Chaospling

Just reading page 495 where you talked about the ceiling speakers and their specifications. I'm in the process of setting up four speakers with these specifications:

Frequency Range (+/-3 dB) [Hz] 58 - 30,000
Sensitivity (2,83 V/1 m) [dB] 88.5 
Nominal Impedance [Ω] 6 
Maximum SPL [dB] 109 
Recommended Amplifier Power [W] 25 - 150 
Crossover Frequency [Hz] 2,600 / 14,000 
High Frequency Drivers 1 x 17 x 45 mm Ribbon
1 x 28 mm Soft Textile Dome 
Low Frequency Driver 1 x 6½" Wood Fibre Cone

I hope you'll approve them as top speakers - do you have a single cross over or does it vary from speaker to speaker? Thought about setting the cross over for these as low as 65-70 Hz as even though it's hard to tell where the low frequencies come from, there's a long way from my subwoofer to the top speakers.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Darn, so the X7200 does not have HDCP 2.2, only 4K pass through ? My dealer just called not 5 minutes ago to advise he can get the X7200 by end of year so I ordered it.
> I was sure it was 2.2 compliant so will now have to verify that too . The brochure for the X7200 is probably in my inbox now, will have a look and report back later.



As mentioned earlier by kokishin, the X7200 will be upgradeable to HDCP 2.2 with a visit to the service depot, and not for free IIRC...


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> kokishin said:
> 
> 
> 
> AIUI, HDCP 2.2 will require a new HDMI board requiring the owner to send his X7200 back to Denon for the upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> Darn, so the X7200 does not have HDCP 2.2, only 4K pass through ? My dealer just called not 5 minutes ago to advise he can get the X7200 by end of year so I ordered it.
> I was sure it was 2.2 compliant so will now have to verify that too . The brochure for the X7200 is probably in my inbox now, will have a look and report back later.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the upgrade is for HDCP 2.2. Not for 4k. All of the current Denon / Marantz models have HDMI 2.0 which supports full bandwidth 4k passthrough. 

The open question is whether upcoming changes to digital copy protection (HDCP 2.2) will block the passthrough of future 4k sources. So the upgrade is for the digital copyright compliance, not to enable 4k passthrough. So you could buy a 7200 when it comes out and simply enjoy it until the point at which you find you require the HDCP 2.2 upgrade. Or just buy a 5200 now and then sell it and upgrade to a new model in the future when (if?) HDCP 2.2 becomes an issue.


----------



## batpig

pgroner said:


> Looking at getting a Marantz SR7009 or Denon X7200. I have Martin Logan motion 30's and 40's I have 4 top in ceiling martin logan speakers (atmos) and two rear Speakercraft in walls so 9 speakers total. *My Question:* How can I Bi-Amp my two Martin Logan Motion 40's and Still do Dolby ATMOS at the same time?


You can't. At least not with the internal amps in the receiver. Even if it was theoretically possible, you have 9 amps built in for 9 speakers, so you don't have a pair left for bi amping. 

That said, receiver bi amping is a fairly worthless feature. If you need more power for your front speakers you would be best served getting a more powerful, dedicated external amp. Adding at least 2 channels of external amplification also means you can expand to an 11 channel setup if you so choose.


----------



## quinn4528

roxiedog13 said:


> Just wondering if I'm too early to make the leap into Atmos territory. I'll have to buy a new Denon probably the 5200 model
> and add the 4 ceiling speakers. I need a new receiver anyway as mine has failed and figured might as well spend the little
> extra and jump on board. I know there is little content but, just as well to embrace it now I figure. I did so with 4K on the
> Projector side and I'm happy enough with that purchase.
> 
> Anyway, some thoughts if you don't mind??


Jump in. I would complete the speaker installation first and then shop for the AV. Depending upon when you finish the speakers, there may be additional AV options.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Wow!
> 
> Not bad for just a few months in.


And think about people who bought these AVRs and are not reporting in here and those who don't or didn't even set theirs up in Atmos
So I would say we are on fire.


----------



## NorthSky

...And think about all the ones who are waiting for the second generation.


----------



## roxiedog13

kokishin said:


> I presume this is a "fake" Atmos enabled speaker config? "Fake" meaning the Supersat 3s are not true Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> Please check the edits in the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks



where can I find the spreadsheet?


----------



## westmd

Just finished watching Overheard 3. Unfortunately by far the weakest of the three movies and especially for non Hong Kong film nerds quite a bore!
even though I did not hear it in Atmos the surround mix was quite aggressive with much more information from the back then in a normal mix. The film itself does not have that many sound effects. I  the best is a scene at the end between 1:58:41 and 2:03:30. if you don't want to see the whole movie at least watch this scene.
Interstingly when watching the credits I saw that the film was both recorded in Atmos as well as Auro. Peaceful co-existence


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> where can I find the spreadsheet?


 
In any of kokishin's posts at the bottom of the signature..."avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet "


----------



## roxiedog13

quinn4528 said:


> Jump in. I would complete the speaker installation first and then shop for the AV. Depending upon when you finish the speakers, there may be additional AV options.



Would only take me an evening to install the new speakers as I have wires in place already. Surface mounts would only take a couple of hours, in-ceiling would take a little more time.


The Denon 7200 I can have by the end of the month but it WILL require a hardware upgrade to meet HDCP 2.2 . In the 7200 brochure it also states that 7.1.4 will require an additional
applifier .
If the Marantz 8802 is already HDCP 2.2 compliant and does not need the additional amplifier then that will be the way I go . I tried to look up the specs for the 8802 but could not find
this however Mike Garrett did say, I think , that the 8802 is HDCP 2.2 compliant already. For the price difference I will go Marantz if that is the case, especially if the extra amp is not 
required.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> where can I find the spreadsheet?



https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs ---> Look @ his sig (yellow color) @ the very bottom of his post (avsforum Members ...).

Oups, late to the rescue; thx Al.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Would only take me an evening to install the new speakers as I have wires in place already. Surface mounts would only take a couple of hours, in-ceiling would take a little more time.
> 
> 
> The Denon 7200 I can have by the end of the month but it WILL require a hardware upgrade to meet HDCP 2.2 . In the 7200 brochure it also states that 7.1.4 will require an additional
> applifier .
> If the Marantz 8802 is already HDCP 2.2 compliant and does not need the additional amplifier then that will be the way I go . I tried to look up the specs for the 8802 but could not find
> this however Mike Garrett did say, I think , that the 8802 is HDCP 2.2 compliant already. For the price difference I will go Marantz if that is the case, especially if the extra amp is not
> required.


Take a look here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ssor-hdmi-2-0-isf-wifi-bluetooth-details.html


----------



## pasender91

roxiedog13 said:


> Would only take me an evening to install the new speakers as I have wires in place already. Surface mounts would only take a couple of hours, in-ceiling would take a little more time.
> 
> 
> The Denon 7200 I can have by the end of the month but it WILL require a hardware upgrade to meet HDCP 2.2 . In the 7200 brochure it also states that 7.1.4 will require an additional
> applifier .
> If the Marantz 8802 is already HDCP 2.2 compliant and does not need the additional amplifier then that will be the way I go . I tried to look up the specs for the 8802 but could not find
> this however Mike Garrett did say, I think , that the 8802 is HDCP 2.2 compliant already. For the price difference I will go Marantz if that is the case, especially if the extra amp is not
> required.


For sure you'll need more amps behind an 8802, because it has 0  , it's a processor only.


----------



## viper14

*Atmos setup*

Hey Guys looking for a little help regarding my atmos setup, currently i have a 7.1 setup my room size is approx. 17x13... with a little extra on the sides, pics attached(pics from 2011 old gear) in the pics attached you can see that i was using all energy speakers i still have the side/back DIPOLE energy speakers, looking to replace those with some Kef DiPoles, from a fe things i've read some people say that you shouldn't use DiPoles in an atmos enabled setup is this true? I've replaced my front towers with some Kef Q900's and the centre channel with a Kef Q600,









In this Image you can see that i have alot of bulkheads (vents) that i had to work around i have a small section over the seating area, where i plan on mounting the back set of atmos speakers... would this work with a set of in-celling? For the front atmos i planned on using the Kef Atmos R50 speakers to sit on-top of the towers, does mixing upward firing and in-celling speakers work? (Kef Ci160TR low profile)or should i be keeping them both upward firing or both in-celling? my next question is what to do on the surround and surround back speakers, the pics are still current on the speaker make/model (Energy Veritas - V-S - Bipole/dipole Surround Speaker) would i be ok replacing those with the Kef Equivalent (R800 ds) x4. I know my room isn't perfect but its what i have to work with.









rest of my equipment is as followed:

Display(65" VT30 on wall, 120" motorized screen drops in front)
JVC-X700 projector
Yamaha RX-V2040 Amp
Oppo 93 Bluray player
Xbox One
Lumagen Mini 3D
Mac Mini (XBMC Media pc)
Kef Q900,Q600,Energy Veritas VS surround back and rear, Velodyne DLS 12" sub

any input would be greatly appreciated


----------



## ultraflexed

Will these av's with atmos like the onkyo support 4k blue-ray players when they come out?
Im hearing the 2.0 hdmi is actually 1.4? Can anyone shed lite on the onkyo atmos capable Av's?
Do tgey really support 4k, is it really hdmi 2.0?


----------



## audioguy

I'm impressed that someone can actually get an Atmos system up and running in a day. it took me 2.5 days to reconfigure my 4 bass traps suspended from the front ceiling so I would have the appropriate space to hang my front two ceiling speakers.

It took most of a day to just get the 4 speaker brackets placed so each was EXACTLY placed symmetrical to the one on the opposite side of the room. And then many many more hours to get each of the speakers angled EXACTLY at the MLP.

Speaker wire to be run in space above theater on Thursday PM.

I get tired just thinking about it!!!


----------



## rhbblb1

Kokishin,

One more:

Speaker config: 7.1.4
AVR: Denon x5200
Atmos Speakers: Atlantic Technology IC-8.3 
Mounted: in-ceiling
Ceiling config: TF & TR


----------



## Al Sherwood

ultraflexed said:


> Will these av's with atmos like the onkyo support 4k blue-ray players when they come out?
> Im hearing the 2.0 hdmi is actually 1.4? Can anyone shed lite on the onkyo atmos capable Av's?
> Do tgey really support 4k, is it really hdmi 2.0?


 
The Onkyo does support 4K however they also choose to support HDCP 2.2, so you are protected for HDCP content but the HDMI signal is what some refer to as HDMI 2.0 lite, instead of a full 18 Gb/s the signal is about 10Gb/s and not have the full colour depth. Check out the details provided by scarabaeus below:


Originally Posted by *scarabaeus*  


_You have two choices right now:_

_Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)_
_Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4)._
_ All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way)._

_ 4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR._

_* So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV*. *All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.*_

_ Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year._


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> In any of kokishin's posts at the bottom of the signature..."avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet "



Tks, found it .


----------



## bargervais

ultraflexed said:


> Will these av's with atmos like the onkyo support 4k blue-ray players when they come out?
> Im hearing the 2.0 hdmi is actually 1.4? Can anyone shed lite on the onkyo atmos capable Av's?
> Do they really support 4k, is it really hdmi 2.0?


I guess we will have to wait till the dust settles 4K blu-ray players are supossibly coming to market the end of 2015 and then will find out what HDMI we need to support it??? Who really knows we can never future proof electronics IMHO 4K content is years coming that's just what I think.
Atmos is here and DSU is worth the price of admission. And blu-rays are starting to trickle in and I feel 2015 will be the year of atmos.


----------



## bargervais

I Have some ceiling speakers that I want to install into the ceiling the ceiling is open to the attic. My question is once locating them top front once they are installed do I box them in or leave them open with the insulation on top of them will that effect the efficiency of the sound coming out of them.


----------



## jdsmoothie

roxiedog13 said:


> Would only take me an evening to install the new speakers as I have wires in place already. Surface mounts would only take a couple of hours, in-ceiling would take a little more time.
> 
> 
> The Denon 7200 I can have by the end of the month but it WILL require a hardware upgrade to meet HDCP 2.2 . In the 7200 brochure it also states that 7.1.4 will require an additional
> applifier .
> *If the Marantz 8802 is already HDCP 2.2 compliant *and does not need the additional amplifier then that will be the way I go . I tried to look up the specs for the 8802 but could not find
> this however Mike Garrett did say, I think , that the 8802 is HDCP 2.2 compliant already. For the price difference I will go Marantz if that is the case, especially if the extra amp is not
> required.


The Denon X7200W is to be released end of December. The AV8802 is to be released in January. Neither will be HDCP 2.2 compliant when first released, however, both will be able to be upgraded to HDCP 2.2 in the Spring 2015. The X7200W requires a 2CH amp to expand to 7.1.4 and as was already pointed out, the AV8802 is a pre/pro, so requires 11 amps for a 7.1.4 configuration.


----------



## kingwiggi

bargervais said:


> I Have some ceiling speakers that I want to install into the ceiling the ceiling is open to the attic. My question is once locating them top front once they are installed do I box them in or leave them open with the insulation on top of them will that effect the efficiency of the sound coming out of them.


I did a similar thing after installing my ceiling speakers (just covering them with insulation) but found out that sound leakage could be heard in the other rooms because there was such a large volume of air in the attic and even when I went outside, so I built some very simple 10x10x8 boxes using OSB then insulated the inside of the box dropped them over the top and havn't noticed any sound leakage since. 

They also sound significantly better after putting the boxes over them.


----------



## bargervais

kingwiggi said:


> I did a similar thing after installing my ceiling speakers (just covering them with insulation) but found out that sound leakage could be heard in the other rooms because there was such a large volume of air in the attic and even when I went outside, so I built some very simple 10x10x8 boxes using OSB then insulated the inside of the box dropped them over the top and havn't noticed any sound leakage since.
> 
> They also sound significantly better after putting the boxes over them.


That's what I will do my biggest fear and anxiety has not been about building boxes over the speakers but it's cutting the holes LOL Because as soon as you start cutting there is no turning back. I think I have paced enough I feel I have the correct locations now it's a matter of getting started with the first cut... I'll be doing that this weekend.


----------



## ultraflexed

Al Sherwood said:


> The Onkyo does support 4K however they also choose to support HDCP 2.2, so you are protected for HDCP content but the HDMI signal is what some refer to as HDMI 2.0 lite, instead of a full 18 Gb/s the signal is about 10Gb/s and not have the full colour depth.
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *scarabaeus*
> _You have two choices right now:
> 
> Onkyo/Integra has HDCP 2.2, but supports 2160p ("4K") at 60 Hz with only a reduced color resolution (4:2:0)
> Everyone else has only HDCP 1.4, but supports 2160p60 at the full color resolution (4:4:4).
> All of them support 2160p24 at the full 4:4:4 color resolution, and that will be the frame rate on 4K Blu-rays (which are encoded in 4:2:0, by the way).
> 
> 4K Blu-ray will require HDCP 2.2, or fall back to 1080p playback when encountering just HDCP 1.4 in the AVR.
> 
> So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV. All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.
> 
> Future AVRs will allow for 2160p60 4:4:4, but those chips are not expected until late next year._


Well I already have a sony 4k xbr-65x900a 4k tv, so im definitely going to invest investing in 4k blue-rays, so what would be the best route to go,
I was thinking the onkyo tx-1030 5.1.4 before I knew what was going on but
I already have the 4k sony media player too (fmp-x10) so what woukd you guys suggest? Budget is around 1k to 1.5k max, im returning my onkyo 636 atmos ready 5.1.2 back to bestbuy tomarrow


----------



## audioguy

Wanted to get a copy of the Atmos demo disc and tried to download from here:

http://themobilebay.org/torrent/114...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1

After downloading I tried to open and my antivirus objected and got this message:

Any ideas on how I should proceed?


----------



## ahmedreda

The 8802 is a processor (i.e. requires amplifiers for ALL channels).


roxiedog13 said:


> Would only take me an evening to install the new speakers as I have wires in place already. Surface mounts would only take a couple of hours, in-ceiling would take a little more time.
> 
> 
> The Denon 7200 I can have by the end of the month but it WILL require a hardware upgrade to meet HDCP 2.2 . In the 7200 brochure it also states that 7.1.4 will require an additional
> applifier .
> If the Marantz 8802 is already HDCP 2.2 compliant and does not need the additional amplifier then that will be the way I go . I tried to look up the specs for the 8802 but could not find
> this however Mike Garrett did say, I think , that the 8802 is HDCP 2.2 compliant already. For the price difference *I will go Marantz if that is the case, especially if the extra amp is not
> required*.


----------



## bargervais

audioguy said:


> Wanted to get a copy of the Atmos demo disc and tried to download from here:
> 
> http://themobilebay.org/torrent/114...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1
> 
> After downloading I tried to open and my antivirus objected and got this message:
> 
> Any ideas on how I should proceed?


Turn off the Antivirus see if that will work it might be that it's the torrent site that the Antivirus doesn't like.I personally never go to those sites because you never know what garbage is there. I didn't get mine from there can't remember but someone in here had it on their Microsoft cloud storage that I downloaded it from you may want to read backwards till you find it but it's here somewhere..


----------



## Jeffg8

Here is my info for the spreadsheet so far. Probably will be this month unless I run into a problem with the installer and contractor.


Speaker Config: 7.1.4

AVR/Pre-pro: Marantz 7702

Atmos Speakers: B&W CCM683 (proposed)

Mounted: In celing

Ceiling Config: TF-Tm? 

Other Info: B&W 803D Main, Proceed AMP5 AND Marantz MM8077 (proposed)


----------



## bargervais

audioguy said:


> Wanted to get a copy of the Atmos demo disc and tried to download from here:
> 
> http://themobilebay.org/torrent/114...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1
> 
> After downloading I tried to open and my antivirus objected and got this message:
> 
> Any ideas on how I should proceed?


Did you try this site 
http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php
That's where I got mine


----------



## audioguy

bargervais said:


> Turn off the Antivirus see if that will work it might be that it's the torrent site that the Antivirus doesn't like.I personally never go to those sites because you never know what garbage is there. I didn't get mine from there can't remember but someone in here had it on their Microsoft cloud storage that I downloaded it from you may want to read backwards till you find it but it's here somewhere..


I did a search on "demo" but did not find a thread where I could access and download the demo disc. The one I tried (see above post) was thrown up on by my antivirus program??


----------



## wse

kokishin said:


> AIUI, HDCP 2.2 will require a new HDMI board requiring the owner to send his X7200 back to Denon for the upgrade.


I will wait until Denon release the unit with all the upgrades in the mean time I am enjoying my new Marantz


----------



## epiCenter

roxiedog13 said:


> Well maybe not. Now wondering if I should wait for the Marantz 8802 since it will be able to pass the 4K HDCP2.2 , the Denon AVR-X5200W cannot pass 4K .
> 
> I do have the Sony 4K projector and Sony 4K server that I have run direct and not through the receiver, which I will still have to do with the Denon AVR-X5200W
> if I go that route. The Denon is half the price and available now, the Marantz not available until early 2015 as I understand. Hmmmmm decisions ?????


If you don't mind going with separates, you could transition to an Onkyo PR-SC 5530 which is available now and sill pass HDCP2.2 4K. Some on AVS have blasted the new AccuEQ in favor of Audessy, but I have owned the last two Onkyo flagships (TX-NR 5010 and the current PR-SC 5530) and I can tell you my listening experience is light years better now on the 7.2.4 layout. 

I don't have a 4K projector yet as 1080P 3D on my Epson allows me to see sweat welling up inside pores on people's faces. But I am happy to know my pre-pro is ready when I am.


----------



## epiCenter

pgroner said:


> Looking at getting a Marantz SR7009 or Denon X7200. I have Martin Logan motion 30's and 40's I have 4 top in ceiling martin logan speakers (atmos) and two rear Speakercraft in walls so 9 speakers total. *My Question:* How can I Bi-Amp my two Martin Logan Motion 40's and Still do Dolby ATMOS at the same time?


One option, although not easy or inexpensive, is to go with a pre-amp and do separates. I tri-amped my LCRs by running the LCR signals through XLR cables into a cross-over, then to amps. You could do the same with a 2way cross-over and really drive your Martin Logans!


----------



## techop

kokishin said:


> Currently, there are 64 Atmos systems documented in the avsforum Members Atmos Configuration spreadsheet since I started the spreadsheet on 11/17/2014. If you have an Atmos system not listed on the spreadsheet, please provide the following info and I will add you:
> 
> Speaker Config:
> 
> AVR/Pre-pro:
> 
> Atmos Speakers:
> 
> Mounted:
> 
> Ceiling Config:
> 
> Other Info:
> 
> See the link in my sig below to view the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks


As long as you are actively soliciting 

7.2.4
Yamaha RX-A3040
Tannoy Di6DC
On ceiling
TF+TR
Emotiva XPA-200 driving front L/R

your efforts are appreciated!


----------



## bargervais

audioguy said:


> I did a search on "demo" but did not find a thread where I could access and download the demo disc. The one I tried (see above post) was thrown up on by my antivirus program??


Kokishin has or had it on his One Drive cloud storage is where I got mine from it's a 4 gig file.
Dolby Atmos Demo Disc
I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files.
Here 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-410.html#post28586441


----------



## whokilledkaji

I need to get a pair of in-ceiling speakers for Atmos, but I don't want to break the bank. 
My setup is as follows:

Onkyo TX-NR838 receiver
Infinity Primus P363 x4 (front and rears)
Infinity Primus PC351

Any ideas?


----------



## multit

bargervais said:


> Did you try this site
> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php
> That's where I got mine


But there are only the 4 official Dolby Atmos Trailers.
At the Demo Disc are far more examples, like F1 Racing or the Bailando music video (which is although not the best Atmos demo anyway).


----------



## bargervais

multit said:


> But there are only the 4 official Dolby Atmos Trailers.
> At the Demo Disc are far more examples, like F1 Racing or the Bailando music video (which is although not the best Atmos demo anyway).


 I downloaded from a link I found back at post 12272


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Just finished putting up my ceiling speakers and lowering my surrounds. That was pain in the butt and took me whole weekend into early hours this AM. Thought to share some pics. My ceiling speakers are Tannoy 8DCs. Going to order Denon 5200 soon.


Nice job. Those are some kickass overhead speakers! I like the creative way you used the door to support one of the surround speakers. I guess you ran the wiring inside the door?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Just an FYI ... but the European models are now able to download the Auro 3D upgrade. USA models should follow shortly.


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Bigger is better!? It was about the same price as 6dc so I said why not. I figure I would get even wider dispersion with 8 inch woofers. JK. I actually like the look. No one can miss it. Look at my damn ceiling speakers!!!


It's overkill. I love overkill. Gives you that great feeling that you're in no way missing out on something  I think the smaller speakers would have worked just as well in a bass-managed system, but you will definitely get that _"OMG - look at those freakin' ceiling speakers" _every time someone walks into your HT room!


----------



## roxiedog13

jdsmoothie said:


> The Denon X7200W is to be released end of December. The AV8802 is to be released in January. Neither will be HDCP 2.2 compliant when first released, however, both will be able to be upgraded to HDCP 2.2 in the Spring 2015. The X7200W requires a 2CH amp to expand to 7.1.4 and as was already pointed out, the AV8802 is a pre/pro, so requires 11 amps for a 7.1.4 configuration.


Well, that makes the decision easy, the X7200W is back on order then. Now to figure out the speakers for the ceiling


----------



## zebidou81

Does anybody know what angle the driver for the Onkyo skh410 Atmos speakers are at.
i have tried mounting these 1/2 way up wall which was ok, i then mounted low about eye height when sat which i feel worked ok, i then mounted 3/4 up the wall, the thing is i would like to get the best position for the sweet spot for my seating area without just leaving it to maybe thats it. I feel Onkyo should of made a calculator as projector companys do for throw distance, so you could put height of wall and length from speaker to ear and it would give you an optimal height. or maybe i am just looking in to this to much and should just settle with wherever ?
Any new ideas welcome ?


----------



## asharma

jdsmoothie said:


> Just an FYI ... but the European models are now able to download the Auro 3D upgrade. USA models should follow shortly.


Thanks JD...can u pls refresh my memory on this? Is the 4100 upgradeable and will it require different in ceiling speaker locations than ATMOS? Thanks


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Yes. The X4100W is upgradable to Auro 3D 9.1 (ie. but not 10.1 as it cannot use the single VOG/Top Surround speaker). A somewhat different configuration may be required as only the 5.1+Front Height speakers can be shared with both formats, while Auro 3D can also use the unique "Surround Height" speakers as well in a 5.1+FH+SH configuration.


----------



## Chaospling

What material is available with Auro 3D?


----------



## Selden Ball

Chaospling said:


> What material is available with Auro 3D?


Your question would be better answered in the Auro thread at http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...cial-auro-3d-thread-home-theater-version.html

I'm aware of the Auro demo disc (currently available for free from Auro and being reviewed in the Auro thread), a few music discs published by 2L, and maybe a couple of German-language Blu-rays.


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice job. Those are some kickass overhead speakers! I like the creative way you used the door to support one of the surround speakers. I guess you ran the wiring inside the door?


Thanks Keith! You lead me to those kick ass speakers!

Yes those wires will be run inside the door. But the others will come from those speaker posts on top. I got too tired to move them. My walls have fire block so it's really pain in butt to run the wires inside the wall.


----------



## mp5475

kbarnes701 said:


> It's overkill. I love overkill. Gives you that great feeling that you're in no way missing out on something  I think the smaller speakers would have worked just as well in a bass-managed system, but you will definitely get that _"OMG - look at those freakin' ceiling speakers" _every time someone walks into your HT room!


Yes and Yes!


----------



## gammanuc

Is it possible for people to use Edit and Multi-Quote instead of posting multiple times one after another I wonder? This thread is really long as it is!


----------



## kbarnes701

mp5475 said:


> Thanks Keith! You lead me to those kick ass speakers!
> 
> Yes those wires will be run inside the door. But the others will come from those speaker posts on top. I got too tired to move them. My walls have fire block so it's really pain in butt to run the wires inside the wall.


Oh tell me about it. I hate visible wires so all my wires are hidden in walls and ceiling and I know too well how much effort it takes to conceal them. You've made a great job of your room!


----------



## mcascio

zebidou81 said:


> Does anybody know what angle the driver for the Onkyo skh410 Atmos speakers are at.
> i have tried mounting these 1/2 way up wall which was ok, i then mounted low about eye height when sat which i feel worked ok, i then mounted 3/4 up the wall, the thing is i would like to get the best position for the sweet spot for my seating area without just leaving it to maybe thats it. I feel Onkyo should of made a calculator as projector companys do for throw distance, so you could put height of wall and length from speaker to ear and it would give you an optimal height. or maybe i am just looking in to this to much and should just settle with wherever ?
> Any new ideas welcome ?


+1

This would be nice to know. Not to get too far off topic, but does anyone know how these speakers would reflect off a flat ceiling? It would be great to put these atmos modules into my 3D software and calculate the optimal position so it targets the primary listening position. I'm just not sure of the angles, dispersion and reflected angles off the ceiling.


----------



## Frank714

I'd been away for a couple of weeks, so I apologize if I ask something that's already been answered.

IIRC, we got a bunch of 4 "true" Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray discs in November, but nothing beyond that.

I'm increasingly under the suspicion that with the arrival of 4K Blu-ray discs possibly within the next 12 months the major content providers may deliberately be holding back Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray titles and instead make Dolby Atmos a 4K exclusive feature to promote 4K sales. 

Not that it matters to me (my decision to install a Marantz SR7009 later this month is at this point mostly due to the excited earwitness reports concerning the Dolby Surround Upmixer's performance), but I find myself increasingly holding back purchasing new Blu-ray titles of which I know they were recorded in Dolby Atmos, anticipating / hoping for Blu-ray re-releases with real encoded Dolby Atmos bitstream that may never come.

Am I too pessimistic?


----------



## robert816

Possibly.

I'm of a mindset that the entertainment industry has no quams about double-dipping, in fact I'd say they feel absolutely positive about quintuple-dipping. So releasing titles with Atmos soundtracks this year in standard HD and re-releasing next year in UHD will not put the slightest dent in their scruple meter.


----------



## Selden Ball

Frank714 said:


> I'd been away for a couple of weeks, so I apologize if I ask something that's already been answered.
> 
> IIRC, we got a bunch of 4 "true" Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray discs in November, but nothing beyond that.
> 
> I'm increasingly under the suspicion that with the arrival of 4K Blu-ray discs possibly within the next 12 months the major content providers may deliberately be holding back Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray titles and instead make Dolby Atmos a 4K exclusive feature to promote 4K sales.
> 
> Not that it matters to me (my decision to install a Marantz SR7009 later this month is at this point mostly due to the excited earwitness reports concerning the Dolby Surround Upmixer's performance), but I find myself increasingly holding back purchasing new Blu-ray titles of which I know they were recorded in Dolby Atmos, anticipating / hoping for Blu-ray re-releases with real encoded Dolby Atmos bitstream that may never come.
> 
> Am I too pessimistic?


Enjoy what you can afford to enjoy when you want to enjoy it. Trying to plan your entertainment around unpredictable studio decisions is just one more way to raise your blood pressure and add unnecessary stress to your life. And not enjoy it


----------



## Al Sherwood

ultraflexed said:


> Well I already have a sony 4k xbr-65x900a 4k tv, so im definitely going to invest investing in 4k blue-rays, so what would be the best route to go,
> I was thinking the onkyo tx-1030 5.1.4 before I knew what was going on but
> I already have the 4k sony media player too (fmp-x10) so what woukd you guys suggest? Budget is around 1k to 1.5k max, im returning my onkyo 636 atmos ready 5.1.2 back to bestbuy tomarrow



Given this information that was in the post you replied too: *So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV*. *All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.*


If you want the AVR you buy to do the HDMI switching I see only one choice, Onkyo, and with your budget the TX-NR1030 you may just squeak in! 


The optional route would be to by-pass the AVR for the HDMI video signal by connection the Blu-ray directly to the projector as long as your Blu-ray has a second HDMI or optical connection to pass the audio to the AVR, this would make other brands available for your consideration.


----------



## BillY2KFRC

Here are the details of my Atmos setup for the spreadsheet:

5.1.4
Marantz SR7009
Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800
On wall (ceiling height)
TF+TR


----------



## zebidou81

mcascio said:


> +1
> 
> This would be nice to know. Not to get too far off topic, but does anyone know how these speakers would reflect off a flat ceiling? It would be great to put these atmos modules into my 3D software and calculate the optimal position so it targets the primary listening position. I'm just not sure of the angles, dispersion and reflected angles off the ceiling.


Hi I have been told on the Onkyo 636 thread that an Onkyo engineer stated that it was at an angle of 45 degrees,
time to do some simple Trig to see if that works out.


----------



## kokishin

techop said:


> As long as you are actively soliciting
> 
> 7.2.4
> Yamaha RX-A3040
> Tannoy Di6DC
> On ceiling
> TF+TR
> Emotiva XPA-200 driving front L/R
> 
> your efforts are appreciated!


You're added.

Thanks for the concise, complete description for the spreadsheet.

Welcome aboard Newbie.


----------



## kokishin

BillY2KFRC said:


> Here are the details of my Atmos setup for the spreadsheet:
> 
> 5.1.4
> Marantz SR7009
> Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800
> On wall (ceiling height)
> TF+TR


It's a good thing I read every post on this thread (except a NuiSance poster) since you didn't direct your post at me.

You're added.

Thanks


----------



## Gurba

audioguy said:


> Wanted to get a copy of the Atmos demo disc and tried to download from here:
> 
> http://themobilebay.org/torrent/114...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1
> 
> After downloading I tried to open and my antivirus objected and got this message:
> 
> Any ideas on how I should proceed?


http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/1145...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Enjoy what you can afford to enjoy when you want to enjoy it. Trying to plan your entertainment around unpredictable studio decisions is just one more way to raise your blood pressure and add unnecessary stress to your life. And not enjoy it


+1/. Life, as John Lennon reminded is, is what happens while you're busy making plans.


----------



## ultraflexed

zebidou81 said:


> Hi I have been told on the Onkyo 636 thread that an Onkyo engineer stated that it was at an angle of 45 degrees,
> time to do some simple Trig to see if that works out.



There is nothing simple about trig!


----------



## Gurba

Al Sherwood said:


> Given this information that was in the post you replied too: *So, once you have a 4K Blu-ray player and a 4K UHD TV, the Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV*. *All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4.*



Just thought I'd mention that the Yamaha RX-A3040 With the 1.6fw supports 4K60p 4:4:4 full color pass-thru.


----------



## bargervais

BillY2KFRC said:


> Here are the details of my Atmos setup for the spreadsheet:
> 
> 5.1.4
> Marantz SR7009
> Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800
> On wall (ceiling height)
> TF+TR


Congratulations on your new gear... how do those Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800 speakers sound to you. I noticed that the threaded key to hang these are towards the bottom on the back can you tell me if the grills can be put on upside down if I were to hang these fro the ceiling upside down as I would like the tweeters away from the ceiling. I know it's a strong question but there is a method to my madness


----------



## roxiedog13

*9.1.2 or 7.1.4 which is best*

I have a 7.1 system now everything is set up per Dolby THX with the exception of my rear speakers which are in-ceiling. I went with in ceiling for the rear simply because my room is 30 feet long and the screen and three x three rows of seating are at the first half of the room. The in-ceiling speakers are angled down and towards the seating and to be honest I hear sounds from the rear as I should not from the ceiling so it works just fine. Also the second row of seating is on a raised deck so rear speakers mounted 30 feet back would have to be mounted high in order to be functional . 

Anyway, all I have to do for 7.1.4 is add the 4 ceiling speakers and install the new AVR X7200 when it arrives. 

Question is: Is one better than the other or both equally as good to deliver the best Atmos experience? My gut feeling is the addition of the 4 ceiling is better 
and I have heard others say removing the rear speakers did not yield the same quality .

One more question while I'm at it: I have four JVC 10" tall (5" driver) bookshelf full range speakers in flat black that would be very easy to install. They are an older box system speaker
but really great for my original HT system before the upgrade. Is there any reason I should not use these for the 4 ceiling mounted Atmos speakers only?>
I have Paradigm Monitor 11 for front, ADP in wall sides and Paradigm in-ceiling for the rear.


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> Congratulations on your new gear... how do those Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800 speakers sound to you. I noticed that the threaded key to hang these are towards the bottom on the back can you tell me if the grills can be put on upside down if I were to hang these fro the ceiling upside down as I would like the tweeters away from the ceiling. I know it's a strong question but there is a method to my madness


The DefTech PM1000 speakers (which is what I have) have the same design. Initially I was quite annoyed that the threaded support hole is at the bottom (making them extremely top-heavy), but I think they sound fine when hung "upside down". As I commented to someone else, "Hang them all and let Audyssey sort them out!"


----------



## Al Sherwood

Gurba said:


> Just thought I'd mention that the Yamaha RX-A3040 With the 1.6fw supports 4K60p 4:4:4 full color pass-thru.


The OP was also looking for HDCP 2.2, I can't seem to find out if the Yamaha supports this? I don't see this confirmed on the Yamaha website.


----------



## kokishin

audioguy said:


> Wanted to get a copy of the Atmos demo disc and tried to download from here:
> 
> http://themobilebay.org/torrent/114...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1
> 
> After downloading I tried to open and my antivirus objected and got this message:
> 
> Any ideas on how I should proceed?


Go to post #15199 which is here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-304.html#post29565450


----------



## Selden Ball

Al Sherwood said:


> The OP was also looking for HDCP 2.2, I can't seem to find out if the Yamaha supports this? I don't see this confirmed on the Yamaha website.


It doesn't. There were only two HDMI chipsets available when the AVRs were designed. Of the cost-effective companies supporting Atmos, only Onkyo/Integra uses the HDMI chipset which provides (a single port of) HDCP 2.2, but that's only at 10GHz. The other three companies (Denon/Marantz, Pioneer and Yamaha) use the chipset which provides HDMI v2.0 at 18GHz, but not HDCP V2.0.

Next year's models will include the full-speed HDCP v2.2 chipsets. (Denon/Marantz has promised return-to-factory upgrades for their two top-of-the-line models next spring, but those two models haven't even started shipping just yet.)


----------



## kokishin

Jeffg8 said:


> Here is my info for the spreadsheet so far. Probably will be this month unless I run into a problem with the installer and contractor.
> 
> 
> Speaker Config: 7.1.4
> 
> AVR/Pre-pro: Marantz 7702
> 
> Atmos Speakers: B&W CCM683 (proposed)
> 
> Mounted: In celing
> 
> Ceiling Config: TF-Tm?
> 
> Other Info: B&W 803D Main, Proceed AMP5 AND Marantz MM8077 (proposed)


Thanks for the heads up. Let me know when your config is finalized and I'll be glad to add you to the spreadsheet.

BTW, TF+TM is not a supported config. TF+TR is fine.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> The DefTech PM1000 speakers (which is what I have) have the same design. Initially I was quite annoyed that the threaded support hole is at the bottom (making them extremely top-heavy), but I think they sound fine when hung "upside down". As I commented to someone else, "Hang them all and let Audyssey sort them out!"


Can the grill swing around and put back on so the logo looks correct


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> Go to post #15199 which is here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-304.html#post29565450


I spent a good hour last night looking in the thread trying to find where I downloaded it from and finally finding it...Thanks again for you hard work.


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> I spent a good hour last night looking in the thread trying to find where I downloaded it from and finally finding it...Thanks again for you hard work.


I reposted it a little while ago for those that might have missed the original post.

Always glad to help.

BTW, you are still the only member who has two systems documented on the Atmos Config spreadsheet. However, I think @tjenkins95 has a second Atmos system but I need to obtain the details of his second system.


----------



## noah katz

kokishin, thanks for the Atmos demo!

When you say burning to BD works better than to a thumb drive, which I would prefer, what do you mean?


----------



## kokishin

noah katz said:


> kokishin, thanks for the Atmos demo!
> 
> When you say burning to BD works better than to a thumb drive, which I would prefer, what do you mean?


 @robert816 provided that info. Anyway, it's easy enough to try the thumb (usb) drive so give it a whirl.


----------



## Selden Ball

bargervais said:


> Can the grill swing around and put back on so the logo looks correct


 Sorry, no. It bends around one end of the speaker where it covers up the bass reflex port, but not around the other end, where there's another threaded hole for mounting the speaker on a stand.


----------



## Selden Ball

noah katz said:


> kokishin, thanks for the Atmos demo!
> 
> When you say burning to BD works better than to a thumb drive, which I would prefer, what do you mean?


One difference is that when you play from a BD, you get to use the disc's menu system as provided by Dolby. When you play from a thumb drive or DLNA server, however, you have to use the player device's menu system.


----------



## robert816

noah katz said:


> kokishin, thanks for the Atmos demo!
> 
> When you say burning to BD works better than to a thumb drive, which I would prefer, what do you mean?


The reason I stated that was due to trying multiple ways.

With a thumb drive you have to navigate through your Blu-Ray player to find the drive, then folder and select the files individually to play. I had audio dropout issues when I tried playing the .mts files from a thumb drive.

With the Blu-Ray disc, it starts and runs as a Blu-Ray disc should, you get the menu options and the files can be easily selected from the menu, or it can be placed in store demo mode which will play different tracks over and over in a demo loop. I didn't have any audio issues with the Blu-Ray disc like I had with the thumb drive. And as with all things electronic, your experience may vary from mine.

If you have a DLNA setup on your computer, you could just stream the files to your Blu-Ray player, but again I found the disc to be the best way to play the Atmos demos.


----------



## Selden Ball

robert816 said:


> The reason I stated that was due to trying multiple ways.
> 
> With a thumb drive you have to navigate through your Blu-Ray player to find the drive, then folder and select the files individually to play. I had audio dropout issues when I tried playing the .mts files from a thumb drive.


A quibble: different BD players handle this differently. After I've selected the first file, my Sony S590 plays all the subsequent (alphabetically) files in that folder sequentially with no interaction. I also had no dropouts whatsoever.


----------



## robert816

Which is why in my post it states that your experience may vary from mine


----------



## kokishin

rhbblb1 said:


> Kokishin,
> 
> One more:
> 
> Speaker config: 7.1.4
> AVR: Denon x5200
> Atmos Speakers: Atlantic Technology IC-8.3
> Mounted: in-ceiling
> Ceiling config: TF & TR


Done.

To all posters that want to get another member's attention (other than replying to a post), you can use the MENTION tag and insert the member's user name. When creating or replying to a post, the MENTION tag looks like a little speaker above the Smiles on the right side of the message window (where you enter your text for your post). For example, the MENTION tag will create this: @rhbblb1 which will notify rhbblb1.


----------



## Gurba

Al Sherwood said:


> The OP was also looking for HDCP 2.2, I can't seem to find out if the Yamaha supports this? I don't see this confirmed on the Yamaha website.


I don't know about that but you quoted that only *Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV*. *All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4*
*
*
*This isn't entirely correct since the Yamaha also support 4Kp60 4:4:4.*


----------



## Al Sherwood

Gurba said:


> I don't know about that but you quoted that only *Onkyo/Integra AVRs will allow you to transmit 2160p24 4:4:4 or 2160p60 4:2:0 to the TV*. *All other current AVRs will only support 1080p60 4:4:4*
> 
> 
> *This isn't entirely correct since the Yamaha also support 4Kp60 4:4:4.*



Thanks for the clarification.


Yes, you are correct, but only as long as HDCP 2.2 is not in the signal chain otherwise the above (in red) is true.


----------



## mp5475

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files. After signing into your OneDrive account, select the folder "Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc" by clicking on the checkbox in the top right corner of the folder (solid blue rectangle). Then click "Download" near the top of the OneDrive page. This will initiate a download of a zip file containing all folders and files. After the zip file is downloaded, extract the contents of the zip file. Then:
> 
> Using Blu-Ray disc burning software, select Blu-Ray Data Disc
> 
> Burn all 3 (two folders and one inf file) to the root of a Blu-ray disc. Depending on your Blu-Ray burning software, make certain you finalize the disc.
> 
> To play the individual files without burning to a Blu-Ray disc, navigate to the BDMV folder, open it and look for the Stream folder. There are 11 files in there with the extension .mts, you can just download this folder, copy to a DVD data disc, or to a thumb drive (formatted for large files over 4 gig) and play them back in your Blu-Ray player.
> 
> It works better if they are burned to a Blu-Ray disc though.
> 
> Thanks to @robert816 for the BD instructions.


Thank you for awesome info!


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> +1/. Life, as John Lennon reminded is, is what happens while you're busy making plans.


OT but worthy IMO...

At 2:19: 




This John Lennon song along with _#9 Dream_, _Happy Xmas (War Is Over)_, and _Imagine_ are some of my favorites.

RIP


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> OT but worthy IMO...
> 
> At 2:19: _Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)_
> 
> This John Lennon song along with _#9 Dream_, _Happy Xmas (War Is Over)_, and _Imagine_ are some of my favorites.
> 
> RIP


+1.


----------



## saprano

Would selecting the Atmos track on T4 be a improvement even though i don't have a Atmos capable receiver and speaker setup?


----------



## Scott Simonian

saprano said:


> Would selecting the Atmos track on T4 be a improvement even though i don't have a Atmos capable receiver and speaker setup?


It's the default track and the only lossless one. You'll get the full 7.1 TrueHD mix. Just no Atmos extraction. 

Why would you not use it? Do you not have a modern HDMI receiver?


----------



## Selden Ball

saprano said:


> Would selecting the Atmos track on T4 be a improvement even though i don't have a Atmos capable receiver and speaker setup?





Scott Simonian said:


> It's the default track and the only lossless one. You'll get the full 7.1 TrueHD mix. Just no Atmos extraction.
> 
> Why would you not use it? Do you not have a modern HDMI receiver?


Some older Oppo BD players have problems with Atmos soundtracks. I dunno if that's the case here, though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Some older Oppo BD players have problems with Atmos soundtracks. I dunno if that's the case here, though.


It's not so much they have a problem with Atmos tracks, which are just TrueHD bitstreams after all - they have a problem with seamless branching on some discs where the branching has been deliberately made ultra-complex in an alleged effort to foil copying. Total Recall 2012 was one such disc way before Atmos came along. Expendables 3 is another. The Oppo 9x series can't handle it properly and you get audio dropouts. This is currently being discussed in the Oppo 93 thread.


----------



## Roger Dressler

mcascio said:


> This would be nice to know. Not to get too far off topic, but does anyone know how these speakers would reflect off a flat ceiling? It would be great to put these atmos modules into my 3D software and calculate the optimal position so it targets the primary listening position. I'm just not sure of the angles, dispersion and reflected angles off the ceiling.


Dolby advises to place the upfiring speakers at ear level. That makes it simple. The reflective spot on the ceiling is directly above the midpoint between the speaker and the MLP. Same calculation as for any other first reflection point.

If you want to know the angle of incidence/reflection, it is Tan-1 2(Dh/Ds), where Dh is distance from ears to ceiling, and Ds is distance from ears to speaker. (Tan-1 means inverse tangent, a.k.a arctan.) *Link*.


----------



## noah katz

Robert, thanks for the Atmos download info; I don't have a BD burner so I'll try my luck with the thumb drive.


----------



## rgould1669

I have 2 rows of seating and want to add ceiling speakers. But looks like SC85 I can only add 2 ceiling speakers because I already have 7.1 set up. Can 2 ceiling speakers be added one in the middle of first row slightly forward and second ceiling speaker in the middle of second row slightly forward? Or do I need to put 2 near front row? 
I bought 4 polk mc60 can I hook top middle left in series one in front row and the other over 2rd row. then run other top middle right in series? thanks.


----------



## saprano

Scott Simonian said:


> It's the default track and the only lossless one. You'll get the full 7.1 TrueHD mix. Just no Atmos extraction.
> 
> Why would you not use it? Do you not have a modern HDMI receiver?


I have a Pioneer SC-37. I thought there were 2 mixes.

I know i won't get Atmos speaker direction, but i was reading a review and the reviewer mentioned hearing a difference even though he doesn't have a Atmos setup.


----------



## randyk47

bargervais said:


> Congratulations on your new gear... how do those Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800 speakers sound to you. I noticed that the threaded key to hang these are towards the bottom on the back can you tell me if the grills can be put on upside down if I were to hang these fro the ceiling upside down as I would like the tweeters away from the ceiling. I know it's a strong question but there is a method to my madness


This is my TL Definitive ProMonitor800. Very happy with them and don't regret my purchase. Have to say they're heavy little suckers and it took some serious hand tightening to keep them from flopping forward but they've held now for about four weeks without adjustment. They're ten feet up just about the vertical wall and just on the start of the cathedral ceiling. I noticed photographing them I need to get the ladder out and touch up the paint around them.....I can still see the centering line I drew on the ceiling to attach the mounts.


----------



## Selden Ball

rgould1669 said:


> I have 2 rows of seating and want to add ceiling speakers. But looks like SC85 I can only add 2 ceiling speakers because I already have 7.1 set up. Can 2 ceiling speakers be added one in the middle of first row slightly forward and second ceiling speaker in the middle of second row slightly forward? Or do I need to put 2 near front row?
> I bought 4 polk mc60 can I hook top middle left in series one in front row and the other over 2rd row. then run other top middle right in series? thanks.


When you have just Top Middle speakers, they're intended to provide left-to-right panning, not front-to-back. In other words, if you use only two speakers with two rows of seats, I suggest putting both of the speakers slightly behind the front row and slightly ahead of the rear row.

If you decide to connect all four speakers as if they were two, I suggest connecting the two right-side speakers in series, driven from the Top Right Middle output, and similarly connecting he two left-side speakers in series, driven from the Top Left Middle output.

Alternatively, of course, you could eliminate the Rear Surround speakers, although with two rows of seats, they're more important than when you have only one row of seats.


----------



## BillY2KFRC

bargervais said:


> Congratulations on your new gear... how do those Definitive Tech Pro Monitor 800 speakers sound to you. I noticed that the threaded key to hang these are towards the bottom on the back can you tell me if the grills can be put on upside down if I were to hang these fro the ceiling upside down as I would like the tweeters away from the ceiling. I know it's a strong question but there is a method to my madness


Thank you, I'm really loving the Atmos setup. I've watched TF4, Expendables 3 and the demo disc and am very impressed. DSU rocks as well. As for the speakers themselves, I'm very happy with them. Obviously my experience with native Atmos material and giving them a real workout is limited, most of the sound they receive is ambient noise and effect provided through DSU. That said, to my ears, they blend seamlessly with my existing SVS SCS-01 speaker setup (used for the 5 lower channels) and that was my goal.

I get what you are trying to do, unfortunately the grills can only be mounted one way. The grill is one piece an extends up and over the top of the speaker.


----------



## Scott Simonian

saprano said:


> I have a Pioneer SC-37. I thought there were 2 mixes.
> 
> I know i won't get Atmos speaker direction, but i was reading a review and the reviewer mentioned hearing a difference even though he doesn't have a Atmos setup.


Yeah it's because he doesn't know what he was talking about. If he didn't have Atmos gear then he would get the regular TrueHD track. The mix doesn't change.

When we are presented with an Atmos track at home, that doesn't inherently make it better. The mix still has to be good. You can have a 'bad' Atmos mix and there are many. It was just a mix that was likable. Being encoded in Atmos allowed us as a consumer to *decode* it and then have things like discrete overheads.


----------



## noah katz

Selden Ball said:


> When you have just Top Middle speakers, they're intended to provide left-to-right panning, not front-to-back.


Many have made this point but I think it might be overstated.

Seems to me that with only one pair of heights you'd still get front/pack pans. but instead of being all at the height level it would be an arc peaking at the height speakers' locations.


----------



## kokishin

noah katz said:


> Robert, thanks for the Atmos download info; I don't have a BD burner so I'll try my luck with the thumb drive.


I provided the Dolby Atmos demo files (painstakingly pulled from baidu.com) and the download info. Robert provided the instructions to burn a BD or mount to a USB flash drive.

Let us know how the thumb drive works out for you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

noah katz said:


> Many have made this point but I think it might be overstated.
> 
> Seems to me that with only one pair of heights you'd still get front/pack pans. but instead of being all at the height level it would be an arc peaking at the height speakers' locations.


It very well should. If not then that means that information is being lost.


----------



## noah katz

kokishin said:


> I provided the Dolby Atmos demo files (painstakingly pulled from baidu.com) and the download info. Robert provided the instructions to burn a BD or mount to a USB flash drive.


Yes, sorry about that, thanks again!


----------



## roxiedog13

roxiedog13 said:


> I have a 7.1 system now everything is set up per Dolby THX with the exception of my rear speakers which are in-ceiling. I went with in ceiling for the rear simply because my room is 30 feet long and the screen and three x three rows of seating are at the first half of the room. The in-ceiling speakers are angled down towards the seats and to be honest I hear sounds from the rear as I should not from the ceiling, so it works just fine. Also the second row of seating is on a raised deck so rear speakers mounted 30 feet back would have to be mounted high in order to be functional .
> 
> Anyway, all I have to do for 7.1.4 is add the 4 ceiling speakers and install the new AVR X7200 when it arrives.
> 
> Question is: Is one better than the other or both equally as good to deliver the best Atmos experience? My gut feeling is the addition of the 4 ceiling is better
> and I have heard others say removing the rear speakers did not yield the same quality .
> 
> One more question while I'm at it: I have four JVC 10" tall (5" driver) bookshelf full range speakers in flat black that would be very easy to install. They are an older box system speaker
> but really great for my original HT system before the upgrade. Is there any reason I should not use these for the 4 ceiling mounted Atmos speakers only?>
> I have Paradigm Monitor 11 for front, ADP in wall sides and Paradigm in-ceiling for the rear.


 
Bumping this up to see if someone can comment


----------



## saprano

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah it's because he doesn't know what he was talking about. If he didn't have Atmos gear then he would get the regular TrueHD track. The mix doesn't change.
> 
> When we are presented with an Atmos track at home, that doesn't inherently make it better. The mix still has to be good. You can have a 'bad' Atmos mix and there are many. It was just a mix that was likable. Being encoded in Atmos allowed us as a consumer to *decode* it and then have things like discrete overheads.


That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## Apgood

Deleted by author as was just redundant clutter about 4k video pass thru. 

Teach me to read to end of thread before replying to things.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> I presume this is a "fake" Atmos enabled speaker config? "Fake" meaning the Supersat 3s are not true Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> Please check the edits in the spreadsheet.
> 
> Thanks


kokishin, you are correct in that the Supersat 3's are not Dolby enabled... For the benefit of anyone who is trying to decide whether they have to have the Dolby-enabled label on their speakers, I will lay out my thought processes. Bottom line, they work, at least as well, and I believe, better than the Definitive Technology A60's that I started with. If you have some decent smallish speakers, I believe that you can make it work. 

Those on the forum who have a better technical background might like to poke holes in my logic trail, but at the end of it, my set up works for me.

*Why "fake" Dolby-enabled does not bother me...*

*First, and foremost, it works exceedingly well. Second, I do not subscribe to the design elements that Dolby is imposing on the manufacturers of the drivers/speakers.*

*In my mind, if you want to manipulate the signal, e.g. +5 db at 5,000 hz and down 7 db at 12,000, then do it in the digital domain...that is, where you are generating the signal. It will be cheaper, more accurate, and more pleasing sounding than trying to accomplish the same thing in the analog domain. The use of fairly extreme cross-overs, inductors, and the like will introduce undesirable side effects that then need to be controlled adding still another piece (albeit small) of hardware that will exhibit certain characteristics.*

*And, they want you to throw a baffle in front of the driver to do what exactly? Make the sound more diffuse? There are better solutions...such as a folded-ribbon tweeter.*

*And, there are even issues with the premise of HRTF (Dr. Toole). Keep in mind that this concept is based upon an ideal model (ear structure) that is unlikely to be found in the natural world. Look at your closest friends and note how many of their ears are even the same, let alone matching the HRTF ideal model. It will influence the way that every one of us perceives the sound.*

*Okay--IF we accept that the best place to achieve this complex signal manipulation is in the digital domain, then you should do that and feed that signal to the "best" speaker that you can afford, physically install, etc.*

*So, if we have fed that ideal signal to a high quality speaker capable of reproducing that signal correctly, then we should expect that it will be reproduced as close to the ideal HRTF as possible.*

*So, I do not agree that the "Dolby-enabled" speaker needs to be anything of the kind unless the AVR with the DSP chip that is producing the Atmos signal is not doing anything special and just outputting a full-spectrum signal. Unless, that is, you want to use a driver that is stamped "Dolby-Enabled"...oh, yeah, and of course, pay the Dolby licensing fee.*

*So, I take my very capable speaker and mount it on a ball-joint, on top of a stand, and I now have an Atmos capable speaker that I can manipulate in 3 dimensions--laterally...from side to side, up and down, and forward and back, as well as rotate about those 3 axes. And, I did not have to cut any holes in my ceiling...works for me.*

*And, best of all, it works very, very well...more on that later...*


----------



## Aras_Volodka

A question for those of you who have 7.1.4 setups... I've noticed it mentioned a few times the rear L/R should not line up with the front L/R. My room is very narrow... so if I place my rear L/R speakers closer to each other... I think they might get a bit too close. (3' away from each other... if I recall one of the Dolby specs said something like "no closer than 4 feet"?) 

The one huge issue I have in my space is that the left rear speaker is almost near the left rear corner of the room which is a hallway. So if I move it away from the wall (directly across from the front Left speaker) I lose the "left" sensation... it just sounds like it's coming from behind. I can't move it any more to the left from that position because it will block off the hallway completely. But the right speaker still very clearly sounds as if it's coming from the right. One idea I had was to bring the right speaker closer to the center, have the speakers 3' away from each other, but instead of angled in (like in the dolby spec) just placing the speakers facing forwards towards the front of the room. 

I did finally get around to hearing Grimani on home theater geeks... he mentioned he puts the rears closer together than the dolby spec. I can see the logic in his thinking that it adds contrast to the L/R surrounds... I'm gonna try it out in a few hours and see how it sounds unless if you guys think it's guaranteed to produce an awful result.

*update*

I moved the rear left speaker in a lot and the right in a little bit with the 4' to spare... I was able to place the left speaker far enough left that I still get that left/right separation. Things are sounding much better now. Quite a bit more 3D sounding actually... now I just need to get those modules in


----------



## pasender91

noah katz said:


> Many have made this point but I think it might be overstated.
> 
> Seems to me that with only one pair of heights you'd still get front/pack pans. but instead of being all at the height level it would be an arc peaking at the height speakers' locations.


Well, in the "too-much-discussed" case of the helicopter fly-by, it doesn't fly on an arc but in a straight line from front to back, so in this scenario (and many others) 4 top speakers ought to do a much better job than 2.


----------



## noah katz

dvdwilly3 said:


> ...In my mind, if you want to manipulate the signal, e.g. +5 db at 5,000 hz and down 7 db at 12,000, then do it in the digital domain...


I thought it is done in the digital domain, i.e. selecting Atmos speakers causes Audyssey to add the HRTF EQ.



dvdwilly3 said:


> ...And, they want you to throw a baffle in front of the driver to do what exactly? Make the sound more diffuse?


I believe it's the opposite; the baffling absorbs off-axis sound so as not to be heard as much directly.



pasender91 said:


> Well, in the "too-much-discussed" case of the helicopter fly-by, it doesn't fly on an arc but in a straight line from front to back, so in this scenario (and many others) 4 top speakers ought to do a much better job than 2.


I didn't say otherwise; my point was that they still pan, they're not stuck in the middle at the heights.


----------



## NorthSky

Gurba said:


> http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/1145...ration.Disc.2014.1080p.Blu-ray.AVC.TrueHD.7.1


----------



## Jeffg8

ATMOS=BROKE
I upgraded to the Marantz 7702. So today pulled the trigger on 4 B&W CCM683 in ceiling and 2 pair of B&W DS3 to update my current side surrounds and add new rears. But of course since I now need 6 more channels of amplification I also ordered a Marantz MM8077...not really sure why I didn't just stick with a receiver. And finally while I'm at it, I hadn't purchased the matching center for my mains so I ordered the B&W HTM2D and stand. Hopefully the damage to the room and marriage will be minimal. Should be installed in a couple of weeks.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah it's because he doesn't know what he was talking about. If he didn't have Atmos gear then he would get the regular TrueHD track. The mix doesn't change.


I think the point was that Atmos tracks can sound better even on legacy gear because they are mixed better (more aggressively perhaps) to begin with. There may be some truth in that - certainly all the legacy discs I have that were Atmos theatrical mixes do have terrific SQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> Many have made this point but I think it might be overstated.
> 
> Seems to me that with only one pair of heights you'd still get front/pack pans. but instead of being all at the height level it would be an arc peaking at the height speakers' locations.


I agree with that Noah - but it would most often be an inferior effect to a full overhead pan, front to back, at the 'height' level.


----------



## randyk47

Jeffg8 said:


> ATMOS=BROKE
> I upgraded to the Marantz 7702. So today pulled the trigger on 4 B&W CCM683 in ceiling and 2 pair of B&W DS3 to update my current side surrounds and add new rears. But of course since I now need 6 more channels of amplification I also ordered a Marantz MM8077...not really sure why I didn't just stick with a receiver. And finally while I'm at it, I hadn't purchased the matching center for my mains so I ordered the B&W HTM2D and stand. Hopefully the damage to the room and marriage will be minimal. Should be installed in a couple of weeks.


Different equipment here but same scenario. What started out as an AVR upgrade turned into a fairly major or at least expensive upgrading of speakers, amps, wiring, etc. The good news is the finished setup and result was worth it and even the spousal unit likes it. Lacking many or good ATMOS sources right now notwithstanding DSU alone is almost worth the effort and expense.


----------



## bargervais

randyk47 said:


> Different equipment here but same scenario. What started out as an AVR upgrade turned into a fairly major or at least expensive upgrading of speakers, amps, wiring, etc. The good news is the finished setup and result was worth it and even the spousal unit likes it. Lacking many or good ATMOS sources right now notwithstanding DSU alone is almost worth the effort and expense.


Even a budget conscience upgrade it not cheap I feel the upgrade Is well worth it, DSU along gives me peace of mind that money well spent.


----------



## randyk47

bargervais said:


> Even a budget conscience upgrade it not cheap I feel the upgrade Is well worth it, DSU along gives me peace of mind that money well spent.


Luckily, while it wasn't cheap, I did leverage sales and only paid full MSRP for the new speaker wire. My AV store even gave me some off the AVR but I was buying several things at the same time so they gave me a "package" deal.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I think the point was that Atmos tracks can sound better even on legacy gear because they are mixed better (more aggressively perhaps) to begin with. There may be some truth in that - certainly all the legacy discs I have that were Atmos theatrical mixes do have terrific SQ.


That's exactly what I said in the same post, Keith.

I know, I get it.  




Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah it's because he doesn't know what he was talking about. If he didn't have Atmos gear then he would get the regular TrueHD track. The mix doesn't change.
> 
> When we are presented with an Atmos track at home, that doesn't inherently make it better. *The mix still has to be good. You can have a 'bad' Atmos mix and there are many. It was just a mix that was likable.* Being encoded in Atmos allowed us as a consumer to *decode* it and then have things like discrete overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> That's exactly what I said in the same post, Keith.
> 
> I know, I get it.


Oh sorry dude. I thought you were saying the exact opposite. D'oh..


----------



## kokishin

*OT: Did avsforum.com Go Down Again?*

I know this is OT but this is my favorite thread featuring some of my fav posters. Don't blush.

Did avsforum.com just go down again, say ~10:15am PT for ~10 minutes?

It did for me anyway.

Seems like it has been going down a lot lately.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kokishin said:


> I know this is OT but this is my favorite thread featuring some of my fav posters. Don't blush.
> 
> Did avsforum.com just go down again, say ~10:15am PT for ~10 minutes?
> 
> It did for me anyway.
> 
> Seems like it has been going down a lot lately.


I was hung on the spinning circle about that time...


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> I know this is OT but this is my favorite thread featuring some of my fav posters. Don't blush.
> 
> Did avsforum.com just go down again, say ~10:15am PT for ~10 minutes?
> 
> It did for me anyway.
> 
> Seems like it has been going down a lot lately.


I've had a few issues during the day this week. Seems to come back after a little while.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> I know this is OT but this is my favorite thread featuring some of my fav posters. Don't blush.
> 
> Did avsforum.com just go down again, say ~10:15am PT for ~10 minutes?
> 
> It did for me anyway.
> 
> Seems like it has been going down a lot lately.


It has been slow to respond for a few days and has been down now and then during that time. I guess they are having problems or doing some major upgrade or maintenance work.


----------



## bkeeler10

Hey Keith, you mentioned (a few days ago and several pages back) that you had attended some sort of screening for Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 and you were going to to a write-up on your experience of Atmos in particular. Have you done that and posted it somewhere else, or has it yet to be written? Thanks.


----------



## newfmp3

Jeffg8 said:


> ATMOS=BROKE
> I upgraded to the Marantz 7702. So today pulled the trigger on 4 B&W CCM683 in ceiling and 2 pair of B&W DS3 to update my current side surrounds and add new rears. But of course since I now need 6 more channels of amplification I also ordered a Marantz MM8077...not really sure why I didn't just stick with a receiver. And finally while I'm at it, I hadn't purchased the matching center for my mains so I ordered the B&W HTM2D and stand. Hopefully the damage to the room and marriage will be minimal. Should be installed in a couple of weeks.


Add me to that list as well. Amp upgrade turned into Atmos upgrade. I hadn't considered going all the way with it until a generous forum member here gave a coupon code for a deal on my 2 ceiling speakers...which quickly turned into 4 speakers. Now I'm all in! I am curious as to how the woman will respond to me cutting 4 holes in the ceiling the weekend. Hmmm


If nobody hears from me on Monday... it was nice knowing you all.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bkeeler10 said:


> Hey Keith, you mentioned (a few days ago and several pages back) that you had attended some sort of screening for Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 and you were going to to a write-up on your experience of Atmos in particular. Have you done that and posted it somewhere else, or has it yet to be written? Thanks.


Sorry I know this question is for Keith but I saw the film in Atmos... I wasn't very impressed with the mix compared to "maze runner" which had some cool rear stuff going on. I remember thinking the rears weren't very active in the hunger games. There were some awesome moments though... like when the dropships take off... it sounds like they are going waaaaaaaaaaaay up in the air, and the gradual sound of the drop ship going away sounds very realistic. I don't remember much else aside from atmospheric sounds, particularly the elevator shots. If you are a hunger games fan & plan on seeing it then 15 bucks is worth it for Atmos viewing. For me it was almost worth it... I need my Atmos fix every now and then. It's a better film than many of the recent Atmos releases... unless we are talking kids flicks or GOTG. 

I've only seen a few films in Atmos theaters... the other was "into the storm", which was a messy mix but there were some fantastic moments... particularly interior scenes where rain was hitting the roof... sounded VERY real. It's a shame that this film & maze runner didn't see bd Atmos release... I really want to hear that rain hitting the car roof again, especially to test it on my system. 

Ridley Scott's Exodus is the next Atmos release worth seeing possibly & then there's the hobbit. I'm betting those will be pretty cool mixes.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Hey Keith, you mentioned (a few days ago and several pages back) that you had attended some sort of screening for Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 and you were going to to a write-up on your experience of Atmos in particular. Have you done that and posted it somewhere else, or has it yet to be written? Thanks.


You have caught me on the back foot. I am really behind with all my jobs, and that includes that one. There's no excuse. I have guests all weekend and I am not sure if I will have time tomorrow to do it, but if it isn't posted here by Monday evening (London time) I give you carte blanche to kick my ass. It is quite an interesting report, or will be when I write it up. Dolby invited me to a pre-screening of Hobbit 3 as well but it is next week and I am having more maxillofacial surgery next week so I had to say no, unfortunately. So yeah - thanks for calling me out on this - I will do it.


----------



## kbarnes701

newfmp3 said:


> Add me to that list as well. Amp upgrade turned into Atmos upgrade. I hadn't considered going all the way with it until a generous forum member here gave a coupon code for a deal on my 2 ceiling speakers...which quickly turned into 4 speakers. Now I'm all in! I am curious as to how the woman will respond to me cutting 4 holes in the ceiling the weekend. Hmmm
> 
> 
> If nobody hears from me on Monday... it was nice knowing you all.


Do it while she's out buying (more) shoes. Once it's done, it's too late to complain. Tell her it adds value to the house too - 'Atmos-enabled' will look good in real estate details when you move.  And remember to stress how much you _saved_ on the speakers, not how much they cost. And remember that it is _always_ better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry I know this question is for Keith but I saw the film in Atmos... I wasn't very impressed with the mix compared to "maze runner" which had some cool rear stuff going on. I remember thinking the rears weren't very active in the hunger games. There were some awesome moments though... like when the dropships take off... it sounds like they are going waaaaaaaaaaaay up in the air, and the gradual sound of the drop ship going away sounds very realistic. I don't remember much else aside from atmospheric sounds, particularly the elevator shots. If you are a hunger games fan & plan on seeing it then 15 bucks is worth it for Atmos viewing. For me it was almost worth it... I need my Atmos fix every now and then. It's a better film than many of the recent Atmos releases... unless we are talking kids flicks or GOTG.


I made a lot of notes during the movie, so I should be able to give a blow by blow account of the sound. As you rightly say, there was a lot of talking and stuff in Mockingjay... very little **** got blown up. I expect it will all happen in Part 2.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> You have caught me on the back foot. I am really behind with all my jobs, and that includes that one. There's no excuse. I have guests all weekend and I am not sure if I will have time tomorrow to do it, but if it isn't posted here by Monday evening (London time) I give you carte blanche to kick my ass.


LOL well I just wanted to make sure _I_ hadn't missed it. Your reports are always an interesting and informative read though, so I'm not letting you off the hook. 

Edit: Thanks also to Aras for your thoughts on it. I am indeed a Hunger Games fan so I will be seeing it, but probably at home. I imagine it will be released in Atmos for blu ray, and hopefully by then I will be set up with Atmos at home.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Do it while she's out buying (more) shoes. Once it's done, it's too late to complain. Tell her it adds value to the house too - 'Atmos-enabled' will look good in real estate details when you move.  And remember to stress how much you _saved_ on the speakers, not how much they cost. And remember that it is _always_ better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission


Even better... Buy her a pair of shoes and when she complains, say "then you don't want the shoes I got you at the same time either?"  It's a good thing if it says "Louboutin" on them, btw.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Fingers crossed! I have Onkyo Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers on my Christmas list but my electrician is coming over tomorrow to look at how he can run wire up into my walls and above the ceiling. I have plaster walls and ceiling with 3 bedrooms above. If this works I will go with original plan of Def Tech Monitor 800's mounted on ceiling for a full 5.2.4 set-up.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> You have caught me on the back foot. I am really behind with all my jobs, and that includes that one. There's no excuse. I have guests all weekend and I am not sure if I will have time tomorrow to do it, but if it isn't posted here by Monday evening (London time) I give you carte blanche to kick my ass. It is quite an interesting report, or will be when I write it up. Dolby invited me to a pre-screening of Hobbit 3 as well but it is next week and *I am having more maxillofacial surgery next week* so I had to say no, unfortunately. So yeah - thanks for calling me out on this - I will do it.


That'll teach you to engage in verbal fisticuffs on the forum.

Seriously, good luck on your upcoming surgery!


----------



## newfmp3

kbarnes701 said:


> Do it while she's out buying (more) shoes. Once it's done, it's too late to complain. Tell her it adds value to the house too - 'Atmos-enabled' will look good in real estate details when you move.  And remember to stress how much you _saved_ on the speakers, not how much they cost. And remember that it is _always_ better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission



I take it you have done this before 


Good luck with that surgery.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Finally succumbing... reluctantly buying used copies of expendables 3 & TF4 *shudder*. But I need my Atmos fix!


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> Finally succumbing... reluctantly buying used copies of expendables 3 & TF4 *shudder*. But I need my Atmos fix!


If you like energetic dancing, music and (mostly) attractive people, you might consider _Step Up: All In_
Relatively little time is wasted on dialog or plot.


----------



## Mike Garrett

My AV7702 shipped today.  should have my speakers up this weekend and trying out some Atmos material by end of next week.


----------



## Scott Simonian

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> My AV7702 shipped today.  should have my speakers up this weekend and trying out some Atmos material by end of next week.


Sweet!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> If you like energetic dancing, music and (mostly) attractive people, you might consider _Step Up: All In_
> Relatively little time is wasted on dialog or plot.


HAH! Not that desperate!


----------



## kingwiggi

noah katz said:


> Many have made this point but I think it might be overstated.
> 
> Seems to me that with only one pair of heights you'd still get front/pack pans. but instead of being all at the height level it would be an arc peaking at the height speakers' locations.


FWIW I tried reconfiguring my setup to 9.2.2 following the comments made by Anthony Grimaldi. I reconfigured the TF to TM and actually quite liked the effect although at times it was a little distracting as the overhead sound wasn't as seamless. You could most definitely follow the arc which for me was probably about a 10ft pan.

Fun to listen to for a while but much better with the four ceiling speakers.


----------



## kingwiggi

bargervais said:


> That's what I will do my biggest fear and anxiety has not been about building boxes over the speakers but it's cutting the holes LOL Because as soon as you start cutting there is no turning back. I think I have paced enough I feel I have the correct locations now it's a matter of getting started with the first cut... I'll be doing that this weekend.


One tip I could offer is when cutting the holes hold your saw at between 45-60 degrees all the way around and cut from the middle. It makes it a bit uncomfortable but it creates a natural ledge for the piece that your cutting out to fit back into if you ever need to patch and repair the hole. Just leave the piece you have cut out in the attic close the the hole so that you don't lose it. I also put a few pencil marks on the pieces so that they could be orientated properly if I needed to drop them back into place.


----------



## audioguy

Just ran a quickie 3 position Audyssey run on my 7.4.4 Marantz 7702.

Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious.

Played parts of some demo cuts from a bunch action fiix and the opening 5 or 10 minutes from Expendables 3.

For grins, I turned off all of the speakers but the 4 ceiling speakers while DSU was doing it's thing. Not a lot going on (sure don't need very powerful speakers) but whatever gets put there sure does greatly improve the listening experience.

My side and rear surrounds are at 6 feet and the sense of 3D envelopment was clearly evident in a number of sequences. I would not lower them to ear level (42 inches in my case versus 72 inches currently) but may 12 to 18 inches if I can figure out how to do so without destroying my theater. Ideally, I could put them on some stands on a temporary basis and see how much that improves things before I go tearing up walls.

I made the correct decision. Not an inexpensive one but great improvement for within movies. Like others, I now get to start going through my movie collection and re-watching.

Anybody besides me think the bass is better even when running DSU?? And really different with an Atmos disc???


----------



## Selden Ball

audioguy said:


> Just ran a quickie 3 position Audyssey run on my 7.4.4 Marantz 7702.
> 
> Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious.


 


> Played parts of some demo cuts from a bunch action fiix and the opening 5 or 10 minutes from Expendables 3.
> 
> For grins, I turned off all of the speakers but the 4 ceiling speakers while DSU was doing it's thing. Not a lot going on (sure don't need very powerful speakers) but whatever gets put there sure does greatly improve the listening experience.
> 
> My side and rear surrounds are at 6 feet and the sense of 3D envelopment was clearly evident in a number of sequences. I would not lower them to ear level (42 inches in my case versus 72 inches currently) but may 12 to 18 inches if I can figure out how to do so without destroying my theater. Ideally, I could put them on some stands on a temporary basis and see how much that improves things before I go tearing up walls.
> 
> I made the correct decision. Not an inexpensive one but great improvement for within movies. Like others, I now get to start going through my movie collection and re-watching.
> 
> Anybody besides me think the bass is better even when running DSU?? And really different with an Atmos disc???


 Anecdotally, it seems as if there might be an improvement in the version of XT32 that's provided in the Atmos-capable receivers. I.e. many people report that it seems better than the version in non-Atmos equipment. Unfortunately, however, nobody has been able to directly compare the results for old and new AVRs using OmniMic or REW, so it could be all placebo and expectation bias. FWIW, kbarnes decided not to update his copy of Audyssey Pro, when he discovered that the standard consumer version made his room's acoustics in bass frequencies almost ruler flat.

To validly claim that it's "really different with an Atmos disc" would need a comparison between an Atmos and non-Atmos soundtrack of the same movie: different movie titles are going to be mixed differently. We may have to wait until February's release of the Atmos version of _Gravity_ to find out for sure. In general, however, it seems (again anecdotally) that Atmos soundtracks (even those down-mixed to 7.1 DTS-HD MA) are making much more use of the surround speaker channels than has been common in the past. Moving objects around seems to be a lot easier than manually selecting which speaker channels get what sounds. This certainly would affect the low bass managed frequencies sent to the subwoofer.


----------



## pcoyle327

When will dolby atmos start being used in most blu ray? I'm waiting on upgrading my receiver (plus getting 4 new speakers). I'm also curious on the other formats like DTS to put out whats considered there 3d audio version.


----------



## Selden Ball

pcoyle327 said:


> When will dolby atmos start being used in most blu ray?


There's no way to know. In most cases the original movie has to have been released in Atmos format, then the studio has to decide to release it to the home market in Atmos format, too. There are reasonably well-founded rumors that some old non-Atmos movies are being remixed in Atmos for home release, but there's no way to know how successful that'll be.


> I'm waiting on upgrading my receiver (plus getting 4 new speakers). I'm also curious on the other formats like DTS to put out whats considered there 3d audio version.


 As are we all!


----------



## Scott Simonian

pcoyle327 said:


> When will dolby atmos start being used in most blu ray? I'm waiting on upgrading my receiver (plus getting 4 new speakers). I'm also curious on the other formats like DTS to put out whats considered there 3d audio version.


The thoughts of pretty much everybody in this thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That'll teach you to engage in verbal fisticuffs on the forum.
> 
> Seriously, good luck on your upcoming surgery!


LOL - thanks chi-guy....


----------



## kbarnes701

newfmp3 said:


> I take it you have done this before


 Once or twice 



newfmp3 said:


> Good luck with that surgery.


Thanks - it's part of an ongoing dental restoration. After next week I have two more sessions scheduled and then I am all done. Should all be completed next summer, all being well.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> One tip I could offer is when cutting the holes hold your saw at between 45-60 degrees all the way around and cut from the middle. It makes it a bit uncomfortable but it creates a natural ledge for the piece that your cutting out to fit back into if you ever need to patch and repair the hole. Just leave the piece you have cut out in the attic close the the hole so that you don't lose it. I also put a few pencil marks on the pieces so that they could be orientated properly if I needed to drop them back into place.


Great advice. I use that technique too when cutting holes in drywall before pulling wires through walls. Makes it really easy to patch the wall afterwards - a light skim and sanding are all that's needed for an invisible repair.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Just ran a quickie 3 position Audyssey run on my 7.4.4 Marantz 7702.
> 
> Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious. Goodness gracious.
> 
> Played parts of some demo cuts from a bunch action fiix and the opening 5 or 10 minutes from Expendables 3.
> 
> For grins, I turned off all of the speakers but the 4 ceiling speakers while DSU was doing it's thing. Not a lot going on (sure don't need very powerful speakers) but whatever gets put there sure does greatly improve the listening experience.
> 
> My side and rear surrounds are at 6 feet and the sense of 3D envelopment was clearly evident in a number of sequences. I would not lower them to ear level (42 inches in my case versus 72 inches currently) but may 12 to 18 inches if I can figure out how to do so without destroying my theater. Ideally, I could put them on some stands on a temporary basis and see how much that improves things before I go tearing up walls.
> 
> I made the correct decision. Not an inexpensive one but great improvement for within movies. Like others, I now get to start going through my movie collection and re-watching.
> 
> Anybody besides me think the bass is better even when running DSU?? And really different with an Atmos disc???


Great job, Chuck. Good plan to put those surrounds on temporary stands first - you may find there's no need to move them. I lowered mine (also wall mounted) as much as I could and feel it is better, but YMMV in your room, with your seating distance etc.


----------



## Gurba

I moved my 4 surround from almost ceiling height Down to ear Level and in my opinion the sound from the ceiling speakers came through much better. I've only watched the Atmos demos since I'm waiting for my New sub. I have watch a few non-atmos films and switching between DD Surround and Straight the difference is fairly noticable With a lot more room/air in the sound. With the surround up high the sound was more or less blended together.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gurba said:


> I moved my 4 surround from almost ceiling height Down to ear Level and in my opinion the sound from the ceiling speakers came through much better. I've only watched the Atmos demos since I'm waiting for my New sub. I have watch a few non-atmos films and switching between DD Surround and Straight the difference is fairly noticable With a lot more room/air in the sound. With the surround up high the sound was more or less blended together.


Agreed - the more separation between the surrounds and the overheads, the more difference between them will be noticed when replaying content. If the room permits it, and so long as no listener is blocked from line of sight (line of ear?) to the surround speakers, then it seems to me best to place the surrounds at ear height where possible. This is how Dolby do it in their own HT demo room FWIW. The closer the surrounds are to the overhead speakers, the more they will 'blend together' and this will defeat the object, at least to some extent. As has been observed many times, in the old days we mounted our surrounds up higher to create some sort of overhead envelopment. Now that we have physical speakers over our heads, that is no longer necessary and the surrounds can do what their name implies: surround us - i.e. place sound _around_ us.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed - the more separation between the surrounds and the overheads, the more difference between them will be noticed when replaying content. If the room permits it, and so long as no listener is blocked from line of sight (line of ear?) to the surround speakers, then it seems to me best to place the surrounds at ear height where possible. This is how Dolby do it in their own HT demo room FWIW. The closer the surrounds are to the overhead speakers, the more they will 'blend together' and this will defeat the object, at least to some extent. As has been observed many times, in the old days we mounted our surrounds up higher to create some sort of overhead envelopment. Now that we have physical speakers over our heads, that is no longer necessary and the surrounds can do what their name implies: surround us - i.e. place sound _around_ us.


Currently my surrounds are 58" high and my TR in ceiling are 89 inches, only 2.5 ft difference. If I move my surrounds to ear level is it the tweeter that needs to be ear level? The reason I ask is my surrounds are 13" high so there is a lot of room for interpretation in regards to what should be ear level. Also if I move the tweeter to ear level, given my high back recliners, most of the speaker will essentially be firing in to the back of the recliner, but perhaps not the tweeter...what would u recommend? Thanks


----------



## aaranddeeman

asharma said:


> Currently my surrounds are 58" high and my TR in ceiling are 89 inches, only 2.5 ft difference. If I move my surrounds to ear level is it the tweeter that needs to be ear level? The reason I ask is my surrounds are 13" high so there is a lot of room for interpretation in regards to what should be ear level. Also if I move the tweeter to ear level, given my high back recliners, most of the speaker will essentially be firing in to the back of the recliner, but perhaps not the tweeter...what would u recommend? Thanks


Yes. Tweeter is expected to be at ear level.

1. You can move them a bit up (about 12") than ear level and tilt towards MLP. 
2. You can move them up and also 110 degree (than 90 degree) from MLP

Besides firing into the sofa, the person on your side may also block them if they are exactly at ear level.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Currently my surrounds are 58" high and my TR in ceiling are 89 inches, only 2.5 ft difference. If I move my surrounds to ear level is it the tweeter that needs to be ear level? The reason I ask is my surrounds are 13" high so there is a lot of room for interpretation in regards to what should be ear level. Also if I move the tweeter to ear level, given my high back recliners, most of the speaker will essentially be firing in to the back of the recliner, but perhaps not the tweeter...what would u recommend? Thanks


I'd lower them so that the entire speaker is not blocked by the back of the recliner. This will place them above ear level but lower than they currently are if I read you correctly. I would calculate the distance difference before you do anything though - if the resulting change only gives you 6 inches more separation I'd not bother. If it gave me a foot or more of separation, I would. Yes, I'd work to tweeter height where possible, but I wouldn't want any part of a speaker firing into the back of a chair.


----------



## asharma

aaranddeeman said:


> Yes. Tweeter is expected to be at ear level.
> 
> 1. You can move them a bit up (about 12") than ear level and tilt towards MLP.
> 2. You can move them up and also 110 degree (than 90 degree) from MLP
> 
> Besides firing into the sofa, the person on your side may also block them if they are exactly at ear level.


Thanks when u say 110 degrees do u mean pointed slightly toward the rear, away from the MLP...also when u say 12" higher than ear level, you are referring to the tweeter 12" higher than ear level?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Selden Ball said:


> Anecdotally, it seems as if there might be an improvement in the version of XT32 that's provided in the Atmos-capable receivers. I.e. many people report that it seems better than the version in non-Atmos equipment. Unfortunately, however, nobody has been able to directly compare the results for old and new AVRs using OmniMic or REW, so it could be all placebo and expectation bias. FWIW, kbarnes decided not to update his copy of Audyssey Pro, when he discovered that the standard consumer version made his room's acoustics in bass frequencies almost ruler flat.
> 
> To validly claim that it's "really different with an Atmos disc" would need a comparison between an Atmos and non-Atmos soundtrack of the same movie: different movie titles are going to be mixed differently. We may have to wait until February's release of the Atmos version of _Gravity_ to find out for sure. In general, however, it seems (again anecdotally) that Atmos soundtracks (even those down-mixed to 7.1 DTS-HD MA) are making much more use of the surround speaker channels than has been common in the past. Moving objects around seems to be a lot easier than manually selecting which speaker channels get what sounds. This certainly would affect the low bass managed frequencies sent to the subwoofer.



to be clear I HAVE been able to copare REW results as I KNOW what mine used to look like and what it does now...I unfortuanlty dont have access to my old REW files though which is a shame so i cant show proof...but "new" xt32 is in fact a big improvement.

if it isnt...then how can you explain I needed 4 filters with a minidsp with "old xt32" and NONE with the new XT32??


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd lower them so that the entire speaker is not blocked by the back of the recliner. This will place them above ear level but lower than they currently are if I read you correctly. I would calculate the distance difference before you do anything though - if the resulting change only gives you 6 inches more separation I'd not bother. If it gave me a foot or more of separation, I would. Yes, I'd work to tweeter height where possible, but I wouldn't want any part of a speaker firing into the back of a chair.


Perrrrrfect, thanks man!!!!


----------



## briansxx

*Onkyo Atmos Speaker placement/selection*

Hi, All.

I have the Onkyo TX-NR 636 and I bought the Atmos-enabled modules that can sit on top of the front or surround speakers. Unfortunately, Onkyo does not tell you what menu option to select when setting up these modules. As they claim to have an "Atmos network" element inside, I assumed I would select the "Dolby-enabled speaker (front)" option when defining the height speaker type. When I checked with Onkyo tech support, they said use the "top middle" option, which makes no sense to me. If anyone can help resolve this conflict in advice, I'd appreciate it very much.

On another note, I have a pair of pretty decent non-Dolby speakers I could ceiling mount instead of using the Atmos-enabled modules. Before I make the decision to implement them (the wiring will be a tough job), I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether they would be superior to the Atmos modules.

Any help much appreciated!

Best Regards,

Brian


----------



## asharma

briansxx said:


> Hi, All.
> 
> I have the Onkyo TX-NR 636 and I bought the Atmos-enabled modules that can sit on top of the front or surround speakers. Unfortunately, Onkyo does not tell you what menu option to select when setting up these modules. As they claim to have an "Atmos network" element inside, I assumed I would select the "Dolby-enabled speaker (front)" option when defining the height speaker type. When I checked with Onkyo tech support, they said use the "top middle" option, which makes no sense to me. If anyone can help resolve this conflict in advice, I'd appreciate it very much.
> 
> On another note, I have a pair of pretty decent non-Dolby speakers I could ceiling mount instead of using the Atmos-enabled modules. Before I make the decision to implement them (the wiring will be a tough job), I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether they would be superior to the Atmos modules.
> 
> Any help much appreciated!
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian


I had these upfiring modules. Returned them. Installed 4 in ceiling speakers instead. Didn't find the modules to be very effective. Yes, I felt more immersed, but I didn't feel like the sound was coming from overhead...


----------



## jdsmoothie

briansxx said:


> Hi, All.
> 
> I have the Onkyo TX-NR 636 and I bought the Atmos-enabled modules that can sit on top of the front or surround speakers. Unfortunately, Onkyo does not tell you what menu option to select when setting up these modules. As they claim to have an "Atmos network" element inside, I assumed I would select the "Dolby-enabled speaker (front)" option when defining the height speaker type. When I checked with Onkyo tech support, they said use the "top middle" option, which makes no sense to me. If anyone can help resolve this conflict in advice, I'd appreciate it very much.
> 
> On another note, I have a pair of pretty decent non-Dolby speakers I could ceiling mount instead of using the Atmos-enabled modules. Before I make the decision to implement them (the wiring will be a tough job), I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether they would be superior to the Atmos modules.
> 
> Any help much appreciated!
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian


Yes it makes more sense to use the Dolby Enabled speaker setting, but if Onkyo is recommending Top Middle, then give it a go as well and then use whichever setting you feel provides the best overhead audio experience in your room.


----------



## truwarrior22

Anyone know if "How to Train Your Dragon 2" 3D Blu-ray has Atmos? Looks like it doesn't, but I thought it did in theaters??


----------



## Selden Ball

truwarrior22 said:


> Anyone know if "How to Train Your Dragon 2" 3D Blu-ray has Atmos?


 It doesn't.


> Looks like it doesn't, but I thought it did in theaters??


 It did.

Whether or not a recent Atmos movie has Atmos on Blu-ray depends on whether or not the mixing house used by the studio has upgraded their software to include the home version of Dolby Atmos yet, and whether or not the studio wants them to use it. Hopefully the majority of future movies using cinematic Atmos will be provided with Atmos on Blu-ray.


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> Thanks *when u say 110 degrees do u mean pointed slightly toward the rear, away from the MLP*...also when u say 12" higher than ear level, you are referring to the tweeter 12" higher than ear level?


He is referring to the horizontal placement of the surrounds vis-a-vis the MLP as per Dolby's guidelines (see below).


----------



## randyk47

Selden Ball said:


> Whether or not a recent Atmos movie has Atmos on Blu-ray depends on whether or not the mixing house used by the studio has upgraded their software to include the home version of Dolby Atmos yet, and whether or not the studio wants them to use it. Hopefully the majority of future movies using cinematic Atmos will be provided with Atmos on Blu-ray.


Like 7.1, which still isn't universally included, I'm assuming it will take some time for Blu-Ray releases to include ATMOS even if the theater version had it. I'm also mindful that collectively we here are a small blip on the radar screen of audiovideo users. While public demand may eventually make studios include ATMOS where available in home releases we're probably far from a huge ground swell to make that happen right now.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

thoughts on creating a list of Blurays with ATMOS too put on the first page?

currently

Transformers Age of Extinction
Step Up All in
Expendables 3

to be released:
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


----------



## Scott Simonian

TMNT had a pretty decent mix from what I remember in theaters. Saw it in Atmos.


----------



## jmagoo

visualq said:


> Make that 52; I've had my sustem since early October, but I rarely sign-IN and post much. Here's my info for the spreadsheet for the person that has update access to it:
> 
> Member: Visualq
> SpkrConfig: 5.1.4
> AVR/pre-pro: Pioneer SC-85
> Atmos Spkrs: AJs - 4x SP-EBS73, 1x SP-EC73
> Mounted: Atmos Enabled
> CeilngConfig: NA
> OthrInfo: 3x Onkyo M285 amps, 2 Onkyo M-5010 amps


Hello Visualq, (and any other members who care to comment)

I am planning to use the 4 Pioneer Atmos enabled bookshelves, along with the matching center, myself.
Would you recommend them?
It is for a small man cave, 11x13x9, along with a Denon 4100W, and a SVS sb-1000 sub.
Thanks for any help,

magoo


----------



## batpig

I periodically check the showtimes list at my local Atmos theater (Arclight Cinemas La Jolla) to see what's playing in Atmos -- unfortunately only one Atmos theater in the complex so not a lot of turnover or variety -- but it looks like they are now showing a pair of cartoons in Atmos: Big Hero 6 and Penguins of Madagascar. I casually mentioned to my wife that I would take our 3 year old to Penguins of Madagascar for a fun "daddy daughter" outing, but secretly an excuse to check out another Atmos mix


----------



## JoeyW

Brian Fineberg said:


> thoughts on creating a list of Blurays with ATMOS too put on the first page?
> 
> currently
> 
> Transformers Age of Extinction
> Step Up All in
> Expendables 3
> 
> to be released:
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Step Up All In in Dolby Atmos? Talk about lipstick on a pig.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

JoeyW said:


> Step Up All In in Dolby Atmos? Talk about lipstick on a pig.


lol


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> thoughts on creating a list of Blurays with ATMOS too put on the first page?
> 
> currently
> 
> Transformers Age of Extinction
> Step Up All in
> Expendables 3
> 
> to be released:
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Good idea. And I just received, today, the Hong Kong movie, Overheard 3, which is an Atmos mix. I'll get Expendables on Monday, so I will then have _three_


----------



## kbarnes701

JoeyW said:


> Step Up All In in Dolby Atmos? Talk about lipstick on a pig.


That's a bit unfair.



Spoiler



To the pig


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> That's a but unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the pig


Now, now... 
I actually enjoyed it. Plenty of eye-candy.

I am *not* a Stallone fan.


----------



## Spanglo

Step Up All In was great with some nice visuals, amazing dancing, and best of all loaded with electronic music. Just don't fixate on the acting or dialog and you'll be fine.

Don't forget Overheard 3 as another movie with an Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> to be clear I HAVE been able to copare REW results as I KNOW what mine used to look like and what it does now...I unfortuanlty dont have access to my old REW files though which is a shame so i cant show proof...but "new" xt32 is in fact a big improvement.
> 
> if it isnt...then how can you explain I needed 4 filters with a minidsp with "old xt32" and NONE with the new XT32??


I too have been very impressed with XT32 in my Denon 5200. But there could be a few reasons why the calibration might have improved, without necessarily any changes to the XT32 algorithms themselves.



The supplied mic might be manufactured to closer tolerances than the old mic.
The superior processing power of the latest AVRs might enable superior calculations of the filters.
There may have been some changes, however insignificant, to the room between the old and new cals.
Mic positions might be slightly different during measuring.
Air temperature and barometric pressure may be different between cals.

(OK, the last one wasn't serious ).

Not saying that any of those applied to you especially - just that they are possibilities that could explain differences in results.

I am certainly impressed with XT32 these days, and have my Pro Kit up for sale as it doesn't seem able to improve sonically on the XT32 cal I am now getting.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Now, now...
> I actually enjoyed it. Plenty of eye-candy.


Well eye-candy is good I agree. Maybe I could be tempted to get it, if it's cheap. Maybe.



Selden Ball said:


> I am *not* a Stallone fan.


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Step Up All In was great with some nice visuals, amazing dancing, and best of all loaded with electronic music. *Just don't fixate on the acting or dialog and you'll be fine.*


I apply that logic to Burlesque too - a movie I always enjoy watching.



Spanglo said:


> Don't forget Overheard 3 as another movie with an Atmos soundtrack.


It's sitting on my desk right now. I shall watch it over the weekend and report back on it here.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> I too have been very impressed with XT32 in my Denon 5200. But there could be a few reasons why the calibration might have improved, without necessarily any changes to the XT32 algorithms themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The supplied mic might be manufactured to closer tolerances than the old mic.
> The superior processing power of the latest AVRs might enable superior calculations of the filters.
> There may have been some changes, however insignificant, to the room between the old and new cals.
> Mic positions might be slightly different during measuring.
> Air temperature and barometric pressure may be different between cals.
> 
> (OK, the last one wasn't serious ).
> 
> Not saying that any of those applied to you especially - just that they are possibilities that could explain differences in results.
> 
> I am certainly impressed with XT32 these days, and have my Pro Kit up for sale as it doesn't seem able to improve sonically on the XT32 cal I am now getting.


my only real reason to beleive it was tweaked, is because the user interface was overhauled...so I can easily beleive also the programming was tweaked as well.

but all your points..well most of your points  could be very true as well

-B


----------



## truwarrior22

Selden Ball said:


> It doesn't. It did.
> 
> Whether or not a recent Atmos movie has Atmos on Blu-ray depends on whether or not the mixing house used by the studio has upgraded their software to include the home version of Dolby Atmos yet, and whether or not the studio wants them to use it. Hopefully the majority of future movies using cinematic Atmos will be provided with Atmos on Blu-ray.


Ah bummer, saw it for $10, but didn't purchase it since it didn't have Atmos. After renting it, I felt it would be a great title for Atmos. Maybe I'll get at least the 3D version if it's never released with Atmos


----------



## dschulz

batpig said:


> I periodically check the showtimes list at my local Atmos theater (Arclight Cinemas La Jolla) to see what's playing in Atmos -- unfortunately only one Atmos theater in the complex so not a lot of turnover or variety -- but it looks like they are now showing a pair of cartoons in Atmos: Big Hero 6 and Penguins of Madagascar. I casually mentioned to my wife that I would take our 3 year old to Penguins of Madagascar for a fun "daddy daughter" outing, but secretly an excuse to check out another Atmos mix


I haven't seen Penguins yet, but I give a big recommendation to go see Big Hero 6. It's on par with some of the Pixar stuff, and has a really delightful short film to kick it off. Great movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> my only real reason to beleive it was tweaked, is because the user interface was overhauled...so I can easily beleive also the programming was tweaked as well.
> 
> but all your points..well most of your points  could be very true as well
> 
> -B


I think the user interface is the responsibility of the AVR manufacturer - Onkyo's for example was always different to Denon's.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

between ATMOS in the theater and ATMOS at home, when they adjust levels and what not instead of giving us the actual theater track, could they also be tweaking ATMOS objects? like could we be loosing some of the effect that would have gone on in the theater at home? I mean I know we have less overhead channels so Im sure that is a factor but could we be loosing a lot more then we think? sorta hard to do a direct comparison given there tends to be a few months between theater and home release and is no longer in atmos theaters by then..


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> Good idea. And I just received, today, the Hong Kong movie, Overheard 3, which is an Atmos mix. I'll get Expendables on Monday, so I will then have _three_


I'll be more than interested in your review of Expendables 3. I think it's an awesome ATMOS disc.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> I think the user interface is the responsibility of the AVR manufacturer - Onkyo's for example was always different to Denon's.


not in the US..

I had the 809 and upgraded to the x4000 they were both the same interface


----------



## briansxx

jdsmoothie said:


> Yes it makes more sense to use the Dolby Enabled speaker setting, but if Onkyo is recommending Top Middle, then give it a go as well and then use whichever setting you feel provides the best overhead audio experience in your room.


Asharma and Jdsmoothie,

Thank you for your thoughts. I'll play with the modules and also run some overhead wires and try some real overheads. I figure I have 30 days to return the speakers, so I have a little time to experiment. Of course, with the 636, I can only use 2 overhead speakers.

Thanks Again and All the Best,

Brian


----------



## Spanglo

Daniel Chaves said:


> between ATMOS in the theater and ATMOS at home, when they adjust levels and what not instead of giving us the actual theater track, could they also be tweaking ATMOS objects? like could we be loosing some of the effect that would have gone on in the theater at home? I mean I know we have less overhead channels so Im sure that is a factor but could we be loosing a lot more then we think? sorta hard to do a direct comparison given there tends to be a few months between theater and home release and is no longer in atmos theaters by then..



Eagerly awaiting Gravity to see how it holds up. I saw that film multiple times at the atmos theater so I have a good idea how it sounds. By comparison, Gravity in DS wasn't even close to the atmos mix in my opinion. Especially the opening spacewalk scene, where the dialog fades in and aggressively moves around the room in the atmos mix. In DS that effect was lost.


----------



## rgould1669

Have a question about running speakers in series. I have a theater that already has 7.1 all B&W speakers the 4 back speakers are in wall mounted 5' up and tilted down to ear level. I have 2 rows of 3 seats 2nd row is on a raiser. I have the 2 side speakers mounted in the middle of both rows. the rears are mounted on rear wall. I want to upgrade my pioneer sc05. I bought a pioneer sc85. I then bought 4 polk ceiling speakers and I put them 2 on the side of first row slightly forward, the other 2 on the side of row two slightly forward. I know the sc85 will only do 5.1.4 so my question is can I hook left ceiling speakers in series and then right in series so I have both rows covered? my sc85 is coming in the mail today.


----------



## rgould1669

if it matters the 4 rear B&W are CDS653 and the 4 ceiling speakers are polk MC60


----------



## asharma

briansxx said:


> Asharma and Jdsmoothie,
> 
> Thank you for your thoughts. I'll play with the modules and also run some overhead wires and try some real overheads. I figure I have 30 days to return the speakers, so I have a little time to experiment. Of course, with the 636, I can only use 2 overhead speakers.
> 
> Thanks Again and All the Best,
> 
> Brian


You are welcome Sir...that's what I had to do...tested in ceiling vs upfiring. I had temporarily suspended 4 in ceiling from my lights in my theatre room. Lots of testing but now that I have the in ceiling installed, the ATMOS sound is very good.


----------



## chi_guy50

Spanglo said:


> Step Up All In was great with some nice visuals, amazing dancing, and best of all loaded with electronic music. * Just don't fixate on the acting or dialog and you'll be fine.*


To me, that's the equivalent to saying how good McDonald's food is as long as you don't fixate on the taste and the unhealthiness of it.

IMHO (as a cinephile AND a certified voyeur) there is no amount of eye candy that will compensate for bad acting and poor scriptwriting. I'll hold out until there's a movie in Atmos on BRD that's worth seeing.


----------



## Selden Ball

chi_guy50 said:


> To me, that's the equivalent to saying how good McDonald's food is as long as you don't fixate on the taste and the unhealthiness of it.
> 
> IMHO (as a cinephile AND a certified voyeur) there is no amount of eye candy that will compensate for bad acting and poor scriptwriting. I'll hold out until there's a movie in Atmos on BRD that's worth seeing.


Don't think of it as being a movie with plot and drama (although there is a *little* of that). Think of it as a non-scripted dancing competition similar to "Dancing with the Stars" with a little backstage emo included as a bonus. The nominal plot is about several dance crews competing for a 3 year Vegas contract. All of the dance performances are very good.


----------



## batpig

rgould1669 said:


> Have a question about running speakers in series. I have a theater that already has 7.1 all B&W speakers the 4 back speakers are in wall mounted 5' up and tilted down to ear level. I have 2 rows of 3 seats 2nd row is on a raiser. I have the 2 side speakers mounted in the middle of both rows. the rears are mounted on rear wall. I want to upgrade my pioneer sc05. I bought a pioneer sc85. I then bought 4 polk ceiling speakers and I put them 2 on the side of first row slightly forward, the other 2 on the side of row two slightly forward. I know the sc85 will only do 5.1.4 so my question is can I hook left ceiling speakers in series and then right in series so I have both rows covered? my sc85 is coming in the mail today.


You CAN... But what a lame compromise! Especially in a dedicated theater space with multiple rows and nice speakers. Why shortchange yourself of the true discrete sound experience in all channels, which is the point of object based audio?

You are a victim of Pioneers short sighted decision to not allow 11ch output even in their high end models. If you are still in your return window I would strongly recommend swapping to an 11ch Atmos model from another brand. That is the only correct solution.


----------



## Spanglo

chi_guy50 said:


> To me, that's the equivalent to saying how good McDonald's food is as long as you don't fixate on the taste and the unhealthiness of it.
> 
> IMHO (as a cinephile AND a certified voyeur) there is no amount of eye candy that will compensate for bad acting and poor scriptwriting. I'll hold out until there's a movie in Atmos on BRD that's worth seeing.


I hear ya, but my point was there were more good things going on then bad, so it made for good overall viewing.

With McDonald's, there really is no upside to that "food" to talk about, so it's not equivalent


----------



## rgould1669

batpig said:


> You CAN... But what a lame compromise! Especially in a dedicated theater space with multiple rows and nice speakers. Why shortchange yourself of the true discrete sound experience in all channels, which is the point of object based audio?
> 
> You are a victim of Pioneers short sighted decision to not allow 11ch output even in their high end models. If you are still in your return window I would strongly recommend swapping to an 11ch Atmos model from another brand. That is the only correct solution.


 Thanks for your answer. I can return it as I am getting it today. I ordered from bset buy. This Atmos is all new to me since last week. want a new equipment and the guy at best buy talked me into this pioneer sc85. may see how it sounds ran in series. or may look at x5200w


----------



## chi_guy50

Spanglo said:


> I hear ya, but my point was there were more good things going on then bad, so it made for good overall viewing.
> 
> With McDonald's, there really is no upside to that "food" to talk about, *so it's not equivalent*


All I can say to that is: Bad kitty!!!


----------



## alfa1

briansxx said:


> Hi, All.
> 
> I have the Onkyo TX-NR 636 and I bought the Atmos-enabled modules that can sit on top of the front or surround speakers. Unfortunately, Onkyo does not tell you what menu option to select when setting up these modules. As they claim to have an "Atmos network" element inside, I assumed I would select the "Dolby-enabled speaker (front)" option when defining the height speaker type. When I checked with Onkyo tech support, they said use the "top middle" option, which makes no sense to me. If anyone can help resolve this conflict in advice, I'd appreciate it very much.
> 
> On another note, I have a pair of pretty decent non-Dolby speakers I could ceiling mount instead of using the Atmos-enabled modules. Before I make the decision to implement them (the wiring will be a tough job), I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether they would be superior to the Atmos modules.
> 
> Any help much appreciated!
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian


I believe the reason you need to choose top middle with a 5.1.2 system is so you receive all the height information that is being sent. I believe "dolby enabled front" is only an option for a 5.1.4 setup in your AVR, so if you selected that for your height channel you would lose all the info that should be going to the rear height channel in a 5.1.4 system, I think. In contrast, in a 5.1.2 setup, top middle gets all the available height info, so that is the only proper setting for your height channel.


----------



## chi_guy50

Selden Ball said:


> Don't think of it as being a movie with plot and drama (although there is a *little* of that). Think of it as a non-scripted dancing competition similar to "Dancing with the Stars" with a little backstage emo included as a bonus. The nominal plot is about several dance crews competing for a 3 year Vegas contract. All of the dance performances are very good.


Thanks for that description, Selden; that's probably as concise a review as I could have hoped for. But since I'd rather pluck out my eyeballs than subject them to a single episode of DWTS, I know for certain that I wouldn't enjoy this movie--even with the caveats you cite. To each his own.


----------



## briansxx

alfa1 said:


> I believe the reason you need to choose top middle with a 5.1.2 system is so you receive all the height information that is being sent. I believe "dolby enabled front" is only an option for a 5.1.4 setup in your AVR, so if you selected that for your height channel you would lose all the info that should be going to the rear height channel in a 5.1.4 system, I think. In contrast, in a 5.1.2 setup, top middle gets all the available height info, so that is the only proper setting for your height channel.


alfa1,

Thank you. That makes perfect sense! I foresee a weekend of experiments!

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> not in the US..
> 
> I had the 809 and upgraded to the x4000 they were both the same interface


How about those 'before and after' graphs?


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Eagerly awaiting Gravity to see how it holds up. I saw that film multiple times at the atmos theater so I have a good idea how it sounds. By comparison, Gravity in DS wasn't even close to the atmos mix in my opinion. Especially the opening spacewalk scene, where the dialog fades in and aggressively moves around the room in the atmos mix. In DS that effect was lost.


If DSU was the same as Atmos, there'd be no need for Atmos  DSU on Gravity was way better than regular 5.1/7.1 though.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> To me, that's the equivalent to saying how good McDonald's food is as long as you don't fixate on the taste and the unhealthiness of it.


I can see his point. There's more to a movie than the script. Look at Burlesque - script is cosmically bad, acting is pretty poor (apart from Stanley Tucci) - but overall it's a great experience thanks to the singing, the music, the production values and the brilliant sound.



chi_guy50 said:


> IMHO (as a cinephile AND a certified voyeur) there is no amount of eye candy that will compensate for bad acting and poor scriptwriting.


I cite Christina Aguilera in the aforementioned title, and I rest my case


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> thoughts on creating a list of Blurays with ATMOS too put on the first page?
> 
> currently
> 
> Transformers Age of Extinction
> Step Up All in
> Expendables 3
> 
> to be released:
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


 


Nature 3D - from Japan - was also released in Dolby Atmos. 
The original title is Enchanted Kingdom and it is a BBC Earth production - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1762233/


Ray


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see his point. There's more to a movie than the script. Look at Burlesque - script is cosmically bad, acting is pretty poor (apart from Stanley Tucci) - but overall it's a great experience thanks to the singing, the music, the production values and the brilliant sound.
> 
> IMHO (as a cinephile AND a certified voyeur) there is no amount of eye candy that will compensate for bad acting and poor scriptwriting.
> 
> I cite Christina Aguilera in the aforementioned title, and I rest my case


I can only refer to an unimpeachable and universally respected source for movie criticism in response: ". . . Script is cosmically bad . ." End of story.

And I rest MY case.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Good idea. And I just received, today, the Hong Kong movie, Overheard 3, which is an Atmos mix. I'll get Expendables on Monday, so I will then have _three_


 
I also picked up Overheard 3 and plan to watch it this weekend.


Ray


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> If DSU was the same as Atmos, there'd be no need for Atmos  DSU on Gravity was way better than regular 5.1/7.1 though.


You'd kind of hope true ATMOS would be better than DSU or I've wasted a chunk of cash.  That said we've thoroughly enjoyed DSU and can only hope for future quality titles with full on ATMOS. I think we've only watched one movie using DSU, and I can't recall which one, where there was a scene that we both reacted to with a "what was that?". Somebody was running in the movie and I guess in 5.1 or 7.1 he was suppose to run off camera and to the back. DSU throw a gear or something and it sounded like he was running on the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I can only refer to an unimpeachable and universally respected source for movie criticism in response: ". . . Script is cosmically bad . ." End of story.
> 
> And I rest MY case.


LOL. I can live with a less than great script if there are other mitigating factors in the movie-maker's toolkit - eg, editing, score, photography, sound design, etc. Of course it's better when all these things converge, but that is very rare IME.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> You'd kind of hope true ATMOS would be better than DSU or I've wasted a chunk of cash.


Oh there's no doubt it is. But DSU does a fabulous job with all your other discs.



randyk47 said:


> That said we've thoroughly enjoyed DSU and can only hope for future quality titles with full on ATMOS. I think we've only watched one movie using DSU, and I can't recall which one, where there was a scene that we both reacted to with a "what was that?". Somebody was running in the movie and I guess in 5.1 or 7.1 he was suppose to run off camera and to the back. DSU throw a gear or something and it sounded like he was running on the ceiling.


I have watched dozens of movies now using DSU and most are handled exceptionally well, often uncannily so. Occasionally there is an off-beam sound such as you describe, but they are rare IME so far. Overall I like DSU so much it is my default config for legacy movies.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> How about those 'before and after' graphs?


Cant. When i went to find the before graphs they were wiped from my computer. I jnow that doesnt help at all to legiyimize my comments but it is what it is. If you want to take ky word you can i saw it with my eyes. Just cant post it

I know i know

Pics or it never happened lol


----------



## Spanglo

DSU is great, and music is no exception. 2 channel cannot compete. Like comparing 5.1 movies non atmos to 7.1.4, atmos - no contest. 

I listen music more than watching movies, about 60/40. I used to be a strictly 2 channel listener until now.

A few recommendations:

Pink Floyd - Dark Side of The Moon - 2003 - Capitol / CDP 7243 5 82136 2 1 / Remastered SACD Hybrid Multichannel / SACD

Muddy Waters - Folk Singer - 1993 - Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab / UDCD 593 / MFSL Remaster


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh there's no doubt it is. But DSU does a fabulous job with all your other discs.
> 
> 
> 
> I have watched dozens of movies now using DSU and most are handled exceptionally well, often uncannily so. Occasionally there is an off-beam sound such as you describe, but they are rare IME so far. Overall I like DSU so much it is my default config for legacy movies.


 
I do find sometimes DSU is having small problems with the upmix from Stereo to in my case 7.0
Special the 3 front channels have sometimes strange effects when dialog is jumping from the center to the front L and R and back again.
When i play the same part with Neo or PLII there is no problem.
On a 5.x or 7.x source DSU has no problems, just from Stereo.........


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Im not a fan at all of dsu with 2 channel. 

Movies only for me. I found the movies dsu is bad with is older movies like early 90's and before


----------



## bsoko2

DSU works better with movies that are encoded for 7 channel then for 5 channel.


----------



## petetherock

tjenkins95 said:


> Nature 3D - from Japan - was also released in Dolby Atmos.
> The original title is Enchanted Kingdom and it is a BBC Earth production - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1762233/
> 
> 
> Ray


And another from Bollywood :

http://www.dolby.com/in/en/about/ne...-with-the-release-of-mary-kom-on-blu-ray.html


----------



## epiCenter

*Bi wire*



rgould1669 said:


> Have a question about running speakers in series. I have a theater that already has 7.1 all B&W speakers the 4 back speakers are in wall mounted 5' up and tilted down to ear level. I have 2 rows of 3 seats 2nd row is on a raiser. I have the 2 side speakers mounted in the middle of both rows. the rears are mounted on rear wall. I want to upgrade my pioneer sc05. I bought a pioneer sc85. I then bought 4 polk ceiling speakers and I put them 2 on the side of first row slightly forward, the other 2 on the side of row two slightly forward. I know the sc85 will only do 5.1.4 so my question is can I hook left ceiling speakers in series and then right in series so I have both rows covered? my sc85 is coming in the mail today.


I would recommend bi wiring instead. Essentially this would wire them in parallel instead of in series.


----------



## rgould1669

Why is this? How do I do this? Thanks


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> Anybody besides me think the bass is better even when running DSU?? And really different with an Atmos disc???


Not been my experience...


----------



## epiCenter

rgould1669 said:


> Why is this? How do I do this? Thanks


Again, this is not the best solution. But if you are willing to dabble, you could check to see how it sounds to you. I could explain the set up for Bi-Wiring, but do a YouTube search for a visual. Essentially, you would use two sets of wires originating from the back of your receiver (two banana plugs into the same channel). From there, run each set of wires to their respective speakers. This can reduce some of the signal loss that could occur when you put the speakers in a series. 

I must reiterate that this is not ideal. Your effort and speaker wire would be better served by setting up a Dolby recommended Atmos set up.


----------



## rgould1669

If I just got to 5.1.4 do I put the high mid speakers above first row and top rear over 2nd row ?


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> And another from Bollywood :
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/in/en/about/ne...-with-the-release-of-mary-kom-on-blu-ray.html


For some reasons I find there are more Auro 3D titles from Indian movies (Most of them are in Southern Indian languages) than Atmos..


----------



## epiCenter

rgould1669 said:


> If I just got to 5.1.4 do I put the high mid speakers above first row and top rear over 2nd row ?


Depends on your listening preferences and how often you use your system to entertain others. I think most folks set up their systems based on peak listening experience to the Main Listening Position (MLP). Best bet is to go to the dolby website and configure your set up to their specs. x.x.4 systems use a top front and top rear (TF/TR) configuration through the processor, regardless of where you actually mount the speakers. 

The angles from the MLP can be found on the site, but there are other considerations beyond peak angles, such as aesthetics, and room dynamics (obstructions between speaker to listener).


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I apply that logic to Burlesque too - a movie I always enjoy watching.


My wife loves that movie and that is when I learned Christine Aguellera has some serious singing ability. (And Cher has had lots of plastic surgery).

Love some of the music in it as well!


----------



## kuro6010

I decided to pull the plug on a pair of Atlantic Tech 44DA and the Denon X7200. So I called JD and I am on the pre order list. Can't freakin wait. 

Where can I purchase Overheard 3 ?


----------



## snyderkv

kbarnes701 said:


> I too have been very impressed with XT32 in my Denon 5200. But there could be a few reasons why the calibration might have improved, without necessarily any changes to the XT32 algorithms themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The supplied mic might be manufactured to closer tolerances than the old mic.
> The superior processing power of the latest AVRs might enable superior calculations of the filters.
> There may have been some changes, however insignificant, to the room between the old and new cals.
> Mic positions might be slightly different during measuring.
> Air temperature and barometric pressure may be different between cals.
> 
> (OK, the last one wasn't serious ).
> 
> Not saying that any of those applied to you especially - just that they are possibilities that could explain differences in results.
> 
> I am certainly impressed with XT32 these days, and have my Pro Kit up for sale as it doesn't seem able to improve sonically on the XT32 cal I am now getting.


My 4100 came with a paper foldout tripod like thing and instructions on where to place the MIC for 8 positions unlike my Onkyo before it. That may be why my Denon sounds noticeably better than my previous Onkyo. So add me to the list of noticing an XT32 improvement


----------



## Daniel Chaves

okay since there has been some mention of setting ceiling speakers to top middle? what about top front? Currently I have 2 ceiling speakers, and they are placed slightly in front of me as to the atmos diagrams for a 5.1.2 setup, so I selected top front for those, should I have selected top middle??? The speaker options were Front heights which obviously I dont select for ceiling speakers, Top front which in the diagram showed speakers being in the ceiling, top middle, same ceiling diagram but what appeared to be behind the listener, and dolby atmos enabled speakers which dont apply since I am not using reflective speakers. 

So yeah am I right in selecting top front if the ceiling speakers are slightly in front of the user or should I have selected top middle???


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Cant. When i went to find the before graphs they were wiped from my computer. I jnow that doesnt help at all to legiyimize my comments but it is what it is. If you want to take ky word you can i saw it with my eyes. Just cant post it
> 
> I know i know
> 
> Pics or it never happened lol


I trust you!


----------



## kbarnes701

kuro6010 said:


> I decided to pull the plug on a pair of Atlantic Tech 44DA and the Denon X7200. So I called JD and I am on the pre order list. Can't freakin wait.
> 
> Where can I purchase Overheard 3 ?


If you are thinking of it for Atmos, don't bother. The sound is very good but it is mostly a dialogue-centric movie with very little action. There are a few places where you the overheads are used to good effect but they are few and far between.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Daniel Chaves said:


> okay since there has been some mention of setting ceiling speakers to top middle? what about top front? Currently I have 2 ceiling speakers, and they are placed slightly in front of me as to the atmos diagrams for a 5.1.2 setup, so I selected top front for those, should I have selected top middle??? The speaker options were Front heights which obviously I dont select for ceiling speakers, Top front which in the diagram showed speakers being in the ceiling, top middle, same ceiling diagram but what appeared to be behind the listener, and dolby atmos enabled speakers which dont apply since I am not using reflective speakers.
> 
> So yeah am I right in selecting top front if the ceiling speakers are slightly in front of the user or should I have selected top middle???


Top Middle .... ideally placed just forward of MLP.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are thinking of it for Atmos, don't bother. The sound is very good but it is mostly a dialogue-centric movie with very little action. There are a few places where you the overheads are used to good effect but they are few and far between.



Yeah, I am afraid of this happening 

After you and a few others have touted this show, others might pick it up simply because it's an "Atmos" BR disc.

Firstly it's a Cantonese show, and yes it's mainly dialogue based, no guns blazing, ala Transformers, but it has ambience and mood... once you switch to another language, the nuances are lost...

Kind of like watching Miramar's USA distributed Jackie Chan movies dubbed in English... yuck...

Like French movies, it's best watched in it's native language... you will enjoy it more...

Cheers


----------



## kuro6010

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are thinking of it for Atmos, don't bother. The sound is very good but it is mostly a dialogue-centric movie with very little action. There are a few places where you the overheads are used to good effect but they are few and far between.


K, thanks for the info on the Overheard. Looks like I will be skipping the DVD.


----------



## bargervais

alfa1 said:


> I believe the reason you need to choose top middle with a 5.1.2 system is so you receive all the height information that is being sent. I believe "dolby enabled front" is only an option for a 5.1.4 setup in your AVR, so if you selected that for your height channel you would lose all the info that should be going to the rear height channel in a 5.1.4 system, I think. In contrast, in a 5.1.2 setup, top middle gets all the available height info, so that is the only proper setting for your height channel.


Is that true that if you only have 5.2.2 that you need to choose top middle because top middle gets all available hight info????? I didn't know that.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Not at all. Although with a 5.1.2 setup the "Top Middle" physical speaker location is the ideal, on D&M models you can locate the 2 speakers in any of 5 physical "height" locations as well as 3 Dolby enabled locations, selecting that physical speaker location where all height information would be directed.


----------



## jdsmoothie

alfa1 said:


> I believe the reason you need to choose top middle with a 5.1.2 system is so you receive all the height information that is being sent. I believe "dolby enabled front" is only an option for a 5.1.4 setup in your AVR, so if you selected that for your height channel you would lose all the info that should be going to the rear height channel in a 5.1.4 system, I think. In contrast, in a 5.1.2 setup, top middle gets all the available height info, so that is the only proper setting for your height channel.


The Onkyo 636, 737, and 838 models are only capable of a maximum of an Atmos 5.1.2 setup, choosing either Top Front, Top Middle, Dolby Enabled Speaker (Front), or Dolby Enabled Speaker (Surround) depending on the type and physical location of the speaker.


----------



## tj21

Hi

On Monday I will be wiring through my concrete panel ceiling for Dolby Atmos and any possible future formats. This will be quite an effort as this is real brick and mortar European house so I want to do it only once. Therefore I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations.

I am attaching top and side views (also brushed off my trigonometry skills and included angles). Current set up is 7.1 and I will be adding 4 overhead speakers while also wiring for additional two. Current thinking is to install top front and top rear and wire for front high.

Thanks for any comments.

Tomas


----------



## bargervais

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Not at all. Although with a 5.1.2 setup the "Top Middle" physical speaker location is the ideal, on D&M models you can locate the 2 speakers in any of 5 physical "height" locations as well as 3 Dolby enabled locations, selecting that physical speaker location where all height information would be directed.


Thanks that's what I thought


----------



## pasender91

tj21 said:


> Hi
> 
> On Monday I will be wiring through my concrete panel ceiling for Dolby Atmos and any possible future formats. This will be quite an effort as this is real brick and mortar European house so I want to do it only once. Therefore I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations.
> 
> I am attaching top and side views (also brushed off my trigonometry skills and included angles). Current set up is 7.1 and I will be adding 4 overhead speakers while also wiring for additional two. Current thinking is to install top front and top rear and wire for front high.
> 
> Thanks for any comments.
> 
> Tomas


Tomas, very good job on your views, very clear 
Your setup looks very good to me, the only minor adjustment i would do is put the TF speakers a bit further back, to reach the ideal 45° angle. Is there anything in your room preventing you from doing so?


----------



## pasender91

snyderkv said:


> My 4100 came with a paper foldout tripod like thing and instructions on where to place the MIC for 8 positions unlike my Onkyo before it. That may be why my Denon sounds noticeably better than my previous Onkyo. So add me to the list of noticing an XT32 improvement


This carton rocket that is being shipped with new receivers might be the biggest improvement of all in the Audissey history  
Before that many made the mesurements from a pile of books or some other makeshift device, and this degraded the results.


----------



## Nightlord

I think I read somewhere that Denon filed for a patent on that 'rocket'.


----------



## jgb60

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Not at all. Although with a 5.1.2 setup the "Top Middle" physical speaker location is the ideal, on D&M models you can locate the 2 speakers in any of 5 physical "height" locations as well as 3 Dolby enabled locations, selecting that physical speaker location where all height information would be directed.


 I think I understand the 5 physical "height" locations (FH, TF, TM, TR and RH) but what are the 3 Dolby enabled locations? Thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

jgb60 said:


> I think I understand the 5 physical "height" locations (FH, TF, TM, TR and RH) but what are the 3 Dolby enabled locations? Thanks.


They're the positions used by upfiring speakers which work by reflecting the sound off of a flat ceiling.

Denon calls them Front Dolby, Surround Dolby and Back Dolby (FD, SD, BD).


----------



## aaranddeeman

rgould1669 said:


> Thanks for your answer. I can return it as I am getting it today. I ordered from bset buy. This Atmos is all new to me since last week. want a new equipment and t*he guy at best buy talked me into this pioneer sc85*. may see how it sounds ran in series. or may look at x5200w


Oh no. Since when we started taking seriously to their c#@p..


----------



## tj21

pasender91 said:


> Tomas, very good job on your views, very clear
> Your setup looks very good to me, the only minor adjustment i would do is put the TF speakers a bit further back, to reach the ideal 45° angle. Is there anything in your room preventing you from doing so?


Thanks. I am pretty flexible with the ceiling positions so I might consider moving TF speakers further back. On the other hand I was considering moving MLP little bit to the front by 0.5m (1.5 ft) which would change the angles to 21, 44 and 130 for FH, TF and TR respectively.

Not sure if I should consider Auro-3D as well. The question is then which set of top speakers (if any) could substitute for high surrounds. As I said my main goal is to be future proof as my wife will not tolerate another ceiling job...

T.


----------



## Al Sherwood

pasender91 said:


> Tomas, very good job on your views, very clear
> Your setup looks very good to me, the only minor adjustment i would do is put the TF speakers a bit further back, to reach the ideal 45° angle. Is there anything in your room preventing you from doing so?



From this diagram he has the TF in the 'range', just curious why you might suggest farther back?


----------



## maikeldepotter

tj21 said:


> Hi
> 
> On Monday I will be wiring through my concrete panel ceiling for Dolby Atmos and any possible future formats. This will be quite an effort as this is real brick and mortar European house so I want to do it only once. Therefore I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations.
> 
> I am attaching top and side views (also brushed off my trigonometry skills and included angles). Current set up is 7.1 and I will be adding 4 overhead speakers while also wiring for additional two. Current thinking is to install top front and top rear and wire for front high.
> 
> Thanks for any comments.
> 
> Tomas


I would try and put the TF speakers about 0.2 meters further to the back at 40 degrees Atmos elevation, and about 0.4 meters closer to each other at 50 degrees lateral elevation. Then you will have them at an optimal position for the Auro format as well: 35 degrees Auro elevation at an azimuth of 35 degrees, which puts them close enough above where the L/R fronts should be, i.e. at 30 degrees azimuth. 

[BTW, at about 15 degrees azimuth you have those fronts extremely close to each other. If you could put them a bit further into the room and a bit wider, that would help to improve both stereo and surround sound. But then I guess you already know, and room restrictions probably prevent you from doing just that...].

The TR speakers I would push back as far as your room permits to get as close as possible to about 135 degrees Atmos elevation (at 1,3 m behind MLP). In addition you could put them about 0,8 m closer to each other at 55 degrees lateral elevation. In this way they will end up at 145 degrees azimuth, very close above your rear surrounds at 150 degrees. The resulting elevation is about 40 degrees, which combined with your slightly elevated rear surrounds, gives you an optimal Auro separation when used as rear SH speakers.

A possible 3rd pair of overheads I would position between the TF and TR pairs. These will be potentially usable for both Atmos TM (if a 6 overhead capable AVR arrives), as Auro VOG (phantom image between the two). Or alternatively, if you are not using them as TM for Atmos, you could lower them laterally to about 35 degrees to be used as SH speakers for Auro (BTW these will then need to get the same signal as the rear SH speakers).


----------



## tj21

maikeldepotter said:


> I would try and put the TF speakers about 0.2 meters further to the back at 40 degrees Atmos elevation, and about 0.4 meters closer to each other at 50 degrees lateral elevation. Then you will have them at an optimal position for the Auro format as well: 35 degrees Auro elevation at an azimuth of 35 degrees, which puts them close enough above where the L/R fronts should be, i.e. at 30 degrees azimuth.
> 
> [BTW, at about 15 degrees azimuth you have those fronts extremely close to each other. If you could put them a bit further into the room and a bit wider, that would help to improve both stereo and surround sound. But then I guess you already know, and room restrictions probably prevent you from doing just that...].
> 
> The TR speakers I would push back as far as your room permits to get as close as possible to about 135 degrees Atmos elevation (at 1,3 m behind MLP). In addition you could put them about 0,8 m closer to each other at 55 degrees lateral elevation. In this way they will end up at 145 degrees azimuth, very close above your rear surrounds at 150 degrees. The resulting elevation is about 40 degrees, which combined with your slightly elevated rear surrounds, gives you an optimal Auro separation when used as rear SH speakers.
> 
> A possible 3rd pair of overheads I would position between the TF and TR pairs. These will be potentially usable for both Atmos TM (if a 6 overhead capable AVR arrives), as Auro VOG (phantom image between the two). Or alternatively, if you are not using them as TM for Atmos, you could lower them laterally to about 35 degrees to be used as SH speakers for Auro (BTW these will then need to get the same signal as the rear SH speakers).


This is great feedback. If I understand correctly you imply I should not wire for front heights at all and use TF for Auro-3D heights. Interesting.

Pushing TR farther back is an option, so is another top middle position (at least for wiring now as I have only 4 additional speakers). I will consider that.

Thanks!

Tomas


----------



## robert816

rgould1669 said:


> Thanks for your answer. I can return it as I am getting it today. I ordered from bset buy. This Atmos is all new to me since last week. want a new equipment and the guy at best buy talked me into this pioneer sc85. may see how it sounds ran in series. or may look at x5200w


 
There is nothing wrong with the Pioneer. It sounds fantastic, the MCACC Pro does a wonderful job with calibration, and the Atmos and DSU just plain rocks! I have the SC-87 and love it.

I went from 6.1 (SC-07) to 9.1 (SC-57) to now a 5.1x3.4 Atmos system and am very happy. I do not miss the front wides in my system.

Purchase what you want, I would only council that you look at the features and compare, and if possible audition different AVR's before making a final decision.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kingwiggi said:


> One tip I could offer is when cutting the holes hold your saw at between 45-60 degrees all the way around and cut from the middle. It makes it a bit uncomfortable but it creates a natural ledge for the piece that your cutting out to fit back into if you ever need to patch and repair the hole. Just leave the piece you have cut out in the attic close the the hole so that you don't lose it. I also put a few pencil marks on the pieces so that they could be orientated properly if I needed to drop them back into place.


Your method weakens the clamping point for the speaker. Since you need to tape and mud the patch, I would do the following:

1. Cut hole vertically and leave cut out in attic.
2. When time to patch back, cut short 2x4 that is 6" longer or more, than the hole.
3. Stick 2x4 up through hole and center.
4. While pulling down on 2x4, screw through drywall on each side to secure the 2x4.
5. place cut out circle of drywall in place and screw to 2x4.
6. Tape and mud joint, sand and paint.


----------



## audioguy

pasender91 said:


> This carton rocket that is being shipped with new receivers might be the biggest improvement of all in the Audissey history
> Before that many made the mesurements from a pile of books or some other makeshift device, and this degraded the results.


Using the Audyssey mic even with a tripod (or this "rocket") is messy - stradling arms, trying to get the mic level, etc.

I have been using Audyssey Pro up until this SSP and love using a mic stand. So I jury-rigged a solution to use the Audysse mic with a mic stand- not pretty but very functional:

A piece of dowling, a flat surface attached to it and velcro on the flat surface and the bottom of the Audyssey mic. Works perfect!


----------



## Csbooth

Selden Ball said:


> They're the positions used by upfiring speakers which work by reflecting the sound off of a flat ceiling.
> 
> Denon calls them Front Dolby, Surround Dolby and Back Dolby (FD, SD, BD).


Would Surround Dolby be considered the equivalent to the physical top middle? Placing the height information just in front of the MLP for more accurate audio panning? 

In the diagrams I've looked at regarding a 5.1.2 setup using the Atmos enabled speakers, it looks as if the blue cone would be kind of far from the MLP which seems odd. 

Is there anyone here that could chime in and express how they feel about the capabilities of their 5.1.2 setup using the upward firing speakers? Also how is the panning effects? (Side to side, front to back) for those of us who might be interested in something a bit more simple.

I'm sure we can all agree .4 is king but sadly when adding just two more height channels it is the difference between thousands of dollars lol.


----------



## maikeldepotter

tj21 said:


> If I understand correctly you imply I should not wire for front heights at all and use TF for Auro-3D heights.


Yes. In fact, the 19 degrees elevation of your FH falls out the optimal range of both Atmos (> 30 degrees) and Auro (> 25 degrees). No need to stick to them if TF speakers can be positioned in a way that serves both formats better.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Got my JBL 8340's mounted to the ceiling, but pulling the grills off of them, showed that the foam surround needs to be replaced. Only have one left over from doing this for some of my other 8340's. Will have to order more. 

Added
Should have the replacement foam surround middle of next week, so still should have everything up and running by or before next Saturday.


----------



## mcascio

With Wide Dispersion speakers like the Tannoy Di5 DC, does it make sense to just point them down instead of at the MLP? It looks like that's what the recommendation is by Dolby.

Has anyone found a wide dispersion 3" to 4" speaker with full range that would work well for Atmos speakers? Still hoping I can swap out some 4" ceiling lights in my soffit rather than visually seeing large Tannoy monitors.

Here's my current speaker configuration before Atmos:
SPEAKERS
* CENTER: M&K S-5000 THX
* FRONT LEFT/RIGHT: M&K S-5000 THX
* FRONT WIDE LEFT/RIGHT: M&K SS-150 THX
* FRONT HIGH LEFT/RIGHT: M&K SS-150 THX
* SURROUND LEFT/RIGHT: M&K SS-150 THX
* BACK LEFT/RIGHT: M&K SS-150 THX
* SUB1: M&K MX-350 THX
* SUB2: HSU VTF-15H
* SUB 3 & 4: DIY Flat Pack Builds - Dayton Audio RSS460HO-4 18" Reference HO Subwoofer 4 Cubic Feet each


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Your setup looks very good to me, the only minor adjustment i would do is put the TF speakers a bit further back, to reach *the ideal* 45° angle.


I was not aware of Dolby having disclosed ideal positions for the Atmos top speakers in addition to the optimal ranges that can be found in their published guidelines. Have I missed something?


----------



## visualq

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files. After signing into your OneDrive account, select the folder "Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc" by clicking on the checkbox in the top right corner of the folder (solid blue rectangle). Then click "Download" near the top of the OneDrive page. This will initiate a download of a zip file containing all folders and files. After the zip file is downloaded, extract the contents of the zip file.


Thanks a million guy! I'd already downloaded just the trailers from another site, but I thought it would be NICE to have the other content. Thanks again, much appreciated.

BTW, it's a very minor thing, but I gave you the wrong Onkyo 2-channel Power amp model when I supplied you with my ATMOS config info 
.Instead of M-285 (no such thing), I should've keyed M-282. Everything else is accurate though.


----------



## kingwiggi

The Auro-3D upgrade for the Denon 5200 & 4100 is now live.

$199 includes blu-ray of Sample Auro-3D clips

Apologies if it has already been posted.

http://usa.denon.com/ca/product/hometheater/upgrades/auro3dupgrade

Updated Manual available

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX5200W/NA/EN/index.php

Speaker setup comparison :-


----------



## sikclown

kingwiggi said:


> The Auro-3D upgrade for the Denon 5200 & 4100 is now live.
> 
> $199 includes blu-ray of Sample Auro-3D clips
> 
> Apologies if it has already been posted.
> 
> http://usa.denon.com/ca/product/hometheater/upgrades/auro3dupgrade


Where do you see a Sample of Auro-3D clips? I upgraded and did not receive any such offer.

Edit: oops looks like I didn't read my entire upgrade text. Looks like they are sending me the free Bluray. Sorry my friend.


----------



## kingwiggi

sikclown said:


> Where do you see a Sample of Auro-3D clips? I upgraded and did not receive any such offer.


See

*Your Benefits*

Once upgraded with the Auro®-Codec Decoder, the Denon AVR-X7200W and AVR-X5200W are capable of decoding the original Auro-3D® mix and playing back an Auro 10.1 channel configuration (including “Voice of God” channel). The AVR-X4100W can process an Auro 9.1 channel configuration for full height layer capability. The Auro-3D Upgrade can be purchased for $199. *In addition, you will get a free Auro-3D Demonstration Blu-ray Disc that contains native Auro-3D content with popular movie and music tracks, as well as ambience loops to experience true 3D surround sound. *


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all i have confirmed the angle of my drivers in my upfiring Atmos Onkyo modules is 20 degrees. I am sat 3m away with speakers just above ear level, is there any reason that anybody can say why i cant increase this angle to 45 degrees with a wedge ? Will it effect the sound in anyway or the atmos effect ?


----------



## bargervais

At least two other companies — Steinway Lyngdorf and Datasat Digital Entertainment, formerly the cinema-equipment arm of DTS — also plan audio components that support both surround technologies. Steinway Lyngdorf plans first-quarter shipments of the $18,000-suggested P200 A/V processor, which will decode Atmos and Auro content. The processor is sold as a package only with Steinway Lyngdorf amps, speakers and woofers. Datasat Digital Entertainment offers the $19,000 RS20i and $11,000 LS10 A/V processors, both with an optional $3,000 Auro-3D decoder. Dolby Atmos will be made available in early 2015 for the RS20i via a firmware update or via the addition of a hardware board in an expansion slot. Future Datasat products will also incorporate both surround technologies, the company said - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/receivers...bine-atmos-auro-3d/54425#sthash.OWUtQ224.dpuf
Why would they offer a $200.00 firmware upgrade for D&M no one would buy the more expensive AVRs unless the $200.00 upgrade is a light version, if there is such a thing.


----------



## rmerlano

Hi buddies!

I´m very close to be a new ATMOS owner system. I´ve a dedicated HT room with 7.1 configuration.
I recently bought a X5200 (in transit) and I want to reach the 7.1.4 ATMOS setup. Also in transit are my in ceiling speakers (4) Pyle PDIC81RD. I have been reading a lot of your posts and I guess I have my setup done, but I would like to know your valuable opinions. 

What do you think? The location of TF and TR is Ok? 
I guess MAY BE I have to move the TF closer to my MLP.
Your comments will be welcome!!



subir imagen



subir fotos


subir fotos gratis


----------



## whokilledkaji

So? No good budget recommendations for Atmos in ceiling speakers? 

I don't need a lot of power, but was hoping to get something decent for under $500 for a pair. 

Anybody help? 

Are the Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800 popular Atmos speakers?


----------



## peterrudy

whokilledkaji said:


> So? No good budget recommendations for Atmos in ceiling speakers?
> 
> I don't need a lot of power, but was hoping to get something decent for under $500 for a pair.
> 
> Anybody help?
> 
> Are the Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800 popular Atmos speakers?


Try Emotiva in-ceiling speakers and you shouldn't go wrong with them.

https://emotiva.com/products/speakers/uac-82

P


----------



## peterrudy

RMerlano, you have a nice 7.1 set up. I am assuming your MLP is in the middle seat of the front row or do you prefer the back row??

Peter


----------



## pasender91

RMerlano, nice room, and i believe your top speaker location is spot on


----------



## rmerlano

Hi Peter, yes; my MLP. Is the seat in the middle of the front row.

Thank you for your comment.


----------



## rmerlano

Thank you pasender91!


Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk


----------



## alfa1

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Not at all. Although with a 5.1.2 setup the "Top Middle" physical speaker location is the ideal, on D&M models you can locate the 2 speakers in any of 5 physical "height" locations as well as 3 Dolby enabled locations, selecting that physical speaker location where all height information would be directed.


Ok, I may have misunderstood the question. I was referring to the speaker terminal choice on the back of the AVR, not the speaker setup options in the setup menu. Before setting up my system I called Pioneer support and was told that I had to connect my A60 modules to the top middle terminal, and that Atmos would not work if I connected to the front height terminal, or any other terminal.


----------



## sikclown

kingwiggi said:


> See
> 
> *Your Benefits*
> 
> Once upgraded with the Auro®-Codec Decoder, the Denon AVR-X7200W and AVR-X5200W are capable of decoding the original Auro-3D® mix and playing back an Auro 10.1 channel configuration (including “Voice of God” channel). The AVR-X4100W can process an Auro 9.1 channel configuration for full height layer capability. The Auro-3D Upgrade can be purchased for $199. *In addition, you will get a free Auro-3D Demonstration Blu-ray Disc that contains native Auro-3D content with popular movie and music tracks, as well as ambience loops to experience true 3D surround sound. *


Yeah I caught that after I posted and then reedited my post to showcase my stupidity


----------



## zebidou81

If you have an atmos enabled speaker firing up at the ceiling @ 20 degrees which i think is the spec. Does anybody know enough about atmos to say that it would or would not make a difference if you increased said angle if sat further away ? Why is it only 20 degrees in the first plce ?


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> I was not aware of Dolby having disclosed ideal positions for the Atmos top speakers in addition to the optimal ranges that can be found in their published guidelines. Have I missed something?


You missed it 

In the official dolby docs available on the link below they give not only a range but 3 angles for TF and TR:
30-*45*-55 and 125-*135*-150 , so both ranges and ideal angles within the range.
So yes jb21 would be in the range so all OK, but if he can install to the ideal angle, why not do it ? 


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


----------



## Mike Garrett

pasender91 said:


> You missed it
> 
> In the official dolby docs available on the link below they give not only a range but 3 angles for TF and TR:
> 30-*45*-55 and 125-*135*-150 , so both ranges and ideal angles within the range.
> So yes jb21 would be in the range so all OK, but if he can install to the ideal angle, why not do it ?
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


You do not have to hit one of those three angles. Just should be within the range.


----------



## pasender91

Yes, agree within the range is OK, but then why dolby mention specifically those 45 and 135° angles?
I read them as recommended or optimal positions within the range ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> You missed it
> 
> In the official dolby docs available on the link below they give not only a range but 3 angles for TF and TR:
> 30-*45*-55 and 125-*135*-150 , so both ranges and ideal angles within the range.


I agree that looking at those diagrams the best possible guess for the ideal elevation angle as intended by Dolby would be exactly the ones you suggest. It follows from not being able to come up with an answer to the question 'For what other purpose than showing the ideal angles Dolby would have put them there?' I don't have a clue either, but it would be nice if Dolby could confirm this to be the intended angles which are applied during the object playback rendering, and while doing so also disclose to us the corresponding intended lateral elevation angles. Until then we simply don't know what those intended ideal positions really are.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Keep in mind, different speakers have different dispersion (off axis response) characteristics. Some speakers will drop off more than others, off axis. So what might be optimal for one speaker, will not be optimal for another speaker. I can see scenarios where the smaller angle might be a better choice.


----------



## maikeldepotter

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Keep in mind, different speakers have different dispersion (off axis response) characteristics. Some speakers will drop off more than others, off axis. So what might be optimal for one speaker, will not be optimal for another speaker. I can see scenarios where the smaller angle might be a better choice.


Yes, but personally I would still prefer choosing the best suited speaker for any given ideal position, instead of finding the best suited position (within the optimal range) for any given speaker.


----------



## broodro0ster

I bought a Denon X4100 on black friday for a very good price (I was actually looking for a used Denon X4000, but this one was just 150 bucks more than a used X4000)
I'm building a dedicated room and I'm wondering what would be better. A 5.2.4 or a 7.2.2 setup? The X4100 can only process up to 9 channels, so I'll have to chose between the above combinations.

Since it's a dedicated room I'll be able to place my surrounds at an angle of 110° if I go 5.1.4. I've never owned a 7.1 setup, so I'm not sure if it would be a big improvement over 5.1 system.


----------



## robert816

broodro0ster said:


> I bought a Denon X4100 on black friday for a very good price (I was actually looking for a used Denon X4000, but this one was just 150 bucks more than a used X4000)
> I'm building a dedicated room and I'm wondering what would be better. A 5.2.4 or a 7.2.2 setup? The X4100 can only process up to 9 channels, so I'll have to chose between the above combinations.
> 
> Since it's a dedicated room I'll be able to place my surrounds at an angle of 110° if I go 5.1.4. I've never owned a 7.1 setup, so I'm not sure if it would be a big improvement over 5.1 system.


Welcome to the AVS forums!

I tried 7.1x3.2 when I was first experimenting with my new system. It works fine, you get the experience of Atmos surround if your overhead speakers are properly placed.

However, when I tried 5.1x3.4 (there is only one LFE channel but I have three subs, hence the 1x3 designation) the Atmos and DSU simply filled the entire room, and the effect of front to back and vise-versa was so much more pronounced.

You should try it both ways for yourself, your room acoustics, speakers, AVR are all going to play a part in how your system sounds, and what I prefer may not be your cup of tea in your environment.


----------



## LowellG

robert816 said:


> Welcome to the AVS forums!
> 
> I tried 7.1x3.2 when I was first experimenting with my new system. It works fine, you get the experience of Atmos surround if your overhead speakers are properly placed.
> 
> However, when I tried 5.1x3.4 (there is only one LFE channel but I have three subs, hence the 1x3 designation) the Atmos and DSU simply filled the entire room, and the effect of front to back and vise-versa was so much more pronounced.
> 
> You should try it both ways for yourself, your room acoustics, speakers, AVR are all going to play a part in how your system sounds, and what I prefer may not be your cup of tea in your environment.



Robert, what terminology or you using? The standard 7.1.2 vs 7.1x3.2. I am having trouble visualizing what you are talking about. You did that twice, so it must mean something.


----------



## robert816

LowellG said:


> Robert, what terminology or you using? The standard 7.1.2 vs 7.1x3.2. I am having trouble visualizing what you are talking about. You did that twice, so it must mean something.


Haha, only to me! There is only one (1) LFE channel, 5.1 or 7.1, but I run three (3) subs in my system, I could list it as 5.3.4 (5 surrounds, 3 subs, 4 Atmos speakers), but of course someone will always point out that you may have a dozen subs
in your system, but truly there is only one LFE channel. So I listed my system with 3 subs as a 1x3 (1 LFE channel with 3 subs).


Make a little more sense? I'm sure someone will call me out on doing it that way also, but there is nothing to say I cannot list my system the way it is.


----------



## Gurba

Me thinks that People here focus too much on angles, elevation, dispersion etc. I'm glad I'm happy With less Tech.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> IMHO (as a cinephile AND a certified voyeur) there is no amount of eye candy that will compensate for bad acting and poor scriptwriting. I'll hold out until there's a movie in Atmos on BRD that's worth seeing.





kbarnes701 said:


> There's more to a movie than the script. Look at Burlesque - script is cosmically bad, acting is pretty poor (apart from Stanley Tucci) - but overall it's a great experience . . . I cite Christina Aguilera in the aforementioned title, and I rest my case


*KEITH THE MOVIE CRITIC MAKES THE FUNNY PAPERS* !











(Good luck with your surgery, Keith.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> At least two other companies — Steinway Lyngdorf and Datasat Digital Entertainment, formerly the cinema-equipment arm of DTS — also plan audio components that support both surround technologies. Steinway Lyngdorf plans first-quarter shipments of the $18,000-suggested P200 A/V processor, which will decode Atmos and Auro content. The processor is sold as a package only with Steinway Lyngdorf amps, speakers and woofers. Datasat Digital Entertainment offers the $19,000 RS20i and $11,000 LS10 A/V processors, both with an optional $3,000 Auro-3D decoder. Dolby Atmos will be made available in early 2015 for the RS20i via a firmware update or via the addition of a hardware board in an expansion slot. Future Datasat products will also incorporate both surround technologies, the company said - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/receivers...bine-atmos-auro-3d/54425#sthash.OWUtQ224.dpuf
> Why would they offer a $200.00 firmware upgrade for D&M no one would buy the more expensive AVRs unless the $200.00 upgrade is a light version, if there is such a thing.


The license fee is based on item quantity. There will be few Steinway, Datasat, and Trinnov processors sold, so the fee (and the price of the processors themselves) is high. Denon and the other mainstream companies will sell many, many more units around the world, so their licensing fee is much lower.


----------



## kokishin

visualq said:


> Thanks a million guy! I'd already downloaded just the trailers from another site, but I thought it would be NICE to have the other content. Thanks again, much appreciated.
> 
> BTW, it's a very minor thing, but I gave you the wrong Onkyo 2-channel Power amp model when I supplied you with my ATMOS config info
> .Instead of M-285 (no such thing), I should've keyed M-282. Everything else is accurate though.


Thanks for the correction.


----------



## jdsmoothie

broodro0ster said:


> I bought a Denon X4100 on black friday for a very good price (I was actually looking for a used Denon X4000, but this one was just 150 bucks more than a used X4000)
> I'm building a dedicated room and I'm wondering what would be better. A 5.2.4 or a 7.2.2 setup? The X4100 can only process up to 9 channels, so I'll have to chose between the above combinations.
> 
> Since it's a dedicated room I'll be able to place my surrounds at an angle of 110° if I go 5.1.4. I've never owned a 7.1 setup, so I'm not sure if it would be a big improvement over 5.1 system.


Depends on whether using Front Wides or Surr Back speakers. Although Front Wide would likely provide a better experience and can be used with a Dolby Atmos BD, they cannot be used with Dolby Surround, rather only Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.


----------



## broodro0ster

jdsmoothie said:


> Depends on whether using Front Wides or Surr Back speakers. Although Front Wide would likely provide a better experience and can be used with a Dolby Atmos BD, they cannot be used with Dolby Surround, rather only Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.


I'd use back surround speakers if I try 7.1. But I'm not sure if it would be an improvement over 5.1 if I can position my surrounds at 110°. Also, my head is only 3 feet from the back wall, so I'm not sure if that is ideal.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
As is the case with my setup as well ... my couch only about 3' from the wall and have used the surrounds at 110 degrees with Front Wide speakers though. However, now experimenting with 2 addiitional speakers with Dolby Atmos and Auro3D, I added Surr Back speakers with no real improvement so have now placed them + stands on top of my FL/FR speakers temporarily to use as Front Height instead.


----------



## broodro0ster

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> As is the case with my setup as well ... my couch only about 3' from the wall and have used the surrounds at 110 degrees with Front Wide speakers though. However, now experimenting with 2 addiitional speakers with Dolby Atmos and Auro3D, I added Surr Back speakers with no real improvement so have now placed them + stands on top of my FL/FR speakers temporarily to use as Front Height instead.


Cool. Than I think that I'd probably have more benefit from 5.2.4 than from 7.2.2. 
I'm not going to do wides, since I'd like to use DSU on my non Atmos content and wides aren't supported when using DSU if I recall correctly.


----------



## jgourlie

Csbooth said:


> Would Surround Dolby be considered the equivalent to the physical top middle? Placing the height information just in front of the MLP for more accurate audio panning?
> 
> In the diagrams I've looked at regarding a 5.1.2 setup using the Atmos enabled speakers, it looks as if the blue cone would be kind of far from the MLP which seems odd.
> 
> Is there anyone here that could chime in and express how they feel about the capabilities of their 5.1.2 setup using the upward firing speakers? Also how is the panning effects? (Side to side, front to back) for those of us who might be interested in something a bit more simple.
> 
> I'm sure we can all agree .4 is king but sadly when adding just two more height channels it is the difference between thousands of dollars lol.


I just setup my 5.1.2 system yesterday with a Denon x4100. I have the Onkyo skh-410 up-firing speakers (heck of a cyber monday deal). 

My wife and I watched Godzilla last night and in the opening scene there is a helicopter flying around and it came from behind us travelled across the room and went out the front of the room. We both looked at each other and smiled.

But here is where my system might be more like a 5.1.(2.1/2) My surround speakers are Energy Cr-10 Dipole's mounted about 6 feet up the wall. This particular speaker has an up firing tweeter for the dipole rather then dual side firing speakers. So I have found that there is a bunch of information that blends with the Front Up-firing Atmos speakers coming from my Surround Speakers.

So I am able to get Front and Back Pans along with Right and Left pans with a 5.1.2 system when really I shouldn't be.

So I don't know if that helps you or not??? But as far as I am concerned a simple 5.1.2 system for me is just Dandy!!


----------



## mcascio

Has anyone tested putting their speakers on the side walls up close to the ceiling instead of on the ceiling? I'm wondering if I can get pretty close to the same results since it would only be about 3' away from potentially an ideal mounting location on the ceiling.


----------



## LowellG

robert816 said:


> Haha, only to me! There is only one (1) LFE channel, 5.1 or 7.1, but I run three (3) subs in my system, I could list it as 5.3.4 (5 surrounds, 3 subs, 4 Atmos speakers), but of course someone will always point out that you may have a dozen subs
> in your system, but truly there is only one LFE channel. So I listed my system with 3 subs as a 1x3 (1 LFE channel with 3 subs).
> 
> 
> Make a little more sense? I'm sure someone will call me out on doing it that way also, but there is nothing to say I cannot list my system the way it is.


I see, thanks for the clarification. I have thought about adding a 3rd nearfield sub to my setup. How are yours configured?


----------



## robert816

LowellG said:


> I see, thanks for the clarification. I have thought about adding a 3rd nearfield sub to my setup. How are yours configured?


I have 2 Klipsch subs in the front next to each the LF and RF speakers using the 2 LFE output on the Pioneer SC-87.

The 3rd sub is an older Realistic sub that refuses to stop working, it is under the couch table behind my couch. It is using the High Level inputs (speaker wire) from the AVR to the rear surrounds.

It works quite well and I receive plenty of bass response from the rear sub, enough so that during some scenes the couch feels as though its moving, beats the hell out of Bass Shakers.


----------



## NorthSky

jgourlie said:


> I just setup my 5.1.2 system yesterday with a Denon x4100. I have the Onkyo skh-410 up-firing speakers (heck of a cyber monday deal).
> 
> My wife and I watched Godzilla last night and in the opening scene there is a helicopter flying around and it came from behind us traveled across the room and went out the front of the room. *We both looked at each other and smiled*.


After I've read this post and that short sentence above me too I just smiled, and said to myself that's what it's about.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Gurba said:


> Me thinks that People here focus too much on angles, elevation, dispersion etc.


Could be, but what would you expect in a forum that has Science in its name?



> I'm glad I'm happy With less Tech.


Good for you!


----------



## markus767

LowellG said:


> I see, thanks for the clarification. I have thought about adding a 3rd nearfield sub to my setup. How are yours configured?


If you're really listening within a sub's near field then you only need one. Near means really near, like 1 ft. As soon as you're farther away the room completely dominates the response.


----------



## blazar

mcascio said:


> Has anyone tested putting their speakers on the side walls up close to the ceiling instead of on the ceiling? I'm wondering if I can get pretty close to the same results since it would only be about 3' away from potentially an ideal mounting location on the ceiling.


I did 8 speakers like this and really this layer of wall mounted height speakers does a tremendous job on filling in the information from "above".

The main problem with the current batch of atmos units (marantz, etc) seems to be a lack of flexibility in placement. The receiver doesn't have a modifiable "speaker map" like the Trinnov product has.

Ideally you want the receiver to adjust to wherever your speakers are in a 3d space. This is the WHOLE POINT of dolby atmos!

The manufacturers probabaly skipped this concept for lack of processing power in their DSP based systems or perhaps haven't thought it out well enough...

I would put in as many speakers in as many convenient approximate locations as possible. Auro, DTS neo X, audyssey and others all have arbitrary locations for speakers so you won't satisfy every possible codec.

I will bet that the processors will evolve and soon accomodate for your speaker locations.

I continue to think that Trinnov is the only brand to have gotten this "right" conceptually but I have not used their product nor do I plan to drop 20k plus on a processor.


----------



## Csbooth

jgourlie said:


> I just setup my 5.1.2 system yesterday with a Denon x4100. I have the Onkyo skh-410 up-firing speakers (heck of a cyber monday deal).
> 
> My wife and I watched Godzilla last night and in the opening scene there is a helicopter flying around and it came from behind us travelled across the room and went out the front of the room. We both looked at each other and smiled.
> 
> But here is where my system might be more like a 5.1.(2.1/2) My surround speakers are Energy Cr-10 Dipole's mounted about 6 feet up the wall. This particular speaker has an up firing tweeter for the dipole rather then dual side firing speakers. So I have found that there is a bunch of information that blends with the Front Up-firing Atmos speakers coming from my Surround Speakers.
> 
> So I am able to get Front and Back Pans along with Right and Left pans with a 5.1.2 system when really I shouldn't be.
> 
> So I don't know if that helps you or not??? But as far as I am concerned a simple 5.1.2 system for me is just Dandy!!


I really appreciate the input and am glad to hear that you guys are finding it satisfactory!

Now concerning when you said you shouldn't be getting front to back pans seeing as how your lacking 2 heights, you seem to be under the impression that it is how it is meant to work.

I am curious if that has been said myself actually because from what I have come to understand is the panning should still move around fully in the 3D space (L>R,F>B, and lastly even diagonally) but not quite as fluidly as with a .4 setup. 

Now whether when you designate your Atmos setup it allows for some sort of audio delay functionality to help alleviate the lack of the other two heights I don't know lol, but I do feel like just because your not using .4 you shouldn't be forbidden from receiving front to back pans when honestly it should be able to do them considering the heights are still making a "connection" with the front and back physical speakers in the 3D plane.

If I'm mistaken by all means educate me, but I just don't recall in any of the documents Ive read that having the basic 5.1.2 would not give you front to back pans.

Edit: Here's an excerpt from a Q&A that details what dolby recommends and how content is fed;

Dolby suggests that for high-end home theaters, a 7.1.4 system (a traditional 7.1 channel-based layout with four overhead speakers) is the gold standard. However, Dolby Atmos content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. Whether you have a full 7.1.4 system or a 5.1.2 system, the same content source will be fed to it, and the audio experience will be optimized for your specific home theater setup.

At least to me that says the experience will essentially be the same just not quite as full bodied, without the connecting second set of speakers, so front to back pans should still be on the table haha.


----------



## ThePrisoner

jgourlie said:


> I just setup my 5.1.2 system yesterday with a Denon x4100. I have the Onkyo skh-410 up-firing speakers (heck of a cyber monday deal).
> 
> My wife and I watched Godzilla last night and in the opening scene there is a helicopter flying around and it came from behind us travelled across the room and went out the front of the room. We both looked at each other and smiled.


Glad to hear this as I'm going to be trying out the SKH-410's by placing them on my surround speakers to complete my 5.2.4 set-up. Enjoy and as someone posted above, this is what it's all about.


----------



## pasender91

blazar said:


> I did 8 speakers like this and really this layer of wall mounted height speakers does a tremendous job on filling in the information from "above".
> 
> The main problem with the current batch of atmos units (marantz, etc) seems to be a lack of flexibility in placement. The receiver doesn't have a modifiable "speaker map" like the Trinnov product has.
> 
> Ideally you want the receiver to adjust to wherever your speakers are in a 3d space. This is the WHOLE POINT of dolby atmos!
> 
> The manufacturers probabaly skipped this concept for lack of processing power in their DSP based systems or perhaps haven't thought it out well enough...
> 
> I would put in as many speakers in as many convenient approximate locations as possible. Auro, DTS neo X, audyssey and others all have arbitrary locations for speakers so you won't satisfy every possible codec.
> 
> I will bet that the processors will evolve and soon accomodate for your speaker locations.
> 
> I continue to think that Trinnov is the only brand to have gotten this "right" conceptually but I have not used their product nor do I plan to drop 20k plus on a processor.


Quite interestingly, i had a chat yesterday with one of the Trinnov engineers. He confirmed to me that the positioning limitation to the preset 24 and 10 locations was NOT due to the Atmos encoder, that supports any location, nor a limitation of DSP power (the DSP HAS to compute based on a location anyway). But rather it is a limitation of the Trinnov software. They are aware of it obviously and are indeed planning to release an update at some point that will feed the precise speaker location (they know it thru their high-end 3D microphone) to the Atmos encoder. 
Bear in mind it is a small company, so whether this will happen quickly or not is another matter ...


----------



## epiCenter

Another plug for DSU. I just watched 3D Transformers 3 today at a volume slightly below reference level. It sounds like an excellent Atmos mix! There are several scenes where the DSU sounds just like coded object based sound. And not just during action scenes. There is one scene where one of the small "mouthy" autobots throws a handful of bolts onto the wood floor of the apartment. It sounded exactly like those bolts landed on the floor of my theater room (off to my left). And on the spot on my floor where the bolts would have landed. I would stack this DSU mix up against the Atmos mix of TF4. If we were to conduct a double blind study after educating the participants on object based sound, I think most people would respond that TF3 is an Atmos mix. With DSU results like this, I won't feel compelled to get "double dipped" when/if Atmos mixes come out on already-released content.


----------



## pasender91

Same here, i am amazed to see what DSU does to the movies.
Yesterday, i almost stood up to close the window because of annoying outside noise, but no, it was wind in the trees from the movie


----------



## jgourlie

Csbooth said:


> I really appreciate the input and am glad to hear that you guys are finding it satisfactory!
> 
> Now concerning when you said you shouldn't be getting front to back pans seeing as how your lacking 2 heights, you seem to be under the impression that it is how it is meant to work.
> 
> I am curious if that has been said myself actually because from what I have come to understand is the panning should still move around fully in the 3D space (L>R,F>B, and lastly even diagonally) but not quite as fluidly as with a .4 setup.
> 
> Now whether when you designate your Atmos setup it allows for some sort of audio delay functionality to help alleviate the lack of the other two heights I don't know lol, but I do feel like just because your not using .4 you shouldn't be forbidden from receiving front to back pans when honestly it should be able to do them considering the heights are still making a "connection" with the front and back physical speakers in the 3D plane.
> 
> If I'm mistaken by all means educate me, but I just don't recall in any of the documents Ive read that having the basic 5.1.2 would not give you front to back pans.
> 
> Edit: Here's an excerpt from a Q&A that details what dolby recommends and how content is fed;
> 
> Dolby suggests that for high-end home theaters, a 7.1.4 system (a traditional 7.1 channel-based layout with four overhead speakers) is the gold standard. However, Dolby Atmos content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. Whether you have a full 7.1.4 system or a 5.1.2 system, the same content source will be fed to it, and the audio experience will be optimized for your specific home theater setup.
> 
> At least to me that says the experience will essentially be the same just not quite as full bodied, without the connecting second set of speakers, so front to back pans should still be on the table haha.


You may be right on the Front/Back pans in this regard. I didn't do any research on the white papers etc etc….All I know is a Helicopter flew from behind me towards the front of the room and I was sold and luckily enough…My wife was too!!


----------



## viper14

*Speaker config*

I'm in the process of replacing all my speakers, the fronts are done with KEF Q900's and centre channel with Q600 i'm looking at the front R50's for upward firing atmos speakers, trying to figure out if i should be using dipole speakers for my surround's and surround backs?? the plan for the other set of atmos speakers will be in ceiling, what do most of you use for surround and surround back speakers? dipole/bipole, or just monopole speakers?


----------



## awblackmon

I keep holding back on ordering a Marantz 7702. Meanwhile I was watching the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. With DTS NEO:X in a 9.1 (front/height/side/back surround) I was blown away with the overhead sounds throughout the film. I keep wondering though how different/better Dolby DSU might sound? I am really wanting to get this ordered soon. I am doing a lot of work to prepare the room for Atmos.


----------



## Csbooth

jgourlie said:


> You may be right on the Front/Back pans in this regard. I didn't do any research on the white papers etc etc….All I know is a Helicopter flew from behind me towards the front of the room and I was sold and luckily enough…My wife was too!!


I'm thrilled to hear that the positional panning seems accurate and I believe personally for me that will be all I'll need in the small room that the wife and I will be watching in, which speaking of the wife while she appreciates good audio I think she's getting tired of me saying "did you hear the accuracy and clarity of that?!" And this is on a 6 year old Yamaha system that I got which doesn't support HD audio lol.

I just recently have gotten giddy over all of this and I'm proud to say that I'm not a commoner anymore who thinks 5ch stereo is surround sound lol. Anyways thanks for all of your input!


----------



## Csbooth

awblackmon said:


> I keep holding back on ordering a Marantz 7702. Meanwhile I was watching the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. With DTS NEO:X in a 9.1 (front/height/side/back surround) I was blown away with the overhead sounds throughout the film. I keep wondering though how different/better Dolby DSU might sound? I am really wanting to get this ordered soon. I am doing a lot of work to prepare the room for Atmos.


From the hours I've poured over this thread and other forums across the net, it seems universally true that DSU is the golden ticket to ride the Atmos bandwagon. 

While true Atmos mixes will most usually sound better, the algorithms that the DSU applies to the HD audio tracks is almost a 1:1 comparison to majority, and from my understanding 2ch upmixing has proved tough to beat from the likes of NEO and DSX so I would say that DSU alone is worth the upgrade lol


----------



## rmerlano

rmerlano said:


> Hi buddies!
> 
> I´m very close to be a new ATMOS owner system. I´ve a dedicated HT room with 7.1 configuration.
> I recently bought a X5200 (in transit) and I want to reach the 7.1.4 ATMOS setup. Also in transit are my in ceiling speakers (4) Pyle PDIC81RD. I have been reading a lot of your posts and I guess I have my setup done, but I would like to know your valuable opinions.
> 
> What do you think? The location of TF and TR is Ok?
> I guess MAY BE I have to move the TF closer to my MLP.
> Your comments will be welcome!!
> 
> 
> 
> subir imagen
> 
> 
> 
> subir fotos
> 
> 
> subir fotos gratis



If possible, I would like to get more opinions


----------



## LowellG

rmerlano said:


> If possible, I would like to get more opinions


To me, where I sit is the most important. The Atmos setup says put the ceiling speakers at 30-55 degree angles from you ear level. Go to the internet and get a trig calc and see how for out that goes. I measured mine, if I used the 45 degree mark it would make them 4 foot in front and 4 foot in back.


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


----------



## rmerlano

LowellG said:


> To me, where I sit is the most important. The Atmos setup says put the ceiling speakers at 30-55 degree angles from you ear level. Go to the internet and get a trig calc and see how for out that goes. I measured mine, if I used the 45 degree mark it would make them 4 foot in front and 4 foot in back.
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html



Thank you Lowell


----------



## epiCenter

*Preference only*



rmerlano said:


> If possible, I would like to get more opinions


Quite honestly, I see no flaws in your speaker positions. I only have recommendations based on preference. Although my perspective can be refuted, I believe if one wants a home theater experience as good or better than a quality commercial theater experience, a home owner "should" attempt to emulate a commercial theater in both equipment and esthetics "within your own budget." Of course, for most of us, this is a holy grail that we will probably never attain. 

However, there are a few things you could do should you be so inclined. Both recommendations that I will discuss have to do with your theater giving you a sense that sounds are coming from directly in front of you and directly behind you. With your new Atmos set up, your x.x.4 ceiling speakers will have your overheads covered. 

One thing you may want to try is to move your rear surrounds in toward your center line (again, this is just preference).

The second recommendation, and I think more important, is to suggest you look into installing a "false wall," and place your LCR speakers behind an acoustically transparent (AT) screen. You already have a dedicated theater space, so installing the wall should not detract from the esthetics of your room. IMHO, this significantly infuses a sense of realism to your theater sound field (which is probably why commercial theaters are set up this way).

I personally have had multiple speaker variations in two different dedicated home theaters, and placing my LCR speakers behind an AT screen was the most significant increase in my Home Theater enjoyment (until Atmos came around). But I also believe the LCR behind the AT screen (more than likely) improves the Atmos effect since sounds can "appear" to both emanate from, and terminate into, the AT screen. 

Again, these are only personal preferences. I have had a speaker set up almost exactly like the one you have/proposed. And I loved it! But if you are feeling adventurous, and have a supportive money/spouse situation, you may want to look into what I have suggested.


----------



## batpig

Another benefit of the false wall is it brings the screen closer, increasing the viewing angle and visual immersion.

Plus you can ignore aesthetics of the front speakers which means you can get all-performance pig ugly speakers which will improve that bang for your buck. 

If I had the luxury of a dedicated room I would definitely go that route.


----------



## epiCenter

viper14 said:


> I'm in the process of replacing all my speakers, the fronts are done with KEF Q900's and centre channel with Q600 i'm looking at the front R50's for upward firing atmos speakers, trying to figure out if i should be using dipole speakers for my surround's and surround backs?? the plan for the other set of atmos speakers will be in ceiling, what do most of you use for surround and surround back speakers? dipole/bipole, or just monopole speakers?


I use Speakercraft Aim Cinema Di/Bi-pole threes in bi-pole mode for both side and rear surrounds. The object based sound through both Atmos mix and the DSU seems "spot on."


----------



## epiCenter

batpig said:


> Another benefit of the false wall is it brings the screen closer, increasing the viewing angle and visual immersion.
> 
> Plus you can ignore aesthetics of the front speakers which means you can get all-performance pig ugly speakers which will improve that bang for your buck.
> 
> If I had the luxury of a dedicated room I would definitely go that route.


Right on Bat Pig! I have giant, earth shattering, and God awful PIG UGLY speakers behind my wall. No one will ever see them. But they will hear them...perhaps from miles away!


----------



## CBdicX

zebidou81 said:


> If you have an atmos enabled speaker firing up at the ceiling @ 20 degrees which i think is the spec. Does anybody know enough about atmos to say that it would or would not make a difference if you increased said angle if sat further away ? Why is it only 20 degrees in the first plce ?


Think 20 degrees is an average angle compared to the distance for the speakers front and back in a "standard" HT and where the average MLP would be.
In my case this is not correct, my fronts are 2 meters away from MLP and the backs are 3.5 meters away.
So front angle should be more then the back angle if i want the bounced signal on the MLP.


Buying Atmos Enabled speakers fixed at 20 degree could, and i say could, maybe work less then when i would use a speaker that i can rotate in the vertical plane.
I will receive 4 Magnat Needle Sat speakers soon and will mount them on my front and back Boston M350 and M250.
I will mount them with the wall mounts on the side so i look at the side of the speakers and not to the front, turned up.


If this will work i do not know, i will test if the speakers will fire up enough so i will not hear them in the horizontal plane.
I had the Onkyo Atmos speakers, they worked but are ugly black boxes, so i have a compare with "Original" Atmos speakers........


I will post my finding this week


----------



## Spanglo

mcascio said:


> Has anyone tested putting their speakers on the side walls up close to the ceiling instead of on the ceiling? I'm wondering if I can get pretty close to the same results since it would only be about 3' away from potentially an ideal mounting location on the ceiling.


Have 2 of my overheads wall mount at ceiling, and another 2 high up on a shelf. Works well with my 8' ceiling.


----------



## zebidou81

CBdicX said:


> Think 20 degrees is an average angle compared to the distance for the speakers front and back in a "standard" HT and where the average MLP would be.
> In my case this is not correct, my fronts are 2 meters away from MLP and the backs are 3.5 meters away.
> So front angle should be more then the back angle if i want the bounced signal on the MLP.
> 
> 
> Buying Atmos Enabled speakers fixed at 20 degree could, and i say could, maybe work less then when i would use a speaker that i can rotate in the vertical plane.
> I will receive 4 Magnat Needle Sat speakers soon and will mount them on my front and back Boston M350 and M250.
> I will mount them with the wall mounts on the side so i look at the side of the speakers and not to the front, turned up.
> 
> 
> If this will work i do not know, i will test if the speakers will fire up enough so i will not hear them in the horizontal plane.
> I had the Onkyo Atmos speakers, they worked but are ugly black boxes, so i have a compare with "Original" Atmos speakers........
> 
> 
> I will post my finding this week


Hi Yes as i thought, maybe the 20 degree angle as you say is ideal if you are in a central position, say in a 3 meter room and you are sat 1.5m in, exactly the same distance from the rears as you are from the fronts, i only have a 5.2.2 setup so i am just using fronts.

I have found that i have mounted my modules 3/4 room height and added a further 20 degrees to the angle so they are firing up at the ceiling at an angle of 50 degrees, using a small mirror and a laser pen i then mounted the mirror to the ceiling (blu tack) and used the laser pen from the speaker position at the angle it was up firing and reflected laser off mirror which hit directly on to my seating position, i was a little unsure of the effects of pushing the speakers past the 20 degree design thinking the reflective sound may change in some way but it works great, i mounted speakers high as the more angle given to the speakers at ear level i thought may direct sound directly to listener instead of reflecting.

This seems to have improved sound greatly both with Native Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixer which i used yesterday to watch Beyond reasonable doubt and was very impressed by the upmix.


----------



## CBdicX

zebidou81 said:


> Hi Yes as i thought, maybe the 20 degree angle as you say is ideal if you are in a central position, say in a 3 meter room and you are sat 1.5m in, exactly the same distance from the rears as you are from the fronts, i only have a 5.2.2 setup so i am just using fronts.
> 
> I have found that i have mounted my modules 3/4 room height and added a further 20 degrees to the angle so they are firing up at the ceiling at an angle of 50 degrees, using a small mirror and a laser pen i then mounted the mirror to the ceiling (blu tack) and used the laser pen from the speaker position at the angle it was up firing and reflected laser off mirror which hit directly on to my seating position, i was a little unsure of the effects of pushing the speakers past the 20 degree design thinking the reflective sound may change in some way but it works great, i mounted speakers high as the more angle given to the speakers at ear level i thought may direct sound directly to listener instead of reflecting.
> 
> This seems to have improved sound greatly both with Native Atmos and Dolby Surround upmixer which i used yesterday to watch Beyond reasonable doubt and was very impressed by the upmix.


Good idea to use a small mirror on the ceiling and a laser pen to get the angle correct so you get the most signal to the MLP.
Think it all comes to the correct bouncing angle and using a fixed Atmos speaker will be in most cases ok, but for some more extreme speaker setups a adjustable angle must be used.
Audioholics made a disign for a adjustable Atmos Enabled speaker.
Think when most of the speaker brands will step into Atmos, we will see adjustable speakers.
For now its fixed at 20 degree.........


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Quite interestingly, i had a chat yesterday with one of the Trinnov engineers. He confirmed to me that the positioning limitation to the preset 24 and 10 locations was NOT due to the Atmos encoder, that supports any location, nor a limitation of DSP power (the DSP HAS to compute based on a location anyway). But rather it is a limitation of the Trinnov software. They are aware of it obviously and are indeed planning to release an update at some point that will feed the precise speaker location (they know it thru their high-end 3D microphone) to the Atmos encoder.
> Bear in mind it is a small company, so whether this will happen quickly or not is another matter ...


Interesting indeed, since feeding the Atmos playback renderer with actual precise speaker locations will make Trinnov's unique remapping function redundant as long as Dolby's (quite tolerant) speaker placement guidelines are being followed ... (not considering the flexibility the remapping function brings for switching between optimal speaker lay-outs of alternative formats like Auro3d).


----------



## Frank714

kingwiggi said:


> Speaker setup comparison :-


Thanks a lot, I was very interested in such a graphic illustration.

While I could perform the speaker installation for Auro within a couple of hours (just add 3 speakers in easily accessible areas) in my home theatre, the information also appears to tell me, that I would be limited to a Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 configuration where two Front Height speakers substitute the actual Atmos Top Fronts.

Thus it seems you can have a reference Auro speaker setup at the expense of an Atmos speaker setup (but *not* the other way round). 

Thus the only "reference level" solution appears to be to have two D & M AVRs (one for Auro, one for Atmos) and the corresponding extra speakers.

Is this correct or did I miss something?


----------



## jkasanic

rmerlano said:


> If possible, I would like to get more opinions


With that much real estate overhead and while you're fishing wire, you might also consider prewiring for more ceiling speakers (perhaps a set close to where TM would be)? Just a thought but I also like the false wall idea having gone that route myself.


----------



## rmerlano

Thank yo epiCenter, Batpig and jkasanic.
I´ll consider all yor recommendations. 

I´ve been thinking about the AT Screen, but It will be in the next house (we are planning) so actually I´m only looking for improve my HT audio, and atmos seems to be the solution nowadays.

Excellent week!


----------



## batpig

Frank714 said:


> kingwiggi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaker setup comparison :-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot, I was very interested in such a graphic illustration.
> 
> While I could perform the speaker installation for Auro within a couple of hours (just add 3 speakers in easily accessible areas) in my home theatre, the information also appears to tell me, that I would be limited to a Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 configuration where two Front Height speakers substitute the actual Atmos Top Fronts.
> 
> Thus it seems you can have a reference Auro speaker setup at the expense of an Atmos speaker setup (but *not* the other way round).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the only "reference level" solution appears to be to have two D & M AVRs (one for Auro, one for Atmos) and the corresponding extra speakers.
> 
> Is this correct or did I miss something?
Click to expand...

That's correct. Front Height is the only overhead location that can be shared between Atmos and Auro on the D&M receivers. So unless you want to go to the trouble of saving/loading config files and swapping wires or moving speakers, you have to choose whether you want a full Atmos or Auro overhead layout. 

Note that you can add more floor level speakers for Atmos. So you could for example have a 10.1 Auro setup and a 9.1.2 Atmos / Neo:X setup and switch on the fly.


----------



## tjenkins95

pasender91 said:


> Same here, i am amazed to see what DSU does to the movies.
> Yesterday, i almost stood up to close the window because of annoying outside noise, but no, it was wind in the trees from the movie




I watched Inception and Bourne Legacy over the weekend and they also sounded amazing using DSU.


Ray


----------



## LDBecker

mcascio said:


> Has anyone tested putting their speakers on the side walls up close to the ceiling instead of on the ceiling? I'm wondering if I can get pretty close to the same results since it would only be about 3' away from potentially an ideal mounting location on the ceiling.


I put two B&W M1 speakers on the wall at ceiling height on their flexible mounts - they are essentially "on" the ceiling, though they're not mounted on it directly. My Denon 5200 makes good use of them, making for a nice, enveloping sound field - given that my room is kind of small, has a lot of furniture, carpeting and popcorn ceilings... in other words, it's a living room, not a room optimized for home theater. I think it sounds great, and wonderfully added to what my system had been doing. 
I have an Energy Veritas 2.3/2.2, 2.0c, 2.0r and Microstar 12.1 1500 watt sub 7.1.2 system.


----------



## krozman

Hey guys, I bought a new blu ray player, upgrading to the Sony BDP-S5200 for wireless features. I remember having to disable a lot of features with my previous blu ray (also a sony) and play with the menus to get Dolby Atmos to work with the Denon 5200, but it seems I've tried every combination of audio setting and it's just not getting the receiver to recognize the atmos signal. Right now I've set the audio from "auto" to PCM and I've disabled every form of "mixing" that sounds like it would interfere. Little help please :-(


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
BDP must be set to "bitstream" with Secondary Audio/Mix set to OFF and set Audio on 5200 back to "Auto".


----------



## Csbooth

krozman said:


> Hey guys, I bought a new blu ray player, upgrading to the Sony BDP-S5200 for wireless features. I remember having to disable a lot of features with my previous blu ray (also a sony) and play with the menus to get Dolby Atmos to work with the Denon 5200, but it seems I've tried every combination of audio setting and it's just not getting the receiver to recognize the atmos signal. Right now I've set the audio from "auto" to PCM and I've disabled every form of "mixing" that sounds like it would interfere. Little help please :-(


Set to Bitstream Direct in your audio settings for Atmos encoded discs, and enjoy


----------



## ThePrisoner

batpig said:


> That's correct. Front Height is the only overhead location that can be shared between Atmos and Auro on the D&M receivers. So unless you want to go to the trouble of saving/loading config files and swapping wires or moving speakers, you have to choose whether you want a full Atmos or Auro overhead layout.
> 
> Note that you can add more floor level speakers for Atmos. So you could for example have a 10.1 Auro setup and a 9.1.2 Atmos / Neo:X setup and switch on the fly.


Right now I have 2 front height speakers mounted on front wall at ceiling. My amp assign is set to 7.1 w/ front heights. When I play the Auro 3D demo disc should I be changing amp assign to Auro 3D, which shows 2 front heights & 2 surr. heights? I also plan on trying out the Onkyo Atmos speakers for the rear.


----------



## audioguy

batpig said:


> Note that you can add more floor level speakers for Atmos. So you could for example have a 10.1 Auro setup and a 9.1.2 Atmos / Neo:X setup and *switch on the fly*.


How does one "switch on the fly"?


----------



## kbarnes701

*Expendables 3 - reported audio dropouts on Oppo 9.x players.*

For information, this disc played with no dropouts on my ancient Panasonic DMP-BD35 player which makes the poor performance of the Oppo wrt to this disc (and others with complex seamless branching) even less excusable to my mind.


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> That's correct. Front Height is the only overhead location that can be shared between Atmos and Auro on the D&M receivers. So unless you want to go to the trouble of saving/loading config files and swapping wires or moving speakers, you have to choose whether you want a full Atmos or Auro overhead layout.
> 
> Note that you can add more floor level speakers for Atmos. So you could for example have a 10.1 Auro setup and a 9.1.2 Atmos / Neo:X setup and switch on the fly.





ThePrisoner said:


> Right now I have 2 front height speakers mounted on front wall at ceiling. My amp assign is set to 7.1 w/ front heights. When I play the Auro 3D demo disc should I be changing amp assign to Auro 3D, which shows 2 front heights & 2 surr. heights? I also plan on trying out the Onkyo Atmos speakers for the rear.


No, you don't have to be in Auro3D amp assign mode to use Auro3D surround mode, just like you don't have to use "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode to hear Atmos sound. Frankly, these amp assign modes are stupid and confusing. They don't give any additional functionality, but just have fewer options (more restrictive) then selecting the generic "9.1ch" or "11.1ch" amp assign modes. 

With a speaker layout already set for 7.1+FH, you should be able to use Atmos or Auro (or Neo:X etc) at will just by changing surround modes.

Note that Atmos-enabled speakers only work with Atmos/DSU surround modes. You can't use them as "Surround Height" for Auro3D.




audioguy said:


> How does one "switch on the fly"?


By changing surround mode. For example, let's say you have they full monty 14ch, Auro-optimized setup with 7.1+FW+FH+SH+VOG.

In Auro3D surround mode, you will get 10.1 output (5.1 + 4 Heights + VOG).

In DSU upmix surround mode, you will get 7.1.2 output (7.1 + FH).

In Atmos surround mode, you will get 9.1.2 output (7.1 + FW + FH).

In Neo:X upmix surround mode, you will get 11.1ch output (7.1 + FW + FH).

And so forth.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Csbooth said:


> From the hours I've poured over this thread and other forums across the net, it seems universally true that DSU is the golden ticket to ride the Atmos bandwagon.
> 
> While true Atmos mixes will most usually sound better, the algorithms that the DSU applies to the HD audio tracks *is almost a 1:1 comparison to majority*, and from my understanding 2ch upmixing has proved tough to beat from the likes of NEO and DSX so I would say that DSU alone is worth the upgrade lol


I think you're overstating that DSU is equivalent to real Atmos tracks. It does a good job at synthesizing a wider sound scape from a normal multi-channel track, but it doesn't equate to real, discrete object panning. 

However, I think you'll enjoy it. I really am hoping for a lot more choices of true Atmos mixes. And A LOT of solid catalog remixes.


----------



## smurraybhm

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think you're overstating that DSU is equivalent to real Atmos tracks. It does a good job at synthesizing a wider sound scape from a normal multi-channel track, but it doesn't equate to real, discrete object panning.
> 
> However, I think you'll enjoy it. I really am hoping for a lot more choices of true Atmos mixes. And A LOT of solid catalog remixes.


I don't disagree Dan, but I have to say after watching the latest Planet of the Apes release this weekend using DSU, the audio was outstanding to put it simply. Dare I say it was better than the two Atmos releases that I own (T4 and Expend3) - don't cringe


----------



## Csbooth

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think you're overstating that DSU is equivalent to real Atmos tracks. It does a good job at synthesizing a wider sound scape from a normal multi-channel track, but it doesn't equate to real, discrete object panning.
> 
> However, I think you'll enjoy it. I really am hoping for a lot more choices of true Atmos mixes. And A LOT of solid catalog remixes.


I might have been a bit too overzealous with my explanation in DSU yes lol, but I think everything else is pretty spot on in that DSU alone is worth every penny.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Well I am officially a member of the Atmos club.

System
5.1.4 (six subs)
LCR's DIY active 3-way design
Two side surrounds, JBL Pro 8340's
Four Atmos, JBL Pro 8340's (TF and TR)

Marantz AV7702 prepro


----------



## bsoko2

*^ ^ ^* Me too!


----------



## NorthSky

Are they giving Dolby Atmos trophies? ...For first 2014 owners' club.


----------



## Schwa

kbarnes701 said:


> *Expendables 3 - reported audio dropouts on Oppo 9.x players.*
> 
> For information, this disc played with no dropouts on my ancient Panasonic DMP-BD35 player which makes the poor performance of the Oppo wrt to this disc (and others with complex seamless branching) even less excusable to my mind.


Well...
A) It's Expendables 3, so you're likely not missing much.
B) Oppo is fantastic about issuing firmware updates to fix minor issues like this, so if you're truly itching to watch Expendables 3 in all its Atmos glory, you'll probably only have to wait a few days.


----------



## CBdicX

Can a popcorn ceiling be used for Atmos Enables speakers or must the ceiling be flat ?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think you're overstating that DSU is equivalent to real Atmos tracks. It does a good job at synthesizing a wider sound scape from a normal multi-channel track, but it doesn't equate to real, discrete object panning.


_Warning for Dan: this post contains strong mention of popular but unworthy movies, right from the beginning. _

Agreed that there is a big technical difference - but in terms of _enjoyment_ of the disc's sound, I too find DSU to be as good as 'real' Atmos in many ways. I watched _*Expendables 3*_ last night and it makes great use of the overhead speakers almost all the way through the movie, which is unsurprising given the content and the number of chopper flyovers etc. But a few days ago I watched *Transformers: Dark of the Moon* using DSU and in terms of the additional enjoyment of the sound, there isn't all that much to choose. Of course, I prefer Atmos and am hopeful we will see many Atmos discs in the coming months, but DSU really is worth the price of the upgrade IMO, for the sheer additional enjoyment it brings to movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

Schwa said:


> Well...
> A) It's Expendables 3, so you're likely not missing much.


I don't think that my Bluray player should be the arbiter of what I watch really. 



Schwa said:


> B) Oppo is fantastic about issuing firmware updates to fix minor issues like this, so if you're truly itching to watch Expendables 3 in all its Atmos glory, you'll probably only have to wait a few days.


Not this time. Apparently it is a limitation of the Mediatek chip Oppo use in this player and it is too slow to handle complex seamless branching. Oppo themselves have also confirmed (see Oppo 93 thread) there will be no fix forthcoming and have advised those affected to buy the BDP-10x which they say is "guaranteed" to play these problem discs properly.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Can a popcorn ceiling be used for Atmos Enables speakers or must the ceiling be flat ?


Yes it can.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes it can.



Good to hear, i like popcorn....... 
Thanks Keith.


----------



## jdsmoothie

CBdicX said:


> *Can a popcorn ceiling be used for Atmos Enables speakers* or must the ceiling be flat ?


My experience has not been good.


----------



## CBdicX

jdsmoothie said:


> My experience has not been good.



Please explain why not.........


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
No real reflection or overhead experience ... speakers easily localized at the source ... using Def Tech A60's and Focal Sibs (angled up). I will be demoing a pair of Atlantic Tech 44-DA speakers when released in a week or so.

Suggest you review the spreadsheet in kokishin's sig and send a group PM to those members using Atmos enabled speakers and ask if any are used with a popcorn ceiling to get their experience.


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> Oppo themselves have also confirmed (see Oppo 93 thread) there will be no fix forthcoming and have advised those affected to buy the BDP-10x which they say is "guaranteed" to play these problem discs properly.


 I couldn't help but paraphrase a scene from THE MATRIX:

_"Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you [Oppo] the finger?"_

I will then rather re-activate my Pioneer BD player, although it is not 3D ready.

Hey, wait a minute, the upcoming GRAVITY Luxe Edition in February will feature Dolby Atmos but no 3D. I then really don't need the BDP-93 to rely on.


----------



## Schwa

kbarnes701 said:


> Not this time. Apparently it is a limitation of the Mediatek chip Oppo use in this player and it is too slow to handle complex seamless branching. Oppo themselves have also confirmed (see Oppo 93 thread) there will be no fix forthcoming and have advised those affected to buy the BDP-10x which they say is "guaranteed" to play these problem discs properly.


Wow, I (obviously) didn't know that. Given that your relatively ancient Panasonic player can play it (I actually had that player before I replaced it with...wait for it...an Oppo), it is indeed crap that the last-gen Oppos can't play it.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> but DSU really is worth the price of the upgrade IMO, for the sheer additional enjoyment it brings to movies.


Amen! Plus 1! Agreed! Right On!


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Please explain why not.........


Dolby have said on several occasions that a popcorn ceiling isn't a problem, but JD's experience seems to be otherwise. If anyone else has a popcorn ceiling then their views would be welcome to you I am sure.


----------



## kbarnes701

Schwa said:


> Wow, I (obviously) didn't know that. Given that your relatively ancient Panasonic player can play it (I actually had that player before I replaced it with...wait for it...an Oppo), it is indeed crap that the last-gen Oppos can't play it.


I guess they chose the chip before complex seamless branching was established - just the wrong chip in that sense I guess. I just installed my BDP-103 and can confirm it plays Expendables 3 with no dropouts. I didn’t play it all the way through but the first 20 minutes was fine, so I expect it will be OK.


----------



## David Susilo

Dolby should really talk more about DSU. It's highly effective.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Dolby should really talk more about DSU. It's highly effective.


Agreed. DSU plus the possibility of using upfiring speakers/modules are real marketing plus points and combat the two most common buyer resistances: "I don't have room for more speakers" and "There aren't many Atmos discs available".


----------



## mumbleypeg

Is anyone else on here tired of 99% of voice information being routed solely to the center channel in 99% of movies? I have gone to great lengths to improve the realism of dialog in my system. I have used two center channel speakers (one above one below), added height speakers for dialog lift with a single center below, and finally put up an acoustically transparent screen with the center horizontally aligned with the L/R. If I am using the center channel it seems to be better with the height speakers on, it lifts and hides the source a bit. I have recently tried phantom center as well. I must admit that phantom center was actually very good, but in the end if all voice is dead center on the mix it does not seem natural on a 10' wide screen. Just ranting here, but your opinions/advice would be appreciated. Could we get some object movement from the voice channel in the mix? Will Atmos address this?


----------



## Chaospling

How does it work regarding a Blu Ray disc having Atmos or not - can I be sure that all Expendables 3 versions have Atmos? I was going to buy the trilogy via amazon.co.uk but I can't see "Atmos" anywhere...


----------



## JonStatt

Chaospling said:


> How does it work regarding a Blu Ray disc having Atmos or not - can I be sure that all Expendables 3 versions have Atmos? I was going to buy the trilogy via amazon.co.uk but I can't see "Atmos" anywhere...


The UK standalone version of Expendables 3 does have the Atmos track. I can't speak for the trilogy but would have thought it the same.

It is a nightmare figuring out which versions do or not have Atmos tracks. For example Step up does not have the Atmos soundtrack on the UK Blu-ray and the US version is region locked.


----------



## JonStatt

I mentioned this on a Denon thread but thought I would share it here.

My set-up is currently 7.1.2 . With the 2 height speakers being Atmos reflecting speakers. 

I set-up a temporary poweramp and borrowed another 2 Atmos enabled speakers and put them as rear Atmos speakers giving 7.1.4. I then tried some of the demos etc. To be honest, I was disappointed. There was virtually no gain over a 7.1.2 set-up

I am convinced that if you have proper ceiling downfiring speakers that 2,4,6 downfiring speakers make sense for accurate object localisation within the sound dome. But as the reflective speakers are so diffuse anyway, I don't find, from my experiments, that it makes much difference at all. In fact, interestingly, even if a sound comes out of a rear speaker, if some of that sound also comes out the front height, it "lifts" the sound further into the air anyway. In other words the height information localisation is not critical...it can support a more direct sound path coming from an individual speaker.

So I am now wondering, whether a 7.1.2 set-up with Dolby enabled fronts should actually be set as Dolby enabled middle speakers so that you get all the height information to support the main 5 or 7 speakers. Once you start bouncing the sound of ceilings and the dispersion pattern becomes so wide anyway, I think the point of so many height speakers is lost.


----------



## Stanton

mumbleypeg said:


> Is anyone else on here tired of 99% of voice information being routed solely to the center channel in 99% of movies? I have gone to great lengths to improve the realism of dialog in my system. I have used two center channel speakers (one above one below), added height speakers for dialog lift with a single center below, and finally put up an acoustically transparent screen with the center horizontally aligned with the L/R. If I am using the center channel it seems to be better with the height speakers on, it lifts and hides the source a bit. I have recently tried phantom center as well. I must admit that phantom center was actually very good, but in the end if all voice is dead center on the mix it does not seem natural on a 10' wide screen. Just ranting here, but your opinions/advice would be appreciated. Could we get some object movement from the voice channel in the mix? Will Atmos address this?


I have tried/experienced almost everything you mention here and currently use a dual-center setup UNDER a 10 foot screen with good results; however, those days are numbered as I will be upgrading to Atmos next year and lose my dual-center configuration. Why? Because most audiophiles frown on dual-centers and there hasn't been a (decent) dual-center AVR since the Yamaha I own (see sig). I have already purchased the (single) center channel I will use when I move my current (dual) centers to the "top middle" position near the ceiling, but I wonder if/how the dialog quality will change; I'm not even sure "dialog lift" (something my old AVR doesn't even have) will do any good without front heights, but I know I could never go back to "phantom" mode. Since I don't have any screen/covering issues, I'm hoping that proper level setting and room EQ settings (something else my old AVR doesn't have) will do the trick.


----------



## Jacob B

*Tilted front top?*



westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.
> 
> Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.
> 
> Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.
> 
> Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.
> 
> The following row of speaker is the *front top speaker*. Now whilst the middle top was not really that important for Atmos the front top row has little to none importance for Auro. Therfore my suggestion for this row would be in-ceiling or Dolby enabled speakers. If the overall amount of channels is of relevance this row could be muted during Auro playback and the amplifier could be used to drive front height speakers.
> 
> The last row according to the Denon sheet is the *front height speaker* which again like the rear height are direct firing speakers tilted to the MLP. The difference between Atmos and Auro for this row would be that the speakers should be attached 30-45 degrees which leave them sometimes in the middle of the room (in my case for instance) Auro requires them to be in line with front row speakers / the screen and not much relevance is given to the angle. As these speakers do not hold much relevance for Atmos, my suggestion would be to install them by the screen and maybe even mute them for Atmos. As suggested above front top for Atmos and front height for Auro could be run over the same amp using a switch in between.
> 
> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.
> 
> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...
> 
> *Addition on September 12th* In the meantime I got feedback from Auro tgemselves. I forwarded this post to them and they replied that they don't see any issue with using this setup for Auro!


Should the Atmos front top speakers be aiming downward or tilted towards the MLP?
If the latter, can they not be used as Auro 3D front heights then?

I am in the construction phase, and even though I do not have 3D audio processor or ceiling/height speakers yet, I want to prepare for 3D speaker placement in my DIY acoustic panels.
Since I already made my ceiling panels, I plan on using the very top of the sloping wall as location. My sloping wall panels are build 97mm deep (almost 4"), which would allow for in-wall type speakers.
That would naturally point the speakers 45 deg inward/downward, although I could make an MDF case that adjusted the tilt to horizontal mounting, but also a case that kept the 45 deg inwards and instead tilted them backwards (front heights/ top) or forward (rear heights / top) for direct firing to the MLP?

See my building thread if needed.

Any comments/help really appreciated!


----------



## Selden Ball

Jacob B said:


> Should the Atmos front top speakers be aiming downward or tilted towards the MLP?
> If the latter, can they not be used as Auro 3D front heights then?


 The criterion used for the different speaker designations isn't whether the speakers are pointed down or tilted toward the audience, rather it's where the speakers are located in the room. In other words, a speaker's designation is determined by where its sound originates, not where its sound is going. (In general, unless you have extremely wide-dispersion speakers, they always should be pointed in the general direction of the audience, preferably toward the main listening position.)

If you want to use a particular pair of speakers as Front Heights, that's the designation you should use in the AVR or pre/pro. Although both Front Height and Top Front use the D+M channel called "Height 1", if you want to change the designation from one to the other, you have to use two separate calibrations and use the Web interface to save and restore those separate configurations from a computer. Saving or loading a configuration typically takes about 7-10 minutes.



> I am in the construction phase, and even though I do not have 3D audio processor or ceiling/height speakers yet, I want to prepare for 3D speaker placement in my DIY acoustic panels.
> Since I already made my ceiling panels, I plan on using the very top of the sloping wall as location. My sloping wall panels are build 97mm deep (almost 4"), which would allow for in-wall type speakers.
> That would naturally point the speakers 45 deg inward/downward, although I could make an MDF case that adjusted the tilt to horizontal mounting, but also a case that kept the 45 deg inwards and instead tilted them backwards (front heights/ top) or forward (rear heights / top) for direct firing to the MLP?
> 
> See my building thread if needed.
> 
> Any comments/help really appreciated!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> _Warning for Dan: this post contains strong mention of popular but unworthy movies, right from the beginning. _
> 
> Agreed that there is a big technical difference - but in terms of _enjoyment_ of the disc's sound, I too find DSU to be as good as 'real' Atmos in many ways. I watched _*Expendables 3*_ last night and it makes great use of the overhead speakers almost all the way through the movie, which is unsurprising given the content and the number of chopper flyovers etc. But a few days ago I watched *Transformers: Dark of the Moon* using DSU and in terms of the additional enjoyment of the sound, there isn't all that much to choose. Of course, I prefer Atmos and am hopeful we will see many Atmos discs in the coming months, but DSU really is worth the price of the upgrade IMO, for the sheer additional enjoyment it brings to movies.


Oh, I don't doubt DSU does quite the commendable job. I've heard it in action. It's definitely better than ProLogic IIx, which has helped "flesh out" many a 5.1 track to 7.1 fairly effectively. Though, I think once better Atmos mixes get released, such as _Gravity_, you'll more than likely start hearing a bigger difference between DSU synthetic tracks and real Atmos content. That is a very aggressive, though subtle mix and one that really screams for a Trinnov or other Atmos processor that can handle more speakers than the mainstream products we have now. 

Help me, 9.1.6 or 11.1.4 rendering, you're my only hope ('cause I can't afford anything better than that)!


----------



## scarabaeus

JonStatt said:


> For example Step up does not have the Atmos soundtrack on the UK Blu-ray and the US version is region locked.


But the UK disc is available in 3D. Again, as with Gravity, we have to choose between 3D video and 3D audio...


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby have said on several occasions that a popcorn ceiling isn't a problem, but JD's experience seems to be otherwise. If anyone else has a popcorn ceiling then their views would be welcome to you I am sure.


Must be something else going on. A typical residential popcorn ceiling should be just slightly less reflective than a flat smooth finished drywall ceiling. You should have a hard time telling the difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Must be something else going on. A typical residential popcorn ceiling should be just slightly less reflective than a flat smooth finished drywall ceiling. You should have a hard time telling the difference.


Agreed - and it is also what Dolby say.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, I don't doubt DSU does quite the commendable job. I've heard it in action. It's definitely better than ProLogic IIx, which has helped "flesh out" many a 5.1 track to 7.1 fairly effectively. Though, I think once better Atmos mixes get released, such as _Gravity_, you'll more than likely start hearing a bigger difference between DSU synthetic tracks and real Atmos content. That is a very aggressive, though subtle mix and one that really screams for a Trinnov or other Atmos processor that can handle more speakers than the mainstream products we have now.
> 
> Help me, 9.1.6 or 11.1.4 rendering, you're my only hope ('cause I can't afford anything better than that)!


I agree mostly, but am not sure about your fervent desire for more speakers. I guess if your room is very large, or you have multiple rows of seats, this could be desirable, but for those of us with smaller rooms, 4 overheads seems enough. In my own Hobbit Theater, I'd have a hard time installing more ceiling speakers, or at least installing them sufficiently far apart for any meaningful separation.


----------



## Spanglo

Definitely eagerly awaiting a support for 6 overheads. 

I bought a new rear surrounds last weekend, so now I have an extra set of speakers to utilize. Think I'm going to mount them TM, which might also work for Auro, although I'm not entirely sure about that one.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree mostly, but am not sure about your fervent desire for more speakers. I guess if your room is very large, or you have multiple rows of seats, this could be desirable, but for those of us with smaller rooms, 4 overheads seems enough. In my own Hobbit Theater, I'd have a hard time installing more ceiling speakers, or at least installing them sufficiently far apart for any meaningful separation.



You could be right Keith but I plan to give it a try anyway, my room is about 21 feet long



Spanglo said:


> Definitely eagerly awaiting a support for 6 overheads.
> 
> I bought a new rear surrounds last weekend, so now I have an extra set of speakers to utilize. Think I'm going to mount them TM, which might also work for Auro, although I'm not entirely sure about that one.



+1 for 6 overheads! I have the required pairs in hand and will provision for Atmos TM and as VOG in Auro...


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> You could be right Keith but I plan to give it a try anyway, my room is about 21 feet long


Yes in a room that long it could make a difference - you'll have enough separation between overhead pairs for it to be noticeable, I'd expect.


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't doubt DSU does quite the commendable job. I've heard it in action. It's definitely better than ProLogic IIx, which has helped "flesh out" many a 5.1 track to 7.1 fairly effectively. Though, I think once better Atmos mixes get released, such as _Gravity_, you'll more than likely start hearing a bigger difference between DSU synthetic tracks and real Atmos content. That is a very aggressive, though subtle mix and one that really screams for a Trinnov or other Atmos processor that can handle more speakers than the mainstream products we have now.
> 
> Help me, 9.1.6 or 11.1.4 rendering, you're my only hope ('cause I can't afford anything better than that)!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly, but am not sure about your fervent desire for more speakers. I guess if your room is very large, or you have multiple rows of seats, this could be desirable, but for those of us with smaller rooms, 4 overheads seems enough. In my own Hobbit Theater, I'd have a hard time installing more ceiling speakers, or at least installing them sufficiently far apart for any meaningful separation.
Click to expand...


The 2011 paper by Silzle _et al_ *Investigation on the Quality of 3D Sound Reproduction* (_link_) and "similar content" sections of *Report ITU-R BS.2159 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications* (_link_) suggest to me that the _additional_ sound quality benefits obtainable by using more than 4|5|6 height speakers will likely be small.


_


----------



## HT-Eman

I guess this is the making of the Dolby Atmos " Leaf " video . I don't know what he's doing with his hands though ... lol


----------



## Al Sherwood

HT-Eman said:


> I guess this is the making of the Dolby Atmos " Leaf " video . I don't know what he's doing with his hands though ... lol http://youtu.be/KeKgIR03S2U



It is how he is controlling the location of the object in the sound mix...


----------



## HT-Eman

I was use to seeing the engineers use the joystick to move objects around. Never seen the hand wave technique. Cool !!!


----------



## Spanglo

SoundChex said:


> The 2011 paper by Silzle _et al_ suggest to me that the _additional_ sound quality benefits obtainable by using more than 4|5|6 height speakers will likely be small.
> 
> _


I'll take a small improvement over no improvement any day.


----------



## krozman

My popcorn ceiling is completely inconsistent. I mean, when the 49ers were losing to Oakland all that popcorn I threw hardly stuck to the ceiling at all. Most of it I had to clean up and by today it's all on the ground again. How are you getting popcorn to stick? Already using extra butter, please advise.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Spanglo said:


> I'll take a small improvement over no improvement any day.



I agree (the room length is totally at play here of course), but for the larger 'home' installs more could provide some benefit.


----------



## Ed McNicholas

Since this is the official Dolby Atmos thread i thought i would ask and see if 5.1.2 would be worth doing in my new theater. I am in the wiring phase in my space and it is only 12x12x8 ish so obviously The seating location will bo on the back wall. This is not just a dedicated theater but also used for gaming and music. I uploaded the layout and i have in ceiling KEF CI200RR Thx for the surrounds and was planning on a set of CI160QR for the ATMOS since they have a very wide dispersion. The issue is i see a lot of conflicting info about whether atmos is worth it at 5.1.2 or not. Given the wide dispersion of the kef uni-q speakers would this help make for a more realistic environment. I also see a big opportunity in game development for atmos as it is object based which would help with the immersive experience. Thoughts?


----------



## kbarnes701

Ed McNicholas said:


> Since this is the official Dolby Atmos thread i thought i would ask and see if 5.1.2 would be worth doing in my new theater. I am in the wiring phase in my space and it is only 12x12x8 ish so obviously The seating location will bo on the back wall. This is not just a dedicated theater but also used for gaming and music. I uploaded the layout and i have in ceiling KEF CI200RR Thx for the surrounds and was planning on a set of CI160QR for the ATMOS since they have a very wide dispersion. The issue is i see a lot of conflicting info about whether atmos is worth it at 5.1.2 or not. Given the wide dispersion of the kef uni-q speakers would this help make for a more realistic environment. I also see a big opportunity in game development for atmos as it is object based which would help with the immersive experience. Thoughts?


Can you not do 5.1.4 in that space? I am doing that in a space a little smaller - using TF and TM as the speaker designations. Following Atmos spec, this puts the TF on the ceiling in front of me and the TM more or less over my head (in fact slightly in front) although they could also go just behind my head - but in tests I preferred them slightly in front of me.

I think 5.1.2 would be just fine BTW - but mo' speakers = mo' better IMO.


----------



## gammanuc

kokishin said:


> You made the list. I presumed your in-ceiling speakers are Top Middle (TM). Correct me if otherwise.
> 
> Let me know when you reconfig for 7.2.4 and I will update.
> 
> See my sig for the link to the Members' Atmos Config spreadsheet.


Hey kokishin I have the second set of in ceiling speakers installed (now TF and TR). You can update me to a 7.1.4 in the spreadsheet. I'm powering the front speakers with a Rotel RB980BX. 
Thanks.


----------



## Ed McNicholas

kbarnes701 said:


> Can you not do 5.1.4 in that space? I am doing that in a space a little smaller - using TF and TM as the speaker designations. Following Atmos spec, this puts the TF on the ceiling in front of me and the TM more or less over my head (in fact slightly in front) although they could also go just behind my head - but in tests I preferred them slightly in front of me.
> 
> I think 5.1.2 would be just fine BTW - but mo' speakers = mo' better IMO.


I agree more speakers are better but the surrounds are already above and where the other 2 atmos would go i would love to have ear level surrounds but they just won't fit so i am still working out my placements.


----------



## mcascio

HT-Eman said:


> I guess this is the making of the Dolby Atmos " Leaf " video . I don't know what he's doing with his hands though ... lol http://youtu.be/KeKgIR03S2U


Not to steer this off topic, but it seems like with this Atmos technology, the receivers could eventually allow us to enter the exact location of each speaker within our space. This would include the angle and height from the MLP. With this information, software could then play the tracks at those locations so the sound sphere is even more accurate and compensates for rooms that are less than perfect.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Chaospling said:


> How does it work regarding a Blu Ray disc having Atmos or not - can I be sure that all Expendables 3 versions have Atmos? I was going to buy the trilogy via amazon.co.uk but I can't see "Atmos" anywhere...


Are you in the UK? 

All I know is be careful with that one... I've seen discs that don't have it. But some people on this thread have it & might be able to tell you where to buy it from to ensure it's an Atmos mix. I myself ordered it on Amazon (USA)... if it helps, when it gets here I can confirm for you if it's the Atmos disc or not. I didn't get the trilogy though.


----------



## Spanglo

Al Sherwood said:


> I agree (the room length is totally at play here of course), but for the larger 'home' installs more could provide some benefit.


Out of curiosity what are the dimensions of your room, and what speaker configuration do you plan to use?


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Are you in the UK?
> 
> All know is be careful with that one... I've seen discs that don't have it. But some people on this thread have it & might be able to tell you where to buy it from to ensure it's an Atmos mix. I myself ordered it on Amazon (USA)... if it helps, when it gets here I can confirm for you if it's the Atmos disc or not. I didn't get the trilogy though.


I got my copy of expendables 3 from Amazon and it has the Atmos mix I didn't get the trilogy just the blu-ray. Not my choice of movie but I got it for the Atmos mix...


----------



## Al Sherwood

Spanglo said:


> Out of curiosity what are the dimensions of your room, and what speaker configuration do you plan to use?



The unfinished room is 21' long x 16' wide x 7' 8" high. The reason I mention unfinished is more to do with length, as I will have screen wall about 18" out from the front, but the LCR and subs will be behind it.


As for speakers I am thinking of a 7.1.4 configuration, but I will install speakers as all locations for supporting 9.1.6 . It is my hope that we will see 9.1.6 capable AVR's next year. 


How about you, what is the space and speaker plan?


----------



## Spanglo

Al Sherwood said:


> The unfinished room is 21' long x 16' wide x 7' 8" high. The reason I mention unfinished is more to do with length, as I will have screen wall about 18" out from the front, but the LCR and subs will be behind it.
> 
> 
> As for speakers I am thinking of a 7.1.4 configuration, but I will install speakers as all locations for supporting 9.1.6 . It is my hope that we will see 9.1.6 capable AVR's next year.
> 
> 
> How about you, what is the space and speaker plan?


I'm running a 6.4.4 with TF + RH overheads in a 12X16' room. There's a link in my sig with a few photos and drawings.

Now that I have an extra pair of speakers I plan to install TM, and/or FH. Still unsure, because I'm not up speed on Auro, and I would like to ready myself in the event Denon allows us 6 overheads.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Spanglo said:


> I'm running a 6.4.4 with TF + RH overheads in a 12X16' room. There's a link in my sig with a few photos and drawings.
> 
> Now that I have an extra pair of speakers I plan to install TM, and/or FH. Still unsure, because I'm not up speed on Auro, and I would like to ready myself in the event Denon allows us 6 overheads.


Your room and seating placement largely dictates what might work best, so you might have the optimum layout already in place for your room. Remember that you cannot use adjacent speaker positions for Atmos, so since you already have TF and RH, you will not be able to use FH or TR unless you change the selection for the upper speakers, even now TF and TR can be used but not along with TM.


----------



## Chaospling

Aras_Volodka said:


> Are you in the UK?
> 
> All I know is be careful with that one... I've seen discs that don't have it. But some people on this thread have it & might be able to tell you where to buy it from to ensure it's an Atmos mix. I myself ordered it on Amazon (USA)... if it helps, when it gets here I can confirm for you if it's the Atmos disc or not. I didn't get the trilogy though.


No I'm from Denmark and I would like hear from someone who has the Expendables trilogy though it would be nice if you could get back to me as well when you get your copy of the Expendables 3.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Chaospling said:


> No I'm from Denmark and I would like hear from someone who has the Expendables trilogy though it would be nice if you could get back to me as well when you get your copy of the Expendables 3.


Will do... it didn't come in the mail today. I'll let you know when I get it.


----------



## Spanglo

Al Sherwood said:


> Your room and seating placement largely dictates what might work best, so you might have the optimum layout already in place for your room. Remember that you cannot use adjacent speaker positions for Atmos, so since you already have TF and RH, you will not be able to use FH or TR unless you change the selection for the upper speakers, even now TF and TR can be used but not along with TM.


Very true, but from what I understand the no adjacent speaker config is a Denon programing issue, and not a limitation of atmos. The atmos renderer can handle many more speakers regardless of the configuration. So I'm hoping for a future firmware update that allows a few more speakers + adjacent positioning.

Of course this is more of a want than a need. I'm happy as is.


----------



## epiCenter

mumbleypeg said:


> Is anyone else on here tired of 99% of voice information being routed solely to the center channel in 99% of movies? I have gone to great lengths to improve the realism of dialog in my system. I have used two center channel speakers (one above one below), added height speakers for dialog lift with a single center below, and finally put up an acoustically transparent screen with the center horizontally aligned with the L/R. If I am using the center channel it seems to be better with the height speakers on, it lifts and hides the source a bit. I have recently tried phantom center as well. I must admit that phantom center was actually very good, but in the end if all voice is dead center on the mix it does not seem natural on a 10' wide screen. Just ranting here, but your opinions/advice would be appreciated. Could we get some object movement from the voice channel in the mix? Will Atmos address this?


Do you have an ATMOS audio system set up now? My AT screen is 12.5' wide and I am running a 7.2.4 ATMOS set up with Tri-Amped JBL Professional Cinema LCR speakers. I am not sharing the same problem with "feeling" as though 99% of my LCR sound is coming from my Center channel. To be honest, I don't get the sense that the voice of the person speaking is coming directly from his/her mouth (I don't think ATMOS is so "intelligent" as to know exactly where the person's mouth is on my big screen). However, there is enough spread in my LCR sound field that people's voices are generally in synch with where the sound is coming from (at least close enough to where I am not "put-off" by it). I am unsure if this is a function of ATMOS. All I know is that I am enamored with how amazing the ATMOS system is compared with the sound I was getting from my 9.1 system.


----------



## thebland

*One Thing That Was Amazing!!!*


I have the a DATASAT RS-20i and I have it set up in an AURO / ATMOS configuration (favoring AURO). 
*_Click my link to see pictures of speaker configurations_

I found that NATIVE AURO content compared to UPMIXED ATMOS content performed very similarly - similarly AWESOME!!

I have a native AURO demo disc and a native ATMOS demo disc that were given out at CEDIA.

The performance of the ATMOS disc UPMIXED with Auromatic was simply astounding and similar to native AURO.

I have a 7.2.6 set up (7 ch bed, 6 subs, 6 heights).

It's all good no matter how you have set [email protected][email protected]


----------



## Roger Dressler

Frank714 said:


> Thanks a lot, I was very interested in such a graphic illustration.
> 
> While I could perform the speaker installation for Auro within a couple of hours (just add 3 speakers in easily accessible areas) in my home theatre, the information also appears to tell me, that I would be limited to a Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 configuration where two Front Height speakers substitute the actual Atmos Top Fronts.
> 
> Thus it seems you can have a reference Auro speaker setup at the expense of an Atmos speaker setup (but *not* the other way round).
> 
> Thus the only "reference level" solution appears to be to have two D & M AVRs (one for Auro, one for Atmos) and the corresponding extra speakers. Is this correct or did I miss something?


The text under the diagram says if you want to use Atmos speakers (other than FH) you need to relocate them. But that's not true -- they do not have to be moved to use them for Atmos. But D&M does force you to change the speaker configuration "amp assign" to use the Auro Surround Height designations. And if you want to use Audyssey, then you have to run the setup again for that config and save/load the one you want. All very cumbersome. I'm hoping D&M will realize the error of their ways and fix the speaker menu options.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> The text under the diagram says if you want to use Atmos speakers (other than FH) you need to relocate them. But that's not true -- they do not have to be moved to use them for Atmos. But D&M does force you to change the speaker configuration "amp assign" to use the Auro Surround Height designations. And if you want to use Audyssey, then you have to run the setup again for that config and save/load the one you want. All very cumbersome. I'm hoping D&M will realize the error of their ways and fix the speaker menu options.


Somehow, I have a hunch that if they do intend to make things more user friendly between formats then it will happen either the next equipment cycle or the one after that. Or we need a really good re-mapping feature of some sort.


----------



## Csbooth

Does anyone have any recommendations for in ceiling speakers that I should timbre match with an Onkyo setup?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Spanglo said:


> Very true, but from what I understand the no adjacent speaker config is a Denon programing issue, and not a limitation of atmos. The atmos renderer can handle many more speakers regardless of the configuration. So I'm hoping for a future firmware update that allows a few more speakers + adjacent positioning.
> 
> Of course this is more of a want than a need. I'm happy as is.


 
You are correct not really an Atmos restriction but one with the current offering of modestly priced AVR's (Denon and possibly Onkyo IIRC), the high end units seem to provide more flexibility.


Suffice to say that it will be nice when any position can be populated as desired... with all AVR's


----------



## aaranddeeman

mumbleypeg said:


> Is anyone else on here tired of 99% of voice information being routed solely to the center channel in 99% of movies? I have gone to great lengths to improve the realism of dialog in my system. I have used two center channel speakers (one above one below), added height speakers for dialog lift with a single center below, and finally put up an acoustically transparent screen with the center horizontally aligned with the L/R. If I am using the center channel it seems to be better with the height speakers on, it lifts and hides the source a bit. I have recently tried phantom center as well. I must admit that phantom center was actually very good, but in the end if all voice is dead center on the mix it does not seem natural on a 10' wide screen. Just ranting here, but your opinions/advice would be appreciated. Could we get some object movement from the voice channel in the mix? Will Atmos address this?


Seems you have Yamaha AVR. I have not heard anyone having "Dialog Lift" (and making use of Front presence speakers).
I read that two center channels are a big no no..
But It's not clear finally what you did..


----------



## rushisrighton

So what is the general consensus on speaker placement? Should the. Ceiling speakers be in line of the mains or closer together?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rushisrighton said:


> So what is the general consensus on speaker placement? Should the. Ceiling speakers be in line of the mains or closer together?


It depends on the width of the room, screen size, and optimal front speaker layout/spread... overheads in-line with the front left/right is not a hard and fast rule. Dolby probably only made the suggestion for regular sized living room setups with an "average" flat screen TV in use.


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> *One Thing That Was Amazing!!!*
> 
> 
> I have the a DATASAT RS-20i and I have it set up in an AURO / ATMOS configuration (favoring AURO).
> *_Click my link to see pictures of speaker configurations_
> 
> I found that NATIVE AURO content compared to UPMIXED ATMOS content performed very similarly - similarly AWESOME!!
> 
> I have a native AURO demo disc and a native ATMOS demo disc that were given out at CEDIA.
> 
> The performance of the ATMOS disc UPMIXED with Auromatic was simply astounding and similar to native AURO.
> 
> I have a 7.2.6 set up (7 ch bed, 6 subs, 6 heights).
> 
> It's all good no matter how you have set [email protected][email protected]


♦ You know what Jeff; you are a lucky sunnabaggun! ...To have such a great system inside a great room; yours.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> The text under the diagram says if you want to use Atmos speakers (other than FH) you need to relocate them. But that's not true -- they do not have to be moved to use them for Atmos. But D&M does force you to change the speaker configuration "amp assign" to use the Auro Surround Height designations. And if you want to use Audyssey, then you have to run the setup again for that config and save/load the one you want. All very cumbersome. I'm hoping D&M will realize the error of their ways and fix the speaker menu options.


Roger, it is post like yours above that D&M and all of us we can advance towards better improvements. ...You should apply for a job with them.


----------



## asarose247

Watching "Jack Reacher" on Netflix
The DSU in the car chase in the auto tunnels, shots reverb in the opening quarry scenes at about 25 min remaining and THEN
, the rainstorm when Jack enters the trailer to find that they are gone 
Fantastic
now I have to go find out how it ends . . .


----------



## rushisrighton

When using speakers in the front height positions, where would it be best to put the next set? Would it be best in top middle, or top rear, or rear height?


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> The text under the diagram says if you want to use Atmos speakers (other than FH) you need to relocate them. But that's not true -- they do not have to be moved to use them for Atmos. But D&M does force you to change the speaker configuration "amp assign" to use the Auro Surround Height designations. And if you want to use Audyssey, then you have to run the setup again for that config and save/load the one you want. All very cumbersome. I'm hoping D&M will realize the error of their ways and fix the speaker menu options.


Do I read that as if one is NOT using Audyssey, it's not a problem to switch designation?


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text under the diagram says if you want to use Atmos speakers (other than FH) you need to relocate them. But that's not true -- they do not have to be moved to use them for Atmos. But D&M does force you to change the speaker configuration "amp assign" to use the Auro Surround Height designations. And if you want to use Audyssey, then you have to run the setup again for that config and save/load the one you want. All very cumbersome. I'm hoping D&M will realize the error of their ways and fix the speaker menu options.
> 
> 
> 
> Do I read that as if one is NOT using Audyssey, it's not a problem to switch designation?
Click to expand...

Yes that's correct. The problem is that if you change the amp assign designation (eg reassigning Height2 from Top Middle for Atmos to Surround Height for Auro), it is implicit that you have speakers in a different physical location. So Audyssey wants to recalibrate so it can recalculate the EQ filters for the (ostensibly) new speakers in the setup. 

But if you aren't using Audyssey then it doesn't matter. Nothing to stop you from "lying" to the processor and saying your Surround Height speakers are now going to be Top Middle.


----------



## NorthSky

asarose247 said:


> Watching *"Jack Reacher"* on Netflix
> The DSU in the car chase in the auto tunnels, shots reverb in the opening quarry scenes at about 25 min remaining and THEN
> , the rainstorm when Jack enters the trailer to find that they are gone
> Fantastic
> now I have to go find out how it ends . . .


Cool flick with Tom in great form.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> But if you aren't using Audyssey then it doesn't matter. Nothing to stop you from "lying" to the processor and saying your Surround Height speakers are now going to be Top Middle.


This, together with not bothering to put the SH/TM speakers close to the beginning of the TR range (at 120-125 degrees elevation) and at or just below the theatrical minimum of 45 degrees lateral elevation (40-45 degrees, yielding 35-40 degrees Auro elevation at an azimuth of 115-125 degrees), will enable Atmos and Auro to co-exist in their full glory.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nightlord said:


> Do I read that as if one is NOT using Audyssey, it's not a problem to switch designation?


One can change the speaker configuration (amp assign) rather quickly -- if inconveniently -- but any such change will deactivate Audyssey if it was previously operating. If one wants Audyssey to remain in effect, one has to not only change the amp assign, but also upload the stored backup file from a previous Audyssey cal.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> One can change the speaker configuration (amp assign) rather quickly -- if inconveniently -- but any such change will deactivate Audyssey if it was previously operating. If one wants Audyssey to remain in effect, one has to not only change the amp assign, but also upload the stored backup file from a previous Audyssey cal.


Quite possibly I would not be running Audyssey, so that's fine by me. If the speaker config change could be scripted as a macro over the network it would be close to perfect (it probably can be, I just don't know how myself).


----------



## mtbdudex

A solution would be the next generation flagship 2016/2017 AVR from Denon (and other manuf flagships)
-storing multiple audyssey calibrations in the AVR (or whatever auto EQ they use) and be able to select between them, preferably even with different target curves



Roger Dressler said:


> The text under the diagram says if you want to use Atmos speakers (other than FH) you need to relocate them. But that's not true -- they do not have to be moved to use them for Atmos. But D&M does force you to change the speaker configuration "amp assign" to use the Auro Surround Height designations. And if you want to use Audyssey, then you have to run the setup again for that config and save/load the one you want. All very cumbersome. I'm hoping D&M will realize the error of their ways and fix the speaker menu options.





Nightlord said:


> Do I read that as if one is NOT using Audyssey, it's not a problem to switch designation?





batpig said:


> Yes that's correct. The problem is that if you change the amp assign designation (eg reassigning Height2 from Top Middle for Atmos to Surround Height for Auro), it is implicit that you have speakers in a different physical location. So Audyssey wants to recalibrate so it can recalculate the EQ filters for the (ostensibly) new speakers in the setup.
> 
> But if you aren't using Audyssey then it doesn't matter. Nothing to stop you from "lying" to the processor and saying your Surround Height speakers are now going to be Top Middle.





Roger Dressler said:


> One can change the speaker configuration (amp assign) rather quickly -- if inconveniently -- but any such change will deactivate Audyssey if it was previously operating. If one wants Audyssey to remain in effect, one has to not only change the amp assign, but also upload the stored backup file from a previous Audyssey cal.





Nightlord said:


> Quite possibly I would not be running Audyssey, so that's fine by me. If the speaker config change could be scripted as a macro over the network it would be close to perfect (it probably can be, I just don't know how myself).


----------



## mtbdudex

January or February HT meet at your place?


thebland said:


> *One Thing That Was Amazing!!!*
> 
> 
> I have the a DATASAT RS-20i and I have it set up in an AURO / ATMOS configuration (favoring AURO).
> *_Click my link to see pictures of speaker configurations_
> 
> I found that NATIVE AURO content compared to UPMIXED ATMOS content performed very similarly - similarly AWESOME!!
> 
> I have a native AURO demo disc and a native ATMOS demo disc that were given out at CEDIA.
> 
> The performance of the ATMOS disc UPMIXED with Auromatic was simply astounding and similar to native AURO.
> 
> I have a 7.2.6 set up (7 ch bed, 6 subs, 6 heights).
> 
> It's all good no matter how you have set [email protected][email protected]


----------



## ultraflexed

Just ordered a pair of 410 onkyo atmos speakers for my onkyo 5.1.4 set-up. Can anyone tell me how good they work.

Bump for help


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nightlord said:


> Quite possibly I would not be running Audyssey, so that's fine by me. If the speaker config change could be scripted as a macro over the network it would be close to perfect (it probably can be, I just don't know how myself).


You should be able to do it on a remote (like Harmony) as well...


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Food for though*

_*Food for thought*_ (cannot edit the title....)

Could it be that Dolby with its (not disclosed) intended/ideal positions of the overhead speakers, assumes horizontal (azimuth) alignment (MLP perspective) with any of the listeners' pane speakers? 

Applying a 45 degrees lateral elevation, the Atmos elevation angle conveniently equals the horizontal angle (azimuth). The following could then be achieved for a 11.1.10 configuration (which is 5 pairs of overheads on a 9.1 base with an additional pair of side surrounds):

1) Front Height (FH) above Fronts at 30 degrees;
2) Top Front (TF) above Wides at 55 degrees;
3) Top Middle (TM) above 1st Side Surrounds at 90 degrees;
4) Top Rear (TR) above 2nd Side Surrounds at 125 degrees; and 
5) Rear Height (RH) above Rear Surrounds at 150 degrees.


----------



## mumbleypeg

epiCenter said:


> Do you have an ATMOS audio system set up now? My AT screen is 12.5' wide and I am running a 7.2.4 ATMOS set up with Tri-Amped JBL Professional Cinema LCR speakers. I am not sharing the same problem with "feeling" as though 99% of my LCR sound is coming from my Center channel. To be honest, I don't get the sense that the voice of the person speaking is coming directly from his/her mouth (I don't think ATMOS is so "intelligent" as to know exactly where the person's mouth is on my big screen). However, there is enough spread in my LCR sound field that people's voices are generally in synch with where the sound is coming from (at least close enough to where I am not "put-off" by it). I am unsure if this is a function of ATMOS. All I know is that I am enamored with how amazing the ATMOS system is compared with the sound I was getting from my 9.1 system.


No atmos yet, I want to wait at least one more product cycle for that. My screen is also 12' wide, but I am masking a foot sometimes more as I have moved the screen closer to the seating area to put the speakers behind them. I will use the whole thing when I move to 4 or 8k someday... I think the real problem is lazy sound mixing. All voice being routed to the center channel. Maybe I should get a Magnepan for Center...


----------



## mumbleypeg

aaranddeeman said:


> Seems you have Yamaha AVR. I have not heard anyone having "Dialog Lift" (and making use of Front presence speakers).
> I read that two center channels are a big no no..
> But It's not clear finally what you did..


No Yamaha, I am simply sending the center channel signal to the height speakers by splitting the center channel signal 3 ways. It sounds like a bad Idea, but it works very well. I have not finally done anything. I have an at screen with a center channel behind it. I have tried switching the ls center with an ls 60 and I liked that a little better, But after moving the ls center further from the back wall It sounded better so I have stuck with that. The height speakers are still hanging and I am still comparing having them on or off, and occasionally still comparing to a phantom center. Again, I think the main problem is the majority of dialog being mixed to center.


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> _*Food for thought*_ (cannot edit the title....)
> 
> Could it be that Dolby with its (not disclosed) intended/ideal positions of the overhead speakers, assumes horizontal (azimuth) alignment (MLP perspective) with any of the listeners' pane speakers?
> 
> Applying a 45 degrees lateral elevation, the Atmos elevation angle conveniently equals the horizontal angle (azimuth). The following could then be achieved for a 11.1.10 configuration (which is 5 pairs of overheads on a 9.1 base with an additional pair of side surrounds):
> 
> 1) Front Height (FH) above Fronts at 30 degrees;
> 2) Top Front (TF) above Wides at 55 degrees;
> 3) Top Middle (TM) above 1st Side Surrounds at 90 degrees;
> 4) Top Rear (TR) above 2nd Side Surrounds at 125 degrees; and
> 5) Rear Height (RH) above Rear Surrounds at 150 degrees.



I too am interested in the question of placement and indeed the speakers used for this layout... 


Correct me if I am wrong but aren't all of the positions listed above for the reproduction of object based sound and if so should be ideally all of the same type of speaker? Part of the reason for my question revolves around the speakers to use, at one point I was only going to provision for ceiling speaker (TF,TM,TR) but if I build for the above adding the height speakers (FH,RH) I would think having them all the same, ie wide dispersion monopoles would be best as I was under the impression they all required the same characteristics.


----------



## thebland

mtbdudex said:


> January or February HT meet at your place?


Likely... or as soon as DATASAT releases the ATMOS Upgrade.

Here's an AURO set up video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTjdPWh4qHI&feature=youtu.be


----------



## maikeldepotter

Al Sherwood said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but aren't all of the positions listed above for the reproduction of object based sound


Yes, the maximum number of speakers ATMOS can work with is 24 +10 overheads. By pairing all overheads with a downstairs neighbor + 1 center speaker you get a minimum of 11 speakers at listeners level.



Al Sherwood said:


> and if so should be ideally all of the same type of speaker? Part of the reason for my question revolves around the speakers to use, at one point I was only going to provision for ceiling speaker (TF,TM,TR) but if I build for the above adding the height speakers (FH,RH) I would think having them all the same, ie wide dispersion monopoles would be best as I was under the impression they all required the same characteristics.


That is exactly what I would do, assuming you are referring to the overheads. But even for the surrounds (including the LCR) I would consider using those very same speakers or ones that are very closely matched.


----------



## Selden Ball

Al Sherwood said:


> I too am interested in the question of placement and indeed the speakers used for this layout...
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but aren't all of the positions listed above for the reproduction of object based sound and if so should be ideally all of the same type of speaker? Part of the reason for my question revolves around the speakers to use, at one point I was only going to provision for ceiling speaker (TF,TM,TR) but if I build for the above adding the height speakers (FH,RH) I would think having them all the same, ie wide dispersion monopoles would be best as I was under the impression they all required the same characteristics.


Having identical speakers (whether overhead or otherwise) is the ideal (at least so far as the speaker manufacturers are concerned). However, if you use Audyssey (or other room EQ), that EQ causes the speakers to sound very similar to one another, so them being identical isn't quite so critical. Also, bear in mind that speakers sound different (e.g. require different crossover frequencies) simply because they're in different locations in the room with different reflections affecting how they sound. Your room's construction also might force a non-ideal speaker configuration.

The necessary dispersion depends on how far the speakers are from the audience and how large a listening area they need to cover. Wide dispersion speakers (like the Tannoy Di5dc that many here are enamored of) make the coverage easier.


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, the maximum number of speakers ATMOS can work with is 24 +10 overheads. By pairing all overheads with a downstairs neighbor + 1 center speaker you get a minimum of 11 speakers at listeners level.
> 
> That is exactly what I would do, assuming you are referring to the overheads. But even for the surrounds (including the LCR) I would consider using those very same speakers or ones that are very closely matched.


 
Yes referring to the overheads (FH,TF,TM,TR,RH), and as for the surrounds ( FWR/L, SL/R, SBL/R), these will all essentially be identical, the fronts (L,C,R) will all be from the exact same family although tower speakers. (I do have the option of using the same tower speakers for the front wide's although their physicality would be suited to the smaller size of the other surrounds).



Selden Ball said:


> Having identical speakers (whether overhead or otherwise) is the ideal (at least so far as the speaker manufacturers are concerned). However, if you use Audyssey (or other room EQ), that EQ causes the speakers to sound very similar to one another, so them being identical isn't quite so critical. Also, bear in mind that speakers sound different (e.g. require different crossover frequencies) simply because they're in different locations in the room with different reflections affecting how they sound. Your room's construction also might force a non-ideal speaker configuration.
> 
> The necessary dispersion depends on how far the speakers are from the audience and how large a listening area they need to cover. Wide dispersion speakers (like the Tannoy Di5dc that many here are enamored of) make the coverage easier.


 
As much as I would like to build a house that permits the incorporation of a truly specific space for the home theatre (maybe one day), for now I am fortunate to have a rec-room in the basement 21x16x7' 8" (with the WAF to do what I want in there), the speakers in some locations will be closer then I would have liked to the seats, so for better coverage I choose speakers that have a very wide dispersion pattern.


Thanks for both of these replies as it is always nice to know my plans are thought to be suitable enough as to ensure some measure of success!


----------



## bargervais

thebland said:


> Likely... or as soon as DATASAT releases the ATMOS Upgrade.
> 
> Here's an AURO set up video.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTjdPWh4qHI&feature=youtu.be


Can I ask a silly question is auro different on the DATASAT that justifies the more expensive cost of DATASAT avr...if it's the same as the $200 upgrade on the DENON is the same ???what makes the datasat so expensive... is the firmware update on the denon the same auro or is it a lighter version???


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> Quite possibly I would not be running Audyssey, so that's fine by me. If the speaker config change could be scripted as a macro over the network it would be close to perfect (it probably can be, I just don't know how myself).





aaranddeeman said:


> You should be able to do it on a remote (like Harmony) as well...


It would be an enormous PITA to program a remote macro to change the speaker config. You have to drill down several layers deep in the menus (open the GUI > go to the "Speakers" menu > select "Manual Setup" > Go to the "Amp Assign" menu > Select the "Height Layout" > Change the "Height Layout" from "Front Height & Top Middle" to "Front Height & Surround Height"

If you have the facility to do it, I'm sure it would be much easier to use a network command (you can change speaker config with the web browser so somebody clever could probably do it with some URL hack).


----------



## dschulz

bargervais said:


> Can I ask a silly question is auro different on the DATASAT that justifies the more expensive cost of DATASAT avr...if it's the same as the $200 upgrade on the DENON is the same ???what makes the datasat so expensive... is the firmware update on the denon the same auro or is it a lighter version???


To the best of my knowledge, the Auro decoding and Auromatic upmix engines are the same across the various devices that have implemented Auro-3D (Denon/Marantz, Datasat, Trinnov, Storm, Auro). There isn't an "Auro Lite." That said, a full 16 channel processor provides some flexibility in terms of channel count and choices in speaker placement that you don't have in an AVR that supports 9,11 or 13 channels.

As to the pricing differences, the mass market manufacturers can amortize the development and implementation costs over a production run that is several orders of magnitude larger than that of specialty manufacturers such as us at Datasat and our colleagues.


----------



## bargervais

I don't understand why I even have a harmony remote it's just collecting dust I use my atmos TX-NR 1030 remote that controls everything.
On a different note back on topic I'm getting ready to install or reposition my top middle speakers I need them more above MLP or slightly in front of MLP like Keith suggests.. I have been agonizing about the precise position because once I cut the holes their cut.... I have been in my attic inspecting the locations and double checking making sure I'm not cutting into wires or AC copper piping or plumbing.. got my stud finder and templates ready wish me luck.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

The next Dolby Atmos Blu-ray is...

*John Wick*. 

February 3rd.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

lionsgate all about the ATMOS

pre-ordered


----------



## bargervais

dschulz said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the Auro decoding and Auromatic upmix engines are the same across the various devices that have implemented Auro-3D (Denon/Marantz, Datasat, Trinnov, Storm, Auro). There isn't an "Auro Lite." That said, a full 16 channel processor provides some flexibility in terms of channel count and choices in speaker placement that you don't have in an AVR that supports 9,11 or 13 channels.
> 
> As to the pricing differences, the mass market manufacturers can amortize the development and implementation costs over a production run that is several orders of magnitude larger than that of specialty manufacturers such as us at Datasat and our colleagues.


Totally understand thanks for the clarification. I would think that the DATASAT would be geared more towards those who have a dedicated high end theater room. For little old me that has an AVR in the living room or the den I couldn't afford it... I would love to drive a Ferrari but I'll have to settle for my Nissan LOL and dream.


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> I don't understand why I even have a harmony remote it's just collecting dust I use my atmos TX-NR 1030 remote that controls everything.
> On a different note back on topic I'm getting ready to install or reposition my top middle speakers I need them more above MLP or slightly in front of MLP like Keith suggests.. I have been agonizing about the precise position because once I cut the holes their cut.... I have been in my attic inspecting the locations and double checking making sure I'm not cutting into wires or AC copper piping or plumbing.. got my stud finder and templates ready wish me luck.



Good Luck! 


Could you devise a way to suspend the speaker up there to test positions before making the cut?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> lionsgate all about the ATMOS


Lionsgate is all about whatever they think will get people to buy their titles.

They don't have a deep catalog of movies, so they'll try anything. Good for us theater geeks at least.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

including neutering the rentals...


----------



## brwsaw

Anyone here aware of a completed 24.1.10 layout?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brwsaw said:


> Anyone here aware of a completed 24.1.10 layout?


If there is one, it's for some super-rich person who probably wouldn't be posting on this forum anyway.  

They may feature a hyper-deluxe Atmos setup in an A/V magazine or The Rob Report.


----------



## Selden Ball

brwsaw said:


> Anyone here aware of a completed 24.1.10 layout?





Dan Hitchman said:


> If there is one, it's for some super-rich person who probably wouldn't be posting on this forum anyway.
> 
> They may feature a hyper-deluxe Atmos setup in an A/V magazine or The Rob Report.


I don't think there are any processors that can provide the maximum consumer Atmos configuration.

Even the only-semi-rich who can afford a Trinnov Altitude32 are unlikely to have that many, since the Altitude is limited to 32 channels, including subwoofers. 

The next step up would be those who use the commercial Dolby decoder (the one used in commercial theaters), so they wouldn't have that limitation at all.


----------



## stikle

bargervais said:


> On a different note back on topic I'm getting ready to install or reposition my top middle speakers I need them more above MLP or slightly in front of MLP like Keith suggests.. I have been agonizing about the precise position because once I cut the holes their cut.... I have been in my attic inspecting the locations and double checking making sure I'm not cutting into wires or AC copper piping or plumbing.. got my stud finder and templates ready wish me luck.


Hey Barry...just noticed you commented on my Amazon M-5010 review...and now you're setting up Atmos with the 1030 I'm currently thinking about buying. 

Onkyo's instructions for speaker configurations have always kinda sucked. I'm really struggling right now figuring out what speakers to move where and how many more (if any) I need to buy while there's still some matching ones available. Hell, I don't even know yet how to get the wires run from my overheads. "Attic" space in my house is really non-optimal. Piles of blown-in insulation and roof trusses. Exceedingly fun to crawl around in/on. 

But I digress.

I'm pretty sure I want to go with 4 overheads for 7.2.4, but maybe 9.2.2 (if I can even do that) would be better.

If you (or anyone else) would care to take a look at my room diagram (in my sig) and offer up suggestions, that would be swell.

I think I'm going to move the MLP forward another foot or so. 

Another possible challenge is that room has a vaulted ceiling with the low point being near the bay window on the right. I suspect it won't matter too much at the end of the day.

Maybe relocate L/R High to TF and L/R Wide to TR? Or just leave them as-is for the future (and so I don't have to patch/paint drywall) and buy four more to use as overheads.

I am agonizing as well. What to do, what to do...

Hooray for hobbies!


----------



## weekendtoy

Below is a quick picture of my side and rear surrounds. The young man is seated(?) in the MLP. Due to the left side (right as pictured) surround, the speakers can't be any lower then the ceiling/wall junction. This is mainly due to the WAF.

Given my speaker placement would it be advisable to do TF and TR in-ceiling speakers for ATMOS, or would there not be enough separation. 

My front mains consist of Def. Tec. BP8060's so it would be very easy to run a 7.1.2 system with the Def. Tec. A60 modules. Given my situation perhaps this would be preferable to a 7.1.4 system with in ceilings for the ATMOS speakers.

Thoughts / suggestions. Thanks in advance.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> The next Dolby Atmos Blu-ray is...
> 
> *John Wick*.
> 
> February 3rd.


That's very surprising, considering this movie was one of three Auro3D exclusives theatrically. Wondering if Lionsgate really spent the money to do an Atmos mix just for home video, especially when there is already an Auro mix that they could have ported to Blu-ray? Or was this a typo? (a la Hercules)


----------



## snyderkv

I have a question for anybody that can answer

I attached two pictures of my ATMOS setup (now complete) 

Given the layout, would Auro suite me better being that both heights are directly above the front and rears respectively?

Also, has anyone else had an issue with not being able to notice the heights unless standing directly underneath them? I was hoping Auro might solve this. Audyssey is set to ATMOS 5.1 + 4 channel and all speaker volume settings and distance don't look unusual. They also chirp just as loud as the other speakers during calibration

Thanks


----------



## plougstrup

Chaospling said:


> How does it work regarding a Blu Ray disc having Atmos or not - can I be sure that all Expendables 3 versions have Atmos? I was going to buy the trilogy via amazon.co.uk but I can't see "Atmos" anywhere...


You can get the UK Extended Edition version from Laserdisken.dk with Amos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

dschulz said:


> As to the pricing differences, the mass market manufacturers can amortize the development and implementation costs over a production run that is several orders of magnitude larger than that of specialty manufacturers such as us at Datasat and our colleagues.


$200 for a $2000 device or $3000 for a $20000 device, sounds like the manufacturer's simply have figured out how to dig into the deeper wallets if anything.


----------



## tj21

tj21 said:


> Hi
> 
> On Monday I will be wiring through my concrete panel ceiling for Dolby Atmos and any possible future formats. This will be quite an effort as this is real brick and mortar European house so I want to do it only once. Therefore I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations.
> 
> I am attaching top and side views (also brushed off my trigonometry skills and included angles). Current set up is 7.1 and I will be adding 4 overhead speakers while also wiring for additional two. Current thinking is to install top front and top rear and wire for front high.
> 
> Thanks for any comments.
> 
> Tomas


I am now wired for Atmos. 4 top speakers installed with two additional wired. My wife almost divorced me from all the dust. Now waiting for X7200W.

Tomas


----------



## Roger Dressler

mtbdudex said:


> A solution would be the next generation flagship 2016/2017 AVR from Denon (and other manuf flagships)
> -storing multiple audyssey calibrations in the AVR (or whatever auto EQ they use) and be able to select between them, preferably even with different target curves


I would certainly invite the ability to effectively alter the target curve. But even with that capability, there is no need to store multiple Audyssey calibrations to address this configuration problem. Multiple configurations (different height speakers) can easily be supported using the same EQ corrections as long as every speaker in the room was included in the calibration process. 

Aside from allowing speaker gains to be mapped to given inputs, it should allow a choice of two or maybe more speaker configurations. This is how the SSP-800 works, and I miss that flexibility in the 7702.


----------



## asharma

ultraflexed said:


> Just ordered a pair of 410 onkyo atmos speakers for my onkyo 5.1.4 set-up. Can anyone tell me how good they work.
> 
> Bump for help


Returned mine. Felt more immersed but didn't feel like the sound was from the ceiling...installed in ceiling speakers, much better...YMMV...


----------



## snyderkv

Does anyone have issues with not being able to hear your height speakers until directly underneath them? Audyssey test tones are loud but playback doesn't sound much different then 5.1 although I haven't tested much. DSU is enabled and the info button shows all speakers activated


----------



## asharma

snyderkv said:


> I have a question for anybody that can answer
> 
> I attached two pictures of my ATMOS setup (now complete)
> 
> Given the layout, would Auro suite me better being that both heights are directly above the front and rears respectively?
> 
> Also, has anyone else had an issue with not being able to notice the heights unless standing directly underneath them? I was hoping Auro might solve this. Audyssey is set to ATMOS 5.1 + 4 channel and all speaker volume settings and distance don't look unusual. They also chirp just as loud as the other speakers during calibration
> 
> Thanks


My FHs were 16 ft from MLP. Didn't notice a difference. Installed TFs 6 ft from MLP, MUCH BETTER!


----------



## multit

tj21 said:


> I am now wired for Atmos. 4 top speakers installed with two additional wired. My wife almost divorced me from all the dust. Now waiting for X7200W...


Looks quite perfect and I have an own setup not far away from yours.
The only thing, I would probably change a bit, is the distance of the front speaker from each other. In reality, you already placed them more apart, as the drawing shows, but there are probably a few cm (feets  ) more possible.
Enjoy your setup!!!


----------



## Selden Ball

snyderkv said:


> Does anyone have issues with not being able to hear your height speakers until directly underneath them? Audyssey test tones are loud but playback doesn't sound much different then 5.1 although I haven't tested much. DSU is enabled and the info button shows all speakers activated


Do you have the speakers pointed toward your main listening position? If not, reorienting them might help. (Don't forget to re-run Audyssey if you do.) Alternatively, you might try turning up their trim levels just to see if you like them better that way.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Selden Ball said:


> Do you have the speakers pointed toward your main listening position? If not, reorienting them might help. (Don't forget to re-run Audyssey if you do.) Alternatively, you might try turning up their trim levels just to see if you like them better that way.


I was wondering if anyone turns up there height channels too.


----------



## snyderkv

asharma said:


> My FHs were 16 ft from MLP. Didn't notice a difference. Installed TFs 6 ft from MLP, MUCH BETTER!


Mine are 12 and as you can see from the pic from my last question, there is no way to move them closer so I'm stuck.



Selden Ball said:


> Do you have the speakers pointed toward your main listening position? If not, reorienting them might help. (Don't forget to re-run Audyssey if you do.) Alternatively, you might try turning up their trim levels just to see if you like them better that way.


They are Martin Logan IC and have a 45 degree angle but the fronts would technically aim towards my feet. But still, during chirps or regular music it's hard to tell as they aren't beemy speakers.

The rears are directly towards me as I'm closer but I still can't really point those out either. Would Auro be better since there setup more closely resembles mine?


----------



## CBdicX

Had some problem with Stereo content that is "treated" by DSU, but now did a compare with the same movie (download), one with Stereo and one with DD 5.1
Switching between the two gives no differents at all !!
DSU Stereo upmixed to 7.0 sounds exact the same as DSU 5.0 upmixed to 7.0 
What a great surround mode 


*All praises to DSU !*


----------



## jgourlie

ultraflexed said:


> Just ordered a pair of 410 onkyo atmos speakers for my onkyo 5.1.4 set-up. Can anyone tell me how good they work.
> 
> Bump for help


I have the 410's in a 5.1.2 and I am quite happy with them.


----------



## jgourlie

ThePrisoner said:


> I was wondering if anyone turns up there height channels too.


I have my Onkyo skh-410's turned up 5db's on my Denon 4100.

Seem to be working good for me so far


----------



## ThePrisoner

I'm getting the Onkyo 410's as a Christmas present. Glad you guys are enjoying them. I will be using them atop my surround channels


----------



## snyderkv

jgourlie said:


> I have my Onkyo skh-410's turned up 5db's on my Denon 4100.
> 
> Seem to be working good for me so far


Did you have to go into Setup > Speakers > Manual setup > Speakers > Levels > Test Tone?

So did you raise them both proportionately according to there last values?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> That's very surprising, considering this movie was one of three Auro3D exclusives theatrically. Wondering if Lionsgate really spent the money to do an Atmos mix just for home video, especially when there is already an Auro mix that they could have ported to Blu-ray? Or was this a typo? (a la Hercules)


I haven't the foggiest. All I know is that the home video press one-sheet shows Dolby Atmos clearly as one of the audio features. 

Maybe they took the PCM multi-tracks and bumped the channels that would be the Auro heights to the overhead Atmos object positions and did a few other minor tweaks.

If one could read into the home Atmos near-field re-mix press stories that have been released so far, it seems as if Dolby Labs has been doing them in-house for the studios. Perhaps that's currently the most readily available post production location able to do Atmos tracks for the home, and maybe that's why the title count has been pretty slim thus far.


----------



## jgourlie

ThePrisoner said:


> I'm getting the Onkyo 410's as a Christmas present. Glad you guys are enjoying them. I will be using them atop my surround channels


Christmas came early for me  Now I have to act all surprised when I get an empty receiver box for Christmas.

But re-watching all my movies is DSU has been a lot of fun the past week. 

Re-wiring my theater to add 2 more speakers...Not Fun!!


----------



## jdsmoothie

snyderkv said:


> I thought when you go to manual setup and adjust settings, Audyssey turns itself off. How do I get around this?


Adjusting volume/distance/SMALL/LARGE/crossovers has no impact on Audyssey as these settings are made by the AVR itself. It's only when you add additional speakers using AMP ASSIGN that Audyssey will be disabled until those new speakers have been EQ'd.


----------



## Ted99

krozman said:


> My popcorn ceiling is completely inconsistent. I mean, when the 49ers were losing to Oakland all that popcorn I threw hardly stuck to the ceiling at all. Most of it I had to clean up and by today it's all on the ground again. How are you getting popcorn to stick? Already using extra butter, please advise.


Popcorn ceilings don't do much for sound absorption--they were mainly for cheap drywall installers to mask a poor drywall installation, and then became fashionable.


----------



## snyderkv

jdsmoothie said:


> Adjusting volume/distance/SMALL/LARGE/crossovers has no impact on Audyssey as these settings are made by the AVR itself. It's only when you add additional speakers using AMP ASSIGN that Audyssey will be disabled until those new speakers have been EQ'd.


Oh ok I just verified that as well. I got confused because I added a sub and Audyssey disabled.

So I'm guessing if my TF is 7db and TR is 3db and I want to raise the volume 5db. It would look like 12db and 8db respectively?


----------



## jgourlie

snyderkv said:


> Did you have to go into Setup > Speakers > Manual setup > Speakers > Levels > Test Tone?
> 
> So did you raise them both proportionately according to there last values?


Actually I just push "Option" on my remote and it brings up a submenu that allows me to change all the speakers levels including Subwoofer.

Very Very handy feature in this new Denon over my old one.

Yes I just added 5db to the prior values. eg. they were set at +2 so I raised them both to +7


----------



## Selden Ball

snyderkv said:


> Oh ok I just verified that as well. I got confused because I added a sub and Audyssey disabled.
> 
> So I'm guessing if my TF is -7db and TR is -3db and I want to raise the volume 5db. It would look like 12db and 8db respectively?


Going in the negative direction would reduce the sound level. To raise them, you want to go in the positive direction: -7+5=-2 -3+5=+2

Bear in mind that +3dB requires twice the power, so you might want to try smaller steps first.


----------



## snyderkv

jgourlie said:


> Actually I just push "Option" on my remote and it brings up a submenu that allows me to change all the speakers levels including Subwoofer.
> 
> Very Very handy feature in this new Denon over my old one.


Oh ok interesting I have the same model so. I wonder what the difference would be by adjusting it there as they are all set to 0 and adjusting at the Manual setup where you see the current values. Maybe it's just a shortcut with a different gui


----------



## snyderkv

Selden Ball said:


> Going in the negative direction would reduce the sound level. To raise them, you want to go in the positive direction: -7+5=-2 -3+5=+2
> 
> Bear in mind that +3dB requires twice the power, so you might want to try smaller steps first.


I actually removed the - sign before you commented, thanks 

I can't hear them during playback as it is so they must not being using more than a few watts. Just my guess as my front speakers measured less than 20 on my watt meter at levels I really never listen to


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> Hey Barry...just noticed you commented on my Amazon M-5010 review...and now you're setting up Atmos with the 1030 I'm currently thinking about buying.
> 
> Onkyo's instructions for speaker configurations have always kinda sucked. I'm really struggling right now figuring out what speakers to move where and how many more (if any) I need to buy while there's still some matching ones available. Hell, I don't even know yet how to get the wires run from my overheads. "Attic" space in my house is really non-optimal. Piles of blown-in insulation and roof trusses. Exceedingly fun to crawl around in/on.
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I want to go with 4 overheads for 7.2.4, but maybe 9.2.2 (if I can even do that) would be better.
> 
> If you (or anyone else) would care to take a look at my room diagram (in my sig) and offer up suggestions, that would be swell.
> 
> I think I'm going to move the MLP forward another foot or so.
> 
> Another possible challenge is that room has a vaulted ceiling with the low point being near the bay window on the right. I suspect it won't matter too much at the end of the day.
> 
> Maybe relocate L/R High to TF and L/R Wide to TR? Or just leave them as-is for the future (and so I don't have to patch/paint drywall) and buy four more to use as overheads.
> 
> I am agonizing as well. What to do, what to do...
> 
> Hooray for hobbies!


I looked at your existing layout very similar to what I had except my surrounds were lower and still lower on stands just below ear level angled slightly towards MLP I wanted as much separation as possible. My high speakers were and still are on the front wall just about at the ceiling my surround backs are in the ceiling firing down to as best I could towards the MLP but I think they are too far back from the couch. So what I did was eliminate my wides and used them for surround back speakers on stands so that gave me the traditional 7.2 with my subs one in front and the other in back. I'm using my TX-NR 1030 I had to turn on 11 channel play back now I'm using height 1 connected to my front high speakers calling them (front high)and I'm using my external amp and assigning height2 as top middle because your only choice is top middle or back high when using front high. You could call the front high speakers top front then you could call the back ones top rear or rear heights. I'm not real happy with the location of the back ceiling speakers because they are not really in the correct angle. So what I'm going to do is install two new ceiling speakers in the correct angle for top middle. I'm putting them just slightly above and forward in MLP. The ceiling speakers I have in the ceiling behind the couch I'm leaving there and use them as surround backs and I'll keep the speakers I have on stands and may use as wides down the road I would like 9.2.4. While I have those wide speakers I may experiment and try 9.2.2. What I'll do first is set it up 7.2.4 with the 4 being front high and top middle. So then my hope will be that I'll have everything fairly correct for atmos..hope I was a help and didn't bore you LOL. 
I want to say even with my ceiling speakers not at the correct angle it still sounds great and DAY is worth the price of admission.


----------



## jdsmoothie

jgourlie said:


> Actually I just push* "Option" on my remote *and it brings up a submenu that allows me to change all the speakers levels including Subwoofer.
> 
> Very Very handy feature in this new Denon over my old one.
> 
> Yes I just added 5db to the prior values. eg. they were set at +2 so I raised them both to +7





snyderkv said:


> Oh ok interesting I have the same model so. I wonder what the difference would be by adjusting it there as they are all set to 0 and *adjusting at the Manual setup* where you see the current values. Maybe it's just a shortcut with a different gui


*Manual Setup* volume changes are *global* across all sources, while using the *Option button* is *source specific* and adjusts +/- off of what is set in Manual Setup.


----------



## jgourlie

snyderkv said:


> Oh ok interesting I have the same model so. I wonder what the difference would be by adjusting it there as they are all set to 0 and adjusting at the Manual setup where you see the current values. Maybe it's just a shortcut with a different gui


From the manual:

The volume of each channel can be changed while listening to music. You
can set this for each input source.
1 Press OPTION.
The option menu screen is displayed.
2 Use ui to select “Channel Level Adjust”, then press
ENTER.
The channel level adjust screen is displayed.
3 Use ui to select the channel that you wish to adjust.
4 Use o p to adjust the volume.
–12.0 dB – +12.0 dB (Default : 0.0 dB)
0 Select “Reset” and press ENTER if you want to restore the adjustment values of
the various channels to “0.0 dB” (default).
0 Headphone volume can be adjusted when a headphone is connected.
0 “Channel Level Adjust” settings are stored for each input source.
0 You can only set this for speakers that output audio. In addition, you cannot set
this when in the menu “HDMI Audio Out” is set to “TV”. (v p. 183)


----------



## snyderkv

jdsmoothie said:


> *Manual Setup* volume changes are *global* across all sources, while using the *Option button* is *source specific* and adjusts +/- off of what is set in Manual Setup.





jgourlie said:


> From the manual:
> 
> The volume of each channel can be changed while listening to music. You
> can set this for each input source.
> (v p. 183)


Thanks, you guys rock


----------



## batpig

snyderkv said:


> Thanks, you guys rock


Not to rub it in, but this is clearly explained in the first post of the owner's thread for your receiver


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> Not to rub it in, but this is clearly explained in the first post of the owner's thread for your receiver



But that was before they learned "Denonese"!


----------



## bargervais

jgourlie said:


> Actually I just push "Option" on my remote and it brings up a submenu that allows me to change all the speakers levels including Subwoofer.
> 
> Very Very handy feature in this new Denon over my old one.
> 
> Yes I just added 5db to the prior values. eg. they were set at +2 so I raised them both to +7


I thought the whole reason that they get EQed where they are is so you don't get drawn towards hearing the high speakers more then the base speakers. I thought the whole reason with Atmos was to lift the sound bubble as to give you an incredible bubble of sound. raising the volume of the ceiling speakers would draw to much attention to them wouldn't it? I may be wrong in my thinking please correct me.


----------



## jgourlie

Al Sherwood said:


> But that was before they learned "Denonese"!


I am on my 3rd Denon Receiver and I am still not sure I entirely understand Denonese yet


----------



## jgourlie

bargervais said:


> I thought the whole reason that they get EQed where they are is so you don't get drawn towards hearing the high speakers more then the base speakers. I thought the whole reason with Atmos was to lift the sound bubble as to give you an incredible bubble of sound. raising the volume of the ceiling speakers would draw to much attention to them wouldn't it? I may be wrong in my thinking please correct me.


The Onkyo skh-410's are not high fidelity speakers, so I raised the volume to actually get a bubble of sound, rather then them not being loud enough and creating no bubble at all.

For this reason I am sure many people have returned these lower priced speakers. Running them a little hotter then what audyssey set's them at has given me a better bubble so to speak.


----------



## snyderkv

bargervais said:


> I thought the whole reason that they get EQed where they are is so you don't get drawn towards hearing the high speakers more then the base speakers. I thought the whole reason with Atmos was to lift the sound bubble as to give you an incredible bubble of sound. raising the volume of the ceiling speakers would draw to much attention to them wouldn't it? I may be wrong in my thinking please correct me.





jgourlie said:


> The Onkyo skh-410's are not high fidelity speakers, so I raised the volume to actually get a bubble of sound, rather then them not being loud enough and creating no bubble at all.
> 
> For this reason I am sure many people have returned these lower priced speakers. Running them a little hotter then what audyssey set's them at has given me a better bubble so to speak.


It's possible our speakers lack physical separation between the mid and height layers making them hard to identify for human hearing but fine according to Audyssey. I don't think Audyssey is smart enough to say hey, these are only 3 feet above your mains, we better boost them 

It would help if someone could provide a scene from a movie that predominantly uses the TF/TR so I can use that as a starting base. Anyone? Edit: That does not require me to buy TF4


----------



## bargervais

HTML:







jgourlie said:


> The Onkyo skh-410's are not high fidelity speakers, so I raised the volume to actually get a bubble of sound, rather then them not being loud enough and creating no bubble at all.
> 
> For this reason I am sure many people have returned these lower priced speakers. Running them a little hotter then what audyssey set's them at has given me a better bubble so to speak.


Got it sorry I miss understood I completely forgot about up firing as I'm in a on ceiling and in ceiling mindset.


----------



## nagendrachalla

Blu-rays from Netflix does not have atmos sound. I have tried Expendables-3 and Hercules. Does Redbox has it? I don't want to buy these blu-rays just for Atmos.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Hercules doesn't have atmos on any discs


----------



## nagendrachalla

Brian Fineberg said:


> Hercules doesn't have atmos on any discs


Blu-ray.com says it has atmos, here's the link:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15063


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I own it. It doesn't


----------



## bargervais

nagendrachalla said:


> Blu-rays from Netflix does not have atmos sound. I have tried Expendables-3 and Hercules. Does Redbox has it? I don't want to buy these blu-rays just for Atmos.


Hercules doesn't have Atmos


----------



## nagendrachalla

Brian Fineberg said:


> I own it. It doesn't



hmmm


----------



## NorthSky

nagendrachalla said:


> Blu-rays from Netflix does not have atmos sound. I have tried Expendables-3 and Hercules. Does Redbox has it? I don't want to buy these blu-rays just for Atmos.


1. Lions Gate studios ('The Expendables 3') = No Dolby Atmos from rentals (Netflix & Redbox) ---> You need to buy the Blu.
2. 'Hercules' = Other members have already mentioned. ...No Atmos for this Blu title. 

* Best is to use DSU for this holiday season, and pray, for 2015's new resolutions.


----------



## batpig

nagendrachalla said:


> Blu-rays from Netflix does not have atmos sound. I have tried Expendables-3 and Hercules. Does Redbox has it? I don't want to buy these blu-rays just for Atmos.


It depends on the studio. It's been discussed plenty that Lionsgate titles (like Expendables 3) intentionally give 5.1 lossy Dolby Digital on rental copies.

Hercules was originally announced as having Atmos but it turned out to not have it once the disc was released.

Other titles (like Transformers 4) do have Atmos on the rental copies.


----------



## bargervais

nagendrachalla said:


> hmmm


Hmmmm right none of the Hercules have Atmos bummer I know I was going to buy it I had it on pre-order... as blu-ray reviews said it did but it doesn't.


----------



## NorthSky

nagendrachalla said:


> Blu-ray.com says it has atmos, here's the link:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15063


September 23, 2014 ... that's very old news that was also erratic @ that time.

* Actual review (October 30): www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hercules-Blu-ray/109527/#Review


----------



## batpig

What's funny is when you look at the back of the packaging, there is the little "double D" Dolby symbol but it says "Dolby Audio" instead of "Dolby Atmos". Like they had a last minute change of plans


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> What's funny is when you look at the back of the packaging, there is the little "double D" Dolby symbol but it says "Dolby Audio" instead of "Dolby Atmos". Like they had a last minute change of plans


I noticed that last minute packaging logo change too. They're probably waiting for the super-duper deluxe R-rated version with *4D* Video in order to give you Dolby Atmos!


----------



## tjenkins95

tj21 said:


> I am now wired for Atmos. 4 top speakers installed with two additional wired. My wife almost divorced me from all the dust. Now waiting for X7200W.
> 
> Tomas


 

It looks very nice. What brand of top speakers did you install on the ceiling?


Ray


----------



## zebidou81

For those wanting to find out just how good the Dsu is i found an old audio demo disk called wow with clips of star wars and Thx theatrical clips played before a movie including a T2 demo, they all sound miles better when switched to Dsu than dd, 1 clip stood out massively was THX Jungle sounds which has a fly and helicopter in that flew around the room very impressive.


----------



## jmagoo

Christmas came early 

Member: jmagoo
Spkr config: 5.1.2
AVR: Denon x4100W
Atmos spkrs: AJ SP EBS-73, SP-EC73
Mounted: Atmos enabled
Ceiling: N/A
other info: planned 2nd set of SP-EBS73 for 5.1.4 after New Years


----------



## tj21

batpig said:


> What's funny is when you look at the back of the packaging, there is the little "double D" Dolby symbol but it says "Dolby Audio" instead of "Dolby Atmos". Like they had a last minute change of plans


The local (Czech) distributor of Hercules did not have time to change the packaging and there is still Dolby Atmos logo on the back cover. They use stickers to fix it.


----------



## tj21

tjenkins95 said:


> It looks very nice. What brand of top speakers did you install on the ceiling?
> 
> 
> Ray


I reused my old Jamo Omega 3 set (top speakers and 2nd subwoofer). The ground speakers are Focal JMlab Chorus 836V, 816V, CC800V, SR800V and SW800V.

This is quite a mismatch between grounds and tops, most likely just interim solution until a winner of immersive audio format is known. I cannot say how it sounds as I do not have Atmos receiver yet.

Tomas


----------



## windshear

I got a bit of a fright watching the Atmos sampler disc where I found two of my subs bottoming out. This has never happened before on any source material and I did not even listen at the levels I sometimes go to. Maybe someone can test and confirm if this happens on their system. It is on the amaze demo where the powerful bass graphic is on screen with the accompanying sound. I wonder if this is at an overcooked level. It would be interesting to know at what level it was mastered at and what the actual signal contains. Ps I was not aware this was happening before as the sound was masked by all the other sounds. I just happened to be next to one of my subwoofers when that scene played and I heard it.


----------



## zebidou81

nagendrachalla said:


> hmmm


Hercules was changed last minute and Atmos soundtrack not added.


----------



## dvdwilly3

zebidou81 said:


> For those wanting to find out just how good the Dsu is i found an old audio demo disk called wow with clips of star wars and Thx theatrical clips played before a movie including a T2 demo, they all sound miles better when switched to Dsu than dd, 1 clip stood out massively was THX Jungle sounds which has a fly and helicopter in that flew around the room very impressive.


Can you copy that? Or, is it protected?


----------



## epiCenter

windshear said:


> I got a bit of a fright watching the Atmos sampler disc where I found two of my subs bottoming out. This has never happened before on any source material and I did not even listen at the levels I sometimes go to. Maybe someone can test and confirm if this happens on their system. It is on the amaze demo where the powerful bass graphic is on screen with the accompanying sound. I wonder if this is at an overcooked level. It would be interesting to know at what level it was mastered at and what the actual signal contains. Ps I was not aware this was happening before as the sound was masked by all the other sounds. I just happened to be next to one of my subwoofers when that scene played and I heard it.


Windshear, you obviously have a really nice set up, but your BWs probably can't take that hit at reference levels. I have a false wall that allows me enough room for a JBL Professional Cinema 4642A which does handle that scene well. However, that scene is so obnoxious that it scares the s*** out of me and anyone else every time I demo it. Additionally, my wife threatens me with divorce papers every time I play it as well (something about it pealing the drywall off the studs upstairs)! So perhaps BW is looking out for you. 

Another scene you must "watch out" for is the beginning of "Edge of Tomorrow." There is a newsreel "cut-out" that sets the stage that the Earth has been invaded. That scene has an LFE track that makes you feel like the invasion made it into your living room. Some on this forum have reported bottoming out like you have experienced on the Dolby Demo. I think some even said it killed their sub. 

My 4642A survives the scene, but I swear that scene "knocks" my Projector out of synch when watching it in 3D. I have tested this hypothesis twice. Both times listening at Reference, the projector drops out of 3D. If I chill out a bit, and don't go full nuclear, the projector stays in 3D synch. I have never experienced this with any other scene at reference level. 

In short, be careful with that scene too!


----------



## multit

dvdwilly3 said:


> Can you copy that? Or, is it protected?


http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/thx-trailers.php


----------



## dvdwilly3

multit said:


> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/thx-trailers.php


Thanks a bunch!


----------



## petetherock

I finally got my hands on Expendables III, and I am not afraid to admit I loved it...

I mean, I get to see more than half a dozen mega-stars that headlined 90% of all the action movies in the 80s together, having fun making a movie where they banter, shoot bad guys, and blow lots of stuff up... there's no sex, no unnecessary romance, totally awesome surround sound engineering, top picture quality... what's not to like?

Well if I were to nitpick, I felt Jet Li got the short end of the stick (pun intended), he should be kicking ass instead of shooting the tiny automatic rifle... he is definitely capable of more...

It is also a far showcase of Atmos than Transformers 4... 


Run, don't walk ... and get a copy, then buy another for your best pal who is also a HT aficionado.. and get him hooked on Atmos..


----------



## Selden Ball

multit said:


> http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/thx-trailers.php


"Download slots busy! Try again later".


----------



## audioguy

petetherock said:


> I finally got my hands on Expendables III, and I am not afraid to admit I loved it...
> 
> I mean, I get to see more than half a dozen mega-stars that headlined 90% of all the action movies in the 80s together, having fun making a movie where they banter, shoot bad guys, and blow lots of stuff up... there's no sex, no unnecessary romance, totally awesome surround sound engineering, top picture quality... what's not to like?


Agreed. If you are only into artsie films, and/or those with a serious plot and/or those which clearly have academy award potential stamped all over them, then stay away. This is none of those but it will certainly exercise the subs in your room and Atmos does provide a higher level of grin!!

But then again, I am easily entertained


----------



## mtbdudex

Roger Dressler said:


> I would certainly invite the ability to effectively alter the target curve. But even with that capability, there is no need to store multiple Audyssey calibrations to address this configuration problem. Multiple configurations (different height speakers) can easily be supported using the same EQ corrections as long as every speaker in the room was included in the calibration process.
> 
> Aside from allowing speaker gains to be mapped to given inputs, it should allow a choice of two or maybe more speaker configurations. This is how the SSP-800 works, and I miss that flexibility in the 7702.


My 4520CI does EQ for the full 11.2 speakers I have, and then whichever mode I pick (NeoX, PLIIz, DSX) and height or wide or both it will map in accord, so I agree with you there.
It's when you change the amp assign after calibration then the cal file is not available to be used, maybe I mis-read the OP was going to do that, hence my post.

For people with multiple rows of seats, with 3-4 seats/row, having ability to store multiple configurations will enable them to have a 1st row mode when people are not sitting in the 2nd row, a 2nd row mode when not sitting in the first row, or a balanced 1st/2nd row mode, etc.


----------



## batpig

tj21 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is when you look at the back of the packaging, there is the little "double D" Dolby symbol but it says "Dolby Audio" instead of "Dolby Atmos". Like they had a last minute change of plans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The local (Czech) distributor of Hercules did not have time to change the packaging and there is still Dolby Atmos logo on the back cover. They use stickers to fix it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Well, I guess that elevates it from conspiracy theory to fact!


----------



## batpig

windshear said:


> I got a bit of a fright watching the Atmos sampler disc where I found two of my subs bottoming out. This has never happened before on any source material and I did not even listen at the levels I sometimes go to. Maybe someone can test and confirm if this happens on their system. It is on the amaze demo where the powerful bass graphic is on screen with the accompanying sound. I wonder if this is at an overcooked level. It would be interesting to know at what level it was mastered at and what the actual signal contains. Ps I was not aware this was happening before as the sound was masked by all the other sounds. I just happened to be next to one of my subwoofers when that scene played and I heard it.


Yes, this portion of the Amaze clip is notorious for exposing weak subwoofer systems. Mine included!


----------



## Kris Deering

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet but John Wick will have a Dolby Atmos track for its Blu-ray release.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Don't know if it has been mentioned yet but John Wick will have a Dolby Atmos track for its Blu-ray release.


Thanks for the update, but we already got it covered a few posts back!


----------



## windshear

epiCenter said:


> Windshear, you obviously have a really nice set up, but your BWs probably can't take that hit at reference levels. I have a false wall that allows me enough room for a JBL Professional Cinema 4642A which does handle that scene well. However, that scene is so obnoxious that it scares the s*** out of me and anyone else every time I demo it. Additionally, my wife threatens me with divorce papers every time I play it as well (something about it pealing the drywall off the studs upstairs)! So perhaps BW is looking out for you.
> 
> Another scene you must "watch out" for is the beginning of "Edge of Tomorrow." There is a newsreel "cut-out" that sets the stage that the Earth has been invaded. That scene has an LFE track that makes you feel like the invasion made it into your living room. Some on this forum have reported bottoming out like you have experienced on the Dolby Demo. I think some even said it killed their sub.
> 
> My 4642A survives the scene, but I swear that scene "knocks" my Projector out of synch when watching it in 3D. I have tested this hypothesis twice. Both times listening at Reference, the projector drops out of 3D. If I chill out a bit, and don't go full nuclear, the projector stays in 3D synch. I have never experienced this with any other scene at reference level.
> 
> In short, be careful with that scene too!


The problem with these hot mixes is one never knows where and when it will hit. I think what might have made the situation worse is running Dynamic EQ in my Receiver , it seems to be running the subs about 10dB louder at the volume I was listening at. I have the ability to individually turn on Audyssey separately from DynEQ, I need to rethink things as this is a problem in terms of longevity of items.


----------



## BigScreen

I was disappointed to see that the Blu-ray release for Book of Life on January 27, 2015 was announced recently, and there is no mention of an Atmos soundtrack.

Book of Life was released by 20th Century Fox with an Atmos soundtrack in theaters October 17, 2014 and has grossed a total of $48.6M domestically and $90M worldwide.

There is hope, however, as no audio information was mentioned in the announcement. That leaves the door open that this could be the first Atmos release for the studio, but one would think that they would be trumpeting the fact.

It would be good to see another studio start releasing Atmos titles!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BigScreen said:


> I was disappointed to see that the Blu-ray release for Book of Life on January 27, 2015 was announced recently, and there is no mention of an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Book of Life was released by 20th Century Fox with an Atmos soundtrack in theaters October 17, 2014 and has grossed a total of $48.6M domestically and $90M worldwide.
> 
> There is hope, however, as no audio information was mentioned in the announcement. That leaves the door open that this could be the first Atmos release for the studio, but* one would think that they would be trumpeting the fact.*
> 
> It would be good to see another studio start releasing Atmos titles!


Sadly, no studio has EVER pushed an audio format hard in their movie marketing campaign, except in the 50's when multi-track audio was re-debuted with large format roadshow epics (_Fantasia_ being the first film with multi-channel surround in 1940 - so the Radio City Music Hall Premiere ads had Fantasound plastered everywhere - and then it was dropped due to WWII, costs, and technical issues). 

Why would Dolby think they would change their tune now even with such an advancement in sound coming to the home?


----------



## stikle

nagendrachalla said:


> Blu-ray.com says it has atmos, here's the link:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15063


I prefer High-Def Digest for my BD reviews:

High-Def Digest Hercules Review

They don't mention Atmos - they review based on watching, not on proposed specs.

In other news...I went up in my attic space last night...there isn't room enough for me to get through to where the theater room is without risking breaking through the sheetrock.

Not sure what I'm going to do now...don't want speaker wire visible. I've got a buddy coming over this weekend to take a look and see if he has any ideas.

Sigh...maybe DSX/Neo:X is good enough...


----------



## Al Sherwood

stikle said:


> I prefer High-Def Digest for my BD reviews:
> 
> High-Def Digest Hercules Review
> 
> They don't mention Atmos - they review based on watching, not on proposed specs.
> 
> In other news...I went up in my attic space last night...there isn't room enough for me to get through to where the theater room is without risking breaking through the sheetrock.
> 
> Not sure what I'm going to do now...don't want speaker wire visible. I've got a buddy coming over this weekend to take a look and see if he has any ideas.
> 
> Sigh...maybe DSX/Neo:X is good enough...



Where there is the will there is a way... grab a piece of plywood long enough to span three joists, put it up there with and have the required wires in hand, get your buddy to feed it out to you as you move along the joists one section at a time, slow and careful will get you there and back.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Yes, this portion of the Amaze clip is notorious for exposing weak subwoofer systems. Mine included!


It blew out the driver in my 15 year old klipsch SUB ended up replacing the driver now it sounds amazing but I should clarify that I keep the volume just below earth shattering as as much I like alot of bass, I can't stand it when everything in the room rattles a little too obnoxious for my taste I like it just below where things start to rattle..


----------



## bargervais

BigScreen said:


> I was disappointed to see that the Blu-ray release for Book of Life on January 27, 2015 was announced recently, and there is no mention of an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Book of Life was released by 20th Century Fox with an Atmos soundtrack in theaters October 17, 2014 and has grossed a total of $48.6M domestically and $90M worldwide.
> 
> There is hope, however, as no audio information was mentioned in the announcement. That leaves the door open that this could be the first Atmos release for the studio, but one would think that they would be trumpeting the fact.
> 
> It would be good to see another studio start releasing Atmos titles!


I loved that movie and with an Atmos mix I'd will buy that one even without a Atmos mix.


----------



## Roger Dressler

mtbdudex said:


> For people with multiple rows of seats, with 3-4 seats/row, having ability to store multiple configurations will enable them to have a 1st row mode when people are not sitting in the 2nd row, a 2nd row mode when not sitting in the first row, or a balanced 1st/2nd row mode, etc.


Yes, I have just such a mode option in the SSP-800. I change the delays and levels for the "group" mode vs. the "me alone" mode. But the EQ is the same. It does not have to be complicated to be effective. But sure, if the product could do multiple EQ profiles, as is the case with Trinnov units, that would be fine. I'm looking at it from the "easily implemented" perspective. Since D&M can already let users remember different gains per input, why not just add delays and speaker options to the table.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I don't understand why I even have a harmony remote it's just collecting dust I use my atmos TX-NR 1030 remote that controls everything.
> On a different note back on topic I'm getting ready to install or reposition my top middle speakers I need them more above MLP or slightly in front of MLP like Keith suggests.. I have been agonizing about the precise position because once I cut the holes their cut.... I have been in my attic inspecting the locations and double checking making sure I'm not cutting into wires or AC copper piping or plumbing.. got my stud finder and templates ready wish me luck.


Just for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't _recommending_ moving the TM pair to 85° as I have done - I just said that in my room, to my ears, it sounded a little better that way than with the TMs slightly behind me at 100°. This may be because in my 5.2.4 system the surrounds are at 110° and so the angular separation was less when my TMs were slightly behind me. Other people, with different rooms and surround placement may not realise the same benefit as I did.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The next Dolby Atmos Blu-ray is...
> 
> *John Wick*.
> 
> February 3rd.


Thanks Dan - preordered. That will be a good week - on 10th Gravity is re-released with an Atmos track...


----------



## Scott Simonian

John Wick? Nice! 

I don't remember anything special about the mix when I saw it but I did like the movie.


----------



## weekendtoy

Just curious as to what speakers folks are using for their on-ceiling mounted speakers.


Thanks,
Dan


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Just for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't _recommending_ moving the TM pair to 85° as I have done - I just said that in my room, to my ears, it sounded a little better that way than with the TMs slightly behind me at 100°. This may be because in my 5.2.4 system the surrounds are at 110° and so the angular separation was less when my TMs were slightly behind me. Other people, with different rooms and surround placement may not realise the same benefit as I did.


Thanks for the feed back I'm thinking of putting top middle as close as possible to like 95° I can slide my couch a little forward so they are at 100° above or slightly behind at 105° as I don't have a wall behind the couch. Then I'll have a truer top middle in the position recommended for Atmos.
I really value your opinions I've been dragging my feet in cutting the hole it's like standing on a high diving board anticipating the dive, I just have to dive.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That's very surprising, considering this movie was one of three Auro3D exclusives theatrically. Wondering if Lionsgate really spent the money to do an Atmos mix just for home video, especially when there is already an Auro mix that they could have ported to Blu-ray? Or was this a typo? (a la Hercules)


Oh bugger. I'll have to keep my eye on it and cancel if it's not Atmos. By cancel, I mean cancel the more expensive US order and buy in the UK when it's released here. The movie itself looks interesting, despite the rubbish title.


----------



## jrogers

weekendtoy said:


> Just curious as to what speakers folks are using for their on-ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan


GoldenEar SuperSat 3/3c are great - but take a look at kokishin's spreadsheet for a bunch others: avsforum Members Atmos Configuration Spreadsheet


----------



## kbarnes701

weekendtoy said:


> Just curious as to what speakers folks are using for their on-ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan


The spreadsheet of user systems linked in post 1 will tell you.

Jrogers beat me to it  I'll add then that I use Tannoy Di5 DCs and am very happy with them.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Thanks for the feed back I'm thinking of putting top middle as close as possible to like 95° I can slide my couch a little forward so they are at 100° above or slightly behind at 105° as I don't have a wall behind the couch. Then I'll have a truer top middle in the position recommended for Atmos.
> I really value your opinions I've been dragging my feet in cutting the hole it's like standing on a high diving board anticipating the dive, I just have to dive.


Yes, cutting holes in the ceiling isn't something you want to do without giving it a lot of thought! I wouldn't have moved mine if it weren't for the fact that they are ON ceiling speakers.


----------



## asarose247

for "stikle" quote


In other news...I went up in my attic space last night...there isn't room enough for me to get through to where the theater room is without risking breaking through the sheetrock.


for tricky reaches like that, I have used a "longish" piece of 1/4" all thread inserted up thru where I want the wire to come out and hopefully somewhere near where I can get my hands on it to tape my speaker wire to it and pull it through.
its a more "directionally enabled " fish tape
the 1/4" has some flexibility and works generally much better than taped together coat hangers . . . depends on the reach needed


and plywood over the joists spreads the weight


even with my own 0 WAF, less visible is generally better


----------



## gammanuc

stikle said:


> I prefer High-Def Digest for my BD reviews:
> 
> High-Def Digest Hercules Review
> 
> They don't mention Atmos - they review based on watching, not on proposed specs.
> 
> In other news...I went up in my attic space last night...there isn't room enough for me to get through to where the theater room is without risking breaking through the sheetrock.
> 
> Not sure what I'm going to do now...don't want speaker wire visible. I've got a buddy coming over this weekend to take a look and see if he has any ideas.
> 
> Sigh...maybe DSX/Neo:X is good enough...


You could try this: drill a hole where the speaker will be placed, attach the wire to a straightened coat hanger, poke up through the hole and on through the insulation.Get a long piece of 1"x2"or 3" board and one of those small screw in hooks. Screw the hook on the end of the board and pull the wire to you.


----------



## Gurba

weekendtoy said:


> Just curious as to what speakers folks are using for their on-ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan


http://surround.no/Produkter/Høytta...lossy-PAR---Grå-front-100644-p0000000651.aspx


Perfect With angle and keyhole for easy installment.


----------



## kokishin

gammanuc said:


> Hey kokishin I have the second set of in ceiling speakers installed (now TF and TR). You can update me to a 7.1.4 in the spreadsheet. I'm powering the front speakers with a Rotel RB980BX.
> Thanks.


Done.

Thanks


----------



## Jive Turkey

stikle said:


> I prefer High-Def Digest for my BD reviews:
> 
> High-Def Digest Hercules Review
> 
> They don't mention Atmos - they review based on watching, not on proposed specs.
> 
> In other news...I went up in my attic space last night...there isn't room enough for me to get through to where the theater room is without risking breaking through the sheetrock.
> 
> Not sure what I'm going to do now...don't want speaker wire visible. I've got a buddy coming over this weekend to take a look and see if he has any ideas.
> 
> Sigh...maybe DSX/Neo:X is good enough...


http://www.harborfreight.com/50-ft-fish-tape-38156.html

I have kinpost trusses in my attic with a 28' span and have worked my way through the topside of the diagonal webbing between the kinpost (center upright) and one-third span upright. I'm 6', 200lbs.


----------



## kokishin

jmagoo said:


> Christmas came early
> 
> Member: jmagoo
> Spkr config: 5.1.2
> AVR: Denon x4100W
> Atmos spkrs: AJ SP EBS-73, SP-EC73
> Mounted: Atmos enabled
> Ceiling: N/A
> other info: planned 2nd set of SP-EBS73 for 5.1.4 after New Years


Added. Let me know after you add the 2nd set of speakers and I'll update you.

Also, please QUOTE me or MENTION me so I don't have to search for your update.

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## epiCenter

I just checked my speakercraft cinema dipole threes (4 x speakers as both my side and rear surrounds). They have all been on the QFX setting since my 7.2.4 Atmos system has been up and running (did not check before since I am happy with what I am hearing). QFX means HF signal radiates in Dipole Mode while M/L frequencies radiate in Bipole Mode. The other two options for these speakers are Dipole only and Bipole only. 

As I stated before, I have been really happy with my set up as I have been able to localize sounds in 3D space (not attributed to a specific speaker). Over the next few nights I will test the other modes on these speakers in order to optimize the Atmos effect. I may find out that the way I was listening is optimum. However, although conflicting guidance exists, the preponderance of the recommendations have been for monopole in favor over Bipole, and Bipole in favor over Dipole. 

If QFX settings have been giving me HF signals in Dipole, I would assume this was not giving me optimal results. But again, I have been blown away by how awesome both DSU and ATMOS have enveloped me in a sea of sounds. 

Has anyone else tested these different settings on their speakers? If so, what sounded best to you?

I'll report my results here this weekend. I posted this in the "which one" thread as well.


----------



## prince.nothing

Added four ceiling speakers this week to my existing 5.1 setup (thanks @jdsmoothie). I saw the first few minutes of the age of extinction, and wasn't overly impressed. But then I played the "amaze' clip from the atmos demo disk and my mind was blown. I disabled the in-ceilings and called everybody down for a demo. Everyone had fantastic things to say, but then I switched on the in-ceilings and saw their jaws drop. My two year old turned around looking for the dragon fly that she thought was flying behind her. 



My setup:
2 Klipsch RF-82II Towers
1 Klipsch RC-62II Center Speaker
2 Klipsch RS-52II Surround Speakers
4 Yamaha NS-IC800 In-ceiling speakers
2 Klipsch SW-112 Subwoofers with WA-2 Wireless kit
Denon AVR X4100W
Emotiva Mini-X A-100 Stereo Flex Amplifier
Epson 5030UB Projector
Visual Apex 120" Electric Tension Screen



kokishin said:


> Also, please QUOTE me or MENTION me so I don't have to search for your update.


Could you please add me to the list?


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> I finally got my hands on *Expendables III*, and I am not afraid to admit I loved it...
> I mean, I get to see more than half a dozen mega-stars that headlined 90% of all the action movies in the 80s together, having fun making a movie where they banter, shoot bad guys, and blow lots of stuff up... there's no sex, no unnecessary romance, totally awesome surround sound engineering, top picture quality... what's not to like?
> Well if I were to nitpick, I felt Jet Li got the short end of the stick (pun intended), he should be kicking ass instead of shooting the tiny automatic rifle... he is definitely capable of more...
> It is also a far showcase of Atmos than Transformers 4...
> Run, don't walk ... and get a copy, then buy another for your best pal who is also a HT aficionado.. and get him hooked on Atmos..


I already have this Blu title (the full trilogy now) in my precious movie collection. 

Now, I just need an Atmos receiver. ...To experience the full glory of this magnificent 3D surround sound audio soundtrack (Atmos), from this fun flick with all them action heroes who we all grew up with (Rambo, Terminator, Rocky Balboa, Predator, Exterminator, Punisher, Kung-Fu Panda, the Karate Kid, ...). 

* I miss Bruce Lee, and in this 3rd one I was missing Jean-Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris.


----------



## NorthSky

*That Blu-ray ... in Dolby Atmos sound.*



Scott Simonian said:


> *John Wick*? Nice!
> 
> I don't remember anything special about the mix when I saw it but I did like the movie.


----------



## kokishin

prince.nothing said:


> Added four ceiling speakers this week to my existing 5.1 setup (thanks @jdsmoothie). I saw the first few minutes of the age of extinction, and wasn't overly impressed. But then I played the "amaze' clip from the atmos demo disk and my mind was blown. I disabled the in-ceilings and called everybody down for a demo. Everyone had fantastic things to say, but then I switched on the in-ceilings and saw their jaws drop. My two year old turned around looking for the dragon fly that she thought was flying behind her.
> 
> 
> 
> My setup:
> 2 Klipsch RF-82II Towers
> 1 Klipsch RC-62II Center Speaker
> 2 Klipsch RS-52II Surround Speakers
> 4 Yamaha NS-IC800 In-ceiling speakers
> 2 Klipsch SW-112 Subwoofers with WA-2 Wireless kit
> Denon AVR X4100W
> Emotiva Mini-X A-100 Stereo Flex Amplifier
> Epson 5030UB Projector
> Visual Apex 120" Electric Tension Screen
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please add me to the list?


Done.

Thanks


----------



## asharma

*Rear surround location*

I currently have 4 recliners and my MLP is in the middle. My rear surrounds are just behind the recliners behind each of the end recliners and are toed in towards the MLP. When I recline, which I always do when watching a movie, my head is even with my toed in rears. Question is, when I'm reclining should the rears be toed in or directly facing each of my ears? Ie. the speakers would be turned sideways pointing towards each ear...thanks folks


----------



## NorthSky

Question is: Which sitting position do you adopt the most; reclining, or not? ...You just said that it was in the 'reclining' position.
Then simply follow Dolby Atmos speaker's positioning guidelines for that sitting position.


----------



## asharma

NorthSky said:


> Question is: Which sitting position do you adopt the most; reclining, or not? ...You just said that it was in the 'reclining' position.
> Then simply follow Dolby Atmos speaker's positioning guidelines for that sitting position.


Mostly reclining, what is the ATMOS recommendation?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Looks like 2x pairs of 44-DA Atmos modules will be here on Monday... the anticipation is killing me!


----------



## Louie_18

Hi there,
I'm planning on going for Atmos set up in the next few months.
My current set up is...
GE Triton 7 - Main L/R
GE Supersat 50c - center
GE Aon 3 - L/R Wides
GE Supersat 3 - Side Surrounds
GE Supersat 3 - Back Surrounds

Planning to get another Supersat 3 to be mounted on the ceiling.
What is the advisable position(toe in) of the speakers?
Should they be directly fired towards the sweet-spot(tweeters angled directly)?

Or I'm better off with Invisa 525 or 650?
Or is it okay to get different brand and model like the B&W CCM7.4?

Thanks in advance


----------



## thebland

windshear said:


> I got a bit of a fright watching the Atmos sampler disc where I found two of my subs bottoming out. This has never happened before on any source material and I did not even listen at the levels I sometimes go to. Maybe someone can test and confirm if this happens on their system. It is on the amaze demo where the powerful bass graphic is on screen with the accompanying sound. I wonder if this is at an overcooked level. It would be interesting to know at what level it was mastered at and what the actual signal contains. Ps I was not aware this was happening before as the sound was masked by all the other sounds. I just happened to be next to one of my subwoofers when that scene played and I heard it.


I watched this sampler on my set up at very high levels. The bass was awesome and really pressurized the room. They made a powerful recording and it is my new go to demo disc!

The good news for you is you need more subs! Congrats!!


----------



## NorthSky

asharma said:


> Mostly reclining, what is the ATMOS recommendation?


www.kandwaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dolby-Atmos-Home-Theater-Installation-Guidelines.pdf


----------



## Nightlord

Gurba said:


> http://surround.no/Produkter/Høytta...lossy-PAR---Grå-front-100644-p0000000651.aspx
> 
> 
> Perfect With angle and keyhole for easy installment.


I would be more worried about the sound quality of it. You can hardly get a quality tweeter for the price of that (and I'm assuming the price is for one, not for a pair!).


----------



## Gurba

Nightlord said:


> I would be more worried about the sound quality of it. You can hardly get a quality tweeter for the price of that (and I'm assuming the price is for one, not for a pair!).


All my speakers are really cheap so it wouldn't make sense to get really expensive ceiling speakers. 790NOK is for the pair. Dynavoice is known for ok quality for little Money. I haven't tried just them to hear the sound but they work fine where they are.


----------



## Nightlord

Gurba said:


> All my speakers are really cheap so it wouldn't make sense to get really expensive ceiling speakers. 790NOK is for the pair. Dynavoice is known for ok quality for little Money. I haven't tried just them to hear the sound but they work fine where they are.


All fine then.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> www.kandwaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dolby-Atmos-Home-Theater-Installation-Guidelines.pdf


Good to know, in the October 2014 edition of the Atmos for Home Guidelines, Dolby has added the 9.1.4 configuration.


----------



## Roger Dressler

windshear said:


> It is on the amaze demo where the powerful bass graphic is on screen with the accompanying sound. I wonder if this is at an overcooked level.


I think "overcooked" is an apt description. But they were making a point. And they did.


----------



## windshear

thebland said:


> I watched this sampler on my set up at very high levels. The bass was awesome and really pressurized the room. They made a powerful recording and it is my new go to demo disc!
> 
> The good news for you is you need more subs! Congrats!!


 
Nooo not more subs, I currently have 6 already. What has me worried is that my supposedly most capable subs were the ones that bottomed out. I wonder if my set up is messed up, but everything that I have checked and rechecked has told me otherwise. The only possibilities is that these subs are midmall located and not benefitting as much as the other 4 in the corners for gain and I may be driving them harder initially to balance with the rest or they are being fed via rca and the rest are balanced i/p's and I may be clipping the input.


----------



## asharma

asharma said:


> I currently have 4 recliners and my MLP is in the middle. My rear surrounds are just behind the recliners behind each of the end recliners and are toed in towards the MLP. When I recline, which I always do when watching a movie, my head is even with my toed in rears. Question is, when I'm reclining should the rears be toed in or directly facing each of my ears? Ie. the speakers would be turned sideways pointing towards each ear...thanks folks


Thanks to the folks who responded to this. Ok, I looked at the Dolby documentation. It shows if your MLP is even your rear surrounds, which mine is, the rear surrounds should be facing sideways towards your ears BUT it only shows this config if you also have rear back surrounds, which I don't. So my question remains, if my rears surrounds are right beside me even with my ears, should they be toed towards the MLP or pointed sideways right at my ears? Just looking for input before I run Audessey...thanks


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> Good to know, in the October 2014 edition of the [*Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines* (_link_)], Dolby has added the 9.1.4 configuration.



Unfortunately, although I already have boxed in storage the pairs of *Front Wide* and *Rear Height* speakers with which I intend to upgrade my existing 7.2.2 configuration to 9.2.4, Dolby neglected to include any explanation about how or when I might be able to obtain the requisite 9.x.4 Atmos capable AVR at a price which would leave me with some funds I could use to buy the (_still fictional_) "great" Dolby Atmos movies I plan to play on my system!?   

_


----------



## jdsmoothie

asharma said:


> Thanks to the folks who responded to this. Ok, I looked at the Dolby documentation. It shows if your MLP is even your rear surrounds, which mine is, the rear surrounds should be facing sideways towards your ears BUT it only shows this config if you also have rear back surrounds, which I don't. So my question remains, if my rears surrounds are right beside me even with my ears, should they be toed towards the MLP or pointed sideways right at my ears? Just looking for input before I run Audessey...thanks


Your "side" surrounds should be pointed at your ears which by definition is the MLP (ie.. you should run Audyssey with recliner reclined).


----------



## Mashie Saldana

SoundChex said:


> Unfortunately, although I already have boxed in storage the pairs of *Front Wide* and *Rear Height* speakers with which I intend to upgrade my existing 7.2.2 configuration to 9.2.4, Dolby neglected to include any explanation about how or when I might be able to obtain the requisite 9.x.4 Atmos capable AVR at a price which would leave me with some funds I could use to buy the (_still fictional_) "great" Dolby Atmos movies I plan to play on my system!?
> 
> _


Well by having Dolby writing down the specification it wouldn't be a far reached guess that something suitable is in the pipeline.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Looks like Gravity with atmos bluray has been delayed to march 31st


----------



## markus767

windshear said:


> Nooo not more subs, I currently have 6 already. What has me worried is that my supposedly most capable subs were the ones that bottomed out. I wonder if my set up is messed up, but everything that I have checked and rechecked has told me otherwise. The only possibilities is that these subs are midmall located and not benefitting as much as the other 4 in the corners for gain and I may be driving them harder initially to balance with the rest or they are being fed via rca and the rest are balanced i/p's and I may be clipping the input.


How are the subs wired to the AVR? Do you have measurements of the sub preamp output? How did you set levels for each sub? Are the subs using any additional processing?


----------



## mtbdudex

Roger Dressler said:


> I would certainly invite the ability to effectively alter the target curve. But even with that capability, there is no need to store multiple Audyssey calibrations to address this configuration problem. Multiple configurations (different height speakers) can easily be supported using the same EQ corrections as long as every speaker in the room was included in the calibration process.
> 
> Aside from allowing speaker gains to be mapped to given inputs, it should allow a choice of two or maybe more speaker configurations. This is how the SSP-800 works, and I miss that flexibility in the 7702.





mtbdudex said:


> My 4520CI does EQ for the full 11.2 speakers I have, and then whichever mode I pick (NeoX, PLIIz, DSX) and height or wide or both it will map in accord, so I agree with you there.
> It's when you change the amp assign after calibration then the cal file is not available to be used, maybe I mis-read the OP was going to do that, hence my post.
> 
> For people with multiple rows of seats, with 3-4 seats/row, having ability to store multiple configurations will enable them to have a 1st row mode when people are not sitting in the 2nd row, a 2nd row mode when not sitting in the first row, or a balanced 1st/2nd row mode, etc.





Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, I have just such a mode option in the SSP-800. I change the delays and levels for the "group" mode vs. the "me alone" mode. But the EQ is the same. It does not have to be complicated to be effective. But sure, if the product could do multiple EQ profiles, as is the case with Trinnov units, that would be fine. I'm looking at it from the "easily implemented" perspective. Since D&M can already let users remember different gains per input, why not just add delays and speaker options to the table.


I like that Roger, will add that to this thread * "The official Denon 2016/2017 flagship AVR (x9200w?) wishlist" *
Since kinda off topic for the everything Atmos thread, I'll copy/paste the above there so people can grasp the context of discussion


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

Posted a thread titled *Dolby Atmos Gimbal Mount Speakers for Ceiling* here*. *Would you folks that have any experience with any of the speakers listed below click the link and post your impressions of said speakers.

Definitive Technology AW 6500
Niles OS6.5
OSD Audio AP640T
Polk Audio Atrium 6
Tannoy Di 6DC
Tannoy Di 6
Tannoy DVS 6


----------



## mp5475

kokishin said:


> Done.
> 
> Thanks


Can you add me to the list? Finally ordered the x5200 from JD. Thanks JD for setting me up!

AVR: Denon x5200
Ceiling speakers: Tannoy di8dc x4 for TF and TR
Amp: emotive xpa for RLC and emotive xpa 5 for top speakers.
Layout: 7.1.4 but will hook up for 9.1.4. Hope second gen will do it!

Thanks

Dan


----------



## Mike Garrett

windshear said:


> Nooo not more subs, I currently have 6 already. What has me worried is that my supposedly most capable subs were the ones that bottomed out. I wonder if my set up is messed up, but everything that I have checked and rechecked has told me otherwise. The only possibilities is that these subs are midmall located and not benefitting as much as the other 4 in the corners for gain and I may be driving them harder initially to balance with the rest or they are being fed via rca and the rest are balanced i/p's and I may be clipping the input.


You said the subs bottomed out. That would not be clipping the input. Keep in mind, just because one system can play a passage at reference and another system can't does not mean, the one that can is a better system. System one that can play the passage at reference, may have a higher f3 and a higher high pass filter setting. Where as system two could have a lower f3 and a lower high pass filter or even no high pass filter. You could very easily slightly raise the f3 on the second system and/or apply a filter to protect it at the very bottom end. Most commercial subs are designed so that they do not go into over excursion, but DIY subs are usually not as well protected on the lower end, because they are trying to get lower and louder than most commercial offerings.


----------



## asharma

jdsmoothie said:


> Your "side" surrounds should be pointed at your ears which by definition is the MLP (ie.. you should run Audyssey with recliner reclined).


Hi folks...ok ran Audessey...I have 4 matching in ceiling speakers...it set the top rears to cross over at 90 and the top fronts to cross over at 150. Speakers are new and MLP is closer to top rears...should I just leave the cross overs alone or match them at 90 or 150? Also does the separate crossover setting in the separate menu which is set to lfe and 80 override these values? Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

asharma said:


> Hi folks...ok ran Audessey...I have 4 matching in ceiling speakers...it set the top rears to cross over at 90 and the top fronts to cross over at 150. Speakers are new and MLP is closer to top rears...should I just leave the cross overs alone or match them at 90 or 150? Also does the separate crossover setting in the separate menu which is set to lfe and 80 override these values? Thanks


Please take the time to read the Audyssey 101 procedure and the accompanying FAQ. They answer your questions. The instructions provided by all of the AVR manufacturers are woefully inadequate.

Briefly, you can raise the crossovers but shouldn't lower them. Audyssey doesn't bother to EQ below the crossover frequency.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Atmos placement for 6 and 9 seat theaters*

The atmos guide shows one row of seats, I have three rows of 3. First two rows most important and are dedicated theater seats the third row is a bar with three seats.

My current setup 7.1 really is setup for the first two rows that I use 99% of the time.

Anyway, by the Atmos setup for 7.1.4 it would have me place the speakers optimum for the front row that I use the most. Do I calculate for a sweat spot between the first two rows , optimize for the front row only or widen the ceiling speakers to the maximum angles to include all 6 seats? 

Also ,I have a 7 foot ceiling, should I use smaller in-ceiling speakers? I guess the Audyssey swill compensate regardless of size or efficiency . 

I was eyeballing the Polk C6 in ceiling speakers on sale now at Crutchfield only $169 a pair, could use them in wall for the high wides on a 9.1.4 as well .


----------



## kokishin

mp5475 said:


> Can you add me to the list? Finally ordered the x5200 from JD. Thanks JD for setting me up!
> 
> AVR: Denon x5200
> Ceiling speakers: Tannoy di8dc x4 for TF and TR
> Amp: emotive xpa for RLC and emotive xpa 5 for top speakers.
> Layout: 7.1.4 but will hook up for 9.1.4. Hope second gen will do it!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Dan


Done. You're the 85th system added to the spreadsheet.


----------



## Ted99

I read the AVS review of the Blue Mo-Fi Headphones and one poster asked if they could be used with Dolby Atmos. Mark Haflich responded that if one had an Atmos processor such as the one in the new Fire HDX, it would work in a 2-channel headphone. Granted, this is unlikely to be a good as a full speaker-driven sound field, there is a place in my house where I could use a set of Headphones. Does anyone know how the Atmos processor in currently available Atmos enabled receiver's headphone out would work with headphones such as the Blue Mo-Fi?


----------



## nitro28

Louie_18 said:


> Hi there,
> I'm planning on going for Atmos set up in the next few months.
> My current set up is...
> GE Triton 7 - Main L/R
> GE Supersat 50c - center
> GE Aon 3 - L/R Wides
> GE Supersat 3 - Side Surrounds
> GE Supersat 3 - Back Surrounds
> 
> Planning to get another Supersat 3 to be mounted on the ceiling.
> What is the advisable position(toe in) of the speakers?
> Should they be directly fired towards the sweet-spot(tweeters angled directly)?
> 
> Or I'm better off with Invisa 525 or 650?
> Or is it okay to get different brand and model like the B&W CCM7.4?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Good choice of main speakers. I love my GE stuff. I thought about doing SAt 3s on the ceiliing but Im not sure they work as well as other options and are kind of big. The Invisa 5s and 6s are not very wide dispersion which I think would not be ideal either for a broad number of sitting locations. That is why I think Sandy used the aimable Invisa 7000s in his demo room. I don't think you have to stick with the same brand for your ceiling. I would look for either a wide dispersion in ceiling speaker or maybe try something aimable toward the sweet spot. Right now a lot of this is trial and error. I have thought about using the Definitive DI 8s because they claim to be wider dispersion, but I can't find any specs on them. JBL also makes a commercial 120 degree dispersion speaker which looks nice but is not cheap and pretty huge.


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> Good to know, in the October 2014 edition of the Atmos for Home Guidelines, Dolby has added the 9.1.4 configuration.





SoundChex said:


> Unfortunately, although I already have boxed in storage the pairs of *Front Wide* and *Rear Height* speakers with which I intend to upgrade my existing 7.2.2 configuration to 9.2.4, Dolby neglected to include any explanation about how or when I might be able to obtain the requisite 9.x.4 Atmos capable AVR at a price which would leave me with some funds I could use to buy the (_still fictional_) "great" Dolby Atmos movies I plan to play on my system!?
> 
> _





Mashie Saldana said:


> Well by having Dolby writing down the specification it wouldn't be a far reached guess that something suitable is in the pipeline.


 
As we already have AVR's that can have 4 overhead speakers, what I would like to see is 6 overhead speakers. I am planning a build for this but I am a little concerned about placement overhead. With one MLP then obviously speakers are placed in reference to that position, but with two rows of seat do you place the MLP in between the two rows or have one sweet row and the secondary for the guests?


See the attached diagram, the angles are of course from Dolby themselves, if building for 6 overheads would you put the TM directly overhead at 90 degrees, then push the TF and TR out to the edge of the recommended angle of 30 degrees (TF) and 150 degrees (TR)?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Al Sherwood said:


> See the attached diagram, the angles are of course from Dolby themselves, if building for 6 overheads would you put the TM directly overhead at 90 degrees, then push the TF and TR out to the edge of the recommended angle of 30 degrees (TF) and 150 degrees (TR)?


Yes, 30/90/150 or 45/80-90/135. If we only knew the intended position the object renderer is going to apply for such a 9.1.6 lay-out....


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, 30/90/150 or 45/80-90/135. If we only knew the intended position the object renderer is going to apply for such a 9.1.6 lay-out....


That's what I figured 30/90/150, but the second sentence I don't see how it applies, I thought that the additional speakers overhead provided a smoother pan, that was all?


Any comment on the position relative to two rows of seats? I am thinking it should be optimised for one MLP point, with the least used seats in behind?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Al Sherwood said:


> That's what I figured 30/90/150, but the second sentence I don't see how it applies, I thought that the additional speakers overhead provided a smoother pan, that was all?


I believe you can't go wrong with either 30/90/150 or 45/90/150 or anything else for that matter, as long as you stay within Dolby's recommended ranges. It is more out of 'scientific' interest that I would like to know what exact positions the object renderer assumes in distributing the sound over the speakers available.


----------



## windshear

markus767 said:


> How are the subs wired to the AVR? Do you have measurements of the sub preamp output? How did you set levels for each sub? Are the subs using any additional processing?


My sub connection is over complicated at the moment. I use an Onkyo PRSC 5509 processor and use the 2 SubEQ HT outputs. One of them I use via a balanced output to a minidsp 4x10HD. This is for my 4 individual subs in the 4 room corners. I use it to time align the subs and gain match the outputs. The second output from the processor I use via unbalanced output and split to 2 B&W DB1's(temporary until I get my minidsp 10x10Hd to keep everything using balanced o/p's). These are both at midwall positions at the side walls of the room. It is both the DB1's that are bottoming out. I don't have a preamp output measurement, however the sub has a sensitivity adjustment input that allows you to adjust to prevent overdriving the input, it flashes the power light if it happens , which in this case is not happening. The subs are using internal processing, to what extent it is doing what, im not sure, but I have set it to flat versus its impact mode with a 3db drop in midrange extension. No other internal processing is done. The Onkyo has Audyssey enabled with Dynamic EQ on. If I turn the Dynamic EQ off then the subs don't bottom out. I have done measurement in room with REW up to what I consider comfortable listening levels and it seems the DYN EQ keeps the bass too hot for my liking approaching reference level. I can probably compensate by changing the reference offset in Audyssey. To be honest this is the first and only disc that has done this in my system so far.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Al Sherwood said:


> That's what I figured 30/90/150, but the second sentence I don't see how it applies, I thought that the additional speakers overhead provided a smoother pan, that was all?
> 
> 
> Any comment on the position relative to two rows of seats? I am thinking it should be optimised for one MLP point, with the least used seats in behind?


X.x.6 is an unknown quantity right now. We don't know if it will be limited like x.x.4 where the speakers can't be in adjacent positions.


----------



## markus767

windshear said:


> My sub connection is over complicated at the moment. I use an Onkyo PRSC 5509 processor and use the 2 SubEQ HT outputs. One of them I use via a balanced output to a minidsp 4x10HD. This is for my 4 individual subs in the 4 room corners. I use it to time align the subs and gain match the outputs. The second output from the processor I use via unbalanced output and split to 2 B&W DB1's(temporary until I get my minidsp 10x10Hd to keep everything using balanced o/p's). These are both at midwall positions at the side walls of the room. It is both the DB1's that are bottoming out. I don't have a preamp output measurement, however the sub has a sensitivity adjustment input that allows you to adjust to prevent overdriving the input, it flashes the power light if it happens , which in this case is not happening. The subs are using internal processing, to what extent it is doing what, im not sure, but I have set it to flat versus its impact mode with a 3db drop in midrange extension. No other internal processing is done. The Onkyo has Audyssey enabled with Dynamic EQ on. If I turn the Dynamic EQ off then the subs don't bottom out. I have done measurement in room with REW up to what I consider comfortable listening levels and it seems the DYN EQ keeps the bass too hot for my liking approaching reference level. I can probably compensate by changing the reference offset in Audyssey. To be honest this is the first and only disc that has done this in my system so far.


First I would measure the preamp output to get an idea what MultEQ is doing.

By the way, those B&W subs don't seem to be good value if critical performance parameters are kept from the customer.
Regarding overdriving the input - this doesn't necessarily prevent the sub amp from destroying the driver by driving it beyond its mechanical limit.


----------



## Gurba

I put the speaker where they would fit and got 29/100/146. Guess I lucked out on that one.


----------



## windshear

markus767 said:


> First I would measure the preamp output to get an idea what MultEQ is doing.
> 
> By the way, those B&W subs don't seem to be good value if critical performance parameters are kept from the customer.
> Regarding overdriving the input - this doesn't necessarily prevent the subs from bottoming out.


I forgot to mention I tried the same thing with my new Marantz AV7702 with exactly the same result and ironically the same relative volume scale setting as on the Onkyo.


----------



## markus767

^
At least MultEQ is working as intended  Reduce gain on the DB1's and run Audyssey again.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Gurba said:


> I put the speaker where they would fit and got 29/100/146. Guess I lucked out on that one.



It is truly nice when it works out that way! So are you happy with the results?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Mashie Saldana said:


> X.x.6 is an unknown quantity right now. We don't know if it will be limited like x.x.4 where the speakers can't be in adjacent positions.



I understand your point, but I would have thought that the point of making so many positions available was to increase the coverage overhead as well.


----------



## zgeneral

roxiedog13 said:


> The atmos guide shows one row of seats, I have three rows of 3. First two rows most important and are dedicated theater seats the third row is a bar with three seats.
> 
> My current setup 7.1 really is setup for the first two rows that I use 99% of the time.
> 
> Anyway, by the Atmos setup for 7.1.4 it would have me place the speakers optimum for the front row that I use the most. Do I calculate for a sweat spot between the first two rows , optimize for the front row only or widen the ceiling speakers to the maximum angles to include all 6 seats?
> 
> Also ,I have a 7 foot ceiling, should I use smaller in-ceiling speakers? I guess the Audyssey swill compensate regardless of size or efficiency .
> 
> I was eyeballing the Polk C6 in ceiling speakers on sale now at Crutchfield only $169 a pair, could use them in wall for the high wides on a 9.1.4 as well .


The speaker configurations for things like Auro aren't necessarily compatible with what you're doing, so you might want to plan that out as well. Not sure anyone would mention it in the Dolby love fest here.


----------



## maikeldepotter

zgeneral said:


> The speaker configurations for things like Auro aren't necessarily compatible with what you're doing, so you might want to plan that out as well. Not sure anyone would mention it in the Dolby love fest here.


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-518.html#post29775465


----------



## Gurba

Al Sherwood said:


> It is truly nice when it works out that way! So are you happy with the results?


The little I've heard so far is very good. I haven't had a sub for a month so I haven't really watched any "proper" Movies. Only the Atmos demos and the beginning of The Expendables 3.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> The atmos guide shows one row of seats, I have three rows of 3. First two rows most important and are dedicated theater seats the third row is a bar with three seats.
> 
> My current setup 7.1 really is setup for the first two rows that I use 99% of the time.
> 
> Anyway, by the Atmos setup for 7.1.4 it would have me place the speakers optimum for the front row that I use the most. Do I calculate for a sweat spot between the first two rows , optimize for the front row only or widen the ceiling speakers to the maximum angles to include all 6 seats?
> 
> Also ,I have a 7 foot ceiling, should I use smaller in-ceiling speakers? I guess the Audyssey swill compensate regardless of size or efficiency .
> 
> I was eyeballing the Polk C6 in ceiling speakers on sale now at Crutchfield only $169 a pair, could use them in wall for the high wides on a 9.1.4 as well .


I'll try to answer the 9.1.4 question since this was brought up at CEDIA.

The wides in the Atmos format are basically object addressable "front side surrounds" that fill in the gap between the screen wall speakers and the standard side surround locations (a side-wall pan-through array). They are considered main layer speakers that should be just above ear level like the regular side and rear surrounds (or optimally just high enough to clear viewers' heads), and probably ought to be regular in-room speakers that match the rest of your system (_especially_ the front three). They're also toed-in and aimed towards the MLP, which is kind of hard to do with flat in-walls. 

With three rows of seats, you may end up having to gradually stage the height of the front side, side, and rear surrounds like a commercial theater, depending on how steep your rows are.


----------



## windshear

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> You said the subs bottomed out. That would not be clipping the input. Keep in mind, just because one system can play a passage at reference and another system can't does not mean, the one that can is a better system. System one that can play the passage at reference, may have a higher f3 and a higher high pass filter setting. Where as system two could have a lower f3 and a lower high pass filter or even no high pass filter. You could very easily slightly raise the f3 on the second system and/or apply a filter to protect it at the very bottom end. Most commercial subs are designed so that they do not go into over excursion, but DIY subs are usually not as well protected on the lower end, because they are trying to get lower and louder than most commercial offerings.


What you wrote is the root cause of my problem. The subwoofers that do not clip have a measured F3 at the MLP of 20Hz and it drops about 20dB before levelling off following what I assume is the room gain. The subs that are bottoming also have a F3 at about 20HZ, however at 15 Hz the level is back up at the original value and then with room gain remains ruler flat until 5Hz measured with REW at the MLP. I tried applying a filter with my minidsp and that seems to have bought me a few dB's of headroom. Ironically the subs bottoming are commercial subs, B&W DB1's, but I think its a combination of the internal dsp and the gain of Audyssey DYN EQ that becomes too much for the poor dual 12 inch drivers.


----------



## weekendtoy

weekendtoy said:


> Below is a quick picture of my side and rear surrounds. The young man is seated(?) in the MLP. Due to the left side (right as pictured) surround, the speakers can't be any lower then the ceiling/wall junction. This is mainly due to the fact that the wall will soon be no more and the speaker(s) will have to go to a ceiling mount.
> 
> Given my speaker placement would it be advisable to do TF and TR in-ceiling speakers for ATMOS, or would there not be enough separation.
> 
> My front mains consist of Def. Tec. BP8060's so it would be very easy to run a 7.1.2 system with the Def. Tec. A60 modules.
> 
> Thoughts / suggestions. Thanks in advance.


Bumping to see if there are any recommendations, given my surround placement, for x.x.4 speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Good to know, in the October 2014 edition of the Atmos for Home Guidelines, Dolby has added the 9.1.4 configuration.


Most likely for second generation Dolby Atmos products. ...2015-16


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> I understand your point, but I would have thought that the point of making so many positions available was to increase the coverage overhead as well.


Again, I'm just speculating here, but if home Atmos rendering still works under the same basic tenets of cinema Atmos and there isn't some funky down-mixing going on during the translation from cinema mix to home mix (or cinema rendering engine to home rendering engine), there are mirrored overhead pairs for each of the the side wall surround pairs (including the front sides). So, each slice of the room where surround speakers are mounted gets X/Y/Z axis object positional steering.

Now that I think about it, I take part of that back, as there probably is some metadata down-mixing at play because there is a mismatch between the surrounds within the 24 main layer speaker count and the limitation of 10 overhead locations. 

The main limiting factors are the manufacturers and the Blu-ray format, which doesn't have the space for the complete cinema Atmos track data leading to some necessary compromises.

However, the more speaker outputs assigned to the rendering engine, the more precisely objects are positioned in space given fixed metadata coordinates.


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Looks like Gravity with atmos bluray has been delayed to march 31st


Almost sounds like the XMC-1


----------



## markus767

windshear said:


> What you wrote is the root cause of my problem. The subwoofers that do not clip have a measured F3 at the MLP of 20Hz and it drops about 20dB before levelling off following what I assume is the room gain. The subs that are bottoming also have a F3 at about 20HZ, however at 15 Hz the level is back up at the original value and then with room gain remains ruler flat until 5Hz measured with REW at the MLP. I tried applying a filter with my minidsp and that seems to have bought me a few dB's of headroom. Ironically the subs bottoming are commercial subs, B&W DB1's, but I think its a combination of the internal dsp and the gain of Audyssey DYN EQ that becomes too much for the poor dual 12 inch drivers.


What you measure at the listening position has not much to do with the sub's frequency response. The response at such low frequencies is completely swamped by the room.
As I've said before, measure MultEQ output. Also measure the individual subs in the near field (mic closer as 10% of effective diaphragm radius).
You might also want to take the discussion to a thread that better fits the topic.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll try to answer the 9.1.4 question since this was brought up at CEDIA.
> 
> The wides in the Atmos format are basically object addressable "front side surrounds" that fill in the gap between the screen wall speakers and the standard side surround locations (a side-wall pan-through array). They are considered main layer speakers that should be just above ear level like the regular side and rear surrounds (or optimally just high enough to clear viewers' heads), and probably ought to be regular in-room speakers that match the rest of your system (_especially_ the front three). They're also toed-in and aimed towards the MLP, which is kind of hard to do with flat in-walls.


My front LR are Big Tower speakers, Paridgm Monitor 11. My sides are in wall high end Paridgm Signiture series ADP-V3. Rears, also Paridgm Signiture series SIG 1.5R-30. Its a great sounding system that is well balanced for 7.2. My point is I don't have the same speakers all around, they are all diffent but reasonably matched . I agree that the front side surrounds should probably be matched to my system however I also wanted to keep all of the surround speakers out of the way. Guess I'll have to invest in another pair of the Sig 1.5r-30 which are angled about 35%'s . I figured I could get away with the Polk C60i for ceiling Atmos use and also for the front side surrounds because the tweeter can be angled. Not much in the way of content going to any of the Atmos ceiling nor the front side surrounds. Besides that a pair of Polk C60i's are going for $120 the paridigm equivalent is $ 800 each and they have the same specs.  Funny thing is by ordering three sets of the Polk C60i they also threw in a free 10" Polk powered subwoofer  and free shipping.....but wait there's more. OK just kidding.


----------



## Kain

Watched The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in Dolby Atmos and 3D (non-HFR) today. The Dolby Atmos trailers/demos prior the actual movie were amazing. The actual movie paled in comparison. During the Atmos demos/trailers, the way the sound pans around the room and just how the sound sounds overall was really impressive. However, this got me thinking on something. For home theater, most will have a 5.1.x or a 7.1.x setup. Does this mean the panning of objects around the room will not be as precise and prominent? I have a small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room for my home theater. If and when I go Atmos, should I squeeze-in as many (surround) speakers as possible to get that amazing object panning effect?


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> That's what I figured 30/90/150, but the second sentence I don't see how it applies, I thought that the additional speakers overhead provided a smoother pan, that was all?
> 
> 
> Any comment on the position relative to two rows of seats? I am thinking it should be optimised for one MLP point, with the least used seats in behind?


In a 9.1.6 setup, with two rows of seats, the 90 degree (Top Center) overhead speakers could be bipole speakers; being the top rear for the front row, and the top front for the rear row. ..Both rows are now optimized with those 6 overhead Atmos/Auro/MDA speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

windshear said:


> My sub connection is over complicated at the moment. I use an Onkyo PRSC 5509 processor and use the 2 SubEQ HT outputs. One of them I use via a balanced output to a minidsp 4x10HD. This is for my 4 individual subs in the 4 room corners. I use it to time align the subs and gain match the outputs. The second output from the processor I use via unbalanced output and split to 2 B&W DB1's(temporary until I get my minidsp 10x10Hd to keep everything using balanced o/p's). These are both at midwall positions at the side walls of the room. It is both the DB1's that are bottoming out. I don't have a preamp output measurement, however the sub has a sensitivity adjustment input that allows you to adjust to prevent overdriving the input, it flashes the power light if it happens , which in this case is not happening. The subs are using internal processing, to what extent it is doing what, im not sure, but I have set it to flat versus its impact mode with a 3db drop in midrange extension. No other internal processing is done. The Onkyo has Audyssey enabled with Dynamic EQ on. If I turn the Dynamic EQ off then the subs don't bottom out. I have done measurement in room with REW up to what I consider comfortable listening levels and it seems the DYN EQ keeps the bass too hot for my liking approaching reference level. I can probably compensate by changing the reference offset in Audyssey.
> *To be honest this is the first and only disc that has done this in my system so far.*


The "Amaze" Dolby Atmos demo clip? ...Jeff (thebland) don't seem to have any issue with it, but then his 8 subs were masterfully calibrated.


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> Watched The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in Dolby Atmos and 3D (non-HFR) today. The Dolby Atmos trailers/demos prior the actual movie were amazing. The actual movie paled in comparison. During the Atmos demos/trailers, the way the sound pans around the room and just how the sound sounds overall was really impressive. However, this got me thinking on something. For home theater, most will have a 5.1.x or a 7.1.x setup. Does this mean the panning of objects around the room will not be as precise and prominent? I have a small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room for my home theater. If and when I go Atmos, should I squeeze-in as many (surround) speakers as possible to get that amazing object panning effect?


Mo' speakers = mo' better. 

Several Atmos trailers are available for download. You should be able to try them with your current speaker configuration. One of them might be the trailer provided at the beginning of the movie. 

See http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/high-definition-trailers.php
Scroll down to the Dolby section.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Al Sherwood said:


> I understand your point, but I would have thought that the point of making so many positions available was to increase the coverage overhead as well.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll try to answer the 9.1.4 question since this was brought up at CEDIA.
> 
> The wides in the Atmos format are basically object addressable "front side surrounds" that fill in the gap between the screen wall speakers and the standard side surround locations (a side-wall pan-through array). They are considered main layer speakers that should be just above ear level like the regular side and rear surrounds (or optimally just high enough to clear viewers' heads), and probably ought to be regular in-room speakers that match the rest of your system (_especially_ the front three). They're also toed-in and aimed towards the MLP, which is kind of hard to do with flat in-walls.
> 
> With three rows of seats, you may end up having to gradually stage the height of the front side, side, and rear surrounds like a commercial theater, depending on how steep your rows are.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Again, I'm just speculating here, but if home Atmos rendering still works under the same basic tenets of cinema Atmos and there isn't some funky down-mixing going on during the translation from cinema mix to home mix (or cinema rendering engine to home rendering engine), there are mirrored overhead pairs for each of the the side wall surround pairs (including the front sides). So, each slice of the room where surround speakers are mounted gets X/Y/Z axis object positional steering.
> 
> The limiting factors are the manufacturers and the Blu-ray format, which doesn't have the space for the complete cinema Atmos track data.
> 
> The more speaker outputs assigned to the rendering engine, the more precisely objects are positioned in space given fixed metadata coordinates.


 
Dan, given this thought process, I would have thought that the TF speakers would be near the front wide's, the TM over the MLP and the side surrounds and the TR behind the MLP near the back surrounds. The attached diagram for 9.1.4 from Dolby shows something like this except that they of course list only TF and TR, and to my estimation the TF are closer to where I would have thought TM should be. I added the red boxes as to what I thought a 9.1.6 should look like... sort of follows the Dolby placement of the heights between the side surrounds.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Ted99 said:


> Does anyone know how the Atmos processor in currently available Atmos enabled receiver's headphone out would work with headphones such as the Blue Mo-Fi?


An Atmos track will be presented one of two ways: 
1) It will play the embedded 2-ch substream to the headphone jack, same as happens from any TrueHD source. 
2) The processor will downmix the 7.1 TrueHD core to 2.0.

Either way, it will be standard stereo sound.


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> In a 9.1.6 setup, with two rows of seats, the 90 degree (Top Center) overhead speakers could be bipole speakers; being the top rear for the front row, and the top front for the rear row. ..Both rows are now optimized with those 6 overhead Atmos/Auro/MDA speakers.



Interesting idea, and with the wide dispersion speaker I plan to use that might well be the effect!


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> My front LR are Big Tower speakers, Paridgm Monitor 11. My sides are in wall high end Paridgm Signiture series ADP-V3. Rears, also Paridgm Signiture series SIG 1.5R-30. Its a great sounding system that is well balanced for 7.2. My point is I don't have the same speakers all around, they are all diffent but reasonably matched . I agree that the front side surrounds should probably be matched to my system however I also wanted to keep all of the surround speakers out of the way. Guess I'll have to invest in another pair of the Sig 1.5r-30 which are angled about 35%'s . I figured I could get away with the Polk C60i for ceiling Atmos use and also for the front side surrounds because the tweeter can be angled. Not much in the way of content going to any of the Atmos ceiling nor the front side surrounds. Besides that a pair of Polk C60i's are going for $120 the paridigm equivalent is $ 800 each and they have the same specs.  Funny thing is by ordering three sets of the Polk C60i they also threw in a free 10" Polk powered subwoofer  and free shipping.....but wait there's more. OK just kidding.


If you are referring to Crutchfield, I think you would have to purchase five pairs of the RC60i's @$120 a pair to qualify for the free SW (and it's the 8" PSW111, which is not worth much more than "free" anyway).

If you have room for them, a better deal would be to purchase the larger RC80i's from Polk Audio's eBay store, where they are currently selling for $105 a pair. They are "manufacturer refurbished" but in my experience will be indistinguishable from new, and they come with a 2-year Polk warranty. Otherwise, you can find the RC60i's at Newegg or Amazon for around $100 a pair.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> My front LR are Big Tower speakers, Paridgm Monitor 11. My sides are in wall high end Paridgm Signiture series ADP-V3. Rears, also Paridgm Signiture series SIG 1.5R-30. Its a great sounding system that is well balanced for 7.2. My point is I don't have the same speakers all around, they are all diffent but reasonably matched . I agree that the front side surrounds should probably be matched to my system however I also wanted to keep all of the surround speakers out of the way. Guess I'll have to invest in another pair of the Sig 1.5r-30 which are angled about 35%'s . I figured I could get away with the Polk C60i for ceiling Atmos use and also for the front side surrounds because the tweeter can be angled. Not much in the way of content going to any of the Atmos ceiling nor the front side surrounds. Besides that a pair of Polk C60i's are going for $120 the paridigm equivalent is $ 800 each and they have the same specs.  Funny thing is by ordering three sets of the Polk C60i they also threw in a free 10" Polk powered subwoofer  and free shipping.....but wait there's more. OK just kidding.


Actually, we just haven't had Blu-ray's that fully utilize Atmos' capabilities. Gravity would probably be the first at the end of March. So, in actuality all the speakers and subs can be pushed to the limit given the right mix. Overheads and main layer surrounds should be as robust as possible. Even the Atmos demo disc has proven to be quite a difficult test for some people's theater systems, especially the subs.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Watched The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in Dolby Atmos and 3D (non-HFR) today. The Dolby Atmos trailers/demos prior the actual movie were amazing. The actual movie paled in comparison. During the Atmos demos/trailers, the way the sound pans around the room and just how the sound sounds overall was really impressive. However, this got me thinking on something. For home theater, most will have a 5.1.x or a 7.1.x setup. Does this mean the panning of objects around the room will not be as precise and prominent? I have a small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room for my home theater. If and when I go Atmos, should I squeeze-in as many (surround) speakers as possible to get that amazing object panning effect?


Your room's dimensions are perfectly suited for a 5.1.2 setup. ...Methinks. 

* Experiment: With 7.1.2 and 5.1.4 ---> one of them you would love more.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Chaospling said:


> No I'm from Denmark and I would like hear from someone who has the Expendables trilogy though it would be nice if you could get back to me as well when you get your copy of the Expendables 3.


Ok I finally got my copy in (I'm not sure if someone answered your question yet). There is a sleeve covering the BD case, no mention of Atmos. On the case itself it says Atmos... so as far as I know American Amazon = safe bet.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting idea, and with the wide dispersion speaker I plan to use that might well be the effect!


Very quick thought went into my concept idea, with nothing too 'elevated' deep. 

* The object's rendition would have to be accounted for in such a setup using dual direction firing top center overhead speakers. 
Because it is actually eight (8) overhead speakers now we're talking about, as the bipole speakers would have different spatial objects from each firing side.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Watched The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in Dolby Atmos and 3D (non-HFR) today. The Dolby Atmos trailers/demos prior the actual movie were amazing. The actual movie paled in comparison. During the Atmos demos/trailers, the way the sound pans around the room and just how the sound sounds overall was really impressive. However, this got me thinking on something. For home theater, most will have a 5.1.x or a 7.1.x setup. Does this mean the panning of objects around the room will not be as precise and prominent? I have a small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room for my home theater. If and when I go Atmos, should I squeeze-in as many (surround) speakers as possible to get that amazing object panning effect?


It won't be as precise until more mainstream products allow for more main layer speakers for use in pan-through arrays. The more speakers, the more audio precision. But the room must be able to accommodate the recommended speaker placement angles with a bunch of speakers. If you want your cake and eat it too, you'll need a high end Atmos decoder and a much larger room. 

I would wire for a 9.1.4 setup at the very maximum for your room. Dolby just added that configuration to their October home theater install guide... so they might be prepping it as a firmware update for the current upper tier 13.1 output capable Atmos enabled receivers and pre-amps or for next year's products.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> Dan, given this thought process, I would have thought that the TF speakers would be near the front wide's, the TM over the MLP and the side surrounds and the TR behind the MLP near the back surrounds. The attached diagram for 9.1.4 from Dolby shows something like this except that they of course list only TF and TR, and to my estimation the TF are closer to where I would have thought TM should be. I added the red boxes as to what I thought a 9.1.6 should look like... sort of follows the Dolby placement of the heights between the side surrounds.


Dolby seems to be emphasizing the placement of their speakers in these basic diagrams around a standard one row living room scenario. It's possible that a 9.1.6 configuration would look similar to what you created. Though, I wonder if they would limit having 6 overheads available in mainstream decoders for something more akin to 11.1.6.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby seems to be emphasizing the placement of their speakers in these basic diagrams around a standard one row living room scenario. It's possible that a 9.1.6 configuration would look similar to what you created. Though, I wonder if they would limit having 6 overheads available in mainstream decoders for something more akin to 11.1.6.



Fair enough, my placement at least from a hypothesis standpoint maybe close to true. So are we assuming that the x.x.6 refers to TF/TM/TR, and if so beyond the 9 ear level speakers in that diagram, where are the next 2?


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Almost sounds like the XMC-1


If that were the case, it would be 2016!


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> If that were the case, it would be 2016 never!


Fixed that for ya.


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> Fixed that for ya.


I can no longer find the strike thru symbol!!


----------



## tjenkins95

prince.nothing said:


> Added four ceiling speakers this week to my existing 5.1 setup (thanks @jdsmoothie). I saw the first few minutes of the age of extinction, and wasn't overly impressed. But then I played the "amaze' clip from the atmos demo disk and my mind was blown. I disabled the in-ceilings and called everybody down for a demo. Everyone had fantastic things to say, but then I switched on the in-ceilings and saw their jaws drop. My two year old turned around looking for the dragon fly that she thought was flying behind her.
> 
> 
> 
> My setup:
> 2 Klipsch RF-82II Towers
> 1 Klipsch RC-62II Center Speaker
> 2 Klipsch RS-52II Surround Speakers
> 4 Yamaha NS-IC800 In-ceiling speakers
> 2 Klipsch SW-112 Subwoofers with WA-2 Wireless kit
> Denon AVR X4100W
> Emotiva Mini-X A-100 Stereo Flex Amplifier
> Epson 5030UB Projector
> Visual Apex 120" Electric Tension Screen
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please add me to the list?


 
Very nice setup. I have the same projector and it produces a beautiful picture but the fan noise is beginning to get to me during quiet scenes.
I used to have a Sony VPL-VW60 and it was quiet as a mouse. What do you think of the Epson's fan noise?


Ray


----------



## NorthSky

I have a new theory.

But I need Marc (FilmMixer) to explore/develop it any further.


----------



## asharma

tjenkins95 said:


> Very nice setup. I have the same projector and it produces a beautiful picture but the fan noise is beginning to get to me during quiet scenes.
> I used to have a Sony VPL-VW60 and it was quiet as a mouse. What do you think of the Epson's fan noise?
> 
> 
> Ray


I have a 5030ub also...I had it professionally calibrated using Eco mode where the fan noise is very low compared to normal mode...the picture quality is stunning after calibration. Fan noise is not noticeable...


----------



## Spanglo

prince.nothing said:


> Added four ceiling speakers this week to my existing 5.1 setup (thanks @jdsmoothie). I saw the first few minutes of the age of extinction, and wasn't overly impressed. But then I played the "amaze' clip from the atmos demo disk and my mind was blown. I disabled the in-ceilings and called everybody down for a demo. Everyone had fantastic things to say, but then I switched on the in-ceilings and saw their jaws drop. My two year old turned around looking for the dragon fly that she thought was flying behind her.


Very nice looking theater.

If you haven't already, you should toe in those speakers. Doing so will improve the sound stage, imaging, and will also reduce the severity of the reflections you're likely getting off the side walls. I would recommend aiming the left speaker towards the far right seat, and the right speaker at the far left seat. 

From the Klipsch website:


> we recommend, with Klipsch speakers, that the midrange/tweeter horn be "toed-in" toward the listener to create the best imaging. To achieve good imaging without a "hole in the middle" do not place speakers father apart than the distance between you and the speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> I have a new theory.
> 
> But I need Marc (FilmMixer) to explore/develop it any further.



Go on.


----------



## Dogor

Hello. Do you now if AVRs that support Atmos will be able to do so with the next year expected DTS UHD (MDA)? 
If so, would it be just a software/firmware updated (maybe by extra charge) or would if need a hardware change? 
Thanks!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Don't count on it (firmware update). You will have to buy new hardware for DTS-UHD.


----------



## Dogor

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't count on it (firmware update). You will have to buy new hardware for DTS-UHD.


Thanks. So its something to think about before spending good money in the new AVRs Atmos-able ones, ain't it? ... what a waist!


----------



## Al Sherwood

Spanglo said:


> Very nice looking theater.
> 
> If you haven't already, you should toe in those speakers. Doing so will improve the sound stage, imaging, and will also reduce the severity of the reflections you're likely getting off the side walls. I would recommend aiming the left speaker towards the far right seat, and the right speaker at the far left seat.
> 
> From the Klipsch website:



Interesting, I will be using similar Klipsch speakers for my fronts as well, didn't know about this recommendation, thanks!


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> In a 9.1.6 setup, with two rows of seats, the 90 degree (Top Center) overhead speakers could be bipole speakers; being the top rear for the front row, and the top front for the rear row. ..Both rows are now optimized with those 6 overhead Atmos/Auro/MDA speakers.


 
Is 9.1.6 going to be an option some time soon ? I'm just starting the process of routing the ceiling wires and it is not going to be easy. If options for 6 Atmos ceiling speakers is coming some time soon then I'll pull in the wires now, In fact, I'll install the speakers now


----------



## Jive Turkey

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't count on it (firmware update). You will have to buy new hardware for DTS-UHD.


Not sure I'd take that bet with the Denon/Marantz units. Who's your source for that?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jive Turkey said:


> Not sure I'd take that bet with the Denon/Marantz units. Who's your source for that?


History and experience.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Is 9.1.6 going to be an option some time soon ? I'm just starting the process of routing the ceiling wires and it is not going to be easy. If options for 6 Atmos ceiling speakers is coming some time soon then I'll pull in the wires now, In fact, I'll install the speakers now



If you are already in the process I would not even think twice, wire all the ceiling positions while it is easy, but I may be biased, because I am going to do the same, right down to installing the speakers!


----------



## kingwiggi

maikeldepotter said:


> Good to know, in the October 2014 edition of the Atmos for Home Guidelines, Dolby has added the 9.1.4 configuration.


A timely update for a possible announcement at CES, methinks


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Go on.


Is your name Marc? 

* FilmMixer is thee man because his professional job is to mix film sounds for major Hollywood movie studios. 
His expertise is an essential asset in developing 3D surround sound science. ...Dolby Atmos & all that spatial 3D stuff in space.


----------



## NorthSky

Dogor said:


> Hello. Do you now if AVRs that support Atmos will be able to do so with the next year expected DTS UHD (MDA)?
> If so, would it be just a software/firmware updated (maybe by extra charge) or would if need a hardware change?
> 
> Thanks!


Ha! ...The $64 million dollar question! 

Answer: Don't count on it. Be prepare to put your receiver on eBay and upgrade to another one.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Is your name Marc?
> 
> * FilmMixer is thee man because his professional job is to mix film sounds for major Hollywood movie studios.
> His expertise is an essential asset in developing 3D surround sound science. ...Dolby Atmos & all that spatial 3D stuff in space.


No it is not but I am still interested in your "theory".


----------



## Orbitron

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't count on it (firmware update). You will have to buy new hardware for DTS-UHD.



No doubt there will be AVRs with Atmos and DTS-UHD, the real question is the speaker arrangements, positioning, amplification and calibration of 2 different immersive modes.


----------



## NorthSky

Thx Scott, I appreciate your interest in my yet non-revealed new theory. ...But when Marc returns from his latest contract, you will appreciate even more the new questions and answers from a new discussion, with great passion. After all, it's from the film mixers that we get a new elevated sound experience, and with objects very precisely positioned in space, in our own 3D space @ home. 

The gear (hardware) is one thing, the software (content) another, and it is the film mixers mixing/mastering and transferring Dolby Atmos on Blu-rays who are first in control of the entire Atmos chain. ...Same with Auro-3D. ...And the upcoming DTS-MDA.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Is 9.1.6 going to be an option some time soon ? I'm just starting the process of routing the ceiling wires and it is not going to be easy. If options for 6 Atmos ceiling speakers is coming some time soon then I'll pull in the wires now, In fact, I'll install the speakers now


I just don't know, but the best advice I can give right now is to wire for 6 ceiling speakers. ...That way it's done and you're ready anytime.


----------



## prince.nothing

Spanglo said:


> Very nice looking theater.
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't already, you should toe in those speakers. Doing so will improve the sound stage, imaging, and will also reduce the severity of the reflections you're likely getting off the side walls. I would recommend aiming the left speaker towards the far right seat, and the right speaker at the far left seat.
> 
> 
> 
> From the Klipsch website:



Thanks. Will tie in the speakers and re-run audyssey.


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> If you are already in the process I would not even think twice, wire all the ceiling positions while it is easy, but I may be biased, because I am going to do the same, right down to installing the speakers!



What did you decide to do with the spacing of the 6 ceiling speakers and what is your seating arrangement? My thought ( with two rows of three seats) is to move the front and rear atmos
towards the widest angles suggested on the Atmos guide and install the center speakers in the middle of those . Rear speakers would be just behind the second row of seats, the forwards about four feet in front of the front seats and the centers would end up just behind the main front seats . The centers would be more biased towards the front seats as they are the ones primarily used 90% of the time. Neither the front row or back row would be in a "sweet" spot but the setup would certainly bias the front row. Hard to figure it out for sure, I think my rational is reasonable though . 


Your In BC I see, I'm in NL on the other side of the country. 12:30 here on the 13th, you would be 8PM, still on the 12th for a few hours.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Ok this was me a week ago:



Aras_Volodka said:


> Finally succumbing... reluctantly buying used copies of expendables 3 & TF4 *shudder*. But I need my Atmos fix!


Well... I'm not so reluctant anymore  

Seriously... even if you hate those kinds of movies, Expendables 3 is worth it just for the sound. I honestly can't think of many films that sound better. You won't hear any of the exotic sorts of tech-sci-fi sounds that were in TF4... but I heard things I haven't heard done with panning before... ear candy in that regard. Lots of surround action going on... keep in mind I don't have my Atmos modules yet... so I expect that the sound will be even better when those are set up. 

& honestly... yeah it was bad movie... but not *that* bad, I actually liked it better than Expendables 2. The final battle scene was pretty cool. (For those of you who've seen it... I lol'd @ the part when Stallone said "I am the Hague.") 

Those of you guys who have 7.1.4 setups & have surrounds close by... have you noticed that older films DSU sound a bit harsh compared to Atmos mixes? Such as sounds being panned from rear to front? (Like if a fighter jet is going from rear to front... sounding harsh as it goes through the surround speakers?) I've noticed on Atmos the harshness goes away... it just sounds good. Oh man. 

It almost makes me sad to watch my 5.1 films now after hearing that


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> Fair enough, my placement at least from a hypothesis standpoint maybe close to true. So are we assuming that the x.x.6 refers to TF/TM/TR, and if so beyond the 9 ear level speakers in that diagram, *where are the next 2*?


Anyone's guess. They could be the left center/right center extra-screen speakers or they could be an extra set of rear surrounds. I don't know if the mainstream will even want to branch out much beyond 9.1.4 (13.1). They don't seem to get the concept of modular equipment design.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Orbitron said:


> No doubt there will be AVRs with Atmos and DTS-UHD, the real question is the speaker arrangements, positioning, amplification and calibration of 2 different immersive modes.


DTS keeps saying their 3D audio format (MDA) is speaker layout agnostic with re-mapping included. I have a hunch they may stick to Atmos' configurations and let Auro be the spoiler of the group for products that don't have the horsepower to include fancier rendering and processing features.


----------



## NorthSky

So far, from the big five, only Denon/Marantz can afford to process both Atmos and Auro. ...And it's far from being perfect.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> Those of you guys who have 7.1.4 setups & have surrounds close by... have you noticed that older films DSU sound a bit harsh compared to Atmos mixes?


If you can mute the rear surrounds, does the harshness go away? Do you hear the same from 7.1 content with DSU?


----------



## Csbooth

Sorry if this has been answered already but I was curious if when using Atmos are we supposed to have our Surrounds at Ear height exactly or slightly above still? 

I think I read somewhere that having them exactly at ear level helps the diffusion and overall panning become much more prevalent.

Also while it's on my mind, I will need to mount my surrounds on a back wall, and I would obviously want them "toed in" to the MLP.

If there are any tilting keyhole mounts that someone could recommend me that would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS keeps saying their 3D audio format (MDA) is speaker layout agnostic with re-mapping included. I have a hunch they may stick to Atmos' configurations and let Auro be the spoiler of the group for products that don't have the horsepower to include fancier rendering and processing features.


The DTS-UHD demo I attended at IBC Amsterdam last September had its height speakers more closely resembling an Auro3D lay-out though: wall-mounted, right above listeners' level speakers.


----------



## Gurba

I have to say I'm rather happy With my very modest Atmos setup and unless Auro and DTS can be used With the speaker configuration I have now I will not Upgrade.


----------



## Dogor

Orbitron said:


> No doubt there will be AVRs with Atmos and DTS-UHD, the real question is the speaker arrangements, positioning, amplification and calibration of 2 different immersive modes.


I bet they will keep similar position. Otherwise they killed themselves the 2 companies. Auto 3D nevertheless uses different speakers placement. ...


----------



## danielrg

If someone has a regular 7.1 setup - surrounds about 2 ft above listener ears - would using a Dolby Atmos receiver and using DSU with standard 5.1/7.1 add anything to the experience?

Any experience with this? I could imagine some people (like me...) might get Dolby Atmos enabled receivers in the future and not be able to put in ceiling speakers. Would such a person ever turn on DSU? Or would it have been same if they'd had no atmos processor inside?

Second question - seems ceiling speakers should be high dispersion. Would bipole/dipole speakers ever be a good idea for ceiling speakers to get that dispersion?


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> No it is not but I am still interested in your "theory".


Scott, with all due respect, you should know better than to tee up a rat hole.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby seems to be emphasizing the placement of their speakers in these basic diagrams around a standard one row living room scenario. It's possible that a 9.1.6 configuration would look similar to what you created. Though, I wonder if they would limit having 6 overheads available in mainstream decoders for something more akin to 11.1.6.


Making more height speakers available at home, also brings the Atmos configuration closer to cinema lay-outs, which is: adding a pair of heights to every surround pair, including wides (precedence speakers) and excluding the rears (with home theater rears at max 150 degrees horizontal also counting, since they are positionally equivalent to the theatrical side-wall surrounds in the back). The expansion of an Atmos home theater could then look like this:

5.1 .2 (e.g. TM for max. 1 row)
7.1 (incl. rears) .4 (e.g. TM/RH for max. 2 rows)
9.1 (incl. wides) .6 (e.g. TF/TM/RH for max. 3 rows)
11.1 (incl. 2nd pair of surrounds) .8 (e.g. TF/TM/TR/RH for max. 4 rows)
13.1 (incl. 3rd pair of surrounds) .10 (e.g. FH/TF/TM/TR/RH for max. 5 rows)


----------



## rhbblb1

danielrg said:


> If someone has a regular 7.1 setup - surrounds about 2 ft above listener ears - would using a Dolby Atmos receiver and using DSU with standard 5.1/7.1 add anything to the experience?
> 
> Definately yes. I had my Denon x5200 up and running with 7.1 before my ceiling speakers were installed. DSU was already an improvement over what I previously had.
> 
> Any experience with this? I could imagine some people (like me...) might get Dolby Atmos enabled receivers in the future and not be able to put in ceiling speakers. Would such a person ever turn on DSU? Or would it have been same if they'd had no atmos processor inside?
> 
> 
> Second question - seems ceiling speakers should be high dispersion. Would bipole/dipole speakers ever be a good idea for ceiling speakers to get that dispersion?


I had Atlantic Technology IC-8.3 ceiling speakers installed. They have a switch that can configure them in several ways. They also have dual tweeters. The AT speaker designer recommended I place them in the dipole configuration and point one tweeter towards the MLP and the other in the opposite direction. 
Oh yeah, it sounds stunning.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> So far, from the big five, only Denon/Marantz can afford to process both Atmos and Auro. ...And it's far from being perfect.


There is no "perfect" SSP. What's your gripe with Denon/Marantz? The only issue I have is that the speaker placements of Auro and Atmos is not compatible (that's not D+M's fault) so we need a "mickey mouse" band-aid approach to utilize both OR install dual sets of ceiling speakers to take advantage of both. (which few will do - including me)


----------



## audioguy

danielrg said:


> If someone has a regular 7.1 setup - surrounds about 2 ft above listener ears - would using a Dolby Atmos receiver and using DSU with standard 5.1/7.1 add anything to the experience?
> 
> Any experience with this? I could imagine some people (like me...) might get Dolby Atmos enabled receivers in the future and not be able to put in ceiling speakers. Would such a person ever turn on DSU? Or would it have been same if they'd had no atmos processor inside?


I had my 7702 up and running prior to installing my ceiling speakers. My 4 surrounds (as of today) are at 6 feet. To my ears, DSU sounds better than PLIIx for movies (NOT true for music as the rear surrounds are too hot).

Now that I have installed my ceiling speakers, the overall movie experience has improved. That said, I will be lowering all my surrounds to just above ear level as I am convinced (OK. Hoping) the 3D bubble will be greatly enhanced. 

All of the Atmos demoes I heard at CEDIA had the surrounds at ear level and too me, the 3D effect was more pronounced than what I get in my room even though my room has much better audio in it. Hence the decision to move the speakers. (What a messy pain in the backside that will be).


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> The DTS-UHD demo I attended at IBC Amsterdam last September had its height speakers more closely resembling an Auro3D lay-out though: wall-mounted, right above listeners' level speakers.




The _December 8, 2014,_ *ATSC 3.0 Audio System Call for Proposals* (_link_) includes a "model" *7.1+4 Heights* immersive speaker configuration (see *ANNEX C: LOUDSPEAKER POSITIONS* and *ANNEX F: ATSC IMMERSIVE AUDIO LAYOUT DIAGRAM*) in which the height speaker positions more closely resemble those used by *Auro3D* than most placement options offered by *Dolby Atmos*. Note that *ATSC 3.0* audio seems to contemplate broadcast content that can be (_all of_) _channel based_, _hybrid channel|object based_, or _scene|HOA based_.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the proposed system bears "a strong resemblance" to the recently completed MPEG-H 3D Audio standard, which was largely created by combining a channels+objects proposal from *Fraunhofer* with HOA architecture from *technicolor* and *QUALCOMM*. _By a strange coincidence_ (  ) *Fraunhofer*, *technicolor* and *QUALCOMM* have formed the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (_link_) and their *introductory brochure* (_link_) provides a somewhat informative overview of the "ecosystem" they appear to envision for the future of broadcast "interactive and immersive sound". *In particular, note that the diagram on page 4 suggests your Tablet|Smartphone, Set Top Box, AVR, and Smart TV will need to be "Updated for MPEG-H Audio".*


*Edit:* There will be an *MPEG-H Audio Alliance future television audio demo at the CES 2015 Fraunhofer booth* (_link_).

_


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> I had my 7702 up and running prior to installing my ceiling speakers. My 4 surrounds (as of today) are at 6 feet. To my ears, DSU sounds better than PLIIx for movies (NOT true for music as the rear surrounds are too hot).
> 
> Now that I have installed my ceiling speakers, the overall movie experience has improved. That said, I will be lowering all my surrounds to just above ear level as I am convinced (OK. Hoping) the 3D bubble will be greatly enhanced.
> 
> All of the Atmos demoes I heard at CEDIA had the surrounds at ear level and too me, the 3D effect was more pronounced than what I get in my room even though my room has much better audio in it. Hence the decision to move the speakers. (What a messy pain in the backside that will be).



Well, lucky for me my side surrounds are built in the column and already at or slightly above ear level.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> What did you decide to do with the spacing of the 6 ceiling speakers and what is your seating arrangement? My thought ( with two rows of three seats) is to move the front and rear atmos
> towards the widest angles suggested on the Atmos guide and install the center speakers in the middle of those . Rear speakers would be just behind the second row of seats, the forwards about four feet in front of the front seats and the centers would end up just behind the main front seats . The centers would be more biased towards the front seats as they are the ones primarily used 90% of the time. Neither the front row or back row would be in a "sweet" spot but the setup would certainly bias the front row. Hard to figure it out for sure, I think my rational is reasonable though .
> 
> 
> Your In BC I see, I'm in NL on the other side of the country. 12:30 here on the 13th, you would be 8PM, still on the 12th for a few hours.



Yes, out here in Victoria you can't get much further west and no further south, we are at 48° 25′ 43″ N, 123° 21′ 56″ W, I call it the "Big Island". One day I would like to get to the east coast of Canada, but for now Montreal is as far as I have been.


About those Atmos speakers, nothing is cast in drywall mud as it were, although to be honest the ceiling material will not be drywall, but rather something that allows access to the wires above. 


As for my placement ideas, I am mulling the locations as shown in the attached Dolby diagram and by adding the final pair at the location of the red boxes, with the most active seats being those also indicated in red. I have yet to calculate the angles but it should put the front row either within or very close to the sweet spot. So TF at about 30 degrees elevation, TM just a bit back at 95 degrees and the TR at 150 degrees. I think your conclusions are similar.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Roger Dressler said:


> If you can mute the rear surrounds, does the harshness go away? Do you hear the same from 7.1 content with DSU?


It's not the rear surrounds that get harsh, but the side surrounds. The Star Wars films are the harshest on my ears which I think is a 6.1 mix. (Don't get me wrong they sound awesome... I think due to the higher pitched sounds like tie fighters when they fly by it can be painful at times). It could be due to my speakers themselves though, I have Klipsch which I've heard are a tad bright.


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> Making more height speakers available at home, also brings the Atmos configuration closer to cinema lay-outs, which is: adding a pair of heights to every surround pair, including wides (precedence speakers) and excluding the rears (with home theater rears at max 150 degrees horizontal also counting, since they are positionally equivalent to the theatrical side-wall surrounds in the back). The expansion of an Atmos home theater could then look like this:
> 
> 5.1 .2 (e.g. TM for max. 1 row)
> 7.1 (incl. rears) .4 (e.g. TM/RH for max. 2 rows)
> 9.1 (incl. wides) .6 (e.g. TF/TM/RH for max. 3 rows)
> 11.1 (incl. 2nd pair of surrounds) .8 (e.g. TF/TM/TR/RH for max. 4 rows)
> 13.1 (incl. 3rd pair of surrounds) .10 (e.g. FH/TF/TM/TR/RH for max. 5 rows)



Interesting, but considering Dolby's latest diagrams for Atmos, they never mention FH or RH, so curious why use those designations, aren't they DTS Neo X designations?


For example and only going to 6 overhead speakers, as I do not have the names for more Dolby speakers:


2 (e.g. *TM* for max. 1 row)
7.1 (incl. rears) .4 (e.g. *TF/TR* for max. 2 rows)
9.1 (incl. wides) .6 (e.g. *TF/TM/TR* for max. 3 rows)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

danielrg said:


> If someone has a regular 7.1 setup - surrounds about 2 ft above listener ears - would using a Dolby Atmos receiver and using DSU with standard 5.1/7.1 add anything to the experience?
> 
> Any experience with this? I could imagine some people (like me...) might get Dolby Atmos enabled receivers in the future and not be able to put in ceiling speakers. Would such a person ever turn on DSU? Or would it have been same if they'd had no atmos processor inside?
> 
> Second question - seems ceiling speakers should be high dispersion. Would bipole/dipole speakers ever be a good idea for ceiling speakers to get that dispersion?


I had an ancient 5.1 setup before I got the atmos receiver. I still don't have the atmos modules (Just have to wait until Monday!) but I put satellite speakers facing upwards. At first I only had 7.1.2, I did notice a HUGE difference in the quality of sound... but my old receiver was pre-Dolby HD so it's hard to say how different it would be if you were coming from a 7.1 HD receiver. 

I think you would notice a difference though... it's not just the heights. But if you already have the receiver then you might as well shell out for the ceiling speakers 

The question about bipole/dipole, Dolby covered that in the press conference... you can see it here (fast forwards to the Q&A):

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...olby-atmos-panel-discussion-cedia-2014-a.html

I think the tech is too new for people to really know for sure, I'd imagine a lot of it depends on your space.


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, out here in Victoria you can't get much further west and no further south, we are at 48° 25′ 43″ N, 123° 21′ 56″ W, I call it the "Big Island". One day I would like to get to the east coast of Canada, but for now Montreal is as far as I have been.
> 
> 
> About those Atmos speakers, nothing is cast in drywall mud as it were, although to be honest the ceiling material will not be drywall, but rather something that allows access to the wires above.
> 
> 
> As for my placement ideas, I am mulling the locations as shown in the attached Dolby diagram and by adding the final pair at the location of the red boxes, with the most active seats being those also indicated in red. I have yet to calculate the angles but it should put the front row either within or very close to the sweet spot. So TF at about 30 degrees elevation, TM just a bit back at 95 degrees and the TR at 150 degrees. I think your conclusions are similar.





48°56'52.62"N here, just slightly north of your position. My theater and yours are for the most part set up identical. I do have a third row but it is a bar with bar stools so I don't include that row in the calculations for setup. My sides are in the same place except they are not toed in because they are dipole Paridigm ADP-V3 in wall and just above ear level. My rear speakers are ADP 15R-30 in ceiling. The in-ceiling are angled 35 degrees down . I could almost use these rear in ceiling for my rear Atmos except they are a little too far back. I would also have to then mount new rears and I have no way to get the wires back there now. The rear is also way back about 30 feet so the only thing I could do is a wireless powered set of rears if I go that way. Not too cosy with wireless for the rear, maybe it will suffice for the rears, haven't really investigated that option yet. 


I may just go the 4 speaker ceiling Atmos setup and leave the rear in ceiling where they are. Certainly the easiest to do, less to change and less wires to pull. My room is 12 wide 7 high and 30 feet long, my theater portion only occupies the first half of the room for the most part.


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> It won't be as precise until more mainstream products allow for more main layer speakers for use in pan-through arrays. The more speakers, the more audio precision. But the room must be able to accommodate the recommended speaker placement angles with a bunch of speakers. If you want your cake and eat it too, you'll need a high end Atmos decoder and a much larger room.
> 
> I would wire for a 9.1.4 setup at the very maximum for your room. Dolby just added that configuration to their October home theater install guide... so they might be prepping it as a firmware update for the current upper tier 13.1 output capable Atmos enabled receivers and pre-amps or for next year's products.


How high are the left and right front wide speakers supposed to be? By the way, where can I see/read that October home theater install guide?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> How high are the left and right front wide speakers supposed to be? By the way, where can I see/read that October home theater install guide?


Front wides (or front side surrounds or "additional side surrounds" as in the cinema white papers) are at the same height as the side and rear surrounds... just high enough to clear the viewers' heads while seated. They're angled in towards the MLP. A matching bookshelf might be a better choice in this location. It would be easier to position with an adjustable bracket. 

If you haven't chosen your surrounds yet (or any of your speakers)... the newer models (such as the Tannoy DC outdoor speakers or JBL Pro) with c-brackets would be much easier to position as Atmos surrounds.

Latest guide:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Dan - preordered. That will be a good week - on 10th Gravity is re-released with an Atmos track...


_Gravity_ got pushed to March 31st.  No idea why.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> I have a 5030ub also...I had it professionally calibrated using Eco mode where the fan noise is very low compared to normal mode...the picture quality is stunning after calibration. Fan noise is not noticeable...


+1. Same here, same PJ. And the PJ is directly above my head - about 3 feet above in fact.


----------



## kbarnes701

Orbitron said:


> No doubt there will be AVRs with Atmos and DTS-UHD, the real question is the speaker arrangements, positioning, amplification and calibration of 2 different immersive modes.


As DTS are coming so late to the game, they'd be mad not to allow the use of Atmos speaker positions IMO. By the time DTS get their game on, Atmos will be pretty well established and it makes total sense then for DTS to latch on to the Atmos speaker locations. To do otherwise would be sure to inhibit take-up of their system. But we'll just have to wait and see...


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Gravity_ got pushed to March 31st.  No idea why.


Ho hum. At least it's coming... meanwhile, Expendables 3 is a terrific workout for an Atmos system. I think you should get it (LOL).


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> Orbitron said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there will be AVRs with Atmos and DTS-UHD, the real question is the speaker arrangements, positioning, amplification and calibration of 2 different immersive modes.
> 
> 
> 
> As DTS are coming so late to the game, they'd be mad not to allow the use of Atmos speaker positions IMO. By the time DTS get their game on, Atmos will be pretty well established and it makes total sense then for DTS to latch on to the Atmos speaker locations. To do otherwise would be sure to inhibit take-up of their system. But we'll just have to wait and see...
Click to expand...


*ATSC 3.0: 7.1+4 Height speakers* specification (_link_):

*Height Front Left|Right* speakers . . . *Azimuth ±45°* (Azimuth Tolerance ±5°) and *Elevation +35°* (Elevation Tolerance ±10°)
*Height Rear Left|Right* speakers . . . *Azimuth ±135°* (Azimuth Tolerance ±5°) and *Elevation +35°* (Elevation Tolerance ±10°)


AVR manufacturers may not be able to predict which immersive audio codec for *BD* will dominate, but it seems likely there will be only one _USA Next Generation TV broadcast immersive audio_ standard for OTA|CATV when ATSC 3.0 rolls out after 2020, so it seems to me that they will be sure to accommodate the speaker layout sometime before that date...?!

_


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> 48°56'52.62"N here, just slightly north of your position. My theater and yours are for the most part set up identical. I do have a third row but it is a bar with bar stools so I don't include that row in the calculations for setup. My sides are in the same place except they are not toed in because they are dipole Paridigm ADP-V3 in wall and just above ear level. My rear speakers are ADP 15R-30 in ceiling. The in-ceiling are angled 35 degrees down . I could almost use these rear in ceiling for my rear Atmos except they are a little too far back. I would also have to then mount new rears and I have no way to get the wires back there now. The rear is also way back about 30 feet so the only thing I could do is a wireless powered set of rears if I go that way. Not too cosy with wireless for the rear, maybe it will suffice for the rears, haven't really investigated that option yet.
> 
> 
> I may just go the 4 speaker ceiling Atmos setup and leave the rear in ceiling where they are. Certainly the easiest to do, less to change and less wires to pull. My room is 12 wide 7 high and 30 feet long, my theater portion only occupies the first half of the room for the most part.



Should be good, but those rears are a bit far as you say for an Atmos set-up... what kind of ceiling are you dealing with?


----------



## Oledurt

I have a dedicated room. Ceiling is 9 feet. I want to put 4 speakers up for my atmos setup. I have a marantz 7702 polk audio rti speakers. I found a good deal on these polks for the ceiling.

http://www.polkaudio.com/owm5/d/1022

I bought some omnimount 10.0 ceiling brackets. What do you think? Will these work well for atmos on ceiling speakers?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Should be good, but those rears are a bit far as you say for an Atmos set-up... what kind of ceiling are you dealing with?



Gyproc ceiling and a double one at that . I doubled up the gyproc to reduce the sounds from the basement theater to the upstairs. Used the u-channel to separate the first layer from the second. Along with this challenge I have two dropped ceiling channels running the length of my theater, one on each side. This leaves a 9 foot wide section that is 7 feet high , the drops on the sides are about 18" each. The drops are there to hide the air exchange and other plumbing .


I just went down and had a good look at the space and to be honest I think the best I can do for now is just go with the 4 in ceiling speakers and leave the in-ceiling rears where they are now. These in-ceilings are at the 18' mark and work really well for rears given the built in angles. Besides that I paid a small fortune for these, I believe about $800 a piece at the time.


BTW here's a funny fact, the mega priced Paridigm Signature series sound no better than my 6X9 car speakers that I installed in my dinning and living room 28 years ago. I paid about $60 a pair for these 3 way 6X9 car speakers at the time , built them in and put a cheapo radio shack flush mounted round grill over the same. They have better base extension than my $1800 Paridigm ADP V-3, and have crystal clear mids and highs........go figure . Hmmm, I wonder.....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> BTW here's a funny fact, the mega priced Paridigm Signature series sound no better than my 6X9 car speakers that I installed in my dinning and living room 28 years ago. I paid about $60 a pair for these 3 way 6X9 car speakers at the time , built them in and put a cheapo radio shack flush mounted round grill over the same. They have better base extension than my $1800 Paridigm ADP V-3, and have crystal clear mids and highs........go figure . Hmmm, I wonder.....


Paradigm is not really known for superlative in-wall and in-ceiling speakers. That's mainly the purview of companies like Triad. 

I don't know if I would use the current rear surrounds as they're already in-ceiling speakers. It might be better to just unhook them for now and do a 5.1.4 setup (perhaps wire for the front side surrounds). I think they would interfere with the 3D spatial effect since they're in the ceiling and so are the actual overhead height speakers. You need angle separation between the main layer and the top layer for Atmos to really work well. Maybe even take them out, patch the holes, and use them in another room for ambient music.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Gyproc ceiling and a double one at that . I doubled up the gyproc to reduce the sounds from the basement theater to the upstairs. Used the u-channel to separate the first layer from the second. Along with this challenge I have two dropped ceiling channels running the length of my theater, one on each side. This leaves a 9 foot wide section that is 7 feet high , the drops on the sides are about 18" each. The drops are there to hide the air exchange and other plumbing .
> 
> 
> I just went down and had a good look at the space and to be honest I think the best I can do for now is just go with the 4 in ceiling speakers and leave the in-ceiling rears where they are now. These in-ceilings are at the 18' mark and work really well for rears given the built in angles. Besides that I paid a small fortune for these, I believe about $800 a piece at the time.
> 
> 
> BTW here's a funny fact, the mega priced Paridigm Signature series sound no better than my 6X9 car speakers that I installed in my dinning and living room 28 years ago. I paid about $60 a pair for these 3 way 6X9 car speakers at the time , built them in and put a cheapo radio shack flush mounted round grill over the same. They have better base extension than my $1800 Paridigm ADP V-3, and have crystal clear mids and highs........go figure . Hmmm, I wonder.....



Yep, that is too much drywall to contend with! Unless the joist spaces run in a direction that allows you to fish wire through by exiting the room and the re-entering it in the required space then it is likely best to sit back and enjoy... 


I find this approach to be helpful, the idea or in this case the requirement just percolates in my head, eventually a resolution emerges, even if it is to leave well enough alone.


----------



## kbarnes701

Oledurt said:


> I have a dedicated room. Ceiling is 9 feet. I want to put 4 speakers up for my atmos setup. I have a marantz 7702 polk audio rti speakers. I found a good deal on these polks for the ceiling.
> 
> http://www.polkaudio.com/owm5/d/1022
> 
> I bought some omnimount 10.0 ceiling brackets. What do you think? Will these work well for atmos on ceiling speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I have tried several different sorts of adjustable speaker mounts over the years and have never been totally satisfied with any of them. I have never found one that will hold the speaker in the exact position I want it in. In fact, I have damaged more brackets than I care to remember by overtightening them in an attempt to get them to hold the speaker still in the position I want it. This is even more critical if the speakers are on the ceiling as if they fall off the bracket, they could hurt someone in the room, whereas this is not so likely with wall-mounted speakers. It is only a problem with adjustable brackets.

This is why I was so pleased to discover that my chosen ceiling speakers - the Tannoy Di5 DC - came with a purpose-designed and integrated C bracket which makes installation a delightfully easy, and secure, task. The bracket allows for a wide range of adjustment and there is no danger of the speaker moving once the locking nuts have been tightened.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> the Tannoy Di5 DC - came with a purpose-designed and integrated C bracket which makes installation a delightfully easy, and secure, task. The bracket allows for a wide range of adjustment and there is no danger of the speaker moving once the locking nuts have been tightened.


"Delightfully easy" may be a bit of a stretch. Nothing I do in audio *looking up* is "delightfully easy". But I get your point. And a lot less of a mess cutting holes in the ceiling and all of that mess!!!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting, but considering Dolby's latest diagrams for Atmos, they never mention FH or RH, so curious why use those designations, aren't they DTS Neo X designations?


Dolby does mention Front Heights and Rear Heights in their Guidelines (page 34 and 35). FH and RH are referring to those positions.



> For example and only going to 6 overhead speakers, as I do not have the names for more Dolby speakers:
> 
> 2 (e.g. *TM* for max. 1 row)
> 7.1 (incl. rears) .4 (e.g. *TF/TR* for max. 2 rows)
> 9.1 (incl. wides) .6 (e.g. *TF/TM/TR* for max. 3 rows)


My height designations are merely examples, choices led by trying to put height speakers above corresponding surrounds as seen/heard form MLP. Yours are equally right and in fact better in line with Dolby's 'one row' paradigm.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> It's not the rear surrounds that get harsh, but the side surrounds. The Star Wars films are the harshest on my ears which I think is a 6.1 mix. (Don't get me wrong they sound awesome... I think due to the higher pitched sounds like tie fighters when they fly by it can be painful at times). It could be due to my speakers themselves though, I have Klipsch which I've heard are a tad bright.


Understood. But it's a worthy question. In a different scenario, I feel DSU adds brightness to the rear and height outputs. Especially when upmixing 2-ch music, but I sense some of that to a lesser extent when upmixing 5.1 movies. Brightness can be described as harshness. 

When upmixing 5.1 to 7.1, all 4 surround outputs are processed, so all may be contributing to the flyby harshness -- certainly the sides. If none is heard with 7.1 content, then one might suspect the upmixer. If killing the rears eliminates the harshness, then one might suspect the rear speakers are bright. 

If the rears do not sound harsh with DSU, then indeed maybe the Klipsch are bright and perhaps the sides are most audible because they fire more directly down the ear canals than any others in the room.  Have you tried >Setup>Audio>Surround Parameter>Cinema EQ?


----------



## chi_guy50

Oledurt said:


> I have a dedicated room. Ceiling is 9 feet. I want to put 4 speakers up for my atmos setup. I have a marantz 7702 polk audio rti speakers. I found a good deal on these polks for the ceiling.
> 
> http://www.polkaudio.com/owm5/d/1022
> 
> I bought some omnimount 10.0 ceiling brackets. What do you think? Will these work well for atmos on ceiling speakers?


I am using the Polk Audio OWM5 satellite speakers you cite for my (wall-mounted) FH, as well as side surrounds & SB. They are very good satellite speakers for the price, but please note that they are not a timbre match for your RTi speakers--if that is of concern to you.

The Omnimount-10's should provide sufficient anchorage for the speakers assuming that you have a solid backing in the ceiling into which you can fasten them. I am using Definitive Technology Pro-Mount 90 brackets for my wall-mounted OWM5's with just drywall anchors; they have the same 10-lb. weight-bearing capacity as the Omnimount-10's and are rock-steady. (The OWM5 weighs in at just under 7 lbs.)


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> "Delightfully easy" may be a bit of a stretch. Nothing I do in audio *looking up* is "delightfully easy". But I get your point. And a lot less of a mess cutting holes in the ceiling and all of that mess!!!


Well the pulling of the wires through the ceiling was a PITA - but fixing the speakers to the ceiling with those C brackets was genuinely very, very easy.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I am using the Polk Audio OWM5 satellite speakers you cite for my (wall-mounted) FH, as well as side surrounds & SB. They are very good satellite speakers for the price, but please note that they are not a timbre match for your RTi speakers--if that is of concern to you.
> 
> The Omnimount-10's should provide sufficient anchorage for the speakers assuming that you have a solid backing in the ceiling into which you can fasten them. I am using Definitive Technology Pro-Mount 90 brackets for my wall-mounted OWM5's with just drywall anchors; they have the same 10-lb. weight-bearing capacity as the Omnimount-10's and are rock-steady. (The OWM5 weighs in at just under 7 lbs.)


The anchorage into the ceiling should be fine. The problem I have had with this sort of mount is that it is impossible to tighten the ball joint sufficiently to prevent the weight of the speaker moving the speaker once installed. When I have tightened enough to maybe hold the speaker in one place, I have wrecked the mount - usually by stripping a thread or by damaging the bit of the mount designed to prevent it slipping under load.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> Scott, with all due respect, you should know better than to tee up a rat hole.


Yeah, well... I can only take so much trigonometry and "what speaker should I get" discussion in here. 

So as much "I think", "should be" and "this is how this works....maybe" I can take some more "theory". I gets boring in here. 



kbarnes701 said:


> As DTS are coming so late to the game, they'd be mad not to allow the use of Atmos speaker positions IMO. By the time DTS get their game on, Atmos will be pretty well established and it makes total sense then for DTS to latch on to the Atmos speaker locations. To do otherwise would be sure to inhibit take-up of their system. But we'll just have to wait and see...


Agreed.


----------



## NorthSky

> Scott, with all due respect, you should know better than to tee up a rat hole.


Thank you for your cooperation. ...For staying on topic. ...And keeping track of member's Atmos setups. 
{Have respect for ALL your fellow members; nobody is a "rat hole".}



> There is no "perfect" SSP. What's your gripe with Denon/Marantz? The only issue I have is that the speaker placements of Auro and Atmos is not compatible (that's not D+M's fault) so we need a "mickey mouse" band-aid approach to utilize both OR install dual sets of ceiling speakers to take advantage of both. (which few will do - including me)


Very true; there is no perfect SSP. 

Where did you read that I have a grip with Denon/Marantz? ...In the Onkyo/Yamaha/Pioneer threads? 
..."Mickey mouse" band-aid? Who is we that need that? 

♦ Denon/Marantz people are reading the Atmos and Auro threads in order to improve their next generation 3D surround sound products; to accommodate Atmos, Auro and MDA in better harmony above in the skies (overhead speakers positioning), and make life easier for their owners. 

Peace to all in this Christmas Holiday season.


----------



## NorthSky

> Ho hum. At least it's coming... meanwhile, Expendables 3 is a terrific workout for an Atmos system. I think you should get it (LOL).


The soundtrack in 'Expendables 3' is totally awesome; it makes you want to listen to it over and over. ...And listen to your subs and surrounds.


----------



## noah katz

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> You said the subs bottomed out. That would not be clipping the input...


In my experience it can be difficult to tell whether the cause of a squarish wave emanating from the sub is mechanical (excursion limits) or electrical (input or power amp clipping).



audioguy said:


> There is no "perfect" SSP. What's your gripe with Denon/Marantz? The only issue I have is that the speaker placements of Auro and Atmos is not compatible (that's not D+M's fault) so we need a "mickey mouse" band-aid approach to utilize both OR install dual sets of ceiling speakers to take advantage of both. (which few will do - including me)


There are Atmos height speaker choices that overlap with Auro Side Heights.

As Sanjay has explained, D+M have made it unnecessarily difficult for Atmos and Auro to coexist by using different labels for what could be the same speakers, for example Top Middle and Side Height.


----------



## abs

I've yet to buy a receiver but will probably order the Marantz 7009 next week. I've already bought 4 Sonance ceiling speakers. My room is about 30ft in length with the mlp about 24ft away from the LCR. There is only one mlp at the rear of the room (large leather sofa). I was going to put 2 ceiling speakers in the front half of the room about 18ft away from the mlp and the other 2 about 6-8ft away from the mlp. I questioned the position of the ceiling speakers with my dealer because I queried if I should have all 4 ceiling speakers together closer to the mlp as this is the only seating area. He said keep them apart as I described to allow for the panning/fly over effect. Does anyone have any views on this?


----------



## NorthSky

rhbblb1 said:


> I had Atlantic Technology IC-8.3 ceiling speakers installed. They have a switch that can configure them in several ways. They also have dual tweeters. The AT speaker designer recommended I place them in the dipole configuration and point one tweeter towards the MLP and the other in the opposite direction.
> Oh yeah, it sounds stunning.


That is very interesting; I like the idea with DSU.  
I would love to hear their diversification from their sound propagation; I bet that they do indeed sound stunning.

* Dolby Atmos people don't recommend using dipole speakers anywhere, and less so as your overheads.
So it is double interesting the AT speaker designer's recommendation. He has a very objective vision on his ceiling speakers design and in the way he recommends using them (dipole configuration). ...Just the opposite of Dolby Atmos' own recommendation.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> The soundtrack in 'Expendables 3' is totally awesome; it makes you want to listen to it over and over. ...And listen to your subs and surrounds.



Watched that movie last night, probably because I heard someone here talking about the sound effects. The Atmos teaser at the beginning was actually really good in my 7.1 setup as is.


The movie was a little better than the last one I suppose, which I couldn't even finish to be honest. At least I did finish this one, must pay more attention to the sound track next time.


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, well... I can only take so much trigonometry and "what speaker should I get" discussion in here.
> 
> So as much "I think", "should be" and "this is how this works....maybe" I can take some more "theory". I gets boring in here.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


I feel your pain but that's like taking ex-lax for diarrhea.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Yes, out here in Victoria you can't get much further west and no further south, we are at 48° 25′ 43″ N, 123° 21′ 56″ W, I call it the "Big Island". One day I would like to get to the east coast of Canada, but for now Montreal is as far as I have been.
> 
> About those Atmos speakers, nothing is cast in drywall mud as it were, although to be honest the ceiling material will not be drywall, but rather something that allows access to the wires above.
> 
> *As for my placement ideas, I am mulling the locations as shown in the attached Dolby diagram and by adding the final pair at the location of the red boxes, with the most active seats being those also indicated in red. I have yet to calculate the angles but it should put the front row either within or very close to the sweet spot. So TF at about 30 degrees elevation, TM just a bit back at 95 degrees and the TR at 150 degrees. I think your conclusions are similar.*


Al, your attachment plan reflects a much better perspective than Dolby Atmos' own suggestion. Right from the get-go Dolby positioned the couch way too far from the front soundstage. As soon as I saw their plan I noticed it right away, and the simple solution was just to move the couch forward by roughly 4 feet or so (3' to 5'). ...With everything else also moving forward by the same distance (all floor surround speakers and the overheads). 

Dolby Atmos as in their actual graph (pdf Guidelines) right now (9.1.4 Atmos suggested setup); that couch positioning is representative of the SECOND row of moviegoers. => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

Your own graph's modification (clarification on positioning for two rows of spectators; two couches) is perfect. You just indicated precisely what was already on my mind but did not pursue in showing the way you just did. 

Thank you Al, and Happy Holidays to you and all your family.


----------



## Nightlord

noah katz said:


> In my experience it can be difficult to tell whether the cause of a squarish wave emanating from the sub is mechanical (excursion limits) or electrical (input or power amp clipping).


You think? sub bottoming out sounds like rapidly fired firecrackers, clipping generates massive amounts of overtones. At least with my speakers there's a massive difference.


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> Al, your attachment plan reflects a much better perspective than Dolby Atmos' own suggestion. Right from the get-go Dolby positioned the couch way too far from the front soundstage. As soon as I saw their plan I noticed it right away, and the simple solution was just to move the couch forward by roughly 4 feet or so (3' to 5'). ...With everything else also moving forward by the same distance (all floor surround speakers and the overheads).
> 
> Dolby Atmos as in their actual graph (pdf Guidelines) right now (9.1.4 Atmos suggested setup); that couch positioning is representative of the SECOND row of moviegoers. => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> Your own graph's modification (clarification on positioning for two rows of spectators; two couches) is perfect. You just indicated precisely what was already on my mind but did not pursue in showing the way you just did.
> 
> Thank you Al, and Happy Holidays to you and all your family.



Hey there Bob, thanks for the comments, once it is all in place and I actually get an Atmos movie playing back I'll know if the theory meets expectations!


Best wishes for the Holiday Season to you and yours.


----------



## NorthSky

> I feel your pain but that's like taking ex-lax for diarrhea.


If you feel sick with vomiting and diarrhea, I recommend staying home in your bed. ...Drink orange juice and eat yogurt with chopped bananas.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> *ATSC 3.0: 7.1+4 Height speakers* specification (_link_):
> 
> *Height Front Left|Right* speakers . . . *Azimuth ±45°* (Azimuth Tolerance ±5°) and *Elevation ±35°* (Elevation Tolerance ±10°)
> *Height Rear Left|Right* speakers . . . *Azimuth ±135°* (Azimuth Tolerance ±5°) and *Elevation ±35°* (Elevation Tolerance ±10°)
> 
> 
> AVR manufacturers may not be able to predict which immersive audio codec for *BD* will dominate, but it seems likely there will be only one _USA Next Generation TV broadcast immersive audio_ standard for OTA|CATV when ATSC 3.0 rolls out after 2020, so it seems to me that they will be sure to accommodate the speaker layout sometime before that date...?!
> 
> _


Simplification works best; thx for sharing that. ...And again, every one of all your posts are the most informative of them all. 
You are always on perfect target with the latest and best of the best.
High hat to you! ...And may this Holiday season brings health, joy, and peace to you and to your family and friends.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Paradigm is not really known for superlative in-wall and in-ceiling speakers. That's mainly the purview of companies like Triad.


Actually Dan, Paradigm has some excellent in-wall and in-ceiling model speakers. ...Perfect for Dolby Atmos purpose.


----------



## Oledurt

chi_guy50 said:


> I am using the Polk Audio OWM5 satellite speakers you cite for my (wall-mounted) FH, as well as side surrounds & SB. They are very good satellite speakers for the price, but please note that they are not a timbre match for your RTi speakers--if that is of concern to you.
> 
> The Omnimount-10's should provide sufficient anchorage for the speakers assuming that you have a solid backing in the ceiling into which you can fasten them. I am using Definitive Technology Pro-Mount 90 brackets for my wall-mounted OWM5's with just drywall anchors; they have the same 10-lb. weight-bearing capacity as the Omnimount-10's and are rock-steady. (The OWM5 weighs in at just under 7 lbs.)


Thanks for the info. I don't need them to be perfectly matched. Audyssey will eq them to blend well enough. As far as mounting i can skip the brackets altogether and just put a couple screws in the studs and mount these flush with the ceiling. Only problem is they will be oriented horizontally which I am not sure if that is good. It is an option though. 

The atmos speakers are basically effect speakers so I am not sure how perfect placement needs to be. I mean you have a lot of leeway with how you mount surrounds. I wonder if atmos speakers are similar when it comes to placement. 

I just don't know.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> The anchorage into the ceiling should be fine. The problem I have had with this sort of mount is that it is impossible to tighten the ball joint sufficiently to prevent the weight of the speaker moving the speaker once installed. When I have tightened enough to maybe hold the speaker in one place, I have wrecked the mount - usually by stripping a thread or by damaging the bit of the mount designed to prevent it slipping under load.


This is the same ball-pivot-and-clamp mechanism as is used in the ProMount90's and I have had no problem with them. The trick when mounting the speaker is first to tighten the clamping hex screw just enough to hold the speaker in place yet allow movement for aiming, and then to finish tightening firmly (without stripping the screw by over-tightening ). I have managed to mount, dismount, remount, and reaim the speakers, and the mechanism is still holding tight after almost one year.

I suppose some iterations might be more flimsy than others, but the DefTech models appear to be well enough made to withstand a lot of pressure.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> The soundtrack in 'Expendables 3' is totally awesome; it makes you want to listen to it over and over. ...And listen to your subs and surrounds.


You should hear it Atmos that's the total package..


----------



## chi_guy50

Oledurt said:


> Thanks for the info. I don't need them to be perfectly matched. Audyssey will eq them to blend well enough. As far as mounting i can skip the brackets altogether and just put a couple screws in the studs and mount these flush with the ceiling. *Only problem is they will be oriented horizontally which I am not sure if that is good. It is an option though*.
> 
> The atmos speakers are basically effect speakers so I am not sure how perfect placement needs to be. I mean you have a lot of leeway with how you mount surrounds. I wonder if atmos speakers are similar when it comes to placement.
> 
> I just don't know.


 Mounting them horizontally is definitely an option (just make sure to orient them appropriately for L/R). I considered doing so myself for aesthetic purposes but then changed my mind (see below).


----------



## Csbooth

Csbooth said:


> Sorry if this has been answered already but I was curious if when using Atmos are we supposed to have our Surrounds at Ear height exactly or slightly above still?
> 
> I think I read somewhere that having them exactly at ear level helps the diffusion and overall panning become much more prevalent.
> 
> Also while it's on my mind, I will need to mount my surrounds on a back wall, and I would obviously want them "toed in" to the MLP.
> 
> If there are any tilting keyhole mounts that someone could recommend me that would be greatly appreciated!


Just seeing if anyone could help me out 

The satellite speakers I would mount are 2.2 pounds each so I wouldn't need anything rated for that much, just curious if there are any preferred brands lol.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> Just seeing if anyone could help me out
> 
> The satellite speakers I would mount are 2.2 pounds each so I wouldn't need anything rated for that much, just curious if there are any preferred brands lol.


Look up, man!


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> You should hear it Atmos that's the total package..


I will I will.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> This is the same ball-pivot-and-clamp mechanism as is used in the ProMount90's and I have had no problem with them. The trick when mounting the speaker is first to tighten the clamping hex screw just enough to hold the speaker in place yet allow movement for aiming, and then to finish tightening firmly (without stripping the screw by over-tightening ). I have managed to mount, dismount, remount, and reaim the speakers, and the mechanism is still holding tight after almost one year.
> 
> I suppose some iterations might be more flimsy than others, but the DefTech models appear to be well enough made to withstand a lot of pressure.


To some extent it will depend not just on the weight of the speaker but on where the speaker mounting holes are and how well they centre the centre of gravity IYSWIM. I've just not had much luck with the brackets I've tried, but obviously I haven't tried them all. My M&K M7's are fairly heavy and have their mounting holes off-centre which applies disproportionate force at the bracket so that may be the reason I've not yet found a suitable bracket. As I am no longer using those speakers, for now anyway, it's not much of an issue here 

The base of yours seems to be resting against the wall, in the pic - that's cheating!


----------



## kbarnes701

Oledurt said:


> The atmos speakers are basically effect speakers so I am not sure how perfect placement needs to be. I mean you have a lot of leeway with how you mount surrounds. I wonder if atmos speakers are similar when it comes to placement.
> 
> I just don't know.


Dolby give a wide range of suitable angles (from MLP) for mounting the speakers so there is a lot of flexibility built in. I think there is quite a lot of overthinking going on wrt to the precision of placement required. People who have never given a thought to the exact angle of their main speakers, for example, seem to fret over whether their Atmos speakers are at 42° or 37°. Dolby have said several times that it is hard to make Atmos NOT work, and I think that is worth remembering if one can't put the speakers exactly where they 'should' go. As you say, have people been worrying whether their surrounds have to be precisely at 90° or precisely at 110°? Probably not - ITU specify a _range_ and if the speakers are broadly within that range then all is good. It's not like they stop working if you mount them at 115° because the room dictates it. I suspect it's the same with overhead speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

> To some extent it will depend not just on the weight of the speaker but on where the speaker mounting holes are and how well they centre the centre of gravity IYSWIM. I've just not had much luck with the brackets I've tried, but obviously I haven't tried them all. My M&K M7's are fairly heavy and have their mounting holes off-centre which applies disproportionate force at the bracket so that may be the reason I've not yet found a suitable bracket. As I am no longer using those speakers, for now anyway, it's not much of an issue here
> 
> *The base of yours seems to be resting against the wall, in the pic - that's cheating!*


Cheating? ...No; smart thinking.


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Hey there Bob, thanks for the comments, once it is all in place and I actually get an Atmos movie playing back I'll know if the theory meets expectations!
> 
> 
> Best wishes for the Holiday Season to you and yours.



Hey Al, when do you expect to have the system up and running? Will you run the four ceiling TF/TR speakers first and then add the middles later ? I know you intend to install all 6 ceiling now but none of the receivers out there are equipped to run 6 ceiling Atmos speakers as I understand.


----------



## awblackmon

kbarnes701 said:


> As DTS are coming so late to the game, they'd be mad not to allow the use of Atmos speaker positions IMO. By the time DTS get their game on, Atmos will be pretty well established and it makes total sense then for DTS to latch on to the Atmos speaker locations. To do otherwise would be sure to inhibit take-up of their system. But we'll just have to wait and see...


I was looking over the speaker positions on the DTS website for DTS NEO:X. The latest speaker position diagram seems to be different than what I saw a year ago when I was trying to set up my system for NEO:X and Audessy DSX. What I see at the DTS site now resembles Auro more than Atmos. My theater room is over a garage and the knee wall construction of the room isn't very friendly to having me do a Auro setup. I have already got the speakers installed in anticipation of installing Atmos. 

While waiting to see how things will develop for DTS to get their immersive system to market I am continuing to use DTS NEO:X for movies. My DTS front height speakers are placed overhead in the Atmos top front position. I had them over the front speakers but moved them more into the room and it works well for me. I do have top rear speakers mounted but for now they are waiting for the upgrade to Atmos.

I would pull the trigger on a 7702 this week if I was more confident that Marantz would 100% be pushing out the DTS system as an upgrade when it comes out. I would even be willing to pay for it at the same price as the Auro upgrade. I would hate to buy the 7702 today and find that over time Bluray discs no longer had Atmos but offered the DTS system only and I had to buy new hardware to play it. I don't have a lot of cash to throw around these days.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

awblackmon said:


> I was looking over the speaker positions on the DTS website for DTS NEO:X. The latest speaker position diagram seems to be different than what I saw a year ago when I was trying to set up my system for NEO:X and Audessy DSX. What I see at the DTS site now resembles Auro more than Atmos. My theater room is over a garage and the knee wall construction of the room isn't very friendly to having me do a Auro setup. I have already got the speakers installed in anticipation of installing Atmos.
> 
> While waiting to see how things will develop for DTS to get their immersive system to market I am continuing to use DTS NEO:X for movies. My DTS front height speakers are placed overhead in the Atmos top front position. I had them over the front speakers but moved them more into the room and it works well for me. I do have top rear speakers mounted but for now they are waiting for the upgrade to Atmos.
> 
> I would pull the trigger on a 7702 this week if I was more confident that Marantz would 100% be pushing out the DTS system as an upgrade when it comes out. I would even be willing to pay for it at the same price as the Auro upgrade. I would hate to buy the 7702 today and find that over time Bluray discs no longer had Atmos but offered the DTS system only and I had to buy new hardware to play it. I don't have a lot of cash to throw around these days.


My hunch is that DTS will have major announcements come CES in January. This is the final countdown for them. It will be too late if they fail to make a splash there.


----------



## NorthSky

I'm navigating on the same "DTS-MDA" sailing boat as Dan.


----------



## westmd

*DATASAT* have an advertisment out (see attachment) in which they also officially mention an upcoming ATMOS upgrade for their.*LS10*. 
This finally made me order the DATASAT LS10 which will come mid-January. A late Christmas present.

A worthy successor of my *LEXICON MC1*


----------



## danielrg

rhbblb1 said:


> I had Atlantic Technology IC-8.3 ceiling speakers installed. They have a switch that can configure them in several ways. They also have dual tweeters. The AT speaker designer recommended I place them in the dipole configuration and point one tweeter towards the MLP and the other in the opposite direction.
> Oh yeah, it sounds stunning.


I looked at the brochure. Look like great speakers. I can't mount in the ceiling, but I could mount them ON the ceiling. It looked like they might sell an enclosure or something? If there was a 5" deep black enclosure (or paintable) then I could mount on ceiling, and run speaker wires from my projector conduit box on the ceiling. Might not be the prettiest, but it would be practical. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> Look up, man!


AH I see, I had asked the question the day before with no replies so when I logged in and saw I had no notifications I just went straight to my question and quoted it, so I wasn't sure what you were talking about at first haha. 

So the surround mounts don't matter of what style or brand correct, as long as it's rated a safe weight?

As to the other point on if we need the surrounds right at ear level or slightly above, not sure if it matters that much or not.

Side thought: So when are we getting X.X.X.X (Speakers inside the floor) 

That one is kind of a joke but would be interesting nonetheless lol.


----------



## Csbooth

Has anyone tried DSU with games and noticed any accurate sound placements from things above?

I don't know much about video game development especially on the audio side but what I do know is that game's audio being 3D panning in nature should benefit this technology quite well. 

Would it be something so simple as to create audio points in the game that are specifically generated from above and can be rendered in the player's top speakers?

They might not even have to do anything special, but I know a lot of games don't utilize any more than 6 channels of audio, so 8 channels (5.1.2) and above is probably in need of upmixing lest you hear nothing from your overheads.


----------



## pasender91

I did test Forza Motorsport, and indeed DSU works very well on it.
If you drive thru a tunnel, the engine sound goes on the top speakers, the effect is very cool 

More generally, Dolby is working with game editors for them to support Atmos natively.
When this will come (2015?) it could be "very good" as games have sound in 3D, so this will map very well to the object concept of Atmos


----------



## Csbooth

pasender91 said:


> I did test Forza Motorsport, and indeed DSU works very well on it.
> If you drive thru a tunnel, the engine sound goes on the top speakers, the effect is very cool
> 
> More generally, Dolby is working with game editors for them to support Atmos natively.
> When this will come (2015?) it could be "very good" as games have sound in 3D, so this will map very well to the object concept of Atmos


That's great to hear! I am really excited for that aspect of 3D Sound.


----------



## bargervais

Csbooth said:


> Just seeing if anyone could help me out
> 
> The satellite speakers I would mount are 2.2 pounds each so I wouldn't need anything rated for that much, just curious if there are any preferred brands lol.


I bought these bose mounts http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005T380/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I had to modify them I drilled the hole where the bolt went through to accommodate a bigger bolt went to home depot bought the correct bolts to fit the speaker. I like the way these are made very sturdy. The reason I had to modify the hole and upgrade the bolt was this only comes to mount those tiny cube speakers. I needed a bigger bolt to go into the back of my speakers.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Low Ceiling options*

Reading the Atmos guidelines last night it says that if you have a low ceiling( not sure what low is?) and I believe I do as my main ceiling running the length of my theater is 7' 5" . It is even lower on each side as I have dropped channels running the length of the theater on each side which are 20" wide and 10" deep. If I use Atmos modules on top of my front L/C/R speakers they would be effectively pointing up at a ceiling 6' 8" or so because of the dropped ceiling. If I use in-ceiling in the center of the theater the height will be 7' 5" . Either way it is not the best scenario, I suppose one must be better than the other though . Anyone else out there with a similar issue?

I was just about to install 6 ceiling speakers but now I'm wondering if I should just go with the modules on the front and just use my rear in-ceiling speakers for the two rear atmos , a 5.2.4 instead of 7.2.4. Adding modules and switching the rears to TR would be easy. Installing 6 new speakers and associated wiring will be a lot of work. I have the X7200 Denon on order but could use a X4100 right away for the 5.2.4 setup now. I could use the second receiver anyway, I just FINALLY blew up my 1989 Pioneer receiver. Wonder if I'll get 25 years out of the Denon's


----------



## mp5475

Anyone tried putting atmos demo files on USB stick and play it on blue ray player.

The file that was provided by Kokishin.

Does it work? And any blueray player with usb connector?


----------



## CBdicX

Hi guys, here my "solution" for Atmos (Enabled) speakers.


I used 4 Magnat Needle Sat speakers (standard satellite speakers) and placed them on the side so i can rotate them 180 degree in the vertical plane.
For this i used the original Magnat wall mounts.
No exact science used, just used an angle i thought would be ok to get audio to the MLP with the help of the popcorn ceiling.
It works great, not specific a sound from above but absolute above my head. 
With the Magnats sound is more around me inclouding above.
Tested the various short Atmos clip samples and i am in the middel of the "action".
Without the Atmos speakers sound stays in the horizontal plane, with its a sound bubble around me 


Had also tested the Onkyo SKH Atmos Enabled speakers and with the satellites i get the same Atmos effects, so for me i say hold money in the pocket and buy some good satellite speakers and use them on the side like i did, or elivate them backwards.
Dolby makes enough money on all the Atmos receivers, no need to send them more through Atmos Enabled speakers, "normal" speakers work just fine !

And this for just 100 euro brand new for 4 speakers, and some sweat......


----------



## LowellG

mp5475 said:


> Anyone tried putting atmos demo files on USB stick and play it on blue ray player.
> 
> The file that was provided by Kokishin.
> 
> Does it work? And any blueray player with usb connector?




I don't know what file you are talking about, but there are several lossless Atmos demos at Demo World. I tried putting them on disc and using a BluRay but it didn't work. I just use XBMC.


----------



## Nalleh

Another Blu-Ray with Atmos: EXODUS GODS AND KINGS

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


----------



## epiCenter

Yes, I dropped the four main Atmos demo's on an external USB drive and played them through my Oppo 103D. There is a bit of delay for the video to catch up with the audio. But once both video and audio synch, you can press rewind to start it over again from the beginning. 

It's a little bit of a pain, but better than spending $300.00 on eBay for the disc. The audio track is actually delivered in Atmos, as that icon lights up my pre-pro once the demo starts.


----------



## LowellG

Csbooth said:


> Has anyone tried DSU with games and noticed any accurate sound placements from things above?
> 
> I don't know much about video game development especially on the audio side but what I do know is that game's audio being 3D panning in nature should benefit this technology quite well.
> 
> Would it be something so simple as to create audio points in the game that are specifically generated from above and can be rendered in the player's top speakers?
> 
> They might not even have to do anything special, but I know a lot of games don't utilize any more than 6 channels of audio, so 8 channels (5.1.2) and above is probably in need of upmixing lest you hear nothing from your overheads.



When I spoke to the Dolby Rep at my local A/V store Bjorns, he said game developers already use positional audio, so it should work well.


----------



## Csbooth

LowellG said:


> When I spoke to the Dolby Rep at my local A/V store Bjorns, he said game developers already use positional audio, so it should work well.


Excellent news 

Although would this mean to use DSU until there is an actual delivery method? I believe someone said when leaving their system on LPCM straight, direct whatever it will only send audio to 6 channels unless the game was developed for more speakers such as 8 and above.


----------



## CBdicX

windshear said:


> I got a bit of a fright watching the Atmos sampler disc where I found two of my subs bottoming out. This has never happened before on any source material and I did not even listen at the levels I sometimes go to. Maybe someone can test and confirm if this happens on their system. It is on the amaze demo where the powerful bass graphic is on screen with the accompanying sound. I wonder if this is at an overcooked level. It would be interesting to know at what level it was mastered at and what the actual signal contains. Ps I was not aware this was happening before as the sound was masked by all the other sounds. I just happened to be next to one of my subwoofers when that scene played and I heard it.


 
Have the same "problem" with this disk and only with the Amaze demo !
When i play Amaze from Demo World, i have no problems, so its the Atmos track on that disk / download.
I deleted this track.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> AH I see, I had asked the question the day before with no replies so when I logged in and saw I had no notifications I just went straight to my question and quoted it, so I wasn't sure what you were talking about at first haha.
> 
> So the surround mounts don't matter of what style or brand correct, as long as it's rated a safe weight?


There are other considerations of course, such as aesthetics, size, maneuverability, sturdiness of construction, method of surface attachment, included hardware, et al. But, first and foremost, you'll want to ensure that the connections are compatible with your speakers. Most, but not all, mounts designed for satellite speakers (such as both the ProMount90 and the Omnimount-10 mentioned above) have a standard 1/4”-20 thread shaft (this is one instance where the size of the shaft does matter ); the speakers you choose may offer a variety of connections, but if a threaded receptacle is among these you will want to ensure that it matches the thread size in the mounts you get.


----------



## CBdicX

chi_guy50 said:


> Mounting them horizontally is definitely an option (just make sure to orient them appropriately for L/R). I considered doing so myself for aesthetic purposes but then changed my mind (see below).


 Nice *****.......... LOL


----------



## Saskadan

*Front height ?*

I want to set up my speakers for the new Atmos, but I can not put them in the ceiling. I currently have a 7.1 config, but after seeing some of the Atmos configs that use front speakers to "spray" the sound upward towards the ceiling, I was wondering the possibilities of putting two speakers on the front but placing them high & wide. Would this work?


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi guys, here my "solution" for Atmos (Enabled) speakers.
> 
> 
> I used 4 Magnat Needle Sat speakers (standard satellite speakers) and placed them on the side so i can rotate them 180 degree in the vertical plane.


You sure made a really nice job of integrating them with your mains.


----------



## sdurani

LowellG said:


> When I spoke to the Dolby Rep at my local A/V store Bjorns, he said game developers already use positional audio, so it should work well.


Games use object based audio (sounds aren't mixed into particular channels), which is different from the positional rendering (knowing the locations of your speakers) that Atmos is capable of.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Saskadan said:


> I want to set up my speakers for the new Atmos, but I can not put them in the ceiling. I currently have a 7.1 config, but after seeing some of the Atmos configs that use front speakers to "spray" the sound upward towards the ceiling, I was wondering the possibilities of putting two speakers on the front but placing them high & wide. Would this work?


If they are within the specified angles, it should work.


----------



## ambesolman

chi_guy50 said:


> Mounting them horizontally is definitely an option (just make sure to orient them appropriately for L/R). I considered doing so myself for aesthetic purposes but then changed my mind (see below).



Any chance that big glass piece on top of your entertainment center was made by Goldhagen?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## LowellG

sdurani said:


> Games use object based audio (sounds aren't mixed into particular channels), which is different from the positional rendering (knowing the locations of your speakers) that Atmos is capable of.



Sorry, I used the wrong word, it was object based.


----------



## Saskadan

aaranddeeman said:


> If they are within the specified angles, it should work.


Thank you for the reply. Where can I find the info on the angles & set up?


----------



## chi_guy50

ambesolman said:


> Any chance that big glass piece on top of your entertainment center was made by Goldhagen?


No, it's by Darren Goodman of Ohio. Glass art happens to be one of my interests; the piece on the right FW speaker is by Frank Englesby and the small macchia in the lighted plexiglass display case on the table to the right of the RF speaker is by Dale Chihuly.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Hey Al, when do you expect to have the system up and running? Will you run the four ceiling TF/TR speakers first and then add the middles later ? I know you intend to install all 6 ceiling now but none of the receivers out there are equipped to run 6 ceiling Atmos speakers as I understand.



Unfortunately it will be awhile yet, estimate at least 6 months, construction has yet to begin on the room.  See addition comments to follow.


As for the ceiling speakers, last night I scored another pair on eBay, so I will be installing 3 pairs from the beginning. As you say nothing drives all 6 just yet, but I have more then just my fingers crossed that the next generation of AVR will have a couple of manufacturers giving us support (at least actively processed pre-outs) for a 9.1.6 system. So part of the reason for the delay in implementation is that I am waiting for the right pre-pro or AVR to be released (affordable, not $15k+), I can't justify a Atmos AVR today when I know I want more next year.


----------



## Nightlord

chi_guy50 said:


> No, it's by Darren Goodman of Ohio. Glass art happens to be one of my interests


Any Swedish art glass? We have quite the tradition of it here.


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Unfortunately it will be awhile yet, estimate at least 6 months, construction has yet to begin on the room.  See addition comments to follow.
> 
> 
> As for the ceiling speakers, last night I scored another pair on eBay, so I will be installing 3 pairs from the beginning. As you say nothing drives all 6 just yet, but I have more then just my fingers crossed that the next generation of AVR will have a couple of manufacturers giving us support (at least actively processed pre-outs) for a 9.1.6 system. So part of the reason for the delay in implementation is that I am waiting for the right pre-pro or AVR to be released (affordable, not $15k+), I can't justify a Atmos AVR today when I know I want more next year.



Well, on the up side you still have time to install the speakers and wait for the newest AVR. I finished my HT in the spring and had no idea Atmos was coming. If I had paid more attention I may have been able to install the ceiling speakers before the gyproc when on. 


I believe I will buy the Denon AVR X4100 now and run 5.1.4 using modules for the front and switching my rear ceiling speakers to rear atmos . I'll be eliminating the rears but I expect the Atmos will fill in the missing signal and it will not be missed too much. When the 6 channel receivers show up in the spring ( fingers crossed) I'll upgrade and add the additional speakers as
necessary . Maybe I'll be happy enough with 5.1.4, who knows. The receivers in the spring should also be HDCP 2.2 compliant by then as well . By going 5.1.4 I will not have to add speakers
in the ceiling or pull any wires, I'll just plug in the new receiver , the front modules only and play with the setup to see how it works as is . Anyway, that's the plan for now .


----------



## chi_guy50

Nightlord said:


> Any Swedish art glass? We have quite the tradition of it here.


I have nothing of Swedish origin; it's mostly American (I like to support local artists when possible). But I do have a Finnish art glass vase sitting over one of the dining room speakers.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting, but considering Dolby's latest diagrams for Atmos, they never mention FH or RH, so curious why use those designations, aren't they DTS Neo X designations?
> 
> 
> For example and only going to 6 overhead speakers, as I do not have the names for more Dolby speakers:
> 
> 
> 2 (e.g. *TM* for max. 1 row)
> 7.1 (incl. rears) .4 (e.g. *TF/TR* for max. 2 rows)
> 9.1 (incl. wides) .6 (e.g. *TF/TM/TR* for max. 3 rows)





maikeldepotter said:


> Dolby does mention Front Heights and Rear Heights in their Guidelines (page 34 and 35). FH and RH are referring to those positions.
> 
> 
> My height designations are merely examples, choices led by trying to put height speakers above corresponding surrounds as seen/heard form MLP. Yours are equally right and in fact better in line with Dolby's 'one row' paradigm.


 
Thanks for pointing out the reference to the front/rear heights, *I stand corrected*, there is a lot of important information in that section!


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> There are other considerations of course, such as aesthetics, size, maneuverability, sturdiness of construction, method of surface attachment, included hardware, et al. But, first and foremost, you'll want to ensure that the connections are compatible with your speakers. Most, but not all, mounts designed for satellite speakers (such as both the ProMount90 and the Omnimount-10 mentioned above) have a standard 1/4”-20 thread shaft (this is one instance where the size of the shaft does matter ); the speakers you choose may offer a variety of connections, but if a threaded receptacle is among these you will want to ensure that it matches the thread size in the mounts you get.


Thank you for your help 

Speaking about that "Ground Speaker" config, funny enough a friend of mines friend actually dug out some spots for four of them and put reinforced glass to go over them with holes drilled through for sound lol, he said it actually works pretty well with upmixers for more immersion lol.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Saskadan said:


> Thank you for the reply. Where can I find the info on the angles & set up?


There you go.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## ThePrisoner

Installed a pair of Yamaha NS-AW190BL on my ceiling as TM. Now just waiting on my Audiosource Amp 100. Disconnected my FH so I could hear TM and they sound great, really improved from just running FH. Anxiously waiting to hear all 4 height speakers fired up!


----------



## HT-Eman

ThePrisoner said:


> Installed a pair of Yamaha NS-AW190BL on my ceiling as TM. Now just waiting on my Audiosource Amp 100. Disconnected my FH so I could hear TM and they sound great, really improved from just running FH. Anxiously waiting to hear all 4 height speakers fired up!


Using 4 Yamaha aw390 for my atmos on ceiling speakers as well. Just waiting to see which and what receiver to buy . I'm going to hold out until spring of 2015 to see if a 9.1.4 receiver comes out.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I went to see Exodus in Atmos tonight... *yawn* by far the most boring Atmos mix I've heard. I understand that biblical era ambient sounds probably don't provide as many opportunities to utilize immersive sound... but there was a lot of god moments that went to complete waste. There was a scene with rainfall & hail... it did not sound as if the rain was coming from overhead as it did with "into the storm". The most immersive part was a scene with seagulls flying above a beach... that sounded very good & 3D, but it was the only part of the film that impressed me. IMO avoid this one.


----------



## Gurba

Nightlord said:


> Any Swedish art glass? We have quite the tradition of it here.


My mothers uncle live in Emmaboda. He used to ba a glass blower. Don't know if it was art though.


----------



## kbarnes701

*Review of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 as seen at Dolby Labs London HQ.*

This review can now be seen *here*.


----------



## ss9001

Once again, an excellent write-up, Keith! Thanks!

I will *finally* be starting work on my own Atmos setup soon. Speakers 1st. Will be joining Team Atmos in next few months if things go as hoped.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Once again, an excellent write-up, Keith! Thanks!
> 
> I will *finally* be starting work on my own Atmos setup soon. Speakers 1st. Will be joining Team Atmos in next few months if things go as hoped.


Thanks buddy. Glad to hear things are moving along.


----------



## randyk47

Keith - Thanks for sharing your experience. For me I think the salient point is "........Atmos helps create an almost physical sense of size and space in different types of locations. All in all, Atmos is adding an additional layer of 'realism' to the movie, through the medium of sound." Lacking a lot of Atmos sources at this time I find your statement to work for DSU. I am looking forward to more Atmos mixes but quite content right now to enjoy both TV and Blu-rays with the expanded sound stage DSU provides.


----------



## sdurani

Thanx for the detailed write-up Keith; felt like I was there.


----------



## Wookii

Nice write up Keith! Did Dolby disclose whether or not we will see this as an Atmos mix on blu-ray at all?


----------



## WayneJoy

This is a Lionsgate film and they have been very supportive of Atmos so far. I would expect an Atmos release.


----------



## Kris Deering

It's too bad that they didn't do some type of A/B with a specific scene to show the benefits of Atmos. While I have absolutely NO doubt at all that it sounded wonderful in that system, how are you to know how much Atmos actually enhanced the soundtrack if you have no comparison to the system playing without Atmos content? You already had a similar situation when you first installed your system with TF4 when you thought you were getting all types of new information and then found out that there was little happening in your overhead channels when you turned them off. A state of the art sound system (which I imagine this theater you went to had) has the ability to render all kinds of discrete effects even without Atmos. Don't think that I'm saying Atmos wasn't great, it could have been all the reason it sounded as good as it did to you, only that it is hard to say what is or isn't great about a demonstration if there is no basis for comparison. I'll bet it was a blast though!


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> Keith - Thanks for sharing your experience. For me I think the salient point is "........Atmos helps create an almost physical sense of size and space in different types of locations. All in all, Atmos is adding an additional layer of 'realism' to the movie, through the medium of sound." Lacking a lot of Atmos sources at this time I find your statement to work for DSU. I am looking forward to more Atmos mixes but quite contend right now to enjoy both TV and Blu-rays with the expanded sound stage DSU provides.


Yes - agreed. With the three Atmos mixes I now have on Bluray, the thing that really impresses me is the precision with which sounds are placed in the room. I also find that this helps the speakers to disappear totally and all I hear are sounds in the room, as it should be. My speakers have never made their presence especially felt but Atmos enhances this disappearing act significantly. I still marvel at DSU despite now having watched dozens of movies with it. Last night I watched *Lone Survivor* again - the first time since I installed Atmos/DSU I believe and I was just blown away by how this already terrific soundtrack was presented in my room when played via DSU. By the nature of the movie, there are numerous scenes with aircraft flying overhead and the way these sounds came from the overhead speakers was uncanny. I only spotted one occasion when the sound did not match the picture and this was with a shot of a helicopter seen from above. All of the others couldn't have been better if they had been in true Atmos. And in the various firefights on the mountain, well, let's just say I was ducking for cover most of the time!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Thanx for the detailed write-up Keith; felt like I was there.


Thanks Sanjay. It will be interesting to read those notes back when I get the movie on Bluray (assuming it is released) and see how the home experience matches up.



Wookii said:


> Nice write up Keith! Did Dolby disclose whether or not we will see this as an Atmos mix on blu-ray at all?


Thanks Wookii. No - they never answer questions like that, or never have when I have been there. They always say the same thing: content is a matter for the content creators. But I am hopeful that this will be an Atmos release as the timescale is more in favor, given the date of the theatrical release. Hope so anyway. Part 2 should be even more exciting as much of the action seems to have been held back for that sequel.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> It's too bad that they didn't do some type of A/B with a specific scene to show the benefits of Atmos. While I have absolutely NO doubt at all that it sounded wonderful in that system, how are you to know how much Atmos actually enhanced the soundtrack if you have no comparison to the system playing without Atmos content? You already had a similar situation when you first installed your system with TF4 when you thought you were getting all types of new information and then found out that there was little happening in your overhead channels when you turned them off. A state of the art sound system (which I imagine this theater you went to had) has the ability to render all kinds of discrete effects even without Atmos. Don't think that I'm saying Atmos wasn't great, it could have been all the reason it sounded as good as it did to you, only that it is hard to say what is or isn't great about a demonstration if there is no basis for comparison. I'll bet it was a blast though!


No way of knowing how it would have sounded in vanilla 7.1 of course. All I could do was report on what I heard. The movie isn’t the best soundtrack I have ever heard on a movie, by any means. But it was very, very good and it was an Atmos mix. How those two things align with each other, no idea unfortunately. TBH the content of the movie wasn't the best demo for Atmos anyway - the first 20-25 minutes were almost entirely dialogue for example. That's why in my report I only comment on a relatively few scenes as being significant from the Atmos POV. If, for example, I'd been reviewing* Expendables 3*, the review would have been three times as long! 



Kris Deering said:


> A state of the art sound system (which I imagine this theater you went to had) has the ability to render all kinds of discrete effects even without Atmos.


Sure - but I am guessing that Dolby didn't install all those overhead speakers, additional surrounds, additional subwoofers, with all their associated electonics just for there to be no difference at the end of it


----------



## Kris Deering

I hear you. I saw this one at the DBX theater in Honolulu which is an Atmos theater. I sat in the sweet spot as well. I thought the mix was decent, but nothing to write home about. I didn't really hear anything that I thought made it sound like it would be a different experience in a non-Atmos theater, but again, no way to do direct comparisons.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> I have been undergoing surgery on my jaw and this has been a distraction.


Surgery on your jaw ?
Think you have been talking to much, guess we will see also surgery on your fingers soon........  LOL


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Surgery on your jaw ?
> Think you have been talking to much, guess we will see also surgery on your fingers soon........  LOL


LOL! I freakin' hope not!


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I hear you. I saw this one at the DBX theater in Honolulu which is an Atmos theater. I sat in the sweet spot as well. I thought the mix was decent, but nothing to write home about. I didn't really hear anything that I thought made it sound like it would be a different experience in a non-Atmos theater, but again, no way to do direct comparisons.


Did you not think those aircraft flyovers and especially the vertical take off from the left side of the screen (two separate occasions) could not have been possible without the overhead speakers? And the bit where the ceiling cracks?

But for me, Atmos is as much about the precision of image placement in the room as anything else. I am hearing this on every Atmos movie I have seen so far._* Dawn of the Planet of the Apes*_ was a good example of that as well.


----------



## thebland

kbarnes701 said:


> As DTS are coming so late to the game, they'd be mad not to allow the use of Atmos speaker positions IMO. By the time DTS get their game on, Atmos will be pretty well established and it makes total sense then for DTS to latch on to the Atmos speaker locations. To do otherwise would be sure to inhibit take-up of their system. But we'll just have to wait and see...


Atmos will be pretty well established? Lets not forget how small of a niche we are. Only a small percent of enthusiasts have 7.1 (vs 5.1).Adding even more makes this ultra-niche!!.. and the fact that 80% of our Blu Ray collections are DTS vs TRUE HD, makes DTS in the driver's seat!

DTS has carte blanche and will do what is best for them. Dolby may be the AURO when the leviathan DTS makes its presence known. I'd move my speakers around to suit DTS vs ATMOS if there was the potential of a format war..


----------



## Kris Deering

Dawn had some exceptional overhead use when I saw it in Atmos in theaters. But when I play the same movie at home I get nearly the exact same sensation as I did then (going from memory obviously). I get a very detailed soundstage that sounds like it is around and above me with obvious cues coming from directly overhead (I get the same thing with most of the Atmos trailers on the demo disc too). Obviously I cannot do A/B comparisons on any of this so I have to go from memory of what I heard in theaters to what I hear at home, which is a weak comparison at best I admit. The best comparison will be if and when I install an Atmos system in my room. I am hoping to have the opportunity some time this next year. The 8802 may be the first opportunity but I don't want to rush anything, the install has to be the right components.


----------



## Kris Deering

thebland said:


> Atmos will be pretty well established? Lets not forget how small of a niche we are. Only a small percent of enthusiasts have 7.1 (vs 5.1).Adding even more makes this ultra-niche!!.. and the fact that 80% of our Blu Ray collections are DTS vs TRUE HD, makes DTS in the driver's seat!
> 
> DTS has carte blanche and will do what is best for them. Dolby may be the AURO when the leviathan DTS makes its presence known. I'd move my speakers around to suit DTS vs ATMOS if there was the potential of a format war..


I agree that saying Atmos will be well established and preventing others from stealing their piece of the pie is a bit pre-emptive. Atmos is doing a good job of getting out there but there is still a massive void of software and probably will be for quite sometime. Plus when does anything in the AV world when it comes to this stuff make sense. When DTS finally made its way to DVD there was already a TON of Dolby titles and you needed not only a new DVD player but also a new receiver yet we see how that turned out. It is way to early to call this one yet but Dolby is making good strides so far and clearly has the advantage.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL! I freakin' hope not!


Keith... sorry I know this is unrelated. I'm redoing my calibration because the 44-DA modules are being shipped here at some point today  I think I remember you saying not to set the crossovers below 80... though my speakers can handle 40 pretty well. What is the reason for setting the crossover to 80? I think you said to allow the sub to "do it's thing" but I'd imagine Atmos allows for some cool rear bass action. If I'm not mistaken I actually heard bass placement on Expendables 3 (like a big bass-y boom just a foot or two behind on the right kind of thing). If I remember right the X5200 set my Front L/R and rear L/R speakers at 40 anyway during calibration... because I think it also set different crossovers for my fake height speakers way up to 180 for my smallest speakers (haha). 
I did remember to set the large speakers to "small".


----------



## Aras_Volodka

(By "placement" I think I meant object based bass sounds if I'm understanding the terminology correctly)


----------



## kbarnes701

thebland said:


> Atmos will be pretty well established? Lets not forget how small of a niche we are. Only a small percent of enthusiasts have 7.1 (vs 5.1).Adding even more makes this ultra-niche!!..


Yes, 5.1 and 7.1 are very small niches. Most people use their TV speakers or a soundbar. That doesn’t seem to have had much influence on DVD or Bluray production in the past, where virtually 100% of discs carry a 5.1 track. On your logic, they'd never have made it past 2.0 if the market share was the deciding factor.




thebland said:


> ...and the fact that 80% of our Blu Ray collections are DTS vs TRUE HD, makes DTS in the driver's seat!


Not so at all. DTS have the majority of Blurays for one reason: their workflow is quicker, easier and therefore cheaper than TrueHD was. That is no longer the case with Atmos making your observation entirely irrelevant to any prognostication of future encoding methods take-up.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Dawn had some exceptional overhead use when I saw it in Atmos in theaters. But when I play the same movie at home I get nearly the exact same sensation as I did then (going from memory obviously). I get a very detailed soundstage that sounds like it is around and above me with obvious cues coming from directly overhead (I get the same thing with most of the Atmos trailers on the demo disc too). Obviously I cannot do A/B comparisons on any of this so I have to go from memory of what I heard in theaters to what I hear at home, which is a weak comparison at best I admit. The best comparison will be if and when I install an Atmos system in my room. I am hoping to have the opportunity some time this next year. The 8802 may be the first opportunity but I don't want to rush anything, the install has to be the right components.


That's odd because when I play the Atmos trailers in Atmos and then play them again in straight 5.1 (sending PCM from the player), I hear a pretty significant difference here. Mostly it's to do with this 'precision of placement' that I keep banging on about.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Nalleh said:


> Another Blu-Ray with Atmos: EXODUS GODS AND KINGS
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


Man that movie has literally been out 3 days and they are already talking bluray? I would avoid that one... the atmos mix was very subtle except for a scene with seagulls. If the 12 bucks or whatever is worth it for you to hear seagulls then I won't try to talk you out of it. But I'd say just drive to the nearest vacant parking lot (haha). 

If hunger games gets an Atmos bluray release that would be a great way to test height speakers... there was some height stuff going on there with the dropship taking off in a few scenes.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> That's odd because when I play the Atmos trailers in Atmos and then play them again in straight 5.1 (sending PCM from the player), I hear a pretty significant difference here. Mostly it's to do with this 'precision of placement' that I keep banging on about.


I get amazing precision of placement in my theater with discrete renders all around. But again, I can't do an A/B comparison yet so it is hard to know just how much better Atmos could or couldn't be compared to what I have now. I look forward to the comparison though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Keith... sorry I know this is unrelated. I'm redoing my calibration because the 44-DA modules are being shipped here at some point today  I think I remember you saying not to set the crossovers below 80... though my speakers can handle 40 pretty well. What is the reason for setting the crossover to 80? I think you said to allow the sub to "do it's thing" but I'd imagine Atmos allows for some cool rear bass action. If I'm not mistaken I actually heard bass placement on Expendables 3 (like a big bass-y boom just a foot or two behind on the right kind of thing). If I remember right the X5200 set my Front L/R and rear L/R speakers at 40 anyway during calibration... because I think it also set different crossovers for my fake height speakers way up to 180 for my smallest speakers (haha).
> I did remember to set the large speakers to "small".


There is no reason not to set the XO at 40Hz if you are confident that your speakers can play as loud as you require at that frequency (and below it, accounting for the slope of the XO filter). But equally, if you have a good subwoofer, there is no real reason to do that. If you set the XO at 80hz you will be allowing your sub to do its work - the work for which it was specifically designed. You will also be relieving your speakers and your AVR amp from doing the heavy lifting that has been passed on to the subwoofer, and this can only be beneficial. By allowing the speakers and amp an 'easier ride' they are less likely to struggle, less likely to be pushed into distortion and so on. Remember that it takes huge amounts of power to reproduce low bass at the very high SPLs movies often demand.

In a bass-managed system deep bass will still be coming from any content sent to the surrounds - it will just come from the subwoofer. As bass is not localizable below 80Hz, then it will sound as if it has come from the surround speaker anyway, simply because a) you cannot localise bass below 80Hz and b) the harmonics of the bass notes will still play through the surround speakers, aiding the illusion that all of the bass sound comes from that location.

So yes, I can never see, in a bass managed system with a competent sub, why anyone would want to cross over at below 80hz. In fact, I am crossing at 100Hz despite having excellent speakers, just because I know nothing will handle bass better than a pair of Submersives with 6,000 watts of amplification between them. (Well, maybe 4 Submersives!)


----------



## ultraflexed

For anyone here with a onkyo reciever atmos enabled. 
Does your Dolby atmos emblem ever light up, I only see the dolbylogo on mine light up in red but never the "dolby atmos" emblem?


----------



## CBdicX

ultraflexed said:


> For anyone here with a onkyo reciever atmos enabled.
> Does your Dolby atmos emblem ever light up, I only see the dolbylogo on mine light up in red but never the "dolby atmos" emblem?


 
I have an Integra and the Atmos light will light up ( a light bleu light) and the display will say Dolby Atmos on Atmos content. When its not, the Atmos light wil stay off and the display will say Dolby Surround and the Dolby logo will be red.


----------



## noah katz

Kris Deering said:


> Dawn had some exceptional overhead use when I saw it in Atmos in theaters. But when I play the same movie at home I get nearly the exact same sensation as I did then (going from memory obviously). I get a very detailed soundstage that sounds like it is around and above me with obvious cues coming from directly overhead (I get the same thing with most of the Atmos trailers on the demo disc too)...


How high are your surrounds?

If high, is it possible that everything is reproduced with that height but your ear/brain is selectively filtering so that things that aren't supposed to be high are therefore not perceived as such?


----------



## bargervais

ultraflexed said:


> For anyone here with a onkyo reciever atmos enabled.
> Does your Dolby atmos emblem ever light up, I only see the dolbylogo on mine light up in red but never the "dolby atmos" emblem?


I'll have to check but my TX-NR 1030 when I'm playing a Dolby Atmos mix it clearly states atmos... two lines of text are displayed first line displays my input source.. second line displays listening mode if it's Dolby Surround or Atmos or what ever mode I'm in...


----------



## Kris Deering

My surrounds are at about 6 ft. I could measure them when I get home. I have the Phantom HD speakers from Legacy Audio. It uses a ribbon tweeter that is low on the front baffle and angles down at the listening position. Not sure how much distance there is between my seated ear position and the tweeter but I placed them on the wall so that if you drew a perfect line from the tweeter it would arrive right at my ear in the seated position. 










I get VERY good discrete imaging and rear phantom images (these can put a persons dialogue directly behind your so well you'd swear there was a speaker there). But one thing I notice is the nice fill with these speakers along the side walls and to the mains. Yes the surround soundstage does sound slightly elevated, but that has always been the case with every surround I've owned that is mounted to a wall. That was the norm until Dolby said recently it shouldn't be (which is a bit convenient given that they are trying to sell overheads now).


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Part 2 should be even more exciting as much of the action seems to have been held back for that sequel.


Seems to be the latest trend in Hollywood: split the last chapter/book into 2 parts. Seems the Twilight series started it, followed by Harry Potter, Hunger Games, even the third Avengers movie has been slated as Part 1 and Part 2. I thought the worst offender was splitting the Hobbit into three movies. Sooo much padding.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> In a bass-managed system deep bass will still be coming from any content sent to the surrounds - it will just come from the subwoofer. As bass is not localizable below 80Hz, then it will sound as if it has come from the surround speaker anyway, simply because a) you cannot localise bass below 80Hz and b) the harmonics of the bass notes will still play through the surround speakers, aiding the illusion that all of the bass sound comes from that location.


That makes a lot of sense, especially for my room which is small. I'm not sure how long a 40 hz wavelength is but I can see why it wouldn't be localizable. I'll try out Expendables 3 again tonight to test out the Atlantic Techs... but I'll also listen for that bass with 80 or maybe 100 to see if I can hear a difference. So raising the crossover might actually cut down on the power bills a bit? haha.


----------



## Selden Ball

ultraflexed said:


> For anyone here with a onkyo reciever atmos enabled.
> Does your Dolby atmos emblem ever light up, I only see the dolbylogo on mine light up in red but never the "dolby atmos" emblem?


Your symptoms are consistent with your BD player putting out LPCM instead of Dollby TrueHD.

Check to make sure that your blu-ray player has both bitstream enabled and secondary audio mix disabled. The latter setting forces decoding into LPCM so the player can mix two soundtracks together.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Seems to be the latest trend in Hollywood: split the last chapter/book into 2 parts. Seems the Twilight series started it, followed by Harry Potter, Hunger Games, even the third Avengers movie has been slated as Part 1 and Part 2. I thought the worst offender was splitting the Hobbit into three movies. Sooo much padding.


I don't mind it for films like the Avengers since it is a movie property that isn't being based on a book, if they need two movies that is fine. We saw the same thing with Kill Bill or even the last two Matrix films. But splitting a book that can easily be made in one shot into two (or three) movies is a bit much. The last Harry Potter film was pretty dense so I didn't mind that one. I'm actually pretty happy with those adaptations as a whole. I never saw Twilight so can't comment there. I read the Hunger Games books a few years ago and don't remember any reason to split the last book up. It wasn't unusually long. Are they doing the same thing with Divergent??


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Seems to be the latest trend in Hollywood: split the last chapter/book into 2 parts. Seems the Twilight series started it, followed by Harry Potter, Hunger Games, even the third Avengers movie has been slated as Part 1 and Part 2. I thought the worst offender was splitting the Hobbit into three movies. Sooo much padding.


I wouldn't have minded 3 Hobbit films if Jackson actually captured the flavor of the books. It's a real shame because the Hobbit films contain some very fantastic work. But I think even with the first LOTR Jackson had already begun to lose his way a tad. Whatever happened to the guy that made "bad taste" & "dead alive"? I want that guy back! 
I don't know if any director could really handle that work properly though... maybe if the same team that did the first Harry Potter did the Hobbit they'd beable to handle it... because they sure nailed it with the first Potter. 

I don't mind the trend of splitting films though, I think splitting Harry Potter into 2 parts lent itself very well towards that book... I really think they should have done that with every book to be honest... a lot of great scenes were skipped.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> I apologise for the late presentation of this short review. In mitigation, I have been undergoing surgery on my jaw and this has been a distraction.


Keith,

Thanks for taking the time to write up your well written review.

Good luck with your jaw surgery. Hope you have a fast and pain free recovery.

On a side note, you might want to have surgery on your left ear to match your right ear. [j/k]


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Roger Dressler said:


> Understood. But it's a worthy question. In a different scenario, I feel DSU adds brightness to the rear and height outputs. Especially when upmixing 2-ch music, but I sense some of that to a lesser extent when upmixing 5.1 movies. Brightness can be described as harshness.
> 
> When upmixing 5.1 to 7.1, all 4 surround outputs are processed, so all may be contributing to the flyby harshness -- certainly the sides. If none is heard with 7.1 content, then one might suspect the upmixer. If killing the rears eliminates the harshness, then one might suspect the rear speakers are bright.
> 
> If the rears do not sound harsh with DSU, then indeed maybe the Klipsch are bright and perhaps the sides are most audible because they fire more directly down the ear canals than any others in the room.  Have you tried >Setup>Audio>Surround Parameter>Cinema EQ?


Is Cinema EQ recommended? I'm wondering if it messes with the calibration? I just re-read the playback segment of the X5200 manual, I believe it recommends using the DTS-HD playback for my disc which is DTS-HD 6.1. Should I use that instead of the "Dolby Surround"? Something tells me no since that would defeat the purpose of having DSU in the first place. I will double check this but I actually tested that last night, switching between the two different modes. I could be mistaken but the DTS HD did seem to sound more "full" or beefy than surround, but it's very hard to determine that with waiting for the AVR to switch/ repeating the scene. Maybe what I can do is actually record the surround sound playback with a good microphone & compare the sounds, unless if someone could verify that what I'm hearing in DTS HD is superior to surround mode. 

The Star Wars disc I used last night was the phantom menace... the part where the droid army lands on Naboo there is a robot that flies by on a hovercraft... that is a painful sound @ the volume I like to listen to... I tried that with both modes, no difference in that regard. Maybe before I run my calibration I'll try that again with cinema EQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I get VERY good discrete imaging and rear phantom images (these can put a persons dialogue directly behind your so well you'd swear there was a speaker there). But one thing I notice is the nice fill with these speakers along the side walls and to the mains. Yes the surround soundstage does sound slightly elevated, but that has always been the case with every surround I've owned that is mounted to a wall. That was the norm until Dolby said recently it shouldn't be (which is a bit convenient given that they are trying to sell overheads now).


It's not so much 'convenient' as no longer being necessary to place surround speakers high up in an attempt to create the impression of height that you hear. Now we have physical height speakers up there to do that task, the surrounds can be deployed to do what their name implies: to surround us with sound - that is to place sound all _around _us.

This separation between the listener level sound and the overhead sound can only be fully realised with physical speakers in the right places. Sure you can get an approximation by deploying surrounds mounted up high, but it will never be as good as the real thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Seems to be the latest trend in Hollywood: split the last chapter/book into 2 parts. Seems the Twilight series started it, followed by Harry Potter, Hunger Games, even the third Avengers movie has been slated as Part 1 and Part 2. I thought the worst offender was splitting the Hobbit into three movies. Sooo much padding.


Yes, agreed. It is the sort of naked commercialism that I normally applaud, but in these cases, not so much


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> That makes a lot of sense, especially for my room which is small. I'm not sure how long a 40 hz wavelength is but I can see why it wouldn't be localizable. I'll try out Expendables 3 again tonight to test out the Atlantic Techs... but I'll also listen for that bass with 80 or maybe 100 to see if I can hear a difference. So raising the crossover might actually cut down on the power bills a bit? haha.


The main thing it will do is relieve the other speakers and the amps from strain. This won't probably be noticeable in 'normal' listening, but may be noticeable on peaks if you listen at serious levels. And even if you don't hear it, the relief is still being given. As I say, I can't think of one good reason to run the XO lower than 80, assuming proper bass management and good subs.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to write up your well written review.


And thank you for saying thanks! 



kokishin said:


> Good luck with your jaw surgery. Hope you have a fast and pain free recovery.


Thanks again. My bottom jaw is pretty much fixed. Next year they start the top jaw. I am gradually being made bionic 



kokishin said:


> On a side note, you might want to have surgery on your left ear to match your right ear. [j/k]


LOL. It's amazing how many people seem to think I look like my avatar. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.



Spoiler



*Both* my ears are that size!


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is Cinema EQ recommended? I'm wondering if it messes with the calibration? I just re-read the playback segment of the X5200 manual, I believe it recommends using the DTS-HD playback for my disc which is DTS-HD 6.1. Should I use that instead of the "Dolby Surround"? Something tells me no since that would defeat the purpose of having DSU in the first place. I will double check this but I actually tested that last night, switching between the two different modes. I could be mistaken but the DTS HD did seem to sound more "full" or beefy than surround, but it's very hard to determine that with waiting for the AVR to switch/ repeating the scene. Maybe what I can do is actually record the surround sound playback with a good microphone & compare the sounds, unless if someone could verify that what I'm hearing in DTS HD is superior to surround mode.
> 
> The Star Wars disc I used last night was the phantom menace... the part where the droid army lands on Naboo there is a robot that flies by on a hovercraft... that is a painful sound @ the volume I like to listen to... I tried that with both modes, no difference in that regard. Maybe before I run my calibration I'll try that again with cinema EQ.


Remind us again what speakers you use, what their sensitivity and power handling is and what amplification you use, along with the distance you sit from the speakers, and the level you generally listen at.

Nothing should ever sound 'painful' so it implies a setup issue.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kris Deering said:


> I hear you. I saw this one at the DBX theater in Honolulu which is an Atmos theater. I sat in the sweet spot as well. I thought the mix was decent, but nothing to write home about. I didn't really hear anything that I thought made it sound like it would be a different experience in a non-Atmos theater, but again, no way to do direct comparisons.


I've had the same experience @ theaters in my area as well... unfortunately for whatever reason theaters that install Atmos systems don't utilize them... maybe they didn't wire the ceiling speakers in or they don't know how to use the receiver to set it up for Atmos? 

There are two theaters in my area that did it right, & three that did it wrong. The Regal RPX's setup their theaters properly... the Marcus theaters Ultrascreen DLX didn't... hope that helps if you can locate another theater in your area to test Atmos out with. 

I can vouch for Keith on this one... that dropship taking off sounds amazing, you definitely would have noticed the height / difference from flat sound dimension. I'm almost certain your theater f-ed up the Atmos playback.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Remind us again what speakers you use, what their sensitivity and power handling is and what amplification you use, along with the distance you sit from the speakers, and the level you generally listen at.
> 
> Nothing should ever sound 'painful' so it implies a setup issue.


I'm very close to my surrounds (The surrounds are slightly more than a meter away from me on either side)... I'm not sure if there is a way around that as my room is very narrow. For the most part it's fine... just every once in a while if I'm watching a film with something like a super loud Jet or Star Wars's Tie fighters in particular... that sound can get very harsh. for that split second as it flies by. The sound doesn't seem as harsh on Atmos discs... though it's hard to say since there's only a few discs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> There are two theaters in my area that did it right, & three that did it wrong. The Regal RPX's setup their theaters properly... the Marcus theaters Ultrascreen DLX didn't... hope that helps if you can locate another theater in your area to test Atmos out with.
> 
> I can vouch for Keith on this one... that dropship taking off sounds amazing, you definitely would have noticed the height / difference from flat sound dimension. I'm almost certain your theater f-ed up the Atmos playback.


That is certainly a possibility. Having seen the movie in Dolby's own theater I can be 100% sure that it has been set up properly for Atmos, so the experience I had was literally a 'reference experience'. I have only seen Atmos movies in one other theater - a local theater which has just built a brand new extension for their Atmos endeavor, and the sound (and picture) there is absolutely excellent. But I can well believe that many theaters get it all wrong, just as they have done in the past for 5.1 sound on many occasions.

There is no doubting that the scene you refer to makes fabulous use of the overhead speakers - it was one of only a handful of scenes that did so in that movie.


----------



## Kris Deering

Aras_Volodka said:


> I've had the same experience @ theaters in my area as well... unfortunately for whatever reason theaters that install Atmos systems don't utilize them... maybe they didn't wire the ceiling speakers in or they don't know how to use the receiver to set it up for Atmos?
> 
> There are two theaters in my area that did it right, & three that did it wrong. The Regal RPX's setup their theaters properly... the Marcus theaters Ultrascreen DLX didn't... hope that helps if you can locate another theater in your area to test Atmos out with.
> 
> I can vouch for Keith on this one... that dropship taking off sounds amazing, you definitely would have noticed the height / difference from flat sound dimension. I'm almost certain your theater f-ed up the Atmos playback.


Interesting. I had never been to that theater before, I was on travel and saw that it was playing there and in Atmos so this was my first experience with it. I live in the Seattle area so all my experience with Atmos has been in the Seattle area with quite a few options for theaters with Atmos including Regal RPX setups and AMC ETX. My next one will be at the newly reopened Cinerama for The Hobbit which will be in Atmos on a custom designed Meyer Acheron system.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> That is certainly a possibility. Having seen the movie in Dolby's own theater I can be 100% sure that it has been set up properly for Atmos, so the experience I had was literally a 'reference experience'. I have only seen Atmos movies in one other theater - a local theater which has just built a brand new extension for their Atmos endeavor, and the sound (and picture) there is absolutely excellent. But I can well believe that many theaters get it all wrong, just as they have done in the past for 5.1 sound on many occasions.
> 
> There is no doubting that the scene you refer to makes fabulous use of the overhead speakers - it was one of only a handful of scenes that did so in that movie.


I'm jealous haha... I'm pretty sure I've seen the best Atmos has to offer in Chicago, though to me the RPX theaters did it right... though a few of the speakers are blown @ the theater that's easiest for me to go to. One of the speakers is way up in the ceiling so I don't imagine they'll get to fixing it anytime soon (haha). It's a shame because the projection @ the RPX theater isn't that great, the screen is a bit dim. Both Hunger games & Exodus looked very washed out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm very close to my surrounds (The surrounds are slightly more than a meter away from me on either side)... I'm not sure if there is a way around that as my room is very narrow. For the most part it's fine... just every once in a while if I'm watching a film with something like a super loud Jet or Star Wars's Tie fighters in particular... that sound can get very harsh. for that split second as it flies by. The sound doesn't seem as harsh on Atmos discs... though it's hard to say since there's only a few discs.


Are you certain you are not overdriving your amps or speakers? You may be on the edge of clipping. Before clipping sets in with a vengeance the sound will usually go 'hard' or 'harsh'.

You also need to listen to a wider variety of discs to evaluate this - many soundtracks are pushed into clipping on some scenes, and this may therefore be inherent in the soundtrack itself and your system is simply reproducing accurately what it is being fed. The sure way to know this is to be 100% sure you are never driving your own system into clipping - then whatever you hear must be the soundtrack itself. That is why I asked you to remind us of the components of your system and how you are using them. I’d forget Atmos in this context and concentrate on being sure your system is working as intended.

I have about 1,000 Blurays - maybe we have some in common. What discs and scenes do you hear this on? If we have some in common I will try them here and see what I hear. Unfortunately I don't have either of the two you have already mentioned.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> And thank you for saying thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again. My bottom jaw is pretty much fixed. Next year they start the top jaw. I am gradually being made bionic
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. It's amazing how many people seem to think I look like my avatar. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *Both* my ears are that size!


Bionic jaw and full range ears. James Bond movie character potential.


----------



## Spanglo

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm very close to my surrounds (The surrounds are slightly more than a meter away from me on either side)... I'm not sure if there is a way around that as my room is very narrow. For the most part it's fine... just every once in a while if I'm watching a film with something like a super loud Jet or Star Wars's Tie fighters in particular... that sound can get very harsh. for that split second as it flies by. The sound doesn't seem as harsh on Atmos discs... though it's hard to say since there's only a few discs.


There is a Loudness management setting for the surrounds... try turning that off and the harshness should go away. I think it's on by default.


----------



## gammanuc

Kris Deering said:


> My surrounds are at about 6 ft. I could measure them when I get home. I have the Phantom HD speakers from Legacy Audio. It uses a ribbon tweeter that is low on the front baffle and angles down at the listening position. Not sure how much distance there is between my seated ear position and the tweeter but I placed them on the wall so that if you drew a perfect line from the tweeter it would arrive right at my ear in the seated position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get VERY good discrete imaging and rear phantom images (these can put a persons dialogue directly behind your so well you'd swear there was a speaker there). But one thing I notice is the nice fill with these speakers along the side walls and to the mains. Yes the surround soundstage does sound slightly elevated, but that has always been the case with every surround I've owned that is mounted to a wall. That was the norm until Dolby said recently it shouldn't be (which is a bit convenient given that they are trying to sell overheads now).


 I looked at the pictures of your set-up, some very nice equipment and room treatments. I can see how you have a nice soundstage! I have a set of Carver Amazing Silver speakers in my two channel system that will image above me as well as the normal soundstage with certain music. If I select the holographic button on the Electronic Speaker Control unit that came with them it will even produce sounds from behind me. But for my home theater I just have normal bookshelf speakers. Atmos with in-ceiling speakers has made an enormous improvement for me. How much Atmos will change the experience will vary for everyone I'm sure.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kris Deering said:


> Interesting. I had never been to that theater before, I was on travel and saw that it was playing there and in Atmos so this was my first experience with it. I live in the Seattle area so all my experience with Atmos has been in the Seattle area with quite a few options for theaters with Atmos including Regal RPX setups and AMC ETX. My next one will be at the newly reopened Cinerama for The Hobbit which will be in Atmos on a custom designed Meyer Acheron system.


I think the Regal RPX & AMC might be the same company, the RPX theater is at a former AMC location... perhaps they bought out some of AMC's theaters? Maybe that's why the ETX & RPX were both properly setup. 

Oh man you guys are all making me jealous... I hope Chicago will get some more Atmos theaters soon... hopefully with a better projector!


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is Cinema EQ recommended?


The Cinema EQ setting selects a low-pass filter which rolls off the highest frequencies, similar to what happens when you select Audyssey Reference. If you've selected Audyssey Reference (instead of Audyssey Flat), then when you select Cinema EQ, you've doubled the amount of high-frequency rolloff. Using Cinema EQ usually is more appropriate when you're either using Audyssey Flat or when you've disabled Audyssey entirely.



> I'm wondering if it messes with the calibration?


 It does modify the sound, but it's probably inappropriate to call that messing with the calibration. Audyssey's calibration itself is unchanged. You can turn Cinema EQ on and off again without affecting it.



> I just re-read the playback segment of the X5200 manual, I believe it recommends using the DTS-HD playback for my disc which is DTS-HD 6.1. Should I use that instead of the "Dolby Surround"?


 You seem to be confusing the soundtrack decoder with the subsequent soundtrack upmixer. DTS-HD MA is an acronym for the type of encoding that they used to record the soundtracks on the disc. Sometimes it's shortened to DTS-HD, although there are several different DTS-HD decoders. When playing a Blu-ray soundtrack, you have no choice but to use the appropriate decoder. In contrast, DTS Neo:X and Dolby Surround are soundtrack upmixers. After the soundtrack has been decoded, then (if you have more speakers than there are channels recorded on the disc) you can select one of the upmixers to cause sound to come from most or all of your additional speakers.



> Something tells me no since that would defeat the purpose of having DSU in the first place. I will double check this but I actually tested that last night, switching between the two different modes. I could be mistaken but the DTS HD did seem to sound more "full" or beefy than surround, but it's very hard to determine that with waiting for the AVR to switch/ repeating the scene. Maybe what I can do is actually record the surround sound playback with a good microphone & compare the sounds, unless if someone could verify that what I'm hearing in DTS HD is superior to surround mode.


 When you select DTS HD, it explicitly disables the separate upmixers, so you shouldn't hear anything from the overhead speakers. However, many versions of the DTS-HD MA decoder include their own upmixer, so that if you play a DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack on a 7.1 system with Rear Surround speakers, the decoder will automatically expand the audio to use the rear speakers. Some people object to that. i haven't tested that feature on my SR7009, though, so I don't know if that's the type of decoder that D+M provides. (I use DSU for everything.)



> The Star Wars disc I used last night was the phantom menace... the part where the droid army lands on Naboo there is a robot that flies by on a hovercraft... that is a painful sound @ the volume I like to listen to... I tried that with both modes, no difference in that regard. Maybe before I run my calibration I'll try that again with cinema EQ.


If your speakers sound shrill, then Cinema EQ would reduce that. However, a successful Audyssey calibration should tame them, too. 

If you haven't already, please take the time to read through the Audyssey 101 and FAQ. It discusses this and incudes many other recommendations to help get a good calibration. The instructions in the owners' manuals are woefully inadequate.


----------



## clipper57

Aras_Volodka said:


> Keith... sorry I know this is unrelated. I'm redoing my calibration because the 44-DA modules are being shipped here at some point today  I think I remember you saying not to set the crossovers below 80... though my speakers can handle 40 pretty well. What is the reason for setting the crossover to 80? I think you said to allow the sub to "do it's thing" but I'd imagine Atmos allows for some cool rear bass action. If I'm not mistaken I actually heard bass placement on Expendables 3 (like a big bass-y boom just a foot or two behind on the right kind of thing). If I remember right the X5200 set my Front L/R and rear L/R speakers at 40 anyway during calibration... because I think it also set different crossovers for my fake height speakers way up to 180 for my smallest speakers (haha).
> I did remember to set the large speakers to "small".


aras let us know what you think of the atlantic tech modules .mine are scheduled for delivery thursday.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Are you certain you are not overdriving your amps or speakers? You may be on the edge of clipping. Before clipping sets in with a vengeance the sound will usually go 'hard' or 'harsh'.
> 
> You also need to listen to a wider variety of discs to evaluate this - many soundtracks are pushed into clipping on some scenes, and this may therefore be inherent in the soundtrack itself and your system is simply reproducing accurately what it is being fed. The sure way to know this is to be 100% sure you are never driving your own system into clipping - then whatever you hear must be the soundtrack itself. That is why I asked you to remind us of the components of your system and how you are using them. I’d forget Atmos in this context and concentrate on being sure your system is working as intended.
> 
> I have about 1,000 Blurays - maybe we have some in common. What discs and scenes do you hear this on? If we have some in common I will try them here and see what I hear. Unfortunately I don't have either of the two you have already mentioned.


My surrounds are plugged directly into the receiver, I don't have any outboard preamps hooked up except for the AMP100 on my rear heights. Is there anything I could have done to make the surrounds distort? There is one scene in Return of the Jedi that distorts (the alarm sounding on the left surround speaker when Darth Vader's shuttle is landing @ the start of the film, but that isn't very loud... I actually think whatever sound sample they used was actually distorted itself... not my speaker). 

I will try to be mindful of remembering harsh scenes from now on & I'll let you know, it's actually pretty rare. It's actually seems to be specific to Star Wars... if I could determine whoever mixed that I might have other titles mixed by the same engineer... I have about 150 bluray titles so maybe I can check. I'll try to watch some more action flicks with fast planes flying by  
Thanks for the offer & good luck with your surgery.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

clipper57 said:


> aras let us know what you think of the atlantic tech modules .mine are scheduled for delivery thursday.


Will do! I've spent a lot of time with my fake atmos speakers so if there's a difference I'll know it... I've made myself painfully familiar with the Atmos demo disc (haha). I'll write about it the instant that I rerun the calibration & get the Atmos disc playing


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> You seem to be confusing the soundtrack decoder with the subsequent soundtrack upmixer. DTS-HD MA is an acronym for the type of encoding that they used to record the soundtracks on the disc. Sometimes it's shortened to DTS-HD, although there are several different DTS-HD decoders. When playing a Blu-ray soundtrack, you have no choice but to use the appropriate decoder. In contrast, DTS Neo:X and Dolby Surround are soundtrack upmixers. After the soundtrack has been decoded, then (if you have more speakers than there are channels recorded on the disc) you can select one of the upmixers to cause sound to come from most or all of your additional speakers.
> 
> When you select DTS HD, it explicitly disables the separate upmixers, so you shouldn't hear anything from the overhead speakers. However, many versions of the DTS-HD MA decoder include their own upmixer, so that if you play a DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack on a 7.1 system with Rear Surround speakers, the decoder will automatically expand the audio to use the rear speakers. Some people object to that. i haven't tested that feature on my SR7009, though, so I don't know if that's the type of decoder that D+M provides. (I use DSU for everything.)


Yes I noticed that with DTS HD that the height speakers were turned off. I can see why people would object to it... I was very surprised to find that the new Miyazaki film "the wind rises" was mixed in MONO! I thought my disc was messed up until I read a review which was equally perplexed. I tried turning on surround mode to expand the mono track & switched it back... stereo'd mono sounds very strange. Though expanding stereo seems to do good & bad things. I've heard my own music on my receiver upmixed & noticed that the bass definition goes away expanding from stereo to surround, though the sound "opens up" more. Though I'm not sure how that might work with expanding an already surround mix as it's a totally different animal. I've had the DSU on for the most part as well.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> The Cinema EQ setting selects a low-pass filter which rolls off the highest frequencies, similar to what happens when you select Audyssey Reference. If you've selected Audyssey Reference (instead of Audyssey Flat), then when you select Cinema EQ, you've doubled the amount of high-frequency rolloff. Using Cinema EQ usually is more appropriate when you're either using Audyssey Flat or when you've disabled Audyssey entirely.
> 
> It does modify the sound, but it's probably inappropriate to call that messing with the calibration. Audyssey's calibration itself is unchanged. You can turn Cinema EQ on and off again without affecting it.
> 
> If your speakers sound shrill, then Cinema EQ would reduce that. However, a successful Audyssey calibration should tame them, too.
> 
> If you haven't already, please take the time to read through the Audyssey 101 and FAQ. It discusses this and incudes many other recommendations to help get a good calibration. The instructions in the owners' manuals are woefully inadequate.


Thanks for the info, that clears a lot up! I've skimmed the Audyssey thread... I have 3 weeks off for Xmas break so I should be able to find the time to read it 

For the most part I'm very pleased with the sound of my setup... mostly it's just Star Wars in parts that sounds harsh. I rewatched LOTR, I was blown away (that was the first film I watched when I ran the 1st Auddysey calibration)... my setup sounds a heck of a lot better than it did prior to this receiver... though I was going from an ancient cheapo 5.1. receiver.


----------



## ultraflexed

snyderkv said:


> Did you have to go into Setup > Speakers > Manual setup > Speakers > Levels > Test Tone?
> 
> So did you raise them both proportionately according to there last values?





bargervais said:


> I'll have to check but my TX-NR 1030 when I'm playing a Dolby Atmos mix it clearly states atmos... two lines of text are displayed first line displays my input source.. second line displays listening mode if it's Dolby Surround or Atmos or what ever mode I'm in...


So is there anything you can suggest that I might be doing wrong?
I got off the phone with onkyo and they said it must be the sony blue-ray player but I don't think that is it


----------



## stikle

ultraflexed said:


> So is there anything you can suggest that I might be doing wrong?
> I got off the phone with onkyo and they said it must be the sony blue-ray player but I don't think that is it



You must have missed the reply:



ultraflexed said:


> For anyone here with a onkyo reciever atmos enabled.
> Does your Dolby atmos emblem ever light up, I only see the dolbylogo on mine light up in red but never the "dolby atmos" emblem?





Selden Ball said:


> Your symptoms are consistent with your BD player putting out LPCM instead of Dollby TrueHD.
> 
> *Check to make sure that your blu-ray player has both bitstream enabled and secondary audio mix disabled*. The latter setting forces decoding into LPCM so the player can mix two soundtracks together.



This was the case with my Sony BDP as well as at my sister's house with their Sony BDP.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I will try to be mindful of remembering harsh scenes from now on & I'll let you know, it's actually pretty rare. It's actually seems to be specific to Star Wars... if I could determine whoever mixed that I might have other titles mixed by the same engineer... I have about 150 bluray titles so maybe I can check. I'll try to watch some more action flicks with fast planes flying by
> Thanks for the offer & good luck with your surgery.


Thanks. Let me know if you encounter any scenes that are harsh sounding, along with the time stamp, and if I have the disc I will try it for you here.


----------



## snyderkv

ultraflexed said:


> So is there anything you can suggest that I might be doing wrong?
> I got off the phone with onkyo and they said it must be the sony blue-ray player but I don't think that is it


For me, my PS3 was in PCM. Had to switch to bitstream as one has mentioned. The disc needs to be ATMOS enabled as well. Expendables for example comes with two discs with a tiny ATMOS logo on one and Dolby Digital on the other.


----------



## kbarnes701

snyderkv said:


> Expendables for example comes with two discs with a tiny ATMOS logo on one and Dolby Digital on the other.


Isn’t that irritating. I often find discs inside the Bluray box that have virtually no, or literally no, markings to tell you if it is the movie, the extras or the DVD or whatever.

Note to OP: I know it's probably an off-the-wall suggestion, but do make sure you are playing the Bluray and not the DVD! (As well as making sure you are bitstreaming the output from the player AND have secondary audio turned OFF.)


----------



## snyderkv

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn’t that irritating. I often find discs inside the Bluray box that have virtually no, or literally no, markings to tell you if it is the movie, the extras or the DVD or whatever.
> 
> Note to OP: I know it's probably an off-the-wall suggestion, but do make sure you are playing the Bluray and not the DVD! (As well as making sure you are bitstreaming the output from the player AND have secondary audio turned OFF.)


Funny you mentioned that. I purchased Total Recall (as they force you to buy every version) I watched the entire film in DVD. The next day my friend told me as if I was a total fool. The upconversion was good enough not to notice


----------



## noah katz

Kris Deering said:


> My surrounds are at about 6 ft...


OK, so not particularly high.

Nice surrounds, interesting design.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not so much 'convenient' as no longer being necessary to place surround speakers high up in an attempt to create the impression of height that you hear. Now we have physical height speakers up there to do that task, the surrounds can be deployed to do what their name implies: to surround us with sound - that is to place sound all _around _us.
> 
> This separation between the listener level sound and the overhead sound can only be fully realised with physical speakers in the right places. Sure you can get an approximation by deploying surrounds mounted up high, but it will never be as good as the real thing.


Though I doubt you would agree with this sentiment, I still have to state that the glaring weakness with home Atmos, in its present form, is that it still relies mostly on the same 5.1 or 7.1 layout. From the Atmos tracks I've heard so far, you really, really need extra side wall and rear wall speakers to give you a better sensation of precise sound placement than standard 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layouts (that was made perfectly clear at CEDIA). The whole point of Atmos in the first place is the pan-through array concept, which we still don't get to full effect in mainstream products. You have to spend a buttload on ultra high end gear. Yes, some theater rooms need to be a bit bigger to pull this off well, but you could say that for 7.1 too. I think we need something like 11.1.6 in a "regular" surround pre-amp/processor. 

Even with the overheads added into the mix, for the foreseeable future, I can see that most audio engineers will continue to emphasize the main layer arrays instead of balancing the mains and tops equally since they're still stuck in an old-school sound design mindset... or at least a majority of soundtrack engineers still are. 

On one last day-dreamy note, I would absolutely love for Walter Murch to redesign _Apocalypse Now_ for Atmos. The movie that birthed modern 5.1 surround ought to be fully upgraded to Atmos. It's a match made in Heaven. Murch could teach some of these sound guys a thing or two, I have no doubt.


----------



## roxiedog13

*amp requred for X5200.....suggestions*

I ordered the Denon X5200 and will play with this until I see what is coming in the spring. 


For now in order to run 7.2.4 I will need an extra 2 channel amp from what I have read.


Can I buy any low end amp or is there a more appropriate one I need ? I've never purchased a separate amp before I've only owned receivers . This is new territory 
for me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> I ordered the Denon X5200 and will play with this until I see what is coming in the spring.
> 
> 
> For now in order to run 7.2.4 I will need an extra 2 channel amp from what I have read.
> 
> 
> Can I buy any low end amp or is there a more appropriate one I need ? I've never purchased a separate amp before I've only owned receivers . This is new territory
> for me.


What kind of money outlay can you afford?


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> *Background and introduction.*
> 
> I was fortunate to be invited by Dolby to a special screening of this movie a few days before it opened theatrically in the UK. As I am a fan of the first two movies in the series, this was an opportunity I could not miss.


snip . . 

Thanks Keith for writing that up. I'm reminded why I kept hounding you for it -- it was an entertaining. detailed and informative read. One gets excited about Atmos after reading what you have to say.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> What kind of money outlay can you afford?



Afford or justify , that really is the question isn't it?  I was just looking at a Pyle 2 channel amp for $105 on Amazon , maybe it's a Pyle of s#!*, I have no idea . I can afford anything reasonable I suppose. If the low end stuff is garbage I will avoid it, really just looking for suggestions to make this work for 7.2.4 . .....within reason


----------



## Scott Simonian

roxiedog13 said:


> Afford or justify , that really is the question isn't it?  I was just looking at a Pyle 2 channel amp for $105 on Amazon , maybe it's a Pyle of s#!*, I have no idea . I can afford anything reasonable I suppose. If the low end stuff is garbage I will avoid it, really just looking for suggestions to make this work for 7.2.4 . .....within reason


Check out the Behringer a500.

Two channel, plenty of power (more than you need), no fan and RCA input.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

clipper57 said:


> aras let us know what you think of the atlantic tech modules .mine are scheduled for delivery thursday.


Ok so I got them in... I calmly opened, or should I say... might not have torn into those boxes like a hungry velociraptor. 

When I hooked up the speakers I went straight for the dolby atmos disc. I had to spend a fair amount of time balancing the sound between the front & the rears, the rear modules sounded very clean & overhead without touching them at all... the fronts weren't as clear. Using the first 6 seconds of "amaze" as a reference, I moved closer to the front and heard the sound coming down from the front, so I tipped the front speakers in to try to bounce the sound closer to the MLP, adjusting the tweeter wasn't enough to reach the distance as far as I can tell... unless if tilting the speaker itself is a bad thing to do. It seems like too much of an angle could be a bad thing as at that point it could spread or distort the projected sound? I definitely hear sound coming from overhead, but I want to try testing out more adjustments so that I can ensure I'm giving the speakers a fair evaluation. 

I ran a calibration & noticed something a bit strange... it set the rear right module a full 2.5 db louder than the rest of the modules... so I took care of that. It also set the front module crossovers @ 150 hz while the rears are @ 120hz. Does that mean I placed the tweeter/ tilt improperly? They all seem to be pointing towards the MLP & at the right angle for reflection.
I'm sitting about 8' away from the front L/R speakers, my ceiling is just about 8' tall. 

I need to get some work done but later I'll try to run some more tests with fresh ears & I'll watch Expendables 3 & some other material I'm familiar with.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Spanglo said:


> There is a Loudness management setting for the surrounds... try turning that off and the harshness should go away. I think it's on by default.


On the 5200? Where is that option located?


----------



## Kain

Anyone able to compare 7.1.x to 9.1.x? Was there a significant improvement? Is it/was it worth it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Check out the Behringer a500.
> 
> Two channel, plenty of power (more than you need), no fan and RCA input.


I've heard on more than one occasion that Behringer's quality leaves much to be desired.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've heard on more than one occasion that Behringer's quality leaves much to be desired.



And?

I own quite a lot of Behringer gear. Higher quality than what many would consider 'high-end' around here.

So this is more than "I've heard". I own and so do many others. They make products that are more than adequate for our use.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kain said:


> Anyone able to compare 7.1.x to 9.1.x? Was there a significant improvement? Is it/was it worth it?


The episode of home theater geeks from 2 weeks ago, Grimani talks about it being his preference to add front wides in a 9.1.2 vs. a 7.1.4 if a choice must be made (I think?). 

I like having the 4 overheads... though I think JD mentioned the rear heights didn't see a lot of use in TF4. I'm wondering if that will change from flick to flick and as mixers get more used to working with heights.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Anyone able to compare 7.1.x to 9.1.x? Was there a significant improvement? Is it/was it worth it?


Only worth it if Dolby follows through on their mainstream plans (and as the newest installation guide shows) and adds 9.1.4 or greater to regular Atmos gear. You don't want to give up the second pair of overheads on a 9.1.2 layout.


----------



## ultraflexed

stikle said:


> You must have missed the reply:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was the case with my Sony BDP as well as at my sister's house with their Sony BDP.


So how do I disable it or correct the problem with the sony blue-ray player


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> The episode of home theater geeks from 2 weeks ago, Grimani talks about it being his preference to add front wides in a 9.1.2 vs. a 7.1.4 if a choice must be made (I think?).
> 
> I like having the 4 overheads... though I think JD mentioned the rear heights didn't see a lot of use in TF4. I'm wondering if that will change from flick to flick and as mixers get more used to working with heights.


Might as well just keep adding speakers at 'ear level' and skip the overheads.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Only worth it if Dolby follows through on their mainstream plans (and as the newest installation guide shows) and adds 9.1.4 or greater to regular Atmos gear. You don't want to give up the second pair of overheads on a 9.1.2 layout.


Dolby doesn't have to do anything. Hardware manufacturers need to make hardware that support >11.1 playback. That's it. They don't have to draw up a guide each time for it to happen.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> And?
> 
> I own quite a lot of Behringer gear. Higher quality than what many would consider 'high-end' around here.
> 
> So this is more than "I've heard". I own and so do many others. They make products that are more than adequate for our use.


It depends on what kind of gear longevity the OP is looking for. Buying as an investment for the long haul or as a short term solution? And yes, I've heard this about Behringer and suspect reliability from more than one pro sound mixer that works as an instructor at my school. I'm glad that your gear has worked out in your situation, however. Kudos.


----------



## roxiedog13

Scott Simonian said:


> Check out the Behringer a500.
> 
> Two channel, plenty of power (more than you need), no fan and RCA input.


Thanks for the reply . I just found this one locally for almost half price used. Will grab it I believe .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby doesn't have to do anything. Hardware manufacturers need to make hardware that support >11.1 playback. That's it. They don't have to draw up a guide each time for it to happen.


Come on, Scott. You know Dolby and their "partners" talk with each other about implementation, planning, and staging. There's probably quite a bit of gentle nudging going on. And then Dolby would either get push back or positive reactions and then go from there.


----------



## stikle

ultraflexed said:


> So how do I disable it or correct the problem with the sony blue-ray player


I can't tell you exactly where since I'm at work. Take a look through your Sony BDP settings and it should be pretty obvious. I'm pretty sure it specifically says "Bitstream".


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It depends on what kind of gear longevity the OP is looking for. Buying as an investment for the long haul or as a short term solution? And yes, I've heard this about Behringer and suspect reliability from more than one pro sound mixer that works as an instructor at my school. I'm glad that your gear has worked out in your situation, however. Kudos.


Amps aren't like other kinds of fragile electronics. They will last forever. 

I get it. You've "heard" stuff. I wonder who from.

You're wrong. Their products are fine especially their amplifiers. Will last FOR-EV-AR. 



roxiedog13 said:


> Thanks for the reply . I just found this one locally for almost half price used. Will grab it I believe .


Nice!



Dan Hitchman said:


> Come on, Scott. You know Dolby and their "partners" talk with each other about implementation, planning, and staging. There's probably quite a bit of gentle nudging going on. And then Dolby would either get push back or positive reactions and then go from there.


Oh I know. But you keep saying what I replied to a post back over and over as if Dolby has to step up to the plate every time a couple of speakers are to be added. Atmos support 24.1.10 outputs. The hardware manufacturers need to the heavy lifting now.


----------



## Kain

Aras_Volodka said:


> The episode of home theater geeks from 2 weeks ago, Grimani talks about it being his preference to add front wides in a 9.1.2 vs. a 7.1.4 if a choice must be made (I think?).
> 
> I like having the 4 overheads... though I think JD mentioned the rear heights didn't see a lot of use in TF4. I'm wondering if that will change from flick to flick and as mixers get more used to working with heights.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Only worth it if Dolby follows through on their mainstream plans (and as the newest installation guide shows) and adds 9.1.4 or greater to regular Atmos gear. You don't want to give up the second pair of overheads on a 9.1.2 layout.


Thanks. I actually meant to say 7.1.4 vs. 9.1.4. By the way, the bed in Atmos maxes out at 7.1, correct? Does that mean any additional speakers will only be used for objects? Comparing 7.1.4 to 9.1.4, will the additional front wide speakers in the 9.1.4 setup be used only for objects?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ultraflexed said:


> So how do I disable it or correct the problem with the sony blue-ray player


Under Audio Settings:

BD Audio MIX Setting - Switch to OFF.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Thanks. I actually meant to say 7.1.4 vs. 9.1.4. By the way, the bed in Atmos maxes out at 7.1, correct? Does that mean any additional speakers will only be used for objects? Comparing 7.1.4 to 9.1.4, will the additional front wide speakers in the 9.1.4 setup be used only for objects?



Actually they are 9.1ch beds plus objects. The overhead array counts for another pair of 'bed' channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Thanks. I actually meant to say 7.1.4 vs. 9.1.4. By the way, the bed in Atmos maxes out at 7.1, correct? Does that mean any additional speakers will only be used for objects? Comparing 7.1.4 to 9.1.4, will the additional front wide speakers in the 9.1.4 setup be used only for objects?


It depends. Bed channel sound can be duplicated in an array of speakers (like a musical score mix set to left side array, right side array, back left array, and back right array to create a blanket of sound) or a single speaker depending on how the metadata is set in the rendering software during the original mixing session. However, only objects can be assigned to any individual speaker output within the Atmos renderer's capabilities irrespective of the fixed 9.1 layout. 

So, the front "additional" side surrounds could have bed channel leakage of music and background ambiance, and then a specific "hero" dialog or a sound effect stem could be assigned as an object or objects and anchored to or panned through those speakers. 

For the home, the overhead bed channels are set as objects.


----------



## thetman

I have this NAD 2600 AMP. just wondering- could this work for an Atmos setup to give me 7.1.4? 









http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-accessories/2600-Power-Amplifier


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sure. Why not?


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> Comparing 7.1.4 to 9.1.4, will the additional front wide speakers in the 9.1.4 setup be used only for objects?


Correct, the wides will only be used for objects, not bed channels, not Dolby Surround upmixing.


----------



## scarabaeus

You might want to turn off bridging, if you want to use both channels individually.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thetman said:


> I have this NAD 2600 AMP. just wondering- could this work for an Atmos setup to give me 7.1.4?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-accessories/2600-Power-Amplifier


If the amp still works fine, as Scott stated, there shouldn't be a problem in using it. Saves you some money.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Check out the Behringer a500.
> 
> Two channel, plenty of power (more than you need), no fan and RCA input.





Now that's a nice looking amp, not a bad price either! I could see this driving the 'extra' channels on my system...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Correct, the wides will only be used for objects, not bed channels, not Dolby Surround upmixing.


Or if the bed channel spread setting is changed like for music or ambience.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Amps aren't like other kinds of fragile electronics. They will last forever.
> 
> You're wrong. Their products are fine especially their amplifiers. Will last FOR-EV-AR.
> .


Knock on wood.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Or if the bed channel spread setting is changed like for music or ambience.


Not for the wide speakers. There are three "surround" speakers on each side, centered at 75/90/105 degrees. Those three can array a surround channel bed, but the wides don't get any bed channel info. That's why the wides aren't called front surrounds.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Not for the wide speakers. There are three "surround" speakers on each side, centered at 75/90/105 degrees. Those three can array a surround channel bed, but the wides don't get any bed channel info. That's why the wides aren't called front surrounds.


Wides are pretty lame. I feel sorry for anybody who relies on them.

Oh crap! Did I say that aloud?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Wides are pretty lame. I feel sorry for anybody who relies on them.
> 
> Oh crap! Did I say that aloud?



I see dark clouds forming over your head right now!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Come at me bro's!


----------



## kokishin

thetman said:


> I have this NAD 2600 AMP. just wondering- could this work for an Atmos setup to give me 7.1.4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-accessories/2600-Power-Amplifier


Atmos is amplifier agnostic as long as your AVR or pre-pro support Atmos.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

clipper57 said:


> aras let us know what you think of the atlantic tech modules .mine are scheduled for delivery thursday.


Heard the Atmos demo disc again with fresh ears. That part of "amaze" @ 48 seconds really is amazing with the 44-DA's... the rain does sound as if it's coming from overhead with a lot of definition. I actually switched back & forth between standard HD mode without the heights... definitely sounds squished compared to what you get with 44-DA's  

For those of you that have the disc... The Conductor part with the bird... does that bird literally sound like it's flying over you? I don't get that sensation... it sounds like it's flying around the back somewhere. When she swings on the rope that sounds like it's above. The tiger roar sounds like it's coming from up high and behind. 

A lot of the sounds don't sound like they are coming from the ceiling... but like 2 or 3 feet above the other speakers... maybe that's how it's supposed to be though. 

The leaf trailer actually sounded pretty immersive. I'll give it another listen when I get my work done tonight... then Expendables 3


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Not for the wide speakers. There are three "surround" speakers on each side, centered at 75/90/105 degrees. Those three can array a surround channel bed, but the wides don't get any bed channel info. That's why the wides aren't called front surrounds.


In the two 9.1.4 demos at CEDIA, the two side surrounds had music and base ambiance coming out of both pairs of speakers as well as scene specific object effects. If the mainstream implementation of 9.1.4 is the same, then wouldn't the so-called home Atmos "wides" be the same idea as the "additional" frontal side surrounds in the cinema version? They get both channel bed array info and object sounds, at least at the movies I've heard in Atmos theatrically.


----------



## thetman

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the amp still works fine, as Scott stated, there shouldn't be a problem in using it. Saves you some money.


the picture I grabbed from the web ( not mine). Actually the amp and preamp are pretty much still mint in their boxes. Haven't used them in years- just sitting in a closet. I actually forgot about it until recently when I started looking into all this Atmos stuff. Not sure what set of speakers I would use to run with it. shouldn't matter- its rated for 150WPC. One less thing to buy then, excellent.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kokishin said:


> Atmos is amplifier agnostic as long as your AVR or pre-pro support Atmos.





thetman said:


> the picture I grabbed from the web ( not mine). Actually the amp and preamp are pretty much still mint in their boxes. Haven't used them in years- just sitting in a closet. I actually forgot about it until recently when I started looking into all this Atmos stuff. Not sure what set of speakers I would use to run with it. shouldn't matter- its rated for 150WPC. One less thing to buy then, excellent.


 
Whoa, whoa, whoa! lets not take this too lightly, if it doesn't say *"Certified for Atmos"* all kinds of fire and brimstone could erupt!


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> In the two 9.1.4 demos at CEDIA, the two side surrounds had music and base ambiance coming out of both pairs of speakers as well as scene specific object effects.


They could have done that with up to three pairs of speakers. But not the wides.


> If the mainstream implementation of 9.1.4 is the same, then wouldn't the so-called home Atmos "wides" be the same idea as the "additional" frontal side surrounds in the cinema version? They get both channel bed array info and object sounds, at least at the movies I've heard in Atmos theatrically.


In commercial cinemas, the 2 or 3 speakers just outside the screen don't get bed channel info, just object audio. For the home version, there is no such thing as "additional front side surrounds". The speakers centered at 60 degrees are designated "wides", deliberately without the word "surround" in their label, to signify that they are not part of the surround array.


----------



## clipper57

Aras_Volodka said:


> Heard the Atmos demo disc again with fresh ears. That part of "amaze" @ 48 seconds really is amazing with the 44-DA's... the rain does sound as if it's coming from overhead with a lot of definition. I actually switched back & forth between standard HD mode without the heights... definitely sounds squished compared to what you get with 44-DA's
> 
> For those of you that have the disc... The Conductor part with the bird... does that bird literally sound like it's flying over you? I don't get that sensation... it sounds like it's flying around the back somewhere. When she swings on the rope that sounds like it's above. The tiger roar sounds like it's coming from up high and behind.
> 
> A lot of the sounds don't sound like they are coming from the ceiling... but like 2 or 3 feet above the other speakers... maybe that's how it's supposed to be though.
> 
> The leaf trailer actually sounded pretty immersive. I'll give it another listen when I get my work done tonight... then Expendables 3


Thanks aras for the review .a couple of questions how do the 44-da sound in comparsion to your previous overhead speakers ? And what crossover setting did the eq set for the modules. THANKS enjoy.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Wides are pretty lame. I feel sorry for anybody who relies on them.
> 
> Oh crap! Did I say that aloud?



You're lame 


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

My heart is burning from the flame of love.

This is the Dolby Atmos thread, and several members here have a Dolby Atmos unit with a DSU inside.
Here are two Blu-ray titles that you can try by activating DSU from your unit. 








------------









________

* Bonus:


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, well... I can only take so much trigonometry and "what speaker should I get" discussion in here.
> 
> So as much "I think", "should be" and "this is how this works....maybe" I can take some more "theory". I gets boring in here.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.





Scott Simonian said:


> Wides are pretty lame. I feel sorry for anybody who relies on them.
> 
> Oh crap! Did I say that aloud?





Al Sherwood said:


> I see dark clouds forming over your head right now!



Scott's trying to liven up the thread.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> You're lame
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Yeah sometimes. 

Doesn't stop me from being right.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

clipper57 said:


> Thanks aras for the review .a couple of questions how do the 44-da sound in comparsion to your previous overhead speakers ? And what crossover setting did the eq set for the modules. THANKS enjoy.


No problem! I didn't have ceiling speakers before, what I did prior to this was place some extra speakers pointed upwards. I noticed immediately that this sounded a lot better, the overhead action got going! But mostly just the rear speakers... I need to figure out a way to get the fronts more clearly defined. I'm considering placing them on my TV stand but that would go against Dolby's recommendations because they'd be a lot lower than they should be. Orrrr I could move my Front L/R speakers up but that might also go against Dolby recommendations... right now my placement uses Dolby's recommendations as close as my room allows for 7.1.4. 

I wrote another impression a few posts back... I quoted you in that one, check it out (post 15931). I know my setup could be wrong because Audyssey assiged 150 hz to the front modules, 120 for the rears. The rear speakers sound a lot more full. As far as timber matching goes I wouldn't have any concerns about that... it will just work and it will sound good I think, based on my experience at least.


----------



## Al Sherwood

ambesolman said:


> You're lame
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still



Crikey, I thought that the mobile version was pretty good...


----------



## brwsaw

Csbooth said:


> That's great to hear! I am really excited for that aspect of 3D Sound.


Try out Tomb Raider the Definitive edition. Lots of caves, water, wind etc. I can't wait until everything we play is made for 3D surround.


----------



## Csbooth

brwsaw said:


> Try out Tomb Raider the Definitive edition. Lots of caves, water, wind etc. I can't wait until everything we play is made for 3D surround.


Yes, I actually own that one lol. I can't wait to test it out


----------



## BamaDave

Well I'm thinking about jumping into the Atmos world.Without reading over 500 pages on this particular forum I would like to get some feedback on what people are using as in ceiling speakers? I'm looking at running a 7.1.4 system and am currently running JTR Triple 12HTs up front and some old school Mirage OM-6/8 for surrounds. Any thoughts or proven examples on what to use? Thanks, BD


----------



## kokishin

BamaDave said:


> Well I'm thinking about jumping into the Atmos world.Without reading over 500 pages on this particular forum I would like to get some feedback on what people are using as in ceiling speakers? I'm looking at running a 7.1.4 system and am currently running JTR Triple 12HTs up front and some old school Mirage OM-6/8 for surrounds. Any thoughts or proven examples on what to use? Thanks, BD


Click on the first link in my sig below.


----------



## BamaDave

kokishin said:


> Click on the first link in my sig below.



Wow that is all over the place! More research is in order for sure. I'm also up in the air about running them in or on the ceiling as well. Thanks!


----------



## kokishin

BamaDave said:


> Wow that is all over the place! More research is in order for sure. I'm also up in the air about running them in or on the ceiling as well. Thanks!


Although the spreadsheet is read only, you can still sort by clicking on Data on the command ribbon at the top of the spreadsheet. For example, you could do an alphabetical sort on Atmos Speakers (Column D) to get a better idea as to which speakers are more commonly used.


----------



## asarose247

I may have missed a prior entry but 
Rise opf the planet of the Apess . . . 
some great upper layer effects, specially towards the end 
DSU can do rather well . . .


----------



## NorthSky

...And the sequel should have been in Dolby Atmos, just like it was @ the theaters.


----------



## Nightlord

thetman said:


> I have this NAD 2600 AMP. just wondering- could this work for an Atmos setup to give me 7.1.4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-accessories/2600-Power-Amplifier


That's a good amp - plenty more dynamic power than the basic spec. Depending on what you're running for the other channels what you'll use it for. If you're just using the AVR I would suggest using for the front speakers and re-route the internal amps for the missing channels - _if that is possible, of course_.

As noted before, you'd have to switch the bridging off to get two channels from it.


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> I also find that this helps the speakers to disappear totally and all I hear are sounds in the room, as it should be. My speakers have never made their presence especially felt but Atmos enhances this disappearing act significantly.


This! Too bad I'll have to wait until after Christmas to experience this disappearing act (Marantz SR 7009 in black currently not available where I live).


----------



## maikeldepotter

*TF/TR vs FH/TM*

Just curious: Did anyone on this forum with a 7.1.4 'one-row' set-up and the physical space to install the most obvious TF/TR combination (in front and behind MLP), nevertheless found a FH/TM combination (in front, and almost above MLP) to sound better in their specific room?

_Edit: Wow! I am a senior member all of a sudden._


----------



## Csbooth

I'm driving 160 miles to Atlanta on Wednesday, to the nearest theater that supports the Atmos format which is a Regal Atlantic RPX and will be my first Atmos experience.

My wife is a bit pissed about it but I promised we would go to the mall and Hard Rock so she's not as upset with me anymore lol.

It's going to be the Hobbit: BOFTA, I heard a few people on here and a few other friends that live in ATL say that Exodus wasn't that great but from a few reviews I've read regarding Hobbit, it's a pretty good experience in Atmos, and I figure since its the last one I might as well go lol.

I did the same thing seeing 70mm Intersteallar at the Huntsville Space and Rocket Center on their Omnimax screen and I will cherish that event for the rest of my days. I think this will be a worthwhile trip as everything here is crap quality haha.

I know this was kind of random but thought I would let some people know my experience when I returned, so this is a precursor kind of thing XD

EDIT: I almost forgot, the demos that people say play before an Atmos movie...does anyone know if they will do that at the one I'm going to?

I'd love to hear them as I've read that they are very good demonstrations of Atmos.


----------



## BillyNedwell

*Put my mind at rest*

I have just seen the contents of the Auro 3D demo disc @ demo world 

www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/auro-3d-2014-demonstration-disc.php

I feel a little concerned that they are putting in much more effort into marketing their system than Dolby have achieved in the last few months. My experience tells me that not necessarily the first or best will win the race for dominance but the most supported will. My atmos system has been up and running for a few months now but I only have 2 blu ray titles (TF4 & EXP3) which are not the most enjoyable films I have ever watched. I do not see any good titles with Atmos on the horizon and with DTS dominating the blu ray market I think it is going to be very difficult for Dolby once Auro 3D is released into the HT market. Does anyone share my concerns or am I barking up the wrong tree?
C'mon Dolby, pull your finger out!


----------



## Frank714

BillyNedwell said:


> I feel a little concerned that they are putting in much more effort into marketing their system than Dolby have achieved in the last few months.


IMHO Dolby neglected mentioning what the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) can do to your existing videophile library.

This should have been the starting point to motivate consumers to add overhead speakers, then mention next what benefits you'll get from this once you play Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays.

With most consumers probably not aware what DSU can achieve, it'll now probably take longer until there are plenty of Dolby Atmos encoded titles to choose from.


----------



## CBdicX

As i use my Atmos (not Enabled) speakers on the side i (see pic) and was thinking to block the sound, if any, coming from the speaker into the MLP.
Just like they do with the Enabled speakers, a small edge of foam blocking soundwaves coming to the MLP and wanted to see, hear, if it would improve the effect. 


But what ever i try in blocking soundwaves coming to me from these speakers, i can not !
When i put a large object in front of the speaker it blocks just a tiny, tiny bit of high frequency.
I have to concentrate very hard to hear any difference in the blocked or unblocked version.


Think with the Enabled speakers it more a marketing thing to separate the Enabled speakers from "normal" speakers, then it is actual doing something..........


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've heard on more than one occasion that Behringer's quality leaves much to be desired.


Heard from where? IME Behringer gear is well made, built to withstand abuse and represents great value. Pro amps are definitely the best way to get high power amplification for a sensible price. And if you don't like Behringer, choose Crown instead. They are from Harman and I have personal experience of their XLS range, owning one right now for example, and can vouch for the quality and reliability. If only the 'audiophile' amp brigade could set their prejudices aside, they'd save thousands of dollars with no detrimental impact on SQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Amps aren't like other kinds of fragile electronics. They will last forever.


I agree. And Pro amps, especially, are designed to be abused. Us HT types, who treat our gear with kid gloves usually, should find they last a lifetime.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know my setup could be wrong because Audyssey assiged 150 hz to the front modules, 120 for the rears.


That isn't an indication that there is something wrong with the setup. The speakers are in different places in the room so it's perfectly possible that Audyssey will set different XOs for them as it takes the influence of the room into account.

From the Audyssey FAQ:

*c)6. Why is Audyssey setting different crossovers for my identical speakers?*


----------



## maikeldepotter

BillyNedwell said:


> I have just seen the contents of the Auro 3D demo disc @ demo world
> 
> www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/auro-3d-2014-demonstration-disc.php
> 
> I feel a little concerned that they are putting in much more effort into marketing their system than Dolby have achieved in the last few months. My experience tells me that not necessarily the first or best will win the race for dominance but the most supported will. My atmos system has been up and running for a few months now but I only have 2 blu ray titles (TF4 & EXP3) which are not the most enjoyable films I have ever watched. I do not see any good titles with Atmos on the horizon and with DTS dominating the blu ray market I think it is going to be very difficult for Dolby once Auro 3D is released into the HT market. Does anyone share my concerns or am I barking up the wrong tree?
> C'mon Dolby, pull your finger out!


I know that this is the ATMOS thread, but what if Atmos turns out NOT to be the best. Do you even consider that a possibility? Currently there is hardly any material to carry out a decent comparison, and consequently, reviews comparing the two formats are far from being conclusive in that respect. I personally do not believe that either is bad, so I welcome them both. If there is only one to survive, yes, you can hope it will be the one that sounds best to your ears. And even that could ultimately be subject to personal preference. In conclusion: Should Dolby worry? Yes, and they will. Same goes for AuroTechnologies. Should WE (consumers) worry? No, not yet anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

snyderkv said:


> Funny you mentioned that. I purchased Total Recall (as they force you to buy every version) I watched the entire film in DVD. The next day my friend told me as if I was a total fool. The upconversion was good enough not to notice


Yes, the Bluray of that movie doesn’t advance all that much on the DVD so I can see how that happened for you.


----------



## BillyNedwell

Frank714 said:


> IMHO Dolby neglected mentioning what the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) can do to your existing videophile library.


Yeah, totally agree. DSU has given life back to old discs and even more so to some music. However atmos needs new material of good quality if it's going to become the main go to format for blu ray releases.


----------



## blazar

maikeldepotter said:


> BillyNedwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have just seen the contents of the Auro 3D demo disc @ demo world
> 
> www.demo-world.eu/demo-dvds/auro-3d-2014-demonstration-disc.php
> 
> I feel a little concerned that they are putting in much more effort into marketing their system than Dolby have achieved in the last few months. My experience tells me that not necessarily the first or best will win the race for dominance but the most supported will. My atmos system has been up and running for a few months now but I only have 2 blu ray titles (TF4 & EXP3) which are not the most enjoyable films I have ever watched. I do not see any good titles with Atmos on the horizon and with DTS dominating the blu ray market I think it is going to be very difficult for Dolby once Auro 3D is released into the HT market. Does anyone share my concerns or am I barking up the wrong tree?
> C'mon Dolby, pull your finger out!
> 
> 
> 
> I know that this is the ATMOS thread, but what if Atmos turns out NOT to be the best. Do you even consider that a possibility? Currently there is hardly any material to carry out a decent comparison, and consequently, reviews comparing the two formats are far from being conclusive in that respect. I personally do not believe that either is bad, so I welcome them both. If there is only one to survive, yes, you can hope it will be the one that sounds best to your ears. And even that could ultimately be subject to personal preference. In conclusion: Should Dolby worry? Yes, and they will. Same goes for AuroTechnologies. Should WE (consumers) worry? No, not yet anyway.
Click to expand...

Dolby atmos sounds extremely good... This is a certainty. The logic is sound in the Auro method too and there is no reason for it not to be an improvement over 7.1.

Dolby Atmos and object oriented in general makes auro3d obsolete and non-scalable out of the gate. The auro folks more or less realize this I think and I doubt the studios feel much differently about it.

If you are building or upgrading today, I would recommend getting as many speaker wires and speakers installed as you can afford. 16 to 24 channels offers very good coverage. If I could do it over, I would have gone 24. My room build makes that harder to do now but not impossible.

The immersion is truly what you always imagined it could be. Simply EPIC. Studios will also get better at the recording and mastering paradigm to suit Atmos and therefore in general it is going to improve even further compared to current offerings.


----------



## kbarnes701

Here's a review of the Behringer amp that Scott mentioned, together with exhaustive objective tests (if only all amps were put through these paces):

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=22

Reviewer's conclusion: _"The Behringer A500 is an amazing phenomenon at the price. There is nothing else like it. "_

I’d say this was a fantastic bargain for anyone looking for an affordable amp to power Atmos speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

BillyNedwell said:


> Yeah, totally agree. DSU has given life back to old discs and even more so to some music. However atmos needs new material of good quality if it's going to become the main go to format for blu ray releases.


New content on Bluray can only follow theatrical mixes. On that criterion, there is nothing that even comes close to Atmos at this time.


----------



## BillyNedwell

maikeldepotter said:


> I know that this is the ATMOS thread, but what if Atmos turns out NOT to be the best. Do you even consider that a possibility? Currently there is hardly any material to carry out a decent comparison, and consequently, reviews comparing the two formats are far from being conclusive in that respect. I personally do not believe that either is bad, so I welcome them both. If there is only one to survive, yes, you can hope it will be the one that sounds best to your ears. And even that could ultimately be subject to personal preference. In conclusion: Should Dolby worry? Yes, and they will. Same goes for AuroTechnologies. Should WE (consumers) worry? No, not yet anyway.


My concerns come from the fact that I have invested a lot of time and money into this format. I do not have a dedicated HT room but an understanding wife and a reasonably sized lounge that can just about take an Atmos setup, but I'm sure an Auro setup, which does look to be very different to Atmos, is going to be far more difficult for me to achieve.
Indeed Atmos may not turn out to be the best, but as I said the best does not always become the most widely used. I want to have the format with most choice of material. At the moment Dolby have not instilled confidence in me that they are going to have plenty of material to choose from. I hope they prove me wrong but until I have that choice I will remain concerned.
I hope this is not going to be my first HT lemon sucking experience.


----------



## bargervais

maikeldepotter said:


> I know that this is the ATMOS thread, but what if Atmos turns out NOT to be the best. Do you even consider that a possibility? Currently there is hardly any material to carry out a decent comparison, and consequently, reviews comparing the two formats are far from being conclusive in that respect. I personally do not believe that either is bad, so I welcome them both. If there is only one to survive, yes, you can hope it will be the one that sounds best to your ears. And even that could ultimately be subject to personal preference. In conclusion: Should Dolby worry? Yes, and they will. Same goes for AuroTechnologies. Should WE (consumers) worry? No, not yet anyway.


I believe that atmos is beneficial, DSU is worth the price of admission. I think that even if there are no atmos mix blu-rays coming I'm glad I upgraded... I know that there are very few atmos mixes out to date.. I'm not worried as I think that 2015 will be the year of atmos, and if not DSU Will keep me satisfied that I made the leap.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Here's a review of the Behringer amp that Scott mentioned, together with exhaustive objective tests (if only all amps were put through these paces):
> 
> http://www.theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=22
> 
> Reviewer's conclusion: _"The Behringer A500 is an amazing phenomenon at the price. There is nothing else like it. "_
> 
> I’d say this was a fantastic bargain for anyone looking for an affordable amp to power Atmos speakers.



Had the A500 in the past, and indeed a good amp !
But it looks like...........
And the eyes are just as important as the ears to get good sound


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I believe that atmos is beneficial, DSU is worth the price of admission. I think that even if there are no atmos mix blu-rays coming I'm glad I upgraded... I know that there are very few atmos mixes out to date.. I'm not worried as I think that 2015 will be the year of atmos, and if not DSU Will keep me satisfied that I made the leap.


Same here. Even if there were no Atmos discs, for me, DSU makes the upgrade very worthwhile. But the Atmos discs are coming. Atmos was launched just 3 months ago - and disc authoring houses are only just now getting the hardware they need for Atmos Bluray production - so why people expect dozens of discs at this stage is a mystery to me. Next year we will see the flow of discs start to pick up.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Had the A500 in the past, and indeed a good amp !
> But it looks like...........
> And the eyes are just as important as the ears to get good sound


Pro amps are indeed aesthetically-challenged. But my gear is all out of sight in a closet, where it should be, so I don't care  HST, the A500 isn't too ugly. Pro amps usually look better when in a nice stack...



Having gear on display is usually a poor idea IMO and it leads to 'choosing with the eyes' as you suggest. Much better to choose for performance. Same goes for speakers, with the difference that, for many, they do have to be on display. But you pay a big price for those nice veneers and designer looks. Again, much better to concentrate on performance and hide the speakers away if possible - either with an acoustically transparent PJ screen in front of them (ideal) or choosing black speakers in a room painted in very dark colors so the speakers cannot be seen when the movie is playing (my solution). Of course, for my 2ch music system, where the speakers are highly visible in the room, different rules apply


----------



## BillyNedwell

blazar said:


> Dolby atmos sounds extremely good... This is a certainty. The logic is sound in the Auro method too and there is no reason for it not to be an improvement over 7.1.
> 
> Dolby Atmos and object oriented in general makes auro3d obsolete and non-scalable out of the gate. The auro folks more or less realize this I think and I doubt the studios feel much differently about it.


You make 2 very good points which I agree with. This is why I am finding it hard to understand why Dolby are not pushing more out into the market place, even if it's only demo stuff. As I mentioned in my original post the Auro3D demo disc has so much more in it than Dolby has now after 3 months being in the market. I would have thought Dolby would be pushing much more out while the competition are still waiting to get off the blocks. I'm not a marketing expert by any stretch of the imagination but you will never make success out of something unless you work very hard IN THE BEGINNING. At the moment I find myself waiting for a film (Gravity), that I have watched 3 times already, to be released in February 2015.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Here's a review of the Behringer amp that Scott mentioned, together with exhaustive objective tests (if only all amps were put through these paces):
> 
> http://www.theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=22
> 
> Reviewer's conclusion: _"The Behringer A500 is an amazing phenomenon at the price. There is nothing else like it. "_
> 
> I’d say this was a fantastic bargain for anyone looking for an affordable amp to power Atmos speakers.


If I remember correctly, you need to make sure to use the right input to it. It should be the tele-input (guitar plug). It should also be put as high as possible on the volume and let the preamp handle the level. 
I've also seen a recommendation not to turn it on and off too quickly ( the softstart needed about a minute to reset ).

(Sorry if I'm repeating anything in the article above - haven't read it (yet). )


----------



## smurraybhm

BillyNedwell said:


> You make 2 very good points which I agree with. This is why I am finding it hard to understand why Dolby are not pushing more out into the market place, even if it's only demo stuff. As I mentioned in my original post the Auro3D demo disc has so much more in it than Dolby has now after 3 months being in the market. I would have thought Dolby would be pushing much more out while the competition are still waiting to get off the blocks. I'm not a marketing expert by any stretch of the imagination but you will never make success out of something unless you work very hard IN THE BEGINNING. At the moment I find myself waiting for a film (Gravity), that I have watched 3 times already, to be released in February 2015.


Discussed in detail - Dolby doesn't make the decision what sound format goes on our shiny disks. Also discussed how these decisions are made months in advance and that it would take time for studios to switch over. Then there is the sound mixing equipment issue, with Atmos Dolby finally has a format that is as easy to use as DTS. The difference this has made to-date is identified in part by the number of True-HD vs. DTS-HD releases. 

As for Auro I haven't upgraded yet, still planning to do to have it for music, but I will say that based on my reading Auro seems to be more of a European thing looking at those who are posting the most about it. Auro has zero releases so far, I don't know of any announced releases to-date, I am talking movies not music and Red Tails doesn't appear to be working for whatever reason - so that's out for now. Atmos is on just about every mainstream AV manufacturers receivers, Auro cost extra or isn't available (see Onkyo & Pioneer) this year. Then there are the upfiring modules, as Keith has pointed out many times, which makes adoption of Atmos a lot easier than most of us have made it  Auro has no answer.

For me the biggest issue with Auro is that it's just another surround mode - see Dolby Surround. I like what I've heard so far in the object based world of sound. Hopefully we will be hearing more soon, but like others I am very satisfied with Dolby Surround - no regrets.


----------



## BillyNedwell

Just for the record.

Auro- I have no interest in this format. My room, wallet and wife will not tolerate yet another set up.

Atmos- Sounds great. DSU sounds great. In ceiling speakers disappear into my nice white ceiling and have no impact on décor. Very happy...............................except Christmas is around the corner and I am going to have to entertain my guests for 5 days, which may include watching some films. I just couldn't expect them to sit through TF4 or Exp3 with me pointing out how great it sounds. I will make them sit through some of the Atmos demo stuff but that will only last approx. 20mins.

Feel my frustration????


----------



## Mike Garrett

BamaDave said:


> Well I'm thinking about jumping into the Atmos world.Without reading over 500 pages on this particular forum I would like to get some feedback on what people are using as in ceiling speakers? I'm looking at running a 7.1.4 system and am currently running JTR Triple 12HTs up front and some old school Mirage OM-6/8 for surrounds. Any thoughts or proven examples on what to use? Thanks, BD


Slanted 8's, JBL Pro 8340, JBL Pro 8340A, Tannoy CMS 3.0, Tannoy CVS 8, JBL Control 321C, JBL Control 227C and many other to consider. I am using the JBL 8340's.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Heard from where? IME Behringer gear is well made, built to withstand abuse and represents great value. Pro amps are definitely the best way to get high power amplification for a sensible price. And if you don't like Behringer, choose Crown instead. They are from Harman and I have personal experience of their XLS range, owning one right now for example, and can vouch for the quality and reliability. If only the 'audiophile' amp brigade could set their prejudices aside, they'd save thousands of dollars with no detrimental impact on SQ.


The sound design instructors at my school. They've used Behringer products before and they're not impressed with their longevity, so they've stopped using their amps and signal processors. They seem to know their stuff, so I respect their opinion. It may be that they're a "value" brand, but if you're looking for a piece of gear that will last perhaps be willing to spend a little more and look elsewhere? 

The higher level Crowns do seem to have a good reputation to be sure.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The sound design instructors at my school. They've used Behringer products before and they're not impressed with their longevity, so they've stopped using their amps and signal processors. They seem to know their stuff, so I respect their opinion. It may be that they're a "value" brand, but if you're looking for a piece of gear that will last perhaps be willing to spend a little more and look elsewhere?
> 
> The higher level Crowns do seem to have a good reputation to be sure.


Dunno. I only have one piece of Behringer gear and I bought that secondhand so I have no idea how old it is - I've had it a couple of years and it has been trouble-free. It's not amp - it's the Behringer Feedback Destroyer which I use for its PEQ features to add a couple of filters that helps me resolve an issue at around 80Hz that Audyssey can't fix - some room-related thing.

I do have a Crown amp and have had that for a few years too - it's just an XLS but it has been entirely trouble-free. 

This Pro gear is made in huge quantities which is one of the ways they help keep the prices sensible, so any faults will soon show up and be rectified by the manufacturer. I can't really see Pro gear being _less_ reliable than consumer gear TBH. If one of our amps fails, it's a bit of an inconvenience. If a pro amp fails during a gig, it's a disaster.


----------



## kbarnes701

BillyNedwell said:


> Just for the record.
> 
> Auro- I have no interest in this format. My room, wallet and wife will not tolerate yet another set up.
> 
> Atmos- Sounds great. DSU sounds great. In ceiling speakers disappear into my nice white ceiling and have no impact on décor. Very happy...............................except Christmas is around the corner and I am going to have to entertain my guests for 5 days, which may include watching some films. I just couldn't expect them to sit through TF4 or Exp3 with me pointing out how great it sounds. I will make them sit through some of the Atmos demo stuff but that will only last approx. 20mins.
> 
> Feel my frustration????


Why not just pick more or less any movie and use DSU with it? I have watched dozens of movies with DSU and every one has been improved by it.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> Pro amps are indeed aesthetically-challenged. But my gear is all out of sight in a closet, where it should be, so I don't care  HST, the A500 isn't too ugly. Pro amps usually look better when in a nice stack...
> 
> 
> 
> Having gear on display is usually a poor idea IMO and it leads to 'choosing with the eyes' as you suggest. Much better to choose for performance. Same goes for speakers, with the difference that, for many, they do have to be on display. But you pay a big price for those nice veneers and designer looks. Again, much better to concentrate on performance and hide the speakers away if possible - either with an acoustically transparent PJ screen in front of them (ideal) or choosing black speakers in a room painted in very dark colors so the speakers cannot be seen when the movie is playing (my solution). Of course, for my 2ch music system, where the speakers are highly visible in the room, different rules apply


Yep. My speakers and amps are ugly, but you can't see the speakers when behind an AT screen and my amps are in the mechanical room below the theater.. Here is a pic with screen down. Note that center channel drivers are not installed. The lower 18" mid, is not shown. The two 18's that are in the picture are subs. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1530592-baffle-wall-build-using-beyma-tpl-150h-8.html#post26762329


----------



## kbarnes701

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Yep. My speakers and amps are ugly, but you can't see the speakers when behind an AT screen and my amps are in the mechanical room below the theater.. Here is a pic with screen down. Note that center channel drivers are not installed. The lower 18" mid, is not shown. The two 18's that are in the picture are subs. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1530592-baffle-wall-build-using-beyma-tpl-150h-8.html#post26762329


Way to go. Not having speakers and hardware visible is very liberating. And usually gives you way more bang for your buck. 

I can understand guys who have to have their stuff in their living space caring about appearance though. I wouldn't want to sit looking at a Pro amp all night either 

Which amps are you using AAMOI? I couldn’t find it in your build thread (only a quick look though so far I admit).


----------



## brwsaw

maikeldepotter said:


> I know that this is the ATMOS thread, but what if Atmos turns out NOT to be the best. Do you even consider that a possibility? Currently there is hardly any material to carry out a decent comparison, and consequently, reviews comparing the two formats are far from being conclusive in that respect. I personally do not believe that either is bad, so I welcome them both. If there is only one to survive, yes, you can hope it will be the one that sounds best to your ears. And even that could ultimately be subject to personal preference. In conclusion: Should Dolby worry? Yes, and they will. Same goes for AuroTechnologies. Should WE (consumers) worry? No, not yet anyway.



I didn't know DTS and Barco were so close...
I hope all three find a way to use the same +/-24 channels for their content,

http://dci-forum.com/index.php?topic=239.msg564#msg#564

Interesting read....


Edit: Looks like one is copied from the other...http://mixonline.com/news/films-tv/immersive-sound-cinema/383964


----------



## Mike Garrett

Kris Deering said:


> I get amazing precision of placement in my theater with discrete renders all around. But again, I can't do an A/B comparison yet so it is hard to know just how much better Atmos could or couldn't be compared to what I have now. I look forward to the comparison though.


My Atmos disc arrives tomorrow and I can test in my theater this week. Have a ball game to go to tomorrow night so it will have to be later in the week.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Dan Hitchman said:


> The sound design instructors at my school. They've used Behringer products before and they're not impressed with their longevity, so they've stopped using their amps and signal processors. They seem to know their stuff, so I respect their opinion. It may be that they're a "value" brand, but if you're looking for a piece of gear that will last perhaps be willing to spend a little more and look elsewhere?
> 
> The higher level Crowns do seem to have a good reputation to be sure.


In the pro world, where amps are run much harder and in poor conditions (long power runs, heat and humidity) Behringer is not known to last as long as some of the better pro amps. In our HT's we are not pushing this equipment very hard and Behringer seems to do fine.


----------



## Spanglo

BillyNedwell said:


> Just for the record.
> 
> Auro- I have no interest in this format. My room, wallet and wife will not tolerate yet another set up.
> 
> Atmos- Sounds great. DSU sounds great. In ceiling speakers disappear into my nice white ceiling and have no impact on décor. Very happy...............................except Christmas is around the corner and I am going to have to entertain my guests for 5 days, which may include watching some films. I just couldn't expect them to sit through TF4 or Exp3 with me pointing out how great it sounds. I will make them sit through some of the Atmos demo stuff but that will only last approx. 20mins.
> 
> Feel my frustration????


Yes, and the other movies avail Step Up All In, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Overheard 3 are all in the same class as T4 & E3. Lots of good visuals and sound tho. 

There is one exception, Enchanted Kingdom, that is very nice. The lone Atmos title above criticism.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> Way to go. Not having speakers and hardware visible is very liberating. And usually gives you way more bang for your buck.
> 
> I can understand guys who have to have their stuff in their living space caring about appearance though. I wouldn't want to sit looking at a Pro amp all night either
> 
> Which amps are you using AAMOI? I couldn’t find it in your build thread (only a quick look though so far I admit).


Nady XA-2100 (powering 18" RE-XXX sub)
Nady XA-1100 (powering TD18H in left main)
Nady XA-1100 (powering TD18H in right main)
Behringer EP4000 (powering 18" Mal-X sub)
Inuke 6000DSP (powering two SI18 subs)
Inuke 6000 (powering two TC Sounds subs)
Rane MA-6S (six channel amp powering TD12M mids and TPL-150H's in mains and center)
Rane MA-6S (powering six JBL Pro 8340's for surround and Atmos)
Behringer EPX2000 (spare)

I have a third TD18H to add to my center to make it 3-way, but have to rebuild three sub boxes to fit it in. That probably will not happen until summer.


----------



## kbarnes701

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Nady XA-2100 (powering 18" RE-XXX sub)
> Nady XA-1100 (powering TD18H in left main)
> Nady XA-1100 (powering TD18H in right main)
> Behringer EP4000 (powering 18" Mal-X sub)
> Inuke 6000DSP (powering two SI18 subs)
> Inuke 6000 (powering two TC Sounds subs)
> Rane MA-6S (six channel amp powering TD12M mids and TPL-150H's in mains and center)
> Rane MA-6S (powering six JBL Pro 8340's for surround and Atmos)
> Behringer EPX2000 (spare)
> 
> I have a third TD18H to add to my center to make it 3-way, but have to rebuild three sub boxes to fit it in. That probably will not happen until summer.


Excellent. I am using all-Emotiva right now in the HT system and am happy with them. But if I was starting over, I’d use Pro amps for sure.

Thanks for the info BTW.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent. I am using all-Emotiva right now in the HT system and am happy with them. But if I was starting over, I’d use Pro amps for sure.
> 
> Thanks for the info BTW.


Never too late to add more power by going pro. Not to mention making some money in the process! 

@AV Science Sales 5 Mike, do you get any hiss into the Beyma's from the Rane amp?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Scott Simonian said:


> Never too late to add more power by going pro. Not to mention making some money in the process!
> 
> @AV Science Sales 5 Mike, do you get any hiss into the Beyma's from the Rane amp?


Only if I walk up and put my ear to the AT screen. Quieter than when I had the Rane connected active to DNA-360 compression drivers with SEOS12.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Never too late to add more power by going pro. Not to mention making some money in the process!


I don't really need more power. I can't believe I said that, but it's true


----------



## Scott Simonian

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Only if I walk up and put my ear to the AT screen. Quieter than when I had the Rane connected active to DNA-360 compression drivers with SEOS12.


Probably because they are slightly less sensitive? 

I use a Samson 1200 and with only a couple ticks on the gain I get quite a bit through my DNA-360/SEOS12 combo. Trying to decide if I want to get a different amp just for the HF section or not. Right now it doesn't bother me as you really can't hear it during a movie. Most movies anyway. Unless there is a drop and zero sound. 1% or less of the time. Or mostly just before I start a movie.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't really need more power. I can't believe I said that, but it's true


Well that's good! If it works for you and you are happy then enjoy the product you have and invested in. It's only until you want more...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well that's good! If it works for you and you are happy then enjoy the product you have and invested in. It's only until you want more...


Agreed. I only came to Pro amp world late on. I wish I had discovered it before and saved myself some $$$ with no loss of SQ.

As amps last forever, as you rightly observed, it seems I will be using my 5 Emo amps for ever too, unless I move house, get a bigger room for the HT and need .... *more power*! 

HST, if I did move, I’d look at active speakers as well.

A propos of nothing, I still crack up whenever I look at this pic of your woofage:


----------



## bargervais

Spanglo said:


> Yes, and the other movies avail Step Up All In, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Overheard 3 are all in the same class as T4 & E3. Lots of good visuals and sound tho.
> 
> There is one exception, Enchanted Kingdom, that is very nice. The lone Atmos title above criticism.


Yes I'm embarrassed to admit that I preordered TMNT it should be waiting for me when I get home... not my choice of movie if I were in my teens like maybe 13 I'll let you know how atmos fills my room I understand John Wick will have Atmos hopefully I'll enjoy that not sure if I'll purchase gravity again as I didn't really like it too much Sandra Bullock no no no no nooo....
But John Wick I may like.


----------



## weekendtoy

I have my side and rear surrounds mounted where the wall and ceiling join, angled downward towards the MLP. Given this set up would it be useless to install TF and TR in-ceiling speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I only came to Pro amp world late on. I wish I had discovered it before and saved myself some $$$ with no loss of SQ.
> 
> As amps last forever, as you rightly observed, it seems I will be using my 5 Emo amps for ever too, unless I move house, get a bigger room for the HT and need .... *more power*!
> 
> HST, if I did move, I’d look at active speakers as well.


I'll tell you... it is more likely chance that you build a subwoofer. Even though you have pretty nice subs (with built in amp) now, it is the logical and often first choice DIY project that would warrant the use of a professional amp. Active speakers is the "advanced class" choice and usually after some go-arounds in the DIY world. Not for the faint at heart.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I only came to Pro amp world late on. I wish I had discovered it before and saved myself some $$$ with no loss of SQ.
> 
> As amps last forever, as you rightly observed, it seems I will be using my 5 Emo amps for ever too, unless I move house, get a bigger room for the HT and need .... *more power*!
> 
> HST, if I did move, I’d look at active speakers as well.
> 
> A propos of nothing, I still crack up whenever I look at this pic of your woofage:


OMG What is that a sub that's almost seven feet tall. I could never fit that in my house.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Yeah I blind bought tmnt as well. I will be watching tonight 

I'll report back


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> A propos of nothing, I still crack up whenever I look at this pic of your woofage:


That's old. Now I have twelve 18's sealed in 6 enclosures all behind my screen.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> OMG What is that a sub that's almost seven feet tall. I could never fit that in my house.


Two subs 45" tall each stacked. It was only like that for a month.


----------



## Spanglo

bargervais said:


> Yes I'm embarrassed to admit that I preordered TMNT it should be waiting for me when I get home... not my choice of movie if I were in my teens like maybe 13 I'll let you know how atmos fills my room I understand John Wick will have Atmos hopefully I'll enjoy that not sure if I'll purchase gravity again as I didn't really like it too much Sandra Bullock no no no no nooo....
> But John Wick I may like.


You'll like TMNT, it was was a really good mix. Several scenes gave me chills the sound was so good. Lots of fights scenes too with crazy amount of stuff going on. Also Several scenes where the sound designers get really creative. No spoilers tho, you'll have to hear for yourself.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Two subs 45" tall each stacked. It was only like that for a month.


Very cool that they fit behind your screen as I would never have the floor space. I have a challenge just trying to hide my two 12" subs.


----------



## NorthSky

> New content on Bluray can only follow theatrical mixes. On that criterion, there is nothing that even comes close to Atmos at this time.


Did you try Auro-3D? ...From both movies and music.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Scott Simonian said:


> Probably because they are slightly less sensitive?
> 
> I use a Samson 1200 and with only a couple ticks on the gain I get quite a bit through my DNA-360/SEOS12 combo. Trying to decide if I want to get a different amp just for the HF section or not. Right now it doesn't bother me as you really can't hear it during a movie. Most movies anyway. Unless there is a drop and zero sound. 1% or less of the time. Or mostly just before I start a movie.


I get less hiss out of the Beyma's than I got out of the DNA-360, when DNA-360's were on passive crossover or active. The DNA-360's on passive crossover were padded down, so the DNA-360 would match a single TD12M. The Beyma TPL-150H is matched to dual TD12M's.

Sorry for the off topic.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I only came to Pro amp world late on. I wish I had discovered it before and saved myself some $$$ with no loss of SQ.
> 
> As amps last forever, as you rightly observed, it seems I will be using my 5 Emo amps for ever too, unless I move house, get a bigger room for the HT and need .... *more power*!
> 
> HST, if I did move, I’d look at active speakers as well.
> 
> A propos of nothing, I still crack up whenever I look at this pic of your woofage:


It is dual purpose. When Scott gets to 100 and passes away, it can serve as his coffin.


----------



## NorthSky

> Try out *Tomb Raider* the Definitive edition. Lots of caves, water, wind etc. I can't wait until everything we play is made for 3D surround.


The video games? ...In 3D.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Spanglo said:


> You'll like TMNT, it was was a really good mix. Several scenes gave me chills the sound was so good. Lots of fights scenes too with crazy amount of stuff going on. Also Several scenes where the sound designers get really creative. No spoilers tho, you'll have to hear for yourself.


Does the rental version of this have Atmos? It is Paramount, so I assume that it does?


----------



## NorthSky

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> It is dual purpose. When Scott gets to 100 and passes away, it can serve as his coffin.


Is this legally permissible!


----------



## Scott Simonian

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> It is dual purpose. When Scott gets to 100 and passes away, it can serve as his coffin.



Lol! You'd still have to cut me into pieces to fit into that old beast.


----------



## NorthSky

> IME Behringer gear is well made, built to withstand abuse and represents great value. Pro amps are definitely the best way to get high power amplification for a sensible price. And if you don't like Behringer, choose Crown instead. They are from Harman and I have personal experience of their XLS range, owning one right now for example, and can vouch for the quality and reliability. If only the 'audiophile' amp brigade could set their prejudices aside, they'd save thousands of dollars with no detrimental impact on SQ.


Audioholics have several Behringer fans. ...And Crown and Harman Kardon amps and receivers too.
...Just have to disconnect their noisy fans. ...Great value, quality and current. ...Good amps to add with Dolby Atmos; full range.
...Almost as good, if not better, than Emotiva amps. ...For pure value it shure is.


----------



## NorthSky

> IMHO Dolby neglected mentioning what the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) can do to your existing videophile library.


...Same with Auro-Matic?


----------



## bargervais

Has anyone watched The Maze Runner I was able to watch it on XBMC with only 5.1 streaming but I was amazed as it looks like this will be a great candidate for DSU plus I actually liked it so I'm going to buy the blu-ray looks like it will have a sequel let's hope that will be in Atmos. I just ordered the blu-ray while typing this I'll report back.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll tell you... it is more likely chance that you build a subwoofer. Even though you have pretty nice subs (with built in amp) now, it is the logical and often first choice DIY project that would warrant the use of a professional amp. Active speakers is the "advanced class" choice and usually after some go-arounds in the DIY world. Not for the faint at heart.


I was thinking more of ready-made active speakers like Genelecs or something.


----------



## Spanglo

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Does the rental version of this have Atmos? It is Paramount, so I assume that it does?


Sorry, I have no idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

av science sales 5 said:


> it is dual purpose. When scott gets to 100 and passes away, it can serve as his coffin.


rotflmao.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! You'd still have to cut me into pieces to fit into that old beast.


Not if you remove the braces.

But no matter now; you have six new enclosures waiting for you in pieces:
1. Left leg
2. Right leg
3. Left arm
4. Right arm
5. Head
6. Torso


----------



## johnty

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Does the rental version of this have Atmos? It is Paramount, so I assume that it does?


Yes it does.


----------



## stikle

Well, I did it. I ordered my Denon AVR-X5200W...and now am questioning my sanity. This will be my first Denon. Did I really need to spend the money? No. Did I want to? (mostly) Yes. From everything I've read, DSU alone is worth the cost of admission. I certainly hope that's the case.

I've been an Onkyo man for years - My TX-NR929 is not even a year old and has been fabulous with one annoying exception: I get random audio dropouts on my DirecTV feeds. Now it's just going to go in a box and sit out in the garage. It makes me really sad. Guess I could try and sell it to recoup some of the cost. I could have saved $200 and gone with the TX-NR1030 like bargervais did, but I feel the change from Audyssey XT32 to their new Accu-EQ is less than desirable even though I have no basis in fact. That appears to be the consensus from what I've read.

And then there's the speakers I have on the way for the 4 overheads. I have no idea how I'm going to get them mounted and wires run. But as someone pointed out (with some suggestions) - where there's a will there's a way. Even if I have to hire The Man to help.

I could have (and probably should have) re-purposed the existing front highs and wides to the overheads, but instead they'll just stay where they are, sadly unused. Maybe in a couple years I'll upgrade the AVR again and they'll have a purpose in life again.

Now if I can just find my misplaced stud finder, I can at least start trying to figure out speaker placements within the proper degrees from MLP.

Here's what it's going to look like-ish.


----------



## NorthSky

*TMNT from Michael Bay (Dolby Atmos audio: on both BD purchase & rental)*



AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Does the rental version of this have Atmos? It is Paramount, so I assume that it does?





johnty said:


> Yes it does.


Paramount studios: bonus point here for them (like 'TF4' too), and unlike Lions Gate studios. /// 'The Expendables 3', 'The Hunger Games', ...


----------



## NorthSky

*Ya man!*



stikle said:


> Well, I did it. I ordered my Denon AVR-X5200W...and now am questioning my sanity. This will be my first Denon. Did I really need to spend the money? No. Did I want to? (mostly) Yes. From everything I've read, DSU alone is worth the cost of admission. I certainly hope that's the case.
> I've been an Onkyo man for years - My TX-NR929 is not even a year old and has been fabulous with one annoying exception: I get random audio dropouts on my DirecTV feeds. Now it's just going to go in a box and sit out in the garage. It makes me really sad. Guess I could try and sell it to recoup some of the cost. I could have saved $200 and gone with the TX-NR1030 like bargervais did, but I feel the change from Audyssey XT32 to their new Accu-EQ is less than desirable even though I have no basis in fact. That appears to be the consensus from what I've read.
> And then there's the speakers I have on the way for the 4 overheads. I have no idea how I'm going to get them mounted and wires run. But as someone pointed out (with some suggestions) - where there's a will there's a way. Even if I have to hire The Man to help.
> I could have (and probably should have) re-purposed the existing front highs and wides to the overheads, but instead they'll just stay where they are, sadly unused. Maybe in a couple years I'll upgrade the AVR again and they'll have a purpose in life again.
> Now if I can just find my misplaced stud finder, I can at least start trying to figure out speaker placements within the proper degrees from MLP.
> Here's what it's going to look like-ish.


Your decision, and plan setup: Awesome! ...Perfecto mundo!


----------



## ThePrisoner

kokishin said:


> Click on the first link in my sig below.


Update on my set-up. Yamaha NS-AW190 on ceiling speakers set-up as TM for 5.2.4. Audio source Amp 100 .

Thanks


----------



## kokishin

ThePrisoner said:


> Update on my set-up. Yamaha NS-AW190 on ceiling speakers set-up as TM for 5.2.4. Audio source Amp 100 .
> 
> Thanks


You're updated.

Thanks


----------



## Jive Turkey

Brian Fineberg said:


> Yeah I blind bought tmnt as well. I will be watching tonight
> 
> I'll report back


And I rented it from Redbox just to hear more native Atmos (the disc does say Dolby Atmos on it). I doubt I'd have rented it for any other reason, though I will probably check my brain at the door and enjoy it. Unlike "Step Up, All In". Five minutes of that had me hitting the stop button.


----------



## Spanglo

This track is a great demo for DS: http://bongripper.bandcamp.com/track/je-mappelle

Very intense atmospherics.


----------



## htpcforever

stikle said:


> I've been an Onkyo man for years - My TX-NR929 is not even a year old and has been fabulous with one annoying exception: I get random audio dropouts on my DirecTV feeds. Now it's just going to go in a box and sit out in the garage. It makes me really sad. Guess I could try and sell it to recoup some of the cost.


I would keep it as your backup AVR. Imagine if something happens to your new AVR...electronics from every company fail now and again. You will be able to send it in for repair and use your 929 in its place. While you will lose Atmos, you will still have everything else and have great sound while you wait.


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> Well, I did it. I ordered my Denon AVR-X5200W...and now am questioning my sanity. This will be my first Denon. Did I really need to spend the money? No. Did I want to? (mostly) Yes. From everything I've read, DSU alone is worth the cost of admission. I certainly hope that's the case.
> 
> I've been an Onkyo man for years - My TX-NR929 is not even a year old and has been fabulous with one annoying exception: I get random audio dropouts on my DirecTV feeds. Now it's just going to go in a box and sit out in the garage. It makes me really sad. Guess I could try and sell it to recoup some of the cost. I could have saved $200 and gone with the TX-NR1030 like bargervais did, but I feel the change from Audyssey XT32 to their new Accu-EQ is less than desirable even though I have no basis in fact. That appears to be the consensus from what I've read.
> 
> And then there's the speakers I have on the way for the 4 overheads. I have no idea how I'm going to get them mounted and wires run. But as someone pointed out (with some suggestions) - where there's a will there's a way. Even if I have to hire The Man to help.
> 
> I could have (and probably should have) re-purposed the existing front highs and wides to the overheads, but instead they'll just stay where they are, sadly unused. Maybe in a couple years I'll upgrade the AVR again and they'll have a purpose in life again.
> 
> Now if I can just find my misplaced stud finder, I can at least start trying to figure out speaker placements within the proper degrees from MLP.
> 
> Here's what it's going to look like-ish.


Congratulations I just want to say I was very close to getting the 929 when I stumbled upon this thread I was coming off a 818 with audyssey XT32 and heard the news that Onkyo had dropped it and replaced it with Accu-EQ I was not happy so I kept looking hoping the 929 price would drop but it never did as it's a great 9.1 receiver. So then I kept visiting in this thread and I got the bug I had to have it I was very close to pulling the trigger on the 5200. But I ended up getting the TX-NR 737 just to get my feet wet as soon as the firmware was released I was hooked. Then I had to have 7.2.4 and when I saw a TX-NR 1030 for 500 less then MANUFACTURERS RETAIL PRICE I jumped on it. It was an open box so it said when I got it it was brand spanking new never been opened... not sure why it was listed as open box or used as it was only two weeks after it was released. So to make a long story short I got the 737 and the 1030 for less than the retail price of the 5200, so it was a no brainer. The only thing that bother me was the lack of audyssey XT32. But now I don't miss XT32.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kokishin said:


> You're updated.
> 
> Thanks





ThePrisoner said:


> Update on my set-up. Yamaha NS-AW190 on ceiling speakers set-up as TM for 5.2.4. Audio source Amp 100 .
> 
> Thanks



Info is, Denon X4100 5.2.4 Def Tech ProMonitor 800 on wall FH, Yamaha NS-AW190 on ceiling TM, Audiosource Amp 100

Thanks, sorry about confusion


----------



## kokishin

ThePrisoner said:


> Info is, Denon X4100 5.2.4 Def Tech ProMonitor 800 on wall FH, Yamaha NS-AW190 on ceiling TM, Audiosource Amp 100
> 
> Thanks, sorry about confusion


Corrected.

Thanks again


----------



## noah katz

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> My Atmos disc arrives tomorrow and I can test in my theater this week.




Where'd you get it?​


----------



## bargervais

Watching TMNT as I write this I must confess It did bring me back to my prepubescent self and started wishing that they will release Spy Kids in Atmos I was like a kid again...
I think the sound in TMNT is actually very good but the content is very Nickelodeon to the tee. But the sound was good and did make use of the atmos speakers IMHO.


----------



## Mike Garrett

noah katz said:


> Where'd you get it?​


A supplier is sending it to me. Will be a great tool for demo of Atmos. I will see how they sound at reference. Will not start there, because I was told one of the demo's is recorded pretty hot.


----------



## Scott Simonian

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> A supplier is sending it to me. Will be a great tool for demo of Atmos. I will see how they sound at reference. Will not start there, because I was told one of the demo's is recorded pretty hot.


Nah, they are okay. Especially with a system like yours. No worries about the bass. The 'Amaze' trailer just has a nice heavy bass rumble in it.


----------



## Mike Garrett

bargervais said:


> Watching TMNT as I write this I must confess It did bring me back to my prepubescent self and started wishing that they will release Spy Kids in Atmos I was like a kid again...
> I think the sound in TMNT is actually very good but the content is very Nickelodeon to the tee. But the sound was good and did make use of the atmos speakers IMHO.


I watched this tonight also. Now that I have my speakers dialed in pretty good and everything set up well with the AV7702, I ran this movie at reference. The sound was great. Between my new speakers, prepro and Atmos, my room sounds better than ever. Reference is so clean, that it does not sound that loud. I am used to a theater with a lot of impact and not much makes me jump, but there was a scene or two TNMT, that did just that. That has not happened in a long time. The sound was so good that I just want to show it to others. Have a lot of family coming down for Christmas, this is going to be fun.


----------



## sdrucker

bargervais said:


> Watching TMNT as I write this I must confess It did bring me back to my prepubescent self and started wishing that they will release Spy Kids in Atmos I was like a kid again...
> I think the sound in TMNT is actually very good but the content is very Nickelodeon to the tee. But the sound was good and did make use of the atmos speakers IMHO.



Anybody past puberty that can sit through TMNT without gnawing off limbs, while in a state of sobriety, is far more tolerant than I am.


Bring on Gravity!


----------



## roxiedog13

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I watched this tonight also. Now that I have my speakers dialed in pretty good and everything set up well with the AV7702, I ran this movie at reference. The sound was great. Between my new speakers, prepro and Atmos, my room sounds better than ever. Reference is so clean, that it does not sound that loud. I am used to a theater with a lot of impact and not much makes me jump, but there was a scene or two TNMT, that did just that. That has not happened in a long time. The sound was so good that I just want to show it to others. Have a lot of family coming down for Christmas, this is going to be fun.



Hey Mike, what speakers are you running for ceiling TR/TF ? Looked in the spreadsheet and I could not find you there. I know you told me what you were using but I could not remember.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Ok I know my HT isn't the most impressive in the world but I figure some of you might be interested in seeing it, & the 44-DA's I just got in (thanks JD!). If you look closely you can see how I tilted them to push the sound closer to the MLP... is this what other people might be doing as well? I still have to mount my surround speakers, and yes... that couch is a temporary inhabitant. The artwork up on the walls is my work... for the heck of it I included the oil painting on panel I'm currently working on (seriously not self-promoting) (though if any of you are rich and have 30 grand to spare...)


----------



## bargervais

sdrucker said:


> Anybody past puberty that can sit through TMNT without gnawing off limbs, while in a state of sobriety, is far more tolerant than I am.
> 
> 
> Bring on Gravity!


Well I made it through and I still have all my limbs LOL I'M hoping John Wick with an Atmos mix will do it for me as I think that's going to be the next one coming gravity won't be till March is what someone reported in here John Wick will be early February..


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ok I know my HT isn't the most impressive in the world but I figure some of you might be interested in seeing it, & the 44-DA's I just got in (thanks JD!). If you look closely you can see how I tilted them to push the sound closer to the MLP... is this what other people might be doing as well? I still have to mount my surround speakers, and yes... that couch is a temporary inhabitant. The artwork up on the walls is my work... for the heck of it I included the oil painting on panel I'm currently working on (seriously not self-promoting) (though if any of you are rich and have 30 grand to spare...)


Very cosy maybe 30 grand can buy you some speaker stands so you can read those books your using as speaker stands.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Not a bad audio mix. I watched it thinking it is what it is as far as the movie. Enjoyed it, but don't need to see it again. The audio mix was pretty good. A lot of discrete objects above and a lot of atmospherics. I think each release tends to be a little improved audio wise. Maybe they're getting the hang of it, but I do think there is still room for improvement.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ok I know my HT isn't the most impressive in the world but I figure some of you might be interested in seeing it, & the 44-DA's I just got in (thanks JD!). If you look closely you can see how I tilted them to push the sound closer to the MLP... is this what other people might be doing as well? I still have to mount my surround speakers, and yes... that couch is a temporary inhabitant.
> *The artwork up on the walls is my work... for the heck of it I included the oil painting on panel I'm currently working on* (seriously not self-promoting) (though if any of you are rich and have 30 grand to spare...)


Wow, you are a true artist; it is beautiful.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> Very cosy maybe 30 grand can buy you some speaker stands so you can read those books your using as speaker stands.


LOLZ... good eye! I put them in there to raise the speaker a bit.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Wow, you are a true artist; it is beautiful.


Thanks so much! I'm supposed to be painting right now, haha. That painting I'm working on now is almost 900 hours worth of work so far. 

If I recall you said that you are an artist as well? I'd like to check out that work.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks so much! I'm supposed to be painting right now, haha. That painting I'm working on now is almost 900 hours worth of work so far.
> 
> If I recall you said that you are an artist as well? I'd like to check out that work.


I paint, sculpt, write (songs and poetry), graphic designer, sketch (plans, gardens, architecture, furniture, etc.), play several musical instruments,
and a bunch of other creative stuff using my imagination and both hands. 

It's just that I'm just too emotionally fragile to show pictures. And everything I do is for personal satisfaction, with no money involved. 

_____________

♦ But as an Atmos aside; try this Blu-ray title with DSU engaged:


----------



## petetherock

I have just finished writing down my experience of adding Atmos ceiling speakers and I put my thoughts / tips here:

http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2014/12/adding-atmos-auro-speakers-to-existing.html


----------



## kuro6010

The lucky ones who have received the Atlantic Tech 44DA's , can you write a brief feedback. I get mine tomorrow. But Im still waiting for my Denon X7200, so it will be a while before I can enjoy Atmos and DSU.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kuro6010 said:


> The lucky ones who have received the Atlantic Tech 44DA's , can you write a brief feedback. I get mine tomorrow. But Im still waiting for my Denon X7200, so it will be a while before I can enjoy Atmos and DSU.


I wrote a few things about them yesterday if you search through my posts from yesterday on this thread. They sound great... I just need to tweak before I can give a good impression. The rears are perfect but due to the distance of the fronts the sound isn't as full as it should be, but I need to spend more time playing with it. Tilting the front speakers pushes the sound closer to the MLP for me. 

If you have the dolby demo disc I'd like to compare things with you if possible.


----------



## Mike Garrett

roxiedog13 said:


> Hey Mike, what speakers are you running for ceiling TR/TF ? Looked in the spreadsheet and I could not find you there. I know you told me what you were using but I could not remember.


I am there, toward the top. I have 40lb speakers surface mounted on my ceiling. All of my surrounds and Atmos speakers are JBL Pro 8340's.
http://www.jblpro.com/pub/cinema/8340.pdf


----------



## Mike Garrett

bargervais said:


> Well I made it through and I still have all my limbs LOL I'M hoping John Wick with an Atmos mix will do it for me as I think that's going to be the next one coming gravity won't be till March is what someone reported in here John Wick will be early February..


I am also looking forward to John Wick.


----------



## ckgolf

I'm planning 2 rows of seats in my theater. I will have a pair of side surrounds per row. I'm also thinking of having a pair of top middle atmos speakers per row at about 75-80°. I will also have front height speakers at about 35° for the front row. I haven't seen anyone use multiple pairs of the same location designation for atmos yet. How do you think this would work?


----------



## Mike Garrett

ckgolf said:


> I'm planning 2 rows of seats in my theater. I will have a pair of side surrounds per row. I'm also thinking of having a pair of top middle atmos speakers per row at about 75-80°. I will also have front height speakers at about 35° for the front row. I haven't seen anyone use multiple pairs of the same location designation for atmos yet. How do you think this would work?


What piece of equipment (processor) are you planning on using? Typical AVR's and prepros do not have a way of adding a second set of right and left surrounds. To do this right, you would have to be able to measure and set the delay corectly. Also you are into high end equipment, if you are wanting six Atmos speakers, at least right now. After next spring, it might be different as far as the Atmos speakers go.


----------



## dannybee

noah katz said:


> Where'd you get it?​


you know that you can download this disc.


----------



## ckgolf

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> What piece of equipment (processor) are you planning on using? Typical AVR's and prepros do not have a way of adding a second set of right and left surrounds. To do this right, you would have to be able to measure and set the delay corectly. Also you are into high end equipment, if you are wanting six Atmos speakers, at least right now. After next spring, it might be different as far as the Atmos speakers go.


I'd be using the Denon 5200. I know the limitations as regards configurations. I'd send the preout to an amp and run the 2 top middle pairs in parallel (8ohm speakers, 4ohm stable amp) Seems like many have done this to have 4 sides and think it works great.


----------



## pasender91

ckgolf said:


> I'd be using the Denon 5200. I know the limitations as regards configurations. I'd send the preout to an amp and run the 2 top middle pairs in parallel (8ohm speakers, 4ohm stable amp) Seems like many have done this to have 4 sides and think it works great.


I have not done that personally, but there is an interesting debate right now on the french forum equivalent to AVS.
A very respected professional is going this way to setup a high-end HT, and if he does it means it works 
The principle is to use a regular 7.1.4 Atmos processor, then split the signal for the surrounds, back surrounds, and top channels.
Each of those channels will be forwarded towards 2 to 4 speakers, spread on an area, like legacy cinemas do for 5.1 today 
The final goal is to have 32 speakers connected.

On a more "normal" scale, what you want to do having 2 pairs of speakers connected in parallel seems like a good idea.
Your speakers could also be bipoles.


----------



## Wookii

pasender91 said:


> I have not done that personally, but there is an interesting debate right now on the french forum equivalent to AVS.
> A very respected professional is going this way to setup a high-end HT, and if he does it means it works
> *The principle is to use a regular 7.1.4 Atmos processor, then split the signal for the surrounds, back surrounds, and top channels.
> Each of those channels will be forwarded towards 2 to 4 speakers, spread on an area, like legacy cinemas do for 5.1 today
> The final goal is to have 32 speakers connected*.
> 
> On a more "normal" scale, what you want to do having 2 pairs of speakers connected in parallel seems like a good idea.
> Your speakers could also be bipoles.


Whilst that might work for a legacy channel based system, I would have to seriously question whether to would work correctly for accurately imaging audio objects in an Atmos system!


----------



## Nightlord

pasender91 said:


> I have not done that personally, but there is an interesting debate right now on the french forum equivalent to AVS.
> A very respected professional is going this way to setup a high-end HT, and if he does it means it works
> The principle is to use a regular 7.1.4 Atmos processor, then split the signal for the surrounds, back surrounds, and top channels.
> Each of those channels will be forwarded towards 2 to 4 speakers, spread on an area, like legacy cinemas do for 5.1 today
> The final goal is to have 32 speakers connected.
> 
> On a more "normal" scale, what you want to do having 2 pairs of speakers connected in parallel seems like a good idea.
> Your speakers could also be bipoles.


I'm using three in parallel on my side surrounds. Speakers are designed especially for it with higher than normal impedance (16Ω).

Right hand side surrounds:








(these are NOT bipoles, btw)


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> Whilst that might work for a legacy channel based system, I would have to seriously question whether to would work correctly for accurately imaging audio objects in an Atmos system!


It won't will it? In an Atmos setup the side surrounds are each individually addressable, not the old-style array at all.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> It won't will it? In an Atmos setup the side surrounds are each individually addressable, not the old-style array at all.


Depends on what you prioritize... max performance for one seat, or slightly lower but better for all the other seats too.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

was only able to wathc the first hour of TMNT and all I can say is....WOW!!!

best ATMOS mix by far...and so far not too terrible a movie either (just dont expect an academy award winner and your golden)...just great use of the ATMOS speakers from directionality to ambience to overall incredible sound!!!

give it a spin!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

was only able to wathc the first hour of TMNT and all I can say is....WOW!!!

best ATMOS mix by far...and so far not too terrible a movie either (just dont expect an academy award winner and your golden)...just great use of the ATMOS speakers from directionality to ambience to overall incredible sound!!!

give it a spin!


----------



## roxiedog13

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I am there, toward the top. I have 40lb speakers surface mounted on my ceiling. All of my surrounds and Atmos speakers are JBL Pro 8340's.
> http://www.jblpro.com/pub/cinema/8340.pdf


Yea, now I remember , I knew it was something over the top . No replacement for displacement right 

I'm going to try small bookshelf speakers first from below and then on the ceiling where I would likely put the in-ceiling later. If either of the first two options work, I'll leave well enough alone.
I have the X5200 on the way for now and will play with that for a while. I'm pulling wires for additional speakers this time ,so if the 6 speaker atmos receiver is an option next year with HDCP2.2 then I'm all over that. For now, it's an experiment .


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Depends on what you prioritize... max performance for one seat, or slightly lower but better for all the other seats too.


That wasn't my point. I can see the old-style benefit of a side-array, but Atmos won't work optimally with that arrangement because the surrounds are individually addressable in an Atmos mix - the mixer can send a sound from the first to the second to the third to the fourth etc etc speaker ranged along the wall, or play a sound just from speaker No 3 or play a sound from all speakers at the same time. If you have the array, then the first two of those examples becomes impossible. HST, they are impossible anyway if you only have two surrounds, so on reflection, your idea is as good as that anyway, and maybe better if you have a very long room, for the same reason arrays are used in commercial theaters.

I only have one row of seats so it wouldn't be any use here


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> That wasn't my point. I can see the old-style benefit of a side-array, but Atmos won't work optimally with that arrangement because the surrounds are individually addressable in an Atmos mix - the mixer can send a sound from the first to the second to the third to the fourth etc etc speaker ranged along the wall, or play a sound just from speaker No 3 or play a sound from all speakers at the same time. If you have the array, then the first two of those examples becomes impossible. HST, they are impossible anyway if you only have two surrounds, so on reflection, your idea is as good as that anyway, and maybe better if you have a very long room, for the same reason arrays are used in commercial theaters.
> 
> I only have one row of seats so it wouldn't be any use here


Yes, you should not compare an array playing the same signal to the same number of atmos speakers.... it should be regarded as one atmos speaker, but with better directional input to all seats. But I definitely understand that it's nothing you need to worry about with one row. 

If you have three side atmos speakers and two rows, you'd have the inconsistency of the front row people hearing the 2nd one from behind them and the back row people still hearing it as in front... I cannot see anything logical in that sound should be so different for people watching the same image. With an array, you get less possibility of steering but the same experience. Both variants are less than optimal. For Atmos one really should have a huge number of extremely narrow radiating speakers individually aimed at each seat, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> It won't will it? In an Atmos setup the side surrounds are each individually addressable, not the old-style array at all.


What is preventing of having an array of 2 to 4 speakers for each individual channel?
We all understand the questioning regarding object positioning, but on the other side what about the ambient sounds, like wind, crowds .... 
Those are still there and with speakers which are very focused, the side sound is heard as "wind ..........BIG HOLE ............ wind", so its not very natural either.

I believe it's at least worth discussing the idea of speaker arrays and bipoles, at least for people that have larger rooms and cannot afford a Trinnov


----------



## Wookii

Regarding the point that has been raised on here of DSU not using two of the speakers (in the traditional front wide positions) in a 9.1.2 set-up - does anyone know if this is an implementation limitation by the AVR manufacturers concerned, or an algorithm limitation by design from Dolby?

I would have thought that Dolby would have designed the upmixer to work on any array of speakers within their maximum 24.1.10 layout, so I'm assuming the former?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Nightlord said:


> Yes, you should not compare an array playing the same signal to the same number of atmos speakers.... it should be regarded as one atmos speaker, but with better directional input to all seats. But I definitely understand that it's nothing you need to worry about with one row.
> 
> If you have three side atmos speakers and two rows, you'd have the inconsistency of the front row people hearing the 2nd one from behind them and the back row people still hearing it as in front... I cannot see anything logical in that sound should be so different for people watching the same image. With an array, you get less possibility of steering but the same experience. Both variants are less than optimal. For Atmos one really should have a huge number of extremely narrow radiating speakers individually aimed at each seat, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.


With multiple side surrounds you gain in some areas and lose in others. You mentioned the benefits. The trade off to get the benefits that you mentioned is smearing of sound. With multiple surrounds the sound from the second surround will reach your ears a few seconds later and this causes smear of the sound. As always with HT, there are compromises. You have to pick what you feel is best for you. With a two row HT, you are either going to have to go with one speaker or two for the surrounds and neither is a perfect solution. As always, pick your poison.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Wookii said:


> Regarding the point that has been raised on here of DSU not using two of the speakers (in the traditional front wide positions) in a 9.1.2 set-up - does anyone know if this is an implementation limitation by the AVR manufacturers concerned, or an algorithm limitation by design from Dolby?
> 
> I would have thought that Dolby would have designed the upmixer to work on any array of speakers within their maximum 24.1.10 layout, so I'm assuming the former?


AVR manufacturers are not using half the channels that Dolby has designed into the Atmos system. At some point, I would expect wides to be incorporated.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> What is preventing of having an array of 2 to 4 speakers for each individual channel?
> We all understand the questioning regarding object positioning, but on the other side what about the ambient sounds, like wind, crowds ....
> Those are still there and with speakers which are very focused, the side sound is heard as "wind ..........BIG HOLE ............ wind", so its not very natural either.
> 
> I believe it's at least worth discussing the idea of speaker arrays and bipoles, at least for people that have larger rooms and cannot afford a Trinnov


I agree. If the room is very long, as it is in a commercial theater, an array of surrounds can work well. But unlike commercial Atmos theaters, the array will not be able to place individual sounds in individual speakers, or pan through the array. Atmos has signalled the end of this traditional sort of array for side surrounds in commercial theaters. But as I said to Nightlord, using 4 or 6 on the side in a HT is perhaps no worse than using just 2 (wrt to Atmos) and for a multi-row theater it could be better.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> Regarding the point that has been raised on here of DSU not using two of the speakers (in the traditional front wide positions) in a 9.1.2 set-up - does anyone know if this is an implementation limitation by the AVR manufacturers concerned, or an algorithm limitation by design from Dolby?
> 
> I would have thought that Dolby would have designed the upmixer to work on any array of speakers within their maximum 24.1.10 layout, so I'm assuming the former?


It is a limitation of Dolby's DSU AIUI. Atmos, of course, has no such limitation and uses the Wides, if present.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> ... for the heck of it I included the oil painting on panel I'm currently working on (seriously not self-promoting) (though if any of you are rich and have 30 grand to spare...)


That's some really nice representational work (the painting, not the improvised speaker setup); it's eerily similar in style to that of an established artist I know (ex-girlfriend) whose work is in several museums. 

I notice that you're in the Chicago area; you're not an Art Institute grad by any chance, are you?


----------



## Wookii

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> AVR manufacturers are not using half the channels that Dolby has designed into the system. At some point, I would expect wides to be incorporated.


Yes, but as I understand it those 9.1.2 capable AVR's can utilise those additional two standard height channels (previously wides) for objects in dedicated Atmos tracks, but not for the upmixer - I just wonder if there was a specific reason for that?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Wookii said:


> Regarding the point that has been raised on here of DSU not using two of the speakers (in the traditional front wide positions) in a 9.1.2 set-up - does anyone know if this is an implementation limitation by the AVR manufacturers concerned, or an algorithm limitation by design from Dolby?
> 
> I would have thought that Dolby would have designed the upmixer to work on any array of speakers within their maximum 24.1.10 layout, *so I'm assuming the former?*


Actually the latter, as the Dolby Pro Logic simulation modes don't use Wides as well.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> It is a limitation of Dolby's DSU AIUI. Atmos, of course, has no such limitation and uses the Wides, if present.


Sorry Keith, our posts crossed - thanks for confirming.


----------



## Wookii

jdsmoothie said:


> Actually the latter, as the Dolby Pro Logic simulation modes don't use Wides as well.


Yeah, I appreciate that PLIIx/z don't utilise wides but they weren't specified for any discrete channel layout either.

With Atmos however Dolby has 24 lower discrete speaker positions within the Atmos spec, so I would have thought as long as the AVR supports any one of those 24 positions for discrete playback, the upmixer would also support them for upmixed playback. Hence why I wondered if the AVR manufactures had been the limiting factor by labelling them as wides rather than calling them "Atmos +/-60 degree speakers"?

Perhaps when some people get the Trinnov Altitude installed we'll know if DSU on that that is limited to 7.1.4, or whether it will cover more Atmos base level speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> Sorry Keith, our posts crossed - thanks for confirming.


No problem. Dolby have never been a big fan of Wides - when Audyssey was pushing DSX and DTS was pushing Neo:X, Dolby had PLIIz which utilised just Height channels. I think, BICBW on this, that Atmos only makes use of Wides in a HT situation because Atmos theatrically uses those speakers that come between the screen and the first of the side surrounds (I forget what they call them) but these aren't true Wides as we HT people mean by the term. For Atmos HT they seem to have deployed the Wides for that same duty - filling the gap as the sound transitions from screen to side walls.

I believe Dolby said something about not using Wides for DSU in order to preserve the integrity of the front soundstage, but TBH, not having Wides, I didn't pay all that much attention


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> No problem. Dolby have never been a big fan of Wides - when Audyssey was pushing DSX and DTS was pushing Neo:X, Dolby had PLIIz which utilised just Height channels. I think, BICBW on this, that Atmos only makes use of Wides in a HT situation because Atmos theatrically uses those speakers that come between the screen and the first of the side surrounds (I forget what they call them) but these aren't true Wides as we HT people mean by the term. For Atmos HT they seem to have deployed the Wides for that same duty - filling the gap as the sound transitions from screen to side walls.
> 
> I believe Dolby said something about not using Wides for DSU in order to preserve the integrity of the front soundstage, but TBH, not having Wides, I didn't pay all that much attention


I think us both using the terms 'wides' is a bit confusing Keith - makes us think of DSX and Neo:X. Assuming we banish the term' wides' to the annals of history for a moment, I'm really referring to positions of the 24 lower speakers within the Atmos 24.1
10 spec, where speakers are at every 15 degree point.

I'm assuming the AVR's that support 9.1.2 for native Atmos content are treating the additional two lower speakers as being in Atmos +/-60 degree positions, I just wonder why DSU doesn't support these Atmos spec positions also.

Same applies I guess, if future generation of AVR's and processor add more channels - if more base level channels are supported (up to the 24 channel Atmos maximum), will only 7 of those still be used by DSU?


----------



## sdurani

Wookii said:


> I just wonder why DSU doesn't support these Atmos spec positions also.


Dolby says it's to preserve the integrity of the front soundstage, which means they want DSU to feed only 3 speakers up front. DSU will not feed any speakers between the L/C/R speakers nor any speakers just outside the L/R speakers. The forward-most speakers to get DSU feeds are Surround 1 speakers, centered at the +/-75 degree locations.


----------



## Wookii

sdurani said:


> Dolby says it's to preserve the integrity of the front soundstage, which means they want DSU to feed only 3 speakers up front. DSU will not feed any speakers between the L/C/R speakers nor any speakers just outside the L/R speakers. The forward-most speakers to get DSU feeds are Surround 1 speakers, centered at the +/-75 degree locations.


Okay, thanks Sanjay.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> That's some really nice representational work (the painting, not the improvised speaker setup); it's eerily similar in style to that of an established artist I know (ex-girlfriend) whose work is in several museums.
> 
> I notice that you're in the Chicago area; you're not an Art Institute grad by any chance, are you?


Thanks! I studied across the street @ the American Academy of Art specifically for working on my representational chops. I was very fortunate in that I had many teachers from different representational schools of thought (New York Academy grads who learned the old master techniques & materials vs. a guy who more or less was self taught, but who had James Valerio as his instructor/ more modern representational techniques). + 8-ish semesters worth of life drawing & life painting classes. The Art institute's focus is more of a theoretical understanding of art, they don't really have much time devoted to life drawing... but I Know some great artists who came out of their program. For me personally I needed the practice  

I'm curious to see your ex's work... does she do the multiple image / montage thing that I do? Or were you referring more towards the technique?


----------



## pasender91

If i read the dolby documentation correctly:
0° is center
15° is called "screen", not supported by DSU.
30° is your main front
45° is the "wide", not supported by DSU, even if you have speakers there.
60° is the front surround 1,yes it is supported in DSU, but mainstream AVRs don't manage this position. I believe this is the best candidate to do 9 channels at ground level, as it is right in the gap between fronts and surrounds. 
75° is front surround 2, same situation as front surround 1
90° is the legacy surround that we all know 
...
I dont want to describe the back scene as it is not the focus of this debate.


----------



## blazar

I am going to seriously consider a Trinnov Altitude 24 after tax time next year...

No other Atmos enabled product would work for my number of speakers or is totally scalable in terms of conforming to your existing speaker locations in a 3D space.

I hope some that take delivery will provide some reviews to bolster my decision.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks! I studied across the street @ the American Academy of Art specifically for working on my representational chops. I was very fortunate in that I had many teachers from different representational schools of thought (New York Academy grads who learned the old master techniques & materials vs. a guy who more or less was self taught, but who had James Valerio as his instructor/ more modern representational techniques). + 8-ish semesters worth of life drawing & life painting classes. The Art institute's focus is more of a theoretical understanding of art, they don't really have much time devoted to life drawing... but I Know some great artists who came out of their program. For me personally I needed the practice
> 
> I'm curious to see your ex's work... does she do the multiple image / montage thing that I do? Or were you referring more towards the technique?


I was referring specifically to the linear, representational technique rather than the composition. You can visit her home page here (N.B. That's me posing for "Quiet Prayer" under portraits). See, in particular, "The Letter" (below) for some of the similarity of detail.

Sorry to others for the OT discussion, but amid all the talk of Transformers, TMNT and such folderol, it's nice to bring a touch of the arts into the mix.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I spent some more time adjusting the 44-DA's. I've been using "the conductor" on Dolby Atmos disc as a reference. What I've noticed is that the fronts, being farther away, lose the "fullness" of their sound... you can hear it best as the bird is flapping it's wings as it pans from the front left to front right (this is also a great way to test the panning to make sure the speakers aren't too far apart... the wings flapping almost disappears a bit if they are too far or angled incorrectly). If I move forwards from the MLP a few feet it sounds just as it should. So I tried tipping & turning the speaker & adjusting the tweeter but I'm not sure if it can make up for the extra two feet or so. What I'm considering is either moving the front L/R speakers up a foot or two... I'm going to try that tonight. I think that will fix everything so long as it doesn't mess with the overall sound. 

All that being said though the 44-DA's do sound much better than just pointing regular speakers up @ the ceiling. I definitely hear a lot more definition in height than I did before. I will have to watch some more 7.1 content to see how it handles the DSU. I tried it with Star Wars again last night because I'm very familiar with the sound on all those discs, I noticed a huge improvement in sound there compared with the setup I had before the 44-DA's a few days ago. I just need to optimize my setup, I don't regret the 44-DA purchase  

There is a scene in Expendables 3 when Stalone's airplane takes off and flies directly overhead (I believe it's the scene when he departs from the air base with the young crew) anyone who has the disc... does it literally sound like the plane is flying right over your head? I might try to test out adjustments with that scene.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> I was referring specifically to the linear, representational technique rather than the composition. You can visit her home page here (N.B. That's me posing for "Quiet Prayer" under portraits). See, in particular, "The Letter" (below) for some of the similarity of detail.
> 
> Sorry to others for the OT discussion, but amid all the talk of Transformers, TMNT and such folderol, it's nice to bring a touch of the arts into the mix.


Wow thanks for the share... her work is fantastic! I can see what you mean. I love the way she paints wood floors... I know that's a weird thing to notice but it's stunning. 

My apologies as well (haha).


----------



## jpco

Does DSU extract information from the original and use only the original, or does it create new information for placement in upmixed speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

jpco said:


> Does DSU extract information from the original and use only the original, or does it create new information for placement in upmixed speakers?


Extract only. Does not create new information.


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> Does DSU extract information from the original and use only the original, or does it create new information for placement in upmixed speakers?


DSU only does extraction (like Dolby PLIIz and DTS Neo:X). Auromatic generates reverb/reflections that weren't in the original recording (like Audyssey DSX and Yamaha Cinema DSP modes).


----------



## Spanglo

sdurani said:


> DSU only does extraction (like Dolby PLIIz and DTS Neo:X). Auromatic generates reverb/reflections that weren't in the original recording (like Audyssey DSX and Yamaha Cinema DSP modes).


Oh really? That's another strike against Auro IMHO.


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> If i read the dolby documentation correctly:
> 0° is center
> 15° is called "screen", not supported by DSU.
> 30° is your main front
> 45° is the "wide", not supported by DSU, even if you have speakers there.
> 60° is the front surround 1,yes it is supported in DSU, but mainstream AVRs don't manage this position. I believe this is the best candidate to do 9 channels at ground level, as it is right in the gap between fronts and surrounds.
> 75° is front surround 2, same situation as front surround 1
> 90° is the legacy surround that we all know


- Centre is 0°. 

- L/R can be centered at 15° or 30° or 45°. 
- If L/R are 30°, then LC/RC can be centered at 15°, in between L/C/R speakers. (5-speaker soundstage) 
- If L/R are 45°, then LScreen/RScreen can be centered at 15° and LC/RC can be centered at 30°, in between the L/C/R speakers. (7-speaker soundstage). 

- LWide/RWide centered at 60°. 

- LSurround 1/RSurround 1 centered at 75°. 
- LSurround/RSurround centered at 90°. 
- LSurround 2/RSurround 2 centered at 105°. 

Out of 9 speakers (including Wides) that are forward of the surround array, only 3 speakers can get bed channel info and DSU outputs. Wides never get either.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> - Centre is 0°.
> - L/R can be centered at 15° or 30° or 45°.
> - If L/R are 30°, then LC/RC can be centered at 15°, in between L/C/R speakers. (5-speaker soundstage)
> - If L/R are 45°, then LScreen/RScreen can be centered at 15° and LC/RC can be centered at 30°, in between the L/C/R speakers. (7-speaker soundstage).
> - LWide/RWide centered at 60°.
> - LSurround 1/RSurround 1 centered at 75°.
> - LSurround/RSurround centered at 90°.
> - LSurround 2/RSurround 2 centered at 105°.
> 
> Out of 9 speakers (including Wides) that are forward of the surround array, only 3 speakers can get bed channel info and DSU outputs. Wides never get either.


That 7 speaker sound stage makes no sense to me. The largest of commercial cinemas (including Atmos cinemas) have 5 speakers behind the screen.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> That 7 speaker sound stage makes no sense to me. The largest of commercial cinemas (including Atmos cinemas) have 5 speakers behind the screen.


Completely agreed. I have no idea what they were thinking.


----------



## kbarnes701

blazar said:


> I am going to seriously consider a Trinnov Altitude 24 after tax time next year...
> 
> No other Atmos enabled product would work for my number of speakers or is totally scalable in terms of conforming to your existing speaker locations in a 3D space.
> 
> I hope some that take delivery will provide some reviews to bolster my decision.


I wonder how long it will be before the mainstream manufacturers offer a lot more channels? Remember that Atmos came late for the production cycle this time around, so the manufacturers had to shoehorn Atmos into the existing chassis, which were maxing out at 11.1 as that had previously been the maximum number of speakers for DSX etc. Next year, or the year after, that won’t be a restriction. I guess we won't see AVRs offering 16 or 20 or 24 speaker capabilities as it will be difficult to squeeze the amps into the box, but prepros.... maybe.

Of course Trinnov still has the unique speaker remapping thing, so that is something the others won't be able to compete with. But if you don't need that, and if Denon deliver a 16.2 unit at a much more affordable price?? All speculation of course.


----------



## sdurani

Spanglo said:


> Oh really? That's another strike against Auro IMHO.


What if you like how it sounds?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> What if you like how it sounds?


Yeah, Sanjay. What if you like the way it sounds? 

*cough* CinemaDSP


----------



## Al Sherwood

dschulz said:


> That 7 speaker sound stage makes no sense to me. The largest of commercial cinemas (including Atmos cinemas) have 5 speakers behind the screen.





sdurani said:


> Completely agreed. I have no idea what they were thinking.


 
From their white paper Dolby shows 5 front speakers for Atmos:


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Oh really? That's another strike against Auro IMHO.


Agreed. DSX is mostly horrible in the way it works AFAICS. Creating content that wasn't there to begin with always seems like A Bad Idea to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> What if you like how it sounds?





Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, Sanjay. What if you like the way it sounds?
> 
> *cough* CinemaDSP


Then you will be hounded out of the thread, considering yourself lucky that this is a virtual world and that you have escaped the inevitable burning at the stake that such heresy richly deserves in the real world.


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> From their white paper Dolby shows 5 front speakers for Atmos:


See Figures 18 & 19 in the white paper (and the accompanying text). 

Also, remember this diagram from the original white paper? 










Notice where the L/R speakers are.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, Sanjay. What if you like the way it sounds?
> 
> *cough* CinemaDSP


Cough? More like *barf* CinemaDSP *barf*!


----------



## Spanglo

sdurani said:


> What if you like how it sounds?



Possible, but I have not been a fan of any upmixing tech until DSU. And especially true for music which I always preferred 2 ch. Although now that I've spent some time with DS for music, 2 ch sounds utterly anemic now.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> See Figures 18 & 19 in the white paper (and the accompanying text).
> 
> Also, remember this diagram from the original white paper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice where the L/R speakers are.



Yes, I remember that diagram as well, they talk about a whole range of 'additional' speakers starting at page 28 in the October Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines 


I was thinking that diagram I showed placed 5 speakers more (or less) along the front wall, but of course their angular placement with respect to the MLP is key.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> I have not done that personally, but there is an interesting debate right now on the french forum equivalent to AVS.
> *A very respected professional is going this way to setup a high-end HT, and if he does it means it works
> The principle is to use a regular 7.1.4 Atmos processor, then split the signal for the surrounds, back surrounds, and top channels.
> Each of those channels will be forwarded towards 2 to 4 speakers, spread on an area, like legacy cinemas do for 5.1 today*
> *The final goal is to have 32 speakers connected.*
> 
> On a more "normal" scale, what you want to do having 2 pairs of speakers connected in parallel seems like a good idea.
> Your speakers could also be bipoles.


Lol, talk about being spatially imaginative! 
...And why not. It is by exploring and experimenting that one can risk to aspire and obtain a higher 3-Dimensional surround sound plateau.

* By the way, I and Scott briefly discussed a similar concept here in the past. ...But Scott was quick to dismiss my idea.


----------



## Kain

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually they are 9.1ch beds plus objects. The overhead array counts for another pair of 'bed' channels.





Dan Hitchman said:


> It depends. Bed channel sound can be duplicated in an array of speakers (like a musical score mix set to left side array, right side array, back left array, and back right array to create a blanket of sound) or a single speaker depending on how the metadata is set in the rendering software during the original mixing session. However, only objects can be assigned to any individual speaker output within the Atmos renderer's capabilities irrespective of the fixed 9.1 layout.
> 
> So, the front "additional" side surrounds could have bed channel leakage of music and background ambiance, and then a specific "hero" dialog or a sound effect stem could be assigned as an object or objects and anchored to or panned through those speakers.
> 
> For the home, the overhead bed channels are set as objects.





sdurani said:


> Correct, the wides will only be used for objects, not bed channels, not Dolby Surround upmixing.


Thanks for the replies.

Scott stated that the overhead array counts as a pair of bed channels. I guess this is because they are required and have a specific install location? Are they called a "bed" because they are mandatory? Even though they are called a bed, only objects get played through them, correct?

Secondly, in a 9.1.4 setup, can DSU utilize the front wides? I am assuming no based on what I can remember. Also, can DSU utilize only a specific number of overhead/ceiling speakers or is it scalable (from the minimum of 2 to the current max of 10)? What speakers can DSU not utilize?

Thirdly, do you think 9.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 in a small room (11 x 12 x 9.5 feet)?

Lastly, what is the minimum bed/discrete audio for Atmos movies? Is it 7.1.x or can it go as low as 5.1.x? Basically, just like current Blu-ray movies are either 5.1 or 7.1 (with 5.1 being the minimum for new movies), what is the "minimum" for current/new Atmos movies?


----------



## NorthSky

Keith said:


> It won't will it? In an Atmos setup the side surrounds are each individually addressable, not the old-style array at all.





Nightlord said:


> *Depends on what you prioritize... max performance for one seat, or slightly lower but better for all the other seats too.*


_Tres_ valid point.


----------



## Craig Peer

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder how long it will be before the mainstream manufacturers offer a lot more channels? Remember that Atmos came late for the production cycle this time around, so the manufacturers had to shoehorn Atmos into the existing chassis, which were maxing out at 11.1 as that had previously been the maximum number of speakers for DSX etc. Next year, or the year after, that won’t be a restriction. I guess we won't see AVRs offering 16 or 20 or 24 speaker capabilities as it will be difficult to squeeze the amps into the box, but prepros.... maybe.
> 
> Of course Trinnov still has the unique speaker remapping thing, so that is something the others won't be able to compete with. But if you don't need that, and if Denon deliver a 16.2 unit at a much more affordable price?? All speculation of course.



I hope soon. I just installed 11.2 channels with my 4520 1 1/2 years ago. When they offer 11.2.4, I'll go back in the damn attic and install 4 ceiling speakers. That should carry me until I'm so old I can't hear the difference anyway ( getting there now according to my wife ) !


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> Scott stated that the overhead array counts as a pair of bed channels. I guess this is because they are required and have a specific install location? Are they called a "bed" because they are mandatory? Even though they are called a bed, only objects get played through them, correct?
> 
> Secondly, in a 9.1.4 setup, can DSU utilize the front wides? I am assuming no based on what I can remember. Also, can DSU utilize only a specific number of overhead/ceiling speakers or is it scalable (from the minimum of 2 to the current max of 10)? What speakers can DSU not utilize?
> 
> Thirdly, do you think 9.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 in a small room (11 x 12 x 9.5 feet)?
> 
> Lastly, what is the minimum bed/discrete audio for Atmos movies? Is it 7.1.x or can it go as low as 5.1.x? Basically, just like current Blu-ray movies are either 5.1 or 7.1 (with 5.1 being the minimum for new movies), what is the "minimum" for current/new Atmos movies?


The bed channels are the "foundation" of the mix and are fixed locations just like standard channel-based tracks of the past. Dolby Atmos normally has 7.1 or 9.1 channel beds (7.1 plus two overheads). Anything in fixed space like music and ambiance and dialog are normally put in the channels and individual sounds that are to be panned around the room or anchored in locations that are more pin-point specific than an entire array of speakers are assigned as metadata controlled objects. 

Any cinema mix containing a 9.1 channel bed has the overhead channels re-assigned as fixed objects since home Atmos got piggybacked on top of 7.1 TrueHD architecture (and rarely 5.1), where a provision for 9.1 discrete channel beds was not added to the specs, just the metadata/objects extension.

In a 9.1.4 setup, DSU cannot use the wide speaker locations and possibly the extra front screen wall speakers (the latter available in upper tier home Atmos gear like Trinnov's Altitude processor). DTS Neo:X can.

You might be stretching to put 9.1.4 in that small a space. 7.1.4 might be about it. You are dealing with a single row of seats, correct?


----------



## NorthSky

You can't run a 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup simultaneoulsly? ---> 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 is the max, isn't it? ...Am I losing touch with some' new?


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> I was referring specifically to the linear, representational technique rather than the composition. You can visit her home page here (N.B. That's me posing for "Quiet Prayer" under portraits). See, in particular, "The Letter" (below) for some of the similarity of detail.
> 
> Sorry to others for the OT discussion, but amid all the talk of Transformers, TMNT and such folderol, it's nice to bring a touch of the arts into the mix.


Are those divorce papers honey?? after cutting holes in the wrong spot in the living room ceiling I did measure twice


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> Are they called a "bed" because they are mandatory?


The overhead beds aren't mandatory; Atmos soundtracks can be 7.1 plus objects or 9.1 plus objects.


> Even though they are called a bed, only objects get played through them, correct?


Channels (bed channels, channel beds, whatever they're called this week) have two properties: they are static and can be arrayed across multiple speakers (excepting L/C/R channels). Objects are dynamic, they move around and can vary in size (how many speakers they are spread across). The left Top Surround channel will play back over the entire left overhead array of speakers. Objects can move front to back through that array (objects see individual speakers, not an array).


> Thirdly, do you think 9.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 in a small room (11 x 12 x 9.5 feet)?


Depends on where you're sitting. If you're at/near the back wall, then I would do 5.1 plus wides.


> Lastly, what is the minimum bed/discrete audio for Atmos movies?


7.1.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Notice where the L/R speakers are.


They are at ±45° - why is that? That's completely different from most recommendations we've seen the last 80 years.


----------



## NorthSky

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> With multiple side surrounds you gain in some areas and lose in others. You mentioned the benefits. The trade off to get the benefits that you mentioned is smearing of sound. With multiple surrounds the sound from the second surround will reach your ears a few seconds later and this causes smear of the sound. As always with HT, there are compromises. You have to pick what you feel is best for you. With a two row HT, you are either going to have to go with one speaker or two for the surrounds and neither is a perfect solution. As always, pick your poison.


It's worth experimenting for people having larger rooms with two or three rows of seats. ...I know I certainly would.



AV Science Sales 5 said:


> AVR manufacturers are not using half the channels that Dolby has designed into the Atmos system. At some point, I would expect wides to be incorporated.





Wookii said:


> Yes, but as I understand it those 9.1.2 capable AVR's can utilise those additional two standard height channels (previously wides) for objects in dedicated Atmos tracks, but not for the upmixer - I just wonder if there was a specific reason for that?


Yes, the 2nd gen of Dolby Atmos products should include the Wides when in DSU mode, and also give us more channel setups like 9.1.6 Atmos/Auro configuration. And with the eminence of DTS-UHD (MDA) lurking @ the precipice of CES 2015, even more so.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> The overhead beds aren't mandatory; Atmos soundtracks can be 7.1 plus objects or 9.1 plus objects.


Isn't the RMU hard wired for 10 bed tracks?


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> I was referring specifically to the linear, representational technique rather than the composition. You can visit her home page here (N.B. That's me posing for "Quiet Prayer" under portraits). See, in particular, "The Letter" (below) for some of the similarity of detail.
> 
> Sorry to others for the OT discussion, but amid all the talk of Transformers, TMNT and such folderol, it's nice to bring a touch of the arts into the mix.


This is great, I love it!  ...And nothing's wrong for having couple posts like that once in a while; it's good for the moral and the soul.
It keeps our goal in the pursuit of happiness in check with our real surroundings.
And paintings are art works that decor our Dolby Atmos home theater rooms with that extra edge.
Makes us more human too, less mechanically robotic. 

Fantastic painting!


----------



## noah katz

dannybee said:


> you know that you can download this disc.


Yes, but I'm not great at computer stuff and oftener than not this type of thing costs too much time and frustration.


----------



## NorthSky

sdurani said:


> What if you like how it sounds?





Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, Sanjay. What if you like the way it sounds?
> 
> *cough* CinemaDSP


I remember very well Sanjay as being a big/huge fan of Yamaha and Lexicon Trifield and Quadfield DSP. 

* In large spaces reverbs are part of the total acoustical equilibrium.


----------



## Nalleh

Well, the Atmos/Auro 3D bluray collection is starting to grow!










Of the Atmos ones i would call TAOE the best. The placement of sounds is so natural and correct in that one. I am amazed every time i play that one: Reference quality sound !
Expendables 3 has much more use of the heights, but it is all over the place, and not as in sync with picture or refined as TAOE. Maybe better for demonstrating the heights, but i think it is a bit more "showoff" in the mixing.


EDIT: how do i put the pics in the post?
EDIT2: got it, thanks Zeus33


----------



## zeus33

Nalleh said:


> EDIT: how do i put the pics in the post?



It's ridiculous that the forum software still requires this many steps, but open your attachment and copy the URL. Paste that in your post as an image, like so:


----------



## Spanglo

Mary Kom is a new one to me, thanks.


----------



## scarabaeus

Nalleh said:


> Well, the Atmos/Auro 3D bluray collection is starting to grow!


Where did you get Mary Kom with Atmos? Amazon india still only seems to have the October release with 96kHz 7.1 TrueHD.


----------



## Al Sherwood

markus767 said:


> They are at ±45° - why is that? That's completely different from most recommendations we've seen the last 80 years.


Yeah, what's up with that, 22-30 degrees is the norm even in their own docs, maybe that is why that diagram is not in the latest release.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

NorthSky said:


> Yes, the 2nd gen of Dolby Atmos products should include the Wides when in DSU mode, and also give us more channel setups like 9.1.6 Atmos/Auro configuration. And with the eminence of DTS-UHD (MDA) lurking @ the precipice of CES 2015, even more so.


Competition is always good. But what would be 10000x better than a fight out between Dolby and DTS is an open standard without any royalties and an open-source implementation.

As we know with Linux, open / free won't necesserily mean market dominance, it will just mean more options and less overall cost. Actually, what it in practice means (usually), is better products across the board. Because if the free one is the best, why pay for a costly, closed solution that does the same thing (or less?)

I know, I know, DisplayPort is technically better and more advanced than HDMI, and royalty free, and it's nowhere to be found on most consumer tech, but that could change eventually. Especially with HDR since those crummy 2160p bandwidth limitations of HDMI 2.0 mean compressed chroma will be used instead.


----------



## Nalleh

scarabaeus said:


> Where did you get Mary Kom with Atmos? Amazon india still only seems to have the October release with 96kHz 7.1 TrueHD.


Ok, you got me. The one on the picture is NOT Atmos, but rather the one you mention. But then i found this:

http://www.avsforum.com/index.php?page=BG-Blu-ray-Discs

The link here is a version on Amazon with a different ASIN nr, wich I have ordered and expecting any day now. So i can report back if it is the Atmos edition(I HOPE it is).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

More on the 44-DA... I moved my front L/R speakers with the modules on top a few feet closer... that definitely makes the front overhead sound more full. For those of you who are about to setup the 44-DA's I'd recommend moving around the room while listening to an overhead scene at the same height as seated position to find the sweet spot... it seems like there is something like a space of about 2 or 3 feet where the sound is ideal... outside of that zone the sound thins out and looses definition. The way I had it before the problem was there was a hole in the sound field, like as if nothing was coming from directly above but all around on the sides. I just tested it out with Expendables 3 and definitely notice a large improvement in sound quality compared to when I watched it last night. Stuff sounds like it's flying overhead now 

The only problem is that now my front speakers feel a tad too close, the front speakers are now about 7' away from the MLP... the rear speakers are 4' away... does that seem like a reasonable ratio? I'll do more testing & try it out with material I'm familiar with to compare the sound. If it becomes a problem I might consider actually placing the front modules on speaker stands infront of the front L-R speakers/ moving the front L-R speakers to their former position... but that would be a total eyesore. Perhaps someone may have a better technique of finding the 44-DA's sweet spot, or you might not have to depending on your room. I'm guessing even a ceiling height slighter taller than mine would be enough to make a huge difference... mine is 8' tall. I don't think tipping the speaker or adjusting the tweeter is the best way to go... but I'm open minded.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Nalleh said:


> Ok, you got me. The one on the picture is NOT Atmos, but rather the one you mention. But then i found this:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/index.php?page=BG-Blu-ray-Discs
> 
> The link here is a version on Amazon with a different ASIN nr, wich I have ordered and expecting any day now. So i can report back if it is the Atmos edition(I HOPE it is).


That looks like a great resource, thanks... I was wondering if there was a compiled list of Atmos bd's on AVS. Any word on if transcendence/nature/ or Mary Kom are region locked?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Ok with TMNT the best true Atmos disc out by far...

Maze runner is the best DSU I have ever heard. And I've only watched 30mins. Wow!!!!!


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Ok with TMNT the best true Atmos disc out by far...
> 
> Maze runner is the best DSU I have ever heard. And I've only watched 30mins. Wow!!!!!


After watching it on XBMC I had to get the blu-ray I should get the maze runner on Friday thanks Brian.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Ok, you got me. The one on the picture is NOT Atmos, but rather the one you mention. But then i found this:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/index.php?page=BG-Blu-ray-Discs
> 
> The link here is a version on Amazon with a different ASIN nr, wich I have ordered and expecting any day now. So i can report back if it is the Atmos edition(I HOPE it is).


Please let us know if it is ATMOS or not.
Amazon does not have any information.
As strange it is, amazon.in does not even list this ASIN.


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> More on the 44-DA... I moved my front L/R speakers with the modules on top a few feet closer... that definitely makes the front overhead sound more full. For those of you who are about to setup the 44-DA's I'd recommend moving around the room while listening to an overhead scene at the same height as seated position to find the sweet spot... it seems like there is something like a space of about 2 or 3 feet where the sound is ideal... outside of that zone the sound thins out and looses definition. The way I had it before the problem was there was a hole in the sound field, like as if nothing was coming from directly above but all around on the sides. I just tested it out with Expendables 3 and definitely notice a large improvement in sound quality compared to when I watched it last night. Stuff sounds like it's flying overhead now
> 
> The only problem is that now my front speakers feel a tad too close, the front speakers are now about 7' away from the MLP... the rear speakers are 4' away... does that seem like a reasonable ratio? I'll do more testing & try it out with material I'm familiar with to compare the sound. If it becomes a problem I might consider actually placing the front modules on speaker stands infront of the front L-R speakers/ moving the front L-R speakers to their former position... but that would be a total eyesore. Perhaps someone may have a better technique of finding the 44-DA's sweet spot, or you might not have to depending on your room. I'm guessing even a ceiling height slighter taller than mine would be enough to make a huge difference... mine is 8' tall. I don't think tipping the speaker or adjusting the tweeter is the best way to go... but I'm open minded.


 
Keep it up, your going to make my job easier when my 44-DA's arrive . I don't think they are going to work for me to be honest as my ceiling over my speakers are dropped lower than the rest of the room, unfortunate but real none the less. X5200 should be here in a day or so, then it will be play time. I figure in the end I will put speakers in the ceiling for fronts, I have them in the rear already , formally my ceiling mounted rears. My rears will now go way in the back of the theater on the wall so I'll end up with 7.2.4. My 44-DA's will likely end up as the mid ceiling atmos once the 6 atmos receivers are available. Anyway, thanks again and keep up the hard work :nerd:


----------



## roxiedog13

*where is the acronym dictionary ?*

Sorry to be a pain but I've been trying to get my head around all the abbreviated terminology, too many acronyms, I know I am missing out. MLP, DSU etc. etc.. , there must be a thread on this somewhere but I cannot find it and do not have the time to scan a gazillion messages to figure it all out.


----------



## Nalleh

Aras_Volodka said:


> That looks like a great resource, thanks... I was wondering if there was a compiled list of Atmos bd's on AVS. Any word on if transcendence/nature/ or Mary Kom are region locked?


Mary kom is region free, says so on Amazon.

Same with Nature 3D Atmos:
http://www.amazon.co.jp/ネイチャー-Blu-r...&sr=8-1&keywords=enchanted+kingdom+3d+blu-ray

And Transcendence Atmos:
http://www.amazon.co.jp/トランセンデンス-Bl...XZQFPY/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=561958&s=dvd

AAAAND I,Frankenstein Atmos:
http://www.amazon.co.jp/アイ・フランケンシュタ...qid=1418872909&sr=8-2&keywords=i+frankenstein



aaranddeeman said:


> Please let us know if it is ATMOS or not.
> Amazon does not have any information.
> As strange it is, amazon.in does not even list this ASIN.


Will do


----------



## rushisrighton

I was wondering if the expendables trilogy on amazon uk would play on our players, ps3 or other bluray players, and if so does it include the atmos on the third movie?, I don't own any of the expendables and this would be a good way to get it, but I've never tried other region blurays before. Does anyone here know?


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder how long it will be before the mainstream manufacturers offer a lot more channels? Remember that Atmos came late for the production cycle this time around, so the manufacturers had to shoehorn Atmos into the existing chassis, which were maxing out at 11.1 as that had previously been the maximum number of speakers for DSX etc. Next year, or the year after, that won’t be a restriction. I guess we won't see AVRs offering 16 or 20 or 24 speaker capabilities as it will be difficult to squeeze the amps into the box, but prepros.... maybe.
> 
> Of course Trinnov still has the unique speaker remapping thing, so that is something the others won't be able to compete with. But if you don't need that, and if Denon deliver a 16.2 unit at a much more affordable price?? All speculation of course.


Trinnov has remapping. Datasat has the ability to support 24 channels in a single chassis and they can be stacked. So if you want 48 channels, you are good to go.

It supports Auro now and should have Atmos very soon after the first of the year. So if you don't mind moving out your retirement another 25 or 50 (or more) years, you can have all of the channels you want. AND, the way the Datasat works, you can set up different virtual inputs (e.g. Bluray-Atmos and Bluray-Auro) and have different physical speakers "attached" to each of this inputs. But no remapping. And, oh by the way, the RS20i with Dirac sounds AMAZING !!!!!

Now, that off my chest, us mere mortals with a "measly" 7.x.4 system are such a tiny, microscopic set of consumers in the grand scheme of things (Atmos enabled speakers included), I would really find it surprising if the ("mass" market) SSP manufacturers will continue to add more channels. I mean seriously,, how many potential customers are there who will install 13 or more speakers in a room plus a few subs thrown in for good measure????


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> The overhead beds aren't mandatory; Atmos soundtracks can be 7.1 plus objects or 9.1 plus objects..


I recall Filmmixer explaining that these optional 2 overhead bed channels exist only in theatrical soundtracks, and that in the home version these channels (if applied) are translated into objects.


----------



## Nightlord

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> With multiple side surrounds you gain in some areas and lose in others. You mentioned the benefits. The trade off to get the benefits that you mentioned is smearing of sound. With multiple surrounds the sound from the second surround will reach your ears a few seconds later and this causes smear of the sound. As always with HT, there are compromises. You have to pick what you feel is best for you. With a two row HT, you are either going to have to go with one speaker or two for the surrounds and neither is a perfect solution. As always, pick your poison.


Either that's one of the worst exaggerations in a long time or a big typing issue.  "A few seconds" would put the second speaker half a mile away - I do not have that big a room. It's a millisecond per foot.

If I sit in MLP, I will have the shortest distance to the front side surround, but the distance difference to the second one is close to none - but it is a bit higher up so it will be later. Probably by less than a millisecond, though. Which puts it in the "Summing localization" zone(0-2ms). The third one will have a longer time, but it's still just a few ms so the brain will just consider it to be an early reflex of the same sound. It's not 1.5m, so it puts it in the "Localization dominance" zone (2-5ms) so it will be regarded as the same sound, but not used to determine direction.

For 2nd row seat, the middle speaker will arrive first and the 3rd one will arrive immediately behind, so they have the same experience of direction as the first row. And the front one will be the last one a few ms later. 

You would not be able to stay in the precedence zone in a commercial theater where the distances will be too long. Multiple surrounds (correctly placed) work much better in the small room at home, surprisingly enough.

_(If I could find a working array placement of atmos ceiling speakers that would do the same trick I would be happy... but it might mean one needs 12-16 speakers for four atmos ceiling channels )_


----------



## markus767

Al Sherwood said:


> Yeah, what's up with that, 22-30 degrees is the norm even in their own docs, maybe that is why that diagram is not in the latest release.


Yes, must have been an error. They've replaced documents with newer versions.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> I recall Filmmixer explaining that these optional 2 overhead bed channels exist only in theatrical soundtracks, and that in the home version these channels (if applied) are translated into objects.


I thought so as well.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> Keep it up, your going to make my job easier when my 44-DA's arrive . I don't think they are going to work for me to be honest as my ceiling over my speakers are dropped lower than the rest of the room, unfortunate but real none the less. X5200 should be here in a day or so, then it will be play time. I figure in the end I will put speakers in the ceiling for fronts, I have them in the rear already , formally my ceiling mounted rears. My rears will now go way in the back of the theater on the wall so I'll end up with 7.2.4. My 44-DA's will likely end up as the mid ceiling atmos once the 6 atmos receivers are available. Anyway, thanks again and keep up the hard work :nerd:


You're welcome! 

How high is the area a few feet infront of the MLP? That's where the sound bounces from, I don't think it should matter if the ceiling is lower over the speakers unless if there is a ledge that would block the sound, or if the entire ceiling is angled.

You currently have a 7.1 system I take it? How far back are your rears currently from your MLP?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I also went to go check out the Hobbit in HFR 3D with Atmos @ a theater I haven't been to yet (Icon theater... the image quality on screen was very good). 

The sound was very treble-ish, the clanging of swords was very harsh on the ears... I'm guessing that's the fault of the theater. I'm going to check it out @ another Atmos theater where I know the sound is usually very good. 

There was a lot of cool Atmos stuff going on in the new Hobbit. A few large indoor atmospheric scenes, really cool dialogue effects/overhead/coming from behind, and some rear bass action. To me the best of it wasn't as good as some of the highlights in other recent Atmos flicks, but overall more usage of Atmos compared to other films. (Exodus for example was a real yawn fest in Atmos... seagulls were the most interesting part of the Atmos mix in that film). When I go see it again next week @ the other Atmos theater I'll write about it if the sound is better... but I still feel like I got my 16 bucks worth.


----------



## Chaospling

What's happening with the forum? I can't see page 540. When I click the "540", I just get to the top of 539. Even if I manually change the URL, this happens. I guess I won't be reading answers to this question, but had to write it somewhere.

Edit: I guess posts were deleted, so page 540 were undone...


----------



## Nightlord

Chaospling said:


> What's happening with the forum? I can't see page 540. When I click the "540", I just get to the top of 539. Even if I manually change the URL, this happens. I guess I won't be reading answers to this question, but had to write it somewhere.


Could be that someone had posted and then deleted it again perhaps?

Edit: you beat me to that conclusion


----------



## NorthSky

RLBURNSIDE said:


> Competition is always good. But what would be 10000x better than a fight out between Dolby and DTS is an open standard without any royalties and an open-source implementation.
> 
> As we know with Linux, open / free won't necesserily mean market dominance, it will just mean more options and less overall cost. Actually, what it in practice means (usually), is better products across the board. Because if the free one is the best, why pay for a costly, closed solution that does the same thing (or less?)
> 
> I know, I know, DisplayPort is technically better and more advanced than HDMI, and royalty free, and it's nowhere to be found on most consumer tech, but that could change eventually. Especially with HDR since those crummy 2160p bandwidth limitations of HDMI 2.0 mean compressed chroma will be used instead.


Who is ahead so far between Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D? ...I'd say they are 50/50 right now.

But watch out, because *dts* is coming to the match! ...In 2015.


----------



## NorthSky

Chaospling said:


> What's happening with the forum? I can't see page 540. When I click the "540", I just get to the top of 539. Even if I manually change the URL, this happens. I guess I won't be reading answers to this question, but had to write it somewhere.
> 
> Edit: I guess posts were deleted, so page 540 were undone...


Try it now.


----------



## Chaospling

Nightlord said:


> Could be that someone had posted and then deleted it again perhaps?
> 
> Edit: you beat me to that conclusion


Thanks for answering me none the less


----------



## kokishin

roxiedog13 said:


> Sorry to be a pain but I've been trying to get my head around all the abbreviated terminology, too many acronyms, I know I am missing out. MLP, DSU etc. etc.. , there must be a thread on this somewhere but I cannot find it and do not have the time to scan a gazillion messages to figure it all out.


MLP: Main Listening Position

DSU: Dolby Surround Upmixer

etc: et cetera [j/k]

j/k: just kidding


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> I also went to go check out the Hobbit in HFR 3D with Atmos @ a theater I haven't been to yet (Icon theater... the image quality on screen was very good).
> 
> The sound was very treble-ish, the clanging of swords was very harsh on the ears... I'm guessing that's the fault of the theater. I'm going to check it out @ another Atmos theater where I know the sound is usually very good.
> 
> There was a lot of cool Atmos stuff going on in the new Hobbit. A few large indoor atmospheric scenes, really cool dialogue effects/overhead/coming from behind, and some rear bass action. To me the best of it wasn't as good as some of the highlights in other recent Atmos flicks, but overall more usage of Atmos compared to other films. (Exodus for example was a real yawn fest in Atmos... seagulls were the most interesting part of the Atmos mix in that film). When I go see it again next week @ the other Atmos theater I'll write about it if the sound is better... but I still feel like I got my 16 bucks worth.


I wasn't aware that any theaters were showing the film in HFR 3D Atmos, but that's cool that there is, I would have liked to check it out myself.

The one I went to had just:

IMAX 3D
HFR 3D
Atmos 3D

In any case, I watched it thrice yesterday, once for each format available. Out of all, I enjoyed the Atmos 3D format best and since it was in an RPX theater the seats were better and the screen was large enough and of good enough quality that I think made the IMAX 3D version obsolete. 

As for the HFR 3D version it was much like the last two films for me personally, interesting for a while but I find myself to prefer 24 frames per second for films, but am normally ok with it for TV shows.

As for the film, it was my first Atmos experience and I couldn't have been more pleased as immediately I could tell that it wasn't just about overhead panning effects but of individual speakers firing their unique sounds of objects as they're called and allowing for a more expansive soundfield.

An example I found for this would have been in a certain part of the movie there are several people on a plot of land and all talking amongst themselves and in panic as well, but I could tell each speaker was playing a multitude of different sets of voices and none of them were playing at the same time either. In a traditional set of tracks it would have been more smeared sounding, so I found that awesome.

As for the overhead effects it was everything I was hoping for as it put me into the movie even more than a normal theater. After a while I forgot to check on where the sounds were coming from and just got lost in the actual movie which for me is quite rare as I am more technical at times.

All in all it was a wonderful experience.

Side note: I haven't seen any theaters playing Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb in Atmos, is this because a lot of theaters are focusing on using their Atmos auditoriums for use with The Hobbit as it's obviously going to take precedence?


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> How high is the area a few feet infront of the MLP? That's where the sound bounces from, I don't think it should matter if the ceiling is lower over the speakers unless if there is a ledge that would block the sound, or if the entire ceiling is angled.
> 
> You currently have a 7.1 system I take it? How far back are your rears currently from your MLP?


Yes indeed, 7.1 it is . I still haven't figured out MLP, is it mean listening position or mid listening position. I have two rows of seats, the center front seat is 8.5 feet from the speakers, the mid point
between the first and second row would be about 12 feet. My theater is 12 feet wide and the L/C/R are on a 6 inch built up stage in front of a 136" diagonal 2.35:1 screen. The Left and right speakers are on each side as close to the wall as possible. Above the mains are dropped ceiling channels that run the length of the theater the height there is 6' 6" but since the spearkers are on a stage 6 inches high the distance from stage to ceiling is only 6 feet . Above the MLP it is 7 feet. See attached image.


----------



## roxiedog13

kokishin said:


> MLP: Main Listening Position
> 
> DSU: Dolby Surround Upmixer
> 
> etc: et cetera [j/k]
> 
> j/k: just kidding


 I actually had a handle on the MLP....almost, but to be honest, it's a mixture of all the rest that I'm still figuring out. It's coming.....slowly . BTW THX C U L8R ......LMAO


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Sorry to be a pain but I've been trying to get my head around all the abbreviated terminology, too many acronyms, I know I am missing out. MLP, DSU etc. etc.. , there must be a thread on this somewhere but I cannot find it and do not have the time to scan a gazillion messages to figure it all out.


IKWYM 

DSU = Dolby Surround Upmixer.
MLP = Main Listening Position.

PCMCIA = People Can't Memorise Computer Industry Acronyms 

HTH.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Now, that off my chest, us mere mortals with a "measly" 7.x.4 system are such a tiny, microscopic set of consumers in the grand scheme of things (Atmos enabled speakers included), I would really find it surprising if the ("mass" market) SSP manufacturers will continue to add more channels. I mean seriously,, how many potential customers are there who will install 13 or more speakers in a room plus a few subs thrown in for good measure????


I guess it depends what it will cost. As more channels would need more physical connections, and physical stuff always costs, you could be right.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> IKWYM
> 
> DSU = Dolby Surround Upmixer.
> MLP = Main Listening Position.
> 
> PCMCIA = People Can't Memorise Computer Industry Acronyms
> 
> HTH.


Hmmm, just wondering, which one of your profile interests you do most, the last one maybe?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Kris Deering said:


> It's too bad that they didn't do some type of A/B with a specific scene to show the benefits of Atmos. While I have absolutely NO doubt at all that it sounded wonderful in that system, how are you to know how much Atmos actually enhanced the soundtrack if you have no comparison to the system playing without Atmos content? You already had a similar situation when you first installed your system with TF4 when you thought you were getting all types of new information and then found out that there was little happening in your overhead channels when you turned them off. A state of the art sound system (which I imagine this theater you went to had) has the ability to render all kinds of discrete effects even without Atmos. Don't think that I'm saying Atmos wasn't great, it could have been all the reason it sounded as good as it did to you, only that it is hard to say what is or isn't great about a demonstration if there is no basis for comparison. I'll bet it was a blast though!


I played the Atmos disc this morning and I kept switching between Atmos and True HD. Could clearly tell a difference. In the Amaze demo, the bird flying around me is overhead with Atmos. With Atmos turned off and using True HD, the bird is still flying around me, but it sounds like the bird is down at my height, not above. Also there is some gaps in the circle of flight. In the rain scene near the end, with True HD the sound is more behind and above me. With Atmos, it sounds like the rain is all around me. I ran this clip several times, switching back and forth. I did the same with the leaf trailer and the folding trailer and found the same conclusions. Atmos makes the pans more solid, no gaps, like I hear with True HD. It is a definite improvement. TMNT really made use of Atmos and made that movie fun to watch.


----------



## wicklow

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I played the Atmos disc this morning and I kept switching between Atmos and True HD. Could clearly tell a difference. In the Amaze demo, the bird flying around me is overhead with Atmos. With Atmos turned off and using True HD, the bird is still flying around me, but it sounds like the bird is down at my height, not above. Also there is some gaps in the circle of flight. In the rain scene near the end, with True HD the sound is more behind and above me. With Atmos, it sounds like the rain is all around me. I ran this clip several times, switching back and forth. I did the same with the leaf trailer and the folding trailer and found the same conclusions. Atmos makes the pans more solid, no gaps, like I hear with True HD. It is a definite improvement. TMNT really made use of Atmos and made that movie fun to watch.


Its funny you mention this movie specifically Mike. I was in a Magnolia two days ago and they demoed the Atmos system they had set up in there with TMNT (the shredder fight scene at the end). As terrible a movie as that is it was genuinely fun to watch with Atmos on. It was the Pioneer "atmos in a box" system that they used with two decent subs placed behind you and I have to say it was very very good. I am not an audiophile by any stretch, but to my untrained ears it was pretty fantastic.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Nightlord said:


> Either that's one of the worst exaggerations in a long time or a big typing issue.  "A few seconds" would put the second speaker half a mile away - I do not have that big a room. It's a millisecond per foot.
> 
> If I sit in MLP, I will have the shortest distance to the front side surround, but the distance difference to the second one is close to none - but it is a bit higher up so it will be later. Probably by less than a millisecond, though. Which puts it in the "Summing localization" zone(0-2ms). The third one will have a longer time, but it's still just a few ms so the brain will just consider it to be an early reflex of the same sound. It's not 1.5m, so it puts it in the "Localization dominance" zone (2-5ms) so it will be regarded as the same sound, but not used to determine direction.
> 
> For 2nd row seat, the middle speaker will arrive first and the 3rd one will arrive immediately behind, so they have the same experience of direction as the first row. And the front one will be the last one a few ms later.
> 
> You would not be able to stay in the precedence zone in a commercial theater where the distances will be too long. Multiple surrounds (correctly placed) work much better in the small room at home, surprisingly enough.
> 
> _(If I could find a working array placement of atmos ceiling speakers that would do the same trick I would be happy... but it might mean one needs 12-16 speakers for four atmos ceiling channels )_


Yes, of course it is MS. 
You get my point though. Any delay smears the sound. It is just a matter of how much and at what point it makes enough of a difference to really matter. I am not saying multiple side surrounds are a mistake. I am just saying we have to weigh the pros and cons for each choice we make in our HT.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I recall Filmmixer explaining that these optional 2 overhead bed channels exist only in theatrical soundtracks, and that in the home version these channels (if applied) are translated into objects.


Yes, that's one way to describe it. If we're going to be tragically technical about it, then it's all objects: some are dynamic objects while others are static objects (which we refer to as channels).


----------



## jdsmoothie

Chaospling said:


> What's happening with the forum? I can't see page 540. When I click the "540", I just get to the top of 539. Even if I manually change the URL, this happens. I guess I won't be reading answers to this question, but had to write it somewhere.
> 
> Edit: I guess posts were deleted, so page 540 were undone...


Although it never happened in the past, this issue does seem to be happening rather frequently in the past month or so.


----------



## shinksma

Nightlord said:


> If I sit in MLP, I will have the shortest distance to the front side surround, but the distance difference to the second one is close to none - but it is a bit higher up so it will be later. Probably by less than a millisecond, though. Which puts it in the "Summing localization" zone(0-2ms). The third one will have a longer time, but it's still just a few ms so the brain will just consider it to be an early reflex of the same sound. It's not 1.5m, so it puts it in the "Localization dominance" zone (2-5ms) so it will be regarded as the same sound, but not used to determine direction.
> 
> For 2nd row seat, the middle speaker will arrive first and the 3rd one will arrive immediately behind, so they have the same experience of direction as the first row. And the front one will be the last one a few ms later.
> 
> You would not be able to stay in the precedence zone in a commercial theater where the distances will be too long. Multiple surrounds (correctly placed) work much better in the small room at home, surprisingly enough.
> 
> _(If I could find a working array placement of atmos ceiling speakers that would do the same trick I would be happy... but it might mean one needs 12-16 speakers for four atmos ceiling channels )_


 Nightlord, this summary of how the brain processes sound sources and does "summation localization" for some sources but can discard certain elements for direction information is quite fascinating to me. I will poke around on the interwebz, but I may not find much without knowing some more keywords. Do you have any good links for further reading?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Yes, that's one way to describe it. If we're going to be *tragically technical* about it, then it's all objects: some are dynamic objects while others are static objects (which we refer to as channels).


Heheh. "Tragically technical".

Sums up this thread _very_ well.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Csbooth said:


> I wasn't aware that any theaters were showing the film in HFR 3D Atmos, but that's cool that there is, I would have liked to check it out myself.
> 
> The one I went to had just:
> 
> IMAX 3D
> HFR 3D
> Atmos 3D
> 
> In any case, I watched it thrice yesterday, once for each format available. Out of all, I enjoyed the Atmos 3D format best and since it was in an RPX theater the seats were better and the screen was large enough and of good enough quality that I think made the IMAX 3D version obsolete.
> 
> As for the HFR 3D version it was much like the last two films for me personally, interesting for a while but I find myself to prefer 24 frames per second for films, but am normally ok with it for TV shows.
> 
> As for the film, it was my first Atmos experience and I couldn't have been more pleased as immediately I could tell that it wasn't just about overhead panning effects but of individual speakers firing their unique sounds of objects as they're called and allowing for a more expansive soundfield.
> 
> An example I found for this would have been in a certain part of the movie there are several people on a plot of land and all talking amongst themselves and in panic as well, but I could tell each speaker was playing a multitude of different sets of voices and none of them were playing at the same time either. In a traditional set of tracks it would have been more smeared sounding, so I found that awesome.
> 
> As for the overhead effects it was everything I was hoping for as it put me into the movie even more than a normal theater. After a while I forgot to check on where the sounds were coming from and just got lost in the actual movie which for me is quite rare as I am more technical at times.
> 
> All in all it was a wonderful experience.
> 
> Side note: I haven't seen any theaters playing Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb in Atmos, is this because a lot of theaters are focusing on using their Atmos auditoriums for use with The Hobbit as it's obviously going to take precedence?


Quick note: The RPX's in my area do play HFR with the 3D... but I don't believe they advertise it as such. Are you sure the RPX shows weren't in HFR? I'm going to see it in RPX next week for my own comparison. IMAX screens can vary... there is a very excellent screen in my area that is absolutely huge, close, & bright (not too dim for the 3D). I'm going to do the same thing you did, just over the course of the next week. 

Funny that you mentioned the multiple people talking per speaker thing... I often find in the theater that I'm confusing what's in the movie or what's the audience (haha!). (That could be a good thing for people annoyed by audience dialogue), but yes I agree, that was cool. 
How did the bass sound to you at the RPX? At the ICON theater I was at the bass sounded a tad washed out... I guess I'll see if it sounds different at the RPX next week. 

As for Night at the museum... yes and no. There might be another theater chain playing it (Marcus theaters maybe?) But the Marcus theaters in my area don't actually turn the Atmos processing on despite having installed all the speakers... maybe they don't have the receiver yet? It makes me mad because they advertise it as Atmos. 
A lot of films might get a week tops @ the RPX screens... usually if there are 2 Atmos blockbusters out at once the show times split between the two... like when GOTG was out TMNT was also playing.... so they alternated show times. I'm surprised they wouldn't do it with night at the museum. That doesn't come out till Xmas thought right? 

There is a WW2 movie coming out before New Year's... you might want to check that out in Atmos if possible  If there are Sci fi films or action films you'll probably be even more impressed with the experience. Kingsman comes to mind though that movie looks kinda "meh"... but I tend to enjoy a movie just because of the sound of Atmos.


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> Quick note: The RPX's in my area do play HFR with the 3D... but I don't believe they advertise it as such. Are you sure the RPX shows weren't in HFR? I'm going to see it in RPX next week for my own comparison. IMAX screens can vary... there is a very excellent screen in my area that is absolutely huge, close, & bright (not too dim for the 3D). I'm going to do the same thing you did, just over the course of the next week.
> 
> Funny that you mentioned the multiple people talking per speaker thing... I often find in the theater that I'm confusing what's in the movie or what's the audience (haha!). (That could be a good thing for people annoyed by audience dialogue), but yes I agree, that was cool.
> How did the bass sound to you at the RPX? At the ICON theater I was at the bass sounded a tad washed out... I guess I'll see if it sounds different at the RPX next week.
> 
> As for Night at the museum... yes and no. There might be another theater chain playing it (Marcus theaters maybe?) But the Marcus theaters in my area don't actually turn the Atmos processing on despite having installed all the speakers... maybe they don't have the receiver yet? It makes me mad because they advertise it as Atmos.
> A lot of films might get a week tops @ the RPX screens... usually if there are 2 Atmos blockbusters out at once the show times split between the two... like when GOTG was out TMNT was also playing.... so they alternated show times. I'm surprised they wouldn't do it with night at the museum. That doesn't come out till Xmas thought right?
> 
> There is a WW2 movie coming out before New Year's... you might want to check that out in Atmos if possible  If there are Sci fi films or action films you'll probably be even more impressed with the experience. Kingsman comes to mind though that movie looks kinda "meh"... but I tend to enjoy a movie just because of the sound of Atmos.


When I watched the 3D Atmos mix I am positive it wasn't in HFR as I can tell when interpolation is occuring quite easily whether post processing or generated naturally, and also to concrete it is when I went and watched it in HFR 3D I could easily tell that it was different lol. In one scene it looks like Bard is in fast forward mode passing weapons out and it looks sort of silly to me.

When it came to the bass management and alike I thought it was superb but the AMC theaters that are where I live didnt even upgrade their equipment from a Rave theater that had it before, so quite honestly I couldn't tell you if you would think it was good or not. To me it was deep, full and all around enveloping. 

Thanks for the info on Night at the Museum!

Lastly, I would love to be able to see more Atmos releases but sadly I had to drive 160 miles just for this one, as I had to do for 70mm Interstellar lol. So I probably won't be coming back until I feel it's worth the dough  

I've signed the Dolby sheet on their site to bring it to Montgomery AL, but I doubt I'll see any results. For a city that is the Capital of the state it sure is backwards as hell.


----------



## BigScreen

Aras_Volodka said:


> I think the Regal RPX & AMC might be the same company, the RPX theater is at a former AMC location... perhaps they bought out some of AMC's theaters? Maybe that's why the ETX & RPX were both properly setup.
> 
> Oh man you guys are all making me jealous... I hope Chicago will get some more Atmos theaters soon... hopefully with a better projector!


I'm thinking you're referring to the Regal City North Stadium 14 IMAX & RPX on Western Avenue, is that correct? If so, that location was an AMC, and was purchased by Kerasotes in 2006. Nearly all of Kerasotes was purchased by AMC in 2010, and AMC was required to divest several theaters in the sale, and the City North was sold off to Regal. The City North's Atmos installation was done in 2013.

Have you tried the Kerasotes ShowPlace ICON at Roosevelt Collection? I know it's not down the road if you're near the City North, but I was pretty happy with the presentation of The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey back in January 2013. Unfortunately, there aren't that many Atmos installations in the Chicago Metro area, which is pretty sad, considering its size and prominence in the country.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

So I havent read to much into what DTS will be offering but Im hoping it will be like Dolby ATMOS and use their existing DTS Master audio track and that current ATMOS capable players when just need a simple firmware update to add those features to it. 
(but I suppose that is a conversation for another thread)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> I recall Filmmixer explaining that these optional 2 overhead bed channels exist only in theatrical soundtracks, and that in the home version these channels (if applied) are translated into objects.


Correct.


----------



## Oledurt

I have completed my atmos setup with the edition of four martin logan motion 4 bookshelfs. I chose these for their wide dispersion pattern. 80 degrees. My ceiling is 9 feet high. I am using a marantz 7702 pre for processing. I have the ceiling speakers placed exactly as suggested by dolby. I have a dedicated room. 

So i am running a full 7.1.4 system, and it is AMAZING!!!!. I just can't put into words how realistic things sound. This evolutionary leap is similar to dolby prologic going to dolby digital, but better.

I watched expendables 3 and umm i felt like i was in a war zone. The dolby upmix technology is awesome as well. I will have to rewatch my whole collection of movies.

If you are on the fence about this technology don't be. Mark my words this is the future of surround sound. And a very bright one it is!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess it depends what it will cost. As more channels would need more physical connections, and physical stuff always costs, you could be right.


They ought to start focusing their attention on more modular pre-amps over receivers. There could be more room if they started to phase out a lot of the legacy analog connections that Hollywood won't let us have anymore anyway.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Dan Hitchman said:


> They ought to start focusing their attention on more modular pre-amps over receivers. There could be more room if they started to phase out a lot of the legacy analog connections that Hollywood won't let us have anymore anyway.


very true, I dont need 3 composite and 3 component hookups... just give me one of each so I can still hook up my N64 and what not but I certainly dont need 3 of each... so when it comes to legacy just leave one of each hookup and call it good and use the rest of that space for more current hookup options or more speaker connection options....


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Heheh. "Tragically technical".
> 
> Sums up this thread _very_ well.


If you wish to portray this thread in caricartural way, you can include the "infantile enthusiastic" part of it. No offense to either side, just forming a nice balance between science and enjoyment.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BigScreen said:


> I'm thinking you're referring to the Regal City North Stadium 14 IMAX & RPX on Western Avenue, is that correct? If so, that location was an AMC, and was purchased by Kerasotes in 2006. Nearly all of Kerasotes was purchased by AMC in 2010, and AMC was required to divest several theaters in the sale, and the City North was sold off to Regal. The City North's Atmos installation was done in 2013.
> 
> Have you tried the Kerasotes ShowPlace ICON at Roosevelt Collection? I know it's not down the road if you're near the City North, but I was pretty happy with the presentation of The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey back in January 2013. Unfortunately, there aren't that many Atmos installations in the Chicago Metro area, which is pretty sad, considering its size and prominence in the country.


Yes that theater & the other I was talking about is the AMC 30 which is now RPX 17. 
I did actually go see the Hobbit 5 armies at the Icon theater... I wanted to test it out. I went to auditorium 1 (not the 21+ screen, but the other VIP screen... do you know if both are the same quality?)
I was impressed with the visual presentation... and I think the Atmos system was very nice too. I haven't seen Regal City North's RPX Atmos system... only the RPX 17, but I think the RPX 17's sound system was better than Icon, despite having a couple blown speakers. I plan to see it at the RPX 17 to compare, to me the Icon's bass sounded a bit washed out and the sound was treble heavy. Icon's quality of image really impressed me... it didn't look dim with the 3D glasses... and it looked like it might be 4k projection? The blacks looked slightly a bit too light but so far it's the best film projection I've seen... as the RPX 17's screen looks pretty dim in comparison... I hope they upgrade their projectors for RPX theaters soon. If I had to choose between the two... I'd go with Icon I think... but I need to check out City North's RPX first to see if their projector is better than RPX 17. You are a chicagoan? I'm guessing I know of all the better theaters to go to but if you have recommendations I'm all ears


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Csbooth said:


> When I watched the 3D Atmos mix I am positive it wasn't in HFR as I can tell when interpolation is occuring quite easily whether post processing or generated naturally, and also to concrete it is when I went and watched it in HFR 3D I could easily tell that it was different lol. In one scene it looks like Bard is in fast forward mode passing weapons out and it looks sort of silly to me.
> 
> When it came to the bass management and alike I thought it was superb but the AMC theaters that are where I live didnt even upgrade their equipment from a Rave theater that had it before, so quite honestly I couldn't tell you if you would think it was good or not. To me it was deep, full and all around enveloping.
> 
> Thanks for the info on Night at the Museum!
> 
> Lastly, I would love to be able to see more Atmos releases but sadly I had to drive 160 miles just for this one, as I had to do for 70mm Interstellar lol. So I probably won't be coming back until I feel it's worth the dough
> 
> I've signed the Dolby sheet on their site to bring it to Montgomery AL, but I doubt I'll see any results. For a city that is the Capital of the state it sure is backwards as hell.


So without HFR the film looks pretty weird? I really dug the HFR... first time seeing it  I'm curious if the blurays are in HFR? TV's can display at 40 fps right? 

Ahh I can see why you did all the viewings in one day... that's a drag that you have to drive so far. Perhaps the best theater in Montgomery might be in your living room?


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> So without HFR the film looks pretty weird? I really dug the HFR... first time seeing it  I'm curious if the blurays are in HFR? TV's can display at 40 fps right?
> 
> Ahh I can see why you did all the viewings in one day... that's a drag that you have to drive so far. Perhaps the best theater in Montgomery might be in your living room?


To me the HFR version was good at times and bad at some points in the film. The bad being like the scene I described earlier with Bard handing out weapons and the way he would pivot his hips for subsequent turns and how quickly he did those turns, it just didn't flow as natural as the rest of the film at least to me and the wife.

They never released the other two films on Blu-Ray with HFR, as it wasn't widely well received for one and there being underlying extra costs along with technical hurdles to get over for two, which ultimately led the Blu-Ray Disc Association to ignore it since Jackson is the only major player trying to adopt it.

TVs can definitely display at higher than 40p but sadly there are bandwith limitations and BDA standards in the way to get 1080p/48p and 48px2 (3D basically) it wouldn't be able to yield good results on the latter option, and the former is a hang-up I believe with the Blu-Ray Association specifications. The best you could hope for is 720/60 I believe but don't quote me on that one lol.

Yes, I fear that the best Atmos experience will be in my home at least for some time until this place catches up lol, I have been making everyone I know sign the petition sheet on the Dolby site to bring it here. Otherwise the theaters aren't terrible, but just not as advanced as they really should be.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Who is ahead so far between Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D? ...I'd say they are 50/50 right now.
> 
> But watch out, because *dts* is coming to the match! ...In 2015.


I've been trying to stay out of the Auro debate... I honestly think Auro is at a severe disadvantage as far as content goes. I must admit I wasn't a big fan of Wilfried Van Baelen in the Home theater geeks interview. I have yet to see an Auro 3D movie, but based on what imagic said it seems like it might be a better format for surround music... but that's a pretty esoteric medium right now.


----------



## LowellG

NorthSky said:


> Who is ahead so far between Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D? ...I'd say they are 50/50 right now.
> 
> But watch out, because *dts* is coming to the match! ...In 2015.



Where do you expect to hear anything about DTS MDA at? I am waiting or news on it before I start tearing into my ceiling. I would like some news soon.


----------



## ambesolman

Csbooth said:


> When I watched the 3D Atmos mix I am positive it wasn't in HFR as I can tell when interpolation is occuring quite easily whether post processing or generated naturally, and also to concrete it is when I went and watched it in HFR 3D I could easily tell that it was different lol. In one scene it looks like Bard is in fast forward mode passing weapons out and it looks sort of silly to me.
> 
> When it came to the bass management and alike I thought it was superb but the AMC theaters that are where I live didnt even upgrade their equipment from a Rave theater that had it before, so quite honestly I couldn't tell you if you would think it was good or not. To me it was deep, full and all around enveloping.
> 
> Thanks for the info on Night at the Museum!
> 
> Lastly, I would love to be able to see more Atmos releases but sadly I had to drive 160 miles just for this one, as I had to do for 70mm Interstellar lol. So I probably won't be coming back until I feel it's worth the dough
> 
> I've signed the Dolby sheet on their site to bring it to Montgomery AL, but I doubt I'll see any results. For a city that is the Capital of the state it sure is backwards as hell.



Which ATL theater did you go to?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Took in the full experience for the new Hobbit movie, watched it in Dolby 3D (glasses still suck and hurt my nose). Dolby ATMOS Surround Sound, and High Frame Rate (Still dont care for it, a lot of scenes look like they are fast forwarding it, they need to design a variable frame rate system, 24fps for slow scenes, and 48fps for action or fast scenes)... so yeah it was certainly an experience...

The ATMOS mix was fantastic, so many instances to speak of but I dont want to potentially spoil anything for those who have not seen it yet..


----------



## NorthSky

You are right in thinking that Auro-3D seems to be a better match for the serious multichannel music lovers.
Dolby Atmos is @ its best with movies. * In reply to post number 16200

♦ DTS-UHD (MDA) should rock with movies. ...And we might have a happy surprise with multichannel music listening as well; stay tuned, it's just starting.

=>We might get news @ CES 2015. * In reply to post number 16201


----------



## Nalleh

*Atmos with TM vs SH/Auro 3D with SH vs TM*

Did a little testing today. Okay so i have two full setup with saved config files for both Atmos and Auro 3D, and i use a speaker switch between TM and SH.
So, while listening to my full Atmos setup with FH+TM, I can flip the switch and then height2 goes to SH instead.
And while i listen to the full Auro 10.1 setup with FH+SH, flipping the switch makes the sound go to my TM.
I can reach the switch from my seat, so it is instant. However this makes the Audyssey calib with distances, level, and EQ wrong for those speakers, but is still correct for the rest of them. Not optimal, but it works.

I played the Atmos demo disc, Auro demo disc and a new favorite scene from Lone Survivor: where they drop from the helicopter. Lot of overhead action there.
Atmos: with TM the sounds are more concentrated straight above, but it is really good as SH too. It is not that the height is gone, it just gets wider, kind of. And definitly better than with only FH (on the full Auro setup)
Auro 3D: same here, as SH, sound is wider and more naturally placed, while as TM sounds narrower, and more from above.

I was really surprised at how well both "illplaced" speaker setups worked, and although native Atmos with correct setup and native Auro 3D with its correct setup is the two best options, its really not that bad.
And "illplaced" is definitly better than no speakers at the rear.

Now, about that scene in Lone Survivor. I tried it with full Atmos 7.1.4 and full Auro 10.1, and i was flabbergasted at how well both system prossesed the height info here. This movie has a 5.1 track, so both systems upmixed it to the max.
But i have to say the winner in this scene is Auro 3D!! Totally amazing realistic with the helicopters above, and i totally heard the VOG speaker work on that one.
I did also turn off the Emotiva ext amp, so no sound from 5.1, and there was a LOT of sound coming from the ceiling speakers on both systems.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Csbooth said:


> To me the HFR version was good at times and bad at some points in the film. The bad being like the scene I described earlier with Bard handing out weapons and the way he would pivot his hips for subsequent turns and how quickly he did those turns, it just didn't flow as natural as the rest of the film at least to me and the wife.
> 
> They never released the other two films on Blu-Ray with HFR, as it wasn't widely well received for one and there being underlying extra costs along with technical hurdles to get over for two, which ultimately led the Blu-Ray Disc Association to ignore it since Jackson is the only major player trying to adopt it.
> 
> TVs can definitely display at higher than 40p but sadly there are bandwith limitations and BDA standards in the way to get 1080p/48p and 96p (3D basically) it wouldn't be able to yield good results on the latter option, and the former is a hang-up I believe with the Blu-Ray Association specifications. The best you could hope for is 720/60 I believe but don't quote me on that one lol.
> 
> Yes, I fear that the best Atmos experience will be in my home at least for some time until this place catches up lol, I have been making everyone I know sign the petition sheet on the Dolby site to bring it here. Otherwise the theaters aren't terrible, but just not as advanced as they really should be.


That scene you are referring to, is that when the king gives Bilbo the mithril suit? I'll keep a lookout for that when I see it next. 

TY for the info about blurays... so the Hobbit 3D Blurays are 24 fps?


----------



## Csbooth

ambesolman said:


> Which ATL theater did you go to?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Regal Atlantic Station Stadium 18 IMAX & RPX.


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> That scene you are referring to, is that when the king gives Bilbo the mithril suit? I'll keep a lookout for that when I see it next.
> 
> TY for the info about blurays... so the Hobbit 3D Blurays are 24 fps?


Yes, it's around that time and when Bard is helping the people of laketown get ready for the ensuing chaos lol. He just turns quickly in one of those scenes and kind of irked me a bit. You might not see anything wrong with it however, YMMV kind of thing Ya know? XD

I revised my original comment to flow better with more accurate information on the HFR Blu-Ray fate so feel free to give that another glance haha, but yes there is no HFR release of the Hobbit movies on Blu-Ray whatsoever, only the standard 24fps and 3D (24p for each eye but still effectively only basic 24fps film) versions.


----------



## SoundChex

LowellG said:


> Where do you expect to hear anything about DTS MDA at? I am waiting or news on it before I start tearing into my ceiling. I would like some news soon.



I'm holding off buying a new _immersive audio capable_ AVR at least until I have in hand *BD*s encoded with all of *Dolby Atmos*, *Auro-3D* and "_*DTS-UHD*_" so that I can do a real trial of a compromise speaker configuration with appropriately encoded movies and music!

Hopefully there will also be some talk at *CES 2015* about what home theater _immersive audio_ speaker configurations will be compliant with the new *MPEG-H* Audio standard, although it would seem that we are unlikely to see *MPEG-H* audio content (in any form) before *ATSC 3.0* "final acceptance" of a demonstration model . . . _after 2016...?_ 

_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> I'm holding off buying a new _immersive audio capable_ AVR at least until I have in hand *BD*s encoded with all of *Dolby Atmos*, *Auro-3D* and "_*DTS-UHD*_" so that I can do a real trial of a compromise speaker configuration with appropriately encoded movies and music!
> 
> Hopefully there will also be some talk at *CES 2015* about what home theater _immersive audio_ speaker configurations will be compliant with the new *MPEG-H* Audio standard, although it would seem that we are unlikely to see *MPEG-H* audio content (in any form) before *ATSC 3.0* "final acceptance" of a demonstration model . . . _after 2016...?_
> 
> _


I too expect that we will hear something at CES 2015 on both DTS MDA and 4k Blu-ray. If not, then both implementations may be delayed. If the BDA is expecting a holiday 2015 roll out of the new discs and players, for instance, they'll have to have working demos ready to roll out and a list of studio and manufacturing partners at that event... one would think. The same goes for DTS.


----------



## Mike Garrett

SoundChex said:


> I'm holding off buying a new _immersive audio capable_ AVR at least until I have in hand *BD*s encoded with all of *Dolby Atmos*, *Auro-3D* and "_*DTS-UHD*_" so that I can do a real trial of a compromise speaker configuration with appropriately encoded movies and music!
> 
> Hopefully there will also be some talk at *CES 2015* about what home theater _immersive audio_ speaker configurations will be compliant with the new *MPEG-H* Audio standard, although it would seem that we are unlikely to see *MPEG-H* audio content (in any form) before *ATSC 3.0* "final acceptance" of a demonstration model . . . _after 2016...?_
> 
> _


You may be waiting a while.


----------



## NorthSky

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> You may be waiting a while.


...Or maybe not.


----------



## Mike Garrett

NorthSky said:


> ...Or maybe not.


I was referring to this part: "the new MPEG-H Audio standard"

I don't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## stikle

Aras_Volodka said:


> That scene you are referring to, is that when the king gives Bilbo the mithril suit?


Spoiler! I haven't seen it yet.

How about everybody gets back to Atmos (*home theater version*)?


----------



## SoundChex

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> You may be waiting a while.



_Perhaps a shorter time than you might think: _While we will have to wait some considerable time for OTA|CATV *broadcast* content, the MPEG-H standard is also intended for _*mobile distribution*_ of movies|music, a technology which can be revised 'quickly' once ATSC accepts the new standard. Given the turn rate for smart phones, _MPEG-H capable_ phones|tablets could achieve high market penetration in a very short time . . . and I doubt any studio or mobile carrier will want to lose revenue by letting their competitors deliver "better movie|music content". Since MPEG-H is an "encode once|play anywhere" object based codec, the configuration parameters for both *broadcast* and _*mobile distribution*_ playback are defined at the same time, which means the studios will be mixing the eventual OTA|CATV broadcast version of a film at the same time they are creating the mobile version.

_


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> how about everybody gets back to atmos (*home theater version*)?


Word!


----------



## NorthSky

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I was referring to this part: "the new MPEG-H Audio standard"
> 
> I don't see that happening anytime soon.


Oh! ...That too.


----------



## Philharmonic

*Atmos 5.2.2 vs Non Atmos 7.2*

Opinion: I have a 7.2 setup with my 2 rears on the ceiling to the left and right above my listening position. All speakers are in-wall.
Room is 16x24' rectangle. If I leave speaker placement as is I can convert this to an Atmos 5.2.2 using my 2 ceiling speakers as the ceiling atoms speakers (tell me if this is incorrect)
Assume I can't/won't install any additional speakers in the room.
Would it be better to run it as a conventional 7.2 (and not buy new equipment) or go out and buy an Atmos enable receiver and convert to 5.2.2.?????
Thanks


----------



## noah katz

Nalleh said:


> EDIT: how do i put the pics in the post?


At the bottom of every page below the Reply box is a "Drag and Drop File Upload" box.

Unfortunately there are no instructions on how to use it


----------



## zeus33

noah katz said:


> At the bottom of every page below the Reply box is a "Drag and Drop File Upload" box.
> 
> Unfortunately there are no instructions on how to use it



He asked how to "put pics IN the post", not attach them. He already knew how to do that.


----------



## NorthSky

I use scotch tape.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> I use scotch tape.


That's helpful


----------



## NorthSky

> That's helpful


Merry Christmas to you too!  ...Joy and good humor; good for the heart and soul of a man.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> Spoiler! I haven't seen it yet.
> 
> How about everybody gets back to Atmos (*home theater version*)?


It's not a spoiler... it's from a 60 year old book! 

& we are talking about an Atmos movie


----------



## Aras_Volodka

44-DA users... I think I finally figured out the source of all my issues... volume! It hadn't occurred to me to fiddle with volume after calibration because it messes things up usually... but I don't think Audyssey can really properly determine what the modules should be set at anyway as it provided drastically different volume level for each of the 4 height modules. I boosted the modules by a full 4 DB. Right away stuff REALLY sounds overhead. The only problem is that this could mess with DSU upmixing, or parts of Atmos flicks where they blend orchestrations or atmospheres between the floor & ceiling speakers. So there might be a trade off... overhead action vs. pleasing cohesion in the mix. 

I'm gonna sit with it a bit, see how it generally sounds like this. With the Atmos demo disc it sounded killer.


----------



## multit

Nalleh said:


> Did a little testing today. Okay so i have two full setup with saved config files for both Atmos and Auro 3D, and i use a speaker switch between TM and SH.
> So, while listening to my full Atmos setup with FH+TM, I can flip the switch and then height2 goes to SH instead.
> And while i listen to the full Auro 10.1 setup with FH+SH, flipping the switch makes the sound go to my TM.
> I can reach the switch from my seat, so it is instant. However this makes the Audyssey calib with distances, level, and EQ wrong for those speakers, but is still correct for the rest of them. Not optimal, but it works...


Hi Nalleh, did I got it right? So you have different speaker pairs for TM and SH and you switched between them during a constant speaker setup within the AVR (e.g. Atmos) ... just for comparism purposes? I mean, it still need to load a configuration file, when switching from full Atmos to full Auro.

Because *instant switching* won't help really, since not only values for distance etc. are probably wrong, it's the whole Audissey correction, which is unfortunately disabled, once you switch from TM to SH or vice versa in the AVR. That's what I learned on the way and we are stuck with that behaviour, until D+M is going to let us use a common setup.

Could you make a drawing of your current setup, please?


----------



## Nalleh

I am not touching the AVR, i have a external switch/ splitter on the speaker wires from height2. Speaker wires from AVR's height 2 goes to the input on the switch, output 1 goes to TM, and output 2 goes to SH. And yes i have seperate speakers for TM and SH.

So while listening, i can switch between output 1 an output 2 on the switch, without any changes to the AVR. 

And yes, as i said, Audyssey gets wrong for those speakers, but unlike changing amp assign it is still correct for all the other speakers, and is still on.

But i first loaded the full Atmos config file, tested with the switch, then i loaded the full Auro config and tested with the switch.


----------



## noah katz

zeus33 said:


> He asked how to "put pics IN the post", not attach them. He already knew how to do that.


If it's attached it's in the post, but I see what you mean.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Yes, that's one way to describe it. If we're going to be tragically technical about it, then it's all objects: some are dynamic objects while others are static objects (which we refer to as channels).


Making the two overhead arrays part of the channel bed, allows the rerecording mixer to generate a consistent front-to-back overhead stereo image, with the overhead speakers on one side all producing the same sound, but different from the other side. 

While I can imagine how for the home Atmos a static stereo object (two linked mono objects) is reproduced by one pair of speakers, I have yet to come across an explanation on how it can be spatially positioned (thinking about the spheres floating in a 3D space) to address a whole line-up of up to 5 speaker pairs running front-to-back.


----------



## asharma

*Transformers Age of Extinction question*

Does anyone find this movie REALLY bass heavy in ATMOS? I've had to back my subs off...just wondering if it's the sound track or my subs...

Also, I think this ATMOS mix is less about overhead sounds and more about discreet placement of sounds to the remaining channels...I know we were hard on it for lack of overhead sounds initially but I re watched segments last night and the discreet placement of sounds to various channel is quite amazing...does anyone else feel this way? Thanks


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> You can't run a 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup simultaneoulsly? ---> 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 is the max, isn't it? ...Am I losing touch with some' new?


Was referring to the RS20i and the Altitude32. I'm sure you can with these processors, right?



sdurani said:


> The overhead beds aren't mandatory; Atmos soundtracks can be 7.1 plus objects or 9.1 plus objects. Channels (bed channels, channel beds, whatever they're called this week) have two properties: they are static and can be arrayed across multiple speakers (excepting L/C/R channels). Objects are dynamic, they move around and can vary in size (how many speakers they are spread across). The left Top Surround channel will play back over the entire left overhead array of speakers. Objects can move front to back through that array (objects see individual speakers, not an array). Depends on where you're sitting. If you're at/near the back wall, then I would do 5.1 plus wides. 7.1.


Overhead beds are not mandatory? I was told that in order to enable Atmos, you need overhead speakers (or at least the up-word firing speakers). Is this incorrect?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

ok final review of DSU with *The MAze Runner*

its so good...I had to check to make sure it wasnt ATMOS movie but unadvertised....constant use of the sound bubble...with sounds floating in air around you...I swear...if this isnt ATMOS, and future releases all sound like this with DSU...I couldnt care less if true ATMOS movies are released on BR in the future...its THAT good

:drool:


----------



## Wookii

Kain said:


> Was referring to the RS20i


Not yet- Q1 to Q3 next year hopefully, and likely Atmos layouts upto the maximum available 16 channels.



Kain said:


> and the Altitude32. I'm sure you can with these processors, right?


Yes,up to 32 channels, so up to 24.1.6 or 21.1.10 I believe.




Kain said:


> Overhead beds are not mandatory? I was told that in order to enable Atmos, you need overhead speakers (or at least the up-word firing speakers). Is this incorrect?


I don't think that has anything to do with the 'beds' in the audio mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Did a little testing today. Okay so i have two full setup with saved config files for both Atmos and Auro 3D, and i use a speaker switch between TM and SH.
> So, while listening to my full Atmos setup with FH+TM, I can flip the switch and then height2 goes to SH instead.
> And while i listen to the full Auro 10.1 setup with FH+SH, flipping the switch makes the sound go to my TM.
> I can reach the switch from my seat, so it is instant. However this makes the Audyssey calib with distances, level, and EQ wrong for those speakers, but is still correct for the rest of them. Not optimal, but it works.
> 
> I played the Atmos demo disc, Auro demo disc and a new favorite scene from Lone Survivor: where they drop from the helicopter. Lot of overhead action there.
> Atmos: with TM the sounds are more concentrated straight above, but it is really good as SH too. It is not that the height is gone, it just gets wider, kind of. And definitly better than with only FH (on the full Auro setup)
> Auro 3D: same here, as SH, sound is wider and more naturally placed, while as TM sounds narrower, and more from above.
> 
> I was really surprised at how well both "illplaced" speaker setups worked, and although native Atmos with correct setup and native Auro 3D with its correct setup is the two best options, its really not that bad.
> And "illplaced" is definitly better than no speakers at the rear.
> 
> Now, about that scene in Lone Survivor. I tried it with full Atmos 7.1.4 and full Auro 10.1, and i was flabbergasted at how well both system prossesed the height info here. This movie has a 5.1 track, so both systems upmixed it to the max.
> But i have to say the winner in this scene is Auro 3D!! Totally amazing realistic with the helicopters above, and i totally heard the VOG speaker work on that one.
> I did also turn off the Emotiva ext amp, so no sound from 5.1, and there was a LOT of sound coming from the ceiling speakers on both systems.


Thanks for this. Very interesting report.

Can you just clarify for me: what is your impression of playing Auro content through the Atmos speaker setup? I am never going to install speakers just for Auro but I have the option of upgrading my Denon 5200 to Auro and there may eventually be some Auro movie content available on disc. So I could do the upgrade, buy the content but it would be played back via my Atmos speaker setup of FH+TM. How well do you think Auro content would play in those circumstances.

Also, using only my Atmos speaker setup, do you think Auromatic would be better, worse or the same but different as DSU? I can imagine that Auromatic might do better than DSU when Auro speaker layout is used, but how well will Auromatic do when an Atmos speaker layout is used?

If you can give me some guidance on this it would be most useful.

My current position is that I will not be adding any more speakers just for Auro, as I am not a believer in the long term success of Auro. However, if Auro content or upmixing of legacy content via Auromatic works as well as or even better than Atmos,* using the Atmos FH+TM speaker layout*, I could be persuaded to upgrade my AVR.

Many thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Does anyone find this movie REALLY bass heavy in ATMOS? I've had to back my subs off...just wondering if it's the sound track or my subs...


It is a very bass-heavy soundtrack. HST, I thought the bass quality was glorious and I didn't have to back it off at all.



asharma said:


> Also, I think this ATMOS mix is less about overhead sounds and more about discreet placement of sounds to the remaining channels...I know we were hard on it for lack of overhead sounds initially but I re watched segments last night and the discreet placement of sounds to various channel is quite amazing...does anyone else feel this way? Thanks


Yes, I agree with you. The precision with which sounds are placed in, and moved around, the soundstage is remarkable.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for this. Very interesting report.
> 
> Can you just clarify for me: what is your impression of playing Auro content through the Atmos speaker setup? I am never going to install speakers just for Auro but I have the option of upgrading my Denon 5200 to Auro and there may eventually be some Auro movie content available on disc. So I could do the upgrade, buy the content but it would be played back via my Atmos speaker setup of FH+TM. How well do you think Auro content would play in those circumstances.
> 
> Also, using only my Atmos speaker setup, do you think Auromatic would be better, worse or the same but different as DSU? I can imagine that Auromatic might do better than DSU when Auro speaker layout is used, but how well will Auromatic do when an Atmos speaker layout is used?
> 
> If you can give me some guidance on this it would be most useful.
> 
> My current position is that I will not be adding any more speakers just for Auro, as I am not a believer in the long term success of Auro. However, if Auro content or upmixing of legacy content via Auromatic works as well as or even better than Atmos,* using the Atmos FH+TM speaker layout*, I could be persuaded to upgrade my AVR.
> 
> Many thanks.


Can you post the pictures of your room again Keith (or link to the post where you posted them originally - I can't seem to find them in this thread). I seem to remember thinking when I saw the images originally that the speaker positions looked quite close to Auro specs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> Can you post the pictures of your room again Keith (or link to the post where you posted them originally - I can't seem to find them in this thread). I seem to remember thinking when I saw the images originally that the speaker positions looked quite close to Auro specs.


If I can find them! I didn’t think the photos showed the ceiling speakers though. The FH speakers are in line with the L&R speakers and at 42° from MLP. The TM are also in line with the L&R speakers and are at 85° relative to MLP. This puts both sets of overheads roughly 3 feet from the front and rear walls respectively and about 2.5 feet in from the side walls. I haven't paid much attention to Auro specs TBH - does this arrangement make them quite close?


----------



## Ralph Potts

Brian Fineberg said:


> ok final review of DSU with *The MAze Runner*
> 
> its so good...I had to check to make sure it wasnt ATMOS movie but unadvertised....constant use of the sound bubble...with sounds floating in air around you...I swear...if this isnt ATMOS, and future releases all sound like this with DSU...I couldnt care less if true ATMOS movies are released on BR in the future...its THAT good
> 
> :drool:


Greetings,

I had a feeling Atmos users would enjoy this one via DSU. It sounds terrific via DTS Neo:X as well as straight DTS-HD MA 7.1 so I had high hopes for it upmixed. I guess I will soon have the chance to see for myself.. 


Regards,


----------



## BillyNedwell

Brian Fineberg said:


> I swear...if this isnt ATMOS, and future releases all sound like this with DSU...I couldnt care less if true ATMOS movies are released on BR in the future...its THAT good.


I'm beginning to agree. I have started watching my old favourite Blu Rays in DSU and last night it was "Inglorious Basterds". The sound is far more immersive than listening in its native DTS HD MA 5.1 mix. The 2 standout chapters are 2 and 5 with a great score and effects making good use of the overheads. The opening scene in chapter 2 really makes it feel like you are in the same room with the Fuhrer's excited rant bouncing of the ceiling as well as the walls. The forest scenes also manage to sound extremely natural. Really enjoyable.


----------



## randyk47

asharma said:


> Also, I think this ATMOS mix is less about overhead sounds and more about discreet placement of sounds to the remaining channels...I know we were hard on it for lack of overhead sounds initially but I re watched segments last night and the discreet placement of sounds to various channel is quite amazing...does anyone else feel this way? Thanks


Agree completely. I'll have to admit that I actually got on my step ladder and tried to hear what if anything was coming out of my TF/TR speakers. Initially it really was kind of a "what the h" moment as I'd invested a bit more than $.05 as I wasn't hearing a lot. Fast forward to today and add me to the "quite amazed" crowd on the impact of ATMOS, and actually mostly DSU right now, on our listening enjoyment.

I've been running 5.1 for some 16+ years, moving to 7.1 maybe two years ago, and during that time I've tried to stay up with improvements in recievers, DVD/Blu-Ray players, speakers, cables, displays, etc. I can't think of any one single change or upgrade that has had as dramatic impact since my first 5.1 foray and maybe my first HDTV.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Atmos 7.2.4 suggestions please*

I have 7.2 now adding atmos within a week. Attached are a couple sketches of what I am doing to see if I'm on the right track ( excuse the pun) for a proper atmos setup. The front speakers are toed in towards the MLP , I could not show that in the drawing. My rear speakers are actually in-ceiling now where I show the proposed rear atmos location. I will relocate the rear speakers ( reluctantly ) way back on the rear wall at the 5 ft level . The existing in-ceiling rears ( Paradigm ADP R15-30) will become my rear atmos for now. I am going to experiment with front atmos first using the D44's on top of my front towers. I'm not expecting good results because of the really low dropped ceiling above the speakers. If that does not work out I will install in-ceiling speakers in the locations I have proposed in the sketch and then when 6 channel atmos is available the mid ceiling atmos will be connected. I'm pulling the wire for all the additional now so if I'm to make some adjustments now is it the time . 

Comments and suggestions welcome


----------



## gammanuc

You might be better off mounting your surround backs on the wall closer to the seats, angled toward the main listening position. In the diagram they look like they will be really far away.


----------



## roxiedog13

gammanuc said:


> You might be better off mounting your surround backs on the wall closer to the seats, angled toward the main listening position. In the diagram they look like they will be really far away.


Yes they are really far away, at the back of a 30ft room, 20 ft from the MLP. My rational is that the rears don't contribute much of the overall content and that by running Audyssey the system would just increase the levels to the rears to compensate. I don't really want to mount speakers on the wall, my current surrounds are in-wall to hide them. I'll try them in the rear first and if it's 
an issue I will install in-wall for the rears as well.


----------



## gammanuc

If you have some bookshelf speakers and extra wire on hand, set them on some stands (close to ear level) and try out both positions.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> If I can find them! I didn’t think the photos showed the ceiling speakers though. The FH speakers are in line with the L&R speakers and at 42° from MLP. The TM are also in line with the L&R speakers and are at 85° relative to MLP. This puts both sets of overheads roughly 3 feet from the front and rear walls respectively and about 2.5 feet in from the side walls. I haven't paid much attention to Auro specs TBH - does this arrangement make them quite close?


What are the elevation angles?


----------



## BigScreen

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yes that theater & the other I was talking about is the AMC 30 which is now RPX 17.
> I did actually go see the Hobbit 5 armies at the Icon theater... I wanted to test it out. I went to auditorium 1 (not the 21+ screen, but the other VIP screen... do you know if both are the same quality?)


I've only been in Screen #6 , so I can't speak for what Screen #1 might have for equipment (or if #6 has been changed since Jan 13). My comments about the sound and picture in #6 are detailed in my Reader Comment for the theater:

http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=22807&view=comments

I encourage anyone and everyone to submit their comments about the theaters that they go to, especially (to stay on topic) for the Atmos presentations. The more awareness there is about Atmos, the better off we'll all be, as more people know about Atmos, the more they will seek such presentations, the more theaters will be willing to install more Atmos, and the more movies will be made in Atmos, and the more movies will be released in Atmos in the home.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I was impressed with the visual presentation... and I think the Atmos system was very nice too. I haven't seen Regal City North's RPX Atmos system... only the RPX 17, but I think the RPX 17's sound system was better than Icon, despite having a couple blown speakers. I plan to see it at the RPX 17 to compare, to me the Icon's bass sounded a bit washed out and the sound was treble heavy. Icon's quality of image really impressed me... it didn't look dim with the 3D glasses... and it looked like it might be 4k projection? The blacks looked slightly a bit too light but so far it's the best film projection I've seen... as the RPX 17's screen looks pretty dim in comparison... I hope they upgrade their projectors for RPX theaters soon. If I had to choose between the two... I'd go with Icon I think... but I need to check out City North's RPX first to see if their projector is better than RPX 17. You are a chicagoan? I'm guessing I know of all the better theaters to go to but if you have recommendations I'm all ears


In my comments, I mentioned the lack of gut-rumbling bass in some scenes, so (along with the ambient light levels) that's probably the biggest negative I had about the experience overall. I really liked the positioning in the Riddles in the Dark scene, so that had me sold on the benefits that can be had with Atmos. 

Since then, I've tried to seek out Atmos presentations whenever possible, but I'm in the Milwaukee area, and we have even less than Chicago does! A friend of mine and I often travel to the Chicago area to see movies because of the dearth of high quality presentations up here. We really enjoyed going to McClurg Court before it closed, and we usually hit up the Regal Lincolnshire for IMAX presentations (like Interstellar on IMAX film). I've not been to the City North location, or any of the other downtown theaters, like River East. The Regal Cantera 17 (AMC Cantera 30) was built in 1998, and I moved in 1989, so I never saw a movie there either.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> Overhead beds are not mandatory? I was told that in order to enable Atmos, you need overhead speakers (or at least the up-word firing speakers). Is this incorrect?


You're confusing optional channels in the mix with speakers required for playback.


----------



## jacked

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for this. Very interesting report.
> 
> Can you just clarify for me: what is your impression of playing Auro content through the Atmos speaker setup? I am never going to install speakers just for Auro but I have the option of upgrading my Denon 5200 to Auro and there may eventually be some Auro movie content available on disc. So I could do the upgrade, buy the content but it would be played back via my Atmos speaker setup of FH+TM. How well do you think Auro content would play in those circumstances.
> 
> Also, using only my Atmos speaker setup, do you think Auromatic would be better, worse or the same but different as DSU? I can imagine that Auromatic might do better than DSU when Auro speaker layout is used, but how well will Auromatic do when an Atmos speaker layout is used?
> 
> If you can give me some guidance on this it would be most useful.
> 
> My current position is that I will not be adding any more speakers just for Auro, as I am not a believer in the long term success of Auro. However, if Auro content or upmixing of legacy content via Auromatic works as well as or even better than Atmos,* using the Atmos FH+TM speaker layout*, I could be persuaded to upgrade my AVR.
> 
> Many thanks.


 
Keith,

I`m still trying to get the right setup config for Auro, I`ve had a few issues with it.

But I received my Auro 3D Demo Disc this morning and was able to try it. The speakers used for this are Front Height and Top Rear and being high up either end of the room are near enough for Auro.

I`ve only tried the Atmos Demo disc with this new layout as I`m familiar with it now, and I can`t really tell any difference in the sound from using 4 ceiling speakers as TF & TR. It still sounds incredible with the sense of a hemisphere of sound. So I`m hoping this is still a really good layout option for Atmos.

I then changed to the Auro disc using these same speakers, I think Auro classes this layout as FH & SH. The Auro effect is staggering, the disc has some clips that isolates the height layer and it works amazingly well, the clips switch between full Auro - base layer only - height layer only - and repeat, and it does sound amazing.

The only comparison I`ve yet done for both upmixers is the start of the new Apes film, when they`re hunting in the trees and it`s raining.
This sounds better and cleaner in Auro 3D, the thing that really stood out was the detail in the raindrops and how close to the MLP they seemed to be. I think Auro-Matic is the better of the upmixers for music blurays, it produced a fuller sound to me. I tried this yesterday with my original Atmos layout of TF&TR ceiling speakers and music in Auro 3D sounded even better than before, it created a superb sense of audio above and around you and that also seemed to bring a bit more focus to the vocals and centre channel.

I know your layout is slightly different again but I`m sure you could make use of the Auro upgrade, even if it`s just for music.

The one thing I am struggling with is the correct setup / layout options, if I tell the AVP I have 4 height speakers for Auro I can only hear sound from the Front Heights. The only way I can get sound from the Rear Heights with Auro is to set the AVP to 5 height speakers with the VOG / TS speaker, but I don`t have a VOG speaker !

I`ve not solved this little issue yet.

Dave


----------



## kbarnes701

Wookii said:


> What are the elevation angles?


Those were the elevation angles.


----------



## kbarnes701

jacked said:


> Keith,
> 
> I`m still trying to get the right setup config for Auro, I`ve had a few issues with it.
> 
> But I received my Auro 3D Demo Disc this morning and was able to try it. The speakers used for this are Front Height and Top Rear and being high up either end of the room are near enough for Auro.
> 
> I`ve only tried the Atmos Demo disc with this new layout as I`m familiar with it now, and I can`t really tell any difference in the sound from using 4 ceiling speakers as TF & TR. It still sounds incredible with the sense of a hemisphere of sound. So I`m hoping this is still a really good layout option for Atmos.
> 
> I then changed to the Auro disc using these same speakers, I think Auro classes this layout as FH & SH. The Auro effect is staggering, the disc has some clips that isolates the height layer and it works amazingly well, the clips switch between full Auro - base layer only - height layer only - and repeat, and it does sound amazing.
> 
> The only comparison I`ve yet done for both upmixers is the start of the new Apes film, when they`re hunting in the trees and it`s raining.
> This sounds better and cleaner in Auro 3D, the thing that really stood out was the detail in the raindrops and how close to the MLP they seemed to be. I think Auro-Matic is the better of the upmixers for music blurays, it produced a fuller sound to me. I tried this yesterday with my original Atmos layout of TF&TR ceiling speakers and music in Auro 3D sounded even better than before, it created a superb sense of audio above and around you and that also seemed to bring a bit more focus to the vocals and centre channel.
> 
> I know your layout is slightly different again but I`m sure you could make use of the Auro upgrade, even if it`s just for music.
> 
> The one thing I am struggling with is the correct setup / layout options, if I tell the AVP I have 4 height speakers for Auro I can only hear sound from the Front Heights. The only way I can get sound from the Rear Heights with Auro is to set the AVP to 5 height speakers with the VOG / TS speaker, but I don`t have a VOG speaker !
> 
> I`ve not solved this little issue yet.
> 
> Dave


Thanks for that, Dave. It seems that I might be able to benefit from the Auro upgrade then, even using my Atmos FH+TM layout. I guess the only way to find out for sure is to try it. The Auro upgrade is reasonably cheap (cheaper for us in Europe than the States for a change I think at 149 Euros) and there is no additional cost as I will only be using my existing speakers. I am not remotely interested in Auro itself, but Auromatic seems promising from the two reports so far on using it with Atmos speaker layouts. Maybe I will just do the upgrade and see. Thanks.


----------



## Wookii

kbarnes701 said:


> Those were the elevation angles.


Oh sorry, I thought they were Azimuth.


----------



## roxiedog13

gammanuc said:


> If you have some bookshelf speakers and extra wire on hand, set them on some stands (close to ear level) and try out both positions.


Ear level might not work as the second row of seats behind the MLP is higher and the third row, a bar is 55" high. Not sure it would work well any lower than 6FT to be honest otherwise the sound will be blocked. This is why I went with in-ceiling in the first place. The in-ceiling there now are just behind the third row and have a 30 degree angle built in.


----------



## kbarnes701

Can someone answer this for me please:

If I add Auro to my Denon X5200W via the upgrade, when I switch between Auro and Atmos (for the upmixers) will I need to do all this saving and reloading of configs malarkey because Audyssey will get disabled? I think not as I will be using a constant set of speaker layouts - FH+TM for Atmos and whatever the equivalent is for Auro. But if someone could confirm that would be helpful. I won't upgrade unless I can seamlessly select either DSU or Auromatic.

Also, what speaker layout should I tell Auro I am using when my speakers are set up for FH (albeit ceiling mounted) and TM for Atmos?

Thanks.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Can someone answer this for me please:
> 
> If I add Auro to my Denon X5200W via the upgrade, when I switch between Auro and Atmos (for the upmixers) will I need to do all this saving and reloading of configs malarkey because Audyssey will get disabled? I think not as I will be using a constant set of speaker layouts - FH+TM for Atmos and whatever the equivalent is for Auro. But if someone could confirm that would be helpful. I won't upgrade unless I can seamlessly select either DSU or Auromatic.
> 
> Also, what speaker layout should I tell Auro I am using when my speakers are set up for FH (albeit ceiling mounted) and TM for Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


I am VERY interested in the answer to this as well

as well, Keith, as your findings if you do the upgrade as to how auro upmixer fares vs ATMOS etc...i might as well put aside 200$ now lol


----------



## gammanuc

roxiedog13 said:


> Ear level might not work as the second row of seats behind the MLP is higher and the third row, a bar is 55" high. Not sure it would work well any lower than 6FT to be honest otherwise the sound will be blocked. This is why I went with in-ceiling in the first place. The in-ceiling there now are just behind the third row and have a 30 degree angle built in.


Ah, you have bit of a situation there, I was just throwing ideas out there. I was trying to decide if I wanted front heights before I installed my ceiling speakers. I just piled up boxes to the proper height and placed the speakers on top to get an idea of how it would sound.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Can someone answer this for me please:
> 
> If I add Auro to my Denon X5200W via the upgrade, when I switch between Auro and Atmos (for the upmixers) will I need to do all this saving and reloading of configs malarkey because Audyssey will get disabled? I think not as I will be using a constant set of speaker layouts - FH+TM for Atmos and whatever the equivalent is for Auro. But if someone could confirm that would be helpful. I won't upgrade unless I can seamlessly select either DSU or Auromatic.
> 
> Also, what speaker layout should I tell Auro I am using when my speakers are set up for FH (albeit ceiling mounted) and TM for Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


Keith - JD has confirmed a few times that you will have to reload the config files to switch from Atmos with FH & TM to Auro with FH & SH. If you are willing to run Auro using only FH then no config save and file load for Audyssey required. Of course you could change the amp assign and not use Audyssey  to make switching easy.
I will be loading Auro over the holidays when I have about 12 days off in a row giving me plenty of time to try both surround formats in detail. Personally I only see Auro as an option for surround music.


----------



## gammanuc

Brian Fineberg said:


> I am VERY interested in the answer to this as well
> 
> as well, Keith, as your findings if you do the upgrade as to how auro upmixer fares vs ATMOS etc...i might as well put aside 200$ now lol





kbarnes701 said:


> Can someone answer this for me please:
> 
> If I add Auro to my Denon X5200W via the upgrade, when I switch between Auro and Atmos (for the upmixers) will I need to do all this saving and reloading of configs malarkey because Audyssey will get disabled? I think not as I will be using a constant set of speaker layouts - FH+TM for Atmos and whatever the equivalent is for Auro. But if someone could confirm that would be helpful. I won't upgrade unless I can seamlessly select either DSU or Auromatic.
> 
> Also, what speaker layout should I tell Auro I am using when my speakers are set up for FH (albeit ceiling mounted) and TM for Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


So looking at the attached from the manual, the only thing I would have to add to my 7.1.4 Atmos setup is the TS (VOG) speaker. I have an amp in place already. Same idea as you have Keith only I have TF and TR speakers installed. One would expect Auro would choose the proper speakers as they are connected as per the manual already. Correct?


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


>


 
Nice, i can fit my wife in this........... 
I do have to rotate her, but ok, thats no problem


----------



## himey

kbarnes701 said:


> Can someone answer this for me please:
> 
> If I add Auro to my Denon X5200W via the upgrade, when I switch between Auro and Atmos (for the upmixers) will I need to do all this saving and reloading of configs malarkey because Audyssey will get disabled? I think not as I will be using a constant set of speaker layouts - FH+TM for Atmos and whatever the equivalent is for Auro. But if someone could confirm that would be helpful. I won't upgrade unless I can seamlessly select either DSU or Auromatic.
> 
> Also, what speaker layout should I tell Auro I am using when my speakers are set up for FH (albeit ceiling mounted) and TM for Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.



So do any of these new Atmos pre/pros or recievers allow for separate audio settings for each input? The ability to change from the different processing options, levels, crossovers, configurations (2.0, 5.1, 5.1.4 ect.) seems like an obvious and necessary feature.


The ability to change listening position calibrations with a touch of a button would be nice if it could be implemented...Seat 1, seat 2 ect.


----------



## clipper57

Aras_Volodka said:


> 44-DA users... I think I finally figured out the source of all my issues... volume! It hadn't occurred to me to fiddle with volume after calibration because it messes things up usually... but I don't think Audyssey can really properly determine what the modules should be set at anyway as it provided drastically different volume level for each of the 4 height modules. I boosted the modules by a full 4 DB. Right away stuff REALLY sounds overhead. The only problem is that this could mess with DSU upmixing, or parts of Atmos flicks where they blend orchestrations or atmospheres between the floor & ceiling speakers. So there might be a trade off... overhead action vs. pleasing cohesion in the mix.
> 
> I'm gonna sit with it a bit, see how it generally sounds like this. With the Atmos demo disc it sounded killer.


aras it should not be a problem increasing the volume level of the modules +4 over your other channels.in the 44-da instruction manual this is recommended.


----------



## blastermaster

For those of you that have Atmos setups and two rows of seating...how are you going about setting things up? Reading the Dolby recommendations for Atmos, all speakers in the X plane should be at ear level. Well, that would mean that the sound would be hitting people in the ass in my 2nd row of seating (bar table/stools) and totally impeding the sound from getting to the first row. Also, the rear heights, if set up for the first row, would be directly above the second row. And then, in a 7.1.4 configuration, the second row wouldn't be getting any side surrounds. For those of us that have two rows, the only workable solution I see for Atmos in the home is a 9.1.6 setup, which isn't even available (is it? Will I have to sell the house to get it?). And even then, the rear surrounds would likely have to be mounted above the second row, but angled down and toed in towards the mlp in the front row. 

As it stands, I'm kinda leaning towards just downsizing to a single row, making it epic, and finding a way to piss off a few friends to decrease my attendance on movie night.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Scott W. is running an Atmos poll here: http://www.avsforum.com/


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith - JD has confirmed a few times that you will have to reload the config files to switch from Atmos with FH & TM to Auro with FH & SH.


OK. So even using just one set of speakers for both I still have to save and reload a config each time I want to change? Presumably because the AVR sees a change from FH+TM to FH+?? (whatever Auro calls them) as a change of config even though they are the same speakers?

That's it then AFAIAC - no Auro upgrade. There is just no way I am going to fart around doing that just to change an upmixer from one to another. Thanks for clarifying for me.



smurraybhm said:


> If you are willing to run Auro using only FH then no config save and file load for Audyssey required. Of course you could change the amp assign and not use Audyssey  to make switching easy..


I may be going over to Dirac for REQ using a standalone DDRC-88A - that might mean I could find some sort of workaround as the EQ is dne separately from the AVR.



smurraybhm said:


> I will be loading Auro over the holidays when I have about 12 days off in a row giving me plenty of time to try both surround formats in detail. Personally I only see Auro as an option for surround music.


Well I don't use my HT system for music so that's another nail in its coffin. I will be very interested to see your report when you have evaluated it all.


----------



## kbarnes701

gammanuc said:


> So looking at the attached from the manual, the only thing I would have to add to my 7.1.4 Atmos setup is the TS (VOG) speaker. I have an amp in place already. Same idea as you have Keith only I have TF and TR speakers installed. One would expect Auro would choose the proper speakers as they are connected as per the manual already. Correct?


smurraybhm has nailed it. Have to save and load two configs each time you swap from Atmos to Auro. Too much hassle for me, but YMMV of course.


----------



## Selden Ball

My understanding is that you only have to save/reload the configuration IF you want to use the Height 2 connections for both types of decoders. 

In other words, if the Height 2 channels are configured for only one of the decoders, then the correct speakers will be used for both, with no reloading. The problem is that (as a result) either Atmos or Auro-3D is in a limited configuration, doing without its rear overhead (Height 2) speakers -- i.e. a full 7.1.4 Atmos configuration is compatible with a 5.1.2 (aka 7.1) Auro-3D configuration, while 5.1.4 (aka 9.1) and 5.1.4.1 (aka 10.1) Auro-3D configurations are compatible with a 7.1.2 Atmos configuration.

Of course, the front overhead (Height 1) speaker channels have to be configured as Front Height to be compatible with both.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that you only have to save/reload the configuration IF you want to use the Height 2 connections for both types of decoders.
> 
> In other words, if the Height 2 channels are configured for only one of the decoders, then the correct speakers will be used for both, with no reloading. The problem is that (as a result) either Atmos or Auro-3D is in a limited configuration, doing without its rear overhead (Height 2) speakers -- i.e. a full 7.1.4 Atmos configuration is compatible with a 5.1.2 (aka 7.1) Auro-3D configuration, while 5.1.4 (aka 9.1) and 5.1.4.1 (aka 10.1) Auro-3D configurations are compatible with a 7.1.2 Atmos configuration.
> 
> Of course, the front overhead (Height 1) speaker channels have to be configured as Front Height to be compatible with both.


OK - but if the rear overheads aren't working, than AFAIAC it's no good. I'll just forget about it I think. I don't have the patience to mess about with reloading configs if all I want to do is switch from DSU to Auromatic. And I can’t leave it permanently set up for Auromatic, if that proved better than DSU, because then I'd still have to reconfig for Atmos. IOW, it's a no-go here. Thanks for the input though.


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> smurraybhm has nailed it. Have to save and load two configs each time you swap from Atmos to Auro. Too much hassle for me, but YMMV of course.


And seriously breaks Mrs. K's KISS guidance.  It must be relatively transparent and at least in my house that even means programmed remotes for the three main setups so it's a press and go operation.


----------



## roxiedog13

gammanuc said:


> Ah, you have bit of a situation there, I was just throwing ideas out there. I was trying to decide if I wanted front heights before I installed my ceiling speakers. I just piled up boxes to the proper height and placed the speakers on top to get an idea of how it would sound.


Yes indeed, I guess I have a lot of experimentation to do. I may just relocate my rear in-ceiling back another 5 feet to get the separation if the rear on wall does not work out. The in-ceiling work well where they are now as rear channels, my first test I guess is to see how they work out being back 20FT from the MLP and take it from there. Was hoping to have my X5200 for the 
weekend but it did not arrive. Guess I'll just experiment with the rears first and see how that goes.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> And seriously breaks Mrs. K's KISS guidance.  It must be relatively transparent and at least in my house that even means programmed remotes for the three main setups so it's a press and go operation.


Yes, good point. I just saved about $200. Ooooh.... more Blurays!


----------



## NorthSky

Spoiler



Someday they'll come up with a separate Music and Movie mode that you can use for both Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D and with the same speaker configuration ....


----------



## mtbdudex

For those with in-ceiling speakers are you getting too much localization?

I see Atlantic Technology released these, 12/19/2014 08:30:00 AM Eastern
http://www.twice.com/news/speakers/atlantic-ceiling-speaker-dedicated-height-channels/55375










> Norwood, Mass. – Atlantic Technology plans January shipments of what it calls the first in-ceiling speaker that’s purpose-built to serve as a height speaker for object-based surround-sound systems.
> With dual tweeters firing at angles and with unspecified crossover settings, the speaker delivers a “very wide scatter” that minimizes “hot spotting” and replicates the movie-theater experience in which ceiling speakers are positioned high up and can’t be localized, Atlantic president Peter Tribeman explained. The IC-6 0BA speakers will produce “a bubble of height information above you” as a movie theater’s ceiling speakers do, he said. The speaker scatters upper midrange and high frequencies.
> Tribeman said he doubts the effect could be achieved with current residential in-ceiling speakers promoted as wide-dispersion speakers, saying dual-angled tweeters are likely necessary.
> The 4-ohm speaker features 6.5-inch dual-voice-coil woofer, dual 1-inch silk dome tweeters, and 10-125-watt RMS recommended power. It will be priced in the low- to mid-$300s.
> The product will be the company’s second speaker dedicated to an object-based surround system. The first, unveiled at the CEDIA Expo, is the $499/pair 44-DA, a compact height-speaker module that fits on top of Atlantic's THX-certified 4400 LR speakers to bounce Dolby Atmos height information off the ceiling. The module delivers an integrated one-piece look.
> Because of its compact size, it can also be placed on top of other speakers or used as a standalone elevation speaker, the company added. The speaker measures 5.5 x 8.4 x 9.5 inches.
> The speaker delivers a "controlled acoustic scatter" to broaden the sweet spot of the sound reflected off the ceiling, enabling greater placement flexibility in a room, the company added.
> - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/speakers/...ed-height-channels/55375#sthash.LrsHC4Ux.dpuf


----------



## markus767

^
Not a good idea as this speaker will very likely have an interference dip at high frequencies off axis.

And why do they state "The speaker delivers a "controlled acoustic scatter" to broaden the sweet spot of the sound reflected off the ceiling". There will be no sound reflected off the ceiling if the speaker is mounted in the ceiling. Typical marketing nonsense?


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Not a good idea as this speaker will very likely have an interference dip at high frequencies on axis.
> 
> And why do they state "The speaker delivers a "controlled acoustic scatter" to broaden the sweet spot of the sound reflected off the ceiling". There will be no sound reflected off the ceiling if the speaker is mounted in the ceiling. Typical marketing nonsense?


100% agree, on both counts.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


>


Scott, you live near Hollywood?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nope but I'll be pretty close later this evening.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Gran Torino'* ... awesome flick! ... In that particular scene, Clint is reacting to his neighbor, that lady sitting on her own front porch, next door.


----------



## SherazNJ

Hello Atmos fellows,
I'm in the middle of upgrading my sound system in theater. Atmos seems like an option to go for as well. Is there anyone in NJ or close by NJ with Atmos setup in their home theater willing to do a little demo? I'd love to hear it before I go for it.

Thx.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> ^
> Not a good idea as this speaker will very likely have an interference dip at high frequencies on axis.


By symmetry all freq will be in phase on axis, so that's the only place it *won't* have an interference dip at any frequency.


----------



## BamaDave

blastermaster said:


> For those of you that have Atmos setups and two rows of seating...how are you going about setting things up? Reading the Dolby recommendations for Atmos, all speakers in the X plane should be at ear level. Well, that would mean that the sound would be hitting people in the ass in my 2nd row of seating (bar table/stools) and totally impeding the sound from getting to the first row. Also, the rear heights, if set up for the first row, would be directly above the second row. And then, in a 7.1.4 configuration, the second row wouldn't be getting any side surrounds. For those of us that have two rows, the only workable solution I see for Atmos in the home is a 9.1.6 setup, which isn't even available (is it? Will I have to sell the house to get it?). And even then, the rear surrounds would likely have to be mounted above the second row, but angled down and toed in towards the mlp in the front row.


 
I am planning on running the same 7.1.4 and have the same concern about my back row! Actually considering just setting them up for the sweet spot being the front row at this point unless someone comes up with a better solution!


----------



## roxiedog13

BamaDave said:


> I am planning on running the same 7.1.4 and have the same concern about my back row! Actually considering just setting them up for the sweet spot being the front row at this point unless someone comes up with a better solution!





blastermaster said:


> For those of you that have Atmos setups and two rows of seating...how are you going about setting things up? Reading the Dolby recommendations for Atmos, all speakers in the X plane should be at ear level. Well, that would mean that the sound would be hitting people in the ass in my 2nd row of seating (bar table/stools) and totally impeding the sound from getting to the first row. Also, the rear heights, if set up for the first row, would be directly above the second row. And then, in a 7.1.4 configuration, the second row wouldn't be getting any side surrounds. For those of us that have two rows, the only workable solution I see for Atmos in the home is a 9.1.6 setup, which isn't even available (is it? Will I have to sell the house to get it?). And even then, the rear surrounds would likely have to be mounted above the second row, but angled down and toed in towards the mlp in the front row.
> 
> As it stands, I'm kinda leaning towards just downsizing to a single row, making it epic, and finding a way to piss off a few friends to decrease my attendance on movie night.


 
I have the identical problem going to 7.2.4 from a 7.2 system. I have two rows of seats and a third row bar with seats . With the 7.2 I put the rear speakers in the ceiling with a 30 degree angle and they worked well as rear speakers. Now adding atmos I will use the existing rear ceiling speakers for rear atmos and move the rear speakers back on the far wall or on the sides. For now I am going to try a couple of atmos modules on the front speakers but my ceiling is low and I expect the effect will not work. I'll probably add two front ceiling speakers in the end for 7.2.4 atmos now and when 7.2.6 is available will add two more mid ceiling speakers .See my sketch below for existing and proposed atmos additions.


----------



## Csbooth

roxiedog13 said:


> For now I am going to try a couple of atmos modules on the front speakers but my ceiling is low and I expect the effect will not work.


I'm pretty sure lower ceilings (8ft) are BETTER for bounce modules because of their superior dispersion patterns.

The in/on ceiling speakers cause too much localization as a result of being too close and not able to spread as well in lower ceiling solutions. 

This is what I have read pretty often and in my personal experience as well from hearing the difference today during a couple of setup demonstrations.

In the end YMMV with this kind of thing involving HRTF science, so the answer is always what sounds best to you!, but just don't knock it til you try it haha.


----------



## blastermaster

> I have the identical problem going to 7.2.4 from a 7.2 system. I have two rows of seats and a third row bar with seats . With the 7.2 I put the rear speakers in the ceiling with a 30 degree angle and they worked well as rear speakers. Now adding atmos I will use the existing rear ceiling speakers for rear atmos and move the rear speakers back on the far wall or on the sides. For now I am going to try a couple of atmos modules on the front speakers but my ceiling is low and I expect the effect will not work. I'll probably add two front ceiling speakers in the end for 7.2.4 atmos now and when 7.2.6 is available will add two more mid ceiling speakers .See my sketch below for existing and proposed atmos additions.


It almost seems like it's impossible to configure Atmos 100% perfectly in the average home. I have a drop ceiling with fiberglass panels which is great for sound absorption, but that cuts out being able to use Atmos modules because the sound needs to reflect, not absorb. At the same time, if you're using ceiling speakers, they are supposed to be 2x above ear height, which is about 12 feet. Who in the hell has 12 foot ceilings? And even if they do, chances are they are vaulted and not parallel with the floor. I'm going with in ceiling speakers but apparently with it being lower than to spec your hearing may localize them too much in which case I may drop the db on them by a few notches? It's all speculation for me at this point and it may turn out to be just fine - apparently Atmos is pretty flexible within their criteria. Time will tell.


----------



## hoyalawya

blastermaster said:


> At the same time, if you're using ceiling speakers, they are supposed to be 2x above ear height, which is about 12 feet. Who in the hell has 12 foot ceilings? And even if they do, chances are they are vaulted and not parallel with the floor. I'm going with in ceiling speakers but apparently with it being lower than to spec your hearing may localize them too much in which case I may drop the db on them by a few notches? It's all speculation for me at this point and it may turn out to be just fine - apparently Atmos is pretty flexible within their criteria. Time will tell.



My ear is about 44" from the ground when I sit down at my main listening station on my couch. I think that most rooms will be find with the 2x above ear height suggestion.


----------



## Chere

Any thoughts as to whether Atmos can/ will ever be incorporated into Soundbars effectively?


----------



## Csbooth

Chere said:


> Any thoughts as to whether Atmos can/ will ever be incorporated into Soundbars effectively?


Dolby Atmos is on the way for phones and there is already Dolby Atmos on Tablets, well one that I know of; The Amazon Fire HDX 8.9 lol, so ya soundbars are on the way for sure.

Since the modules work really well I think that sound bars will more than likely make their way to the market as well, especially since that's where a lot of the consumers are going lately anyway.

Also consider that Atmos isn't just about height sensation but the ability to accurately place and transition sound with the added benefit to having more unique sounds firing off at one time, so even if for some odd reason they can't make it work right with height information, then the added benefit of even just the basic 5.1 could be a bonus. 

A lot of people have said great things about DSU on their legacy movie collection and Blu-Rays, and I've even heard some say when they turn the volume off on their height speakers, that the mix was still very much in tact and better placed, so there's always DSU that could help with soundbars I would think lol.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, did some testing between 7.x (TrueHD) with DSU to get 7.4 and using DSU from the same BD source but then set to Stereo and using DSU. 
I do not hear any differents in "real" surround channels and upscaling from Stereo to 7.4


Why is this ?
Shouldn't there be "more" differents to hear between 7.x and Stereo upscale ?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> I moved my front L/R speakers with the modules on top a few feet closer... that definitely makes the front overhead sound more full.
> 
> The only problem is that now my front speakers feel a tad too close, the front speakers are now about 7' away from the MLP...
> 
> Perhaps someone may have a better technique of finding the 44-DA's sweet spot, or you might not have to depending on your room. I'm guessing even a ceiling height slighter taller than mine would be enough to make a huge difference... mine is 8' tall. *I don't think tipping the speaker or adjusting the tweeter is the best way to go*... but I'm open minded.


Did you find that tipping the speaker degraded the result?


----------



## Roger Dressler

CBdicX said:


> Hi, did some testing between 7.x (TrueHD) with DSU to get 7.4 and using DSU from the same BD source but then set to Stereo and using DSU. I do not hear any difference in "real" surround channels and upscaling from Stereo to 7.4
> 
> Why is this ?
> Shouldn't there be "more" differents to hear between 7.x and Stereo upscale ?


Yes, the difference is normally quite stark. How are you making the 7.1 into stereo? Does the information screen (assuming a D&M product) actually show only the L/R input channels are occupied?


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> By symmetry all freq will be in phase on axis, so that's the only place it *won't* have an interference dip at any frequency.


Quite right. That was a typo. I've edited my original post.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> By symmetry all freq will be in phase on axis, so that's the only place it *won't* have an interference dip at any frequency.





markus767 said:


> Not a good idea as this speaker will very likely have an interference dip at high frequencies off axis.


Are the tweeters in phase?



> And why do they state "The speaker delivers a "controlled acoustic scatter" to broaden the sweet spot of the sound reflected off the ceiling". There will be no sound reflected off the ceiling if the speaker is mounted in the ceiling. Typical marketing nonsense?


That part of the PR is talking about the 44-DA, which is an upfiring speaker.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Are the tweeters in phase?


They are not? That would just shift the lobe(s).



Roger Dressler said:


> That part of the PR is talking about the 44-DA, which is an upfiring speaker.


Confusing article with virtually no useful information. Typical for marketing of audio devices.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> They are not? That would just shift the lobe(s).


Dunno. It seemed there was an assumption they were not.



> Confusing article with virtually no useful information. Typical for marketing of audio devices.


The essential information is all there: A speaker has been introduced for in-ceiling height effects.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Dunno. It seemed there was an assumption they were not.


Probably doesn't matter. Such an "array" of two 1" tweeters isn't capable of "a “very wide scatter” that minimizes “hot spotting”".

One 1" tweeter:










Two 1" tweeter separated by 5cm:












Roger Dressler said:


> The essential information is all there: A speaker has been introduced for in-ceiling height effects.


Just not a good one


----------



## roxiedog13

hoyalawya said:


> My ear is about 44" from the ground when I sit down at my main listening station on my couch. I think that most rooms will be find with the 2x above ear height suggestion.


 
You really think most home theaters have 132" ceilings, that's 11 feet. I also have 44" ear height and my ceiling is 87" barely 1 x's ear height. My guess is the average ceiling is 8 feet or less for a dedicated home theater.


Lets do a mini survey. Calling all home theater owners . What is the ceiling height in your home theater???


----------



## asharma

roxiedog13 said:


> You really think most home theaters have 132" ceilings, that's 11 feet. I also have 44" ear height and my ceiling is 87" barely 1 x's ear height. My guess is the average ceiling is 8 feet or less for a dedicated home theater.
> 
> 
> Lets do a mini survey. Calling all home theater owners . What is the ceiling height in your home theater???


7.5 feet, using TF TR in ceiling speakers


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> You really think most home theaters have 132" ceilings, that's 11 feet. I also have *44" ear height and my ceiling is 87" barely 1 x's ear height*. My guess is the average ceiling is 8 feet or less for a dedicated home theater.


I'm missing something here. 1 x 44" is 44". If your seated height is 44", 2 x that is 88".


----------



## mtbdudex

Wow - I posted an article about in-ceiling speakers by a 20 year + established company, who was involved with Dolby on their 1st 44-DA - Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker module, and now Markus you are saying they are basically what?
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but seems you 100% refute their statement.

btw, I marked up the article since some mis-read it......











Roger Dressler said:


> Dunno. It seemed there was an assumption they were not.
> 
> The essential information is all there: A speaker has been introduced for in-ceiling height effects.


Markus - I assume you made these simulation graphs with speaker design software, don't you also think a major company with total in house planning, engineering, simulation, design, manufacturing, marketing, and sales also did same?
(*Atlantic Technology Timeline* )
Is that nothing more than basic speaker 101, they also know that, right?
What do they know, or how have they modified their design to mitigate the "typical" issues you show below to overcome them and deliver what they state in their article?
Don't you think that is a more pro-active approach?

Why so quick to dismiss them instead of being open and gaining some insight into how they solved what are known issues with that alignment?



markus767 said:


> Probably doesn't matter. Such an "array" of two 1" tweeters isn't capable of "a “very wide scatter” that minimizes “hot spotting”".
> 
> One 1" tweeter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two 1" tweeter separated by 5cm:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just not a good one


----------



## Kain

Wookii said:


> Not yet- Q1 to Q3 next year hopefully, and likely Atmos layouts upto the maximum available 16 channels.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,up to 32 channels, so up to 24.1.6 or 21.1.10 I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that has anything to do with the 'beds' in the audio mix.


I think I may be confusing myself. Could you explain what "beds" exactly are?



sdurani said:


> You're confusing optional channels in the mix with speakers required for playback.


What/which speakers are required for Atmos playback? Isn't it a minimum of 5.1.2?


----------



## markus767

mtbdudex,

Well, the laws of physics apply to anyone no matter how long a company is in business, with whom they partner and whatever resources they have.
The difference between them and me is that they claim something _without_ any proof and I claim something _with_ proof


----------



## mtbdudex

Markus - I agree can't break the laws of physics, I'm an engineer and P.E. after all, however is it possible they have some solution to the classic issue you brought up?

I've not seen more info on their new Atmos in-ceiling speaker than a few news releases, it's not on their website yet so details not clear.

fwiw;
I will send an email to them asking for tech specs/details on how they solved the classic interference issue, as I dealt with their tech support and customer service on my AT System 350 main driver replacement just 2 months ago, I have their direct email and phone numbers.

I'll share their response here once I get it.


----------



## zimmo

that why the dolby atmos is better,low cost and you no need more équipment ,and work nice i make tests whit my news receiver av and wow the sound is very good and when i see expendable ,the son go tho the right and left on the top many time and wow the sensation is terrible.


i think this new sound system make révolution in the house cinema.


----------



## mtbdudex

Since I brought up ceiling speakers.......

Has anyone here tried in ceiling transducers yet?
If so I'm curious how that worked out.

For those with vaulted / angled ceilings that desire hidden approach , and top firing modules don't work because the angle reflections may be off, strategic placement of transducers may be a viable alternative. 
*
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ing-speakers-dolby-atmos-10.html#post29254345*


mtbdudex said:


> Follow-up ?
> 
> btw, I came across this intresting application of Green Glue and transducers....possible to have hidden speakers in the ceiling and only their sound focused in specific area by this method??
> 
> ie, a "sound zone" for the transducer to radiate thru, 12" x 12" or whatever size is appropriate, and then green glue DW outside of that to dampen sound, would give in effect a mono-pole like sound?





Gary Lightfoot said:


> That's a seriously interesting application using GG that way. Genius idea...
> 
> Gary


Hey - check out the latest podcast on immersive audio and here is MSR acoustic guru Anthony Grimani of MSR Acoustics discussing using ceiling transducers and "acoustic plaster" - first time I've heard of acoustic plaster 
http://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/e...shes/plasters/usgacousticalplasterfinish.html
http://baswaphon.com/Acoustical_Plaster.html
Go to the podcast at nearly the end, 1:05:31, where the ceiling transducer portion is discussed, however I suggest watching all of it for everyone here.









http://youtu.be/DFbqJkjfABQ?t=1h5m31s


----------



## markus767

mtbdudex said:


> Markus - I agree can't break the laws of physics, I'm an engineer and P.E. after all, however is it possible they have some solution to the classic issue you brought up?
> 
> I've not seen more info on their new Atmos in-ceiling speaker than a few news releases, it's not on their website yet so details not clear.
> 
> fwiw;
> I will send an email to them asking for tech specs/details on how they solved the classic interference issue, as I dealt with their tech support and customer service on my AT System 350 main driver replacement just 2 months ago, I have their direct email and phone numbers.
> 
> I'll share their response here once I get it.


Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure they will provide detailed polar measurements that show "a “very wide scatter” that minimizes “hot spotting”" compared to other in-ceiling speakers - not


----------



## IgorZep

mtbdudex said:


> tech specs/details on how they solved the classic interference issue


Easy... call an issue a feature... and it is solved


----------



## mtbdudex

IgorZep said:


> Easy... call an issue a feature... and it is solved


Hmm, as you guys know I'm about fact based objective data, not subjective flowery talk.....

I also believe - at least hope - that an established company like AT would not do a dilbert and have engineering/manuf just tool up something based on marketing/sales to sell and spin it. 

Yes, I do believe some Audio companies still have ethics, and hopefully AT is one of them.

They already have a top firing module and a whole line of in-ceiling speakers, why make something that will hurt their reputation if cannot deliver what they promise?
I realize that cash is king, to a point, as long as you don't compromise your ethics.
Time will tell.


----------



## IgorZep

mtbdudex said:


> Hmm, as you guys know I'm about fact based objective data, not subjective flowery talk...


How two point-sources acoustically sum off axis is pure physics and math. It is not "a typical issues", it is how things are in this life. Can you overcome 5-3=2? You can only call this "an issue" or "a feature".



mtbdudex said:


> They already have a top firing module and a whole line of in-ceiling speakers, why make something that will hurt their reputation if cannot deliver what they promise?


They promise poor localization and "a bubble" ahead you... Exactly what is delivered.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> What/which *speakers* are required for Atmos playback? Isn't it a minimum of 5.1.2?


Yes, but that's different from the number of *channels* in an Atmos soundtrack. 

Atmos soundtracks are made up of two components: channels and objects. It's a hybrid format that doesn't force movie mixers to abandon traditional channels in order to have audio objects. 

Channels are the foundation of the mix, so they're sometimes called "bed channels" or "channel beds", or shortened to just "channels" or "beds"; all referring to the same thing. Atmos soundtracks have either 7.1 channels or 9.1 channels (7.1 plus 2 overhead channels). 

Since channels can be reproduced by an array of speakers, better not to confuse the number of channels in a soundtrack with the number of speakers used for playback.


----------



## mtbdudex

Since we are talking speaker performance and basic physics here.....

I know there has been discussion of the lowering of the side/rear surrounds from prior 5.1/7.1 Dolby guidelines for Atmos, and pros/cons of that.

Right now, this morning, I'm finishing the re-framing of my 6 foot opening for 4 ft door, and later this week will be installing that door into my HT.
Therefore I've put in infrastructure to also lower my surround in that wall from 36" above MLP to 12" to 18" above MLP, or up to the 36" it's at.

I follow this thread here and there, but don't "live in it" as way too time consuming and I've got 3 active kids / yada-yada 
Picture captures my thoughts:
Current side and rear surrounds are 36" above MLP, uses both distance and off axis angle db falloff to help balance spl at different seating positions.
Not perfect, but it helps.

Now, I'm studying the side and rear surrounds to be possibly 12" thru 18" above MLP for ATMOS for separation to ceiling speakers, off axis angle db falloff greatly reduced.
Issue I see with that: now seats will be more un-balanced spl wise unless some waveguide speaker is utilized to manage db falloff in horizontal (up/down) plane more than traditional surround speakers. 
Has any manuf announced such a surround waveguide designed speaker for Atmos?









Yes, HT is under re-construction right now, I like these DIY projects.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

For those concerned with side surround placement having to be at ear height, they don't.

Dolby themselves say they should be above ear height. I've attached a capture from their online Dolby Atmos speaker set up guide:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html

Gary


----------



## kbarnes701

Gary Lightfoot said:


> For those concerned with side surround placement having to be at ear height, they don't.
> 
> Dolby themselves say they should be above ear height. I've attached a capture from their online Dolby Atmos speaker set up guide:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> Gary


'Slightly above' ear height is the most common Dolby recommendation I think. At the two Atmos demos I went to at Dolby Labs, they had all the listener level speakers at ear height though. This is less than ideal IMO as sound from each side will be blocked by anyone sitting between you and the speaker, so just above ear height, to give every listener 'line of sight' to every surround speaker seems ideal. Also, Atmos works to some extent by having good angular separation between the listener level and the overhead speakers, and if the surrounds are mounted quite high up then clearly that separation will be less, and thus the distinction between sounds 'around' and sounds 'above' will be diminished.


----------



## blastermaster

> I'm missing something here. 1 x 44" is 44". If your seated height is 44", 2 x that is 88".


I think you're right. I misinterpreted it as needing to be 2x *above* ear height, so if ear height is 4 feet, I was thinking 2x4 above ear height for a total of 12 feet. If you're right, I'm gtg.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Exactly Keith.

More separation gives a bigger field for the sound to appear in, and above means the sound gets to more ears in a row without being hindered.

Gary


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> I think you're right. I misinterpreted it as needing to be 2x *above* ear height, so if ear height is 4 feet, I was thinking 2x4 above ear height for a total of 12 feet. If you're right, I'm gtg.


I think you are gtg  In all my conversations with Dolby about optimum ceiling height they confirmed each time that a typical 8 ft ceiling would be fine.


----------



## ghiggs001

roxiedog13 said:


> You really think most home theaters have 132" ceilings, that's 11 feet. I also have 44" ear height and my ceiling is 87" barely 1 x's ear height. My guess is the average ceiling is 8 feet or less for a dedicated home theater.
> 
> 
> Lets do a mini survey. Calling all home theater owners . What is the ceiling height in your home theater???



My dedicated home theater ceiling height is 10' 3". By the way I modify my theater to match the diagram given for the Denon 5200, displayed on page 43 of the user manual.


----------



## audioguy

We watched a movie with no script and horrible acting last night because it was Atmos encoded (Step Up All In). We loved the bright colors and most of the dancing but it did make us both much more appreciative of good acting. 

While the soundstage from my ears forward was very three dimensional, there was very little no sense of space behind me. After the movie completed (and we breathed a sigh of relief) I played the last dance sequence with only the ceiling speakers enabled. I was somewhat surprised as the dancing took place where there were crowds above and around the dancers and would have expected more sound behind/above me. There was one scene where one of the dancers took a flaming torch and whirled it in front of her and that seemed more three dimensional.

Anyone else viewed the "epic" film and have any comments on my views.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> We watched a movie with no script and horrible acting last night because it was Atmos encoded (Step Up All In). We loved the bright colors and most of the dancing but it did make us both much more appreciative of good acting.
> 
> While the soundstage from my ears forward was very three dimensional, there was very little no sense of space behind me. After the movie completed (and we breathed a sigh of relief) I played the last dance sequence with only the ceiling speakers enabled. I was somewhat surprised as the dancing took place where there were crowds above and around the dancers and would have expected more sound behind/above me. There was one scene where one of the dancers took a flaming torch and whirled it in front of her and that seemed more three dimensional.
> 
> Anyone else viewed the "epic" film and have any comments on my views.


As much of an Atmos fan as I am, I have not been able to bring myself to buy this movie


----------



## Selden Ball

audioguy said:


> We watched a movie with no script and horrible acting last night because it was Atmos encoded (Step Up All In). We loved the bright colors and most of the dancing but it did make us both much more appreciative of good acting.
> 
> While the soundstage from my ears forward was very three dimensional, there was very little no sense of space behind me. After the movie completed (and we breathed a sigh of relief) I played the last dance sequence with only the ceiling speakers enabled. I was somewhat surprised as the dancing took place where there were crowds above and around the dancers and would have expected more sound behind/above me. There was one scene where one of the dancers took a flaming torch and whirled it in front of her and that seemed more three dimensional.
> 
> Anyone else viewed the "epic" film and have any comments on my views.


I watched it.

Unfortunately, I tend to be primarily visually oriented so I enjoyed the eye-candy and music but didn't try to analyze the soundstage. As noted in my sig, my rear overheads are actually Top Middle, so I wouldn't expect to hear much coming from above and behind anyhow. 

Sorry.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I watched it.
> 
> Unfortunately, I tend to be primarily visually oriented so I enjoyed the eye-candy and music but didn't try to analyze the soundstage.


In that case, Selden, you should like one of my own favorite guilty pleasures: *Burlesque.* Eye candy is gloriously high, music is great, dancing is great. Acting, bar Stanley Tucci, is execrable.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> In that case, Selden, you should like one of my own favorite guilty pleasures: *Burlesque.* Eye candy is gloriously high, music is great, dancing is great. Acting, bar Stanley Tucci, is execrable.


Thanks for the suggestion! I'll see about getting it.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> As much of an Atmos fan as I am, I have not been able to bring myself to buy this movie


If you like dancing, bright colors and music, then just fast forward to all of the dance sequences and you might find it entertaining. You will actually probably enjoy it more than we did since you won't be so shocked about a non existent script with really bad acting.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> In that case, Selden, you should like one of my own favorite guilty pleasures: *Burlesque.* Eye candy is gloriously high, music is great, dancing is great. Acting, bar Stanley Tucci, is execrable.


We love that movie. Great vocals (Christine Aguelera) I agree with Keith.


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Atmos title I'm holding my nose and purchasing in anticipation of a HT upgrade is _Gravity_, barring any other better titles coming out before or around that time, which haven't been announced.


I actually enjoyed Gravity. But then again, I am pretty easily entertained!!


----------



## CBdicX

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, the difference is normally quite stark. How are you making the 7.1 into stereo? Does the information screen (assuming a D&M product) actually show only the L/R input channels are occupied?


 
Its like this:
I set the *BD player to Stereo* (and yes, the audio info will say PCM 2.0) and let the receiver make it into 7.x.4
To me it sound as good as from 7.x to 7.x.4


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> If you like dancing, bright colors and music, then just fast forward to all of the dance sequences and you might find it entertaining. You will actually probably enjoy it more than we did since you won't be so shocked about a non existent script with really bad acting.


haha - forewarned is forearmed...


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Atmos title I'm holding my nose and purchasing in anticipation of a HT upgrade is _Gravity_, barring any other better titles coming out before or around that time, which haven't been announced. There is nothing on heaven or earth that will make me buy TF 4, TMNT, or Step Up.


Does that mean you are leaving the door open for *Expendables 3* then, Dan  

I thought of you the other night when I watched Blue Ruin. If you haven't seen it, I think it's one that you would like (seriously). I am having an Indie week - tonight's feature is Fruitvale Station.


----------



## Selden Ball

audioguy said:


> If you like dancing, bright colors and music, then just fast forward to all of the dance sequences and you might find it entertaining. You will actually probably enjoy it more than we did since you won't be so shocked about a non existent script with really bad acting.


Manual fast-forwarding isn't needed for _Step Up All In_. One of the "Extras" actually does just that, jumping directly from one dance scene to the next.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Manual fast-forwarding isn't needed for _Step Up All In_. One of the "Extras" actually does just that, jumping directly from one dance scene to the next.


What a great idea - a track that just plays the good bits. They ought to offer that on all Blurays  The thing with *Burlesque *is that even when there isn't any singing and dancing, there is still Christina Aguilera to look at. And even Cher if you are into the more 'mature' type


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Does that mean you are leaving the door open for *Expendables 3* then, Dan
> 
> I thought of you the other night when I watched Blue Ruin. If you haven't seen it, I think it's one that you would like (seriously). I am having an Indie week - tonight's feature is Fruitvale Station.


Thanks for the suggestions! I'll definitely have to check those titles out. Lately, I've been on a bit of a Hitchcock kick myself. 

As for _Expendables 3_, I'd definitely buy _Die Hard_ or _Lethal Weapon 1&2 _or, hell, even Stallone's _First Blood_ remixed in Atmos before that one. 

If you haven't seen it, you should try _The Lookout_ with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jeff Daniels.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I've just had an email notification quoting me regarding the link I supplied earlier and questioning where in the doc it states above ear height, but the post doesn't seem to be here for me to respond to.

To be fair, it's not immediately obvious as you have to click the '+' signs by the rear speakers to get the caption box to show up (as per the image I posted with the link) and that's where the recommendation lies.

Gary


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the suggestions! I'll definitely have to check those titles out. Lately, I've been on a bit of a Hitchcock kick myself.


I usually watch a dozen Hitchcock's a year. I never tire of them.



Dan Hitchman said:


> As for _Expendables 3_, I'd definitely buy _Die Hard_ or _Lethal Weapon 1&2 _or, hell, even Stallone's _First Blood_ remixed in Atmos before that one.


Yes, I can't argue with that choice.



Dan Hitchman said:


> If you haven't seen it, you should try _The Lookout_ with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jeff Daniels.


I will check it out this very moment - thanks.

Of the two I mentioned, *Blue Ruin *is a revenge type movie but with a difference. Instead of the usual gung-ho style of most revenge pictures, it shows what could be described as a more 'normal' situation and how revenge can be as catastrophic for the avenger as it the avengee. Very powerful movie IMO. *Fruitvale Station *is a movie about the real life incident which htook place at the eponymous location, involving the death of a young black man at the hands of white police officer. But again, unlike the typical movie of that sort, the portrayal of the young guy is very complex - he is not portrayed as a saint by any means, and in fact is a felon, but one who is genuinely trying to mend his ways. Both the movies are something different from the usual Hollywood way of portraying such things.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you haven't seen it, you should try _The Lookout_ with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jeff Daniels.


Ordered. Thanks. Looks good. 

Another you might like is *Joe,* with Nicolas Cage in what must be his best performance for years.


----------



## Kain

sdurani said:


> Yes, but that's different from the number of *channels* in an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Atmos soundtracks are made up of two components: channels and objects. It's a hybrid format that doesn't force movie mixers to abandon traditional channels in order to have audio objects.
> 
> Channels are the foundation of the mix, so they're sometimes called "bed channels" or "channel beds", or shortened to just "channels" or "beds"; all referring to the same thing. *Atmos soundtracks have either 7.1 channels or 9.1 channels (7.1 plus 2 overhead channels).*
> 
> Since channels can be reproduced by an array of speakers, better not to confuse the number of channels in a soundtrack with the number of speakers used for playback.


Are you saying there are Atmos tracks that do not utilize (natively) the overhead channels/beds? I thought all Atmos tracks would utilize them. Secondly, objects for the home Atmos tracks have the same concept as the theater tracks, correct? When objects pan around the room, the more speakers you have means you can hear the panning better (i.e. the panning will go through more speakers)?


----------



## asharma

Nalleh said:


> I am not touching the AVR, i have a external switch/ splitter on the speaker wires from height2. Speaker wires from AVR's height 2 goes to the input on the switch, output 1 goes to TM, and output 2 goes to SH. And yes i have seperate speakers for TM and SH.
> 
> So while listening, i can switch between output 1 an output 2 on the switch, without any changes to the AVR.
> 
> And yes, as i said, Audyssey gets wrong for those speakers, but unlike changing amp assign it is still correct for all the other speakers, and is still on.
> 
> But i first loaded the full Atmos config file, tested with the switch, then i loaded the full Auro config and tested with the switch.


Hi Nalleh...just curious how you like your Def Tech 5500's...I just ordered 4 to try. I currently have Polk in ceiling VS70 RTs but wondering if the ceiling mount will allow me to direct the sound better...how do you find the 5500s?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Roger Dressler said:


> Did you find that tipping the speaker degraded the result?


It's really hard to tell... I'd have to have someone tip it for me as I'm hearing it to see. I'm just guessing it would. Thinking of a flashlight as an analogy, angling it would expand the casted light beam across the ceiling, perhaps sound can be viewed the same way. 

What I ended up doing was placing the modules on speaker stands in front of my main fronts, because I think the modules are a lot more effective if they are closer. That made way more of a difference than tipping the speaker or angling the tweeter... well in my room anyway. Though it is an eyesore... but I care more about sound than visual presentation as far as my speakers are concerned 

I have noticed with DSU the heights can make some scenes sound unpleasant, because it exaggerates the ambience... that can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the scene. It's sort of like if you are recording a singer with a really nice microphone... if you use the cardiod setting it captures just the right amount of sound, but if you put it into Omni then you'll pick up the reflections from the wall opposite the singer and it can sound nasty. Though it might be a pain... I recommend setting the heights/ modules 4 db quieter when watching DSU content to account for that increase in ambience... when watching Atmos content crank them back up.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras, what you just described above reminded me of Audyssey DSX with the front Wides and Heights.


----------



## roxiedog13

blastermaster said:


> I think you're right. I misinterpreted it as needing to be 2x *above* ear height, so if ear height is 4 feet, I was thinking 2x4 above ear height for a total of 12 feet. If you're right, I'm gtg.



This is the way I interpreted your comment, I believe I wrote it down wrong too. Anyway, if 12ft is what is required for atmos ceiling speakers then most are in trouble. My ceiling is 91" only barely above twice my ear height of 44".


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> This is the way I interpreted your comment, I believe I wrote it down wrong too. Anyway, if 12ft is what is required for atmos ceiling speakers then most are in trouble. My ceiling is 91" only barely above twice my ear height of 44".


I don't think we should let this notion about 12 foot ceilings etc take root. Dolby have said all along that Atmos will work with typical ceiling heights of 8 feet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Ordered. Thanks. Looks good.
> 
> Another you might like is *Joe,* with Nicolas Cage in what must be his best performance for years.


Cool! Sometimes Cage can give a surprisingly good performance.

As for _The Lookout_, get the original pressing that has a cover like this:










Otherwise, the aspect ratio will be wrong (unless you luck out with a distributor in the UK that didn't monkey with the reissue). The Miramax/Echo Bridge reprint was inexplicably shaved to 1.78:1 from its original 2.39:1, so... lookout!


----------



## NorthSky

Important call Dan; indeed the original first Blu-ray release SAP was the correct 2.40:1 ... and the badly transferred later release was 1.78:1 screen's aspect ratio.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Ordered. Thanks. Looks good.
> 
> Another you might like is *Joe,* with Nicolas Cage in what must be his best performance for years.


Not a fan of Nicolas Cage sorry


----------



## Mike Garrett

mtbdudex said:


> Since I brought up ceiling speakers.......
> 
> Has anyone here tried in ceiling transducers yet?
> If so I'm curious how that worked out.
> 
> For those with vaulted / angled ceilings that desire hidden approach , and top firing modules don't work because the angle reflections may be off, strategic placement of transducers may be a viable alternative.
> *
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ing-speakers-dolby-atmos-10.html#post29254345*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey - check out the latest podcast on immersive audio and here is MSR acoustic guru Anthony Grimani of MSR Acoustics discussing using ceiling transducers and "acoustic plaster" - first time I've heard of acoustic plaster
> http://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/e...shes/plasters/usgacousticalplasterfinish.html
> http://baswaphon.com/Acoustical_Plaster.html
> Go to the podcast at nearly the end, 1:05:31, where the ceiling transducer portion is discussed, however I suggest watching all of it for everyone here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://youtu.be/DFbqJkjfABQ?t=1h5m31s


When at CEDIA in Triad's booth, we talked about using these for Atmos. I dismissed them for my system, because I want to be able to do clean reference levels, but from talking with Triad, they though that transducers would work well in a typical system Atmos system.


Added
Don't know why it printed Triad in red. I did not select red or any type of bold print. I wonder if that is because I have Triad in red in my signature? Weird, after edit, now it is not in bold red.


----------



## tjenkins95

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cool! Sometimes Cage can give a surprisingly good performance.
> 
> As for _The Lookout_, get the original pressing that has a cover like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, the aspect ratio will be wrong (unless you luck out with a distributor in the UK that didn't monkey with the reissue). The Miramax/Echo Bridge reprint was inexplicably shaved to 1.78:1 from its original 2.39:1, so... lookout!


 
I watched the movie awhile ago and it is great. Since you just brought it up, I decided I would watch it again tonight. I checked my blu-ray collection and I have the Miramax/Echo Bridge 2011 version.







So I went to Amazon and found the original 2007 version in 2.39:1. There was one copy left and now there are none!! I don't understand why the studios do this! Anyway I'll wait and watch it when it arrives. I'll watch the Maze Runner tonight.


Ray


----------



## smurraybhm

^ just finished watching Maze Runner, as others have said it is definitely a great sound mix and DSU really shines. You'll enjoy it if just for the audio, Ralph scored it 100 and the picture quality is very good too.


----------



## asharma

Brian Fineberg said:


> ok final review of DSU with *The MAze Runner*
> 
> its so good...I had to check to make sure it wasnt ATMOS movie but unadvertised....constant use of the sound bubble...with sounds floating in air around you...I swear...if this isnt ATMOS, and future releases all sound like this with DSU...I couldnt care less if true ATMOS movies are released on BR in the future...its THAT good
> 
> :drool:


Wholly crap, just finished watching it in DSU...wow...as a test I cranked my trim levels to max for TF and TR as I wanted to see if my in ceiling speakers could handle the pounding while maintaining quality given the quantity of info going to the ceiling...yup, not bad, not bad

Not bad for DSU...ATMOS would have been that much more discreet but very impressive to see how much DSU can add to certain movies!


----------



## roxiedog13

*AVS forums reall slow*

I'm having a problem with the AVS forum, it seems to be really slow, sometimes taking 4-5 seconds to load a page or accept a keystroke. Doesn't happen on any other forum, my computer and internet speed are fine otherwise. 


Anyone else noticing this or is it just me?


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm having a problem with the AVS forum, it seems to be really slow, sometimes taking 4-5 seconds to load a page or accept a keystroke. Doesn't happen on any other forum, my computer and internet speed are fine otherwise.
> 
> Anyone else noticing this or is it just me?


Yes, you are absolutely correct; today was (still is) slower than usual. @ least here on my end too.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> Are you saying there are Atmos tracks that do not utilize (natively) the overhead channels/beds?


Yes, for example: the very first Atmos movie on Blu-ray (Transformers 4) did not use the overhead channels but did place objects overhead.


> Secondly, objects for the home Atmos tracks have the same concept as the theater tracks, correct?


Correct, they are sounds that are given x/y/z coordinates instead of channel assignments.


> When objects pan around the room, the more speakers you have means you can hear the panning better (i.e. the panning will go through more speakers)?


Indeed, more speakers = smoother pans.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cool! Sometimes Cage can give a surprisingly good performance.
> 
> As for _The Lookout_, get the original pressing that has a cover like this:
> 
> 
> Otherwise, the aspect ratio will be wrong (unless you luck out with a distributor in the UK that didn't monkey with the reissue). The Miramax/Echo Bridge reprint was inexplicably shaved to 1.78:1 from its original 2.39:1, so... lookout!


Oh thanks for that input there Dan. I can't watch a movie where the aspect ratio has been messed with. I'll double check.

Yeah, UK Amazon has two versions: the proper one is a US Import. I am multiregion for Bluray on my Oppo, so no problemo.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Not a fan of Nicolas Cage sorry


He is so variable it's hard to know whether to watch a movie of his or not. He won an Oscar of course for *Leaving Las Vegas* but he has been in some truly dire movies, as well as giving some truly bizarre performances (_*Bad Lieutenant Port of Orleans*_ anyone?), yet he can be very engaging (*National Treasure I and II)* also. *Joe* marks a return to the 'actor' Nic Cage as opposed to the "how much money will you pay me for doing this?" Nic Cage. Good movie and worth a watch, although it is a bit depressing.


----------



## mtbdudex

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> When at CEDIA in Triad's booth, we talked about using these for Atmos. I dismissed them for my system, because I want to be able to do clean reference levels, but from talking with Triad, they though that transducers would work well in a typical system Atmos system.
> 
> 
> Added
> Don't know why it printed Triad in red. I did not select red or any type of bold print. I wonder if that is because I have Triad in red in my signature? Weird, after edit, now it is not in bold red.


Mike G;

I've read and seen info on transducers, heck there is an epic build in the HT forum that uses them by member cowger (Bryan).
*http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...3580-my-mahogany-invisible-speaker-build.html*










> I'm going with a Panasonic AE4000U onto a 138" diagonal 2:35 painted screen. The rest of the interior walls will be paneled with a combination of 1/2" and 3/4" Mahogany plywood. For sound, an in-wall transducer-based 9.1 system from Invisible Stereo.


and he gives real feedback to using them here


cowger said:


> The discussion about the in-wall transducers is a good one and I, too, support the merits of the questions and answers. I wish I was in a better position to provide real data, but unfortunately I'm not.
> 
> FWIW, I'm sure there are speaker choices out there (some of which I've heard) which sound cleaner and crisper to me, and from these speakers I generally notice clarity in the upper frequencies that I don't necessarily pick up as readily in my HT. For pure music listening or those seeking reference-level sound reproduction in a theater, then I'm certain there are good solutions out there.
> 
> However, for my simple needs, which are to be able to watch a movie, show, or sporting event in my theater, I'm delighted with the performance of the transducers. With 9 channels all around the room, and with sound coming from 40 different transducers, it provides an immersive feel that my wife and I truly enjoy. In fact, I was just down there watching Oblivion, and the scene where Tom Cruise is first landing his ship around the first drone repair always brings tears (of joy) to my eyes. The sound system, combined with the tactile transducers in the floor, make it sound (and feel) like the ship is landing on top of the house. I love it!!
> 
> I appreciate everyone's questions and input, and thanks to mtbdudex for starting a new thread. Looking forward to a constructive continuation of the discussion over there.
> 
> Bryan


I started a exploratory thread in the Audio forum here
*http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...d-moved-construction-forum.html#post_23842724*

That might be a better place to further discuss pros/cons of transducers, as this thread is in the " Receivers, Amps, and Processors" forum yet it's all over the map with too broad a scope for 1 thread.

Hint:
Would be "nice" to have an FAQ that summarizes the rinse-repeat discussions that circulate here, as 16k posts way too much to keep track of.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> He is so variable it's hard to know whether to watch a movie of his or not. He won an Oscar of course for *Leaving Las Vegas* but he has been in some truly dire movies, as well as giving some truly bizarre performances (_*Bad Lieutenant Port of Orleans*_ anyone?), yet he can be very engaging (*National Treasure I and II)* also. *Joe* marks a return to the 'actor' Nic Cage as opposed to the "how much money will you pay me for doing this?" Nic Cage. Good movie and worth a watch, although it is a bit depressing.



And then there was Drive Angry, that pretty much did it for me, I cannot take the guy seriously any more. There were multiple failures before Drive Angry but this one drove ( excuse the pun ) the nail in the coffin for me .


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Yes, you are absolutely correct; today was (still is) slower than usual. @ least here on my end too.



I've been having this problem for a while, not just today. Having the same issue at my work system so cannot blame that on my computer at home.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> And then there was Drive Angry, that pretty much did it for me, I cannot take the guy seriously any more. There were multiple failures before Drive Angry but this one drove ( excuse the pun ) the nail in the coffin for me .


I blame you  You should have known better than to watch that movie  I haven’t seen it, so shouldn’t really pass judgement on it, but I did see trailers and I have read several reviews from respected reviewers and that was enough to make me steer well clear. But for *Drive Angry*, there is also, for example,* Con Air*. Surely everyone enjoyed Con Air? Like I said, Cage is so all over the place it's impossible to pass a blanket judgement on his work. Some is very good indeed, some is not-so-good but still very enjoyable and some is just plain bloody awful.

But always remember, as a Method actor, he did actually eat the cockroach in *Birdy*. And that alone has to command massive respect.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I've been having this problem for a while, not just today. Having the same issue at my work system so cannot blame that on my computer at home.


Not noticed any issues at all here (UK). I sometimes find it a little slower in our morning, but I attribute that to maintenance they might run in USA small hours. Other than that, speed is consistently good.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I blame you  You should have known better than to watch that movie  I haven’t seen it, so shouldn’t really pass judgement on it, but I did see trailers and I have read several reviews from respected reviewers and that was enough to make me steer well clear. But for *Drive Angry*, there is also, for example,* Con Air*. Surely everyone enjoyed Con Air? Like I said, Cage is so all over the place it's impossible to pass a blanket judgement on his work. Some is very good indeed, some is not-so-good but still very enjoyable and some is just plain bloody awful.
> 
> But always remember, as a Method actor, he did actually eat the cockroach in *Birdy*. And that alone has to command massive respect.


I kinda figured you were in the UK, I'm first sunrise on the West side of the pond and you're usually the only one active before I am on a regular basis. 

Yes, I did watch Drive angry and in 3D at that , no one to blame but myself . There is one scene in that movie that I remember vividly and this is the one where he's having sex with a woman in a sleezly little motel room. The bad guys burst in, and a full on gun fight ensues,....... in SLOW MOTION . You need to see this scene, actually everyone should. In fact I'm going to watch this again tonight . 

Cage is a Method actor...interesting. My son is doing his masters now at a university in New York that teaches method acting.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I kinda figured you were in the UK, I'm first sunrise on the West side of the pond and you're usually the only one active before I am on a regular basis.


Yeah, I can work out where people are sometimes by their post times. 



roxiedog13 said:


> Yes, I did watch Drive angry and in 3D at that , no one to blame but myself . There is one scene in that movie that I remember vividly and this is the one where he's having sex with a woman in a sleezly little motel room. The bad guys burst in, and a full on gun fight ensues,....... in SLOW MOTION . You need to see this scene, actually everyone should. In fact I'm going to watch this again tonight .


LOL. I will see if it is on Netflix.



roxiedog13 said:


> Cage is a Method actor...interesting. My son is doing his masters now at a university in New York that teaches method acting.


Good luck to him with cockroach-eating scenes  My favourite story, relayed many times, is one about famous Method actor Dustin Hoffman when he was making* Marathon Man* with Laurence Olivier. Hoffman trained as a marathon runner to get 'in the method' and before any scene where he was supposed to have been running and out of breath, he would run a mile or two before going on set. On one occasion, Hoffman was meant to look like he had no sleep the night before and so he went the night without sleeping. Arriving in set, looking terrible, Olivier asked him why he did this and Hoffman explained, to which Olivier replied, in his upper crust British accent, _"Have you tried *acting*, dear boy, it's much easier?_". Hoffman has since commented that he was out partying the night before at Club 54 and was simply tired as a result of that, and that Olivier was just gently rebuking him for it, but that somewhat spoils the story so I usually omit that


----------



## randyk47

asharma said:


> Wholly crap, just finished watching it in DSU...wow...as a test I cranked my trim levels to max for TF and TR as I wanted to see if my in ceiling speakers could handle the pounding while maintaining quality given the quantity of info going to the ceiling...yup, not bad, not bad
> 
> Not bad for DSU...ATMOS would have been that much more discreet but very impressive to see how much DSU can add to certain movies!


Wife and I watched The Maze Runner last night. DSU did a fantastic job with this non-ATMOS mix. My two DSU/ATMOS detectors really went off with this movie. My two detectors? One is Mrs. K who indulges my little but recently somewhat expensive AV hobby. When she remarks about the quality of sound, other than "can you turn that down a bit", I know it's significant and in this case good. Two is my 3-year old male cat, he rarely leaves my side and watches TV with me all the time. He is my constant companion and has, in a cat way, been involved in installing, tweaking, testing, etc., etc., my present 7.1.4. Like most cats he can obviously hear a gnat pass gas at a hundred yards/meters and interestingly he can apparently discern sounds coming from the TF/TR speakers. Last night he was on full alert and spent much of the movie walking/climbing around the theater trying to figure out those strange "ceiling sounds".


----------



## Selden Ball

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm having a problem with the AVS forum, it seems to be really slow, sometimes taking 4-5 seconds to load a page or accept a keystroke. Doesn't happen on any other forum, my computer and internet speed are fine otherwise.
> 
> 
> Anyone else noticing this or is it just me?


It seems a little slow to me, but maybe not quite that slow.

Report the problem to AVS management in the forum http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-forum-operations-center/


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> Wife and I watched The Maze Runner last night. DSU did a fantastic job with this non-ATMOS mix. My two DSU/ATMOS detectors really went off with this movie. My two detectors? One is Mrs. K who indulges my little but recently somewhat expensive AV hobby. When she remarks about the quality of sound, other than "can you turn that down a bit", I know it's significant and in this case good. Two is my 3-year old male cat, he rarely leaves my side and watches TV with me all the time. He is my constant companion and has, in a cat way, been involved in installing, tweaking, testing, etc., etc., my present 7.1.4. Like most cats he can obviously hear a gnat pass gas at a hundred yards/meters and interestingly he can apparently discern sounds coming from the TF/TR speakers. Last night he was on full alert and spent much of the movie walking/climbing around the theater trying to figure out those strange "ceiling sounds".


My dog does the same. He constantly twitches his head and his ears and looks at where he thinks the sound is coming from. I normally don't let him into the HT because I think my listening levels are too high for his hearing to be safe, but I have let him assist when I have had all speakers off other than the overheads, for test purposes. It is both instructive and amusing to watch him twisting and turning and peering up at various parts of the ceiling as the Atmos sounds move around. Of course, he is a Parson Russell Terrier and sound is in his blood - his ancestor was seen on HMV record labels for decades


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> My dog does the same. He constantly twitches his head and his ears and looks at where he thinks the sound is coming from. I normally don't let him into the HT because I think my listening levels are too high for his hearing to be safe, but I have let him assist when I have had all speakers off other than the overheads, for test purposes. It is both instructive and amusing to watch him twisting and turning and peering up at various parts of the ceiling as the Atmos sounds move around. Of course, he is a Parson Russell Terrier and sound is in his blood - his ancestor was seen on HMV record labels for decades


Crap! My pug dog must be deaf as a board cause she is in my theatre all the time, sleeping...sound doesn't seem to bother her... I best be careful...


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> My dog does the same. He constantly twitches his head and his ears and looks at where he thinks the sound is coming from. I normally don't let him into the HT because I think my listening levels are too high for his hearing to be safe, but I have let him assist when I have had all speakers off other than the overheads, for test purposes. It is both instructive and amusing to watch him twisting and turning and peering up at various parts of the ceiling as the Atmos sounds move around. Of course, he is a Parson Russell Terrier and sound is in his blood - his ancestor was seen on HMV record labels for decades


I always leave the door open to our theater and Peanut pretty much goes and comes as he sees fit. Plus if I close the door he just lets himself in as we have lever type handles and he has taught himself to reach up and pull the handle down and pushes or pulls to get the door open. Typically on our Denon I'm running the volume at 66 +/- and that doesn't seem to bother him. His other favorite thing is to sit on one of the subwoofers.....apparently likes the vibrations.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Selden Ball said:


> It seems a little slow to me, but maybe not quite that slow.
> 
> Report the problem to *AVS management* in the forum http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-forum-operations-center/


It's important to distinguish between AVSForum (the forum) and AVS (aka AVScience; sales company) as these are now independently owned businesses after being separately sold about 3-4 years ago. AVScience still remains an AVSForum sponsor.


----------



## George G Chalhoub

I have Yamaha rx-a 3040 AV with FRL MA silver 10 , silver Center,silver Fx SRL, and silver 2 SB. I am planing to upgrade my system to Dolby atmos 7.1.4 , is it possible to use small speakers like MA Mass or B&W M1ii to be mounted on ceiling as I have both , in case it is ok which one is better in order to get the best tonal matching with my other speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Crap! My pug dog must be deaf as a board cause she is in my theatre all the time, sleeping...sound doesn't seem to bother her... I best be careful...


It's possible she may be a bit deaf of course, especially if she is older. Does she show any signs of hearing loss? Mine has good hearing and I worry that if he is exposed to -5dB for two hours at a time it may cause him problems so as much as he wants to come in, he is banned usually. He has also, once, seen another dog on screen and rushed up to it and put his paws on my $2,000 screen as he growled to see it off  Fortunately he did no lasting damage.



randyk47 said:


> I always leave the door open to our theater and Peanut pretty much goes and comes as he sees fit. Plus if I close the door he just lets himself in as we have lever type handles and he has taught himself to reach up and pull the handle down and pushes or pulls to get the door open. Typically on our Denon I'm running the volume at 66 +/- and that doesn't seem to bother him. His other favorite thing is to sit on one of the subwoofers.....apparently likes the vibrations.


Hahaha. I had a dog that taught himself to open doors once - had to change some of the handles to doorknobs. That foxed him


----------



## kbarnes701

George G Chalhoub said:


> I have Yamaha rx-a 3040 AV with FRL MA silver 10 , silver Center,silver Fx SRL, and silver 2 SB. I am planing to upgrade my system to Dolby atmos 7.1.4 , is it possible to use small speakers like MA Mass or B&W M1ii to be mounted on ceiling as I have both , in case it is ok which one is better in order to get the best tonal matching with my other speakers.


The overheads don't handle anything like as much content as the mains so they don't need to be huge, especially as I assume you have a bass-managed system and are crossing the lower frequency content destined for them over to your sub(s). Dolby recommend speakers with wide dispersion characteristics for overheads, so check the spec and see what their off-axis response is. Other than that, you will need to be sure they can handle the power required to meet the SPLs you require, much as any other speaker. If you are using some form of room EQ, such as Audyssey etc, then tonal or timbral matching is needed much less than it was in the days before such EQ was widespread as the EQ will attempt to match every speaker to whatever target curve it is aiming for anyway.

I am using *Tannoy Di5 DC* (Dual Concentric) speakers on my ceiling and these work very well, are very easy to mount and meet all the specs required of them. My mains are M&K Sound S150s and I do not notice any issues caused by timbral mismatch. My system is EQd with Audyssey XT32 and then room is acoustically treated.

Oops - I note you are using a Yamaha, so you will be using YPAO I assume - same applies as my comments above re Audyssey.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> It's possible she may be a bit deaf of course, especially if she is older. Does she show any signs of hearing loss? Mine has good hearing and I worry that if he is exposed to -5dB for two hours at a time it may cause him problems so as much as he wants to come in, he is banned usually. He has also, once, seen another dog on screen and rushed up to it and put his paws on my $2,000 screen as he growled to see it off  Fortunately he did no lasting damage.
> 
> 
> 
> Her hearing seems fine, although it wouldn't matter as she doesn't listen anyway!!!
> 
> I have the same problem. She will charge the screen my my audio rack is in front of the screen so u tries to claw my covers on my B&W sub and center
> 
> I noted u have the 5030ub also...it's BRILLIANT!!! I've had a few and it's the best yet!


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 said:


> I noted u have the 5030ub also...it's BRILLIANT!!! I've had a few and it's the best yet!


I do and I am very happy with it. I chose it because it is the only quality PJ that has a throw suitable for my small room, in order to get the biggest picture size possible. But I am delighted with it.


----------



## asharma

*ATMOS speaker question*

Looking for opinions. For TF and TR in ceiling is it better to get a 2 way speaker with a beefier tweeter and midrange, no woofer or a 3 way speaker with less beefier tweeter, midrange but with a woofer. My gut tells me the first option as I'll be directing all bass to my subs but interested in your opinion.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Looking for opinions. For TF and TR in ceiling is it better to get a 2 way speaker with a beefier tweeter and midrange, no woofer or a 3 way speaker with less beefier tweeter, midrange but with a woofer. My gut tells me the first option as I'll be directing all bass to my subs but interested in your opinion.


You answered your own question. If you are bass-managing the speaker, then all it needs is good performance down to just below the crossover you will use. So if you are using a 100Hz XO on those speakers, so long as they are good down to about 80hz you will be fine. No point paying for performance you won't ever use.


----------



## Al Sherwood

jdsmoothie said:


> It's important to distinguish between AVSForum (the forum) and AVS (aka AVScience; sales company) as these are now independently owned businesses after being separately sold about 3-4 years ago. AVScience still remains an AVSForum sponsor.



Interesting as I always wondered what the affiliation was, good to know.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Yup .. in fact AVSForum is now owned by Vertical Scope ... based out of Toronto, Canada.


----------



## Al Sherwood

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Yup .. in fact AVSForum is owned by Vertical Scope ... based out of Toronto, Canada.





Yes, I had noticed that, and awhile back we traded a couple of posts about your company selling products to a Canadian, I had asked about warranties, now I understand that AVScience Sales is not a part of the 'Canadian' forum... hence warranty good only in the US.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
The warranty region is defined by the mfr of the product. Denon and Marantz have separate warranties for each of the Canada and USA regions. So although you can likely save some money purchasing a D&M product in the USA, any warranty work would have to be done in the USA if the product was not purchased in Canada.


----------



## Al Sherwood

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> The warranty region is defined by the mfr of the product ... not by who sells it. Denon and Marantz have separate warranties for each of the Canada and USA regions.



Oh yes, except that the 'seller' has to be of course an authorised one. 


And if I have the right feeling for this process, the Canadian arms of most companies bank on this to prevent the erosion of their market, the manufacturer doesn't want rampant cross border shopping for the best prices!


----------



## NorthSky

I love audio/video shopping. ...And I love Canada too, with the Canadian people inside. 

Merry Christmas!


----------



## LowellG

asharma said:


> Hi Nalleh...just curious how you like your Def Tech 5500's...I just ordered 4 to try. I currently have Polk in ceiling VS70 RTs but wondering if the ceiling mount will allow me to direct the sound better...how do you find the 5500s?


I would be curios to know how that works out as well, not just acoustically, that I am not worried about as much because I heard them at Magnolia and they sound good. I would like to know as much about your environment and where you install them. I am thinking about hanging them from a 9' ceiling. It would be an 8' ceiling on my riser. So I am not sure how that will work.


----------



## AlphaG

I'm in need of a very small in ceiling Atmos speaker for a dedicated theater. It has to be small enough to fit in the wood portion of a coffered ceiling. Does the Cambridge Audio C46 in ceiling speaker sound like it could do the job? I could mount two pairs in the ceiling but wire each side together as it doesn't look like there will be mainstream support for 9.2.4 for some time, and because I can't afford a Trinnov.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-1SDjCvJCOWe/p_779MINXC46/Cambridge-Audio-Minx-C46.html


----------



## AlphaG

Or maybe this small Niles CM4PR?

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_190CM4PR/Niles-CM4PR.html?tp=193


----------



## roxiedog13

*Denon X5200*

X5200 has arrived and have no time to play . Tree has to go up first and then wrap the gifts tomorrow night and then the office party ........ .


----------



## jdsmoothie

Coming soon - Dolby Atmos Demo disc - Part 2, complete with longer movie excerpts similar to the Auro 3D Demo disc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jdsmoothie said:


> Coming soon - Dolby Atmos Demo disc - Part 2, complete with longer movie excerpts similar to the Auro 3D Demo disc.


And where, pray tell, can you get it? Directly from Dolby?


----------



## stikle

Well, phase 1 is mostly done but stalled out until tomorrow.

I marked all of the joists with painter's tape and then found the two closest to the proper angles for TF and TR. I drilled holes to feed the speaker wires up through and my buddy killed himself getting through the rafters and pulling the wire up. He fed them down into the wall, but we can't find them at the bottom so they got hung up somewhere. Tomorrow he'll go pull them up and then use fish tape to just feed them all the way down the front wall while I fish for them at the bottom.

Phase 2 will be building up some kind of ceiling platform to mount each speaker to. I've got a a vaulted ceiling that goes from 91" on the outside to 119" on the inside. If I just screw the speakers directly to the stud, each one will be hanging at a weird angle. So tomorrow we'll figure out the angle to offset and then hopefully it'll all look nice.

I though about buying these but at $30/pop and 2-3 weeks shipping time...ouch.

So, maybe tomorrow afternoon this little project will be complete.


----------



## Jive Turkey

stikle said:


> I though about buying these but at $30/pop and 2-3 weeks shipping time...ouch.
> 
> So, maybe tomorrow afternoon this little project will be complete.


Monoprice.com has a pair of mounts that'll hold 22 lbs. for less money.


----------



## awblackmon

I have done a web search for the Atmos demo disc but I come to a site that from what I can tell has files but not discs. I would love a 101 on making a disc if that is what I have to do. I would love even more to just order a disc from Dolby but I guess they are out of that market.


----------



## aboveave

Did just a little testing these days. Okay therefore i have got a couple of total setup together with preserved config documents both for Atmos and Auro 3D, and i use a loudspeaker change between TM and SH.
Therefore, while hearing my personal full Atmos create along with FH+TM, I can switch the switch and then height2 visits SH instead.


----------



## mp5475

jdsmoothie said:


> Coming soon - Dolby Atmos Demo disc - Part 2, complete with longer movie excerpts similar to the Auro 3D Demo disc.


Do you know when and if it will available for free or to buy?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Dan Hitchman said:


> And where, pray tell, can you get it? Directly from Dolby?





mp5475 said:


> Do you know when and if it will available for free or to buy?


Likely available from the same sources the current Dolby Demo disc is available.


----------



## viper14

can anyone here assist me with my setup... i have a yamaha 3040, i now have my system running in 11 channel, using a 2nd 2 channel amp Yamaha RS201 for my Rear presence, only thing i'm a bit confused on is the setup currently i have it setup like the following







my speaker configuration is as followed







is this the proper way to have it setup as 7.1.4? how does the amp know to use the 4 sets of in ceiling for atmos? I'm just a bit confused i played transformers for 15-20 min and stood at the back set of speakers with my ear to them and didn't hear a single thing. but if i bring up the information screen on the yamaha 3040 while the movie is playing i see the following







does everything look correct? anyone else here running the 11 channel (7.x.4) Thanks...


----------



## jdsmoothie

There's not much overhead content in the T4 movie and when there is, it's generally only for a few seconds at a time. The first long period of audio goes from about minute 15 - 17.


----------



## viper14

these are the options i can pick from in the amp setup

http://uk.yamaha.com/en/products/audio-visual/av-receivers-amps/dolby_atmos/


----------



## NorthSky

Just curious: Why *[SW2]* and not [SW1] ?


----------



## viper14

NorthSky said:


> Just curious: Why *[SW2]* and not [SW1] ?


plugged into the wrong port.. the settings were set for SW1 Front, SW2 back, my sub is behind the coach so i didn't bother changing it left it in the SW2 port.


----------



## NorthSky

viper14 said:


> ... the settings were set for SW1 Front, SW2 back, my sub is behind the couch so i didn't bother changing it left it in the SW2 port.


Thx, that was my first original thought.  ...Either jack is good, and your sub being behind your couch, is cool logical thinking. ...I'm all for it too.


----------



## CBdicX

*Power handeling Atmos speakers.*


I posted some pages back the speakers i use for Atmos use, 4x the Magnat Needle Sat speakers rated at 70 Watt max power handeling.
99% of the time i use my receiver (Integra DTR 70.6) at 50% power, or lower, and its rated at 135 Watt per channel at 8 Ohm.


Front, Center and Surround speakers can take 350 and 250 Watt so thats no problem, but will the Magnats take a lot of "power stress" on the Atmos channels, or will the 70 Watt max rating be ok for this job ?


----------



## NorthSky

I wouldn't sweat one drop of a wet tear over it. ...Use common sense; stay below one kilowatt.

♦ Bonus (especially for you): www.areadvd.de/tests/preview-onkyo-...-2000sm45-benchmark-mit-dolby-atmos-decoding/


----------



## CBdicX

jdsmoothie said:


> Coming soon - Dolby Atmos Demo disc - Part 2, complete with longer movie excerpts similar to the Auro 3D Demo disc.



Hope it will show up on Demo World so we can download it........


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> I wouldn't sweat one drop of a wet tear over it. ...Use common sense; stay below one kilowatt.
> 
> ♦ Bonus (especially for you): www.areadvd.de/tests/preview-onkyo-11-4-av-receiver-tx-nr3030-und-definitive-technology-5-2-2-surroundset-bp8060a60procenter-2000sm45-benchmark-mit-dolby-atmos-decoding/



Nice test, thanks, i am happy i can read German 
What do you mean by "stay below one kilowatt" ?


----------



## NorthSky

1. Use your Goggle :nerd: translation feature.
2. Your Atmos satellite speakers are fine; truly. ...Don't sweat it. .... "Staying below one kilowatt" is simply safe humor.


----------



## CBdicX

Thanks Northsky.........


----------



## roxiedog13

jdsmoothie said:


> Coming soon - Dolby Atmos Demo disc - Part 2, complete with longer movie excerpts similar to the Auro 3D Demo disc.


Just like a movie Teaser. I have no demos at all, unless one came with my X5200, so I'm going to want this as soon as it is available. Actually, guess I do kinda have a Atmos disc
because I have the new Transformers movie and Expendables 3.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> *Power handeling Atmos speakers.*
> 
> 
> I posted some pages back the speakers i use for Atmos use, 4x the Magnat Needle Sat speakers rated at 70 Watt max power handeling.
> 99% of the time i use my receiver (Integra DTR 70.6) at 50% power, or lower, and its rated at 135 Watt per channel at 8 Ohm.
> 
> 
> Front, Center and Surround speakers can take 350 and 250 Watt so thats no problem, but will the Magnats take a lot of "power stress" on the Atmos channels, or will the 70 Watt max rating be ok for this job ?


What is the rated sensitivity of the speakers, and what SPLs do you listen at usually? (What is your setting on the MV control usually?)


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> What is the rated sensitivity of the speakers, and what SPLs do you listen at usually? (What is your setting on the MV control usually?)


 
Hi Keith,


sensitivity is 88 dB and i usually listen around 40-50% volume.


Thx.....


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> 
> sensitivity is 88 dB and i usually listen around 40-50% volume.
> 
> 
> Thx.....


Well if you are listening at Reference you would be getting 85dB average and 105dB peaks, so at about -15dB that would be 70dB average and 90dB peaks. Which means you'd be using about 1 watt of amplification (at a distance of 1m). If you are 3m from the speakers then you are using about 5 watts. I think you needn't worry


----------



## dvdwilly3

NorthSky said:


> I wouldn't sweat one drop of a wet tear over it. ...Use common sense; stay below one kilowatt.
> 
> ♦ Bonus (especially for you): www.areadvd.de/tests/preview-onkyo-...-2000sm45-benchmark-mit-dolby-atmos-decoding/


I didn't see an English version button, but if you do a search in Google, there is an option to "Translate this page". Not perfect, but easier to read at least for me than the German...


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Well if you are listening at Reference you would be getting 85dB average and 105dB peaks, so at about -15dB that would be 70dB average and 90dB peaks. Which means you'd be using about 1 watt of amplification (at a distance of 1m). If you are 3m from the speakers then you are using about 5 watts. I think you needn't worry



Thank you for letting me sleep at night now......... !


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thank you for letting me sleep at night now......... !



ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz 

Most people think they are using hundreds of watts of amp power all the time, when the reality is that for the vast majority of the time they probably use 10 watts or less. The extra is needed for momentary peaks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Most people think they are using hundreds of watts of amp power all the time, when the reality is that for the vast majority of the time they probably use 10 watts or less. The extra is needed for momentary peaks.



THIS!

It's amazing how people think they are really using up 100w or more in their system, like, all the time. Rarely are people using more than 10-20w at a time and usually a lot less especially if listening 10-20dB below reference.

Also, removing bass from the signal helps a lot too. If one is using small overheads they are using bass management for them as well thus lowering power requirements immensely.


----------



## ss9001

^^
A common misconception. Also, many don't know the relationship between watts power & volume difference in dB. 

It's a surprise to some how little difference doubling the power makes  

The experienced people here will know this but for those that don't, mathematically, doubling power is only 3 dB volume increase and that will be, as pointed out by Keith & Scott, only on the momentary peaks, not an overall volume increase. And that it takes 10X the power to approximately double sound volume.

So those looking to passively bi-amp & think it makes a big difference....the reality is different


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Most people think they are using hundreds of watts of amp power all the time, when the reality is that for the vast majority of the time they probably use 10 watts or less. The extra is needed for momentary peaks.


 
Clear, thanks (all)..... !!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> THIS!
> 
> It's amazing how people think they are really using up 100w or more in their system, like, all the time. Rarely are people using more than 10-20w at a time and usually a lot less especially if listening 10-20dB below reference.
> 
> Also, removing bass from the signal helps a lot too. If one is using small overheads they are using bass management for them as well thus lowering power requirements immensely.


Yup. Always amazes me to see people agonising over whether to 'upgrade' to a 'more powerful' amp, and then you see they are using pretty sensitive speakers, say about 88dB/w/m, and listen at about -15dB, sitting 8 feet from the speakers  Today's crop of AVRs, at the higher end anyway, have pretty powerful amps that will serve most people pretty well IMO.


----------



## rmerlano

Wich one is the reference volume you are talking about?


----------



## kbarnes701

rmerlano said:


> Which one is the reference volume you are talking about?


In a system calibrated for movie reference (85dB average, 105dB peak, 115dB peak LFE) reference volume on the AVR is 0dB on the Master Volume control. If you use Audyssey to calibrate, this is set automatically so long as the equipment can play at these levels of course.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> In a system calibrated for movie reference (85dB average, 105dB peak, 115dB peak LFE) reference volume on the AVR is 0dB on the Master Volume control. If you use Audyssey to calibrate, this is set automatically so long as the equipment can play at these levels of course.


By default D+M AVRs use the "absolute" volume scale, where 80 corresponds to "Reference" and most people set it to 65 or less. There's a setup menu option to change that to the "relative" volume scale, which is what has 0 as Reference and most people set it to -15 or less. Note that D+M don't use the terms "absolute" and "relative". Instead they show the numeric ranges of the two volume scales in their setup menus.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> By default D+M AVRs use the "absolute" volume scale, where 80 corresponds to "Reference" and most people set it to 65 or less. There's a setup menu option to change that to the "relative" volume scale, which is what has 0 as Reference and most people set it to -15 or less. Note that D+M don't use the terms "absolute" and "relative". Instead they show the numeric ranges of the two volume scales in their setup menus.


I didn't even know that absolute scale was the default! I must have changed it on auto-pilot as I have never used anything but the relative scale (which may be the default on Onkyos - can’t remember). I can’t see the point of using a scale that has arbitrary and meaningless numbers TBH - at least with the relative scale you know where you are. IMO of course.


----------



## Nightlord

ss9001 said:


> It's a surprise to some how little difference doubling the power makes


Yes, and if you turn it around: If you're clipping your 200W amp and get the idea of moving your upper limit up by 10dB, it's rather a surprise how MUCH more power you need.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Yes, and if you turn it around: If you're clipping your 200W amp and get the idea of moving your upper limit up by 10dB, it's rather a surprise how MUCH more power you need.


Yup. The requirements go up very fast!

That's why I built what I did for mains.


----------



## rmerlano

kbarnes701 said:


> In a system calibrated for movie reference (85dB average, 105dB peak, 115dB peak LFE) reference volume on the AVR is 0dB on the Master Volume control. If you use Audyssey to calibrate, this is set automatically so long as the equipment can play at these levels of course.





Selden Ball said:


> By default D+M AVRs use the "absolute" volume scale, where 80 corresponds to "Reference" and most people set it to 65 or less. There's a setup menu option to change that to the "relative" volume scale, which is what has 0 as Reference and most people set it to -15 or less. Note that D+M don't use the terms "absolute" and "relative". Instead they show the numeric ranges of the two volume scales in their setup menus.


Thank you both!


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> ss9001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a surprise to some how little difference doubling the power makes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if you turn it around: If you're clipping your 200W amp and get the idea of moving your upper limit up by 10dB, it's rather a surprise how MUCH more power you need.
Click to expand...

At that point it's much cheaper and easier to just get more sensitive speakers. 

Thankfully in my setup I will never dream of going above -15 or so which means all of this is basically irrelevant to me  it's easier being on the flat part of that exponential curve!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> At that point it's much cheaper and easier to just get more sensitive speakers.


[oldfartmode]

Yes, I learned this decades ago when amps were different to today's modern offerings, in that there were many that sounded execrable and you often had to pay really good money to get one that could deliver the input at the output without modification to the signal other than its amplitude. It was easier to seek out more sensitive speakers and go with a lower power amp. On the upside, I always found more sensitive speakers sounded a lot more 'dynamic' than lesser sensitivity designs, but this may, of course, just have been because I was feeding them with sufficient amp grunt to make them work properly. Now it's a different ballgame - now we have fabulous, modern SS amps and we can buy them quite cheaply (unless we are into big brand names and so on, or want jewelry in our listening rooms). Power is relatively cheap nowadays compared with back in the day.

[/oldfartmode]


----------



## xcapri79

Regardless, I still like my more expensive McIntosh amps letting me know that I'm only using 10 watts.


----------



## kbarnes701

xcapri79 said:


> Regardless, I still like my more expensive McIntosh amps letting me know that I'm only using 10 watts.


Nothing wrong with amps like that at all. So long, obviously, as people don't think all those extra $$$ translate to 'better sound'. But the appearance and the build quality is something else.


----------



## NorthSky

*Area DVD - German Audio/Video website*



dvdwilly3 said:


> I didn't see an English version button, but if you do a search in Google, there is an option to "Translate this page". Not perfect, but easier to read at least for me than the German...


You are right; in your google toolbar there is a [Translate] feature option. 
* You can read any language in the world. ...What a universal communication tool we have!


----------



## JST0rm

I need to dip into atmos at home and I was wondering if people are getting good results with 5.2.2. The onkyo 636 is fairly cheap and my room isnt large so I wold like to stick with something like that. Ive read you when using 2 speakers you shouldnt use channels next to each other? Is this true? I would like to use top front and top center and let the rears take the rear top information.


----------



## jdsmoothie

JST0rm said:


> I need to dip into atmos at home and I was wondering if people are getting good results with 5.2.2. The onkyo 636 is fairly cheap and my room isnt large so I wold like to stick with something like that. Ive read you when using 2 speakers you shouldnt use channels next to each other? Is this true? I would like to use top front and top center and let the rears take the rear top information.


With the 636, 737, and 838, you can only add 2 height speakers (i.e 5.1 + 2 Height).


----------



## JST0rm

jdsmoothie said:


> With the 636, 737, and 838, you can only add 2 height speakers (i.e 5.1 + 2 Height).


yes I understand. Im wondering if people are having good results with only 2 speakers. Also wht is the best placement they have found for those 2 speakers - top front/rear - height front/rear - top front center-


----------



## jdsmoothie

JST0rm said:


> yes I understand. Im wondering if people are having good results with only 2 speakers. Also wht is the best placement they have found for those 2 speakers - top front/rear - height front/rear - top front center-


Based on this ---> "I would like to use top front and top center and let the rears take the rear top information", not sure you do.

Standard 2CH configuration would be Top Middle, or 1-2' forward of the main listening position.


----------



## JST0rm

jdsmoothie said:


> Standard 2CH configuration would be about 1-2' forward of the main listening position.


parallel? So a left right? My intuition is telling me I would get more from a front to back approach.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Yes, Top Middle Left/Right. Speakers are placed in pairs.


----------



## JST0rm

jdsmoothie said:


> Based on this ---> "I would like to use top front and top center and let the rears take the rear top information", not sure you do.
> 
> Standard 2CH configuration would be about Top Middel, or 1-2' forward of the main listening position.


its object based and Im pretty sure the sound would fly by the atmos and into the rear channels as a part of the object mixing.


----------



## JST0rm

jdsmoothie said:


> Yes, Top Middle Left/Right. Speakers are placed in pairs.


Right on. So they are incapable of doing a dual mono tops? I'm thinking a couple bipole speakers on the ceiling would give a good dispersion. and you would get more location information from dual monos.


----------



## JST0rm

JST0rm said:


> Right on. So they are incapable of doing a dual mono tops? I'm thinking a couple bipole speakers on the ceiling would give a good dispersion. and you would get more location information from dual monos.


I was looking at this image. I assumed they are showing 5 mono locations?


----------



## jdsmoothie

JST0rm said:


> its object based and Im pretty sure the sound would fly by the atmos and into the rear channels as a part of the object mixing.


Again ... your Onkyo is only capable of one physical location of a pair of L/R height speakers. If you want 2 pair capability, you would need to upgrade to the Onkyo NR1030.


----------



## jdsmoothie

JST0rm said:


> I was looking at this image. I assumed they are showing 5 mono locations?


Sorry, but no, rather pairs of speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

JST0rm said:


> I need to dip into atmos at home and I was wondering if people are getting good results with 5.2.2. The onkyo 636 is fairly cheap and my room isnt large so I wold like to stick with something like that. Ive read you when using 2 speakers you shouldnt use channels next to each other? Is this true? I would like to use top front and top center and let the rears take the rear top information.


I think you might be misunderstanding something.

The 5.2.2 designation means that a single Left/Right pair of overhead speakers is in use. In your example, that pair could be located at either Top Front or Top Middle, not both at the same time.

The Atmos overhead speakers are supported as Left/Right pairs in the same front-to-back locations. Individual speakers at different front-to-back locations are not officially supported. If you want to configure speakers with one at each location, you'd have to configure the receiver as 5.2.4 with some external electronics to merge each Left/Right pair of signals appropriately into a single speaker.

In some cases it might be more appropriate to configure a single pair of overhead speakers as Front Height Left and Front Height Right so they'd be compatible with both Atmos and DTS Neo:X. The four other overhead pair locations (three Tops and Rear Height) can be used only by Atmos and the Dolby Surround upmixer.

I hope this clarifies things a little.


----------



## JST0rm

jdsmoothie said:


> Again ... your Onkyo is only capable of one physical location of a pair of L/R height speakers. If you want 2 pair capability, you would need to upgrade to the Onkyo NR1030.



I see thanks for clearing that up. The next question would be do people think that 1 pair is enough? Im sitting 8ft from my plasma (64') is the best orientation for the speakers to be directly above you?


----------



## shinksma

kbarnes701 said:


> ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Most people think they are using hundreds of watts of amp power all the time, when the reality is that for the vast majority of the time they probably use 10 watts or less. The extra is needed for momentary peaks.





Scott Simonian said:


> THIS!
> 
> It's amazing how people think they are really using up 100w or more in their system, like, all the time. Rarely are people using more than 10-20w at a time and usually a lot less especially if listening 10-20dB below reference.
> 
> Also, removing bass from the signal helps a lot too. If one is using small overheads they are using bass management for them as well thus lowering power requirements immensely.


When I watch a movie or listen to music (surround or stereo), my Onkyo 808 handles it just fine.

But I also play electric guitar, and sometimes I like to play along to a CD, especially when learning a song, but sometimes just to rock out. Competing with a "40W" Fender tube amp has often pushed my receiver into protection mode after a few songs, because I have the volume knob set to about "5" or more above Reference Level.

And yes, I'm going deaf. Which really doesn't help the whole "need more volume" problem...

My speakers are old and probably relatively inefficient, so hopefully an eventual upgrade to something like Klipsches (or whatever has a "high" sensitivity by today's expectations) will allow more breathing room with my 808...

Anyway, back to topic at hand...

I'm hoping that CES 2015 will reveal a bunch of receivers that will have gobs of power for the main front two/three channels, a medium amount of power for the rest of the surround channels of a 5.1 or 7.1 system, but also have reasonable power for the Atmos-type overheads. That's how I would imagine my sound energy gets burned, so it would be nice if the receivers would reflect that a bit more realistically. But that would mean separate designs for the various channel types, and that could be a nightmare integration-wise in the box...

But the expected solution might be a receiver with "normal" power for all channels but also has pre-outs so I can use external amp(s) for the front three channels...


----------



## JST0rm

Selden Ball said:


> I think you might be misunderstanding something.
> 
> The 5.2.2 designation means that a single Left/Right pair of overhead speakers is in use. In your example, that pair could be located at either Top Front or Top Middle, not both at the same time.
> 
> The Atmos overhead speakers are supported as Left/Right pairs in the same front-to-back locations. Individual speakers at different front-to-back locations are not officially supported. If you want to configure speakers with one at each location, you'd have to configure the receiver as 5.2.4 with some external electronics to merge each Left/Right pair of signals appropriately into a single speaker.
> 
> In some cases it might be more appropriate to configure a single pair of overhead speakers as Front Height Left and Front Height Right so they'd be compatible with both Atmos and DTS Neo:X. The four other overhead pair locations (three Tops and Rear Height) can be used only by Atmos and the Dolby Surround upmixer.
> 
> I hope this clarifies things a little.



Yeah. Its clear. I just need to read about dts neo:x to see if that will be needed. Im assuming that the dolby atmos format is getting the bigger push.


----------



## Selden Ball

shinksma said:


> When I watch a movie or listen to music (surround or stereo), my Onkyo 808 handles it just fine.
> 
> But I also play electric guitar, and sometimes I like to play along to a CD, especially when learning a song, but sometimes just to rock out. Competing with a "40W" Fender tube amp has often pushed my receiver into protection mode after a few songs, because I have the volume knob set to about "5" or more above Reference Level.
> 
> And yes, I'm going deaf. Which really doesn't help the whole "need more volume" problem...
> 
> My speakers are old and probably relatively inefficient, so hopefully an eventual upgrade to something like Klipsches (or whatever has a "high" sensitivity by today's expectations) will allow more breathing room with my 808...


 Have you considered using headphones? Then you can crank them as loud as you want.


> Anyway, back to topic at hand...
> 
> I'm hoping that CES 2015 will reveal a bunch of receivers that will have gobs of power for the main front two/three channels, a medium amount of power for the rest of the surround channels of a 5.1 or 7.1 system, but also have reasonable power for the Atmos-type overheads. That's how I would imagine my sound energy gets burned, so it would be nice if the receivers would reflect that a bit more realistically. But that would mean separate designs for the various channel types, and that could be a nightmare integration-wise in the box...


Personally, I don't expect that to happen, except, perhaps in HTiB systems which already have many compromises in their designs. With Atmos gradually becoming more popular, comparable power needs to be available to each speaker so that objects can move past them without causing clipping.



> But the expected solution might be a receiver with "normal" power for all channels but also has pre-outs so I can use external amp(s) for the front three channels...


 Indeed, that's the standard solution. Receivers with pre-outs are readily available, although they tend to be the more expensive models.


----------



## Selden Ball

JST0rm said:


> Yeah. Its clear. I just need to read about dts neo:x to see if that will be needed. Im assuming that the dolby atmos format is getting the bigger push.


DTS Neo primarily is an upmixer which competes with Dolby Surround. 

Like Dolby ProLogic and Dolby Surround, it sends sounds to whatever speakers you have that are in addition to the number of channels provided on a movie disc. It's been available for several years. Four or five Blu-ray movies were mixed to have 11.1 matrixed speaker channels compatible with Neo:X, but DTS isn't expected to be doing that any more. They're working on an object-based sound system that'll compete directly with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## JST0rm

Selden Ball said:


> DTS Neo primarily is an upmixer which competes with Dolby Surround.
> 
> Like Dolby ProLogic and Dolby Surround, it sends sounds to whatever speakers you have that are in addition to the number of channels provided on a movie disc. It's been available for several years. Four or five Blu-ray movies were mixed to have 11.1 matrixed speaker channels compatible with Neo:X, but DTS isn't expected to be doing that any more. They're working on an object-based sound system that'll compete directly with Dolby Atmos.


I was never a fan of upmixed material. I want it exactly how the re-recording mixers, director and producers wanted me to hear it. Object oriented mixing is going to be interesting in the future.


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> I was looking at this image. I assumed they are showing 5 mono locations?


I don't like this drawing. 

It's true that some people would tend to see five monopoles up there, and down there too, but if digging a little deeper we can realize that there are five pairs of stereo speakers above. They just don't show in that particular drawing. And then, the very same with the floor speakers; one mono front, and another (wide) right in front of it (inline with the listener @ 0 degree), one mono speaker right behind the listener (surround), and another mono surround speaker against the back wall. So, all in all all the speakers are mono and all inline with each other and the listener @ a zero degree angle (all 9 speakers).

Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer have better and clearer drawings. 

Yes, elevated Atmos speakers come in stereo pairs from side Left and side Right. ...And not from rear to front stereo pairs, and not positioned right above the center line on your ceiling, from the back wall to the front wall. ...Again, very poor drawing (not for everyone).


----------



## JST0rm

NorthSky said:


> I don't like this drawing.
> 
> It's true that some people would tend to see five monopoles there, but if digging a little deeper we can realize that there are five pairs of stereo speakers above. They just don't show in that particular drawing.
> 
> Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer have better and clearer drawings.
> 
> Yes, elevated Atmos speakers come in stereo pairs from side Left and side Right. ...And not from rear to front stereo pairs, positioned right above the center line on your ceiling, from the back wall to the front wall. ...Again, very poor drawing (not for everyone).



I would of been less confused if they wrote speakers instead of speaker  I still like the idea of having front to back speakers and I think stereo is less important for those speakers if having to make a choice. But it is what it is and Im sure it will sound nice.


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> I was never a fan of upmixed material. I want it exactly how the re-recording mixers, director and producers wanted me to hear it. Object oriented mixing is going to be interesting in the future.


The exact facsimile (replication/modification/transformation) as intended by the director with his master colorist and CGI effects and foley sound effects and mixing/recording engineer with his dynamic compression mixing console and effects generator and equalizers and echoes vibrator and ADR vocals reproducer and pre-recorded sound effects like squirrels, wind, crickets, rain, street traffic, etc. ...all of this exactly as it was accurately intended for you to hear; is totally out of reality and completely inaccurate in real life @ the time the film was made. 

Sounds in films are all recreated because it is entertainment. ...The best part is the classical orchestras recorded with majesty in them large professional concert halls for film music recordings; with real musicians of true talent. ...The less synthesized music and sounds the more organic and natural and fluid the experience. ...In general from intelligent films made by intelligent people in the entertainment business. IMHO ...personal.

Now, RAP (rumping bass) and electronica ('Tron: Legacy') and organ ('Interstellar') and Tangerine Dream New Age music are cool too. 

I simply prefer opera (Lisa Gerrard) with Ennio Morricone type of scores. ...My own trance.

Yes, objects and people placements are going to be real cool in the future; and the people positioning them with their new toy machines are going to have fun too. And often they are going to be pressed, they won't have time (just like they don't usually have the time now) to do an accurate job...so it should be real funny I bet in the future. ...We'll see, and so far we have 'Step Up All In', 'The Expendables 3', 'TMNT', 'TF4' and all that jazz. And we missed 'Hercules'.


----------



## NorthSky

xcapri79 said:


> Regardless, I still like my more expensive McIntosh amps letting me know that I'm only using 10 watts.


Tubes?


----------



## bargervais

JST0rm said:


> I need to dip into atmos at home and I was wondering if people are getting good results with 5.2.2. The onkyo 636 is fairly cheap and my room isnt large so I wold like to stick with something like that. Ive read you when using 2 speakers you shouldnt use channels next to each other? Is this true? I would like to use top front and top center and let the rears take the rear top information.


I'm using a TX-NR 737 and set up atmos in 5.2.2 I'm very surprised in my little den sounds incredibly nice my set up is five speakers at ear height two small 10 inch klipsch subs I have two speakers top front on the ceiling.


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> I would of been less confused if they wrote speakers instead of speaker  I still like the idea of having front to back speakers and I think stereo is less important for those speakers if having to make a choice. But it is what it is and Im sure it will sound nice.


The drawing/writing was made by a guy from North Korea visiting Sony Pictures while working for D&M.


----------



## Csbooth

JST0rm said:


> I was never a fan of upmixed material. I want it exactly how the re-recording mixers, director and producers wanted me to hear it. Object oriented mixing is going to be interesting in the future.


If it makes much difference to you, the DSU touts it's ability to keep the artist's original intention for the mix in tact when extrapolating and matrixing the other data for the heights, rears, panning and whatnot.

In regards to your concern for a 5.x.2 setup,... Depending on your MLP, from many people I have consulted with and experienced first hand over the past couple of days, the fluidity of the sound is a 1:1 comparison with 7.1.4. 

Now don't mistake that as meaning they are completely equal but simply that if you are setup correctly then the overall sound field in the 3D space will feel close knit and proper, whether it's from the enabled speakers/modules or in/on ceiling speakers.

Obviously for more "depth" in your listening space you would want 7.x.4 and higher, but if you're worried about front to back, side to side panning and object placement, just make sure the distance is within reasonable range (8-12ft on height, not much more than 8ft from FL/C/FR and within 4FT of your surrounds) and you should be quite pleased with all your Atmos content and DSU applications.


----------



## JST0rm

NorthSky said:


> Th exact facsimile (replication/modification/transformation) as intended by the director with his master colorist and CGI effects and foley sound effects and mixing/recording engineer with his dynamic compression mixing console and effects generator and equalizers and echoes vibrator and ADR vocals reproducer and pre-recorded sound effects like squirrels, wind, crickets, rain, street traffic, etc. ...all of this exactly as it was accurately intended for you to hear; is totally out of reality and completely inaccurate in real life @ the time the film was made.


LMAO. You know, I cut sound effects for movies and television for a living and I still found what you wrote to be confusing  I dont care about accurate irl. I want the vision as it was intended. Be it 5.1, 7.1 or atmos  I have never been really impressed with upmixing complete movie sound tracks. Music upmixes are cool and I sometimes use this:

http://www.iosono-sound.com/references/anymix-pro/





> Yes, objects and people placements are going to be real cool in the future; and the people positioning them with their new toy machines are going to have fun too. And often they are going to be pressed, they won't have time (just like they don't usually have the time now) to do an accurate job...so it should be real funny I bet in the future. ...We'll see, and so far we have 'Step Up All In', 'The Expendables 3', 'TMNT', 'TF4' and all that jazz. And we missed 'Hercules'.



We will try to do a good job given the time allowed.


----------



## JST0rm

Csbooth said:


> If it makes much difference to you, the DSU touts it's ability to keep the artist's original intention for the mix in tact when extrapolating and matrixing the other data for the heights, rears, panning and whatnot.


well I haven't experienced what they are selling so I will of course reserve judgement until that happens.



> In regards to your concern for a 5.x.2 setup,... Depending on your MLP, from many people I have consulted with and experienced first hand over the past couple of days, the fluidity of the sound is a 1:1 comparison with 7.1.4.
> 
> Now don't mistake that as meaning they are completely equal but simply that if you are setup correctly then the overall sound field in the 3D space will feel close knit and proper, whether it's from the enabled speakers/modules or in/on ceiling speakers.
> 
> Obviously for more "depth" in your listening space you would want 7.x.4 and higher, but if you're worried about front to back, side to side panning and object placement, just make sure the distance is within reasonable range (8-12ft on height, not much more than 8ft from FL/C/FR and within 4FT of your surrounds) and you should be quite pleased with all your Atmos content and DSU applications.



Cool. Thanks. My space is pretty tight right now so Im sure this will be good enough.


----------



## Mike Garrett

roxiedog13 said:


> Just like a movie Teaser. I have no demos at all, unless one came with my X5200, so I'm going to want this as soon as it is available. Actually, guess I do kinda have a Atmos disc
> because I have the new Transformers movie and Expendables 3.


Probably the best demo you can get is TNMT. Atmos made that movie as far as I am concerned. The sound track had me grinning.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> In a system calibrated for movie reference (85dB average, 105dB peak, 115dB peak LFE) reference volume on the AVR is 0dB on the Master Volume control. If you use Audyssey to calibrate, this is set automatically so long as the equipment can play at these levels of course.


Note that those numbers are per speaker at the listening position.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. The requirements go up very fast!
> 
> That's why I built what I did for mains.


Me too, though mine are puny compared to yours.


----------



## roxiedog13

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Probably the best demo you can get is TNMT. Atmos made that movie as far as I am concerned. The sound track had me grinning.


 
I heard this movie was a great example of Atmos quality but a terrible movie otherwise. What this movie is about I have no idea , never heard of it except on this forum. Will have to check
it out soon I guess .


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> ...:http://www.iosono-sound.com/references/anymix-pro/


♦ Luv reading about that suff; truly mind blowing. 



> We will try to do a good job given the time allowed.


♦ I am fully aware that it is all you guys can really do. 

Best wishes in this holiday season. 
{And I'm glad that you can see the good positive humor in my post.}

* There is no confusion; there are some good sound mixes, and there are some lesser good ones. ...That's all I meant.


----------



## George G Chalhoub

*Different speakers for atmos*

I have monitor Audio silver speakers ( silver 10 FRL, silver fx Center , silver 2 SB, silver Center SRL) AVR Yamaha rxa3040 , planing to upgrade to atmos 7.1.4 , I got a pair of in ceiling MA ct280idc and I have a pai of MA mass it s impossible at my place to have all the speaker in ceiling so I m wondering is it possible to use the MA mass as TF and the ct280idc as TR ? Or should I get another pair of Mass and get all the speakers mounted on ceilling using the brackets .


----------



## Csbooth

JST0rm said:


> well I haven't experienced what they are selling so I will of course reserve judgement until that happens.


Of course, the only right answer is going by what you think is best, but I wouldn't say it hurts to go in with a positive outlook  

Who knows, maybe it will wow you? 



JSt0rm said:


> Cool. Thanks. My space is pretty tight right now so Im sure this will be good enough.


I do believe that it should more than suffice, and hope you enjoy it when the time comes.


----------



## LowellG

roxiedog13 said:


> I heard this was a great Atmos movie, and it was a terrible movie. I have no idea what it is so now I'm going to go have a look.


If you have a computer hooked up to your setup you can download 4 Atmos Lossy demos at Demoworld under the HD category.


----------



## roxiedog13

LowellG said:


> If you have a computer hooked up to your setup you can download 4 Atmos Lossy demos at Demoworld under the HD category.


No PC hooked up to my system, suppose I could download to my regular PC, make a copy and play through the Oppo .


----------



## roxiedog13

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Probably the best demo you can get is TNMT. Atmos made that movie as far as I am concerned. The sound track had me grinning.



OK now I know what TMNT is, sorry, I've been working long hours and have not seen a trailer for this at all. Not sure I was even aware the movie was coming to be honest.


----------



## NorthSky

The title is strenuous: 'Teennage Mutant Ninja Turtles' 3D. ...Like directly out of a kid's comic book from another galaxy/dimension.


----------



## LowellG

roxiedog13 said:


> No PC hooked up to my system, suppose I could download to my regular PC, make a copy and play through the Oppo .


The demo's are great, even without Atmos. I run them through XBMC.


----------



## stikle

@kokishin

Atmos 7.2.4 

AVR: Denon AVR-X5200W
Atmos Speakers: Mirage Omnisat v3
Mounted: On-ceiling
Height Config: TF+TR
Other Info: Onkyo M-5010 amp

7:45PM - Speakers installed, beginning Audyssey calibration
8:15PM - Start Atmos Demo BDR
8:16PM - Pick jaw up off of floor
8:17PM - Start listening to select favorite movie clips with DSU
12AM - Pause for a drink, notice I've lost almost 2 hours of my life.
12:01AM - Shrug and put the next disc in


----------



## HT-Eman

LowellG said:


> The demo's are great, even without Atmos. I run them through XBMC.


You mean Kodi   

I dont like the name change but still love the software.


----------



## Oledurt

stikle said:


> @kokishin
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos 7.2.4
> 
> 
> 
> AVR: Denon AVR-X5200W
> 
> Atmos Speakers: Mirage Omnisat v3
> 
> Mounted: On-ceiling
> 
> Height Config: TF+TR
> 
> Other Info: Onkyo M-5010 amp
> 
> 
> 
> 7:45PM - Speakers installed, beginning Audyssey calibration
> 
> 8:15PM - Start Atmos Demo BDR
> 
> 8:16PM - Pick jaw up off of floor
> 
> 8:17PM - Start listening to select favorite movie clips with DSU
> 
> 12AM - Pause for a drink, notice I've lost almost 2 hours of my life.
> 
> 12:01AM - Shrug and put the next disc in



That is about right. I am also running 7.1.4. Last night i watched lone survivor with DSU, and no joke i was ninja gripping my chair the whole time and nearly jumped out of it a couple of times...end credits roll ohh it is 2:30 am and all i want to do is watch another movie...Dolby Atmos you complete me 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Note that those numbers are per speaker at the listening position.


Indeed. So when all speakers are played at the same time the overall SPL will be higher still.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Csbooth said:


> Obviously for more "depth" in your listening space you would want 7.x.4 and higher, but if you're worried about front to back, side to side panning and object placement, just *make sure the distance is within reasonable range* (8-12ft on height, not much more than 8ft from FL/C/FR and within 4FT of your surrounds) and you should be quite pleased with all your Atmos content and DSU applications.


What distance are you referring to? Surrounds at less than 4 feet from MLP sounds pretty close to me, and also deviates from the general recommendation to try and put all speakers as close as possible to equidistant positions.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> At that point it's much cheaper and easier to just get more sensitive speakers.


As so often on here, the most important aspect seems to be forgotten - the quality of the speakers. There's absolutely no use in changing to more sensitive 'crap'. For me there exists no more sensitive speakers (mine are @ 94dB if I remember correctly) of the same quality level. 

Fortunately my current amps don't clip at 200W... they deliver more than a kW without complaints.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> As so often on here, the most important aspect seems to be forgotten - the quality of the speakers. There's absolutely no use in changing to more sensitive 'crap'.


I don't recall the advice as being to change to more sensitive but 'crap' speakers.  There are high quality and low quality speakers of any given sensitivity. As you suggest, the aim is to acquire high quality speakers, with the sensitivity required. You have done this yourself as I would call 94dB/w/m 'high sensitivity', albeit not the highest obtainable of course.


----------



## asharma

*Correct angle for wides*

Hi folks

Given the discussion on the poor graphical representation for wides and fronts, what is the correct range of angles for wides? Thanks


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Half way between the Fronts (30°) and the Sides (90°) which would be Wides (60°).


----------



## CCSchoch

Oledurt said:


> That is about right. I am also running 7.1.4. Last night i watched lone survivor with DSU, and no joke i was ninja gripping my chair the whole time and nearly jumped out of it a couple of times...end credits roll ohh it is 2:30 am and all i want to do is watch another movie...Dolby Atmos you complete me
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Tryin to follow along, what's "With DSU?"


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dolby surround upmixer. It matrices a Atmos soundtrack and is very impressive


----------



## CCSchoch

Brian Fineberg said:


> Dolby surround upmixer. It matrices a Atmos soundtrack and is very impressive


Oh, so it takes a non Atmos soundtrack and converts it utilizing your Atmos speaker configuration? I was reading an article on that subject, and the reviewer was stating the Atmos DSU does A LOT better job than the previous attempts like DD-PL2X...

Would you agree?


----------



## LowellG

HT-Eman said:


> You mean Kodi
> 
> I dont like the name change but still love the software.




I love it too, wish they would go legit with the name change and get their app on PS4, Xbox One and Apple TV. 


Also, if they want me to call it Kodi, they should at least register the domain and start using it in their web address.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't recall the advice as being to change to more sensitive but 'crap' speakers.  There are high quality and low quality speakers of any given sensitivity. As you suggest, the aim is to acquire high quality speakers, with the sensitivity required. You have done this yourself as I would call 94dB/w/m 'high sensitivity', albeit not the highest obtainable of course.


Going higher in sensitivity you end up with speakers designed with the prime concern of making them high sensitivity, not of high quality. Unless you go with monstrously dimensioned in-place built fullrange horns. 

My speakers were not chosen for the sensitivity, they were chosen for a number of other reasons, the sensitity was just a bonus side-effect.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

CCSchoch said:


> Oh, so it takes a non Atmos soundtrack and converts it utilizing your Atmos speaker configuration? I was reading an article on that subject, and the reviewer was stating the Atmos DSU does A LOT better job than the previous attempts like DD-PL2X...
> 
> Would you agree?


There is absolutely no comparison between PL2X and DSU. While using PL2X to convert 5.1 to 7.1 produced a jumbled sound that I refused to use, DSU is in a league of its own and gives an excellent upmix which I almost prefer over a true Atmos mix (depending on the Atmos mix of course).


----------



## CCSchoch

RAllenChristenson said:


> There is absolutely no comparison between PL2X and DSU. While using PL2X to convert 5.1 to 7.1 produced a jumbled sound that I refused to use, DSU is in a league of its own and gives an excellent upmix which I almost prefer over a true Atmos mix (depending on the Atmos mix of course).


I am thinking correct, right? THE DSU takes a NON Atmos mix, like a 5.1 or a 7.1 and upmixes to a "Atmos" to utilize all your speakers in your configuration. Correct?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CCSchoch said:


> I am thinking correct, right? THE DSU takes a NON Atmos mix, like a 5.1 or a 7.1 and upmixes to a "Atmos" to utilize all your speakers in your configuration. Correct?


Correct. Except for the "wide" position.


----------



## Selden Ball

CCSchoch said:


> I am thinking correct, right? THE DSU takes a NON Atmos mix, like a 5.1 or a 7.1 and upmixes to a "Atmos" to utilize all your speakers in your configuration. Correct?


It upmixes to use all of your speakers, including overheads. However, calling that "upmixing to Atmos" is misleading, I think. Atmos is the object-oriented soundtrack encoding technology used by studios.

DSU does an excellent job for movies, regardless of the soundtrack encoding. A few people prefer ProLogic for music, though.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

CCSchoch said:


> Oh, so it takes a non Atmos soundtrack and converts it utilizing your Atmos speaker configuration? I was reading an article on that subject, and the reviewer was stating the Atmos DSU does A LOT better job than the previous attempts like DD-PL2X...
> 
> Would you agree?


while i cannot comment on DD PlIIx I can say that it does an astounding job of upmixing...i am stunned most of the time tbh


----------



## kbarnes701

CCSchoch said:


> Oh, so it takes a non Atmos soundtrack and converts it utilizing your Atmos speaker configuration? I was reading an article on that subject, and the reviewer was stating the Atmos DSU does A LOT better job than the previous attempts like DD-PL2X...
> 
> Would you agree?


For movies, yes. Although the comparison is perhaps unfair as nothing else prior to Atmos/DSU, other than DSU, was able to use 4 overhead speakers. I have watched literally dozens of movies with DSU and it has enhanced every one of them so far.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Going higher in sensitivity you end up with speakers designed with the prime concern of making them high sensitivity, not of high quality. Unless you go with monstrously dimensioned in-place built fullrange horns.


You are being extreme. There are high sensitivity speakers which have good sound quality. The two are not mutually exclusive, as your own speaker choice confirms. The issue is one of balance - if you cannot or do not wish to buy a more powerful amp in order to hit a certain SPL, then speakers rated at 94 dB/w/m will sometimes be a much better idea than speakers which are specced at 84dB/w/m. You’d have to go from a 100 watt amp to a 800 watt amp to achieve that SPL increase with amplifier power alone.



Nightlord said:


> My speakers were not chosen for the sensitivity, they were chosen for a number of other reasons, the sensitity was just a bonus side-effect.


That's good, but you were not the typical case that was being discussed. For many people they have to decide how much amplification they need in order to meet their desired SPL, and they have two choices: a much more powerful amp and less sensitive speakers, or a typical amp and more sensitive speakers. Often it will make sense to go with the latter. Nobody suggested compromising sound quality with either choice.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Going higher in sensitivity you end up with speakers designed with the prime concern of making them high sensitivity, not of high quality.


No.


----------



## asharma

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Half way between the Fronts (30°) and the Sides (90°) which would be Wides (60°).


Thanks, I have smaller book shelf speakers (B&W 686) and larger bookshelf speakers (B&W 685)...Marantz 7009 coming. So will be running 7.2.4. Where should the larger bookshelves go? Surround rear or Front wide?


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> No.


Name any 100dB+ sensitivity speaker surpassing the big B&W Nautilus 800/802s in sound quality. I've never come across any commercial design REMOTELY in the vicinity... ( Not even the Von Schweikert VR-8 came close. )


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Name any 100dB+ sensitivity speaker surpassing the big B&W Nautilus 800/802s in sound quality. I've never come across any commercial design REMOTELY in the vicinity... ( Not even the Von Schweikert VR-8 came close. )


Many. I don't have to name any as your statement (and mine) are purely subjective. Based on opinion.

However your comment about all high sensitivity speakers not capable of being 'high quality' is factually inaccurate. 100% incorrect.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Many. I don't have to name any as your statement (and mine) are purely subjective. Based on opinion.
> 
> However your comment about all high sensitivity speakers not capable of being 'high quality' is factually inaccurate. 100% incorrect.


Reproducing what is on the media with as little coloration as possible is not subjective. That people LIKE other kinds of reproduction is subjective, though. I'm not interested in speakers that have their own opinion on the sound, that's really not Hi-Fi (per definition, even).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Reproducing what is on the media with as little coloration as possible is not subjective. That people LIKE other kinds of reproduction is subjective, though. I'm not interested in speakers that have their own opinion on the sound, that's really not Hi-Fi (per definition, even).


This is true but "reproducing what is on the media with as little coloration as possible..." is not mutually exclusive of high sensitivity.

It appears you have a warped perception of HE designs and think that they are all made for pure loudness. This is not the case but is what you think. Please do enjoy the type of speakers that you like but what you are saying is wholly inaccurate and you are doing a disservice to those who do not know as much about these things.


----------



## Ted99

shinksma said:


> I'm hoping that CES 2015 will reveal a bunch of receivers that will have gobs of power for the main front two/three channels, a medium amount of power for the rest of the surround channels of a 5.1 or 7.1 system, but also have reasonable power for the Atmos-type overheads. That's how I would imagine my sound energy gets burned, so it would be nice if the receivers would reflect that a bit more realistically. But that would mean separate designs for the various channel types, and that could be a nightmare integration-wise in the box...
> 
> But the expected solution might be a receiver with "normal" power for all channels but also has pre-outs so I can use external amp(s) for the front three channels...


A topic I am very interested in. I am using a Yamaha RX-Z11 to run an 11.1 system, but it's on it's last legs. The top rear channels no longer have any output. The sub out is losing a lot of it's output, causing me to crank the sub gain way higher than I like. My replacement will be a receiver with Dolby Atmos capability. BUT, I am using M-L Ascent/Theater electrostatic LCR speakers which are notorious for needing an amp with high current capability. My question is whether the new crop of what I call mid-priced receivers, such as D/M, Yamaha, Pioneer and Onkyo have amps that can drive the M-L speakers in a moderately-sized room?


----------



## Gurba

Nightlord said:


> Going higher in sensitivity you end up with speakers designed with the prime concern of making them high sensitivity, not of high quality. Unless you go with monstrously dimensioned in-place built fullrange horns.
> 
> My speakers were not chosen for the sensitivity, they were chosen for a number of other reasons, the sensitity was just a bonus side-effect.


So you would Call ie Klipsch Palladium P-39F a crap speaker because it has higher sensitivity ([email protected]) than Yours? I don't have Klipsch so feel free to be honest.


----------



## BamaDave

stikle said:


> @kokishin
> 
> Atmos Speakers: Mirage Omnisat v3
> Mounted: On-ceiling


I would be very interested to see how you have these mounted to the ceiling! Tell us how are they preforming?  BD


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> It appears you have a warped perception of HE designs and think that they are all made for pure loudness. This is not the case but is what you think. Please do enjoy the type of speakers that you like but what you are saying is wholly inaccurate and you are doing a disservice to those who do not know as much about these things.


Not at all, if it had been possible - it would have been done to mine.

My designer _has_ made high-efficiency design for use with low-power tube amps (Hesselvall "The Dream") too, but the compromises needed for such designs prevent it reaching his own series. ( At least until future technical achievements in driver design. )

Here's the Hesselvall 2 (99dB)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Heh. Well that's the problem...

Tube amps.


----------



## Oledurt

CCSchoch said:


> Oh, so it takes a non Atmos soundtrack and converts it utilizing your Atmos speaker configuration? I was reading an article on that subject, and the reviewer was stating the Atmos DSU does A LOT better job than the previous attempts like DD-PL2X...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree?



Yes DSU is by far the best upmixing technology i have ever experienced. Every movie i have watched with it is improved sonically in some way. Some people are anti upmix technology regardless of how good it is...they are purists but personally i love it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nightlord

Gurba said:


> So you would Call ie Klipsch Palladium P-39F a crap speaker because it has higher sensitivity ([email protected]) than Yours? I don't have Klipsch so feel free to be honest.


I've never heard ANY model from Klipsch that didn't have typical horn distortion. I don't recognize the model number, so I probably never heard that one, sorry.

I googled a frequency response of it, and it looks as if it has too much power above 8k and not very smooth response up there. Also quite a hump in bass before dropping as low as -15 @ 20Hz. Looks kind of Cerwin Vega to me, if y'all excuse the pun.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Heh. Well that's the problem...
> 
> Tube amps.


Agreed. That wasn't the point of the post, though, but I definitely agree.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> while i cannot comment on DD PlIIx I can say that it does an astounding job of upmixing...i am stunned most of the time tbh


I use Dolby Surround listening mode on everything from Dolby digital 2.0 5.1 7.1 all upmix very nicely I'll never turn back...


----------



## Csbooth

maikeldepotter said:


> What distance are you referring to? Surrounds at less than 4 feet from MLP sounds pretty close to me, and also deviates from the general recommendation to try and put all speakers as close as possible to equidistant positions.


I was referring to the max distances acceptable from any sets of speakers in a confined listening area for 5.x.2, the FL/C/FR wouldn't be equidistant to the surrounds in those recommendations no, but they also have much more power than your surrounds which is why it could be placed like that with trim involved and so forth doled out by your EQ. 

When I said within 4FT for the surrounds I actually meant pretty much at 4FT and worded it weird lol. If you get any further than any of those distances you risk losing that "tight knit" sense of presence I talked about and should look into higher than 5.x.2.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Heh. Well that's the problem...
> 
> Tube amps.


I tried a tube amp once, some years back. They're junk. Good in their day, when there was nothing better. A joke in the 21st century.

Of course, they function as a tone control as well as an amp - but tone controls aren't hard to find or incorporate into a modern design if someone really wants a good portion of their FR distorted to hell. Just sayin'


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Nightlord said:


> I've never heard ANY model from Klipsch that didn't have typical horn distortion. I don't recognize the model number, so I probably never heard that one, sorry.
> 
> I googled a frequency response of it, and it looks as if it has too much power above 8k and not very smooth response up there. Also quite a hump in bass before dropping as low as -15 @ 20Hz. Looks kind of Cerwin Vega to me, if y'all excuse the pun.


also Klipsch is notorious for overstating their sensitivity...99 is prob more like 92db

crap components..and terrible sounding


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I tried a tube amp once, some years back. They're junk. Good in their day, when there was nothing better. A joke in the 21st century.
> 
> Of course, they function as a tone control as well as an amp - but tone controls aren't hard to find or incorporate into a modern design if someone really wants a good portion of their FR distorted to hell. Just sayin'


Mostly they work like a compressor... that's why they think all the details come out so well. 

I know someone who's made a fantastic solid state amp (600W stereo, about 2500W in mono) who're toying the idea of making a tube amp with good specs. If he ever does it, I'm sure all the tube nuts will absolutely hate the result as it most likely won't sound anything remotely like a tube amp.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Brian Fineberg said:


> also Klipsch is notorious for overstating their sensitivity...99 is prob more like 92db
> 
> crap components..and terrible sounding


This is true. What they do is pair up a couple of conventional woofers with a very high sensitivity compression driver. The bass section usually no where near as capable as it. Many do have a hump in response in the midrange. Some find this off putting, others find it snappy and dynamic. They are capable of fantastic dynamics but not across the board which hurts them in the SQ department.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Mostly they work like a compressor... that's why they think all the details come out so well.
> 
> I know someone who's made a fantastic solid state amp (600W stereo, about 2500W in mono) who're toying the idea of making a tube amp with good specs. If he ever does it, I'm sure all the tube nuts will absolutely hate the result as it most likely won't sound anything remotely like a tube amp.


LOL. Yes, the ultimate irony: make a really, really good tube amp, and it will sound like a good, modern SS amp. But it will cost 10 times more!


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Yes, the ultimate irony: make a really, really good tube amp, and it will sound like a good, modern SS amp. But it will cost 10 times more!


I don't believe it will come to the market, he'll most likely build one and make all the measurements on it and then go on make something else. We're still waiting on a pre-amp for instance... ( Well, not I.... way out of my price league... and any improvement on the ones I have will probably be below hearing threshold anyway. )


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I don't believe it will come to the market, he'll most likely build one and make all the measurements on it and then go on make something else. We're still waiting on a pre-amp for instance... ( Well, not I.... way out of my price league... and any improvement on the ones I have will probably be below hearing threshold anyway. )


Strange definition of 'improvement'


----------



## Scott Simonian

'Inaudible improvements' pretty much sums all audiophiles.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Strange definition of 'improvement'


Well, there's logical cases where summing inaudible distortion through several devices can lead to an audible one, so upgrading the overkill MAY be a good thing - sometimes. 

(It's always 'Feelgood' though.  )


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> This is true. What they do is pair up a couple of conventional woofers with a very high sensitivity compression driver. The bass section usually no where near as capable as it. Many do have a hump in response in the midrange. Some find this off putting, others find it snappy and dynamic. They are capable of fantastic dynamics but not across the board which hurts them in the SQ department.


You guys are making me insecure about running all Klipsch speakers...


----------



## Nightlord

Spanglo said:


> You guys are making me insecure about running all Klipsch speakers...


If that is what makes your heart tick, then please, please, please disregard us!


----------



## smurraybhm

Or maybe take the snob audiophile attitude to the $20k plus thread 
There's a lot of good equipment out there, cost isn't indicative of quality or good sound, similar to the blanket sensitivity statement. Where's the Wavetouch Grand Teton's when you need them


----------



## Nightlord

smurraybhm said:


> Or maybe take the snob audiophile attitude to the $20k plus thread
> There's a lot of good equipment out there, cost isn't indicative of quality or good sound, similar to the blanket sensitivity statement. Where's the Wavetouch Grand Teton's when you need them


If that was aimed at me, most my equipment is second or third hand. And I'm only performace motivated. Nothing snob about a NAD208, looks like crap too, but it's a stellar performer all the same even if it's 18 years since they stopped making it.


----------



## smurraybhm

Nightlord said:


> If that was aimed at me, most my equipment is second or third hand. And I'm only performace motivated. Nothing snob about a NAD208, looks like crap too, but it's a stellar performer all the same even if it's 18 years since they stopped making it.


If it was aimed at you, then I would have used quotes like now. It seemed as if we were headed down the audiophile rabbit hole, one of many discussions like the infamous all amps sound the same, my expensive speaker wires sound better than Monoprice, etc., that will quickly derail a thread. We need some more shiny disks with Atmos mixes, thank goodness for DSU.


----------



## Nightlord

smurraybhm said:


> If it was aimed at you, then I would have used quotes like now. It seemed as if we were headed down the audiophile rabbit hole, one of many discussions like the infamous all amps sound the same, my expensive speaker wires sound better than Monoprice, etc., that will quickly derail a thread. We need some more shiny disks with Atmos mixes, thank goodness for DSU.


Good to know. Better safe than sorry, thus the speculative answer.

I'm not even using monoprice, I'm using single solid conductor electrical installation wire to the speakers. The speakers are designed to a specific cable impedance, so you adjust the gauge depending on how long cable you need. ( At my length, I need to parallell two 4mm2 conductors actually. )


----------



## NorthSky

Some of the best sounding pair of loudspeakers are from the most insentitive type (low sensitivity, around 84-85 dB).


----------



## Al Sherwood

Spanglo said:


> You guys are making me insecure about running all Klipsch speakers...





Nightlord said:


> If that is what makes your heart tick, then please, please, please disregard us!


+1 for a disregard on the recent comments on Klipsch speakers, why because I like mine... all of them!


----------



## NorthSky

> I tried a tube amp once, some years back. *They're junk*. Good in their day, when there was nothing better. A joke in the 21st century.
> 
> Of course, they function as a tone control as well as an amp - but tone controls aren't hard to find or incorporate into a modern design if someone really wants a good portion of their FR distorted to hell. Just sayin'


Interesting comment, and quite generalized too.


----------



## Nightlord

Al Sherwood said:


> +1 for a disregard on the recent comments on Klipsch speakers, why because I like mine... all of them!


I've never got to hear the original Klipsch cornerhorns, that's still on my to-do list.


----------



## bargervais

Spanglo said:


> You guys are making me insecure about running all Klipsch speakers...


Just think how I feel I'm running BIC AMERICA ACOUSTECH a klipsch want a be.
THEY sound great to me IMHO I'm not going down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Brian Fineberg said:


> also Klipsch is notorious for overstating their sensitivity...99 is prob more like 92db
> 
> crap components..and terrible sounding





Scott Simonian said:


> This is true. What they do is pair up a couple of conventional woofers with a very high sensitivity compression driver. The bass section usually no where near as capable as it. Many do have a hump in response in the midrange. Some find this off putting, others find it snappy and dynamic. They are capable of fantastic dynamics but not across the board which hurts them in the SQ department.


Terrible in comparison to what? I've heard more expensive speakers not perform as well (Def tech's) (not trying to start any fights... the way I look at it Klipsch is a good entry point for those who have some money to spend, just maybe not more than 2 grand for 5.1?)


----------



## Scott Simonian

I love Klipsch speakers. Some of my favorites, in fact. But they do make some that are not so good and many of them have a big hump in the midrange that can make them sound forward. Nothing EQ can not fix. Unfortunately this does not help the lower end which can be just as dynamic as any other speaker.

Keep in mind I have very high expectations. Hence what I had to do (speakers in avatar).


----------



## NorthSky

This thread has been (still is) off topic for the last 24 hours or so now.

* Not really though; high sensitive speakers can make some excellent Dolby Atmos speakers.


----------



## gammanuc

I say enjoy the speakers you have. I'm forever buying used speakers, some on the cheap and some not so much. I have a few that are my favorites and will not resell. Forget about graphs and numbers, if they sound good to you then they sound good.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

JST0rm said:


> I was never a fan of upmixed material. I want it exactly how the re-recording mixers, director and producers wanted me to hear it. Object oriented mixing is going to be interesting in the future.


You might change your mind if you hear the DSU. I noticed a vast improvement in sound quality when hearing a lot of older films upmixed as long as they had atleast a 5.1 mix. I do a lot of mixing myself... (well, music), I wouldn't be offended if someone could somehow transfer it to 5.1 or 7.1... hell, I'd love to hear my own stuff expanded to Atmos. I even inquired on here what would be needed to mix in Atmos, but for the time being it's prohibitively expensive. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of engineers would have redone those 5.1 mixes if offered the opportunity. I imagine that any older films which are remixed would probably be done by a different engineer anyway... I don't think there's some type of moral dilemma in allowing the DSU to mix as opposed to a human. Obviously it would be preferable to have the human remix it... but I don't think the engineers would mind us watching the films DSU'd. 



kbarnes701 said:


> For movies, yes. Although the comparison is perhaps unfair as nothing else prior to Atmos/DSU, other than DSU, was able to use 4 overhead speakers. I have watched literally dozens of movies with DSU and it has enhanced every one of them so far.





Oledurt said:


> Yes DSU is by far the best upmixing technology i have ever experienced. Every movie i have watched with it is improved sonically in some way. Some people are anti upmix technology regardless of how good it is...they are purists but personally i love it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I agree with these impressions as well. The only downside is that it sounds like the DSU can expose a lot of unintended ambience in the mix... I noticed it when watching scenes with dialogue only... I heard the reflected sound from within the studio in my setup... when I switched it back to Dolby HD I didn't hear the ambience. I'm going to do some experimenting to see if it's like that in other films... I only noticed it for the first time last week. But I still just leave the DSU on.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> This thread has been (still is) off topic for the last 24 hours or so now.



Atmos.

There. Fixed it for ya.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Nightlord said:


> I've never got to hear the original Klipsch cornerhorns, that's still on my to-do list.


 
I built a set 35 years ago, still have them, although to be precise, not Klipsch but rather using plans and components from a company out of Seattle called SpeakerLab. 


The design is so close I believe they came out only after the patent had expired! 









The sound is probably not for everybody, but I find them clear and quite revealing in nature, definitely worth a listen.


Oh IIRC the sensitivity is around 104 dB/W at 1 meter.


----------



## xcapri79

NorthSky said:


> Tubes?


 I wish! Just a few Mc solid state amps that I've collected over the years. I own a number from various manufacturer's and some small tube and tube hybrid amps. 

This has been said thousands of times before, but despite what some may say, better amps do make a difference in sound quality and there is a lot more to an amp specification than just watts. The worse sounding are typically from AVR's. I've proven this to myself several times with personal A-B testing.
What one uses for source material, source equipment and speakers is most important of course. Better equipment is more revealing.

For surround and Atmos overhead applications though, I would agree that the differences would be less pronounced than with the front and center speakers.

Of course, the law of diminishing returns plays as well and the differences are typically more subtle and less pronounced as one moves up the ladder. Additionally, each person has their own hearing limitations which become worse as we age.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> I love Klipsch speakers. Some of my favorites, in fact. But they do make some that are not so good and many of them have a big hump in the midrange that can make them sound forward. Nothing EQ can not fix. Unfortunately this does not help the lower end which can be just as dynamic as any other speaker.
> 
> Keep in mind I have very high expectations. Hence what I had to do (speakers in avatar).


To me they sound very good... which one's are the junky ones? I have the reference series as surrounds & center channel, chorus II's for everything else except the modules (staying on Atmos topic  & sub.




gammanuc said:


> I say enjoy the speakers you have. I'm forever buying used speakers, some on the cheap and some not so much. I have a few that are my favorites and will not resell. Forget about graphs and numbers, if they sound good to you then they sound good.


+ You never know how a speaker will sound until you get it into your room. Though A/B-ing is helpful... I'd like an upgrade to pretty good speakers if I'm not destitute in several years (haha), but my room is so small I'm not sure if a 20,000 dollar speaker would sound much better than a 700 dollar one. I'm pretty satisfied with my current setup though, I'm a lot better off than I was 6 months ago


----------



## curtishd

Basic question but I know it might be difficult to answer based on individual AV receivers BUT if I do a 7.1.2 system (adding two speakers in the ceiling) will any/all the receivers matrix it so that even when a non-atmos signal is coming into the receiver will I get a mix in all speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

curtishd said:


> Basic question but I know it might be difficult to answer based on individual AV receivers BUT if I do a 7.1.2 system (adding two speakers in the ceiling) will any/all the receivers matrix it so that even when a non-atmos signal is coming into the receiver will I get a mix in all speakers?


Yes, it's called Dolby Surround (going retro), the upgrade from Dolby Prologic IIx and IIz. Only Atmos enabled receivers and pre-amps include Dolby Surround upmixing as a bonus.


----------



## iyaam

*Does Atmos work without ear-level rear/surround speakers?*

In my current 5.1 setup my surround speakers are in-ceiling speakers while the front pair are floor-standing, and the centre is on the media shelf under the TV.

I can add two high speakers in the front, but i don't have the option for ear-level speakers at the back or side. So is there a way of making atmos work without ear-level rear speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

xcapri79 said:


> I wish! Just a few Mc solid state amps that I've collected over the years. I own a number from various manufacturer's and some small tube and tube hybrid amps.
> 
> This has been said thousands of times before, but despite what some may say, better amps do make a difference in sound quality and there is a lot more to an amp specification than just watts. The worse sounding are typically from AVR's. I've proven this to myself several times with personal A-B testing.
> What one uses for source material, source equipment and speakers is most important of course. Better equipment is more revealing.
> 
> For surround and Atmos overhead applications though, I would agree that the differences would be less pronounced than with the front and center speakers.
> 
> Of course, the law of diminishing returns plays as well and the differences are typically more subtle and less pronounced as one moves up the ladder. Additionally, each person has their own hearing limitations which become worse as we age.


♦ You said it well, good post.


----------



## Roger Dressler

RAllenChristenson said:


> There is absolutely no comparison between PL2X and DSU. While using PL2X to convert 5.1 to 7.1 produced a jumbled sound that I refused to use, DSU is in a league of its own and gives an excellent upmix which I almost prefer over a true Atmos mix (depending on the Atmos mix of course).


I fully agree that DSU and PLIIx are vastly different. I also agree that people will form their own opinions as to which they prefer. IMHO they are not able to do the same things, so which is better, the sports car or the SUV? Or, closer to home, AuroMatic 2D vs 3D? 

But when it comes to converting 5.1 to 7.1, "jumbled" simply does not compute for me wrt PLIIx. Could you explain the objection in more detail?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Atmos.
> 
> There. Fixed it for ya.


 ...I edited my post.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. "Jumbled" is definitely _not_ how I would describe the performance of PL2x 5.1-7.1 decoding.

Smooth and predictable is a better description.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, it's called Dolby Surround (going retro), the upgrade from Dolby Prologic IIx and IIz. Only Atmos enabled receivers and pre-amps include Dolby Surround upmixing as a bonus.


Dan, in addition to Dolby Surround upmixing audio mode for movies (and for music somehow less effectively), do you think that it would have been a good idea to retain Dolby Pro Logic IIx Music audio mode?


----------



## NorthSky

iyaam said:


> In my current 5.1 setup my surround speakers are in-ceiling speakers while the front pair are floor-standing, and the centre is on the media shelf under the TV.
> 
> I can add two high speakers in the front, but i don't have the option for ear-level speakers at the back or side. So is there a way of making atmos work without ear-level rear speakers?


1. Those two in-ceiling surround speakers you have right now; can you install them in-walls, on each side of you, @ roughly 100 degree or so behind, and @ approximately four feet from the floor (calculated from their top part)?

2. Then you can install two in-ceiling Front Atmos speakers.

3. And perhaps even use your existing two ceiling holes as your top Center in-ceiling Atmos speakers? 

♦ When there's a will there's a way. ...Be it a 5.1.2 Atmos setup or even a 5.1.4 one.


----------



## batpig

iyaam said:


> In my current 5.1 setup my surround speakers are in-ceiling speakers while the front pair are floor-standing, and the centre is on the media shelf under the TV.
> 
> I can add two high speakers in the front, but i don't have the option for ear-level speakers at the back or side. So is there a way of making atmos work without ear-level rear speakers?


It would WORK, technically, in the sense that sound would come out of all the speakers. But would it give the intended effect? Sort of. In a 5.1.2 system with the .2 being Front Height, I would assume anything elevated in the rear hemisphere would go to the surrounds (not the FH) anyway, so it might not make a huge difference whether the surrounds are high or low as they get all the rearward content anyway. 

But IMO, mo speakers mo better, so it certainly won't sound WORSE by adding another two up front. I have a less than ideal 5.1.2 setup currently, with elevated surrounds (not in ceiling, but about 6' up) and "Front Dolby" upfiring speakers, and IMO the addition of the two front "height" speakers has made a big improvement, not only with Atmos content but also allowing for DSU upmix. But, then again, if you already had a receiver with DSX or Neo:X or PLIIz, would upmixing 5.1 to 5.1+FH with DSU vs. the other options be that big of a difference..... maybe? 

In a perfect world you'd add two more surround speakers lower down, and use all 4 ceiling speakers for 5.1.4. But if that's not an option so be it.


----------



## bargervais

You have to watch Live Die Repeat blu-ray it's very bass heavy and DSU is incredible.. love the last few Tom Cruise movies, his movies seem to have alot of bass and incredible surround which I think is perfect for DSU IMHO you have to give it a try.... you won't be disappointed...


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> Dan, in addition to Dolby Surround upmixing audio mode for movies (and for music somehow less effectively), do you think that it would have been a good idea to retain Dolby Pro Logic IIx Music audio mode?



northsky, DSU has a feature comparable to IIx Music mode, and i couldn't live without it.

When playing 2.0 material, DSU puts all mono signal to the center, a lot like IIx Cinema, and this is stupid, limited, and very bad !!! 
I suspect most people disliking DSU for music are in this default mode and didn't try the solution exposed below 

Yes, there is this option "Center Spread" that you can put to ON when DSU plays stereo signal.
Then the mono signal is spread to the main speakers, and music sound like PL IIx Music mode


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> northsky, DSU has a feature comparable to IIx Music mode, and i couldn't live without it.
> 
> When playing 2.0 material, DSU puts all mono signal to the center, a lot like IIx Cinema, and this is stupid, limited, and very bad !!!
> I suspect most people disliking DSU for music are in this default mode and didn't try the solution exposed below
> 
> *Yes, there is this option "Center Spread" that you can put to ON when DSU plays stereo signal.
> Then the mono signal is spread to the main speakers, and music sound like PL IIx Music mode*


@ Roger, Chuck, and others, ...did you guys just read that and experimented with it?

* I got a strong feeling that Roger already did.


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> When playing 2.0 material, DSU puts all mono signal to the center, a lot like IIx Cinema, and this is stupid, limited, and very bad !!!


"Stupid, limited and very bad" for you. I happen to like full extraction of dual-mono content to the centre speaker. The human voice is not produced as a dual-mono phantom image, so I don't like to re-produce it that way at home.


> Yes, there is this option "Center Spread" that you can put to ON when DSU plays stereo signal. Then the mono signal is spread to the main speakers, and music sound like PL IIx Music mode


I use a centre speaker for 2-channel music in order to avoid hearing voices as dual-mono sources. Using the Centre Spread feature to create triple-mono defeats the purpose of why I extract a centre output.


----------



## Nalleh

Sorry for my late reply, but i am on christmas vacation at the moment 



kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for this. Very interesting report.
> 
> Can you just clarify for me: what is your impression of playing Auro content through the Atmos speaker setup? I am never going to install speakers just for Auro but I have the option of upgrading my Denon 5200 to Auro and there may eventually be some Auro movie content available on disc. So I could do the upgrade, buy the content but it would be played back via my Atmos speaker setup of FH+TM. How well do you think Auro content would play in those circumstances.
> 
> Also, using only my Atmos speaker setup, do you think Auromatic would be better, worse or the same but different as DSU? I can imagine that Auromatic might do better than DSU when Auro speaker layout is used, but how well will Auromatic do when an Atmos speaker layout is used?
> 
> If you can give me some guidance on this it would be most useful.
> 
> My current position is that I will not be adding any more speakers just for Auro, as I am not a believer in the long term success of Auro. However, if Auro content or upmixing of legacy content via Auromatic works as well as or even better than Atmos,* using the Atmos FH+TM speaker layout*, I could be persuaded to upgrade my AVR.
> 
> Many thanks.


Well, that's why i did that test, to listen how bad/different the two upmixers would behave with correct placed height speakers VS "illplaced". And by illplaced i mean placed for "the other" format.
And like it has been said before: it is actually hard to make them NOT work!
Dolby Surround and Auro-Matics work different, they place sounds/effects in different locations in the room and you hear a difference, but they both sound great. As upmixers on 5.1/7.1 movie content i don't think i can prefer one over the other, and they will both surprise you when watching legacy movies.



kbarnes701 said:


> Can someone answer this for me please:
> If I add Auro to my Denon X5200W via the upgrade, when I switch between Auro and Atmos (for the upmixers) will I need to do all this saving and reloading of configs malarkey because Audyssey will get disabled? I think not as I will be using a constant set of speaker layouts - FH+TM for Atmos and whatever the equivalent is for Auro. But if someone could confirm that would be helpful. I won't upgrade unless I can seamlessly select either DSU or Auromatic.
> 
> Also, what speaker layout should I tell Auro I am using when my speakers are set up for FH (albeit ceiling mounted) and TM for Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


No! You can switch between DSU, Auro-Matic, Neo:X, Audyssey DSX and more, all with the movie button on the remote. How many speakers are included in each, depends on your setup in amp assign.
Regarding Atmos vs Auro, they can not share height2 speakers. So in a full Atmos setup where all 4 height speakers are on, when pushing movie button to change to Auro, height2 goes silent. But you still have a good Auro sound!
And if you have a full Auro 9.1/10.1 setup, and switching to Atmos, you loose height2. But still have a good Atmos sound!

In amp assign: don't bother with either Atmos or Auro 3D settings! Choose 11.1 settings, and go from there.
If you choose 5 height speakers, that means full Auro setup 10.1, inc VOG.(no height2 in Atmos mode).
If you choose 4 height speakers, and go for FH+SH, that means full Auro setup 9.1(no height2 in Atmos mode).
If you choose anything else than FH+SH, that means full Atmos setup, up to 7.1.4.(no height2 in Auro mode)

Of all the alternatives, there is a rather logical order.
The best sound from both formats:
Two full config files saved to PC, with a speaker switch and correct placed height speakers for both formats, requiring you load the correct file when changing full formats: 7 min loadtime.

Still a good sounding solution:
Two full config files saved on a PC, one combined placement of height speakers, requiring you load the correct file when changing full formats: 7 min loadtime.

And most surprising also a good solution:
Do a full setup of one of the formats, and use a remote button to switch between them, only to loose height2 speakers on on the other format.
ALL of these solutions are better than PLIIx, PLIIz, Neo:X, DSX, etc..


----------



## Nalleh

asharma said:


> Hi Nalleh...just curious how you like your Def Tech 5500's...I just ordered 4 to try. I currently have Polk in ceiling VS70 RTs but wondering if the ceiling mount will allow me to direct the sound better...how do you find the 5500s?


I actually saw member Modern Times speaking warmly about them(AW6500) in this forum earlier, looked into them and decided to try them out. As far as i could tell, AW5500 have the same mid and tweeter elements as Pro monitor 1000, exept AW has bigger passive radiator and boxes. Also they have the C-bracket to mount them, PM800/1000 needs the pro-mount.
The AW series is also said to be wide-dispersion on their web page, handles a lot of power, is efficient, and is also available in white.
Cheaper than PM series too.
In my setup they sound great, and i am very happy with them.


----------



## jdogg707

Hoping to get some thoughts on a potential Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup I am attempting in my media room. The room is a bit space constrained, to the point that I won't be able to use tower speakers in the front. I will have to wall mount book shelf speakers for my fronts and rears and then have a subwoofer connected to add bass.

Here is what I was looking at:

Receiver - Denon AVR-X4100W
Bookshelf Speakers - Pioneer Elite SP-EBS73 x 2 Pair
Center Channel Speaker - Pioneer Elite SP-EC73
Subwoofer - HSU Research VTF-3 MK4 Subwoofer (w/OAW3 Wireless Audio System)

Existing Equipment:
Samsung 65" UN65HU9000 Curved 4K TV
Oppo BDP-103 Blu-ray Player
TiVo Roamio Plus
Apple TV

There is a five foot wall directly in front of the couch that is flanked on either side by doors (one to the hall, one to the rest room). The ceilings are 10'. I wanted to mount both speakers above the TV on either side (pointed slightly down), the center channel would sit under the TV in my media cabinet, and the two surrounds would be mounted to either side of the couch (aimed at the couch, pointed slightly down). 

My question is, would this work pretty well to get the full atoms effect? Are these speakers worth the money or should I be looking elsewhere?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jdogg707 said:


> Hoping to get some thoughts on a potential Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup I am attempting in my media room. The room is a bit space constrained, to the point that I won't be able to use tower speakers in the front. I will have to wall mount book shelf speakers for my fronts and rears and then have a subwoofer connected to add bass.
> 
> Here is what I was looking at:
> 
> Receiver - Denon AVR-X4100W
> Bookshelf Speakers - Pioneer Elite SP-EBS73 x 2 Pair
> Center Channel Speaker - Pioneer Elite SP-EC73
> Subwoofer - HSU Research VTF-3 MK4 Subwoofer (w/OAW3 Wireless Audio System)
> 
> Existing Equipment:
> Samsung 65" UN65HU9000 Curved 4K TV
> Oppo BDP-103 Blu-ray Player
> TiVo Roamio Plus
> Apple TV
> 
> There is a five foot wall directly in front of the couch that is flanked on either side by doors (one to the hall, one to the rest room). The ceilings are 10'. I wanted to mount both speakers above the TV on either side (pointed slightly down), the center channel would sit under the TV in my media cabinet, and the two surrounds would be mounted to either side of the couch (aimed at the couch, pointed slightly down).
> 
> My question is, would this work pretty well to get the full atoms effect? Are these speakers worth the money or should I be looking elsewhere?


Where and how you wish to mount those Atmos "enabled" speakers would more than likely defeat the purpose of the reflective design. The "full effect" to which you speak would come with using true overhead speakers.


----------



## JST0rm

Aras_Volodka said:


> You might change your mind if you hear the DSU. I noticed a vast improvement in sound quality when hearing a lot of older films upmixed as long as they had atleast a 5.1 mix. I do a lot of mixing myself... (well, music), I wouldn't be offended if someone could somehow transfer it to 5.1 or 7.1... hell, I'd love to hear my own stuff expanded to Atmos. I even inquired on here what would be needed to mix in Atmos, but for the time being it's prohibitively expensive. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of engineers would have redone those 5.1 mixes if offered the opportunity. I imagine that any older films which are remixed would probably be done by a different engineer anyway... I don't think there's some type of moral dilemma in allowing the DSU to mix as opposed to a human. Obviously it would be preferable to have the human remix it... but I don't think the engineers would mind us watching the films DSU'd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with these impressions as well. The only downside is that it sounds like the DSU can expose a lot of unintended ambience in the mix... I noticed it when watching scenes with dialogue only... I heard the reflected sound from within the studio in my setup... when I switched it back to Dolby HD I didn't hear the ambience. I'm going to do some experimenting to see if it's like that in other films... I only noticed it for the first time last week. But I still just leave the DSU on.



The problem everyone will end up with in any upmix application is it only works on the printmaster. DSU has no access to the mixed stems (dialog, music, backgrounds, sound effects, foley) or units (individual files sent to the mix stage) so any upmixing happening is thru phase/amplitude/frequency tricks. Im not saying something like that CANT sound good but it was not the initial intention. 

Upmixing music is easy to do as it relies on the same idea. Take the stereo "printmaster" and use phase/amplitude/frequencies to spread it out to all the channels. Music mixed in 5.1 or whatever will be a better option then upmixed. I could offline bounce 6 hours of your music upmixed to 7.1 in about 20 minutes. 

If you want to read about some of this check this link:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/live-tech-0311.htm

That is about phase and how you can get a wider presence by tweaking out the side signals from the mid this can help in your music work if you aren't already doing it. Its normally a mastering engineer thing but more mix engineers are getting into this stuff. 

Whats really funny about a lot of the upmixing stuff is if we are already doing phase stuff in the mix. You then get a processor after market doing some phase tricks and all of a sudden things get weird. Prologic used to get crazy when you used a midside recording as the rears were derived from the stereo signal being fliped out and the rear mono info being in the file. 

But with all that being said we have a saying in the industry: 
"if it sounds good it IS good"

because that's really all that matters.  So if you are happy using a up-mixing app then go for it. Just don't be surprised when it isn't a one shoe fits all situation (which I think you have figured out with your ambiance files going crazy in the wides).


----------



## jdogg707

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where and how you wish to mount those Atmos "enabled" speakers would more than likely defeat the purpose of the reflective design. The "full effect" to which you speak would come with using true overhead speakers.


Would you then recommend instead of going for the Pioneer speakers, simply installing four overhead in-ceiling speakers to be the "heights"?


----------



## NorthSky

I agree with Dan's above post (16550); those Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers would work best few feet away from any walls. 

* If you want to mount speakers on front and rear shelves, pick a simple monopole (direct radiating) design model, and yes, toe them down to the main listening position (from their tweeter). ...If you pick a vented design, with the vent on front (with the drivers).
Also, try your best to have your three front mains (with the center channel speaker) in horizontal line with each other.

Last, install four overhead small satellite speakers on your ceiling (with long brackets, pole type, about a foot long or so). 
And just follow Dolby Atmos speaker positioning guideline (pdf link in this thread already).


----------



## NorthSky

jdogg707 said:


> Would you then recommend instead of going for the Pioneer speakers, simply installing four overhead in-ceiling speakers to be the "heights"?


Yes.

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html


----------



## jdogg707

Thanks for the recommendations Dan and NorthSky!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jdogg707 said:


> Would you then recommend instead of going for the Pioneer speakers, simply installing four overhead in-ceiling speakers to be the "heights"?


Yes, four... capable... in-ceilings would be better. Aimable would be superior. Since you have 10 foot ceilings it might be better to use something like the Tannoy Di5 DC or Di6 DC (for larger rooms) dual concentrics given a thumbs up for Atmos use that can be easily mounted with their brackets and aimed correctly. Unless the in-ceilings are set just right and have pre-aimed or aimable drivers... and that can be a ***** to accomplish.


----------



## Skylinestar

CCSchoch said:


> Oh, so it takes a non Atmos soundtrack and converts it utilizing your Atmos speaker configuration? I was reading an article on that subject, and the reviewer was stating the Atmos DSU does A LOT better job than the previous attempts like DD-PL2X...
> 
> Would you agree?


May I have the link (if it's a website) of your source?


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> ...
> 
> If you want to read about some of this check this link:
> 
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/live-tech-0311.htm
> 
> That is about phase and how you can get a wider presence by tweaking out the side signals from the mid this can help in your music work if you aren't already doing it. Its normally a mastering engineer thing but more mix engineers are getting into this stuff.
> 
> Whats really funny about a lot of the upmixing stuff is if we are already doing phase stuff in the mix. You then get a processor after market doing some phase tricks and all of a sudden things get weird. Prologic used to get crazy when you used a midside recording as the rears were derived from the stereo signal being fliped out and the rear mono info being in the file.
> 
> But with all that being said we have a saying in the industry:
> "if it sounds good it IS good"
> 
> because that's really all that matters.  So if you are happy using a up-mixing app then go for it. Just don't be surprised when it isn't a one shoe fits all situation (which I think you have figured out with your ambiance files going crazy in the wides).


♦ I'm sorry, but your provided link goes nowhere; it's empty.


----------



## JST0rm

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I'm sorry, but your provided link goes nowhere; it's empty.


Sorry sound on sound is a big online mag. Not sure what the problem is but I'm getting errors here now as well. I think this link explains m/s fairly well

http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/the-mid-side-technique/


----------



## zeus33

bargervais said:


> You have to watch Live Die Repeat blu-ray.......




Actually, the name of the movie is "Edge of Tomorrow".


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> Sorry sound on sound is a big online mag. Not sure what the problem is but I'm getting errors here now as well. I think this link explains m/s fairly well
> 
> http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/the-mid-side-technique/


Yes, this one works. 

* By the way, AVSForum is down now. ...So I'm not sure if you are going to get my reply.

Second, the title of the movie: 'Live - Die - Repeat' ... Edge of Tomorrow ..; is a free "zone". ...One or the other is fine. ...From the above post.


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> Sorry sound on sound is a big online mag. Not sure what the problem is but I'm getting errors here now as well. I think this link explains m/s fairly well
> 
> http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/the-mid-side-technique/


Yes, this one works. 

* By the way, AVSForum is down now. ...So I'm not sure if you are going to get my reply.

Second, the title of the movie: 'Live - Die - Repeat' ... 'Edge of Tomorrow' ..; is a free "zone". ...One or the other is fine. ...From the above post.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> There's a lot of good equipment out there, cost isn't indicative of quality or good sound, similar to the blanket sensitivity statement.


Very true. People often buy speakers by the dollar and amplifiers by the pound. Both criteria mean very little in terms of performance. Toole evaluated various very expensive speakers in his book, and shows the measured results for each, and also evaluated speakers that cost a few hundred dollars a pair which measured, and sounded, superior. Unfortunately he didn't attach names to the results (or maybe fortunately for some manufacturers).


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I agree with these impressions as well. The only downside is that it sounds like the DSU can expose a lot of unintended ambience in the mix... I noticed it when watching scenes with dialogue only... *I heard the reflected sound from within the studio* in my setup... when I switched it back to Dolby HD I didn't hear the ambience. I'm going to do some experimenting to see if it's like that in other films... I only noticed it for the first time last week. But I still just leave the DSU on.


?????


----------



## Gurba

iyaam said:


> In my current 5.1 setup my surround speakers are in-ceiling speakers while the front pair are floor-standing, and the centre is on the media shelf under the TV.
> 
> I can add two high speakers in the front, but i don't have the option for ear-level speakers at the back or side. So is there a way of making atmos work without ear-level rear speakers?


My 4 surrounds were on-wall as high as they would fit and for me the 4 on-ceiling atmos speakers barely added anny effect at all. Now the surrounds are at ear hight and the atmos and DSU effects are much more pronounced. Having atmos ceiling speakers With in-ceiling surrounds will probably not add anything worth the cost in my opinion.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> I built a set 35 years ago, still have them, although to be precise, not Klipsch but rather using plans and components from a company out of Seattle called SpeakerLab.
> 
> 
> The design is so close I believe they came out only after the patent had expired!
> 
> The sound is probably not for everybody, but I find them clear and quite revealing in nature, definitely worth a listen.
> 
> 
> Oh IIRC the sensitivity is around 104 dB/W at 1 meter.


Nice ad copy too. Makes a change from a fatuous headline and an attempt at a 'glamourous' picture.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Sorry for my late reply, but i am on christmas vacation at the moment


Thank you for that detailed reply, which answered all my questions. Enjoy your vacation!


----------



## bargervais

zeus33 said:


> Actually, the name of the movie is "Edge of Tomorrow".


That's the one yes Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow I'll know better next time....
How did you like it... I loved it.......DSU was very very good.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> That's the one yes Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow I'll know better next time....
> How did you like it... I loved it.......DSU was very very good.


 
It is also referred to as just Live Die Repeat:


----------



## zimmo

I receive my onkyo tx-nr3030.wow very good and this onkyo is more musical ,i very surprise when i make calibration whit ACCUEQ .this new system calibration is very good ,after around 10 minutes the calibration is finish.
i have 4 in ceilling speakers and i have 7.3 before and now i have 7.3.4 .
i try transformer and the expendable whit dolby atmos ,wow some musical trame in this two bluray is very good ,some sound pass over the head whit the ceilings speakers .
AND when i put classic music wow this new receiver (yx-nr3030)is very musical to,
i ham very surprise.


----------



## CCSchoch

Skylinestar said:


> May I have the link (if it's a website) of your source?


Sorry, read it a couple weeks ago and don't remember where. Think it was someone reviewing from the CES this year, can't remember though. Remember him stating he thought the DSU was MUCH MUCH better at previous attempts by DD PL2X


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> It is also referred to as just Live Die Repeat:


Yes, in the UK it was promoted as that. I guess they figured the crappy original title, which makes it sound like a romcom, was probably the reason the box office sales were less than spectacular in the US. It is a great movie IMO and deserves the better title of Live, Die, Repeat.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I enjoyed it too - I thought Tome Cruise was particularly good and portrayed the change in his character really well (I won't say any more due to spoiler and OT reasons).

I've watched it a couple of times now (which I don't often do these days), and the extras were quite interesting too.

It must sound even better with DSU. 

Gary


----------



## bargervais

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I enjoyed it too - I thought Tome Cruise was particularly good and portrayed the changed in his character really well (I won't say any more due to spoiler and OT reasons).
> 
> I've watched it a couple of times now (which I don't often do these days), and the extras were quite interesting too.
> 
> It must sound even better with DSU.
> 
> Gary


I watched a couple times as well this last time I watched the extras which I never do this one was more enjoyable for me then T4 the base kicked butt and the DSU was glorious. I wasn't a big fan of Tom Cruise but his last few movies have turned me to actually really liking movies that he is in. Doug Liman also directed the Bourne Identity that movie I also enjoyed in DSU .
Dolby Surround has brought many films to life in a glorious immersive joy.


----------



## Stanton

bargervais said:


> That's the one yes Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow I'll know better next time....
> How did you like it... I loved it.......DSU was very very good.


This has turned into my fav sci-fi movie of the last 10 years or so (and the extras ARE interesting): I can't wait to watch/listen on DSU when I upgrade (Yamaha) next year as it sounds great in plain old 5.1!


----------



## smurraybhm

Stanton said:


> This has turned into my fav sci-fi movie of the last 10 years or so (and the extras ARE interesting): I can't wait to watch/listen on DSU when I upgrade (Yamaha) next year as it sounds great in plain old 5.1!


Agree with all that this was a great choice to showcase DSU. If you are looking for another TC movie that sounds great using Dolby Surround check out MI - Ghost Protocol. I re-watched that Sunday afternoon, very 3 dimensional.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bargervais said:


> I wasn't a big fan of Tom Cruise but his last few movies have turned me to actually really liking movies that he is in.


Me too. I'm not sure why he's not rated higher than he is, but maybe that has been due to the type of films he's been in. 

He seems to work really hard when making them, and spends a lot of time with the fans at the premiers.

Gary


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
I started reading this thread from beginning and so far on 45th page. A lot more to go . I was thinking I'd be able to get the answers I'm looking for but the search continues. So I think its better that I ask here. These questions might have been asked already. My apologies in advance for repetition.

Room Configuration: Room is 12' wide, 27' long and 7.25' high. I'm using acoustically transparent screen so my LCR are behind the screen. I want to install overhead speakers for Atmos. MLP is 13.5' from LCR speakers. 

My concern is the height. I have only 87" high ceiling. Then MLP seats are placed on 12" stage. So that leaves us with 77" ceiling. According to Atmos documentatin,


> For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be *at least two times the
> height of the listener’s ear level *(this generally applies to on-ceiling speakers, which
> may be installed lower than the actual ceiling height).


 According to this, I'm at a major disadvantage. From ear height, I have only 38" from celing and ear level. I'm not even including the height of speaker when installed. It might have its one height say 8". So then actual distance from the ceiling to ear is 30". I have plenty of space to go ahead and behind MLP. 

Following are the questions
1 - Is having only 30" height for over head speakers too less? Will I end up hearing each speaker instead of getting a 3D imersive sound? Please keep in mind that I have plenty of space to move speakers to front and back. 
2 - How far should the speaker be from side walls? 
3 - How far should the speakers be from ahead and behind from MLP?

Thx a bunch.


----------



## stikle

BamaDave said:


> I would be very interested to see how you have these mounted to the ceiling! Tell us how are they preforming?  BD


Well, I finally stopped listening long enough to get a couple of pics for you. Cheap little homemade mounts for under $10. They're cut at an angle to offset the vaulted ceiling. Wood glue and sheet rock screws hold it together and then 2.5" sheet rock screws up into the ceiling joist. Those Mirage are quite heavy for their size so I had to add two more screws closer to the speaker to support the weight better. 

It was kind of a pain to get each assembly mounted though and I'm not really looking forward to taking them down and painting them...but it's the right thing to do. 

Looks like I need to paint the room anyway due to some patchwork that had to be done to fix the hole we had to cut to get the the wires down through the wall. So, that'll be another someday project.

For now I'm reasonably satisfied.

As far as performance - I have nothing to compare this Atmos implementation to. I can definitely tell a change in the soundscape in the room for the better. I also replaced my center channel with an SVS Prime Center at the same time, so that sounds radically different too. I should have done it in phases so I could tell just how much of a change just adding the overheads were...but I got impatient and wanted to hear it all! 

I'm fighting the feeling that I need to drop all my surround speakers down a little more to increase the separation between the overheads. I'll leave them be for now and evaluate as I go forward.


----------



## asharma

Originally Posted by asharma 
Looking for opinions. For TF and TR in ceiling is it better to get a 2 way speaker with a beefier tweeter and midrange, no woofer or a 3 way speaker with less beefier tweeter, midrange but with a woofer. My gut tells me the first option as I'll be directing all bass to my subs but interested in your opinion.



kbarnes701 said:


> You answered your own question. If you are bass-managing the speaker, then all it needs is good performance down to just below the crossover you will use. So if you are using a 100Hz XO on those speakers, so long as they are good down to about 80hz you will be fine. No point paying for performance you won't ever use.


Really need opinions now...my current in ceiling Audessey is crossing over at 120 hz. They have a 3/4 tweeter, 2.5 mid and a 5 in woofer. I just received new in ceilings to try. The new ones have a 1 in tweeter, and a 5 inch mid/woofer combined. Audessey is crossing them over at 250. I thought the new ones would be better for in ceiling as I don't need the woofer of the original ones as I will be crossing over to subs. I'm just surprised on the new ones Audessey didn't cross them over at 150 or so...in all fairness my old ones are in ceiling and my new ones I am holding to the ceiling while Audessey runs. Which ones would be better for ATMOS given I'm crossing over to subs? I thought the new ones for mid range but as I said Audessey crossing them over at 250 surprises me...same brand, same watts per channel. Opinions please and thank you.


----------



## Oledurt

Last night i watched GI Joe Retaliation. Was great with DSU. It was done in Atmos in the theater. Here is a link for a list of movies done in atmos. I think all of these will sound excellent upmixed.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> I'm fighting the feeling that I need to drop all my surround speakers down a little more to increase the separation between the overheads. I'll leave them be for now and evaluate as I go forward.


Depending on how high they currently are, you may well find an improvement by lowering them to ear height, or just above ear height if the former blocks the sound to any individual listener. The better the separation between surrounds and overheads, the better the effect.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Really need opinions now...my current in ceiling Audessey is crossing over at 120 hz. They have a 3/4 tweeter, 2.5 mid and a 5 in woofer. I just received new in ceilings to try. The new ones have a 1 in tweeter, and a 5 inch mid/woofer combined. Audessey is crossing them over at 250. I thought the new ones would be better for in ceiling as I don't need the woofer of the original ones as I will be crossing over to subs. I'm just surprised on the new ones Audessey didn't cross them over at 150 or so...in all fairness my old ones are in ceiling and my new ones I am holding to the ceiling while Audessey runs. Which ones would be better for ATMOS given I'm crossing over to subs? I thought the new ones for mid range but as I said Audessey crossing them over at 250 surprises me...same brand, same watts per channel. Opinions please and thank you.


Personally I wouldn’t be happy with a 250Hz XO. It is higher than my subs will perform well at (dual Submersive F2) and I'd expect to be able to localise the bass pretty easily at 250Hz. I wonder why Audyssey is crossing them so high if they have a 5 inch woofer? My on-ceiling Tannoys have a 4.5 inch woofer and they cross at about 100Hz as advised by Audyssey. I say 'about' because on some runs of XT32 they have reported a XO of 110Hz. HST, I am happy with 110Hz, but would not be happy with 250hz.

When you say you are holding them to the ceiling while Audyssey runs, do you mean that literally? You are actually standing there holding the speaker while Audyssey measures it? If so, then that is probably the reason Audyssey is suggesting a XO so high - your body is causing Audyssey to confuse the speaker's response in the room. I suggest you mount them properly, get yourself well out of the way and run Audyssey again. If you don't want to mount all four at this stage, then just mount one for now and see what Audyssey recommends for that one. If it's 100-150Hz, then you are good to go and can mount the others.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally I wouldn’t be happy with a 250Hz XO. It is higher than my subs will perform well at (dual Submersive F2) and I'd expect to be able to localise the bass pretty easily at 250Hz. I wonder why Audyssey is crossing them so high if they have a 5 inch woofer? My on-ceiling Tannoys have a 4.5 inch woofer and they cross at about 100Hz as advised by Audyssey. I say 'about' because on some runs of XT32 they have reported a XO of 110Hz. HST, I am happy with 110Hz, but would not be happy with 250hz.
> 
> When you say you are holding them to the ceiling while Audyssey runs, do you mean that literally? You are actually standing there holding the speaker while Audyssey measures it? If so, then that is probably the reason Audyssey is suggesting a XO so high - your body is causing Audyssey to confuse the speaker's response in the room. I suggest you mount them properly, get yourself well out of the way and run Audyssey again. If you don't want to mount all four at this stage, then just mount one for now and see what Audyssey recommends for that one. If it's 100-150Hz, then you are good to go and can mount the others.


Thanks man and Correct, I am physically standing their holding the speaker to the ceiling. But in all honesty they even sound tinny which surprise me. So in theory if these were mounted and the xover was reasonable, these would be a better choice for ATMOS in ceiling than the current ones that I have with a smaller mid range? Arrggggg, I really didn't want to mount the new ones as they are bigger and if I do mount em the old smaller ones won't fit properly. Perhaps there is a way I can temporarily suspend them from the ceiling and get the hec outta the way. I'm also trialling def tech aw5500s and Audessey is crossing those over at 100. They are ceiling mount, large, not sure it will pass the WAF...


----------



## blastermaster

I'd bet Tron: Legacy and Need for Speed sound phenomenal with DSU. Anyone care to report?


----------



## rmerlano

Hi @kokishin!

Could you add me to the list? 

Atmos 7.2.4 

AVR: Denon AVR-X5200W

TOP Speakers: 4 x Pyle PDIC81RD 

Mounted: In-ceiling

Height Config: TF+TR

FL / FL : JBL LS80
Center : LS Center
SW: LS120P
SL, SR, SBL and SBR : Infinity Primus P143

Other Info: Amplifier Emotiva XPA-5 for FL, FR, C, SL and SR.

Thank you


----------



## Selden Ball

asharma said:


> Thanks man and Correct, I am physically standing their holding the speaker to the ceiling. But in all honesty they even sound tinny which surprise me. So in theory if these were mounted and the xover was reasonable, these would be a better choice for ATMOS in ceiling than the current ones that I have with a smaller mid range? Arrggggg, I really didn't want to mount the new ones as they are bigger and if I do mount em the old smaller ones won't fit properly. Perhaps there is a way I can temporarily suspend them from the ceiling and get the hec outta the way. I'm also trialling def tech aw5500s and Audessey is crossing those over at 100. They are ceiling mount, large, not sure it will pass the WAF...


If they sound worse despite the larger woofer, then send them back. Spending more money should result in a higher quality sound system, not a poorer one. Just because a device "ought to" be better doesn't mean that it is. Too many vendors spend their money on advertising instead of spending it on equipment design.


----------



## bargervais

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Me too. I'm not sure why he's not rated higher than he is, but maybe that has been due to the type of films he's been in.
> 
> He seems to work really hard when making them, and spends a lot of time with the fans at the premiers.
> 
> Gary


I think his association with scientology that's given him that bad wrap but he does go all out with incredible energy in his films. I just read that ghost protocol is also very good for DSU I'LL have to give that a try.
Merry Christmas to all


----------



## asharma

Selden Ball said:


> If they sound worse despite the larger woofer, then send them back. Spending more money should result in a higher quality sound system, not a poorer one. Just because a device "ought to" be better doesn't mean that it is. Too many vendors spend their money on advertising instead of spending it on equipment design.


I couldn't agree more!! I just re ran Audessey with the new ceiling speakers nicely propped up on the foot rest of a recliner. I'm waaaaay outta the way...still crossing over at 250 and sound tinny at best...I really can't mount them to test properly but right now they are nice and solid and secure and still a crappy crossover. So it will be between my 1 month old in ceiling speakers that are crossing over at 100 or new def tech aw5500 on ceiling that are crossing over at 90. Man the def techs are nice but with only 7.5 ft ceilings they hang quite low and are very noticeable but are built like a tank!! I'll need to convince the boss if I wanna keep em...


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> That's the one yes Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow I'll know better next time....
> How did you like it... I loved it.......DSU was very very good.


Saw it twice in Atmos during its theatrical release. Not only did the soundtrack make good use of the speakers just outside the screen, especially to give the music a wide soundstage, but it also did an excellent job of tying in sounds above you with on-screen action (e.g., troop carrier could be heard overhead, moving from back to front, as soon as the sound reached the front of the room, the troop carrier entered the top of the screen).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Saw it twice in Atmos during its theatrical release. Not only did the soundtrack make good use of the speakers just outside the screen, especially to give the music a wide soundstage, but it also did an excellent job of tying in sounds above you with on-screen action (e.g., troop carrier could be heard overhead, moving from back to front, as soon as the sound reached the front of the room, the troop carrier entered the top of the screen).


Decisions in sound design that make sense. I like that. We need more of that.


----------



## smurraybhm

blastermaster said:


> I'd bet Tron: Legacy and Need for Speed sound phenomenal with DSU. Anyone care to report?


Just picked it up (Need for Speed) earlier this week based on another stellar review by Ralph Potts (he's helping break me financially). I'll let you know later tomorrow, planning to watch it after all the kids and grandkids clear out after morning Xmas activities.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Decisions in sound design that make sense. I like that. We need more of that.


Definitely, more mixes that continue sounds as the enter/leave the screen.


----------



## bargervais

rmerlano said:


> Hi @kokishin!
> 
> Could you add me to the list?
> 
> Atmos 7.2.4
> 
> AVR: Denon AVR-X5200W
> 
> TOP Speakers: 4 x Pyle PDIC81RD
> 
> Mounted: In-ceiling
> 
> Height Config: TF+TR
> 
> FL / FL : JBL LS80
> Center : LS Center
> SW: LS120P
> SL, SR, SBL and SBR : Infinity Primus P143
> 
> Other Info: Amplifier Emotiva XPA-5 for FL, FR, C, SL and SR.
> 
> Thank you


How do those Pyle sound are they sealed or open to your attic I was just curious


----------



## rmerlano

bargervais said:


> How do those Pyle sound are they sealed or open to your attic I was just curious


I am starting the tests, up to now, very very well.
The attic is open.


----------



## JST0rm

Scott Simonian said:


> Decisions in sound design that make sense. I like that. We need more of that.



And you can expect more of it. The best sound format from a sound design perspective was sdds with 5 front channels. This allowed room for a lot of material coming from the place where most of the action happens (the front). But with all of these surround speakers the music has been pushed to the sides and rears to open up room in the front for all of the effects+dialog. 

Barco Auro-3d is nice because it repeats the l/c/r as top l/c/r speakers. Now at home this gets pretty expensive  as you would need 2 centers and 4 l/r matching speakers. This is sdds of the future:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhzAk-XzmYQ#! - obviously the examples wont work from youtube lol.

The issue for this format is you need a new build out for most studio's and theaters so adoption is going to be lower. The beauty behind dolbys solutions is with 7.1 theaters just needed to rewire the existing surrounds to get a 7.1 and then get a new cpu processor to put things in the right place. For atmos they can add more speakers to the ceiling and dont need to worry about the screen and again get a new processor.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Thanks man and Correct, I am physically standing their holding the speaker to the ceiling. But in all honesty they even sound tinny which surprise me. So in theory if these were mounted and the xover was reasonable, these would be a better choice for ATMOS in ceiling than the current ones that I have with a smaller mid range? Arrggggg, I really didn't want to mount the new ones as they are bigger and if I do mount em the old smaller ones won't fit properly. Perhaps there is a way I can temporarily suspend them from the ceiling and get the hec outta the way. I'm also trialling def tech aw5500s and Audessey is crossing those over at 100. They are ceiling mount, large, not sure it will pass the WAF...


IDK if they would be better for Atmos. Why do you think they would? If they sound 'tinny' then they are probably not much good for anything, Atmos included. I use Tannoy Di5 DC for my on-ceilings and when I got them the first thing I did was hook them into my high-quality, separate 2ch music system to see how they sounded. They sounded great - bass-light of course, as expected, but otherwise great. Once bass-managed, superb. I can highly recommend them for small, affordable on-ceiling speakers. Wide dispersion too, per Dolby specs for Atmos.

Holding the speakers while measuring is not going to work. Audyssey needs a 'clear run' from speaker to mic. Wherever you stand you will be a problem and Audyssey will try to correct you


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK if they would be better for Atmos. Why do you think they would? If they sound 'tinny' then they are probably not much good for anything, Atmos included. I use Tannoy Di5 DC for my on-ceilings and when I got them the first thing I did was hook them into my high-quality, separate 2ch music system to see how they sounded. They sounded great - bass-light of course, as expected, but otherwise great. Once bass-managed, superb. I can highly recommend them for small, affordable on-ceiling speakers. Wide dispersion too, per Dolby specs for Atmos.
> 
> Holding the speakers while measuring is not going to work. Audyssey needs a 'clear run' from speaker to mic. Wherever you stand you will be a problem and Audyssey will try to correct you


Thanks, I managed to test differently with me out of the way...still crossing over at 250 and very poor low end when testing with Audessey pings, which tells me the speaker is fine as you can hear a teeny bit of low end but still crappy...they are going back!


----------



## Scott Simonian

JST0rm said:


> And you can expect more of it. The best sound format from a sound design perspective was sdds with 5 front channels. This allowed room for a lot of material coming from the place where most of the action happens (the front). But with all of these surround speakers the music has been pushed to the sides and rears to open up room in the front for all of the effects+dialog.
> 
> Barco Auro-3d is nice because it repeats the l/c/r as top l/c/r speakers. Now at home this gets pretty expensive  as you would need 2 centers and 4 l/r matching speakers. This is sdds of the future:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhzAk-XzmYQ#! - obviously the examples wont work from youtube lol.
> 
> The issue for this format is you need a new build out for most studio's and theaters so adoption is going to be lower. The beauty behind dolbys solutions is with 7.1 theaters just needed to rewire the existing surrounds to get a 7.1 and then get a new cpu processor to put things in the right place. For atmos they can add more speakers to the ceiling and dont need to worry about the screen and again get a new processor.


Surround sound has existed for a very long time. Still most audio is stuck within the plane of the screen. Be it timid sound mixers or some other decision maker making "old school" choices... these technologies need to be more utilized.

No excuses anymore to not have holographic sound. If 3D picture is gonna be rammed down our throats at least treat sound the same way.


----------



## JST0rm

Scott Simonian said:


> Surround sound has existed for a very long time. Still most audio is stuck within the plane of the screen. Be it timid sound mixers or some other decision maker making "old school" choices... these technologies need to be more utilized.
> 
> No excuses anymore to not have holographic sound. If 3D picture is gonna be rammed down our throats at least treat sound the same way.



Do you have any examples of those? I have a idea what old school mixes sound like and I think the modern action stuff is certainly much more dynamic and clean.


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> If you want to read about some of this check this link:
> 
> => *http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/live-tech-0311.htm*





NorthSky said:


> ♦ I'm sorry, but your provided link goes nowhere; it's empty.





JST0rm said:


> Sorry sound on sound is a big online mag. Not sure what the problem is but I'm getting errors here now as well.


Today, that link is working fine now.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Interstellar comes to mind immediately.

There are many, many other modern mixes that are average at best wrt aggressive use of surround sound.


----------



## JST0rm

Scott Simonian said:


> Interstellar comes to mind immediately.
> 
> There are many, many other modern mixes that are average at best wrt aggressive use of surround sound.



Well yes interstellar is certainly a problematic mix. Mostly because of dialog being masked. This was a creative choice by the director. Im not really in a position to judge it as I missed it in the theaters. 

Are you saying there are many modern mixes that are average at best with aggressive use of surround sound? I'm not sure I understand your complaint.


----------



## Scott Simonian

JST0rm said:


> Well yes interstellar is certainly a problematic mix. Mostly because of dialog being masked. This was a creative choice by the director. Im not really in a position to judge it as I missed it in the theaters.
> 
> Are you saying there are many modern mixes that are average at best with aggressive use of surround sound? I'm not sure I understand your complaint.


You first replied to a comment I made to Sanjay @sdurani about a nice mix (talking about Edge of Tomorrow's Atmos mix). I said, "we need more of that".

You replied with, "expect more of that" and then began talking about SDDS which is outdated, underused and totally irrelevant today. Then you mentioned Auro3D which is also mostly irrelevant to modern movie surround playback. Today it is all about Dolby Atmos.

Regardless, even before Atmos existed (more than two years now) surround sound did exist and mixes that could have been good were not good. Front-centric is a common term. Interstellar was very front-centric and Christopher Nolan does this with all his movies. There are many other examples though my complaint about Interstellar was not the dialog but the lack of aggressive surround use.


I'm not really sure what you are on about. My point has been clear.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.areadvd.de/tests/preview-onkyo-...-2000sm45-benchmark-mit-dolby-atmos-decoding/





zimmo said:


> I receive my onkyo tx-nr3030.wow very good and this onkyo is more musical ,i very surprise when i make calibration whit ACCUEQ .this new system calibration is very good ,after around 10 minutes the calibration is finish.
> i have 4 in ceilling speakers and i have 7.3 before and now i have 7.3.4 .
> i try transformer and the expendable whit dolby atmos ,wow some musical trame in this two bluray is very good ,some sound pass over the head whit the ceilings speakers .
> AND when i put classic music wow this new receiver (yx-nr3030)is very musical to,
> i ham very surprise.


Nice to get some more Atmos feedback. 

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> ?????


The sound reflected off the walls was amplified in dialogue only scenes (during the recording... I think the DSU has a tendency to amplify it). If you've ever been in a totally empty room before moving furniture into it, you can hear the reflections a lot easier, that's an extreme example of what I'm hearing.

I tried to give an example of this before with a microphone. If you have a nice LDC microphone that can select between cardiod & omni modes, record a person speaking pretty close to the mic in a smaller room, set it to cardiod, it will sound nice & full. Turn Omni on and you will pick up the reflections from all over & it can sound nasty. I've found the DSU has a tendency to almost make the scene sound as if it was recorded in Omni, if the dialogue was recorded in an acoustically unpleasant space. It doesn't always happen, but I've noticed it every now and then... if I switch it to DTS HD it goes away.


----------



## Krzysztofradio

What do you think of Dali Kompas. Is adequate for Atmos. I have Dali Ikon 6 mkII 5.1 configuration


----------



## JST0rm

Scott Simonian said:


> You first replied to a comment I made to Sanjay @sdurani about a nice mix (talking about Edge of Tomorrow's Atmos mix). I said, "we need more of that".
> 
> You replied with, "expect more of that" and then began talking about SDDS which is outdated, underused and totally irrelevant today. Then you mentioned Auro3D which is also mostly irrelevant to modern movie surround playback. Today it is all about Dolby Atmos.


Yes sdds is dead. I mentioned why from a sound design point of view it was a good format. I mentioned auro3d because of the additional front speakers.



> Regardless, even before Atmos existed (more than two years now) surround sound did exist and mixes that could have been good were not good. Front-centric is a common term. Interstellar was very front-centric and Christopher Nolan does this with all his movies. There are many other examples though my complaint about Interstellar was not the dialog but the lack of aggressive surround use.
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you are on about. My point has been clear.


So your opinion is that mixes arent good if they dont use the surrounds a lot. I agree its good to use the surrounds but its best to use them for music and at certain times ambiances and effects. It is not, in my opinion, a good idea to constantly use the surrounds for things happening off screen.

What you dont want to do is distract the audience from the screen. If someone is confused as to why they are hearing a sound they stop thinking about the film and are instead thinking about this sound effect. This is why I try to limit things happening in the surrounds to things that have been established on screen already or with a very small ramp up time to onscreen action. 

This is why pushing the music back to the surrounds works well. You dont wonder why you are hearing music, it is ingrained in the movie going experience. 

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion on what you think is best sound design


----------



## Scott Simonian

On the contrary. 

If I am immersed into an aggressive surround field then I am immersed into the movie.

If I am not immersed in sound and everything is front and center with the occasional surround use... that is more distracting.

What you have just posted is the exact thought process of the old-school thought of sound mixing. It is outdated and I do not agree with it. Might as well not have surround sound if we are to be reminded it exists three or four times during a movie.

We can agree to disagree but I think it is a good move to keep one immersed into a movie by immersing the audience with a coherent and stable surround mix.


----------



## JST0rm

Scott Simonian said:


> On the contrary.
> 
> If I am immersed into an aggressive surround field then I am immersed into the movie.
> 
> If I am not immersed in sound and everything is front and center with the occasional surround use... that is more distracting.
> 
> What you have just posted is the exact thought process of the old-school thought of sound mixing. It is outdated and I do not agree with it. Might as well not have surround sound if we are to be reminded it exists three or four times during a movie.
> 
> We can agree to disagree but I think it is a good move to keep one immersed into a movie by immersing the audience with a coherent and stable surround mix.


There are movies that lend themselves to having things in the surrounds all the time (avatar, apocalypto) and movies that dont. There is not ever going to be a one size fits all approach to sound design. It will never work like that. 

Im really not old school at all and sit on the cutting edge of all of this - its kind of insulting for you to say such a thing as you dont know my work or who I am. It is really just internet angry talk that I want to avoid.


----------



## Scott Simonian

JST0rm said:


> Im really not old school at all and sit on the cutting edge of all of this - its kind of insulting for you to say such a thing as you dont know my work or who I am. It is really just internet angry talk that I want to avoid.


Seriously? Take it easy. Don't get so bent out of shape. There is nothing personal in my posts. I am just posting about what I like in surround sound.

Why have immersive audio formats like Auro and Atmos if sound mixers will not take full advantage of them? 

^^^^

Far from internet angry talk.


----------



## gammanuc

JST0rm said:


> Yes sdds is dead. I mentioned why from a sound design point of view it was a good format. I mentioned auro3d because of the additional front speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> So your opinion is that mixes arent good if they dont use the surrounds a lot. I agree its good to use the surrounds but its best to use them for music and at certain times ambiances and effects. It is not, in my opinion, a good idea to constantly use the surrounds for things happening off screen.
> 
> What you dont want to do is distract the audience from the screen. If someone is confused as to why they are hearing a sound they stop thinking about the film and are instead thinking about this sound effect. This is why I try to limit things happening in the surrounds to things that have been established on screen already or with a very small ramp up time to onscreen action.
> 
> This is why pushing the music back to the surrounds works well. You dont wonder why you are hearing music, it is ingrained in the movie going experience.
> 
> But you are certainly entitled to your opinion on what you think is best sound design


Even in "on stage" acting there has always been sounds and voices that come from off stage, I like that in a movie mix also. I don't have to see everything I hear, which is also the case in real life.


----------



## sdurani

JST0rm said:


> It is not, in my opinion, a good idea to constantly use the surrounds for things happening off screen.


Can't argue with artistic choice. But if you've seen _'Gravity'_ in Atmos, then you've heard whole conversations happening off screen that weren't distracting.


----------



## JST0rm

Scott Simonian said:


> Seriously? Take it easy. Don't get so bent out of shape. There is nothing personal in my posts. I am just posting about what I like in surround sound.
> 
> Why have immersive audio formats like Auro and Atmos if sound mixers will not take full advantage of them?
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> Far from internet angry talk.



I would say a good portion of film is still being mixed in 5.1 and 7.1. A lot of productions cannot afford to mix in 7.1 or atmos for that matter. 

Telling me my thought process is old school is certainly a personal thing  You consume a film after its gone through a long process. To make a blanket statement about something like what should be in the surrounds shows that you are consuming a end product. You have the right to an opinion and criticism of the art but know that things are tried many ways before you get what you get. A lot of good talented people are trying to do whats best for the voice of these shows.


----------



## JST0rm

gammanuc said:


> Even in "on stage" acting there has always been sounds and voices that come from off stage, I like that in a movie mix also. I don't have to see everything I hear, which is also the case in real life.





sdurani said:


> Can't argue with artistic choice. But if you've seen _'Gravity'_ in Atmos, then you've heard whole conversations happening off screen that weren't distracting.



gravity is a great example of when it is cool to pull the voices out of the center channel. But if you watched most films with that happening it wouldnt work. Because its been tried and it gets distracting for a lot of people. 

Really we are in agreement. Sometimes anything works. Sometimes it doesnt.


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> Do you have any examples of those? I have a idea what old school mixes sound like and I think the modern action stuff is certainly much more dynamic and clean.


Stuff I like (audio soundtrack):

♦ Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
♦ The Patriot
♦ Gravity
♦ Crank
♦ Requiem for a Dream
♦ Tron: Legacy
♦ Prometheus
♦ Gladiator
♦ Black Hawk Down
♦ Lone Survivor
♦ Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
♦ The Counselor
♦ Miracle at St.Anna
♦ Man on Fire
♦ Kingdom of Heaven
♦ Domino
♦ The Fall
♦ The Fifth Element
♦ The Cell
♦ Miami Vice
♦ Children of Men
♦ Eastern Promises
♦ The Da Vinci Code
♦ Hot Fuzz
♦ Seabiscuit
♦ U-571
♦ Once Upon a Time in the West
♦ Inside Man
♦ Leon the Professional
♦ Trainspotting
♦ Heat
♦ Fight Club
♦ Looper
♦ Mulholland Dr.
♦ Road to Perdition
♦ Enemy @ the Gates
♦ Contact
♦ Sunshine
♦ The Last of the Mohicans
♦ Payback
♦ Unstoppable
♦ History of Violence
♦ Apollo 13
♦ The Thin Red Line
♦ The Book of Eli
♦ Collateral
♦ War of the Worlds
♦ Saving Private Ryan
♦ Kick-Ass


...Just to name very few and very quick out of my head.


----------



## JST0rm

NorthSky said:


> Stuff I like (audio soundtrack):
> 
> ♦ Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
> ♦ The Patriot
> ♦ Gravity
> ♦ Crank
> ♦ Requiem for a Dream
> ♦ Tron: Legacy
> ♦ Prometheus
> ♦ Gladiator
> ♦ Black Hawk Down
> ♦ Lone Survivor
> ♦ Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
> ♦ The Counselor
> ♦ Miracle at St.Anna
> ♦ Man on Fire
> ♦ Kingdom of Heaven
> ♦ Domino
> ♦ The Fall
> ♦ The Fifth Element
> ♦ The Cell
> ♦ Miami Vice
> ♦ Children of Men
> ♦ Eastern Promises
> ♦ The Da Vinci Code
> ♦ Hot Fuzz
> ♦ Seabiscuit
> ♦ U-571
> ♦ Once Upon a Time in the West
> ♦ Inside Man
> ♦ Leon the Professional
> ♦ Trainspotting
> ♦ Heat
> ♦ Fight Club
> ♦ Looper
> ♦ Mulholland Dr.
> ♦ Road to Perdition
> ♦ Enemy @ the Gates
> ♦ Contact
> ♦ Sunshine
> ♦ The Last of the Mohicans
> ♦ Payback
> ♦ Unstoppable
> ♦ History of Violence
> ♦ Apollo 13
> ♦ The Thin Red Line
> ♦ The Book of Eli
> ♦ Collateral
> ♦ War of the Worlds
> ♦ Saving Private Ryan
> ♦ Kick-Ass
> 
> 
> ...Just to name very few and very quick out of my head.



Thats a good list of solid sound films. A few of those are in my personal top 5. And whats interesting is what makes each on of those great wouldnt fit the others (for the most part). Right? Imagine saving private ryan with the designed whooshes and fight sounds from kick ass? It would break the movie. 

So as an aside The thin red line or Saving private ryan? Whats your favorite? For me it used to be spr but as the years have moved on I think the thin red line is just that much more amazing.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> You first replied to a comment I made to Sanjay @sdurani about a nice mix (talking about Edge of Tomorrow's Atmos mix). I said, "we need more of that".
> 
> You replied with, "expect more of that" and then began talking about SDDS which is outdated, underused and totally irrelevant today. Then you mentioned Auro3D which is also mostly irrelevant to modern movie surround playback. Today it is all about Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Regardless, even before Atmos existed (more than two years now) surround sound did exist and mixes that could have been good were not good. Front-centric is a common term. Interstellar was very front-centric and Christopher Nolan does this with all his movies. There are many other examples though my complaint about Interstellar was not the dialog but the lack of aggressive surround use.



'The Dark Knight', 'The Dark Knight Rises' ... I love the audio soundtracks. ... 'Inception' ? ... 'Super 8' ? ... 'Skyfall' ? ... 'Casino Royale' ?


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> Thats a good list of solid sound films. A few of those are in my personal top 5. And whats interesting is what makes each on of those great wouldnt fit the others (for the most part). Right? Imagine saving private ryan with the designed whooshes and fight sounds from kick ass? It would break the movie.
> 
> So as an aside The thin red line or Saving private ryan? Whats your favorite? For me it used to be spr but as the years have moved on I think the thin red line is just that much more amazing.


I don't have 'one' favorite, I have many; I am a true cinema lover, on all aspects, not just sound. ...Or visuals, but mostly on the overall composition that truly impact the deep soul of the ocean.  ...The heart of a man, of a woman, and of a child. ...The massage of the imagination, of the spirit.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## noah katz

JST0rm said:


> gravity is a great example of when it is cool to pull the voices out of the center channel. But if you watched most films with that happening it wouldnt work. Because its been tried and it gets distracting for a lot of people.


I would think that voices off to the side should be distracting, as they would be in real life.


----------



## htpcforever

For me, it depends on the circumstances of the off screen voices. If I am in an open air marketplace, say in Instanbul, I would expect there to be off screen voices from every direction. I think it has its place, but they have to be careful how it is used.


I do want ambient sounds from every direction if I am supposed to be in a place where such a thing is expected, like being in the woods (sounds of nature are everywhere), in a city (sounds of the city are everywhere), etc.


----------



## JST0rm

noah katz said:


> I would think that voices off to the side should be distracting, as they would be in real life.


Thankfully movies arent real or we would of been over run with aliens and predators by now 



htpcforever said:


> For me, it depends on the circumstances of the off screen voices. If I am in an open air marketplace, say in Instanbul, I would expect there to be off screen voices from every direction. I think it has its place, but they have to be careful how it is used.
> 
> 
> I do want ambient sounds from every direction if I am supposed to be in a place where such a thing is expected, like being in the woods (sounds of nature are everywhere), in a city (sounds of the city are everywhere), etc.


There is certainly walla and group background vocals that are panned around to help fill the ambiances with voice when needed. If you are in a rich enviroment then 9 times out of 10 you will get a complete and full surround backgrounds. I personally don't want to hear room tone coming from behind me if we are in a suburban house with 2 people talking about love on the screen. The film has to be served first. If that means not real sound to help the story then thats what happens.


----------



## IgorZep

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't recall the advice as being to change to more sensitive but 'crap' speakers.  There are high quality and low quality speakers of any given sensitivity.


Can you then help me to find a small midrange driver with a similar to this performance (it also have exemplary non-linear distortion performance), but higher than 90dB (2.83V/m) sensitivity? Unfortunately I cannot find anything... There are a few tweeters with 94-95dB sensitivity and exemplary performance - so there is something to choose there, but still better sensitivity comes with a cost of worse off-axis performance and/or higher non-linear distortion.



kbarnes701 said:


> As you suggest, the aim is to acquire high quality speakers, with the sensitivity required. You have done this yourself as I would call 94dB/w/m 'high sensitivity', albeit not the highest obtainable of course.


Yes, it is not the highest sensitivity... and if you don't have enough power to feed the speakers it is better to find the one with higher sensitivity. But if you start the design from the objectives of highest possible SQ (not just the good one)... There is not much to look at in the higher sensitivity territory.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Depending on how high they currently are, you may well find an improvement by lowering them to ear height, or just above ear height if the former blocks the sound to any individual listener. The better the separation between surrounds and overheads, the better the effect.


Well, now there's a bunch of patchwork and painting to be done in that room. I dropped all of the surrounds down another foot. If you've never seen them, Mirage speakers have a unique design, so with them mounted upside down, the sound disperses somewhat downwards as opposed to directly outward. 

There's definitely more of a a gap between the TR and BS speaksers. Now I have to go listen to everything all over again. Good thing I'm on vacation.


----------



## ambesolman

JST0rm said:


> Thankfully movies arent real or we would of been over run with aliens and predators by now


One can only dream



Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> Thats a good list of solid sound films. A few of those are in my personal top 5. And whats interesting is what makes each on of those great wouldnt fit the others (for the most part). Right? Imagine *saving private ryan* with the designed whooshes and fight sounds from *kick ass*? It would break the movie.


Of course right; one is dead serious, the other is dead funny. 



> So as an aside *The thin red line or Saving private ryan? Whats your favorite?* For me it used to be spr but as the years have moved on I think the thin red line is just that much more amazing.


'The Thin Red Line' I like a lot for the musical score; more so than 'Saving Private Ryan's musical score. ...Those are my own vibrating chords ♪ ♫
And because music (emotions) is more important to me than sound effects (aural assaults), 'The Thin Red Line' is my favorite of them two.

♦ The original motion picture soundtrack* is always number one in my cinema book. ...Sound wise. ...Audio & all. ...All that jazz ♪

Are you also a musician? ...Too.

* Musical score.


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> I would think that voices off to the side should be distracting, as they would be in real life.


Merry Christmas Noah.

* I disagree.


----------



## asharma

kokishin said:


> Done.
> 
> Thanks


Hi Kokishin...could u please update my ATMOS profile?

I switched out my 4100 for a Marantz 7009 and I switched out my Niles external amp for a Rotel RB985. Now running 7.3.4

Thanks...


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
didn't get answer of my previous post http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-553.html#post30185258. May be its too much info there. 

To simplify the situation, can overheads be installed 35" above MLP? Is it too short of distance? I have plenty of room to move speakers to front and back just not enough from MLP to ceiling.
thx


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
didn't get answer of my previous post http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-553.html#post30185258. May be its too much info there. 

To simplify the situation, can overheads be installed 35" above MLP? Is it too short of distance? I have plenty of room to move speakers to front and back just not enough from MLP to ceiling.
thx


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> didn't get answer of my previous post http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-553.html#post30185258. May be its too much info there.
> 
> To simplify the situation, can overheads be installed 35" above MLP? Is it too short of distance? I have plenty of room to move speakers to front and back just not enough from MLP to ceiling.
> thx


Your ceiling is 7.25 feet high. ...Your ears are roughly @ 4.25 feet from the floor? If you install four overhead speakers I don't see a problem.
Two of them are going to be forward, and the two others behind. And if you can sit @ say 3 feet high or 3.25 that would be good. 
Your room's dimension allows you that; four overheads. 

That 35" above MLP, is that straight up?


----------



## nirvy111

I was wondering if in a small room, if it's better to go 5.1.2 for example so you can create more space between the individual speakers? If I did 7.1.4 in my room a number of the speakers would be no more than 4-5 feet apart from each other, and I wonder if this congestion would negatively effect sound quality. I guess I like the idea of not having to buy more speakers as well as I already have 7, so going 5.1.2 would require no extra expense. Thoughts?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

nirvy111 said:


> I was wondering if in a small room, if it's better to go 5.1.2 for example so you can create more space between the individual speakers? If I did 7.1.4 in my room a number of the speakers would be no more than 4-5 feet apart from each other, and I wonder if this congestion would negatively effect sound quality. I guess I like the idea of not having to buy more speakers as well as I already have 7, so going 5.1.2 would require no extra expense. Thoughts?


It's all about the angles between the speakers. I'm currently doing the speaker placement planning in my 12x12 room and 9.1.4 will fit in nicely.


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> Your ceiling is 7.25 feet high. ...Your ears are roughly @ 4.25 feet from the floor? If you install four overhead speakers I don't see a problem.
> Two of them are going to be forward, and the two others behind. And if you can sit @ say 3 feet high or 3.25 that would be good.
> Your room's dimension allows you that; four overheads.
> 
> That 35" above MLP, is that straight up?


Ceiling height = 7.25 (correct)
Ears roughly @ 4.25 feet from floor (correct)
35" above MLP straight up (correct)

To be very precise, its 38" straight up from MLP to ceiling. I can sit @ 3.25 feet from floor but then I'm compromising my viewing. We enjoy watching the screen with that 1 foot high above floor stage.

My room has plenty of space to move over head speakers forward and behind as long as they are 30 inches apart from MLP on left and right.


----------



## dschulz

JST0rm said:


> So as an aside The thin red line or Saving private ryan? Whats your favorite? For me it used to be spr but as the years have moved on I think the thin red line is just that much more amazing.


I've always thought the wrong WWII movie won the Best Director Oscar that year.

But I liked this line I found on a Reddit thread discussing the two films:

"Saving Private Ryan is like a great novel about the war and The Thin Red Line is like a great poem about it."


----------



## dschulz

JST0rm said:


> And you can expect more of it. The best sound format from a sound design perspective was sdds with 5 front channels. This allowed room for a lot of material coming from the place where most of the action happens (the front).


I miss this. If you've ever seen a 70mm print of West Side Story or Sound of Music in a cinema you get a sense of what can be done artistically with 5 screen channels and what was lost when we gave up on that format. With a really wide screen for 70mm (back when we sensibly built cinemas to have widescreen aspect ratios, instead of building screens to have constant-width and letterboxing our 'Scope movies), the ability to pan the dialogue all the way across the screen, and spread the music across, sound designers and mixers had a wonderful palette with which to work. 

To their credit, Dolby recommends 5 stage speakers in the theatrical implementation of Atmos.


----------



## Al Sherwood

dschulz said:


> I miss this. If you've ever seen a 70mm print of West Side Story or Sound of Music in a cinema you get a sense of what can be done artistically with 5 screen channels and what was lost when we gave up on that format. With a really wide screen for 70m (back when we sensibly built cinemas to have widescreen aspect ratios, instead of building screens to have constant-width and letterboxing our 'Scope movies), the ability to pan the dialogue all the way across the screen, and spread the music across, sound designers and mixers had a wonderful palette with which to work.
> 
> To their credit, Dolby recommends 5 stage speakers in the theatrical implementation of Atmos.


 
IIRC those extra 2 speakers up front are inside of the normal Left and Right speakers though, so in a home setup they don't expand the sound field up front, which is too bad, as I always liked a wider front sound field at home.


----------



## dschulz

Al Sherwood said:


> IIRC those extra 2 speakers up front are inside of the normal Left and Right speakers though, so in a home setup they don't expand the sound field up front.


That's right - I'm being all nostalgic for the old 70mm 6-track mixes - not much applicability to home theater.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> To their credit, Dolby recommends 5 stage speakers in the theatrical implementation of Atmos.


The recent restoration of _'Oklahoma!'_ had an Atmos mix specifically to allow 5 stage speakers.


----------



## Csbooth

nirvy111 said:


> I was wondering if in a small room, if it's better to go 5.1.2 for example so you can create more space between the individual speakers? If I did 7.1.4 in my room a number of the speakers would be no more than 4-5 feet apart from each other, and I wonder if this congestion would negatively effect sound quality. I guess I like the idea of not having to buy more speakers as well as I already have 7, so going 5.1.2 would require no extra expense. Thoughts?


The great thing about 5.x surround sound is that it can sound excellent in a 50x50x50 room (Theoretical obviously) depending on how the speakers are spaced width wise and depth from the front speakers to the MLP. The bad thing about anything higher (7.x+) is needing at least 3 feet, preferably 5 feet of depth from the rear surrounds to the MLP, thus giving them that sense of presence purpose you were looking for in the first place.

If you don't have those specific requirements then like another user on a different thread asked about "Downgrading" from 7.x > 5.x.2 then I can tell you the same thing,...In my personal opinion of course, the height channels add much more to the 3D plane than any 7.x system ever has for me, whether it was calibrated right or not. 

You are still effectively running an 8 channel system, but just relocating two of them. Also it goes without saying the DSU, and native Atmos content will more than likely sound leagues better to you than a 7.x setup ever could, but of course with these things that is subjective, but it's pretty plausible to come to this conclusion to me lol.

Also, it probably goes without saying that 5.x.4+ would more than likely sound more filled out to you, but I have heard a plethora of different 5.x.2 setups, all with Upfiring speakers, modules, and in/on ceiling. Every single one of them sounded brilliant, and I was especially impressed with the 5.x.2's panning array abilities at sounding very effective as I was afraid there would be a large gap between front/back pans.

The Upfiring/modules both gave greatly diffused sound (Really good in a 5.x.2 configuration) thanks to the science of HRTF and enclosed me in the 3D bubble of sound, and the in/on ceilings gave the excitement of localization, which some of course prefer. I personally liked each for what they offered, and if I was "stuck" with any of the combos, I wouldn't be heartbroken a bit.

As long as you stick to the Dolby recommended setups, and adhere to all their rules, then it can't fail to impress you in my experience.

Lastly, as you most accurately pointed out,... EXPENSE lol, yes this particular hobby has always been quite the clutcher on the wallets, but none more so than this format. When talking about upgrading just two channels, then we are getting into $1k+ territory, for 6 extra channels? Try $3k+ (For the AVR and a few speakers, not even all 11). So obviously, you really have to think about if it's going to be important enough to you, and possibly your significant other haha, and that's along with the conversation pertaining to any remodeling in accommodating this new technology. 

I hope some of this has helped you in making these extremely difficult decisions!

-Charles


----------



## chi_guy50

dschulz said:


> I've always thought the wrong WWII movie won the Best Director Oscar that year.
> 
> But I liked this line I found on a Reddit thread discussing the two films:
> 
> "Saving Private Ryan is like a great novel about the war and The Thin Red Line is like a great poem about it."


That's an appropriate summation of the two films IMO.

As a retired career soldier (and movie lover), I found The Thin Red Line a much more forceful and realistic portrayal of warfare than the Hollywoodized Saving Private Ryan. The difference is evident in the contrasting styles of the two directors: Spielberg is a commercial artist and Malick is a cinematic poet.


----------



## TennisPro02

So this is my first time posting but I've been following this thread/forum since September and I've ran into a problem that I can't figure out. So I bought a Onkyo 636 and my speaker setup is as follows 4 Bowers and Wilkins 685s, Bowers and Wilkins HTM62, Dayton Audio 12 inch subwoofer, and 2 Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos modules. 

I've recently gotten the bug with all things surround sound related and I'm in Nashville over the holidays visiting family. I've heard a lot of great things about Emotiva and was wanting to drop by their store tomorrow before heading back to Atlanta. If I purchased the new Emotiva Fusion Flex Amplifier could I use RCA cables and run them from my Zone 2 preouts on the back of my Onkyo 636 to the Fusion Flex and add two more of the Onkyo Dolby Atmos modules for a 5.1.4 setup? The guy in the Magnolia Room at Best Buy last night told me this was possible and even steered me away from buying some open box Andrew Jones Dolby Atmos bookshelf speakers(rear surround +dolby upward firing module) He insisted that I use my B&W 685 rear surround then purchasing two more Onkyo Dolby Amos modules plus obviously the Emotiva Amp. He said it would be better for them to be sonically matched. 

Sorry for the long opening question but this forum seems to have some genuine nice, intelligent individuals and I appreciate all the advice I've read so far. 

Happy Holidays!


----------



## TennisPro02

Also for the individual that's keeping the Excel spreadsheet of Dolby Atmos early adopters then feel free to add me. I'm loving Dolby Atmos in 5.1.2 but I really want 5.1.4. I never had 7.1 but the upgrade from 5.1 to 5.1.2 is awesome plus I exclusively listen to Dolby Surround upmixer now. My listening tastes are 100% movies and 0% music


----------



## Csbooth

TennisPro02 said:


> He insisted that I use my B&W 685 rear surround then purchasing two more Onkyo Dolby Atmos modules plus obviously the Emotiva Amp. He said it would be better for them to be sonically matched.


I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the preout possibilities with RCA connections to Zone 2 and all but I want to say it's a no. I do know however, that I have only ever heard from Dolby and many others (my self experience as well) that mix/matching the modules/bounce/in or on ceiling solutions are just fine. The modules are effectively the same thing as what's housed in the top cabinets of the Andrew Jones speakers so I don't really see how that would be a problem in the first place lol.

That's just my two cents


----------



## jdsmoothie

TennisPro02 said:


> So this is my first time posting but I've been following this thread/forum since September and I've ran into a problem that I can't figure out. So I bought a Onkyo 636 and my speaker setup is as follows 4 Bowers and Wilkins 685s, Bowers and Wilkins HTM62, Dayton Audio 12 inch subwoofer, and 2 Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos modules.
> 
> I've recently gotten the bug with all things surround sound related and I'm in Nashville over the holidays visiting family. I've heard a lot of great things about Emotiva and was wanting to drop by their store tomorrow before heading back to Atlanta. If I purchased the new Emotiva Fusion Flex Amplifier could I use RCA cables and run them from my Zone 2 preouts on the back of my Onkyo 636 to the Fusion Flex and add two more of the Onkyo Dolby Atmos modules for a 5.1.4 setup? The guy in the Magnolia Room at Best Buy last night told me this was possible and even steered me away from buying some open box Andrew Jones Dolby Atmos bookshelf speakers(rear surround +dolby upward firing module) He insisted that I use my B&W 685 rear surround then purchasing two more Onkyo Dolby Amos modules plus obviously the Emotiva Amp. He said it would be better for them to be sonically matched.
> 
> Sorry for the long opening question but this forum seems to have some genuine nice, intelligent individuals and I appreciate all the advice I've read so far.
> 
> Happy Holidays!


Even if the Zone 2 pre-outs could DAC the main zone audio (which they can't), the Zone 2 pre-outs would be getting full range FL/FR audio which is nowhere close to equivalent to what the Rear Dolby Surround speakers should be getting. Bottom line .... the 636 is only capable of 5.1.2. Upgrade to the 1030 if if you want 5.1.4.


----------



## Csbooth

jdsmoothie said:


> Even if the Zone 2 pre-outs could DAC the main zone audio (which they can't), the Zone 2 pre-outs would be getting full range FL/FR audio which is nowhere close to equivalent to what the Rear Dolby Surround speakers should be getting. Bottom line .... the 636 is only capable of 5.1.2. Upgrade to the 1030 if if you want 5.1.4.


If you do go for a 1030, be aware 7.2.4 becomes possible with preouts.


----------



## TennisPro02

Okay so if I upgraded to the 838 I coujd then use an external amplifier for 5.1.4? I realize the 1030 does this without the need for the external amplifier. Well I guess that's what I figured. My next question is subjective but if I'm going to buy a new receiver for myself to allow 5.1.4 what receiver would go best with the B&W speakers? I hear Marantz get mentioned a lot.


----------



## Csbooth

TennisPro02 said:


> Okay so if I upgraded to the 838 I coujd then use an external amplifier for 5.1.4? I realize the 1030 does this without the need for the external amplifier. Well I guess that's what I figured. My next question is subjective but if I'm going to buy a new receiver for myself to allow 5.1.4 what receiver would go best with the B&W speakers? I hear Marantz get mentioned a lot.


As I said before about not knowing much about pre amps (or external amp, I'm not sure if they are the same or not) and how it all really works, but I'd be interested in what you're getting at as well if it's possible to use I guess a 2ch pre amp, hook it up to the height or back slot of the 838 and use those in a 5.x.4 configuration. 

If it is, would anyone be interested in linking the device best suited for this task, and for my personal benefit, explaining how these hook ups would work to get the extra 2ch to convert this 7ch avr to 9ch. The 838 seems to be almost half the price of the 1030 so it's worth considering at least lol.


----------



## JST0rm

Csbooth said:


> As I said before about not knowing much about pre amps (or external amp, I'm not sure if they are the same or not) and how it all really works, but I'd be interested in what you're getting at as well if it's possible to use I guess a 2ch pre amp, hook it up to the height or back slot of the 838 and use those in a 5.x.4 configuration.
> 
> If it is, would anyone be interested in linking the device best suited for this task, and for my personal benefit, explaining how these hook ups would work to get the extra 2ch to convert this 7ch avr to 9ch. The 838 seems to be almost half the price of the 1030 so it's worth considering at least lol.


838 can only do 5.2.2. They want you to pay the tax to get 5.2.4 or 7.2.4. It wil be a couple years before thats available at the price point you are looking at. Its not too much more to get into the higher end model.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> The sound reflected off the walls was amplified in dialogue only scenes (during the recording... I think the DSU has a tendency to amplify it). If you've ever been in a totally empty room before moving furniture into it, you can hear the reflections a lot easier, that's an extreme example of what I'm hearing.


I was confused by your assertion that the production sound in the movie would be "reflected off the walls". Often there won't be any walls, as on a typical set, and even on location, great care will be taken usually to ensure that no unwanted reflections spoil the clarity of the sound. If dialog isn't intelligible from production sound recording, they will 'loop' it, using ADR.


----------



## Csbooth

JST0rm said:


> 838 can only do 5.2.2. They want you to pay the tax to get 5.2.4 or 7.2.4. It wil be a couple years before thats available at the price point you are looking at. Its not too much more to get into the higher end model.


Ya I figured it wouldn't be possible, as I was reading something about it only has 7 pre out channels and for it to be able to do 5.2.4 it would need 9 I guess. 

Is that how the whole pre out thing works? I mean I am aware that the 1030 can do 11ch with the added XLR Front L/R Pre outs on it, but noticed that the 3030 has the same number of pre outs (13) would that mean the 3030 could do 13 channels with pre out since it can already internally power 11? I could be completely misunderstanding since I believe the highest any AVR can do right now is 11 channels.

In any case, I was more asking as a general guideline at the moment, personally I'm waiting to see what DTS has to say in a few weeks lol. 

While I don't see anything wrong in spending lots of dough on the thing you love, I do think it's a little pricey just for a couple of extra channels on the AVRs out atm.


----------



## kbarnes701

JST0rm said:


> So your opinion is that mixes arent good if they dont use the surrounds a lot. I agree its good to use the surrounds but its best to use them for music and at certain times ambiances and effects. It is not, in my opinion, a good idea to constantly use the surrounds for things happening off screen.


I take your point about being taken out of the movie, but I think that what Scott means by 'old school' is the way in which surround sound was used for decades just for 'ambient sound'. This was a result of the movie theaters not having surround speakers capable of full range reproduction and, of course, no bass-managed systems. Since the advent of Atmos especially, that restriction has gone - Atmos theaters have full range surround and overhead speakers and use subwoofers as well all around the room. This should encourage mixers to put more sounds into the overheads and surrounds and not just ambient effects and folding the score back there too. In turn, used creatively, this should give us more immersion.

I don't agree that it is "best" to use surrounds for ambient effects nowadays, so I guess I am aligning with Scott on this. I don't think there is a 'best' - some content will require just ambiance in the surrounds and some will require more localisable and full range sounds. The content in the surrounds will be driven by the creative decisions made by the Director and mixer, as now, but now they have more options, thanks to surround speakers that can handle a full frequency range.

Thanks for your perspectives on all this though - it is always good to see industry professionals sharing their knowledge with us lay guys and hobbyists. I do hope you will continue to do so.


----------



## kbarnes701

JST0rm said:


> I would say a good portion of film is still being mixed in 5.1 and 7.1. A lot of productions cannot afford to mix in 7.1 or atmos for that matter.
> 
> Telling me my thought process is old school is certainly a personal thing  You consume a film after its gone through a long process. To make a blanket statement about something like what should be in the surrounds shows that you are consuming a end product. You have the right to an opinion and criticism of the art but know that things are tried many ways before you get what you get. A lot of good talented people are trying to do whats best for the voice of these shows.


I agree. I don't think anyone is intending to insult you or your work or your craft. Very many movies these days have surround mixes that are truly astonishing and delightful. Today I watched Alex Proyas's *I, Robot* for example and the way the sound design integrates into the movie and enhances the on-screen action is fabulous, with great use of the surround channels. All that Scott is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that mixers now have full range surrounds for the first time and this opens up new creative opportunities. To continue to use the surrounds simply for ambiance would be to ignore the progress that has been made in this regard.


----------



## kbarnes701

IgorZep said:


> Can you then help me to find a small midrange driver with a similar to this performance (it also have exemplary non-linear distortion performance), but higher than 90dB (2.83V/m) sensitivity? Unfortunately I cannot find anything... There are a few tweeters with 94-95dB sensitivity and exemplary performance - so there is something to choose there, but still better sensitivity comes with a cost of worse off-axis performance and/or higher non-linear distortion.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is not the highest sensitivity... and if you don't have enough power to feed the speakers it is better to find the one with higher sensitivity. But if you start the design from the objectives of highest possible SQ (not just the good one)... There is not much to look at in the higher sensitivity territory.


I am not disagreeing with you, Igor. Just saying that high sensitivity and good quality are not mutually exclusive. It is true that many high quality speakers are fairly insensitive, and that will be a choice made by the designer when trading off the various contradictory elements of good sound - small box, deep bass, high sensitivity etc. I personally regard 95dB as "high sensitivity" anyway, so maybe be have different understandings of the word "high"in this context. Most of my own speakers have ranged from about 80-85dB/w/m in the past, so 95dB seems 'high' to me. If we are talking 100dB+ then I can't personally think of any high quality speaker that meets that requirement. Not that there may be none of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

nirvy111 said:


> I was wondering if in a small room, if it's better to go 5.1.2 for example so you can create more space between the individual speakers? If I did 7.1.4 in my room a number of the speakers would be no more than 4-5 feet apart from each other, and I wonder if this congestion would negatively effect sound quality. I guess I like the idea of not having to buy more speakers as well as I already have 7, so going 5.1.2 would require no extra expense. Thoughts?


I bet my room is smaller than yours and I have 5.2.4 and it works just great. I wouldn't personally want to go to just 2 overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Csbooth said:


> Also, it probably goes without saying that 5.x.4+ would more than likely sound more filled out to you, but I have heard a plethora of different 5.x.2 setups, all with Upfiring speakers, modules, and in/on ceiling. Every single one of them sounded brilliant, and I was especially impressed with the 5.x.2's panning array abilities at sounding very effective as I was afraid there would be a large gap between front/back pans.
> 
> The Upfiring/modules both gave greatly diffused sound (Really good in a 5.x.2 configuration) thanks to the science of HRTF and enclosed me in the 3D bubble of sound, and the in/on ceilings gave the excitement of localization, which some of course prefer. I personally liked each for what they offered, and if I was "stuck" with any of the combos, I wouldn't be heartbroken a bit.


Nice post, Charles. I especially agree with your remarks above.


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> So this is my first time posting but I've been following this thread/forum since September and I've ran into a problem that I can't figure out. So I bought a Onkyo 636 and my speaker setup is as follows 4 Bowers and Wilkins 685s, Bowers and Wilkins HTM62, Dayton Audio 12 inch subwoofer, and 2 Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos modules.
> 
> I've recently gotten the bug with all things surround sound related and I'm in Nashville over the holidays visiting family. I've heard a lot of great things about Emotiva and was wanting to drop by their store tomorrow before heading back to Atlanta. If I purchased the new Emotiva Fusion Flex Amplifier could I use RCA cables and run them from my Zone 2 preouts on the back of my Onkyo 636 to the Fusion Flex and add two more of the Onkyo Dolby Atmos modules for a 5.1.4 setup? The guy in the Magnolia Room at Best Buy last night told me this was possible and even steered me away from buying some open box Andrew Jones Dolby Atmos bookshelf speakers(rear surround +dolby upward firing module) He insisted that I use my B&W 685 rear surround then purchasing two more Onkyo Dolby Amos modules plus obviously the Emotiva Amp. He said it would be better for them to be sonically matched.
> 
> Sorry for the long opening question but this forum seems to have some genuine nice, intelligent individuals and I appreciate all the advice I've read so far.
> 
> Happy Holidays!


I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but if I am understanding you correctly, the answer is "no". The Onkyo 636 is a 7 channel Atmos unit without preouts for separate amplification. This means it will be limited to 5.1.2 Atmos config. In order for a 7 channel unit to be able to do a 5.1.4 Atmos config, it needs to have been designed for that in the first place, with preouts for the addition of an external 2 channel amp and an internal configuration which will allow for Atmos decoding to use those additional 2 channels. The 636 isn't such a design unfortunately.

As usual, retail staff have little knowledge about the equipment they are selling.


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> Also for the individual that's keeping the Excel spreadsheet of Dolby Atmos early adopters then feel free to add me. I'm loving Dolby Atmos in 5.1.2 but I really want 5.1.4. I never had 7.1 but the upgrade from 5.1 to 5.1.2 is awesome plus I exclusively listen to Dolby Surround upmixer now. My listening tastes are 100% movies and 0% music


I'm afraid if you want 5.1.4 you will have to buy a new AVR - the Denon X4100 is a good choice - a 7 channel unit which can be expanded to 5.1.4 with the addition of a separate 2 channel amp, such as one from Emotiva as you suggested. I believe that Emo are phasing out their Ultra line, so you might be able to strike an especially good deal on one of the last UPA-200 amps if they still have some left.


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> Okay so if I upgraded to the 838 I coujd then use an external amplifier for 5.1.4? I realize the 1030 does this without the need for the external amplifier. Well I guess that's what I figured. My next question is subjective but if I'm going to buy a new receiver for myself to allow 5.1.4 what receiver would go best with the B&W speakers? I hear Marantz get mentioned a lot.


The big benefit of Denon and Marantz Atmos AVRs is that they come with Audyssey XT32 room correction, which is a big step up from Onkyo's AccuEQ.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Csbooth said:


> Ya I figured it wouldn't be possible, as I was reading something about it only has 7 pre out channels and for it to be able to do 5.2.4 it would need 9 I guess.
> 
> Is that how the whole pre out thing works? I mean I am aware that the 1030 can do 11ch with the added XLR Front L/R Pre outs on it, but noticed that the 3030 has the same number of pre outs (13) would that mean the 3030 could do 13 channels with pre out since it can already internally power 11? I could be completely misunderstanding since I believe the highest any AVR can do right now is 11 channels.
> 
> In any case, I was more asking as a general guideline at the moment, personally I'm waiting to see what DTS has to say in a few weeks lol.
> 
> While I don't see anything wrong in spending lots of dough on the thing you love, I do think it's a little pricey just for a couple of extra channels on the AVRs out atm.


Current mainstream Dolby Atmos products are limited at up to 11.1 processing (9.1.2 or 7.1.4) depending on the model. Those models with 13.1 outputs just give you more flexibility in speaker locations without unplugging and re-plugging speaker wires, or to use additional wides on top of a 7.1.4 layout when you switch over to DTS Neo:X or Audyssey DSX post-processing since Dolby Surround upmixing doesn't allow for the wide positions.


----------



## Csbooth

Dan Hitchman said:


> Current mainstream Dolby Atmos products are limited at up to 11.1 processing (9.1.2 or 7.1.4) depending on the model. Those models with 13.1 outputs just give you more flexibility in speaker locations without unplugging and re-plugging speaker wires, or to use additional wides on top of a 7.1.4 layout when you switch over to DTS Neo:X or Audyssey DSX post-processing since Dolby Surround upmixing doesn't allow for the wide positions.


I see, thank you very much.


----------



## JST0rm

kbarnes701 said:


> All that Scott is saying, if I understand him correctly, is that mixers now have full range surrounds for the first time and this opens up new creative opportunities. To continue to use the surrounds simply for ambiance would be to ignore the progress that has been made in this regard.


And my first response to him said as much. We now have the ability to not have to crowd all the sound into 6 channels. We have 9 or 11 or more to work with now. What you can expect in the future is more of your music being in the rears and sides and most of the action and dx (dialog) happening on screen. This is very good. 

Imagine sound as hot and cold water as you wash your dishes. If you constantly turned up each hot and cold to get the desired temperature you will end up with water that is too strong and coming out of the sink in a uncontrolled way. The right way is to sometimes turn the faucet down. By having more channels to work with we can get more sound flowing without it being out of control and with less need to turn things down when you can pan it into a surround a bit and everything comes back. I hope that analogy works. lol.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Got Expendables 3 today as a gift, my second Atmos title and looking forward to watching/listening!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I was confused by your assertion that the production sound in the movie would be "reflected off the walls". Often there won't be any walls, as on a typical set, and even on location, great care will be taken usually to ensure that no unwanted reflections spoil the clarity of the sound. If dialog isn't intelligible from production sound recording, they will 'loop' it, using ADR.


I'm sure they do, but I think the DSU amplifies the ambience of on location dialogue. I'm not sure what the DSU is actually doing... but to me it sounds like it's sending high frequency info to the overhead? Even if it's recorded on set in gargantuan studios, there's still walls constructed for those scenes right? I think that's what I'm hearing. (I don't hear the reflections in overdubbed scenes).

I'm skeptical about how organized the process of on set dialogue recording is though, a lot of it is distorted, even on the most well produced content! I actually thought there was something wrong with my receiver until I tested it out on another system & heard the distortion there as well.This isn't to say the recording engineers on set aren't competent, I'm guessing there are variables like time restrictions or not being able to do more takes to adjust volume levels. 

I need to do some more testing with the room reflections though... I might actually try to record some samples comparing DSU to DTS HD with my mic here at home. It could also be my room as well... maybe the extra 4 speakers produces enough extra dispersion to introduce that ambience... but I don't think that's what it is. 

BTW merry Christmas everyone!


----------



## marky301067

Krzysztofradio said:


> What do you think of Dali Kompas. Is adequate for Atmos. I have Dali Ikon 6 mkII 5.1 configuration




I'm using 4 Kompas "5.1.4" and can confirm they are brilliant for Atmos 

Dali Kompas: For optimum room integration and high performance the distribution of sound can be set to focused or distributed (switch) and the tweeter level can be switched to normal or high.


----------



## Krzysztofradio

Thank you for your reply.
I did not know that Compass has a switch 
Do You have Back Box or not. Is the sound without the Back Box is not distracting?


----------



## marky301067

Krzysztofradio said:


> Thank you for your reply.
> I did not know that Compass has a switch
> Do You have Back Box or not. Is the sound without the Back Box is not distracting?



I would recommend for you to use the following http://www.hoody-speakerhoods.co.uk/product/hoody-1/ or get some back boxes made up, I never tried the speakers without the hoody's, I would imagine it it could be very distracting if you have a room upstairs like mine.

Merry Christmas

Mark


----------



## Krzysztofradio

Thank you. Hoody is interesting. I also have a room upstairs, but hardly used. I check Kompas without case and then buy an or accomplishes something. Do Yoou HAve any pictures Your Installation? It would be very helpful


Merry Christmas Too. Today, it began to snow, the first day


----------



## kbarnes701

JST0rm said:


> And my first response to him said as much. We now have the ability to not have to crowd all the sound into 6 channels. We have 9 or 11 or more to work with now. What you can expect in the future is more of your music being in the rears and sides and most of the action and dx (dialog) happening on screen. This is very good.


I think you may be still missing the point Scott and I were making. We don't expect to find just music in the rears any more. We expect to find full range sounds there. Obviously most of the action and dialog will always happen up front - we are not disputing that. What we are disputing is the content placed in the surrounds. You refer to music and ambiance, Scott and I refer to full range sounds from effects, foley and so on. And sometimes even dialog too (as in Gravity for example).



JST0rm said:


> Imagine sound as hot and cold water as you wash your dishes. If you constantly turned up each hot and cold to get the desired temperature you will end up with water that is too strong and coming out of the sink in a uncontrolled way. The right way is to sometimes turn the faucet down. By having more channels to work with we can get more sound flowing without it being out of control and with less need to turn things down when you can pan it into a surround a bit and everything comes back. I hope that analogy works. lol.


The analogy works but it isn't the issue that we were discussing.

EDIT: I'd be interested in your view on the low quality production sound Aras-Volodka is suggesting exists on 'many' recordings...


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm skeptical about how organized the process of on set dialogue recording is though, a lot of it is distorted, even on the most well produced content! I actually thought there was something wrong with my receiver until I tested it out on another system & heard the distortion there as well.This isn't to say the recording engineers on set aren't competent, I'm guessing there are variables like time restrictions or not being able to do more takes to adjust volume levels.


That surprises me as I don't usually find any problems with production sound on most movies I watch. 



Aras_Volodka said:


> I need to do some more testing with the room reflections though... I might actually try to record some samples comparing DSU to DTS HD with my mic here at home. It could also be my room as well... maybe the extra 4 speakers produces enough extra dispersion to introduce that ambience... but I don't think that's what it is.


Again, I don't really subscribe to the idea that you are able to hear unintended reflections from the set. It is far more likely that your room is an issue than that the production sound is an issue IMO.


----------



## Kain

What is the recommended distance from the MLP for the side and back surround speakers? Is 2-3 feet too close? If yes, is placing them higher up a good way to off-set the close distance from the MLP?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> That surprises me as I don't usually find any problems with production sound on most movies I watch.
> 
> Do you have "the pacific" on bluray? I remember there being distortion on the first disc that I heard at multiple HT's.
> 
> Again, I don't really subscribe to the idea that you are able to hear unintended reflections from the set. It is far more likely that your room is an issue than that the production sound is an issue IMO.


But I don't hear it when the DSU is off. I wouldn't rule out that the heights might be creating extra reflections... I haven't had a chance to test things due to the holidays but when I get a chance I will. I might like to try the DSU with the heights turned off to see if I can still hear it, I did run the calibration though.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Nightlord said:


> Going higher in sensitivity you end up with speakers designed with the prime concern of making them high sensitivity, not of high quality. Unless you go with monstrously dimensioned in-place built fullrange horns.
> 
> My speakers were not chosen for the sensitivity, they were chosen for a number of other reasons, the sensitity was just a bonus side-effect.


Basically, what you are saying, is there is no such thing as a tweeter with sensitivity higher than 94db that has high sound quality. Because you can always double the number of midranges to get higher sensitivity there. I consider this tweeter to provide high sound quality: http://www.beyma.com/products/diapharagmtweeters/1TPL15H8
Pair that tweeter with a couple high quality mids like the TD10M and you will have higher sensitivity than 94db and high sound quality. Many other options, if you have the money.


----------



## jgourlie

I watched the first chapter or so of "The Flight of the Phoenix" in DSU yesterday before we headed off to a family event.

Man what a treat that was….I just love planes/helicopters in the movie flying above me. Makes the upgrade so worthwhile to me.


----------



## LowellG

I have a question for those who have went Atmos so far. When I spoke to the Dolby rep a couple months ago he said Dolby was designed for monopole speakers and I should lower my surrounds. If I go Atmos, I have been debating whether to get rid of my bi polar surrounds. How many of you have bi polar surrounds and do you think it matters?


Thanks,


----------



## Csbooth

LowellG said:


> I have a question for those who have went Atmos so far. When I spoke to the Dolby rep a couple months ago he said Dolby was designed for monopole speakers and I should lower my surrounds. If I go Atmos, I have been debating whether to get rid of my bi polar surrounds. How many of you have bi polar surrounds and do you think it matters?
> 
> 
> Thanks,


I've heard 4 different setups with Bi-Polar surrounds and thought they sounded great, and have heard talk on this forum of it being perfectly acceptable. If it's possible, you definitely want to make sure your surrounds are lowered so you can get the full benefit of the 3D plane soundfield.


----------



## Mike Garrett

LowellG said:


> I have a question for those who have went Atmos so far. When I spoke to the Dolby rep a couple months ago he said Dolby was designed for monopole speakers and I should lower my surrounds. If I go Atmos, I have been debating whether to get rid of my bi polar surrounds. How many of you have bi polar surrounds and do you think it matters?
> 
> 
> Thanks,


You want monopole speakers with Atmos.


----------



## LowellG

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> You want monopole speakers with Atmos.




Is that for the 4 surround and 4 overhead, or just the 4 overhead?


----------



## JST0rm

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you may be still missing the point Scott and I were making. We don't expect to find just music in the rears any more. We expect to find full range sounds there. Obviously most of the action and dialog will always happen up front - we are not disputing that. What we are disputing is the content placed in the surrounds. You refer to music and ambiance, Scott and I refer to full range sounds from effects, foley and so on. And sometimes even dialog too (as in Gravity for example).


Again. This is something that works sometimes and not other times. There is no way it will work all the time. If you have sounds happening in the rears it can actually make people turn around. It can make people look off to the side of the screen wondering what is that sound. It can make people literally stop thinking about the film. Everything is accounted for, from how long it takes your eye to move from one part of the screen to another to why a scene has a certain color color correction to why a footstep in the left surround 30 seconds before the actor is on screen is distracting. 

However, sometimes this stuff works. 1 example - Hanna - when he (the father figure) is walking in one sequence in the city (sorry forget the exact time) there is a lot of immersion and it works because it was established that is what that scene was about. Sounds are panning around you as you walk through the scene with him. This is a design choice that would never work for a romcom or even some action films. Even in hanna they didnt do that for the entire movie because it would get OLD. 



> The analogy works but it isn't the issue that we were discussing.


More details in the sound is more immersion. More speakers create more room for that immersion to take place. 



> EDIT: I'd be interested in your view on the low quality production sound Aras-Volodka is suggesting exists on 'many' recordings...


There are a few reasons why there is poor production sound and lets talk about a few reasons:

1. Location location location - Sometimes the film needs to use a location that is not a quiet place and it will never be a quiet place. If you made all of your choices on where to film based on location sound quality well you will end up with few locations used in many films. It doesnt mean you cant get good sound in those locations but the room for error is great. 

2. The type of shot. Is a long shot with no room for a boom? You can use a long shotgun mic but the off axis response is horrible ad depending on the action it could possibly not work as the boom op needs to track the movement perfectly. Did you know boom ops/mixer learn everyones line in the film? They use this information so they can move the boom from side to side to catch each line. They will also traditionally have a lav mic on each actor but with heavy action this mic can get a lot of cloth noise on it. 

3. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes a person will make a mistake and you end up with off axis sound on the perfect take. Guess what? That perfect take is going to be used. Directors need the perfect take (see 6.). 

4. Budget. Now I'm not talking about getting inexperienced people im talking about the line producer pushing the day forward to get the film done in the budget allowed. What this could mean is less time to roll for tone or to even set up the mics correctly. 

5. Incompetence. It does happen. I remember a film I did when I first started out that had horribly distorted set audio over the entire thing. The mixer even turned it down but it was after the gain stage that was doing the distorting! Incredibly frustrating for the dialog editor and the actors because of how much adr was needed. 

6. ADR - you all know what this is. Some actors are good at it and some arent. Normally the experienced actors just do a amazing job of matching the original line. To the point it needs no editorial and you can slide it into place and be good. If a actor isnt able to give a good adr performance then the lower quality production sound will still be used. Because the performance matters the most. 

I hope this helps. I know you guys are the enthusiasts and I have a lot of respect for people who take this stuff seriously. Just know that most of us who work in this industry are also enthusiasts and we try and do whats best for the production.


----------



## ThePrisoner

LowellG said:


> I have a question for those who have went Atmos so far. When I spoke to the Dolby rep a couple months ago he said Dolby was designed for monopole speakers and I should lower my surrounds. If I go Atmos, I have been debating whether to get rid of my bi polar surrounds. How many of you have bi polar surrounds and do you think it matters?
> 
> 
> Thanks,





Csbooth said:


> I've heard 4 different setups with Bi-Polar surrounds and thought they sounded great, and have heard talk on this forum of it being perfectly acceptable. If it's possible, you definitely want to make sure your surrounds are lowered so you can get the full benefit of the 3D plane soundfield.


My surrounds are bi-polar Def Tech's and they work great but as Csbooth said, make sure they are at ear or slightly higher level to get greater separation of the height speakers. My surrounds were originally 6 ft high up, I moved them to ear height since upgrading to Atmos.


----------



## Nightlord

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Basically, what you are saying, is there is no such thing as a tweeter with sensitivity higher than 94db that has high sound quality.


Actually the discussion was regarding making a 10dB step. Thus finding a 104dB tweeter with the same performance and radiation pattern. 

But I'm definitely not saying that as even still a little bit left in mine, as the bigger brother model with 4 x 9" boomers can utilize a bit extra from it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> But I don't hear it when the DSU is off. I wouldn't rule out that the heights might be creating extra reflections... I haven't had a chance to test things due to the holidays but when I get a chance I will. I might like to try the DSU with the heights turned off to see if I can still hear it, I did run the calibration though.


I'm not doubting what you hear - just the cause of it.


----------



## kbarnes701

JST0rm said:


> Again. This is something that works sometimes and not other times. There is no way it will work all the time.


It is fortunate then that I never said it would 



JST0rm said:


> If you have sounds happening in the rears it can actually make people turn around. It can make people look off to the side of the screen wondering what is that sound. It can make people literally stop thinking about the film.


None of these things seems to have prevented Gravity from being lauded as one of the best sound designs and mixes ever. Not to mention what the Academy thought of it this year too 

I could list dozens of recent movies that have plenty of sounds in the surround speakers (eg Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion to name just two). I have watched them more than once each, and I never remember turning around or wondering "what is that sound?". Obviously a really poor mixer could induce any of these effects, but IME most mixers are very skilled professionals and, well, they don't.



JST0rm said:


> Everything is accounted for, from how long it takes your eye to move from one part of the screen to another to why a scene has a certain color color correction to why a footstep in the left surround 30 seconds before the actor is on screen is distracting.


Yes, I would expect that. But I fail to see its relevance to what we are discussing. When they made Oblivion, they also took all of that into account, yet the put plenty of sounds in the surrounds - not just music and ambiance.



JST0rm said:


> However, sometimes this stuff works. 1 example - Hanna - when he (the father figure) is walking in one sequence in the city (sorry forget the exact time) there is a lot of immersion and it works because it was established that is what that scene was about. Sounds are panning around you as you walk through the scene with him. This is a design choice that would never work for a romcom or even some action films. Even in hanna they didnt do that for the entire movie because it would get OLD.


You keep mentioning things I never said as though I either said them or believe them. I didn't say that the entire movie should have sounds coming from the surrounds with the same prominence as from the fronts and, clearly, it would be fairly ridiculous to expect that to be the case. Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes.







JST0rm said:


> There are a few reasons why there is poor production sound and lets talk about a few reasons:
> 
> 1. Location location location - Sometimes the film needs to use a location that is not a quiet place and it will never be a quiet place. If you made all of your choices on where to film based on location sound quality well you will end up with few locations used in many films. It doesnt mean you cant get good sound in those locations but the room for error is great.


Which is why ADR was invented.



JST0rm said:


> 2. The type of shot. Is a long shot with no room for a boom? You can use a long shotgun mic but the off axis response is horrible ad depending on the action it could possibly not work as the boom op needs to track the movement perfectly. Did you know boom ops/mixer learn everyones line in the film? They use this information so they can move the boom from side to side to catch each line. They will also traditionally have a lav mic on each actor but with heavy action this mic can get a lot of cloth noise on it.


Yes, I did know that. And again, if the dialog (which is what we were discussing wrt to production sound) is not recorded with clarity, then there is much that can be done in post/ADR.



JST0rm said:


> 3. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes a person will make a mistake and you end up with off axis sound on the perfect take. Guess what? That perfect take is going to be used. Directors need the perfect take (see 6.).


Agreed. But this isn't common and it isn't remotely what Aras_Volodka was saying, where he was saying he routinely hears reflections from walls on the set or on the location.



JST0rm said:


> 4. Budget. Now I'm not talking about getting inexperienced people im talking about the line producer pushing the day forward to get the film done in the budget allowed. What this could mean is less time to roll for tone or to even set up the mics correctly.


Again, this isn't something I experience much. I watch about 350 movies a year, of all genres, and I can count on one hand the times I have had issues with dialog intelligibility or self-evident lack of recording quality.



JST0rm said:


> 5. Incompetence. It does happen. I remember a film I did when I first started out that had horribly distorted set audio over the entire thing. The mixer even turned it down but it was after the gain stage that was doing the distorting! Incredibly frustrating for the dialog editor and the actors because of how much adr was needed.


There was a recent TV series in the UK - I forget its name as I don't watch TV, that had unintelligible dialog all the way through too. Amazing how this crap gets out.



JST0rm said:


> 6. ADR - you all know what this is. Some actors are good at it and some arent. Normally the experienced actors just do a amazing job of matching the original line. To the point it needs no editorial and you can slide it into place and be good. If a actor isnt able to give a good adr performance then the lower quality production sound will still be used. Because the performance matters the most.


Yes, agreed. And if the dialog line isn't crucial, well, so what if people can't hear it properly, I guess. They must have made Interstellar on that basis LOL.



JST0rm said:


> I hope this helps. I know you guys are the enthusiasts and I have a lot of respect for people who take this stuff seriously. Just know that most of us who work in this industry are also enthusiasts and we try and do whats best for the production.


I do know that and I do believe it and I do promote that line whenever I can. That is why I took Aras up on his comment that he is hearing poor production sound on a regular basis. I know that it will happen occasionally, and your examples illustrate that, but regulary? Or often? Not on my system, not on my Blurays.

Thanks for your detailed and helpful reply BTW. Appreciated.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> But I don't hear it when the DSU is off. I wouldn't rule out that the heights might be creating extra reflections... I haven't had a chance to test things due to the holidays but when I get a chance I will. I might like to try the DSU with the heights turned off to see if I can still hear it, I did run the calibration though.


DSU does emphasize the ambience. It is more noticeable in 2-ch sources, from the rear speakers (with 7.1 mains). In one recording I thought it was adding a slap echo, but it was actually very low in the source. Just never noticed it as such without DSU.


----------



## Roger Dressler

LowellG said:


> I have a question for those who have went Atmos so far. When I spoke to the Dolby rep a couple months ago he said Dolby was designed for monopole speakers and I should lower my surrounds. If I go Atmos, I have been debating whether to get rid of my bi polar surrounds. How many of you have bi polar surrounds and do you think it matters?


Bipoles are fine. Watch the Grimani interview with Scott Wilkinson for more insights about how they interact with room acoustics.


----------



## JST0rm

kbarnes701 said:


> It is fortunate then that I never said it would


you say that and then you give me some examples of great use of surrounds. If your complaint is the surrounds arent being used enough and then I say one size doesnt fit all and then you say "I know that but gravity" - I think we are in agreement 





> None of these things seems to have prevented Gravity from being lauded as one of the best sound designs and mixes ever. Not to mention what the Academy thought of it this year too
> 
> I could list dozens of recent movies that have plenty of sounds in the surround speakers (eg Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion to name just two). I have watched them more than once each, and I never remember turning around or wondering "what is that sound?". Obviously a really poor mixer could induce any of these effects, but IME most mixers are very skilled professionals and, well, they don't.


I could probably list a 100. 





> Yes, I would expect that. But I fail to see its relevance to what we are discussing. When they made Oblivion, they also took all of that into account, yet the put plenty of sounds in the surrounds - not just music and ambiance.


Again  look, all kinds of sounds can go all kinds of places. 





> You keep mentioning things I never said as though I either said them or believe them. I didn't say that the entire movie should have sounds coming from the surrounds with the same prominence as from the fronts and, clearly, it would be fairly ridiculous to expect that to be the case. Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes.


I think we are in agreement but this format isnt the best for getting my point across. 






> Agreed. But this isn't common and it isn't remotely what Aras_Volodka was saying, where he was saying he routinely hears reflections from walls on the set or on the location.


We we actually add reverb to the soundtrack. Be it sound effects, dialog or foley to help create a natural environment. 

http://www.audioease.com/Pages/Altiverb/

^^^ Thats kind of the defacto standard of itb reverbs at this point. I think its possible that whatever upmixing is going on is making the verb more pronounced. Because it would certainly do that (refer to my mid side post)





> Again, this isn't something I experience much. I watch about 350 movies a year, of all genres, and I can count on one hand the times I have had issues with dialog intelligibility or self-evident lack of recording quality.


Thats a good thing. I watch a lot of indie film and forign film as well and its usually more pronounced in the low budget mumblecore stuff. 






> Yes, agreed. And if the dialog line isn't crucial, well, so what if people can't hear it properly, I guess. They must have made Interstellar on that basis LOL.


yeah and interstellar is a prime example of a film that made a choice about dialog that was unusual. 





> I do know that and I do believe it and I do promote that line whenever I can. That is why I took Aras up on his comment that he is hearing poor production sound on a regular basis. I know that it will happen occasionally, and your examples illustrate that, but regulary? Or often? Not on my system, not on my Blurays.


Again, I think its the upmixing going crazy on some material. That was kind of my point for the mid side post. 



> Thanks for your detailed and helpful reply BTW. Appreciated.


cheers


----------



## Mike Garrett

LowellG said:


> Is that for the 4 surround and 4 overhead, or just the 4 overhead?


All speakers should be monopole.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I could list dozens of recent movies that have plenty of sounds in the surround speakers (eg Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion to name just two). I have watched them more than once each, and I never remember turning around or wondering "what is that sound?".


Even distinct overhead effects (recent Planet of the Apes sequel) aren't distracting when done right. But they certainly add to the sense of being there.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Ceiling height = 7.25 (correct)
> Ears roughly @ 4.25 feet from floor (correct)
> 35" above MLP straight up (correct)
> 
> To be very precise, its 38" straight up from MLP to ceiling. I can sit @ 3.25 feet from floor but then I'm compromising my viewing. We enjoy watching the screen with that 1 foot high above floor stage.
> 
> My room has plenty of space to move over head speakers forward and behind as long as they are 30 inches apart from MLP on left and right.


Hi Sheraz, Merry Christmas. 

If you install four overhead speakers (on or in-ceiling) with the proper recommended Dolby Atmos triangulation from the Dolby Atmos Speaker Positioning Guideline; for the two top Front Atmos heights, and the two top Rear Atmos heights, their distance to the MLP should be greater than the 38 inches that you mentioned, and which is the distance straight up from your ears to the ceiling (in straight 90 degree line). 

I do understand that you have to sit high (4.25 feet) in order to have the best view on your screen.
And I don't see any issue with having your four overhead speakers @ roughly 44" or so from the MLP. 

And I also know that your room is 27 feet long by 12 feet wide.

What is now your biggest concern, if there is still one of course...the height of your ceiling @ 87 inches (7.25 feet)?


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> I started reading this thread from beginning and so far on 45th page. A lot more to go . I was thinking I'd be able to get the answers I'm looking for but the search continues. So I think its better that I ask here. These questions might have been asked already. My apologies in advance for repetition.
> 
> Room Configuration: Room is 12' wide, 27' long and 7.25' high. I'm using acoustically transparent screen so my LCR are behind the screen. I want to install overhead speakers for Atmos. MLP is 13.5' from LCR speakers.
> 
> My concern is the height. I have only 87" high ceiling. Then MLP seats are placed on 12" stage. So that leaves us with 77" ceiling. According to Atmos documentatin,
> 
> According to this, I'm at a major disadvantage. From ear height, I have only 38" from celing and ear level. I'm not even including the height of speaker when installed. It might have its one height say 8". So then actual distance from the ceiling to ear is 30". I have plenty of space to go ahead and behind MLP.
> 
> *Following are the questions
> 1 - Is having only 30" height for over head speakers too less? Will I end up hearing each speaker instead of getting a 3D imersive sound? Please keep in mind that I have plenty of space to move speakers to front and back.
> 2 - How far should the speaker be from side walls?
> 3 - How far should the speakers be from ahead and behind from MLP?*
> 
> Thx a bunch.





SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> didn't get answer of my previous post http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-553.html#post30185258. May be its too much info there.
> 
> *To simplify the situation, can overheads be installed 35" above MLP? Is it too short of distance? I have plenty of room to move speakers to front and back just not enough from MLP to ceiling.*
> thx


I decided to quote the two above posts from Sheraz. 
♦ *Can another member reading this here contribute by offering some beneficial insights to Sheraz's quest?*

Thanks a bunch.


----------



## Orbitron

At Dolby Labs in NYC I asked if my home theater which has a 7 foot ceiling was high enough to reconfigure for Atmos - the answer was it should be. Waiting to see what new product is announced at CES before dipping my Atmos toe.


----------



## smurraybhm

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> All speakers should be monopole.


Mike - not necessarily. The use of bi-poles and there ability to work well with Atmos/DSU has been discussed in detail already. You have some using them for surrounds or tops. See the spreadsheet for a list - I use a pair for my rear surrounds and they work well. Steve


----------



## NorthSky

JST0rm said:


> Again. This is something that works sometimes and not other times. There is no way it will work all the time. If you have sounds happening in the rears it can actually make people turn around. It can make people look off to the side of the screen wondering what is that sound. It can make people literally stop thinking about the film. Everything is accounted for, from how long it takes your eye to move from one part of the screen to another to why a scene has a certain color color correction to why a footstep in the left surround 30 seconds before the actor is on screen is distracting.
> 
> However, sometimes this stuff works. 1 example - Hanna - when he (the father figure) is walking in one sequence in the city (sorry forget the exact time) there is a lot of immersion and it works because it was established that is what that scene was about. Sounds are panning around you as you walk through the scene with him. This is a design choice that would never work for a romcom or even some action films. Even in hanna they didnt do that for the entire movie because it would get OLD.
> 
> More details in the sound is more immersion. More speakers create more room for that immersion to take place.
> 
> There are a few reasons why there is poor production sound and lets talk about a few reasons:
> 
> 1. Location location location - Sometimes the film needs to use a location that is not a quiet place and it will never be a quiet place. If you made all of your choices on where to film based on location sound quality well you will end up with few locations used in many films. It doesnt mean you cant get good sound in those locations but the room for error is great.
> 
> 2. The type of shot. Is a long shot with no room for a boom? You can use a long shotgun mic but the off axis response is horrible ad depending on the action it could possibly not work as the boom op needs to track the movement perfectly. Did you know boom ops/mixer learn everyones line in the film? They use this information so they can move the boom from side to side to catch each line. They will also traditionally have a lav mic on each actor but with heavy action this mic can get a lot of cloth noise on it.
> 
> 3. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes a person will make a mistake and you end up with off axis sound on the perfect take. Guess what? That perfect take is going to be used. Directors need the perfect take (see 6.).
> 
> 4. Budget. Now I'm not talking about getting inexperienced people im talking about the line producer pushing the day forward to get the film done in the budget allowed. What this could mean is less time to roll for tone or to even set up the mics correctly.
> 
> 5. Incompetence. It does happen. I remember a film I did when I first started out that had horribly distorted set audio over the entire thing. The mixer even turned it down but it was after the gain stage that was doing the distorting! Incredibly frustrating for the dialog editor and the actors because of how much adr was needed.
> 
> 6. ADR - you all know what this is. Some actors are good at it and some arent. Normally the experienced actors just do a amazing job of matching the original line. To the point it needs no editorial and you can slide it into place and be good. If a actor isnt able to give a good adr performance then the lower quality production sound will still be used. Because the performance matters the most.
> 
> I hope this helps. I know you guys are the enthusiasts and I have a lot of respect for people who take this stuff seriously. Just know that most of us who work in this industry are also enthusiasts and we try and do whats best for the production.


♦ Awesome post, thank you. ...And Merry Christmas.


----------



## noah katz

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> You want monopole speakers with Atmos.





smurraybhm said:


> Mike - not necessarily. The use of bi-poles and there ability to work well with Atmos/DSU has been discussed in detail already. You have some using them for surrounds or tops. See the spreadsheet for a list - I use a pair for my rear surrounds and they work well. Steve


I agree, and would go so far as to say it's a bit misleading that bipoles are given their own definition category, as monopoles and dipoles are much more similar to each other than dipoles are to either.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> I decided to quote the two above posts from Sheraz.
> ♦ *Can another member reading this here contribute by offering some beneficial insights to Sheraz's quest?*
> 
> Thanks a bunch.



I'm waiting for some answers too because Sheraz and I have identical rooms with identical issues it seems, well, other than I do not have the acoustically transparent screen. My L/C/R speakers are only 9.5' from my MLP . The rest of the issues are identical. I may be more anxious to get some answers though as I'm in the middle of pulling the wire and roughing in the speaker locations. 
I'm pulling wire for 6 ceiling speakers , 4 for now and 2 additional for future. My 4 speakers are likely going to be spaced a little further forward and back to allow room for the center speakers .
I also have two rows of seats and I'm trying to make a wider sweet spot to accommodate the rear seats. I consider the front row to be the MLP ,but, trying to keep the rears seats reasonably within
the target range as well. Most of the diagrams out there only deal with one row of seats. My side surrounds are between the front and rear, more biased to the front. These sides are dipole which
I realize are not ideal but work really well as such for 7.1 .


----------



## NorthSky

noah katz said:


> I agree, and would go so far as to say it's a bit misleading that bipoles are given their own definition category,
> as monopoles and *dipoles* are much more similar to each other than dipoles are to either.


Noah, you meant *bipoles*.

_________

Me, I still strongly believe that monopoles all around are still the very best with Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> * ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ==> See pages 14 to 27 (3. Standard Speaker Configurations).
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html *





SherazNJ said:


> Following are the questions
> *1 - Is having only 30" height for over head speakers too less? Will I end up hearing each speaker instead of getting a 3D imersive sound? Please keep in mind that I have plenty of space to move speakers to front and back.
> 2 - How far should the speaker be from side walls?
> 3 - How far should the speakers be from ahead and behind from MLP?*.





SherazNJ said:


> To simplify the situation, *can overheads be installed 35" above MLP? Is it too short of distance?*
> I have plenty of room to move speakers to front and back just not enough from MLP to ceiling.





roxiedog13 said:


> I'm waiting for some answers too because Sheraz and I have identical rooms with identical issues it seems, well, other than I do not have the acoustically transparent screen. My L/C/R speakers are only 9.5' from my MLP . The rest of the issues are identical. I may be more anxious to get some answers though as I'm in the middle of pulling the wire and roughing in the speaker locations.
> I'm pulling wire for 6 ceiling speakers , 4 for now and 2 additional for future. My 4 speakers are likely going to be spaced a little further forward and back to allow room for the center speakers .
> I also have two rows of seats and I'm trying to make a wider sweet spot to accommodate the rear seats. I consider the front row to be the MLP ,but, trying to keep the rears seats reasonably within
> the target range as well. Most of the diagrams out there only deal with one row of seats. My side surrounds are between the front and rear, more biased to the front. These sides are dipole which
> I realize are not ideal but work really well as such for 7.1 .


♦ In the very first quote above there are two good links that will help you both.


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> Hi Sheraz, Merry Christmas.
> 
> If you install four overhead speakers (on or in-ceiling) with the proper recommended Dolby Atmos triangulation from the Dolby Atmos Speaker Positioning Guideline; for the two top Front Atmos heights, and the two top Rear Atmos heights, their distance to the MLP should be greater than the 38 inches that you mentioned, and which is the distance straight up from your ears to the ceiling (in straight 90 degree line).
> 
> I do understand that you have to sit high (4.25 feet) in order to have the best view on your screen.
> And I don't see any issue with having your four overhead speakers @ roughly 44" or so from the MLP.
> 
> And I also know that your room is 27 feet long by 12 feet wide.
> 
> What is now your biggest concern, if there is still one of course...the height of your ceiling @ 87 inches (7.25 feet)?


Merry Christmas to you too NorthSky. 
That clears a lot for me. One of the reason of my concern was/is that having speakers this close (even if they are mounted a few feet forward and to the side from MLP, might not provide an immersive environment and might end up sounding very direct (even if speakers have good dispersion).


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Merry Christmas to you too NorthSky.
> That clears a lot for me. One of the reason of my concern was/is that having speakers this close (even if they are mounted a few feet forward and to the side from MLP, might not provide an immersive environment and might end up sounding very direct (even if speakers have good dispersion).


That is exactly what I understood. ...And your front tops are going to be roughly two feet from each side wall, more or less, and @ a 45 degree angle,
and your rear tops @ a 135 degree angle. 

So each top speaker (left & right, front & rear) is going to be @ roughly 55 inches from the MLP (just a quick measuring guess; you're the one knowing exactly). And that, would be perfect. Plus your pre/pro (or receiver), with his Room Calibration system, is going to determine the right amount of delay for each speaker in your total number of speakers for your particular configuration. 

Total immersion; you got it. ...Nothing to be concerned about. 

* When you mount those overhead speakers; best is to have the type of brackets that allows freedom @ aiming them. ...For the on-ceiling type.
And if they are of the in-ceiling type, some of them you have a certain amount of freedom too @ aiming them.

♦ Key: Experiment, with their direction/dispersion (aim) relative to the MLP. ...And the wider their dispersion the wider their coverage around the MLP.
Wide radiating speakers are best, and timbre-matched is a bonus.


----------



## Kain

Kain said:


> What is the recommended distance from the MLP for the side and back surround speakers? Is 2-3 feet too close? If yes, is placing them higher up a good way to off-set the close distance from the MLP?


Any feedback on this?

Secondly, is there anyone here who has installed Atmos at home and now thinks it really isn't worth it over "standard" 5.1/7.1?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Even distinct overhead effects (recent Planet of the Apes sequel) aren't distracting when done right. But they certainly add to the sense of being there.


Indeed. I watched *The Rock* last night. In typical Michael bay style, the soundtrack is very dynamic, aggressive and makes much use of all the speakers in the system. There are numerous occasions when objects of one kind or another are 'off screen' - for example, missiles flying from back to front, helicopters flying from front to back and so on. There were no occasions when the sound off-screen 'surprised' me or made me wonder "what was that sound?", and no occasions when it distracted me. In fact it considerably added to the enjoyment of the movie. If the sound originated on screen and them moved to the back, it is obvious what it is. If the sound originated at the back and moved to the front, it was equally obvious, even before seeing it on screen, what it was because of the context. If the scene is one where missiles have been launched and the viewpoint changes and you next hear the sound of the missile behind you, moving forwards, it is pretty obvious what the sound is - the context makes it so. I can't really understand the point that if sounds are off-screen they are distracting, take you out of the movie, or are incomprehensible ("what was that sound?"), unless the movie has been mixed by a complete bozo.


----------



## zimmo

For me i like better ACCUEQ,is more fast and is easy for calibration,now i have onkyo tx-nr3030 and my recever av before is onkyo tx-nr906 and he have audyssey.


The différence whit together for me dont forget i have boht system and the ACCUEQ is more subtil ,you now the new system calibration ACCUEQ is coming whit the 


colaboration whit DOLBY,dolby and onkyo together is make the thousand time calibration whit ACCUEQ for the best sound in the dolby atmos.


The news recevers onkyo same tx-nr1030 or tx-nr3030 is more musical .


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> Any feedback on this?


Having the speakers farther away from the seating reduces how far off-center/lopsided the soundfield is for people not sitting at the main listening position. If someone has to sit next to one of the surround speakers, it can be quite distracting. For example, Dolby recommends a minimum distance of 3-5 feet from the nearest seat for Atmos-enabled speakers. See page 11 of http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



> Secondly, is there anyone here who has installed Atmos at home and now thinks it really isn't worth it over "standard" 5.1/7.1?


It does seem to be less of an enhancement for people who already had a system which included Front Height speakers. I previously had a 5.1 system and it was a dramatic improvement for me. I'd been thinking about upgrading to 11.1 for a couple of years, and the availability of Atmos was enough to push me over the edge.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> It does seem to be less of an enhancement for people who already had a system which included Front Height speakers. I previously had a 5.1 system and it was a dramatic improvement for me. I'd been thinking about upgrading to 11.1 for a couple of years, and the availability of Atmos was enough to push me over the edge.


One of the biggest benefits of Atmos, IMO, has nothing to do with Height channels. It is Atmos's amazing ability to create a 3 dimensional sound stage with incredible accuracy of positioning sounds within that soundstage. To me, this is more important than obvious 'height effects' like helicopter flyovers. I guess that this is a byproduct of object-based sound as much as anything, and as such it would not be possible with former methods of upmixing such as Neo:X or DSX. So while I have had Height Speakers for a number if years, I still consider Atmos to be a huge step forward.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

Having just written for the HCFR Community (as a gift for Christmas  ) an article on the 24fps -> 25fps remix of the Atmos versions of the Luc Besson's Lucy film, this writing also contains a short video of the process, that gives a very good idea on how an (here excellent) Atmos mix can look and what can be done with objects.

So if you are interested it's available here (in French) :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/

And Merry Christmas to you,

Hugo


----------



## smurraybhm

zimmo said:


> For me i like better ACCUEQ,is more fast and is easy for calibration,now i have onkyo tx-nr3030 and my recever av before is onkyo tx-nr906 and he have audyssey.
> 
> 
> The différence whit together for me dont forget i have boht system and the ACCUEQ is more subtil ,you now the new system calibration ACCUEQ is coming whit the
> 
> 
> colaboration whit DOLBY,dolby and onkyo together is make the thousand time calibration whit ACCUEQ for the best sound in the dolby atmos.
> 
> 
> The news recevers onkyo same tx-nr1030 or tx-nr3030 is more musical .


 Good for you, glad your happy. Now now take it to the thread discussing this topic (AccuEQ vs. Audyssey) since your second post about it isn't getting any bites on the Atmos thread nor should it. Hope English is a second language or we need to talk.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> Having just written for the HCFR Community (as a gift for Christmas  ) an article on the 24fps -> 25fps remix of the Atmos versions of the Luc Besson's Lucy film, this writing also contains a short video of the process, that gives a very good idea on how an (here excellent) Atmos mix can look and what can be done with objects.
> 
> So if you are interested it's available here (in French) :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/
> 
> And Merry Christmas to you,
> 
> Hugo


Thanks Hugo. Joyeux Noel - je te souhaite une bonne année aussi!


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour à Toi, Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Hugo. Joyeux Noel - je te souhaite une bonne année aussi!


Et Joyeux Noël aussi.

Amitiés,

Hugo


----------



## chi_guy50

Kain said:


> Any feedback on this?
> 
> Secondly, is there anyone here who has installed Atmos at home and now thinks it really isn't worth it over "standard" 5.1/7.1?


I'm not a mathematician--and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn in recent memory--but I'm going to postulate an equation in response to your query:

Number of disgruntled Atmos HT owners = number of disappointed 6-year-old girls whose father gave them a pony for Christmas. 

For just one example, look at what Hugo writes in the review he has just linked to in his post above about going from 11.2 to 7.2.4 in his HT. Even though he feels that 9.x.6 would be the ideal Atmos HT configuration (as do I), his description (in part 4) of the much more realistic and immersive effects obtained from the current iteration should allay any trepidations you may have regarding the value of upgrading from "just" 5.1/7.1.


----------



## wes k

What happens to atmos channels on non-atmos feeds? Are they completely silent or does dolby make them part of the surround channels?


----------



## batpig

Nothing is lost. Played back on a non Atmos processor it will just be a standard 7.1 TrueHD track. The non-Atmos decoder will not recognize the metadata controlling the objects.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Roger Dressler said:


> DSU does emphasize the ambience. It is more noticeable in 2-ch sources, from the rear speakers (with 7.1 mains). In one recording I thought it was adding a slap echo, but it was actually very low in the source. Just never noticed it as such without DSU.


I'm not the only one who's heard it then... I'm glad I'm not going nuts. Yes in the source it sounds fine, perhaps what I'm hearing is an ambient mic that the DSU might have picked out, or the mic on the actor. I'm not sure how close a mic can get to actors in the studio, but if it's more than a foot away I don't see how a bit of ambience couldn't be picked up... perhaps the DSU is somehow amplifying that or one of the other mics on set. I know that the schoeps CMC64 microphone is used on a lot of sets, the MK4 capsule does have a tendency to pick up the room sound a bit more even though it's a cardiod.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wes k said:


> What happens to atmos channels on non-atmos feeds? Are they completely silent or does dolby make them part of the surround channels?


The 7.1 base track contains the complete soundtrack, the Atmos extension data is ignored. When processed through a consumer Atmos renderer, the identical object sounds are reverse-phase deleted from the 7.1 bed and replaced with the object-based audio from the extension file.


----------



## wes k

Dan Hitchman said:


> wes k said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to atmos channels on non-atmos feeds? Are they completely silent or does dolby make them part of the surround channels?
> 
> 
> 
> The 7.1 base track contains the complete soundtrack, the Atmos extension data is ignored. When processed through a consumer Atmos renderer, the identical object sounds are reverse-phase deleted from the 7.1 bed and replaced with the object-based audio from the extension file.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh, yeah.

So, do the atmos channel speakers play anything during movies without atmos?


----------



## audioguy

wes k said:


> What happens to atmos channels on non-atmos feeds? Are they completely silent or does dolby make them part of the surround channels?


A traditional non-atmos 5.1 or 7.1 Bluray can be expanded to make use of the ceiling speakers by selection of Dolby Surround Processor (or DSU). If you look through this thread, you will read many comments that suggest that the DSU portion of the new SSP's makes the investment worthwhile even if there were no Atmos enabled films. I am one of them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wes k said:


> Uhhhh, yeah.
> 
> So, do the atmos channel speakers play anything during movies without atmos?


Using Dolby Surround upmixing, a 2.0, 5.1, or 7.1 track will use every Atmos speaker location but the wides.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Can someone with the Auro 2014 Demo Disc confirm something? I was running the 13.1 Channeltest Noise track. In the 7702's 5.1.4 Auro 3D mode, the top channel plays from all 4 height speakers, just as expected, but the loudness seems a few dB low. 

Now play it with Auro turned off (Multi-Ch 7.1). What does your ears tell you? The top channel is way louder, right? What does your SPL meter read? Use A-wtg to prevent the subwoofer from affecting the reading (more later). In my system, the Top channel comes out the "4 corners" as expected, but it's 4 dB louder than the other channels. Same happens with the Channeltest Voice track.

If this is a normal aspect of the Auro format, then it will overemphasize the top channel when playing Auro content in normal 5.1/7.1 systems. But maybe it was just a poor choice of 5.1 downmix coefficients. 

The other thing you may notice is that when a single channel (e.g. VOG) is rendered to 4 other speakers (either 4 heights or 4 mains), the bass management now captures that bass signal 4 times, making it 6 dB louder from the subwoofer than it was in the original mix. No easy DIY fix for that, unfortunately, but it could be addressed during mastering by applying a bass crossover in the VOG channel before encoding. 

And while we're here, it still seems dumb that the Auro 13.1 tracks use all 7.1 main speakers when played with Auro 3D turned off, but kill the rear speakers when turned on. The 7702 is s'posed to be an 11.2 processor. What gives -- why is it is limited to just 9.2 just for Auro? Can't be a MIPs thing, these tracks are delivered in PCM, not DTS-HD.


----------



## ThePrisoner

I have question about the minimum 30 degree elevation for front heights. I'm currently sitting about 11 1/2 feet from my front wall. My front heights are about 7.5 feet up on wall. my ceiling is 8 ft. If my calculations are correct, am I at the minimum 30 degree angle?


----------



## Roger Dressler

ThePrisoner said:


> I have question about the minimum 30 degree elevation for front heights. I'm currently sitting about 11 1/2 feet from my front wall. My front heights are about 7.5 feet up on wall. my ceiling is 8 ft. If my calculations are correct, am I at the minimum 30 degree angle?


If your ears are 3' off the floor and the height speakers are 4.5' higher, the angle is arctan(4.5/11.5) = 21 deg.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> The 7702 is s'posed to be an 11.2 processor. What gives -- why is it is limited to just 9.2 just for Auro?


To go beyond 9.2, D&M had to choose between 2 surround-back outputs or 1 VOG output. They chose the latter. While using the VOG output doesn't use up the 2 surround-back connectors externally, it does not leave enough processing channels internally to power both surround-back connectors.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Roger Dressler said:


> If your ears are 3' off the floor and the height speakers are 4.5' higher, the angle is arctan(4.5/11.5) = 21 deg.



Damn! Forgot to factor in height of my ears which is about 3.5' off floor. So would you recommend I go to ceiling mount? I can just move the mounts to top of ceiling, that won't be a problem.

Thanks!


----------



## Mike Garrett

smurraybhm said:


> Mike - not necessarily. The use of bi-poles and there ability to work well with Atmos/DSU has been discussed in detail already. You have some using them for surrounds or tops. See the spreadsheet for a list - I use a pair for my rear surrounds and they work well. Steve


People can use whatever they want. That still does not change what is recommended. Monopoles are what is recommended.


----------



## Orbitron

sdurani said:


> To go beyond 9.2, D&M had to choose between 2 surround-back outputs or 1 VOG output. They chose the latter. While using the VOG output doesn't use up the 2 surround-back connectors externally, it does not leave enough processing channels internally to power both surround-back connectors.


This is why I'm waiting till 2015, the equipment manufacturers need more time for product development.


----------



## NorthSky

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> People can use whatever they want. That still does not change what is recommended.
> *Monopoles are what is recommended.*


Abso!umente.


----------



## NorthSky

> Good for you, glad your happy. Now now take it to the thread discussing this topic (AccuEQ vs. Audyssey) since your second post about it isn't getting any bites on the Atmos thread nor should it. Hope English is a second language or we need to talk.


TacT?


----------



## audioguy

Just watched Twister with DSU. A W E S O M E. Totally different experience!!!! Loved it


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> To go beyond 9.2, D&M had to choose between 2 surround-back outputs or 1 VOG output. They chose the latter. While using the VOG output doesn't use up the 2 surround-back connectors externally, it does not leave enough processing channels internally to power both surround-back connectors.


All that "amp assign" stuff and they still couldn't figure it out. Maybe if Auro had been designed in at the start...


----------



## Roger Dressler

ThePrisoner said:


> Damn! Forgot to factor in height of my ears which is about 3.5' off floor. So would you recommend I go to ceiling mount? I can just move the mounts to top of ceiling, that won't be a problem.


Yes, the ceiling is your best option. It's what I did.


----------



## 7channelfreak

smurraybhm said:


> Mike - not necessarily. The use of bi-poles and there ability to work well with Atmos/DSU has been discussed in detail already. You have some using them for surrounds or tops. See the spreadsheet for a list - I use a pair for my rear surrounds and they work well. Steve


I can confirm that Dolby recommends monopoles. I attended their training at Cedia and it was brought up three different times. They said they aren't telling people to not use bipolar, they just highly recommend monopoles.


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> All that "amp assign" stuff and they still couldn't figure it out. Maybe if Auro had been designed in at the start...



Fortunately the CEMs will get another chance to "look good" when they unveil their putative "integrated" _Atmos|Auro|"dts-uhd"_ capable AVR offerings in 2015...?!    

It will be interesting to see if the _"dts-uhd"_ rendering algorithms make provision for 'floor level' speakers _. . . at least for models in the Trinnov price range!_


_


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> All that "amp assign" stuff and they still couldn't figure it out. Maybe if Auro had been designed in at the start...


They can't get around their limit of 11 processing channels, even if Auro had been there from the start. 7 main speakers + 4 heights + 1 VOG = 12 channels (one more than they have). Apparently, having the VOG channel was a priority; maybe to differentiate Auro from Atmos.


----------



## BamaDave

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I am using the JBL 8340's.



Mike, can you provide details and perhaps photos on mounting the JBL speakers in your ceiling, please? I'm considering the 8340A's myself and this information would be very helpful.


Thanks! David


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> They can't get around their limit of 11 processing channels, even if Auro had been there from the start. 7 main speakers + 4 heights + 1 VOG = 12 channels (one more than they have). Apparently, having the VOG channel was a priority; maybe to differentiate Auro from Atmos.


I only want 11 channels. 

Amp assign let's me opt out of wides and rears and heights. Why not let us opt out of VOG? In fact, it does. It simply fails to allow the resource to be used for rears, so 2 output channels sit there doing nothing.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Why not let us opt out of VOG? In fact, it does. It simply fails to allow the resource to be used for rears, so 2 output channels sit there doing nothing.


Why not ask D&M? Maybe Auro insisted on the VOG channel as part of licensing to show they have one more layer than Atmos? Who knows what went into these decisions, let alone whose decision it was (Auro or D&M). Like you discovered at CEDIA, it wasn't Dolby's decision to not allow upfiring speakers to be used as virtual heights for Neo:X and Auro. 

With immersive audio still in its infancy (at least in the consumer market), I agree that an option to have 7.1.4 for both Atmos and Auro would have been helpful. Heck, even DTS has been using that layout for the last couple years at CES and on the Neo:X page of their website.


----------



## GalvatronType_R

A weird question:

-I'm not getting Atmos for now, I will wait for second and third gen AVRs with dts UHD built in

-so once I do, I don't want reflective speakers and I'd rather not drill holes for in-ceiling speakers

-as an alternative, how about mounting two wide passive soundbars on the ceiling, with both pointed toward the seats, and where I can run two sets of wires into each to get the .4 overhead channels?

-am I onto something here or should I stop smoking crack?


----------



## sdurani

Orbitron said:


> This is why I'm waiting till 2015, the equipment manufacturers need more time for product development.


Oh it will continue to develop well past that. We're in the introductory phase, where manufacturers are just trying to get the new immersive technologies into consumer products. After that's done, hopefully we'll start seeing what those immersive technologies are really capable of. But that's a ways away.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Why not ask D&M? Maybe Auro insisted on the VOG channel as part of licensing to show they have one more layer than Atmos?


The 7702 already allows me to opt out of VOG. But the 7702 fails to efficiently use the 11.2 output ports. It bevomes very obvious when playing the Auro 13.1 channelvoice ID track, as it names all 4 surrounds but they are mashed into 2, and the rears only get used correctly when Auro is turned off. 

I'm sure they will not do this in future models, but it's a shame they made these choices when there's no obvious hardware limitation.


----------



## NorthSky

> Oh it will continue to develop well past that. We're in the introductory phase, where manufacturers are just trying to get the new immersive technologies into consumer products. After that's done, hopefully we'll start seeing what those immersive technologies are really capable of.
> But that's a ways away.


I totally agree with that.


----------



## Orbitron

sdurani said:


> Oh it will continue to develop well past that. We're in the introductory phase, where manufacturers are just trying to get the new immersive technologies into consumer products. After that's done, hopefully we'll start seeing what those immersive technologies are really capable of. But that's a ways away.


True but by 3rd quarter 2015 there may be new product that has enough of what I'm looking for to get my Atmos toe wet.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, the ceiling is your best option. It's what I did.


I can go about 1' out from top of ceiling, where it meets the wall. 
I should make up a few more degrees correct? And I would imagine I could keep front height designation so I can still use DTS Neo X.


----------



## Roger Dressler

ThePrisoner said:


> I can go about 1' out from top of ceiling, where it meets the wall.
> I should make up a few more degrees correct?


You mean put the speaker on the 8' ceiling, 1' into the room (in the direction of the rear of the room)? If so, the angle is arctan(4.5/10.5) which is 23 deg. To hit 30 deg, you'd need to pull them 4' into the room.



> And I would imagine I could keep front height designation so I can still use DTS Neo X.


Yes, mine are at 40-deg elevation and I call them Front Height so they can be used for Neo:X, Auro-3D, and Atmos.


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> Just watched Twister with DSU. A W E S O M E. Totally different experience!!!! Loved it



I installed my X5200 today and swapped the rear in-ceiling speakers to on wall , in the back, the rear in-ceiling are now my Atmos ceiling . 
Ran 7.1.2, calibrated with Audyssey and to be honest did not notice anything different. The movie I watched was Guardians of the Galaxy
and it didn't appear any different than 7.1 . The ceiling Atmos are certainly a little far back for just the 2 speaker recommendations , the 
fronts will go in later to make 7.1.4 . 


I'll play with this a little more tomorrow and try TMNT. Maybe I'm not running the correct settings, TMNT may be a better reference to gauge
the system. We shall see


----------



## jdsmoothie

ThePrisoner said:


> I can go about 1' out from top of ceiling, where it meets the wall.
> I should make up a few more degrees correct? *And I would imagine I could keep front height designation so I can still use DTS Neo X*.


Correct, and in fact required if you want to share the forward height speakers across formats (Atmos, Auro 3D, DTS Neo:X) or use them with Top Middle mounted speakers.


----------



## clausdk

Anyone have experience with 9.1.2 atmos they can share?

I'm building a set of front speakers and my old dynaudio contour s5.4 will be surplus. Instead of just selling them in a tough used price market I intend to use them for atmos. Since they are quite big the only option really is front wide. Right now I'm running 9.1 with heights. I'll then move those heights to ceiling position instead.


----------



## aaranddeeman

GalvatronType_R said:


> A weird question:
> 
> -I'm not getting Atmos for now, I will wait for second and third gen AVRs with dts UHD built in
> 
> -so once I do, I don't want reflective speakers and I'd rather not drill holes for in-ceiling speakers
> 
> -as an alternative, how about mounting two wide passive soundbars on the ceiling, with both pointed toward the seats, and where I can run two sets of wires into each to get the .4 overhead channels?
> 
> -am I onto something here or should I stop smoking crack?


Seems like the front and back (or left and right depending on how you mount it) speakers (within each bar) will be too close to each other (and my not be within spec).


----------



## jdsmoothie

clausdk said:


> Anyone have experience with 9.1.2 atmos they can share?
> 
> I'm building a set of front speakers and my old dynaudio contour s5.4 will be surplus. Instead of just selling them in a tough used price market I intend to use them for atmos. Since they are quite big the only option really is front wide. Right now I'm running 9.1 with heights. I'll then move those heights to ceiling position instead.


Although Front Wide will definitely help to improve your front sound stage, important to note although they will be used with Atmos BDs, they will not be used with the Dolby Surround Upmixer for non-Atmos BDs. You can however, still use DTS Neo:X with the full 9.1.2 (Front Height) setup with non-Atmos BDs.


----------



## clausdk

jdsmoothie said:


> Although Front Wide will definitely help to improve your front sound stage, important to note although they will be used with Atmos BDs, they will not be used with the Dolby Surround Upmixer for non-Atmos BDs. You can however, still use DTS Neo:X with the full 9.1.2 (Front Height) setup with non-Atmos BDs.


Ok good point. I've been researching it and didn't come across that fact. Ok so an atmos encoded soundtrack will use the front wide but not the upmixer - strange.


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Correct. And as I prefer to keep my Front Wides, I will continue using DTS Neo:X vice DSU.


----------



## clausdk

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Correct. And as I prefer to keep my Front Wides, I will continue using DTS Neo:X vice DSU.


Have you, or anyone else, tested DSU vs DTS Neo:X with wides on non atmos content?


----------



## SoundChex

clausdk said:


> Have you, or anyone else, tested DSU vs DTS Neo:X with wides on non atmos content?



Because [_perceived_] upmixer performance depends both on source content, and on 'room+speaker geometry', it is likely that no one upmixer will always deliver better sound that all others (or even than "no upmixing"). With more than 500 *non-immersive encoded DVD|BD* discs already in my library, it seems like I should probably focus first on an AVR with multiple immersive upmixers, rather than looking for one supporting multiple immersive codecs!


_


----------



## Mike Garrett

BamaDave said:


> Mike, can you provide details and perhaps photos on mounting the JBL speakers in your ceiling, please? I'm considering the 8340A's myself and this information would be very helpful.
> 
> 
> Thanks! David


I don't have pictures and am away right now, but I can tell you how I mounted them. I cut two pieces of 5/8" x 5/8" channel, 4" longer than the width of the speaker. I then bolted the channel to the back of the speaker, using the four inserts in the back of the speaker. Since I have access above my ceiling, I installed blocking where I needed for mounting. Then just hold the speaker up to the ceiling and screw the channel to the blocking. I used 3.5" screws. Means I was able to screw into the full depth of the 1.5" thick blocking. So each speaker is held up by four screws into 1.5" of 2x4. The 2x4 blocking is secured to my trusses with the same 3.5" screws.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



clausdk said:


> Have you, or anyone else, tested DSU vs DTS Neo:X with wides on non atmos content?


The Marantz 7702 we own having the possibility to connect 13 speakers + 2 subs in a 9.2.4 configuration (same as the Denon X5200), we're using both DSU and DTS Neo X processings.

DSU in a 7.2.4 (FH/RH) configuration is used for films and electronic or diffuse music, when DTS Neo X 11 Music processing in a 9.2.2 configuration,gives better results with front centered music performances such as singers or orchestras. 

Hugo


----------



## smurraybhm

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> People can use whatever they want. That still does not change what is recommended. Monopoles are what is recommended.


I was just pointing out that they can work well, never said monopoles weren't the Dolby rec. While we are at it let's not forget timber matched too.

Great thing about this forum is those who try different things, share their results on how it worked - good or bad. All I said is there are some of us using bi-poles with good results. It may not be necessary to replace a pair of bi-pole speakers if your switching to Atmos. Nothing wrong with not wasting $


----------



## chi_guy50

clausdk said:


> Have you, or anyone else, tested DSU vs DTS Neo:X with wides on non atmos content?


I use DTS Neo:X 11.1 routinely for music and DSU 7.1.4 for video sources. The main difference, as far as I am concerned, is that the front wides add much more to the musical sound stage than do the top rears (TM in my setup).

Also bear in mind that the exclusion of FW in DSU could very well change in future implementations. As was pointed out above, CEM's are just now starting to bring their products to market and there is a lot of room for improvements down the road. In fact, a number of us current users are eagerly awaiting a mainstream AVR that will allow a 9.1.6 Atmos configuration.


----------



## clausdk

SoundChex said:


> Because [_perceived_] upmixer performance depends both on source content, and on 'room+speaker geometry', it is likely that no one upmixer will always deliver better sound that all others (or even than "no upmixing"). With more than 500 *non-immersive encoded DVD|BD* discs already in my library, it seems like I should probably focus first on an AVR with multiple immersive upmixers, rather than looking for one supporting multiple immersive codecs!
> 
> 
> _


Good point.


----------



## clausdk

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> The Marantz 7702 we own having the possibility to connect 13 speakers + 2 subs in a 9.2.4 configuration (same as the Denon X5200), we're using both DSU and DTS Neo X processings.
> 
> DSU in a 7.2.4 (FH/RH) configuration is used for films and electronic or diffuse music, when DTS Neo X 11 Music processing in a 9.2.2 configuration,gives better results with front centered music performances such as singers or orchestras.
> 
> Hugo


Ok. So you have 9.1.4 installed and can switch between. Nice. Maybe I should do the same and simply keep the Dyn's as front wide but also install 4 ceiling.


----------



## clausdk

chi_guy50 said:


> I use DTS Neo:X 11.1 routinely for music and DSU 7.1.4 for video sources. The main difference, as far as I am concerned, is that the front wides add much more to the musical sound stage than do the top rears (TM in my setup).
> 
> Also bear in mind that the exclusion of FW in DSU could very well change in future implementations. As was pointed out above, CEM's are just now starting to bring their products to market and there is a lot of room for improvements down the road. In fact, a number of us current users are eagerly awaiting a mainstream AVR that will allow a 9.1.6 Atmos configuration.


Ok so you also have 13 speakers 9.1.4 and switch between them. I think you're right we will see beyond 7.1.4. I'm keeping my Dyn's!


----------



## gigging

I watched into the storm and it was awesome with DSU!


----------



## roxiedog13

On my X5200 should my display indicate 7.1.2 for Neo:X ? It's only showing 7.1 on the screen .


Presently nly running two Atmos speakers in ceiling for now and to be honest , my first impression is not great. Not that it is any worst just not better than before running 7.1. The complexity of the options and setup is overwhelming to be honest , now wondering if this is not a big mistake.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> On my X5200 should my display indicate 7.1.2 for Neo:X ? It's only showing 7.1 on the screen .
> 
> 
> Presently only running two Atmos speakers in ceiling for now and to be honest , my first impression is not great. Not that it is any worse just not better than before running 7.1. The complexity of the options and setup are overwhelming to be honest, now wondering if this is not a big mistake.


7.1.2 is a Dolby Atmos designation. 

Some people bump the ceiling speaker volume up just a bit after calibration.


----------



## jdsmoothie

roxiedog13 said:


> On my X5200 should my display indicate 7.1.2 for Neo:X ? It's only showing 7.1 on the screen .
> 
> 
> Presently nly running two Atmos speakers in ceiling for now and to be honest , my first impression is not great. Not that it is any worst just not better than before running 7.1. The complexity of the options and setup is overwhelming to be honest , now wondering if this is not a big mistake.


Only if your "height" speakers are designated as Front Height.


----------



## Selden Ball

roxiedog13 said:


> On my X5200 should my display indicate 7.1.2 for Neo:X ? It's only showing 7.1 on the screen .


 Press the Info button. It'll show what the input signal is, what upmixer is being applied and which speakers are in use.




> Presently nly running two Atmos speakers in ceiling for now and to be honest , my first impression is not great. Not that it is any worst just not better than before running 7.1. The complexity of the options and setup is overwhelming to be honest , now wondering if this is not a big mistake.


 How good it sounds often depends on exactly where the speakers are located. For example, you'll get a greater feeling of sounds coming from overhead if the Front Height speakers are closer to the seating instead of being right over the main speakers. 

If you can experiment with different speaker positions, then you should. You won't damage the electronics.

If you want others to help suggest positions, please provide photographs of the listening environment. Alternatively, you could use a 3D design program like SweetHome3D, (which is free and relatively easy to use), to show us your layout.


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> I use DTS Neo:X 11.1 routinely for music and DSU 7.1.4 for video sources. The main difference, as far as I am concerned, is that the front wides add much more to the musical sound stage than do the top rears (TM in my setup).
> 
> Also bear in mind that the exclusion of FW in DSU could very well change in future implementations. As was pointed out above, CEM's are just now starting to bring their products to market and there is a lot of room for improvements down the road. In fact, a number of us current users are eagerly awaiting a mainstream AVR that will allow a 9.1.6 Atmos configuration.


Thanks, I'm a wee bit confused(again)...just upgraded to a Marantz 7009. Running 7.2.4 including FWs and TF/TR..what speakers does your NEO 11.1 include? I would like a good balance between music and movies. Should I config my TF as FH to give me the balance so music would be NEO 7.2.2 (FWs and FHs) and ATMOS would be 7.2.4. Does that make sense?


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> Thanks, I'm a wee bit confused(again)...just upgraded to a Marantz 7009. Running 7.2.4 including FWs and TF/TR..what speakers does your NEO 11.1 include? I would like a good balance between music and movies. Should I config my TF as FH to give me the balance so music would be NEO 7.2.2 (FWs and FHs) and ATMOS would be 7.2.4. Does that make sense?


I believe in adhering to the commonly accepted terminology in order not to confuse others (and myself) any more than necessary. Therefore, when I refer to Neo:X 11.1 it should be unambiguously clear that I mean the standard 5.1 + SB + FH + FW. In order to allow for this mode in addition to Atmos 7.1.4, your front top-level pair must be designated as FH (also germane to an Auro setup). If you are not using SB, then at best you would get Neo:X (or A-DSX) 9.1.

Whether this makes sense for you is up to your ears to decide. See also the excellent points made by @SoundChex on this issue in his post above.


----------



## chi_guy50

clausdk said:


> Ok so you also have 13 speakers 9.1.4 and switch between them. I think you're right we will see beyond 7.1.4. I'm keeping my Dyn's!


Right, I have the same speaker setup--and arrived at the exact same conclusions regarding DSU vs. Neo:X--as Hugo, who posted his response just as I was typing mine (great minds think alike?).

BTW, bear in mind that with this setup on the D&M models you need to supplement the nine internal amps with at least four channels of external amplification.


----------



## clausdk

chi_guy50 said:


> Right, I have the same speaker setup--and arrived at the exact same conclusions regarding DSU vs. Neo:X--as Hugo, who posted his response just as I was typing mine (great minds think alike?).
> 
> BTW, bear in mind that with this setup on the D&M models you need to supplement the nine internal amps with at least four channels of external amplification.


Yup. Looking at poweramps right now! I have 9 amp channels already but in the end could need 15 so might as well aim for a 7 ch. poweramp.


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe in adhering to the commonly accepted terminology in order not to confuse others (and myself) any more than necessary. Therefore, when I refer to Neo:X 11.1 it should be unambiguously clear that I mean the standard 5.1 + SB + FH + FW. In order to allow for this mode in addition to Atmos 7.1.4, your front top-level pair must be designated as FH (also germane to an Auro setup). If you are not using SB, then at best you would get Neo:X (or A-DSX) 9.1.
> 
> Whether this makes sense for you is up to your ears to decide. See also the excellent points made by @SoundChex on this issue in his post above.


Thanks, would u conclude that FHs carry the exact same information when configured as TFs? have you been able to notice any difference?


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Jeff,



chi_guy50 said:


> Right, I have the same speaker setup--and arrived at the exact same conclusions regarding DSU vs. Neo:X--as Hugo, who posted his response just as I was typing mine (great minds think alike?).
> ...


1- 

2- to be honest, I've just followed the path you've paved as our 7702 arrived much later than your X5200 ,

3- concerning the Music reproduction and the distinction in the use of the processings : front centered titles such as (2 of my favorites Blurays) Andrea Bocelli "Vivere" and Legends of Jazz (ah "The Panther"...) are superb with a DTS Neo X 11 (9.2.2) Music processing... but in contrary Jean Michel Jarre's superb Aero DTS 5.1 DVD, is in overall better with a DSU 7.2.4 processing (the guy descending the stairs from behind = ) and even if the "immersiveness" of the Wides is really missing.

Amclt,

Hugo


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Jeff,
> 
> 1-
> 
> *2- to be honest, I've just followed the path you've paved as our 7702 arrived much later than your X5200 *,
> 
> 3- concerning the Music reproduction and the distinction in the use of the processings : front centered titles such as (2 of my favorites Blurays) Andrea Bocelli "Vivere" and Legends of Jazz (ah "The Panther"...) are superb with a DTS Neo X 11 (9.2.2) Music processing... but in contrary Jean Michel Jarre's superb Aero DTS 5.1 DVD, is in overall better with a DSU 7.2.4 processing (the guy descending the stairs from behind = ) and even if the "immersiveness" of the Wides is really missing.
> 
> Amclt,
> 
> Hugo


Consider it a small payback for your numerous, detailed contributions to these discussions, both here and through links to other threads. Or, as my predecessor comrade-in-arms once put it: « _La Fayette_, _nous voilà_ ! » 

Je vous offre mes meilleurs voeux pour la nouvelle année, Jeff


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> Thanks, would u conclude that FHs carry the exact same information when configured as TFs? have you been able to notice any difference?


I have not experimented, but I doubt there is much, if any, distinction. I believe Keith has posted about his trials without arriving at any conclusive evidence regarding a difference in signals AFAICR.


----------



## HiRez24

*Decisions, Decisions*

Really batting my brain trying to choose a pre or an reciever. I am posting here because all of the models I am choosing from are discussed in this thread. If advised to I can post a separate thread.

I am coming from a tx-nr809 which I am satisfied with except for amp section which I will be remedying with a outlaw 7200 amp that arrives tomorrow.

My problem is I cant decide between the marantz denon flagship/runner up, x5200/7200 or 7702/8802. I will definetley be doing atmos with 4 ceiling speakers. I will not be running wides or hieghts and I havent decided wether to run my rear surrounds, they are already in place but most of the time I leave them inactive.

I am leaning more towards the 7702 at the moment but it's relationship to the 4100 gives me pause. I would be willing to step up to the 8802 but only if it was really that much better and closer in price to the x7200. 

I have also toyed with the idea of the 5200/7200 as they are made in Japan and i could use the built in amps for my top speakers but I am afraid I will be sacrificing sound quality in lieu of buying another two channel amp.

My main concern is Music I listen to sacd and dvd-a rips as well as bluray concerts. I feel my tx-nr 809 is good enough for movies but lacks in stereo and multi channel music production.I am also very curious what DSU will do for my multi-channel music. I am not to concerned with the whole hdcp 2.2 thing as I am sure oppo will release another 2 HDMI output solution when I am ready to dive into 4k or when a resonably priced 70"+ flat OLED is released.

I am looking for any feedback to guide my purchasing decision. 

my curent speaker and subs are in my signature if any of that info helps.


----------



## photographerBG

I just watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in Atmos. Film is not a masterpiece, but the Dolby Atmos mix was very very good. Along with the surround effects, I like the bass integration, not too loud, not too heavy (like some DTS tracks).
I hope to have more Atmos movies that is worth of watch.


----------



## Kain

Selden Ball said:


> Having the speakers farther away from the seating reduces how far off-center/lopsided the soundfield is for people not sitting at the main listening position. If someone has to sit next to one of the surround speakers, it can be quite distracting. For example, Dolby recommends a minimum distance of 3-5 feet from the nearest seat for Atmos-enabled speakers. See page 11 of http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem to be less of an enhancement for people who already had a system which included Front Height speakers. I previously had a 5.1 system and it was a dramatic improvement for me. I'd been thinking about upgrading to 11.1 for a couple of years, and the availability of Atmos was enough to push me over the edge.


Thanks. But if I must place the side and back surround speakers close the MLP, can placing them higher up off-set the negative effects of having them close the MLP? Would 3-4 feet above ear-level be too high?

Secondly, does Atmos have the same reference levels "specs" as Dolby Digital and TrueHD (105 dB peaks for the main channels and 115 dB peaks for the LFE channel)?


----------



## roxiedog13

jdsmoothie said:


> Only if your "height" speakers are designated as Front Height.



I selected rear speakers from the list because the speakers are in the back of the seating position. Will add the front two Atmos ceiling speakers in a few days when the additional amp 
arrives.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Kain said:


> Secondly, does Atmos have the same reference levels "specs" as Dolby Digital and TrueHD (105 dB peaks for the main channels and 115 dB peaks for the LFE channel)?


Yes.


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> jdsmoothie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if your "height" speakers are designated as Front Height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I selected rear speakers from the list because the speakers are in the back of the seating position. Will add the front two Atmos ceiling speakers in a few days when the additional amp
> arrives.
Click to expand...

How far behind you are the old back surrounds? It's not sureprising that you aren't hearing much difference with the only 2 overhead speakers being well behind you. Besides not having much physics separation from the back surrounds that is the least sensitive spot in your hearing probably. I think tou will notice a more substantial improvement when you add two more overheads up front.


----------



## batpig

HiRez24 said:


> Really batting my brain trying to choose a pre or an reciever. I am posting here because all of the models I am choosing from are discussed in this thread. If advised to I can post a separate thread.
> 
> I am coming from a tx-nr809 which I am satisfied with except for amp section which I will be remedying with a outlaw 7200 amp that arrives tomorrow.
> 
> My problem is I cant decide between the marantz denon flagship/runner up, x5200/7200 or 7702/8802. I will definetley be doing atmos with 4 ceiling speakers. I will not be running wides or hieghts and I havent decided wether to run my rear surrounds, they are already in place but most of the time I leave them inactive.
> 
> I am leaning more towards the 7702 at the moment but it's relationship to the 4100 gives me pause. I would be willing to step up to the 8802 but only if it was really that much better and closer in price to the x7200.
> 
> I have also toyed with the idea of the 5200/7200 as they are made in Japan and i could use the built in amps for my top speakers but I am afraid I will be sacrificing sound quality in lieu of buying another two channel amp.
> 
> My main concern is Music I listen to sacd and dvd-a rips as well as bluray concerts. I feel my tx-nr 809 is good enough for movies but lacks in stereo and multi channel music production.I am also very curious what DSU will do for my multi-channel music. I am not to concerned with the whole hdcp 2.2 thing as I am sure oppo will release another 2 HDMI output solution when I am ready to dive into 4k or when a resonably priced 70"+ flat OLED is released.
> 
> I am looking for any feedback to guide my purchasing decision.
> 
> my curent speaker and subs are in my signature if any of that info helps.


Don't believe any mythology that the prepro versions will magically sound better than the receiver versions. They are all based on the same components, DSP etc. If you have a 7ch amp then getting the 5200 and letting its internal amps run the 4 overheads is the sensible approach. And much cheaper than the 7702 plus more channels of external amplification (plus takes up less space). The internal amps in the 5200 are more than enough to run 4 overhead speakers.


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> Don't believe any mythology that the prepro versions will magically sound better than the receiver versions. They are all based on the same components, DSP etc. If you have a 7ch amp then getting the 5200 and letting its internal amps run the 4 overheads is the sensible approach. And much cheaper than the 7702 plus more channels of external amplification (plus takes up less space). The internal amps in the 5200 are more than enough to run 4 overhead speakers.



It will run 4 overhead if no rear speakers are used. If you want 11 channels, 7.1.4 then you will need one 2 channel amp to run two of the speakers. 5.1.4 will work if you drop the rear surrounds.
I had 7.1, I'm adding the 4 ceiling atmos, so I will need one two channel amp with my new X5200.


----------



## HiRez24

batpig said:


> Don't believe any mythology that the prepro versions will magically sound better than the receiver versions. They are all based on the same components, DSP etc. If you have a 7ch amp then getting the 5200 and letting its internal amps run the 4 overheads is the sensible approach. And much cheaper than the 7702 plus more channels of external amplification (plus takes up less space). The internal amps in the 5200 are more than enough to run 4 overhead speakers.


batpig, I appreciate the feed back. A few more questions for you or anyone else that can answer.

1. What dose Denon do in place of what Marantz is doing with there HDAM technology? It would seem that these hdam boards might give a better sound at the preamp connectors. 

2. How much better would the AKM dacs in the 7200/8802 sound than the Burr Browns in the 5200/7702? I know the specs are substantially better for the AKM but does anybody think it makes a difference?

3. Has anybody tried playing multichannel 5.1 Flac or DSD over the network successfully? 



roxiedog13 said:


> It will run 4 overhead if no rear speakers are used. If you want 11 channels, 7.1.4 then you will need one 2 channel amp to run two of the speakers. 5.1.4 will work if you drop the rear surrounds.
> I had 7.1, I'm adding the 4 ceiling atmos, so I will need one two channel amp with my new X5200.


roxiedog, thanx as well for your feedback. Would I not be able to use amp assign to do the 7 listener level with my external 7ch amp and then the 4 ceiling with the 5200? Would the 7200 allow me to do this?


----------



## James Elvick

I have an excellent traditional PLIIz nine channel surround setup (4311ci) with height speakers above my left and right mains, and the rear surrounds very high and behind the main listening position. Surrounds are slightly behind and 2 feet above my seated position. Seating position is 14' back from the screen. 

I can add 4 in ceiling speakers for Atmos, will the current height speakers in front be for not?? What about the rear surrounds? 

Is the consensus for positioning the 4 ceiling speakers as listed on the Atmos FAQ, in front on the listening position and slightly behind the listening position?

Thanks in advance for your opinion!

James


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I installed my X5200 today and swapped the rear in-ceiling speakers to on wall , in the back, the rear in-ceiling are now my Atmos ceiling .
> Ran 7.1.2, calibrated with Audyssey and to be honest did not notice anything different. The movie I watched was Guardians of the Galaxy
> and it didn't appear any different than 7.1 . The ceiling Atmos are certainly a little far back for just the 2 speaker recommendations , the
> fronts will go in later to make 7.1.4 .
> 
> 
> I'll play with this a little more tomorrow and try TMNT. Maybe I'm not running the correct settings, TMNT may be a better reference to gauge
> the system. We shall see


You did engage Dolby Surround didn’t you?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I have not experimented, but I doubt there is much, if any, distinction. I believe Keith has posted about his trials without arriving at any conclusive evidence regarding a difference in signals AFAICR.


That's right. Mine are FH+TM and I reconfigged as TF+TR (without moving the speakers at all) and couldn't really detect any difference in what was being sent to each speaker. There has to be a difference or there would be no point in having different designations, but I couldn't detect it. HST, my tests were crude and should be taken as nothing more than what they are: one data point.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Don't believe any mythology that the prepro versions will magically sound better than the receiver versions. They are all based on the same components, DSP etc. If you have a 7ch amp then getting the 5200 and letting its internal amps run the 4 overheads is the sensible approach. And much cheaper than the 7702 plus more channels of external amplification (plus takes up less space). The internal amps in the 5200 are more than enough to run 4 overhead speakers.


+1. I wasn’t going to reply as I sound like a cracked record on this sometimes. I decided to reply only if someone else did. So here is my usual 2 cents for the OP:

Modern electronics are now so good (of the type we are discussing here) that any audible differences, with tone controls, DSP and REQ switched off, are either non-existent or negligible, or inaudible. By contrast, the differences induced by the room, the speakers, the sub(s) and the placement of the speakers/sub(s) are absolutely huge, and so this is where effort, time, attention and money should be expended, not on electronics. So my advice would be to buy the cheapest of the units mentioned, compatible with the features required, and spend any money left over on areas where audible differences will be made.


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> How far behind you are the old back surrounds? It's not sureprising that you aren't hearing much difference with the only 2 overhead speakers being well behind you. Besides not having much physics separation from the back surrounds that is the least sensitive spot in your hearing probably. I think tou will notice a more substantial improvement when you add two more overheads up front.



The rear in-ceiling( old back surrounds) are almost 6 feet behind the MLP, the rear surround speakers speakers are now WAY back on a wall 20feet behind the MLP. Because I have two rows of seats I left the rear surround in-ceiling where they are , just behind the second row. I will put the front in-ceiling just ahead of the MLP for the front seats and then add the third set of speakers in ceiling between these when a suitable receiver is available to do so some time next year. Hoping to get the second set of speakers in the ceiling within a day or two, will see then if there is any difference. Actually, I'm going to try front Atmos modules first ,which I do not expect to work out with a low ceiling in this area. Will likely go with in-ceiling speakers eventually.


----------



## roxiedog13

HiRez24 said:


> batpig, I appreciate the feed back. A few more questions for you or anyone else that can answer.
> 
> 1. What dose Denon do in place of what Marantz is doing with there HDAM technology? It would seem that these hdam boards might give a better sound at the preamp connectors.
> 
> 2. How much better would the AKM dacs in the 7200/8802 sound than the Burr Browns in the 5200/7702? I know the specs are substantially better for the AKM but does anybody think it makes a difference?
> 
> 3. Has anybody tried playing multichannel 5.1 Flac or DSD over the network successfully?
> 
> 
> 
> roxiedog, thanx as well for your feedback. Would I not be able to use amp assign to do the 7 listener level with my external 7ch amp and then the 4 ceiling with the 5200? Would the 7200 allow me to do this?


 
The X7200 is the same you will still need that additional 2 channel amp. The X7200 is marginally better really, 32 bit v's 24 bit and it will be upgradeable to HDCP2.2 some time next year. Other than that it is the same. I went with the lesser because it was almost half the price. In the spring when I believe a even better receiver option is available with a full 13 channels and includes HDCP 2.2 then I will buy the new one.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> You did engage Dolby Surround didn’t you?


Ahhhhhh, I think so. From the movie selection for sound the two choices I see significant are NEO:X and Dolby Surround. I have tried both, the Dolby surround I believe the correct selection as it feeds the in-ceiling Atmos much more information. 


I'm going through the manual now to see if I can get a better grasp on this. Wish I had a calibration tech near by to help but that does not exist where I live. 


DTS,NEO:X,PLZ,DTS,DSU,.... WTF :crying: signing up for Theater sound 101 today . Hooking up my Dolby Pro Logic surround system back in 1987 was quite easy, boy do I miss the good
old days .


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Ahhhhhh, I think so. From the movie selection for sound the two choices I see significant are NEO:X and Dolby Surround. I have tried both, the Dolby surround I believe the correct selection as it feeds the in-ceiling Atmos much more information.
> 
> 
> I'm going through the manual now to see if I can get a better grasp on this. Wish I had a calibration tech near by to help but that does not exist where I live.
> 
> 
> DTS,NEO:X,PLZ,DTS,DSU,.... WTF :crying: signing up for Theater sound 101 today . Hooking up my Dolby Pro Logic surround system back in 1987 was quite easy, boy do I miss the good
> old days .


Select the Movie Mode DSP button and you will see a list of different sound modes. Choose Dolby Surround. The Denon will remember that choice for the sound format you used, eg if you are using DTS-HD MA it will remember that you want to use DSU for that in future. Same with TrueHD, DD, 2ch etc. If you press Info on the remote you will see an OSD which will tell you if you are using DSU and show a graphic which displays the inpit and output speaker configurations.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. Mine are FH+TM and I reconfigged as TF+TR (without moving the speakers at all) and couldn't really detect any difference in what was being sent to each speaker. There has to be a difference or there would be no point in having different designations, but I couldn't detect it. HST, my tests were crude and should be taken as nothing more than what they are: one data point.


Is there anyway to get a definitive answer from Dolby on this? It sure would be nice to know...


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Is there anyway to get a definitive answer from Dolby on this? It sure would be nice to know...


IIRC I asked at Dolby in London but it was a sort of "we'll have to get back to you" reply. As I say, there presumably has to be some difference or there'd be no point in offering different designations: they could just have 'forward pair' and 'rear pair'. I’d expect some differences in the way content was steered between the overhead pairs, depending on the configuration and location of the speaker pairs. Maybe someone more knowledgeable is able to speculate better? Roger Dressler maybe?


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> IIRC I asked at Dolby in London but it was a sort of "we'll have to get back to you" reply. As I say, there presumably has to be some difference or there'd be no point in offering different designations: they could just have 'forward pair' and 'rear pair'. I’d expect some differences in the way content was steered between the overhead pairs, depending on the configuration and location of the speaker pairs. Maybe someone more knowledgeable is able to speculate better? Roger Dressler maybe?


The answer to this may help me in my dilemma of having bought 4 speakers while not realizing that I wouldn't be able to have FH and TopF/TopR connected at same time for dual NeoX & Atmos/DSU use if I went to a Denon option. If I went to Pioneer, then I could but I'd lose the option to switch between 5/4 for Atmos/DSU & 7.1 with rears. No matter which AVR I'd get, I don't have the complete flexibility I'd really like to have. Maybe 2015 models may allow for more but I'm not waiting 

One thought that occurred to me but not checked to see if doable was use my FH and install the 4 Tannoy's as TopFr + TopRr but place the TopRr in a TopMid location. I'd do this in the hopes I could figure out a way to switch between FH & TopFr. Seems like you're not missing anything with TopRr in a TopMid location & you've probably heard more or as many demos as anyone here


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
D&M models won't allow a TM+TR configuration, however, you can get around this by simply designating the TR as RH in a TM+RH configuration. Also you can still connect FH+TM+RH using a switch for the FH/TM speakers (eg. AudioSource100 amp with A/B speaker posts), although Audyssey would be disabled for one layout or the other unless a separate config file were loaded for each.


----------



## mooshoodragon

hi guys,
i recently jumped onto the atmos bandwagon. unlike most of you, i have a very humble home theater setup. very humble lol. i have a new onkyo 838, which replaced my old sr705. floor standing speakers are BIC pl89II, as are the surrounds. subwoofer is the vtf3mk4. i just purchased the onkyo up firing speaker modules, which sit on top of the bic towers. i am wondering whats the most ideal way to set this all up to get the most benefit? atm i have 5 in front (including the modules), 2 on side, and 2 on rear. subwoofer in the corner. thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

mooshoodragon said:


> hi guys,
> i recently jumped onto the atmos bandwagon. unlike most of you, i have a very humble home theater setup. very humble lol. i have a new onkyo 838, which replaced my old sr705. floor standing speakers are BIC pl89II, as are the surrounds. subwoofer is the vtf3mk4. i just purchased the onkyo up firing speaker modules, which sit on top of the bic towers. i am wondering whats the most ideal way to set this all up to get the most benefit? atm i have 5 in front (including the modules), 2 on side, and 2 on rear. subwoofer in the corner. thanks!



That sounds OK. So you are running a 7.1.2 setup, using upfiring modules for the two overheads? No idea if the sub is optimally placed of course.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Select the Movie Mode DSP button and you will see a list of different sound modes. Choose Dolby Surround. The Denon will remember that choice for the sound format you used, eg if you are using DTS-HD MA it will remember that you want to use DSU for that in future. Same with TrueHD, DD, 2ch etc. If you press Info on the remote you will see an OSD which will tell you if you are using DSU and show a graphic which displays the inpit and output speaker configurations.



I've selected Dolby Surround from the list under the Movie Mode button . Selecting the info button I see Dolby Surround is selected and all the speakers are shown as being connected. Am I to assume DSU ( Dolby Sound Upscaler) and Dolby Surround are one of the same or should it show DSU ?


----------



## asharma

Roger Dressler said:


> If your ears are 3' off the floor and the height speakers are 4.5' higher, the angle is arctan(4.5/11.5) = 21 deg.



Hi Roger,

I see a few folks are setting up their heights as FH and TR instead of TF and TR to take advantage of height in both NEO:X and ATMOS...would you know if the exact same info is sent to FH as is sent to TF? I'm considering switch from TF TR to FH TR to optimize both music listening and movie watching. KBarnes had suggested you may know...thanks


----------



## Roger Dressler

asharma said:


> I see a few folks are setting up their heights as FH and TR instead of TF and TR to take advantage of height in both NEO:X and ATMOS...would you know if *the exact same info* is sent to FH as is sent to TF? I'm considering switch from TF TR to FH TR to optimize both music listening and movie watching. KBarnes had suggested you may know...thanks


It had better not be the exact same info or else someone is pulling our legs. 

But as FH and TF have lots of overlap, the difference may be very difficult to discern subjectively.


----------



## stikle

roxiedog13 said:


> I've selected Dolby Surround from the list under the Movie Mode button . Selecting the info button I see Dolby Surround is selected and all the speakers are shown as being connected. Am I to assume DSU ( Dolby Sound Upscaler) and Dolby Surround are one of the same or should it show DSU ?


The display will say something like DTS + DDS (The DD is the Dolby Digital symbol with the backwards D)

If you didn't have Dolby Surround selected, the display would just show DTS.

Symantics but I believe the U is for Upmixer, not scaler.


----------



## asharma

Roger Dressler said:


> It had better not be the exact same info or else someone is pulling our legs.
> 
> But as FH and TF have lots of overlap, the difference may be very difficult to discern subjectively.


Thanks, do you think anyone at Dolby would be able to articulate the differences?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
To what end? How's this .... FH = audio heard a fraction of a second sooner than TF.


----------



## asharma

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> To what end? How's this .... FH = audio heard a fraction of a second sooner than TF.


If that's the answer, than that's great

Given how anal I am and the investment in time and $$ made, it would be nice to know technically what the differences are, given we are the early adopters...


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I've selected Dolby Surround from the list under the Movie Mode button . Selecting the info button I see Dolby Surround is selected and all the speakers are shown as being connected. Am I to assume DSU ( Dolby S*urr*ound Upscalermixer) and Dolby Surround are one of the same or should it show DSU ?


Same.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asharma said:


> If that's the answer, than that's great
> 
> Given how anal I am and the investment in time and $$ made, it would be nice to know technically what the differences are, given we are the early adopters...


I wouldn't think these first gen Atmos consumer grade products (outside of Trinnov and other pricier pre-amps) would have enough horsepower for the renderer to change object positioning just by switching from front top to front heights. I could see a change in speaker delays, but not positional information.


----------



## asharma

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't think these first gen Atmos consumer grade products (outside of Trinnov and other pricier pre-amps) would have enough horsepower for the renderer to change object positioning just by switching from front top to front heights. I could see a change in speaker delays, but not positional information.


Goooooooood point!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't think these first gen Atmos consumer grade products (outside of Trinnov and other pricier pre-amps) would have enough horsepower for the renderer to change object positioning just by switching from front top to front heights. I could see a change in speaker delays, but not positional information.


Speaker delays aren't set by Atmos AFAIK. As Roger says, if there is no difference between TF+TR and FH+TM, then someone is pulling our leg. There has to be a difference - makes no sense not to be. The issue is 'what is it?'. I certainly couldn't hear it when I did my relatively crude evaluation of the two here, so whatever it is, it's subtle for sure. At least it is here. I wish some others would try the same experiment and report back so we have more data points.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> *Speaker delays aren't set by Atmos AFAIK*. As Roger says, if there is no difference between TF+TR and FH+TM, then someone is pulling our leg. There has to be a difference - makes no sense not to be. The issue is 'what is it?'. I certainly couldn't hear it when I did my relatively crude evaluation of the two here, so whatever it is, it's subtle for sure. At least it is here. I wish some others would try the same experiment and report back so we have more data points.


No, but the manufacturer (at their choosing) would probably do something like adjustments in speaker output delay to compensate for possible speaker distance changes. Only Denon and Dolby would know for sure.


----------



## Roger Dressler

asharma said:


> Thanks, do you think anyone at Dolby would be able to articulate the differences?


Sure they could. 

Failing that, based on my understanding of object audio rendering in MDA, let me try.

There is the subjective difference, and there is the difference in the speaker signals. We've conjectured on the former. Let's look at the latter.

Let's say we have 4 height speakers, TF and TR, equally displaced fore and aft of the MLP, (like 45° and 135° elevation). Here comes an object panning from the Center speaker and stopping directly overhead. To image overhead, all 4 height speakers are producing the same SPL. 

Now let's move the TF speakers to FH location. If FH is 30° elevation, the total angle between FH and TR is 105°. The renderer still wants the sound to finish directly overhead. What does it do? It reduces the FH signals about 1 dB, and increases the TR signals about 1 dB. 

But we are lying – we have not actually moved the TF speakers. What does that do to the sound? The overhead sound is 2 dB stronger from the TR than the “FH” speakers. That pulls the overhead image 7° to the rear. Instead of 90°, it is 97°. 

And how about a sound encoded at 30° elevation in the soundtrack? The renderer thinks it has FH speakers at that location, so all the sound comes from the “FH” speakers, which are actually located at 45° elevation in our room. That's a 15° error on paper. Aside from these “static” location offsets, any pans moving between the screen and the FH speakers will have somewhat “faster” movement. Any pans between FH and TR will have “slower” movement. 

This may all sound rather dire. But remember, once a sound has gone off the screen – vertically – our ability to discern its position in space with any precision is highly diminished -- especially while we're entrenched in the story. The perception of these “errors” may not be anything like what one might conclude based on these figures.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't think these first gen Atmos consumer grade products (outside of Trinnov and other pricier pre-amps) would have enough horsepower for the renderer to change object positioning just by switching from front top to front heights. I could see a change in speaker delays, but not positional information.


There is no horsepower difference in rendering FH vs. TF.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> There is no horsepower difference in rendering FH vs. TF.


I think Dan meant changing an objects original position (say it's supposed to be in top front) to another position.


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> If that's the answer, than that's great
> 
> Given how anal I am and the investment in time and $$ made, it would be nice to know technically what the differences are, given we are the early adopters...


I think JD's not-too-subtle point is that it's not something worth focusing on. Choose the configuration and angles that sound best in your room and to your ears and then sit back and enjoy. (OCD types are free to ignore this apostasy.)


----------



## Roger Dressler

Scott Simonian said:


> I think Dan meant changing an objects original position (say it's supposed to be in top front) to another position.


Ok. Let me rephrase. There is no horsepower difference in rendering an overhead object to FH vs. TF.


----------



## Roger Dressler

chi_guy50 said:


> I think JD's not-too-subtle point is that it's not something worth focusing on. Choose the configuration and angles that sound best in your room and to your ears and then sit back and enjoy. (OCD types are free to ignore this apostasy.)


The conundrum is that what might sound best for Atmos might be to correctly report where one's height speakers are positioned (TF), but if one wants Neo:X to work, one might have to deceive the processor (FH).


----------



## chi_guy50

Roger Dressler said:


> The conundrum is that what might sound best for Atmos might be to correctly report where one's height speakers are positioned (TF), but *if one wants Neo:X to work*, one might have to deceive the processor (FH).


And that's an important consideration for me. 

IMO as long as you respect the recommended angle ranges for FH you shouldn't have to worry about over-compromising. But if you are cheating on those very broad ranges for the purpose of enabling Neo:X alongside Atmos/DSU, then I think it's a questionable decision. But to each his own.


----------



## Scott Simonian

45 degrees is compatible with both FH/TF for Atmos and FH for Neo:X, afaik.


----------



## asharma

Roger Dressler said:


> Sure they could.
> 
> Failing that, based on my understanding of object audio rendering in MDA, let me try.
> 
> There is the subjective difference, and there is the difference in the speaker signals. We've conjectured on the former. Let's look at the latter.
> 
> Let's say we have 4 height speakers, TF and TR, equally displaced fore and aft of the MLP, (like 45° and 135° elevation). Here comes an object panning from the Center speaker and stopping directly overhead. To image overhead, all 4 height speakers are producing the same SPL.
> 
> Now let's move the TF speakers to FH location. If FH is 30° elevation, the total angle between FH and TR is 105°. The renderer still wants the sound to finish directly overhead. What does it do? It reduces the FH signals about 1 dB, and increases the TR signals about 1 dB.
> 
> But we are lying – we have not actually moved the TF speakers. What does that do to the sound? The overhead sound is 2 dB stronger from the TR than the “FH” speakers. That pulls the overhead image 7° to the rear. Instead of 90°, it is 97°.
> 
> And how about a sound encoded at 30° elevation in the soundtrack? The renderer thinks it has FH speakers at that location, so all the sound comes from the “FH” speakers, which are actually located at 45° elevation in our room. That's a 15° error on paper. Aside from these “static” location offsets, any pans moving between the screen and the FH speakers will have somewhat “faster” movement. Any pans between FH and TR will have “slower” movement.
> 
> This may all sound rather dire. But remember, once a sound has gone off the screen – vertically – our ability to discern its position in space with any precision is highly diminished -- especially while we're entrenched in the story. The perception of these “errors” may not be anything like what one might conclude based on these figures.


Thank you Roger, that's the analysis I was looking for...given I have 11 speakers spread across 22 feet, I'll be hard pressed to feel the difference in your example of a sound at 90 degrees vs 97 degrees...now I may re config as FH TR and give it a try...sorry for asking, I just needed to know


----------



## roxiedog13

stikle said:


> The display will say something like DTS + DDS (The DD is the Dolby Digital symbol with the backwards D)
> 
> If you didn't have Dolby Surround selected, the display would just show DTS.
> 
> Symantics but I believe the U is for Upmixer, not scaler.


Well then , it appears I have it set up correctly. As of one hour ago I added Atmos module fronts. I do hear sounds coming from all the atmos speakers but I'm still not impressed.
Must try to tune in my Atmos ears a little better I suppose, something is not working properly  .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> Well then , it appears I have it set up correctly. As of one hour ago I added Atmos module fronts. I do hear sounds coming from all the atmos speakers but I'm still not impressed.
> Must try to tune in my Atmos ears a little better I suppose, something is not working properly  .


At CEDIA I thought the upfiring Atmos "enabled" speakers were good, but not great. Kind of like a DSP audio "enhancer" mode from Sony or Yamaha. I could not say that they were anywhere near actual overhead speakers for recreating the 3D Atmos experience. If you can ever switch over to true overheads, you'll definitely know the difference, and it can be dramatic.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> .......... If you can ever switch over to true overheads, you'll definitely know the difference, and it can be dramatic.


Agreed 100% Atmos with speakers over head rule


----------



## Oledurt

Dan Hitchman said:


> At CEDIA I thought the upfiring Atmos "enabled" speakers were good, but not great. Kind of like a DSP audio "enhancer" mode from Sony or Yamaha. I could not say that they were anywhere near actual overhead speakers for recreating the 3D Atmos experience. If you can ever switch over to true overheads, you'll definitely know the difference, and it can be dramatic.



Also agree with this. I initially started with modules, but went ahead and installed speakers on the ceiling. In my case it was vastly superior to modules. Results may vary of course depending on your room.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 7channelfreak

Dan Hitchman said:


> At CEDIA I thought the upfiring Atmos "enabled" speakers were good, but not great. Kind of like a DSP audio "enhancer" mode from Sony or Yamaha. I could not say that they were anywhere near actual overhead speakers for recreating the 3D Atmos experience. If you can ever switch over to true overheads, you'll definitely know the difference, and it can be dramatic.


I was pleasantly surprised with the up firing demos at Cedia. But I also agree that they are maybe 70% of ceiling mounted speakers. Of coarse that 70% was probably optimal as it was those companies booths. It may be hard to replicate that at home but I'm sure in is possible.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Same.





Dan Hitchman said:


> At CEDIA I thought the upfiring Atmos "enabled" speakers were good, but not great. Kind of like a DSP audio "enhancer" mode from Sony or Yamaha. I could not say that they were anywhere near actual overhead speakers for recreating the 3D Atmos experience. If you can ever switch over to true overheads, you'll definitely know the difference, and it can be dramatic.


I didn't think the atmos modules were going to do it for me at the front, my ceiling is too low and dropped above the mains, so the effect is just not there. The modules will probably end up 
as the center atmos later on, for now I will go with in ceiling. 


Dolby recommends wide dispersion ceiling speakers, unfortunately none of the manufacturers I have looked at so far have a dispersion rating. How can one tell ??


----------



## Oledurt

roxiedog13 said:


> I didn't think the atmos modules were going to do it for me at the front, my ceiling is too low and dropped above the mains, so the effect is just not there. The modules will probably end up
> as the center atmos later on, for now I will go with in ceiling.
> 
> 
> Dolby recommends wide dispersion ceiling speakers, unfortunately none of the manufacturers I have looked at so far have a dispersion rating. How can one tell ??



You don't necessarily need in ceiling speakers. I am using martin logan motion 4 bookshelf speakers with ceiling mounts. I have them all toed in and angled slightly down. 

I think dolby says you want a speaker with 90 degree dispersion. Mine have 80 degree dispersion per the published specs so i toe them in a smidge, and everything sounds purrrfect. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## HT-Eman

roxiedog13 said:


> I didn't think the atmos modules were going to do it for me at the front, my ceiling is too low and dropped above the mains, so the effect is just not there. The modules will probably end up
> as the center atmos later on, for now I will go with in ceiling.
> 
> 
> Dolby recommends wide dispersion ceiling speakers, unfortunately none of the manufacturers I have looked at so far have a dispersion rating. How can one tell ??


A lot of speakers made for outdoors have a wide dispersion. I'm using yamaha aw390 , a lot of people are using the Tannoy Di6 , both are outdoor speakers.


----------



## pwong888

Is there any frequency requirement for the atmos ceiling speaker? Is the Energy veritas v-mini a good choice for the ceiling speaker?


----------



## NorthSky

80Hz is good. ...And good off-axis performance should make the V-Mini a fine candidate for Atmos overhead speakers.


----------



## CBdicX

I use Atmos enabled speakers and it works fine, i can not compare with ceiling speakers but i absolute get a nice "sound bubble" when i use DSU or a real Atmos track.


Also think that when you run Atmos for the first time maybe some will want the effect to be higher then actual they need to get.
Its like adding front wide and/or front high, not a big differents but its there.
I feel the same with Atmos, not big but its there and ads to the experians.......


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> No, but the manufacturer (at their choosing) would probably do something like adjustments in speaker output delay to compensate for possible speaker distance changes. Only Denon and Dolby would know for sure.


AIUI my speaker delays are set by Audyssey, so I wouldn’t expect Atmos, or indeed anything, to change them. Am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Sure they could.
> 
> Failing that, based on my understanding of object audio rendering in MDA, let me try.


Thanks for that Roger. You didn't mention the potential spread of the speaker locations due to the range of permitted angles. If the speaker is designated as FH but is actually positioned on the ceiling at 45°, how would that affect the scenario you describe for the 30° supposed angle for FH?

TBH, I think your conclusion nails it - we don't really perceive the sound locations with such precision. Maybe this is why Dolby give such a broad range of possible positions for each speaker by way of that range of permitted angles?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> At CEDIA I thought the upfiring Atmos "enabled" speakers were good, but not great. Kind of like a DSP audio "enhancer" mode from Sony or Yamaha. I could not say that they were anywhere near actual overhead speakers for recreating the 3D Atmos experience. If you can ever switch over to true overheads, you'll definitely know the difference, and it can be dramatic.





wse said:


> Agreed 100% Atmos with speakers over head rule


This wasn't my experience, or that of the invitees, at either of the Dolby presentations I went to at Dolby HQ. The universal position was that both upfirers and physical speakers worked brilliantly, and one was not 'better' than the other but rather just 'different'. That difference was generally expressed as 'slightly more diffuse' with the upfirers and 'slightly more precise' with the physical speakers. For preference, most would have chosen the upfirers. My personal preference was for the physical speakers. But both gave a convincing Atmos demonstration.

My conclusion from that would be that if someone is not impressed by Atmos or DSU, it is not because he is using upfirers. There may be another cause (setup issues for example) or maybe some people just don't like the 'Atmos effect' for whatever reason.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Dolby recommends wide dispersion ceiling speakers, unfortunately none of the manufacturers I have looked at so far have a dispersion rating. How can one tell ??


Only Pro speaker manufacturers give proper specifications. My Tannoy dual concentrics, for example, have exhaustive specs, including dispersion with supporting graphs of polar response.


----------



## zimmo

i have to 4 ceilling speakers Yamaha ns-ic800 ,is very good,the twitter is move 30 degré arround .


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> This wasn't my experience, or that of the invitees, at either of the Dolby presentations I went to at Dolby HQ.


Indeed, same with the group that Scott Wilkinson took to the Atmos presentation here in Los Angeles (FilmMixer, Scott Simonian, Rayjr, and me). All five of us slightly preferred the upfiring speakers. Though I still think if overhead height speakers are implemented properly, they have the potential to sound better than virtual heights. Still glad there is a (very good) alternative for those who can't do in-ceiling/on-ceiling heights.


----------



## mcsoul

Has anyone had the chance to do an in-home demo of 9.x DSX height vs 7.x.2 ATMOS with properly modified Top Front locations
if necessary. Testing on a variety of formats including ATMOS enabled and non-ATMOS sound tracks (assuming ATMOS has a
simulation routine too). I imagine this may have been thoroughly covered n the last 500 pages, so a screename to search may suffice.

Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

The consumer version of DTS-MDA finally has a name (that rhymes with DTS Headphone:X and DTS Neo:X) as well as several licensees at launch:

http://www.twice.com/news/components/dts-lines-audio-suppliers-support-dtsx-surround/55429


----------



## Brian Fineberg

This is the best part of this:

Industry personnel have been told that home theater speaker configurations designed for Dolby Atmos playback could be used to play back DTS:X soundtracks. - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/component...port-dtsx-surround/55429#sthash.vjItA6Kf.dpuf


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Indeed, same with the group that Scott Wilkinson took to the Atmos presentation here in Los Angeles (FilmMixer, Scott Simonian, Rayjr, and me). All five of us slightly preferred the upfiring speakers. Though I still think if overhead height speakers are implemented properly, they have the potential to sound better than virtual heights. Still glad there is a (very good) alternative for those who can't do in-ceiling/on-ceiling heights.


Agreed. The upfiring modules and speakers also give Dolby a massive advantage over their competitors. Auro, for example, *requires* that additional speakers be mounted on or in-ceiling, making an Auro installation hugely less WAF friendly. I believe, BICBW, that the upcoming (alleged) DTS-UHD will also require physical speakers. Those who can only use upfirers needn't feel like second-class Atmos citizens IMO. Properly installed, with suitable room dimensions etc, they sound absolutely stunning IME.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> This is the best part of this:
> 
> Industry personnel have been told that home theater speaker configurations designed for Dolby Atmos playback could be used to play back DTS:X soundtracks. - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/component...port-dtsx-surround/55429#sthash.vjItA6Kf.dpuf


Agreed. It's the only thing that makes sense for DTS IMO. They are coming so late into the game it would be madness to require a unique speaker layout, different to that required by Atmos. If they can use the same speaker layout, then it will be very easy for them to gain traction. I, for example, would instantly upgrade to DTS-X (assuming content) if I could use my existing speakers. Conversely, not being able to use existing speaker layout has killed any desire to bother with Auro at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The consumer version of DTS-MDA finally has a name (that rhymes with DTS Headphone:X and DTS Neo:X) as well as several licensees at launch:
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/components/dts-lines-audio-suppliers-support-dtsx-surround/55429


Good to see them finally releasing launch info. 

_DTS said the “official launch” of DTS:X is planned for March 2015, when the company said it would offer more information about its technology.
_

But with no theatrical mixes at all so far, it isn't easy to see where the content is coming from.

The press release will have a detrimental effect on AVR sales I think. Who will buy right now if March next year sees DTS:X in upcoming units? And the other side of the coin: seems like my X5200 will be a one year wonder here... (assuming, which is a big ass-u-me, that there will be any significant content for DTS:X any time soon).

I wonder what their upmixer will be like? It will have to be something special to beat DSU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> The consumer version of DTS-MDA finally has a name (that rhymes with DTS Headphone:X and DTS Neo:X) as well as several licensees at launch:
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/components/dts-lines-audio-suppliers-support-dtsx-surround/55429



Lol. Not so much time put into naming these new formats. 

Nonetheless.... I'll take em'. 



Hmm. "Official launch in March 2015" eh? That sounds about right. We should see gear show up with it this summer. Perfect! 

Still haven't heard anything regarding it's use in the cinema.



> Industry personnel have been told that home theater speaker configurations designed for Dolby Atmos playback could be used to play back DTS:X soundtracks.


This is good! Wonder if the configuration will be what Neo:X originally was and more like what a 7.1.4 Atmos layout looks like today or just the 11.1 layout? Oh maybe 13.1?  Whatever it is I hope it's compatible with the Atmos layout. 



> The spokesman also said Blu-ray discs with DTS:X soundtracks will be available 2015. “We are working with various studios, but the specific release dates will be theirs to communicate at a later date,” he said.


Whoa-ho! Cool!


----------



## smurraybhm

mcsoul said:


> Has anyone had the chance to do an in-home demo of 9.x DSX height vs 7.x.2 ATMOS with properly modified Top Front locations
> if necessary. Testing on a variety of formats including ATMOS enabled and non-ATMOS sound tracks (assuming ATMOS has a
> simulation routine too). I imagine this may have been thoroughly covered n the last 500 pages, so a screename to search may suffice.
> 
> Thanks.


Apologies if I offend but DSX compared to what was out there for surround formats like Neo X and PLx before Atmos/DSU was a medicore at best. No comparison between the two, DSU is much better assuming you are using TM for your height location with SBs vs. wides which are inactive unless it is a Atmos disk and with only a handful out so far its all about DSU for the moment. 

I experimented with all of the surround formats when I first got my 5200 along with speaker placement since I started out with only two tops along with a 7.2 speaker config. TM was the best spot for max overhead/3 dimensional sound. I also found SB worked better than wides - but that may have been limited in part to how DSU works currently. I have since added fronts so I can use Neo X and Auro - and if you've read this thread 4 up top sounds better than 2.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Wonder if the configuration will be what Neo:X originally was and more like what a 7.1.4 Atmos layout looks like today or just the 11.1 layout?


Considering they are late to the party, it would make sense for initial roll-out to have familiar speaker placement for the heights (floor speakers are already standardized across all immersive formats). 

Besides, for the last couple of years, the DTS demos at CES and the Neo:X page at the DTS website have been showing a 7.1.4 configuration with height speakers appearing to be similar to Atmos' Front Height and Rear Height positions. IF they continue to stick with that for initial roll-out, then they can avoid the whole Atmos/Auro speaker placement issue.


----------



## DS-21

Oledurt said:


> You don't necessarily need in ceiling speakers. I am using martin logan motion 4 bookshelf speakers with ceiling mounts. I have them all toed in and angled slightly down.


I'm curious, has there been any official word about ceiling speaker aiming? I ask because HF beaming at the listening position could make ceiling speakers more localizable.



Brian Fineberg said:


> This is the best part of this:
> 
> Industry personnel have been told that home theater speaker configurations designed for Dolby Atmos playback could be used to play back DTS:X soundtracks. - See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/component...port-dtsx-surround/55429#sthash.vjItA6Kf.dpuf


I wonder if that includes upfiring speakers. I hope so, given that I have cross-joists in my ceiling and windows on my front wall. So if I do eventually add built-in height speakers they will have to be high on the sidewalls.

Also interesting is that they've announced Anthem as bringing out a product in 2015. ARC room correction (IMO current best-of-breed) and all of the current formats is a package sounds like a wallet-opener. I hope their product is an MRX receiver (or pre-pro priced along those lines) and not an AVM/D pre-pro.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The upfiring modules and speakers also give Dolby a massive advantage over their competitors.


Keep in mind that Dolby is not restricting their Atmos-enabled speakers from being used as virtual heights for competing immersive formats. Any restrictions you see are from manufacturers and/or competitors. For example:


> Auro, for example, *requires* that additional speakers be mounted on or in-ceiling, making an Auro installation hugely less WAF friendly.


Auro probably prefers them high up on the walls, above the front L/R and surround L/R. But even that is less WAF friendly than no visible height speakers.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> Good to see them finally releasing launch info.
> 
> _DTS said the “official launch” of DTS:X is planned for March 2015, when the company said it would offer more information about its technology.
> _
> 
> But with no theatrical mixes at all so far, it isn't easy to see where the content is coming from.
> 
> The press release will have a detrimental effect on AVR sales I think. Who will buy right now if March next year sees DTS:X in upcoming units? And the other side of the coin: seems like my X5200 will be a one year wonder here... (assuming, which is a big ass-u-me, that there will be any significant content for DTS:X any time soon).
> 
> I wonder what their upmixer will be like? It will have to be something special to beat DSU.


I "thought" the 5200 and 7009 were firmware upgradeable to the new DTS format...am I incorrect?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Considering they are late to the party, it would make sense for initial roll-out to have familiar speaker placement for the heights (floor speakers are already standardized across all immersive formats).
> 
> Besides, for the last couple of years, the DTS demos at CES and the Neo:X page at the DTS website have been showing a 7.1.4 configuration with height speakers appearing to be similar to Atmos' Front Height and Rear Height positions. IF they continue to stick with that for initial roll-out, then they can avoid the whole Atmos/Auro speaker placement issue.


That's what I was thinking. They have shown that layout for come time now but it has never been implemented.

If only they had not chased the 'wides' and started the whole wide bandwagon it would have kept a lot of hearts from being broken.  

Can't wait to see some technical documentation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol. Not so much time put into naming these new formats.
> 
> Nonetheless.... I'll take em'.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. "Official launch in March 2015" eh? That sounds about right. We should see gear show up with it this summer. Perfect!
> 
> Still haven't heard anything regarding it's use in the cinema.
> 
> This is good! Wonder if the configuration will be what Neo:X originally was and more like what a 7.1.4 Atmos layout looks like today or just the 11.1 layout? Oh maybe 13.1?  Whatever it is I hope it's compatible with the Atmos layout.
> 
> Whoa-ho! Cool!


DTS: X Surround may be one reason why Dolby Atmos has had a slow debut. If DTS inked agreements with certain major studios then that may have made those particular partners less "enthusiastic" about releasing Atmos content right from the start. 3D audio is still very much a niche market for the time being, so there has been time for the studios and theater chains to bide their time, shop around, and start to pick the 3D audio solutions that seem right to them. 

DTS's advantage _may_ be the same as with DTS audio encoding for Blu-ray: pricing and ease of use... and DTS: X aka DTS MDA is open source and layout agnostic (though, they'll probably stick with the Atmos layout for now for easier industry adoption). Sometimes being first out of the gate doesn't mean you'll end up winning the race. Hopefully, DTS: X is as good or better than Atmos. 

And with the announcement of DTS: X, I have a hunch Auro3D will have an even harder time gaining traction except for multi-channel music.

2015 will probably be an interesting year for object based surround. I'm glad I held out on purchasing a new receiver.


----------



## mcsoul

smurraybhm said:


> Apologies if I offend but DSX compared to what was out there for surround formats like Neo X and PLx before Atmos/DSU was a medicore at best. No comparison between the two, DSU is much better assuming you are using TM for your height location with SBs vs. wides which are inactive unless it is a Atmos disk and with only a handful out so far its all about DSU for the moment.
> 
> I experimented with all of the surround formats when I first got my 5200 along with speaker placement since I started out with only two tops along with a 7.2 speaker config. TM was the best spot for max overhead/3 dimensional sound. I also found SB worked better than wides - but that may have been limited in part to how DSU works currently. I have since added fronts so I can use Neo X and Auro - and if you've read this thread 4 up top sounds better than 2.


No offense taken, I am very interested in what you have to say as you tested with your 5200 vigorously as I would with
mine if I get one. I'm leaning slightly towards the 7009, but the 5200 is about tied. I have a tray vaulted ceiling in my 
theater room similar to the one below. Do you think on wall speakers mounted on the angle wall in fron and behind will 
work for 7.x.4? Or do they have to fire straight down?

I really like DSX wides for music, can I leave them wired up with the X5200 and switch between ATMOS 7.2.4 and DSX wide 9.2 on the fly?
I have 9 channels of external amplification if necessary.


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> The consumer version of DTS-MDA finally has a name (that rhymes with DTS Headphone:X and DTS Neo:X) as well as several licensees at launch:
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/components/dts-lines-audio-suppliers-support-dtsx-surround/55429


On one hand, I feel like I jumped the gun with my new X5200 and being an early adopter. I should have waited until AVRs with DTS:X support were released as I can't afford to turn around in 6 months and replace it. I was all pumped for Neo:X and then disappointed that there were only 3 BD ever made with it.

On the other hand, I've got Atmos/DSU *NOW* and am pretty impressed by it. I've also felt that Dolby is the industry standard and it was the right bandwagon to jump on. So far I've really liked what DSU has done for my legacy movie collection (and DTV broadcast), so I take heart in the fact that I'm enjoying it now. That's really what counts in this hobby. Do I like how MY home theater looks and sounds right now? Yes. So, self, proceed and be happy.

Who knows...maybe there will be a firmware update to add DTS:X. I know I can pay and upgrade my AVR to Auro, so why not DTS:X too? At least in this day and age we are not 100% locked into the hardware solution that we received upon purchase.

So for now , Dolby: Engage!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Whoa-ho! Cool!


Where are these discs coming from, given that DTS have precisely zero theatrical mixes in immersive, object-based audio?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Besides, for the last couple of years, the DTS demos at CES and the Neo:X page at the DTS website have been showing a 7.1.4 configuration with height speakers appearing to be similar to Atmos' Front Height and Rear Height positions. IF they continue to stick with that for initial roll-out, then they can avoid the whole Atmos/Auro speaker placement issue.


Exactly. And grab some market share at the same time. It's another nail in Auro's coffin IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that Dolby is not restricting their Atmos-enabled speakers from being used as virtual heights for competing immersive formats. Any restrictions you see are from manufacturers and/or competitors.


Royalties would have to be paid to Dolby by, presumably, DTS if Denon, for example, wanted to offer this facility. I guess it would just be passed on to the consumer so maybe it's a non-issue. I wonder if we will really see this in future units?



sdurani said:


> For example: Auro probably prefers them high up on the walls, above the front L/R and surround L/R. But even that is less WAF friendly than no visible height speakers.


Yes - walls. That's what I should have said, or included. Good point.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> I "thought" the 5200 and 7009 were firmware upgradeable to the new DTS format...am I incorrect?


I believe you are incorrect. If you think about it, by the time DTS gets its act together, the new models from Denon will be available, which will, presumably, include Atmos and DTS-X from the get-go. To make DTS-X available as a FW upgrade would damage sales of the new units, so my thinking is that we will not see this an upgrade, paid or otherwise. I hope, of course, that I am entirely wrong!


----------



## smurraybhm

mcsoul said:


> No offense taken, I am very interested in what you have to say as you tested with your 5200 vigorously as I would with
> mine if I get one. I'm leaning slightly towards the 7009, but the 5200 is about tied. I have a tray vaulted ceiling in my
> theater room similar to the one below. Do you think on wall speakers mounted on the angle wall in fron and behind will
> work for 7.x.4? Or do they have to fire straight down?
> 
> I really like DSX wides for music, can I leave them wired up with the X5200 and switch between ATMOS 7.2.4 and DSX wide 9.2 on the fly?
> I have 9 channels of external amplification if necessary.


If the angles are within recommended ranges or very close yes - a lot of us are aiming speakers towards the MLP - I for one. Good question on the wides - someone using a similar setup will need to answer as I believe I know the answer - but better to hear it from someone who is using wides in their system.

Good luck on the decision - personally the HEOS deal would have me going with the 5200 unless the price on the 7009 is a lot better. Be sure to call JD (AV Science) for quotes if you haven't done so already. Nice review by Sound & Vision on their website regarding the 5200 if you haven't read it yet.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS: X Surround may be one reason why Dolby Atmos has had a slow debut. If DTS inked agreements with certain major studios then that may have made those particular partners less "enthusiastic" about releasing Atmos content right from the start. 3D audio is still very much a niche market for the time being, so there has been time for the studios and theater chains to bide their time, shop around, and start to pick the 3D audio solutions that seem right to them.
> 
> DTS's advantage _may_ be the same as with DTS audio encoding for Blu-ray: pricing and ease of use... and DTS: X aka DTS MDA is open source and layout agnostic (though, they'll probably stick with the Atmos layout for now for easier industry adoption). Sometimes being first out of the gate doesn't mean you'll end up winning the race. Hopefully, DTS: X is as good or better than Atmos.
> 
> And with the announcement of DTS: X, I have a hunch Auro3D will have an even harder time gaining traction except for multi-channel music.
> 
> 2015 will probably be an interesting year for object based surround. I'm glad I held out on purchasing a new receiver.


I think this post deserves the 2014 award for _"Single post containing so much unfounded speculation" _


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I think this post deserves the 2014 award for _"Single post containing so much unfounded speculation" _


Yes, and you've _never _speculated in your posts. Never ever.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm glad I held out on purchasing a new receiver.


Yeah, me too. Although I feel like there is that chance that I am not happy with the the first products with DTS:X. Not unlike Atmos now.  

Oye!



kbarnes701 said:


> Where are these discs coming from, given that DTS have precisely zero theatrical mixes in immersive, object-based audio?


Yeah, really. I wonder if the meta-data from a theatrical mix can be coded easily to DTS:X? I don't understand the process well enough to speculate. I just have heard so much that the DTS solution is "open source".



kbarnes701 said:


> Exactly. And grab some market share at the same time. It's another nail in Auro's coffin IMO.


Right.

Auro3D: Too Little, Too Late



kbarnes701 said:


> I think this post deserves the 2014 award for _"Single post containing so much unfounded speculation" _


Lol! That's Dan for ya.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Royalties would have to be paid to Dolby by, presumably, DTS if Denon, for example, wanted to offer this facility. I guess it would just be passed on to the consumer so maybe it's a non-issue. I wonder if we will really see this in future units?


Denon would license the Dolby suite (including: Dolby Atmos decoding, Dolby Surround upmixing and Dolby Elevation processing, not to mention decoding of Dolby's lossy & lossless codecs). If you use one of those features (DSU or Elevation) with DTS material, there wouldn't be an extra licensing fee for that capability. Also, I don't know if you have to wait for the future; I think Yamaha allows Atmos-Enabled speakers to be used as virtual heights for their Cinema DSP modes (don't know about Neo:X).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Where are these discs coming from, given that DTS have precisely zero theatrical mixes in immersive, object-based audio?


There has been a little known audio engineering device called "post-production re-mixing" that has been used for quite some time.  The archival stem and multi-track files are usually PCM.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Denon would license the Dolby suite (including: Dolby Atmos decoding, Dolby Surround upmixing and Dolby Elevation processing, not to mention decoding of Dolby's lossy & lossless codecs). If you use one of those features (DSU or Elevation) with DTS material, there wouldn't be an extra licensing fee for that capability. Also, I don't know if you have to wait for the future; I think Yamaha allows Atmos-Enabled speakers to be used as virtual heights for their Cinema DSP modes (don't know about Neo:X).


Yamaha does allow for Atmos-Enabled speakers for CinemaDSP and Atmos. I don't believe their products have Neo:X at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> On one hand, I feel like I jumped the gun with my new X5200 and being an early adopter. I should have waited until AVRs with DTS:X support were released as I can't afford to turn around in 6 months and replace it.


I feel exactly the same, but I knew this going in, so like you, I am philosophical about it. But I can see a unit change within a year from now I must say. The worst aspect of it will be the damage to the secondhand value of an Atmos-only unit. But really, it all depends on content. I can’t see DTS:X upmixer being a huge advance on DSU, so it will all depend on how much native DSX:X content there is, and given zero theatrical releases, I can't see right now where that is meant to come from, or how they can compete with Atmos.



stikle said:


> Who knows...maybe there will be a firmware update to add DTS:X. I know I can pay and upgrade my AVR to Auro, so why not DTS:X too? .


I wouldn't hold your breath for this - see my other post on the subject.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> If only they had not chased the 'wides' and started the whole wide bandwagon it would have kept a lot of hearts from being broken.


They chased wides because of Audyssey DSX. The original version of Neo:X, as discussed in an old Scott Wilkinson podcast, was 7 mains plus 4 heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, and you've _never _speculated in your posts. Never ever.


True - but I can’t recall a whole post of that length which was entirely speculation


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> They chased wides because of Audyssey DSX. The original version of Neo:X, as discussed in an old Scott Wilkinson podcast, was 7 mains plus 4 heights.


I wonder what the adoption rate of Atmos would be today if that bandwagon had never come about?

Now is DTS coming full circle and back to their original layout with a pair of rear heights (or similar)? If it is fully compatible with Atmos, I sure hope so.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, really. I wonder if the meta-data from a theatrical mix can be coded easily to DTS:X? I don't understand the process well enough to speculate. I just have heard so much that the DTS solution is "open source".


What theatrical mixes? They don't have any.




Scott Simonian said:


> Right.
> 
> Auro3D: Too Little, Too Late


Yep. Poor old Van Baelen won't have welcomed this news from DTS for sure. I’d hate to be in his position.



Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! That's Dan for ya.


I hope he realises I was just joshing with him...


----------



## CBdicX

My first Atmos experians with a "real" movie instade of Atmos short test clips.
I was T4 and at start it was a bit slow but later in the movie, special with the alien ship sucking metal parts, it realy went UP !
The overal Atmos experians is in one word GREAT. 
All effects are boosted, also in the horizontal plane effects are much clearer, but Atmos makes the effects realy go up and you are more in the center of the effects.


And all i use are 4 standard Magnat Needle Sat speakers (see earlier post) turned to the ceiling, so no specific Dolby Enabled speakers.........


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> There has been a little known audio engineering device called "post-production re-mixing" that has been used for quite some time.  The archival stem and multi-track files are usually PCM.


And you think this would be a cost-effective proposition? Dolby will simply require existing Atmos mixes to be transferred to Bluray at virtually no cost or effort, while DTS will have to take existing movies and remix them for object audio? LOL.

And yet you say that the reason DTS won in the lossless codec stakes was because they had the advantage over Dolby that their method was quicker and cheaper to implement?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> What theatrical mixes? They don't have any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Poor old Van Baelen won't have welcomed this news from DTS for sure. I’d hate to be in his position.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope he realises I was just joshing with him...


I meant if it's possible that there is open source mixes now. I don't know if it's allowed to have a Dolby Atmos mix and then available at home in DTS:X. I can't imagine it is that easy if it is allowed and I'm sure Dolby wouldn't be happy about it if this was the case.

Auro3D is just not gonna make it. I bet a brand new, DTS:X enabled Yamaha. 

And Dan better know! We kid.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope he realises I was just joshing with him...



Oh, I know there's been plenty of ribbing back and forth going on.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I meant if it's possible that there is open source mixes now. I don't know if it's allowed to have a Dolby Atmos mix and then available at home in DTS:X. I can't imagine it is that easy if it is allowed and I'm sure Dolby wouldn't be happy about it if this was the case.


Well there is no way that Dolby are going to allow their Atmos mixes to be appropriated by their arch competitor. So either they have to have object-based mixes in the theater to work with, or they have to remix everything, as Dan has just (surely not seriously?) suggested.



Scott Simonian said:


> Auro3D is just not gonna make it. I bet a brand new, DTS:X enabled Yamaha.


Yep. Van Baelen would do well to become Van Bailout IMO and cut his losses.



Scott Simonian said:


> And Dan better know! We kid.


I am sure he does


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> And you think this would be a cost-effective proposition? Dolby will simply require existing Atmos mixes to be transferred to Bluray at virtually no cost or effort, while DTS will have to take existing movies and remix them for object audio? LOL.
> 
> And yet you say that the reason DTS won in the lossless codec stakes was because they had the advantage over Dolby that their method was quicker and cheaper to implement?


As Scott _speculated_ there _may_ be a way to translate positional object metadata that helps in the format translation process, or the studios would be loathe to partner with DTS at this early stage of the game with, as you stated, zero theatrical MDA content (that we know of). 

It's not like the master audio information itself is anything other than good ol' 24 bit, 48 kHz PCM.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, I know there's been plenty of ribbing back and forth going on.


Yes, this is nice thread for that reason. Good natured ribbing among buddies.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's not like the master audio information itself is anything other than good ol' 24 bit, 48 kHz PCM.


Indeed. And Dolby just requires a simple transfer of an already Atmos-mixed movie to Bluray. Whereas DTS will have to remix the movie just for Bluray. Hmmm...


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Well there is no way that Dolby are going to allow their Atmos mixes to be appropriated by their arch competitor. So either they have to have object-based mixes in the theater to work with, or they have to remix everything, as Dan has just (surely not seriously?) suggested.


That sounds like it would be time consuming and expensive. Can't see how this would be the case. 

Hmm...

New movies being mixed in an open source immersive/3D form? Could be.


----------



## jpco

Why haven't the simple transfers happened? If it's a simple transfer, I seriously don't understand why so many discs for theater mixed Atmos movies haven't been released as Atmos Blu-rays.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Indeed. And Dolby just requires a simple transfer of an already Atmos-mixed movie to Bluray. Whereas DTS will have to remix the movie just for Bluray. Hmmm...


Again, I gotta think there's something going on behind the scenes that would make it easier for studios to want to partner with DTS MDA with or without Dolby Atmos partnerships as well. It's also possible that some audio mixing has been accomplished with open source MDA rendering software that we're not privy to.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpco said:


> Why haven't the simple transfers happened? If it's a simple transfer, I seriously don't understand why so many discs for theater mixed Atmos movies haven't been released as Atmos Blu-rays.


It takes time for the software mixing and authoring suites to get around to the home video post houses. They do have to invest in the necessary software and hardware and that ain't cheap.


----------



## jpco

Dan Hitchman said:


> It takes time for the software mixing and authoring suites to get around to the home video post houses. They do have to buy the necessary software and hardware and that ain't cheap.



Is it known if the current Atmos BD releases are theatrical mixes or if they were remixed for home theater?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> That sounds like it would be time consuming and expensive. Can't see how this would be the case.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> New movies being mixed in an open source immersive/3D form? Could be.


Like I mentioned to Keith, it's possible that some mixes have already been created with MDA rendering and I agree with you on that idea.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpco said:


> Is it known if the current Atmos BD releases are theatrical mixes or if they were remixed for home theater?


I believe_ Step Up: All In_ was a remix unless it was originally designed for Atmos, but never released theatrically that way.


----------



## Minge

Can and does size of room and existing surround speaker placement dictate if I should go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4? My room is fairly small at 20 long by 14 wide. I am running a family of dynaudio speakers with floor standing mains and ceiling mounted surrounds with the surrounds being about 3 feet behind my main seating area. I plan to install a pair or two of Golden Ear HTR7000 in my ceiling. the typical 5.1.4 set-up shows the rear atmos speakers mounded behind the main seating area but in front of the back surrounds. This is not possible in my current set-up. I am leaning towards a 5.1.2 set-up but wanted to make sure I am making the right call before punching holes in my ceiling. Is a properly set-up 5.1.2 going to be give me that "atmos" experience?


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Is it known if the current Atmos BD releases are theatrical mixes or if they were remixed for home theater?


Of course. All the Blurays released to date with Atmos encodes are theatrical mixes. They may be subject to the usual small tweaks that almost all mixes get for Bluray these days. But that is SOP anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I believe_ Step Up: All In_ was a remix unless it was originally designed for Atmos, but never released theatrically that way.


Ah - good point. IMDB lists the sound as just Dolby Digital. It didn't even cross my radar as a _movie _TBH.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Like I mentioned to Keith, it's possible that some mixes have already been created with MDA rendering and I agree with you on that idea.


And they’ve been kept secret? Hmmmm. Why would they do that, given how far behind the game everyone assumes them to be?


----------



## kbarnes701

Minge said:


> Can and does size of room and existing surround speaker placement dictate if I should go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4? My room is fairly small at 20 long by 14 wide. I am running a family of dynaudio speakers with floor standing mains and ceiling mounted surrounds with the surrounds being about 3 feet behind my main seating area. I plan to install a pair or two of Golden Ear HTR7000 in my ceiling. the typical 5.1.4 set-up shows the rear atmos speakers mounded behind the main seating area but in front of the back surrounds. This is not possible in my current set-up. I am leaning towards a 5.1.2 set-up but wanted to make sure I am making the right call before punching holes in my ceiling. Is a properly set-up 5.1.2 going to be give me that "atmos" experience?


Yes but 5.1.4 is better. Mo' speakers, mo' better. If can successfully do 5.1.4 in a room 11 feet x 11 feet x 8 feet, I am darn sure you can


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course. All the Blurays released to date with Atmos encodes are theatrical mixes. They may be subject to the usual small tweaks that almost all mixes get for Bluray these days. But that is SOP anyway.



I only asked because this article makes it sound like more than a simple transfer to BD. 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...nearfield-mixes-for-dolby-atmos-blurays/19537

Just trying to understand why Atmos has been so scarce. Seems like it was introduced to consumer products at a very early stage compared to software availability, but not when compared to theatrical introduction.


----------



## NorthSky

> The consumer version of DTS-MDA finally has a name (that rhymes with DTS Headphone:X and DTS Neo:X) as well as several licensees at launch:
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/components/dts-lines-audio-suppliers-support-dtsx-surround/55429


Finally! ... *DTS:X* ...That, I want! ...Now we're talkin'.


----------



## NorthSky

> Good to see them finally releasing launch info.
> 
> _DTS said the “official launch” of DTS:X is planned for March 2015, when the company said it would offer more information about its technology.
> _
> 
> But with no theatrical mixes at all so far, it isn't easy to see where the content is coming from.
> 
> *The press release will have a detrimental effect on AVR sales I think. Who will buy right now if March next year sees DTS:X in upcoming units?* And the other side of the coin: seems like my X5200 will be a one year wonder here... (assuming, which is a big ass-u-me, that there will be any significant content for DTS:X any time soon).
> 
> I wonder what their upmixer will be like? It will have to be something special to beat DSU.


Oh they knew it all along, and we sang the song too all along. ...Time for upgrading Keith, again.


----------



## NorthSky

*Dts:x*



> Also interesting is that they've announced *Anthem* as bringing out a product in 2015. ARC room correction (IMO current best-of-breed) and all of the current formats is a package sounds like a wallet-opener. I hope their product is an MRX receiver (or pre-pro priced along those lines) and not an AVM/D pre-pro.


I too was real happy to see that name on the list.


----------



## stikle

Minge said:


> My room is fairly small at 20 long by 14 wide





kbarnes701 said:


> If can successfully do 5.1.4 in a room 11 feet x 11 feet x 8 feet, I am darn sure you can


Mine's ~15' x 11' x 8-9' (vaulted) and it seems successful to me. I just won't let anybody else of importance come listen and tell me otherwise. 

Now to just get the sheet rock work finished and figure out paint so the room doesn't look so haphazard.


----------



## NorthSky

asharma said:


> I "thought" the 5200 and 7009 were firmware upgradeable to the new DTS format...am I incorrect?


Nope; this has NEVER/EVER been mentioned in the past. ...Owners of the 4100, 5200, 7009, 7702, ...Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha AV receivers and pre/pros with Dolby Atmos...time to upgrade again in 2015. 

Welcome to the ever fast changing/improving world of 3D sound & picture evolution...Happy New 2015 Year!


----------



## NorthSky

> Where are these discs coming from, given that DTS have precisely zero theatrical mixes in immersive, object-based audio?


Use positive thinking. ...They'll come; those Blus with DTS:X audio encoding...don't worry be happy. 

Besides, enjoy Dolby Surround in the now.


----------



## NorthSky

> Exactly. And grab some market share at the same time. It's another nail in Auro's coffin IMO.


That, I highly doubt that.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> 2015 will probably be an interesting year for object based surround. *I'm glad I held out on purchasing a new receiver*.





Scott Simonian said:


> *Yeah, me too*. Although I feel like there is that chance that I am not happy with the the first products with DTS:X. Not unlike Atmos now.


And me?!! ...Count me in big time.  ... *DTS:X* here we come baby! :kiss:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> And they’ve been kept secret? Hmmmm. Why would they do that, given how far behind the game everyone assumes them to be?


Since it's an open-source, layout agnostic object language that can be utilized in many different ways, it may not be advertised and branded theatrically in a similar fashion to Dolby Atmos (even Atmos can get buried in proprietary theater chain luxury auditorium branding jargon). Studios don't normally go around marketing that a movie is in 5.1 or 7.1 PCM, though DCP's can contain those types of non-licensed, non-company specific soundtracks, do they? 

For a time, Auro3D, through Barco, was using MDA object rendering when it was called for.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that Roger. You didn't mention the potential spread of the speaker locations due to the range of permitted angles. If the speaker is designated as FH but is actually positioned on the ceiling at 45°, how would that affect the scenario you describe for the 30° supposed angle for FH?


I thought I did cover that. The 15° positional error and the panning speed changes. Or maybe I'm not clear on your question. Sorry.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since it's an open-source, layout agnostic object language that can be utilized in many different ways, it may not be advertised theatrically in a similar fashion to Dolby Atmos (even Atmos can get buried in proprietary theater chain luxury auditorium branding).


Not likely since DTS hasn't been in the theatrical business for some time.


> For a time, Auro3D, through Barco, was using MDA object rendering when it was called for.


Maybe to help make mixing easier but not for theatrical playback.


----------



## gammanuc

mcsoul said:


> ...Snip....I really like DSX wides for music, can I leave them wired up with the X5200 and switch between ATMOS 7.2.4 and DSX wide 9.2 on the fly?
> I have 9 channels of external amplification if necessary.


Yes you can, I just recently installed front wide speakers and have been doing just what you are asking about.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Not likely since DTS hasn't been in the theatrical business for some time. Maybe to help make mixing easier but not for theatrical playback.


Things could change if DTS decides to push its name in commercial venues again rather than relegating MDA to hidden foundational mixing status. Heck anything's possible with DTS. Their company seems to constantly keep their finger to the wind and adapt to whatever market climate change might make them extra profits. There might be a faction that rues the day they sold their theatrical stake by getting rid of Datasat and others may be content for DTS to stay a background player. 

We shall see.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yamaha does allow for Atmos-Enabled speakers for CinemaDSP and Atmos. *I don't believe their products have Neo:X at all*.


That's right.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I thought I did cover that. The 15° positional error and the panning speed changes. Or maybe I'm not clear on your question. Sorry.


Thanks Roger. I read your earlier reply again and you are right of course. You did cover it. My bad.


----------



## asharma

NorthSky said:


> Nope; this has NEVER/EVER been mentioned in the past. ...Owners of the 4100, 5200, 7009, 7702, ...Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha AV receivers and pre/pros...time to upgrade again in 2015.
> 
> Welcome to the ever fast changing/improving world of 3D sound & picture evolution...Happy New 2015 Year!


Well that SUCKS!! Has there been a definitive statement saying they WON'T be upgradeable or in the absence of a statement mentioning they will be upgradeable we are assuming they won't be? Also, as with DD and DTS today, would most new BRDs in the future not contain an ATMOS mix and DTS:X mix?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
No there has not been any confirmation ... so please ignore that statement you quoted.


----------



## ThePrisoner

I have a question about what is the ideal distance between the height speaker as in Top Front distance to Top Middle in an Atmos setup. I have included a picture of my current set-up which is located in my small living room. I was thinking of mounting my front heights from where they are now (on wall as high as I could go) to the minimum 30 degrees. In my picture (sorry I do not have a photo editor) that would bring my front heights out to the ceiling above the right edge of my turntable stand. They would be 5ft from my top middle speakers you see in the pic. My seating area is about 1-2 ft from rear wall so I mounted my TM speakers just in front of the love seat. Would the FH be to close to the TM speakers?

Thank you.


----------



## gammanuc

Minge said:


> Can and does size of room and existing surround speaker placement dictate if I should go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4? My room is fairly small at 20 long by 14 wide. I am running a family of dynaudio speakers with floor standing mains and ceiling mounted surrounds with the surrounds being about 3 feet behind my main seating area. I plan to install a pair or two of Golden Ear HTR7000 in my ceiling. the typical 5.1.4 set-up shows the rear atmos speakers mounded behind the main seating area but in front of the back surrounds. This is not possible in my current set-up. I am leaning towards a 5.1.2 set-up but wanted to make sure I am making the right call before punching holes in my ceiling. Is a properly set-up 5.1.2 going to be give me that "atmos" experience?


My room is similar in size but my screen is on the widest wall. My TR (top rear) in-ceiling speakers are approx. 3 feet behind me (same as your surrounds) with the TF at about the same distance as well. I started off with top middle, but I find it is much better with four ceiling speakers. In my old 7.1 set-up I had surround backs, but I removed them because I found they drowned out the TR speakers because the side, rear surrounds and TR were so close together. My surround back speakers are now doing duty as front wides.


----------



## NorthSky

asharma said:


> Well that SUCKS!! Has there been a definitive statement saying they WON'T be upgradeable or in the absence of a statement mentioning they will be upgradeable we are assuming they won't be? Also, as with DD and DTS today, would most new BRDs in the future not contain an ATMOS mix and DTS:X mix?


Do you remember the first DD products? ...Without dts. ...Then the year after came new products with both DD (AC-3) and dts.



jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> No there has not been any confirmation ... so please ignore that statement you quoted.


Nice guy, no sense of humor?  ...Or respect of a solid assuming opinion.


----------



## kbarnes701

ThePrisoner said:


> I have a question about what is the ideal distance between the height speaker as in Top Front distance to Top Middle in an Atmos setup. I have included a picture of my current set-up which is located in my small living room. I was thinking of mounting my front heights from where they are now (on wall as high as I could go) to the minimum 30 degrees. In my picture (sorry I do not have a photo editor) that would bring my front heights out to the ceiling above the right edge of my turntable stand. They would be 5ft from my top middle speakers you see in the pic. My seating area is about 1-2 ft from rear wall so I mounted my TM speakers just in front of the love seat. Would the FH be to close to the TM speakers?
> 
> Thank you.


My FH and TM are about 5 feet apart. My TM is just in front of MLP. I sit 2.5 feet from the rear wall. My Atmos/DSU experience is fabulous. I think you are good to go


----------



## ThePrisoner

kbarnes701 said:


> My FH and TM are about 5 feet apart. My TM is just in front of MLP. I sit 2.5 feet from the rear wall. My Atmos/DSU experience is fabulous. I think you are good to go


Thanks! I was worried about that. I need to thank Roger Dressler for coming up with the distance for me to hit 30 degrees. From what I've read those front heights will be way better at that location than the front wall.

I just have to splice extra wire to get me out into the room.


----------



## NorthSky

If there is, if, a future optional upgrade path to DTS:X on present Dolby Atmos products; that, would be real swell. 

How long, till we know for certain? ...March 2015?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Things could change if DTS decides to push its name in commercial venues again rather than relegating MDA to hidden foundational mixing status.


I was talking about your comments regarding MDA already being used for secret mixes and the decoding being kept hidden by theatres not advertising the fact.


> There might be a faction that rues the day they sold their theatrical stake by getting rid of Datasat and others may be content for DTS to stay a background player.


Sure, any minute now. (If you're determined to fantasize, don't let me stop you.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> I was talking about your comments regarding MDA already being used for secret mixes and the decoding being kept hidden by theatres not advertising the fact. Sure, any minute now. (If you're determined to fantasize, don't let me stop you.)


My supposed fantasies are as equal to your own fantasies. I'm not stopping you either.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> My supposed fantasies are as equal to your own fantasies.


What fantasies? I haven't speculated about secret mixes and unadvertised decoding.


----------



## asharma

asharma said:


> Well that SUCKS!! Has there been a definitive statement saying they WON'T be upgradeable or in the absence of a statement mentioning they will be upgradeable we are assuming they won't be? Also, as with DD and DTS today, would most new BRDs in the future not contain an ATMOS mix and DTS:X mix?


Ok, so in regards to the first question above, we've determined there has been no official statement confirming one way or another...


Anyone care to take a crack at the 2nd part of the question...?

Thanks...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> What fantasies? I haven't speculated about secret mixes and unadvertised decoding.



Ah I see, so if someone else speculates about what might be going on behind the scenes, it's fantasizing, but if _you_ speculate... it's something else entirely. Got it now.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ah I see, so if someone else speculates about what might be going on behind the scenes, it's fantasizing, but if _you_ speculate... it's something else entirely. Got it now.


No, as I mentioned, you speculated, I didn't. Unless you're saying that not believing your fantasy is speculating (i.e., your fantasy is true unless proven false)?


----------



## NorthSky

asharma said:


> Ok, so in regards to the first question above, we've determined there has been no official statement confirming one way or another...
> 
> Anyone care to take a crack at the 2nd part of the question...?
> 
> Thanks...


I would love to share my opinion, but I am afraid that it won't be "accepted" as valid. 

But what the heck; it's just an opinion, and not everyone has to agree or not with it.

* It is very unlikely. ...99% certain.

____________

P.S. Sanjay & Dan, you guys are derailing.


----------



## asharma

NorthSky said:


> I would love to share my opinion, but I am afraid that it won't be "accepted" as valid.
> 
> But what the heck; it's just an opinion, and not everyone has to agree or not with it.
> 
> * It is very unlikely. ...99% certain.
> 
> ____________
> 
> P.S. Sanjay & Dan, you guys are derailing.



Us "Nova Scotian'ers" happily "accept" all Vancouver'ites 

Coast to coast bro...


----------



## stikle

ThePrisoner said:


> In my picture (*sorry I do not have a photo editor*)



If you're on a Windows computer, get Paint.net. It's free and fabulous...Photoshop level editing features.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> And the other side of the coin: seems like my X5200 will be a one year wonder here... (assuming, which is a big ass-u-me, that there will be any significant content for DTS:X any time soon).


I'm curious why you think your 5200 will no longer be usable with DTS:X. Are we assuming that there will be no firmware upgrade? I was under the impression that DTS will be speaker layout "agnostic" so other than no way to update, why our current "boxes" would be no good. 

Reasons to have waited are becoming more compelling all of the time. But I didn't and do love what Atmos/DSU brings to the table. I watched about 10 demo clips last night using DSU and everything but the ceiling speakers was off. Quite interesting what gets put up there. And what is more interesting is that many times it does not sound like "UP there but rather just "there".


----------



## CBdicX

Now Onkyo TX-NR 636 - 737 and 838 are upgradeable to Dolby Atmos, would it be possible to have also an upgrade from a Atmos receiver to DTS:X ?


(The TX-NR636 - 737 and 838 wins prime position on your gear rack, it’s among one of the few A/V receivers to support Dolby Atmos multidimensional sound following a *quick firmware update*)


----------



## kbarnes701

ThePrisoner said:


> Thanks! I was worried about that. I need to thank Roger Dressler for coming up with the distance for me to hit 30 degrees. From what I've read those front heights will be way better at that location than the front wall.
> 
> I just have to splice extra wire to get me out into the room.


It honestly works really well here, so I am sure you will be happy with the results. And you're right - creating the extra separation between the FH pair and the main speakers will work better.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Ok, so in regards to the first question above, we've determined there has been no official statement confirming one way or another...
> 
> 
> Anyone care to take a crack at the 2nd part of the question...?
> 
> Thanks...


I would think it unlikely that any studio would go to the trouble of taking a theatrical Atmos mix and remixing it for DTS-X, or vice-versa. What would be the point if AVRs are able to decode either? What would be the point of having them both on one disc?


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I'm curious why you think your 5200 will no longer be usable with DTS:X. Are we assuming that there will be no firmware upgrade? I was under the impression that DTS will be speaker layout "agnostic" so other than no way to update, why our current "boxes" would be no good.


The X5200 will, of course, still be usable. But it won't be able to decode DTS:X. There will be no FW update IMO, for the reasons I have already given.



audioguy said:


> Reasons to have waited are becoming more compelling all of the time. But I didn't and do love what Atmos/DSU brings to the table. I watched about 10 demo clips last night using DSU and everything but the ceiling speakers was off. Quite interesting what gets put up there. And what is more interesting is that many times it does not sound like "UP there but rather just "there".


Agreed totally.

Batpig gave a good educated guess at why there will be no DST:X FW update for the X5200 in another thread. I'll try to find it and post it here.

Here we go:



batpig said:


> Educted speculation -- but it seems likely the 7200/8802 will get the update, whereas the lower models will not, for the same reason as the HDCP2.2 upgrade -- 2 year refresh cycle on the "flagship" models vs. just being replaced with fully featured versions next year.
> 
> It's important not to lump all "the Atmos models" together in this context since the Denon X4100W, X5200W and Marantz SR7009 and AV7702 will be replaced with new models this summer. I don't think D&M can afford to alienate customers who ponied up early for the X7200W and the AV8802 by having the lower level models be more fully featured just a few months after purchase.


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> I "thought" the 5200 and 7009 were firmware upgradeable to the new DTS format...am I incorrect?


It is possible AFAIK and IAW what I was told back in Aug/Sep when I was about to purchase my X5200. However, since the DTS MDA format had not yet been fielded, it would have been presumptuous to expect the CEM's to confirm any such upgradability at that point. (See, however, the post linked to below.)



NorthSky said:


> *Nope; this has NEVER/EVER been mentioned in the past.* ...Owners of the 4100, 5200, 7009, 7702, ...Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha AV receivers and pre/pros with Dolby Atmos...time to upgrade again in 2015.
> 
> Welcome to the ever fast changing/improving world of 3D sound & picture evolution...Happy New 2015 Year!


That is factually incorrect (or did you mean that comment tongue-in-cheek?). There was, inter alia, this post, to which you yourself responded.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> It is possible AFAIK and IAW what I was told back in Aug/Sep when I was about to purchase my X5200. However, since the DTS MDA format had not yet been fielded, it would have been presumptuous to expect the CEM's to confirm any such upgradability at that point. (See, however, the post linked to below.)


It is possible, but it makes no commercial sense. I knew before buying my 5200 that there wasn't going to be a FW update to DTS-UHD (as we called it then) but that would be one for Auro, so I went in with my eyes wide open. As a consequence I have no regrets about my purchase but I do expect it to be a short lived thing. And an expensive early adoption.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> The X5200 will, of course, still be usable. But it won't be able to decode DTS:X. There will be no FW update IMO, for the reasons I have already given.


So we end up with boat anchors. Who would purchase a product that does not support all of the optional formats? (Other than the 3 people who won't eventually want to move toward 3 D sound!!)


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. It's the only thing that makes sense for DTS IMO. They are coming so late into the game it would be madness to require a unique speaker layout, different to that required by Atmos. If they can use the same speaker layout, then it will be very easy for them to gain traction. I, for example, would instantly upgrade to DTS-X (assuming content) if I could use my existing speakers. Conversely, not being able to use existing speaker layout has killed any desire to bother with Auro at all.


It also makes sense for them to offer their product as firmware upgrades to existing Atmos enabled receivers. They need to catch up, working with existing speaker layouts for example, and they should push manufacturers to offer it as such.


----------



## stikle

audioguy said:


> So we end up with boat anchors. Who would purchase a product that does not support all of the optional formats? (Other than the 3 people who won't eventually want to move toward 3 D sound!!)


Me, I guess. Although...I've only had it two weeks. I could probably make up a reason to return it to Amazon and just wait for the next model. But...is it really worth the time and effort when I could just continue enjoying it?


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> That is factually incorrect (or did you mean that comment tongue-in-cheek?). There was, inter alia, this post, to which you yourself responded.


Your link goes nowhere.


----------



## NorthSky

asharma said:


> Us "Nova Scotian'ers" happily "accept" all Vancouver'ites
> 
> Coast to coast bro...



Right on!  ...Happy New Year.

P.S. Wait for the 2n gen of 3D surround sound receivers (or pre/pros).  ...They'll have dts:X


----------



## ambesolman

DS-21 said:


> I'm curious, has there been any official word about ceiling speaker aiming? I ask because HF beaming at the listening position could make ceiling speakers more localizable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if that includes upfiring speakers. I hope so, given that I have cross-joists in my ceiling and windows on my front wall. So if I do eventually add built-in height speakers they will have to be high on the sidewalls.
> 
> 
> 
> Also interesting is that they've announced Anthem as bringing out a product in 2015. ARC room correction (IMO current best-of-breed) and all of the current formats is a package sounds like a wallet-opener. I hope their product is an MRX receiver (or pre-pro priced along those lines) and not an AVM/D pre-pro.



And preferably under $5k



kbarnes701 said:


> Where are these discs coming from, given that DTS have precisely zero theatrical mixes in immersive, object-based audio?



Didn't keep DTS from mixing tons of movies over the years not originally in the DTS format before. Why would it now?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It is possible, but it makes no commercial sense. I knew before buying my 5200 that there wasn't going to be a FW update to DTS-UHD (as we called it then) but that would be one for Auro, so I went in with my eyes wide open. As a consequence I have no regrets about my purchase but I do expect it to be a short lived thing. And an expensive early adoption.


I agree with you in that I also do not regret my purchase, but I do not expect it to be short-lived because of DTS:X. While I am much less pessimistic than you regarding the possibility of a future upgrade for the X5200, I am also anticipating the availability of 9.1.6 Atmos processing in an "affordable" AVR/SSP in the near future. THAT would probably move me to recycle my AVR.

And to keep things in perspective, I would be MUCH, MUCH more disappointed if there turned out to be no more than a handful of worthwhile Atmos-encoded Blu-ray releases in the next 12 months than I would be by the lack of any potential DTS:X upgrade.


----------



## stikle

Just for kicks I submitted a question to support, so we'll see what they say.

However...one of the links they provided on the feedback form appears to have the answer...sort of:



> Also, please keep in mind that receivers don't need the latest firmware update to perform optimally. Firmware updates are created and released to correct logic or communication based glitches that a microprocessor reset cannot fix in certain units. *Updates are never released to alter the feature set of a unit. *


So...Auro3D is not a feature then? They're not adding a new feature VIA firmware? Riiiight....


----------



## gammanuc

audioguy said:


> So we end up with boat anchors. Who would purchase a product that does not support all of the optional formats? (Other than the 3 people who won't eventually want to move toward 3 D sound!!)


It will not be a boat anchor for me at least, DSU is damn amazing. I have watched a bunch of non Atmos movies with the x5200 and it has brought something extra to each of them. Some to me, have been even better than, TF4 and the Expendables.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Your link goes nowhere.


Works for me. But here's the text:



Wookii said:


> I don't this has been posted on this thread yet, but apparently . . . owners of the Denon 5200 can expect a free firmware upgrade to DTS-UHD and an optional paid for firmware upgrade to Auro3D next year! This was confirmed to a UK dealer at CEDIA.


And here's your reply:



NorthSky said:


> This is quite major "good" news. ...Very very happy to hear that.


----------



## jdsmoothie

stikle said:


> Just for kicks I submitted a question to support, so we'll see what they say.
> 
> However...one of the links they provided on the feedback form appears to have the answer...sort of:
> 
> 
> 
> So...Auro3D is not a feature then? They're not adding a new feature VIA firmware? Riiiight....


There is distinction being made there between "update" (fixes) and "upgrade" (new feature). The Auro 3D is an "upgrade" as is noted by the Notification - Upgrade setting.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> *So we end up with boat anchors.* Who would purchase a product that does not support all of the optional formats?


That is a very honest way to put it, for some people. ...But we did expect that before; @ least some of us, meself included.


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> Works for me. But here's the text:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's your reply:


I knew I read that it was potentially upgradeable "somewhere"!! Thanks for the flashback!


----------



## stikle

jdsmoothie said:


> There is distinction being made there between "update" (fixes) and "upgrade" (new feature). The Auro 3D is an "upgrade" as is noted by the Notification - Upgrade setting.


Sure, I understand the difference. My 5200 does not currently have Auro3D as a feature to update (fix).

However...



> Once *upgraded* with the Auro®-Codec Decoder, the Denon AVR-X7200W and AVR-X5200W are capable of decoding the original Auro-3D® mix and playing back an Auro 10.1 channel configuration (including “Voice of God” channel). The AVR-X4100W can process an Auro 9.1 channel configuration for full height layer capability.
> 
> The *Auro-3D Upgrade* can be purchased for $199.



So for $200 I can alter the feature set of my AVR VIA firmware download. Only they say I can't.

I'm still learning Denonese.


----------



## audioguy

gammanuc said:


> It will not be a boat anchor for me at least, DSU is damn amazing. I have watched a bunch of non Atmos movies with the x5200 and it has brought something extra to each of them. Some to me, have been even better than, TF4 and the Expendables.


DSU is amazing. And I agree, at least based on the 3 movies I have that are Atmos encoded, DSU provides an equally involving experience.

Assuming there is no upgrade, then what do we do when a Bluray with DTS 3D is released? We don't get to see it unless it is also encoded with Dolby. So to see it, you need a new product (if no upgrade) and then you get to try to sell yours to someone who has lived in a crawl space and has never heard of DTS. (I think there are 3 of those people on the planet).


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Works for me. But here's the text:
> 
> And here's your reply:


I simply did not remember that. Thank you for your diligent search. Will it gets dts:X inside today's Atmos receivers and pre/pros? ...Some, perhaps?
...Like the ones not released yet.


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree with you in that I also do not regret my purchase, but I do not expect it to be short-lived because of DTS:X. While I am much less pessimistic than you regarding the possibility of a future upgrade for the X5200, I am also anticipating the availability of 9.1.6 Atmos processing in an "affordable" AVR/SSP in the near future. THAT would probably move me to recycle my AVR.
> 
> And to keep things in perspective, I would be MUCH, MUCH more disappointed if there turned out to be no more than a handful of worthwhile Atmos-encoded Blu-ray releases in the next 12 months than I would be by the lack of any potential DTS:X upgrade.


Given I'm within my return window for my 7009, I'm tempted to escalate within Marantz to get an official answer on upgradeability...can't imagine I'll get too far with it but worth a try...


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> So we end up with boat anchors. Who would purchase a product that does not support all of the optional formats? (Other than the 3 people who won't eventually want to move toward 3 D sound!!)


Boat anchors is perhaps harsh. The X5200 is a very good AVR regardless of Atmos. Powerful, well-featured, made in Japan, good build quality etc. For all the Luddites who will not be interested in 3D sound, it would make a very nice AVR.


----------



## chi_guy50

audioguy said:


> DSU is amazing. And I agree, at least based on the 3 movies I have that are Atmos encoded, DSU provides an equally involving experience.
> 
> Assuming there is no upgrade, then what do we do when a Bluray with DTS 3D is released? We don't get to see it unless it is also encoded with Dolby. So to see it, you need a new product (if no upgrade) and then you get to try to sell yours to someone who has lived in a crawl space and has never heard of DTS. (I think there are 3 of those people on the planet).


I think it's far too early to start tearing your hair and gnashing your teeth over this; but, at the very least, I would expect a DTS:X Blu-ray to be playable without the processor (and then upmixed via DSU). 

I have been as eager as anyone to see DTS's MDA entry hit the field, but that won't happen for at least several more months and new products with DTS:X processing built in won't presumably be available until summer/fall 2015 at the earliest. By then we will probably know for certain whether D&M will be offering upgrades for current models. For now, it's all mere conjecture and not worth worrying about. If someone has confirmed information on the subject, then we can proceed to assess the alternatives.


----------



## kbarnes701

ambesolman said:


> Didn't keep DTS from mixing tons of movies over the years not originally in the DTS format before. Why would it now?


Because in the past there were two choices for Bluray: TrueHD and DTS (they are compression codecs not mixes). TrueHD was slower and thus more expensive to use, so the production houses went mainly with DTS. Helped them meet tight schedules and they saved money at the same time. You are confusing mixing with compressing for disc. Movies are not 'mixed in DTS'. They are mixed as PCM. DTS or TrueHD only come into it when transferring the mix to disc. And Atmos has the head start there because an Atmos movie doesn't need any additional mixing - it just needs transferring to TrueHD. A movie not originally mixed in Atmos would first have to be mixed to DTS:X and then transferred to disc. DTS:X is the format, DTS-HD MA is the codec. Atmos is the format, TrueHD is the codec.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> It also makes sense for them to offer their product as firmware upgrades to existing Atmos enabled receivers. They need to catch up, working with existing speaker layouts for example, and they should push manufacturers to offer it as such.


It makes no sense for Denon to offer DTS:X as a FW upgrade to the X4100 and X5200 when they will have new units out which include those formats natively. A FW upgrade to the older units will damage sales of the new units. And as batpig has pointed out, the more expensive 7200 would look fairly silly (on a 2 year life cycle) if the lower models had DTS:X incorporated as a FW upgrade.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree with you in that I also do not regret my purchase, but I do not expect it to be short-lived because of DTS:X. While I am much less pessimistic than you regarding the possibility of a future upgrade for the X5200, I am also anticipating the availability of 9.1.6 Atmos processing in an "affordable" AVR/SSP in the near future. THAT would probably move me to recycle my AVR.


I am unable to reveal my source for the FW update information. Either you believe it or not, but I would not hold out any great hopes for a FW upgrade to DTS:X. Unfortunately. 



chi_guy50 said:


> And to keep things in perspective, I would be MUCH, MUCH more disappointed if there turned out to be no more than a handful of worthwhile Atmos-encoded Blu-ray releases in the next 12 months than I would be by the lack of any potential DTS:X upgrade.


I agree, but again, it's not something I expect to happen. I foresee almost every Atmos theatrical release being issued as a BD when the time comes, and once the production facilities have all got their hardware installed and running.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> DSU is amazing. And I agree, at least based on the 3 movies I have that are Atmos encoded, DSU provides an equally involving experience.
> 
> Assuming there is no upgrade, then what do we do when a Bluray with DTS 3D is released? We don't get to see it unless it is also encoded with Dolby. So to see it, you need a new product (if no upgrade) and then you get to try to sell yours to someone who has lived in a crawl space and has never heard of DTS. (I think there are 3 of those people on the planet).


DTS:X blurays will be able to be played by your (what will then be) legacy AVR but only in 5.1/7.1, just as Atmos blurays can now.


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> It makes no sense for Denon to offer DTS:X as a FW upgrade to the X4100 and X5200 when they will have new units out which include those formats natively. A FW upgrade to the older units will damage sales of the new units. And as batpig has pointed out, the more expensive 7200 would look fairly silly (on a 2 year life cycle) if the lower models had DTS:X incorporated as a FW upgrade.


Then why offer Auro as an upgrade to the lower models? Why not just give it to the new flagship? Alienating early adopters isn't a very good way to get them to select their brand down the road.


----------



## gammanuc

audioguy said:


> DSU is amazing. And I agree, at least based on the 3 movies I have that are Atmos encoded, DSU provides an equally involving experience.
> 
> Assuming there is no upgrade, then what do we do when a Bluray with DTS 3D is released? We don't get to see it unless it is also encoded with Dolby. So to see it, you need a new product (if no upgrade) and then you get to try to sell yours to someone who has lived in a crawl space and has never heard of DTS. (I think there are 3 of those people on the planet).


Atmos discs are backwards compatible, it can be played on non Atmos equipment. If the same is true with DTS 3D (to be competitive with Dolby, I hope it will be) then the DTS 3D Blu rays will contain info that can be upmixed by DSU. I can't even find much info on DTS's effort, so I think it's a bit early for everyone to running around shouting "The sky is falling" or as we say here in Newfoundland " The Arse is fallin' out of 'er!".


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> I think it's far too early to start tearing your hair and gnashing your teeth over this; but, at the very least, I would expect a DTS:X Blu-ray to be playable without the processor (and then upmixed via DSU).
> 
> I have been as eager as anyone to see DTS's MDA entry hit the field, but that won't happen for at least several more months and new products with DTS:X processing built in won't presumably be available until summer/fall 2015 at the earliest. By then we will probably know for certain whether D&M will be offering upgrades for current models. For now, it's all mere conjecture and not worth worrying about. If someone has confirmed information on the subject, then we can proceed to assess the alternatives.



I just called Marantz Tech support in the u.s....I've started a ticket. The rep said at first probably would be upgradeable and then said he didn't know for sure. No confirmed position. He is escalating, said it could take 30 days to hear, if we hear anything. He did say historically Marantz has provided for major upgrades, such as Airplay, so that was comforting. I'm starting an email thread in addition to my call and if I hear anything, this group will be the first to know.


----------



## asharma

gammanuc said:


> Atmos discs are backwards compatible, it can be played on non Atmos equipment. If the same is true with DTS 3D (to be competitive with Dolby, I hope it will be) then the DTS 3D Blu rays will contain info that can be upmixed by DSU. I can't even find much info on DTS's effort, so I think it's a bit early for everyone to running around shouting "The sky is falling" or as we say here in Newfoundland " The Arse is fallin' out of 'er!".


I'd like to think the arse ain't fallin outta 'er', especially from my perspective here in Nova Scotia


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I am unable to reveal my source for the FW update information. Either you believe it or not, but I would not hold out any great hopes for a FW upgrade to DTS:X. Unfortunately.


Oh, I believe it. I just like to hold out false hope for something to do.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I am unable to reveal my source for the FW update information. Either you believe it or not, but I would not hold out any great hopes for a FW upgrade to DTS:X. Unfortunately.


It's not a question of believing or not believing. Until D&M issues an official statement one way or the other it is unconfirmed information and subject to change or even refutal.

But my point was that it is not something I will waste one minute worrying about at this time. As Bogie almost said to Ingrid: "We'll always have Atmos/DSU."


----------



## Minge

gammanuc said:


> My room is similar in size but my screen is on the widest wall. My TR (top rear) in-ceiling speakers are approx. 3 feet behind me (same as your surrounds) with the TF at about the same distance as well. I started off with top middle, but I find it is much better with four ceiling speakers. In my old 7.1 set-up I had surround backs, but I removed them because I found they drowned out the TR speakers because the side, rear surrounds and TR were so close together. My surround back speakers are now doing duty as front wides.


I am more then willing to do 5.1.4 but I am at a loss for how I can get the rear hight speakers behind my theater seats yet in front of my surrounds as I can't back move my surrounds back at all. 

Is it impairative to have the rear heights behind the main seating area?


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> Because in the past there were two choices for Bluray: TrueHD and DTS (they are compression codecs not mixes). TrueHD was slower and thus more expensive to use, so the production houses went mainly with DTS. Helped them meet tight schedules and they saved money at the same time. You are confusing mixing with compressing for disc. Movies are not 'mixed in DTS'. They are mixed as PCM. DTS or TrueHD only come into it when transferring the mix to disc. And Atmos has the head start there because an Atmos movie doesn't need any additional mixing - it just needs transferring to TrueHD. A movie not originally mixed in Atmos would first have to be mixed to DTS:X and then transferred to disc. DTS:X is the format, DTS-HD MA is the codec. Atmos is the format, TrueHD is the codec.



From a recent article *Fairlight Demonstrates Dolby Atmos Mix in 3DAW at Tonmeister TMT 2014 in Cologne* (_link_):



> _„We’re not locking you into one specific output format. If you’re mixing with the Fairlight system you can mix once, you mix immersively in 3D, you’re monitoring in 3D and at the end of it, you decide if you want to output as a Dolby Atmos mix, an Auro-3D mix or a DTS MDA mix. We support a philosophy of mixing once and then outputting many times in many different formats.“ (Tino Fibaek, CTO Fairlight)_




_


----------



## NorthSky

> I am unable to reveal my source for the FW update information. Either you believe it or not, but I would not hold out any great hopes for a FW upgrade to DTS:X. Unfortunately.


Don't have to; Denon audio/video dealers have been told,,,some. 



> I agree, but again, it's not something I expect to happen. *I foresee almost every Atmos theatrical release being issued as a BD when the time comes, and once the production facilities have all got their hardware installed and running.*


Good luck.


----------



## gammanuc

Minge said:


> I am more then willing to do 5.1.4 but I am at a loss for how I can get the rear hight speakers behind my theater seats yet in front of my surrounds as I can't back move my surrounds back at all.
> 
> Is it impairative to have the rear heights behind the main seating area?


My line of thinking, if you are adding new ceiling speakers ( positioned as top front), was to use your existing ceiling surrounds as the rear height speakers (top rear speakers). That would mean also adding in new side surrounds in the walls if possible. See below for some pictures of the back, right hand side of my room. Excuse the plaster.


----------



## bargervais

gammanuc said:


> It will not be a boat anchor for me at least, DSU is damn amazing. I have watched a bunch of non Atmos movies with the x5200 and it has brought something extra to each of them. Some to me, have been even better than, TF4 and the Expendables.


I'm not worried if my receiver won't firmware upgrade to DTS:X(and become a boat anchor)... because the blu-ray with DTS:X will most likely still have DTS HD Master Audio just like atmos blu-ray have Dolby true HD... DTS HD Master Audio sounds amazing in DSU just watch The Maze Runner to hear a beautiful DSU....so no worries here. We will still be able to listen with Dolby Surround no matter what.


----------



## NorthSky

We have some positive thinkers here, I like it.


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> Good to see them finally releasing launch info. _DTS said the “official launch” of DTS:X is planned for March 2015, when the company said it would offer more information about its technology._
> 
> But with no theatrical mixes at all so far, it isn't easy to see where the content is coming from.



"Immersive audio" and "object based audio" are NOT synonyms; remember that the intent of _home theater_ *object based* audio is to deliver improvements in *three* distinctly different ways: "*immersion*", "*ubiquity*", and "*personalization*". For examples, see this *DTS press release January 2014* (_link_):



> _*DTS-UHD Benefits:*
> 
> 
> Environmentally compensated audio rendering allows consumers to hear audio directionality and dimensionality more precise than ever before possible
> Object control enables consumers to interact with key objects within the audio mix and adjust them to preference
> Customized rendering designed for arbitrary speaker layouts enables consumers to adapt their AV system to their own home environment rather than pre-determined speaker layouts
> _


... or 'many' papers and articles concerning *Fraunhofer’s New Interactive And Immersive Audio System for Television Broadcasting* (_link_), and 'related' entities|concepts *The MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (_link_), and the *mpeg-h 3D audio codec*. 


With it's _theatrical cinema_ origins, *Atmos* directly addresses "*immersion*", but in its current incarnation does not appear to support "*personalization*" at all, and while "*immersion*" is _presently_ only of interest to a small audience with _multi speaker_ systems, "*personalization*" is applicable to all audiences even those with only 2.0 playback systems, e.g., a TV. _For example see:_ *MPEG-H Audio - The New Standard for Universal Spatial / 3D Audio Coding* (_link_):



> _"Using audio objects or embedding of objects as additional audio tracks inside channel-based audio productions and broadcast opens up a range of new applications. Inside an MPEG-H 3D audio bitstream, objects can be embedded that can be selected by the user during playback. Objects allow consumers to have personalized playback options ranging from simple adjustments (such as increasing or decreasing the level of announcer’s commentary or actor’s dialogue relative to the other audio elements) to conceivable future broadcasts where several audio elements may be adjusted in level or position to tailor the audio playback experience to the user’s liking..."_



My understanding that the (English language) dialog for current *5.1|7.1* channel based movies is on a separate stem to allow for alternate language dubs. It seems to me that any such movie_--which might previously have been released as *DTS-HDMA 5.1*--_could now 'quickly' be released as *DTS:X 5.1 + 1 Dialog Object* (with legacy *DTS-HDMA 5.1* capability).


_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ambesolman said:


> And preferably under $5k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't keep DTS from mixing tons of movies over the years not originally in the DTS format before. Why would it now?


Just as Dolby seems to have been overseeing the translation of Atmos cinema mixes to the home version on these first titles, I also don't see why DTS wouldn't possibly pony up some cash to remix a few debut titles of their own with the original sound mixers present. They might be using it as a teaching lab as well (just like Dolby might be doing), so clients know how to use their products. A win-win situation and a worthy business expenditure. 

Unless one us thread members actually has iron clad insider information, we don't know DTS's or the studios', for that matter, strategies for 3D audio. And yes, it is all just thinking out loud.


----------



## stikle

bargervais said:


> I'm not worried if my receiver won't firmware upgrade to DTS:X(and become a boat anchor)... because the blu-ray with DTS:X will most likely still have DTS HD Master Audio just like atmos blu-ray have Dolby true HD... DTS HD Master Audio sounds amazing in DSU just watch The Maze Runner to hear a beautiful DSU....so no worries here. We will still be able to listen with Dolby Surround no matter what.


Exactly. Maze Runner was fantastic. I keep going back to it and listening to select scenes.

DSU I think I love thee.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It makes no sense for Denon to offer DTS:X as a FW upgrade to the X4100 and X5200 when they will have new units out which include those formats natively. A FW upgrade to the older units will damage sales of the new units. And as batpig has pointed out, the more expensive 7200 would look fairly silly (on a 2 year life cycle) if the lower models had DTS:X incorporated as a FW upgrade.


If there were to be upgrades for the upper tier models from some of these companies (due to enough room and horsepower left over), then I could see them coming at around the same time as the new 2015 products start to hit the shelves. That way sales are not hurt from the previous year's models... and, after all, these are the flagship models. It might piss too many people off if the best of the line up didn't get DTS:X processing at the same time as the newer products. I wouldn't think DTS:X (MDA) had been developed over the years in a vacuum that then hit these manufacturers as a complete surprise.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just as Dolby seems to have been overseeing the translation of Atmos cinema mixes to the home version on these first titles, I also don't see why DTS wouldn't possibly pony up some cash to remix a few debut titles of their own with the original sound mixers present. They might be using it as a teaching lab as well (just like Dolby might be doing), so clients know how to use their products. A win-win situation and a worthy business expenditure.
> 
> Unless one us thread members actually has iron clad insider information, we don't know DTS's or the studios', for that matter, strategies for 3D audio. And yes, it is all just thinking out loud.


Personally, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are several BD releases with DTS:X soundtracks before there are any theatrical releases using MDA.

DTS already has a history of doing something similar. Several movies were re-mixed for Blu-ray release with 11.1 channel DTS Neo:X matrixed surround-sound, a format which has never been used in theaters.


----------



## Roger Dressler

asharma said:


> Anyone care to take a crack at the 2nd part of the question...?


That question being: >>Also, as with DD and DTS today, would most new BRDs in the future not contain an ATMOS mix and DTS:X mix?


----------



## Knuk

I just installed a new, Onkyo 636 with Klipsch Ref 52 II speakers and Onkyo SKH-410 atmos speakers.

I cannot get any of the config or calibrate tools to see the Atmos speakers, and can't get any sound. Should they be configured as front/top, front/middle, Dolby, Dolby Surround or what?

Thx in advance.

kk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Personally, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are several BD releases with DTS:X soundtracks before there are any theatrical releases using MDA.
> 
> DTS already has a history of doing something similar. Several movies were re-mixed for Blu-ray release with 11.1 channel DTS Neo:X matrixed surround-sound, a format which has never been used in theaters.


That is a distinct possibility. I would maybe expand that train of thought: work backwards with the industry on consumer home video releases using readily available material and show what their open-source products can offer potential clients, which could then be a platform by which they could launch their cinema "attack" on Dolby and get back into that side of the business. I'm sure you recall that most 7.1 mixes came to Blu-ray before commercial DCP's were offering that feature at the cinema. 

When DTS released DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 on DVD (the precursor to discrete 7.1 surround), they paid for their own 6.1 discrete remixes done at Skywalker Ranch to showcase the technology. One such title that came from this was _The Haunting_, which was a crappy remake, but with a jaw dropping (and sub killing) sonic experience.


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> That question being: >>Also, as with DD and DTS today, would most new BRDs in the future not contain an ATMOS mix and DTS:X mix?


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> We have some positive thinkers here, I like it.


Bob can we assume you'll be sitting out the first year release of DTS-X? It will be in its first gen so I guess you need to wait another year because it will have to be better the next year - right? That's what you've been saying about the Atmos ready receivers since they where announced. 

Personally I am not worried about having a boat anchor if it's missing a surround format that no details are known about yet or how it works with legacy gear. If DTS-X performs as well as some other high quality master audio 7.1 mixes like Maze Runner I'm good for awhile. I've also enjoyed a great receiver and a big step from my 4311 for about 4 months and counting. 

Since the thread has turned to speculating what happens if D&M decides to drop Audyssey as Onkyo has done next year? Another licensing fee for DTS-X cutting into the bottom line and D&M is definitely struggling financially so something's got to give.

By the way I highly recommend Equalizer - Denzel at his finest along with DSU.


----------



## brahman12

As others have stated.....we can just play the legacy DTS-7.1 Hd track with the DSU capability of our current Atmos only capable AVR's/Pre-Pro. Also, at some point the newer bluray players should be able to decode DTS-X if it has staying/winning power. Oppo for sure seems to be a company that would offer this decoding, along with perhaps Sony and Pioneer. Then we could send the signal into the AVR via LPCM. Yes/no?


----------



## brahman12

I will be receiving my Yamaha A-3040 tomorrow, I hope, and I will be running a 7.2.4 set up. TF and TR - Polk OWM-5's, JBL L890 front L/R, JBL L820 surrounds L/R, JBL L810 rear surrounds L/R, Martin Logan Motion 50XT center, SVS PC-13 Plus x 2. Heard the Martin Logan Motion XT series at NY Audio Show and fell in love with that center channel.


----------



## dvdwilly3

audioguy said:


> DSU is amazing. And I agree, at least based on the 3 movies I have that are Atmos encoded, DSU provides an equally involving experience.
> 
> Assuming there is no upgrade, then what do we do when a Bluray with DTS 3D is released? We don't get to see it unless it is also encoded with Dolby. So to see it, you need a new product (if no upgrade) and then you get to try to sell yours to someone who has lived in a crawl space and has never heard of DTS. (I think there are 3 of those people on the planet).


Thinking about Dolby Surround and Atmos being backward compatible via DSU...wouldn't DTS do something similar such as DTS:XSU (gets weird, doesn't it?) that would be backwards compatible with all of the existing DTS, or at least DTS-HD MA (whatever the correct combination of their latest wizard-ware is) soundtracks?? Seems like they would be missing a bet...


----------



## dvdwilly3

Knuk said:


> I just installed a new, Onkyo 636 with Klipsch Ref 52 II speakers and Onkyo SKH-410 atmos speakers.
> 
> I cannot get any of the config or calibrate tools to see the Atmos speakers, and can't get any sound. Should they be configured as front/top, front/middle, Dolby, Dolby Surround or what?
> 
> Thx in advance.
> 
> kk


I have the 737...did you do the firmware upgrade? In the 737 set up make sure that you select Dolby Enabled (Front) and not Dolby Enabled (Surround). And, lastly, make sure that you are plugged into the correct jacks, as I recall when looking at the back of the receiver, the left-most set of jacks...


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob can we assume you'll be sitting out the first year release of DTS-X? It will be in its first gen so I guess you need to wait another year because it will have to be better the next year - right? That's what you've been saying about the Atmos ready receivers since they where announced.
> 
> Personally I am not worried about having a boat anchor if it's missing a surround format that no details are known about yet or how it works with legacy gear. If DTS-X performs as well as some other high quality master audio 7.1 mixes like Maze Runner I'm good for awhile. I've also enjoyed a great receiver and a big step from my 4311 for about 4 months and counting.
> 
> Since the thread has turned to speculating what happens if D&M decides to drop Audyssey as Onkyo has done next year? Another licensing fee for DTS-X cutting into the bottom line and D&M is definitely struggling financially so something's got to give.
> 
> By the way I highly recommend Equalizer - Denzel at his finest along with DSU.


Steve, I am working real hard to acquire the Marantz AV8802 surround sound processor, with dts:X (& with integrated HDCP 2.2).
I am also contemplating the Denon AVR-X7200W AV receiver. ...But a pre/pro is my preferred first choice. 
{I am a conscientious, "science", audio/video shopper.} 

* I bought 'The Equalizer' on Blu today; I might spin it tonight. ...In DTS-HD MA 7.1 ...And in about a year from now, perhaps with dts:X 3D upmixer.

Happy New Year.


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> Assuming there is no upgrade, then what do we do when a Bluray with DTS 3D is released? We don't get to see it unless it is also encoded with Dolby.


If a soundtrack is on the Blu-ray format, it has to comply with current Blu-ray specifications. There is no possibility a disc with DTS-X could not be accessed and played by current equipment, just as they can compatibly play Atmos and Auro soundtracks with no new decoders.


----------



## Orbitron

All this talk about AVR's, my hope is we will see pre pros from the other players as the immersive technologies evolve and mature, along with separate multichannel amps.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> "Immersive audio" and "object based audio" are NOT synonyms; remember that the intent of _home theater_ *object based* audio is to deliver improvements in *three* distinctly different ways: "*immersion*", "*ubiquity*", and "*personalization*". For examples, see this *DTS press release January 2014* (_link_):
> 
> ... or 'many' papers and articles concerning *Fraunhofer’s New Interactive And Immersive Audio System for Television Broadcasting* (_link_), and 'related' entities|concepts *The MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (_link_), and the *mpeg-h 3D audio codec*.
> 
> With it's _theatrical cinema_ origins, *Atmos* directly addresses "*immersion*", but in its current incarnation does not appear to support "*personalization*" at all, and while "*immersion*" is _presently_ only of interest to a small audience with _multi speaker_ systems, "*personalization*" is applicable to all audiences even those with only 2.0 playback systems, e.g., a TV. _For example see:_ *MPEG-H Audio - The New Standard for Universal Spatial / 3D Audio Coding* (_link_):
> 
> My understanding that the (English language) dialog for current *5.1|7.1* channel based movies is on a separate stem to allow for alternate language dubs. It seems to me that any such movie_--which might previously have been released as *DTS-HDMA 5.1*--_could now 'quickly' be released as *DTS:X 5.1 + 1 Dialog Object* (with legacy *DTS-HDMA 5.1* capability).


Like always your posts contain the best info (with links & pdf papers) on the latest scientific technologies directly related to our passion; sensory pleasure of the hearing, the higher elevated surround sound 3D experience. 

Happy New Year.


----------



## NorthSky

> Personally I am not worried about having a boat anchor if it's missing a surround format that no details are known about yet or how it works with legacy gear. If DTS-X performs as well as some other high quality master audio 7.1 mixes like Maze Runner I'm good for awhile. I've also enjoyed a great receiver and a big step from my 4311 for about 4 months and counting.


♦ In 1997 I bought the first Yamaha receiver with DD, the RX-V2092. ...I paid $1,800 Cdn (with tax) for it @ that time.
The year after (1998) came dts. 
My dts DVD movie collection meanwhile kept growing and growing.
Then I bought another receiver, with a DD & dts decoders inside. It was a Denon one this time (paid $1,600 Cdn).

Today (18 years later) I have two Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies.
I'm much more in touch with my times today than yesterday, I think. ...But I believe it has also to do with wisdom, and awareness. 



> Since the thread has turned to speculating what happens if D&M decides to drop Audyssey as Onkyo has done next year? Another licensing fee for DTS-X cutting into the bottom line and D&M is definitely struggling financially so something's got to give.


♦ When that day comes Dirac Live will have a much stronger presence in our lives.


----------



## gerchy

I'm guessing the DTS-X content will be playable as DTS-HD - so a 3D experience with DSU would still be possible. 
No worries like coupe of decades ago when we couldn't enjoy DTS movies with DD processor.


----------



## NorthSky

brahman12 said:


> As others have stated.....we can just play the legacy DTS-7.1 Hd track with the DSU capability of our current Atmos only capable AVR's/Pre-Pro. Also, at some point the newer bluray players should be able to decode DTS-X if it has staying/winning power. Oppo for sure seems to be a company that would offer this decoding, along with perhaps Sony and Pioneer. Then we could send the signal into the AVR via LPCM. Yes/no?


We've talked about a Dolby Atmos audio 3D decoder inside the next Oppo players in the past.
It's still a great subject of conversation, and now with a dts:X audio 3D decoder. 

Ok, you put them two (three) required chips inside the Oppo, and let it perform the decoding (Atmos, Auro and dts:X), and send the 3D surround sound in bitstream (DD or dts or PCM) form through the HDMI output.
Then the receiver (or pre/pro) receives the multichannel audio signal, and send it separately to its corresponding channel speakers, like 7.1.4 (12 of them). 

I let other members continue ....

* By the way, in today's world where the less wires is best (wireless), forget about analog connections (7.1.4). 
Everything has to be digital (HDMI).


----------



## NorthSky

gerchy said:


> I'm guessing the DTS-X content will be playable as DTS-HD - so a 3D experience with DSU would still be possible.
> No worries like coupe of decades ago when we couldn't enjoy DTS movies with DD processor.


We can play DTS-HD MA with Dolby Pro Logic IIx Movie mode.
We can play Dolby TrueHD with DTS Neo:6 and DTS Neo:X audio modes.

And we can do that for both Movies, Music and Games modes. 

We can play DTS-HD MA with DSU (Atmos upmixer).
And we'll be able to play Dolby TrueHD with dts:X upmixer.

Auro-3D? ...All combinations with Auro-Matic.


----------



## Nalleh

I did a little search on Blu-ray.com today, and got a interesting number : 113 Atmos releases!!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


However that is tons of versions on the 3 most popular movies: TAOE, ninja turtles an EX3.
But a closer look reveals 10 different movies with Atmos confirmed worldwide. Not too bad a start for 2015.

(also there is Mary Kom, but i can't find it with Atmos anywhere)
http://www.dolby.com/in/en/about/ne...-with-the-release-of-mary-kom-on-blu-ray.html


----------



## Trigen

Nalleh said:


> I did a little search on Blu-ray.com today, and got a interesting number : 113 Atmos releases!!
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search
> 
> 
> However that is tons of versions on the 3 most popular movies: TAOE, ninja turtles an EX3.
> But a closer look reveals 10 different movies with Atmos confirmed worldwide. Not too bad a start for 2015.
> 
> (also there is Mary Kom, but i can't find it with Atmos anywhere)
> http://www.dolby.com/in/en/about/ne...-with-the-release-of-mary-kom-on-blu-ray.html


9 movies

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> Then why offer Auro as an upgrade to the lower models? Why not just give it to the new flagship? Alienating early adopters isn't a very good way to get them to select their brand down the road.


It's related to the model cycle. By the time DTS:X is available in AVRs, Denon will be on the 2015/16 model year and DTS:X will be included in those units as a matter of course. If they were to offer the older units a FW upgrade, it would hit the sales of the new models as one of the most significant reasons to upgrade will have been removed. They don't care about alienating early adopters - by definition, early adopters will buy anyway, even knowing (as I did) that their unit will have a limited lifespan (in terms of features).

I am not saying Denon will not offer DTS:X as a FW upgrade. I am saying that it is not likely to happen, and IMO, it won't happen. We'll have to wait to find out who is right. I hope I am wrong BTW 

Auro is never going to be offered for free, built-in to the unit AIUI. It will always be a paid upgrade, so in that sense the Auro comparison is irrelevant.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Oh, I believe it. I just like to hold out false hope for something to do.


LOL. Yes, and I hope your hope turns out to be true not false. I have a dog in this fight: I am sitting on a X5200W that will be less than a year old and lacking a major step forward in the shape of DTS:X. As much as anyone I'd love to believe that Denon will release a FW upgrade to DTS:X. I just can't see it happening.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Personally, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are several BD releases with DTS:X soundtracks before there are any theatrical releases using MDA.
> 
> DTS already has a history of doing something similar. Several movies were re-mixed for Blu-ray release with 11.1 channel DTS Neo:X matrixed surround-sound, a format which has never been used in theaters.


And that turned out well didn’t it?  Three movies.


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> We can play DTS-HD MA with Dolby Pro Logic IIx Movie mode.
> We can play Dolby TrueHD with DTS Neo:6 and DTS Neo:X audio modes.
> 
> And we can do that for both Movies, Music and Games modes.
> 
> We can play DTS-HD MA with DSU (Atmos upmixer).
> And we'll be able to play Dolby TrueHD with dts:X upmixer.
> 
> Auro-3D? ...All combinations with Auro-Matic.


 
Indeed, so no need to worry about upgrades to DTS:X 
DSU will take care of this from HD-MA and maybe even better then DTS will do itself 


But still..........


----------



## audioguy

Roger Dressler said:


> If a soundtrack is on the Blu-ray format, it has to comply with current Blu-ray specifications. There is no possibility a disc with DTS-X could not be accessed and played by current equipment, just as they can compatibly play Atmos and Auro soundtracks with no new decoders.


I clarly did not make myself very clear. I am not concerned that a particular format will not play or that DSU can't be used. I was suggesting (my boat anchor analogy) that if the DTS-X decoding is not an upgrade, then I will have a preprocessor that is not uptodate and therefore the resale value would be greatly diminished. ( OK: worth slightly more than a boat anchor).

At the moment, however, the issues I am having with mine are much more important to me than a reduction in value from not being upgradeable.


----------



## Nalleh

Trigen said:


> 9 movies
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132



+Exodus:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/120666/


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It's related to the model cycle. By the time DTS:X is available in AVRs, Denon will be on the 2015/16 model year and DTS:X will be included in those units as a matter of course. If they were to offer the older units a FW upgrade, it would hit the sales of the new models as one of the most significant reasons to upgrade will have been removed. They don't care about alienating early adopters - by definition, early adopters will buy anyway, even knowing (as I did) that their unit will have a limited lifespan (in terms of features).
> 
> I am not saying Denon will not offer DTS:X as a FW upgrade. I am saying that it is not likely to happen, and IMO, it won't happen. We'll have to wait to find out who is right. I hope I am wrong BTW
> 
> Auro is never going to be offered for free, built-in to the unit AIUI. It will always be a paid upgrade, so in that sense the Auro comparison is irrelevant.


Blimey, Keith, will you please stop painting the devil on the wall?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Blimey, Keith, will you please stop painting the devil on the wall?


LOL. It's only my opinion. Whether it is right or not, well, we'll have to wait and see. I only offer it as a counterpart to the posts which imply that the Denon X5200 will get DTS:X via a FW upgrade and to try to prevent people from going ahead with a purchase on that basis, only later to discover they have wasted their money. Let's leave it like this: _it is by no means certain, or even probable, that the X5200 will receive DTS:X via a FW upgrade, so do not buy the unit on the assumption that it will, or might. _


----------



## markabuckley

to be fair the best course of action - unless you are desperate for Atmos right now

is to wait ....

prices of AVRs only ever tend to go one way ..... especially with DTS-X and HDCP 2.2 on their way soon


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. It's only my opinion. Whether it is right or not, well, we'll have to wait and see. I only offer it as a counterpart to the posts which imply that the Denon X5200 will get DTS:X via a FW upgrade and to try to prevent people from going ahead with a purchase on that basis, only later to discover they have wasted their money. Let's leave it like this: _it is by no means certain, or even probable, that the X5200 will receive DTS:X via a FW upgrade, so do not buy the unit on the assumption that it will, or might. _


Hey Kevin, finally got into 3d with my 5030. Wow with Avatar!! The combo of DSU with 3d pic equals wow wow!!! Amazing you can do this stuff in your house at the consumer level!!!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. It's only my opinion. Whether it is right or not, well, we'll have to wait and see. I only offer it as a counterpart to the posts which imply that the Denon X5200 will get DTS:X via a FW upgrade and to try to prevent people from going ahead with a purchase on that basis, only later to discover they have wasted their money. Let's leave it like this: _it is by no means certain, or even probable, that the X5200 will receive DTS:X via a FW upgrade, so do not buy the unit on the assumption that it will, or might. _


Okay, now mum's the word henceforth. 

On a more productive note, last night we watched the Brazilian film "Neighboring Sounds" (2012) written, directed, and edited by Kleber Mendonça Filho. As the title might indicate, the soundscape plays a central role in this "fictional narrative documentary" (which Mendonça opines can be more truthful than many actual documentaries) and thus makes for an interesting listen with DSU. The slice-of-life story of this neighborhood in the town of Recife, Brazil, is told in slow-paced vignettes which belie the menace beneath the surface of the mundane lifes portrayed.  In the words of N.Y. Times reviewer A.O. Scott, "With his sound designer, Pablo Lamar, Mr. Mendonça has created the aural landscape of a horror movie." But be forewarned: this movie is the antithesis of the mindless action flick; however, those of you with eclectic tastes, like Keith, might enjoy it. We did.


----------



## brahman12

Yeah that's what I am thinking NorthStar...simplify everything lol. I picked up the Yammy not only for Atmos but also because it's a fine machine all around. Thus no panic over sound format wars. I will be able to sit back and enjoy fine audio in at least the big two 3D audio options one way or another even being an early adopter. Thanks for commenting on my post and happy new year to all AVS family.


----------



## asharma

markabuckley said:


> to be fair the best course of action - unless you are desperate for Atmos right now
> 
> is to wait ....
> 
> prices of AVRs only ever tend to go one way ..... especially with DTS-X and HDCP 2.2 on their way soon


Given I only have a blu ray player and a set top cable box, and a non compliant hdcp receiver, will I not beable to run both video inputs directly to my video source and run the audio inputs separately to the receiver to avoid a receiver upgrade because of hdcp 2.2?


----------



## brahman12

Sorry NorthSky.....I mentioned you as NorthStar in my previous post above.... I meant NorthSky but I guess I am still in Christmas mode and thinking about stars if you can catch my reference to the three wise kings lol.


----------



## Knuk

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have the 737...did you do the firmware upgrade? In the 737 set up make sure that you select Dolby Enabled (Front) and not Dolby Enabled (Surround). And, lastly, make sure that you are plugged into the correct jacks, as I recall when looking at the back of the receiver, the left-most set of jacks...


Got it, and thanks.

kk


----------



## Oledurt

I bought the marantz av7702. I am happy with it. Maybe they offer an upgrade to dts x maybe they don't. Either way i am good. There is always that possibility that dts. X won't do it better than atmos. Something tells me however that dts x will have the ability to adjust itself to your unique speaker layout something consumer atmos currently does not do. 

If it turns out that DTS X is a must have jaw dropping experience that makes dolby atmos and DSU sound like mono than I will jump on that bandwagon. DTS has a lot to prove first so we will see.

In the meantime I will be enjoying Dolby Atmos.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> DTS already has a history of doing something similar. Several movies were re-mixed for Blu-ray release with 11.1 channel DTS Neo:X matrixed surround-sound, a format which has never been used in theaters.


That's not DTS' doing as much as Lionsgate, who go out of their way to add value to their home video releases: doing 7.1 mixes of theatrical 5.1 tracks early in the Blu-ray era, using Neo:X encoding to matrix 11.1 home video mixes of 7.1 theatrical tracks, and now doing home Atmos mixes for titles that didn't have theatrical Atmos tracks (Step Up: All In, John Wick).


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Hey Kevin, finally got into 3d with my 5030. Wow with Avatar!! The combo of DSU with 3d pic equals wow wow!!! Amazing you can do this stuff in your house at the consumer level!!!


Oh yes - an amazing experience all round, and without leaving the house. Glad you are enjoying it so much.

Kevin sends his regards BTW.

Cheers, 

Keith


----------



## dvdwilly3

Knuk said:


> Got it, and thanks.
> 
> kk


Oops! I went back and looked again. The left-most set of speaker terminals is Zone 2. Do NOT use those. 

The Height/back terminals are the 2nd set in from the left side (looking at the rear of the receiver).


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Okay, now mum's the word henceforth.
> 
> On a more productive note, last night we watched the Brazilian film "Neighboring Sounds" (2012) written, directed, and edited by Kleber Mendonça Filho. As the title might indicate, the soundscape plays a central role in this "fictional narrative documentary" (which Mendonça opines can be more truthful than many actual documentaries) and thus makes for an interesting listen with DSU. The slice-of-life story of this neighborhood in the town of Recife, Brazil, is told in slow-paced vignettes which belie the menace beneath the surface of the mundane lifes portrayed.  In the words of N.Y. Times reviewer A.O. Scott, "With his sound designer, Pablo Lamar, Mr. Mendonça has created the aural landscape of a horror movie." But be forewarned: this movie is the antithesis of the mindless action flick; however, those of you with eclectic tastes, like Keith, might enjoy it. We did.


Thanks - I shall look out for that. It sounds like it would be my sort of thing. I have been to some of the poorer parts of Brazil and, believe me, it can be scary. My 26 years old daughters wanted to go there this year - I don't normally interfere with their plans, even if some of them cause me to raise an eyebrow, but on this occasion I did put my foot down and tell them that if they did go, it would be without any financial help from me. That seemed to have had an effect - they went to Italy instead


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Given I only have a blu ray player and a set top cable box, and a non compliant hdcp receiver, will I not beable to run both video inputs directly to my video source and run the audio inputs separately to the receiver to avoid a receiver upgrade because of hdcp 2.2?


Yes.


----------



## point1

Hey guys,

I wasn't sure where to post this so I figured this might be the best place for this topic.

I have a Marantz AV7702 and I'm still trying to dial in my system.

I originally wanted to do 7.4 (front and rear heights) but I saw a fairly recent video cast http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-forum-podcasts/1773370-acoustics-immersive-audio.html

Where it was talked about how 9.2 with front wide is really the way to go.. Look at that youtube video, I believe its in the 28 minute mark.

At any rate, do you guys have any thoughts or experience between the two? I believe the 7702 can support 9.2 and I might just try it out and reposition my speakers.

thanks!


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh yes - an amazing experience all round, and without leaving the house. Glad you are enjoying it so much.
> 
> Kevin sends his regards BTW.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Keith


DOH!! Sorry Keith...


----------



## LowellG

So, any of you with insider connections, how long do you thing DSU will be supported if Dolby Atmos for home doesn't stick. I am getting ready to take the plunge and looking at speakers right now, but before I cut 4 holes in my ceiling and change out my bipolars for mono poles, I need a warm fuzzy.


----------



## chi_guy50

LowellG said:


> So, any of you with insider connections, how long do you thing DSU will be supported if Dolby Atmos for home doesn't stick. I am getting ready to take the plunge and looking at speakers right now, but before I cut 4 holes in my ceiling and change out my bipolars for mono poles, I need a warm fuzzy.


Okay, people, do you see what hysteria brings?

Before Keith threatens to eat his hat without mustard again, let me venture to say that, while there are no certainties in life, you can be as confident that Dolby Atmos/DSU will stick as you can be of anything in the A/V world. Now, whether MDA is for you, or whether Atmos is the best solution, is another question; but if you like it, just go for it. My $0.02.


----------



## Scott Simonian

LowellG said:


> So, any of you with insider connections, how long do you thing DSU will be supported if Dolby Atmos for home doesn't stick. I am getting ready to take the plunge and looking at speakers right now, but before I cut 4 holes in my ceiling and change out my bipolars for mono poles, I need a warm fuzzy.


Forever.

It's a pretty safe bet preparing for ceiling mounted speakers. More now than ever. It would do more harm not to do so.


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> DOH!! Sorry Keith...


Hehe. No worries.


----------



## kbarnes701

LowellG said:


> So, any of you with insider connections, how long do you thing DSU will be supported if Dolby Atmos for home doesn't stick. I am getting ready to take the plunge and looking at speakers right now, but before I cut 4 holes in my ceiling and change out my bipolars for mono poles, I need a warm fuzzy.


How do you mean "supported"? If DSU is inside your AVR then it will be there for the life of the AVR. Do you mean what will happen if Dolby drop Atmos and nobody makes an Atmos AVR any more? No idea. Can't really see that happening.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Okay, people, do you see what hysteria brings?
> 
> Before Keith threatens to eat his hat without mustard again, let me venture to say that, while there are no certainties in life, you can be as confident that Dolby Atmos/DSU will stick as you can be of anything in the A/V world. Now, whether MDA is for you, or whether Atmos is the best solution, is another question; but if you like it, just go for it. My $0.02.


If Dolby just abandon Atmos, after the R&D fortune they must have spent on it, and after most of the movie production industry has changed over to it, at huge expense, and after hardware manufacturers have flocked to support it, not only will I eat my hat without mustard, but I'll eat yours too. 

It's a bit like asking "what happens if Dolby drop Dolby Digital?". Ain't gonna happen, not while there's mustard and hats in the universe.


----------



## LowellG

kbarnes701 said:


> How do you mean "supported"? If DSU is inside your AVR then it will be there for the life of the AVR. Do you mean what will happen if Dolby drop Atmos and nobody makes an Atmos AVR any more? No idea. Can't really see that happening.



What I mean is will AVRs 5 generations from now still have DSU as an output option and will Dolby continue to make tweaks in the software? Second decision is to switch out the sides and move them down. My bipolars are 2' from the ceiling in a 9' room and the Amaze demo sounds very good already, the bird flying overhead, the rain coming down on me.


----------



## Spanglo

Had a listen to the Auro demo disc... much more content than the Dolby one. Definitely some Ref demo material in there even if you don't have Auro. Some very high quality recordings to listen to. The Fireworks one is nice, and the one with the tractor is awesome. That last one made my cat jump out of sleep and he was staring right my side surround speaker like he was waiting for it to run him over! Some excellent music recordings as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

LowellG said:


> What I mean is will AVRs 5 generations from now still have DSU as an output option and will Dolby continue to make tweaks in the software?


Your crystal ball is as good as anyone's - what do you think?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Your crystal ball is as good as anyone's - what do you think?


I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a Magic 8 Ball. All signs point to ... maybe. 

In order to keep profits up they'll probably have to release 4D Surround.


----------



## sdurani

point1 said:


> At any rate, do you guys have any thoughts or experience between the two? I believe the 7702 can support 9.2 and I might just try it out and reposition my speakers.


I watched the podcast as well and it seems he is fixing a problem he created. He calls the area between the front speakers and side speakers a sonic dead zone, asthough there is no imaging between those pairs of speakers, hence him insisting on a pair of wide speakers. That's like insisting on a centre speaker _because_ the space between your L/R speakers is a sonic dead zone. Doesn't make sense. What do you have to do to kill phantom imaging between a pair of speakers? 

Personally, I think 9 speakers around you and only 2 speakers above is lopsided. A 7.1.4 configuration is more balanced, creating a better dome of sound around you compared to soundfield that comes to a peak above you (single pair of heights).


----------



## CBdicX

Think it will end like this, all "formats" Atmos, Auro, DTS:X, will sound great, and it will be a personal taste that will make the choise between the 3.
Whats a better car, a Ferarri, Porsche or Lambo ?


DTS Announces DTS:X Object-Based Audio Codec for March 2015 with Support from Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer & More


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So unbroken is the new Atmos film this week... but no theaters seem to be playing it. Seems a bit strange, right?


----------



## Roger Dressler

CBdicX said:


> Think it will end like this, all "formats" Atmos, Auro, DTS:X, will sound great, and it will be a personal taste that will make the choice between the 3.
> Whats a better car, a Ferarri, Porsche or Lambo ?


Except you do not get to make the choice. That is done for you by the content maker.


----------



## CBdicX

Roger Dressler said:


> Except you do not get to make the choice. That is done for you by the content maker.



It looks now you need to make a choice, but who knows how it will be next year (2015) when DTSX and Auro will be availible, maybe all 3 will be on BD, like now you get DVD, BD and 3D, all in one box, ok, 3 different disks but you know what i mean.......


And will Auro or DTSX sound so much different then Atmos, or DSU that will be upmixing HD MA ?


----------



## jpco

It's hard to tell where this is all going, but if there's content mixed for each of these formats, then we really need equipment that can handle all of them and the ability to play them all with the same speaker positions. Atmos and Auro don't match. Do we know which will most closely align with DTS? 

There's not enough interest in these formats for there to be separate discs packaged for different audio formats, nor does there seem to be any reason for content providers to master for more than one immersive audio format.


----------



## Roger Dressler

CBdicX said:


> It looks now you need to make a choice, but who knows how it will be next year (2015) when DTSX and Auro will be availible, maybe all 3 will be on BD, like now you get DVD, BD and 3D, all in one box, ok, 3 different disks but you know what i mean.......


That will not happen except from the likes of 2L. It will be one "immersive" soundtrack per box. 



> And will Auro or DTS-X sound so much different than Atmos, or DSU that will be upmixing HD MA ?


Oh, Auro already sounds completely different than DSU.  But that's upmixing. Let's just look as full blown "discrete" delivery.

Within the confines of a 7.1.4 speaker system, where all three systems (Auro-3D, Atmos, DTS-X) can share all the speakers (a fantasy of mine), I do not see any reason why there would be any material difference in the reproduced sound, regardless if the source were originally mixed in Auro 13.1, Atmos, or MDA. The mixes themselves might sound different, having been made in different rooms by different people, but as delivered through any of the three systems, they would not sound different. 

Where the playback results would vary is once several more speakers are added, or the 7.1.4 configuration departs from the normal locations.


----------



## CBdicX

And maybe its to late for DTS / Auro, how many Atmos receivers are sold, and will be sold until March 2015, 1000th ?
Dolby is on the move, DTS and Auro are just sitting on the sideline at the moment.........


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CBdicX said:


> It looks now you need to make a choice, but who knows how it will be next year (2015) when DTSX and Auro will be available, maybe all 3 will be on BD, like now you get DVD, BD and 3D, all in one box, ok, 3 different disks but you know what i mean.......
> 
> 
> And will Auro or DTSX sound so much different then Atmos, or DSU that will be upmixing HD MA ?


Which of the three immersive formats gets put on a specific title will depend upon the studio agreements and audio post houses they work with. There will more than likely only be one 3D format per title as there is (normally) only one lossless format on a disc. Not enough room otherwise. I think it will boil down to Dolby and DTS as it always has with Auro3D fading away to music based releases. 

DTS: X, for the time being, seems to using Dolby Atmos' speaker configuration. DTS will also probably come up with an improved Neo:X upmixer to compete with DSU. 




jpco said:


> It's hard to tell where this is all going, but if there's content mixed for each of these formats, then we really need equipment that can handle all of them and the ability to play them all with the same speaker positions. Atmos and Auro don't match. Do we know which will most closely align with DTS?
> 
> There's not enough interest in these formats for there to be separate discs packaged for different audio formats, nor does there seem to be any reason for content providers to master for more than one immersive audio format.


DTS keeps saying their X format is agnostic, but again, they seem to be using Atmos' configuration so far. Whether or not they'll recommend something akin to Neo:X 11.1 with front and back heights or something more elaborate depends on how scalable X's rendering is and how "agnostic" DTS really wants to be.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CBdicX said:


> And maybe its to late for DTS / Auro, how many Atmos receivers are sold, and will be sold until March 2015, 1000th ?
> Dolby is on the move, DTS and Auro are just sitting on the sideline at the moment.........


Oh, but you, and most of us, don't know all the behind the scenes drama and back room wheeling and dealing. Content is king and the studios control the content.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a Magic 8 Ball. All signs point to ... maybe.


Yeah - it's a definite maybe


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> That will not happen except from the likes of 2L. It will be one "immersive" soundtrack per box.
> 
> Oh, Auro already sounds completely different than DSU.  But that's upmixing. Let's just look as full blown "discrete" delivery.
> 
> Within the confines of a 7.1.4 speaker system, where all three systems (Auro-3D, Atmos, DTS-X) can share all the speakers (a fantasy of mine), I do not see any reason why there would be any material difference in the reproduced sound, regardless if the source were originally mixed in Auro 13.1, Atmos, or MDA. The mixes themselves might sound different, having been made in different rooms by different people, but as delivered through any of the three systems, they would not sound different.
> 
> Where the playback results would vary is once several more speakers are added, or the 7.1.4 configuration departs from the normal locations.


I know DTS keeps mentioning that X Surround (MDA) is layout agnostic, but wouldn't they probably come out with a "recommended" (if DTS had our way) layout for what they consider an optimal configuration for mixing and playback on dubbing stages and in cinemas and the home? Or would they just stick with Auro3D and Dolby Atmos configurations (pick one of the two most used layouts of your choice)? Any thoughts?


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> Within the confines of a 7.1.4 speaker system, where all three systems (Auro-3D, Atmos, DTS-X) can share all the speakers (a fantasy of mine), I do not see any reason why there would be any material difference in the reproduced sound, regardless if the source were originally mixed in Auro 13.1, Atmos, or MDA. The mixes themselves might sound different, having been made in different rooms by different people, but as delivered through any of the three systems, they would not sound different. Where the playback results would vary is once several more speakers are added, or the 7.1.4 configuration departs from the normal locations.



_Just for the record, Roger, my fantasy is bigger than your fantasy!_  

I'm hoping that it will be possible_--within the confines of a 7.1.4 speaker system--_that all *four* systems (Auro-3D, Atmos, DTS:X and *ATSC 3.0 TV audio*) can share all the speakers (_a fantasy of Roger's (*TM*)_). This could be less problematic than is immediately thought, as the Auro-3D speaker layout may be "close enough" to the _model_ *ATSC 3.0 TV 7.1+4 *speaker layout . . . however, it might suggest that "more weight" should be attached to ensuring (closer) conformity with the Auro-3D 9.1 speaker layout! 


_


----------



## CBdicX

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS keeps saying their X format is agnostic, but again, they seem to be using Atmos' configuration so far. Whether or not they'll recommend something akin to Neo:X 11.1 with front and back heights or something more elaborate depends on how scalable X's rendering is and how "agnostic" DTS really wants to be.



I am not "English" can you please explain *agnostic.*


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> Indeed, so no need to worry about upgrades to DTS:X
> DSU will take care of this from HD-MA and maybe even better then DTS will do itself
> 
> 
> But still..........


No, you don't truly need DTS:X, no need to worry here, indeed, because you still have DSU. 

But still!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CBdicX said:


> I am not "English" can you please explain *agnostic.*



Noncommittal - taking no sides in an argument or discussion. In DTS: X's coin of phrase: a neutral party.


----------



## CBdicX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Noncommittal - taking no sides in an argument or discussion. In DTS: X's coin of phrase: a neutral party.


Clear, thanks......


----------



## ghiggs001

Hi all:
First, I am not a computer expert like most of you writing about this Dolby Atmos and others. Here is my question and request.
I took the plung into the Atmos arena. Reconfigured my dedicated home theater to a 9.2.4 layout with support of the newly acquired Denon 5200 AVR. I would like to get my hands on a Dolby Atmos demo disc to check out my system. I notice in previous thread where someone suggested downloading a copy and making a local disc. Could someone provide a step-by-step instruction sheet as to how I should go about doing this?
Thanks for the anticipated information.
George


----------



## LowellG

CBdicX said:


> It looks now you need to make a choice, but who knows how it will be next year (2015) when DTSX and Auro will be availible, maybe all 3 will be on BD, like now you get DVD, BD and 3D, all in one box, ok, 3 different disks but you know what i mean.......
> 
> 
> And will Auro or DTSX sound so much different then Atmos, or DSU that will be upmixing HD MA ?


I just how these three can come up with a realistic compromise on speaker config. Auro will pretty much leave everyone without a dedicated theater out. Atmos is somewhat doable in many situations. I don't know what DTS will do, but it's the speaker layout that matters. With Dolby or DTS, 5.1 or 7.1 meant something and Joe Blow consumer could put at least a 5.1 in any room. I feel the speaker layout for DTSX will be the deciding factor in the race. If they align with one or the other, there is possible success for the new immersive format. If they go a 3rd option, I think it will doom the whole home implementation part. They may do fine commercial theater wise, but I the home there has to be a practical solution. 


Take this forum alone. How many users are here. About 650 have voted on Atmos, of those 25% aren't doing it. However the statistics of participation or insignificant to sustain a market for 3 products. Again, Auro is dedicated theaters only. What percentage of houses have that. Atmos have several restrictions as well, but it's not real practical for a lot of people.


----------



## LowellG

ghiggs001 said:


> Hi all:
> First, I am not a computer expert like most of you writing about this Dolby Atmos and others. Here is my question and request.
> I took the plung into the Atmos arena. Reconfigured my dedicated home theater to a 9.2.4 layout with support of the newly acquired Denon 5200 AVR. I would like to get my hands on a Dolby Atmos demo disc to check out my system. I notice in previous thread where someone suggested downloading a copy and making a local disc. Could someone provide a step-by-step instruction sheet as to how I should go about doing this?
> Thanks for the anticipated information.
> George


I don't know where that is at, but there are 4 Atmos demo downloads at Demoworld. under the HD area.


----------



## NorthSky

brahman12 said:


> Sorry NorthSky.....I mentioned you as NorthStar in my previous post above.... I meant NorthSky but I guess I am still in Christmas mode and thinking about stars if you can catch my reference to the three wise kings lol.


It is perfectly correct. I wanted NorthStar as my username but it was already taken, so I picked NorthSky instead. 
And all because I'm from Canada (North America), North of the USA, and I always look above (elevation) in the Sky @ the Stars. 
...And the North Star is a good reference point in the sky to find your way, when you get lost. ...Without your smartphone (GPS), or with a dead battery. 

* Bob is good too; my real name.

Happy New Year.


----------



## NorthSky

> That's not DTS' doing as much as Lionsgate, who go out of their way to add value to their home video releases: doing 7.1 mixes of theatrical 5.1 tracks early in the Blu-ray era, using Neo:X encoding to matrix 11.1 home video mixes of 7.1 theatrical tracks, and now doing home Atmos mixes for titles that didn't have theatrical Atmos tracks (Step Up: All In, John Wick).


And Disney studios, and FOX studios, now are big on DTS-HD MA *7.1-channel* audio, like Lions Gate studios.

* 2015 is going to be a very interesting year ... Dolby Atmos, and DTS:X 3D audio. ... Auro-3D too. 
We will see which studios are choosing which 3D audio format for their Blu-ray title releases.
...Interesting times coming UP indeed.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know DTS keeps mentioning that X Surround (MDA) is layout agnostic, but wouldn't they probably come out with a "recommended" (if DTS had our way) layout for what they consider an optimal configuration for mixing and playback on dubbing stages and in cinemas and the home? Or would they just stick with Auro3D and Dolby Atmos configurations (pick one of the two most used layouts of your choice)? Any thoughts?


The entire mission of object-based audio is to free ourselves from the shackles of defining specific numbers and positions of speakers. There are indeed realities in cinemas that present challenges to achieving immersive sound in all its dimensions. And these are related but also different to the realities in domestic listening rooms. 

The same issues that are at play for Atmos and Auro exist for DTS-X. If it improves separation for height effects to keep the surrounds lower, that remains true for DTS-X. DTS has shown 7.1.4 setups at CES, and they seem pretty much on the same page as Dolby. It's not a codec thing, it's just what works in a room.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> In order to keep profits up they'll probably have to release *4D Surround*.


Dan, what is *4D Surround*, a new dimensional sound format coming up?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> That will not happen except from the likes of 2L. It will be one "immersive" soundtrack per box.


It's basically in the hands of each individual movie studio. Us we have nothing else to do than put the disc inside our Blu-ray players and press Play.
Then our receivers (or pre/pros) simply take care of doing the decoding of what's on the BR disc; Dolby Atmos, or DTS:X ... just like right now with Dolby TrueHD (about 15%) or DTS-HD MA (about 85%). 

* Auro-3D is similar to multichannel SACD. ...Or DVD-Audio ... more for the 3D immersive audio (MUSIC ♪) standpoint. 
Auro-Matic should be the new hi-res MUSIC surround sound format, IMO, for all our music library. ...And new Auro-3D Music encodings.


----------



## htpcforever

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a Magic 8 Ball. All signs point to ... maybe.
> 
> In order to keep profits up they'll probably have to release 4D Surround.


4D sound has been around for a while - just change the delay settings in your receiver and you can get sound from the past...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> The entire mission of object-based audio is to free ourselves from the shackles of defining specific numbers and positions of speakers. There are indeed realities in cinemas that present challenges to achieving immersive sound in all its dimensions. And these are related but also different to the realities in domestic listening rooms.
> 
> The same issues that are at play for Atmos and Auro exist for DTS-X. If it improves separation for height effects to keep the surrounds lower, that remains true for DTS-X. DTS has shown 7.1.4 setups at CES, and they seem pretty much on the same page as Dolby. It's not a codec thing, it's just what works in a room.


What made me curious was DTS's continuous use of this example of a typical 11.1 at-home speaker configuration, and whether or not they would stick to that for DTS-X:










I guess we'll see if DTS releases a comprehensive installation guide and white paper come March.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

htpcforever said:


> 4D sound has been around for a while - just change the delay settings in your receiver and you can get sound from the past...


I always imagined the Forth Dimension in sound would be coming us screaming in excruciating pain because our significant others discovered the "immersive 3D surround" home theater upgrade expenditure charges we racked up on the ol' credit card. 

_*---*_

"Hey, honey. Welcome home. Just sitting here watching Die Hard in Dolby Atm..." 

_*:eeksurprise:*_
_*
POW!!! 

:crying:
*_


----------



## robert816

Aras_Volodka said:


> So unbroken is the new Atmos film this week... but no theaters seem to be playing it. Seems a bit strange, right?


Harkins Theatre in OKC is playing it with Atmos.


----------



## dvdwilly3

CBdicX said:


> Clear, thanks......


Beyond Dan's accurate definition, I think that DTS is saying that DTS:X will run in any configuration. In computers if someone refers to software that is hardware or platform agnostic it means that it will run on a multitude of operating environmets without special adaptation. So, I would expect that DTS:X will run on 5.1.2; 5.1.4; 7.1.2; basically, any Atmos configuration and will adapt itself appropriately.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Unbroken' => Dolby Atmos*



Aras_Volodka said:


> So *Unbroken* is the new Atmos film this week... but no theaters seem to be playing it. Seems a bit strange, right?





robert816 said:


> Harkins Theatre in OKC is playing it with Atmos.


----------



## Csbooth

So does anyone care to guess how much extra Atmos and DTS:X (possibly Auro 3D enabled as well) enabled gear is going to cost?, $200, $300, $400 more? Lol

From what I last read about DTS:MDA, UHD and now X, it used a single DSP chip while Atmos utilizes Dual 32 Bit DSP engines as we all know. I'm hoping that the latter's DSP capabilities can be used with the former's needs, which would just leave licensing fees as opposed to new hardware fittings making things go a bit smoother.

When first reading about it (DTS:X) earlier yesterday, I felt like the information regarding the confirmation about agnosticism in their speaker requirements and being able to use pre-existing Atmos configurations was a Christmas present unto itself haha. 

The wait until March will be very frustrating however, and I'm wondering if they will talk much at all about X at CES in a few days, other than to announce a few more participants into their foray for 3D Audio.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Csbooth said:


> So does anyone care to guess how much extra Atmos and DTS:X (possibly Auro 3D enabled as well) enabled gear is going to cost?, $200, $300, $400 more? Lol
> 
> From what I last read about DTS:MDA, UHD and now X, it used a single DSP chip while Atmos utilizes Dual 32 Bit DSP engines as we all know. I'm hoping that the latter's DSP capabilities can be used with the former's needs, which would just leave licensing fees as opposed to new hardware fittings making things go a bit smoother.
> 
> When first reading about it (DTS:X) earlier yesterday, I felt like the information regarding the confirmation about agnosticism in their speaker requirements and being able to use pre-existing Atmos configurations was a Christmas present unto itself haha.
> 
> The wait until March will be very frustrating however, and I'm wondering if they will talk much at all about X at CES in a few days, other than to announce a few more participants into their foray for 3D Audio.


The single chip DTS solution shown last year at CES was on a quad core processor from Cirrus Logic... one that's faster and more capable by itself than the multiple chips some manufacturers are now using... translation: it's a more expensive part. Some penny pinching companies may not want to spend the extra few dollars for these upgraded chips even if that means their products will now be slightly less state-of-the-art than a smart tablet.

It would be mind boggling if the licensing fees for the new Dolby codec package and the new DTS codec package were much more than what they are now. The A/V manufacturers don't want to end up scaring away all their customers with major upticks in pricing. Auro3D, however, is the more expensive party and that could be the cause of a major increase... another reason I think it may have a long row to hoe and its future may be short lived if it is deemed to be the spoiler in the trio of immersive audio formats. Wilfried Van Baelen may need to seriously rethink his licensing strategy.


----------



## Csbooth

Dan Hitchman said:


> The single chip DTS solution shown last year at CES was on a quad core processor from Cirrus Logic... one that's faster and more capable by itself than the multiple chips some manufacturers are now using... translation: it's a more expensive part. Some penny pinching companies may not want to spend the extra few dollars for these upgraded chips.
> 
> It would be mind boggling if the licensing fees for the new Dolby codec package and the new DTS codec package were much more than what they are now. The A/V manufacturers don't want to end up scaring away all their customers with major upticks in pricing. Auro3D, however, is the more expensive party and that could be the cause of a major increase... another reason I think it may have a long row to hoe and its future may be short lived if it's deemed to be the spoiler.


I see, thank you for the clarification with the hardware side of DTS's solution. I also agree that with this new information of DTS:X and its arbitrary speaker setup, that Auro 3D is the odd man out and will be hard to justify for most to accomadate it's necessary configurations.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

robert816 said:


> Harkins Theatre in OKC is playing it with Atmos.





NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1M_HwmFMM


haha, OKC is quite a hike for me... I'm in Chicago. Pretty sure none of the theaters here will be playing the Atmos version


----------



## kbarnes701

LowellG said:


> I just how these three can come up with a realistic compromise on speaker config. Auro will pretty much leave everyone without a dedicated theater out. Atmos is somewhat doable in many situations. I don't know what DTS will do, but it's the speaker layout that matters. With Dolby or DTS, 5.1 or 7.1 meant something and Joe Blow consumer could put at least a 5.1 in any room. I feel the speaker layout for DTSX will be the deciding factor in the race. If they align with one or the other, there is possible success for the new immersive format. If they go a 3rd option, I think it will doom the whole home implementation part. They may do fine commercial theater wise, *but I the home there has to be a practical solution*.
> 
> 
> Take this forum alone. How many users are here. About 650 have voted on Atmos, of those 25% aren't doing it. However the statistics of participation or insignificant to sustain a market for 3 products. Again, Auro is dedicated theaters only. What percentage of houses have that. Atmos have several restrictions as well, *but it's not real practical for a lot of people*.


Don't overlook the significance of Atmos-enabled speakers or upfiring modules. Someone using Atmos-enabled speakers could have a full x.x.4 Atmos setup with no visible change to the room at all. That, IMO, makes Atmos the most practically viable of all of them.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kbarnes701 said:


> ThePrisoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I was worried about that. I need to thank Roger Dressler for coming up with the distance for me to hit 30 degrees. From what I've read those front heights will be way better at that location than the front wall.
> 
> I just have to splice extra wire to get me out into the room.
> 
> 
> 
> It honestly works really well here, so I am sure you will be happy with the results. And you're right - creating the extra separation between the FH pair and the main speakers will work better.
Click to expand...


I finally moved my front height speakers to the ceiling at 30 degrees. Wow!!! I can't believe what I was missing due to the previous location of up high on front wall. Now I have a full sound bubble above me, my wife is even impressed. 

Thank you again and to everyone else here who has answered my many questions. Happy New Year!!!


----------



## robert816

Aras_Volodka said:


> haha, OKC is quite a hike for me... I'm in Chicago. Pretty sure none of the theaters here will be playing the Atmos version


 
Good one sir! :grin:
While I wasn't suggesting you travel here, I will admit the first time I watched a movie with Atmos, I traveled to Dallas, TX to see the Hobbit, and it was about a 500+ mile round trip drive.

I'm really happy the Harkins Theatre here decided to upgrade to Atmos, I've only had one mediocre experience at this theatre. I spoke with the manager afterwards, he gave me a free pass to the same movie and asked that I come again. I went back a couple of days later and the Atmos was as good as I've ever heard it.

One of the many reasons why I jumped on the Atmos home theatre band wagon as soon as I could. It would be nice to have a second "immersive audio" format, but since I've never heard the other two formats in any theatre while traveling, I'm not missing anything.

Watched "Stomp the Yard" last night on VUDU using DSU, the sound was fantastic, but what I liked most was the end credit song "Poppin" by Chris Brown, it was so good in DSU that I watched the credits several times just to listen to this song.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

robert816 said:


> While I wasn't suggesting you travel here, I will admit the first time I watched a movie with Atmos, I traveled to Dallas, TX to see the Hobbit, and it was about a 500+ mile round trip drive.


Now THAT'S dedication! This here is an example of true love for Atmos


----------



## bargervais

DTS:X and Dolby Atmos won't they essentially do the same thing immersive audio????.. 
So I'm thinking it will be more of what the studio's will adopt whether they mix in DTS:X or Dolby Atmos and what is cheaper and ease of implementing. So if DTS:X comes out in March of 2015 we will be looking at the fall or Christmas of 2015. At which time will there be any DTS:X blu-rays will we wait another year for blu-rays to have a DTS:X mix... by that time there will be more Atmos blu-rays in the market, I think Atmos has the advantage... by the time the whole 3D audio settles down we should be into 2016/2017 and by that time I'll be in the market for a new receiver..anyway we are in the early days of 3D audio so I'm not worried that I'm an early adopter.. DSU and Atmos will serve me for years to come...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> DTS:X and Dolby Atmos won't they essentially do the same thing immersive audio????..
> So I'm thinking it will be more of what the studio's will adopt whether they mix in DTS:X or Dolby Atmos and what is cheaper and ease of implementing. So if DTS:X comes out in March of 2015 we will be looking at the fall or Christmas of 2015. At which time will there be any DTS:X blu-rays will we wait another year for blu-rays to have a DTS:X mix... by that time there will be more Atmos blu-rays in the market, I think Atmos has the advantage... by the time the whole 3D audio settles down we should be into 2016/2017 and by that time I'll be in the market for a new receiver..anyway we are in the early days of 3D audio so I'm not worried that I'm an early adopter.. DSU and Atmos will serve me for years to come...


You are assuming that some of the studios' home video divisions (and maybe theatrical divisions) haven't inked deals with DTS and their MDA Group partners whilst Dolby got Atmos in the spotlight first. There is always a lot of backroom drama that these companies don't exactly advertise in the press. It always comes down to cost and convenience, not necessarily quality. 

So, while WB, Lionsgate, and Paramount may add to the roster of Atmos titles in 2015... we have yet to hear a peep from Fox, Dreamworks, MGM, Sony, Disney, Universal, The Weinstein Group, Starz Entertainment, Summit Entertainment, Magnolia, etc. etc. about their 3D audio plans. We also do not know if the bulk of releases in either audio format will be held for 4k Blu-ray as an incentive to upgrade if the studios choose to support the upcoming disc medium.

A lot of unknowns right now.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Unbroken' - Dolby Atmos @ certain theaters*



Aras_Volodka said:


> haha, OKC is quite a hike for me... I'm in Chicago. Pretty sure none of the theaters here will be playing the Atmos version


You can also wait for the Blu-ray*.  ...You think it will be Atmos encoded?

Happy New Year.

* Universal studios: DTS-HD Master Audio (then, most likely _dts:X_ )


----------



## Nalleh

Nalleh said:


> Ok, you got me. The one on the picture is NOT Atmos, but rather the one you mention. But then i found this:
> http://www.avsforum.com/index.php?page=BG-Blu-ray-Discs
> The link here is a version on Amazon with a different ASIN nr, wich I have ordered and expecting any day now. So i can report back if it is the Atmos edition(I HOPE it is).





aaranddeeman said:


> Please let us know if it is ATMOS or not.
> Amazon does not have any information.
> As strange it is, amazon.in does not even list this ASIN.


Reporting back: this version of Mary Kom did NOT have Atmos either!!
Bummer!!


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> You are assuming that some of the studios' home video divisions (and maybe theatrical divisions) haven't inked deals with DTS and their MDA Group partners whilst Dolby got Atmos in the spotlight first. There is always a lot of backroom drama that these companies don't exactly advertise in the press. It always comes down to cost and convenience, not necessarily quality.
> 
> So, while WB, Lionsgate, and Paramount may add to the roster of Atmos titles in 2015... we have yet to hear a peep from Fox, Dreamworks, MGM, Sony, Disney, Universal, The Weinstein Group, Starz Entertainment, Summit Entertainment, Magnolia, etc. etc. about their 3D audio plans. We also do not know if the bulk of releases in either audio format will be held for 4k Blu-ray as an incentive to upgrade if the studios choose to support the upcoming disc medium.
> 
> A lot of unknowns right now.


What I was trying to say it will all boil down to what will be less expensive for the studio's to encode or mix audio in DTS:X or Dolby Atmos but I think that it will be 2016/2017 before all the dust settles on 3D audio... and I'm glad I'm an early adopter. Because if I waited till the end of 2015 that will still be the first generation of DTS:X receiver. So it seems no matter when you buy a receiver that next year's model will have something new..


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> You can also wait for the Blu-ray*.  ...You think it will be Atmos encoded?
> 
> Happy New Year.
> 
> * Universal studios: DTS-HD Master Audio (then, most likely _dts:X_ )


That's the million dollar question. I'd be sort of pissed if I was the mixing engineer on this one... it could potentially be a mix that most might never hear! 

I wish more theater chains would install Atmos systems into their non-premium setups.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> That's the million dollar question. I'd be sort of pissed if I was the mixing engineer on this one... it could potentially be a mix that most might never hear!
> 
> I wish more theater chains would install Atmos systems into their non-premium setups.


'Bout _dts:X_ systems in commercial theaters?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> 'Bout _dts:X_ systems in commercial theaters?


No complaints about that here... the more 3D sound theaters the merrier ( just hope my receiver will beable to play it! )


----------



## gerchy

Roger Dressler said:


> Within the confines of a 7.1.4 speaker system, where all three systems (Auro-3D, Atmos, DTS-X) can share all the speakers (a fantasy of mine), I do not see any reason why there would be any material difference in the reproduced sound, regardless if the source were originally mixed in Auro 13.1, Atmos, or MDA. The mixes themselves might sound different, having been made in different rooms by different people, but as delivered through any of the three systems, they would not sound different.


I second that!
Once you know how the decoding works (iow, if you ask Roger ) it is clear that there is not much differences between formats. So if DTS-X would adopt Atmos speaker layout it would probably sound similar.


----------



## NorthSky

gerchy said:


> I second that!
> Once you know how the decoding works (iow, if you ask Roger ) it is clear that there is not much differences between formats. So if DTS-X would adopt Atmos speaker layout it would probably sound similar.


Same as Dolby TrueHD versus DTS-HD MA versus Multichannel LPCM ==> All the same equal sounding hi-res multichannel audio lossless.


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> Now THAT'S dedication! This here is an example of true love for Atmos


Exactly, I thought my 320 mile trip was bad but 500 miles? Damn lol.

Sadly it will be a long time before any Atmos installations come here, maybe 4 or 5 years at the earliest, which is why I'm upgrading to 7.2.4 as soon as I possibly can next year with DTS:X included, and maybe if there's one with 13channels on board or pre-out I can do 9.2.4 lol.


----------



## Csbooth

robert816 said:


> Good one sir! :grin:
> While I wasn't suggesting you travel here, I will admit the first time I watched a movie with Atmos, I traveled to Dallas, TX to see the Hobbit, and it was about a 500+ mile round trip drive.


I did a 320 mile round trip drive with the wife to Atlanta, GA for our first Atmos experience seeing The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, small world in what people (mostly guys) will do for their quality entertainment and that our first movie in Atmos was a Hobbit one lol.

Glad to hear your hometown got Atmos, as I have said before it will be years if ever before I get a convenient way to see Atmos haha.


----------



## [email protected]

Dear all, need some help.
Just bought an Onkyo 3030. Installed 7.1 as per normal... but ran into problems with the atmos part (2 pairs = 4 speakers total planned). The 3030 manual is somewhat cryptic, talking about Heigh 1 and 2... but then in the setup/installing part talks about 3 pairs?!.. but it only has connections for 2 pairs of atmos speakers (7.1.4).
So my questions. As I am installing 7.1.4 where do i position the ceiling speakers? The manual speaks of 3 positions:
1. mid way btw listening position and front speakers
2. above listening position
3. mid way btw listening position and back speakers

But the manual never talks about where to put the speakers if you have 2 pairs! 
(this is all very weird as the receiver only supports 2 pairs.. why do they rant on about 3 pairs and show this setup only in the manual?). 
Now I assume that I should place them at position 1 and 3 but this is logic, not according to the manual and before drilling holes I would like to know.

Tnx for any help!

Tony


----------



## Csbooth

[email protected] said:


> Dear all, need some help.
> Just bought an Onkyo 3030. Installed 7.1 as per normal... but ran into problems with the atmos part (2 pairs = 4 speakers total planned). The 3030 manual is somewhat cryptic, talking about Heigh 1 and 2... but then in the setup/installing part talks about 3 pairs?!.. but it only has connections for 2 pairs of atmos speakers (7.1.4).
> So my questions. As I am installing 7.1.4 where do i position the ceiling speakers? The manual speaks of 3 positions:
> 1. mid way btw listening position and front speakers
> 2. above listening position
> 3. mid way btw listening position and back speakers
> 
> But the manual never talks about where to put the speakers if you have 2 pairs!
> (this is all very weird as the receiver only supports 2 pairs.. why do they rant on about 3 pairs and show this setup only in the manual?).
> Now I assume that I should place them at position 1 and 3 but this is logic, not according to the manual and before drilling holes I would like to know.
> 
> Tnx for any help!
> 
> Tony


The second position you listed, "above listening position" is if you're running a .2 configuration, as in one pair. 

For the first and third selections you would place them slightly in front of the MLP and slightly behind the MLP in between the side and rear surrounds. 

There are degrees to be wary of;

For the front pair it's 30, 45, or 55 degrees from the MLP.

For the rear pair it's 125, 135, or 150 from the MLP.

If you're using in-ceiling speakers be sure they have decent dispersion features, and for on-ceiling speakers take care of their angling towards the MLP, also if you're concerned what type of speaker to use for an on-ceiling solution, I have heard pretty much all kinds ranging from bookshelf, satellite surrounds, to outdoor speakers (Tannoy) and all sounded excellent.

Additionally, if you're worried about how to orient your hanging surround speakers (vertical or horizontal mounted) there usually won't be an issue with horizontal unless your speaker has a horn tweeter, but again just make sure to pay attention to their angles in degrees and toeing them in to the MLP, and you shouldn't be disappointed!

I'm sure others will be able to elaborate further or correct any mistakes I made lol.


----------



## robert816

Csbooth said:


> I did a 320 mile round trip drive with the wife to Atlanta, GA for our first Atmos experience seeing The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, small world in what people (mostly guys) will do for their quality entertainment and that our first movie in Atmos was a Hobbit one lol.
> 
> Glad to hear your hometown got Atmos, as I have said before it will be years if ever before I get a convenient way to see Atmos haha.



Sad thing was I made a number of trips to Dallas just for Atmos movies before I found out my local theatre had already been converted. Now, thank goodness, I only have a 20 minute drive downtown, but I'll admit the theatre in Dallas was pretty nice!


----------



## Csbooth

robert816 said:


> Sad thing was I made a number of trips to Dallas just for Atmos movies before I found out my local theatre had already been converted. Now, thank goodness, I only have a 20 minute drive downtown, but I'll admit the theatre in Dallas was pretty nice!


Hey, as long as you enjoyed yourself that is what counts in my book!


----------



## Trigen

For those with "The Equalizer" and Atmos, does DSU put any of the music that plays on the store PA system in the height/top speakers?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

It sure does. That's exactly where it goes. 

I'm noticing dsu less and less. But it's because I have become Acustom to hearing it on. So as as quick test I turned it off and could immediately tell a difference for the worse.


----------



## randyk47

Brian Fineberg said:


> It sure does. That's exactly where it goes.
> 
> I'm noticing dsu less and less. But it's because I have become Acustom to hearing it on. So as as quick test I turned it off and could immediately tell a difference for the worse.


I guess I'm 2 months plus into running a 7.1.4 setup with my Denon X5200 and DSU and I too have gotten accustomed to it. Initially I would sit in my media/theater room and listen specifically for sound coming from my four ceiling speakers but they're now just there in the sense they're part of the integrated sound stage. I've kind of gotten over trying to identify exactly what sound is coming from which speaker or speakers. 

Funny thing was last weekend a couple of neighbors came over to catch part of one of the pro football games. Neither of them have much in the way of even basic surround sound setups much less ATMOS. We weren't in my room 15 minutes before both of them were commenting about "it's like being at a game". Was it DSU alone? Probably not. More likely it really was and is the end result of the whole setup from the 7.1.4 speakers, a beautiful 70" Elite, great signal, comfortable seating, and a bucket of beer.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I'm noticing dsu less and less. But it's because I have become Acustom to hearing it on. So as as quick test I turned it off and could immediately tell a difference for the worse.


I have found the same. As you get accustomed to it, you notice it less. That's a good thing really because conscious noticing of where you have speakers located is not a good thing. It means they are drawing attention to themselves. What I find now is that I have stopped trying to identify where sounds are coming from and am just watching and enjoying the movie. I don't apparently have any speakers in my room - all I have is sound, and it sort of floats in space, all around me and all above me, with very good positional localisation of individual sounds when the soundtrack calls for it. It is without doubt the best my room has ever sounded.


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> I have found the same. As you get accustomed to it, you notice it less. That's a good thing really because conscious noticing of where you have speakers located is not a good thing. It means they are drawing attention to themselves. What I find now is that I have stopped trying to identify where sounds are coming from and am just watching and enjoying the movie. I don't apparently have any speakers in my room - all I have is sound, and it sort of floats in space, all around me and all above me, with very good positional localisation of individual sounds when the soundtrack calls for it. It is without doubt the best my room has ever sounded.


Exactly!! Personally I don't want every movie or TV show to be like watching and listening to the Dolby ATMOS clips, that would be annoying and distracting after a while. The clips demostrate in an exaggerated way what ATMOS is capable of doing and it's fun to run that for visitors but they are, at least in my mind, a bit of a gimmick and not necessarily the true implementation of ATMOS and DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> Exactly!! Personally I don't want every movie or TV show to be like watching and listening to the Dolby ATMOS clips, that would be annoying and distracting after a while. The clips demostrate in an exaggerated way what ATMOS is capable of doing and it's fun to run that for visitors but they are, at least in my mind, a bit of a gimmick and not necessarily the true implementation of ATMOS and DSU.


Well they are_ demo_ clips after all  For me one of the biggest benefits of Atmos is not the overhead effects, as good as they are, but the much more precise location of all the sounds in the whole soundstage. I still marvel at that with the (limited) collection of Atmos blurays I own (soon to be supplemented by TMNT which is in the post).


----------



## Trigen

Brian Fineberg said:


> It sure does. That's exactly where it goes.
> 
> I'm noticing dsu less and less. But it's because I have become Acustom to hearing it on. So as as quick test I turned it off and could immediately tell a difference for the worse.


Thank you. So the score that plays after that during the take down scenes stays in the 2D plane or does that get put in the height as well?


----------



## CBdicX

*I do not understand !*


I have a Mediaplayer that will do max 7.1 TrueHD or Master Audio.
But when i play a Atmos demo through the Mediaplayer from a Harddisk, i do get the Atmos logo on my receiver and the Atmos light will turn ON, and indeed specific sounds come from the 4 Atmos speakers.


Now some Mediaplayers will have 4K picture possibilities, du to a different chipset that can handle 1080P and 4K.
But how can a 3 year old 7.1 Mediaplayer handle the extra 4 Atmos channels and nothing changed on the hardware side ?


----------



## Balthazar2k4

CBdicX said:


> *I do not understand !*
> 
> 
> I have a Mediaplayer that will do max 7.1 TrueHD or Master Audio.
> But when i play a Atmos demo through the Mediaplayer from a Harddisk, i do get the Atmos logo on my receiver and the Atmos light will turn ON, and indeed specific sounds come from the 4 Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> Now some Mediaplayers will have 4K picture possibilities, du to a different chipset that can handle 1080P and 4K.
> But how can a 3 year old 7.1 Mediaplayer handle the extra 4 Atmos channels and nothing changed on the hardware side ?


Because that was exactly what Dolby intended. The media playback source was always meant to pass the TrueHD signal and the receiver/processor was to identify whether it contains Atmos information.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

CBdicX said:


> *I do not understand !*
> 
> 
> I have a Mediaplayer that will do max 7.1 TrueHD or Master Audio.
> But when i play a Atmos demo through the Mediaplayer from a Harddisk, i do get the Atmos logo on my receiver and the Atmos light will turn ON, and indeed specific sounds come from the 4 Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> Now some Mediaplayers will have 4K picture possibilities, du to a different chipset that can handle 1080P and 4K.
> But how can a 3 year old 7.1 Mediaplayer handle the extra 4 Atmos channels and nothing changed on the hardware side ?


It is encoded as part of the bitstream, the player doesn't care about the extra data and just sends it to the AVR.


----------



## Balthazar2k4

Like many here I have been using Dolby Surround upmixing for all of my content and it has done such a wonderful job on the whole that I don't even realize it anymore. Dolby's upmixing capability produces a near seamless soundfield and I can't identify the original sound mix. It's a win in my book.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So I'm sure you guys saw the DTS:X news the other day... I have a quick question about that. I'm somewhat new to this community... I joined AVS in July, prior to that I was never cognizant of format wars or how they work (I just always thought of surround sound as just that and nothing more prior to learning about HT sound). 
My question is this: if DTS & Dolby duke it out... does that mean disc releases will either be "DTS:X" or "Atmos" or could they have both formats? It's a little confusing for me because when browsing my collection I see both "True HD 5.1/7.1" discs & they usually also have "dolby digital" which would indicate to me that a bd could house both formats (though space could be an issue right?) It seems like the dolby digitial is the lesser format on a lot of the more recent BD releases? 

If it is the case that both formats are exclusive to certain releases... then I hope Atmos capable AVR's will have the FW upgrade like Auro did.


----------



## CBdicX

@Balthazar2k4


DSU is just like Stereo vs Mono in the past, when the Stereo speakers are setup correct you will hear the sound coming from the middle, just like Mono will do....... 
But indeed, i share your DSU opinion !


@ Aras_Volodka


think we do not have to worry about getting DTS:X or not, DSU will do a fine job on the Master Audio track.....


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I'm sure you guys saw the DTS:X news the other day... I have a quick question about that. I'm somewhat new to this community... I joined AVS in July, prior to that I was never cognizant of format wars or how they work (I just always thought of surround sound as just that and nothing more prior to learning about HT sound).
> My question is this: if DTS & Dolby duke it out... does that mean disc releases will either be "DTS:X" or "Atmos" or could they have both formats? It's a little confusing for me because when browsing my collection I see both "True HD 5.1/7.1" discs & they usually also have "dolby digital" which would indicate to me that a bd could house both formats (though space could be an issue right?) It seems like the dolby digitial is the lesser format on a lot of the more recent BD releases?
> 
> If it is the case that both formats are exclusive to certain releases... then I hope Atmos capable AVR's will have the FW upgrade like Auro did.


You would most likely get either DTS:X or Atmos on a BD just as you only will get either Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA on a current BD.

Now if you can upgrade your AVR to also support DTS:X using a new firmware is anyones guess. I hope it can be done but nothing has been confirmed yet. Maybe CES next week will shed some light, if not you have to wait until March and the official release.


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *kbarnes701*  
_I have found the same. As you get accustomed to it, you notice it less. That's a good thing really because conscious noticing of where you have speakers located is not a good thing. It means they are drawing attention to themselves. What I find now is that I have stopped trying to identify where sounds are coming from and am just watching and enjoying the movie. I don't apparently have any speakers in my room - all I have is sound, and it sort of floats in space, all around me and all above me, with very good positional localisation of individual sounds when the soundtrack calls for it. It is without doubt the best my room has ever sounded._
Exactly!! Personally I don't want every movie or TV show to be like watching and listening to the Dolby ATMOS clips, that would be annoying and distracting after a while. The clips demostrate in an exaggerated way what ATMOS is capable of doing and it's fun to run that for visitors but they are, at least in my mind, a bit of a gimmick and not necessarily the true implementation of ATMOS and DSU. 




Ditto for me! I had family over for New Years Day and played the Atmos demo disc, Transformers and The Maze Runner for them. They were looking all around the room going WOW! They were very impressed with the Atmos and the new DSU. The funniest thing was when my nephew's dog came running in looking around for the bird in the Atmos demo. One nephew wants an Atmos setup for his house.


Ray


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I'm sure you guys saw the DTS:X news the other day... I have a quick question about that. I'm somewhat new to this community... I joined AVS in July, prior to that I was never cognizant of format wars or how they work (I just always thought of surround sound as just that and nothing more prior to learning about HT sound).
> My question is this: if DTS & Dolby duke it out... does that mean disc releases will either be "DTS:X" or "Atmos" or could they have both formats?


 Probably one or the other but not both because of disk space issues.


> It's a little confusing for me because when browsing my collection I see both "True HD 5.1/7.1" discs & they usually also have "dolby digital" which would indicate to me that a bd could house both formats (though space could be an issue right?)


 Several encoder labels are on the boxes because they usually use a lossless encoder (either DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD) for the feature movie, but lossy Dolby Digital (at very low bitrates) for the extras where the sound quality doesn't matter as much. Some old Blu-rays have lossy Dolby Digital soundtracks as the default soundtrack (although they also provide a copy of the soundtrack using one of the lossless encoders) because they were created when most people's receivers still couldn't decode the lossless formats. This presumably was to avoid complaints from people who didn't understand that the lossless soundtracks include lossy encodings within them.



> It seems like the dolby digitial is the lesser format on a lot of the more recent BD releases?


 I'm not quite sure what you mean by "lesser". Dolby Digital provides somewhat lower quality sound than the lossless formats do, and is limited to a maximum of 5.1 channels, but takes up less space. 



> If it is the case that both formats are exclusive to certain releases... then I hope Atmos capable AVR's will have the FW upgrade like Auro did.


Even if a disc is released with only a DTS:X soundtrack, it'll still be playable on receivers which can't decode the DTS object format. Similar to Atmos, a DTS:X soundtrack is backward compatible, consisting of a 7.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack plus object metadata. I agree, though, that it'd be greatly appreciated by us early adopters if the DTS:X firmware could be made available for the non-flagship AVRs and pre/pros. We'll just have to wait and see hear.


----------



## Mike Garrett

tjenkins95 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kbarnes701*
> _I have found the same. As you get accustomed to it, you notice it less. That's a good thing really because conscious noticing of where you have speakers located is not a good thing. It means they are drawing attention to themselves. What I find now is that I have stopped trying to identify where sounds are coming from and am just watching and enjoying the movie. I don't apparently have any speakers in my room - all I have is sound, and it sort of floats in space, all around me and all above me, with very good positional localisation of individual sounds when the soundtrack calls for it. It is without doubt the best my room has ever sounded._
> Exactly!! Personally I don't want every movie or TV show to be like watching and listening to the Dolby ATMOS clips, that would be annoying and distracting after a while. The clips demostrate in an exaggerated way what ATMOS is capable of doing and it's fun to run that for visitors but they are, at least in my mind, a bit of a gimmick and not necessarily the true implementation of ATMOS and DSU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for me! I had family over for New Years Day and played the Atmos demo disc, Transformers and The Maze Runner for them. They were looking all around the room going WOW! They were very impressed with the Atmos and the new DSU. The funniest thing was when my nephew's dog came running in looking around for the bird in the Atmos demo. *One nephew wants an Atmos setup for his house.*
> 
> 
> Ray


Now you are going to be branded the trouble maker.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> Even if a disc is released with only a DTS:X soundtrack, it'll still be playable on receivers which can't decode the DTS object format. Similar to Atmos, a DTS:X soundtrack is backward compatible, consisting of a 7.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack plus object metadata. I agree, though, that it'd be greatly appreciated by us early adopters if the DTS:X firmware could be made available for the non-flagship AVRs and pre/pros. We'll just have to wait and see hear.


Ok so my Atmos receiver playing a DTS:X disc will translate the signal into HD 7.1? Or would it be 7.1.4? I'm guessing it would sound different/better on a DTS:X capable receiver as opposed to an Atmos receiver that doesn't have DTS:X?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "lesser". Dolby Digital provides somewhat lower quality sound than the lossless formats do, and is limited to a maximum of 5.1 channels, but takes up less space.


What I meant was which is lossless pretty much.


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ok so my Atmos receiver playing a DTS:X disc will translate the signal into HD 7.1? Or would it be 7.1.4?


The Atmos receiver will detect a 7.1 channel DTS-HD MA soundtrack. If you have Dolby Surround enabled, Dolby Surround will upmix it to use your overhead speakers.



> I'm guessing it would sound different/better on a DTS:X capable receiver as opposed to an Atmos receiver that doesn't have DTS:X?


It probably would sound different. Dolby Surround's upmixing algorithm is quite good, but it can't produce the same usage of the overhead speakers that a DTS:X decoder would. 

I'm sure that when DTS:X soundtracks become available people will be comparing the sounds produced by the different upmixers to what the decoder produces and arguing over the results.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ok so my Atmos receiver playing a DTS:X disc will translate the signal into HD 7.1? Or would it be 7.1.4? I'm guessing it would sound different/better on a DTS:X capable receiver as opposed to an Atmos receiver that doesn't have DTS:X?


If DTS-X works like Atmos, the "normal" DTS decoder in the receiver will play back the 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track and ignore the object extension files. You can then use Dolby Surround upmixing to create a synthetic 3D track like with any other channel based audio. However, the real decoded object based soundtrack will be superior just like a true Atmos track is preferable to a strictly channel based track upmixed.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> The Atmos receiver will detect a 7.1 channel DTS-HD MA soundtrack. If you have Dolby Surround enabled, Dolby Surround will upmix it to use your overhead speakers.
> 
> It probably would sound different. Dolby Surround's upmixing algorithm is quite good, but it can't produce the same usage of the overhead speakers that a DTS:X decoder would.
> 
> I'm sure that when DTS:X soundtracks become available people will be comparing the sounds produced by the different upmixers to what the decoder produces and arguing over the results.





Dan Hitchman said:


> If DTS-X works like Atmos, the "normal" DTS decoder in the receiver will play back the 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track and ignore the object extension files. You can then use Dolby Surround upmixing to create a synthetic 3D track like with any other channel based audio. However, the real decoded object based soundtrack will be superior just like a true Atmos track is preferable to a strictly channel based track upmixed.


Oh man that's what I was afraid of. I'm a bit of an Atmos junky I've come to realize so it's either 3D sound processing or bust!


----------



## pasender91

Aras, it is not so bad, it is not "bust" !!!
DSU does a good job, maybe you'll get 80 to 90% of the overall quality you would get with native DTS:X


----------



## NorthSky

/// Maybe.


----------



## audioguy

randyk47 said:


> and a bucket of beer.


If the bucket were large enough, a Bose system and a 19 inch CRT TV might have generated the same response


----------



## audioguy

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm a bit of an Atmos junky I've come to realize so it's either 3D sound processing or bust!


Me as well. In fact we listened to/watched the Auro Demo disk running throught DSU. While maybe not as good as had it been played with native Auro, it was still incredible - particularly the organ music. 

If you haven't tried it, I recommend you listen to/watch a movie using DSU and turn off all of the speakers but those on the ceiling. Fascinating what gets put there.


----------



## BigScreen

Aras_Volodka said:


> So unbroken is the new Atmos film this week... but no theaters seem to be playing it. Seems a bit strange, right?


I think the Hobbit is taking up most Atmos-equipped auditoriums right now, and by the time it runs its course, Unbroken probably will not have a chance to get into them because of new inventory coming up, even with a bump from any Oscar nominations it might receive.

We show 11 theaters in the U.S. playing Unbroken in Atmos right now:

http://www.bigscreen.com/advsearch/atmos.php?movie=167266

That doesn't include theaters that don't provide Atmos indications. Marcus Theatres is good for that, as they just include Atmos as an amenity of their UltraScreen DLX presentations, so you have to go digging for the information to be sure.

Check out the Marcus in Addison, as I think they are playing Unbroken in Atmos:

http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=1795

You can click on the "Official Web Site" link in the sidebar to be taken to the list of showtimes on the Marcus web site, which currently shows Unbroken as playing in the UltraScreen DLX with Atmos.


----------



## Csbooth

Ok, so now that we are all gearing up for the release of AVRs equipped with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X decoders (Maybe Auro-3D as well), I was contemplating building myself a custom 7.2.4 setup in my media room in which the dimensions are (LxWxH) 12x10x8.

I currently have a Yamaha HTiB I purchased from Dell back in 2009 when I didn't really know much about Home Theater audio, it has done fine and I have thoroughly enjoyed what it has offered. Although, now that I understand a lot more than previously, I see now it can't do lossless codecs, and I would rather not be bothered with extra cabling using optical. It is also a 5.1 setup, so I feel by me moving from 5.1 without lossless to 7.2.4 with lossless and better speakers, I will be blown away, figuratively speaking of course lol.

So, here is my predicament... As I stated earlier, I want 7.2.4, but sadly I iust can't justify more than $3,500.00 for the entire operation including the AVR. Assuming that the line of 11ch AVRs that will supply me with both rivals decoding formats (Atmos,X) will be priced around $1.7k-$2.4k like the Onkyo 1030 with pre-outs for 11ch for a bit cheaper, or the flagship 3030. This effectively leaves me with about $1,100-$1,500 for speakers presumably.

I realize that most will tell me that it's better to spend much more on better speakers, but since I've heard more advanced setups now, and am still quite pleased with HTiB components, I feel like that this budget will be good enough for me, besides I don't see me being able to find a 11ch 3D AVR (hopefully with at least one HDCP 2.2, and 4-5 HDMI 2.0 full 18Gbps) for much cheaper than $2,000. 

Also, I'll be in the market for a 55-60 inch 4K passive 3D TV later this year for about $2,000. If I spend more than $6,000 this year on AV equipment my wife will destroy my soul haha, which is why I haven't even thought about projection options as I feel for that I would need a dedicated room with good seats, a reasonably priced 4K 3D projector, and a nice AT screen, so it's out of the realm of possibility for me.

Okay, so now that all the background information has been established, I feel it's ok to say that my safe zone is $1,300 (Considering I'm likely to buy the more budget friendly Onkyo AVR when it's released later this year at $1.7k-$2.4k). 

I would be extremely grateful if someone would mind helping me piece together 13 speakers; Front Left/Right, Center, Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds, x2 Subwoofers, and finally the four overhead speakers (On-Ceiling preferred) to complete the 7.2.4 configuration goal. I have also read that it's best for all speakers to be timbre matched but I'm not too sure on if it just pertains to the top, floor or both sets, I'm sure it can only be a good thing if both LFE speakers are exactly the same haha.

If someone should help me, would it be too bold to ask for accompanying on-ceiling mounts and stands for the floor level speakers as this is the first time any of this will actually mean anything to me, so I'm a bit lost lol. 

I've set aside about $400 for the mounts, stands, speaker wire (16 Gauge???) and some longer RCA cables for the subwoofers as I'll have them on each side of the wall at the midway point in the room. 

I know the varying degrees of the height speakers; Top Front at 30, 45, and 55 from the MLP and Top Rear at 125, 135, and 150 from the MLP. What I don't know is, does it matter if the speakers are mounted horizontally or vertically? Just trying to get a feel to make sure If I need to remove the ceiling fan or not XD.

The only other pertinent question I can think of would be about the difference between the Onkyo 1030/3030? I obviously grasp that one is 9ch and the latter is 11ch but everything else that I can see seems to be the same. The reason I'm curious is because I see that if I was to purchase the 1030 ($1,600) and one 2ch amp ($125 or so) then I would be able to raise my speaker budget to about $1,700 which can only be a good thing right?

To summarize: I'm looking for someone to help me build a 7.2.4 setup on a budget of $1,300-$1,700 (hopefully depending on the answer to my last question) to accompany an 9-11ch AVR which will run around $2k more than likely and $400 for ceiling mounts, stands, and wires for a total of $4,000 FIRM. Again, $6,000 is what I'll need for the TV included and can't exceed that for fear of losing my soul lol.

In any case, I am sorry for such a long winded post with so many questions but any help I could get would put my mind at ease as this is still all pretty foreign to me.

Thanks,

- Charles


----------



## awblackmon

Hi Csbooth. I have a theater room just larger than yours. 17x13x8 feet. I wanted to go to smaller speakers because the tower speakers and center channel were eating to much of the room for me. I decided to evict the front three channels for smaller speakers. I built a AT screen. Behind the screen I put some of my older Minimus 77 speakers. The solution for me was perfect. The smaller version of the Minimus 77 speaker is the Minimus 7. You can find these speakers at theEbay web site. I have also bought a few at local pawn shops. 

Many people will laugh at these speakers but back decades ago these were the speakers you bought for good sound at a great price if you couldn't afford spending a LOT MORE and getting pretty much the same sound. The Minimus 7 really will need sub woofers to help out in the lower end. So If you want to save money on speakers I would say look at this option. The Minimus 7 have a speaker surround that does not rot. The big brother 77 speakers have a foam surround that does rot and many of them I had to do a foam surround replacement. So to avoid all that work you could just stick with the Minimus 7. 

If you are enjoying your HTIB these Minimus speakers will sound better. They were very well designed in the day. Maybe not as good as something at much HIGHER prices but for a small room they are great. I have them running L/C/Rchannels, wide front channels, side surround, back surround and hanging from my ceiling for future Atmos or DTS:X use. Right now I have a pair doing DTS Neo:X hight channel work which will become my top front channel. Another pair will be used as the top back channel when I get a new processor. 

I have no problems running my system loud if I want to. I generally keep my levels down for WAF. These speakers can deliver. loud though if needed. Some will say you will blow them to easily. I found it was easier to blow them with 25 watts than to blow them will 120 watts. Its all about the distortion taking out speakers when overdriving an amp. My clean 100 watt amps have not been a problem for these speakers. I don't really know what SPL I can drive them to. Guess I should measure that some day. Whatever levels I do listen at are just fine and I have had no problems.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> . . .Okay, so now that all the background information has been established, I feel it's ok to say that my safe zone is $1,300 (Considering I'm likely to buy the more budget friendly Onkyo AVR when it's released later this year at $1.7k-$2.4k). . .
> 
> I would be extremely grateful if someone would mind helping me piece together 13 speakers; Front Left/Right, Center, Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds, x2 Subwoofers, and finally the four overhead speakers (On-Ceiling preferred) to complete the 7.2.4 configuration goal. I have also read that it's best for all speakers to be timbre matched but I'm not too sure on if it just pertains to the top, floor or both sets, I'm sure it can only be a good thing if both LFE speakers are exactly the same haha.


$1300 is a pretty meager budget for a full 7.1.4 speaker setup (plus two SW's!!!!). 

Here's one suggestion that more or less keeps within your budget, but without the SW's. I would suggest that you get a tolerably good used SW for now (e.g., Polk Audio PSW505 for $100 to $200 in good condition) and save up to eventually get one good one, and then the second when funds permit. All items are new and come with a 5-year manufacturer warranty. The links (and discounted prices) for all but the in-ceilings are from Polk Audio's eBay store and reflect what I would consider excellent bang for the buck:

FL/R: Polk Audio RTi8: $400

Center: Polk Audio CSi5: $215

SL/R & RSL/R: Polk Audio RTi6 (two pair): $155 x 2=$310

In-Ceiling: Polk Audio RC80i: $140 x 2=$280

The total including (free) shipping and taxes should come to less than $1300.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BigScreen said:


> I think the Hobbit is taking up most Atmos-equipped auditoriums right now, and by the time it runs its course, Unbroken probably will not have a chance to get into them because of new inventory coming up, even with a bump from any Oscar nominations it might receive.
> 
> We show 11 theaters in the U.S. playing Unbroken in Atmos right now:
> 
> http://www.bigscreen.com/advsearch/atmos.php?movie=167266
> 
> That doesn't include theaters that don't provide Atmos indications. Marcus Theatres is good for that, as they just include Atmos as an amenity of their UltraScreen DLX presentations, so you have to go digging for the information to be sure.
> 
> Check out the Marcus in Addison, as I think they are playing Unbroken in Atmos:
> 
> http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=1795
> 
> You can click on the "Official Web Site" link in the sidebar to be taken to the list of showtimes on the Marcus web site, which currently shows Unbroken as playing in the UltraScreen DLX with Atmos.


Thanks for the suggestion but have you been to the Marcus DLX? Marcus Addison & Orland Park DLX theaters don't have Atmos capability as far as I could tell. I never heard the atmos sound @ either of those theaters. I see the speakers in the ceiling but I don't hear anything coming from overhead unless if something has changed since September... it's a real shame because those recliners at the addison location = awesome.


----------



## ultraflexed

just letting you guys know that the best movie to watch that shows off the DSU is 007 sky fall, the last 20 minutes where the helicopter is flying around the house, the DSU kicked in real hard


----------



## CBdicX

In Holland Dolby is starting to open *Dolby Cinema *theaters, all with high res pictures (3D HFR) and Atmos. 
Think Dolby will give DTS a run for the money, also THX need to step up but think THX will start to see theaters making the Dolby choice if they want to change, and think they want as they need to pull more people into the theaters.
Also Dolby will give the customer the choice, 2D, 4K or Dolby 3D. 
Dolby 3D seems to be even "sharper" then IMAX 3D but reviewers did see in heavy packed action sceens, artifacts.

In Holland almost every year more and more people go to the cinema, its starting to be a way of spending a nice time out, first a nice dinner in a good restaurant, and then with a fair amout of wine in the body, go enjoi a action movie with Atmos....  

And after that experians, who will not want that same feeling at home


----------



## kbarnes701

*With overhead speakers silent for 99% of the time, do we need to look elsewhere for the benefits of Atmos?*










Yesterday I received my copy of *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*. I should say at the outset that I bought this movie solely for its Atmos soundtrack, yet, despite every professional critique I have read, I found myself enjoying this movie quite a lot. More on that later.

And before saying anything else, I would say that this movie has a fabulous sound track. Sounds are located with amazing precision throughout the soundstage, treble is extended but smooth, bass is deep and tight.

*Something is missing. Where have my overhead speakers gone?*

But an hour or so into the movie, I felt something was missing. Something overhead. In fact, I climbed on to my chair at the end of the row and stuck my ear up to my Top Middle Left speaker. Silence. I stood there, balancing precariously for some minutes. More silence. So I went out of the HT to the boot room and turned off all the amps other than those powering my 4 overhead speakers. I also turned off the subwoofers. I started the movie over. What did I hear? Silence.

Near the beginning of the movie, there is a scene which takes place in a container shipyard. Mutant turtles are engaged in a firefight with Yakuza-style gangsters. Huge containers are physically thrown around. What did I hear? I heard 3 or 4 'boings' as these containers the size of small houses were flung around.

I continued listening. Occasionally, my overhead speakers murmured. At around 51 minutes into the movie there is another huge fight scene. Full-on Michael Bayhem ensues (he is credited as a Producer and his influence shows). What did I hear? Occasional snippets of choral music. The choral music was lovely, but it was intermittent and somehow I expected more.

This pattern was the same no matter where I skipped onto and played extracts of the movie. In the many huge set pieces, the overhead speakers did more or less nothing. 99% of the time (guess) they were totally silent.

*What does it matter which speakers we choose when they hardly ever make a noise?*

It makes me ponder the thousands of posts in this thread agonising over what type of overhead speakers to use, where they should be placed, is 3° out-of-spec going to ruin the experience and so on. From what I am hearing from _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles _(and we said the same about the 'flagship' Atmos Bluray of _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, remember) my answer seems to be: fit anything you like wherever you like. It really doesn’t matter much. Go for minuscule Bose cubes or JBL's biggest suitable Pro monitors. Given that 99% of the time they will be doing nothing, why worry?

Imagine if this was the case with another important set of speakers in your system: your subwoofers. How happy would you be spending thousands of dollars on subwoofers and then discovering that they only play for 1% of the movie's run time, and for the rest of the time they sit there doing literally nothing?

*Dolby Surround Upmixer saves the day?*

Of course, we have DSU, which makes much greater use of the overhead speakers. But as DSU is an upmixer, its results will be somewhat haphazard and a matter of personal preference and so on. And DSU is providing general ambient effects of course. I believe we bought our Atmos AVRs and installed our overhead speakers for *Atmos*. Atmos encoded content is what we are all waiting for. Judging by the discs so far released, and I mean technically, not content-wise, maybe we shouldn’t be so excited.

If you have _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_ on Bluray, spin the "Shell Shocked" music video from the extras. For reasons best known to whoever, they put this on the disc in 2 channel. But the second the track starts, your room will be filled with sound, as DSU struts its considerable stuff. Sound from in front, around you and above you. And it is a great track too, well worth playing in its own right. Isn’t this more like what we expected from the main event?

Of course, as I have always said, Atmos is about much more than overhead effects. When I said it, I didn’t realise that I would be right 99% of the time. Fortunately, it is true: Atmos brings huge benefits other than overhead effects. The extra precision it brings to the whole soundstage is perhaps the biggest benefit of all. Immersion is greater thanks to that alone. But hey, if we have 4 speakers over our heads, shouldn’t they make some noise for more than a couple of minutes in an entire movie?

*The blame game.
*
Whose fault is this? I don't think we can lay the blame at Dolby's door. Their demo trailers are wonderful examples of what Atmos can do and full use is made of every speaker in the room.

Is it the mixer? Do we need to remind them why we went to the expense and trouble of upgrading? Do we need to point out that, just as we want our subs to be used, we want our overhead speakers to be used too? For Atmos, not just DSU. Did they really believe that the best use of 4 overhead speakers was embodied in _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ or _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_? Erik Aadahl's name is in the end credits, although, oddly, not listed in the IMDB credits for the movie. Erik knows a thing or two about Atmos: he is responsible for the outstanding Dolby 'Amaze' trailer. And he was Sound Designer and Supervising Sound Editor on _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, as well as _Godzilla, World War Z, Pain & Gain_ and numerous other movies with stellar sound. Presumably he was happy with the (overhead speaker) mix for this Bluray of _Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles_? I wish I was.

Is it the AVR? Are we similarly disappointed when we hear Atmos movies in a commercial theater? If we are not, then what is happening when Atmos movies are replayed via Bluray and our Atmos AVRs? Why are those speakers silent for almost the entire movie?
*
Shock news: I enjoyed the movie. Quite a lot in fact.*

Now to the movie itself. It is ironic that I bought this movie expecting an amazing experience from my overhead speakers and a disappointing experience from the movie itself. The exact opposite was the case.

Despite everything I have read (often, I suspect, from people who haven’t actually seen the movie) I found much to enjoy.










The score by Brian Tyler (_Avengers: Age of Ultron, Furious 7, The Expendables 3, Into The Storm, Thor: The Dark World, Iron man 3_) is just sublime. Rendered by a huge orchestra, with a fabulous brass and strings section, it is just outstanding in my view. Listen out for it if you have yet to see this movie, or if you watch it again (and in my view it warrants another watching). 

The CGI is just breathtaking. At no point did I ever stop to think that Raphael, Michelangelo, Donatello and Leonardo were nothing more than pixels created in some huge computer somewhere far away. To me they were real characters. And they had wit and humor too. The scene towards the end in the elevator had me laughing out loud for example, with other similar occasions along the way.

The many action sequences are classic examples of the art. The 'snow drive' sequence, which lasts for several minutes with a huge truck and several SUVs in a chase down a snow covered mountain is breathtaking and incredibly exciting. As is the final fight on the roof of the Sacks building. The choreography of all the fight sequences is brilliant, worthy of the great marital arts movie fight choreographers.

Visual effects are stunning all the way through the movie and are a credit to ILM and, I would say, among their best work. Not surprisingly, the Visual Effects credits at the end of the movie seem almost as long as the movie itself.

The acting... well, what can I say? William Fichtner turns in a good performance, as he always does, making me wonder when he will get to star in a movie worthy of his talents. And then there's Megan Fox. She brings considerable eye-candy to the movie. Jonathan Liebesman allows his camera to linger on her, and rightly so. But that is as far as I can go. She didn’t spoil my enjoyment of the movie but I wondered what a true talent, equally beautiful, such as Jennifer Lawrence would have brought to the role. Or maybe Scarlett.










*Release your inner 13 year old.*

Overall I found this a fun movie and I enjoyed it considerably. Maybe I have some deep psychological flaw which has locked the 13 year old boy in me permanently into my psyche? For this is surely the audience at which the movie is aimed, and it succeeds in that regard in my opinion. Sure, it is not great cinematic art. But it doesn't set out to be or pretend to be. Could it have been better? Of course. It has that characteristic Michael Bay 'coldness' about it, where action becomes more important than character. Fichtner is permitted by his Director to overact significantly in some scenes. The script could be much better. And the fart joke is embarrassing, even to the 13 year old boy inside me. But overall I enjoyed it and I will watch it again, for the action sequences, the CGI, the score, the visual effects, and the humour it contains. 

Go into your home theater expecting 141 minutes of fun and I doubt you will be disappointed. Go in expecting your overhead speakers to do much at all and you will be sorely disappointed.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Keith. What about when April is climbing the fire escape and the turtles are talking above her. In my system you can clearly hear them talking from the ceiling speakers. It then pans to the center ceiling then down to the screen as she climbs higher and higher until she is even wth the roof

How is this not audible for you. It is he most obvious use of atmos I have yet to hear.

Anyhow I agree. I like the movie. 

I don't like when people complain about a movie that is based on kids cartoons about teenage mutant turtles surprisingly not an Oscar best picture nominee. Actually it's comical. Enjoy it for what it is. Brainless eye and ear candy. Not everything need to be schindlers list


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Keith. What about when April is climbing the fire escape and the turtles are talking above her. In my system you can clearly hear them talking from the ceiling speakers. It then pans to the center ceiling then down to the screen as she climbs higher and higher until she is even wth the roof
> 
> How is this not audible for you. It is he most obvious use of atmos I have yet to hear.


Yes - that's part of the 1%. Was that, plus the other occasional uses, sufficient for you in a 141 minute movie? Try isolating your overhead speakers and playing the movie. You won't be disturbing anyone  And remember I listen at -5dB. For the overheads-only test, I listened at -2dB! 

Where is the use of object mixing in the sense of using the overhead speakers in conjunction with the listener level speakers in order to render sounds three-dimensionally in the entire soundstage, for example? 

I didn't say there were *no* occasions when the overheads were not employed - just that they were barely deployed most of the time. I find this disappointing. I intend to watch this movie in straight 7.1 using DSU (I'll feed PCM to the AVR) and I am betting I find it a superior presentation than 'genuine' Atmos. If that is so, it can't be right surely?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Anyhow I agree. I like the movie.
> 
> I don't like when people complain about a movie that is based on kids cartoons about teenage mutant turtles surprisingly not an Oscar best picture nominee. Actually it's comical. Enjoy it for what it is. Brainless eye and ear candy. Not everything need to be schindlers list


Agreed. It is what it is and I enjoyed it quite a bit. There is, as I hope I conveyed, a lot to like. By way of contrast, tonight's movie is *Calvary.*


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - that's part of the 1%. Was that, plus the other occasional uses, sufficient for you in a 141 minute movie? Try isolating your overhead speakers and playing the movie. You won't be disturbing anyone  And remember I listen at -5dB. For the overheads-only test, I listened at -2dB!
> 
> Where is the use of object mixing in the sense of using the overhead speakers in conjunction with the listener level speakers in order to render sounds three-dimensionally in the entire soundstage, for example?
> 
> I didn't say there were *no* occasions when the overheads were not employed - just that they were barely deployed most of the time. I find this disappointing. I intend to watch this movie in straight 7.1 using DSU (I'll feed PCM to the AVR) and I am betting I find it a superior presentation than 'genuine' Atmos. If that is so, it can't be right surely?


Gotcha! That's weird the ceiling speakers are so quiet. But why does it sound so good? Have you tried this with the demo disc? How much overhead is used in comparison


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Gotcha! That's weird the ceiling speakers are so quiet. But why does it sound so good? Have you tried this with the demo disc? How much overhead is used in comparison


I think it sounds so good because Atmos brings far more benefits than simply overhead effects. The thing I always notice the most from the 4 Atmos Blurays I have, is how precisely placed the sounds are all around the soundstage. I think what I would like is the overhead activity I get from DSU combined with the precision I get from Atmos. TBH that is what I expected. I currently feel somewhat let down by the way the overheads are so underused in true Atmos presentations. I am just thankful that DSU works as well as it does.

The thing is, the exact same comments were made about _Transformers: Age of Extinction_. I can also say that the same is true for _Overheard 3_. I haven’t tried the 'isolation test' with _The Expendables 3_ yet, but I will get around to it. As that movie has lots of choppers and aircraft in it, it might use the overheads a bit more.

The Atmos trailers have significantly more content in the overhead speakers.


----------



## bargervais

^^^^^^
Thanks Keith I always enjoy your reviews and insight and yes I enjoy and listen in Dolby Surround all the time DSU is my choice of listening mode... I'm so use to it now... I love what DSU and Atmos brings to my viewing and immersive enjoyment..
I will continue to enjoy my Atmos receivers for a few years and if DTS X will not be possible as a firmware upgrade to my TX-NR 1030 by then I'll be itching for a new receiver anyway.. I'm not disappointed with my zeal and my early adoption of Atmos as DSU is worth the price of admission. So DTS X will be announced in March 2015 I don't see it being much different then Atmos rollout.. So if I see the time line once receivers are built and in the marketplace it maybe September to November 2015 ..
Let's hope there will be many many Atmos blu-rays.. then DTS X will have to catch up by that time it will be September to November of 2016 and I'll be in the market for a new receiver.. I will enjoy my Atmos gear till then..


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Gotcha! That's weird the ceiling speakers are so quiet. But why does it sound so good? Have you tried this with the demo disc? How much overhead is used in comparison


My $.02 is this Atmos is that good... it's a full immersion in sound but I do agree the studio's can make better use of overhead speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> ^^^^^^
> Thanks Keith I always enjoy your reviews and insight and yes I enjoy and listen in Dolby Surround all the time DSU is my choice of listening mode... I'm so use to it now... I love what DSU and Atmos brings to my viewing and immersive enjoyment..
> I will continue to enjoy my Atmos receivers for a few years and if DTS X will not be possible as a firmware upgrade to my TX-NR 1030 by then I'll be itching for a new receiver anyway.. I'm not disappointed with my zeal and my early adoption of Atmos as DSU is worth the price of admission. So DTS X will be announced in March 2015 I don't see it being much different then Atmos rollout.. So if I see the time line once receivers are built and in the marketplace it maybe September to November 2015 ..
> Let's hope there will be many many Atmos blu-rays.. then DTS X will have to catch up by that time it will be September to November of 2016 and I'll be in the market for a new receiver.. I will enjoy my Atmos gear till then..


I agree with all that. I am in no way disappointed that I upgraded, but it is entirely due to DSU. DSU adds so much to the experience that, like you, I have it as my default sound mode. And wrt to DTS:X, yes, I am happy to wait. By the time there is genuine DTS:X content, it will probably be time to upgrade (again) anyway.

Like I said, would people be happy to spend $$$ on a subwoofer and for it to sit there silently almost all the time? I don't think so. It's solely the lack of use of the overheads with true Atmos content that I take issue with.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Have there been anymore bluray announcements? Other than john wick and gravity?


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Have there been anymore bluray announcements? Other than john wick and gravity?


I read on blu-ray reviews that Exodus will also have Atmos http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


----------



## ThePrisoner

Brian Fineberg said:


> Have there been anymore bluray announcements? Other than john wick and gravity?



I believe Exodus: Gods and Kings was announced to have an Atmos track as well


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Awesome! I look forward to that! About time some real quality movies see the atmos treatment


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> Awesome! I look forward to that! About time some real quality movies see the atmos treatment


Everything I've read about Exodus' sound mix does not give high marks to the cinema Atmos version... it too sounds like a traditional soundtrack. 

A lot of sound designers need to go back to audio design school IMHO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Everything I've read about Exodus' sound mix does not give high marks to the cinema Atmos version... it too sounds like a traditional soundtrack.


In my short report earlier, I hope I didn't give the impression that TMNT sounds like a traditional soundtrack. I think it sounds much better than that, thanks to Atmos. My disappointment was solely with the lack of content in the overheads, again.



Dan Hitchman said:


> A lot of sound designers need to go back to audio design school IMHO.


Could be. A lot of everyone in any profession needs to go back to school IME, but TNMT had Erik Aadahl on its credits, which is even more reason to expect a stellar result. HST, he also did the sound design for Transformers 4 so maybe he just doesn't like putting much in the overheads. I wonder why Erik is credited at the end of the movie but not on IMDB for that movie?


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Awesome! I look forward to that! About time some real quality movies see the atmos treatment


*Exodus: Gods and Kings* has had mixed reviews. But I am looking forward to it myself. I do think the great Ridley Scott is in decline nowadays though, so it remains to be seen how this movie shapes up. He's well into his 70s I believe - 74 maybe? Clint is in decline too I fear nowadays, but then he is in his *80s* so has a good excuse. Whatever happened to 'leave them wanting more'?

EDIT: I checked. Ridley is actually 77 and Clint is 84. And they are both still working! Ridley has a staggering 42 projects in development, whereas Clint has just one.


----------



## bargervais

Dolby Pro Logic IIz onkyo upgraded there receivers to atmos. The TX-NR 1030 has DTS Neo:X™ 11.1-Channel Upmixing DTS Neo:X employs unique algorithms to upmix stereo or 5.1-channel soundtracks for playback through up to eleven channels. Selectable listening modes optimize frequency response for music, movies, and games with intelligent multiplexing technology allowing you to enjoy balanced and immersive surround sound from regular stereo sources. So why won't it be firmware upgradeable to DTS:X. As it has enough horsepower for Neo:X then why can't it just be replaced.. just a thought I know their job is to sell receivers but I would think that keeping their customer base happy should also be considered.. IMHO...


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Dolby Pro Logic IIz onkyo upgraded there receivers to atmos. The TX-NR 1030 has DTS Neo:X™ 11.1-Channel Upmixing DTS Neo:X employs unique algorithms to upmix stereo or 5.1-channel soundtracks for playback through up to eleven channels. Selectable listening modes optimize frequency response for music, movies, and games with intelligent multiplexing technology allowing you to enjoy balanced and immersive surround sound from regular stereo sources. So why won't it be firmware upgradeable to DTS:X. As it has enough horsepower for Neo:X then why can't it just be replaced.. just a thought I know their job is to sell receivers but I would think that keeping their customer base happy should also be considered.. IMHO...


I don't think you can compare Neo:X and DTS:X in this way. Neo:X is a simple upmixer. DTS:X is a totally new format, similar to Atmos. There is no guarantee that an AVR has the processing capability to support DTS:X, for example, and would need a hardware upgrade rather than a simple FW upgrade. I am not suggesting this is the case, but it is an example of a reason why a manufacturer might not be able to offer a FW upgrade.

In Denon's case, it was initially suggested that Denon's Atmos units would be FW upgradeable to DTS-UHD, as it was then known, but then this was dropped because DTS have taken so long to bring DTS:X to market that by the time they do, Denon will be already on next year's models and so it wouldn't make sense commercially for them to allow a FW upgrade to older models as it would cannibalise sales of the new models. However, the soon-to-be-released Denon 7200 'flagship' unit WILL be FW upgradeable to DTS:X it seems, because the flagship units have a 2 year life cycle. So there are various possible reasons why a FW upgrade may/may not happen. In the case of Onkyo it could be either of the above postulations, neither, or something entirely different. 

Of course, all owners of existing unis would want to see a FW upgrade possible, even if it meant paying for it, Auro-style. But whether it will happen is doubtful. I guess we will see later this year.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. It is what it is and I enjoyed it quite a bit. There is, as I hope I conveyed, a lot to like. By way of contrast, tonight's movie is *Calvary.*


I haven't seen _Calvary_ yet (I just now added it to my Netflix queue), but I loved _The Guard_, likewise written and directed by John Michael McDonagh and also starring the incomparable Brendan Gleeson.

Keith, you need to put that inner 13-year-old of yours into a sugar-induced coma and concentrate on your more discerning movie-watching!

(Then maybe Mrs. Keith and the girls will be willing to join you in the Hobbit theatre.)


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I haven't seen _Calvary_ yet (I just now added it to my Netflix queue), but I loved _The Guard_, likewise written and directed by John Michael McDonagh and also starring the incomparable Brendan Gleeson.


Yes - and if you haven't seen *In Bruges *yet, this is another you need to add to the list. 



chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, you need to put that inner 13-year-old of yours into a sugar-induced coma and concentrate on your more discerning movie-watching!


Oh I like all sorts of movies. TNMT was, IMO, a good fun experience and, as I said in my report, there is much to like in it if one goes beyond plot and acting. There's much more to a movie, for me, than just the latter two elements.



chi_guy50 said:


> (Then maybe Mrs. Keith and the girls will be willing to join you in the Hobbit theatre.)


And you are seeing this as A Good Thing?


----------



## Bumper

@Keith,

Too many posts to track m all but since you got all four Atmos titles, you should be able to answer my question: I got the Step Up movie in Atmos and do not get any sound out of FH R&L but do get sound out of TM R&L. Do you hear the same thing? If so, did you or someone check this again after reconfiguring the speakers to TF & TR?
I really wondered why there is no sound coming at all from two of the four Top speakers but since your Turtle review I am not that surprised anymore.
The Expendables use all four just like T4 does.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course, all owners of existing unis would want to see a FW upgrade possible, even if it meant paying for it, Auro-style. But whether it will happen is doubtful. I guess we will see later this year.


Yes after spending 1,500 to 2,000 we all wish for a firmware upgrade.. yes and I'll wait and see and prepare myself for the next cycle of receivers but I'm more then content with DSU and Atmos..


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with all that. I am in no way disappointed that I upgraded, but it is entirely due to DSU. DSU adds so much to the experience that, like you, I have it as my default sound mode. And wrt to DTS:X, yes, I am happy to wait. By the time there is genuine DTS:X content, it will probably be time to upgrade (again) anyway.
> 
> Like I said, would people be happy to spend $$$ on a subwoofer and for it to sit there silently almost all the time? I don't think so. It's solely the lack of use of the overheads with true Atmos content that I take issue with.







I am going to pass on this entire Atmos ceiling speaker gimmickry for a while. There is still not enough home Atmos content available to make a conclusion on how the mixers employed "proper mixing techniques"* to the Atmos sound tracks.


There will be a lot of complaints about Atmos soundtracks just as there are for deep subwoofer frequencies on the soundtracks. Sooner or later there will be an Atmos soundtrack thread that rates the amount of use of the ceiling speakers. The bass to the subwoofer thread already exists.






Note: * means proper mixing technique is end user defined.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bumper said:


> @Keith,
> 
> Too many posts to track m all but since you got all four Atmos titles, you should be able to answer my question: I got the Step Up movie in Atmos and do not get any sound out of FH R&L but do get sound out of TM R&L. Do you hear the same thing? If so, did you or someone check this again after reconfiguring the speakers to TF & TR?
> I really wondered why there is no sound coming at all from two of the four Top speakers but since your Turtle review I am not that surprised anymore.
> The Expendables use all four just like T4 does.


Hey Bumper - I don't have Step Up unfortunately. I drew the line there  The four titles I have are:

_*Transformers: Age of Extinction
The Expendables 3*_
*Overheard 3 *(Hong Kong movie)
*Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*

I did get sound from all 4 overhead speakers here (FH+TM) with TNMT but only occasionally, hence my disappointment. Overall the movie has an exceptionally good soundtrack.


----------



## Bumper

^

Never heard of *Overheard 3.*
I was relating to the 4 titles listed on the Dolby site:
*http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html*

I kind of drew the line just before the Ninja Turtles

I moved my seating row about 40 cm forward and will move my TM speakers about 50 cm more backward putting them into TR spec and leaving space in between for an extra middle pair as soon as 7 or 9.1.6 becomes available. So I can start running new calibrations to check if there are differences in sound and even answer my own question two posts above.


----------



## blastermaster

> It makes me ponder the thousands of posts in this thread agonising over what type of overhead speakers to use, where they should be placed, is 3° out-of-spec going to ruin the experience and so on. From what I am hearing from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (and we said the same about the 'flagship' Atmos Bluray of Transformers: Age of Extinction, remember) my answer seems to be: fit anything you like wherever you like. It really doesn’t matter much. Go for minuscule Bose cubes or JBL's biggest suitable Pro monitors. Given that 99% of the time they will be doing nothing, why worry?


The way I see it, movies in Atmos are going to get better and better, just like Dolby surround movies have gotten vastly better over the years. I think they will eventually make more use of the overheads. Also, there's DTS:X on the horizon which may make better use of the overheads as well. The recommendation is to have full range speakers that can handle high output, so that's what I went with. Yes, I spent more than buying tiny little fartboxes which may or may not serve its function well, but I see it as extra insurance in case they are called into action. 

Then again, from what I've seen of the add on modules for floor standing speakers and the Atmos enabled speakers, there's no way in hell those upward firing woofers are full range and high output. So maybe you're right.


----------



## Kain

The post about minimal to no use of the overhead speakers during Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the actual Atmos mix got me thinking whether or not you can enable/use the DSU on an actual Atmos track? Is it even possible to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos track? If so, what exactly happens? Or, if you do enable DSU on an Atmos track, does it automatically switch to the "discrete" TrueHD (non-Atmos) track?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - and if you haven't seen *In Bruges *yet, this is another you need to add to the list.


Oh yes, terrific flick, that!



kbarnes701 said:


> Oh I like all sorts of movies. TNMT was, IMO, a good fun experience and, as I said in my report, there is much to like in it if one goes beyond plot and acting. There's much more to a movie, for me, than just the latter two elements.


And to me, subpar plot and acting = movie not worth watching.



kbarnes701 said:


> And you are seeing this as A Good Thing?


No, just "having you on" as you Limeys are wont to say. (Speaking of which, _The Limey_, another good movie starring a British actor, Terence Stamp.)


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> The post about minimal to no use of the overhead speakers during Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the actual Atmos mix got me thinking whether or not you can enable/use the DSU on an actual Atmos track? Is it even possible to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos track? If so, what exactly happens? Or, if you do enable DSU on an Atmos track, does it automatically switch to the "discrete" TrueHD (non-Atmos) track?


Once the receiver sees the Atmos metadata, it's too late.

On some discs, non-Atmos soundtracks are available, too.

To use DSU on an actual Atmos soundtrack, though, turn off bitstreaming in the player (e.g. turn on "secondary audio mix"), so the player sends LPCM to the receiver. When the player decodes the audio into LPCM, it strips off the Atmos metadata, so it's not available for the receiver to decode.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> Is it even possible to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos track? If so, what exactly happens?


Atmos already scales itself to all the available speakers. What more would DSU do?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Atmos already scales itself to all the available speakers. What more would DSU do?


As Keith has pointed out, DSU actually makes use of the overheads, even in situations where the original Atmos soundtrack doesn't. Granted you aren't hearing the sound as the mixer intended, but if you get more enjoyment from the results, I think that's what matters.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> As Keith has pointed out, DSU actually makes use of the overheads, even in situations where the original Atmos soundtrack doesn't.


It can do this to an Atmos track?


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> It can do this to an Atmos track?



Maybe if sent in LPCM?


----------



## BigScreen

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks for the suggestion but have you been to the Marcus DLX? Marcus Addison & Orland Park DLX theaters don't have Atmos capability as far as I could tell. I never heard the atmos sound @ either of those theaters. I see the speakers in the ceiling but I don't hear anything coming from overhead unless if something has changed since September... it's a real shame because those recliners at the addison location = awesome.


The only two DLX auditoriums I've been to are the Marcus Renaissance Cinema in Sturtevant and the Marcus North Shore Cinemas in Mequon (both in Wisconsin). I haven't seen any Atmos presentations in the North Shore location, but I've seen a few at the Renaissance, and I've been pretty happy with them (most recent visit was last week to see the final Hobbit movie).

Marcus doesn't make it easy to find Atmos presentations, but according to Marcus' site, Unbroken is playing at the Addison location in Atmos, but Orland Park does not list Atmos as an amenity for their presentation of Unbroken, even though the graphic just below the theater photo says that their UltraScreen is Atmos-equipped. Orland Park is not branding their UltraScreen as DLX, so they must not have the reclining seats there? Like I said, they make it very difficult to find information that one would think they should be highlighting.

We don't have any recent Reader Comments for either location, so I don't have anything to reference in regards to the quality of the presentations there.


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> Maybe if sent in LPCM?


How would you send a decoded Atmos track to a pre-pro?


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> How would you send a decoded Atmos track to a pre-pro?



Decode TrueHD in the player or send analog 7.1? Wouldn't be Atmos anymore, so then could apply DSU? They want more overhead activity that they get with DSU over Atmos mixes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> The post about minimal to no use of the overhead speakers during Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the actual Atmos mix got me thinking whether or not you can enable/use the DSU on an actual Atmos track? Is it even possible to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos track? If so, what exactly happens? Or, if you do enable DSU on an Atmos track, does it automatically switch to the "discrete" TrueHD (non-Atmos) track?


You can do it if you feed your AVR the PCM track by letting the player do the decoding. Then it will be seen by the AVR as just regular 7.1. I intend to try that with TNMT to see if I actually find it more enjoyable than 'true Atmos'. I hope I don't


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> The way I see it, movies in Atmos are going to get better and better, just like Dolby surround movies have gotten vastly better over the years. I think they will eventually make more use of the overheads. Also, there's DTS:X on the horizon which may make better use of the overheads as well. The recommendation is to have full range speakers that can handle high output, so that's what I went with. Yes, I spent more than buying tiny little fartboxes which may or may not serve its function well, but I see it as extra insurance in case they are called into action.
> 
> Then again, from what I've seen of the add on modules for floor standing speakers and the Atmos enabled speakers, there's no way in hell those upward firing woofers are full range and high output. So maybe you're right.


Yes, good points. But if we go by Transformers 4 and TMNT, pretty much anything would do. It doesn’t take much of a speaker to reproduce more or less nothing 

But yeah, I hope you are right.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> And to me, subpar plot and acting = movie not worth watching.


Yes, that's fair enough. I see it differently - I am interested in all aspects of movie making and can enjoy a movie with poor acting if, for example, it has a brilliant score, or exceptional editing, or amazing cinematography. Blimey, I can even enjoy extraordinarily good foley effects if it comes to that.




chi_guy50 said:


> No, just "having you on" as you Limeys are wont to say. (Speaking of which, _The Limey_, another good movie starring a British actor, Terence Stamp.)


Oh yes. One of my favorite movies of all time. That scene where Terence Stamp's character explains what's going on to the local head of Police, in Cockney English, is just so, so funny. A great movie all round. I will counter your Limey example with *Red Rock West* and *The Last Seduction*. Both very fine movies and both very 'American'.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> As Keith has pointed out, DSU actually makes use of the overheads, even in situations where the original Atmos soundtrack doesn't. Granted you aren't hearing the sound as the mixer intended, but if you get more enjoyment from the results, I think that's what matters.


Or, in the case of Transformers 4 or TMNT, you actually engage the overhead speakers for more than 1% of the time


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It can do this to an Atmos track?


It will if it's sent PCM won't it? It will just see the soundtrack as a regular soundtrack then and DSU will kick in and make the overhead speakers earn their keep. It won’t be 'proper' of course, but it will, perhaps, be more entertaining. I'm just ticked off that the true Atmos movies I have barely light up the speakers I installed at so much cost and effort. DSU, OTOH...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> In my short report earlier, I hope I didn't give the impression that TMNT sounds like a traditional soundtrack. I think it sounds much better than that, thanks to Atmos. My disappointment was solely with the lack of content in the overheads, again.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be. A lot of everyone in any profession needs to go back to school IME, but TNMT had Erik Aadahl on its credits, which is even more reason to expect a stellar result. HST, he also did the sound design for Transformers 4 so maybe he just doesn't like putting much in the overheads. I wonder why Erik is credited at the end of the movie but not on IMDB for that movie?


I think a case has to be made that a lot of the 3D "action" seems to be derived in the side and rear arrays where effects and dialog are routed to individual speakers within those arrays for more pin point accuracy. However, with these mainstream products, the emphasis is mostly on the traditional 5.1 and 7.1 layout. What I heard, for example, with _Gravity _in Atmos, would require more side and rear speakers... off-screen dialog that occurred just to the left or right of the screen were picked up by the front side surrounds (or "wides" in home theater parlance). 

Since overheads are such a new phenomenon in sound mixing, it seems like many mixers are still hesitant to use them to the fullest... barring a Renaissance in sound engineering techniques happening quickly, that leads me to believe Dolby should have companies like Denon and Yamaha put more emphasis on additional main layer speaker outputs rather than just heavily promoting the overheads. Lay people are going to be disappointed when they put so much effort into installing these speakers, only to find they're hardly ever used, and that wouldn't help with wide spread adoption.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since overheads are such a new phenomenon in sound mixing, it seems like many mixers are still hesitant to use them to the fullest... barring a Renaissance in sound engineering techniques happening quickly, that leads me to believe Dolby should have companies like Denon and Yamaha put more emphasis on additional main layer speaker outputs rather than just heavily promoting the overheads. Lay people are going to be disappointed when they put so much effort into installing these speakers, only to find they're hardly ever used, and that wouldn't help with wide spread adoption.


Yes, people could be disappointed. But only if they have been led to believe that overhead effects are the be-all and end-all of Atmos. If they rightly understand there is much more to it than that, maybe they won't be quite so disappointed. Of course, you are quite right: after going to the trouble and expense of installing speakers on the ceiling, it seems reasonable that people will expect them to make a fair bit of noise - not just 1% of the time. 

I love what DSU does for immersion in the sound with legacy content. And I love what Atmos does for the extra precision in the entire soundstage. Is it too much to ask to have both at the same time?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, people could be disappointed. But only if they have been led to believe that overhead effects are the be-all and end-all of Atmos. If they rightly understand there is much more to it than that, maybe they won't be quite so disappointed. Of course, you are quite right: after going to the trouble and expense of installing speakers on the ceiling, it seems reasonable that people will expect them to make a fair bit of noise - not just 1% of the time.
> 
> I love what DSU does for immersion in the sound with legacy content. And I love what Atmos does for the extra precision in the entire sound stage. Is it too much to ask to have both at the same time?


And that's the problem in the marketing and promotion of home Atmos... they really do push the overhead layer as the end all be all. That may be because_ most _receivers and pre-amp's, at least for the time being, do not have anything more than 7.1 main layer outputs. The only way to go for them is "up."

Oh, I'm with you, Keith, I want my cake and I want to eat it with a healthy dollop of ice cream too! 

I wonder if DTS will make the same early promotional mistake as Dolby and their partners?


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> Wouldn't be Atmos anymore, so then could apply DSU?


Here's the original question I replied to:


Kain said:


> Is it even possible to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos track? If so, what exactly happens?


To answer the question accurately, are the three people (Selden, jpco, Keith) that responded to my reply talking about applying DSU to the Atmos track (like the original question asked) or to a 7.1 downmix of the Atmos track? Which is it?


----------



## jpco

Downmix. No, not a real Atmos track. While it makes no sense nor would it be possible to apply DSU to an Atmos track, it seems that some prefer DSU upmixes to the limited Atmos releases thus far.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Just finished watching Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes with DSU engaged and if I didn't know any better I would of thought this was actual Dolby Atmos. I couldn't believe how great this sounded. Looking forward to my next viewing of some titles I own with DSU engaged.


----------



## tj21

Expendables 3 has great use of the tops - the first scene with the helicopter for example. The rotor noise is tracked precisely in each cut. Inside the train and in the fortress hangar you hear echoes. If you disable Atmos decoding and enable DSU on True-HD decoded soundtrack (pretty easy with HTPC) all that is missing. Much more music and ambiance goes into the top but no helicopter noise. Similarly in the Amaze trailer the rain is completely missing. So DSU can extend the ambiance but it cannot do the precise object placement. While it might be obvious do not expect miracles from DSU.

Tomas


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wonder if DTS will make the same early promotional mistake as Dolby and their partners?


I think that when it all boils down and the dust settles DTS / Atmos or what ever it is. I liken it to when the first introduction of 3D everyone wanted a gimmicky 3D effect that things jumped out from the screen but it's more about visual immersion. The same with Atoms / DTS it will be about immersion... mind you I would love to see more use of the ceiling speakers.. but what I have seen the dept and immersion is what is the desired effect.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BigScreen said:


> The only two DLX auditoriums I've been to are the Marcus Renaissance Cinema in Sturtevant and the Marcus North Shore Cinemas in Mequon (both in Wisconsin). I haven't seen any Atmos presentations in the North Shore location, but I've seen a few at the Renaissance, and I've been pretty happy with them (most recent visit was last week to see the final Hobbit movie).
> 
> Marcus doesn't make it easy to find Atmos presentations, but according to Marcus' site, Unbroken is playing at the Addison location in Atmos, but Orland Park does not list Atmos as an amenity for their presentation of Unbroken, even though the graphic just below the theater photo says that their UltraScreen is Atmos-equipped. Orland Park is not branding their UltraScreen as DLX, so they must not have the reclining seats there? Like I said, they make it very difficult to find information that one would think they should be highlighting.
> 
> We don't have any recent Reader Comments for either location, so I don't have anything to reference in regards to the quality of the presentations there.


I'm guessing this could be a regional issue... maybe the district manager or whoever was responsible for the installation messed up out here. I may go back to test out those theaters again... but that's an expensive test!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I will counter your Limey example with *Red Rock West* and *The Last Seduction*. Both very fine movies and both very 'American'.


Thanx for those recommendations; I will be sure to check them out (even if they are "very American"). _Red Rock West_ reminds me (in title and subject matter) of John Sturges' _Bad Day at Black Rock_ (1955), a terrific Spencer Tracy quasi-western/mystery with an interesting sociological subtext. The cafe brawl where our one-armed protagonist is provoked by the bully played by Ernest Borgnine is memorable and was probably the inspiration for Sean Connery's "only my right thumb" barroom brawl takedown in_ The Presidio_.

Added for your viewing enjoyment:

Spencer Tracy one-arms Ernest Borgnine into submission:






Sean Connery "thumbs" his nose at a barroom bully:


----------



## freakyguy666

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - that's part of the 1%. Was that, plus the other occasional uses, sufficient for you in a 141 minute movie? Try isolating your overhead speakers and playing the movie. You won't be disturbing anyone  And remember I listen at -5dB. For the overheads-only test, I listened at -2dB!
> 
> Where is the use of object mixing in the sense of using the overhead speakers in conjunction with the listener level speakers in order to render sounds three-dimensionally in the entire soundstage, for example?
> 
> I didn't say there were *no* occasions when the overheads were not employed - just that they were barely deployed most of the time. I find this disappointing. I intend to watch this movie in straight 7.1 using DSU (I'll feed PCM to the AVR) and I am betting I find it a superior presentation than 'genuine' Atmos. If that is so, it can't be right surely?


One of the things that most people don't understand about ATMOS is that is only requires anything above a 5.1 to ACTIVATE. In other words, a 7.1 or 9.1 or 11.1 would ALL be sufficient to utilize ATMOS. The overhead speakers ARE NOT MANDATORY!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

freakyguy666 said:


> One of the things that most people don't understand about ATMOS is that is only requires anything above a 5.1 to ACTIVATE. In other words, a 7.1 or 9.1 or 11.1 would ALL be sufficient to utilize ATMOS. The overhead speakers ARE NOT MANDATORY!


You _do_ have to tell the receiver or pre-amp you have either overhead or "enabled" speakers. Otherwise Atmos decoding is not enabled and you get a 5.1 downmix or 7.1 track if playing a movie with Atmos extensions.


----------



## freakyguy666

Dan Hitchman said:


> You _do_ have to tell the receiver or pre-amp you have either overhead or "enabled" speakers. Otherwise Atmos decoding is not enabled and you get a 5.1 downmix or 7.1 track if playing a movie with Atmos extensions.


Maybe with your receiver....but it is NOT a requirement from DOLBY! It also explains why many tracks sound better with the overheads BARELY used.

Just another reason why those considering ATMOS should hold off...


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Everything I've read about Exodus' sound mix does not give high marks to the cinema Atmos version... it too sounds like a traditional soundtrack.
> 
> A lot of sound designers need to go back to audio design school IMHO.


I went to the theater last year, and 'Exodus' was playing next besides us. @ the end of the show ('Exodus') people were walking out with 'cold' faces. 
...Just an observation. ...I don't think it was in Dolby Atmos though.


----------



## blastermaster

> Expendables 3 has great use of the tops - the first scene with the helicopter for example. The rotor noise is tracked precisely in each cut. Inside the train and in the fortress hangar you hear echoes. If you disable Atmos decoding and enable DSU on True-HD decoded soundtrack (pretty easy with HTPC) all that is missing. Much more music and ambiance goes into the top but no helicopter noise. Similarly in the Amaze trailer the rain is completely missing. So DSU can extend the ambiance but it cannot do the precise object placement. While it might be obvious do not expect miracles from DSU.
> 
> Tomas


Good to hear. So there is hope for good use of ceiling speakers. It reinforces my argument that you can't go wrong getting good speakers. I have upgraded my fronts three times now and each time the upgrade is substantial if not jaw dropping, yet my receiver and the movies are still the same. Even if the sounds coming out of the ceiling speakers are minor compared with the rest of the mix, the differences in audio fidelity will be more than subtle between a good speaker and one that's not up to the task.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden said:


> As Keith has pointed out, *DSU actually makes use of the overheads, even in situations where the original Atmos soundtrack doesn't*.





Sanjay said:


> It can do this to an Atmos track?


Abso!utely not. 

* What he meant is from an audio soundtrack; one that is output as multichannel 5.1 or 7.1 LPCM by the player, irrelevant if it was originally encoded as Dolby Atmos or not. You get no discrete 3D object rendition here, be there overhead and all around. 

But you knew that already.


----------



## NorthSky

*'TMNT'*; is that a good flick, ...I mean is it worth purchasing on Blu-ray?


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> One of the things that most people don't understand about ATMOS is that is only requires anything above a 5.1 to ACTIVATE. In other words, a 7.1 or 9.1 or 11.1 would ALL be sufficient to utilize ATMOS. The overhead speakers ARE NOT MANDATORY!


Not sure I understand your statement


----------



## freakyguy666

bargervais said:


> Not sure I understand your statement


Why?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> You _do_ have to tell the receiver or pre-amp you have either overhead or "enabled" speakers. Otherwise Atmos decoding is not enabled and you get a 5.1 downmix or 7.1 track if playing a movie with Atmos extensions.


Dan, hopefully 'Gravity' on Blu-ray Dolby Atmos (3D version) will sound awesome, with music coming from the overhead speakers. 
Is it for March 2015? ...Do we know yet if the 3D version would be included in that "spatial" package?


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Why?


I was hoping you could clarify It may have gone over my head I just don't understand what your statement was talking about call me a bit thick.


----------



## freakyguy666

bargervais said:


> I was hoping you could clarify It may have gone over my head I just don't understand what your statement was talking about call me a bit thick.


Do you understand what ATMOS is?

Do you understand what 7.1 or 9.1 is?

If so, then the post should be self explanatory.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Do you understand what ATMOS is?
> 
> Do you understand what 7.1 or 9.1 is?
> 
> If so, then the post should be self explanatory.


Thanks  I'm a bit rusty I haven't a clue.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I love what DSU does for immersion in the sound with legacy content.


Just finished a John McClaine-a-thon... Die Hard 1-4. These were all my old DTS 5.1 DVDs with DSU engaged.

They sound fantastic really, much better than the video.

There was one point in #3 where they are inside the hold of a ship. My girlfriend paused the movie and asked me if I heard the ship sounds coming from the TR speakers. I realized I hadn't specifically noticed it...I was fairly immersed. I backed up a little bit and sure enough there were some engine noises. Very cool.

Your suggestion for lowering my speakers seems to have helped as well. I can definitely tell a difference in the overall sound in a good way.


----------



## jpco

So can an Atmos track be played on a 7.1 Atmos-enabled system and have any benefit from the object-based mix?


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> So can an Atmos track be played on a 7.1 Atmos-enabled system and have any benefit from the object-based mix?


The ONLY way to get an Atmos track to play/decode on current consumer gear is to designate at least 2 speakers as heights.


----------



## Roger Dressler

freakyguy666 said:


> Maybe with your receiver....but it is NOT a requirement from DOLBY!* It also explains why many tracks sound better with the overheads BARELY used.*


The reason folks report better performance from Atmos mixes that have little height content is due not to the Atmos decoder, but to the mixing folks putting in more panned effects into the room. It's a lot more enticing to do so when mixing in an Atmos dubbing stage than a 5.1 stage. That more effective panning is just as evident when playing the Atmos movie on a standard 7.1 system.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> The ONLY way to get an Atmos track to play/decode on current consumer gear is to designate at least 2 speakers as heights.


I think there is a semantics issue. If I have a Blu-ray disc with an Atmos track, and I am playing that track, does it change to a non-Atmos track if I tell my decoder to present it in 7.1? Or does it become a non-Atmos track if my receiver only understands the core 7.1 channels? 

I think we have to focus on how the track is being played in order to avoid confusion. 
Can one play an Atmos track with DSU? Yes, but only if the Atmos-specific content is not being decoded. The height channels only can be fed from one process at a time, either the Atmos encoded signals, or the DSU upmixed signals. Not both. Take your pick.


----------



## Roger Dressler

jpco said:


> So can an Atmos track be played on a 7.1 Atmos-enabled system and have any benefit from the object-based mix?


Assuming the 7.1 is conventional 7.1 (4 surrounds) and not 5.1.2, not currently. But it could do so in future were that enabled in the decoder. It would have to do with customizing the playback, as opposed to getting a better 7.1 rendition.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> If I have a Blu-ray disc with an Atmos track, and I am playing that track, does it change to a non-Atmos track if I tell my decoder to present it in 7.1?


Yes.


> Or does it become a non-Atmos track if my receiver only understands the core 7.1 channels?


Yes.


> Can one play an Atmos track with DSU?


No.


> I think we have to focus on how the track is being played in order to avoid confusion.


Or use labels like "Atmos track" and "7.1 downmix" to avoid confusion.


----------



## Roger Dressler

^^ If I play the Dolby Digital track on a DVD, is not still the Dolby Digital track when it is output from the player as stereo?

I submit it is still the Dolby Digital track that I am accessing and playing. It is still the Atmos track I am access and playing. Or the Auro Track. Or the DTS track. The issue is _how _it is being played, not whether it is being played. IMHO. 

But we do not have to agree or pick one interpretation over the other. All we have to do is try to be more clear when we write.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> The reason folks report better performance from Atmos mixes that have little height content is due not to the Atmos decoder, but to the mixing folks putting in more panned effects into the room. It's a lot more enticing to do so when mixing in an Atmos dubbing stage than a 5.1 stage.
> *That more effective panning is just as evident when playing the Atmos movie on a standard 7.1 system.*


From a Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP), or from a non-Dolby Atmos unit, or both?


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with all that. I am in no way disappointed that I upgraded, but it is entirely due to DSU. DSU adds so much to the experience that, like you, I have it as my default sound mode. And wrt to DTS:X, yes, I am happy to wait. By the time there is genuine DTS:X content, it will probably be time to upgrade (again) anyway.
> 
> *Like I said, would people be happy to spend $$$ on a subwoofer and for it to sit there silently almost all the time? * I don't think so. It's solely the lack of use of the overheads with true Atmos content that I take issue with.


Once you get your system to a certain performance level, then many start pursuing that one percent. Funny that you mentioned subs and asked if people would be happy if they were only used for one percent of a movie. I have a sub system that can do clean reference levels down into single digits (six subs, lots of wattage and PEQ down low). Probably less than 1% of a movie has content down in the single digits. Heck very few movies even have content that low, but it does not stop my enjoyment when hearing this content in a movie. Most of the time I listen to movies, between -5 to reference.


----------



## freakyguy666

Roger Dressler said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe with your receiver....but it is NOT a requirement from DOLBY!* It also explains why many tracks sound better with the overheads BARELY used.*
> 
> 
> 
> The reason folks report better performance from Atmos mixes that have little height content is due not to the Atmos decoder, but to the mixing folks putting in more panned effects into the room. It's a lot more enticing to do so when mixing in an Atmos dubbing stage than a 5.1 stage. That more effective panning is just as evident when playing the Atmos movie on a standard 7.1 system.
Click to expand...

Not true. While the "mixing folks" may very well institute better panning effects, the fact remains, THE ATMOS MIX CAN BE PLAYED ON 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1 configuration. This is straight from the head of research at Dolby.


----------



## freakyguy666

Roger Dressler said:


> ^^ If I play the Dolby Digital track on a DVD, is not still the Dolby Digital track when it is output from the player as stereo?
> 
> I submit it is still the Dolby Digital track that I am accessing and playing. It is still the Atmos track I am access and playing. Or the Auro Track. Or the DTS track. The issue is _how _it is being played, not whether it is being played. IMHO.
> 
> But we do not have to agree or pick one interpretation over the other. All we have to do is try to be more clear when we write.


ATMOS is ATMOS whether it's played via a 7.1 or a 5.1.2. Just as a Lossless track is Lossless whether it's played on a 5.1 or 9.1.


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> jpco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can an Atmos track be played on a 7.1 Atmos-enabled system and have any benefit from the object-based mix?
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY way to get an Atmos track to play/decode on current consumer gear is to designate at least 2 speakers as heights.
Click to expand...

INCORRECT. Using current ATMOS software, you would be able to play an actual ATMOS MIX if you have anything ABOVE a 5.1 (ie 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1). This is directly from Dolby head of research.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> If I play the Dolby Digital track on a DVD, is not still the Dolby Digital track when it is output from the player as stereo?


If you play the 5.1 DTS core from a 7.1 Master Audio track, is it still not the lossless track when it is output from the player via S/PDIF?


> But we do not have to agree or pick one interpretation over the other. All we have to do is try to be more clear when we write.


Fair enough. When objects are being decoded, I'll refer to it as the Atmos track. Otherwise I'll call it what it is: a TrueHD 7.1 downmix. DSU can be applied to the latter, but not the former.


----------



## sdurani

freakyguy666 said:


> INCORRECT. Using current ATMOS software, you would be able to play an actual ATMOS MIX if you have anything ABOVE a 5.1 (ie 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1). This is directly from Dolby head of research.


Wouldn't matter if you got it from the ghost of Ray Dolby himself. Nobody has to take my word for it; anyone can try it for themselves: set up an Atmos AVR or pre-pro for 7.1 or 9.1 playback with no height speakers designated, play an Atmos encoded soundtrack, see what the front panel of the AVR reports. It will say TrueHD 7.1, not Atmos.


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> INCORRECT. Using current ATMOS software, you would be able to play an actual ATMOS MIX if you have anything ABOVE a 5.1 (ie 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1). This is directly from Dolby head of research.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't matter if you got it from the ghost of Ray Dolby himself. Nobody has to take my word for it; anyone can try it for themselves: set up an Atmos AVR or pre-pro for 7.1 or 9.1 playback with no height speakers designated, play an Atmos encoded soundtrack, see what the front panel of the AVR reports. It will say TrueHD 7.1, not Atmos.
Click to expand...

Ray Dolby would have no clue anyway as ATMOS for the home wasn't his baby. 

Your dismissal of this information based on your inept receiver speaks volumes of your level of insight. Here's a tip: not all receivers are created equal.


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> When objects are being decoded, I'll refer to it as the Atmos track.



So objects require at least two height channels? Does that mean the only benefit for systems that don't have Atmos height will be if mixers use the tools to create better 5.1 or 7.1 mixes that really could have been done all along?


----------



## NorthSky

> When objects are being decoded, I'll refer to it as the Atmos track. Otherwise I'll call it what it is: a TrueHD 7.1 downmix. DSU can be applied to the latter, but not the former.


100% correct.


----------



## NorthSky

jpco said:


> So objects require at least two height channels? Does that mean the only benefit for systems that don't have Atmos height will be if mixers use the tools to create better 5.1 or 7.1 mixes that really could have been done all along?


That, is a very good point.


----------



## groundtrac

I have also jumped on the Atmos bandwagon and find it one of the most interesting additions to audio in some time. I purchased a Marantz 7009. I do not want to drill holes in the ceiling for overheads, so I purchased to pair of the Onkyo up-firing modules. Let's just say I am completely underwhelmed by their build quality and performance, they will be returned this week. Thankfully, they did tickle my audio bone and got me even more fired up about Atmos. 

I have read more pages than I can count in this nearly 600 page thread. I have a question and am really looking for the simplest answer. I want to use a front and rear set of satellites aimed at the ceiling and create my own "atmos enabled module". How far down from the ceiling should they be, and what is the ANGLE I am looking for for them to be effective? Is this all based on where my main listening position is, or is it more general than that? If this has previously been answered, I am more than happy with a link. Thanks again everyone.


----------



## freakyguy666

jpco said:


> So can an Atmos track be played on a 7.1 Atmos-enabled system and have any benefit from the object-based mix?


YES. ABSOLUTELY! Anything above 5.1 will allow you to hear the actual ATMOS Mix--NOT ATMOS folded down to 7.1 True HD!

DO NOT LET THE MISINFORMED POSTERS ON HERE MISLEAD YOU. THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE HEAD OF RESEARCH AT DOLBY.


----------



## NorthSky

groundtrac said:


> I have also jumped on the Atmos bandwagon and find it one of the most interesting additions to audio in some time. I purchased a Marantz 7009. I do not want to drill holes in the ceiling for overheads, so I purchased to pair of the Onkyo up-firing modules. Let's just say I am completely underwhelmed by their build quality and performance, they will be returned this week. Thankfully, they did tickle my audio bone and got me even more fired up about Atmos.
> 
> I have read more pages than I can count in this nearly 600 page thread. I have a question and am really looking for the simplest answer. I want to use a front and rear set of satellites aimed at the ceiling and create my own "atmos enabled module". How far down from the ceiling should they be, and what is the ANGLE I am looking for for them to be effective? Is this all based on where my main listening position is, or is it more general than that? If this has previously been answered, I am more than happy with a link. Thanks again everyone.


♦ www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-Enabled-Speaker-Technology.pdf

♦♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> So objects require at least two height channels?


The way Atmos is currently implemented on consumer gear, an Atmos soundtrack will not decode (objects won't be unpacked) unless at least one pair of speakers is designated as heights.


> Does that mean the only benefit for systems that don't have Atmos height will be if mixers use the tools to create better 5.1 or 7.1 mixes that really could have been done all along?


That's already happening: the advent of Atmos is having an effect as movie mixes are starting to become more aggressive with panning sounds to the surround field than they used to be prior to Atmos.


----------



## zeus33

freakyguy666 said:


> YES. ABSOLUTELY! Anything above 5.1 will allow you to hear the actual ATMOS Mix--NOT ATMOS folded down to 7.1 True HD!
> 
> DO NOT LET THE MISINFORMED POSTERS ON HERE MISLEAD YOU. THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE HEAD OF RESEARCH AT DOLBY.



YOU are wrong! PERIOD! Do some research before you spout off and try to correct other people. Your so called "head of research at Dolby" is either a bold faced lie, or the "guy" is clueless about his own products (not going to happen).

It has been confirmed with multiple owners with multiple brands of Atmos receivers, that you CAN NOT decode an Atmos track without overhead (or Dolby Atmos enabled) speakers. You will only get True HD.

Straight from Dolby's Atmos page on their site:

_*Basic Setup
*
*You will need at least two speakers, either overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled, that can generate overhead sound and objects.* For the best reproduction of Dolby Atmos, we recommend four speakers.

Dolby Atmos home theaters can be built upon traditional 5.1 and 7.1 layouts. For Dolby Atmos, the nomenclature differs slightly: a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos system is a traditional 7.1 layout with four ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers.

The AVR automatically optimizes the Dolby Atmos playback for your speaker complement and layout._


From: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html


----------



## freakyguy666

zeus33 said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES. ABSOLUTELY! Anything above 5.1 will allow you to hear the actual ATMOS Mix--NOT ATMOS folded down to 7.1 True HD!
> 
> DO NOT LET THE MISINFORMED POSTERS ON HERE MISLEAD YOU. THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE HEAD OF RESEARCH AT DOLBY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are wrong! PERIOD! Do some research before you spout off and try to correct other people. Your so called "head of research at Dolby" is either a bold faced lie, or the "guy" is clueless about his own products (not going to happen).
> 
> It has been confirmed with multiple owners with multiple brands of Atmos receivers, that you CAN NOT decode an Atmos track without overhead (or Dolby enabled) speakers. You will only get True HD.
> 
> Straight from Dolby's Atmos page on their site:
> 
> _*Basic Setup
> *
> *You will need at least two speakers, either overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled, that can generate overhead sound and objects.* For the best reproduction of Dolby Atmos, we recommend four speakers.
> 
> Dolby Atmos home theaters can be built upon traditional 5.1 and 7.1 layouts. For Dolby Atmos, the nomenclature differs slightly: a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos system is a traditional 7.1 layout with four ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> The AVR automatically optimizes the Dolby Atmos playback for your speaker complement and layout._
> 
> 
> From: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html
Click to expand...

Nope. YOU ARE WRONG. 

ANY CONFIGURATION ABOVE 5.1 WILL ENABLE YOU TO HEAR THE ATMOS (not 7.1 true hd) MIX!

Just because your receiver doesn't currently allow it does not mean the above statement is wrong. 

Get a clue before you post your BS!


----------



## ambesolman

freakyguy666 said:


> Nope. YOU ARE WRONG.
> 
> ANY CONFIGURATION ABOVE 5.1 WILL ENABLE YOU TO HEAR THE ATMOS (not 7.1 true hd) MIX!
> 
> Just because your receiver doesn't currently allow it does not mean the above statement is wrong.
> 
> Get a clue before you post your BS!



I'm running 9.2 and I only get true hd. So why am I not hearing the atmos mix?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

Say you have a normal 7.1-channel setup, and no overhead speakers installed, but you do have a Dolby Atmos receiver. 
Now, in the speaker's configuration, you lie (cheat), and enabled all the speakers (7.1.4): What happens? ...When playing 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray.


----------



## freakyguy666

ambesolman said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. YOU ARE WRONG.
> 
> ANY CONFIGURATION ABOVE 5.1 WILL ENABLE YOU TO HEAR THE ATMOS (not 7.1 true hd) MIX!
> 
> Just because your receiver doesn't currently allow it does not mean the above statement is wrong.
> 
> Get a clue before you post your BS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running 9.2 and I only get true hd. So why am I not hearing the atmos mix?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still
Click to expand...

Because your hardware manufacturer failed to enable it.


----------



## NorthSky

Can he ask for his money back?


----------



## ambesolman

freakyguy666 said:


> Because your hardware manufacturer failed to enable it.



Now I'm confused. You said anything more than 5.1 and I'll hear the atmos mix. I have 9.2 but don't hear the atmos mix, just true hd. So it would seem to me that more is required to hear the atmos mix than just having more than 5.1, even though you say that my 9.2 setup should be sufficient simply because it's more speakers. So now you're saying this isn't the case?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

*'TMNT' in Dolby Atmos - Blu-ray*



> *With overhead speakers silent for 99% of the time, do we need to look elsewhere for the benefits of Atmos?*


♦ *dts:X* ?



> Go into your home theater expecting 141 minutes of fun and I doubt you will be disappointed.


♦ Ok, I'll bite; I am going to purchase that Blu-ray flick. :nerd: ...Just don't tell Dan. 



> Go in expecting your overhead speakers to do much at all and you will be sorely disappointed.


♦ It don't truly matter. First I don't have a Dolby Atmos SSP, yet. Second, we still have sound object rendition (@ floor level: ears level), with pinpoint imaging all over the horizontal plane, and a little vertically even without much content coming from above our heads (ceiling speakers).
And third, I can set my BD player to output LPCM (HDMI Audio Out), and use DSU when I'll get my next Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D/dts:X - HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 pre/pro. ...Because so far DSU seems to be the real deal, even more so than Dolby Atmos.


----------



## freakyguy666

ambesolman said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hardware manufacturer failed to enable it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm confused. You said anything more than 5.1 and I'll hear the atmos mix. I have 9.2 but don't hear the atmos mix, just true hd. So it would seem to me that more is required to hear the atmos mix than just having more than 5.1, even though you say that my 9.2 setup should be sufficient simply because it's more speakers. So now you're saying this isn't the case?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still
Click to expand...

If your receiver allowed it, then the Dolby ATMOS renderer, which is embedded within your receiver, would decode the ATMOS track and play it thru you 9.2 set-up. Unfortunately, YOUR HARDWARE MANUFACTURER had inadvertently prevented you from doing so by not allowing ATMOS decoding to occur unless you indicate you have Overhead speakers. 

This may be corrected in firmware soon. Otherwise you may have to buy another receiver that does not require Overhead speakers to allow ATMOS decoding.


----------



## NorthSky

Very interesting.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> From a Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP), or from a non-Dolby Atmos unit, or both?


Both.


----------



## Roger Dressler

freakyguy666 said:


> Not true. While the "mixing folks" may very well institute better panning effects, the fact remains, *THE ATMOS MIX CAN BE PLAYED ON 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1 configuration.* This is straight from the head of research at Dolby.


Of course it can. I said nothing different.



freakyguy666 said:


> ATMOS is ATMOS whether it's played via a 7.1 or a 5.1.2. Just as a Lossless track is Lossless whether it's played on a 5.1 or 9.1.


Of course it can. I said nothing different. 

What I am saying it that the benefits of more adventurous lateral panning in Atmos mixes that little use the height speakers (TF4, TMNT) are just as audible on a normal 7.1 system. It does not require an Atmos decoder to hear that.


----------



## freakyguy666

Roger Dressler said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. While the "mixing folks" may very well institute better panning effects, the fact remains, *THE ATMOS MIX CAN BE PLAYED ON 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1 configuration.* This is straight from the head of research at Dolby.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. I said nothing different.
Click to expand...

So you agree that overhead speakers are not needed to play the ATMOS (object based) track. Your post wasn't clear on this point


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> If you play the 5.1 DTS core from a 7.1 Master Audio track, is it still not the lossless track when it is output from the player via S/PDIF?


I have selected the lossless DTS track. That's what the disc menu let's me see. There's no place to select the lossy core on the audio options. Hence I am playing the lossless track. What I am hearing is something different. In this case, because I am using the S/PDIF, I will either get the 5.1 lossy core, or a 2-ch lossless stereo downmix, depending.



> Fair enough. When objects are being decoded, I'll refer to it as the Atmos track. Otherwise I'll call it what it is: a TrueHD 7.1 downmix. DSU can be applied to the latter, but not the former.


It's all a matter of perspective -- the point of reference. I'm looking at it from the disc perspective -- you are looking at it from the decoder perspective. Either is fine as long as the reader does not get confused.


----------



## Roger Dressler

freakyguy666 said:


> So you agree that overhead speakers are not needed to play the ATMOS (object based) track. Your post wasn't clear on this point


There is no choice on the Atmos BD title to play anything but the Atmos track (if one wants the main soundtrack). The decoder will do what it has to do to make that work for the particular capabilities of the system.

But I am also saying that when playing the Atmos track on a current generation Atmos capable AVR, in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup without height speakers, the sound produced comes directly from the 7.1 core channels. The objects are ignored. It will be identical to any other 5.1 or 7.1 AVR.


----------



## Roger Dressler

freakyguy666 said:


> Nope. YOU ARE WRONG.
> 
> ANY CONFIGURATION ABOVE 5.1 WILL ENABLE YOU TO HEAR THE ATMOS (not 7.1 true hd) MIX!
> 
> Just because your receiver doesn't currently allow it does not mean the above statement is wrong.
> 
> Get a clue before you post your BS!


Try not to have an aneurism. This is a hobby. You can stop shouting now. 

No current Atmos AVR will decode the Atmos objects unless height speakers are available. I am confident that future ones will do so, however.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> Say you have a normal 7.1-channel setup, and no overhead speakers installed, but you do have a Dolby Atmos receiver.
> Now, in the speaker's configuration, you lie (cheat), and enabled all the speakers (7.1.4): What happens? ...When playing 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray.


You hear the 7.1 bed channels and any objects that need them (lateral pans or low altitude flying objects). Any objects aimed only to the upper elevations will be inaudible.


----------



## tj21

freakyguy666 said:


> Get a clue before you post your BS!


OMG! Are we adults or crying kids?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Here's the original question I replied to: To answer the question accurately, are the three people (Selden, jpco, Keith) that responded to my reply talking about applying DSU to the Atmos track (like the original question asked) or to a 7.1 downmix of the Atmos track? Which is it?


The latter. makes no sense to apply DSU to an Atmos track, even if it were possible.


----------



## kbarnes701

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Once you get your system to a certain performance level, then many start pursuing that one percent. Funny that you mentioned subs and asked if people would be happy if they were only used for one percent of a movie. I have a sub system that can do clean reference levels down into single digits (six subs, lots of wattage and PEQ down low). Probably less than 1% of a movie has content down in the single digits. Heck very few movies even have content that low, but it does not stop my enjoyment when hearing this content in a movie. Most of the time I listen to movies, between -5 to reference.


I agree. But your subs are not silent for 99% of the time. They may only be digging real deep 1% of the time but they are active for almost all of the rest of the 99% too, assuming an 80Hz or so XO, or higher). The Atmos overheads are *actually silent most of the time*. That was my point.


----------



## kbarnes701

It's freaky how my Ignore list gets a little longer almost every day ...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

good example of not needing an action movie to make use of DSU : *Se7en*

envleopment helps build the suspense even more than the movie does on its own...awesome


----------



## petetherock

@Keith:

Interesting observation about the lack of activity in the Atmos ceiling speakers.. does that occur when you are using the DSU mode for non Atmos BR discs?

I wonder aloud if Auro / DTS will also be more like garnishing rather than salt and sauce i.e. frills rather than really adding to the whole HT immersive experience?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> It's freaky how my Ignore list gets a little longer almost every day ...


I also like to use the report button, it's like a global ignore button with a bit of luck.


----------



## CBdicX

groundtrac said:


> I have also jumped on the Atmos bandwagon and find it one of the most interesting additions to audio in some time. I purchased a Marantz 7009. I do not want to drill holes in the ceiling for overheads, so I purchased to pair of the Onkyo up-firing modules. Let's just say I am completely underwhelmed by their build quality and performance, they will be returned this week. Thankfully, they did tickle my audio bone and got me even more fired up about Atmos.
> 
> I have read more pages than I can count in this nearly 600 page thread. I have a question and am really looking for the simplest answer. I want to use a front and rear set of satellites aimed at the ceiling and create my own "atmos enabled module". How far down from the ceiling should they be, and what is the ANGLE I am looking for for them to be effective? Is this all based on where my main listening position is, or is it more general than that? If this has previously been answered, I am more than happy with a link. Thanks again everyone.



I also use 4 standard satellite speakers for Atmos use and it works great. Did have the Onkyo speakers for testing and like you did not like the way they look.
So i use Magnat Needle Sat speakers that blend nice with my Boston M340 speakers.


Benefit of these speakers are that they can be rotated 180 degree in the vertical plane so no restriction in the angle you want to use.
I just aimed them on sight, no specific messure methode, just aimed the fonts on 20-25 degree and the back 30-35 degree as they a further away from the MLP.
And it works........


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> good example of not needing an action movie to make use of DSU : *Se7en*
> 
> envleopment helps build the suspense even more than the movie does on its own...awesome


A good reminder for me that it's been too long since I revisited that movie. Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> @Keith:
> 
> Interesting observation about the lack of activity in the Atmos ceiling speakers.. does that occur when you are using the DSU mode for non Atmos BR discs?


Oh no - quite the reverse. With DSU on legacy content the overheads are active almost all the time. I am intending to rewatch TMNT using PCM so that I can then use DSU on the soundtrack, for comparison with the genuine Atmos track. I suspect that I will still prefer the Atmos track because Atmos seems to add quite a lot to the 'listener level' experience, but the difference 'above' me will make an interesting comparison.



petetherock said:


> [MENTION=136]
> I wonder aloud if Auro / DTS will also be more like garnishing rather than salt and sauce i.e. frills rather than really adding to the whole HT immersive experience?


Don't know. I won't be bothering with Auro so that isn't an issue here. I will probably go with DTS:X at some stage, if there is content, or if I read very good things about its upmixer.


----------



## robert816

CBdicX said:


> I also use 4 standard satellite speakers for Atmos use and it works great. Did have the Onkyo speakers for testing and like you did not like the way they look.
> So i use Magnat Needle Sat speakers that blend nice with my Boston M340 speakers.
> 
> 
> Benefit of these speakers are that they can be rotated 180 degree in the vertical plane so no restriction in the angle you want to use.
> I just aimed them on sight, no specific messure methode, just aimed the fonts on 20-25 degree and the back 30-35 degree as they a further away from the MLP.
> And it works........


Those are rather interesting looking for "fake Atmos" modules.

I assume you bought or built the base, but did the mounting bracket come with the Magnat's or a seperate purchase?


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> .
> 
> Don't know. I won't be bothering with Auro so that isn't an issue here. I will probably go with DTS:X at some stage, if there is content, or if I read very good things about its upmixer.


I too I'm not interested in Auro, DTS:X is another story I too will at some stage upgrade but that will be down the road let's hope 2015 will be the year of Atmos with an abundance of Atmos blu-rays. Next blu-rays coming with Atmos are John Wick, Gravity, and Exodus. I'm very happy with my decision for being an early adopter.


----------



## CBdicX

robert816 said:


> Those are rather interesting looking for "fake Atmos" modules.
> 
> I assume you bought or built the base, but did the mounting bracket come with the Magnat's or a seperate purchase?


When you buy the Magnat's you get the wall brackets.
I mounted the brackets on a 14x14 cm 20mm thick particleboard (i hope its called like this ?) and your ready to go.
The Magnat's are good but cheap Sat speakers, all Aluminium, Magnat has them for over 7 years now and they are on the bottom of the price range now.
You get 4 for just 100 euro !!
They are rated at 75 - 30.000 Hz, 88 dB, 70 watt
I have the x-over at 100 Hz for the Height speakers.


You can get them in Silver or Black.


----------



## lujan

I hope this is the right thread to post this question? Can anyone recommend some good Dolby Atmos speakers to get to connect with my existing NHT 7.1 speaker setup? Would any Atmos certified speakers work? I am looking to add to an existing setup and not sure if the speakers that you place on top of existing speakers where the sound bounces to the ceiling would be adequate or do I need to get the ceiling speakers (2 or 4)? Just exploring at this point and still need to look into an Atmos receiver as well.


----------



## robert816

CBdicX said:


> When you buy the Magnat's you get the wall brackets.
> I mounted the brackets on a 14x14 cm 20mm thick particleboard (i hope its called like this ?) and your ready to go.
> The Magnat's are good but cheap Sat speakers, all Aluminium, Magnat has them for over 7 years now and they are on the bottom of the price range now.
> You get 4 for just 100 euro !!
> They are rated at 75 - 30.000 Hz, 88 dB, 70 watt
> I have the x-over at 100 Hz for the Height speakers.
> 
> 
> You can get them in Silver or Black.


Wow! Nice find!

It looks like you did a great job with mounting them too!

I used KEF KHT 2005.2 series "egg" speakers for my "fake Atmos" speakers. Nice thing with these are you can mount the base in several different locations on the back to achieve the angle you need for them to work properly as Atmos speakers. I'll use these until I find something better.


----------



## briansxx

Roger Dressler said:


> Try not to have an aneurism. This is a hobby. You can stop shouting now.
> 
> No current Atmos AVR will decode the Atmos objects unless height speakers are available. I am confident that future ones will do so, however.


Not sure that you can't do it now. I notice in my Onkyo 636 manual it states: "To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height speakers or Surround Back speakers need to be installed." This would suggest that you can just plug in a conventional 7.1 speaker system and play Atmos. I'm using Dolby-enabled modules, so I have not tried the surround back option.

Best,

Brian


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The latter. makes no sense to apply DSU to an Atmos track, even if it were possible.


Hence my original reply, until you, Selden and jpco responded with an explanation of how it could be done.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Hence my original reply, until you, Selden and jpco responded with an explanation of how it could be done.


I never said it could be done. I said that you could use DSU on the Atmos content if you sent PCM to the AVR instead of a bitstream - IOW, if you 'turn Atmos off' and have just the original 7.1 content to play with.


----------



## sdurani

freakyguy666 said:


> If your receiver allowed it...


Which receiver allows it?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> IOW, if you 'turn Atmos off' and have just the original 7.1 content to play with.


That's why I asked for clarification. The original question asked about applying DSU to Atmos, not 7.1.


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your receiver allowed it...
> 
> 
> 
> Which receiver allows it?
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed both Roger's post & Brian's subsequent post, as it appears both their receivers allow it...for starters.


----------



## sdurani

freakyguy666 said:


> Apparently you missed Roger's post as it appears his is one that allows it...for starters.


Nope, he said the opposite: 


Roger Dressler said:


> *No* current Atmos AVR will decode the Atmos objects unless height speakers are available.





Roger Dressler said:


> I am also saying that when playing the Atmos track on a current generation Atmos capable AVR, in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup without height speakers, the sound produced comes directly from the 7.1 core channels. *The objects are ignored.* It will be identical to any other 5.1 or 7.1 AVR.


----------



## CBdicX

lujan said:


> I hope this is the right thread to post this question? Can anyone recommend some good Dolby Atmos speakers to get to connect with my existing NHT 7.1 speaker setup? Would any Atmos certified speakers work? I am looking to add to an existing setup and not sure if the speakers that you place on top of existing speakers where the sound bounces to the ceiling would be adequate or do I need to get the ceiling speakers (2 or 4)? Just exploring at this point and still need to look into an Atmos receiver as well.



Any speaker would do, certified or not........
Also "bouncers" or ceiling speakers are both ok, its just what is the most convenient for you to use.


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you missed Roger's post as it appears his is one that allows it...for starters.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he said the opposite:
> 
> 
> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No* current Atmos AVR will decode the Atmos objects unless height speakers are available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also saying that when playing the Atmos track on a current generation Atmos capable AVR, in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup without height speakers, the sound produced comes directly from the 7.1 core channels. *The objects are ignored.* It will be identical to any other 5.1 or 7.1 AVR.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Did you read Brianxxx' post wrt to his Onkyo??


----------



## smurraybhm

freakyguy666 said:


> Apparently you missed both Roger's post & Brian's subsequent post, as it appears both their receivers allow it...for starters.


Please share what receiver you have that allows you listen to the Atmos track with only 7 or 5 speakers active. I need to ask for a refund since my receiver will not do that without a proper Atmos configuration - 2 or 4 speakers up top. If I turn off the the overheads - then I am getting the 7.1 mix (True-HD) - not the Atmos mix.


----------



## sdurani

freakyguy666 said:


> Did you read Brianxxx' post wrt to his Onkyo??


He's using virtual height speakers (Atmos-enabled modules).


----------



## briansxx

sdurani said:


> He's using virtual height speakers (Atmos-enabled modules).


True, Sanjay. I just wanted to point out that the manual states that you can use Surround Back instead of Height or Atmos-enabled modules and still get Atmos. I have not tried to do this, however.

Best,

Brian


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read Brianxxx' post wrt to his Onkyo??
> 
> 
> 
> He's using virtual height speakers (Atmos-enabled modules).
Click to expand...

The Onkyo manual specifically states "To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height 1 speakers or surround back speakers need to be installed."

Surround Back speakers are NOT defined as virtual height speaker. They are the Back Surrounds in a 7.1 configuration. Capisce???


----------



## sdurani

briansxx said:


> I have not tried to do this, however.


Can you temporarily re-configure in the set-up menu for surround-backs and no heights to see if the Atmos track decodes?


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> briansxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not tried to do this, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you temporarily re-configure in the set-up menu for surround-backs and no heights to see if the Atmos track decodes?
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in this outcome as well. 

In the interim, please fast forward to the ~27:30 mark in this video and listen to what Brett Crockett states. http://youtu.be/3GQ-fxj3t6k


----------



## freakyguy666

smurraybhm said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you missed both Roger's post & Brian's subsequent post, as it appears both their receivers allow it...for starters.
> 
> 
> 
> Please share what receiver you have that allows you listen to the Atmos track with only 7 or 5 speakers active. I need to ask for a refund since my receiver will not do that without a proper Atmos configuration - 2 or 4 speakers up top. If I turn off the the overheads - then I am getting the 7.1 mix (True-HD) - not the Atmos mix.
Click to expand...

Please share where you saw me write that you could listen to the ATMOS track with only 5 speakers active.


----------



## Selden Ball

briansxx said:


> Not sure that you can't do it now. I notice in my Onkyo 636 manual it states: "To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height speakers or Surround Back speakers need to be installed." This would suggest that you can just plug in a conventional 7.1 speaker system and play Atmos. I'm using Dolby-enabled modules, so I have not tried the surround back option.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian


I believe that this particular confusion of terminology in the Onkyo manual is happening because Onkyo uses the "Surround Back" pair of outputs both for ear-height Rear Surround and for overhead speakers. See pages 24 and 45 of the 636's Atmos manual. In other words, Onkyo uses both terms because those are the names on that pair of outputs. They don't mean Back outputs or Height outputs. They mean "Back or Height" outputs -- "Back or Height" is their name for that particular pair of outputs.


----------



## freakyguy666

Roger Dressler said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. YOU ARE WRONG.
> 
> ANY CONFIGURATION ABOVE 5.1 WILL ENABLE YOU TO HEAR THE ATMOS (not 7.1 true hd) MIX!
> 
> Just because your receiver doesn't currently allow it does not mean the above statement is wrong.
> 
> Get a clue before you post your BS!
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to have an aneurism. This is a hobby. You can stop shouting now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No current Atmos AVR will decode the Atmos objects unless height speakers are available. I am confident that future ones will do so, however.
Click to expand...

Not shouting. Just trying to prevent the spread of misinformation by posters. 

To wit, the ONKYO Atmos capable receivers' manuals specifically state:
"To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height 1 speakers or surround back speakers need to be installed."

Seems like you stand corrected. Try not to have an "aneurysm". ;-)


----------



## freakyguy666

Selden Ball said:


> briansxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure that you can't do it now. I notice in my Onkyo 636 manual it states: "To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height speakers or Surround Back speakers need to be installed." This would suggest that you can just plug in a conventional 7.1 speaker system and play Atmos. I'm using Dolby-enabled modules, so I have not tried the surround back option.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that this particular confusion of terminology in the Onkyo manual is happening because Onkyo uses the "Surround Back" pair of outputs both for ear-height Rear Surround and for overhead speakers. See pages 24 and 45 of the 636's Atmos manual. In other words, Onkyo uses both terms because those are the names on that pair of outputs. They don't mean Back outputs or Height outputs. They mean "Back or Height" outputs -- "Back or Height" is their name for that particular pair of outputs.
Click to expand...

INCORRECT. 

ONKYO describes the rear surrounds input as "Surround Back". The Overhead (height) rear speakers are referred to as "Height 2" on their 11.2 capable receiver (3030). Look at the 3030 manual.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> INCORRECT.
> 
> ONKYO describes the rear surrounds input as "Surround Back". The Overhead (height) rear speakers are referred to as "Height 2" on their 11.2 capable receiver (3030). Look at the 3030 manual.


Do you have an Atmos receiver....you could do all your experimentation yourself and report back you findings... I'm still not understanding your point. It's actually very simple you either listen in Atmos with an Atmos blu-ray or you listen in Dolby Surround.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. But your subs are not silent for 99% of the time. They may only be digging real deep 1% of the time but they are active for almost all of the rest of the 99% too, assuming an 80Hz or so XO, or higher). The Atmos overheads are *actually silent most of the time*. That was my point.


My mains have 18's. I cross at 40hz. If all I was trying to do was get reference level down to 20hz, I could have gotten by with less than half the cost of my subs. I was referring to the extra cost to be able to get to hear that extra 1%. In other words, my system may not sound much different than another person's system for 99% of the movie, but when that really low note comes in, then there is a difference. It is all about what you are willing to spend to get that extra bit of performance. Same goes for room correction. Audyssey does a fine job, but Dirac should get you a little better performance. That is why we are both interested in the new product from MiniDSP. We want that little bit of extra performance that it should give us.


----------



## freakyguy666

bargervais said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> INCORRECT.
> 
> ONKYO describes the rear surrounds input as "Surround Back". The Overhead (height) rear speakers are referred to as "Height 2" on their 11.2 capable receiver (3030). Look at the 3030 manual.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an Atmos receiver....you could do all your experimentation yourself and report back you findings... I'm still not understanding your point. It's actually very simple you either listen in Atmos with an Atmos blu-ray or you listen in Dolby Surround.
Click to expand...

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? 

You don't need overhead sound to listen to the Atmos mix. You only need a 7.1 or above & an ATMOS Capable receiver. It may not be the OPTIMUM manner in which to listen to the ATMOS track as you may miss some overhead details, but if recent reviews are any indication, the overheads are used ~1% of the time anyway so how much you'll be missing that is debatable.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
> 
> You don't need overhead sound to listen to the Atmos mix. You only need a 7.1 or above & an ATMOS Capable receiver. It may not be the OPTIMUM manner in which to listen to the ATMOS track as you may miss some overhead details, but if recent reviews are any indication, the overheads are used ~1% of the time anyway so how much you'll be missing that is debatable.


I guess my point is why would you buy an Atmos receiver if all you want is 7.1 9.1 or 11.1 .... some mixes are reporting ~1% for overheads I believe that's on a couple of blu-rays. I'm very confident that as Atmos matures you'll see a lot more use of the overhead speakers.. listening in DSU the ceiling speakers sing quite nicely.. What Atmos receiver do you have.


----------



## harrybnbad

I thought this was a discussion on atmos avr's. Not afew kids at middleschool recess.....


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> I thought this was a discussion on atmos avr's. Not afew kids at middleschool recess.....


Yes sorry I got caught up.. recess is over now back on topic.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> It's freaky how my Ignore list gets a little longer almost every day ...


Yeah...what an ass. There's my first one.

Thanks Keith for all of your levelheadedness, good discussion points, and suggestions.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> It's all a matter of perspective -- the point of reference. I'm looking at it from the disc perspective -- you are looking at it from the decoder perspective. Either is fine as long as the reader does not get confused.


@ the end, it's the sound we get @ our ears that truly counts.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> The reason folks report better performance from Atmos mixes that have little height content is due not to the Atmos decoder, but to the mixing folks putting in more panned effects into the room. It's a lot more enticing to do so when mixing in an Atmos dubbing stage than a 5.1 stage. That more effective panning is just as evident when playing the Atmos movie on a standard 7.1 system.





NorthSky said:


> From a Dolby Atmos receiver (or/& SSP), or from a non-Dolby Atmos receiver (or/& SSP), or from both?





Roger Dressler said:


> Both.


♦ Ok, very good to know.



NorthSky said:


> Say you have a normal 7.1-channel setup, and no overhead speakers installed, but you do have a Dolby Atmos receiver.
> Now, in the speaker's configuration, you lie (cheat), and enabled all the speakers (7.1.4): What happens? ...When playing 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray.





Roger Dressler said:


> You hear the 7.1 bed channels and any objects that need them (lateral pans or low altitude flying objects).
> Any objects aimed only to the upper elevations will be inaudible.


1. No overhead speakers, no upper elevation sounds: check.
2. So you do have some Atmos flavor on a lateral plane, with whatever object rendition is in there ("lower altitude"). ...Cool.


----------



## briansxx

I'll experiment tonight with the config menu on the Onkyo and let you know the results.

Best,
Brian


----------



## NorthSky

> It's freaky how my Ignore list gets a little longer almost every day ...


Soon you'll be talking all by yourself.


----------



## NorthSky

Mashie Saldana said:


> I also like to use the report button, it's like a global ignore button with a bit of luck.


More often than not the complainers are the ones who get "globally ignored" the most. 

* Curious; do you have a Dolby Atmos receiver; and if yes which movie did you recently watch with the DSU engaged. ...Thank you.


----------



## freakyguy666

bargervais said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
> 
> You don't need overhead sound to listen to the Atmos mix. You only need a 7.1 or above & an ATMOS Capable receiver. It may not be the OPTIMUM manner in which to listen to the ATMOS track as you may miss some overhead details, but if recent reviews are any indication, the overheads are used ~1% of the time anyway so how much you'll be missing that is debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my point is why would you buy an Atmos receiver if all you want is 7.1 9.1 or 11.1 .... some mixes are reporting ~1% for overheads I believe that's on a couple of blu-rays. I'm very confident that as Atmos matures you'll see a lot more use of the overhead speakers.. listening in DSU the ceiling speakers sing quite nicely.. What Atmos receiver do you have.
Click to expand...

Have you listened to a 7.1 mix upconverted to 9.1 or 11.1? If so, have you compared that with an ATMOS mix played via a 9.1 or 11.1? If so, then you would realize the improvement is noticeable.

In other words, an Atmos mix is superior to a 7.1 mix EVEN WHEN PLAYED THRU A 7.1 configuration.


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> I also use 4 standard satellite speakers for Atmos use and it works great. Did have the Onkyo speakers for testing and like you did not like the way they look. So i use Magnat Needle Sat speakers that blend nice with my Boston M340 speakers.
> 
> Benefit of these speakers are that they can be rotated 180 degree in the vertical plane so no restriction in the angle you want to use.
> I just aimed them on sight, no specific messure methode, just aimed the fonts on 20-25 degree and the back 30-35 degree as they a further away from the MLP. And it works........


I really like what you did; it's inventive, versatile (flexible with lots of leeway for various angle's aiming), and it looks good. 
Well done, a good way to go!


----------



## lujan

CBdicX said:


> Any speaker would do, certified or not........
> Also "bouncers" or ceiling speakers are both ok, its just what is the most convenient for you to use.


Thanks, bouncers would be 'way' more convenient because I don't have ceiling speakers now and would require someone to come and install for me.


----------



## NorthSky

*Read this!*



briansxx said:


> I just wanted to point out that *the manual states that you can use Surround Back instead of Height or Atmos-enabled modules and still get Atmos*. I have not tried to do this, however.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian


And that, is very very interesting.


----------



## NorthSky

*Another important note to "listen to" here!*



freakyguy666 said:


> In the interim, please fast forward to the *~27:30 mark in this video* and listen to what Brett Crockett states. http://youtu.be/3GQ-fxj3t6k


Abso!utely marve!ous. 
________


----------



## freakyguy666

NorthSky said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the interim, please fast forward to the *~27:30 mark in this video* and listen to what Brett Crockett states. http://youtu.be/3GQ-fxj3t6k
> 
> 
> 
> Abso!utely marve!ous.
> ________
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, some conceited posters here will choose to "ignore" facts. ;-)


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Do you have an Atmos receiver....you could do all your experimentation yourself and report back you findings... I'm still not understanding your point. It's actually very simple you either listen in Atmos with an Atmos blu-ray or you listen in Dolby Surround.


Anyone who has a Dolby Atmos receiver or Dolby Atmos SSP can do it too (experiment). 
...Like yourself for example (with two Atmos receivers), and you can have the very best confirmation ever; your own concrete/solid proof.
...The "overhead" abso!ute truth, and without the overhead speakers (Atmos on/in-ceiling or Atmos-enabled up-firing modules).


----------



## briansxx

NorthSky said:


> Abso!utely marve!ous.
> ________
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GQ-fxj3t6k


Yep--that seems to confirm it pretty definitively, NorthSky. Atmos benefits just about everyone, whether you have it or not.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I guess my point is why would you buy an Atmos receiver if all you want is 7.1 9.1 or 11.1 .... some mixes are reporting ~1% for overheads I believe that's on a couple of blu-rays. I'm very confident that as Atmos matures you'll see a lot more use of the overhead speakers.. listening in DSU the ceiling speakers sing quite nicely.. What Atmos receiver do you have.


♦ Tomorrow will take care of itself I'm sure.
But right now is very very interesting indeed, and that is exactly what's truly fascinating about *Dolby Atmos*.



harrybnbad said:


> I thought this was a discussion on atmos avr's. Not afew kids at middleschool recess.....


♦ This is the official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version), and that is exactly the topic we are 100% in right now (talkin' 'bout).
{...Except for the "good humor" once in a while, but that is good too, as long that it remains positive; I truly think.}


----------



## CBdicX

briansxx said:


> True, Sanjay. I just wanted to point out that the manual states that you can use Surround Back instead of Height or Atmos-enabled modules and still get Atmos. I have not tried to do this, however.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian


 
I use a Integra but i get Atmos only when i use Height1 or Height1 and Height2, and Surround / Surround Back need to be activated.
When i select only Surround / Surround Back the receiver will not select Atmos, it "needs" Height1 / 2 in combination with Surrounds.

You can select, and think this is what the manual means, if the Height speakers (Atmos enabled or not) will be on the Surround, or Surround Back speakers (and the fronts).


----------



## NorthSky

briansxx said:


> I'll experiment tonight with the config menu on the Onkyo and let you know the results.
> 
> Best,
> Brian


That is awesome Brian.


----------



## freakyguy666

briansxx said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abso!utely marve!ous.
> ________
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GQ-fxj3t6k
> 
> 
> 
> Yep--that seems to confirm it pretty definitively, NorthSky. Atmos benefits just about everyone, whether you have it or not.
Click to expand...

Not quite. A 5.1 configuration would not benefit from ATMOS as it could not play that mix. 

FYI, I have been making the same statement throughout this thread only to have others complain and continue to spout false information and expect readers to take them as fact simply because they post more frequently. Says something about the "veterans" on these boards....

In any event, I'm sure many would still appreciate you performing the test as previously indicated.


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> Have you listened to a 7.1 mix upconverted to 9.1 or 11.1? If so, have you compared that with an ATMOS mix played via a 9.1 or 11.1? If so, then you would realize the improvement is noticeable.
> 
> *In other words, an Atmos mix is superior to a 7.1 mix EVEN WHEN PLAYED THRU A 7.1 configuration.*


And if I am perfectly following the Dolby Atmos discussion; this, is obtainable not only from a Dolby Atmos receiver (or pre/pro),
but also from a non-Dolby Atmos receiver (or non-Dolby Atmos SSP). 

Again, that video above, with _Brett Crockett_, is very clear on this Dolby Atmos configuration aspect.


----------



## Scott Simonian

A good mix benefits everyone, Atmos or not.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That's why I asked for clarification. The original question asked about applying DSU to Atmos, not 7.1.


Well that's impossible anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> Unfortunately, some conceited posters here will choose to "ignore" facts. ;-)


Don't give up, you are on the right track to educate some of us here. > ... And that is exactly why we're here in the first place (to learn); @ least I.


----------



## kbarnes701

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> My mains have 18's. I cross at 40hz. If all I was trying to do was get reference level down to 20hz, I could have gotten by with less than half the cost of my subs. I was referring to the extra cost to be able to get to hear that extra 1%. In other words, my system may not sound much different than another person's system for 99% of the movie, but when that really low note comes in, then there is a difference. It is all about what you are willing to spend to get that extra bit of performance. Same goes for room correction. Audyssey does a fine job, but Dirac should get you a little better performance. That is why we are both interested in the new product from MiniDSP. We want that little bit of extra performance that it should give us.


I am sure we are in agreement. I was just trying to point out that people would not be happy if their sub was _totally silent_ for 99% of the time. It's nothing to do with spending extra money for that elusive last 1% (which I agree with). A reasonably decent, reasonably cheap sub is not silent for 99% of the time. Atmos overhead speakers ARE (at least on Transformers 4 and TMNT).


----------



## kbarnes701

harrybnbad said:


> I thought this was a discussion on atmos avr's. Not afew kids at middleschool recess.....


Troll feeding never ends well.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Yeah...what an ass. There's my first one.
> 
> Thanks Keith for all of your levelheadedness, good discussion points, and suggestions.


----------



## NorthSky

briansxx said:


> Yep--that seems to confirm it pretty definitively, NorthSky. Atmos benefits just about everyone, whether you have it or not.


That is also my 100% clear understanding Brian.

So right now I am benefiting from three Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles in my BD movie collection,
and from my non-Dolby Atmos Integra DHC-80.3 pre/pro (XT32 SSP), and I wasn't even aware yet, from reading this thread since last June 2014!
...June 21st, 2014. Only today (Jan. 05, 2015), finally, with the help from another member, *freakyguy666*, and from Roger too, that I woke up.

Sure, it ain't the "complete" deal, but still, some Atmos flavor that all of us can still taste.


----------



## freakyguy666

NorthSky said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you listened to a 7.1 mix upconverted to 9.1 or 11.1? If so, have you compared that with an ATMOS mix played via a 9.1 or 11.1? If so, then you would realize the improvement is noticeable.
> 
> *In other words, an Atmos mix is superior to a 7.1 mix EVEN WHEN PLAYED THRU A 7.1 configuration.*
> 
> 
> 
> And if I am perfectly following the Dolby Atmos discussion; this, is obtainable not only from a Dolby Atmos receiver (or pre/pro),
> but also from a non-Dolby Atmos receiver (or non-Dolby Atmos SSP).
> 
> Again, that video, with Bret, the Dolby guy; is very clear on this aspect.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. You will need an ATMOS capable receiver to play the ATMOS mix. The ATMOS rendering software is the secret sauce that gives the mix object placement. Non-ATMOS receivers will not do so.

The KEY POINT is that you CAN play the ATMOS MIX withOUT overhead speakers as long as you have a 7.1 or better configuration AND an ATMOS capable receiver.


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> A good mix benefits everyone, Atmos or not.


Amen, brotha Scott.


----------



## Mike Garrett

kbarnes701 said:


> I am sure we are in agreement. I was just trying to point out that people would not be happy if their sub was _totally silent_ for 99% of the time. It's nothing to do with spending extra money for that elusive last 1% (which I agree with). A reasonably decent, reasonably cheap sub is not silent for 99% of the time. Atmos overhead speakers ARE (at least on Transformers 4 and TMNT).


We are in agreement. Always chasing that little bit of extra improvement that we can get.  I do think that Atmos is a nice improvement, because of the object based sound and the use of overhead speakers.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Anyone who has a Dolby Atmos receiver or Dolby Atmos SSP can do it too (experiment).
> ...Like yourself for example (with two Atmos receivers), and you can have the very best confirmation ever; your own concrete/solid proof.
> ...The "overhead" abso!ute truth, and without the overhead speakers (Atmos on/in-ceiling or Atmos enabled up-firing).


That's true but I have no need to experiment I'm happy.. my point is why would anyone want to listen to Atmos or DSU without enabled or ceiling speakers. Not sure what the point was to his query.. sorry off topic again. The whole topic of this thread is the best setup for Atmos I already had a 9.1 set up and I listened to T4 and it sounded great but on my TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 it's just more enveloping. I don't wish to experiment with how Atmos discs sound without ceiling or enabled speakers. Keith already reported how the ceiling speakers are used I thank him for that. I want to hear how to setup and get the best results from my Atmos receivers that includes top speakers. Not how you can use an Atmos receiver in a 7.1 setup ignoring the height speakers. I understand not wanting to change your setup and add ceiling or enabled speakers it's a lot of thought and work but that's the whole purpose to get the best results from your setup..


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


>


Oh stop...I'm not asking you to prom or anything. Yet.


----------



## freakyguy666

Scott Simonian said:


> A good mix benefits everyone, Atmos or not.


Yes. But the point is that the true ATMOS MIX is available even for those without overhead speakers as long as they have a 7.1 or better configuration and a capable receiver. And given the reviews recently indicating that the overheads are used ~1% of the time, it would seem that the overhead speakers may, in fact, be redundant.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Oh stop...I'm not asking you to prom or anything. Yet.


LOL. I'm an expensive date...


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> Not quite. *A 5.1 configuration would not benefit from ATMOS as it could not play that mix.*
> 
> FYI, I have been making the same statement throughout this thread only to have others complain and continue to spout false information and expect readers to take them as fact simply because they post more frequently. Says something about the "veterans" on these boards....
> 
> In any event, I'm sure many would still appreciate you performing the test as previously indicated.


So you need a minimum of 7.1-channel configuration? ... EDIT: Yes.

* "Veterans" don't mean much if they bifurcate from the "ultimate information".  ...And from true/solid "sound advice". 
But we still like everyone, no matter what, because we have heart.  ...And nobody is perfect, even when we try very hard our very best. 

...And it's a brand new year too!


----------



## Roger Dressler

briansxx said:


> Not sure that you can't do it now. I notice in my Onkyo 636 manual it states: "To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height speakers or Surround Back speakers need to be installed." This would suggest that you can just plug in a conventional 7.1 speaker system and play Atmos.


You may be right. But in order for the Atmos decoding to activate, the disc would have to be encoded with a 5.1 TrueHD core + Atmos objects. Right now, all Atmos content (even their 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 channel test signals) are encoded with a 7.1-channel TrueHD core. I just tried playing these in the AV7702 configured for 7.1 speakers, and the readout always showed TrueHD. 

This might be one of those capabilities we can never confirm with any real content. Certainly, it is not happening now, so we cannot use that as a reason for subjective performance differences reported between Atmos content and other 7.1 content.


----------



## freakyguy666

Roger Dressler said:


> briansxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure that you can't do it now. I notice in my Onkyo 636 manual it states: "To enjoy the Dolby Atmos listening mode, Height speakers or Surround Back speakers need to be installed." This would suggest that you can just plug in a conventional 7.1 speaker system and play Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right. But in order for the Atmos decoding to activate, the disc would have to be encoded with a 5.1 TrueHD core + Atmos objects. Right now, all Atmos content (even their 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 channel test signals) are encoded with a 7.1-channel TrueHD core. I just tried playing these in the AV7702 configured for 7.1 speakers, and the readout always showed TrueHD.
> 
> This might be one of those capabilities we can never confirm with any real content. Certainly, it is not happening now, so we cannot use that as a reason for subjective performance differences reported between Atmos content and other 7.1 content.
Click to expand...

Not all receivers are created equal. Have you tested the Onkyo 3030 to verify that it will not output ATMOS from an ATMOS disc when the receiver is only recognizing a 7.1 or 9.1 configuration? If not, then please stop using the term "certainly" to describe the possibility today.


----------



## freakyguy666

NorthSky said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. *A 5.1 configuration would not benefit from ATMOS as it could not play that mix.*
> 
> FYI, I have been making the same statement throughout this thread only to have others complain and continue to spout false information and expect readers to take them as fact simply because they post more frequently. Says something about the "veterans" on these boards....
> 
> In any event, I'm sure many would still appreciate you performing the test as previously indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a minimum of 7.1-channel configuration?
> 
> * "Veterans" don't mean much if they bifurcate from the "ultimate information".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...And from true/solid "sound advice".
> But we still like everyone, no matter what, because we have heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...And it's a brand new year too!
Click to expand...

...yes, a 7.1 or higher AND an ATMOS capable receiver that allows you to play the ATMOS mix without overhead speakers, such as the Onkyo 3030 apparently does.


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> Not exactly. You will need an ATMOS capable receiver to play the ATMOS mix. The ATMOS rendering software is the secret sauce that gives the mix object placement. Non-ATMOS receivers will not do so.
> 
> The KEY POINT is that you CAN play the ATMOS MIX withOUT overhead speakers as long as you have a 7.1 or better configuration AND an ATMOS capable receiver.


Yes, I got all that. 
But Roger earlier said that even for people without a Dolby Atmos decoder, we still have a "better", for lack of a better word, audio soundtrack mix (Dolby TrueHD 7.1), which is the core with the main primary audio stems, but still with that Dolby Atmos' intended "affiliation". 
Or simply put; still better than if that Blu-ray disc didn't have a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack to start with.

* Roger, am I partially right?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> That's true but I have no need to experiment I'm happy.. my point is why would anyone want to listen to Atmos or DSU without enabled or ceiling speakers. Not sure what the point was to his query.. sorry off topic again. The whole topic of this thread is the best setup for Atmos I already had a 9.1 set up and I listened to T4 and it sounded great but on my TX-NR 1030 7.2.4 it's just more enveloping. I don't wish to experiment with how Atmos discs sound without ceiling or enabled speakers. Keith already reported how the ceiling speakers are used I thank him for that. I want to hear how to setup and get the best results from my Atmos receivers that includes top speakers. Not how you can use an Atmos receiver in a 7.1 setup ignoring the height speakers. I understand not wanting to change your setup and add ceiling or enabled speakers it's a lot of thought and work but that's the whole purpose to get the best results from your setup..


We're here to learn, to discover, to advance our knowledge, that's all. ...To share what we know too, what we found.
It's up to us the level of our own experimentation. 

- We always refer to ourselves ((me me me)), when in true reality there are way more people around than just us.


----------



## smurraybhm

FH and RH you are correct - those are treated the same as overhead speakers (TF, TM, TB) in the world of Dolby Atmos configuration. Maybe there is a terminology issue going on here? Otherwise if you are only using the traditional 7.1 speaker config it isn't playing the Atmos mix, but is playing the True HD file which will still sound great as Scott pointed out earlier - good mix will sound good. This is not a comment from a "veteran", just someone who has an Atmos receiver and can't get the Atmos on the display without having something up top - be it tops or heights. Then there's the thing called a manual, not all of us are up north in the sky.


----------



## freakyguy666

NorthSky said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. You will need an ATMOS capable receiver to play the ATMOS mix. The ATMOS rendering software is the secret sauce that gives the mix object placement. Non-ATMOS receivers will not do so.
> 
> The KEY POINT is that you CAN play the ATMOS MIX withOUT overhead speakers as long as you have a 7.1 or better configuration AND an ATMOS capable receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I got all that.
> But Roger earlier said that even for people without a Dolby Atmos decoder, we still have a "better", for lack of a better word, audio soundtrack mix (Dolby TrueHD 7.1), which is the core with the main primary audio stems, but still with that Dolby Atmos' intended "affiliation".
> Or simply put; still better than if that Blu-ray disc didn't have a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack to start with.
> 
> * Roger, am I partially right?
Click to expand...

Well as we know the better the mix, the better the mix! But a better non-ATMOS mix is still a non-ATMOS mix. 

That said, I've heard excellent 7.1 True-HD mixes and I'm not convinced that they would be any better if an ATMOS version was "folded-down" to TrueHD 7.1. It may happen on occasion but it would not necessarily follow.


----------



## bkeeler10

Roger Dressler said:


> There is no choice on the Atmos BD title to play anything but the Atmos track (if one wants the main soundtrack). The decoder will do what it has to do to make that work for the particular capabilities of the system.
> 
> But I am also saying that when playing the Atmos track on a current generation Atmos capable AVR, in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup without height speakers, the sound produced comes directly from the 7.1 core channels. The objects are ignored. It will be identical to any other 5.1 or 7.1 AVR.


I almost hate to continue this, but . . . I think the implication of what you are saying is this: Suppose I have a three-year-old AVR (with no Atmos renderer, obviously) set up with the traditional 7.1 layout, and I also have the Denon 5200, for example, set up with an identical traditional 7.1 layout. If I set up my disc player to bitstream, put the Transformers: AOE disc in and select the "Atmos" track from the disc menu, and connect the player to each receiver in turn, the output from both receivers to their respective 7.1 speaker setup will be identical. Both receivers will play the 7.1 core with embedded objects, and not decode the objects separately. Is that correct?

That's how I understood it, but freaky is suggesting otherwise. Just want to be perfectly clear.


----------



## freakyguy666

smurraybhm said:


> FH and RH you are correct - those are treated the same as overhead speakers (TF, TM, TB) in the world of Dolby Atmos configuration. Maybe there is a terminology issue going on here? Otherwise if you are only using the traditional 7.1 speaker config it isn't playing the Atmos mix, but is playing the True HD file which will still sound great as Scott pointed out earlier - good mix will sound good. This is not a comment from a "veteran", just someone who has an Atmos receiver and can't get the Atmos on the display without having something up top - be it tops or heights. Then there's the thing called a manual, not all of us are up north in the sky.


As mentioned, not all receivers are created equal. The Onkyo 3030 apparently WILL play the true ATMOS track as long as you have the back surrounds in a 7.1 (or higher) configuration. This is also backed up by the head of research at Dolby in the video.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> You may be right. But in order for the Atmos decoding to activate, the disc would have to be encoded with a 5.1 TrueHD core + Atmos objects. Right now, all Atmos content (even their 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 channel test signals) are encoded with a 7.1-channel TrueHD core. I just tried playing these in the AV7702 configured for 7.1 speakers, and the readout always showed TrueHD.
> 
> This might be one of those capabilities we can never confirm with any real content. Certainly, it is not happening now, so we cannot use that as a reason for subjective performance differences reported between Atmos content and other 7.1 content.


I understand what you are saying; [email protected] what point can we say with abso!ute confidence that what we're seeing on the Dolby Atmos SSP's screen display is what it truly is? 

Before you mentioned about the disc content, and the audio decoding. ...So that everyone can understand from both perspectives; that, I got.

♦ Here's what I think would be a great experiment: TF4 played in a 7.1-channel system, from the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack (because the Dolby Atmos one cannot be shown onscreen in a situation like this), and then we would need another TF4 Blu-ray disc, but this time without a Dolby Atmos encoded audio soundtrack, just plain vanilla Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround. 
I don't know if and what measurement graphs would show. ...Yes, I have several suspicions, but theories without true objective science are just that.

I think _Brett Crockett_ would know best, or one among the best.


----------



## gbaby

Is it really worth the effort to obtain ATMOS just to hear an occasional overhead sound?


----------



## harrybnbad

While I have yet to make the atmos jump. Still running a 4520 @ 11.2. 

As for the upper ceiling speakers be it. In or on ceiling. I have to believe that the more omph I can get without depending on base management. (Subwoofers) The over all sound HAS TO BE more complete.

I have to think that if this 3d audio, (atmos, etc...) takes off. As these top and upcoming movie producers will start making movies with atmos in mind before they even start shooting any video. So im not worried about how I may only be getting 1 percent of atmos sound right now. I see the usage going up and up, more and more. Not to mention combining filming both 3d video and sound. 

We probably aint seen nothing yet.


----------



## sdurani

briansxx said:


> I'll experiment tonight with the config menu on the Onkyo and let you know the results.


Thanx Brian. Onkyo's own Atmos guide does not list traditional 7.1 as an Atmos configuration, so it will be interesting to see if you can get an Atmos track to decode. 

http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com/#speaker-configurations


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> ...yes, a 7.1 or higher AND an ATMOS capable receiver that allows you to play the ATMOS mix without overhead speakers, such as the Onkyo 3030 apparently does.


Alright, no matter what, you do need a Dolby Atmos receiver (or Atmos SSP). ...And a 7.1-channel setup @ minimum.

And if you don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver (or pre/pro), then you have nothing more than Dolby TrueHD 7.1 when playing 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' on Blu-ray. And even if TF4 wasn't encoded with one Dolby Atmos (option) audio soundtrack, it would sound exactly 100% the very same /\/\ Right?

* When I first played TF4 my HDTV's screen showed Dolby Atmos @ the top as being my first option, for audio selection. I clicked on it, and then the film started not long after (in 3D; so pretty fast).
Then my Integra DHC-80.3 SSP (non-Dolby Atmos) showed me on its front panel display (when clicking "Info" on my remote) > Dolby TrueHD 7.1

And! My ears were totally satisfied by the abso!ute immersive audio soundtrack coming up from my 9.2-channel setup. ...All active channel speakers.
The visuals were splendid, pure candy awesomeness in their primary states (gorgeous colors, accentuated by ultimate contrasts). 
It's a film directed by the _extravagant Michael Bay_. ...And that, is a totally personal taste when it comes to film's real value and all that jazz.
The guy has an eye, a vision, is very sensitive and enthusiast @ the same time but not necessarily one before the other, or after, and not always in perfect harmony together. But he is himself, and for that he is a true genius and money maker (bank machine). 
It's the human acting that is missing a bit I think in most of his flicks. ...But not in all of them because actors and actresses always reflect their own depth through the filmmaker's direction. ...You have to see deeper than what shows up onscreen, @ times.
- Michael is a "car" guy, a commercial salesman, a publicity stuntman, an action man on location, with toys (cars, jet planes, boats, choppers, ...) and cute girls. ...Beautiful looking girls, cars, and other stuff that shows various angles; up in the air and on the ground. 
...Very good too @ slow-mo and car/truck crashes.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Well as we know the better the mix, the better the mix! But a better non-ATMOS mix is still a non-ATMOS mix.
> 
> That said, I've heard excellent 7.1 True-HD mixes and I'm not convinced that they would be any better if an ATMOS version was "folded-down" to TrueHD 7.1. It may happen on occasion but it would not necessarily follow.


well there you go


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gbaby said:


> Is it really worth the effort to obtain ATMOS just to hear an occasional overhead sound?


It really will be once more products come out that include more than just seven main level speakers and include four or more overheads. More action seems to occur around the listener than from above.


----------



## freakyguy666

Dan Hitchman said:


> gbaby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really worth the effort to obtain ATMOS just to hear an occasional overhead sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really will be once more products come out that include more than just seven main level speakers and include four or more overheads. More action seems to occur around the listener than from above.
Click to expand...

This is the mistake most people are making. ATMOS is more than just adding an overhead sound field. It actually allows objects to be rendered in the sound field using 7 or more speakers. ATMOS played via a 7.1 setup should in theory sound better than a true-hd 7.1 track played via the same speaker set-up. And if you have a 9.1 set-up, ATMOS will take advantage of those speakers as well. And if you have an 11.1 set-up, ATMOS will take advantage of those speakers as well. And if you add overheads, ATMOS will take advantage of those too (although the current titles seem to use the ceiling speakers ~1% of the time, so at this time they are less important).


----------



## Kris Deering

Not sure I am in agreement with that last post. When I talked with Dolby at CEDIA they were VERY VERY specific about the fact that EVERYTHING that is in an Atmos mix will be present in the mix played back from a non-Atmos system (read 5.1 or 7.1 Dolby TrueHD). Obviously just mixed down to the proper speakers. So I cannot fathom why an Atmos receiver playing back in 7.1 vs a non-Atmos receiver in 7.1 (using bed channels obviously, not any of the ceiling or height channels) would sound any different. The mix should be identical if Dolby wasn't lying at the show, and this question was asked at nauseum with the same answer over and over again.

I could completely understand what you were going for if the surrounds or rears weren't discrete channels, but since they are there is absolutely no reason they would be treated different.


----------



## freakyguy666

Kris Deering said:


> Not sure I am in agreement with that last post. When I talked with Dolby at CEDIA they were VERY VERY specific about the fact that EVERYTHING that is in an Atmos mix will be present in the mix played back from a non-Atmos system (read 5.1 or 7.1 Dolby TrueHD). Obviously just mixed down to the proper speakers. So I cannot fathom why an Atmos receiver playing back in 7.1 vs a non-Atmos receiver in 7.1 (using bed channels obviously, not any of the ceiling or height channels) would sound any different. The mix should be identical if Dolby wasn't lying at the show, and this question was asked at nauseum with the same answer over and over again.


Just because all the sounds are there doesn't mean they will be "placed" in the sound field indentically.


----------



## Kris Deering

I understand what you are going for here but there would absolutely no reason why they wouldn't be placed the same. The phasing would be the same. And I can't imagine the mixer being happy with something that sounded different in identical speaker setups, kind of defeats the purpose of staying true to the mix.


----------



## htpcforever

Kris Deering said:


> Not sure I am in agreement with that last post. When I talked with Dolby at CEDIA they were VERY VERY specific about the fact that EVERYTHING that is in an Atmos mix will be present in the mix played back from a non-Atmos system (read 5.1 or 7.1 Dolby TrueHD). Obviously just mixed down to the proper speakers. So I cannot fathom why an Atmos receiver playing back in 7.1 vs a non-Atmos receiver in 7.1 (using bed channels obviously, not any of the ceiling or height channels) would sound any different. The mix should be identical if Dolby wasn't lying at the show, and this question was asked at nauseum with the same answer over and over again.
> 
> I could completely understand what you were going for if the surrounds or rears weren't discrete channels, but since they are there is absolutely no reason they would be treated different.


It depends on the types of transformers in the receivers...ones with a toroidial transformer will sound better...especially if it is heavier too.






...runs away...


----------



## Kris Deering

I guess one way to shed more light on this is to have filmmixer chime in. A good question for him would be, if you were making a 7.1 mix (standard 7.1 channels, 5.1 + surround backs) is there anything that the Atmos mixing tools give you that would be a benefit compared to mixing it in standard 7.1 Dolby TrueHD?? Does it give you any ability to better place sounds within the mix? The tools look like it may make things simpler since you could treat things as individual objects, but it doesn't seem like it would offer options for placement that you wouldn't have had making a traditional 7.1 mix. Soundtracks have had "objects" within them since the beginning, Atmos just simply treats them individually for mixing and rendering, but it wasn't like you couldn't isolate a sound within an acoustic space before Atmos.


----------



## gbaby

Dan Hitchman said:


> It really will be once more products come out that include more than just seven main level speakers and include four or more overheads. More action seems to occur around the listener than from above.


I don't mean anything by this, but it seems early ATMOS adopters favor gee whiz effect over sound quality.  Ask yourself, would you prefer and Onkyo ATMOS receiver over a 7.1 Krell Foundation, McIntosh MX-151 or Bryston SP3 processor?


----------



## batpig

freakyguy666 said:


> And if you have an 11.1 set-up, ATMOS will take advantage of those speakers as well. And if you add overheads, ATMOS will take advantage of those too.


How can you have an 11.1 setup WITHOUT overhead speakers?? The "traditional" (tradition being only the past few years) 11.1 setup is the standard 7.1 layout + front wide + front height. The FH speakers ARE overhead speakers, so what you are calling an 11.1 setup is a "9.1.2" setup in Atmos-speak, no? 

Or are you talking about the uber-processors like Trinnov that can have multiple surrounds (e.g. 11 floor level speakers)? 

So that seems to reduce by one the category of setups you need to get apoplectic and condescending about.

So now we are down to 7.1 and 9.1..... with a 7.1 setup, I share Kris Deering's confusion above. The Atmos soundtrack is delivered on BD via a 7.1 TrueHD payload. If I have a standard 7.1 setup, what would it matter if the object metadata were decoded or not, it's a 7.1 track played on 7.1 speakers, right?

So now we are just down to the case of a 9.1 setup -- standard 7.1 + front wide. This seems to be the only relevant situation to merit your childish outrage, where decoding the Atmos track without overheads would enabled superior lateral panning because of the extra listener level speakers that can help render object placement.


----------



## NorthSky

bkeeler10 said:


> I almost hate to continue this, but . . . I think the implication of what you are saying is this: Suppose I have a three-year-old AVR (with no Atmos renderer, obviously) set up with the traditional 7.1 layout, and I also have the Denon 5200, for example, set up with an identical traditional 7.1 layout. If I set up my disc player to bitstream, put the Transformers: AOE disc in and select the "Atmos" track from the disc menu, and connect the player to each receiver in turn, the output from both receivers to their respective 7.1 speaker setup will be identical. Both receivers will play the 7.1 core with embedded objects, and not decode the objects separately. Is that correct?
> 
> That's how I understood it, but freaky is suggesting otherwise. Just want to be perfectly clear.


You put into your own words what I'm also trying to find out.  ...And with great clarity.


----------



## Roger Dressler

freakyguy666 said:


> Not all receivers are created equal. Have you tested the Onkyo 3030 to verify that it will not output ATMOS from an ATMOS disc when the receiver is only recognizing a 7.1 or 9.1 configuration? If not, then please stop using the term "certainly" to describe the possibility today.


I already acknowledged that it is possible the Onkyo AVR could decode the Atmos content in a 7.1 system. But I submit it will not do that when the Atmos track uses a 7.1 core, as it would be pointless (the sound would be the same). Anyone with an Onkyo Atmos out there? Does the display show Atmos decoding in a 7.1 speaker setup?

I also expressed the hope that future Atmos-capable decoders will decode the entire Atmos track, regardless of the number of speakers, even down to 2, as that opens the door to a range of other options and benefits for optimizing the sound for different user conditions. I have seen no evidence that the first-generation decoders support that, however. If they do, maybe that, too, requires special encoding options not yet being exercised.



freakyguy666 said:


> As mentioned, not all receivers are created equal. The Onkyo 3030 apparently WILL play the true ATMOS track as long as you have the back surrounds in a 7.1 (or higher) configuration. This is also backed up by the head of research at Dolby in the video.


Could you please cite where the Dolby person stated this? It would help to see the context of that statement. Thanks. 



freakyguy666 said:


> This is the mistake most people are making. ATMOS is more than just adding an overhead sound field. It actually allows objects to be rendered in the sound field using 7 or more speakers. ATMOS played via a 7.1 setup should in theory sound better than a true-hd 7.1 track played via the same speaker set-up.


Why should it sound any different or better? Does the Onkyo AVR allow you to define alternative speaker positions for the main 7.1 speakers?


----------



## Kris Deering

gbaby said:


> I don't mean anything by this, but it seems early ATMOS adopters favor gee whiz effect over sound quality.  Ask yourself, would you prefer and Onkyo ATMOS receiver over a 7.1 Krell Foundation, McIntosh MX-151 or Bryston SP3 processor?


I think you're opening a can of worms here given the thread comments found throughout this long thread. I agree it does seem like many are hoping for more aggressive use of the overheads and I hope we don't see gimmicky mixes like we see gimmicky 3D, but the flip side is a lot of people want to feel like all that money they spent on the new components, speakers, wires, etc. added something to the mix and not just an occasional blip in the soundtrack.

Besides, if Atmos indeed continues to catch on and grow you'll probably see it in higher end products like those you mentioned in their later models.


----------



## NorthSky

gbaby said:


> Is it really worth the effort to obtain ATMOS just to hear an occasional overhead sound?


Wait for dts:X to complement Dolby Atmos; and then the 'soundmix' competition is going to heat up, overhead. 

I'd say yes. ...And more going forward, I truly believe.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> Is it really worth the effort to obtain ATMOS just to hear an occasional overhead sound?


IDK how often I have to say this: Atmos is about much, much more than 'overhead effects'.


----------



## Roger Dressler

bkeeler10 said:


> I almost hate to continue this, but . . . I think the implication of what you are saying is this: Suppose I have a three-year-old AVR (with no Atmos renderer, obviously) set up with the traditional 7.1 layout, and I also have the Denon 5200, for example, set up with an identical traditional 7.1 layout. If I set up my disc player to bitstream, put the Transformers: AOE disc in and select the "Atmos" track from the disc menu, and connect the player to each receiver in turn, the output from both receivers to their respective 7.1 speaker setup will be identical. Both receivers will play the 7.1 core with embedded objects, and not decode the objects separately. Is that correct?


Yes. Correct.



> That's how I understood it, but freaky is suggesting otherwise. Just want to be perfectly clear.


I am speaking in the context of today's Atmos embodiments, the BD content and the playback hardware as we know them. Freaky may be referring to capabilities that are possible but not yet in practice, and we of course know that object audio in general, and Atmos in particular, are capable of a lot more than what we are seeing in these first-gen products.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I haven't had much time to browse the forums over the holidays... any new Atmos BD's announced after Gravity's Atmos release?


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I guess one way to shed more light on this is to have filmmixer chime in. A good question for him would be, if you were making a 7.1 mix (standard 7.1 channels, 5.1 + surround backs) is there anything that the Atmos mixing tools give you that would be a benefit compared to mixing it in standard 7.1 Dolby TrueHD?? Does it give you any ability to better place sounds within the mix? The tools look like it may make things simpler since you could treat things as individual objects, but it doesn't seem like it would offer options for placement that you wouldn't have had making a traditional 7.1 mix. Soundtracks have had "objects" within them since the beginning, Atmos just simply treats them individually for mixing and rendering, but it wasn't like you couldn't isolate a sound within an acoustic space before Atmos.


Great post Kris.

And every single day I miss *FilmMixer* (Marc Fishman) here. 
{There is also another member here who is too a professional filmmixer for major movie studios; I forgot his name.}

3D surround is a complete sphere. ...Where object locations are finally defined in a 3-dimensional space (spatial imaging horizontally, vertically, diagonally). Finally, with more speakers, above us, and the new DSP/HTFR coding algorithms, filmmixers can truly immerse us like never before. 
And now even more so with the recent new announcement of dts:X audio coding. 
The future looks brighter and brighter. ...And the more channels (speakers), the more fun all around.
And even a 5.1.2 setup is a big improvement. ...So it's all great for EVERYONE. ...Not just for the people with a dedicated home theater room with 34 speakers in it plus 8 subwoofers. 

The _maitrise_ (art of mastering in soundmixing) is in the hands of our movie sound mixers. ...Their new science to master, develop, improve upon.


----------



## CBdicX

freakyguy666 said:


> ...yes, a 7.1 or higher AND an ATMOS capable receiver that allows you to play the ATMOS mix without overhead speakers, such as the Onkyo 3030 apparently does.



No, it will not play Atmos without Height speakers, i can not get the receiver (Integra DTR 70.6) to do that !


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> Does it give you any ability to better place sounds within the mix?


Only IF the Atmos decoder is doing positional rendering. And currently, none are. 

To use an arbitrary example: if a sound is intended to image directly at your side, then the renderer will send it to the side speaker placed at 90 degrees. But what if your side speakers are not at 90 degrees and instead are either forward or rearward of the listening position? Then the renderer can leak some of that object sound to an adjacent speaker to create a phantom image directly at your side, where you were intended to hear it. 

But the only way it can do that is if it knows the locations of your speakers, and that part of Atmos hasn't been implemented on current gear. So in its current incarnation, there is no advantage to unpacking the objects for a traditional 7.1-speaker layout.


----------



## stikle

Kris Deering said:


> the flip side is a lot of people want to feel like all that money they spent on the new components, speakers, wires, etc. added something to the mix and not just an occasional blip in the soundtrack.


I want to, and do believe that DSU is a wonderful thing to have on-hand for traditional 5.1 mixes. It just makes everything, well, more better.

Over the weekend I stopped being concerned whether or not I can get a DTS:X or HDCP 2.2 upgrade and to just enjoy what I now have. Maybe in a couple years 4K will be more prevalent and I'll care then. At such time, I'll just throw money at the "problem" and make it go away.


----------



## Batiatus Rules

gbaby said:


> I don't mean anything by this, but it seems early ATMOS adopters favor gee whiz effect over sound quality.  Ask yourself, would you prefer and Onkyo ATMOS receiver over a 7.1 Krell Foundation, McIntosh MX-151 or Bryston SP3 processor?


Do I have to be able to afford a Rolls Royce in order to get air conditioning?

Just because something costs 3 times that of something else doesn't mean EVERYONE has to have it, buy it and use it. 

And yes, I'd prefer an Onkyo Atmos receiver to something massively more expensive that does less. If those receivers are so great, why can they not produce the same effect that the piddly little (HA) Onkyo's can?

Do you enjoy mono sound from a $12,000 unit?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Awesome.


----------



## NorthSky

Well, I think we had a new regain of energy, an interesting discussion on what it is now and could be tomorrow. ...And members like *freakyguy666* helped in that department too.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Only IF the Atmos decoder is doing positional rendering. And currently, none are.
> 
> To use an arbitrary example: if a sound is intended to image directly at your side, then the renderer will send it to the side speaker placed at 90 degrees. But what if your side speakers are not at 90 degrees and instead are either forward or rearward of the listening position? Then the renderer can leak some of that object sound to an adjacent speaker to create a phantom image directly at your side, where you were intended to hear it.
> 
> But the only way it can do that is if it knows the locations of your speakers, and that part of Atmos hasn't been implemented on current gear. So in its current incarnation, there is no advantage to unpacking the objects for a traditional 7.1-speaker layout.


This I could totally see, and ever since the minute I heard that Atmos was coming to the home I wondered how they would handle this. To me the system would be at its peak if there was a way that the processor would know EXACTLY where the speakers were, not an idea of where they are. How much difference it would truly make is somewhat debatable, but that can be said about a lot of things in this hobby.


----------



## NorthSky

...And about people too?


----------



## gbaby

Batiatus Rules said:


> Do I have to be able to afford a Rolls Royce in order to get air conditioning?
> 
> Just because something costs 3 times that of something else doesn't mean EVERYONE has to have it, buy it and use it.
> 
> And yes, I'd prefer an Onkyo Atmos receiver to something massively more expensive that does less. If those receivers are so great, why can they not produce the same effect that the piddly little (HA) Onkyo's can?
> 
> Do you enjoy mono sound from a $12,000 unit?



You are interpreting my comments from the wrong perspective. Too bad.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> How much difference it would truly make is somewhat debatable, but that can be said about a lot of things in this hobby.


There's probably a threshold for such things. For example, if a sound was supposed to image a few degrees from where a speakers was, then I would not want the renderer to create a phantom image at the precise location. Not worth the inherent instabilities of a phantom image when I don't even know if I would notice such a small difference in location. 

However, if angular difference is larger, then I'd probably notice. My side speakers are at ±80° and the Atmos renderer on current AVRs seems to think that they're located at ±110° (at least from the speaker diagrams in all the instruction manuals I've seen). That's 30 degrees off. Would be nice if the renderer knew that.


----------



## freakyguy666

CBdicX said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...yes, a 7.1 or higher AND an ATMOS capable receiver that allows you to play the ATMOS mix without overhead speakers, such as the Onkyo 3030 apparently does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will not play Atmos without Height speakers, i can not get the receiver (Integra DTR 70.6) to do that !
Click to expand...

That's too bad for you! Not all receivers are created equal. Apparently the Onkyo 3030 can do exactly as I described.


----------



## Al Sherwood

freakyguy666 said:


> That's too bad for you! Not all receivers are created equal. Apparently the Onkyo 3030 can do exactly as I described.


 
Aren't we still waiting for a Onkyo 3030 owner to confirm this? The Integra 70.6 should be nearly identical in operation...


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> Aren't we still waiting for a Onkyo 3030 owner to confirm this? The Integra 70.6 should be nearly identical in operation...


That's what I thought the Integra 70.6 and TX-NR 3030 are basically the same I love my TX-NR 1030 I can't set my height 1 and 2 to none it only goes from 40Hz to 200Hz to test what he's talking about. I'm sorry but I'm not good with playing that experiment stuff. I'll have to leave it for someone else, sorry.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> That's too bad for you! Not all receivers are created equal. Apparently the Onkyo 3030 can do exactly as I described.


Do you have the TX-NR 3030 what receiver do you have.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much difference it would truly make is somewhat debatable, but that can be said about a lot of things in this hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably a threshold for such things. For example, if a sound was supposed to image a few degrees from where a speakers was, then I would not want the renderer to create a phantom image at the precise location. Not worth the inherent instabilities of a phantom image when I don't even know if I would notice such a small difference in location.
> 
> However, if angular difference is larger, then I'd probably notice. My side speakers are at ?80? and the Atmos renderer on current AVRs seems to think that they're located at ?110? (at least from the speaker diagrams in all the instruction manuals I've seen). That's 30 degrees off. Would be nice if the renderer knew that.
Click to expand...

From what Dolby has said it would probably be good enough if we could just get to the closest fit 15 degree pie slice for azimuth. The maximal error from there is 7.5 degrees, almost certainly not worth worrying about.


----------



## mp5475

Freakyguy. It has been asked multiple times by many people here. Which atmos receiver do you have? Or do you not own one? Honestly, who the fxxxing cares if some damn receiver can play atmos without over head speakers. Overhead speakers are Intergal part of atmos. And if they are not being utilized much right now, it doesn't mean it will not be in the future.


----------



## briansxx

I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode. I have not done any detailed listening, but I set the system up with no height speakers and specified rears. The configuration image on the setup screen showed a standard 7.1 setup. I then played the Atmos Demo Disk and the receiver entered Atmos mode as displayed on the front panel. Even in this setup, the soundfield seems more "dimensional" than standard 7.1.

Hope this helps,

Brian


----------



## freakyguy666

briansxx said:


> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode. I have not done any detailed listening, but I set the system up with no height speakers and specified rears. The configuration image on the setup screen showed a standard 7.1 setup. I then played the Atmos Demo Disk and the receiver entered Atmos mode as displayed on the front panel. Even in this setup, the soundfield seems more "dimensional" than standard 7.1.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Brian


Thanks for confirming this Brian. 

As I've repeated ad nauseam, THE TRUE ATMOS MIX CAN BE PLAYED WITHOUT OVERHEAD SPEAKERS. 

Therefore, if you currently have a 7.2 or 9.2 room, you would stand to benefit from buying a new ATMOS receiver WITHOUT even installing additional speakers.


----------



## briansxx

freakyguy666 said:


> Thanks for confirming this Brian....Therefore, if you currently have a 7.2 or 9.2 room, you would stand to benefit from buying a new ATMOS receiver WITHOUT even installing additional speakers.


From my brief listening session tonight, I would definitely agree. Both the Atmos and DSU modes sounded very good indeed.


----------



## batpig

Just to add some more fuel to the fire that this entire stupid hullabaloo may be a non issue (and certainly not something that merited the antagonism and condescension that was visited upon this thread by our new friend)....

I just did a few tests with my Denon X5200. Atmos was noted as the surround mode without overhead speakers selected. I tried wides and surround backs. It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured. 

See attached photos. Let's all move on now and stop feeding....


----------



## freakyguy666

briansxx said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming this Brian....Therefore, if you currently have a 7.2 or 9.2 room, you would stand to benefit from buying a new ATMOS receiver WITHOUT even installing additional speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> From my brief listening session tonight, I would definitely agree. Both the Atmos and DSU modes sounded very good indeed.
Click to expand...

Another test that I have performed myself is testing ATMOS via 9.1 (7.1+ 2 wides) vs a 5.1.4. In my experience, the 9.1 sounds notably BETTER than the 5.1.4. 

It should be noted that this could change if disc authors consciously choose to utilize the overhead speakers more than the current 1%....but until then, 7.1 and especially 9.1 users seem to have a leg up on their 5.1.2 & 5.1.4 counterparts. 

Cheers!


----------



## briansxx

batpig said:


> Just to add some more fuel to the fire that this entire stupid hullabaloo may be a non issue (and certainly not something that merited the antagonism and condescension that was visited upon this thread by our new friend)....
> 
> I just did a few tests with my Denon X5200. Atmos was noted as the surround mode without overhead speakers selected. I tried wides and surround backs. It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.
> 
> See attached photos. Let's all move on now and stop feeding....


Nice confirmation--I envy you the 5200! Lovely piece.


----------



## Roger Dressler

briansxx said:


> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode. I have not done any detailed listening, but I set the system up with no height speakers and specified rears. The configuration image on the setup screen showed a standard 7.1 setup. I then played the Atmos Demo Disk and the receiver entered Atmos mode as displayed on the front panel. Even in this setup, *the soundfield seems more "dimensional" than standard 7.1*.


Hi Brian,

Thanks for the report. When you say standard 7.1, how do you mean? Some other movie? Or are you changing the BD player between bitstream and PCM? The latter would be quick and valid comparison (as long as your BD player has full 7.1 decoding, like an Oppo for example). In bitstream, the AVR will display Atmos, and in PCM, it will say Mch PCM or the like. But how does the sound compare? Thanks!


----------



## freakyguy666

briansxx said:


> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode. I have not done any detailed listening, but I set the system up with no height speakers and specified rears. The configuration image on the setup screen showed a standard 7.1 setup. I then played the Atmos Demo Disk and the receiver entered Atmos mode as displayed on the front panel. Even in this setup, the soundfield seems more "dimensional" than standard 7.1.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Brian


Brian, I already know the answer to this, but just to address the "pig"'s concern, would you please attempt this test minus the "Rear Surrounds" (i.e. 5.1 configuration) and inform us whether it still displays "ATMOS" on the receiver? TIA.


----------



## briansxx

Roger Dressler said:


> Hi Brian,
> 
> Thanks for the report. When you say standard 7.1, how do you mean? Some other movie? Or are you changing the BD player between bitstream and PCM? The latter would be quick and valid comparison (as long as your BD player has full 7.1 decoding, like an Oppo for example). In bitstream, the AVR will display Atmos, and in PCM, it will say Mch PCM or the like. But how does the sound compare? Thanks!


I did use an Oppo and did move from bitstream to PCM. Even in 7.1 mode, Atmos produces a more enveloping sound field. It seems as if the speakers disappear and you're just listening to sounds--if that makes sense. For me, it is a significantly richer experience.

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Another test that I have performed myself is testing ATMOS via 9.1 (7.1+ 2 wides) vs a 5.1.4. In my experience, the 9.1 sounds notably BETTER than the 5.1.4.
> 
> It should be noted that this could change if disc authors consciously choose to utilize the overhead speakers more than the current 1%....but until then, 7.1 and especially 9.1 users seem to have a leg up on their 5.1.2 & 5.1.4 counterparts.
> 
> Cheers!


Now let's hope we can put this experiment to rest... can you tell us what receiver you are using to test this with. I'm happy with my setup the way the white paper states


----------



## briansxx

freakyguy666 said:


> Brian, I already know the answer to this, but just to address the "pig"'s concern, would you please attempt this test minus the "Rear Surrounds" (i.e. 5.1 configuration) and inform us whether it still displays "ATMOS" on the receiver? TIA.


Will try--will probably have to be tomorrow...

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## freakyguy666

briansxx said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, I already know the answer to this, but just to address the "pig"'s concern, would you please attempt this test minus the "Rear Surrounds" (i.e. 5.1 configuration) and inform us whether it still displays "ATMOS" on the receiver? TIA.
> 
> 
> 
> Will try--will probably have to be tomorrow...
> 
> All the Best,
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...

Of course! I think I speak for many here when I say thank you for being so generous with your time.


----------



## sdurani

briansxx said:


> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode.


Thanx for following up on the request. Appreciate the confirmation.


batpig said:


> It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.


That's new; so you don't even need to go beyond 5 speakers. Wonder if it works with fewer.


----------



## freakyguy666

bargervais said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another test that I have performed myself is testing ATMOS via 9.1 (7.1+ 2 wides) vs a 5.1.4. In my experience, the 9.1 sounds notably BETTER than the 5.1.4.
> 
> It should be noted that this could change if disc authors consciously choose to utilize the overhead speakers more than the current 1%....but until then, 7.1 and especially 9.1 users seem to have a leg up on their 5.1.2 & 5.1.4 counterparts.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's hope we can put this experiment to rest... can you tell us what receiver you are using to test this with. I'm happy with my setup the way the white paper states
Click to expand...

Without giving too much away, it has yet to be released. ;-)


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> briansxx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanx for following up on the request. Appreciate the confirmation.
> 
> 
> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's new; so you don't even need to go beyond 5 speakers. Wonder if it works with fewer.
Click to expand...

Your apology is accepted!


----------



## sdurani

freakyguy666 said:


> Your apology is accepted!


None was given. I'm the one that asked Brian to test it out.


----------



## NorthSky

briansxx said:


> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode. I have not done any detailed listening, but I set the system up with no height speakers and specified rears. The configuration image on the setup screen showed a standard 7.1 setup. I then played the Atmos Demo Disk and the receiver entered Atmos mode as displayed on the front panel. Even in this setup, the soundfield seems more "dimensional" than standard 7.1.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Brian


It sure does (help). ... Thx


----------



## RichB

For Dolby comparing bitstream to LPCM may produce difference because of Dialog Normalization which can increase or decrease the volume.
I find that often, Dialog Normalization causes the bitstreamed track to be louder.

- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> Thanks for confirming this Brian.
> 
> As I've repeated ad nauseam, THE TRUE ATMOS MIX CAN BE PLAYED WITHOUT OVERHEAD SPEAKERS.
> 
> Therefore, if you currently have a 7.2 or 9.2 room, you would stand to benefit from buying a new ATMOS receiver WITHOUT even installing additional speakers.


I always believed you; right from the very beginning.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Without giving too much away, it has yet to be released. ;-)


Mystery receiver... interesting... will it come with new white paper with a different set up is it a DTS:X receiver???


----------



## freakyguy666

sdurani said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your apology is accepted!
> 
> 
> 
> None was given. I'm the one that asked Brian to test it out.
Click to expand...

You were also completely dismissive of my assertion that ATMOS did not require any overhead speakers to activate and that this was direct from the head of research at Dolby! 

To wit, your reply to the above statement was "Wouldn't matter if you got it from the ghost of Ray Dolby himself."

Amazing...


----------



## freakyguy666

bargervais said:


> freakyguy666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without giving too much away, it has yet to be released. ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Mystery receiver... interesting... will it come with new white paper with a different set up is it a DTS:X receiver???
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a DTS:X receiver have to come with inherently "new" white paper? ;-)

I obviously can't answer directly. Maybe in a few months...


----------



## NorthSky

> Just to add some more fuel to the fire that *this entire stupid hullabaloo* may be a non issue (and certainly not something that merited the antagonism and condescension that was visited upon this thread by our new friend)....
> 
> I just did a few tests with my Denon X5200. Atmos was noted as the surround mode without overhead speakers selected. I tried wides and surround backs. It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.
> 
> See attached photos. Let's all move on now and stop feeding....


There is abso!utely nothing stupid here; definite!y not. ...And no one.


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> Just to add some more fuel to the fire that this entire stupid hullabaloo may be a non issue (and certainly not something that merited the antagonism and condescension that was visited upon this thread by our new friend)....
> 
> I just did a few tests with my Denon X5200. Atmos was noted as the surround mode without overhead speakers selected. I tried wides and surround backs. It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.
> 
> See attached photos. Let's all move on now and stop feeding....



My X5200 has never shown Atmos, my only Dolby choice from the menu options is Dolby Surround, what am I missing? Is this a selection made from the Movie selections at the beginning ?


----------



## NorthSky

freakyguy666 said:


> Another test that I have performed myself is testing ATMOS via 9.1 (7.1+ 2 wides) vs a 5.1.4. In my experience, the 9.1 sounds notably BETTER than the 5.1.4.
> 
> It should be noted that this could change if disc authors consciously choose to utilize the overhead speakers more than the current 1%....but until then, 7.1 and especially 9.1 users seem to have a leg up on their 5.1.2 & 5.1.4 counterparts.
> 
> Cheers!


Wow, that is new and extreme!y fascinating to me.


----------



## bargervais

freakyguy666 said:


> Wouldn't a DTS:X receiver have to come with inherently "new" white paper? ;-)
> 
> I obviously can't answer directly. Maybe in a few months...


Got it hush hush...in a few months like March when DTS:X will be announced


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Mystery receiver... interesting... will it come with new white paper with a different set up is it a DTS:X receiver???


I don't know why Gervais you are questioning him; he provided us with something that all of us we weren't even aware of! 
We learned a great deal because of freakyguy666. ...People denied everything he said, and almost insulted him on top of that. 
What kind of crowd is that here @ AVS! ...Aren't people here to learn, or preach their own medicine! 

Give him a break and thank him for what he brought to us; have a heart. ...And that goes for few other members as well. 

Me I want to know everything there is to learn about Dolby Atmos, and nobody needs sticks in their wheels.


----------



## jpco

I, for one, found this to be a very informative conversation. It's clear in the video that Dolby said at least 7.1. Not sure why anyone thinks this was a stupid or not worthwhile conversation. We hear that object-based audio is a major step forward. I'm hopeful that it will bring a benefit beyond overhead effects.


----------



## batpig

The reason it got inflamed is that the person who brought it up was a jerk about it. If he had been respectful and not haughty and demeaning it would have gone a lot better. 

Bedside manners matter.


----------



## asoofi1

freakyguy666 said:


> You were also completely dismissive of my assertion that ATMOS did not require any overhead speakers to activate and that this was direct from the head of research at Dolby!
> 
> To wit, your reply to the above statement was "Wouldn't matter if you got it from the ghost of Ray Dolby himself."
> 
> Amazing...


Welcome to the Atmos thread. Being argumentative, dismissive, and patronizing is the nature of a couple of users that live on this thread. Feel free to share your thoughts respectfully, right or wrong, and there are plenty on here that will respectfully agree to disagree.


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add some more fuel to the fire that this entire stupid hullabaloo may be a non issue (and certainly not something that merited the antagonism and condescension that was visited upon this thread by our new friend)....
> 
> I just did a few tests with my Denon X5200. Atmos was noted as the surround mode without overhead speakers selected. I tried wides and surround backs. It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.
> 
> See attached photos. Let's all move on now and stop feeding....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My X5200 has never shown Atmos, my only Dolby choice from the menu options is Dolby Surround, what am I missing? Is this a selection made from the Movie selections at the beginning ?
Click to expand...

Well you have to feed it an Atmos signal. Then it should default to Dolby Atmos surround mode.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> It even said Dolby Atmos when I had a basic 5.1 speaker setup configured.
> 
> 
> 
> That's new; so you don't even need to go beyond 5 speakers. Wonder if it works with fewer.
Click to expand...

Yes I just tested with a 2.1 speaker setup and the receiver still reported input signal and surround mode as Dolby Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I just tested with a 2.1 speaker setup and the receiver still reported input signal and surround mode as Dolby Atmos.


So much for needing 7 speakers. Makes me wonder if it is actually decoding (unpacking the objects) or simply reporting the input signal.


----------



## rramacha

Sorry if I am off topic or its a stupid question.

I just checked Atmos speaker placement and Auro-3D Speaker Placement. They seem to exclude each other. Can some one confirm?

I currently have 5.2 My plan would be do 5.2.4. 

Cheers

Raj


----------



## Roger Dressler

briansxx said:


> I did use an Oppo and did move from bitstream to PCM. Even in 7.1 mode, Atmos produces a more enveloping sound field. It seems as if the speakers disappear and you're just listening to sounds--if that makes sense. For me, it is a significantly richer experience.


There is clearly something going on. Do you notice a volume difference? Like 6 dB?


----------



## NorthSky

Raj, you mean Auro-3D speaker configuration, most likely. /// Yes, Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D are a little conflicting between each other @ the present.
...In their speaker's configuration; above, overhead speaker's positioning. ...And it's not easy to switch between them; fast, and in harmony.
Some more work (friendship) is needed here. 

I don't think that we'll see any problem between Dolby Atmos and dts:X though; they'll most likely use both the same speaker's config/positioning. 
And it should be easy and quick to switch between the two up-mixers; Dolby Surround and dts:*** (Home Theater? ...or System?). 

Other members here are well calibrated in that knowledge, much more than I. ...Auro-3D versus Dolby Atmos. ...From Denon/Marantz products.


----------



## Roger Dressler

rramacha said:


> Sorry if I am off topic or its a stupid question.
> 
> I just checked Atmos speaker placement and Aurora Speaker Placement. They seem to exclude each other. Can some one confirm?
> 
> I currently have 5.2 My plan would be do 5.2.4.


There are locations in common for the front heights, and also for Auro's Surround Heights and Dolby's Top Middle, but D&M have not permitted them to be shared.


----------



## CBdicX

briansxx said:


> I can confirm that the Onkyo 636 does activate the Atmos decoder when set up in standard 7.1 mode. I have not done any detailed listening, but I set the system up with no height speakers and specified rears. The configuration image on the setup screen showed a standard 7.1 setup. I then played the Atmos Demo Disk and the receiver entered Atmos mode as displayed on the front panel. Even in this setup, the soundfield seems more "dimensional" than standard 7.1.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Brian


 
Sure your 636 will activate Atmos, you have the choice, or Surround Back, or Bi-amp, or Height (Atmos), on the number 6 and 7 speakers posts.
So you do need to activate Surround and then use the S-Back posts as Height for Atmos.
The receiver can not "see" what kind of speakers are used on the posts, thats up to you and when you activate Surround Back it triggers Atmos when availible.
This will be the same for Marantz and Denon i think, even when you go to setups like 2.1, Atmos will trigger the Atmos light and displays Dolby Atmos, just because you have the Atmos decoder and will not matter if you use the Atmos speaker setup or not.

So i do not understand the discussion.
When you *de-activate* the Surround Back channels you will not get Atmos as it needs the extra 2 channels.
(even the Atmos light will go ON and the display will say Dolby Atmos because the receiver gets a Atmos signal and your receiver has the decoder)
And if you do not want Atmos you can have S-Back or Bi-amp.
If you will use the 6 and 7 speaker posts for Bi-amp the Atmos light will be triggert, just to show you Atmos is availible.
If i would use Bi-amp i will lose Height1.

I have 11 channels so have Heihgt1 and 2
If i de-activate S-Back i lose Height 2 (i even lose Height 2 if i select 1 speaker for S-Back !)
If i de-activate Surround i lose Height 1
I must tell the receiver in the main speaker setup if i want to use Height 1, 2, or both, and then the correct Surround channels need to be active to get Height 1, 2 or both.
Also i need to tell what kind of Atmos speakers i use, anabled or ceiling speakers, and for ceiling speakers front, middle or back.

(tested on the Integra DTR 70.6 like Onkyo NR3030)


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I always believed you; right from the very beginning.


:kiss:


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> Well you have to feed it an Atmos signal. Then it should default to Dolby Atmos surround mode.


That was my question, how does one feed the Atmos signal? I have the latest Atmos Transformer movie( AOD), TMNT and Expendables 3 but have never seen Atmos indicated on my X5200.

If it is a selection from the movie menu options then I may understand why I have missed this. My on screen movie selection options are not visible at the bottom of my screen because of the the aspect ratio I use. If there is a selection for Atmos then I have not seen this and will explain why I do not see Atmos nor notice any difference. I have been trying to figure out why I have not noticed any substantial difference from 7.1 surround to current Atmos setup first with 7.1.2 now 7.1.4. This would certainly explain a lot. Fingers , toes and even eyes now crossed.


----------



## gammanuc

I have the X5200, it automatically shows Dolby Atmos when the disc is playing. I don't have to change or select anything. Sounds like your source is not outputting bit stream.


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> That was my question, how does one feed the Atmos signal? I have the latest Atmos Transformer movie( AOD), TMNT and Expendables 3 but have never seen Atmos indicated on my X5200.
> 
> If it is a selection from the movie menu options then I may understand why I have missed this. My on screen movie selection options are not visible at the bottom of my screen because of the the aspect ratio I use. If there is a selection for Atmos then I have not seen this and will explain why I do not see Atmos nor notice any difference. I have been trying to figure out why I have not noticed any substantial difference from 7.1 surround to current Atmos setup first with 7.1.2 now 7.1.4. This would certainly explain a lot. Fingers , toes and even eyes now crossed.


Did you change your audio output on the Blu-Ray player to Bitstream and turn the secondary audio off (if your Blu-Ray player supports secondary audio)??


----------



## kbarnes701

Charles871987 said:


> Hey guys, this is Csbooth, the reason I'm posting here is because the last thing I was in the middle of discussing was recommendations on speakers for my modest 7.2.4 setup (Thanks again by the way Awblackmon for your recommendations and Chi_Guy50, those Polks look like they're going to do the trick!)
> 
> Anyways, the reason I'm posting on this name is because I have tried using the contact us link for the past 3 days now to no avail. My Csbooth account was banned due to having multiple user IDs, one for Csbooth and another for which my wife wanted to create to discuss (Alyclaire) both were banned. We were not aware that this would be a problem and figure it's due to some kind of automated response from vBulletin. My wife figured since we each have seperate facebook accounts, what could be the problem?
> 
> We have no qualms with leaving the Alyclaire account inactive but wish that my main account Csbooth be reinstated, as I was thouroghly enjoying discussion my new passion with all of you, and have so many more questions to annoy you all with! lol.
> 
> I hope one of the moderators here could help us as we don't think that we were doing anything wrong, but promise to read over carefully the TOS.
> 
> Thank you for understanding!
> 
> - Charles


That is indeed a bummer. So are you saying that you created two accounts, one for you and one for your wife, but because you both share the same IP address, the system has banned you? That is really poor. I can envisage situations where many legitimate users will share an IP address - for example if you and a colleague log in from work. You may not even know each other but you will probably share an IP address and be banned as a result. 

Are you using a different IP address for your new account? If not, then why has the system not banned you and your wife again? If you both log in, it should. 

Whatever the reality, it needs looking at if sensible users like you are being banned arbitrarily. I hope AVS can sort it out for you. You might find it useful to post in one of the Admin threads in the Forum Operation Center area, or start a new thread there. The Forum Operation Center is here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-forum-operations-center/


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Did you change your audio output on the Blu-Ray player to Bitstream and turn the secondary audio off (if your Blu-Ray player supports secondary audio)??


I have an Oppo 103D and have not made any changes to Bitstream or turned off secondary audio. Now that I know will check this immediately, thank you so much. This has to be the issue
I obviously have missed this discussion on the forum entirely. I skimmed through the startup from my X5200 , in depth with the audyssey setup but never did I see any reference to Bitsteam.

Thanks everyone, if I hadn't seen the screen capture for the X5200 on a earlier post showing Atmos I would not have figured this out for a while.

This is why this forum is so valuable.....thanks again !!


----------



## rramacha

NorthSky said:


> Raj, you mean Auro-3D speaker configuration, most likely. /// Yes, Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D are a little conflicting between each other @ the present.
> ...In their speaker's configuration; above, overhead speaker's positioning. ...And it's not easy to switch between them; fast, and in harmony.
> Some more work (friendship) is needed here.
> 
> I don't think that we'll see any problem between Dolby Atmos and dts:X though; they'll most likely use both the same speaker's config/positioning.
> And it should be easy and quick to switch between the two up-mixers; Dolby Surround and dts:*** (Home Theater? ...or System?).
> 
> Other members here are well calibrated in that knowledge, much more than I. ...Auro-3D versus Dolby Atmos. ...From Denon/Marantz products.


Yes I meant Auro-3D. Sorry for typing in my sleep. Appreciate your reply.

Cheers

Raj


----------



## rramacha

Roger Dressler said:


> There are locations in common for the front heights, and also for Auro's Surround Heights and Dolby's Top Middle, but D&M have not permitted them to be shared.


Thanks for clarifying. Do you mean to say they cannot coexist only in Denon and Marantz products, but possible with say Onkyo?

Cheers

Raj


----------



## maikeldepotter

freakyguy666 said:


> Another test that I have performed myself is testing ATMOS via 9.1 (7.1+ 2 wides) vs a 5.1.4. In my experience, the 9.1 sounds notably BETTER than the 5.1.4.
> 
> It should be noted that this could change if disc authors consciously choose to utilize the overhead speakers more than the current 1%....but until then, 7.1 and especially 9.1 users seem to have a leg up on their 5.1.2 & 5.1.4 counterparts.
> 
> Cheers!


Your observation adds fuel to the notion that object playback greatly benefits from having more speakers general, not just more overheads. Aiming at a 9.1.6 set-up would in that respect not be considered overkill.

It also reminds me of the remark made by Wilfried van Baelen (Auro inventor/owner) that below 16 speakers the added value of object based audio playback would be limited. I know, he is to be expected not be objective at the least, but still....


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> I have an Oppo 103D and have not made any changes to Bitstream or turned off secondary audio. Now that I know will check this immediately, thank you so much. This has to be the issue
> I obviously have missed this discussion on the forum entirely. I skimmed through the startup from my X5200 , in depth with the audyssey setup but never did I see any reference to Bitsteam.
> 
> Thanks everyone, if I hadn't seen the screen capture for the X5200 on a earlier post showing Atmos I would not have figured this out for a while.
> 
> This is why this forum is so valuable.....thanks again !!


The reasons you missed it is probably because it's a PLAYER setup issue, nothing to do with setting up your receiver. The receiver doesn't control the input signal.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> Your observation adds fuel to the notion that object playback greatly benefits from having more speakers general, not just more overheads.


Has anyone ever disputed this notion? 

In other news, proper hydration benefits from more water!


----------



## markrubin

kbarnes701 said:


> That is indeed a bummer. So are you saying that you created two accounts, one for you and one for your wife, but because you both share the same IP address, the system has banned you? That is really poor. I can envisage situations where many legitimate users will share an IP address - for example if you and a colleague log in from work. You may not even know each other but you will probably share an IP address and be banned as a result.
> 
> Are you using a different IP address for your new account? If not, then why has the system not banned you and your wife again? If you both log in, it should.
> 
> Whatever the reality, it needs looking at if sensible users like you are being banned arbitrarily. I hope AVS can sort it out for you. You might find it useful to post in one of the Admin threads in the Forum Operation Center area, or start a new thread there. The Forum Operation Center is here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-forum-operations-center/


sometimes the system does this automatically:we understand there are valid reasons for shared IP and we recognize this: if you receive a notice, there should be a help button in the notice: you should immediately use it and explain your situation.

But please: do not create another ID: it only makes things worse.

Please PM me if you need assistance.


----------



## chi_guy50

maikeldepotter said:


> Your observation adds fuel to the notion that object playback greatly benefits from having more speakers general, not just more overheads. *Aiming at a 9.1.6 set-up would in that respect not be considered overkill.*


I and others here have long asserted that, far from being overkill, 9.1.6 would appear to be the HT Atmos sweet spot if not the ideal.




maikeldepotter said:


> It also reminds me of the remark made by Wilfried van Baelen (Auro inventor/owner) that* below 16 speakers the added value of object based audio playback would be limited*. I know, he is to be expected not be objective at the least, but still....


I think that the diametric opposite principal applies: Given diminishing returns, anything over 16 speakers represents limited added value. If you think about the progression in audio reproduction from mono to 2.0 to 5.1 and onward, it doesn't strike me as unnatural to expect that the overall improvements in listener experience would gradually diminish in significance.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Charles871987 said:


> Oh forgot to mention that it is a lifetime ban; otherwise I wouldn't be trying to bother anyone with it.


Good luck with the "contact us" link. I've had a particular problem with the way AVS works since they changed back to the "new" old software. No matter how long I tried, no one contacted me ever. Fortunately I found a work around to my (different) issue, but it's a pain in the ass. Since AVS Forum and AVS product are two seperate entities, don't expect that any of the salespeople can help.


----------



## kingwiggi

markrubin said:


> sometimes the system does this automatically:we understand there are valid reasons for shared IP and we recognize this: if you receive a notice, there should be a help button in the notice: you should immediately use it and explain your situation.
> 
> But please: do not create another ID: it only makes things worse.
> 
> Please PM me if you need assistance.



This happened to me also several months ago when my son was home from college and posted on the forum. It took me a while to figure out what had even happened. I had to contact my ISP and force an I.P address change before I could even create another account.

Absolute PITA

But at least I know what to do next time.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> It also reminds me of the remark made by Wilfried van Baelen (Auro inventor/owner) that below 16 speakers the added value of object based audio playback would be limited. I know, he is to be expected not be objective at the least, but still....


The same Van Baelen who is on record as saying you need a new Bluray player if you want to use Atmos?


----------



## kbarnes701

markrubin said:


> sometimes the system does this automatically:we understand there are valid reasons for shared IP and we recognize this: if you receive a notice, there should be a help button in the notice: you should immediately use it and explain your situation.
> 
> But please: do not create another ID: it only makes things worse.
> 
> Please PM me if you need assistance.


Not me Mark - it was Charles who was banned. Nobody else shares my IP address, well at least not anyone who is using AVS (ie Mrs Keith)


----------



## Csbooth

markrubin said:


> sometimes the system does this automatically:we understand there are valid reasons for shared IP and we recognize this: if you receive a notice, there should be a help button in the notice: you should immediately use it and explain your situation.
> 
> But please: do not create another ID: it only makes things worse.
> 
> Please PM me if you need assistance.


Hi there, Mike helped me out. I'd like to note however, while I understand creating more IDs can make things worse, aside from using the contact us link, I'm not sure what else I could do other than that, as I had to get off my home network to even use that function. 

It wouldn't let me view threads or the home page, just a fat 'You're banned forever' message from vBulletin. Because of that, I couldn't use any kind of messaging system to go through that kind of channel, which is why I chose the route I did in posting on my most active thread, as I felt I had no voice 'so to speak' lol. 

When I was banned, I wasn't really looking for any kind of link right then as I was stunned, and by the time I was able to collect myself it had refreshed the page and locked me out permanently. 

At any rate, I'm glad to have it restored and will be sure to adhere to the TOS!

Thank you,

- Charles


----------



## htpcforever

Csbooth said:


> Hi there, Mike helped me out. I'd like to note however, while I understand creating more IDs can make things worse, aside from using the contact us link, I'm not sure what else I could do other than that, as I had to get off my home network to even use that function.
> 
> It wouldn't let me view threads or the home page, just a fat 'You're banned forever' message from vBulletin. Because of that, I couldn't use any kind of messaging system to go through that kind of channel, which is why I chose the route I did in posting on my most active thread, as I felt I had no voice 'so to speak' lol.
> 
> When I was banned, I wasn't really looking for any kind of link right then as I was stunned, and by the time I was able to collect myself it had refreshed the page and locked me out permanently.
> 
> At any rate, I'm glad to have it restored and will be sure to adhere to the TOS!
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> - Charles


Yep, when banned there is no way to contact anyone.


----------



## Csbooth

kbarnes701 said:


> That is indeed a bummer. So are you saying that you created two accounts, one for you and one for your wife, but because you both share the same IP address, the system has banned you? That is really poor. I can envisage situations where many legitimate users will share an IP address - for example if you and a colleague log in from work. You may not even know each other but you will probably share an IP address and be banned as a result.
> 
> Are you using a different IP address for your new account? If not, then why has the system not banned you and your wife again? If you both log in, it should.
> 
> Whatever the reality, it needs looking at if sensible users like you are being banned arbitrarily. I hope AVS can sort it out for you. You might find it useful to post in one of the Admin threads in the Forum Operation Center area, or start a new thread there. The Forum Operation Center is here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-forum-operations-center/


Ya, I'm assuming it banned us because of ISP correlations, and it is indeed an odd 'rule' imposed by I'm only guessing vBulletin as I had googled the situation and it shows up on their site but I couldn't find anything on here until Mike helped me see where it does show it's against TOS apparently.

I was on an account I created off of my home network and used LTE when doing so, however, I was able to do everything as normal while being on my home network after activation, but one thing I will note is that when my wife went to activate hers, it never even gave her the option to post even, so I'm thinking it was flagged immediately. 

I guess the system didn't like that both accounts were being created at the same location or ISP, and also it could have been in conjunction with my wife liking some of my posts, and a few of yours actually in such a short period of time XD

In any case, Mike was able to alleviate the situation and I'm back! Oh and I'm thinking of RCi80's x4 for my setup, I even spent an hour up in the attic yesterday evening clearing junk out of the way for wire and depth clearance haha.

Thank you for your kind words kbarnes701!


----------



## Csbooth

Jive Turkey said:


> Good luck with the "contact us" link. I've have a particular problem with the way AVS works since they changed back to the "new" old software. No matter how long I tried, no one contacted me ever. Fortunately I found a work around to my (different) issue, but it's a pain in the ass. Since AVS Forum and AVS product are two seperate entities, don't expect that any of the salespeople can help.


Ya, I was told they never received anything from me, so it must not work for that purpose lol. Thank you for shedding some light on the situation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Csbooth said:


> Ya, I'm assuming it banned us because of ISP correlations, and it is indeed an odd 'rule' imposed by I'm only guessing vBulletin as I had googled the situation and it shows up on their site but I couldn't find anything on here until Mike helped me see where it does show it's against TOS apparently.
> 
> I was on an account I created off of my home network and used LTE when doing so, however, I was able to do everything as normal while being on my home network after activation, but one thing I will note is that when my wife went to activate hers, it never even gave her the option to post even, so I'm thinking it was flagged immediately.
> 
> I'm guess the system didn't like that both accounts were being created at the same location or ISP, and also it could have been in conjunction with my wife liking some of my posts, and a few of yours actually in such a short period of time XD
> 
> In any case, Mike was able to alleviate the situation and I'm back! Oh and I'm thinking of RCi80's x4 for my setup, I even spent an hour up in the attic yesterday evening clearing junk of of the way for wire and depth clearance haha.
> 
> Thank you for your kind words kbarnes701!


I am glad you are back in your normal ID! Quick service from Mike and Mark.


----------



## brwsaw

kbarnes701 said:


> *With overhead speakers silent for 99% of the time, do we need to look elsewhere for the benefits of Atmos?*


Forgive me if someone already mentioned this, there are +/-250 posts to catch up on...

I know I've said it before but in not having Atmos height speakers I am amazed by the improvements while viewing an Atmos mixed film.
Sounds do travel through the room past and my seat convincingly and its impressive.
IMO everyone wins with these mixes.

We should consider a thread for favorite Atmos/object mixed moments. While Planes provided me the most pleasure over all (best sounding movie I've ever had the pleasure of viewing), hearing objects/blades fly past in TMNT was very memorable.


Edit: All 250 posts were about this, who knew...


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> Yep, when banned there is no way to contact anyone.


You can log in through a personal VPN service such as WiTopia or one of the proxy-server websites like Ninja. They allocate a totally different IP address, so you could use that to log in and alert the Forums Operation Center guys to the problem. But yeah, it perhaps needs to be a bit better sorted - saying you are banned, locking your IP out and then asking you to contact us is a bit of a problem


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> You can log in through a personal VPN service such as WiTopia or one of the proxy-server websites like Ninja. They allocate a totally different IP address, so you could use that to log in and alert the Forums Operation Center guys to the problem. But yeah, it perhaps needs to be a bit better sorted - saying you are banned, locking your IP out and then asking you to contact us is a bit of a problem



...quite the "Catch-22"!


----------



## batpig

@Csbooth - Can you remind me of the details of your room? I know you were seeking help getting a budget speaker setup for Atmos. I remember you were hoping for a budget range of $1,300-1,700 for 11 speakers + two subs right? How big is your room and how loud do you think you'll be listening?


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> The reasons you missed it is probably because it's a PLAYER setup issue, nothing to do with setting up your receiver. The receiver doesn't control the input signal.


When I purchased the Oppo 103D and my 3313 Denon it was plug and play, nothing had to be "set-up" on the Oppo to get Dolby Surround 7.1 to work. If the X5200 Atmos required changes to the PLAYER setup then it should have been made very clear in the Denon startup procedure . I'm sure it's probably in the Denon manual some where, I assume, I certainly did not see it nor understand that the player would have to be setup differently . Like many here , I don't make a living in the HT business and have limited skills and knowledge learned along the way , much from forums like this fortunately . If I could have hired a HT calibrator I would have done so, for video too, but this is not a service available where I live. Point is, I didn't understand the player had to be adjusted for Atmos and now I understand what I missed.

Thank You again for all that gave me the feedback required.


----------



## Selden Ball

rramacha said:


> Thanks for clarifying. Do you mean to say they cannot coexist only in Denon and Marantz products, but possible with say Onkyo?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Raj


At the moment, Onkyo does not provide Auro-3D, so they can't co-exist there, either. Only Denon & Marantz (among the reasonably-priced equipment manufacturers) provide Auro-3D. Apparently equipment made by Trinnov and Datasat can use the same speakers for both formats, but they cost 10x as much.

On D+M equipment, Auro-3D uses overhead speakers designated as Side Surround Height, which Atmos cannot, even though there's an overlap in allowed physical positions with the positions allowed for the Atmos speaker pair designated Top Middle. None of Auro-3D, Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X can use speakers designated with the various rear overhead names used by Atmos. At the moment, we do not know what speaker designations will be used by DTS:X, although they supposedly will overlap with Atmos designations.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> ...quite the "Catch-22"!


The very definition of it, Al!


----------



## rramacha

Selden Ball said:


> At the moment, Onkyo does not provide Auro-3D, so they can't co-exist there, either. Only Denon & Marantz (among the reasonably-priced equipment manufacturers) provide Auro-3D. Apparently equipment made by Trinnov and Datasat can use the same speakers for both formats, but they cost 10x as much.
> 
> On D+M equipment, Auro-3D uses overhead speakers designated as Side Surround, which Atmos cannot, even though there's an overlap in allowed physical positions with the positions allowed for the Atmos speaker pair designated Top Middle. None of Auro-3D, Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X can use speakers designated with the various rear overhead names used by Atmos. At the moment, we do not know what speaker designations will be used by DTS:X, although they supposedly will overlap with Atmos designations.


Thank You. In that case I will wait for AV8802 to be released and then add four JTR Single 8 Low Profile as on ceiling speakers. I just have to figure out how to mount them on ceiling.

Cheers

Raj


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> There are locations in common for the front heights, and also for Auro's Surround Heights and Dolby's Top Middle, but D&M have not permitted them to be shared.


I don't think it's really accurate to say that Auro's "Surround Height" is a "location in common" with the Atmos "Top Middle" position. They are different physical locations, it's just that they are close enough that you could "cheat" and use one pair of speakers for both if you aren't obsessive about precision with the elavated sounds. While it would be nice if D&M would allow them to be "shared" for convenience, they aren't really the same position.


----------



## Roger Dressler

rramacha said:


> Thanks for clarifying. Do you mean to say they cannot coexist only in Denon and Marantz products, but possible with say Onkyo?


Without knowing the actual reason D&M did this, hard to say if others will be similarly afflicted.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> I don't think it's really accurate to say that Auro's "Surround Height" is a "location in common" with the Atmos "Top Middle" position. They are different physical locations, it's just that they are close enough that you could "cheat" and use one pair of speakers for both if you aren't obsessive about precision with the elevated sounds. While it would be nice if D&M would allow them to be "shared" for convenience, they aren't really the same position.


I am not saying that all positions that meet Dolby's TM range overlap 100% with Auro's SH range. I am saying that these two ranges actually do cover a common subset of positions in a certain (not atypical) room. And by virtue of that there is no justification to prevent sharing the positions if so desired by the end user. It should be one of the options, just as we can already choose to share FH for both, even though each company's definition of FH positional range is not identical.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I am saying that these two ranges actually do cover a common subset of positions in a certain (not atypical) room.


In my room, for example, if I place a pair of heights above me as Top Middle speakers in strict accordance with the Atmos install guide (i.e., in line with L/R speakers at ±30° from centre), then they can also be Surround Height speakers at 37° lateral elevation. I know Auro prefers them closer to 30° lateral elevation, but 7° off is not the end of the world (might even be within tolerance of the Auro spec). If my seating was further from the front wall, TM and SH might even have overlapped.


----------



## Selden Ball

rramacha said:


> Thank You. In that case I will wait for AV8802 to be released and then add four JTR Single 8 Low Profile as on ceiling speakers. I just have to figure out how to mount them on ceiling.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Raj


Sorry, I meant the speaker designation Surround Height, not Side Surround. (Although they're supposed to be positioned above the Side Surround speakers.) I've corrected my initial post.


----------



## krozman

So I went back about 8 pages on this thread and haven't seen any updates....so i'll ask...... ANY new Atmos track blu rays coming?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> In my room, for example, if I place a pair of heights above me as Top Middle speakers in strict accordance with the Atmos install guide (i.e., in line with L/R speakers at ±30° from centre), then they can also be Surround Height speakers at 37° lateral elevation. I know Auro prefers them closer to 30° lateral elevation, but 7° off is not the end of the world (might even be within tolerance of the Auro spec). If my seating was further from the front wall, TM and SH might even have overlapped.



I'm tell ya we need that 9.1.6 as four overheads is not enough!


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm tell ya we need that 9.1.6 as four overheads is not enough!


I just came back from a place called "Listen Up" where they demonstrated Atmos to me using chapter 14 of the latest Transformers movie where a jet flies overhead and I wasn't impressed. It sounded the same to me as it does at home on my 7.2 system (Denon 2311CI). Does Dolby Atmos not change the sound much or did they choose the wrong location of the movie for the demonstration?


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm tell ya we need that 9.1.6 as four overheads is not enough!


Yes! I would like to have FH + TM + RH. Please and thank you.


----------



## batpig

lujan said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tell ya we need that 9.1.6 as four overheads is not enough!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just came back from a place called "Listen Up" where they demonstrated Atmos to me using chapter 14 of the latest Transformers movie where a jet flies overhead and I wasn't impressed. It sounded the same to me as it does at home on my 7.2 system (Denon 2311CI). Does Dolby Atmos not change the sound much or did they choose the wrong location of the movie for the demonstration?
Click to expand...

The latter. Transformers has minimal overhead usage and many moments that seemed like obvious opportunies for overhead sounds were not utilized. Is that the part where they are traversing the cables from the mothership?


----------



## Selden Ball

krozman said:


> So I went back about 8 pages on this thread and haven't seen any updates....so i'll ask...... ANY new Atmos track blu rays coming?


_Exodus_ has been announced as coming with Atmos. I dunno if you're aware of that one. I've seen some reports that the in-theater audio was lackluster, though.


----------



## Al Sherwood

scott simonian said:


> i'm tell ya we need that 9.1.6 as four overheads is not enough! :d





spanglo said:


> yes! I would like to have fh + tm + rh. Please and thank you.



+3!


----------



## Scott Simonian

lujan said:


> I just came back from a place called "Listen Up" where they demonstrated Atmos to me using chapter 14 of the latest Transformers movie where a jet flies overhead and I wasn't impressed. It sounded the same to me as it does at home on my 7.2 system (Denon 2311CI). Does Dolby Atmos not change the sound much or did they choose the wrong location of the movie for the demonstration?


As far as I have read (I don't have >7.1 or Atmos) many users reported very little overhead use in Transformers 4 including scenes where one would think obvious use of them would be. IE: jet fly overs. 

Unfortunately there is still no 'killer app' video release for Atmos demonstration.

Hopefully Gravity will fit the bill.


----------



## asoofi1

rramacha said:


> Thank You. In that case I will wait for AV8802 to be released and then add four JTR Single 8 Low Profile as on ceiling speakers. I just have to figure out how to mount them on ceiling.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Raj


Jeff is working on a new surround speaker for overhead usage... smaller than s8 is my guess, like 6" likely. I would wait. The S8 is overkill for ceiling use for the cost... best for normal surround duties.


----------



## Scott Simonian

asoofi1 said:


> Jeff is working on a new surround speaker for overhead usage... smaller than s8 is my guess, like 6" likely. I would wait. *The S8 is overkill for ceiling use for the cost... best for normal surround duties.*


If that is the case then the S8 is overkill for surrounds. 

The ceiling speakers should be identical to the surrounds whenever possible as the bandwidth and SPL requirements are identical.


This is me saying go for the S8's all around.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> Oh and I'm thinking of RCi80's x4 for my setup, I even spent an hour up in the attic yesterday evening clearing junk out of the way for wire and depth clearance haha.


That was part of my recommendation in response to the $1300 budget you presented for 11.1 speakers. What did you decide regarding the rest of your gear?

BTW, knowing that you've got a sharp eye on your purse-strings, I though I'd mention that newegg.com has a promotion this week for the Polk Audio RC60i's (the 6.5" little brother of the 8" RC80i). Through Jan 11, you can use promo code EMCAKAT69 to get two pairs for $179.88 shipped. If you don't mind downgrading to the smaller overheads, that would presumably save you about $100 on the four speakers.

Either way, don't neglect to make a backer box for the attic side of each speaker.


----------



## rramacha

Scott Simonian said:


> If that is the case then the S8 is overkill for surrounds.
> 
> The ceiling speakers should be identical to the surrounds whenever possible as the bandwidth and SPL requirements are identical.
> 
> 
> This is me saying go for the S8's all around.


Thanks for the news. I will have to wait for AV8802. So this is easy to delay. In fact i amy wait till summer to make sure AV8802 that I order has all updates done at factory.

Cheers

Raj


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> There are locations in common for the front heights, and also for Auro's Surround Heights and Dolby's Top Middle, but D&M have not permitted them to be shared.


Maybe in next year's models... _maybe_.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I just came back from a place called "Listen Up" where they demonstrated Atmos to me using chapter 14 of the latest Transformers movie where a jet flies overhead and I wasn't impressed. It sounded the same to me as it does at home on my 7.2 system (Denon 2311CI). Does Dolby Atmos not change the sound much or did they choose the wrong location of the movie for the demonstration?


_Transformers 4_ is not a good demo for Atmos. For right now, they should just stick to the demo disc provided by Dolby - the trailers, the cartoon, and music video. _Expendables 3_ has a few more instances that are apparent. _Gravity_, hopefully, will be impressive if they didn't dumb something down in the near-field Atmos mix.


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> You can log in through a personal VPN service such as WiTopia or one of the proxy-server websites like Ninja. They allocate a totally different IP address, so you could use that to log in and alert the Forums Operation Center guys to the problem.



I guess people just do not want it bad enough.


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> When I purchased the Oppo 103D and my 3313 Denon it was plug and play, nothing had to be "set-up" on the Oppo to get Dolby Surround 7.1 to work. If the X5200 Atmos required changes to the PLAYER setup then it should have been made very clear in the Denon startup procedure . I'm sure it's probably in the Denon manual some where, I assume, I certainly did not see it nor understand that the player would have to be setup differently . Like many here , I don't make a living in the HT business and have limited skills and knowledge learned along the way , much from forums like this fortunately . If I could have hired a HT calibrator I would have done so, for video too, but this is not a service available where I live. Point is, I didn't understand the player had to be adjusted for Atmos and now I understand what I missed.
> 
> Thank You again for all that gave me the feedback required.


Are you Atmos'ing? If you haven't tried the Dolby Surround upmixer yet you should pick your favorite movie and give it a try also! 

Actually the reason for the change has to do with Atmos decoding. Your OPPO-103D is the same as my OPPO-93 in that they are plug-n-play. Both our players can do LPCM or Bitstream. But for Atmos you need to feed your AVR with a Bitstream instead of PCM so the AVR can do the decoding and send the proper information to your speaker configuration. Your AVR like mine, probably had that little tidbit of information somewhere in the manual, but would not have informed you of needed changes to an external device during the setup period. Perhaps the next OPPO will have built in support for Atmos and possibly DTS:X if we're lucky.


----------



## morbidcorpse

Probably not the right thread for this commentary, but I can't find a thread where people are discussing their Atmos theater experiences? I drove 2 hours (round trip) last night to hit up a theater with Atmos (closest available). Saw the new Hobbit movie and I'm not sure if the movie soundtrack didn't utilize atmos correctly or if the theater didn't have it properly optimized (theater turned out to be fairly run down looking and ghetto, once I got there), but I gotta say, I'm sorely disappointed by the whole experience. I was expecting to be blown away by atmos, yet I couldn't tell a difference between it and your standard commercial theater audio. There were a few moments during the trailers where I could actually tell that overheads were being used, but when the movie started? Complete and total letdown. So did I just go to a theater with a bad setup, or do my ears just suck, or is atmos not all it's cracked up to be? Based on this one experience, I don't get the hype? I want to like Atmos because I would eventually like to implement it at home, but right now, I don't get it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

morbidcorpse said:


> Probably not the right thread for this commentary, but I can't find a thread where people are discussing their Atmos theater experiences? I drove 2 hours (round trip) last night to hit up a theater with Atmos (closest available). Saw the new Hobbit movie and I'm not sure if the movie soundtrack didn't utilize atmos correctly or if the theater didn't have it properly optimized (theater turned out to be fairly run down looking and ghetto, once I got there), but I gotta say, I'm sorely disappointed by the whole experience. I was expecting to be blown away by atmos, yet I couldn't tell a difference between it and your standard commercial theater audio. There were a few moments during the trailers where I could actually tell that overheads were being used, but when the movie started? Complete and total letdown. So did I just go to a theater with a bad setup, or do my ears just suck, or is atmos not all it's cracked up to be? Based on this one experience, I don't get the hype? I want to like Atmos because I would eventually like to implement it at home, but right now, I don't get it?


As I've mentioned before... 3D immersive sound mixing will take a learning curve. Some sound engineers have figured out how to use it to its full potential and others are hesitant to get more aggressive with their mixes and spread the soundscape out more realistically.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm tell ya we need that 9.1.6 as four overheads is not enough!



Scott, if this were implemented, does that mean you'd be incorporating wides?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> When I purchased the Oppo 103D and my 3313 Denon it was plug and play, nothing had to be "set-up" on the Oppo to get Dolby Surround 7.1 to work. If the X5200 Atmos required changes to the PLAYER setup then it should have been made very clear in the Denon startup procedure . *I'm sure it's probably in the Denon manual some where, I assume*, I certainly did not see it nor understand that the player would have to be setup differently .


No need to assume it; just search the manual and you will find the reference on p. 302 as shown below.












roxiedog13 said:


> Like many here , I don't make a living in the HT business and have limited skills and knowledge learned along the way , much from forums like this fortunately . If I could have hired a HT calibrator I would have done so, for video too, but this is not a service available where I live. Point is, I didn't understand the player had to be adjusted for Atmos and now I understand what I missed.
> 
> Thank You again for all that gave me the feedback required.


Many of us here (including yours truly) are picking this stuff up on the fly, so don't feel you are alone. But it should be obvious that no AVR (or TV or PC, et al) manufacturer could possibly provide detailed settings instructions for all the various makes, models and types of peripheral equipment that the user might purchase. OTOH, this forum is a great place to find the answers (or ask the questions) that are not addressed specifically--or in sufficient detail--in the equipment documentation. In fact, that tidbit about needing to bitstream the Atmos BR signal has been elucidated repeatedly (actually, about two dozen times by my cursory count) over in the X5200 thread. Knowledge is power.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> Scott, if this were implemented, does that mean you'd be incorporating wides?
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Front surrounds.


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Front surrounds.



Call them what you will, but I promise you'll like it over here on the dark side. We have cookies you know


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Scott Simonian

Cinemas have front surrounds. They do not have "wides" nor is there any surround format that uses them.

We have pizza and I like pizza. 

EDIT: For the record I have tried and heard "wides" and I think they add to the sound. However, they are the red-headed stepchild of all the speaker locations.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> :kiss:


Right back @ you. :kiss::grin:


----------



## BluesSailor

Come on guys, give a guy a break. Before wading into this discussion and ask a bunch of questions that have been covered over and over, I decided to read it ALL! I've been at it a while now and am almost up to 14,000. Trouble is, new posts are being added as fast as I can read.

(mutter, mutter, mutter)

Anyway, I've learned A LOT and am better for it. I'd recommend it to all new comers to ATMOS.

I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

Brad


----------



## Mike Garrett

roxiedog13 said:


> I have an Oppo 103D and have not made any changes to Bitstream or turned off secondary audio. Now that I know will check this immediately, thank you so much. This has to be the issue
> I obviously have missed this discussion on the forum entirely. I skimmed through the startup from my X5200 , in depth with the audyssey setup but never did I see any reference to Bitsteam.
> 
> Thanks everyone, if I hadn't seen the screen capture for the X5200 on a earlier post showing Atmos I would not have figured this out for a while.
> 
> This is why this forum is so valuable.....thanks again !!


I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that secondary audio is turned on and that is why you are not seeing and hearing Atmos. I had the same problem when I popped in my first Atmos BD. Took me a little while to find the problem.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> If that is the case then the S8 is overkill for surrounds.
> 
> *The ceiling speakers should be identical to the surrounds whenever possible as the bandwidth and SPL requirements are identical.*
> 
> This is me saying go for the S8's all around.


Scott has a very valid point here; I agree. 

Hey, some folks put subwoofers on their ceiling. 

* What is very interesting to me is this: On a video with interviews from Dolby Atmos Brett Crockett, Denon/Marantz rep, Onkyo/Integra rep, Def Tech rep, TF4 Atmos sound film mixer, Pioneer Atmos designer, by Scott Wilkinson; an emphasis was put on the overhead speakers are being fed with full range (20Hz-20kHz) audio content, and yet, they are in actual reality mainly dormant! 

Yes, Dolby Atmos is much more than overhead immersive sound; it is also object rendition all around the horizontal plane, not just the 3D-dimensional vertical one. That, I got very clear. Then why even bother with those overhead speakers; the up-firing modules were very liked @ several Dolby Atmos demo rooms in the past. ...Some people even preferred them to the actual on-ceiling ones.

But a bunch of folks don't have the right ceilings for up-firing/ceiling bouncing reflective sound speakers; too low, too high, not angled right (cathedral type). And other folks cannot install them on or in their ceilings for the same reasons.

No wonder this thread is running on Energizer batteries inside that rabbit drummer. 

DSU is like slice bread, but it ain't discrete. ...Just like Dolby Pro Logic (I, II, IIx, & IIz). 

We have now a bunch of Blu-rays in Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround (few), and in DTS-HD MA 7.1 surround (quite a few). ...I do have several myself.
Those are 7.1-channel *discrete*. ...And that's the way I listen to them and enjoy them.
So, I simply just want the same *discrete* surround sound immersion with 3D Dolby Atmos. ...Even if DSU is enough (just not enough for me). 

We are now well into 2015 (already six days in)  , and 'Gravity' and 'Exodus' in Dolby Atmos are still away from us in time.
How many times can we watch TF4, Expendables 3, TMNT, Step Up All In, over and over and over...

Maybe, just maybe, by 2017 we'll be lucky and have four more Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles.
And by that time we'll have probably upgrade our receivers about three times. ...Almost as much as there are Dolby Atmos BD titles.

Yeah, today we change gear more often than new formats. ...Sound wise, and video wise, and smartphone (iPhone) wise. 

More and more hi-res music is avail online through paid downloads. ...Some of it is not even hi-res. 
Movies in 4K are as rare as a steak. 
How long till Netflix movies can be seen in 4K and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack... 

Me I like PHYSICAL, ...I'm a physical man. I am a materialist. 
Make something very nice that I like, and I'll buy it. Make something of nothing much, and I'll give you that much.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Cinemas have front surrounds. They do not have "wides" nor is there any surround format that uses them.
> 
> We have pizza and I like pizza.
> 
> EDIT: For the record I have tried and heard "wides" and I think they add to the sound. However, they are the red-headed stepchild of all the speaker locations.


Am I missing something Scott, Atmos uses Front Wides... in the 9.1.4 configuration.


And as for Front Surrounds, from the Atmos While paper they are at 60-90 degrees, Front Wides are at 50-70 degrees very close in fact they over lap. 


Or were you referring to a different placement?


BTW, pizza *is* good!


----------



## lujan

batpig said:


> The latter. Transformers has minimal overhead usage and many moments that seemed like obvious opportunies for overhead sounds were not utilized. Is that the part where they are traversing the cables from the mothership?


Yes


----------



## Scott Simonian

There is no 'wides' in ANY cinema sound format. Never ever.

Audyssey DSX introduced them as they believe ... they are good.

DTS followed in suit (changing from their original rear heights) and went with wides to join in on the fun. Not sure why. 

Wides will only ever be used for objects with Atmos, ever.

No word yet what DTS:X will do with wides. Might use them, might not use them.

Front surrounds are different from wides. By angle? Not so much. By usage? More so.

Front surrounds in a >7.1 Atmos system can have channel content steered into them as they will group with side surrounds as an "array". Similar to how cinema surrounds work.

Hope that explains and helps. 


Pizza is god.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> There is no 'wides' in ANY cinema sound format. Never ever.


Aren't there Front Wide speakers (in front of the side surround array) in cinema Atmos? Distinct front the "Front Surround" positions in that they don't get the surround channel bed but they ARE used for object panning.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Aren't there Front Wide speakers (in front of the side surround array) in cinema Atmos? Distinct front the "Front Surround" positions in that they don't get the surround channel bed but they ARE used for object panning.


Yes. Those are front/forward surrounds.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Hmmmm, take a look at this from the Dolby While paper, speaker set #5 ...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmmm, take a look at this from the Dolby While paper, speaker set #5 ...



Yes. Atmos supports 'wide' speakers.

Only objects will move through them. They will be silent otherwise.

There is NO cinema sound format that uses wides.



This is fun.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Those are front/forward surrounds.


But aren't those speakers in the Atmos cinema NOT receiving surround bed info? They are forward of the surround array and angled in towards the seating. That makes them distinct from the surround array and exactly analogous to the "Front Wide" position listed in the "Atmos for Home" diagrams right?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Atmos supports 'wide' speakers.
> 
> Only objects will move through them. They will be silent otherwise.
> 
> There is NO cinema sound format that uses wides.
> 
> 
> 
> This is fun.





Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Those are front/forward surrounds.


So what placement angle would these occupy? And did you mention no 'home' format is using this currently?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> But aren't those speakers in the Atmos cinema NOT receiving surround bed info? They are forward of the surround array and angled in towards the seating. That makes them distinct from the surround array and exactly analogous to the "Front Wide" position listed in the "Atmos for Home" diagrams right?


I know. It's super confusing. 


In the cinema. There. Is. No. Wide. Speakers.

At home there is....sorta. DSX *post processing* has wides. Neo:X *also a post process* has wides. Atmos supports wides but only for objects. DSU does not even touch them.

For home Atmos (pay close attention) there are wides AND front surrounds. Wides will get objects and only objects. Forever more. Front surrounds will get objects AND will mate with the side surrounds as an "array" just like the cinema. These are the front/forward surrounds in Dolby Atmos Cinema white papers. I've read them all.

No wides. 

Wides are only a figment produced by DSX and made ultra popular at home with Neo:X. That's it.

Dolby is playing nice by allowing those stuck with them to use them with the new hotness. IE: Dolby Atmos.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Atmos supports 'wide' speakers.
> 
> Only objects will move through them. *They will be silent otherwise*.
> 
> There is NO cinema sound format that uses wides.
> 
> 
> 
> This is fun.


And yet, much more active than the Atmos "height" speakers, in fact, likely as much as the FL/FR speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

jdsmoothie said:


> And yet, much more active than the Atmos "height" speakers, in fact, likely as much as the FL/FR speakers.


Haha! Possibly, yes. Just depends on how the objects were mixed and if they pan as such. They might not be. The sounds might all be channel information. 

Just depends. But the difference with home and cinema Atmos is that there is no channel 'bed' support for the two over heads at home. They are rendered as 'objects'.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Angular location of these mystical speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Al Sherwood said:


> Angular location of these mystical speakers?


Read this. Follow the 4.14 segment.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf

The only "mystical" speakers are these wides y'all enamored with.  

They certainly do not exist in ANY cinema sound format.


----------



## robert816

morbidcorpse said:


> Probably not the right thread for this commentary, but I can't find a thread where people are discussing their Atmos theater experiences? I drove 2 hours (round trip) last night to hit up a theater with Atmos (closest available). Saw the new Hobbit movie and I'm not sure if the movie soundtrack didn't utilize atmos correctly or if the theater didn't have it properly optimized (theater turned out to be fairly run down looking and ghetto, once I got there), but I gotta say, I'm sorely disappointed by the whole experience. I was expecting to be blown away by atmos, yet I couldn't tell a difference between it and your standard commercial theater audio. There were a few moments during the trailers where I could actually tell that overheads were being used, but when the movie started? Complete and total letdown. So did I just go to a theater with a bad setup, or do my ears just suck, or is atmos not all it's cracked up to be? Based on this one experience, I don't get the hype? I want to like Atmos because I would eventually like to implement it at home, but right now, I don't get it?



I, like many others in this forum, feel Atmos is all that! But I will agree with you that the 5 Armies was a little underwhelming as far as Atmos goes. There were a few scenes where I could tell Atmos was a bit more engaging, but for most of the movie other than very well placed audio, there did not seem to be much to get excited over. Also, did any one else notice this, in the scene where Thorin is in the hall of kings and finally comes to terms with himself, he takes off the crown and tosses it across the floor to the left of the audience, but when I was watching it, the sound went to the right of the audience. There were only a few other people there so I didn't ask if anyone else noticed it, but I certainly did.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Read this. Follow the 4.14 segment.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf
> 
> The only "mystical" speakers are these wides y'all enamored with.
> 
> They certainly do not exist in ANY cinema sound format.


OK, then enlighten me if I am looking at the wrong speaker but from that white paper: *4.14.1 Horizontal Coverage Angle, Front Side Surround Loudspeakers: 60°
Each front side surround loudspeaker that is forward of the listening area should have a horizontal coverage angle*
≥60°

And from the Dolby Atmos (for home) White paper: Left/Right Wide 50-70 degrees.

So essentially the same intended position?


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> Read this. Follow the 4.14 segment.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf
> 
> The only "mystical" speakers are these wides y'all enamored with.
> 
> They certainly do not exist in ANY cinema sound format.



Either way, you'll be able to enjoy your front/forward wide surrounds like the rest of us heathens soon enough. Plus, at that point they won't be the ginger stepchildren anymore, just pure bloods


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Atmos supports 'wide' speakers.
> 
> Only objects will move through them. They will be silent otherwise.
> 
> There is NO cinema sound format that uses wides.
> 
> This is fun.


Yes it's fun; Dolby Atmos Wides...(home theater version). 
The Wides are discrete, Dolby Atmos objects are directed to them, @ home (not in public theaters). 

And DSU; no more use of them. ...Wides. 

♦ Next year (this year already) we should see new products that support Dolby Atmos & dts:X with 9.1.4 speaker setup configuration. 
I bet Onkyo/Integra 2nd generation Dolby Atmos/dts:X products will support a 9.1.4 setup.
...And Yamaha too.
...And Denon/Marantz.

Good times are just ahead/above of us; and next would be 9.1.6 ...that, for just one couch. 
{For two rows of seats you want more overhead speakers, like eight. ...And two more horizontal ones, for an 11.1.8 Dolby Atmos/dts:X setup.}


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> *For home Atmos (pay close attention) there are wides AND front surrounds. Wides will get objects and only objects. Forever more. Front surrounds will get objects AND will mate with the side surrounds as an "array" just like the cinema. These are the front/forward surrounds in Dolby Atmos Cinema white papers. I've read them all.*


So/then, an *11.1.4* setup should be the very strict minimum setup required by true Dolby Atmos aficionados. ...Yes?

Or should it be an *11.1.8* setup? ... 24.8.10 ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Haha! Possibly, yes. Just depends on how the objects were mixed and if they pan as such. They might not be. The sounds might all be channel information.
> 
> Just depends. But the difference with home and cinema Atmos is that there is no channel 'bed' support for the two over heads at home. They are rendered as 'objects'.


Dialog stems were attached to objects in _Gravity_'s Atmos mix and I noticed quite often that any talking that occurred just outside the screen area moved to the left or right front surrounds. Hopefully, it will be the same for the home mix. 

I don't know if the 9.1.4 layouts shown at CEDIA have the same object-only or object/bed designation as upcoming mainstream 9.1.4 products since they were using more advanced processors with more outputs to choose from, but from what I could tell both music and effects were ported to the front side surround locations. 

For what it's worth.


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> So/then, an *11.1.4* setup should be the very strict minimum setup required by true Dolby Atmos aficionados. ...Yes?
> 
> Or should it be an *11.1.8* setup? ... 24.8.10 ?



Stop that Bob! Now I am going to go down to the basement and start counting speakers again! 

BTW, I was already prepared for 9.1.6


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Are you Atmos'ing? If you haven't tried the Dolby Surround upmixer yet you should pick your favorite movie and give it a try also!
> 
> Actually the reason for the change has to do with Atmos decoding. Your OPPO-103D is the same as my OPPO-93 in that they are plug-n-play. Both our players can do LPCM or Bitstream. But for Atmos you need to feed your AVR with a Bitstream instead of PCM so the AVR can do the decoding and send the proper information to your speaker configuration. Your AVR like mine, probably had that little tidbit of information somewhere in the manual, but would not have informed you of needed changes to an external device during the setup period. Perhaps the next OPPO will have built in support for Atmos and possibly DTS:X if we're lucky.



I did manage to get the adjustments made on the Oppo and did select Atmos from the disc menu. I now finally have Atmos, unfortunately though, still not impressed. I'm going to have to try in-ceiling speakers for the front Atmos ceiling, I'm using front modules that I believe are not in a ideal position. Have gone this far, will have to try the front speakers for a last attempt at being impressed. Like they say,if your going crazy, might as well pack a lunch.


----------



## NorthSky

Al, we're coming back full circle again. ...It's just the way it works.

- 1982 : Dolby Surround
- 2014 : Dolby Surround

- 2046 : Dolby Surround


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> I did manage to get the adjustments made on the Oppo and did select Atmos from the disc menu. I now finally have Atmos, unfortunately though, still not impressed. I'm going to have to try in-ceiling speakers for the front Atmos ceiling, I'm using front modules that I believe are not in a ideal position. Have gone this far, will have to try the front speakers for a last attempt at being impressed. Like they say,if your going crazy, might as well pack a lunch.



Good deal! Took me a while playing with speakers in different positions until I hit the sweet spot, when I did there was a world of difference from when I started to where I'm at now. Watched Battleship and GI Joe Retaliation with DSU and was amazed at the little things I could pick out of the sound field, like the explosive fireflies swarming around in GI Joe Retaliation, good times, good times.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Al Sherwood said:


> OK, then enlighten me if I am looking at the wrong speaker but from that white paper: *4.14.1 Horizontal Coverage Angle, Front Side Surround Loudspeakers: 60°
> Each front side surround loudspeaker that is forward of the listening area should have a horizontal coverage angle*
> ≥60°
> 
> And from the Dolby Atmos (for home) White paper: Left/Right Wide 50-70 degrees.
> 
> So essentially the same intended position?



The angles _do_ converge.

The difference is...

In the cinema this position is a *brand new to Atmos* front surround. There is NO wide speaker in any audio format. The only wide is either a DSX generated signal (fake reflections) or a Neo:X extracted signal (center extraction between front L/R and side L/R). There is ZERO discrete content in a wide channel. 

I know what you're thinking. Semantics. Just names. It isn't.

If you choose a wide speaker at home, it will only ever be used for the occasional object. Always and forever. Unless you elect for Neo:X/DSX in which case... no overhead surround and no objects.

Now... the front surround is a real position with Dolby Atmos. It is supported by the home version as well. Objects will also move through this speaker and it will also attach to the side surround in an "array". These two speakers (wide and front surround) have intersecting possible positions. Why would you then use the wide? If they can go in the same spot, use the front surround which will be ahead of you and in between the side surrounds and fronts. 



ambesolman said:


> Either way, you'll be able to enjoy your front/forward wide surrounds like the rest of us heathens soon enough. Plus, at that point they won't be the ginger stepchildren anymore, just pure bloods
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Nope. The wide will always and forever be an unused speaker. It is only used by either DSX (almost nobody admits to using this, especially with movies) or Neo:X. It will be unused with DSU. Now tell me, if you have Atmos/DSU when will you be using Neo:X? 

Again. There is no audio format with wides. Wides are derived simply from post processing.



NorthSky said:


> So/then, an *11.1.4* setup should be the very strict minimum setup required by true Dolby Atmos aficionados. ...Yes?
> 
> Or should it be an *11.1.8* setup? ... 24.8.10 ?


No! People are stuck on the importance of the wides because they feel like it 'fills in a gap' between the side surround and fronts. Why would you need two speakers between the side surrounds and front? That's a narrow angle between four speakers. Take one out and you'll never notice. Plus two extra speakers to buy, place and amplify.

And if anything this is still hugely lopsided. 9.1.6 man. We don't need more speakers at ear level. We need them where there are far fewer. Above us.

It's so easy. Fill the gaps. Hit every angle needed. Back, middle front and the same overhead.


----------



## NorthSky

Awesome post Scott; *9.1.6* --- I totally agree.

* Dolby, in their pdf paper, they stop short of two @ 9.1.4


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> The same Van Baelen who is on record as saying you need a new Bluray player if you want to use Atmos?


Well, in your particular case he got that right, didn't he?  (maybe he was aware of the Mediatek issue)


----------



## dannybee

John Wick is coming out on bluray on Feb 2 with dolby atmos soundtrack


----------



## Frank714

Selden Ball said:


> _Exodus_ has been announced as coming with Atmos. I dunno if you're aware of that one. I've seen some reports that the in-theater audio was lackluster, though.


And, IIRC, _John Wick_ is coming to BD with a Dolby Atmos track, too.

Many members have vocally expressed their dissatisfaction with the limited number of BD releases in Dolby Atmos, but I think there are good reasons.

The way I see it Lionsgate has been seizing the occasion to feature its titles with DA tracks to boost sales figures.

The major labels are apparently holding back with only _Transformers 4_ available and _Gravity _becoming available.

My 0.02 $ is that the major labels - ahead of us - were well aware that DTS:X is coming. I'd speculate, based on ancient experience (many VHS and LaserDisc videos did *not* feature the "Dolby Surround" logobecause the distributors had to pay Dolby for its use!), that behind closed doors there are currently ongoing negotiations and bartering.

For the major labels cost is an issue. If they feel they pay too much for the use of Dolby Atmos, they can still jump ship and go for DTS:X instead. Or they could use either format to generate extra appeal for the upcoming 4K Blu-ray discs.

Put simply: There is no pressing need for the major labels to rush Dolby Atmos encoded BDs onto the market.

The only one under pressure is Dolby. In order for their format to gain a substantial foothold, they are the ones in need of more Dolby Atmos Software.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Has anyone ever disputed this notion?
> 
> In other news, proper hydration benefits from more water!


The notion I was trying to bring across is not so much the obvious one of 'more speakers deliver more distinct object playback' but the probably more disputable one of 'not enough speakers may bring the added value of object playback close to zero'. If we forget for a moment the influence of overheads (which appear to be be heavily under-used on Atmos BRs so far), what difference will I hear with a standard 7.1 speaker set-up when I switch from object rendering to standard playback in which all objects are folded back into the channel bed?


----------



## brwsaw

Scott Simonian said:


> Cinemas have front surrounds. They do not have "wides" nor is there any surround format that uses them.
> 
> We have pizza and I like pizza.
> 
> EDIT: For the record I have tried and heard "wides" and I think they add to the sound. However, they are the red-headed stepchild of all the speaker locations.



I look forward to the day I can connect 34 or more speaker cables randomly and the pre/pro will take care of the rest.

Ideally it would have an automated pre-session calibration and real time monitored SPL levels at 4 seats (@ 4 corners of Dolby's movie theater layout) but that's for another thread.


----------



## blastermaster

> And if anything this is still hugely lopsided. 9.1.6 man. We don't need more speakers at ear level. We need them where there are far fewer. Above us.


This is kinda what I'm leaning towards. If you're planning on having a second row of seating, this is a necessity. I may start out with 7.1.4 and just have one row for now, but 9.1.6 is the ultimate goal.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Atmos supports 'wide' speakers.
> 
> Only objects will move through them. They will be silent otherwise.
> 
> There is NO cinema sound format that uses wides.
> 
> 
> 
> This is fun.


It's like the AVS version of Groundhog Day.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Well, in your particular case he got that right, didn't he?  (maybe he was aware of the Mediatek issue)


LOL. If only that was what he meant...

I didn’t really need a new BD player. My old Panasonic BDM35 plays all Atmos discs to perfection. It was just an excuse to get a new player


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I know. It's super confusing.
> 
> 
> In the cinema. There. Is. No. Wide. Speakers.
> 
> At home there is....sorta. DSX *post processing* has wides. Neo:X *also a post process* has wides. Atmos supports wides but only for objects. DSU does not even touch them.
> 
> For home Atmos (pay close attention) there are wides AND front surrounds. Wides will get objects and only objects. Forever more. Front surrounds will get objects AND will mate with the side surrounds as an "array" just like the cinema. These are the front/forward surrounds in Dolby Atmos Cinema white papers. I've read them all.
> 
> No wides.
> 
> Wides are only a figment produced by DSX and made ultra popular at home with Neo:X. That's it.
> 
> Dolby is playing nice by allowing those stuck with them to use them with the new hotness. IE: Dolby Atmos.


It's like the AVS version of Groundhog Day.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Nope. The wide will always and forever be an unused speaker. It is only used by either DSX (almost nobody admits to using this, especially with movies) or Neo:X. It will be unused with DSU. *Now tell me, if you have Atmos/DSU when will you be using Neo:X?*


Okey-dokey, I'll tell you: I have Atmos/DSU (7.1.4) and I prefer Neo:X 11.1 whenever I am playing music.

Although I am not contesting your well-founded basic point about filling in the gaps, I do see difficulty incorporating the front surround position for many of us who do not have a dedicated HT. In my living room I can not envision moving my front wides into the room from their (somewhat compromised 50°) position against the front wall without creating an obstacle course--and open marital warfare to boot.  I could foresee redesignating my FW's as front surrounds but only assuming they could function adequately in their present gap-inducing location. 

IOW, while it does not offer the seamless horizontal bubble of a front surround, the FW location in Neo:X does provide me with an expanded front sound stage. In my room, that's a feature that I appreciate. 



Scott Simonian said:


> For the record I have tried and heard "wides" and I think they add to the sound. However, they are the red-headed stepchild of all the speaker locations.


 Ich liebe sowohl Kind wie auch Kegel! (Let's see Google translator handle that one.)


----------



## gammanuc

With the currently available crop of Atmos receivers, how does one go about using front surrounds instead of wides?


----------



## Al Sherwood

gammanuc said:


> With the currently available crop of Atmos receivers, how does one go about using front surrounds instead of wides?


 
That is just it, Front Surrounds are not shown/supported from what I can find in the current D+M or Onkyo manuals, wides are your only choice for ear level speakers in the area.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> But aren't those speakers in the Atmos cinema NOT receiving surround bed info? They are forward of the surround array and angled in towards the seating. That makes them distinct from the surround array and exactly analogous to the "Front Wide" position listed in the "Atmos for Home" diagrams right?


They're analogous to the Front Wide functionality: bridging the gap between Fronts and Surrounds, playing back objects but not channels. But their position is different from what we consider Wides on consumer systems. 

If you're sitting in the sweet spot of a commercial cinema, usually 2/3rds of the way back, the L/R speakers are typically spread 40-45 degrees apart. This puts the Atmos speakers that are just outside the screen at about a 60 degree spread (30 degrees from Centre). By comparison, the L/R speakers on home systems are recommended to have a 60 degree spread, with the Wides being 120 degrees apart (60 degrees from Centre).


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Good deal! Took me a while playing with speakers in different positions until I hit the sweet spot, when I did there was a world of difference from when I started to where I'm at now. Watched Battleship and GI Joe Retaliation with DSU and was amazed at the little things I could pick out of the sound field, like the explosive fireflies swarming around in GI Joe Retaliation, good times, good times.


Now to find in-ceiling speakers for the front and middle (future proofing of course). I have Paridigm SA 15R-30 in the rear now and at $700 each I think I have to consider something more affordable for the front. I like that they have a 30 degree angle that can be directed toward the MLP but may be overkill for the purpose. I like to keep speakers matched but this may be a case
where a lot less would suffice. 

suggestions anyone??


----------



## Csbooth

batpig said:


> @Csbooth - Can you remind me of the details of your room? I know you were seeking help getting a budget speaker setup for Atmos. I remember you were hoping for a budget range of $1,300-1,700 for 11 speakers + two subs right? How big is your room and how loud do you think you'll be listening?


Hi @batpig (Is that how mentions work? Lol), my room dimensions are (LxWxH) 12x10x8.

Originally I was wanting up to $1,700 but as luck would have it, I have secured another $300.00 for a total of 2,000.00. As far as listening levels go, the wife and I never go much higher than 15 below reference, so I'd say at most I would think is 5 below being a sweet spot.


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> That was part of my recommendation in response to the $1300 budget you presented for 11.1 speakers. What did you decide regarding the rest of your gear?
> 
> BTW, knowing that you've got a sharp eye on your purse-strings, I though I'd mention that newegg.com has a promotion this week for the Polk Audio RC60i's (the 6.5" little brother of the 8" RC80i). Through Jan 11, you can use promo code EMCAKAT69 to get two pairs for $179.88 shipped. If you don't mind downgrading to the smaller overheads, that would presumably save you about $100 on the four speakers.
> 
> Either way, don't neglect to make a backer box for the attic side of each speaker.


I did see those RC60i; and actually went ahead and picked that deal up as after the discount it was essentially getting one pair for free in relation to the upper tier lol. If I don't think they'll do the trick then I can always upgrade to the next level. Of course I would have to cut a little larger in diameter, but I'm accounting for that just in case. Thanks for the tip on the enclosure though, will do.

I have been able to secure up to $2,000 now (modest still I know lol), so any extra recommendations are welcome! I'm a newbie when it comes to subs and "the crawl" for perfect SPL and all haha.


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> I, like many others in this forum, feel Atmos is all that! But I will agree with you that the 5 Armies was a little underwhelming as far as Atmos goes. There were a few scenes where I could tell Atmos was a bit more engaging, but for most of the movie other than very well placed audio, there did not seem to be much to get excited over. Also, did any one else notice this, in the scene where Thorin is in the hall of kings and finally comes to terms with himself, he takes off the crown and tosses it across the floor to the left of the audience, but when I was watching it, the sound went to the right of the audience. There were only a few other people there so I didn't ask if anyone else noticed it, but I certainly did.


I wonder if that's why many New releases of blu-rays are coming out without an Atmos mix. Might it be that the mixing studio's see no benefit to mix it in Atmos as there may not be much there height wise. My thinking that Atmos is more then overhead sound, and I'm hoping to see more this year... while I patiently wait I'll continue to use DSU as my main listening mode. Just my thought for the day.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> They're analogous to the Front Wide functionality: bridging the gap between Fronts and Surrounds, playing back objects but not channels. But their position is different from what we consider Wides on consumer systems.
> 
> If you're sitting in the sweet spot of a commercial cinema, usually 2/3rds of the way back, the L/R speakers are typically spread 40-45 degrees apart. This puts the Atmos speakers that are just outside the screen at about a 60 degree spread (30 degrees from Centre). By comparison, the L/R speakers on home systems are recommended to have a 60 degree spread, with the Wides being 120 degrees apart (60 degrees from Centre).


 
Hmmm, given a Atmos Home setup, with the fronts at a nominal 30 degrees from Center and the wides at 60 degrees, the intersecting speaker at 45 degrees is called? Although I see it in the diagram found in the Dolby White paper that shows the complete 24.1.10 configuration, I find no reference to it's official name.



Center 0 degrees
Right/Left screen +/- 15 degrees
Right/Left +/- 30 degrees
*Right/Left??? +/- 45 degrees*
Right/Left wide +/- 60 degrees
Right/Left surround 1 +/- 75 degrees
Right/Left surround +/- 90 degrees
Right/Left Surround 2 +/- 105 degrees
Right/Left rear surround 1 +/- 120 degrees
Right/Left rear Surround +/- 135 degrees
Right/Left rear surround 2 +/- 150 degrees
Right/Left center surround +/- 165 degrees
Center surround 180 degrees


----------



## Tnedator

Full range and timbre matching?

I thought I read in the early information that Dolby was recommending full range speakers for the surrounds and overheads. Is this the case? Is it really feasible to have full range surrounds/overheads vs. having lower frequencies sent through subs (I'll have two up front, one in the back, two left/right of the MLP). 

On timbre matching, I hear some people say it isn't important, because their AVR (Audyssey) will EQ any differences between the speakers. Is this the case?


----------



## rboster

krozman said:


> So I went back about 8 pages on this thread and haven't seen any updates....so i'll ask...... ANY new Atmos track blu rays coming?


I know the new Reeves film, "John Wick" will have an Atmos soundtrack (first week in Feb). Was one of my favorite action movie from last year. Having Atmos just puts the cherry on the top.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Tnedator said:


> Full range and timbre matching?
> 
> I thought I read in the early information that Dolby was recommending full range speakers for the surrounds and overheads. Is this the case? Is it really feasible to have full range surrounds/overheads vs. having lower frequencies sent through subs (I'll have two up front, one in the back, two left/right of the MLP).
> 
> On timbre matching, I hear some people say it isn't important, because their AVR (Audyssey) will EQ any differences between the speakers. Is this the case?



With regards to the Dolby spec, full range (with bass management) would allow those frequencies below 80Hz to go to your subs, the remaining frequencies should present little issue to a decent speaker overhead. Adding to this that is you can stay with in the same family/manufacturer your installation will be easier to EQ. You can of course diverge from this recommendation but if you have yet to purchase these extra speakers why not timbre match them?


----------



## Csbooth

Scott Simonian said:


> The angles _do_ converge.
> 
> The difference is...
> 
> In the cinema this position is a *brand new to Atmos* front surround. There is NO wide speaker in any audio format. The only wide is either a DSX generated signal (fake reflections) or a Neo:X extracted signal (center extraction between front L/R and side L/R). There is ZERO discrete content in a wide channel.
> 
> I know what you're thinking. Semantics. Just names. It isn't.
> 
> If you choose a wide speaker at home, it will only ever be used for the occasional object. Always and forever. Unless you elect for Neo:X/DSX in which case... no overhead surround and no objects.
> 
> Now... the front surround is a real position with Dolby Atmos. It is supported by the home version as well. Objects will also move through this speaker and it will also attach to the side surround in an "array". These two speakers (wide and front surround) have intersecting possible positions. Why would you then use the wide? If they can go in the same spot, use the front surround which will be ahead of you and in between the side surrounds and fronts.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The wide will always and forever be an unused speaker. It is only used by either DSX (almost nobody admits to using this, especially with movies) or Neo:X. It will be unused with DSU. Now tell me, if you have Atmos/DSU when will you be using Neo:X?
> 
> Again. There is no audio format with wides. Wides are derived simply from post processing.
> 
> 
> 
> No! People are stuck on the importance of the wides because they feel like it 'fills in a gap' between the side surround and fronts. Why would you need two speakers between the side surrounds and front? That's a narrow angle between four speakers. Take one out and you'll never notice. Plus two extra speakers to buy, place and amplify.
> 
> And if anything this is still hugely lopsided. 9.1.6 man. We don't need more speakers at ear level. We need them where there are far fewer. Above us.
> 
> It's so easy. Fill the gaps. Hit every angle needed. Back, middle front and the same overhead.


Agreed, awesome post. What about speakers in/on our ground level? 7.x.6.6? lol or is that just crazy thinking?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tnedator said:


> Full range and timbre matching?
> 
> I thought I read in the early information that Dolby was recommending full range speakers for the surrounds and overheads. Is this the case? Is it really feasible to have full range surrounds/overheads vs. having lower frequencies sent through subs (I'll have two up front, one in the back, two left/right of the MLP).
> 
> On timbre matching, I hear some people say it isn't important, because their AVR (Audyssey) will EQ any differences between the speakers. Is this the case?


It depends on the size of your room, your budget, and whether the speaker manufacturer you chose has adequate speakers within each model range that will work best with 3D immersive sound formats. 

Ideally, you would want your speakers to have similar voicing across the board... of course hanging towers on your ceiling is usually not possible and maybe even a little dangerous (unless your ultimate goal is to take one of your pesky in-law's out).  That's where smaller speakers (perhaps in-ceiling's if you don't have a high ceiling) and bass management would come into play. 

Unfortunately, for one reason or another it may not be feasible to have timbre matched speakers in an Atmos or DTS-X system (that's usually more the case with the overheads), so EQ can help, but is still not a complete panacea. And no, EQ will not magically make Paradigm Studio speakers sound like Totems or Triad's.


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmm, given a Atmos Home setup, with the fronts at a nominal 30 degrees from Center and the wides at 60 degrees, the intersecting speaker at 45 degrees is called?


L/R speakers. IF the install guide is to be believed, those locations serve as alternate placement for L/R mains when using 7 speakers across the front.


----------



## Gurba

Why all this fuzz about playing atmos With a non-atmos system? I thought the objective of atmos is to utilize ceiling speakers to add air, ambiance and sounds from above. Without ceiling speakers or atmos add-on modules this will never happen no matter if the entire atmos soundtrack is Down mixed into 5.1/7.1 or not. So either be happy With 5.1/7.1 sound tracks or get atmos.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> L/R speakers. IF the install guide is to be believed, those locations serve as alternate placement for L/R mains when using 7 speakers across the front.



That is kind of what I thought too, basically widens the front sound stage putting more speakers behind the screen and pushing the L/R out a bit.


So the "Front Surround" that has been mentioned by Scott really doesn't show up on the diagram I posted from the Dolby White paper as the next surround speaker down the wall are the wides at a nominal 60 degrees.


----------



## Tnedator

Al Sherwood said:


> With regards to the Dolby spec, full range (with bass management) would allow those frequencies below 80Hz to go to your subs, the remaining frequencies should present little issue to a decent speaker overhead. Adding to this that is you can stay with in the same family/manufacturer your installation will be easier to EQ. You can of course diverge from this recommendation but if you have yet to purchase these extra speakers why not timbre match them?


Ok, I guess maybe the "with bass management" was the part I was missing. 

I haven't purchased yet. My current leaning is to go with:

Klipsch THX Ulra II LCR
Surrounds - Klipsch KL-7800 (in wall Ultra II)
Overheads - Klipsch KL-6502 (in wall THX select, timbre matched to ultra II stuff). 
Seaton F2's up front
Klipsch reference in wall subs (three) on sides and rear of room

This allows me to stay timbre matched (I'll be mounting the overheads in coffers, so in-wall format fits where a round ceiling speaker wouldn't), but I wanted to make sure about the full range aspect. 

Anything about this setup raise concerns for Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> So the "Front Surround" that has been mentioned by Scott really doesn't show up on the diagram I posted from the Dolby White paper as the next surround speaker down the wall are the wides at a nominal 60 degrees.


He kept repeating that he was talking about commercial cinemas, so I wasn't expecting those speaker designations to be in the consumer install guide. The consumer version has 3 pairs of side speakers: Surround 1, Surround, Surround 2 (their arcs centered at 75, 90, 105 degrees, respectively).


----------



## Csbooth

Gurba said:


> Why all this fuzz about playing atmos With a non-atmos system? I thought the objective of atmos is to utilize ceiling speakers to add air, ambiance and sounds from above. Without ceiling speakers or atmos add-on modules this will never happen no matter if the entire atmos soundtrack is Down mixed into 5.1/7.1 or not. So either be happy With 5.1/7.1 sound tracks or get atmos.


Awww man, it's coming, I can hear the horns ablowin!


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> He kept repeating that he was talking about commercial cinemas, so I wasn't expecting those speaker designations to be in the consumer install guide. The consumer version has 3 pairs of side speakers: Surround 1, Surround, Surround 2 (their arcs centered at 75, 90, 105 degrees, respectively).



Ok, yes he was talking about commercial not home, and of course for this exercise I am thinking about home installs... I guess that I will have to mount those side surrounds on rails so I can side them to different angles as the AVR manufacturers provide more options! 

I would like to go with 5 speakers across the front but to date no regular AVR provides for additional speakers across the front over the traditional L-C-R configuration, the right/left screen would be my choice.


----------



## robert816

bargervais said:


> I wonder if that's why many New releases of blu-rays are coming out without an Atmos mix. Might it be that the mixing studio's see no benefit to mix it in Atmos as there may not be much there height wise. My thinking that Atmos is more then overhead sound, and I'm hoping to see more this year... while I patiently wait I'll continue to use DSU as my main listening mode. Just my thought for the day.


I agree sir, I'm fully committed (or should be) to Atmos (except for the Step Up movie, have to draw the line somewhere ) and am looking forward to most any movie coming out with an Atmos sound track. Not just overhead effects, but the amazing amount of small things like subtle sounds placed here or there, things panning from front to back or vise-versa that are so good I do not miss my front wides, not only the sound, but almost feeling as though I'm in a cave with water dripping in the background and the soft echo of small noises that make my room seem so much larger than it is. This is what I want Atmos for, to give me a sense of being there.

In the mean time, Dolby Surround is doing a wonderful job on my video library to the point I have no regrets spending the money I have. I have a fair number of Japanese titles that most are Dolby Stereo 2.0 and DSU still fills the room with sound. I do hope that studios understand that Atmos is worthy of much more than overhead gimmicks to the consumer, that immersive audio can enhance both the movie going, and home viewing experience to the next level.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Tnedator said:


> Ok, I guess maybe the "with bass management" was the part I was missing.
> 
> I haven't purchased yet. My current leaning is to go with:
> 
> Klipsch THX Ulra II LCR
> Surrounds - Klipsch KL-7800 (in wall Ultra II)
> Overheads - Klipsch KL-6502 (in wall THX select, timbre matched to ultra II stuff).
> Seaton F2's up front
> Klipsch reference in wall subs (three) on sides and rear of room
> 
> This allows me to stay timbre matched (I'll be mounting the overheads in coffers, so in-wall format fits where a round ceiling speaker wouldn't), but I wanted to make sure about the full range aspect.
> 
> Anything about this setup raise concerns for Atmos?



Should make for an awesome Atmos set up! It must be a fairly large room?


Are you planning on a future friendly configuration such as 9.1.6?


----------



## sdurani

Gurba said:


> I thought the objective of atmos is to utilize ceiling speakers to add air, ambiance and sounds from above.


Consumer systems have had height speakers prior to Atmos. The objective of Atmos is to sever the old channel/speaker connection and use object-based audio to scale soundtracks to your speaker layout.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tnedator said:


> Ok, I guess maybe the "with bass management" was the part I was missing.
> 
> I haven't purchased yet. My current leaning is to go with:
> 
> Klipsch THX Ulra II LCR
> Surrounds - Klipsch KL-7800 (in wall Ultra II)
> Overheads - Klipsch KL-6502 (in wall THX select, timbre matched to ultra II stuff).
> Seaton F2's up front
> Klipsch reference in wall subs (three) on sides and rear of room
> 
> This allows me to stay timbre matched (I'll be mounting the overheads in coffers, so in-wall format fits where a round ceiling speaker wouldn't), but I wanted to make sure about the full range aspect.
> 
> Anything about this setup raise concerns for Atmos?


Yes, I'm concerned about your choice of overheads. There doesn't seem to be a means by which to aim them at the MLP unless you build angled boxes for them. They're also not timbre matched with the other Klipsch THX speakers you've chosen, but there doesn't seem to be an adequate selection in the current Ultra 2 line up for overheads (outside of bracket mounting KL-525-THX's on the ceiling, or building special boxes for more KL-7800's). Perhaps you could try the Tannoy Di 5DC or Di 6DC speakers as Keith and Roger (and others) are doing. 

I would possibly look at other choices for in-wall subs that would give you a better boom for your buck ratio... Triad in-wall subs are well regarded.


----------



## Al Sherwood

^^ I thought the KL-6502 were timber matched to the Ultra II speakers?


Missed the aiming of the overheads, not a wide enough dispersion?


----------



## Tnedator

Al Sherwood said:


> Should make for an awesome Atmos set up! It must be a fairly large room?
> 
> 
> Are you planning on a future friendly configuration such as 9.1.6?



Roughly 27' x 17' with 10' ceiling (link to info on it in my signature). 

Back in August, this was the mockup I did for speaker layout, before the info released by Dolby at Cedia. It's not to scale, so for instance, the back left/right side wall columns are probably not as close to the back wall as they appear (the three columns are evenly spaced). But, it's a rough representation of what the room will be and the coffered ceiling. 










Initially, as much because of AVR limitations as anything, I'll go with four overhead speakers, and not utilize the front left and right columns (marked with S?), or the angled columns left/right of the screen (this will be wired, and I could add front wides later, when AVR's support more than 7.2.4). The back side wall columns (also listed with S?) will have have a split signal of the surrounds, and I'll use a DSP to balance these prior to Audyssey calibration. 

There will also be in wall subs (capable of going down to 40hz) in the SL, SR and BR columns to


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> ^^ I thought the KL-6502 were timber matched to the Ultra II speakers?
> 
> 
> Missed the aiming of the overheads, not a wide enough dispersion?


It doesn't look that way to me anyway. They also have different woofer drivers.


----------



## Tnedator

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, I'm concerned about your choice of overheads. There doesn't seem to be a means by which to aim them at the MLP unless you build angled boxes for them. They're also not timbre matched with the other Klipsch THX speakers you've chosen, but there doesn't seem to be an adequate selection in the current Ultra 2 line up for overheads (outside of bracket mounting KL-525-THX's on the ceiling, or building special boxes for more KL-7800's). Perhaps you could try the Tannoy Di 5DC or Di 6DC speakers as Keith and Roger (and others) are doing.
> 
> I would possibly look at other choices for in-wall subs that would give you a better boom for your buck ratio... Triad in-wall subs are well regarded.


Klipsch claims that the 6502 is timbre matched to all THX speakers. I'll need to confirm that, but that's what they claim on their site. 

On aiming. My understanding of the install guidelines is that if you have a wide dispersion speaker (these are 90* x 90*) that they don't recommend aiming them. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Tnedator

Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't look that way to me anyway. They also have different woofer drivers.


From Klipsch site: "Furthermore the KL-6502-THX offers unlimited flexibility. It is timbre matched to all of our THX-certified products so you can mix and match to create an unbeatable discreet stereo or home theater system that’s just right for you."

Help me understand the different woofer drivers? I'm to this point, I've only read about timbre matching being an issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I wonder if that's why many New releases of blu-rays are coming out without an Atmos mix. Might it be that the mixing studio's see no benefit to mix it in Atmos as there may not be much there height wise. My thinking that Atmos is more then overhead sound, and I'm hoping to see more this year... while I patiently wait I'll continue to use DSU as my main listening mode. Just my thought for the day.


I know this has been covered by others, but last night I watched *The Maze Runner* with DSU engaged. OMG. From the very first scene in the elevator I was absolutely totally mesmerized. I don't think I have ever heard such immersive sound in my room (or anywhere). What an amazing piece of work. And the movie was mixed in Atmos for theatrical release so I expect it was something special in cinemas too. 

But how much better the Bluray could be in Atmos, compared with DSU, is difficult to imagine. If someone had told me I was listening to an Atmos disc, I’d have easily believed them. It is an astonishing aural experience.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Tnedator said:


> Full range and timbre matching?
> 
> I thought I read in the early information that Dolby was recommending full range speakers for the surrounds and overheads. Is this the case? Is it really feasible to have full range surrounds/overheads vs. having lower frequencies sent through subs (I'll have two up front, one in the back, two left/right of the MLP).
> 
> On timbre matching, I hear some people say it isn't important, because their AVR (Audyssey) will EQ any differences between the speakers. Is this the case?


Just need to be able to handle a full range signal in each channel. As long as you are using bass management and have ceiling speakers that cover down to your wanted crossover point, you are good to go. I am one of those that is less worried about using the same speaker all around. I could not afford the money or loss of space, to use the same speaker for surrounds as I do up front.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> I know this has been covered by others, but last night I watched *The Maze Runner* with DSU engaged. OMG. From the very first scene in the elevator I was absolutely totally mesmerized. I don't think I have ever heard such immersive sound in my room (or anywhere). What an amazing piece of work. And the movie was mixed in Atmos for theatrical release so I expect it was something special in cinemas too.


Yep, I know you know that I was one who reported about seeing it in the theaters, at my very nice local Atmos cinema. It's one of the best sonic experiences I've ever had in a commercial movie theater. I've never heard such intense ultra low bass literally sweep around the room 360-degrees. It's a real shame the Atmos mix didn't make it to the BD release, but it's good to know the DSU'd standard mix is pretty awesome as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

Tnedator said:


> Full range and timbre matching?
> 
> I thought I read in the early information that Dolby was recommending full range speakers for the surrounds and overheads. Is this the case? Is it really feasible to have full range surrounds/overheads vs. having lower frequencies sent through subs (I'll have two up front, one in the back, two left/right of the MLP).


Remember in a bass managed setup, like almost all HTs are, 'full range' means that the overhead speakers need to handle roughly 80Hz-100Hz to 20kHz. Many speakers are available which easily accomplish this. The lower stuff is handled by the sub of course.



Tnedator said:


> On timbre matching, I hear some people say it isn't important, because their AVR (Audyssey) will EQ any differences between the speakers. Is this the case?


IME, yes. I have M&K S150s for LCR and Tannoy dual concentrics for all the others. XT32 works brilliantly to match them. There are no discernible issues here as sounds pan around the room.

Timbre matching is an elusive concept anyway - two identical speakers in two different room locations can sound very different to each other due to the influence of the room's characteristics. A skeptic would perhaps even wonder if 'timbre matching' was something invented by creative marketing departments in order to persuade one to buy more of their own brand of speakers, as opposed to looking at those of their competitors


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> And no, EQ will not magically make Paradigm Studio speakers sound like Totems or Triad's.


Really? So if the EQ created a perfectly flat response, 20Hz - 20kHz, the speakers would sound different to each other? How?


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> I know this has been covered by others, but last night I watched *The Maze Runner* with DSU engaged. OMG. From the very first scene in the elevator I was absolutely totally mesmerized. I don't think I have ever heard such immersive sound in my room (or anywhere). What an amazing piece of work. And the movie was mixed in Atmos for theatrical release so I expect it was something special in cinemas too.
> 
> But how much better the Bluray could be in Atmos, compared with DSU, is difficult to imagine. If someone had told me I was listening to an Atmos disc, I’d have easily believed them. It is an astonishing aural experience.


Agreed. "The Maze Runner" is the number one best sounding movie I've heard in my 5.1.4 system so far.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tnedator said:


> From Klipsch site: "Furthermore the KL-6502-THX offers unlimited flexibility. It is timbre matched to all of our THX-certified products so you can mix and match to create an unbeatable discreet stereo or home theater system that’s just right for you."
> 
> Help me understand the different woofer drivers? I'm to this point, I've only read about timbre matching being an issue.


Klipsch seems to be using some sort of weaved driver cone for their THX Select speakers (Kevlar?). The THX Ultra 2's use a woofer driver made from what they call Cerametallic (an aluminum/ceramic injected hybrid material). They're somewhat different speakers (not even in the same THX certification range) with different sonic properties. The tweeters may be the same, but the woofers are not. Ultra 2 certified speakers are supposed to reach higher SPL's as well. 

Overheads should have more flexibility in their positioning capabilities and something like the Tannoy's (I'd probably start with the Di 6 DC's) would give you that flexibility while maintaining a wide dispersion pattern.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Csbooth said:


> Agreed, awesome post. What about speakers in/on our ground level? 7.x.6.6? lol or is that just crazy thinking?


No it isn't. In anticipation of UHDTV - resulting in larger vertical viewing angles - ITU has already carried out experiments with pair-wise amplitude panning between ear-level speaker and speakers with an elevation angle of +30 respectively -30 (!).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yep, I know you know that I was one who reported about seeing it in the theaters, at my very nice local Atmos cinema. It's one of the best sonic experiences I've ever had in a commercial movie theater. I've never heard such intense ultra low bass literally sweep around the room 360-degrees. It's a real shame the Atmos mix didn't make it to the BD release, but it's good to know the DSU'd standard mix is pretty awesome as well.


Yes, I recall your enthusiasm for the cinematic version. I wish I had seen this in the cinema now. It is honestly jaw-dropping in DSU. For the first 5 minutes of the movie (when the 'Greeny' is in the elevator) I was literally laughing with delight, moving my head all over the place 'looking' at where sounds were coming from. I had to restart the movie as I realised I hadn’t been paying too much attention to what was actually going on, so amazed was I by the sound.

It is my new Reference demo disk for DSU.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, I'm concerned about your choice of overheads. There doesn't seem to be a means by which to aim them at the MLP unless you build angled boxes for them. *They're also not timbre matched with the other Klipsch THX speakers you've chosen*, but there doesn't seem to be an adequate selection in the current Ultra 2 line up for overheads (outside of bracket mounting KL-525-THX's on the ceiling, or building special boxes for more KL-7800's). Perhaps you could try the Tannoy Di 5DC or Di 6DC speakers as Keith and Roger (and others) are doing.
> 
> I would possibly look at other choices for in-wall subs that would give you a better boom for your buck ratio... Triad in-wall subs are well regarded.


According to Klipsch they are timber matched.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Tnedator said:


> Roughly 27' x 17' with 10' ceiling (link to info on it in my signature).
> 
> Back in August, this was the mockup I did for speaker layout, before the info released by Dolby at Cedia. It's not to scale, so for instance, the back left/right side wall columns are probably not as close to the back wall as they appear (the three columns are evenly spaced). But, it's a rough representation of what the room will be and the coffered ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initially, as much because of AVR limitations as anything, I'll go with four overhead speakers, and not utilize the front left and right columns (marked with S?), or the angled columns left/right of the screen (this will be wired, and I could add front wides later, when AVR's support more than 7.2.4). The back side wall columns (also listed with S?) will have have a split signal of the surrounds, and I'll use a DSP to balance these prior to Audyssey calibration.
> 
> There will also be in wall subs (capable of going down to 40hz) in the SL, SR and BR columns to


 
Regarding the overheads, considering two rows of seating and the length of that room and location of MLP, I would provision for 6 overheads, you could run just the TF/TR for now, these would be inline with the front L/R columns... easier to lay this out now.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Tnedator said:


> From Klipsch site: "Furthermore the KL-6502-THX offers unlimited flexibility. It is timbre matched to all of our THX-certified products so you can mix and match to create an unbeatable discreet stereo or home theater system that’s just right for you."
> 
> Help me understand the different woofer drivers? I'm to this point, I've only read about timbre matching being an issue.


It is the tweeters that you are concerned with timber matching.


----------



## sdurani

What is it about Atmos that makes it necessary to remind people that bass management exists in AVRs? Home theatre designer Tony Grimani remarked in a recent podcast about the sudden concern for dispersion, timbre, bass, etc., all for speakers that will be contributing the least during playback. Asthough Atmos changes the way sound is reproduced.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> I have been able to secure up to $2,000 now (modest still I know lol), so* any extra recommendations are welcome!* I'm a newbie when it comes to subs and "the crawl" for perfect SPL and all haha.


Where do you stand in your decision-making on the rest of your gear (besides the overheads)? Depending on that answer, you could possibly fit one decent new SW into the package I initially suggested, leaving the second purchase for later and bearing in mind that my suggestion did not include speaker wire, stands, mounts or other accessories.

One of the most encouraging developments in present-day A/V is that there are so very many decent options available in almost any reasonable budget that comparison/bargain shopping can be a fun and rewarding enterprise.


----------



## Tnedator

Al Sherwood said:


> Regarding the overheads, considering two rows of seating and the length of that room and location of MLP, I would provision for 6 overheads, you could run just the TF/TR for now, these would be inline with the front L/R columns... easier to lay this out now.


Yea, my thinking is to wire for all those locations, including the front wides, and for the ceiling, put in AT removable panels in the coffers to support six overhead speakers, but just start with four, due to AVR limitations. That would allow me to easily add a top middle, front wides, or convert the front/back side columns to surround1/surround2 additional floor speakers (in Dolby's terminology) if mainstream AVRs ever support something like 13.2.6.

For now, I would go with 7.2.4, with a DSP balanced surround array (next to each seating row) and DSP balance the three in column subs.


----------



## Tnedator

sdurani said:


> What is it about Atmos that makes it necessary to remind people that bass management exists in AVRs? Home theatre designer Tony Grimani remarked in a recent podcast about the sudden concern for dispersion, timbre, bass, etc., all for speakers that will be contributing the least during playback. Asthough Atmos changes the way sound is reproduced.


In my case, I thought Dolby was changing the target, and pushing for full range speakers, rather than the model that most of us have been using for a decade or more, of LCRs/surrounds handling 80-120 and up, and subwoofers handling the LFE/and other low frequency stuff.


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> Where do you stand in your decision-making on the rest of your gear (besides the overheads)? Depending on that answer, you could possibly fit one decent new SW into the package I initially suggested, leaving the second purchase for later and bearing in mind that my suggestion did not include speaker wire, stands, mounts or other accessories.
> 
> One of the most encouraging developments in present-day A/V is that there are so very many decent options available in almost any reasonable budget that comparison/bargain shopping can be a fun and rewarding enterprise.


As far as the budget for wires and stands, I've allocated that seperately, so no worries. I have a hundred feet of 16 gauge flat wire to go under my carpet that I'm getting replaced, and the other 16 gauge 100 feet is in wall for the ceiling speakers, and I'll just use that for the fronts and center as well lol. I have some spare 25ft rca cables with y splitter so I can locate subs at mid wall (if I end up going with two) so I'm covered on wires lol.

I read that using banana plugs on the rti8s helped with keeping contact with the plates for highs an lows as they sometimes slipped and cause distortion when going bare wire. If nothing else it makes connections easier since I'll have about 80 wires.

Personally I was wondering if it would be over kill to just go with the Rti8s like you intially suggested but x6? Which would cut out speaker stands obviously lol. 

If I did that, I'd imagine I'd stick with the CSi5, and obviously im going with the ceiling speakers as its too good of a deal to pass up for me. That leaves me with around $900 (since I'd save on stands I could reallocate) for a sub(s)?


----------



## batpig

Csbooth said:


> Hi @batpig (Is that how mentions work? Lol), my room dimensions are (LxWxH) 12x10x8.
> 
> Originally I was wanting up to $1,700 but as luck would have it, I have secured another $300.00 for a total of 2,000.00. As far as listening levels go, the wife and I never go much higher than 15 below reference, so I'd say at most I would think is 5 below being a sweet spot.


Small room + moderate volume are the two magical phrases I was hoping to hear!! That greatly reduces your physical requirements for power, headroom, etc. Because of the logarithmic nature of power, if you only need your system to be capable of hiting -10dB cleanly (to give you some headroom above your normal -15dB volume) that's 10x less power (and power handling) needed than a system designed to hit full reference.

Given the small room and budgetary constraints, I would recommend investing mostly in the front 3 speakers and subwoofer system and go with smaller / less expensive speakers for overheads and surrounds. With a pair of quality subs in a room that tiny, you should easily be able to cross over the surround/height speakers at 100Hz+, meaning you don't need anything super expensive for 8 of the 11 speakers in the system. 

Looks like you are set for your 4 in-ceiling speakers with those Polks, so that's $200 for the overheads. So here's an example of what you could do with the rest:

Get 4 Polk OWM5 speakers for $90 shipped apiece for surround / surround back: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002778F88

(I know chi_guy is using these as heights and surrounds and is happy with them, they have flexible mounting options and if you flush mount them on the wall it will maximize the available space in that small room)

That's $360 for surrounds plus $180 for the four RC60i in-ceiling speakers, so you've got your 8 surround/height speakers covered for $540. Or if you want to be even more low profile it looks like Newegg has the RC65i in-walls for $129/pair shipped, so that would be $260 for the 4 surrounds instead of $360 for the OWM5's, leaving you another 100 bucks to play with.

Now a couple of paths you could take... one option is to go heavy on the subs, in an extreme example you could use three more of the OWM5's as L/C/R ($270 total) which would leave you with $1,200-1,300 for the subwoofers (depending on whether you go with OWM5 or in-wall RC65i for the 4 surrounds). That would leave you plenty of budget for two subs like Rythmik LV12R, SVS PB1000, or Outlaw Ultra-X12. All of these subs have linear output from 20Hz to well above 100Hz (allowing you to use a higher crossover of 100-120Hz for the smallish satellite speakers) and will have more than enough output to hit -10dB cleanly in a room that tiny. Then you are set with subwoofage, and at a later date you can upgrade the front 3 speakers when you have some more funds if you find they aren't sufficient for your needs.

That's just an example. If you scrounge the used market you could end up with even better values. For example, you could scrounge eBay to try and find a cheap deal on one of the sub/sat 5.1 speaker packages out there, like a Def Tech ProCinema package. That would give you a smaller subwoofer and four satellites that you could use as surrounds for a few hundred bucks, and then you'd have more budget to devote to 3 front speakers and a big bad subwoofer. Put the big subwoofer in a front corner as the output/extension workhorse, and place the smaller subwoofer that you got in the package more nearfield (i.e. on the other side right behind the seating) as a "fill sub" to smooth out some room modes. Then you have some more funds for larger L/C/R speakers and a single bad sub, and the down-the-road upgrade path would be a better second sub to replace/supplement the little sub from the package.

So that example:

$180 = four Polk RC60i in-ceiling speakers
$620 = Def Tech ProCinema 800 package (mfgr refurb from "bajawaverunner" which is DT's eBay outlet)
$570 = Rythmik LV12R subwoofer (or comparable model from Outlaw, HSU, SVS, etc) 

That leaves ~$600+ for the L/C/R speakers meaning you have budget for something a little nicer. That package would be a little lesser than the first option in terms of raw subwoofage (but probably still plenty for -15dB in a small room) but have a better L/C/R front soundstage.

If you are handy, you can get even better value in the subwoofer section by going DIY. I don't know anything about that but I bet with some sweat equity you could probably cut your subwoofer budget in half by DIY'ing the two subwoofers, and end up with similar or better performance.


----------



## sdurani

Tnedator said:


> In my case, I thought Dolby was changing the target, and pushing for full range speakers, rather than the model that most of us have been using for a decade or more, of LCRs/surrounds handling 80-120 and up, and subwoofers handling the LFE/and other low frequency stuff.


Whatever you know about sound reproduction still applies to Atmos. The basics you've learned in this hobby will continue to serve you well, irrespective of how many speakers you'll end up using and where they'll be located. I wish Dolby had never used the words "full range"; all it's done is add confusion at a time when it was least needed (introduction of a new format).


----------



## Batiatus Rules

gbaby said:


> You are interpreting my comments from the wrong perspective. Too bad.


How did I miss-interpret your comments? You start off by saying "I don't mean anything by this" and then proceed to slag people who like/want/own/buy Onkyo products and are interested in the newest audio technology. You then further put them down by asking if they prefer having the newest audio format available in a lesser-than-Rolls Royce type model is more important to them then payinghuge amounts of money for units that don't even offer this latest audio format. You even slag the format by calling it "wizz bang". But of course you prefaced it all by saying you mean nothing by it nly to include a rolling eyes smiley when knocking Atmos.

Not everyone can afford or want to pay for the models your listed. If they feature Atmos or not. Many are quite happy buying Onkyo or similar brands because they offer great quality and numerous features and are now offering the latest format that is being used in theaters. It's far more cost effective to someone making 30K a year to buy a Pioneer HD receiver and enjoy their 5.1 set-up than to save penny after penny (because the US is still ass-backwards and values these useless things) but purchase some uber high-end gear that may or may not make any real difference to them. 

I'm sure plenty of HT enthusiast would LOVE the disposable income to drop 12 GRAND on a single piece of equipment but in the real world that's only possible for the 1%. The rest of us make our financial choices and purchase the "lesser" brands which still offer the things we want. I don't need to have a $6,000.00 suit to wear to work everyday. but I can still buy great quality shirts for under $40 on sale and dress well. I don't need to have my personal driver pick me up in my Rolls Royce to be able to enjoy air conditioning, Sat/Nav and power windows. I don't need to drop the price of a small car for a cell phone that has some crazy made-to-sound-expensive design when an iPhone or Galaxy do all I need and tons more.

So if you'd prefer to defend your comments and explain how I (and others) have taken them the wrong way then please do so. But in the end your comments are exactly as I interpreted them, elitist and uneducated with a very snobbish attitude.


----------



## Batiatus Rules

Tnedator said:


>


This speaker placement and set-up is almost exactly what I just did to a buddies basement. Though we put a third back column in and wired it for a rear center if/when it's ever needed. As well there is wiring run to the back for additional subs or bass shakers in the future.


----------



## CCSchoch

Some quick question, more on my current setup (which is 7.2 and not Atmos just yet).

I recently went from a 5.2 to 7.2 setup installing 2 ceiling speakers for rears (no backwall). I have an Onkyo TX-NR809 receiver and am enjoying rewatching all the 7.1 blurays I have...some better than others obviously. 

1 The other night I put in a 5.1 bluray, and didn't realize that my receiver would now utilizing my newly installed rears to use all my speakers. I assume it's simply redistributing some of the audio intended for my surrounds and sending them to the rear channels, correct? 

2 I am loving the newly discovered above sound stage. When I install my other two ceiling speakers in front for my 7.2.4 setup, will I be in fro that much more of an upgrade / treat?


3 Speaking of installing my other 2 ceiling speakers, where should I install them. I've seen a couple diagrams and it looked to my that the four ceiling speakers in a 7.1.4 setup should kind of surround the main listening position (which in my case I have 1 couch about 13 feet from the TV). My current rear ceiling speakers are about 3 feet back from the couch, so I was intending on installing the other 2 about that distance in front of the couch. (reason I ask is i seen 1 diagram where it almost looked like the front ceiling speakers were more in front of the room toward the front speakers).

Thanks for any help / input!!!!


----------



## Csbooth

batpig said:


> Small room + moderate volume are the two magical phrases I was hoping to hear!! That greatly reduces your physical requirements for power, headroom, etc. Because of the logarithmic nature of power, if you only need your system to be capable of hiting -10dB cleanly (to give you some headroom above your normal -15dB volume) that's 10x less power (and power handling) needed than a system designed to hit full reference.
> 
> Given the small room and budgetary constraints, I would recommend investing mostly in the front 3 speakers and subwoofer system and go with smaller / less expensive speakers for overheads and surrounds. With a pair of quality subs in a room that tiny, you should easily be able to cross over the surround/height speakers at 100Hz+, meaning you don't need anything super expensive for 8 of the 11 speakers in the system.
> 
> Looks like you are set for your 4 in-ceiling speakers with those Polks, so that's $200 for the overheads. So here's an example of what you could do with the rest:
> 
> Get 4 Polk OWM5 speakers for $90 shipped apiece for surround / surround back: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002778F88
> 
> (I know chi_guy is using these as heights and surrounds and is happy with them, they have flexible mounting options and if you flush mount them on the wall it will maximize the available space in that small room)
> 
> That's $360 for surrounds plus $180 for the four RC60i in-ceiling speakers, so you've got your 8 surround/height speakers covered for $540. Or if you want to be even more low profile it looks like Newegg has the RC65i in-walls for $129/pair shipped, so that would be $260 for the 4 surrounds instead of $360 for the OWM5's, leaving you another 100 bucks to play with.
> 
> Now a couple of paths you could take... one option is to go heavy on the subs, in an extreme example you could use three more of the OWM5's as L/C/R ($270 total) which would leave you with $1,200-1,300 for the subwoofers (depending on whether you go with OWM5 or in-wall RC65i for the 4 surrounds). That would leave you plenty of budget for two subs like Rythmik LV12R, SVS PB1000, or Outlaw Ultra-X12. All of these subs have linear output from 20Hz to well above 100Hz (allowing you to use a higher crossover of 100-120Hz for the smallish satellite speakers) and will have more than enough output to hit -10dB cleanly in a room that tiny. Then you are set with subwoofage, and at a later date you can upgrade the front 3 speakers when you have some more funds if you find they aren't sufficient for your needs.
> 
> That's just an example. If you scrounge the used market you could end up with even better values. For example, you could scrounge eBay to try and find a cheap deal on one of the sub/sat 5.1 speaker packages out there, like a Def Tech ProCinema package. That would give you a smaller subwoofer and four satellites that you could use as surrounds for a few hundred bucks, and then you'd have more budget to devote to 3 front speakers and a big bad subwoofer. Put the big subwoofer in a front corner as the output/extension workhorse, and place the smaller subwoofer that you got in the package more nearfield (i.e. on the other side right behind the seating) as a "fill sub" to smooth out some room modes. Then you have some more funds for larger L/C/R speakers and a single bad sub, and the down-the-road upgrade path would be a better second sub to replace/supplement the little sub from the package.
> 
> So that example:
> 
> $180 = four Polk RC60i in-ceiling speakers
> $620 = Def Tech ProCinema 800 package (mfgr refurb from "bajawaverunner" which is DT's eBay outlet)
> $570 = Rythmik LV12R subwoofer (or comparable model from Outlaw, HSU, SVS, etc)
> 
> That leaves ~$600+ for the L/C/R speakers meaning you have budget for something a little nicer. That package would be a little lesser than the first option in terms of raw subwoofage (but probably still plenty for -15dB in a small room) but have a better L/C/R front soundstage.
> 
> If you are handy, you can get even better value in the subwoofer section by going DIY. I don't know anything about that but I bet with some sweat equity you could probably cut your subwoofer budget in half by DIY'ing the two subwoofers, and end up with similar or better performance.


Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my possible solutions to getting most excellent extension and reasonable if not stellar (in my measly comparison to HTiB quality ) mid/highs.

I am going to bookmark everything and revisit at some point today after work.

Thanks again!

- Charles


----------



## batpig

CCSchoch said:


> Some quick question, more on my current setup (which is 7.2 and not Atmos just yet).
> 
> I recently went from a 5.2 to 7.2 setup installing 2 ceiling speakers for rears (no backwall). I have an Onkyo TX-NR809 receiver and am enjoying rewatching all the 7.1 blurays I have...some better than others obviously.
> 
> 1 The other night I put in a 5.1 bluray, and didn't realize that my receiver would now utilizing my newly installed rears to use all my speakers. I assume it's simply redistributing some of the audio intended for my surrounds and sending them to the rear channels, correct?
> 
> 2 I am loving the newly discovered above sound stage. When I install my other two ceiling speakers in front for my 7.2.4 setup, will I be in fro that much more of an upgrade / treat?
> 
> 
> 3 Speaking of installing my other 2 ceiling speakers, where should I install them. I've seen a couple diagrams and it looked to my that the four ceiling speakers in a 7.1.4 setup should kind of surround the main listening position (which in my case I have 1 couch about 13 feet from the TV). My current rear ceiling speakers are about 3 feet back from the couch, so I was intending on installing the other 2 about that distance in front of the couch. (reason I ask is i seen 1 diagram where it almost looked like the front ceiling speakers were more in front of the room toward the front speakers).
> 
> Thanks for any help / input!!!!


1. You should check the display to confirm but most likely the receiver is defaulting to PLIIx post processing which expands the 2 surround channels in a 5.1 track into 4 surround channels

2. Just to be clear -- 7.1.4 = 11 speakers total. You have 7 speakers right now. If you install two more speakers in ceiling in front, that's 9 total, so in Atmos terms that would 5.1.4, not 7.1.4, as the rear in ceiling speakers would be repurposed as "Top Rear" instead of "Surround Back". To go to 7.1.4 you'd have to figure out a way to install two more surrounds at a lower level.

3. That plan should work fine -- assuming you have about 4.5ft from your head to the ceiling, placing the speakers 3ft behind puts them about 35 degrees back, just fine for Top Rear designation. Considering how far back you are, I might shoot for the Top Front to be a bit farther forward (maybe 4-5 feet forward of the couch) which would put the angle more in the 40-50 degree range in front of you.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> As far as the budget for wires and stands, I've allocated that seperately, so no worries. I have a hundred feet of 16 gauge flat wire to go under my carpet that I'm getting replaced, and the other 16 gauge 100 feet is in wall for the ceiling speakers, and I'll just use that for the fronts and center as well lol. I have some spare 25ft rca cables with y splitter so I can locate subs at mid wall (if I end up going with two) so I'm covered on wires lol.
> 
> I read that using banana plugs on the rti8s helped with keeping contact with the plates for highs an lows as they sometimes slipped and cause distortion when going bare wire. If nothing else it makes connections easier since I'll have about 80 wires.
> 
> Personally I was wondering if it would be over kill to just go with the Rti8s like you intially suggested but x6? Which would cut out speaker stands obviously lol.
> 
> If I did that, I'd imagine I'd stick with the CSi5, and obviously im going with the ceiling speakers as its too good of a deal to pass up for me. That leaves me with around $900 (since I'd save on stands I could reallocate) for a sub(s)?


Assuming you have the floorspace to accommodate them, I would say that three pairs of RTi8's + CSi5 center would make a killer budget setup at a total cost (including the two pairs of RC60i's) of about $1600--including shipping and taxes--for all 11 speakers NIB w/full 5-year manufacturer's warranty. (Although at the current discounted price of $300, I'd be tempted to throw in a pair of RTi6's for future expansion. *cough* wides *cough* ) Just add in one decent SW for now, and you're set.


----------



## batpig

Csbooth said:


> Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my possible solutions to getting most excellent extension and reasonable if not stellar (in my measly comparison to HTiB quality ) mid/highs.
> 
> I am going to bookmark everything and revisit at some point today after work.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> - Charles


One thing you have to ask yourself is if you REALLY need tower speakers (or even large bookshelf speakers) in a room that size. If you won't be listening to music especially, given the tiny room and moderate volume requirements, it seems like tower speakers would be somewhat of a waste of both money AND physical space / footprint in the room. Chi_guy's plan above is also viable but you end up with big tower speakers all around the room and minimal subwoofage. So it's really a philosophical question of which path you choose to take.

If you had unlimited resources, you can do it all, but given a limited budget, the tiny room and the moderate SPL needed, you are inherently faced with a compromise so you have to choose which compromise you want to make. I know that if it were ME my path would be to use smaller wall-mounted satelites for all of the speaker channels and then redistribute resources to the subwoofer system and acoustic treatments. It doesn't take a lot of speaker (or power) to handle >100Hz with 75dB average levels and 95dB peaks (10dB below reference). And wall-mounted satelites will be low profile and maximize the available space for the rest of the stuff (people, subwoofers, furniture) you have to put in the room. 

For example, I just checked DT's eBay refurb store (bajawaverunner) and you can do even better by buying the speakers separately, so scratch that $620 package deal which forces you to take that small subwoofer. You can get a ProCenter 1000 for $135 shipped, two ProMonitor 1000's for $260 shipped, and then four ProMonitor 800 for surrounds for $75 each. That's $700 total for L/C/R and 4 surrounds that are all easy to wall mount flush, and with the four in-ceilings you already got for under $200 that leaves you enough budget room to get a pair of SVS PB-1000's and come in with some cash left over in your $2,000 budget. That system would crush a tiny room like yours and could easily be clean and play flat down to well below 20Hz at the SPL you are targeting. 

(and just to be clear I'm not pushing Def Tech specifically, it's just the easy option that came to mind when thinking of smaller slimmer profile satellites that are designed to be easily wall mounted... there are plenty of other ways to skin this cat)


----------



## CCSchoch

batpig said:


> 1. You should check the display to confirm but most likely the receiver is defaulting to PLIIx post processing which expands the 2 surround channels in a 5.1 track into 4 surround channels
> 
> 2. Just to be clear -- 7.1.4 = 11 speakers total. You have 7 speakers right now. If you install two more speakers in ceiling in front, that's 9 total, so in Atmos terms that would 5.1.4, not 7.1.4, as the rear in ceiling speakers would be repurposed as "Top Rear" instead of "Surround Back". To go to 7.1.4 you'd have to figure out a way to install two more surrounds at a lower level.
> 
> 3. That plan should work fine -- assuming you have about 4.5ft from your head to the ceiling, placing the speakers 3ft behind puts them about 35 degrees back, just fine for Top Rear designation. Considering how far back you are, I might shoot for the Top Front to be a bit farther forward (maybe 4-5 feet forward of the couch) which would put the angle more in the 40-50 degree range in front of you.


1. - When i had a 5.1 bluray in, it did not say PLIIx, it said DTS Master Audio. I wasn't expecting sound from the rears, but there was definitely sound being sent there. 

2. Correct - I meant to say I'd be moving to a 5.2.4, not 7.2.4.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I know this has been covered by others, but last night I watched *The Maze Runner* with DSU engaged. OMG.


I keep going back to that first air burst before the doors close, and then then whole closing sequence with the sound echoing off....upwards and away. Awesome!



kbarnes701 said:


> But how much better the Bluray could be in Atmos, compared with DSU, is difficult to imagine. If someone had told me I was listening to an Atmos disc, I’d have easily believed them. It is an astonishing aural experience.


Fact.



kbarnes701 said:


> IME, yes. I have M&K S150s for LCR and Tannoy dual concentrics for all the others. XT32 works brilliantly to match them. There are no discernible issues here as sounds pan around the room.
> 
> Timbre matching is an elusive concept anyway - two identical speakers in two different room locations can sound very different to each other due to the influence of the room's characteristics. A skeptic would perhaps even wonder if 'timbre matching' was something invented by creative marketing departments in order to persuade one to buy more of their own brand of speakers, as opposed to looking at those of their competitors


I was worried about that as well. All of my speakers are Mirage OS3's (so they are timbre matched), but I was never that pleased with the matching CC. So on a whim (since I love their subs), I ordered an SVS Prime Center since they have 45 day returns. Plugged it in, reran Audyssey, and away I went. I'm getting used to the different (better) sound now, but I don't find it a problem at all. I did bump the crossover down one notch and the level up 1db from what was auto-set, but that's it. In the midst of a movie, I never once think "Hey, something sounds different with that speaker from the others". One big improvement is that I can more clearly hear voices during action sequences.


----------



## batpig

CCSchoch said:


> 1. - When i had a 5.1 bluray in, it did not say PLIIx, it said DTS Master Audio. I wasn't expecting sound from the rears, but there was definitely sound being sent there.
> 
> 2. Correct - I meant to say I'd be moving to a 5.2.4, not 7.2.4.


1. Got it -- the DTS-HD decoder has a "feature" that automatically expands a 5.1 DTS-HD/MA track to 7.1 if the processor/decoder knows you have extra speakers present. With a 5.1 track in another format (multich LPCM or Dolby TrueHD etc) it wouldn't do it automatically and you'd probably have to manually engage PLIIx to expand 5.1 > 7.1.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Small room + moderate volume are the two magical phrases I was hoping to hear!! That greatly reduces your physical requirements for power, headroom, etc. Because of the logarithmic nature of power, if you only need your system to be capable of hiting -10dB cleanly (to give you some headroom above your normal -15dB volume) that's 10x less power (and power handling) needed than a system designed to hit full reference.
> 
> Given the small room and budgetary constraints, I would recommend investing mostly in the front 3 speakers and subwoofer system and go with smaller / less expensive speakers for overheads and surrounds. With a pair of quality subs in a room that tiny, you should easily be able to cross over the surround/height speakers at 100Hz+, meaning you don't need anything super expensive for 8 of the 11 speakers in the system. . . ..


@csbooth: See, didn't I tell you there were plenty of great options (and we've only barely scraped the surface as yet)? It's even more fun when you're spending other people's money!

Now you can sit down with sharpened pencil and decide where you want to allocate your budget. My thinking is that while supplies last you can't go wrong with any combination of the Polk RTi8/6 together with the CSi5. Assuming you like the Polk sound (as I do), I just don't think you'll find too many better retail speakers out there NIB for $200 a pop. Overkill? Maybe, but if I had the floorspace, I would do it in a heartbeat.

ETA: I agree with everything @batpig says above and in fact, as he has pointed out, I went with the OWM5 satellites for surround duty in my room (with the exception of floorstanding--wait for it--WIDES). But that was my room and my money. Now that I'm spending your $$$, I'm going BIG.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small room + moderate volume are the two magical phrases I was hoping to hear!! That greatly reduces your physical requirements for power, headroom, etc. Because of the logarithmic nature of power, if you only need your system to be capable of hiting -10dB cleanly (to give you some headroom above your normal -15dB volume) that's 10x less power (and power handling) needed than a system designed to hit full reference.
> 
> Given the small room and budgetary constraints, I would recommend investing mostly in the front 3 speakers and subwoofer system and go with smaller / less expensive speakers for overheads and surrounds. With a pair of quality subs in a room that tiny, you should easily be able to cross over the surround/height speakers at 100Hz+, meaning you don't need anything super expensive for 8 of the 11 speakers in the system. . . ..
> 
> 
> 
> @csbooth: See, didn't I tell you there were plenty of great options (and we've only barely scraped the surface as yet)? It's even more fun when you're spending other people's money!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you can sit down with sharpened pencil and decide where you want to allocate your budget. My thinking is that while supplies last you can't go wrong with any combination of the Polk RTi8/6 together with the CSi5. Assuming you like the Polk sound (as I do), I just don't think you'll find too many better retail speakers out there NIB for $200 a pop. Overkill? Maybe, but if I had the floorspace, I would do it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

The tiny room is really the silver lining in his budgetary cloud. You couldn't build an 11.2 system that could play loud cleanly in a big room for $2000 total speaker budget. But in a tiny room it's actually not that hard. 

Another option -- I just checked Ascend Acoustics package calculator and you could get 7 matching HTM 200SE satelites for about $950 shipped. They are compact and low profile and probably offer higher performance than the slim DT sats. With two PB1000s that's $1950 shipped and you come in only about $100 over budget with the 4 in ceilings.


----------



## NorthSky

1. It's not "timber" ... it's "timbre".

_______


2. Charles, nice to meet you. ...And glad that you finally got help for your very frustrating situation in recent past. ...I truly felt for you.

_______

3. Very very very happy that dts:X is finally coming this March, to complement Dolby Atmos*. ...And with its own 3D up-mixer version.
...Hopefully it'll work nicely with music too. ...If not Auro-Matic Music listening audio mode would do.

* "To complement Dolby Atmos" but not inside already released Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros. 
...Only later on in the year, by other audio manufacturers, and second gen of Dolby Atmos products (from the usual five Asian suspects).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I know this has been covered by others, but last night I watched *The Maze Runner* with DSU engaged. OMG. From the very first scene in the elevator I was absolutely totally mesmerized. I don't think I have ever heard such immersive sound in my room (or anywhere). What an amazing piece of work. And the movie was mixed in Atmos for theatrical release so I expect it was something special in cinemas too.
> 
> But how much better the Bluray could be in Atmos, compared with DSU, is difficult to imagine. If someone had told me I was listening to an Atmos disc, I’d have easily believed them. It is an astonishing aural experience.


I saw that in the theater... it was incredible... a lot more sound & oomph than I'm used to coming from the rear speakers. 

While overall the mix wasn't as interesting, some of the best overhead Atmos moments I heard were in "into the storm".


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> I was worried about that as well. All of my speakers are Mirage OS3's (so they are timbre matched), but I was never that pleased with the matching CC. So on a whim (since I love their subs), I ordered an SVS Prime Center since they have 45 day returns. Plugged it in, reran Audyssey, and away I went. I'm getting used to the different (better) sound now, but I don't find it a problem at all. I did bump the crossover down one notch and the level up 1db from what was auto-set, but that's it. In the midst of a movie, I never once think "Hey, something sounds different with that speaker from the others". One big improvement is that I can more clearly hear voices during action sequences.


Living proof - first hand experience. So-called timbre matching is an illusion. Take two identical speakers. Put one near a wall and the other near a corner. Listen. Do they sound identical? No they don't. Do they sound similar? Not really. Now EQ them and repeat. Even turning your head to one side changes the 'timbre' of a speaker. It's marketing-speak. I should know. I spoke Marketing for 4 decades.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> But that was my room and my money. Now that I'm spending your $$$, I'm going BIG.


ROTFLMAO  Go for it!


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I saw that in the theater... it was incredible... a lot more sound & oomph than I'm used to coming from the rear speakers.
> 
> While overall the mix wasn't as interesting, some of the best overhead Atmos moments I heard were in "into the storm".


Storms and Atmos are made for each other I guess. If you have Twister, wind your MV up to Reference and play the opening scene via DSU. It is so realistic that your room will be soaking wet and ripped apart after the first 7 minutes  Really - try it. Loud. It is an incredible representation of what it must feel like to be in the heart of a storm like that.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

What are people's thoughts on how slanted surround speakers would integrate into an atmos setup

Say a 22 degree down angle


----------



## Kain

sdurani said:


> Here's the original question I replied to: To answer the question accurately, are the three people (Selden, jpco, Keith) that responded to my reply talking about applying DSU to the Atmos track (like the original question asked) or to a 7.1 downmix of the Atmos track? Which is it?


As far as I can tell, there is no way to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos mix. You will first need to downmix the Atmos mix to discrete TrueHD before you can "apply" DSU.

Question for all:

Let's say, hypothetically, you have a 5.1.0 discrete mix and a 5.1.0 Atmos mix with objects (yes, with no ceiling and/or upward-firing speakers). Would there be any difference/improvement with the Atmos mix with objects even though the discrete setup is exactly the same? Basically, will having objects improve the sound in any way even thought the number of speakers are exactly the same as the discrete setup?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Storms and Atmos are made for each other I guess. If you have Twister, wind your MV up to Reference and play the opening scene via DSU. It is so realistic that your room will be soaking wet and ripped apart after the first 7 minutes  Really - try it. Loud. It is an incredible representation of what it must feel like to be in the heart of a storm like that.


Keith, I'm going to take your advice and get Twister from Netflix just for the sound of it (there aren't any killer robots or alien spaceships, are there?).

BTW the past two nights we watched _The Trip to Italy_ and then its precursor,_ The Trip_. Coogan and Brydon had me in stitches half the time. You Brits with your dry sense of humor!


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, I'm going to take your advice and get Twister from Netflix just for the sound of it (*there aren't any killer robots or alien spaceships, are there?*).


You've never seen/heard of Twister? Or was that a little tongue-in-cheek action?


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I know this has been covered by others, but last night I watched *The Maze Runner* with DSU engaged. OMG. From the very first scene in the elevator I was absolutely totally mesmerized. I don't think I have ever heard such immersive sound in my room (or anywhere). What an amazing piece of work. And the movie was mixed in Atmos for theatrical release so I expect it was something special in cinemas too.
> 
> But how much better the Bluray could be in Atmos, compared with DSU, is difficult to imagine. If someone had told me I was listening to an Atmos disc, I’d have easily believed them. It is an astonishing aural experience.


Yes I was very impressed with The Maze Runner I kept saying to myself I swear this is an Atmos mix LOL, DSU continues to amaze.. if you want.. also watch Live Die Repeat Edge of Tomorrow.... plus it has incredible low bass especially in the very beginning of the movie...give it a listen I think you would enjoy it. I actually liked the movie. The last few Tom Cruise movies have been a joy in DSU IMHO.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Brian Fineberg said:


> What are people's thoughts on how slanted surround speakers would integrate into an atmos setup
> 
> Say a 22 degree down angle


What speaker? If it is as I am imagining, then it will work well. I am using speakers with a 15 degree angle. Thought that I might need to aim them more, but I am well within the dispersion pattern.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

im not referring to them being used as ceiling speakers...I am talking about using them as surround speakers...

these:








http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=453562&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1420139372


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> You've never seen/heard of Twister? Or was that a little tongue-in-cheek action?


It's a good-humored gibe at Keith's proclivity for gimmicky action movies.

And yes, I had heard of Twister but no, I hadn't bothered to watch it up until now.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Storms and Atmos are made for each other I guess. If you have Twister, wind your MV up to Reference and play the opening scene via DSU. It is so realistic that your room will be soaking wet and ripped apart after the first 7 minutes  Really - try it. Loud. It is an incredible representation of what it must feel like to be in the heart of a storm like that.


Will do  

There is a specific scene in Into the storm that I'm referring to, I believe it's the opening. It's a car interior with rain hitting the roof... even in large the theater I almost felt as if I was sitting in a car with rain hitting the roof. It sounded like it was up close as it would be, that for me was the coolest Atmos thing I heard because it sounded so real.

Last night I started watching game of thrones... there is a really surprising amount of surround going on in that show. I got scared because I heard what sounded like knocking coming from behind (I thought someone was trying to break in), but it was just a blacksmith or something like that in the background.


----------



## jbrown15

Brian Fineberg said:


> im not referring to them being used as ceiling speakers...I am talking about using them as surround speakers...
> 
> these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=453562&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1420139372



Did Tom confirm that those new surrounds are 22 degree down facing?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

jbrown15 said:


> Did Tom confirm that those new surrounds are 22 degree down facing?


No. But when I typed the question I was referring to the reactions. But then I wasasked which ones I was thinking of so. I dug up the exact pic lol

I THINK he said 18 degrees. Don't quote me on that though


----------



## jbrown15

Brian Fineberg said:


> No. But when I typed the question I was referring to the reactions. But then I wasasked which ones I was thinking of so. I dug up the exact pic lol
> 
> I THINK he said 18 degrees. Don't quote me on that though



I was thinking they were 18 degrees too but couldn't remember if Tom said that or not. I went and reread the posts from the time he announced them with the pictures but couldn't see anything posted by him about that.


----------



## Sparkygod1

So if I'm using a 9.2 AVR in a set up with LCR, two ceiling, two side, two back and five subs. 7.2.2 ?


----------



## Spanglo

sparkygod1 said:


> so if i'm using a 9.2 avr in a set up with lcr, two ceiling, two side, two back and five subs. 7.2.2 ?


7.5.2


----------



## dormie1360

Tnedator said:


> Anything about this setup raise concerns for Atmos?


Have you talked to Dennis or Shawn? Looking at your original plans, you will need to lower your surrounds if you are doing Atmos now.


----------



## Sparkygod1

Spanglo said:


> 7.5.2


That what I thought but I was told because the avr only has two sub output, it's .2 . I use the center channel output for my center channel sub. That's where the .5 comes in.


----------



## blazar

I would plan one round of speakers around the room about ear level and another round of speakers as a "height layer" and yet another round fo speakers as a ceiling layer.

Even if you cannot do all of these, at least wire in this way.

For a very large screen, I would also suggest leaving in some wiring for a couple of extra speakers next to the center channel unless you have a center channel with a wide dispersion pattern.

Timbre matching everything would be nice but not entirely necessary imo. There is so much "stuff" going on in atmos, i'm not sure most folks will notice. Also even with perfectly matched speakers all around it is still difficult to have all of them pointed right at you. Besides, every speaker can't and won't be optimized for every listening position anyway.

You want your speakers to function as high dynamic range point sources with fairly good off-axis characteristics in order to optimize for the greatest number of listening positions.

I would "give up" the idea of using "full range" speakers in favor of satellites with decent response down to about 80hz-100hz and then focus on awesome subs (preferably 4 big-ass subs with 4 big-ass amps).

I recently did 8 polk audio in-wall speakers x8 for my height layer of speakers and it sounds straight up EPIC. I paid under $3k for them if I recall correctly.

Higher channel counts do get pricey and you could in theory spend over a $1000 per channel but I think most home theater enthusiasts need to rework their priorities. Focus on getting maximum number of channels wired and installed for the budget instead of focusing on "audiophile brands". Even a mediocre atmos system or dts Neo X 11.1 setup sounds Substantially better than a "great" audiophile 5.1 setup.

I would still buy awesome stereo speakers and timbre matched center channel in the middle of all of this, especially if you love music.


----------



## Sparkygod1

blazar said:


> I would plan one round of speakers around the room about ear level and another round of speakers as a "height layer" and yet another round fo speakers as a ceiling layer.
> 
> Even if you cannot do all of these, at least wire in this way.
> 
> For a very large screen, I would also suggest leaving in some wiring for a couple of extra speakers next to the center channel unless you have a center channel with a wide dispersion pattern.
> 
> Timbre matching everything would be nice but not entirely necessary imo. There is so much "stuff" going on in atmos, i'm not sure most folks will notice. Also even with perfectly matched speakers all around it is still difficult to have all of them pointed right at you. Besides, every speaker can't and won't be optimized for every listening position anyway.
> 
> You want your speakers to function as high dynamic range point sources with fairly good off-axis characteristics in order to optimize for the greatest number of listening positions.
> 
> I would "give up" the idea of using "full range" speakers in favor of satellites with decent response down to about 80hz-100hz and then focus on awesome subs (preferably 4 big-ass subs with 4 big-ass amps).
> 
> I recently did 8 polk audio in-wall speakers x8 for my height layer of speakers and it sounds straight up EPIC. I paid under $3k for them if I recall correctly.
> 
> Higher channel counts do get pricey and you could in theory spend over a $1000 per channel but I think most home theater enthusiasts need to rework their priorities. Focus on getting maximum number of channels wired and installed for the budget instead of focusing on "audiophile brands". Even a mediocre atmos system or dts Neo X 11.1 setup sounds Substantially better than a "great" audiophile 5.1 setup.
> 
> I would still buy awesome stereo speakers and timbre matched center channel in the middle of all of this, especially if you love music.


I have a Yamaha A2040. I will be using Triad inwall speakers. Subs at this point to be determined.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Brian Fineberg said:


> What are people's thoughts on how slanted surround speakers would integrate into an atmos setup
> 
> Say a 22 degree down angle


Slanting is a good idea if it aims the axis of the speaker more toward the listeners. 



Kain said:


> As far as I can tell, there is no way to enable DSU on a "real" Atmos mix. You will first need to downmix the Atmos mix to discrete TrueHD before you can "apply" DSU.


Just play the Atmos mix as PCM from the BD player, and then you may apply whatever upmixing you like, DSU, Neo:X, Auromatic, PLIIz.



> Let's say, hypothetically, you have a 5.1.0 discrete mix and a 5.1.0 Atmos mix with objects (yes, with no ceiling and/or upward-firing speakers).


I'm confused. Atmos mixes do not come in flavors like 5.1.x. They can be 5.1 + objects, but thus far all we have seen is 7.1 + objects.



> Would there be any difference/improvement with the Atmos mix with objects even though the discrete setup is exactly the same? Basically, will having objects improve the sound in any way even thought the number of speakers are exactly the same as the discrete setup?


There has been a discussion about this recently, and those who have tried it say it can make a difference. There are certainly potential advantages that have nothing to do with extra speakers, in areas such as dynamic range processing or preference customizations like dialog levels.


----------



## NorthSky

*How to add DSU on top of a Dolby Atmos mix.*



Roger Dressler said:


> Just play the Atmos mix as PCM from the BD player, and then you may apply whatever upmixing you like, DSU, Neo:X, Auromatic, PLIIz.


From the Atmos receivers and SSPs that have Neo:X and PLIIz. ...In applying them sound modes.

* Yamaha Atmos receivers don't have Neo:X. ...But they do retain PLIIx. 
And Denon/Marantz, Onkyo/Intgegra, and I believe Pioneer too, all Atmos new receivers from those brands have no longer PLIIx and PLIIz.

And Auro-Matic only from Denon/Marantz, and only after you paid the $200 fee. ...And other hi-end SSPs from other manufacturers that also have Auro-3D. 

But yes, you can add DSU on top of Dolby Atmos mixes from all those products.


----------



## Jeffg8

*Update-Today is the day*



Jeffg8 said:


> ATMOS=BROKE
> I upgraded to the Marantz 7702. So today pulled the trigger on 4 B&W CCM683 in ceiling and 2 pair of B&W DS3 to update my current side surrounds and add new rears. But of course since I now need 6 more channels of amplification I also ordered a Marantz MM8077...not really sure why I didn't just stick with a receiver. And finally while I'm at it, I hadn't purchased the matching center for my mains so I ordered the B&W HTM2D and stand. Hopefully the damage to the room and marriage will be minimal. Should be installed in a couple of weeks.


 
Well install in a couple of weeks turned into a month. Had to wait on the MM8077 amp for some reason. But today is the day, took the crown molding down yesterday. Hopefully by tonight the install will be over and everything will have gone smoothly.


----------



## petetherock

petetherock said:


> I had a friend who is in the industry.. and for some reason, he suggested I hold back until Feb 2015 before I jump into the Atmos / Auro scene... he didn't really elaborate why, but there seems to some pow-wow in the industry between Auro / Atmos to sort the whole standard?
> 
> That's an interesting thing.. and I can hold my purchase until then..


Now I see.... DTS-X


----------



## jbrown15

petetherock said:


> Now I see.... DTS-X



Not a bad bit of advise, keep in mind DTS is the dominate sound format in movies today. And how many movies have been released with Dolby Atmos now? I know that's one of the biggest reasons I didn't go with an Atmos receiver when I just upgraded last month, figured I'd give it about 6-12 months. I was glad to see Anthem announce they've signed on for DTS-X too.


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> @csbooth: See, didn't I tell you there were plenty of great options (and we've only barely scraped the surface as yet)? It's even more fun when you're spending other people's money!
> 
> Now you can sit down with sharpened pencil and decide where you want to allocate your budget. My thinking is that while supplies last you can't go wrong with any combination of the Polk RTi8/6 together with the CSi5. Assuming you like the Polk sound (as I do), I just don't think you'll find too many better retail speakers out there NIB for $200 a pop. Overkill? Maybe, but if I had the floorspace, I would do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> ETA: I agree with everything @batpig says above and in fact, as he has pointed out, I went with the OWM5 satellites for surround duty in my room (with the exception of floorstanding--wait for it--WIDES). But that was my room and my money. Now that I'm spending your $$$, I'm going BIG.


Yes, it is quite easy to get lost spending others money  another reason I'm probably going to end up going the 6 Floorstanders route is because the wife says it will look 'sexy', so I can't really say no haha. 

I do have a query however. Since we will be getting new thick carpet, should I put the Floorstanders on any kind of risers?, I have heard that passed around from time to time, Something to do with the mids extending better. I honestly wouldn't be able to gauge how accurate the statements were.


----------



## NorthSky

That is very wise advice; based on solid, smart and logical deduction. https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Csbooth

NorthSky said:


> 1. It's not "timber" ... it's "timbre".
> 
> _______
> 
> 
> 2. Charles, nice to meet you. ...And glad that you finally got help for your very frustrating situation in recent past. ...I truly felt for you.
> 
> _______
> 
> 3. Very very very happy that dts:X is finally coming this March, to complement Dolby Atmos*. ...And with its own 3D up-mixer version.
> ...Hopefully it'll work nicely with music too. ...If not Auro-Matic Music listening audio mode would do.
> 
> * "To complement Dolby Atmos" but not inside already released Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros.
> ...Only later on in the year, by other audio manufacturers, and second gen of Dolby Atmos products (from the usual five Asian suspects).


Thank you for your kind words North, I do appreciate it.


----------



## NorthSky

Csbooth said:


> Thank you for your kind words North, I do appreciate it.


Like you have already read from few other members, you are not alone who has been put in that very unfortunate situation. 
So by sharing it with us you made us aware of how it truly felt for ourselves to be in that same boat before. 

Our world is not perfect, not fair @ all @ many times. ...And the same on the Internet, and on all kind of forums from all life's subjects. 
The computer world is full of "glitches". It doesn't know yet what human values like family members using the same account means. 

But anyhow, I'm glad you're here now. :smile:


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Yes I was very impressed with The Maze Runner I kept saying to myself I swear this is an Atmos mix LOL, DSU continues to amaze.. if you want.. also watch Live Die Repeat Edge of Tomorrow.... plus it has incredible low bass especially in the very beginning of the movie...give it a listen I think you would enjoy it. I actually liked the movie. The last few Tom Cruise movies have been a joy in DSU IMHO.


Yes, agreed about _Edge of Tomorrow_. A good movie too IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, I'm going to take your advice and get Twister from Netflix just for the sound of it (there aren't any killer robots or alien spaceships, are there?).
> 
> BTW the past two nights we watched _The Trip to Italy_ and then its precursor,_ The Trip_. Coogan and Brydon had me in stitches half the time. You Brits with your dry sense of humor!


There is one killer robot in Twister, but it is only there for a fleeting moment and most people miss it. 

I forgot to say_* Sexy Beast *_too. (I'm not coming on to you - it's a Brit gangster movie LOL). If you haven't seen it, you will enjoy it. Reminded me of it the other day when you mentioned *The Limey,* but I forgot to mention it in my rush to propose Linda Fiorentino in *The Last Seduction* and Nic Cage (and Dennis Hopper and Lara Flynn Boyle) in *Red Rock West.* Both the latter directed by John Dahl. Both brilliant IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> It's a good-humored gibe at Keith's proclivity for gimmicky action movies.


Moi? A dyed in the wool fan of Fellini and Lars Von Trier? Not to mention Dario Argento. 



chi_guy50 said:


> And yes, I had heard of Twister but no, I hadn't bothered to watch it up until now.


It's not a great movie IMO. But it's a great demo for DSU.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> Moi? A dyed in the wool fan of Fellini and Lars Von Trier? Not to mention Dario Argento.


You should give Nymphomaniac vol 1 and 2 a spin with DSU then. Will keep you entertained for 6h.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> You should give Nymphomaniac vol 1 and 2 a spin with DSU then. Will keep you entertained for 6h.


I already watched them but pre-Atmos. I admit they are not high on my re-watch list...


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> There is one killer robot in Twister, but it is only there for a fleeting moment and most people miss it.
> 
> I forgot to say_* Sexy Beast *_too. (I'm not coming on to you - it's a Brit gangster movie LOL). If you haven't seen it, you will enjoy it. Reminded me of it the other day when you mentioned *The Limey,* but I forgot to mention it in my rush to propose Linda Fiorentino in *The Last Seduction* and Nic Cage (and Dennis Hopper and Lara Flynn Boyle) in *Red Rock West.* Both the latter directed by John Dahl. Both brilliant IMO.


I have seen _Sexy Beast_ and enjoyed it. Sir Ben is memorably terrifying in it (especially in that one scene where he battles the killer robot).


----------



## chi_guy50

Mashie Saldana said:


> You should give Nymphomaniac vol 1 and 2 a spin with DSU then. Will keep you entertained for 6h.





kbarnes701 said:


> I already watched them but pre-Atmos. I admit they are not high on my re-watch list...


I found these von Trier films characteristically self-indulgent and hard to watch--not at all entertaining (as OP jokingly suggests).

OTOH, another treatment of a similar sexual theme that was also hard to watch but gripping and memorable is _Irréversible _(2002).


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I have seen _Sexy Beast_ and enjoyed it. Sir Ben is memorably terrifying in it (especially in that one scene where he battles the killer robot).


No. No no no no no no no no no! No! No no no no no no no no no no no no no! No!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I found these von Trier films characteristically self-indulgent and hard to watch--not at all entertaining (as OP jokingly suggests).
> 
> OTOH, another treatment of a similar sexual theme that was also hard to watch but gripping and memorable is _Irréversible _(2002).


What I liked about Irreversible was the way that showing the thing in reverse time added so much to the emotional involvement with the characters. Knowing what has already happened makes those first (last) scenes (where we see the lovers happy and making plans) excruciatingly poignant. The rape is very difficult to watch, I agree. And it goes on for so long too.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> Yes, it is quite easy to get lost spending others money  another reason I'm probably going to end up going the 6 Floorstanders route is because *the wife says it will look 'sexy'*, so I can't really say no haha.


Wow, she's a keeper!



Csbooth said:


> I do have a query however. *Since we will be getting new thick carpet, should I put the Floorstanders on any kind of risers?*, I have heard that passed around from time to time, Something to do with the mids extending better. I honestly wouldn't be able to gauge how accurate the statements were.


I don't think you'll find that necessary. I don't own that particular model, but I believe the attached (PVC?) feet raise the cabinet a little over 1" from the floor. Unless you're going with an Austin Powers-style super shaggy (no pun intended) carpet you shouldn't need any further isolation. But, at any rate, that's something you can easily decide for yourself after installation.


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> Now I see.... DTS-X


DTS:X was revealed in December; they said they're going to launch the format in March. No mention of February. Your friend in the industry might have been hinting about something else coming/changing next month.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Brian Fineberg said:


> im not referring to them being used as ceiling speakers...I am talking about using them as surround speakers...
> 
> these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=453562&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1420139372


Those should make for excellent surround speakers. Look much like the JBL 8340's I am using for side surround and overhead for Atmos. I added some boost down low to 4 of my subs, so testing with the Amaze trailer. Started at 10db below reference and worked my way up to reference. I am still amazed at just how good this demo track sounds. Have heard it at least 60 times and could still listen to it again.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

One thing I don't understand about the DTS:X/ Dolby format war: all these movie theaters have Dolby Systems... does that mean DTS:X will have their own systems installed? Or will all the Atmos films be getting DTS:X mixes for bluray?


----------



## WayneJoy

jbrown15 said:


> Not a bad bit of advise, keep in mind DTS is the dominate sound format in movies today. And how many movies have been released with Dolby Atmos now? I know that's one of the biggest reasons I didn't go with an Atmos receiver when I just upgraded last month, figured I'd give it about 6-12 months. I was glad to see Anthem announce they've signed on for DTS-X too.


 DTS is the dominant format for movies on Blu-Ray today, I'm pretty sure that Dolby has a huge advantage in theaters these days.


----------



## Spanglo

Aras_Volodka said:


> One thing I don't understand about the DTS:X/ Dolby format war: all these movie theaters have Dolby Systems... does that mean DTS:X will have their own systems installed? Or will all the Atmos films be getting DTS:X mixes for bluray?


Right, I was enjoying Atmos at the theaters for years before I bought an Atmos receiver. It made for an easy buying decision... it was a proven tech. 

DTS:X... if it becomes a legitimate contender, then I'll care.


----------



## SoundChex

Aras_Volodka said:


> One thing I don't understand about the DTS:X/ Dolby format war: all these movie theaters have Dolby Systems... does that mean DTS:X will have their own systems installed? Or will all the Atmos films be getting DTS:X mixes for bluray?





WayneJoy said:


> DTS is the dominant format for movies on Blu-Ray today, I'm pretty sure that Dolby has a huge advantage in theaters these days.




A great deal of scripted video content--such as *NCIS*, *House of Cards*, or *Game of Thrones*--does not appear on screen in a movie theater, rather it is mixed|authored for *OTA*|*CATV* and|or _*mobile*_|*IP* distribution . . . which will not include _object-based_ audio 'broadcasting' for a few more years. However, that material already has a significant secondary distribution market in the form of _post broadcast _*DVD*|*BD* retail package season disc sales.


_


----------



## asoofi1

WayneJoy said:


> DTS is the dominant format for movies on Blu-Ray today, I'm pretty sure that Dolby has a huge advantage in theaters these days.





Aras_Volodka said:


> One thing I don't understand about the DTS:X/ Dolby format war: all these movie theaters have Dolby Systems... does that mean DTS:X will have their own systems installed? Or will all the Atmos films be getting DTS:X mixes for bluray?


The leverage DTS has in the BD segment is likely contributing to the lack of larger commitment by the studios to release more atmos titles...DTS seems to be preferred by remixers already, so they could just be waiting on the sidelines before fully committing to a new 3d-audio format...or already committed to DTS' new format and waiting for a formal announcement before dropping titles.


----------



## Josh Z

Aras_Volodka said:


> One thing I don't understand about the DTS:X/ Dolby format war: all these movie theaters have Dolby Systems... does that mean DTS:X will have their own systems installed? Or will all the Atmos films be getting DTS:X mixes for bluray?


The theory behind DTS:X is that the MDA format it's built off is meant to be an open standard for any object-based audio system, much like 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks are mixed in PCM and then transcoded to the Dolby or DTS codecs for home video later. 

DTS wants movie sound mixers to create their soundtracks in MDA. Once the soundtrack exists that way, it can be ported to Atmos, or Auro-3D, or DTS:X, or some theoretical new format. 

DTS:X can exist as a home video format even without a corresponding theatrical format, just as there's no theatrical version of DTS-HD Master Audio. A current 5.1 soundtrack master is created in PCM, and then the studio decides later whether it wants to encode that as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA on Blu-ray. It's the same soundtrack either way. TrueHD and DTS-HD are just the containers used to deliver it to Blu-ray. Therefore, Atmos and DTS:X will be the containers used to deliver MDA.

The problem is that the 200+ theatrical features with existing Atmos soundtracks were all mixed proprietarily in Atmos, and I'm sure that Dolby will try to pressure its studio partners to keep doing it that way rather than switching to MDA. Whether those Atmos soundtracks can be easily ported to MDA and DTS:X is something that remains to be seen.

If so (and if there's no legal hurdle blocking it from happening), then DTS can poach those Atmos sound mixes by convincing the studios to transcode them to DTS:X for video.

However, if that doesn't work out, then DTS essentially has to start from scratch with a catalog of zero movies mixed in MDA that can be ported to DTS:X. In that case, they'll be playing catch-up with Atmos and may have trouble overcoming Dolby's headstart advantage.


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't think you'll find that necessary. I don't own that particular model, but I believe the attached (PVC?) feet raise the cabinet a little over 1" from the floor. Unless you're going with an Austin Powers-style super shaggy (no pun intended) carpet you shouldn't need any further isolation. But, at any rate, that's something you can easily decide for yourself after installation.


Ya, I was thinking while it couldn't hurt, that it might not be that big of a deal. When I buy an AVR with both 3D audio formats later this year, would you think it could come with a demo disc? I hear a lot of people asking for how to make the Dolby Atmos demo disc (which I have no clue) and you'd think every AVR would come with a disc, simply to entice customers to keep them for what it's capable of.

Thanks again!


----------



## Al Sherwood

Josh Z said:


> The theory behind DTS:X is that the MDA format it's built off is meant to be an open standard for any object-based audio system, much like 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks are mixed in PCM and then transcoded to the Dolby or DTS codecs for home video later.
> 
> DTS wants movie sound mixers to create their soundtracks in MDA. Once the soundtrack exists that way, it can be ported to Atmos, or Auro-3D, or DTS:X, or some theoretical new format.
> 
> DTS:X can exist as a home video format even without a corresponding theatrical format, just as there's no theatrical version of DTS-HD Master Audio. A current 5.1 soundtrack master is created in PCM, and then the studio decides later whether it wants to encode that as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA on Blu-ray. It's the same soundtrack either way. TrueHD and DTS-HD are just the containers used to deliver it to Blu-ray. Therefore, Atmos and DTS:X will be the containers used to deliver MDA.
> 
> The problem is that the 200+ theatrical features with existing Atmos soundtracks were all mixed proprietarily in Atmos, and I'm sure that Dolby will try to pressure its studio partners to keep doing it that way rather than switching to MDA. Whether those Atmos soundtracks can be easily ported to MDA and DTS:X is something that remains to be seen.
> 
> If so (and if there's no legal hurdle blocking it from happening), then DTS can poach those Atmos sound mixes by convincing the studios to transcode them to DTS:X for video.
> 
> However, if that doesn't work out, then DTS essentially has to start from scratch with a catalog of zero movies mixed in MDA that can be ported to DTS:X. In that case, they'll be playing catch-up with Atmos and may have trouble overcoming Dolby's headstart advantage.


 
That is very interesting, I would hope (as a consumer) that compatible containers would be adopted and from that Dolby and DTS could provide their take on the sound track... consumers would then have a choice.


Here is some additional information: https://www.billboard.com/articles/6436261/dolby-dts-format-war-immersive-home-sound


----------



## SoundChex

Josh Z said:


> DTS wants movie sound mixers to create their soundtracks in MDA. Once the soundtrack exists that way, it can be ported to Atmos, or Auro-3D, or DTS:X, or some theoretical new format.
> 
> DTS:X can exist as a home video format even without a corresponding theatrical format, just as there's no theatrical version of DTS-HD Master Audio. A current 5.1 soundtrack master is created in PCM, and then the studio decides later whether it wants to encode that as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA on Blu-ray. It's the same soundtrack either way. TrueHD and DTS-HD are just the containers used to deliver it to Blu-ray. Therefore, Atmos and DTS:X will be the containers used to deliver MDA.




An alternative way for *MDA* to co-exist with 'closed' architectures_--like *Atmos*--_has been developed by *Fairlight* (_and others?_) "in consultation with" *DTS*...

From a recent article *Fairlight Demonstrates Dolby Atmos Mix in 3DAW at Tonmeister TMT 2014 in Cologne* (_link_):



> _„We’re not locking you into one specific output format. If you’re mixing with the Fairlight system you can mix once, you mix immersively in 3D, you’re monitoring in 3D and at the end of it, you decide if you want to output as a Dolby Atmos mix, an Auro-3D mix or a DTS MDA mix. We support a philosophy of mixing once and then outputting many times in many different formats.“ (Tino Fibaek, CTO Fairlight)_


Obviously every cinema chain will want a movie like "*Avatar II*" to be capable of playback on "the best" immersive audio screen in their every cineplex, whether it is *Atmos*, *Auro 11.1*, or (_still only rumored!_) *Barco 20.1*...! So while there is not yet just one comprehensive DCP format, multiple DCPs will have to suffice.


_


----------



## mp5475

Edge Of tomorrow, rediculous on DS. I am a fan


----------



## NorthSky

Good read Josh, and Al.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> The theory behind DTS:X is that the MDA format it's built off is meant to be an open standard for any object-based audio system, much like 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks are mixed in PCM and then transcoded to the Dolby or DTS codecs for home video later.
> 
> DTS wants movie sound mixers to create their soundtracks in MDA. Once the soundtrack exists that way, it can be ported to Atmos, or Auro-3D, or DTS:X, or some theoretical new format.
> 
> DTS:X can exist as a home video format even without a corresponding theatrical format, just as there's no theatrical version of DTS-HD Master Audio. A current 5.1 soundtrack master is created in PCM, and then the studio decides later whether it wants to encode that as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA on Blu-ray. It's the same soundtrack either way. TrueHD and DTS-HD are just the containers used to deliver it to Blu-ray. Therefore, Atmos and DTS:X will be the containers used to deliver MDA.
> 
> The problem is that the 200+ theatrical features with existing Atmos soundtracks were all mixed proprietarily in Atmos, and I'm sure that Dolby will try to pressure its studio partners to keep doing it that way rather than switching to MDA. Whether those Atmos soundtracks can be easily ported to MDA and DTS:X is something that remains to be seen.
> 
> If so (and if there's no legal hurdle blocking it from happening), then DTS can poach those Atmos sound mixes by convincing the studios to transcode them to DTS:X for video.
> 
> However, if that doesn't work out, then DTS essentially has to start from scratch with a catalog of zero movies mixed in MDA that can be ported to DTS:X. In that case, they'll be playing catch-up with Atmos and may have trouble overcoming Dolby's headstart advantage.


DTS spokespeople was commenting at CES that movies have already been mixed utilizing DTS's object language (that could mean for theatrical distribution or remixed for home use). If their "X" demo disc is any indication, they've already lined up_ at least _Summit Entertainment, Dreamworks (there goes a big Auro3D supporter), and 20th Century Fox.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> The theory behind DTS:X is that the MDA format it's built off is meant to be an open standard for any object-based audio system, much like 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks are mixed in PCM and then transcoded to the Dolby or DTS codecs for home video later.
> 
> DTS wants movie sound mixers to create their soundtracks in MDA. Once the soundtrack exists that way, it can be ported to Atmos, or Auro-3D, or DTS:X, or some theoretical new format.
> 
> DTS:X can exist as a home video format even without a corresponding theatrical format, just as there's no theatrical version of DTS-HD Master Audio. A current 5.1 soundtrack master is created in PCM, and then the studio decides later whether it wants to encode that as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA on Blu-ray. It's the same soundtrack either way. TrueHD and DTS-HD are just the containers used to deliver it to Blu-ray. Therefore, Atmos and DTS:X will be the containers used to deliver MDA.
> 
> The problem is that the 200+ theatrical features with existing Atmos soundtracks were all mixed proprietarily in Atmos, and I'm sure that Dolby will try to pressure its studio partners to keep doing it that way rather than switching to MDA. Whether those Atmos soundtracks can be easily ported to MDA and DTS:X is something that remains to be seen.
> 
> If so (and if there's no legal hurdle blocking it from happening), then DTS can poach those Atmos sound mixes by convincing the studios to transcode them to DTS:X for video.
> 
> However, if that doesn't work out, then DTS essentially has to start from scratch with a catalog of zero movies mixed in MDA that can be ported to DTS:X. In that case, they'll be playing catch-up with Atmos and may have trouble overcoming Dolby's headstart advantage.


At CES, DTS was mentioning that movies have already or are being mixed using their object language. That could mean either for theatrical distribution or re-mixed for home video release (or both). DTS has been known to requisition remixes when debuting new sound formats (like when they introduced DTS-ES Discrete 6.1). If their "X" demo disc is any indication then it looks like they have at least Dreamworks (there goes one of Auro3D's big supporters), 20th Century Fox, and Summit Entertainment in their corner. A couple of the titles I've never heard of, so there could be other studios using MDA (and DTS:X) too.

It will do stereo up to 22.2 surround and at CES they went with 22.2 (a couple attendees were hinting that there may be provisions for ground level audio as well from what they heard). First generation products may have fixed speaker locations like Atmos, but include re-mapping soon after. I wonder how close their ideal system is to the Hamasaki 22.2 layout that NHK Broadcasting was trumpeting for their UHD broadcasts. No one here seems to have posted pictures from the DTS demo yet.








Hamasaki 22.2 layout.

DTS also stated that they don't require elevation speakers and can have an optional mode for virtual height reproduction for theaters without (the SRS model coming into play?). 

Time for an official DTS: X thread?


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> Time for an official DTS: X thread?


Isn't that what this is?

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html


----------



## NorthSky

dan hitchman said:


> time for an official dts: X thread?


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/30375986/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Isn't that what this is?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html


It doesn't have the word "Official" as blessed by the holy AVS Forum moderators.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Dan Hitchman said:


> No one here seems to have posted pictures from the DTS demo yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS also stated that they don't require elevation speakers and can have an optional mode for virtual height reproduction for theaters without (the SRS model coming into play?).
> 
> Time for an official DTS: X thread?


That illustration needs to come with an instruction manual!


----------



## Tnedator

dormie1360 said:


> Have you talked to Dennis or Shawn? Looking at your original plans, you will need to lower your surrounds if you are doing Atmos now.


I have. Dennis said the surrounds will be lower than they've done for 7.1 in the past. He doesn't think my size room needs more than four overhead. 

While he knows much more than me, it's much easier to wire/frame for six overhead now than it will be later, so I will probably have it setup for six, even if I am only doing four now and possibly, ever.


----------



## SoundChex

Jive Turkey said:


> That illustration needs to come with an instruction manual!



Unfortunately, when I 'liberated' that image (_or an identical one!_) on 1/13/2011, it was contained in a blog which IIRC was in Chinese . . . Actually, it's just a "poorly drafted" graphic of the _standard _*Hamasaki 22.2* layout (with some extremely badly placed satellite speakers) plus an extra _floor stander_ stereo speaker pair "to complete the man cave"!


_


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all i have opted to change my Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers for on ceiling speakers. After reading a few posts etc it seems the Tannoy di5dc on ceiling speakers are the best ? Does everybody feel that this is the case or is there others worth looking at ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> Unfortunately, when I 'liberated' that image (_or an identical one!_) on 1/13/2011, it was contained in a blog which IIRC was in Chinese . . . Actually, it's just a "poorly drafted" graphic of the _standard _*Hamasaki 22.2* layout (with some extremely badly placed satellite speakers) plus an extra _floor stander_ stereo speaker pair "to complete the man cave"!
> 
> 
> _


I was wondering if DTS came up with 22.2 for DTS:X as an arbitrary number, or if they were modeling a particular preferred layout on the Hamasaki model... is that how the CES demo was set up?


----------



## Frank714

Dan Hitchman said:


> *DTS* also stated that they *don't require elevation speakers* and can have an optional mode for virtual height reproduction for theaters without (the SRS model coming into play?).


Very interesting speaker setup illustration, many thanks for that.

Wow, without the need of *elevated* speakers, there's a good chance that current Dolby Atmos AVRs like the Marantz SR 7009 will be able to reproduce DTS:X in 7.1 thanks to their analog 7.1 multi-channel inputs (provided BD manufacturers like Oppo will put their 7.1 multi-channel outputs to good use by implementing DTS:X processors and 7.1 analog multi-channel decoding)


----------



## Tnedator

I know they are different companies, so they each have financial reasons for doing things their own way, but from a consumer standpoint, format wars are not good. If every title offered both and you got to choose, that would be one thing, but that's not how it works. Instead, some movies are going to be offered one way, some the other. 

Some streaming companies may offer X sound format, while another will offer y.

The problem that creates is then setting up the room. 

I'm planning on going with four, probably six overhead speakers (only using four initially because of AVR limitations). Great for Atmos, but how does it work with Auro or DTS:X? 

I've had enough format wars over the years -- they suck for the consumer.


----------



## Wookii

Dan Hitchman said:


> No one here seems to have posted pictures from the DTS demo yet.


Yes they have, in a short video of the DTS:X demo ceiling speaker no less.




Dan Hitchman said:


> Time for an official DTS: X thread?


Indeed there already is one here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1827674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html

Which is where you'll find the vid.


----------



## groundtrac

I know I'm stating the obvious, but I would really like to see a whole bunch of blu-ray's re-released with the Atmos soundtrack like they were originally released in the theater. I look forward to Gravity next month for sure, but what are they up to, something like 100 or so?


----------



## lujan

I'm getting conflicting information from Klipsch and the vendor that I'm buying height speakers from. I was purchasing some cheaper Klipsch speakers (1650's) from the same vendor that I'm getting the AVR-X5200W from. Klipsch is telling me that the 1605's aren't adequate for the 4 height speakers for Dolby Atmos. The vendor is telling me that they are more than adequate for what I need. I would think the vendor would want me to spend more money with them so I tend to believe them? Klipsch & Dolby are saying that the height speakers need to be full range speakers. Are the 1650's not full range? I don't know what to do and I need to make a decision today as the order will go through soon. Thanks for any suggestions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Wookii said:


> Yes they have, in a short video of the DTS:X demo ceiling speaker no less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed there already is one here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html
> 
> Which is where you'll find the vid.


Thanks... I just noticed the new quick video clip on a different forum. An interesting overhead layout to be sure.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frank714 said:


> Very interesting speaker setup illustration, many thanks for that.
> 
> Wow, without the need of *elevated* speakers, there's a good chance that current Dolby Atmos AVRs like the Marantz SR 7009 will be able to reproduce DTS:X in 7.1 thanks to their analog 7.1 multi-channel inputs (provided BD manufacturers like Oppo will put their 7.1 multi-channel outputs to good use by implementing DTS:X processors and 7.1 analog multi-channel decoding)


That's a representation of the Hamasaki 22.2 layout, to which I was wondering if DTS had modeled their layout and channel amount from... the new video that has come to light of the CES demo shows something a little different... from what can be seen (not much, unfortunately).


----------



## BigScreen

groundtrac said:


> I know I'm stating the obvious, but I would really like to see a whole bunch of blu-ray's re-released with the Atmos soundtrack like they were originally released in the theater. I look forward to Gravity next month for sure, but what are they up to, something like 100 or so?


Dolby just crossed 200 movies with Atmos soundtracks. Unfortunately, very few of them have made it onto Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks.

Announced upcoming home video releases of movies released in theaters with Atmos are:



Book of Life - Jan 27, 2015 (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1)
John Wick - Feb 3, 2015 (Atmos)
Big Hero 6 - Feb 24, 2015 (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1)
Unbroken - Mar 24, 2015 (DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1)
Gravity: Diamond Luxe Edition - Mar 31, 2015 (Atmos)

We should be getting news of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 soon, and given Lionsgate's history, it should have an Atmos soundtrack. Penguins of Madagascar and Exodus: Gods & Kings should be announced soon, but their Atmos prospects would require new support from their studios.

It's been said that Warner Bros. will be using the sales of Gravity to determine interest in Atmos on Blu-ray, but given that it isn't being released until the end of March, that doesn't bode well for the possibility of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies to have an Atmos soundtrack.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb is in the same boat as Exodus: Gods & Kings, but the longer it takes to be released, the better the chances are that it might have Atmos.

That rounds out the 2014 theatrical Atmos releases. As the 2015 movie releases start getting announced on home video, they'll be running into the window where DTS:X might come into the picture.


----------



## Josh Z

BigScreen said:


> It's been said that Warner Bros. will be using the sales of Gravity to determine interest in Atmos on Blu-ray,


Well that's stupid. The movie is a catalog title at this point, one that most people already bought when it was a new release just recently. Further, the marketing for the reissue has mainly centered around its "Diamond Luxe" packaging and new bonus features, not Atmos.

AND, the reissue doesn't even include the 3D version of the movie, which limits its appeal to anyone who wants a "definitive" release for the film.

This is a really bad choice of title to make a litmus test for Atmos.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

i thought Exodus already was announced as ATMOS on BR/?

very excited for john Wick,big hero 6 and unbroken on BR in ATMOS


----------



## Kris Deering

Brian Fineberg said:


> i thought Exodus already was announced as ATMOS on BR/?
> 
> very excited for john Wick,big hero 6 and unbroken on BR in ATMOS


I think he stated that Big Hero and Unbreakable ARE NOT Atmos titles at home, they were theatrically though.


----------



## SoundChex

BigScreen said:


> Dolby just crossed 200 movies with Atmos soundtracks. Unfortunately, very few of them have made it onto Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks.



The *number one consumer requested feature* for home _object-based_ audio is *dialog management* . . . which Dolby demo'd as part of *AC4* but which I have *not* seen mentioned as present in (_the current incarnation of_) home *Dolby Atmos*. However, it does appear that _object-based_ *dialog management* is present in *DTS:X* as demo'd at *CES 2015*...?!


_


----------



## Mike Garrett

lujan said:


> I'm getting conflicting information from Klipsch and the vendor that I'm buying height speakers from. I was purchasing some cheaper Klipsch speakers (1605's) from the same vendor that I'm getting the AVR-X5200W from. Klipsch is telling me that the 1605's aren't adequate for the 4 height speakers for Dolby Atmos. The vendor is telling me that they are more than adequate for what I need. I would think the vendor would want me to spend more money with them so I tend to believe them? Klipsch & Dolby are saying that the height speakers need to be full range speakers. Are the 1605's not full range? I don't know what to do and I need to make a decision today as the order will go through soon. Thanks for any suggestions.


I assume you mean 1650 and I assume you mean the CDT in-ceiling speaker, not the in-wall speaker? What are the rest of your speakers? The CDT-1650 has a low enough -3db point to work in a bass managed system. It just comes down to the performance level you are trying to get.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Kris Deering said:


> I think he stated that Big Hero and Unbreakable ARE NOT Atmos titles at home, they were theatrically though.


oooh...oops I read it wrong

damn!


----------



## lujan

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> I assume you mean 1650 and I assume you mean the CDT in-ceiling speaker, not the in-wall speaker? What are the rest of your speakers? The CDT-1650 has a low enough -3db point to work in a bass managed system. It just comes down to the performance level you are trying to get.


Sorry, yes the 1650's. The rest of the speakers are NHT speakers (Evolution series) with an NHT amp. I wanted the white in-ceiling so that they would be as hidden as possible. I'm not sure about performance? I guess I just want to make sure they work with the NHT's?


----------



## Mike Garrett

lujan said:


> Sorry, yes the 1650's. The rest of the speakers are NHT speakers (Evolution series) with an NHT amp. I wanted the white in-ceiling so that they would be as hidden as possible. I'm not sure about performance? I guess I just want to make sure they work with the NHT's?


Evolution series, which model?


----------



## lujan

av science sales 5 said:


> evolution series, which model?


nht m6 - 2 ea
nht a1 - 2 ea
nht x1 - 1 ea
nht b6 - 1 ea


----------



## Wookii

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks... I just noticed the new quick video clip on a different forum. An interesting overhead layout to be sure.


I believe that was a peculiar round room with screens on all walls etc, you have to extrapolate what is shown in that clip to how it might be laid out in a more traditional rectangular room. I think basically the schematic is a height speaker generally above each base level speaker with a central ceiling speaker for infill. 

What was a little unique (if I understand the other AVForum clip correctly) is that there was also an array of speakers at floor level! So possibly three layers of 9 speakers on top of one another with a central ceiling height speaker. 9.9.1.9.1?


----------



## Oledurt

SoundChex said:


> The *number one consumer requested feature* for home _object-based_ audio is *dialog management* . . . which Dolby demo'd as part of *AC4* but which I have *not* seen mentioned as present in (_the current incarnation of_) home *Dolby Atmos*. However, it does appear that _object-based_ *dialog management* is present in *DTS:X* as demo'd at *CES 2015*...?!
> 
> 
> _



What is dialog management?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Oledurt said:


> What is dialog management?


Encoding the dialogue stem as a separate object/stream so that the consumer can adjust its volume level independently of the rest of the soundtrack.


----------



## SoundChex

SoundChex said:


> The *number one consumer requested feature* for home _object-based_ audio is *dialog management* . . . which Dolby demo'd as part of *AC4* but which I have *not* seen mentioned as present in (_the current incarnation of_) home *Dolby Atmos*. However, it does appear that _object-based_ *dialog management* is present in *DTS:X* as demo'd at *CES 2015*...?!





Oledurt said:


> What is dialog management?





sdurani said:


> Encoding the dialogue stem as a separate object/stream so that the consumer can adjust its volume level independently of the rest of the soundtrack.




*Dialog management* is one example of "*personalization*", in contrast to the more familiar "*immersion*".

With it's _theatrical cinema_ origins, *Atmos* directly addresses "*immersion*", but in its current incarnation does not appear to support "*personalization*" at all, and while "*immersion*" is _presently_ only of interest to a small audience with _multi speaker_ systems, "*personalization*" is applicable to all audiences even those with only 2.0 playback systems, e.g., a TV. _For example see:_ *MPEG-H Audio - The New Standard for Universal Spatial / 3D Audio Coding* (_link_):



> _"Using audio objects or embedding of objects as additional audio tracks inside channel-based audio productions and broadcast opens up a range of new applications. Inside an MPEG-H 3D audio bitstream, objects can be embedded that can be selected by the user during playback. Objects allow consumers to have personalized playback options ranging from simple adjustments (such as increasing or decreasing the level of announcer’s commentary or actor’s dialogue relative to the other audio elements) to conceivable future broadcasts where several audio elements may be adjusted in level or position to tailor the audio playback experience to the user’s liking..."_


_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Encoding the dialogue stem as a separate object/stream so that the consumer can adjust its volume level independently of the rest of the soundtrack.


I can see that as a feature of sports broadcasts and that sort of thing, but for movies and music they should use the space for the best overall 3D sound quality possible. Dialog management takes up a bit of data. And how would they manage a movie like _Gravity_ where primary dialog and other dialog stems were panned all over the place?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I can see that as a feature of sports broadcasts and that sort of thing, but for movies and music they should use the space for the best overall 3D sound quality possible.


They should use object-based audio for features consumers want. If YOU don't want to adjust the dialogue level when watching movies or listening to music, you don't have to use that feature.


> And how would they manage a movie like _Gravity_ where primary dialog and other dialog stems were panned all over the place?


What does location have to do with it? It's still the dialogue stem, irrespective of where the metadata is placing the voices. Just include it as a separate stream/object so that viewers can adjust the level when needed for intelligibility.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> They should use object-based audio for features consumers want. If YOU don't want to adjust the dialogue level when watching movies or listening to music, you don't have to use that feature. What does location have to do with it? It's still the dialogue stem, irrespective of where the metadata is placing the voices. Just include it as a separate stream/object so that viewers can adjust the level when needed for intelligibility.


Honestly, I don't see that much practical benefit to this. Aside from the rare movie that pans dialogue around the room (like Gravity), 99.999999999999999% of all movie and TV dialogue comes from the center channel speaker. Will boosting the dialogue object volume be appreciably different from simply boosting the center channel volume, which any surround sound system can already do right now? No, not likely.

This might be of use for people with soundbars who can't independently adjust a center channel, but how many soundbar users are going to invest in a fancy new A/V receiver with DTS:X? Is that a realistic expectation?

This seems like a marketing bullet-point item with little real-world use.


----------



## Kwikas

Josh Z said:


> Honestly, I don't see that much practical benefit to this. Aside from the rare movie that pans dialogue around the room (like Gravity), 99.999999999999999% of all movie and TV dialogue comes from the center channel speaker. Will boosting the dialogue object volume be appreciably different from simply boosting the center channel volume, which any surround sound system can already do right now? No, not likely.
> 
> 
> This might be of use for people with soundbars who can't independently adjust a center channel, but how many soundbar users are going to invest in a fancy new A/V receiver with DTS:X? Is that a realistic expectation?
> 
> This seems like a marketing bullet-point item with little real-world use.


 
But perhaps mixers will move dialogue around more (make it less centre centric) because they now have the ability to do it. Going forward, that centre channel may well become less important in it's dialogue function versus any of the other speakers. 

With object based mixes, will we still consider the centre channel to be *the* most important speaker for dialogue as we have done traditionally? Or indeed, *the* most important speaker - period? We may find that the emphasis and bias on the centre channel is reduced. 


My hearing is not that great now. If mixers start to put dialogue in a range of other speakers and there's a lot of other stuff being processed through them, I know I would likely want to distil out the dialogue a bit more. 

I see this as big benefit of object based audio.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Will boosting the dialogue object volume be appreciably different from simply boosting the center channel volume, which any surround sound system can already do right now?


Absolutely. At times 80% of a movie soundtrack can come from the centre speaker. Rather than throwing the L/C/R soundstage out of calibration by boosting the centre speaker and ALL the sounds it is playing back, better to raise the just the dialogue (irrespective of which speaker it is coming from). Very useful feature for times when someone wants dialogue to be easier to hear than explosions, music, sound effects, etc. This is why DTS is pushing for it.


----------



## Josh Z

Kwikas said:


> But perhaps mixers will move dialogue around more (make it less centre centric) because they now have the ability to do it. Going forward, that centre channel may well become less important in it's dialogue function versus any of the other speakers.


That seems unlikely to me. Rooting dialogue in the center speaker is more an aesthetic decision than a technical one. When dialogue is locked to the screen, a viewer's attention is focused on the characters. When you start drifting dialogue off the screen to other parts of the room, it becomes distracting and breaks the illusion - much more so than music or sound effects in surround.

Maybe in some future video format that uses holograms or virtual reality to create a fully 360-degree viewing environment, directional dialogue may be appropriate. Until then, it's a gimmick.


----------



## Nalleh

More "immersive sound" discs 











Nature and Transcendence with Atmos from Amazon.jp (4 days from Tokyo, Japan to my door in Norway!), and Tiesto pure audio bluray with Auro 9.1 from Amazon.com.

And more on the way


----------



## Mike Garrett

lujan said:


> nht m6 - 2 ea
> nht a1 - 2 ea
> nht x1 - 1 ea
> nht b6 - 1 ea


Those ceiling speakers would be okay, but I would probably use a slightly better speaker.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Absolutely. At times 80% of a movie soundtrack can come from the centre speaker. Rather than throwing the L/C/R soundstage out of calibration by boosting the centre speaker and ALL the sounds it is playing back, better to raise the just the dialogue (irrespective of which speaker it is coming from). Very useful feature for times when someone wants dialogue to be easier to hear than explosions, music, sound effects, etc. This is why DTS is pushing for it.


I'm willing to bet that this feature will be as common as seamless branching. 

Ie: extremely rare.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I can see that as a feature of sports broadcasts and that sort of thing, but for movies and music they should use the space for the best overall 3D sound quality possible. Dialog management takes up a bit of data. And how would they manage a movie like _Gravity_ where primary dialog and other dialog stems were panned all over the place?


Dialog will be a single or multiple object. It is fully independent of channels or other parts of a mix. This is a rather easy thing to control it just needs to be an enabled feature when the disc is authored.


----------



## lujan

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Those ceiling speakers would be okay, but I would probably use a slightly better speaker.


Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm willing to bet that this feature will be as common as seamless branching.
> 
> Ie: extremely rare.


Go back to eating pizza.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> More "immersive sound" discs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature and Transcendence with Atmos from Amazon.jp (4 days from Tokyo, Japan to my door in Norway!), and Tiesto pure audio bluray with Auro 9.1 from Amazon.com.
> 
> And more on the way


I checked for those @ my local walmart store; couldn't find them.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm willing to bet that this feature will be as common as seamless branching.
> 
> Ie: extremely rare.


I'm willing to speculate a verisimilitude myself.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I checked for those @ my local walmart store; couldn't find them.


Nature and Transcendence with Atmos from Amazon.jp unless your local Wal-Mart is in Japan


----------



## NorthSky

Regarding that "Dialog Personalization" : Bring it on, I just can't wait. ...Follow the actors onscreen, left, center, right, above, below, behind ...

And yes; those Auro-3D discs won't be easily available @ our local audio electronics music stores. 
But Dolby Atmos and dts:X yes. ...As I already have seen four Atmos Blu-ray titles @ my local wally store. 
- Amazon international and hi-res music and hi-def video downloads are now the main virtual stores.


----------



## Jarrod2750

Just curious if anyone ever considered using the Klipsch light speakers for overheads where running speakers wasn't an option. Thanks!


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm willing to bet that this feature will be as common as seamless branching.
> 
> 
> 
> Ie: extremely rare.



Sort of like those who poopoo wides but look forward to front/forward surrounds?

Sorry man, just couldn't help myself. 


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Go back to eating pizza.


Had one before I posted.

Filled my quota for the day.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> Sort of like those who poopoo wides but look forward to front/forward surrounds?
> 
> Sorry man, just couldn't help myself.
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Hardy har! 

Mark my words. This feature will be on barely enough discs to count with one hand.

Would be nice though. Just like seamless branching.


----------



## htpcforever

Nalleh said:


> More "immersive sound" discs
> 
> Nature and Transcendence with Atmos from Amazon.jp (4 days from Tokyo, Japan to my door in Norway!), and Tiesto pure audio bluray with Auro 9.1 from Amazon.com.
> 
> And more on the way



Are they region free?


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Hardy har!
> Mark my words. This feature will be on barely enough discs to count with one hand.
> Would be nice though. Just like seamless branching.



My understanding is that the (English language) dialog for current *5.1|7.1* _channel based_ movies is kept on a separate stem to allow for 'alternate language' dubbing. It seems to me that any such movie_--which might previously have been released as *DTS-HDMA 5.1*--_could now 'quickly' be released as *DTS:X 5.1 + 1 Interactive Dialog Object* (with legacy *DTS-HDMA 5.1* capability). Specifically, I would expect that quite soon "basic audio" releases on *BD* which last year would have been released as *DTS-HDMA 5.1 *will in future be released as *DTS:X 5.1 + 1 Interactive Dialog Object*. . . almost completely replacing "traditional" *DTS-HDMA 5.1* releases!

_However..._
*DTS:X* may provide the capability to perform "object-based personalized dialog management", but *DTS* cannot force a director or sound mixer to employ it in a way that will meet the expectations|needs of every viewer|listener. Such choices may be difficult to make, e.g., if mumbled and|or unintelligible dialog is pertinent to the "artistic integrity" of the plot, or the conversation takes place in a "campanologically active" bell tower, or near an in-use runway!


_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> My understanding is that the (English language) dialog for current *5.1|7.1* _channel based_ movies is kept on a separate stem to allow for 'alternate language' dubbing. It seems to me that any such movie_--which might previously have been released as *DTS-HDMA 5.1*--_could now 'quickly' be released as *DTS:X 5.1 + 1 Interactive Dialog Object* (with legacy *DTS-HDMA 5.1* capability). Specifically, I would expect that quite soon "basic audio" releases on *BD* which last year would have been released as *DTS-HDMA 5.1 *will in future be released as *DTS:X 5.1 + 1 Interactive Dialog Object*. . . almost completely replacing "traditional" *DTS-HDMA 5.1* releases!
> 
> _However..._
> *DTS:X* may provide the capability to perform "object-based personalized dialog management", but *DTS* cannot force a director or sound mixer to employ it in a way that will meet the expectations|needs of every viewer|listener. Such choices may be difficult to make, e.g., if mumbled and|or unintelligible dialog is pertinent to the "artistic integrity" of the plot, or the conversation takes place in a "campanologically active" bell tower, or near an in-use runway!
> 
> 
> _


This looks more like a feature made for live broadcast TV viewer consumption, an area DTS wants to break into. No more SAP needed, just have the user replace the dialog object with English or Spanish announcer tracks (or whatever languages depending on your locale) all the other sound effects and crowd noise, etc. stays the same. Something like this was shown at CES.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey. I'd like it too.


But I can't even get a g'damed trailer of the movie on the disc.

Hell. We aren't even getting these 'so-easy-to-transfer' Atmos mixes. 


Good luck. Keep expectations low. Expectations lead to disappointment.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, do you have a Dolby Atmos receiver yet? ...This is already January ninth, two-thousand and fifteen.


----------



## mp5475

Watched Guardians of Galaxy with DS, I wasn't impressed as I was with edge of tomorrow , but enjoyed the music from the top speakers. Those who saw it with DS, what did you guys think? How was the up mix compared to other movies?


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> This looks more like a feature made for live broadcast TV viewer consumption, an area DTS wants to break into.


Yeah, this idea of "customizing" a soundtrack gets us into an area of messing with the artistic intent of a film. The Hollywood audio mixing community would raise hell about that. I don't see it happening much, if ever.

This is much more likely to be reserved for sports and other live TV events.


----------



## kuro6010

K guys, finally, my Denon 7200 arrived this afternoon. Getting ready to open my late Christmas gift from Santa. 

I have my Atlantcic Tech 44DA's pre wired. I have them placed on top of my Dynaudio's. So I have 2 in the front and 2 in the rear. 7.1.4. 

Where do I connect all 4 Atlantic Techs?
I want to make sure I connect them to the correct place.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> This looks more like a feature made for live broadcast TV viewer consumption, an area DTS wants to break into. No more SAP needed, just have the user replace the dialog object with English or Spanish announcer tracks (or whatever languages depending on your locale) all the other sound effects and crowd noise, etc. stays the same. Something like this was shown at CES.





Josh Z said:


> Yeah, this idea of "customizing" a soundtrack gets us into an area of messing with the artistic intent of a film. The Hollywood audio mixing community would raise hell about that. I don't see it happening much, if ever.
> 
> This is much more likely to be reserved for sports and other live TV events.


I guess as we are all of the Home Theater fraternity, we may forget how many people attempt to enjoy Blu-ray movies -- through a TV's speakers or a soundbar. Once that stereo downmix lost the automatic DRC that was part of Dolby Digital (the transition to DTS HD-MA meant the option for DRC went away), it became much harder to enjoy a movie at a low volume on a stereo system. I've seen any number of posts even in these threads about the problem. Turn it up to heard the dialog, then too loud when hell breaks loose. 

DRC is nice, but it's nothing like as effective as being able to treat the effects separately from the dialog. And for people with hearing impairments (a rapidly growing demographic), they care very little about the nuances of artistic intent -- they just want to hear what was spoken. Being able to adjust the dialog is thus even more important for movie content than TV fare, where the dynamics are already more constrained.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> DRC is nice, but it's nothing like as effective as being able to treat the effects separately from the dialog. And for people with hearing impairments (a rapidly growing demographic), they care very little about the nuances of artistic intent -- they just want to hear what was spoken. Being able to adjust the dialog is thus even more important for movie content than TV fare, where the dynamics are already more constrained.


I'm not even talking about this from the perspective of what consumers want. The Hollywood sound mixers, the people who make these movie soundtracks, will will feel that their work is being tampered with. They and their unions will pressure the studios to disable or prevent these "customization" features.

Imagine if every Blu-ray started including seamless branching that would allow viewers to change the camera angles in a scene to what THEY wanted to watch, without director approval or input. Do you think the Director's Guild would allow that to happen? There would be hell to pay at the studio if somebody tried that.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> I'm not even talking about this from the perspective of what consumers want. The Hollywood sound mixers, the people who make these movie soundtracks, will will feel that their work is being tampered with. They and their unions will pressure the studios to disable or prevent these "customization" features.


Virtually nobody, save those of us with nice theaters, hears the mix "untampered." 

The mixer's job is to make the producer happy. That starts and ends on the dubbing stage. By the time a movie reaches TV, it has been dynamically emasculated and the cussing removed. It's not a lossless translation by any stretch. 



> Imagine if every Blu-ray started including seamless branching that would allow viewers to change the camera angles in a scene to what THEY wanted to watch, without director approval or input. Do you think the Director's Guild would allow that to happen? There would be hell to pay at the studio if somebody tried that.


Every possible option in a seamless branching title is designed to be there. The consumer has no influence beyond taking advantage of what the content makers already decided.


----------



## Selden Ball

kuro6010 said:


> K guys, finally, my Denon 7200 arrived this afternoon. Getting ready to open my late Christmas gift from Santa.
> 
> I have my Atlantcic Tech 44DA's pre wired. I have them placed on top of my Dynaudio's. So I have 2 in the front and 2 in the rear. 7.1.4.
> 
> Where do I connect all 4 Atlantic Techs?
> I want to make sure I connect them to the correct place.


If you're driving them from the Denon's internal amps, connect them to the Height1 (front overheads) and Height2 (rear overheads) speaker binding posts.

The Height2 binding posts are dual-purpose and could be used for Front Wide speakers instead, so be sure to use the AVR's 11.1 amp assign option. The other amp assignment options assume that the Height2 binding posts are used for Front Wide. Don't forget that you'll have to use an external stereo amp if you're configuring for 7.1.4 speakers. The 7200 has only 9 internal amps, limiting it to 5.1.4.


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> I'm not even talking about this from the perspective of what consumers want. The Hollywood sound mixers, the people who make these movie soundtracks, will will feel that their work is being tampered with. They and their unions will pressure the studios to disable or prevent these "customization" features.
> 
> Imagine if every Blu-ray started including seamless branching that would allow viewers to change the camera angles in a scene to what THEY wanted to watch, without director approval or input. Do you think the Director's Guild would allow that to happen? There would be hell to pay at the studio if somebody tried that.


After you paid for (purchased) your Blu-ray, it is yours to use as you want in your own home sound system.
- I'd rather have it even if not using it than not having it when I need to use it.


----------



## kuro6010

Thanks seldom. Yes I'm using my emotiva xpa 5. And I want to use my front L & R center And side L&R on my emotiva. And I want to use my Atlantic techs thru the avr internal amps. Help


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, do you have a Dolby Atmos receiver yet? ...This is already January ninth, two-thousand and fifteen.


No way. Was gonna wait it out til DTS released their immersive format. 

At this rate maybe a year after they do. Hopefully 9.1.6 will be available at the same time. 

As soon as I can get: Yamaha, Atmos/DTS:X, CinemaDSP applied to said formats and 9.1.6 support. Then I'll strike.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> No way. Was gonna wait it out til DTS released their immersive format.
> 
> At this rate maybe a year after they do. Hopefully 9.1.6 will be available at the same time.
> 
> As soon as I can get: Yamaha, Atmos/DTS:X, CinemaDSP applied to said formats and 9.1.6 support. Then I'll strike.


♦ I knew that. ...Only wanted to know your take. ...And I'm with ya (gotcha).


----------



## Scott Simonian

I might even not wait for 9.1.6 but I'd hope that there is support for it in the next year or two. Most likely two or three years. 

I know Yamaha had told me that this next summer Atmos gear is going to have the ability to apply CinemaDSP to Atmos but I'll bet $100 that it will support DTS:X but like this years not able to apply CinemaDSP to it. 

Oye.


----------



## G_S

Scott Simonian said:


> No way. Was gonna wait it out til DTS released their immersive format.
> 
> At this rate maybe a year after they do. Hopefully 9.1.6 will be available at the same time.
> 
> As soon as I can get: Yamaha, Atmos/DTS:X, CinemaDSP applied to said formats and 9.1.6 support. Then I'll strike.


I join you


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, 9.1.4 might appear this year (2015). ...Might. 

And, if Yamaha's going to apply Cinema and Music DSP (Quadfield) to Dobly Atmos you can be sure that they will too to dts:X ... Or my username ain't NorthSky. 

:grin:

P.S. Let's keep this strictly between you and I. ...Sanjay doesn't have to know. ...You think he loves pizza too?


----------



## Scott Simonian

He does.


----------



## NorthSky

Ok, I'm done here for tonight.


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all i have opted to change my Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers for on ceiling speakers. After reading a few posts etc it seems the Tannoy di5dc on ceiling speakers are the best ? Does everybody feel that this is the case or is there others worth looking at ?


The Di5 DCs certainly work very well. "Best" is a subjective term so there will be as many "bests" as there are people


----------



## kbarnes701

lujan said:


> I'm getting conflicting information from Klipsch and the vendor that I'm buying height speakers from. I was purchasing some cheaper Klipsch speakers (1650's) from the same vendor that I'm getting the AVR-X5200W from. Klipsch is telling me that the 1605's aren't adequate for the 4 height speakers for Dolby Atmos. The vendor is telling me that they are more than adequate for what I need. I would think the vendor would want me to spend more money with them so I tend to believe them? Klipsch & Dolby are saying that the height speakers need to be full range speakers. *Are the 1650's not full range? * I don't know what to do and I need to make a decision today as the order will go through soon. Thanks for any suggestions.


They are in a bass-managed system, yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Honestly, I don't see that much practical benefit to this. Aside from the rare movie that pans dialogue around the room (like Gravity), 99.999999999999999% of all movie and TV dialogue comes from the center channel speaker. Will boosting the dialogue object volume be appreciably different from simply boosting the center channel volume, which any surround sound system can already do right now? No, not likely.


The reverse - it will be very different. Boosting the centre channel level also boosts all the other sounds in the centre channel thus unbalancing the mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I'm not even talking about this from the perspective of what consumers want. The Hollywood sound mixers, the people who make these movie soundtracks, will will feel that their work is being tampered with. They and their unions will pressure the studios to disable or prevent these "customization" features.


Following that logic, the "Hollywood sound mixers ... and their unions" wouldn't allow anyone to watch/listen on a tablet, on a computer, on a small (sub 100 inch) TV, via a soundbar, without subwoofers and so on and on. In fact, the only way they would "allow" us to see a movie would be in a commercial cinema - they wouldn't "allow" home releases at all.


----------



## iloilo

should i buy a receiver that has atmos? is this really the future of surround sound? 

and can i just use small satellite speakers hanging down from the ceiling instead of ceiling speakers?

thanks.


----------



## Csbooth

BigScreen said:


> Dolby just crossed 200 movies with Atmos soundtracks. Unfortunately, very few of them have made it onto Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks.
> 
> Announced upcoming home video releases of movies released in theaters with Atmos are:
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Life - Jan 27, 2015 (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1)
> John Wick - Feb 3, 2015 (Atmos)
> Big Hero 6 - Feb 24, 2015 (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1)
> Unbroken - Mar 24, 2015 (DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1)
> Gravity: Diamond Luxe Edition - Mar 31, 2015 (Atmos)
> 
> We should be getting news of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 soon, and given Lionsgate's history, it should have an Atmos soundtrack. Penguins of Madagascar and Exodus: Gods & Kings should be announced soon, but their Atmos prospects would require new support from their studios.
> 
> It's been said that Warner Bros. will be using the sales of Gravity to determine interest in Atmos on Blu-ray, but given that it isn't being released until the end of March, that doesn't bode well for the possibility of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies to have an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb is in the same boat as Exodus: Gods & Kings, but the longer it takes to be released, the better the chances are that it might have Atmos.
> 
> That rounds out the 2014 theatrical Atmos releases. As the 2015 movie releases start getting announced on home video, they'll be running into the window where DTS:X might come into the picture.


Might not be such a big deal, but John Wick (Like Step Up: All In) are not originally mixed theatrical Atmos releases. Lionsgate is really the only distributor that is trying to give the people what they want I guess lol, chances are Hunger Games is a guarenteed Atmos release.

Also as already pointed out, Exodus is getting an Atmos release.


----------



## kbarnes701

iloilo said:


> should i buy a receiver that has atmos? is this really the future of surround sound?


Yes - although I'd wait a short while and get one that has DTS:X as well as Atmos. 



iloilo said:


> and can i just use small satellite speakers hanging down from the ceiling instead of ceiling speakers?


Yes. Assuming you have a subwoofer in your system and are using bass-management in your AVR. The overhead speakers ideally have a wide dispersion. Check out the Tannoy Di5 Dual Concentric for example.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> I checked for those @ my local walmart store; couldn't find them.


A joke, right?



htpcforever said:


> Are they region free?


Yes, region free.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

You guys waiting have he patience of saints HHAHA. Even if I didn't have atmos yet. All the glowing reviews would have had me breaking down. 

with that said I am more than willing to upgrade in 2016 for another avr with hopefully all the final immersive sound formats and 4k available


----------



## Selden Ball

kuro6010 said:


> Thanks seldom. Yes I'm using my emotiva xpa 5. And I want to use my front L &  R center And side L&R on my emotiva. And I want to use my Atlantic techs thru the avr internal amps. Help


"Just do it." 

When "Amp Assign" mode is set to 11.1, you'll be able to manually select which speakers are amplified by the receiver and which speakers use an external amplifier. You also will have to select how many overhead speaker positions you have and which are connected to Height1 and Height2. Please take the time to read the manual carefully, starting at page 218.

However, you might want to try using the Setup Assistant, instead. It'll "lead you by the hand" to connect and test each speaker and to configure the receiver. Select the top-most speaker configuration (11 or 13 speakers). One of its limitations is that it assumes you'll be using the Front Wide/Height2 speaker binding posts for Front Wide, so it requires you to connect the Height2 speakers to an external amplifier even though you might not have any Front Wide speakers. I know you want to use the external amp for the side Surrounds, but hopefully your amp and AVR are close enough together that the cables will still reach. There will be *no* difference in sound quality.

Bear in mind that there's no reason you can't first try the Setup Assistant, and then try the manual 11.1 configuration once you're familiar with how the speaker assignments work. You won't damage anything.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> You guys waiting have he patience of saints HHAHA. Even if I didn't have atmos yet. All the glowing reviews would have had me breaking down.
> 
> with that said I am more than willing to upgrade in 2016 for another avr with hopefully all the final immersive sound formats and 4k available


I didn't have patience and jumped in with both feet into Atmos, and I'm glad I did with DTS:X coming I will be content with Atmos and DSU till late 2016. Agree there are alot of changes coming HDCP 2.2 4K 8K so the next two or three years... we should see more clearly.


----------



## iloilo

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - although I'd wait a short while and get one that has DTS:X as well as Atmos.
> 
> ok thanks.
> 
> 
> Yes. Assuming you have a subwoofer in your system and are using bass-management in your AVR. The overhead speakers ideally have a wide dispersion. Check out the Tannoy Di5 Dual Concentric for example.


i was thinking of the tannoy also i think it is on sale. thanks. its easier to just hang them up facing down because satellites are so light.


----------



## Mike Garrett

NorthSky said:


> *Regarding that "Dialog Personalization" : Bring it on, I just can't wait. ...Follow the actors onscreen, left, center, right, above, below, behind ...*
> 
> And yes; those Auro-3D discs won't be easily available @ our local audio electronics music stores.
> But Dolby Atmos and dts:X yes. ...As I already have seen four Atmos Blu-ray titles @ my local wally store.
> - Amazon international and hi-res music and hi-def video downloads are now the main virtual stores.


There will have to be more to this to make it work properly, for the voices to match up. Lets say the sound needs to come from the right side of the screen, how is the audio system going to know how much shift is needed for the sound, unless there was a way to tie the screen size to speaker location? For those with speakers behind an AT screen, the sound might need to be shifted completely to the right speaker. With those that have the right speaker wider than the screen, the sound would need to be partially shifted to the right speaker. Same goes for off screen. If speakers are outside the screen, fine, but what about those that have speakers behind an AT screen?


----------



## blastermaster

> Yes. Assuming you have a subwoofer in your system and are using bass-management in your AVR. The overhead speakers ideally have a wide dispersion. Check out the Tannoy Di5 Dual Concentric for example.



Sweet. Glad to hear the Tannoys sound good. I have four Tannoy DC in ceilings just waiting to be installed. I'm trying my best to be patient and wait for a new AVR, but damn it's difficult.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> Sweet. Glad to hear the Tannoys sound good. I have four Tannoy DC in ceilings just waiting to be installed.


The Tannoys are, in many ways, almost perfect Atmos ceiling speakers IMO.



blastermaster said:


> I'm trying my best to be patient and wait for a new AVR, but damn it's difficult.


I just don't know how anyone can summon up that level of patience. As soon as I heard about Atmos for the home, I knew I'd have to have it. My Denon 5200 was one of the first sold in the UK. I am in a similar position with the miniDSP Dirac room EQ system, the DDRC-88A. It was released at the end of December. I really dragged my feet this time, only just having ordered mine  My motto is I want it and I want it *now*.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> ["*Object-based personalized dialog management*"] *looks more like a feature made for live broadcast TV viewer consumption, an area DTS wants to break into.* No more SAP needed, just have the user replace the dialog object with English or Spanish announcer tracks (or whatever languages depending on your locale) all the other sound effects and crowd noise, etc. stays the same. Something like this was shown at CES.



*"An interesting coincidence of timing, your statement . . . but this week hard to see the future is..."*  


Next Monday (1/12/2015) is the closing date by which to register a ("_working technology_") proposal to provide the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System*. A winning technology recommendation decision will be made by 8/14/2015 . . ._ just in time for the results to be turned into "confusing talking points" for *CEDIA 2015*._

The *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* is planned to support _all of_ *channel-based audio*, *hybrid channel|object-based audio*, and *Higher-Order Ambisonics (HOA)*, with both mandatory and (_presently_) optional features. _Once the winning technology is decided we can return to 'arguing' about which supported (ATSC 3.0 TV) speaker layout might work best with what we had planned before that time!_

And no doubt *Dolby*, *DTS*, _plus all and sundry_ will be busily explaining to us just how their particular products will help deliver "the best new" *OTA*|*CATV*|*mobile*|*IP* audio experience...! 


_


----------



## brwsaw

Scott Simonian said:


> No way. Was gonna wait it out til DTS released their immersive format.
> 
> At this rate maybe a year after they do. Hopefully 9.1.6 will be available at the same time.
> 
> As soon as I can get: Yamaha, Atmos/DTS:X, CinemaDSP applied to said formats and 9.1.6 support. Then I'll strike.


Same 
+1


----------



## Roger Dressler

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> There will have to be more to this to make it work properly, for the voices to match up. Lets say the sound needs to come from the right side of the screen, how is the audio system going to know how much shift is needed for the sound, unless there was a way to tie the screen size to speaker location? For those with speakers behind an AT screen, the sound might need to be shifted completely to the right speaker. With those that have the right speaker wider than the screen, the sound would need to be partially shifted to the right speaker. Same goes for off screen. If speakers are outside the screen, fine, but what about those that have speakers behind an AT screen?


In a cinema, there is an assumption that the L/R speakers are at the edges of the screen. To whatever extent that is not true, our eyes override the disparity. We even forgive actors popping up all over the screen with their voices coming only from the center. 

The same rule applies at home, but object audio does also open the option for very narrow screens to keep the dialog (or other onscreen effects) confined to that smaller angle, while leaving the bed audio (ambience, music) presented "full width." This can be done with an extra pair of speakers flanking the smaller screen, or it can be done by limiting the L/C/R panning of the small on-screen signals. The latter would need the system to know the screen size, but that could easily be done during system setup. This of course requires these on-screen sounds to be delivered separately from the L/C/R bed channels.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> The Tannoys are, in many ways, almost perfect Atmos ceiling speakers IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't know how anyone can summon up that level of patience. As soon as I heard about Atmos for the home, I knew I'd have to have it. My Denon 5200 was one of the first sold in the UK. I am in a similar position with the miniDSP Dirac room EQ system, the DDRC-88A. It was released at the end of December. I really dragged my feet this time, only just having ordered mine  My motto is I want it and I want it *now*.


Oh man. You HAVE. To let me know how it compares to xt32


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> In a cinema, there is an assumption that the L/R speakers are at the edges of the screen. To whatever extent that is not true, our eyes override the disparity. We even forgive actors popping up all over the screen with their voices coming only from the center.
> 
> The same rule applies at home, but object audio does also open the option for very narrow screens to keep the dialog (or other onscreen effects) confined to that smaller angle, while leaving the bed audio (ambience, music) presented "full width." This can be done with an extra pair of speakers flanking the smaller screen, or it can be done by limiting the L/C/R panning of the small on-screen signals. The latter would need the system to know the screen size, but that could easily be done during system setup. This of course requires these on-screen sounds to be delivered separately from the L/C/R bed channels.



_
Someone must have been reading your mind . . . _*Layout "G"* in *Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_link_) appears to consist of "*four corner height speakers*" over a _standard _*ITU 7.1 speaker *_middle layer_ with an added "*edge-of-display speaker pair*".



_


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Oh man. You HAVE. To let me know how it compares to xt32


I will. I will be posting my experiences in the dedicated DDRC-88A thread. I am expecting a superior result to XT32 if only because Dirac corrects in the time domain as well as the frequency domain. But the big, the really big, benefit is that the user has total control over the target curve with Dirac.

The issue with the DDRC-88A and Atmos is that the unit only has 8 channels (including the sub) so in my 5.1.4 setup this will mean that two channels wil have to forgo EQ. They can still have distances (delays) and levels set of course, but no EQ. I am electing for my two rear overhead channels to remain un-EQd. One could an additional 88A, but at $1,000 a pop it seems wasteful to spend that sort of extra cash just for two overhead channels. We shall see.


----------



## bsoko2

kbarnes701 said:


> The Tannoys are, in many ways, almost perfect Atmos ceiling speakers IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't know how anyone can summon up that level of patience. As soon as I heard about Atmos for the home, I knew I'd have to have it.  My motto is I want it and I want it *now*.



My brother, we think alike!


----------



## audioguy

Keith: You probably will get better results. When we blind tested Datasat/Dirac vs Integra/Audyssey, the upper bass and midrange were both better. I hear the same thing comparing Dirac on my server vs Audysse on my 7702.

Did you consider the nano which supports Hdmi in and out ?http://www.minidsp.com/products/ht-series/nanoavr-dl

Keep us posted.


----------



## kbarnes701

bsoko2 said:


> My brother, we think alike!


Bill, we do. Peas in a pod.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Keith: You probably will get better results. When we blind tested Datasat/Dirac vs Integra/Audyssey, the upper bass and midrange were both better. I hear the same thing comparing Dirac on my server vs Audysse on my 7702.


Good to know, thanks. I am especially gratified that the upper bass was improved as this is a region, in my room, where I have to use additional PEQ in order to give XT32 a bit of a helping hand.



audioguy said:


> Did you consider the nano which supports Hdmi in and out ?http://www.minidsp.com/products/ht-series/nanoavr-dl


I did consider it but then rejected it. The big problem with it, for me, is that the nanoAVR has to be fed with PCM, and of course, if I did that then I wouldn't be able to have Atmos, which requires a bitstream. I was also concerned, to a lesser degree, with the nano's position in the 'chain' with EQ coming before bass management.



audioguy said:


> Keep us posted.


I surely will. I will be posting my setup experiences, calibrating experiences and listening and measured results in the dedicated 88A thread, as I go along.


----------



## Gurba

CCSchoch said:


> Some quick question, more on my current setup (which is 7.2 and not Atmos just yet).
> 
> I recently went from a 5.2 to 7.2 setup installing 2 ceiling speakers for rears (no backwall). I have an Onkyo TX-NR809 receiver and am enjoying rewatching all the 7.1 blurays I have...some better than others obviously.



I have noe left wall and a huge window on the right + a door on the rear wall so earlier I had all 4 surrounds near-ceiling mounted and I was really pleased With the sound. When I upgraded to Atmos With 4 ceiling speakers there was really not much effekt from the ceiling speakers. I then mounted the rears low and tight to avoid the door and suspended the sides on upside Down speakerstands. Now both Atmos and DSU sound great. The ceiling speakers provided a much bigger Upgrade to me than going from 5.1 to 7.1.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> A joke, right?


Actually a fact. ...But true; it could easily have been interpreted with a slight sense of humor's touch. 

* Auro-3D is definitely NOT available @ your regular audio/electronic/music stores.
And Dolby Atmos, only from flicks made here in North America; for the very few/rare other ones only from amazon UK & Japan. 

___________

In reality we have five (5) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles total that are avail in stores here in North America. ...Right now: 
1. TF4
2. Step Up All In
3. Expendables 3
4. TMNT
5. ******** ... That's it; or I can't remember. ...'Hercules' wasn't. ...It was supposed to, but didn't materialize.

And there is another handful from overseas (through amazon orders).

So, FOUR (4) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles so far that are easily available. [email protected] local stores. ...Across all USA & Canada.


----------



## Csbooth

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but are there any configuration specs allowing to do 7.x.4 with the two rears being wides or front surrounds? For those with smaller rooms.

I realize that DSU (maybe the DTS:X Upmixer as well?) won't be able to utilize wide speakers, but it could be a decent alternative for those wanting to expand their soundfield during Atmos playback.


----------



## kuro6010

Need help guys. Just got my Denon x7200. Using emotiva xpa 5 to power my main fronts ( left center right sour round left and surround right). 
Using the denon to power all 4 Atlantic techs 44DA and surround back left and surround back right. 

So i tried the set up assistant but it gets confusing, it won't detect the dolby Atmos speakers. It's a lot harder than I thought. 
Can someone pleeeeeese help. I would even love it if someone would call me and guide me thru the set up. 

Sal 
323 742 6524


----------



## kuro6010

JD I did the connections tweaks you advised me of but it didn't work. It would not detect the rear dolby atmos speakers. But I'm still trying and experimenting.


----------



## BigScreen

Brian Fineberg said:


> i thought Exodus already was announced as ATMOS on BR/?
> 
> very excited for john Wick,big hero 6 and unbroken on BR in ATMOS


I had read some messages here that said the same about Exodus, but I could not find anything official. Nothing on Paramount's theatrical/home video extranet, and no press releases either.

Sorry for the confusion, but of those three titles (which were in Atmos theatrically), only John Wick has been announced as having an Atmos soundtrack on Blu-ray.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Roger Dressler said:


> In a cinema, there is an assumption that the L/R speakers are at the edges of the screen. To whatever extent that is not true, our eyes override the disparity. We even forgive actors popping up all over the screen with their voices coming only from the center.
> 
> The same rule applies at home, but object audio does also open the option for very narrow screens to keep the dialog (or other onscreen effects) confined to that smaller angle, while leaving the bed audio (ambience, music) presented "full width." *This can be done with an extra pair of speakers flanking the smaller screen, or it can be done by limiting the L/C/R panning of the small on-screen signals.* The latter would need the system to know the screen size, but that could easily be done during system setup. This of course requires these on-screen sounds to be delivered separately from the L/C/R bed channels.


Yes, but a big difference in a setup with lets say speakers behind an AT screen and at the edges of the screen and a TV setup with speakers 8' apart or more. That is what I was getting at. I think for this to work, you would need to be able to tie the screen size to the speaker location.


----------



## gammanuc

Csbooth said:


> Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but are there any configuration specs allowing to do 7.x.4 with the two rears being wides or front surrounds? For those with smaller rooms.
> 
> I realize that DSU (maybe the DTS:X Upmixer as well?) won't be able to utilize wide speakers, but it could be a decent alternative for those wanting to expand their soundfield during Atmos playback.


That is exactly what I have set up. The side surrounds + surround backs were drowning out my top rears as my couch is near the rear wall. Rears are gone now and it sounds much better. 
Here's my Amp Assign

Assign mode 11.1
Height Speakers 4 Height speakers
Height Layout Top Front & Top Rear
Wide/Height2 Front wide
Pre-out Top Rear

So no speaker wire to Surround back. My 2 channel amp is connected to the height 2 pre outs which actually control the top rears. It's a bit confusing because the at the speaker wire connections the name says Front Wide/ Height 2.


----------



## Roger Dressler

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Yes, but a big difference in a setup with lets say speakers behind an AT screen and at the edges of the screen and a TV setup with speakers 8' apart or more. That is what I was getting at. I think for this to work, you would need to be able to tie the screen size to the speaker location.


As long as the screen edges correlate with the L/R speaker locations, there is no need to know the size of the screen. This is true for either channel- or object-based audio systems. The onscreen sound will always scale to match the images.

Yes, if the screeen is small and the speakers remain widely spaced, then that's where object audio can indeed help keep the onscreen sounds correctly aligned. I think we are agreeing....


----------



## BigScreen

Csbooth said:


> Might not be such a big deal, but John Wick (Like Step Up: All In) are not originally mixed theatrical Atmos releases. Lionsgate is really the only distributor that is trying to give the people what they want I guess lol, chances are Hunger Games is a guarenteed Atmos release.
> 
> Also as already pointed out, Exodus is getting an Atmos release.


I missed the fact that John Wick wasn't on Dolby's "movies in Atmos" list of theatrical releases. I'm Wonder, then, if the result will be similar to what could be had from enabling DSU on a straight 5.1/7.1 mix?

Do you have a reference for the info about Exodus? I did a bunch of looking to confirm that, and found nothing definitive.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> blastermaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet. Glad to hear the Tannoys sound good. I have four Tannoy DC in ceilings just waiting to be installed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Tannoys are, in many ways, almost perfect Atmos ceiling speakers IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> blastermaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying my best to be patient and wait for a new AVR, but damn it's difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't know how anyone can summon up that level of patience. As soon as I heard about Atmos for the home, I knew I'd have to have it. My Denon 5200 was one of the first sold in the UK. I am in a similar position with the miniDSP Dirac room EQ system, the DDRC-88A. It was released at the end of December. I really dragged my feet this time, only just having ordered mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My motto is I want it and I want it *now*.
Click to expand...




Brian Fineberg said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tannoys are, in many ways, almost perfect Atmos ceiling speakers IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't know how anyone can summon up that level of patience. As soon as I heard about Atmos for the home, I knew I'd have to have it. My Denon 5200 was one of the first sold in the UK. I am in a similar position with the miniDSP Dirac room EQ system, the DDRC-88A. It was released at the end of December. I really dragged my feet this time, only just having ordered mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My motto is I want it and I want it *now*.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man. You HAVE. To let me know how it compares to xt32
Click to expand...

Yeah I want to know how Dirac compares with XT32 as well. Won't you be needing two of those to EQ your Atmos setup? I assume if you're doing it that way, the boxes would be inserted between pre-out and amplifiers, with a D/A conversion to apply Dirac and then an A/D conversion before heading out to the amps.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

I'm new to this thread, and thought I'd just drop in and ask....

The other day, me and a gang of friends saw the latest Hobbit in Australia's first Atmos-enabled theatre.
Some of us - me included - are very sound-savvy.
We were sitting dead-centre of the 600-ish seat theatre.

Apart from the Atmos demo at the start (*very* impressive), I don't recall noticing a single surround effect that couldn't be achieved with 7.1. Nor did anyone else.
We heard nothing noticeable coming from the height channels.

How was everyone else's experience with this film?


----------



## Mike Garrett

Roger Dressler said:


> As long as the screen edges correlate with the L/R speaker locations, there is no need to know the size of the screen. This is true for either channel- or object-based audio systems. The onscreen sound will always scale to match the images.
> 
> Yes, if the screeen is small and the speakers remain widely spaced, then that's where object audio can indeed help keep the onscreen sounds correctly aligned. I think we are agreeing....


The second part is what I was thinking about. Think TV owners. I see a lot of TV setup's where the speakers are a lot wider than the TV.


----------



## Csbooth

gammanuc said:


> That is exactly what I have set up. The side surrounds + surround backs were drowning out my top rears as my couch is near the rear wall. Rears are gone now and it sounds much better.
> Here's my Amp Assign
> 
> Assign mode 11.1
> Height Speakers 4 Height speakers
> Height Layout Top Front & Top Rear
> Wide/Height2 Front wide
> Pre-out Top Rear
> 
> So no speaker wire to Surround back. My 2 channel amp is connected to the height 2 pre outs which actually control the top rears. I's a bit confusing because the at the speaker wire connections the name says Front Wide/ Height 2.


That's great to hear it's an option then, sucks the wides probably won't ever be utilized for DSU (at least according to some users here, I personally wouldn't know lol).


----------



## Csbooth

BigScreen said:


> I missed the fact that John Wick wasn't on Dolby's "movies in Atmos" list of theatrical releases. I'm Wonder, then, if the result will be similar to what could be had from enabling DSU on a straight 5.1/7.1 mix?
> 
> Do you have a reference for the info about Exodus? I did a bunch of looking to confirm that, and found nothing definitive.


I'd assume that it should sound superior (granted if the sound mixers are aggressive enough for it to stand out) than what DSU could achieve, as it's actual humans controlling the 3D space and all, so no guessing.

The only reference I can say I have about Exodus Atmos BD is from reading it from this thread, which isn't the best I know. Normally what I get from here is pretty accurate, but possibly someone will chime in with a source for it, as when doing a quick Google, I wasn't able to pinpoint any home release info in a reasonable timeframe.


----------



## jdsmoothie

gammanuc said:


> So no speaker wire to Surround back. My 2 channel amp is connected to the height 2 pre outs which actually control the top rears. I's a bit confusing because the at the speaker wire connections the name says Front Wide/ Height 2.


There are only 11 dedicated speaker posts to include the standard 7CH bed speakers and in order to allow for 4 Height speakers, the Wide must share the Height2 speaker posts (although have their own dedicated pre-outs).


----------



## jdsmoothie

Csbooth said:


> That's great to hear it's an option then, sucks the wides probably won't ever be utilized for DSU (at least according to some users here, I personally wouldn't know lol).


However, if the Top Front speakers are re designated instead as "Front Height" they as well as the Front Wide can be used with DTS Neo:X.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Csbooth said:


> I'd assume that it should sound superior (granted if the sound mixers are aggressive enough for it to stand out) than what DSU could achieve, as it's actual humans controlling the 3D space and all, so no guessing.
> 
> The only reference I can say I have about Exodus Atmos BD is from reading it from this thread, which isn't the best I know. Normally what I get from here is pretty accurate, but possibly someone will chime in with a source for it, as when doing a quick Google, I wasn't able to pinpoint any home release info in a reasonable timeframe.


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


----------



## bargervais

BigScreen said:


> I missed the fact that John Wick wasn't on Dolby's "movies in Atmos" list of theatrical releases. I'm Wonder, then, if the result will be similar to what could be had from enabling DSU on a straight 5.1/7.1 mix?
> 
> Do you have a reference for the info about Exodus? I did a bunch of looking to confirm that, and found nothing definitive.


Exodus coming in Atmos 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


----------



## bargervais

I'm going to try to ask a question as to why we are not seeing more blu-rays with atmos. I understand that DTS HD MA 7.1 is less expensive then Dolby TrueHD 7.1 is that a correct assumption??? Thus making Atmos an even more costly approach? Now with DTS:X coming will it be more expensive for studios to put DTS:X on blu-rays or will Atmos be a more cost efficient way.... I know studios want the best $$$ margins.
Is my question clear


----------



## bargervais

I'm going to try to ask a question as to why we are not seeing more blu-rays with atmos. I understand that DTS HD MA 7.1 is less expensive then Dolby TrueHD 7.1 is that a correct assumption??? Thus making Atmos an even more costly approach? Now with DTS:X coming will it be more expensive for studios to put DTS:X on blu-rays or will Atmos be a more cost efficient way.... I know studios want the best $$$ margins.
Is my question clear


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Yeah I want to know how Dirac compares with XT32 as well. Won't you be needing two of those to EQ your Atmos setup? I assume if you're doing it that way, the boxes would be inserted between pre-out and amplifiers, with a D/A conversion to apply Dirac and then an A/D conversion before heading out to the amps.


I’d need 2 units to EQ all 9 speakers, but I am going to leave the top rear speakers without EQ for now - just setting levels and delays. I doubt it will matter much for two 'overhead surround' speakers. If it is a real issue, I will get a miniDSP unit and EQ them manually and separately later on. It doesn’t seem like good value to spend another $1,000 on an additional 88A just for those two speakers.

Yes - the 88A goes between preamp and power amps. And yes, an additional ADA conversion (which is irrelevant to anything IMO).

I intend to post comparisons with XT32 in the 88A thread once I have the unit and it is installed and everything seems to be working OK. I will post measurements of the un-EQd system, the system EQd with XT32 and the system ERd with Dirac. Also listening tests, for what they are worth. Remember my room is well treated so the differences may not be as significant as for someone with an untreated or lightly treated space, but there is NFW I am removing all the treatments to compare that!


----------



## kbarnes701

Electric_Haggis said:


> I'm new to this thread, and thought I'd just drop in and ask....
> 
> The other day, me and a gang of friends saw the latest Hobbit in Australia's first Atmos-enabled theatre.
> Some of us - me included - are very sound-savvy.
> We were sitting dead-centre of the 600-ish seat theatre.
> 
> Apart from the Atmos demo at the start (*very* impressive), I don't recall noticing a single surround effect that couldn't be achieved with 7.1. Nor did anyone else.
> We heard nothing noticeable coming from the height channels.
> 
> How was everyone else's experience with this film?


I haven't seen the latest yet, but I have heard some of the original and it was breathtaking. The Gollum 'cave' scene, for example, was awesome - the small room I was sitting in (set up by Dolby themselves) suddenly disappeared and I was in a vast space. As Gollum hides and then whispers his clues, you normally have no idea where he is until he jumps out. But with Atmos enabled, I could pinpoint his location every time, before he appeared, so precise was the positioning of sound in the soundstage.

All cinemas are not created equal, so I wonder if there was a setup issue with the one you were in? (It seem unlikely that the mix on the latest installment would be surpassed by that on earlier installments of the movie).


----------



## ambesolman

kbarnes701 said:


> there is NFW I am removing all the treatments to compare that!



Where's your dedication to the craft?

Please link that comparison here when you get done with it!


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## kbarnes701

ambesolman said:


> Where's your dedication to the craft?
> 
> There are limits....
> 
> 
> 
> ambesolman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please link that comparison here when you get done with it!
> 
> 
> 
> Sure - will do.
Click to expand...


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> I'm going to try to ask a question as to why we are not seeing more blu-rays with atmos. I understand that DTS HD MA 7.1 is less expensive then Dolby TrueHD 7.1 is that a correct assumption??? Thus making Atmos an even more costly approach? Now with DTS:X coming will it be more expensive for studios to put DTS:X on blu-rays or will Atmos be a more cost efficient way.... I know studios want the best $$$ margins.
> Is my question clear


 

This issue was just recently discussed this morning ad infintum in the *The "Official" 2014 Denon Atmos+XT32 Model Thread (X4100/X5200/X7200)* thread.
The capablility to mix Dolby Atmos tracks on blu-rays - i.e., the hardware and software, has only been released in the past few months.
As more mixing companies purchase the Dolby Atmos equipment to remix the soundtracks on to blu-rays, then the release of more and more blu-rays with Dolby Atmos will increase.


Here is a Dolby Atmos Interview from the CES 2015 convention which includes information on the companies getting on board:
http://youtu.be/iphZs3VpkFM?t=5m2s



Ray


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> This issue was just recently discussed this morning ad infintum in the *The "Official" 2014 Denon Atmos+XT32 Model Thread (X4100/X5200/X7200)* thread.
> The capablility to mix Dolby Atmos tracks on blu-rays - i.e., the hardware and software, has only been released in the past few months.
> As more mixing companies purchase the Dolby Atmos equipment to remix the soundtracks on to blu-rays, then the release of more and more blu-rays with Dolby Atmos will increase.
> 
> Ray


Thanks I went and read that


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> This issue was just recently discussed this morning ad infintum in the *The "Official" 2014 Denon Atmos+XT32 Model Thread (X4100/X5200/X7200)* thread.
> The capablility to mix Dolby Atmos tracks on blu-rays - i.e., the hardware and software, has only been released in the past few months.
> As more mixing companies purchase the Dolby Atmos equipment to remix the soundtracks on to blu-rays, then the release of more and more blu-rays with Dolby Atmos will increase.
> 
> 
> Here is a Dolby Atmos Interview from the CES 2015 convention which includes information on the companies getting on board:
> http://youtu.be/iphZs3VpkFM?t=5m2s
> 
> 
> 
> Ray


I notice that Dolby still hedges their information to the press about Atmos in regards to it being a hybrid channel/object format: they dance around that fact and say they've thrown everything out and that Atmos is object based. 

Though, no matter how they describe it, nothing matters without CONTENT. Personally, I'm really disappointed in what the studios have chosen to go with so far... of the few that have made it to market.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> I notice that Dolby still hedges their information to the press about Atmos in regards to it being a hybrid channel/object format: they dance around that fact and say they've thrown everything out and that Atmos is object based.


From the Dolby Site:


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html




> *Introducing Audio Objects*
> 
> Dolby Atmos is the first audio format based on audio objects rather than channels. In Dolby Atmos, any sound—the helicopter, a blaring car horn, a yelling child—can exist as an independent audio object, free of channel restrictions. It can be placed and moved anywhere, including anywhere overhead.


This technically correct but if the "Front Left Bed" has the same sound as what was the "Front Left Channel" where there is no object to be extracted.
Now, if they had not renamed "Channel" to be a "Bed", in this statement "audio format based on audio objects rather than channels", would be false. 
Thus, the dancing...

- Rich


----------



## Roger Dressler

^^ Dolby's quoted statement only says that audio _can _be delivered as objects. It does not say that channels no longer exist. But I do agree that their emphasis on talking about objects as if there's no channels in the BD deliverable (Mr. Eggers interview) is a bit off the mark. It's always better to just play it straight. There's no shame in it.


----------



## NorthSky

All elementary really.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Confusing the elementary kids gets you nowhere real quick. Adds to the confusion of how all this works.

I agree with Roger and that they should tell it how it really is.


----------



## billqs

I have an Onkyo 636 that I just upgraded firmware for. What I have now are Def Tech 1000's upfront for my Left Right and Center, 800's for side surround and 600's for Back Surrounds. All surround are hung high at about ceiling height. It's a dedicated Theater Room with a 133" screen and a Sony 500ES Projector. It has 2 rows, with plans for a third row of barstools and narrow table.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Should I use either the Def Tech 600's or 800's as height speakers? Should I use in ceiling Def Tech speakers as the ceiling is closer in the 2nd row? Or would I do much better with the Tannoy Di5 that I have heard many good things about? I do know that the 600 and 800 are all timbre matched with my front sound field.

2. I'm not sure how to configure my surrounds lower so that they create a "sound bed" separate from the over the head speakers. I have a wall to wall screen, and the door is on the right as you enter my room with only an 18-20 inch aisle. If I lower the right surround speaker to the "correct" position, people will literally run into it. Should I lower my current back surround speakers on the back wall as much as possible to just above the row 3 ear height? If so, that won't completely make it to the edge of the last right seat without running into that darn door that let's people in.

I thought about in wall speakers but don't really like their sound, particularly the anemic bass. That would at least make the surround speakers flush with the wall, so I might consider that. I would welcome any help.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

billqs said:


> I have an Onkyo 636 that I just upgraded firmware for. What I have now are Def Tech 1000's upfront for my Left Right and Center, 800's for side surround and 600's for Back Surrounds. All surround are hung high at about ceiling height. It's a dedicated Theater Room with a 133" screen and a Sony 500ES Projector. It has 2 rows, with plans for a third row of barstools and narrow table.
> 
> I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. Should I use either the Def Tech 600's or 800's as height speakers? Should I use in ceiling Def Tech speakers as the ceiling is closer in the 2nd row? Or would I do much better with the Tannoy Di5 that I have heard many good things about? I do know that the 600 and 800 are all timbre matched with my front sound field.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure how to configure my surrounds lower so that they create a "sound bed" separate from the over the head speakers. I have a wall to wall screen, and the door is on the right as you enter my room with only an 18-20 inch aisle. If I lower the right surround speaker to the "correct" position, people will literally run into it. Should I lower my current back surround speakers on the back wall as much as possible to just above the row 3 ear height? If so, that won't completely make it to the edge of the last right seat without running into that darn door that let's people in.
> 
> I thought about in wall speakers but don't really like their sound, particularly the anemic bass. That would at least make the surround speakers flush with the wall, so I might consider that. I would welcome any help.


You might have to think about switching to another speaker brand like Triad that has excellent quality, no compromise in-wall's with included backer boxes. Some companies' architectural speaker lines are an afterthought, much like Def Tech IMHO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Cross-posted from another thread at the request of a member (in reply to someone discussing disappointment with the sound of* The Maze Runner *when listened to via DSU):

If you were not totally, jaw-droppingly, mind-bogglingly blown away by the first few minutes of *The Maze Runner*, then something is amiss. Wait till you have all your overhead speakers installed and try again.

If you are more impressed with DSU than Atmos, I suspect you are just focusing on the overhead content, which is normal when you have just installed new speakers! But when you are more used to it, focus instead on the entire soundstage. You should notice a much greater degree of precision in the placement of sounds all around the soundstage with Atmos. I have played *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles *in Atmos and also via DSU (by sending PCM to the AVR). It is true there is more overhead activity in the speakers with DSU, but the 'precision' has largely gone. This applies to the listener level soundstage as well as the overheads. In one scene, for example, I hear thunder very precisely placed in my overheads and moving precisely from one to another (via Atmos). Via DSU there is thunder 'up there' but it is far harder to tell exactly where it is coming from. Same with the listener level experience. I will repeat my mantra that is surely by now boring people in the Official Atmos (HT) thread: Atmos is about much more than overhead effects.

Edited to add: I watched *The Expendables 3 *again last night and focused on the listener-level soundstage as much as I could, considering all the overhead helicopter activity etc. Again, I note this exceptional level of 'precision' with regard to the placement of sounds in the entire soundstage. The speakers melt away and sounds just 'appear' in the right place in the room. I can point to them with my finger, so accurate is the placement. (Note that I only do this when I am watching alone). Of course, we all want overhead action - that is why we went to the trouble of installing overhead speakers - but let us not forget the considerable benefits Atmos is bringing to the entire soundstage too.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Personally, I'm really disappointed in what the studios have chosen to go with so far... of the few that have made it to market.


Really, Dan? You should have mentioned this before!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Cross-posted from another thread at the request of a member (in reply to someone discussing disappointment with the sound of* The Maze Runner *when listened to via DSU):
> 
> If you were not totally, jaw-droppingly, mind-bogglingly blown away by the first few minutes of *The Maze Runner*, then something is amiss. Wait till you have all your overhead speakers installed and try again.
> 
> If you are more impressed with DSU than Atmos, I suspect you are just focusing on the overhead content, which is normal when you have just installed new speakers! But when you are more used to it, focus instead on the entire soundstage. You should notice a much greater degree of precision in the placement of sounds all around the soundstage with Atmos. I have played *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles *in Atmos and also via DSU (by sending PCM to the AVR). It is true there is more overhead activity in the speakers with DSU, but the 'precision' has largely gone. This applies to the listener level soundstage as well as the overheads. In one scene, for example, I hear thunder very precisely placed in my overheads and moving precisely from one to another (via Atmos). Via DSU there is thunder 'up there' but it is far harder to tell exactly where it is coming from. Same with the listener level experience. I will repeat my mantra that is surely by now boring people in the Official Atmos (HT) thread: Atmos is about much more than overhead effects.
> 
> Edited to add: I watched *The Expendables 3 *again last night and focused on the listener-level soundstage as much as I could, considering all the overhead helicopter activity etc. Again, I note this exceptional level of 'precision' with regard to the placement of sounds in the entire soundstage. The speakers melt away and sounds just 'appear' in the right place in the room. I can point to them with my finger, so accurate is the placement. (Note that I only do this when I am watching alone). Of course, we all want overhead action - that is why we went to the trouble of installing overhead speakers - but let us not forget the considerable benefits Atmos is bringing to the entire soundstage too.



exactly thinkof those overhead speakers as "tools" tools to get the sound where it should be..and also for some directionalyit and imaging.

think of a 2.0 system...the L and R speakers are "tools" to create the phantom center speaker....but also to create sounds and images Left and Right of the screen and all between ...same for the ceiling speakers


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Actually a fact. ...But true; it could easily have been interpreted with a slight sense of humor's touch.
> 
> * Auro-3D is definitely NOT available @ your regular audio/electronic/music stores.
> And Dolby Atmos, only from flicks made here in North America; for the very few/rare other ones only from amazon UK & Japan.
> 
> ___________
> 
> In reality we have five (5) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles total that are avail in stores here in North America. ...Right now:
> 1. TF4
> 2. Step Up All In
> 3. Expendables 3
> 4. TMNT
> 5. ******** ... That's it; or I can't remember. ...'Hercules' wasn't. ...It was supposed to, but didn't materialize.
> 
> And there is another handful from overseas (through amazon orders).
> 
> So, FOUR (4) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles so far that are easily available. [email protected] local stores. ...Across all USA & Canada.


Ok then, you keep waiting for wallmart to stock them, while the rest of us use "online shopping"  You should try it! It is super easy


----------



## RichB

Roger Dressler said:


> ^^ Dolby's quoted statement only says that audio _can _be delivered as objects. It does not say that channels no longer exist. But I do agree that their emphasis on talking about objects as if there's no channels in the BD deliverable (Mr. Eggers interview) is a bit off the mark. It's always better to just play it straight. There's no shame in it.



It there were no BD bandwidth, storage, or DSP limitations, then it could be all objects and completely extracted from the beds.All three exist in BD. 
Beds are required to be backward compatible, so they will always be there.


Straight talk would be a better approach.


- Rich


----------



## smurraybhm

Nalleh said:


> Ok then, you keep waiting for wallmart to stock them, while the rest of us use "online shopping"  You should try it! It is super easy


He just keeps posting things like this so he can feel better about his decision to wait. I believe most have chosen to ignore, but I keep hoping something useful will be posted one of these days. As an early adopter I guess that labels me an optimist or an idiot depending on ones viewpoint


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> He just keeps posting things like this so he can feel better about his decision to wait. I believe most have chosen to ignore, but I keep hoping something useful will be posted one of these days. As an early adopter I guess that labels me an optimist or an idiot depending on ones viewpoint



Agree... I feel fortunate to be an early adopter as I'm very optimistic because the way I look at it DTS:X if I would have waited till the end of this year's or in north of the border guy he will most likely be waiting for a second generation Atmos/DTS:X receiver... while we all would have enjoyed Atmos and DSU for a good two or three years. I personally will upgrade one of my receivers well into 2016.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Agree... I feel fortunate to be an early adopter as I'm very optimistic because the way I look at it DTS:X if I would have waited till the end of this year's or in north of the border guy he will most likely be waiting for a second generation Atmos/DTS:X receiver... while we all would have enjoyed Atmos and DSU for a good two or three years. I personally will upgrade one of my receivers well into 2016.


That's it in a nutshell: Miss 1 or 2 years of Atmos or miss 1 or 2 years of DTS:X. Given that Atmos is here and now, with content coming online now, it seems like a better plan to me to wait for DTS:X.


----------



## robert816

Re-visited the Ice Age movies this last weekend with Dolby Surround upmixer, very nice.

Still have not watched/listened to Maze Runner, but once it's available at Rebox for rent I'll give it a go.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> That's it in a nutshell: Miss 1 or 2 years of Atmos or miss 1 or 2 years of DTS:X. *Given that Atmos is here and now, with content coming online now, it seems like a better plan to me to wait for DTS:X.*


...Is what I would say as a current Atmos owner.


----------



## BigScreen

tjenkins95 said:


> This issue was just recently discussed this morning ad infintum in the *The "Official" 2014 Denon Atmos+XT32 Model Thread (X4100/X5200/X7200)* thread.
> The capablility to mix Dolby Atmos tracks on blu-rays - i.e., the hardware and software, has only been released in the past few months.
> As more mixing companies purchase the Dolby Atmos equipment to remix the soundtracks on to blu-rays, then the release of more and more blu-rays with Dolby Atmos will increase.
> 
> Here is a Dolby Atmos Interview from the CES 2015 convention which includes information on the companies getting on board:
> http://youtu.be/iphZs3VpkFM?t=5m2s
> 
> Ray


At the very end (5:20):

*Interviewer:* ...which studios are currently supporting Atmos?

*Craig Eggers:* Currently, um, we have announced support from, ah, Lionsgate, ah, from Warners, and Paramount... we've got content coming from Bollywood, as well as China, and there are, um, additional announcements to come this year.

That statement from Mr. Eggers pretty much seals the deal for Penguins of Madagascar, Exodus: Gods & Kings, and Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (all Fox releases. Dreamworks Animation produced Penguins, but Fox handles its US distribution), as their release dates are so close that if a deal was in place to make it possible to release those movies in Atmos on Blu-ray, I would think that it would have been able to be announced at the time of that video. I could be wrong, and I hope so, but I doubt it.

The next home video release coming from Warner Bros. should be The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, which should be released in March, if they hold to the release schedules from the past Hobbit movies. Given that Gravity is being re-released with Atmos does provide some hope that they do not wait for those results to come in to decide whether to release more Atmos titles.

Taking out the crystal ball, my guess is that Five Armies will be released with DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 like its predecessors, and the first chance we'll have of seeing next-gen audio for that title is the inevitable Extended Edition release in November. I think the best next chance of a new Warner release with Atmos is American Sniper, as that should be released in April or May.

By November (timeframe of the Hobbit: Five Armies Extended Edition release, and maybe even a full 3-title uber-box-set), DTS:X should have been out for a few months, and the likely format war will be gearing up. Oh joy...


----------



## markrubin

sticky


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> ...Is what I would say as a current Atmos owner.


Well yeah - I have no choice  But I was commenting from the perspective of the 'waiters'. If one waits for DTS:X then one will have missed out on a whole year of Atmos/DSU enjoyment. If you jumped early, then all you are missing is a whole year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade 1 year after DTS:X becomes available - ie 2016 models. So either you miss a year of Atmos, or you miss a year of DTS:X. All I was saying is that Atmos is here and now, so, for me, it was a no-brainer.


----------



## Roger Dressler

RichB said:


> If there were no BD bandwidth, storage, or DSP limitations, then *it could be all objects and completely extracted from the beds*.All three exist in BD. *Beds are required to be backward compatible, so they will always be there.*


To be technically correct, it is _channels _that must be there for backward compatibility, not beds.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Brian Fineberg said:


> You guys waiting have he patience of saints HHAHA. Even if I didn't have atmos yet. All the glowing reviews would have had me breaking down.
> 
> with that said I am more than willing to upgrade in 2016 for another avr with hopefully all the final immersive sound formats and 4k available


With so little overhead action in Atmos BR releases up to date, those Saints aren't missing a whole lot, as with a non-Atmos-capable receiver you can still enjoy intelligent rendering (backward compatibility taking care of putting the objects into the standard 7.1 channel bed) and full-range sound all around you. Unless you are referring to DSU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Well yeah - I have no choice  But I was commenting from the perspective of the 'waiters'. If one waits for DTS:X then one will have missed out on a whole year of Atmos/DSU enjoyment. If you jumped early, then all you are missing is a whole year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade 1 year after DTS:X becomes available - ie 2016 models. So either you miss a year of Atmos, or you miss a year of DTS:X. All I was saying is that Atmos is here and now, so, for me, it was a no-brainer.


True that.... _but_! 

There is very little content, sir. Waiting allows for more to arrive and is smart too.

I'm sure DSU is fun but a good 7.1 system ain't no slouch either.

Depends on the person and priorities. Wait it out or don't. Some simply can not afford to jump in now. Others don't want to have to upgrade in a year or so to support the other format.

If you own now, do enjoy! If not... better to wait just a few more months and support both.


----------



## BigScreen

bargervais said:


> Exodus coming in Atmos
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


It's peculiar, because they have information that I've been unable to find anywhere else.

The studio's official outlets, FoxConnect.com and Fox Home Entertainment's Facebook page, are completely mum on the release (much less the sound format). Unfortunately, Fox shut down its Press Room site, which would have had such details posted on it.

No press release can be found for the release of the movie on home video.

High-Def Digest has nothing. The Digital Bits has nothing. Home Theater Forum has nothing.

Amazon has nothing for the Blu-ray release (not even a pre-order page). Only the pre-order of the Instant Video release, and even then, no release date is even mentioned.

Best Buy has a page for it, but the release date is not specified and the lack of details (as well as the graphic being used) makes it more of a pre-order placeholder than anything based on actual data from the studio.

Maybe blu-ray.com has sources that all these other venues don't, but given that even they don't list a release date, my guess is that they might be going on something that someone mentioned somewhere. They make no mention of where they got their information, so there's no way to know.

Finally, Dolby's Craig Eggers was interviewed at CES, and Fox was not mentioned as a studio partner. They may be in the "announcements to come this year" category, but we have no way to know.

Given all this, I would not put Exodus: Gods and Kings in the Atmos column.


----------



## asoofi1

Even if people wait for DTS 'X', the placement of speakers is obviously the concern. I would predict that DTS' X placements will likely be very close if not exact to Dolby Atmos...similar to how current formats work off a basic surround configuration right now. Competing on the placement would only hurt one or the other...and then you end up with someone like Auro, who has to work harder because they are competing on placement configuration. I haven't seen what DTS has planned and could be completely wrong, but I'd rather see Atmos and X coexist on all future receivers so consumers can benefit from one configuration of speakers and still enjoy whatever format the content makers prefer to deliver their vision. It's a win/win for everyone.


----------



## Iron Maiden

Curious, in the Atmos setup. For ceiling speakers, do they suggest Bi-pole or Di-pole type speakers?
If using standard Bi-pole ceiling speakers, can you pin-point the sound coming from them? Or does the Atmos processing diffuse the sound so it is not so directional?


And what is the DSU being mentioned?


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> Well yeah - I have no choice  But I was commenting from the perspective of the 'waiters'. If one waits for DTS:X then one will have missed out on a whole year of Atmos/DSU enjoyment. If you jumped early, then all you are missing is a whole year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade 1 year after DTS:X becomes available - ie 2016 models. So either you miss a year of Atmos, or you miss a year of DTS:X. All I was saying is that Atmos is here and now, so, for me, it was a no-brainer.


Everyone has their own threshold.

This is very analogous to buying computer equipment. You could wait forever, because things you want will always be cheaper and better if you just wait.

The trick is to determine when that magic time might be to jump in at a minimum of risk and the maximum return for the investment. 

I tell clients that the best time to buy computer equipment is when you find yourself waiting for your computer and/or frustrated that your computer can't do what you need it to do. Once that threshold has been reached, then be aware of what a good price is, and jump on it when a good price comes along (or when you can no longer wait).

I admit to having to practice extreme will-power with this latest advancement. I would also like to blame you in particular for nearly breaking my resolve!  Your enthusiasm is infectious, and your positive results is encouraging to say the least! The biggest thing that kept me from taking the plunge is the lack of content. Combine that with the prospect that something was going to be happening shortly with Auro and/or DTS, and I managed to keep from flinging myself over that precipice.

Here we are four months after the rollout:

Auro hasn't done much to make anyone think that they're going to be a player. It's possible, but I'm not sure how. 

DTS did what they had to, which was to make a pre-announcement about what's to come in March. They couldn't wait any longer, and they at least confirmed most people's expectations that the 2015 models of receivers from the mainstream mfrs will (likely) be DTS-enabled, and there is also the hope that some refinements to the Atmos support will be included as well.

Dolby has gotten support from the hardware manufacturers, but it has not had much in the way of studio support so far. That's been the most disappointing aspect of it all so far. Even with the few titles that have been released, nothing has arisen as a true reference title. The impact is much more subtle from the sounds of it, and there is little for Atmos fans to hang their hat on. It forces the Atmos faithful to appreciate the talents of the Dolby Surround Upmixer rather than enjoy the benefits that the format should be providing. Gravity should help that, but it's more than two months away. Hunger Games: Mockingjay is the next likely big-ticket home video release (early March, if they follow the pattern of the previous movies) that should feature Atmos, but that is also not yet certain.

That leads many people to say, you know, I can wait. Until I reach my threshold, I will have to live vicariously through those there that have taken that plunge. Keep the experiences coming! At this point, I would not advise anyone to buy a 1st generation Atmos receiver. Everyone has their opinions about this, but given the lack of Atmos titles and upcoming announcements from DTS, I couldn't advise anyone to take the plunge without being fully aware of the risks of doing so. 

In my mind, these receivers are just too expensive to consider the thought of having to sell them in a very short time should DTS garner strong studio support and Atmos taking the same back seat as its TrueHD brother. If Denon and Yamaha come out in March and say that they are going to release DTS:X firmware updates for the 5200 and 3040, then it's a different ballgame. That's unlikely, but it's the only thing that would get me to budge at this time. However, even then, the 2015 receivers are not that far away. 

All should become very clear in June/July when those receiver announcements start coming out. At that time, DTS should have the studios lined up that are going to be lined up, and the feature sets for receivers will be set for the next 12-15 months, so consumers will have a much better handle on where they stand. That's my prediction for when that "right time to jump" will be.


----------



## batpig

asoofi1 said:


> Even if people wait for DTS 'X', the placement of speakers is obviously the concern. I would predict that DTS' X placements will likely be very close if not exact to Dolby Atmos...similar to how current formats work off a basic surround configuration right now. Competing on the placement would only hurt one or the other...and then you end up with someone like Auro, who has to work harder because they are competing on placement configuration. I haven't seen what DTS has planned and could be completely wrong, but I'd rather see Atmos and X coexist on all future receivers so consumers can benefit from one configuration of speakers and still enjoy whatever format the content makers prefer to deliver their vision. It's a win/win for everyone.


DTS has already stated publicly (check the press release announcements from a few weeks ago) that X will support the Atmos speaker positions, so there should be no conflict. That just makes Auro even more of a red headed stepchild as the odd man out.


----------



## batpig

Iron Maiden said:


> Curious, in the Atmos setup. For ceiling speakers, do they suggest Bi-pole or Di-pole type speakers?
> If using standard Bi-pole ceiling speakers, can you pin-point the sound coming from them? Or does the Atmos processing diffuse the sound so it is not so directional?
> 
> 
> And what is the DSU being mentioned?


It's really no different than surround speakers. Some argue that discrete surround sound works best with monopole speakers all around for precise rendering, whereas others prefer a more diffuse and enveloping sound of bipoles or dipoles. There are also other variables like distance to the speakers (the closer they are to the listeners the more a monopole could "hot spot" and become distracting) and room layout (eg a bipole side surround could provide more even coverage for two rows of seats). 

So nothing really unique with Atmos other than the extra surrounds are above you instead of around you. The "official" recommendation is monopoles all around but there are plenty using bipoles for surrounds and/or overheads. Personally I would not use a dipole as an overhead since it would be so diffuse... at least with a bipole you can get more precise localization when called for. 

DSU = DOlby Surround Upmixer, the replacement of Pro Logic II which expands input signals to use all surround and overhead speakers.


----------



## RichB

Roger Dressler said:


> To be technically correct, it is _channels _that must be there for backward compatibility, not beds.


 
Correct, but Dolby Atmos replaces channel based sound. Channels have been replaced with beds that are backward compatible with 7.1 channels on non-Atmos systems.
This is what happens when Marketing takes complete control of the message 

For years, Panasonic had an Infinite black panel, which was improved upon with the Infinite Black Panel Pro. Neither panel could produce absolute black while displaying an image.  

Oh, what a tangled web we weave 

- Rich


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> DTS has already stated publicly (check the press release announcements from a few weeks ago) that X will support the Atmos speaker positions, so there should be no conflict. That just makes Auro even more of a red headed stepchild as the odd man out.


I have Googled Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D and I understand they are the newest iterations of object based 3D surround. Still a little confused about all the surround formats to be honest, it was sure so much easier when the only show in town was Dolby Pro Logic. 

My question is, will new movie releases contain all of the new 3D formats or will the movie producers only align themselves with one or the other ? Actually, is that the way it works or is all the audio information available on the DVD and it's up to the equipment manufacturers how it is decoded and delivered ? 

I'm set up( future) for Atmos 7.2.6, now using only speakers for 7.2.4. Will be disappointed if only certain movies will be available to utilize my Atmos setup .


----------



## SoundChex

batpig said:


> DTS has already stated publicly (check the press release announcements from a few weeks ago) that X will support the Atmos speaker positions, so there should be no conflict. That just makes Auro even more of a red headed stepchild as the odd man out.




The decision about which "_working technology_" proposal will be _recommended_ to provide the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* will be made on *August 14, 2015* . . ._ just in time for the results to be turned into "confusing talking points" for *CEDIA 2015*._

The *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* is planned to support _all of_ *channel-based audio*, *hybrid channel|object-based audio*, and *Higher-Order Ambisonics (HOA)*, so confusion about which immersive speaker layouts are actually supported will likely continue until prototype products appear . . . then we can return to 'arguing' about which supported (ATSC 3.0 TV) speaker layout might work best with what we had planned before that time in order to accommodate *Atmos*, *Auro3D*, or *DTS:X* playback!

While the question of future *Auro3D* encoded content remains 'uncertain', it is worth mentioning that the *Auro3D* speaker configuration "bears a strong resemblance" (IMO) to the only "mandatory support" _model_ *ATSC 3.0* TV *11.1* speaker configuration (_designated_ *7.1+4*).

The following *7.1+4* speaker layout image is taken from the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* requirements (_*link*_):












Front Height speaker pair: Azimuth ±45° (±5°) 
Rear Height speaker pair: Azimuth ±135° (±5°)
All Front|Rear Height speakers: Elevation +35° (±10°) 



_


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Everyone has their own threshold.


Good post, Scott. A few observations of my own follow.



BigScreen said:


> I tell clients that the best time to buy computer equipment is when you find yourself waiting for your computer and/or frustrated that your computer can't do what you need it to do. Once that threshold has been reached, then be aware of what a good price is, and jump on it when a good price comes along (or when you can no longer wait).


Yes - exactly. Once one starts to feel the lack of capacity, capability etc, then it's time to jump.



BigScreen said:


> I admit to having to practice extreme will-power with this latest advancement. I would also like to blame you in particular for nearly breaking my resolve!  Your enthusiasm is infectious, and your positive results is encouraging to say the least!


Thanks.  (I _think_ that was a compliment LOL).



BigScreen said:


> The biggest thing that kept me from taking the plunge is the lack of content. Combine that with the prospect that something was going to be happening shortly with Auro and/or DTS, and I managed to keep from flinging myself over that precipice.


Yes - that makes perfect sense to me. My problem is I can never wait for anything. Never have been able to.



BigScreen said:


> Here we are four months after the rollout:
> 
> Auro hasn't done much to make anyone think that they're going to be a player. It's possible, but I'm not sure how.


Agreed. Really bad timing for Auro - they introduced an immersive, channel-based system at almost exactly the same time the world moved to objects. And the lack of content is the nail in the coffin. Not even any realistic prospect of content. At least there's the prospect with Atmos.



BigScreen said:


> Dolby has gotten support from the hardware manufacturers, but it has not had much in the way of studio support so far. That's been the most disappointing aspect of it all so far. Even with the few titles that have been released, nothing has arisen as a true reference title. The impact is much more subtle from the sounds of it, and there is little for Atmos fans to hang their hat on. It forces the Atmos faithful to appreciate the talents of the Dolby Surround Upmixer rather than enjoy the benefits that the format should be providing. Gravity should help that, but it's more than two months away. Hunger Games: Mockingjay is the next likely big-ticket home video release (early March, if they follow the pattern of the previous movies) that should feature Atmos, but that is also not yet certain.


Yes., although I am optimistic that we will see titles coming along routinely in the near future. Meanwhile, competition from DTS can only be good for the end user. This isn't a 'format war' because AVRs going forward will have both Atmos and DTS, so from the consumer's perspective, it can only be good news.

And as I have said many times, DSU is just so good, and adds so much to all my Bluray titles that, IMO, it is worth the price of the upgrade on its own. When I watched* The Maze Runner* a few days ago via DSU I was awe-struck. I can't see how it can be much better if/when released with an Atmos mix. Of course, if it is better, then it will be just mind-bogglingly good.



BigScreen said:


> That leads many people to say, you know, I can wait. Until I reach my threshold, I will have to live vicariously through those there that have taken that plunge. Keep the experiences coming! At this point, I would not advise anyone to buy a 1st generation Atmos receiver. Everyone has their opinions about this, but given the lack of Atmos titles and upcoming announcements from DTS, I couldn't advise anyone to take the plunge without being fully aware of the risks of doing so.


I would agree. Now that we have DTS on the horizon it makes sense to wait for anyone who hasn't yet jumped. I have no regrets though.



BigScreen said:


> In my mind, these receivers are just too expensive to consider the thought of having to sell them in a very short time should DTS garner strong studio support and Atmos taking the same back seat as its TrueHD brother. If Denon and Yamaha come out in March and say that they are going to release DTS:X firmware updates for the 5200 and 3040, then it's a different ballgame. That's unlikely, but it's the only thing that would get me to budge at this time. However, even then, the 2015 receivers are not that far away.


Fall 2015 seems like aeons away to me, but IKWYM.



BigScreen said:


> All should become very clear in June/July when those receiver announcements start coming out. At that time, DTS should have the studios lined up that are going to be lined up, and the feature sets for receivers will be set for the next 12-15 months, so consumers will have a much better handle on where they stand. That's my prediction for when that "right time to jump" will be.


Can’t disagree. But meantime, you are missing some amazing aural experiences from DSU


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> My question is, will new movie releases contain all of the new 3D formats or will the movie producers only align themselves with one or the other ? Actually, is that the way it works or is all the audio information available on the DVD and it's up to the equipment manufacturers how it is decoded and delivered ?


Most likely outcome is the way it works right now with lossless audio -- the content producer chooses to use either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD/MA as the compression codec, and then you hear the movie correctly either you since your processor can decode both of them. Future processors will likely be able to decode/render both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, so as long as both have support for the same speaker layouts (which they should, being object based) you just pop in the movie and enjoy and not concern yourself with which object audio package was used to encode the movie. 

It seems extremely unlikely they would take the time/money/disc space to provide multiple audio formats on the same movie (besides the lossy/stereo track for backwards compatibility).


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - that makes perfect sense to me. My problem is I can never wait for anything. Never have been able to.



Me either...hence my $24K in credit card debt "back in the day" when I was young and stupid. Good thing I married an extreme budgeter that got us paid off before the divorce.



kbarnes701 said:


> DSU is just so good, and adds so much to all my Bluray titles that



Standard DVDs as well. Die Hard 1-3 sounded _really_ good.

Watched the opening temple sequence in Indiana Jones/Ark (BD) and I swear the ball came rolling right down out of my ceiling.   



kbarnes701 said:


> IMO, it is worth the price of the upgrade on its own



That's how I feel now. Yay team!

I had a friend over this weekend and ran through the Atmos demo disc. She was suitably impressed. Then I asked her if she'd ever been inside of a tornado and played the opening sequence to *Into The Storm* (DSU)....she was blown away. 

That's half of the fun...showing the tech to other people and seeing the amazement on their face as they look all around.


----------



## asoofi1

batpig said:


> DTS has already stated publicly (check the press release announcements from a few weeks ago) that X will support the Atmos speaker positions, so there should be no conflict. That just makes Auro even more of a red headed stepchild as the odd man out.


I haven't read anything on the configuration part of it yet, but that's good to hear if it is...Personally, I prefer the Atmos config over Auro config...Do you have a link to the press release confirming speaker position? I know some said DTS X will be 'flexible' but I didn't see any more details than that.

Found the CES DTS X Demo thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1843537-dual-dts-x-demos-ces-2015-a.html


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> I have Googled Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D and I understand they are the newest iterations of object based 3D surround.


Two of them are (Auro is channel-based).


----------



## luismanrara

I have (2) three seats rows in my home theater, How would the placement of the ceiling speakers play out in a case like this for the Atmos set up?

Do I place 2 ceiling speakers slightly in front of the first row and the second pair just behind the second row or do I place 2 speakers right on top of each row?


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks.  (I _think_ that was a compliment LOL).
> :
> And as I have said many times, DSU is just so good, and adds so much to all my Bluray titles that, IMO, it is worth the price of the upgrade on its own. When I watched* The Maze Runner* a few days ago via DSU I was awe-struck. I can't see how it can be much better if/when released with an Atmos mix. Of course, if it is better, then it will be just mind-bogglingly good.
> :
> Can’t disagree. But meantime, you are missing some amazing aural experiences from DSU


It was definitely a compliment! In some ways, I feel quite grateful for not being able to attend the Dolby presentation in New York. I fear that I might have been hooked in a big way had I the same experience that you described from the London presentation (esp. the Riddles in the Dark scene)! Likewise, maybe it's good that no retailer in the area can figure out how to stage a credible Atmos demonstration.

I got hooked on home theater at CES in January 1993 with a demo of Far and Away given in a demo room built as a box on the show floor. I don't remember all the equipment used, but they showed the Land Race scene on a 6-foot wide screen using a 3-tube Vidikron projector and (I think) a Faroudja line doubler. After having recently seen the movie in 70mm in theaters, this made such an impact, I came away knowing I had to have that experience! Your enthusiastic posts reminded me of that feeling.

I'm glad that you don't feel regret over your purchase. You knew what you were getting into and you seem willing to do future upgrades should the situation warrant them. In the meantime, you are fortunate to be able to enjoy the enhancement that Atmos and the DSU provide you, and for that I do envy you.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Ok then, you keep waiting for wallmart to stock them, while the rest of us use "online shopping"  You should try it! It is super easy


Online shopping is universal: Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Costco, Magnolia, Future Shop, AudioCanuck, eBay, ....everywhere, anywhere, anytime.  

Thx


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> I'm glad that you don't feel regret over your purchase. You knew what you were getting into and you seem willing to do future upgrades should the situation warrant them. In the meantime, ...
> *you are fortunate to be able to enjoy the enhancement that Atmos and the DSU provide you, and for that I do envy you.*


Me too.


----------



## Selden Ball

luismanrara said:


> I have (2) three seats rows in my home theater, How would the placement of the ceiling speakers play out in a case like this for the Atmos set up?
> 
> Do I place 2 ceiling speakers slightly in front of the first row and the second pair just behind the second row or do I place 2 speakers right on top of each row?


My personal suggestion would be to place the front overheads to the front of the 1st row and the rear overheads somewhat to the rear of the back row. That way all of the rows would be able to experience front-to-back panning of overhead sounds.


----------



## luismanrara

Selden Ball said:


> My personal suggestion would be to place the front overheads to the front of the 1st row and the rear overheads somewhat to the rear of the back row. That way all of the rows would be able to experience front-to-back panning of overhead sounds.


Thank you, it makes sense, but the back seats row is closer to the surrounds, as I have a 7.1. I wonder if it makes more sense to put the back ceiling speakers right on top of the last row and then the front ceiling speakers slightly in front of the first seats row?

This is so complicated?


----------



## batpig

luismanrara said:


> Selden Ball said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal suggestion would be to place the front overheads to the front of the 1st row and the rear overheads somewhat to the rear of the back row. That way all of the rows would be able to experience front-to-back panning of overhead sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, it makes sense, but the back seats row is closer to the surrounds, as I have a 7.1. I wonder if it makes more sense to put the back ceiling speakers right on top of the last row and then the front ceiling speakers slightly in front of the first seats row?
> 
> This is so complicated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

How often is the second row even used? If it's just for the rare occasion then I would optimize for the first row and that's that. It's impossible to make every seat perfect.


----------



## bargervais

luismanrara said:


> Thank you, it makes sense, but the back seats row is closer to the surrounds, as I have a 7.1. I wonder if it makes more sense to put the back ceiling speakers right on top of the last row and then the front ceiling speakers slightly in front of the first seats row?
> 
> This is so complicated?


And scary I would use on ceiling speakers and test top front just in front of the first row and call them front high and place the back speakers over the back row and call them top middle. See how that sounds. The only way it gets complicated is when using in ceiling speakers because you have to cut holes in the ceiling and if you don't like the spot there in it will be a bugger to move them...
Don't forget Atmos is very forgiving the key is separation...


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Online shopping is universal: Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Costco, Magnolia, Future Shop, AudioCanuck, eBay, ....everywhere, anywhere, anytime.
> 
> Thx


Yes, so what's the problem? Like i said, these blurays took 4 days!! from Japan to Norway!! They are region free, have english Atmos soundtrack, and practically no different than one you would by in your local store, exept some japanese writing on the cover.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Yes, so what's the problem? Like i said, these blurays took 4 days!! from Japan to Norway!! They are region free, have english Atmos soundtrack, and practically no different than one you would by in your local store, exept some japanese writing on the cover.


No problemo amigo.
I simply mentioned before because by accident I was shopping @ my local Walmart store; for food, but decided to check the Blu section.
I was accompanying a lady friend.


----------



## roxiedog13

Selden Ball said:


> My personal suggestion would be to place the front overheads to the front of the 1st row and the rear overheads somewhat to the rear of the back row. That way all of the rows would be able to experience front-to-back panning of overhead sounds.





luismanrara said:


> Thank you, it makes sense, but the back seats row is closer to the surrounds, as I have a 7.1. I wonder if it makes more sense to put the back ceiling speakers right on top of the last row and then the front ceiling speakers slightly in front of the first seats row?
> 
> This is so complicated?


 
I have the same two rows of dedicated seating and a third row of seating at a bar. I did exactly as a previous poster suggested with a pair of speakers just behind row number two and just in front of row one. I have also installed a third set of speakers between row 1 and row 2. Later when 7.2.6 is available I am ready, for now I will use the middle and front row of speakers for atmos and the third set as the rear surrounds. Personally, I have determined that stretching the speakers beyond the recommended distances and angles, you dilute the effect somewhat. Until 6 ceiling speakers can be utilized I would say choose your poison . Have a sweet spot ( front row only) and set up the in ceiling speakers for that one row only. The back will still have awesome sound and then when technology catches up ( hopefully by end of this year) you can add the third set of speakers and cover two rows . Some are saying a set of side surrounds will be needed for every pair of ceiling and I would probably agree. For now I have one only pair of side surrounds that are dipole and mounted slightly behind the front seat. The single side dipole work really well to be honest, from row one or two the side surround is really effective. Hard to future proof at this point. I expect many changes are to come so run extra wires everywhere you can.  See my arrangement below:


----------



## luismanrara

I have made three very rough sketches of my theater room to show three options, dimensions are not exact but close enough.

Where do you think the ceiling speakers might work better in this set up?


----------



## luismanrara

roxiedog13 said:


> I have the same two rows of dedicated seating and a third row of seating at a bar. I did exactly as a previous poster suggested with a pair of speakers just behind row number two and just in front of row one. I have also installed a third set of speakers between row 1 and row 2. Later when 7.2.6 is available I am ready, for now I will use the middle and front row of speakers for atmos and the third set as the rear surrounds. Personally, I have determined that stretching the speakers beyond the recommended distances and angles, you dilute the effect somewhat. Until 6 ceiling speakers can be utilized I would say choose your poison . Have a sweet spot ( front row only) and set up the in ceiling speakers for that one row only. The back will still have awesome sound and then when technology catches up ( hopefully by end of this year) you can add the third set of speakers and cover two rows . Some are saying a set of side surrounds will be needed for every pair of ceiling and I would probably agree. For now I have one only pair of side surrounds that are dipole and mounted slightly behind the front seat. The single side dipole work really well to be honest, from row one or two the side surround is really effective. Hard to future proof at this point. I expect many changes are to come so run extra wires everywhere you can.  See my arrangement below:


Thank you, I had not read your post because I was doing my own (very rudimentary) sketches for my three options. I like your set up. if you look at my drawings, my only worry with it is that it puts the second ceiling speakers too close to the back surrounds in my particular room, while the other two gives me a little bit more even spread. i don't know, what do you think?


----------



## NorthSky

Number 2 - The middle graph.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I've been out of the loop for a while... any new Atmos BD's coming out aside from gravity?


----------



## NorthSky

Not really, no.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> I've been out of the loop for a while... any new Atmos BD's coming out aside from gravity?


John Wick and Exodus


----------



## luismanrara

NorthSky said:


> Number 2 - The middle graph.


That is what I've had in mind from the beginning in my set up, they seem to make the most sense, but with this new technology you never know.


----------



## Mike Garrett

Scott Simonian said:


> ...Is what I would say as a current Atmos owner.


Except it is not like we did not know that DTS:X was coming. Most people that read these forums knew that. We just did not know when.


----------



## roxiedog13

luismanrara said:


> Thank you, I had not read your post because I was doing my own (very rudimentary) sketches for my three options. I like your set up. if you look at my drawings, my only worry with it is that it puts the second ceiling speakers too close to the back surrounds in my particular room, while the other two gives me a little bit more even spread. i don't know, what do you think?



The front ceiling speakers, I assume would be further ahead than your drawing would suggest. At 35-55 degrees suggested by Dolby for a 7.1.4 set-up I would expect to see the speaker a little closer to the front LCR speakers. Just be sure to keep the distances and angles correct.


As for the rear, my current setup is closer to your drawing # 3 . I also don't think my setup, like your # 3 drawing being suggested is the best and it dilutes the Atmos effect. I'd go with drawing # 1 and use the Dolby Atmos guidelines for speaker placement favoring the front seat as the intended MLP. You probably, like most, will watch a movie by yourself or with just one or two others 90% of the time. For the few times you are hosting 6 people put yourself and other non discriminating ( likely kids) in the rear seats. In a year or so add the third row of speakers when receivers become available for Atmos 7.1.6 and you will have Atmos for both rows.


Your rear surrounds look to be ok to me, again if they are the correct angles and hights per the dolby guidelines then I expect this will be ok. 


Do you have the Dolby Atmos guideline for 7.1.4? It's easy to find from a Google search, you really need to have a good look at that before you start placing speakers .


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> John Wick and Exodus


Oh cool! Well that's something, I haven't seem John Wick though it looks like it got good reviews. However, I recommend people don't get Exodus on BD, I saw that in Atmos in the theater, the mix didn't seem to make much use of the overheads.


----------



## stikle

Watching the Oregon/Ohio game right now in DD5.1 + DSU.

Sounds like I'm in the stadium.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I'd go with drawing # 1 and use the Dolby Atmos guidelines for speaker placement favoring the front seat as the intended MLP. You probably, like most, will watch a movie by yourself or with just one or two others 90% of the time. For the few times you are hosting 6 people put yourself and other non discriminating ( likely kids) in the rear seats. In a year or so add the third row of speakers when receivers become available for Atmos 7.1.6 and you will have Atmos for both rows.


That's also a very valid point.

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ==> Page 22


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> I have Googled Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D and I understand they are the newest iterations of object based 3D surround. Still a little confused about all the surround formats to be honest, it was sure so much easier when the only show in town was Dolby Pro Logic.
> 
> My question is, will new movie releases contain all of the new 3D formats or will the movie producers only align themselves with one or the other ? Actually, is that the way it works or is all the audio information available on the DVD and it's up to the equipment manufacturers how it is decoded and delivered ?
> 
> I'm set up( future) for Atmos 7.2.6, now using only speakers for 7.2.4. Will be disappointed if only certain movies will be available to utilize my Atmos setup .


It will be up to the individual movie studios to pick which format they'll include. I would expect only one format per disc. There just isn't enough room for two that pretty much do the same thing. 

Auro3D for the home is strictly channel-based and truly is becoming the redheaded stepchild unless Atmos and X cannot work with live musical recordings from audiophile labels (and there they have a shot), though either Dolby or DTS could end that really quickly if they came out with a 9.1 or 11.1 discrete channel based extension to TrueHD or Master Audio purely for music use. There would be no need for Auro3D and "virtually" lossless audio.


----------



## Csbooth

So when can we expect to see devices supporting both Codecs? I'm assuming as early as mid-summer but definitely thinking in full swing by fall. I'm only about $1,000.00 short as of now and hoping for something priced in the $2,500.00 price range as I am mainly interested in the core experience and don't require too much extra fluff.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Csbooth said:


> So when can we expect to see devices supporting both Codecs? I'm assuming as early as mid-summer but definitely thinking in full swing by fall. I'm only about $1,000.00 short as of now and hoping for something priced in the $2,500.00 price range as I am mainly interested in the core experience and don't require too much extra fluff.


September/October for the base models and late 2015 for the upper tier models (not their flagships since they're on a two year cycle). Working demos at CEDIA as before.


----------



## NorthSky

This Spring @ the earliest, atmos...Summer quasi sure...Fall swinging...Next Winter holidays singing...tra-la-la ♪ ♫

* My guess, of course.


----------



## Csbooth

Thanks guys, just what I needed to hear.


----------



## Frank714

Scott Simonian said:


> ...Is what I would say as a current Atmos owner.


Early adopters or advocates of a certain format are inevitably suspected of being biased on behalf of their purchase, so here are my 0.02 $.

My Rotel pre-amp was defect beyond repair (only thing that still worked was the 7.1 analog multi-channel input for my Oppo BDP 93, limiting me to Blu-rays and DVDs) and I had already delayed purchasing a new pre-amp / AVR as pre-amp substitute solution for many months.

Needless to say that learning about Dolby Atmos was the proverbial icing on the cake, but I wasn't expecting that many DA encoded titles from the start anyway.

What really drew my attention were all these excited earwitness reports (put the blame on Keith Barnes) about the performance of the new Dolby Surround Upmixer for your legacy DVD and Blu-ray collection.

I think it's fair to assume that most DOLBY ATMOS and/or DTS:X encoded Blu-rays will mostly feature recent films and many I don't like or care about. I'm the kind of guy who prefers to watch a really good film and story a dozen times rather than watching 12 bad movies in a row.

So what are the chances _The Matrix_ is being remixed in either DA or DTS:X (or my favorite _Matrix_ film which happens to be _Reloaded_ )?

I expect to be spending most of my home theatre time with my older films and the Dolby Surround Upmixer anyway. Good news is: I'll start within the _next days_ once my new speaker installation and a couple of room acoustics improvements are finally finished. 



BigScreen said:


> I got hooked on home theater at CES in January 1993 with a demo of Far and Away given in a demo room built as a box on the show floor. I don't remember all the equipment used, but they showed the Land Race scene on a 6-foot wide screen using a 3-tube Vidikron projector and (I think) a Faroudja line doubler.


With that kind of nostalgia I'm really getting sentimental here. I really think we all owe a lot to the pioneering efforts in picture improvement to Yves Faroudja, one of my all-time AV heroes. But it's interesting if you revisit this technology today. Back in 1993 it looked like HD to many of us, but if we really compare that to what actual HD looks today, it now looks like crap. I'm still excited and grateful for all the blessings we get from today's HD and Blu-ray discs (by the way, hey Fox, where's the Blu-ray of _The Abyss_?)


----------



## Frank714

BigScreen said:


> The next home video release coming from Warner Bros. should be _The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies_, which should be released in March, if they hold to the release schedules from the past Hobbit movies. Given that _Gravity_ is being re-released with Atmos does provide some hope that they do not wait for those results to come in to decide whether to release more Atmos titles.
> 
> Taking out the crystal ball, my guess is that _Five Armies_ will be released with DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 like its predecessors, and the *first chance we'll have of seeing next-gen audio for that title is the inevitable Extended Edition release in November*. I think the best next chance of a new Warner release with Atmos is American Sniper, as that should be released in April or May.


I'm assuming the same (emphasis *bold*). But considering a) this is a Warner release and b) Peter Jackson is an outspoken advocate of DOLBY ATMOS (according to Dolby's website), I remain rather confident, that _The Hobbit _Trilogy will eventually get the whole DA treatment on Blu-ray (probably at the expense of DTS:X).

In the special features Peter Jackson will be probably talking about High Frame Rate and DA sound. Would be quite odd if the Blu-ray wouldn't feature at least aforementioned DA sound.


----------



## roxiedog13

luismanrara said:


> That is what I've had in mind from the beginning in my set up, they seem to make the most sense, but with this new technology you never know.


It's certainly impossible to future proof entirely, but I do think it a safe bet to assume many changes are around the corner especially since we are the early adopters. Run extra speaker wires for additional in-ceiling speakers, additional side surrounds front wide height and rear height too if really ambitious. If your really lucky you could be covered for the next five years. Running extra
runs of cat 6E cable between the PJ, TV and the AV rack would not hurt either. If I had my time back I would have ran a 2" PVC conduit from my AV rack to my PJ/TV and change out the HDMI to add as many and or new format cables that could be coming "down the pipe." Had to throw in that pun........

I agree, go with # 1 drawing, future proof the wiring now and update late if and when you wish to. I did this knowing what is likely coming, I should be good for a number of years.....I hope.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> It was definitely a compliment! In some ways, I feel quite grateful for not being able to attend the Dolby presentation in New York. I fear that I might have been hooked in a big way had I the same experience that you described from the London presentation (esp. the Riddles in the Dark scene)! Likewise, maybe it's good that no retailer in the area can figure out how to stage a credible Atmos demonstration.
> 
> I got hooked on home theater at CES in January 1993 with a demo of Far and Away given in a demo room built as a box on the show floor. I don't remember all the equipment used, but they showed the Land Race scene on a 6-foot wide screen using a 3-tube Vidikron projector and (I think) a Faroudja line doubler. After having recently seen the movie in 70mm in theaters, this made such an impact, I came away knowing I had to have that experience! Your enthusiastic posts reminded me of that feeling.
> 
> I'm glad that you don't feel regret over your purchase. You knew what you were getting into and you seem willing to do future upgrades should the situation warrant them. In the meantime, you are fortunate to be able to enjoy the enhancement that Atmos and the DSU provide you, and for that I do envy you.


Yep - I was aware of DTS before I bought the X5200 so no regrets at all. I will probably stay with this unit for 2 years now and my next AVR will be Fall 2016 by which time all the choices should be much more clear.

Your 'first time' reminds me of mine. I had called in on an old buddy I hadn't seen for a while and he had just installed a ProLogic system. Thinking back it was pretty basis - small satellite speakers, a really crappy subwoofer and the speakers badly placed etc etc. But it blew me away and I knew I had to have it. So I went out and bought my own ProLogic decoder to use with my existing gear and a few more speakers and I was all set. And so it has gone on from there. At each stage I have always thought "wow! This is great" although earlier implementations must have been pretty awful by my standards of today. Then discrete 5.1 came along of course and a whole. never-ending upgrade pattern started


----------



## audioguy

Frank714 said:


> (by the way, hey Fox, where's the Blu-ray of _The Abyss_?)


Amen! A Bluray of that movie would be awesome just for the improvement in video and standard audio. Atmos or even DSU would really enhance that experience. 

I never "got" that film until I purchased the Dorector's Cut on Laserdisc. Soooooo much important material was left out of the theatrical release.


----------



## Frank714

AV Science Sales 5 said:


> Except it is not like we did not know that DTS:X was coming. Most people that read these forums knew that. We just did not know when.


Correct. DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) had been brought up several times mid-September in this thread and the common "knowledge" or persistent rumors had been that the first-gen DA AVRs could get a DTS-UHD _firmware_ upgrade (according to that D & M product manager quote, I'm still looking for like the proverbial needle in the haystack, supposedly for free. *westmd *posted in the Auro 3D thread on September 20 about the Auro 3D upgrade possibility which, IIRC, was simultaneously announced along with the DTS-UHD upgrade option).

*chi_guy 50* wrote in post # 8436 (this thread) that he originally posted about the DTS-UHD firmware upgrade option prematurely on August 22, however deleted his post (# 5125) but was relieved that it somehow turned out to be probably correct.

Apparently the AVR manufacturers, especially D & M, knew that something was coming from DTS, up to the point speculating publically about a _firmware_ upgrade option.

Unless f_irmware _upgrade option has been changed by DTS to _hardware_ upgrade option in the past 4 months, I'd think it to be fair for any D & M AVR owner to expect D & M to provide that option for its 2014 models.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Correct. DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) had been brought up several times mid-September in this thread and the common "knowledge" or persistent rumors had been that the first-gen DA AVRs could get a DTS-UHD _firmware_ upgrade (according to that D & M product manager quote, I'm still looking for like the proverbial needle in the haystack, supposedly for free. *westmd *posted in the Auro 3D thread on September 20 about the Auro 3D upgrade possibility which, IIRC, was simultaneously announced along with the DTS-UHD upgrade option).
> 
> *chi_guy 50* wrote in post # 8436 (this thread) that he originally posted about the DTS-UHD firmware upgrade option prematurely on August 22, however deleted his post (# 5125) but was relieved that it somehow turned out to be probably correct.
> 
> Apparently the AVR manufacturers, especially D & M, knew that something was coming from DTS, up to the point speculating publically about a _firmware_ upgrade option.
> 
> Unless f_irmware _upgrade option has been changed by DTS to _hardware_ upgrade option in the past 4 months, I'd think it to be fair for any D & M AVR owner to expect D & M to provide that option for its 2014 models.


I wonder if we could put this to bed for good?

Back in September Denon UK told an insider friend of mine that their 2014 models would be upgradeable to DST-UHD, as it was then called. At that time, this is what Denon planned. However, Denon apparently did not realise how long it would take DTS to bring DTS:X to market. 

By the time DTS had a date, Denon's position had shifted. It now seemed certain that DTS:X would not be available for inclusion in AVRs until *after* the launch date of their next-gen models for 2015 release. This meant that the possibility of offering an upgrade for DTS:X was now dead in the water, due to the impact on sales of the next-gen models.

As a result, those waiting for a DTS:X upgrade will be waiting for ever. And those who want DTS:X would be advised to wait until the 2015 models are available and then they will get the full house: Atmos, DST:X and Auro (via paid upgrade).

Of course, it is possible that things will change yet again. Denon may find that sales of their 2014 models will slow to a standstill as people defer buying pending release of 2015 models with DTS:X. But as each day goes by this scenario gets weaker and weaker. At some point in the lifecycle of every model, sales will slow as people anticipate new models in the near future. Usually, the differences are relatively minor and sales can be livened up by discounting of the old models, but this time that doesn’t seem likely. Surely anyone wanting Atmos will also want DTS:X in their unit.

My advice would be this: 



If you want to enjoy the huge benefits of Atmos and DSU, especially DSU, then jump now. But you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015. 
If you want to enjoy DTS:X when it is eventually available, then wait till Fall 2015. 
If you already have an Atmos unit, delay doing anything at all until Fall 2016 when all formats will be on board and HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 issues will have been sorted, and there may even be 4k content on Bluray. We* may *also see by this time new, second-gen Atmos features like positional rendering too.


----------



## asoofi1

What speaker mounts have you guys used for overheads? If you went DIY, pics would be appreciated.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder if we could put this to bed for good?
> 
> Back in September Denon UK told an insider friend of mine that their 2014 models would be upgradeable to DST-UHD, as it was then called. At that time, this is what Denon planned. However, Denon apparently did not realise how long it would take DTS to bring DTS:X to market.
> 
> By the time DTS had a date, Denon's position had shifted. It now seemed certain that DTS:X would not be available for inclusion in AVRs until *after* the launch date of their next-gen models for 2015 release. This meant that the possibility of offering an upgrade for DTS:X was now dead in the water, due to the impact on sales of the next-gen models.
> 
> As a result, those waiting for a DTS:X upgrade will be waiting for ever. And those who want DTS:X would be advised to wait until the 2015 models are available and then they will get the full house: Atmos, DST:X and Auro (via paid upgrade).
> 
> Of course, it is possible that things will change yet again.


I think it's pretty clear, based on what I and a few others had heard from reliable sources, that D&M had planned for inclusion of DTS:X in this year's Atmos-capable models, if necessary via firmware upgrade. Those preliminary plans (and their preliminary nature was borne out by D&M's trepidation over seeing them discussed openly) may or may not have been scuttled at this point with the delayed DTS:X launch date of March 2015 so far into the 2014 model year and close to the debut of the follow-on models. But, as you say, any current plans are subject to change (unless/until we get definitive word from D&M).



kbarnes701 said:


> My advice would be this:
> 
> 
> If you want to enjoy the huge benefits of Atmos and DSU, especially DSU, then jump now. But you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015.
> If you want to enjoy DTS:X when it is eventually available, then wait till Fall 2015.
> If you already have an Atmos unit, delay doing anything at all until Fall 2016 when all formats will be on board and HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 issues will have been sorted, and there may even be 4k content on Bluray. We* may *also see by this time new, second-gen Atmos features like positional rendering too.


 That strikes me as eminently sound advice.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder if we could put this to bed for good?
> 
> Back in September Denon UK told an insider friend of mine that their 2014 models would be upgradeable to DST-UHD, as it was then called. At that time, this is what Denon planned. However, Denon apparently did not realise how long it would take DTS to bring DTS:X to market.
> 
> By the time DTS had a date, Denon's position had shifted. It now seemed certain that DTS:X would not be available for inclusion in AVRs until *after* the launch date of their next-gen models for 2015 release. This meant that the possibility of offering an upgrade for DTS:X was now dead in the water, due to the impact on sales of the next-gen models.
> 
> As a result, those waiting for a DTS:X upgrade will be waiting for ever. And those who want DTS:X would be advised to wait until the 2015 models are available and then they will get the full house: Atmos, DST:X and Auro (via paid upgrade).
> 
> Of course, it is possible that things will change yet again. Denon may find that sales of their 2014 models will slow to a standstill as people defer buying pending release of 2015 models with DTS:X. But as each day goes by this scenario gets weaker and weaker. At some point in the lifecycle of every model, sales will slow as people anticipate new models in the near future. Usually, the differences are relatively minor and sales can be livened up by discounting of the old models, but this time that doesn’t seem likely. Surely anyone wanting Atmos will also want DTS:X in their unit.
> 
> My advice would be this:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to enjoy the huge benefits of Atmos and DSU, especially DSU, then jump now. But you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015.
> If you want to enjoy DTS:X when it is eventually available, then wait till Fall 2015.
> If you already have an Atmos unit, delay doing anything at all until Fall 2016 when all formats will be on board and HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 issues will have been sorted, and there may even be 4k content on Bluray. We* may *also see by this time new, second-gen Atmos features like positional rendering too.


Exactly what I have planned...... + 1


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I think it's pretty clear, based on what I and a few others had heard from reliable sources, that D&M had planned for inclusion of DTS:X in this year's Atmos-capable models, if necessary via firmware upgrade.


Yes, I am sure that Denon did originally hope to include DTS-UHD via a FW upgrade. But they didn't anticipate DTS taking for ever to launch DTS:X and so their (Denon's) plans changed.



chi_guy50 said:


> That strikes me as eminently sound advice.


But not eminently _immersive_ sound advice perhaps


----------



## thestoneman

Good advice folks...my only hope is we see plenty of titles containing Atmos mixes to satisfy my X5200 for 2 more years. Looks like I'm definitely not paying for Auro 3D. If studios decide to punt Atmos and go all in on DTS-X then I guess I'll both out a bunch of money and pretty upset. 

One thing seems certain...I can't believe any HT from this day forth would be designed without overhead channels.


----------



## thetman

I'm wiring up my room now-and have runs for 4 in-ceiling speakers done. As of now I have the room wired for 9.1.4. I;m just wondering if I should do 6? I mean we all know that to get 7.1.4 you need an external amp to run the 2nd set of speakers. realistically- not sure when any receiver will have the capability to output for two more speakers, bringing the total to 7.1.6. Just wondering if its worth it- or will I even notice or even use the extra two speakers. 
The room is 14x23. with 9ft. ceiling. My back surrounds are about 10ft. behind me so I have the room to place TF and TM and TR. As of now I have it wired for TF & TR. The wife already thinks I'm nuts having 13 speakers in the room. But I'm sure I'm not alone in this. And of course the whole DTSX on the horizon which we don't really know what they will recommend. should I just go for it and spread out the other 4 and wire in for TM?


----------



## thestoneman

thetman said:


> I'm wiring up my room now-and have runs for 4 in-ceiling speakers done. As of now I have the room wired for 9.1.4. I;m just wondering if I should do 6? I mean we all know that to get 7.1.4 you need an external amp to run the 2nd set of speakers. realistically- not sure when any receiver will have the capability to output for two more speakers, bringing the total to 7.1.6. Just wondering if its worth it- or will I even notice or even use the extra two speakers.
> The room is 14x23. with 9ft. ceiling. My back surrounds are about 10ft. behind me so I have the room to place TF and TM and TR. As of now I have it wired for TF & TR. The wife already thinks I'm nuts having 13 speakers in the room. But I'm sure I'm not alone in this. And of course the whole DTSX on the horizon which we don't really know what they will recommend. should I just go for it and spread out the other 4 and wire in for TM?


I wired for 9.2.4...now I wish I ran for way more channels. Speaker wire is way cheaper than ripping out drywall and having to put it back up. You might as well run wire to every conceivable FUTURE location that DTS/Dolby may eventually want to send sound to.


----------



## Scott Simonian

If I were planning for future immersive audio, I'd wire at a minimum for 9.x.6 speakers. Possibly more if one thought there would be a need for it in the proposed space. Anything beyond that is fine but may not make sense for lots of people.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frank714 said:


> Correct. DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) had been brought up several times mid-September in this thread and the common "knowledge" or persistent rumors had been that the first-gen DA AVRs could get a DTS-UHD _firmware_ upgrade (according to that D & M product manager quote, I'm still looking for like the proverbial needle in the haystack, supposedly for free. *westmd *posted in the Auro 3D thread on September 20 about the Auro 3D upgrade possibility which, IIRC, was simultaneously announced along with the DTS-UHD upgrade option).
> 
> *chi_guy 50* wrote in post # 8436 (this thread) that he originally posted about the DTS-UHD firmware upgrade option prematurely on August 22, however deleted his post (# 5125) but was relieved that it somehow turned out to be probably correct.
> 
> Apparently the AVR manufacturers, especially D & M, knew that something was coming from DTS, up to the point speculating publically about a _firmware_ upgrade option.
> 
> Unless f_irmware _upgrade option has been changed by DTS to _hardware_ upgrade option in the past 4 months, I'd think it to be fair for any D & M AVR owner to expect D & M to provide that option for its 2014 models.





kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder if we could put this to bed for good?
> 
> Back in September Denon UK told an insider friend of mine that their 2014 models would be upgradeable to DST-UHD, as it was then called. At that time, this is what Denon planned. However, Denon apparently did not realise how long it would take DTS to bring DTS:X to market.
> 
> By the time DTS had a date, Denon's position had shifted. It now seemed certain that DTS:X would not be available for inclusion in AVRs until *after* the launch date of their next-gen models for 2015 release. This meant that the possibility of offering an upgrade for DTS:X was now dead in the water, due to the impact on sales of the next-gen models.
> 
> As a result, those waiting for a DTS:X upgrade will be waiting for ever. And those who want DTS:X would be advised to wait until the 2015 models are available and then they will get the full house: Atmos, DST:X and Auro (via paid upgrade).
> 
> Of course, it is possible that things will change yet again. Denon may find that sales of their 2014 models will slow to a standstill as people defer buying pending release of 2015 models with DTS:X. But as each day goes by this scenario gets weaker and weaker. At some point in the lifecycle of every model, sales will slow as people anticipate new models in the near future. Usually, the differences are relatively minor and sales can be livened up by discounting of the old models, but this time that doesn’t seem likely. Surely anyone wanting Atmos will also want DTS:X in their unit.
> 
> My advice would be this:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to enjoy the huge benefits of Atmos and DSU, especially DSU, then jump now. But you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015.
> If you want to enjoy DTS:X when it is eventually available, then wait till Fall 2015.
> If you already have an Atmos unit, delay doing anything at all until Fall 2016 when all formats will be on board and HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 issues will have been sorted, and there may even be 4k content on Bluray. We* may *also see by this time new, second-gen Atmos features like positional rendering too.





kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I am sure that Denon did originally hope to include DTS-UHD via a FW upgrade. But they didn't anticipate DTS taking for ever to launch DTS:X and so their (Denon's) plans changed.
> 
> But not eminently _immersive_ sound advice perhaps


I'm a bit confused. Does DTS UHD = DTS:X? (Are they the same thing?) Or is DTS UHD just the format they will use for 4k discs? 

It seems like I'm reading 2 different things here... that DTS:X will almost assuredly be a firmware upgrade, but "you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015." seems to be imply the opposite?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm a bit confused. Does DTS UHD = DTS:X? (Are they the same thing?)


Yes. DTS:X is the official name. 



> It seems like I'm reading 2 different things here... that DTS:X will almost assuredly be a firmware upgrade, but "you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015." seems to be imply the opposite?


That's the nature of speculation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm a bit confused. Does DTS UHD = DTS:X? (Are they the same thing?) Or is DTS UHD just the format they will use for 4k discs?


Yeah - DTS-UHD was what everyone was calling DTS's immersive sound format for the home before DTS told us it was called DTS:X.

It seems like I'm reading 2 different things here... that DTS:X will almost assuredly be a firmware upgrade, but "you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015." seems to be imply the opposite?[/QUOTE]

That is because it is only unfounded rumour that there will be a FW upgrade for DTS:X. I personally do not believe that 4100 and 5200 units will be upgradeable to DTS:X, but 7200s might be. Until Denon decide to tell us, nobody can be 100% certain.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - DTS-UHD was what everyone was calling DTS's immersive sound format for the home before DTS told us it was called DTS:X.
> 
> It seems like I'm reading 2 different things here... that DTS:X will almost assuredly be a firmware upgrade, but "you will likely not get DTS:X without buying a new AVR in Fall 2015." seems to be imply the opposite?


That is because it is only unfounded rumour that there will be a FW upgrade for DTS:X. I personally do not believe that 4100 and 5200 units will be upgradeable to DTS:X, but 7200s might be. Until Denon decide to tell us, nobody can be 100% certain.[/QUOTE]

That would make me very sad if the 5200 wasn't FW upgradable, I actually wasn't really aware of the format war prior to my purchase.... and I really agonized over that decision. I work on a very low income but splurged on this receiver, TV, & speakers because I hadn't upgraded since 2003... but I have a kid coming on the way and knew I wouldn't buy anything for myself after March, so it was sort of a now or never kind of thing. 

My plan was to maybe upgrade in 5 years. If I can't get DTS:X upgrade then I hope DTS doesn't dominate the bd market... I'll be really let down if the Atmos floodgates don't open. 

What I don't understand is why DTS couldn't just allow people to purchase the software upgrade like Auro did? It seems like the Denon units have the processing power to handle DTS:X. What would they have to lose? (perhaps a contractual obligation to help bolster sales for other manufacturers in late 2015?) 

Does anyone know what receiver DTS used for their Demonstration @ CES?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> That would make me very sad if the 5200 wasn't FW upgradable, I actually wasn't really aware of the format war prior to my purchase.... and I really agonized over that decision. I work on a very low income but splurged on this receiver, TV, & speakers because I hadn't upgraded since 2003... but I have a kid coming on the way and knew I wouldn't buy anything for myself after March, so it was sort of a now or never kind of thing.
> 
> My plan was to maybe upgrade in 5 years. If I can't get DTS:X upgrade then I hope DTS doesn't dominate the bd market... I'll be really let down if the Atmos floodgates don't open.


I feel for you. It was different for me because I went in knowing full well that DTS:X was coming and that there was no guarantee that a FW upgrade would be possible. All I can say is that whatever happens you will have DSU and that is very, very good indeed. Sometimes even, it seems, better than genuine Atmos - and DSU will work with anything that comes along from DTS. Also, there is no guarantee of content from DTS:X for any time soon. And with the huge lead that Atmos already has, I can't see it going away or becoming a bit-part player. In short, you will have much to enjoy for the next few years.



Aras_Volodka said:


> What I don't understand is why DTS couldn't just allow people to purchase the software upgrade like Auro did? It seems like the Denon units have the processing power to handle DTS:X. What would they have to lose? (perhaps a contractual obligation to help bolster sales for other manufacturers in late 2015?)


I suspect it is a Denon decision not a DTS decision. I am sure DTS would do anything they could to bring DTS:X to a wider audience. We do know that Denon read these threads, so if it is physically possible to do a FW upgrade, even a paid one, maybe they will allow it if enough people demand it. I doubt it myself but it would be a great goodwill gesture. IDK what they make in profit on a $1,500-$2,000 AVR but by all accounts it isn't much. If they make, say (wild guess) $250 a unit and they charged $250 for the FW upgrade then they wouldn't be harming their profits if people didn't upgrade to the 5300 this fall. Probably wishful thinking.



Aras_Volodka said:


> Does anyone know what receiver DTS used for their Demonstration @ CES?


Apparently not. Maybe they used a laptop like Dolby did for their initial demos?


----------



## BigScreen

Aras_Volodka said:


> That would make me very sad if the 5200 wasn't FW upgradable, I actually wasn't really aware of the format war prior to my purchase.... and I really agonized over that decision. I work on a very low income but splurged on this receiver, TV, & speakers because I hadn't upgraded since 2003... but I have a kid coming on the way and knew I wouldn't buy anything for myself after March, so it was sort of a now or never kind of thing.
> 
> My plan was to maybe upgrade in 5 years. If I can't get DTS:X upgrade then I hope DTS doesn't dominate the bd market... I'll be really let down if the Atmos floodgates don't open.
> 
> What I don't understand is why DTS couldn't just allow people to purchase the software upgrade like Auro did? It seems like the Denon units have the processing power to handle DTS:X. What would they have to lose? (perhaps a contractual obligation to help bolster sales for other manufacturers in late 2015?)


Fortunately for your situation, we're probably going to be moaning and groaning about the lack of DTS:X (and Atmos) titles for several years anyway, so by the time you're ready to upgrade, maybe we'll finally have comprehensive support from the studios.

As an owner of a current generation receiver, you should contact Denon and make your wishes known. It couldn't hurt, and it would let them gauge interest in offering an upgrade if it's possible on current units.

My suspicion, however, is that sales of the 4100 and 5200 are so small that those owners are a very minor subset of those that own current generation units. Then, you take the subset of those owners who will be aware of DTS:X and that's an even smaller number. Contradicting that logic is them offering the Auro upgrade in light of the presence of that technology in the public consciousness.


----------



## luismanrara

That is because it is only unfounded rumour that there will be a FW upgrade for DTS:X. I personally do not believe that 4100 and 5200 units will be upgradeable to DTS:X, but 7200s might be. Until Denon decide to tell us, nobody can be 100% certain.[/QUOTE]

I'm waiting for Denon to make a call about DTS:X on the 7200, I think sales of this top of the line receiver could severely suffer if Denon decides not to add it. I for sure will not buy a $3,000 receiver that could easily loose three quarters of its value in a couple of months. I just don't see their top of the line receiver succeeding without DTS:X happening.


----------



## thetman

Scott Simonian said:


> If I were planning for future immersive audio, I'd wire at a minimum for 9.x.6 speakers. Possibly more if one thought there would be a need for it in the proposed space. Anything beyond that is fine but may not make sense for lots of people.


I guess it wouldn't hurt to wire in for two more- of course agin who knows if I'll ever use it or need it. someday maybe an AVR can support all these channels. I'd like to have all the in ceiling speakers match too. wouldn't want to install four and then years later have to get something different. Maybe I'll just pick up another pair. I know they aren't the most crucial pieces in the speaker family but I'm kinda anal like that having everything go together. Never thought I would have or need 15 speakers. kinda crazy really. especially since I haven't even heard Atmos yet. Only going by what I've read here and other places. Coming from a regular 5.1 system.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Apparently not. Maybe they used a laptop like Dolby did for their initial demos?



It is *extremely* likely that this was the case. Afaik, there is no silicon with DTS:X embedded.


----------



## rnewste

Interesting that 2 of the "prime" Atmos movies (TF4 and TMNT) made the Razzies as the worst movies of 2014....

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/transformers-sequel-leads-razzies-worst-list-212827323.html

Raybo


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I feel for you. It was different for me because I went in knowing full well that DTS:X was coming and that there was no guarantee that a FW upgrade would be possible. *All I can say is that whatever happens you will have DSU and that is very, very good indeed. Sometimes even, it seems, better than genuine Atmos - and DSU will work with anything that comes along from DTS.* Also, there is no guarantee of content from DTS:X for any time soon. And with the huge lead that Atmos already has, I can't see it going away or becoming a bit-part player. In short, you will have much to enjoy for the next few years.


Along those lines, last night we watched the boldly naturalistic_ Le Quattro Volte _(2010) streamed from Netflix in 2.0 and upmixed via DSU in 7.1.4. This is a good film with which to judge DSU's overall effectiveness since it has no special effects and no significant dialogue at all--only the atmospheric sounds of nature and village life. The overheads and surrounds were active throughout without being obtrusive--whether conveying the whispering of trees in the wind, the bleating of goats, or the crackling of charcoal. For an enjoyable 90 minutes we were transported into the Italian countryside.



BigScreen said:


> Fortunately for your situation, we're probably going to be moaning and groaning about the lack of DTS:X (and Atmos) titles for several years anyway, so by the time you're ready to upgrade, maybe we'll finally have comprehensive support from the studios.


Even if it's years before any films that interest me emerge in Atmos on Blu-ray, DSU promises to provide a meaningful improvement in our HT enjoyment.


----------



## asoofi1

Scott Simonian said:


> It is *extremely* likely that this was the case. Afaik, there is no silicon with DTS:X embedded.


The avr was a "secret" in the demo hotel room per someone's report who tried to find out. It is not too difficult to upgrade firmware on an av if processing hw can support the codec requirements...so could have been a current unit with dts flashed on the boards.


----------



## Mike Garrett

asoofi1 said:


> The avr was a "secret" in the demo hotel room per someone's report who tried to find out. It is not too difficult to upgrade firmware on an av if processing hw can support the codec requirements...so could have been a current unit with dts flashed on the boards.


True, even if there is not enough storage, they could have removed Atmos and placed DTS:X in it's place for the demo. That is what I suspect that they did. It would have been a simple process.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> If I were planning for future immersive audio, I'd wire at a minimum for 9.x.6 speakers. Possibly more if one thought there would be a need for it in the proposed space. Anything beyond that is fine but may not make sense for lots of people.


9.1.6 is cool, but I think 11.1.8 is even cooler. 

2015 is the year of the cool..._dts:x_

And lets not forget; all that 3D sound immersion will only get better when we'll get true discrete software: Blu-rays with dts:x encoded audio soundtracks.
...And of course some in Dolby Atmos, and others in Auro-3D. 

The future should be a real spatial blast.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kokishin said:


> Corrected.
> 
> Thanks again


Hi kokishin, quick update to my system. I no longer use the Yamaha 190's for TM speakers. Went with another pair of Definitive ProMonitor 800 for TM

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

Regarding that "secret" receiver with a dts:x decoder; I bet it was a Yamaha one. ...Or an Onkyo. ...Maybe a Pioneer? ...It wasn't a Denon anyway, as told by M Code.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> 9.1.6 is cool, but I think 11.1.8 is even cooler.
> 
> 2015 is the year of the cool..._dts:x_
> 
> And lets not forget; all that 3D sound immersion will only get better when we'll get true discrete software: Blu-rays with dts:x encoded audio soundtracks.
> ...And of course some in Dolby Atmos, and others in Auro-3D.
> 
> The future should be a real spatial blast.


Then 13.x.10 is even _cooler_.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> My room is 11' by 9' by 7.5' ... you think they'll fit them all?


Then why would you need more than 7.1.4? 5.1.4 would be even more practical!


----------



## NorthSky

I know; some rooms are small, others are very large. ...Some people use their TV speakers (2 inches times two; on each bottom side of their tv, for stereo effects), and other people have 36 speakers, 12 subwoofers in their home theater room and they would love to have more. 

Now with Dolby Atmos they can; on or in their ceiling. 

The guy with his tv speakers, he might go for a 2.1 setup, eventually. And I don't think he truly need Dolby Atmos, but dts Headphones; that he might like.

* Me, a 7.1.4 setup would do (9.1.4 is ok too, in my own room, and 9.1.6 I can also manage).
{Simple humor conversing with Scott, that's all.}


----------



## Scott Simonian

If you can manage 9.1.4 then you can manage 9.1.6 fo sho.


----------



## Trigen

Scott Simonian said:


> Then 13.x.10 is even _cooler_.


How would you get 13 in the base layer - L, LC, C, RC, R, Lw, Rw, Lss, Rss, Lsr, Rsr, ?, ?.


----------



## funhouse69

Looking for some opinions here, I recently installed 4 Klipsch CDT-5800-C II Ceiling Speakers to complete my 5.1.4 Setup. 

The Drivers of these speakers are able to be "Angled" fairly significantly within the basket / frame and the tweeter can be angle independently from the woofer. 

Pretty much everything I've read about speaker placement says to angle the speakers towards your MLP which is what I did but now I am wondering for the Atmos "Effect" would it make more sense to leave them in a more standard down-firing position?

I will more than likely try both but was just curious what your thoughts might be.


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> That is because it is only unfounded rumour that there will be a FW upgrade for DTS:X. I personally do not believe that 4100 and 5200 units will be upgradeable to DTS:X, but 7200s might be. Until Denon decide to tell us, nobody can be 100% certain.


This reminds me to raise another question. Isn't the processing design structure of the Denon 7200 (and the Marantz pre-amp 8802) essentially that of the 2014 D & M models?

What I hopefully understand correctly thus far, is that the arrival of the HDCP 2.2 processors later this year (for UHD BD) will require a _hardware_ upgrade for the two aforementioned.

Apparently there is still uncertainty whether implementation of DTS:X requires a _hardware_ upgrade, too (new processors) or just a _firmware_ upgrade you can do yourself from home just like the one D & M had been / is offering for Auro 3D.

Admittedly, with the Auro 3D upgrade, D & M has been offering a service to customers none of the other AV manufacturers has. 

OTOH, it would strike me as somewhat odd, if D & M makes the Auro 3D upgrade available (despite only one program currently commercially available, add to this the speaker setup compromise at the expense of optimal Dolby Atmos performance), but wouldn't the one for DTS:X for which a) there is demand and b) for which the Dolby Atmos speaker setup will be most likely compatible.

*In a nutshell:*

Should DTS:X require a _hardware_ upgrade which is not possible for the 2014 D & M models, I will shut up / put the issue to bed and wait to see how DTS:X will perform in the AV market.

Should DTS:X only require a _firmware_ upgrade (a possibility hinted by D & M personnel, in some cases probably a decision maker to purchase a 2014 D & M AVR "now"), I'd humbly and respectfully ask D & M to make this option available for owners of the latest 2014 D & M models.

I wouldn't expect it to be free and would be willing to pay the same price as they did for the Auro 3D firmware upgrade. And D & M would ensure an ever-lasting gratitude from the early 2014 adopters, and especially D & M newbies. 



kbarnes701 said:


> We do know that Denon read these threads, so if it is physically possible to do a FW upgrade, even a paid one, *maybe they will allow it if enough people demand it*.


Now you are kidding, right?  I think it's fair to say that "enough people" participating in this Dolby Atmos thread and the D & M specific Dolby Atmos AVR threads have vocally expressed their desire that D & M provides this option, if it is technically possible (I think 5 times more than those that asked for an Auro 3D upgrade).


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> It is *extremely* likely that this was the case. Afaik, there is no silicon with DTS:X embedded.


In that case, it must have been a mysterious black box of the AVR persuasion after all


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Should DTS:X only require a _firmware_ upgrade, I'd humbly and respectfully ask D & M to make this option available for owners of the latest 2014 D & M models.
> 
> I wouldn't expect it to be free and would be willing to pay the same price as they did for the Auro 3D firmware upgrade. And D & M would ensure an ever-lasting gratitude from the early 2014 adopters, and especially D & M newbies.


+1.




Frank714 said:


> Now you are kidding, right?  I think it's fair to say that "enough people" participating in this Dolby Atmos thread and the D & M specific Dolby Atmos AVR threads have vocally expressed their desire that D & M provides this option, if it is technically possible (I think 5 times more than those that asked for an Auro 3D upgrade).


Good point  Maybe someone should make a petition, 'signed' by all of us who are wanting this, and submit it formally to Denon? Aras? You up for that?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Along those lines, last night we watched the boldly naturalistic_ Le Quattro Volte _(2010) streamed from Netflix in 2.0 and upmixed via DSU in 7.1.4. This is a good film with which to judge DSU's overall effectiveness since it has no special effects and no significant dialogue at all--only the atmospheric sounds of nature and village life. The overheads and surrounds were active throughout without being obtrusive--whether conveying the whispering of trees in the wind, the bleating of goats, or the crackling of charcoal. For an enjoyable 90 minutes we were transported into the Italian countryside.


Precisely the kind of movie which reveals the true value of the upgrade to Atmos/DSU. As someone once said, it's about much more than _overhead effects and helicopter flyovers_. 




chi_guy50 said:


> Even if it's years before any films that interest me emerge in Atmos on Blu-ray, DSU promises to provide a meaningful improvement in our HT enjoyment.


+1 to that.


----------



## funhouse69

kbarnes701 said:


> Precisely the kind of movie which reveals the true value of the upgrade to Atmos/DSU. As someone once said, it's about much more than _overhead effects and helicopter flyovers_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1 to that.


The above statement makes me wonder, if someone has a basic 5.1 setup and goes to a 5.1.2 or a 5.1.4 (or more) I feel they are going to experience a HUGE difference (as I did with only one top pair and now two) with Atmos and DSU. That said what about someone that already has a say 7.1, 9.1 or higher? Are they going to feel that it is that much better?

It seems like the sound field expansion that I am getting especially in a Non-Atmos DSU Movie wouldn't be so noticeable if I already had Front / Rear / Height. I assume the wides might not make as much of a difference based solely on the speaker placement. 

Just something to think about


----------



## roxiedog13

Scott Simonian said:


> If you can manage 9.1.4 then you can manage 9.1.6 fo sho.


I wonder do we really need the 6 ceiling speakers for one row of seats? Thinking about this a little more last night I feel the dolby Atmos effect for one row of seats
would work just fine with 4 ceiling speakers. At two rows of seats three rows of ceiling speakers and a set of side surrounds per seat if you really want to future proof.
Three rows and one could consider 8 speakers with three sets of side surrounds but I'm not even sure we would ever make it that far technology wise for a home theater
system. At this level and beyond I'm sure there are other higher end systems that would be considered. 

For the average home theater I would say this formula would work just fine. Like I said, 90% of the time we watch a movie either alone or with one other , so concentrate
the MLP on one favored row of seating. All we have currently is a 4 speaker in-ceiling Atmos system to work with , so use it the way it is designed for one row and get 
the effect really well. Everyone else still gets a great 7.1/9.1 experience anyway, possibly a diluted 3D effect. Run wires to future proof and add the new receiver, speakers
and additional side surrounds as the technology grows. That's what I'm doing. 

BTW, this reminds me to list the Atmos modules I have for sale, must go do that now. I have a set of Onkyo dolby atmos skh-410 in black. Bought two weeks ago but does not 
work with my lowered ceiling so I'm gone with in-ceiling.


----------



## gammanuc

funhouse69 said:


> The above statement makes me wonder, if someone has a basic 5.1 setup and goes to a 5.1.2 or a 5.1.4 (or more) I feel they are going to experience a HUGE difference (as I did with only one top pair and now two) with Atmos and DSU. That said what about someone that already has a say 7.1, 9.1 or higher? Are they going to feel that it is that much better?
> 
> It seems like the sound field expansion that I am getting especially in a Non-Atmos DSU Movie wouldn't be so noticeable if I already had Front / Rear / Height. I assume the wides might not make as much of a difference based solely on the speaker placement.
> 
> Just something to think about


I can't speak for those who already have height speakers in place, but for me going from 7.1 to 7.1.2 then 7.1.4 made a huge difference.


----------



## Frank714

roxiedog13 said:


> I wonder do we really need the 6 ceiling speakers for one row of seats? Thinking about this a little more last night I feel the dolby Atmos effect for one row of seats
> would work just fine with 4 ceiling speakers. At two rows of seats three rows of ceiling speakers and a set of side surrounds per seat if you really want to future proof.


I believe 4 ceiling speakers are enough, though it partially depends on the shape of your room. Mine is essentially a square, distance from seat row to back wall is 1/3 compared to 2/3 to the front speakers and my "Frank Lloyd Wright" screen alcove (with Ennis House tiles).

Overhead front speakers are somewhat in the middle between front speakers and the main listening position, so I couldn't imagine a considerable improvement by adding two more on the ceiling, especially since the four overhead speakers will probably provide got phantom imaging for the (absent) overhead middle speakers.


----------



## roxiedog13

gammanuc said:


> I can't speak for those who already have height speakers in place, but for me going from 7.1 to 7.1.2 then 7.1.4 made a huge difference.


I guess I forgot to consider a simple 2 speaker in ceiling Atmos system and you have confirmed it made a huge difference, even better going to a 4 speaker in-ceiling system. 

Chasing technology is exactly like a dog chasing its tail isn't really. One has to be well informed and decisive to prevent the chasing your tail effect and "guys" we are talking about
canines do not get further side tracked .


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> I believe 4 ceiling speakers are enough, though it partially depends on the shape of your room. Mine is essentially a square, distance from seat row to back wall is 1/3 compared to 2/3 to the front speakers and *my "Frank Lloyd Wright" screen alcove (with Ennis House tiles)*.


Hey, you aren't allowed to tease us like that. Pictures, please! _ Mensch Meier, zeig mal was du hast!_


----------



## roxiedog13

rnewste said:


> Interesting that 2 of the "prime" Atmos movies (TF4 and TMNT) made the Razzies as the worst movies of 2014....
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/transformers-sequel-leads-razzies-worst-list-212827323.html
> 
> Raybo


I've never been a fan of Transformers or any heavy CGI type movie but to be honest I kinda liked TF4, surprised it was included in this list.
TMNT well, no surprise there for sure . Megan Fox was in TF and TMNT movies, given she is so disgusting to look at no wonder I suppose. :devil:


----------



## mcsoul

I'm going back and forth about trying ATMOS in my HT.
I have 4 of these Logitech Z5500 speakers sitting around doing
nothing. They have integrated mounting and they are full range
single driver speakers with decent sound and power handling.

Do you think they can work with Polk Monitor speakers as the 5.x or
7.x running?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Trigen said:


> How would you get 13 in the base layer - L, LC, C, RC, R, Lw, Rw, Lss, Rss, Lsr, Rsr, ?, ?.


I was being a smart ass but pick any of these locations if you want. "Have it your way"














roxiedog13 said:


> I wonder do we really need the 6 ceiling speakers for one row of seats? Thinking about this a little more last night I feel the dolby Atmos effect for one row of seats
> would work just fine with 4 ceiling speakers. At two rows of seats three rows of ceiling speakers and a set of side surrounds per seat if you really want to future proof.
> Three rows and one could consider 8 speakers with three sets of side surrounds but I'm not even sure we would ever make it that far technology wise for a home theater
> system. At this level and beyond I'm sure there are other higher end systems that would be considered.
> 
> For the average home theater I would say this formula would work just fine. Like I said, 90% of the time we watch a movie either alone or with one other , so concentrate
> the MLP on one favored row of seating. All we have currently is a 4 speaker in-ceiling Atmos system to work with , so use it the way it is designed for one row and get
> the effect really well. Everyone else still gets a great 7.1/9.1 experience anyway, possibly a diluted 3D effect. Run wires to future proof and add the new receiver, speakers
> and additional side surrounds as the technology grows. That's what I'm doing.
> 
> BTW, this reminds me to list the Atmos modules I have for sale, must go do that now. I have a set of Onkyo dolby atmos skh-410 in black. Bought two weeks ago but does not
> work with my lowered ceiling so I'm gone with in-ceiling.


Has nothing to do with rows. 

Anyone can benefit from having a front height image, a rear height image and a center height image. This is no different than having 7/9.1 surround sound. Why not treat the overhead imaging the same?

I have a small, narrow room. I'd like to have my front height enhanced. Ie: front heights. I'd like the rear of my room to sound larger (also cuz the rear surround are lower for Atmos). Ie: rear heights. Now I also want things to image directly over my head. IE: middle heights.

I only have one row of seating.


----------



## lujan

I have a Denon AVR-X5200W coming in tomorrow along with four in-ceiling type Klipsch speakers. I currently have a 7.1 or 7.2 system (not sure which?). They are NHT speakers with 2 LFE's and each LFE has it's separate amp so it might constitute .2? I'm adding the four in-ceiling speakers to my current setup. After looking at the Atmos site, it seems this would be the correct installation for the speakers:



















I can't find it now, but I read somewhere that the four speakers should be placed at around 30% in front of the listening area and 30% in back of the listening area. Does this placement sound correct?


----------



## SoundChex

According to a 1/12/2015 news item in *TVNewsCheck*, '*Tech Companies Submit Three Proposals for Next-Gen TV Sound*' (_link_), *Dolby* was one of *three* respondents to the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System Call for Proposals* (_link_), their submission presumably based around the *Dolby AC4* _codec|technology_ they demoed in mid 2014. The exact relationship between *AC4* and _home_ *Atmos* remain unclear at this time, however it seems likely that the *specifics* of future revisions to the _home_ *Atmos* codec might depend on whether *Dolby* _is|is not_ chosen to provide the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* _technology_ (in August 2015).

Additional responses were received from *DTS* and *Qualcomm*|*Fraunhofer*|*Technicolor*.


_


----------



## Al Sherwood

lujan said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X5200W coming in tomorrow along with four in-ceiling type Klipsch speakers. I currently have a 7.1 or 7.2 system (not sure which?). They are NHT speakers with 2 LFE's and each LFE has it's separate amp so it might constitute .2? I'm adding the four in-ceiling speakers to my current setup. After looking at the Atmos site, it seems this would be the correct installation for the speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find it now, but I read somewhere that the four speakers should be placed at around 30% in front of the listening area and 30% in back of the listening area. Does this placement sound correct?


 
The x.1 or x.2 refers to the number subwoofers, your choice how you write it...


As for that speaker angle from the October Dolby white paper:


----------



## roxiedog13

Scott Simonian said:


> I was being a smart ass but pick any of these locations if you want. "Have it your way"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with rows.
> 
> Anyone can benefit from having a front height image, a rear height image and a center height image. This is no different than having 7/9.1 surround sound. Why not treat the overhead imaging the same?
> 
> I have a small, narrow room. I'd like to have my front height enhanced. Ie: front heights. I'd like the rear of my room to sound larger (also cuz the rear surround are lower for Atmos). Ie: rear heights. Now I also want things to image directly over my head. IE: middle heights.
> 
> I only have one row of seating.


I know it has nothing to do with rows . What I am saying is to get the Atmos 3D effect to work you have to install speakers within the Dolby Atmos guidelines. Those guidelines favor only one single row( MLP) of seats. Some home theater owners are asking what to do with multiple rows of seats and we are, including myself, trying to make decisions based on this now with 4 in-ceiling speaker technology, but also making provisions for future technology that hopefully,will allow 6 in-ceiling speakers. 
Most of what is being suggested is certainly speculation , however commercial systems do also have multiple side surrounds, so it would be reasonable to assume that future technology might very well have provisions for more ceiling , side surrounds, front and rear height speakers too. Nobody knows for sure, so all I'm saying is, set up for one specific MLP for the best Atmos experience and run lots of speaker wire to future proof. I think most are assuming Atmos is well ahead and DTS not to far behind. If Auro 3D ends up the leading format down the road then many of us will have a serious problem. Don't think that is going to happen to be honest. We'll see


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I feel for you. It was different for me because I went in knowing full well that DTS:X was coming and that there was no guarantee that a FW upgrade would be possible. All I can say is that whatever happens you will have DSU and that is very, very good indeed. Sometimes even, it seems, better than genuine Atmos - and DSU will work with anything that comes along from DTS. Also, there is no guarantee of content from DTS:X for any time soon. And with the huge lead that Atmos already has, I can't see it going away or becoming a bit-part player. In short, you will have much to enjoy for the next few years.


For sure, I'm very happy with the way everything is sounding... certainly no complaints there! My main worry was that I wouldn't get more of the Atmos-ish content... though it is a consolation that it might take a while for DTS:X to get rolling. Thanks for pointing it out... I hadn't thought of that. Worst case scenario... I wonder what the resale value of a 5200 would be next winter? I know I'd be taking a big hit if I was to sell & buy, though I might consider that if I could atleast get maybe half my money back. 




BigScreen said:


> Fortunately for your situation, we're probably going to be moaning and groaning about the lack of DTS:X (and Atmos) titles for several years anyway, so by the time you're ready to upgrade, maybe we'll finally have comprehensive support from the studios.


I both hope so & hope not! 




BigScreen said:


> As an owner of a current generation receiver, you should contact Denon and make your wishes known. It couldn't hurt, and it would let them gauge interest in offering an upgrade if it's possible on current units.
> 
> My suspicion, however, is that sales of the 4100 and 5200 are so small that those owners are a very minor subset of those that own current generation units. Then, you take the subset of those owners who will be aware of DTS:X and that's an even smaller number. Contradicting that logic is them offering the Auro upgrade in light of the presence of that technology in the public consciousness.


Suggestion noted, I will contact them. My thinking is that perhaps Denon might have a server that they load software like DTS:X & Auro onto... maybe it's not specific to the units... but whatever units might be capable of accepting that software. (In other words they might not even have to consider it if they are using it as an FW update/ built in for other units in the future if that makes sense).


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> Some home theater owners are asking what to do with multiple rows of seats and we are, including myself, trying to make decisions based on this now with 4 in-ceiling speaker technology, but also making provisions for future technology that hopefully,will allow 6 in-ceiling speakers.


Same thing you do with other aspects of your set-up. Levels, distances, angles, toe-in, etc., are all done based on the main listening position. Height speakers aren't immune to this. You have to decide where the sweet spot is (middle of one of the rows or in between rows) and choose elevation angles based on that location (those angles have to be relative to something). 

However, there are things you can do to minimize the drop off in performance outside the sweet spot. One example: point each height speaker at the listener furthest away, so that the listener closest to that speaker isn't overwhelmed by distractingly loud sound from a nearby speaker. The end result will still sound like Atmos: i.e., listeners will be able to separate sounds around them vs sounds above them. Hard to mess it up.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X5200W coming in tomorrow along with four in-ceiling type Klipsch speakers. I currently have a 7.1 or 7.2 system (not sure which?). They are NHT speakers with 2 LFE's and each LFE has it's separate amp so it might constitute .2? I'm adding the four in-ceiling speakers to my current setup. After looking at the Atmos site, it seems this would be the correct installation for the speakers:
> 
> I can't find it now, but I read somewhere that the four speakers should be placed at around 30% in front of the listening area and 30% in back of the listening area. Does this placement sound correct?


Your AVR will allow you to assign those in-ceiling (top-level) speakers to any two non-contiguous locations among the five possible positions: front height (FH), top front (TF), top middle (TM), top rear (TR), and rear height (RH). The default selection, when using two pairs, is TF + TR, but your choice should be determined by the dimensions of your room, your main listening position (MLP) location in the room, and the positions of the seven listener-level speakers relative to the MLP. Note also that the only one of those five designations that is shared by other surround modes (i.e., DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, and Auro) is FH. The other four positions are unique to Atmos/DSU and thus will be silent in any other mode; if this matters to you, you should consider it as one factor in the placement of your in-ceiling speakers remembering that the recommended elevation range should dictate which speaker designation you assign to each pair.

Here is the chart found on page 34 of the (U.S. edition) user's manual showing the range of recommended elevation angles for each top-level location (note that there is considerable overlap between FH and TF and between TR and RH):


----------



## rboster

lujan said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X5200W coming in tomorrow along with four in-ceiling type Klipsch speakers. I currently have a 7.1 or 7.2 system (not sure which?). They are NHT speakers with 2 LFE's and each LFE has it's separate amp so it might constitute .2? I'm adding the four in-ceiling speakers to my current setup. After looking at the Atmos site, it seems this would be the correct installation for the speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find it now, but I read somewhere that the four speakers should be placed at around 30% in front of the listening area and 30% in back of the listening area. Does this placement sound correct?


Which in ceiling Klipsch (model) speakers are you getting?


----------



## roxiedog13

sdurani said:


> Same thing you do with other aspects of your set-up. Levels, distances, angles, toe-in, etc., are all done based on the main listening position. Height speakers aren't immune to this. You have to decide where the sweet spot is (middle of one of the rows or in between rows) and choose elevation angles based on that location (those angles have to be relative to something).
> 
> However, there are things you can do to minimize the drop off in performance outside the sweet spot. One example: point each height speaker at the listener furthest away, so that the listener closest to that speaker isn't overwhelmed by distractingly loud sound from a nearby speaker. The end result will still sound like Atmos: i.e., listeners will be able to separate sounds around them vs sounds above them. Hard to mess it up.


I believe what I am referring to specifically are the in-ceiling Atmos speakers. I tried stretching the ceiling speakers out beyond the guidelines to include the second row of seats . The Atmos effect is diluted considerably by doing this. You can therefor live with this diluted effect or choose one specific sweet spot, a single row MLP, and move the speakers closer to conform to the angles/guidelines recommended . I have chosen to have a single row MLP even though I have three rows of seating and then, as technology improves, will add speakers to widen the sweet spot for a second row. 

It's easy to place surrounds for a 5.1/7.1/9.1 or even 11.1 including heights for multiple rows of seating and get a descent audio presentation once calibrated, Atmos from what is being reported will be a little more challenging for the ( MLP) sweet spot. Most of the feedback I have heard is that outside the sweet spot, Atmos does not deliver.


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> I believe what I am referring to specifically are the in-ceiling Atmos speakers.


Understood, I was just suggesting you treat them like all your other speakers. If your left surround speaker can cover all three rows, then you can find a height speaker that does the same. If you've had to compromise on how many listeners the left surround speaker covers, then you can do the same with the height speakers. They're still speakers, whether placed beside you or above you.


> Atmos from what is being reported will be a little more challenging for the ( MLP) sweet spot. Most of the feedback I have heard is that outside the sweet spot, Atmos does not deliver.


Haven't heard that feedback nor has that been my experience. A pair of speakers on the back wall makes sure that sounds intended to be heard behind the listeners always come from that direction, no matter which row they are sitting in. Likewise, a pair of overhead speakers will make sure that sounds intended to be heard above the listeners always come from that direction, no matter which row they are sitting in. There's no reason Atmos cannot deliver its basic around-you-vs-above-you directionality outside the sweet spot.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dolby Atmos destroys physics.


----------



## gammanuc

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos destroys physics.


Never did like Physics.


----------



## roxiedog13

sdurani said:


> Understood, I was just suggesting you treat them like all your other speakers. If your left surround speaker can cover all three rows, then you can find a height speaker that does the same. If you've had to compromise on how many listeners the left surround speaker covers, then you can do the same with the height speakers. They're still speakers, whether placed beside you or above you. Haven't heard that feedback nor has that been my experience. A pair of speakers on the back wall makes sure that sounds intended to be heard behind the listeners always come from that direction, no matter which row they are sitting in. Likewise, a pair of overhead speakers will make sure that sounds intended to be heard above the listeners always come from that direction, no matter which row they are sitting in. There's no reason Atmos cannot deliver its basic around-you-vs-above-you directionality outside the sweet spot.



If you go to the Dolby Atmos thread and read the feedback from the shows the comments regarding the sweet spot was common to everyone. In the sweet spot it worked outside the sweet spot it did not give the same 3D immersion. 


As I have said many times before, I miss the simplicity of Dolby Pro Logic 5.1 . Setup was clean and simple just plug and play. Worked well and to be honest, my 27 year old Pioneer AVR still does this well in my family room. In my dedicated theater room I have been changing my tail for years trying to keep up image and sound wise. Time to cut off the tail I believe..........


----------



## lujan

Al Sherwood said:


> The x.1 or x.2 refers to the number subwoofers, your choice how you write it...
> 
> 
> As for that speaker angle from the October Dolby white paper:


My new speakers would be numbers 7 & 8 and they look about 30 degrees from the listening position to me...


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> Your AVR will allow you to assign those in-ceiling (top-level) speakers to any two non-contiguous locations among the five possible positions: front height (FH), top front (TF), top middle (TM), top rear (TR), and rear height (RH). The default selection, when using two pairs, is TF + TR, but your choice should be determined by the dimensions of your room, your main listening position (MLP) location in the room, and the positions of the seven listener-level speakers relative to the MLP. Note also that the only one of those five designations that is shared by other surround modes (i.e., DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, and Auro) is FH. The other four positions are unique to Atmos/DSU and thus will be silent in any other mode; if this matters to you, you should consider it as one factor in the placement of your in-ceiling speakers remembering that the recommended elevation range should dictate which speaker designation you assign to each pair.
> 
> Here is the chart found on page 34 of the (U.S. edition) user's manual showing the range of recommended elevation angles for each top-level location (note that there is considerable overlap between FH and TF and between TR and RH):


Sorry, doesn't seem like your attachment came through.


----------



## lujan

rboster said:


> Which in ceiling Klipsch (model) speakers are you getting?


The cheapest model are the only ones I could afford along with the 5200. I got the 1650's.


----------



## Scott Simonian

roxiedog13 said:


> As I have said many times before, I miss the simplicity of Dolby Pro Logic 5.1 . Setup was clean and simple just plug and play.


It is no different today. If anything, it much more simple to set up a surround sound system today.

Also, the results are MUCH better than ... pro logic 1.


----------



## Al Sherwood

lujan said:


> My new speakers would be numbers 7 & 8 and they look about 30 degrees from the listening position to me...


Then you should be in the game, remember these are recommendations, others have tried similar and different positions and have replied back with positive results.


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> If you go to the Dolby Atmos thread and read the feedback from the shows the comments regarding the sweet spot was common to everyone. In the sweet spot it worked outside the sweet spot it did not give the same 3D immersion.


That has more to do with set-up than the immersive technology. Even before any of these immersive audio formats came on the scene, I'd heard set-ups where performance fell off a cliff outside the sweet spot and other systems where off-axis seats still sounded almost as good as the MLP. That a design choice and hasn't changed with Atmos, Auro and DTS:X.


> Time to cut off the tail I believe..........


WHAT!?!? Just when it was getting interesting? Actually, I do that from time to time. Changes to my system are punctuated by long gaps of enjoying the previous change.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> Sorry, doesn't seem like your attachment came through.


I don't know what attachment you're referring to. 

Do you mean the chart that is reproduced in your own post? If for some reason you really can't see it on whatever device you're using to read this, you can also find it on-line in the web manual by clicking here (scroll down the webpage to the sixth illustration).

And here it is again, just for the sake of redundancy's sake:


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't know what attachment you're referring to.
> 
> Do you mean the chart that is reproduced in your own post? If for some reason you really can't see it on whatever device you're using to read this, you can also find it on-line in the web manual by clicking here (scroll down the webpage to the sixth illustration).
> 
> And here it is again, just for the sake of redundancy's sake:


Yes, I can see the chart now and as you mentioned earlier the new speakers would be the top front and top rear speakers. This is the first I hear about top middle speakers but didn't get 6 speakers. Also, I have heard of others finding them too overwhelming if placed right above the listening area.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> Yes, I can see the chart now and as you mentioned earlier the new speakers would be the top front and top rear speakers. This is the first I hear about top middle speakers but didn't get 6 speakers. Also, I have heard of others finding them too overwhelming if placed right above the listening area.


Don't take the terms top front and top rear literally. Think in terms of one forward pair and one rearward pair. The forward pair can be designated FH, TF, or TM and the rearward pair can be designated TM, TR, or RH depending on where in the room you mount them vis-a-vis the MLP. The most critical element in differentiating between the various positions is the elevation angle. And, again, the two positions can not be contiguous.

As illustration, here are the various possible combinations when using two pairs of top-level speakers from page 228 of the (U.S. edition) user's manual (I've highlighted your proposed selection in red):










Many of us (myself included) are using FH + TM to good effect. Bear in mind that the recommended range of elevation angle for TM is from 65 to 100 degrees.


----------



## bsoko2

gammanuc said:


> Never did like Physics.



Me too, however once in awhile I do get Physics then I have to run for the bathroom.


----------



## roxiedog13

Scott Simonian said:


> It is no different today. If anything, it much more simple to set up a surround sound system today.
> 
> Also, the results are MUCH better than ... pro logic 1.







How in the world can a 5.1 speaker setup ( two front, two rear and one center) be more complicated than a sound system today with up to 11 speakers all around now with 
up to 4 in-ceiling ? 
Absolutely simple it was, the only thing I can agree with is it is better, and by a great deal. The time it takes to run the Audyssey calibration alone with my new system takes 
longer than the entire 5.1 installation did years ago .What use to take an hour or two can now take a week to install calibrate and adjust. The old system was good for a decade 
or two, now it is redundant before the end of the same year, if not before. Not complaining, its just stating the way it is, or was I suppose.


----------



## bargervais

bsoko2 said:


> Me too, however once in awhile I do get Physics then I have to run for the bathroom.


----------



## roxiedog13

sdurani said:


> That has more to do with set-up than the immersive technology. Even before any of these immersive audio formats came on the scene, I'd heard set-ups where performance fell off a cliff outside the sweet spot and other systems where off-axis seats still sounded almost as good as the MLP. That a design choice and hasn't changed with Atmos, Auro and DTS:X. WHAT!?!? Just when it was getting interesting? Actually, I do that from time to time. Changes to my system are punctuated by long gaps of enjoying the previous change.



Agreed the setup is most important, probably even more so with the new object based technology. Every new upgrade I have done for audio has been better than the last . So far my upgrade
to Atmos including speakers and AVR has not panned out. Will not pass judgment though until all the speakers are in , tweaked and then calibrated. If that doesn't work will have to put in more speakers....... and the tail chasing will continue.


Seriously though , I do the same as you. Get it working and then enjoy for a long, long stretch. Once the tweaking is done this time I will not be interested in change for a couple of years. Well,
except for the upgraded AVR but that was planned, speakers are in already, really.


----------



## Worf

roxiedog13 said:


> I've never been a fan of Transformers or any heavy CGI type movie but to be honest I kinda liked TF4, surprised it was included in this list.
> TMNT well, no surprise there for sure . Megan Fox was in TF and TMNT movies, given she is so disgusting to look at no wonder I suppose. :devil:


Well, Transformers 4 did surprisingly well - worldwide totals put it as the #1 film of 2014. It was #5 just in North America and other than the first film, they all brought in over $1B each worldwide.

Michael Bay knows how to put asses in seats. And he knows sound is an essential part of a movie - more than the images. (Watch a movie with the sound off. Then watch it again with the screen off and you'll find the second mode retains a lot of the punch and emotion.)

And summer blockbusters are rarely high movie fare with high culture and other things in them. They're just pure entertainment that gets you out of the heat and into another place for a couple of hours so you can forget about your life for the moment.

The razzies basically just point that out - no, you aren't going to have a life changing experience watching Transformers.


----------



## audioguy

Just finished watching TMNT at full reference. What's not to like: Megan Fox and incredible audio!! Great plot? A real think piece? Incredible Acting!! Predictable? Who cares. Megan Fox and incredible audio !!!

I enjoyed the heck out of it, very entertaining and will watch it again with my wife (but a lot softer!!)

And I'm lowering my 4 surrounds from 71 inches (tweeter) to about 51 inches (tweeter) in two weeks. While Atmos is incredible, it is obvious after listening to a friends Atmos system with surrounds at a bit above ear level, the "bubble" effect in my room is a good bit less than in his.


----------



## audioguy

Worf said:


> Michael Bay knows how to put asses in seats.


And in his movies as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Lol


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Worf said:


> Well, Transformers 4 did surprisingly well - *worldwide totals put it as the #1 film of 2014*. It was #5 just in North America and other than the first film, they all brought in over $1B each worldwide.
> 
> Michael Bay knows how to put asses in seats. And he knows sound is an essential part of a movie - more than the images. (Watch a movie with the sound off. Then watch it again with the screen off and you'll find the second mode retains a lot of the punch and emotion.)
> 
> And summer blockbusters are rarely high movie fare with high culture and other things in them. They're just pure entertainment that gets you out of the heat and into another place for a couple of hours so you can forget about your life for the moment.
> 
> The razzies basically just point that out - no, you aren't going to have a life changing experience watching Transformers.


God help us all. 

Some (not all) summer movies also used to be _good_ rather than being pure, brain-cell-killing entertainment with knuckle-dragging scripts.


----------



## NorthSky

God's got nothing to do with it; it's all Michael Bay's fault.


----------



## rnewste

I'm just hoping someday we will get: *GLADIATOR*, *AMADEUS*, and *THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER* in Atmos (can you imagine those sonar pings coming from the overhead speakers)!

Raybo


----------



## NorthSky

That would be cool.


----------



## nodular

Ordered yesterday the Denon AVR X 5200 and a set of the Onkyo up firing speakers to try.

Should hopefully arrive today.

I've spoken to a couple of guys one with up firing and one with in ceiling speakers who have low ceilings.
Both around the 7ft mark and both have said Atmos sounds great.
My cinema room is in the basement and my ceiling height is 6ft 9'
Fingers crossed I can still get the up firing speakers working in my room.

If I can get everything set up and working the plan is to add an external 2 channel amp and add and set of up firing speakers at the back.


----------



## NorthSky

Congrats.


----------



## audioguy

rnewste said:


> I'm just hoping someday we will get: *GLADIATOR*, *AMADEUS*, and *THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER* in Atmos (can you imagine those sonar pings coming from the overhead speakers)!
> 
> Raybo


I would place *The Abyss* at the head of the list


----------



## jdsmoothie

nodular said:


> Ordered yesterday the Denon AVR X 5200 and a set of the Onkyo up firing speakers to try.
> 
> Should hopefully arrive today.
> 
> I've spoken to a couple of guys one with up firing and one with in ceiling speakers who have low ceilings.
> Both around the 7ft mark and both have said Atmos sounds great.
> My cinema room is in the basement and my ceiling height is 6ft 9'
> Fingers crossed I can still get the up firing speakers working in my room.
> 
> If I can get everything set up and working the plan is to add an external 2 channel amp and add and set of up firing speakers at the back.


You will want to experiment with the height/distance to main listening position of the SKH-410 speakers as placing them on top of your existing towers/bookshelf speakers may not be the ideal location. Also try them in the rear as well to determine if they work well.


----------



## Frank714

chi_guy50 said:


> Hey, you aren't allowed to tease us like that. Pictures, please! _ Mensch Meier, zeig mal was du hast!_


Coming soon once I finished installation of all 4 overhead speakers, acoustic performance and other room improvements, inspired / motivated thanks to Dolby Atmos and DSU (I'm currently spending all my afternoons and evenings to get finished, I really want to experience how DSU improves my film library and will add my earwitness report and pictures_ asap). _

I have two cylindrical glass showcases in the back corners and was originally tempted to put the circular speakers (same diameter but with angled and aimable tweeter) as rear overheads in the corners, but common sense dictated I should rather go for the Dolby recommendations and have these in one line / same axis with the L and R front speakers with the tweeters aimed at MLP (which I believe would also be AVS' majority recommendation).


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> Coming soon once I finished installation of all 4 overhead speakers, acoustic performance and other room improvements, inspired / motivated thanks to Dolby Atmos and DSU (I'm currently spending all my afternoons and evenings to get finished, I really want to experience how DSU improves my film library and will add my earwitness report and pictures_ asap). _
> 
> I have two cylindrical glass showcases in the back corners and was originally tempted to put the circular speakers (same diameter but with angled and aimable tweeter) as rear overheads in the corners, but common sense dictated I should rather go for the Dolby recommendations and have these in one line / same axis with the L and R front speakers with the tweeters aimed at MLP (which I believe would also be AVS' majority recommendation).


OK, but in the meantime how about giving us just a sneak peek at that "Frank Lloyd Wright" screen alcove you teased us with? 

Will the rest of your HT feature prairie style elements?


----------



## nodular

jdsmoothie said:


> You will want to experiment with the height/distance to main listening position of the SKH-410 speakers as placing them on top of your existing towers/bookshelf speakers may not be the ideal location. Also try them in the rear as well to determine if they work well.


Ok thanks for your reply.
Will start with them on top of my Monitor Audio RX 6 floor standing speakers and see how I go.

My seating is approx 6ft from my front speakers and 5ft from my rear speakers.

Should be able to start wiring the amp up later when I get home from work! 

I currently have an Anthem MRX 700 which I love but wanted to embrace the new Atmos format.
Hoping the Denon is as good!


----------



## Gurba

lujan said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X5200W coming in tomorrow along with four in-ceiling type Klipsch speakers. I currently have a 7.1 or 7.2 system (not sure which?). They are NHT speakers with 2 LFE's and each LFE has it's separate amp so it might constitute .2? I'm adding the four in-ceiling speakers to my current setup. After looking at the Atmos site, it seems this would be the correct installation for the speakers:
> 
> 
> I can't find it now, but I read somewhere that the four speakers should be placed at around 30% in front of the listening area and 30% in back of the listening area. Does this placement sound correct?


You have 7.1. These numbers are channels not speakers. You can have 23477934868234 subwoofers and still it would be 7.1.


----------



## Stanton

rnewste said:


> I'm just hoping someday we will get: *GLADIATOR*, *AMADEUS*, and *THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER* in Atmos (can you imagine those sonar pings coming from the overhead speakers)!





audioguy said:


> I would place *The Abyss* at the head of the list


Now THAT would finally make me upgrade my *Abyss SE* laserdisc to Blu-Ray...


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> God's got nothing to do with it; it's all Michael Bay's fault.


----------



## stikle

Stanton said:


> Now THAT would finally make me upgrade my *Abyss SE* laserdisc to Blu-Ray...


Abyss is at the top of my wish list too...my old DVD isn't anamorphic and looks like crap.


----------



## lujan

Gurba said:


> You have 7.1. These numbers are channels not speakers. You can have 23477934868234 subwoofers and still it would be 7.1.


Good to know! What would make it 7.2 or two channels of LFE?


----------



## Scott Simonian

lujan said:


> Good to know! What would make it 7.2 or two channels of LFE?


No such thing.

7.2 is when someone owns two subwoofers and can't help but let us all know about it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> No such thing.
> 
> 7.2 is when someone owns two subwoofers and can't help but let us all know about it.


Didn't DTS-X have provisions for two LFE channels?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Didn't DTS-X have provisions for two LFE channels?


Where did you pull that from?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Scott Simonian said:


> No such thing.
> 
> 7.2 is when someone owns two subwoofers and can't help but let us all know about it.


It is perfectly valid to distinguish the speaker system from the source format. One can drive a 7.2.4 speaker system from Atmos content or from stereo - 7.1 content using DSU. One simply has to be clear about which thing the numbers refer. 

I think more information is better in these discussions.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's right but you don't have four LFE channels in your 7.4.4 system either, Roger. 

Stereo to Atmos. There is just one LFE channel.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Where did you pull that from?


A number of articles about CES were stating that DTS:X could handle 2.1 to 22.2 configurations.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> A number of articles were stating that DTS:X could handle 2.1 to 22.2 configurations.


Speakers, Dan. Not two LFE channels.

No different from Saying that Dolby Atmos supports 7.2.4 right now. That doesn't mean there are two LFE channels.

Read Rogers post up above this.


----------



## CCSchoch

Scott Simonian said:


> True that.... _but_!
> 
> There is very little content, sir. Waiting allows for more to arrive and is smart too.
> 
> I'm sure DSU is fun but a good 7.1 system ain't no slouch either.
> 
> Depends on the person and priorities. Wait it out or don't. Some simply can not afford to jump in now. Others don't want to have to upgrade in a year or so to support the other format.
> 
> If you own now, do enjoy! If not... better to wait just a few more months and support both.


Yup. Everyone's circumstance is different. I have the $ to upgrade, but I JUST went to 7.1 and am enjoying re-watching in 7.1 now. So I am going to wait for round 2 of Atmos and go 5.2.4 next year sometime (or end of this year). 

Plus lack of time to upgrade now, then upgrade again w/in 1 year, would rather just wait it out and do all in 1 shot.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> A number of articles about CES were stating that DTS:X could handle 2.1 to 22.2 configurations.



I recall reading a couple of papers from the 1990's which "suggested" that 'acoustical space perception' during playback of content set in large enclosed spaces (_think *catacombs*!_) might be enhanced through the use of two (distinct) *LFE* channels; however, I have not heard the results of any follow up research which may have been done. Nonetheless, around that time (1) *SMPTE* was adding assorted 'wides' and 'heights' to the list of allowed speakers, and (2) *NHK*|*STRL* was busy developing the *Hamasaki 22.2* configuration. Somehow the concept of _*provision for *_*LFE1*|*LFE2* vs just *LFE* gained general acceptance with *SMPTE*, *ITU*, etc. (likely because no one could definitively rule out "_some benefits, some time_"). This legacy appears to be perpetuated in the _recent _*Samsung*|*ETRI 10.2-vss* configuration (and other research layouts) . . . but widespread _theatrical or home_ content with *LFE1*|*LFE2* usage remains elusive!


_


----------



## nodular

NorthSky said:


> Congrats.


Thanks NorthSky.

Just finished work and picked up the amp and speakers from my parents house.
Looking forward to setting everything up later once my wife and kids are in bed!


----------



## briansxx

nodular said:


> Thanks NorthSky.
> 
> Just finished work and picked up the amp and speakers from my parents house.
> Looking forward to setting everything up later once my wife and kids are in bed!


Nodular,

You're gonna love it! Congrats!

Best,

Brian


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Just finished watching TMNT at full reference. What's not to like: Megan Fox and incredible audio!! Great plot? A real think piece? Incredible Acting!! Predictable? Who cares. Megan Fox and incredible audio !!!


Way to go. A man after my own heart. Not every movie has to be deep and meaningful. Sometimes just being entertained is enough. And some of TMNT made me laugh out loud - "Oh - he's doing his Batman voice again..." And he WAS. I thought that was very funny for example. Have I seen better examples of this type of movie? Sure. But I enjoyed this one too.




audioguy said:


> And I'm lowering my 4 surrounds from 71 inches (tweeter) to about 51 inches (tweeter) in two weeks. While Atmos is incredible, it is obvious after listening to a friends Atmos system with surrounds at a bit above ear level, the "bubble" effect in my room is a good bit less than in his.


Definitely A Good Idea. You will hear a big difference as the overheads and the surrounds enjoy more distance between them.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I would place *The Abyss* at the head of the list


I’d like True Lies too. It is a scandal that The Abyss and True Lies still don't have a Bluray release.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gurba said:


> You can have 23477934868234 subwoofers ...


Please don't give Scott any ideas....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Please don't give Scott any ideas....


Oh, he'll see it as a challenge.  I'd hate to see his hearing test afterwards, however...


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d like True Lies too. It is a scandal that The Abyss and True Lies still don't have a Bluray release.


And The Abyss was an early James Cameron film from 25 years ago!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

audioguy said:


> And The Abyss was an early James Cameron film from 25 years ago!


I was in 7th grade. And remember going to this movie specifically cause we heard it was under water and dark. Great for making out hahah. That's no joke btw


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Please don't give Scott any ideas....


Adding more 18's in 3....2....



Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, he'll see it as a challenge.  I'd hate to see his hearing test afterwards, however...


WAAAHTT?!?!


----------



## harrybnbad

One thing I dont see any one mentioning. Is, well its like this.

I live in florida, it a must to have ceiling fans. Is any body having to remove fans for atmos.

Not to mention. A center voice of god speaker. Where does that go, under the fans light.....lol


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> It is perfectly valid to distinguish the speaker system from the source format. One can drive a 7.2.4 speaker system from Atmos content or from stereo - 7.1 content using DSU. One simply has to be clear about which thing the numbers refer.
> 
> I think more information is better in these discussions.





Scott Simonian said:


> That's right but you don't have four LFE channels in your 7.4.4 system either, Roger.
> 
> Stereo to Atmos. There is just one LFE channel.


An interesting point for sure. Lets take a realistic view to this: In one way it is simple, in another it is more complex.

1. A 5.1-channel setup with a BD encoded in Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround audio soundtrack.
There are six discrete channels in the BD, and they are distributed to their six speakers respectively; simple enough.

2. A 7.1-channel setup with the same BD from above; the two back surrounds are not discrete when using DPLIIx or DTS Neo:6
It is still a 5.1 audio soundtrack, but this time "extrapolated" into two additional speakers (back surrounds).

3. An 11.1-channel setup with the same BD from above; now with DTS Neo:X six more speakers are deployed to "extrapolate" those six discrete channels (5.1) into twelve (or six more).

4. A Dolby Atmos 7.1.4-channel setup with TF4 on Blu-ray. What is happening now; how many discrete channels (spatial objects positioning) are embedded in TF4 from the Blu-ray?

5. A 24.8.10-channel setup with TF4 Dolby Atmos soundtrack from its Blu-ray (same as above). ...And same question as just above.

* The Blu-ray disc with its audio soundtrack; be it DTS-HD MA 7.1, Dolby TrueHD 7.1, Dolby Atmos, Auro-3D, is the determining factor.
We may split the LFE/Sub channel into two, Stereo, Quad, or even eight subwoofers with each sub attached to its own satellite speaker, plus the separate LFE channel subwoofer, but it is still what it is in the Blu-ray itself (audio mix done by the sound film mixer).

For a Mono, a 1.0, a 2.0, a 2.1, a 3.0, a 4.1. a 5.1, a 7.1 surround audio mix it is what it is.

But now with Dolby Atmos, Auro-3D, and dts:x, what is it exactly? ...How do we know what the film mixer did and did not?
The .1 LFE channel is always ONE Sub channel, even if you install ten subwoofers in your room.
All the satellite speakers in your room; be it a 7.2.4 up to a 24.8.10 setup (even a 5.1-channel setup), are just that; a setup.
...And they'll give you what's on the Blu-ray audio, or not. 
Dolby Atmos is based on spatial object rendition. ...Truly dimensional with pinpoint positioning.
Auro-3D is based on separate discrete channels (number). 

So, it is what's in the original audio mix that counts. ...Even if you install 256 speakers and 64 subwoofers and 88 overhead speakers in your room (256.64.88 channel speaker setup configuration). ...If you play a 5.1 audio soundtrack it is a 5.1-channel true discrete delivery with a lot of "extrapolation". 

With Dolby Atmos and dts:x it is different. What would be the very best of the very best setup configuration to take FULL advantage of all the future audio mixes on Blu-ray? ...From 'Transformers 4' to 'Gravity' to 'Exodus' to what will come in five years from now? 
Yes, a 7.1 setup is giving us already the benefit of a Dolby Atmos soundtrack, and a 5.1.2 setup also. 
Is 256.64.88 better?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Please don't give Scott any ideas....


Yup, next stop:


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Yup, next stop:













I'll take four.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, you are truly expressing your feelings/desires real clear, and loud.


----------



## zeus33

harrybnbad said:


> One thing I dont see any one mentioning. Is, well its like this.
> 
> I live in florida, it a must to have ceiling fans. Is any body having to remove fans for atmos.
> 
> Not to mention. A center voice of god speaker. Where does that go, under the fans light.....lol



They make ceiling fans with speakers in them.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all just a quick question if people can give me there input. After running the eq software on your av receiver, mine being accueq do you find yourself turning the speaker output level on your atmos speakers up ? I have just replaced my upfiring speakers for on ceiling kef 3001se speakers and they sound great but the accueq sets the levels at -5db i feel this is to low as front l/r and surrounds are set at 0db and 3db. Any tips on setting over head speaker levels correctly ?


----------



## Al Sherwood

zeus33 said:


> They make ceiling fans with speakers in them.


 
As long as the speakers are not at the end of the blades, then it would sound like an old Leslie organ!


----------



## jdsmoothie

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all just a quick question if people can give me there input. After running the eq software on your av receiver, mine being accueq do you find yourself turning the speaker output level on your atmos speakers up ? I have just replaced my upfiring speakers for on ceiling kef 3001se speakers and they sound great but the accueq sets the levels at -5db i feel this is to low as front l/r and surrounds are set at 0db and 3db. Any tips on setting over head speaker levels correctly ?


Sure. If you want more volume, simply raise the volume. It's your setup.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d like True Lies too. It is a scandal that The Abyss and True Lies still don't have a Bluray release.


Keith if you get a chance watch Basic [Blu-ray] (2003) Language: German (DTS-HD 6.1), English (DTS-HD 6.1) with John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson I really enjoyed it I think you would love it in DSU as I did. Helicopters, hurricane plus the movie was good.


----------



## zebidou81

jdsmoothie said:


> Sure. If you want more volume, simply raise the volume. It's your setup.


Thanks, i am considering turning the Onkyo accueq off on my receiver is this also fine to do or is it best left alone, the reason i ask this is when i run the accueq setup it seems to set my crossover settings high 120hz sometimes 150hz, and i know my speakers are happy at 80/100hz, if i turn the accueq off would it affect the Atmos sound effect ? or is it best to leave the accueq on and tweak crossover and level settings afterwards ? 

Do you know how the new accueq works ? i ask this as i feel if i change the settings it would cancel all eq settings or is this not the case ? 

Do you feel it is best staying with what settings the accueq sets or is it advisable to change settings ? my setup sounds good but i want it to sound the best it could, any tips would be much appreciated


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> And The Abyss was an early James Cameron film from 25 years ago!


*True Lies *is Jim Cameron too - but a few years after *The Abyss* (5?). I love both those movies and have to watch them on crappy DVD. There was a rumour that *The Abyss *would see Bluray this year in a special 25th Anniversary package, but no chance. The effects were groundbreaking for the time and the movie is pretty good in most respects. I used to use the storm sequence as demo material back in the day.

I don't know what is holding up these two movies - probably some sort of copyright problem somewhere. All it takes is for one copyright holder to refuse consent or to be out of contact for some reason (eg dead, with difficulty over where the rights were assigned after death) and the whole thing is stuck. I am only speculating that as a possible reason - like I say, IDK.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Keith if you get a chance watch Basic [Blu-ray] (2003) Language: German (DTS-HD 6.1), English (DTS-HD 6.1) with John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson I really enjoyed it I think you would love it in DSU as I did. Helicopters, hurricane plus the movie was good.


I will look out for it, thanks. SLJ is one of my favorite actors.


----------



## BillyNedwell

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all just a quick question if people can give me there input. After running the eq software on your av receiver, mine being accueq do you find yourself turning the speaker output level on your atmos speakers up ? I have just replaced my upfiring speakers for on ceiling kef 3001se speakers and they sound great but the accueq sets the levels at -5db i feel this is to low as front l/r and surrounds are set at 0db and 3db. Any tips on setting over head speaker levels correctly ?


I think a few here may have mentioned increasing overhead speaker volumes to gain "a better" Atmos experience. IMO, I feel that you do not need to notice them. My whole immersive experience works well and that may be because the tops blend well into my speaker layout. I have listened to many movies where from the MLP I cannot here the top speakers working to the point where (like most of us) I end up standing on a chair to put my ear to them to find they are indeed in use. I have now stopped doubting the auto EQ and relax and enjoy my system. So far, when the tops need to work harder, they do.


----------



## kbarnes701

BillyNedwell said:


> I think a few here may have mentioned increasing overhead speaker volumes to gain "a better" Atmos experience. IMO, I feel that you do not need to notice them. My whole immersive experience works well and that may be because the tops blend well into my speaker layout. I have listened to many movies where from the MLP I cannot here the top speakers working to the point where (like most of us) I end up standing on a chair to put my ear to them to find they are indeed in use. I have now stopped doubting the auto EQ and relax and enjoy my system. So far, when the tops need to work harder, they do.


My view too. You don't want them constantly drawing attention to themselves. With movies the prime focus should always be the front soundstage where the screen is. The overheads, like the surrounds, should contribute without constantly drawing attention to themselves, but they should do precisely that when the mixer has determined that it is required. So mostly, they blend in to create an overall immersive sound, but now and then they will 'show' themselves - overheads are no different to other surrounds in this sense.

Personally, I would be reluctant to raise the levels over and above what the REQ set them to as I think it will give undue emphasis to the overhead speakers. IME, Audyssey's XT32 is especially good at setting levels. When I use a test disc (not the built-in test tones which bypass the EQ) and my calibrated mic and REW to measure SPL after running XT32, the levels are all spot on and within .5dB of each other.

Of course, as JD has just said, if someone wants to bump up the levels of the overheads, well, that's fine. It's their system and their money and their ears.


----------



## bargervais

BillyNedwell said:


> I think a few here may have mentioned increasing overhead speaker volumes to gain "a better" Atmos experience. IMO, I feel that you do not need to notice them. My whole immersive experience works well and that may be because the tops blend well into my speaker layout. I have listened to many movies where from the MLP I cannot here the top speakers working to the point where (like most of us) I end up standing on a chair to put my ear to them to find they are indeed in use. I have now stopped doubting the auto EQ and relax and enjoy my system. So far, when the tops need to work harder, they do.


I was guilty of this very thing after spending hours running wires buying and hanging speakers.... I wanted to hear them sing to the point I raised their levels. Atmos and DSU is more then just overhead speakers like we have been talking about it's immersion watching a movie within that bubble of sound and now I too am now sitting back and enjoying my Atmos systems..


----------



## dvdwilly3

*DTS vs Dolby...Bluray player settings...*

I thought that it might be worth mentioning that you should check your player settings when you are setting up Dolby Atmos. I have not been a real fan of DTS encoded movies for some time. They always seemed "off".

Since setting up my 5.1.2, when I played back any DTS disk, I was not thrilled...the sound mapping was off. In particular, dialogue was buried. Finally, I went back and looked at the manual for my BDP-S7200 looking for the DTS settings that I knew were in there.

Sure enough on page 29, under DTS:NEO 6, there was a setting that said "Cinema/Music" or "Off". Probably when I got the player I had set the toggle to "Cinema/Music" without reading too closely instead of "Off". Big mistake...I reset it to "Off" and now thoroughly enjoy the DTS encoded movies.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> *True Lies *is Jim Cameron too - but a few years after *The Abyss* (5?). I love both those movies and have to watch them on crappy DVD. There was a rumour that *The Abyss *would see Bluray this year in a special 25th Anniversary package, but no chance. The effects were groundbreaking for the time and the movie is pretty good in most respects. I used to use the storm sequence as demo material back in the day.
> 
> I don't know what is holding up these two movies - probably some sort of copyright problem somewhere. All it takes is for one copyright holder to refuse consent or to be out of contact for some reason (eg dead, with difficulty over where the rights were assigned after death) and the whole thing is stuck. I am only speculating that as a possible reason - like I say, IDK.


If you have not seen The Directors Cut of The Abyss, you will have missed the real intent of the film. When I saw it in the theater, it made little sense to me. Then I saw the Directors Cut on Laser Disc


----------



## asere

I do not have Dolby Atmos just a 5.1 set up but when watching Transformers Age of Extinction and TMNT the audio seemed cleaner and more dynamic. Could be my imagination simply because those titles have the Dolby Atmos label but something about the sound seemed richer to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> If you have not seen The Directors Cut of The Abyss, you will have missed the real intent of the film. When I saw it in the theater, it made little sense to me. Then I saw the Directors Cut on Laser Disc


Is that the 171 minute version? I believe my DVD is the 139 minute version.


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> I do not have Dolby Atmos just a 5.1 set up but when watching Transformers Age of Extinction and TMNT the audio seemed cleaner and more dynamic. Could be my imagination simply because those titles have the Dolby Atmos label but something about the sound seemed richer to me.


Probably because of the mix and the way that the mixer was able to use the object technology. You won’t be benefiting from that as such, but you will still benefit from a great mix.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> Probably because of the mix and the way that the mixer was able to use the object technology. You won’t be benefiting from that as such, but you will still benefit from a great mix.


You are probably right. The mix was out of this world for sure.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Dolby Atmos Demo*

Can someone direct me to the download site for the Dolby Atmos demo file . I tried a download suggested in a earlier post and made a disc per the instructions but it was not recognized on my Oppo player . Maybe there is a commercial version out there to buy, surprised actually I did not get one with my Denon X5200. 

I have Atmos movies, TMNT, Expendables3 and TF4 but would also like to explore the demo clips as well just to be sure everything is working as it should.


----------



## Trigen

roxiedog13 said:


> Can someone direct me to the download site for the Dolby Atmos demo file . I tried a download suggested in a earlier post and made a disc per the instructions but it was not recognized on my Oppo player . Maybe there is a commercial version out there to buy, surprised actually I did not get one with my Denon X5200.
> 
> I have Atmos movies, TMNT, Expendables3 and TF4 but would also like to explore the demo clips as well just to be sure everything is working as it should.


There are four clips at http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


----------



## lujan

Trigen said:


> There are four clips at http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


These are .m2ts files. Do we just burn them onto a blu-ray disk and that's all we need to do to get them to work?


----------



## Trigen

lujan said:


> These are .m2ts files. Do we just burn them onto a blu-ray disk and that's all we need to do to get them to work?


Easiest would be to have it on usb stick and play via your BD player, if it is able to. Or else burn a BD.


----------



## robert816

lujan said:


> These are .m2ts files. Do we just burn them onto a blu-ray disk and that's all we need to do to get them to work?


Trigen is correct, if all you have are the .mts files, there is no need to burn them to a Blu-Ray disc. Use a USB thumb drive formatted for large files (greater than 4GB), plug USB drive into your Blu-Ray player and play from there.

If you do want to burn them to a Blu-Ray disc, burn them as a data disc instead of a video disc.


----------



## jdsmoothie

lujan said:


> I'm currently installing the new X5200W but the first part of the Audyssey calibration is on the Subwoofer. It's indicating that "Your Subwoofer 1's level is too low. If your subwoofer has a volume control in it, select "SW Level Matching" to interactively adjust the level of your subwoofer."
> 
> I've turned the volume all the way up to 100% and it never comes even close to 75 db's that it's trying to reach? Am I doing something wrong?


As this is not relevant to Atmos, please post in either the Denon Owner's thread or Audyssey thread. Thanks.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...el-thread-x4100-x5200-x7200.html#post26013746


----------



## lujan

jdsmoothie said:


> As this is not relevant to Atmos, please post in either the Denon Owner's thread or Audyssey thread. Thanks.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...el-thread-x4100-x5200-x7200.html#post26013746


Sorry, I thought I was on the Denon thread.


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Trigen is correct, if all you have are the .mts files, there is no need to burn them to a Blu-Ray disc. Use a USB thumb drive formatted for large files (greater than 4GB), plug USB drive into your Blu-Ray player and play from there.
> 
> If you do want to burn them to a Blu-Ray disc, burn them as a data disc instead of a video disc.


Great, have a 8GB USB thumb drive will try that. Picked up a package of Blu ray Discs too just in case I have to burn.


----------



## mp5475

roxiedog13 said:


> Great, have a 8GB USB thumb drive will try that. Picked up a package of Blu ray Discs too just in case I have to burn.


Please let us know if this works. I am going to try same thing with usb thumb drive. But I have a Samsung blueray player. So I doubt it's going to work.


----------



## roxiedog13

mp5475 said:


> Please let us know if this works. I am going to try same thing with usb thumb drive. But I have a Samsung blueray player. So I doubt it's going to work.


I have the Oppo 103D and it does have the USB input, so certainly hoping it will work. Will advise later tonight.


----------



## BigScreen

rnewste said:


> I'm just hoping someday we will get: *GLADIATOR*, *AMADEUS*, and *THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER* in Atmos (can you imagine those sonar pings coming from the overhead speakers)!


You can already enjoy these movies by engaging DSU, and my guess is the effect would be the same that you would get from someone going back to those movies and doing a "Save As Dolby Atmos" out of the mixing software. 

The only way I think you're going to get something better is to get the original sound mixers to go back to the source materials for those movies and spend a huge amount of time redesigning the sound mix. As good as those movies were, I don't think there's any chance that such time and expense will be expended on a catalog title.

That said, I think that both Gladiator and Hunt for Red October have scenes which could be a lot of fun with good use of height and object-based sound mixing. You might want to give them a try with DSU and see what you think. (I would be happy to do so if someone would be so kind as to send me a Yamaha 3040 or Denon 5200 to test with... )


----------



## Brian Fineberg

roxiedog13 said:


> I have the Oppo 103D and it does have the USB input, so certainly hoping it will work. Will advise later tonight.


It will. That's how I am watching them on my 103


----------



## Josh Z

Gurba said:


> You have 7.1. These numbers are channels not speakers. You can have 23477934868234 subwoofers and still it would be 7.1.


Dolby Atmos does not technically have channels at all. By your logic, everyone trying to distinguish their Atmos set-ups as 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4 are all wrong.


----------



## maikeldepotter

asere said:


> I do not have Dolby Atmos just a 5.1 set up but when watching Transformers Age of Extinction and TMNT the audio seemed cleaner and more dynamic. Could be my imagination simply because those titles have the Dolby Atmos label but something about the sound seemed richer to me.


With the overheads apparently silent most of the time in those Atmos mixes, you probably won't notice any difference in sound for most of the time when you would compare your standard 5.1 with a 5.1.4 Atmos set-up. Reason: backwards compatibility ensures objects are placed in the 5.1 channel bed in exactly the same way as the object renderer in an ATMOS receiver directs the sound to the available speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

A Dolby Atmos setup of 7.1 (the normal speaker configuration we now have in our normal room, and from DTS-HD MA 7.1 and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround audio soundtracks); would be real swell to take advantage/benefit from a Dolby Atmos embedded/encoded audio soundtrack on Blu-ray say from an upcoming BD Atmos title like 'Gravity' for example, and in 3D picture too, not just 3D sound.

Sure we can always add two or four more additional speakers above in or on our ceiling, or two or four Atmos upfiring module speakers, integrated or separate; but would be nice too to spare us of the expense, you know ....


----------



## Roger Dressler

BigScreen said:


> You can already enjoy these movies by engaging DSU, and my guess is the effect would be the same that you would get from someone going back to those movies and doing a "Save As Dolby Atmos" out of the mixing software. The only way I think you're going to get something better is to get the original sound mixers to go back to the source materials for those movies and spend a huge amount of time redesigning the sound mix. As good as those movies were, I don't think there's any chance that such time and expense will be expended on a catalog title.


The costs are indeed an issue. But I trust the results would be significantly different (better) than simply using DSU. And maybe we could finally get a Blu-ray with the original cinema release version of Amadeus. That was a perfect opportunity for seamless branching (as was nicely done in The Abyss), and they didn't use it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> Dolby Atmos does not technically have channels at all.


Sure it does.


----------



## funhouse69

Trigen said:


> There are four clips at http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


Oh man thanks for posting this, I totally forgot about this link / these demo files since getting my new AVR's (don't ask) and now that I have my Atmos Speakers installed I wanted a good way to demo them. 

These are AWESOME - I love the first one "Atmos Amaze" which in my opinion is the best of the four thankfully my Mede8er Played them just like that and actually played then one after another (like a play list). 

I can not wait for more movies to come out with Atmos, I assume that as it becomes more commonplace we should get more use of it? As it sits right now the Atmos Speakers are used very little in the movies I've tried (Latest Transformers / TMNJ) I picked up Expendables 3 Blu Ray off e-bay but it must be a rental or something as it only has the 5.1 Track =(


----------



## roxiedog13

Brian Fineberg said:


> It will. That's how I am watching them on my 103


 
I put the Atmos Demo .m2ts files on my USB stick and plugged it in the Oppo 103D but could not get it to play the files. The display immediately recognized there was a devise in the front USB port but I could not figure out how to run the same. On the remote I selected input which has a selection for the front HDMI but even with this selected it does not run. Couldn't find another
way to make this work, maybe you could tell me what I need to do .


On a positive note ,I did manage to get the Atmos ceiling speakers working as they should . Running another test I discovered that I had the rear Atmos running mono bridged off the 
Behringer Amp. I didn't pick up the fact that both speakers were firing instead of left and right and this certainly killed the effect. Watching Planet of the Apes tonight I could clearly hear
the rain falling from above, very effective and pleasing to FINALLY get results after so much time , money and work . I know this is not an Atmos movie but it certainly made excellent use
of the overhead speakers and I was in row 2 not even in the MLP to be honest. For reference I was running Dolby Surround, I assume this would be DSU ??


----------



## roxiedog13

funhouse69 said:


> Oh man thanks for posting this, I totally forgot about this link / these demo files since getting my new AVR's (don't ask) and now that I have my Atmos Speakers installed I wanted a good way to demo them.
> 
> These are AWESOME - I love the first one "Atmos Amaze" which in my opinion is the best of the four thankfully my Mede8er Played them just like that and actually played then one after another (like a play list).
> 
> I can not wait for more movies to come out with Atmos, I assume that as it becomes more commonplace we should get more use of it? As it sits right now the Atmos Speakers are used very little in the movies I've tried (Latest Transformers / TMNJ) I picked up Expendables 3 Blu Ray off e-bay but it must be a rental or something as it only has the 5.1 Track =(



Did you burn to a Blu Ray disc or USB stick ?


----------



## Trigen

funhouse69 said:


> Oh man thanks for posting this, I totally forgot about this link / these demo files since getting my new AVR's (don't ask) and now that I have my Atmos Speakers installed I wanted a good way to demo them.
> 
> These are AWESOME - I love the first one "Atmos Amaze" which in my opinion is the best of the four thankfully my Mede8er Played them just like that and actually played then one after another (like a play list).
> 
> I can not wait for more movies to come out with Atmos, I assume that as it becomes more commonplace we should get more use of it? As it sits right now the Atmos Speakers are used very little in the movies I've tried (Latest Transformers / TMNJ) I picked up Expendables 3 Blu Ray off e-bay but it must be a rental or something as it only has the 5.1 Track =(


Lionsgate rental does have lossy audio.

Try "Identity" with Dolby Surround Upmixer if you like the sound of rain.


----------



## funhouse69

roxiedog13 said:


> Did you burn to a Blu Ray disc or USB stick ?


No I have a Mede8er Media Player that passes Atmos Audio without an issue I just copied the files up to my NAS and played them just as they were (no conversion).


----------



## funhouse69

Trigen said:


> Lionsgate rental does have lossy audio.
> 
> Try "Identity" with Dolby Surround Upmixer if you like the sound of rain.


I will check it out, I love the soundtrack of Into the Storm the movie itself well that is another story. I watched it before I added my ceiling speakers and again after and what a huge difference with the DSU!!!

Makes me wonder if Twister would be any good.


----------



## Nalleh

Yeii, another Bluray with Atmos: VICE.







http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Vice-Blu-ray/122728/


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> Yeii, another Bluray with Atmos: VICE.


Didn't have a theatrical Atmos mix, so it's another movie (like 'Step Up' and 'John Wick') where Lionsgate is doing an Atmos mix specifically for home video. Wish other studios were as enthusiastic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> Yeii, another Bluray with Atmos: VICE.
> 
> http://youtu.be/ETtLM0NI-Ug
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Vice-Blu-ray/122728/


Bruce is really slumming it. Pretty quickly he'll be on the trajectory of Nick Cage.


----------



## Trigen

roxiedog13 said:


> Did you burn to a Blu Ray disc or USB stick ?


Does selecting "Movies" at the "top menu" not allow to select the USB media (in the file browser screen)?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Dolby Atmos does not technically have channels at all. By your logic, everyone trying to distinguish their Atmos set-ups as 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4 are all wrong.


Atmos does have channels, as well as objects. But the point made was a good one - 7.2 or 7.4 is,. strictly speaking, meaningless as the .1 describes the LFE channel and no matter how many subwoofers someone has there is still only one LFE channel. Over time, here on AVS, people have taken to using the number after the dot to describe how many subs they have in their system, but technically and accurately, that is not correct. We all have a xx.1 system.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Bruce is really slumming it. Pretty quickly he'll be on the trajectory of Nick Cage.


Nic Cage doesn't have a trajectory... if you graphed his career it would look like this.

In last year's *Joe*, for example, he is really very good.


----------



## BillyNedwell

sdurani said:


> Didn't have a theatrical Atmos mix, so it's another movie (like 'Step Up' and 'John Wick') where Lionsgate is doing an Atmos mix specifically for home video. Wish other studios were as enthusiastic.


A way to increase sales of poor movies............................................give it an atmos audio format.


----------



## roxiedog13

Trigen said:


> Does selecting "Movies" at the "top menu" not allow to select the USB media (in the file browser screen)?


 
Will know in 5 minutes. ..................Yup, that worked, just listened to all the Demos that I loaded to the USB stick. My Atmos setup is certainly starting to deliver.............finally.


The rear in-ceiling speakers work much more effective than the front up firing modules but my front modules are in a less than ideal location too. One I install front in-ceiling , and add 


middle ceiling speakers ( coming soon I hope) the sound should be great for both rows.


----------



## JoeyW

BillyNedwell said:


> A way to increase sales of poor movies............................................give it an atmos audio format.


Coming soon to bluray: Debbie Does Dallas. Featuring a new 4K scan from the original camera negative and remastered in glorious Dolby Atmos. With stunning visuals and immersive audio it will confrim, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you'll never have a woman like Debbie.


----------



## dvdwilly3

*DTS:X for existing Onkyo*

I am as interested as everyone in DTS:X. Looking at the features of my TX-NR737, I see that it features a processor for DTS-HD MA. Is DTS:X that much of a stretch? 

That is, wouldn't it be analogous to the firmware upgrade for the Dolby processor from Dolby True HD to Dolby Atmos? I know that most on the forum say that it is not likely to be a firmware upgrade. Still hoping, I guess...


----------



## ambesolman

JoeyW said:


> Coming soon to bluray: Debbie Does Dallas. Featuring a new 4K scan from the original camera negative and remastered in glorious Dolby Atmos. With stunning visuals and immersive audio it will confrim, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you'll never have a woman like Debbie.



High rez '78 bush? I'll pass


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## sdurani

BillyNedwell said:


> A way to increase sales of poor movies............................................give it an atmos audio format.


Hopefully increase sales of all movies; good, bad and ugly. If Atmos mixes are seen as $ then there will be incentive to have more of them.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am as interested as everyone in DTS:X. Looking at the features of my TX-NR737, I see that it features a processor for DTS-HD MA.  Is DTS:X that much of a stretch?


Big stretch. Unpacking a zipped file (DTS-HD MA) takes less DSP horsepower than live rendering of audio objects (DTS:X).


> That is, wouldn't it be analogous to the firmware upgrade for the Dolby processor from Dolby True HD to Dolby Atmos?


Very analogous. TrueHD receivers and pre-pros could not be updated to Atmos. The only way to get Atmos was by buying a new receiver or pre-pro. Don't expect different for DTS:X.


----------



## BillyNedwell

sdurani said:


> Hopefully increase sales of all movies; good, bad and ugly. If Atmos mixes are seen as $ then there will be incentive to have more of them.


A positive spin, thank you. I must remember to be more positive, however it's difficult on a Saturday afternoon when you are a Millwall fan. Oh what i would give for a top notch movie on blu ray with an Atmos soundtrack and 3 points.


----------



## ghiggs001

*Making USB stick for Dobly ATMOS demos*



Trigen said:


> There are four clips at http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


Is there anyone on this thread who could give a step-by-step procedure to make a USB STICK with the Dobly ATMOS Demos from the demo-world website? It would help those like me who is not computer/internet savy. Would be greatly appreciated.
Thaks
George


----------



## Aras_Volodka

It looks like the "gravity" atmos BD release got pushed back to late March  

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Edition-Sandra-Bullock/dp/B00PGHUJOO


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> It looks like the "gravity" atmos BD release got pushed back to late March
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Edition-Sandra-Bullock/dp/B00PGHUJOO


We've known this for a while, but thanks anyway!


----------



## kuro6010

Anybody willing to burn me a Dolby Atmos demo disk. I am willing to pay for it for a reasonable price.


----------



## brahman12

*Quick and early impressions of Atmos experience*

So got my setup up and running..... Yamaha 3040 with Crown XLS1000 bridged running center channel and Crown XLS1500 running front L/R channels. Running 7.2.4 (front on ceiling and rear on ceiling) and coming from 7.2 Onkyo 805 driven system that had been running since 2007. Posting to hopefully provide some more ear-witness info for anyone interested or on the fence. Have been listening and tweaking for about two weeks now and I am greatly pleased. Very nice and relaxed/effortless sound with awesome panning, soundstage width and depth with awesome dynamics....very smooth and fatigue free. Transformers 4 was absolutely amazing - powerful, balanced, and immersive. Expendables 3 was a great mix as well.... DSU enabled viewing - Dawn of the Apes=very good, Skyfall=very good, Attack of the Clones=awesome, Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol=awesome, Scott Pilgrim=awesome. No serious music listening yet. Hope this helps


----------



## Gurba

Josh Z said:


> Dolby Atmos does not technically have channels at all. By your logic, everyone trying to distinguish their Atmos set-ups as 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4 are all wrong.


Technically all AVRs have channels.


----------



## ThePrisoner

brahman12 said:


> So got my setup up and running..... Yamaha 3040 with Crown XLS1000 bridged running center channel and Crown XLS1500 running front L/R channels. Running 7.2.4 (front on ceiling and rear on ceiling) and coming from 7.2 Onkyo 805 driven system that had been running since 2007. Posting to hopefully provide some more ear-witness info for anyone interested or on the fence. Have been listening and tweaking for about two weeks now and I am greatly pleased. Very nice and relaxed/effortless sound with awesome panning, soundstage width and depth with awesome dynamics....very smooth and fatigue free. Transformers 4 was absolutely amazing - powerful, balanced, and immersive. Expendables 3 was a great mix as well.... DSU enabled viewing - Dawn of the Apes=very good, Skyfall=very good, Attack of the Clones=awesome, Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol=awesome, Scott Pilgrim=awesome. No serious music listening yet. Hope this helps


Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes was real good, especially the rain taking place in the forest. The Burj Khalifa scene from Ghost Protocol was great, now I have to try Skyfall based on your and others recommendation. Glad your enjoying your setup!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Quote:
Originally Posted by *dvdwilly3*  
_I am as interested as everyone in DTS:X. Looking at the features of my TX-NR737, I see that it features a processor for DTS-HD MA. Is DTS:X that much of a stretch?_

Big stretch. Unpacking a zipped file (DTS-HD MA) takes less DSP horsepower than live rendering of audio objects (DTS:X). Quote:
_That is, wouldn't it be analogous to the firmware upgrade for the Dolby processor from Dolby True HD to Dolby Atmos?_

Very analogous. TrueHD receivers and pre-pros could not be updated to Atmos. The only way to get Atmos was by buying a new receiver or pre-pro. Don't expect different for DTS:X.

Not trying to be argumentative (which of course, I am...). I follow your first statement re rendering of audio objects requiring more DSP horsepower than unpacking a zipped file. That makes sense to me.

However, I do not follow your last statement..."...The only way to get Atmos was by buying a new receiver...". 

I copied the following from the TX-NR737 Specs...
Processing Dolby Atmos Ready ✓ 32-Bit Digital Signal Processing Engine ✓ (Dual DSP for Powerful Advanced Processing) Dolby Decoder True HD, DD Plus, PLIIz DTS Decoder DTS-HD Master Audio Dolby PLIIz ✓
So, the TX-NR737 (and other Onkyos) were released as True HD receivers, and then subsequently were updated to Dolby Atmos via a firmware upgrade. 

And, following my train of logic, even though the TX-NR737 specs do not say "DTS-X Ready", wouldn't/couldn't the firmware upgrade be possible on this receiver the same way that it was done for Atmos.

What am I missing? Is it an either/or case, that is, you could at least theoretically have either Atmos or DTS:X, but not both at the same time? Because of lack of storage capacity on the DSP chip? Other?


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdwilly3*
> _I am as interested as everyone in DTS:X. Looking at the features of my TX-NR737, I see that it features a processor for DTS-HD MA. Is DTS:X that much of a stretch?_
> 
> Big stretch. Unpacking a zipped file (DTS-HD MA) takes less DSP horsepower than live rendering of audio objects (DTS:X). Quote:
> _That is, wouldn't it be analogous to the firmware upgrade for the Dolby processor from Dolby True HD to Dolby Atmos?_
> 
> Very analogous. TrueHD receivers and pre-pros could not be updated to Atmos. The only way to get Atmos was by buying a new receiver or pre-pro. Don't expect different for DTS:X.
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative (which of course, I am...). I follow your first statement re rendering of audio objects requiring more DSP horsepower than unpacking a zipped file. That makes sense to me.
> 
> However, I do not follow your last statement..."...The only way to get Atmos was by buying a new receiver...".
> 
> I copied the following from the TX-NR737 Specs...
> Processing Dolby Atmos Ready ✓ 32-Bit Digital Signal Processing Engine ✓ (Dual DSP for Powerful Advanced Processing) Dolby Decoder True HD, DD Plus, PLIIz DTS Decoder DTS-HD Master Audio Dolby PLIIz ✓
> So, the TX-NR737 (and other Onkyos) were released as True HD receivers, and then subsequently were updated to Dolby Atmos via a firmware upgrade.
> 
> And, following my train of logic, even though the TX-NR737 specs do not say "DTS-X Ready", wouldn't/couldn't the firmware upgrade be possible on this receiver the same way that it was done for Atmos.
> 
> What am I missing? Is it an either/or case, that is, you could at least theoretically have either Atmos or DTS:X, but not both at the same time? Because of lack of storage capacity on the DSP chip? Other?


Well, I messed that up...my quotes were marked, but sdurani's were not. My apologies to Sanjay...


----------



## pasender91

Don't worry we still got you 
I second your position, DTS:X requires extra CPU to process 3D audio, but so does Atmos.
So an Atmos receiver should have enough "juice" to process DTS:X.
I hope it will come our way (Marantz 7009 in my case, please mister D+M, if you're listening, implement DTS:X on it ), but two issues arise:
1) technical wise, each software component takes some memory, maybe AVRs cannot fit DTS:X on top of existing sofware.
2) marketing wise, maybe vendors will not do it as it could reduce sales of 2015 models which will have embedded DTS:X


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Over time, here on AVS, people have taken to using the number after the dot to describe how many subs they have in their system, but technically and accurately, that is not correct. We all have a xx.1 system.


If one is talking about a speaker system, it is perfectly valid to state how many main/height/subwoofer units are in the system. 

It is also valid to talk about the signal configuration coming out of the surround decoder that is feeding, for example, 7.4.4 speaker system, e.g. 7.4.2 or 5.2.1 (depending on the unit). More information and specificity is better than less, IMHO. But we cannot throw these numbers around without the context being clear.


----------



## funhouse69

Aras_Volodka said:


> It looks like the "gravity" atmos BD release got pushed back to late March
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Edition-Sandra-Bullock/dp/B00PGHUJOO


Now that seems like a movie that would be really cool in Atmos, its really amazing without Atmos and even better with DSU!


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> It looks like the "gravity" atmos BD release got pushed back to late March
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Edition-Sandra-Bullock/dp/B00PGHUJOO


Maybe because it will also include the dts:x audio version on that 3D picture disc version? 
{The separate 2D disc version will have the Dolby Atmos audio version.}

♦ I think*'Gravity'** deserves the honors.

* The original BD (2D & 3D) is in DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (48kHz/16-bit).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

funhouse69 said:


> Now that seems like a movie that would be really cool in Atmos, its really amazing without Atmos and even better with DSU!


I'd still say it's the best example of Atmos' capabilities so far. Hopefully, they don't tamper with the mix in its translation to the home.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> If one is talking about a speaker system, it is perfectly valid to state how many main/height/subwoofer units are in the system.
> 
> It is also valid to talk about the signal configuration coming out of the surround decoder that is feeding, for example, 7.4.4 speaker system, e.g. 7.4.2 or 5.2.1 (depending on the unit). More information and specificity is better than less, IMHO. But we cannot throw these numbers around without the context being clear.


Of course Roger; *Atmos 7.4.4* is very well indicated in your sig.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> *1.* The costs are indeed an issue. *But I trust the results would be significantly different (better) than simply using DSU. *
> 
> *2. *And maybe we could finally get a Blu-ray with the original cinema release version of Amadeus. That was a* perfect opportunity for seamless branching* (as was nicely done in The Abyss), and they didn't use it.


*
1.* Roger could you please explain why this would be the case: as in, why would a 7.1 Dolby HD BD re-mixed to 7.x.1 Atmos by film mixer be better than the same 7.1 BD upmixing by DSU to 7.x.1? To use one example, bird sound in right rear channel of 7.1 Dolby HD BD: even the film mixer wants to, how could he extract that bird sound from the channel bed to be on the ceiling? And second is it really what they do in remixing for Atmos: extracting specific sound from the channel beds and bring it elsewhere using object based surround?

*2. *What is about Amadeus that makes it a great candidate for seamless branching? Just curious to hear what you are thinking. TIA


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> *
> 1.* Roger could you please explain why this would be the case: as in, why would a 7.1 Dolby HD BD re-mixed to 7.x.1 Atmos by film mixer be better than the same 7.1 BD upmixing by DSU to 7.x.1? To use one example, bird sound in right rear channel of 7.1 Dolby HD BD: even the film mixer wants to, how could he extract that bird sound from the channel bed to be on the ceiling? And second is it really what they do in remixing for Atmos: extracting specific sound from the channel beds and bring it elsewhere using object based surround?


At minimum, a session intended for remixing to object audio starts with the mixers having access to the original Pro Tools session, and if not that, the DME stems. These offer lots of opportunities to move things around. In fact, that how some Atmos were made. 



> *2. *What is about Amadeus that makes it a great candidate for seamless branching? Just curious to hear what you are thinking. TIA


Amadeus was released on LD in the original theatrical cut, and released again on Blu-ray with the extended director's cut. Both sets of decisions have already been made.


----------



## roxiedog13

ghiggs001 said:


> Is there anyone on this thread who could give a step-by-step procedure to make a USB STICK with the Dobly ATMOS Demos from the demo-world website? It would help those like me who is not computer/internet savy. Would be greatly appreciated.
> Thaks
> George



First of all, I'm not "computer savvy" but what I have learned is. Go to the Demo-world site , choose the files you wish to demo and download all of these to a file. The files are .m2ts and once you have them saved in a file of your choice you just go to that same file, *right mouse* click on each file and choose *send to* from the drop down menu. With your USB stick in your computer the drop down menu should show the stick( you have in your PC) as a send to device option and you just send the files as they are to that device . You do not have to unzip the file or burn, just copy from the demo-world site to your computer, then copy from your computer to your USB stick.


As long as your AVR or Player has a USB port and is capable of playing these files you should now be good to go. On my Oppo I had to choose movie from the main menu, the USB stick which was inserted showed as an option and you just select the file from there to play.


----------



## ghiggs001

roxiedog13 said:


> First of all, I'm not "computer savvy" but what I have learned is. Go to the Demo-world site , choose the files you wish to demo and download all of these to a file. The files are .m2ts and once you have them saved in a file of your choice you just go to that same file, *right mouse* click on each file and choose *send to* from the drop down menu. With your USB stick in your computer the drop down menu should show the stick( you have in your PC) as a send to device option and you just send the files as they are to that device . You do not have to unzip the file or burn, just copy from the demo-world site to your computer, then copy from your computer to your USB stick.
> 
> 
> As long as your AVR or Player has a USB port and is capable of playing these files you should now be good to go. On my Oppo I had to choose movie from the main menu, the USB stick which was inserted showed as an option and you just select the file from there to play.


roxiedog:
Thanks. I will try it, then let you know of my result.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> So, the TX-NR737 (and other Onkyos) were released as True HD receivers, and then subsequently were updated to Dolby Atmos via a firmware upgrade.


Those models were always intended to have Atmos, which is why they didn't have Audyssey (to free up DSP resources for Atmos). The only company that shipped with Atmos already inside was Denon/Marantz. The rest (Onkyo/Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha) released Atmos-ready receivers and updated them to Atmos later via firmware. None of these were just "True HD receivers".


> And, following my train of logic, even though the TX-NR737 specs do not say "DTS-X Ready", wouldn't/couldn't the firmware upgrade be possible on this receiver the same way that it was done for Atmos.


Doubt it, but would be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## ghiggs001

ghiggs001 said:


> roxiedog:
> Thanks. I will try it, then let you know of my result.


rosiedog:
Good news. I followed your instructions and was very successful in creating the Dolby Atmos domos on a USB stick. Played both the regular and the lossless versions through my OPPO 103. The overall system sounded GREAT. I guest that others who are interested in generated a demo USB stick can utilize your procedure.
Once again, Thanks
George


----------



## NorthSky

Do they play from a non-Dolby Atmos pre/pro (receiver)?


----------



## CBdicX

I do not understand the to Atmos "updates" that some brands give.
I read an artical about Atmos and this clearly states that when a receiver will do Atmos it must have a *CP850* processor.
In other words, it needs a hardware part to do Atmos (the correct way).


So, whats the deal with software updates, what kind of Atmos is that when a receiver will not have the CP850 ?


----------



## NorthSky

Roger is your man.


----------



## Lesmor

Gurba said:


> You have 7.1. These numbers are channels not speakers. You can have 23477934868234 subwoofers and still it would be 7.1.


That might well be the case but I did read somewhere that the Atmos spec for cinemas is for subs at the front and at the rear and that is also what they use for mixing legacy 5.1 discs to 7.1 Atmos

Now whether both subs get the same *BASS* frequencies or are discrete I have not been able to confirm.
I agree .1 is for LFE but a sub is not just for LFE

Therefore in light of the above I will stick with X.2.X as a description if I am using 2 independent sub outputs.
Now whether there will ever be an AVR with 2 discrete sub outputs ( If indeed it is confirmed they are discrete) utilised as intended by Dolby Atmos is another question.
Remember Dolby has given manufacturers free reign as to how they implement Atmos in their products.


----------



## pasender91

CBdicX said:


> I do not understand the to Atmos "updates" that some brands give.
> I read an artical about Atmos and this clearly states that when a receiver will do Atmos it must have a *CP850* processor.
> In other words, it needs a hardware part to do Atmos (the correct way).
> 
> 
> So, whats the deal with software updates, what kind of Atmos is that when a receiver will not have the CP850 ?


The CP850 is the professional Dolby Atmos decoder used in cinemas.
This is NOT needed in our AVRS, and luckily as i'm sure it costs quite a lot of cash 
Your article is WRONG.

The Atmos decoder is software and runs on a variety of off-the-shelf DSPs as long as they got enough power.
That's why some amps from Onkyo and Yamaha could be updated to atmos as they could "technically" be updated to DTS:X in the future.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> If one is talking about a speaker system, it is perfectly valid to state how many main/height/subwoofer units are in the system.


Of course. But there isn’t any accepted nomenclature, AFAIK, for subwoofers in the system. The .1 is the LFE channel and of course there is only 1 lFE channel. Dolby have moved things on with x.x.2 and x.x.4 where the latter digit signifies the number of speakers mounted overhead, and the first digit specifies the number of speakers mounted at listener level, but the .1 is some sort of orphan. I agree that it is useful to be able to specify the number of subs in the system, sometimes, but using the .1 designator and changing it to .2 or .3 or whatever doesn’t seem right to me. I have two subs but try to refer to my system as 5.1.4 (I say "try to" because I am sure that at times I will have sloppily used 5.2.4 also).



Roger Dressler said:


> It is also valid to talk about the signal configuration coming out of the surround decoder that is feeding, for example, 7.4.4 speaker system, e.g. 7.4.2 or 5.2.1 (depending on the unit). More information and specificity is better than less, IMHO. But we cannot throw these numbers around without the context being clear.


I agree more information is better than less, but not if the "more" also means "wrong"  Context is useful of course.


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that it is useful to be able to specify the number of subs in the system, sometimes, but using the .1 designator and changing it to .2 or .3 or whatever doesn’t seem right to me. I have two subs but try to refer to my system as 5.1.4 (I say "try to" because I am sure that at times I will have sloppily used 5.2.4 also).


But then how will someone with 7.8.4 be able to brag without actually be overt with it?


That is merely a hypothetical question, I do not know anyone who would have tons of subwoofers...


----------



## DS-21

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course. But there isn’t any accepted nomenclature, AFAIK, for subwoofers in the system.





htpcforever said:


> But then how will someone with 7.8.4 be able to brag without actually be overt with it?


FWIW, I like to use "M" for "multisubs." So a 7.1.4 system with multisubs could be written as 7.M.4. If one really wants to specify the number of units playing the managed bass and LFE, then I suppose one could write, e.g., 7.M(8).4.


----------



## jdsmoothie

htpcforever said:


> But then how will someone with 7.8.4 be able to brag without actually be overt with it?
> 
> 
> That is merely a hypothetical question, I do not know anyone who would have tons of subwoofers...


Agreed, puts things in perspective, especially when assisting with troubleshooting issues. There's one member who has 5 subs up front and 5 in the back of his theater seating.


----------



## jpco

It seems like we all know what is meant, for communication purposes, when someone says they have a 7.2.4 system. Beyond that, if there are idiosyncrasies that matter to the discussion, they are usually detailed. It's all good.


----------



## Lesmor

htpcforever said:


> But then how will someone with 7.8.4 be able to brag without actually be overt with it?
> 
> 
> That is merely a hypothetical question, I do not know anyone who would have tons of subwoofers...


Why assume when someone mentions the number of subs they own they are bragging?
People usually show their equipment set up in their signature to avoid being asked for it.
Are you saying if they own four subs configured as per Floyd E Toole recommends they should not mention it because they are bragging?





kbarnes701 said:


> Of course. But there isn’t any accepted nomenclature, AFAIK, for subwoofers in the system. The .1 is the LFE channel and of course there is only 1 lFE channel. Dolby have moved things on with x.x.2 and x.x.4 where the latter digit signifies the number of speakers mounted overhead, and the first digit specifies the number of speakers mounted at listener level, but the .1 is some sort of orphan. I agree that it is useful to be able to specify the number of subs in the system, sometimes, but using the .1 designator and changing it to .2 or .3 or whatever doesn’t seem right to me. I have two subs but try to refer to my system as 5.1.4 (I say "try to" because I am sure that at times I will have sloppily used 5.2.4 also).
> 
> 
> 
> I agree more information is better than less, but not if the "more" also means "wrong"  Context is useful of course.


Long before Atmos legacy AVR's were sold as 5.1 or 5.2 which denotes how many sub outputs they support, nothing to do with the LFE

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-gk4wcjiF96v/p_580TXN5010/Onkyo-TX-NR5010.html


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Long before Atmos legacy AVR's were sold as 5.1 or 5.2 which denotes how many sub outputs they support, nothing to do with the LFE
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-gk4wcjiF96v/p_580TXN5010/Onkyo-TX-NR5010.html


Yes, that is what I was commenting on - the incorrect use of the designator. There is no such thing as 5.2. It is a little pedantic I agree, but hey, this is a _science_ forum.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Do they play from a non-Dolby Atmos pre/pro (receiver)?


Yes, as they are Dolby True HD 7.1. (With the metadata for Atmos)


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that is what I was commenting on - the incorrect use of the designator. There is no such thing as 5.2. It is a little pedantic I agree, but hey, this is a _science_ forum.


Nomenclature evolves, just as language does. The original use of the X.x designation was to describe the number of discrete channels in the source material (e.g., 5.1 EX being more accurate than 6.1 for EX/ES encoded soundtracks). 

But that has changed over the years as that nomenclature is more commonly being used to describe other things (7.1.4 is no longer describing discrete channels in the source material). Same with someone saying they have a 5.4 speaker layout. 

Just because you don't want to evolve along with popular usage doesn't mean it is "incorrect use of the designator". It's fine of you don't like the expanded usage, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Just means you don't like the change.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Nomenclature evolves, just as language does. The original use of the X.x designation was to describe the number of discrete channels in the source material (e.g., 5.1 EX being more accurate than 6.1 for EX/ES encoded soundtracks).
> 
> But that has changed over the years as that nomenclature is more commonly being used to describe other things (7.1.4 is no longer describing discrete channels in the source material). Same with someone saying they have a 5.4 speaker layout.
> 
> Just because you don't want to evolve along with popular usage doesn't mean it is "incorrect use of the designator". It's fine of you don't like the expanded usage, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Just means you don't like the change.


Not sure I can agree with that. While language changes continuously, the object described by the language does not. A cat is still a cat even if we eventually evolve to calling it an urglops. 

In this case, .1 is the LFE channel and has nothing to do with the number of speakers (subwoofers). There is a reason Holman designated it as .1 as you know. So while people may wish to use the second digit in the descriptor to describe the number of speakers they have reproducing bass, it is still not the correct use of that descriptor. Of course, if we decided to abolish the use of a descriptor for LFE, that would leave that digit available for describing the number of speakers (subwoofers) in a given system, but so far that evolution has not happened, and if it did we would be left without a suitable descriptor for 'LFE'. Such casual use of the descriptor also helps contribute to the much misunderstanding of LFE and how it differs from "bass" IMO. I

It is quite possible that someone with 2 listener level speakers and one subwoofer (in a music system), for example, would use the description 2.1 if by this he meant he had two main speakers and one sub - but as music doesn't have an LFE channel, it could easily be taken as being a real 2.1 system, unless it had also been explained that this was a stereo music system. 

It may seem pedantic, but I prefer to use the correct description, and to find, if needed, some other way of telling people how many subs are in the system. Something like, for example, 5.1.4.{2}, where the digit in braces represented the number of subs.

On the whole, there are more important things in the world of AV though


----------



## jpco

It seems it's just the difference between describing native content output vs. amplified channels in a system. Two different things. We've survived this long. After all, how many have listed 9.1 and 11.2 systems with us having no problem understanding what they mean? Atmos breaks the naming system because channels don't match native outputs which is dependent on number of speakers beyond the base level.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> At minimum, a session intended for remixing to object audio starts with the mixers having access to the original Pro Tools session, and if not that, the DME stems. These offer lots of opportunities to move things around. In fact, that how some Atmos were made.


Thanks; I understand the process better now. The film mixers have access to the separate tracks of "dialogue, music, and effects," (for those who didn't know what DME stands for, like me ) before they are merged to say 7.1 Dolby HD? 7.1.x Dolby Atmos remix of old movies is in this aspect a "new" creation and potentially could be quite different from the original 7.1 Dolby HD? 

Therefore, Dolby Atmos remix could be done with good "authenticity"/accuracy even if the original sound engineers did NOT know or plan for the fact that one of these days there were going to be height speakers (interesting!)?


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> After all, how many have listed 9.1 and 11.2 systems with us having no problem understanding what they mean?


Exactly. Within context, we have no problem understanding the difference between an Auro 9.1 soundtrack vs an 11.2 layout.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Thanks; I understand the process better now. The film mixers have access to the separate tracks of "dialogue, music, and effects," (for those who didn't know what DME stands for, like me ) before they are merged to say 7.1 Dolby HD? 7.1.x Dolby Atmos remix of old movies is in this aspect a "new" creation and *potentially could be quite different from the original 7.1 Dolby HD*?


Could be. Those who do these sorts of things however generally pay attention to the original mix, if they want repeat business.



> Therefore, Dolby Atmos remix could be done even if the original sound engineers did NOT know or plan for the fact that one of these days there were going to be height speakers (interesting)?


Yes. Ever since digital soundtrack production became the norm, it's more economical and common to archive lots of the original elements for future use.


----------



## lightthief

*New Atmos Set Up*

So I have a new Atmos set up and could use some advice about optimal set. 

Onkyo 636 with the 5.1.2 with the skh-410 speakers. 

So far I get some dimensionality but things dont seem quite optimal. 

So these are my questions:

- Is there a doc that goes over proper set up for the reciever?
Reading through this forum I saw you need to set it to Dolby Surround but without that I'd have been totally lost. 

- I have 10ft flat ceilings. Current I have the atmos speakers sitting on the media console near next to my front speakers. 
Is there a more optimal set up I should try?

- I can't seem to find demo files that work. Everything I find in the form seems like the link doesn't work. 
The demo eu files just put out static for me. 
And really I'm not buying Any of the released Atmos movies, not my taste. 
Mostly interested in the upmixing aspect. 

Apologies is this has been covered before 600 pages is just a lot to read through.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree more information is better than less, but not if the "more" also means "wrong"


It's only wrong if communication fails.


----------



## Scott Simonian

jdsmoothie said:


> Agreed, puts things in perspective, especially when assisting with troubleshooting issues. There's one member who has 5 subs up front and 5 in the back of his theater seating.


Just one?


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Yes, as they are Dolby True HD 7.1. (With the metadata for Atmos)


Alright, good for everyone. 

_________

♦ And btw, my system setup constantly evolves; it's a 9.2 system, sometimes 7.3 and up to 11.3 and coming from 7.2 
Last time I had a 5.1 setup was in the 80s. And tomorrow I am aiming for a 9.4.6 setup (7.2.4 minimum).


----------



## Roger Dressler

Lesmor said:


> That might well be the case but I did read somewhere that the Atmos spec for cinemas is for subs at the front and at the rear and that is also what they use for mixing legacy 5.1 discs to 7.1 Atmos
> 
> Now whether both subs get the same *BASS* frequencies or are discrete I have not been able to confirm.
> I agree .1 is for LFE but a sub is not just for LFE


The added rear subs cross over


----------



## ambesolman

kbarnes701 said:


> It may seem pedantic, but I prefer to use the correct description, and to find, if needed, some other way of telling people how many subs are in the system. Something like, for example, 5.1.4.{2}, where the digit in braces represented the number of subs.


While it may be "wrong", people will still know what you're talking about if it's written as 5.2.4. Where as 5.1.4{2} only makes sense to you



> On the whole, there are more important things in the world of AV though


true



Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Lesmor

Roger Dressler said:


> The added rear subs cross over


----------



## NorthSky

lightthief said:


> So I have a new Atmos set up and could use some advice about optimal set.
> 
> Onkyo 636 with the 5.1.2 with the skh-410 speakers.
> So far I get some dimensionality but things don't seem quite optimal.
> 
> So these are my questions:
> 
> - Is there a doc that goes over proper set up for the receiver?
> Reading through this forum I saw you need to set it to Dolby Surround but without that I'd have been totally lost.
> 
> - I have 10ft flat ceilings. Current I have the atmos speakers sitting on the media console near next to my front speakers.
> Is there a more optimal set up I should try?
> 
> - I can't seem to find demo files that work. Everything I find in the form seems like the link doesn't work.
> The demo eu files just put out static for me.
> And really I'm not buying Any of the released Atmos movies, not my taste.
> Mostly interested in the upmixing aspect.


♦ This perhaps might help: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 16 and 17 (but read it all too).


----------



## kbarnes701

lightthief said:


> So I have a new Atmos set up and could use some advice about optimal set.
> 
> Onkyo 636 with the 5.1.2 with the skh-410 speakers.
> 
> So far I get some dimensionality but things dont seem quite optimal.


How are you set up - using the modules as Top Middle or what?




lightthief said:


> So these are my questions:
> 
> - Is there a doc that goes over proper set up for the reciever?


You are probably better off asking here or in the thread for your Onkyo. The manuals can be opaque, as you may have discovered.



lightthief said:


> Reading through this forum I saw you need to set it to Dolby Surround but without that I'd have been totally lost.


Yes, for non Atmos content, use DSU for everything (movies) and you should be happy.



lightthief said:


> - I have 10ft flat ceilings. Current I have the atmos speakers sitting on the media console near next to my front speakers.
> Is there a more optimal set up I should try?


Dolby recommend that the atmos modules be within 3 feet from the associated main speakers. A lot of people have suggested that the Onkyo modules are not very good - they are cheaply made and low spec (sorry to diss your speakers but that's the consensus). You may do better by trying the modules made by Kef or another of the well respected manufacturers. But furst make sure that your setup is good and the placement of the modules is optimal.



lightthief said:


> - I can't seem to find demo files that work. Everything I find in the form seems like the link doesn't work.
> The demo eu files just put out static for me.
> And really I'm not buying Any of the released Atmos movies, not my taste.


You can get all the Atmos trailers here: http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/

Download them and copy them to a USB stick. Then use whatever you have that can play files from a USB stick. I just put the stick into the USB port on the front of my Oppo 103 and select 'Movies' from the menu and play them. I find this easier than actually using the real demo disc which I have.



lightthief said:


> Mostly interested in the upmixing aspect.


In that case, all your legacy content will be good for you - just select DSU in your AVR and away you go.


----------



## htpcforever

Lesmor said:


> Why assume when someone mentions the number of subs they own they are bragging?
> People usually show their equipment set up in their signature to avoid being asked for it.
> Are you saying if they own four subs configured as per Floyd E Toole recommends they should not mention it because they are bragging?


I should have put a smiley, I was not being mean, just light hearted.


----------



## jdsmoothie

lightthief said:


> - I have 10ft flat ceilings. Current I have the atmos speakers sitting on the media console near next to my front speakers.
> Is there a more optimal set up I should try?


Ideally the Onkyo speakers should be set higher than your seated ear position, but lower than 1/2 the distance to the ceiling, so somewhere between 4-5'; however, you'll want to experiment with both height and distance to the main listening position to find the most optimal location. By disconnecting the FL/FR speaker wires, and temporarily connecting the Onkyo speakers to the FL/FR speaker posts, you can more easily test them with more audio.


----------



## batpig

jdsmoothie said:


> however, you'll want to experiment with both height and distance to the main listening position to find the most optimal location. By disconnecting the FL/FR speaker wires, and temporarily connecting the Onkyo speakers to the FL/FR speaker posts, you can more easily test them with more audio.


+1 to that -- remember these are "virtual" speakers that rely on some audio trickery to deliver effective overhead imagery so experimentation is essential. And much easier to test with them temporarily hooked up as fronts so you can listen to them directly in stereo as opposed to trying to pick them out of a busy Atmos mix. 

So play some stereo music on them and sit in your normal spot and listen. Play with position and angle and height. They are positioned right when your brain is tricked into thinking they actually sound like a pair of in ceiling speakers above and a bit in front of you.


----------



## Josh Z

htpcforever said:


> But then how will someone with 7.8.4 be able to brag without actually be overt with it?
> 
> That is merely a hypothetical question, I do not know anyone who would have tons of subwoofers...


This guy would.

http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Kipnis_Studio_Standard/Kipnis_Home_Theaters.html


----------



## lightthief

batpig said:


> jdsmoothie said:
> 
> 
> 
> however, you'll want to experiment with both height and distance to the main listening position to find the most optimal location. By disconnecting the FL/FR speaker wires, and temporarily connecting the Onkyo speakers to the FL/FR speaker posts, you can more easily test them with more audio.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 to that -- remember these are "virtual" speakers that rely on some audio trickery to deliver effective overhead imagery so experimentation is essential. And much easier to test with them temporarily hooked up as fronts so you can listen to them directly in stereo as opposed to trying to pick them out of a busy Atmos mix.
> 
> So play some stereo music on them and sit in your normal spot and listen. Play with position and angle and height. They are positioned right when your brain is tricked into thinking they actually sound like a pair of in ceiling speakers above and a bit in front of you.
Click to expand...


That is really great advice. 
I did move them around a bit and things seem to be a bit better. 
Sound pans around 360 pretty well. 

Onkyo's may not be the best but they only set me back $80 in the end so I can't complain on that end.


----------



## cannga

jdsmoothie said:


> Ideally the Onkyo speakers should be set higher than your seated ear position, but lower than 1/2 the distance to the ceiling, so somewhere between 4-5'; however, you'll want to experiment with both height and distance to the main listening position to find the most optimal location. By disconnecting the FL/FR speaker wires, and temporarily connecting the Onkyo speakers to the FL/FR speaker posts, you can more easily test them with more audio.


Good advice for testing for true quality of surround speakers: test them with 2 channel stereo material by hooking to main L & R channels. OTOH, I don't follow this topic of ceiling-aimed speakers so not sure, but do the Atmos speakers still "benefit" from that frequency notch necessary for these speakers, when tested this way?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I went to see American Sniper in Atmos tonight... meh. It was sort of a ripoff of the hurt locker, I expected a lot more out of Eastwood. 
Not worth it for the Atmos price of admission either, there were some things like jets flying over head, helicopters flying overhead, sandstorm scene & music being sent to the overheads... but otherwise a lot of missed opportunities. Though not as bad as Exodus which had a very dull Atmos track.


----------



## NorthSky

It is not auguring very well for Atmos. [email protected] the theaters right now. ...I've heard much better from 'The Hobbit' Part 3, in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## zgeneral

JediFonger said:


> i wish atmos would have been though of in the 80s and given to us consumers in the 90s the way Dolby Digital arrived to us. that would have saved us 20+ yrs of stupid in between progress.


Put your surrounds in the ceiling and you get a lot of the same effect.



> Not worth it for the Atmos price of admission either, there were some things like jets flying over head, helicopters flying overhead, sandstorm scene & music being sent to the overheads... but otherwise a lot of missed opportunities. Though not as bad as Exodus which had a very dull Atmos track.


It will end up being a lot like 3D movies. The people making the film will have to go out of their way to invent situations that make the technology useful.


----------



## kbarnes701

*Half of Oscar sound nominations go to Dolby Atmos films!*

Good news that half of the Oscar sound nominations, announced towards the end of last week, were mixed in Dolby Atmos. Three in the Sound Editing category: *American Sniper, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies* and *Unbroken*. And two in the Sound Mixing category: *American Sniper* and *Unbroken*. 

Info on the role Atmos sound plays in *Unbroken*:

http://vimeo.com/115088528

Especially interesting to hear how they used Atmos to bring the music into the room -_ not just about overhead effects _©. Some stuff on airplane flyovers as well though!

As *American Sniper* has received six nominations in all, including one for best picture, it will help the Atmos cause considerably if Best Picture has been mixed in Atmos, ensuring a wide audience for the movie both in theaters and on disc. So fingers crossed for *American Sniper*. Good to see Clint returning to form too, in his 85th year - the guy is a living legend and has accompanied me on my movie journey almost my entire life.

Dolby Atmos films also received two of the five nominations for best animated feature, with *Big Hero 6* and *How to Train Your Dragon 2 *getting nods. Again, the more exposure these movies get as result of Oscar noms/wins, the better it will be for Atmos.


----------



## roxiedog13

ghiggs001 said:


> rosiedog:
> Good news. I followed your instructions and was very successful in creating the Dolby Atmos domos on a USB stick. Played both the regular and the lossless versions through my OPPO 103. The overall system sounded GREAT. I guest that others who are interested in generated a demo USB stick can utilize your procedure.
> Once again, Thanks
> George


Not sure what happened, I responded to this two days ago, anyway I'll try again.

Excellent, glad it worked. How did it sound, was it worth the effort and money? As usual , I jumped 100% into the Atmos arena, I'm easily lead into the promise of the latest and greatest for HT.
So far I'm not highly impressed but I believe I have a less than ideal setup too. Once its tweaked I'll add my opinions, for now I'm lukewarm at best.


----------



## zimmo

my old system is 7.2 now is 7.5.4 whit onkyo tx-nr3030.but its possible for me to put 4 more subwoofers to make 7.8.4,you put wire spleter to ech 4 first subwoofers and you have 4 mores subwoofers,for shure your subwoofer have amplifier Inside.


onkyo tx-nr3030
4 subwoofers 15 inch ikon 500watts
1buttkicker lfe
7 paradigm monitor no9
4 in ceilling Yamaha ns-1c800
my room 11x20x8


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Those models were always intended to have Atmos, which is why they didn't have Audyssey (to free up DSP resources for Atmos). The only company that shipped with Atmos already inside was Denon/Marantz. The rest (Onkyo/Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha) released Atmos-ready receivers and updated them to Atmos later via firmware. None of these were just "True HD receivers". Doubt it, but would be happy to be proven wrong.


My TX-NR 1030 was shipped with Atmos my TX-NR 737 was a firmware update.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Didn't have a theatrical Atmos mix, so it's another movie (like 'Step Up' and 'John Wick') where Lionsgate is doing an Atmos mix specifically for home video. Wish other studios were as enthusiastic.


Lionsgate in my opinion always have the best sound mixes


----------



## ThePrisoner

^^^Looking forward to John Wick


----------



## htpcforever

Josh Z said:


> This guy would.
> 
> http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Kipnis_Studio_Standard/Kipnis_Home_Theaters.html


LOL That is a divorce in a handbasket!


----------



## ghiggs001

roxiedog13 said:


> Not sure what happened, I responded to this two days ago, anyway I'll try again.
> 
> Excellent, glad it worked. How did it sound, was it worth the effort and money? As usual , I jumped 100% into the Atmos arena, I'm easily lead into the promise of the latest and greatest for HT.
> So far I'm not highly impressed but I believe I have a less than ideal setup too. Once its tweaked I'll add my opinions, for now I'm lukewarm at best.


As for the sound, I would say that I was happy with the demos representation of Dolby Atmos. However, the movies that has the Dolby Atmos is not very impressive as I though it would. I am really enjoying the Dolby up-mixing capabilities. I change my AVR every few years, so I did not put much emphasis on the cost. I am a little lucky to have a dedicated theater that I was able to set up as suggested by Dolby, with some minor tweaking to match my taste. Good luck with your setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> I went to see American Sniper in Atmos tonight... meh. It was sort of a ripoff of the hurt locker, I expected a lot more out of Eastwood.
> Not worth it for the Atmos price of admission either, there were some things like jets flying over head, helicopters flying overhead, sandstorm scene & music being sent to the overheads... but otherwise a lot of missed opportunities. Though not as bad as Exodus which had a very dull Atmos track.


Considering the content... what else would you need to have up overhead? Sounds by your description to be an ideal Atmos track.


----------



## jgourlie

lightthief said:


> So I have a new Atmos set up and could use some advice about optimal set.
> 
> Onkyo 636 with the 5.1.2 with the skh-410 speakers.
> 
> So far I get some dimensionality but things dont seem quite optimal.
> 
> 
> - I have 10ft flat ceilings. Current I have the atmos speakers sitting on the media console near next to my front speakers.
> Is there a more optimal set up I should try?
> 
> 
> Apologies is this has been covered before 600 pages is just a lot to read through.


I found that I had to angle my skh-410's and turn up the volume on them to get them to sound half decent. I ended up tilting them towards the MLP by about 2.5inches off the front speakers. My ceilings are only 8ft but my mlp is about 14ft away from front speakers so by tilting them it is bouncing the sound off the ceiling more in the middle of the room.

Not sure if that is making any sense or not??

Let me know if it doesn't and I can try and help further.


----------



## lightthief

jgourlie said:


> I found that I had to angle my skh-410's and turn up the volume on them to get them to sound half decent. I ended up tilting them towards the MLP by about 2.5inches off the front speakers. My ceilings are only 8ft but my mlp is about 14ft away from front speakers so by tilting them it is bouncing the sound off the ceiling more in the middle of the room.
> 
> Not sure if that is making any sense or not??
> 
> Let me know if it doesn't and I can try and help further.


What does MLP mean?
Bit of n00b to audio things. 

Also how did you tilt your speakers? Just prop something under them?


----------



## groundtrac

Is anyone running a 9.1.4 system, utilizing either Front Wide L/R or Top Middle L/R? Is the Atmos engine even capable of this? I am running a Marantz 7009 and have sent a query off to them but haven't had anything back as of yet, the manual is somewhat vague on this point. Conflicting answers have been received at this point. So far I have been told I would have to choose which overheads to use as 7.1.4 is the maximum, but those who have told me that haven't tried it either.


----------



## jgourlie

lightthief said:


> What does MLP mean?
> Bit of n00b to audio things.
> 
> Also how did you tilt your speakers? Just prop something under them?


MLP is Main Listening Position eg. my couch.

I at first tilted the speakers by putting felt pads under the back of them. Or you could use cardboard or anything to support the back of the speaker. I spent several hours testing them at various tilt heights and volume levels until I found what sounded best in my room by unplugging my other speakers and just playing the skh-410's. I didn't plug them into the front speakers as some have suggested, that does seem like a good idea, not sure if that would have helped my or not.

I then built a wedge out of 2x6 wood that better supports the speakers at the 2.5inch tilt that I liked.


----------



## jdsmoothie

groundtrac said:


> Is anyone running a 9.1.4 system, utilizing either Front Wide L/R or Top Middle L/R? Is the Atmos engine even capable of this? I am running a Marantz 7009 and have sent a query off to them but haven't had anything back as of yet, the manual is somewhat vague on this point. Conflicting answers have been received at this point. So far I have been told I would have to choose which overheads to use as 7.1.4 is the maximum, but those who have told me that haven't tried it either.


Although the SR7009 can connect up to 13 speakers, only 11 can be operated at one time so when using 4 Height speakers it can only operate 11-4=7 floor speakers in a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration.


----------



## bargervais

zgeneral said:


> Put your surrounds in the ceiling and you get a lot of the same effect.
> 
> 
> 
> It will end up being a lot like 3D movies. The people making the film will have to go out of their way to invent situations that make the technology useful.


Let's face it atmos is more then overhead sounds it's more an immersion in a bubble of sound... 3D movies had their gimmicky effects with arrows flying out of the screen poking you in the eye 3D is not about that it's the visual depth that's the key to 3D movies.. the same thing will evolve with Atmos it's the total immersion and then the attention of overhead sound that we all want to hear will only be a part. So let's put away our step ladders with our ears to the speaker's to see what's going on up there. Let's Sit back and enjoy what we are watching in the bubble of sound atmos brings.


----------



## groundtrac

jdsmoothie said:


> Although the SR7009 can connect up to 13 speakers, only 11 can be operated at one time so when using 4 Height speakers it can only operate 11-4=7 floor speakers in a 7.1.4 Atmos configuration.


Even utilizing an external amp?


----------



## sdurani

zgeneral said:


> Put your surrounds in the ceiling and you get a lot of the same effect.


That won't work because sounds intended to come from around you will instead come from overhead. Atmos has separate content around you vs above you. Can't get the "same effect" by placing your surrounds overhead.


> It will end up being a lot like 3D movies. The people making the film will have to go out of their way to invent situations that make the technology useful.


The world is already 3D. That situation didn't have to be invented for 3D movies. Likewise no need to invent situations for Atmos since we already hear sounds above us in real life.


----------



## zgeneral

Should you want to quote me then please do it in context. What I said was, "you'll get a lot of the same effect". By quoting me as the "same effect" you're portrayed me as saying something completely different. Had you read the thread you'd clearly see that I know what Atmos does. Fail. Try again. 

While yes, the world is already 3d, you might want to do some reading about changes that film makers made when 3D came into fashion a few years ago. They intentionally shot scenes in ways that would play into 3D. It's hard to have people pay an extra few to several dollars if they're not wowed at some point.


----------



## Nalleh

Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
Frustrated about the 7.1.4 limit of speaker in Atmos?
Don't want the hassle of 8min config loads to get both Atmos/Auro full setups?
Can't afford the overly expensive Trinnov or Datasat?

Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup! 

How?
Well, as you know, i have my Denon 5200, connected to 14 speakers, and it is setup with full 10.1 Auro:
5.1+FH+SH+TS(VOG).
Press the movie remote button and the 9.1.2 Atmos is selected:
5.1+FW+SB+FH.
Ok, since i got over a grand for my old Onkyo 3010 receiver, i used the money to buy a second Denon, this time the little brother: 4100.
So, connected some of the 5200's speakers and some new to get it calibrated, this has amp assign as follows:

Amp Assign: 9.1
Height Speakers: 4 height speakers
Height Layout: Top Middle+Rear Height
Pre-out: Front and rear height

The two receivers are connected using a HDMI from the Zone2 HDMI out from the 5200, that send full image and sound, by the way, to one of the HDMI input on the 4100.

I do not have fronts connected to the 4100, but the 4 ceiling seakers make the new native Atmos setup a full 9.1.6 :
5.1+FW+SB+FH(as before from the 5200) +TM+RH(from the 4100).










The 5200:










The 4100:










Movie button again switch to the full 10.1 Auro setup from the 5200 and with a dual source speaker switch for the Surround backs between 5200/4100 , and i gain the SB from the 4100 on the Auro setup= 12.1.

But wait, there's more. The following are connected to the 4100, eq'd and separatly calibrated from the 5200' speakers.
Side Surround B. Since the 4100 have empty surround speaker post, why not use them with a second set surround speakers placed at ca 80 degrees(surround A at 110 degrees).
Center Height. Same here, empty center speakers posts, so connected another center speaker high on the front wall.

And remember the pesky use of sub pre-out 2 for the Top Surround in Auro 10.1 setup?
Well, the 4100 has 2 brand new seperatly calibrated sub pre-outs available!

Actually, with a second dual source speaker switch, i can use the Atmos RH as SBH in Auro, since the SBH is ganged in SH anyway in Auro 15.1 setup.

So, one could say the following:

Atmos: 5.1+SB+S2+FW+FH+TM+RH+CH=11.1.7

Auro 3D:
5.1+SB+S2+FH+SH+SBH+TS+CH= 17.1

It works!! The lip sync is spot on, and espesially the 6 ceiling speakers really woke up the "spaceious" feeling, and i believe the 4100 will be staying 

A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them.


----------



## lujan

Nalleh said:


> Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
> ...
> 
> Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup!
> 
> ...


My family always says I do things overkill and am obsessed with the latest in technology but I wouldn't think of doing anything as drastic as you. 

I'm still waiting for Wednesday to get my 4 height speakers installed so that I can have 7.1.4 with my AVR-X5200W.


----------



## kbarnes701

zgeneral said:


> Should you want to quote me then please do it in context. What I said was, "you'll get a lot of the same effect". By quoting me as the "same effect" you're portrayed me as saying something completely different. Had you read the thread you'd clearly see that I know what Atmos does. Fail. Try again.


In or out of context, you're still wrong unfortunately. Putting your surrounds on the ceiling will categorically not give you "a lot of the same effect" as Atmos.

For openers, if your surrounds are on the ceiling then you will not be getting surround content from where it should be coming - around you rather than above you (this was Sanjay;'s point). The mixer made certain assumptions when he mixed the sound, one of which is that you would have your speakers positioned reasonably correctly. Putting the surrounds in the ceiling is nowhere near where the mixer would expect them to be, so regardless of Atmos, such a system would sound poor.

Also, you will not be able to create a 'three dimensional dome' of sound, with sound coming from around you (via the surrounds) and above you (via the overheads).

You hypothesis also misses the important point that Atmos is about much more than just sounds from overhead. Atmos mixes are able to precisely position sounds in three-dimensional space, using all of the speakers in the system, and this means that one can have very, very good Atmos mixes even when there is very little specifically placed in the overhead speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them.


I don't even pretend to be able to follow your method (that's my bad BTW not yours) but wrt to the two volume controls, can you not set up your universal remote so that it operates both units at the same time? Then, if you set a switch-on MV of, say, -20dB, they should (might) work in tandem from that known starting point. Maybe  

I guess this might also mean that every time you hit any button for one unit, it also operates the same on the other unit, but that might be acceptable.


----------



## zeus33

htpcforever said:


> LOL That is a divorce in a handbasket!



I didn't read the encyclopedia of an article, so there may be an explanation, but none of the amps or speakers are wired up. Look at the last image at the bottom.

http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Kipnis_Studio_Standard/Robb_Report_-_11_09.html


----------



## jdsmoothie

groundtrac said:


> Even utilizing an external amp?


Correct. Using an external amp only expands from 9CH --> 11CH. Having the capability to connect 13 speakers is merely for convenience so you don't have to shift speaker wire when using another surround mode, eg. DTS Neo:X in order to use the Front Wides when not playing an Atmos BD.


----------



## sdurani

zgeneral said:


> Should you want to quote me then please do it in context. What I said was, "you'll get a lot of the same effect".


That entire sentence is quoted in my reply.


> Had you read the thread you'd clearly see that I know what Atmos does.


Your posts demonstrate the exact opposite. Telling others to move their surrounds overhead makes it obvious that you don't understand the around-you vs above-you separation that Atmos can deliver. Like thinking that 7.1 is like 5.1 but with the surrounds moved to the back wall. Misses the rear-vs-side separation that 7.1 is capable of. 

Besides, these are small points in your overall anti-Atmos crusade that is on display in other threads, like the one for Transformers 4 and the misleading thread you started about 4 Atmos movies getting Razzies, where you literally make up disinformation in order to dissuade others from buying Atmos gear. Not sure what Dolby did to you for you to have ended up with such a large anti-Atmos chip on your shoulder.


----------



## Scott Simonian

They literally destroy soundtracks, as the one dude on the internet once said.

C'mon, Sanjay. You should know better.


----------



## groundtrac

jdsmoothie said:


> Correct. Using an external amp only expands from 9CH --> 11CH. Having the capability to connect 13 speakers is merely for convenience so you don't have to shift speaker wire when using another surround mode, eg. DTS Neo:X in order to use the Front Wides when not playing an Atmos BD.


So, just to understand you correctly, Atmos will not place any objects, nor use the extra 2 speakers I am thinking of adding as FWL & FWR, during an Atmos playback? Do you chalk this up to an Atmos limitation, an Amp limitation, or a design limitation? I find this a little confusing given the Atmos statement here: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html


----------



## jdsmoothie

groundtrac said:


> So, just to understand you correctly, Atmos will not place any objects, nor use the extra 2 speakers I am thinking of adding as FWL & FWR, during an Atmos playback? Do you chalk this up to an Atmos limitation, an Amp limitation, or a design limitation? I find this a little confusing given the Atmos statement here: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html


Again ... as long as you are using 5.1+FW+4HT (5+2+4=11), the Atmos BD will provide audio to the FW speakers. The AVR simply is not able to pass audio to both SB+FW at the same time as doing so would require a 9.1.4 setup (5+2+2+4=13).


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> They literally destroy soundtracks, as the one dude on the internet once said.
> 
> C'mon, Sanjay. You should know better.


I should know better. If it weren't for these tin ears of mine...


----------



## groundtrac

jdsmoothie said:


> Again ... as long as you are using 5.1+FW+4HT (5+2+4=11), the Atmos BD will provide audio to the FW speakers. The AVR simply is not able to pass audio to both SB+FW at the same time as doing so would require a 9.1.4 setup (5+2+2+4=13).


Thank you for this discussion, I appreciate your patience with this topic. Page 26 of the pdf installation guide: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html 
Can I do this with my Marantz, utilizing an external 5 channel amp?


----------



## jdsmoothie

groundtrac said:


> Thank you for this discussion, I appreciate your patience with this topic. Page 26 of the pdf installation guide: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html
> Can I do this with my Marantz, utilizing an external 5 channel amp?


Yes, as a 9.1.2 is 11 speakers.  The 5CH amp will be used to expand the SR7009 from 9CH --> 11CH and also power 3 additional speakers.


----------



## groundtrac

jdsmoothie said:


> Yes, as a 9.1.2 is 11 speakers.


Sorry, I meant to link directly to the pdf, but I don't know how to do that. Pg 26 is a diagram for 9.1.4, that is what I am referring to.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

groundtrac said:


> Is anyone running a 9.1.4 system, utilizing either Front Wide L/R or Top Middle L/R? Is the Atmos engine even capable of this? I am running a Marantz 7009 and have sent a query off to them but haven't had anything back as of yet, the manual is somewhat vague on this point. Conflicting answers have been received at this point. So far I have been told I would have to choose which overheads to use as 7.1.4 is the maximum, but those who have told me that haven't tried it either.


Atmos is capable of a lot more than 9.1.4, but right now you need a really upscale processor to get it and no current products (that we know of) from Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, and the like are compatible with that layout. However, with the addition of a 9.1.4 schematic in Dolby's newest installation guide, I would have to strongly assume that it's on its way to mainstream products.


----------



## jdsmoothie

groundtrac said:


> Sorry, I meant to link directly to the pdf, but I don't know how to do that. Pg 26 is a diagram for 9.1.4, that is what I am referring to.


The link shows a 9.1.2 setup which "is" possible. As already indicated although 13 speakers can be connected, an Atmos 9.1.4 configuration "is not" possible with existing


----------



## sdurani

groundtrac said:


> Sorry, I meant to link directly to the pdf, but I don't know how to do that. Pg 26 is a diagram for 9.1.4, that is what I am referring to.


That 13-speaker configuration might be a hint of things to come, but for the moment I think consumer Atmos gear tops out at 11 speaker outputs (so no 9.1.4 currently).


----------



## jdsmoothie

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html 

Looking at that link, I also noticed that Dolby actually refers to the middle value as the "# of subs in the setup" so hopefully we can put that discussion to bed and continue using the middle number in Atmos setups as Dolby has defined.


----------



## zgeneral

sdurani said:


> That entire sentence is quoted in my reply. Your posts demonstrate the exact opposite. Telling others to move their surrounds overhead makes it obvious that you don't understand the around-you vs above-you separation that Atmos can deliver. Like thinking that 7.1 is like 5.1 but with the surrounds moved to the back wall. Misses the rear-vs-side separation that 7.1 is capable of.
> 
> Besides, these are small points in your overall anti-Atmos crusade that is on display in other threads, like the one for Transformers 4 and the misleading thread you started about 4 Atmos movies getting Razzies, where you literally make up disinformation in order to dissuade others from buying Atmos gear. Not sure what Dolby did to you for you to have ended up with such a large anti-Atmos chip on your shoulder.


Yet another troll. Should you want to argue with me, please focus on the content of what I'm saying instead of trying to glean some agenda that you've made up.

In terms of my post about Razzies, here's the list of nominations. I do think I was incorrect that there's 17 nominations for Atmos movies. There's actually 18. You can actually look that up to give you something to do. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/razzie-awards-2015-complete-list-nominees/story?id=28216849

Please feel free to man up and show me how any of that was misleading. Seriously, use your words and tell me.

There's no anti-atmos crusade here. Just rational thought by me. My points have consistently been that people getting so hyped up at Atmos is stupid because there's only 4 movies that support Atmos and they're all terrible, by the time there are actually decent movies on Bluray that support it the format may have changed, and largely that there are several other competing 3d sound formats that have incompatible speaker layouts. As such, adopting Atmos right now is not intelligent.

Oh and yes surround placement can give you overhead type effects.


----------



## groundtrac

jdsmoothie said:


> The link shows a 9.1.2 setup which "is" possible. As already indicated although 13 speakers can be connected, an Atmos 9.1.4 configuration "is not" possible with existing


----------



## Dan Hitchman

groundtrac said:


> Here, see attachment, this is pg 26 from the pdf.


Yes, that's what I was talking about in a prior reply to you. However, mainstream products (not talking about Trinnov and Steinway and Datasat, etc.) don't yet have that capability. It probably is coming, however, otherwise Dolby wouldn't have bothered adding it.


----------



## sdurani

zgeneral said:


> Yet another troll.


For shame, resorting to name calling because you're out of legitimate arguments.


> Please feel free to man up and show me how any of that was misleading. Seriously, use your words and tell me.


Already did in your disinformation thread, where I pointed out that only 2 of the 4 movies you mentioned got Razzies, despite your misleading thread title. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-razzie-nods-4-atmos-movies.html#post30827370



> There's no anti-atmos crusade here.


Too late to deny it, considering it's on display in multiple threads.


> Oh and yes surround placement can give you overhead type effects.


Surround speakers can't be in two locations simultaneously, above you and around you, like an Atmos layout can. Even with this last comment, you continue to demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between Atmos and previous surround formats.


----------



## kbarnes701

zgeneral said:


> In terms of my post about Razzies, here's the list of nominations. I do think I was incorrect that there's 17 nominations for Atmos movies. There's actually 18. You can actually look that up to give you something to do.


None of the Razzies had anything at all to do with Atmos, so why do you single out Atmos as having some sort of connection with the Razzies, unless you have an anti-Atmos agenda? Do you not understand that a movie can have a really bad script and/or really bad acting but still have superb sound design, sound mix and /or sound editing? You may as well have entitled your thread "32 Razzie nominations for 'Scope format movies" - it would have made as much/little sense. You are trying to link Razzies with Atmos in order to try somehow to discredit Atmos - only you know why you have this agenda. 

Do you know that it is against AVS Forum rules to call someone a troll or to "abuse, insult or harangue" them? If you didn't, I suggest you look at the rules. If you did, I suggest you apologise - you wouldn’t, I am sure, want to receive an Infraction for deliberately posting just to incite.


----------



## kbarnes701

zgeneral said:


> In terms of my post about Razzies, here's the list of nominations. I do think I was incorrect that there's 17 nominations for Atmos movies. There's actually 18. You can actually look that up to give you something to do.


In your thread you also list *Legend of Hercules* as an Atmos movie. Despite being told that it was not released in Atmos, you made no attempt to correct the incorrect information. That does make one wonder as to your integrity and your intention. You also refer to "4 Atmos movies" as having received Razzy noms, despite* Step Up: All In* not being in the Razzy list and *Legend of Hercules *not even being an Atmos mix anyway.

This is why you have been accused of making things up. It's because you have been making things up.


----------



## zebidou81

lightthief said:


> So I have a new Atmos set up and could use some advice about optimal set.
> 
> Onkyo 636 with the 5.1.2 with the skh-410 speakers.
> 
> So far I get some dimensionality but things dont seem quite optimal.
> 
> So these are my questions:
> 
> - Is there a doc that goes over proper set up for the reciever?
> Reading through this forum I saw you need to set it to Dolby Surround but without that I'd have been totally lost.
> 
> - I have 10ft flat ceilings. Current I have the atmos speakers sitting on the media console near next to my front speakers.
> Is there a more optimal set up I should try?
> 
> - I can't seem to find demo files that work. Everything I find in the form seems like the link doesn't work.
> The demo eu files just put out static for me.
> And really I'm not buying Any of the released Atmos movies, not my taste.
> Mostly interested in the upmixing aspect.
> 
> Apologies is this has been covered before 600 pages is just a lot to read through.



Hi i have a bit of experience with these Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers, i found the best position for them was 3/4 up the wall and angled at a further 20 degrees from wall as i sit 3.3m away, the driver in them is angled at 20 degrees and work best if you are sat 1.5-2m away, i used a laser pen with a tiny mirror on ceiling and fired the laser at the angle the driver fired at to hit my seating position, if you wall mount you can just unscrew the screw a bit to get extra angle. Also turn up speakers in av menu to around 6db i found helped.

I have now replaced my upfiring onkyo speakers with on ceiling Kef 3001se speakers which match my kef 6001s and subs and i must say the difference is night and day, i now feel i am getting the most out of the atmos setup as i couldnt with the onkyos, i feel like i am part of the onscreen action with the on ceiling kefs most of the time even with upmixing i am still like wow and i didnt get close to that with the onkyos.


----------



## Nalleh

lujan said:


> My family always says I do things overkill and am obsessed with the latest in technology but I wouldn't think of doing anything as drastic as you.
> 
> I'm still waiting for Wednesday to get my 4 height speakers installed so that I can have 7.1.4 with my AVR-X5200W.


I know right!
Well, like i said, i had the old Onkyo 3010 receiver laying around, and there was a cristmas sale on the Denon 4100, so i got a good price for the Onkyo, witch practically paid for the 4100, so no loss. I had a 30 day return policy, in case it didn't work. And i was courious as hell 
Otherwise, i would not do it.



kbarnes701 said:


> I don't even pretend to be able to follow your method (that's my bad BTW not yours) but wrt to the two volume controls, can you not set up your universal remote so that it operates both units at the same time? Then, if you set a switch-on MV of, say, -20dB, they should (might) work in tandem from that known starting point. Maybe
> 
> I guess this might also mean that every time you hit any button for one unit, it also operates the same on the other unit, but that might be acceptable.


Yes, thats the problem. These Denons do not have multiple remote ID codes (the 7200 has), but i covered the remote sensor on the 4100, use the original remote for the 5200 and use the phone app to control the 4100. I only need volume and sound mode changes on the 4100 in daily use, so it works ok. If more adjustment needed, i just uncover remote sensor on the 4100, and cover the 5200 one.
But i am amazed that this worked so flawless, no problem with either Atmos or Auro native, or even with 3D at the same time.

I watched the movie Firewall yesterday with Harrison Ford(on the tv, so only 2.0 pcm), and in it was a lot of rain and bad weather, including thunder. I had DSU on both AVR's and the thunder was mindbogling!! It wasn't just overhead, it was waaaay up there, far above the speakers! My jaw just dropped, i did not have that sense of height in the regular 7.1.4 setup.

I guess this is not a setup for everybody, but if one wanted to do it, i can confirm that it works exellent.
I wondered if i needed a HDMI splitter, if the Oppo 103 could work with its dual HDMI outputs, or if the 5200 sent full sound out from any of the HDMI outs. Thanks to @jdsmoothie who confirmed that the Zone2 HDMI indeed does send full HD 7.1 sound, i went ahead and tried it. Don't regret one minute


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
> Frustrated about the 7.1.4 limit of speaker in Atmos?
> Don't want the hassle of 8min config loads to get both Atmos/Auro full setups?
> Can't afford the overly expensive Trinnov or Datasat?
> 
> Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup!
> 
> How?
> Well, as you know, i have my Denon 5200, connected to 14 speakers, and it is setup with full 10.1 Auro:
> 5.1+FH+SH+TS(VOG).
> Press the movie remote button and the 9.1.2 Atmos is selected:
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH.
> Ok, since i got over a grand for my old Onkyo 3010 receiver, i used the money to buy a second Denon, this time the little brother: 4100.
> So, connected some of the 5200's speakers and some new to get it calibrated, this has amp assign as follows:
> 
> Amp Assign: 9.1
> Height Speakers: 4 height speakers
> Height Layout: Top Middle+Rear Height
> Pre-out: Front and rear height
> 
> The two receivers are connected using a HDMI from the Zone2 HDMI out from the 5200, that send full image and sound, by the way, to one of the HDMI input on the 4100.
> 
> I do not have fronts connected to the 4100, but the 4 ceiling seakers make the new native Atmos setup a full 9.1.6 :
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH(as before from the 5200) +TM+RH(from the 4100).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4100:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Movie button again switch to the full 10.1 Auro setup from the 5200 and with a dual source speaker switch for the Surround backs between 5200/4100 , and i gain the SB from the 4100 on the Auro setup= 12.1.
> 
> But wait, there's more. The following are connected to the 4100, eq'd and separatly calibrated from the 5200' speakers.
> Side Surround B. Since the 4100 have empty surround speaker post, why not use them with a second set surround speakers placed at ca 80 degrees(surround A at 110 degrees).
> Center Height. Same here, empty center speakers posts, so connected another center speaker high on the front wall.
> 
> And remember the pesky use of sub pre-out 2 for the Top Surround in Auro 10.1 setup?
> Well, the 4100 has 2 brand new seperatly calibrated sub pre-outs available!
> 
> Actually, with a second dual source speaker switch, i can use the Atmos RH as SBH in Auro, since the SBH is ganged in SH anyway in Auro 15.1 setup.
> 
> So, one could say the following:
> 
> Atmos: 5.1+SB+S2+FW+FH+TM+RH+CH=11.1.7
> 
> Auro 3D:
> 5.1+SB+S2+FH+SH+SBH+TS+CH= 17.1
> 
> It works!! The lip sync is spot on, and espesially the 6 ceiling speakers really woke up the "spaceious" feeling, and i believe the 4100 will be staying
> 
> A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them.


Is this all perfectly legal?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos is capable of a lot more than 9.1.4, but right now you need a really upscale processor to get it and no current products (that we know of) from Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, and the like are compatible with that layout. However, with the addition of a 9.1.4 schematic in Dolby's newest installation guide, I would have to strongly assume that it's on its way to mainstream products.


...And dts:x 9.1.4 as well; maybe even 9.1.6 ?


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Is this all perfectly legal?


What do you think?


----------



## dragonleepenn

Nalleh said:


> What do you think?


What would be wrong with using two receivers legal wise, and months back I'd thought of this or something similar but never followed up on it. I will pm you if that's ok I want to know more,
in Atmos are objects being properly mapped ? Please post further on your finds I like the idea of having more speakers as long as they play as intended I have multi side surrounds, two rows hooked up with a mini dsp for delay and phase alignment . However now with atmos this may conflict with proper placement of objects due to where the ceiling rear speakers are setup. Since atoms I've turned off the second set of side (B) surrounds and no longer feel they are relevant until the avr/pros have a second pre-out for side B surround. Thereby all mapping will be correctly processed and placed. My thoughts.



PeterV


----------



## Scott Simonian

No legal issues using two AVR's.

Unfortunately, it just won't break down the full Atmos track any better using an extra one.

You can't use one to do (let's just say) front and rear height and then have another one getting an identical signal and have it decode the front and rear tops, or whatever.

Each one will see the full mix and it will only be aware that you have two sets of whatever location and render appropriately. Having two does not make 4 sets of discrete overheads as they are not aware of each other. So while you will get sound, yes they will not properly render to the according area like having support for five pairs of overheads like a Trinnov or Datasat. Those will move an object from front to back, etc. Using two Atmos AVR's an object up front will simultaneously output at two sets of overheads (let's say front height and front top) and then pan as they would to the other set. While yes there are more speakers you would get essentially the same effect just hooking up two extra sets of speakers to the outputs on AVR #1 .


----------



## NorthSky

groundtrac said:


> Sorry, I meant to link directly to the pdf, but I don't know how to do that. *Pg 26 is a diagram for 9.1.4*, that is what I am referring to.


www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 26


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> What do you think?


I think that you are quite inventive/imaginative with your thinking.  And not only that but you make it happen too. ...In real life operational system.

* You are the perfect candidate for a Datasat or Trinnov sound system setup from their high-end channel distribution "object rendition" system through multiple combination of speakers (SSP). ...Only cost a little bit more, but for true passionate 3D sound people money is not a limitation, imagination is. ...And that last one you have in spades. 

Of course all of this is legal.  ...And I'm a bit like you; surround sound explorer.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Considering the content... what else would you need to have up overhead? Sounds by your description to be an ideal Atmos track.


It just didn't wow me like other films did... like in comparison the Atmos mix for Hunger Games Mockingjay, the jet sounds weren't as cool (to cite a specific example). There was one cool moment where the sound of the jets flew from Right to Left over the top center of the audience... I believe that was the first time I've heard that type of pan... it was effective but it was the only "wow" moment. 
By far the best Atmos moments I've heard were in Maze Runner which had some fantastic rear speaker action going on & Into the storm which had amazing acoustical effects (like making the theater almost sound like a car interior which I thought was impressive). A lot of Atmos films don't seem to take advantage of small room ambience. 

When it comes down to it I just thought American Sniper was a very boring movie that didn't provide the Atmos mixer much to work with (I spent a lot of time checking my phone to see how long I had left to go). In comparison the expendables, despite it's flaws, had a lot of clever interaction between the mixer & what was seen on screen. (@ the end of the film there is a part where 2 guys are playing darts with knives. They throw the knives towards the camera... as they are thrown you hear the sound coming from in front and then you hear the blades strike the dart board from behind... very cool.)

I've gone to see almost every Atmos film that's come out since last summer... some mixes are more intriguing than others (in terms of taking advantage of the technology). I felt like Eastwood's Flags of our fathers/ Iwo Jima would have taken better advantage of Atmos.


----------



## roxiedog13

ghiggs001 said:


> As for the sound, I would say that I was happy with the demos representation of Dolby Atmos. However, the movies that has the Dolby Atmos is not very impressive as I though it would. I am really enjoying the Dolby up-mixing capabilities. I change my AVR every few years, so I did not put much emphasis on the cost. I am a little lucky to have a dedicated theater that I was able to set up as suggested by Dolby, with some minor tweaking to match my taste. Good luck with your setup.



I too have a dedicated theater, also set up exactly per the Dolby specs for 7.2 but with Atmos I tried to cheat on the fronts and went with the modules instead of in-ceiling . I ordered 4 more in-ceiling speakers today to add to the two rears already existing. I'll have 6 speakers in the ceiling once they are installed, ready for the next gen Atmos receiver whey it comes.


----------



## groundtrac

zebidou81 said:


> Hi i have a bit of experience with these Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers, i found the best position for them was 3/4 up the wall and angled at a further 20 degrees from wall as i sit 3.3m away, the driver in them is angled at 20 degrees and work best if you are sat 1.5-2m away, i used a laser pen with a tiny mirror on ceiling and fired the laser at the angle the driver fired at to hit my seating position, if you wall mount you can just unscrew the screw a bit to get extra angle. Also turn up speakers in av menu to around 6db i found helped.
> 
> I have now replaced my upfiring onkyo speakers with on ceiling Kef 3001se speakers which match my kef 6001s and subs and i must say the difference is night and day, i now feel i am getting the most out of the atmos setup as i couldnt with the onkyos, i feel like i am part of the onscreen action with the on ceiling kefs most of the time even with upmixing i am still like wow and i didnt get close to that with the onkyos.


Two comments, I too ended up boosting the atmos modules more than Audysey put them at. Second, I originally started with the Onkyo's and found them to be junk. Maybe if you were in a really small environment or something they might be fine, but they might have been the cheapest looking/feeling/sounding speaker build I've seen in a long while. On my first pass with Audysey, it actually thought there might be a phase problem on one of them. I re-ran it and it was fine second time around. I now use 4 SVS Satellite's angled to the ceiling. After some directional tweaking, I find Atmos excellent.


----------



## roxiedog13

zgeneral said:


> Put your surrounds in the ceiling and you get a lot of the same effect.
> 
> 
> 
> It will end up being a lot like 3D movies. The people making the film will have to go out of their way to invent situations that make the technology useful.



You might want to let James Cameron know 3D is a waste of his time, poor guy is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed . With your apparent superior incite and knowledge
I'm sure he would appreciate a call from you to put him back on track. I'd give him a call myself but unfortunately I'm not too bright either, I really like 3D. Good luck with this.


----------



## Nalleh

dragonleepenn said:


> What would be wrong with using two receivers legal wise, and months back I'd thought of this or something similar but never followed up on it. I will pm you if that's ok I want to know more,
> in Atmos are objects being properly mapped ? Please post further on your finds I like the idea of having more speakers as long as they play as intended I have multi side surrounds, two rows hooked up with a mini dsp for delay and phase alignment .
> 
> PeterV


Well, like i said : unlike just hooking the extra side surrounds to the existing ones, these are calibrated seperatly from them. So all eq, distance, level etc is correct. And it seems the mapping works pretty good, definitivly a bigger soundstage.



Scott Simonian said:


> No legal issues using two AVR's.
> Unfortunately, it just won't break down the full Atmos track any better using an extra one.
> You can't use one to do (let's just say) front and rear height and then have another one getting an identical signal and have it decode the front and rear tops, or whatever.
> 
> Each one will see the full mix and it will only be aware that you have two sets of whatever location and render appropriately. Having two does not make 4 sets of discrete overheads as they are not aware of each other. So while you will get sound, yes they will not properly render to the according area like having support for five pairs of overheads like a Trinnov or Datasat. Those will move an object from front to back, etc. Using two Atmos AVR's an object up front will simultaneously output at two sets of overheads (let's say front height and front top) and then pan as they would to the other set. While yes there are more speakers you would get essentially the same effect just hooking up two extra sets of speakers to the outputs on AVR #1 .


Yes, hooked up like you are suggesting, i agree with you. However mine are not overlapping. The 5200 has the front heights, while the 4100 has the top middle and rear height. So they have "seperate" places to put sound. And so far, it works much better than i tought. 
I had the same thoughts as you before i tried it, that they would try to put the same sound several places, but i can not hear such faults.
The Atmos demos Amaze and Leaf has much better panning, and natural sounds from above, and chapter 14 of TAOE, with the steel cables was superb in 9.1.6.



NorthSky said:


> I think that you are quite inventive/imaginative with your thinking.  And not only that but you make it happen too. ...In real life operational system.
> 
> * You are the perfect candidate for a Datasat or Trinnov sound system setup from their high-end channel distribution "object rendition" system through multiple combination of speakers (SSP). ...Only cost a little bit more, but for true passionate 3D sound people money is not a limitation, imagination is. ...And that last one you have in spades.
> 
> Of course all of this is legal.  ...And I'm a bit like you; surround sound explorer.


Thanks, i guess 
Yeah, well i might be crazy to do this, but i am not crazy enough to buy Trinnov or Datasat. Not yet anyway, haha.
And after i bought the 5200(wich was on my budget), by selling the old AVR, and using that money to buy the 4100, it was practically for free. Anyway that's my story and i am sticking to it. 

And no, the wides still not work on DSU.

AND yes, for those who counted: i have 21 speakers in my living room... 

And no, i am not married, LOL!


----------



## NorthSky

Have no doubt in thanking me; it was the u!timate compliment I was throwing @ you. ...You finally broke the sound barrier by making your own Dolby Atmos *9.1.6* setup.

* And in your avatar I counted *22* speakers (including the VOG speaker), plus *2* subwoofers.


----------



## zebidou81

groundtrac said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi i have a bit of experience with these Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers, i found the best position for them was 3/4 up the wall and angled at a further 20 degrees from wall as i sit 3.3m away, the driver in them is angled at 20 degrees and work best if you are sat 1.5-2m away, i used a laser pen with a tiny mirror on ceiling and fired the laser at the angle the driver fired at to hit my seating position, if you wall mount you can just unscrew the screw a bit to get extra angle. Also turn up speakers in av menu to around 6db i found helped.
> 
> I have now replaced my upfiring onkyo speakers with on ceiling Kef 3001se speakers which match my kef 6001s and subs and i must say the difference is night and day, i now feel i am getting the most out of the atmos setup as i couldnt with the onkyos, i feel like i am part of the onscreen action with the on ceiling kefs most of the time even with upmixing i am still like wow and i didnt get close to that with the onkyos.
> 
> 
> 
> Two comments, I too ended up boosting the atmos modules more than Audysey put them at. Second, I originally started with the Onkyo's and found them to be junk. Maybe if you were in a really small environment or something they might be fine, but they might have been the cheapest looking/feeling/sounding speaker build I've seen in a long while. On my first pass with Audysey, it actually thought there might be a phase problem on one of them. I re-ran it and it was fine second time around. I now use 4 SVS Satellite's angled to the ceiling. After some directional tweaking, I find Atmos excellent.
Click to expand...

Glad you have got the Atmos sound to your liking, i agree with you about the build quality of these modules, i was trying for days to get these to work as i wanted knowing there was something missing, like you say they would work much better in a small room, i got mine free with my 636 so it allowed me to try atmos out before buying the on ceiling kefs, i did not want to go down the route of adding ceiling speakers but boy in my case i am glad i did nearly everything i listen to now feels miles more engaging, with dsu constantly on if it isnt an atmos mix


----------



## ghiggs001

roxiedog13 said:


> I too have a dedicated theater, also set up exactly per the Dolby specs for 7.2 but with Atmos I tried to cheat on the fronts and went with the modules instead of in-ceiling . I ordered 4 more in-ceiling speakers today to add to the two rears already existing. I'll have 6 speakers in the ceiling once they are installed, ready for the next gen Atmos receiver whey it comes.


roxiedog: My setup is the Dolby 9.1.4 overhead speaker setup. I did not plan on having 6 overhead ceiling speaker setup, but if they were to suggest having 6 overhead speakers to improve the experience I might consider it since I have the space for it. My dedicated room is 18' x 27' x 10.5'high. I sit 21' from the screen which is the second row. Therefore, adding an additional 2 ceiling speakers toward the front of the room should be OK. Please let us know of your results when you install your in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Have no doubt in thanking me; it was the u!timate compliment I was throwing @ you. ...You finally broke the sound barrier by making your own Dolby Atmos *9.1.6* setup.
> 
> * And in your avatar I counted *22* speakers (including the VOG speaker), plus *2* subwoofers.



Haha, the avatar i found on the web, and it has 10 ceiling speakers! It's not my setup. But i like it 

My speaker count is:
5.1+FW+S2+SB+FH+TM+RH+SH+TS(VOG)+CH
(I have a couple of more subs too, but ran out of speaker wire, so i had to use wire from those subs. )


----------



## NorthSky

Too much man!


----------



## zgeneral

roxiedog13 said:


> You might want to let James Cameron know 3D is a waste of his time, poor guy is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed . With your apparent superior incite and knowledge
> I'm sure he would appreciate a call from you to put him back on track. I'd give him a call myself but unfortunately I'm not too bright either, I really like 3D. Good luck with this.


It's great you like 3D. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about it. Netflix has next to no 3D available. 3D as a percentage of box office showings and revenues has been declining.

Instead of rolling your eyes, you might want to pick up a newspaper sometime.



> In your thread you also list Legend of Hercules as an Atmos movie. Despite being told that it was not released in Atmos, you made no attempt to correct the incorrect information. That does make one wonder as to your integrity and your intention. You also refer to "4 Atmos movies" as having received Razzy noms, despite Step Up: All In not being in the Razzy list and Legend of Hercules not even being an Atmos mix anyway.


I stand corrected. I got my horrible movies mixed up. Expendables 3 ONLY got 3 razzie nominations. Hahahaha

As for Step Up having no nominations isn't relevant as my thread was about the 4 movies having Atmos having x number of razzie nods between them.

Again, rushing to get Atmos at home based on movie availability is not intelligent.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

zgeneral said:


> It's great you like 3D. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about it. Netflix has next to no 3D available. 3D as a percentage of box office showings and revenues has been declining.
> 
> Instead of rolling your eyes, you might want to pick up a newspaper sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. I got my horrible movies mixed up. Expendables 3 ONLY got 3 razzie nominations. Hahahaha
> 
> As for Step Up having no nominations isn't relevant as my thread was about the 4 movies having Atmos having x number of razzie nods between them.
> 
> Again, rushing to get Atmos at home based on movie availability is not intelligent.


you sound like a very pleasant person to be around... honestly why are you even here? or do you troll for enjoyment. ~_~


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> However *mine are not overlapping*. The 5200 has the front heights, while the 4100 has the top middle and rear height. So they have "seperate" places to put sound.


The Front heights have somewhat different signals in each of these conditions: 
FH alone
FH+TM
FH+TR
FH+RH

So if you set up the 5200 as FH+TM, but only connect FH outputs, then you do get the correct FH signals for a 6 height speaker setup. The problem is that the 4100 cannot give you the correct TM signals, as it thinks there are no FH speakers, so it carries more of that than needed. But, under the doctrine of "more is better." it probably sounds ok.


----------



## htpcforever

zgeneral said:


> It's great you like 3D. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about it. Netflix has next to no 3D available. 3D as a percentage of box office showings and revenues has been declining.
> 
> Instead of rolling your eyes, you might want to pick up a newspaper sometime.



AFAIK, James Cameron has more academy awards than you have. He has two Golden Globes and an Emmy, how many of each do you have?


I am going to go out on a limb and say you have none of either...which means his opinion on film making is more credible than yours.


----------



## roxiedog13

zgeneral said:


> It's great you like 3D. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about it. Netflix has next to no 3D available. 3D as a percentage of box office showings and revenues has been declining.
> 
> Instead of rolling your eyes, you might want to pick up a newspaper sometime.
> 
> I stand corrected. I got my horrible movies mixed up. Expendables 3 ONLY got 3 razzie nominations. Hahahaha
> 
> As for Step Up having no nominations isn't relevant as my thread was about the 4 movies having Atmos having x number of razzie nods between them.
> 
> Again, rushing to get Atmos at home based on movie availability is not intelligent.


I do indeed read the newspaper and "sometime" sums it up, not all the time, some times. Never read much about the 3D movie movement in the paper though . My paper is kind of backwards
as it only contains more localized and broader worldly kind of content . Yea, reading the paper is not my thing, I'm more of a doer to be honest, plug lots of hours at my business, spend plenty of time engaged in family activities, a lot of time exercising and a little downtime once in a while doing leisure activities like watching movies.

IMHO 3D is here to stay, like it or not . It's definitely on the down-cycle for sure, but that is expected. It peaked about 5 years ago with 123% growth, sales of TV's and Theaters being retrofitted with the latest 3D technology. It generated sales, saturated the market and now, naturally is moving on towards generating more sales. No surprise that at CES this year the latest gadgets for TV are UHD, 4K and curved , for Audio theres Atmos, DTS and Auro . 

Even if 3D diminishes to its lowest level, my guess is it will be back especially as we advance into the 8K realm. If something better comes along, fantastic, I hate wearing the glasses to be honest but for now I enjoy the process for certain movies only when its done right. And done right is subjective, what I like many more will not be that any genre of movie . There are plenty of movies 2D or 3D I couldn't be bothered to watch, I have no interest, however others do and this is what drives the market. 

And there in lies the driving force, the market. Movie makers and equipment manufactures keep rolling out new product in order to keep money flowing. Be it reality TV, Sci-Fi , Horror , 2D or 3D , HD , UHD, 4K, curved etc.,they dictate the product , we are just there make an informed decision and to buy or not. Advances will be made, technology will keep changing , some will fizzle while others will stick around a little longer and yet,even older technologies will reemerge . 

There is only one absolute and that is, only the future will tell, everything else is speculation and conjecture, that I can say is 100% accurate.


----------



## kbarnes701

zgeneral said:


> I stand corrected. I got my horrible movies mixed up. Expendables 3 ONLY got 3 razzie nominations. Hahahaha


Did it get a Razzy for sound then?



zgeneral said:


> As for Step Up having no nominations isn't relevant as my thread was about the 4 movies having Atmos having x number of razzie nods between them.


And those Razzy nods were for sound were they? If not, what is the relevance of your posts and your thread to Atmos? All the movies in this year's Razzies were also in color so why not a thread entitled "Color movies get 25 Razzy noms between them!" Do you see how irrelevant your comments and thread are?

And if you exclude Step-Up you meant 3 movies not 4 of course. And Legend of Hercules wasn't an Atmos movie anyway, so I guess you meant 2 movies. In fact, you really got this all mixed up didn’t you?  But let's not bring facts into it eh?



zgeneral said:


> Again, rushing to get Atmos at home based on movie availability is not intelligent.


Have you ever heard of planning ahead? That's pretty intelligent and one of the things which distinguishes us from lower forms of life. 

Has it ever occurred to you that other people do not share your own taste in movies?


----------



## wkearney99

I'm of the opinion that conflating 3D pictures with Atmos and the like is a big mistake. It's well within the realm of 'easy to do' to add speakers. 'Easy' from the standpoint that there's no new technologies involved. Speaker cones and connecting them to amps is a well-plowed field. Likewise, mastering audio during production has seen huge leaps in development. It does take some planning on the part of the production team, but it's quite a lot easier than it's ever been (for the gains possible).

Changing imaging hardware to go beyond a 2D representation to something approaching 3D is nowhere near as simple. The tech doesn't exist.

Me, I think 3D visuals are a waste of effort for cinematic materials and home theaters.


----------



## roxiedog13

wkearney99 said:


> I'm of the opinion that conflating 3D pictures with Atmos and the like is a big mistake. It's well within the realm of 'easy to do' to add speakers. 'Easy' from the standpoint that there's no new technologies involved. Speaker cones and connecting them to amps is a well-plowed field. Likewise, mastering audio during production has seen huge leaps in development. It does take some planning on the part of the production team, but it's quite a lot easier than it's ever been (for the gains possible).
> 
> Changing imaging hardware to go beyond a 2D representation to something approaching 3D is nowhere near as simple. The tech doesn't exist.
> 
> Me, I think 3D visuals are a waste of effort for cinematic materials and home theaters.


If it's a waste of time, I guess it would be reasonable to just not watch it I suppose. I make choices to avoid movie content I do not enjoy, quite simple really. Lots of choices in life, we all make decisions based on personal preferences that are certainly very subjective . Probably why the consumer world is full of choice and why most in civilized country's have the freedom to make that choice. I certainly feel fortunate there are so many choices, I have the means and freedom to make a choice and most important the courtesy not to criticize others for their choices. 

Hmmm, just wondering if this is somehow diverting from the topic, " The Official Dolby Atmos Thread ?" 3D is certainly off topic, the validity of Atmos probably not .


----------



## CBdicX

Well, this is "smart"...........
Denon AVR-X7200W, the new flagship receiver with *9 channels*.
For Dolby Atmos x.x.4 you need 11 channels, they must be a sleep at D/M 


I do not care, i am a Integra/Onkyo fan, but can not understand this decision to make it a 9 channel receiver and not 11 for this top of the line receiver.....


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> If it's a waste of time, I guess it would be reasonable to just not watch it I suppose. I make choices to avoid movie content I do not enjoy, quite simple really. Lots of choices in life, we all make decisions based on personal preferences that are certainly very subjective . Probably why the consumer world is full of choice and why most in civilized country's have the freedom to make that choice. I certainly feel fortunate there are so many choices, I have the means and freedom to make a choice and most important the courtesy not to criticize others for their choices.
> :


Agreed. I personally don't care much for 3D. But some do, and it is no penalty to me that they do. My PJ is 3D capable, and I choose not to use it. Others feel differently which is fine. It's not as if they are forcing me to watch movies in 3D. I fail to understand why people get so worked up about it. If you don't like it. just avoid it. Same with Atmos - for people who don't want it, or don't see the point of it, just avoid it. And especially avoid going to a thread full of people who are enthusiastic about it to give opinions based on misinformation and irrelevancies and which nobody is interested in hearing anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Well, this is "smart"...........
> Denon AVR-X7200W, the new flagship receiver with *9 channels*.
> For Dolby Atmos x.x.4 you need 11 channels, they must be a sleep at D/M
> 
> 
> I do not care, i am a Integra/Onkyo fan, but can not understand this decision to make it a 9 channel receiver and not 11 for this top of the line receiver.....


To date only Onkyo are doing an 11 channel AVR with Atmos aren’t they? I agree with you. A flagship AVR should have a flagship number of channels. I can personally see no significant reason to buy the 7200 over the 5200 - especially at such a huge price differential.


----------



## roxiedog13

CBdicX said:


> Well, this is "smart"...........
> Denon AVR-X7200W, the new flagship receiver with *9 channels*.
> For Dolby Atmos x.x.4 you need 11 channels, they must be a sleep at D/M
> 
> 
> I do not care, i am a Integra/Onkyo fan, but can not understand this decision to make it a 9 channel receiver and not 11 for this top of the line receiver.....


Have to agree, and the reason I purchased the X5200 for half the price now. Other that 24 vs 32 bit they are the same. Well, the X7200 will have the update available to HDCP 2.2
but it will need to be shipped back . I needed a second AVR anyway because my 27 year old Pioneer is on the way out. I'm holding out now to see what is coming down the pipe
from the other manufacturers within the next year. First one that has the options I am looking for will be the winner. All of these companies make fantastic product in my opinion
and the price point certainly competitive. I wonder who will bring in the first Atmos enabled 11 channel AVR ?


----------



## wkearney99

roxiedog13 said:


> Hmmm, just wondering if this is somehow diverting from the topic, " The Official Dolby Atmos Thread ?" 3D is certainly off topic, the validity of Atmos probably not .


Indeed, my point was to rebut the notion that the validity of Atmos (or any dimensional audio system) has anything to do with the 3D visual efforts. They don't compare, at all. Attempts to drag one into a debate about the other have no validity and serve no purpose, perhaps other than as a distraction. It's a tactic often used as an attempt to bolster an otherwise entirely bogus perspective.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I fail to understand why people get so worked up about it. If you don't like it. just avoid it.


Some people can't. They're not happy doing something unless they can get others to do it too. It's not enough to not be an Atmos early-adopter themselves, they have to go on a crusade to save others from trying Atmos (and DSU) so early in its roll out.


----------



## wkearney99

roxiedog13 said:


> ... because my 27 year old Pioneer is on the way out. I'm holding out now to see what is coming down the pipe...


So what's your hurry? If you're waiting nearly 3 decades you're clearly not the target demographic for, well, anything new. 

That said, there are certainly many interesting developments going on right now. But as with any kind of technologies, you're often ill-served if you buy them for ANYTHING other than what they do RIGHT NOW. Sure, there's all kinds of potential (if you believe the marketing hype) but unless you're in the hype business that's really of no value. None of this is anything resembling an 'investment'. It's gear that does something, _now_.


----------



## wkearney99

CBdicX said:


> ...but can not understand this decision to make it a 9 channel receiver and not 11 for this top of the line receiver.....


Window of opportunity, potential audience, and target price-points, are all likely factors that go into a vendor deciding what to bring to market. 

Sometimes they hit their target, sometimes they're wide of the bullseye (or don't hit the board at all!) There's an awful lot crammed into recent generations of AVRs and the uneveness of all those features highlights a lot of the typical 'engineering blindness' we've all come to loathe from electronics manufacturers. 

But, realistically, what're the total numbers that would be reasonably expected to buy an 11 channel setup? Likely not high enough at this point in time to make it worth the effort. Especially not in the face of all of the other solutions being targeted with all the other features crammed into the gear.


----------



## kbarnes701

wkearney99 said:


> None of this is anything resembling an 'investment'. It's gear that does something, _now_.


Most sensible thing I've read in this context for ages.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> To date only Onkyo are doing an 11 channel AVR with Atmos aren’t they? I agree with you. A flagship AVR should have a flagship number of channels. I can personally see no significant reason to buy the 7200 over the 5200 - especially at such a huge price differential.



Not all have 11 channels, but the higher receiver and pre-amps do, the TX-NR3030 and PR-SC5530 and for Integra the DTR 70.6 and the DHC 80.6


----------



## CBdicX

roxiedog13 said:


> Have to agree, and the reason I purchased the X5200 for half the price now. Other that 24 vs 32 bit they are the same. Well, the X7200 will have the update available to HDCP 2.2
> but it will need to be shipped back . I needed a second AVR anyway because my 27 year old Pioneer is on the way out. I'm holding out now to see what is coming down the pipe
> from the other manufacturers within the next year. First one that has the options I am looking for will be the winner. All of these companies make fantastic product in my opinion
> and the price point certainly competitive. I wonder who will bring in the first Atmos enabled 11 channel AVR ?



Onkyo and Integra have the 11 channel receivers and pre-amps !!


----------



## sveineb

CBdicX said:


> Onkyo and Integra have the 11 channel receivers and pre-amps !!


Ambra - Prism of Life

This one got remixed with a Atmos soundtrack. 

Can download a demo on the site too.


----------



## sveineb

sveineb said:


> Ambra - Prism of Life
> 
> This one got remixed with a Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Can download a demo on the site too.


Can not paste a link but go here: future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm


----------



## Josh Z

zgeneral said:


> It's great you like 3D. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about it. Netflix has next to no 3D available. 3D as a percentage of box office showings and revenues has been declining.
> 
> Instead of rolling your eyes, you might want to pick up a newspaper sometime.


It's great that you like the posts you've made in this forum. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about your opinions.

Instead of trolling this forum, you might want to take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, "Am I writing these things just to be a jerk? What do I get out of behaving like this?"


----------



## roxiedog13

wkearney99 said:


> So what's your hurry? If you're waiting nearly 3 decades you're clearly not the target demographic for, well, anything new.
> 
> That said, there are certainly many interesting developments going on right now. But as with any kind of technologies, you're often ill-served if you buy them for ANYTHING other than what they do RIGHT NOW. Sure, there's all kinds of potential (if you believe the marketing hype) but unless you're in the hype business that's really of no value. None of this is anything resembling an 'investment'. It's gear that does something, _now_.


The 27 year old AVR is in my family room was at one point the only surround system in the house. Served me well up to this point but will now have to replace it with something . Not in a hurry to replace it but will have to soon as most functions are now not working . As for being clearly not the target demographic  well now, I think you might have hurt my feelings !  

I have actually spent 1 1/2 years building a dedicated home theater room in my home. I believe I am , for the most part, ahead of the technology curve and have been an early adopter of new technologies from day one. I had the first 4K Sony VPL VW600ES ( 500 in Canada ) and I had the first Draper TecVision 1.8 gain curved screen off the assembly line. I missed the boat entirely on the Atmos movement ( wife had cancer) and by the time I realized it was coming my room was finished and the 7.2 up and running . Once I realized what Atmos was all about I decided to give it a go as well. I have the X5200 Denon ( temporarily) now and have all the speakers installed for the eventual 9.2.6 that I have settled on. When the AVR is available to run my theater 
with 6 in-ceiling speakers I will commit . So, I guess I am ready now, could even be considered one of those in the target demographic category actually .


----------



## lightthief

jgourlie said:


> lightthief said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does MLP mean?
> Bit of n00b to audio things.
> 
> Also how did you tilt your speakers? Just prop something under them?
> 
> 
> 
> MLP is Main Listening Position eg. my couch.
> 
> I at first tilted the speakers by putting felt pads under the back of them. Or you could use cardboard or anything to support the back of the speaker. I spent several hours testing them at various tilt heights and volume levels until I found what sounded best in my room by unplugging my other speakers and just playing the skh-410's. I didn't plug them into the front speakers as some have suggested, that does seem like a good idea, not sure if that would have helped my or not.
> 
> I then built a wedge out of 2x6 wood that better supports the speakers at the 2.5inch tilt that I liked.
Click to expand...


Spent some time working on my set up. 
The sound from all around bit seems good but still not getting much from the "above" standpoint. 

Right now I have them a bit above and behind my front speakers and tilted slightly forward. 

Did you just increase the volume of the Atmos speakers relative to the other speakers?

Kinda finding them taking over and they don't sound that great on their own of course.


----------



## bargervais

sveineb said:


> Can not paste a link but go here: future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm


Thanks for sharing this find.. I'll download it tonight when I get home that's what this thread is all about sharing what we find to enhance our listening pleasure.


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> It's great that you like the posts you've made in this forum. Of course, you're in the vast minority of people. Not many people care about your opinions.
> 
> Instead of trolling this forum, you might want to take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, "Am I writing these things just to be a jerk? What do I get out of behaving like this?"





CBdicX said:


> Onkyo and Integra have the 11 channel receivers and pre-amps !!


I guess what I meant was, I was waiting for the AVR/Pre Pro that supported 6 in-ceiling Atmos speakers. I'm running 7.2.4 now, installing speakers for 7.2.6 . 
I'll check the Onkyo Intergra units out, my guess they do not support 6 in-ceiling Atmos but do have the capacity to run 7.1.4 without the need for the additional 
2 channel amplifier.


----------



## CBdicX

sveineb said:


> Ambra - Prism of Life
> 
> This one got remixed with a Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Can download a demo on the site too.


 
Thanks for the link, but this is not to great for Atmos testing.
Thought Onkyo would put more effort in a "demostration" disk for Atmos, like Dolby did.
Sound do pan from right to left and a bit over head, but its more a 5.1 demo then a Atmos demo.


I know there will be more on the Blu-ray, this is just one example, but this is the wrong choice to demo Atmos, at least i think so.......


----------



## Kamikaze13

I'm going to add 4 ceiling speakers for future Atmos. Should I lower my surrounds?


----------



## sdurani

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'm going to add 4 ceiling speakers for future Atmos. Should I lower my surrounds?


I would, just to get better around-you vs above-you separation.


----------



## wkearney99

roxiedog13 said:


> As for being clearly not the target demographic  well now, I think you might have hurt my feelings !


Heh, it was intended as tongue in cheek. I didn't add the smiley because leaving it out tends to rile up the asshats just looking to pick fights over inane little bits of technological details. So consider yourself promoted above that line of scum around the pond... 

:wink: :grin: At some point we're all somebody's idea of an idiot, some just stick around that point far longer than others...

I'm in a somewhat similar situation in that I've budget to get a theater set up, but have lacked the time to investigate it fully. I'm somewhat grateful to have delayed the process, what with all the 4K and Atmos related developments being churned up. I've been pleased with my recent Denon purchases, in that they've avoided annoying the **** out of me like the past four decades of gear have so often done. Sometimes it's not about how wonderful something is, it's about how much it DOESN'T SUCK compared to it's nearest competition. But then I've also learned to focus on what I really want out of the gear, not just what the marketing department wants to claim I could do with it. As in, most of the on-board streaming and other features. First and foremost I need it to be a reliable source switcher and provide decent sound. The rest, meh, if I want those features I can go get the 'best of breed' on the market for those and plug them into the AVR. Rather than deluding myself into hoping the AV vendor is ever going to fully/properly implement them. They're just not fundamental features or core interests for the AVR vendors, and as such will never get properly implemented. Thus how it sounds, how it can be controlled and how effectively it interacts with the source gear are MUCH more important to me. 

Sometimes it's more important to understand just how much something sucks *as implemented*, not whether or not it can be updated. Because most never really gets updated effectively, at least not before the manufacturing cycle has moved on to the next generation.

That circles back around to Atmos in that in order to get everything set up effectively it's going to depend on how well the developers have managed to engineer the hardware AND make the features accessible. Which folks will readily complain about. Thus my listening here...


----------



## Selden Ball

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'm going to add 4 ceiling speakers for future Atmos. Should I lower my surrounds?


Yes.

Maximizing the vertical distance between the surrounds and the overheads improves the effect.

As an intermediate test, you might consider adding "ear-level" side and rear surrounds and designating your current surround speakers as overheads (Top Middle and Rear Height, perhaps).


----------



## Kamikaze13

Selden Ball said:


> Yes.
> 
> Maximizing the vertical distance between the surrounds and the overheads improves the effect.
> 
> As an intermediate test, you might consider adding "ear-level" side and rear surrounds and designating your current surround speakers as overheads (Top Middle and Rear Height, perhaps).





sdurani said:


> I would, just to get better around-you vs above-you separation.


ok that's what I thought, I'll just have to make sure they're not in way and get damaged.

I'm completely re-doing my ceiling anyway so I now just need to figure out my best placement and type of speakers.

Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'll just have to make sure they're not in way and get damaged.


The rear speakers can stay on the back wall, but lowered so they're firing just above the heads of listeners in the back row.


----------



## Kamikaze13

sdurani said:


> The rear speakers can stay on the back wall, but lowered so they're firing just above the heads of listeners in the back row.


Right. My right surround is next to my riser step so if lower it I need to make sure it won't get run into.

Also my fronts are a fair bit wider than my surround backs, does that matter?


----------



## sdurani

Kamikaze13 said:


> My right surround is next to my riser step so if lower it I need to make sure it won't get run into.


Maybe move it forward of the media cabinet?


> Also my fronts are a fair bit wider than my surround backs, does that matter?


No, their spread is unrelated. Your rear speakers should be at least 60 degrees apart. How far is your main listening position from the back wall?


----------



## Kamikaze13

sdurani said:


> How far is your main listening position from the back wall?


I believe 64"


----------



## sveineb

sveineb said:


> Ambra - Prism of Life
> 
> This one got remixed with a Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Can download a demo on the site too.





CBdicX said:


> Thanks for the link, but this is not to great for Atmos testing.
> Thought Onkyo would put more effort in a "demostration" disk for Atmos, like Dolby did.
> Sound do pan from right to left and a bit over head, but its more a 5.1 demo then a Atmos demo.
> 
> 
> I know there will be more on the Blu-ray, this is just one example, but this is the wrong choice to demo Atmos, at least i think so.......


I agree. But it is what it is and we need more movies remixed for Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Kamikaze13 said:


> I believe 64"


In that case, the rear speakers should be spread around 80" to 120" apart (roughly 60-90 degree spread). Precise placement isn't that important back there. As long as those sounds are clearly coming from behind you and well separated from sounds coming from your left & right side, you're reaping the advantages of a 7.1-speaker layout.


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> The Front heights have somewhat different signals in each of these conditions:
> FH alone
> FH+TM
> FH+TR
> FH+RH
> 
> So if you set up the 5200 as FH+TM, but only connect FH outputs, then you do get the correct FH signals for a 6 height speaker setup. The problem is that the 4100 cannot give you the correct TM signals, as it thinks there are no FH speakers, so it carries more of that than needed. But, under the doctrine of "more is better." it probably sounds ok.


I agree with you, and that's why i haven't tried it until now. I was skeptical. But i had a opportunity to test it, and i thought: what a hell, i'll try it.
I expected there could be several problems, and yes, it is a little harder to operate, but it works better than i thought it would. The sounds seem to come from where they are supposed to, and it just sounds bigger, more seamless. Kind of like going from 2 overheads to 4.
But hey, like i said: this is not for everybody  
And here the 5200 cost $2000 and the 4100 cost $1100, so there are still more expensive receivers than those two put together.


----------



## Kamikaze13

sdurani said:


> In that case, the rear speakers should be spread around 80" to 120" apart (roughly 60-90 degree spread).


Perfect thanks. I think they are about 76" apart so I may move them a bit farther apart but I just don't want the back left surround too close to the corner.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> In that case, the rear speakers should be spread around 80" to 120" apart (roughly 60-90 degree spread). Precise placement isn't that important back there. As long as those sounds are clearly coming from behind you and well separated from sounds coming from your left & right side, you're reaping the advantages of a 7.1-speaker layout.


If I were him and going to move them anyway (to lower them) I'd move them into the rear corners. Should make the rear surround field sound larger with better separation.


----------



## Kamikaze13

Scott Simonian said:


> If I were him and going to move them anyway (to lower them) I'd move them into the rear corners. Should make the rear surround field sound larger with better separation.


But that would put them right beside my L/R surrounds? Or about 5' apart anyways.


----------



## Kamikaze13

Kamikaze13 said:


> But that would put them right beside my L/R surrounds? Or about 5' apart anyways.


My room is 16'7 wide so I'm not sure if that makes a difference on placement?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> If I were him and going to move them anyway (to lower them) I'd move them into the rear corners. Should make the rear surround field sound larger with better separation.


That would put the rears at roughly ±120°, which is close to where the surrounds normally go in a 5.1 set-up, reducing the impression of those sounds clearly behind the listeners (would sound more rear-ish/side-ish).


----------



## NorthSky

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'm going to add 4 ceiling speakers for future Atmos. Should I lower my surrounds?


Yes, definitely. ... www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 7* (• All listener speakers should be @ the same height, ... 3.9 feet ...).

* And pages 30, 31, 32, 33.


----------



## Kamikaze13

NorthSky said:


> Yes, definitely. ... www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 7* (• All listener speakers should be @ the same height, ...).
> 
> * And pages 30, 31, 32, 33.


Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I can get my ceiling speakers out that wide in my room so hopefully that's ok.

Can the ceiling speakers be installed at an angle or should they be firing straight down?

I will have a section of angled ceiling similar to the photo but much wider. (kind of hard to see)


----------



## hahajiang

Hi all, 
I'm building a Dolby atmos system with projector in family room of new construction. (roughly 25x23ft, sitting 12ft from screen) As you see in the picture (boxes are front and rear speakers, circles are ceiling speakers) I'm planning to install in-wall speaker in the sloped ceiling above kitchen as rear speaker, and put standing front and sub in the front, use ceiling speakers as 4 atmos. 
Now I have a question, this setup give me 150 degree for side/rear speakers and I really don't have other space to put them, will this setup sound good for Dolby atmos? any suggestions?

Also, 6.5 or 8 inch? monoprice or polk speakers? install bracket or not?

Thank you very much.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Yes, definitely. ... www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 7* (• All listener speakers should be @ the same height, ... 3.9 feet ...).
> 
> * And pages 30, 31, 32, 33.





Kamikaze13 said:


> Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I can get my ceiling speakers out that wide in my room so hopefully that's ok.
> 
> Can the ceiling speakers be installed at an angle or should they be firing straight down?
> 
> I will have a section of angled ceiling similar to the photo but much wider. (kind of hard to see)


That link I just provided above; take your time and read it all (it won't take that long), but it'll be worth it (rewarding). 
It will answer pretty much all your questions regarding all type of speaker's positioning for a perfect Dolby Atmos setup. ..."Perfect" ... close enough.


----------



## Kamikaze13

NorthSky said:


> take your time and read it all (it won't take that long), but it'll be worth it (rewarding).
> It will answer pretty much all your questions regarding all type of speaker's positioning for a perfect Dolby Atmos setup. ..."Perfect" ... close enough.


How did you know I was a skimmer? lol


----------



## DAK4

hahajiang said:


> Hi all,
> I'm building a Dolby atmos system with projector in family room of new construction. (roughly 25x23ft, sitting 12ft from screen) As you see in the picture (boxes are front and rear speakers, circles are ceiling speakers) I'm planning to install in-wall speaker in the sloped ceiling above kitchen as rear speaker, and put standing front and sub in the front, use ceiling speakers as 4 atmos.
> Now I have a question, this setup give me 150 degree for side/rear speakers and I really don't have other space to put them, will this setup sound good for Dolby atmos? any suggestions?
> 
> Also, 6.5 or 8 inch? monoprice or polk speakers? install bracket or not?
> 
> Thank you very much.


That might work okay but I would try and put them in the wall somehow. It's somewhat similiar to my situation that I had that you can see in the link below. What about your side surrounds? As for speakers, I just went with 6.5 Micca speaks and they are doing great, but if you can fit something bigger and everyone is okay with the looks of them then you might as well go for it.


----------



## NorthSky

hahajiang said:


> Hi all,
> I'm building a Dolby atmos system with projector in family room of new construction. (roughly 25x23ft, sitting 12ft from screen) As you see in the picture (boxes are front and rear speakers, circles are ceiling speakers) I'm planning to install in-wall speaker in the sloped ceiling above kitchen as rear speaker, and put standing front and sub in the front, use ceiling speakers as 4 atmos.
> Now I have a question, this setup give me 150 degree for side/rear speakers and I really don't have other space to put them, will this setup sound good for Dolby atmos? any suggestions?
> 
> Also, 6.5 or 8 inch? monoprice or polk speakers? install bracket or not?
> 
> Thank you very much.


Not the ideal setup your plan:

1. All your main normal speakers should be @ roughly ear level, or no more than a foot above ear level for your surrounds.
2. You want Side surrounds.
3. Your rear surrounds are too high and too wide and too far.

Me, I would put my screen display on that top side wall (left when sitting on the actual couch), and follow Dolby Atmos speaker's positioning guidelines from the pdf link I just provided. ♦ After second thought; maybe not (lots of windows there). 
Or, leave it where you put it, but follow my three above suggestions.

* As for speaker's size (woofer's diameter), and speaker's brand, brackets, etc.; you're on your own (personal matter). 
==> This thread right here is full of useful information; take your time. In it there is exactly what you're looking for. 
It's tough for me (for us) to get to the exact post that would be the best direction for your own particular situation. ...Takes time, for anyone.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> That would put the rears at roughly ±120°, which is close to where the surrounds normally go in a 5.1 set-up, reducing the impression of those sounds clearly behind the listeners (would sound more rear-ish/side-ish).


But it isn't a 5.1 system.

I disagree but I would still have them wider than they are now, at least.


----------



## NorthSky

Kamikaze13 said:


> How did you know I was a skimmer? lol


You're Canadian too right?


----------



## hahajiang

Can I use 5.1.4 setup ? using the rears on the sloped wall as surrounds. Basically combine the side and rear of 7.1.4 setup to one pair of wide rear speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

hahajiang said:


> Can I use 5.1.4 setup ? using the rears on the sloped wall as surrounds. Basically combine the side and rear of 7.1.4 setup to one pair of wide rear speakers.


Yes. No need to "combine" speakers or locations. What you describe is a proper 5.1 system. Just add that extra .4 part.


----------



## Waboman

Just bought Lucy today. Not only is it not Atmos, it's not even 7.1. It's like we're taking a step backwards here.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Lol. Lot's of recent releases have been 5.1.


----------



## NorthSky

It just wasn't meant to be.


----------



## DAK4

hahajiang said:


> Can I use 5.1.4 setup ? using the rears on the sloped wall as surrounds. Basically combine the side and rear of 7.1.4 setup to one pair of wide rear speakers.


I would still try and lower those rear speakers if possible. And maybe you can use floor standing speakers for your side surrounds, at least run speaker wire to the side locations while the wall are open.


----------



## batpig

hahajiang said:


> Hi all,
> I'm building a Dolby atmos system with projector in family room of new construction. (roughly 25x23ft, sitting 12ft from screen) As you see in the picture (boxes are front and rear speakers, circles are ceiling speakers) I'm planning to install in-wall speaker in the sloped ceiling above kitchen as rear speaker, and put standing front and sub in the front, use ceiling speakers as 4 atmos.
> Now I have a question, this setup give me 150 degree for side/rear speakers and I really don't have other space to put them, will this setup sound good for Dolby atmos? any suggestions?
> 
> Also, 6.5 or 8 inch? monoprice or polk speakers? install bracket or not?
> 
> Thank you very much.


Since this is new construction is there no way you can jimmy in some lower level surrounds more towards the sides? Then you could place the speakers way in the back above the kitchen as the back surrounds and have a full 7.1.4 setup which would be less compromised. Having the two surrounds sooooooo far behind you isn't going to sound great (take it from someone who is constantly annoyed by the limitations of my room forcing my surrounds to be too far back).


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> But it isn't a 5.1 system.


Right, it would be a 7.1 system with the rears so far apart, they almost be approaching side speaker placement. Those rear speakers have to strike a balance between being wide enough apart for envelopment but not so far apart that rear-vs-side separation suffers.


> I disagree but I would still have them wider than they are now, at least.


Agreed. They're currently 76 inches apart; I suggested 80-120 inches apart.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh well, that's life; what can we truly do about it ....

'Lucy' by the way is a DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround mix. ...Not even in Dolby's territory to first start of with.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Be very annoyed about it on a public forum and throw a tizzy.


----------



## NorthSky

What do you mean Scott?


----------



## jgourlie

lightthief said:


> Spent some time working on my set up.
> The sound from all around bit seems good but still not getting much from the "above" standpoint.
> 
> Right now I have them a bit above and behind my front speakers and tilted slightly forward.
> 
> Did you just increase the volume of the Atmos speakers relative to the other speakers?
> 
> Kinda finding them taking over and they don't sound that great on their own of course.


Yes I just increased the volume of the atmos modules by 4db-8db depending on the input material. Louder for bluray and lower for Tv as they seem to be too much for a Tv signal. I left the volume of all the other speakers the same.

They definitely aren't high quality speakers, but for me they seem to be working.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> What do you mean Scott?





NorthSky said:


> Oh well, that's life; what can we truly do about it ....





Scott Simonian said:


> Be very annoyed about it on a public forum and throw a tizzy.



That's what we can do about it. 

Be annoyed. Lol, idk.


----------



## zeus33

htpcforever said:


> AFAIK, James Cameron has more academy awards than you have. He has two Golden Globes and an Emmy, how many of each do you have?
> 
> 
> I am going to go out on a limb and say you have none of either...which means his opinion on film making is more credible than yours.



And the two highest grossing films of all time. I would say that makes his opinion on film making the "most valuable", figuratively and literally speaking.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> That's what we can do about it.
> 
> Be annoyed. Lol, idk.


I see now. ...Or some can say that it is "retarded" to not release it in Dolby Atmos. ...I'd say no big deal.

* By the way; I'll be watching it tonight /// *'Lucy'*  ...On Blu of course. ...And without DSU.


----------



## JohnstownFlood

Hi all,

I'm trying my best to do the proper due diligence before asking the question, but I can't seem to find a solid answer. (and, yes, I realize that there are a lot of "it depends" in the equation here)

With regards to the surrounds and overhead speakers in Atmos, in a budget-minded 5.1.4 dedicated home theater, which is the better solution:

1. Mix in-walls and in-ceilings

2. Use only in-wall style speakers, and angle the ceiling mounted in-walls towards the MLP

Thanks in advance!


----------



## mentalinc

^^^^^^^^^ page 18
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


No direction angle to the MLP required.


----------



## brahman12

*Huge Thanks Kokishin*

I just created an Atmos demo flash drive from Kokishin's download files. Finished watching Oblivion with DSU engaged.... Really amazing sounding track was raised into an even higher level via DSU, WOW ....but the Dolby Atmos clips that are being so graciously shared by Kokishin for us to copy and enjoy....these demo clips are absolutely fan-freakin-tastic. I was awestruck and have not heard anything that real, immersive, and quite frankly 3D sounding ever....not in my home, nor at any audio show demo. This is what I heard within some awesome moments at the theaters here in Brooklyn/Manhattan while watching Atmos mixed films and what made me jump all in an become an early adopter. I needed to get that audio "high" again....and Atmos is giving it to me. Kokishin, ur a Saint....thanks a million


----------



## Roger Dressler

JohnstownFlood said:


> With regards to the surrounds and overhead speakers in Atmos, in a budget-minded 5.1.4 dedicated home theater, which is the better solution:
> 
> 1. Mix in-walls and in-ceilings
> 
> 2. Use only in-wall style speakers, and angle the ceiling mounted in-walls towards the MLP


Some have cautioned that inwalls used in ceilings could impact their performance if the woofer's suspension was not intended for horizontal use. So might be best to go for option 1. 

In any case, it will help for all of the speakers to be generally aimed toward the listening area, so either look for models that support that, or do it by means of how they are installed.


----------



## funhouse69

brahman12 said:


> I just created an Atmos demo flash drive from Kokishin's download files. Finished watching Oblivion with DSU engaged.... Really amazing sounding track was raised into an even higher level via DSU, WOW ....but the Dolby Atmos clips that are being so graciously shared by Kokishin for us to copy and enjoy....these demo clips are absolutely fan-freakin-tastic. I was awestruck and have not heard anything that real, immersive, and quite frankly 3D sounding ever....not in my home, nor at any audio show demo. This is what I heard within some awesome moments at the theaters here in Brooklyn/Manhattan while watching Atmos mixed films and what made me jump all in an become an early adopter. I needed to get that audio "high" again....and Atmos is giving it to me. Kokishin, ur a Saint....thanks a million



Where are these files? I've tried searching everywhere I can think of, I come up with some hits on this forum but can't find anything about downloads for the life of me.


----------



## JohnstownFlood

Roger Dressler said:


> Some have cautioned that inwalls used in ceilings could impact their performance if the woofer's suspension was not intended for horizontal use. So might be best to go for option 1.
> 
> In any case, it will help for all of the speakers to be generally aimed toward the listening area, so either look for models that support that, or do it by means of how they are installed.


I never would have thought to consider the effect of gravity on the woofer/magnet. Good consideration. The in-ceilings I'm looking at do have a aimable tweeter. I'm sold on doing the mix. Thanks!


----------



## funhouse69

JohnstownFlood said:


> I never would have thought to consider the effect of gravity on the woofer/magnet. Good consideration. The in-ceilings I'm looking at do have a aimable tweeter. I'm sold on doing the mix. Thanks!



Just as an FYI - I recently installed Four of the Klipsch 5800's in my Ceiling for a 5.1.4 Setup and they not only have an aimable tweeter but woofer as well. That said I found that you are much better off keeping the speakers mounted in their normal down firing position. 

Someone said they read on within the Atmos Specs that it is recommended to keep them that way so I tried both and it made a HUGE difference in the Atmos Experience which kind of makes sense as you are using the speakers for location based sound. Of course YMMV and if they are aimable then by all means give them a try both ways.


----------



## Roger Dressler

funhouse69 said:


> That said I found that you are much better off keeping the speakers mounted in their normal down firing position.
> 
> Someone said they read on within the Atmos Specs that it is recommended to keep them that way so I tried both and it made a HUGE difference in the Atmos Experience which kind of makes sense as you are using the speakers for location based sound. Of course YMMV and if they are aimable then by all means give them a try both ways.


Dolby's Atmos at home paper states:


> *Mounting considerations*
> 
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45
> degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10
> kHz or wider), then speakers* may be mounted facing directly downward*. For
> speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements
> should be angled toward the primary listening position.


The phrase "may be" tells us that it is acceptable to aim them down as long as the dispersion is wide enough. That does not mean it is recommended over other options, as those other options *may be* better than merely acceptable.  If one does want to try both arrangements, the Audyssey cal (if available and desired) will have to be run twice.


----------



## Trigen

funhouse69 said:


> Where are these files? I've tried searching everywhere I can think of, I come up with some hits on this forum but can't find anything about downloads for the life of me.


From Post No.15199 on Pg. 507
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4f69...!5282&ithint=folder,&authkey=!AIUKvn4wXEkJlTE

Instructions in that post.


----------



## roxiedog13

funhouse69 said:


> Just as an FYI - I recently installed Four of the Klipsch 5800's in my Ceiling for a 5.1.4 Setup and they not only have an aimable tweeter but woofer as well. That said I found that you are much better off keeping the speakers mounted in their normal down firing position.
> 
> Someone said they read on within the Atmos Specs that it is recommended to keep them that way so I tried both and it made a HUGE difference in the Atmos Experience which kind of makes sense as you are using the speakers for location based sound. Of course YMMV and if they are aimable then by all means give them a try both ways.


So funny, and btw, appreciate this feedback, it was as I expected. Dolby specs recommend mono direct firing for the sides and "wide dispersion" for the ceiling speakers. I'm using dipole in wall for the side which essentially are wide dispersion. Compared to direct firing mono pole that I have experimented with the dipole is better at being non localized and the bonus, the sound is the same from the front or back seats. Dolby also recommends wide dispersion for the ceiling but you cannot find any speakers, especially in-ceiling, with a dispersion rating. Most claim to be wide dispersion but without numbers who really knows what that means. Its like saying the efficiency of the speaker is "great" instead of 90DB. For some reason I ended up looking for in-ceiling speakers with the aimable tweeter arrangement but in the end gave up and tried to find one with a wide dispersion pattern because of the results with the side surrounds. I settled on a pair of Niles that have dual tweeters pointing 70degrees apart to disperse the sound. These also have the aimable woofer, at least I can choose to direct the sound or not to. 

Again, thanks for the feedback, I believe your comments have confirmed that I have made the right decision. The Onkyo modules I have for the front are not working out that's for sure , mostly because of the low ceiling over the speaker area . The Niles will be installed before the end of the week , I will report what my results are for comparison .


----------



## roxiedog13

Trigen said:


> From Post No.15199 on Pg. 507
> https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4f69...!5282&ithint=folder,&authkey=!AIUKvn4wXEkJlTE
> 
> Instructions in that post.


Just wondering if the demos from this link page 507 above are different that the Demos from Demo World, link below? They are .m2ts files that can be copied direct to a USB stick and plugged directly into your player if it supports USB of course. I tried the link above but somehow didn't get it right. I picked up some Blu Ray discs to try it again, will have to give it a go again but only if the demo is different than those from Demo World.

_There are four clips at http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/_
These are .m2ts files. Do we just burn them onto a blu-ray disk and that's all we need to do to get them to work? 

Like


----------



## zebidou81

wkearney99 said:


> I'm of the opinion that conflating 3D pictures with Atmos and the like is a big mistake. It's well within the realm of 'easy to do' to add speakers. 'Easy' from the standpoint that there's no new technologies involved. Speaker cones and connecting them to amps is a well-plowed field. Likewise, mastering audio during production has seen huge leaps in development. It does take some planning on the part of the production team, but it's quite a lot easier than it's ever been (for the gains possible).
> 
> Changing imaging hardware to go beyond a 2D representation to something approaching 3D is nowhere near as simple. The tech doesn't exist.
> 
> Me, I think 3D visuals are a waste of effort for cinematic materials and home theaters.


That is your opinion everyone is entitled to there own, i must say yours is not a great one.

Take Disney for example i feel there 3d movies are brilliant, now add Atmos sound to a great 3d movie and you are immersing yourself even more so than a with standard 2d and standard audio mix.

Take Gravity 3d for example with Atmos that was far from a waste of effort, if the movie is done right and fits the bill for a 3d movie it pays off.


----------



## Trigen

roxiedog13 said:


> Just wondering if the demos from this link page 507 above are different that the Demos from Demo World, link below? They are .m2ts files that can be copied direct to a USB stick and plugged directly into your player if it supports USB of course. I tried the link above but somehow didn't get it right. I picked up some Blu Ray discs to try it again, will have to give it a go again but only if the demo is different than those from Demo World.
> 
> _There are four clips at http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/_
> These are .m2ts files. Do we just burn them onto a blu-ray disk and that's all we need to do to get them to work?
> 
> Like


The disc contains 10 short clips including the four demo clips.

You can download the m2ts files located in BDMV\Stream without having a one drive account.


----------



## Csbooth

Hey guys, I have a few questions about amps and getting the desired 7.1.4 configuration since majority of AVRs (besides the Onkyo 3030 and one of their others that offer 11ch amplification and processing) only power 9 speakers with 11ch processing. 

If say, I got the Audiosource amp-100 2ch amp which is rated for 50watts with 8ohm speakers, would this be a problem pairing that to my two front(or rear) height in-ceiling Polk rc60i, as they are 100watts 8ohm speakers?

Additionally, does a 2ch amp have to be connected to specific speakers like the front L/R or would any combination be ok e.g Front left and rear right surround work?

Since I'm a total noob with the concept of pre-amp and all that, would I need to buy additional (rca?) Cables to hook from the amp to the desired processing on the back of the AVR?

What kind of settings would I need to do on the AVR menu, and would any kind of switch/knob need to be attended to on the back of the amp?

Lastly, for instance is there any real difference between the Onkyo 3030 to the 1030 other than the 3030 does power/process 11 speakers? The difference in MSRP is almost $800 which is insane imo for just two extra channels lol.

Thanks in advance for any and all help, and feel free to suggest any other 2ch amps for use to get my goal of 7.1(2).4!

- Charles


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
1. Yes, AMP-100 would be sufficient.
2. Depends on what brand/model you purchase (eg. on the 1030, 2CH amp must be connected to HEIGHT2/Wide speaker posts)
3. Yes, RCA cables must connect AVR pre-outs to external amp inputs
4. Settings will again depend on brand/model selected
5. Better quality components used on higher model, more DSPs


----------



## zebidou81

brahman12 said:


> I just created an Atmos demo flash drive from Kokishin's download files. Finished watching Oblivion with DSU engaged.... Really amazing sounding track was raised into an even higher level via DSU, WOW ....but the Dolby Atmos clips that are being so graciously shared by Kokishin for us to copy and enjoy....these demo clips are absolutely fan-freakin-tastic. I was awestruck and have not heard anything that real, immersive, and quite frankly 3D sounding ever....not in my home, nor at any audio show demo. This is what I heard within some awesome moments at the theaters here in Brooklyn/Manhattan while watching Atmos mixed films and what made me jump all in an become an early adopter. I needed to get that audio "high" again....and Atmos is giving it to me. Kokishin, ur a Saint....thanks a million



Hi do you have a link to Kokishin download files ? thanks


----------



## NOUDIDNT

*Dolby Atmos VUDU Demo*

I'm not an Atmos ("fanboy"/shill?)! but, I must say these VUDU Atmos demos that just arrived have been preety fun in my 5.1 system. It's actually convinced me to wait on Atmos because my 5.1 system sounds better than the full Atmos demo I heard. Fidelity is great tho, especially for "Amaze"

Will someone with more post count please provide the VUDU Atmos demo link for those who can't (myself) navigate the downloads.



P.S. Also, could someone with spectralab measure the "poweful bass" section of the Amaze Demo. That part made weird rattles in the house I've never heard. 

See yah


----------



## roxiedog13

zebidou81 said:


> That is your opinion everyone is entitled to there own, i must say yours is not a great one.
> 
> Take Disney for example i feel there 3d movies are brilliant, now add Atmos sound to a great 3d movie and you are immersing yourself even more so than a with standard 2d and standard audio mix.
> 
> Take Gravity 3d for example with Atmos that was far from a waste of effort, if the movie is done right and fits the bill for a 3d movie it pays off.


The OP has a valid point but in my opinion if done right Atmos and 3D can work . Like any technology combination it can be done really wrong too . Problem with 3D is it was done very poorly too many times since it began way back in the 1920's. It was marketed and sold to us, much of it was very gimmicky ( is that a word) and we have not forgotten. 3D has history and we now have all formed opinions, people do not forget. 3D however, has been done very, well, certainly adding significantly to the entire cinematic presentation . If Atmos is a part of the 3D process and the two are done right I would expect the technologies would only compliment one another . 

I like 3D sometimes, when done right and I'm enjoying the progression to Atmos , I look forward to movies made that incorporate both technologies WELL but will be fully aware of the gimmicky junk that can be marketed to the uninformed. As always, buyer beware :nerd: .


----------



## Csbooth

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> 1. Yes, AMP-100 would be sufficient.
> 2. Depends on what brand/model you purchase (eg. on the 1030, 2CH amp must be connected to HEIGHT2/Wide speaker posts)
> 3. Yes, RCA cables must connect AVR pre-outs to external amp inputs
> 4. Settings will again depend on brand/model selected
> 5. Better quality components used on higher model, more DSPs


Thank you for the concise answers, the only concern now is, would I need a y splitter for the preamp to the amp like I did for my subs?


----------



## mtbdudex

I figure those that have gone Atmos have their side/rear surrounds that angle them towards your MLP.
Q is what bracket are you doing that with?
My side and rear are just mounted flat with the small plastic bracket supplied by Paradigm, now I want to dial them in more by aiming them at the MLP.
Therefore needs to be 2 axis up/down and side/side moveable.









When I added my front heights I did angle them down with this bracket
I had (2) pair of these Vogels BEK100 Speaker Brackets, bought 12+ years ago and never used.
They are rated for 25kg/55lbs, and are robust.








.








They are very strong, black steel, and easily support my 17lb Mini-monitors.
Now that I need to buy 2 pairs for the side/rear surrounds, want to see what others are using.
Ref front install:









edit
I see these on Amazon, similar and $29/pair
http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Duty-Sp...?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1421851243&sr=1-11


----------



## roxiedog13

zebidou81 said:


> Hi do you have a link to Kokishin download files ? thanks


From Post No.15199 on Pg. 507
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4f699...IUKvn4wXEkJlTE

Instructions in that post.


----------



## Gurba

This one contains AFAIK alle the atmos Clips from the OneDrive.


https://oldpiratebay.org/torrent/12...ration-Disc-2014-1080p-Blu-ray-AVC-TrueHD-7-1


----------



## lujan

I'm having the height speakers installed today on my 7.1 setup to get to 7.1.4 and having them installed according to the picture here:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

on page 22 where I will have left and right top front and rear speakers. Are there any tips I should have the installers do while they're here? Do I need to do anything special when re-running audyssey after the installation is done. I would indicate FLH, FRH, RLH and RRH during the configuration, right?


----------



## zebidou81

roxiedog13 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi do you have a link to Kokishin download files ? thanks
> 
> 
> 
> From Post No.15199 on Pg. 507
> https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4f699...IUKvn4wXEkJlTE
> 
> Instructions in that post.
Click to expand...

Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

NOUDIDNT said:


> I'm not an Atmos ("fanboy"/shill?)! but, I must say these VUDU Atmos demos that just arrived have been preety fun in my 5.1 system. It's actually convinced me to wait on Atmos because my 5.1 system sounds better than the full Atmos demo I heard. Fidelity is great tho, especially for "Amaze"
> 
> Will someone with more post count please provide the VUDU Atmos demo link for those who can't (myself) navigate the downloads.


Just enter Atmos into the search bar provided on Vudu.com It'll point you to the Atmos titles (and _The Planets: Atmosphere_)

http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/638505/The-Dolby-Atmos-Experience

The four demo clips are free to Vudu members.


----------



## zebidou81

Gurba said:


> This one contains AFAIK alle the atmos Clips from the OneDrive.
> 
> 
> https://oldpiratebay.org/torrent/12...ration-Disc-2014-1080p-Blu-ray-AVC-TrueHD-7-1


Thanks will this play off usb


----------



## brahman12

As roxiedog13 has posted....go to post 15199 on page 507 of this thread we are currently posting on. You will be able to link to Kokishin's cloud drive. Follow the instructions he posted and you can create a disc or flash drive demo of ur own. It is amazing and madd fun lol. It has 11 clips including the Dolby "official" introduction. you can also get the link from at the bottom of any post Kokishin has placed. Good luck and hope you enjoy it.


----------



## ghiggs001

Trigen said:


> The disc contains 10 short clips including the four demo clips.
> 
> You can download the m2ts files located in BDMV\Stream without having a one drive account.


Trigen:
Could you give a brief description how to down load these files for the few of us who are not computer/internet savy as you are? I tried to get these files but everything on the URL is listed as display only and when I tried to download, save and open the files I had no success.
Thanks
George


----------



## Gurba

zebidou81 said:


> Thanks will this play off usb


I don't know. My PC is 1foot from the AVR so...


----------



## Trigen

ghiggs001 said:


> Trigen:
> Could you give a brief description how to down load these files for the few of us who are not computer/internet savy as you are? I tried to get these files but everything on the URL is listed as display only and when I tried to download, save and open the files I had no success.
> Thanks
> George


The clips are located at OneDrive>Dolby Atmos>Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc>BDMW>Stream

When you hover your mouse over the clip thumbnail, a small box appears on the top tight corner, click in it and a download option arrives in the top bar. If you are using list view (instead of thumbnails, the check box should be to the left of the name of the clip).

They are m2ts files, which can be copied on to a memory stick or burned into a Blu Ray and played as before.


----------



## zebidou81

So both my media centres ps4 and xbox1 will not play usb dolby atmos files (demo disc), ps4 does not play any vid file from usb it is used as my blu ray dolby atmos player and is fine with disc playback. The xbox 1 will play the demo vid files but with no audio no matter if its output in bitstream or uncompressed and does not output in dolby atmos even if it is on a blu ray disc which is annoying as it is supposed to keep updated to latest blu ray spec.
I would get a standalone player but waiting for 4k player at end of year or maybe the ps4 and xbox1 will update with 4k and atmos support in very near future


----------



## Selden Ball

zebidou81 said:


> So both my media centres ps4 and xbox1 will not play usb dolby atmos files (demo disc), ps4 does not play any vid file from usb it is used as my blu ray dolby atmos player and is fine with disc playback. The xbox 1 will play the demo vid files but with no audio no matter if its output in bitstream or uncompressed and does not output in dolby atmos even if it is on a blu ray disc which is annoying as it is supposed to keep updated to latest blu ray spec.
> I would get a standalone player but waiting for 4k player at end of year or maybe the ps4 and xbox1 will update with 4k and atmos support in very near future



I suggest you contact Sony and Microsoft to report their problems bitstreaming Dolby Atmos. They might or might not be able to fix the problems, but you shouldn't depend on other people reporting the problems for you.

Note that a Sony BD player which can bitstream Atmos costs less than $60. I suspect 4K UHD BD players are going to cost *much* more than that.


----------



## jdsmoothie

zebidou81 said:


> So both my media centres ps4 and xbox1 will not play usb dolby atmos files (demo disc), ps4 does not play any vid file from usb it is used as my blu ray dolby atmos player and is fine with disc playback. The xbox 1 will play the demo vid files but with no audio no matter if its output in bitstream or uncompressed and does not output in dolby atmos even if it is on a blu ray disc which is annoying as it is supposed to keep updated to latest blu ray spec.
> I would get a standalone player but waiting for 4k player at end of year or maybe the ps4 and xbox1 will update with 4k and atmos support in very near future


You won't have any problems when playing a real Atmos disc. My PS3 couldn't play Atmos files from a USB thumb drive either, however, has no problems playing Atmos Blu Ray discs to include the Dolby Demo disc.


----------



## zebidou81

Selden Ball said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So both my media centres ps4 and xbox1 will not play usb dolby atmos files (demo disc), ps4 does not play any vid file from usb it is used as my blu ray dolby atmos player and is fine with disc playback. The xbox 1 will play the demo vid files but with no audio no matter if its output in bitstream or uncompressed and does not output in dolby atmos even if it is on a blu ray disc which is annoying as it is supposed to keep updated to latest blu ray spec.
> I would get a standalone player but waiting for 4k player at end of year or maybe the ps4 and xbox1 will update with 4k and atmos support in very near future
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you contact Sony and Microsoft to report their problems bitstreaming Dolby Atmos. They might or might not be able to fix the problems, but you shouldn't depend on other people reporting the problems for you.
> 
> Note that a Sony BD player which can bitstream Atmos costs less than $60. I suspect 4K UHD BD players are going to cost *much* more than that.
Click to expand...

Yes i told microsoft they said that it is something that could possibly be added in the future, the ps4 plays Atmos from blu ray discs but does not allow any playback of vid files from usb. 

I wanted to play the dolby atmos demos as i have changed my setup from upfiring to on ceiling, i sold the blu ray atmos demo disc i had a few weeks ago thinking i wouldnt need it again.


----------



## billqs

Since someone else got good results, I thought I would post my setup for some additional help. 

I've had some great feedback in the DSU thread about my Theater setup and incorporating Atmos. I have an Onkyo 636 which allows for either a 7.1 setup or a 5.1.2 setup.

I initially had it setup 7.1 as seen in Image 1 below, with all surrounds mounted high on the wall adjacent to the ceiling. I have a long room with basically wall to wall screen. I'm using Definitive Technology Procenter 1000's as L R and Center, Procinema 800's as surrounds and Procinema 600's as rear surrounds.

I discussed this issue in the DSU thread because on my Onkyo the DSU replaces Prologic IIx that I used to span 7 channels. I was going to stay with 7.1 but not being content, I decided to try out DSU. I mounted my side surrounds temporarily as overhead speakers and went with a 5.1.2 layout. I was blown away by the incredible sound I got.

My dilemma can be seen in Image 2. I mounted my Procinema 600's overhead between row 1 and row 2 over over the leftmost and rightmost seats. I then made the rear wall my only surrounds with the Procinema 800's lowering them to 3rd row ear level.

This leaves the surrounds mounted on a back wall in a less than optimal position. I can't side wall mount at ear level without people running into the right surround speaker due to that being the only aisle into the seating area. 

Should I toe in or toe out the surround speakers to maximize their potential, or just leave them facing front into the rear of the seating area? Any comments or help would be great.


----------



## zebidou81

jdsmoothie said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So both my media centres ps4 and xbox1 will not play usb dolby atmos files (demo disc), ps4 does not play any vid file from usb it is used as my blu ray dolby atmos player and is fine with disc playback. The xbox 1 will play the demo vid files but with no audio no matter if its output in bitstream or uncompressed and does not output in dolby atmos even if it is on a blu ray disc which is annoying as it is supposed to keep updated to latest blu ray spec.
> I would get a standalone player but waiting for 4k player at end of year or maybe the ps4 and xbox1 will update with 4k and atmos support in very near future
> 
> 
> 
> You won't have any problems when playing a real Atmos disc. My PS3 couldn't play Atmos files from a USB thumb drive either, however, has no problems playing Atmos Blu Ray discs to include the Dolby Demo disc.
Click to expand...

Hi do you think the ps4 can play the mts.2 files on a data dvd if i put them on that ? I do not have a blu ray burner or i would do it that way


----------



## robert816

I just checked my Xbox One and made certain I had my sound output to bitstream and Dolby Digital, it doesn't like my "burned" Dolby Atmos demo disc at all, just gives errors.
I tried Expendables 3 but the AVR would only show Dolby Digital on the display and it's very obvious that the Atmos speakers are not on, however I can turn on DSU, but no Dolby Atmos playback from a retail disc with an Atmos mix.
I normally would not use the Xbox One for Blu-Ray playback anyway, but this does raise some questions.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> Just enter Atmos into the search bar provided on Vudu.com It'll point you to the Atmos titles (and _The Planets: Atmosphere_)
> 
> http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/638505/The-Dolby-Atmos-Experience
> 
> The four demo clips are free to Vudu members.


Thanks I noticed something odd if I play the vudu clips through the app on my Samsung TV it only plays in 5.1 not atmos.... but if I play them using the app on my Panasonic blu-ray player atmos lights up and it plays perfectly in Atmos.


----------



## zebidou81

robert816 said:


> I just checked my Xbox One and made certain I had my sound output to bitstream and Dolby Digital, it doesn't like my "burned" Dolby Atmos demo disc at all, just gives errors.
> I tried Expendables 3 but the AVR would only show Dolby Digital on the display and it's very obvious that the Atmos speakers are not on, however I can turn on DSU, but no Dolby Atmos playback from a retail disc with an Atmos mix.
> I normally would not use the Xbox One for Blu-Ray playback anyway, but this does raise some questions.


Hi i have the same prob. Microsoft support said to me that the xbox 1 does not support atmos, and i know it does not play any copied discs, and does not play usb atmos files either. 

My ps4 can play Dolby atmos from blu ray disc but has to be set to bitstream then during playback options button pressed then audio set to direct. No usb support.

These units are supposed to be state of the art and i expect them to be able to handle any audio from any source


----------



## robert816

bargervais said:


> Thanks I noticed something odd if I play the vudu clips through the app on my Samsung TV it only plays in 5.1 not atmos.... but if I play them using the app on my Panasonic blu-ray player atmos lights up and it plays perfectly in Atmos.


Same with the Oppo, the AVR instantly switched to Dolby Atmos when the demos were played back from VUDU.


Are the bitstream outputs on some devices "tied" to an audio format when output instead of being a generic output?


----------



## robert816

zebidou81 said:


> Hi i have the same prob. Microsoft support said to me that the xbox 1 does not support atmos, and i know it does not play any copied discs, and does not play usb atmos files either.
> 
> My ps4 can play Dolby atmos from blu ray disc but has to be set to bitstream then during playback options button pressed then audio set to direct. No usb support.
> 
> These units are supposed to be state of the art and i expect them to be able to handle any audio from any source


 
Bit of a pain in the backside, but it makes sense, by selecting direct for audio you are playing the source, I believe since the Xbox One requires you to set either Dolby Digital or DTS in the audio settings, that the output bitstream is being tied to the format you are selecting.
Thus the AVR instead of selecting which audio format to play back in, is being told by the device what format to play. While this doesn't affect me per say, I know there are a lot of people who use their Xbox One or PS4 for Blu-Ray playback and I'm certain they would want the system to play what they expect. I do hope both MS and Sony see their way clear to fixing this.


Also, it does not look as though the Xbox One supports seamless branching either. When I played the Expendables 3, I noticed audio dropout just like the OPPO BDP-93 does.


----------



## zebidou81

robert816 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi i have the same prob. Microsoft support said to me that the xbox 1 does not support atmos, and i know it does not play any copied discs, and does not play usb atmos files either.
> 
> My ps4 can play Dolby atmos from blu ray disc but has to be set to bitstream then during playback options button pressed then audio set to direct. No usb support.
> 
> These units are supposed to be state of the art and i expect them to be able to handle any audio from any source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a pain in the backside, but it makes sense, by selecting direct for audio you are playing the source, I believe since the Xbox One requires you to set either Dolby Digital or DTS in the audio settings, that the output bitstream is being tied to the format you are selecting.
> Thus the AVR instead of selecting which audio format to play back in, is being told by the device what format to play. While this doesn't affect me per say, I know there are a lot of people who use their Xbox One or PS4 for Blu-Ray playback and I'm certain they would want the system to play what they expect. I do hope both MS and Sony see their way clear to fixing this.
> 
> 
> Also, it does not look as though the Xbox One supports seamless branching either. When I played the Expendables 3, I noticed audio dropout just like the OPPO BDP-93 does.
Click to expand...

Yes i used my xbox1 as my primary blu ray player and was upset to find no atmos support, i then had to bring my ps4 from upstairs to living room to playback atmos mixed blu rays, i have expendables 3 to but did not have a problem with playback on ps4, i am sure the xbox1 will add atmos support at some point just a matter of when


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> I'm having the height speakers installed today on my 7.1 setup to get to 7.1.4 and having them installed according to the picture here:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> on page 22 where I will have left and right top front and rear speakers. Are there any tips I should have the installers do while they're here? Do I need to do anything special when re-running audyssey after the installation is done. I would indicate FLH, FRH, RLH and RRH during the configuration, right?


I usually get good responses but today got totally ignored. 

I finally got everything setup for 7.1.4 and the Atmos USB drive demos sounded great. I heard each of them twice and as others have been saying, the "Amaze" one sounded the best but they all sounded good. Tonight I'm going to try listening to each of them again via Vudu.


----------



## robert816

zebidou81 said:


> Yes i used my xbox1 as my primary blu ray player and was upset to find no atmos support, i then had to bring my ps4 from upstairs to living room to playback atmos mixed blu rays, i have expendables 3 to but did not have a problem with playback on ps4, i am sure the xbox1 will add atmos support at some point just a matter of when



Just curious, does the Blu-Ray app on the PS4 not have a bitstream (direct) setting that would allow for Atmos playback without having to start the movie and then changing audio settings? Apologies to all if this is going off topic.


----------



## zebidou81

robert816 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes i used my xbox1 as my primary blu ray player and was upset to find no atmos support, i then had to bring my ps4 from upstairs to living room to playback atmos mixed blu rays, i have expendables 3 to but did not have a problem with playback on ps4, i am sure the xbox1 will add atmos support at some point just a matter of when
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, does the Blu-Ray app on the PS4 not have a bitstream (direct) setting that would allow for Atmos playback without having to start the movie and then changing audio settings? Apologies to all if this is going off topic.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the app i have never done it that way. Once you have selected bitstream from menu then options and direct during playback it is stored and rememberd that way, you do not need to repeat for every movie if you do not change the bitstream setting


----------



## ghiggs001

Trigen said:


> The clips are located at OneDrive>Dolby Atmos>Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc>BDMW>Stream
> 
> When you hover your mouse over the clip thumbnail, a small box appears on the top tight corner, click in it and a download option arrives in the top bar. If you are using list view (instead of thumbnails, the check box should be to the left of the name of the clip).
> 
> They are m2ts files, which can be copied on to a memory stick or burned into a Blu Ray and played as before.


Thanks. I will try it.
George


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert816 said:


> Just curious, does the Blu-Ray app on the PS4 not have a bitstream (direct) setting that would allow for Atmos playback without having to start the movie and then changing audio settings? Apologies to all if this is going off topic.


You also have to make sure Secondary Audio (or whatever Sony calls it) is turned off... not just that it's set to audio bitstreaming. You don't want the player to be mixing sound effects and sub audio streams with the main soundtrack and then sending the data to a receiver or pre-amp. That will also cause a problem with Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro3D decoding.  The raw soundtrack bitstream off the disc _must_ be unaltered.


----------



## zebidou81

Dan Hitchman said:


> robert816 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, does the Blu-Ray app on the PS4 not have a bitstream (direct) setting that would allow for Atmos playback without having to start the movie and then changing audio settings? Apologies to all if this is going off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> You also have to make sure Secondary Audio (or whatever Sony calls it) is turned off... not just that it's set to audio bitstreaming. You don't want the player to be mixing sound effects and sub audio streams with the main soundtrack and then sending the data to a receiver or pre-amp. That will also cause a problem with Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro3D decoding. The raw soundtrack bitstream off the disc _must_ be unaltered.
Click to expand...

Secondry audio ? I didnt need to alter anything else apart from audio out to bitstream and options set audio to direct during playback, i have not seen the secondry audio option but maybe it was already set to off as default


----------



## Roger Dressler

roxiedog13 said:


> Dolby also recommends wide dispersion for the ceiling but you cannot find any speakers, especially in-ceiling, with a dispersion rating.


Several of us use Tannoy speakers which indeed include detailed dispersion specs. *Link*.


----------



## roxiedog13

Roger Dressler said:


> Several of us use Tannoy speakers which indeed include detailed dispersion specs. *Link*.


Thanks for the link, the Tannoy certainly seem like a good choice, I have however finally made a decision and have placed an order for 4 speakers already.

I ended up buying Niles DS7FX for in-ceiling. Still no specs for dispersion but I figured the dual apposing 1" tweeters would make an effective wide dispersion pattern. The speaker has aimable 7" woofer and dual 1" aimable tweeters, at least I'll be able to direct the sound as necessary. FX surround effects models feature a Diffuse / Direct selection switch as well to make the sound non directional . Here are the specs:

http://www.nilesaudio.com/product.php?prodID=DS7FX&recordID=DS%20Directed%20Soundfield&categoryID=Speakers&prdcdID=FG01618


----------



## Glenn Baumann

roxiedog13 said:


> Thanks for the link, look like a good choice, I have however finally made a decision and have placed an order for 4 speakers already.
> 
> I ended up buying Niles DS7FX for in-ceiling. Still no specs for dispersion but I figured the dual apposing 1" tweeters would make an effective wide dispersion pattern. The speaker has aimable 8" woofer and dual 1" aimable tweeters, at least I'll be able to direct the sound as necessary. FX surround effects models feature a Diffuse / Direct selection switch as well to make the sound non directional . Here are the specs.
> 
> http://www.nilesaudio.com/product.php?prodID=DS7FX&recordID=DS%20Directed%20Soundfield&categoryID=Speakers&prdcdID=FG01618




roxiedog13,


You should also check out this in-ceiling speaker from Atlantic Technology! http://www.atlantictechnology.com/i...g-speakers/ic-8363-tri-mode-ceiling-speakers/ These 6.5" or 8" in-ceiling speakers also utilize Dual Pivoting Tweeters for better dispersion. 

I have not experienced these particular in-ceiling speakers, but I have used and thoroughly enjoyed many various Atlantic Tech speakers over the years. They have always provide a VERY high quality experience!  Fantastic products.... Highly Recommended!!!!

Their speakers are VERY neutral, true to the source, yet revealing. They can be listened to for extended intervals with no fatigue even at high levels!

On another note, the Atlantic Tech 44-DA Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers also look interesting.


...Glenn


----------



## robert816

Dan Hitchman said:


> You also have to make sure Secondary Audio (or whatever Sony calls it) is turned off... not just that it's set to audio bitstreaming. You don't want the player to be mixing sound effects and sub audio streams with the main soundtrack and then sending the data to a receiver or pre-amp. That will also cause a problem with Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro3D decoding. The raw soundtrack bitstream off the disc _must_ be unaltered.


Thank you sir, I was aware of turning off secondary audio on Blu-Ray players, didn't know this affected the PS4 also. I don't own a PS4 but have several friends that do, so whenever I learn something about how to configure something on them, I always share that information with my friends. I believe I read on Pocket-Lint.com that you can set the output of the PS4 to bitstream(direct) in the Blu-Ray app, and the AVR should detect the Atmos Mix, but again since I do not own a PS4 I cannot confirm this.


----------



## jdsmoothie

robert816 said:


> Thank you sir, I was aware of turning off secondary audio on Blu-Ray players, *didn't know this affected the PS4* also. I don't own a PS4 but have several friends that do, so whenever I learn something about how to configure something on them, I always share that information with my friends. I believe I read on Pocket-Lint.com that you can set the output of the PS4 to bitstream(direct) in the Blu-Ray app, and the AVR should detect the Atmos Mix, but again since I do not own a PS4 I cannot confirm this.


It doesn't. Only Sony "Blu Ray players".


----------



## jdsmoothie

Glenn Baumann said:


> On another note, the Atlantic Tech 44-DA Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers also look interesting.
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Speaking of which ... we have a couple pair of Satin Black 44-DA's as "open box" units if anyone is interested in "upward firing" Atmos speakers as opposed to "in-ceiling/ceiling" mounted. These can be placed on top of existing tower/bookshelf speakers or on their own dedicated speaker stands or shelf.


----------



## billqs

billqs said:


> Since someone else got good results, I thought I would post my setup for some additional help.
> 
> I've had some great feedback in the DSU thread about my Theater setup and incorporating Atmos. I have an Onkyo 636 which allows for either a 7.1 setup or a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> I initially had it setup 7.1 as seen in Image 1 below, with all surrounds mounted high on the wall adjacent to the ceiling. I have a long room with basically wall to wall screen. I'm using Definitive Technology Procenter 1000's as L R and Center, Procinema 800's as surrounds and Procinema 600's as rear surrounds.
> 
> I discussed this issue in the DSU thread because on my Onkyo the DSU replaces Prologic IIx that I used to span 7 channels. I was going to stay with 7.1 but not being content, I decided to try out DSU. I mounted my side surrounds temporarily as overhead speakers and went with a 5.1.2 layout. I was blown away by the incredible sound I got.
> 
> My dilemma can be seen in Image 2. I mounted my Procinema 600's overhead between row 1 and row 2 over over the leftmost and rightmost seats. I then made the rear wall my only surrounds with the Procinema 800's lowering them to 3rd row ear level.
> 
> This leaves the surrounds mounted on a back wall in a less than optimal position. I can't side wall mount at ear level without people running into the right surround speaker due to that being the only aisle into the seating area.
> 
> Should I toe in or toe out the surround speakers to maximize their potential, or just leave them facing front into the rear of the seating area? Any comments or help would be great.


Hey, I think my post got buried in the midst of others listing experience with Dolby Atmos Demo File and XBox or PS3. 

Could someone give me guidance on my 5.1.2 Atmos setup? I did rough sketches to show the previous 7.1 setup versus the 5.1.2 one. I am trying to get the best use out of my surrounds since they cannot come from a wide angle slightly behind the area due to a door and an aisle.

Also, I am using matching speakers for the height Def Tech PC600's. Should I be ordering a set of Tannoy's for the height work, or is timbre matching the way to go. 

I could also use feedback on my heigh placement.

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## jprod

Greetings. This thread is huge so forgive me if its been asked before. I have front heights that i used for pllz. I am getting a 7702. Do front heights work ok for dsu/atmos or am I back to the drawing board?
Also how is just front heights for auto-3d?
I currently have a 9.1 system and will eventually expand to 11.1 but not till the summer ( need another 2 speakers and another amp which will have to go on the back burner for the immediate future)


----------



## roxiedog13

Glenn Baumann said:


> roxiedog13,
> 
> 
> You should also check out this in-ceiling speaker from Atlantic Technology! http://www.atlantictechnology.com/i...g-speakers/ic-8363-tri-mode-ceiling-speakers/ These 6.5" or 8" in-ceiling speakers also utilize Dual Pivoting Tweeters for better dispersion.
> 
> I have not experienced these particular in-ceiling speakers, but I have used and thoroughly enjoyed many various Atlantic Tech speakers over the years. They have always provide a VERY high quality experience!  Fantastic products.... Highly Recommended!!!!
> 
> Their speakers are VERY neutral, true to the source, yet revealing. They can be listened to for extended intervals with no fatigue even at high levels!
> 
> On another note, the Atlantic Tech 44-DA Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers also look interesting.
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Atlantic was one of my first choices, I was waiting for the new in-ceiling Atmos version they were advertizing. The Canadian dealer did not have a clue about it, nor was he really interested in helping so I gave up trying. Speakercraft has a great in-ceiling option as well with their Aim series, which are true THREE way and have dual mid range and tweeters. Once again, zero support in Canada , I just got sick of trying to buy their product without any support from them. The Atlantic version of the Atmos modules work very well I'm sure, my setup is not ideal for modules due to
a low ceiling above the proposed speaker area.

I have a brand new set of Onkyo SKH-410 for sale for this reason. So, shamless plug here ......Selling a pair of Onkyo modules brand new, shipping included $125US.


----------



## dvdwilly3

billqs said:


> Since someone else got good results, I thought I would post my setup for some additional help.
> 
> I've had some great feedback in the DSU thread about my Theater setup and incorporating Atmos. I have an Onkyo 636 which allows for either a 7.1 setup or a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> I initially had it setup 7.1 as seen in Image 1 below, with all surrounds mounted high on the wall adjacent to the ceiling. I have a long room with basically wall to wall screen. I'm using Definitive Technology Procenter 1000's as L R and Center, Procinema 800's as surrounds and Procinema 600's as rear surrounds.
> 
> I discussed this issue in the DSU thread because on my Onkyo the DSU replaces Prologic IIx that I used to span 7 channels. I was going to stay with 7.1 but not being content, I decided to try out DSU. I mounted my side surrounds temporarily as overhead speakers and went with a 5.1.2 layout. I was blown away by the incredible sound I got.
> 
> My dilemma can be seen in Image 2. I mounted my Procinema 600's overhead between row 1 and row 2 over over the leftmost and rightmost seats. I then made the rear wall my only surrounds with the Procinema 800's lowering them to 3rd row ear level.
> 
> This leaves the surrounds mounted on a back wall in a less than optimal position. I can't side wall mount at ear level without people running into the right surround speaker due to that being the only aisle into the seating area.
> 
> Should I toe in or toe out the surround speakers to maximize their potential, or just leave them facing front into the rear of the seating area? Any comments or help would be great.


Is there enough space between row 2 and the table behind it to mount them on stands in that space?


----------



## billqs

dvdwilly3 said:


> Is there enough space between row 2 and the table behind it to mount them on stands in that space?


That might be possible. I was a little worried about proximity effect. I would still be a tight fit, but at least that might buy a way to toe the surround speakers in like they would normall sit.


----------



## harrybnbad

Ive got a question for you guys.

I keep hearing about these atmos demo discs. So I managed to download one where I find most of my video content. It was called, ( untouched dolby atmos demonstration )

No grant you. I do not have a atmos avr yet. Im running a denon 4520, 11.2. setup. Which ive never thought really was much of a jump from my old 5.1 system. Although the expendables 2 neo-x demo was cool.

Ive never heard my home sound like this atmos demo. Whats the deal????
I see on the front of my 4520 avr is all lit up. Showing 7.1 input, and dolby HD. I pretty much always use the neo-x for output.

So is my avr being tricked, getting something odd played into it? Or is the actual mix (7.1) thats in this atmos demo better that most mixes.


----------



## dvdwilly3

billqs said:


> That might be possible. I was a little worried about proximity effect. I would still be a tight fit, but at least that might buy a way to toe the surround speakers in like they would normall sit.


If it were I, that is what I would do, and lower the gain a bit to adjust for proximity... Not the ideal perhaps, but at least workable...


----------



## kbarnes701

harrybnbad said:


> Ive got a question for you guys.
> 
> I keep hearing about these atmos demo discs. So I managed to download one where I find most of my video content. It was called, ( untouched dolby atmos demonstration )
> 
> No grant you. I do not have a atmos avr yet. Im running a denon 4520, 11.2. setup. Which ive never thought really was much of a jump from my old 5.1 system. Although the expendables 2 neo-x demo was cool.
> 
> Ive never heard my home sound like this atmos demo. Whats the deal????
> I see on the front of my 4520 avr is all lit up. Showing 7.1 input, and dolby HD. I pretty much always use the neo-x for output.
> 
> So is my avr being tricked, getting something odd played into it? Or is the actual mix (7.1) thats in this atmos demo better that most mixes.


It's a top quality demo. So it's kinda 'hyped'. If you think it sounds great in 7.1 or matrixed 11.1 - wait till you hear it in proper Atmos!

I was about to say it's a pity they don't mix the movies to sound that way - but then I reeled myself in. It would be too much - 2 hours of sound like that and you'd be exhausted, terrified and probably brain-damaged  But for short demos, they are the best I have ever heard too.


----------



## billqs

dvdwilly3 said:


> If it were I, that is what I would do, and lower the gain a bit to adjust for proximity... Not the ideal perhaps, but at least workable...


It really is tight in my room. My room is 10 feet wide and the aisle is only about 20 inches wide. The right surround would have to fit, stand and all directly behind the rightmost seat, even the stand could not protrude beyond it.

It would have the benefit of widening up the surround field at least a little bit which might help. 

Another possibility, though I hate the idea of my limited skills cutting in drywall, would be to go with in wall surrounds with moveable tweeters to aim at the sides. That would get me the widest rear sound field though I've never heard reasonably priced in walls sound as good as enclosed speakers.

Also, could someone check my overhead placement? I think it's good for my seating situation, but maybe something above the front row might be more appropriate? Also, should I change out the Def Techs for Tannoys up top?


----------



## briansxx

I just played some of my old SQ Quad LPs using DSU. Astonishing! The instrument positioning and separation is much better than with PLII, the previous option I used on my old AVR. I assume this is because the Atmos processor uses phase information as part of its positioning process. The "Hornpipe" section from the Mike Oldfield quad Boxed Set was particularly impressive, with a deep, 3D soundstage and great room ambiance. I am sure that the positioning of the "wanderings" of Mike as he dances around the manor house are not accurate, but Atmos really moved him around the speakers in a ways that PLII did not.

Time to dig out those old quad LPS!

Best,

Brian


----------



## ss9001

briansxx said:


> I just played some of my old SQ Quad LPs using DSU. Astonishing! The instrument positioning and separation is much better than with PLII, the previous option I used on my old AVR. I assume this is because the Atmos processor uses phase information as part of its positioning process. The "Hornpipe" section from the Mike Oldfield quad Boxed Set was particularly impressive, with a deep, 3D soundstage and great room ambiance. I am sure that the positioning of the "wanderings" of Mike as he dances around the manor house are not accurate, but Atmos really moved him around the speakers in a ways that PLII did not.
> 
> Time to dig out those old quad LPS!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian


As an old timer quaddie, nice to see someone else still listening to them 

I have an extensive collection of SQ/CD4/QS and the vintage gear to play them but it's very exciting that DSU does a good job with SQ. In case I have to retire my Sansui & Tate units


----------



## ss9001

I haven't been checking this thread for awhile so this may be old news but another Atmos Blu-ray seems to be in the works if this is correct -

Vice

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...-scifi-adventure-vice-headed-for-bluray/20660


----------



## billqs

briansxx said:


> Time to dig out those old quad LPS!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian


Wish I had a quad mix of Dark Side of the Moon. I'm still tempted to listen to it with DSU. I know DSU has issues for music with a traditional front soundstage, but things like Pink Floyd or Mike Oldenfeld might really benefit this arrangement.


----------



## justthinking

Has anyone done a direct comparison of 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4?


----------



## briansxx

ss9001 said:


> As an old timer quaddie, nice to see someone else still listening to them
> 
> I have an extensive collection of SQ/CD4/QS and the vintage gear to play them but it's very exciting that DSU does a good job with SQ. In case I have to retire my Sansui & Tate units


Steve,

I have only have one discrete album (Eagles, On the Border), but the sound quality is terrible! I don't have too many quad disks (they are all SQ or QS), but I'm really looking forward to giving them another listen. Wish I had bought more, like you did.

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## briansxx

billqs said:


> Wish I had a quad mix of Dark Side of the Moon. I'm still tempted to listen to it with DSU. I know DSU has issues for music with a traditional front soundstage, but things like Pink Floyd or Mike Oldenfeld might really benefit this arrangement.


Bill,

I do have a Quad version of DSM, but I have not listened to it yet. I'll have to give it a spin this evening. I do have the SACD multichannel disk--it's quite spectacular. The quad version of "Caravanserai" is just superb in DSU; it really embeds you in the sound. What impresses me most about DSU is its ability to create a "real-feeling" multichannel experience from just 2 channels, if that's the only source you have.

Enjoy!

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## Kris Deering

Not that it is much surprise but the new Hunger Games Blu-ray (Mockingjay Part 1) was just announced with Atmos. Release is in March. Looks like Lionsgate is fully onboard. Another interesting bit, it will also feature a DTS:X headphone track.


----------



## sdrucker

Kris Deering said:


> Not that it is much surprise but the new Hunger Games Blu-ray (Mockingjay Part 1) was just announced with Atmos. Release is in March. Looks like Lionsgate is fully onboard. Another interesting bit, it will also feature a DTS:X headphone track.


So that's two releases I'd actually watch, along with having an Atmos mix (the other being Gravity). I'm glad that the bandwagon's glacial speed has slightly increased...


----------



## Spanglo

billqs said:


> Wish I had a quad mix of Dark Side of the Moon. I'm still tempted to listen to it with DSU. I know DSU has issues for music with a traditional front soundstage, but things like Pink Floyd or Mike Oldenfeld might really benefit this arrangement.


Multi channel Pink Floyd + DSU is a great mix. 

I've been expanding all my 2 channel music with NeoX + DS and the results are awesome.


----------



## Nalleh

Kris Deering said:


> Not that it is much surprise but the new Hunger Games Blu-ray (Mockingjay Part 1) was just announced with Atmos. Release is in March. Looks like Lionsgate is fully onboard. Another interesting bit, it will also feature a DTS:X headphone track.


Link?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Not that it is much surprise but the new Hunger Games Blu-ray (Mockingjay Part 1) was just announced with Atmos. Release is in March. Looks like Lionsgate is fully onboard. Another interesting bit, it will also feature a DTS:X headphone track.


Thanks Kris. It seems that the trickle of titles is starting to turn into, well, a bigger trickle 

Mind you, I saw _*The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1*_ at Dolby's London HQ in pretty much perfect conditions, and the Atmos track isn't one of the most overtly impressive. I did a write-up of that experience for this thread, somewhere. But it is still good to see titles coming through now (not that I ever doubted it of course, LOL).

EDIT: found it. *Here it is*.


----------



## ss9001

Kris Deering said:


> Not that it is much surprise but the new Hunger Games Blu-ray (Mockingjay Part 1) was just announced with Atmos. Release is in March. Looks like Lionsgate is fully onboard. Another interesting bit, it will also feature a DTS:X headphone track.


That makes 2 more this week. And a hi-profile title. 
Kudos to Lionsgate!


----------



## dvdwilly3

billqs said:


> It really is tight in my room. My room is 10 feet wide and the aisle is only about 20 inches wide. The right surround would have to fit, stand and all directly behind the rightmost seat, even the stand could not protrude beyond it.
> 
> It would have the benefit of widening up the surround field at least a little bit which might help.
> 
> Another possibility, though I hate the idea of my limited skills cutting in drywall, would be to go with in wall surrounds with moveable tweeters to aim at the sides. That would get me the widest rear sound field though I've never heard reasonably priced in walls sound as good as enclosed speakers.
> 
> Also, could someone check my overhead placement? I think it's good for my seating situation, but maybe something above the front row might be more appropriate? Also, should I change out the Def Techs for Tannoys up top?


I recognize that you are trying to re-purpose what you already have, but if I were in your shoes, I would consider dipoles for those rear surrounds, such as 8040SR. That would spread your surround field nicely without having to tear into anything. You can get them refurb on eBay for $135 each. 
Those are about the most reasonably priced dipoles that I know of and were, in fact, what I had prior to replacing them with 8080SRs. I had changed out my fronts from 8040ST to 8060ST to use the A60s...which I did, but then was dissatisfied with them, and changed the A60s to GoldenEar SuperSats which are now mounted on top of the 8060STs. And, fake Dolby-enabled, or not, they work like a champ...and this is just DSU and not true Atmos.


----------



## thestoneman

As promised, here is my average guy Atmos review of Transformers 4. I'll start by saying it should have been called "The Age Exstinktion". The story's suckiness was only eclipsed by the terrible acting. Now I see why this made the early blu ray list of movies with Atmos...there was no other reason to buy/watch this movie.

That said, the sound mix kept me interested throughout this turd. It being my first Atmos experience, I was continually impressed with the mix and found the sound coming from overhead to be really cool experience. I was hoping for more sound panning overhead and to echo others, I thought this movie could have giving Atmos a bigger workload. One scene toward the end finally gave the top channels some wattage and that was sick. I finally felt like I was "in the bubble".

I can't say this was a religious experience though. It was certainly awesome and I'm extremely happy I installed overheads. Hard to say people should rip out their drywall and redo their configs asap. If I am building a new HT, however, and I DON'T wire for Atmos/DTS:X/Auro, I need to have my head examined. After watching T4, it is a no-brainer.


----------



## batpig

billqs said:


> Since someone else got good results, I thought I would post my setup for some additional help.
> 
> I've had some great feedback in the DSU thread about my Theater setup and incorporating Atmos. I have an Onkyo 636 which allows for either a 7.1 setup or a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> I initially had it setup 7.1 as seen in Image 1 below, with all surrounds mounted high on the wall adjacent to the ceiling. I have a long room with basically wall to wall screen. I'm using Definitive Technology Procenter 1000's as L R and Center, Procinema 800's as surrounds and Procinema 600's as rear surrounds.
> 
> I discussed this issue in the DSU thread because on my Onkyo the DSU replaces Prologic IIx that I used to span 7 channels. I was going to stay with 7.1 but not being content, I decided to try out DSU. I mounted my side surrounds temporarily as overhead speakers and went with a 5.1.2 layout. I was blown away by the incredible sound I got.
> 
> My dilemma can be seen in Image 2. I mounted my Procinema 600's overhead between row 1 and row 2 over over the leftmost and rightmost seats. I then made the rear wall my only surrounds with the Procinema 800's lowering them to 3rd row ear level.
> 
> This leaves the surrounds mounted on a back wall in a less than optimal position. I can't side wall mount at ear level without people running into the right surround speaker due to that being the only aisle into the seating area.
> 
> Should I toe in or toe out the surround speakers to maximize their potential, or just leave them facing front into the rear of the seating area? Any comments or help would be great.





billqs said:


> Hey, I think my post got buried in the midst of others listing experience with Dolby Atmos Demo File and XBox or PS3.
> 
> Could someone give me guidance on my 5.1.2 Atmos setup? I did rough sketches to show the previous 7.1 setup versus the 5.1.2 one. I am trying to get the best use out of my surrounds since they cannot come from a wide angle slightly behind the area due to a door and an aisle.
> 
> Also, I am using matching speakers for the height Def Tech PC600's. Should I be ordering a set of Tannoy's for the height work, or is timbre matching the way to go.
> 
> I could also use feedback on my heigh placement.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help!



Honest, somewhat brutal advice: you got the wrong receiver. You are doing a major disservice to a dedicated, multi-row home theater space by trying to implement 3D audio with a 7ch receiver. I think part of the reluctance of folks to assist in your case is that you have placed yourself in a pretty awkward compromise position where you don't have enough speakers to deploy to meet your goals. I don't know how you can get adequate coverage for 2 rows (plus the bar) with only 7 speakers -- you have to rob Peter to pay Paul when you redeploy the limited assets to try and cover the overhead zone.

With respect to the last question first, since it's easy -- nothing wrong with using the DT ProCinemas as heights, they match your other speakers and you seem to be happy with how they sound. No need to overcomplicate that part. The Tannoy's are popular because of their easy-mounted C-bracket, wide dispersion, and relatively low pricing thanks to being utilitarian designs. But I don't think they are inherently better "Atmos speakers" than the DT's per se.

Now to the rest -- If there is any way possible, I would strongly, strongly encourage you to upgrade your receiver to something that supports 9ch playback (if not 11). With 9 channels, you could maintain your current 7.1 "base layer" and then when you add the two overheads you are not doing so at the expense of the lateral surround layer. 

Regardless of what you do, I echo the suggestion of the poster above to move to one of DT's bipolar models for the surrounds (e.g. the 8040BP is only $135 shipped from Def Tech's eBay outlet). That would allow you to flush mount to the sides of the rows and provide broader, more dispersed coverage that will mitigate the issue with the narrow room. If you simply have to stick to the current receiver, that is the best compromise to having only two surrounds to cover multiple rows in the room.

But if you can also upgrade to a receiver that supports 9ch+ playback, then you can have the best of all worlds, adding the two bipolar surrounds, and then using one pair of your ProMonitors as back surrounds and the other as the overheads.


----------



## batpig

jprod said:


> Greetings. This thread is huge so forgive me if its been asked before. I have front heights that i used for pllz. I am getting a 7702. Do front heights work ok for dsu/atmos or am I back to the drawing board?
> Also how is just front heights for auto-3d?
> I currently have a 9.1 system and will eventually expand to 11.1 but not till the summer ( need another 2 speakers and another amp which will have to go on the back burner for the immediate future)


Yes Front Height is one of the allowed 5 overhead positions with Atmos, and in fact is the only position that can be "shared" among other upmixers like Auro and Neo:X. Because of that many people have set up their systems with the forward pair of overheads set to FH so they can switch between different modes and still have some vertical sound expansion. Later on you can supplement that with a pair of overheads either above or behind the listening position for the full 4 overhead array.


----------



## billqs

batpig said:


> Honest, somewhat brutal advice: you got the wrong receiver. You are doing a major disservice to a dedicated, multi-row home theater space by trying to implement 3D audio with a 7ch receiver. I think part of the reluctance of folks to assist in your case is that you have placed yourself in a pretty awkward compromise position where you don't have enough speakers to deploy to meet your goals. I don't know how you can get adequate coverage for 2 rows (plus the bar) with only 7 speakers -- you have to rob Peter to pay Paul when you redeploy the limited assets to try and cover the overhead zone.
> 
> With respect to the last question first, since it's easy -- nothing wrong with using the DT ProCinemas as heights, they match your other speakers and you seem to be happy with how they sound. No need to overcomplicate that part. The Tannoy's are popular because of their easy-mounted C-bracket, wide dispersion, and relatively low pricing thanks to being utilitarian designs. But I don't think they are inherently better "Atmos speakers" than the DT's per se.
> 
> Now to the rest -- If there is any way possible, I would strongly, strongly encourage you to upgrade your receiver to something that supports 9ch playback (if not 11). With 9 channels, you could maintain your current 7.1 "base layer" and then when you add the two overheads you are not doing so at the expense of the lateral surround layer.
> 
> Regardless of what you do, I echo the suggestion of the poster above to move to one of DT's bipolar models for the surrounds (e.g. the 8040BP is only $135 shipped from Def Tech's eBay outlet). That would allow you to flush mount to the sides of the rows and provide broader, more dispersed coverage that will mitigate the issue with the narrow room. If you simply have to stick to the current receiver, that is the best compromise to having only two surrounds to cover multiple rows in the room.
> 
> But if you can also upgrade to a receiver that supports 9ch+ playback, then you can have the best of all worlds, adding the two bipolar surrounds, and then using one pair of your ProMonitors as back surrounds and the other as the overheads.


Thanks for the advice, Batpig and I appreciate the advice, even if very direct (I did not find it brutal at all). I ended up with Atmos basically free because I was looking for a receiver with HDCP 2.2 and 4k to go with my Sony 500ES projector and FMP X10 Media Player. At the time the Onkyo was the only one that had the HDCP out. The 636 at $499 was the most reasonable receiver with 7 amplified channels. So, by happy accident I got Atmos as a firmware upgrade that also improved HDMI response.

I'm still paying off the projector and the Media Player so that has hit my wallet rather severely. I went looking for a receiver with additional channels with Atmos but couldn't find much of anything below about $1500- right about triple what I paid for my current receiver. Who has the most reasonably priced 9 channel receiver with Atmos? For Onkyo you have to go all the way up to the 1030 before you get 9 channels, the Denon X5200 is similar and there's a Yamaha all around the same price. I was thinking about holding with my current receiver at least until DTS X gets added probably in the upcoming model year.

I appreciate the recommendation for the DT bipoles. Those look like they would really help to fill my 10 by 19 room better with sound. Could I mount them on the back walls instead of the sides, so as not to encumber the narrow aisle? Or is mounting them at ear level not as important given their bipolar design?


----------



## briansxx

billqs said:


> Thanks for the advice, Batpig and I appreciate the advice, even if very direct (I did not find it brutal at all). I ended up with Atmos basically free because I was looking for a receiver with HDCP 2.2 and 4k to go with my Sony 500ES projector and FMP X10 Media Player. At the time the Onkyo was the only one that had the HDCP out. The 636 at $499 was the most reasonable receiver with 7 amplified channels. So, by happy accident I got Atmos as a firmware upgrade that also improved HDMI response.
> 
> I'm still paying off the projector and the Media Player so that has hit my wallet rather severely. I went looking for a receiver with additional channels with Atmos but couldn't find much of anything below about $1500- right about triple what I paid for my current receiver. Who has the most reasonably priced 9 channel receiver with Atmos? For Onkyo you have to go all the way up to the 1030 before you get 9 channels, the Denon X5200 is similar and there's a Yamaha all around the same price. I was thinking about holding with my current receiver at least until DTS X gets added probably in the upcoming model year.
> 
> I appreciate the recommendation for the DT bipoles. Those look like they would really help to fill my 10 by 19 room better with sound. Could I mount them on the back walls instead of the sides, so as not to encumber the narrow aisle? Or is mounting them at ear level not as important given their bipolar design?


Bill,

I almost felt sorry for you when I read Batpig's response. Then I read the bit about the Sony 500ES. Now I'm just jealous! 

Awesome PJ!

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## robert816

jdsmoothie said:


> It doesn't. Only Sony "Blu Ray players".



Thank you for the correction, good to know for future reference!


----------



## batpig

billqs said:


> Thanks for the advice, Batpig and I appreciate the advice, even if very direct (I did not find it brutal at all). I ended up with Atmos basically free because I was looking for a receiver with HDCP 2.2 and 4k to go with my Sony 500ES projector and FMP X10 Media Player. At the time the Onkyo was the only one that had the HDCP out. The 636 at $499 was the most reasonable receiver with 7 amplified channels. So, by happy accident I got Atmos as a firmware upgrade that also improved HDMI response.
> 
> I'm still paying off the projector and the Media Player so that has hit my wallet rather severely. I went looking for a receiver with additional channels with Atmos but couldn't find much of anything below about $1500- right about triple what I paid for my current receiver. Who has the most reasonably priced 9 channel receiver with Atmos? For Onkyo you have to go all the way up to the 1030 before you get 9 channels, the Denon X5200 is similar and there's a Yamaha all around the same price. I was thinking about holding with my current receiver at least until DTS X gets added probably in the upcoming model year.
> 
> I appreciate the recommendation for the DT bipoles. Those look like they would really help to fill my 10 by 19 room better with sound. Could I mount them on the back walls instead of the sides, so as not to encumber the narrow aisle? Or is mounting them at ear level not as important given their bipolar design?


Fair enough. Unfortunately you do have to get to the $1k+ territory right now to get 9 channels. The Denon X4100 can do 9 channels with an extra 2ch amp added in, and then there are the models with 9 channels built in at the higher price point. 

So, then, let's assume you will hold out with your current unit for the time being until an upgrade 1-2 years down the road to a model that supports 9+ channels with HDCP2.2 etc. Unless you don't mind moving speakers around, I would still try to plan your speaker layout around the eventual "optimal" speaker layout.

The bipoles, due their wide dispersion, will be more forgiving with placement laterally, so you can probably get away with mounting them further back so as not to encumber the aisle. Can you do a back corner mounting so at least they are firing towards the seating area and you get the reflected sound along the side wall to get some better lateral coverage? I would still mount them just above ear level -- the fact that they are bipole/dipole doesn't change the principle of trying to create separation between the "layers" of sound.


----------



## zebidou81

Has anybody got tried the new tmnt movie with atmos mix yet ? Is there any atmos demos on disc like expendables 3 ? I am still waiting for my region free copy from us postage taking forever, as not released here yet.


----------



## Murbella7

zgeneral said:


> Yet another troll. Should you want to argue with me, please focus on the content of what I'm saying instead of trying to glean some agenda that you've made up.
> 
> In terms of my post about Razzies, here's the list of nominations. I do think I was incorrect that there's 17 nominations for Atmos movies. There's actually 18. You can actually look that up to give you something to do.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/razzie-awards-2015-complete-list-nominees/story?id=28216849
> 
> Please feel free to man up and show me how any of that was misleading. Seriously, use your words and tell me.
> 
> There's no anti-atmos crusade here. Just rational thought by me. My points have consistently been that people getting so hyped up at Atmos is stupid because there's only 4 movies that support Atmos and they're all terrible, by the time there are actually decent movies on Bluray that support it the format may have changed, and largely that there are several other competing 3d sound formats that have incompatible speaker layouts. As such, adopting Atmos right now is not intelligent.
> 
> Oh and yes surround placement can give you overhead type effects.


Oh grow up and get off.

Putting surround speakers on the ceiling CANNOT duplicate or even simulate Atmos object placement of sounds. At the mixing desk, sound objects (not channel-based sounds) are positioned and moved according to the requirements (and whims) of the director and sound mixer. These recorded object sounds, tones and their position in space (originally designed to fit a large cinema), are transmitted to your home via Blu-ray and then decoded by the AVR Atmos chip, with the sound objects placed into your home theatre space in as near as identically possible positions (depends on your speaker numbers and setup placement), as was originally intended by the director/mixer.

Also, as a side fact, the Atmos speaker setup intends for the surround speakers to come down from their 'above and behind' placement to ear level height. This is a specific instruction in the Atmos HT specs and is required in order to achieve the proper surround effect (as mentioned earlier) and to allow the overheads to work their magic.

It is simply NOT possible to achieve this by simulation, which is what you are suggesting by simply shifting surround speakers to the ceiling. If you know anything at all about how sound is placed in space (even with 2CH stereo) then you would realize how stupid your argument is.

Along with all this is the need (which I recently proved by doing so) to have ALL your speakers of the same ilk/timbre. I now have fronts and sides running Focal drivers and while the boxes vary in size from the mains to the centre and surrounds, the sound is amazingly uniform and seamless throughout the room. I now listen to the soundtrack and not the speakers. I hear the sounds moving around the room without being aware of which speaker they are coming from, a big difference and a real treat. I have been rewatching my favourites (and others) again, just to hear the sound the way it was intended.

One of the best movies to demonstrate both the quality and coherence of your speaker and room setup (and the Atmos effect, but works in 7.1, 9.1, 11.1 too), is Canopy. It is one of the best sounding movies I have ever watched and yet there are just two words of dialouge. Get it, it will astound you.


----------



## Steve Goff

CBdicX said:


> Well, this is "smart"...........
> Denon AVR-X7200W, the new flagship receiver with *9 channels*.
> For Dolby Atmos x.x.4 you need 11 channels, they must be a sleep at D/M
> 
> 
> I do not care, i am a Integra/Onkyo fan, but can not understand this decision to make it a 9 channel receiver and not 11 for this top of the line receiver.....



It has 11 channels and 9 amp channels.


----------



## Murbella7

briansxx said:


> I just played some of my old SQ Quad LPs using DSU. Astonishing! The instrument positioning and separation is much better than with PLII, the previous option I used on my old AVR. I assume this is because the Atmos processor uses phase information as part of its positioning process. The "Hornpipe" section from the Mike Oldfield quad Boxed Set was particularly impressive, with a deep, 3D soundstage and great room ambiance. I am sure that the positioning of the "wanderings" of Mike as he dances around the manor house are not accurate, but Atmos really moved him around the speakers in a ways that PLII did not.
> 
> Time to dig out those old quad LPS!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian


I have a stack of both SQ and discrete CD4 quad discs. I haven't played them for a while because my turntable has developed a 50Hz hum and I need to do work to fix it. Do you use a CD4 cartridge/stylus or something more normal? How do you decode them (discrete decoder with 4 channel outputs like the JVC CD4, which I have?), what inputs on your AVR do you use and what mode do you put the AVR into?


----------



## Murbella7

Steve Goff said:


> It has 11 channels and 9 amp channels.


And like all their late models with this capability, you need an external amp for the last two channels (typically for the heights).


----------



## billqs

batpig said:


> Fair enough. Unfortunately you do have to get to the $1k+ territory right now to get 9 channels. The Denon X4100 can do 9 channels with an extra 2ch amp added in, and then there are the models with 9 channels built in at the higher price point.
> 
> So, then, let's assume you will hold out with your current unit for the time being until an upgrade 1-2 years down the road to a model that supports 9+ channels with HDCP2.2 etc. Unless you don't mind moving speakers around, I would still try to plan your speaker layout around the eventual "optimal" speaker layout.
> 
> The bipoles, due their wide dispersion, will be more forgiving with placement laterally, so you can probably get away with mounting them further back so as not to encumber the aisle. Can you do a back corner mounting so at least they are firing towards the seating area and you get the reflected sound along the side wall to get some better lateral coverage? I would still mount them just above ear level -- the fact that they are bipole/dipole doesn't change the principle of trying to create separation between the "layers" of sound.


Thanks again for your help. I'm stuck with back corner mounting because of the door coming into the room that leads to the narrow aisle. Now I realize that was not the best place to put the door, but that's hindsight for you. The room is a compromise. I was allowed to build a theater room provided we could still park our cars in the remaining part of the garage. This is the reason for it being so narrow. I wanted to seat 12 so I got 2 rows of 4 commercial movie theater seats and the bar and stools (still haven't gotten the stools built and am still looking for a narrow enough table for the bar.) I put the 7.1 system in place based on fairly standard practice at the time, up high and slightly behind for sides and even spaced for back surrounds on the back wall. 

It could be a mistake to try to implement Atmos in this room, but I really want to try out the 3d immersive sound. Volume wise it very easily fills up the room, I just need a better workable surround situation (ordered the last 8040 the DefTech outlet had on Ebay and am waiting on new stock to buy the other.) The toughest thing is placement. I had even toyed with the idea of trying to run a mini-array of speakers for side and back surrounds that could share the information for the SL and SR. It's not like Back Surrounds usually get a huge workout of completely different information (most movies still seem to send a matrixed sound to the backs.) 

I'll have to see if I can find a bargain on a 9 or 11 channel receiver via an open box, B stock, refurbed or used, then see about hitting up the budget for one more major purchase. The jump from 7 to 9 was just a lot further than I expected.


----------



## billqs

Not to get further off topic, but what about the Mythos XTR-20BP for a bipolar surround? It's extremely thin... does it not create a wide enough dispersion to use in my situation? It would mount only 2 1/2 inches from the wall which might allow me to mount and still have room on the narrow aisle?


----------



## briansxx

Murbella7 said:


> I have a stack of both SQ and discrete CD4 quad discs. I haven't played them for a while because my turntable has developed a 50Hz hum and I need to do work to fix it. Do you use a CD4 cartridge/stylus or something more normal? How do you decode them (discrete decoder with 4 channel outputs like the JVC CD4, which I have?), what inputs on your AVR do you use and what mode do you put the AVR into?


Hi, Murbella.

I do not have the capability to play discrete 4 channel any more (I only have one discrete disk, so it's no loss). The matrixed disks (QS, SQ, and Matrix H), I feed from my Project TT and Denon MC cartridge directly into the phono inputs on the Denon 636 and let the Atmos processor deal with them as it will. The result is a very immersive sound field with very discrete-sounding instrument/vocal placement. Of course, I'm sure that these placements are not those originally intended in the Quad mix, but it is still a very good synthetic "decode."

All the Best,

Brian


----------



## Csbooth

Does anyone know how pertinent it is to have our speaker's (tweeters I presume) at ear height?

I am going to need to have someone build me an entertainment console (I'm not good with woodworking lol) at about 32" High in order for the middle of my center speaker's tweeter to hit 35" 1/2" which is actually about maybe 2-3" away from my ear height of 37-38" (I'm 6' tall) and that's sitting in a recliner about 21" off the ground. I mean when I'm reclining it will be fine as I'll be approaching the 34-36 ear height range.

I can't go much higher than 32" for the stand as the top of the TV will be reaching the top of my 6' limit on an 8' ceiling, so I'm trying to keep the bottom of the screen at 43-44" up the wall as I will have an 8" High AVR on top of the console making it reach 40" effective height, which is why I need to start the bottom of the TV screen (around 31" high for a 60" TV) around 43-44" so it can have some separation from the bottom of the panel to the top of the AVR.

In any case, I'm just wondering if having the tweeters a few inches above or below ear height is going to be devastating to the experience.

Thanks guys,

- Charles


----------



## CBdicX

Steve Goff said:


> It has 11 channels and 9 amp channels.



It "needs" 11 amps.........


----------



## Csbooth

CBdicX said:


> It "needs" 11 amps.........


I don't know if anyone here really knows why Onkyo/Integra are the only Mfrs that decided to included 11ch amps in their gear. My guess would be that it's a mix between sacrificing Audyssey for their proprietary tool, and others wanting to get full 18Gbps out of HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, idk it's a mess honestly. 

I believe a lot of the equipment released this year will be compliant with full 2.0, 2.2, and all the audio decoders at least though.


----------



## CBdicX

Csbooth said:


> Does anyone know how pertinent it is to have our speaker's (tweeters I presume) at ear height?
> 
> I am going to need to have someone build me an entertainment console (I'm not good with woodworking lol) at about 32" High in order for the middle of my center speaker's tweeter to hit 35" 1/2" which is actually about maybe 2-3" away from my ear height of 37-38" (I'm 6' tall) and that's sitting in a recliner about 21" off the ground. I mean when I'm reclining it will be fine as I'll be approaching the 34-36 ear height range.
> 
> I can't go much higher than 32" for the stand as the top of the TV will be reaching the top of my 6' limit on an 8' ceiling, so I'm trying to keep the bottom of the screen at 43-44" up the wall as I will have an 8" High AVR on top of the console making it reach 40" effective height, which is why I need to start the bottom of the TV screen (around 31" high for a 60" TV) around 43-44" so it can have some separation from the bottom of the panel to the top of the AVR.
> 
> In any case, I'm just wondering if having the tweeters a few inches above or below ear height is going to be devastating to the experience.
> 
> Thanks guys,
> 
> - Charles



Do not think you need to have tweeters at ear level.
They work +/- 180 degree on the horizontal and vertical plane.
I needit to put my right surround tweeter at 1.50 meter hight to come above the bench, and it works fine......


----------



## CBdicX

Csbooth said:


> I don't know if anyone here really knows why Onkyo/Integra are the only Mfrs that decided to included 11ch amps in their gear. My guess would be that it's a mix between sacrificing Audyssey for their proprietary tool, and others wanting to get full 18Gbps out of HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, idk it's a mess honestly.
> 
> I believe a lot of the equipment released this year will be compliant with full 2.0, 2.2, and all the audio decoders at least though.



Digital amps cost almost nothing these days so i do not understand this, having a "flagship" receiver or pre-amp and putting 9 amps in it so it can do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
Think Onkyo/Integra made the "smart" move, most people will go for 11 amps vs Audyssey or whatever other stuff thats still in the pipe line.
You can get a TX NR3030 for $2200, 11 amps and all the bells and whistles you want, exept Audyssey if thats your game.
So at the moment a clear winner compared to the rest.....


----------



## zebidou81

CBdicX said:


> Digital amps cost almost nothing these days so i do not understand this, having a "flagship" receiver or pre-amp and putting 9 amps in it so it can do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
> Think Onkyo/Integra made the "smart" move, most people will go for 11 amps vs Audyssey or whatever other stuff thats still in the pipe line.
> You can get a TX NR3030 for $2200, 11 amps and all the bells and whistles you want, exept Audyssey if thats your game.
> So at the moment a clear winner compared to the rest.....


Yes true but some would argue that having 11 speakers placed around a room that is not ideal for sound and then just running accueq you are getting a much more inferior sound than running a system with less speakers and using a room eq such as audyssey ?

I went with an Onkyo Av receiver with accueq but i was told not to because of the roomeq stating that without proper eq it would be like just placing 7 speakers anywhere in the room you will not get the same effect as a proper eq system but i am not sure all this room eq is what it is cracked up to be, many times the eq can not get the levels or distance right nevermind full eq


----------



## CBdicX

zebidou81 said:


> Yes true but some would argue that having 11 speakers placed around a room that is not ideal for sound and then just running accueq you are getting a much more inferior sound than running a system with less speakers and using a room eq such as audyssey ?
> 
> I went with an Onkyo Av receiver with accueq but i was told not to because of the roomeq stating that without proper eq it would be like just placing 7 speakers anywhere in the room you will not get the same effect as a proper eq system but i am not sure all this room eq is what it is cracked up to be, many times the eq can not get the levels or distance right nevermind full eq



I use the Integra DTR 70.6 with a 7.0.4 setup and AccuEQ, no "problems" here......


----------



## zebidou81

CBdicX said:


> I use the Integra DTR 70.6 with a 7.0.4 setup and AccuEQ, no "problems" here......


Nice receiver, is the accueq the same as the Onkyo eq ? do you not need to alter output sound levels ? why do you prefer the eq on rather than off ? i am not sure i can tell a difference with my receiver with acuu eq on or off is there any test to show it works better on than off ? and if its off do you feel atmos is effected in any way ? thanks


----------



## roxiedog13

CBdicX said:


> Digital amps cost almost nothing these days so i do not understand this, having a "flagship" receiver or pre-amp and putting 9 amps in it so it can do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
> Think Onkyo/Integra made the "smart" move, most people will go for 11 amps vs Audyssey or whatever other stuff thats still in the pipe line.
> You can get a TX NR3030 for $2200, 11 amps and all the bells and whistles you want, exept Audyssey if thats your game.
> So at the moment a clear winner compared to the rest.....


Audyssey is important to me so I chose that option over the 11 channels. My Denon X5200 was $1650 Can or $1430US and the additional 2 channel amp $250. Can't figure out why the X7200 wasn't 11 channel 11 amps though , at double the price and lacking HDCP 2.2 it was not worth the extra money, not even close to be honest.


----------



## htpcforever

Steve Goff said:


> It has 11 channels and 9 amp channels.





Murbella7 said:


> And like all their late models with this capability, you need an external amp for the last two channels (typically for the heights).


Which is something you should not have to do in the flagship model. Oh how flagship models have fallen!


----------



## tjenkins95

Murbella7 said:


> One of the best movies to demonstrate both the quality and coherence of your speaker and room setup (and the Atmos effect, but works in 7.1, 9.1, 11.1 too), is Canopy. It is one of the best sounding movies I have ever watched and yet there are just two words of dialouge. Get it, it will astound you.


I have watched Canopy on DVD - before I installed my Atmos setup - and the movie has a great soundtrack. I will watch it again with my new Atmos surround system. The movie appears to have been released on blu-ray but I cannot seem to find it online. Have you seen the blu-ray version available anywhere?

Thanks.

Ray


----------



## robert816

htpcforever said:


> Which is something you should not have to do in the flagship model. Oh how flagship models have fallen!


I concur, an 11 or 13 channel AVR is doable. Of course they would kill us on the price just because they can, but with the removal of a lot of the legacy analog connections, there's no reason a true flagship model could not be produced. I'd like to see something comparable to the Pioneer Elite SC-09 in a current top of the line model with all the object audio formats supported.


----------



## billqs

roxiedog13 said:


> Audyssey is important to me so I chose that option over the 11 channels. My Denon X5200 was $1650 Can or $1430US and the additional 2 channel amp $250. Can't figure out why the X7200 wasn't 11 channel 11 amps though , at double the price and lacking HDCP 2.2 it was not worth the extra money, not even close to be honest.


Roxie- Do you mind letting me know the model of your 2 channel $250 amp? I'd be curious to research it (darn you, batpig! )


----------



## Selden Ball

Csbooth said:


> Does anyone know how pertinent it is to have our speaker's (tweeters I presume) at ear height?
> [...]
> In any case, I'm just wondering if having the tweeters a few inches above or below ear height is going to be devastating to the experience.
> 
> Thanks guys,
> 
> - Charles


It depends on the design of the speakers. Some designs, especially THX certified speakers, limit their vertical dispersion in order to minimize reflections off the floor and ceiling. As a result, they sound slightly different if your ears (and the AVR's room EQ microphone) are not close to the axis of the tweeter. 

In other words, you'll have to determine the optimal height for yourself in your room. Maybe you can make or buy some cheap speaker stands to do the testing.

Don't forget to design plenty of cooling into your enclosure. If hot air can't get out, your electronics will cook and fail prematurely.


----------



## roxiedog13

billqs said:


> Roxie- Do you mind letting me know the model of your 2 channel $250 amp? I'd be curious to research it (darn you, batpig! )


Here you go, I think I paid $299 CAN which is around $250US. This one was recommended by another member here. Does the job and simple, it is meant to go in a rack though
I just modified it to fit in with my components.
*BEHRINGER REFERENCE AMPLIFIER A500*

Professional 600-Watt Reference-Class Studio Power Amplifier


Ultra-linear power amplifier for recording studios, post-production, live sound and HiFi application
2 x 300 Watts into 4 Ohms, 600 Watts into 8 Ohms in bridged mono operation
Servo-controlled design can drive virtually any passive speaker such as studio monitors, etc.
Advanced convection-cooling for absolutely noise-free and stable operation (no fan)
Precise level meter and clip indicators for accurate performance monitoring
Input connections on balanced XLR, 1/4'' TRS and RCA connectors
Speaker outputs on professional ''touch-proof'' binding posts and 1/4'' TS connectors
Ultra-reliable Toshiba / Fairchild power transistors
Independent thermal overload protection with LED indicator for each channel automatically protects amplifier and speakers
High-current toroidal transformer for absolute reliability and lowest noise interference
High-quality components and exceptionally rugged construction ensure long life
Conceived and designed by BEHRINGER Germany


----------



## stikle

billqs said:


> Roxie- Do you mind letting me know the model of your 2 channel $250 amp? I'd be curious to research it (darn you, batpig! )



I'm using an Onkyo M-5010 which was $250 through Amazon. It works quite well for me.


----------



## CBdicX

zebidou81 said:


> Nice receiver, is the accueq the same as the Onkyo eq ? do you not need to alter output sound levels ? why do you prefer the eq on rather than off ? i am not sure i can tell a difference with my receiver with acuu eq on or off is there any test to show it works better on than off ? and if its off do you feel atmos is effected in any way ? thanks


Onkyo and Integra both use AccuEQ, its the same company 
The differents between AccuEQ ON or OFF is little to non, i find Audyssey ON or OFF having a bigger differents.
In the past i liked Audyssey OFF, now with AccuEQ, as it is doing little to non, when i do a "blind" test i can not say when its On or OFF, so i leave it ON, just because i can 
But overall sound is very good with DSU, good nice controled Bass, nice Mids and a clear High.
DSU (what i use on all sources) is doing a good job, much better then when i use other audio modes !


----------



## bargervais

CBdicX said:


> Onkyo and Integra both use AccuEQ, its the same company
> The differents between AccuEQ ON or OFF is little to non, i find Audyssey ON or OFF having a bigger differents.
> In the past i liked Audyssey OFF, now with AccuEQ, as it is doing little to non, when i do a "blind" test i can not say when its On or OFF, so i leave it ON, just because i can
> But overall sound is very good with DSU, good nice controled Bass, nice Mids and a clear High.
> DSU (what i use on all sources) is doing a good job, much better then when i use other audio modes !


I too feel the Onkyo TX-NR 1030 for me was a no brainer I was able to buy it when it first came out for $1,199.00 when I say that price I pulled the trigger I already had a m 5010 AMP so I was all set to run 7.2.4 run mine with Accu-EQ on no problems I love how DSU sounds. That's my main listening mode.


----------



## Csbooth

Selden Ball said:


> It depends on the design of the speakers. Some designs, especially THX certified speakers, limit their vertical dispersion in order to minimize reflections off the floor and ceiling. As a result, they sound slightly different if your ears (and the AVR's room EQ microphone) are not close to the axis of the tweeter.
> 
> In other words, you'll have to determine the optimal height for yourself in your room. Maybe you can make or buy some cheap speaker stands to do the testing.
> 
> Don't forget to design plenty of cooling into your enclosure. If hot air can't get out, your electronics will cook and fail prematurely.


Ok, will do, and thanks


----------



## Csbooth

CBdicX said:


> Do not think you need to have tweeters at ear level.
> They work +/- 180 degree on the horizontal and vertical plane.
> I needit to put my right surround tweeter at 1.50 meter hight to come above the bench, and it works fine......


Ok, thank your for the input


----------



## gerchy

Finally, I did some Atmos testing!

My preliminary 2-hour testing report:
- DTS+DSU is noticeable quieter than DTS-HD
- Atmos trailer sounds way better with Atmos decoding
- There isn't much sound coming from the height speakers so aiming them towards MLP makes sense
- Having stated the above it seems that height speakers choice is not so critical as I first thought

I gave a quick peak at some action movies and I'm not sure if I could tell the difference between 5.2 and 5.2.4.
So, let's wait for more Atmos movies! 

P.S.: no room treatment, no audyssey.


----------



## Selden Ball

gerchy said:


> P.S.: no room treatment, no audyssey.


Audyssey is important for level and distance settings (which also could be done manually with a sound meter), but more importantly for bass-management crossover settings and for room equalization. The latter improves the timbre matching among speakers, too.


----------



## gerchy

Yes, forgot to mention ... I did set the level, distances and crossover settings.
I will try Audyssey and other stuff as well, that was just my first impression.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Just adding a post to share my craziness... I had purchased a Onkyo 737 during the holidays to try out Atmos, without having any expectations... I was simply blown away by the difference it makes in my dedicated room...

So here I am, less than a month later, upgrading to a Onkyo 1030 to go all the way to 7.1.4 ! I'm eager to receive next week and finish installing the two other ceiling speakers !

I know it will probably not upgradable to DTS:X, so let's plan another update later this year...

I also have a question... 

I'll need to add a stereo amp to the 1030 for the second pair of height speakers... I have Polk TC60i in the ceiling, they are 90db of sensibility... Do you have any suggestion for an okay stereo amp to drive them ? I know about the Emotiva series but they are hard to find in Canada...

Any model you think I should consider ?

Thanks !


----------



## dvdwilly3

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just adding a post to share my craziness... I had purchased a Onkyo 737 during the holidays to try out Atmos, without having any expectations... I was simply blown away by the difference it makes in my dedicated room...
> 
> So here I am, less than a month later, upgrading to a Onkyo 1030 to go all the way to 7.1.4 ! I'm eager to receive next week and finish installing the two other ceiling speakers !
> 
> I know it will probably not upgradable to DTS:X, so let's plan another update later this year...
> 
> I also have a question...
> 
> I'll need to add a stereo amp to the 1030 for the second pair of height speakers... I have Polk TC60i in the ceiling, they are 90db of sensibility... Do you have any suggestion for an okay stereo amp to drive them ? I know about the Emotiva series but they are hard to find in Canada...
> 
> Any model you think I should consider ?
> 
> Thanks !


I saw an earlier post from roxiedog where he said that he is using the Behringer A500 which he got for $299 CDN. 

I looked around and sweetwater.com has that on special for $199 USD with free shipping. It sems to me that you would be hard pressed to go wrong with that one.


----------



## Csbooth

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just adding a post to share my craziness... I had purchased a Onkyo 737 during the holidays to try out Atmos, without having any expectations... I was simply blown away by the difference it makes in my dedicated room...
> 
> So here I am, less than a month later, upgrading to a Onkyo 1030 to go all the way to 7.1.4 ! I'm eager to receive next week and finish installing the two other ceiling speakers !
> 
> I know it will probably not upgradable to DTS:X, so let's plan another update later this year...
> 
> I also have a question...
> 
> I'll need to add a stereo amp to the 1030 for the second pair of height speakers... I have Polk TC60i in the ceiling, they are 90db of sensibility... Do you have any suggestion for an okay stereo amp to drive them ? I know about the Emotiva series but they are hard to find in Canada...
> 
> Any model you think I should consider ?
> 
> Thanks !


I have the same in-ceilings as you (x4) and am looking at either the Audiosource amp-100 or the onkyo m-5010. The only reason I'm looking at the more expensive latter one is for its smaller dimension in width. All in all, either would be sufficient for our needs as I have checked here and other threads to be absolutely sure.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Thanks guys for the recommandations !

I was thinking about the Audiosource too because of the price and some readings I did too, but I was worried about it not being powerful enough...

I'll browse around for sure and see if I can find the Behringer or the Onkyo online !


----------



## BigScreen

Csbooth said:


> Does anyone know how pertinent it is to have our speaker's (tweeters I presume) at ear height?
> 
> I am going to need to have someone build me an entertainment console (I'm not good with woodworking lol) at about 32" High in order for the middle of my center speaker's tweeter to hit 35" 1/2" which is actually about maybe 2-3" away from my ear height of 37-38" (I'm 6' tall) and that's sitting in a recliner about 21" off the ground. I mean when I'm reclining it will be fine as I'll be approaching the 34-36 ear height range.
> 
> I can't go much higher than 32" for the stand as the top of the TV will be reaching the top of my 6' limit on an 8' ceiling, so I'm trying to keep the bottom of the screen at 43-44" up the wall as I will have an 8" High AVR on top of the console making it reach 40" effective height, which is why I need to start the bottom of the TV screen (around 31" high for a 60" TV) around 43-44" so it can have some separation from the bottom of the panel to the top of the AVR.
> 
> In any case, I'm just wondering if having the tweeters a few inches above or below ear height is going to be devastating to the experience.


Devastating? Highly doubtful in any situation, but home theater is a lot about working towards the ideals, but realizing that compromises are often necessary. Ideally, you would have the tweeters of all your speakers pointed at all your listening positions. Since that's not possible, pick one MLP (main listening position) and the rest will have to be covered by the dispersion characteristics of the speaker.

Some speakers have tighter high frequency directionality than others. As another poster mentioned, THX speakers by design have limited vertical dispersion to prevent reflections from the ceiling and floor. Think of the speaker like a flashlight: the further from the center of the tweeter's dispersion pattern, the dimmer the light will be.

That said, if you are just a few inches off, it's doubtful that you're going to run into much of a problem, but like I said, it depends on the characteristics of your speakers. The longer the distance between the speaker and the listener, the greater the angle of deflection, so you don't want to get too far off the mark.

If possible, you can aim your speaker by placing a small wedge under it to tilt it upwards enough to have the tweeter aiming at your MLP.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> *I have the same in-ceilings as you (x4)* and am looking at either the Audiosource amp-100 or the onkyo m-5010.


Charles, I thought you had gotten the RC60i; Steve has the Polk TC60i, which is similar but from a different model line.

BTW, how are they working out for you? And don't forget to pass along your setup configuration to @kokishin for his spreadsheet.



Csbooth said:


> *The only reason I'm looking at the more expensive latter one is for its smaller dimension in width*. All in all, either would be sufficient for our needs as I have checked here and other threads to be absolutely sure.


IDK where you got that impression. The Amp-100 is *16 1/2"W* x 2.9"H x 9 1/2"D, while the M-5010 measures *17 1/8"W* x 5 1/2"H x 12 1/4"D.



SteveTheGeek said:


> Thanks guys for the recommandations !
> 
> I was thinking about the Audiosource too because of the price and some readings I did too, but I was worried about it not being powerful enough...
> 
> I'll browse around for sure and see if I can find the Behringer or the Onkyo online !


The 50w/ch AMP-100 will be perfectly suited to drive those TC60i's, especially in their application as Atmos height speakers.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Great, thanks a lot !

AMP-100 it's going to be then ! Hard to beat for the price considering I may at some point want to go to an Emotiva based setup to drive my other speakers...


----------



## ArmyMan

SteveTheGeek said:


> Great, thanks a lot !
> 
> AMP-100 it's going to be then ! Hard to beat for the price considering I may at some point want to go to an Emotiva based setup to drive my other speakers...


Steve, I am looking for ceiling speakers for ATMOS.
What did you end up using?

Paul


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> Charles, I thought you had gotten the RC60i; Steve has the Polk TC60i, which is similar but from a different model line.-The 50w/ch AMP-100 will be perfectly suited to drive those TC60i's, especially in their application as Atmos height speakers.-


Ahhh, I'm having a brain fart day lol, I thought I read R not T. In any case, as you agree either of those Amps will suffice in what we are aiming to do with them. 



chi_guy50 said:


> BTW, how are they working out for you? And don't forget to pass along your setup configuration to @kokishin for his spreadsheet.


As far as the new speakers (RC60i) are concerned; From the limited use of checking them out as surrounds in my current 5.1, I believe they will do just fine with the purpose for height information with 3D sound. 

I have yet to pull the trigger on any kind of AVR (waiting on the ones in the fall which will include DTS:X as well as Atmos), so I don't have the configuration complete as of yet, just the speakers which are paired with my old HTIB yamaha HTR-6230 lol. Not sure if I should submit anything until it's all rounded out XD. As of now though, I have got all 13 speakers (7.2.4 psw505 subs included, working towards better over the next year but I'll be happy with those for a while) and am just waiting on the AVR to power it all. 



chi_guy50 said:


> IDK where you got that impression. The Amp-100 is *16 1/2"W* x 2.9"H x 9 1/2"D, while the M-5010 measures *17 1/8"W* x 5 1/2"H x 12 1/4"D.


Hmm, well that's good to hear then. When I looked on Amazon I believe I read their dimensions as 19x4x10, but it doesn't surprise me that it's off by a bit. I will probably be going with the former then, as it's not only cheaper but better for the space I need it for.

* I do notice on the audiosource amp-100 that the line inputs are dual like on a lot of subwoofers; does this mean that I would need to purchase a y-splitter if I go with this amp? 

* Also, I can see on the M-5010 it looks like there's just one Line input with a white and red terminal which I assume that one rca (Height 2 Left?) from the pre-out goes into the white connector and the second speaker (Height 2 Right?) pre-out rca connects to the red slot, or would I use the line out terminal as well in this scenario? 

I'm a noob to the external amp, and pre-out game.

All of that matters of course if there's an absolutely good reason not to purchase an 11ch AVR (if any other mfrs decide to follow suit from Onkyo/Integra and release one) as I don't know enough about it all to justify an extra $700-800 purchase, which is the difference round-about from the 1030 > 3030.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

ArmyMan said:


> Steve, I am looking for ceiling speakers for ATMOS.
> What did you end up using?
> 
> Paul


I bought 4 of the Polk TC60i that I got during Boxing Day for a really good price !


----------



## blastermaster

> Having stated the above it seems that height speakers choice is not so critical as I first thought


I don't know about that. I'm banking on future movies with 3D sound that will be mixed to make more aggressive use of the height speakers. If I'm wrong at least I'll know I've got plenty of headroom to work with. 

This is from the Atmos for home theater guidelines:

_ Most high-power, full-frequency
conventional overhead speakers with wide dispersion characteristics will work in a
Dolby Atmos home theater. _

I say get the best you can afford that meet the above criteria. I don't think you'll ever regret getting good speakers. According to Dolby:

_ overhead speakers
should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities
of the listener-level speakers_

It seems like a lot of early Atmos adopters are really liking DSU which apparently makes a lot of use of the overheads. FWIW.


----------



## Csbooth

BigScreen said:


> Devastating? Highly doubtful in any situation, but home theater is a lot about working towards the ideals, but realizing that compromises are often necessary. Ideally, you would have the tweeters of all your speakers pointed at all your listening positions. Since that's not possible, pick one MLP (main listening position) and the rest will have to be covered by the dispersion characteristics of the speaker.
> 
> Some speakers have tighter high frequency directionality than others. As another poster mentioned, THX speakers by design have limited vertical dispersion to prevent reflections from the ceiling and floor. Think of the speaker like a flashlight: the further from the center of the tweeter's dispersion pattern, the dimmer the light will be.
> 
> That said, if you are just a few inches off, it's doubtful that you're going to run into much of a problem, but like I said, it depends on the characteristics of your speakers. The longer the distance between the speaker and the listener, the greater the angle of deflection, so you don't want to get too far off the mark.
> 
> If possible, you can aim your speaker by placing a small wedge under it to tilt it upwards enough to have the tweeter aiming at your MLP.


Awesome, thank you for your insight!


----------



## funhouse69

justthinking said:


> Has anyone done a direct comparison of 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4?


I did somewhat inadvertently, my original plan was to go with the full 5.1.4 at first when adding my 5800 Ceiling Speakers but one of them was damaged out of the box so I ended up setting up the rears first in a 5.1.2 then when I got the replacement a week later it was added in to give me the 5.1.4. 

At the time I only had a few of the Atmos Demo files from the Demo World Website but played them with both setups and there really was a huge difference to having all 4 compared to just the two. 

Something else worth mentioning with my experience is that my ceiling speakers are "Aimable" I initially aimed them at my MLP which sounded ok but then tried them in their normal / down-firing position and to me the experience is much better for Atmos but a little less impressive with regular movies / DSU. I am still blown away with the sound in Into the Storm via DSU of course YMMV =)


----------



## DAK4

So I was thinking, (which is a first and probably not good) could Dolby Atmos or DSU possibly now or later (with an update) take the future DTS:X and decipher the sound over the DTS MA 7.1 bed and throw it to the height channels?


----------



## NorthSky

Like using Dolby Pro Logic IIz over DTS-HD MA 7.1 surround?


----------



## DAK4

Hmm, Well okay if that is what Dolby Pro Logic IIz does then that should be cool for DSU to do. (I think I just rythmed)


----------



## nirvy111

blastermaster said:


> I don't know about that. I'm banking on future movies with 3D sound that will be mixed to make more aggressive use of the height speakers. If I'm wrong at least I'll know I've got plenty of headroom to work with.
> 
> This is from the Atmos for home theater guidelines:
> 
> _ Most high-power, full-frequency_
> _conventional overhead speakers with wide dispersion characteristics will work in a_
> _Dolby Atmos home theater. _
> 
> I say get the best you can afford that meet the above criteria. I don't think you'll ever regret getting good speakers. According to Dolby:
> 
> _ overhead speakers_
> _should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities_
> _of the listener-level speakers_
> 
> It seems like a lot of early Atmos adopters are really liking DSU which apparently makes a lot of use of the overheads. FWIW.


 
With Dolby Atmos the ceiling speakers are as dynamic as the other channels I have found. I tested the ceiling speakers on their own with scenes from Transformers 4 and the sounds, although not very frequent, were full range and very loud at times, made me jump out of my seat. DSU on the other hand is mostly constant ambient sounds, very different from Dolby Atmos. So I think Dolby Atmos requires good quality ceiling speakers, DSU not so much.


----------



## teckademic

Guys, i just found in vudu a dolby atmos experience that is free and includes 4 trailers and a short film.


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> Hmm, Well okay if that is what Dolby Pro Logic IIz does then that should be cool for DSU to do. (I think I just rythmed)


If I follow well your line of thought; you would apply DSU over DTS-HD MA 7.1 from a Blu-ray disc encoded with a DTS:X audio soundtrack,
and then you should have a very nice sound all around including overhead.

Of course. And it should sound even better than doing the same but from a Blu-ray movie simply encoded with a DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio soundtrack. 

Because, people have noticed that the main core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack from a Blu-ray movie title encoded with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, sounds more spatial more dimensional more open more enveloping somehow and even just from a 7.1-channel setup (no overhead surrounds).

Then your line of thought, in that sense, makes total perfect sense and you are right. ...And without even any update from Dolby Atmos, as it can do now.

But! When DTS:X shows up later on, it will have its own dts:x up-mixer, like Dolby Atmos has DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) and Auro-3D has Auro-Matic (up-mixer for 2D & 3D). 

* The DTS:X's own up-mixer we don't know yet its name. Me, I called it dts:xpander (my own, for now). 

Am I close to what you were referring?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DAK4 said:


> So I was thinking, (which is a first and probably not good) could Dolby Atmos or DSU possibly now or later (with an update) take the future DTS:X and decipher the sound over the DTS MA 7.1 bed and throw it to the height channels?


DSU does that already because all it would see of the DTS-X track is a normal DTS-MA 7.1 mix in which to apply its upscaling algorithm. DTS-X and Dolby Atmos use different object language and never the two shall meet.


----------



## Murbella7

tjenkins95 said:


> I have watched Canopy on DVD - before I installed my Atmos setup - and the movie has a great soundtrack. I will watch it again with my new Atmos surround system. The movie appears to have been released on blu-ray but I cannot seem to find it online. Have you seen the blu-ray version available anywhere?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ray


I have it on Blu-ray. It is going cheap so don't bother with a download. The 'making of' is good to watch too.


----------



## Murbella7

Csbooth said:


> Does anyone know how pertinent it is to have our speaker's (tweeters I presume) at ear height?
> 
> I am going to need to have someone build me an entertainment console (I'm not good with woodworking lol) at about 32" High in order for the middle of my center speaker's tweeter to hit 35" 1/2" which is actually about maybe 2-3" away from my ear height of 37-38" (I'm 6' tall) and that's sitting in a recliner about 21" off the ground. I mean when I'm reclining it will be fine as I'll be approaching the 34-36 ear height range.
> 
> I can't go much higher than 32" for the stand as the top of the TV will be reaching the top of my 6' limit on an 8' ceiling, so I'm trying to keep the bottom of the screen at 43-44" up the wall as I will have an 8" High AVR on top of the console making it reach 40" effective height, which is why I need to start the bottom of the TV screen (around 31" high for a 60" TV) around 43-44" so it can have some separation from the bottom of the panel to the top of the AVR.
> 
> In any case, I'm just wondering if having the tweeters a few inches above or below ear height is going to be devastating to the experience.
> 
> Thanks guys,
> 
> - Charles


In a normal setup (5.1, 7.1, 9.1, etc), the suggested arrangement is... surrounds should be mounted above ear level. The sensation of space above you cannot truly be conveyed but the feeling of it is approximated by mixing sounds for the surrounds with a touch of reverb, to give them the feeling of 'space', by mixing for not only discrete L/R sounds but also including a 'centre' sound between them (using a mono mix). This is in fact how mixers move sounds around the room in a 'normal' mix.

With Atmos, the specs say they need to be at ear level. The ceiling speakers are then more effective in providing the sense of the air above you.

Having speakers at ear level and above you (beneath you is the next phase I bet), allows the mixer to better control how the sounds will appear in your room, it provides separation between the sounds around you and above you. 

Not only but also.... it has been said elsewhere that it is also important that the ceiling speakers be full range, meaning they need to cope with a typical stereo signal. Bear in mind too that this is new territory for a lot of manufacturers, the speakers will be hanging down from their cages. The usual rubber surround of the cone will need to be pretty robust to cope with this strain while delivering a bunch of loud noises with lots of cone movement. They should also be wide dispersion, meaning not too directional. They have to cover all the space between themselves, the next speaker along the ceiling, the speakers on the floor and walls and the folk sitting below. This is a big task and the specs should not be taken lightly, if quality of sound and longevity are to be considered. Directable drivers are not necessary and most likely detrimental. 

Using the 'new' technique of making each sound source a distinct and separate object (gun muzzle, speeding bullet/car/plane, helicopter, buzzing bee, distant thunder, voice, the scream of someone falling from a great height, dummy spit), allows the mixing of these into specific places in the 360 degree space of the room (and of course moving those objects through that space, sometimes at great speed). This is exciting stuff and I think will eventually be the winner in the sound object space race.


----------



## ThePrisoner

teckademic said:


> Guys, i just found in vudu a dolby atmos experience that is free and includes 4 trailers and a short film.



Will have to check this out. Thanks!


----------



## smurraybhm

For those looking for amplification Outlaw just announced a new 5 channel amp late yesterday with a number of nice features - 120 watts per channel at 8 ohms and 180 at 4 ohms. You can bet it actually gives you a little more based on bench tests of their other products. Best part is it is selling for only $599 

I may be getting a couple of these and going the pre route once DTS-X becomes more mainstream. Curious what audio formats besides Atmos Outlaw's coming soon pre will support and how many channels we will get.

By the way I watched Lucy last night using DSU. Great audio and video on this one. I may miss out on DTS-X, but no early adopter regrets, every time I watch a movie DSU takes the audio to new level. Fury next week and John Wick (Atmos) soon after. Next few weeks should be fun.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> For those looking for amplification Outlaw just announced a new 5 channel amp late yesterday with a number of nice features - 120 watts per channel at 8 ohms and 180 at 4 ohms. You can bet it actually gives you a little more based on bench tests of their other products. Best part is it is selling for only $599


Nice. Outlaw do a nice range of amps nowadays. Some interesting 7 channel designs too.



smurraybhm said:


> By the way I watched Lucy last night using DSU. Great audio and video on this one. I may miss out on DTS-X, but no early adopter regrets, every time I watch a movie audio DSU takes the audio to new level.


Ditto.* Lucy *is a strange movie. The premise is better than the final movie somehow. I have only seen it once though and rarely come to a final conclusion based on only one viewing. I think my first reaction was 'unfulfilled promise'. But yeah, by no means a bad movie at all, and the sound is good.

Last night I watched 2003's *Basic*, with the promising combination of John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson. It is possibly a very poor movie - one of those movies designed to make a fool of you all the time with ludicrous and largely unintelligible plot twists. But the sound with DSU is sublime. Most of the movie takes place in torrential rain, so there is always plenty going on overhead. And there are occasional helicopter flyovers and so on too. And lots of gunfire in confined spaces. All very good for demo purposes. The sound made the movie for me but I need to watch it again to come to a conclusion.

BTW, don't get carried away at the prospect of a Travolta-Jackson *Pulp Fiction*-style reunion. They share hardly any screen time. Samuel L also plays the part he can do in his sleep - bad-ass mother with a cruel line in verbal intimidation and a physical presence that scares the cr&p out of everyone.


----------



## smurraybhm

^ just to be clear, I said the audio and video were great, nothing about the plot, story 

Sometimes I buy movies for sound or video even if the story is mediocre, but I do have limits as I just can't bring myself to get TMN for its Atmos mix. Lucy will keep you entertained, plenty of action. By the way Keith, thanks for the mention about Island. Somehow I missed that one and for $5 not a huge investment. I was pleasantly surprised, and another good one to watch using DSU. Steve


----------



## tjenkins95

Murbella7 said:


> I have it on Blu-ray. It is going cheap so don't bother with a download. The 'making of' is good to watch too.


 

I finally found a copy at the Mighty Ape - https://www.mightyape.co.nz/


Ray


----------



## Jive Turkey

s
murraybhm;31117666 said:


> For those looking for amplification Outlaw just announced a new 5 channel amp late yesterday with a number of nice features - 120 watts per channel at 8 ohms and 180 at 4 ohms. You can bet it actually gives you a little more based on bench tests of their other products. Best part is it is selling for only $599
> .


 http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=94738&an=33#Post94738


----------



## lujan

teckademic said:


> Guys, i just found in vudu a dolby atmos experience that is free and includes 4 trailers and a short film.


Thanks, I got the free Dolby Atmos Experience several days ago and didn't even know it came with that 3 minute film. I'm going to have to try it out sometime today.


----------



## CBdicX

Guess Atmos and DTS:X will "sound" the same, but think DSU can not be beaten easy as it is so good now on Stereo, 5.1, 7.1 and who knows wat it can/will do on DTS MA compared to DTS:X, time will tell............


----------



## billqs

tjenkins95 said:


> I finally found a copy at the Mighty Ape - https://www.mightyape.co.nz/
> 
> 
> Ray


I just checked and Canopy is on streaming on Netflix. No idea of the quality, though. Netflix offers the DVD but not the bluray for disc rental.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice. Outlaw do a nice range of amps nowadays. Some interesting 7 channel designs too.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.* Lucy *is a strange movie. The premise is better than the final movie somehow. I have only seen it once though and rarely come to a final conclusion based on only one viewing. I think my first reaction was 'unfulfilled promise'. But yeah, by no means a bad movie at all, and the sound is good.
> 
> Last night I watched 2003's *Basic*, with the promising combination of John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson. It is possibly a very poor movie - one of those movies designed to make a fool of you all the time with ludicrous and largely unintelligible plot twists. But the sound with DSU is sublime. Most of the movie takes place in torrential rain, so there is always plenty going on overhead. And there are occasional helicopter flyovers and so on too. And lots of gunfire in confined spaces. All very good for demo purposes. The sound made the movie for me but I need to watch it again to come to a conclusion.
> 
> BTW, don't get carried away at the prospect of a Travolta-Jackson *Pulp Fiction*-style reunion. They share hardly any screen time. Samuel L also plays the part he can do in his sleep - bad-ass mother with a cruel line in verbal intimidation and a physical presence that scares the cr&p out of everyone.


Yes Basic was glorious listening in DSU I do agree the movie itself was not one to write home about but it wasn't horrible. I will continue to enjoy my collection of blu-rays in DSU. John Wick coming February 2nd and I'm looking forward to Mocking Jay part 1 come March if one poster reported it will have an Atmos mix hopefully it will, still haven't seen an official report that it is. But I'm happy to see that Atmos has started to be released in a trickle as opposed to a Chinese drip torture .


----------



## asharma

SteveTheGeek said:


> I bought 4 of the Polk TC60i that I got during Boxing Day for a really good price !


I picked those up also n Halifax at FShop...the lowest I could get the Marantz 7009 to set the crossover using Audessey was 250hz, so I returned them...what did Audessey set your crossover to using the TC60i's? I ended up buying the a Polk vs70rt's which Audessey sets the crossover at between 100 and 150 hz...


----------



## DAK4

NorthSky said:


> If I follow well your line of thought; you would apply DSU over DTS-HD MA 7.1 from a Blu-ray disc encoded with a DTS:X audio soundtrack,
> and then you should have a very nice sound all around including overhead.
> 
> Of course. And it should sound even better than doing the same but from a Blu-ray movie simply encoded with a DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> 
> Because, people have noticed that the main core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack from a Blu-ray movie title encoded with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, sounds more spatial more dimensional more open more enveloping somehow and even just from a 7.1-channel setup (no overhead surrounds).
> 
> Then your line of thought, in that sense, makes total perfect sense and you are right. ...And without even any update from Dolby Atmos, as it can do now.
> 
> But! When DTS:X shows up later on, it will have its own dts:x up-mixer, like Dolby Atmos has DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) and Auro-3D has Auro-Matic (up-mixer for 2D & 3D).
> 
> * The DTS:X's own up-mixer we don't know yet its name. Me, I called it dts:xpander (my own, for now).
> 
> Am I close to what you were referring?


Hi NorthSky, Yes you are close to what I was meaning and I think Dan Hitchman's reply below might have summed it up. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> DSU does that already because all it would see of the DTS-X track is a normal DTS-MA 7.1 mix in which to apply its upscaling algorithm. DTS-X and Dolby Atmos use different object language and never the two shall meet.


----------



## ThePrisoner

smurraybhm said:


> For those looking for amplification Outlaw just announced a new 5 channel amp late yesterday with a number of nice features - 120 watts per channel at 8 ohms and 180 at 4 ohms. You can bet it actually gives you a little more based on bench tests of their other products. Best part is it is selling for only $599
> 
> I may be getting a couple of these and going the pre route once DTS-X becomes more mainstream. Curious what audio formats besides Atmos Outlaw's coming soon pre will support and how many channels we will get.


Thanks for head that heads up! I was using a Audiosource AMP-100 but got annoyed with static pop issues, even tried a second one which did the same thing, thought it was my speaker wire but than disconnected the FH and powered the TM with my X4100 and no random static pops. Decided to get a cheap Insignia stereo receiver for now which is working fine. I'm going to look into that 5ch Outlaw amp.


----------



## bargervais

billqs said:


> I just checked and Canopy is on streaming on Netflix. No idea of the quality, though. Netflix offers the DVD but not the bluray for disc rental.


Watching it now not much in the way of dialogue looks like this movie is going to drag out. The video quality 1080P and audio Dolby D + streaming using my Panasonic blu-ray players app. Doesn't do much for me but it sounds good in DSU though.


----------



## tjenkins95

billqs said:


> I just checked and Canopy is on streaming on Netflix. No idea of the quality, though. Netflix offers the DVD but not the bluray for disc rental.





Thanks. I have already seen the movie on DVD.


Ray


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> Hi NorthSky, Yes you are close to what I was meaning and I think Dan Hitchman's reply below might have summed it up.


I knew that Dan's reply was bang on: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

* Best: wait for dts:x  ...Just few more weeks (from 5 to 7 roughly, 9-10 max).


----------



## SteveTheGeek

asharma said:


> I picked those up also n Halifax at FShop...the lowest I could get the Marantz 7009 to set the crossover using Audessey was 250hz, so I returned them...what did Audessey set your crossover to using the TC60i's? I ended up buying the a Polk vs70rt's which Audessey sets the crossover at between 100 and 150 hz...


The calibration I did with AccuEQ gave me 70 Hz !


----------



## asharma

SteveTheGeek said:


> The calibration I did with AccuEQ gave me 70 Hz !


That's sounds more about right!! Mine were just temporarily hanging from the ceiling, not inserted into any wholes yet, so perhaps that was part of the reason...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

asharma said:


> That's sounds more about right!! Mine were just temporarily hanging from the ceiling, not inserted into any wholes yet, so perhaps that was part of the reason...


Yeah that's possible I think, I imagine bass while hangout out like this is limited...

I just plugged the other pair today, using 2 for each channels in a 5.1.2 setup with Top Middle selected...

Pretty eager to get my 1030 and go all the way to 7.1.2 !  Now gotta sell that Onkyo 737...


----------



## asharma

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yeah that's possible I think, I imagine bass while hangout out like this is limited...
> 
> I just plugged the other pair today, using 2 for each channels in a 5.1.2 setup with Top Middle selected...
> 
> Pretty eager to get my 1030 and go all the way to 7.1.2 !  Now gotta sell that Onkyo 737...


I'm running 5.2.4 on a Denon 4100, will need to upgrade again when DTS:X comes along

Was running 7.2.4 on a marantz 7009, returned it for the 4100 when I found out both were not upgradeable to DTS:x and would rather have a grand sank into a 4100 than $2 grand sank into a 7009 when I'll just need to upgrade anyway


----------



## SteveTheGeek

asharma said:


> I'm running 5.2.4 on a Denon 4100, will need to upgrade again when DTS:X comes along
> 
> Was running 7.2.4 on a marantz 7009, returned it for the 4100 when I found out both were not upgradeable to DTS:x and would rather have a grand sank into a 4100 than $2 grand sank into a 7009 when I'll just need to upgrade anyway


Yeah that was a good strategy...

I had a great (really great) deal on the Onkyo 1030, so that's why I made the move... No too far for only one grand (canadian) too !


----------



## asharma

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yeah that was a good strategy...
> 
> I had a great (really great) deal on the Onkyo 1030, so that's why I made the move... No too far for only one grand (canadian) too !


The guys at FShop here are really good to me. I see they just got the Denon 5200...could probably pick it up for $500 more than the 4100 but will sit tight as it will all need to be replaced. Im a big fan of FShop...


----------



## zebidou81

billqs said:


> tjenkins95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I finally found a copy at the Mighty Ape - https://www.mightyape.co.nz/
> 
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked and Canopy is on streaming on Netflix. No idea of the quality, though. Netflix offers the DVD but not the bluray for disc rental.
Click to expand...

Yes Canopy is on us netflix i used a different dns gateway to watch, it sounds great using dsu not that bad of a film you can feel his pain and the sound mixing makes you feel it with him birds jungle noises and a lot of atmospheric effects.

One similar great film that makes use of the dsu is all is lost, when the storm hits the boat and he is on the deck trying to save the yacht u r there with him, only 1 word spoken in this film but the use of the sound is great.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> I knew that Dan's reply was bang on: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> * Best: wait for dts:x  ...Just few more weeks (from 5 to 7 roughly, 9-10 max).


Bob - if I had $1 (American sorry, no loons for me) for every time you've told someone to wait - validation for your decision? I watched Into the Storm this afternoon with DSU and the dogs started freaking out. Talk about immersive. Honestly, I don't know how it can get much better. I've got the best sounding HT I have ever had and have enjoyed it now for 5 months. 

Look forward to seeing/hearing if the wait is worth it. Then there is the when we see an affordable unit that has it released and how fast we see mixes using the tech. DTS doesn't have the easier mixing software advantage anymore. Cheers. Steve


----------



## Frank714

I finally was able to tear myself away from my listening sessions with the Marantz SR 7009 -  - and take some pictures of my home theatre setup with Dolby Atmos overhead speakers I promised.

My front speaker placement is somewhat limited in width by the Ennis [House] Tile columns left (book shelves) and right (AV hardware shelves). Curiously, another Frank Lloyd Wright concrete tile design should be equally familiar to film fans, namely that of [Joel] Silver Pictures. He owned the Storer House and adopted the tile design for his company logo (while he owned that particular Frank Lloyd Wright designed house in Hollywood).

The other picture shows the top and rear surrounds. The rear surrounds used to hang on the wall which is now graced by the lenticular 3D _Ben Hur_ poster card, I was able to re-use their special connectors (speaker wiring and current for the speakers' halogen bulbs) for the two top rear speakers but had to provide new wiring for the two back surrounds, now at ear level as recommended.

For back surround and overhead speakers (including front overheads not shown) I used my old Jamo Atmosphere speakers which - unlike the Jamo Graphic (surround speakers left and right in my 7.1.4 setup at 105°, not shown) - are no longer produced.

Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd, because those Atmosphere speakers (apparently originally designed for over-ear-level wall mounting) have a convex shape so that the tweeter is inevitably angled. In terms of practical applications and because of the unique tweeter angle you could use these perfectly for height speaker purposes and more (I already contacted Jamo-Klipsch, wondering if they couldn't consider re-introducing this particular speaker line).

For my Dolby Atmos setup the overhead tweeters all aim at the main listening position including the back surrounds (to have the recommended 60° angle for back surrounds).

I think that speaker-setup-wise I've gotten as close to the Dolby reference recommendations as possible. I ran Audyssey and the new surround sound I now have with the Marantz SR 7009 is quite simply breathtaking and overwhelming in comparison to my previous setup.

I attribute the dramatic performance increase to the Marantz SR 7009, Audyssey, the (optimal) speaker setup and a couple of acoustic room improvements (not yet finished), but find myself somewhat unable to include the Dolby Surround Upmixer on that list (except for 2.0 film source material where it performs remarkably impressive and better than I would have ever expected).

I refer to my DSU listening experience in the corresponding (possibly more apropriate) "Dolby Surround Upmixing" thread, starting at post # 58 and will add my Dolby Atmos listening experience once I've gotten the opportunity to check out some of the discs.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - if I had $1 (American sorry, no loons for me) for every time you've told someone to wait - validation for your decision? I watched Into the Storm this afternoon with DSU and the dogs started freaking out. Talk about immersive. Honestly, I don't know how it can get much better. I've got the best sounding HT I have ever had and have enjoyed it now for 5 months.
> 
> Look forward to seeing/hearing if the wait is worth it. Then there is the when we see an affordable unit that has it released and how fast we see mixes using the tech. DTS doesn't have the easier mixing software advantage anymore. Cheers. Steve


:smile: ...Steve, for every new Dolby Atmos release on Blu-ray the wait diminishes exponentially. 
When 'Gravity' arrives in Dolby Atmos, along with dts:x shall we start all floating spatially.

_________


----------



## dannybee

Can front height speakers be used instead of dolby atmos modules.


----------



## roxiedog13

billqs said:


> I just checked and Canopy is on streaming on Netflix. No idea of the quality, though. Netflix offers the DVD but not the bluray for disc rental.


 
Thanks for the heads up, I had just ordered Canopy from Amazon thinking it was Blu Ray and it was not. I saw your message and realized what I had done......Thanks. Its 2AM , shouldn't be ordering anything this late at night, time to hit the hay .




Thanks Again


----------



## multit

dannybee said:


> Can front height speakers be used instead of dolby atmos modules.


If there is enough angular separation (at least 30° vertical), then it should work fine - you are within Dolby recommendations then.
If not, I would give it a try anyway, but you could experience less "from above"-feeling, comparing to your Atmos enabled speakers.


----------



## dannybee

multit said:


> If there is enough angular separation (at least 30° vertical), then it should work fine - you are within Dolby recommendations then.
> If not, I would give it a try anyway, but you could experience less "from above"-feeling, comparing to your Atmos enabled speakers.


Thanks for the reply multit ,l was going to have them slightly tilted down towards MLP l have a pioneer sclx 58 and will only do 9 channels at once l do have 2 onkyo modules would l be better leaving them on top of fronts then have the heights as l can set it for middle/height depending on audio switches between the two l just think the heights may be better for dolby surround as l'am not having much luck hearing sounds from overhead with the modules, ceiling around 8 ft and receiver setup says 3.1mtr from module to MLP once it bounces off roof any advice for me thanks.


----------



## multit

dannybee said:


> ... the two l just think the heights may be better for dolby surround as l'am not having much luck hearing sounds from overhead with the modules, ceiling around 8 ft and receiver setup says 3.1mtr from module to MLP once it bounces off roof any advice for me thanks.


8 ft seems not to be unusual, but there is probably something on the ceiling, which prevent the sound to be reflected properly? Or you are sitting not in the target reflection area. Maybe it makes sense to play a bit with the angle of those Atmos modules first.
If everything is alright, most experiences are positive with the Atmos enabled speakers and sometimes even better as in-ceiling speakers for example.

Advantage of Front Height speakers is however the multi usage of those, since there are more sound modes, contributing from Front Height (DTS neo:X or Audissey DSX). On the other hand, only Top Front and no Top Middle/Rear might not be sufficient for Atmos, since in 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 configurations the most used place is Top Middle, which is then quite the same listening impression as Atmos enabled speakers.

So, the whole thing is a bit about playing try and error, if you want to get the best experience out oft it!


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - if I had $1 (American sorry, no loons for me) for every time you've told someone to wait - validation for your decision? I watched Into the Storm this afternoon with DSU and the dogs started freaking out. Talk about immersive. Honestly, I don't know how it can get much better. I've got the best sounding HT I have ever had and have enjoyed it now for 5 months.
> 
> Look forward to seeing/hearing if the wait is worth it. Then there is the when we see an affordable unit that has it released and how fast we see mixes using the tech. DTS doesn't have the easier mixing software advantage anymore. Cheers. Steve


+1 to that. I've said before that this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. If you wait for DTS:X you will have missed out on a year of Atmos/DSU. If you jumped immediately, as we did, then you miss out on a year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade the AVR after 2 years. Given that Atmos is here and now and DTS:X content is, so far, pie in the sky, it seems more sensible to miss out on DTS:X.

Those advocating waiting ought, logically, also be advocating waiting for HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and 4K content on disc. If I change my 5200 2 years after buying it, I will probably get all of the latter as well as DTS:X - but I will have enjoyed Atmos/DSU for a full year longer than the current waiters. I suspect there is much self-justification going on among the waiters...


----------



## funhouse69

kbarnes701 said:


> +1 to that. I've said before that this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. If you wait for DTS:X you will have missed out on a year of Atmos/DSU. If you jumped immediately, as we did, then you miss out on a year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade the AVR after 2 years. Given that Atmos is here and now and DTS:X content is, so far, pie in the sky, it seems more sensible to miss out on DTS:X.
> 
> Those advocating waiting ought, logically, also be advocating waiting for HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and 4K content on disc. If I change my 5200 2 years after buying it, I will probably get all of the latter as well as DTS:X - but I will have enjoyed Atmos/DSU for a full year longer than the current waiters. I suspect there is much self-justification going on among the waiters...


I am so glad that I jumped in when I did, I admit I was mistaken by the Dolby Website as to how many movies were out on BR with Atmos (looked at the Theater Releases) but the addition of my Ceiling Speakers with DSU was well worth the upgrade. 

I also agree that Into the Storm was awesome with DSU and I was really happy with The Day after tomorrow as well. 

As so many others have stated if you wait for the next best thing to come out / be added to the current line of AVR's you will probably never get one as there will always be something new on the horizon.


----------



## kbarnes701

funhouse69 said:


> I am so glad that I jumped in when I did, I admit I was mistaken by the Dolby Website as to how many movies were out on BR with Atmos (looked at the Theater Releases) but the addition of my Ceiling Speakers with DSU was well worth the upgrade.


I knew it would be well into 2105 before Atmos content could be expected to arrive in reasonable numbers, but I think it is impossible to overestimate the importance of DSU. No matter how many true Atmos movies are released on Bluray, it will be years before it overtakes my legacy collection of well over 1,500 movies on disc. So in many ways DSU is even more important than Atmos. Currently I have over 1,500 non-Atmos movies and, er, 4 Atmos movies  It is going to take years, maybe decades, before the latter overtakes the former. Consequently, I am relying on DSU to make the most of my investment in hardware and additional speakers. The good news, of course, is that DSU is a stunning addition to my HT and has, so far, hugely enhanced pretty much ever disc I have played. I would most certainly not wanted to have missed out on a year of this!



funhouse69 said:


> As so many others have stated if you wait for the next best thing to come out / be added to the current line of AVR's you will probably never get one as there will always be something new on the horizon.


That is so true. This is a rapidly moving world with something new and desirable always around the corner. As someone said here recently, buying AV gear isn't some sort of investment - it is for enjoyment NOW. +100 to that.


----------



## BillyNedwell

kbarnes701 said:


> I knew it would be well into 2105 before Atmos content could be expected to arrive in reasonable numbers.


I sure hope that's a typo. Don't think I could wait that long.


----------



## kbarnes701

BillyNedwell said:


> I sure hope that's a typo. Don't think I could wait that long.


Not a typo. I am expecting content to start coming through routinely from Spring time. ICBW of course


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Not a typo. I am expecting content to start coming through routinely from Spring time. ICBW of course


Spring time yes, but hopefully not the Spring of "2105"!


----------



## roxiedog13

asharma said:


> I picked those up also n Halifax at FShop...the lowest I could get the Marantz 7009 to set the crossover using Audessey was 250hz, so I returned them...what did Audessey set your crossover to using the TC60i's? I ended up buying the a Polk vs70rt's which Audessey sets the crossover at between 100 and 150 hz...



Halifax, NS ? NL here , practically neighbors .


----------



## asharma

roxiedog13 said:


> Halifax, NS ? NL here , practically neighbors .


Good dear good, never met a cranky Newfoundlander in my life! Salt of the earth!


----------



## zebidou81

dannybee said:


> multit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is enough angular separation (at least 30? vertical), then it should work fine - you are within Dolby recommendations then.
> If not, I would give it a try anyway, but you could experience less "from above"-feeling, comparing to your Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply multit ,l was going to have them slightly tilted down towards MLP l have a pioneer sclx 58 and will only do 9 channels at once l do have 2 onkyo modules would l be better leaving them on top of fronts then have the heights as l can set it for middle/height depending on audio switches between the two l just think the heights may be better for dolby surround as l'am not having much luck hearing sounds from overhead with the modules, ceiling around 8 ft and receiver setup says 3.1mtr from module to MLP once it bounces off roof any advice for me thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi i had the same experience with the modules and i sit around the same distance from you, the angle of the driver is 20 degrees and i used a laser pen with a small mirror on ceiling to make sure the speakers were being directed from ceiling to me. My best position was 3/4 up the wall and angled a further 20 degrees out from wall, this was easy to do as the wall mount bracket is a screw fit so just unscrew more from wall to give the extra angle.

I must be honest and say i never got the full desired effect from the modules after playing around for weeks. I changed to on ceiling kef modules that timbre match my larger kefs and the difference is night and day i am blown away with the dsu and atmos sound from all formats now.


----------



## roxiedog13

asharma said:


> Good dear good, never met a cranky Newfoundlander in my life! Salt of the earth!



Emphasis on the Salt, applies to all Maritimers I suppose .


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> +1 to that. I've said before that this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. If you wait for DTS:X you will have missed out on a year of Atmos/DSU. If you jumped immediately, as we did, then you miss out on a year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade the AVR after 2 years. Given that Atmos is here and now and DTS:X content is, so far, pie in the sky, it seems more sensible to miss out on DTS:X.
> 
> Those advocating waiting ought, logically, also be advocating waiting for HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and 4K content on disc. If I change my 5200 2 years after buying it, I will probably get all of the latter as well as DTS:X - but I will have enjoyed Atmos/DSU for a full year longer than the current waiters. I suspect there is much self-justification going on among the waiters...


 
+1 as well. I've always been an early adopter of new and exciting technological advancements, never been disappointed. Get in early , enjoy early, hurts the pocket book a little more.

I had the first Sony4K VPL VW ES500 projector in North America when it came out. Due to the fact I was on a pre order I actually paid less than everyone, so this is one example where going in early SAVED money believe it or not.


Anyway, point is, this is the best single improvement I have seen for HT in all the years I have been active. The picture quality of this projector blows my mind and 
continues to do so with every movie I watch. Not because of the 4K but indeed the quality v's others I've owned and this is with up scaled 1080P, I have little 4K content to be honest.


Dolby Atmos is giving me the same experience with DSU for older movies but unlike 4K movies are available now and many more ARE coming. I'm not speculating, I'm enjoying now but if something does come along that blows this off the ceiling ( sorry had to throw in a pun) then I will most definitely have to reevaluate . For now , I can only speculate DTS:X will be off the wall    , dam I'm so punny this morning . Wait a second, if DTS is off the wall, then that puts Atmos over the top, right? O.K., that's it , I'm parking it for today, sorry......


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Not a typo. I am expecting content to start coming through routinely from Spring time. ICBW of course





Why would you expect that? Movies are not routinely mixed in Atmos, and a minority of the movies mixed in Atmos are released on Bluray with an Atmos track.


You better hope that you like the plot and acting in the movies that are released with an Atmos track on Bluray. In addition, if there is not bass down to DC someone will complain about the Atmos mix anyhow!


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Spring time yes, but hopefully not the Spring of "2105"!


Haha - is that what I typed? LOL. I bet that by then there may even be some Auro content available


----------



## kbarnes701

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Why would you expect that? Movies are not routinely mixed in Atmos, and a minority of the movies mixed in Atmos are released on Bluray with an Atmos track.


I can say with certainty that 100% of Atmos movies are mixed in Atmos. And I can say with almost certainty that there is no reason why every Atmos movie will not be released on disc, now that the production houses have installed the required equipment.

You have the tenses wrong.


----------



## lujan

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> Why would you expect that? Movies are not routinely mixed in Atmos, and a minority of the movies mixed in Atmos are released on Bluray with an Atmos track.
> 
> 
> You better hope that you like the plot and acting in the movies that are released with an Atmos track on Bluray. In addition, if there is not bass down to DC someone will complain about the Atmos mix anyhow!


I have the movie "Vice" on the Amazon wishlist but not sure I'll get it even if it has a good Atmos track because of the bad movie reviews?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I have the movie "Vice" on the Amazon wishlist but not sure I'll get it even if it has a good Atmos track because of the bad movie reviews?


I wouldn't waste my money on that junky film no matter if it had the best Atmos remix in the world. It was like a badly acted junior high school student-written drama with millions thrown at it. Seriously, I can't see how some of these movies get the green light. Can the producers not see how bad they are??


----------



## BamaDave

Need some opinions, please! For those with two rows of seats, what did you use to determine the location of the overhead speakers? What did you pull your reference angles from? I'm thinking about using my primary seating position but I would like to get some feedback from those that have already gone through this process as a lessons learned query, please! I'm planning on build some cabinets with a high performance coaxial drivers to support this need. Thanks!


----------



## CBdicX

I realy think most Atmos users want to "hear" the Atmos speakers.
Its the overal Atmos experians thats the game maker, not if you can actual hear them.
I use the "bouncing" type (normal sat speakers) and they work for sure, i can not "hear" them but when i turn them off and play the same part its different, more horizontal, also nice but not as good with the bouncers.
Even with DSU the Height speakers make just enough differents that i will never want them out the setup.
In the past i tried Wide and High speakers, but is not what Atmos/DSU is bringing.....


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't waste my money on that junky film no matter if it had the best Atmos remix in the world. * It was like a badly acted junior high school student-written drama with millions thrown at it.*


IMO that describes at least 95% of the big-budget major studio flicks.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Can the producers not see how bad they are??


That's got to be a rhetorical question because you already know the answer: Schlock sells, and the producers are looking for monetary return on investment.

OTOH, maybe I'm just cranky because I wasted an evening last week watching "Twister" on Keith's recommendation just to hear what DSU would do with the sound effects (and, to be fair to Keith, he did warn that it was not a very good film). I am usually pretty discriminating about the films that I will watch, preferring to miss out on a few quality movies rather than risk watching a stinker. So perhaps I have been sheltered, but my wife and I were both shocked at just how miserable the writing, acting, and directing were on this formulaic disaster film. It was so atrocious that, after suffering through the first 30 minutes, we simply fast-forwarded through any scene that did not have storm-related sound effects.

So far, there are no Atmos movies on BRD that I would bother to watch, even if you gave me the disk for free. (But I have no doubt that many good films of all sorts will be forthcoming.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> IMO that describes at least 95% of the big-budget major studio flicks.
> 
> 
> 
> That's got to be a rhetorical question because you already know the answer: Schlock sells, and the producers are looking for monetary return on investment.
> 
> OTOH, maybe I'm just cranky because I wasted an evening last week watching "Twister" on Keith's recommendation just to hear what DSU would do with the sound effects (and, to be fair to Keith, he did warn that it was not a very good film). I am usually pretty discriminating about the films that I will watch, preferring to miss out on a few quality movies rather than risk watching a stinker. So perhaps I have been sheltered, but my wife and I were both shocked at just how miserable the writing, acting, and directing were on this formulaic disaster film. It was so atrocious that, after suffering through the first 30 minutes, we simply fast-forwarded through any scene that did not have storm-related sound effects.
> 
> So far, there are no Atmos movies on BRD that I would bother to watch, even if you gave me the disk for free. (But I have no doubt that many good films of all sorts will be forthcoming.)


Yes, of course. However, this particular bad Hollywood film was... even badder D ??) than some. I'd hate to say it, but it was worse than Transformers 4 and that film is scraping the bottom of the barrel as is.


----------



## batpig

I don't know how Keith can sit through the entire movie on some of these flicks. I can die a happy(er) man never sitting through TF4 again (adding insult to injury is the vanity and narcissism of Bay thinking a vapid scifi action romp deserved to be almost 3 hrs long). But I'm happy to own it as demo material. 

I think these should be viewed as "demo clips" like the Amaze trainer. Watch this scene but then turn it off and redirect those minutes to more productive things


----------



## Gurba

I am really glad I am able to watch and enjoy Twister, The Expendables, Transformers and all the other Movies the haters love to hate without breaking out in hives. It's almost as if some have a pathological need to put Down all films that doesn't neccessitate 4 hours of analyzing to figure out what the Movie was really about. The intense need to overanalyze every little aspect of a film and not be able to enjoy light Entertainment is just sad. I am certain that I enjoy the Movies I watch much more the all these selfproclaimd critics. But it's their loss and the Choice of Movies is very much bigger for the rest of us.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Gurba said:


> I am really glad I am able to watch and enjoy Twister, The Expendables, Transformers and all the other Movies the haters love to hate without breaking out in hives. It's almost as if some have a pathological need to put Down all films that doesn't necessitate 4 hours of analyzing to figure out what the Movie was really about. The intense need to over-analyze every little aspect of a film and not be able to enjoy light Entertainment is just sad. I am certain that I enjoy the Movies I watch much more the all these self proclaimed critics. But it's their loss and the Choice of Movies is very much bigger for the rest of us.


Glad you liked those particular movies. More power to you. However, that doesn't automatically make them films of merit or high quality. Dumb screenplays and really bad acting to some are not entertaining at all, just chores to sit through. Some action movies are better than others because they tend to be, underneath the manly action veneer, subversively clever films with quality editing, cinematography, pacing, lighting, etc. T4 and Vice, sadly, IMHO cannot be considered part of that canon.


----------



## NorthSky

> I've said before that this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. If you wait for DTS:X you will have missed out on a year of Atmos/DSU. If you jumped immediately, as we did, then you miss out on a year of DTS:X, if you decide to upgrade the AVR after 2 years. Given that Atmos is here and now and DTS:X content is, so far, pie in the sky, it seems more sensible to miss out on DTS:X.
> 
> Those advocating waiting ought, logically, also be advocating waiting for HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and 4K content on disc. If I change my 5200 2 years after buying it, I will probably get all of the latter as well as DTS:X - but I will have enjoyed Atmos/DSU for a full year longer than the current waiters. I suspect there is much self-justification going on among the waiters...


We'll be right there, when the time is ripe for us, and it's comin' real soon now.  Some people are enjoying life right now, and us too, just from a different perspective, that's all. 
I know few, me included, who want to be covered, and it's not few months of missing DSU that's going to make a big difference in our listening pleasure,
but it will pay off, in our wallet without the need to upgrade again within a year. My memory is still fresh regarding DD and dts back in 1997-98. 
Now it's the same in 2014-15 ... so we just know what to do. ...I'm sure you do to.


----------



## NorthSky

> Not a typo. I am expecting content to start coming through routinely from Spring time. ICBW of course


FilmMixer (Marc) was sharing some positive vibrations for Dolby Atmos releases on Blu around the last period of festivities (Holiday season). 
Of course things are just a little slower. ...Then it's all fine because we have DSU. ...Thank god for that. 

I like Spring, Spring is a good time to give life, to bloom a renew. ...To resurrect from the dead past. ...To forgive our past mistakes, move forward.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I've always been an early adopter of new and exciting technological advancements, never been disappointed. Get in early , enjoy early, hurts the pocket book a little more.
> 
> I had the first Sony4K VPL VW ES500 projector[/B] in North America when it came out. Due to the fact I was on a pre order I actually paid less than everyone, so this is one example where going in early SAVED money believe it or not.
> 
> Anyway, point is, this is the best single improvement I have seen for HT in all the years I have been active. The picture quality of this projector blows my mind and
> continues to do so with every movie I watch. Not because of the 4K but indeed the quality v's others I've owned and this is with up scaled 1080P, I have little 4K content to be honest.
> 
> Dolby Atmos is giving me the same experience with DSU for older movies but unlike 4K movies are available now and many more ARE coming. I'm not speculating, I'm enjoying now but if something does come along that blows this off the ceiling ( sorry had to throw in a pun) then I will most definitely have to reevaluate . For now , I can only speculate DTS:X will be off the wall    , dam I'm so punny this morning . Wait a second, if DTS is off the wall, then that puts Atmos over the top, right? O.K., that's it , I'm parking it for today, sorry......




You watch 3D movies with your Sony projector? 

And for DSU, you have? ...Which model pre/pro, or AV receiver?


----------



## NorthSky

BamaDave said:


> Need some opinions, please! For those with two rows of seats, what did you use to determine the location of the overhead speakers? What did you pull your reference angles from? I'm thinking about using my primary seating position but I would like to get some feedback from those that have already gone through this process as a lessons learned query, please! I'm planning on build some cabinets with a high performance coaxial drivers to support this need. Thanks!


Roger Dressler would be the right man for that type of good opinion. ...With two rows of seats.


----------



## chi_guy50

Gurba said:


> I am really glad I am able to watch and enjoy Twister, The Expendables, Transformers and all the other Movies the haters love to hate without breaking out in hives. It's almost as if some have a pathological need to put Down all films that doesn't necessitate 4 hours of analyzing to figure out what the Movie was really about. The intense need to overanalyze every little aspect of a film and not be able to enjoy light Entertainment is just sad. I am certain that I enjoy the Movies I watch much more the all these selfproclaimd critics. But it's their loss and the Choice of Movies is very much bigger for the rest of us.


It's fine that you like these films and we don't; one man's meat is another man's poison. But we're not (or at least I am not) denigrating the subject matter or content of these films. Rather, it's the quality of their essential ingredients that render them woefully unwatchable to us. I can enjoy light entertainment as much as any other genre providing those essentials--foremost among them the writing, acting, direction, and cinematography--are well done. But, as Dan points out, saying you like a movie is different from claiming that it is a superior product. I said earlier that schlock sells, and the reason it sells is because that is what audiences are willing to pay to go see. That makes it popular; it does not make it art or even good cinema. You may enjoy reading Danielle Steel (she's currently the best selling living author), but Shakespeare it ain't.


----------



## NorthSky

> I don't know how Keith can sit through the entire movie on some of these flicks. I can die a happy(er) man never sitting through TF4 again (adding insult to injury is the vanity and narcissism of Bay thinking a vapid scifi action romp deserved to be almost 3 hrs long). But I'm happy to own it as demo material.
> 
> I think these should be viewed as "demo clips" like the Amaze trainer.
> Watch this scene but then turn it off and redirect those minutes to *more productive things*


...Like checking 'The Interview'?  ...With DSU.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> I have the movie "Vice" on the Amazon wishlist but not sure I'll get it even if it has a good Atmos track because of the bad movie reviews?


I had a preorder for Vice on Amazon but I watched it on xbmc and I cancelled my preorder as this movie IMHO is not very good I have John Wick preordered I'm keeping it I also have Mocking Jay on preorder hoping it will have Atmos but I'll still buy it.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Mockingjay does have Atmos it was confirmed by Lion Gates in their press release last week.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> You watch 3D movies with your Sony projector?
> 
> And for DSU, you have? ...Which model pre/pro, or AV receiver?



I do watch 3D movies with the Sony VW500ES projector, probably 30% or more if I've read the 3D is done right, otherwise I watch 2D . With the Panamorph DC1 lens
and 136" curved 1.8gain Draper TecVision screen the 3D is really good, plenty of light. 


I'm running the Denon X5200 AV receiver , currently running 7.2.4 Atmos .


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I do watch 3D movies with the Sony VW500ES projector, probably 30% or more if I've read the 3D is done right, otherwise I watch 2D . With the Panamorph DC1 lens and 136" curved 1.8gain Draper TecVision screen the 3D is really good, plenty of light.
> 
> I'm running the Denon X5200 AV receiver , currently running 7.2.4 Atmos .


Very nice, on all counts.  ...Large screen for 3D ... awesome.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> ...Like checking 'The Interview'?  ...With DSU.


 
I actually liked TF4, not for Dolby Atmos audio though. I'm not a big fan of over cooked CGI movies and the boom and bang that usually accompanies the same. I did find myself looking at my
watch during TF4, that is usually a sign I am bored, the movie could have been over at least 20 minutes earlier . 


Some of the environmental effects used with Atmos work best in my opinion, too much and I end up with sensory overload . Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was nice , the rain for example added so much to many scenes and it was indeed very subtle.


I have Into the Storm to watch tonight, we'll see ( actually hear ) how that sounds . Have two hours of floor hockey that I have to play first though, fitness first right? :grin:


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Mockingjay does have Atmos it was confirmed by Lion Gates in their press release last week.


Thank you for this very positive report let's hope atmos will continue to trickle in faster and faster I'm so glad to be an early adopter. By the end of 2016 I will be ready for another upgrade and I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU Till then. By then I'll will have felt I got my money's worth. Atmos, DTS:X 2016 For me


----------



## Roger Dressler

BamaDave said:


> Need some opinions, please! For those with two rows of seats, what did you use to determine the location of the overhead speakers? What did you pull your reference angles from?


I did the positioning relative to the MLP, then aimed the speakers to a point slightly behind the MLP, so as to keep the end of row seats as much on axis of the speakers as possible.


----------



## Nalleh

bargervais said:


> Thank you for this very positive report let's hope atmos will continue to trickle in faster and faster I'm so glad to be an early adopter. By the end of 2016 I will be ready for another upgrade and I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU Till then. By then I'll will have felt I got my money's worth. Atmos, DTS:X 2016 For me


Agreed. And don't forget: you can still start bying DTS:X blurays when they comes to the shops, enjoy then with DSU, and then play them in native DTS:X when you buy your next AVR.


----------



## Csbooth

Hey guys, I had a couple of (probably simple questions about external amps) that got buried within the posts, and just trying to give it another shot.

Ok, so as I was saying before, depending on how these Mfrs want to play things releasing either 9ch AVRs with 11ch processing to use with external amps for your 7.1.4 reference 3D audio. Or if they decided to be like Onkyo/Integra and release a flagship that could do 11 right then (maybe even 13ch lol) I was wondering if I did just decide to go a cheaper route with a 9ch and an external amp; the two choices I would probably make would be the Audiosource amp-100 or the Onkyo M-5010. Here are those questions I asked before:

* I do notice on the audiosource amp-100 that the line inputs are dual like on a lot of subwoofers; does this mean that I would need to purchase a y-splitter if I go with the amp-100, or just hook up one end to either the L/R (white or red) jack? 

* Also, I can see on the Onkyo M-5010 it looks like there's just one Line input with a white and red terminal which I assume that one rca (Height 2 Left?) from the pre-out goes into the white connector and the second speaker (Height 2 Right?) pre-out rca connects to the red slot, or would I use the line out terminal as well in this scenario? 

I'm a noob to the external amp, and pre-out game.

All of that matters of course if there's an absolutely good reason not to purchase an 11ch AVR (if any other mfrs decide to follow suit from Onkyo/Integra and release one) as I don't know enough about it all to justify an extra $700-800 purchase, which is the difference round-about from the 1030 > 3030.

That's it for those questions, and if I may, impose some more of my ignorance on you all with Subwoofers lol. 

* I'd like to know if turning the gain up on my psw505's correlates with how low Hz they can hit; such as how the 505 has an overall frequency response of 23hZ (I know it would probably be difficult for it to actual hit that with so many variables) but I'm just wondering if that's how the gain works. Basically, if I only turned the gain up say %50, would I be able to receive down to 30Hz, or would it only ever occur at a certain gain level, and volume level on the AVR.

* Since these 505s have a dedicated LFE input (yellow RCA jack), is it okay for both subs to be hooked up using that method, or would it mess up the signals? I don't actually have the AVR as of yet to see if it matters or not. I kind of know what having it hooked up this way does. Basically it ignores the crossover dial on the back and uses only the AVRs settings right?

* Does having two subwoofers help with reaching a higher SPL, Or is it more about filling out the smoothness of your bass in the room? I assume you don't normally need to crank up the gain on either sub past halfway point to get you in a sweet balance.

* Lastly, I noticed how the PSW505's frequency response only goes up to 160Hz; will this make a huge difference of say the BicF12's ability to go from 25>200, does that extra 40Hz to 200 make a difference? Personally, I only ever thought how low it could reach was what mattered, but I'm just wondering if I made a mistake and should return and pick up a couple of F12s, only the shipping back will suck haha.

Anyways, as usual I'm sorry for such long-winded posts with numerous questions but TIA for any and all help!

- Charles


----------



## Gurba

Dan Hitchman said:


> Glad you liked those particular movies. More power to you. However, that doesn't automatically make them films of merit or high quality. Dumb screenplays and really bad acting to some are not entertaining at all, just chores to sit through. Some action movies are better than others because they tend to be, underneath the manly action veneer, subversively clever films with quality editing, cinematography, pacing, lighting, etc. T4 and Vice, sadly, IMHO cannot be considered part of that canon.





chi_guy50 said:


> It's fine that you like these films and we don't; one man's meat is another man's poison. But we're not (or at least I am not) denigrating the subject matter or content of these films. Rather, it's the quality of their essential ingredients that render them woefully unwatchable to us. I can enjoy light entertainment as much as any other genre providing those essentials--foremost among them the writing, acting, direction, and cinematography--are well done. But, as Dan points out, saying you like a movie is different from claiming that it is a superior product. I said earlier that schlock sells, and the reason it sells is because that is what audiences are willing to pay to go see. That makes it popular; it does not make it art or even good cinema. You may enjoy reading Danielle Steel (she's currently the best selling living author), but Shakespeare it ain't.


What makes a good film? Who decides if a film is good og bad? Is it that only a few reviewers and critics likes it? Or that the majority of the public like it? To me a good film is able to entertain me. Are the aforementioned films great? No they are not. But they are Perfect when I want to watch something without having to really consentrate to be able to follow the plot. I enjoy many different catergories of film and I think that's where I differ from you. You can only enjoy a so called serious film where everything is made 100% by the proper standards whereas I cn enjoy a film even if they don't have the greatest dialogs, the best plot etc.


----------



## robert816

Amazon Japan shows an April release of Chicago with a Dolby Atmos mix.
Even Blu-Ray.com shows the Japanese version as Atmos, I'll keep an eye out for more information.

Japanese version: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Chicago-Blu-ray/123482/


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> IMO that describes at least 95% of the big-budget major studio flicks.
> 
> 
> 
> That's got to be a rhetorical question because you already know the answer: Schlock sells, and the producers are looking for monetary return on investment.
> 
> OTOH, maybe I'm just cranky because I wasted an evening last week watching "Twister" on Keith's recommendation just to hear what DSU would do with the sound effects (and, to be fair to Keith, he did warn that it was not a very good film). I am usually pretty discriminating about the films that I will watch, preferring to miss out on a few quality movies rather than risk watching a stinker. So perhaps I have been sheltered, but my wife and I were both shocked at just how miserable the writing, acting, and directing were on this formulaic disaster film. It was so atrocious that, after suffering through the first 30 minutes, we simply fast-forwarded through any scene that did not have storm-related sound effects.
> 
> So far, there are no Atmos movies on BRD that I would bother to watch, even if you gave me the disk for free. (But I have no doubt that many good films of all sorts will be forthcoming.)


It's all a matter of personal opinion because I loved the movie "Twister". I'm sure there will be lots of people that loved "Vice" as well. 

I'll probably end up renting it first and if I like it, I'll buy it.


----------



## htpcforever

Gurba said:


> What makes a good film? Who decides if a film is good og bad?



Me, I decide it. If anyone disagrees, they are simply wrong. It is ok to be wrong, though.


----------



## BamaDave

Roger Dressler said:


> I did the positioning relative to the MLP, then aimed the speakers to a point slightly behind the MLP, so as to keep the end of row seats as much on axis of the speakers as possible.


How has this work out? Would you do it different if you were to mount them again?


----------



## Jive Turkey

batpig said:


> I don't know how Keith can sit through the entire movie on some of these flicks. I can die a happy(er) man never sitting through TF4 again (adding insult to injury is the vanity and narcissism of Bay thinking a vapid scifi action romp deserved to be almost 3 hrs long). But I'm happy to own it as demo material.
> 
> I think these should be viewed as "demo clips" like the Amaze trainer. Watch this scene but then turn it off and redirect those minutes to more productive things


If one wants to take a break from whiz-bang, may I recommend "Winter Bone"; a film that's a few years old, but strong with character development. It stars a younger Jennifer Lawrence, and her acting chops were strong here. It was a well spent Sunday aftenoon.

And it sounded A-OK with DSU, in the subtler sense of things.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I want to make sure that everyone recognizes that I am an early adopter of Dolby Atmos ("fake Dolby Atoms" in my case...) and am a huge fan of DSU. I find it very effective. That is the good part. The bad/questionable part is that I am somewhat of a heretic on the subject of Atmos. I have read all of the Dolby papers and other analyses. Here is one of my issues...
Many on this forum prefer the ceiling mounted speakers for a more direct sound. The Dolby-enabled speakers have been written up repeatedly as creating a diffuse sound field. And, Dolby has talked about the Dolby-enabled approach as creating a diffuse sound field.
These two sound fields that are created are opposite effects--one direct and focused upon the listener, and the other a diffuse, enveloping field. You cannot have it both ways. Or, maybe you can have it both ways (as Dolby seems to try to do...) and it simply depends upon your personal preference. I think that this is one reason that people cannot seem to come to agreement upon what a proper implementation of Dolby Atmos is. The answer is, "It depends."
Does anyone else see this as a somewhat diffuse (pun intended) situation?
Can someone provide an answer that reconciles the 2 approaches and explain why both of them are supposed to achieve the same effect in the end? I suspect that the ultimate answer is, "It depends..."


----------



## Roger Dressler

BamaDave said:


> How has this work out? Would you do it different if you were to mount them again?


If my room were a little larger the rear surrounds could be a little lower, and the Rear Tops could be a bit further, as right now they are right over. the rear seats. But no major change, really.

I think it works really well when I use the Auro and Atmos demo discs. I'm not so enamored with the respective upmixers -- perfectly happy to use 7.1 until the real juice comes along.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Into The Storm*

This movie sucks.  Ok, that was a line from the movie and I couldn't help myself. 


Seriously though , just watched this movie and I'm really, really super impressed with the sound, probably the best I have heard so far. The plot, the acting and special effects were great but the audio for this, I give full marks. In my opinion the audio is what really takes this movie up( no pun intended) a few notches. It's only going to keep getting better from here on people. 


The rolling thunder from the opening scene had me looking up, it was like, well, being there. I suppose I should also add this was the best application for the shakers in the seats too. I turn this off
for most movies, for this particular movie it added a dimension that was absolutely perfect.


----------



## dannybee

Something on DTS X and DOLBY ATMOS receivers.
http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/dueling-surround-formats-won-t-sow-confusion/55571


----------



## bargervais

dannybee said:


> Something on DTS X and DOLBY ATMOS receivers.
> http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/dueling-surround-formats-won-t-sow-confusion/55571


Interesting let's hope for a firmware update. That would be sweet.


----------



## roxiedog13

htpcforever said:


> Me, I decide it. If anyone disagrees, they are simply wrong. It is ok to be wrong, though.


Really though, who decides, rates, critiques and otherwise has the power to influence our choices ? The media is our biggest influence and this includes TV , the internet and to a lesser extent
magazines. Most of the advertizing we see is paid and the intent is to persuade us to either go to a theater or buy said movie. Advertizing is a paid format intended to capture our attention and lure us in . No surprise here, I believe most here on this forum is use to the drill by now. 

Ralph Potts the resident reviewer here on the AVS forum seems to be very impartial with his critiques . He is a senior gold member ( not Austin Powers) and I don't know how he's connected to
the hierarchy, be that a volunteer or if it's a paid position, I have no idea . He does , in my opinion seem to be very impartial, his ratings very reasonable and I never get the feeling his decisions are made based on personal preferences but rather using the criteria in his rating system. Like it or not, most movies are good , maybe not to ones personal taste but to an impartial reviewer that
will be conveyed and I feel Mr. Potts does a great job. Every one of the critiques I have read and subsequently have also viewed the corresponding movie has been pretty much spot on .

Anyway, I guess the answer to the question, "who decides is a movie is good?" is , well simply yourself with the help of everyone else of course. There will always be absolutists telling you 
your choices are wrong, very rude of course but they are out there and plenty of them. As always, choice is subjective if someone has a problem with your choice, then they have a problem .


----------



## lujan

dannybee said:


> Something on DTS X and DOLBY ATMOS receivers.
> http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/dueling-surround-formats-won-t-sow-confusion/55571


One of the quotes in this article is:

"Consumers won’t have to worry about cluttering up their living rooms with two separate speaker configurations and switching between them depending on the soundtrack they’re playing..."

Isn't this not true with regard to Dolby Atmos vs. AURO-3D? I may be reading wrong on this forum but I thought you had to re-run your speaker configuration in order to do one versus the other?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

right.

he is basically saying DTS-x is better than auro 3d


----------



## Csbooth

lujan said:


> One of the quotes in this article is:
> 
> "Consumers won’t have to worry about cluttering up their living rooms with two separate speaker configurations and switching between them depending on the soundtrack they’re playing..."
> 
> Isn't this not true with regard to Dolby Atmos vs. AURO-3D? I may be reading wrong on this forum but I thought you had to re-run your speaker configuration in order to do one versus the other?


Correct, I personally haven't heard it myself, but Auro3D shot theirself in the foot when requiring such a massive difference in speaker layout than Dolby does, AND not adopting an object based rendering solution. 

DTS:X is speaker agnostic, which basically means it will be able to do everything that Atmos does now, regardless of however you set your speakers up, at least according to them. 

We don't yet know how they're planning on implementing virtual height, but it's probably got something to do with their Headphones:X application, and we know Dolby has Atmos on mobile devices now, so I'm sure they deploy similar technologies.


----------



## roxiedog13

Csbooth said:


> Correct, I personally haven't heard it myself, but Auro3D shot theirself in the foot when requiring such a massive difference in speaker layout than Dolby does, AND not adopting an object based rendering solution.
> 
> DTS:X is speaker agnostic, which basically means it will be able to do everything that Atmos does now, regardless of however you set your speakers up, at least according to them.
> 
> We don't yet know how they're planning on implementing virtual height, but it's probably got something to do with their Headphones:X application, and we know Dolby has Atmos on mobile devices now, so I'm sure they deploy similar technologies.


Well, this guy will not be changing anything now, I'm set up for Dolby Atmos and that's where I'm parked at least for three years, maybe more. I'm running atmos 7.2.4 with speakers already 
wired for 7.2.6. Atmos is the leader at this point and plenty of content is in the works. Most I would do beyond this in the short term is add a couple of front height speakers just because the 
wiring is in place or upgrade to a new AVR. DTS:X and Auro, when available will be great, no doubt but certainly not so good I'll want to trash the investment I just made. One thing I do 
know and that is, I really like the Atmos experience now . If something comes along that is better, then I will not listen to it and this will ensure, by lack of comparison that my setup is the best I have ever heard.


----------



## RichB

dvdwilly3 said:


> I want to make sure that everyone recognizes that I am an early adopter of Dolby Atmos ("fake Dolby Atoms" in my case...) and am a huge fan of DSU. I find it very effective. That is the good part. The bad/questionable part is that I am somewhat of a heretic on the subject of Atmos. I have read all of the Dolby papers and other analyses. Here is one of my issues...
> Many on this forum prefer the ceiling mounted speakers for a more direct sound. The Dolby-enabled speakers have been written up repeatedly as creating a diffuse sound field. And, Dolby has talked about the Dolby-enabled approach as creating a diffuse sound field.
> These two sound fields that are created are opposite effects--one direct and focused upon the listener, and the other a diffuse, enveloping field. You cannot have it both ways. Or, maybe you can have it both ways (as Dolby seems to try to do...) and it simply depends upon your personal preference. I think that this is one reason that people cannot seem to come to agreement upon what a proper implementation of Dolby Atmos is. The answer is, "It depends."
> Does anyone else see this as a somewhat diffuse (pun intended) situation?
> Can someone provide an answer that reconciles the 2 approaches and explain why both of them are supposed to achieve the same effect in the end? I suspect that the ultimate answer is, "It depends..."


Atmos speakers work when bounced off the ceiling. Don't believe me, read Dolby's recommendation. If you have the wrong ceiling, they don't recommend them.
The concept of some bouncing sound and some direct sound using notch filters is contradictory.
The analog filters used do not work well and at the frequencies involves a small movement of your head would make it collapse anyway.

To be fair, DTS:X is also claiming virtual height processing and I am equally skeptical about that. It will likely be some processing that people like or don't like.
In my view, if you want height channels, install them 

- Rich


----------



## RichB

dannybee said:


> Something on DTS X and DOLBY ATMOS receivers.
> http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/dueling-surround-formats-won-t-sow-confusion/55571


Dueling format wars are incorrect notion anyway. It means this year there will be 24 instead of 23 logos on the box  

The buzz is that DTS will be compatible with Dolby layouts. Dolby should follow suit, after all wasn't the purpose of Object Oriented Sound processing to adapt to the user's speaker layout. I am not sure how long Dolby can ignore that irony 

- Rich


----------



## lujan

roxiedog13 said:


> ... If something comes along that is better, then I will not listen to it and this will ensure, by lack of comparison that my setup is the best I have ever heard.


Funny, I like your attitude and agree because it seems as soon as you buy a piece of equipment based on new technology, something new comes right along that makes yours obsolete. I'm configured similar to you with 7.1.4 and have the in-ceiling speakers as the Atmos enabled seemed to be questionable based on the ceiling type, etc.

I don't think I'll be upgrading for Auro 3D anytime soon because of the required speaker re-configuration and the lack of content (more so than Atmos).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Brian Fineberg said:


> right.
> 
> he is basically saying DTS-x is better than auro 3d


A lot of things are better than Auro3D.


----------



## SoundChex

lujan said:


> I don't think I'll be upgrading for Auro 3D anytime soon because of the required speaker re-configuration and the lack of content (more so than Atmos).




It's hard to guess how soon after *ATSC* selects a "recommended _codec+technology_" to provide the audio system for *ATSC3.0* TV (in August 2015) we might see 'compliant encoded content' created . . . distribution over *OTA*|*CATV* and other "_planned post 2020_" infrastructures will not yet be possible, but existing *IP*|*mobile* technologies might well substitute in the interim. See this January 22, 2015, *TVNewsCheck* article '*Next-Gen Audio Goals: Immersive, Personal*' (_link_).

It's likely we'll have to wait some considerable time after the winning _codec+technology_ is chosen from among the *Dolby*, *DTS*, and *MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (_link_) submissions before the AVR vendors et al disclose the specific playback speaker layouts their decoder implementations will support. However, the good news for anyone whose current speaker layout includes a standard *5.1*|*7.1* _middle layer_ plus *HFL*|*HFR* and *HSL*|*HSR* speaker pairs correctly placed for *Auro3D* is that your speaker setup is probably already 'acceptably configured' for *ATSC3.0* TV immersive audio playback!  


=====
_Suggested further reading:_ *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System Call for Proposals* (_link_)


_


----------



## tj21

bargervais said:


> Thank you for this very positive report let's hope atmos will continue to trickle in faster and faster I'm so glad to be an early adopter. By the end of 2016 I will be ready for another upgrade and I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU Till then. By then I'll will have felt I got my money's worth. Atmos, DTS:X 2016 For me


So far only one studio is consistently releasing in Atmos - Lionsgate. They seem to be found of improving sales of their movies via advanced audio formats. Remember DTS Neo:X encoded movies? There were 3 all from Lionsgate and then the format died.

The silence of the other studios means that either they are waiting for DTS:X or that they just do not care.


----------



## Scott Simonian

A disc "enhanced for Neo:X" is far different than a disc encoded for Atmos/DTS:X. So different that they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

Ah crap! I just did.


----------



## CBdicX

Csbooth said:


> Hey guys, I had a couple of (probably simple questions about external amps) that got buried within the posts, and just trying to give it another shot.
> 
> Ok, so as I was saying before, depending on how these Mfrs want to play things releasing either 9ch AVRs with 11ch processing to use with external amps for your 7.1.4 reference 3D audio. Or if they decided to be like Onkyo/Integra and release a flagship that could do 11 right then (maybe even 13ch lol) I was wondering if I did just decide to go a cheaper route with a 9ch and an external amp; the two choices I would probably make would be the Audiosource amp-100 or the Onkyo M-5010. Here are those questions I asked before:
> 
> * I do notice on the audiosource amp-100 that the line inputs are dual like on a lot of subwoofers; does this mean that I would need to purchase a y-splitter if I go with the amp-100, or just hook up one end to either the L/R (white or red) jack?
> 
> * Also, I can see on the Onkyo M-5010 it looks like there's just one Line input with a white and red terminal which I assume that one rca (Height 2 Left?) from the pre-out goes into the white connector and the second speaker (Height 2 Right?) pre-out rca connects to the red slot, or would I use the line out terminal as well in this scenario?
> 
> - Charles



For both pro-amps you use only the Line IN, red for right (Height Right), white for left (Height Left).
You do not use Line OUT.
No Y-splitter needit, just connect RCA to RCA, red to red, white to white.


----------



## zebidou81

RichB said:


> dvdwilly3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to make sure that everyone recognizes that I am an early adopter of Dolby Atmos ("fake Dolby Atoms" in my case...) and am a huge fan of DSU. I find it very effective. That is the good part. The bad/questionable part is that I am somewhat of a heretic on the subject of Atmos. I have read all of the Dolby papers and other analyses. Here is one of my issues...
> Many on this forum prefer the ceiling mounted speakers for a more direct sound. The Dolby-enabled speakers have been written up repeatedly as creating a diffuse sound field. And, Dolby has talked about the Dolby-enabled approach as creating a diffuse sound field.
> These two sound fields that are created are opposite effects--one direct and focused upon the listener, and the other a diffuse, enveloping field. You cannot have it both ways. Or, maybe you can have it both ways (as Dolby seems to try to do...) and it simply depends upon your personal preference. I think that this is one reason that people cannot seem to come to agreement upon what a proper implementation of Dolby Atmos is. The answer is, "It depends."
> Does anyone else see this as a somewhat diffuse (pun intended) situation?
> Can someone provide an answer that reconciles the 2 approaches and explain why both of them are supposed to achieve the same effect in the end? I suspect that the ultimate answer is, "It depends..."
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos speakers work when bounced off the ceiling. Don't believe me, read Dolby's recommendation. If you have the wrong ceiling, they don't recommend them.
> The concept of some bouncing sound and some direct sound using notch filters is contradictory.
> The analog filters used do not work well and at the frequencies involves a small movement of your head would make it collapse anyway.
> 
> To be fair, DTS:X is also claiming virtual height processing and I am equally skeptical about that. It will likely be some processing that people like or don't like.
> In my view, if you want height channels, install them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...


I feel as being some1 that bought the atmos enabled speakers, tried for weeks to get them right and get that overhead sound and imersiveness that Atmos promised and just couldnt get it right with the upfiring modules.

I then changed to on ceiling kef speakers and wow the difference is night and day, my experience is that the upfiring modules work to a certain degree but they are no match at all in my experience to actual overheads.


----------



## tjenkins95

*John Wick*

Nice audio review for John Wick

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/John-Wick-Blu-ray/113029/#Review


Ray


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> Nice audio review for John Wick
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/John-Wick-Blu-ray/113029/#Review
> 
> 
> Ray


That's some great news can't wait to get my copy next Tuesday. Great review.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SteveTheGeek said:


> Mockingjay does have Atmos it was confirmed by Lion Gates in their press release last week.


Finally! A film that I saw in theaters that I can directly compare to my own setup. While it's not the best Atmos mix in the world, the dropships taking off would be a great way to test out the height channels, because they did indeed sound as if they went way up in the air... very realistic


----------



## robert816

Watched "Nature" this afternoon with Dolby Atmos, very nice! There is a chapter where the camera goes through the forest canopy to the forest floor and you can hear insects and birds all around.

I'll be watching "Transcendence" this evening, again in Dolby Atmos.

I, Frankenstein will have to wait until tomorrow, but I'm looking forward to it, especially the flying gargoyle scene.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Here's a quick question from a newb.


I was chatting to a very accomplished feature film Sound Mixer yesterday.

He was raving no-end about all the benefits of Atmos, how great it was to work with, how superior and smart a format it was, etc.


He also went on to say that while the Height channels were nice to have, they were often the LEAST significant improvement for the majority of film mixes out there.


Rather, it's the articulation of object placement, extra fidelity, rear LFE channel, highly intelligent mix-down capabilities and consistent results across different systems that make Atmos so great.

(He also mentioned that the Auro-3D seemed superior for "introducing extra depth BEHIND the screen". Not sure how that works? )



So onto the question!

I have a 7.0 system I'm VERY happy with.
(3 x active KRK Rokit 10-3 at front, Infinity ES-250 bipoles at sides, KRK-Rokit 5 actives at rear)

I'm running a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro.
Am I right in assuming that if I was to keep the speaker config exactly as is (that is, don't add Heights) - an Atmos enabled pre-pro would offer a seriously noticeable improvement ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

At this point, if you have 7.0 and don't intend to add heights/overheads then there is no advantage to having Atmos decoding at home.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Electric_Haggis said:


> Here's a quick question from a newb.
> 
> 
> I was chatting to a very accomplished feature film Sound Mixer yesterday.
> 
> He was raving no-end about all the benefits of Atmos, how great it was to work with, how superior and smart a format it was, etc.
> 
> 
> He also went on to say that while the Height channels were nice to have, they were often the LEAST significant improvement for the majority of film mixes out there.
> 
> 
> Rather, it's the articulation of object placement, extra fidelity, rear LFE channel, highly intelligent mix-down capabilities and consistent results across different systems that make Atmos so great.
> 
> (He also mentioned that the Auro-3D seemed superior for "introducing extra depth BEHIND the screen". Not sure how that works? )
> 
> 
> 
> So onto the question!
> 
> I have a 7.0 system I'm VERY happy with.
> (3 x active KRK Rokit 10-3 at front, Infinity ES-250 bipoles at sides, KRK-Rokit 5 actives at rear)
> 
> I'm running a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro.
> Am I right in assuming that if I was to keep the speaker config exactly as is (that is, don't add Heights) - an Atmos enabled pre-pro would offer a seriously noticeable improvement ?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


You _normally_ need either true overheads or "enabled" speakers selected in the menu in order to have Dolby Atmos rendering engaged. Otherwise, you just get the normal 7.1 track. 

I would agree that we need more main level surround speaker outputs than 5.1 or 7.1 in order to get a heightened 3D effect since most mixers don't seem to engage the overheads very often. However, the pan-through arrays afforded by more main level speakers are often used to great effect.


----------



## brahman12

*Totally agree*



roxiedog13 said:


> Well, this guy will not be changing anything now, I'm set up for Dolby Atmos and that's where I'm parked at least for three years, maybe more. I'm running atmos 7.2.4 with speakers already
> wired for 7.2.6. Atmos is the leader at this point and plenty of content is in the works. Most I would do beyond this in the short term is add a couple of front height speakers just because the
> wiring is in place or upgrade to a new AVR. DTS:X and Auro, when available will be great, no doubt but certainly not so good I'll want to trash the investment I just made. One thing I do
> know and that is, I really like the Atmos experience now . If something comes along that is better, then I will not listen to it and this will ensure, by lack of comparison that my setup is the best I have ever heard.


I love my Atmos setup, and have been having crazy fun over the last few weeks watching movies with Atmos and DSU. DTS-X would be nice to play with too, but I can definitely wait until Bluray players have the decoding capability for DTS-X if they kick Dolby's rear end....while using DSU for every single movie in existence until then. I don't know exactly how much setup variations may effect listening experiences for us, but I have had an absolutely positive and way more than subtle impact in my home theater with Atmos/DSU. I have consistently heard greater immersion, panning/steering activity, soundstage enhancement, and thus 3D sound with everything I have thrown at my setup. I can't tell people that they are wrong about the whole Atmos underwhelmed thing....I can only share my personal experience with a 7.2.4 setup via a Yamaha 3040 AVR using on-ceiling front and rear overhead speakers. I have been thoroughly amazed and so have my family/friends when they have heard the setup.


----------



## brahman12

I find it very intriguing how we can experience the same movie and equipment but have such different perceptions. Ultimately you gotta go with your own ears and enjoyment. But I am an unashamed proponent of Atmos due to my experience with it thus far. I also seem to be having a different experience with Transformers 4. I have watched it once in regular 7.1 Dolby True Hd, and twice now in Atmos. Once when I first got the Atmos setup up and running, and just yesterday. All three times I have loved the mix, but the Atmos rendition is absolutely mind-blowing. I am getting lots of overhead activity throughout the movie....not every scene, but definitely lots of action happening up there throughout. Not only overhead but overall...just an awesome, impactful and hyperactive mix. Only a bit off of what Dolby laid down within the Atmos demo clips....not underwhelming by any means. So again, although I am convinced of the awesomeness of Atmos....we all hear differently as experiments have shown....thus we must be our own guinea pigs and run our own personal experiments with whatever technology is being offered to us. Just my two cents, and not in any way meant to offend or contradict anyone else's just as valid opinion.


----------



## roxiedog13

brahman12 said:


> I love my Atmos setup, and have been having crazy fun over the last few weeks watching movies with Atmos and DSU. DTS-X would be nice to play with too, but I can definitely wait until Bluray players have the decoding capability for DTS-X if they kick Dolby's rear end....while using DSU for every single movie in existence until then. I don't know exactly how much setup variations may effect listening experiences for us, but I have had an absolutely positive and way more than subtle impact in my home theater with Atmos/DSU. I have consistently heard greater immersion, panning/steering activity, soundstage enhancement, and thus 3D sound with everything I have thrown at my setup. I can't tell people that they are wrong about the whole Atmos underwhelmed thing....I can only share my personal experience with a 7.2.4 setup via a Yamaha 3040 AVR using on-ceiling front and rear overhead speakers. I have been thoroughly amazed and so have my family/friends when they have heard the setup.



My 7.2.4 utilizes two rear in ceiling and two front modules. I had to reposition the front modules forward and inward from the main speakers on separate stands to get a descent effect and it does work nicely now. I'm taking delivery of 4 Niles in-ceiling speakers tomorrow and they will be installed over the next two nights. When finished I will actually have 6 in-ceiling speakers for 7.2.6
and have to patiently wait for the AVR technology to catch up in order to use all 6 . I can't wait to try the in-ceiling speakers, I'm expecting a noticeable increase in the Atmos 3D soundstage based on comments from others who have made that progression.


Brooklyn NY, I guess you'll be shoveling when I'm installing speakers tomorrow evening. My wife is presently in a hotel downtown Manhattan, probably there another couple of days. Perfect, no one to bother me as I dissect the house to install speakers.   Then again, she's use to the snow, in my city we get 16ft on average over the winter, no biggie


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Scott Simonian said:


> At this point, if you have 7.0 and don't intend to add heights/overheads then there is no advantage to having Atmos decoding at home.



The reason for my blurb before the question was to suggest that an Atmos track will still be improved even in a 7.0 setup, as the object-based processing will be superior to a regular 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack.

This is what that Sound Mixer suggested.

Is this not the case?


----------



## batpig




----------



## ambesolman

Electric_Haggis said:


> The reason for my blurb before the question was to suggest that an Atmos track will still be improved even in a 7.0 setup, as the object-based processing will be superior to a regular 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what that Sound Mixer suggested.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not the case?



Like Scott said, you'd need height channels. Short of that, I'd suggest getting a sub.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## brahman12

*LOL....I am jealous!!!*



batpig said:


>



I have lived in NY all my life and still can't get used to snow and cold in the winters. Lol  

California folks always tell me that I would fit in well in Southern Cal due to my un-NY like laid back demeanor, love of the ocean, and the fact that I wear my hair long like a surfer lol.


----------



## Jack.K

I am thinking of using 4 Orb speakers on my 9 ft ceiling in a 7.1.4 atmos config. Does anyone have a opinion on this?


----------



## brahman12

*Best time to wreck havoc in the house is when the Lady of the house is out and about*



roxiedog13 said:


> My 7.2.4 utilizes two rear in ceiling and two front modules. I had to reposition the front modules forward and inward from the main speakers on separate stands to get a descent effect and it does work nicely now. I'm taking delivery of 4 Niles in-ceiling speakers tomorrow and they will be installed over the next two nights. When finished I will actually have 6 in-ceiling speakers for 7.2.6
> and have to patiently wait for the AVR technology to catch up in order to use all 6 . I can't wait to try the in-ceiling speakers, I'm expecting a noticeable increase in the Atmos 3D soundstage based on comments from others who have made that progression.
> 
> 
> Brooklyn NY, I guess you'll be shoveling when I'm installing speakers tomorrow evening. My wife is presently in a hotel downtown Manhattan, probably there another couple of days. Perfect, no one to bother me as I dissect the house to install speakers.   Then again, she's use to the snow, in my city we get 16ft on average over the winter, no biggie


I intend to be chillin' in my man cave tomorrow evening with my shoveling duties taken care of earlier in the day(God willing)...snow is supposed to be over by mid-afternoon (3-4 pm) lol....hope you enjoy ur new setup and rejoin us lucky few early adopters in within what you have had a taste of already....ATMOS INDUCED NIRVANA (patent pending)


----------



## brahman12

*Orbs for overheads*



Jack.K said:


> I am thinking of using 4 Orb speakers on my 9 ft ceiling in a 7.1.4 atmos config. Does anyone have a opinion on this?


I have never heard Orbs nor do I know the specs of the ones you want to use for your overheads....but as long as you install them somewhat close to Dolby's recommendations, and they can handle about 100 watts and go down to at least 80hz before major roll-off then you should be fine.
Good luck and happy listening!!!


----------



## brahman12

*Orbs for overheads*



Jack.K said:


> I am thinking of using 4 Orb speakers on my 9 ft ceiling in a 7.1.4 atmos config. Does anyone have a opinion on this?


I have never heard Orbs nor do I know the specs of the ones you want to use for your overheads....but as long as you install them somewhat close to Dolby's recommendations, and they can handle about 100 watts and go down to at least 80hz before major roll-off then you should be fine.
Good luck and happy listening!!!


----------



## Nalleh

kokishin said:


> Done. You're the 85th system added to the spreadsheet.


Hey, kokishin where are you?
I believe the spreadsheet needs an update!


----------



## kuro6010

You can add me to the Dolby Atmos sheet as well.


----------



## DAK4

Electric_Haggis said:


> Here's a quick question from a newb.
> 
> 
> I was chatting to a very accomplished feature film Sound Mixer yesterday.
> 
> He was raving no-end about all the benefits of Atmos, how great it was to work with, how superior and smart a format it was, etc.
> 
> 
> He also went on to say that while the Height channels were nice to have, they were often the LEAST significant improvement for the majority of film mixes out there.
> 
> 
> Rather, it's the articulation of object placement, extra fidelity, rear LFE channel, highly intelligent mix-down capabilities and consistent results across different systems that make Atmos so great.
> 
> (He also mentioned that the Auro-3D seemed superior for "introducing extra depth BEHIND the screen". Not sure how that works? )
> 
> 
> 
> So onto the question!
> 
> I have a 7.0 system I'm VERY happy with.
> (3 x active KRK Rokit 10-3 at front, Infinity ES-250 bipoles at sides, KRK-Rokit 5 actives at rear)
> 
> I'm running a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro.
> Am I right in assuming that if I was to keep the speaker config exactly as is (that is, don't add Heights) - an Atmos enabled pre-pro would offer a seriously noticeable improvement ?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Yes, I think you would be correct. It seems to be a more natural and fluid way of moving the sounds around even with the 7.0 setup over the old way of mixing the sound which I think was someone guessing where the sounds should be and guessing the volume they should be.


----------



## dannybee

roxiedog13 said:


> My 7.2.4 utilizes two rear in ceiling and two front modules. I had to reposition the front modules forward and inward from the main speakers on separate stands to get a descent effect and it does work nicely now. I'm taking delivery of 4 Niles in-ceiling speakers tomorrow and they will be installed over the next two nights. When finished I will actually have 6 in-ceiling speakers for 7.2.6
> and have to patiently wait for the AVR technology to catch up in order to use all 6 . I can't wait to try the in-ceiling speakers, I'm expecting a noticeable increase in the Atmos 3D soundstage based on comments from others who have made that progression.
> 
> 
> Brooklyn NY, I guess you'll be shoveling when I'm installing speakers tomorrow evening. My wife is presently in a hotel downtown Manhattan, probably there another couple of days. Perfect, no one to bother me as I dissect the house to install speakers.   Then again, she's use to the snow, in my city we get 16ft on average over the winter, no biggie


Hi l'am trying a 7.1.2 setup with front modules but l haven't had much luck with getting a decent height sound from the modules would you be able to give me any hints on your setup for them my ceiling is roughly 8 foot and mlp is about 6-7 foot from front speakers thanks.


----------



## BamaDave

kuro6010 said:


> You can add me to the Dolby Atmos sheet as well.



I believe you'll need to provide details associated with your setup to be placed on the sheet!


----------



## billqs

Well, I heeded Batpig's advice sooner than I expected as Mike at AVScience found me a great deal on an open box Denon X7200 that I couldn't pass up. This will give me immediately 9 channels and I plan to very shortly get a small outboard amp to get the last 2 channels taken care of. My ultimate aim is to go 7.1 on the sound "bed" and 4 speakers for sound height. 

I have an all Def Tech setup with the ProCenter 1000's for L C R, My Procinema 800's are right now on surround (this will change) and I'm using my 2 Procinema 600's as height speakers. My current receiver is the excellent sounding Onkyo 636 which I have to say has an amazing sound and features at such an affordable price range. I'm going to be sorry to see it go, but I really want to do Atmos right and adequately setup my longish room with 2 rows of theater chairs and adding a bar and 3 to 4 stools.

On sound advice (pun intended) I ordered a pair of 8040BP bipole surrounds which should help distribute the surround sound more evenly with some compromises I will have to make with my room now that the surrounds all have to go down to ear level, putting them potentially in the way of my narrow aisle and less than perfectly placed door that opens inward, also less than perfectly.
Some questions:
1. Could I use the Procinema 800s as my other height surrounds even though the first two are only 600's>
2. What position should I place the 4 heights in? Front and Middle? Right now my two are in the middle overhead directly between the first and 2nd row.
3. What about Mythos Gems for a pair of bipole rear surrounds (or side surrounds if the 8040s stick out too much?

I'm reattaching the crude drawing of my room. It uses an almost wall to wall screen 133" diagonal on a wall just a little over 10 feet wide in a room about 18~20 feet long.


----------



## dschulz

Electric_Haggis said:


> The reason for my blurb before the question was to suggest that an Atmos track will still be improved even in a 7.0 setup, as the object-based processing will be superior to a regular 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack.
> 
> This is what that Sound Mixer suggested.
> 
> Is this not the case?


It is not the case. If you don't have any height speakers (whether actual overheads or Dolby-enabled speakers) then the processor will simply decode the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack. It does not apply any object-based processing unless you have height speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> It is not the case. If you don't have any height speakers (whether actual overheads or Dolby-enabled speakers) then the processor will simply decode the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack. It does not apply any object-based processing unless you have height speakers.


What if you say that you do have overhead speakers, when in reality you don't? ...To the Dolby Atmos receiver/pre-pro.


----------



## DAK4

I believe it is the case. I think if it is a dolby atmos mix then even the 7.1 bed will have used the Dolby atmos technique for a more fluid and more natural mix.


----------



## kuro6010

You can add me to the Dolby Atmos spreadsheet. My set up is 7.1.4

Denon X7200 Panasonic 65VT30
Front L&R speaker Dynaudio excite X36
Center speaker Dynaudio contour SC
Surround L&R Dynaudio Excite X12
Surround Back L&R Cerwin Vega CMX 5
Front L&R Dolby Atmos (A/T 44DA)
Rear L&R dolby Atmos (A/T 44DA)
Subwoofer HSU Vtf-15
Emotiva XPA -5


----------



## Csbooth

CBdicX said:


> For both pro-amps you use only the Line IN, red for right (Height Right), white for left (Height Left).
> You do not use Line OUT.
> No Y-splitter needit, just connect RCA to RCA, red to red, white to white.


Awesome thank you, feel free to tackle any other questions


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> I believe it is the case. I think *1.* if it is a dolby atmos mix *2.* then even the 7.1 bed will have used the Dolby atmos technique for a more fluid and more natural mix.


1. Yes it was assumed; a Dolby Atmos audio surround mix, from a Blu-ray.
2. I also thought so.


----------



## CBdicX

Csbooth said:


> * I'd like to know if turning the gain up on my psw505's correlates with how low Hz they can hit; such as how the 505 has an overall frequency response of 23hZ (I know it would probably be difficult for it to actual hit that with so many variables) but I'm just wondering if that's how the gain works. Basically, if I only turned the gain up say %50, would I be able to receive down to 30Hz, or would it only ever occur at a certain gain level, and volume level on the AVR.
> 
> 
> *Turning up the volume will not make the sub go lower but will let you hear low Hz better.*
> *If the 23Hz is @ 3 dB you still need to get the sub exact in the correct spot to get the 23 Hz in the MLP.*
> *Normal you can not and the 23 Hz is just a number on paper........*
> 
> * Since these 505s have a dedicated LFE input (yellow RCA jack), is it okay for both subs to be hooked up using that method, or would it mess up the signals? I don't actually have the AVR as of yet to see if it matters or not. I kind of know what having it hooked up this way does. Basically it ignores the crossover dial on the back and uses only the AVRs settings right?
> 
> 
> *If you get a receiver with 1 sub pre-out you need an y-splitter on the pre-out.*
> *Or you get a receiver installed with 2 sub pre-outs, then you use on RCA mono (double shielded preferd) for each sub.*
> *On most sub when you use the subwoofer input (LFE) the x-over on the sub will not work.*
> 
> * Does having two subwoofers help with reaching a higher SPL, Or is it more about filling out the smoothness of your bass in the room? I assume you don't normally need to crank up the gain on either sub past halfway point to get you in a sweet balance.
> 
> 
> *Will not help to get higher SPL, on Onkyo's and Integra you need to dial back the sub volume when you use 2 subs.*
> *You need to set both subs on 50% volume and let the receiver set the bass managment and volume of the sub(s).*
> 
> * Lastly, I noticed how the PSW505's frequency response only goes up to 160Hz; will this make a huge difference of say the BicF12's ability to go from 25>200, does that extra 40Hz to 200 make a difference? Personally, I only ever thought how low it could reach was what mattered, but I'm just wondering if I made a mistake and should return and pick up a couple of F12s, only the shipping back will suck haha.
> 
> 
> *If you set the subs to 160Hz you will hear where they are, they need to be below 80Hz or you will locate them.*
> *For HT use its no benifit if subs will go higher the 100Hz, you look for the lower numbers.*
> 
> Anyways, as usual I'm sorry for such long-winded posts with numerous questions but TIA for any and all help!
> 
> 
> *Please understand i am no "expert" but tell you for what i know and learned the past 15 years.*
> *Maybe i am wrong and hope that someone will correct this if needit*
> 
> - Charles


 .


----------



## roxiedog13

dannybee said:


> Hi l'am trying a 7.1.2 setup with front modules but l haven't had much luck with getting a decent height sound from the modules would you be able to give me any hints on your setup for them my ceiling is roughly 8 foot and mlp is about 6-7 foot from front speakers thanks.


See if I can properly explain what I did. O.K., first you need to have a good mental picture of my HT room at the front to see how I started out and where I placed the modules in the end to get the best sound. Picture my HT room at the front , it is 12ft wide , 7 1/2ft high . I have a raised faux stage that is 6inches high , my left and right tower speakers sit on the far right and left of the room on this stage. The towers are 42" high and on a stage 6" high so the modules were sitting on top of the speakers per Dolby recommendations, I assume that is where you have placed yours. This is where my original setup gets a little confusing. Problem I had was my ceiling though 7 1/2ft high was not 7 1/2 ft all the way across. Above both speakers the ceiling was dropped about 10 inches and this drop box was 20" wide ,running the length of the entire room. What I had was a lowered ceiling on the sides and a center portion that was higher. In this location the modules were only about 32" from the dropped ceiling above it so the bounce angle to the MLP 8 ft away was not correct. The module in this location was not working so I started moving it around and in the end what worked was moving the modules forward of the main speaker about two feet in a line directly between each main speaker and the MLP. I used a small stand on the main floor off the stage, the stand being around 30" high. Now the modules were in a position where the highest portion of the ceiling now above above was around 60" and now only 6ft from the MLP . Using a protractor and laser light I approximated the best angle between the module and the MLP. Bottom line, it now worked really well . See my drawing below, if it doesn't make sense I will try to clarify. Think experimentation, as always, your results may vary.

modules indicated in red first on the towers then on the stands


----------



## Frank714

robert816 said:


> Amazon Japan shows an April release of Chicago with a Dolby Atmos mix.
> Even Blu-Ray.com shows the Japanese version as Atmos, I'll keep an eye out for more information.
> 
> Japanese version: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Chicago-Blu-ray/123482/


I will be in Atmos heaven.  This is my favorite musical and I was just about to get myself the latest, picture improved edition.

This would then also be the first Blu-ray with a Dolby Atmos remastered sound mix. The multi-channel soundtrack SACD of _Chicago_ is fantastic, I'm really looking forward to this release, thousand thanks for letting us know!



tj21 said:


> So far only one studio is consistently releasing in Atmos - Lionsgate. They seem to be found of improving sales of their movies via advanced audio formats. Remember DTS Neo:X encoded movies? There were 3 all from Lionsgate and then the format died.
> 
> The silence of the other studios means that either they are waiting for DTS:X or that they just do not care.


Or...they are considering featuring Dolby Atmos and/or DTS:X prominently with the arrival of the Ultra HD Blu-ray disc later this year.

I would dare to say that both constitute high-end multi-channel audio married with high-end video and both appeal to a minority of the general AV audience. 

Personally, I'd like the studios to release Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays now and for those of us whose AVRs won't be capable anyway of UHD BD switching (HDCP 2.2) and don't have UHD BD on their Christmas shopping lists.

Apparently, DTS:X and UHD BD are going to arrive approx. at the same time on the consumer market, so for what it's worth, they can arrive together but that shouldn't stop the studios from releasing more Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays in the meantime.

I'm also in need for Dolby Atmos calibration test signals, because I'm currently trusting blindly that Audyssey set my overhead speakers up properly, but I'd like to check.

Has anybody heard more about when this new Dolby Atmos test disc is supposed to arrive and who will get it?

Alternately, I'd love to see Lionsgate or Warner _(Gravity)_ to provide the speaker identification and calibration signal on one of their discs as a bonus feature.

Heck, Fox provided its Star Wars DVDs with a THX optimizer, that can't really be too difficult to put some Dolby Atmos test signals on one of the upcoming DA Blu-rays, right?


----------



## roxiedog13

Frank714 said:


> I will be in Atmos heaven.  This is my favorite musical and I was just about to get myself the latest, picture improved edition.
> 
> This would then also be the first Blu-ray with a Dolby Atmos remastered sound mix. The multi-channel soundtrack SACD of _Chicago_ is fantastic, I'm really looking forward to this release, thousand thanks for letting us know!


I've seen many remastered movies that look great, well worth the price of the improved product no doubt. Just wondering if there will be any advantage with Atmos for Chicago though. I have the original version too, will be worth the price for comparison if nothing else. I'd like to think that remastering the audio to Atmos will add something significant instead of just generating new
sales of an otherwise dead product.


----------



## robert816

You are very welcome sir! I too am looking forward to this release, almost purchased the current version. I probably would not have found out about this except for my recent Blu-Ray purchase from Amazon japan, this popped up in the area of the page where they show other things you might like. It's a shame there is no mention anywhere of an American release for this version.

My apologies sir, I just realized from your avatar block that you are in Berlin, an american release probably wouldn't matter to you. If this version of Chicago is anything like the other Blu-Rays I'ved purchased from Amazon Japan, it will hopefully be region free


----------



## lujan

brahman12 said:


> ... I have been thoroughly amazed and so have my family/friends when they have heard the setup.


I too am loving my new Dolby Atmos setup (7.1.4) and haven't even tried a Dolby Atmos movie yet but just the samples and lots of movies using DSU. Last night I watched a movie from 2001 called "Frailty" and was amazed at the sound at one point when they were out in the woods and you could hear the crickets, amazing. I'm now watching older movies like they're the first time because of the sounds that were just not there or not as evident until Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I too am loving my new Dolby Atmos setup (7.1.4) and haven't even tried a Dolby Atmos movie yet but just the samples and lots of movies using DSU. Last night *I watched a movie from 2001 called "Frailty"* and was amazed at the sound at one point when they were out in the woods and you could hear the crickets, amazing. I'm now watching older movies like they're the first time because of the sounds that were just not there or not as evident until Atmos.


That's a remarkable movie--great script and terrific performances by Bill Paxton (who also directed), Matthew McConaughey, Powers Boothe, and others. Besides being well told, the story is gripping, chilling, and thoroughly unpredictable. It's a film that will stay with you for years. Thanks for reminding me of it; I will have to watch it again in DSU for the added atmospherics.


----------



## pasender91

Saving Private Ryan is another example, with the many battle scenes and the rainy Normandy, of a nice movie to watch using DSU


----------



## brahman12

*Great News*



lujan said:


> I too am loving my new Dolby Atmos setup (7.1.4) and haven't even tried a Dolby Atmos movie yet but just the samples and lots of movies using DSU. Last night I watched a movie from 2001 called "Frailty" and was amazed at the sound at one point when they were out in the woods and you could hear the crickets, amazing. I'm now watching older movies like they're the first time because of the sounds that were just not there or not as evident until Atmos.


Glad you are getting the enjoyment you hoped for when you upgraded. I will look into Frailty, which I haven't watched since it was first released on DVD. Atmos has been the best purchase I have made in a good while, with the DSU capability being its "ace in the hole" This last weekend I watched Adele, Shakira, Pink, U2, and Jeff Beck concert blurays with DSU engaged. WOW, it was truly an experience...it was like sitting in the first three rows of a concert in Madison Square Garden. I have watched the U2 Rattle and Hum HDDVD literally 30 times....and watching it in DSU made me feel like the first time I watched this film at the Astor Plaza movie theater in Manhattan....music from everywhere just blitzing my senses....clarity, depth and width, vocal rendition were all spectacular. I heard details and nuances to the film mix that I never heard before (like you stated in your post regarding ur experience with DSU). ATMOS INDUCED NIRVANA indeed!!!


----------



## brahman12

*Fantastic Movie -Saving Private Ryan*



pasender91 said:


> Saving Private Ryan is another example, with the many battle scenes and the rainy Normandy, of a nice movie to watch using DSU


Last week I watched the first disc of the Band of Brothers bluray set and the initial parachute drop into Europe, along with the first big battle in the British farm fields were for lack of a better word, outstanding. After watching the first disc, I made a note to myself to watch Private Ryan ASAP!!!


----------



## sdurani

Frank714 said:


> Or...they are considering featuring Dolby Atmos and/or DTS:X prominently with the arrival of the Ultra HD Blu-ray disc later this year.


Yup, IF any of the studios feel that higher video resolution alone won't get you to re-buy a movie, then that might explain them holding off porting their theatrical Atmos mixes to Blu-ray, since they could use that as an enticement to re-buy the movie on UHD BD.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

brahman12 said:


> Last week I watched the first disc of the Band of Brothers bluray set and the initial parachute drop into Europe, along with the first big battle in the British farm fields were for lack of a better word, outstanding. After watching the first disc, I made a note to myself to watch Private Ryan ASAP!!!


I bought that on Black Friday. Still have yet to watch it. Must put it at the top of the list!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't waste my money on that junky film no matter if it had the best Atmos remix in the world. It was like a badly acted junior high school student-written drama with millions thrown at it. Seriously, I can't see how some of these movies get the green light. Can the producers not see how bad they are??


They don't need to, Dan. We have you to remind us about the execrable nature of almost every movie ever mentioned here  Even those that take over one billion dollars in revenue and return over 300% on investment within a 12 month period  Gee, I wish I could get things that wrong!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> IMO that describes at least 95% of the big-budget major studio flicks.
> 
> 
> 
> That's got to be a rhetorical question because you already know the answer: Schlock sells, and the producers are looking for monetary return on investment.
> 
> OTOH, maybe I'm just cranky because I wasted an evening last week watching "Twister" on Keith's recommendation just to hear what DSU would do with the sound effects (and, to be fair to Keith, he did warn that it was not a very good film). I am usually pretty discriminating about the films that I will watch, preferring to miss out on a few quality movies rather than risk watching a stinker. So perhaps I have been sheltered, but my wife and I were both shocked at just how miserable the writing, acting, and directing were on this formulaic disaster film. It was so atrocious that, after suffering through the first 30 minutes, we simply fast-forwarded through any scene that did not have storm-related sound effects.


This is why, IIRC, not only did I give a strong caveat, but I also gave details of the scenes to go directly to: the opening scene and the scene where the truck is under the bridge.


----------



## Csbooth

CBdicX said:


> .


Thank you for all the information , was quite informative.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I don't know how Keith can sit through the entire movie on some of these flicks. I can die a happy(er) man never sitting through TF4 again (adding insult to injury is the vanity and narcissism of Bay thinking a vapid scifi action romp deserved to be almost 3 hrs long). But I'm happy to own it as demo material.
> 
> I think these should be viewed as "demo clips" like the Amaze trainer. Watch this scene but then turn it off and redirect those minutes to more productive things


I haven't watched TF4 more than once all the way through. Although I did watch TMNT twice and *enjoyed it* both times. Sometimes I amaze myself 

The vapid romp, BTW, made over a billion dollars and a 300% ROI in its first year. I’d be pretty happy to have my name attached to something that did that. I think sometimes people forget that making movies is a business, like making cars or TV sets. They don't make movies to make Dan happy, unfortunately for Dan.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Glad you liked those particular movies. More power to you. However, that doesn't automatically make them films of merit or high quality.


Neither does your dislike of a movie make it valueless.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> It's fine that you like these films and we don't; one man's meat is another man's poison. But we're not (or at least I am not) denigrating the subject matter or content of these films. Rather, it's the quality of their essential ingredients that render them woefully unwatchable to us. I can enjoy light entertainment as much as any other genre providing those essentials--foremost among them the writing, acting, direction, and cinematography--are well done. But, as Dan points out, saying you like a movie is different from claiming that it is a superior product. I said earlier that schlock sells, and the reason it sells is because that is what audiences are willing to pay to go see. That makes it popular; it does not make it art or even good cinema. You may enjoy reading Danielle Steel (she's currently the best selling living author), but Shakespeare it ain't.


All of Shakespeare's greatest plays played to the crowd, with their action sequences and sexual content, their innuendo and their crude language (I speak of country matters here of course, for example). Most of them had really bad special effects and usually the acting was pretty poor too (at the time of their original release). They had either no score or a simple and crude score. Lighting was especially poor and, of course, camerawork was non-existent  What differentiated them, of course, was the script. I doubt if people today, even Dan, would want his movies to be written in iambic pentameters though  On second thoughts, he probably would.

Batpig asks how I can sit through some of them. Movies not Will Shakepeare's plays  I've commented on it before: it's because I don't seek or get all my pleasure from a movie just from the script or the acting. I can really, really enjoy a movie just for its excellent composition of shots. Or its editing. Or the score. Sometimes (often) a movie that has really bad acting and a terrible script can also have sublime editing, effects, score, photography, choreography etc etc etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> If one wants to take a break from whiz-bang, may I recommend "Winter Bone"; a film that's a few years old, but strong with character development. It stars a younger Jennifer Lawrence, and her acting chops were strong here. It was a well spent Sunday aftenoon.
> 
> And it sounded A-OK with DSU, in the subtler sense of things.


One of my all-time favorites. Bleak but containing a certain optimism in the sense that Lawrence's character never gives up.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't watched TF4 more than once all the way through. Although I did watch TMNT twice and *enjoyed it* both times. Sometimes I amaze myself
> 
> The vapid romp, BTW, made over a billion dollars and a 300% ROI in its first year. I’d be pretty happy to have my name attached to something that did that. I think sometimes people forget that making movies is a business, like making cars or TV sets. They don't make movies to make Dan happy, unfortunately for Dan.


I know you know this, Keith, but gross profits do not a good movie make. If 5.2 billion people liked basting themselves with butter and baking in the hot sun for four hours, it still isn't a good idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a remarkable movie--great script and terrific performances by Bill Paxton (who also directed), Matthew McConaughey, Powers Boothe, and others. Besides being well told, the story is gripping, chilling, and thoroughly unpredictable. It's a film that will stay with you for years. Thanks for reminding me of it; I will have to watch it again in DSU for the added atmospherics.


+1. One of the most genuinely scary movies I have ever seen. Chilling is the word.


----------



## wkearney99

kbarnes701 said:


> I've commented on it before: it's because I don't seek or get all my pleasure from a movie just from the script or the acting. I can really, really enjoy a movie just for its excellent composition of shots. Or its editing. Or the score. Sometimes (often) a movie that has really bad acting and a terrible script can also have sublime editing, effects, score, photography, choreography etc etc etc.


Indeed, there's a lot to be said for marveling at the quality of craft put into the performances. It's not always about the story alone. 

That said, I used to attend a Sunday movie club that would show a variety of movies not typically released to a wide audience. That and some films before they were distributed to a wider audience. It was quite nice to see a lot of movies that weren't at the gigaplex. But I had to stop going because of an overbearing amount of wannabe film critics ceaselessly picking over every tiny bit of detail. To the exclusion of discussing the story at all. It really ruined what had previously been a rich and wide-ranging discussion. Anyway, I still marvel at the cinematography or other production values, even when the story falters.


----------



## wkearney99

Dan Hitchman said:


> If 5.2 billion people liked basting themselves with butter and baking in the hot sun for four hours...


Wait, there's movies of that? Hmmm....

:devil::grin:


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know you know this, Keith, but gross profits do not a good movie make. If 5.2 billion people liked basting themselves with butter and baking in the hot sun for four hours, it still isn't a good idea.


It is for those 5.2 billion people. You are not the final arbiter of what a good idea is, unfortunately, Dan.

But what I don't understand is who is forcing you to see these movies? How are they dragging you to the cinema or the Bluray store? Have you considered calling the police? Do you mean to tell me that you had NO IDEA what TF4 or TMNT would be like before these unseen forces coerced you into watching them?

There are thousands of movies made every year, all over the world. It seems to me you would like many of the Indies and almost all of the output from the French movie industry and possibly quite a lot from Italy too. Or, of course, you could just do back catalog of the 'greats' like Fellini, Bergman, Buñuel, Pedro Almodovar, Wong Kar-wai, Terence Davies, Kiarostami and so on. All of those are in my collection and they all make 'worthy' movies of the sort you crave. 

Since there is clearly no shortage of content that you'd prefer, and since most of it will play nicely with DSU, I really struggle to understand your endless whining about the content of a few movies made to sell in large numbers, with no pretension of 'greatness' of any sort attached to them.

I hate spinach. Guess what I do? Right on - I avoid it. Guess what I don't do? Right again - I don't keep eating it and complaining I don't like it. Seems so freakin' easy to me. Just sayin'.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It is for those 5.2 billion people. You are not the final arbiter of what a good idea is, unfortunately, Dan.
> 
> But what I don't understand is who is forcing you to see these movies? How are they dragging you to the cinema or the Bluray store? Have you considered calling the police? Do you mean to tell me that you had NO IDEA what TF4 or TMNT would be like before these unseen forces coerced you into watching them?
> 
> There are thousands of movies made every year, all over the world. It seems to me you would like many of the Indies and almost all of the output from the French movie industry and possibly quite a lot from Italy too. Or, of course, you could just do back catalog of the 'greats' like Fellini, Bergman, Buñuel, Pedro Almodovar, Wong Kar-wai, Terence Davies, Kiarostami and so on. All of those are in my collection and they all make 'worthy' movies of the sort you crave.
> 
> Since there is clearly no shortage of content that you'd prefer, and since most of it will play nicely with DSU, I really struggle to understand your endless whining about the content of a few movies made to sell in large numbers, with no pretension of 'greatness' of any sort attached to them.
> 
> I hate spinach. Guess what I do? Right on - I avoid it. Guess what I don't do? Right again - I don't keep eating it and complaining I don't like it. Seems so freakin' easy to me. Just sayin'.


Sometimes on movie night I don't get to pick the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

wkearney99 said:


> Indeed, there's a lot to be said for marveling at the quality of craft put into the performances. It's not always about the story alone.
> 
> That said, I used to attend a Sunday movie club that would show a variety of movies not typically released to a wide audience. That and some films before they were distributed to a wider audience. It was quite nice to see a lot of movies that weren't at the gigaplex. But I had to stop going because of an overbearing amount of wannabe film critics ceaselessly picking over every tiny bit of detail. To the exclusion of discussing the story at all. It really ruined what had previously been a rich and wide-ranging discussion. Anyway, I still marvel at the cinematography or other production values, even when the story falters.


Quite. There is much to enjoy. But the bottom line is, we all have different tastes and needs. Sometimes I am in the mood for deep and meaningful. Sometimes I am tired and just want to see guys with big muscles blowing **** up. Sometimes I just marvel at the photography and barely even notice the dialogue. Do you have any discs with isolated scores? I have a few and I love them - no dialogue, no script - just the score and the actors and the camera all moving in unison. Watch North By North West that way - it is like a totally new experience no matter how many times you have seen it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sometimes on movie night I don't get to pick the movie.



Hmm. Sounds like whoever is picking the movies at your house would benefit from Dolby Atmos more than you would, Dan.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sometimes on movie night I don't get to pick the movie.


OMG! Well, what can I say. Who built the HT? Whose hard-earned paid for the gear? Who had to spend half his life on AVS to figure out how to make it sound great? This ain't Democracy In Action, Dan... this is AVS! LOL. Next you'll be telling me you have to eat spinach because you don't get to pick the menu...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm. Sounds like whoever is picking the movies at your house would benefit from Dolby Atmos more than you would, Dan.


LOL! Batpig comments on how I can sit through some of the movies... Well, TBH, the movies I comment on in this thread are only a tiny part of my movie diet. I watch 350+ movies a year and probably less than 10% are blockbusters etc. But there isn't a lot of point mentioning Wong Kar Wai in this thread. Great as they are, *2046 *or *In the Mood for Love *don't really showcase Atmos/DSU in any meaningful way. And since getting my 5200 and installing my overhead speakers I have to admit I have been watching more of the kind of movies that do them justice. 

I think this is natural when you get some great new piece of gear. When I got my Submersives, for example, I was looking out movies that had fantastic bass and watching those back to back. It wears off after a while of course and we go back to our regular viewing pleasures. But I like a wide variety of stuff - and seeing guys blowing **** up and racing cars in the street, for the prize of the endless love of the chick with great tits, is also worthwhile sometimes. Depends on how you feel at the end of a long day.


----------



## Kris Deering

The wife and I watched Gone Girl last night at home. I do not have an Atmos system but I was quite impressed with the surround soundstage with plenty of what I would call overhead effects and discrete cues littered throughout the soundstage. I bet this would be an interesting test case for DSU vs non-DSU. The Equalizer had a lot of what I would call height and overhead effect as well in my theater room. I'm still looking forward to doing some A/B comparisons in my own listening room at some point, but it will probably be a bit still. The 8802 looks promising and may be my first dip into Atmos at home. We'll see.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm. Sounds like whoever is picking the movies at your house would benefit from Dolby Atmos more than you would, Dan.


With the current list of Atmos Blu-ray's... you may be right. Hopefully, this situation changes soon.


----------



## dschulz

NorthSky said:


> What if you say that you do have overhead speakers, when in reality you don't? ...To the Dolby Atmos receiver/pre-pro.


Good question. I would expect in that case the Atmos decoder will be working, but things may sound odd with the renderer assuming overhead speakers that then don't play anything. Also I wonder if in calibration (if you are using Audyssey or another system) the receiver will report back to the Atmos renderer that you don't have the overheads? Perhaps someone with an Atmos AVR can test this.



DAK4 said:


> I believe it is the case. I think if it is a dolby atmos mix then even the 7.1 bed will have used the Dolby atmos technique for a more fluid and more natural mix.


The 7.1 mix on an Atmos disc may well be more fluid and natural, but you will still get the benefit of that with any system that can decode the TrueHD bitstream. An Atmos system won't play that 7.1 bed any differently, unless you have overhead speakers - then the Atmos renderer is invoked to start rendering the object metadata.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dschulz said:


> The 7.1 mix on an Atmos disc may well be more fluid and natural, but you will still get the benefit of that with any system that can decode the TrueHD bitstream. An Atmos system won't play that 7.1 bed any differently, unless you have overhead speakers - then the Atmos renderer is invoked to start rendering the object metadata.


I'm curious about this. This would mean that the 7.1 bed used for the Atmos track is exactly the same as the 7.1 mix. Then what happens for sounds that are audio objects when you listen to the movie in 7.1 ? Do they just don't play ? Wouldn't that be weird ?

Because the audio objects are not only directed to the height layers, they are also supposed to affect the 5.1/7.1/9.1 speakers.

I was reading again the specs yesterday from Dolby regarding how they manage the streams in a TrueHD encoded soundtrack and couldn't come to a conclusion on this...


----------



## Scott Simonian

SteveTheGeek said:


> I'm curious about this. This would mean that the 7.1 bed used for the Atmos track is exactly the same as the 7.1 mix. Then what happens for sounds that are audio objects when you listen to the movie in 7.1 ? Do they just don't play ? Wouldn't that be weird ?
> 
> Because the audio objects are not only directed to the height layers, they are also supposed to affect the 5.1/7.1/9.1 speakers.
> 
> I was reading again the specs yesterday from Dolby regarding how they manage the streams in a TrueHD encoded soundtrack and couldn't come to a conclusion on this...


The objects are "spatially encoded" or folded into the 'regular' 7.1 layer. When you can not decode the Atmos track, it will playback in full (including objects) like any regular 7.1 track would. When you have an Atmos capable processor that is object aware, it will extract those objects and place them accordingly.


----------



## billqs

I believe that Atmos & DSU use what you have and send "virtual heights" if you don't have height speakers. I had a 7.1 setup and updated my firmware. Before I put up height speakers, I noticed that some of the dialogue coming from the Center Channel which was pointed to me on axis, suddenly sounded like it was off axis, then back to on axis again. I had an impression that the sound was moving up then back down.

I put it down to DSU attempting to render a height but not being very successful doing it because there were no height speakers. YMMV.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Scott Simonian said:


> The objects are "spatially encoded" or folded into the 'regular' 7.1 layer. When you can not decode the Atmos track, it will playback in full (including objects) like any regular 7.1 track would. When you have an Atmos capable processor that is object aware, it will extract those objects and place them accordingly.


I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. Bear with me : this is retro-compatible with previous AVRs that did not anything about objects and to my knowledge did not know to play or not a sound because it was spatially encoded. It was only channel information being present for each of the channels.

So I see it as two options : 

- The sounds are already there in the channels for the 7.1 layout and so they are not objects. The new AVRs cannot really remove sounds from the bed channels to then play them as objects no ? Thus it would mean the only real benefit from Atmos is with the height channel, which is not as it is described.

- The sounds are not in the 7.1 channels, and they are added as objects. So it would mean there is a different 7.1 channels audio for the two tracks in different substreams of the TrueHD mix.

Am I completely wrong about it being the two options ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. Bear with me : this is retro-compatible with previous AVRs that did not anything about objects and to my knowledge did not know to play or not a sound because it was spatially encoded. It was only channel information being present for each of the channels.
> 
> So I see it as two options :
> 
> - The sounds are already there in the channels for the 7.1 layout and so they are not objects. The new AVRs cannot really remove sounds from the bed channels to then play them as objects no ? Thus it would mean the only real benefit from Atmos is with the height channel, which is not as it is described.
> 
> - The sounds are not in the 7.1 channels, and they are added as objects. So it would mean there is a different 7.1 channels audio for the two tracks in different substreams of the TrueHD mix.
> 
> Am I completely wrong about it being the two options ?


From what I gather, the sounds from the 7.1 base track that are also objects are reverse-phase canceled, which then creates the 7.1 Atmos "bed." The object extension file is laid on top of the bed and the whole mix is "blended together" by the decoder and the renderer reads the metadata instructions and based on your particular layout then decides on where best to place said objects.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I gather, the sounds from the 7.1 base track that are also objects are reverse-phase canceled, which then creates the 7.1 Atmos "bed." The object extension file is laid on top of the bed and the whole mix is "blended together" by the decoder and the renderer reads the instructions on where to best place said objects.


Mmm.. that's indeed a very interesting third option !!! 

Did you read that somewhere ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> Mmm.. that's indeed a very interesting third option !!!
> 
> Did you read that somewhere ?


This is how DTS's and Dolby's lossless codecs work. Think of it like Russian nesting dolls. A mix within a mix within a mix. Going from stereo to 5.1 to 7.1 to Atmos or DTS:X by adding extension files. Anything that is duplicated is reversed and fed back on itself and "sonically deleted" from the mix below it. It's more complex than that actually.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Dan Hitchman said:


> This is how DTS's and Dolby's lossless codecs work. Think of it like Russian nesting dolls. A mix within a mix within a mix. Going from stereo to 5.1 to 7.1 to Atmos or DTS:X by adding extension files. Anything that is duplicated is reversed and fed back on itself and "sonically deleted" from the mix below it. It's more complex than that actually.


Nice, I was not aware of this and was indeed wondering how they achieve the 5.1 to 7.1 transition too.

This makes a lot of sense !


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> This is why, IIRC, not only did I give a strong caveat, but I also gave details of the scenes to go directly to: the opening scene and the scene where the truck is under the bridge.


Quite right, and I acknowledged your caveat. But I'm still going to consult with my barrister about a possible lawsuit for damages.



kbarnes701 said:


> All of Shakespeare's greatest plays played to the crowd, with their action sequences and sexual content, their innuendo and their crude language (I speak of country matters here of course, for example). Most of them had really bad special effects and usually the acting was pretty poor too (at the time of their original release). They had either no score or a simple and crude score. Lighting was especially poor and, of course, camerawork was non-existent  What differentiated them, of course, was the script. I doubt if people today, even Dan, would want his movies to be written in iambic pentameters though  On second thoughts, he probably would.
> 
> Batpig asks how I can sit through some of them. Movies not Will Shakepeare's plays  I've commented on it before: it's because I don't seek or get all my pleasure from a movie just from the script or the acting. I can really, really enjoy a movie just for its excellent composition of shots. Or its editing. Or the score. Sometimes (often) a movie that has really bad acting and a terrible script can also have sublime editing, effects, score, photography, choreography etc etc etc.


Keith, although our tastes do not coincide perfectly (it would be odd if they did), I think we are in general agreement about what makes a film worth watching. The only significant difference is that I can't abide bad acting, writing or direction while you are willing to look past those deficiencies for the sake of other elements. I have yet to encounter any of Shakespeare's plays (or Thomas Mann's novels) that I felt was not well crafted. Some of them may be a bit hard to get through (e.g., "Buddenbrooks"), but the journey is always worthwhile. I can not say that about, e.g., Michael Bay's films.


----------



## ambesolman

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know you know this, Keith, but gross profits do not a good movie make. If 5.2 billion people liked basting themselves with butter and baking in the hot sun for four hours, it still isn't a good idea.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szsDxmZrNq0



May be a bad idea, but at least it's funny


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## smurraybhm

Kris Deering said:


> The wife and I watched Gone Girl last night at home. I do not have an Atmos system but I was quite impressed with the surround soundstage with plenty of what I would call overhead effects and discrete cues littered throughout the soundstage. I bet this would be an interesting test case for DSU vs non-DSU. The Equalizer had a lot of what I would call height and overhead effect as well in my theater room. I'm still looking forward to doing some A/B comparisons in my own listening room at some point, but it will probably be a bit still. The 8802 looks promising and may be my first dip into Atmos at home. We'll see.


Kris - agree completely. I enjoyed it immensely as well with upstairs (no Atmos in the WIF room) with my better half. It is also a movie that made me appreciate my wife even more than I did before I watched it. I do plan to watch it again in the HT. Steve

P.S. I would also say to our movie critics that some of those movies that are so disliked happen to be the ones that provide the funding for studios to risk making movies like Winter Bone that usually don't generate the financial returns demanded by stockholders/owners, a blind buy from a year or so ago after a big price drop. Another very good movie, but I like a lot of the "crap" too


----------



## billqs

smurraybhm said:


> P.S. I would also say to our movie critics that some of those movies that are so disliked happen to be the ones that provide the funding for studios to risk make movies like Winter Bone that usually don't generate the financial returns demanded by stockholders/owners, a blind buy from a year or so ago after a big price drop. Another very good movie, but I like a lot of the "crap" too


Not to mention that a lot of the movies that are so disliked by us happen to be the films that allow _us_ funding to build _our _home theaters! Happy Wife = Happy Life


----------



## DAK4

dschulz said:


> The 7.1 mix on an Atmos disc may well be more fluid and natural, but you will still get the benefit of that with any system that can decode the TrueHD bitstream. An Atmos system won't play that 7.1 bed any differently, unless you have overhead speakers - then the Atmos renderer is invoked to start rendering the object metadata.


That's actually what I meant. I missed the part about a new Atmos receiver. I thought he was going to keep his old receiver in which he would still benefit from an original Atmos mix. It was late at night.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

smurraybhm said:


> P.S. I would also say to our movie critics that some of those movies that are so disliked happen to be the ones that provide the funding for studios to risk making movies like Winter Bone that usually don't generate the financial returns demanded by stockholders/owners, a blind buy from a year or so ago after a big price drop. Another very good movie, but I like a lot of the "crap" too


I do feel like the studios are obligated to treat their audiences with dignity. As a parent, having to sit through 80x viewings of certain animated films can be tolerable if it's crafted well enough (Cars, Dumbo, Despicable Me come to mind as films that can withstand repeated viewings without loss of sanity). Kids shows too: Adventure time, Yo Gabba Gabba, Gravity falls, Pingu... more of that please! Ninjago, Angelina Ballerina, (modern) Mickey Mouse.... UGH it's agonizing. Those are the shows when I quietly make my exit cook dinner or whatever. 

When I was a kid I dragged my poor father to see TNMT "secret of the ooze". Many years later, seeing it as an adult I thought about how much that must have sucked for him. That's what pisses me off about the film industry... they have the resources to hire talented writers & artists to ensure that all content is top notch. I personally know many writers who could do a million times better and would probably work for fast food wages. 

Didn't mean to go off topic, I'm glad that more Atmos titles are being announced for BD


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Quite right, and I acknowledged your caveat. But I'm still going to consult with my barrister about a possible lawsuit for damages.


 I exist only in cyberspace and have no physical or material presence...



chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, although our tastes do not coincide perfectly (it would be odd if they did), I think we are in general agreement about what makes a film worth watching. The only significant difference is that I can't abide bad acting, writing or direction while you are willing to look past those deficiencies for the sake of other elements. I have yet to encounter any of Shakespeare's plays (or Thomas Mann's novels) that I felt was not well crafted. Some of them may be a bit hard to get through (e.g., "Buddenbrooks"), but the journey is always worthwhile. I can not say that about, e.g., Michael Bay's films.


Indeed not and I would be surprised if you, or anyone, did. Sometimes we want to read Thomas Mann and sometimes we want to read Elmore Leonard. It depends on my mood and my state of mind at the time what I want to read or watch. And because I am a self-confessed film geek, I probably get more enjoyment than most from listening to foley effects and studying edits


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> The wife and I watched Gone Girl last night at home. I do not have an Atmos system but I was quite impressed with the surround soundstage with plenty of what I would call overhead effects and discrete cues littered throughout the soundstage. I bet this would be an interesting test case for DSU vs non-DSU. The Equalizer had a lot of what I would call height and overhead effect as well in my theater room. I'm still looking forward to doing some A/B comparisons in my own listening room at some point, but it will probably be a bit still. The 8802 looks promising and may be my first dip into Atmos at home. We'll see.


I am watching The Equalizer tonight via DSU (just released here today). If I get time I will try a few scenes with and without DSU, although I am fairly sure that 4 physical speakers on my ceiling and a fairly clever upmixing algorithm will give me a lot more 'overhead stuff' than just the regular listener level speakers do. It would be crazy to imagine that it wouldn't really  I do get some apparent, phantom overhead noises from regular 5.1/7.1 tracks of course, as does everyone. The idea of DSU is to take it to another stage.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I am watching The Equalizer tonight via DSU (just released here today). If I get time I will try a few scenes with and without DSU, although I am fairly sure that 4 physical speakers on my ceiling and a fairly clever upmixing algorithm will give me a lot more 'overhead stuff' than just the regular listener level speakers do. It would be crazy to imagine that it wouldn't really  I do get some apparent, phantom overhead noises from regular 5.1/7.1 tracks of course, as does everyone. The idea of DSU is to take it to another stage.


I agree, though the results in your room vs mine would probably be different anyways. My surrounds are not at listener level but up more on the wall. But the design of my speaker has to tweeter pointing down toward the listener and the mids on either side in a dipole arrangement. So I get a diffuse soundfield but I can also localize if needed. This does an absolutely superb job with my surround soundstage and phantom imaging for the rears. If I had a surround down more on the wall like you I would be using a completely different surround speaker. This will also come into play when I decide to bring Atmos into my room. I have to decide if I want to change my surround speaker or not, which I'm not fond of doing (especially given the dearth of true Atmos mixes and how well these do with everything else). 










I may keep these and try a loaner pair of the speaker below to audition for surrounds located lower down on the wall.










These use the same AMT tweeter as my mains.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> The wife and I watched Gone Girl last night at home. I do not have an Atmos system but I was quite impressed with the surround soundstage with plenty of what I would call overhead effects and discrete cues littered throughout the soundstage. I bet this would be an interesting test case for DSU vs non-DSU. The Equalizer had a lot of what I would call height and overhead effect as well in my theater room. I'm still looking forward to doing some A/B comparisons in my own listening room at some point, but it will probably be a bit still. The 8802 looks promising and may be my first dip into Atmos at home. We'll see.


I liked the music score in 'Gone Girl'. ...Cool flick too (just watched it last night as well). 

'The Equalizer' doesn't have the sophisticated panache of the above.

Looking forward to 'Fury', tonight. 

* Kris, did you see 'Lucy'? 

♦ I envy all who have DSU from their Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros right now. ...And looking forward to March. ...Mid-March. 
And the Marantz 8802 I'm looking forward too, with accentuated interest.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I am watching The Equalizer tonight via DSU (just released here today). If I get time I will try a few scenes with and without DSU, although I am fairly sure that 4 physical speakers on my ceiling and a fairly clever upmixing algorithm will give me a lot more 'overhead stuff' than just the regular listener level speakers do. It would be crazy to imagine that it wouldn't really  I do get some apparent, phantom overhead noises from regular 5.1/7.1 tracks of course, as does everyone. The idea of DSU is to take it to another stage.


 
I just watched The Equalizer last night and I thought it was great! I enjoyed everything including the special features!
Hope you enjoy it!


Ray


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dsu alert!

Cars and cars 2. When lightning McQueen has his eyes shut and is saying "speed. I am speed" you feel like YOU are lightning McQueen. Sound comes from above and is incredible.


----------



## dvdwilly3

If you tried Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers before, try a slightly different approach that does work...


I would like to encourage any of those who gave it a shot and found that it did not work as desired to try it again.
For a variety of reasons, I have implemented a Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 system using “fake” Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. They are Goldenear Supersat 3’s mounted on top of my Definitive Technology 8060ST towers.
However, the angle that I have used is about 32 degrees. I have been experimenting with odd and various placements and angles of these for some time. This works, and works well.


For a variety of reasons I think that Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers should be full-range, high quality speakers the same as you might use for ceiling mounted speakers.


I have run the Dolby Atmos demo disk, Oblivion, and others. Of course, I am using DSU at this point, but if true Dolby Atmos is any better, I would be surprised.
The sound editing and sound mixing for Oblivion is amazing and I admire those sound engineers for their accomplishment. At about 9:10, Tom Cruise’s character is circling a crater where downed drones are. He says something like, “I am going in” and commences his circle of the crater going off screen on the left side. The sound, however, continues in the arc that he would take moving over your left shoulder to behind you, coming in directly overhead to land on screen in front of you. Exceptional craftsmanship...


If you work through the geometry that Dolby specifies with the Atmos driver angled at 20 degrees from the horizontal, taking into account the height of the speaker, listener’s ear, and angles of reflection from the ceiling, you will find that the reflected sound will hit about 5 feet in front of the speaker. Dolby says that 5’ (or more) is ideal. My MLP is 13’ from the speaker.


I don’t buy it. If direct sound from ceiling mounted speakers is preferred, then direct sound from Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers should also be the preferred mode of operation. The angle of my “fake” Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers are about 32 degrees. That puts the reflection point about 12’ in front of the speakers. I have 2 rows of seats—the front is about 11’; the rear as I said, at 13’; so I split the difference.


It works like a champ. If it did not work for you before, I strongly encourage you to try again with a different angle using a decent full-range speaker. Someone else in the forum took a very clever approach and put a mirror on the ceiling to find the proper angle. That would work.
Try it again and see if you don’t find it more to your liking.


----------



## bargervais

Gravity Atmos 7.1.4 pre-order 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/118022/


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> Gravity Atmos 7.1.4 pre-order
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/118022/


Why 7.1.4?
Isn't it the whole purpose of ATMOS that it is not channel based?
Shouldn't it just say "Dolby Atmos" and you speaker configuration/AVR capability determine what that x.x.x going to be???


----------



## roxiedog13

dvdwilly3 said:


> If you tried Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers before, try a slightly different approach that does work...
> 
> 
> I would like to encourage any of those who gave it a shot and found that it did not work as desired to try it again.
> For a variety of reasons, I have implemented a Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 system using “fake” Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. They are Goldenear Supersat 3’s mounted on top of my Definitive Technology 8060ST towers.
> However, the angle that I have used is about 32 degrees. I have been experimenting with odd and various placements and angles of these for some time. This works, and works well.
> 
> 
> For a variety of reasons I think that Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers should be full-range, high quality speakers the same as you might use for ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> 
> I have run the Dolby Atmos demo disk, Oblivion, and others. Of course, I am using DSU at this point, but if true Dolby Atmos is any better, I would be surprised.
> The sound editing and sound mixing for Oblivion is amazing and I admire those sound engineers for their accomplishment. At about 9:10, Tom Cruise’s character is circling a crater where downed drones are. He says something like, “I am going in” and commences his circle of the crater going off screen on the left side. The sound, however, continues in the arc that he would take moving over your left shoulder to behind you, coming in directly overhead to land on screen in front of you. Exceptional craftsmanship...
> 
> 
> If you work through the geometry that Dolby specifies with the Atmos driver angled at 20 degrees from the horizontal, taking into account the height of the speaker, listener’s ear, and angles of reflection from the ceiling, you will find that the reflected sound will hit about 5 feet in front of the speaker. Dolby says that 5’ (or more) is ideal. My MLP is 13’ from the speaker.
> 
> 
> I don’t buy it. If direct sound from ceiling mounted speakers is preferred, then direct sound from Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers should also be the preferred mode of operation. The angle of my “fake” Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers are about 32 degrees. That puts the reflection point about 12’ in front of the speakers. I have 2 rows of seats—the front is about 11’; the rear as I said, at 13’; so I split the difference.
> 
> 
> It works like a champ. If it did not work for you before, I strongly encourage you to try again with a different angle using a decent full-range speaker. Someone else in the forum took a very clever approach and put a mirror on the ceiling to find the proper angle. That would work.
> Try it again and see if you don’t find it more to your liking.



I kind of did the same, modules did not work on top of my front mains so I put them on stands and moved them around until I found the sweet spot . In my HT the modules were moved about two feet forward of the main speakers and much lower than the Dolby recommended height. The modules were the low end Onyko SK-410 but did a really good job once the ideal spot identified.
Tonight I installed in-ceiling speakers at the front to replace the modules, they are better but the difference is not night and day. Maybe if I had a full range speaker at the front it would be better
who knows. My in-ceiling speakers are much better quality than the modules, that could be part of why the sound is better too. Anyway, tis done now and the unsightly modules on stand no longer in my field of view or in the way. The in-ceiling speakers are unseen , tidy and work better......bonus.  


Now I really have a set of modules free and ready to* sell* with less than 3 hours of use. Anyone ???


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Why 7.1.4?
> Isn't it the whole purpose of ATMOS that it is not channel based?
> Shouldn't it just say "Dolby Atmos" and you speaker configuration/AVR capability determine what that x.x.x going to be???


Yes, this is just too strange. Somebody over there took liberty and made a mistake. ...Not the end of the world as I'm sure it'll disappear, eventually.


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> Why 7.1.4?
> Isn't it the whole purpose of ATMOS that it is not channel based?
> Shouldn't it just say "Dolby Atmos" and you speaker configuration/AVR capability determine what that x.x.x going to be???


I thought it was strange that they would call it Atmos 7.1.4 maybe this mix is using more of the height speakers unlike TF4 or they may should have said it was Atmos. Not really sure why the Atmos 7.1.4


----------



## billqs

bargervais said:


> Gravity Atmos 7.1.4 pre-order
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/118022/


While I've been looking forward to this release, do we know if an Atmos release will be made of the 3d version? 3d and that active sound fields were both equal in really immersing you into the story. It's one of the most successful 3d movies for effect.


----------



## NorthSky

No news of that yet, none.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Why 7.1.4?
> Isn't it the whole purpose of ATMOS that it is not channel based?
> Shouldn't it just say "Dolby Atmos" and you speaker configuration/AVR capability determine what that x.x.x going to be???


The people that do the cover design don't know Atmos from a hole in their head... it's the most prevalent consumer version right now, so that's what they went with. It still handles up to 24.1.10, though the Atmos bed is still 7.1 channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

billqs said:


> While I've been looking forward to this release, do we know if an Atmos release will be made of the 3d version? 3d and that active sound fields were both equal in really immersing you into the story. It's one of the most successful 3d movies for effect.


Most markets outside "America" getting the Diamond Luxe set are getting a 3D disc as well, but will not have an Atmos track included at all. It's one or the other. 3D, for now, is dying out in the U.S. market.


----------



## NorthSky

...Except for the two Michael Bay's flicks.


----------



## Trigen

NorthSky said:


> ...Except for the two Michael Bay's flicks.


And the Hobbitses.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> The people that do the cover design don't know Atmos from a hole in their head... it's the most prevalent consumer version right now, so that's what they went with. It still handles up to 24.1.10, though the Atmos bed is still 7.1 channels.


I cannot find "7.1.4" on the disc box. It does show the Atmos logo, though. I think Blu-ray.com made it up.


----------



## Trigen

Roger Dressler said:


> I cannot find "7.1.4" on the disc box. It does show the Atmos logo, though. I think Blu-ray.com made it up.


http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Edition-Sandra-Bullock/dp/B00PGHUJOO

On the back cover, under Main feature details


----------



## Roger Dressler

Trigen said:


> On the back cover, under Main feature details


Right you are. Y'know, I went to that image first, just to make sure if it said 7.1.4 or not, so as to avoid putting my foot in it. But I did it anyway.


----------



## pasender91

Maybe it will work ONLY if you have 7.1.4  
So the typo is on the box, quite unusual, no worries i believe, it says Atmos so it will be fine ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I agree, though the results in your room vs mine would probably be different anyways. My surrounds are not at listener level but up more on the wall. But the design of my speaker has to tweeter pointing down toward the listener and the mids on either side in a dipole arrangement. So I get a diffuse soundfield but I can also localize if needed. This does an absolutely superb job with my surround soundstage and phantom imaging for the rears. If I had a surround down more on the wall like you I would be using a completely different surround speaker. This will also come into play when I decide to bring Atmos into my room. I have to decide if I want to change my surround speaker or not, which I'm not fond of doing (especially given the dearth of true Atmos mixes and how well these do with everything else).
> 
> 
> I may keep these and try a loaner pair of the speaker below to audition for surrounds located lower down on the wall.
> 
> 
> These use the same AMT tweeter as my mains.


Yes, my surrounds are now more close to ear level than they were before. Clearly anyone who has his surrounds quite high on the wall is likely to hear some content coming from above 

I too had to make a difficult decision to change my M&K SS150T tripole surround speakers which I absolutely loved. I don't regret the decision as Atmos/DSU more than compensates for it, but I understand your thought process on it very well. 

Having gone through the Atmos speaker install, I would suggest that you make no firm decisions on anything until you have experimented. Fix nothing that can’t be easily unfixed, get loaners wherever you can (should be easy in your job!) and try different ceiling positions for the overheads. I found that relatively small changes made quite significant differences. YMMV of course - as you day, our rooms are so different anyway.


----------



## roxiedog13

billqs said:


> While I've been looking forward to this release, do we know if an Atmos release will be made of the 3d version? 3d and that active sound fields were both equal in really immersing you into the story. It's one of the most successful 3d movies for effect.


I really enjoyed the 3D presentation of this movie as well, if the new release does not include 3D with the Atmos updated version I will pass. The sound track before I installed Atmos was fantastic, with Atmos surround + DSU I expect it will be even better. Atmos is the new lure on the block and it is a pure marketing decision not to have 3D included for the early release. The 
Atmos industry is in such a panic to get product into the market they are selling equipment that is not even fully compatible yet people, myself included are jumping on board. The movie
makers are no different, get it out there now, stamp Atmos on the box and every copy made will sell. 3D for this was done already and very well I might add but it is no surprise it is not in the early release. I for one certainly hope Gravity is released with Atmos and 3D, market wise though I'm not sure they will bother , only time will tell.


----------



## Frank714

robert816 said:


> My apologies sir, I just realized from your avatar block that you are in Berlin, an american release probably wouldn't matter to you. If this version of Chicago is anything like the other Blu-Rays I'ved purchased from Amazon Japan, it will hopefully be region free


You don't need to apologize. My Oppo BDP-93 is codefree, I just put 1, 2 or 3 in by remote control, and the player turns on with the corresponding region code set.

But except for films released on Blu-ray in the US prior to overseas markets, regional coding is a stupid relict from the first days of DVD. I understand that _Solaris (1972) _had been deliberately set to region code A because of international licensing issues, but if no one else considers a release, it sucks for many people not living in the US.

I'm really curious to what extent regional coding will affect the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray format.


----------



## roxiedog13

brahman12 said:


> I intend to be chillin' in my man cave tomorrow evening with my shoveling duties taken care of earlier in the day(God willing)...snow is supposed to be over by mid-afternoon (3-4 pm) lol....hope you enjoy ur new setup and rejoin us lucky few early adopters in within what you have had a taste of already....ATMOS INDUCED NIRVANA (patent pending)





roxiedog13 said:


> My 7.2.4 utilizes two rear in ceiling and two front modules. I had to reposition the front modules forward and inward from the main speakers on separate stands to get a descent effect and it does work nicely now. I'm taking delivery of 4 Niles in-ceiling speakers tomorrow and they will be installed over the next two nights. When finished I will actually have 6 in-ceiling speakers for 7.2.6
> and have to patiently wait for the AVR technology to catch up in order to use all 6 . I can't wait to try the in-ceiling speakers, I'm expecting a noticeable increase in the Atmos 3D soundstage based on comments from others who have made that progression.
> 
> 
> Brooklyn NY, I guess you'll be shoveling when I'm installing speakers tomorrow evening. My wife is presently in a hotel downtown Manhattan, probably there another couple of days. Perfect, no one to bother me as I dissect the house to install speakers.   Then again, she's use to the snow, in my city we get 16ft on average over the winter, no biggie


Managed to replace the front Atmos modules with in-ceiling speakers last night. The difference is much better, cannot say it is night and day kind of better though. I think I had the modules in a sweet spot that worked best for my MLP. The location of these modules in the sweet spot was not ideal so having them in the ceiling out of site is a huge improvement aesthetically .
From what I'm reading and the feedback I am seeing the modules can work but the location from room to room is unique and requires some tweaking to make it work best. Everyone that has in-ceiling or on ceiling speakers always seem to have a better result without a lot of tweaking.


----------



## zebidou81

roxiedog13 said:


> brahman12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I intend to be chillin' in my man cave tomorrow evening with my shoveling duties taken care of earlier in the day(God willing)...snow is supposed to be over by mid-afternoon (3-4 pm) lol....hope you enjoy ur new setup and rejoin us lucky few early adopters in within what you have had a taste of already....ATMOS INDUCED NIRVANA (patent pending)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roxiedog13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 7.2.4 utilizes two rear in ceiling and two front modules. I had to reposition the front modules forward and inward from the main speakers on separate stands to get a descent effect and it does work nicely now. I'm taking delivery of 4 Niles in-ceiling speakers tomorrow and they will be installed over the next two nights. When finished I will actually have 6 in-ceiling speakers for 7.2.6
> and have to patiently wait for the AVR technology to catch up in order to use all 6 . I can't wait to try the in-ceiling speakers, I'm expecting a noticeable increase in the Atmos 3D soundstage based on comments from others who have made that progression.
> 
> 
> Brooklyn NY, I guess you'll be shoveling when I'm installing speakers tomorrow evening. My wife is presently in a hotel downtown Manhattan, probably there another couple of days. Perfect, no one to bother me as I dissect the house to install speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, she's use to the snow, in my city we get 16ft on average over the winter, no biggie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Managed to replace the front Atmos modules with in-ceiling speakers last night. The difference is much better, cannot say it is night and day kind of better though. I think I had the modules in a sweet spot that worked best for my MLP. The location of these modules in the sweet spot was not ideal so having them in the ceiling out of site is a huge improvement aesthetically .
> From what I'm reading and the feedback I am seeing the modules can work but the location from room to room is unique and requires some tweaking to make it work best. Everyone that has in-ceiling or on ceiling speakers always seem to have a better result without a lot of tweaking.
Click to expand...

I think as every room is different and ceilings are different then all experiences with the modules will be different, i can say for me moving from upfiring modules to actual on ceiling speakers made a huge difference it was night and day for me, i think it could be a mix of the kefs i use as on ceiling speakers are of a much better quality and far more expensive than the modules and are timbre matched with my larger kef sub speakers, also kef use uni q wide dispersion sit anywhere tech which is a big bonus with atmos i feel, also i found that i am in that bubble that people talk about with atmos, even listening to music using dsu i cant stop but feeling impressed with the whole experience from dsu to setup which i could never achieve with the upfiring modules. I got ?110 resale on my used modules 2 on ebay which was a bonus


----------



## robert816

Frank714 said:


> You don't need to apologize. My Oppo BDP-93 is codefree, I just put 1, 2 or 3 in by remote control, and the player turns on with the corresponding region code set.
> 
> But except for films released on Blu-ray in the US prior to overseas markets, regional coding is a stupid relict from the first days of DVD. I understand that _Solaris (1972) _had been deliberately set to region code A because of international licensing issues, but if no one else considers a release, it sucks for many people not living in the US.
> 
> I'm really curious to what extent regional coding will affect the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray format.


I agree, region coding is antiquated and a relic from the past, but then again, so are the guys who run the entertainment industry.

I suspect that there will be even more, and worse DRM and region coding, than there is now due to the even higher resolution of 4K. Initially I was quite interested in 4K, now not so much. I will eventually get there, but I'm in no hurry this time around. I will however, purchase a new OPPO when it is announced and retire the BDP-93 to my bedroom theatre that actually sees very little use.

Oh by the way, another plus for the Japanese releases is that you put in the Blu-Ray disc, and the movie starts, no skipping through what seems like a dozen movie trailers, ads, and anti-piracey campaigns.


----------



## billqs

Dan Hitchman said:


> Most markets outside "America" getting the Diamond Luxe set are getting a 3D disc as well, but will not have an Atmos track included at all. It's one or the other. 3D, for now, is dying out in the U.S. market.


I really hope 3d doesn't completely disappear from America. I think in some cases 3d is being intentionally smothered to death by the studios. Why else are 3D movies only available in deluxe editions that cost $10-$15 more than the regular blu ray release even if they are released at all. Disney doesn't seem interested in releasing Frozen in 3D which would sell like hotcakes, and does internationally.

I realize that the effect is much better for those of us with projectors, but Hollywood has botched mainstream adoption of 3d in America. 

I guess I may become a regular patron Amazon Japan.


----------



## roxiedog13

billqs said:


> I really hope 3d doesn't completely disappear from America. I think in some cases 3d is being intentionally smothered to death by the studios. Why else are 3D movies only available in deluxe editions that cost $10-$15 more than the regular blu ray release even if they are released at all. Disney doesn't seem interested in releasing Frozen in 3D which would sell like hotcakes, and does internationally.
> 
> I realize that the effect is much better for those of us with projectors, but Hollywood has botched mainstream adoption of 3d in America.
> 
> I guess I may become a regular patron Amazon Japan.


I don't think you have to worry about 3D disappearing, its been around since the 1920's in and out of mainstream too many times to mention. It's on the down cycle now because we have peaked and the market is moving on to other technologies to generate sales. 3D peaked a few years back with Avatar ( # 1 movie of all time and 3D ) and it's been falling off ever since. My guess it will stay in the background for a while and then reemerge once 4K or 8K become mainstream. Right now the focus is on UHD, 4K and curved screens, everyone already owns a 3D set, well, those that wanted one.
Your spot on about the comment " the 3D effect is much better for those of us with projectors." For 3D to really work at home you need a big screen, in a "proper" HT room , a really bright projector and the correct glasses. Even the best 3D movie made is not presented well on a smaller TV in the family room . Very few in the market have the aforementioned, so 3D constitutes a really small market share. Not sure we'd have much 3D content at all if not for Avatar in my opinion. Still have to put bodies in Imax seats so 3D will continue to trickle for a while .


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> The
> Atmos industry is in such a panic to get product into the market they are selling equipment that is not even fully compatible yet people, myself included are jumping on board.


Who is selling Atmos-enabled equipment which is not fully compatible with Atmos?


----------



## SoundChex

roxiedog13 said:


> The movie makers are no different, get it out there now, stamp Atmos on the box and every copy made will sell.



Perhaps it's just my vision problems, but the studios don't seem to be "stamping Atmos on the BD box" in very large letters...?!    

_


----------



## robert816

Makes sense to me, if you bring too much attention to the fact the disc has Atmos for audio, there will be people who read that and think "I don't have Atmos in my AVR, so I guess it will not play in my system" and wind up not buying due to a simple misunderstanding of not knowing it will play just fine in their setup, no matter the speaker configuration or lack there of.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Makes sense to me, if you bring too much attention to the fact the disc has Atmos for audio, there will be people who read that and think "I don't have Atmos in my AVR, so I guess it will not play in my system" and wind up not buying due to a simple misunderstanding of not knowing it will play just fine in their setup, no matter the speaker configuration or lack there of.


It wouldn’t be too hard to say "Atmos Audio. Also compatible with all other sound formats". Or something similar. Or just list what the disc will play on: "Atmos 7.1.4. Dolby true HD 7.1/5.1. Compatible with all modern Bluray players". Any decent marketing department could solve this in half an hour.


----------



## Stanton

kbarnes701 said:


> It wouldn’t be too hard to say "Atmos Audio. Also compatible with all other sound formats". Or something similar. Or just list what the disc will play on: "Atmos 7.1.4. Dolby true HD 7.1/5.1. Compatible with all modern Bluray players". Any decent marketing department could solve this in half an hour.


Agreed...but I think the studios got rid of their marketing departments :wink:


----------



## kbarnes701

Stanton said:


> Agreed...but I think the studios got rid of their marketing departments :wink:


 Marketing the movie costs roughly the same as the entire production budget used to make the movie in the first place, so I hope not!


----------



## asoofi1

robert816 said:


> Makes sense to me, if you bring too much attention to the fact the disc has Atmos for audio, there will be people who read that and think "I don't have Atmos in my AVR, so I guess it will not play in my system" and wind up not buying due to a simple misunderstanding of not knowing it will play just fine in their setup, no matter the speaker configuration or lack there of.


Most ppl don't even look at those details, or can let alone read the fine font/light ink used. Majority just want the title. I read audio video details, but I'm forced to accept whatever mix is included whether I like it or not...if I want to content, I get it and enjoy it.
..or one can wait in hopes a rerelease happens...like it is with Gravity. Regardless, even 5.1 is still great...when you have a proper system setup.


----------



## robert816

I know I rarely read the uber small disc info unless I want to find out whether or not the extra disc is a Blu-Ray or not, or if its a different region like Japan, etc.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Who is selling Atmos-enabled equipment which is not fully compatible with Atmos?


Your right, the Atmos part is working, I guess what I meant was Flagship models that are not HDCP 2.2 compliant . Flagship models normally have significant improvements over the predecessor,
with the Denon X7200 is seems to be a work in progress.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Most markets outside "America" getting the Diamond Luxe set are getting a 3D disc as well, but will not have an Atmos track included at all. It's one or the other. 3D, for now, is dying out in the U.S. market.


It will come back, a lot of people who couldn't afford 3D capable 1080 p sets can now... I was among that camp not long ago. Ultra D tech & the like will bring the interest back I think, & 3D will only improve upon itself over time. I have a feeling that when Star Wars comes out & then Avatar 2 there will be a lot more interest in seeing 3D at home. It also seems like the cost of 3D discs is dropping a bit, so that would indicate to me that more 3D copies of BD's are being printed possibly? 

Other big 3D release were Guardians of the Galaxy & Lego movie 3D. 

I would take a guess that book of life or Big Hero 6 might be in Atmos & 3D on the disc. I don't think it's an active choice made by the BD disc manufacturers as there's only been 5 atmos titles released.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Your right, the Atmos part is working, I guess what I meant was Flagship models that are not HDCP 2.2 compliant . Flagship models normally have significant improvements over the predecessor,
> with the Denon X7200 is seems to be a work in progress.


Ah - gotcha now. I personally don't really see the point of the 7200. To get HDCP 2.2 you'll have to send it, at your own expense, to a repair facility I believe. I guess that is better than having to sell it and start over, but it's far from ideal. Other than that, I can't see how the 7200 justifies its huge additional cost over the 5200. Just a personal view. My own 5200 will remain in service until 2016 when it will be replaced with whatever AVR has the "full Monty" specification of 4K, HDCP 2.2, Atmos and DTS:X. By then we may even have some real content to play! And maybe things we wanted right from the beginning, such as the positional rendering Dolby made available but which AVR manufacturers have, so far, failed to give us.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Stanton said:


> Agreed...but I think the studios got rid of their marketing departments :wink:



Yeah... the studios just bypass the marketing departments and collaborate directly with the "Bean Counters" 


...Glenn


----------



## roxiedog13

SoundChex said:


> Perhaps it's just my vision problems, but the studios don't seem to be "stamping Atmos on the BD box" in very large letters...?!
> 
> _


Well, I would certainly have to agree, good point. If Atmos is the reason for the re-release you'd think the box would have ATMOS in large bold print. Then again as I have aged, the bloody
print on the back has been getting smaller and smaller, hard to see anything any more .


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah - gotcha now. I personally don't really see the point of the 7200. To get HDCP 2.2 you'll have to send it, at your own expense, to a repair facility I believe. I guess that is better than having to sell it and start over, but it's far from ideal. Other than that, I can't see how the 7200 justifies its huge additional cost over the 5200. Just a personal view. My own 5200 will remain in service until 2016 when it will be replaced with whatever AVR has the "full Monty" specification of 4K, HDCP 2.2, Atmos and DTS:X. By then we may even have some real content to play! And maybe things we wanted right from the beginning, such as the positional rendering Dolby made available but which AVR manufacturers have, so far, failed to give us.


I have the X5200 as well and for all the exact same reasons you pointed out . As of last night I installed two front in-ceiling speakers to replace the modules, I didn't install the other two middle speakers either, I figured just as well to wait and see . I was more optimistic about a new AVR model , the "full Monty" as you describe I was hoping for in the fall of 2015. My guess is you are closer to reality with a delivery for the new flagship and I will be happy enough with my X5200 and 4 in-ceiling speakers until 2016 . At this point myAtmos system as is with DSU is simply
incredible, can only get better when the studios start to embrace it even more creatively .


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> Well, I would certainly have to agree, good point. If Atmos is the reason for the re-release you'd think the box would have ATMOS in large bold print. Then again as I have aged, the bloody
> print on the back has been getting smaller and smaller, hard to see anything any more .


That's why I have my magnifying glass ready at all times when I choose a blu-ray to watch from my library. When I sit at the command center in my MLP the lighting in the room is too dark for me to even read normal size fonts on those jackets. 
Once you hit forty that fine print get a little blurry.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I have the X5200 as well and for all the exact same reasons you pointed out . As of last night I installed two front in-ceiling speakers to replace the modules, I didn't install the other two middle speakers either, I figured just as well to wait and see . I was more optimistic about a new AVR model , the "full Monty" as you describe I was hoping for in the fall of 2015. My guess is you are closer to reality with a delivery for the new flagship and I will be happy enough with my X5200 and 4 in-ceiling speakers until 2016 . *At this point myAtmos system as is with DSU is simply
> incredible,* can only get better when the studios start to embrace it even more creatively .


Agreed. Until people have heard DSU on a properly set up system, with appropriate content, it is hard to get across to them just what a sensational difference it makes. TBH, I am currently enjoying DSU as much, or even more, than my 5 'real' Atmos discs. When DTS start releasing DTS:X discs, I will enjoy them via DSU until I change my unit for one with native DTS:X in 2016 and then I can enjoy them all over again in their native format. Something to look forward to is always a good thing in my book.


----------



## Kris Deering

As for the 7.1.4 debate with Gravity, when I talked with Dolby at CEDIA in September they said that all the mastering studios for home video content are using 7.1.4 setups for the master, so with this being Warner's first Atmos release I think they just put it down to that was the system it was mastered on. Adding more channels shouldn't really make much difference since the point of an object is the metadata for location. More speakers probably makes that far easier to achieve in how precise the object is located, but I appreciate knowing what the mix was done in to a certain extent.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Until people have heard DSU on a properly set up system, with appropriate content, it is hard to get across to them just what a sensational difference it makes. TBH, I am currently enjoying DSU as much, or even more, than my 5 'real' Atmos discs. When DTS start releasing DTS:X discs, I will enjoy them via DSU until I change my unit for one with native DTS:X in 2016 and then I can enjoy them all over again in their native format. Something to look forward to is always a good thing in my book.


I was wondering if it was just me or not. All the "Atmos" blessed releases, that I have heard thus far have not impressed. Maybe I was expecting too much , not really sure. I personally feel the sounds are so overcooked it becomes absolute sensory overload , it doesn't work for me in the way I expected . OTOH, many of the 5.1 and 7.1 Dolby movies running DSU are fantastic, it seems, for me anyway, the more subtle approach is more effective. When I picked up my new Sony 4K VPL VW500ES in the fall it was the same thing. The 4K movies didn't impress but the upscaled
1080P movies were just new all over again, just like the audio is now with DSU + Atmos speakers . Hmmmm, maybe its time for a second honeymoon too  naaah, I'll just watch another movie.
:nerd:


----------



## NorthSky

Trigen said:


> And the Hobbitses.


'Step Up All In' ? ...Not in North America, but what about in some other world countries where it was released in 3D; was there also a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack with those 3D releases? 

* The Hobbit trilogy hasn't been released on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos. ...Only the first two were released in 3D (in both their theatrical and extended editions). ...No Dolby Atmos on Blu though. 

1. TF4 -> Yes, 3D & Atmos.
2. TMNT -> Yes, 3D & Atmos. 

♦ Gravity -> 3D, no Atmos. ...And now March 31st; Atmos, but no 3D (2D only). ...Not both @ the same time; extremely unfortunate.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Get both. 
Use computer software to mux the 3d video to the new TrueHD audio track (or other way around). 
Rip to BD disc. 
Enjoy 3D and Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I was wondering if it was just me or not. All the "Atmos" blessed releases, that I have heard thus far have not impressed.


They have all impressed me, but not for the use of the overheads. The precision with which sounds are placed in the soundstage (on the Atmos content) is what impresses me. Try watching one of your Atmos discs in Atmos and then switch the BD player to PCM and watch it again in DSU. While there is a lot more noise coming from the overhead speakers with DSU, overall the Atmos mix is significantly better.



roxiedog13 said:


> Maybe I was expecting too much , not really sure. I personally feel the sounds are so overcooked it becomes absolute sensory overload , it doesn't work for me in the way I expected . OTOH, many of the 5.1 and 7.1 Dolby movies running DSU are fantastic, it seems, for me anyway, the more subtle approach is more effective. When I picked up my new Sony 4K VPL VW500ES in the fall it was the same thing. The 4K movies didn't impress but the upscaled
> 1080P movies were just new all over again, just like the audio is now with DSU + Atmos speakers . Hmmmm, maybe its time for a second honeymoon too  naaah, I'll just watch another movie.
> :nerd:


 The main thing, while we wait for more Atmos content, is that DSU is so staggeringly good.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Until people have heard DSU on a properly set up system, with appropriate content, it is hard to get across to them just what a sensational difference it makes. TBH, I am currently enjoying DSU as much, or even more, than my 5 'real' Atmos discs. When DTS start releasing DTS:X discs, I will enjoy them via DSU until I change my unit for one with native DTS:X in 2016 and then I can enjoy them all over again in their native format. Something to look forward to is always a good thing in my book.


I'm finally really enjoying DSU on a lot of my blu-ray's. Last night we watched Fury which sounded great. It took me a long time to get here though, first I tried Atmos modules, than speakers mounted front height on my front wall all the way up. Than I added TM speakers which added a great deal but those FH were just not cutting it, very, very hard to hear. Since I moved those out to ceiling at roughly 30 degrees the whole DSU/Atmos soundfield came together. For that I thank all of you here in this thread. Like you I'll be looking forward to 2016 to add DTS:X decoding to my set-up. 

Cheers!


----------



## NorthSky

billqs said:


> I really hope 3d doesn't completely disappear from America. I think in some cases 3d is being intentionally smothered to death by the studios. Why else are 3D movies only available in deluxe editions that cost $10-$15 more than the regular blu ray release even if they are released at all. Disney doesn't seem interested in releasing Frozen in 3D which would sell like hotcakes, and does internationally.
> 
> I realize that the effect is much better for those of us with projectors, but Hollywood has botched mainstream adoption of 3d in America.
> 
> I guess I may become a regular patron Amazon Japan.


I am afraid; 3D on Blu-ray is less than a sure thing, in actual reality. ...It makes me feel very sad. 

As for Dolby Atmos; the real Dolby Atmos 3D discrete sound on Blu-ray, like TF4 and TMNT and The Expendables 3, ...it could also very well be destined to the same faith (power of money) as 3D picture on Blu-ray. 

No matter what I believe and would love to see and hear in this world; I am afraid. 
True art has been killed by our own forces; our votes in which we all spend our money towards.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> Perhaps it's just my vision problems, but the studios don't seem to be "stamping Atmos on the BD box" in very large letters...?!
> 
> _


...And it is near impossible for 99.9% of the world's population @ reading the very fine printing on the audio and video specs from the back covers of our Blu-ray inserts. 
Blu-rays are all about High Resolution Audio and High Definition Picture, and all they do is to print those specs so small that might as well buy a VHS tape. 

Why is it so hard to whoever design and print those Blu-ray inserts to show us very clearly how many channels (5.1 or 7.1 or Mono), and if DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Atmos or DD or dts, and if 1080p or 1080i or 4K or 8K, and audio track commentaries, and separate musical scores, tralala etc.???

It is very very painful for our human eyes in trying to adjust/focus on those extremely small printing specs from the Blu-ray movie's back covers.
It's like they are trying to inflict eye's diseases so that eye's doctors can make more money with us. ...I bet that those people behind it are part of an association with them doctors.

Maybe it is because people simply don't care what kind of hi-res audio and hi-def picture is in those Blu-rays? ...Yeah, that must be it; the only people who truly care is us, here @ AVSForum, and nobody else (about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the entire audio/video populace.) 

The majority simply rent VHS tapes (from those still welfare stores) and/or DVDs and/or watch Netflix on their iPhones. 
Is cable TV still exist? 

I think Dolby Atmos should have a decent size sticker on the BD box and insert. ...And all that jazz.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> It will come back, a lot of people who couldn't afford 3D capable 1080p sets can now... I was among that camp not long ago. Ultra D tech & the like will bring the interest back I think, & 3D will only improve upon itself over time. I have a feeling that when Star Wars comes out & then Avatar 2 there will be a lot more interest in seeing 3D at home. It also seems like the cost of 3D discs is dropping a bit, so that would indicate to me that more 3D copies of BD's are being printed possibly?
> 
> Other big 3D release were Guardians of the Galaxy & Lego movie 3D.


I truly hope you're right (not the way Disney is acting with 3D Blu-ray here in our own continent).

* 'Guardians' and 'Lego' were not that "3D" big. 

Avatar 2, 3, and 4 are our only 3D saving grace. ...And Star Wars? ...I very doubt it; people are 2D fanatics, not 3D. 



> *I would take a guess that book of life or Big Hero 6 might be in Atmos & 3D on the disc.*
> I don't think it's an active choice made by the BD disc manufacturers as there's only been 5 atmos titles released.


- 'The Book of Life' = 3D, but NO Dolby Atmos.
- 'Big Hero 6' = NO 3D (in North America - Disney studios), and NO Dolby Atmos.

____________

QUESTION: Of all the 3D Blu-ray releases so far, which one is the best and most loved movie by all the smartest movie lovers?

Number 2 question: Same question, but this time with Dolby Atmos (3D Blu-ray, and Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack)? 
And! Blu-ray 2D, and Atmos sound (cannot be the same as just above)? 

Ok, now from everyone's honest answers we can easily determine the future of 3D Blu-ray direction, and Dolby Atmos (3D sound on Blu-ray), and Ultra High-Def (4K on Blu-ray). 

See, it ain't pretty @ all. ...It'll be like a niche with a leash. 

I have high hopes for 'Gravity', but look @ what they do; no 3D picture on Blu. 

The audio/video industry wants our money for new AV receivers and pre/pros with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X and Auro-3D sound decoders but they give us NADA, ZIP. SERO, on the most important aspect of them all; the SOFTWARE, with Sound & Picture. 
...And we're not even mentioning SMART software too. ...Like intelligent films with a real 3D message; sound & picture wise. ...TF4 & TMNT it ain't. 

Yes but some of u would say that we still have DSU. ...And that we just don't care about 3D picture on Blu.. 
Very true, you can still live with 2D picture and be real happy, and you can still live happily with up-mixing the sound without any discrete ones. 
We truly need people like that to appreciate the simplicity of our world, I really mean that.

But me, I demand the very best; 3D moving pictures filmed by real 3D cameras, intended for the artistic purpose in mind, and transferred on Blu-ray beautifully, by all the major Hollywood studios (including Disney here in North America, ...PIXAR animations & all that jazz), plus with Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks from those same PIXAR/Disney animation and fantasy and adventure and action and comedy movie genres and for both children and adults all together in an harmonious world of joy and entertainment to the max. 

Do you think it will ever exist in the future? ...Perhaps, ten, twenty years from now. ...And if they can make money @ it. 
And by then we'll be @ 16K holographic picture technology, and with 4D sound from Sony Classic movie studios.


----------



## pasender91

Kris Deering said:


> As for the 7.1.4 debate with Gravity, when I talked with Dolby at CEDIA in September they said that all the mastering studios for home video content are using 7.1.4 setups for the master, so with this being Warner's first Atmos release I think they just put it down to that was the system it was mastered on. *Adding more channels shouldn't really make much difference* since the point of an object is the metadata for location. More speakers probably makes that far easier to achieve in how precise the object is located, but I appreciate knowing what the mix was done in to a certain extent.


I am not sure i agree with your statement in bold ... hummm ... in fact i'm sure i disagree 

Let's assume gravity has been mastered in 7.1.4, do you think all Atmos objects are located where those speakers are ? 
The easy answer is clearly no, objects are where they should be, and very often it will be between speakers.
When objects move around, they also are by definition "between" speakers.

This is the beauty of object-based sound, sound can be emitted from anywhere, and so i come to the conclusion that Keith and many others i know share, *with Atmos the more speakers the better*, especially if they cover well all angles.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> TBH, I am currently enjoying DSU as much, or even more, than my 5 'real' Atmos discs.


So you are not listening to what is intended by the content creator... 
(Sorry, couldn't resist to mess with you.. )


----------



## Kris Deering

pasender91 said:


> I am not sure i agree with your statement in bold ... hummm ... in fact i'm sure i disagree
> 
> Let's assume gravity has been mastered in 7.1.4, do you think all Atmos objects are located where those speakers are ?
> The easy answer is clearly no, objects are where they should be, and very often it will be between speakers.
> When objects move around, they also are by definition "between" speakers.
> 
> This is the beauty of object-based sound, sound can be emitted from anywhere, and so i come to the conclusion that Keith and many others i know share, *with Atmos the more speakers the better*, especially if they cover well all angles.


By your statement you sound like you're making the assumption that the objects can only come from individual speakers and not phased appropriately to the speakers you've told your processor you have. Again, anything can be rendered in the acoustic space and more speakers makes that easier but that isn't to say you still couldn't position the sound where intended with only 7.1.4.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> As for the 7.1.4 debate with Gravity, when I talked with Dolby at CEDIA in September they said that all the mastering studios for home video content are using 7.1.4 setups for the master, so with this being Warner's first Atmos release I think they just put it down to that was the system it was mastered on. Adding more channels shouldn't really make much difference since the point of an object is the metadata for location. More speakers probably makes that far easier to achieve in how precise the object is located, but I appreciate knowing what the mix was done in to a certain extent.


Ok, this is quite informative and interesting now. ...It is like a limit on the number of object channels sort of? ...From their transfer/mixing audio consoles.

Kris, you didn't ask those same guys about the 3D picture transfer on Blu-ray, in addition to that 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos mix, I guess not?
Very strange; it must be because there isn't enough space on a BD-50 disc to put them both. ...It has to be that, or is it?

Too bad, because I won't be getting it if it ain't also in 3D (pic). ...Another future Blu-ray release? ...Christmas 2015?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Get both.
> Use computer software to mux the 3d video to the new TrueHD audio track (or other way around).
> Rip to BD disc.
> Enjoy 3D and Atmos.


I thought of something similar to that Scott. ...Using two BD players, and synchronizing them for the 3D picture to follow the Dolby Atmos sound. 

What a life!


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Ok, this is quite informative and interesting now. ...It is like a limit on the number of object channels sort of? ...From their transfer/mixing audio consoles.
> 
> Kris, you didn't ask those same guys about the 3D picture transfer on Blu-ray, in addition to that 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos mix, I guess not?
> Very strange; it must be because there isn't enough space on a BD-50 disc to put them both. ...It has to be that, or is it?
> 
> Too bad, because I won't be getting it if it ain't also in 3D (pic). ...Another future Blu-ray release? ...Christmas 2015?


Shouldn't limit the number of objects at all. And remember, this is just speculation based on what Dolby mentioned at CEDIA about the mastering houses for Atmos home mixes. Warner might have labeled this based on the mastering suite used. Because of the nature of Atmos, this just describes the playback system used for the mix, the objects metadata will work with any Atmos setup, it simply tells the processor where in the acoustic space they want that object and determine how to do that using the speakers you've identified in your setup. 

I find it funny that people are saying you shouldn't call your speakers channels anymore when they are exactly that. 7.1.4 describes channels in your system. The audio consists of individual objects that are assigned to those prescribed channels based on how the processor wants to represent them in the acoustic space. Obviously they can come out of different channels depending on your configuration, but they are still channels. Objects has more to do with the mastering process than the playback system. The question really comes down to how many channels it takes to render a fully holosonic environment in a given acoustic space. Everyone's room will be different in this regard due to the unlimited amount of variables, but I imagine it could easily lead to a lot of people getting carried away with bigger numbers automatically meaning a better experience like so many always assume. CE manufacturers are probably chomping at the bit for this to take off, I'm sure they'd love to convince everyone that the more channels they add the better it will be so they can move more wires, speakers, amps, etc.


----------



## NorthSky

This is the first ever Dolby Atmos Blu-ray release (March 31st) with that 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos audio description; out of five or six BD Dolby Atmos titles released here so far in America. So it automatically raises interest for sure.


----------



## hogues

Hey everyone, I'm about a week away from having to decide whether or not to install for atmos. I had my room wired thinking that the 5.2.4 setup for speakers would be LCR in the front, the first set of atmos in ceiling about 4 ft in front of the listening position, the surrounds to the side of the listening position and the second set of the in ceiling speakers. I looked at the atmos setup guide and it sens to say that the last row of atmos speakers should be to the side and the surrounds in back of the listening position, which I can't do. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Secondly, If I do go atmos, I have to decide between the Klipsch CDT-3650-C which are amiable and the JBl 226-ct which are not. I have a 7 ft ceiling. Once again, any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
*
*


----------



## Brian Fineberg

One more AWESOME dsu effect the movie:

This is where I leave you. 

Yep this is a drama/comedy. No action whatsoever. But one of the most realistic uses of dsu I have yet to experience. 

While two characters are in the basement talking there is a party upstairs. Well...the footsteps upstairs are so staggeringly realistic with dsu. My heart dropped because I actually thought someone was in my house walking around upstairs (my ht is not yet soundproofed) 

It was THAT real. Great stuff


----------



## Nuggles

hogues said:


> Hey everyone, I'm about a week away from having to decide whether or not to install for atmos. I had my room wired thinking that the 5.2.4 setup for speakers would be LCR in the front, the first set of atmos in ceiling about 4 ft in front of the listening position, the surrounds to the side of the listening position and the second set of the in ceiling speakers. I looked at the atmos setup guide and it sens to say that the last row of atmos speakers should be to the side and the surrounds in back of the listening position, which I can't do. Any thoughts or suggestions?
> 
> Secondly, If I do go atmos, I have to decide between the Klipsch CDT-3650-C which are amiable and the JBl 226-ct which are not. I have a 7 ft ceiling. Once again, any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
> *
> *


I have two Klipsch CDT-3800s in the ceiling....they sound amazing......top quality in-ceiling speakers.

Take care,
Nathan


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> By your statement you sound like you're making the assumption that the objects can only come from individual speakers and not phased appropriately to the speakers you've told your processor you have. Again, anything can be rendered in the acoustic space and more speakers makes that easier but that isn't to say you still couldn't position the sound where intended with only 7.1.4.


It's like pixels making up an image. The more pixels, usually the more detail. The same would apply to object audio. The more speakers (given the right sized room), the more precisely sounds are placed in space.


----------



## roxiedog13

Brian Fineberg said:


> One more AWESOME dsu effect the movie:
> 
> This is where I leave you.
> 
> Yep this is a drama/comedy. No action whatsoever. But one of the most realistic uses of dsu I have yet to experience.
> 
> While two characters are in the basement talking there is a party upstairs. Well...the footsteps upstairs are so staggeringly realistic with dsu. My heart dropped because I actually thought someone was in my house walking around upstairs (my ht is not yet soundproofed)
> 
> It was THAT real. Great stuff



Then again, it could be the wife leaving you  not sure if that is a good or a bad thing. I just watched Gravity for the first time since the Atmos speakers installed and running DSU.
I didn't notice too much different, just a little but nothing as good as into the Storm that I saw last night. Will be interesting to see how Gravity compares to the new Atmos mix, will have
to wait a little longer to find out though.


----------



## hogues

Nuggles said:


> I have two Klipsch CDT-3800s in the ceiling....they sound amazing......top quality in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Take care,
> Nathan



Thanks Nathan. I'm still worried about my setup, but I'm sure that either speaker would be great.


----------



## gerchy

I'm surprised how different our experiences are. 
I must say that I barely hear height activity with DSU and for that I have to run the heights +2db hotter.
I was also very dissapointed with the TF4. There is a lot of stuff in SF movies where ceiling speakers could play very often.
TMNT is better but to be sure that there is more ceiling activity I had to turn every other speaker off.

However, Atmos demo material (nature, leaves, F1, motorcycles, Enrique) sound great. I hope movie mixers will put more stuff up in the air.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, it's all up in the air. ...Up in the sky, in the northern sky.


----------



## tj21

kbarnes701 said:


> When DTS start releasing DTS:X discs, I will enjoy them via DSU until I change my unit for one with native DTS:X in 2016 and then I can enjoy them all over again in their native format.


The question is if DTS:X soundtrack should be listened on AVR without DTS:X capability in DSU or Neo:X. The reason I emphasize this is that while DSU adds ambiance only Neo:X on optimized soundtrack adds proper positioning of sound to front heights. And one can hope that the DTS:X soundtrack 7.1 beds will be optimized for Neo:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

tj21 said:


> The question is if DTS:X soundtrack should be listened on AVR without DTS:X capability in DSU or Neo:X. The reason I emphasize this is that while DSU adds ambiance only Neo:X on optimized soundtrack adds proper positioning of sound to front heights. And one can hope that the DTS:X soundtrack 7.1 beds will be optimized for Neo:X.


Easy to try both and see which you prefer. Neo:X doesn't add "proper positioning" of sound - it is an upmixer just as DSU is an upmixer so it uses an algorithm to decide which sounds to place where based on information derived from the 'real' channels. 

Personally I prefer upmixing to all of my overhead speakers via DSU than upmixing to just two of them via DTS:X but YMMV of course. 

The fact that the original will be DTS:X is neither here nor there for those of us who don't have a DTS:X decoder in our AVR - the AVR will see the 7.1 bitstream and DSU will treat it like any other 7.1 (or 5.1) bitstream.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> This is the beauty of object-based sound, sound can be emitted from anywhere, and so i come to the conclusion that Keith and many others i know share, *with Atmos the more speakers the better*, especially if they cover well all angles.


Yes - batpig expressed this succinctly a while ago with a phrase I stole from him: _mo' speakers = mo' better_. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> So you are not listening to what is intended by the content creator...
> (Sorry, couldn't resist to mess with you.. )


LOL. You got me.  I am listening to what the content creator would have listened to if he had DSU  In fact, FilmMixer *IS* a content creator and he listens with DSU too IIRC... (where is Marc these days? he is missed!).


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> By your statement you sound like you're making the assumption that the objects can only come from individual speakers and not phased appropriately to the speakers you've told your processor you have. Again, anything can be rendered in the acoustic space and more speakers makes that easier but that isn't to say you still couldn't position the sound where intended with only 7.1.4.


Real speakers will always be better than phantom speakers though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I find it funny that people are saying you shouldn't call your speakers channels anymore when they are exactly that. 7.1.4 describes channels in your system.


Really Kris, I am astonished that you of all people do not see the distinction between the number of speakers and the number of channels!


----------



## tj21

kbarnes701 said:


> ENeo:X doesn't add "proper positioning" of sound - it is an upmixer just as DSU is an upmixer so it uses an algorithm to decide which sounds to place where based on information derived from the 'real' channels.


There is a big difference how Neo:X and DSU upmix the sound. While DSU places the uncorrelated sound to the top speakers Neo:X puts the correlated sound from FL/R and SL/R to FHL/R and similarly for the wides (derived from fronts and side surrounds). So if the movie is mixed with this knowledge you get actual positioning of sound to the top layer opposed to just some ambiance noise.

Easy proof is if you have Expendables 2 Blu-Ray there is Sound Check clip with Neo:X encoding where sound is coming sequentially out of all 11.1 channels. DSU fails the check completely.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Triad*

Heres Triad Atmos up-firing speakers ....... http://www.cepro.com/article/triad_speakers_bronze_lr-h_speaker_delivers_dolby_atmos_experience/


----------



## kbarnes701

tj21 said:


> There is a big difference how Neo:X and DSU upmix the sound.


Yes of course. All upmixers use different algorithms and different ways of deriving the upmixed content from the original content. I was taking issue with your remark that Neo:X somehow 'properly' sent content to the height speakers as though it was some sort of discrete content, which it isn't. Neo:X sends the sound to the height speakers that its algorithm determines, in this case based on content originally in the front and surround channels. A different upmixer, using different algorithms, will make different decisions and sound different as a result. In the end it comes down to which you prefer as this is, by definition, all about preference.



tj21 said:


> While DSU places the uncorrelated sound to the top speakers Neo:X puts the correlated sound from FL/R and SL/R to FHL/R and similarly for the wides (derived from fronts and side surrounds). So if the movie is mixed with this knowledge you get actual positioning of sound to the top layer opposed to just some ambiance noise.


No movies have been mixed for Neo:X. Three or four were 'optimised' for Neo:X but they still rely on upmixing based on the chosen algorithm. It was an interesting experiment but has now been rendered entirely pointless (hence the end of the experiment) by proper, discrete multichannel formats such as Atmos.



tj21 said:


> Easy proof is if you have Expendables 2 Blu-Ray there is Sound Check clip with Neo:X encoding where sound is coming sequentially out of all 11.1 channels. DSU fails the check completely.


Yes I agree. But the movie still sounds considerably more involving and immersive when played via DSU. That is just my preference of course. Your preference may be different, which is the nature of preference


----------



## bargervais

I would assume that DTS:X will replace DTS Neo:X just like Dolby Atmos AVR receivers replaced PLIIx with DSU..


----------



## harrybnbad

Personally, all of the different mixes (could) be great. With content that is. I really thought neo:x had a chance my self. But with only 4 movies. Which, other than the demo clip, (like the beginning of expendables 2) had a very poor mix. Heck, to date the best mix I've heard is this new Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc. Which my copy I downloaded from the web. Streamed to my avr. And I don't even have atmos. Sometimes I think those guy in the mixing booth are either pushed to hard to fast to get a product out. Or, the just lazy. Doing just enough to get by. Which the latter seems to be status quo in this world today......


----------



## harrybnbad

I have a question.


I seen someone on here posted that they combined 2 avr's 4100 and 5200 and seemed to be able to get 7.2.6 out of it. I'm sure it not 100 percent at speaker isolation. I'm really trying to both get my money worth out of my 4520 and wait for 7.2.6 or even 9.2.6, not to mention DTS:x to be standard with out a downloaded update. 


Here's the question. Is there any way to use a inexpensive atmos avr and steal only the 4 celling speakers and run both avr's at the same time. (like maybe a used 4100 or something) I just cant afford to replace my avr right now, not to mention with something which seems i'll replace in the next year or 2 when there's a *real* 9.2.6 with dts:x. 


I hope that make some sense.... I just really, really, really, want to have a taste of atmos.


----------



## roxiedog13

HT-Eman said:


> Heres Triad Atmos up-firing speakers ....... http://www.cepro.com/article/triad_speakers_bronze_lr-h_speaker_delivers_dolby_atmos_experience/


No matter which modules I Triad, the in-ceilings are much better .


----------



## tj21

kbarnes701 said:


> No movies have been mixed for Neo:X. Three or four were 'optimised' for Neo:X but they still rely on upmixing based on the chosen algorithm. It was an interesting experiment but has now been rendered entirely pointless (hence the end of the experiment) by proper, discrete multichannel formats such as Atmos.


I will try to reiterate my original point again:

You claimed that you will listen to DTS:X movies with DSU. I wondered if it would not actually be better to use DTS Neo:X as the beds could be optimized for Neo:X upsampler which is better in positioning of overhead sound than DSU.

This is big if as we do not know how will DTS:X work - but I would guess DTS would rather mix the beds with their own algorithms in mind than Dolby one. 

And I believe that Neo:X is better than DSU if the soundtrack has been mixed with the algorithm in mind.


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> Personally, all of the different mixes (could) be great. With content that is. I really thought neo:x had a chance my self. But with only 4 movies. Which, other than the demo clip, (like the beginning of expendables 2) had a very poor mix. Heck, to date the best mix I've heard is this new Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc. Which my copy I downloaded from the web. Streamed to my avr. And I don't even have atmos. Sometimes I think those guy in the mixing booth are either pushed to hard to fast to get a product out. Or, the just lazy. Doing just enough to get by. Which the latter seems to be status quo in this world today......


You have to understand that Atmos is more then overhead sound it's an immersive experience I don't think that the people that do the mixing are lazy. As we get into 2015 more and more blu-rays will be released with an Atmos mix. I personally think that what has been released so far has been acceptable while some of us would like to see our overhead speakers sing a little more. I'll continue to enjoy DSU and Atmos as more blu-rays trickle in in 2015


----------



## gammanuc

hogues said:


> Hey everyone, I'm about a week away from having to decide whether or not to install for atmos. I had my room wired thinking that the 5.2.4 setup for speakers would be LCR in the front, the first set of atmos in ceiling about 4 ft in front of the listening position, the surrounds to the side of the listening position and the second set of the in ceiling speakers. I looked at the atmos setup guide and it sens to say that the last row of atmos speakers should be to the side and the surrounds in back of the listening position, which I can't do. Any thoughts or suggestions?
> 
> Secondly, If I do go atmos, I have to decide between the Klipsch CDT-3650-C which are amiable and the JBl 226-ct which are not. I have a 7 ft ceiling. Once again, any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
> *
> *


The side surrounds are fine where you have them set to be placed, you may try to angle them slightly to the rear. Since you are running 5.2.4 you won't have any rear surrounds. If your rear most ceiling speakers are going to be directly overhead call them Top middle when setting up your receiver.


----------



## funhouse69

Anyone Notice on their DSU Settings that certain movies will say "Dolby Atmos / Surround"? I've seen this on Two Different Non-Atmos Movies Stark Trek Into Darkness and The Fifth Element and thought it was strange.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

roxiedog13 said:


> Then again, it could be the wife leaving you  not sure if that is a good or a bad thing. I just watched Gravity for the first time since the Atmos speakers installed and running DSU.
> I didn't notice too much different, just a little but nothing as good as into the Storm that I saw last night. Will be interesting to see how Gravity compares to the new Atmos mix, will have
> to wait a little longer to find out though.


haha no she was actually right next to me watching the movie


----------



## roxiedog13

tj21 said:


> I will try to reiterate my original point again:
> 
> You claimed that you will listen to DTS:X movies with DSU. I wondered if it would not actually be better to use DTS Neo:X as the beds could be optimized for Neo:X upsampler which is better in positioning of overhead sound than DSU.
> 
> This is big if as we do not know how will DTS:X work - but I would guess DTS would rather mix the beds with their own algorithms in mind than Dolby one.
> 
> And I believe that Neo:X is better than DSU if the soundtrack has been mixed with the algorithm in mind.


When I picked up my new Sony 4K projector last fall I was absolutely amazed with the picture quality, I was literally in shock how much better it was over other projectors I have owned.
To learn more about my new acquisition I quickly signed up on the Sony 4K thread and entered a world of problems , I became a projector hypochondriac . Instead of enjoying movies I was
caught up in every possible miniscule issue and I spent all of my time looking for fault instead of enjoying, the reason I bought the PJ in the first place.

I think I may be entering the same realm now , obviously on the audio side of things this time.  Last night I watched Gravity in DSU for the first time and the truth is I really didn't watch it
at all, I just listened . I really enjoyed this movie first couple of times I watched it, last night was a disappointment. I'm going to have to stop listening ....critically and start to enjoy again.


----------



## hogues

gammanuc said:


> The side surrounds are fine where you have them set to be placed, you may try to angle them slightly to the rear. Since you are running 5.2.4 you won't have any rear surrounds. If your rear most ceiling speakers are going to be directly overhead call them Top middle when setting up your receiver.


Thanks, gammanuc. the rear most speakers will be about 4 Ft behind the listening position, which is what I'm worried about.


----------



## Tnedator

How are you guys handling the surrounds as they relate to two rows of seating? I know in the past, some people went with dipoles for multiple rows. However, Atmos calls for mono's. 

Are most of you with two rows just setting everything up related to the first (or primary) row? Are you putting the sides between the two rows? My original thinking, and the way my room is designed, is to use two side surrounds in an array, but that's challenging if I use Audyssey to calibrate, rather than have a pro calibration with DSPs.


----------



## jpco

I don't have Atmos yet, but my expectations are not for discreet overhead sounds. I expect the best mixes to use overheads in conjunction with other speakers to create a more seamless sound field. If it's working well, I wouldn't need to know which speakers were producing sound, only where the sound is positioned in the room.

That being said, Gravity gives me what I perceive to be a precise 3-dimensional sound field in my 7.1 system, as do a few of the Atmos demos. It makes me realize that the effectiveness of the overall effect has a lot to do with sound design and mixing. I'm hopeful that immersive formats will lead to more mixes like Gravity (as appropriate to the content).


----------



## harrybnbad

I still think some, key word some, mixers are lazy. But also in a hurry to get the final mix out.


----------



## gammanuc

hogues said:


> Thanks, gammanuc. the rear most speakers will be about 4 Ft behind the listening position, which is what I'm worried about.


No worries, call them Top rear in the settings then. Mine are less than 4ft behind and still sound excellent.


----------



## harrybnbad

Hey, is it possible for someone to quote me, which is in my email. But the quote is not listed hear?


----------



## Movie78

harrybnbad said:


> I have a question.
> 
> 
> I seen someone on here posted that they combined 2 avr's 4100 and 5200 and seemed to be able to get 7.2.6 out of it. I'm sure it not 100 percent at speaker isolation. I'm really trying to both get my money worth out of my 4520 and wait for 7.2.6 or even 9.2.6, not to mention DTS:x to be standard with out a downloaded update.
> 
> 
> Here's the question. Is there any way to use a inexpensive atmos avr and steal only the 4 celling speakers and run both avr's at the same time. (like maybe a used 4100 or something) I just cant afford to replace my avr right now, not to mention with something which seems i'll replace in the next year or 2 when there's a *real* 9.2.6 with dts:x.
> 
> 
> I hope that make some sense.... I just really, really, really, want to have a taste of atmos.


+1

I would like to know too.


----------



## harrybnbad

earlier I was asking if there was a way to add the 4100 to my 4520 just to get a taste of the 4 atmos ceiling. I was told the 4100 isn't atmos. 


And yes I know its more than just speakers on the ceiling. I'm all aware of algorithms, and all the other mo jo. Pretty cool stuff. I just cant see buying a 5200 at the minimum to satisfied me briefly. I don't have that kind of money. 


Now, when my kid gets out of college, and moves out. Her bed room 18 x 24 feet, become my home theater. 2 more years. Which I would think DTS:X, Atmos, and if the Aura 3d makes it. Well I'll be ready for it. Of course. That's when the new 13.6.22 3D _*Holographic Projection*_ system starts hitting the home theater. 


When does the madness ever stop. Never I hope.....


----------



## roxiedog13

Tnedator said:


> How are you guys handling the surrounds as they relate to two rows of seating? I know in the past, some people went with dipoles for multiple rows. However, Atmos calls for mono's.
> 
> Are most of you with two rows just setting everything up related to the first (or primary) row? Are you putting the sides between the two rows? My original thinking, and the way my room is designed, is to use two side surrounds in an array, but that's challenging if I use Audyssey to calibrate, rather than have a pro calibration with DSPs.


I debated this for a while because I have two dedicated rows, actually a third if I consider the bar with three seats. For my HT room I already had 7.1, if your installing new and access is easy you can run speaker wires to every conceivable location and your future proofed . My take is to make one row( favorite viewing location) be that front or back row and set up the MLP for that row. 95% of the time you are probably watching a movie alone or with one or two others. Even if you have 6 bodies in seats likely the others are young, old or otherwise not very discriminating. You are likely the only one that will even notice the difference, the rest will be happy regardless. With that said stick with one MLP then upgrade with more speakers later as AVR technology 
allows. Right now you have 7.?.4 to work with, that is it . What I did personally was use dipole side surrounds that fire slightly forward and back. I positioned these so that the side surround is slightly behind my MLP (front row) so the forward firing tweeter is aiming toward the front row, the rear aiming towards the second row. The side surrounds are slightly above ear height for the front row probably a little lower for the second row because it is elevated. It works beautifully, when I close my eyes from either row the sound is diffuse and comes from the direction intended. A monopole aiming between the two rows could work too maybe others will advise their results. I have heard discussion for one side surround per seat and that would make sense, it's just not available yet . Wouldn't hurt to run wires for two sets of side surrounds if you can just in case.

For in-ceiling I favored my front row as the MLP and installed front speakers about 5 feet forward of the front seat which for a 7 1/2ft ceiling is the closest you can go using the angles they recommend. By keeping it closer to the front seat it will also hopefully work for the back seat too, my rational. For rear I used in-ceiling again these however have a 30 degree firing angle for the woofer and tweeter. The rears are mounted two feet behind the rear seat which is further back than the Atmos angles would suggest. My goal was to try to make the Atmos effect work for
both rows, though slightly favoring the front. My future goal is to add a third set of in-ceiling speakers ( centered between the existing speakers) once the technology catches up . I already have the speaker wires pulled and the speakers purchased ready to install.

Bottom line, as is, the system works fantastic from both the front and back row. I do think the 3D bubble would be better if I favored one row,for now it does a superb job,a huge improvement .
When 6 speaker technology arrives I'm ready, can only improve.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> I would assume that *DTS:X will replace DTS Neo:X* just like Dolby Atmos AVR receivers replaced PLIIx with DSU..


DTS:X will not replace DTS Neo:X, as the former is the MDA codec and the latter is DTS's upmixer. They may rename/replace Neo:X with another matrixing format (although I highly doubt it), but it will continue to serve alongside DTS:X just as DSU complements Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Frank714

funhouse69 said:


> Anyone Notice on their DSU Settings that certain movies will say "Dolby Atmos / Surround"? I've seen this on Two Different Non-Atmos Movies Stark Trek Into Darkness and The Fifth Element and thought it was strange.


Had the same observation (don't remember whether it was just _Fifth Element_, too?) yesterday night and wondered myself. 

Went back to the latest Dolby Atmos setup instructions (October 2014) and noticed this last paragraph:


_"A center spread on/offcontrol enables the user to spread the center image across a_

_wider front soundstage.This optional feature is ideally suited for playback of two channel_

_music content or playbackof channel-based content in a *home theater*_

_*design that employs a wider screen configuration* than typical installations. The Dolby_

_surround and centerspread function should be selected from the AVR or_

_preprocessor userinterface or from the system’s remote control."_


I presume this is the "Center Gain" function mentioned on pg. 183 of the Marantz SR 7009 Manual?!

What is the reason that it is explicitly mentioned on the "Dolby Surround Upmixer" page, will the Dolby Atmos Top Front speakers carry some load of the main L & R speakers?

Since my 2.35:1 screen is wider than my L & R speakers, this particular feature seems to adress my installation.

Advice, suggestions, experience would be much appreciated.


----------



## Nalleh

tj21 said:


> There is a big difference how Neo:X and DSU upmix the sound. While DSU places the uncorrelated sound to the top speakers Neo:X puts the correlated sound from FL/R and SL/R to FHL/R and similarly for the wides (derived from fronts and side surrounds). So if the movie is mixed with this knowledge you get actual positioning of sound to the top layer opposed to just some ambiance noise.
> 
> Easy proof is if you have Expendables 2 Blu-Ray there is Sound Check clip with Neo:X encoding where sound is coming sequentially out of all 11.1 channels. DSU fails the check completely.


Yes, the few discs "optimized for Neo:X 11.1" have "flags" matrixed into the track, that directs sound to highs and wides, "near discrete", as DTS calls it:

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/new...e-expendables-2--111-neo-x-audio-review/13896

But other than those discs (4 of them), Neo upmixes as the others, although they all do it a little different.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Frank714 said:


> _*design that employs a wider screen configuration* than typical installations. The Dolby_
> 
> _surround and centerspread function should be selected from the AVR or_
> 
> _preprocessor userinterface or from the system’s remote control."_
> 
> 
> I presume this is the "Center Gain" function mentioned on pg. 183 of the Marantz SR 7009 Manual?!
> 
> What is the reason that it is explicitly mentioned on the "Dolby Surround Upmixer" page, will the Dolby Atmos Top Front speakers carry some load of the main L & R speakers?
> 
> Since my 2.35:1 screen is wider than my L & R speakers, this particular feature seems to adress my installation.
> 
> Advice, suggestions, experience would be much appreciated.


D&M has updated the Owner's manual to include the Auro 3D upgrade info. Please download that manual as it shows both Center Gain (DTS Neo:X) and Center Spread (DSU).

http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7009/NA/EN/index.php


----------



## hogues

gammanuc said:


> No worries, call them Top rear in the settings then. Mine are less than 4ft behind and still sound excellent.


Thanks! That's exactly the info that I was looking for. just out of curiosity, are your speakers aimable?


----------



## chi_guy50

funhouse69 said:


> Anyone Notice on their DSU Settings that certain movies will say "Dolby Atmos / Surround"? I've seen this on Two Different Non-Atmos Movies Stark Trek Into Darkness and The Fifth Element and thought it was strange.


I think the key is the entry just above that option label on your screen shot: the DSU option appears to show as "Dolby Atmos/Surround" whenever the AVR is receiving a Dolby TrueHD signal. Why it appears this way I do not know as the use of the term Atmos in this context seems at best confusing.


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> DTS:X will not replace DTS Neo:X, as the former is the MDA codec and the latter is DTS's upmixer. They may rename/replace Neo:X with another matrixing format (although I highly doubt it), but it will continue to serve alongside DTS:X just as DSU complements Dolby Atmos.


thats what i was trying to say not knowing what DTS:X will call their upmixer so DTS Neo:X will be replaced i would assume to whatever name they will give it. just like Atmos did with DSU


----------



## gammanuc

hogues said:


> Thanks! That's exactly the info that I was looking for. just out of curiosity, are your speakers aimable?


The tweeters on mine can be aimed, but I don't know how much difference it makes to be honest, I think most in ceiling speakers will have a fairly wide dispersion as it is. Maybe I'll try mine out without aiming them. The goal is to have the effects above you and not being able to localize it to one speaker or the other for that matter.


----------



## bargervais

harrybnbad said:


> earlier I was asking if there was a way to add the 4100 to my 4520 just to get a taste of the 4 atmos ceiling. I was told the 4100 isn't atmos.
> 
> 
> And yes I know its more than just speakers on the ceiling. I'm all aware of algorithms, and all the other mo jo. Pretty cool stuff. I just cant see buying a 5200 at the minimum to satisfied me briefly. I don't have that kind of money.
> 
> 
> Now, when my kid gets out of college, and moves out. Her bed room 18 x 24 feet, become my home theater. 2 more years. Which I would think DTS:X, Atmos, and if the Aura 3d makes it. Well I'll be ready for it. Of course. That's when the new 13.6.22 3D _*Holographic Projection*_ system starts hitting the home theater.
> 
> 
> When does the madness ever stop. Never I hope.....


the 4100W is an atmos receiver not sure who told you it wasn't 
Denon AVR-X4100W 7.2 Network A/V Receiver with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Dolby Atmos


----------



## hogues

gammanuc said:


> The tweeters on mine can be aimed, but I don't know how much difference it makes to be honest, I think most in ceiling speakers will have a fairly wide dispersion as it is. Maybe I'll try mine out without aiming them. The goal is to have the effects above you and not being able to localize it to one speaker or the other for that matter.


Thanks for all of your help. I guess I can get aimable and just not aim them. that way I would have the option to fool with it to get the best results.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Real speakers will always be better than phantom speakers though.


Will always may be a bit much, and again, if you take into account the economics of it, I think you would eventually hit the point of diminishing returns faster than most think. Obviously I don't care how people spend their money, it would just be an interesting experiment to figure out.


----------



## stikle

Brian Fineberg said:


> I bought that on Black Friday. Still have yet to watch it. Must put it at the top of the list!


"Day of Days" (Disc 1, Episode 2) is a fabulous example of DSU in action. The beginning of the naval bombardment caught me off guard as the shells passed overhead. Had to go back a couple times to check that out.



Spoiler



Winters meets up with Buck Compton at the rallying point and receives orders from Lt. Colonel Sink to take out a nest of German 105 heavy guns at Brécourt, a nearby French estate. The guns are aimed directly at Causeway #1 at Utah Beach and are inflicting heavy casualties. Winters gathers two squads, one led by himself, the other by Compton. The Battle of Brécourt Manor follows and Winters proves himself an excellent tactician, using a small force to take out a larger one in a heavily fortified position.

The bullets flying all around my room made me feel like I was there...like never before.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Really Kris, I am astonished that you of all people do not see the distinction between the number of speakers and the number of channels!


Channels and speakers, tomato, tomato. I'm okay with speakers too, I honestly think in this case they can be interchangeable. But if it makes people feel better going the other way, more power to them.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> funhouse69 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone Notice on their DSU Settings that certain movies will say "Dolby Atmos / Surround"? I've seen this on Two Different Non-Atmos Movies Stark Trek Into Darkness and The Fifth Element and thought it was strange.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the key is the entry just above that option label on your screen shot: the DSU option appears to show as "Dolby Atmos/Surround" whenever the AVR is receiving a Dolby TrueHD signal. Why it appears this way I do not know as the use of the term Atmos in this context seems at best confusing.
Click to expand...

It's just a quirk of the surround mode selection onscreen overlay. Once you actually select a surround mode the front panel display and the info graphic will be accurate.


----------



## batpig

tj21 said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No movies have been mixed for Neo:X. Three or four were 'optimised' for Neo:X but they still rely on upmixing based on the chosen algorithm. It was an interesting experiment but has now been rendered entirely pointless (hence the end of the experiment) by proper, discrete multichannel formats such as Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to reiterate my original point again:
> 
> You claimed that you will listen to DTS:X movies with DSU. I wondered if it would not actually be better to use DTS Neo:X as the beds could be optimized for Neo:X upsampler which is better in positioning of overhead sound than DSU.
> 
> This is big if as we do not know how will DTS:X work - but I would guess DTS would rather mix the beds with their own algorithms in mind than Dolby one.
> 
> And I believe that Neo:X is better than DSU if the soundtrack has been mixed with the algorithm in mind.
Click to expand...

So Neo:X works better when the mix had been optimized for Neo:X. I would venture that is a fairly uncontroversial assertion!


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> So Neo:X works better when the mix had been optimized for Neo:X. I would venture that is a fairly uncontroversial assertion!


Actually no! Those 4 disc are exellent demos of what("native") Neo:X can really do. As i said earlier: the Neo:X version of Dredd is the only time i have heard a better version than in DSU. The height info and ambiance in "the lockdown" scene where mama talks through the PA systems is a perfect example. Her voice comes from above really well, in spite of just two heights in Neo 11.1 mode. And better than DSU.


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Neo:X works better when the mix had been optimized for Neo:X. I would venture that is a fairly uncontroversial assertion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no! Those 4 disc are exellent demos of what("native") Neo:X can really do. As i said earlier: the Neo:X version of Dredd is the only time i have heard a better version than in DSU. The height info and ambiance in "the lockdown" scene where mama talks through the PA systems is a perfect example. Her voice comes from above really well, in spite of just two heights in Neo 11.1 mode. And better than DSU.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. If a soundtrack has been explicitly optimized for Neo:X then obviously it will sound better when upmixed with Neo:X.


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> One more AWESOME dsu effect the movie:
> 
> This is where I leave you.
> 
> Yep this is a drama/comedy. No action whatsoever. But one of the most realistic uses of dsu I have yet to experience.
> 
> While two characters are in the basement talking there is a party upstairs. Well...the footsteps upstairs are so staggeringly realistic with dsu. My heart dropped because I actually thought someone was in my house walking around upstairs (my ht is not yet soundproofed)
> 
> It was THAT real. Great stuff


 

I just got that movie in today's mail from Netflix! I will check it out tonight.


Ray


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. If a soundtrack has been explicitly optimized for Neo:X then obviously it will sound better when upmixed with Neo:X.


I would agree but another poster stated otherwise in his opinion. 



"Yes I agree. But the movie still sounds considerably more involving and immersive when played via DSU. That is just my preference of course. Your preference may be different, which is the nature of preference "


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Really Kris, I am astonished that you of all people do not see the distinction between the number of speakers and the number of channels!





Kris Deering said:


> Channels and speakers, tomato, tomato. I'm okay with speakers too, I honestly think in this case they can be interchangeable. But if it makes people feel better going the other way, more power to them.


I think we have to distinguish here between the software and the hardware. From the AVR's perspective on the hardware side, speakers and channels are synonymous. You can't have a speaker that will play without an output channel to connect it to, obviously. So in that context there is no distinction.

Where speakers and channels do not correlate is in the transition from what the software (the mix) says should happen to what hardware channels will make that happen. In Atmos, the mix contains 7.1 (or 9.1) fixed channels which do correspond to speakers. And then the mix contains various objects which have no channel information attached to them. The hardware configuration may contain 11.1.8 channels, as an example, with a speaker per channel. However, the mix doesn't rely on the hardware configuration to determine where object sounds go. Instead, the mix relies on the renderer to determine which available hardware channel(s) should get the sounds of a particular object in order for the mix to be heard as intended.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me you guys are talking past each other, not understanding one another's contexts, but you both have an understanding of what's happening.


----------



## tj21

Nalleh said:


> Yes, the few discs "optimized for Neo:X 11.1" have "flags" matrixed into the track, that directs sound to highs and wides, "near discrete", as DTS calls it:
> 
> http://www.homecinemachoice.com/new...e-expendables-2--111-neo-x-audio-review/13896
> 
> But other than those discs (4 of them), Neo upmixes as the others, although they all do it a little different.


Not sure what is meant by the "flags". I tested DTS Neo:X on the 11.1 sound check track from Expendables 2 and hear no difference on DTS-HD bitstreamed or LPCM 7.1 decoded version usurely lacks any metadata.

DSU, Auromatic, DSX and Neo:X all upmix differently and I have not seen any serious comparison how they fare with typical 5.1 / 7.1 Blu Ray movie soundtrack.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. If a soundtrack has been explicitly optimized for Neo:X then obviously it will sound better when upmixed with Neo:X.


Ok, then i misunderstood you. Sorry, i am Norwegian, and i am not that good in "advanced" english. 



tj21 said:


> Not sure what is meant by the "flags". I tested *DTS:X* on the 11.1 sound check track from Expendables 2 and hear no difference on DTS-HD bitstreamed or LPCM 7.1 decoded version usurely lacks any metadata.
> .


Typo, right? You meant Neo:X?

The flags are similar to when surround channels were matrixed into the main channels in Pro Logic. Explained in the link.
And yes, i did the Exendables 2 11.1 channel test too, and ONLY Neo:X made it. Quite convincingly too.


----------



## NorthSky

This Blu-ray title is supposed to have a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack I've heard?


----------



## kbarnes701

tj21 said:


> I will try to reiterate my original point again:
> 
> You claimed that you will listen to DTS:X movies with DSU. I wondered if it would not actually be better to use DTS Neo:X as the beds could be optimized for Neo:X upsampler which is better in positioning of overhead sound than DSU.


I already tried it with Dredd. It is way better when upmixed with DSU, even though it is 'optimized' for Neo:X. It is much more immersive - just as one would expect when upmixing to twice as many overhead speakers.




tj21 said:


> And I believe that Neo:X is better than DSU if the soundtrack has been mixed with the algorithm in mind.


You keep saying you believe it... just do the test like I did. Do you have 4 overhead speakers for your Atmos setup?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Is it me or it would be great to get some updates from Dolby about some key titles ?

Wouldn't it great to hear that the last Hobbit movie, American Sniper and Night at the Museum 3 will have Atmos on Blu-ray ?

It would be a little bit reassuring...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

SteveTheGeek said:


> Is it me or it would be great to get some updates from Dolby about some key titles ?
> 
> Wouldn't it great to hear that the last Hobbit movie, American Sniper and Night at the Museum 3 will have Atmos on Blu-ray ?
> 
> It would be a little bit reassuring...


If be quite happy if those come out with Atmos!


----------



## Scott Simonian

American Sniper has a fantastic Atmos mix! Hope it is released on BD in Atmos.


----------



## asoofi1

What mounts or diy method have you guys used for overheads? I'm going to use some bookshelf speakers.


----------



## pasender91

Frank714 said:


> Had the same observation (don't remember whether it was just _Fifth Element_, too?) yesterday night and wondered myself.
> 
> Went back to the latest Dolby Atmos setup instructions (October 2014) and noticed this last paragraph:
> 
> 
> _"A center spread on/offcontrol enables the user to spread the center image across a_
> 
> _wider front soundstage.This optional feature is ideally suited for playback of two channel_
> 
> _music content or playbackof channel-based content in a *home theater*_
> 
> _*design that employs a wider screen configuration* than typical installations. The Dolby_
> 
> _surround and centerspread function should be selected from the AVR or_
> 
> _preprocessor userinterface or from the system’s remote control."_
> 
> 
> I presume this is the "Center Gain" function mentioned on pg. 183 of the Marantz SR 7009 Manual?!
> 
> What is the reason that it is explicitly mentioned on the "Dolby Surround Upmixer" page, will the Dolby Atmos Top Front speakers carry some load of the main L & R speakers?
> 
> Since my 2.35:1 screen is wider than my L & R speakers, this particular feature seems to adress my installation.
> 
> Advice, suggestions, experience would be much appreciated.


The center spread option does nothing on 5.1 content.
It is accessible only when playing 2.0 content. In this case if it is OFF, all the common signal plays from the center, so music becomes mostly monophonic, beurk !!! 
If ON then the front speakers willl retain the original signal, and DSU upmixes on the other speakers including the center and top ones 
I really don't understand why it is OFF by default, as ON is a much better proposition for all content except maybe for TV listening.
In my case it is always ON, i have a projector like you, it is so much more immersive, i strongly suggest you try it ...


----------



## Roger Dressler

pasender91 said:


> The center spread option does nothing on 5.1 content.
> It is accessible only when playing 2.0 content. In this case if it is OFF, all the common signal plays from the center, so music becomes mostly monophonic, beurk !!!


 Well, any correlated content will indeed come from the center speaker, but the rest remains in L/R. But I understand your comment. At least there's the center spread!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> This Blu-ray title is supposed to have a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack I've heard?


Do you have a link to where you heard this if true that's great news


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> In this case if it is OFF, all the common signal plays from the center, so music becomes mostly monophonic, beurk !!!


In my experience that is false. When listening to music with DSU, with Center Spread OFF, plenty of content is still coming from the L/R with a lot of ambiance extracted to the surrounds and heights.


----------



## pasender91

As mentionned by roger, with center spread OFF the uncorrelated content (ie the stereo) will remain on L/R, but the correlated content will play from center, and that's most of the content for most tracks.
With center spread ON, the L/R keep most of their original signal, to me it sound very much better , again this is is only pertinent for 2.0 sources anyway.


----------



## awblackmon

Nalleh said:


> Actually no! Those 4 disc are exellent demos of what("native") Neo:X can really do. As i said earlier: the Neo:X version of Dredd is the only time i have heard a better version than in DSU. The height info and ambiance in "the lockdown" scene where mama talks through the PA systems is a perfect example. Her voice comes from above really well, in spite of just two heights in Neo 11.1 mode. And better than DSU.


I listened to Dredd with Neo:X The hight channels were great during the lock down scene. That wasn't the only scene but it was the most impressive in the film. I wish that there were more than a few films optimized for Neo:X rather than just having Neo:X as an upmixer. I for one would love it if DTS:X films also had the tracks optimized with Neo:X I think that it would be technically possible but I won't be holding my breath on that. Wish Filmmixer would check in give us some hints.


----------



## Scott Simonian

If it would be available in DTS:*X* then you don't/wouldn't need it optimized for Neo:X. Having an object based version of a mix is WAY better than a folded down 11.1 track.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Do you have a link to where you heard this if true that's great news


I'm still looking. ...And if this flick comes on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos I'm purchasing the Marantz 8802 pre/pro. ...Or the Denon 7002 receiver. 
...Just to make sure (dts:X).


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> American Sniper has a fantastic Atmos mix! Hope it is released on BD in Atmos.


You saw @ the theater Scott?


----------



## ambesolman

Scott Simonian said:


> If it would be available in DTS:*X* then you don't/wouldn't need it optimized for Neo:X. Having an object based version of a mix is WAY better than a folded down 11.1 track.



Especially with our front forward wides...right Scott?


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Ocielz

Well I've finally upgraded my Onkyo from a 606 to a 1030 with Atmos. I have 9.2 normal and Atmos 7.2.2 with The Onkyo SKH-410. I haven't fully watched an Atmos Movie but I've heard the Atmos Demos, so far so good. I tried a quick scene in Transformers 4 and noticed a different in the sound field. I played a quiet moment, the part were they are in the old theater and tossing the football. The part were they guy tries to throw the ball and hits the floor to bounce towards the ceiling sounded wicked! It literally sounded like the ball went up and out of frame, which it did

I've tried Dolby Surround on Alien and didn't really notice anything major, maybe something here and there. 

Hoping to get more Atmos movies and enjoy the system


----------



## Kris Deering

Scott Simonian said:


> If it would be available in DTS:*X* then you don't/wouldn't need it optimized for Neo:X. Having an object based version of a mix is WAY better than a folded down 11.1 track.


This is an interesting comment. So I have a question, if you have a 7.1.4 speaker (like that Keith!) setup with an Atmos mix and you compare it to the SAME speaker layout with the same soundtrack but mixed for that channel layout (them assuming that is your layout when they do the mix) would you expect a difference in sound? If so, why??

This is my biggest conundrum with Auro vs Atmos. I completely understand why people are excited about the scalability of Atmos as it (well at least at some point down the line) will allow you to further add to your speaker setup over time to theoretically get a better immersive experience. But I also feel that if the Auro channel based layout (or really any channel based system) covers all the bases needed for a seamless soundstage above and around you, I don't see that as a compromise as it should be able to render anything Atmos could do within a mix. I've said it many times that I feel that Atmos would be a VERY enticing tool for the mixer to use given the tools but I don't see a lot of advantages for home use other than the scalability compared to a channel based system that uses the appropriate speakers to render a realistic 3D space, similar to what Auro is trying to achieve. 

Don't take this as a knock on Atmos, it is anything but, this is more about discussion and trying to understand what people think Atmos can do that sets it apart. Obviously content is king and Atmos has more of it and that may decide things regardless, I am focusing on the technology here.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Real speakers will always be better than phantom speakers though.


This is another interesting quote. I would agree with you for pinpoint location sources but those are EXTREMELY RARE in movie soundtracks with the exception of dialogue. I would imagine that 99% or more of "objects" that are rendered in an acoustic space have their sound emanating from more than one speaker as that is kind of the point of the metadata that makes Atmos special. And since Atmos is slightly fuzzy when it comes to where speakers are located (general areas and no intelligent way of inputing precise locations to the renderer) I don't think they intend for it to have extremely accurate pinpoint placement of any sound, making a real speaker even less of a requirement so long as you have enough speakers to render in a given size room. Dolby seems to think (based on the conversations I've had with them) that 7.1.4 is enough in a home theater enviroment. Just as Auro feels that their setup is enough as well. I realize that most people want to make the decision of what is "enough" for their own system, and I totally respect that, but that doesn't mean that these setups aren't enough.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Kris Deering said:


> This is another interesting quote. I would agree with you for pinpoint location sources but those are EXTREMELY RARE in movie soundtracks with the exception of dialogue. I would imagine that 99% or more of "objects" that are rendered in an acoustic space have their sound emanating from more than one speaker as that is kind of the point of the metadata that makes Atmos special. And since Atmos is slightly fuzzy when it comes to where speakers are located (general areas and no intelligent way of inputing precise locations to the renderer) I don't think they intend for it to have extremely accurate pinpoint placement of any sound, making a real speaker even less of a requirement so long as you have enough speakers to render in a given size room. Dolby seems to think (based on the conversations I've had with them) that 7.1.4 is enough in a home theater enviroment. Just as Auro feels that their setup is enough as well. I realize that most people want to make the decision of what is "enough" for their own system, and I totally respect that, but that doesn't mean that these setups aren't enough.


What about the 'snap audio to nearest loudspeaker' instruction that is present in object-based audio as an option for the producer? Or have I missed something?

That would put the sound object in a completely discrete certain speaker, close to where it's supposed to be, based on the nearest speaker location in the room.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Hey everyone I have a quick question !

I just updated from an Onkyo 737 to a 1030 to go all the way to 7.1.4. Everything works fine, but I'm wondering something...

Right now I'm using a Ampsource AMP-100 for the Height 2 channels. Should I set the volume to maximum so the receiver controls everything or I should keep it at 80%-ish to avoid distortion ?

Thanks for you help !


----------



## ThePrisoner

SteveTheGeek said:


> Hey everyone I have a quick question !
> 
> I just updated from an Onkyo 737 to a 1030 to go all the way to 7.1.4. Everything works fine, but I'm wondering something...
> 
> Right now I'm using a Ampsource AMP-100 for the Height 2 channels. Should I set the volume to maximum so the receiver controls everything or I should keep it at 80%-ish to avoid distortion ?
> 
> Thanks for you help !


The easiest method is setting the AMP-100 to maximum volume. You will not induce any distortion.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

ThePrisoner said:


> The easiest method is setting the AMP-100 to maximum volume. You will not induce any distortion.


Thanks a lot !


----------



## bargervais

Ocielz said:


> Well I've finally upgraded my Onkyo from a 606 to a 1030 with Atmos. I have 9.2 normal and Atmos 7.2.2 with The Onkyo SKH-410. I haven't fully watched an Atmos Movie but I've heard the Atmos Demos, so far so good. I tried a quick scene in Transformers 4 and noticed a different in the sound field. I played a quiet moment, the part were they are in the old theater and tossing the football. The part were they guy tries to throw the ball and hits the floor to bounce towards the ceiling sounded wicked! It literally sounded like the ball went up and out of frame, which it did
> 
> I've tried Dolby Surround on Alien and didn't really notice anything major, maybe something here and there.
> 
> Hoping to get more Atmos movies and enjoy the system


Congratulations I too have the TX-NR 1030 and love it I haven't used up firing modules I have in ceiling speakers. I have read that people who have tired modules first then changed to in or on ceiling speakers. Have noticed a better result I can't speak for that as I never tried the modules. 
I'm running 7.2.4 my .4 are in ceiling speakers. In my den I'm using the TX-NR 737 with two on ceiling speakers in my den my den is very small, the Atmos and DSU are very immersive.


----------



## Ocielz

Thanks Bargervais! 

I can't upgrade to in-ceiling speakers I'm currently renting but one day I'll upgrade to ceiling or something else. For now I'm fine with these upward firing speakers. I just put them a little bit more loud than the rest of the speakers.


----------



## krozman

FYI: Kung Fu Hustle is amazing in DSU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ambesolman said:


> Especially with our front forward wides...right Scott?
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still



Man. If I had invested so much in wides I'd be just as upset. 



Kris Deering said:


> This is an interesting comment. So I have a question, if you have a 7.1.4 speaker (like that Keith!) setup with an Atmos mix and you compare it to the SAME speaker layout with the same soundtrack but mixed for that channel layout (them assuming that is your layout when they do the mix) would you expect a difference in sound? If so, why??
> 
> This is my biggest conundrum with Auro vs Atmos. I completely understand why people are excited about the scalability of Atmos as it (well at least at some point down the line) will allow you to further add to your speaker setup over time to theoretically get a better immersive experience. But I also feel that if the Auro channel based layout (or really any channel based system) covers all the bases needed for a seamless soundstage above and around you, I don't see that as a compromise as it should be able to render anything Atmos could do within a mix. I've said it many times that I feel that Atmos would be a VERY enticing tool for the mixer to use given the tools but I don't see a lot of advantages for home use other than the scalability compared to a channel based system that uses the appropriate speakers to render a realistic 3D space, similar to what Auro is trying to achieve.
> 
> Don't take this as a knock on Atmos, it is anything but, this is more about discussion and trying to understand what people think Atmos can do that sets it apart. Obviously content is king and Atmos has more of it and that may decide things regardless, I am focusing on the technology here.


Interesting take. Definitely has some merit.

The difference though is that with a full object based version of a mix you can still extract to a surround sound system that utilized all these locations, including wides and heights. The mixdown (ala Neo:X encoded or an Auro mix) will only be capable of being expanded to their layout. A full Atmos system could have all (or nearly all) the same locations as part of Neo:X/DSX/Auro/etc and provide a fully realized soundfield intended by the sound mixer. The channel based downmix, while effective when extracted by said decoder will not expand with as much effectiveness as true object system.

The lesson is that object based surround sound is the way of the future. Channel based is archaic and no where near as flexible. We can't judge object systems in full now as they are still in their infancy. While we can have fun with a cool mix in Neo:X it is not how we should do mixes when there are better ways of achieving the same thing or better.


----------



## NorthSky

krozman said:


> FYI: Kung Fu Hustle is amazing in DSU.


And it's a great flick too; fun. ...The audio soundtrack (Chinese PCM 5.1) is wild, with the surround effects.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> So I have a question, if you have a 7.1.4 speaker (like that Keith!) setup with an Atmos mix and you compare it to the SAME speaker layout with the same soundtrack but mixed for that channel layout (them assuming that is your layout when they do the mix) would you expect a difference in sound?


No significant difference, if at all. Likewise I wouldn't expect a difference between an Atmos soundtrack and a channel-based soundtrack mixed for a 5.1.2 speaker set-up. Same with an Atmos soundtrack vs a channel-based soundtrack mixed specifically for a 9.1.6 set-up. 

The only significant difference would be that the Atmos soundtrack would natively scale to all three layouts, while you'd need three separate channel-based mixes to get similar results.


----------



## pasender91

Craig Mecak said:


> What about the 'snap audio to nearest loudspeaker' instruction that is present in object-based audio as an option for the producer? Or have I missed something?
> 
> That would put the sound object in a completely discrete certain speaker, close to where it's supposed to be, based on the nearest speaker location in the room.


As far as we understood from "experts" in dolby interviews and from film mixers, this option is NOT used in the general case.
If an object moves around, it would "jump" abruptly from a speaker to the next, and this is NOT good at all for immersion.
So this is not used, and experts still debate in which conditions it could actually be a useful feature ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> This is an interesting comment. So I have a question, if you have a 7.1.4 speaker (like that Keith!) setup with an Atmos mix and you compare it to the SAME speaker layout with the same soundtrack but mixed for that channel layout (them assuming that is your layout when they do the mix) would you expect a difference in sound? If so, why??
> 
> This is my biggest conundrum with Auro vs Atmos. I completely understand why people are excited about the scalability of Atmos as it (well at least at some point down the line) will allow you to further add to your speaker setup over time to theoretically get a better immersive experience. But I also feel that if the Auro channel based layout (or really any channel based system) covers all the bases needed for a seamless soundstage above and around you, I don't see that as a compromise as it should be able to render anything Atmos could do within a mix. *I've said it many times that I feel that Atmos would be a VERY enticing tool for the mixer to use given the tools *but I don't see a lot of advantages for home use other than the scalability compared to a channel based system that uses the appropriate speakers to render a realistic 3D space, similar to what Auro is trying to achieve.
> 
> Don't take this as a knock on Atmos, it is anything but, this is more about discussion and trying to understand what people think Atmos can do that sets it apart. Obviously content is king and Atmos has more of it and that may decide things regardless, I am focusing on the technology here.


Mostly agree with you. The point I’d make is that if the mixer can more easily render his creative vision with Atmos (or object-based mixing from anywhere), and we are told he can, then a) this will become the de facto mixing standard and b) it WILL bring benefits to home users because a better mix benefits everyone.

IMO it is precisely the fact that mixers prefer objects to channels which will signal the way forward, and the eventual demise of channel-based mixing. Object-based is easier, and therefore quicker and cheaper, and it is also better (gives a better end result because it gives the mixer easier and better control over what he wants to do).

That is the reason Auro will disappear - another landmark on the AV path to prosperity, like HD-DVD, 8-track, cassettes, turntables and so on... all disappeared but remembered fondly by most of us. Auro came along at more or less exactly the worst possible time it could have, from Van Baelen's perspective: a channel-based system just as the world is moving to objects. He'll fight to keep it alive of course - he has a considerable financial investment in it, but ultimately he would be better to throw in the towel now, and not throw good money after bad. And DTS's intervention now has made things a thousand times worse for Auro of course. It's just a dead duck. IMO, obviously


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> This is another interesting quote. I would agree with you for pinpoint location sources but those are EXTREMELY RARE in movie soundtracks with the exception of dialogue. I would imagine that 99% or more of "objects" that are rendered in an acoustic space have their sound emanating from more than one speaker as that is kind of the point of the metadata that makes Atmos special. And since Atmos is slightly fuzzy when it comes to where speakers are located (general areas and no intelligent way of inputing precise locations to the renderer) I don't think they intend for it to have extremely accurate pinpoint placement of any sound, making a real speaker even less of a requirement so long as you have enough speakers to render in a given size room. Dolby seems to think (based on the conversations I've had with them) that 7.1.4 is enough in a home theater enviroment. Just as Auro feels that their setup is enough as well. I realize that most people want to make the decision of what is "enough" for their own system, and I totally respect that, but that doesn't mean that these setups aren't enough.


You run a center speaker, right? Not a phantom center?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> *The lesson is that object based surround sound is the way of the future. Channel based is archaic and no where near as flexible.* We can't judge object systems in full now as they are still in their infancy. While we can have fun with a cool mix in Neo:X it is not how we should do mixes when there are better ways of achieving the same thing or better.


Listen up folks. Scott is not just about pizza and subwoofers a small family could live in.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No significant difference, if at all. Likewise I wouldn't expect a difference between an Atmos soundtrack and a channel-based soundtrack mixed for a 5.1.2 speaker set-up. Same with an Atmos soundtrack vs a channel-based soundtrack mixed specifically for a 9.1.6 set-up.
> *
> The only significant difference would be that the Atmos soundtrack would natively scale to all three layouts, while you'd need three separate channel-based mixes to get similar results.*


And therein lies the future success of it, and the demise of channel-based mixing.


----------



## Gurba

asoofi1 said:


> What mounts or diy method have you guys used for overheads? I'm going to use some bookshelf speakers.


I use on-wall speakers on the ceiling. They already have keyholes. Maybe you can get some keyhole fittings?
http://www.rockler.com/keyhole-fittings-select-either-single-or-double


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Kris,



Kris Deering said:


> By your statement you sound like you're making the assumption that the objects can only come from individual speakers and not phased appropriately to the speakers you've told your processor you have. Again, anything can be rendered in the acoustic space and more speakers makes that easier but that isn't to say you still couldn't position the sound where intended with only 7.1.4.


In Dcember, the HCFR Forum where I write, had the opportunity to assist to an Atmos 24fps->25fps remixing of the Luc Besson's Lucy film... see my article (in French) in the link bellow. And for those eventually interested, sorry, but I don't know when, or even if, an Atmos version of this film will be available on Bluray... but an Atmos mix of it, does exist. 

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/

Anyway the Studio where this remixing took place had an Atmos 7.1.4 (Top Front/Top rear) type of speakers setup. Now as can be seen in the small video I made, and which is embeded in the middle of the article, even though the installation and the rendering base was 7.1.4, the Atmos objects were obviously not directly linked to a channel or a specific speaker. 

As in this Atmos (Lucy) case, the objects were able to evolve in space, through the specific use of an adequate combination of the speakers composing the 7.1.4 installation.

Now myself owning a 9.2.4 installation driven by a Marantz AV7702, used in 7.2.4 in Atmos/DSU and 9.2.2 in DTS Neo X 11 Music, I was really impressed by what I heard during this Lucy remixing experience. 

But I also think that if in today's main stream processors, the actual limitation in the use of only 11+2 channels at the same time, could be lifted to 13+2 or 15+2 channels of use at the same time, this would directly benefit to the precision of the location of the above mentionned objects.

Would that really be of any worth in a HT installation? My own answer is : yes. Singularly in the "view" of what can be experienced with the use of the Wide speakers in a HT installation.

So "the _mo'_, the _better_", I definitively agree. 

Hugo


----------



## tj21

Nalleh said:


> Typo, right? You meant Neo:X?
> 
> The flags are similar to when surround channels were matrixed into the main channels in Pro Logic. Explained in the link.
> And yes, i did the Exendables 2 11.1 channel test too, and ONLY Neo:X made it. Quite convincingly too.


Yes, fixed the typo.

I don't think there is a 'flag' in 'Pro Logic mix'. There is only Dolby Surround mix and there is Dolby Pro Logic decoding. The decoder has no information if the incoming 2 channel sound was Dolby Surround or not. The Dolby Surround matrix uses mixing described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Surround

I believe Neo:X is working in similar way. Just to test the theory I created my own 8 channel track and mixed the same sound to combinations of 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, ... channels. With Neo:X decoding on I got the sound placement to high front left channel with channel 1 and channel 4 combination mix without any need of a flag.




kbarnes701 said:


> I already tried it with Dredd. It is way better when upmixed with DSU, even though it is 'optimized' for Neo:X. It is much more immersive - just as one would expect when upmixing to twice as many overhead speakers.


Interesting. I prefer proper placement ('Atmos like') over immersion - quality over quantity. Unfortunately there is very little detail about how Dolby Pro Logic IIz and DSU which I think is just an extension of IIz work. Are the top channels playing the same sound or not? I plan to do some tests with my own mix of uncorrelated channel combinations and reverse engineer the format a bit.




kbarnes701 said:


> You keep saying you believe it... just do the test like I did. Do you have 4 overhead speakers for your Atmos setup?


I do more testing than actual movie watching  Yes, 4 overhead speakers with X5200W - see here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-520.html#post29792657


----------



## tj21

Scott Simonian said:


> If it would be available in DTS:*X* then you don't/wouldn't need it optimized for Neo:X. Having an object based version of a mix is WAY better than a folded down 11.1 track.


Not for those who have AVR that can decode DTS Neo:X but not DTS:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> What mounts or diy method have you guys used for overheads? I'm going to use some bookshelf speakers.


I am using Tannoy Di5 DCs - they come with their own C bracket designed especially for mounting in locations like ceilings. A lot of the 'outdoor' type speakers come with similar brackets - check out Tannoy, Kef, B&W etc. These speakers also have the advantage, usually, of being wide dispersion and relatively inexpensive as they don't come with fancy veneers etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

tj21 said:


> Interesting. I prefer proper placement ('Atmos like') over immersion - quality over quantity. Unfortunately there is very little detail about how Dolby Pro Logic IIz and DSU which I think is just an extension of IIz work. Are the top channels playing the same sound or not? I plan to do some tests with my own mix of uncorrelated channel combinations and reverse engineer the format a bit.


it isn't 'proper placement'. It is an upmix. Proper placement would have required the movie to be mixed specifically for Height channels, and it wasn't. They have 'optimized' it for Neo:X - nobody knows what 'optimizes' means. It could be just marketing. More likely they have used some additional phase manipulation etc. But it isn't 'proper placement'. It's just preference. As is DSU. But the latter uses all 4 of my overhead speakers not just two mounted high on the front wall. Which do you think will give a better impression of sound coming from above - two speakers on the front wall or four speakers overhead?

But all this is circular. To compare Neo:X and DSU with this movie I used an Atmos 5.2.4 setup for DSU and, at the time, I still had my height speakers mounted on the wall (for PLIIz etc) so I used those for the Neo:X test. How did you do the comparison? Did you have the front heights in place and do it the same way as me?



tj21 said:


> I do more testing than actual movie watching  Yes, 4 overhead speakers with X5200W - see here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-520.html#post29792657


I am the opposite. None of this AV stuff interests me of itself - for me it is just a means to an end: a better movie-watching experience. Movies are my hobby, not the means of delivering them into my HT. Of course, we have to work hard on the latter to get the best for the former, but YKWIM


----------



## Frank714

robert816 said:


> Amazon Japan shows an April release of _Chicago_ with a Dolby Atmos mix.
> Even Blu-Ray.com shows the Japanese version as Atmos, I'll keep an eye out for more information.
> 
> Japanese version: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Chicago-Blu-ray/123482/


Because that would constitute the first remix of a non-Dolby Atmos film, I remained curious.

Turns out that _Chicago_ is apparently the first film remastered in *Dolby Vision*. 

Looks to me that the folks at Dolby were smart enough seizing the occasion to persuade Rob Marshall (director) not only to have _Chicago_ remastered in Dolby Vision but have it remixed in Dolby Atmos, too.

Hey, Dolby, I have Joseph Kosinski's e-mail address, could you PLEASE get in touch with him, too?


----------



## robert816

Frank714 said:


> Because that would constitute the first remix of a non-Dolby Atmos film, I remained curious.
> 
> Turns out that _Chicago_ is apparently the first film remastered in *Dolby Vision*.
> 
> Looks to me that the folks at Dolby were smart enough seizing the occasion to persuade Rob Marshall (director) not only to have _Chicago_ remastered in Dolby Vision but have it remixed in Dolby Atmos, too.
> 
> Hey, Dolby, I have Joseph Kosinski's e-mail address, could you PLEASE get in touch with him, too?


Good find! I went ahead and pre-ordered the Japanese version after I posted about it.

Will remastering with Dolby Vision give us a brighter more detailed picture on existing televisions? Or will this require an upgrade to the 4K televisions with higher nit ratings?

I watched Fury with DSU last night. Wow! What a great sounding film!

Also, the four new Ghost in the Shell Anime films, Arise Border 1: Ghost Pain, Arise Border 2: Ghost Whispers, Arise Border 3: Ghost Tears, and finally Arise Border 4: Ghost Stands Alone, sound fantastic with DSU.


----------



## Nalleh

Frank714 said:


> Because that would constitute the first remix of a non-Dolby Atmos film, I remained curious.


Not true. John Wick was not released in Atmos at the cinema either.
But the Bluray is mixed in Atmos.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> You run a center speaker, right? Not a phantom center?


Of course, which is why I said what I did in the first line about dialogue. But I've been in LOTS of systems that don't use a center and rely no a phantom image that sounds just fine. In fact, depending on the system sometimes this works better than a dedicated center channel simply because of the layout of the room and the compromises of a horizontal center channel compared to a floor standing speaker. Obviously this varies case to case and has NOTHING to do with Atmos, Auro or any other format. 

I love all the replies. So far it looks like we're all on the same page in regards to the benefits of Atmos over Auro and other existing options out there. The biggest benefit is its expandability and adaptability to different layouts and number of speakers and obviously the tools given to the mixer to easily develop immersive mixes that we can all enjoy.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Of course, which is why I said what I did in the first line about dialogue. *But I've been in LOTS of systems that don't use a center and rely no a phantom image that sounds just fine.* In fact, depending on the system sometimes this works better than a dedicated center channel simply because of the layout of the room and the compromises of a horizontal center channel compared to a floor standing speaker. Obviously this varies case to case and has NOTHING to do with Atmos, Auro or any other format.


So long as there is only one listener. Have multiple listeners and a physical speaker is required, unless those not sitting in the dead center don't mind the unbalanced imaging.  I was just making the point, tongue a little in cheek, that a physical speaker is an unbeatable thing really. It's not especially an important point though I agree.



Kris Deering said:


> I love all the replies. So far it looks like we're all on the same page in regards to the benefits of Atmos over Auro and other existing options out there. The biggest benefit is its expandability and adaptability to different layouts and number of speakers and obviously the tools given to the mixer to easily develop immersive mixes that we can all enjoy.


Yes, we are in broad agreement it seems


----------



## Csbooth

Nalleh said:


> Not true. John Wick was not released in Atmos at the cinema either.
> But the Bluray is mixed in Atmos.


Don't forget Step Up 5 lol


----------



## Ocielz

Can't wait to see and Hear John Wick

My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Should I recalibrate audyssey with the in-ceiling speakers*

Some of you are aware that I just installed in ceiling speakers to replace the modules I had previously for the fronts. Wondering now if I should have run Audyssey again. Takes almost 30 minutes
every time I have to run Audyssey a PITA . I guess I already know the answer is ,yes you should, but would it make much of a difference?  Just wondering if the modules delivery timing are different given the distance the sound has to travel, is twice that of the direct firing in-ceiling speaker.


----------



## roxiedog13

Ocielz said:


> Can't wait to see and Hear John Wick
> 
> My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.


Your right, now we don't just "watch" a movie, now we have to hear it too. This is getting just too complicated. 
Actually with my seat shakers, I'm feeling it too......bloody sensory overload IMHO !!  I think I need a drink :wink:


----------



## sdurani

tj21 said:


> Not for those who have AVR that can decode DTS Neo:X but not DTS:X.


Right, and not for the 99% of our media libraries that will not be object-based DTS:X mixes.


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> Not true. John Wick was not released in Atmos at the cinema either.
> But the Bluray is mixed in Atmos.


Step Up: All In was also not release in Atmos in cinemas, but was in Atmos on Blu-ray (same studio as John Wick, which was an Auro exclusive in cinemas).


----------



## briansxx

roxiedog13 said:


> Some of you are aware that I just installed in ceiling speakers to replace the modules I had previously for the fronts. Wondering now if I should have run Audyssey again. Takes almost 30 minutes
> every time I have to run Audyssey a PITA . I guess I already know the answer is ,yes you should, but would it make much of a difference?  Just wondering if the modules delivery timing are different given the distance the sound has to travel, is twice that of the direct firing in-ceiling speaker.


Roxiedog,

I'd be very interested in your opinion of the ceiling mounted speakers vs the modules when you are set up.

Thanks and All the Best,

Brian


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> it isn't 'proper placement'. It is an upmix. Proper placement would have required the movie to be mixed specifically for Height channels, and it wasn't. They have 'optimized' it for Neo:X - nobody knows what 'optimizes' means.


There were three movies released on BD by Lionsgate (Dredd, Expendables 2, Step Up: Revolution) that had their theatrical soundtracks remixed to discrete 11.1 for home video. The 11.1 channels were the traditional 7.1 plus 2 heights and 2 wides, with speakers laid out per Neo:X specifications. 

The 11.1 channels were downmixed to 7.1 using Neo:X matrix encoding. The Wide channels were split between their respective Front & Side channels while the Height channels were split between their respective Front & Rear channels. Since the downmix proportions were decided by the Neo:X matrix encoder, they were the exact inverse of (perfectly matched for) Neo:X matrix decoding to recover the original 11.1 channels during playback. 

Each of those Blu-rays includes an 11.1 channel check track in the bonus features. As one would expect, Neo:X decoding of the Neo:X encoded material sounds almost like discrete 11.1 channels.


----------



## htpcforever

Ocielz said:


> Can't wait to see and Hear John Wick
> 
> My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.


I do not have 3D sound yet (still on 9.2 with Neo:X), but my wife liked John Wick a lot - and she is your typical woman who does not really get into the guns and explosion films too much. She told me she empathized with John Wick and found his character believable (all in all, she knows no one is THAT good of a shot in real life).


----------



## roxiedog13

htpcforever said:


> I do not have 3D sound yet (still on 9.2 with Neo:X), but my wife liked John Wick a lot - and she is your typical woman who does not really get into the guns and explosion films too much. She told me she empathized with John Wick and found his character believable (all in all, she knows no one is THAT good of a shot in real life).


Was your wife the typical woman that said " honey I miss you, but my aim is getting better?" Sorry, couldn't resist. :grin:


----------



## Selden Ball

roxiedog13 said:


> Some of you are aware that I just installed in ceiling speakers to replace the modules I had previously for the fronts. Wondering now if I should have run Audyssey again. Takes almost 30 minutes
> every time I have to run Audyssey a PITA . I guess I already know the answer is ,yes you should, but would it make much of a difference?  Just wondering if the modules delivery timing are different given the distance the sound has to travel, is twice that of the direct firing in-ceiling speaker.



Unfortunately, yes, you should run Audyssey again. The in-ceiling speakers will have frequency profiles which are different from the upfiring modules, with different crossover frequencies as well as different distances.

Don't forget to change the speaker configuration in your receiver before you run Audyssey. Bass management is handled differently for upfiring modules than for direct-firing speakers. (Upfiring speakers are expected to have extremely limited bass, so frequencies below about 180Hz are redirected to the associated ear-level speakers.)


----------



## jdsmoothie

roxiedog13 said:


> Some of you are aware that I just installed in ceiling speakers to replace the modules I had previously for the fronts. Wondering now if I should have run Audyssey again. *Takes almost 30 minutes*
> every time I have to run Audyssey a PITA . I guess I already know the answer is ,yes you should, but would it make much of a difference?  Just wondering if the modules delivery timing are different given the distance the sound has to travel, is twice that of the direct firing in-ceiling speaker.


Why that long? Should take < 15 minutes.


----------



## roxiedog13

briansxx said:


> Roxiedog,
> 
> I'd be very interested in your opinion of the ceiling mounted speakers vs the modules when you are set up.
> 
> Thanks and All the Best,
> 
> Brian


I am setup to be honest, will run Audyssey just to be sure all is perfect and then report back. The Atmos up-firing module v's ceiling ( in or on) does depend on a lot of variables, I will say that
right away. From all that I have read, ceiling speakers are better than up-firing . Placement of the up-firing , if you have separate modules that is, can be tricky. In my opinion the up-firing is much more sensitive to location and other variables like ceiling height, ceiling design and materials. If you're close with the ceiling speaker placement by Dolby standards I would expect descent results. The modules I have , and this is due to my lower ceiling for the most part, had to be moved much closer to the MLP. When the sweet spot was located the speaker did the job well. My modules were the Onyko SK-410 ( now for sale I might add) are the first generation of modules and likely the lowest price point of any out there so far. A higher end module with better specs 
would be better I suppose, that also depends on the size of your room, distance to the MLP etc. The Niles in-ceiling speakers that I installed are of a much higher quality than my modules so
you would expect better soundstage especially with the dual apposing tweeter set up for high diffuse sound. 

At this point the sound is definitely a little better, not night and day though. Once I run the Audyssey tonight I will report back if it improves .


----------



## smurraybhm

jdsmoothie said:


> Why that long? Should take < 15 minutes.


I was wondering the exact same thing. Calibration is much quicker with this year's models - if we are talking D&M from my own experience.


----------



## roxiedog13

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, yes, you should run Audyssey again. The in-ceiling speakers will have frequency profiles which are different from the upfiring modules, with different crossover frequencies as well as different distances.
> 
> Don't forget to change the speaker configuration in your receiver before you run Audyssey. Bass management is handled differently for upfiring modules than for direct-firing speakers. (Upfiring speakers are expected to have extremely limited bass, so frequencies below about 180Hz are redirected to the associated ear-level speakers.)


Excellent! I thought so, just forgot to run it after the retrofit Wed. night.


----------



## roxiedog13

jdsmoothie said:


> Why that long? Should take < 15 minutes.


Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but having 11 speakers and two subs to calibrate plus 8 locations that have to be measured seems to take forever. 13X8= 104 . The test tone the pause and then the setup of the mic on a tripod in the 8 locations I guessed was even greater than 30 minutes to be honest. Factor in the reality that I'm ADD, nothing can move fast enough for my attention span. 

I'll time this process tonight , just for $hit$ and giggles.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Some of you are aware that I just installed in ceiling speakers to replace the modules I had previously for the fronts. Wondering now if I should have run Audyssey again. Takes almost 30 minutes
> every time I have to run Audyssey a PITA . I guess I already know the answer is ,yes you should, but would it make much of a difference?  Just wondering if the modules delivery timing are different given the distance the sound has to travel, is twice that of the direct firing in-ceiling speaker.


Yes - it is essential that you re-run Audyssey. For one thing, Audyssey will have taken into account the psychoacoustic 'notch' wrt to the modules and which is no longer present with the physical speakers. For another, the new speakers are different, so a different calibration will be needed. And for a third, the new speakers are in a different location. Dig out the mic and get cracking...


----------



## tj21

jdsmoothie said:


> Why that long? Should take < 15 minutes.


Just to build the paper rocket takes 15 minutes. On top of that you have to send your whole family away - especially kids find the test sounds funny.


----------



## htpcforever

roxiedog13 said:


> Was your wife the typical woman that said " honey I miss you, but my aim is getting better?" Sorry, couldn't resist. :grin:


 She shoots a little low and to the right, but in a nice tight pattern. On a silhouette, instead of hitting the heart she will take out the person's left lung. She is also recently got her black belt...I try not to piss her off! lol


There is not much sexier than a woman who can shoot, kick ass with her bare hands, can cook like a grandmother, and is a lady in the street but a...


----------



## smurraybhm

roxiedog13 said:


> Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but having 11 speakers and two subs to calibrate plus 8 locations that have to be measured seems to take forever. 13X8= 104 . The test tone the pause and then the setup of the mic on a tripod in the 8 locations I guessed was even greater than 30 minutes to be honest. Factor in the reality that I'm ADD, nothing can move fast enough for my attention span.
> 
> I'll time this process tonight , just for $hit$ and giggles.


As do I and it should only be about 15 minutes max unless you are doing the sub crawl


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Highdefdigest are saying that Exodus will be coming with an Atmos soundtrack.

That would be the first release from the 20th Century Fox in Atmos right ?

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/17715/exodusgodsandkings.html


----------



## stikle

tj21 said:


> Just to build the paper rocket takes 15 minutes. On top of that you have to send your whole family away - especially kids find the test sounds funny.



Do you have a real camera tripod? That's what I use. Much quicker and easier.



jdsmoothie said:


> Should take < 15 minutes.





smurraybhm said:


> As do I and it should only be about 15 minutes max


^ This.



kbarnes701 said:


> taken into account the psychoacoustic 'notch' wrt to the modules


WRT = With Regard To...so With Regard To To is what you're saying? Don't talk about my Tutu. You can take this correction to the ATM machine and stick it in the bank (since I have nothing else meaninful to contribute this time). 

Cheers (as you blokes say)!


----------



## lujan

roxiedog13 said:


> ...
> 
> I'll time this process tonight , just for $hit$ and giggles.


Yes Austin...


----------



## briansxx

roxiedog13 said:


> I am setup to be honest, will run Audyssey just to be sure all is perfect and then report back. The Atmos up-firing module v's ceiling ( in or on) does depend on a lot of variables, I will say that
> right away. From all that I have read, ceiling speakers are better than up-firing . Placement of the up-firing , if you have separate modules that is, can be tricky. In my opinion the up-firing is much more sensitive to location and other variables like ceiling height, ceiling design and materials. If you're close with the ceiling speaker placement by Dolby standards I would expect descent results. The modules I have , and this is due to my lower ceiling for the most part, had to be moved much closer to the MLP. When the sweet spot was located the speaker did the job well. My modules were the Onyko SK-410 ( now for sale I might add) are the first generation of modules and likely the lowest price point of any out there so far. A higher end module with better specs
> would be better I suppose, that also depends on the size of your room, distance to the MLP etc. The Niles in-ceiling speakers that I installed are of a much higher quality than my modules so
> you would expect better soundstage especially with the dual apposing tweeter set up for high diffuse sound.
> 
> At this point the sound is definitely a little better, not night and day though. Once I run the Audyssey tonight I will report back if it improves .


Roxiedog,

Thank you for the detailed response. It is much appreciated. My modules fire upwards to a vaulted ceiling (they are both on the same side of the "slope."). I do have beams that run across, making a triangle with the vault, and I have thought about mounting speakers on those beams. I might just give it a try as I can wire speakers there temporarily and judge the effect of various placements.

Thanks again and all the best,

Brian


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SteveTheGeek said:


> Highdefdigest are saying that Exodus will be coming with an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> That would be the first release from the 20th Century Fox in Atmos right ?
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/17715/exodusgodsandkings.html


I'd avoid Exodus on BD... I saw Atmos in the theater... not much going on Atmos wise that I noticed. Exodus was also very boring (as a Ridley fan I was disappointed), I'd rather watch the old 10 commandments movie (tbh). The only thing I heard in the theater that was Atmos-ish in Exodus was a scene with sea gulls flying over head. A lot of missed opportunities with rain storms/ hail storm/ the plagues which sounded flat. I felt the same way about American Sniper, though that at least had a bit more Atmos-ish stuff going on. 

Mockingjay might be a good one to get on Atmos... some fantastic overhead stuff going on in that film, though overall not much action in the film. But... after I saw those dropships take off... I couldn't shut up about it on this forum, that sounded badass. 




Ocielz said:


> Can't wait to see and Hear John Wick
> 
> My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.


Pre-ordered my copy the other day


----------



## Frank714

Nalleh said:


> Not true. John Wick was not released in Atmos at the cinema either.
> But the Bluray is mixed in Atmos.


You are technically right, bad wording on my part (I know that _John Wick_ had been mixed in Auro 3D, I was thinking along the lines of an older film that had never been prepared for either Dolby Atmos or Auro 3D).


----------



## HT-Eman

*Dolby Atmos Ready !!!*

All ready to give Dolby Atmos a shot. Just waiting on a new receiver with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X . 

Bed Channel Speakers are from Axiom Audio = 7
Subwoofer is HSU VTF3 MK4 = 1
On-Ceiling speakers for Atmos is Yamaha AW390 = 4 ( pair inside box )


----------



## roxiedog13

briansxx said:


> Roxiedog,
> 
> Thank you for the detailed response. It is much appreciated. My modules fire upwards to a vaulted ceiling (they are both on the same side of the "slope."). I do have beams that run across, making a triangle with the vault, and I have thought about mounting speakers on those beams. I might just give it a try as I can wire speakers there temporarily and judge the effect of various placements.
> 
> Thanks again and all the best,
> 
> Brian


With a vaulted ceiling and cross beams, I'd definitely go with on-ceiling( or on beam in your case)


----------



## NorthSky

> Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but having 11 speakers and two subs to calibrate plus 8 locations that have to be measured seems to take forever. 13X8= 104 . The test tone the pause and then the setup of the mic on a tripod in the 8 locations I guessed was even greater than 30 minutes to be honest. Factor in the reality that I'm ADD, nothing can move fast enough for my attention span.
> 
> I'll time this process tonight , just for $hit$ and giggles.


I fully agree with you.

______

♦ An 11.2-channel surround sound setup, with all the eight position microphone measurements, from Audyssey MultEQ XT32, taken with diligence, care and patience for best optimal results; can take up from 40 to 80 minutes, on average.
Personally, it takes me a full evening, roughly 6 hours, because I do several reruns for best experimentation. 

Most people (99%) would never take the time to do like that; only one run, and roughly 30-40 minutes (or a little less with the latest Denon/Marantz products). ...But even with say a Denon AVR-X7200W receiver (Atmos 7.2.4 plus other speakers for Auro-3D different speakers positioning and configuration, for DTS Neo:X, for DSX with Wides and Heights, ...) , a well executed Auyssey MultEQ XT32 calibration and EQ routine with the recommended eight (8) mic position measurements, would take @ least a good hour if you want the best results in your room. IMO

If you are not into that kind of stuff, then simply get an Onkyo Atmos receiver. ...AccuEQ is real fast. 

Lol, 15 minutes Audysssey calibration and EQ is for one (1) mic measurement from Audyssey 2EQ (lowest flavor). 

Ok, let ask honestly the members here who have the latest Atmos receivers from Denon/Marantz (and the 7702 Marantz pre/pro),
and who did the full Audyssey MultEQ XT32 calibration and EQ routine (with care), and who also did the full eight recommended mic measurements?
How long did it take from start to finish? ...And not the mickey mouse way, but the professional way, with a boom stand mic, making sure of no noise in the room (unplugging the fridge, removing the batteries in those noisy clocks, repeating the measurements if a plane or a car or a dog entered the decor, ...), taking the time to position that mic @ those precise eight positions (already determined from a meticulous drawing plan), and always position yourself (body) out of the way, and stay still and quiet. 

Go ahead, be frank.


----------



## Movie78

I am itching so much and impatient that i want to an Atmos receiver.

But this whole DTS X is messing me up...

Should i wait or BUY?


----------



## NorthSky

tj21 said:


> Just to build the paper rocket takes 15 minutes. On top of that you have to send your whole family away - especially kids find the test sounds funny.


You are not serious? 

1. Who is using a cardboard tower mic holder to do an Audyssey calibration and equalization?
2. And 15 minutes just to put it together? ...I bet it takes more like 20-25 minutes.
3. How long does it take to send away a family of say seven children, grandma and grandpa and mum, and the four dogs and four cats?
5. ......


----------



## NorthSky

Ocielz said:


> Can't wait to see and Hear *John Wick*
> 
> My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.


Is this a great love "active" story? ...Truly passionate love story between a man and his dog? ...And the Blu-ray is in Dolby Atmos. 

I'm going to get it for sure; I love dogs, and passionate love. I can easily see all the "overhead" sound affection provenance.


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> I am itching so much and impatient that i want to an Atmos receiver.
> 
> But this whole DTS X is messing me up...
> 
> Should i wait or BUY?


I think you can buy the Denon 7200 model receiver with confidence (the only one). ...The others, only if you don't care about DTS:X. 
And if not, just wait few more weeks for much more precise info. 

That, is my own personal opinion of course. ...And only because you just asked.


----------



## Selden Ball

Movie78 said:


> I am itching so much and impatient that i want to an Atmos receiver.
> 
> But this whole DTS X is messing me up...
> 
> Should i wait or BUY?


If you're anxiously waiting for DTS:X, I'd suggest getting something cheap that you'll just use until this Fall. (e.g. one of the low-end Onkyo 5.1.2 AVRs)

If you want to wait for full 4K video support, or if DTS:X doesn't matter to you, a more expensive AVR with support for more Atmos channels (e.g. 7.1.4) might be appropriate, since you'd be enjoying it at least until Fall, 2016. Current rumors suggest that the 4K HDMI chipsets that'll be available in the 2015 AVR models still won't have all of the necessary features.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> I fully agree with you.
> 
> ______
> 
> ♦ An 11.2-channel surround sound setup, with all the eight position microphone measurements, from Audyssey MultEQ XT32, taken with diligence, care and patience for best optimal results; can take up from 40 to 80 minutes, on average.
> Personally, it takes me a full evening, roughly 6 hours, because I do several reruns for best experimentation.


Bob - in case you missed it over in the Denon thread, one very nice improvement with this year's D&M units with XT32 is that the amount of time it takes to do a calibration is greatly reduced. My Denon 4311 would take twice as long (at least) to do a calibration vs. the 5200. I use a mic stand with a boom, so positioning the mic in different locations is easy. Another nice feature is the GUI maps out each location where you should place the mic - a fairly tight cluster around the master listening position. As for re-runs, sub crawl and moving furniture around - that's "extra."

I have been very pleased at how easy its been to get very good results with the 5200 vs. other receivers I've owned assuming you've configured your system correctly during set-up. I've only had to re-run Audyssey when I have added speakers or moved speakers.


----------



## BamaDave

briansxx said:


> Roxiedog,
> 
> I'd be very interested in your opinion of the ceiling mounted speakers vs the modules when you are set up.
> 
> Thanks and All the Best,
> 
> Brian


I'm in process of building some purpose built speakers with custome built angled cabinets for my HT. The parts are on there way now. I'll provide photos & details as the build progresses!


----------



## Stanton

Selden Ball said:


> Current rumors suggest that the 4K HDMI chipsets that'll be available in the 2015 AVR models still won't have all of the necessary features.


Source? We already know an upgrade board (Denon) available in Spring 2015, so I don't see why new models that typically come out in the Fall won't have HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2


----------



## gerchy

I just watched John Wick.
Not much ceiling activity here either.
Except in three scenes: rain on the funeral, music in the bathroom and at the final scene where is rain again. 
Sure the ceiling speakers are playing - in fact a lot more than in TF4. But if someone would turn them off I wouldn't probably even notice.
Waiting for more movies!


----------



## Ocielz

^^^ Damn.....I was expecting more


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Is this a great love "active" story? ...Truly passionate love story between a man and his dog? ...And the Blu-ray is in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> I'm going to get it for sure; I love dogs, and passionate love. I can easily see all the "overhead" sound affection provenance.


I think you missed the movie the dog was the last gift from his wife that just died that he cherish in the beginning of the movie when they KILLED the dog that was the last straw.... I'll say no more...


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Highdefdigest are saying that Exodus will be coming with an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> That would be the first release from the 20th Century Fox in Atmos right ?
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/17715/exodusgodsandkings.html


That is great news that yet another blu-ray with Atmos 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/
Yes a first from 20th century Fox. I see some have reported that it wasn't that good in the theater but that maybe that theater wasn't doing a good job let's see how it's on blu-ray before we judge..


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - it is essential that you re-run Audyssey. For one thing, Audyssey will have taken into account the psychoacoustic 'notch' wrt to the modules and which is no longer present with the physical speakers. For another, the new speakers are different, so a different calibration will be needed. And for a third, the new speakers are in a different location. Dig out the mic and get cracking...



Sir, yes sir, on the double, setting up in T minus 10 . :serious: I'm so glad you guys know so much, your knowledge makes my life so much easier. I'm getting there, one brain cell at a time.
May loose a few cells with some beer tonight though , guess I'll finish the evening balanced . :devil:


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - in case you missed it over in the Denon thread, one very nice improvement with this year's D&M units with XT32 is that the amount of time it takes to do a calibration is greatly reduced. My Denon 4311 would take twice as long (at least) to do a calibration vs. the 5200. I use a mic stand with a boom, so positioning the mic in different locations is easy. Another nice feature is the GUI maps out each location where you should place the mic - a fairly tight cluster around the master listening position. As for re-runs, sub crawl and moving furniture around - that's "extra."
> 
> I have been very pleased at how easy its been to get very good results with the 5200 vs. other receivers I've owned assuming you've configured your system correctly during set-up. I've only had to re-run Audyssey when I have added speakers or moved speakers.


Hi Steve,

Yes, I am aware of the shorter time this year. But you still have to manually position the mic @ eight different locations; not rushing but with decent precision. Yes, you can do that in about 30 minutes when all well prepared. ...For some people, not all of them, because there are many other factors to consider, and that takes time too. ...That is if you are into a good assurance in the optimal performance of your auto room calibration and EQ routine; just read the Official Audyssey thread for example. ...Or just the Audyssey Guide, which should not take more than a week to fully comprehend in theory and in practice. 

We're all different; some are very simple and they'll run just few mic measurements, others none @ all, and people like me, who are true addicted maniacs, will never stop in running Audyssey, and I'm getting ready for a new machine (Atmos & DTS:X & 4K). 
Meanwhile I love life, I love my dogs, I love my cats, I love my children, I love my friends, and I love my music and my movies. 

Time is all we truly have.


----------



## bargervais

Ocielz said:


> ^^^ Damn.....I was expecting more


I'm still going to keep my order... remember Atmos is alot more then what's coming from above it's a complete immersive experience. Looking forward for my copy of John Wick..


----------



## Ocielz

^^^ of course I'm still getting the movie  I have to wait till March or April for my copy of NOVA Media Steelbook edition


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I think you missed the movie the dog was the last gift from his wife that just died that he cherish in the beginning of the movie when they KILLED the dog that was the last straw.... I'll say no more...


From one of the trailers there was some rain falling from the sky and hitting the umbrellas, right? ...Must be cool in Dolby Atmos from the overheads.
Bullets are from the sides and front and behind, right? ...And music comes from the heavens, right?

))))))) Lionsgate studios are special effects people (Crank flicks, Saw franchise, Expendables trilogy, etc.); not your Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Gravity, Avatar, LOTR, Hobbit type of special sound effects mixing engineers. ...It's all for "exaggerated" fun, not your Marty Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, Ridley Scott, Brian de Palma, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, ,,, type of film directions. 

* Who directed 'John Wick'? ...And who did the musical score (music performed by which bands)? 
...Is the music score in 'John Wick' the main direction/ingredient/essence/sense of it all? ...Or the sheer number of Russian casualties?


----------



## Spanglo

bargervais said:


> I'm still going to keep my order... remember Atmos is alot more then what's coming from above it's a complete immersive experience. Looking forward for my copy of John Wick..


Yes keep your order, it's high quality sound. There's also loads of bullets fired in this movie that are good for testing your speaker's dynamic range.


----------



## lujan

Ocielz said:


> Can't wait to see and Hear John Wick
> 
> My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.


I have some reward credits from Best Buy so I'll probably use them and buy it on release day. I'm hearing conflicting reports on the Atmos mix though where some says it's great while others say it's not so great. Who to believe?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SteveTheGeek said:


> Highdefdigest are saying that Exodus will be coming with an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> That would be the first release from the 20th Century Fox in Atmos right ?
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/17715/exodusgodsandkings.html





Ocielz said:


> Can't wait to see and Hear John Wick
> 
> My brother said it was a great action flick, really looking forward to it.





Movie78 said:


> I am itching so much and impatient that i want to an Atmos receiver.
> 
> But this whole DTS X is messing me up...
> 
> Should i wait or BUY?


They talked about this a bit on the new episode of Home theater geeks (CES wrapup 2015 part 2)... Micheal Heiss, who used to be in AVR sales mentioned that he'll think all the receivers that came installed with Atmos will be able to download DTS:X. But on the other hand a lot of experience forum members seem to think no... I'm hoping Heiss is correct. I seem to remember prior to Atmos launch some of the Onkyo receivers sold before the Atmos announcement were capable of downloading the Atmos software... I'm not sure if they had already struck a partnership with Dolby prior to it's launch? 

(Link to show) 
http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/240

You'd probably only have to wait a month to find out about the receivers I think... if you can hang in there.

Last night I had a friend over who's an audioholic / recording engineer... I played him the Dolby Atmos demo disc through my setup... He was impressed with the overhead effects and subwoofer (I was surprised because He's more of a 2 channel/ stereo guy... I could tell he really liked the sound). 

I did get the DTS:X demo disc & found that I wish I had the decoding capability... though the DTS:X demo did sound very good on my setup. There were parts where I could tell overhead effects were getting squished/ weren't sent to overheads as they should have been.


----------



## Movie78

Selden Ball said:


> If you're anxiously waiting for DTS:X, I'd suggest getting something cheap that you'll just use until this Fall. (e.g. one of the low-end Onkyo 5.1.2 AVRs)
> 
> If you want to wait for full 4K video support, or if DTS:X doesn't matter to you, a more expensive AVR with support for more Atmos channels (e.g. 7.1.4) might be appropriate, since you'd be enjoying it at least until Fall, 2016. Current rumors suggest that the 4K HDMI chipsets that'll be available in the 2015 AVR models still won't have all of the necessary features.



Thanks!


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> I think you can buy the Denon 7200 model receiver with confidence (the only one). ...The others, only if you don't care about DTS:X.
> And if not, just wait few more weeks for much more precise info.
> 
> That, is my own personal opinion of course. ...And only because you just asked.


Thanks!


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Hi Steve,
> 
> Yes, I am aware of the shorter time this year. But you still have to manually position the mic @ eight different locations; not rushing but with decent precision. Yes, you can do that in about 30 minutes when all well prepared. ...For some people, not all of them, because there are many other factors to consider, and that takes time too. ...That is if you are into a good assurance in the optimal performance of your auto room calibration and EQ routine; just read the Official Audyssey thread for example. ...Or just the Audyssey Guide, which should not take more than a week to fully comprehend in theory and in practice.
> 
> We're all different; some are very simple and they'll run just few mic measurements, others none @ all, and people like me, who are true addicted maniacs, will never stop in running Audyssey, and I'm getting ready for a new machine (Atmos & DTS:X & 4K).
> Meanwhile I love life, I love my dogs, I love my cats, I love my children, I love my friends, and I love my music and my movies.
> 
> Time is all we truly have.



Well, it did take the full hour to do the calibration, sorry people, you have to factor in all the variables not just from the moment the START TEST button is pushed. 


Northsky is a bob too? Well then ,we're like the Bobby bookends for Canada.


----------



## is95aus

*New HT Room*

Hi,
its been awhile since I posted, but am looking for some advice on speaker placement. I am in the process of remodeling my basement and have a dedicated area for HT and sports watching. I would like to try and future proof it as much as I can. I have HDMI 2.0 cables stretched all throughout the room depending on my future needs (front projector, LCD, etc...). As much as I am trying to future proof the video, I would like to do the same with audio. I am pre-wiring for 4 overhead speakers (Atmos) and 2 rear surrounds. Question I have is, what is the optimal distance for the atmos speakers based on the size of the room?


----------



## roxiedog13

BamaDave said:


> I'm in process of building some purpose built speakers with custome built angled cabinets for my HT. The parts are on there way now. I'll provide photos & details as the build progresses!



If you're building speakers with Atmos modules on top I'd suggest taking your time and do the homework first. In my opinion the up-firing will only work in a sweet spot that may be acceptable for the modules but too close for the mains. If your ceiling height is at least 8 feet, the ceiling flat and solid and the MLP not too far from the mains then it should work.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> I think you can buy the Denon 7200 model receiver with confidence (the only one). ...The others, only if you don't care about DTS:X.
> And if not, just wait few more weeks for much more precise info.
> 
> That, is my own personal opinion of course. ...And only because you just asked.



I wouldn't suggest to buy the X7200 over the X5200 there is no advantage worth double the price. Maybe if you wait until later in the year when the X7200 has HDMI 2.0 and HDCP2.2 , even
then, meeeh to me still not worth it. I just bought the X5200 and I see no reason to buy anything else for at least a year, likely mid 2016. If you have lots of money to spare then, give me the spare money and still buy the X5200.  What ??


----------



## roxiedog13

briansxx said:


> Roxiedog,
> 
> I'd be very interested in your opinion of the ceiling mounted speakers vs the modules when you are set up.
> 
> Thanks and All the Best,
> 
> Brian



Just ran the Audyssey with 4 in-ceiling, it is certainly much better than the modules, so there you go . Modules work, just seem to be watered down a little, hard to explain. OTOH the watered down effect is more diffuse actually, the in- ceiling speakers can be localized a little more. Going to try a full movie DSU now, and see how it goes for a trial run with the movie Fury .


----------



## Ocielz

I remember watching FURY on an Atmos Theater and it sounded Badass!!! The constant bombardment in the background or the gun firing sounded all Awesome. Those effects sounded like they were distant from the main happening on screen. I bought the Target Steelbook and need to pop it in and rewatch


----------



## kuro6010

Where can I get a DTS-X demo disk ? 
I neeeed one nowwwwww


----------



## BamaDave

roxiedog13 said:


> If you're building speakers with Atmos modules on top I'd suggest taking your time and do the homework first. In my opinion the up-firing will only work in a sweet spot that may be acceptable for the modules but too close for the mains. If your ceiling height is at least 8 feet, the ceiling flat and solid and the MLP not too far from the mains then it should work.


I have 9' ceilings in my HT and they will be designed to support my area!


----------



## groundtrac

roxiedog13 said:


> Just ran the Audyssey with 4 in-ceiling, it is certainly much better than the modules, so there you go . Modules work, just seem to be watered down a little, hard to explain. OTOH the watered down effect is more diffuse actually, the in- ceiling speakers can be localized a little more. Going to try a full movie DSU now, and see how it goes for a trial run with the movie Fury .


Is there a possibility you could post some pics of how your up-firing setup was and then how your overheads are placed now? I am currently using up-firing but am considering installing overheads.


----------



## Trigen

Ocielz said:


> I remember watching FURY on an Atmos Theater and it sounded Badass!!! The constant bombardment in the background or the gun firing sounded all Awesome. Those effects sounded like they were distant from the main happening on screen. I bought the Target Steelbook and need to pop it in and rewatch


Wasn't Fury mixed in 5.1, so would still be playing in 5.1. (Unless commercial theatres have upmixing capability now or you are talking about a (home) theatre).


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Well, it did take the full hour to do the calibration, sorry people, you have to factor in all the variables not just from the moment the START TEST button is pushed.


Well, some folks here @ AVS can say all that it takes only 15 to 30 minutes, but they are just not realistic in their predictions, or that they are so used to do it that they are speaking only for themselves.
I've already mentioned some realistic facts when doing the full eight mic calibration. And an hour is about realistically right, for newcomers and for less than experienced home theater surround sound lovers. ...From start to finish, not just the receiver crunching the coordinates, but the listener too with the receiver's assistance.
And! You certainly don't have it right the first time; in the majority of cases. 

Now with Dolby Atmos the game is only starting. Wait till we get @ 9.4.6 and higher.


----------



## Ocielz

Trigen said:


> Wasn't Fury mixed in 5.1, so would still be playing in 5.1. (Unless commercial theatres have upmixing capability now or you are talking about a (home) theatre).


I watched in theaters, over at Downtown Disney. It's the only theater close by with Atmos. I guess it was mixed in Atmos or played as an Atmos Audio. Sounded Great!


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I wouldn't suggest to buy the X7200 over the X5200 there is no advantage worth double the price. Maybe if you wait until later in the year when the X7200 has HDMI 2.0 and HDCP2.2 , even
> then, meeeh to me still not worth it. I just bought the X5200 and I see no reason to buy anything else for at least a year, likely mid 2016. If you have lots of money to spare then, give me the spare money and still buy the X5200.  What ??


I only mention the 7200 because of DTS:X ... that is all.


----------



## NorthSky

kuro6010 said:


> Where can I get a DTS-X demo disk ?
> I neeeed one nowwwwww


eBay?


----------



## batpig

Fury was a 5.1 mix. That is straight from the horses mouth -- Filmmixer posts on AVS and he was involved directly in the mix.

That that, I saw it in the theaters and it was a ridiculously awesome surround mix. I can't wait to hear it in my home up mixed with DSU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Trigen said:


> Wasn't Fury mixed in 5.1, so would still be playing in 5.1. (Unless commercial theatres have upmixing capability now or you are talking about a (home) theatre).


You may have seen it at a theater (or room) that has Atmos capability, you did not see *Fury* in Atmos as there is no Atmos mix for it. It was 5.1 surround.

Cinemas do not use DSU upmixing either.


----------



## sdurani

is95aus said:


> I am pre-wiring for 4 overhead speakers (Atmos) and 2 rear surrounds. Question I have is, what is the optimal distance for the atmos speakers based on the size of the room?


Size doesn't matter. Let me rephrase that. Room size doesn't determine where the overhead speakers go as much as elevation angles based on the main listening position. I would mount the Top Front speakers 45 degrees above ear level and do the same with the Top Rear speakers. 

The math is easy: measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward and rearward are the speaker locations. So if your ears are 5 feet from the ceiling, then 5 feet forward of you and 5 feet rearward of you draw an imaginary line from left to right. Mount the speakers on that line, spread roughly the width of your front L/R speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

...Same with a ceiling ten feet from your ears?


----------



## roxiedog13

BamaDave said:


> I have 9' ceilings in my HT and they will be designed to support my area!



9' ceilings if flat and solid will be the best scenario for up-firing . If you are still building I'd put the atmos ( 6 in total) in the ceiling per Dolby recommended locations. If you are determined to go with the modules go bigger and full range, these smaller ones just won't cut it for a large volume room as it appears you will have .


----------



## roxiedog13

groundtrac said:


> Is there a possibility you could post some pics of how your up-firing setup was and then how your overheads are placed now? I am currently using up-firing but am considering installing overheads.



I have removed the modules though I can put them back on the stands and snap a picture . Will try to get before and after done tomorrow.


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> Fury was a 5.1 mix. That is straight from the horses mouth -- Filmmixer posts on AVS and he was involved directly in the mix.
> 
> That that, I saw it in the theaters and it was a ridiculously awesome surround mix. I can't wait to hear it in my home up mixed with DSU.



I just watched Fury running DSU audio and it was awesome . Hard to believe how well DSU renders the sounds from the 5.1 . Didn't hear this in the Theaters
in my HT it was simply perfect. The movie was well done, a great story and great acting from most of the cast, not just the leads either it was very well balanced.
I'll have to watch this one again soon , I always like to when a movie is this good.


----------



## Mastiff

*How would the Atmos ceiling speakers work best in my strange setup?*

First of all I'm asking here, not in the speaker forum, because it seems like much of the Atmos discussion is going on here.

A picture says more than a thousand words, so here are 3000 words about my cabin (which will probably be my home in a year and a half, when my youngest move out, either to study or to go into the military - we now have mandatory service for both boys and girls here in Norway, even though only the motivated are in fact called in):




























As you can see all the speakers except for fronts, center(s) and rear and front prescence are too high because of the room's limitations (it's a combination of living room and kitchen). The angle of the pictures makes the surrounds look closer to the rear row than they actually are, and I may even move them a bit forward. So I'm guessing there will be around 150 cm between them.

The TV is about to be hidden behind a Euroscreen (Draper) Sesame (flush ceiling mount) ReAct 2.1 screen, with a JVA DLA-X500. So in a few months (when it's possible to stand outside and cut up ceiling boards again without shaking) I can finally close the ceiling, after two years. Yep, two years. I've been waiting for the Atmos and DTS:X specs, and they came last fall, but it was too late to start on the ceiling then. Which is now very much a blessing, because I had originally planned to go for a large OLED TV, but suddenly decided that 80" in a few years wasn't enough for me. So now it's around 100" with lots of bells and whisles, and maybe a laser or LED projector in a few years. But this year it's ceiling and Atmos speakers. I am going to go for 6 in-ceiling B&W speakers, since there are no Wharfedale in-ceiling speakers in the E-series from the early 80's!  The problem is that this is the standard setup for ceiling speakers in Atmos (this is for 4 ceiling speakers, I haven't found a setup for six yet)So these speakers would be pretty close to the high placement of my surrounds, rear surrounds and rear prescence. I have them placed after the Yamaha specs, and I will run two receivers to have both prescence and ceiling speakers, but I will wait until the next generation hoping that there will be a .6 option for ceiling by then. 

But what would be the best placement of these ceiling speakers? I was thinking about 1/3 in. So the room is around 450 cm, which means that I would have the left row 150 cm from the left wall, and the right row 150 cm from the right wall. Would that work?

Then there's the lenght placement. Would it work with one pair above the couch, level with the surrounds, once pair midways between the surrounds and the "rear row", which would be around 75 cm and one pair a bit more than the same distance forward from the surrounds, so maybe 100-125 cm forward. Would that work too? Or should I maybe move the ceiling speakers a bit longer forward?


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
So then to be clear, in addition to the 2 Front Height speakers, you plan on placing 6 additional ceiling speakers? The most benefit from ceiling speaker placement is achieved by both at least a good separation between floor speakers and ceiling speakers (eg. 4-5') as well as a similar distance separation between the ceiling speaker pairs which is also based an angle from the main listening position. You could likely do 2 speakers just forward of the FL/FR speakers (configured as Front Height) and 2 just forward of main listening position (configured as Top Middle), but no real benefit to be had by Top Rear speakers unless you can add ear level surrounds. You may want to consider in-wall/wall mounted side surround speakers at ear level at the very least.


----------



## bargervais

Looks like exodus has NO Atmos so much for 20th century Fox bringing it's first Atmos blu-ray....
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


----------



## SteveTheGeek

What a letdown for Exodus...


----------



## jdsmoothie

roxiedog13 said:


> Well, it did take the full hour to do the calibration, sorry people, you have to factor in all the variables not just from the moment the START TEST button is pushed.


Okay, well then for you (and your variables ), I can see why it is a PITA to run Audyssey setup. For me, using a mic boom stand, with a 11.2 setup(and no variables to speak of), it takes about 15 minutes to run an 8 position calibration as the mic boom stand is always at the ready for quick calibration runs.


----------



## BamaDave

roxiedog13 said:


> 9' ceilings if flat and solid will be the best scenario for up-firing . If you are still building I'd put the atmos ( 6 in total) in the ceiling per Dolby recommended locations. If you are determined to go with the modules go bigger and full range, these smaller ones just won't cut it for a large volume room as it appears you will have .


I'm running a trio of JTR 12HT's up front so I don't think those puny up-firing modules are going to get it! Besides I have a transitioned ceiling as my HT is built over a garage with only about 10.5' of flat centered surface area on a 21.5' wide room.


----------



## roxiedog13

jdsmoothie said:


> Okay, well then for you (and your variables ), I can see why it is a PITA to run Audyssey setup. For me, using a mic boom stand, with a 11.2 setup(and no variables to speak of), it takes about 13 minutes to run an 8 position calibration as the mic boom stand is always at the ready for quick calibration runs.



I'm sure when I get the knack of things, it will be a little faster . I won't have to stop ,check which speakers I set to height 1 and then another trip to see which ones I set to preout , the readjustment of the tripod on chair, then off chair, then on the floor etc.to match the on screen position. I start timing from the time I walk into the room, start picking up, turning everything on , go get the mic etc., etc. I mean , the trip for another beer after each of 8 positions alone takes like 15 minutes, and the snacks, I mean really 13 minutes come on . O.K., so I don't really drink but that could ne a reality, probably what NorthSky is up to, he takes all evening aferall. :devil:


----------



## Selden Ball

Selden Ball said:


> . Current rumors suggest that the 4K HDMI chipsets that'll be available in the 2015 AVR models still won't have all of the necessary features.





Stanton said:


> Source? We already know an upgrade board (Denon) available in Spring 2015, so I don't see why new models that typically come out in the Fall won't have HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2


Many AVSers seem to be using the term "HDMI V2.0" as a synonym for 4K resolution at 18 Gbits/sec as if that's all there is to it, but that is only one of its features. Some seem to be then using "HDMI V2.0" to imply that all of its features are or will be available. They aren't and won't be soon. HDMI licensees are forbidden to claim that they're providing HDMI V2.0 because nobody is expected to be providing *all* of the features for quite some time, if ever. They're only allowed to specify which features they're providing. 

My source for the release timings is the Semtech presentation to SMPTE. See https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/u388/Semtech PDF Presentation.pdf

They're actually more pessimistic than I was suggesting, predicting 2017-2018 for HDR and a preliminary subset of REC 2020 colors. See slide 11.


----------



## BamaDave

sdurani said:


> The math is easy: measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward and rearward are the speaker locations. So if your ears are 5 feet from the ceiling, then 5 feet forward of you and 5 feet rearward of you draw an imaginary line from left to right. Mount the speakers on that line, spread roughly the width of your front L/R speakers.


Are you sure about that? Should it not be the square root of 2 times the distance from your ears to the ceiling measured outward from your ears to the ceiling? Or basically 1.41x the distance measured vertically to the ceiling to compensate for the horizontal arc from the primary seated position?


----------



## Trigen

BamaDave said:


> Are you sure about that? Should it not be the square root of 2 times the distance from your ears to the ceiling measured outward from your ears to the ceiling? Or basically 1.41x the distance measured vertically to the ceiling to compensate for the horizontal arc from the primary seated position?


sdurani is correct for a 45deg angle between the listener and the speaker. You'd get 52deg or 35deg (I am unsure of your phrasing) with your formula.


----------



## smurraybhm

gerchy said:


> I just watched John Wick.
> Not much ceiling activity here either.
> Except in three scenes: rain on the funeral, music in the bathroom and at the final scene where is rain again.
> Sure the ceiling speakers are playing - in fact a lot more than in TF4. But if someone would turn them off I wouldn't probably even notice.
> Waiting for more movies!


Is there a movie that you've enjoyed yet? Atmos is not just about those speakers up top and if you're listening for it you are missing the point. Every Atmos mix I have listened to it is easy to hear the difference due to the use of objects/channels/whatever we decided to call it. One has to wonder about setup as well, when people are boosting their overheads something isn't right.

Immersive does not always equal overhead. It's about putting the sound where we should hear it if we are standing in the same place we are seeing on the screen.

Nice that you got a copy a few days early.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Sir, yes sir, on the double, setting up in T minus 10 . :serious: I'm so glad you guys know so much, your knowledge makes my life so much easier. I'm getting there, one brain cell at a time.
> May loose a few cells with some beer tonight though , guess I'll finish the evening balanced . :devil:


LOL. Give me 50, Private...


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I'm still going to keep my order... remember Atmos is alot more then what's coming from above it's a complete immersive experience. Looking forward for my copy of John Wick..


The SQ in John Wick is very good indeed. There isn't a huge amount of opportunity for overhead demo sounds, but there are some. But overall, the sound is fabulous. And the movie isn't bad either.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Is there a movie that you've enjoyed yet? Atmos is not just about those speakers up top and if you're listening for it you are missing the point. Every Atmos mix I have listened to it is easy to hear the difference due to the use of objects/channels/whatever we decided to call it. One has to wonder about setup as well, when people are boosting their overheads something isn't right.
> 
> Immersive does not always equal overhead. It's about putting the sound where we should hear it if we are standing in the same place we are seeing on the screen.
> 
> Nice that you got a copy a few days early.


The thing I notice most with Atmos, and to a lesser extent with DSU, is how sounds just 'appear' in the right place in the room, sort of suspended in space. It's as though I have thrown out all my speakers and replaced them with some amazing thing which just generates sounds in space, out of thin air. 

I have had overhead speakers now for long enough that I long since gave up trying to listen to which sounds come from which speakers. Now I just enjoy the overall experience and it is much more satisfying than it was with plain ol' 5.1. 

After all, I didn’t used to listen to movies before obsessing over which speaker produced which sound - I just enjoyed the overall effect. It's only natural that when one has done something as dramatic as adding 4 speakers to the *ceiling* that one is concentrating on the sounds they produce. But really, this is a bad idea. Get used to the sound, and then just enjoy it - you will find overall that Atmos sound tracks are much more enjoyable, regardless of what comes from the ceiling speakers. And the same with DSU to a lesser extent.


----------



## ThePrisoner

SteveTheGeek said:


> What a letdown for Exodus...


I too just noticed the press release over at blu-ray.com now states DTS-HD MA 7.1


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Give me 50, Private...


 Sir, yes sir !! Not hard to tell I watched Fury last night , is it?


----------



## BamaDave

Trigen said:


> sdurani is correct for a 45deg angle between the listener and the speaker. You'd get 52deg or 35deg (I am unsure of your phrasing) with your formula.



The only way that works would be if you were placing a speaker directly in front of the primary listening position. If you are placing speakers outward then the best way to get a true 45 degree angle (From the primary listening position) would be to measure from the hearing position outward to the ceiling. If not you will not have a true 45 degree. Picture drawing the 45 degree triangle and your ears are at one end of the long side of the triangle and the other end is the speaker. True enough the straight up and out distance is the same but when you move to the sides the distance would increase unless used a string to compensate for the arc. The best way to determine that would be to measure the long point (of the triangle) to the side. I'm sure we are splitting hairs here but if you want to be positioned as an exact 45 degree you have to consider what I'm describing.


----------



## bargervais

^^^^^^^^
I too have put away my step ladder trying to see what is coming from my ceiling speakers....Now I'm starting to enjoy what Atmos and DSU has and is giving me. After an expensive upgrade... focusing on how much those speakers are being used. I've learned to just sit back and enjoy I will continue to purchase blu-rays in Atmos and watch and listen to my older blu-rays from my library in DSU with a whole new experience...


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> The thing I notice most with Atmos, and to a lesser extent with DSU, is how sounds just 'appear' in the right place in the room, sort of suspended in space. It's as though I have thrown out all my speakers and replaced them with some amazing thing which just generates sounds in space, out of thin air.
> 
> I have had overhead speakers now for long enough that I long since gave up trying to listen to which sounds come from which speakers. Now I just enjoy the overall experience and it is much more satisfying than it was with plain ol' 5.1.
> 
> After all, I didn’t used to listen to movies before obsessing over which speaker produced which sound - I just enjoyed the overall effect. It's only natural that when one has done something as dramatic as adding 4 speakers to the *ceiling* that one is concentrating on the sounds they produce. But really, this is a bad idea. Get used to the sound, and then just enjoy it - you will find overall that Atmos sound tracks are much more enjoyable, regardless of what comes from the ceiling speakers. And the same with DSU to a lesser extent.



Which Atmos movie produces the best 3D effect, the "suspended in space" experience you describe ? I'm not sure that I get this kind of reproduction in my HT, then again, I have not run a true "Atmos" labeled movie since the last two in-ceiling were installed, now calibrated too btw. I do get immersion, I do get the effects of planes and hail, rain, footsteps etc, but what I feel is more localized, not "suspended." YMMV right ?


----------



## LowellG

NorthSky said:


> I only mention the 7200 because of DTS:X ... that is all.


Is the 7200 getting an upgrade to DTS:X


----------



## gerchy

smurraybhm said:


> Is there a movie that you've enjoyed yet? Atmos is not just about those speakers up top and if you're listening for it you are missing the point. Every Atmos mix I have listened to it is easy to hear the difference due to the use of objects/channels/whatever we decided to call it. One has to wonder about setup as well, when people are boosting their overheads something isn't right.
> 
> Immersive does not always equal overhead. It's about putting the sound where we should hear it if we are standing in the same place we are seeing on the screen.
> Nice that you got a copy a few days early.


No, not really. 
Well, the Dolby Atmos demo disc sounds great. One can notice an improvent right away.

I know what you mean and I agree, it's not about what is coming from the height speakers but to get a better sound experience overall. I isolated the heights just ouf of curiosity and I was definitely expecting more activity in a SF movie like TF4. There is literally one effect every 2 or 3 minutes.

Since there is only a handful of Atmos mixed movies it is too soon to objectively compare them with regular x.1 soundtracks.

I tried some movies which I know very well. I watched them 50 or more times, mostly when I was tuning the system. I would surely notice if there was an improvement using the DSU.

Which Atmos movies did you compare particularly?


----------



## gerchy

kbarnes701 said:


> The SQ in John Wick is very good indeed. There isn't a huge amount of opportunity for overhead demo sounds, but there are some. But overall, the sound is fabulous. And the movie isn't bad either.


SQ seemed average to me. In some scenes it felt a bit bright so I was thinking of selecting reference curve instead of flat. As I'm new to Audyssey I'm still choosing which one sounds better to my ears.
I always wanted to make a list of good sounding mixes but never actually did it. Lone Survivor and Brick Mansions comes to my mind at this moment. I would probably not put John Wick at that list.

Now it's Fury time.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Which Atmos movie produces the best 3D effect, the "suspended in space" experience you describe ? I'm not sure that I get this kind of reproduction in my HT, then again, I have not run a true "Atmos" labeled movie since the last two in-ceiling were installed, now calibrated too btw. I do get immersion, I do get the effects of planes and hail, rain, footsteps etc, but what I feel is more localized, not "suspended." YMMV right ?


I find this is true for all 5 of the Atmos discs I have, and of course the 4 Atmos trailers. The main thing I notice is the much greater 'precision' with which sounds are placed in the soundstage. I notice this in all the Atmos movies, regardless of the overhead effects. It is as though the speakers have been 'replaced' by sounds in the room itself. With DSU, this is not nearly so well defined, and with DSU the main thing I notice is the considerable extra degree of immersion. Bear in mind my room is heavily treated and somewhat on the 'dry' side (my preference) so imaging is very good regardless.


----------



## kbarnes701

gerchy said:


> SQ seemed average to me. In some scenes it felt a bit bright so I was thinking of selecting reference curve instead of flat. As I'm new to Audyssey I'm still choosing which one sounds better to my ears.
> I always wanted to make a list of good sounding mixes but never actually did it. Lone Survivor and Brick Mansions comes to my mind at this moment. I would probably not put John Wick at that list.
> 
> Now it's Fury time.


This is what bluray.com say about John Wick in Atmos:

_John Wick features an overwhelming Dolby Atmos (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core) track that pretty much browbeats the listener into submission fairly early on, pausing only occasionally to catch its breath in a few quieter dialogue scenes. Immersion is very consistent and well handled, with the bone crunching battle effects, not to mention the nonstop gunfire, placed very deliberately throughout the surrounds to create an almost claustrophobic soundscape at times. The film's pulsing score is also positioned throughout the surrounds. Dialogue, such as it is, is presented cleanly and clearly (some Russian language is featured, with those aforementioned "cutesy" subtitles). Fidelity is superb and dynamic range is extremely wide. _

I find myself in agreement with all of that.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> Fury was a 5.1 mix. That is straight from the horses mouth -- Filmmixer posts on AVS and he was involved directly in the mix.
> 
> That that, I saw it in the theaters and it was a ridiculously awesome surround mix. I can't wait to hear it in my home up mixed with DSU.


I watched Fury last night. Wow. The visuals are stunning and DSU is incredible. The most standout spot that I had to rewatch 4-5 times was Chapter 13 @ 141:55



Spoiler



where the Germans are climbing up onto Fury and walking on top. Their footsteps were coming from directly overhead.



This is truly the best my home theater has ever sounded. I wanted to see Fury in the theater, but just never made the time to drive the 8 minutes to the mall. Going out to see movies has become less of an activity for me now that I've invested all of the time and money into my theater. I would hazard a guess that my home now sounds better than the movie theater.


----------



## roxiedog13

LowellG said:


> Is the 7200 getting an upgrade to DTS:X



That was my thought, I assume he must know it is.


----------



## gerchy

kbarnes701 said:


> This is what bluray.com say about John Wick in Atmos:
> 
> _... not to mention the nonstop gunfire, placed very deliberately throughout the surrounds to create an almost claustrophobic soundscape at times._


You've seen my room, I'm sure I will notice claustrophobia in no time. 
Joke aside, have you been checking the messages lately?


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I find this is true for all 5 of the Atmos discs I have, and of course the 4 Atmos trailers. The main thing I notice is the much greater 'precision' with which sounds are placed in the soundstage. I notice this in all the Atmos movies, regardless of the overhead effects. It is as though the speakers have been 'replaced' by sounds in the room itself. With DSU, this is not nearly so well defined, and with DSU the main thing I notice is the considerable extra degree of immersion. Bear in mind my room is heavily treated and somewhat on the 'dry' side (my preference) so imaging is very good regardless.



OK thanks. So many variables really, from room acoustics to speaker type and placement, room size and so on. One other factor too is auditory acuity , some just cannot hear as well as others .


----------



## kbarnes701

gerchy said:


> You've seen my room, I'm sure I will notice claustrophobia in no time.


 It can’t be more Hobbit-like than mine...



gerchy said:


> Joke aside, have you been checking the messages lately?


No - been insanely busy lately. I assume I have a PM from you. Will look later.


----------



## roxiedog13

stikle said:


> I watched Fury last night. Wow. The visuals are stunning and DSU is incredible. The most standout spot that I had to rewatch 4-5 times was Chapter 13 @ 141:55
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> where the Germans are climbing up onto Fury and walking on top. Their footsteps were coming from directly overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is truly the best my home theater has ever sounded. I wanted to see Fury in the theater, but just never made the time to drive the 8 minutes to the mall. Going out to see movies has become less of an activity for me now that I've invested all of the time and money into my theater. I would hazard a guess that my home now sounds better than the movie theater.


 
+1 Fury was that good, for all the right reasons not just the sound. Acting, and I mean all were brilliant, not just the leads. The story, setting and certainly the sound all came together well.


I'll have to watch this many times to figure out why I liked it so much, when a movie is really good I am pulled in 100%, I'm captivated . When I watch it over and over  again, I will only
then be able to break it down and see why, from my perspective, I enjoyed the movie so much. 


As someone said earlier, time to put away the ladder, the tools , the diagnostics and start enjoying. I'm there 


I'm off for a 15K ski now, time to get some fitness and fresh air


----------



## sdurani

BamaDave said:


> The only way that works would be if you were placing a speaker directly in front of the primary listening position.


OR if that's where you were placing the speaker line, which is why I said _"draw an imaginary line from left to right"_. 

IF you want elevation to the speaker itself rather than the speaker line, the same distance trick will work. You'd first have to draw a pair of imaginary rails from front to back on your ceiling, separated the same distance as your front L/R speakers. Measure from your ears straight up to the ceiling, then from that same spot on the ceiling measure that same distance to the rails, and that's where your overhead speakers go (that distance will intersect the rails at 4 locations, 2 forward of your listening position and 2 rearward of your listening position). 

Since a 45-45-90 triangle has two equal sides, the distance trick is easier to remember than a multiplication formula.


----------



## mp5475

roxiedog13 said:


> +1 Fury was that good, for all the right reasons not just the sound. Acting, and I mean all were brilliant, not just the leads. The story, setting and certainly the sound all came together well.
> 
> 
> I'll have to watch this many times to figure out why I liked it so much, when a movie is really good I am pulled in 100%, I'm captivated . When I watch it over and over  again, I will only
> then be able to break it down and see why, from my perspective, I enjoyed the movie so much.
> 
> 
> As someone said earlier, time to put away the ladder, the tools , the diagnostics and start enjoying. I'm there
> 
> 
> I'm off for a 15K ski now, time to get some fitness and fresh air


Also watched it last night. Great movie. Didn't notice too much over head action except during when artillery was coming in. I think I also remember foot steps overhead but may have been too into the movie to notice properly.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Hmmm I thought the acting in fury was bad. And forced. To each his own


----------



## tjenkins95

stikle said:


> I watched Fury last night. Wow. The visuals are stunning and DSU is incredible. The most standout spot that I had to rewatch 4-5 times was Chapter 13 @ 141:55
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> where the Germans are climbing up onto Fury and walking on top. Their footsteps were coming from directly overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> This is truly the best my home theater has ever sounded. I wanted to see Fury in the theater, but just never made the time to drive the 8 minutes to the mall. Going out to see movies has become less of an activity for me now that I've invested all of the time and money into my theater. I would hazard a guess that my home now sounds better than the movie theater.


 
I started to watch Fury the another night. It was sooooooo realistic and powerful that I had to stop watching it after about 30 minutes. I just wasn't in the proper mindset that night and wasn't expecting to be dropped into the middle of the war like that. I had just watched Unbroken a few days ago which is also a war movie and very well done! Now that I know what to expect from Fury I will watch it this weekend. 


Ray


----------



## Nightlord

LowellG said:


> Is the 7200 getting an upgrade to DTS:X


Yes.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Where are you getting this from?


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


>


 
Keith (or others), a question for a friend.
He has a 5.1 setup, will he "need" to go to 7.1.4 to get a better Atmos effect then 5.1.4 ?
He has a medium size room....


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Keith, a question for a friend.
> He has a 5.1 setup, will he need to go to 7.1.4 to get a better Atmos effect then 5.1.4 ?


Well _mo' speakers = mo' better _as we say on the Atmos thread  But no, not all that much. I have 5.2.4 here (no room in back of me for rear surrounds) and the result is superb. Would I like rear surrounds if I had the room for them? You bet I would. But he will get a stunning result from 5.1.4 if he pays careful attention to the overhead speakers he chooses and the placement of them. If you want to discuss this in more detail, the Atmos (Home version) thread is the place to do so. But in a nutshell, 5.1.4 is great for Atmos.


----------



## BamaDave

sdurani said:


> OR if that's where you were placing the speaker line, which is why I said _"draw an imaginary line from left to right"_.
> 
> IF you want elevation to the speaker itself rather than the speaker line, the same distance trick will work. You'd first have to draw a pair of imaginary rails from front to back on your ceiling, separated the same distance as your front L/R speakers. Measure from your ears straight up to the ceiling, then from that same spot on the ceiling measure that same distance to the rails, and that's where your overhead speakers go (that distance will intersect the rails at 4 locations, 2 forward of your listening position and 2 rearward of your listening position).
> 
> Since a 45-45-90 triangle has two equal sides, the distance trick is easier to remember than a multiplication formula.


My way is to take a string measured from your ears and stretch it to the ceiling at that point take that length of string and stretch it to both the left and right from that center point over your head and you will have the correct position. If you just find the center point and measure straight out and go left and right from that point you will not have a 45 degree angle. You have to think about it like a circle directualy over the primary seated position outward in order to achieve the exact spot. Perhaps we are saying the same thing but I know for a fact that I am correct as we modeled it at work.


----------



## nodular

Currently have the Dolby upfiring speakers but wanted to put in ceiling speakers in.

My setup is in the basement but I only have a ceiling height of 6ft 9' and was wondering if this is ok for Atmos or would I end up really noticing sound coming from the speakers above me?

I have the upfiring speakers working well after moving them around changing angle etc but after reading that some of you guys have changed to in ceiling with better results has kind of gotten me thinking.

Watched The Equalizer last night with DSU enabled and the sound mix was incredible.


----------



## chi_guy50

BamaDave said:


> My way is to take a string measured from your ears and stretch it to the ceiling at that point take that length of string and stretch it to both the left and right from that center point over your head and you will have the correct position. If you just find the center point and measure straight out and go left and right from that point you will not have a 45 degree angle. You have to think about it like a circle directualy over the primary seated position outward in order to achieve the exact spot. Perhaps we are saying the same thing but I know for a fact that I am correct as we modeled it at work.


I did not use string, but this is essentially the method I used to measure the elevation angles for my overhead speakers (the three legs of the triangle being represented by lines drawn between the MLP, the point on the ceiling directly above the MLP, and the respective overhead speaker). But now I wonder: Are Dolby's angular recommendations based on this method or on measurement to the "imaginary line" sdurani cites? I assume it is the former.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Size doesn't matter. Let me rephrase that. Room size doesn't determine where the overhead speakers go as much as elevation angles based on the main listening position. I would mount the Top Front speakers 45 degrees above ear level and do the same with the Top Rear speakers.
> 
> The math is easy: measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward and rearward are the speaker locations. So if your ears are 5 feet from the ceiling, then 5 feet forward of you and 5 feet rearward of you draw an imaginary line from left to right. Mount the speakers on that line, spread roughly the width of your front L/R speakers.


But then they are not at 45 deg elevation. 

In your example, project the MLP straight up onto the ceiling. Anchor a piece of string 5' long at that point. Anywhere on the ceiling at the other end of the string will be 45 deg elevation.


----------



## Nightlord

SteveTheGeek said:


> Where are you getting this from?


Have faith.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> But then they are not at 45 deg elevation.
> 
> In your example, project the MLP straight up onto the ceiling. Anchor a piece of string 5' long at that point. Anywhere on the ceiling at the other end of the string will be 45 deg elevation.


At least do the same forall the seats in the front row and average the results!


----------



## bargervais

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/17715/exodusgodsandkings.html
Changed.....the exodus blu-ray no longer with Atmos like they reported a few days earlier


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nightlord said:


> At least do the same for all the seats in the front row and average the results!


The result is the same. No?


----------



## Movie78

Aras_Volodka said:


> They talked about this a bit on the new episode of Home theater geeks (CES wrapup 2015 part 2)... Micheal Heiss, who used to be in AVR sales mentioned that he'll think all the receivers that came installed with Atmos will be able to download DTS:X. But on the other hand a lot of experience forum members seem to think no... I'm hoping Heiss is correct. I seem to remember prior to Atmos launch some of the Onkyo receivers sold before the Atmos announcement were capable of downloading the Atmos software... I'm not sure if they had already struck a partnership with Dolby prior to it's launch?
> 
> (Link to show)
> http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/240
> 
> You'd probably only have to wait a month to find out about the receivers I think... if you can hang in there.
> 
> Last night I had a friend over who's an audioholic / recording engineer... I played him the Dolby Atmos demo disc through my setup... He was impressed with the overhead effects and subwoofer (I was surprised because He's more of a 2 channel/ stereo guy... I could tell he really liked the sound).
> 
> I did get the DTS:X demo disc & found that I wish I had the decoding capability... though the DTS:X demo did sound very good on my setup. There were parts where I could tell overhead effects were getting squished/ weren't sent to overheads as they should have been.



This was very informative 

Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

*Just wait a little bit longer, less than two months.*



LowellG said:


> Is the 7200 getting an upgrade to DTS:X


No confirmation; but the "force" is strong. 

______

* If I strongly believe myself that it is smart to wait till mid-March, I also believe that it is smart for most others as well. 
{Not everyone can afford to spend their money freely to the first four winds comin' their way.}


----------



## Scott Simonian

It would definitely be smart to wait if the intention is to get DTS:X decoding in any product. 

If you own something currently, enjoy, wait and see. If you want to buy and want DTS:X... I'd wait for confirmation and not just hope it comes. Might end up disappointed that way.


----------



## NorthSky

Mastiff said:


>


Wow wow! ..."The Great Escape". ...Whiskey made of potatoes; remember that great scene? 

I also noticed several windows; must be a great room with a great view @ daytime.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I start timing from the time I walk into the room, start picking up, turning everything on , go get the mic etc., etc. I mean , the trip for another beer after each of 8 positions alone takes like 15 minutes, and the snacks, I mean really 13 minutes come on . O.K., so I don't really drink but that could ne a reality, *probably what NorthSky is up to, he takes all evening aferall*. :devil:


I'm not your typical Audyssey system operator.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Looks like exodus has NO Atmos so much for 20th century Fox bringing it's first Atmos blu-ray....
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Exodus-Gods-and-Kings-Blu-ray/118113/


I did not see 'Exodus', only read some about it. ...Not sure that a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack would add that much more to it. ...On Blu.

* Films to benefit the most from Atmos would be like 'Fury', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Black Hawk Down', 'Interstellar', ...


----------



## Mastiff

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> So then to be clear, in addition to the 2 Front Height speakers, you plan on placing 6 additional ceiling speakers? The most benefit from ceiling speaker placement is achieved by both at least a good separation between floor speakers and ceiling speakers (eg. 4-5') as well as a similar distance separation between the ceiling speaker pairs which is also based an angle from the main listening position. You could likely do 2 speakers just forward of the FL/FR speakers (configured as Front Height) and 2 just forward of main listening position (configured as Top Middle), but no real benefit to be had by Top Rear speakers unless you can add ear level surrounds. You may want to consider in-wall/wall mounted side surround speakers at ear level at the very least.


Thanks! If there's no point in the rear pair I can do with 4 inceiling speakers instead. I have four pairs of them already, so I could use the four pairs that are left for the kitchen part instead if I only put up 4 ceiling. As for the surrounds, that's where the room's limitations comes into play. I can't have side surrounds because there's a glass door on the left side and a regular door on the right side. So the most I could manage would be either ear height surround on the left side about half a meter behind the couch and one on the right side about one and a half meter in front of the couch. So I was thinking that I could use the ceiling speakers with Atmos to fill out the sound in the top.



NorthSky said:


> Wow wow! ..."The Great Escape". ...Whiskey made of potatoes; remember that great scene?
> 
> I also noticed several windows; must be a great room with a great view @ daytime.


Thanks! Actually I must say to my shame that haven't seen that one... But the title fits very well! As for the view I can't complain:




















Still I need something else to look at sometimes, so after having tried hard to settle with a TV I just caved...


----------



## NorthSky

'American Sniper' ? ...Highly probable.

P.S. Very nice view from above, right on! 
And make an effort to watch 'The Great Escape' starring _Steve McQueen_; it's a great film, based on a true story (but Canadians, not Americans were more implicated in it), and you'll see exactly what I meant by "Wow wow".


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> It would definitely be smart to wait if the intention is to get DTS:X decoding in any product.



According to this 1/12/2015 news item in *TVNewsCheck*, '*Tech Companies Submit Three Proposals for Next-Gen TV Sound*' (_link_), there were *three* respondents to the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System Call for Proposals* (_link_), viz: *Dolby*, *DTS*, and the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (a consortium of *Qualcomm*, *Fraunhofer*, and *Technicolor*) (_link_). It seems likely to me that the specifics of both the *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS:X* codecs as implemented in 2016 AVRs might depend on which of the three candidates is chosen to provide the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec|technology_ *(decision due in mid August 2015)*.

_As a result, I anticipate the *AV Groundhog* will look out of his burrow on Monday, see the shadows of *four* future immersive audio technologies . . . and decide to defer any decision about selecting a new AVR *for at least another six months!*_  


_


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> _As a result, I anticipate the *AV Groundhog* will look out of his burrow on Monday, see the shadows of *four* future immersive audio technologies . . . and decide to defer any decision about selecting a new AVR *for at least another six months!*_


Who here in their right mind can wait that long! ...Most of us could be dead by then.


----------



## BamaDave

Roger Dressler said:


> But then they are not at 45 deg elevation.
> 
> In your example, project the MLP straight up onto the ceiling. Anchor a piece of string 5' long at that point. Anywhere on the ceiling at the other end of the string will be 45 deg elevation.


Sounds as if you agree with my methoholiigy! I would love to hear what others have done is I haven't actually installed them yet, just trying to make the best desigion before I actually mount them!


----------



## audioguy

For those who have their surrounds mounted high on the walls and are wondering if you should lower them: the answer is yes!!

My four surround tweeters were at 71 inches and now they are at 49 inches. Just played the Atmos demo disc. Completely different experience. Much more of a three dimensional bubble.

It was a pain in the butt to move them (still have some sanding and painting to do) and was not without expense, but now that it's over, glad I did it.

My ceiling is 8 feet but the ceiling speakers hang down about 10 inches so the difference between the surrounds and ceilings was not very much. But I just increased that distance by 22 inches.


----------



## LowellG

audioguy said:


> For those who have their surrounds mounted high on the walls and are wondering if you should lower them: the answer is yes!!
> 
> My four surround tweeters were at 71 inches and now they are at 49 inches. Just played the Atmos demo disc. Completely different experience. Much more of a three dimensional bubble.
> 
> It was a pain in the butt to move them (still have some sanding and painting to do) and was not without expense, but now that it's over, glad I did it.
> 
> My ceiling is 8 feet but the ceiling speakers hang down about 10 inches so the difference between the surrounds and ceilings was not very much. But I just increased that distance by 22 inches.


 I was afraid I was going to have to do that. I also think I am going to move the further from the back wall. I can only come about 18" more forward. Although I am still leery of speaker movement until DTS:X specs come out.


----------



## Roger Dressler

BamaDave said:


> Sounds as if you agree with my methodology! I would love to hear what others have done is I haven't actually installed them yet, just trying to make the best decision before I actually mount them!


I do agree. The details are in my Deadwood link. It was a rather constrained set of conditions.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

audioguy said:


> For those who have their surrounds mounted high on the walls and are wondering if you should lower them: the answer is yes!!
> 
> My four surround tweeters were at 71 inches and now they are at 49 inches. Just played the Atmos demo disc. Completely different experience. Much more of a three dimensional bubble.
> 
> It was a pain in the butt to move them (still have some sanding and painting to do) and was not without expense, but now that it's over, glad I did it.
> 
> My ceiling is 8 feet but the ceiling speakers hang down about 10 inches so the difference between the surrounds and ceilings was not very much. But I just increased that distance by 22 inches.


Totally agreed. People on here see how low my surrounds are and are like...you need to love them up. 

Nope not with ATMOS. They sound amazing at that level. 

 enjoy


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Just ran 5.2.4 audyssey. Took 14 minutes for the measurements Another 2 to save it. 

Then my own time setting filters for the subs

There YA go


----------



## JustABrah

I went to my first atmos at the theater, watched American Sniper it's cool but I don't get all the hype around it, I'll have to check out a few more to come up with a final opinion if I'm going to spent the bucks to set it up at home, but I didn't find it that much better, or even better, different for sure.


----------



## wadec22

So stupid question. .. with seating about 4-5 feet from the backwall. How effective would bipole speakers be as atmos ceiling speakers, mounted sideways with one tweeter pointed at ceiling and one down at seats, mounted near ceiling on the rear wall?


----------



## David Susilo

How many times it needs to be said: Dolby only recommends monopole. NOT dipole, NOT bipole.


----------



## NorthSky

That ^


----------



## wadec22

David Susilo said:


> How many times it needs to be said: Dolby only recommends monopole. NOT dipole, NOT bipole.
















Wow... no offense meant. It was a random idea to have angled tweeters by mounting bipoles sideways. The only reason I mention them is because they are wall mountable and could be rigged to bounce sound off the ceiling like a Dolby enabled speaker. It was an unconventional idea, so Dolby's recommendation wouldn't necessarily apply.







Your response indicates you thought I wanted to ceiling mount bipoles, not the case.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's okay. I'm going to do it anyway. 



Come at me, bros.


----------



## NorthSky

Get direct front firing speakers (monopoles) all around and feel all the peace coming from all around and above. 
That's what David meant too.

* Scott, in a good mood on this Saturday night live!


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's an interesting question and no, Dolby has not said you can not do it the way @wadec22 suggests trying.

I'm going to put it to the test but unfortunately not for a while.

I am currently using Emotiva ERD-1's as surrounds which I will take down and replace with JBL 8330's. The ERD-1's will be moved towards the ceiling and used as front and rear heights (for Atmos/DTS:X/CinemaDSP). I will also have them mounted so that they are not in their normal orientation (aiming side to side) and instead turn them 90 degrees (firing up and down) and mount them up high. Like *wadec22*, I am exactly 5ft from my rear wall. They will be 45 degrees up and behind me with the JBL's moreso at ear level or slightly above.

This will net me with a big, direct yet diffuse soundfield above. The best of both worlds. The direct portion will be no different than a monopole speaker but I'll also light up a large portion of the ceiling with the same sound. The difference in distance will be short enough that it will not sound delayed at all. So instead of a hot-spot-like radiation I'll get a very large swash of sound which will also be distinct aplenty as it is still direct radiating.

No, it's not recommended by Dolby and I don't care. Do you think they even though of this and tried it out? I don't.

Unfortunately I won't know for sure how well it works until I get an Atmos/DTS:X processor (August/September 2015, I hope) but it will cost me absolutely..... nothing. 

Win win. 

I dare anybody else with the resources to try it.

Be interesting. This content in here is often not. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## Scott Simonian

Was just thinking of another cool idea.

Do what I mentioned just before with "bipoles" mounting in the respecting front and rear "height" locations.

Then buy two pairs of these: http://www.svsound.com/speakers/ultra-series/ultra-surround

They are unique in that they have duplicate crossovers in them. You can operate them as: bipole, dipole or dual channel monopole. They allow you to (not unlike a pair of Atmos-enabled speakers) to hook up two independent channels of speaker content to one and have one direction fire something and the other direction fire different content.

Now, set up your room with these in the front and rear heights. And while you're at it, hook up some conventional monopoles in the middle of the ceiling to playback middle top content. I'll get back to that in a second.

So with the middle top ready to go and these SVS surrounds in the front and rear height positions, you now hook up the hook up the downfiring part as the rear heights. Then hook up the top firing part to (obviously doesn't exist yet) a set of outputs for the top rear position. Repeat the process for the front height and tops.



You are now set up to fully realize a full x.x.10 overhead surround field with only three speakers.

Pow!


----------



## NorthSky

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. Have read it a lot.

Find the part where it says you _can't_ use bipoles mounted in a 90 degree orientation.

Oh, don't worry. I'll give you all the time you need.


----------



## NorthSky

True, not only they don't mentioned dipoles, but they don't mentioned bipoles either. 

I guess it's a free-for-all Dolby Atmos experimentation after all. ...The guidelines are just that; guidelines, and nothing's abso!ute. 

About tripoles and quadpoles? 

____________ 

Ok, sound absorption is recommended on all walls and floor, and sound reflection on the ceiling. 
Use that as an acoustic sound guide, and play with all your speakers, timbre-matched if possible, and front-firing with wide dispersion pattern for your overheads ones. 
That, is mentioned. And just look @ all those configuration graphs; do you see any bipolar speakers anywhere? 
And do you see your overhead speakers installed high up on your front and rear walls? ...No. 

Use common sense, experiment freely, and then decide what you prefer, but not necessarily what sounds best, or optimally/properly immersive from Dolby Atmos audio sound recording/mixing engineers. Are they going to use dipole and bipole speakers when they do their Dolby Atmos mixes? ...No way Jose. 

So, what you wanna do now; bifurcate from the true intended sound waves? ...Freedom is all we can truly buy when we're broke inside.

Get monopoles. [email protected] ear level for all the floor speakers, with the side and back surrounds up to a foot or so max above ear level.
And the four overhead speakers they go on or in the ceiling, and they are from the front-firing variety with wide dispersion (90 degree or so) and aim them @ the MLP, or straight down (EXPERIMENT). 

If you want dipoles and/or bipoles @ the side and rear, and you want to mount them six feet up from the floor, go ahead, check it out; you're free.
If you want to use your own speakers as up-firing ones; go ahead, but you won't have the intended notch that true Dolby Atmos up-firing ones have in their specially designed x-over. ...Again you're free.

If someone ask me; can I use dipoles, or bipoles for my overhead speakers, but instead of mounting them above my head, I want to mount them high up my two walls front and behind...I would say NO. But you are free to experiment.

Some folks don't care about timbre-matched speakers; Audyssey is going to take care of that. Awesome, they use the freedom given to them.
Same with bipole, use your freedom along Audyssey. 

We live in a free country where spies are no longer listening to cell phone conversations. 
Long live La France, and America. 

Because when freedom is not any longer part of our free societies that's when we'll all live within tough walls of our own jails of slavery and misery.
...We're almost there, and if we don't change soon, Dolby Atmos will.


----------



## tj21

So where are we 4 months since Atmos introduction? Which major studios embraced the format and which do not care?

Lionsgate: fully aboard with

Step Up All In
Expendables 3
John Wick
Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
Vice

Paramount: partially aboard with some authoring issues (Hercules?) and notable misses: How to Train Your Dragon 2, Interstellar

Transformers: Age of Extinction
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Warner Brothers: carefully testing water with re-releases but no Hobbit (even the extended edition!).

Gravity
Chicago

Fox: rumored but later denied Exodus: Gods of Kings

Universal, Sony, Disney, Dreamworks, ...: nothing

Did you expect more? I have.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I am currently using Emotiva ERD-1's as surrounds


One of the great undiscovered surround speakers IMO. From the days when Emo had some terrific Vance Dickason designs. I still have a full set of three 6.3s and four ERD-1s in storage. Because they are not well known here, they won’t fetch much if I sell them and I can't bring myself to let them go for next to nothing - they are so good. I only switched from the 6.3s to my S150s because the 6.3s were too tall for my room when I installed the big PJ screen. The S150s, being much less tall, fitted perfectly.


----------



## Nightlord

Roger Dressler said:


> The result is the same. No?


If it will be, then i misunderstood the method suggested. Quite possible, of course.


----------



## Movie78

Speaker layout.

DTS X and Dolby Atmos

Since DTS HD MA and Dolby TrueHD speaker layout are the same 

It DTS X speaker layout going to be different from Dolby Atmos?


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> Speaker layout.
> 
> DTS X and Dolby Atmos
> 
> Since DTS HD MA and Dolby TrueHD speaker layout are the same
> 
> It DTS X speaker layout going to be different from Dolby Atmos?


It hasn’t been confirmed yet. DTS have said that their speaker arrangement will "overlap" with that of Atmos, but it isn't clear if "overlap" means "the same as" or "compatible with". All will be revealed in March at CES apparently. If you haven't installed speakers yet I'd suggest holding off until March - it is possible that there will be an arrangement which is within the spec for both Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> It hasn’t been confirmed yet. DTS have said that their speaker arrangement will "overlap" with that of Atmos, but it isn't clear if "overlap" means "the same as" or "compatible with". All will be revealed in March at CES apparently. If you haven't installed speakers yet I'd suggest holding off until March - it is possible that there will be an arrangement which is within the spec for both Atmos and DTS:X.


Thanks!


----------



## gamecock

Newbie question here. I thought a had answer but the more I look this certain I am. Now with my SC-55 sick and about to go to repair, I am thinking of the merits of new receiver with Atmos.

My speaker setup can't change, but I have been living with partial setup for ever.
I have a 9.1 setup. Center and 2 fronts are paradigm on shelves around tv.

Surround f/r and surround back r/f are in ceiling. Been too long but I believe thx certified soundance (sp?) stuff. 

I few years added 2 speakers for heights/wides effect. They have just average quality but good enough for that effect. They aren't actually in ceiling but 10 feet above front speakers.

Is this a workable Atmos setup?
Thanks


----------



## roxiedog13

David Susilo said:


> How many times it needs to be said: Dolby only recommends monopole. NOT dipole, NOT bipole.



I would certainly suggest sticking within the Dolby guidelines, however it is not always that simple. If you are building a new theater you have plenty of flexibility
to put speakers anywhere within the room and can purchase the type suggested, in this case monopole. 


Rooms vary in shape, some even lack all four walls, it's just the reality of what an individual has to work with. I can understand how some owners are trying to make
the best of their situation and adapt the best solution even if that means stepping outside the boundaries of the Dolby guidelines. 


When I decided to step into the Atmos arena I did so fully knowing my theater was already recently finished , set-up for 7.1. I consider myself lucky in that my current 7.1 
speakers were already in the correct position to compliment Atmos. I didn't have in-ceiling speakers but did have the speaker wires available just because I anticipated change
and had wires pulled to a common location already. 


Dolby suggests monopoles for surrounds, but I just installed in-wall side surrounds from Paradigm, the ADP 130 referred to as "adapted *dipole*." At $1,100.00 each and custom built
into a mahogany pillar I didn't have the cajoles to approach my wife and explain that I would have to replace the same. Turns out they work just fine, especially as they are mounted 
between two rows of seats and the angles for the tweeters are toward each row of seating. Monoples may work better here, but this is one situation where swapping the speakers for
a different one could not be justified , yet work just fine.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> It hasn’t been confirmed yet. DTS have said that their speaker arrangement will "overlap" with that of Atmos, but it isn't clear if "overlap" means "the same as" or "compatible with". All will be revealed in March at CES apparently. If you haven't installed speakers yet I'd suggest holding off until March - it is possible that there will be an arrangement which is within the spec for both Atmos and DTS:X.



My fingers are crossed , hoping the DTS overlap = same as Atmos, I cannot make any more changes for speakers but want to enjoy all the formats coming.:serious:


----------



## gamecock

gamecock said:


> Newbie question here. I thought a had answer but the more I look this certain I am. Now with my SC-55 sick and about to go to repair, I am thinking of the merits of new receiver with Atmos.
> 
> My speaker setup can't change, but I have been living with partial setup for ever.
> I have a 9.1 setup. Center and 2 fronts are paradigm on shelves around tv.
> 
> Surround f/r and surround back r/f are in ceiling. Been too long but I believe thx certified soundance (sp?) stuff.
> 
> I few years added 2 speakers for heights/wides effect. They have just average quality but good enough for that effect. They aren't actually in ceiling but 10 feet above front speakers.
> 
> Is this a workable Atmos setup?
> Thanks



So, would a be best served:
Keeping 7.1 setup. Continue to use front heights as is or 2 for Atmos
Move to a 5.1 + 4 for Atmos. In this case by surrounds go to Atmos and change my back surrounds to surrounds in 5.1

My current surrounds are better 3 ways vs back surrounds. Worried that dedicating the better speakers with Atmos might over power 5.1 surrounds.

The front heights , which be front height Atmos, are orbs and 1 thing that can be upgraded in future, not moved but upgraded


----------



## aaranddeeman

With more and more height channels into play with different formats, looks like it's time for AVR manufacturers to create a "fairly" future-proof AVRs by eliminating the height channels from the standard AVR. Yes. Eliminating.
Standard AVR should have it's bed of 7.x processing.
It has one exclusive HDMI output that passes the same bitstream to a height processor/amp.
That height processor can have 4, 6 or whatever possible channels. It also has the similar HDMI out. 
These height processors can then be cascaded going forward.
e.g. You may get one AVR and one height processor that has 4 channels today to get 7.x.4. Tomorrow you might add another height processor to make it 7.x.6 + FW.. And so on..
I know it's more consumer friendly. Not so sure about the :business"


----------



## Selden Ball

gamecock said:


> Newbie question here. I thought a had answer but the more I look this certain I am. Now with my SC-55 sick and about to go to repair, I am thinking of the merits of new receiver with Atmos.
> 
> My speaker setup can't change, but I have been living with partial setup for ever.
> I have a 9.1 setup. Center and 2 fronts are paradigm on shelves around tv.
> 
> Surround f/r and surround back r/f are in ceiling. Been too long but I believe thx certified soundance (sp?) stuff.
> 
> I few years added 2 speakers for heights/wides effect. They have just average quality but good enough for that effect. They aren't actually in ceiling but 10 feet above front speakers.
> 
> Is this a workable Atmos setup?
> Thanks





gamecock said:


> So, would a be best served:
> Keeping 7.1 setup. Continue to use front heights as is or 2 for Atmos
> Move to a 5.1 + 4 for Atmos. In this case by surrounds go to Atmos and change my back surrounds to surrounds in 5.1
> 
> My current surrounds are better 3 ways vs back surrounds. Worried that dedicating the better speakers with Atmos might over power 5.1 surrounds.
> 
> The front heights , which be front height Atmos, are orbs and 1 thing that can be upgraded in future, not moved but upgraded


Unfortunately, having most of the speakers in the ceiling will work but won't provide the best Atmos experience. Having surrounds at ear height so you can hear the vertical separation makes a big difference.


----------



## wadec22

Scott Simonian said:


> Was just thinking of another cool idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Do what I mentioned just before with "bipoles" mounting in the respecting front and rear "height" locations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then buy two pairs of these: http://www.svsound.com/speakers/ultra-series/ultra-surround
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are unique in that they have duplicate crossovers in them. You can operate them as: bipole, dipole or dual channel monopole. They allow you to (not unlike a pair of Atmos-enabled speakers) to hook up two independent channels of speaker content to one and have one direction fire something and the other direction fire different content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, set up your room with these in the front and rear heights. And while you're at it, hook up some conventional monopoles in the middle of the ceiling to playback middle top content. I'll get back to that in a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with the middle top ready to go and these SVS surrounds in the front and rear height positions, you now hook up the hook up the downfiring part as the rear heights. Then hook up the top firing part to (obviously doesn't exist yet) a set of outputs for the top rear position. Repeat the process for the front height and tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are now set up to fully realize a full x.x.10 overhead surround field with only three speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pow!
















Interesting to use the svs ultras. I'm with you, when I get an atmos receiver, ill be experimenting in similar ways. I too am waiting on dts: x to shake out.


----------



## roxiedog13

briansxx said:


> Roxiedog,
> 
> I'd be very interested in your opinion of the ceiling mounted speakers vs the modules when you are set up.
> 
> Thanks and All the Best,
> 
> Brian



Here you go, you can see where I had the modules on stands and you can see the in-ceiling speakers above the same. I have more pictures to post if this works out.


----------



## Mastiff

NorthSky said:


> P.S. Very nice view from above, right on!
> And make an effort to watch 'The Great Escape' starring _Steve McQueen_; it's a great film, based on a true story (but Canadians, not Americans were more implicated in it), and you'll see exactly what I meant by "Wow wow".


Oh, I knew you meant the original.  Btw thanks to the one who tipped about March and the (hopefully) final word about systems! I will hold off the decision of my speaker placement until then!


----------



## roxiedog13

and here is another, you can see my in-wall ( behind grill in the pillar) DIPOLE speaker mounted between rows, somewhat favoring the front row .


----------



## groundtrac

^^
Sweet setup for starters! I can't help but speculate that in this environment the overheads are going to be preferable to the modules.


----------



## roxiedog13

Here you can see the four in-ceiling speakers , the rear above the bar, slightly behind row two. The rears have a 30 degree angle built in so it points towards the MLP yet covers the rear well too.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> Here you go, you can see where I had the modules on stands and you can see the in-ceiling speakers above the same. I have more pictures to post if this works out.


Haha poor guy... you had to put the speakers on stands like I did? How are they working out for you? Putting them on top of the L/R main front speakers washed out the overhead sound too much so I had to move the modules closer.


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha poor guy... you had to put the speakers on stands like I did? How are they working out for you? Putting them on top of the L/R main front speakers washed out the overhead sound too much so I had to move the modules closer.


 
Those shown on stands are only there for the picture. They are now removed and I only have the in-ceiling. On the front mains they did not work, had to put them on the stands and forward to get it to work. You will notice above the mains the ceiling is dropped, probably why. If full height it may have worked.


One last picture , and by the way, I'm using a 17MM wide angle lens, the room is long, but not as it looks. room is 12ft X 30ft


----------



## roxiedog13

groundtrac said:


> ^^
> Sweet setup for starters! I can't help but speculate that in this environment the overheads are going to be preferable to the modules.



Exactly why I did exactly that. Modules shown on stands now gone, they are in the picture for reference only.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I would certainly suggest sticking within the Dolby guidelines, however it is not always that simple. If you are building a new theater you have plenty of flexibility to put speakers anywhere within the room and can purchase the type suggested, in this case monopole.
> *Rooms vary in shape, some even lack all four walls*, it's just the reality of what an individual has to work with. I can understand how some owners are trying to makethe best of their situation and adapt the best solution even if that means stepping outside the boundaries of the Dolby guidelines.


♦ "Lack all four walls"? 




> When I decided to step into the Atmos arena I did so fully knowing my theater was already recently finished , set-up for 7.1. I consider myself lucky in that my current 7.1 speakers were already in the correct position to compliment Atmos. I didn't have in-ceiling speakers but did have the speaker wires available just because I anticipated change and had wires pulled to a common location already.
> 
> Dolby suggests monopoles for surrounds, but I just installed in-wall side surrounds from *Paradigm, the ADP 130 referred to as "adapted dipole." At $1,100.00 each and custom built into a mahogany pillar I didn't have the cajoles to approach my wife and explain that I would have to replace the same. Turns out they work just fine, especially as they are mounted between two rows of seats and the angles for the tweeters are toward each row of seating.* Monoples may work better here, but this is one situation where swapping the speakers for a different one could not be justified , yet work just fine.


So you are keeping your "adapted dipole" speakers built-in your mahogany pillars? How high are they in reference to listener's ears height?

* I understand the situation; but is this a good reason enough to not upgrade into new developed technologies on surround 3D envelopment? 
Do you have to follow your own guidelines, or accept your installation from past as good enough (valid) in today's new world of Dolby Atmos and dts:x and Auro-3D sound? Your actual setup right now; does it follow/confirm to the THX guidelines of past Dolby Pro Logic 'prohibition era'? 

What is more important; optimize the sound or respect your decor? 

...Fair questions. ...For you, and also for everyone else.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> Exactly why I did exactly that. Modules shown on stands now gone, they are in the picture for reference only.


Did you end up just using your in ceiling speakers or did you put the modules on the F L/R speakers?


----------



## dvdwilly3

roxiedog13 said:


> +1 Fury was that good, for all the right reasons not just the sound. Acting, and I mean all were brilliant, not just the leads. The story, setting and certainly the sound all came together well.
> 
> 
> I'll have to watch this many times to figure out why I liked it so much, when a movie is really good I am pulled in 100%, I'm captivated . When I watch it over and over  again, I will only
> then be able to break it down and see why, from my perspective, I enjoyed the movie so much.
> 
> 
> As someone said earlier, time to put away the ladder, the tools , the diagnostics and start enjoying. I'm there
> 
> 
> I'm off for a 15K ski now, time to get some fitness and fresh air


Try Oblivion and watch scene where Tom Cruise flies into the crater to check out the downed drones...around 9:10. Watch carefully--as he begins a counter-clockwise circle of the crater, his flying whatever goes off-screen to your left. The sound occurs at that location, goes around behind you, and comes in over your head to land in front of you...


----------



## robert816

tj21 said:


> So where are we 4 months since Atmos introduction? Which major studios embraced the format and which do not care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lionsgate: fully aboard with
> 
> Step Up All In
> Expendables 3
> John Wick
> Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
> Vice
> 
> Paramount: partially aboard with some authoring issues (Hercules?) and notable misses: How to Train Your Dragon 2, Interstellar
> 
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> 
> Warner Brothers: carefully testing water with re-releases but no Hobbit (even the extended edition!).
> 
> Gravity
> Chicago
> Fox: rumored but later denied Exodus: Gods of Kings
> 
> Universal, Sony, Disney, Dreamworks, ...: nothing
> 
> Did you expect more? I have.


 
Don't forget the Japanese Atmos releases:


Warner Brothers/Pony Canyon, Transcendence
Lionsgate/Pony Canyon, I,Frankenstein
BBC Earth, Nature (Enchanted Kingdom)
Also there is a Chinese Blu-Ray with Atmos, not certain who released it, but its titled Overheard 3


All the Japanese releases are English Dolby Atmos mixes and sound great. I'm sure there will be plenty of releases this year of both old and new, so I'm not concerned.
Shame they are not releasing Fury with an Atmos mix in Japan, I would have waited and bought that version instead.
There are several movies released to theatres in Korea that have Atmos mixes, but so far no word on Blu-Ray versions.
My curiosity is whether we will see DTS:X in standard Blu-Ray releases or will they be 4K only releases, or a mix of both, guess we'll know more in another month or so.


----------



## NorthSky

tj21 said:


> So where are we 4 months since Atmos introduction? Which major studios embraced the format and which do not care?
> 
> Lionsgate: fully aboard with
> 
> Step Up All In
> Expendables 3
> John Wick
> Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
> Vice
> 
> Paramount: partially aboard with some authoring issues (Hercules?) and notable misses: How to Train Your Dragon 2, Interstellar
> 
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> 
> Warner Brothers: carefully testing water with re-releases but no Hobbit (even the extended edition!).
> 
> Gravity
> Chicago
> 
> Fox: rumored but later denied Exodus: Gods of Kings
> 
> Universal, Sony, Disney, Dreamworks, ...: nothing
> 
> Did you expect more? I have.


Right now, in true actuality, released and in our hands, that we can play; four titles (highlighted in red), plus the Dolby Atmos demo Blu-ray, for a grand total of five are in actual circulation. Two BD titles were previously announced with Dolby Atmos ('Hercules' and 'Exodus') and then they were cancelled.
...And 'Gravity' has been delayed. * I'm talking about the North American market here; what's happening in our own country. 

Those are facts, and they are very sad life's statistics for Dolby Atmos; no matter how you cut it. 
I love Dolby Atmos, and I want the very best for them, and I just mentioned the facts, only the facts ladies and gentlemen; and that don't make me a hater or a traitor or a deserter. 
I want to succeed in my own room with my own 3D sound in my own setup and using real concrete and discrete Dolby Atmos software on Blu-ray discs. 
Dolby Atmos was invented for new "discrete" elevated 3D sound with object rendition with a Dolby Atmos decoder/object renderer. 
DSU is an interim up-mixer/digital DSP sound processor, like Circle Virtual Surround. ...And it doesn't even have a dedicated Music listening mode.
It's for Movies and movies only. ...Great for people who only love movies, but less great for all the music lovers out there (99.9999999999999% if not more). 

I hope...but the real world is not based on hope.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tj21 said:


> So where are we 4 months since Atmos introduction? Which major studios embraced the format and which do not care?
> 
> Lionsgate: fully aboard with
> 
> Step Up All In
> Expendables 3
> John Wick
> Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
> Vice
> 
> Paramount: partially aboard with some authoring issues (Hercules?) and notable misses: How to Train Your Dragon 2, Interstellar
> 
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> 
> Warner Brothers: carefully testing water with re-releases but no Hobbit (even the extended edition!).
> 
> Gravity
> Chicago
> 
> Fox: rumored but later denied Exodus: Gods of Kings
> 
> Universal, Sony, Disney, Dreamworks, ...: nothing
> 
> Did you expect more? I have.


Intersteller was not in Atmos and will never will be as long as Nolan is alive. He's not a fan of surround sound or good sound for that matter (going Woody Allen on us). How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a Fox property due to their Dreamworks distribution deal. Chicago is a Miramax property, so probably Lionsgate for distribution.

Some of these studios may have new deals with DTS for mixing and encoding in DTS:X and some may be holding off until Ultra HD Blu-ray to use object surround as an enticing feature.


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> Don't forget the Japanese Atmos releases:
> 
> Warner Brothers/Pony Canyon, Transcendence
> Lionsgate/Pony Canyon, I,Frankenstein
> BBC Earth, Nature (Enchanted Kingdom)
> Also there is a Chinese Blu-Ray with Atmos, not certain who released it, but its titled Overheard 3
> 
> All the Japanese releases are English Dolby Atmos mixes and sound great. I'm sure there will be plenty of releases this year of both old and new, so I'm not concerned.
> Shame they are not releasing Fury with an Atmos mix in Japan, I would have waited and bought that version instead.
> There are several movies released to theatres in Korea that have Atmos mixes, but so far no word on Blu-Ray versions.
> My curiosity is whether we will see DTS:X in standard Blu-Ray releases or will they be 4K only releases, or a mix of both, guess we'll know more in another month or so.


Dolby; is it a Japanese company? ...A Korean company? ...An American company? ...A Chinese company? 

In Europe, in France, in the UK, in Italy, in Spain, in India, in Russia, in Germany, in Africa, in Arabia, ...how many Blu-ray Dolby Atmos movie titles have been released so far? ...In North America, in Canada, in the USA, in South America?


----------



## chi_guy50

Movie78 said:


> Speaker layout.
> 
> DTS X and Dolby Atmos
> 
> Since DTS HD MA and Dolby TrueHD speaker layout are the same
> 
> It DTS X speaker layout going to be different from Dolby Atmos?





kbarnes701 said:


> It hasn’t been confirmed yet. DTS have said that their speaker arrangement will "overlap" with that of Atmos, but it isn't clear if "overlap" means "the same as" or "compatible with". All will be revealed in March at CES apparently. If you haven't installed speakers yet I'd suggest holding off until March - it is possible that there will be an arrangement which is within the spec for both Atmos and DTS:X.


 Actually, DTS CEO Jon Kirchner has gone much further, stating that DTS:X "supports any speaker layout," specifically including Dolby Atmos layouts. There is no doubt that DTS is claiming that their system will be compatible with Dolby's.

I suppose you could debate the meaning of "supports" but it will probably be at least 8 or 9 months before we will be able to verify how well it performs. And if DTS:X is supposed to be layout agnostic (one of DTS's chief marketing points AFAICT), it will be interesting to see whether there are any recommended speaker placements and, if so, how they will differ from Atmos and Auro layouts for the height speakers.

At any rate, if you already have speakers in place (or must finalize now), I think you can be fairly confident that following Dolby's guidelines will serve you in good stead for DTS:X as well.


----------



## dschulz

NorthSky said:


> Dolby; is it a Japanese company? ...A Korean company? ...An American company? ...A Chinese company?


Dolby is an American company. Headquartered in San Francisco (but with offices all over the world), and publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

FWIW, DTS is also American, based in Southern California and publicly traded on the NASDAQ.

Auro Technologies is based in Belgium, as is Barco.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> ♦ "Lack all four walls"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are keeping your "adapted dipole" speakers built-in your mahogany pillars? How high are they in reference to listener's ears height?
> 
> * I understand the situation; but is this a good reason enough to not upgrade into new developed technologies on surround 3D envelopment?
> Do you have to follow your own guidelines, or accept your installation from past as good enough (valid) in today's new world of Dolby Atmos and dts:x and Auro-3D sound? Your actual setup right now; does it follow/confirm to the THX guidelines of past Dolby Pro Logic 'prohibition era'?
> 
> What is more important; optimize the sound or respect your decor?
> 
> ...Fair questions. ...For you, and also for everyone else.



First of all lack all four walls LOL that would be one special theater . I guess what I meant was lack one of four .


Yes keeping the dipole speakers for now. I paid a fortune for those and cannot justify replacing them for a while.


*No you do not understand the situation. Telling my wife the $2200.00 side surrounds now have to be tossed out after less that one year is not healthy, for this man anyway.  Honestly though
she would not bat an eye, I just can't do it, at least for a while. 


Speaker has nothing to do with décor, it's monetary at this point. Besides, the dipoles work well the atmos coming through as it should. Maybe it would be better with monopoles, at some point I will probably try, for now I'm happy with the results.


----------



## roxiedog13

dvdwilly3 said:


> Try Oblivion and watch scene where Tom Cruise flies into the crater to check out the downed drones...around 9:10. Watch carefully--as he begins a counter-clockwise circle of the crater, his flying whatever goes off-screen to your left. The sound occurs at that location, goes around behind you, and comes in over your head to land in front of you...



Have Oblivion will have a look later tonight. 


Tks


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> Did you end up just using your in ceiling speakers or did you put the modules on the F L/R speakers?



Just using the in-ceiling, the modules are packed up ready to sell them actually. If my ceiling had been higher over the mains ,the modules would have worked out
just fine. As I mentioned in a previous post, all rooms are different, what works for one situation may not be suitable for others.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, I knew that Dolby was mainly American, and dts too. ...I like to see American Dolby Atmos and DTS:X Blu-ray releases, more. 

______

One more thing: Did you ever notice the seats (chairs) @ the commercial theaters? 
...And the recliner seats like from *roxiedog*'s picture on the previous page? 

Many personal home theater rooms use very high back seats, recliners or not. 
...Above and behind your head is the back seat made of nice leather or thick material, perfect to absorb the sound.
{No matter how high you mount your surrounds, some high back seats are going to stop their sound dispersion.}

My opinion? ...Very comfortable to sit on, and for extended periods of time; can even fall easily asleep in them. ...Key word: Comfort, Relaxation. 

For optimal sound provenance from all around? [email protected] the commercial theaters, yes. ...Key word: Sound Dispersion, Envelopment, Surround. 

Just a simple observation, and where a good balance could be emancipated physically. 
Personally, some seats are better than others when it comes to Surround Sound. 
We all like comfort, and we all like to be fully immersed by the sound, coming from all around; just like when film sound mixers did their Dolby Atmos audio mixes @ their new mixing consoles in their sound mixing/recording studios and/or @ professional sound theater mixing/recording venues. 

If these pro film mixing sound guys use high back chairs when doing their film mixes, I think it's time that they get proper seats if they want to do their job properly. ...Some of them. ...And film mixers are the most important people in the final overall results we get in our rooms when it comes to full involvement in 3D sound. 

* Marc (FilmMixer) did a good job with his team on the soundtrack of *'Fury'*. ...DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround.

______


----------



## SoundChex

roxiedog13 said:


> First of all lack all four walls LOL that would be one special theater.



The NHK-JEITA 8K4K TV exhibit at CEATEC Japan 2012 appears intended to show the _room geometry feasibility_ of including an SHV display *plus 22.x speakers* in an "average family living room" circa 2020.





_Tragically a shortage of building materials seems to have left them with only one of four planned walls . . . and no ceiling! _

Nonetheless, the _fictional_ family from that exhibit seems to have adopted a strategy of placing each of the 5 _middle layer_ surround speakers "at ear height" in a stand, with each corresponding _height layer_ surround speaker located at the top of the (same) stand. (The _nominal Hamasaki 22.2 configuration_ *Top Center* speaker is omitted.)


_


----------



## gamecock

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, having most of the speakers in the ceiling will work but won't provide the best Atmos experience. Having surrounds at ear height so you can hear the vertical separation makes a big difference.



Ok, thanks. Type of information I was looking for. I will see how much repair is and not jump the gun on a new one for ATMOS


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> The NHK-JEITA 8K4K TV exhibit at CEATEC Japan 2012 appears intended to show the _room geometry feasibility_ of including an SHV display *plus 22.x speakers* in an "average family living room" circa 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> _Tragically a shortage of building materials seems to have left them with only one of four planned walls . . . and no ceiling! _
> 
> Nonetheless, the _fictional_ family from that exhibit seems to have adopted a strategy of placing each of the 5 _middle layer_ surround speakers "at ear height" in a stand, with each corresponding _height layer_ surround speaker located at the top of the (same) stand. (The _nominal Hamasaki 22.2 configuration_ *Top Center* speaker is omitted.)


♦ Ok, I give you that one; a perfect example of a typical family in their own typical living room. ...Without walls and ceiling, just a floor.
{The front wall shouldn't be there; that was a mistake, I think. ...The flat panel TV should be suspended, from the floor on its on stand.}


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Yes keeping the dipole speakers for now. I paid a fortune for those and cannot justify replacing them for a while.
> 
> ** No you do not understand the situation. Telling my wife the $2200.00 side surrounds now have to be tossed out after less that one year is not healthy, for this man anyway.  Honestly though she would not bat an eye, I just can't do it, at least for a while.*
> 
> Speaker has nothing to do with décor, it's monetary at this point. Besides, the dipoles work well the atmos coming through as it should. Maybe it would be better with monopoles, at some point I will probably try, for now I'm happy with the results.


Maybe it's time for you and your wife to sit down and have a serious conversation about Dolby Atmos? 
...And of course discussing financial matters, as a good measure of a well balanced class act. 

* There's no price for true happiness. ...All good.


----------



## Ocielz

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post but I need some info. 
I just bought the Onkyo TX-NR1030 and it's capable of 11.2 surround with ext amp. Currently I have a set up of 9.2 with Onkyo Atmos add-on speakers and Atmos sound as 7.2.2.
I can't do ceiling speakers or bookshelf speaker hanging on the wall. My only option is to buy another pair of Onkyo Atmos speakers and put those on top of my 4 and 5 speakers and make my system 11.2 and 7.2.4 Atmos. Other option would be to put them on top of my 6 and 7 speakers. Does that sound about right?










Trying to get this:










will the receiver as is now be capable of doing 7.2.4 without the Ext Amp or Should I just do the 11.2 set up with external amp and hopefully get 7.2.4? 

*** sorry for the bad drawings but it's the best I could do while on my phone and break from cutting the lawn***

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> ... all rooms are different, what works for one situation may not be suitable for others.


Very very very true.


----------



## BamaDave

roxiedog13 said:


> Yes keeping the dipole speakers for now. I paid a fortune for those and cannot justify replacing them for a while.


I would do the same and don't think the side surrounds are going to be heavely affected with the overhead formats. It me the main objective would not to use dipole for overhead speakers.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Yes, I knew that Dolby was mainly American, and dts too. ...I like to see American Dolby Atmos and DTS:X Blu-ray releases, more.
> 
> ______
> 
> One more thing: Did you ever notice the seats (chairs) @ the commercial theaters?
> ...And the recliner seats like from *roxiedog*'s picture on the previous page?
> 
> Many personal home theater rooms use very high back seats, recliners or not.
> ...Above and behind your head is the back seat made of nice leather or thick material, perfect to absorb the sound.
> {No matter how high you mount your surrounds, some high back seats are going to stop their sound dispersion.}
> 
> My opinion? ...Very comfortable to sit on, and for extended periods of time; can even fall easily asleep in them. ...Key word: Comfort, Relaxation.
> 
> For optimal sound provenance from all around? [email protected] the commercial theaters, yes. ...Key word: Sound Dispersion, Envelopment, Surround.
> 
> Just a simple observation, and where a good balance could be emancipated physically.
> Personally, some seats are better than others when it comes to Surround Sound.
> We all like comfort, and we all like to be fully immersed by the sound, coming from all around; just like when film sound mixers did their Dolby Atmos audio mixes @ their new mixing consoles in their sound mixing/recording studios and/or @ professional sound theater mixing/recording venues.
> 
> If these pro film mixing sound guys use high back chairs when doing their film mixes, I think it's time that they get proper seats if they want to do their job properly. ...Some of them. ...And film mixers are the most important people in the final overall results we get in our rooms when it comes to full involvement in 3D sound.
> 
> * Marc (FilmMixer) did a good job with his team on the soundtrack of *'Fury'*. ...DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround.
> 
> ______



The understanding I had for best HT treatment was as much sound deadening treatment as possible. Outside of having a anechoic chamber the best décor to use is, plush furniture, heavy full length curtains, plush carpet. Stay away from concrete or tile floors, concrete walls, solid furniture pieces etc. Plush décor does not replace true sound deadening appointments certainly, plush décor is the next best thing as I understood. 



Now I cannot argue, the seats are high back, my ears are just about at the top of the chair. I and most who watch in my theater do recline the chairs a little , nothing blocking sound then. Besides, in a normal seated position even with the seat back up, the ONLY speaker that does not have a perfect line of site direct to my ear is the rear on wall surrounds . Even using a low back from the front row, the rear on wall cannot make a direct line to my ears . This is why originally I had the rear in-ceiling speakers for rear surrounds pointing down 30 degrees. Now these rear in-ceiling are the rear atmos and my rear surrounds way back on the far wall. Not ideal but best I could do .


----------



## BluesSailor

OK, here's the deal....

I've got a cathedral ceiling with the apex running left to right across the room. Been trying to figure out how to place Atmos speakers optimally but no joy as side walls are too far outboard of the front L & R speakers. Had thought about mounting either in-wall speakers at 9-10' high or perhaps under a soffit that runs the perimeter of the room, again outside of the mains. Directional speakers such as Goldenear Invisa HTR 7000's look promising but it depends on what you read regarding their suitability for this application.

Latest idea, and even has WAF approval if done cleanly and with style, is to suspend track, similar (same?) to that used for track lighting. Then speakers such as Tannoy's or perhaps Goldenear (to match LCR & Surrounds) mounted on the track.

Pluses - 1) Able to custom set height to MLP 2) Can choose exact placement of overheads 3) Would be able to fine tune system by moving on tracks to optimal position.

Minuses - 1) May be kind of clunky looking if not done right 2) Symmetry to the room will be out the window if I use front and rear height positions .

Has anyone else considered or gone in this direction? Any recommendations for the track that isn't 'industrial' looking, White or paintable would be preferred. Other than possible vibration issues are there any other downsides to this approach?

Brad


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> The understanding I had for best HT treatment was as much sound deadening treatment as possible. Outside of having a anechoic chamber the best décor to use is, plush furniture, heavy full length curtains, plush carpet. Stay away from concrete or tile floors, concrete walls, solid furniture pieces etc. Plush décor does not replace true sound deadening appointments certainly, plush décor is the next best thing as I understood.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I cannot argue, the seats are high back, my ears are just about at the top of the chair. I and most who watch in my theater do recline the chairs a little , nothing blocking sound then. Besides, in a normal seated position even with the seat back up, the ONLY speaker that does not have a perfect line of site direct to my ear is the rear on wall surrounds . Even using a low back from the front row, the rear on wall cannot make a direct line to my ears . This is why originally I had the rear in-ceiling speakers for rear surrounds pointing down 30 degrees. Now these rear in-ceiling are the rear atmos and my rear surrounds way back on the far wall. Not ideal but best I could do .


 
A beautiful home theatre sir, and tastefully done, one worthy of envy. 
I like the front stage and the Atmos modules do not detract from the aesthetics in my opinion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> With more and more height channels into play with different formats, looks like it's time for AVR manufacturers to create a "fairly" future-proof AVRs by eliminating the height channels from the standard AVR. Yes. Eliminating.
> Standard AVR should have it's bed of 7.x processing.
> It has one exclusive HDMI output that passes the same bitstream to a height processor/amp.
> That height processor can have 4, 6 or whatever possible channels. It also has the similar HDMI out.
> These height processors can then be cascaded going forward.
> e.g. You may get one AVR and one height processor that has 4 channels today to get 7.x.4. Tomorrow you might add another height processor to make it 7.x.6 + FW.. And so on..
> I know it's more consumer friendly. Not so sure about the :business"


However, there are also more main level speakers besides the overheads as well. If you're going modular (probably should link renderers with an Ethernet connection) then you need to account for Atmos' (and even DTS:X's) scalable capabilities.


----------



## gerchy

Yup, I can now confirm. 
Fury sounds very good with DSU engaged.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, there are also more main level speakers besides the overheads as well. If you're going modular (probably should link renderers with an Ethernet connection) then you need to account for Atmos' (and even DTS:X's) scalable capabilities.


I am not aware of more main level speakers than the usual 7? 
May be just the FW, but that is optional. 
One of the height pairs can be used to handle that by designating it as such..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> I am not aware of more main level speakers than the usual 7?
> May be just the FW, but that is optional.
> One of the height pairs can be used to handle that by designating it as such..


Atmos has 24 main, 10 overhead, and one LFE. Not sure how DTS will be designating their X layouts. CES was mentioning 22.2.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos has 24 main, 10 overhead, and one LFE. Not sure how DTS will be designating their X layouts. CES was mentioning 22.2.



You mean to tell me I have to install 23 more speakers ??  :grin:


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> A beautiful home theatre sir, and tastefully done, one worthy of envy.
> I like the front stage and the Atmos modules do not detract from the aesthetics in my opinion.



Thanks for the compliment . The front modules are gone though, only there to show where they were before the in-ceilings now above in the same picture.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

BluesSailor said:


> OK, here's the deal....
> 
> I've got a cathedral ceiling with the apex running left to right across the room. Been trying to figure out how to place Atoms speakers optimally but no joy as side walls are too far outboard of the front L & R speakers. Had thought about mounting either in-wall speakers at 9-10' high or perhaps under a soffit that runs the perimeter of the room, again outside of the mains. Directional speakers such as Goldenear Invisa HTR 7000's look promising but it depends on what you read regarding their suitability for this application.
> 
> Latest idea, and even has WAF approval if done cleanly and with style, is to suspend track, similar (same?) to that used for track lighting. Then speakers such as Tannoy's or perhaps Goldenear (to match LCR & Surrounds) mounted on the track.
> 
> Pluses - 1) Able to custom set height to MLP 2) Can choose exact placement of overheads 3) Would be able to fine tune system by moving on tracks to optimal position.
> 
> Minuses - 1) May be kind of clunky looking if not done right 2) Symmetry to the room will be out the window if I use front and rear height positions .
> 
> Has anyone else considered or gone in this direction? Any recommendations for the track that isn't 'industrial' looking, White or paintable would be preferred. Other than possible vibration issues are there any other downsides to this approach?
> 
> Brad


I had a cathedral ceiling as well running from about 9 feet high in the front to 16'8" at the back of the room. My solution was to drop the ceiling...it starts at about 9 feet or so and angles up at about 23 degrees until it hits 127 inches, then it's flat across the rest of the room. No more cathedral ceiling. Official tally is about $1300 including what I paid the drywall guy to do the work. If I could do drywall, would have cost me under $700.


----------



## NorthSky

BluesSailor said:


> OK, here's the deal....
> 
> I've got a cathedral ceiling with the apex running left to right across the room. Been trying to figure out how to place Atoms speakers optimally but no joy as side walls are too far outboard of the front L & R speakers. Had thought about mounting either in-wall speakers at 9-10' high or perhaps under a soffit that runs the perimeter of the room, again outside of the mains. Directional speakers such as Goldenear Invisa HTR 7000's look promising but it depends on what you read regarding their suitability for this application.
> 
> Latest idea, and even has WAF approval if done cleanly and with style, is to suspend track, similar (same?) to that used for track lighting. Then speakers such as Tannoy's or perhaps Goldenear (to match LCR & Surrounds) mounted on the track.
> 
> Pluses - 1) Able to custom set height to MLP 2) Can choose exact placement of overheads 3) Would be able to fine tune system by moving on tracks to optimal position.
> 
> Minuses - 1) May be kind of clunky looking if not done right 2) Symmetry to the room will be out the window if I use front and rear height positions .
> 
> Has anyone else considered or gone in this direction? Any recommendations for the track that isn't 'industrial' looking, White or paintable would be preferred. Other than possible vibration issues are there any other downsides to this approach?
> 
> Brad


Diagram?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nightlord said:


> If it will be, then i misunderstood the method suggested. Quite possible, of course.


Or maybe me.

The diagram is my understanding of what happens when the 45-deg projection path on the ceiling is mapped for each of 3 seats in a row. The red line is the average lateral distance from MLP to the 3 paths, for the entire azimuth arc from 30 to 150 degrees. It looks essentially the same as the MLP path.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> It hasn’t been confirmed yet. DTS have said that their speaker arrangement will "overlap" with that of Atmos, but it isn't clear if "overlap" means "the same as" or "compatible with". All will be revealed in March at CES apparently. If you haven't installed speakers yet I'd suggest holding off until March - it is possible that there will be an arrangement which is within the spec for both Atmos and DTS:X.


My understanding is it's a superset. DTS will support any positions defined for Atmos, but possibly others.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Surround Speakers Placement Opinions*

I already had my speakers before any of the Dolby Guidelines for Atmos came out for speaker type. So I have Axiom QS8 ( quadpoles ) and Axiom M2 ( monopole ) speakers. So where would you guys put these speakers ? M2 as rear surround or QS8. M2 as side surround or QS8.

This is not a dedicated home theater. Only a living room with a sectional sofa.


----------



## BluesSailor

NorthSky said:


> Diagram?


Northsky- here are a couple of quick sketches of my situation. Without dropping from the cathedral my only alternative is to go outside the mains. The right side would be nearly 3' outboard and the left side about 2' outboard. Not optimal at all!

NOTE: Scale on both sketches is 6" per block.

Brad


----------



## NorthSky

Dave Vaughn said:


> I had a cathedral ceiling as well running from about 9 feet high in the front to 16'8" at the back of the room. My solution was to drop the ceiling...it starts at about 9 feet or so and angles up at about 23 degrees until it hits 127 inches, then it's flat across the rest of the room. No more cathedral ceiling. Official tally is about $1300 including what I paid the drywall guy to do the work. If I could do drywall, would have cost me under $700.





BluesSailor said:


> Northsky- here are a couple of quick sketches of my situation. Without dropping from the cathedral my only alternative is to go outside the mains. The right side would be nearly 3' outboard and the left side about 2' outboard. Not optimal at all!
> 
> NOTE: Scale on both sketches is 6" per block.
> 
> Brad


Brad I appreciate the provided sketches. ...They don't convey enough a good representation of your room, but I can make some of it.

David (quote above yours) took the challenge seriously and went in grandeur, his own style to 'contour' the issue. 

* My own room's ceiling is eleven feet high @ the highest point (center); I intend to install four speaker brackets with extended telescopic (manually adjustable) rods (roughly two feet long when fully extended). That's my own personal plan for my wood ceiling. 
The wiring is going to be the toughest part; I'm not exactly sure yet on how I'm going to proceed, and if they can be made invisible travelling from the inside front wall and through the very restricted space in the ceiling. ...A heck of a job. ...The other solution for the wiring is along one corner and side wall and side ceiling, with transparent copper jacket to match my wood ceiling. I can make that to be virtually quasi invisible (I'm good @ that). ...Better than drilling holes and fishing speaker cables through wall and ceiling, I think. ...Under the floor no sweat, my palace conforms to this accessibility with ease. But it's the four overhead speakers we are talking about here, not the floor surrounds. 

Your two diagrams don't give me a good view enough to check your own room's situation. 
I realize this thread is enormous, and in it there are several great ideas for all type of rooms. 
People are very inventive and full of great creative ideas; the better plan of your room you can share the faster the good ideas will come.

The best of the best that I saw before was from Roger Dressler when he came up with a link on how to do a 3D representation of your room setup.
The 3D picture was fantastic, with all the details, furniture, scaled to size, and simply the best of them all.
If Roger is reading this post perhaps he can share that great link again; I believe I saw it in the MiniDSP DDRC-88A Official thread ** 8-channel AI/AO Dirac Live in a box. ...Some like that. ...I'll search for it. 

Anyway, a view of your ceiling would help a lot. ...With your MLP (main listening position) of course. 
From your sketches it's just too little, from top. ...Roger's link is best; I can use it myself too, and you, and everyone else. 
...Short of having a 3D representation, pictures (photos) even from a smartphone are second best. ...Then side views from graphs, and @ different angles.

_Bob_


----------



## NorthSky

No, that link from Roger is not in the thread that I just mentioned in my above post; I'll do a different type of search to locate it ....


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos has 24 main, 10 overhead, and one LFE. Not sure how DTS will be designating their X layouts. CES was mentioning 22.2.


Yeah. But that is too far away and not sure if it will make it to "home". You will probably need an exclusive home called "Theater Home"..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Yeah. But that is too far away and not sure if it will make it to "home". You will probably need an exclusive home called "Theater Home"..


It already is available for the home, but you do need the room... and a deep pocket book.


----------



## NorthSky

Found it! ...The Magic Link! ...Free 3D downloadable software => www.sweethome3d.com/index.jsp

________

* That's the thread where she was:

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

________

That "Magic Link" above could be useful for everyone; you Brad, me Bob, and for everyone else.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Yeah. But that is too far away and not sure if it will make it to "home". You will probably need an exclusive home called "Theater Home"..





Dan Hitchman said:


> It already is available for the home, but you do need the room... and a deep pocket book.


Just go simple; with a *7.2.4* Dolby Atmos setup. 

Or, an eventual *9.1.4* configuration coming up to a theater near you. ...That I think is very very possible within the next two years.
And it won't cost your laundry room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> My understanding is it's a superset. DTS will support any positions defined for Atmos, but possibly others.


I hope so - that would be great for me, and IMO the only way that makes sense for DTS to go, coming in so late.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Just go simple; with a *7.2.4* Dolby Atmos setup.
> 
> Or, an eventual *9.1.4* configuration coming up to a theater near you. ...That I think is very very possible within the next two years.
> And it won't cost your laundry room.


Why 9.1.4 and not 7.1.6 ? I was thinking 6 Atmos in-ceiling would be the next progression or is there another configuration that may be better ? Front heights maybe or second set of side 
surrounds , what is the train of thought on that? I understood that 6 in-ceiling Atmos was the next progression so I purchased the third ( middle ) set of speakers for the ceiling. If I should
be thinking about front height or side surrounds I'd like to know, so I don't make the mistake of installing something unusable. 

Good thing I ran out of time last week and did not install the middle ceiling speakers then. May be a good idea to leave well enough alone just to see what DTS brings and also what new AVR 
technology is available. I was going to experiment a little with the in-ceiling to see what yields the best Atmos effect, will have to wait now. 

Besides, the wife is back and I've hidden the house dissecting power tools. I'll lay low for a few days, may have to wait until her next business trip.


----------



## roxiedog13

Just reading a Dolby Q & A which I cannot copy and paste for some reason . The question to Dolby was why do receivers have only 11 channels if you can provide 34 . 

His answer was something to the effect that manufactures were in the process of developing product for home use that will develop more capability and .........here's the best part:

*"one of their partners are developing a receiver that can output 32 channels."* 

Better start running more wires boyz , all hell is about to break loose . Sell the family SUV and invest in more speakers. :devil:

Edit: figured out how to copy, here it is :

Q: If Dolby Atmos allows me to add more speakers, why do I see A/V receivers
with just 11 channels?
Many hardware partners are building or planning to build Dolby Atmos enabled A/V receivers and
speakers. Those partners decide what product configurations make the most sense for their
customers. But Dolby Atmos for the home is almost unlimited. One of our hardware partners is
planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels.
Q: If this is not a channel-based system, why are there predefined speaker
positions?
While the Dolby Atmos algorithm is capable of rendering audio to virtually any speaker position,
we defined 34 designated positions for speakers on the floor and overhead to simplify the setup
process. By using these predefined positions, you can more easily configure your system.
We also defined a few “reference” speaker configurations to ensure that early customers could
have a great experience while having the option to keep most of the equipment they already
have. Among those reference setups are the 5.1.2 configuration, which involves adding two
ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to a traditional 5.1 system, and the 7.1.4 configuration,
which starts with a traditional 7.1 system and adds four ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled
speakers. These configurations also ensure that you can play content mixed in legacy channelbased
audio.
But we believe this is just the beginning. Because the Dolby Atmos object-based audio system is
so adaptable, you can use many other speaker configurations. No matter what system you build,
the Dolby Atmos format and system will adapt itself to output the best audio experience
possible.


----------



## lujan

roxiedog13 said:


> Why 9.1.4 and not 7.1.6 ? I was thinking 6 Atmos in-ceiling would be the next progression or is there another configuration that may be better ? Front heights maybe or second set of side
> surrounds , what is the train of thought on that? I understood that 6 in-ceiling Atmos was the next progression so I purchased the third ( middle ) set of speakers for the ceiling. If I should
> be thinking about front height or side surrounds I'd like to know, so I don't make the mistake of installing something unusable.
> 
> ..


I think that there comes a point where it becomes overkill because it will not be perceptible to the human ear. Just like they are saying now with ultra-HD. The human eye may not even see the extra resolution of ultra-HD? I'm sure going from 1080p to ultra-HD will not be as perceptible as when we went from 480p to 720p or 1080p. Adding two more height speakers will not be as perceptible as when we went from 7.1 to 7.1.4 for instance?


----------



## Selden Ball

> But Dolby Atmos for the home is almost unlimited. One of our hardware partners is
> planning to release an A/V receiver with 32 channels.


 He might have confused "receiver" with "preamp/processor".

Trinnov has just started shipping their pre/pro, the Altitude32, which can provide up to 32 channels of Atmos, Auro-3D and (soon) DTS:X. Unfortunately, it costs about $1200/channel.


----------



## zimmo

whit dolby surround and the recever av dolby atmos is ajusts to all cinéma halls house.thes when you want to listen to an blu ray disk dolby atmos the configuration change you need reflection speakers or in ceilling speakers be your dedicate room.


Dolby say is and adaptable than channel based hom theater,in a channel based content ,the number of speakers is fixed to 7.1 but whit the recever av dolby atmos in contrast you have AMAZING FLEXIBILITY ,YOU CAN GET THE FULL EXPÉRIENCE WHIT JUST SEVEN SPEAKERS OR GGET AN EVEN RICHER ,MORE DETAILED SOUND BY ADDED MORE SPEAKERS .


As you add speakers a dolby atmos enabled recever will automatically determine how to use them to create fantastic, immersive audio.


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> Just reading a Dolby Q & A... Better start running more wires boyz , all hell is about to break loose .


Just to let you know... What you just started reading was discussed here back in June when the Dolby Q&A went on-line. People got the _"OMG how am I going to install 34 speakers"_ comments out of their system 7 months ago.


----------



## audioguy

tj21 said:


> So where are we 4 months since Atmos introduction? Which major studios embraced the format and which do not care?
> 
> Lionsgate: fully aboard with
> 
> Step Up All In
> Expendables 3
> John Wick
> Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
> Vice
> 
> Paramount: partially aboard with some authoring issues (Hercules?) and notable misses: How to Train Your Dragon 2, Interstellar
> 
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> 
> Warner Brothers: carefully testing water with re-releases but no Hobbit (even the extended edition!).
> 
> Gravity
> Chicago


This is what I found on Amazon about Chicago and I can find nothing that suggests Atmos?




> Product Details Format: Multiple Formats, Ultraviolet, Blu-ray, Color, DTS Surround Sound, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen


What am I missing???


----------



## roxiedog13

lujan said:


> I think that there comes a point where it becomes overkill because it will not be perceptible to the human ear. Just like they are saying now with ultra-HD. The human eye may not even see the extra resolution of ultra-HD? I'm sure going from 1080p to ultra-HD will not be as perceptible as when we went from 480p to 720p or 1080p. Adding two more height speakers will not be as perceptible as when we went from 7.1 to 7.1.4 for instance?


The only reason I would want to go 6 speakers in ceiling would be to provide overhead Atmos for two rows of seating. Going with 4 speakers only and using the Atmos guidelines you could only really provide speaker placement for one row( MLP) of seats. My current in-ceiling TF speakers favor the front row for, the in-ceiling TR are just behind the second row and favor the rear, just outside what Dolby recommends . Adding a TM ( middle row) in-ceiling should fill in a gap between the seats . I'm sure AVR technology for 6 in-ceiling is around the corner , it is actually an option shown in the speaker placement setup on my current Denon X5200. The AVR can only do 11 channels but the speaker arrangement for 6 is there now. I think that's a good sign.

As for the visual side of things, I can tell you that going from my HD1080P projector to the new Sony 4K was the most remarkable upgrade I have ever witnessed. I'm confident it was the lens arrangement that provided most of that, I'm sure the chips and electronics were part of that too. 

Obviously quality is as import as quantity, more speakers does not mean the sound will be better , though it certainly can if done properly.


----------



## roxiedog13

sdurani said:


> Just to let you know... What you just started reading was discussed here back in June when the Dolby Q&A went on-line. People got the _"OMG how am I going to install 34 speakers"_ comments out of their system 7 months ago.


Guess I wasn't at that party earlier in the spring , news to me though. I'm just messing around anyway, 34 speakers may be something for a really large HT or small commercial. I'll be happy enough with 9.2.6 for a few years at least, I doubt even 6 in-ceiling will be availble this year. Only time will tell .


----------



## Stanton

audioguy said:


> What am I missing???


I think this website is doing a good job of tracking Dolby Atmos (home) releases for us: http://www.nextgenhometheater.com/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-movies/


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Stanton said:


> I think this website is doing a good job of tracking Dolby Atmos (home) releases for us: http://www.nextgenhometheater.com/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-movies/


Thanks, doing my best 

It's tough because the press releases are slow to come out and I don't want to add movies there if they are not officially confirmed with Atmos...

I haven't posted anything for more than a week there, not because I don't want to, but because they is sadly nothing to announce :|


----------



## robert816

audioguy said:


> This is what I found on Amazon about Chicago and I can find nothing that suggests Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am I missing???


The upcoming Japanese release of Chicago will have an English Dolby Atmos mix, or at least that is how it is currently listed on Amazon Japan and on Blu-Ray.com


----------



## audioguy

roxiedog13 said:


> As for the visual side of things, I can tell you that going from my HD1080P projector to the *new Sony 4K was the most remarkable upgrade I have ever witnessed*. I'm confident it was the lens arrangement that provided most of that, I'm sure the chips and electronics were part of that too.


Agreed: I have made many upgrades in the last 7 years and the ONLY one my wife noticed was moving from a JVS RS55 to the Sony 600ES. Even when I moved from a JVC RS2 to the 55, she never noticed. She still comments on the quality of the video.


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> Guess I wasn't at that party earlier in the spring , news to me though. I'm just messing around anyway...


No problemo, just wanted to let you know that the _"all hell is about to break loose . Sell the family SUV"_ type of comments no longer get the reaction they did 7 months ago.


----------



## audioguy

I have a reasonably sized room (19.5 x 22) and the 4 overheads are quite adequate. Can't see needing 6. And while I could add surround height speakers, I won't be doing that - iF AURO can't work with what I have, then I won't be using Auro. And DTS is a very smart company. While they might have some optimum ceiling speaker layout that is NOT EXACTLY in line with the Atmos specs, I would bet it will be good enough.

in fact, based upon my limited experience, there is a lot of fluff in the existing Atmos specs. It seems to sound about the same regardless of where I had my ceiling speakers (as long as 2 were in front and 2 were behind).

As I have said more than once, if DTS never comes up with a solution I like, and there is never another Atmos movie released, the up-sampler made this one of the best upgrades I've done in a long time.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Guess I wasn't at that party earlier in the spring , news to me though. I'm just messing around anyway, 34 speakers may be something for a really large HT or small commercial. I'll be happy enough with 9.2.6 for a few years at least, I doubt even 6 in-ceiling will be availble this year. Only time will tell .



I sure hope that 6 for the ceiling is available this year as I have been saving money for that!


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> The only reason I would want to go 6 speakers in ceiling would be to provide overhead Atmos for two rows of seating. Going with 4 speakers only and using the Atmos guidelines you could only really provide speaker placement for one row( MLP) of seats. My current in-ceiling TF speakers favor the front row for, the in-ceiling TR are just behind the second row and favor the rear, just outside what Dolby recommends . Adding a TM ( middle row) in-ceiling should fill in a gap between the seats .* I'm sure AVR technology for 6 in-ceiling is around the corner , it is actually an option shown in the speaker placement setup on my current Denon X5200. The AVR can only do 11 channels but the speaker arrangement for 6 is there now. I think that's a good sign.*
> 
> As for the visual side of things, I can tell you that going from my HD1080P projector to the new Sony 4K was the most remarkable upgrade I have ever witnessed. I'm confident it was the lens arrangement that provided most of that, I'm sure the chips and electronics were part of that too.
> 
> Obviously quality is as import as quantity, more speakers does not mean the sound will be better , though it certainly can if done properly.


Remind me please where you are finding that?

All the layouts in the X5200 manual that I am aware of show only two pairs of height speakers in use at any one time, such as the below illustration (with the default position labels for Height1 and Height2). There are illustrations that show all the possible height positions but without implying that more than two pair could be operational simultaneously.

I'd love to be wrong about this as I am also looking forward to the ability to add a third pair.


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> Remind me please where you are finding that?
> 
> All the layouts in the X5200 manual that I am aware of show only two pairs of height speakers in use at any one time, such as the below illustration (with the default position labels for Height1 and Height2). There are illustrations that show all the possible height positions but without implying that more than two pair could be operational simultaneously.
> 
> I'd love to be wrong about this as I am also looking forward to the ability to add a third pair.


I'm at work now, where (I believe) I saw this was in the general setup for speakers, the on screen menu . I'll take a look again tonight just to be sure.


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> I sure hope that 6 for the ceiling is available this year as I have been saving money for that!


Me too, probably on your lead if I remember correctly. I have the four in now, and the middle set sitting on the shelf ready to install. I was sure 6 in-ceiling was just around the corner and the next
progression too, will hang off now until I get a little more solid evidence .


----------



## Al Sherwood

chi_guy50 said:


> Remind me please where you are finding that?
> 
> All the layouts in the X5200 manual that I am aware of show only two pairs of height speakers in use at any one time, such as the below illustration (with the default position labels for Height1 and Height2). There are illustrations that show all the possible height positions but without implying that more than two pair could be operational simultaneously.
> 
> I'd love to be wrong about this as I am also looking forward to the ability to add a third pair.


 
AFAIK, no AVR allows for the use of two 'adjacent' pairs of overhead speakers for Atmos, this is a hope/wish for many that the next series of AVR will make available.


I have enough speakers for 3 or more pairs in the ceiling, but other then 'high-end' processors, no AVR manufacturer has included the ability to drive more then 2 pairs (of the 5 possible) of Atmos overhead speakers.


I have a 21' long room and will have 2 rows of seating, I am planning for the following layout:


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> Agreed: I have made many upgrades in the last 7 years and the ONLY one my wife noticed was moving from a JVS RS55 to the Sony 600ES. Even when I moved from a JVC RS2 to the 55, she never noticed. She still comments on the quality of the video.


I had the JVSRS45, went to the Sony VW50ES and then same as you, next to the 600ES, 500ES in Canada. JVC to SonyVW50 was a waste of money, may have been a little brighter, not worth the upgrade even if it was only a couple of grand. The next step to the 600ES was incredible, I am amazed at the PQ with every movie I watch. The picture is so sharp and detailed in fact, I see stuff
I should not be seeing like makeup and stunt doubles etc. Price jump was huge, biggest monetary leap Ive made equipment wise, yet the only one I've been 100% pleased with. 

BTW, my wife says exactly the same thing, quality is far better than any PJ we've owned before.


----------



## Nightlord

roxiedog13 said:


> You mean to tell me I have to install 23 more speakers ??  :grin:


No, that's just the subwoofers.


----------



## chi_guy50

Al Sherwood said:


> AFAIK, no AVR allows for the use of two 'adjacent' pairs of overhead speakers for Atmos, this is a hope/wish for many that the next series of AVR will make available.


We all know for certain that no mainstream AVR/SSP--to include those from D&M--allows for use of three pairs of overheads (adjacent or otherwise). I'm just curious to know where roxiedog thinks he might have seen this option on his X5200.


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> I have a reasonably sized room (19.5 x 22) and the 4 overheads are quite adequate. Can't see needing 6. And while I could add surround height speakers, I won't be doing that - iF AURO can't work with what I have, then I won't be using Auro. And DTS is a very smart company. While they might have some optimum ceiling speaker layout that is NOT EXACTLY in line with the Atmos specs, I would bet it will be good enough.
> 
> in fact, based upon my limited experience, there is a lot of fluff in the existing Atmos specs. It seems to sound about the same regardless of where I had my ceiling speakers (as long as 2 were in front and 2 were behind).
> 
> As I have said more than once, if DTS never comes up with a solution I like, and there is never another Atmos movie released, the up-sampler made this one of the best upgrades I've done in a long time.


You shouldn't need 6 in ceiling for one row of seats as I see in your pictures from the link. Beautiful theater BTW. I have two rows and the ceiling speakers are spread wider for that reason , would have been much simpler with one row as the guidelines show the MLP as one row . Most with two rows of seating are asking the same questions as I am and some like myself are anticipating options for 6 speakers down the road . My setup still works admirably , not what some claim though, then again I may be more critical , who knows. In my case I have the speakers
for TC ( top center) and I'm committed to the six once the AVR is available. 

+1 for the DSU I feel the same, the up-sampler does a tremendous job better than the actual Atmos releases in my opinion.


----------



## pasender91

roxiedog13 said:


> Why 9.1.4 and not 7.1.6 ? I was thinking 6 Atmos in-ceiling would be the next progression or is there another configuration that may be better ? Front heights maybe or second set of side
> surrounds , what is the train of thought on that? I understood that 6 in-ceiling Atmos was the next progression so I purchased the third ( middle ) set of speakers for the ceiling. If I should
> be thinking about front height or side surrounds I'd like to know, so I don't make the mistake of installing something unusable.
> 
> Good thing I ran out of time last week and did not install the middle ceiling speakers then. May be a good idea to leave well enough alone just to see what DTS brings and also what new AVR
> technology is available. I was going to experiment a little with the in-ceiling to see what yields the best Atmos effect, will have to wait now.
> 
> Besides, the wife is back and I've hidden the house dissecting power tools. I'll lay low for a few days, may have to wait until her next business trip.


My personal thinking is based on the final Atmos target : 24.1.10.
From this we see the ideal ratio ground vs top is 2.4 (24/10).
From this we can deduct the "optimal" upgrade path, keeping the ratio around 2.4 : 5.1.2 => 5.1.4 => 7.1.4 => 9.1.4 => 11.1.4 => 11.1.6 => 13.1.6 => ...
This is a "logical" approach, and the result looks "fine" to me.
So after 7.1.4, the next step should be 9.1.4, with speakers between fronts and surrounds, you can call them front wides or front surrounds based on your personal preference


----------



## himey

Any thaught on how the super bowl sounded with DSU? Any improvements with overhead speaks or just a distraction? tia


----------



## stikle

The DSU thread is over here...this is the Atmos thread.

(There was someone clapping in my right surround so it sounded like someone was sitting in the stands behind my girlfriend)


----------



## roxiedog13

himey said:


> Any thaught on how the super bowl sounded with DSU? Any improvements with overhead speaks or just a distraction? tia


I think the game or stadium setting would suffice in this situation after all it is live, not like the sound is mixed for a movie. Then again maybe it did add something
the ceiling speakers would certainly add to the stadium feel for sure.

I didn't watch it, who won the hockey game anyway ? :devil:


----------



## roxiedog13

pasender91 said:


> My personal thinking is based on the final Atmos target : 24.1.10.
> From this we see the ideal ratio ground vs top is 2.4 (24/10).
> From this we can deduct the "optimal" upgrade path, keeping the ratio around 2.4 : 5.1.2 => 5.1.4 => 7.1.4 => 9.1.4 => 11.1.4 => 11.1.6 => 13.1.6 => ...
> This is a "logical" approach, and the result looks "fine" to me.
> So after 7.1.4, the next step should be 9.1.4, with speakers between fronts and surrounds, you can call them front wides or front surrounds based on your personal preference


Sound ( excuse the pun) reasoning although commercial vs home, the ratios may not apply. I have the wires pulled to a common area, if the front wide heights is the next best, guess that will
be the direction I go OR I keep the 6 in ceiling and add another 4 surrounds. Wonder at which point the law of diminishing returns kicks in, probably when my wife leaves. Wait a second


----------



## himey

roxiedog13 said:


> I think the game or stadium setting would suffice in this situation after all it is live, not like the sound is mixed for a movie. Then again maybe it did add something
> the ceiling speakers would certainly add to the stadium feel for sure.
> 
> I didn't watch it, who won the hockey game anyway ? :devil:





The Lightning won ...They always have extra cameras and mics for the SB so curious if anyone had a good or bad experience...


----------



## NorthSky

> Just to let you know... What you just started reading was discussed here back in June when the Dolby Q&A went on-line. People got the _"OMG how am I going to install 34 speakers"_ comments out of their system 7 months ago.





> ..., just wanted to let you know that the _"all hell is about to break loose . Sell the family SUV"_ type of comments no longer get the reaction they did 7 months ago.


There are zillions of threads on the Internet talking about stuff that happened millions of years ago. ...And millions years from now they'll be billions of people still talking about today and yesterday.

It is nice to be reminded once in a while, in case we don't all remember, and lose perspective in today's rejoicing and rejuvenating. 
All of us we should be aware of everything and read and know everything.  [email protected] all times.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Why 9.1.4 and not 7.1.6 ?


Because 9.1.4 is already in the Dolby Atmos speaker configuration guide. ...Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines (white paper - pdf).


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Because 9.1.4 is already in the Dolby Atmos speaker configuration guide. ...Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines (white paper - pdf).





NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


That. ...Page 26-27.


----------



## bad1550

Any suggestions for a pair of ceiling speakers (actually ) will be mounted on beams

I currently have the Onkyo modules and search for the ceiling pair

I am running Polk Lsims 

Thx


----------



## roxiedog13

himey said:


> the lightning won:d ...they always have extra cameras and mics for the sb so curious if anyone had a good or bad experience...



sb ?


----------



## chi_guy50

bad1550 said:


> Any suggestions for a pair of ceiling speakers (actually ) will be mounted on beams
> 
> I currently have the Onkyo modules and search for the ceiling pair
> 
> I am running Polk Lsims
> 
> Thx


Can you provide some more detail regarding your current speakers/layout and your budget for the ceiling speakers (and whether you want one pair or two)? 

Those LSIM's are beautiful speakers. How long have you had them and how do you like them?


----------



## bad1550

I was fortunate to get in on the 50% off Polk Friends and Family last month

Really nice:smile:


Will be upgrading to the Denon x5200
I also gave a Parasound 2250 powering the 707s. Looking to add speakers to my ceiling but will mount on beams rather than flush mount

I would say a budget for $200 - $500
For either a pair or 4

Thx


----------



## chi_guy50

bad1550 said:


> I was fortunate to get in on the 50% off Polk Friends and Family last month
> 
> Really nice:smile:
> 
> 
> Will be upgrading to the Denon x5200
> I also gave a Parasound 2250 powering the 707s. Looking to add speakers to my ceiling but will mount on beams rather than flush mount
> 
> I would say a budget for $200 - $500
> For either a pair or 4
> 
> Thx


Hmm, that's not a lot of detail to go on. I don't know specifically what other speakers you have nor the size of the room. A safe choice would be the Polk Atrium6, which will run about $400 a pair. On the other hand, if you have a smallish room, you can get a steal of a price right now on their lesser brethren, the Atrium4, @ around $80.00 a pair in Black or White from either newegg or Amazon, inter alia.

If speaker size and aesthetics are not an issue, you should look into the Tannoy Di Series (e.g., Di 5DC or Di 6DC) , which a number of knowledgeable posters here are using and recommend highly (you can search this thread for their comments). You can currently get the Di 5DC in White for $178 each.


----------



## bad1550

Room size is approx 13x19
Also have the Polk LSIM 702 for side surrounds and 706 Center

Thanks again !


----------



## Movie78

chi_guy50 said:


> Hmm, that's not a lot of detail to go on. I don't know specifically what other speakers you have nor the size of the room. A safe choice would be the Polk Atrium6, which will run about $400 a pair. On the other hand, if you have a smallish room, you can get a steal of a price right now on their lesser brethren, the Atrium4, @ around $80.00 a pair in Black or White from either newegg or Amazon, inter alia.
> 
> If speaker size and aesthetics are not an issue, you should look into the Tannoy Di Series (e.g., Di 5DC or Di 6DC) , which a number of knowledgeable posters here are using and recommend highly (you can search this thread for their comments). You can currently get the Di 5DC in White for $178 each.


Are these the only Atmos compatible speakers beside the official speakers?


----------



## batpig

Movie78 said:


> Are these the only Atmos compatible speakers beside the official speakers?


EVERY speaker is "Atmos compatible". 

The only time any "official" Atmos enabled branding is relevant is for the reflective up-firing modules which are certified to have the special Dolby crossover network which puts in the HRTF notch. But even then, quite a few folks (myself included) have gotten good results just pointing standard satellite speakers at the ceiling.


----------



## chi_guy50

bad1550 said:


> Room size is approx 13x19
> Also have the Polk LSIM 702 for side surrounds and 706 Center
> 
> Thanks again !


Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet!

I would go for the Atrium6's if I were you.


----------



## batpig

Al Sherwood said:


> AFAIK, no AVR allows for the use of two 'adjacent' pairs of overhead speakers for Atmos, this is a hope/wish for many that the next series of AVR will make available.


I seriously doubt that "many" are clamoring for this, at least not for processors that only allow 2 pairs of overheads.

The "no adjacent pairs" limitation is not a limitation at all in this context when you consider how much overlap there is between TF/FH and TR/RH. There is no 4-overhead configuration that can't be accomodated with the "any 2 of 5 non adjacent" structure currently available. I am highly skeptical that there is any meaningful difference in terms of audio rendering for a TM+TF config (not allowed) vs a TM+FH config (allowed).

Now, once we get to the point where 6 overheads are allowed, then it's obviously more of a restriction since the only option that does NOT have adjacent pairs is FH+TM+RH. But with only two pairs of speakers it seems sensible to mandate that they have a decent amount of angular separation for rendering purposes, and as I noted above the extensive overlap between Front/Rear "tops" and "heights" renders it basically moot anyhow.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet!
> 
> I would go for the Atrium6's if I were you.


Is there reason to believe Polk's "outdoor" speakers like the Atriums are any more "timbre matched" to a completely different Polk line (LSiM) than the Tannoys? I understand the thought process of staying in the brand, but to me I'd go with what was cheapest/easiest and not worry about brand matching with such radically different speakers.


----------



## Movie78

batpig said:


> EVERY speaker is "Atmos compatible".
> 
> The only time any "official" Atmos enabled branding is relevant is for the reflective up-firing modules which are certified to have the special Dolby crossover network which puts in the HRTF notch. But even then, quite a few folks (myself included) have gotten good results just pointing standard satellite speakers at the ceiling.


I am going to mount Definitive Technology Pro 800 for my Atmos speakers.

More like 7.2.2 speaker setup

Either Denon 5200 or Yamaha A2040


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> EVERY speaker is "Atmos compatible".
> ...
> quite a few folks (myself included) have gotten good results just pointing standard satellite speakers at the ceiling.


And standard speakers hanging FROM the ceiling.



Movie78 said:


> I am going to mount Definitive Technology Pro 800 for my Atmos speakers.


I used the exact same speakers as all of the rest of my surrounds and am quite pleased by the result.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> Sound ( excuse the pun) reasoning although commercial vs home, the ratios may not apply. I have the wires pulled to a common area, if the front wide heights is the next best, guess that will
> be the direction I go OR I keep the 6 in ceiling and add another 4 surrounds. Wonder at which point the law of diminishing returns kicks in, probably when my wife leaves. Wait a second


The next progression is 9.1.4 with front wides or front side surrounds if Dolby's installation guide is still correct.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> *Is there reason to believe Polk's "outdoor" speakers like the Atriums are any more "timbre matched" to a completely different Polk line (LSiM) than the Tannoys?* I understand the thought process of staying in the brand, but to me I'd go with what was cheapest/easiest and not worry about brand matching with such radically different speakers.


No, just what you said--staying within brand where possible. I also mentioned the Tannoy's as a good option, but there are many others, as you know. 

Another consideration is that OP obviously likes Polk (as do I), and they have good QA, excellent customer service, and a 5-year warranty on new speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's too bad it's not 7.1.6 but they gotta appease all you suckers wide owners.  

It's gonna be a long haul til I can have as many speakers up above as I do at ear level.

Stupid wides, ruining my dreams!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> It's too bad it's not 7.1.6 but they gotta appease all you suckers wide owners.
> 
> It's gonna be a long haul til I can have as many speakers up above as I do at ear level.
> 
> Stupid wides, ruining my dreams!


... of world domination by sheer SPL brute force! Bwahahahahahaha!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> ... of world domination by sheer SPL brute force! Bwahahahahahaha!!


----------



## NorthSky

*9.1.4*



Scott Simonian said:


> It's too bad it's not 7.1.6 but they gotta appease all you suckers wide owners.
> 
> It's gonna be a long haul til I can have as many speakers up above as I do at ear level.
> 
> Stupid wides, ruining my dreams!


Sound takes predominance @ the Richter scale level.


----------



## Modern Times

bad1550 said:


> Any suggestions for a pair of ceiling speakers (actually ) will be mounted on beams
> 
> I currently have the Onkyo modules and search for the ceiling pair
> 
> I am running Polk Lsims
> 
> Thx


I've also got the Polk LSiM 707's and 706 and 3 pair of 703's. I bought the Definitive Technology AW6500 for my 4 ceiling speakers and like how they all sound together. I was told by a tech support guy at Def Tech that Polk and Definitive are sister companies and that they would be similar sounding so I didn't worry too much about being different brands.

We have similar systems... I also have the LSiM 702/fx speakers but am not currently using them. I also have the Denon 5200. But I'm not using the amps in it because I have 2 Yamaha MX-A5000's.


----------



## Movie78

Guys is ok to mismatch speakers?

This is my current configuration,since i am getting ready to purchase a new reciever for ATmos.

Polk Audio CS10 Center Chanel 

2 Polk Audio TSi300 BLACK Floorstanding Speakers

4 Definitive Technology Pro800( I am going to use 2 Definitive Technology Pro 800 for the Atmos height speaker and Add the 2 Polk FX iA4 for the surround back.


2 Definitive Technology Pro 800 =Atmos
2 Definitive Technology Pro 800 = Surround L+R
2 Polk FX iA4 =Surround Back L+R

Any suggestion or i am in the right path?


----------



## Kris Deering

Blu-ray.com just posted their review of On Any Sunday The Next Chapter. They have the soundtrack listed as Dolby TrueHD 7.1. The trailer for this film was used on the Atmos demo disc so I'm surprised it isn't an Atmos Blu-ray. Would be interesting to see if its flagged for Atmos if you play it through an Atmos AVR/Processor.


----------



## bad1550

Modern Times said:


> I've also got the Polk LSiM 707's and 706 and 3 pair of 703's. I bought the Definitive Technology AW6500 for my 4 ceiling speakers and like how they all sound together. I was told by a tech support guy at Def Tech that Polk and Definitive are sister companies and that they would be similar sounding so I didn't worry too much about being different brands.
> 
> We have similar systems... I also have the LSiM 702/fx speakers but am not currently using them. I also have the Denon 5200. But I'm not using the amps in it because I have 2 Yamaha MX-A5000's.


Nice,

Just received the x5200 today and looking forward to finding the right speakers for the Atmos. Glad you like the def techs and will research them
Enjoying the LSIMS😄


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> The next progression is 9.1.4 with front wides or front side surrounds if Dolby's installation guide is still correct.




Got to go back and have another look at the installation guide I guess, I must have misunderstood . No biggie, I'll just reassign the speaker wires to highs instead and run a couple more 
pairs while I'm at it, just in case.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Got to go back and have another look at the installation guide I guess, I must have misunderstood . No biggie, I'll just reassign the speaker wires to highs instead and run a couple more pairs while I'm at it, just in case.


With your very nice home theater room you could get a Datasat system with an 11.4.8 configuration (no sweat with a 30-foot long room).

I know; money isn't there. ...Let's see what's comin' up this mid-March on new announcements and products with dts:x new equipped 3D sound decoders.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Blu-ray.com just posted their review of On Any Sunday The Next Chapter. They have the soundtrack listed as Dolby TrueHD 7.1. The trailer for this film was used on the Atmos demo disc so I'm surprised it isn't an Atmos Blu-ray. Would be interesting to see if its flagged for Atmos if you play it through an Atmos AVR/Processor.


It does say *Dolby TrueHD 7.1*, indeed ::



Click on it *^* for full review details.


----------



## billqs

Movie78 said:


> Guys is ok to mismatch speakers?
> 
> This is my current configuration,since i am getting ready to purchase a new reciever for ATmos.
> 
> Polk Audio CS10 Center Chanel
> 
> 2 Polk Audio TSi300 BLACK Floorstanding Speakers
> 
> 4 Definitive Technology Pro800( I am going to use 2 Definitive Technology Pro 800 for the Atmos height speaker and Add the 2 Polk FX iA4 for the surround back.
> 
> 
> 2 Definitive Technology Pro 800 =Atmos
> 2 Definitive Technology Pro 800 = Surround L+R
> 2 Polk FX iA4 =Surround Back L+R
> 
> Any suggestion or i am in the right path?


I'd be tempted to set up a 9 speaker layout at 5.1.4 rather than 7.1.2. Then you could get more panning in heights front to back instead of just left to right. Also, I 'm coming from an only 2 speaker Atmos system and the sound was very localized to the speakers. I think you might get more out of your system getting the complete 4 channel Atmos solution.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> With your very nice home theater room you could get a Datasat system with an 11.4.8 configuration (no sweat with a 30-foot long room).
> 
> I know; money isn't there. ...Let's see what's comin' up this mid-March on new announcements and products with dts:x new equipped 3D sound decoders.


THis one has it all http://www.trinnov.com/products/high-end/altitude32/introduction-altitude32/introduction-4/


----------



## BamaDave

wse said:


> THis one has it all http://www.trinnov.com/products/high-end/altitude32/introduction-altitude32/introduction-4/


The cost associated with that equipment is a little outside what most are willing to pay, don't you think?


----------



## NorthSky

*wse* and few others here @ AVS aren't "most". ...They are well calibrated to own such gear.


----------



## BamaDave

NorthSky said:


> *wse* and few others here @ AVS aren't "most". ...They are well calibrated to own such gear.


Ya, I was looking for some 801's suspended from the ceiling!


----------



## NorthSky

He just need to build his own dedicated home theater room, that's all.


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> THis one has it all http://www.trinnov.com/products/high-end/altitude32/introduction-altitude32/introduction-4/


Yeah... I wish.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, did you watch the Super Bowl with DSU?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nope. Didn't watch it at all.

And I won't have DSU for a while.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, I know you don't have DSU.

* But it did cross my mind if this was feasible? ...Do you need DD 5.1 audio for that, or would DD stereo good enough? 
If I had a Dolby Atmos receiver I sure would have watched the Super Bowl with DSU engaged if possible. 

Anyone here tried?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Absolutely. It will work with 2.0 content. Will work better with actual 5.1 content which I'm sure the game was broadcast in.

They are probably talking about it in here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-official-dolby-surround-upmixing-thread.html


----------



## marchewd

Has anyone had good results with Tannoy CVS8's for the four ceiling speakers in a 7.1.4 setup? I am looking for the biggest bang for your buck small ceiling speakers.


----------



## Movie78

billqs said:


> I'd be tempted to set up a 9 speaker layout at 5.1.4 rather than 7.1.2. Then you could get more panning in heights front to back instead of just left to right. Also, I 'm coming from an only 2 speaker Atmos system and the sound was very localized to the speakers. I think you might get more out of your system getting the complete 4 channel Atmos solution.


Will the mismatch of speaker brand cause any problem?

Thanks!


----------



## bad1550

Still deciding on the pair of speakers to go with my Onkyo Modules - currently sitting on top of Towers as Front Heights
My MLP is approx 11 feet. Looking at the Def Techs 6500, 800 Pro and Polk Atriums - what would be the proper position, closer to MLP to closer to TV? and which speaker setting recommended on Denon X5200?
Also, Im running my Fronts to a Parasound amp, can I add another pair in future for a total of 6?

See pictures

Thx


----------



## bad1550

See Pictures


----------



## scarabaeus

A couple more:

Torrente 5 - Operación Eurovegas
https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00RBV6MA8

Mortadelo Y Filemón Contra Jimmy El Cachondo
2D: https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00SFXR1QK
3D: http://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00SWUNFYI

Hard to make out, but you can see it on the cover pictures.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> With your very nice home theater room you could get a Datasat system with an 11.4.8 configuration (no sweat with a 30-foot long room).
> 
> I know; money isn't there. ...Let's see what's comin' up this mid-March on new announcements and products with dts:x new equipped 3D sound decoders.


11.4.8 would be sweet indeed, not sure what the pricing is, I couldn't come up with any pricing from the Datasat site . I would likely consider one of these if in the $5K range,maybe double
the price of the X7200 but my guess is I'm not even in the ball park . The Trinnov Altitude32 is somewhere in the $30K-$50K range from a quick search. Don't quite have the spare change
besides, I'm going to need new BBQ this year, one or the other right?


----------



## scarabaeus

bad1550 said:


> See Pictures


I suppose your question is about speaker placement? Lower your surrounds, and add 4 on-ceiling speakers for 5.1.4. Aim the front ones at the MLP and the rear ones straight down. Or just do two heights in the apex of your roof, configured as top middle of a 5.1.2, aimed slightly back at the MLP.

The question I have: Why is your massage chair not in front of the TV?


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> With your very nice home theater room you could get a Datasat system with an 11.4.8 configuration (no sweat with a 30-foot long room).
> 
> I know; money isn't there. ...Let's see what's comin' up this mid-March on new announcements and products with dts:x new equipped 3D sound decoders.


You think some new products will be released in March from Denon , Marantz , Onkyo or one of the many others? I'm sure DTS and Auro are going to be available, I was thinking
more in terms of additional channels .


----------



## Frank714

scarabaeus said:


> Mortadelo Y Filemón Contra Jimmy El Cachondo
> 2D: https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00SFXR1QK
> 3D: http://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00SWUNFYI
> 
> Hard to make out, but you can see it on the cover pictures.


_Mort & Phil_ (where I live _Clever & Smart)_ in Dolby Atmos?! -


----------



## bad1550

scarabaeus said:


> I suppose your question is about speaker placement? Lower your surrounds, and add 4 on-ceiling speakers for 5.1.4. Aim the front ones at the MLP and the rear ones straight down. Or just do two heights in the apex of your roof, configured as top middle of a 5.1.2, aimed slightly back at the MLP.
> 
> The question I have: Why is your massage chair not in front of the TV?


Yes. It's all about speaker placement and which speakers to get for my MLP

I appreciate the comments 
Wish I had more space to accommodate chair lol


----------



## nitro28

roxiedog13 said:


> You think some new products will be released in March from Denon , Marantz , Onkyo or one of the many others? I'm sure DTS and Auro are going to be available, I was thinking
> more in terms of additional channels .


This is my question also. I can wait until probably May to buy my new receiver. Any chance we will have new models or updated models by then? Just mainly looking for fully compliant HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overhead channels.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Because 9.1.4 is already in the Dolby Atmos speaker configuration guide. ...Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines (white paper - pdf).


You're right, 9.1.4 is the next configuration in the Dolby Atmos configuration guidelines. I guess I formed my decisions based on what others were doing and at some point ignored the obvious.
I was focused too much on my situation with multiple rows of seats and what others were doing instead of sticking to the guidelines. 

Looking at the guidelines first thing I notice is that my rear speakers are not even close to the recommended angles, they are way too close together mostly a function of being so far back( 20ft) from the MLP. For the angles to be correct I'd have to move the speakers much closer but in the rear my only option is the side walls as the floor space behind my second row is a recreational 
area. Guess the speakers will go on the near side wall or I'll have to reassign the rear in-ceiling speakers back to rear surrounds as they were in the beginning. Actually, I'm going to try bouncing the rears off the adjacent wall first, would be the simpliest solution if it worked . Who needs rear surrounds anyway


----------



## roxiedog13

nitro28 said:


> This is my question also. I can wait until probably May to buy my new receiver. Any chance we will have new models or updated models by then? Just mainly looking for fully compliant HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overhead channels.


I thought Onkyo or Marantz was compliant with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overheads now? The Denon X7200 can be purchased now and upgraded for compliance later for sure . I'd say wait and see , other features may show up that are desirable . Personally, I don't see 4K material hitting the shelves for a couple years, so I picked up the Denon X5200 for half the price of the X7200 . 

I bought a 4K projector in Oct. 2014, it came with some 4K material and I have probably 20, 4K movies in total on my server. Point is, I rarely use it 4K and expect I will not need to upgrade any other components for compliance for this year at least . If 4K Blu Ray starts showing up on the shelves and supported by the networks before this I will certainly make some decisions. For now , I think I'm set......for a while .


----------



## htpcforever

roxiedog13 said:


> I thought Onkyo or Marantz was compliant with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overheads now? The Denon X7200 can be purchased now and upgraded for compliance later for sure . I'd say wait and see , other features may show up that are desirable . Personally, I don't see 4K material hitting the shelves for a couple years, so I picked up the Denon X5200 for half the price of the X7200 .



The Onkyos are not full speed HDMI 2.0, but since they are HDCP 2.2 compliant, they will be able to run all future 4K content without a problem. IF any content eventually arrives that wants the entire HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, the Onkyos will still play them, just without the added bells and whistles that use up the extra bandwidth.


----------



## Selden Ball

roxiedog13 said:


> I thought Onkyo or Marantz was compliant with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overheads now?


Nope, sorry. Onkyo/integra has HDCP v2.2 on a single port, but is limited to 10Gb/s. The other "big three" (D+M, Pioneer and Yamaha) currently have just HDMI V2.0 without HDCP v2.2. Supposedly D+M will have HDMI circuit board upgrades with full speed HDCP V2.2 for the AV8802 and X7200W by the end of March as you mention. 

Many companies announce new models in late spring for summer availablilty, but D+M typically are 3 months later.


----------



## Movie78

nitro28 said:


> This is my question also. I can wait until probably May to buy my new receiver. Any chance we will have new models or updated models by then? Just mainly looking for fully compliant HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overhead channels.


Will be getting some extra cash in MAY..

Hope of this DTS X ;ATMOS and Auro 3D formats are ready by then.


----------



## Selden Ball

Movie78 said:


> Will be getting some extra cash in MAY..
> 
> Hope of this DTS X ;ATMOS and Auro 3D formats are ready by then.


Typically new Onkyo AVRs start to be delivered in June. D+M equipment in late September.


----------



## BamaDave

marchewd said:


> Has anyone had good results with Tannoy CVS8's for the four ceiling speakers in a 7.1.4 setup? I am looking for the biggest bang for your buck small ceiling speakers.


Not here, I'm waiting on the final parts to arrive to build better overhead speakers for not much more than those with angled cabinets.


----------



## billqs

Movie78 said:


> Will the mismatch of speaker brand cause any problem?
> 
> Thanks!


It depends. Several users in this thread are using special wide dispersement speakers for the overheads. The Tannoy Di5 DC seems especially popular for this function.

My suggestion would be to at least keep your at ear level sound bed timbrally matched (Same brand of speakers- same type of tweeter) and your overheads matched.

Also, I don't recall what receiver you are using, but you can use the setup EQ to help set levels and/or equalize the sound coming from each speaker. Audyssey does the best job, and the other proprietary EQ/Setups range from decent to basically a fancy level setter for the speakers.

_Edit: _I just reread your old post about receivers. I'd suggest the Denon X5200 over the Yamaha A2040 so that you would have 11.1 preout support. This way you could later add an offboard amp and go with 7.1.4 which is a standard Atmos setup, that has been reported here to have been used for mixing and also by Dolby for demonstrating Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> You think some new products will be released in March from Denon , Marantz , Onkyo or one of the many others? I'm sure DTS and Auro are going to be available, I was thinking
> more in terms of additional channels .


If this year is any indication with the time line atmos had last year atmos was announced in March I think and it took AVR manufacturers till September to November that the actual receivers came on the market so I'm thinking the same with this new crop of receivers coming out with DTS:X we should see them come out in the last quarter of 2015.... That's why I'm content at being an early adopter of Atmos as I won't upgrade till the end of 2016..


----------



## wse

roxiedog13 said:


> I thought Onkyo or Marantz was compliant with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overheads now? The Denon X7200 can be purchased now and upgraded for compliance later for sure . I'd say wait and see , other features may show up that are desirable . Personally, I don't see 4K material hitting the shelves for a couple years, so I picked up the Denon X5200 for half the price of the X7200 .
> 
> I bought a 4K projector in Oct. 2014, it came with some 4K material and I have probably 20, 4K movies in total on my server. Point is, I rarely use it 4K and expect I will not need to upgrade any other components for compliance for this year at least . If 4K Blu Ray starts showing up on the shelves and supported by the networks before this I will certainly make some decisions. For now , I think I'm set......for a while .


What projector, yes that's my concern there is nothing in 4K yet. So I am waiting for the projector to live up to the hye of 4K BluRay with 10 bit color and so on


----------



## Al Sherwood

Al Sherwood said:


> AFAIK, no AVR allows for the use of two 'adjacent' pairs of overhead speakers for Atmos, this is a hope/wish for many that the next series of AVR will make available.
> 
> 
> I have enough speakers for 3 or more pairs in the ceiling, but other then 'high-end' processors, no AVR manufacturer has included the ability to drive more then 2 pairs (of the 5 possible) of Atmos overhead speakers.
> 
> 
> I have a 21' long room and will have 2 rows of seating, I am planning for the following layout:





batpig said:


> I seriously doubt that "many" are clamoring for this, at least not for processors that only allow 2 pairs of overheads.
> 
> The "no adjacent pairs" limitation is not a limitation at all in this context when you consider how much overlap there is between TF/FH and TR/RH. There is no 4-overhead configuration that can't be accomodated with the "any 2 of 5 non adjacent" structure currently available. I am highly skeptical that there is any meaningful difference in terms of audio rendering for a TM+TF config (not allowed) vs a TM+FH config (allowed).
> 
> Now, once we get to the point where 6 overheads are allowed, then it's obviously more of a restriction since the only option that does NOT have adjacent pairs is FH+TM+RH. But with only two pairs of speakers it seems sensible to mandate that they have a decent amount of angular separation for rendering purposes, and as I noted above the extensive overlap between Front/Rear "tops" and "heights" renders it basically moot anyhow.



Agreed about configurations that only have 2 pairs, but since you neglected to quote the entire post, you can see I was talking about adjacent pairs in conjunction with 3 or more pairs of overhead speakers as shown in the diagram as well. 


Dolby includes all of these speakers in their audio plan so there is no reason (other the AVR manufacturer implementation) that all of these cannot be in play at the same time. Besides not all rooms will have the necessary overall-height to accommodate FH or RH speakers and provide enough separation from the surrounds or fronts, it is here where I think that TF+TM+TR could be used.


----------



## roxiedog13

wse said:


> What projector, yes that's my concern there is nothing in 4K yet. So I am waiting for the projector to live up to the hye of 4K BluRay with 10 bit color and so on


Sony VPL600ES, worth every penny regardless of 4K. The up-scaling and picture quality ( high end lens arrangement ) made this the # 1 purchase I have ever made for HT. Every time I sit to watch a movie I am once again reminded how good the picture is. 

BTW, beautiful "humble" HT, very nicely done. You'll have to sell a few more cars now to get yourself a new PJ.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> I thought Onkyo or Marantz was compliant with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overheads now?





Selden Ball said:


> Nope, sorry. Onkyo/integra has HDCP v2.2 on a single port, but is limited to 10Gb/s. The other "big three" (D+M, Pioneer and Yamaha) currently have just HDMI V2.0 without HDCP v2.2. Supposedly D+M will have HDMI circuit board upgrades with full speed HDCP V2.2 for the AV8802 and X7200W by the end of March as you mention.
> 
> Many companies announce new models in late spring for summer availablilty, but D+M typically are 3 months later.


 
Selden, strictly speaking, *YES* the Onkyo/Integra is HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 compliant, albeit the lite version of HDMI (bandwidth) at 10.2 Gb/s, and this will support the announced 4K BD spec as well at 24or 60Hz, 4:2:0


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Agreed about configurations that only have 2 pairs, but since you neglected to quote the entire post, you can see I was talking about adjacent pairs in conjunction with 3 or more pairs of overhead speakers as shown in the diagram as well.
> 
> 
> Dolby includes all of these speakers in their audio plan so there is no reason (other the AVR manufacturer implementation) that all of these cannot be in play at the same time. Besides not all rooms will have the necessary overall-height to accommodate FH or RH speakers and provide enough separation from the surrounds or fronts, it is here where I think that TF+TM+TR could be used.


Amen brother.  I do not have the height for FH or RH because of my dropped ceiling on the sides. My setup and yours are identical, I will implement the same speaker arrangement you have shown in the diagram unless at some point it is deemed to be ineffective. At this point I have the TF and TR in exactly the same place you show and with the two rows of seats. I have wires pulled for the TM and the speakers purchased . I may add the FW first before the TM , nothing is going to happen though until a receiver is available to do the same. Well, a receiver that I can afford/justify to buy that is . A Trinnov Altitude32 is available if one has minimum $30K to spend on a HT processor. I don't


----------



## Brian Fineberg

John wick tonight!!!


----------



## groundtrac

Brian Fineberg said:


> John wick tonight!!!


No, John Wick right Now!! 3 minutes in, WOW!


----------



## himey

NorthSky said:


> Yes, I know you don't have DSU.
> 
> * But it did cross my mind if this was feasible? ...Do you need DD 5.1 audio for that, or would DD stereo good enough?
> If I had a Dolby Atmos receiver I sure would have watched the Super Bowl with DSU engaged if possible.
> 
> Anyone here tried?



I asked this yesterday and got 1 yeah vote and 1 "the tops never came on". Someday the Superbowl will have some kind of height info available for our listening pleasure...


----------



## BornSlippyZ

I just got done watching John Wick and man was the sound impressive! And I don't even have an Atmos enabled avr yet!


----------



## roxiedog13

I have a 21' long room and will have 2 rows of seating, I am planning for the following layout:









[/QUOTE]

Actually , just looking at your arrangement and I see a couple differences from my setup. My side surrounds are mounted more or less in line with the back of row 1. The overheads are in the same exact position except I do not have the TM installed....yet. If I do implement the FW ,#5 in the drawing, I'll keep it within the 50-70 degree angle , closer to 60, so that it meets spec for both rows. 
Any guess how long it will be before we can get our hands on a receiver capable of 9.1.6?


----------



## roxiedog13

Brian Fineberg said:


> John wick tonight!!!


Mines on the way, what time are you showing


----------



## Brian Fineberg

roxiedog13 said:


> Mines on the way, what time are you showing


Probably around 8 tonight


----------



## roxiedog13

BornSlippyZ said:


> I just got done watching John Wick and man was the sound impressive! And I don't even have an Atmos enabled avr yet!


Today, is officially John Wick day !


----------



## SteveTheGeek

It probably comes as no surprise but no Atmos either on Secret Of The Museum : 

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/top...lease-night-at-the-museum-secret-of-the-tomb/

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 3 BLU-RAY™
Street Date:	March 10, 2015
Prebook Date:	February 4, 2015
Screen Format:	Widescreen 16:9 (1.85:1)
Audio:	English DTS-HD-MA 7.1
English Descriptive Audio DD 5.1
Spanish DD 5.1
French DD 5.1
Subtitles:	English / Spanish
Total Film Run Time:	98 minutes
U.S. Rating:	PG
Closed Captioned:	Yes


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> Today, is officially John Wick day !


That would make all of you "Alte Wick-ser." (For fans of German puns.)


----------



## lujan

Brian Fineberg said:


> John wick tonight!!!


Me too, I'm on my way to Best Buy in a few minutes to purchase.


----------



## lujan

SteveTheGeek said:


> It probably comes as no surprise but no Atmos either on Secret Of The Museum :
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/top...lease-night-at-the-museum-secret-of-the-tomb/
> 
> NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 3 BLU-RAY™
> Street Date:	March 10, 2015
> Prebook Date:	February 4, 2015
> Screen Format:	Widescreen 16:9 (1.85:1)
> Audio:	English DTS-HD-MA 7.1
> English Descriptive Audio DD 5.1
> Spanish DD 5.1
> French DD 5.1
> Subtitles:	English / Spanish
> Total Film Run Time:	98 minutes
> U.S. Rating:	PG
> Closed Captioned:	Yes


March 10, that's not long from now..


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> You think some new products will be released in March from Denon , Marantz , Onkyo or one of the many others? I'm sure DTS and Auro are going to be available, I was thinking
> more in terms of additional channels .


♦ No, I mentioned mid-March (could be @ the end of March too) because dts:x will finally reveal its details about its 3D decoder and speaker's positioning, number of channels supported, etc. ...Should be the same as Dolby Atmos.

And that is a key date because right now audio dealers and DTS inc. are under sealed lips in order to not disturb the market (Atmos receivers and all that jazz attached to it). 

Then when the details are known, the customers (us, buyers of receivers and SSPs), we will have a much better vision for our next direction.
And as mentioned by few members previously we can expect products equipped with Atmos and DTS:X starting appearing by Spring, May-June, through this Fall, September-October, and in between this Summer, July-August.



nitro28 said:


> This is my question also. I can wait until probably May to buy my new receiver. Any chance we will have new models or updated models by then? Just mainly looking for fully compliant HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 with 4 overhead channels.


♦ Usually May is Onkyo's early month for their first batch of new receivers. 
As for HDMI newest and highest and fullest version; I don't know, but what I do know is what Al (Sherwood) mentioned below in one of my quotes.
Al said that it is good enough for 4K Blu-ray (10GB/s). ...But there are more versions of HDMI coming later on this year, and even perhaps this Spring, where Denon/Marantz actual products now are supposed to be upgradeable to when you send your product to a service center.
...Or by Summer at the latest, from my understanding. And of course comes Fall Denon/Marantz with their newest receivers will be equipped with the new DTS:X and the newest HDMI/HDCP version. 

** Then in 2016, perhaps another version. ...And in 2017-18, with support for more "object rendition/precision", 3D sound wise, and who knows when 8K will start to be supported...



roxiedog13 said:


> You're right, 9.1.4 is the next configuration in the Dolby Atmos configuration guidelines. I guess I formed my decisions based on what others were doing and at some point ignored the obvious.
> I was focused too much on my situation with multiple rows of seats and what others were doing instead of sticking to the guidelines.
> 
> Looking at the guidelines first thing I notice is that my rear speakers are not even close to the recommended angles, they are way too close together mostly a function of being so far back( 20ft) from the MLP. For the angles to be correct I'd have to move the speakers much closer but in the rear my only option is the side walls as the floor space behind my second row is a recreational
> area. Guess the speakers will go on the near side wall or I'll have to reassign the rear in-ceiling speakers back to rear surrounds as they were in the beginning. Actually, I'm going to try bouncing the rears off the adjacent wall first, would be the simpliest solution if it worked . Who needs rear surrounds anyway


♦ The Dolby Atmos white paper on Home Theater Installation Speaker Guidelines is cute, well written with good looking and clear graphs.
But represented in it is for only one couch of listeners; there aren't two rows of listeners in that pdf paper. ...Like Al's (Sherwood) own graph he showed us before. Then 6 or even 8 overhead speakers come easily to mind for a better covering space for all listeners. 

Yes right now only 7.1.4 (9.1.2) is supported in our products. And 9.1.4 is represented in the Dolby Atmos paper; so we can deduct some logical conclusions, and predict future installations with more speakers supported, and running all together simultaneously (9.1.4 or 7.1.6 could become high probability). 

And with two rows of seats; I think we'll have to jump a notch here and go to the high-end side, for support of 13.1.6 and/or 11.1.8 setup configurations.
The most internal power amps a receiver has right now is eleven (11). ...You would need an additional 8-channel amp to make it nineteen. 
No, that is the department of the high-end products like from Barco, Trinnov, Datasat, Steinway Lyngdorf, JBL Synthesis, and others from Europe and Germany and Netherlands and here, Canada and America, USA. 

** My own guess as to the maximum supported setup in mass produced receivers and SSPs? ...9.1.4 (7.1.6) or 9.1.6 (7.1.8 - 11.1.4) @ the very best max. /// And when? A big maybe two or four years from now. 



Al Sherwood said:


> Selden, strictly speaking, *YES* the Onkyo/Integra is HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 compliant, albeit the lite version of HDMI (bandwidth) at 10.2 Gb/s, and this will support the announced 4K BD spec as well at 24or 60Hz, 4:2:0


♦ Then Onkyo is ahead of the wolf pack, for now, in that regard. ...But it won't last, because newer (more advanced) versions are also comin' up.
As to who will need it (them), that, is for each individual's setup and situation with the gear they'll have and the goals set. 
- But AVS is always in touch with the latest and even looking @ the future with interested 4K/8K set of eyes and ears.
And we all read Forbes and the NewYorker and Fortune and Rolling Stone and all the mainstream magazines of actuality with a vision on the future just to make sure.



Brian Fineberg said:


> John wick tonight!!!


♦ Ya baby! 



groundtrac said:


> No, John Wick right Now!! 3 minutes in, WOW!


♦ Yes, 'John Wick' is here now. 



BornSlippyZ said:


> I just got done watching John Wick and man was the sound impressive! And I don't even have an Atmos enabled avr yet!


Can't wait; should be totally "devastating", big time "pulverizing". ...The Matrix reborn. ...A new realistic approach @ surrealism. 



himey said:


> I asked this yesterday and got 1 yeah vote and 1 "the tops never came on". Someday the Superbowl will have some kind of height info available for our listening pleasure...


♦ That's not many; I am surprised. 

And yes, the next Super Bowl (*L*); hopefully will be Dolby Atmos encoded.


----------



## NorthSky

My above post's content is only reflective of some of my own ideas, comments, reflections, interpretations, predictions, ...not facts. ...Just in case. 
...Free estimates from freedom of expression.


----------



## NorthSky

_Keenu Reeves_ (John Wick) is not Russian, but Canadian.


----------



## BigScreen

bargervais said:


> If this year is any indication with the time line atmos had last year atmos was announced in March I think and it took AVR manufacturers till September to November that the actual receivers came on the market so I'm thinking the same with this new crop of receivers coming out with DTS:X we should see them come out in the last quarter of 2015.... That's why I'm content at being an early adopter of Atmos as I won't upgrade till the end of 2016..


Atmos in the home functionality was announced by Dolby on June 23, 2014:

Dolby Announces Availability of Dolby Atmos in the Home

That announcement was followed shortly by the individual manufacturers releasing details about their Atmos-equipped models. I think Yamaha was first out of the gate with hardware in July, but without Atmos firmware. The Denon units shipped in early September with Atmos ready to go (IIRC). Onkyo/Integra released their Atmos firmware update on September 30th, while Yamaha took until November to release their Atmos firmware.

As far as announcements go, I think the next nuggets of information will be in March when DTS is ready for their DTS:X info to go public. That should provide everyone with answers to whether any existing receivers will be upgradeable.

I don't think we'll get any specific information about 2015 models until around mid-year.

Yamaha announced the RX-Ax040 series in June 2014, the RX-Ax030 in May 2013, and the RX-Ax020 in June 2012, and a quick look at Denon shows that they follow the May/June timeframe as well, so we should have concrete information starting around late-May/early-June.

Hardware rollouts have been fairly consistent each year, I would expect Yamaha to have a new model out in July/August, and D+M to follow in September.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> John wick tonight!!!


Yes got my copy of John Wick knocked everyone over as I ran to popped it into my blu-ray player. I'm watching it as i write this that first scene when he's in the centenary with the rain pouring down... say no more love this stuff. Nice job lionsgate...Can't wait for Mocking Jay


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> _Keenu Reeves_ (John Wick) is not Russian, but Canadian.


There are no Russians, Canadians, Americans just Lionsgate, 20th century Fox, Paramount etc.. LOL
Love this in Atmos.


----------



## robert816

Anyone experiencing intermittent audio dropout in the first half of John Wick? I listened for it in the last half of the movie where all the action is, but did not notice it once.
Replayed the first half of the movie and starting somewhere around the graveyard scene I start losing audio for a moment here and there, when I replay the scene the dropout is still there, possibly a bad disc?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> There are no Russians, Canadians, Americans just Lionsgate, 20th century Fox, Paramount etc.. LOL
> Love this in Atmos.


Gotcha; John Wick is _universal._


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Gotcha; John Wick is _universal._


Sorry a little tongue in cheek. Love John Wick


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> Anyone experiencing intermittent audio dropout in the first half of John Wick? I listened for it in the last half of the movie where all the action is, but did not notice it once.
> Replayed the first half of the movie and starting somewhere around the graveyard scene I start losing audio for a moment here and there, when I replay the scene the dropout is still there, possibly a bad disc?


Sorry no audio drop outs here


----------



## robert816

Thank you, I'll shall return it for an exchange to be certain.


----------



## Trigen

NorthSky said:


> Gotcha; John Wick is _universal._


So is Fifty Shades of Grey (maybe not on 90% of forums).


----------



## NorthSky

Trigen said:


> So is Fifty Shades of Grey (maybe not on 90% of forums).


Universal ... studios.


----------



## HTRules

robert816 said:


> Anyone experiencing intermittent audio dropout in the first half of John Wick? I listened for it in the last half of the movie where all the action is, but did not notice it once.
> Replayed the first half of the movie and starting somewhere around the graveyard scene I start losing audio for a moment here and there, when I replay the scene the dropout is still there, possibly a bad disc?


Do you have an older Oppo Blu-ray player?


----------



## NorthSky

...And if he does, which model?


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> Yes got my copy of John Wick knocked everyone over as I ran to popped it into my blu-ray player. I'm watching it as i write this that first scene when he's in the centenary with the rain pouring down... say no more love this stuff. Nice job lionsgate...Can't wait for Mocking Jay


Is it in ATMOS?


----------



## roxiedog13

wse said:


> Is it in ATMOS?


 
No it is not but apparently the DSU rendition of the 7.1 track is really good.....I have HEARD 


OK my bad, apparently it is Dolby Atmos TrueHD 7.1, sorry about that. Guess I was thinking about Fury , recorded in Dolby 5.1 . Too many movies to keep track of .


----------



## robert816

HTRules said:


> Do you have an older Oppo Blu-ray player?



Yes, the BDP-93, but this doesn't appear to be the issue with seamless branching like the Expendables 3 or the remake of Total Recall.
The issue only appears during the first half of the movie, if it were the seamless branching issue it would be through out the entire movie.


----------



## WayneJoy

wse said:


> Is it in ATMOS?


 John Wick is in Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Is it in ATMOS?


Yes it's in Atmos. It was wonderful I'll have to use this as my demo when I invite some over to show them Atmos.


----------



## smurraybhm

With John Wick the sound is seamless, full and around you when it should be. What struck me is how it just seemed like I was there. One with the movie 
Being a well done movie doesn't hurt either assuming you don't mind action flicks with a plot. Thank you Loinsgate.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I thought it was a solid atmos mix. Only used atmos when it was needed. Very cool

Good movie too.


----------



## Movie78

Is just me or there's more movies in Dolby TRUEHD 7.1 Bluray than DTS HD MA 7.1


----------



## wse

*DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1*: *938 Movies*

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search

*Dolby TrueHD 7.1*: *204 movies*

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


----------



## aaranddeeman

wse said:


> *DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1*: *938 Movies*
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search
> 
> *Dolby TrueHD 7.1*: *204 movies*
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search



I may be in the minority. But I always found DTHD 7.1 better than DTS-HD.
Especially I find the dialogs in DTS-HD are bit illegible and I tend to raise the center level to make it legible. Not so with DTHD..


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Is just me or there's more movies in Dolby TRUEHD 7.1 Bluray than DTS HD MA 7.1


It definitely is just you.

________\\\

Both Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio soundtracks sound equally fine; from my vast library of Blu-ray movies.

*'John Wick'* was a fun flick (in a twisted/sick kind of way), but not demo stuff for sure, and certainly not for kids and wives. 
...Picture, Sound, and Story (Value) and Acting and Directing wise. ...It's a fast killing/violent/action flick. ...Zero value, zero purpose, all no-brain.


----------



## ghiggs001

robert816 said:


> Anyone experiencing intermittent audio dropout in the first half of John Wick? I listened for it in the last half of the movie where all the action is, but did not notice it once.
> Replayed the first half of the movie and starting somewhere around the graveyard scene I start losing audio for a moment here and there, when I replay the scene the dropout is still there, possibly a bad disc?


Is your player up-to-date with its latest software rev?


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Yes, I know you don't have DSU.
> 
> * But it did cross my mind if this was feasible? ...Do you need DD 5.1 audio for that, or would DD stereo good enough?
> If I had a Dolby Atmos receiver I sure would have watched the Super Bowl with DSU engaged if possible.
> 
> Anyone here tried?


I did watch it in DSU. Didn't do much. I was disappointed.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> I did watch it in DSU. Didn't do much. I was disappointed.


Yeah Chuck, I've read your comment on that other thread (Upmixing). 

________

Super Bowl for me is a gathering of good friends who bring food over, with their wives hovering in the gardens, while the men are glued to the big TV's screen and made their bets before the game started (in a fun pot of cash). ...Good food, good beverages, good fun with plenty of laughing and smiling. 

The sounds we make ourselves; laughing, talking, ... counts more than the sounds comin' out the TV's screen. Football is not about sounds, it's about strategies and well executed plays...team work. 

They screwed up big time on that last play.


----------



## multit

NorthSky said:


> ...Super Bowl for me is a gathering of good friends who bring food over, with their wives hovering in the gardens, while the men are glued to the big TV's screen and made their bets before the game started (in a fun pot of cash). ...Good food, good beverages, good fun with plenty of laughing and smiling.
> The sounds we make ourselves; laughing, talking, ... counts more than the sounds comin' out the TV's screen. Football is not about sounds, it's about strategies and well executed plays...team work. ...


Yeah, that remembers me quite well to last summer, when the soccer fifa world championship has taken place. Since we (Germany) made it trough the whole thing, it was exactly that kind of fun several times. The immersive sound bubble was already here simply without DSU or Auro-matic


----------



## Frank714

robert816 said:


> Yes, the BDP-93, but this doesn't appear to be the issue with seamless branching like_ the_ _Expendables 3_ or the remake of _Total Recall_.


I wasn't aware that _Total Recall_ was available on Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos or is that an import disc, you are referring to?

I take it from your statement that for both titles you did experience dropouts during playback on your BDP-93, but the dropouts in _John Wick_ are kind of a different nature?

Question: The German edition of _The Expendables 3 _exclusively features the director's cut (English track in DA). IIRC, seamless branching was responsible for dropouts with players using the Mediatek chip like Oppo's BDP-93. Will I probably experience the dropouts regardless?


----------



## BluesSailor

NorthSky said:


> Brad I appreciate the provided sketches. ...They don't convey enough a good representation of your room, but I can make some of it.
> 
> David (quote above yours) took the challenge seriously and went in grandeur, his own style to 'contour' the issue.
> 
> * My own room's ceiling is eleven feet high @ the highest point (center); I intend to install four speaker brackets with extended telescopic (manually adjustable) rods (roughly two feet long when fully extended). That's my own personal plan for my wood ceiling.
> The wiring is going to be the toughest part; I'm not exactly sure yet on how I'm going to proceed, and if they can be made invisible travelling from the inside front wall and through the very restricted space in the ceiling. ...A heck of a job. ...The other solution for the wiring is along one corner and side wall and side ceiling, with transparent copper jacket to match my wood ceiling. I can make that to be virtually quasi invisible (I'm good @ that). ...Better than drilling holes and fishing speaker cables through wall and ceiling, I think. ...Under the floor no sweat, my palace conforms to this accessibility with ease. But it's the four overhead speakers we are talking about here, not the floor surrounds.
> 
> Your two diagrams don't give me a good view enough to check your own room's situation.
> I realize this thread is enormous, and in it there are several great ideas for all type of rooms.
> People are very inventive and full of great creative ideas; the better plan of your room you can share the faster the good ideas will come.
> 
> The best of the best that I saw before was from Roger Dressler when he came up with a link on how to do a 3D representation of your room setup.
> The 3D picture was fantastic, with all the details, furniture, scaled to size, and simply the best of them all.
> If Roger is reading this post perhaps he can share that great link again; I believe I saw it in the MiniDSP DDRC-88A Official thread ** 8-channel AI/AO Dirac Live in a box. ...Some like that. ...I'll search for it.
> 
> Anyway, a view of your ceiling would help a lot. ...With your MLP (main listening position) of course.
> From your sketches it's just too little, from top. ...Roger's link is best; I can use it myself too, and you, and everyone else.
> ...Short of having a 3D representation, pictures (photos) even from a smartphone are second best. ...Then side views from graphs, and @ different angles.
> 
> _Bob_


NorthSky

Bob, I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my questions. Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been out of town and was not able to get pictures until this morning. Attached are pictures of the room. Those, combined with the sketches provided earlier will hopefully be enough to see the challenges I have in front of me.

I still believe that putting the speakers on a suspended frame, similar to track lighting is the way to go unless someone has a solution for Atmos heights placed outside of the mains.

My original post was mostly a sanity check on this suspension idea and to inquire on what others have done when faced with a similar situation. Any recommendation from the forum on what suspension rod/cables/fixtures to consider? Likewise on the track itself. An hour search of the www, focusing on track lighting fixtures, shows some possibilities but more research is necessary so that I better understand the rail construction and attachment options. Is anyone aware of audio specific suspended systems that are not too industrial looking?

That's where I'm at for now. This weekend I'm going to start pulling the wiring for the surrounds and the rears. Should be a riot!

I need ideas on how to best accomplish the Atmos height installation. ANY and ALL input is very much appreciated.

EDIT: Not sure why sketches are orientated like they are. They should be rotated CCW 90deg.

Brad


----------



## robert816

Frank714 said:


> I wasn't aware that _Total Recall_ was available on Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos or is that an import disc, you are referring to?
> 
> I take it from your statement that for both titles you did experience dropouts during playback on your BDP-93, but the dropouts in _John Wick_ are kind of a different nature?
> 
> Question: The German edition of _The Expendables 3 _exclusively features the director's cut (English track in DA). IIRC, seamless branching was responsible for dropouts with players using the Mediatek chip like Oppo's BDP-93. Will I probably experience the dropouts regardless?


@Frank714 , The Total Recall, 2012 version was one of the first discs I had that suffered from the audio dropout issue, as the BDP-93 does not have the built in support for seamless branching in the player, the movie its self is not in Atmos. Since the "cure" for the audio dropout issue is to change the output of your Blu-Ray player to LPCM, with current players not having native support for Atmos playback, this isn't an option.

Correct sir, with the seamless branching issue, you have dropout through out the entire movie, with John Wick it acted like the same issue, but only happened during the first half of the movie, during the last half of the movie I did not notice it at all. I checked some other forums and noticed a few others mentioning the same issue. I'll just return it for another copy and see if the problem is resolved, if not I'll just live with it until the player is replaced.

I honestly could not answer that with any certainty. Since seamless branching is part of the disc authoring process, it is possible the German version may suffer the same issues as it's American counterpart. The dropout is like an audio hiccup, it only lasts a moment, but during loud busy scenes it is very noticeable.

@ghiggs001 , yes sir, my player is up to date on firmware, I had considered buying the BDP-103, which would solve the problem of seamless branching, but with less than a half dozen Blu-Rays in my collection out of around 1400 currently owned titles that have the audio issue, I could not bring myself to justify the expense. Even so, if this isn't the branching issue, I'm not certain even a new player would resolve the issue. I am waiting for Oppo to announce a new player, when they do I'll purchase a new one and move the BDP-93 to my bedroom theatre.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *'John Wick'* was a fun flick (in a twisted/sick kind of way), but not demo stuff for sure, and certainly not for kids and wives.


If you had an Atmos receiver....I would value your opinion.... IMPO I would definitely use John Wick as a demo to show friends what Atmos sounds like especially that first part of the movie when they are in the cemetery with the rain pouring down,definitely DEMO material.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hmmm. I, Frankenstein arrived from Japan today, in Atmos. I actually have the movie in regular 7.1, so this will be the most crass example of double-dipping _ever_. It is not a great movie. But... it has some spectacular sound, with limitless opportunities for overhead effects, so it should be a good test.

Unfortunately, I am installing a new rack and refurbishing the boot room, so my HT is down for the rest of this week undergoing non-essential maintenance. As soon as the refurb is complete I am installing Dirac Live via miniDSP's DDRC-88A unit, so it may be some time before I report on this new disc. It takes my Atmos titles to the grand total of 6, with Chicago on its way from Japan as soon as it is released. By the looks of things I will have about a dozen Atmos titles by Spring. Not earth-shattering, but progress.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Hmmm. I, Frankenstein arrived from Japan today, in Atmos. I actually have the movie in regular 7.1, so this will be the most crass example of double-dipping _ever_. It is not a great movie. But... it has some spectacular sound, with limitless opportunities for overhead effects, so it should be a good test.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am installing a new rack and refurbishing the boot room, so my HT is down for the rest of this week undergoing non-essential maintenance. As soon as the refurb is complete I am installing Dirac Live via miniDSP's DDRC-88A unit, so it may be some time before I report on this new disc. It takes my Atmos titles to the grand total of 6, with Chicago on its way from Japan as soon as it is released. By the looks of things I will have about a dozen Atmos titles by Spring. Not earth-shattering, but progress.


I'll review I Frankenstein (Atmos version) for you, just ship it 4000K due west to NL Canada, first stop other side of the pond. I'd come over in the row boat but I have a broken paddle, snail mail should work.


----------



## chi_guy50

smurraybhm said:


> With John Wick the sound is seamless, full and around you when it should be. What struck me is how it just seemed like I was there. One with the movie
> Being a well done movie doesn't hurt either assuming you don't mind action flicks with a plot. Thank you Loinsgate.


Yeah, sure,* a plot*! Just goes to show how low the bar has been set that I'm actually looking forward to watching this flick. And I'm fully prepared to enjoy it but certainly not for the writing. (Full disclosure: I'd watch almost anything with Ian McShane in the cast.)

Can anyone confirm whether the Netflix BRD has the Atmos mix? (If so, this would be my very first Atmos movie experience.)


----------



## smurraybhm

I just love it when we get snobby about movie preferences. Did I say deep plot, great plot? Compared to Expendables 3 this movie has a plot, not complicated, but one none the less. 
My movie collection totals well over 1K, and I've stopped counting for a year or two. I enjoy all types of movies (Nebraska, North by Northwest, Despicable 1/2, and even something like the Expendables ) and don't see the need for the continued critiquing of what makes for a good movie, what one should enjoy or whether it should even be watched. It's a well done Atmos mix IMO, important to note on the Atmos thread.

There is a blu-ray thread on AVS, but I don't need a few posters who spend their time over there telling me what I should and shouldn't like. Sometimes you just need to see some things blow up and look/sound good at the same time. John Wick has a lot scenes in dark places, the picture is very good and will make those with a plasma thankful they have one.

Don't miss living in Atlanta, always thought too many people there where worried about what they drove, how much they made and what type of movies someone watched 

P.S. I'll be watching/listening to John Wick again this weekend when the house is empty. Looking forward to it - believe it or not.


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> Hmmm. I, Frankenstein arrived from Japan today, in Atmos. I actually have the movie in regular 7.1, so this will be the most crass example of double-dipping _ever_. It is not a great movie. But... it has some spectacular sound, with limitless opportunities for overhead effects, so it should be a good test.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am installing a new rack and refurbishing the boot room, so my HT is down for the rest of this week undergoing non-essential maintenance. As soon as the refurb is complete I am installing Dirac Live via miniDSP's DDRC-88A unit, so it may be some time before I report on this new disc. It takes my Atmos titles to the grand total of 6, with Chicago on its way from Japan as soon as it is released. By the looks of things I will have about a dozen Atmos titles by Spring. Not earth-shattering, but progress.


Well done sir! Keep those Atmos titles flying off the shelves! Whats a wee bit of double dipping when it helps to further the cause.

I'll admit, I also had purchased I,Frankstein a second time to get the Atmos mix. I also purchased Nature and Transcendence Blu-Rays for the Atmos mix, I thought the Atmos in Transcendence was very good, well placed and great sounding audio. I also have Chicago on pre-order, hoping it too will both sound and look good.

In other news, The Pirates, a Korean film was one of the first movies with an Atmos mix in Korean theatres, was just released on Blu-Ray and you guessed it, no Atmos mix on the Blu-Ray.

So many missed opportunities, but I guess that means its easier for the studios to try double-dipping the consumers by re-releasing titles again with more footage, a special edition, or a new sound mix.


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> Yeah, sure,* a plot*! Just goes to show how low the bar has been set that I'm actually looking forward to watching this flick. And I'm fully prepared to enjoy it but certainly not for the writing. (Full disclosure: I'd watch almost anything with Ian McShane in the cast.)
> 
> Can anyone confirm whether the Netflix BRD has the Atmos mix? (If so, this would be my very first Atmos movie experience.)


Yes indeed, raised the bar to the ceiling in fact.  Atmos has certainly added a new dimension worthy of consideration even when the plot is weak. Like I said before, we not only look
forward to "watching" a movie, we can also look forward to hearing it too.


----------



## audioguy

smurraybhm said:


> Don't miss living in Atlanta, always thought too many people there where worried about what they drove, how much they made and what type of movies someone watched


AMEN! AMEN!! and AMEN! I lived there for almost 40 years. It used to have (and maybe still does) the highest per capital BMW ownership in the country.

I retired and moved east of Atlanta (about 80 miles) to a small town (population of the 3 closest towns is about 12,000) a bit over a year ago. The comparison is stark: many of the folks here are retired executives from very major corporations but based on the home they live in or the car they drive, you would never know it. There are a few exceptions (e.g. a woman from Buckhead in Atlanta who can't stop talking about Buckhead), but fortunlately, they are very few and far between.

I had a Pastor in Atlanta a long time ago who made the following statement: "Keeping up with the Jones' is buying things you don't need, with the money you don't have to keep up with the people you don't know".

THAT is Atlanta, GA.

Sorry for the OT post !!


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> AMEN! AMEN!! and AMEN! I lived there for almost 40 years. It used to have (and maybe still does) the highest per capital BMW ownership in the country.
> 
> I retired and moved east of Atlanta (about 80 miles) to a small town (population of the 3 closest towns is about 12,000) a bit over a year ago. The comparison is stark: many of the folks here are retired executives from very major corporations but based on the home they live in or the car they drive, you would never know it. There are a few exceptions (e.g. a woman from Buckhead in Atlanta who can't stop talking about Buckhead), but fortunlately, they are very few and far between.
> 
> I had a Pastor in Atlanta a long time ago who made the following statement: "Keeping up with the Jones' is buying things you don't need, with the money you don't have to keep up with the people you don't know".
> 
> THAT is Atlanta, GA.
> 
> Sorry for the OT post !!


I own a BMW X3 , ok, never mind, its my wife's car , this all makes sense now.


----------



## audioguy

roxiedog13 said:


> I own a BMW X3 , ok, never mind, its my wife's car , this all makes sense now.


By the way, there is nothing wrong with owning BMW's or anything else. It's the mindset. I have owned a lot of expensive cars as well and was clearly caught up in the chase -but not everyone is!


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Yes it's in Atmos. It was wonderful I'll have to use this as my demo when I invite some over to show them Atmos.


Yeah, I thought John Wick was good but the sound was great.

Sorry if this was already talked about but how was the Atmos track on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?


----------



## chi_guy50

smurraybhm said:


> I just love it when we get snobby about movie preferences. Did I say deep plot, great plot? Compared to Expendables 3 this movie has a plot, not complicated, but one none the less.
> My movie collection totals well over 1K, and I've stopped counting for a year or two. I enjoy all types of movies (Nebraska, North by Northwest, Despicable 1/2, and even something like the Expendables ) and don't see the need for the continued critiquing of what makes for a good movie, what one should enjoy or whether it should even be watched. It's a well done Atmos mix IMO, important to note on the Atmos thread.
> 
> There is a blu-ray thread on AVS, but I don't need a few posters who spend their time over there telling me what I should and shouldn't like. Sometimes you just need to see some things blow up and look/sound good at the same time. John Wick has a lot scenes in dark places, the picture is very good and will make those with a plasma thankful they have one.
> 
> Don't miss living in Atlanta, always thought too many people there where worried about what they drove, how much they made and what type of movies someone watched
> 
> P.S. I'll be watching/listening to John Wick again this weekend when the house is empty. Looking forward to it - believe it or not.


That's quite an overreaction. Why so defensive? I only pointed out, tongue in cheek, how low the bar is set when we can list the actual existence of a coherent plot as a praiseworthy feature in a movie. I did not attempt to critique the movie and even said that I expect to enjoy watching it.

BTW, I drive a 1994 Honda Civic Si and we don't miss you in ITP Atlanta.


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> By the way, there is nothing wrong with owning BMW's or anything else. It's the mindset. I have owned a lot of expensive cars as well and was clearly caught up in the chase -but not everyone is!


No chase where I live, plenty of space , lots of R&R, if it's desired of course .  My man cave is just inside that mountain over there.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

how are you all playing the Japan titles arent they region protected? I have a oppo 103 if that helps...thanks!


----------



## Ocielz

Brian Fineberg said:


> how are you all playing the Japan titles arent they region protected? I have a oppo 103 if that helps...thanks!


I have the OPPO 103 with region free dongle. 
Usually JP release are region A same as the US.


----------



## westmd

Brian Fineberg said:


> how are you all playing the Japan titles arent they region protected? I have a oppo 103 if that helps...thanks!


If you are US based Japan is the same region. If you are Europe based you can get a zone free upgrade for about 100? which is DIY!


----------



## Ocielz

I paid $55/$65 for the Region free dongle from Ebay.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Hmmm. I, Frankenstein arrived from Japan today, in Atmos.


Where do you order things like this from Japan? Amazon Japan?


----------



## Nalleh

Brian Fineberg said:


> how are you all playing the Japan titles arent they region protected? I have a oppo 103 if that helps...thanks!


The Japan Atmos realeses so far has been region free, so no worries for anyone 



stikle said:


> Where do you order things like this from Japan? Amazon Japan?


Yes. It's as easy as the regular Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.jp/In-English/b?ie=UTF8&node=1094656


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Hmmm. I, Frankenstein arrived from Japan today, in Atmos. I actually have the movie in regular 7.1, so this will be the most crass example of double-dipping _ever_. It is not a great movie. But... it has some spectacular sound, with limitless opportunities for overhead effects, so it should be a good test.
> .


Yup, triple dipping here with: I, Frankenstein: regular 7.1 in 3D, the german version optimized for NEO:X(also 3D) and japan with Atmos.

Watched it last night, and it was very good in Atmos, so much more defined, dynamic, and seamless. Really nice demo materiale.










That said, the Neo:X version was surpricingly good too. Never heard such distinct height info from Neo:X when i had my old Onkyo 3010. 

Also watched Nature/Enchanted Kingdom, and altough this is a documentary, it was awsome in Atmos. Really cool jungle scenes, spectacular underwater scenes, and the monsune scenes at the end is by far the best thunder and rain effects i have heard from Atmos. Recommended!


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> It takes my Atmos titles to the grand total of 6, with Chicago on its way from Japan as soon as it is released. By the looks of things I will have about a dozen Atmos titles by Spring. Not earth-shattering, but progress.


I will be very interested to read the impressions that people have for Chicago, as it was not originally mixed in Atmos, and how it compares to just using DSU for upmixing. 

The difference that I see between this title and the recent non-theatrical Atmos releases (Step Up All In, Vice) is that Chicago won several awards for sound. Given that, and the high profile of this title, I would hope that a decent job will be done in remixing it for Atmos.


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> No chase where I live, plenty of space , lots of R&R, if it's desired of course .  My man cave is just inside that mountain over there.


Ooohh! Mountain bike heaven!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

i cant seem to have them shipped to US on amazon japan site


----------



## BigScreen

BluesSailor said:


> Attached are pictures of the room. Those, combined with the sketches provided earlier will hopefully be enough to see the challenges I have in front of me.
> 
> I still believe that putting the speakers on a suspended frame, similar to track lighting is the way to go unless someone has a solution for Atmos heights placed outside of the mains.
> 
> My original post was mostly a sanity check on this suspension idea and to inquire on what others have done when faced with a similar situation. Any recommendation from the forum on what suspension rod/cables/fixtures to consider? Likewise on the track itself. An hour search of the www, focusing on track lighting fixtures, shows some possibilities but more research is necessary so that I better understand the rail construction and attachment options. Is anyone aware of audio specific suspended systems that are not too industrial looking?
> 
> That's where I'm at for now. This weekend I'm going to start pulling the wiring for the surrounds and the rears. Should be a riot!
> 
> I need ideas on how to best accomplish the Atmos height installation. ANY and ALL input is very much appreciated.


If it were me in this situation, I would try mounting the speakers to the side walls. If you get speakers that can be aimed by adjusting their mounts (either through a ball-pivot mount for small bookshelf speakers, or a c-type mount like the Tannoy Di series), you should be able to get them aimed at the listening positions well enough.

I'm all for good sound, but in a primary living space, I would not use tracks or suspend speakers from wires just to get the speakers positioned in the "optimum" locations. I would mount something to the side walls or to the ceiling, but I wouldn't impede on the visual appearance any more than I absolutely had to.

I don't think there is enough evidence to support a position that height speakers must be inside the fronts at all costs. I would start by mounting/resting them on that soffit area to each side. If it doesn't work, you'll have to do a little drywall repair, but my guess is that they will work just fine. 

I don't base this on any first-hand knowledge, as I'm still on the Atmos fence, so take these comments with that grain of salt.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> i cant seem to have them shipped to US on amazon japan site


I think the same thing I'll stay and be content to shop on Amazon USA. Atmos blu-rays are starting to trickle in now can't wait for Mocking Jay next month then gravity.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Where do you order things like this from Japan? Amazon Japan?


Yes. Reasonable prices and fairly fast delivery (by UPS). AFAIK Japan is R1, like USA, but be careful. I have a multiregion BD player, so no worries here. And some discs are region-free of course - check on bluray.com or bluraystats.com first.


----------



## bargervais

I will be getting my new Kindle fire HDX 8.9 with Dolby Atmos today I just had to see how it sounds with ear buds I know it won't come close to my HT but I have to see...hear it.


----------



## ps2br

robert816 said:


> Anyone experiencing intermittent audio dropout in the first half of John Wick? I listened for it in the last half of the movie where all the action is, but did not notice it once.
> Replayed the first half of the movie and starting somewhere around the graveyard scene I start losing audio for a moment here and there, when I replay the scene the dropout is still there, possibly a bad disc?



Hi , i had exactly the same problem, started the audio problem in rain scenes, and halfway through the movie forward was normal. I thought it was in the Marantz 7009 or hdmi cable.

Player : Popcorn Hour C200 .


Thanks,
Mauricio


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes. Reasonable prices and fairly fast delivery (by UPS). AFAIK Japan is R1, like USA, but be careful. I have a multiregion BD player, so no worries here. And some discs are region-free of course - check on bluray.com or bluraystats.com first.


Where do you go to order I went to Amazon Japan it's Japanese is there an English site that sells from Japan...


----------



## billqs

Brian Fineberg said:


> i cant seem to have them shipped to US on amazon japan site


I had no problem getting I Frankenstein shipped to me here in the US from Japan. It was pretty speedy, too.


----------



## Ocielz

bargervais said:


> Where do you go to order I went to Amazon Japan it's Japanese is there an English site that sells from Japan...


Use Google Chrome to translate or order from yesasia or kimchidvd


----------



## Kris Deering

bargervais said:


> Where do you go to order I went to Amazon Japan it's Japanese is there an English site that sells from Japan...


On the top of the Amazon.jp page click the IN ENGLISH link and it makes the site in English. I've ordered plenty of stuff from them with no issues shipping to the states along with Amazon UK, Germany, France, and Italy.


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Ooohh! Mountain bike heaven!


I mountain bike, have loads of single track and thousands of miles of back country roads to avail of too. Mountain biking on these hills, not so good. Doable but half the trails you will have to carry.OTOH, great Salmon fishing river there at the bottom .


----------



## stikle

Thanks Nalleh.

Geez...$32US. That's kinda harsh.


----------



## brahman12

Hey Nalleh.... I checked Amazon Japan... How do I tell if I am getting the Atmos version of these films? Is it that these blurays contain an Atmos mix simply because it is the Japanese version of the disc? Your help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes. Reasonable prices and fairly fast delivery (by UPS). AFAIK Japan is R1, like USA, but be careful. I have a multiregion BD player, so no worries here. And some discs are region-free of course - check on bluray.com or bluraystats.com first.


How can you determine which region your Oppo player is setup for ? I'm in Canada but I'm pretty sure my Oppo 103D came from the US .


----------



## Brian Fineberg

70$ for 2 movies?? no thanks atmos or not haha


----------



## Nalleh

brahman12 said:


> Hey Nalleh.... I checked Amazon Japan... How do I tell if I am getting the Atmos version of these films? Is it that these blurays contain an Atmos mix simply because it is the Japanese version of the disc? Your help would be greatly appreciated.


I just use google translate 

But if you follow the links here, they take you to the right versions:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## htpcforever

Nalleh said:


> Yes. It's as easy as the regular Amazon:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/In-English/b?ie=UTF8&node=1094656


I bought my Harry Potter boxed set from the UK this way (the UK site, not Japan). Fast, easy, and free shipping since I spent more than the minimum amount. Plus my credit card does not charge foreign transaction fees.


----------



## Nalleh

Brian Fineberg said:


> 70$ for 2 movies?? no thanks atmos or not haha


Come on?!
I paid 130$ for those 3 japan Atmos BD's, so what...

It's all about having fun, right?


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> I mountain bike, have loads of single track and thousands of miles of back country roads to avail of too. Mountain biking on these hills, not so good. Doable but half the trails you will have to carry.OTOH, great Salmon fishing river there at the bottom .


My apologies for the off topic, I'll keep it brief.

I ride a full suspension KHS 650b on a local trail, fairly technicial, but for fun, not a pro like some of my buddies. We do not have mountains here in Oklahoma where I'm at, just slightly bigger hills, but lots of trees. I've introduced myself to several trees last year, good times! 

On topic:
@brahman12 if you look in the description down below where all the kanji is, you will usually see Dolby or Atmos or even TrueHD listed. To date only the three current releases have Atmos, the upcoming release of Chicago is listed to have Atmos (we will see), and I am checking regularly for Atmos releases in Japan and Korea and will post when found.

oops, forgot about White Storm (Japan release)


----------



## stikle

Nalleh said:


> Come on?!
> I paid 130$ for those 3 japan Atmos BD's, so what...
> 
> It's all about having fun, right?


Except that $130 is 8.6% of two new subwoofers...


----------



## Movie78

Nalleh said:


> Come on?!
> I paid 130$ for those 3 japan Atmos BD's, so what...
> 
> It's all about having fun, right?


I think you are having too much fun.

I am jealous


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> 70$ for 2 movies?? no thanks atmos or not haha


Does that include shipping???? $70.00 no thank you. I love Atmos but not that much. I'll stick with USA blue-rays $19.99 to $27.99 each we are spoiled.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ Hi Brad,

Install thin steel cables, the type for light fixtures. Install them just above your wall/ceiling junction (extrusions; I don't know the term for those).
You'd need four cables, running side ways when sitting on your couch. Two cables to hold two overhead speakers in place (front Height), and then the two others (rear Height). The speaker's wiring run along those steel cables.

The cables will be roughly nine feet high (is that a good approximation?), and you can install speakers weighting up to 40 pounds each.
...Solid cables with a tightener screw @ one end.

Do you know what I'm referring to, or pictures would help?

* Your idea for a "track lighting" is the good idea. Mine is the same, but instead of two long metal frames, four steel cables.
They are much less visible, and decor friendly.

I'll try to search for some pictures; so that you can see exactly what I mean. 
The overhead speakers would be attached from two of their ends (top/bottom, or L/R sides) to their responding cable (for rigidity without any movement).



BluesSailor said:


> NorthSky
> 
> Bob, I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my questions. Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been out of town and was not able to get pictures until this morning. Attached are pictures of the room. Those, combined with the sketches provided earlier will hopefully be enough to see the challenges I have in front of me.
> 
> I still believe that *putting the speakers on a suspended frame, similar to track lighting is the way to go* unless someone has a solution for Atmos heights placed outside of the mains.
> 
> My original post was mostly a sanity check on this suspension idea and to inquire on what others have done when faced with a similar situation. Any recommendation from the forum on what suspension rod/cables/fixtures to consider? Likewise on the track itself. An hour search of the www, focusing on track lighting fixtures, shows some possibilities but more research is necessary so that I better understand the rail construction and attachment options. Is anyone aware of audio specific suspended systems that are not too industrial looking?
> 
> That's where I'm at for now. This weekend I'm going to start pulling the wiring for the surrounds and the rears. Should be a riot!
> 
> I need ideas on how to best accomplish the Atmos height installation. ANY and ALL input is very much appreciated.
> 
> EDIT: Not sure why sketches are orientated like they are. They should be rotated CCW 90deg.
> 
> Brad


----------



## brahman12

*Muchas Gracias!!!*



Nalleh said:


> I just use google translate
> 
> But if you follow the links here, they take you to the right versions:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


 
Thanks Nalleh....now I can get my hands on more Atmos induced Nirvana!!!! LOL


----------



## brahman12

*Thanks for the help*

On topic:
@brahman12 if you look in the description down below where all the kanji is, you will usually see Dolby or Atmos or even TrueHD listed. To date only the three current releases have Atmos, the upcoming release of Chicago is listed to have Atmos (we will see), and I am checking regularly for Atmos releases in Japan and Korea and will post when found.

oops, forgot about White Storm (Japan release)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the 411 cuz I can't get enough of the Atmos high!!!!


----------



## BornSlippyZ

robert816 said:


> Anyone experiencing intermittent audio dropout in the first half of John Wick? I listened for it in the last half of the movie where all the action is, but did not notice it once.
> Replayed the first half of the movie and starting somewhere around the graveyard scene I start losing audio for a moment here and there, when I replay the scene the dropout is still there, possibly a bad disc?


I meant to respond to your post yesterday but I experienced this once, in the beginning of the movie. I stopped the movie and changed my audio options on my PS4 from Linear PCM to dolbyHD (Bitstream). I had zero audio drop outs after that and none today when I watched it the second time.


----------



## CBdicX

*Strange Atmos test*


Maybe a "strange" test, but i used Stereo and Atmos (2.0.2) and it sounds amazing !
With the Amaze Atmos test i realy had to do my best to figure out it was not surround 
(my wife is listening all evening and she has no idea she is listening to Stereo DSU  )
Dolby did his magic with DSU and Atmos, AMAZING............. !


----------



## Nalleh

brahman12 said:


> Thanks Nalleh....now I can get my hands on more Atmos induced Nirvana!!!! LOL


You're welcome.

I have posted this link before, but this is a global search on blu-ray.com for BD's with Atmos with links where to buy. Bookmark this link and it will update when new ones surface 

115 Atmos BD' worldwide as of today.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php?action=search&audio=Atmos&sortby=relevance


----------



## NorthSky

Hi Brad,

To mount your overhead speakers (Atmos), here is what I was referring to:










______










______










______










______










* Steel rod, but horizontally *^* installed (just another idea). 
______










______










______










______
______

♦ Those are the ideas (two steel cables for two speakers, and two more for the two others). 
...Substitute the halogen lights for speakers, and just use the appropriate type of brackets.

Those steel cables are quite thin, and very strong. They are very decor friendly, easy to install (between your two side walls @ the height you want),
and they'll accept various type of speaker brackets, and speakers large and heavy enough to go down to 40Hz. ...A 6 to 8" woofer. 
You'll be able to suspend your four overhead Atmos speakers, weighting up to roughly 40 pounds each, if you want to (10-20 pounds no sweat).

I think that's what I'm going to do myself.


----------



## smurraybhm

^ Bob you obviously live alone or have controlling interest in your home, most of us married guys can only dream or get divorced. Cable lights we have, speakers on cables or poles and I'd be dead.
Chi-Guy - my family is still in Atlanta, but I promise to keep it quite when I pass through driving my Honda, I thought a smiley face was an attempt to show you are not the only one who can be tongue and in my case cheeky I guess.


----------



## robert816

BornSlippyZ said:


> I meant to respond to your post yesterday but I experienced this once, in the beginning of the movie. I stopped the movie and changed my audio options on my PS4 from Linear PCM to dolbyHD (Bitstream). I had zero audio drop outs after that and none today when I watched it the second time.


Thank you for the update, I checked my settings and they are correct. My AVR was displaying Dolby Atmos so I know I had it set correctly. I'm banking on possibly a bad disc. Was going to return it today but we have "weather" coming in and in Oklahoma you are never sure what kind of weather you are going to get! 


Once I exchange the disc I'll report back.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> ^ Bob you obviously live alone or have controlling interest in your home, most of us married guys can only dream or get divorced. Cable lights we have, speakers on cables or poles and I'd be dead.


Steve, this is the official Dolby Atmos thread, and Brad has a very high ceiling (over 16 feet high), and was asking for suggestions. 
What does my personal life has to do with it? ...And if I live alone, or with my wives and kids, or divorced ....

You have some recommendations for Brad's room with his very high ceiling as to how he can install four overhead speakers for Dolby Atmos (and DTS:X and Auro-3D)? It is not easy for people like us with a high ceiling. 

Or is it your pleasure to criticize ("some of us married guys ... divorced."), and that has nothing to do with the subject in the first place. 
Anyway, if this is your sense of humor, just put a smiley next time.


----------



## chi_guy50

smurraybhm said:


> Chi-Guy - my family is still in Atlanta, but I promise to keep it quite when I pass through driving my Honda, I thought a smiley face was an attempt to show you are not the only one who can be tongue and in my case cheeky I guess.


No worries, we Hotlantans are very accepting of the unwashed multitudes who come to visit us. Just be sure to drop some dough while you're here--our city's tax coffers need the help. And no, a couple of dogs at the Varsity won't do the trick.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Steve, this is the official Dolby Atmos thread, and Brad has a very high ceiling (over 16 feet high), and was asking for suggestions.
> What does my personal life has to do with it? ...And if I live alone, or with my wives and kids, or divorced ....
> 
> You have some recommendations for Brad's room with his very high ceiling as to how he can install four overhead speakers for Dolby Atmos (and DTS:X and Auro-3D)? It is not easy for people like us with a high ceiling.
> 
> Or is it your pleasure to criticize ("some of us married guys ... divorced."), and that has nothing to do with the subject in the first place.
> Anyway, if this is your sense of humor, just put a smiley next time.


How's this 
So much for being lighthearted on this thread. Just talking about what it would take for ME to be able to do that, not the only AVS member that talks about WAF.
So much for the bright stars, loving our neighbors, living in harmony - sure you get my point. Smiley face here, ignore button hit here. Time to give AVS a rest, watch John Wick again and check out the Varsity this weekend - I need some onion rings.


----------



## robert816

Dracula Untold sounds fantastic with DSU!


I'm thinking instead of selling us on Atmos, Dolby should have sold us on DSU and said "oh by the way, you get Atmos too"!


----------



## lujan

robert816 said:


> Dracula Untold sounds fantastic with DSU!
> 
> 
> I'm thinking instead of selling us on Atmos, Dolby should have sold us on DSU and said "oh by the way, you get Atmos too"!


How is the movie? It is not getting great reviews but I sometimes love movies that had bad reviews...


----------



## NorthSky

*Dracula Untold*



robert816 said:


> *Dracula Untold* sounds fantastic with DSU!
> 
> I'm thinking instead of selling us on Atmos, Dolby should have sold us on DSU and said "oh by the way, you get Atmos too"!





lujan said:


> How is the movie? It is not getting great reviews but I sometimes love movies that had bad reviews...


♦ I think it's extremely bad.


----------



## BluesSailor

NorthSky said:


> Hi Brad,
> 
> To mount your overhead speakers (Atmos), here is what I was referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Steel rod, but horizontally *^* installed (just another idea).
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> ______
> 
> ♦ Those are the ideas (two steel cables for two speakers, and two more for the two others).
> ...Substitute the halogen lights for speakers, and just use the appropriate type of brackets.
> 
> Those steel cables are quite thin, and very strong. They are very decor friendly, easy to install (between your two side walls @ the height you want),
> and they'll accept various type of speaker brackets, and speakers large and heavy enough to go down to 40Hz. ...A 6 to 8" woofer.
> You'll be able to suspend your four overhead Atmos speakers, weighting up to roughly 40 pounds each, if you want to (10-20 pounds no sweat).
> 
> I think that's what I'm going to do myself.


Bob,

Thanks for the pictures. Certainly something to consider. I'd need to find speaker mounting brackets that are more polished looking than the black ones, something along the lines of the first one holding the light. The speakers I'm considering only weigh 6 lbs so that may not be too big a challenge. They only go down to 80 hz, but 2 big subs should make up for it.

Dropping my ceiling isn't an option for me either, very low on the WAF. Nice thinking outside the box though. I like it!

Thanks guys. Any other suggestions out there from the collective mind?

Brad


----------



## mtbdudex

What's a few off topic posts on Mountain biking in a 19k post thread hurt?? none.



robert816 said:


> Ooohh! Mountain bike heaven!





roxiedog13 said:


> I mountain bike, have loads of single track and thousands of miles of back country roads to avail of too. Mountain biking on these hills, not so good. Doable but half the trails you will have to carry.OTOH, great Salmon fishing river there at the bottom .





robert816 said:


> My apologies for the off topic, I'll keep it brief.
> 
> I ride a full suspension KHS 650b on a local trail, fairly technicial, but for fun, not a pro like some of my buddies. We do not have mountains here in Oklahoma where I'm at, just slightly bigger hills, but lots of trees. I've introduced myself to several trees last year, good times!


Post your steed and best MTB moment!
Current bike; 1998 Litespeed Ti frame Full XTR, ok it was top notch in it's time still holds it's own...
Due to Right hip replacement I'm looking at Specialized FS 29".







.









Best MTB moment, I raced 1996-2000, but best finish was 1998 NORBA Nationals 3rd place podium ....









Funest riding was doing the majority of the trails in this book, as I raced 1997-1998 lots of NORBA national races....









btw, if you can answer who the Sedona-5 are w/o looking up on the web then I know you have been around the block a few times...they are all here via kodak...ahh *Mountain Bike Heaven*


----------



## Minge

After reading in the oppo 83 thread it is my understanding my bluray player will not properly bitsream atmos embedded discs without audio dropouts or loss of information which ruins the atmos experience. Leads me to believe I am not the only one with a blu ray player that will not properly bitstream this codec without loss of information or dropouts. So now after punching new holes in my ceiling and buying new speakers and adding amplification I now need to replace my oppo player. All in the name of adding all this for a format that could be gone in a couple of years. I am confused and frustrated.


----------



## robert816

lujan said:


> How is the movie? It is not getting great reviews but I sometimes love movies that had bad reviews...



I liked it, dark, violent, bloody, without being stupidly gory for no reason other than shock value. I thought the audio mix complimented the movie rather well, but that's my opinion.


Like you, I seem to gravitate more towards the not so well received movies, my taste in movies is pretty wide and varied, but I'll admit it, I liked Transformers 4 too!


----------



## NorthSky

BluesSailor said:


> Bob,
> 
> Thanks for the pictures. Certainly something to consider. I'd need to find speaker mounting brackets that are more polished looking than the black ones, something along the lines of the first one holding the light. The speakers I'm considering only weigh 6 lbs so that may not be too big a challenge. They only go down to 80 hz, but 2 big subs should make up for it.
> 
> Dropping my ceiling isn't an option for me either, very low on the WAF. Nice thinking outside the box though. I like it!
> 
> Thanks guys. Any other suggestions out there from the collective mind?
> 
> Brad


It was my pleasure Brad, because I am in the same boat as you, and there are several other members here too with a high ceiling (cathedral shape or others). I have been following this thread since its inception, by Markus, and I have been reading all the posts in it. 
This high ceiling dilemma, and a very low ceiling are the main obstacles @ setting up a Dolby Atmos system, for the proper 3D Height sound distribution. 

So the time I spent researching was time well spent. ...As it is an excellent solution (very decor friendly too) for many of us.
There are other solutions too, but this one is clean, simple, and good looking. And if your speakers are only less than ten pounds each, not a drop of a sweat. 

* In my own room I can install those inexpensive four steel cables (quite thin), @ approximately 100" (8.25 feet) high and my four overhead surrounds are also going to be light @ less than ten pounds each. They'll have usable bass down to about 45-50Hz or so, but they'll be crossed over @ 80 or 90Hz.
{My ears @ the MLP are only between 33 and 36" from the floor.}
- My ceiling has the same shape as yours but only eleven feet high at the top center. 

And the beauty of this arrangement is that you can position those four overhead speakers pretty much where you want them (along the steel cables) and of course with your preferred aim as the speaker's brackets will permit it. It'll look like a professional studio room where sound experimentation is a key combination with futuristic decor enhancement. 

By the way Brad, you have a very nice room.


----------



## robert816

mtbdudex said:


> What's a few off topic posts on Mountain biking in a 19k post thread hurt?? none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post your steed and best MTB moment!
> Current bike; 1998 Litespeed Ti frame Full XTR, ok it was top notch in it's time still holds it's own...
> Due to Right hip replacement I'm looking at Specialized FS 29".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best MTB moment, I raced 1996-2000, but best finish was 1998 NORBA Nationals 3rd place podium ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funest riding was doing the majority of the trails in this book, as I raced 1997-1998 lots of NORBA national races....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, if you can answer who the Sedona-5 are w/o looking up on the web then I know you have been around the block a few times...they are all here via kodak...ahh *Mountain Bike Heaven*



I ran on road bikes for years then quit. Was traveling too much, never had time to ride, got older and couldn't find the energy.
Decided to take it up again and a friend was wanting to try mountain biking. I've rode ATB's on trails but not much else, so I decided what the hell, give it a try.
Picked up a new 2014 KHS SixFifty 5500 650b last year, swapped out the dropper post for a carbon fiber, changed handlebars to an XLC 30mm riser bar with Oury grips.
Still a newbie, but had a great time last year, can't wait for my knee to heal so I can get back out again. My buddy could probably name them, he races, me? I just like to ride.


----------



## robert816

Minge said:


> After reading in the oppo 83 thread it is my understanding my bluray player will not properly bitsream atmos embedded discs without audio dropouts or loss of information which ruins the atmos experience. Leads me to believe I am not the only one with a blu ray player that will not properly bitstream this codec without loss of information or dropouts. So now after punching new holes in my ceiling and buying new speakers and adding amplification I now need to replace my oppo player. All in the name of adding all this for a format that could be gone in a couple of years. I am confused and frustrated.


I haven't read the Oppo 83 thread, but are you sure they are saying "all Atmos movies"? Or is it just the ones with seamless branching like Expendables3?


Of all my Atmos movies, I have audio dropout with Expendables 3, I believe Teenage Mutant ninja Turtles, and John Wick, but I think the last one is a bad disc issue.
Nature/Enchanted Kingdom, I,Frankenstein, Transcendence, Transformers 4, and Step Up All In (yes I bought it, was on sale this week for $10) all play just fine, I have the 93.


Unless they figure a way to implant the audio directly into our brain, I believe "immersive audio" is here to stay a long, long while. You've got me curious now, I'm
going to check out the 83 thread to see what is being said, I don't know anyone with an Oppo BDP-83 so I cannot test this for myself. Have you contacted Oppo directly
to get their input on whether or not the Oppo 83 can handle Atmos or not? It's just bitstreaming, I don't know of any reason it shouldn't be able to handle that without issues.


If anything, buy a semi-cheap player for now and wait for a deal on a 103/105 or wait to see if Oppo will be announcing a new player this year, or listen to what people are saying
and give in and drop out and stick with what you already have, either way it needs to be your decision, not anyone else.


----------



## funhouse69

I just noticed that Expendables and Transformers Age of Extinction Blu-Ray's are on sale at Amazon for $10 each if anyone is interested.

Edit - Expendables 3 that is =)


----------



## blastermaster

> Post your steed and best MTB moment!
> Current bike; 1998 Litespeed Ti frame Full XTR, ok it was top notch in it's time still holds it's own...
> Due to Right hip replacement I'm looking at Specialized FS 29".


For me, I have a 2011 Norco Shinobi 29er. I love that thing. I feel like I'm sitting in it, not on it. Such a beast for XC. Best moment was riding a new XC/Downhill run with a friend - we just let go of the brakes and let gravity take us. Can't believe how bloody fast we went down that run. 

Oh, back on topic. Uhh, yeah, still waiting for more Dolby Atmos titles and DTS: X to come out of the closet. That, and I'm pretty sure Man of Steel would sound ridiculously awesome in DSU.


----------



## Frank714

brahman12 said:


> Is it that these blurays contain an Atmos mix simply because it is the Japanese version of the disc?


In the particular case of _Chicago _this film has received a director-approved re-mastering in Dolby Vision and apparently a remix in Dolby Atmos as well.

I can only speculate that the Dolby Vision HDR treatment came along with a 4k scan so that _Chicago_ is a hot candidate for one of the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray discs.

What irritates me here is the fact, that a release in Japan (standard Blu-ray, Atmos remix) has been announced, but none for the US or other countries.

The moment _Chicago_ starts shipping from Japan but with no US release announced, however, my suspicion that the content providers intend to make Dolby Atmos an Ultra HD Blu-ray exclusive, will rise exponentially.


----------



## fredl

I tried to order the Nature Atmos blu-ray from Amazon.co.jp. Two issues:
1) I don't get the worldwide releases on the ^^^ link to blu-ray.com, I only get 15 or so US releases. 
2) My amazon account isn't accepted on the site. Says wrong email/password combination.


----------



## Nalleh

fredl said:


> I tried to order the Nature Atmos blu-ray from Amazon.co.jp. Two issues:
> 1) I don't get the worldwide releases on the ^^^ link to blu-ray.com, I only get 15 or so US releases.
> 2) My amazon account isn't accepted on the site. Says wrong email/password combination.


Ok, then you need to change to global. In the upper right corner on blu-ray.com is a series of flags, indicating different regions. Press the "globe" symbol, wich changes the search to worldwide/global.

I thought the link was to the global search, but it might default to your local region.

Yes, i had the problem with login too. Just register new profile, but use your existing login info.


----------



## robert816

fredl said:


> I tried to order the Nature Atmos blu-ray from Amazon.co.jp. Two issues:
> 1) I don't get the worldwide releases on the ^^^ link to blu-ray.com, I only get 15 or so US releases.
> 2) My amazon account isn't accepted on the site. Says wrong email/password combination.


You have to create a seperate account on Amazon Japan to order from them, here is a link to a page that explains how to setup the account. It's not 100% accurate, but close enough to setup an account with. Following are links to various Atmos movies currently available or about to come out, I cannot confirm White Storm as an Atmos title.

http://cdn.halcyonrealms.com/japan/how-to-order-from-amazon-japan-a-detailed-buying-guide/

Nature 3D version

Nature (no 3D)

I,Frankenstein

Transcendence

Chicago

If the links do not work for you, just go to amazon.co.jp and type in what you are looking for. For the Nature Blu-Ray you will need to type in Enchanted Kingdom, which is the Japanese title. Be aware that I'm looking at this from an American point of view also.


----------



## lujan

robert816 said:


> I liked it, dark, violent, bloody, without being stupidly gory for no reason other than shock value. I thought the audio mix complimented the movie rather well, but that's my opinion.
> 
> 
> Like you, I seem to gravitate more towards the not so well received movies, my taste in movies is pretty wide and varied, but I'll admit it, I liked Transformers 4 too!


Thanks, maybe I'll pick it up when the price goes down which almost certainly will.


----------



## robert816

lujan said:


> Thanks, maybe I'll pick it up when the price goes down which is almost certainly will.


I also had another reason for buying it, Wal-Mart had it in a steelbook version. I tend to pick steelbook versions up when I can.


----------



## audioguy

I have it but have yet to watch it. Based upon this feedback, I'll be watching this one without bride present.

Major OT. I do a lot of browsing on my iPhone and it does not check spelling errors when on this forum. I have everything set according to all I have read on the iPhone: settings>General>Keyboard>check spelling but it still does not work.

If I see a spelling error, I can select the word and a replacement may be offered but if I type in a bunch of random letters, there is no notification that I have made an error. Anyone have any ideas?

Sorry for the OT.


----------



## robert816

Wish I could help, but my phone is so plain, I'm surprised it doesn't have a rotory dial


----------



## smurraybhm

audioguy said:


> I have it but have yet to watch it. Based upon this feedback, I'll be watching this one without bride present.
> 
> Major OT. I do a lot of browsing on my iPhone and it does not check spelling errors when on this forum. I have everything set according to all I have read on the iPhone: settings>General>Keyboard>check spelling but it still does not work.
> 
> If I see a spelling error, I can select the word and a replacement may be offered but if I type in a bunch of random letters, there is no notification that I have made an error. Anyone have any ideas?
> 
> Sorry for the OT.


Same here. When I misspelled correct it highlighted the error, but that was the only word. Maybe if one switches from the mobile version to web it would make a difference. Not a fan of how things work using the AVS app or mobile in IOS land - miss the way things worked before the upgrade/change in regards to mobile.


----------



## brahman12

*You Are a Gentleman and a Scholar!!!!*



Nalleh said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> I have posted this link before, but this is a global search on blu-ray.com for BD's with Atmos with links where to buy. Bookmark this link and it will update when new ones surface
> 
> 115 Atmos BD' worldwide as of today.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php?action=search&audio=Atmos&sortby=relevance


I must have missed or don't remember when you posted this earlier in the thread...but thanks again. Much love to the AVS forum family!!!!


----------



## dragonleepenn

Nalleh said:


> What do you think?


Hi Nalleh ,
Just tried two avr's, I have the 5200 and a 4311 Denon , before I get the 7200 or another 5200 I hooked up the 4311 in your method.
Wanted to hear how all things work together and just as you say all
worked fine. However the two center channels seem off, one above the other maybe about a foot forward . It seems ( sounds) out of phase. Any work around this? How did you resolve this issue?



Peterv


----------



## brahman12

*Funny, Dude*



robert816 said:


> Dracula Untold sounds fantastic with DSU!
> 
> 
> I'm thinking instead of selling us on Atmos, Dolby should have sold us on DSU and said "oh by the way, you get Atmos too"!


Love this quote bro!!!! Laughing out loud at my office. I said the same to myself a couple of times.


----------



## brahman12

*Awesome Examples!!!!*



NorthSky said:


> Hi Brad,
> 
> To mount your overhead speakers (Atmos), here is what I was referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Steel rod, but horizontally *^* installed (just another idea).
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> ______
> 
> ♦ Those are the ideas (two steel cables for two speakers, and two more for the two others).
> ...Substitute the halogen lights for speakers, and just use the appropriate type of brackets.
> 
> Those steel cables are quite thin, and very strong. They are very decor friendly, easy to install (between your two side walls @ the height you want),
> and they'll accept various type of speaker brackets, and speakers large and heavy enough to go down to 40Hz. ...A 6 to 8" woofer.
> You'll be able to suspend your four overhead Atmos speakers, weighting up to roughly 40 pounds each, if you want to (10-20 pounds no sweat).
> 
> I think that's what I'm going to do myself.


Really cool pictures and examples. That would look awesome in an Atmos setup. Good to see when someone goes the extra mile to help out another fellow forum member...cheers!!!!


----------



## brahman12

*I know the feeling!!!*



Minge said:


> After reading in the oppo 83 thread it is my understanding my bluray player will not properly bitsream atmos embedded discs without audio dropouts or loss of information which ruins the atmos experience. Leads me to believe I am not the only one with a blu ray player that will not properly bitstream this codec without loss of information or dropouts. So now after punching new holes in my ceiling and buying new speakers and adding amplification I now need to replace my oppo player. All in the name of adding all this for a format that could be gone in a couple of years. I am confused and frustrated.


I still sometimes shake my head and pump my fist in the air when I look at my Toshiba HD-DVD players LOL. But then I realize, they are still nice and fully functioning machines and I can buy HD-DVD's for just about the price of a postage stamp these days..thus easy to keep my library of HD-DVDV discs up and at 'em  So try to remember...If Atmos falters, you will still have a kick-ass setup and can play just about everything with DSU...which is awesome in and of itself. Keep ur chin up!!!


----------



## Nalleh

dragonleepenn said:


> Hi Nalleh ,
> Just tried two avr's, I have the 5200 and a 4311 Denon , before I get the 7200 or another 5200 I hooked up the 4311 in your method.
> Wanted to hear how all things work together and just as you say all
> worked fine. However the two center channels seem off, one above the other maybe about a foot forward . It seems ( sounds) out of phase. Any work around this? How did you resolve this issue?
> 
> Peterv


First of all, have you done a new seperate Audyssey calibration on second receiver?

Both have to be in same sound mode, or there could be lipsync issues. You can not have one in Atmos/DSU and the other in, say, Neo:X.

Measure distance from listening position to both center speakers and check if Audyssey got it right. If they still sound strange, try adjusting distance in speaker setup on second center.

This is similar to adjusting two subwoofers to get them in sync.
If non of these tips help, it might be because the receivers are too different (series/age) and simply do not prosess sound equally.


----------



## brahman12

*No Jinx, No Jinx!!!!!*



Frank714 said:


> In the particular case of _Chicago _this film has received a director-approved re-mastering in Dolby Vision and apparently a remix in Dolby Atmos as well.
> 
> I can only speculate that the Dolby Vision HDR treatment came along with a 4k scan so that _Chicago_ is a hot candidate for one of the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray discs.
> 
> What irritates me here is the fact, that a release in Japan (standard Blu-ray, Atmos remix) has been announced, but none for the US or other countries.
> 
> The moment _Chicago_ starts shipping from Japan but with no US release announced, however, my suspicion that the content providers intend to make Dolby Atmos an Ultra HD Blu-ray exclusive, will rise exponentially.


I hope they don't go that route because it would probably make better sense to sell a product to a larger audience. I believe it will take a while before the general public buy into 4K since they only recently started buying into bluray and there are still many people that don't care about the quality jump from regular dvd to bluray which is definitely a very perceivable jump in video quality. However, I feel that the law of diminishing returns rearas its ugly head here for 4K....with the current blurays and projectors with 4K upscaling, there is already an incredible amount of detail being retrieved and perceived at this point. How much more detail do you really need visually....I can already see pores, bad make up jobs, wig lines, fingerprint patterns on hands lol...all very high quality. Do I really want to jump up into 4K and have to buy a whole library of discs all over again which already look so freakin' amazing on bluray 1080p. Me personally, I am gonna wait for at least 7-10 years before I jump into higher video quality cuz the jump, I believe is not great enough to justify the financial expenditure. That is simply my own personal opinion and it is not more right or wrong than anyone else's. That being said, I believe more people are currently into 1080p bluray and would not be too interested in 4K, and would be off-put by having to make another jump. So it would not maximize the movie business' money making potential for home theater if they just put Atmos on 4K discs. Again, just my thoughts and opinion.


----------



## Contuzzi

Has anyone gotten their hands on the new Dolby Atmos demo disc? The one with all the new clips on it?


----------



## lujan

brahman12 said:


> ...I can already see pores, bad make up jobs, wig lines, fingerprint patterns on hands lol...all very high quality. Do I really want to jump up into 4K and have to buy a whole library of discs all over again which already look so freakin' amazing on bluray 1080p. Me personally, I am gonna wait for at least 7-10 years before I jump into higher video quality cuz the jump, I believe is not great enough to justify the financial expenditure...


 My thoughts exactly. I will wait at least until the costs of 4k TVs are down to the level they are now for 1080p. Also as has been observed many times by others in reviews, etc. the human eye cannot perceive the detail in 4k as they are able to in 1080p.


----------



## lujan

Contuzzi said:


> Has anyone gotten their hands on the new Dolby Atmos demo disc? The one with all the new clips on it?


If you have a Vudu account, it's available there for free and it sounds great. Will output Atmos if you have an Atmos capable receiver.


----------



## dragonleepenn

Nalleh said:


> First of all, have you done a new seperate Audyssey calibration on second receiver?
> 
> Both have to be in same sound mode, or there could be lipsync issues. You can not have one in Atmos/DSU and the other in, say, Neo:X.
> 
> Measure distance from listening position to both center speakers and check if Audyssey got it right. If they still sound strange, try adjusting distance in speaker setup on second center.
> 
> This is similar to adjusting two subwoofers to get them in sync.
> If non of these tips help, it might be because the receivers are too different (series/age) and simply do not prosess sound equally.


I setup the front end the same for both Avr's, well the 5200 to atmos/dsu and the 4311 to true hd as it is not Atmos . You may very well be right about the receivers being too different. All I did was setup the 4311 with the height lcr speakers, connected to the receivers right front,left front and center . And the other speakers like wise, then calibrated the 4311 just as you describe in your post.
Later I will try to play with it further. I've been waiting to see what Dts-x comes out with in March before I buy a second receiver hope it's soon can't wait. I'll then also get the Auro 3d download. I already have my six atmos top speakers, but still installed front height speakers (lcr's), recently just for ****'s and giggles. 
I'll post a picture of them.
Thanks for the help


----------



## KCWolfPck

Pictured below is my current setup. If I move the middle rear speakers up near the ceiling and point them downwards toward the listing position.....would that be an acceptable Atmos setup? I know it's not ideal speaker placement....but a makeshift 5.2.4 setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KCWolfPck said:


> Pictured below is my current setup. If I move the middle rear speakers up near the ceiling and point them downwards toward the listing position.....would that be an acceptable Atmos setup? I know it's not ideal speaker placement....but a makeshift 5.2.4 setup.


What Paradigms are you using for your front height speakers?


----------



## KCWolfPck

Dan Hitchman said:


> What Paradigms are you using for your front height speakers?



Sorry.....speaker set up as follows:


Mains - Paradigm Reference Studio 100
Front Heights - Paradigm Reference Studio 20
Center - Paradigm reference Studio CC-690
Surround Rear - Paradigm Studio Reference Espirit
Surround Back (probably place near ceiling for Rear Heights) - Paradigm Reference Millenia ADP


----------



## mtbdudex

smurraybhm said:


> Same here. When I misspelled correct it highlighted the error, but that was the only word. Maybe if one switches from the mobile version to web it would make a difference. Not a fan of how things work using the AVS app or mobile in IOS land - miss the way things worked before the upgrade/change in regards to mobile.


I use Tapatalk on my iPhone, spell check works there fine.....


----------



## Nalleh

dragonleepenn said:


> I setup the front end the same for both Avr's, well the 5200 to atmos/dsu and the 4311 to true hd as it is not Atmos . You may very well be right about the receivers being too different. All I did was setup the 4311 with the height lcr speakers, connected to the receivers right front,left front and center . And the other speakers like wise, then calibrated the 4311 just as you describe in your post.
> Later I will try to play with it further. I've been waiting to see what Dts-x comes out with in March before I buy a second receiver hope it's soon can't wait. I'll then also get the Auro 3d download. I already have my six atmos top speakers, but still installed front height speakers (lcr's), recently just for ****'s and giggles.
> I'll post a picture of them.
> Thanks for the help


BTW: i just remembered one thing that might cause problems(or in my case, solve them). My 5200 is my main AVR, so the HDMI main out from it goes to my TV HDMI input 1. 
However, in order to use the GUI on the 4100, it is also connected to the TV. HDMI main out from 4100 to HDMI input 2 on TV. 
This way, when i need to adjust something on 4100, i just switch the TV to HDMI 2, and the screen show content from 4100, instead of 5200.

So even if only one is selected, they are both connected to the same picture(TV), and i believe this makes them both use the same lipsync from the TV(picture).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KCWolfPck said:


> Sorry.....speaker set up as follows:
> 
> 
> Mains - Paradigm Reference Studio 100
> Front Heights - Paradigm Reference Studio 20
> Center - Paradigm reference Studio CC-690
> Surround Rear - Paradigm Studio Reference Espirit
> Surround Back (probably place near ceiling for Rear Heights) - Paradigm Reference Millenia ADP


Are those v.5 Studio 20's by any chance and what are you using to mount them? 

Within the Dolby Atmos layout parameters, there are locations for front height and rear height surrounds... they tend to need to be almost at the junction of the wall and ceiling. 

However, here's what I would do as a suggestion for improvement: I would take the ADP's out of the equation since they are dipoles and you only have one pair of them (creating a mismatch with your heights). Then use the Studio 20's as front side (or front wide) surrounds at the same height as your Esprits. Then get four Tannoy Di 5DC wide dispersion dual concentric speakers (paintable white or black) from Markertek and use them for heights or overheads. I would use them as overheads and just use more wire molding to hide some flat speaker wire for now. 

http://www.markertek.com/product/ta...5-dc-weather-resistant-loudspeaker-each-white


----------



## dragonleepenn

Nalleh
Here is a picture of the front with the newly added auro 3D heights. If you look close at the very top of the photo you can see my top front speakers. The next picture will show my right side front top, middle top and rear top speakers. Sorry for the poor ipad pictures. In the column is my side speaker at ear level and the forward column will have a front wide speaker when done.


PeterV


----------



## dragonleepenn

Here is the pic of the right side of the rooms top speakers
Look close and you can see the front top and behind in the distance
Front heights that will be used strictly for auro 3D



PeterV


----------



## KCWolfPck

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are those v.5 Studio 20's by any chance and what are you using to mount them?
> 
> Within the Dolby Atmos layout parameters, there are locations for front height and rear height surrounds... they tend to need to be almost at the junction of the wall and ceiling.


Yes, they are v.5 Studio 20's. I am using VideoSecu Clamping Speaker Mounting Brackets to mount them. http://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Cla...1423159709&sr=8-1&keywords=speaker+wall+mount


I don't have enough space to use "wide" speakers.


I'm aware that my set-up is not ideal and I do have plans for future changes. However, right now I am looking for the best way to place what I already have to tide me over until I can make additional purchases.


I was thinking that maybe instead of mounting the ADPs near the ceiling and angling them down, perhaps it would be even better to place them near the ceiling and rotate them 90 degrees. That way one of the drivers is pointing directly to the listening area and the other pointing to the ceiling and would reflect towards the listening position. That seems a better solution, maybe??


----------



## Nalleh

dragonleepenn said:


> Here is the pic of the right side of the rooms top speakers
> Look close and you can see the front top and behind in the distance
> Front heights that will be used strictly for auro 3D
> 
> PeterV


Holy testicle tuesday, you're even crazier than I am!!

A lot of speakers indeed


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KCWolfPck said:


> Yes, they are v.5 Studio 20's. I am using VideoSecu Clamping Speaker Mounting Brackets to mount them. http://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Cla...1423159709&sr=8-1&keywords=speaker+wall+mount
> 
> 
> I don't have enough space to use "wide" speakers.
> 
> 
> I'm aware that my set-up is not ideal and I do have plans for future changes. However, right now I am looking for the best way to place what I already have to tide me over until I can make additional purchases.
> 
> 
> I was thinking that maybe instead of mounting the ADPs near the ceiling and angling them down, perhaps it would be even better to place them near the ceiling and rotate them 90 degrees. That way one of the drivers is pointing directly to the listening area and the other pointing to the ceiling and would reflect towards the listening position. That seems a better solution, maybe??


Don't think of them as traditional wides. They're more like front side surrounds that fill in the gap between the front L/R and the surrounds. An important next step in home Atmos systems, which was demoed at CEDIA. 

If you aren't going to do that, then I would still aim the ADP's without tilting them vertically. However, just remember that dipoles are not recommended for 3D audio due to their dispersal characteristics. Those cheaper Tannoy's would do the trick, however.


----------



## mtbdudex

^^ or rewire them to be ABP if you don't want to get monopoles. I've rewired 2 pairs of dipoles to bipoles, it's easy and worked fine.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Glenn Baumann

mtbdudex said:


> ^^ or rewire them to be ABP if you don't want to get monopoles. I've rewired 2 pairs of dipoles to bipoles, it's easy and worked fine.
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP



^^^

First, regarding Two-Way dipolar speakers, is it possible that a specific purpose built crossover would be utliized for Dipoles as opposed to Bipoles? In otherwords, is a different type of crossover required for dipoles as opposed to Bipoles? 

Next, what is involved with the rewiring... How is it done? 


...Glenn


----------



## dragonleepenn

Nalleh said:


> Holy testicle tuesday, you're even crazier than I am!!
> 
> A lot of speakers indeed


I may in fact be..! 
I am sure I'll have more questions down the road.


peterV


----------



## mtbdudex

back On Topic:
Mtg speaker brackets:

FYI I've used two different types of speaker brackets to mount and aim my speakers.

Real heavy duty one, rated 55lbs/bracket, is the vogels 100, ebay guy carries them $25/pair, adjustable side-side and up/down
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VOGELS-BEK-...832?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c4d9ee758

Family room 









and HT heights use them







.









Here they are pointing down and towards MLP per guide









Now these are 25lb/speaker, and slightly better adj mechanism
I'm just now using these on my side and rear surrounds to aim them also.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005SEN20S/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I like the up/down adj mech here







.









Nice plastic covers over the metal bracket







.


----------



## stikle

dragonleepenn said:


> Nalleh
> Here is a picture of the front with the newly added auro 3D heights. If you look close at the very top of the photo you can see my top front speakers. The next picture will show my right side front top, middle top and rear top speakers. Sorry for the poor ipad pictures. In the column is my side speaker at ear level and the forward column will have a front wide speaker when done.
> 
> PeterV


Wow Peter..nice theater!

Wish I could do something like that in my house.


----------



## roxiedog13

mtbdudex said:


> What's a few off topic posts on Mountain biking in a 19k post thread hurt?? none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post your steed and best MTB moment!
> Current bike; 1998 Litespeed Ti frame Full XTR, ok it was top notch in it's time still holds it's own...
> Due to Right hip replacement I'm looking at Specialized FS 29".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best MTB moment, I raced 1996-2000, but best finish was 1998 NORBA Nationals 3rd place podium ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funest riding was doing the majority of the trails in this book, as I raced 1997-1998 lots of NORBA national races....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, if you can answer who the Sedona-5 are w/o looking up on the web then I know you have been around the block a few times...they are all here via kodak...ahh *Mountain Bike Heaven*



Rocky Mountain Slayer here, and another 3 in the garage, mostly Giant , loosing count. I don't race MTB, though every outing with my group is a race usually. I ride for fun mostly, most of my racing was done cross country skiing . Actually, I do a lot of Uni-cycle as well, just to mix it up. Still do the odd 100K back country ride, most rides though are evening we just pound out the single track and mountains a few hours at a time. Trails and places are endless here, absolutely no restrictions , except for the weather I suppose and my wife.


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> how are you all playing the Japan titles arent they region protected? I have a oppo 103 if that helps...thanks!


 

Japan uses the same NTSC format as the United States. All of their dvds and blu-rays use the same region coding - A for blu-rays and 1 for dvds.
They will play on all U.S. machines. 


Ray


----------



## dragonleepenn

dragonleepenn said:


> Nalleh
> Here is a picture of the front with the newly added auro 3D heights. If you look close at the very top of the photo you can see my top front speakers. The next picture will show my right side front top, middle top and rear top speakers. Sorry for the poor ipad pictures. In the column is my side speaker at ear level and the forward column will have a front wide speaker when done.
> 
> 
> PeterV





stikle said:


> Wow Peter..nice theater!
> 
> Wish I could do something like that in my house.




Hi Stikle,
Thanks for the positive ..comments. And why not do something in your home. It is possible.!


PeterV


----------



## Jive Turkey

mtbdudex said:


> back On Topic:
> Mtg speaker brackets:
> 
> FYI I've used two different types of speaker brackets to mount and aim my speakers.
> 
> Real heavy duty one, rated 55lbs/bracket, is the vogels 100, ebay guy carries them $25/pair, adjustable side-side and up/down
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/VOGELS-BEK-...832?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c4d9ee758
> 
> Family room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and HT heights use them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here they are pointing down and towards MLP per guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now these are 25lb/speaker, and slightly better adj mechanism
> I'm just now using these on my side and rear surrounds to aim them also.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005SEN20S/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> I like the up/down adj mech here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice plastic covers over the metal bracket
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Can either or both of those brackets lock in both the left/right and up/down positions? I need to use them on low sloped cathedral ceiling.


----------



## jrogers

*Atmos from Vudu*



lujan said:


> If you have a Vudu account, it's available there for free and it sounds great. Will output Atmos if you have an Atmos capable receiver.


Has anyone confirmed that the DD+ coming in from Vudu on the HDX "Dolby Atmos Experience" material contains Dolby Atmos? On my x4100w the sound mode is showing as "Dolby Digital Plus + Dolby Surround" which, according to the manual, can be selected only when the input signal does *not* contain Dolby Atmos.


----------



## stikle

dragonleepenn said:


> Hi Stikle,
> Thanks for the positive ..comments. And why not do something in your home. It is possible.!
> 
> PeterV


I don't have a room to do that to, nor do I have enough disposable income to even fund it.

Maybe some day I'll have a house with a dedicated theater room.


----------



## mtbdudex

Jive Turkey said:


> Can either or both of those brackets lock in both the left/right and up/down positions? I need to use them on low sloped cathedral ceiling.


They both lock in the up/down - the 25lb brkt adj one by fine screw, the 55lb bracket by 5 degree increments in my memory via a cotter pin. Both are good for that.

Side to side let me check tonight, I think if you tighten the center nut it gives positive lock.


----------



## BamaDave

Well I received my overhead drivers & crossovers, time to get those cabinets built!


----------



## lujan

jrogers said:


> Has anyone confirmed that the DD+ coming in from Vudu on the HDX "Dolby Atmos Experience" material contains Dolby Atmos? On my x4100w the sound mode is showing as "Dolby Digital Plus + Dolby Surround" which, according to the manual, can be selected only when the input signal does *not* contain Dolby Atmos.


The front of my X5200W shows Dolby Atmos when I'm watching the "Dolby Atmos Experience" material on Vudu. I would think that your X4100W should show the same?


----------



## scarabaeus

jrogers said:


> Has anyone confirmed that the DD+ coming in from Vudu on the HDX "Dolby Atmos Experience" material contains Dolby Atmos? On my x4100w the sound mode is showing as "Dolby Digital Plus + Dolby Surround" which, according to the manual, can be selected only when the input signal does *not* contain Dolby Atmos.





lujan said:


> The front of my X5200W shows Dolby Atmos when I'm watching the "Dolby Atmos Experience" material on Vudu. I would think that your X4100W should show the same?


I, too, get Atmos. I'm playing Vudu from my Sony BDP-S790 Blu-ray player. Which player do you use, and do you have "bitstream" selected on the output format?


----------



## groundtrac

BamaDave said:


> Well I received my overhead drivers & crossovers, time to get those cabinets built!


So what do you have there?


----------



## dragonleepenn

BamaDave said:


> Well I received my overhead drivers & crossovers, time to get those cabinets built!


Those babies are sweet, they look like Ciare NDCX8-1.4.



PeterV


----------



## mtbdudex

Glenn Baumann said:


> ^^^
> 
> First, regarding Two-Way dipolar speakers, is it possible that a specific purpose built crossover would be utliized for Dipoles as opposed to Bipoles? In otherwords, is a different type of crossover required for dipoles as opposed to Bipoles?
> 
> Next, what is involved with the rewiring... How is it done?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn



It does depend on the polar plot and strength (on axis and off axis normal to the driver) of the sound field, as dipole is a null via out of phase cancellation and bipole is in phase summation. So the angle of each driver and position in its baffle will affect. both. Having said that , I know switchable ones were a simple phase switch, not a new circuit path. I did the changeover on both Atlantic Tech 250's and then 350's.

I documented it here somewhere among my posts a few years back, are you comfortable with taking your speaker drivers out to do a simple re wire job?


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## jrogers

lujan said:


> The front of my X5200W shows Dolby Atmos when I'm watching the "Dolby Atmos Experience" material on Vudu. I would think that your X4100W should show the same?





scarabaeus said:


> I, too, get Atmos. I'm playing Vudu from my Sony BDP-S790 Blu-ray player. Which player do you use, and do you have "bitstream" selected on the output format?


I had been watching Vudu on my Samsung "Smart" TV connected via optical cable to receiver - and apparently it only passes Dolby Digital (not DD+). Thanks to your replies, I switched to using Vudu on my LG Blu-ray player and, voila, Atmos 

(I'll have to follow-up on why the TV isn't passing DD+, but that's a different thread)


----------



## aaranddeeman

Not trying to beat the dead horse, but here's my question.
Would I lose too much by doing 5.x.4 instead of 7.x.4
Because at this juncture (when DTS:X is unknown, Auro may live or not, who knows when really we need HDCP 2.2 ) I was thinking of making a stop-gap save some $$ just get may be Denon X4100W and configure 5.x.4 (and possibly Auro 10.1).
But If 7.x.4 makes a big enough difference, the other option was to look at Onkyo TX-NR1030 (Yes this will not get me Auro, but Auro was anyways optional on my list). 
Denon looks a better option as down the line it may have resell value at par with Onkyo if not better (when I go for next upgrade), or keep X4100 with another new AVR to implement Nalleh-Tech.


----------



## BamaDave

dragonleepenn said:


> Those babies are sweet, they look like Ciare NDCX8-1.4.
> 
> 
> 
> PeterV


You are correct! I'm looking to build the best possible overhead speakers to support this affelection!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrogers said:


> I had been watching Vudu on my Samsung "Smart" TV connected via optical cable to receiver - and apparently it only passes Dolby Digital (not DD+). Thanks to your replies, I switched to using Vudu on my LG Blu-ray player and, voila, Atmos
> 
> (I'll have to follow-up on why the TV isn't passing DD+, but that's a different thread)


Toslink optical is not able to pass anything but two channel PCM and lossy Dolby Digital and DTS streams. Dolby Digital Plus on up is not able to use that pathway, just HDMI.


----------



## dragonleepenn

BamaDave said:


> You are correct! I'm looking to build the best possible overhead speakers to support this affelection!


Their not cheap either , I'm sure they'll sound great!!


PeterV


----------



## krozman

aaranddeeman said:


> Not trying to beat the dead horse, but here's my question.
> Would I lose too much by doing 5.x.4 instead of 7.x.4
> Because at this juncture (when DTS:X is unknown, Auro may live or not, who knows when really we need HDCP 2.2 ) I was thinking of making a stop-gap save some $$ just get may be Denon X4100W and configure 5.x.4 (and possibly Auro 10.1).
> But If 7.x.4 makes a big enough difference, the other option was to look at Onkyo TX-NR1030 (Yes this will not get me Auro, but Auro was anyways optional on my list).
> Denon looks a better option as down the line it may have resell value at par with Onkyo if not better (when I go for next upgrade), or keep X4100 with another new AVR to implement Nalleh-Tech.


Unfortunately the answer is "it depends." I have a 7.1.4 in my home. Arguments can be made that 5.1.4 is better Atmos than 7.1.2, but then your 7 channel non Atmos movies may not sound as you prefer. If you throw down money on an X4100W, you're not making a poor decision....but you are intentionally limiting yourself just as people who bought the X5200W may have limited themselves for future capability. 


My suggestion is: ask yourself how much you're allowed to upgrade your home theatre (either from a budget, wife permission, motivation, etc), and pull the trigger when you'll be excited about the upgrade. The last thing you want is to install a great X4100W receiver and then feel buyer's remorse for not going full measure. I had to make a decision to spend less than $2,000 on my upgrade but I got great deals. Some people make the decision to "only" spend $10,000. Just make sure whatever you do feels and sounds great to you. 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 is entirely respectable in the right room.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> ..QUOTE]
> 
> 
> hello Keith,
> please your thoughts on this.......
> 
> 
> Du to a change in my house i need to give up the surround speakers :-(
> But ok, worst things can happen in live.
> For now i will do fronts and center, and Atmos (3.0.2)
> 
> 
> I can do enabled or i can do down fire when i mount the speakers to the room devider that stands behinde the sofa and they will be mounted where you see the two X (see pic)
> So it not in ceiling but more almost on ceiling.
> 
> 
> I have 3 optionds in the receiver.
> 1) front High
> 2) Top front
> 3) Top middle
> 
> 
> 1) is when you have front high speakers on the wall, and others are ceiling speakers in the front or middle of the room.
> As the speakers will be actual in the middle of the room (above my head) do i need to select Top middle or will be Top Front a better option ?
> 
> 
> Thx....


----------



## mtbdudex

Jive Turkey said:


> Can either or both of those brackets lock in both the left/right and up/down positions? I need to use them on low sloped cathedral ceiling.





> They both lock in the up/down - the 25lb brkt adj one by fine screw, the 55lb bracket by 5 degree increments in my memory via a cotter pin. Both are good for that.
> 
> Side to side let me check tonight, I think if you tighten the center nut it gives positive lock.


The Vogels surely lock very securely in up/down and side/side, side/side via tighten the long bolt and the two cross bolts makes a clamp force is very rigid.







.










The AEON brackets up/down of course, but side/side don't seem to have a totally grip design.
As I tightened the bottom luck nut still I could swivel the speaker side/side when some decent force applied.
Now that should never be an issue, as speaker should be mounter "level" in that plane anyway.







.


----------



## pasender91

CBdicX said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..QUOTE]
> 
> 
> hello Keith,
> please your thoughts on this.......
> 
> 
> Du to a change in my house i need to give up the surround speakers :-(
> But ok, worth things can happen in live.
> For now i will do fronts and center, and Atmos (3.0.2)
> 
> 
> I can do enabled or i can do down fire when i mount the speakers to the room devider that stands behinde the sofa and they will be mounted where you see the two X (see pic)
> So it not in ceiling but more almost on ceiling.
> 
> 
> I have 3 optionds in the receiver.
> 1) front High
> 2) Top front
> 3) Top middle
> 
> 
> 1) is when you have front high speakers on the wall, and others are ceiling speakers in the front or middle of the room.
> As the speakers will be actual in the middle of the room (above my head) do i need to select Top middle or will be Top Front a better option ?
> 
> 
> Thx....
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not keith  b ut still i will reply ...
> 
> 1) Direct downfire is a better choice than reflective sound
> 2) The Atmos position is driven from angles, so with the speakers slightly behind you, then you should set them to TOP MIDDLE.
Click to expand...


----------



## aaranddeeman

krozman said:


> Unfortunately the answer is "it depends." I have a 7.1.4 in my home. Arguments can be made that 5.1.4 is better Atmos than 7.1.2, but then your 7 channel non Atmos movies may not sound as you prefer. If you throw down money on an X4100W, you're not making a poor decision....but you are intentionally limiting yourself just as people who bought the X5200W may have limited themselves for future capability.
> 
> 
> My suggestion is: ask yourself how much you're allowed to upgrade your home theatre (either from a budget, wife permission, motivation, etc), and pull the trigger when you'll be excited about the upgrade. The last thing you want is to install a great X4100W receiver and then feel buyer's remorse for not going full measure. I had to make a decision to spend less than $2,000 on my upgrade but I got great deals. Some people make the decision to "only" spend $10,000. Just make sure whatever you do feels and sounds great to you. 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 is entirely respectable in the right room.


I see what you are saying.
The idea was to spend minimum possible now and do the actual upgrade down the line say sometime by end of 2016 or later (or whenever things become bit comfortable).
Thanks for your input.


----------



## Jive Turkey

mtbdudex said:


> The Vogels surely lock very securely in up/down and side/side, side/side via tighten the long bolt and the two cross bolts makes a clamp force is very rigid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AEON brackets up/down of course, but side/side don't seem to have a totally grip design.
> As I tightened the bottom luck nut still I could swivel the speaker side/side when some decent force applied.
> Now that should never be an issue, as speaker should be mounter "level" in that plane anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Thanks for the info on the Vogel bracket, Mike.


----------



## Frank714

I talked today to a Dolby engineer who had recently attended a screening of the upcoming _Gravity_ Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos and he sounded genuinely impressed, I'm really looking forward to this release. 

He also provided me with the link for a free download Dolby Atmos sample from the latest "visual arts" program from the _Ambra_ series (i.e. _Prism of Life_).

Here it is, enjoy: http://future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm

P.S. Looks like the _Ambra-Prism of Life_ Blu-ray had already been released in 2014, but apparently without a Dolby Atmos track, first. I'll interpret the "temporarily out of stock" message as an indication that a new pressing with Dolby Atmos is underway.


----------



## stikle

Frank714 said:


> He also provided me with the link for a free download Dolby Atmos sample from the latest "visual arts" program from the _Ambra_ series (i.e. _Prism of Life_).
> 
> Here it is, enjoy: http://future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm


Sweet! Thanks for sharing this!


----------



## bargervais

jrogers said:


> I had been watching Vudu on my Samsung "Smart" TV connected via optical cable to receiver - and apparently it only passes Dolby Digital (not DD+). Thanks to your replies, I switched to using Vudu on my LG Blu-ray player and, voila, Atmos
> 
> (I'll have to follow-up on why the TV isn't passing DD+, but that's a different thread)


Same with me both my plasmas tv's will not play in atoms via ARC but my blu-ray player plays them vudu demos in Atmos... just fine.


----------



## brahman12

Thanks Frank714....much appreciated....can't get enough of this Atmos fix!!!!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frank714 said:


> I talked today to a Dolby engineer who had recently attended a screening of the upcoming _Gravity_ Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos and he sounded genuinely impressed, I'm really looking forward to this release.
> 
> He also provided me with the link for a free download Dolby Atmos sample from the latest "visual arts" program from the _Ambra_ series (i.e. _Prism of Life_).
> 
> Here it is, enjoy: http://future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm
> 
> P.S. Looks like the _Ambra-Prism of Life_ Blu-ray had already been released in 2014, but apparently without a Dolby Atmos track, first. I'll interpret the "temporarily out of stock" message as an indication that a new pressing with Dolby Atmos is underway.


Did they mention if the screening was only on a 7.1.4 system or did they play it back on a larger home Atmos setup? 

One would think that they would test these near field 3D mixes in a "regular" mainstream living room setup and then in a fancier home theater situation that would be served by a Trinnov or something like that.


----------



## CBdicX

pasender91 said:


> CBdicX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not keith  b ut still i will reply ...
> 
> 1) Direct downfire is a better choice than reflective sound
> 2) The Atmos position is driven from angles, so with the speakers slightly behind you, then you should set them to TOP MIDDLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, i hope for you what you answer is ok according to Keith, or you will be haunted around the world......
> 
> 
> Thank you !
Click to expand...


----------



## multit

Frank714 said:


> ...Here it is, enjoy: http://future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm
> P.S. Looks like the _Ambra-Prism of Life_ Blu-ray ...


To be honest... after watching and listening to that Onyko Atmos demo, I was rather disappointed. It's just the soundtrack additionaly mixed to the overhead speakers and someone played a little bit with the vocals and some other instrument tracks and moved them, in order to create kind of a panning effect - but very artificial and there is no relation between picture and sound. But the worst part is, the overhead speakers are playing way to loud... they suddenly shout at me and I had to press desperatly at the Vol. down - button immediatley.

I'm not sure, if this is good marketing for Atmos...


----------



## BigScreen

I came across a mention of the new Atlantic Technology IC-6-OBA in-ceiling speaker from Audioholics in my FB news feed, and I noticed that they resembled the Canton 965 DT speakers that Ralph Potts is using for his reviews here, and the Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers that he was originally talking about using (IIRC).

Whereas the tweeters in the Niles and Canton speakers can be aimed, those in the AT speakers cannot. There isn't much about the speakers on the AT site, but Audioholics has a preview page that says that the tweeters are wired out of phase. The Niles can be adjusted for dipole or bipole configuration. I couldn't find anything about how the Cantons are wired.

From AT's press release in December:


> Atlantic Technology, a leader in loudspeakers for home theater, has announced the first in-ceiling speaker specifically designed to reproduce "object based" elevation channels. In the last several months, Dolby and Auro (soon to be joined by DTS) have introduced algorithms designed to envelop the home theater listener with a bubble of sound coming from above. All of these formats are modeled on the latest "object-based" sound systems and sound tracks that have been developed to provide the audience with a totally immersive sound field.​ The IC-6-OBA contains a high dynamic range 6-inch woofer coupled with a pair of one-inch tweeters designed to produce a "wide scatter." Most other in-ceiling designs tend to have a narrow dispersion and can create audible "hot spots'' to listeners directly the below the speakers. By contrast, the Atlantic IC-6-OBA spreads out the sound field similar to what is actually heard in movie theaters where elevation speakers are usually 30 to 40 feet above the listener.​ With the IC-6-OBA, sounds above will move in specific directions without calling attention to themselves as "speakers above your head."​





From the Niles spec sheet for the CM7FX:


> - Dual 1” pivoting fluid-cooled Teteron® dome tweeters offer ultra-wide dispersion and silky-smooth high-frequency response
> 
> - Bridge-mounted surround effects (FX) tweeter array directs the high-frequency sounds at opposing angles to create realistic surround sound effects



I find it interesting that these companies are offering speakers for the Atmos/height-channel consumer, all hoping to address hot-spotting that they must be experiencing, either through empirical testing or feedback from vendors/customers. I'm fully aware that Dolby reps have recommended direct radiating speakers, but they didn't slam the door on other options. The fact that they are backing the reflecting speakers means that they are not hard and fast about getting direct beams of sound from above. Back in September, I wondered if dipole speakers wouldn't work well for height speakers, but the conventional wisdom here has always discounted that as substandard.

Given that installing ceiling speakers is pretty much a one-way ticket that doesn't allow for experimentation with various models and placement, it would be really nice to see some definitive experimentation/reviews that hash out the various options possible. The lack of such reviews, as well as the lack of proper test material with which to perform such reviews, is indicative of how very early we are in the height-based sound era of home theater.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I'm going to be getting the Atlantic Technology speakers next week (fingers crossed) and plan on using them in my Atmos setup. One of my main concerns was hot spotting, which is why I decided to try these speakers out. Given that their sizing is pretty common, I figured if I didn't like them I could always find another speaker of similar size to try in their place. Worst case scenario is my drywall installer gets some extra work


----------



## Minge

brahman12 said:


> I still sometimes shake my head and pump my fist in the air when I look at my Toshiba HD-DVD players LOL. But then I realize, they are still nice and fully functioning machines and I can buy HD-DVD's for just about the price of a postage stamp these days..thus easy to keep my library of HD-DVDV discs up and at 'em  So try to remember...If Atmos falters, you will still have a kick-ass setup and can play just about everything with DSU...which is awesome in and of itself. Keep ur chin up!!!


I am already over the fact that my oppo 83 needs to be replaced. It had served me well for over 4 years and still has some street value so the upgrade to the 103 is not too bad of a hit.


----------



## NorthSky

Coaxial, triaxial car speakers might work pretty good for overhead speakers in an Atmos setup?


----------



## NorthSky

Minge said:


> I am already over the fact that my oppo 83 needs to be replaced. It had served me well for over 4 years and still has some street value so the upgrade to the 103 is not too bad of a hit.


50%?


----------



## Minge

^^^

A bit less but it will be a heck of a player for someone for less then 300 bucks.


----------



## roxiedog13

BigScreen said:


> I came across a mention of the new Atlantic Technology IC-6-OBA in-ceiling speaker from Audioholics in my FB news feed, and I noticed that they resembled the Canton 965 DT speakers that Ralph Potts is using for his reviews here, and the Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers that he was originally talking about using (IIRC).
> 
> Whereas the tweeters in the Niles and Canton speakers can be aimed, those in the AT speakers cannot. There isn't much about the speakers on the AT site, but Audioholics has a preview page that says that the tweeters are wired out of phase. The Niles can be adjusted for dipole or bipole configuration. I couldn't find anything about how the Cantons are wired.
> 
> From AT's press release in December:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Niles spec sheet for the CM7FX:
> [/LEFT]
> 
> I find it interesting that these companies are offering speakers for the Atmos/height-channel consumer, all hoping to address hot-spotting that they must be experiencing, either through empirical testing or feedback from vendors/customers. I'm fully aware that Dolby reps have recommended direct radiating speakers, but they didn't slam the door on other options. The fact that they are backing the reflecting speakers means that they are not hard and fast about getting direct beams of sound from above. Back in September, I wondered if dipole speakers wouldn't work well for height speakers, but the conventional wisdom here has always discounted that as substandard.
> 
> Given that installing ceiling speakers is pretty much a one-way ticket that doesn't allow for experimentation with various models and placement, it would be really nice to see some definitive experimentation/reviews that hash out the various options possible. The lack of such reviews, as well as the lack of proper test material with which to perform such reviews, is indicative of how very early we are in the height-based sound era of home theater.


 
I installed those Niles a week ago now. The switch is for diffuse and direct, probably the same as dipole/bipole, not sure. On direct I find the sound too localized, diffuse setting works fine.BTW the entire woofer can be pointed not just the tweeters. I also have Paradigm in-wall side surrounds that are dipole and they work great at making the sound diffuse. The side surrounds are placed between two rows of seats and work really well , the sounds originate exactly where it is supposed to from the front or back row. 

Another speaker I considered is the Speakercraft Aim series. They sell the aim1, 3 and 5 I believe and they are a true tree way speaker with dual mids and dual tweeters.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Coaxial, triaxial car speakers might work pretty good for overhead speakers in an Atmos setup?



I put 6X9 three way car speakers in my living room and dining room ceiling when I built my home back in 1987. They are still the best sounding ceiling speaker I have ever installed and still
work fine today, 27 yrs later.


----------



## rhbblb1

BigScreen said:


> I came across a mention of the new Atlantic Technology IC-6-OBA in-ceiling speaker from Audioholics in my FB news feed, and I noticed that they resembled the Canton 965 DT speakers that Ralph Potts is using for his reviews here, and the Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers that he was originally talking about using (IIRC).
> 
> Whereas the tweeters in the Niles and Canton speakers can be aimed, those in the AT speakers cannot. There isn't much about the speakers on the AT site, but Audioholics has a preview page that says that the tweeters are wired out of phase. The Niles can be adjusted for dipole or bipole configuration. I couldn't find anything about how the Cantons are wired.
> 
> From AT's press release in December:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Niles spec sheet for the CM7FX:
> [/LEFT]
> 
> I find it interesting that these companies are offering speakers for the Atmos/height-channel consumer, all hoping to address hot-spotting that they must be experiencing, either through empirical testing or feedback from vendors/customers. I'm fully aware that Dolby reps have recommended direct radiating speakers, but they didn't slam the door on other options. The fact that they are backing the reflecting speakers means that they are not hard and fast about getting direct beams of sound from above. Back in September, I wondered if dipole speakers wouldn't work well for height speakers, but the conventional wisdom here has always discounted that as substandard.
> 
> Given that installing ceiling speakers is pretty much a one-way ticket that doesn't allow for experimentation with various models and placement, it would be really nice to see some definitive experimentation/reviews that hash out the various options possible. The lack of such reviews, as well as the lack of proper test material with which to perform such reviews, is indicative of how very early we are in the height-based sound era of home theater.


In my Atmos setup, I have 4 Atlantic Technology IC-8.3 in ceiling speakers. These speakers appear identical to the IC-6-OBA except the midrange driver is a bit larger. The tweeters can be aimed. AT recommended that they be set in the dipole position and one tweeter aimed toward the MLP and the other tweeter aimed in the opposite direction. The did point out that they are dipoles only from 2K up. The speaker should be oriented so the "arrow" on the speaker be aimed towards the MLP. I have been listening to this setup for about 2 months. I am extremely satisfied with the results. I have never noticed any of the speakers calling attention to themselves. Imaging is spot on. I heard all of the Atmos demos at CEDIA and none were superior to what I have been living with.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I put 6X9 three way car speakers in my living room and dining room ceiling when I built my home back in 1987. They are still the best sounding ceiling speaker I have ever installed and still
> work fine today, 27 yrs later.


I did the exact same back in the Dolby Surround era (1982-86), just @ the threshold of Dolby Pro Logic. ...1987-88 indeed (DPL).
Thirty-three years later we're back, with Dolby Surround (DSU). ...And coax, three-way speakers on the ceiling. 
...Full circle.

And in another thirty-three years from now, I'll be dead; my ashes dispersed all around by the elevated surrounding winds from the four corners of the globe.


----------



## RichardGS

*Optimization of Dolby Atmos setup*

Hi,

I appreciate very much the advice that I have been given....I am a bit perfectionist...and want to maximize my experience. 

I have 12 feet from the front wall to the back wall with the center and fronts 9.5 feet away from MLP The ceiling is 8 1/2 feet high.. I will be condense the wall unit when I get a bigger tv. No right wall, partial left wall in back. All ceiling speakers will be mounted pro800's.

Set:Front Denon 7200, DefTech 65's with 8080 center, Pro1000 heights.... I know I need to adjust angles, should I move the heights in??

The Back is killing me with my coach against the wall. What is the best solution.

Back- I love the 8080 surrounds. much better than pro 1000/800.. but willing to let go.

1. Keep 8080's , add Top middle (pro800's firing at MLP from 4 feet from Back wall, aligned with front speakers. 

2. lose 8080- Defetech 45's or 1000 surrounds with Top middle.. 

3 Use a older Denon to power additional speakers add back heights?

While, I don't think so, is there a function way to keep the 8080's wired if I go with side surrounds ??

I have spent lots of time reading the forum...I just have uncertainty.What do you think i should do?

thx


Ricahrd.


----------



## CBdicX

multit said:


> To be honest... after watching and listening to that Onyko Atmos demo, I was rather disappointed. It's just the soundtrack additionaly mixed to the overhead speakers and someone played a little bit with the vocals and some other instrument tracks and moved them, in order to create kind of a panning effect - but very artificial and there is no relation between picture and sound. But the worst part is, the overhead speakers are playing way to loud... they suddenly shout at me and I had to press desperatly at the Vol. down - button immediatley.
> 
> I'm not sure, if this is good marketing for Atmos...



I listened to and i think its a way to "see" how Atmos works compared to normal surround.
In normal surround you will get vocals from the center, with Atmos vocals will follow the the person thats speaking, non Atmos will not.......
Indeed a better balance in picture/sound would be better, typical Onkyo, they did the same with the Atmos Enabled speakers, its Atmos but.........


----------



## NorthSky

Dolby Atmos Installation guidelines
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



RichardGS said:


> I want to maximize my experience.
> 
> I have 12 feet from the front wall to the back wall with the center and fronts 9.5 feet away from MLP The ceiling is 8 1/2 feet high.. I will be condense the wall unit when I get a bigger tv. No right wall, partial left wall in back. All ceiling speakers will be mounted pro800's.
> 
> Set:Front Denon 7200, DefTech 65's with 8080 center, Pro1000 heights.... I know I need to adjust angles, should I move the heights in??
> 
> ♦ *The Back is killing me with my coach against the wall. What is the best solution.*
> 
> Move it out from the backwall, two feet, or three.
> 
> Back- I love the 8080 surrounds. much better than pro 1000/800.. but willing to let go.
> 
> 1. Keep 8080's , add Top middle (pro800's firing at MLP from 4 feet from Back wall, aligned with front speakers.
> 
> 2. lose 8080- Defetech 45's or 1000 surrounds with Top middle..
> 
> 3 Use a older Denon to power additional speakers add back heights?
> 
> While, I don't think so, is there a function way to keep the 8080's wired if I go with side surrounds ??
> 
> I have spent lots of time reading the forum...I just have uncertainty.What do you think i should do?
> 
> thx
> 
> Ricahrd.


♦ Above inside your quote highlighted in red color.

For everything else try to follow the Dolby Atmos Speaker's Installation Guidelines the closest to your own room's situation.
...In the link above your quote.


----------



## RichardGS

Thanks for the link, Unfortunately I am unable to move my coach away form the wall. This is what makes understanding proper placement more difficult for me. 

I understand that the surrounds should be at ear level.. With coach against wall, and lack of rear speakers, plus the Denon 7200 I can't do top rear, top front... I know I can do regular surrounds and top middle..

I think height speakers on the back wall will be effective, but perhaps there is an out of the box answer that stretches the rules.

Thanks Richard


----------



## Frank714

Dan Hitchman said:


> Did they mention if the screening was only on a 7.1.4 system or did they play it back on a larger home Atmos setup?


Sorry, I forgot to ask him this question. IIRC it was a recent _Gravity_ screening in the UK.

We did talk about consumer (and studio) expectations and the particular function of the overhead speakers, i.e. "effect speakers" with localized action _versus_ the capability to help create a three-dimensional sound field and overall better sound. 

I feel compelled to quote what Peter Jackson and crew had to say about Dolby Atmos' use in the _Hobbit Trilogy_: 

_"Co-producer and writer Philippa Boyens elaborated on how Dolby Atmos helped the sound effects transform elegantly from "subtle little quiet moments of snow falling … to a vast, epic battle."_
_"I actually have come to believe that *the best moments are the quiet moments*," Jackson mused."_


----------



## groundtrac

^^
Must not have felt compelled enough to push for an Atmos soundtrack on the freaking blu-Ray though!


----------



## funhouse69

multit said:


> To be honest... after watching and listening to that Onyko Atmos demo, I was rather disappointed. It's just the soundtrack additionaly mixed to the overhead speakers and someone played a little bit with the vocals and some other instrument tracks and moved them, in order to create kind of a panning effect - but very artificial and there is no relation between picture and sound. But the worst part is, the overhead speakers are playing way to loud... they suddenly shout at me and I had to press desperatly at the Vol. down - button immediatley.
> 
> I'm not sure, if this is good marketing for Atmos...


I didn't find that at all, I downloaded this demo a while back and think that the levels are quite balanced in my setup. I also have the Atmos Demos from Demo World and the rest from the Atmos Disc that someone shared for others to download and again I feel they are very balanced.

Edit - I am also very impressed with the various Atmos Demos more so than most of the movies that I've watched that are in Atmos. I also think that it can take some getting used to since I have been enjoying the heck out of DSU which is a totally different effect. 

That said I watched John Wick tonight and will say that (in my opinion) it was one of the best Atmos Mixes to date.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> I did the exact same back in the Dolby Surround era (1982-86), just @ the threshold of Dolby Pro Logic. ...1987-88 indeed (DPL).
> Thirty-three years later we're back, with Dolby Surround (DSU). ...And coax, three-way speakers on the ceiling.
> ...Full circle.
> 
> And in another thirty-three years from now, I'll be dead; my ashes dispersed all around by the elevated surrounding winds from the four corners of the globe.



In 33yrs from now I'd be 86. Hoping to die at the hands of a jealous boyfriend  , but more than likely will be dust in the wind as you have described. If I'm really lucky and realistic
I may be still enjoying my 6X9 speakers in my own home, I can do without the girlfriend .


----------



## multit

funhouse69 said:


> I didn't find that at all, I downloaded this demo a while back and think that the levels are quite balanced in my setup. I also have the Atmos Demos from Demo World and the rest from the Atmos Disc that someone shared for others to download and again I feel they are very balanced.


I never mentioned, that the Atmos trailers from the demo disk are anyhow not balanced - on a contrary, they are indeed very good. Comparing to that new Onkyo demo, they are aligned with picture and sound, the effects are matching very well the screens action.
But this soundtrack from Onkyo (Ambra - Prism of Life) is so apart from any alignment screen soundtrack - it's just a demo, what can be done with Atmos... but just too much in my opinion (with high volume setting).

The thing is, I found out, playing the original (non Atmos Bluray) part upmixed with DSU or Auro-matic sounds even better.


----------



## aaranddeeman

RichardGS said:


> Hi,
> 
> I appreciate very much the advice that I have been given....I am a bit perfectionist...and want to maximize my experience.
> 
> I have 12 feet from the front wall to the back wall with the center and fronts 9.5 feet away from MLP The ceiling is 8 1/2 feet high.. I will be condense the wall unit when I get a bigger tv. No right wall, partial left wall in back. All ceiling speakers will be mounted pro800's.
> 
> Set:Front Denon 7200, DefTech 65's with 8080 center, Pro1000 heights.... I know I need to adjust angles, should I move the heights in??
> 
> The Back is killing me with my coach against the wall. What is the best solution.
> 
> Back- I love the 8080 surrounds. much better than pro 1000/800.. but willing to let go.
> 
> 1. Keep 8080's , add Top middle (pro800's firing at MLP from 4 feet from Back wall, aligned with front speakers.
> 
> 2. lose 8080- Defetech 45's or 1000 surrounds with Top middle..
> 
> 3 Use a older Denon to power additional speakers add back heights?
> 
> While, I don't think so, is there a function way to keep the 8080's wired if I go with side surrounds ??
> 
> I have spent lots of time reading the forum...I just have uncertainty.What do you think i should do?
> 
> thx
> 
> 
> Ricahrd.


For your situation where the couch can not move forward, it's best to knock the back surrounds from the setup as they will not be in correct distance/angle/position.
You should probably go with 5.x bed channels and 4 heights (FH+TM). Your fronts heights looks to be suitably placed for FH.
I believe Keith has a similar issue. He may be able to provide some real user experience/advice.


----------



## RichardGS

Coach on back wall can't move foward 

Thanks for the confirmation that FH & TM Would work well.

I have an extra amp I can pair with 7200...does anyone think any additional placement would be worth it. Don't think I can do top front... would adding speakers on back corners over surronds make a reasonable differencee in atmos, would work with auro too..

Thanks Richard


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> *Can anyone confirm whether the Netflix BRD [of "John Wick"] has the Atmos mix?* (If so, this would be my very first Atmos movie experience.)


Just read @aaronwt's post in another thread confirming that the Netflix rental BRD only has the lossy DD audio (and Redbox as well per @jdsmoothie), so I'll skip subjecting myself to "John Wick." And the long wait to experience my first movie in HT Atmos continues unabated. *sigh*


----------



## Selden Ball

RichardGS said:


> Thanks for the link, Unfortunately I am unable to move my coach away form the wall. This is what makes understanding proper placement more difficult for me.
> 
> I understand that the surrounds should be at ear level.. With coach against wall, and lack of rear speakers, plus the Denon 7200 I can't do top rear, top front... I know I can do regular surrounds and top middle..
> 
> I think height speakers on the back wall will be effective, but perhaps there is an out of the box answer that stretches the rules.
> 
> Thanks Richard


Look at the angles. What matters is the direction that the sound comes from. I suspect that if you place speakers high on the back wall, they'll be in the same angular position as Top Middle. You don't actually have to put speakers in the ceiling or hanging from it.


----------



## Stanton

Selden Ball said:


> Look at the angles. What matters is the direction that the sound comes from. I suspect that if you place speakers high on the back wall, they'll be in the same angular position as Top Middle. You don't actually have to put speakers in the ceiling or hanging from it.


Exactly: my "top middles" are at the highest point possible on the side walls. I realize there may be SOME differences with true in ceiling speakers, but I think a lot of folks may give up on the whole idea of Atmos if the sales/marketing of the format is rigid.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Give the new robocop a spin of you want to test out dsu! Yowser


----------



## RichardGS

Thanks seldon amd stanton. I understand whay you are saying about the angels. I know atmos adjusts to your speaker placement .... I will have to try both..
Top middle vs top rear. I don't mind mounting pro 800's on ceiling.

Has anyone experimented with these two diffrent placements ?


----------



## robert816

Brian Fineberg said:


> Give the new robocop a spin of you want to test out dsu! Yowser


Yep, good stuff. Watched Blade last night, gave my subs quite the workout.


----------



## roxiedog13

Brian Fineberg said:


> Give the new robocop a spin of you want to test out dsu! Yowser



I may grab Robocop for tonight, still waiting for John Wick to arrive . Watched I Frankenstein last night, soundtrack with DSU was not the best. Movie overall not very good
anyway, not my kind of thing. Wife thought it was "OK." On her rating scale I'd say that would be 6 out of 10.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> Give the new robocop a spin of you want to test out dsu! Yowser


How about the _good_ Robocop, you know the original? It was remixed into 5.1 surround. Maybe not as mind blowing as a modern soundtrack, but at least you get to watch a better version upconverted with DSU. :devil:


----------



## Craig Woodhall

Hey guys, i currently have a 9.2 setup with a DHC-80.1 with two front height channels on the front wall. If I want to transition to an Atmos setup, would i have to remove those front height channels and install in the ceiling?


----------



## Jack.K

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, my surrounds are now more close to ear level than they were before. Clearly anyone who has his surrounds quite high on the wall is likely to hear some content coming from above
> 
> I too had to make a difficult decision to change my M&K SS150T tripole surround speakers which I absolutely loved. I don't regret the decision as Atmos/DSU more than compensates for it, but I understand your thought process on it very well.
> 
> Having gone through the Atmos speaker install, I would suggest that you make no firm decisions on anything until you have experimented. Fix nothing that can’t be easily unfixed, get loaners wherever you can (should be easy in your job!) and try different ceiling positions for the overheads. I found that relatively small changes made quite significant differences. YMMV of course - as you day, our rooms are so different anyway.


I have the same tripoles and wondering what to do, lower them or replace them. I have Golden Ear Triton for the front array.What did you finally do or replace them with?


----------



## Tin_Can

How do people like the upfiring Atmos speakers? My ceiling is too low for in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tin_Can said:


> How do people like the upfiring Atmos speakers? My ceiling is too low for in-ceiling speakers.


I, for one, think they're okay but not great. In-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers would be my preferred choice for improved spatial definition. However, in your case, you may have to go with speakers almost at the wall/ceiling juncture aiming down toward the MLP (front height and rear height positions).


----------



## Tin_Can

Dan Hitchman said:


> I, for one, think they're okay but not great. In-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers would be my preferred choice for improved spatial definition. However, in your case, you may have to go with speakers almost at the wall/ceiling juncture aiming down toward the MLP (front height and rear height positions).


Just okay? Bummer. Hopefully Erskine Group (my designer) can massage it into something impressive.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tin_Can said:


> Just okay? Bummer. Hopefully Erskine Group (my designer) can massage it into something impressive.


There was a gentleman here (I forget his handle) who had an Erskine build (quite an elaborate one at that). He started out with upfiring speakers but switched over to true overheads because the simulated height effect just didn't work as well. YMMV


----------



## Tin_Can

Dan Hitchman said:


> There was a gentleman here (I forget his handle) who had an Erskine build (quite an elaborate one at that). He started out with upfiring speakers but switched over to true overheads because the simulated height effect just didn't work as well. YMMV


That's not what I like to hear. If you remember his handle, I'd appreciate you sending me a PM. I'd like to chat with him.


----------



## batpig

Tin_Can said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a gentleman here (I forget his handle) who had an Erskine build (quite an elaborate one at that). He started out with upfiring speakers but switched over to true overheads because the simulated height effect just didn't work as well. YMMV
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I like to hear. If you remember his handle, I'd appreciate you sending me a PM. I'd like to chat with him.
Click to expand...

There's not many people here who can swim in that rarified air. If you just search the thread for keyword "Erskine" there won't be many hits, you'll find him in 30 seconds.


----------



## Tin_Can

Will do, thanks.


----------



## batpig

RichardGS said:


> Thanks seldon amd stanton. I understand whay you are saying about the angels. I know atmos adjusts to your speaker placement .... I will have to try both..
> Top middle vs top rear. I don't mind mounting pro 800's on ceiling.
> 
> Has anyone experimented with these two diffrent placements ?


No need to try both -- if your seating is against the back wall you CAN'T do Top Rear, you don't have enough room behind to achieve the correct angles. 

Go with FH + TM and enjoy a nice 5.1.4 setup. Nuttin' wrong with that.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tin_Can said:


> Will do, thanks.


Look for username: asharma


----------



## roxiedog13

Tin_Can said:


> That's not what I like to hear. If you remember his handle, I'd appreciate you sending me a PM. I'd like to chat with him.



I think a few of us started out with up firing modules and switched to overheads, I'm one of them .Well, in my case only the front were modules, I always had in-ceiling for the rear.


----------



## roxiedog13

Tin_Can said:


> How do people like the upfiring Atmos speakers? My ceiling is too low for in-ceiling speakers.


 
I had a low ceiling and used the modules first. Then did not work well on top of my towers, I ended up moving them forward of the main speaker and lower which worked pretty good.
I eventually switched to in-ceiling which was a little better, certainly neater as the modules were removed from the front of my screen area.


Go back to page 626 where I posted some pictures showing the modules on stands, you can also see my in-ceiling speakers above the same.


----------



## Selden Ball

Craig Woodhall said:


> Hey guys, i currently have a 9.2 setup with a DHC-80.1 with two front height channels on the front wall. If I want to transition to an Atmos setup, would i have to remove those front height channels and install in the ceiling?


Front Heights work fine with Atmos. You don't have to install speakers in the ceiling.

You can use any two non-adjacent pairs out of five pairs of possible overhead speaker locations. From front to back, they're called
Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. FWIW, people who have sofas at the rear wall use Front Height plus Top Middle.

I've attached a copy of the speaker diagram provided by D+M, which shows where the overhead speaker positions are located.


----------



## Tin_Can

roxiedog13 said:


> I had a low ceiling and used the modules first. Then did not work well on top of my towers, I ended up moving them forward of the main speaker and lower which worked pretty good.
> I eventually switched to in-ceiling which was a little better, certainly neater as the modules were removed from the front of my screen area.
> 
> 
> Go back to page 626 where I posted some pictures showing the modules on stands, you can also see my in-ceiling speakers above the same.


Thanks. Your pictures aren't working anymore, however. No worries, though.

That's too bad people aren't happy with upfiring Atmos. When my room is done, the ceiling will only be a little over seven feet, which really hampers my options.


----------



## funhouse69

batpig said:


> No need to try both -- if your seating is against the back wall you CAN'T do Top Rear, you don't have enough room behind to achieve the correct angles.
> 
> Go with FH + TM and enjoy a nice 5.1.4 setup. Nuttin' wrong with that.





RichardGS said:


> Coach on back wall can't move foward
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation that FH & TM Would work well.
> 
> I have an extra amp I can pair with 7200...does anyone think any additional placement would be worth it. Don't think I can do top front... would adding speakers on back corners over surronds make a reasonable differencee in atmos, would work with auro too..
> 
> Thanks Richard


I have a very similar setup, my couch is only a few inches off the back wall / can't be moved forward so I put my surrounds on the sides at a 90º angle a little over a foot above ear level and my Atmos TF and TR in the ceiling with the rears only a few inches behind the MLP (yes deviating from the recommended angles) and they sound great. Keeping in mind that I started out with a 5.1 setup (no height or wide speakers). 

We all can't achieve perfect placement in our houses so there is nothing wrong with experimenting with placement. Obviously ceiling mounting is a little more difficult.


----------



## deano86

Tin_Can said:


> Thanks. Your pictures aren't working anymore, however. No worries, though.
> 
> That's too bad people aren't happy with upfiring Atmos. When my room is done, the ceiling will only be a little over seven feet, which really hampers my options.


My theater room ceiling is only 7' 8" but my in ceiling speakers work fantastic!... and that is with a 2nd row of seating riser that is 9 inches high also. All that I had to do was lower my existing surrounds and rear surrounds to around seated ear height level (as they used to be high up on the walls) to provide a little more separation between them and the new Atmos speakers. The "bubble" of sound that everyone talks about as being provided by Atmos and DSU is amazing!


----------



## roxiedog13

Tin_Can said:


> Thanks. Your pictures aren't working anymore, however. No worries, though.
> 
> That's too bad people aren't happy with upfiring Atmos. When my room is done, the ceiling will only be a little over seven feet, which really hampers my options.


 
My guess is the in-ceiling speakers will work fine, the modules could work too but would take more effort to find a sweet spot that works. The "sweet" spot could be in the way whereas the in-ceiling speakers are out of site. Pull speaker wires for every possibility, it would be great insurance against future change or additions. IMHO the in-ceiling will work best for you, just be sure 
to get a speaker that does have the wide dispersion characteristics Dolby is suggesting. 


Just thinking, I suppose you were thinking independent modules not the ones built into the mains ? Problem with up-firing is the angle it is designed for is based on a home with a 8-9ft ceiling.
With a low ceiling and MLP further back the reflected sound will not work as intended . This is why I had to move the modules( separate ones) so far ahead of the mains to make
it effective. If the ceiling had been 9 ft I would say it would have worked from a position on the top of the main speaker. If I had an integrated Atmos speaker built in the mains, it would have been necessary to have the mains only a few feet from the MLP for the up-firing portion to work. That would have been a disaster.


----------



## roxiedog13

deano86 said:


> My theater room ceiling is only 7' 8" but my in ceiling speakers work fantastic!... and that is with a 2nd row of seating riser that is 9 inches high also. All that I had to do was lower my existing surrounds and rear surrounds to around seated ear height level (as they used to be high up on the walls) to provide a little more separation between them and the new Atmos speakers. The "bubble" of sound that everyone talks about as being provided by Atmos and DSU is amazing!



Same, same and same. My ceiling is 7' 9", have a second row on a 8" riser and my side surrounds are at ear height.


----------



## wadec22

Just finished Lemony Snicket's a Series of Unfortunate Events. It's a little older, but if you need a family flick to throw in, the DTS-HD track on the blu-ray is really pretty solid. I thought it rocked on my 9.2 Neo X setup. There are a couple scenes that I bet DSU would be pretty outstanding in. Some of us gotta have those family flicks that still have A/V candy.


----------



## brahman12

*Even the wife loves Atmos*



deano86 said:


> My theater room ceiling is only 7' 8" but my in ceiling speakers work fantastic!... and that is with a 2nd row of seating riser that is 9 inches high also. All that I had to do was lower my existing surrounds and rear surrounds to around seated ear height level (as they used to be high up on the walls) to provide a little more separation between them and the new Atmos speakers. The "bubble" of sound that everyone talks about as being provided by Atmos and DSU is amazing!


Deano, my ceiling is about four inches lower than yours and my on-ceilings sound great as well. I haven't lowered my surrounds at all....thus they are about a foot and a half above ear level and I a m still getting a great bubble....may drop them down a bit though and experiment since a few forum members including you are saying that the height separation made a nice difference. My wife came into my man cave for a few minutes today and I played the ATMOS demo clips for her. She is not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination and her reaction was very telling. Her exact words were " Wow that sounds so clean and real....like you are actually in it." Really cool to hear the Mrs. give a response when she is usually pretty neutral with her critics when I showcase an upgrade for her.


----------



## gammanuc

Tin_Can said:


> Thanks. Your pictures aren't working anymore, however. No worries, though.
> 
> That's too bad people aren't happy with upfiring Atmos. When my room is done, the ceiling will only be a little over seven feet, which really hampers my options.


Go with the in-ceiling, they will be fine. My ceiling is approximately 7'2" and the sound is excellent.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Tin_Can said:


> How do people like the upfiring Atmos speakers? My ceiling is too low for in-ceiling speakers.


I have up-firing speakers, not the Dolby-enabled modules, and I think that they were very well. I have mounted Supersat 3s laid on their sides on top of my Def Tech 8060 towers. I made mounting plates out of 1" ABS sheet and used Def Tech Promount 90s so that I have a very wide range of adjustment both horizontally and vertically. They are inclined at about 32 degrees from the horizontal instead of the Dolby prescribed 20 degrees. If you do a bit of geometry the 20 degrees only works at a specific distance from the speakers. If you are farther away, the field effect in front of you.
My "focal point" for the speakers is at about 12'. I have two rows of seat, one at 11' and one at 14', so I split the difference.
There are a number of issues that I have with the up-firing speaker modules including some counter intuitive things that were done in their design. I do not believe that they work as well as appropriate full-range speakers with an adjusted angle.  I know that it does not follow the Dolby Atmos prescription, but I find that it works very well indeed. I had the Def Tech A60s and was not satisfied with them.
My ceiling is 9' for about the left 2/3 (facing forward) of the theater width and 8' for the right 1/3 because of a soffit that runs along that side.
If you have some bookshelf or other smallish high quality speakers that you have handy, you might try them and see how you like them. I can tell you that John Wick is nothing short of amazing.


----------



## Tin_Can

roxiedog13 said:


> My guess is the in-ceiling speakers will work fine, the modules could work too but would take more effort to find a sweet spot that works. The "sweet" spot could be in the way whereas the in-ceiling speakers are out of site. Pull speaker wires for every possibility, it would be great insurance against future change or additions. IMHO the in-ceiling will work best for you, just be sure
> to get a speaker that does have the wide dispersion characteristics Dolby is suggesting.
> 
> 
> Just thinking, I suppose you were thinking independent modules not the ones built into the mains ? Problem with up-firing is the angle it is designed for is based on a home with a 8-9ft ceiling.
> With a low ceiling and MLP further back the reflected sound will not work as intended . This is why I had to move the modules( separate ones) so far ahead of the mains to make
> it effective. If the ceiling had been 9 ft I would say it would have worked from a position on the top of the main speaker. If I had an integrated Atmos speaker built in the mains, it would have been necessary to have the mains only a few feet from the MLP for the up-firing portion to work. That would have been a disaster.


Actually, I have no idea what speaker is being specced for me, just that it isn't in ceiling. I'll have to trust that it's the correct choice for my room. If anyone is going to get it right, it's probably Erskine Group. Room limitations and a finite budget only get you so much.


----------



## Josh Z

For those of you doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, which pair of height channels do you find more important, the front or the middle/rear?

I'm running 7.1.4 with Front Height and Top Middle. I have been using identical speakers for all four height channels, and to be honest they're fairly small unexceptional speakers (the logic being that these channels get the least amount of activity anyway). However, I've recently upgraded my main surrounds, which gives me the opportunity to move my old left/right surround speakers up high. Would I be better off putting them in the front or in the Top Middle? 

Anyone have thoughts on this?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> For those of you doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, which pair of height channels do you find more important, the front or the middle/rear?
> 
> I'm running 7.1.4 with Front Height and Top Middle. I have been using identical speakers for all four height channels, and to be honest they're fairly small unexceptional speakers (the logic being that these channels get the least amount of activity anyway). However, I've recently upgraded my main surrounds, which gives me the opportunity to move my old left/right surround speakers up high. Would I be better off putting them in the front or in the Top Middle?
> 
> Anyone have thoughts on this?


Josh, I think all of them are equally important. The priority would be the four ear-level surrounds and then the heights/overheads. When possible I'd keep group of four identical. What you are proposing would not be that, obviously. 

In that case it's up for you to decide. Neither front/middle/rear is any more important than the other. Only important as a whole.

Possibly upgrade the set that is furthest away since they will probably have to work harder. Your top middle most likely has less SPL requirements being closer.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Josh, I think all of them are equally important. The priority would be the four ear-level surrounds and then the heights/overheads.


Right. This was prompted by my upgrading my ear-level speakers. Those came first, but in doing so, now I have the opportunity to replace a pair of the heights as well. 



> Possibly upgrade the set that is furthest away since they will probably have to work harder. Your top middle most likely has less SPL requirements being closer.


I also had this thought, but has anyone noticed either the front or middle/rear heights being sent more audio than the other? I could upgrade the speakers that are farther away, but if the closer speakers actually do more work, perhaps they should be prioritized.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josh, I think all of them are equally important. The priority would be the four ear-level surrounds and then the heights/overheads.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. This was prompted by my upgrading my ear-level speakers. Those came first, but in doing so, now I have the opportunity to replace a pair of the heights as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly upgrade the set that is furthest away since they will probably have to work harder. Your top middle most likely has less SPL requirements being closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also had this thought, but has anyone noticed either the front or middle/rear heights being sent more audio than the other? I could upgrade the speakers that are farther away, but if the closer speakers actually do more work, perhaps they should be prioritized.
Click to expand...

I know you're looking for a rationalization to not have to buy another pair of speakers, but honestly Scott is right that they are all equally important. The overhead speakers are an array -- objects will theoretically pass though them in any direction, and "bed" content would be sent equally to all of them, so ideally they would be a seamless unit.


----------



## kuro6010

I just saw "John Wick" in Atmos, and let me just say it is phenomenal. The raining scenes were just sick. It sounded like it was raining in my living room. The bass was awesome on my Vtf-15. Keanu was actually pretty good in the movie. If you haven't seen it I highly recomend it. Loving my Denon X7200.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> I also had this thought, but has anyone noticed either the front or middle/rear heights being sent more audio than the other? I could upgrade the speakers that are farther away, but if the closer speakers actually do more work, perhaps they should be prioritized.


100% reliant on the mix. There will be no good way to gauge this. It's best to keep them in common pairs/sets.

Do what you can with what you have now. I'm sure you will eventually get another pair of speakers like the those you are switching now.


----------



## mtbdudex

BigScreen - I posted about these back in December, markus and otherts pretty much had negative things to say about them.... Yea nobody can read all the posts/pages here, way too much.
(regarding Audioholics, on their facebook feed they re-post info multiple times and people think its new -news, me included, they go after "likes")


BigScreen said:


> I came across a mention of the new Atlantic Technology IC-6-OBA in-ceiling speaker from Audioholics in my FB news feed, and I noticed that they resembled the Canton 965 DT speakers that Ralph Potts is using for his reviews here, and the Niles CM7FX in-ceiling speakers that he was originally talking about using (IIRC).
> 
> Whereas the tweeters in the Niles and Canton speakers can be aimed, those in the AT speakers cannot. There isn't much about the speakers on the AT site, but Audioholics has a preview page that says that the tweeters are wired out of phase. The Niles can be adjusted for dipole or bipole configuration. I couldn't find anything about how the Cantons are wired.
> 
> From AT's press release in December:
> 
> From the Niles spec sheet for the CM7FX:
> [/LEFT]
> 
> I find it interesting that these companies are offering speakers for the Atmos/height-channel consumer, all hoping to address hot-spotting that they must be experiencing, either through empirical testing or feedback from vendors/customers. I'm fully aware that Dolby reps have recommended direct radiating speakers, but they didn't slam the door on other options. The fact that they are backing the reflecting speakers means that they are not hard and fast about getting direct beams of sound from above. Back in September, I wondered if dipole speakers wouldn't work  well for height speakers, but the conventional wisdom here has always discounted that as substandard.
> 
> Given that installing ceiling speakers is pretty much a one-way ticket that doesn't allow for experimentation with various models and placement, it would be really nice to see some definitive experimentation/reviews that hash out the various options possible. The lack of such reviews, as well as the lack of proper test material with which to perform such reviews, is indicative of how very early we are in the height-based sound era of home theater.





Dave Vaughn said:


> I'm going to be getting the Atlantic Technology speakers next week (fingers crossed) and plan on using them in my Atmos setup. One of my main concerns was hot spotting, which is why I decided to try these speakers out. Given that their sizing is pretty common, I figured if I didn't like them I could always find another speaker of similar size to try in their place. Worst case scenario is my drywall installer gets some extra work


My December post:


mtbdudex said:


> For those with in-ceiling speakers are you getting too much localization?
> 
> I see Atlantic Technology released these, 12/19/2014 08:30:00 AM Eastern
> http://www.twice.com/news/speakers/atlantic-ceiling-speaker-dedicated-height-channels/55375





markus767 said:


> ^
> Not a good idea as this speaker will very likely have an interference dip at high frequencies off axis.
> 
> And why do they state "The speaker delivers a "controlled acoustic scatter" to broaden the sweet spot of the sound reflected off the ceiling". There will be no sound reflected off the ceiling if the speaker is mounted in the ceiling. Typical marketing nonsense?





Scott Simonian said:


>





noah katz said:


> By symmetry all freq will be in phase on axis, so that's the only place it *won't* have an interference dip at any frequency.





Roger Dressler said:


> Are the tweeters in phase?
> 
> That part of the PR is talking about the 44-DA, which is an upfiring speaker.





markus767 said:


> They are not? That would just shift the lobe(s).
> 
> Confusing article with virtually no useful information. Typical for marketing of audio devices.





Roger Dressler said:


> Dunno. It seemed there was an assumption they were not.
> 
> The essential information is all there: A speaker has been introduced for in-ceiling height effects.





markus767 said:


> Probably doesn't matter. Such an "array" of two 1" tweeters isn't capable of "a “very wide scatter” that minimizes “hot spotting”".
> 
> One 1" tweeter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two 1" tweeter separated by 5cm:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just not a good one





mtbdudex said:


> Wow - I posted an article about in-ceiling speakers by a 20 year + established company, who was involved with Dolby on their 1st 44-DA - Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker module, and now Markus you are saying they are basically what?
> I don't want to put words into your mouth, but seems you 100% refute their statement.
> 
> btw, I marked up the article since some mis-read it......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markus - I assume you made these simulation graphs with speaker design software, don't you also think a major company with total in house planning, engineering, simulation, design, manufacturing, marketing, and sales also did same?
> (*Atlantic Technology Timeline* )
> Is that nothing more than basic speaker 101, they also know that, right?
> What do they know, or how have they modified their design to mitigate the "typical" issues you show below to overcome them and deliver what they state in their article?
> Don't you think that is a more pro-active approach?
> 
> Why so quick to dismiss them instead of being open and gaining some insight into how they solved what are known issues with that alignment?





markus767 said:


> mtbdudex,
> 
> Well, the laws of physics apply to anyone no matter how long a company is in business, with whom they partner and whatever resources they have.
> The difference between them and me is that they claim something _without_ any proof and I claim something _with_ proof





IgorZep said:


> How two point-sources acoustically sum off axis is pure physics and math. It is not "a typical issues", it is how things are in this life. Can you overcome 5-3=2? You can only call this "an issue" or "a feature".
> 
> 
> 
> They promise poor localization and "a bubble" ahead you... Exactly what is delivered.


----------



## mtbdudex

Discussion point:
Ceiling mounting speakers in high/cathedral ceiling applications ...

Last weekend my cubscout pack held our annual Pinewood derby at the local middle school, it has bigger cafeteria/general usage area for 100+ people events than the elementary school.
While there I noticed the overhead speaker arrangements on a nice looking 3 bar system, but being cubmaster my duties were towards running the Pinewood derby event so I forgot about that.

While processing pictures my daughter took for me, she captured a few images that showed those overhead speakers, so sharing here.
Might be another way for those with high ceiling to consider, plus if you got those rails installed you can move the speaker side/side or front/rear depending on how you orient the rails.
Hanging from ceiling via cables, these could look cool and blend into the room if appropriate color picked.

I'm sure these suspended rail mounting schemes are available from Pro audio sources.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Smiley face here, ignore button hit here.


The Ignore button is a terrific AVS feature IMO


----------



## kbarnes701

Minge said:


> After reading in the oppo 83 thread it is my understanding *my bluray player will not properly bitsream atmos embedded discs without audio dropouts or loss of informatio*n which ruins the atmos experience. Leads me to believe I am not the only one with a blu ray player that will not properly bitstream this codec without loss of information or dropouts. So now after punching new holes in my ceiling and buying new speakers and adding amplification I now need to replace my oppo player. All in the name of adding all this for a format that could be gone in a couple of years. I am confused and frustrated.


Only on some discs which employ overly-complex seamless branching (in an attempt to frustrate illegal copying). This is a player issue not an Atmos issue. Roger Dressler bought an 80 dollar Sony BD player for the occasional disc which is authored badly. If Oppo are unable to offer a FW update to fix the issue on their player, Roger's solution isn’t a bad plan.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..QUOTE]
> 
> 
> hello Keith,
> please your thoughts on this.......
> 
> 
> Du to a change in my house i need to give up the surround speakers :-(
> But ok, worst things can happen in live.
> For now i will do fronts and center, and Atmos (3.0.2)
> 
> 
> I can do enabled or i can do down fire when i mount the speakers to the room devider that stands behinde the sofa and they will be mounted where you see the two X (see pic)
> So it not in ceiling but more almost on ceiling.
> 
> 
> I have 3 optionds in the receiver.
> 1) front High
> 2) Top front
> 3) Top middle
> 
> 
> 1) is when you have front high speakers on the wall, and others are ceiling speakers in the front or middle of the room.
> As the speakers will be actual in the middle of the room (above my head) do i need to select Top middle or will be Top Front a better option ?
> 
> 
> Thx....
> 
> 
> 
> If they are more or less over your head, I'd use TM personally.
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Well, i hope for you what you answer is ok according to Keith, or you will be haunted around the world......
> 
> 
> Thank you !


Apologies for my late reply. I have been busy for a week installing a new rack and refurbishing the HT boot room.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> For your situation where the couch can not move forward, it's best to knock the back surrounds from the setup as they will not be in correct distance/angle/position.
> You should probably go with 5.x bed channels and 4 heights (FH+TM). Your fronts heights looks to be suitably placed for FH.
> I believe Keith has a similar issue. He may be able to provide some real user experience/advice.



Yes, I cannot use rear surrounds as there is insufficient room behind MLP. I am using 5.2.4 with FH+TM - very effective setup and I am more than happy with it.

If the OP has any specific questions I will be more than pleased to do my best to help.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I may grab Robocop for tonight, still waiting for John Wick to arrive . Watched I Frankenstein last night, soundtrack with DSU was not the best. Movie overall not very good
> anyway, not my kind of thing. Wife thought it was "OK." On her rating scale I'd say that would be 6 out of 10.


I just got *I, Frankenstein* from Japan with the Atmos track. I actually bought this in its regular 5.1 incarnation too (!). The Atmos track is noticeably superior, both in overhead effects and precision of sound placement throughout the soundstage. A very good sound track IMO, in Atmos. I now have the grand total of 6 Atmos discs, with *Chicago* ordered from Japan too to make it 7


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> How can you determine which region your Oppo player is setup for ? I'm in Canada but I'm pretty sure my Oppo 103D came from the US .


The only way I know of is to insert a region-coded disc and see if the player accepts it or not. Players are sold in the region format for where they are sold, so if yours was sold in the US then it will be set to Region A. My Oppo is multiregion - easy to do with a simple kit off eBay. No soldering needed.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I just got *I, Frankenstein* from Japan with the Atmos track. I actually bought this in its regular 5.1 incarnation too (!). The Atmos track is noticeably superior, both in overhead effects and precision of sound placement throughout the soundstage. A very good sound track IMO, in Atmos. I now have the grand total of 6 Atmos discs, with *Chicago* ordered from Japan too to make it 7



I think you mentioned you will have 12 Atmos come spring, I'm counting 4 that I have and this is with John Wick on the way. What were the others?


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> The only way I know of is to insert a region-coded disc and see if the player accepts it or not. Players are sold in the region format for where they are sold, so if yours was sold in the US then it will be set to Region A. My Oppo is multiregion - easy to do with a simple kit off eBay. No soldering needed.



Thanks, guess I need to order a movie from Amazon Japan and try it out. Actually, I just ordered the movie Canopy from Australia , not sure what code that is. It's on the way, so I'll know soon enough. :serious:


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I think you mentioned you will have 12 Atmos come spring, I'm counting 4 that I have and this is with John Wick on the way. What were the others?


The other 5 will be the upcoming releases. I think Hunger Games is the next one in the UK. Then Gravity. Can't recall the other three but I am sure there will be three between now and April!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Vice with Bruce Willis is the other one announced in the US along with Gravity and Hunger Games.


----------



## tjenkins95

Tin_Can said:


> How do people like the upfiring Atmos speakers? My ceiling is too low for in-ceiling speakers.


 

I have the full set of Andrew Jones new Pioneer speakers with 4 of the upfiring Atmos speakers. My ceiling is 7 and 1/2 feet.
All of my surround sound speakers are close to ear level. The sound is incredible!


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> The other 5 will be the upcoming releases. I think Hunger Games is the next one in the UK. Then Gravity. Can't recall the other three but I am sure there will be three between now and April!


*Atmos Movies inventory*: Red font means it is available now . 


1-TF4 
2-TNNT
3-Expendables 3
4-Step Up
5-John Wick
6-Gravity TBA
7-Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
8-I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
9-Hunger Games Mocking Jay TBA
10-Enchanted Kingdom TBA
11-Vice TBA 
12-Overheard 3 ( Amazon Japan) 


That makes 12 guess that's it


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> The other 5 will be the upcoming releases. I think Hunger Games is the next one in the UK. Then Gravity. Can't recall the other three but I am sure there will be three between now and April!


Don't say _Vice_, please don't say _Vice_. I'll lose all respect for you.   Pornos have better acting.


----------



## roxiedog13

tjenkins95 said:


> I have the full set of Andrew Jones new Pioneer speakers with 4 of the upfiring Atmos speakers. My ceiling is 7 and 1/2 feet.
> All of my surround sound speakers are close to ear level. The sound is incredible!


 
The speakers with upfiring Atmos certainly should work if done right. Id' expect the angles for the upfiring must be more aggressive than the 20 degrees standard or the mains closer to the MLP otherwise it would not work. Using a mirror on the ceiling with a laser light and a protractor will give a good idea where the bounce will end up. If going on top of a tower put the laser there, use the protractor to match the angle of the upfiring and a mirror on the ceiling to see where the light (sound) will be reflected to. Bottom line is a lower ceiling will require the modules to be set at a greater angle if on top of a main or moved closer to the MLP if the angle cannot be changed. In my opinion, closing the up-firing angle may also take away the effect if you can localize the sound coming from the module. 
The in-ceiling work best from all accounts I have heard thus far, probably cheaper, really tidy and easy to do since you are in the middle of renovations. Modules will work too, just will take a little
more tinkering if the room is not ideal . As always, its your money and your decision . 


Oh, one more option, raise the roof


----------



## gammanuc

roxiedog13 said:


> Atmos inventory:
> 
> 
> TF4
> TNNT
> Expendables 3
> Step Up
> John Wick
> Gravity TBA
> Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
> I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
> 
> 
> What am I missing ?


Enchanted Kingdom, Vice and Hunger Games, I believe.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't say _Vice_, please don't say _Vice_. I'll lose all respect for you.   Pornos have better acting.


Please list the titles. Do any of them have Atmos?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Yes. Vice and mocking jay will be coming out in ATMOS


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> Please list the titles. Do any of them have Atmos?


 
Lets see Atmos Porno title aaaaaaah......... three in the front ,four on top, a couple on the side and two in the rear  Shall we make this 3D too :wink:, you'll need a raincoat:grin:


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Hey porn is what won the Betamax vhs war


----------



## BamaDave

Installed the wiring in the attic today. Here are some mock-up shots, almost ready to glue and pin nail them together!


----------



## BamaDave

Getting closer to my Atmos effects!!


----------



## roxiedog13

BamaDave said:


> Installed the wiring in the attic today. Here are some mock-up shots, almost ready to glue and pin nail them together!


Where is this going on a stand, speaker or in the ceiling? Your a busy guy ,looking good .


----------



## Al Sherwood

^^


You go Dave, looking good!


But, you have to do something about that work bench, it is waaaay too clean!


----------



## chi_guy50

BamaDave said:


> Installed the wiring in the attic today. Here are some mock-up shots, almost ready to glue and pin nail them together!


Now that's the kind of porn I like. Please share more shots (including full frontal and mounted).


----------



## BamaDave

roxiedog13 said:


> Where is this going on a stand, speaker or in the ceiling? Your a busy guy ,looking good .


These are going to be my ceiling speakers!


----------



## BamaDave

Al Sherwood said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> You go Dave, looking good!
> 
> 
> But, you have to do something about that work bench, it is waaaay too clean!


I spent more time cleaning off the bench them putting the mock up together!


----------



## roxiedog13

BamaDave said:


> These are going to be my ceiling speakers!


 
On, ceiling I assume? Yea, now I remember, you have a 9ft ceiling I believe you mentioned, should be great.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> *Atmos Movies inventory*: Red font means it is available now .
> 
> 
> 1-TF4
> 2-TNNT
> 3-Expendables 3
> 4-Step Up
> 5-John Wick
> 6-Gravity TBA
> 7-Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
> 8-I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
> 9-Hunger Games Mocking Jay TBA
> 10-Enchanted Kingdom TBA
> 11-Vice TBA
> 
> 
> What am I missing ?


Nothing AFAICS. _*Overheard 3*_ is one of my Atmos discs - Hong Kong thriller. Other than that your list is complete and as it contains 11, and you missed Overheard 3, I will have the dozen I predicted by Spring  Probably more as new releases come onto the market.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't say _Vice_, please don't say _Vice_. I'll lose all respect for you.   *Pornos have better acting.*


Any special recommendations there, Dan? One day I knew we'd eventually get to a movie you believe is worthy, but I didn't bargain for it being a porno.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Any special recommendations there, Dan? One day I knew we'd eventually get to a movie you believe is worthy, but I didn't bargain for it being a porno.


Watch Vice and I believe you'll agree.  Bruce Willis' performance is the very definition of acting while sleepwalking.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Watch Vice and I believe you'll agree.  Bruce Willis' performance is the very definition of acting while sleepwalking.


The biggest mystery of all, to me, is WTF do you watch these movies in the first place? Don't you ever read any reviews before you schlep off to the cinema and splash down your hard-earned on a ticket, some popcorn and a tasty beverage? I recommend finding a reviewer whose opinions you mostly share and then sticking with him and letting him (or her) be your guide. For me it was the late Roger Ebert. Since he died I have struggled yet to replace him but I am getting along pretty well with Brian Orndorf and James Berardinelli.


----------



## Tin_Can

tjenkins95 said:


> I have the full set of Andrew Jones new Pioneer speakers with 4 of the upfiring Atmos speakers. My ceiling is 7 and 1/2 feet.
> All of my surround sound speakers are close to ear level. The sound is incredible!


Glad you like it! I've read good things about those pioneers, but I think I've been specced triad.


----------



## lujan

roxiedog13 said:


> *Atmos Movies inventory*: Red font means it is available now .
> 
> 
> 1-TF4
> 2-TNNT
> 3-Expendables 3
> 4-Step Up
> 5-John Wick
> 6-Gravity TBA
> 7-Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
> 8-I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
> 9-Hunger Games Mocking Jay TBA
> 10-Enchanted Kingdom TBA
> 11-Vice TBA
> 
> ..:


Of this list, I have 3 of them (John Wick, TMNT & Transformers 4) but I've only seen 2 of them. I saw Transformers 4 before I got the Atmos system and not going to see it soon 'cause it's so long.


----------



## CBdicX

*From enabled up-fire to down-fire.*


Went from Dolby Enabled (normal sat speakers turned up) to almost on-ceiling fireing down, *what a big differents !*
Much more Atmos effects, not even close what enabled will/can do.
I realy thought i had a good Atmos experians with my up-fireing speakers, but no way, down-fire is a total different experians.
For me no more enabled "bouncing" speakers, down-fire is the way to go.........


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> The biggest mystery of all, to me, is WTF do you watch these movies in the first place? Don't you ever read any reviews before you schlep off to the cinema and splash down your hard-earned on a ticket, some popcorn and a tasty beverage? I recommend finding a reviewer whose opinions you mostly share and then sticking with him and letting him (or her) be your guide. For me it was the late Roger Ebert. Since he died I have struggled yet to replace him but I am getting along pretty well with Brian Orndorf and James Berardinelli.


It was on a free stream. I turned it off part way through. No money wasted, just time.


----------



## tjenkins95

CBdicX said:


> *From enabled up-fire to down-fire.*
> 
> 
> Went from Dolby Enabled (normal sat speakers turned up) to almost on-ceiling fireing down, *what a big differents !*
> Much more Atmos effects, not even close what enabled will/can do.
> I realy thought i had a good Atmos experians with my up-fireing speakers, but no way, down-fire is a total different experians.
> For me no more enabled "bouncing" speakers, down-fire is the way to go.........


 
I don't believe that flipping over a pair of satellite speakers and aiming them at the ceiling is considered "Dolby Atmos enabled upfiring speakers."
It doesn't surprise me at all that in-ceiling speakers sound better.


----------



## CBdicX

tjenkins95 said:


> I don't believe that flipping over a pair of satellite speakers and aiming them at the ceiling is considered "Dolby Atmos enabled upfiring speakers."
> It doesn't surprise me at all that in-ceiling speakers sound better.



Had "original" Dolby Enabled speakers from Onkyo, did not soundid any different or better then normal speakers turned to the ceiling.


----------



## roxiedog13

tjenkins95 said:


> I don't believe that flipping over a pair of satellite speakers and aiming them at the ceiling is considered "Dolby Atmos enabled upfiring speakers."
> It doesn't surprise me at all that in-ceiling speakers sound better.





Somebody else here did just that and claims it worked very well good. Nothing in the modules that looks overly complicated other than a 20degree angle and a recessed speaker . Keeping the cross over frequency appropriate and I'm sure just about any satellite, full range ,wide dispersion speaker could work . The only challenge is to build an enclosure that directs sound up and prevents sounds from aiming directly towards the MLP.


----------



## roxiedog13

CBdicX said:


> Had "original" Dolby Enabled speakers from Onkyo, did not soundid any different or better then normal speakers turned to the ceiling.



I had the same speaker, I believe SK-410 . They did work well but had to move them around to find a sweet spot. Did not work well positioned on top of the main speaker towers. I replaced these with in-ceiling, they are better.


----------



## roxiedog13

roxiedog13 said:


> *Atmos Movies inventory*: Red font means it is available now .
> 
> 
> 1-TF4
> 2-TNNT
> 3-Expendables 3
> 4-Step Up
> 5-John Wick
> 6-Gravity TBA
> 7-Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
> 8-I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
> 9-Hunger Games Mocking Jay TBA
> 10-Enchanted Kingdom TBA
> 11-Vice TBA
> 12-Overheard 3 ( Amazon Japan)
> 
> 
> That makes 12 guess that's it



This is the complete list for now I due believe .


----------



## NorthSky

wadec22 said:


> Just finished *Lemony Snicket's a Series of Unfortunate Events*. It's a little older, but if you need a family flick to throw in, the DTS-HD track on the blu-ray is really pretty solid. I thought it rocked on my 9.2 Neo X setup. There are a couple scenes that I bet DSU would be pretty outstanding in. Some of us gotta have those family flicks that still have A/V candy.


This is an awesome flick; one of my very fortunate favorite ones.  ...Extremely highly recommended.

______


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> This is the complete list for now I due believe .


I'm glad to see the list is finally growing... I got a chance to watch John Whick in Atmos last week & I enjoyed it very much! Finally a decent film with Atmos sound


----------



## chi_guy50

Welcome back to the forum, Keith. I trust you've caught up on your reading after the week-long hiatus.



kbarnes701 said:


> I recommend finding a reviewer whose opinions you mostly share and then sticking with him and letting him (or her) be your guide. For me it was the late Roger Ebert. Since he died I have struggled yet to replace him but I am getting along pretty well with Brian Orndorf and James Berardinelli.


For me, it's long been A.O. Scott (and his erstwhile colleague Elvis Mitchell) of the N.Y. Times. I've heard him lecture and he's a brilliant, thoughtful, passionate cinephile; additionally, he's a very talented writer and I enjoy reading his columns on any subject. As you say, it's helpful to find a critic whose tastes and judgment you can rely on, and he has been a trustworthy guidepost for me most of the time. But YMMV.


----------



## audioguy

Is there a step by step plan to order from Amazon Japan? I loved the movie Chicago (I don't even have it in Bluray only DVD) and would love to hear/see it in high def and Atmos as would my wife!!

Is this the movie (release early March)?

http://www.amazon.co.jp/シカゴ-Blu-ray...sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=movie+chicago+in+bluray


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> This is an awesome flick; one of my very fortunate favorite ones.  ...Extremely highly recommended.
> 
> ______


How can you recommend anything...... without an actual atoms received or have you finally bought one.


----------



## BigScreen

mtbdudex said:


> BigScreen - I posted about these back in December, markus and otherts pretty much had negative things to say about them.... Yea nobody can read all the posts/pages here, way too much.
> (regarding Audioholics, on their facebook feed they re-post info multiple times and people think its new -news, me included, they go after "likes")


Ah yes, thanks for the reminder. That post was 3,000 posts ago, so it's no wonder that it skipped my mind.

I agree on the Audioholics front. I get annoyed with their FB posts of old news/products/reviews, as it appears as though it is new info at first, but then you realize that it's just a review from 5 years ago. Between that and their contemptuous videos that are nearly impossible to watch, it's a wonder I even pay attention to them at all. The only thing keeping me from ignoring them altogether is the fact that they do extensive testing on equipment (when they actually review something).

I stopped reading Widescreen Review because of their flagrant bias and incessant soapbox topics, and maybe Audioholics will have to go by the wayside as well. Unfortunately, a lot of what's left is so much fluff that you might as well read the product sheets from the manufacturers. It's a good thing places like AVS exist...


----------



## ambesolman

BigScreen said:


> Ah yes, thanks for the reminder. That post was 3,000 posts ago, so it's no wonder that it skipped my mind.
> 
> I agree on the Audioholics front. I get annoyed with their FB posts of old news/products/reviews, as it appears as though it is new info at first, but then you realize that it's just a review from 5 years ago. Between that and their contemptuous videos that are nearly impossible to watch, it's a wonder I even pay attention to them at all. The only thing keeping me from ignoring them altogether is the fact that they do extensive testing on equipment (when they actually review something).
> 
> I stopped reading Widescreen Review because of their flagrant bias and incessant soapbox topics, and maybe Audioholics will have to go by the wayside as well. Unfortunately, a lot of what's left is so much fluff that you might as well read the product sheets from the manufacturers. It's a good thing places like AVS exist...



+1 the videos are awful 


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## wadec22

bargervais said:


> How can you recommend anything...... without an actual atoms received or have you finally bought one.


I made the original recommendation, he just reiterated it is worthwhile. It has a few scenes that are killer in 9.2 Neo X. There is one in particular where a storm hits, I thought, I bet DSU would be killer here. Not a ton of family films that have killer A/V, especially for under 10.00 on Amazon. Seemed like the right thing to do to give some Atmos owners the heads up if they hadn't seen it.


Didn't realize you had decided for AVS that this would be an owners only thread. :/


----------



## NorthSky

> How can you recommend anything...... without an actual atoms received or have you finally bought one.


I am so extremely sorry. I did not realize that I need one to post here.


----------



## NorthSky

> The Ignore button is a terrific AVS feature IMO


Glad to see you back here in my favorite thread. ...Great sense of humor, as always.


----------



## NorthSky

> +1 the videos are awful


...Not just their videos.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I am so extremely sorry. I did not realize that I need one to post here.


No you don't have to have an atoms AVR to post here but I would like info from people who have an atoms receiver their do's and don'ts.... as I thought this was an atoms thread, not a movie review thread. I know I have been guilty by getting off topic myself.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> For those of you doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, which pair of height channels do you find more important, the front or the middle/rear?


I think the channels are equally important, but our human hearing is a little better in front than above.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> I know you're looking for a rationalization to not have to buy another pair of speakers, but honestly Scott is right that they are all equally important. The overhead speakers are an array -- objects will theoretically pass though them in any direction, and "bed" content would be sent equally to all of them, so ideally they would be a seamless unit.


Perhaps I am trying to rationalize, but here's the situation: I currently have four inferior speakers installed up above. I have two superior speakers sitting in the corner disconnected. I can either replace two of the heights with the superior speakers, or I can leave all four inferior speakers as is and do nothing with the other two.

Maybe I will try to buy two more of the better speakers to match the heights all around, but that's not going to be today. Right now, I have these two good speakers and I feel like I might as well do something with them. Otherwise, they're just going to waste.



sdurani said:


> I think the channels are equally important, but our human hearing is a little better in front than above.


I'm inclined to agree with that in theory, and will probably put the better speakers in the front heights, but let me pose this question one more way.

I know that there are people in this thread who have disconnected all speakers _except_ the heights just to test what comes out of those channels. And I know that on native Atmos mixes, it's generally not a lot up there. However, what I'm more concerned with is DSU upmixing of other sound formats. So, has anyone who has done the disconnect-all-other-channels thing noticed whether DSU tends to favor the Front Heights/Top Front vs. Top Middle/Top Rear/Rear Height?

I suppose I could do this myself, but it's inconvenient for me and I figured I might as well ask if anyone else has already done it. Maybe no one has, and that's fine, but I felt it worth asking.


----------



## NorthSky

wadec22 said:


> Just finished *Lemony Snicket's a Series of Unfortunate Events*. It's a little older, but if you need a family flick to throw in, the DTS-HD track on the blu-ray is really pretty solid. I thought it rocked on my 9.2 Neo X setup. There are a couple scenes that I bet DSU would be pretty outstanding in. Some of us gotta have those family flicks that still have A/V candy.





NorthSky said:


> This is an awesome flick; one of my very fortunate favorite ones.  ...Extremely highly recommended.





bargervais said:


> How can you recommend anything...... without an actual atoms received or have you finally bought one.





wadec22 said:


> I made the original recommendation, he just reiterated it is worthwhile. It has a few scenes that are killer in 9.2 Neo X. There is one in particular where a storm hits, I thought, I bet DSU would be killer here. Not a ton of family films that have killer A/V, especially for under 10.00 on Amazon. Seemed like the right thing to do to give some Atmos owners the heads up if they hadn't seen it.
> 
> Didn't realize you had decided for AVS that this would be an owners only thread. :/





bargervais said:


> No you don't have to have an atoms AVR to post here but I would like info from people who have an atoms receiver their do's and don'ts.... as I thought this was an atoms thread, not a movie review thread. I know I have been guilty by getting off topic myself.


♦ I understand. ...And I was simply replying to Wade's post (first above quote). ...And as he has just explained too in his other quote just above yours. 
Besides, you just said it; we all sometimes post some humor and not necessarily related directly to the Dolby Atmos topic. ...We're humans.
{My reply wasn't humorous here; it was a tasteful confirmation/approval on a specific film very liked by Wade, ...and I.}
-> And I bet, like him, that it would sound awesome with DSU (D Atmos up-mixer). 

* I also bet that @ least 50% of the members here in this thread don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver, or Atmos SSP, yet. 
And I wager too the majority are still investigating and have questions on Dolby Atmos and are getting ready soon to take the plunge; just like me.
That's what this thread is about, all of that, and more. ...First Atmos adopters, others inquiring on overhead speakers positioning, technical questions regarding ceiling's height, which Dolby Atmos Blu-ray releases, etc., etc., etc.

And it's very true; it is not a dedicated Dolby Atmos thread for strictly Dolby Atmos receivers and Atmos SSP's owners.


----------



## htpcforever

Josh Z said:


> I suppose I could do this myself, but it's inconvenient for me and I figured I might as well ask if anyone else has already done it. Maybe no one has, and that's fine, but I felt it worth asking.


I call it the "why reinvent the wheel" point of view. You can do it yourself, but if someone has already done it then and tells you, then everyone wins.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> I know that there are people in this thread who have disconnected all speakers _except_ the heights just to test what comes out of those channels. And I know that on native Atmos mixes, it's generally not a lot up there. However, what I'm more concerned with is DSU upmixing of other sound formats. So, has anyone who has done the disconnect-all-other-channels thing noticed whether DSU tends to favor the Front Heights/Top Front vs. Top Middle/Top Rear/Rear Height?
> 
> I suppose I could do this myself, but it's inconvenient for me and I figured I might as well ask if anyone else has already done it. Maybe no one has, and that's fine, but I felt it worth asking.



Again... this entirely reliant on the mix. The results will be different from movie to movie.

My suggestion(s):

1) install the 'better' speakers up front and live with it til you can get another set for the other location.

2) keep using the four 'inferior' speakers and wait to get the new set and install all four at one time.


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> Perhaps I am trying to rationalize, but here's the situation: I currently have four inferior speakers installed up above. I have two superior speakers sitting in the corner disconnected. I can either replace two of the heights with the superior speakers, or I can leave all four inferior speakers as is and do nothing with the other two.
> 
> Maybe I will try to buy two more of the better speakers to match the heights all around, but that's not going to be today. Right now, I have these two good speakers and I feel like I might as well do something with them. Otherwise, they're just going to waste.


I suggest upgrading the Front Heights now and the rear overheads when you can.

The Front Height speakers are used by all of the upmixers, so you'd be able to enjoy them no matter which upmixer you select.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Again... this entirely reliant on the mix. The results will be different from movie to movie.


When we're talking about DSU, the movie isn't going to be mixed intentionally to put _any_ sounds in the height channels. The DSU upmixer makes those decisions on its own. I'm just curious if it tends to favor using the front or the rear heights more. 



Selden Ball said:


> I suggest upgrading the Front Heights now and the rear overheads when you can.
> 
> The Front Height speakers are used by all of the upmixers, so you'd be able to enjoy them no matter which upmixer you select.


Now _that's_ a good point. I think I'd already talked myself into putting them up front anyway, but this seals the deal. Thanks!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> When we're talking about DSU, the movie isn't going to be mixed intentionally to put _any_ sounds in the height channels. The DSU upmixer makes those decisions on its own. I'm just curious if it tends to favor using the front or the rear heights more.


Very true but the upmixing algorithm is also dependent on the cues from the original source. The mix will affect the performance, true Atmos or upmixer.

As Selden mentions, you could just add them up front for now so all upmixers can take advantage.


----------



## Frank714

Frank714 said:


> _"Co-producer and writer Philippa Boyens elaborated on how Dolby Atmos helped the sound effects transform elegantly from "subtle little quiet moments of snow falling … to a vast, epic battle."_
> _"I actually have come to believe that *the best moments are the quiet moments*," Jackson mused."_





groundtrac said:


> ^^
> Must not have felt compelled enough to push for an Atmos soundtrack on the freaking blu-Ray though!


I really don't want to sound too sarcastic, but I take it you have heard of "double-dipping"? 

I think _how_ Warner releases the _Hobbit Trilogy_ is a little outside of Mr. Jackson's control. As long as they can sell truckloads of Blu-rays without Dolby Atmos tracks, they probably consider Atmos an extra feature they will add at some point in the future.

What really matters, IMHO, is that the director and other people in charge were aware of Atmos' potential, so I believe we can look forward to an interesting Atmos mix, _because the director cared... _


----------



## robert816

audioguy said:


> Is there a step by step plan to order from Amazon Japan? I loved the movie Chicago (I don't even have it in Bluray only DVD) and would love to hear/see it in high def and Atmos as would my wife!!
> 
> Is this the movie (release early March)?
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/シカゴ-Blu-ray...sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=movie+chicago+in+bluray


Please click on the Blu-Links: 

This is the Japanese Chicago release you are looking for with the new Atmos sound mix.

To set up an account you can follow the information here, it's not 100% correct as it hasn't been changed to suit the newer interface, but it is close enough to setup an account. If you already have an Amazon account, you can use the same information that is used in your existing account for the Japan account. The only difference is not much English to be found and no Prime Membership since you would be using International shipping.

My average receive time for shipments has been two to three days, unless you order on the weekend, then it may take an extra day or two. Also, due to shipping costs it is beneficial to order more than one item at a time. It's too bad we cannot just use our current Amazon account to order from Japan, but oh well. There have been some who complained about the cost difference of titles from Japan vs the American release, Nature/Enchanted Kingdom, I,Frankenstein, and Transcendence are new releases, so they have new prices, Chicago is a re-release so the cost isn't as high, but higher than here in America.


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Please click on the Blu-Links:
> 
> This is the Japanese Chicago release you are looking for with the new Atmos sound mix.
> 
> To set up an account you can follow the information here, it's not 100% correct as it hasn't been changed to suit the newer interface, but it is close enough to setup an account. If you already have an Amazon account, you can use the same information that is used in your existing account for the Japan account. The only difference is not much English to be found and no Prime Membership since you would be using International shipping.
> 
> My average receive time for shipments has been two to three days, unless you order on the weekend, then it may take an extra day or two. Also, due to shipping costs it is beneficial to order more than one item at a time. It's too bad we cannot just use our current Amazon account to order from Japan, but oh well. There have been some who complained about the cost difference of titles from Japan vs the American release, Nature/Enchanted Kingdom, I,Frankenstein, and Transcendence are new releases, so they have new prices, Chicago is a re-release so the cost isn't as high, but higher than here in America.


Is Transcendence available om Atmos from Japan?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Welcome back to the forum, Keith. I trust you've caught up on your reading after the week-long hiatus.
> 
> 
> 
> For me, it's long been A.O. Scott (and his erstwhile colleague Elvis Mitchell) of the N.Y. Times. I've heard him lecture and he's a brilliant, thoughtful, passionate cinephile; additionally, he's a very talented writer and I enjoy reading his columns on any subject. As you say, it's helpful to find a critic whose tastes and judgment you can rely on, and he has been a trustworthy guidepost for me most of the time. But YMMV.


Thanks buddy. It was a loooong week. And I have a problem witn my Windows laptop refusing to talk to my new miniDSP DDRC-88A so I still have no Dirac Live goodness in my system.

Thanks for the names of those critics - I will check them out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It was on a free stream. I turned it off part way through. No money wasted, just time.


My old grandaddy used to say that when you got something for free it was generally worth what you paid for it


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> My old grandaddy used to say that when you got something for free it was generally worth what you paid for it



There's one exception I can think of - limited time software trials where the trial software has the full functionality of the paid version. So that's only 90% true .


----------



## pasender91

Well, as an extension, in today's world there is some free open-source software that is BETTER than their commercial competition ...


----------



## StanGeek

Hi. I saw the movie last week and liked the sound, but am curious if you have added any more dB to the top speakers than what the Audyssey set them to. I have 7.2.4 currently.

Thanks.



kuro6010 said:


> I just saw "John Wick" in Atmos, and let me just say it is phenomenal. The raining scenes were just sick. It sounded like it was raining in my living room. The bass was awesome on my Vtf-15. Keanu was actually pretty good in the movie. If you haven't seen it I highly recomend it. Loving my Denon X7200.


----------



## lujan

StanGeek said:


> Hi. I saw the movie last week and liked the sound, but am curious if you have added any more dB to the top speakers than what the Audyssey set them to. I have 7.2.4 currently.
> 
> Thanks.


I also saw John Wick on Atmos and thought it was awesome with the Audyssey set as is. I didn't make any changes to the configuration.


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> Is Transcendence available om Atmos from Japan?


Yes sir, I purchased all three currently available titles, Nature/Enchanted Kingdom, Transcendence, and I,Frankenstein, and pre-ordered Chicago. I really liked the Atmos mix in Transcendence.

My apologies for not responding sooner, it has been a very busy day.


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> Well, as an extension, in today's world there is some free open-source software that is BETTER than their commercial competition ...


One great example is REW
Another may be HCFR


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Yes sir, I purchased all three currently available titles, Nature/Enchanted Kingdom, Transcendence, and I,Frankenstein, and pre-ordered Chicago. I really liked the Atmos mix in Transcendence.
> 
> My apologies for not responding sooner, it has been a very busy day.


 Thanks, will add this to the list of Atmos movies available.


----------



## roxiedog13

roxiedog13 said:


> *Atmos Movies inventory*: Red font means it is available now .
> 
> 
> 1-TF4
> 2-TMNT
> 3-Expendables 3
> 4-Step Up
> 5-John Wick
> 6-Gravity TBA
> 7-Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
> 8-I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
> 9-Hunger Games Mocking Jay TBA
> 10-Enchanted Kingdom TBA
> 11-Vice TBA
> 12-Overheard 3 ( Amazon Japan)
> 13-Tansendence ( Amazon Japan)
> 
> 
> That makes 13 and counting /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Transendence is apparently available in Atmos from Japan .


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> roxiedog13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atmos Movies inventory*: Red font means it is available now .
> 
> 
> 1-TF4
> 2-TMNT
> 3-Expendables 3
> 4-Step Up
> 5-John Wick
> 6-Gravity TBA
> 7-Chicago ( Amazon Japan ) ?
> 8-I Frankenstein ( Amazon Japan) ?
> 9-Hunger Games Mocking Jay TBA
> 10-Enchanted Kingdom TBA
> 11-Vice TBA
> 12-Overheard 3 ( Amazon Japan)
> 13-Tansendence ( Amazon Japan)
> 
> 
> That makes 13 and counting /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Transendence is apparently available in Atmos from Japan .
> 
> 
> 
> I had vice with atoms on pre order but cancelled it after watching it on XBMC but I have mocking Jay with atmos on pre-order I think I will enjoy that one. By The way Vice is on pre-order on amazon for $16.99  and dropping if it gets to $10.00 I may order it just for the Atoms mix.
Click to expand...


----------



## batpig

I hope "I, Frankenstein" is at least a good Atmos mix. I tried watching it on Netflix streaming the other week and it was unwatchably bad, even for late night mindless action movie fodder. It's rare that I can't actually sit through an entire movie, but this was so terrible I had to turn it off about 30 minutes in. It makes TMNT and TF4 look like Citizen Kane and The Godfather in comparison 

If someone confirms that the Atmos mix is "demo worthy" with plenty of overhead action I could see picking it up for uber cheap just for some specific demo scenes to give the system a workout. But paying extra money to order it from Japan.... blech.


----------



## asharma

*Wow!!!*

Just watched John Wick in ATMOS! The final rain scene! Wow!!

We neeeeeeed more ATMOS discs!!!


----------



## audioguy

Anyone know why some of the Atmos films are released in Japan but not the US?


----------



## aaranddeeman

audioguy said:


> Anyone know why some of the Atmos films are released in Japan but not the US?


Beacuse

A sia(Japan) Trades Most Of it's $$$


----------



## robert816

They've already been released here, probably a little too early for the studios to start double-dipping consumers at this point.

Transcendence and I,Frankenstein had Atmos theatre releases here in the US, so since these were new releases to Japan and already had an Atmos mix available, it makes sense. It is English Atmos tracks, not Japanese that they received.

Nature/Enchanted Kingdom is a BBC production, I'm not aware of an American release of the video.

Someone in the Blu-Ray.com forums said they received an Atmos mix copy of the Japanese title White Storm, but I have not found anything so far to confirm this.

Chicago having already received a new 7.1 mix is probably the first Japanese release of an American title to receive an upgrade to Atmos, and at current sale price, I would not look for an American re-release anytime soon with Atmos.

Gravity will also be released in Japan in a 2 disc Limited Edition with Atmos on April 22, it appears to be the same version we will get in the US


----------



## Ocielz

Just watched the French release of Expendables 3 and Damn!!! The Sound was amazing and just Beautiful to hear! Towards the end when they are in the building and both teams are arguing with each other and Barney starts to talk, you can hear the damn Helicopters flying overhead Great Mix!!


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> I hope "I, Frankenstein" is at least a good Atmos mix. I tried watching it on Netflix streaming the other week and it was unwatchably bad, even for late night mindless action movie fodder. It's rare that I can't actually sit through an entire movie, but this was so terrible I had to turn it off about 30 minutes in. It makes TMNT and TF4 look like Citizen Kane and The Godfather in comparison
> 
> If someone confirms that the Atmos mix is "demo worthy" with plenty of overhead action I could see picking it up for uber cheap just for some specific demo scenes to give the system a workout. But paying extra money to order it from Japan.... blech.


I Frankenstein is really bad, I totally agree. Like yourself I can sit through most movies without too much effort, I actually fell asleep during this one, I have never done that before. 
I'm not optimistic it will be any better in Atmos either as DSU did absolutely nothing for this one that I could tell . I'm sure someone will report how the Atmos track works some 
time soon, it will have to be good to convince me to watch this again. 

Man I can't wait to see John Wick, must be really good in Atmos from all the positive feedback I'm hearing.


----------



## Tnedator

Selden Ball said:


> Many AVSers seem to be using the term "HDMI V2.0" as a synonym for 4K resolution at 18 Gbits/sec as if that's all there is to it, but that is only one of its features. Some seem to be then using "HDMI V2.0" to imply that all of its features are or will be available. They aren't and won't be soon. HDMI licensees are forbidden to claim that they're providing HDMI V2.0 because nobody is expected to be providing *all* of the features for quite some time, if ever. They're only allowed to specify which features they're providing.
> 
> My source for the release timings is the Semtech presentation to SMPTE. See https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/u388/Semtech PDF Presentation.pdf
> 
> They're actually more pessimistic than I was suggesting, predicting 2017-2018 for HDR and a preliminary subset of REC 2020 colors. See slide 11.


As that document is about 15 months old, I wonder if that timeline still holds.


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> I Frankenstein is really bad, I totally agree. Like yourself I can sit through most movies without too much effort, I actually fell asleep during this one, I have never done that before.
> I'm not optimistic it will be any better in Atmos either as DSU did absolutely nothing for this one that I could tell . I'm sure someone will report how the Atmos track works some
> time soon, it will have to be good to convince me to watch this again.
> 
> Man I can't wait to see John Wick, must be really good in Atmos from all the positive feedback I'm hearing.


 @kbarnes701 already did here


----------



## Gurba

NorthSky said:


> I am so extremely sorry. I did not realize that I need one to post here.


So you haven't received any atoms?


----------



## lujan

asharma said:


> Just watched John Wick in ATMOS! The final rain scene! Wow!!
> 
> We neeeeeeed more ATMOS discs!!!


I have to agree! I was just thinking the other day about kids being sponges for information. I'm a sponge for Atmos right now.


----------



## NorthSky

Gurba said:


> So you haven't received any atoms?


Atoms are are all around in the atmosphere; everyday they are falling from the sky above over my head.  ...Everywhere in the air.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Atoms are are all around in the atmosphere; everyday they are falling from the sky above over my head.  ...Everywhere in the air.


I'm envisioning the Matrix right now , instead of Atoms it would be binary code, raining down, raaaininnnng....hmmmm, that reminds me of Atmos.  

John Wick is waiting for me at home, showing at 9PM sharp all welcome, coordinates are.........WAAAAAAY NORTH


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm envisioning the Matrix right now , instead of Atoms it would be binary code, raining down, raaaininnnng....hmmmm, that reminds me of Atmos.
> 
> John Wick is waiting for me at home, showing at 9PM sharp all welcome, coordinates are.........WAAAAAAY NORTH


Cool man, you're going to enjoy the ride with John Wick, and the music in it too. 

* You are Canadian, living in the East? 

By the way, speaking of The Matrix; I'll have to revisit that trilogy sometimes...when I get my new Atmos/dts:x toy.


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> By the way, speaking of The Matrix; I'll have to revisit that trilogy sometimes...when I get my new Atmos/dts:x toy.


Except that it's in neither Atmos nor DTS-X...so what you really want is DSU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

stikle said:


> Except that it's in neither Atmos nor DTS-X...so what you really want is DSU.


It's not like they sell just DSU processors on their own...


----------



## stikle

I'm aware of that. But since Bob didn't say "DSU" I wanted to just throw that out there.


----------



## pasender91

I am in principle against douple-dipping, but i could do an exception if the Matrix trilogy gets re-edited in an Atmos version !!!!


----------



## asoofi1

Does Audyssey calibrate for overhead speakers, whether Atmos/Auro?


----------



## stikle

asoofi1 said:


> Does Audyssey calibrate for overhead speakers, whether Atmos/Auro?


Yes, the Audyssey tones played through my overheads during calibration.


----------



## kbarnes701

asoofi1 said:


> Does Audyssey calibrate for overhead speakers, whether Atmos/Auro?


*k)3. Will a calibration include the added speakers in the Atmos configuration?*


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> @kbarnes701 already did here


The movie is meh. The Atmos sound is terrific.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> Except that it's in neither Atmos nor DTS-X...so what you really want is DSU.





Scott Simonian said:


> It's not like they sell just DSU processors on their own...





stikle said:


> I'm aware of that. But since Bob didn't say "DSU" I wanted to just throw that out there.


I did not mention *DSU* becauze I waz azzuming that everyone here knew already that The Matriz trilogy on Blu iz only in Dolby TrueHD 5.1 zurround.

Nezt time I'll mention it in clearer termz. 

* But I bet that with *DSU* it muzt sound fabulouz. ...In particular the third one; 'Matriz Revolutionz'. 

Thankz for the "throw" by the way.


----------



## Kris Deering

So I'm not sure why whoever reviewed On Any Sunday The Next Chapter over at Blu-ray.com completely omitted this from the technical info but this IS a Dolby Atmos enabled Blu-ray. It says it clear as day in multiple places on the back cover for the soundtrack. So those looking for another Atmos Blu-ray, it was released today.


----------



## tjenkins95

Kris Deering said:


> So I'm not sure why whoever reviewed On Any Sunday The Next Chapter over at Blu-ray.com completely omitted this from the technical info but this IS a Dolby Atmos enabled Blu-ray. It says it clear as day in multiple places on the back cover for the soundtrack. So those looking for another Atmos Blu-ray, it was released today.


Yes, this blu-ray is also listed on blu-raystats.com as having a Dolby Atmos audio track. Looks like some of the footage may have been included in the original Dolby Atmos Demo Disc.


Ray


----------



## Kris Deering

Yes the trailer is on the Atmos demo disc. That is why I was surprised when the review came out that the soundtrack wasn't listed as Atmos. The movie hadn't even hit theaters when the demo disc came out.


----------



## tjenkins95

Kris Deering said:


> Yes the trailer is on the Atmos demo disc. That is why I was surprised when the review came out that the soundtrack wasn't listed as Atmos. The movie hadn't even hit theaters when the demo disc came out.


 


At lease at Cycle World they indicate it has an Atmos track:


..."The Blu-ray™ is encoded in Dolby TrueHD and features a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack remixed specifically for the home theater environment. Dolby Atmos* delivers captivating sound that places and moves audio anywhere in the room, including overhead, to bring entertainment alive all around the audience."


http://www.cycleworld.com/2015/01/15/on-any-sunday-the-next-chapter-to-be-released-on-dvd/ 


It's very strange that the Dolby web site doesn't even mention it!
It makes you wonder who's running the kitchen???


Ray


----------



## Kris Deering

I thought Keith was???


----------



## Montdj

Hey Hey everyone. Just got the Onkyo 1030 and the M-5010 going to run 7.1.4 in a small room Everything will be in by friday cant wait.
Oh and ordered John Wick after reading above going to be a fun weekend


----------



## Dan Hitchman

_Unbroken_ will be arriving on Blu with a Dolby Atmos track, the first for Universal.


----------



## bargervais

Montdj said:


> Hey Hey everyone. Just got the Onkyo 1030 and the M-5010 going to run 7.1.4 in a small room Everything will be in by friday cant wait.
> Oh and ordered John Wick after reading above going to be a fun weekend


Congratulations
You won't be disappointed I'm also using the Onkyo TX-NR 1030 and the M-5010 running 7.1.4 (.1 two Bic F12 subs) John Wick has very nice atoms mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I thought Keith was???


Cheeky... LOL...


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Unbroken_ will be arriving on Blu with a Dolby Atmos track, the first for Universal.


Looks like atoms is starting to trickle in a little faster. This is one I will most likely buy.


----------



## wraunch

Stopped by a local dealer today and discussed my need to upgrade my avr. I was fairly set on the Denon x5200 but he is trying to steer me to the Yamaha a4020. He said the 4020 is now Atmos capable due to the firmware upgrade it comes with. What do you guys think is the best Atmos AVR for $1500 or less?


----------



## funhouse69

wraunch said:


> Stopped by a local dealer today and discussed my need to upgrade my avr. I was fairly set on the Denon x5200 but he is trying to steer me to the Yamaha a4020. He said the 4020 is now Atmos capable due to the firmware upgrade it comes with. What do you guys think is the best Atmos AVR for $1500 or less?


This is really personal preference and subjective. I love Yamaha and even had some luck with various Sony AVR's over the years but when I upgraded I decided to give Denon a try and I am not disappointed at all and highly recommend them. 

Audyssey for me was one of the major selling points but some people will go with their own manual setup. Obviously Yamaha has their own version of it but still think that Denon has a little more to offer with their Dynamic EQ / Cinema EQ and MultES32 =)

So only you can compare the specs and say for sure.

EDIT - Give JD at AV Sciences a call and he can hook you up with a good deal on whichever direction you decide to go.


----------



## aaranddeeman

wraunch said:


> Stopped by a local dealer today and discussed my need to upgrade my avr. I was fairly set on the Denon x5200 but he is trying to steer me to the Yamaha a4020. He said the 4020 is now Atmos capable due to the firmware upgrade it comes with. What do you guys think is the best Atmos AVR for $1500 or less?


I believe you mean 2040. It is 9 channel only. But 5200 can be 11 channel after adding an external stereo amp.
Yamaha 3040 would be close to 5200


----------



## wraunch

Yeah the a2040, sorry about that. So are you saying the 2040 is akin to the x4100?


----------



## bad1550

Some Pics of installed Def Tech 6500's - Have not yet wired - How would I set up my X5200 Denon for Atmos based on this configuration? (Not the best pics)

Running Polks LSIMs for the 5.1.4 setup

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

wraunch said:


> Stopped by a local dealer today and discussed my need to upgrade my avr. I was fairly set on the Denon x5200 but he is trying to steer me to the Yamaha a4020. He said the 4020 is now Atmos capable due to the firmware upgrade it comes with. What do you guys think is the best Atmos AVR for $1500 or less?


I am a big fan of Yamaha and always have been. But I am a bigger fan still of Audyssey XT32. For me at least, that would make the choice the Denon. I have the X5200W and am totally happy with it.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

pretty sure its been mentioned but...

band of Brothers is OUTSTANDING use of DSU...all the flyovers and drops are just incredible with the immersion.

not to mention...THE best series/movie for wwII I have ever seen!


----------



## smurraybhm

bargervais said:


> Congratulations
> You won't be disappointed I'm also using the Onkyo TX-NR 1030 and the M-5010 running 7.1.4 (.1 two Bic F12 subs) John Wick has very nice atoms mix.


While we all know what you mean you need to add Atmos to your dictionary either on your phone and/or PC/Mac. Your posts for a while have been getting auto corrected for that word - Atoms all around.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> While we all know what you mean you need to add Atmos to your dictionary either on your phone and/or PC/Mac. Your posts for a while have been getting auto corrected for that word - Atoms all around.


Yes I'm sorry yes Atmos my tablet kept correcting my spelling I have added Atmos to dictionary.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> I hope "I, Frankenstein" is at least a good Atmos mix. I tried watching it on Netflix streaming the other week and it was unwatchably bad, even for late night mindless action movie fodder. It's rare that I can't actually sit through an entire movie, but this was so terrible I had to turn it off about 30 minutes in. It makes TMNT and TF4 look like Citizen Kane and The Godfather in comparison
> 
> If someone confirms that the Atmos mix is "demo worthy" with plenty of overhead action I could see picking it up for uber cheap just for some specific demo scenes to give the system a workout. But paying extra money to order it from Japan.... blech.


Well, it might just be me, but i liked this movie very much. Vampyre/zombie/demon movies in general is not my cup of tea, but i tought this one was well made. And yes it was cool in Atmos. The opening scene in the cementary is a exellent Atmos demo scene. And the soundtrack is very detalied, clear and dynamic trough the movie, with thunder scenes, lots of fireballs, and cool flying scenes.


----------



## tjenkins95

*Pioneer Dolby Atmos speaker review*

A most excellent review on currently the best Dolby Atmos enabled speaker system available: 


http://www.digitaltrends.com/speake...te-dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-system-review/

:kiss:


Ray


----------



## zebidou81

Any new Blu ray Uk releases due out yet, i have read Fury is getting a release in Atmos in the uk ?


----------



## mp5475

Does Anyone know if John Wick on redbox is atmos?


----------



## chi_guy50

mp5475 said:


> Does Anyone know if John Wick on redbox is atmos?


I just recently posted my disappointment about this:



chi_guy50 said:


> Just read @aaronwt's post in another thread confirming that the Netflix rental BRD only has the lossy DD audio (and Redbox as well per @jdsmoothie), so I'll skip subjecting myself to "John Wick." And the long wait to experience my first movie in HT Atmos continues unabated. *sigh*


----------



## batpig

bad1550 said:


> Some Pics of installed Def Tech 6500's - Have not yet wired - How would I set up my X5200 Denon for Atmos based on this configuration? (Not the best pics)
> 
> Running Polks LSIMs for the 5.1.4 setup
> 
> Thanks


FYI - for model specific setup questions (as opposed to general Atmos talk) you are better off posting in the owners thread. 

Anyway, setup is a no brainer because you are running 9 channels on a 9 ch receiver. No funky settings needed because you don't have to worry about pre out mapping. Just let the setup wizard walk you through it and run Audyssey.

If you configure it yourself just set amp assign to 9.1ch mode then tell it you have 4 height speakers and choose their designation. Then run Audyssey. Then enjoy


----------



## Scott Simonian

zebidou81 said:


> Any new Blu ray Uk releases due out yet, i have read Fury is getting a release in Atmos in the uk ?


Doubtful. Neither the theatrical nor home audio mix was done in Atmos. 5.1 only.


----------



## bad1550

Thanks Batpig!


----------



## mp5475

chi_guy50 said:


> I just recently posted my disappointment about this:


Thanks. That is disappointing. I will wait until it goes on sale than buy it.


----------



## billqs

Nalleh said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> I have posted this link before, but this is a global search on blu-ray.com for BD's with Atmos with links where to buy. Bookmark this link and it will update when new ones surface
> 
> 115 Atmos BD' worldwide as of today.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php?action=search&audio=Atmos&sortby=relevance


I'm in the US and when I pulled that up I got only US movies. I've seen Japanese movies before on blu-ray.com, that's how I found the Japanese I Frankenstein. Is there an easy way to get it allow worldwide searches?


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> So I'm not sure why whoever reviewed On Any Sunday The Next Chapter over at Blu-ray.com completely omitted this from the technical info but this IS a Dolby Atmos enabled Blu-ray.


Another AVS member and I got an invite to see this on the big screen at the Dolby screening room in Burbank. Well made documentary, with tight editing that kept me in suspense till the end. 

As for the Atmos mix: ironic that a documentary took more advantage of Atmos than many of the big studio features I've seen in the format. Surprised by the low price of the BD: http://amzn.com/B00S7L1EIG


----------



## billqs

chi_guy50 said:


> I just recently posted my disappointment about this:


I know Netflix has been getting "special" rental blu-rays for at least the last 2 years but they are getting worse and worse on what they let in there. Used to be movie only- no extras, but still had lossless sound. Next they took away lossless sound. Most recently I've seen films come in ~ 20gb in size which makes me wonder if they are giving these blu-rays extra heavy compression to fit on a single layer blu-ray disc.

I don't know if Netflix and Red Box get these rentals on the cheap, or if the studios refuse to sell the full blu-ray to them. It really does stink. If the average consumer wants to rent a film to see if he likes it and sees garbage, he's unlikely to go out and buy a copy because he thinks he'll get the same thing.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Another AVS member and I got an invite to see this on the big screen at the Dolby screening room in Burbank. Well made documentary, with tight editing that kept me in suspense till the end.
> 
> As for the Atmos mix: ironic that a documentary took more advantage of Atmos than many of the big studio features I've seen in the format. Surprised by the low price of the BD: http://amzn.com/B00S7L1EIG


I'm watching it with a friend over tonight. Obviously I don't have Atmos in my room yet but I'm looking forward to it. On Any Sunday was actually the first movie I ever saw as a child. My family was big into camping and motorcycles growing up. I got my first dirt bike in Kindergarten and I never went a day in my life after that without one until about 3 years ago when my middle daughter was born. Time has been too limited as of late but I hope to get back out there soon. I loved the trailer for this on the Dolby disc, sounds fantastic in my room, so I've been chomping at the bit to see it. It did have a VERY limited release in my area theatrically but not at any of the better theaters in my area that I typically seek out.


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Nalleh*  
_You're welcome._

_ I have posted this link before, but this is a global search on blu-ray.com for BD's with Atmos with links where to buy. Bookmark this link and it will update when new ones surface _

_ 115 Atmos BD' worldwide as of today._

_http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance_




billqs said:


> I'm in the US and when I pulled that up I got only US movies. I've seen Japanese movies before on blu-ray.com, that's how I found the Japanese I Frankenstein. Is there an easy way to get it allow worldwide searches?


 
One of the forum members keeps an up-to-date list of all Dolby Atmos blu-ray discs here:


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


Just save the link in your web browser.


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> On Any Sunday was actually the first movie I ever saw as a child. My family was big into camping and motorcycles growing up.


What I know about motorcycles could fit in a thimble. Despite that, the movie held my attention all the way through (got introduced to some very interesting personalities over the span of the story).


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Well, it might just be me, but i liked this movie very much. Vampyre/zombie/demon movies in general is not my cup of tea, but i tought this one was well made. And yes it was cool in Atmos. The opening scene in the cementary is a exellent Atmos demo scene. And the soundtrack is very detalied, clear and dynamic trough the movie, with thunder scenes, lots of fireballs, and cool flying scenes.


I actually like *Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter* too. (And usually I don't like historical dramas ) Sometimes I wonder if there is something wrong with me 

That reminds me to watch that movie again with DSU. Should be a good one.


----------



## tjenkins95

billqs said:


> I'm in the US and when I pulled that up I got only US movies. I've seen Japanese movies before on blu-ray.com, that's how I found the Japanese I Frankenstein. Is there an easy way to get it allow worldwide searches?





kbarnes701 said:


> I actually like *Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter* too. (And usually I don't like historical dramas ) Sometimes I wonder if there is something wrong with me
> 
> That reminds me to watch that movie again with DSU. Should be a good one.


 
I don't think there is anything wrong with you! It is one of my favorite films too. Also, I think the Lone Ranger is a great movie - soundtrack and cinematograpy is excellent. I have watched them both with the new DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> One of the forum members keeps an up-to-date list of all Dolby Atmos blu-ray discs here:
> 
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos
> 
> 
> Just save the link in your web browser.


Thanks for that. Just ordered* Transcendence* from Japan and *Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1* from Germany. This means I have 6 discs in my collection and another 6 on order, so I will do my targeted 12 well before Spring (as I predicted before)


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with you! It is one of my favorite films too. Also, I think the Lone Ranger is a great movie - soundtrack and cinematograpy is excellent. I have watched them both with the new DSU.


Yes, I liked *The Lone Ranger *too - not listened to it yet with DSU though. Maybe there's something wrong with both of us?


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I liked *The Lone Ranger *too - not listened to it yet with DSU though. Maybe there's something wrong with both of us?


I have low expectations for movies, so am generally entertained by "crap movies" (according to the general populace/reviewers). I meant to go see this in the theater, but never got around to it. I just ordered it and am looking forward to wasting a couple of hours.

I've had really good luck with ordering used BD from Amazon recently. I don't need brand new discs, as long as they aren't trashed. Half price is a good savings to me.


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> I actually like *Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter* too. (And usually I don't like historical dramas ) Sometimes I wonder if there is something wrong with me
> 
> That reminds me to watch that movie again with DSU. Should be a good one.


Just got that one in yesterday, haven't watched it yet, also The Replacements, and The Man From Nowhere in Blu-Ray, should make for some great DSU this weekend.

Will be watching Kingsman: The Secret Service in Atmos on Friday in the Cine Capri theatre


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> I have low expectations for movies, so am generally entertained by "crap movies" (according to the general populace/reviewers). I meant to go see this in the theater, but never got around to it. I just ordered it and am looking forward to wasting a couple of hours.
> 
> I've had really good luck with ordering used BD from Amazon recently. I don't need brand new discs, as long as they aren't trashed. Half price is a good savings to me.


Yes, I buy secondhand where possible too.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Will be watching Kingsman: The Secret Service in Atmos on Friday in the Cine Capri theatre


I am really looking forward to seeing that movie. The clips I have seen all look terrific.


----------



## scarabaeus

billqs said:


> I'm in the US and when I pulled that up I got only US movies. I've seen Japanese movies before on blu-ray.com, that's how I found the Japanese I Frankenstein. Is there an easy way to get it allow worldwide searches?


If you click on the USA flag next to the search box at the top of the page, and change it to the blue earth logo, you'll get worldwide releases once you reload the page.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am really looking forward to seeing that movie. The clips I have seen all look terrific.


Is it playing where you saw _'Planet of the Apes'_ in Atmos? (_'Kingsman'_ is an Atmos mix.)


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Is it playing where you saw _'Planet of the Apes'_ in Atmos? (_'Kingsman'_ is an Atmos mix.)


D'you know, thanks to the cr&p cinema website it is almost impossible to be sure. They give info on 3D, digital projection and stuff but not on Atmos, and you can't search by screen. If it is, it will be in their X-Plus auditorium, but there is no way I can find that info short of calling the cinema and asking (they usually don't answer the phone). I imagine it will be in their X-Plus room as that is the only one that has Atmos. It is a terrific venue, if only we could find out what was showing in it.

Edit: found it. No - they are showing the dire Jupiter Ascending in the Atmos room. Was that an Atmos movie? I see from IMDB that it was. Ho hum.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Edit: found it. No - they are showing the dire Jupiter Ascending in the Atmos room. Was that an Atmos movie?


No, I think that's an Auro exclusive for theatrical release. [EDIT: Dolby just added it to the Atmos list on their website.] 

I checked the X-Plus info and it looks like that auditorium transitions from _'Jupiter Ascending'_ to _'Fifty Shades of Grey'_ this Friday. What's the point of having an Atmos-equipped auditorium if you're not going to show the current Atmos release (Kingsman)?


----------



## lujan

billqs said:


> I know Netflix has been getting "special" rental blu-rays for at least the last 2 years but they are getting worse and worse on what they let in there. Used to be movie only- no extras, but still had lossless sound. Next they took away lossless sound. Most recently I've seen films come in ~ 20gb in size which makes me wonder if they are giving these blu-rays extra heavy compression to fit on a single layer blu-ray disc.
> 
> I don't know if Netflix and Red Box get these rentals on the cheap, or if the studios refuse to sell the full blu-ray to them. It really does stink. If the average consumer wants to rent a film to see if he likes it and sees garbage, he's unlikely to go out and buy a copy because he thinks he'll get the same thing.


I don't know about this all the time but know that I recently rented TMNT at Redbox and got the Atmos audio mix.


----------



## Nalleh

billqs said:


> I'm in the US and when I pulled that up I got only US movies. I've seen Japanese movies before on blu-ray.com, that's how I found the Japanese I Frankenstein. Is there an easy way to get it allow worldwide searches?





scarabaeus said:


> If you click on the USA flag next to the search box at the top of the page, and change it to the blue earth logo, you'll get worldwide releases once you reload the page.


What he said ^^


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I actually like *Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter* too. (And usually I don't like historical dramas ) Sometimes I wonder if there is something wrong with me
> 
> That reminds me to watch that movie again with DSU. Should be a good one.



Yes, i too loved that one, and Lone Ranger. Actually all three was not at all what i expected. I like it when a movie totally surprises you


----------



## marchewd

I bought four ceiling speakers for a 7.1.4 setup thinking I would be able to mount all four ceiling speakers. However, I do not have enough clearance to mount the ceiling speakers in the rear position. I will use ceiling speakers for the front two, but I need to purchase a set of up-firing speakers. The KEF R50's would be perfect, but I can't afford $1200 right now with the additional equipment I have already purchased. That leaves either the Definitive Technology ATMOS A-60 or the Atlantic Technology 44-DA-P. I am assuming the Onkyo SKH-410 speakers aren't very good, but maybe I am wrong. Does anyone have any experience with these speakers or have heard them side-by-side? Info seems to be very sparse.


----------



## Kris Deering

tjenkins95 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nalleh*
> _You're welcome._
> 
> _ I have posted this link before, but this is a global search on blu-ray.com for BD's with Atmos with links where to buy. Bookmark this link and it will update when new ones surface _
> 
> _ 115 Atmos BD' worldwide as of today._
> 
> _[URL]http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[URL="http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[/QUOTE"][/URL][URL="http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[/QUOTE"][/URL][/URL][URL="http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[/QUOTE"][/URL]_[URL="http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[/QUOTE"][/URL]http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[/QUOTE[URL="http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search...rtby=relevance[/QUOTE"][/QUOTE[/URL]]
> 
> Kind of a bit misleading here. I count 17 releases if you don't county every single version of the same film in the list. I don't think padding numbers by counting 20 different releases of TF4 around the world is a good argument for making the worldwide count of 115 Atmos BDs.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Cool man, you're going to enjoy the ride with John Wick, and the music in it too.
> 
> * You are Canadian, living in the East?
> 
> By the way, speaking of The Matrix; I'll have to revisit that trilogy sometimes...when I get my new Atmos/dts:x toy.



Matrix is one of my favorites as well , I can't count how many times I've watched the movies especially the original. And yes, Canadian furthest East you can go , Bob East .


I enjoyed John Wick, not as good as I had expected though. The Atmos mix was great too, again not as good as I was expecting . Some times I need to watch a movie
a couple of times before I can really determine how I feel overall. First time around I'm usually focused on the story and characters, details often are missed. I know one
thing, I'll be doing a body count next time around.


----------



## bsoko2

tjenkins95 said:


> A most excellent review on currently the best Dolby Atmos enabled speaker system available:
> 
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/speake...te-dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-system-review/
> 
> :kiss:
> 
> 
> Ray


You mean "best store bought system"! I put together my own Atmos system and I think I have the best.


----------



## bsoko2

chi_guy50 said:


> Just read @aaronwt's post in another thread confirming that the Netflix rental BRD only has the lossy DD audio (and Redbox as well per @[URL="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/member.php?u=7847949"]jdsmoothie), so I'll skip subjecting myself to "John Wick." And the long wait to experience my first movie in HT Atmos continues unabated. *sigh*



That is the problem with rental movies, you don't always get what you think you are getting. I got J. Wick with Atmos (Amazon) and it is good. Rental movie places get movies that are basic and most times just 5.1 Dolby. Rental discs that are cheap to produce for the rental market with no extras.[/URL]


----------



## roxiedog13

marchewd said:


> I bought four ceiling speakers for a 7.1.4 setup thinking I would be able to mount all four ceiling speakers. However, I do not have enough clearance to mount the ceiling speakers in the rear position. I will use ceiling speakers for the front two, but I need to purchase a set of up-firing speakers. The KEF R50's would be perfect, but I can't afford $1200 right now with the additional equipment I have already purchased. That leaves either the Definitive Technology ATMOS A-60 or the Atlantic Technology 44-DA-P. I am assuming the Onkyo SKH-410 speakers aren't very good, but maybe I am wrong. Does anyone have any experience with these speakers or have heard them side-by-side? Info seems to be very sparse.



They (Onkyo) work as good as any within the price point , I tried them for my fronts and they did a great job. I did have to move them closer to the MLP to find the best sweet spot but that was mainly because I had a lower than recommended ceiling. I replaced them with in-ceiling which for me was much neater , sound wise not a huge difference.


I still have mine for sale if you decide to go with the Onkyo, only used them a couple of hours, bought last month . I'll do a good deal, I need to have them gone.


----------



## dvdwilly3

marchewd said:


> I bought four ceiling speakers for a 7.1.4 setup thinking I would be able to mount all four ceiling speakers. However, I do not have enough clearance to mount the ceiling speakers in the rear position. I will use ceiling speakers for the front two, but I need to purchase a set of up-firing speakers. The KEF R50's would be perfect, but I can't afford $1200 right now with the additional equipment I have already purchased. That leaves either the Definitive Technology ATMOS A-60 or the Atlantic Technology 44-DA-P. I am assuming the Onkyo SKH-410 speakers aren't very good, but maybe I am wrong. Does anyone have any experience with these speakers or have heard them side-by-side? Info seems to be very sparse.


If you want true Dolby Atmos-enabled, I would go with the DA-44s. I had the A-60s and was not happy with them.
Instead I mounted Supersat 3s on top of my 8060 towers and run them as Top Front. They work like a champ.
You need to recognize (you may already) that if you run the DA-44 (or other Dolby Atmos-enabled) and run them with the receiver set to Dolby Atmos-enabled that you will not get a full-range signal from that speaker.
I even tried the Supersats with Dolby-enabled setting on my Onkyo TX-NR737 and you can easily tell the difference.
If you can try a non-Dolby-enabled speaker, as a "fake" Dolby-enabled speaker, you should.


----------



## kuro6010

For those that want feedback on the Atlantic Technology 44DA, I have all four 7.1.4. They sound phenomenal. Totally recomend them


----------



## marchewd

dvdwilly3 said:


> If you want true Dolby Atmos-enabled, I would go with the DA-44s. I had the A-60s and was not happy with them.
> Instead I mounted Supersat 3s on top of my 8060 towers and run them as Top Front. They work like a champ.
> You need to recognize (you may already) that if you run the DA-44 (or other Dolby Atmos-enabled) and run them with the receiver set to Dolby Atmos-enabled that you will not get a full-range signal from that speaker.
> I even tried the Supersats with Dolby-enabled setting on my Onkyo TX-NR737 and you can easily tell the difference.
> If you can try a non-Dolby-enabled speaker, as a "fake" Dolby-enabled speaker, you should.


Thanks for the info. I am going to get a Marantz AV8802 shortly, so I am just getting everything ready for that purchase. I just figured the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers would be better. However, I am open to suggestions. They will be for the back surrounds. Do they have a Top Back setting? I was really bummed I couldn't just put the in ceiling speakers I bought up, but I only have 3" clearance between the ceiling and roof deck at the back of the room unfortunately.


----------



## kuro6010

Atlantcic Tech 44DA's rock.


----------



## chi_guy50

bsoko2 said:


> *That is the problem with rental movies, you don't always get what you think you are getting.* I got J. Wick with Atmos (Amazon) and it is good. Rental movie places get movies that are basic and most times just 5.1 Dolby. Rental discs that are cheap to produce for the rental market with no extras.


But Netflix normally has the audio codec for both DVD and BRD displayed on their movie info page so that you can anticipate what you will be getting. However, it seems anytime a disk is subject to an audio downgrade Netflix just conveniently omits the codec info. Reed Hastings is one of my least favorite corporate CEO's (and that's saying a lot), so I'll just lay the blame at his doorstep.

But I'm actually hoping this is just an isolated (viz. unique to Lionsgate Studio) or temporary development. Atmos releases aside (of which I have yet to watch any), I don't recall ever getting a BRD from Netflix that didn't have the HD codec of the retail disk.


----------



## SoundJunky

I'm finally ready to install two pairs of Tannoy Di5DC. I placed an order last night, but just received a voicemail from markertek informing me that the black Di5DC are backordered until the end of march.  Does anyone know of someone who might have these in stock?


----------



## yuxmyyg

How to enable and disable DSU on Onkyo 636 receiver ? Just Select listening mode to Dolby Surround or something else ?


----------



## wse

SoundJunky said:


> I'm finally ready to install two pairs of Tannoy Di5DC. I placed an order last night, but just received a voicemail from markertek informing me that the black Di5DC are backordered until the end of march.  Does anyone know of someone who might have these in stock?


They might!

http://www.fullcompass.com/product/352021.html

http://www.proaudiosolutions.com/Tannoy-DI5-DC-White-Wall-Mount-Speaker-p/di5dc-white.htm


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that. Just ordered* Transcendence* from Japan and *Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1* from Germany. This means I have 6 discs in my collection and another 6 on order, so I will do my targeted 12 well before Spring (as I predicted before)


Why order the german version? The USA version has 14 days earlier release!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/119318/


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Why order the german version? The USA version has 14 days earlier release!
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/119318/


Yes but the UK releases are always/usually well behind the US releases. The German release is probably at a similar time to the UK release though - but the price is the same from Germany anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No, I think that's an Auro exclusive for theatrical release. [EDIT: Dolby just added it to the Atmos list on their website.]
> 
> I checked the X-Plus info and it looks like that auditorium transitions from _'Jupiter Ascending'_ to _'Fifty Shades of Grey'_ this Friday. What's the point of having an Atmos-equipped auditorium if you're not going to show the current Atmos release (Kingsman)?


Quite. Got a link to where you found this info? Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Got a link to where you found this info?


The list of Atmos movies (e.g., Jupiter Ascending) was from the Dolby website: 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html

Movies playing in X-Plus at Showcase Cinemas was from the Showcase Cinemas website: 
http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/lo...ebsite&utm_medium=SmallMpu&utm_campaign=XPlus


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The list of Atmos movies (e.g., Jupiter Ascending) was from the Dolby website:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html
> 
> Movies playing in X-Plus at Showcase Cinemas was from the Showcase Cinemas website:
> http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/lo...ebsite&utm_medium=SmallMpu&utm_campaign=XPlus


Thanks!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> The list of Atmos movies (e.g., Jupiter Ascending) was from the Dolby website:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html
> 
> Movies playing in X-Plus at Showcase Cinemas was from the Showcase Cinemas website:
> http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/lo...ebsite&utm_medium=SmallMpu&utm_campaign=XPlus


A lot more Atmos titles on that list since the last time I looked at it.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> A lot more Atmos titles on that list since the last time I looked at it.


They don't do as good a job of maintaining that list as I wish they would. For example, they put Jupiter Ascending on that list almost a week after it was released. Of course, studios aren't required to tell Dolby which movies are being released in Atmos, so not surprising that the Dolby list misses a few.


----------



## batpig

marchewd said:


> I bought four ceiling speakers for a 7.1.4 setup thinking I would be able to mount all four ceiling speakers. However, I do not have enough clearance to mount the ceiling speakers in the rear position. I will use ceiling speakers for the front two, but I need to purchase a set of up-firing speakers. The KEF R50's would be perfect, but I can't afford $1200 right now with the additional equipment I have already purchased. That leaves either the Definitive Technology ATMOS A-60 or the Atlantic Technology 44-DA-P. I am assuming the Onkyo SKH-410 speakers aren't very good, but maybe I am wrong. Does anyone have any experience with these speakers or have heard them side-by-side? Info seems to be very sparse.


As others have mentioned, avoid the Def Techs. They are pretty awful speakers -- I owned them for a while and found them underwhelming and much preferred just pointing a pair of small KEF "egg" satellites at the ceiling instead. 

The Atlantic Techs are much better quality based on the specs and reviews here. The Onkyos are the way to go if you want to keep it super cheap -- the ONLY reason to get the Def Techs is if you HAVE TO mount them on top of a pair of 8060-STs.



marchewd said:


> Thanks for the info. I am going to get a Marantz AV8802 shortly, so I am just getting everything ready for that purchase. I just figured the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers would be better. However, I am open to suggestions. They will be for the back surrounds. Do they have a Top Back setting? I was really bummed I couldn't just put the in ceiling speakers I bought up, but I only have 3" clearance between the ceiling and roof deck at the back of the room unfortunately.


The setting will be "Using Dolby Enabled Speakers" and then select "Top Front + Back Dolby" for the specific designation. You need to tell the processer they are up-firing modules so it will utilize the correct processing.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes but the UK releases are always/usually well behind the US releases. The German release is probably at a similar time to the UK release though - but the price is the same from Germany anyway.


My point exactly! USA is always releasing a couple of weeks before UK/DE, and the price is almost the same. So you should get it sooner from USA.


----------



## Jive Turkey

mp5475 said:


> Does Anyone know if John Wick on redbox is atmos?


Lionsgate doesn't put Atmos on rental copies. Forces you to buy the disc if you want to hear the Atmos mix.


----------



## NorthSky

Jive Turkey said:


> Lionsgate doesn't put Atmos on rental copies. Forces you to buy the disc if you want to hear the Atmos mix.


And when you buy their Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles, if you have an Oppo BDP-83 and BDP-93 Blu-ray players ... be ready for some audio dropouts.


----------



## Jive Turkey

NorthSky said:


> And when you buy their Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles, if you have an Oppo BDP-83 and BDP-93 Blu-ray players ... be ready for some audio dropouts.


I have an 83, but it's only been used in my music only system for a long time now. Quite the music maker. 

I did have to hook it up with the movie system to play "Fury". For some reason my much cheaper, but thoroughly capable Panasonic Bluray player had video dropouts. First time a disc didn't perform in that player.


----------



## funhouse69

So I bought Expendables 3 off e-bay only to get it and find out that it wasn't the retail version (no Atmos) I am still not sure how that was accomplished so I ended up buying it from Amazon when they had it on sale for $10. I just got it and started playing it, in the first 5 minutes you can hear the difference / the Atmos effects are awesome!!! Now the movie itself well that is another story :=P

Its been kind of fun going back and forth between the two versions even with / without DSU.


----------



## deano86

NorthSky said:


> And when you buy their Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles, if you have an Oppo BDP-83 and BDP-93 Blu-ray players ... be ready for some audio dropouts.


Other manufacturers players from a few years ago as well... I have been using a Sony BDP-770 for a few years now (Sony's upper tier player from about 4 model series ago) and it has been flawless, except it would "hiccup" when bitstreaming the Dolby True HD seamless branching titles... going back to the Toy Story titles, Total Recall(2012), etc... 

And of course now, when I tried to play Expendables 3, for the Atmos soundtrack, the dropouts drove me crazy....it even just plain dropped all audio until I had to stop the disc at one point. Even Transformers Age of Extinction had slight problems... not with dropouts, but with intermittent slight lip sync issues at certain parts of the movie...

So, I just picked up a Sony 6200, and it plays both titles perfectly... The newer blu ray players have the proper processing chip?... that can handle the Dolby True HD seamless branching titles it would seem...

It's too bad, as I liked my old player, but definitely something that gets lost in the Atmos equipment upgrade requirements....it seems we were promised that as long as your blu ray player was capable of bitstreaming, that it was fine for Atmos playback... I guess they forgot to mention that your player also has to be "new" enough to handle the True HD seamless branching titles as well!


----------



## wse

Or you could try these 

http://www.proacousticsusa.com/productdetail.php?pId=23976


----------



## SoundJunky

wse said:


> They might!
> 
> http://www.fullcompass.com/product/352021.html
> 
> http://www.proaudiosolutions.com/Tannoy-DI5-DC-White-Wall-Mount-Speaker-p/di5dc-white.htm


Thank you. I actually called both of them earlier today and neither have them in stock.

Any suggestions for another on-ceiling speaker for atmos duty?


----------



## NorthSky

Jive Turkey said:


> I have an 83, but it's only been used in my music only system for a long time now. Quite the music maker.
> 
> I did have to hook it up with the movie system to play "Fury". For some reason my much cheaper, but thoroughly capable Panasonic Bluray player had video dropouts. First time a disc didn't perform in that player.


♦ My Panasonic BD player (BD55) from few years died on me after only 12 months and one day (just after the warranty period).
@ the time I paid about $450 (with tax) for it; in Canadian dollars. ...Total caput, laser mechanism went out of alignment, a quality control issue from Panasonic. I lost my entire investment. I should have bought an Oppo 83 for only few dollars more; I was ignorant. 



deano86 said:


> Other manufacturers players from a few years ago as well... I have been using a Sony BDP-770 for a few years now (Sony's upper tier player from about 4 model series ago) and it has been flawless, except it would "hiccup" when bitstreaming the Dolby True HD seamless branching titles... going back to the Toy Story titles, Total Recall(2012), etc...
> 
> And of course now, when I tried to play Expendables 3, for the Atmos soundtrack, the dropouts drove me crazy....it even just plain dropped all audio until I had to stop the disc at one point. Even Transformers Age of Extinction had slight problems... not with dropouts, but with intermittent slight lip sync issues at certain parts of the movie...
> 
> So, I just picked up a Sony 6200, and it plays both titles perfectly... The newer blu ray players have the proper processing chip?... that can handle the Dolby True HD seamless branching titles it would seem...
> 
> It's too bad, as I liked my old player, but definitely something that gets lost in the Atmos equipment upgrade requirements....it seems we were promised that as long as your blu ray player was capable of bitstreaming, that it was fine for Atmos playback... I guess they forgot to mention that your player also has to be "new" enough to handle the True HD seamless branching titles as well!


♦ I too have the Sony 770 but I don't use it much @ all; it's old and deja vu. My Oppo 103 took over it and over all my other ones. 
It's like I had to purchase ten Blu-ray players, and spend over four thousand dollars before I can get a good one...the Oppo 103.
We learn with audio/video electronics the expensive way. 

I'm big on movies (strictly Blu-rays now), and music too (CDs, SACDs, BDs, and LPs from yesterday); I now have few Dolby Atmos titles, and no Atmos pre/pro yet. Someday they're will be enough BD Dolby Atmos titles to make us all discretely happy; I am a very patient person. 
I'm good, with everything and nothing. What counts is that everyone is happy, no matter what and where and how. 
The youngest ones, the newborns are our future. And they are everywhere on our planet, in its four corners. 

That's the movie I truly want to see. ...In Dolby Atmos, all around me.


----------



## NorthSky

You know what; we have read a while back that Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles would play in all BD players. ...They just made a mistake; they didn't know before they said it.

Now Dolby knows. 

And Lionsgate must know it too.


----------



## Alanlee

*Oppo 103*



NorthSky said:


> ♦ My Panasonic BD player (BD55) from few years died on me after only 12 months and one day (just after the warranty period).
> @ the time I paid about $450 (with tax) for it; in Canadian dollars. ...Total caput, laser mechanism went out of alignment, a quality control issue from Panasonic. I lost my entire investment. I should have bought an Oppo 83 for only few dollars more; I was ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ I too have the Sony 770 but I don't use it much @ all; it's old and deja vu. My Oppo 103 took over it and over all my other ones.
> It's like I had to purchase ten Blu-ray players, and spend over four thousand dollars before I can get a good one...the Oppo 103.
> We learn with audio/video electronics the expensive way.
> 
> I'm big on movies (strictly Blu-rays now), and music too (CDs, SACDs, BDs, and LPs from yesterday); I now have few Dolby Atmos titles, and no Atmos pre/pro yet. Someday they're will be enough BD Dolby Atmos titles to make us all discretely happy; I am a very patient person.
> I'm good, with everything and nothing. What counts is that everyone is happy, no matter what and where and how.
> The youngest ones, the newborns are our future. And they are everywhere on our planet, in its four corners.
> 
> That's the movie I truly want to see. ...In Dolby Atmos, all around me.


 
It never quits with this equipment. I also have an Oppo 103 which I greatly admire. However I recently purchased a 4K TV, and realized the Oppo would not pass the 4K image. It does do a great job of creating a 1080P image from the 4K stuff I am watching on Netflix and Utube. My TV has become my video switcher so I am getting a 4K image through the smart tv, and on the audio side the people at Oppo tell me that the 103 will pass a bit map through to a device which can decode Atmos. So now we need some upgrades from Oppo.


----------



## Sony4k

Can somebody recommend a good In ceiling speaker for atmos ?


----------



## NorthSky

Alanlee said:


> It never quits with this equipment. I also have an Oppo 103 which I greatly admire. However I recently purchased a 4K TV, and realized the Oppo would not pass the 4K image. It does do a great job of creating a 1080P image from the 4K stuff I am watching on Netflix and Utube. My TV has become my video switcher so I am getting a 4K image through the smart tv, and on the audio side the people at Oppo tell me that the 103 will pass a bit map through to a device which can decode Atmos. So now we need some upgrades from Oppo.


Funny what you just mentioned. ...Because in another thread I was just reading about another member (Ray from Canada) who also has the Oppo 103 BD player, and could not play two Lionsgate Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles without having lip sync issues. ...'John Wick' and 'The Expendables 3'.
* His HDMI Audio Out setting is 'Bitstream'. 

He'll have to set it @ LPCM, but no more boom-boom for him (Dolby Atmos audio). 

It don't matter right now as he has the Marantz AV8801 pre/pro, but it will when he gets the AV8802. 


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> Post number 110

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> Post number 136

* Read them all posts between number 110 and 137 (included), so that you get more familiar with the full picture here.


----------



## NorthSky

It makes me reconsider Lionsgate Blu-Ray Dolby Atmos titles. ...Something has to be done about this; they need to know...I should email their headquarters in Santa Monica, California.


----------



## gerchy

I watched couple of movies and they sounded very cool on DSU:
- Into the Storm
- How to Train Your Dragon II
- Oblivion (very good mix overall, at least to my standards)

Dynamic EQ in some cases enhances height effects too.

I was dissapointed when watching Dracula Untold. Sounded not too clean and not much height activity.


----------



## Steve Goff

SoundJunky said:


> Thank you. I actually called both of them earlier today and neither have them in stock.
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions for another on-ceiling speaker for atmos duty?



Have you tried Markertek?


----------



## Minge

Sony4k said:


> Can somebody recommend a good In ceiling speaker for atmos ?


Goldenear htr series


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> It makes me reconsider Lionsgate Blu-Ray Dolby Atmos titles. ...Something has to be done about this; they need to know...I should email their headquarters in Santa Monica, California.


I don't have an issue... my Panasonic DMP-BDT220 3D Blu-ray Players I have two they both play anything.
Why do you think it's Lionsgate mine plays them flawlessly....can't wait for Mocking Jay with Atmos and John Wick is a great Atmos mix to use as an Atmos demo to friends and family...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

my oppo 103 has zero issues..


----------



## tjenkins95

Nalleh said:


> My point exactly! USA is always releasing a couple of weeks before UK/DE, and the price is almost the same. So you should get it sooner from USA.


How long does it normally take to receive your order from the USA? If I order from the UK, France, Germany, or Norway it takes about 10 days - sometimes up to 15 days - before I receive my package. Someone told me that the packages get hung up at the Customs Office. If I order from Japan it only takes 4 days - and their blu-ray cases are very sturdy.
Hong Kong is only a week. 


Ray


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Funny what you just mentioned. ...Because in another thread I was just reading about another member (Ray from Canada) who also has the Oppo 103 BD player, and could not play two Lionsgate Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles without having lip sync issues. ...'John Wick' and 'The Expendables 3'.
> * His HDMI Audio Out setting is 'Bitstream'.
> 
> He'll have to set it @ LPCM, but no more boom-boom for him (Dolby Atmos audio).
> 
> It don't matter right now as he has the Marantz AV8801 pre/pro, but it will when he gets the AV8802.
> 
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> Post number 110
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> Post number 136
> 
> * Read them all posts between number 110 and 137 (included), so that you get more familiar with the full picture here.


I have the Oppo 103 and also watched John Wick with the Atmos audio track and didn't have any lip sync issues so it must be another problem?


----------



## SoundJunky

Steve Goff said:


> Have you tried Markertek?


Yes, I have an order placed with them, but they can't fil it until the end of March. They have white in stock. I wonder if I could paint them.


----------



## roxiedog13

funhouse69 said:


> So I bought Expendables 3 off e-bay only to get it and find out that it wasn't the retail version (no Atmos) I am still not sure how that was accomplished so I ended up buying it from Amazon when they had it on sale for $10. I just got it and started playing it, in the first 5 minutes you can hear the difference / the Atmos effects are awesome!!! Now the movie itself well that is another story :=P
> 
> Its been kind of fun going back and forth between the two versions even with / without DSU.


Interesting, I must have a look at my version of this movie to make sure it is the Atmos version. My movies come from Amazon on-line, Walmart or Target locally. I have never considered the Atmos to be all that great, maybe it isn't Atmos.  Same with TMNT and TF4 also , will have to check those too. In fact, the movies that I like the sound track on most are non Atmos, running DSU only.


----------



## tjenkins95

bsoko2 said:


> You mean "best store bought system"! I put together my own Atmos system and I think I have the best.


 
I was referring to the fact that the new Andrew Jones Pioneer speakers can be bought as a complete package.
Unless you make your own speakers, don't all speakers come from a store?
And I think that I have the best system.


----------



## Kris Deering

Sony4k said:


> Can somebody recommend a good In ceiling speaker for atmos ?


Golden Ear HTR-7000

Although most of the Invisa series would work great.


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Funny what you just mentioned. ...Because in another thread I was just reading about another member (Ray from Canada) who also has the Oppo 103 BD player, and could not play two Lionsgate Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles without having lip sync issues. ...'John Wick' and 'The Expendables 3'.
> * His HDMI Audio Out setting is 'Bitstream'.
> 
> He'll have to set it @ LPCM, but no more boom-boom for him (Dolby Atmos audio).
> 
> It don't matter right now as he has the Marantz AV8801 pre/pro, but it will when he gets the AV8802.
> 
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> Post number 110
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> Post number 136
> 
> * Read them all posts between number 110 and 137 (included), so that you get more familiar with the full picture here.


I have a 103D and have played all of those movies with no issues at all.


----------



## deano86

The audio dropouts or audio sync issues are not necessarily caused by Lionsgate titles themselves.....it is an update made a few years ago?... called seamless branching... from my understanding, it is used obviously for having 2 versions of a movie on the same disc and to "seamlessly" integrate the extended footage with the old and such. 

But, in addition on some discs, it is put on there just to mess with disc copying methods... making the player jump around to the next section to continue playback. Supposedly, Disney titles are known for this... But, this causes issues if the player's buffer or processing isn't quite up to snuff to "keep" up so to speak....from what I have read anyway.. 

And for some reason, this issue is compounded on Dolby True HD soundtracks... Example: the Total Recall movie from 2012 was notorious for this and a lot of people were forced to switch to PCM to eliminate the dropouts... The Oppos prior to the 103 and 105 series used a different processing chip (as with many other manufacturers) which just can't handle the seamless branching in the bitstream format without having some interruptions in the stream... 

At any rate, thats what I gleaned from other forums...


----------



## Nalleh

tjenkins95 said:


> How long does it normally take to receive your order from the USA? If I order from the UK, France, Germany, or Norway it takes about 10 days - sometimes up to 15 days - before I receive my package. Someone told me that the packages get hung up at the Customs Office. If I order from Japan it only takes 4 days - and their blu-ray cases are very sturdy.
> Hong Kong is only a week.
> 
> 
> Ray


It's about the same ordering from USA to Norway too. And yes, the customs office can take a couple of days here also.
4 days from Japan for me too, but it is a more expensive shipping alternative.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundJunky said:


> Yes, I have an order placed with them, but they can't fil it until the end of March. They have white in stock. I wonder if I could paint them.


I believe their white speaker is indeed paintable.


----------



## Al Sherwood

pasender91 said:


> I am in principle against douple-dipping, but i could do an exception if the Matrix trilogy gets re-edited in an Atmos version !!!!



Heck double dipping! I have so many copies of this trilogy that I had to build an extra shelf in the HT room, some are still in the shrink wrap!


----------



## groundtrac

Very happy to see this published from SVS today: http://www.svsound.com/t/intro-to-atmos?utm_source=SVS+Newsletter&utm_campaign=596ba0d634-Newsletter_February_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_932c6e125c-596ba0d634-79566461
I am hoping that Dolby might listen to an average consumer-on-a-budget who is unwilling or unable to add speakers to their ceiling or buy "special dolby atmos enabled" speakers (which is nothing but a HUGE marketing ploy IMO) to still be able to partake of the Dolby Atmos goodness. Bravo to SVS for stepping up and offering another, albeit non-endorsed, idea that can work for Dolby Atmos. I hope Dolby is listening (plug intended). I have dialed in some upfiring modules on an 8.5 foot ceiling and I can get a sweet spot in a couple listening positions but it changes drastically across other listening positions. My next step was to try height mounted speakers and see if it makes a difference.

Is anyone running this configuration that wouldn't mind admitting it and telling us their experience?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Very glad to hear the news that Unbroken will get the Atmos BD release, it didn't come out in Atmos in the local theaters here. Looks like the floodgates are finally opening?


----------



## Kain

Jurassic World won't have an Atmos track? It's not on the list of Atmos movies on the Dolby website.


----------



## htpcforever

Al Sherwood said:


> Heck double dipping! I have so many copies of this trilogy that I had to build an extra shelf in the HT room, some are still in the shrink wrap!


I prefer the Harmy Despecialized Editions. They are the original editions but cleaned up and turned HD. Fan preservations, so they are legal provided no money changes hands. I refuse to buy the Magenta Edition (the official blurays slathered everything in magenta) of any of his movies...


----------



## WayneJoy

Kain said:


> Jurassic World won't have an Atmos track? It's not on the list of Atmos movies on the Dolby website.


 It's probably a bit early for it to be on the list, it doesn't come out for another 4 months.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I don't have an issue... my Panasonic DMP-BDT220 3D Blu-ray Players I have two they both play anything.
> Why do you think it's Lionsgate mine plays them flawlessly....can't wait for Mocking Jay with Atmos and John Wick is a great Atmos mix to use as an Atmos demo to friends and family...


Seamless Audio Branching used for Dolby Atmos encoding. And Lionsgate is the studio right now with their three Blu-ray titles encoded with Dolby Atmos from which many people are experiencing audio dropout issues and lip sync issues.

1. Step Up All In
2. The Expendables 3
3. John Wick

* It happened with some Sony BD player models, with the Oppo 83, 93, and now one member reported issues with his 103; using a Marantz 8801 pre/pro.
I am sure that there are other BD player brands and models that are having audio dropout issues.

I don't make this up; I read a lot, and I report my findings from those readings, right here in the official Dolby Atmos thread.

Also, some people are more sensitive than others @ detecting those small issues. Even me I can miss them when not looking for them.
But now that this issue is more and more reported with more BD players; I'll have to pay more attention. ...And that, is all there is.

...All she ever wrote.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

WayneJoy said:


> It's probably a bit early for it to be on the list, it doesn't come out for another 4 months.


Sound probably hasn't even been mixed yet. Are they in post production yet?


----------



## pasender91

groundtrac said:


> Very happy to see this published from SVS today: http://www.svsound.com/t/intro-to-atmos?utm_source=SVS+Newsletter&utm_campaign=596ba0d634-Newsletter_February_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_932c6e125c-596ba0d634-79566461
> I am hoping that Dolby might listen to an average consumer-on-a-budget who is unwilling or unable to add speakers to their ceiling or buy "special dolby atmos enabled" speakers (which is nothing but a HUGE marketing ploy IMO) to still be able to partake of the Dolby Atmos goodness. Bravo to SVS for stepping up and offering another, albeit non-endorsed, idea that can work for Dolby Atmos. I hope Dolby is listening (plug intended). I have dialed in some upfiring modules on an 8.5 foot ceiling and I can get a sweet spot in a couple listening positions but it changes drastically across other listening positions. My next step was to try height mounted speakers and see if it makes a difference.
> 
> Is anyone running this configuration that wouldn't mind admitting it and telling us their experience?


Well, i am a bit surprised !
The article is wrong when it states that this configuration is not "endorsed" by dolby.
What they describe is 2 front speakers mounted high on the front wall and 2 mounted high on the back wall.
*This is 100% supported by Atmos, it is a FH+RH configuration*, which appears as valid and described in the Dolby installation guidelines.
I am using this exact configuration at home, my .4 speakers are mounted as high as i could on front and back walls.
My Marantz 7009 has no problem with that, as FH+RH is a supported configuration.
The result i get on DSU and Atmos is very good to my ears, i can't compare to other Atmos Home Theaters, but to me it sounds very good indeed.

This configuration, as SVS outlines and they agree with me , has several big advantages:
1) wall-mounted speakers, so much more easier to install, and no wires to run in the ceiling.
2) direct sound, for a better result than reflected sound.
3) ability to use any kind of good bookshelf speaker of any brand, that could easily outclass both ceiling speakers and Atmos modules, and for a lower budget.


----------



## David Susilo

Also the article only mentioned x.x.4 configuration as the maximum configuration. WTF? I've installed a couple HT with 5.2.6 using Pioneer SC-89 as a pre-pro.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I have a 103D and have played all of those movies with no issues at all.


Same here Kris; I have the 103 (without the D). 

* It is not easy with HDMI handshake's compatibility between various BD players, AV receivers, SSPs, and HDTVs (front projectors). 
The order in which you power each component and all your settings in your BD player can affect those newer Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray titles.
It is not all pink (stitched well together) with that new seamless audio branching for both Dolby Atmos with its core Dolby TrueHD audio.

Dolby said before that any BD player will play those new Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks. And if you don't have a Dolby Atmos decoder in your machine it will simply automatically revert to its core audio (DTHD) through seamless audio branching.

Well, it is not "branching" all nicely right now with several BD players. 

That is very nice for people like most of us who have an Oppo 103/D and 105/D and who don't have any issue.
But for the minority of people who don't have a Blu-ray player that cannot handle this new "seamless branching" from Dolby Atmos audio encoding;
that is a problem. And that 'minority' includes people who have some Sony BD player models, Oppo 83 and 93 BD player models (I assume the 95 as well), and other BD players too that right not I can't remember. 

I am certain that many BD players don't have enough processing power to circumvent that "seamless audio branching" from those Dolby Atmos Blu-ray releases. Not everyone here is buying those Blu-rays, and I don't blame them as those flicks are not the 'hallelujah' of the best crop of great films on the planet. The people who buy them on Blu are the ones who want to hear the Dolby Atmos sound, and big fans of Dance music, an aged Sylvester with his old gang of action actors, and fans of Keanu (The Matrix); now being the heavy shooter instead of dodging the multitude of bullets like yesteryears. 

But 'John Wick' on Blu-ray is popular enough to have a good average dose of feedback from more members here.

Yes, happy us owners of the 103 and 105 (+ the D), except for one (so far), and unhappy us owners of the 83, 93, Sony 570 and 770 and other BD players that don't have what it takes to deal with that new 'seamless branching' audio from Dolby Atmos encoding. 

And for me, in my book, that is a very important issue; even if personally I am not affected; ...my many friends are. ...And I care for all my friends.
It's just the way I am and always have been; I care for everyone.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Well, i am a bit surprised !
> The article is wrong when it states that this configuration is not "endorsed" by dolby.
> What they describe is 2 front speakers mounted high on the front wall and 2 mounted high on the back wall.
> *This is 100% supported by Atmos, it is a FH+RH configuration*, which appears as valid and described in the Dolby installation guidelines.
> I am using this exact configuration at home, my .4 speakers are mounted as high as i could on front and back walls.
> My Marantz 7009 has no problem with that, as FH+RH is a supported configuration.
> The result i get on DSU and Atmos is very good to my ears, i can't compare to other Atmos Home Theaters, but to me it sounds very good indeed.
> 
> This configuration, as SVS outlines and they agree with me , has several big advantages:
> 1) wall-mounted speakers, so much more easier to install, and no wires to run in the ceiling.
> 2) direct sound, for a better result than reflected sound.
> 3) ability to use any kind of good bookshelf speaker of any brand, that could easily outclass both ceiling speakers and Atmos modules, and for a lower budget.


But is it the *Optimal* performance? ...Easier for many to install yes, if they don't mind an inferior sound experience yes that too.

* SVS is into "selling" their products.


----------



## Scott Simonian

David Susilo said:


> I've installed a couple HT with 5.2.*6* using Pioneer SC-89 as a pre-pro.



Wait, what?

6 concurrently used heights or just six heights with combinations of use?

Does Pioneer even make an Atmos product that supports more than 9ch? I have never seen one yet that supports 11ch output.


----------



## groundtrac

NorthSky said:


> But is it the *Optimal* performance? ...Easier for many to install yes, if they don't mind an inferior sound experience yes that too.
> .


Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all. To say it would be inferior would imply that somewhere there is actually published specs that indicate which setup is best. So far, what I glean from Atmos is that it's a "figure it out for your own listening environment" within some vague guidelines, and call it good-approach. I can tell you right now, up firing modules in my Atmos theater is borderline inferior-but I am the only one who can quantify that.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> 6 concurrently used heights or just six heights with combinations of use?
> 
> Does Pioneer even make an Atmos product that supports more than 9ch? I have never seen one yet that supports 11ch output.


I don't think they've made any AVRs that support more than 9 channels, ever. Wonder if it's a hardware limitation of their DSP and board setup.


----------



## SoundJunky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I believe their white speaker is indeed paintable.


Good to know, thank you. 

I ended up ordering two pairs of Tannoy Di6DC from markertek instead of waiting until March or April for the Di5DC. These are a little bigger than I wanted, but I hope they sound good when it's all said and done.


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> But is it the *Optimal* performance? ...Easier for many to install yes, if they don't mind an inferior sound experience yes that too.


I have not been able to compare with other HT installs, so what i say next is speculative, like your own statement:
"
Inferior to the reference TF +TR configuration , let's assume YES.
But inferior to reflective modules, let's assume NO
"

As long as the minimum vertical angle of 30° is respected, i don't see clearly why FH or RH would be much worse than TF or TR ...


----------



## alyssanick

groundtrac said:


> ^^
> Must not have felt compelled enough to push for an Atmos soundtrack on the freaking blu-Ray though!


There'll be a remix done for the trilogy set, or perhaps for UHD-BD


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> I don't think they've made any AVRs that support more than 9 channels, ever. Wonder if it's a hardware limitation of their DSP and board setup.


There are a few right now that support 11ch output, Stuart. They all don't have 11ch of amplification but several support full 7.1.4 and I think the Denon can do 9.1.2.

David is saying that a Pioneer that he "set up" allows six overheads. Nothing short of a Trinnov/Datasat can do that.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> There are a few right now that support 11ch output, Stuart. They all don't have 11ch of amplification but several support full 7.1.4 and I think the Denon can do 9.1.2.
> 
> David is saying that a Pioneer that he "set up" allows six overheads. Nothing short of a Trinnov/Datasat can do that.


One possibility is that he's "cloning" the Atmos overheads with a splitter device. Otherwise IDK what he means.


I was referring specifically to Pioneer, by the way. D&M for sure has some AVRs/pre-pros that can go to 7.1.4 if you use external amplification for some channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> One possibility is that he's "cloning" the Atmos overheads with a splitter device. Otherwise IDK what he means.
> 
> 
> I was referring specifically to Pioneer, by the way. D&M for sure has some AVRs/pre-pros that can go to 7.1.4 if you use external amplification for some channels.


Oh, I gotcha now. Thought you meant different.

It's too bad Pioneer is limited to 9ch. I like their latest AVR's and would even put them in the top 3 to consider had they had 11ch capability. I wonder if that will be different this summer/fall?


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh, I gotcha now. Thought you meant different.
> 
> It's too bad Pioneer is limited to 9ch. I like their latest AVR's and would even put them in the top 3 to consider had they had 11ch capability. I wonder if that will be different this summer/fall?


If I weren't springing for the 24 channel Altitude myself - ETA is sometime this spring, pending the USA rollout schedule - I'd consider a high end Pioneer or more likely, Yamaha pre/pro to use with a pair of the MiniDSP 88As for a 7.1.4 or ideally 9.1.6 setup, thanks to the ESS Sabre DACs, and in Yamaha's case, those sexy DSP modes to use with the 3D audio configurations (sorry, I couldn't resist that one). I've got a NAD M27 amp, so I'm covered for my floor channels in that setup.

Beats me but moving forward after the merger with Onkyo, I hope that the Pioneer folks are thinking ahead about this, if not for 2015 the next production cycle in 2016. They'll need Atmos and DTS:X to stay competitive with their Elites, honestly. Auro would be nice but there's more fish to fry than that for them.

At any rate, we'll find out more by this year's CEDIA in Dallas, I believe. I'm probably going to go again.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Seamless Audio Branching used for Dolby Atmos encoding. And Lionsgate is the studio right now with their three Blu-ray titles encoded with Dolby Atmos from which many people are experiencing audio dropout issues and lip sync issues.
> 
> 1. Step Up All In
> 2. The Expendables 3
> 3. John Wick
> 
> * It happened with some Sony BD player models, with the Oppo 83, 93, and now one member reported issues with his 103; using a Marantz 8801 pre/pro.
> I am sure that there are other BD player brands and models that are having audio dropout issues.
> 
> I don't make this up; I read a lot, and I report my findings from those readings, right here in the official Dolby Atmos thread.
> 
> Also, some people are more sensitive than others @ detecting those small issues. Even me I can miss them when not looking for them.
> But now that this issue is more and more reported with more BD players; I'll have to pay more attention. ...And that, is all there is.
> 
> ...All she ever wrote.


I'm watching Step Up All In tonight and let you know if I notice any audio dropouts.


----------



## sdurani

groundtrac said:


> Bravo to SVS for stepping up and offering another, albeit non-endorsed, idea that can work for Dolby Atmos.


If you don't want to place your height speakers where Dolby recommends in their Atmos installation guide, then you don't need SVS's permission or encouragement to do so. Just do it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> If you don't want to place your height speakers where Dolby recommends in their Atmos installation guide, then you don't need SVS's permission or encouragement to do so. Just do it.


----------



## groundtrac

sdurani said:


> If you don't want to place your height speakers where Dolby recommends in their Atmos installation guide, then you don't need SVS's permission or encouragement to do so. Just do it.


I'm certainly not beholding to SVS. What I am applauding is a speaker manufacturer stepping up and saying it's ok if overhead's are not an option for you, and it's ok if modules don't work for you, because they clearly have no plans to manufacture a module. 

But on another note, if I didn't need encouragement then why the heck am I even here participating in these forums? Some of us might not be privy to having original ideas 100% of the time.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> If I weren't springing for the 24 channel Altitude myself - ETA is sometime this spring, pending the USA rollout schedule - I'd consider a high end Pioneer or more likely, Yamaha pre/pro to use with a pair of the MiniDSP 88As for a 7.1.4 or ideally 9.1.6 setup, thanks to the ESS Sabre DACs, and in Yamaha's case, those sexy DSP modes to use with the 3D audio configurations (sorry, I couldn't resist that one). I've got a NAD M27 amp, so I'm covered for my floor channels in that setup.
> 
> Beats me but moving forward after the merger with Onkyo, I hope that the Pioneer folks are thinking ahead about this, if not for 2015 the next production cycle in 2016. They'll need Atmos and DTS:X to stay competitive with their Elites, honestly. Auro would be nice but there's more fish to fry than that for them.
> 
> At any rate, we'll find out more by this year's CEDIA in Dallas, I believe. I'm probably going to go again.


Wwwwoooooo!!! Hope you get that Altitude sooner than later. 

Yup. Would be cool if these more ...modestly pricing offerings this or next year do 9.1.6. I'd be set.

Definitely gonna try to go to CEDIA again. I had so much fun this past time.  Maybe I can get Sanjay to go this year.


----------



## sdurani

groundtrac said:


> What I am applauding is a speaker manufacturer stepping up and saying it's ok if overhead's are not an option for you, and it's ok if modules don't work for you, because they clearly have no plans to manufacture a module.


Would you likewise applaud them if they stepped up and said it was OK to place surrounds on the front wall if stretching speaker wire across the length of your room is not an option for you?


> But on another note, if I didn't need encouragement then why the heck am I even here participating in these forums?


There can be any number of reasons to be here besides encouragement. For example, I learn new things almost every time I log in.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Wwwwoooooo!!! Hope you get that Altitude sooner than later.
> 
> Yup. Would be cool if these more ...modestly pricing offerings this or next year do 9.1.6. I'd be set.
> 
> Definitely gonna try to go to CEDIA again. I had so much fun this past time.  Maybe I can get Sanjay to go this year.


Yup, it's long-term planning on my part. We're moving later this year and I'm planning to do a dedicated HT room of sorts. I could go for the 16 channel but since this is a one-time thing, I'm thinking bigger because we can't predict the future. Plus my next pre/pro would be around the time my 1-year-old hits high school with the software upgradability to come. Plus it's Trinnov for Room EQ and remapping. It's this or buying a boat LOL....but you can rent a boat. Not this toy.

Should be fun, but I'm still going to be a "regular guy" otherwise. No fancy cables or odd-ball audiophile speakers here .


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Yup, it's long-term planning on my part. We're moving later this year and I'm planning to do a dedicated HT room of sorts. I could go for the 16 channel but since this is a one-time thing, I'm thinking bigger because we can't predict the future. Plus my next pre/pro would be around the time my 1-year-old hits high school with the software upgradability to come. Plus it's Trinnov for Room EQ and remapping. It's this or buying a boat LOL....but you can rent a boat. Not this toy.
> 
> Should be fun, but I'm still going to be a "regular guy" otherwise. No fancy cables or odd-ball audiophile speakers here .



So you're saying .... no cable risers for all 32 channels, Stuart?


----------



## NorthSky

groundtrac said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all. To say it would be inferior would imply that somewhere there is actually published specs that indicate which setup is best. So far, what I glean from Atmos is that it's a "figure it out for your own listening environment" within some vague guidelines, and call it good-approach. I can tell you right now, up firing modules in my Atmos theater is borderline inferior-but I am the only one who can quantify that.


I'm sure the Dolby Atmos people they tried all the combinations possible, and when they demoed their stuff @ CES they used the best setups possible.
/// Speaker's positioning on the ceiling. ...True too, many people liked the up-firing Atmos speakers.

I don't recall seeing Atmos setups a la SVS with the four overhead speakers installed on the front and rear walls up high though. 
This one is like DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX. ...And Dolby PLIIz with the two front Height speakers. 

The Dolby Atmos film mixers putting objects overhead; their 3D surround sound creation has to be reproduced in our rooms the way it was created in theirs. ...IMO


----------



## groundtrac

NorthSky said:


> The Dolby Atmos film mixers putting objects overhead; their 3D surround sound creation has to be reproduced in our rooms the way it was created in theirs. ...IMO


Very true, and this I do agree with. Possibly more clarification from Dolby would be helpful about setups that do and do not replicate what they intend with their Atmos soundtracks?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> There are a few right now that support 11ch output, Stuart. They all don't have 11ch of amplification but several support full 7.1.4 and I think the Denon can do 9.1.2.
> 
> David is saying that a Pioneer that he "set up" allows six overheads. Nothing short of a Trinnov/Datasat can do that.


He meant installing six overhead Atmos speakers but four activated @ the same time from few possible combinations.
We can do the same with Denon/Marantz, Onkyo/Integra, and Yamaha. ...I think. 

And then with Denon/Marantz we also have Auro-3D.

And yes, 9.1.2 is a feasible option, and not just by Denon. 

But Scott, you already knew all that stuff anyway, and from many months ago too.

______

♦ Roughly only one month (4 weeks) till DTS:X announcement.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I'm watching Step Up All In tonight and let you know if I notice any audio dropouts.


1. From which BD player brand and model?
2. Which AV receiver or pre/pro? 
3. Remember to set the HDMI Audio Out @ 'Bitstream' in your BD player.


----------



## Scott Simonian

David said this:



David Susilo said:


> Also the article only mentioned x.x.4 configuration as the maximum configuration. WTF? I've installed a couple HT with 5.2.6 using Pioneer SC-89 as a pre-pro.


"Maximum configuration. WTF?"

Yes. This is the current maximum. 11ch no matter what configuration. However, this is NO support from any manufacture to do 11ch with more than four overhead speakers at a time. Four overhead positions is the max, for now. 

Trinnnov/Datasat do not count in my argument.  

Also, appeasing to a hybrid Auro/Atmos also does not count as 'greater than four' as you can not use more than four at a time.


----------



## bargervais

groundtrac said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree with that at all. To say it would be inferior would imply that somewhere there is actually published specs that indicate which setup is best. So far, what I glean from Atmos is that it's a "figure it out for your own listening environment" within some vague guidelines, and call it good-approach. I can tell you right now, up firing modules in my Atmos theater is borderline inferior-but I am the only one who can quantify that.


North Sky doesn't even have an Atmos receiver take his advice with a grain of salt..


----------



## NorthSky

groundtrac said:


> Very true, and this I do agree with. Possibly more clarification from Dolby would be helpful about setups that do and do not replicate what they intend with their Atmos soundtracks?


Dolby said that you can pretty much put them anywhere; or more precisely that you can't obtain a bad Atmos experience by deviating from perfect positioning. ..."Hard to get it wrong". 

And they also have a Dolby Atmos Setup Guide on speaker's positioning. ...A setup guide is just that, a setup, to put you in their ball park.
But it's flexible. We don't obey to all the guidelines that come with our new car. But for optimal performance we set things right, and let people know about it. ...It's our job.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> North Sky doesn't even have an Atmos receiver take his advice with a grain of salt..


No sweat; life itself is a large grain of salt.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> David said this:
> 
> "Maximum configuration. WTF?"
> 
> Yes. This is the current maximum. 11ch no matter what configuration. However, this is NO support from any manufacture to do 11ch with more than four overhead speakers at a time. Four overhead positions is the max, for now.
> 
> Trinnnov/Datasat do not count in my argument.
> 
> Also, appeasing to a hybrid Auro/Atmos also does not count as 'greater than four' as you can not use more than four at a time.


Is David another "free" smoking liberation atmospheric stuff type of guy?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, you too you don't have an Atmos receiver. ...What you say might taste "salty" on occasion; a la Austin Powers, when he's losing his mojo.


----------



## David Susilo

Pioneer SC87/89 allows 5.2.6 but the Top Middle will have to use a separate amp.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Pioneer SC87/89 allows 5.2.6 but the Top Middle will have to use a separate amp.


Wow, that I did not know.


----------



## aaranddeeman

David Susilo said:


> Pioneer SC87/89 allows 5.2.6 but the Top Middle will have to use a separate amp.


But the manual does not mention anything beyond 5.2.4
I believe it should do 7.2.4 as well if 5.2.6 is the possibility.


----------



## mtbdudex

bargervais said:


> North Sky doesn't even have an Atmos receiver take his advice with a grain of salt..



I've asked to see a picture of his HT current set up also a few months back... Never saw it so not sure he even has a HT ....
Frankly he was on my block list for a while as way too often he will quote a whole post and then add a 1 sentence snippet..
Threads get way too long and un readable that way with no value added, 5-6-7 posts that way in a row..
Bad forum etiquette., but hey I'm not a mod or forum police just a HT enthusiast.
I've since taken the block off, peace.


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## David Susilo

aaranddeeman said:


> But the manual does not mention anything beyond 5.2.4
> I believe it should do 7.2.4 as well if 5.2.6 is the possibility.


No, it doesn't do 7.2.4. Using the receiver's amp, you can power the 5.2.4 and add power amp for the x.x.2 (Top Middle left and right). When you run MCACC, you will hear sound coming from all the speakers. In fact, in manual speaker setup, if you choose 5.2.x, you can choose whether you want the top middle to be enabled or disabled.


----------



## aaranddeeman

David Susilo said:


> No, it doesn't do 7.2.4. Using the receiver's amp, you can power the 5.2.4 and add power amp for the x.x.2 (Top Middle left and right). When you run MCACC, you will hear sound coming from all the speakers. In fact, in manual speaker setup, if you choose 5.2.x, you can choose whether you want the top middle to be enabled or disabled.


So it eliminates the surround backs the moment you enable more than one height pairs? That's the strange concept, but okay..
Could you please point me to the documentation where it mentions about this 5.2.6 configuration?
This is the first time I have heard an AVR doing 6 height channels and hence curious.


----------



## NorthSky

mtbdudex said:


> I've asked to see a picture of his HT current set up also a few months back... Never saw it so not sure he even has a HT ....
> Frankly he was on my block list for a while as way too often he will quote a whole post and then add a 1 sentence snippet..
> Threads get way too long and un readable that way with no value added, 5-6-7 posts that way in a row..
> Bad forum etiquette., but hey I'm not a mod or forum police just a HT enthusiast.
> I've since taken the block off, peace.


You're a good guy Mike; you would make an impartial policeman. ...A good detective protecting the innocent and gathering proofs of guilt against the wrong people. I would feel in very good hands as you my local sheriff. 

Don't say what you do, just do it. 

P.S. You are one of the last person I would share pics with. And btw, you are completely off track (off topic) and directemente negatively personal and against the TOS of the forums.


----------



## sdrucker

David Susilo said:


> No, it doesn't do 7.2.4. Using the receiver's amp, you can power the 5.2.4 and add power amp for the x.x.2 (Top Middle left and right). When you run MCACC, you will hear sound coming from all the speakers. In fact, in manual speaker setup, if you choose 5.2.x, you can choose whether you want the top middle to be enabled or disabled.


Really? I swear I'd read that Pioneer only could do nine channels with Atmos. But I see at least the SC-89 supports 11 pre-outs.


----------



## David Susilo

It is indeed very weird. In the manual it shows where to install the x.x.6 speakers, the pre-outs don't have front top or rear top but only middle top.

It is not really documented, but play around with it and you'll be able to get 5.2.6 (provided the middle top are fed using external amp)


----------



## NorthSky

Then you were abso!utely right David.


----------



## aaranddeeman

David Susilo said:


> It is indeed very weird. In the manual it shows where to install the x.x.6 speakers, the pre-outs don't have front top or rear top but only middle top.
> 
> It is not really documented, but play around with it and you'll be able to get 5.2.6 (provided the middle top are fed using external amp)


On page 24 is barely mentions the 6 speaker layout. But that is more of suggestive positions and does not say anything about connecting.
Whay do they hide it if they can do 6 heights. This would become their selling point. Something is not adding up.


----------



## David Susilo

I've installed two systems with 5.2.6; just try it yourself instead of arguing


----------



## NorthSky

I'm going to make something real clear here:

1. I don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver or SSP.
2. The reason why I'm here is to get info, enjoy and see if this new 3D sound is for me, because surround sound is one of my passions.
3. I am real big on movie sound mixes from the pro sound mixers and @ home reproduction.
4. I don't have to show any picture to anyone in order to be a member @ AVSForum.
5. This is my choice, and respecting people's choice is the desire of everyone. 
6. I respect everyone's choice and level of sharing and knowledge and learning and friendly enjoying life in our audio/video hobbies (music/movies).

Please, stop making personal and negative comments; you are not helping and you are not respecting. 

Thank you for your cooperation. ...And now back to Atmos, where it should be, and have fun too, all together. If someone doesn't like someone else personally, keep it to yourself; don't bring it up in the open forums where it leads to nothing beneficial for anyone. ...This is childish, immature, and we are not advancing anywhere. Again, personal hatred stays home, not here. So, get a grip few of you, grow up. If you can't don't blame anyone else but yourself.


----------



## Alanlee

David Susilo said:


> I've installed two systems with 5.2.6; just try it yourself instead of arguing


 
Wow David! That is good news. I have been looking at that Pioneer SC-89 manual for at least six months, and I have interpreted the six high pix wrong. So are you saying font, middle and back high, and the MCACC configures all six high speakers?


----------



## David Susilo

That is correct.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundJunky said:


> Good to know, thank you.
> 
> I ended up ordering two pairs of Tannoy Di6DC from markertek instead of waiting until March or April for the Di5DC. These are a little bigger than I wanted, but I hope they sound good when it's all said and done.


They probably will due to their larger drivers. The Di6's are what Roger Dressler uses in his theater. Let us know your opinion of them. Good luck, we're all counting on you!


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, you too you don't have an Atmos receiver. ...What you say might taste "salty" on occasion; a la Austin Powers, when he's losing his mojo.


I like salt. Not as much as I like pizza but...

... well there ya go. 



David Susilo said:


> Pioneer SC87/89 allows 5.2.6 but the Top Middle will have to use a separate amp.


David, what jacks are you using to do this? Also what 'speaker system' setting are you using in the Pioneer preferences?


----------



## NorthSky

I love pizza man, homemade pizza with movies.


----------



## funhouse69

roxiedog13 said:


> Interesting, I must have a look at my version of this movie to make sure it is the Atmos version. My movies come from Amazon on-line, Walmart or Target locally. I have never considered the Atmos to be all that great, maybe it isn't Atmos.  Same with TMNT and TF4 also , will have to check those too. In fact, the movies that I like the sound track on most are non Atmos, running DSU only.


I am going to say / guess that if you are buying the BR's from a reputable Retailer you are getting the Atmos Version. I got burned by buying from e-bay and that is my fault but thankfully it didn't cost me that much.

What receiver do you have? I assume it will clearly tell you / indicate that it is playing in Atmos instead of DSU. 

As for Atmost vs DSU they are night and day different (in my opinion) DSU (to me) has a must more "Spacious" feel to it where Atmos had a (very limited) amount of overhead / Top effects by design. So far it seems that Expendables 3 has the most use of my overhead speakers in Atmos. This is compared to John Wick, TNMT & Transformers.

It has taken me a while to just enjoy Atmos as well as DSU, I was one of those people that got up on a ladder and listed for the use of my Top Speakers when playing Atmos Encoded movies.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi could someone please tell me if you could use dipole speakers for side and surround speakers in an Atmos setup ? 
i think i read somewhere that direct speakers are required but will dipole speakers work ?


----------



## Frank714

roxiedog13 said:


> Matrix is one of my favorites as well , I can't count how many times I've watched the movies especially the original.


Same here. Just a friendly proposal to get a better experience from the sequels: Smith is the alter ego and dark side of Neo following their "union" in the first film. I do believe accepting the sequels as metaphors and/or analogies can help to put a couple of things into a more rewarding though different perspective.


----------



## roxiedog13

funhouse69 said:


> I am going to say / guess that if you are buying the BR's from a reputable Retailer you are getting the Atmos Version. I got burned by buying from e-bay and that is my fault but thankfully it didn't cost me that much.
> 
> What receiver do you have? I assume it will clearly tell you / indicate that it is playing in Atmos instead of DSU.
> 
> As for Atmost vs DSU they are night and day different (in my opinion) DSU (to me) has a must more "Spacious" feel to it where Atmos had a (very limited) amount of overhead / Top effects by design. So far it seems that Expendables 3 has the most use of my overhead speakers in Atmos. This is compared to John Wick, TNMT & Transformers.
> 
> It has taken me a while to just enjoy Atmos as well as DSU, I was one of those people that got up on a ladder and listed for the use of my Top Speakers when playing Atmos Encoded movies.


I guess I can consider Walmart and Target "reputable" I never buy from ebay, movies that is. 

I have the Denon X5200 receiver, and yes it does indicate Atmos when it is present. I think it was TF4 that I had to select Atmos from the setup menu, almost missed that and it certainly makes a difference. 

You say Atmos and DSU are night and day different, DSU has a more spacious feel, Atmos more limited with the overheads. Are you saying you consider DSU to be better ?

I have personally enjoyed more DSU than true Atmos movies thus far . The subtle approach I consider better, probably because I'm not a fan of loud over the top ( excuse the pun) mixes, you know the, Michael Bay kind. Funny enough, I enjoyed TF4 more than the other Atmos movies, I have watched it several times mainly for the Atmos exercise though.


----------



## nodular

lujan said:


> I have the Oppo 103 and also watched John Wick with the Atmos audio track and didn't have any lip sync issues so it must be another problem?



I also have the Oppo 103/Denon AVR X5200 and i've had no problems playing Transformers/Expendables 3/John Wick/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in Dolby Atmos.

The Atmos mix on Turtles is fantastic.


----------



## roxiedog13

zebidou81 said:


> Hi could someone please tell me if you could use dipole speakers for side and surround speakers in an Atmos setup ?
> i think i read somewhere that direct speakers are required but will dipole speakers work ?


Monopoles are recommended for all surrounds. I use dipole for my side surrounds, they are Paridgmn SA-ADP in-wall mounted at ear level . All of the surround effects work
well be that from my front or back row of seats. I have not done a A/B comparison so I cannot say that monople would be that much better. Dolby is recommending monopole
so go with that unless there is a reason you should not. I already had mine mounted in wall, custom mounted and expensive that is why I did not switch. I may try a monopole 
some day, if I can ever find the time.


----------



## roxiedog13

nodular said:


> I also have the Oppo 103/Denon AVR X5200 and i've had no problems playing Transformers/Expendables 3/John Wick/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> The Atmos mix on Turtles is fantastic.


I have the same combo, Oppo 103D + Denon X5200 . I would not be able to say the Atmos mix is fantastic, I'm mediocre at best. I hear the Atmos effects but I'm not getting any bubble as others have described. Best effects that I hear is rain and rolling thunder, best examples are with DSU not Atmos and the effects subtle not loud. So far the best results I have noticed are in DSU with the movie Into the Storm, Fury and Planet of the Apes. All of the Atmos demos work for the wrap around sounds which I had before anyway, the height sounds less significant . 

Someone must have burst my bubble.


----------



## funhouse69

roxiedog13 said:


> I guess I can consider Walmart and Target "reputable" I never buy from ebay, movies that is.
> 
> I have the Denon X5200 receiver, and yes it does indicate Atmos when it is present. I think it was TF4 that I had to select Atmos from the setup menu, almost missed that and it certainly makes a difference.
> 
> You say Atmos and DSU are night and day different, DSU has a more spacious feel, Atmos more limited with the overheads. Are you saying you consider DSU to be better ?
> 
> I have personally enjoyed more DSU than true Atmos movies thus far . The subtle approach I consider better, probably because I'm not a fan of loud over the top ( excuse the pun) mixes, you know the, Michael Bay kind. Funny enough, I enjoyed TF4 more than the other Atmos movies, I have watched it several times mainly for the Atmos exercise though.



Yes I feel that Atmos and DSU are very different, with Atmos depending on the movie your Top Speakers might be used for only a few minutes total during a whole movie where in / with DSU they can be used all the time. 

Which is better? Well that is really up to you, I think they are both great but VERY different.

Atmos has much more precise placement of the sound (like a helicopter flying overhead) than DSU Does. So again very different but to me just as enjoyable.


----------



## Alanlee

*ATI adds Auro 3D, Dolby Atmos and DTS:X Support*

I am wondering if this is a significant development (see link).

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...pport-for-high-performance-audio-brands/21157


----------



## Ralph Potts

roxiedog13 said:


> Really though, who decides, rates, critiques and otherwise has the power to influence our choices ? The media is our biggest influence and this includes TV , the internet and to a lesser extent
> magazines. Most of the advertizing we see is paid and the intent is to persuade us to either go to a theater or buy said movie. Advertizing is a paid format intended to capture our attention and lure us in . No surprise here, I believe most here on this forum is use to the drill by now.
> 
> Ralph Potts the resident reviewer here on the AVS forum seems to be very impartial with his critiques . He is a senior gold member ( not Austin Powers) and I don't know how he's connected to
> the hierarchy, be that a volunteer or if it's a paid position, I have no idea . He does , in my opinion seem to be very impartial, his ratings very reasonable and I never get the feeling his decisions are made based on personal preferences but rather using the criteria in his rating system. Like it or not, most movies are good , maybe not to ones personal taste but to an impartial reviewer that
> will be conveyed and I feel Mr. Potts does a great job. Every one of the critiques I have read and subsequently have also viewed the corresponding movie has been pretty much spot on .
> 
> Anyway, I guess the answer to the question, "who decides is a movie is good?" is , well simply yourself with the help of everyone else of course. There will always be absolutists telling you
> your choices are wrong, very rude of course but they are out there and plenty of them. As always, choice is subjective if someone has a problem with your choice, then they have a problem .


Greetings,

Well put roxiedog13 and thanks for the vote of confidence. 


Regards,


----------



## roxiedog13

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> Well put roxiedog13 and thanks for the vote of confidence.
> 
> 
> Regards,


Your welcome , keep up the great work.


----------



## audioguy

> Kind of a bit misleading here. I count 17 releases if you don't county every single version of the same film in the list. I don't think padding numbers by counting 20 different releases of TF4 around the world is a good argument for making the worldwide count of 115 Atmos BDs.


Reminds me of when I first started a business a long time ago. I had about 30 customers at the time and my response, when asked "How many customers do you have" was: "we are moving toward 200". And that was an accurate response.

So Atmos can say they have over 100. It is "accurate" but not "meaningful".


----------



## nodular

roxiedog13 said:


> I have the same combo, Oppo 103D + Denon X5200 . I would not be able to say the Atmos mix is fantastic, I'm mediocre at best. I hear the Atmos effects but I'm not getting any bubble as others have described. Best effects that I hear is rain and rolling thunder, best examples are with DSU not Atmos and the effects subtle not loud. So far the best results I have noticed are in DSU with the movie Into the Storm, Fury and Planet of the Apes. All of the Atmos demos work for the wrap around sounds which I had before anyway, the height sounds less significant .
> 
> Someone must have burst my bubble.


It took me a couple of weeks of messing around with angles and levels on my 4 Onkyo upfiring modules to get a decent effect.

Into The Storm and Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes sounded great with DSU.

I would love in ceiling speakers but with a low ceiling in my basement of 6ft 9' I'm worried the sound will be too localised.

Must re watch Oblivion with DSU as it seems to get good reports.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> 1. From which BD player brand and model?
> 2. Which AV receiver or pre/pro?
> 3. Remember to set the HDMI Audio Out @ 'Bitstream' in your BD player.


No problems with audio at all watching "Step Up All In":

1. Oppo 103
2. Denon X5200W
3. It's always been set to Bitstream since I got it.


----------



## roxiedog13

nodular said:


> It took me a couple of weeks of messing around with angles and levels on my 4 Onkyo upfiring modules to get a decent effect.
> 
> Into The Storm and Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes sounded great with DSU.
> 
> I would love in ceiling speakers but with a low ceiling in my basement of 6ft 9' I'm worried the sound will be too localised.
> 
> Must re watch Oblivion with DSU as it seems to get good reports.


I had the same modules and like you took some tweaking in order to find the sweet spot. My ceiling was not as low as yours at 7' 9"high so I eventually went with in-ceiling. 
I just watched Oblivion with DSU for the first time. Not sure I noticed the sound was any better, guess I was too caught up in the movie to notice. If a movie has a descent story
I find myself captivated enough that I forget details, especially the audio. I'll have to pay more attention next time.


----------



## ss9001

David Susilo said:


> Pioneer SC87/89 allows 5.2.6 but the Top Middle will have to use a separate amp.


sorry Dave, but I'm pretty darn sure that's incorrect 

there are only 9 decoders in the Pioneer 9 channel AVR's and that means you can't bolt on an external amp to power up 11 channels from the preamp outs. And I got the 9 decoder limitation from a well-known dealer and also confirmed by none other than Walkamo himself.

Chris W has been lobbying to get the company to do 11 channels using the preamp outs which means putting in 11 decoders not 9. You can still have only 9 amps onboard like all the competitive AVR's but they need 11 decoders in the processor to be able to use all 11 preamp outs.

With only 9 onboard decoders, if you connected up Top Fr/TopRr to the receiver and the Top Mids to an ext 2 ch amp with the preamp outs, the Top Mids will be silent because the processor doesn't have the extra 2 decoders to process 11 channels simultaneously. This hasn't changed since Pioneer came out 9 ch AVR's for IIz & NeoX. 

I had always thought the # channels limitation was due to the preamp outs being tied to the speaker configurations in the firmware. But in fact it's a built-in limitation by the # of decoders they put on the DSP processor chip. I was somewhat surprised finding this out last Sept & Oct when I was about ready to buy the SC-89 but that's what it is.

I still haven't bought any company's AVR, although the SC-89 was the one I was going to get until I discovered I couldn't switch from 5/4 to 7/2 configuration depending on my mood  & content or from 5/4 to a conventional 7.1 so I could retain the occasional use of rear speakers I already have installed. Why? Because Pioneer left the Top Mids terminals dedicated to Top Mid's only while doubling up use of the surround rear terminals for Top Rears OR Surround Rears. You can't have both and switch back & forth between them. As I understand the manual, their 5/4 config has the option to select Top Mid or Top Rear for the 2nd pair but you can't have both at the same time in that configuration or by using an ext amp.

I would have been perfectly content to switch between 5/4 & 7/2 configurations for Atmos and then I could use 7.1 for music but it won't allow that. and it won't allow for simultaneous 5/6 (Fr/Mid/Rr) using the preamp outs. 

So I decided not to buy ANY AVR until the dust settles with DTS X. I've already bought overhead speakers to install which is the most difficult task


----------



## David Susilo

strange...then why the MCACC generates sound from the top middle when I installed, not one, but two 5.2.6 system? The top middle don't make any sound during Atmos movies and/or DSU?


----------



## David Susilo

I personally use 5.1.4 though. With my room length (16 ft), I don't see the need of using x.x.6 on my setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

David Susilo said:


> strange...then why the MCACC generates sound from the top middle when I installed, not one, but two 5.2.6 system? The top middle don't make any sound during Atmos movies and/or DSU?



I can generate tones for all of 11ch of speakers with my Onkyo TXNR 3007. It is however limited to a maximum of 9ch of simultaneous output. It could hook up 11 speakers and run Audyssey at which sound will come out of every speaker.... one at a time. 

I would think when you ran MCACC that sound did not come out of every speaker all out once but one or two at a time in which case it might have no problem doing 11 speakers but not at once.

In the two theaters you set up as 5.1.6 I would bet that when running Atmos/DSU that sound will only come out from a total of 9 speakers and two will be silent.


----------



## ss9001

aaranddeeman said:


> But the manual does not mention anything beyond 5.2.4
> I believe it should do 7.2.4 as well if 5.2.6 is the possibility.


You are correct  The Pioneers will only do 9 ch's, even with an ext amp. They will not do 5/6 simultaneously.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> David, what jacks are you using to do this? Also what 'speaker system' setting are you using in the Pioneer preferences?


Was this ever answered? I took a quick look at the back panel and I only see where 2 pairs of height speakers could be connected. What jacks would the 3rd pair be connected to?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Was this ever answered? I took a quick look at the back panel and I only see where 2 pairs of height speakers could be connected. What jacks would the 3rd pair be connected to?


I believe it would be the rear surround jacks but David has not replied to that question and clarified.

I'm awfully curious.


----------



## David Susilo

Thank for the clarification on the x.x.6 Scott.


In terms of jacks, I use 5.2.4 as per Pioneer's manual and use the RCA pre-out of "T. Middle" for the top middle channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

David Susilo said:


> Thank for the clarification on the x.x.6 Scott.
> 
> 
> In terms of jacks, I use 5.2.4 as per Pioneer's manual and use the RCA pre-out of "T. Middle" for the top middle channels.


What were the clients front and rear heights/overheads hooked up to?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I believe it would be the rear surround jacks but David has not replied to that question and clarified.


For reference, here is the back panel of the SC-89. 










I see the Top Middle connection; what would be the other two height speaker connections?


----------



## Alanlee

*It never ends.*

So I decided not to buy the AVR until the dust settles with DTS X. I've already bought overhead speakers to install which is the most difficult task [/QUOTE]

I passed on the SC-89 for the same reason, but I was just looking at the manual, although I might have been better off to buy the 89 when it came out, because now I am waiting for something that will give me 7.2.6. That will be costly and I will have to wait until the end of the year.


----------



## ss9001

For David Susilo -

9 decoders is what they have in the AVR and that means all you are going to get from an Atmos or any other track is 9 distinct speaker "channels". It doesn't matter where or how you have them connected or what positions you choose. 2 of the speakers will be silent because there aren't enough decoders to do all 11 at the same time. I don't know which 2 will be silent; I guess that depends on which pair you picked in the 5/4 configuration, but 2 will be silent. 

My SC-09TX & previous VSX-49 & 59txi's were one of the few AVR's to have 2 switchable pairs of side surrounds. MCACC sends tones to both of them, although I can use the speaker button to switch between the A pair, B pair or do A+B. It's still only 7 channels but in this case, the 2 pairs of side surrounds are playing the same signal (A+B). I am limited to 7 distinct channels even with 9 speakers connected. No other Pioneer AVR has had that feature since. What you describe would mean TopMid & TopRr would act in an A+B mode to play the same decoded signal and if you go to pg 85 in the SC-89 manual it states that if your config is 5/4, all the A/B speaker button will do is switch the mains on/off. If your config is 7/2 then you can use the A/B button to switch between FWide & TopMid channels.

It's very confusing! 

If you can prove me wrong, I'd be very pleased if I was because that would mean I could overcome one of my issues and do what I wanted with the Pioneer SC-89.

Unfortunately, I don't think I am. 

If you can only hear decoded sound from 9 but can switch between the Top Mids and the Top Rears in the Manual Speaker Setup menu, that is very plausible because the (C) 5/4 config allows you to choose which pair will be used; that option is described in the SC-89 manual on pg 21.

You can have TopMid in a 7/2, Fr Wides OR TopMid, TopFr/TopRr in a 5/4, and according to pg 21 for (C), you can replace one of the TopFr/TopRr pair with the TopMid pair.

I don't see any way to use TopFr+TopRr+TopMid at the same time, even with an ext amp because Pioneer's use of the preamp outs has always followed their speaker setups. And currently limited to 9 at one time. That doesn't mean you can't switch configurations to use TopMids, FWides, TopRears, Speaker B or some other allowed combination but the total is still only 9.

And having all of these connected up is probably why MCACC sends tones to them.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> No problems with audio at all watching "Step Up All In":
> 
> 1. Oppo 103
> 2. Denon X5200W
> 3. It's always been set to Bitstream since I got it.


♦ Thx for reporting.  

'Step Up All In' on Blu-ray (Dolby Atmos audio), I don't ever recall reading any audio issue with any BD player; but then it is not the type of title which many members here @ AVS have enthusiastically purchased. 
-> What would be much more revealing here is to hear from people who have that BD title, and also who own an Oppo BDP-83 and BDP-93 BD players.
And also from owners of older Sony BD players. ...Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Denon, ...BD players as well. 

The Oppo 103 (and 103D and 105 and 105D) seem to work fine; only one member I have read here @ AVS has audio sync issues with his Oppo 103 connected to a Marantz AV8801 pre/processor. ...And it's with 'John Wick' and 'The Expendables 3' Blu-ray titles only (he doesn't have 'Step Up All In').
-> I will be investigating further on my side here, with my own audio/video equipment (Oppo 103 & Integra 80.3) to see if I can detect any lip sync issues and if yes I'll adjust the 'Sync' setting in my Oppo 103. ...But I did watch those two BD titles before and did not notice a sync problem; and I am less than perfect @ detecting small lip sync issues, so I need to double-pay attention (on the actors lips, and also on picture frames). 
Some people are very good with their eyes in detecting one picture frame jumping or missing here and there occasionally.
And these same people can also detect a fraction of a second out of sync when an actor/actress is speaking onscreen. 

Because, I do believe that those 'seamless audio branching' techniques used by Lionsgate for their Blu-ray Atmos titles (in particular with 'John Wick' and 'The Expendables 3') are creating new algorithms to all Blu-ray players, and some models simply don't have the audio/video DSP processing to deal with this. ...From their video chip.

And as a matter of fact we now know that it is the case with the Oppo 83 and 93 and Sony 770 BD players. And I am certain that there are much more BD players also having audio droputs and audio sync issues from these BD Atmos titles enumerated just above.

** This is an important matter in our Dolby Atmos topic. ...And also because we were told before by some Dolby Atmos people (and others too) that all BD players should be able to play those new Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos audio encoding. ...And right now it is simply not the case, and some people have already and others are ready to buy a newer recent BD player. So for some people (perhaps more than we think) this 'seamless branching audio' issue is a serious one. 

I am simply reporting the facts here, and I will pursue this issue further. And anything that has to do with Dolby Atmos (good and/or bad), and that I become aware of in future developments, I will share right here in this official Dolby Atmos thread. 




ss9001 said:


> sorry Dave, but I'm pretty darn sure that's incorrect
> 
> there are only 9 decoders in the Pioneer 9 channel AVR's and that means you can't bolt on an external amp to power up 11 channels from the preamp outs. And I got the 9 decoder limitation from a well-known dealer and also confirmed by none other than Walkamo himself.
> 
> Chris W has been lobbying to get the company to do 11 channels using the preamp outs which means putting in 11 decoders not 9. You can still have only 9 amps onboard like all the competitive AVR's but they need 11 decoders in the processor to be able to use all 11 preamp outs.
> 
> With only 9 onboard decoders, if you connected up Top Fr/TopRr to the receiver and the Top Mids to an ext 2 ch amp with the preamp outs, the Top Mids will be silent because the processor doesn't have the extra 2 decoders to process 11 channels simultaneously. This hasn't changed since Pioneer came out 9 ch AVR's for IIz & NeoX.
> 
> I had always thought the # channels limitation was due to the preamp outs being tied to the speaker configurations in the firmware. But in fact it's a built-in limitation by the # of decoders they put on the DSP processor chip. I was somewhat surprised finding this out last Sept & Oct when I was about ready to buy the SC-89 but that's what it is.
> 
> I still haven't bought any company's AVR, although the SC-89 was the one I was going to get until I discovered I couldn't switch from 5/4 to 7/2 configuration depending on my mood  & content or from 5/4 to a conventional 7.1 so I could retain the occasional use of rear speakers I already have installed. Why? Because Pioneer left the Top Mids terminals dedicated to Top Mid's only while doubling up use of the surround rear terminals for Top Rears OR Surround Rears. You can't have both and switch back & forth between them. As I understand the manual, their 5/4 config has the option to select Top Mid or Top Rear for the 2nd pair but you can't have both at the same time in that configuration or by using an ext amp.
> 
> I would have been perfectly content to switch between 5/4 & 7/2 configurations for Atmos and then I could use 7.1 for music but it won't allow that. and it won't allow for simultaneous 5/6 (Fr/Mid/Rr) using the preamp outs.
> 
> So I decided not to buy the AVR until the dust settles with DTS X. I've already bought overhead speakers to install which is the most difficult task


♦ This sounds more logical to me. You brought up the stuff that makes very good sense. ...Thank you for that; this is solid info.



David Susilo said:


> I personally use 5.1.4 though. With my room length (16 ft), I don't see the need of using x.x.6 on my setup.


♦ David, I understand that you are personally using a 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup. ...All good.

Now, you earlier said that you did two installs with the top Pioneer Dolby Atmos AV receiver in a 5.2.6 Atmos configuration. 
...And that MCACC was producing sound from all six overhead channels, true? 
Did you test drive those two setups with real Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles to hear sound coming out/up from all eleven speakers simultaneously?

According to our peer here just above your quote, the Pioneer Elite top AV receivers can do nine 'satellite' channels in Dolby Atmos (5.1.4. and most likely 7.1.2 as well). ...Eleven is not part of the picture; concretely/technically/accurately speaking. 

...And we're on track.


----------



## ss9001

sdurani said:


> For reference, here is the back panel of the SC-89.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Top Middle connection; what would be the other two height speaker connections?


I think he said he connected TM's to preamp outs. But what connections used is only 1 part of the issue. Pioneer has yet to allow all 11 preamp outs at the same time because they limited their processor to only 9 decoders. And they do not have an option for TopF+TopR+TopM all at the same time. 

David & his clients can switch speaker configs and speaker locations in the setup menu but still only 9 total at the same time.

That's the way it has been for years until Pioneer has 11 decoders on the processor chip & tweaks its firmware. Maybe that will happen in 2015...I hope so because that is their only real limitation vs some other models and is what led to my holding off buying an SC-89. Now with dtsX on the horizon, for me, I can wait some more until mfgs say if any of their models can be FW updated. Then I'll decide.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Alanlee said:


> I am wondering if this is a significant development (see link).
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...pport-for-high-performance-audio-brands/21157



My excitement was dashed when I read the following at the bottom of the article: The Casablanca IVa will launch in the second quarter of 2015 for a suggested retail price of *$17,995*. The Casablanca V will be available in the third quarter of 2015 for a suggested retail price of* $21,995*

Sorry, I be a mere mortal...


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> ♦ David, I understand that you are personally using a 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup. ...All good.
> 
> Now, you earlier said that you did two installs with the top Pioneer Dolby Atmos AV receiver in a 5.2.6 Atmos configuration.
> ...And that MCACC was producing sound from all six overhead channels, true?
> Did you test drive those two setups with real Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles to hear sound coming out/up from all eleven speakers simultaneously?
> 
> According to our peer here just above your quote, the Pioneer Elite top AV receivers can do nine 'satellite' channels in Dolby Atmos (5.1.4. and most likely 7.1.2 as well). ...Eleven is not part of the picture; concretely/technically/accurately speaking.
> 
> ...And we're on track.



No, I never tried playing any Atmos titles on their system. I was hired as a third party just to do a physical install and calibrate the sound. So other than running the test tone and do manual EQ (based on my RTA reading, not MCACC), I don't know how it sounds in the end.


----------



## Nalleh

David Susilo said:


> strange...then why the MCACC generates sound from the top middle when I installed, not one, but two 5.2.6 system? The top middle don't make any sound during Atmos movies and/or DSU?





Scott Simonian said:


> What were the clients front and rear heights/overheads hooked up to?


Doesn't anyone read the manuals anymore? It clearly states that altough 11 speakers can be connected and calibrated, max 4 height speakers at the same time. You have to chose between top front+top rear, or top middle.










You do not even need a ext amp to get these options. And they use the TM, FW and SB speaker post for the 6 heights


----------



## ss9001

Al Sherwood said:


> My excitement was dashed when I read the following at the bottom of the article: The Casablanca IVa will launch in the second quarter of 2015 for a suggested retail price of *$17,995*. The Casablanca V will be available in the third quarter of 2015 for a suggested retail price of* $21,995*
> 
> Sorry, I be a mere mortal...


LOL 
Yup...me too


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Doesn't anyone read the manuals anymore?


I read the manual, several times.

I was asking David what _he_ did. Thanks.

Question for you: have _you_ read the manual? It does not support more than 9 speakers simultaneously and at no time does it (or any current device short of Trinnov/Datasat) support more than four heights/overheads at a time.


----------



## Alanlee

*Yes - It is confusing*

from: David Susilo - It's very confusing! 

This discussion about the SC-89 brings me full circle in my quest during the last year to update the power in my home theater. I have had NAD and Yamaha amps, but about twelve years ago I bought a Pioneer Elite amp and then another. I like these amps.

So a year ago I was thinking to buy the latest and greatest Pioneer amp. It was not going to come out until summer. I waited and start reading which of course led me to researching Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3-D.

Just before the SC-87 and 89 came out, I read a couple of things that made me nervous. The new Pioneer amps were not going to be THX certified which I think I could have gotten past. Dolby Atmos was not going to actually be in the new amps. That was going to come after I had spent my money. Troubling, but still not enough to keep me away. And then I read that Pioneer was going to sell a controlling share of their home electronics division to Onkyo. I knew nothing about Onkyo.

I starting looking at Onkyo's line of amps, and then I ran into Integra amps and pre-amps. I looked at Marantz, Yamaha, NAD, Arcam and others. I am seeing pretty much the same thing in most of the products that are within my price range.

The industry is in a state of change that I have not witnessed since the introduction of stereo and surround sound. I'm an old guy. There is a lot of information out there, but there is also a lot of misinformation. This is not unusual, however many of the people who are selling this stuff are not up to speed on what they have: also not unusual. You folks are sorting through this information. You are on the front lines fighting for truth in sound systems. 

I am the rear guard; I benefit from your struggle and appreciate what you are doing. I will keep reading and learning from you. Keep up the good fight.


----------



## NorthSky

ss9001 said:


> I think he said he connected TM's to preamp outs. But what connections used is only 1 part of the issue. Pioneer has yet to allow all 11 preamp outs at the same time because they limited their processor to only 9 decoders. And they do not have an option for TopF+TopR+TopM all at the same time.
> 
> David & his clients can switch speaker configs and speaker locations in the setup menu but still only 9 total at the same time.
> 
> That's the way it has been for years until Pioneer has 11 decoders on the processor chip & tweaks its firmware. Maybe that will happen in 2015...I hope so because that is their only real limitation vs some other models and is what led to my holding off buying an SC-89. Now with dtsX on the horizon, for me, I can wait some more until mfgs say if any of their models can be FW updated. Then I'll decide.


So you too don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver yet, and like me is gathering info and knowledge to make a wise future/eminent audio/video purchase? 

Well, the info you are sharing with us is pretty good info, and thanks in the name of all of us who are in the exact same boat.

* That Pioneer's rear; it is less than clear. /// For a person who buy this receiver, he cannot connect his speakers based on what it says on that rear.
...Just no way; it it is not that simple, it looks very complicated to me if I was to set up a Dolby 5.1.4 Atmos sound system in my room.
I' would have no choice but to inspect the instruction manual copiously/meticulously. ...With serious technical analysis. 
And I know a lot of people who simply cannot do that. And they wouldn't pay someone to do it for them either. ...Then they'll simply buy a stereo or Dolby Digital/dts 5.1 receiver for $100-200 max, and which comes with all 5 satellite speakers (HTIB). 

And I'm with you, regarding DTS:X and the right time to make the right decision.


----------



## ss9001

Nalleh said:


> Doesn't anyone read the manuals anymore? It clearly states that altough 11 speakers can be connected and calibrated, max 4 height speakers at the same time. You have to chose between top front+top rear, or top middle.


Thank you 

I know I'm right on this. And you just added more proof from the manual. 

Thanks for your post.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Just a quick note that I edited the list on my blog, as it seems that Vice was wrongfully reported as Dolby Atmos at annoucement time.

Since then the PR from Lionsgate states DTS HD Master Audio 5.1...

Thanks to Chris who commented about this !

Sorry for this !


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> No, I never tried playing any Atmos titles on their system. I was hired as a third party just to do a physical install and calibrate the sound. So other than running the test tone and do manual EQ (based on my RTA reading, not MCACC), I don't know how it sounds in the end.


Thank you David. 

* That would have been cool, but it takes more time to verify that everything is working properly, and time we all know, is money. [email protected] most places.


----------



## robert816

In Section 3, Page 28 of the SC-87-89 manual for a 5.2.4 configuration it states the following:


"When the top forward speakers and the top backwards speakers are used, there is no sound from the top middle speakers. When the top middle speakers are used, there is no sound from the top forward speakers and the top backwards speakers."


I tested on my SC-87 and I do not need an external amp. I can hook up speakers to the top middle connectors and generate test tones. I can also switch during a movie and turn the top middle speakers on, when I do the front and rear Atmos speakers turn off. I 
have not tried a separate amp to the top middle pre-outs, but honestly I don't believe Pioneer would have let a selling point like that slip through without making a big deal out of it. That would be a huge selling point for their top two AVR's and would have 
generated more interest in their line.


----------



## Alanlee

*Yes - I agree but.....*



Al Sherwood said:


> My excitement was dashed when I read the following at the bottom of the article: The Casablanca IVa will launch in the second quarter of 2015 for a suggested retail price of *$17,995*. The Casablanca V will be available in the third quarter of 2015 for a suggested retail price of* $21,995*
> 
> Sorry, I be a mere mortal...


Yeah - that is also way past my price point. What about the B&W products. Any good?


----------



## ss9001

Alanlee said:


> from: David Susilo - It's very confusing!
> 
> This discussion about the SC-89 brings me full circle in my quest during the last year to update the power in my home theater. I have had NAD and Yamaha amps, but about twelve years ago I bought a Pioneer Elite amp and then another. I like these amps.
> 
> So a year ago I was thinking to buy the latest and greatest Pioneer amp. It was not going to come out until summer. I waited and start reading which of course led me to researching Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3-D.
> 
> Just before the SC-87 and 89 came out, I read a couple of things that made me nervous. The new Pioneer amps were not going to be THX certified which I think I could have gotten past. Dolby Atmos was not going to actually be in the new amps. That was going to come after I had spent my money. Troubling, but still not enough to keep me away. And then I read that Pioneer was going to sell a controlling share of their home electronics division to Onkyo. I knew nothing about Onkyo.
> 
> I starting looking at Onkyo's line of amps, and then I ran into Integra amps and pre-amps. I looked at Marantz, Yamaha, NAD, Arcam and others. I am seeing pretty much the same thing in most of the products that are within my price range.
> 
> The industry is in a state of change that I have not witnessed since the introduction of stereo and surround sound. I'm an old guy. There is a lot of information out there, but there is also a lot of misinformation. This is not unusual, however many of the people who are selling this stuff are not up to speed on what they have: also not unusual. You folks are sorting through this information. You are on the front lines fighting for truth in sound systems.
> 
> I am the rear guard; I benefit from your struggle and appreciate what you are doing. I will keep reading and learning from you. Keep up the good fight.


hang in there 

to add to your dilemma, here's something on Onkyo's Atmos receivers you may not know.

prior to their 2014 Atmos models, Onkyo & Integra (an upscale div of Onkyo) had used Audyssey's best version of Audyssey room EQ system. The same as Denon & Marantz. Then in 2014 models they dropped Audyssey, going to a very basic form of EQ for the surrounds & center, leaving the fronts un-EQ'd. The current Onkyo room correction-EQ system is one of the most basic & least capable systems out there now. The other non-Audyssey systems from Pioneer & Yamaha are more sophisticated than what Onkyo did. This has led to some Onkyo fans going to the other brands. IMHO, this was a strategic mistake on their part for the enthusiast market.

I freely admit I've been a Pioneer fan for many years & still am. I also have very seriously considered Denon & Marantz & still will  I would pick any of them, including Yamaha, over Onkyo/Integra until Onkyo either puts Audyssey back or beefs up theirs using Pioneer's more advanced approach.

AFAIK, the last I heard was Pioneer & Onkyo will maintain separate branding & models each with its own feature sets. But they may share some common mfg and maybe components/platforms. This would be no different than Denon/Marantz whose home theater products are very similar with same basic platforms only with each company's specific differences & features. For example, Denon has their upsampling processing algorithm called AL32/AL24 and DenonLink for their players but Marantz uses their own HDAM preamp modules with distinct components vs 1 chip opamps used in majority of receivers. They are very close, use similar or same basic circuit boards but each division takes a bit different approach 

Pioneer & Onkyo may do something similar or something else entirely. Time will tell. 

THX cert doesn't mean as much as it used to. THX Cinema/Ultra 2 Cinema was useful to some people who liked its effect, but in an era of object oriented audio, how relevant is it? IMO, not much. Frankly, I had no problems when Pioneer dropped it; it's a big expense for licensing, bites into profit margins, and a lot of their competitors had already dropped it years ago (Denon/Marantz, Yamaha) or never had it (Rotel, Anthem, Arcam for example). Onkyo is one of the last holdouts & I wouldn't be surprised if they also drop it eventually since it is a significant expense. It just doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Pioneer's class D amps, starting with their original Icepower amp design, have always been capable. Without THX certification, the only thing that's changed is...nothing. They are still the same class D3 chip amp design that they've used and paid certification fees for since the SC-57 model about 3+ yrs ago. So you lose nothing performance wise except the THX processing modes aren't there.

Denon/Marantz, Yamaha also have capable class A/B amps and have similar performance specs.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Doesn't anyone read the manuals anymore? It clearly states that altough 11 speakers can be connected and calibrated, max 4 height speakers at the same time. You have to chose between top front+top rear, or top middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not even need a ext amp to get these options. And they use the TM, FW and SB speaker post for the 6 heights


I still read manuals, but not every year. ...That would be too costly (when buying the products that come with those manuals). 
But yes, online I do when I need some direction. * Some manuals have 350+ pages! 

And thx Nalleh for the clear picture now; nice to see folks keeping good 'Atmos traction'.


----------



## NorthSky

Alanlee said:


> I am wondering if this is a significant development (see link).
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...pport-for-high-performance-audio-brands/21157





Alanlee said:


> Yeah - that is also way past my price point. What about the B&W* products. Any good?


You meant *B&K* who makes SSPs and AV Receivers, etc.

* B&W mainly design/build speakers. 

______

Soon we are going to have AV receivers who have Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D/DTS:X and for less than one thousand dollars.
...And Surround Sound Processors (SSP) for less than two thousand dollars, with all that same stuff above.
Plus they'll also include the latest HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 version for full true 4K from the new 4K Blu-ray standard. ...Next Christmas.


----------



## ss9001

Alanlee said:


> from: David Susilo - It's very confusing!
> 
> This discussion about the SC-89 brings me full circle in my quest during the last year to update the power in my home theater. I have had NAD and Yamaha amps, but about twelve years ago I bought a Pioneer Elite amp and then another. I like these amps.
> 
> So a year ago I was thinking to buy the latest and greatest Pioneer amp. It was not going to come out until summer. I waited and start reading which of course led me to researching Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3-D.
> 
> Just before the SC-87 and 89 came out, I read a couple of things that made me nervous. The new Pioneer amps were not going to be THX certified which I think I could have gotten past. Dolby Atmos was not going to actually be in the new amps. That was going to come after I had spent my money. Troubling, but still not enough to keep me away. And then I read that Pioneer was going to sell a controlling share of their home electronics division to Onkyo. I knew nothing about Onkyo.
> 
> I starting looking at Onkyo's line of amps, and then I ran into Integra amps and pre-amps. I looked at Marantz, Yamaha, NAD, Arcam and others. I am seeing pretty much the same thing in most of the products that are within my price range.
> 
> The industry is in a state of change that I have not witnessed since the introduction of stereo and surround sound. I'm an old guy. There is a lot of information out there, but there is also a lot of misinformation. This is not unusual, however many of the people who are selling this stuff are not up to speed on what they have: also not unusual. You folks are sorting through this information. You are on the front lines fighting for truth in sound systems.
> 
> I am the rear guard; I benefit from your struggle and appreciate what you are doing. I will keep reading and learning from you. Keep up the good fight.


hang in there, I wouldn't be surprised if we aren't in similar age brackets, me going back to the beginning of the quadraphonic era 

to add to your dilemma, here's something on Onkyo's Atmos receivers you may not know.

prior to their 2014 Atmos models, Onkyo & Integra (an upscale div of Onkyo) had used Audyssey's best version of Audyssey room EQ system. The same as Denon & Marantz. Then in 2014 models they dropped Audyssey, going to a very basic form of EQ for the surrounds & center, leaving the fronts un-EQ'd. The current Onkyo room correction-EQ system is one of the most basic & less capable systems out there now. Audyssey & the other mainstream non-Audyssey systems from Pioneer, Yamaha, Anthem are much more sophisticated than what Onkyo now has. This has led to some Onkyo fans going to the other brands. IMHO, this was a big strategic mistake on their part for the enthusiast market.

I freely admit I've been a Pioneer fan for many years and also have seriously considered Denon & Marantz. I would pick any of them over Onkyo until Onkyo either puts Audyssey back or beefs up theirs using parts of Pioneer's more advanced approach.

AFAIK, the last I heard was Pioneer & Onkyo will maintain separate branding & models each with its own feature sets. But they may share some common mfg lines and (speculation) maybe components/platforms. This would be not much different than Denon/Marantz whose home theater products are very similar with the same basic platforms only with each company's specific differences & features. For example, Denon has their upsampling algorithm called AL32/AL24 and DenonLink for their players but Marantz uses their own HDAM preamp modules with distinct components vs 1 chip opamps used in majority of receivers. They are very close, may use similar basic circuit boards but each division takes a bit different approach.

Pioneer & Onkyo may do something similar or something else entirely. Time will tell


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. It is what it is and I enjoyed it quite a bit. There is, as I hope I conveyed, a lot to like. By way of contrast, tonight's movie is *Calvary.*


Keith, thank you very much for that movie tip. The missus and I just finished watching it and enjoyed it very much. It has an engaging, original plot; stellar writing; suspenseful direction; unaffected, soulful acting; breathtaking, atmospheric cinematography; and a haunting storyline that resonates and is sure to occasion much continued reflection. (Just like every film Michael Mann ever made, right? )

And the audio (*a Netflix BRD rental BTW*) in DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DSU was amazing as well. Now that was an hour-and-a-half well spent!


----------



## Alanlee

ss9001 said:


> hang in there
> 
> to add to your dilemma, here's something on Onkyo's Atmos receivers you may not know.
> 
> prior to their 2014 Atmos models, Onkyo & Integra (an upscale div of Onkyo) had used Audyssey's best version of Audyssey room EQ system. The same as Denon & Marantz. Then in 2014 models they dropped Audyssey, going to a very basic form of EQ for the surrounds & center, leaving the fronts un-EQ'd. The current Onkyo room correction-EQ system is one of the most basic & least capable systems out there now. The other non-Audyssey systems from Pioneer & Yamaha are more sophisticated than what Onkyo did. This has led to some Onkyo fans going to the other brands. IMHO, this was a strategic mistake on their part for the enthusiast market.
> 
> Thanks I will hang in there. I have been reading about the Audyssey/Integra controversy in another forum which is yet another reason to be thankful I found AVS.


----------



## NorthSky

Alanlee said:


> Thanks I will hang in there.
> *I have been reading about the Audyssey/Integra controversy in another forum which is yet another reason to be thankful I found AVS.*


:smile: It's a great (fun too) thread.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just a quick note that I edited the list on my blog, as it seems that Vice was wrongfully reported as Dolby Atmos at annoucement time.
> 
> Since then the PR from Lionsgate states DTS HD Master Audio 5.1...
> 
> Thanks to Chris who commented about this !
> 
> Sorry for this !


No skin off my back as it was a particularly crappy movie.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> So you too don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver yet, and like me is gathering info and knowledge to make a wise future/eminent audio/video purchase?
> 
> Well, the info you are sharing with us is pretty good info, and thanks in the name of all of us who are in the exact same boat.
> 
> * That Pioneer's rear; it is less than clear. /// For a person who buy this receiver, he cannot connect his speakers based on what it says on that rear.
> ...Just no way; it it is not that simple, it looks very complicated to me if I was to set up a Dolby 5.1.4 Atmos sound system in my room.
> I' would have no choice but to inspect the instruction manual copiously/meticulously. ...With serious technical analysis.
> And I know a lot of people who simply cannot do that. And they wouldn't pay someone to do it for them either. ...Then they'll simply buy a stereo or Dolby Digital/dts 5.1 receiver for $100-200 max, and which comes with all 5 satellite speakers (HTIB).
> 
> And I'm with you, regarding DTS:X and the right time to make the right decision.


That's why AVS is here to help us and inform us on the does and don'ts and to help people like yourself that look at your receiver and are not clear on what do. Once you understand the principal of the height speakers the light bulb on the top of your head will light up. Atmos I really quite simple.... hook up your base 7 speakers like you have done for years, then choose what height speakers you want to use Dolby enabled, or high, top, middle, back once those are chosen run your EQ sit back enjoy. Then tweak... experiment with listening modes enjoy some more.... then like I did move on ceiling speakers a little forward or backwards to get that sweet spot then your in Atmos heaven. I personally am in a tweaking holding pattern to see what DTS:X will bring along with Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh I'm getting there; slowly but surely. 

* I knew from a long time ago that _dts_ will come to the greatest rescue of them all. 

I appreciate all the early Dolby Atmos jumpers; without them the world would be too boring.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> I read the manual, several times.
> 
> I was asking David what _he_ did. Thanks.
> 
> Question for you: have _you_ read the manual? It does not support more than 9 speakers simultaneously and at no time does it (or any current device short of Trinnov/Datasat) support more than four heights/overheads at a time.


You are correct 
Max 9 channels at the same time on the Pioneers. But like others, more CAN be connected, calibrated and is used in the different formats, ex Neo:X.

Yes, 4 heights is max in todays receivers and pre/pros, other than the ones you stated.


Unless you cheat ... Like i did


----------



## petetherock

Re-joined the Atmos fold...
I had a 4100 initially, and now I am back with the 7200..
Hope we get that HDMI 2 / HDCP 2.2 board free down here...

My setup:
http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2015/02/my-setup-22015.html
(the bits relevant to Atmos):
Denon X7200W – XT 32, 11.2 capable with nine amps inbuilt, twin sub out, Atmos and Auro capable
Marantz PM 11S3 : 2 channel stereo amp with HTbypass and 100W per channel driving the front pair of 804D 
Rotel RMB 1572 - 250w per channel power amp for Front Heights
HTM4s centre, Radius 90HD for front height 
B&W 805s for rear back
Anthony Gallo A'Diva for ceiling Atmos placement and "Voice of God" placement


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> I still read manuals, but not every year. ...That would be too costly (when buying the products that come with those manuals).
> But yes, online I do when I need some direction. * Some manuals have 350+ pages!
> 
> And thx Nalleh for the clear picture now; nice to see folks keeping good 'Atmos traction'.


Today it is very easy to read the manuals: they are all online, avalable for download 

And that's what i did last fall when i was looking for a new Atmos receiver: i downloaded them all! And read them! I have them all on my Ipad 

And you're welcome


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> You are correct
> Max 9 channels at the same time on the Pioneers. But like others, more CAN be connected, calibrated and is used in the different formats, ex Neo:X.
> 
> Yes, 4 heights is max in todays receivers and pre/pros, other than the ones you stated.
> 
> 
> Unless you cheat ... Like i did


I've thought about cheating when I put up the heights in my room.

Would hook up two old PL2 receivers and let them do a center extract on the left and right pairs of front and rear heights to mostly properly extract a center middle top height. Would be slightly cumbersome but after all set up it would be mostly invisible. I'm thinking about it but I don't know if I want to commit to it or not. Maybe I should prepare for the inevitable x.x.6 layout so I don't have to worry later. I'd suggest to other people. Maybe I should take my own advice.


----------



## robert816

Kris Deering said:


> So I'm not sure why whoever reviewed On Any Sunday The Next Chapter over at Blu-ray.com completely omitted this from the technical info but this IS a Dolby Atmos enabled Blu-ray. It says it clear as day in multiple places on the back cover for the soundtrack. So those looking for another Atmos Blu-ray, it was released today.



Thanks for the heads up! Just finished watching this and just like the original, it's a great documentary about the love of motorcycles and racing. Confirmed it is in Dolby Atmos also.


Speaking of Atmos, went to the Cine Capri this morning to watch Kingsman. Sat there for 30 minutes through all the boring ads, trivia's, and finally through the trailers (although they do not trail the movie anymore, but I'm too old to change my speech now). Sat through the new Dolby Bouncing Balls sound promo (new? I've not seen this one before) and the movie started...........50 Shades of Grey, What the Eff!!!


Got up, spoke with management, the movies had been changed at the last minute due to Thursday's poor ticket sales for Kingsman. They may move it back to the Cine Capri on Sunday or Monday depending on sales of 50 Shades of Grey, the Cine Capri is the only theatre here with Dolby Atmos. Guess I'll try again in a few days.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> ** This is an important matter in our Dolby Atmos topic. ...And also because we were told before by some Dolby Atmos people (and others too) that all BD players should be able to play those new Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos audio encoding. ...And right now it is simply not the case,


Dolby has not quite stated_ all BD players_. They were very careful to state: >>A Blu-ray player that fully conforms to the Blu-ray specification can play a Dolby Atmos movie without a firmware update.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Alanlee said:


> hang in there
> 
> to add to your dilemma, here's something on Onkyo's Atmos receivers you may not know.
> 
> prior to their 2014 Atmos models, Onkyo & Integra (an upscale div of Onkyo) had used Audyssey's best version of Audyssey room EQ system. The same as Denon & Marantz. Then in 2014 models they dropped Audyssey, going to a very basic form of EQ for the surrounds & center, leaving the fronts un-EQ'd. The current Onkyo room correction-EQ system is one of the most basic & least capable systems out there now. The other non-Audyssey systems from Pioneer & Yamaha are more sophisticated than what Onkyo did. This has led to some Onkyo fans going to the other brands. IMHO, this was a strategic mistake on their part for the enthusiast market.
> 
> Thanks I will hang in there. I have been reading about the Audyssey/Integra controversy in another forum which is yet another reason to be thankful I found AVS.


 
Oh yeah we know that one all too well, we beat it to death in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html


I secretly hold out hope that Onkyo will come to their senses and bring Audyssey back.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Dolby has not quite stated_ all BD players_. They were very careful to state: >>A Blu-ray player that fully conforms to the Blu-ray specification can play a Dolby Atmos movie without a firmware update.


----------



## NorthSky

What is the Science in AV? ...It's the business predicament.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> Oh yeah we know that one all too well, we beat it to death in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html
> 
> 
> I secretly hold out hope that Onkyo will come to their senses and bring Audyssey back.


They will only if they put more money into improved performance DSP chips. That's one reason they dropped it... they didn't want to add more horsepower to allow for both Audyssey and Atmos.


----------



## LowellG

I think I am on my journey to Atmos. Found a great deal on some PM800s on Craigslist so I picked them up to try them. I swapped SR8080BPs out and put the 800s up. I definitely like the monopole accuracy better. Now I am thinking about putting 4 of them on the ceiling as well as all sides. I don't know if they will carry deep enough sound. They are a little brighter than the SR8080s. 


Now if the rumors of the Denon 7200 being upgradable to DTS:X I will make the transition sooner rather than later. Otherwise I will be waiting until fall.


----------



## aaranddeeman

robert816 said:


> In Section 3, Page 28 of the SC-87-89 manual for a 5.2.4 configuration it states the following:
> 
> 
> "When the top forward speakers and the top backwards speakers are used, there is no sound from the top middle speakers. When the top middle speakers are used, there is no sound from the top forward speakers and the top backwards speakers."
> 
> 
> I tested on my SC-87 and I do not need an external amp. I can hook up speakers to the top middle connectors and generate test tones. I can also switch during a movie and turn the top middle speakers on, when I do the front and rear Atmos speakers turn off. I
> have not tried a separate amp to the top middle pre-outs, but honestly I don't believe Pioneer would have let a selling point like that slip through without making a big deal out of it. That would be a huge selling point for their top two AVR's and would have
> generated more interest in their line.


Exactly...
After reading the last page I realized that he is confused with what MCACC does v/s actual active channels at once.
My Onkyo NR809 was a 7.2 AVR but had 11 speaker terminals. Audyssey used to run for all the 11 speakers, but that did not mean it had 11 channel processing...
The case rests..


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> Re-joined the Atmos fold...
> I had a 4100 initially, and now I am back with the 7200..
> Hope we get that HDMI 2 / HDCP 2.2 board free down here...


And what happens to the 4100.. Get it daisy-chained, I call it "Nalleh-Tech"


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> And what happens to the 4100.. Get it daisy-chained, I call it "*Nalleh-Tech*"


Word ! 

Or ATMOS EXPAND.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Word !
> 
> Or ATMOS EXPAND.


Ok we'll call it

ATMOS EX 
(Take care of that white space)


----------



## robert816

aaranddeeman said:


> Exactly...
> After reading the last page I realized that he is confused with what MCACC does v/s actual active channels at once.
> My Onkyo NR809 was a 7.2 AVR but had 11 speaker terminals. Audyssey used to run for all the 11 speakers, but that did not mean it had 11 channel processing...
> The case rests..


Over the years I've read a number of David's posts, he seems to be a pretty sharp guy who's opinion is valued, so it's not surprising that if he possibly found an un-documented feature that people would take interest.

Got to admit, even though I knew going into this that the Pioneer had a 9.2 channel limitation, I was kind of hoping he had found the magic work around to get us to 11.2, would have been very cool in my book!


----------



## aaranddeeman

robert816 said:


> Over the years I've read a number of David's posts, he seems to be a pretty sharp guy who's opinion is valued, so it's not surprising that if he possibly found an un-documented feature that people would take interest.
> 
> Got to admit, even though I knew going into this that the Pioneer had a 9.2 channel limitation, I was kind of hoping he had found the magic work around to get us to 11.2, would have been very cool in my book!


I agree..
That would have been the only AVR that does 6 heights...


----------



## NorthSky

Hélas.


----------



## ThePrisoner

LowellG said:


> I think I am on my journey to Atmos. Found a great deal on some PM800s on Craigslist so I picked them up to try them. I swapped SR8080BPs out and put the 800s up. I definitely like the monopole accuracy better. Now I am thinking about putting 4 of them on the ceiling as well as all sides. I don't know if they will carry deep enough sound. They are a little brighter than the SR8080s.
> 
> 
> Now if the rumors of the Denon 7200 being upgradable to DTS:X I will make the transition sooner rather than later. Otherwise I will be waiting until fall.


I have 4 PM800's on my ceiling FH & TM and they sound great. I also used the ProMount 80's to mount them.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just a quick note that I edited the list on my blog, as it seems that Vice was wrongfully reported as Dolby Atmos at annoucement time.
> 
> Since then the PR from Lionsgate states DTS HD Master Audio 5.1...
> 
> Thanks to Chris who commented about this !
> 
> Sorry for this !


Not a big loss I was going to get this one with Atmos till I actually watched it


----------



## LowellG

ThePrisoner said:


> I have 4 PM800's on my ceiling FH & TM and they sound great. I also used the ProMount 80's to mount them.


 
Great to know. Do you have any pics? How high is your ceiling? What do you have them crossed over at, do you wish they were bigger? I was thinking about a PM1000s or AW5500 as well. 


Also, for anybody. How are you positioning a .4 config with two rows.


----------



## ThePrisoner

LowellG said:


> Great to know. Do you have any pics? How high is your ceiling? What do you have them crossed over at, do you wish they were bigger? I was thinking about a PM1000s or AW5500 as well.
> 
> 
> Also, for anybody. How are you positioning a .4 config with two rows.


My ceiling is 8', the 800's are crossed over at 100Hz which was set by Audyssey. I like their size and they do meet the WAF in our house. PM 1000's are nice but definitely too big for my set-up.

I include pics for front soundstage and pic of the TM set which is just slightly forward of my love seat.


----------



## Selden Ball

Note that the DefTech's ProMonitor speakers are available in white, too. This might be more acceptable for overhead speakers in some environments, since they wouldn't stand out so much against a white ceiling.


----------



## LowellG

ThePrisoner said:


> My ceiling is 8', the 800's are crossed over at 100Hz which was set by Audyssey. I like their size and they do meet the WAF in our house. PM 1000's are nice but definitely too big for my set-up.
> 
> I include pics for front soundstage and pic of the TM set which is just slightly forward of my love seat.



Interesting, looks like you angled them a little bit I thought about just using the key hole and the other 1/4 inch hole and using those to flush mount, but then the connectors may give problems. 


Overall you are happy with the sound and Atmos.


----------



## Selden Ball

LowellG said:


> Interesting, looks like you angled them a little bit I thought about just using the key hole and the other 1/4 inch hole and using those to flush mount, but then the connectors may give problems.


Another problem with that technique is that DefTech speakers don't have as wide a dispersion as one might like. They sound best when pointed in the direction of the audience, which is why their adjustable ball-mounts are helpful.


----------



## LowellG

Selden Ball said:


> Another problem with that technique is that DefTech speakers don't have as wide a dispersion as one might like. They sound best when pointed in the direction of the audience, which is why their adjustable ball-mounts are helpful.


That leads me back to thinking the Gem line might be more appropriate, but they violate the monopole preference.


----------



## Selden Ball

LowellG said:


> That leads me back to thinking the Gem line might be more appropriate, but they violate the monopole preference.


Tannoy's line of concentric speakers is popular if you don't mind their lack of esthetics: accurate sound, monopole, concentric, wide dispersion and adjustable C mounts. Apparently their Di5 DC model is in short supply right now (gee, I wonder why...), but the Di6 DC is readily available. They're rather large, though.


----------



## ThePrisoner

LowellG said:


> Interesting, looks like you angled them a little bit I thought about just using the key hole and the other 1/4 inch hole and using those to flush mount, but then the connectors may give problems.
> 
> 
> Overall you are happy with the sound and Atmos.


Yes they are all angled. FH are aimed at the MLP. TM are slightly angled toward MLP. If you flush mount you will have a hard time with the connectors. I'm very happy with this set-up. I have two Audyssey files saved, one for Atmos and one for Auro 3D. I dare say I have been using Auro 3D upmixing lately, unless I'm watching a movie with an Atmos mix than I will upload that calibration file. It took me a while to get it all set-up. I started with Dolby Enabled speakers, than wall mounted and than finally to the ceiling where it all came together quite nicely. This thread helped a ton!


----------



## ThePrisoner

Selden Ball said:


> Another problem with that technique is that DefTech speakers don't have as wide a dispersion as one might like. They sound best when pointed in the direction of the audience, which is why their adjustable ball-mounts are helpful.


Exactly


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I don't have an issue... my* Panasonic DMP-BDT220* 3D Blu-ray Players I have two they both play anything.
> Why do you think it's Lionsgate mine plays them flawlessly....can't wait for Mocking Jay with Atmos and John Wick is a great Atmos mix to use as an Atmos demo to friends and family...


I have a really ancient Panasonic DMP-BD35 bluray player (along with my Oppo 103) and it has never been upgraded and, so far, has played every disc I have inserted into it to perfection, including all the 'problem' discs with overly complex seamless branching. This is something my regularly upgraded Oppo 93 couldn't do. The Panasonic is truly remarkable and I will keep it for ever. The only slight drawback to using it is that, by comparison with the Oppo and other modern players, it takes a little while to load the discs.


----------



## kbarnes701

lujan said:


> I have the Oppo 103 and also watched John Wick with the Atmos audio track and didn't have any lip sync issues so it must be another problem?


Ditto.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I believe their white speaker is indeed paintable.


They are. A spray paint in a rattle can would make a nice job.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> I've installed two systems with 5.2.6; just try it yourself instead of arguing


I hope you're going to refund their money, David, now you've realised your mistake


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, thank you very much for that movie tip. The missus and I just finished watching it and enjoyed it very much. It has an engaging, original plot; stellar writing; suspenseful direction; unaffected, soulful acting; breathtaking, atmospheric cinematography; and a haunting storyline that resonates and is sure to occasion much continued reflection. (Just like every film Michael Mann ever made, right? )
> 
> And the audio (*a Netflix BRD rental BTW*) in DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DSU was amazing as well. Now that was an hour-and-a-half well spent!


Glad you enjoyed it. Have you seen *The Guard* from the same stable?


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Over the years I've read a number of David's posts, he seems to be a pretty sharp guy who's opinion is valued, so it's not surprising that if he possibly found *an un-documented feature* that people would take interest.


An un-documented feature that allows a unit with only 9 decoders to decode 11 channels all at the same time?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Selden Ball said:


> Tannoy's line of concentric speakers is popular if you don't mind their lack of esthetics: accurate sound, monopole, concentric, wide dispersion and adjustable C mounts. Apparently their Di5 DC model is in short supply right now (gee, I wonder why...), but the Di6 DC is readily available. They're rather large, though.


There's also Tannoy's more stylish line, the *DVS*, which come in 4, 6, and 8 inch driver sizes in black or white.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> They are. A spray paint in a rattle can would make a nice job.


Just remove the cloth lining behind the grill first, if it has that. The paint will clog the holes.


----------



## NorthSky

> I have a really ancient Panasonic DMP-BD35 bluray player (along with my Oppo 103) and it has never been upgraded and, so far, has played every disc I have inserted into it to perfection, including all the 'problem' discs with overly complex seamless branching. This is something my regularly upgraded Oppo 93 couldn't do. The Panasonic is truly remarkable and I will keep it for ever. The only slight drawback to using it is that, by comparison with the Oppo and other modern players, it takes a little while to load the discs.


Can you play 'Avatar' in your Panasonic DMP-BD35 Blu-ray player? 

___________

* Panasonic should have told their customers back then to never upgrade those model players with firmwares. You're one of the lucky ones who didn't.
But Panasonic did tell about the black level "timer" in their plasmas (2009-10 models I believe). 

This is a funny business. ...One year to the next, and with luck.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. Have you seen *The Guard* from the same stable?


Yes, fabulous movie, that. And did you notice the passing mention of the "Garda" (as in Irish cops) in_ Calvary_? I like to think it was a sly callback to McDonagh/Gleeson's previous collaboration.


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> An un-documented feature that allows a unit with only 9 decoders to decode 11 channels all at the same time?



Would be awesome as hell, would it not!? 


While my statement about David was generalized and not focusing on the 9 channel limit of the current Pioneer AVR's, do you know for absolute certainty that with the new Atmos technology, that the ability to do what he claims does not exist in the current DSP? Perhaps the chip has the ability to output to an external amp and power another pair of Atmos speakers, but wasn't to be announced until the next version of the AVR.


People have found other technologies to have hidden un-documented features, and found ways to unlock those features and use them, so wouldn't it be great if this was in fact something David had found?


----------



## blazar

There is a lot of talk about decoding "extra channels"... With object oriented, the data is coded with coordinates for where the sound should go as opposed to actual discreet prerecorded channels... Right? Am i missing something here?

Is home atmos drastically different in its methodology for steering objects?

7.1 channels + steerable objects? Or is that wrong?


----------



## NorthSky

blazar said:


> There is a lot of talk about decoding "extra channels"... With object oriented, the data is coded with coordinates for where the sound should go as opposed to actual discreet prerecorded channels... Right? Am i missing something here?
> 
> Is home atmos drastically different in its methodology for steering objects?
> 
> 7.1 channels + steerable objects? Or is that wrong?


Nice speakers you have; what type of music do you like listening to?


----------



## Selden Ball

blazar said:


> There is a lot of talk about decoding "extra channels"... With object oriented, the data is coded with coordinates for where the sound should go as opposed to actual discreet prerecorded channels... Right? Am i missing something here?
> 
> Is home atmos drastically different in its methodology for steering objects?
> 
> 7.1 channels + steerable objects? Or is that wrong?


I think people are tending to conflate Atmos with Auro-3D and poorly describing the differences.

The home version of Atmos uses up to 7.1 channel "beds" plus many objects for as many as 11 speaker outputs in current mainstream implementations like D+M (32 in high priced ones like Trinnov Altitude32), while the commercial theatrical version uses up to 9.1 channel beds (two overhead) plus up to 118 objects for as many as 64 speaker outputs.

See 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf
and
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf

(I've seen people refer to limits in the number of objects for the home implementation which are smaller than in the commercial implementation, but a specific value doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Dolby documents that I've read.)


----------



## aaranddeeman

I have a quick question on placement of the 4 height speakers. If one has complete freedom of mounting them anywhere within the spec angles for TF/FH (30 to 55 degree), TR/RH(125 to 150 degree), is it best to place them midway like TF/FH (42 to 46 degree), TR/RH(134 to 136 degree) or should they be placed towards the farthest edge from MLP? This with ceiling height of 92" and the room length of 212" and width 139" with MLP at 120" from screen.

Edit : Also from the side walls I plan to mount them either at 16" from wall (which aligns with L & R) or I can bring them little inwards which is 33" from side wall. So again from dispersion point of view would inwards server better or aligned with L&R. I am doing on-ceiling mount speakers that will be angled towards MLP. I have only single row of seats (3 seats).


----------



## brahman12

John Wick Atmos track was really fun....(slight spoiler alert) When he's using the sledgehammer....those blows sounded hyper-real and right in ur face...nice copter flyovers and rain effects. The hand to hand fighting was expertly choreographed and well shot by the cinematography crew. I was able to very clearly hear what the Dolby team meant when it was stated within the various Atmos promo spots that the new system allows the audio team to "move" the sounds further away from the speaker baffles thus creating a more three dimensional experience and allowing the sound to move "through" the room.....not just simply being produced by a speaker at a particular location. Really cool stuff indeed!!! I love Atmos and DSU, although in my opinion, the Atmos mixes are definitely superior to DSU...Again I believe DSU is awesome as well....loved the Equalizer with Denzel playing the principal role of Robert McCall which I watched with DSU engaged. But Atmos is just a little more awesome in my humble opinion. There is a scene in John Wick when an SUV roars across the screen and I actually felt and heard the sucker move through the center of the room from left surround through my seat and into the area between my front right and center channel....perfectly placed sound done more precisely than DSU's efforts thus far in my experience and of course...to my ear as I hear it....the soundtrack of the movie, that is.


----------



## Steve Goff

blazar said:


> There is a lot of talk about decoding "extra channels"... With object oriented, the data is coded with coordinates for where the sound should go as opposed to actual discreet prerecorded channels... Right? Am i missing something here?
> 
> Is home atmos drastically different in its methodology for steering objects?
> 
> 7.1 channels + steerable objects? Or is that wrong?



Yes, but ultimately all of the objects must be allocated by the Atmos decoder to an amplification channel or channels. If a pre/pro only has 9 channels with 9 DACs, the decoder can only decode those objects to 9 channels. No matter how many objects are stored on the audio track, they all must end up in the amplification channels employed in the processor. For example, the Marantz AV7702 has thirteen channels of DACs and HDAM output amplifiers. For Atmos seven of these are used for the main channels, two for subwoofers, and four for overhead speakers. All objects must be decoded and sent to one or more of the eleven main amplification channels.


----------



## robert816

Steve Goff said:


> Yes, but ultimately all of the objects must be allocated by the Atmos decoder to an amplification channel or channels. If a pre/pro only has 9 channels with 9 DACs, the decoder can only decode those objects to 9 channels. No matter how many objects are stored on the audio track, they all must end up in the amplification channels employed in the processor. For example, the Marantz AV7702 has thirteen channels of DACs and HDAM output amplifiers. For Atmos seven of these are used for the main channels, two for subwoofers, and four for overhead speakers. All objects must be decoded and sent to one or more of the eleven main amplification channels.



Ah, that was going to be my next question, does the Atmos metadata need decoded channels or was the metadata sent to an Atmos processor that could simply use a pre-determind speaker set and use all (up to 10) speakers allocated as Atmos speakers.


----------



## pasender91

The second option is correct, the Atmos metadata only contains positions for objects in space.
The Atmos AVR then maps all those sounds to whatever speaker configuration you have, this is the beauty of the system


----------



## NorthSky

...And the Blu-ray player has to transmit that data properly; so the sound mixer and the encoder have to do their job well too.


----------



## robert816

pasender91 said:


> The second option is correct, the Atmos metadata only contains positions for objects in space.
> The Atmos AVR then maps all those sounds to whatever speaker configuration you have, this is the beauty of the system



Thank you sir!  I'm getting a better grasp on the technical side of Atmos.


----------



## Steve Goff

robert816 said:


> Ah, that was going to be my next question, does the Atmos metadata need decoded channels or was the metadata sent to an Atmos processor that could simply use a pre-determind speaker set and use all (up to 10) speakers allocated as Atmos speakers.



The metadata contains positional information from which the decoder assigns sounds to various physical channels. If the sound is to occur at a spot between speakers the sound can be placed there the same way stereo places sounds between your left and right speakers. A sound movement, expressed perhaps as a vector in the metadata, is decoded to pan between speakers. The decoder knows where your speakers are located (to an extent, at least) and uses that information in assigning sounds to channels/speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Just remove the cloth lining behind the grill first, if it has that. The paint will clog the holes.


Yes, good idea. I'd remove the bezel which, IIRC, is held by a couple of retaining screws and then mask the front of the speaker prior to spraying to ensure nothing gets on to the driver/tweeter. Spray the bezel separately and Robert is your father's brother. Tannoy recommend that the speakers can be painted in their user manual and/or on their website, so the procedure is an established one. Then the OP won't have to wait until the end of March, which is the most important thing of all of course


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, fabulous movie, that. And did you notice the passing mention of the "Garda" (as in Irish cops) in_ Calvary_? I like to think it was a sly callback to McDonagh/Gleeson's previous collaboration.


I did  And I assume that you will have seen *In Bruges*, of course?


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Would be awesome as hell, would it not!?


You mean in the sense that it is actually impossible? 



robert816 said:


> While my statement about David was generalized and not focusing on the 9 channel limit of the current Pioneer AVR's, do you know for absolute certainty that with the new Atmos technology, that the ability to do what he claims does not exist in the current DSP? Perhaps the chip has the ability to output to an external amp and power another pair of Atmos speakers, but wasn't to be announced until the next version of the AVR.


Yes, it is an absolute certainty that each channel needs a processor/decoder and as the Pioneer has just 9, it cannot in any way decode 11. It's like saying you have 9 single-channel amplifiers but you are hoping to connect 11 individual speakers to them.



robert816 said:


> People have found other technologies to have hidden un-documented features, and found ways to unlock those features and use them, so wouldn't it be great if this was in fact something David had found?


Of course there are sometimes hidden features. But, so far, nobody has found a hidden feature that rewrites the laws of physics  Well, there was this one guy... Dr Emmett Brown I think was his name


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> John Wick Atmos track was really fun....(slight spoiler alert) When he's using the sledgehammer....those blows sounded hyper-real and right in ur face...nice copter flyovers and rain effects. The hand to hand fighting was expertly choreographed and well shot by the cinematography crew. I was able to very clearly hear what the Dolby team meant when it was stated within the various Atmos promo spots that the new system allows the audio team to "move" the sounds further away from the speaker baffles thus creating a more three dimensional experience and allowing the sound to move "through" the room.....not just simply being produced by a speaker at a particular location. Really cool stuff indeed!!! I love Atmos and DSU, although in my opinion, the Atmos mixes are definitely superior to DSU...Again I believe DSU is awesome as well....loved the Equalizer with Denzel playing the principal role of Robert McCall which I watched with DSU engaged. But Atmos is just a little more awesome in my humble opinion. There is a scene in John Wick when an SUV roars across the screen and I actually felt and heard the sucker move through the center of the room from left surround through my seat and into the area between my front right and center channel....perfectly placed sound done more precisely than DSU's efforts thus far in my experience and of course...to my ear as I hear it....the soundtrack of the movie, that is.


I think that is an excellent analysis. Keanu may be a wooden actor but he can sure handle the fight choreography in any movie I've seen him in. His slightly 'detached' presence is ideal for the character of John Wick though, who has had a sort of hidden switch flipped and is acting on base instinct for most of the movie. I agree with you about how Atmos places the sounds in the room with such precision. DSU is fun but it sounds 'vague' by comparison. (Here the use of the word "vague" is relative of course - in a good 5.1 system sounds should be placed with some precision - just not as much precision as Atmos manages).

*The Equalizer* is a good movie to mention in the same context as *John* *Wick*. They are both revenge action movies, but both quite different in their approach. I am biased - I’d have Denzel's babies if I could and cannot recall a movie of his which I have not enjoyed. My favorite is, I think, *Man on Fire* by the late, great Tony Scott, but there have been so many.


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> I have a quick question on placement of the 4 height speakers. If one has complete freedom of mounting them anywhere within the spec angles for TF/FH (30 to 55 degree), TR/RH(125 to 150 degree), is it best to place them midway like TF/FH (42 to 46 degree), TR/RH(134 to 136 degree) or should they be placed towards the farthest edge from MLP? This with ceiling height of 92" and the room length of 212" and width 139" with MLP at 120" from screen.
> 
> Edit : Also from the side walls I plan to mount them either at 16" from wall (which aligns with L & R) or I can bring them little inwards which is 33" from side wall. So again from dispersion point of view would inwards server better or aligned with L&R. I am doing on-ceiling mount speakers that will be angled towards MLP. I have only single row of seats (3 seats).


Bumping it as it may have got lost within other posts.
Any input is appreciated...


----------



## ss9001

robert816 said:


> Would be awesome as hell, would it not!?
> 
> 
> While my statement about David was generalized and not focusing on the 9 channel limit of the current Pioneer AVR's, do you know for absolute certainty that with the new Atmos technology, that the ability to do what he claims does not exist in the current DSP? Perhaps the chip has the ability to output to an external amp and power another pair of Atmos speakers, but wasn't to be announced until the next version of the AVR.


nope

9 decoders means exactly that - only 9 channels can be decoded at the same time. look, I got the 9 decoder limit directly from the head of Pioneer US home audio, Chris Walker, who goes by Walkamo on this forum. Feel free to PM him 

this is why Pioneer has never been able to use all 11 preamp outputs at the same time.

everyone can hook up 6 heights and calibrate them. then for speaker config C (5.2.4) you can select which pairs to use in the Manual Speaker Setup menu. So, sure, you can have TM's with TF's or TM's with TR's. But that is not playing all 6 at the same time, is it? 

it isn't possible, no undocumented feature.

buy one & try it...I think you'll find I am right. I've been using Pioneer Elite flagships since ~2000 and know how they work. The SC-68 that I have won't do it and nothing has changed in 2 model years. I've also seen *many* posts on this forum over the years from Pio owners who come here asking why they don't get any sound from 2 speakers when they try to use all the preamp outs.

Pioneer has to put in 11 decoders before they will allow you to use an ext amp for the 2 extra channels, like D&M/Onkyo/Yamaha.

Putting in 11 decoders is something we can hope they do in 2015 models. then you can do 7.2.4 & maybe even the supposed 5.2.6 combo will be possible 

until then...

read the manual and apply logic. if what David claimed is possible, then why wouldn't Pioneer have put in 7.2.4 capability in the 1s place? 

with 9 decoders, the only possibility for a 5.2.6 to work is that 2 pairs would be playing the same 2 decoded tracks at the same time, like an stereo A+B speaker combo. no such option is possible if you read the manual. with 5.2.4, the speaker select button only turns the fronts on/off, and does not change speaker selections. only for 7.2.2 and others will the button actually allow you to change various speakers like A, B, A+B, but choosing 6 overheads isn't a choice & it wouldn't be a 7.2.2 anymore either 

I'm done trying to explain this further. this & my previous posts should be enough to convince you 

further, David admitted he never actually played content to confirm he got all 6. he said all he does is run test tones, calibrate. MCACC will send test tones to the speakers it detects.


----------



## brahman12

*Funny Coincidence*



kbarnes701 said:


> I think that is an excellent analysis. Keanu may be a wooden actor but he can sure handle the fight choreography in any movie I've seen him in. His slightly 'detached' presence is ideal for the character of John Wick though, who has had a sort of hidden switch flipped and is acting on base instinct for most of the movie. I agree with you about how Atmos places the sounds in the room with such precision. DSU is fun but it sounds 'vague' by comparison. (Here the use of the word "vague" is relative of course - in a good 5.1 system sounds should be placed with some precision - just not as much precision as Atmos manages).
> 
> *The Equalizer* is a good movie to mention in the same context as *John* *Wick*. They are both revenge action movies, but both quite different in their approach. I am biased - I’d have Denzel's babies if I could and cannot recall a movie of his which I have not enjoyed. My favorite is, I think, *Man on Fire* by the late, great Tony Scott, but there have been so many.


I got both movies next to each other in my Bluray library lol (MAN ON FIRE and EQUALIZER). I really enjoyed both JOHN WICK and EQUALIZER for what they are and their technical aspects. They also are very stylish action flicks which always adds a nice element to intensive gunplay. Although Antoine Fuqua directed EQUALIZER, I saw a very strong Michael Mann type style in that film.....especially the climactic fight in the home improvement megastore. Lots of slow movements and supercool music overlaying the careful stalking game between protagonist and antagonist....anybody remember the Miami Vice TV show and the final standoff in the movie HEAT with Deniro and Pacino. Very cool stuff indeed!!! As for Atmos....I absolutely love it.....I believe we have to stop thinking about how often the overheads are being engaged as others, including yourself have mentioned in previous posts....as they should only be engaged to correlate to what is happening on the movie screen, as well as add ambiance, depth, and thus overall dimension. Once you can perceive Atmos' subtle intricacies as well as its more overt effects, then you start to get what it is all about, and appreciate it more profoundly.....perhaps . And I definitely get what you mean about how DSU although awesome, does what Atmos does but does it not as precisely/perfectly...thus doing the trick well enough to impress but it seems to do it somewhat vaguely in comparison to Atmos' true reveal.


----------



## ss9001

Man on Fire - good movie. Dakota Fanning was perfect in it. Denzel was pretty good too  I haven't seen Equalizer yet but it's on my list.


----------



## brahman12

*Experimentation is Key*



aaranddeeman said:


> Bumping it as it may have got lost within other posts.
> Any input is appreciated...


If you have the ability to try different spots...then you should try different spots within the guidelines ideally. But if you need to do kind of a one and done setup, go with your instincts in regards to how sound travels in your room and how YOU hear sound in ur room. My setup has the top fronts at 38 degrees and top rears at 142 degrees....and if you have read any of my posts then you would know I feel that my setup sounds incredibly awesome. I also have them placed about six inches further in - towards the MLP - rather than being perfectly aligned with the FR/FL and SRR/SRL. Good luck...and hopefully you will soon experience Atmos/DSU induced Nirvana


----------



## brahman12

ss9001 said:


> Man on Fire - good movie. Dakota Fanning was perfect in it. Denzel was pretty good too  I haven't seen Equalizer yet but it's on my list.


If you really enjoy stylized action...then trust me....make sure it is on your short-list...lol. Cheers my friend and enjoy


----------



## SteveTheGeek

I imagine this comes as no surprise, but no Atmos for The Hobbit : The Battle of the Five Armies...

Amazon posted the back of the box and it says DTS HD Master Audio 7.1...










I'm surprised how Dolby does not put the required money behind securing such releases for their format, one like this would be a game changer...

Let's hope for a double-dip in DTS:X...


----------



## Jive Turkey

The Hobbit not being released in Atmos blows chunks.

I couldn't think of a more apt description than that.


----------



## robert816

ss9001 said:


> nope
> 
> 9 decoders means exactly that - only 9 channels can be decoded at the same time. look, I got the 9 decoder limit directly from the head of Pioneer US home audio, Chris Walker, who goes by Walkamo on this forum. Feel free to PM him
> 
> this is why Pioneer has never been able to use all 11 preamp outputs at the same time.
> 
> everyone can hook up 6 heights and calibrate them. then for speaker config C (5.2.4) you can select which pairs to use in the Manual Speaker Setup menu. So, sure, you can have TM's with TF's or TM's with TR's. But that is not playing all 6 at the same time, is it?
> 
> it isn't possible, no undocumented feature.
> 
> buy one & try it...I think you'll find I am right. I've been using Pioneer Elite flagships since ~2000 and know how they work. The SC-68 that I have won't do it and nothing has changed in 2 model years. I've also seen *many* posts on this forum over the years from Pio owners who come here asking why they don't get any sound from 2 speakers when they try to use all the preamp outs.
> 
> Pioneer has to put in 11 decoders before they will allow you to use an ext amp for the 2 extra channels, like D&M/Onkyo/Yamaha.
> 
> Putting in 11 decoders is something we can hope they do in 2015 models. then you can do 7.2.4 & maybe even the supposed 5.2.6 combo will be possible
> 
> until then...
> 
> read the manual and apply logic. if what David claimed is possible, then why wouldn't Pioneer have put in 7.2.4 capability in the 1s place?
> 
> with 9 decoders, the only possibility for a 5.2.6 to work is that 2 pairs would be playing the same 2 decoded tracks at the same time, like an stereo A+B speaker combo. no such option is possible if you read the manual. with 5.2.4, the speaker select button only turns the fronts on/off, and does not change speaker selections. only for 7.2.2 and others will the button actually allow you to change various speakers like A, B, A+B, but choosing 6 overheads isn't a choice & it wouldn't be a 7.2.2 anymore either
> 
> I'm done trying to explain this further. this & my previous posts should be enough to convince you
> 
> further, David admitted he never actually played content to confirm he got all 6. he said all he does is run test tones, calibrate. MCACC will send test tones to the speakers it detects.


 
Sir, there was no need for you to expend the energy you did in writing this post. Apparently yourself and @kbarnes701 seem to not understand, that *I in fact do understand the 9 channel limit with the Pioneers*. 

I made a generalized statement about David, I did not say it would be cool if he found a way to get 11 channels out of a 9 channel AVR, I said it would be cool if he found an undocumented feature, and yes, *I already understand the 9 channel limit of the Pioneer*.

I'm guessing you didn't read my post shortly after David posted about believing he could make all 6 Atmos speakers work at the same time, I quoted from the Pioneer manual that if the top front and top rear we turned on, the top middle would be turned off. I tested this myself, the only thing I did not do is hook up an external amp and try it that way since I did not believe it would make any difference. Again gentlemen, *I understand the 9 channel limit of the Pioneer SC line*.

I have purchased a number of the Pioneer SC line and it's lesser brother, I guess you failed to understand that. I own currently a Pioneer SC-07, a Pioneer SC-57, and I currently have installed in my home theatre setup, a Pioneer SC-87. So yes, *I do understand the 9 channel limit* of the Pioneer line. 

I'm done trying to explain this to you any further, if you've failed to understand that *I understand the 9 channel limit of the Pioneer line*, then the problem lies on your end of this conversation, not mine.


----------



## robert816

Jive Turkey said:


> The Hobbit not being released in Atmos blows chunks.
> 
> I couldn't think of a more apt description than that.


 
I agree since all three were in theatres with an Atmos mix.

Since the first two were not released with Atmos on Blu-Ray, it does make sense that the third one doesn't have it either.

But look at it this way, now they have a great excuse for releasing the trilogy in an extended edition, a regular edition with Atmos, and then later, an extended edition with Atmos!


----------



## aaranddeeman

brahman12 said:


> If you have the ability to try different spots...then you should try different spots within the guidelines ideally. But if you need to do kind of a one and done setup, go with your instincts in regards to how sound travels in your room and how YOU hear sound in ur room. My setup has the top fronts at 38 degrees and top rears at 142 degrees....and if you have read any of my posts then you would know I feel that my setup sounds incredibly awesome. I also have them placed about six inches further in - towards the MLP - rather than being perfectly aligned with the FR/FL and SRR/SRL. Good luck...and hopefully you will soon experience Atmos/DSU induced Nirvana


Thank you.
After re-reviewing my room, I think my TR/RH will stay in the 139 degrees any farther will go too close to rear wall.
I was also pondering if I should to FH (@55 degrees) and TM instead of TR/RH, just so that 
- we don't hear much from rear as they say
- TM will double as SH for Auro if I decide to take that option
- When AVRs will support 6 heights in future, I can simply add RH w/o moving the exiting layout..

Yeah. Sometimes limitations are better to decide. If you have fairly open options there is a confusion. I need to do some more thinking.
Thanks again for your input.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert816 said:


> I agree since all three were in theatres with an Atmos mix.
> 
> Since the first two were not released with Atmos on Blu-Ray, it does make sense that the third one doesn't have it either.
> 
> But look at it this way, now they have a great excuse for releasing the trilogy in an extended edition, a regular edition with Atmos, and then later, an extended edition with Atmos!


Of course, their marketing game plan is totally transparent.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> I made a generalized statement about David, I did not say it would be cool if he found a way to get 11 channels out of a 9 channel AVR, I said it would be cool if he found an undocumented feature, and yes, *I already understand the 9 channel limit of the Pioneer*.


It would be more than cool - it would be a miracle. Like taking 9 of something and adding 2 more and still getting 7. How many times does it need to be said that it is impossible for what you are describing as potentially "cool" to actually happen? It cannot be an undocumented feature because it is impossible for it to happen. 



robert816 said:


> I'm done trying to explain this to you any further...


Every post contains one small nugget of good news


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> I agree since all three were in theatres with an Atmos mix.
> 
> *Since the first two were not released with Atmos on Blu-Ray, it does make sense that the third one doesn't have it either.*
> 
> But look at it this way, now they have a great excuse for releasing the trilogy in an extended edition, a regular edition with Atmos, and then later, an extended edition with Atmos!


The first two were not released as Atmos blurays because home Atmos did not exist at the time of their release.

You could well be right about their game plan...


----------



## ss9001

robert816 said:


> I'm done trying to explain this to you any further, if you've failed to understand that *I understand the 9 channel limit of the Pioneer line*, then the problem lies on your end of this conversation, not mine.


OK, good 

I don't know your history or how much you knew about Pioneer's platform. 

All I was responding to was what seemed to be a wish that David is right when he can't be and presenting (again) the reasons why. So let's let it at that. I know David's posting history. I know he's generally a well-informed man on Pioneer gear (as am I). It's not unusual to find us posting in same Pio gear threads and agreeing with each other. We both share an enthusiasm for Pioneer.

I wasn't trying to be snarky to you so sorry if it seemed that way. 

I post what I post for the benefit of information for others who might otherwise proceed with misinformation and then become disappointed when the gear they bought can't do what they *think* it would do. In my time here, I've seen too many posts like that too, from pissed off owners who don't read then ***** when the gear doesn't do something. 

All I'm trying to do is help keep correct information going about gear I know about in this forum which can help others in their buying & setup decisions. If you knew great! Others may not.

I'm a big SC fan (SC-09TX & SC-68) & have a long history here with Pioneer gear so I'm glad you like their gear too 

Peace


----------



## ss9001

robert816 said:


> But look at it this way, now they have a great excuse for releasing the trilogy in an extended edition, a regular edition with Atmos, and then later, an extended edition with Atmos!


+1 agreed & hope we see them in Atmos


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I did  And I assume that you will have seen *In Bruges*, of course?


IMHO the McDonagh brothers (John Michael and Martin) are among Merrie Olde's best exports. I love smart, dark, quirky movies of the sort that "McD²" seem to specialize in writing, directing, and/or producing.

_In Bruges_ (2008), written and directed by Martin, was a revelation to me being as it was the first of the brothers' works that I had seen. His _Seven Psychopaths_ was even more impressive, showing that he could transplant his British writing/directing/producing sensibilities seamlessly into the American landscape.

John Michael (_The Guard_, _Calvary_) also wrote the screenplay for _Ned Kelly_, a fine Australian quasi-western film which I am confident you would enjoy.

These are the types of movies that I am personally most eager to see produced in Atmos (and/or DTS:X), rather than the cacophonous blockbuster action/disaster flicks (which--full disclosure--I probably wouldn't be interested in watching anyway). IMHO the enhancements of MDA would provide a much more valuable--albeit subtle--aural enrichment for the atmospherics of a film that is not already awash in visual and aural gimmickry.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> IMHO the McDonagh brothers (John Michael and Martin) are among Merrie Olde's best exports. I love smart, dark, quirky movies of the sort that "McD²" seem to specialize in writing, directing, and/or producing.
> 
> _In Bruges_ (2008), written and directed by Martin, was a revelation to me being as it was the first of the brothers' works that I had seen. His _Seven Psychopaths_ was even more impressive, showing that he could transplant his British writing/directing/producing sensibilities seamlessly into the American landscape.
> 
> John Michael (_The Guard_, _Calvary_) also wrote the screenplay for _Ned Kelly_, a fine Australian quasi-western film which I am confident you would enjoy.


Yes, *Seven Psychopaths* was very entertaining. I haven't seen *Ned Kelly* - will check it out, thanks. I do like pretty much all the Australian movies I have seen. Especially *The Proposition*. You seen that?



chi_guy50 said:


> These are the types of movies that I am personally most eager to see produced in Atmos (and/or DTS:X), rather than the cacophonous blockbuster action/disaster flicks (which--full disclosure--I probably wouldn't be interested in watching anyway). IMHO the enhancements of MDA would provide a much more valuable--albeit subtle--aural enrichment for the atmospherics of a film that is not already awash in visual and aural gimmickry.


Yes, the benefits of Atmos can be lost when the room is already bursting at the seams with sound from all directions, I agree. Still the most impressive use of Atmos I have heard is the 'riddles in the dark' cave scene from The Hobbit.


----------



## Drivingrain

*Has anyone seen a list of the 2015 AVR lineups from the major manufacturers with a release date and MSRP? 
*

A list of Atmos-enabled AVRs would be ideal, but beggars cant be choosers; I'd just take a simple list of all of them and self-filter.

It seems like this would be easy to find as the industry would presumably market itself well enough to make sure this type of list is readily available, but Im having a hard time...


----------



## kbarnes701

Someone mentioned Michael Mann earlier. If you haven’t yet bought the Limited Edition 4K restoration, Director's Cut of *Thief* yet, then I urge you to rush out and get it right this minute. As well as being a great movie, the restoration is breathtaking. Michael Mann supervised itself and did a whole new color timing of the entire movie. The original cut is on a separate disc in the box and it is interesting to compare them. The new version has a blue cast to it which is kinda interesting. Not sure why MM thought it needed that but hey, it's his movie. Also, the extras on the disc are fabulous too. Well worth checking out - limited edition is just 3,000 copies so it might even be worth something one day 

To get back on topic - the restoration has a new 5.1 soundtrack (the original has the original 2ch track) and of course, DSU adds its usual magic. I have never seen nor heard this movie look and sound so good.


----------



## Selden Ball

Drivingrain said:


> *Has anyone seen a list of the 2015 AVR lineups from the major manufacturers with a release date and MSRP?
> *
> 
> A list of Atmos-enabled AVRs would be ideal, but beggars cant be choosers; I'd just take a simple list of all of them and self-filter.
> 
> It seems like this would be easy to find as the industry would presumably market itself well enough to make sure this type of list is readily available, but Im having a hard time...


You'll have to wait until at least next month. DTS seems to have them all under an NDA until the DTS:X announcement in March.

Many don't make formal announcements until the summer, anyhow.


----------



## ss9001

kbarnes701 said:


> Someone mentioned Michael Mann earlier. If you haven’t yet bought the Limited Edition 4K restoration, Director's Cut of *Thief* yet, then I urge you to rush out and get it right this minute.


Keith, if you mean the Criterion release, I have it and agreed, it's excellent plus great movie. We must have some similar tastes 

One of Caan's good roles. Another dark role he played was The Gambler (not on BD, tho). Similar but different in that he's not a criminal but respectable prof who can't control his habit & gets in way over his head = a greek tragedy of sorts.


----------



## SoundJunky

Damn, I was really hoping that The Hobbit BOTFA would be an atmos release.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, *Seven Psychopaths* was very entertaining. I haven't seen *Ned Kelly* - will check it out, thanks. I do like pretty much all the Australian movies I have seen. Especially *The Proposition*. You seen that?
> 
> Animal Kingdom is a must see if you haven't already!
> 
> 
> Ray


----------



## FilmMixer

So I haven't been around for months...

Besides being very busy with work ("Fury" then "Daredevil (for Netflix) then straight into "Trainwreck.." talk about 3 very different projects) I also have been really reconnecting with my family and life in general.  It has just made my AVS time non-existent...

I've been lurking lately, and excited at what's coming down the pike.

At the end of the year I had gotten rid of my HT setup .. I am going to but it back together at the end of April.. 

Anyways... regardless of not having anything to play content on, I've been doing my part to support all of the emerging formats.. putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak...

Hope to be actively involved more so in the future... nice to see everyone else keeping on keeping on.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, *Seven Psychopaths* was very entertaining. I haven't seen *Ned Kelly* - will check it out, thanks. I do like pretty much all the Australian movies I have seen. Especially *The Proposition*. You seen that?


Thanks, I will have to that one check out. I have seen another of Aussie director John Hillcoat's "quasi-westerns,"_ Lawless_ (also with Guy Pearce in the cast), which I liked quite a lot. In the mold of _Ned Kelly_, the story is based on historical characters/events.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

FilmMixer said:


> So I haven't been around for months...
> 
> Besides being very busy with work ("Fury" then "Daredevil (for Netflix) then straight into "Trainwreck.." talk about 3 very different projects) I also have been really reconnecting with my family and life in general.  It has just made my AVS time non-existent...
> 
> I've been lurking lately, and excited at what's coming down the pike.
> 
> At the end of the year I had gotten rid of my HT setup .. I am going to but it back together at the end of April..
> 
> Anyways... regardless of not having anything to play content on, I've been doing my part to support all of the emerging formats.. putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak...
> 
> Hope to be actively involved more so in the future... nice to see everyone else keeping on keeping on.


Get job on Fury...just reviewed it for the magazine and gave it a perfect audio score. I need to start reading the credits more carefully and seeing what projects you are working on. Great work Marc.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dave Vaughn said:


> Get job on Fury...just reviewed it for the magazine and gave it a perfect audio score. I need to start reading the credits more carefully and seeing what projects you are working on. Great work Mark.


+1.. Super audio performance....


----------



## robert816

Steve Goff said:


> The metadata contains positional information from which the decoder assigns sounds to various physical channels. If the sound is to occur at a spot between speakers the sound can be placed there the same way stereo places sounds between your left and right speakers. A sound movement, expressed perhaps as a vector in the metadata, is decoded to pan between speakers. The decoder knows where your speakers are located (to an extent, at least) and uses that information in assigning sounds to channels/speakers.


Thank you, I'll do some more digging into the technical side of Atmos. I'm interested in the actual process of Atmos under the hood, so to speak, which chips, etc, I'm curious to see where this will lead us down the road.


I'm curious if we would ever move away from traditional beds/channels and toward complete object based audio. It would be nice to be able to boost the gain on dialog only (I know the DTS counterpart is working on something like this), or in other movies lower the music score so that it doesn't overwhelm the vocal and effects tracks. I realize that this would take away from the directors possible intent on how the movie should be played, but then again since some systems are brighter, some more on the sub levels, how many times have I actually heard the original intent of the director anyway?


----------



## robert816

FilmMixer said:


> So I haven't been around for months...
> 
> Besides being very busy with work ("Fury" then "Daredevil (for Netflix) then straight into "Trainwreck.." talk about 3 very different projects) I also have been really reconnecting with my family and life in general.  It has just made my AVS time non-existent...
> 
> I've been lurking lately, and excited at what's coming down the pike.
> 
> At the end of the year I had gotten rid of my HT setup .. I am going to but it back together at the end of April..
> 
> Anyways... regardless of not having anything to play content on, I've been doing my part to support all of the emerging formats.. putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak...
> 
> Hope to be actively involved more so in the future... nice to see everyone else keeping on keeping on.



Wonderful job on Fury!


My only disappointment is that after watching, and listening to this movie on Blu-Ray, is that I did not make time to see it in the theatre as I should have.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> Keith, if you mean the Criterion release, I have it and agreed, it's excellent plus great movie. We must have some similar tastes
> 
> One of Caan's good roles. Another dark role he played was The Gambler (not on BD, tho). Similar but different in that he's not a criminal but respectable prof who can't control his habit & gets in way over his head = a greek tragedy of sorts.


I think we do share similar tastes. I have just ordered Ned Kelly from Amazon. It will be here tomorrow (Prime). Talking of Limey movies that you might like, check out Ben Wheatley's *Kill List*. It will freak you out if nothing else


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, *Seven Psychopaths* was very entertaining. I haven't seen *Ned Kelly* - will check it out, thanks. I do like pretty much all the Australian movies I have seen. Especially *The Proposition*. You seen that?
> 
> Animal Kingdom is a must see if you haven't already!
> 
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I love it!
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> So I haven't been around for months...
> 
> Besides being very busy with work ("Fury" then "Daredevil (for Netflix) then straight into "Trainwreck.." talk about 3 very different projects) I also have been really reconnecting with my family and life in general.  It has just made my AVS time non-existent...
> 
> I've been lurking lately, and excited at what's coming down the pike.
> 
> At the end of the year I had gotten rid of my HT setup .. I am going to but it back together at the end of April..
> 
> Anyways... regardless of not having anything to play content on, I've been doing my part to support all of the emerging formats.. putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak...
> 
> Hope to be actively involved more so in the future... nice to see everyone else keeping on keeping on.


Good to see you back, Marc.


----------



## Kain

WayneJoy said:


> It's probably a bit early for it to be on the list, it doesn't come out for another 4 months.





Brian Fineberg said:


> Sound probably hasn't even been mixed yet. Are they in post production yet?


Have a look at this list: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html

They have upcoming movies (that will be released at the end of this year even) listed but no Jurassic World in sight.


----------



## ggsantafe

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Yes, Seven Psychopaths was very entertaining. I haven't seen Ned Kelly - will check it out, thanks. I do like pretty much all the Australian movies I have seen. Especially The Proposition. You seen that?

Animal Kingdom is a must see if you haven't already!

I will check out "Animal Kingdom" & "The Proposition" - older Australian flix that I liked include "The Last Wave," "The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith" & "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks, I will have to that one check out. I have seen another of Aussie director John Hillcoat's "quasi-westerns,"_ Lawless_ (also with Guy Pearce in the cast), which I liked quite a lot. In the mold of _Ned Kelly_, the story is based on historical characters/events.


*
Lawless* - love it!


----------



## dvdwilly3

I am currently running 5.1.2 (fake Atmos-enabled) with an Onkyo TX-XR737. I intend to move in the next 6 months or so to 5.1.4. I am considering the Pioneer SC-85 or the Onkyo TX-NR1030. Any recommendations, or is it pretty much personal preference?


----------



## bargervais

It's always been a curiosity of mine that most Blu-Rays are in DTS and most streaming is in Dolby . .as we get into 2016 to 2017 I see streaming becoming used more and more and the physical media like Blu-Ray dwindle... so I'm very happy that I'm an early adopter of Atmos... I watch a lot of movies streamed on Netflix Dolby D + same with Amazon prime mostly I should say if they are in 5.1 it's Dolby D +... VUDU has the Dolby Demos in Atmos My Conclusion is we will start very soon seeing select films with an Atmos mix streamed IMHO......


----------



## robert816

ss9001 said:


> I'm a big SC fan (SC-09TX & SC-68) & have a long history here with Pioneer gear so I'm glad you like their gear too
> 
> Peace


There is Iron in your words of peace, then peace it shall be. 

If you still own the SC-09, then you sir, have my envy. I wanted one but had purchased the SC-07 first and could not justify the additional cost. I would love to find one again like the one I found last year, still in a sealed box for $1.5K, but I bought the SC-87 instead because I had to have Atmos.

I love the sound of the Ice Amps, the current D3 amps sound great, but with my hearing, the ice amps were just that much better. I know others say the new D3 amps sound better to them, but not to me. My SC-07 is now attached to my old Merlin speakers that were not in use.

If I find another deal on an SC-09, I will probably pick it up and turn the SC-87 into a pre-amp, I would really like to hear Atmos through a great set of ice amps. Of course we don't know as yet what is in store for this year, it might be even better!

PS to Pioneer/Onkyo, we need another Susano!! Although you need to add another amp, and give us Pioneer fans additional external channel ability.

Almost forgot, went and watched Kingsman:The Secret Service today with Atmos at the Cine Capri, nice sound with bullets whizzing past, I found it to be a fun, entertaining movie, very over-the-top, got tired of the lisp though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> So I haven't been around for months...
> 
> Besides being very busy with work ("Fury" then "Daredevil (for Netflix) then straight into "Trainwreck.." talk about 3 very different projects) I also have been really reconnecting with my family and life in general.  It has just made my AVS time non-existent...
> 
> I've been lurking lately, and excited at what's coming down the pike.
> 
> At the end of the year I had gotten rid of my HT setup .. I am going to but it back together at the end of April..
> 
> Anyways... regardless of not having anything to play content on, I've been doing my part to support all of the emerging formats.. putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak...
> 
> Hope to be actively involved more so in the future... nice to see everyone else keeping on keeping on.


Fantastic to have you back, though family time is definitely more important. I have yet to see _Fury_, but I have it on my short list. 

Like some of us here, it might be better to hold off on a major receiver or pre-amp purchase until we know what DTS has in store for us. You may already be aware that they're having a debut "outing" of their consumer *X* hybrid codec this March.


----------



## Straffa

Onkyo have Atmos demo for free!
Great soundtrack and finally something to use when calibrate speakers! 


future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm


----------



## Straffa

> AMBRA – PRISM OF LIFE
> 
> Audiovisual technologies of the future, now availabale for your home theater
> Gorgeous, highly detailed landscapes, breathtaking images and exploding, lifelike colors – thanks to extended colorspace, high bitrate and 4K mastered source material
> Expansive, 360° soundscapes in perfect Dolby Atmos® multi-channel format – moving sound objects drag you right into the action!
> Test Dolby Atmos!


Copy and paste link since I am new member I can't post link yet
future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm


----------



## NorthSky

*Ya man!*

Hi Marc,

Very nice of you to let us know that you're still alive and well reconnected with your family; a very good thing. ...For the heart & spirit. 

I truly enjoyed the audio soundtrack from *'Fury'* on Blu-ray. ...Thumbs up! 

((•)) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles are so minimal (quantity), and not the best choices either (quality), that by next month when *dts:x* makes its announcement, we will be entering a wider phase in elevated 3D surround sound immersion; I am totally confident about that. ...The future in 3D sound looks bright; we'll all have to wear shades real soon. 

Big cheers,
_Bob_



FilmMixer said:


> So I haven't been around for months...
> 
> Besides being very busy with work ("Fury" then "Daredevil (for Netflix) then straight into "Trainwreck.." talk about 3 very different projects) I also have been really reconnecting with my family and life in general.  It has just made my AVS time non-existent...
> 
> I've been lurking lately, and excited at what's coming down the pike.
> 
> At the end of the year I had gotten rid of my HT setup .. I am going to but it back together at the end of April..
> 
> Anyways... regardless of not having anything to play content on, I've been doing my part to support all of the emerging formats.. putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak...
> 
> Hope to be actively involved more so in the future... nice to see everyone else keeping on keeping on.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh by the way, someone earlier mentioned this ::










♦ This is a 4K Blu-ray restoration from the Criterion Collection. ...If you're serious about movies and music (Tangerine Dream), this is a must for your Blu collection.
_Michael Mann_'s all films have a unique touch when it comes to music soundtracks, authenticity, image compositions, original cars, actor's performances, atmospheric pace.


----------



## Alanlee

robert816 said:


> Thank you, I'll do some more digging into the technical side of Atmos. I'm interested in the actual process of Atmos under the hood, so to speak, which chips, etc, I'm curious to see where this will lead us down the road.
> how many times have I actually heard the original intent of the director anyway?


Since many of the movies I watch at home start with a childlike “don't copy” lecture or an insulting threat to sic the FBI on me for crimes I do not commit, and then a statement which says the people who make the movie are not responsible for what I am seeing and hearing, I think it reasonable for a viewer/listener to ask “OK what exactly is your responsibility as a filmmaker?”

Are you just an entertainer? Do you live by a moral code? Am I supposed to learn something from what you are doing? For those of us who are viewing at home, and as it pertains to the AVS Forum, do you realize that we have spent a lot of time and money attempting to obtain a quality experience?

On the preceding pages of this thread, there are examples of films that were viewed and enjoyed. Lots of enthusiasm for those great films. Apparently we have a contributor in this thread who worked on the movie _Fury_.Wow dude! Excellent work. Here is a movie about war and the burden of leadership. Bloody yes – I don't think inappropriately so, and Brad Pitt gives a great performance as a cruel-to-be-kind Sgt. This is so much better than the WWII movies I watched as a kid, and closer to the depressing truth of war. But back to the AVS Forum.....

The sound in this movie is natural: well mostly. I don't recall pianos and violins when we were moving APC's in Vietnam, but let's let that one go. There was action - planes, overhead. If I had Atmos I assume the ceiling would have rattled. I'm fairly certain I know what the director intended in this movie.

I have seen plenty of films at home and in theaters where the speakers blare dissonance and are not compatible with the action on the screen. If I'm home, I can fiddle with surround effects, and sometimes wrestle the sound into something more agreeable. More often than not I am stuck with trash banging in my ears, and I get the impression that the director had no intentions.

Ok –maybe I'm being too critical. The technicians in the movie and music industries have made incredible advancements in sound engineering in the last fifty years, and many producers and directors are still living in the fifties. Most opera videos are especially bad, but don't get me started on that.

The makers of this new tool Atmos claim it will allow a much more precise placement of sound. I don't expect miracles, however I'm hoping that I will not be seeing yet another disclaimer from the movie industry which threatens me in some way and allows filmmakers to abdicate responsibility for their creations.


----------



## aaranddeeman

brahman12 said:


> If you have the ability to try different spots...then you should try different spots within the guidelines ideally. But if you need to do kind of a one and done setup, go with your instincts in regards to how sound travels in your room and how YOU hear sound in ur room. My setup has the top fronts at 38 degrees and top rears at 142 degrees....and if you have read any of my posts then you would know I feel that my setup sounds incredibly awesome. I also have them placed about six inches further in - towards the MLP - rather than being perfectly aligned with the FR/FL and SRR/SRL. Good luck...and hopefully you will soon experience Atmos/DSU induced Nirvana


I finally went ahead and installed the speakers. 
TF/FH are at around 36 degree
TM (whenever they will be installed) 85 degree
TR/RH are at around 140 degree

How do you guys handling the tweeter/woofer orientation? For now I have installed upside down (Woofer to the ceiling). 
I can orient them horizontal, but am not sure about the "lobing"

Now, where that Atmos receiver.....


----------



## Alanlee

I realize that this would take away from the directors possible intent on how the movie should be played, but then again since some systems are brighter, some more on the sub levels, how many times have I actually heard the original intent of the director anyway?[/QUOTE]

Since many of the movies I watch at home start with a childlike “don't copy” lecture or an insulting threat to sic the FBI on me for crimes I do not commit, and then a statement which says the people who make the movie are notresponsible for what I am seeing and hearing, I think it reasonablefor a viewer/listener to ask “OK what exactly is yourresponsibility as a filmmaker?”

Are you just an entertainer? Do youlive by a moral code? Am I supposed to learn something from what youare doing? For those of us who are viewing at home, and as itpertains to the AVS Forum, do you realize that we have spent a lot oftime and money attempting to obtain a quality experience?

On the preceding pages of this thread,there are examples of films that were viewed and enjoyed. Lots of enthusiasm for those great films. Apparently we have a contributor in this thread who worked on the movie _Fury_.Wow dude! Excellent work. Here is a movie about war and the burden of leadership. Bloody yes – I don't think inappropriately so, and Brad Pitt gives a great performance as a cruel-to-be-kind Sgt. This is so much better than the WWII movies I watched as a kid, and closer tothe depressing truth of war. But back to the AVS Forum.....
The sound in thismovie is natural: well mostly. I don't recall pianos and violins when we were moving APC's in Vietnam, but let's let that one go.







There was action - planes, overhead. If I had Atmos I assume the ceiling would have rattled. I'm fairly certain I know what the director intended in this movie.

I have seen plenty of films at home and in theaters where the speakers blare dissonance and are not compatible with the action on the screen. If I'm home, I can fiddle with surround effects, and sometimes wrestle the sound into something more agreeable. More often than not I am stuck with trash banging in my ears, and I get the impression that the director had no intentions.

Ok – maybe I'm being too critical. The technicians in the movie and music industries have made incredible advancements in sound engineering in the last fifty years, and many producers and directors are still living in the fifties. Most opera videos are especially bad, but don't get mestarted on that.

The makers of this new tool Atmos claim it will allow a much more precise placement ofsound. I don't expect miracles, however I'm hoping that I will not be seeing yet another disclaimer from the movie industry which threatens me in some way, and allows filmmakers to abdicate their responsibility for what they are creating.


----------



## robert816

WOW!  Hell of a post, sir!

Wait a minute!, Are you really trying to tell me every time a Huey lifted off on mission, it wasn't blaring Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries from stadium speakers!? 

And to answer your question, yes sir, you are a dirty rotten pirate, just like the rest of us money paying scum, because I guarantee at some point you have watched a movie at a friends home without sending remediation to whichever studio produced the feature you watched. 

Soon your new "Smart TV" will have a credit card slot built in so that when you watch a movie you paid for, it will detect whether there are more people than yourself and ask you to insert your credit card and pay a fee based on the amount of extra people viewing the movie.


----------



## NorthSky

Did I just read two of the same posts about the FBI?


----------



## robert816

no, the second one is subliminal and that "click" you heard in the background of your phone is just static.


----------



## Alanlee

robert816 said:


> WOW!  Hell of a post, sir!
> 
> Wait a minute!, Are you really trying to tell me every time a Huey lifted off on mission, it wasn't blaring Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries from stadium speakers!?
> 
> And to answer your question, yes sir, you are a dirty rotten pirate, just like the rest of us money paying scum, because I guarantee at some point you have watched a movie at a friends home without sending remediation to whichever studio produced the feature you watched.
> 
> Soon your new "Smart TV" will have a credit card slot built in so that when you watch a movie you paid for, it will detect whether there are more people than yourself and ask you to insert your credit card and pay a fee based on the amount of extra people viewing the movie.


 
They got it wrong in Apocalypse Now. It should have been the doors, and I admit to the piracy to which you refer: might as well come clean.


----------



## brahman12

*Absolutely Right NorthSky*



NorthSky said:


> Oh by the way, someone earlier mentioned this ::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ This is a 4K Blu-ray restoration from the Criterion Collection. ...If you're serious about movies and music (Tangerine Dream), this is a must for your Blu collection.
> _Michael Mann_'s all films have a unique touch when it comes to music soundtracks, authenticity, image compositions, original cars, actor's performances, atmospheric pace.


You are spot on with your Michael Mann comment. Really stylish film tactics that caught my eye as an 80's child and devotee of Miami Vice in those days. Gonna definitely get this Criterion release. I posted earlier on hoe the recent action film EQUALIZER is very Michael Mann-ish lol....especially the final climactic battle. Really cool stuff.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Just saw Kingsman secret service in Atmos... I thought the mix was very... meh. Not worth watching or hearing, a bit disappointing compared to his previous work. 


There definitely seems to be a huge difference in immersion from film to film. I wasn't impressed with "Exodus" or "American Sniper" in Atmos @ the theater. Mockingjay, Maze Runner, Into the Storm, & the Hobbit had some pretty great moments. I felt like I got my money's worth from those flicks.


----------



## ultraflexed

Straffa said:


> Onkyo have Atmos demo for free!
> Great soundtrack and finally something to use when calibrate speakers!
> 
> 
> future-d.de/onkyo/index2.htm


I have the 1030 av , how do you get the demo?


----------



## Straffa

ultraflexed said:


> I have the 1030 av , how do you get the demo?


Onkyo have a demo just go to site and download Atmos demo


----------



## funhouse69

Just finished watching the Expendables 3 in Atmos and wile the Atmos mix is pretty cool there is 2 hours and 11 Minutes of my life I can't get back. This movie was pretty bad and not even the Atmos effects could rescue it =(


----------



## HT-Eman

Andrew Jones opinion on why up-firing speakers are better than ceiling down-firing speakers .


----------



## NorthSky

funhouse69 said:


> Just finished watching the Expendables 3 in Atmos and wile the Atmos mix is pretty cool there is 2 hours and 11 Minutes of my life I can't get back. This movie was pretty bad and not even the Atmos effects could rescue it =(


Now, you and I we 100% agree on this.


----------



## NorthSky

HT-Eman said:


> Andrew Jones opinion on why up-firing speakers are better than ceiling down-firing speakers :
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBHDtPu9UJk


Hey, this is real cool you shared this one with us.


----------



## petetherock

HT-Eman said:


> Andrew Jones opinion on why up-firing speakers are better than ceiling down-firing speakers .
> http://youtu.be/KBHDtPu9UJk


Interesting, but does it have anything to do with the fact that he sells upfiring speakers?

(BTW I owned his Pioneer speakers, just not the ones he is advocating).


----------



## westmd

The japanese upcoming Blu Ray of Godzilla will, in comparison to all exisisting Blu Rays, be in True HD! Might that be a sign that it will be in native atmos?


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> And to answer your question, yes sir, you are a dirty rotten pirate, just like the rest of us money paying scum, because I guarantee at some point you have watched a movie at a friends home without sending remediation to whichever studio produced the feature you watched.


Not so. So long as your friend didn't charge you admission, no law has been violated.


----------



## qlazer

Hi,

I'll use two lsr 308 s for movie and tv sound plus my soundbar.

put it by side for R,L Ch and use soundbar center channel (although it's surround mode)

And I ordered SVS SB12-NSD (sealed subwoofer) 


would they balancing?


----------



## qlazer

qlazer said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'll use two lsr 308 s for movie and tv plus my soundbar. (40 Hz – 20 kHz)
> 
> put it by side for R,L Ch and use soundbar center channel (although it's surround mode by optical cable)
> 
> And I ordered SVS SB12-NSD (sealed subwoofer)
> 
> 
> Would they balancing?


----------



## Frank714

I got hold of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc (August 2014), made the acoustic improvements and gave my Marantz SR 7009's Audyssey the whole 8 "measuring" positions run with no ambient noise of any kind.

I then put in the Dolby Atmos demo disc. Indeed, sound was very detached from the speakers and the X.X.4 top speakers were very active, but during the "Amaze" and the "Leaf" trailer I couldn't help but feel that the back speakers (ear-level and top) were more prominent that the top front speakers.

Do those of you, who also own this disc, had a similar impression or does that "sound" like the levels of my top front speakers are too low?

While channel separation was impressive with 360° effects (though at one point the leaf seemed to disappear in the right surround speaker area and then had a sudden comeback from the right front), I did miss the "three-dimensional" or "bubble" effect the Dolby engineers talked about in one of the disc's programs.

When the rain drops where hitting the camera eye in the "Amaze" trailer (my point of view during that scene) it didn't sound they were coming straight at me but rather overall ambient. 

I vaguely recall similar criticism a couple of months ago, but I'm not that sure. Someone please help me refresh my / our memory. Thanks.


----------



## roxiedog13

petetherock said:


> Interesting, but does it have anything to do with the fact that he sells upfiring speakers?
> 
> (BTW I owned his Pioneer speakers, just not the ones he is advocating).


Exactly . Have you ever had a salesman talk about the better features of the competition? Up-firing do work, probably as good as in-ceiling if the conditions are perfect but there is less room for error . In-ceiling doesn't need to be so precise but I think we have collectively determined at this point that in-ceiling is overall better if done properly.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I think we do share similar tastes. I have just ordered Ned Kelly from Amazon. It will be here tomorrow (Prime). Talking of Limey movies that you might like, check out Ben Wheatley's *Kill List*. It will freak you out if nothing else


 
I just watched The Rover last night - written by David Michod and Joel Edgerton from Animal Kingdom. Another great Australian movie. Guy Pearce was his usual, brilliant self but Robert Pattison was absolutely phenomenal. Very cool soundtrack. 


Ray


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I just watched The Rover last night - written by David Michod and Joel Edgerton from Animal Kingdom. Another great Australian movie. Guy Pearce was his usual, brilliant self but Robert Pattison was absolutely phenomenal. Very cool soundtrack.
> 
> 
> Ray


Agreed - another great Australian movie. Must watch it again!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frank714 said:


> I got hold of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc (August 2014), made the acoustic improvements and gave my Marantz SR 7009's Audyssey the whole 8 "measuring" positions run with no ambient noise of any kind.
> 
> I then put in the Dolby Atmos demo disc. Indeed, sound was very detached from the speakers and the X.X.4 top speakers were very active, but during the "Amaze" and the "Leaf" trailer I couldn't help but feel that the back speakers (ear-level and top) were more prominent that the top front speakers.
> 
> Do those of you, who also own this disc, had a similar impression or does that "sound" like the levels of my top front speakers are too low?
> 
> While channel separation was impressive with 360° effects (though at one point the leaf seemed to disappear in the right surround speaker area and then had a sudden comeback from the right front), I did miss the "three-dimensional" or "bubble" effect the Dolby engineers talked about in one of the disc's programs.
> 
> When the rain drops where hitting the camera eye in the "Amaze" trailer (my point of view during that scene) it didn't sound they were coming straight at me but rather overall ambient.
> 
> I vaguely recall similar criticism a couple of months ago, but I'm not that sure. Someone please help me refresh my / our memory. Thanks.


I forget, are you using modules or ceiling speakers? 

I agonized over that difference in rear vs. front overhead. I'm using modules... my solution was to move the modules up a couple feet in front of the main front L/R speakers, I placed them on speaker stands which is a bit of an eyesore, but it did the trick. They are about 6' away from the MLP. 

Imo audyssey doesn't know what to do with the modules. I would also try turning the volume up a lot. I turn the modules up 5 db when I'm watching Atmos content... that makes a big difference for overhead effects. I turn it back down to calibrated levels for standard upmixed content, as the modules exaggerate the ambience which can sound nasty at times. 

My ears had a hard time trying to figure out the leaf trailer. I used Amaze & conductor. In Amaze the bird sounds like it's nice & full 360 degree panning around the room. 
In conductor, something like 5 or 6 seconds into the trailer a bird flies overhead... that was what I used to adjust my height settings as it flies from the front left height to front right height. The flapping of the wings sounded nice & full when I moved closer to the speakers, when I moved back to the MLP the flapping sounded more faint... so that's why I moved up the modules. 

Last night when I went to go see Kingsman in the Atmos theater... they used the Amaze trailer to introduce the film. I thought it sounded better at home than it did in the theater  I'm almost painfully familiar with the Atmos demo disc now. However... at the same theater when I heard the leaf trailer I thought that sounded better at the theater... though that was a different screen. I'm wondering if the different theaters at that location might not be setup correctly? (ICON theater in chicago)


----------



## tjenkins95

roxiedog13 said:


> Exactly . Have you ever had a salesman talk about the better features of the competition? Up-firing do work, probably as good as in-ceiling if the conditions are perfect but there is less room for error . In-ceiling doesn't need to be so precise but I think we have collectively determined at this point that in-ceiling is overall better if done properly.


For the up-firing Pioneer speakers to work all you need to do is point them to a flat, reflective part of the ceiling.
The actual consensus reported earlier in this thread by listeners who attended the Dolby Atmos demo at CEDIA was that most listeners preferred the up-firing speakers. In my opinion, the only difference is the way the sound is distributed. With in-ceiling speakers, the sound is more localized and with up-firing the sound is more dispersed. I have listened to both. They both sound great.

Ray


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> For the up-firing Pioneer speakers to work all you need to do is point them to a flat, reflective part of the ceiling.
> The actual consensus reported earlier in this thread by listeners who attended the Dolby Atmos demo at CEDIA was that most listeners preferred the up-firing speakers. In my opinion, the only difference is the way the sound is distributed. With in-ceiling speakers, the sound is more localized and with up-firing the sound is more dispersed. I have listened to both. They both sound great.
> 
> Ray


Count me as one of the CEDIA attendees who thought the ceiling speakers were superior to the upfiring "enabled" speakers, the Andrew Jones models included.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> Count me as one of the CEDIA attendees who thought the ceiling speakers were superior to the upfiring "enabled" speakers, the Andrew Jones models included.


Dan, I am curious...I assume (yeah, yeah) that the CEDIA demo used the Dolby-enabled setting on the receiver/pre-amp/whatever. If so, then they were fed a signal that was limited bandwidth.
Have you heard an upfiring setup that was run as Top Front instead so that the upfiring speakers got a full bandwidth signal? It does make a difference.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Dan, I am curious...I assume (yeah, yeah) that the CEDIA demo used the Dolby-enabled setting on the receiver/pre-amp/whatever. If so, then they were fed a signal that was limited bandwidth.
> Have you heard an upfiring setup that was run as Top Front instead so that the upfiring speakers got a full bandwidth signal? It does make a difference.


I'm assuming they set the receivers up as having "enabled" speakers attached. I mostly thought the enabled speakers sounded like a good stereo expansion DSP mode. The precision of sound positioning with true overheads was clearly the superior experience at most of the demos I went to.


----------



## Frank714

Aras_Volodka said:


> I forget, are you using modules or ceiling speakers?


Ceiling speakers, sorry I forgot to be specific.



Aras_Volodka said:


> In conductor, something like 5 or 6 seconds into the trailer a bird flies overhead... that was what I used to adjust my height settings as it flies from the front left height to front right height. The flapping of the wings sounded nice & full when I moved closer to the speakers, when I moved back to the MLP the flapping sounded more faint... so that's why I moved up the modules.


Thanks, perfect. I was hoping for a sound example to verify my top speakers output (not sure I can trust Audyssey. For the _exact_ same kind of speakers it set the crossover frequency for the back surrounds to 110 Hz while it set the crossover frequency for the top front speakers to 60 Hz ). Maybe that's the reason why I haven't been able, yet, to join the chorus of the DSU aficionados.


----------



## roxiedog13

tjenkins95 said:


> For the up-firing Pioneer speakers to work all you need to do is point them to a flat, reflective part of the ceiling.
> The actual consensus reported earlier in this thread by listeners who attended the Dolby Atmos demo at CEDIA was that most listeners preferred the up-firing speakers. In my opinion, the only difference is the way the sound is distributed. With in-ceiling speakers, the sound is more localized and with up-firing the sound is more dispersed. I have listened to both. They both sound great.
> 
> Ray


Sorry Ray,it is not that easy. In a perfect situation with the correct ceiling height, a solid flat ceiling and the MLP at the correct distance from the LCR for perfect bounce angle, the up-firing will sound great. Few home theaters have this, certainly every MLP is not the same distance, ceilings are different heights, made of different materials and few are perfectly flat. I had to move my modules way forward of the LCR speakers to make them work, it would never have worked properly if the Atmos was integrated in the LCR speakers. 

I'm just saying the in-ceiling are easier to make it work regardless of the room deficiencies, both will sound great when set up "properly."


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> Not so. So long as your friend didn't charge you admission, no law has been violated.


Sigh, you are thinking far too literal, @Alanlee got it and responded in kind, I know full well no law was broken, it was in jest.

It was sarcasm, dry wit, humor, a joke, apply any and all of the preceding to what I wrote, or do you need me to specify in brackets my intent? Example: {This line is not an attack on you, nor am I angry, I am asking a question}

I'm asking because it seems you have taken exception with me and my recent posts and seem to feel the need to correct me, or am I wrong?

So, what do I need to do to have you stop picking nits with me?? {The correct version of the word is nitpicking, just wanted you to know I am already aware of that }


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> For the up-firing Pioneer speakers to work all you need to do is point them to a flat, reflective part of the ceiling.
> The actual consensus reported earlier in this thread by listeners who attended the Dolby Atmos demo at CEDIA was that most listeners preferred the up-firing speakers. In my opinion, the only difference is the way the sound is distributed. With in-ceiling speakers, the sound is more localized and with up-firing the sound is more dispersed. I have listened to both. They both sound great.
> 
> Ray


That was also my conclusion after having heard two demos at Dolby in London in their typical HT room. Neither one was better than the other - just different, in the way you describe. I can only conclude that people who are not having much success with the upfirers are experiencing setup issues. The Kef upfirers at the second demo I attended were superb.


----------



## wse

Here is a cheap amp for you surround speakers.

http://www.parts-express.com/dayton...utm_content=300-590&utm_campaign=email021615B

or this one, is what I got for a bit more $$

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier


----------



## wse

HT-Eman said:


> Andrew Jones opinion on why up-firing speakers are better than ceiling down-firing speakers .
> 
> http://youtu.be/KBHDtPu9UJk


Sounds to me he is just promoting his new speakers! Info-marketing!


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Sorry Ray,it is not that easy. In a perfect situation with the correct ceiling height, a solid flat ceiling and the MLP at the correct distance from the LCR for perfect bounce angle, the up-firing will sound great. Few home theaters have this, certainly every MLP is not the same distance, ceilings are different heights, made of different materials and few are perfectly flat.


The setup at Dolby in London was very typical of a normal domestic space. Normal 8ft ceiling height, speakers positioned exactly where you'd expect them to be positioned. Nothing unusual in the least. And they had acoustic treatments on most of the ceiling area too, with hard reflective panels placed where the upfirers would 'bounce' from. I'd say, based on this experience, that most people would be able to accommodate upfirers in a typical domestic space. Certainly they do not need a "perfect situation". 



roxiedog13 said:


> I'm just saying the in-ceiling are easier to make it work regardless of the room deficiencies, both will sound great when set up "properly."


I have on-ceiling speakers because, in my room, it is actually easier to use on-ceiling speakers than upfirers. If I had been able to accommodate upfirers, I may well have gone that way. The extra diffusion given by the upfirers is possibly better in a small room like mine than the greater precision of the on-ceilings.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Sigh, you are thinking far too literal, @Alanlee got it and responded in kind, I know full well no law was broken, it was in jest.
> 
> It was sarcasm, dry wit, humor, a joke, apply any and all of the preceding to what I wrote, or do you need me to specify in brackets my intent? Example: {This line is not an attack on you, nor am I angry, I am asking a question}
> 
> I'm asking because it seems you have taken exception with me and my recent posts and seem to feel the need to correct me, or am I wrong?
> 
> So, what do I need to do to have you stop picking nits with me?? {The correct version of the word is nitpicking, just wanted you to know I am already aware of that }


AFAICR the only disagreement I have had with you was over the business of Pioneer being totally and absolutely incapable of doing 5.2.6 since it has only 9 decoders in it and not the 11 that would be required for that configuration. It did take several posts I agree, mainly because you kept insisting that it might be an "undocumented feature" rather than a total impossibilty.

If you are irritated by my posts I suggest you add me to your Ignore list - that is what it is there for.


----------



## lujan

wse said:


> Here is a cheap amp for you surround speakers.
> 
> http://www.parts-express.com/dayton...utm_content=300-590&utm_campaign=email021615B
> 
> or this one, is what I got for a bit more $$
> 
> http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier


The one from Parts Express looks very similar to the AudioSource 100 AMP.


----------



## Alanlee

robert816 said:


> Sigh, you are thinking far too literal, @Alanlee got it and responded in kind, I know full well no law was broken, it was in jest.
> 
> It was sarcasm, dry wit, humor, a joke, apply any and all of the preceding to what I wrote, or do you need me to specify in brackets my intent? Example: {This line is not an attack on you, nor am I angry, I am asking a question}
> 
> I'm asking because it seems you have taken exception with me and my recent posts and seem to feel the need to correct me, or am I wrong?
> 
> So, what do I need to do to have you stop picking nits with me?? {The correct version of the word is nitpicking, just wanted you to know I am already aware of that }


The last time I got in the middle of a fight I was sucker punched, so I need to be careful here. I did understand the comment as a joke, but maybe we should use more smiley faces. That is why I ran the original piece twice. And oh - the reason I think Wagner was out of place in Apocalypse Now is because The Valkyries were girls......







and now back to your discussion of Atmos.


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAICR the only disagreement I have had with you was over the business of Pioneer being totally and absolutely incapable of doing 5.2.6 since it has only 9 decoders in it and not the 11 that would be required for that configuration. It did take several posts I agree, mainly because you kept insisting that it might be an "undocumented feature" rather than a total impossibilty.
> 
> If you are irritated by my posts I suggest you add me to your Ignore list - that is what it is there for.


I've tried to make it clear that I wasn't saying that Pioneer could possibly do 6 overheads at the same time. I was one of the first few to respond to David that it couldn't be done.

Someone, I'm not going to bother looking up, made a statement about David. My response was to that statement, it was in his defense I said he was a sharp guy, and that it would be cool *if* he had found an undocumented feature.

I have never once insisted that he had found an undocumented feature, nor have I ever insisted the Pioneer was ever capable of doing what he suggested it could, this has been your misunderstanding of my post.

At least now I understand where the animosity comes from, it is a shame as I have enjoyed reading some of your posts, but I shall do as you suggest and add you to the ignore list.

Thank you


----------



## robert816

Alanlee said:


> The last time I got in the middle of a fight I was sucker punched, so I need to be careful here. I did understand the comment as a joke, but maybe we should use more smiley faces. That is why I ran the original piece twice. And oh - the reason I think Wagner was out of place in Apocalypse Now is because The Valkyries were girls......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and now back to your discussion of Atmos.


Haha, I agree sir, and I'm with you on the Doors.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> At least now I understand where the animosity comes from, it is a shame as I have enjoyed reading some of your posts, but I shall do as you suggest and add you to the ignore list.


If you believe I am animose towards you, that would be the best solution.


----------



## bargervais

Watched the Equalizer and John Wick two great action with Atmos and DSU. Love it


----------



## robert816

bargervais said:


> Watched the Equalizer and John Wick two great action with Atmos and DSU. Love it


If you liked both of those, may I suggest a Korean film titled The Man from Nowhere, starts out a little slow like Equalizer, but ends like John Wick. (Sorry, wrong title, corrected)


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> If you liked both of those, may I suggest a Korean film titled The Man from Nowhere, starts out a little slow like Equalizer, but ends like John Wick. (Sorry, wrong title, corrected)


I'll have to check it out thanks


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I was pleasantly surprised how awesome the original trilogy of Star Wars sounds with Atmos!!

Holy crapper. I was grinning the entire movies  the corilean star destroyers flying over head were incredible. Along with any confined space

Great audio for how old the movies are


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> If you liked both of those, may I suggest a Korean film titled The Man from Nowhere, starts out a little slow like Equalizer, but ends like John Wick. (Sorry, wrong title, corrected)


I'll have to check it out thanks


----------



## bargervais

I asked this question before if anyone knows or heard when VUDU will stream in Atmos. All I see as of now are the four Dolby demos that stream gloriously.


----------



## dvdwilly3

roxiedog13 said:


> Sorry Ray,it is not that easy. In a perfect situation with the correct ceiling height, a solid flat ceiling and the MLP at the correct distance from the LCR for perfect bounce angle, the up-firing will sound great. Few home theaters have this, certainly every MLP is not the same distance, ceilings are different heights, made of different materials and few are perfectly flat. I had to move my modules way forward of the LCR speakers to make them work, it would never have worked properly if the Atmos was integrated in the LCR speakers.
> 
> I'm just saying the in-ceiling are easier to make it work regardless of the room deficiencies, both will sound great when set up "properly."


It is simple physics at work. The angle of relection of the sound is equal to the angle of incidence of the sound. 

With a flat ceiling at 8 or 9 feet, for a 20 degree angle to work properly, you need to be sitting 5 to 6 feet away from the module. If your MLP is farther away, you have to be able to adjust the angle for it to work properly.

And, if you do adjust the driver/speaker to the correct angle it works very well.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frank714 said:


> Ceiling speakers, sorry I forgot to be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, perfect. I was hoping for a sound example to verify my top speakers output (not sure I can trust Audyssey. For the _exact_ same kind of speakers it set the crossover frequency for the back surrounds to 110 Hz while it set the crossover frequency for the top front speakers to 60 Hz ). Maybe that's the reason why I haven't been able, yet, to join the chorus of the DSU aficionados.


The difference in Hz from identical speakers is something that's covered in the Audyssey guide... ask Kbarnes about that, he should be able to point you to why that's happening. 

In my case Audyssey set one of the modules 3 db higher than all the other modules, it happened during a few calibrations. I'm willing to bet if you boost that volume for your ceiling speakers it will sound how you want... I was also thinking... that might help the disappearing sounds issue. When I have time I'll check out the leaf trailer and listen for what you noticed.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> The setup at Dolby in London was very typical of a normal domestic space. Normal 8ft ceiling height, speakers positioned exactly where you'd expect them to be positioned. Nothing unusual in the least. And they had acoustic treatments on most of the ceiling area too, with hard reflective panels placed where the upfirers would 'bounce' from. I'd say, based on this experience, that most people would be able to accommodate upfirers in a typical domestic space. Certainly they do not need a "perfect situation".
> 
> 
> 
> I have on-ceiling speakers because, in my room, it is actually easier to use on-ceiling speakers than upfirers. If I had been able to accommodate upfirers, I may well have gone that way. The extra diffusion given by the upfirers is possibly better in a small room like mine than the greater precision of the on-ceilings.



I had both in my room, up-firing took work to find the sweet spot .The in-ceiling was certainly harder to install but dead simple to make the effect work with the intended MLP . Too many variables with the up-firing , everything has to be exactly the right distance, mlp, ceiling height and so on or it will not work. I will agree the sound is more diffuse with the up-firing though, it 
was actually almost too much so. I think I made the comment after installing the in-ceiling that the up-firing modules were kind of muddy sounding, watered down almost. If I had a flat 8-9 ft
ceiling I probably would have stuck with the modules, probably a better product though, I believe the Onyko I had were a little weak compared to the rest of my speakers.


----------



## roxiedog13

dvdwilly3 said:


> It is simple physics at work. The angle of relection of the sound is equal to the angle of incidence of the sound.
> 
> With a flat ceiling at 8 or 9 feet, for a 20 degree angle to work properly, you need to be sitting 5 to 6 feet away from the module. If your MLP is farther away, you have to be able to adjust the angle for it to work properly.
> 
> And, if you do adjust the driver/speaker to the correct angle it works very well.



Problem with adjusting the angle more to get the bounce to work is that you now are exposing the module directly towards the MLP thus making it localized. I tried this with the modules I had
and I ended up localizing the modules before the bounce would work . I found it worked better to just move the modules forward until you hit the sweet spot . Even though the modules were lower and closer than recommended I did not notice them so much directly as long as the built in angle was not altered. 
If you have the speaker with built in module ( atmos enabled) you would need the speakers within 4-5 feet for the atmos up-firing to be effective and that would not work out.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Mine works very well without localization. I would speculate that in my case it may be because of the speaker that I am using--Supersat 3s. With the double drivers and folded ribbon tweeter (I know that is isn't really...), I think that it provides a more diffuse sound stage that is not as easily localized to begin with.


----------



## petetherock

robert816 said:


> If you liked both of those, may I suggest a Korean film titled The Man from Nowhere, starts out a little slow like Equalizer, but ends like John Wick. (Sorry, wrong title, corrected)


+1
Awesome knife fights.. You don't to understand Korean, he doesn't say much. 
Also try 14 Blades by Donnie Yen..


----------



## NorthSky

DSU testing for some of you owners of Atmos receivers (on Blu-ray):

* 'House of Flying Daggers'
* 'Hero' 
* 'Domino'


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> DSU testing for some of you owners of Atmos receivers (on Blu-ray):* 'House of Flying Dragons' * 'Hero'


These are definitely on my list I am finally going to have 7.2.4 (7 KEF-LS50 + 4 B&W AM-1) next week so I am looking forward to it


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> These are definitely on my list I am finally going to have 7.2.4 (7 KEF-LS50 + 4 B&W AM-1) next week so I am looking forward to it


I just corrected a small typo from the first title: *'House of Flying Daggers'* ... Not "Dragons" ... sorry. 

______


----------



## NorthSky

*'Hero'*


----------



## NorthSky

...And *'Domino'* directed by _Tony Scott_ is the entire movie for the special sound effects and music soundtrack. ...For adults mainly.
{Highly stylized, sound and picture wise, a la 'stylish' Tony Scott.}

_R.I.P. Tony_

______


----------



## Frank714

Aras_Volodka said:


> The difference in Hz from identical speakers is something that's covered in the Audyssey guide... ask Kbarnes about that, he should be able to point you to why that's happening.


Apparently it still constitutes sort of a mystery, here are the relevant Audyssey thread quotes:

_"Nonetheless, if someone has a capable speaker that has a FR that extends down to, say, 50 Hz or even below, it is surprising to see Audyssey set a crossover to the subwoofer of 150Hz. It is also probably not the best XO setting.

This has been discussed many times in the Official Audyssey Thread but there has been no definitive answer as to why this happens.

One theory is that for some reason the Audyssey mic is hearing the F3 of your front speakers as being higher than would be expected. Try running the calibration again using slightly different mic positions. Stay within the general mic position guidelines but move the positions a few inches from where they were for the previous run. *Sometimes, small room anomalies seem to have the potential to confuse Audyssey* and moving the mic resolves it. Worth a try."_

I won't exlude that my unusual home theater room is the culprit. Basically it is a long rectangle where 3/5 actually house the home theater whose projection screen separates it from the other 2/5 office space.

The contradicting crossover results for identical speakers (back surrounds 110 Hz, top front 60 Hz) is something I got from the first (3 point measuring, prior to acoustical room improvement) and last (8 point measuring) Audyssey calibration.

Unfortunately, after calibration I wanted to raise the crossover frequency for the top front speakers to 80 Hz, but Audyssey would only let me check, but not alter "its findings".

I will "manually" raise the top front channel levels tonight, however along comes the risk I'll be ending up with a "preference" instead of a "reference" setting. I really wish the folks at Dolby will provide channel test signals for their upcoming new Dolby Atmos Demonstration disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> The contradicting crossover results for identical speakers (back surrounds 110 Hz, top front 60 Hz) is something I got from the first (3 point measuring, prior to acoustical room improvement) and last (8 point measuring) Audyssey calibration.


Identical speakers will often have different XOs recommended by Audyssey. The reason is the position of the speakers in the room. If you take a speaker and pull it away from the walls, it will appear to Audyssey to have less bass (its F3 will be higher). If you take the same speaker and put it in a corner, it will appear to have more bass due to the reinforcement now provided by the room. Similar if you place a speaker right in the middle of a big wall (for 'wall' read 'ceiling'). Audyssey is detecting the* in-room response* of the speaker not the theoretical response in an anechoic chamber and so its position in the room will change the FR.



Frank714 said:


> Unfortunately, after calibration I wanted to raise the crossover frequency for the top front speakers to 80 Hz, but Audyssey would only let me check, but not alter "its findings".


I don't understand. If you go to the speaker section of your AVR menu and locate the crossovers, you are saying you cannot change them? That is nothing to do with Audyssey if that is the case. People routinely change Audyssey's recommended XOs (me included).


----------



## kbarnes701

I watched *Transcendence* in Atmos last night (bought from Amazon Japan) and it has a very nice Atmos mix which works really well in my HT. The voice of Johnny Depp's character coming from the front overhead speakers (when he is the disembodied computer persona) is especially convincing. Overall a very nice mix indeed and one I can thoroughly recommend.

My small, but growing, collection of Atmos Blurays:


----------



## roxiedog13

dvdwilly3 said:


> Mine works very well without localization. I would speculate that in my case it may be because of the speaker that I am using--Supersat 3s. With the double drivers and folded ribbon tweeter (I know that is isn't really...), I think that it provides a more diffuse sound stage that is not as easily localized to begin with.


You are using them as modules on top of your speakers or on the ceiling ?


----------



## robert816

petetherock said:


> +1
> Awesome knife fights.. You don't to understand Korean, he doesn't say much.
> Also try 14 Blades by Donnie Yen..


I'll check out 14 Blades, Thanks!

Also War of the Arrows is a good period piece, and as always, The Good, The Bad, The Weird.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Transcendence* in Atmos last night (bought from Amazon Japan) and it has a very nice Atmos mix which works really well in my HT. The voice of Johnny Depp's character coming from the front overhead speakers (when he is the disembodied computer persona) is especially convincing. Overall a very nice mix indeed and one I can thoroughly recommend.
> 
> My small, but growing, collection of Atmos Blurays:


Where's Step Up, that is available locally is it not? I don't have that one either for some reason .

What is the movie below John Wick, I cannot pick it out?


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Where's Step Up, that is available locally is it not? I don't have that one either for some reason .


 It was a step too far for me, Atmos or no Atmos...



roxiedog13 said:


> What is the movie below John Wick, I cannot pick it out?


That is Overheard 3.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> It was a step too far for me, Atmos or no Atmos...
> 
> 
> 
> That is Overheard 3.


I'm certainly not a Step Up movie kind of guy but I'm sure there is no reason it would be any worst than Expendables or TMNT for that matter. Actually , at least the action movies could 
make use of the overheads for Atmos, not sure how a dance movie would to be honest. Anyway, like yourself I could not even think about buying it, probably will have to now just out
of curiosity .


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm certainly not a Step Up movie kind of guy but I'm sure there is no reason it would be any worst than Expendables or TMNT for that matter. Actually , at least the action movies could
> make use of the overheads for Atmos, not sure how a dance movie would to be honest. Anyway, like yourself I could not even think about buying it, probably will have to now just out
> of curiosity .


I found stuff to enjoy in both *Expendables 3* and *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles* (perhaps surprisingly). But a movie about _dancing_? I think not. Although, *Black Swan* was pretty good... and I enjoy *Burlesque* too. And *Moulin Rouge*. And they're (kind of) about dancing. But no way will I buy *Step Up: All In*. Just NFW!


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I found stuff to enjoy in both *Expendables 3* and *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles* (perhaps surprisingly). But a movie about _dancing_? I think not. Although, *Black Swan* was pretty good... and I enjoy *Burlesque* too. And *Moulin Rouge*. And they're (kind of) about dancing. But no way will I buy *Step Up: All In*. Just NFW!


Totally agree about Step Up All In but I had a weak moment and got it can't remember watching it as I was reading while it was on


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Transcendence* in Atmos last night (bought from Amazon Japan) and it has a very nice Atmos mix which works really well in my HT. The voice of Johnny Depp's character coming from the front overhead speakers (when he is the disembodied computer persona) is especially convincing. Overall a very nice mix indeed and one I can thoroughly recommend.
> 
> My small, but growing, collection of Atmos Blurays:



Nice collection thus far! One question about your post though. How are you embedding the image? I noticed there was no link to a 3rd party hosting site and also no attachment?!


----------



## bargervais

I only have six Atmos discs StepUp All in, TMNT, Expendables 3, On Any Sunday, TRANSFORMERS age of extinction, John Wick. John Wick is my favorite... Unbroken, Mocking Jay and Gravity coming in march.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Nice collection thus far! One question about your post though. How are you embedding the image? I noticed there was no link to a 3rd party hosting site and also no attachment?!


It's a shared image from the public folder of my DropBox.


----------



## dvdwilly3

roxiedog13 said:


> You are using them as modules on top of your speakers or on the ceiling ?


I have 8060 towers. I made a mounting plate and put Def Tech Promount 90s on top of the plate. The Supersats are mounted on the Promount 90s. The plate sits on top of the towers. I will post a couple of pictures when I get back to my desktop.
I think that one reason that you found the upfiring modules "muddy sounding" is that you used the Dolby-enabled setting on your receiver as is suggested. If you are using "fake Atmos" full-range speakers, I believe that is not the correct setting. You should use use Top Front. There is a readily apparent difference in the sound between the 2 settings.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> But a movie about _dancing_? I think not.


If it ain't got either Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly in it--_fuhgeddaboudit_!

N.B.: "*Animose*"? Really, Keith? I'm *hostile* to this misusage!


----------



## robert816

bargervais said:


> I asked this question before if anyone knows or heard when VUDU will stream in Atmos. All I see as of now are the four Dolby demos that stream gloriously.


In the VUDU Atmos package there is actually 5 clips, only 4 are displayed when you go into the package, there should be a small > on the right to get to the last clip.

Haven't found anything yet on digital releases with Atmos on VUDU as yet, would have been nice if the digital copies that came with our Blu-Ray discs were redeemed in an Atmos version since the disc is in Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> In the VUDU Atmos package there is actually 5 clips, only 4 are displayed when you go into the package, there should be a small > on the right to get to the last clip.
> 
> Haven't found anything yet on digital releases with Atmos on VUDU as yet, would have been nice if the digital copies that came with our Blu-Ray discs were redeemed in an Atmos version since the disc is in Atmos.


thanks for your response yes 5 clips and it would be nice to have those Atmos Digital Copies on Vudu that include an Atmos mix i was just asking hoping some one from Vudu was listening in here on this forum that could fill us in.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Totally agree about Step Up All In but I had a weak moment and got it can't remember watching it as I was reading while it was on


I have to agree that it wasn't a great movie. I actually liked Step Up Revolution better. I had a reward certificate from BB that I used to pay for it so not that bad.


----------



## stikle

Brian Fineberg said:


> I was pleasantly surprised how awesome the original trilogy of Star Wars sounds with Atmos!!
> 
> Holy crapper. I was grinning the entire movies  the corilean star destroyers flying over head were incredible. Along with any confined space
> 
> Great audio for how old the movies are


Wait...what? You have the SW OT in Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Wait...what? You have the SW OT in Atmos?


I think he meant that he heard SW with Dolby Surround Upmixing.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> If it ain't got either Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly in it--_fuhgeddaboudit_!


Even then, it's a stretch for me...




chi_guy50 said:


> N.B.: "*Animose*"? Really, Keith? I'm *hostile* to this misusage!


 WTF? Animose means 'hot headed' or some such. My meds must have needed refreshing. My apologies.


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think he meant that he heard SW with Dolby Surround Upmixing.


That would make more sense...thank goodness because I don't want to have to buy it yet again for the 10th+ time.

Side nerdy note:



> the corilean star destroyers flying over head were incredible.


Corellia is the planet where Han Solo is from. The Corellian Engineering Corporation produced a number of freighters. Hence why the Millenium Falcon is a YT-1300 Corellian Freighter.

Star Destroyers were used by the Galactic Empire.

And now back to the regular conversation.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-f...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc

A new one to add to the list?


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-f...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc
> 
> A new one to add to the list?


cool i see that.... looks like it's A GERMAN site wonder if it will be available in Canada and the U.S.


----------



## sdurani

SteveTheGeek said:


> http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-f...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc
> 
> A new one to add to the list?


About the mix: 

_Besides the 7.1 mix that was their starting point, they also created completely separate original mixes for IMAX, 5.1 for the home theater environment, stereo and, toward the end, a Dolby Atmos mix._

_“When we finished that, we went to my favorite format, Atmos,” he continues. “This was my first Atmos mix and it was a real treat getting to fill the room with the little details [the format] allows. There’s a sequence when Robert Trujillo is playing a bass and he’s in this little room that’s coated with hundreds and hundreds of speakers, and as you walk by, the camera is shaking, the low end is shaking the theater and there’s debris coming from the ceiling. So in that instance, I took a little of the debris—gravel and stones and rattling—and put them up in the top speaker and it created a cool effect. It’s nice to be able to take not just big, loud stuff, but also little subtle moves, and put them in the space of the room, and you feel it and you sense it.” _

_Kline explained some of the challenges of the music mix: “In a nutshell, I’ve got 128 channels coming into the board of things that Greg and Joseph Magee—who’s credited as the supervising music mixer on the show—groomed so there were a lot of things already summed inside the music rig. I’ve never come across the level of detail and reshaping that I have, working on this film. Greg is so intimately connected to it, and having worked on it for a year, he wants every subtle nuance to be heard in every format."_

http://www.mixonline.com/news/films...ound-helps-tell-story-3-d-concert-film/369325


----------



## kbarnes701

Someone mentioned Zhang Yimou's *House of Flying Daggers* recently. For anyone who has this movie on disc, select the PCM 5.1 audio track in Chinese and then skip directly to Chapter 9, the famous 'bamboo forest' scene. DSU works extraordinarily well with this long action scene, really highlighting the almost constant overhead activity. The scene also displays some of the best foley effects I have ever heard. Highly recommended as a DSU demo scene.


----------



## Straffa

Onkyo also have made a Atmos disc



> AMBRA – PRISM OF LIFE
> 
> Audiovisual technologies of the future, now availabale for your home theater
> Gorgeous, highly detailed landscapes, breathtaking images and exploding, lifelike colors – thanks to extended colorspace, high bitrate and 4K mastered source material
> Expansive, 360° soundscapes in perfect Dolby Atmos® multi-channel format – moving sound objects drag you right into the action!


----------



## NorthSky

*Metallica | 'Through the Never' ///|\\\ 'House of Flying Daggers' & 'Hero' > Blu-ray*



> About the mix:
> 
> _Besides the 7.1 mix that was their starting point, they also created completely separate original mixes for IMAX, 5.1 for the home theater environment, stereo and, toward the end, a Dolby Atmos mix._
> 
> _“When we finished that, we went to my favorite format, Atmos,” he continues. “This was my first Atmos mix and it was a real treat getting to fill the room with the little details [the format] allows. There’s a sequence when Robert Trujillo is playing a bass and he’s in this little room that’s coated with hundreds and hundreds of speakers, and as you walk by, the camera is shaking, the low end is shaking the theater and there’s debris coming from the ceiling. So in that instance, I took a little of the debris—gravel and stones and rattling—and put them up in the top speaker and it created a cool effect. It’s nice to be able to take not just big, loud stuff, but also little subtle moves, and put them in the space of the room, and you feel it and you sense it.” _
> 
> _Kline explained some of the challenges of the music mix: “In a nutshell, I’ve got 128 channels coming into the board of things that Greg and Joseph Magee—who’s credited as the supervising music mixer on the show—groomed so there were a lot of things already summed inside the music rig. I’ve never come across the level of detail and reshaping that I have, working on this film. Greg is so intimately connected to it, and having worked on it for a year, he wants every subtle nuance to be heard in every format."_
> 
> http://www.mixonline.com/news/films...ound-helps-tell-story-3-d-concert-film/369325


♦ Metallica; can't go wrong with that band live in Dolby Atmos. 



> Someone mentioned Zhang Yimou's *House of Flying Daggers* recently. For anyone who has this movie on disc, select the PCM 5.1 audio track in Chinese and then skip directly to Chapter 9, the famous 'bamboo forest' scene. DSU works extraordinarily well with this long action scene, really highlighting the almost constant overhead activity. The scene also displays some of the best foley effects I have ever heard. Highly recommended as a DSU demo scene.


♦ Yeah, that was that guy, Bob I believe, and yeah, it's a cool flick (in original Mandarin language - LPCM 5.1 audio soundtrack) with every scene having some good sounding stuff. ...And visually too. 

* *'Hero'* is another good one to try DSU with. ...That one too, every scene has magic in it, auditory and visually (true art of the heart). 
Unfortunately, the best audio soundtrack on this one is the dubbed English language track (DTS-HD MA 5.1). They did a big oversight by only giving the original Mandarin a poor compressed DD 5.1 audio. ...Very sad. 
- So, for best watch the Mandarin audio track (film heart value).
- And for best sound (DSU), watch the English dubbed version (technical audio). 

For picture quality and cinematic visual impact it don't matter; it's the same in Mandarin and in English.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

You can throw insults at me, but I was watching the Nightmare On Elm Street remake last night, and I'm very impressed by DSU effects generated.

But, most importantly, it made me wish for an horror movie in Atmos... The potential of the technology with that kind of movies seems very interesting, surely good for a good scare !


----------



## Movie78

'House of Flying Daggers' & 'Hero' 

These are some great kung fu movies...

Can wait to upgrade my receiver to try the DSU...


----------



## Kain

I asked why Jurassic World is not on the list of Atmos movies on the Dolby website earlier in this thread. There is also no mention of Atmos for Jurassic World through a Google search. I wonder if this has anything to do with the movie studio's and/or Jurassic Park/World's "link" with DTS? What if Jurassic World turns out to be the first DTS:X title?


----------



## orologio

silly question: I run my surround system with the phantom center channel and no dedicated sub (s). I was wondering whether Atmos can still be used as a such...4.0.2. 

...I couldn't find any infos online. 

Any input would be greatly appreciated. 
Thank you


----------



## NorthSky

orologio said:


> silly question: I run my surround system with the phantom center channel and no dedicated sub (s). I was wondering whether Atmos can still be used as a such...4.0.2.
> 
> ...I couldn't find any infos online.
> 
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> Thank you


I am 100% certain that it can.


----------



## ambesolman

kbarnes701 said:


> I found stuff to enjoy in both *Expendables 3* and *Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles* (perhaps surprisingly). But a movie about _dancing_? I think not. Although, *Black Swan* was pretty good... and I enjoy *Burlesque* too. And *Moulin Rouge*. And they're (kind of) about dancing. But no way will I buy *Step Up: All In*. Just NFW!



Black Swan at least had hot chicks making out and one going psycho. But I don't do musicals or dancing movies.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## dvdwilly3

roxiedog13 said:


> You are using them as modules on top of your speakers or on the ceiling ?


Subsat3s on top of Def Tech 8060 towers. The Promount 90 is effectively a ball joint and can rotate freely.
The angle is about 32 degrees instead of 20 degrees and puts the reflected image at about 12 feet from the modules. I have two rows of seats. The first row is about 11 feet from the modules and the second row is about 13 feet, so I split the difference. Atmos works very well for me.


----------



## jrogers

orologio said:


> silly question: I run my surround system with the phantom center channel and no dedicated sub (s). I was wondering whether Atmos can still be used as a such...4.0.2.
> 
> ...I couldn't find any infos online.
> 
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> Thank you


Whether or not it is possible, and speaking as an Atmos/DSU enthusiast, you should put a center channel speaker in before worrying about adding height effects.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> You can throw insults at me, but I was watching the Nightmare On Elm Street remake last night, and I'm very impressed by DSU effects generated.
> 
> But, most importantly, it made me wish for an horror movie in Atmos... The potential of the technology with that kind of movies seems very interesting, surely good for a good scare !


no insult from me I remember the first time I saw nightmare on elm street excellent horror flick I'll have to give it a shot. I would love to see and hear avatar in Atmos.. I have bought this three times once when it first came out then the extended version then the 3D version I would buy it again if it comes out with an Atmos mix


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> 'House of Flying Daggers' & 'Hero'
> 
> These are some great kung fu movies...
> 
> Can wait to upgrade my receiver to try the DSU...


Don't forget *The Curse of the Golden Flower*, also by Zhang Yimou.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The GrandMaster'*










______


----------



## Brian Fineberg

bargervais said:


> no insult from me I remember the first time I saw nightmare on elm street excellent horror flick I'll have to give it a shot. I would love to see and hear avatar in Atmos.. I have bought this three times once when it first came out then the extended version then the 3D version I would buy it again if it comes out with an Atmos mix


can you imagine POLTERGEIST in Atmos, with carol annes voice going above you towards the light?!?! no thanks haha


----------



## gammanuc

SteveTheGeek said:


> http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-f...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc
> 
> A new one to add to the list?


I wonder if that includes a 2D version with Atmos also.


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't forget *The Curse of the Golden Flower*, also by Zhang Yimou.


Check this one out.

It has 96k Dolby TrueHD Upsampling

Rise Of The Legend


----------



## SteveTheGeek

gammanuc said:


> I wonder if that includes a 2D version with Atmos also.


Doesn't the Blu-ray spec force a 2D version for any 3D movie on the disc ?


----------



## gammanuc

SteveTheGeek said:


> Doesn't the Blu-ray spec force a 2D version for any 3D movie on the disc ?


I'm not familiar with 3D Blu-ray specs. Is it possible to play a 3D disc on 2D equipment?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

gammanuc said:


> I'm not familiar with 3D Blu-ray specs. Is it possible to play a 3D disc on 2D equipment?


As far as I know yes. For example, the Avatar 3D disc does work on any Blu-ray player in 2D, even if it's not stated as 2D/3D. I think it's part of the spec... Correct me guys if I'm wrong...


----------



## petetherock

Movie78 said:


> 'House of Flying Daggers' & 'Hero'
> 
> These are some great kung fu movies...
> 
> Can wait to upgrade my receiver to try the DSU...


If you like that, try "reign of assassins".... the "rain" scenes will rival that from the Atmos demo...


----------



## tjenkins95

Straffa said:


> Onkyo also have made a Atmos disc




I listened to that demo disc a week ago and found it very lacking in 3D sound quality.
The waves are pounding against the rocks and the water fall is moving backwards and there is nothing but music playing.
In my opinion, the original Dolby ATMOS demo disc is much better.


Ray


----------



## NorthSky

gammanuc said:


> I wonder if that includes a 2D version with Atmos also.


♦ Yes it does; look under the picture cover, in small lettering: *INKLUSIVE 2D*



SteveTheGeek said:


> Doesn't the Blu-ray spec force a 2D version for any 3D movie on the disc ?


♦ If both the 2D and 3D versions are on the same disc (mostly rare nowadays but few are); and that your TV is only 2D, I think it does (forces the 2D version). ...But if your TV is a 3D one, then you manually select the option. ...And your BD player needs to be a 3D BD player. 



gammanuc said:


> I'm not familiar with 3D Blu-ray specs. Is it possible to play a 3D disc on 2D equipment?


♦ If the disc is only 3D (no 2D version on the same disc); no you cannot.

But! => http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=205648



SteveTheGeek said:


> As far as I know yes. For example, the Avatar 3D disc does work on any Blu-ray player in 2D, even if it's not stated as 2D/3D. I think it's part of the spec... Correct me guys if I'm wrong...


♦ *'Avatar'* on Blu-ray 3D has both versions on the same disc (2D & 3D); so no problem here.


----------



## Movie78

petetherock said:


> If you like that, try "reign of assassins".... the "rain" scenes will rival that from the Atmos demo...


Have you try Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen 

The War scene in the beginning.


----------



## petetherock

Movie78 said:


> Have you try Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen
> 
> The War scene in the beginning.


Mate, sound engineering in Asian and in particular HKG movies has gone up by fantastic levels in the past 10 years.

I suggest the following "atmospheric" shows:
PTU
Breaking News (the sounds of HKG streets)
Eye in the Sky...

And lots more


----------



## NorthSky

*'Metallica'* | _Through the Never_ is an excellent 3D live music concert. ...It's part of my BD 3D Music collection. 

And now with this new Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on both the 2D and 3D versions, the blast should be even "higher". 
I am confident that it's a good purchase. 

_Metallica_ ain't no small band man. ...And you might not like this music genre but I tell ya, those guys know how to give a top-notch show.
And they use the best technical stuff (visuals and sounds) to make it work all together like true dedicated professional musicians/showmen. 

My main music ♪ genre myself is Classical Music; so if I'm talking about my love for Metallica it must means somethin' very plausible and on solid ground. 
But it's the all experience here that forms the total gel; 3D picture and music recording quality on Blu-ray. 

And now we are getting Dolby Atmos; this for me becomes a motivator of a higher caliber from Atmos. ...Still, dts:x I want it first and foremost, @ most.


----------



## Movie78

petetherock said:


> Mate, sound engineering in Asian and in particular HKG movies has gone up by fantastic levels in the past 10 years.
> 
> I suggest the following "atmospheric" shows:
> PTU
> Breaking News (the sounds of HKG streets)
> Eye in the Sky...
> 
> And lots more


I think the sound in most of the Kung fu movie are great...


----------



## NorthSky

For many of the good/best ones, I agree.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Brian Fineberg said:


> can you imagine POLTERGEIST in Atmos, with carol annes voice going above you towards the light?!?! no thanks haha


You may find out! I read somewhere that they are doing a remake of it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> You may find out! I read somewhere that they are doing a *remake* of it.


No thanks! I'll take the original with a great Atmos or DTS:X remix. 

Speaking of remakes/reboots I'm really worried about the new Terminator films from what I've seen so far.


----------



## NorthSky

Don't worry too much Dan.  ...They're just movies.

* Avatar 2, 3, 4


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> No thanks! I'll take the original with a great Atmos or DTS:X remix.
> 
> Speaking of remakes/reboots I'm really worried about the new Terminator films from what I've seen so far.


Yeah, I'm with you!


----------



## DAK4

I just tried to watch the 3D version of Transformers 4 and I could not get the Atmos to play. I can get Atmos to play in the 2D version but not the 3D version. It just sets it to Dolby Digital. It is even check marked for Dolby Atmos in the Transfomers Audio Setup. Has anyone else tried it yet? and Does anyone have any suggestions? Bad disk? Maybe the hdmi cable can't handle the information?


----------



## batpig

What player are you using?


----------



## DAK4

batpig said:


> What player are you using?


The PS3


----------



## batpig

I figured. The PS3 can't simultaneously play 3D video and bitstream HD audio. Nothing to do with Atmos.


----------



## DAK4

batpig said:


> I figured. The PS3 can't simultaneously play 3D video and bitstream HD audio. Nothing to do with Atmos.


Well that explains it then. Learn something new everyday. Thank you.


----------



## DAK4

batpig said:


> I figured. The PS3 can't simultaneously play 3D video and bitstream HD audio. Nothing to do with Atmos.





DAK4 said:


> Well that explains it then. Learn something new everyday. Thank you.


Do you know off hand if the PS4 can do it? Or the cheapest BD player that can?


----------



## bargervais

gammanuc said:


> I wonder if that includes a 2D version with Atmos also.


Hi gammanuc Little off topic but is that a death star in your avatar that's over your town...


----------



## roxiedog13

dvdwilly3 said:


> Subsat3s on top of Def Tech 8060 towers. The Promount 90 is effectively a ball joint and can rotate freely.
> The angle is about 32 degrees instead of 20 degrees and puts the reflected image at about 12 feet from the modules. I have two rows of seats. The first row is about 11 feet from the modules and the second row is about 13 feet, so I split the difference. Atmos works very well for me.



Great job, surprised the speaker is not localized though aiming it at 32 degrees. 32 degrees would be about the right bounce angle for a MLP 11 feet away with a lower ceiling. For atmos enabled speakers to work with the 20 degree angles built in, you would have to be about 6 feet from the speaker or the ceiling would have to be 10 ft high for the bounce to reach the MLP 11 ft away.


----------



## Nalleh

dvdwilly3 said:


> You may find out! I read somewhere that they are doing a remake of it.


Correct:


----------



## Csbooth

DAK4 said:


> Do you know off hand if the PS4 can do it? Or the cheapest BD player that can?


Yes, the PS4 will allow all HD audio solutions and 3D simultaneously. 

Also, the PS3 CAN do DTS:MA and 3D at the same time, just not True HD and 3D.


----------



## DAK4

Csbooth said:


> Yes, the PS4 will allow HD audio and 3D simultaneously. Also, the PS3 can do DTS:MA and 3D at the same time, just not True HD.


Thank you Csbooth. It's all starting to come back to me now, I remember reading about that a few years ago and forgot all about it. I just recently got the 3d capability on my projector so I'm just now running into those issues with the PS3.


----------



## Csbooth

DAK4 said:


> Thank you Csbooth. It's all starting to come back to me now, I remember reading about that a few years ago and forgot all about it. I just recently got the 3d capability on my projector so I'm just now running into those issues with the PS3.


I understand, it's an inconvenience I don't think needs to be there but what can ya do really. Enjoy though!


----------



## Bill King

*Pitched Ceiling*

I'm exploring purchasing my first receiver for home theater. With regards to considering Dolby Atmos capabilties; I'm challenged by the fact that the ceiling in the room has a significant pitch from side to side. Can Dolby Atmos be setup effectively there?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Bill...you will be very challenged to get it right in that situation. Take the time to read through a lot of this thread and learn all you can.


----------



## DAK4

Bill King said:


> I'm exploring purchasing my first receiver for home theater. With regards to considering Dolby Atmos capabilties; I'm challenged by the fact that the ceiling in the room has a significant pitch from side to side. Can Dolby Atmos be setup effectively there?


A new Receiver should be able to account for that situation by (at a minimum) adjusting the volume and a time delay of each speaker within its setup function. I have an angled ceiling as well and it's working just fine for me but I am using in-ceiling speakers. What type of speaker setup were you thinking of using?


----------



## bargervais

gammanuc said:


> I wonder if that includes a 2D version with Atmos also.


Little off topic but is that a death star in your avatar that's over your town...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bill King said:


> I'm exploring purchasing my first receiver for home theater. With regards to considering Dolby Atmos capabilties; I'm challenged by the fact that the ceiling in the room has a significant pitch from side to side. Can Dolby Atmos be setup effectively there?


Wait for DTS:X rendering capable products coming this fall. You'll want both.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> Correct:
> 
> http://youtu.be/fhr8d1yxSP8


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I noticed right off the bat that the redo will probably rely heavily on jump scares. The cheapest kind of horror tactic. The clown scene in the original was masterfully done. Creeped the crap out of me!


----------



## NorthSky

Good advice *^* ---> Post number 19686

* "Pitch" in your ceiling; what that looks like?


----------



## petetherock

IMO, John Wick is the best of the lot of Atmos-equipped Blu Rays right now... 
It's not just about the boom boom boom, but ambiance, and of course, the rain... I wonder if they added that just for the Atmos bits. Plus it's a pretty smashing movie too...


----------



## gammanuc

bargervais said:


> Hi gammanuc Little off topic but is that a death star in your avatar that's over your town...


Sure is, shhhh! 








[/URL]


----------



## Frank714

stikle said:


> Corellia is the planet where Han Solo is from. The Corellian Engineering Corporation produced a number of freighters. ...
> 
> Star Destroyers were used by the Galactic Empire.
> 
> And now back to the regular conversation.


Sorry, the OP is quite correct. The "imperial cruisers" (prior to the birth of the term "Star Destroyer") are indeed the "big, Corellian ships" Han Solo referenced in _Star Wars_ (aka _A New Hope_).

The original _Cinefantastique_ issue on _Star Wars_ makes it abundantly clear that "Corellian Cruiser" was the official ILM pre-ESB / Sketchbook designation of what later became known as "Star Destroyer".

Apparently Han Solo is a native of the same system that manufactured the type of Star Destroyer we saw in ANH.

The same "expanded universe" (EU) writers (blame it on West End Games) that also came up with these conjectural type designations for the _Millennium Falcon _are the same claiming Vader's Super Star Destroyer _Executor_ was only 5 miles long. However, the ILM made display card for the Marin County Fair 1988 Lucasfilm exhibit clearly stated "11 miles" for that ship.

Background: The novelization of ESB by Donald Glut stated that _"Executor was bigger than the 5 Star Destroyers accompanying it." _Unfortunately, Star Wars Guide authour Raymond Velasco erroneously reproduced this info, claiming that _"Executor was five times bigger than the Star Destroyers accompanying it." _(standard Star destroyer length is 1 mile). 

Don't trust EU unless it holds up to the "canonized" sources specified by George Lucas back in the 1980's (films > novelizations > Brian Daley radio Plays). 

Back to OT:

With the Marantz SR 7009 I can only change the crossovers frequencies in the "Manual Setup". I was under the (wrong?) impression, this wouldn't affect the Audyssey crossover settings. Didn't get to try it last night.

I'm an old _Star Wars_ fossil, but obviously an Audyssey newbie.


----------



## roxiedog13

gammanuc said:


> Sure is, shhhh!


I'd say that is the Danny Williams PC death star just about now.  I think it was struck by an Iceberg , on the plus side there is plenty of Iceberg Vodka
around these days .[/URL]


----------



## roxiedog13

petetherock said:


> IMO, John Wick is the best of the lot of Atmos-equipped Blu Rays right now...
> It's not just about the boom boom boom, but ambiance, and of course, the rain... I wonder if they added that just for the Atmos bits. Plus it's a pretty smashing movie too...


Must be me, I just don't find any of the "Atmos" movies all that great, DSU is however better on some non Atmos movies. My vote goes to Into The Storm for best use of the overheads
with DSU, the rain, rolling thunder, hail etc. are as immersive at it gets. Rain and thunder seem to be the best object based sounds so far, probably because when it does rain it continues
to do so for a long time whereas other sounds are momentary. Even the thunder rolls on for a long time in some scenes and the heights make good use of this.


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> Must be me, I just don't find any of the "Atmos" movies all that great, DSU is however better on some non Atmos movies. My vote goes to Into The Storm for best use of the overheads
> with DSU, the rain, rolling thunder, hail etc. are as immersive at it gets. Rain and thunder seem to be the best object based sounds so far, probably because when it does rain it continues
> to do so for a long time whereas other sounds are momentary. Even the thunder rolls on for a long time in some scenes and the heights make good use of this.


the rain falling in John Wick was and is very spectacular i pick John Wick as my favorite Atmos Mix so far...


----------



## petetherock

roxiedog13 said:


> Must be me, I just don't find any of the "Atmos" movies all that great, DSU is however better on some non Atmos movies. My vote goes to Into The Storm for best use of the overheads
> with DSU, the rain, rolling thunder, hail etc. are as immersive at it gets. Rain and thunder seem to be the best object based sounds so far, probably because when it does rain it continues
> to do so for a long time whereas other sounds are momentary. Even the thunder rolls on for a long time in some scenes and the heights make good use of this.



Try an oldie... The Cave.... a lot of use of the surrounds... 
Or even Sherlock Holmes I - when Mark Strong's voice goes around the abattoir... very impressive and scary too..

Well the initial brace of Atmos BR discs were big action movies, and too much was already going on, in Transformers, Expendables etc so there weren't too many quiet moments..

Not enough 'atmosphere'... It will be interesting to see "The Haunting" get re-mastered as an Atmos disc..


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> the rain falling in John Wick was and is very spectacular i pick John Wick as my favorite Atmos Mix so far...


I like the metal doors effect in John Wick, you know when he leaves the hotel... It's a nice height effect that makes you sense the size of the doors... It's nice...


----------



## Selden Ball

Frank714 said:


> With the Marantz SR 7009 I can only change the crossovers frequencies in the "Manual Setup". I was under the (wrong?) impression, this wouldn't affect the Audyssey crossover settings. Didn't get to try it last night.
> 
> I'm an old _Star Wars_ fossil, but obviously an Audyssey newbie.


Changing the crossovers manually changes what the receiver does to the sound. I.e. they change which frequencies get sent to the subwoofer channel.

The settings shown in the Audyssey screens are unchanged, though: they show the results of the Audyssey calibration procedure, not what the receiver's currently doing.

Those manual changes also do not affect the Audyssey MultEQ calibrations for the individual speaker channels. In other words, the frequency-dependent "room" corrections are still in effect despite any changes you make in the crossover frequencies, speaker distances or per-channel trim levels.

Edited to add:

If you haven't already, please take the time to read the Audyssey 101 and FAQ. The "101" document will help you to get a good calibration quickly. The instructions in the AVR's owner's manual are woefully inadequate.


----------



## RMK!

*Atmos HT*

I'm another early adopter of this new surround technology. I've had a lot of speaker configurations but was mostly a 7.1 until recently going to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup with 4 on-ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have a Marantz AV-7702 with the Auro upgrade and have been using Atmos (John Wick only), DSU and now Auromatic. All formats produce an acceptable result with the current Front High, Rear High speaker setup. The positioning is closest to the recommended Atmos 5.1.4 setup recommendation. I have true full range mains and so the LCR's are set to large (by Audyssey XT32) and they handle all the bass down to an approx -3db @ 16Hz.

Here are a few pics of the room, LCR's first, AT screen down:










Atmos placement (JBL 8340A Cinema surround speakers):


















Obviously the placement isn't ideal but the front row (where I sit most of the time) is pretty much per the Dolby spec in terms of location of the FH and RH speakers. Interestingly, my wife likes the sound from the back row a bit better and I prefer the front. We are currently using the Auro 3D Auromatic upmix but watched a few film's with DSU and found it a nice option as well. John Wick in Atmos provided the best height based surround sound I have heard including Guardians of the Galaxy in an Atmos equipped theater.


----------



## chi_guy50

RMK! said:


> I'm another early adopter of this new surround technology. I've had a lot of speaker configurations but was mostly a 7.1 until recently going to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup with 4 on-ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have a Marantz AV-7702 with the Auro upgrade and have been using Atmos (John Wick only), DSU and now Auromatic. All formats produce an acceptable result with the current Front High, Rear High speaker setup. The positioning is closest to the recommended Atmos 5.1.4 setup recommendation. I have true full range mains and so the LCR's are set to large (by Audyssey XT32) and they handle all the bass down to an approx -3db @ 16Hz.
> 
> Here are a few pics of the room, LCR's first, AT screen down:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos placement (JBL 8340A Cinema surround speakers):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the placement isn't ideal but the front row (where I sit most of the time) is pretty much per the Dolby spec in terms of location of the FH and RH speakers. Interestingly, my wife likes the sound from the back row a bit better and I prefer the front. We are currently using the Auro 3D Auromatic upmix but watched a few film's with DSU and found it a nice option as well. John Wick in Atmos provided the best height based surround sound I have heard including Guardians of the Galaxy in an Atmos equipped theater.


Yawn . . . just your typical, run-of-the-mill, ordinary-Joe home theater. No big deal. 

Ha! Let's all wipe the drool from our mouths and get in line in the jealousy parade. Beautiful, magnificent, imaginative, awe-inspiring . . . words fail me.

Thank you for sharing, Rob.


----------



## bargervais

RMK! said:


> I'm another early adopter of this new surround technology. I've had a lot of speaker configurations but was mostly a 7.1 until recently going to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup with 4 on-ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have a Marantz AV-7702 with the Auro upgrade and have been using Atmos (John Wick only), DSU and now Auromatic. All formats produce an acceptable result with the current Front High, Rear High speaker setup. The positioning is closest to the recommended Atmos 5.1.4 setup recommendation. I have true full range mains and so the LCR's are set to large (by Audyssey XT32) and they handle all the bass down to an approx -3db @ 16Hz.
> 
> Obviously the placement isn't ideal but the front row (where I sit most of the time) is pretty much per the Dolby spec in terms of location of the FH and RH speakers. Interestingly, my wife likes the sound from the back row a bit better and I prefer the front. We are currently using the Auro 3D Auromatic upmix but watched a few film's with DSU and found it a nice option as well. John Wick in Atmos provided the best height based surround sound I have heard including Guardians of the Galaxy in an Atmos equipped theater.


very impressive after seeing this set up i don't think i'll ever post pictures of my set up (as i'm sitting here with my thumb in my mouth twirling my hair) very very nice...


----------



## Jack.K

*Atmos ceiling speakers*

Selden, please help
I am planing on using 6 Def Tech promonitor 800 ceiling Mounted speakers in a 9.1.4 atmos confg.
My question is because the monitors have what I think is a Base Radiator on top should I invert them?
I have a Marantz 7009 and a Emotiva XPA-5 and a whole bunch of extra receivers, the rest of my
speakers are Goldenear.


----------



## Jive Turkey

petetherock said:


> Try an oldie... The Cave.... a lot of use of the surrounds...
> Or even Sherlock Holmes I - when Mark Strong's voice goes around the abattoir... very impressive and scary too..
> 
> Well the initial brace of Atmos BR discs were big action movies, and too much was already going on, in Transformers, Expendables etc so there weren't too many quiet moments..
> 
> Not enough 'atmosphere'... It will be interesting to see "The Haunting" get re-mastered as an Atmos disc..


The original or the latest? Have you heard it's on the bench or just wishfully thinking?


----------



## groundtrac

RMK! said:


> I'm another early adopter of this new surround technology. I've had a lot of speaker configurations but was mostly a 7.1 until recently going to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup with 4 on-ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have a Marantz AV-7702 with the Auro upgrade and have been using Atmos (John Wick only), DSU and now Auromatic. All formats produce an acceptable result with the current Front High, Rear High speaker setup. The positioning is closest to the recommended Atmos 5.1.4 setup recommendation. I have true full range mains and so the LCR's are set to large (by Audyssey XT32) and they handle all the bass down to an approx -3db @ 16Hz.
> 
> Obviously the placement isn't ideal but the front row (where I sit most of the time) is pretty much per the Dolby spec in terms of location of the FH and RH speakers. Interestingly, my wife likes the sound from the back row a bit better and I prefer the front. We are currently using the Auro 3D Auromatic upmix but watched a few film's with DSU and found it a nice option as well. John Wick in Atmos provided the best height based surround sound I have heard including Guardians of the Galaxy in an Atmos equipped theater.


I'm just curious, where are your surrounds and rear surrounds located? I am not seeing them in the photo.


----------



## Selden Ball

Jack.K said:


> Selden, please help
> I am planing on using 6 Def Tech promonitor 800 ceiling Mounted speakers in a 9.1.4 atmos confg.
> My question is because the monitors have what I think is a Base Radiator on top should I invert them?
> I have a Marantz 7009 and a Emotiva XPA-5 and a whole bunch of extra receivers, the rest of my
> speakers are Goldenear.


Try them both ways. It's not as if you'd break anything.

Don't forget to run Audyssey with both orientations.

In my case, I've mounted DefTech 1000 speakers with the radiator toward the bottom, mostly because otherwise they're quite top-heavy. They sound fine to me.


----------



## petetherock

Jive Turkey said:


> The original or the latest? Have you heard it's on the bench or just wishfully thinking?


Sorry mate, that's my pipe dream.. I have the Liam Neeson version on DVD... silly plot, but awesome sound...


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> very impressive after seeing this set up i don't think i'll ever post pictures of my set up (as i'm sitting here with my thumb in my mouth twirl my hair) very very nice...


You stole my words..


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Just listened to bits and pieces of On Any Sunday : The Next Chapter and there's a couple of good usages of audio objects, with or without height...

It's impressive how some of those positioning effects with the bike really sound well in a 360 way...

It's not a demo disc for Atmos in my mind, but a couple of cool things are done, with moto jumping for example early in the movie.


----------



## Jive Turkey

petetherock said:


> Sorry mate, that's my pipe dream.. I have the Liam Neeson version on DVD... silly plot, but awesome sound...


That one is one of my favorites, and yes, I know it's got it's faults, but it works for me. Never released on Bluray, but I used to watch it in Hidef on DVHS. My players went shot, and I couldn't sell the tapes for anything multiple times on Ebay, so I chucked a couple dozen tapes one day when I was cleaning out the garage.


----------



## RMK!

groundtrac said:


> I'm just curious, where are your surrounds and rear surrounds located? I am not seeing them in the photo.


No surround back speakers (5.1.4). The Top Rear speakers are on the same plane but above and inboard of the side surrounds which are JTR Triple 8LP's that are wall mounted slightly above seated head height. They are installed inside acoustic panels that were modified to be mounted over them making them stealthy hence your inability to see them in the photos.


----------



## NorthSky

*RMK!*, I just clicked, not long ago, on your sig...and was very pleasantly served on a silver platter. 

Everything is splendid; the journey, today.


----------



## Frank714

gammanuc said:


>


Considering Death Star II is twice as big as the first one (approx. 300 miles) I'm afraid it's just about to plunge into the ocean. You better see to it to get to a higher ground unless you want to experience the inevitable tsunami wave that follows. 

(probably a back up weapons system in case the "lazer eye" fails)[/URL]


----------



## johnty

*On Any Sunday rental in Atmos*

Rented On Any Sunday from Netflix on the off-chance it would have the native Atmos soundtrack and surprisingly, it did. Not much going on in the height channels but it's the thought that counts.

Lionsgate, are you listening?


----------



## chi_guy50

johnty said:


> Rented On Any Sunday from Netflix on the off-chance it would have the native Atmos soundtrack and surprisingly, it did. Not much going on in the height channels but it's the thought that counts.
> 
> Lionsgate, are you listening?


I complained to a CSR at Netflix a few weeks ago (for whatever that's worth) about the absence of audio specs on the newly added titles that have an Atmos release, and I see that they have now added the info. The _On Any Sunday_ BRD is now shown as having Dolby TrueHD, which I had assumed meant that it had the Atmos audio. Thanks for confirming it. And now the Lionsgate releases on Netflix show the lossy audio; so at least we know what we're getting if we order them, which was my main complaint.


----------



## Jack.K

Selden Ball said:


> Try them both ways. It's not as if you'd break anything.
> 
> Don't forget to run Audyssey with both orientations.
> 
> In my case, I've mounted DefTech 1000 speakers with the radiator toward the bottom, mostly because otherwise they're quite top-heavy. They sound fine to me.


Thanks
I'll go ahead and order them


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Frank714 said:


> Considering Death Star II is twice as big as the first one (approx. 300 miles) I'm afraid it's just about to plunge into the ocean. You better see to it to get to a higher ground unless you want to experience the inevitable tsunami wave that follows.
> 
> (probably a back up weapons system in case the "lazer eye" fails)


Cool... learning all sorts of Star Wars trivia from reading the Atmos forum hahah


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> I complained to a CSR at Netflix (for whatever that's worth) about the absence of audio specs on the newly added titles that have an Atmos release a few weeks ago, and I see that they have now added the info. The _On Any Sunday_ BRD is now shown as having Dolby TrueHD, which I had assumed meant that it had the Atmos audio. Thanks for confirming it. And now the Lionsgate releases on Netflix show the lossy audio; so at least we know what we're getting if we order them, which was my main complaint.


That's one of the reasons i stopped getting Blu-Rays from Netflix (lack of the audio i wanted) so I'm content just to Stream. On Any Sunday I Bought from Amazon, that gives me peace of mind that I'll get the correct Audio, On Any Sunday is not what I would consider as a Demo for Atmos but it was enjoyable.


----------



## SoundJunky

The Tannoy Di6dc's showed up today!  I've never had a speaker with a "euro style connector" before so I would like to confirm with those of you who have installed these speakers before prior to hanging these on the ceiling. When I look at the instructions it says to use the first two slots for positive and negative terminals, however pins "1" and "2" aren't labeled on the terminal…











Ok, simple enough, but when I then look at the back of the speaker it shows that the euro plug needs to be flipped upside down, which would place terminals 1 and 2 on the 3rd and 4th slot inside the speaker. Is that correct??? Unless the tannoy sticker is upside down? lol 










Any info would be appreciated.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundJunky said:


> The Tannoy Di6dc's showed up today!  I've never had a speaker with a "euro style connector" before so I would like to confirm with those of you who have installed these speakers before prior to hanging these on the ceiling. When I look at the instructions it says to use the first two slots for positive and negative terminals, however pins "1" and "2" aren't labeled on the terminal…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, simple enough, but when I then look at the back of the speaker it shows that the euro plug needs to be flipped upside down, which would place terminals 1 and 2 on the 3rd and 4th slot inside the speaker. Is that correct??? Unless the tannoy sticker is upside down? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any info would be appreciated.


Connect the left side + and - to your speaker wire pos and neg. You are then good to go. It doesn't matter which you use so long as you make sure one is to the pos wire (+) and the other (-) to the neg wire. 

The other pair of + and - connections are for linking another set of speakers to the same line in a distributed system. You can count 1, 2, 3, 4 from either side. I agree the manual isn't a model of clarity in this regard.


----------



## SoundJunky

kbarnes701 said:


> Connect the left side + and - to your speaker wire pos and neg. You are then good to go. It doesn't matter which you use so long as you make sure one is to the pos wire (+) and the other (-) to the neg wire.
> 
> The other pair of + and - connections are for linking another set of speakers to the same line in a distributed system. You can count 1, 2, 3, 4 from either side. I agree the manual isn't a model of clarity in this regard.



Thank you! So slots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 on the speaker terminal would be fine. Just as long as they were paired positive and negative. Ok, makes sense. Thank you! It just threw me for a loop when the connector was flipped because I figured (incorrectly) one set was for input and one set was for output on the speaker.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> That's one of the reasons i stopped getting Blu-Rays from Netflix (lack of the audio i wanted) so I'm content just to Stream. On Any Sunday I Bought from Amazon, that gives me peace of mind that I'll get the correct Audio, On Any Sunday is not what I would consider as a Demo for Atmos but it was enjoyable.


I stopped the discs from Netflix because they stopped processing on Saturday's and then the Post Office got rid of their graveyard shift causing the discs to take 2 days each way instead of the 1 day it had been earlier. I have a processing facility in my city BTW.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I stopped the discs from Netflix because they stopped processing on Saturday's and then the Post Office got rid of their graveyard shift causing the discs to take 2 days each way instead of the 1 day it had been earlier. I have a processing facility in my city BTW.


I have no inside information (other than conversations with CSR's), but I believe Netflix is working on the best workable solution to the USPS's recent and ongoing cutbacks. I experienced multi-day delays in January (and one lost disk), but they are now down to just one extra day for the month of February to date (I have been keeping a record of all of my BRD's transit times since the delays hit). And when I complained to Netflix about the additional processing time (all the while acknowledging that it was not their fault) they sent me an extra disk and then tacked on six weeks of additional disks at no cost to me. So color me happy for the present.

And BTW I just now got _The Railway Man_ (another *gasp* Lionsgate release) and even though the Netflix info web page shows that it only has Dolby Digital 5.1 (implying the lossy codec), the disk they sent me has a DTS HD-MA 5.1 soundtrack. So there's that!


----------



## johnty

lujan said:


> I stopped the discs from Netflix because they stopped processing on Saturday's and then the Post Office got rid of their graveyard shift causing the discs to take 2 days each way instead of the 1 day it had been earlier. I have a processing facility in my city BTW.


I, too, have a local processing facility and right after USPS got rid of overnight delivery around January 5, discs started arriving a day late. This continued until the end of January but then somebody, somewhere, rejiggered the work flow and now discs are arriving the day after shipping as they always did. Don't know who blinked first but it was broken and now it's fixed.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Connect the left side + and - to your speaker wire pos and neg. You are then good to go. It doesn't matter which you use so long as you make sure one is to the pos wire (+) and the other (-) to the neg wire.
> 
> The other pair of + and - connections are for linking another set of speakers to the same line in a distributed system. You can count 1, 2, 3, 4 from either side. I agree the manual isn't a model of clarity in this regard.





SoundJunky said:


> Thank you! So slots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 on the speaker terminal would be fine. Just as long as they were paired positive and negative. Ok, makes sense. Thank you! It just threw me for a loop when the connector was flipped because I figured (incorrectly) one set was for input and one set was for output on the speaker.


Just to confirm, for your peace of mind.  These speakers will almost always be used in a 70 volt distributed system, in which the first speaker is connected to the amp, the second speaker to the first speaker, the third to the second, and so on. They make a parallel connection (electrically) to one amp channel. The manual probably doesn't mention this because it's understood by 99% of people who will be hooking these up. The Euroblock (or Phoenix) connector facilitates the parallel connection. The two negative pins are connected to each other inside the speaker, and the two positive pins are also connected to each other. Long story short: As long as you use one of the positives and one of the negatives (in any combination), you're good to go.


----------



## brahman12

*DSU and Atmos Love*

Watched the Matrix Trilogy with DSU. Parts two and three were a bit more active and impressive overall than the first of the trilogy, but the first one sounded pretty good overall. The Underworld series was cool too, with Awakenings and Evolutions sounding the best. I have to watch Maze Runner again because I started watching it late at night and fell asleep, but the first half hour sounded promising. Into the Storm was a very fun watch.....awesome use of DSU and some nice bass moments. Fury with DSU was a nice combo....sounded sweet and powerful to my ears, with sexy directionality and panning. Book of Life, a children's animated film, was OK...not awesome but not bad either. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in Atmos was pretty intense with some nice Atmos moments (snow mountain scene and final battle with Shredder). A couple moments in this movie and in John Wick where I thought my speakers were going to blow up....for real, no joke...especially in John Wick. Finally, I would like to mosdef recommend Prometheus with DSU.....so far one of the best DSU experiences (along with Into the Storm, Oblivion, Star Trek, and Star Wars' latest three episodes). Atmos/DSU induced Nirvana


----------



## NorthSky

If you can buy a new piece of electronics that will motivate you to re-watch your Blu-ray movie and music collection; not bad, not bad @ all.  
... DSU, Auro-Matic.

* Me, I will do it soon, with dts:x, and with my 3D Blu-ray movie collection. ...3D sound (dts:xpand "upmixer") with 3D picture.
Because, I don't expect to see some "serious" discrete software (Atmos & DTS:X) in quality and in reasonable quantity till about two years, @ least. /// About 2017.
And only if the movie studios are doing their part for support. ...We need the ball rolling, and it just ain't happening. 

So, for now people play mainly with DSU and a bit with Auro-Matic, and then pretty soon DTS:X own 3D surround sound up-mixer ("dts:xpand").


----------



## lovingdvd

I'm building a new theater room and starting over from scratch with the speakers. I'd love some recommendations please on mid-end speakers for a complete 7.1.4 or eventually 9.1.6 setup. Heights would be in-ceiling speakers. Could you please have a look at the model of my room in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-design-project-your-input-needed-please.html and recommend speakers for the various channels? I really have no idea what speakers cost these days - been over a decade since I bought anything other than a sub. By "mid-end" I mean just that - not looking for budget speakers or to do things on the cheap but not looking to spend $20k on speakers either... I'd like everything to be timbre matched and whatever specs Atmos and other next-gen sound technologies call for. Thanks!


----------



## Dave Vaughn

The Mazerunner sounds great in DSU...it was one of the first movies I tested when my install was done for a couple of reasons. First, the theatrical mix was done in Atmos and the home theater mix in 7.1 sounded great from overhead. DSU takes it up a notch for sure and adds even more immersion.


----------



## bargervais

Dave Vaughn said:


> The Mazerunner sounds great in DSU...it was one of the first movies I tested when my install was done for a couple of reasons. First, the theatrical mix was done in Atmos and the home theater mix in 7.1 sounded great from overhead. DSU takes it up a notch for sure and adds even more immersion.


+1 totally agree..


----------



## brahman12

bargervais said:


> +1 totally agree..


Yeah...gonna play Maze Runner again tomorrow night....earlier this time lol. Gonna follow that up with Art of Flight. This weekend is gonna be Marvel/DC weekend....Avengers, Iron Man trilogy, Batman trilogy and Man of Steal. I am giddy like a little kid with my new AV setup.


----------



## brahman12

lovingdvd said:


> I'm building a new theater room and starting over from scratch with the speakers. I'd love some recommendations please on mid-end speakers for a complete 7.1.4 or eventually 9.1.6 setup. Heights would be in-ceiling speakers. Could you please have a look at the model of my room in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-design-project-your-input-needed-please.html and recommend speakers for the various channels? I really have no idea what speakers cost these days - been over a decade since I bought anything other than a sub. By "mid-end" I mean just that - not looking for budget speakers or to do things on the cheap but not looking to spend $20k on speakers either... I'd like everything to be timbre matched and whatever specs Atmos and other next-gen sound technologies call for. Thanks!


I like JBL, Aperion, Axiom, and SVS speakers for most bang for ur buck. Polk and Goldenear are very well regarded too. If ur going in-ceiling for ur Atmos, you might look into an all Goldenear or Polk speaker setup. But there are many possibilities to be honest with you. If you can find some places, even if it is a Best Buy/Magnolia spot...you should try to get a listen or two before dropping cash. Whatever YOU think sounds best, will sound the best....and the more likely you will be satisfied with ur purchase. Good luck and best wishes.


----------



## lovingdvd

brahman12 said:


> I like JBL, Aperion, Axiom, and SVS speakers for most bang for ur buck. Polk and Goldenear are very well regarded too. If ur going in-ceiling for ur Atmos, you might look into an all Goldenear or Polk speaker setup. But there are many possibilities to be honest with you. If you can find some places, even if it is a Best Buy/Magnolia spot...you should try to get a listen or two before dropping cash. Whatever YOU think sounds best, will sound the best....and the more likely you will be satisfied with ur purchase. Good luck and best wishes.


Thanks for the suggestions. What's unique about Goldenear and Polk that leads you to point those out as good choices for in-celing Atmos (which is what I am doing)?


----------



## leadliner

ultraflexed said:


> I have the 1030 av , how do you get the demo?





Straffa said:


> Onkyo have a demo just go to site and download Atmos demo


i had a friend download and and burn a copy for me , it wont play in my oppo103d. i tried it in my ps3 and it works fine , anybody have an idea why it wont play,it did play on his 103.


----------



## Alanlee

*Significant Events In AVS History*



lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the suggestions. What's unique about Goldenear and Polk that leads you to point those out as good choices for in-celing Atmos (which is what I am doing)?


 
* Significant Moments in AVS History*​ 
37,000years ago - these two Neanderthals were standing in a cave in El Castillo Spain looking at a bull painted on a stone wall. One of them said, “Pretty entertaining huh.” The other guy said, “Bring in the storyteller.” So they wake up this old man who is the keeper of their history. The old man spoke, “300 years ago Elaz the great setout to bring food to the tribe.......,” and he goes on for hours.

Then a stately Neanderthal woman with long grey hair begins to sing the men's favorite hunting song. “Elaz, the great provider, oh we praise his name.........”

One of the men is now sitting on the floor, “What a night; does it get any better than this?” The other guy looked at him with his most serious face and said, “I don't know, did you hear that echo? I have some ideas about how we might fix that.”

1927 –two guys – two girls siting in a movie theater after having watched the first talking movie, the Jazz Singer. One of the men says,”Whajathinkathat ?” “Well, I don't know why Al Jolson had to put that boot polish on his face, I don't know what that had to do with the story,” says one of the women.

“Everybody's a critic,” says the man. “I mean what about the idea that these people are talking in this movie.” “Yeah, I guess that's OK, says the other woman.” “Did you notice their lips did not match up with the words,” says the other guy, “What can be done about that?” 

6-21-2014– 10:08 AM – Two guys siting in a man cave surfing the avsforum and one of them says, “Hey look at this; they've opened a thread for Dolby Atmos.” “Atmos, Atmos, Whazat, says the other.” “I'm not sure, but I think we better start cutting holes in our ceiling.”


----------



## brahman12

Hey lovingdvd..... I Pointed you towards Goldenear and Polk because they make in-wall and in-ceiling speakers that I have heard. I have never heard JBL, Axiom, or Aperion in-walls or in-ceilings. I have lots of experience with JBL floorstanders and standmount speakers. Also, the folded ribbon tweeter in the Goldenear products should give you a nice and wide dispersion pattern. They also have models with tweeters that you can tilt or direct towards the main listening position. The Goldenear Atmos demo at CEDIA 2014 was well received by many listeners at the show.


----------



## multit

If not yet posted or read otherwise... here is an interesting article about Atmos mixing within Expendables 3, John Wick and Step Up All In.
Mostly it's an interview with Tim Hoogenakker from Formosa Santa Monica. 
http://postperspective.com/bringing-dolby-atmos-home-via-blu-ray/


----------



## roxiedog13

Alanlee said:


> * Significant Moments in AVS History*​
> 37,000years ago - these two Neanderthals were standing in a cave in El Castillo Spain looking at a bull painted on a stone wall. One of them said, “Pretty entertaining huh.” The other guy said, “Bring in the storyteller.” So they wake up this old man who is the keeper of their history. The old man spoke, “300 years ago Elaz the great setout to bring food to the tribe.......,” and he goes on for hours.
> 
> Then a stately Neanderthal woman with long grey hair begins to sing the men's favorite hunting song. “Elaz, the great provider, oh we praise his name.........”
> 
> One of the men is now sitting on the floor, “What a night; does it get any better than this?” The other guy looked at him with his most serious face and said, “I don't know, did you hear that echo? I have some ideas about how we might fix that.”
> 
> 1927 –two guys – two girls siting in a movie theater after having watched the first talking movie, the Jazz Singer. One of the men says,”Whajathinkathat ?” “Well, I don't know why Al Jolson had to put that boot polish on his face, I don't know what that had to do with the story,” says one of the women.
> 
> “Everybody's a critic,” says the man. “I mean what about the idea that these people are talking in this movie.” “Yeah, I guess that's OK, says the other woman.” “Did you notice their lips did not match up with the words,” says the other guy, “What can be done about that?”
> 
> 6-21-2014– 10:08 AM – Two guys siting in a man cave surfing the avsforum and one of them says, “Hey look at this; they've opened a thread for Dolby Atmos.” “Atmos, Atmos, Whazat, says the other.” “I'm not sure, but I think we better start cutting holes in our ceiling.”


I thought the cave men were going to invent sound deadening, I mean after all they did have 37,000 years , no moral to the story after all .


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> Auro-Matic.


Ok, here's a stupid question that I should know the answer to after all this talk:

Is Auro-Matic the same as Auro3D?


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> Is Auro-Matic the same as Auro3D?


Auro-Matic is the upmixer that comes bundled with the Auro3D decoder (just as Dolby Surround upmixing comes with Dolby Atmos decoding).


----------



## stikle

Ah...that makes sense. Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Ok, here's a stupid question that I should know the answer to after all this talk:
> 
> Is Auro-Matic the same as Auro3D?


Auro-Matic is Auro's upmixing format, like Dolby Surround or DTS Neo:X.


----------



## jrogers

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the suggestions. What's unique about Goldenear and Polk that leads you to point those out as good choices for in-celing Atmos (which is what I am doing)?





brahman12 said:


> Hey lovingdvd..... I Pointed you towards Goldenear and Polk because they make in-wall and in-ceiling speakers that I have heard. I have never heard JBL, Axiom, or Aperion in-walls or in-ceilings. I have lots of experience with JBL floorstanders and standmount speakers. Also, the folded ribbon tweeter in the Goldenear products should give you a nice and wide dispersion pattern. They also have models with tweeters that you can tilt or direct towards the main listening position. The Goldenear Atmos demo at CEDIA 2014 was well received by many listeners at the show.


fwiw - I'm using GoldenEar + SVS Sub for my Atmos theater and couldn't be happier with the sound. I have a separate 7.1 Paradigm Reference setup upstairs (with their in-walls for surround backs), which I would also highly recommend and considered for the theater room - but the wide dispersion of the HVFR GoldenEar speakers was perfect for my layout - which is quite shallow and wide.


----------



## JohannFreytag

Hello! I am thinking of upgrading my Denon AVR1713 to an Onkyo TX-NR636 for the Atmos feature. I plan to use surrounds on top of the main speakers, no in-ceiling config. I have these spare Sony speakers and was wondering if they do the job for Atmos? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-SS-SR3...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557. Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JohannFreytag said:


> Hello! I am thinking of upgrading my Denon AVR1713 to an Onkyo TX-NR636 for the Atmos feature. I plan to use surrounds on top of the main speakers, no in-ceiling config. I have these spare Sony speakers and was wondering if they do the job for Atmos? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-SS-SR301-Speakers-pair-/151576204719?nma=true&si=ioHkkRTDkTEZJxrNEa8s0EXmraM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557. Thanks!



Not a good time to upgrade receivers. Wait for DTS's March announcements about their new X codec enabled gear that will compete with Atmos.


----------



## JohannFreytag

Thank you! I live in Argentina and will be travelling to the States next week, so thought it was a good opportunity to upgrade, as receivers here are only sold by direct importers at very expensive prices. And unsure if I will return this year. But I will take your advice and hold off for now. Regarding the speakers, do you think they would work for Atmos or would I have to buy a new pair?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JohannFreytag said:


> Thank you! I live in Argentina and will be travelling to the States next week, so thought it was a good opportunity to upgrade, as receivers here are only sold by direct importers at very expensive prices. And unsure if I will return this year. But I will take your advice and hold off for now. Regarding the speakers, do you think they would work for Atmos or would I have to buy a new pair?


They might work as a temporarily mounted on-ceiling or at the very least height speaker (at the junction of the ceiling and wall) until you can find something better. I would not try to use them as Do-It-Yourself (DIY) "enabled" upfiring speakers, however.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> Is Auro-Matic the same as Auro3D?


♦ www.auro-3d.com/buy/


----------



## JohannFreytag

No in-ceiling option, that leaves them out then. Do you deem these good for upfiring on top of main speakers? http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-SKH-410...F8&qid=1424460747&sr=8-2&keywords=onkyo+atmos


----------



## stikle

Thanks Bob...I'm not looking to buy the authoring tools however.

My question was answered above.


----------



## RMK!

multit said:


> If not yet posted or read otherwise... here is an interesting article about Atmos mixing within Expendables 3, John Wick and Step Up All In.
> Mostly it's an interview with Tim Hoogenakker from Formosa Santa Monica.
> http://postperspective.com/bringing-dolby-atmos-home-via-blu-ray/


Thank you for the link. 
I imagine the following paragraph taken from the article is a little disturbing for those with capable Home Theaters. I suppose he thinks it's justifiable as it appears that he is mixing for his brother-in-laws HTIB setup.  



> *“But there were sequences where the gunfire, for example, was playing extremely loud. Understanding that’s what the director intended, I worked on pulling it down somewhat for the consumer audience, but also made sure that the EQ was the same while removing that deep, low-end rumble, which won’t play clearly in most home setups. In fact, I try to keep the heavy low-end in the 7.1 mix and check that it folds properly into the down mix. I normally monitor at 82 dB rather than [the cinema standard of] 85dB, which is just too loud for consumer mixes. I always trust my ears, and base my overall levels on the dialog elements, pulling down loud effects excursions and using overall limiting to contain the transients, where appropriate. I also made a separate special Nighttime 2.0 LtRt mix for the John Wick Blu-ray, with a very aggressive control of dynamics and tight limiting, which left me some room to keep the Atmos mix as bombastic as intended.”*


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> Thanks Bob...I'm not looking to buy the authoring tools however.
> 
> My question was answered above.


 ...It was just for a quick info side of it (Auro-3D vs Auro-Matic), and you can surf that website for much much more. 

* I knew that couple members answered your prior question (I always read every single post in this thread since the beginning, last June).
But it's fun to provide some more good info as well. ...And other people might benefit from it too, and who knows even purchase that software for their own pleasurable entertainment @ home.
Also, there is a request for Auro-3D Beta testers! ...That too is also a fantastic option for some. ...And all of that from that simple link I posted.


----------



## NorthSky

RMK! said:


> Thank you for the link.
> I imagine the following paragraph taken from the article is a little disturbing for those with capable Home Theaters. I suppose he thinks it's justifiable as it appears that he is mixing for his brother-in-laws HTIB setup.


Those new Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles are mainly for people who have a HTIB sound system. 

If yours is a larger one you might rethink your life's priorities.  ...They don't mix stuff on Blu-ray Dolby Atmos for large personal HOME theater rooms.


----------



## Jack.K

lovingdvd said:


> I'm building a new theater room and starting over from scratch with the speakers. I'd love some recommendations please on mid-end speakers for a complete 7.1.4 or eventually 9.1.6 setup. Heights would be in-ceiling speakers. Could you please have a look at the model of my room in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-design-project-your-input-needed-please.html and recommend speakers for the various channels? I really have no idea what speakers cost these days - been over a decade since I bought anything other than a sub. By "mid-end" I mean just that - not looking for budget speakers or to do things on the cheap but not looking to spend $20k on speakers either... I'd like everything to be timbre matched and whatever specs Atmos and other next-gen sound technologies call for. Thanks!


I have GoldenEar a large price range and I love them


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JohannFreytag said:


> No in-ceiling option, that leaves them out then. Do you deem these good for upfiring on top of main speakers? http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-SKH-410...F8&qid=1424460747&sr=8-2&keywords=onkyo+atmos


I didn't think you would put those Sony's _in_ the ceiling, rather mount them on or near the ceiling.  Upfiring speakers are hit 'n' miss and those particular Onkyo enabled speakers are pretty much junk.


----------



## JohannFreytag

My bad expression, thanks for clarifying. That pretty much leaves Atmos enabled receiver and speakers for a latter trip to the US then. Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JohannFreytag said:


> My bad expression, thanks for clarifying. That pretty much leaves Atmos enabled receiver and speakers for a latter trip to the US then. Thanks!


Cool.


----------



## jimstheatre

*In Ceiling Speakers with Integra 60.6 Receiver*

I have an Integra 60.6 Atmos capable receiver and plan to put in 4 overhead ceiling speakers. How important is the low-end frequency range in these overheads? For example, to get good Atmos effects, would 60Hz at the low end still be good? I've heard that the in ceiling speakers for an Atmos set-up should ideally be full range but it seems to me that there must be some minimum amount of bass frequency to accurately reproduce the Atmos overhead effects as intended? And therefore you'd think that 70 or 80Hz at the low-end wouldn't be good enough.
Anyone...........


----------



## lovingdvd

Hi guys - I'm designing a new theater room and would appreciate your feedback on my Atmos feedback. To help ensure future compatibility I want to go with a 9.1.6 setup - if that makes sense.

Please see the attached model that shows the room layout and speaker locations labeled with the degrees. Comments and advice are greatly appreciate.

Some notes/thoughts:

1. What do you think of this layout? I've been studying Atmos and this is my first try at it, so please go easy on me. 

2. I am 95% concerned only with the audio for the MLP which is the front row middle seat. Most of the time the back row will be empty, so looking to optimize for the front row. That said, with this layout and the back row outside of the back ceiling height speakers, I'm a little concerned that things could sound weird for those in the 2nd row. With that in mind, would it pay to do a wider angle so the back heights can be behind the second row (shown in the model as "Option 2")? The main issue there is that as you can see there is a bulk head on the right side - which means that height speaker will be 11.5" lower than its opposite side back height (or that opposite side one could be installed lower). Or an altnerative is to take the back right height and move it out toward its opposite speaker about 2 feet so that it can also be up in the ceiling and avoid the bulkhead. But in doing that it puts this speaker about 2 feet inside the line formed by the front Right channel and other height speakers. Also the bulkhead and lip in front of it toward the middle could possible interfere with the sound, but since the front row is lower maybe not...?

3. I'm a little concerned that the format or recommended speaker locations may change over the next few years. How versatile with this 9.1.6 be in case DTS:X or other tech catches on or if Atmos should tweak their recommended layouts?

4. How well with this configuration work in a 9.1.2 while we wait for 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 to be supported? I'd use the front-most heights for the .2 I suppose, but in that case their location is quite a bit more forward than would normally be with a 9.1.2 it seems?

5. For the heights as shown, what do you think about the 52, 90, 122 degree angles chosen? Does that seem a little narrow for such a relatively long room. I could go with something closer to 45, 90, 135. However at 45 degrees it puts the front heights parallel with the lower wides. And then there's the issue I talked about above with matching that with the 135 for the back heights as explained above. Likewise going even further our like 30, 150 puts the front heights in front of the wides (which may be better for some future sound formats or NEO) and at 150 it puts the back heights I think too far back in the room.

6. The way the design is currently, it looks like the lower back surrounds may be blocked somewhat by the high backs on the chairs in the back row. So I raised them a couple of feet above ear level. Do you think these back row seats will cause an issue. I wanted want to be in a situation that I had to recline the back row with no one in those seats just to keep the sound from getting blocked. I could raise the lower back surrounds even more, but then I suppose it will get too close to the sound stage of the uppers?

7. My back surrounds are at 150 degrees, but seem quite far into the room relative to the other speakers (which otherwise have a pretty consistent distance around all other speakers). Is that going to be an issue, or with back surrounds that works and you just make up the difference with the distance control in the receiver? If anything maybe it will at least keep the 2nd row of seats somewhat in the sound field.

Thanks!!


----------



## NorthSky

jimstheatre said:


> I have an Integra 60.6 Atmos capable receiver and plan to put in 4 overhead ceiling speakers. How important is the low-end frequency range in these overheads? For example, to get good Atmos effects, would 60Hz at the low end still be good? I've heard that the in ceiling speakers for an Atmos set-up should ideally be full range but it seems to me that there must be some minimum amount of bass frequency to accurately reproduce the Atmos overhead effects as intended? And therefore you'd think that 70 or 80Hz at the low-end wouldn't be good enough.
> Anyone...........


You are going to cross your four overhead ceiling speakers anyway, @ roughly 80Hz or so (more or less). And their bass is going to be redirected to your sub(s). ...That automatically makes them full range (or down to the lowest audio frequency point of your sub). 

Any overhead (in-ceiling or on ceiling) speaker able to reproduce frequencies @ near 80Hz or below, is good to go. 
Nobody is putting big full range tower speakers on his ceiling (or subwoofers above his head; but only the true daredevil overhead bass freaks from another far away galaxy of the multiverse).


----------



## NorthSky

lovingdvd said:


> Hi guys - I'm designing a new theater room and would appreciate your feedback on my Atmos feedback. To help ensure future compatibility I want to go with a 9.1.6 setup - if that makes sense.
> 
> Please see the attached model that shows the room layout and speaker locations labeled with the degrees. Comments and advice are greatly appreciate.
> 
> Some notes/thoughts:
> 
> 1. What do you think of this layout? I've been studying Atmos and this is my first try at it, so please go easy on me.
> 
> 2. I am 95% concerned only with the audio for the MLP which is the front row middle seat. Most of the time the back row will be empty, so looking to optimize for the front row. That said, with this layout and the back row outside of the back ceiling height speakers, I'm a little concerned that things could sound weird for those in the 2nd row. With that in mind, would it pay to do a wider angle so the back heights can be behind the second row (shown in the model as "Option 2")? The main issue there is that as you can see there is a bulk head on the right side - which means that height speaker will be 11.5" lower than its opposite side back height (or that opposite side one could be installed lower). Or an altnerative is to take the back right height and move it out toward its opposite speaker about 2 feet so that it can also be up in the ceiling and avoid the bulkhead. But in doing that it puts this speaker about 2 feet inside the line formed by the front Right channel and other height speakers. Also the bulkhead and lip in front of it toward the middle could possible interfere with the sound, but since the front row is lower maybe not...?
> 
> 3. I'm a little concerned that the format or recommended speaker locations may change over the next few years. How versatile with this 9.1.6 be in case DTS:X or other tech catches on or if Atmos should tweak their recommended layouts?
> 
> 4. How well with this configuration work in a 9.1.2 while we wait for 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 to be supported? I'd use the front-most heights for the .2 I suppose, but in that case their location is quite a bit more forward than would normally be with a 9.1.2 it seems?
> 
> 5. For the heights as shown, what do you think about the 52, 90, 122 degree angles chosen? Does that seem a little narrow for such a relatively long room. I could go with something closer to 45, 90, 135. However at 45 degrees it puts the front heights parallel with the lower wides. And then there's the issue I talked about above with matching that with the 135 for the back heights as explained above. Likewise going even further our like 30, 150 puts the front heights in front of the wides (which may be better for some future sound formats or NEO) and at 150 it puts the back heights I think too far back in the room.
> 
> 6. The way the design is currently, it looks like the lower back surrounds may be blocked somewhat by the high backs on the chairs in the back row. So I raised them a couple of feet above ear level. Do you think these back row seats will cause an issue. I wanted want to be in a situation that I had to recline the back row with no one in those seats just to keep the sound from getting blocked. I could raise the lower back surrounds even more, but then I suppose it will get too close to the sound stage of the uppers?
> 
> Thanks!!


Hi,

Very nice, and good planning ahead (overhead). 

Did you check the very first post of this thread with a bunch of informative links: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

Also, in about a month DTS:X is going to make some announcement. ...After that there is going to be a new batch (second generation) of Dolby Atmos/DTS:X products from various manufacturers starting to appear slowly during the course of this year. 

* For a 9.1.6 support configuration (15 satellite channel speakers plus the subs), you would have to get into the higher-end products; Datasat, etc. 
- Check those high-end threads.


----------



## lovingdvd

NorthSky said:


> Hi,
> 
> Very nice, and good planning ahead (overhead).
> 
> Did you check the very first post of this thread with a bunch of informative links: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> Also, in about a month DTS:X is going to make some announcement. ...After that there is going to be a new batch (second generation) of Dolby Atmos/DTS:X products from various manufacturers starting to appear slowly during the course of this year.
> 
> * For a 9.1.6 support configuration (15 satellite channel speakers plus the subs), you would have to get into the higher-end products; Datasat, etc.
> - Check those high-end threads.


Thanks for the feedback. Yes I am looking forward to the DTS:X announcement. It will likely be a couple months before any wires are run. In the meantime I am planning this out with all info available to-date and hopefully will be able to make any adjustments. I also plan to prewire for heights above the left/center/right mains, side surrounds and rear surrounds, as well as possibly a VOG. Easy to do up front compared to later, especially given that I'll have some sort of star field ceiling going and can't imagine having to take that apart to make changes later - yikes.

Just out of curiosity what do those high end products like the Datasat cost? My guess is that I won't be running 9.1.6 until such time that the down to earth AVRs pick up those capabilities.


----------



## NorthSky

$20,000-30,000


----------



## wil1688

Greeting, Just pickup a SC-87 from local Bestbuy. This is an upgrade from a SC-07. My current setup is 5.1. In additional to the L C R speaker, I am also haveing 2 additional smaller speaker mount on the front wall above the 2 LF speaker ( from the old setup on a Yamaha Amp ). Question, Is it better to angle the speaker down toward the seating area, or anlge up toward the ceiling and reflect the sound down toward the seating area for the Dolby Atmos. Or move those speaker to the back wall and angle down ( prefer noy to if possible ). Thanks the help.


----------



## NorthSky

*Most likely the best answer.*

Installation Guidelines

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf




wil1688 said:


> Greeting, Just pickup a SC-87 from local Bestbuy. This is an upgrade from a SC-07. My current setup is 5.1. In additional to the L C R speaker, I am also haveing 2 additional smaller speaker mount on the front wall above the 2 LF speaker ( from the old setup on a Yamaha Amp ). Question, Is it better to angle the speaker down toward the seating area, or anlge up toward the ceiling and reflect the sound down toward the seating area for the Dolby Atmos. Or move those speaker to the back wall and angle down ( prefer noy to if possible ). Thanks the help.


----------



## jdsmoothie

wil1688 said:


> Greeting, Just pickup a SC-87 from local Bestbuy. This is an upgrade from a SC-07. My current setup is 5.1. In additional to the L C R speaker, I am also haveing 2 additional smaller speaker mount on the front wall above the 2 LF speaker ( from the old setup on a Yamaha Amp ). Question, Is it better to angle the speaker down toward the seating area, or anlge up toward the ceiling and reflect the sound down toward the seating area for the Dolby Atmos. Or move those speaker to the back wall and angle down ( prefer noy to if possible ). Thanks the help.


You will be unable to add Front Height speakers unless you first add side Surround speakers (ie. 5.1 + Front Height = 5.1.2). Once added, any height speakers, whether mounted on the wall or in the ceiling, should ideally be aimed at the main listening position.


----------



## Selden Ball

lovingdvd said:


> Hi guys - I'm designing a new theater room and would appreciate your feedback on my Atmos feedback. To help ensure future compatibility I want to go with a 9.1.6 setup - if that makes sense.
> 
> Please see the attached model that shows the room layout and speaker locations labeled with the degrees. Comments and advice are greatly appreciate.
> 
> Some notes/thoughts:
> 
> 1. What do you think of this layout? I've been studying Atmos and this is my first try at it, so please go easy on me.


 It looks like a reasonable starting point.



> 2. I am 95% concerned only with the audio for the MLP which is the front row middle seat. Most of the time the back row will be empty, so looking to optimize for the front row. That said, with this layout and the back row outside of the back ceiling height speakers, I'm a little concerned that things could sound weird for those in the 2nd row. With that in mind, would it pay to do a wider angle so the back heights can be behind the second row (shown in the model as "Option 2")? The main issue there is that as you can see there is a bulk head on the right side - which means that height speaker will be 11.5" lower than its opposite side back height (or that opposite side one could be installed lower). Or an altnerative is to take the back right height and move it out toward its opposite speaker about 2 feet so that it can also be up in the ceiling and avoid the bulkhead. But in doing that it puts this speaker about 2 feet inside the line formed by the front Right channel and other height speakers. Also the bulkhead and lip in front of it toward the middle could possible interfere with the sound, but since the front row is lower maybe not...?


 There's no one "right" answer. Home sound systems are almost always a compromise. In your case, I think that it really depends on how much you want the people sitting in the second row to properly experience sounds that are intended to be heard as being behind and overhead. Personally, I'd suggest having the rear overheads somewhat behind the second row.



> 3. I'm a little concerned that the format or recommended speaker locations may change over the next few years. How versatile with this 9.1.6 be in case DTS:X or other tech catches on or if Atmos should tweak their recommended layouts?


 I doubt very much that the speaker locations are going to change significantly. Remember that Atmos actually allows for up to 10 overhead speakers in 5 pairs, and the allowed locations for some of them already overlap.



> 4. How well with this configuration work in a 9.1.2 while we wait for 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 to be supported? I'd use the front-most heights for the .2 I suppose, but in that case their location is quite a bit more forward than would normally be with a 9.1.2 it seems?


 Why wait? Remember that D+M equipment already supports a 9.1.4 speaker configuration: 13 speakers with up to 11 different ones active depending on the sound mode. Designate your overheads as Front Height and Top Rear for maximum compatibility among the various current sound modes (ignoring Auro-3D for the moment). Although Atmos and Dolby Surround wouldn't use the Front Wide speakers, DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX would.



> 5. For the heights as shown, what do you think about the 52, 90, 122 degree angles chosen? Does that seem a little narrow for such a relatively long room. I could go with something closer to 45, 90, 135. However at 45 degrees it puts the front heights parallel with the lower wides. And then there's the issue I talked about above with matching that with the 135 for the back heights as explained above. Likewise going even further our like 30, 150 puts the front heights in front of the wides (which may be better for some future sound formats or NEO) and at 150 it puts the back heights I think too far back in the room.


 Remember that Dolby's allowed speaker positions are very generous. If at all possible, try the different positions to find out which sound best to you. That's one advantage that on-ceiling speakers have over in-ceiling speakers: you can adjust their positions much more easily.



> 6. The way the design is currently, it looks like the lower back surrounds may be blocked somewhat by the high backs on the chairs in the back row. So I raised them a couple of feet above ear level. Do you think these back row seats will cause an issue. I wanted want to be in a situation that I had to recline the back row with no one in those seats just to keep the sound from getting blocked. I could raise the lower back surrounds even more, but then I suppose it will get too close to the sound stage of the uppers?


 They should be just high enough that they aren't blocked by chairs or people's heads, but otherwise as low as possible.




> 7. My back surrounds are at 150 degrees, but seem quite far into the room relative to the other speakers (which otherwise have a pretty consistent distance around all other speakers). Is that going to be an issue, or with back surrounds that works and you just make up the difference with the distance control in the receiver? If anything maybe it will at least keep the 2nd row of seats somewhat in the sound field.


 What primarily matters is the speaker's direction, not its distance. Remember that the receiver will automatically measure all of the distances and sound levels and adjust the timing and trim levels so they all match at the main listening position.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

lovingdvd said:


> Hi guys - I'm designing a new theater room and would appreciate your feedback on my Atmos feedback. To help ensure future compatibility I want to go with a 9.1.6 setup - if that makes sense.
> 
> Please see the attached model that shows the room layout and speaker locations labeled with the degrees. Comments and advice are greatly appreciate.
> 
> Some notes/thoughts:
> 
> 1. What do you think of this layout? I've been studying Atmos and this is my first try at it, so please go easy on me.


A couple of things - it looks like you're having the left and right outside of the screen but would you consider an AT screen with speakers behind?

The other thing is kinda related to the first in that having the ceiling speakers close to the walls gives you the effect of the audio moving up and down the walls, rather than right overhead of the listening position unless some clever mixing is happening between the top left and right to give the impression of overhead. In Dolby's commercial theatre set up guide they show the ceiling speakers in line with the front center left and center right speakers (not usually catered for in home set ups) which brings the ceiling speakers closer to the middle of the room. 

Gary.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Gary Lightfoot said:


> A couple of things - it looks like you're having the left and right outside of the screen but would you consider an AT screen with speakers behind?
> 
> The other thing is kinda related to the first in that having the ceiling speakers close to the walls gives you the effect of the audio moving up and down the walls, rather than right overhead of the listening position unless some clever mixing is happening between the top left and right to give the impression of overhead. In Dolby's commercial theatre set up guide they show the ceiling speakers in line with the front center left and center right speakers (not usually catered for in home set ups) which brings the ceiling speakers closer to the middle of the room.
> 
> Gary.


 
Hey Gary, actually according to the Dolby white paper for home installation they also show the overhead speakers in alignment with the fronts...


----------



## Al Sherwood

lovingdvd said:


> Hi guys - I'm designing a new theater room and would appreciate your feedback on my Atmos feedback. To help ensure future compatibility I want to go with a 9.1.6 setup - if that makes sense.
> 
> Please see the attached model that shows the room layout and speaker locations labeled with the degrees. Comments and advice are greatly appreciate.
> 
> Some notes/thoughts:
> 
> 1. What do you think of this layout? I've been studying Atmos and this is my first try at it, so please go easy on me.
> 
> 2. I am 95% concerned only with the audio for the MLP which is the front row middle seat. Most of the time the back row will be empty, so looking to optimize for the front row. That said, with this layout and the back row outside of the back ceiling height speakers, I'm a little concerned that things could sound weird for those in the 2nd row. With that in mind, would it pay to do a wider angle so the back heights can be behind the second row (shown in the model as "Option 2")? The main issue there is that as you can see there is a bulk head on the right side - which means that height speaker will be 11.5" lower than its opposite side back height (or that opposite side one could be installed lower). Or an altnerative is to take the back right height and move it out toward its opposite speaker about 2 feet so that it can also be up in the ceiling and avoid the bulkhead. But in doing that it puts this speaker about 2 feet inside the line formed by the front Right channel and other height speakers. Also the bulkhead and lip in front of it toward the middle could possible interfere with the sound, but since the front row is lower maybe not...?
> 
> 3. I'm a little concerned that the format or recommended speaker locations may change over the next few years. How versatile with this 9.1.6 be in case DTS:X or other tech catches on or if Atmos should tweak their recommended layouts?
> 
> 4. How well with this configuration work in a 9.1.2 while we wait for 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 to be supported? I'd use the front-most heights for the .2 I suppose, but in that case their location is quite a bit more forward than would normally be with a 9.1.2 it seems?
> 
> 5. For the heights as shown, what do you think about the 52, 90, 122 degree angles chosen? Does that seem a little narrow for such a relatively long room. I could go with something closer to 45, 90, 135. However at 45 degrees it puts the front heights parallel with the lower wides. And then there's the issue I talked about above with matching that with the 135 for the back heights as explained above. Likewise going even further our like 30, 150 puts the front heights in front of the wides (which may be better for some future sound formats or NEO) and at 150 it puts the back heights I think too far back in the room.
> 
> 6. The way the design is currently, it looks like the lower back surrounds may be blocked somewhat by the high backs on the chairs in the back row. So I raised them a couple of feet above ear level. Do you think these back row seats will cause an issue. I wanted want to be in a situation that I had to recline the back row with no one in those seats just to keep the sound from getting blocked. I could raise the lower back surrounds even more, but then I suppose it will get too close to the sound stage of the uppers?
> 
> 7. My back surrounds are at 150 degrees, but seem quite far into the room relative to the other speakers (which otherwise have a pretty consistent distance around all other speakers). Is that going to be an issue, or with back surrounds that works and you just make up the difference with the distance control in the receiver? If anything maybe it will at least keep the 2nd row of seats somewhat in the sound field.
> 
> Thanks!!



Nice looking plan, but as has been mentioned you may want to consider an AT screen and move the Fronts in a bit and behind the screen, also moving the overheads to align. I am beginning to design a similar room, two rows and also with the front or MLP being of key importance and the second row for less critical listeners. I will be planning on 9.1.6 and DTS-X as well. Now all I need to do is play around with SketchUp and get this 'on paper'! 


Here is my plan thus far super-imposed on the Dolby recommended speaker layout.


----------



## Al Sherwood

JohannFreytag said:


> Hello! I am thinking of upgrading my Denon AVR1713 to an Onkyo TX-NR636 for the Atmos feature. I plan to use surrounds on top of the main speakers, no in-ceiling config. I have these spare Sony speakers and was wondering if they do the job for Atmos? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-SS-SR3...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557. Thanks!


I know that you have gotten some replies and may have made a decision, but remember that any upcoming announcements about DTS-10 or even changes in Atmos will take months to finally hit new AVR's on the street, likely not until this fall.


If you want to experience Atmos now or don't get state side all that often the Onkyo 636 would be a good starting point to enjoy this new sound format now. If these AVR's are so expensive in Argentina, I am sure you could easily sell it when you find the next 'must have' AVR!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> I know that you have gotten some replies and may have made a decision, but remember that any upcoming announcements about DTS-10 or even changes in Atmos will take months to finally hit new AVR's on the street, likely not until this fall.
> 
> 
> If you want to experience Atmos now or don't get state side all that often the Onkyo 636 would be a good starting point to enjoy this new sound format now. If these AVR's are so expensive in Argentina, I am sure you could easily sell it when you find the next 'must have' AVR!


Why have him spend good money now, only to turn around and buy again a few months later?? The OP is not in the States, so a trip to the U.S. would have to be planned to pick up a receiver due to electronics prices in his country.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Al Sherwood said:


> Hey Gary, actually according to the Dolby white paper for home installation they also show the overhead speakers in alignment with the fronts...


Yup, I know, but like I said, it can keep the surround 'bubble' tied more to the walls which is why I suggested the commercial route tied in with speakers behind the screen.

That was my experience anyway.

Gary.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Al Sherwood said:


> I know that you have gotten some replies and may have made a decision, but remember that any upcoming announcements about DTS-10 or even changes in Atmos will take months to finally hit new AVR's on the street, likely not until this fall.
> 
> 
> If you want to experience Atmos now or don't get state side all that often the Onkyo 636 would be a good starting point to enjoy this new sound format now. * If these AVR's are so expensive in Argentina, I am sure you could easily sell it when you find the next 'must have' AVR!*





Dan Hitchman said:


> Why have him spend good money now, only to turn around and buy again a few months later?? The OP is not in the States, so a trip to the U.S. would have to be planned to pick up a receiver due to electronics prices in his country.



I here what you are saying Dan, but because he can probably sell the 636 in Argentina and not loose any money he can enjoy Atmos now, and if/when he gets back to the US choose to upgrade then.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> I hear what you are saying Dan, but because he can probably sell the 636 in Argentina and not loose any money he can enjoy Atmos now, and if/when he gets back to the US choose to upgrade then.


But then he's buying another ticket to the U.S. just to pick up _another_ receiver when Atmos/X receivers will be out in a few months. He said he doesn't know when he'd back to the U.S. 

Patience is a virtue.


----------



## wil1688

jdsmoothie said:


> You will be unable to add Front Height speakers unless you first add side Surround speakers (ie. 5.1 + Front Height = 5.1.2). Once added, any height speakers, whether mounted on the wall or in the ceiling, should ideally be aimed at the main listening position.


Thanks for the feeback, Because the size of the room, I am limit to the number of speaker I can add ( no back surround, only 5.1 ). So, if I understand correctly, the recomendation is, I should keep the front height speaker, add 2 additional speaker near the top back wall and aim at the listening area? My seating area is only about 1 foot from the back wall. My surrond LR speaker is about 2 feet from the 3 persons sofa. Thanks....


----------



## Alanlee

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Yup, I know, but like I said, it can keep the surround 'bubble' tied more to the walls which is why I suggested the commercial route tied in with speakers behind the screen.
> 
> That was my experience anyway.
> 
> Gary.


 The question I am about to pose has probably been asked and answered many times on this thread, but I am still a bit confused. My speaker layout is very similar to the layout in the illustration except I do not have front wide. So I am wondering if you folks that have front wides are getting any action from them. My fronts are Cornwalls, and they fill the room rather well.


I am going to wait until at least next fall to jump into an Atmos pre-pro. Right now I am buying extra amps and working to install two more speakers in the ceiling, so I can end up with a 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 system provided I can find a reasonably priced processor that will work 6 ceilings speakers. I am reading all this stuff you guys are writing, getting a little crazy, so I might not be able to wait for the 9.2.6 processor.


Again my question is do the front wides activate enough when you are watching movies to be worth the time and money?


----------



## lovingdvd

Selden Ball said:


> It looks like a reasonable starting point.
> 
> There's no one "right" answer. Home sound systems are almost always a compromise. In your case, I think that it really depends on how much you want the people sitting in the second row to properly experience sounds that are intended to be heard as being behind and overhead. Personally, I'd suggest having the rear overheads somewhat behind the second row.


I agree it seems like a good idea to have the rear heights behind the second row. However, that introduces a new challenge in that the right rear height will have to be 11.5" from the ceiling, compared to the left rear height (due to bulkhead, please refer to model in my original message). I could lower the left rear height to be on the same level. However now I am sacrificing 1 foot of separation between the listener level and the heights. In this regard it may be too much of a sacrifice for the MLP to get the rear heights behind the second row.

Also - doing that would mean that the rear heights will be considerably further away from the MLP than the front heights. Maybe that's ok? If not, then I could move the front heights further away, toward the screen. But then they would be closer to the lower Wides, which I don't know if that matters.



> I doubt very much that the speaker locations are going to change significantly. Remember that Atmos actually allows for up to 10 overhead speakers in 5 pairs, and the allowed locations for some of them already overlap.
> 
> Why wait? Remember that D+M equipment already supports a 9.1.4 speaker configuration: 13 speakers with up to 11 different ones active depending on the sound mode. Designate your overheads as Front Height and Top Rear for maximum compatibility among the various current sound modes (ignoring Auro-3D for the moment). Although Atmos and Dolby Surround wouldn't use the Front Wide speakers, DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX would.


What is D+M equipment?  

"Designate your overheads as Front Height and Top Rear" - so use the front-most two in the .6 and the back-most two in the .6 as the front heights and top rear?

How easy is it in most consumer level AVRs to quickly move between configurations depending on whether I want Atmos or DTS Neo:X etc? All done with presets or lots of manual fiddling with settings each time?



> Remember that Dolby's allowed speaker positions are very generous. If at all possible, try the different positions to find out which sound best to you. That's one advantage that on-ceiling speakers have over in-ceiling speakers: you can adjust their positions much more easily.


Thanks although I'm not sure how to easily change the positioning of on-ceiling speakers. How do you temporarily mount them and easily move them? Certainly easier than in-ceiling tho. 



> They should be just high enough that they aren't blocked by chairs or people's heads, but otherwise as low as possible.


Is there a rule of thumb for how high you can raise the surround backs? I think I read 1.25x the height of the fronts. As it is currently with them raised a little there is only about 3.25 feet left between the top of the back surround and the heights - but that assumes I try to put the height surrounds behind the second row. If I don't worry about that, I pick up another foot for 4.25 feet, in which case I could probably cheat the surround back speaker another 6" or so higher.



> What primarily matters is the speaker's direction, not its distance. Remember that the receiver will automatically measure all of the distances and sound levels and adjust the timing and trim levels so they all match at the main listening position.


So ceiling heights should be aimed toward the MLP then too, yes? If so, what type of speakers work well on the ceiling which can also be aimed, without looking too bulky? Maybe I am picturing the wrong type of speakers for the ceiling - maybe these are more low-profile type of speakers that work well for this?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> What is D+M equipment?


Denon and Marantz. Sister companies. 

I would wait. DTS's announcement is just around the corner.


----------



## lovingdvd

Gary Lightfoot said:


> A couple of things - it looks like you're having the left and right outside of the screen but would you consider an AT screen with speakers behind?
> 
> The other thing is kinda related to the first in that having the ceiling speakers close to the walls gives you the effect of the audio moving up and down the walls, rather than right overhead of the listening position unless some clever mixing is happening between the top left and right to give the impression of overhead. In Dolby's commercial theatre set up guide they show the ceiling speakers in line with the front center left and center right speakers (not usually catered for in home set ups) which brings the ceiling speakers closer to the middle of the room.
> 
> Gary.


Hi Gary - long time no "speak" - thank you for the feedback. I did consider an AT screen. However I need a high gain screen since I am going with a 142" wide 2.35 scoped screen (with masking system). I could perhaps move the ceiling height speakers in a bit closer. Is there a rule of thumb for how far away from the side wall they should be? Likewise I assume it would help to use on-ceiling speakers (as opposed to in-ceiling) so they could be aimed to the MLP which may help keep the sound off the side walls?


----------



## lovingdvd

Al Sherwood said:


> Nice looking plan, but as has been mentioned you may want to consider an AT screen and move the Fronts in a bit and behind the screen, also moving the overheads to align. I am beginning to design a similar room, two rows and also with the front or MLP being of key importance and the second row for less critical listeners. I will be planning on 9.1.6 and DTS-X as well. Now all I need to do is play around with SketchUp and get this 'on paper'!


Right - about you planning 9.1.6 and DTS-X as well - how do you plan to go about that? A friend recommended I do an Auro 15.1 setup, that such could be used with Atmos and likely any other format as well as accommodate any changes that may occur with Atmos soon or over time.

My current thinking is to do a 9.1.6 as shown in my model, but also pre-wire for heights for all 3 fronts L/C/R, heights for the side surrounds, and possibly heights for the back surrounds (depending on how far back I wind up putting my rear heights from the .6 group).

What do you guys think is the best approach for both enjoying Atmos and DTS:X (when it comes) and future proofing? I plan to do a fiber star ceiling so once that's up it'll be a real PITA to change anything on the ceiling. That's why I want to add speakers and prewire everything now, even if its overkill and I never wind up using some of the connections. Although another friend said be prepared to spend up to $5 a foot on quality speaker wire in which case would get very expensive running all these pre-wires...

Thoughts?


----------



## RMK!

Dan Hitchman said:


> Patience is a virtue.



and misery loves company ...


J/K Dan ...


----------



## lovingdvd

Dan Hitchman said:


> Denon and Marantz. Sister companies.
> 
> I would wait. DTS's announcement is just around the corner.


Thanks. Yes I am planning to wait a bit, as construction will not begin for at least a couple months. In the meantime however I am trying to get a solid feel for where the speakers will go - particularly the listener-level, so that we can complete the design and decor/furnishing side of the place. For example I don't want to plan for a side wall couch to be in a place that would interfere with where a front-wide or side surround should go.

Side note: The other somewhat scary thing about designing sound around a MLP is - what happens down the road if you decide to change your MLP? That really hoses your sound, and with permanently mounted ceiling speakers or in-walls that really a mess to change.

For example I have chosen on paper what I think will be the ideal MLP given the screen size and preferred viewing distances. But once the theater is built I may decide I want to be closer or further. Maybe its best then to get all the AV equipment up and screen in place and seating in place and test things out and move the seating back/forth and find the ideal spot before proceeding with speaker installations? Seems logical, although I'm not sure that's practical. For example the seating and flooring/carpet needs to be in place and I wouldn't want to have all that new stuff in place just to have installers come back and start cutting up the drywall and dust all over the place...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RMK! said:


> and misery loves company ...
> 
> 
> J/K Dan ...


I'd rather be miserable than broke.


----------



## wse

lovingdvd said:


> I'm building a new theater room and starting over from scratch with the speakers. I'd love some recommendations please on mid-end speakers for a complete 7.1.4 or eventually 9.1.6 setup. Heights would be in-ceiling speakers. Could you please have a look at the model of my room in this thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-design-project-your-input-needed-please.html and recommend speakers for the various channels? I really have no idea what speakers cost these days - been over a decade since I bought anything other than a sub. By "mid-end" I mean just that - not looking for budget speakers or to do things on the cheap but not looking to spend $20k on speakers either... I'd like everything to be timbre matched and whatever specs Atmos and other next-gen sound technologies call for. Thanks!


Personally I think that using KEF LS-50 all around would sound fantastic and not break the bank! How big is the room?

Here are my favorite systems in order of price increase

- Nine KEF LS-50 + 4 KEF Ci200RR - THX Ultra 2

- Nine KEF Ci3160RL + 4 KEF Ci200RR

- Eight Sonus Faber Olympica I + Olympica Center + 4 4 KEF Ci200RR 

- Nine B&W 805Diamond + 4 B&W CCM 8.5 


Now if you want an idea of my reference system take a look at my link


----------



## Alanlee

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks. Yes I am planning to wait a bit, as construction will not begin for at least a couple months. In the meantime however I am trying to get a solid feel for where the speakers will go - particularly the listener-level, so that we can complete the design and decor/furnishing side of the place. For example I don't want to plan for a side wall couch to be in a place that would interfere with where a front-wide or side surround should go.
> 
> Side note: The other somewhat scary thing about designing sound around a MLP is - what happens down the road if you decide to change your MLP? That really hoses your sound, and with permanently mounted ceiling speakers or in-walls that really a mess to change.
> 
> For example I have chosen on paper what I think will be the ideal MLP given the screen size and preferred viewing distances. But once the theater is built I may decide I want to be closer or further. Maybe its best then to get all the AV equipment up and screen in place and seating in place and test things out and move the seating back/forth and find the ideal spot before proceeding with speaker installations? Seems logical, although I'm not sure that's practical. For example the seating and flooring/carpet needs to be in place and I wouldn't want to have all that new stuff in place just to have installers come back and start cutting up the drywall and dust all over the place...


If you have a dedicated theater room, what I am about to suggest will be considered cheesy. I am in the process of constructing attractive mobile carts for my floor surrounds. As I get further along I can provide pictures. Normally I have one listening post, so the carts will be stay in one place. When more people are watching, I can move the carts to bring them into the sound arena. I will have two extra carts that I can use to add a total of four front surrounds, or the extra carts can be used as front wides. The wires, of course, will be a problem, but I think I can work that out. The wife is another variable in this mix, so stay tuned.


----------



## wse

Other option that might be of interest are

- Nine Tannoy DC8i + Four CMS 3.0 http://tannoypro.com/#!Page=Product&Id=71.293

- Genelec http://www.genelec.com/av-install/

I have little experience with them, but read that they are worth a listen


----------



## Al Sherwood

lovingdvd said:


> Right - about you planning 9.1.6 and DTS-X as well - how do you plan to go about that? A friend recommended I do an Auro 15.1 setup, that such could be used with Atmos and likely any other format as well as accommodate any changes that may occur with Atmos soon or over time.
> 
> My current thinking is to do a 9.1.6 as shown in my model, but also pre-wire for heights for all 3 fronts L/C/R, heights for the side surrounds, and possibly heights for the back surrounds (depending on how far back I wind up putting my rear heights from the .6 group).
> 
> What do you guys think is the best approach for both enjoying Atmos and DTS:X (when it comes) and future proofing? I plan to do a fiber star ceiling so once that's up it'll be a real PITA to change anything on the ceiling. That's why I want to add speakers and prewire everything now, even if its overkill and I never wind up using some of the connections. Although another friend said be prepared to spend up to $5 a foot on quality speaker wire in which case would get very expensive running all these pre-wires...
> 
> Thoughts?



First the speakers, I have enough on hand (all matching from the same series/manufacturer) for Atmos 9.1.6 plus additionally front and rear heights, and as mentioned L-C-R behind the screen, Ear level speakers will include all shown below plus possibly Front Wides. (this will be a dedicated HT, no side couches to worry about.) No star ceiling for the exact reason you mention, this room is for music/movies and will look more like a mixing stage then a living room. To run these speakers I have already purchased a 1000ft spool of FT4 rated 12 Ga, available from places like Monoprice, or in my case Home Depot ($400 for the 1000ft spool), I think your friend is wrong, $5/ft for speaker wire is just plain dumb. 


Now all we have to wait for is the DTS-X announcement to see how it ties those speaker location in with Atmos, I doubt anything I would by will Auro capabilities.


----------



## lovingdvd

wse said:


> ...How big is the room?...


See attached. Also the my design thread is here where you can get the Sketchup source file if you want to "walk" the room or measure things. Comments welcome!! http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ct-your-input-needed-please.html#post31884097



> Here are my favorite systems in order of price increase
> 
> - Nine KEF LS-50 + 4 KEF Ci200RR - THX Ultra 2
> 
> - Nine KEF Ci3160RL + 4 KEF Ci200RR
> 
> - Eight Sonus Faber Olympica I + Olympica Center + 4 4 KEF Ci200RR
> 
> - Nine B&W 805Diamond + 4 B&W CCM 8.5
> 
> 
> Now if you want an idea of my reference system take a look at my link


Awesome I'm going to check it out in just a bit. Hopefully they are not too big...


----------



## Kain

Is it acceptable to have the front wides at ear-level and the left/right surrounds and back surrounds above ear-level? Are the front wides suppose to be at the same height as the front LCR speakers or can they be higher?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Is it acceptable to have the front wides at ear-level and the left/right surrounds and back surrounds above ear-level? Are the front wides suppose to be at the same height as the front LCR speakers or can they be higher?


I'd keep them at ear level with the front mains but if you can't and have them at the same height as your surrounds that would be okay too.


----------



## lovingdvd

Kain said:


> Is it acceptable to have the front wides at ear-level and the left/right surrounds and back surrounds above ear-level? Are the front wides suppose to be at the same height as the front LCR speakers or can they be higher?


As I understand it, yes the Wides are supposed to be at ear level with the entire "listening-level". I have the same issue with my back surrounds that I recently posted about here and briefly discussed by some within the last couple pages of this thread. If I read it right Dolby says the back surrounds (ear-level) can be up to 1.25x the height of the front channels, but closer to ear level is better.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Kain said:


> Is it acceptable to have the front wides at ear-level and the left/right surrounds and back surrounds above ear-level? Are the front wides suppose to be at the same height as the front LCR speakers or can they be higher?


Conventional wisdow for Atmos dictates that the Wides are to be at the same height as the Front Mains and the Side and Back Surrounds are to be at ear level or a bit above ear level.

...Glenn


----------



## lovingdvd

Glenn Baumann said:


> Conventional wisdow for Atmos dictates that the Wides are to be at the same height as the Front Mains and the Side and Back Surrounds are to be at ear level or a bit above ear level.
> 
> ...Glenn


Depending on how exact people want to be - people should keep in mind that when reclining the ear level can be a foot or so lower. If the side surrounds are a good distance from the seating area it probably makes less of a difference.


----------



## chi_guy50

lovingdvd said:


> Although *another friend said be prepared to spend up to $5 a foot on quality speaker wire* in which case would get very expensive running all these pre-wires...
> 
> Thoughts?


Well, here's a thought: That's just nuckin' futs! We're talking _wire_ here, not some sophisticated electronics.

Just for reference's sake, here's a 12AWG "quality speaker wire" from forum sponsor Monoprice that will run you around $0.29 per foot (with free shipping). I'm using their 14AWG version for my runs of less than 50ft each with flawless results. Save your hard-earned pennies, my friend!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

lovingdvd said:


> Hi Gary - long time no "speak" - thank you for the feedback. I did consider an AT screen. However I need a high gain screen since I am going with a 142" wide 2.35 scoped screen (with masking system). I could perhaps move the ceiling height speakers in a bit closer. Is there a rule of thumb for how far away from the side wall they should be? Likewise I assume it would help to use on-ceiling speakers (as opposed to in-ceiling) so they could be aimed to the MLP which may help keep the sound off the side walls?


There is currently no rule of thumb as such because Atmos is new and there are relatively few owners, so the white papers are what people tend to go to for guidance. I know from my (limited) experience I am going to be experimenting with a more commercial recommended layout than one that strictly matches the home diagrams because I found that if you have a a wide screen with wide(r) speakers that are wall to wall you end up with sound that runs up and down the side walls more than it does overhead.

If you want to experiment, get some lightweight ($20 a pair car) speakers and fix them to the ceiling so you can get a real idea of what seems to work best. Maybe start with them in the Dolby home recommended placements and then try them in the commercial recommended positions.

For speaker wire, I'd also go with something like 2.5mm mains flex or similar sized copper wire, whichever is cheaper.

Gary


----------



## wse

Al Sherwood said:


> Hey Gary, actually according to the Dolby white paper for home installation they also show the overhead speakers in alignment with the fronts...


Now all we need is for Marantz and Denon to support 9.2.4 for Dolby Atmos


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the replies. So, ideally, all speakers except ceiling speakers should be at ear-level? If I cannot place all speakers at ear-level (such as the side and back surrounds) in a 9.1.x setup, I should (at least) place the front mains and front wides at ear-level and the side and back surrounds (slightly) above ear-level?


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies. So, ideally, all speakers except ceiling speakers should be at ear-level? If I cannot place all speakers at ear-level (such as the side and back surrounds) in a 9.1.x setup, I should (at least) place the front mains and front wides at ear-level and the side and back surrounds (slightly) above ear-level?


That way you get better separation between all the main floor speakers and the overhead ones...equals proper surround envelopment. 
That's for Atmos.

...For Auro-3D it can vary, with three different layers, plus the voice of God. 

And next month we'll see. ...DTS:X


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> That way you get better separation between all the main floor speakers and the overhead ones...equals proper surround envelopment.
> That's for Atmos.
> 
> ...For Auro-3D it can vary, with three different layers, plus the voice of God.
> 
> And next month we'll see. ...DTS:X


If I manage to place all speakers (expect ceiling speakers) at ear-level, what is the minimum distance requirement for the side and back surrounds from the main listening position?


----------



## lovingdvd

Kain said:


> If I manage to place all speakers (expect ceiling speakers) at ear-level, what is the minimum distance requirement for the side and back surrounds from the main listening position?


That's a good question. I'm not sure I've seen a spec/recommendation for that. Its usually more about the angles.


----------



## Selden Ball

Many of your questions have already been answered by others, but what the heck...



lovingdvd said:


> I agree it seems like a good idea to have the rear heights behind the second row. However, that introduces a new challenge in that the right rear height will have to be 11.5" from the ceiling, compared to the left rear height (due to bulkhead, please refer to model in my original message). I could lower the left rear height to be on the same level. However now I am sacrificing 1 foot of separation between the listener level and the heights. In this regard it may be too much of a sacrifice for the MLP to get the rear heights behind the second row.
> 
> Also - doing that would mean that the rear heights will be considerably further away from the MLP than the front heights. Maybe that's ok? If not, then I could move the front heights further away, toward the screen. But then they would be closer to the lower Wides, which I don't know if that matters.


Distance and sound level will be compensated in the AVR so far as the primary listening position is concerned. They'd be less than optimal for people sitting closest to them, of course.


> What is D+M equipment?


 The Denon and Marantz brands are both owned by the same holding company. They use many of the same digital circuit board designs. Their differences are primarily in the analog circuitry. For example, Marantz has a carefully crafted high-slew-rate preamp design they call HDAM.


> "Designate your overheads as Front Height and Top Rear" - so use the front-most two in the .6 and the back-most two in the .6 as the front heights and top rear?


That'd be my suggestion.


> How easy is it in most consumer level AVRs to quickly move between configurations depending on whether I want Atmos or DTS Neo:X etc? All done with presets or lots of manual fiddling with settings each time?


 Presets. Remember that Atmos is an encoding provided in the soundtrack, while Neo:X is an upmixer that you choose to use to enhance the sound.



> Thanks although I'm not sure how to easily change the positioning of on-ceiling speakers. How do you temporarily mount them and easily move them? Certainly easier than in-ceiling tho.


 It depends on what you choose to use to mount the "on-ceiling" speakers. For example, some people use unistrut or the equivalent, similar to what's used for track lighting: metal bars which run from one wall to the other or which perhaps themselves hang from the ceiling. You can mount speakers wherever you want along their length. Paint them black and they'll be almost invisible against your stars. Or just use them to decide where to put the speakers, then mount the speakers permanently.



> Is there a rule of thumb for how high you can raise the surround backs? I think I read 1.25x the height of the fronts. As it is currently with them raised a little there is only about 3.25 feet left between the top of the back surround and the heights - but that assumes I try to put the height surrounds behind the second row. If I don't worry about that, I pick up another foot for 4.25 feet, in which case I could probably cheat the surround back speaker another 6" or so higher.


Again, I think you need to try them to find out which you prefer. That'll help you avoid "construction remorse."



> So ceiling heights should be aimed toward the MLP then too, yes?


 Yes, if that's the position you're optimizing. Wide-dispersion speakers can be pointed more generically toward the audience.


> If so, what type of speakers work well on the ceiling which can also be aimed, without looking too bulky? Maybe I am picturing the wrong type of speakers for the ceiling - maybe these are more low-profile type of speakers that work well for this?


 Both bulky (ugly) and streamlined are available. Some people like to use Tannoy Di5-DC (or Di6-DC) since they have concentric drivers with wide dispersion, provide accurate audio, and are relatively inexpensive but ugly. C mounting brackets are included. Tannoy also sells concentric speakers which have a better appearance, but I don't know if they include the mounting brackets.

FWIW, AVS user kokishin assembled a spreadsheet of the first hundred or so Atmos implementers, including their speakers and layouts. See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_cefn4mLxGO98urdcL7f4j4y238vdsFMgCJt0WxH2Mo/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Elsewhere you mentioned $5.00/foot speaker wire. If you pay much more than 1/10 of that for plenum rated 14 gauge wiring, you're being ripped off.


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> Now all we need is for Marantz and Denon *everyone* to support 9.2.*6* for Dolby Atmos *plus DTS:X and Auro3D*.


Fixed that for, ya.


----------



## wse

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, here's a thought: That's just nuckin' futs! We're talking _wire_ here, not some sophisticated electronics. Just for reference's sake, here's a 12AWG "quality speaker wire" from forum sponsor Monoprice that will run you around $0.29 per foot (with free shipping). I'm using their 14AWG version for my runs of less than 50ft each with flawless results. Save your hard-earned pennies, my friend!


Yes Monoprice 12 AWG is very good. 

I like this as well just a bit pricey Mogami W3104 

http://www.markertek.com/product/w3...or-12-awg-high-definition-speaker-wire-per-ft


----------



## lovingdvd

wse said:


> Yes Monoprice 12 AWG is very good.
> 
> I like this as well just a bit pricey Mogami W3104
> 
> http://www.markertek.com/product/w3...or-12-awg-high-definition-speaker-wire-per-ft


Are you comparing that to the 12 AWG that chi_guy50 linked to at Monoprice? You say the Mogami is a bit pricey, but its like 20 times the price per foot as the one chi_guy50 linked to.

How important is good quality speaker wire, in terms of durability, longevity and protection from electrical or any other type of interference? I don't want to go overboard on speak wire and pay more than I need to (I use cheap HDMI cables no problem). But then again these things are going to be wired into the ceiling for 15-some speakers and nearly impossible to replace if there are issues without tearing the walls and ceiling back open. That's why I want to be careful - want something very reliable but don't want to be a sucker either in buying something that's simply overpriced for no reason.


----------



## Selden Ball

No-name 12 or 14 gauge pair works just fine. I have a mixture of "boutique" and no-name speaker wire, some of it quite old, and they all work equally well. (The "boutique" cable was included for minimal cost when I upgraded my front speakers.)

If you don't want to order over the 'net, visit your local home-improvement store. Their cable costs about $1-2/foot, which is still way too much, but affordable.

Edited to add:
Exactly the same two-wire cable is used for 120VAC power as is used for speakers. You know that power cable isn't going to fail.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> Are you comparing that to the 12 AWG that chi_guy50 linked to at Monoprice? You say the Mogami is a bit pricey, but its like 20 times the price per foot as the one chi_guy50 linked to.
> 
> How important is good quality speaker wire, in terms of durability, longevity and protection from electrical or any other type of interference? I don't want to go overboard on speak wire and pay more than I need to (I use cheap HDMI cables no problem). But then again these things are going to be wired into the ceiling for 15-some speakers and nearly impossible to replace if there are issues without tearing the walls and ceiling back open. That's why I want to be careful - want something very reliable but don't want to be a sucker either in buying something that's simply overpriced for no reason.


Try Bluejeanscable.com. I like their 12 and 10 gauge speaker wire more than Monoprice's.


----------



## toofast68

wil1688 said:


> Thanks for the feeback, Because the size of the room, I am limit to the number of speaker I can add ( no back surround, only 5.1 ). So, if I understand correctly, the recomendation is, I should keep the front height speaker, add 2 additional speaker near the top back wall and aim at the listening area? My seating area is only about 1 foot from the back wall. My surrond LR speaker is about 2 feet from the 3 persons sofa. Thanks....


I have a similar layout and I am contemplating how to move to Atmos.


I have front wides - that sound great. So do I just add front heights, and then rear's and WHAM I have Atmos ?


----------



## Alanlee

toofast68 said:


> I have a similar layout and I am contemplating how to move to Atmos.
> 
> 
> I have front wides - that sound great. So do I just add front heights, and then rear's and WHAM I have Atmos ?


 
The front wides your have, do they function like a front surround, do they only play when there is specific sounds for them, or are they like a presence speaker. I am not getting the function of the front wide. I know with some receivers the front wides do not play when the rear surrounds are playing because of the channel limitation. What happens in 9.2?


----------



## toofast68

Alanlee said:


> The front wides your have, do they function like a front surround, do they only play when there is specific sounds for them, or are they like a presence speaker. I am not getting the function of the front wide. I know with some receivers the front wides do not play when the rear surrounds are playing because of the channel limitation. What happens in 9.2?


So I don't know what happens in 9.2 - but my front wides essentially widen the front stage dramatically. 
I guess the are presence speakers...in the MLP you can't really tell they are on, as they blend nicely with the LR, but they are certainly adding to the enjoyment. 


Just not sure how I can do Atmos with my setup...my front seats are great, but my rear seats are close to the wall, and are used quite often...so I don't want to overpower them with Atmos.


----------



## Alanlee

toofast68 said:


> So I don't know what happens in 9.2 - but my front wides essentially widen the front stage dramatically.
> I guess the are presence speakers...in the MLP you can't really tell they are on, as they blend nicely with the LR, but they are certainly adding to the enjoyment.
> 
> 
> Just not sure how I can do Atmos with my setup...my front seats are great, but my rear seats are close to the wall, and are used quite often...so I don't want to overpower them with Atmos.



Thanks for your answer. I guess I will try out some front wides.


----------



## Al Sherwood

lovingdvd said:


> Are you comparing that to the 12 AWG that chi_guy50 linked to at Monoprice? You say the Mogami is a bit pricey, but its like 20 times the price per foot as the one chi_guy50 linked to.
> 
> How important is good quality speaker wire, in terms of durability, longevity and protection from electrical or any other type of interference? I don't want to go overboard on speak wire and pay more than I need to (I use cheap HDMI cables no problem). But then again these things are going to be wired into the ceiling for 15-some speakers and nearly impossible to replace if there are issues without tearing the walls and ceiling back open. That's why I want to be careful - want something very reliable but don't want to be a sucker either in buying something that's simply overpriced for no reason.


 
There are few if any speaker wire sold that is shielded and as for durability that would be more determined by how you install it, done properly this will never be an issue. 



Selden Ball said:


> No-name 12 or 14 gauge pair works just fine. I have a mixture of "boutique" and no-name speaker wire, some of it quite old, and they all work equally well. (The "boutique" cable was included for minimal cost when I upgraded my front speakers.)
> 
> If you don't want to order over the 'net, visit your local home-improvement store. Their cable costs about $1-2/foot, which is still way too much, but affordable.
> 
> Edited to add:
> Exactly the same two-wire cable is used for 120VAC power as is used for speakers. You know that power cable isn't going to fail.


 
Selden, it is not 'exactly' the same wire used for 120VAC, nearly all house wire is solid core, speaker wire will be stranded. I would strongly recommend against using speaker wire for any 120 VAC wire applications!


Another thing that I will caution against is using any wire that is not rated for in wall use, it should be FT1 or FT4 (CSA Canada I believe) and marked with the designation CL2 or CL3 fire rated or you may find electrical inspectors and insurance companies may take issue with it. Never install standard 'zip-cord' style wire in your walls as is not designed nor rated for this even though this is considered class 2 wiring. As mentioned the 12 ga wire I bought from Home Depot is FT4/CL3 rated for in wall installation, about $0.36/ft and I challenge anyone to suggest that this wouldn't meet the requirements for any speaker run in a home theater. 


*EDIT:* For example Southwire currently shows this specification for their 'in-wall' speaker wire:


SPECIFICATIONS
• UL Listed as Type CL3R or FPLR 75°C • Meets FT-4 • RoHS Compliant

And below an example of what markings to look for on the cable:


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Now all we need is for ******* and ***** and *everyone else* to support *9.2.6* for Dolby Atmos, *DTS:X and Auro-3D*.





Scott Simonian said:


> Fixed that for, ya.


...Including Yamaha and Anthem.


----------



## brahman12

*Rockin' it with DSU*

Just watched Avatar 3D (really becoming a fan of 3D) and SuckerPunch Extended Cut....WOW and OH YEAH!!! for both flicks with DSU is all I have got to say. Was supposed to re-watch Maze Runner followed by Art of Flight....ended up throwing these two on and was handsomely rewarded.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> If I manage to place all speakers (expect ceiling speakers) at ear-level, what is the minimum distance requirement for the side and back surrounds from the main listening position?


Six feet? ...Five feet. ...Or less, it depends...on the room's size.


----------



## chi_guy50

lovingdvd said:


> Are you comparing that to the 12 AWG that chi_guy50 linked to at Monoprice? You say the Mogami is a bit pricey, but its like 20 times the price per foot as the one chi_guy50 linked to.
> 
> How important is good quality speaker wire, in terms of durability, longevity and protection from electrical or any other type of interference? I don't want to go overboard on speak wire and pay more than I need to (I use cheap HDMI cables no problem). But then again *these things are going to be wired into the ceiling* for 15-some speakers and nearly impossible to replace if there are issues without tearing the walls and ceiling back open. That's why I want to be careful - want something very reliable but don't want to be a sucker either in buying something that's simply overpriced for no reason.


Sorry, the link I gave you is for general use. For in-ceiling (or in-wall) applications you'll want to use something that is CL2-rated (fire-retardant), such as this 500-ft 12AWG spool for $171.08--still just $0.34 a foot. If your runs are less than 50 feet in length, you should have no problem IMHO with the 14AWG version for just $116.30--$0.23 a foot, or not even 1/20th what your friend suggested you might spend.


----------



## aaranddeeman

chi_guy50 said:


> Sorry, the link I gave you is for general use. For in-ceiling (or in-wall) applications you'll want to use something that is CL2-rated (fire-retardant), such as this 500-ft 12AWG spool for $171.08--still just $0.34 a foot. If your runs are less than 50 feet in length, you should have no problem IMHO with the 14AWG version for just $116.30--$0.23 a foot, or not even 1/20th what your friend suggested you might spend.


No. No. No. 
He must use monster cable, none other cable can give depth and clarity..


----------



## BamaDave

Well today I'm installing my on ceiling speakers to support a 7.2.4 set up and I'm at an stuck on the positioning and would appreciate lessons learned form those that already have them installed! Currently I'm going with a split 45 degree between the front row center position and the adjacent seat. I have two rows of seats with a 13" riser which is out of scope at positioning as 99% of the time they are unoccupied thus my justification for positioning. I'm planning on measuring from the primary spot from me ear position upward to the ceiling and using that distance to measure outward and forward and angled to the left/right to the forward ceiling marked spot. After that remeasure with the adjacent seated position and mare that spot as well. Once those spots are defined I'm planning in splitting the difference. This seams like the most logical (Vulcan way) location, any experienced opinions?


----------



## bargervais

brahman12 said:


> Just watched Avatar 3D (really becoming a fan of 3D) and SuckerPunch Extended Cut....WOW and OH YEAH!!! for both flicks with DSU is all I have got to say. Was supposed to re-watch Maze Runner followed by Art of Flight....ended up throwing these two on and was handsomely rewarded.


Yes I loved Avatar that would be a great one if re-released with an Atmos mix


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> Are you comparing that to the 12 AWG that chi_guy50 linked to at Monoprice? You say the Mogami is a bit pricey, but its like 20 times the price per foot as the one chi_guy50 linked to.
> 
> How important is good quality speaker wire, in terms of durability, longevity and protection from electrical or any other type of interference? I don't want to go overboard on speak wire and pay more than I need to (I use cheap HDMI cables no problem). But then again these things are going to be wired into the ceiling for 15-some speakers and nearly impossible to replace if there are issues without tearing the walls and ceiling back open. That's why I want to be careful - want something very reliable but don't want to be a sucker either in buying something that's simply overpriced for no reason.


Follow chi-guy's advice and get the Monoprice wire. If it is buried in the wall make sure it is specced for that (the sheath needs to be fireproof). 100% copper wire is 100% copper wire. All that matters is the gauge. For runs of 50ft use 12 AWG. Try to use wire that has a flexible outer sheath, as it makes it easier to work with, especially when fishing it through walls and ceilings. Avoid at all costs any wire that tells you that the outer sheath influences the sound, or wire that is 'directional', or wire that has a 'sound' of its own, or wire that costs more than Monoprice wire. And be comforted by this thought: of all of the tens of thousands of miles of wire installed in professional production facilities, which produced the content you are listening to, not one single foot of it was "exotic" wire, or cost more than the Monoprice equivalent.


----------



## jimstheatre

NorthSky said:


> You are going to cross your four overhead ceiling speakers anyway, @ roughly 80Hz or so (more or less). And their bass is going to be redirected to your sub(s). ...That automatically makes them full range (or down to the lowest audio frequency point of your sub).
> 
> Any overhead (in-ceiling or on ceiling) speaker able to reproduce frequencies @ near 80Hz or below, is good to go.
> Nobody is putting big full range tower speakers on his ceiling (or subwoofers above his head; but only the true daredevil overhead bass freaks from another far away galaxy of the multiverse).


Thanks very much Bob, I appreciate the advice.


Actually I'm currently considering quite modest ceiling speakers; Deftech DI 5.5R or Sonance X6R Thin Line or Goldenear Invisa 525's. Do you have a view or do any other members have a view on those brands / models for a Dolby Atmos 4 ceiling speaker set-up?


----------



## bargervais

Attention, a Life in Extremes (AT)

http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-n...-in-extremes-mit-dolby-atmos-auf-blu-ray-disc
I saw this on Blu-Ray.com review site I can't speak German it has Atmos or I think it's German?? Most likely Danish


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> Attention, a Life in Extremes (AT)
> 
> http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-n...-in-extremes-mit-dolby-atmos-auf-blu-ray-disc
> I saw this on Blu-Ray.com review site I can't speak German it has Atmos or I think it's German?? *Most likely Danish*


No, it's German.

According to the article, the Austrian documentary film _Attention: A Life in Extremes_ will be available on Blu-ray on May 29 and will be just the second film (after Expendables 3) to be issued with a German-language Atmos track. It will also have an English-language track, but I assume that will be in DD5.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

jimstheatre said:


> Thanks very much Bob, I appreciate the advice.
> 
> 
> Actually I'm currently considering quite modest ceiling speakers; Deftech DI 5.5R or Sonance X6R Thin Line or Goldenear Invisa 525's. Do you have a view or do any other members have a view on those brands / models for a Dolby Atmos 4 ceiling speaker set-up?


Dolby spec requires speakers with a wide dispersion pattern for overhead use. If those speakers have such a dispersion pattern, and are capable of playing to the levels you require without distress, and can handle the power from the amplifiers you will be using, then yes they will be fine. Other than the wide dispersion pattern, choosing speakers for overhead Atmos use is no different to choosing any other speakers for your system. (I use Tannoy Di5DC here and they work very well. Very wide dispersion, able to play at 105dB all day long if needed, good power handling etc. And very easy to mount on the ceiling as they come complete with C brackets. Downside: they are not the most attractive speakers in the world to look at - but in a black room, against an (almost) black ceiling, I don't see them and don't therefore care.


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> No, it's German.
> 
> According to the article, the Austrian documentary film _Attention: A Life in Extremes_ will be available on Blu-ray on May 29 and will be just the second film (after Expendables 3) to be issued with a German-language Atmos track. It will also have an English-language track, but I assume that will be in DD5.1.


cool wasn't sure thanks


----------



## LowellG

bargervais said:


> cool wasn't sure thanks


What is the cheapest 7.x.4 receiver. I am looking for a temp setup.


----------



## Selden Ball

LowellG said:


> What is the cheapest 7.x.4 receiver. I am looking for a temp setup.


The one with the lowest list price is the Onkyo TX-NR1030. Their MSRP is about 3/4 that of the competition. They dropped Audyssey's roomEQ, which helped keep their prices down.

However, be sure to comparison shop. They aren't allowed to publish anything other than MSRP, but if you call authorized dealers, they'll be able to quote much lower prices.


----------



## pasender91

Selden is correct, the Onkyo 1030 is the cheapest way to do 7.x.4 in an integrated receiver.

BUT you can still do it cheaper with a Marantz 7009 to which you have to add a stereo amp to reach eleven channels.
The total price should still be lower, and you get Audissey XT 32


----------



## SteveTheGeek

pasender91 said:


> Selden is correct, the Onkyo 1030 is the cheapest way to do 7.x.4 in an integrated receiver.
> 
> BUT you can still do it cheaper with a Marantz 7009 to which you have to add a stereo amp to reach eleven channels.
> The total price should still be lower, and you get Audissey XT 32


The 1030 will also require a stereo amp to do 11 channels as it has 9 channels of amplification. But it's still less expensive than the 7009 no ?


----------



## deano86

BamaDave said:


> Well today I'm installing my on ceiling speakers to support a 7.2.4 set up and I'm at an stuck on the positioning and would appreciate lessons learned form those that already have them installed! Currently I'm going with a split 45 degree between the front row center position and the adjacent seat. I have two rows of seats with a 13" riser which is out of scope at positioning as 99% of the time they are unoccupied thus my justification for positioning. I'm planning on measuring from the primary spot from me ear position upward to the ceiling and using that distance to measure outward and forward and angled to the left/right to the forward ceiling marked spot. After that remeasure with the adjacent seated position and mare that spot as well. Once those spots are defined I'm planning in splitting the difference. This seams like the most logical (Vulcan way) location, any experienced opinions?


I also have 2 rows of seating and I was initially trying to figure the best way to "share" my in ceiling Atmos overheads with everyone. I can tell you now....don't sweat it! Set it up for your main listening position and call it good.... My main listening/viewing position is the back row on the riser.. so my overheads are "technically" at slightly the wrong angles for the front row, but it still sounds great from that row. The "bubble" of sound is still there..

Remember, you are the one who will be doing the critical listening.. not your guests. Don't psych yourself out before you even get started by installing the heights in a spot that you, yourself may not like for your enjoyment!


----------



## pasender91

SteveTheGeek said:


> The 1030 will also require a stereo amp to do 11 channels as it has 9 channels of amplification. But it's still less expensive than the 7009 no ?


You're right the Onkyo 1030 also has 9 amps only, like the Marantz 7009, i got confused with the 3030 
Then, it makes even a better case for the Marantz 7009, depending on when Lowell lives, but in Europe the Marantz 7009 is quite a lot cheaper


----------



## SteveTheGeek

pasender91 said:


> You're right the Onkyo 1030 also has 9 amps only, like the Marantz 7009, i got confused with the 3030
> Then, it makes even a better case for the Marantz 7009, depending on when Lowell lives, but in Europe the Marantz 7009 is quite a lot cheaper


Ah strange, here (in Canada) the Marantz is 400$ more expensive than the Onkyo, which made me not consider it because it may be temporary because of dts:x...


----------



## BamaDave

deano86 said:


> I also have 2 rows of seating and I was initially trying to figure the best way to "share" my in ceiling Atmos overheads with everyone. I can tell you now....don't sweat it! Set it up for your main listening position and call it good.... My main listening/viewing position is the back row on the riser.. so my overheads are "technically" at slightly the wrong angles for the front row, but it still sounds great from that row. The "bubble" of sound is still there..
> 
> Remember, you are the one who will be doing the critical listening.. not your guests. Don't psych yourself out before you even get started by installing the heights in a spot that you, yourself may not like for your enjoyment!


Thanks, I'm going with the original plan and those in the back are just out of luck for now.  Untill they provide equipment that will support 6 overheads, well at a realistic price! Starting on a back bar next week and those folks will really be out of luck.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

BamaDave said:


> Thanks, I'm going with the original plan and those in the back are just out of luck for now.  Untill they provide equipment that will support 6 overheads, well at a realistic price! Starting on a back bar next week and those folks will really be out of luck.


That's what I did too, my front row has advantage of the 4 overheads while my back only benefits for the top rears which is a bit in front of them. And to be honest it's still not too bad on the back!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Yes I loved Avatar that would be a great one if re-released with an Atmos mix


With the bass added back.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> What is the cheapest 7.x.4 receiver. I am looking for a temp setup.


How temporary is temporary? With DTS's hat getting thrown into the ring within a matter of months (and a press announcement in mere weeks), I don't see the merit of buying anything, cheap or not, at this moment. Unless you have money to burn.


----------



## Movie78

Very Disappointed in the English speaking people participation on YouTube.

Check this video by the Germans(Can understand what he is saying but it looks good)


----------



## lovingdvd

I'm trying to optimize my audio for the best Atmos experience. However I just learned from Dr. Hsu that I will likely have a problem with 20Hz because of my room design. I posted more details here http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...ucers/1905233-improving-20hz-middle-room.html - would love to hear your guys thoughts on how to handle this and ensure the best Atmos experience. Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> Ah strange, here (in Canada) the Marantz is 400$ more expensive than the Onkyo, which made me not consider it because it may be temporary because of dts:x...


Dts:x in the 7009 eventually? ...Sweet dreams are made of this; it is free to dream...in your sweetest dream...good luck.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> Dts:x in the 7009 eventually? ...Sweet dreams are made of this; it is free to dream...in your sweetest dream...good luck.


You're really a DTS fan arent't you? 

Can't blame you, I'm eager to try DTS:X too!


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> How temporary is temporary? With DTS's hat getting thrown into the ring within a matter of months (and a press announcement in mere weeks), I don't see the merit of buying anything, cheap or not, at this moment. Unless you have money to burn.




I figure I could sell my X4000 for around $600 and get a 5200 for around $1450. That makes a net of $850. Anything less than that. Part of it's a gamble. The fact that DTS had nothing to show at the largest electronics event of the year makes me think they don't have anything lined up for at least a year and a half. So I am willing to risk a certain amount of money.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> I figure I could sell my X4000 for around $600 and get a 5200 for around $1450. That makes a net of $850. Anything less than that. Part of it's a gamble. The fact that DTS had nothing to show at the largest electronics event of the year makes me think they don't have anything lined up for at least a year and a half. So I am willing to risk a certain amount of money.


I have a hunch you might be wrong there with your time frame. DTS's launch in March will more than likely tell you which manufacturers and which studios are initially backing their X format. This is supposed to arrive in product starting _this summer _not next year_._ They may even mention if some previous models might be able to be upgraded. They'll more than likely be showing off at upcoming European and Asian trade shows after their moment in the spotlight. CES was more about 4k displays and they didn't want their object format's debut to get buried in the onslaught of 4k coverage by the press. This is a standalone event, so the press will be focusing more on them. It also is being timed with ATSC 2.0 broadcast standards meetings.


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a hunch you might be wrong there with your time frame. DTS's launch in March will more than likely tell you which manufacturers and which studios are initially backing their X format. This is supposed to arrive in product starting _this summer _not next year_._ They may even mention if some previous models might be able to be upgraded. They'll more than likely be showing off at upcoming European and Asian trade shows after their moment in the spotlight. CES was more about 4k displays and they didn't want their object format's debut to get buried in the onslaught of 4k coverage by the press. This is a standalone event, so the press will be focusing more on them. It also is being timed with ATSC 2.0 broadcast standards meetings.




I will give them one more month, but disagree on the CES focus. 4K has been covered now for several years at CES, the sad thing is, there isn't really anything new. Maybe finally 4K standards, but the talk of 4K has been going on for some time. I hope DTS has several studios behind them, that's the one thing Dolby hasn't seemed to nail down, at least for home release.


----------



## chi_guy50

Movie78 said:


> Very Disappointed in the English speaking people participation on YouTube.
> 
> Check this video by the Germans(Can understand what he is saying but it looks good)
> 
> http://youtu.be/1zUvhEWpZ9E


That's our old friend Patrick Schappert, co-owner of the German A/V firm of Grobi (German:* Gro*ss*bi*ldspezialisten = large-screen specialists), whom I like to refer to as "the German Alec Baldwin." I commented on an earlier video of his back in October. He's a glib and amusing host/interviewer/commentator for their "grobitv" YouTube channel.

The video probably won't offer anything new to those who have been following this thread. Specifically, Patrick demos three (or was it four?) different scenes from _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ and _Expendables 3_ (or, as Patrick calls it, "Expandables," probably in unintentional reference to the aging stars's waistlines ). He turns off the listener-level speakers and holds his mike up to the top-level speakers to demonstrate the varying use of those channels in Atmos, Dolby Surround, and Auro-matic. His conclusion is that there is little to no use of height effects in Atmos (which he ascribes to the actions, deliberate or otherwise, of the film mixer) while DSU and especially Auro-matic provide a much fuller overhead sound stage. Again, other than the side-by-side comparison of DSU and Auro-matic on these scenes (in which the latter comes out the overall winner), there's nothing new here for most of us.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a hunch you might be wrong there with your time frame. DTS's launch in March will more than likely tell you which manufacturers and which studios are initially backing their X format. This is supposed to arrive in product starting _this summer _not next year_._ They may even mention if some previous models might be able to be upgraded. They'll more than likely be showing off at upcoming European and Asian trade shows after their moment in the spotlight. CES was more about 4k displays and they didn't want their object format's debut to get buried in the onslaught of 4k coverage by the press. This is a standalone event, so the press will be focusing more on them. It also is being timed with ATSC 2.0 broadcast standards meetings.


Even if products with DTS:X start being available come this summer there is still going to be the issue with content unless you believe there will be a flood of Blu-Rays available at the same time....will be doubtful IMHO..... the way I see it there will be plenty of Blu-Rays available come the end of 2016 with both Atmos and DTS:X to choose from.. That will be a good time frame for me to upgrade. I will enjoy DSU and Atmos till then.... I do agree that if you are itching to up grade and are not one of the early adopters waiting till after the March DTS:X announcement should be a better to wait and will give you a better idea on speaker placement if it's going to be different then Atmos..
I'm an early adopter and glad I did! both Atmos and DSU are a listening joy, come the end of 2016 I will be ready to upgrade.. then I'll start a new journey with both DTS:X and Atmos to choose from just my $.02


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> I will give them one more month, but disagree on the CES focus. 4K has been covered now for several years at CES, the sad thing is, there isn't really anything new. Maybe finally 4K standards, but the talk of 4K has been going on for some time. I hope DTS has several studios behind them, that's the one thing Dolby hasn't seemed to nail down, at least for home release.


Actually, compared to this year's 4k hoopla by the industry the other CES's have been tame and more a slow burn. They were bringing out the BIG GUNS this time as they would call high dynamic range capable 10 bit panels, quantum dots, etc. etc. that are supposed to set these displays apart from TV's of the past... like a "this is not your father's TV" kind of approach. They're trying to lay the ground work for 4k media like Ultra HD Blu-ray and streaming that will probably be the talk of the show next year.

Like I mentioned, I would wait just a little bit longer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Even if products with DTS:X start being available come this summer there is still going to be the issue with content unless you believe there will be a flood of Blu-Rays available at the same time....will be doubtful IMHO..... the way I see it there will be plenty of Blu-Rays available come the end of 2016 with both Atmos and DTS:X to choose from.. That will be a good time frame for me to upgrade. I will enjoy DSU and Atmos till then.... I do agree that if you are itching to up grade and are not one of the early adopters waiting till after the March DTS:X announcement should be a better to wait and will give you a better idea on speaker placement if it's going to be different then Atmos..
> I'm an early adopter and glad I did! both Atmos and DSU are a listening joy, come the end of 2016 I will be ready to upgrade.. then I start a new journey with both DTS:X and at to choose from just my $.02


I have a feeling that if object based audio is going anywhere it will be start to become more commonplace in Ultra HD discs as a means to help differentiate them from regular Blu-ray and DVD. They can then push the fact that not only do you get more pixels, but 10 bit, cinema grade color... and cinema grade 3D audio as a bonus! This is the tale end of the life cycle for regular Blu-ray anyway.


----------



## quinn4528

NorthSky said:


> Dts:x in the 7009 eventually? ...Sweet dreams are made of this; it is free to dream...in your sweetest dream...good luck.


I would definitely wait until the DTS X roll out before purchasing a pre/pro or receiver at this point but I am curious as to how long it will take for this product (DTS X) to be available if not through upgrades of some current equipment. In the fall 2015 maybe? Seems like alot of lost momentum if that is their plan.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

quinn4528 said:


> I would definitely wait until the DTS roll out before purchasing a pre/pro or receiver at this point but I am curious as to how long it will take for this product (DTS) to be available if not through upgrades of some current equipment. In the fall 2015 maybe? Seems like alot of lost momentum if that is their plan.


DTS is beholden to the whim of the manufacturers and their time tables. Dolby Atmos "capable" product started rolling out in the summer (with Atmos firmware following a few months later) and then gained momentum in the beginning of fall with products that included Atmos on board, just as has been the case for most A/V receiver and pre-amp products for a long time.

DTS:X code should be included in these new products from day one since it was probably not shoe horned into existing chassis this time. It sometimes pays to be second.


----------



## Movie78

chi_guy50 said:


> That's our old friend Patrick Schappert, co-owner of the German A/V firm of Grobi (German:* Gro*ss*bi*ldspezialisten = large-screen specialists), whom I like to refer to as "the German Alec Baldwin." I commented on an earlier video of his back in October. He's a glib and amusing host/interviewer/commentator for their "grobitv" YouTube channel.
> 
> The video probably won't offer anything new to those who have been following this thread. Specifically, Patrick demos three (or was it four?) different scenes from _Transformers: Age of Extinction_ and _Expendables 3_ (or, as Patrick calls it, "Expandables," probably in unintentional reference to the aging stars's waistlines ). He turns off the listener-level speakers and holds his mike up to the top-level speakers to demonstrate the varying use of those channels in Atmos, Dolby Surround, and Auro-matic. His conclusion is that there is little to no use of height effects in Atmos (which he ascribes to the actions, deliberate or otherwise, of the film mixer) while DSU and especially Auro-matic provide a much fuller overhead sound stage. Again, other than the side-by-side comparison of DSU and Auro-matic on these scenes (in which the latter comes out the overall winner), there's nothing new here for most of us.


Is still a good watch..


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS is beholden to the whim of the manufacturers and their time tables. Dolby Atmos "capable" product started rolling out in the summer (with Atmos firmware following a few months later) and then gained momentum in the beginning of fall with products that included Atmos on board, just as has been the case for most A/V receiver and pre-amp products for a long time.
> 
> DTS:X code should be included in these new products from day one since it was probably not shoe horned into existing chassis this time. It sometimes pays to be second.


I agree it sometimes pays to be second. I for one was willing to wait but I couldn't stand waiting. I had to jump right in and see for myself what all the fuss was, I'm one that can't take the word of others to tell me how great things are or sound. I have to experience it for myself. Before I adopted Atmos I was wondering if it would be like DTS Neo:X which didn't do much for me, besides I had it put my ear to the speaker wondering if it was doing anything. With DSU I can hear the difference now, I'm able to put my step ladder away and enjoy. I would be kicking myself if I hadn't jumped in. You know it's never a good time to upgrade because there will be something new right around the corner, we are in a time when things change fast. If I waited I would be waiting and waiting for next year's stuff and I can't wait


----------



## quinn4528

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS is beholden to the whim of the manufacturers and their time tables. Dolby Atmos "capable" product started rolling out in the summer (with Atmos firmware following a few months later) and then gained momentum in the beginning of fall with products that included Atmos on board, just as has been the case for most A/V receiver and pre-amp products for a long time.
> 
> DTS:X code should be included in these new products from day one since it was probably not shoe horned into existing chassis this time. It sometimes pays to be second.


No buyers remorse here, I am talking about an opportunity to sell DTS X via firmware to a group of consumers who would be inclined to purchase. How does one (DTS)not plan to take advantage of these early adopters and their ceiling mounted / up-firing speakers at the ready. They have to know their product alone (DTS X) would not bring these early adopters back into the market this quickly. It will be interesting to see regardless.


----------



## bargervais

quinn4528 said:


> No buyers remorse here, I am talking about an opportunity to sell DTS X via firmware to a group of consumers who would be inclined to purchase. How does one (DTS)not plan to take advantage of these early adopters and their ceiling mounted / up-firing speakers at the ready. They have to know their product alone (DTS X) would not bring these early adopters back into the market this quickly. It will be interesting to see regardless.


That would be nice if there will be a firmware upgrade especially since most of us spent $1,500 to $2,500 just on our receivers and the additional $$$$ for speakers, wire, not to mention time it took to set it all up, and if we hired someone to install everything... I see most of us are diy but then there are others that diy is too much of a hassle as the job is too great..


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, compared to this year's 4k hoopla by the industry the other CES's have been tame and more a slow burn. They were bringing out the BIG GUNS this time as they would call high dynamic range capable 10 bit panels, quantum dots, etc. etc. that are supposed to set these displays apart from TV's of the past... like a "this is not your father's TV" kind of approach. They're trying to lay the ground work for 4k media like Ultra HD Blu-ray and streaming that will probably be the talk of the show next year.
> 
> Like I mentioned, I would wait just a little bit longer.



It's to the point I am going to wait for their announcement, but if there is nothing concrete announced I will most likely make the Atmos plunge for Father's Day.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a hunch you might be wrong there with your time frame. DTS's launch in March will more than likely tell you which manufacturers and which studios are initially backing their X format. This is supposed to arrive in product starting _this summer _not next year_._ They may even mention if some previous models might be able to be upgraded. They'll more than likely be showing off at upcoming European and Asian trade shows after their moment in the spotlight. CES was more about 4k displays and they didn't want their object format's debut to get buried in the onslaught of 4k coverage by the press. This is a standalone event, so the press will be focusing more on them. It also is being timed with *ATSC 2.0* broadcast standards meetings.



According to this 1/12/2015 news item in *TVNewsCheck*, '*Tech Companies Submit Three Proposals for Next-Gen TV Sound*' (_link_), there were *three* respondents to the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System Call for Proposals* (_link_), viz: *Dolby*, *DTS*, and the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (a consortium of *Qualcomm*, *Fraunhofer*, and *Technicolor*) (_link_). It seems likely to me that the the specifics of both the *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS:X* codecs as implemented in 2016 AVRs might depend on which of the three candidate submissions (*Dolby AC-4*, *DTS:X("broadcast")*, or *MPEG-H 3D* from the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance*) is selected as the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec|technology_ *(decision due in mid August 2015)*.


_


----------



## NorthSky

quinn4528 said:


> I would definitely wait until the DTS X roll out before purchasing a pre/pro or receiver at this point but I am curious as to how long it will take for this product (DTS X) to be available if not through upgrades of some current equipment. In the fall 2015 maybe? Seems like alot of lost momentum if that is their plan.


My own personal guess; we could see the first DTS:X product release this coming up June. 

And, the dts:x software (Blu-ray with DTS:X audio encoding); also this Summer (Summer starts June 21st). 
And, it'll be quicker than Dolby Atmos when that ball gets rollin'.
And if it ain't rollin' fast enough; we'll @ least have "dts:xpander" (DTS's own up-mixer). 

Which product(s) might get the dts:x firmware upgrade? 
Some high-end pre/pros like from Datasat, Steinway Lyngdorf, ...and perhaps Marantz AV8802 SSP and Denon AVR-X7200W AV receiver. 

And, I hope to see more support by more manufacturers for Auro-3D.

And, I want to see Anthem, NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Cambridge Audio, Classe, ATI, Cary Audio Design, Audio Research, Outlaw Audio, McIntosh, Bryston, Krell, Theta Digital, Simaudio, Parasound, JBL, Ayre Acoustics, ...all join in eventually.

...Meridian too.


----------



## NorthSky

I just finished reading the post above mine, by *SoundChex*; one of the best sources for our "Sound" future.


----------



## NorthSky

I re-watched *'John Wick'* on Blu-ray last night. ...The core audio soundtrack (Dolby TrueHD 7.1).


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> My own personal guess; we could see the first DTS:X product release this coming up June.
> 
> And, the dts:x software (Blu-ray with DTS:X audio encoding); also this Summer (Summer starts June 21st).
> And, it'll be quicker than Dolby Atmos when that ball gets rollin'.
> And if it ain't rollin' fast enough; we'll @ least have "dts:xpander" (DTS's own up-mixer).
> 
> Which product(s) might get the dts:x firmware upgrade?
> Some high-end pre/pros like from Datasat, Steinway Lyngdorf, ...and perhaps Marantz AV8802 SSP and Denon AVR-X7200W AV receiver.
> 
> And, I hope to see more support by more manufacturers for Auro-3D.
> 
> And, I want to see Anthem, NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Cambridge Audio, Classe, ATI, Cary Audio Design, Audio Research, Outlaw Audio, McIntosh, Bryston, Krell, Theta Digital, Simaudio, Parasound, JBL, Ayre Acoustics, ...all join in eventually.
> 
> ...Meridian too.


Let's hope that's a lot of choices lets hope you do something by June so you can share with us from being an actual adopter. you have vast knowledge and then with hands on experience then watch out your posts should jump to 10,000 in no time.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> According to this 1/12/2015 news item in *TVNewsCheck*, '*Tech Companies Submit Three Proposals for Next-Gen TV Sound*' (_link_), there were *three* respondents to the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System Call for Proposals* (_link_), viz: *Dolby*, *DTS*, and the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (a consortium of *Qualcomm*, *Fraunhofer*, and *Technicolor*) (_link_). It seems likely to me that the the specifics of both the *Dolby Atmos* and *DTS:X* codecs as implemented in 2016 AVRs might depend on which of the three candidate submissions (*Dolby AC-4*, *DTS:X("broadcast")*, or *MPEG-H 3D* from the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance*) is selected as the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec|technology_ *(decision due in mid August 2015)*.
> 
> 
> _


Got my 2's and 3's mixed up.


----------



## nitro28

I am getting my soffit finished and thinking more about how my in ceiling speakers will project to my two rows of seats. The soffits are not real wide on the side at about 22" but the edges of the soffit are about equal to the edge of the seats. I have Definitive DI 8R in ceiling speakers. I was toying with making a baffle that is slightly angled toward the listening area for these 4 speakers. Kind of like what the goldenear 7000's do. 

What do you think about angling in ceiling speakers for this purpose vs just mounting them normally?? I could angle them at about any angle....


----------



## NorthSky

*Test*



Al Sherwood said:


> Here is my plan thus far super-imposed on the Dolby recommended speaker layout.





nitro28 said:


> I am getting my soffit finished and thinking more about how my in ceiling speakers will project to my two rows of seats. The soffits are not real wide on the side at about 22" but the edges of the soffit are about equal to the edge of the seats. I have Definitive DI 8R in ceiling speakers. I was toying with making a baffle that is slightly angled toward the listening area for these 4 speakers. Kind of like what the goldenear 7000's do.
> 
> * What do you think about angling in ceiling speakers for this purpose vs just mounting them normally?? I could angle them at about any angle....*


♦ Yes, should work just fine.


----------



## lovingdvd

nitro28 said:


> I am getting my soffit finished and thinking more about how my in ceiling speakers will project to my two rows of seats. The soffits are not real wide on the side at about 22" but the edges of the soffit are about equal to the edge of the seats. I have Definitive DI 8R in ceiling speakers. I was toying with making a baffle that is slightly angled toward the listening area for these 4 speakers. Kind of like what the goldenear 7000's do.
> 
> What do you think about angling in ceiling speakers for this purpose vs just mounting them normally?? I could angle them at about any angle....


Room looks very nice! However one important thing about it to be aware of - you may have some challenges with a big dip at 20hz or perhaps higher. This assumes that your MLP is the front row, center seat. This is because it looks to be right in the middle of the room. I am in the same boat and planning for this now. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?t=1905233&goto=newpost and http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/67316-room-simulation-6.html#post1107153 .


----------



## NorthSky

That's a very good point.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I agree it sometimes pays to be second and I for one was willing to wait but I couldn't stand waiting I had to jump right in and see for myself what all the fuss was I'm one that can't take the word of others to tell me how great things are or sound I have to experience it for myself. Before I adopted Atmos I was wondering if it would be like DTS Neo:X which didn't do much for me besides I had it put my ear to the speaker wondering if it was doing anything. With DSU I can hear the difference now I'm able to put my step ladder away and enjoy. I would be kicking myself if I hadn't jumped in you know it's never a good time to upgrade because there will be something new right around the corner we are in a time when things change fast. If I waited I would be waiting and waiting for next year's stuff I can't wait


Same here. Life is too short to wait for things you want and can have right now. If I was buying from scratch, I'd wait until March to see what DTS offers, because March is almost on us, but there is no way I'd have wanted to miss out on all my Atmos/DSU fun for the past several months. My next big upgrade will likely be fall 2016 by which time we should have Atmos, DTS:X, UHD, 4k, HDCP 2.2 etc all in place.


----------



## richmagnus

Have been running the AV7702 for a month or so now with my MK300 system in 5.2. I now plan to add a pair of MP150mkii's as Atmos FH speakers. At s later date when funds allow I will install a pair of TM ceiling speakers. This configuration will allow for Auro too. I only have a small room with a distance of less than 10' to the front wall. This should create an expansive soundstage.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. Life is too short to wait for things you want and can have right now. If I was buying from scratch, I'd wait until March to see what DTS offers, because March is almost on us, but there is no way I'd have wanted to miss out on all my Atmos/DSU fun for the past several months. My next big upgrade will likely be fall 2016 by which time we should have Atmos, DTS:X, UHD, 4k, HDCP 2.2 etc all in place.


I agree 100% and have the same timeline in mind.

However, we should all be mindful of the historical truth that state-of-the-art technology is a moving and ever-developing target. In 2016 (or whenever) as we reach for our wallets to upgrade to the most recent Atmos/DTS:X iteration, there will be another improvement in development or on the horizon that will whet our appetites once again.

Just as no one can time the stock market, you should base your A/V purchase on those personal criteria that are most meaningful to you knowing that there will always be something newer and shinier down the road. Life is, indeed, too short to play Tantalus with those small pleasures that we can derive along the way.


----------



## nitro28

lovingdvd said:


> Room looks very nice! However one important thing about it to be aware of - you may have some challenges with a big dip at 20hz or perhaps higher. This assumes that your MLP is the front row, center seat. This is because it looks to be right in the middle of the room. I am in the same boat and planning for this now. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?t=1905233&goto=newpost and http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/67316-room-simulation-6.html#post1107153 .


Yah, when I originally designed the room it was a bit longer in the front then it got changed when we built the house. I actually don't like to sit that close to the screen so I am planning on sitting middle of the back row. I am also going to have 4 18" subs placed around the room so hopefully I can even things out with them as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree 100% and have the same timeline in mind.
> 
> However, we should all be mindful of the historical truth that state-of-the-art technology is a moving and ever-developing target. In 2016 (or whenever) as we reach for our wallets to upgrade to the most recent Atmos/DTS:X iteration, there will be another improvement in development or on the horizon that will whet our appetites once again.


I hope so! I love the constant forward movement with this hobby.



chi_guy50 said:


> Just as no one can time the stock market, you should base your A/V purchase on those personal criteria that are most meaningful to you knowing that there will always be something newer and shinier down the road. Life is, indeed, too short to play Tantalus with those small pleasures that we can derive along the way.


100% agreed. If you wait for the right time, you will wait for ever. There is no 'right time' in life - there is just 'now'. Procrastination steals the most precious thing we have - time. I do not regret jumping all over Atmos the moment it was available.


----------



## khackshaw

So I was in the Magnolia Design Center (Perimeter Mall GA. Only design center on the east coast. These folks know what they're talking about) over the weekend and had a demo of a 5.1.4 system in one of the rooms. 

IT. WAS. AWESOME. 
The rep and I had a pretty long talk about Atmos -type and placement of speakers and he said, just get the cheapest speakers you can get. He's tried directional and expensive ceiling vs the cheapest insignia in-ceiling speakers and he said the difference was non-existent.

I picked up some Yamaha 8" speakers the other day and I'm going to use those in a 5.1.2 setup. We'll see how it goes...


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> There is no 'right time' in life - there is just 'now'. Procrastination steals the most precious thing we have - time.


Most people (at least in the US) live their life according to the "when, then" philosophy. "*When* I get promoted, *then* I will buy a new car"; "*When* the kids go off to college, *then* we will take that trip we planned"; "*when* I retire, *then* I will finally be able to relax". (For almost all of my adult life, I was that kind of person, by the way)

We mostly tend to think that tomorrow will be a slightly different version of today. And it may be. But it also may not be. A sudden change in your employment, or financial situation or health or relationship status or ......you catch my drift. 

I am not suggesting that one should just willy nilly go through life. But I am suggesting that one might step back and look at life with a slightly different perspective.

I used to have a sign on my desk that read: "Work as though you will live forever. Live as though you will die tomorrow"

End of sermon! You may go back to your regularly scheduled programming


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Most people (at least in the US) live their life according to the "when, then" philosophy. "*When* I get promoted, *then* I will buy a new car"; "*When* the kids go off to college, *then* we will take that trip we planned"; "*when* I retire, *then* I will finally be able to relax". (For almost all of my adult life, I was that kind of person, by the way)
> 
> We mostly tend to think that tomorrow will be a slightly different version of today. And it may be. But it also may not be. A sudden change in your employment, or financial situation or health or relationship status or ......you catch my drift.
> 
> I am not suggesting that one should just willy nilly go through life. But I am suggesting that one might step back and look at life with a slightly different perspective.
> 
> I used to have a sign on my desk that read: "Work as though you will live forever. Live as though you will die tomorrow"
> 
> End of sermon! You may go back to your regularly scheduled programming


+1. There were two signs on my desk. One was "Carpe Diem". The other was the "7 Ps" - the old army adage drilled into me from as far back as I can remember by my dad, ex-professional soldier and Regimental Sergeant Major in the British Army.


----------



## Tin_Can

khackshaw said:


> So I was in the Magnolia Design Center (Perimeter Mall GA. Only design center on the east coast. These folks know what they're talking about) over the weekend and had a demo of a 5.1.4 system in one of the rooms.
> 
> IT. WAS. AWESOME.
> The rep and I had a pretty long talk about Atmos -type and placement of speakers and he said, just get the cheapest speakers you can get. He's tried directional and expensive ceiling vs the cheapest insignia in-ceiling speakers and he said the difference was non-existent.
> 
> I picked up some Yamaha 8" speakers the other day and I'm going to use those in a 5.1.2 setup. We'll see how it goes...


Maybe the Design Center you went to has truly knowledgeable people, but proceed with caution. I've been to multiple Design Centers, even had them out to my home, and it seems like they really know their stuff. That is until you talk to someone who actually DOES know their stuff. I would use the Design Center like I use Wikipedia; a good first stop, but never the last.


----------



## Gurba

To all:


If Your current atmos avr could be updated to DTS:X by sacrifying DSU, would you do it?


----------



## RMK!

lovingdvd said:


> Room looks very nice! However one important thing about it to be aware of - you may have some challenges with a big dip at 20hz or perhaps higher. This assumes that your MLP is the front row, center seat. This is because it looks to be right in the middle of the room. I am in the same boat and planning for this now. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?t=1905233&goto=newpost and http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/67316-room-simulation-6.html#post1107153 .


Actually, the mid-line of the room appears to be between the two rows. I think he is fine with that placement.


----------



## batpig

I can't speak for anyone else but IMO that would be stupid -- the VAST majority of content you will be hearing for quite some time is upmixed legacy channel based content. By the time object audio is pervasive enough to be the norm, you will be on your next receiver. 

Leaving aside the fact that nobody has heard DTS:X....


----------



## khackshaw

Tin_Can said:


> Maybe the Design Center you went to has truly knowledgeable people, but proceed with caution. I've been to multiple Design Centers, even had them out to my home, and it seems like they really know their stuff. That is until you talk to someone who actually DOES know their stuff. I would use the Design Center like I use Wikipedia; a good first stop, but never the last.


LOL, thanks sir! 
You're absolutely right, I think I was just really happy to walk in there and find guys I could have a conversation with compared to the other Magnolias where they're just glorified BestBuy staff in a different color shirt. It's sad, but there aren't that many places you can go to now to find knowledgeable staff and a variety of equipment to choose from.

Plus this was the first place I could actually find an atmos setup up and running, so it's quite possible I was punch drunk....


----------



## sdurani

nitro28 said:


> What do you think about angling in ceiling speakers for this purpose vs just mounting them normally?? I could angle them at about any angle....


I would point each speaker at the listener furthest away from it, to minimize the closest speaker from dominating in volume level and thereby becoming distracting.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. There were two signs on my desk. One was "Carpe Diem". The other was the "7 Ps" - the old army adage drilled into me from as far back as I can remember by my dad, ex-professional soldier and Regimental Sergeant Major in the British Army.


And when I was a young U.S. Army NCO working in Civil-Military Operations on the general staff of the 1st Armored Division ("Old Ironsides") in Ansbach, Germany, I had a printed sticker on the side of my desk that loudly proclaimed:

Himmiherrgottsakramentzefixhallelujahmilecksamarschscheißglumpverreckts!

I think that says it all! (The Bavarians really know how to swear.)


----------



## nitro28

sdurani said:


> I would point each speaker at the listener furthest away from it, to minimize the closest speaker from dominating in volume level and thereby becoming distracting.


I like that idea. So for example aim the front left speaker at the rear right seat, correct? How much of angle do you think I should try for given these speakers are normally mounted flat? 15, 30. 45 degrees?


----------



## audioguy

nitro28 said:


> I like that idea. So for example aim the front left speaker at the rear right seat, correct? How much of angle do you think I should try for given these speakers are normally mounted flat? 15, 30. 45 degrees?


I totally and completely disagree. That might work for your ceiling speakers (or may not) but not a good idea for you left and right or rear surrounds if you have them. If I were to do that, the front speaker would intersects well in front of me. If you are going to do anything, for the L and R, I would highly recommend (listening to 2 channel only) experimenting by adjusting the toe in such that frequency response, central image specificity and sound stage are all optimized. Get that right and for full surround, you will be good to go from the front stage.

Your room and you can do what you want but I highly recommend NOT doing what was proposed by Sanjay unless I completely misunderstand what he is saying!


----------



## BigScreen

lovingdvd said:


> Are you comparing that to the 12 AWG that chi_guy50 linked to at Monoprice? You say the Mogami is a bit pricey, but its like 20 times the price per foot as the one chi_guy50 linked to.
> 
> How important is good quality speaker wire, in terms of durability, longevity and protection from electrical or any other type of interference? I don't want to go overboard on speak wire and pay more than I need to (I use cheap HDMI cables no problem). But then again these things are going to be wired into the ceiling for 15-some speakers and nearly impossible to replace if there are issues without tearing the walls and ceiling back open. That's why I want to be careful - want something very reliable but don't want to be a sucker either in buying something that's simply overpriced for no reason.


Speaker wire (and interconnects) tends to get people's hackles up, largely because of some companies that have tried to take advantage of snake-oil tactics to sell over-priced wires. That said, there are wire characteristics that are important, as well as proper installation techniques which are related to your questions above.

You definitely want to make sure that your speaker wire conforms to fire standards for your country if you are putting it inside walls. The last thing you want is for it to turn into a fuse, sending fire through your walls. The only thing worse than losing your home to fire is then also to have a fire inspector discover that your wiring contributed to the damage and you not only may not be covered by insurance, but you may open yourself up to additional liability if that wiring caused additional damage to third-party property. Look for the CL2/CL3 rating (here in the U.S.) on the cable... not just on the packaging. That clear-plastic crap is likely not fire rated, and it's a royal pain to handle anyway.

Handling is another non-obvious characteristic that may or may not be important to you. This is more of an issue when trying to feed a wire through a ceiling for wiring height speakers, because you won't have the luxury of poking through a wall and getting a more-or-less direct route to your equipment. Better cable is easier to pull through "elephant tube" and around corners, etc. This characteristic is actually one of the specifications of THX-certified speaker cable, if I recall correctly.

More than 10 years ago, I wired up a home theater with 14/2 THX-certified cable from Monster Cable. I did not use it because it was Monster Cable (I dislike their marketing practices and legal bullying, but they did make decent stuff, if a little over-priced), but rather because it was good quality cable. I got it at a really good price (not much more than what generic cable would have cost at a distributor at the time) on 500 or 1000-foot spools, and only had to pay for what I used. That cable was a dream to work with! It was stiff enough to make feeding through channels and around corners very easy, but still flexible to not be a pain to work with. The cabling was marked with recommendations for run-length, which was 30 feet, which is about right in my mind for 14 ga. wire. 

As far as interference goes, the best thing you can do is be careful with your installation methods. Avoid sharp kinks in the wire, avoid running parallel to 120V power lines, and don't tie-wrap your cables tightly. I bundle them loosely so that there is some freedom of movement for each wire. Lastly, good termination is important, and probably the easiest opportunity for problems. If you're going to use connectors, make sure they have an excellent electrical and physical connection. I usually just use the binding posts, but a good set of banana plugs makes things much easier to handle. I have a set of floorstanding speakers with binding posts that never want to stay put, so banana plugs maintain that physical/electrical connection more securely in that instance.

There are many sources for wire now, that you do have options that didn't readily exist 10 years ago. However, the importance of these characteristics still applies, so I still evaluate purchases and recommendations with them in mind. Would I still buy the same type of wire I did back then? Maybe not, but I would make sure that whatever I was looking at met the needs of the particular situation.


----------



## htpcforever

Personally, I like to say I have waited on Atmos, etc., due to not wanting to be on the bleeding edge and that it is smart to wait for the second iteration of a new technology. The reality is that I was broke and needed to save up money. Had the money been there, I would have a first generation Atmos AVR.


Sometimes fortune favors the broke...


----------



## stikle

Gurba said:


> If Your current atmos avr could be updated to DTS:X by sacrifying DSU, would you do it?



Not even remotely. DSU is fabulous. There is ZERO DTS:X content.


----------



## nitro28

audioguy said:


> I totally and completely disagree. That might work for your ceiling speakers (or may not) but not a good idea for you left and right or rear surrounds if you have them. If I were to do that, the front speaker would intersects well in front of me. If you are going to do anything, for the L and R, I would highly recommend (listening to 2 channel only) experimenting by adjusting the toe in such that frequency response, central image specificity and sound stage are all optimized. Get that right and for full surround, you will be good to go from the front stage.
> 
> Your room and you can do what you want but I highly recommend NOT doing what was proposed by Sanjay unless I completely misunderstand what he is saying!


Just to clarify we are only talking about the 4 atmos speakers in the ceiling. All the 7 mains will be in normal positions with normal angles. I am just trying to figure out if there is benefit in angling the normally flat ceiling atmos speakers or if I should just leave them pointing straight down. They are definitive DI 8Rs just so you don't have to read back to my earlier posts.


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> Not even remotely. DSU is fabulous. There is ZERO DTS:X content.


But the question, albeit hypothetical, is not even remotely relevant (I fear OP is suffering from Nordic winter brain-freeze). In what plausible scenario would DTS:X (MDA) substitute for DSU (upmixer)? If he meant a choice between DSU and Neo:X, then we could have a meaningful discussion.

I think most of us, myself included, are anxious to hear what DTS is going to throw at us; but IMHO there will be no need to forgo Atmos/DSU for it unless/until one or the other MDA format eliminates the other from the marketplace à la Blu-ray/HD-DVD.


----------



## audioguy

nitro28 said:


> Just to clarify we are only talking about the 4 atmos speakers in the ceiling.


Sorry I misunderstood.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

nitro28 said:


> Just to clarify we are only talking about the 4 atmos speakers in the ceiling. All the 7 mains will be in normal positions with normal angles. I am just trying to figure out if there is benefit in angling the normally flat ceiling atmos speakers or if I should just leave them pointing straight down. They are definitive DI 8Rs just so you don't have to read back to my earlier posts.


I have all Definitive so I used the DI 6.5LCR for my four ceiling speakers. I angled all four tweeters toward my MLP and I'm extremely satisfied with the result. If you mount the DI 8R's flat but pivot the tweeters I think you'll like the sound.


----------



## sdurani

nitro28 said:


> So for example aim the front left speaker at the rear right seat, correct?


Correct. It's an old trick, sometimes referred to as energy/time trading, intended to keep the soundfield from collapsing to the nearest loudspeaker. You compensate for being near a speaker by hearing it a little off axis. Likewise the speaker furthest away gets a small level boost by being on axis to you.


> How much of angle do you think I should try for given these speakers are normally mounted flat? 15, 30. 45 degrees?


You'd have to measure the elevation angle for each of the four speakers from the seats they're aimed at, but I would guess at least 45 degrees.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Someone mentioned Zhang Yimou's *House of Flying Daggers* recently. For anyone who has this movie on disc, select the PCM 5.1 audio track in Chinese and then skip directly to Chapter 9, the famous 'bamboo forest' scene. DSU works extraordinarily well with this long action scene, really highlighting the almost constant overhead activity. The scene also displays some of the best foley effects I have ever heard. Highly recommended as a DSU demo scene.


 
I just watched "House of Flying Daggers" over the weekend. It was amazing how DSU highlighted all of that overhead sound in Chapter 9. It's like those bamboo trees were in my living room above my head! 


Ray


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I can't speak for anyone else but IMO that would be stupid -- the VAST majority of content you will be hearing for quite some time is upmixed legacy channel based content. By the time object audio is pervasive enough to be the norm, you will be on your next receiver.
> 
> Leaving aside the fact that nobody has heard DTS:X....


I heard DTS:X at CES 2015.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gurba said:


> To all:
> 
> 
> If Your current atmos avr could be updated to DTS:X by sacrifying DSU, would you do it?


NFW! DSU works brilliantly on every disc I have played through it. And as there is no DTS:X content _at all,_ and not likely to be much for some time to come, sacrificing something that works on every disc I own for something that works on no discs I own, seems to me to be singularly silly.


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> Sometimes fortune favors the broke...


LOL! Brilliant!


----------



## lovingdvd

nitro28 said:


> Yah, when I originally designed the room it was a bit longer in the front then it got changed when we built the house. I actually don't like to sit that close to the screen so I am planning on sitting middle of the back row. I am also going to have 4 18" subs placed around the room so hopefully I can even things out with them as well.


I can't recall your drawing, but as long as you plan to sit off-center you should be better. As I mentioned earlier today in the Improving 20Hz in the middle of the room thread here http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?p=32043921 I highly recommend that you model your room in REW Room Simulator to make sure what you are planning for your sub gives the results you want. IOW I wouldn't recommend adding 4 subs just because it seems like more is better without seeing proof at least through the model. Also I know you are planning to use the sub as feet for the table - which will limit their placement - so just be sure the subs put out the sound response that is good (otherwise its possible putting subs somewhere can actually cause a void or strong dip...).


----------



## lujan

stikle said:


> Not even remotely. DSU is fabulous. There is ZERO DTS:X content.


I agree!


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> I heard DTS:X at CES 2015.


and what was your impression? Was it similar to Atmos, Auro 3D, etc.?


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> NFW! DSU works brilliantly on every disc I have played through it. And as there is no DTS:X content _at all,_ and not likely to be much for some time to come, sacrificing something that works on every disc I own for something that works on no discs I own, seems to me to be singularly silly.


I wonder have you tried AURO 3D vs ATMOS 

Especially trying DSU vs Auro 3D equivalent!


----------



## Scott Simonian

lujan said:


> and what was your impression? Was it similar to Atmos, Auro 3D, etc.?


Similar to Atmos in immersive-ness and precision directionality. Better than Auro. 

I still haven't heard an excellent Auro encoding and I've listened to several and seen a movie in cinema. Music sounds nice but nothing that can't be done with any other DSP. Movies were sorely lacking in all regards.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> I wonder have you tried AURO 3D vs ATMOS
> 
> Especially trying DSU vs Auro 3D equivalent!


No - I don't have Auro. I couldn’t see the point in adding it to my Denon, given there is very little native content for it and also my speaker layout is not really suitable for it, which would make any conclusions unfair. Also, from what I have read, Auromatic (the equivalent of DSU) is more or less a glorified "all speaker stereo" system, so I can't really imagine me liking it much. HST, I haven't heard it, and am unlikely to, so I have never commented on how Auro may sound. I restrict my remarks to the technological aspects of it, or the commercial reality of its likelihood to succeed long term in today's marketplace, dominated as it is by Dolby and DTS, two of the most formidable companies in the field with huge money behind them.


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> Similar to Atmos in immersive-ness and precision directionality. Better than Auro.
> 
> I still haven't heard an excellent Auro encoding and I've listened to several and seen a movie in cinema. Music sounds nice but nothing that can't be done with any other DSP. Movies were sorely lacking in all regards.


Thanks, hopefully the Auro content will increase and get better in order to justify my $199.00 purchase.


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> Six feet? ...Five feet. ...Or less, it depends...on the room's size.


Do you think I could squeeze-in or fit a 9.4.4 setup in this room? It's currently showing a 5.4.0 setup. It's a very crude drawing and definitely not to scale. The room looks "tighter" in real life. If not, what do you think should be the "maximum setup" for this room?

Note: I cannot place anything on the right and left walls from the position of the couch because one wall is a closet and the other wall it a glass door leading to the outside.


----------



## Scott Simonian

lujan said:


> Thanks, hopefully the Auro content will increase and get better in order to justify my $199.00 purchase.


For your sake, I hope so too. It's going to be an uphill battle for Auro with no native content and paid upgrade path.

Will be interesting if this summer/fall we see Auro as a standard feature along with Atmos/DTS:X. That would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## wse

Kain said:


> Do you think I could squeeze-in or fit a 9.4.4 setup in this room? It's currently showing a 5.4.0 setup. It's a very crude drawing and definitely not to scale. The room looks "tighter" in real life. If not, what do you think should be the "maximum setup" for this room?
> 
> Note: I cannot place anything on the right and left walls from the position of the couch because one wall is a closet and the other wall it a glass door leading to the outside.


Yes I did that


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Do you think I could squeeze-in or fit a 9.4.4 setup in this room? It's currently showing a 5.4.0 setup. It's a very crude drawing and definitely not to scale. The room looks "tighter" in real life. If not, what do you think should be the "maximum setup" for this room?
> 
> Note: I cannot place anything on the right and left walls from the position of the couch because one wall is a closet and the other wall it a glass door leading to the outside.


I have a 5.2.4 system in a room a little smaller than yours, so I would say "yes".


----------



## wse

BigScreen said:


> Speaker wire (and interconnects) tends to get people's hackles up, largely because of some companies that have tried to take advantage of snake-oil tactics to sell over-priced wires. That said, there are wire characteristics that are important, as well as proper installation techniques which are related to your questions above.....


 *12 AWG Speaker Wire the "Best Speaker Wire for Your Home Theater"*
The examples below will illustrate why 12 gage speaker wire is usually best for home theater applications or high end stereo speakers: 

*Six Factors that affect Speaker Cable performance:*
_1. The Resistance of the wire _
_2. Length of Cable (also increases resistance) _
_3. Ohms of Speaker loading _
_4. Inductance of speaker cables_
_5. Capacitance _
_6. Amount of Power being run through speaker cable _

*For "most home theater installations 12 gauge cable is more than you will ever need":*

http://www.bcae1.com/images/swfs/speakerwireselectorassistant.swf


There are some differences between cables as to how they may sound and in some cases you get what you pay for. But, often the home theater and stereo cable market is highly profit driven with extremely high profit margins. *For cable anywhere from 200 to 1000% mark-up!* 
Meaning you can often do better than buying your cables off the shelf and paying retail prices for them.

You can build them yourself. DIY cable building is actually very easy.

Education is easy:

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/speaker-cable-gauge

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-vi...n-audio-cable-vendor-is-selling-you-snake-oil

http://stereos.about.com/od/accesso...ables-Make-A-Difference-Science-Weighs-In.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-Enh...deo-accessories&ie=UTF8&qid=1424728538&sr=1-3


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> Thanks, hopefully the Auro content will increase and get better in order to justify my $199.00 purchase.



Well, you could import the _Magnificat_ Blu-ray audio disc pack from 2L Music from Norway. That title sounds great in terms of fidelity and musical content (very cinematic) and is encoded in Auro3D.

That's one.


----------



## Kain

wse said:


> Yes I did that





kbarnes701 said:


> I have a 5.2.4 system in a room a little smaller than yours, so I would say "yes".


With a 9.4.4 setup in that room size, I am not sure how and where I will place the side surrounds as I only have a couple/few feet of space on either side of the sofa/couch. That is why I was wondering if I can place the side and back surrounds above ear-level to offset the close distance from the main listening position and the front wides at ear-level (same height as the front mains). If I do end up placing the front wides at ear-level (same height as the front mains) and the side and back surrounds above ear-level, won't that upset panning effects that go from, say, front left to side left to back left to back right to side right to front right? The sound would change "height" in-between the panning.


----------



## gerchy

Checked some old movies with DSU. They sounded great!
Avatar, Gone in 60 seconds, Inception, A Walk Among the Tombstones. The latter has a lot of rain. 
And Avatar surprised me the most. The room was filled with jungle atmosphere.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Gurba said:


> To all:
> 
> 
> If Your current atmos avr could be updated to DTS:X by sacrifying DSU, would you do it?


No. DSU does a nice job on legacy movies. 

But I didn't update to Auro, so I've got all that room!


----------



## lujan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, you could import the _Magnificat_ Blu-ray audio disc pack from 2L Music from Norway. That title sounds great in terms of fidelity and musical content (very cinematic) and is encoded in Auro3D.
> 
> That's one.


I did get the Auro 3D Demo disk and thought it sounded great.


----------



## NorthSky

> Personally, I like to say I have waited on Atmos, etc., due to not wanting to be on the bleeding edge and that it is smart to wait for the second iteration of a new technology. The reality is that I was broke and needed to save up money. Had the money been there, I would have a first generation Atmos AVR.
> 
> Sometimes fortune favors the broke...


If we would all have money to burn all over our heads we wouldn't even be talking about first time adopters and second generation jumpers. 
We would simply buy all we want when we want and time would mean nothing. 

And what is time? ... _"Time not important only life important."_ - The 5th Element

Right now it is just too close for comfort; right @ the edge of DTS:X when only less than a dozen Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles are available. 
So you can jump in right now, and this next Summer/Fall buy another receiver with dts:x and this Winter or next Spring a third one with HDMI version 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 un-fudged. ...New 4K Blu-ray player in the next twelve months, and more speakers (9.4.6) in the next two-three years.

Then today you can watch John Wick in Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 or in Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround with DTS Neo:X on top for an 11.4-channel surround sound system setup. ...You can even watch it in Auro-Matic. ...And that's right now today. 

Tonight I'm going to re-watch 'Birdman' on Blu-ray, mainly for the "drum" audio soundtrack. ...I just luv it! 

And now, @ this very precise moment I am typing this. ...Live for now, feel the air's immortality, enjoy life with a constant big smile. :smile:
...Because we have it much much easier than a lot of other people on this planet of ours. ...At-most, or not.


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> I just watched "House of Flying Daggers" over the weekend. It was amazing how DSU highlighted all of that overhead sound in Chapter 9. It's like those bamboo trees were in my living room above my head!
> 
> Ray







♦ And how was the _Echo Game Dance_ scene?






______

*'The Grandmaster:*


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I heard DTS:X at CES 2015.


 Any good? :nerd:


----------



## aaranddeeman

BigScreen said:


> Speaker wire (and interconnects) tends to get people's hackles up, largely because of some companies that have tried to take advantage of snake-oil tactics to sell over-priced wires. That said, there are wire characteristics that are important, as well as proper installation techniques which are related to your questions above.
> 
> You definitely want to make sure that your speaker wire conforms to fire standards for your country if you are putting it inside walls. The last thing you want is for it to turn into a fuse, sending fire through your walls. The only thing worse than losing your home to fire is then also to have a fire inspector discover that your wiring contributed to the damage and you not only may not be covered by insurance, but you may open yourself up to additional liability if that wiring caused additional damage to third-party property. Look for the CL2/CL3 rating (here in the U.S.) on the cable... not just on the packaging. That clear-plastic crap is likely not fire rated, and it's a royal pain to handle anyway.
> 
> Handling is another non-obvious characteristic that may or may not be important to you. This is more of an issue when trying to feed a wire through a ceiling for wiring height speakers, because you won't have the luxury of poking through a wall and getting a more-or-less direct route to your equipment. Better cable is easier to pull through "elephant tube" and around corners, etc. This characteristic is actually one of the specifications of THX-certified speaker cable, if I recall correctly.
> 
> More than 10 years ago, I wired up a home theater with 14/2 THX-certified cable from Monster Cable. I did not use it because it was Monster Cable (I dislike their marketing practices and legal bullying, but they did make decent stuff, if a little over-priced), but rather because it was good quality cable. I got it at a really good price (not much more than what generic cable would have cost at a distributor at the time) on 500 or 1000-foot spools, and only had to pay for what I used. That cable was a dream to work with! It was stiff enough to make feeding through channels and around corners very easy, but still flexible to not be a pain to work with. The cabling was marked with recommendations for run-length, which was 30 feet, which is about right in my mind for 14 ga. wire.
> 
> As far as interference goes, the best thing you can do is be careful with your installation methods. Avoid sharp kinks in the wire, avoid running parallel to 120V power lines, and don't tie-wrap your cables tightly. I bundle them loosely so that there is some freedom of movement for each wire. Lastly, good termination is important, and probably the easiest opportunity for problems. If you're going to use connectors, make sure they have an excellent electrical and physical connection. I usually just use the binding posts, but a good set of banana plugs makes things much easier to handle. I have a set of floorstanding speakers with binding posts that never want to stay put, so banana plugs maintain that physical/electrical connection more securely in that instance.
> 
> There are many sources for wire now, that you do have options that didn't readily exist 10 years ago. However, the importance of these characteristics still applies, so I still evaluate purchases and recommendations with them in mind. Would I still buy the same type of wire I did back then? Maybe not, but I would make sure that whatever I was looking at met the needs of the particular situation.


Lot many people are not aware of the CL2/CL3 requirements or they become aware after the fact, i.e. once the wire has already gone in (or may be after few years of use). What does one do in such a situation? Abandon whatever has been done and use new set of cables? But how do you prove (in an unfortunate fire situation) that you were not using them etc. etc.
Would the county inspector (in US, assuming you are finishing your basement and doing HT there), point out and ask for correction if he sees the plastic crap running all over? Or he is not liable?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Any good? :nerd:


It was okay.


----------



## jjinc

So what is the running consensus of best atmos avr?
I've read and re-read these posts and still can't decide.

I was thinking x5200w, but am open to other options if you think its better.

my needs:
7(9).2.2
zone 2
3 hdmi outs

its a dedicated room (in the works)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jjinc said:


> So what is the running consensus of best atmos avr?
> I've read and re-read these posts and still can't decide.
> 
> I was thinking x5200w, but am open to other options if you think its better.
> 
> my needs:
> 7(9).2.2
> zone 2
> 3 hdmi outs
> 
> its a dedicated room (in the works)


It's your money, though you do say the room is in the works. If it were _my_ money, I would hold off until we get more info about DTS:X this March. By the time the room is ready, so will the new products with both Atmos and X included (as well as 18 Gb/s HDMI with HDCP 2.2 compliant chips).


----------



## jjinc

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's your money, though you do say the room is in the works. If it were _my_ money, I would hold off until we get more info about DTS:X this March. By the time the room is ready, so will the new products with both Atmos and X included (as well as 18 Gb/s HDMI with HDCP 2.2 compliant chips).


good call. Thanks.
I'm definitely a few months ( dreaming) away from finishing anyways.....
I'll post the build pics when I'm done.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> If we would all have money to burn all over our heads we wouldn't even be talking about first time adopters and second generation jumpers.
> We would simply buy all we want when we want and time would mean nothing.
> 
> And what is time? ... _"Time not important only life important."_ - The 5th Element
> 
> Right now it is just too close for comfort; right @ the edge of DTS:X when only less than a dozen Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles are available. So you can jump in right now, and this next Summer/Fall buy another receiver with dts:x and this Winter or next Spring a third one with HDMI version 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 un-fudged. ...New 4K Blu-ray player in the next twelve months, and more speakers (9.4.6) in the next two-three years.
> 
> Then today you can watch John Wick in Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 or in Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround with DTS Neo:X on top for an 11.4-channel surround sound system setup. ...You can even watch it in Auro-Matic. ...And that's right now today.
> 
> Tonight I'm going to re-watch 'Birdman' on Blu-ray, mainly for the "drum" audio soundtrack. ...I just luv it!
> 
> And now, @ this very precise moment I am typing this. ...Live for now, feel the air's immortality, enjoy life with a constant big smile. :smile: .*..Because we have it much much easier than a lot of other people on this planet of ours. ...At-most, or not.*


UPGRADITIS, an expensive proposition if you ask me 

Yes we do


----------



## NorthSky

...The name of the business; improved sound & picture. ...All good in this hobby we picked. ...It's the journey, without any end, just the constant quest for the high end.


----------



## petetherock

bargervais said:


> Even if products with DTS:X start being available come this summer there is still going to be the issue with content unless you believe there will be a flood of Blu-Rays available at the same time....will be doubtful IMHO..... the way I see it there will be plenty of Blu-Rays available come the end of 2016 with both Atmos and DTS:X to choose from.. That will be a good time frame for me to upgrade. I will enjoy DSU and Atmos till then.... I do agree that if you are itching to up grade and are not one of the early adopters waiting till after the March DTS:X announcement should be a better to wait and will give you a better idea on speaker placement if it's going to be different then Atmos..
> I'm an early adopter and glad I did! both Atmos and DSU are a listening joy, come the end of 2016 I will be ready to upgrade.. then I'll start a new journey with both DTS:X and Atmos to choose from just my $.02



So after about 5 months since Atmos discussions first appeared in this forum, we have a million posts on AVS and elsewhere, and a massive grand total of 6 commercially available English langugage Atmos BR discs... I think the adoption rate outside of hobbyist forums like AVS and the like is a big zero...

My neighbour still puts all Five of his surround speakers on the front console and his subwoofer is kept in his cupboard, with a box of teacups on top of it .. and of course he plays BR discs in lossless sound no less...


----------



## lovingdvd

petetherock said:


> So after about 5 months since Atmos discussions first appeared in this forum, we have a million posts on AVS and elsewhere, and a massive grand total of 6 commercially available English langugage Atmos BR discs... I think the adoption rate outside of hobbyist forums like AVS and the like is a big zero...
> 
> My neighbour still puts all Five of his surround speakers on the front console and his subwoofer is kept in his cupboard, with a box of teacups on top of it .. and of course he plays BR discs in lossless sound no less...


I agree and its frustrating there aren't more titles available. However what many people say is that it is the upmixing of Atmos on any standard soundtrack that they really seem to be enjoying. Plus they are positioned to enjoy the specific Atmos and new format tracks as they become available.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> I agree and its frustrating there aren't more titles available. However what many people say is that it is the upmixing of Atmos on any standard soundtrack that they really seem to be enjoying. Plus they are positioned to enjoy the specific Atmos and new format tracks as they become available.


DSU should be a good tied me over, but actual Atmos and DTS:X titles, depending on the quality of the mixes, should be much better. That's really what we want.


----------



## wse

Rain scenes in movies for DSU, ATMOS or AURO 3D

_- __The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 
- Spiderman 
- Jurassic Park
- The Matrix Revolutions
- Hero
- Se7en
- Saving Private Ryan
- Forest Gump
- Walk Amongst the tombstones
- The Shawshank Redemption
- The Grand Master
- The Last Samurai
- Cyborg
- Noah
- Unforgiven
- __The Day After Tomorrow 
- __Singin’ in the rain
_


----------



## lovingdvd

wse said:


> Rain scenes in movies for DSU, ATMOS or AURO 3D
> 
> _- __The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> - Spiderman
> - Jurassic Park
> - The Matrix Revolutions
> - Hero
> - Se7en
> - Saving Private Ryan
> - Forest Gump
> - Walk Amongst the tombstones
> - The Shawshank Redemption
> - The Grand Master
> - The Last Samurai
> - Cyborg
> - Noah
> - Unforgiven
> - __The Day After Tomorrow
> - __Singin’ in the rain
> _


Haven't experienced this yet. Can you try to describe what it sounds like and what makes this so cool? (Beyond "awesome!"  ). I'm planning for an Atmos and/or DTS:X set up and can't wait.


----------



## wse

lovingdvd said:


> Haven't experienced this yet. Can you try to describe what it sounds like and what makes this so cool? (Beyond "awesome!"  ). I'm planning for an Atmos and/or DTS:X set up and can't wait.


it sounds like you are under the rain


----------



## lovingdvd

wse said:


> it sounds like you are under the rain


Under it, or in it?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> DSU should be a good tied me over, but actual Atmos and DTS:X titles, depending on the quality of the mixes, should be much better. That's really what we want.


Yes, just like true discrete unprocessed/uncompressed Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (or DTS-HD MA 7.1) audio.
...As compared to (instead of) DD+ into up-mixed DTS Neo:X or stereo PCM into Dolby Pro Logic IIz or DTHD 5.1 into Theater Dimensional audio mode. 
...Some' like that anyway. ,,,The real deal what. We don't buy an up-mixer we buy a decoder. ...And no matter how good the up-mixer is. 

________

Yamaha is full of DSP effects' generator, and trifield and quadfield cinema and music mode. ...And they have tons of parameters that you can manually adjust for all the fun in the world, and with four high elevated Presence channels. I know so, I still have some of that. 
Plus their algorithms are based on real world venues from careful recordings and measurements, and all integrated on powerful and sophisticated chips of high resolution. ...Digital, without pumping effect, just a bit of digital delay to accurately reproduce the hall's, churche's, jazz cabaret's, blues alley's reverbs of the most famous places around the globe. ...The acoustic space/atmosphere of those famous venues. 

Rain, from DSU; did they measure it? When you're outside on a rainy day do you hear the raindrops falling from the sky above your head or on the umbrellas' tops around you, @ about six to twelve inches above your head when holding yourself one of them umbrellas, and if the viewer happens to be the cameraman's intended target to be under that specific umbrella, you? ...And on the adjacent buildings nearby with aluminum rooftops. ...On the asphalt streets and sidewalks below your feet. 

Ok, a jet plane 30,000-40,000 feet above; that is realistic from those overhead speakers, or choppers few hundred feet above. 
But if it is truly discrete, intentionally put there as an object rendition in that specific space by the sound mixer; that's all we ever wanted.
...With realistic/accurate/discrete/quality taste and artistic human creativity.


----------



## NorthSky

Ok, I'm sure that rain sounds real cool in DSU 7.2.4 than in DTS Neo:X 11.2 without above overhead speakers. 

Do I want to buy a new Atmos receiver for that? ...It depends; of who I am and what turns me on in life. ..Why not, and why not now. ...No problemo @ all. 
...And tomorrow it'll keep raining, and I won't miss tomorrow's rain. ...Just that today's rain is incomplete for me. ...But I don't truly know because I don't truly hear it.
/// Only people with Dolby Atmos (& DSU) receivers hear the complete rain, and they are the only ones that truly know because they experience it right now in their own homes; the rain falling from the sky inside their living rooms and home theater rooms. 

And tomorrow we'll all join them under the rain, dancing all together and singing in the rain.


----------



## funhouse69

lovingdvd said:


> Haven't experienced this yet. Can you try to describe what it sounds like and what makes this so cool? (Beyond "awesome!"  ). I'm planning for an Atmos and/or DTS:X set up and can't wait.


Atmos is awesome with the specific sound placement, but with such limited content the real winner for me has been DSU utilizing my Ceiling Speakers. Every single movie that I've watched / re-watched has had some level of enhancement from DSU. Rain is a great example in Atmos John Wick has some really cool effects. 

Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, Star Trek, the two reboot Planets of the Apes are great. 

Atmos is very, very different than DSU, Atmos is specific placement of the sound that can move overhead or in whatever direction. Like a helicopter or even the echo of a gunshot or explosion. 

DSU - Expands the Sound Stage in a very different way. I'd say much more spacious but can even have that 3D feel for things like rain (in Jurasic Park or Into the Storm) There is some kind of magic sauce that DSU uses to direct certain frequencies to the top speakers and so far I can't think of any movie that I've watched with DSU that I haven't found more enjoyable. 

Keep in mind that I only have a 5.1.4 system with no Front / Back Height or Wide Speakers. I believe that people that have a 7.1 system might not feel that the upgrade is as dramatic but still seem to like it (from what I've been reading). 

As always this is very subjective, everyone has their own likes / dislikes and for some "Purest" they might hate DSU?


----------



## Tiki Steve

I asked this on the Pioneer elite speaker review, but I'll ask here also.
With a "up firing" atmos speaker set up, would it still work if there is a ceiling fan, or even a light fixture?


----------



## funhouse69

Tiki Steve said:


> I asked this on the Pioneer elite speaker review, but I'll ask hear also.
> With a "up firing" atmos speaker set up, would it still work if there is a ceiling fan, or even a light fixture?


Well since up-firing speakers depend on reflection I would imagine that the ceiling fan could distort with the sound (imagine talking in to a fan) and make placement pretty tricky. The same could go for a light fixture. Both would depend in their location relative to the MLP and the Up Firing Speakers.


----------



## Tiki Steve

funhouse69 said:


> Well since up-firing speakers depend on reflection I would imagine that the ceiling fan could distort with the sound (imagine talking in to a fan) and make placement pretty tricky. The same could go for a light fixture. Both would depend in their location relative to the MLP and the Up Firing Speakers.


 
Yes, that was what I was worried about. 
Would like to go "Atmos" but if it requires a obstruction free ceiling that is going to really limit where it can be placed.
I live in a old farm house, which has nice high ceilings but all the rooms have a ceiling mounted light, and my "theater room" has a ceiling fan.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Gurba said:


> To all: If Your current atmos avr could be updated to DTS:X by sacrifying DSU, would you do it?


In a heartbeat. Having today finally heard a full tilt Atmos mix (not just the demo discs) that takes full advantage of the height capabilities (Expendables III), it is such a day and night different experience. And what DSU adds over and above my current 7.1 sound is so marginal, that I am quite happy to await to use the height speakers only when real height-mixed content is available.


----------



## ThePrisoner

My fingers are crossed hoping for Warner Bros. to announce a street date for American Sniper and include the Dolby Atmos mix since it did win an Oscar for best sound editing.


----------



## petetherock

wse said:


> Rain scenes in movies for DSU, ATMOS or AURO 3D
> 
> _- __The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> - Spiderman
> - Jurassic Park
> - The Matrix Revolutions
> - Hero
> - Se7en
> - Saving Private Ryan
> - Forest Gump
> - Walk Amongst the tombstones
> - The Shawshank Redemption
> - The Grand Master
> - The Last Samurai
> - Cyborg
> - Noah
> - Unforgiven
> - __The Day After Tomorrow
> - __Singin’ in the rain
> _


Great list no doubt and I have heard some in my own Atmos setup, but it will be a shame if all the Atmos is good for is a few helicopter flybys and some rainy scenes... I am still waiting for a few good show that utilises those Atmos speakers properly to add the ambiance. 

30 days of Night, The Cave, and Twister come to mind..


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> With a 9.4.4 setup in that room size, I am not sure how and where I will place the side surrounds as I only have a couple/few feet of space on either side of the sofa/couch. That is why I was wondering if I can place the side and back surrounds above ear-level to offset the close distance from the main listening position and the front wides at ear-level (same height as the front mains). If I do end up placing the front wides at ear-level (same height as the front mains) and the side and back surrounds above ear-level, won't that upset panning effects that go from, say, front left to side left to back left to back right to side right to front right? The sound would change "height" in-between the panning.


Ideally you'd want all the listener level speakers at ear level. But most people find this is difficult to achieve for various reasons. Just get them as close as you can and you will be fine. My surrounds are above ear level here - they have to be or they would be blocked by listeners in the other seats and/or the seat backs themselves - but I don't notice any problems when listening. It's more important to get good angular separation between the surrounds and the overheads IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> So after about 5 months since Atmos discussions first appeared in this forum, we have a million posts on AVS and elsewhere, and a massive grand total of 6 commercially available English langugage Atmos BR discs... I think the adoption rate outside of hobbyist forums like AVS and the like is a big zero...


Yes, like anything new it will take time to get established in the mainstream. It won't be long before all the main manufacturers of AVRs offer Atmos capability across most, if not all, of their range and that mayl encourage people to consider using it. 

But who cares what the adoption rate is in the outside world anyway? I'd say that 5.1 is only adopted by less than 1% of the general population (just a guess) - does that mean that we shouldn't bother with it either? I never understand the logic of that argument.


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> I agree and its frustrating there aren't more titles available. However what many people say is that it is the upmixing of Atmos on any standard soundtrack that they really seem to be enjoying. Plus they are positioned to enjoy the specific Atmos and new format tracks as they become available.


Exactly it. DSU works very well with all discs. And Atmos discs will come through in time. There's no real downside to being an early Atmos adopter (although now we are so close, it seems, to DTS:X, I think the advice to hold off till March is good for those who still haven’t jumped).


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> Under it, or in it?


Well, you don't get wet


----------



## kbarnes701

funhouse69 said:


> Atmos is awesome with the specific sound placement, but with such limited content the real winner for me has been DSU utilizing my Ceiling Speakers. Every single movie that I've watched / re-watched has had some level of enhancement from DSU. Rain is a great example in Atmos John Wick has some really cool effects.
> 
> Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, Star Trek, the two reboot Planets of the Apes are great.
> 
> Atmos is very, very different than DSU, Atmos is specific placement of the sound that can move overhead or in whatever direction. Like a helicopter or even the echo of a gunshot or explosion.
> 
> DSU - Expands the Sound Stage in a very different way. I'd say much more spacious but can even have that 3D feel for things like rain (in Jurasic Park or Into the Storm) There is some kind of magic sauce that DSU uses to direct certain frequencies to the top speakers and so far I can't think of any movie that I've watched with DSU that I haven't found more enjoyable.
> 
> Keep in mind that I only have a 5.1.4 system with no Front / Back Height or Wide Speakers. I believe that people that have a 7.1 system might not feel that the upgrade is as dramatic but still seem to like it (from what I've been reading).
> 
> As always this is very subjective, everyone has their own likes / dislikes and for some "Purest" they might hate DSU?


Your experience reflects my own 100%. I would not want to be without DSU now, even if there was never another Atmos disc released.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> In a heartbeat. Having today finally heard a full tilt Atmos mix (not just the demo discs) that takes full advantage of the height capabilities (Expendables III), it is such a day and night different experience. And what DSU adds over and above my current 7.1 sound is so marginal, that I am quite happy to await to use the height speakers only when real height-mixed content is available.


But if you did that, Roger, you'd have 7 Atmos movies right now and zero DTS:X movies. If there were more Atmos movies and even some DTS:X movies, I might agree with you, but as things stand I am finding DSU is a very worthwhile improvement here. Hopefully, this will all soon be moot as more Atmos movies become available on disc and we discover the DTS:X rollout plans.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Great list no doubt and I have heard some in my own Atmos setup, but it will be a shame if all the Atmos is good for is a few helicopter flybys and some rainy scenes... I am still waiting for a few good show that utilises those Atmos speakers properly to add the ambiance.
> 
> 30 days of Night, The Cave, and Twister come to mind..


My experience is that DSU works very well in any scene where you'd expect some sound from overhead. *Twister* is a good example and the scene right at the beginning of the movie exemplifies this. *The Descent* is a good example which doesn't rely on rain storms or helicopters - DSU expands the sound stage to include reflections from above in the cave scenes, where appropriate, and this really does add to the feeling of "being there". The 'Riddles in the Dark" scene in the Hobbit movie is another good example, where the cave sounds considerably bigger when DSU is engaged.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, you don't get wet


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> My experience is that DSU works very well in any scene where you'd expect some sound from overhead. *Twister* is a good example and the scene right at the beginning of the movie exemplifies this. *The Descent* is a good example which doesn't rely on rain storms or helicopters - DSU expands the sound stage to include reflections from above in the cave scenes, where appropriate, and this really does add to the feeling of "being there". The 'Riddles in the Dark" scene in the Hobbit movie is another good example, where the cave sounds considerably bigger when DSU is engaged.


Keith, did you know that DSU is not just about the overheads?

Although I wish Dolby would expand usage to the FW, I appreciate DSU's matrixing on 2.0/5.1 sources to my other listener-level speakers as well.


----------



## robert816

Tiki Steve said:


> Yes, that was what I was worried about.
> Would like to go "Atmos" but if it requires a obstruction free ceiling that is going to really limit where it can be placed.
> I live in a old farm house, which has nice high ceilings but all the rooms have a ceiling mounted light, and my "theater room" has a ceiling fan.


I have a ceiling fan and it doesn't seem to causing any issues with my system. I'm using KEF speakers to reflect off the ceiling.

If your fan is not in the path (so to speak) of where the sound would reflect off the ceiling, then it should not be an issue.

Nice thing about Atmos is that you have options, if reflecting is not viable, hang them from the ceiling, or mount in ceiling,
or high on walls and aim toward the MLP, or if not needed, remove the fan. There are a lot of ways to make Atmos work.


----------



## Frank714

Roger Dressler said:


> ... And what DSU adds over and above my *current 7.1 sound* is so marginal, that I am quite happy to await to use the height speakers only when real height-mixed content is available.





kbarnes701 said:


> ... as things stand I am finding DSU is a very worthwhile improvement *here*.


Thanks to Roger Dressler I feel less like an idiot. In the meantime (I already had my speakers relocated to what I can call in good confidence a 7.1.4 reference setup - speaker quality notwithstanding) I did the acoustic improvements of my room and the full 8 point room acoustic calibration with my Marantz SR 7009's Audyssey.

Thanks to the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc (August 2014) trailers (e.g. _Amaze_ and _Leaf_) I detected that my front top speakers' levels were apparently too low (the soundfield emphasis was towards the back) and re-did my personal listening tests:

Native 2.0 film content Dolby Surround Upmixed sounds close to discrete 5.1, an audible improvement I get never tired to mention.

Native 7.1 film content Dolby Surround Upmixed just adds a subtle / marginal layer of spaciousness. Compared to native DTS-HD 7.1 or Dolby TrueHD playback on my* 7.1 speakers *I wouldn't loose sleep if I had forgotten to select "DTS-HD + Dolby Surround" (= DSU) with my remote control.

Dolby Atmos content gave the top speakers some extra native signals, but I didn't really experience the 3D "bubble effect" the Dolby engineers got so excited about on the DA demo Blu-ray (e.g. in the _Amaze_ trailer we see raindrops falling onto the camera lens / coming at the audience, but other than a curtain of raindrops _around_ the main listening position I didn't get the urge to shield my face from these raindrops or grab a swatter to chase away Amazon insects that seemed to keep their distance towards MLP). 

In the Dolby Surround Upmixing thread I couldn't help but wonder whether DSU actually does its *little "wonders" in 5.1.X* speaker setup configurations, where the extra overhead speakers now "adopt" effects from the back surround channels and help to create a three-dimensionality, which - however - owners of 7.1 speaker setups already have experienced with standard DTS-HD and/or Dolby TrueHD 7.1.


----------



## Movie78

wse said:


> Rain scenes in movies for DSU, ATMOS or AURO 3D
> 
> _- __The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> - Spiderman
> - Jurassic Park
> - The Matrix Revolutions
> - Hero
> - Se7en
> - Saving Private Ryan
> - Forest Gump
> - Walk Amongst the tombstones
> - The Shawshank Redemption
> - The Grand Master
> - The Last Samurai
> - Cyborg
> - Noah
> - Unforgiven
> - __The Day After Tomorrow
> - __Singin’ in the rain
> _


I just saw your build.

Incredible!!!!


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Ok, I'm sure that rain sounds real cool in DSU 7.2.4 than in DTS Neo:X 11.2 without above overhead speakers.
> 
> Do I want to buy a new Atmos receiver for that? ...It depends; of who I am and what turns me on in life. ..Why not, and why not now. ...No problemo @ all.
> ...And tomorrow it'll keep raining, and I won't miss tomorrow's rain. ...Just that today's rain is incomplete for me. ...But I don't truly know because I don't truly hear it.
> /// Only people with Dolby Atmos (& DSU) receivers hear the complete rain, and they are the only ones that truly know because they experience it right now in their own homes; the rain falling from the sky inside their living rooms and home theater rooms.
> 
> And tomorrow we'll all join them under the rain, dancing all together and singing in the rain.


Real Poetry!

I like your point of view.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Any good? :nerd:


Are you talking about LPCM 5.1 Cantonese Audio or Dubbed English Dolby 5.1 for " House of Flying Daggers"


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Keith, did you know that DSU is not just about the overheads?


It is here!



chi_guy50 said:


> Although I wish Dolby would expand usage to the FW, I appreciate DSU's matrixing on 2.0/5.1 sources to my other listener-level speakers as well.


Yes, I do sometimes have an occasional 2.0 track on a movie and DSU upmixes it very well to ALL my speakers


----------



## roxiedog13

petetherock said:


> Great list no doubt and I have heard some in my own Atmos setup, but it will be a shame if all the Atmos is good for is a few helicopter flybys and some rainy scenes... I am still waiting for a few good show that utilises those Atmos speakers properly to add the ambiance.
> 
> 30 days of Night, The Cave, and Twister come to mind..


Into the Storm, Planet of the Apes and Fury all really good examples for DSU as well. I agree though, only 6 Atmos movies for North America, 13 overall if you could Amazon Japan offerings .
None of the official Atmos movies are really fantastic and I mean the audio, forget the story portion. So far I have enjoyed DSU more, certainly the subtle approach using , rain, thunder, hail, wind etc. The Michael Bay approach is over-the-top  excuse the pun.

I have the movie Canopy to watch tonight, just arrived in the mail from down under. Took three weeks to arrive, no surprise there. Will report back tomorrow how this Blu-Ray sounds with DSU.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

Tiki Steve said:


> Yes, that was what I was worried about.
> Would like to go "Atmos" but if it requires a obstruction free ceiling that is going to really limit where it can be placed.
> I live in a old farm house, which has nice high ceilings but all the rooms have a ceiling mounted light, and my "theater room" has a ceiling fan.


I have an 11 foot ceiling with a 68 inch ceiling fan. I used in-ceiling speakers for TF and TR but managed to position the TF speakers so that the ceiling fan was not between the line of sight of the TF speakers and MLP. I've tried multiple Atmos clips with fan on versus fan off and cannot tell that there's any difference whatsoever. However, if the the fan was between the TF and MLP's line of sight it seems like it would have to have a negative effect.


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> No - I don't have Auro. I couldn’t see the point in adding it to my Denon, given there is very little native content for it and also my speaker layout is not really suitable for it, which would make any conclusions unfair. Also, from what I have read, *Auromatic (the equivalent of DSU) is more or less a glorified "all speaker stereo" system*, so I can't really imagine me liking it much. HST, I haven't heard it, and am unlikely to, so I have never commented on how Auro may sound. I restrict my remarks to the technological aspects of it, or the commercial reality of its likelihood to succeed long term in today's marketplace, dominated as it is by Dolby and DTS, two of the most formidable companies in the field with huge money behind them.


I did upgrade to Auro 3D and Auromatic (Marantz Pre Pro) and the bold comment above isn't consistent with my experience. In fact, I prefer Auromatic to DSU for M/C music with my Atmos positioned speakers. For movie up-mixing, I'd say each has strengths relative to the other but that comment is based upon a casual comparison with no channel isolation tests. Both kick the ceiling speakers into gear and provide a more immersive HT experience IMHO.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Yes, just like true discrete unprocessed/uncompressed Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (or DTS-HD MA 7.1) audio.
> ...As compared to (instead of) DD+ into up-mixed DTS Neo:X or stereo PCM into Dolby Pro Logic IIz or DTHD 5.1 into Theater Dimensional audio mode.
> ...Some' like that anyway. ,,,The real deal what. _*We don't buy an up-mixer we buy a decoder. ...And no matter how good the up-mixer is. *_


While you are certainly free to express your opinion, and you do, you state "*we* don't buy an upmixer". That is exactly what I bought. There were 2 or 3 Atmos BR titles when I decided to go Atmos but moved forward strictly on the comments so many made about how great DSU really is. (And it is much better than I imagined). So maybe *you* don't buy upmixers (but then how would you know you don't want to do that since you have not heard one in your home?) but at least some of us moved forward knowing exactly what we were buying into.

________





> Rain, from DSU; did they measure it? When you're outside on a rainy day do you hear the raindrops falling from the sky above your head or on the umbrellas' tops around you, @ about six to twelve inches above your head when holding yourself one of them umbrellas, and if the viewer happens to be the cameraman's intended target to be under that specific umbrella, you? ...And on the adjacent buildings nearby with aluminum rooftops. ...On the asphalt streets and sidewalks below your feet.


They probably "measured it" the same way they "measured" planes crashing into buildings - or bombs exploding - or ships crashing into giant creatures - or dinosaurs crushing humans with their feet. 



> Ok, a jet plane 30,000-40,000 feet above; that is realistic from those overhead speakers, or choppers few hundred feet above.
> But if it is truly discrete, intentionally put there as an object rendition in that specific space by the sound mixer; that's all _*we*_ ever wanted.
> ...With realistic/accurate/discrete/quality taste and artistic human creativity.


Bob: your cynicism is showing. You admit you don't have a system with Atmos/DSU but you freely critique it and highly recommend folks not dive in yet.

You are probably old enough to remember the very early days of stereo - or of Quad. Many of the early stereo recordings, even for classical music, had the instruments hard left and hard right. Go listen to many of the early RCA classical recordings. And instruments and voices jumping around (the "ping pong" effect). Quad was no different. So why would you have expectations that right out of the gate that Atmos would have it all figured out? They don't but they will. So until they do and until more worthwhile BD's are released with well done Atmos, WE get to enjoy DSU.


----------



## Al Sherwood

I now realize why every body is so down on DSU and Atmos... we are page *666* of this thread, get posting *QUICK!*


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> None of the official Atmos movies are really fantastic and I mean the audio, forget the story portion.


Transcendence is very good. And John Wick.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> I did upgrade to Auro 3D and Auromatic (Marantz Pre Pro) and the bold comment above isn't consistent with my experience. In fact, I prefer Auromatic to DSU for M/C music with my Atmos positioned speakers. For movie up-mixing, I'd say each has strengths relative to the other but that comment is based upon a casual comparison with no channel isolation tests. Both kick the ceiling speakers into gear and provide a more immersive HT experience IMHO.


I was really commenting on how it works rather than what it sounds like. I haven't heard Auro or Auromatic, and am unlikely to do so.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Transcendence is very good. And John Wick.


Try John Wick's extended rain scene near the end of the movie with DSU. The rain sound is clearly added to the height speakers. But I leaned forward momentarily any that caused a weird comb filtering effect. That tells me DSU neglects to decorrelate the extracted ambience sounds. Perhaps they forgot that when uncorrelated material is duplicated to more speakers, it isn't uncorrelated anymore. I added 5ms delay to the rear height pair and that helped a lot. I did not notice that problem with the real Atmos content, but I could not compare this scene with John Wick in Atmos as I only had the lame rental disc with a 5.1 mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Try John Wick's extended rain scene near the end of the movie with DSU. The rain sound us clearly added to the height speakers. But I leaned forward momentarily any that caused a weird comb filtering effect. That tells me DSU neglects to decorrelate the extracted ambience sounds. Perhaps they forgot that when decorrelated material is duplicated to more speakers, it isn't decorrelated anymore. I added 5ms delay to the rear height pair and that helped a lot. I did not notice that problem with the real Atmos content, but I could not compare this scene with John Wick in Atmos as I only had the lame rental disc with a 5.1 mix.


I will give it a try. I can send PCM from my BD player and then use DSU on the disc.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Transcendence is very good. And John Wick.


The rain scene in John Wick was great no doubt, you would swear that rain was falling in the room . The rain scenes in Planet of the Apes was just as good in DSU as I recall .
The opening scene from Into the Storm has the best rolling thunder , I caught myself looking up a couple of times just like I do in real life. 

I watched Trancendence on a flight, so you know how that sounded. I actually liked that movie, would like to see/hear that one in Atmos to be honest. That one is only available 
from Amazon Japan in Atmos , correct?


----------



## BigScreen

aaranddeeman said:


> Lot many people are not aware of the CL2/CL3 requirements or they become aware after the fact, i.e. once the wire has already gone in (or may be after few years of use). What does one do in such a situation? Abandon whatever has been done and use new set of cables? But how do you prove (in an unfortunate fire situation) that you were not using them etc. etc.
> Would the county inspector (in US, assuming you are finishing your basement and doing HT there), point out and ask for correction if he sees the plastic crap running all over? Or he is not liable?


The first step is awareness, and then it becomes a decision about what to do about it. If it were possible to do, I would probably replace the wiring. If it's not possible or practical, then I would do the best I could to mitigate the risks.

I've found that building inspectors vary on what they pay attention to. Some don't catch things like the CL ratings on wires, while others might fixate on it. A lot depends on what they've run into problems with in the past and/or pet peeves. In the end, my understanding is they have no liability after the fact. Ultimately, it's the homeowner's responsibility to make sure that everything is done safely by either knowing about it themselves or hiring people who do.

As far as the insurance/liability issues go, all it takes is for a fire marshal or insurance adjuster to see that the fire went from one space to another and he/she then goes looking for why. If he finds evidence that non fire-rated wire was used and it could have been the reason for the fire spreading, all eyes are going to be on the homeowner. I'd rather not be the guy who lost his stuff and isn't covered by insurance, much less the target of litigation from my neighbor whose home was damaged as well.

Is it worth it to do the right thing?


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> The rain scene in John Wick was great no doubt, you would swear that rain was falling in the room . The rain scenes in Planet of the Apes was just as good in DSU as I recall .
> The opening scene from Into the Storm has the best rolling thunder , I caught myself looking up a couple of times just like I do in real life.
> 
> I watched Trancendence on a flight, so you know how that sounded. I actually liked that movie, would like to see/hear that one in Atmos to be honest. That one is only available
> from Amazon Japan in Atmos , correct?


IDK about "only" but that is where I got mine from. It has a great Atmos mix and really good use of the overheads, and not for rain, helicopters and so on either


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Ok, I'm sure that rain sounds real cool in DSU 7.2.4 than in DTS Neo:X 11.2 without above overhead speakers.
> 
> Do I want to buy a new Atmos receiver for that? ...It depends; of who I am and what turns me on in life. ..Why not, and why not now. ...No problemo @ all.
> ...And tomorrow it'll keep raining, and I won't miss tomorrow's rain. ...Just that today's rain is incomplete for me. ...But I don't truly know because I don't truly hear it.
> /// Only people with Dolby Atmos (& DSU) receivers hear the complete rain, and they are the only ones that truly know because they experience it right now in their own homes; the rain falling from the sky inside their living rooms and home theater rooms.
> 
> And tomorrow we'll all join them under the rain, dancing all together and singing in the rain.


I'm just not clear on what you are on about. {But I don't truly know because I don't truly hear it.} You wouldn't hear it because you don't have an Atmos receiver, let's hope by the end of 2016 you will. Then you'll know how gloriously DSU and Atmos and DTS:X sound will be heard in your shire. 
Next week Mocking Jay can't wait March will have three new Atmos Blu-Rays and hopefully DTS:X announcement will be clear to me on speaker placement. I was about to install two new ceiling speakers but I held off for mow till the DTS:X announcement.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I'm just not clear on what you are on about.


It's OK - neither does anyone else.  



bargervais said:


> You wouldn't hear it because you don't have an Atmos receiver, let's hope by the end of 2016 you will. Then you'll know how gloriously DSU and Atmos and DTS:X sound will be heard in your shire.


I find the best thing to do when people who don't have any hands-on experience spout their putative words of wisdom, is to Ignore them. Works a treat and really reduces your S/N ratio, which as you know, is always a good idea in the AV world 



bargervais said:


> Next week Mocking Jay can't wait March will have three new Atmos Blu-Rays and hopefully DTS:X announcement will be clear to me on speaker placement. I was about to install two new ceiling speakers but I held off for mow till the DTS:X announcement.


Yes, it's exciting times we are in. I share your (hands-on) experience and enthusiasm.


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> /// Only people with Dolby Atmos (& DSU) receivers hear the complete rain, and they are the only ones that truly know because they experience it right now in their own homes; the rain falling from the sky inside their living rooms and home theater rooms.



It struck me the other day - in the real world outside on the street in from of my house, I hear ZERO rain from above. The sound of the rain is coming from _below_ as it hits the ground, the car, the garbage can, the boat... So the sound of rain coming from above my MLP is not accurate (unless I was in a forest and the rain was hitting the leaves above me). But while watching a movie, my mind is fooled and it seems realistic. Even knowing this, I don't care - it's a very enjoyable effect and experience.  The sound of the door shutting in Maze Runner echoing upwards is incredible. I never would have had the same experience from Audyssey/Neo:X. DSU for President!



funhouse69 said:


> I believe that people that have a 7.1 system might not feel that the upgrade is as dramatic but still seem to like it (from what I've been reading).



I had 11.1 before redoing things for 7.2.4. I feel it the time and effort were totally worth it. Between lowering my surrounds and adding the overheads, I can definitely tell a difference.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK about "only" but that is where I got mine from. It has a great Atmos mix and really good use of the overheads, and not for rain, helicopters and so on either


You bought Trancendence from where , not sure what IDK about"only" is ?

I just ordered my mic from MiniDSP, will have to set up REW now on a laptop and get familiar with that .


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It's OK - neither does anyone else.


Rats, you beat me to it!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> It struck me the other day - in the real world outside on the street in from of my house, I hear ZERO rain from above. The sound of the rain is coming from _below_ as it hits the ground, the car, the garbage can, the boat... So the sound of rain coming from above my MLP is not accurate (unless I was in a forest and the rain was hitting the leaves above me). But while watching a movie, my mind is fooled and it seems realistic. Even knowing this, I don't care - it's a very enjoyable effect and experience.  The sound of the door shutting in Maze Runner echoing upwards is incredible. I never would have had the same experience from Audyssey/Neo:X. DSU for President!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had 11.1 before redoing things for 7.2.4. I feel it the time and effort were totally worth it. Between lowering my surrounds and adding the overheads, I can definitely tell a difference.


Except for the rain hitting the roof/ or if you are in an open space with a ceiling that picks up reflected sound/ or rain hitting the leaves in the trees above you. Though I wonder if floor speakers might become a technology to reproduce noise coming from the ground... for true 360 degree sound?


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> You bought Trancendence from where , not sure what IDK about"only" is ?
> 
> I just ordered my mic from MiniDSP, will have to set up REW now on a laptop and get familiar with that .


I don't know if Japan is the only place you can buy Transcendence in Atmos - it's where I bought my copy though 

Don't forget to read Jerry's Guide before you do anything.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Rats, you beat me to it!


My BS Detector has just been serviced and calibrated so it's probably picking up a little faster than yours right now, that's all


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> Ideally you'd want all the listener level speakers at ear level. But most people find this is difficult to achieve for various reasons. Just get them as close as you can and you will be fine. My surrounds are above ear level here - they have to be or they would be blocked by listeners in the other seats and/or the seat backs themselves - but I don't notice any problems when listening. It's more important to get good angular separation between the surrounds and the overheads IMO.


Thanks. If I must place the side surround speakers above ear-level, should I also place the back surround speakers at the same height (as the side surround speakers) even though I could place the back surround speakers at ear-level? I am assuming yes because all surround speakers should be at the same height?


----------



## SoundChex

Aras_Volodka said:


> Except for the rain hitting the roof/ or if you are in an open space with a ceiling that picks up reflected sound/ or rain hitting the leaves in the trees above you. *Though I wonder if floor speakers might become a technology to reproduce noise coming from the ground... for true 360 degree sound?*




In a June 1, 2011, *TVBEurope com* article "*From SBE: NHK tests SHV on live sports*" (_link_):



> _"Indoor figure skating was NHK’s first attempt at live mixing of a sport. Since 24 speakers are required in a 22.2 multichannel sound system, an equivalent or greater number of microphones needed arraying. This included microphones in the ceiling, directional microphones along the rink *and even under the ice – using in-ice microphones developed by NHK STRL for the Nagano 1998 Winter Olympics.*"_















_And remember that channel based *22.2* is still in play as one of several "optional" broadcast audio formats under consideration for support in the forthcoming *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System*...?!_


_


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Clearly Fox doesn't want anything to do with Atmos

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/339064-tcfhe-press-release-taken-3-blu-ray/

"Audio:	English 5.1 DTS-HD-MA
Spanish 5.1 DD
French 5.1 DD"

For a movie that was pushed by Dolby so much, it's a shame...


----------



## sdurani

SteveTheGeek said:


> Clearly Fox doesn't want anything to do with Atmos


Only when it comes to BD. But for theatrical mixes, they're one of the biggest supporters of Atmos. Same schizophrenia at Disney/Pixar.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Only when it comes to BD. But for theatrical mixes, they're one of the biggest supporters of Atmos. Same schizophrenia at Disney/Pixar.


This trend of Atmos BD support being tightly restricted to only specific studios is really disturbing. The old apologist arguments of "it's too early, the studios didn't have the gear installed in time but the floodgates are about to open since it's super lickity split easy to port the theatrical Atmos mix to BD" can no longer be used. It's feeling like there's fire behind the smoke of speculation from some here that certain studios are waiting for DTS due to some backroom dealing. 

At this point we are seeing quite a few major Atmos theatrical releases -- the exact ones which should be so easy to just plop onto the BD -- being released in DTS-HD/MA channel format for home. We're past the point of coincidence, certain studios are just refusing to play ball for some reason. It's a real bummer because there have been some good Atmos flicks that aren't getting the proper home treatment.

Shoot, at this point the consensus best "real" Atmos mix -- John Wick -- wasn't even released in Atmos in the theater!

It would not surprise me if we see certain studios commiting to DTS:X for object audio home release and others using Atmos. The "it's harder to remix since the Atmos mix is already done" argument doesn't really hold water. As you already pointed out it shouldn't be that hard to translate one object audio format metadata to another in principle, plus we know that most movies are getting remixed for home anyway.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

batpig said:


> This trend of Atmos BD support being tightly restricted to only specific studios is really disturbing. The old apologist arguments of "it's too early, the studios didn't have the gear installed in time but the floodgates are about to open since it's super lickity split easy to port the theatrical Atmos mix to BD" can no longer be used. It's feeling like there's fire behind the smoke of speculation from some here that certain studios are waiting for DTS due to some backroom dealing.
> 
> At this point we are seeing quite a few major Atmos theatrical releases -- the exact ones which should be so easy to just plop onto the BD -- being released in DTS-HD/MA channel format for home. We're past the point of coincidence, certain studios are just refusing to play ball for some reason. It's a real bummer because there have been some good Atmos flicks that aren't getting the proper home treatment.
> 
> Shoot, at this point the consensus best "real" Atmos mix -- John Wick -- wasn't even released in Atmos in the theater!
> 
> It would not surprise me if we see certain studios commiting to DTS:X for object audio home release and others using Atmos. The "it's harder to remix since the Atmos mix is already done" argument doesn't really hold water. As you already pointed out it shouldn't be that hard to translate one object audio format metadata to another in principle, plus we know that most movies are getting remixed for home anyway.


Yeah I meant on BD indeed, as Taken 3 was in Atmos in theater and promoted heavily by Dolby themselves.

I agree that it feels like DTS secured some studios to be aligned with their tech...

At this point, what I feel sad about is we'll have to wait for double dips of those movies (Hobbit, Night At The Museum 3, Taken 3) if they ever appear...

I feel it's Dolby not doing their commercial job correctly on this... My honest feeling only...


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It's feeling like there's fire behind the smoke of speculation from some here that certain studios are waiting for DTS due to some backroom dealing.


IF that's what it takes to get those Atmos mixes off the shelf and into consumer hands, then I don't see that as a problem (maybe for Dolby, but not for consumers).


----------



## SteveTheGeek

sdurani said:


> IF that's what it takes to get those Atmos mixes off the shelf and into consumer hands, then I don't see that as a problem (maybe for Dolby, but not for consumers).


You're right, I don't either, as long as we don't miss all of those opportunities of movies that had an Atmos mix in theater but were released on Blu-ray before DTS:X was available...


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> IF that's what it takes to get those Atmos mixes off the shelf and into consumer hands, then I don't see that as a problem (maybe for Dolby, but not for consumers).


Long term, yes, absolutely. It will be no different now where some BD's have Dolby TrueHD and others have DTS-HD/MA -- I don't give a crap because my receiver has both decoders and either way I pop the Blu-ray in and enjoy. The format distinction is basically an irrelevancy for the end user, and that's almost certainly how the various object audio codecs will end up in the future once the dust settles.

Short term, it sucks to see some cool theatrical Atmos mixes being released as channel based BD's.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> In a heartbeat. Having today finally heard a full tilt Atmos mix (not just the demo discs) that takes full advantage of the height capabilities (Expendables III), it is such a day and night different experience. And what DSU adds over and above my current 7.1 sound is so marginal, that I am quite happy to await to use the height speakers only when real height-mixed content is available.


I disagree.

For many years, I had my Surround and Surround Back speakers mounted high on the walls above ear level. This is how I became used to hearing surround activity. Upon upgrading to Atmos, I had to move my surround speakers down to ear level and then add height channels above. The transition took some getting used to, but DSU is pretty effective in drawing music and ambient sounds from below up to the height channels. It basically extends the soundstage from floor to ceiling and fills the room with sound.

Over the weekend, I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in native Atmos. This is one of the Atmos mixes that notoriously has little to no height channel activity. Even the sound of a helicopter is dragged down to ear level. Although the track has aggressive action in the main Surrounds and Surround Backs, it has a big open dead space in the top half of the room, until the very infrequent discrete effects that draw attention to themselves and then vanish. I found it very distracting and annoying. The artificiality of the mix took me out of the movie repeatedly.

If that's what most native object-based mixes are going to sound like, I'd just as soon listen to 5.1/7.1 upmixed with DSU until sound mixers learn how to use the object formats to their potential. TMNT is essentially a locked 7.1 mix with half a dozen objects thrown in when the mixers realized, "Oh yeah, we should probably do something with those height channels, shouldn't we?"


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> And what DSU adds over and above my current 7.1 sound is so marginal...


Whether you like what it does or not, do you really find the difference that subtle?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks. If I must place the side surround speakers above ear-level, should I also place the back surround speakers at the same height (as the side surround speakers) even though I could place the back surround speakers at ear-level? I am assuming yes because all surround speakers should be at the same height?


That is how I would do it. I wouldn't sweat this too much - the more important thing is to have good separation between the listener level speakers and the overhead speakers, so that there is good differentiation between sounds coming from around you and sounds coming from above you. That's why the recommendation is to lower the surrounds to approximately ear level, if possible. If you have lowered them as much as you can, that is all you can do.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> IF that's what it takes to get those Atmos mixes off the shelf and into consumer hands, then I don't see that as a problem (maybe for Dolby, but not for consumers).


Yup. Competition is good for us consumers. Bring it on - DTS:X I mean. Once we have two competing formats, we can expect some real action.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I heard DTS:X at CES 2015.





NorthSky said:


> Any good? :nerd:





Movie78 said:


> Are you talking about LPCM 5.1 Cantonese Audio or Dubbed English Dolby 5.1 for " House of Flying Daggers"


I was replying to Scott in reference to DTS:X (3D sound wise). But Scott was being humorous (he did not hear DTS:X because there are no decoder yet for the general public in any products), and I too was replying to him with humor. 

♦ But yes; *'House of Flying Daggers'* should be listened in the original Mandarin language (LPCM 5.1 audio). 

________
________

* In roughly three weeks (or perhaps just a bit more; five or so), we should know more about the 3D audio format that many of us have been waiting for: *DTS:X*
And later this year we are going to see (hear) much more about Blu-ray movies with a DTS:X audio soundtrack, as this is the format which all the movie studios are going to support. Dolby Atmos won't die, and neither DSU; they'll be just similar to DolbyTrueHD 5.1 and 7.1 & Dolby Pro Logic IIx and IIz in comparison to DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 and 7.1 & DTS Neo:6 and Neo:X ...very simply and normally.

Within 18 to 24 months it will be business as usual, with DTS leading @ roughly 85% over Dolby @ 15% of all Blu-ray audio mixes. 
DSU will be a good attribute, like it is now, just that DTS's own upmixer will join the 3D surround force, and that DTS:X discrete decoder should see the support of all studios and real content appearing in much faster pace (quantity) than Dolby Atmos.
And with time and experience from the film sound mixers, quality 3D surround sound will invade our Blu-ray discs with those DTS:X audio mixes. 

There is no revolution from Dolby here, just normal evolution from both sound players; Dolby and dts. ...And with Dolby always the first one, and dts following roughly one year after. ...We all know that routine for many years, and it hasn't changed. 

But there is one thing that truly counts the most: It is the audio format adopted and supported by most movie studios.
And no one here in this thread, and above and beyond, needs anyone to spell it for them. 

We enjoy life now today, and tomorrow will take good care of itself. 
Everything we do now is good, and even better tomorrow. ...As long that we are doing things. ...And we do. ...We don't think about what's missing, we're living the good things. ...For today. ...And we all put our money where we want to @ anytime we feel like it or that it is accessible to dispose of @ the time we decide it's best for us. ...And that, it's the best for all of us. 

- The stock market; you buy low and sell high. When is the right time to do it? That's the game to play in trying to find out.
And the right time to invest has no definite time; we can invest @ anytime and it's a good time.
It's a cruel game though, because the people behind the doors are not honest and they don't think in ethics and in the benefit of all, but the greed of their own personal ego and selfishness. ...There is no good control in the stock market; it does not reflect solidity, foundation of true financial values. 

But I digress; Atmos and dts are not like the stock market, because time is not important only life is. 

|||| Did you guys watch *'Birdman'* on Blu-ray? ...Listen to the drummer.


----------



## audioguy

Roger: I rather expensively lowered my 4 surrounds from 71 inches to 49 inches and it greatly improved the the 3D-ness of the presentation (of both Atmos and DSU). If there is a way for you to try it without ripping up your room, I recommend you give it a try.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> That is how I would do it. I wouldn't sweat this too much - the more important thing is to have good separation between the listener level speakers and the overhead speakers, so that there is good differentiation between sounds coming from around you and sounds coming from above you. That's why the recommendation is to lower the surrounds to approximately ear level, if possible. If you have lowered them as much as you can, that is all you can do.


Thanks. Am I correct in assuming that if the surround speakers are too close to the main listening position when positioned at ear-level, increasing their height to above ear-level is a good idea?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> I was replying to Scott in reference to DTS:X (3D sound wise). But Scott was being humorous (he did not hear DTS:X because there are no decoder yet for the general public in any products), and I too was replying to him with humor.


Actually, I was being humorous with my "it was okay" comment but I think that missed you.

I _DID_ hear DTS:X at CES.


NorthSky said:


> "...because there is no decoder yet *for the general public*...."





NorthSky said:


> "...because there is no decoder yet *for the general public*...."


----------



## NorthSky

When you said _"it was ok"_ ... I fully believed you. 

Because, the DTS:X decoders they do exist; they are in an underground cavern heavily guarded by the armed military working for the CIA.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Whether you like what it does or not, do you really find the difference that subtle?


Yes. Certainly there are cases where it is obvious that the "spatial bubble" has become taller. But in the context of watching a movie, that occasional difference is of marginal value to me, especially in comparison to what discrete height signals can bring to the party (hence my vote for DTS:X to join the Atmos/Auro roster). 

As another contrast, when upmixing 5.1 to 7.1, be it with PLIIx or DSU, there are plenty of surround effects that steer clearly to the rear speakers. It isn't just the ambience and other uncorrelated content that the decoder places back there. But for height, there is no really good way for an upmixer to decide what direct sounds ought to be steered to the height speakers, so the safe and correct thing to do is just what Dolby did -- first do no harm.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> Over the weekend, I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in native Atmos. This is one of the Atmos mixes that notoriously has little to no height channel activity. Even the sound of a helicopter is dragged down to ear level. Although the track has aggressive action in the main Surrounds and Surround Backs, it has a big open dead space in the top half of the room, until the very infrequent discrete effects that draw attention to themselves and then vanish. I found it very distracting and annoying. The artificiality of the mix took me out of the movie repeatedly.


I'll bet that when this movie was mixed on the Technicolor stage, and heard in cinemas, no one felt the top half of the room was dead. Just like no one ever felt that way about 5.1 all these years. 



> If that's what most native object-based mixes are going to sound like, I'd just as soon listen to 5.1/7.1 upmixed with DSU until sound mixers learn how to use the object formats to their potential.


Or maybe we should do as the cinemas and dubbing stages do: leave the surrounds elevated as they were. 



> TMNT is essentially a locked 7.1 mix with half a dozen objects thrown in when the mixers realized, "Oh yeah, we should probably do something with those height channels, shouldn't we?"


No matter how sparingly the height channels are used, the rest of the movie should not sound any worse than a SOTA 7.1 mix played in a SOTA cinema. And that's darned good.


----------



## NorthSky

> I'm just not clear on what you are on about.


You already know that; I'm a guy who doesn't have a Dolby Atmos receiver. 



> It's OK - neither does anyone else.
> 
> I find the best thing to do when people who don't have any hands-on experience spout their putative words of wisdom, is to Ignore them. Works a treat and really reduces your S/N ratio, which as you know, is always a good idea in the AV world


I just told him once more. ...And just like you said that same thing above for few times already. Do you need to keep repeating yourself and told everyone once in a while for a good inside feeling? ...Whatever rocks your boat.


----------



## smurraybhm

audioguy said:


> Roger: I rather expensively lowered my 4 surrounds from 71 inches to 49 inches and it greatly improved the the 3D-ness of the presentation (of both Atmos and DSU). If there is a way for you to try it without ripping up your room, I recommend you give it a try.


+1 as well as my L/R fronts another 12 inches. Getting my base at ear level has made a big difference regardless of whether I'm listening to a 5.1 SACD mix in Pure Direct or something using Atmos/DSU.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> I'll bet that when this movie was mixed on the Technicolor stage, and heard in cinemas, no one felt the top half of the room was dead. Just like no one ever felt that way about 5.1 all these years.
> 
> Or maybe we should do as the cinemas and dubbing stages do: leave the surrounds elevated as they were.


You should tell that to Dolby and DTS and Auro, all of whom recommend that those channels should be at ear level now.


----------



## SoundChex

Josh Z said:


> You should tell that to Dolby and DTS and Auro, all of whom recommend that those channels should be at ear level now.




Consistent with that, the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* "requirements" -- with which we must assume *MPEG-H 3D*, *DTS:X*, and *Dolby AC-4* (plus _implicitly_ *Dolby Atmos*) are all willing to comply -- place all _Middle Layer_ speakers at *Elevation +0**° (±2°)* and reference as authorities *MPEG N13411* and *ITU-R BS.2051*.


_


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't know if Japan is the only place you can buy Transcendence in Atmos - it's where I bought my copy though
> 
> Don't forget to read Jerry's Guide before you do anything.




IDK , figured it was another internet acronym . 


Guess I'll have to place a Amazon Japan order soon, must be 4 or 5 available now, shipping will be cheaper......by the dozen  


Yes, Jerry's guide is on the agenda.


TKS


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> This trend of Atmos BD support being tightly restricted to only specific studios is really disturbing. The old apologist arguments of "it's too early, the studios didn't have the gear installed in time but the floodgates are about to open since it's super lickity split easy to port the theatrical Atmos mix to BD" can no longer be used. It's feeling like there's fire behind the smoke of speculation from some here that certain studios are waiting for DTS due to some backroom dealing.
> 
> At this point we are seeing quite a few major Atmos theatrical releases -- the exact ones which should be so easy to just plop onto the BD -- being released in DTS-HD/MA channel format for home. We're past the point of coincidence, certain studios are just refusing to play ball for some reason. It's a real bummer because there have been some good Atmos flicks that aren't getting the proper home treatment.
> 
> Shoot, at this point the consensus best "real" Atmos mix -- John Wick -- wasn't even released in Atmos in the theater!
> 
> It would not surprise me if we see certain studios commiting to DTS:X for object audio home release and others using Atmos. The "it's harder to remix since the Atmos mix is already done" argument doesn't really hold water. As you already pointed out it shouldn't be that hard to translate one object audio format metadata to another in principle, plus we know that most movies are getting remixed for home anyway.


I think you're correct. Certain studios probably made some exclusive deals with DTS to use their X format. 

And yes, it reads in many of these mixing articles like they're normally going back to the original mixing sessions and mixing notes with the PCM stems and doing a wholly new object remix for the home. Then there are a few ProTools competitors like Fairlight that say they are object surround format agnostic and allow for switching to any format given the original sound sessions if you have the right licensed plug-in's.

The other issue may be Ultra HD Blu-ray. The studios may see regular Blu-ray as at the tail end of its life cycle and want to use object surround as a further enticement to switch over.


----------



## RichB

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think you're correct. Certain studios probably made some exclusive deals with DTS.
> 
> And yes, it reads in many of these mixing articles like they're normally going back to the original mixing sessions and mixing notes with the PCM stems and doing a wholly new object remix for the home. Then there are a few ProTools competitors like Fairlight that say they are object surround format agnostic and allow for switching to any format given the original sound sessions if you have the right plug-in's.



It is possible that content producers like working with DTS products and support.
As far as deals, Dolby has deeper pockets .


- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RichB said:


> It is possible that content producers like working with DTS products and support.
> *As far as deals, Dolby has deeper pockets* .
> 
> 
> - Rich


But maybe not a cheaper and open source product. The studios love a deal.


----------



## bargervais

A quick question how do studios get the rights to release a film on Blu-Ray. To put it a different way how did lionsgate get the rights to put Mocking Jay on Blu-Ray? Who makes the decision on what sound mix gets put on the Blu-Ray.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> A quick question how do studios get the rights to release a film on Blu-Ray. To put it a different way how did lionsgate get the rights to put Mocking Jay on Blu-Ray? Who makes the decision on what sound mix get put on the Blu-Ray.


The studio that owns the distribution rights usually gets dibs on the home video rights, unless some strange cost sharing partnership was arranged with another studio overseas. Lionsgate distributed MJ in the U.S., at least, and so releases the Blu-ray, DVD, and streaming versions. If its a catalog title, they determine if it will sell well and if not, might pawn off the home video master to a lower level distributor like Twilight Time or Scream Factory or Kino Lorber.

The heads of the home video departments decide whether they can afford to do a full remix or use a fancy audio codec for the home and think the expense is worth the bother.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> The studio that owns the distribution rights usually gets dibs on the home video rights, unless some strange cost sharing partnership was arranged with another studio overseas. Lionsgate distributed MJ in the U.S., at least, and so releases the Blu-ray, DVD, and streaming versions. If its a catalog title, they determine if it will sell well and if not, might pawn off the home video master to a lower level distributor like Twilight Time or Scream Factory or Kino Lorber.
> 
> The heads of the home video departments decide whether they can afford to do a full remix or use a fancy audio codec for the home and think the expense is worth the bother.


That's interesting so the heads of the video departments makes the decision, so if things are in the production stage and they are use to doing things a particular way it's easier to proceed status quo instead of spending extra time and money to mix in Atmos. So I'm thinking if that's the case we will be in the same boat with DTS:X


----------



## BamaDave

Can someone please provide me with the links to download the Atmos demos to a thumb drive? 


Thanks!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

BamaDave said:


> Can someone please provide me with the links to download the Atmos demos to a thumb drive?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


----------



## batpig

BamaDave said:


> Can someone please provide me with the links to download the Atmos demos to a thumb drive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


FYI - if you sign up for a VUdu account you can stream them for free.


----------



## BamaDave

batpig said:


> FYI - if you sign up for a VUdu account you can stream them for free.


Youch! Is there a workaround for this or other sources for downloadable Atmos media?


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> ♦ But yes; *'House of Flying Daggers'* should be listened in the original Mandarin language (LPCM 5.1 audio).



FYI, sadly, the original mix is only DD...


----------



## roxiedog13

roxiedog13 said:


> Into the Storm, Planet of the Apes and Fury all really good examples for DSU as well. I agree though, only 6 Atmos movies for North America, 13 overall if you could Amazon Japan offerings .
> None of the official Atmos movies are really fantastic and I mean the audio, forget the story portion. So far I have enjoyed DSU more, certainly the subtle approach using , rain, thunder, hail, wind etc. The Michael Bay approach is over-the-top  excuse the pun.
> 
> I have the movie Canopy to watch tonight, just arrived in the mail from down under. Took three weeks to arrive, no surprise there. Will report back tomorrow how this Blu-Ray sounds with DSU.





Well, unfortunately no reporting back about the movie Canopy coming from this B region part of the world. Message on my screen from both my Oppo and Sony BD player was " unable to play this movie, available for B region only." I'm in Canada , the movie purchased from a dealer in Australia , Oppo purchased from the US, my Sony BD player from Canada. Paid a lot of 
money and waited a long time to get this one, very disappointing . Oh, well, goodbye Australia,................ hello Japan.


----------



## NorthSky

*'House of Flying Daggers' on Blu-ray*



petetherock said:


> FYI, sadly, the original mix is only DD...


You have to select the Mandarin LPCM 5.1 audio soundtrack, from the BR disc audio menu. ...That, is the best. ...Uncompressed audio surround sound. 
Because it also has Mandarin DD 5.1 audio (compressed). ...No good.
...And, a bad English dubbed DD 5.1 soundtrack. ...Very bad.
...And French and Spanish DD 5.1 ... no good. 

It's a fact; I have the Blu-ray in my hands right now and I listened to it (watched it) several times in the past.


----------



## ambesolman

Dan Hitchman said:


> The other issue may be Ultra HD Blu-ray. The studios may see regular Blu-ray as at the tail end of its life cycle and want to use object surround as a further enticement to switch over.



Thats a very good point that I haven't seen be made yet. But would that eliminate the possibility of any 3d codecs used on future non-4k blurays or perhaps just drastically reduce the number of them?

My biggest concern is that even after uhd blurays start coming out, they will continue to make DVDs. The DVD has to die for the 4k bluray to really take off with the general public. It's looooooong overdue already and BR players are so cheap now there's no reason everyone shouldn't make the switch. If they just stop making DVDs and don't give people a choice about it, then problem solved. Then, theoretically, standard blurays should come down to DVD prices and uhd disks priced as BRs are now. Win-win for everyone.

end rant





Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## Roger Dressler

audioguy said:


> Roger: I rather expensively lowered my 4 surrounds from 71 inches to 49 inches and it greatly improved the the 3D-ness of the presentation (of both Atmos and DSU). If there is a way for you to try it without ripping up your room, I recommend you give it a try.


I have no doubt in what you say, so no need to prove it to myself. My problem is that I do not want to degrade my 7.1 performance in order to create a beneficial result for spurious upmixers. And since my room already works really well for both 7.1 and 7.1.4 with real Atmos/Auro content, what more is needed?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> You should tell that to Dolby and DTS and Auro, all of whom recommend that those channels should be at ear level now.


All the better to make a dramatic difference when switching the height speakers on/off. But I'm not running technology demo, I'm enjoying a home theater. 

As you rightly pointed out, Atmos mixes that have no height content can sound flat with the recommended lowered surrounds. T'is a shame. Maybe DSU should have an automatic trigger to fill in the height gap when the objects go silent?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> As you rightly pointed out, Atmos mixes that have no height content can sound flat with the recommended lowered surrounds. T'is a shame. Maybe DSU should have an automatic trigger to fill in the height gap when the objects go silent?


I also did lower my surrounds to ear level in anticipation of the introduction of height channels. This notably reduced the sense of being immersed when playing regular surround sound, especially with ambient sounds. Since my rear heights are positioned equidistant and above the side surrounds (about 110 degrees in a 5.1 set-up), I can perceptually lift the sound about 10 degrees by sending the surround channel sound to the height speaker using a simple Y-splitter. The resulting sound is actually better (bigger?) to my ears than the physically elevated surrounds I had before, and at least I don't need DSU (or Auromatic for that matter) to do _that_ trick....


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks. Am I correct in assuming that if the surround speakers are too close to the main listening position when positioned at ear-level, increasing their height to above ear-level is a good idea?


The main thing is to ensure that the surrounds have a clear line of sight to every listener. Raise them the least amount you can (from ear level) to meet that requirement.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> You should tell that to Dolby and DTS and Auro, all of whom recommend that those channels should be at ear level now.


When we didn’t have speakers above us, on the ceiling, having the surrounds raised up somewhat was A Good Idea. It gave us some information from above and some from around us in a reasonably effective compromise. But now we have speakers above us, we don't need that compromise any more and we can let the surrounds handle sounds _around_ us and the overhead speakers handle sounds _above_ us. What would be the purpose nowadays of having elevated surround speakers when we have dedicated speakers above us? 

Also, if the surrounds are elevated then there is a good chance that they will be close to the overheads, and thus actually diminish the separation between the two, resulting in a less obvious sound from above. Maybe this is what Roger is experiencing. There has to be some explanation for the disconnect between Roger's experience and that of almost everyone else here. I am always reluctant to gainsay Roger because of his background and his experience, but in this instance we seem to be hearing two entirely different things.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> FYI, sadly, the original mix is only DD...


The Chinese track on my copy is LPCM 5.1. The sound is superb throughout the movie, with a few scenes being among the best demo material I have. And it works brilliantly with DSU too.


----------



## kbarnes701

ambesolman said:


> Thats a very good point that I haven't seen be made yet. But would that eliminate the possibility of any 3d codecs used on future non-4k blurays or perhaps just drastically reduce the number of them?
> 
> My biggest concern is that even after uhd blurays start coming out, they will continue to make DVDs. The DVD has to die for the 4k bluray to really take off with the general public. It's looooooong overdue already and BR players are so cheap now there's no reason everyone shouldn't make the switch. If they just stop making DVDs and don't give people a choice about it, then problem solved. Then, theoretically, standard blurays should come down to DVD prices and uhd disks priced as BRs are now. Win-win for everyone.
> 
> end rant



I've never understood why DVD has lingered on for so long. How long did it take VHS tapes to disappear after DVD was launched? As you say, BD players can now be had for less than 50 bucks - they play all the DVDs anyone owns, so no problem there, and of course they play Blurays. So if all we were offered were Blurays, where's the problem? 

AFAIK you can't even buy a DVD player any more, so even if someone wants to play just DVDs and needs a new player, he has to buy Bluray. And likely the cost of the discs would come down if they didn't sell DVD alongside them.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> The main thing is to ensure that the surrounds have a clear line of sight to every listener. Raise them the least amount you can (from ear level) to meet that requirement.


I have a single row of (3) seats and the room is only 12 feet wide. There would be only 24" from the two outboard positions outer ear to the wall. If I place the Side Surrounds at about 90 degrees to the sides, I feel that I would have to place the side surrounds inordinately high on the wall to allow all seats an unimpeded path of sound. Besides the fact that the sound would be very close to the outboard listeners outer ears.

I am thinking maybe I should compromise and mount the Side Surrounds at 80 or 100 degrees (more forward or back) or so, but lower as prescribed, to allow a more unimpeded path of sound to all the seats.

Maybe I should mount some Bipole speakers fairly low with the null at 90 degrees, therefore not shooting sound directly into the outer positions ears while also directing sound around the outer listeners so all can hear better.

What would the logic be in a case like this?


----------



## roxiedog13

Received the movie Canopy yesterday, it was coded for region B, I'm in Canada so it will not work on my Oppo 103D region code A I believe.

I think there was a way to unlock the region using the remote and a secret code, I don't think that will work any more, maybe with the older models.

So far all I'm finding on line is a $79US electronic code unblocker , are there other options?


----------



## roxiedog13

Glenn Baumann said:


> I have a single row of (3) seats and the room is only 12 feet wide. There would be only 24" from the two outboard positions outer ear to the wall. If I place the Side Surrounds at about 90 degrees to the sides, I feel that I would have to place the side surrounds inordinately high on the wall to allow all seats an unimpeded path of sound. Besides the fact that the sound would be very close to the outboard listeners outer ears.
> 
> I am thinking maybe I should compromise and mount the Side Surrounds at 80 or 100 degrees (more forward or back) or so, but lower as prescribed, to allow a more unimpeded path of sound to all the seats.
> 
> Maybe I should mount some Bipole speakers fairly low with the null at 90 degrees, therefore not shooting sound directly into the outer positions ears while also directing sound around the outer listeners so all can hear better.
> 
> What would the logic be in a case like this?


I had the same problem, ended up using Paridigm ADP ( adapted dipole ) in the wall ( actually in a column) slightly behind the front row and ahead of the second row. The two tweeters fire for and aft at 30 degree angles, both rows in my case have a nice difuse non localized sound that works really well . See picture below:


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> I have a single row of (3) seats and the room is only 12 feet wide. There would be only 24" from the two outboard positions outer ear to the wall. If I place the Side Surrounds at about 90 degrees to the sides, I feel that I would have to place the side surrounds inordinately high on the wall to allow all seats an unimpeded path of sound. Besides the fact that the sound would be very close to the outboard listeners outer ears.
> 
> I am thinking maybe I should compromise and mount the Side Surrounds at 80 or 100 degrees (more forward or back) or so, but lower as prescribed, to allow a more unimpeded path of sound to all the seats.
> 
> Maybe I should mount some Bipole speakers fairly low with the null at 90 degrees, therefore not shooting sound directly into the outer positions ears while also directing sound around the outer listeners so all can hear better.
> 
> What would the logic be in a case like this?


If you have 7 listener level speakers then I would mount the side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP regardless of Atmos - 80° sounds ideal. This will help fill the gap between the mains and the rear surrounds nicely.

I don't think you will need dipoles if you go with the above arrangement. Putting the side surrounds at ~80° is a really good idea IMO anyway.

EDIT: I'm not saying that dipoles are a bad idea - just that if you already have monopoles I don't think you need to go to the expense of replacing them if you follow the above strategy.


----------



## kbarnes701

Another truly excellent DSU movie experience last night: *Captain Phillips.*

Plenty of examples of DSU doing its thing, from early ambient effects as Phillips arrives at the airport (be prepared to duck when the plane flies over), to general ambience throughout many of the scenes on the container vessel. And when the pirates invade. The most exhilarating effects are in the long rescue section of the movie when the US Navy arrives on the scene. The scenes in the lifeboat have lots of effects coming from above and outside the boat and the general impact of the combat is brought to life with another dimension, literally. Highly recommended both as a movie and as a DSU demo.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> If you have 7 listener level speakers then I would mount the side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP regardless of Atmos - 80° sounds ideal. This will help fill the gap between the mains and the rear surrounds nicely.
> 
> I don't think you will need dipoles if you go with the above arrangement. Putting the side surrounds at ~80° is a really good idea IMO anyway.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not saying that dipoles are a bad idea - just that if you already have monopoles I don't think you need to go to the expense of replacing them if you follow the above strategy.


I would be using BIPOLES if I did go that route, although I also have Dipoles that I could use. I happen to have at my disposal, a vast array of Bipoles, Dipoles and Monopoles all within the Atlantic Technology family that have a similar sound signature (as in the same tweeter design).

For the Front Top and Rear Top Atmos Surrounds, I would be using like you, the Tannoy Di5 DC speakers.

My room is actually 12'4" wide X 21'6" long with a sloped ceiling that is 8 feet high on the left that rises up to 10 feet on the right. I will be using 2 foot downrods on the right side to bring down the ceiling speakers so all are at about 8 feet high. I will have about 6 feet behind the single row of 3 seats so I can mount the Rear Back Surrounds there.

I guess that I should really be experimenting a bit to see what shoe truly fits! My instinct tells me that the BIPOLES might be a nice compromise as I would still get some 7.1/9.1 channel based envelopment yet also some localization for Object based sound.


...Glenn


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> Also, if the surrounds are elevated then there is a good chance that they will be close to the overheads, and thus actually diminish the separation between the two, resulting in a less obvious sound from above. Maybe this is what Roger is experiencing. There has to be *some explanation* for the disconnect between Roger's experience and that of almost everyone else here.


I believe this would be the appropriate moment for me to fully switch into "sarcastic mode" because I have repeatedly suggested an explanation, apparently only a few AVS members found worthy of examination.

Here is a quote from the *official *AVS "Dolby Surround Upmixing" thread (*bold* emphasis mine): 



tbaucom said:


> I never connected the dots until you mentioned it but reading through the official atmos thread *it does appear that the rave reviews of DSU are coming from those with 5.1.4 setups*. I think you may be on to something. It's almost like DSU is adding some spaciousness that may have been previously missing without the surround backs.
> 
> I have a 7.1.4 setup and also find DSU to be somewhat subtle. I changed from a 11.1 NEO:X setup to to the atmos setup based on rave reviews of DSU. I have been somewhat disappointed. I'm glad i made the switch because of the possibility of true atmos content but i don't find DSU to be all that. It is different than NEO:X but not really better in my room.


In a nutshell:

Undoubtedly true Dolby Atmos content and overhead speakers add to the sound experience, regardless whether it's a 5.1.X or 7.1.X speaker setup.

Regarding audible improvements thanks to the Dolby Surround Upmixer (for 7.1 recorded material) I'm not the only 7.1.4 user one who has expressed that I find improvements to be subtle, at best (I have repeated playback of several scenes with promising sound material in both "DTS-HD MSR" = native 7.1 and "DTS-HD + Surround" = DSU).

My concern here is simply that the "rave reviews of DSU" give birth to wrong expectations among 7.1. owners (and simultaneously do not reveal to 5.1. owners, that DSU might be the golden key to compensate for the lack of back surrounds and bring their listening experience to a level, usually only 7.1 owners experience).

And last but not least I / we wondered out loud why Dolby only mentions DSU on the last page (of 37) in its Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines. Either Dolby completely failed to realize DSU potential or they simply held back because they couldn't reproduce a DSU "Wow" effect in their own 7.1.4 reference setup.

In Dolby's own words: 


In a Dolby Atmos system, the channel-based mix is fully honored. Dolby Atmos
 
enabled speakers and overhead speakers are employed *to lend* a sense of

atmospherics or room effect to the listening experience.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> All the better to make a dramatic difference when switching the height speakers on/off. But I'm not running technology demo, I'm enjoying a home theater.


I don't want either a dramatic difference or a technology demo. I want a convincing three-dimensional soundfield all around me, which is what the object-based audio formats have promised. That is being seriously compromised in mixes that leave the top half of the soundstage dead.



kbarnes701 said:


> When we didn’t have speakers above us, on the ceiling, having the surrounds raised up somewhat was A Good Idea. It gave us some information from above and some from around us in a reasonably effective compromise. But now we have speakers above us, we don't need that compromise any more and we can let the surrounds handle sounds _around_ us and the overhead speakers handle sounds _above_ us. What would be the purpose nowadays of having elevated surround speakers when we have dedicated speakers above us?


That point is negated when Atmos sound mixers don't use the height channels. The format guidelines require us to lower our main surround speakers, dragging the base soundfield down. The height channels are intended to complement that and fill in the space above to provide a floor-to-ceiling bubble of sound. But if the mixers aren't actually following through with that, we're left with an unbalanced audio environment.



> Also, if the surrounds are elevated then there is a good chance that they will be close to the overheads, and thus actually diminish the separation between the two, resulting in a less obvious sound from above. Maybe this is what Roger is experiencing. There has to be some explanation for the disconnect between Roger's experience and that of almost everyone else here. I am always reluctant to gainsay Roger because of his background and his experience, but in this instance we seem to be hearing two entirely different things.


I also have great respect for Roger, but we have a difference of opinion on this.

What I would like to know is whether the mixing stages being used to create Atmos tracks actually have the Surround channels at ear level, as the format guidelines require, or if most of the stages are still essentially configured for 5.1/7.1 with a few extra speakers above?


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> The Chinese track on my copy is LPCM 5.1. The sound is superb throughout the movie, with a few scenes being among the best demo material I have. And it works brilliantly with DSU too.


Same LPCM 5.1 soundtrack on my copy of the _House of Flying Daggers_ blu-ray.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> If you have 7 listener level speakers then I would mount the side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP regardless of Atmos - 80° sounds ideal. This will help fill the gap between the mains and the rear surrounds nicely.
> 
> I don't think you will need dipoles if you go with the above arrangement. Putting the side surrounds at ~80° is a really good idea IMO anyway.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not saying that dipoles are a bad idea - just that if you already have monopoles I don't think you need to go to the expense of replacing them if you follow the above strategy.


I think part of his problem was the lack of space. He only has 24" left each side of the chairs and mounting anything surface mounted will impede the walking path. Mono, di or bipole will be in the way on the wall . My suggestion was in wall because it would still be at the ear level desired instead of going higher up on the wall , the only place he can mount and not impede the walk through space .
Dolby does recommend monopole for all surrounds, then again they also endorse Atmos enabled speakers and so they should, it puts money in their pockets. My dipoles work really well for 
two rows of seats, the surround effects on demos appear as they should from either seat . Either way, in-wall will give the clearance needed with such a narrow isle , I would not have been able to mount on-wall , just not enough room .


----------



## sdurani

Glenn Baumann said:


> I will have about 6 feet behind the single row of 3 seats so I can mount the Rear Back Surrounds there.


Can you move your seating about a foot forward, so that the listeners ears are 1/3rd room length from the back wall? This will put them where most of the room's length modes are at similar levels (see graph below), resulting in smoother frequency response.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

sdurani said:


> Can you move your seating about a foot forward, so that the listeners ears are 1/3rd room length from the back wall? This will put them where most of the room's length modes are at similar levels (see graph below), resulting in smoother frequency response.




Thanks for the tip Sanjay... good point! 

I could move the seating forward a foot. However, due to mounting constraints, whatever speakers I ultimately mount as Side Surrounds (Monopole, Bipole, Dipole) would then be somewhat behind my single row of (3) seats. It would then place the Side Surrounds not at 80 or 90 degrees but at 100 or so.


...Glenn


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I've never understood why DVD has lingered on for so long. How long did it take VHS tapes to disappear after DVD was launched? As you say, BD players can now be had for less than 50 bucks - they play all the DVDs anyone owns, so no problem there, and of course they play Blurays. So if all we were offered were Blurays, where's the problem?
> 
> AFAIK you can't even buy a DVD player any more, so even if someone wants to play just DVDs and needs a new player, he has to buy Bluray. And likely the cost of the discs would come down if they didn't sell DVD alongside them.


IMO it's an old story. To put things in perspective, Windows XP still has something like a 19% desktop PC global market share as per an January article in PC World (in fact, this beats the 14% of Windows 8/8.1; Windows 7 leads with about 55%). And that's for an OS that Microsoft no longer sells, let alone supports as of last April. Don't underestimate the power of inertia and buying habitual content formats, especially for people for whom buying (or renting) new DVDs is low involvement on their part.

Also, while in the US or Western Europe BluRays are relatively popular formats, once you get out into Latin America, the Middle East, Russia, or Asia, you're up against the economics driving release of new movies/videos onto DVD because the locals don't necessarily have the $$$ to buy BD players or pay the price premium. DVDs are also much easier to pirate, which I think drives this as well. 

Remember, we're disproportionally North Americans here, with some Brits and Western Europeans, and NOT anywhere near a consumer norm. And almost all male as well. Our views as a group are skewed accordingly.

Not entirely relevant to BD vs. DVD, but worth a read:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dadehay...s-still-make-money-and-wont-die-anytime-soon/


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAIK you can't even buy a DVD player any more


About $30 on Amazon still. But why?

Watched The Lone Ranger last night in DSU. What a fun ride. Good thing my standards are so low that I can enjoy most movies.  Thanks for the recommendation Keith.


----------



## BigScreen

Josh Z said:


> For many years, I had my Surround and Surround Back speakers mounted high on the walls above ear level. This is how I became used to hearing surround activity. Upon upgrading to Atmos, I had to move my surround speakers down to ear level and then add height channels above. The transition took some getting used to, but DSU is pretty effective in drawing music and ambient sounds from below up to the height channels. It basically extends the soundstage from floor to ceiling and fills the room with sound.


Josh,

Since you lowered your speakers, how do you feel about the soundfield of legacy 5.1/7.1 mixes without DSU engaged?

I would think that there would be a loss of spaciousness because of the lower surrounds, causing one to want to use DSU to get some of it back. However, I would think that doing so would cause the soundfield to muddy somewhat, and especially if you are listening to a mix critically for a review, listening to a 5.1/7.1 title (without DSU) in a setup with ear-level surrounds would be much different and possibly less engaging than with surround speakers in their traditional placements.

Have you gone back to a familiar title and noted any differences with the lowered surrounds (and no DSU)?


----------



## sdurani

Glenn Baumann said:


> I could move the seating forward a foot. However, due to mounting constraints, whatever speakers I ultimately mount as Side Surrounds (Monopole, Bipole, Dipole) would then be somewhat behind my single row of (3) seats. It would then place the Side Surrounds not at 80 or 90 degrees but at 100 or so.


In that case, not worth it if it results in all 4 surrounds being rearward of the listening position (will diminish rear-vs-side separation in the surround field). Just make sure the listeners ears (not the seat backs) are not at one of the even divisions of room length (half, quarters, sixths, eighths), since those are null locations (see previous graph). Don't worry if they end up in a peak location, since it will be the same peak in all seats (all listeners are the same distance from the front and back walls). Any room correction system that sees the same peak in all seats will get rid of it.


----------



## roxiedog13

sdurani said:


> Can you move your seating about a foot forward, so that the listeners ears are 1/3rd room length from the back wall? This will put them where most of the room's length modes are at similar levels (see graph below), resulting in smoother frequency response.


Interesting graph , do you have a program for this? Is the 0ft mark the face of the LCR speakers or the front wall? My room is 30ft long, 12 ft wide, my LCR speakers 3ft from the wall.
Would be nice to see my arrangement on a graph .


----------



## tjenkins95

stikle said:


> About $30 on Amazon still. But why?
> 
> Watched The Lone Ranger last night in DSU. What a fun ride. Good thing my standards are so low that I can enjoy most movies.  Thanks for the recommendation Keith.


 
It's a great movie - one of my favorites - so your standards are pretty high - in my opinion!


----------



## bargervais

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/95098/

Just curious why Mocking Jay is not available to order I have it pre-ordered on Amazon but then it says sign up and we'll let you know when I becomes available... was there to many pre-orders??? I was able to pre-order it when it first came available for pre-order and it's in my ordered list...


----------



## BigScreen

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think you're correct. Certain studios probably made some exclusive deals with DTS to use their X format.
> 
> And yes, it reads in many of these mixing articles like they're normally going back to the original mixing sessions and mixing notes with the PCM stems and doing a wholly new object remix for the home. Then there are a few ProTools competitors like Fairlight that say they are object surround format agnostic and allow for switching to any format given the original sound sessions if you have the right licensed plug-in's.
> 
> The other issue may be Ultra HD Blu-ray. The studios may see regular Blu-ray as at the tail end of its life cycle and want to use object surround as a further enticement to switch over.


I'm not so sure that anyone is waiting for UltraHD Blu-ray to take the jump to Atmos/Auro/DTS:X, as I think the future that the studios are looking most forward to is in regards to streaming media. I really hope that I'm wrong (as I don't consider streaming to be suitable from a quality and reliability standpoint), but I fear that HD Blu-ray is the pinnacle of disc-based mass adoption, that UltraHD will be a very niche product segment, and that streaming is where the majority of effort and consumer spending will be focused.

If we want to look at what the future holds for Atmos/Auro/DTS:X, we should be looking at the streaming services and what they are (or are not) supporting. Without support in that market, I don't think any of the competing technologies have a real chance at reaching any kind of critical mass. Atmos could go down as the 6.1 of the DVD format: cool, but rarely used, and basically abandoned before it ever hit its stride. Auro and DTS:X may be just footnotes that read "that could've been cool" but never really saw the light of day beyond demos and some music titles (remember DTS 24/96 music discs?)

I think we'll know much more about where this is all going after the DTS announcement in March. If they come out strong, with a list of hardware that will support it and an impressive list of titles that will have the format, then we'll have a match worth watching. 

Regardless of what DTS does, there needs to be more Atmos releases if that format wants to survive the year. If they can't get discs produced with Atmos mixes, then the streaming services need to step up to fill that gap (to my knowledge there are zero Atmos titles available from any streaming service).

Without firm commitments from a majority of the studios, I think there are going to be a fair share of people that will be disappointed with having taken the plunge, or at least known what could have been, with no native sound mixes to play. DSU, Auromatic, and whatever upmixer DTS might have will be the equivalent of Yamaha's DSP modes, because that's basically what they are.

I really hope that we get good news. I want to take the plunge. If Yamaha and/or Denon say that they will offer DTS:X as an upgrade, I might just do that earlier than later. However, I'd be quite happy with waiting until summer when the new models get finalized and more movie titles enter the pipeline.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> Interesting graph , do you have a program for this? Is the 0ft mark the face of the LCR speakers or the front wall? My room is 30ft long, 12 ft wide, my LCR speakers 3ft from the wall.
> Would be nice to see my arrangement on a graph .


Here you go.... http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Pages/Calculators.aspx?CategoryID=Calculators


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> Interesting graph , do you have a program for this?


It's a room mode calculator from Harman that computes and displays the first four axial room modes. Free download: 

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Pages/Calculators.aspx?CategoryID=Calculators 



> Is the 0ft mark the face of the LCR speakers or the front wall?


It's a wall (front or back), since the calculator is unaware of subwoofer/speaker locations.


----------



## Al Sherwood

^^ Sanjay, that was close!


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I also did lower my surrounds to ear level in anticipation of the introduction of height channels. This notably reduced the sense of being immersed when playing regular surround sound, especially with ambient sounds. Since my rear heights are positioned equidistant and above the side surrounds (about 110 degrees in a 5.1 set-up), I can perceptually lift the sound about 10 degrees by sending the surround channel sound to the height speaker using a simple Y-splitter. The resulting sound is actually better (bigger?) to my ears than the physically elevated surrounds I had before, and at least I don't need DSU (or Auromatic for that matter) to do _that_ trick....


That would seem to address playback of 5.1/7.1 content nicely. But what about Transformers 4 or the like, whilst patiently awaiting a height effect to come along?


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> When we didn’t have speakers above us, on the ceiling, having the surrounds raised up somewhat was A Good Idea. It gave us some information from above and some from around us in a reasonably effective compromise. But now we have speakers above us, we don't need that compromise any more and we can let the surrounds handle sounds _around_ us and the overhead speakers handle sounds _above_ us. What would be the purpose nowadays of having elevated surround speakers when we have dedicated speakers above us?
> 
> Also, if the surrounds are elevated then there is a good chance that they will be close to the overheads, and thus actually diminish the separation between the two, resulting in a less obvious sound from above. Maybe this is what Roger is experiencing. There has to be some explanation for the disconnect between Roger's experience and that of almost everyone else here. I am always reluctant to gainsay Roger because of his background and his experience, but in this instance we seem to be hearing two entirely different things.


I think we would hear the same things in the same conditions. The idea that lowered surrounds is OK because we now have height speakers and means to feed them with DSU sounds nice on paper, but DSU is not used for real Atmos content, and then we're left with what at least a few of us have described as reduced spatial effect. 

OTOH, I can clearly hear and very much appreciate what Atmos mixes deliver -- and am really glad I did the upgrade to 7.1.4 in my room. It's staying. But the heights will remain on stand by until Atmos mixes are on deck.


----------



## bargervais

BigScreen said:


> I think we'll know much more about where this is all going after the DTS announcement in March. If they come out strong, with a list of hardware that will support it and an impressive list of titles that will have the format, then we'll have a match worth watching.
> 
> Regardless of what DTS does, there needs to be more Atmos releases if that format wants
> 
> I really hope that we get good news. I want to take the plunge. If Yamaha and/or Denon say that they will offer DTS:X as an upgrade, I might just do that earlier than later. However, I'd be quite happy with waiting until summer when the new models get finalized and more movie titles enter the pipeline.


Yes that would be nice if our gear will support a firmware upgrade to include DTS:X but sadly doubtful hope to be proven wrong.
The thing I would love to see as well is more streaming content with Atmos I know it's doable as those 5 Atmos demos on VUDU stream Atmos gloriously. VUDU streams almost all their content in Dolby Digital plus so how hard would it be for them to jump to Atmos. Dolby has the TV, Netflix Amazon VUDU streaming locked in I think and then DTS has most of the Blu-Ray.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> Atmos could go down as the 6.1 of the DVD format: cool, but rarely used, and basically abandoned before it ever hit its stride.


IF that does happen, it won't have been for lack of content (mixes). Already this year there have been 6 releases (in February alone there was Jupiter Ascending, Kingsman, McFarland USA) and another 4 due in March. For a format that's only a couple years old, 3-4 titles per month isn't bad. Back in the day, were 6.1 (5.1 EX) mixes coming out at the same rate? So the problem isn't lack of mixes, it's why those mixes are barely trickling out on home video. There must be a reason why some studios are waiting.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I have no doubt in what you say, so no need to prove it to myself. My problem is that I do not want to degrade my 7.1 performance in order to create a beneficial result for spurious upmixers. And since my room already works really well for both 7.1 and 7.1.4 with real Atmos/Auro content, what more is needed?


...Bottle of champagne, Cuban cigar, and two good lookin' on each side.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> IMO it's an old story. To put things in perspective, Windows XP still has something like a 19% desktop PC global market share as per an January article in PC World (in fact, this beats the 14% of Windows 8/8.1; Windows 7 leads with about 55%). And that's for an OS that Microsoft no longer sells, let alone supports as of last April. Don't underestimate the power of inertia and buying habitual content formats, especially for people for whom buying (or renting) new DVDs is low involvement on their part.


I can see that, but it's slightly different. To upgrade from XP costs money and is not a simple task for many people. Their interia is rooted in good sense - the devil they know works for them. But a DVD delivers a significantly inferior performance and there is no real reason for the studios to make them any more. If they issued the content on BD instead, and only on BD, at prices compatible with DVD, what do you think people would do? Would they stop buying movies because their ancient DVD player couldn't play the only form of the content which was available? Or would they pick up a cheap BD player with their groceries and move into the 21st century? Mostly they have HD TVs, so they would also see a marked improvement in PQ too. Everything you said could also be applied to VHS tapes too - when was the last time you bought one of those? 



sdrucker said:


> Also, while in the US or Western Europe BluRays are relatively popular formats, once you get out into Latin America, the Middle East, Russia, or Asia, you're up against the economics driving release of new movies/videos onto DVD because the locals don't necessarily have the $$$ to buy BD players or pay the price premium. DVDs are also much easier to pirate, which I think drives this as well.


Fine - let them sell them in those markets then. They also sell chicken foetuses in Thailand in their markets and locals love them. Does it mean they should sell them in the States?



sdrucker said:


> Remember, we're disproportionally North Americans here, with some Brits and Western Europeans, and NOT anywhere near a consumer norm. And almost all male as well. Our views as a group are skewed accordingly.


Absolutely. 

Not entirely relevant to BD vs. DVD, but worth a read:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dadehay...s-still-make-money-and-wont-die-anytime-soon/[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Looks interesting. (Of course they won't die any time soon so long as they are available. VHS tapes anyone??)


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> About $30 on Amazon still. But why?
> 
> Watched The Lone Ranger last night in DSU. What a fun ride. Good thing my standards are so low that I can enjoy most movies.  Thanks for the recommendation Keith.


Despite the poor reviews, I enjoyed that movie and you remind me to watch it again. I thought it was good fun, especially the train sequence at the end. It could have benefited from more incisive editing I think as it is a bit long for what it is, but I still liked it quite a lot.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> If we want to look at what the future holds for Atmos/Auro/DTS:X, we should be looking at the streaming services and what they are (or are not) supporting. Without support in that market, I don't think any of the competing technologies have a real chance at reaching any kind of critical mass. Atmos could go down as the 6.1 of the DVD format: cool, but rarely used, and basically abandoned before it ever hit its stride. Auro and DTS:X may be just footnotes that read "that could've been cool" but never really saw the light of day beyond demos and some music titles (remember DTS 24/96 music discs?)


Atmos can be delivered by DD 5.1 so it can already be streamed with no problems. I'm fairly sure you know that already, so I suspect I am missing something in your post...


----------



## Josh Z

bargervais said:


> Just curious why Mocking Jay is not available to order I have it pre-ordered on Amazon but then it says sign up and we'll let you know when I becomes available... was there to many pre-orders??? I was able to pre-order it when it first came available for pre-order and it's in my ordered list...


Amazon is currently having a feud with Lionsgate similar to the feud they had with Warner Bros. and Hachette Publishing last year. They're being petty and blocking preorders on Lionsgate product until the studio caves and lowers its wholesale prices.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I think we would hear the same things in the same conditions. The idea that lowered surrounds is OK because we now have height speakers and means to feed them with DSU sounds nice on paper, but DSU it not used for real Atmos content, and then we're left with what at least a few of us have described as reduced spatial effect.
> 
> OTOH, I can clearly hear and very much appreciate what Atmos mixes deliver -- and am really glad I did the upgrade to 7.1.4 in my room. It's staying. But the heights will remain on stand by until Atmos mixes are on deck.


I'd clearly prefer Atmos discs. But the reality is I have about 1,500 discs of which 1,493 do not have Atmos. I also have 4 speakers on my ceiling and a recently bought AVR that can send sound to them. In those circumstances, it seems to me that DSU is a godsend. I find it works very well, adds a lot of immersion and doesn't really do anything malign. I still struggle to understand why you dislike DSU for movies though 

No matter how quickly the Atmos discs arrive going forward, it will be a loooooong time before they outnumber my legacy discs!


----------



## Josh Z

BigScreen said:


> Josh,
> 
> Since you lowered your speakers, how do you feel about the soundfield of legacy 5.1/7.1 mixes without DSU engaged?
> 
> I would think that there would be a loss of spaciousness because of the lower surrounds, causing one to want to use DSU to get some of it back. However, I would think that doing so would cause the soundfield to muddy somewhat, and especially if you are listening to a mix critically for a review, listening to a 5.1/7.1 title (without DSU) in a setup with ear-level surrounds would be much different and possibly less engaging than with surround speakers in their traditional placements.
> 
> Have you gone back to a familiar title and noted any differences with the lowered surrounds (and no DSU)?


I need to do more extensive comparison testing, but you're essentially correct. Listening to 5.1/7.1 mixes without DSU doesn't sound right now that my main Surround speakers have been lowered.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That would seem to address playback of 5.1/7.1 content nicely. But what about Transformers 4 or the like, whilst patiently awaiting a height effect to come along?


I found the sound on that movie was electrifying here, in Atmos. The precision of the sounds in the soundstage, the dynamics, the exciting mix, everything... I admit there wasn't as much overhead content as I'd have liked (especially for the first Atmos Bluray) but I couldn't fault the sound in any way. And this is with lowered surrounds (albeit still above my ear height to prevent them being 'blocked' by other listeners).


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Here you go.... http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Pages/Calculators.aspx?CategoryID=Calculators


Got it thanks, now to figure it all out .  

From my first calculations it looks like my seating is in the sweet spot , front and back rows. Will have to confirm later with actual testing when my mic arrives.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I found the sound on that movie was electrifying here, in Atmos. The precision of the sounds in the soundstage, the dynamics, the exciting mix, everything... I admit there wasn't as much overhead content as I'd have liked (especially for the first Atmos Bluray) but I couldn't fault the sound in any way. And this is with lowered surrounds (albeit still above my ear height to prevent them being 'blocked' by other listeners).


I lowered my surrounds a foot, but they're still plenty above ear level. I probably could have gone another 6-12". I can tell a BIG difference in imaging after doing this. Luckily, the Mirages (upside down) fire at a downwards angle, so they're actually hitting the MLP pretty good in my opinion.

Now that I have spackle, texture, and know where the paint is, I can move them down even more if I want...have to think about that for a while though.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see that, but it's slightly different. To upgrade from XP costs money and is not a simple task for many people. Their interia is rooted in good sense - the devil they know works for them. But a DVD delivers a significantly inferior performance and there is no real reason for the studios to make them any more.


Inferior technically, and a product that's obsolete to anyone with a BD player and the cash to buy BluRays. But you've got to convince my 86 year old mother and her friends, and Joe/Jane Public renting at the local C-Store or shopping at Best Buy in Kansas . As to producing only more expensive and technically superior BD and abandoning DVDs, between the rental, convenience, and kids markets, cheap and simple is what pushes the mass market (which we're not). Otherwise we'd all have 5.1.4 systems at home and buying our 30th Atmos release this month vs. having a small collection of current, crappy action movies (as of today) just to hear the 3D audio effects.



> If they issued the content on BD instead, and only on BD, at prices compatible with DVD, what do you think people would do? Would they stop buying movies because their ancient DVD player couldn't play the only form of the content which was available?


 We'd buy BD. Others might rent or pirate. As to giving up on the ancient DVD player and picking a BD player, remember this is the soundbar and TV speaker crowd, and a large % of folks who barely understand HDMI or are just used to plugging in stereo RCA cables. DK if there's any research on this, but I wonder if the "analog sunset" may be helping to fuel DVD survival because it's an incentive for at least some people to keep those ancient DVD players around that don't have that problem.



> Everything you said could also be applied to VHS tapes too - when was the last time you bought one of those?


 Shockingly, we kept our VHS player until somewhere around 2003 or 2004, with our first kid. That's because we'd get gifts of children's videos that were VHS only from relatives. But VHS is a more perishable technology than DVD, and the storage is more of a PITA, which I think drove the demise of VHS more than anything else, as well as the feature extras. Also the decline of the likes of Blockbuster Video.



> Fine - let them sell them in those markets then. They also sell chicken foetuses in Thailand in their markets and locals love them. Does it mean they should sell them in the States?


No, but Team America (F yeah!) isn't the world. I buy foreign films and TV series in Hebrew (also with English subtitles) from Israel. Here you have a relatively affluent country that's highly mobile and has a high per capita use of mobile tech and smartphones. And there aren't more than a dozen or so BluRays released in Hebrew for the local audience, and almost all of them are Pixar or children oriented IIRC. Literally every new release of local content is on DVD only, so of course that's all I can order and have shipped to the States (or buy there, for that matter, when we visit). Want to guess if something similar's true in Russia, or India, or other countries outside of the First World? The cultural elite aside, that is.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> What I would like to know is whether the mixing stages being used to create Atmos tracks actually have the Surround channels at ear level, as the format guidelines require, or if most of the stages are still essentially configured for 5.1/7.1 with a few extra speakers above?


Dubbing stages are intended to reflect the cinema environment so that the mix "translates" well. 

The format guidelines for cinemas and homes are different. This is from the Atmos cinema technical requirements. The text says: >>For example, if E is 20 degrees, then the elevation angle of the top surround array should be greater than or equal to 55 degrees.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/95098/
> 
> Just curious why Mocking Jay is not available to order I have it pre-ordered on Amazon but then it says sign up and we'll let you know when I becomes available... was there to many pre-orders??? I was able to pre-order it when it first came available for pre-order and it's in my ordered list...


I was asking the same question on another forum and the response was that they must have sold-out all of their pre-order copies. I also pre-ordered and it shows that I'll get it on release day. Didn't know Amazon was feuding with Lionsgate?


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> I was asking the same question on another forum and the response was that they must have sold-out all of their pre-order copies. I also pre-ordered and it shows that I'll get it on release day.


that was my thinking as well i'll keep my pre-order just to see if it gets delaid if it gets delaid i'll just go to Wal Mart but it was also reported that Amazon is currently having a feud with Lionsgate hope that doesn't mess up my pre-order...


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Interesting graph , do you have a program for this? Is the 0ft mark the face of the LCR speakers or the front wall? My room is 30ft long, 12 ft wide, my LCR speakers 3ft from the wall. Would be nice to see my arrangement on a graph .


♦ http://realtraps.com/modecalc.htm


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> But what about Transformers 4 or the like, whilst patiently awaiting a height effect to come along?


So to compensate for Atmos soundtracks that barely use height effects, you're keeping your surrounds above ear level to get some imaging above you. Makes sense. To compensate for discrete 7.1 mixes that barely use the rear channels (e.g., Super 8), do you follow the same logic by placing your side speakers rearward of your listening position to get some imaging behind you?


Roger Dressler said:


> The format guidelines for cinemas and homes are different.


From what I've read, nearfield mixes for home Atmos releases seem to be done in rooms smaller than typical dubbing stages, with speaker layouts that match home systems (7.1.4). Would be interesting to find out whether these nearfield mixing spaces follow Dolby's recommendation of having the surrounds closer to ear level.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> that was my thinking as well i'll keep my pre-order just to see if it gets delaid if it gets delaid i'll just go to Wal Mart but it was also reported that Amazon is currently having a feud with Lionsgate hope that doesn't mess up my pre-order...


I'm thinking that Amazon will honor those orders placed prior to the feud with Lionsgate.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Fine - let them sell them in those markets then. They also sell chicken foetuses in Thailand in their markets and locals love them. Does it mean they should sell them in the States?


Sell them? Hell, I think there's one running for Congress from Texas!!


----------



## tjenkins95

roxiedog13 said:


> Received the movie Canopy yesterday, it was coded for region B, I'm in Canada so it will not work on my Oppo 103D region code A I believe.
> 
> I think there was a way to unlock the region using the remote and a secret code, I don't think that will work any more, maybe with the older models.
> 
> So far all I'm finding on line is a $79US electronic code unblocker , are there other options?


 


If you or someone you know has a computer, you can always convert the blu-ray to an MKV file and play the MKV file on your Oppo.
MKV files don't have region codes.
MAKEMKV is a software product that can perform the conversion.
You can use if free for 30 days.
www.makemkv.com


Ray


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos can be delivered by DD 5.1 so it can already be streamed with no problems. I'm fairly sure you know that already, so I suspect I am missing something in your post...


Yes, I'm aware that Atmos can be delivered by streaming services. The point that I failed to communicate effectively is that none of them are actually doing so. Vudu has the demo clips, but no actual movie titles, AFAIK.

Just as with gauging studio support by what they actually produce and make available on Blu-ray, I was looking to streaming (which is the format the studios seem to like the best) and seeing no support from the studios there, even those that produced Atmos-encoded Blu-rays. 

If streaming is the future (I hope it isn't our only future), then this lack of support will need to change for any of these formats to become a significant factor in the marketplace.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Sell them? Hell, I think there's one running for Congress from Texas!!


LOL! I have sampled one in Thailand. My advice: don't.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Yes, I'm aware that Atmos can be delivered by streaming services. The point that I failed to communicate effectively is that none of them are actually doing so. Vudu has the demo clips, but no actual movie titles, AFAIK.


Ah right. Gotcha now. Yes, I agree. Although I am not a fan of streaming, for the same reasons as you, I think it would be a good move for Atmos if the streaming services started to offer it.



BigScreen said:


> If streaming is the future (I hope it isn't our only future), then this lack of support will need to change for any of these formats to become a significant factor in the marketplace.


I think streaming has some inherent problems if it were to replace discs entirely:



People who live in rural areas often have limited broadband speeds, or capped download allowances, making streaming difficult or impossible.
Picture and sound quality is compromised - people who have invested heavily in HT equipment want to use it to the max.
I want to own my content because I don't trust content providers to always provide the content. Movie titles regularly disappear from Netflix for example.
Most people want to be able to lend content to friends sometimes.
Similarly, people want to be able to take content with them, eg on vacation or a plane journey.
I want to be able to sell content I no longer want.
I don't want to be dependent on my broadband working properly in order to watch a movie.

These are just some of the reasons I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.


----------



## BigScreen

> Atmos could go down as the 6.1 of the DVD format: cool, but rarely used, and basically abandoned before it ever hit its stride.



sdurani said:


> IF that does happen, it won't have been for lack of content (mixes). Already this year there have been 6 releases (in February alone there was Jupiter Ascending, Kingsman, McFarland USA) and another 4 due in March. For a format that's only a couple years old, 3-4 titles per month isn't bad. Back in the day, were 6.1 (5.1 EX) mixes coming out at the same rate? So the problem isn't lack of mixes, it's why those mixes are barely trickling out on home video. There must be a reason why some studios are waiting.


I wasn't referring to theatrical mixes. I think Atmos is pretty prevalent among new releases, especially given the relatively small number of Atmos-equipped theaters out there. However, what I was referring to is that when it comes to enjoying Atmos in the home, there are so few releases as to make a comparison to 6.1 DVD's apt. I'm not bashing on Atmos specifically, as these comments would hold true for any format that has been released but poorly supported.

I know that it's been less than a year, so the technology is still young. Heck, most people aren't even aware that it exists as an option for their homes. One could even say that Atmos was fortunate to have been included in the 2014 receivers at all, and that 2015 will really be its debutante ball. 

The issue is that these formats live and die by the software titles available for them, which are controlled by the studios. The fact that Battle of Five Armies is coming out without Atmos is telling about where Warner Bros. stands right now. Unbroken coming out with an Atmos soundtrack is a good sign, as it is a new release title from a studio that is new to supporting the format. 

All of the 2014 theatrical Atmos-encoded releases have had their home video announcements, so now we will have to wait for the 2015 releases to start their journey to home video. Taken 3 appears to have already been confirmed as not having Atmos, so that leaves American Sniper as the next in line. The production tech has been available for at least 6 months, and Warner Bros. is releasing Gravity at the end of March, so they must have it in-house.

My guess is that something is holding these studios up. I'm hoping that it's the impending release of DTS:X. If it isn't, then the future of these formats is very much in doubt. 

Let me be clear, I am not trying to bash on Atmos, but rather I'm just voicing my belief that the lack of support for the first home format out of the gates is sorely lacking, and unless that changes, I don't see how the format will succeed. We don't have that much time for a format to gain a foothold anymore. The same is true of Auro, but given that there are zero titles available and very little hardware support for it, I really don't think anything is going to happen with that format unless it is being merged with DTS somehow. If DTS doesn't debut with a splash, it will suffer the same fate as the other two.

The next five months will make it all clear, I think.


----------



## mpjmeyer

I'm getting ready to plan my home theater and will be using atmos. Will I be ok using 2 ceiling speakers in between 2 rows of seats for Atmos? Or do you recommend 4 speakers, 2 behind each row?


----------



## jrogers

mpjmeyer said:


> I'm getting ready to plan my home theater and will be using atmos. Will I be ok using 2 ceiling speakers in between 2 rows of seats for Atmos? Or do you recommend 4 speakers, 2 behind each row?


Let me see if I can be first... 4. You'll want to look at the guidelines and many posts around placement.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> However, what I was referring to is that when it comes to enjoying Atmos in the home, there are so few releases as to make a comparison to 6.1 DVD's apt.


I was pointing out the difference between 6.1 and Atmos when it came to home video: the former could use the lack of theatrical mixes as an excuse for lack of DVD releases while the latter can't use the same excuse for lack of BD releases (the number of 6.1 mixes done during the first dozen years was eclipsed by Atmos in less than three years). The point being that, since lack of content isn't the problem (as it was with 6.1), then something else is keeping Atmos mixes from reaching home video.


> We don't have that much time for a format to gain a foothold anymore.


How much time?


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos Speakers Installation Guidelines:*

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



mpjmeyer said:


> I'm getting ready to plan my home theater and will be using atmos. Will I be ok using 2 ceiling speakers in between 2 rows of seats for Atmos? Or do you recommend 4 speakers, 2 behind each row?


♦ Above link.


----------



## mpjmeyer

Do you place 2 speakers behind each row?


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


>





mpjmeyer said:


> Do you place 2 speakers behind each row?


♦ ...Some' like that (above).


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> So to compensate for Atmos soundtracks that barely use height effects, you're keeping your surrounds above ear level to get some imaging above you. Makes sense.


Not to compensate, but to hear Atmos mixes as much like they were heard when mixed and presented theatrically. 



> To compensate for discrete 7.1 mixes that barely use the rear channels (e.g., Super 8), do you follow the same logic by placing your side speakers rearward of your listening position to get some imaging behind you?


No need, as I am still hearing the mix as originally created and presented.



> From what I've read, nearfield mixes for home Atmos releases seem to be done in rooms smaller than typical dubbing stages, with speaker layouts that match home systems (7.1.4). Would be interesting to find out whether these nearfield mixing spaces follow Dolby's recommendation of having the surrounds closer to ear level.


Regardless of the speaker configuration, the real question is what sort of activity occurs during the "nearfield mix." Are they reimagining the entire soundtrack? Re-panning the objects? Or is it more about taming dynamic range and auditioning object scaling?


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

bargervais said:


> VUDU streams almost all their content in Dolby Digital plus so how hard would it be for them to jump to Atmos.


Several years ago they made a big deal about titles with DD+ 7.1, last I checked they had less than 20 titles. That was only a few months ago. I did not try to see how many of those titles were UV titles. Now they have removed the list of DD+ 7.1 titles. IMO, VUDU, Netflix, etc. does not want to be seen as lagging behind in technology so they make a lot of noise about 3D, UHD/4K, DD+, etc. but the end result is they lag behind what Blu-ray can and does deliver. The exception may be Netflix UHD/4K, testers say that in some cases it almost equals BD .


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Regardless of the speaker configuration, the real question is what sort of activity occurs during the "nearfield mix." Are they reimagining the entire soundtrack? Re-panning the objects? Or is it more about taming dynamic range and auditioning object scaling?


If your intent is to reproduce what you heard theatrically, with height information and correlated surround information both imaging above you, then does it really matter if the home video mix re-panned objects up or down? You want the theatrical effect, not necessarily how it was heard during the nearfield mix.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd clearly prefer Atmos discs. But the reality is I have about 1,500 discs of which 1,493 do not have Atmos. I also have 4 speakers on my ceiling and a recently bought AVR that can send sound to them. In those circumstances, it seems to me that DSU is a godsend. I find it works very well, adds a lot of immersion and doesn't really do anything malign. I still struggle to understand why you dislike DSU for movies though


It mainly seems to add higher frequency hash from the heights. I understand why it happens -- based on the way DSU spatial decomposition is done in a multiband processor, but that does not make me like it any better. Illusonic IAP showed it could be done without excessive HF tilt. And AuroMatic does not have that problem, either (it has a different set of problems... )


----------



## RMK!

> Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
> No - I don't have Auro. I couldn’t see the point in adding it to my Denon, given there is very little native content for it and also my speaker layout is not really suitable for it, which would make any conclusions unfair.* Also, from what I have read, Auromatic (the equivalent of DSU) is more or less a glorified "all speaker stereo" system, so I can't really imagine me liking it much*. HST, I haven't heard it, and am unlikely to, so I have never commented on how Auro may sound. I restrict my remarks to the technological aspects of it, or the commercial reality of its likelihood to succeed long term in today's marketplace, dominated as it is by Dolby and DTS, two of the most formidable companies in the field with huge money behind them.





RMK! said:


> I did upgrade to Auro 3D and Auromatic (Marantz Pre Pro) and the bold comment above isn't consistent with my experience. In fact, I prefer Auromatic to DSU for M/C music with my Atmos positioned speakers. For movie up-mixing, I'd say each has strengths relative to the other but that comment is based upon a casual comparison with no channel isolation tests. Both kick the ceiling speakers into gear and provide a more immersive HT experience IMHO.





kbarnes701 said:


> I was really commenting on how it works rather than what it sounds like. I haven't heard Auro or Auromatic, and am unlikely to do so.


Your bold comment above sounds like a judgement on the sound even if it is second hand. 

Today I did some channel isolation tests using Auro-matic and DSU on the Bond film Skyfall. The Auro-matic is certainly not a "glorified all speaker stereo system". I concentrated on a couple of scenes the first having rain and the second with fireworks overhead. Both formats provided some of the overhead rain and fireworks sounds from my 4 ceiling mounted speakers but the Auro 3D audio provided more appropriate (to me) sound and was more immersive. Auro also provides some adjustments in the levels of the intensity and specific type of sound coming from the Height speakers. I'm glad you prompted me to look a little deeper into this and my test today confirmed the excellent value of my $200 upgrade fee. Now, back to the Atmos discussion and sorry for the OT.


----------



## Roger Dressler

RMK! said:


> Today I did some channel isolation tests using Auro-matic and DSU on the Bond film Skyfall. The Auro-matic is certainly not a "glorified all speaker stereo system". I concentrated on a couple of scenes the first having rain and the second with fireworks overhead. Both formats provided some of the overhead rain and fireworks sounds from my 4 ceiling mounted speakers but the Auro 3D audio provided more appropriate (to me) sound and was more immersive.


True, but just realize it is a simple copy of all the base channels, minus the C channel, with some secondary remixing (all height speakers carry all the channels in different proportions). 



> Auro also provides some adjustments in the levels of the intensity and specific type of sound coming from the Height speakers.


Nothing specific about it. It just changes the levels and amount of added reverb. It sounds harmless enough, though. Especially useful if one has lowered their surrounds to ear level.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> If your intent is to reproduce what you heard theatrically, with height information and correlated surround information both imaging above you, then does it really matter if the home video mix re-panned objects up or down? You want the theatrical effect, not necessarily how it was heard during the nearfield mix.


I think the theatrical experience is a reasonable goal. I have no idea what they are hearing during the nearfield mix.


----------



## NorthSky

Wendell R. Breland said:


> Several years ago they made a big deal about titles with DD+ 7.1, last I checked they had less than 20 titles. That was only a few months ago. I did not try to see how many of those titles were UV titles. Now they have removed the list of DD+ 7.1 titles. IMO, VUDU, Netflix, etc. does not want to be seen as lagging behind in technology so they make a lot of noise about 3D, UHD/4K, DD+, etc. but the end result is they lag behind what Blu-ray can and does deliver. The exception may be Netflix UHD/4K, testers say that in some cases it almost equals BD .


No Vudu stuff magic here in Canada.  ...We simply don't have a good Internet connection (too low speeds in the Great White North). 

But then, you guys don't get Disney 3D Blu-ray either. ...Only Mexico and Brazil.

* Hey, Atmos theaters are non-existent here anyway. ...There might be two or three in our entire vast country.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I think the theatrical experience is a reasonable goal. I have no idea what they are hearing during the nearfield mix.


If you found out that home mixes were done on speaker layouts using Dolby's recommendations (surrounds closer to ear level), would you re-think your placement or would the theatrical experience still be your goal?


----------



## RMK!

Roger Dressler said:


> True, but just realize it is a simple copy of all the base channels, minus the C channel, with some secondary remixing (all height speakers carry all the channels in different proportions).
> 
> Nothing specific about it. It just changes the levels and amount of added reverb. It sounds harmless enough, though. Especially useful if one has lowered their surrounds to ear level.


Well, it may as you say just be a copy of the base channels minus the center, but I found nothing inappropriate in terms of the content of the sound relative to the on-screen image. Auro does provide a couple of adjustments not found in DSU or Atmos and I like the ability to control the amount of sound coming from the ceiling speakers. 

More importantly, I like that I can do Atmos, DSU and Auro-matic (Auro 3D) and look forward to DTS-X in the future. They all enhance the HT experience and that is a good thing. IMHO


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I think the theatrical experience is a reasonable goal. I have no idea what they are hearing during the nearfield mix.


...A juxtaposition of the theatrical and the studio transfer replication/recreation audio mixes?


----------



## NorthSky

> If you found out that home mixes were done on speaker layouts using Dolby's recommendations (surrounds closer to ear level), would you re-think your placement or would the theatrical experience still be your goal?


@ home we have one to twelve moviegoers on average, and the room is much smaller than @ the theater with 300 to 600 moviegoers. 

...All else being unequaled 3D surround sound wise. ...In two very different venues. 

And, a nearfield 3D Dolby Atmos surround sound audio mix in a film mixing studio is another different venue and sound experience for the recording/mixing film sound engineer. 

What is the u!timate goal for Dolby Atmos @ home? ...From encoded Dolby Atmos Blu-ray discs.


----------



## SoundChex

bargervais said:


> VUDU streams almost all their content in Dolby Digital plus so how hard would it be for them to jump to Atmos.




My understanding is that the _object-based and|or immersive audio_ replacement codec for *Dolby Digital plus* is *Dolby AC-4* (_link_) currently being codified for standardization as *ETSI TS 103 190 "Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard" V1.1.1 (2014-04)* (_link_), although I recall reading recently that the "personalization" features have been "finalized" . . . but *not* the "immersive" features...?!

In any event, *Dolby AC-4* is in direct competition with *DTS:X "broadcast feature set"* and *MPEG-H 3D* to provide unified encoding|transport of content in the _next-generation_ *OTA|CATV|mobile|IP* media space. *One of the three* will be chosen to be the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* in mid August 2015, *after which date there will likely be "some revisions" to all three codecs...?!*


_


----------



## NorthSky

RMK! said:


> ... More importantly, I like that I can do Atmos, DSU and Auro-matic (Auro 3D) and look forward to DTS-X in the future. They all enhance the HT experience and that is a good thing. IMHO


That, is the main tagline. ...And the more manual (parameters) control we have all over them and above them the more 3D sound immersive the experience @ home is. 

It don't matter much @ the theater or @ the film mixer sound studio; it's in our own homes that all the action is u!timately happening.
And that, is all that truly matters, quality 3D sound wise. IMHO ...just like you said yourself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Regardless of the speaker configuration, the real question is what sort of activity occurs during the "nearfield mix." Are they reimagining the entire soundtrack? Re-panning the objects? Or is it more about taming dynamic range and auditioning object scaling?


From what I've been reading of professional home Atmos mixing sessions it can be a little of both or a lot of one or the other if I'm reading what these engineers are spelling out correctly. 

My concern is when they decide to create a wholesale nearfield remix from the PCM stems they only use a 7.1.4 configuration to do so (like with some of these Lionsgate titles). Home Atmos, as we all know, is capable of 24.1.10. They should be thinking a little bit bigger IMHO.


----------



## bargervais

SoundChex said:


> My understanding is that the _object-based and|or immersive audio_ replacement codec for *Dolby Digital plus* is *Dolby AC-4* (_link_) currently being codified for standardization as *ETSI TS 103 190 "Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard" V1.1.1 (2014-04)* (_link_), although I recall reading recently that the "personalization" features have been "finalized" . . . but *not* the "immersive" features...?!
> 
> In any event, *Dolby AC-4* is in direct competition with *DTS:X "broadcast feature set"* and *MPEG-H 3D* to provide unified encoding|transport of content in the _next-generation_ *OTA|CATV|mobile|IP* media space. *One of the three* will be chosen to be the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* in mid August 2015, *after which date there will likely be "some revisions" to all three codecs...?!*
> 
> 
> _


Thanks that explains it now It's a little clearer


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I've been reading of professional home Atmos mixing sessions it can be a little of both or a lot of one or the other if I'm reading what these engineers are spelling out correctly.
> 
> My concern is when they decide to create a wholesale nearfield remix from the PCM stems they only use a 7.1.4 configuration to do so (like with some of these Lionsgate titles). Home Atmos, as we all know, is capable of 24.1.10. They should be thinking a little bit bigger IMHO.


Thinking a little bit bigger might also cost a little bit bigger.

______

* Dan, did you see *'John Wick'* on Blu-ray? If yes, what is your take?


----------



## HotAhr

NorthSky said:


> Thinking a little bit bigger might also cost a little bit bigger.
> 
> ______
> 
> * Dan, did you see *'John Wick'* on Blu-ray? If yes, what is your take?



24X1X10 My goodness! Wouldn't a room have to be just huge to take that kind of a load? Whoa! Wow! That is a grand total of 35 speakers. I'd have to own a warehouse for my home. Wouldn't I?


----------



## NorthSky

It depends....


----------



## Stephen D Orwig

I have a question about installing in-ceiling speakers (7.2.4 Atmos setup) when you have two rows of theater seating. I'm planning on installing one set of ceiling speakers in front of the first row of seating, but should the second set of ceiling speakers go between row one and two, or behind row two?


----------



## nitro28

Stephen D Orwig said:


> I have a question about installing in-ceiling speakers (7.2.4 Atmos setup) when you have two rows of theater seating. I'm planning on installing one set of ceiling speakers in front of the first row of seating, but should the second set of ceiling speakers go between row one and two, or behind row two?


Slightly behind. See the post at the top of the page or dolbys website. Just wire for more placements because we may have 6 or more channels at some point to fill in those gaps.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> If you found out that home mixes were done on speaker layouts using Dolby's recommendations (surrounds closer to ear level), would you re-think your placement or would the theatrical experience still be your goal?


If the home mix is nothing more than a tweak of dialog levels, dynamics, and a "sanity check" of the object spatial mapping to make sure no anomalies pop up from the consumer decoder, then no. All the spatial decisions are still those of the original theatrical mix (as they should be).


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> Your bold comment above sounds like a judgement on the sound even if it is second hand.


No. It is a comment on how it works. I have no idea how it sounds. When I said it is a sort of glorified all-channel stereo, what I mean is that Auromatic simply copies whole channels into the height channels, with a bit of reverb thrown in. It isn't selectively extracting information like other upmixers do. So in that sense, of copying whole channels, it works something like the reviled all-channel stereo. As to how Auromatic sounds, I have no idea. Never heard it.



RMK! said:


> Today I did some channel isolation tests using Auro-matic and DSU on the Bond film Skyfall. The Auro-matic is certainly not a "glorified all speaker stereo system". I concentrated on a couple of scenes the first having rain and the second with fireworks overhead. Both formats provided some of the overhead rain and fireworks sounds from my 4 ceiling mounted speakers but the Auro 3D audio provided more appropriate (to me) sound and was more immersive. Auro also provides some adjustments in the levels of the intensity and specific type of sound coming from the Height speakers. I'm glad you prompted me to look a little deeper into this and my test today confirmed the excellent value of my $200 upgrade fee. Now, back to the Atmos discussion and sorry for the OT.


I am glad you like it. But liking it and discussing how it works are two different things.

EDIT: I see Roger already explained it.


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> No. It is a comment on how it works. I have no idea how it sounds. When I said it is a sort of glorified all-channel stereo, what I mean is that Auromatic simply copies whole channels into the height channels, with a bit of reverb thrown in. It isn't selectively extracting information like other upmixers do. So in that sense, of copying whole channels, it works something like the reviled all-channel stereo. As to how Auromatic sounds, I have no idea. Never heard it.
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad you like it. But liking it and discussing how it works are two different things.
> 
> EDIT: I see Roger already explained it.


Liking it is very germane to the conversation and the basis for most decisions in this hobby. Using hyperbolic terms like "reviled" only serves to muddy the waters. I respect the opinions of real experts and consider Roger Dressler an expert. Your explanation about the technology is simplistic and second hand. Add to that the fact you have not heard any implementation of Auro and this discussion is pointless. 

Again, sorry for the OT. I just received a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disk and will be using that to compare Atmos to DSU and Auro-matic. I will continue to share my subjective opinions on these formats and look forward to reading the same from others.


----------



## sdurani

RMK! said:


> I respect the opinions of real experts and consider Roger Dressler an expert. Your explanation about the technology is simplistic and second hand.


But it's the same explanation.


Roger Dressler said:


> True, but just realize it is a simple copy of all the base channels, minus the C channel, with some secondary remixing (all height speakers carry all the channels in different proportions). ...It just changes the levels and amount of added reverb.





kbarnes701 said:


> When I said it is a sort of glorified all-channel stereo, what I mean is that Auromatic simply copies whole channels into the height channels, with a bit of reverb thrown in. It isn't selectively extracting information like other upmixers do.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> Liking it is very germane to the conversation and the basis for most decisions in this hobby. Using hyperbolic terms like "reviled" only serves to muddy the waters.


All channel stereo is usually reviled by most, so it seems an appropriate term to use for it.



RMK! said:


> I respect the opinions of real experts and consider Roger Dressler an expert. Your explanation about the technology is simplistic and second hand.


LOL. Roger's explanation and mine were the same - as they would be of course, because that is how it works. You may not like the comparison with all-channel stereo but it is a valid one - copying base channels into other speakers.



RMK! said:


> Add to that the fact you have not heard any implementation of Auro and this discussion is pointless.


I wasn't discussing how it sounds. I was discussing how it works. Feel free not to join in. I was having a discussion with wse and you jumped in.



RMK! said:


> Again, sorry for the OT. I just received a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disk and will be using that to compare Atmos to DSU and Auro-matic. I will continue to share my subjective opinions on these formats and look forward to reading the same from others.


You didn't seem to look forward to reading my objective post (on how Auromatic works!)  In fact, it seemed to get you all riled up.


----------



## RMK!

sdurani said:


> But it's the same explanation.


I get that Keith isn't interested in Auro . Roger is a well known Dolby engineer and has probably read (and understands) all of the White Papers on the Auro site. As a "Dolby guy" he I'm sure he has a bias but I have found him to be fair in his comparisons. 

I believe based upon my direct experiences that 3D "object" based audio (and even the the upmixing technologies) have great promise to make HT audio better. Unfortunately it is turning into another format war and that process does not insure that the best product(s) will prevail. As a purchaser of Betamax and HD-DVD machines and media I have the scars to prove it. Extra noise around this process isn't helpful so please, let's drop it.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RMK!*
> _Again, sorry for the OT. I just received a copy of the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disk and will be using that to compare Atmos to DSU and Auro-matic. I will continue to share my subjective opinions on these formats and look forward to reading the same from others. _
> 
> 
> You didn't seem to look forward to reading my objective post (on how Auromatic works!)  In fact, it seemed to get you all riled up.


Oh boy, I love it when someone challenges Keith.

I'm going to grab a six-pack and a bag of popcorn and settle in for the dust-up!


----------



## sdurani

RMK! said:


> I get that Keith isn't interested in Auro . Roger is a well known Dolby engineer and has probably read (and understands) all of the White Papers on the Auro site. As a "Dolby guy" he I'm sure he has a bias but I have found him to be fair in his comparisons.


The same description cannot change from an "expert" opinion to a "simplistic" explanation based on who posts it.


----------



## RMK!

sdurani said:


> The same description cannot change from an "expert" opinion to a "simplistic" explanation based on who posts it.


The comment itself is a simplistic explanation of DM's implementation of Auro-matic regardless of who posts it. I believe that Rogers brief (simplistic) comment was based upon a more detailed analysis but perhaps not. There are a lot of things thrown around here that are purported to be facts when they are really no more than unvetted conjecture. I try and consider the source.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> I get that Keith isn't interested in Auro .


I am not interested in _having Auro in my home system_. That doesn't mean I am not interested in it per se. In fact, I am very interested in how Auro and Auromatic work, if only to serve as a comparison with my own favored multi-dimensional sound technology, which is currently Atmos. (I may also favor DTS:X once I know more about it and once there is content available for it.)

The main reasons I don't want Auro at home are that there is currently no Bluray movie content for Auro and that I see no future for a channel based system anyway, so my own personal belief is that Auro will just 'fade away'.



RMK! said:


> I believe based upon my direct experiences that 3D "object" based audio (and even the the upmixing technologies) have great promise to make HT audio better.


Given that Auro is channel based not object based, does that mean you see no future for Auro too?



RMK! said:


> Unfortunately it is turning into another format war and that process does not insure that the best product(s) will prevail. As a purchaser of Betamax and HD-DVD machines and media I have the scars to prove it. Extra noise around this process isn't helpful so please, let's drop it.


I don't think it's the same thing. There will be no format war between DTS:X and Atmos any more than there is a format war between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Consumers don't care if the disc they just bought has one or the other - their player seamlessly switches to play whatever is on the disc. It will be the same with Atmos and DTS:X. Consumers will buy their movie on disc and it will come with one or the other. Their player will handle both, so there is no 'war', just peaceful co-existence. Auro won't count as there will be no Bluray content for it worth talking about and no mainstream AVR manufacturers are supporting it, other than as a paid-for add-on, which most people won't go for because of the lack of content. 

Of course, the lack of native content brings us back to the upmixers. Atmos has DSU which is brilliantly competent. DTS:X is unknown at this stage but will likely be some sort of development of their Neo:X tech. And Auro has Auromatic which isn’t really an upmixer at all but just copies base channels to the other speakers with a bit of added reverb


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Oh boy, I love it when someone challenges Keith.
> 
> I'm going to grab a six-pack and a bag of popcorn and settle in for the dust-up!


It's all good-natured I hope. Although I am bemused by the notion that when I explain how Auromatic works, I am an amateur giving worthless 'secondhand' opinions (not really sure what that means TBH) but when Roger gives the exact same explanation, he is an 'expert' and well worth listening to (as he is of course but that is by the way). 

I assume it means that RMK now agrees with me, based on Roger's explanation, that Auromatic is similar to all-channel stereo in the way it works.


----------



## Scott Simonian

First rule of Fight Club Auro Club: You do not talk about Auro Club *but you can if you love Auro and own gear. Otherwise, shut up*


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> The comment itself is a simplistic explanation of DM's implementation of Auro-matic regardless of who posts it. I believe that Rogers brief (simplistic) comment was based upon a more detailed analysis but perhaps not. There are a lot of things thrown around here that are purported to be facts when they are really no more than unvetted conjecture. I try and consider the source.


When Roger says it, it is a "fact" and when I say the same it is "conjecture"? Yeah, right.


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> When Roger says it, it is a "fact" and when I say the same it is "conjecture"? Yeah, right.


You are an ex-marketing guy ... right? 

I didn't say "fact" Keith, rather, I feel that Rogers bonafides in Audio Engineering gives his opinions more weight (eg credibility) but he could be wrong. You might try listening for yourself at some point as you might find that helpful in forming opinions. Simply parroting others comments about proprietary technologies doesn't add to a useful discussion on sound quality. I am aware of the significant limitations of my understanding of the underlying technologies at play here and I *try* to keep my comments to direct experience. The bottom line is I like to try things out and decide what sounds best to me in my HT. I will then, on occasion, share my opinion. That seems like a reasonable approach, doesn't it?


----------



## BigScreen

> We don't have that much time for a format to gain a foothold anymore.



sdurani said:


> How much time?


Essentially, the amount of time that it is currently taking for Atmos to get from Announcement phase (June 2014) to Wide Adoption phase. Eight months may not seem like a long period of time, but in the tech industry, it is. If you don't capture the hearts and minds of the right people, in the necessary quantity, you risk getting run over by everything coming up from behind.

Fortunately for Atmos (in the home), Auro has been a non-starter. More of a proof-of-concept than anything else, but without more hardware support and software support, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Auro had a chance, since Atmos seems to be having trouble finding the right gear, but they wasted the opportunity.

I think it's that opportunity that explains why DTS made the announcement that it did at CES. They effectively put the brakes on anyone considering making a move on Atmos, both on the software side and on the consumer side. The studios were probably well aware of where DTS was at, but the announcement made it official that DTS had something to say, and they were going to say it in March, and that resonates with decision-makers; all the way from the person who greenlights such things at the studio home video divisions to people like me that are interested in getting into the fun.

I'm willing to give Atmos some latitude and say that they have until the end of this year to get it figured out. By then, we'll have had the 2nd generation of consumer-grade receivers released and reviewed. Anything DTS is going to do will be in action by then. Perhaps the UltraHD Blu-ray players will be available, or at least announced.

If every major movie on the list of 2015 Theatrical Atmos releases is available on Blu-ray in Atmos (and ideally, streaming), that will be very encouraging. That would be about a dozen movies, which would definitely help. If Warner releases the Battle of Five Armies Extended Edition and the anticipated Extended Edition Trilogy Box Set in Atmos, that would do wonders as well.

The end of 2015 is 18 months after Dolby's announcement. That's an eternity in this business. TV shows that don't catch on are canceled after week 5. Movie sequels with A-list actors are dumped when the first installment doesn't clear some line on a spreadsheet. Technology doesn't stand still. I hope Atmos doesn't get run over, unless it's by someone doing it better. Otherwise, I fear that we'll have lost our chance to have height-based sound in our homes for good.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> I didn't say "fact" Keith,





RMK! said:


> There are a lot of things thrown around here that are purported to be facts when they are really no more than unvetted conjecture.





RMK! said:


> rather, I feel that Rogers bonafides in Audio Engineering gives his opinions more weight (eg credibility) but he could be wrong. You might try listening for yourself at some point as you might find that helpful in forming opinions. Simply parroting others comments about proprietary technologies doesn't add to a useful discussion on sound quality.


How many times have I said I was _not commenting on sound quality_ - only on the underlying technology? I have no opinion on how Auro or Auromatic sound.



RMK! said:


> I am aware of the significant limitations of my understanding of the underlying technologies at play here and I *try* to keep my comments to direct experience. The bottom line is I like to try things out and decide what sounds best to me in my HT. I will then, on occasion, share my opinion. That seems like a reasonable approach, doesn't it?


Agreed totally. It was you who jumped in on my discussion with wse about my "all channel stereo" comment, not the other way around. You disagreed with my remark. Since Roger has subsequently confirmed the way Auromatic works, by copying base channels to other speaker sets, like all-channel stereo does, I assume you now agree with me. 

But I was not, and never have, commented on how Auro sounds, and you keep on trying to bring back my original comments on how Auromatic works to how it _sounds_. I repeat: I have no idea.


----------



## sdurani

RMK! said:


> The comment itself is a simplistic explanation of DM's implementation of Auro-matic regardless of who posts it.


Then let's not give the same explanation two different labels based on who posts it.


> There are a lot of things thrown around here that are purported to be facts when they are really no more than unvetted conjecture.


True, so rather than take anyone's word for it, play a stereo source through Auro-Matic and hear for yourself that the signal is copied to each pair of speakers (with the level lowered and reverb added). With a multi-channel test signal (channel identification track), you can hear for yourself which height speakers each channel is copied to. This way it will no longer be "unvetted conjecture".


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> I assume you now agree with me.


You know what they say about assume, don't you ...

Adios amigo!


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> You know what they say about assume, don't you ...
> 
> Adios amigo!


I do indeed. But there's no need to be so hard on yourself. Now that Roger -- your "authoritative source" has given his verdict, you don't really have much choice but to agree 

¡Hasta luego!


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> Oh boy, I love it when someone challenges Keith.
> 
> I'm going to grab a six-pack and a bag of popcorn and settle in for the dust-up!





RMK! said:


> You know what they say about assume, don't you ...
> 
> Adios amigo!





kbarnes701 said:


> I do indeed. But there's no need to be so hard on yourself. Now that Roger -- your "authoritative source" has given his verdict, you don't really have much choice but to agree
> 
> ¡Hasta luego!


Ah, and just as I had drained the last brewski and munched the last kernel of my popcorn!

Don't you just love a good old Western shootout?


----------



## RMK!

sdurani said:


> Then let's not give the same explanation two different labels based on who posts it. True, so rather than take anyone's word for it, play a stereo source through Auro-Matic and hear for yourself that the signal is copied to each pair of speakers (with the level lowered and reverb added). With a multi-channel test signal (channel identification track), you can hear for yourself which height speakers each channel is copied to. This way it will no longer be "unvetted conjecture".


Thank you for the suggestion. I haven't been taking anyone's word for much of anything when it come to these new SS formats. That is why I (for a few sheckels) purchased the Auro upgrade from Marantz. My preferred test methodology is to listen to the specific content that comes out of the height channels while playing actual movie material. Of the formats, DSU and Auro-matic seem more alike than different but I am slightly preferring Auro-matic as I can adjust the intensity of the Height content. Also, although someone stated that the Heights contain no Center Channel info, some dialog is distributed to the height speakers with Auro-matic. The dialog I heard out of the heights was only when the person was speaking in a reflective space. Perhaps that is the reverb factor but it was a nice effect that increased realism. I did not notice that effect with DSU. 

Atmos clearly has the most promise but like Auro 3D and DTS-X requires the source to contain the relevant audio info so those formats are only marginally useful for the foreseeable. In the meantime, I will continue to use my height channels and experiment with the 2 upmixing formats I own. IMHO either is an improvement over a standard 5.1 or 7.1 config.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> Essentially, the amount of time that it is currently taking for Atmos to get from Announcement phase (June 2014) to Wide Adoption phase. Eight months may not seem like a long period of time, but in the tech industry, it is. If you don't capture the hearts and minds of the right people, in the necessary quantity, you risk getting run over by everything coming up from behind.


The only object-based audio format coming up from behind is DTS:X, and they're still trying to catch up, let alone run over Atmos. If Dolby doesn't meet this deadline you describe, the movie industry won't suddenly stop migrating from channel-based mixing to object-based mixing. The ability to decode those soundtracks, which is _already_ in current gear, is not going to be taken away even if BD releases continue their slow pace.


> I think it's that opportunity that explains why DTS made the announcement that it did at CES. They effectively put the brakes on anyone considering making a move on Atmos, both on the software side and on the consumer side.


Keep in mind they made a similar announcement a year earlier (CES 2014), when it was still called DTS-UHD. That announcement didn't put the brakes on the Atmos roll out in 2014, nor keep enthusiasts from buying Atmos receivers and the few BDs that are trickling out. DTS has to do more than announce.


> I'm willing to give Atmos some latitude and say that they have until the end of this year to get it figured out.


Mighty generous of you. What happens to them if they don't meet your deadline?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Ah, and just as I had drained the last brewski and munched the last kernel of my popcorn!
> 
> Don't you just love a good old Western shootout?


You are a very naughty man


----------



## sdurani

RMK! said:


> My preferred test methodology is to listen to the specific content that comes out of the height channels while playing actual movie material.


Program material, which often has sounds from multiple channels being played back simultaneously, makes it much more difficult to hear how Auro-Matic operates. That's why I suggested a channel identifier track (found on any set-up DVD or BD), since that would make it very easy to hear which speakers each channel gets copied to.


----------



## BigScreen

sdurani said:


> The only object-based audio format coming up from behind is DTS:X, and they're still trying to catch up, let alone run over Atmos. If Dolby doesn't meet this deadline you describe, the movie industry won't suddenly stop migrating from channel-based mixing to object-based mixing. The ability to decode those soundtracks, which is _already_ in current gear, is not going to be taken away even if BD releases continue their slow pace.


Fair point, but if it doesn't reach some kind of critical mass, then its effectiveness will be blunted by the catch-22 of people not implementing Atmos at home because of the dearth of titles and studios not going through the effort of producing Atmos-encoded titles because of the small audience size.

My receivers have the ability to decode Dolby Digital 6.1, but not very many DVDs ever contained that soundtrack. The ability is there, but it's not being used. Some might say that the majority of movie watchers at home have at best a 2.1 sound system. They might be accurate, even though such a statement makes me sad. Less have 5.1 systems. Even less have 7.1 systems. Now imagine where the number of people with Atmos capability is. What studio is going to want to produce for that? Unless it's as easy as the push of a button, and doing so does not require anything that will cost money (extra disc or noticeably diminished video quality because of space issues, etc.) there's little incentive at this time. Without a large enough number of titles to gain interest to a large enough number of people, there won't be a lucrative market to produce for.



> Keep in mind they made a similar announcement a year earlier (CES 2014), when it was still called DTS-UHD. That announcement didn't put the brakes on the Atmos roll out in 2014, nor keep enthusiasts from buying Atmos receivers and the few BDs that are trickling out. DTS has to do more than announce.


But if it's not DTS' upcoming announcement that is keeping studios from pulling the trigger on producing Atmos soundtracks, that's a bigger problem. Without the spectre of a competing solution that might be a more attractive option, then it means that the studios just don't want to. Maybe they're waiting for another generation of (more and cheaper) receivers to have Atmos built-in, so that the potential market is larger. Maybe the workflow just isn't there yet to be added to every release. I hope it's something, and that time will fix it.



> Mighty generous of you. What happens to them if they don't meet your deadline?


Hehe, I was probably pontificating there, but basically my point was that unless it can reach some sort of critical mass, it will likely be a non-factor for good. The best Atmos could then hope for would be to get rolled into the UltraHD and/or Dolby Vision specs and will be taken along for the ride. Studios are methodically shoving physical media to a secondary position, and it's quite possible that Blu-ray as a format will see its end of days within the next few years. I'm not sure that UltraHD Blu-ray will reach the same level of market penetration (but I hope so; long live physical discs!).

Looking back at my posts, I sound really down on Atmos, but I don't want to be. A lot of that is probably borne of my frustration at having this technology available and being disappointed with every theatrical Atmos release that is announced on Blu-ray without an Atmos soundtrack. It's saving me a lot of money, so maybe I shouldn't complain , but I want to see the hobby I enjoy continue to grow and move forward.


----------



## audioguy

Of all the families that watch movies at home, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (5.1 or greater) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a 60 inch TV (or maybe 5 or 6) and no supporting external sound system. Some of those folks have been to my home, watched movies in our theater, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.

At best, in my opinion, 3D sound in the home will always be a niche market.

That said, if another 3D Bluray is never released, I am more than perfectly happy with DSU and the money and effort it took to get it in place. I actually bought Auro but haven't run a setup for it. My hope is that it is better for up mixing 2 channel music than DSU is.

My prediction: long term success for 3D audio is less than 50%. UNLESS someone creates the equivalent of the Sound bar that makes it work!

But what do I know??


----------



## Patrick Murphy

"A lot of that is probably borne of my frustration at having this technology available and being disappointed with every theatrical Atmos release that is announced on Blu-ray without an Atmos soundtrack."


Do you think that if Dolby would have gotten together with Spielberg and Lucas a year ago and mixed Indiana Jones and Star Wars for a super-duper launch in Atmos more people would be excited about putting speakers on their ceilings. They should have made sure that there would be 1st rate movies available in abundance, even if they had to kick in to have them remixed. Bad marketing?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> That would seem to address playback of 5.1/7.1 content nicely. But what about Transformers 4 or the like, whilst patiently awaiting a height effect to come along?


I have a strong hunch that for those type of Atmos tracks I will sonically also prefer applying the perceptually elevated surrounds. In effect this means that the rear height speakers will get their sound from two combined sources: Surround and Top Rear. A simple mixer will do the job.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> My receivers have the ability to decode Dolby Digital 6.1, but not very many DVDs ever contained that soundtrack. The ability is there, but it's not being used.


Paucity of home video releases doesn't mean the technology won't continue to be licensed. What you're describing about 6.1 releases on DVD could also be said about Atmos releases on BD.


> Some might say that the majority of movie watchers at home have at best a 2.1 sound system.


That sounds believable; most people probably listen to movies using their TV speakers or a soundbar. But those general consumers don't limit the pace of new technology, otherwise we'd never have gotten lossless audio and discrete 7.1 in entry level AVRs. Do you think receiver manufacturers polled typical consumers to find out whether it was worth putting object-based-audio in their products? "Abject-best-what?"


> They might be accurate, even though such a statement makes me sad.


Why? Summer of 2014 you were able to buy an 11.1-channel receiver with object-based audio decoding; and for relatively reasonable price. Buying habits of general consumers haven't held you back from getting new technology. Nothing to be sad about.


> Now imagine where the number of people with Atmos capability is. What studio is going to want to produce for that?


So far: Lionsgate, Paramount, Warners, Universal.


> But if it's not DTS' upcoming announcement that is keeping studios from pulling the trigger on producing Atmos soundtracks, that's a bigger problem. Without the spectre of a competing solution that might be a more attractive option, then it means that the studios just don't want to.


Not necessarily. IF it turns out they're not waiting for DTS, that doesn't mean they're not waiting for something else looming on the horizon.


> The best Atmos could then hope for would be to get rolled into the UltraHD and/or Dolby Vision specs and will be taken along for the ride.


As long as those mixes end up in consumers' hands, irrespective of which shiny disc they're delivered on, that's ultimately a good thing.


> Looking back at my posts, I sound really down on Atmos, but I don't want to be.


You sound impatient for more Atmos, not down on the Atmos format. Enthusiasm isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> *Of all the families that watch movies at home, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (5.1 or greater) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a 60 inch TV (or maybe 5 or 6) and no supporting external sound system. Some of those folks have been to my home, watched movies in our theater, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.*
> 
> At best, in my opinion, 3D sound in the home will always be a niche market.
> 
> That said, if another 3D Bluray is never released, I am more than perfectly happy with DSU and the money and effort it took to get it in place. I actually bought Auro but haven't run a setup for it. My hope is that it is better for up mixing 2 channel music than DSU is.
> 
> My prediction: long term success for 3D audio is less than 50%. UNLESS someone creates the equivalent of the Sound bar that makes it work!
> 
> But what do I know??


Let me re-phrase this a little. 

Of all the families that drive a car, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (jaguar, ferrari, porsche, etc) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a nissan sentra or chevy cobalt and no modifications. Some of those folks have been in my high performance car, done some burnouts and fast driving, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.


I can see why the high performance auto industry should just throw in the towel. 


If this was the case anything beyond 7.1 would not really be around or widely supported. The fact is that they are. Hardware manufactures continue to make the decoding devices and speaker manufactures continue to sell kits that support >5.1 audio. Also the studios continue to sell software with 7.1ch audio. Granted not all movies are made or sold in 7.1 but many are. Well over 100 movies are mixed with object audio and this number will continue to grow.

Not sure what the point is for the posters popping in threads like this to let us know they think this technology won't catch on. Maybe something for the Hallmark or a yoga forum. Not AVS.


----------



## audioguy

Patrick Murphy said:


> Do you think that if Dolby would have gotten together with Spielberg and Lucas a year ago and mixed Indiana Jones and Star Wars (or ET or any number of other well known films)for a super-duper launch in Atmos more people would be excited about putting speakers on their ceilings. They should have made sure that there would be 1st rate movies available in abundance, even if they had to kick in to have them remixed. Bad marketing?


That is a great idea. Instead, they used the "build it and they will (hopefuly) come" approach.


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> sure what the point is for the posters popping in threads like this to let us know they think this technology won't catch on. Maybe something for the Hallmark or a yoga forum. Not AVS.


Two comments: So while I have made the investment in the hardware, I am only allowed to post on THIS forum if I choose to spout positive comments about the future of the technology. Sorry, this is a forum where I get to post my view whether you like it or not.

If you re-read my post, I said nothing about studios and mixing facilities getting on board for the technology. I was quite clear that my questioning was around the number of homes that would implement this technology. 

If you don't like my comments, please use the Ignore function. It works really well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's not really what I was saying about your post, bud. Take it easy. I'm not like some people who don't want you to post because I disagree with you about something. However you missed my point entirely and responding to something I wasn't saying.

I was simply commenting that (and this comes up a lot) these technologies will never prevail simply because not many people do it.

It's no different from saying that Blu-ray and 4K will fail because a lot of people still use dvds.


----------



## chi_guy50

audioguy said:


> Of all the families that watch movies at home, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (5.1 or greater) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a 60 inch TV (or maybe 5 or 6) and no supporting external sound system. Some of those folks have been to my home, watched movies in our theater, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.


Yes, and this technology is not for them. (They probably think we're ludicrously obsessed, even as they effuse over your wonderful setup.)



audioguy said:


> At best, in my opinion, 3D sound in the home will always be a niche market.


You can say the same of $1,000+ AVR/SSP's, but the CEM's keep not only churning them out but investing in the R&D to produce ever more sophisticated models (for now, at least).



audioguy said:


> That said, if another 3D Bluray is never released, I am more than perfectly happy with DSU and the money and effort it took to get it in place.


Not I--not by a long shot. If I were in the market for a new AVR and thought there would be no Atmos for the HT (on Blu-ray), then I could easily settle for a non-Atmos-capable unit and be more than content with Neo:X 11.1. DSU alone would not be much of an inducement so long as there are other upmixers, particularly those that will utilize the front wide channels which Dolby ignores. 



audioguy said:


> I actually bought Auro but haven't run a setup for it. My hope is that it is better for up mixing 2 channel music than DSU is.


I hope that you will be thrilled with your investment, but Auro just doesn't offer anything that has piqued my interest so far. MDA, on the contrary, is a potential game-changer and has me--and my wallet--hooked.



audioguy said:


> My prediction: long term success for 3D audio is less than 50%. UNLESS someone creates the equivalent of the Sound bar that makes it work!


Well, we have been informed us that the technology is applicable to headphones, soundbars, HTIB's, etc., so there would appear to be the potential for those markets.



audioguy said:


> But what do I know??


Based on your pessimistic prediction, not much I hope. But then, what the hell do *I* know?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

audioguy said:


> Of all the families that watch movies at home, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (5.1 or greater) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a 60 inch TV (or maybe 5 or 6) and no supporting external sound system. Some of those folks have been to my home, watched movies in our theater, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.
> 
> At best, in my opinion, 3D sound in the home will always be a niche market.
> 
> That said, if another 3D Bluray is never released, I am more than perfectly happy with DSU and the money and effort it took to get it in place. I actually bought Auro but haven't run a setup for it. My hope is that it is better for up mixing 2 channel music than DSU is.
> 
> My prediction: long term success for 3D audio is less than 50%. UNLESS someone creates the equivalent of the Sound bar that makes it work!
> 
> But what do I know??




I think if it's part of a niche market remains to be seen... in going to public Atmos flicks I do hear people saying "wow" after the Dolby Atmos clip prior to the movie playing. 

I'm now somewhat happy about Atmos availability at home... I've got a handful of flicks. That's all I really wanted before my baby daughter is born next week. I got to enjoy my system for a bit  



Patrick Murphy said:


> "A lot of that is probably borne of my frustration at having this technology available and being disappointed with every theatrical Atmos release that is announced on Blu-ray without an Atmos soundtrack."
> 
> 
> Do you think that if Dolby would have gotten together with Spielberg and Lucas a year ago and mixed Indiana Jones and Star Wars for a super-duper launch in Atmos more people would be excited about putting speakers on their ceilings. They should have made sure that there would be 1st rate movies available in abundance, even if they had to kick in to have them remixed. Bad marketing?


I just hope they announce Episode VII in Atmos soon. It seems to me Ben Burtt would be interested since he's always been into doing advanced surround mixes / pushing the envelope. He did mention once that he wanted to do Indy in 7.1 if I recall.


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> It's no different from saying that Blu-ray and 4K will fail because a lot of people still use dvds.


Not exactly the same. To play Blurays I need to spend $40 for a new player. And in time, given how the costs of technology falls, the next TV someone buys could be a 4k tv. And while I think that chances for a huge 4k market aren't too great either (but much better than 3d audio)I bought a 4k projector because it make regular Blurays look much better. So whether 4k succeeds or not, I' m still ahead of where I was.

Look, I may be way off the mark. On both the 4k market and THE Atmos/DTS market. It won't be the first time I completely missed how the market would accept a new technology!!


----------



## kingwiggi

Might be Vaporware for some time to come, but just saw this posted on the Emotiva Site about a new 16 Channel Processor

Quotes from Dan Laufman

2. The are several new processors in development right now. I'd spoken about this at CES, so its not a secret. We have a 16 channel Atmos enabled unit in development and it will be the new XMR-1. It will have a new T.I. 800 Series six core processing engine with enough power to handle Atmos, DTS-X, and whatever else is thrown at us. It is completely balanced on ALL channels and will go head to head with ANY processor on the market today, or tomorrow. It goes without saying it will ship with Dirac Live for Emotiva on all channels, and soon after release, we will be able to offer Dirac Unison. If you haven't heard of it yet, search it on Dirac's site. The new XMR-1 is going to be a monster. Made in Franklin, TN USA


http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/719740/thread
----

Let me clear up a couple of things...

The XMR will be our top of the line unit for the moment. We have changed the line strategy a bit. 

The anticipated MSRP of the XMR-1 will be right at $5k. Remember, it's closet competitor is $20k. This is a very expensive product from a BOM and development standpoint. At $5k it's a bargain.


See, we've been busy!!

http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/719866/thread


----------



## Scott Simonian

Let's hope it comes out before 2025 AD.


----------



## audioguy

$5k and 16 channels and Dirac? Sign me up but based upon the continued slipped dates on the XMC, I could be celebrating my 93rd birthday


----------



## kingwiggi

Scott Simonian said:


> Let's hope it comes out before 2025 AD.


Yea won't be holding my breath for that one. But its good to see someone put a stake in the ground and give us an idea of what the 2nd Gen pre-pros are going to cost. Which leads me to believe that a mass market manufacturer such as D&M, Onkyo could produce a comparable 16 channel product in the $3000 - 3.5 K range during 2015.



.


----------



## Al Sherwood

audioguy said:


> Of all the families that watch movies at home, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (5.1 or greater) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a 60 inch TV (or maybe 5 or 6) and no supporting external sound system. Some of those folks have been to my home, watched movies in our theater, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.
> 
> At best, in my opinion, 3D sound in the home will always be a niche market.
> 
> That said, if another 3D Bluray is never released, I am more than perfectly happy with DSU and the money and effort it took to get it in place. I actually bought Auro but haven't run a setup for it. My hope is that it is better for up mixing 2 channel music than DSU is.
> 
> My prediction: long term success for 3D audio is less than 50%. UNLESS someone creates the equivalent of the Sound bar that makes it work!
> 
> But what do I know??


You keep up with this type of prediction and I am going to have to rush out and buy an ATMOS AVR before they stop selling them just to use all of the speakers I have been buying for the height channels!


----------



## NorthSky

Big Dan should say nothing @ all, and just announce the XMR-1 just before and when it is truly ready to be released, whenever that time is in the future. 
Right now he's singing the same tune all over again, for a song that might or might not ever be published. 

But, that's his job what he's doing right now; to attract the crowds, to keep the fans exited and let them speculate all they want for the next five to ten years.
I think I might join them over there @ the Lounge; some' new to "extrapolate" about.  

Meanwhile people here and now enjoy their DSU and Auro-Matic 3D sound processors. ...Except me, ...for yet.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Ah, and just as I had drained the last brewski and munched the last kernel of my popcorn!
> 
> Don't you just love a good old Western shootout?


I bet that a good western like 'Unforgiven' (_Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman_) would sound awesome in a new remastered Auro-3D audio soundtrack. ...Or in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## SoundChex

audioguy said:


> My prediction: long term success for 3D audio is less than 50%. UNLESS someone creates the equivalent of the Sound bar that makes it work!



There are already a number of prototype 3D audio _soundbars_ and _soundframes_ in existence and demoed by *NHK*,* ETRI* & *LG*, and *Fraunhofer*, but perhaps more importantly, _next-generation audio_ is about the advantages conferred by delivering improved _immersion_ and _personalization_ at the same time. And 3D audio on *BD* is only a beginning if the current vendor hype is to be believed.

In any event, I choose to believe in (something like) the AV future "promised" in some Fraunhofer produced docs, _for example:_

*Object-Based Audio: Opportunities for Improved Listening Experience and Increased Listener Involvement* (_link_)

*MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (_link_)


Of course, *Dolby* and *DTS* also both intend to deliver the same kind of future "media space" to us . . . _so take your best guess as to what the future holds!_  


_


----------



## NorthSky

There is another thread I followed closely; it says that with 4K on Blu-ray disc, we lost 3D (picture). 

I am from the gang who wants 4K and 3D Blu-ray picture, with 3D sound. ...But it seems that it won't happen. ...No 3D picture. 
That's no good. 

Oh well, less TV and more outdoors I guess.


----------



## blazar

16 channel at 5k sounds very decent if those do not include sub channels. If that is including sub channels, then the marantz 8802 will likely make more sense.

Also if those channels can be anywhere and the processor will Steer sound appropriately ... Even better.

2channel audio and automation integration will also need to be there.

I would be fine with video passthrough.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> I bet that a good western like 'Unforgiven' (_Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman_) would sound awesome in a new remastered Auro-3D audio soundtrack. ...Or in Dolby Atmos.


Tomorrow I shall re-watch the Coen brothers' remake of _True Grit _in DTS-HD MA + DSU with Jeff Bridges (the Dude) as "Rooster" Cogburn. Looking forward to it.

"Fill your hand, you son of a *****!"


----------



## audioguy

I have heard 2 versions of Dirac (both of which are better than Audyssey) but not Emotivas. Assuming their implementation is like the others, i would take their product over the Audyssey based products.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Tomorrow I shall re-watch the Coen brothers' remake of *True Grit * in DTS-HD MA + DSU with Jeff Bridges (the Dude) as "Rooster" Cogburn.
> Looking forward to it.
> 
> "Fill your hand, you son of a *****!"


Right on right on right on!


----------



## NorthSky

> I have heard 2 versions of Dirac (both of which are better than Audyssey) but not Emotivas. Assuming their implementation is like the others, i would take their product over the Audyssey based products.


Like right now; without Auro-3D, without Dolby Atmos, without the soon comin' DTS:X, and without HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for thru UHD & UHR pass thru? Is Dirac that much of a worthy compromise? ...Or is it the other way around?


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I have a strong hunch that for those type of Atmos tracks I will sonically also prefer applying the perceptually elevated surrounds. In effect this means that the rear height speakers will get their sound from two combined sources: Surround and Top Rear. A simple mixer will do the job.


Hmm, if this mixing is constant, then you might also be able to solve the problem by simply raising the surrounds a little.


----------



## kenoh89

kingwiggi said:


> The anticipated MSRP of the XMR-1 will be right at $5k. Remember, it's closet competitor is $20k. This is a very expensive product from a BOM and development standpoint. At $5k it's a bargain.


Who said the XMR-1 will be $5k? It could be $3.5k for all we know...


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> The main thing is to ensure that the surrounds have a clear line of sight to every listener. Raise them the least amount you can (from ear level) to meet that requirement.


Thanks. If I were to position them (side surrounds) at ear-level but slight ahead/in-front of the main listening position, would it still be worth it to have front wide speakers? Note that all this will be in a small room that is sized roughly 12 feet x 11 feet x 9 feet. My goal is a 9.4.4 setup in the room (if it is worth it and makes sense).


----------



## roxiedog13

audioguy said:


> Not exactly the same. To play Blurays I need to spend $40 for a new player. And in time, given how the costs of technology falls, the next TV someone buys could be a 4k tv. And while I think that chances for a huge 4k market aren't too great either (but much better than 3d audio)I bought a 4k projector because it make regular Blurays look much better. So whether 4k succeeds or not, I' m still ahead of where I was.
> 
> Look, I may be way off the mark. On both the 4k market and THE Atmos/DTS market. It won't be the first time I completely missed how the market would accept a new technology!!


I too have the 4K projector ( Sony VW500ES ) and Atmos 7.2.4 system running now. Both technologies work well , as is, regardless if Atmos or 4K become mainstream. My picture quality up-scaled is the best I have ever seen ,I am super happy with my purchase there. DSU , again up-scaled thus far has proven to be well worth the investment. I don't have to wait for technologies
to arrive the results already have .


----------



## kingwiggi

kenoh89 said:


> Who said the XMR-1 will be $5k? It could be $3.5k for all we know...


Straight from the horses mouth, not mine.

http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/719866/thread


----------



## kenoh89

kingwiggi said:


> Straight from the horses mouth, not mine.
> 
> http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/719866/thread


There haven't been any announced dates though....?


----------



## audioguy

kenoh89 said:


> There haven't been any announced dates though....?


They have a chance to redeem themselves by delivering this product in a timely manner - maybe by CES 2016 or sooner. If its later then that then they have already made the same mistake they made last time.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice ....."


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick Murphy said:


> "A lot of that is probably borne of my frustration at having this technology available and being disappointed with every theatrical Atmos release that is announced on Blu-ray without an Atmos soundtrack."
> 
> 
> Do you think that if Dolby would have gotten together with Spielberg and Lucas a year ago and mixed Indiana Jones and Star Wars for a super-duper launch in Atmos more people would be excited about putting speakers on their ceilings. They should have made sure that there would be 1st rate movies available in abundance, even if they had to kick in to have them remixed. Bad marketing?


A good marketing launch should always try to have a 'big bang' event IMO. Something bold, adventurous and which grabs the attention. Something like you mention would have certainly done that and would have also gotten press coverage outside the specialist media too in all probability. It's a pity that something like that didn't happen - but chances are it was considered but dropped for practical reasons. One of the main problems is getting IP clearance from all those involved, in all territories. It is a minefield and they may have had to choose between launching and waiting. If that was the case, launching was probably the right decision.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> But those general consumers don't limit the pace of new technology, otherwise we'd never have gotten lossless audio and discrete 7.1 in entry level AVRs. Do you think receiver manufacturers polled typical consumers to find out whether it was worth putting object-based-audio in their products? "Abject-best-what?"


That's right. Consumers don't do the leading. They are led by the manufacturers at the sharper end. Were consumers up in arms demanding tablet computers? Smartphones? The Internet? Savvy marketeers know what people want before the people themselves know what they want and they deliver it. Consumers gradually catch up. That is a very simplistic view but in essence it's the way things are.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Let me re-phrase this a little.
> 
> Of all the families that drive a car, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (jaguar, ferrari, porsche, etc) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a nissan sentra or chevy cobalt and no modifications. Some of those folks have been in my high performance car, done some burnouts and fast driving, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.
> 
> 
> I can see why the high performance auto industry should just throw in the towel.
> 
> 
> If this was the case anything beyond 7.1 would not really be around or widely supported. The fact is that they are. Hardware manufactures continue to make the decoding devices and speaker manufactures continue to sell kits that support >5.1 audio. Also the studios continue to sell software with 7.1ch audio. Granted not all movies are made or sold in 7.1 but many are. Well over 100 movies are mixed with object audio and this number will continue to grow.
> 
> Not sure what the point is for the posters popping in threads like this to let us know they think this technology won't catch on. Maybe something for the Hallmark or a yoga forum. Not AVS.


+1. What did that guy from IBM say - the world market for computers is about five?


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Like right now; without Auro-3D, without Dolby Atmos, without the soon comin' DTS:X, and without HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for thru UHD & UHR pass thru? Is Dirac that much of a worthy compromise? ...Or is it the other way around?


Their annoncement includes support of all 3d formats, Dirac and 16 channels!!


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> T
> If you re-read my post, I said nothing about studios and mixing facilities getting on board for the technology. I was quite clear that my questioning was around the number of homes that would implement this technology.


I personally don't think the size of the potential market is the most relevant factor. As you yourself said, barely anyone has 5.1, let alone 7.1 or 11.1 and so on. But the scarcity of 5.1 systems in the general marketplace hasn't stopped every single AV manufacturer in the world developing 5.1 AVRs. Customer demand doesn't drive innovation - mainly because customers have no idea what is possible, so they don't wish for it. If you asked 100 people what they would most like to see next in connection with watching movies at home, they'll probably say "cheaper, bigger TVs" or something like that. That's because they understand TVs, and they understand size and they understand price. It will never occur to them to ask for immersive audio. 

So I agree that Atmos will always be a small percentage of the overall market. Just like 5.1 is. But I disagree that that fact will stifle the future of Atmos, or any new technology that may come along in the future.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Tomorrow I shall re-watch the Coen brothers' remake of _True Grit _in DTS-HD MA + DSU with Jeff Bridges (the Dude) as "Rooster" Cogburn. Looking forward to it.
> 
> "Fill your hand, you son of a *****!"


Given your interest in language and linguistics, watch how there are no contractions such as "I'm not" or "They won't". It is always "I am not" and "They will not". It gives a strange, but appropriate sense of time and place and mores.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks. If I were to position them (side surrounds) at ear-level but slight ahead/in-front of the main listening position, would it still be worth it to have front wide speakers? Note that all this will be in a small room that is sized roughly 12 feet x 11 feet x 9 feet. My goal is a 9.4.4 setup in the room (if it is worth it and makes sense).


Personally, I wouldn't bother with wides in those circumstances. The gap between side surrounds and mains will be quite small - so small I doubt wides would make their presence felt much.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> They have a chance to redeem themselves by delivering this product in a timely manner - maybe by CES 2016 or sooner. If its later then that then they have already made the same mistake they made last time.
> 
> "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice ....."


They never learn. They should take a leaf from miniDSP's book, who recently said how they never announce a product _at all_ until they know the date on which it will be available for shipping. Laufman can't keep his mouth shut and it creates huge problems for them. People will already have the "date" of 12-15 months in their calendars, and when the thing doesn't arrive, Emo will be blasted from all sides, just as they were with the XMC-1, just as they were with Dirac. Just as they have been with all the other vaporware they have announced and never delivered.


----------



## kenoh89

kbarnes701 said:


> I personally don't think the size of the potential market is the most relevant factor. As you yourself said, barely anyone has 5.1, let alone 7.1 or 11.1 and so on. But the scarcity of 5.1 systems in the general marketplace hasn't stopped every single AV manufacturer in the world developing 5.1 AVRs. Customer demand doesn't drive innovation - mainly because customers have no idea what is possible, so they don't wish for it. If you asked 100 people what they would most like to see next in connection with watching movies at home, they'll probably say "cheaper, bigger TVs" or something like that. That's because they understand TVs, and they understand size and they understand price. It will never occur to them to ask for immersive audio.
> 
> So I agree that Atmos will always be a small percentage of the overall market. Just like 5.1 is. But I disagree that that fact will stifle the future of Atmos, or any new technology that may come along in the future.


The bigger question is Atmos a big enough step up in production and design for the current marketplace, and not just a niche product for enthusiasts as to warrant it's stay in the marketplace. 


Ergo, is it a big enough change that makes it too big to fail?


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally, I wouldn't bother with wides in those circumstances. The gap between side surrounds and mains will be quite small - so small I doubt wides would make their presence felt much.


Thanks. But if I can manage to have the side surrounds at 90 degrees from the main listening position, then I assume having front wides could be worth it even in my small room (for a total of 9.4.4)? Or should I stick to 7.4.4 even if I manage to place the side surrounds at 90 degrees from the main listening position?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks. But if I can manage to have the side surrounds at 90 degrees from the main listening position, then I assume having front wides could be worth it even in my small room (for a total of 9.4.4)? Or should I stick to 7.4.4 even if I manage to place the side surrounds at 90 degrees from the main listening position?


Maybe - but I wouldn't put the side surrounds at 90° in a 7.1 listener-level speaker setup. I’d put them at 80° or even 75°.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> Tomorrow I shall re-watch the Coen brothers' remake of _True Grit _in DTS-HD MA + DSU with Jeff Bridges (the Dude) as "Rooster" Cogburn. Looking forward to it.
> 
> "Fill your hand, you son of a *****!"





kbarnes701 said:


> Given your interest in language and linguistics, watch how there are no contractions such as "I'm not" or "They won't". It is always "I am not" and "They will not". It gives a strange, but appropriate sense of time and place and mores.


Thanks for that tip, Keith; I'm always attuned to language usage in films, books, and even casual conversation. It's one reason why the writing is such a critical element in my assessment of movies.

BTW, my use of the modal auxiliary "shall" in my original post was a sly tip of the hat to you, my Limey friend. I regret the disuse of shall in American English, maybe because it always reminds me of its still very much current German cognate _sollen_ (the common etymology goes back to the Old High German _scolan_ "to owe or be obliged"). Unfortunately, in general usage we Yanks now consider shall to be formal or stilted--just as we would the avoidance of contractions you signaled above. About the only time one hears shall used conversationally in the States these days is in the antiquated expression "shilly-shally."

No relevance to Atmos, just an interesting side note.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe - but I wouldn't put the side surrounds at 90° in a 7.1 listener-level speaker setup. I’d put them at 80° or even 75°.


That's the first time I've heard that. 

I thought you only placed the side surrounds ahead of the listening position in a 7.1 setup if placement was an issue. Don't all recommendations from Dolby, DTS, etc. recommend a 90-100 degree placement for the side surrounds even in a 7.1 setup?

Secondly, when it comes to front wides, these speakers will only be used for objects, correct? If there are no objects that require that sound placement the front wides will not be used during the movie?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> That's the first time I've heard that.
> 
> I thought you only placed the side surrounds ahead of the listening position in a 7.1 setup if placement was an issue. Don't all recommendations from Dolby, DTS, etc. recommend a 90-100 degree placement for the side surrounds even in a 7.1 setup?


Not necessarily. The idea is to create a 'circle' of sound around you. This is best achieved, IMO, by having sufficient speakers, placed at roughly equidistant steps to give an 'unbroken circle' of sound. In a bigger room, Wides may help fill the gap between front and side surrounds. In a smaller room, Wides are unlikely to be needed for that if the side surrounds are moved slightly forward of the MLP.

These images, some of dozens a google search will reveal, show that it is accepted practice to deploy the speakers in the way I suggest:












Kain said:


> Secondly, when it comes to front wides, these speakers will only be used for objects, correct? If there are no objects that require that sound placement the front wides will not be used during the movie?


With Atmos, the wides are engaged. With DSU, they are not engaged (if for most of the movies you own they will be silent if you make use of DSU). Other upmixers such as Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X will make use of the wides however.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks for that tip, Keith; I'm always attuned to language usage in films, books, and even casual conversation. It's one reason why the writing is such a critical element in my assessment of movies.
> 
> BTW, my use of the modal auxiliary "shall" in my original post was a sly tip of the hat to you, my Limey friend. I regret the disuse of shall in American English, maybe because it always reminds me of its still very much current German cognate _sollen_ (the common etymology goes back to the Old High German _scolan_ "to owe or be obliged"). Unfortunately, in general usage we Yanks now consider shall to be formal or stilted--just as we would the avoidance of contractions you signaled above. About the only time one hears shall used conversationally in the States these days is in the antiquated expression "shilly-shally."
> 
> No relevance to Atmos, just an interesting side note.


I have to admit I hadn’t noticed your use of "shall" - probably as it is second nature to me to see it. In future I will expunge it from my AVS vocabulary. I wouldn't want to come across as "stilted"


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> Not necessarily. The idea is to create a 'circle' of sound around you. This is best achieved, IMO, by having sufficient speakers, placed at roughly equidistant steps to give an 'unbroken circle' of sound. In a bigger room, Wides may help fill the gap between front and side surrounds. In a smaller room, Wides are unlikely to be needed for that if the side surrounds are moved slightly forward of the MLP.
> 
> These images, some of dozens a google search will reveal, show that it is accepted practice to deploy the speakers in the way I suggest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Atmos, the wides are engaged. With DSU, they are not engaged (if for most of the movies you own they will be silent if you make use of DSU). Other upmixers such as Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X will make use of the wides however.


Thanks. 

Guess it will be best to stick with a 7.x.x setup in my small room.

By the way, what speakers can DSU use and how many of them (in the cause of ceiling speakers)?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I have to admit I hadn’t noticed your use of "shall" - probably as it is second nature to me to see it. In future I will expunge it from my AVS vocabulary. I wouldn't want to come across as "stilted"


Oh no you shan't! Let's celebrate our differences in respect for the axiom that “England and America are two countries separated by the same language.”


----------



## toofast68

Kain said:


> That's the first time I've heard that.
> 
> I thought you only placed the side surrounds ahead of the listening position in a 7.1 setup if placement was an issue. Don't all recommendations from Dolby, DTS, etc. recommend a 90-100 degree placement for the side surrounds even in a 7.1 setup?
> 
> Secondly, when it comes to front wides, these speakers will only be used for objects, correct? If there are no objects that require that sound placement the front wides will not be used during the movie?


For what is it worth...my front wides were the best upgrade to my humble theater...of course you need to use DSX as most movies are not 7.1, however DSX feeds the wides a very nice background mix, making the front sound stage VERY WIDE (no pun intended) and even sounding. Assuming the same would happen in a all this new tech if the AVR Decoders/mixers, etc. did it right. 


DSX is AWESOME


----------



## sdurani

toofast68 said:


> DSX feeds the wides a very nice background mix, making the front sound stage VERY WIDE (no pun intended) and even sounding.


DSX feeds the wides a copy of the nearby main L or R speaker, with a little reverb added (you can hear it when vocals are panned outside the centre channel). DSX also lowers the main L/R speakers by 3dB to accentuate the wides, which is what gives the impression of a VERY WIDE soundstage.


----------



## Kain

toofast68 said:


> For what is it worth...my front wides were the best upgrade to my humble theater...of course you need to use DSX as most movies are not 7.1, however DSX feeds the wides a very nice background mix, making the front sound stage VERY WIDE (no pun intended) and even sounding. Assuming the same would happen in a all this new tech if the AVR Decoders/mixers, etc. did it right.
> 
> 
> DSX is AWESOME


But front wides are more "useful" in larger rooms, correct? My room is small, only about 12 x 11 x 9 feet.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe - but I wouldn't put the side surrounds at 90° in a 7.1 listener-level speaker setup. I’d put them at 80° or even 75°.





kbarnes701 said:


> Not necessarily. The idea is to create a 'circle' of sound around you. This is best achieved, IMO, by having sufficient speakers, placed at roughly equidistant steps to give an 'unbroken circle' of sound. In a bigger room, Wides may help fill the gap between front and side surrounds. In a smaller room, Wides are unlikely to be needed for that if the side surrounds are moved slightly forward of the MLP.


So I would agree that placing the side surrounds slightly ahead of seating position in a 7.1 system helps to distribute the speakers more evenly and create a more seamless transition from speaker to speaker. But instead of arguing that the placement of side surrounds at 80 degrees negates the need for wides, I would turn it around and say that adding wides to your system allows you to move those surrounds back to 90 degrees and further tighten up the back surround field while not affecting the transition from front to back (rather, improving it actually). Only a very, very short room would fail to benefit from this, IMO (the sort that cannot accommodate back surrounds mainly, although even a setup such as yours would benefit from wides if you could accommodate it, I suspect). That is how I _shall_ set mine up when the hardware is available for more than 11 channels.


----------



## Movie78

March is Sunday..

What is the exact date that DTS is going to make the announcement for DTS X?


----------



## BigScreen

Scott Simonian said:


> Let me re-phrase this a little.
> 
> Of all the families that drive a car, the number of those with anything like you see on this thread (jaguar, ferrari, porsche, etc) has got to be a minuscule percent. I know lots of people with serious net worth who are perfectly happy having a nissan sentra or chevy cobalt and no modifications. Some of those folks have been in my high performance car, done some burnouts and fast driving, made the superlative responses, and would never consider replicating anything like it.
> 
> I can see why the high performance auto industry should just throw in the towel.


A couple of big differences, the largest being margins. You don't have to sell many $500k cars to recoup R&D and manufacturing costs, and having these guys come back for their $3,000 oil changes helps the financials a little too. Mainstream manufacturers use their high end models as halo cars. They know not many will buy them, but having them in production elevates the manufacturer's credibility and featuring one in a showroom generates traffic for the dealerships which they can try to turn into sales of the reasonably-priced models.



> If this was the case anything beyond 7.1 would not really be around or widely supported. The fact is that they are. Hardware manufactures continue to make the decoding devices and speaker manufactures continue to sell kits that support >5.1 audio. Also the studios continue to sell software with 7.1ch audio. Granted not all movies are made or sold in 7.1 but many are. Well over 100 movies are mixed with object audio and this number will continue to grow.


We've always seen hardware manufacturers jump on technology with abandon, because it's an opportunity to market what's new and different from the previous year's model. With high volume manufacturers, I would imagine the cost of implementing something like Atmos is quite small when looked at from a per-unit standpoint. It's not like they added more discrete amps to Atmos receivers, they just added taps off the same type of transformer they had before.

The kicker is what to play on the hardware? Studios are much more stingy about what they support, and given that most of them have nearly or completely shut down their home entertainment publicity units in favor of a mixed approach to marketing, that production timelines are incredibly tight, and that the signs are all there that the studios want to continually move consumers away from physical discs and toward streaming, we're left with a future that will be challenging to new technologies, especially on disc. (Given the complete lack of Atmos on any streaming service outside of the Vudu demos, there may not be much of a future for "3D" sound in that segment either)

Imagine being in a room with a studio exec, trying to convince them to release their next movie on Blu-ray with an Atmos soundtrack. If doing so requires anything over and above what is normal for a home video release, you will need to convince them that doing so will increase sales to more than compensate for the additional effort/expense. If the market penetration for Atmos is judged to be a very small, insignificant number, why should they do it?

I think studios did lossless sound on Blu-ray because it was another differentiating factor from DVD in addition to the HD picture quality. Now they can tout that the 17th re-release of some title now has all-new HD video and "HD" lossless sound. That's something that they can market. Every Blu-ray player has the ability to play back that lossless sound, so they can choose that soundtrack on the disc menu and see the light on their receiver. Atmos (and Auro and DTS:X) is an incremental upgrade at this point, and it's not the same thing and not nearly as easy to communicate to the consumer.



> Not sure what the point is for the posters popping in threads like this to let us know they think this technology won't catch on. Maybe something for the Hallmark or a yoga forum. Not AVS.


I'm not sure if this is pointed at me or not, but I haven't just "popped in" recently. I have been reading this thread since it started. I do limit my comments to when I feel I have something to contribute, and since I don't have an Atmos setup, my comments are from a standpoint of curiosity and as an observer of the industry.

My negative comments are not meant to rain on anyone's parade. I am envious of those who have taken the plunge and are enjoying the morsels of Atmos titles that are available and what upmixing provides them for the non-Atmos titles. I very nearly got sucked into making an upgrade last fall as a result of my enthusiasm for the possibilities and the reports of those here. 

The first-hand reports of people's experiences with various movies are great. The discussion about speaker placement is very valuable to those setting up height speakers and deciding whether to lower/move their surrounds. I think that there is value to discussing the issues that face developments such as Atmos. Comparing and contrasting Atmos to Auro (and hopefully DTS:X soon) is healthy for greater understanding of what's going on and how to squeeze every bit of enjoyment out of what's available to us. Analyzing the business behind the technology is also valid, as it can help determine whether it is a viable technology in the long run, or merely a flash in the pan that doesn't have staying power.


----------



## BigScreen

Patrick Murphy said:


> "A lot of that is probably borne of my frustration at having this technology available and being disappointed with every theatrical Atmos release that is announced on Blu-ray without an Atmos soundtrack."
> 
> Do you think that if Dolby would have gotten together with Spielberg and Lucas a year ago and mixed Indiana Jones and Star Wars for a super-duper launch in Atmos more people would be excited about putting speakers on their ceilings. They should have made sure that there would be 1st rate movies available in abundance, even if they had to kick in to have them remixed. Bad marketing?


Would it have gotten some press? Probably. Would it have been a good idea? Probably not.

I'm not at all interested in them revisiting non-Atmos catalog titles and remixing them for Atmos. Unless the original sound mixers and editors are going to get back together with the director to do the remix, I can't see how the results would be much better than just selecting DSU on the receiver myself. Lionsgate seems to be doing remixes of their recent non-Atmos theatrical titles with some success (John Wick), but I would imagine the principals for the movie were involved, and not some guy coming in fresh and tinkering with the height mixers or just hitting the "Upmix and Save As Atmos" menu selection.

Now, what would have been a great idea back in June? A majority of the studios lined up with commitments to release all future theatrical Atmos titles on Blu-ray in Atmos. Imagine if Godzilla, Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Into the Storm, The Maze Runner, and Big Hero 6 had been released with Atmos. Those are A-list titles with high visibility from a variety of studios that would demonstrate a commitment from the studios to produce for this new format, and that purchasing new hardware and cutting holes in our ceilings was going to be worth the expense and effort.

Here we are, eight months later, and that still isn't happening. Warner's release of Gravity next month doesn't indicate full support. Universal's release of Unbroken is a good sign. Lionsgate is doing their part. But none of this is spectacular; it's just really morsels when there should be a feast.

The fact that this didn't happen leaves the door open for DTS:X to do it instead. I don't know if the logistics provide for a movie released in Atmos/Auro in theaters can be easily exported to DTS:X, but it sounds like that might be possible. Given DTS' work with the Open MDA standard for movie theaters, I think the concept of the movie sound equivalent of a photo negative, which can then be "printed" to the desired format is the ideal, so hopefully that's the case. 

If DTS comes out in March and has the commitments from the mainstream hardware manufacturers and several of the studios, it could catch up quite easily and position themselves for a strong future. That's a big "if," but the lack of something similar from the Atmos camp in the past eight months makes it possible. 

Maybe we'll end up with a mirror image of what's currently happening with Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio: peaceful coexistence. Except for those that have Atmos-only equipment, that would probably be the best case scenario.


----------



## stikle

R.I.P Leonard Nimoy


----------



## toofast68

stikle said:


> R.I.P Leonard Nimoy




AMEN! Sorry to see this! Grew up with him.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

BigScreen said:


> Would it have gotten some press? Probably. Would it have been a good idea? Probably not.
> 
> I'm not at all interested in them revisiting non-Atmos catalog titles and remixing them for Atmos. Unless the original sound mixers and editors are going to get back together with the director to do the remix, I can't see how the results would be much better than just selecting DSU on the receiver myself. Lionsgate seems to be doing remixes of their recent non-Atmos theatrical titles with some success (John Wick), but I would imagine the principals for the movie were involved, and not some guy coming in fresh and tinkering with the height mixers or just hitting the "Upmix and Save As Atmos" menu selection.
> 
> Now, what would have been a great idea back in June? A majority of the studios lined up with commitments to release all future theatrical Atmos titles on Blu-ray in Atmos. Imagine if Godzilla, Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Into the Storm, The Maze Runner, and Big Hero 6 had been released with Atmos. Those are A-list titles with high visibility from a variety of studios that would demonstrate a commitment from the studios to produce for this new format, and that purchasing new hardware and cutting holes in our ceilings was going to be worth the expense and effort.
> 
> Here we are, eight months later, and that still isn't happening. Warner's release of Gravity next month doesn't indicate full support. Universal's release of Unbroken is a good sign. Lionsgate is doing their part. But none of this is spectacular; it's just really morsels when there should be a feast.
> 
> The fact that this didn't happen leaves the door open for DTS:X to do it instead. I don't know if the logistics provide for a movie released in Atmos/Auro in theaters can be easily exported to DTS:X, but it sounds like that might be possible. Given DTS' work with the Open MDA standard for movie theaters, I think the concept of the movie sound equivalent of a photo negative, which can then be "printed" to the desired format is the ideal, so hopefully that's the case.
> 
> If DTS comes out in March and has the commitments from the mainstream hardware manufacturers and several of the studios, it could catch up quite easily and position themselves for a strong future. That's a big "if," but the lack of something similar from the Atmos camp in the past eight months makes it possible.
> 
> Maybe we'll end up with a mirror image of what's currently happening with Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio: peaceful coexistence. Except for those that have Atmos-only equipment, that would probably be the best case scenario.


Scott this is a spot on analysis of the market right now. I'm so surprised that Dolby did not put the money behind bringing those A-List titles to the format, it puzzles me a lot to be honest.

With the marketing money they seem to be spending around Atmos everywhere, I cannot below they could not do something to have those titles on the format, even more those released or announced in the last 2-3 weeks...


----------



## AncientYouth

kenoh89 said:


> The bigger question is Atmos a big enough step up in production and design for the current marketplace, and not just a niche product for enthusiasts as to warrant it's stay in the marketplace.
> 
> 
> Ergo, is it a big enough change that makes it too big to fail?


The reason why 5.1 and 7.1 hasn't taken off is people find out too much of an intrusion of tech in the living room, hence sound bars becoming more popular

With atmos now you have to stick them on the ceiling! Not many people wil want to do that esp if they have a wife or gf 

Atmos is for dedicated cinema rooms in the main and not many are lucky enough to have one

I am perfectly set to have an atmos system if I wanted to but having listened to tv speakers for the last 7 years my old 5.1 system sounds amazing in my new cave

I think I will wait until prices and formats sort themselves out before putting up ceiling speakers


----------



## lujan

stikle said:


> R.I.P Leonard Nimoy





toofast68 said:


> AMEN! Sorry to see this! Grew up with him.


I know this is off topic but it saddens me as well because I felt I was most in common with his character and I always wanted to be Spock when my brothers and I would pretend we were Star Trek characters growing up.


----------



## htpcforever

chi_guy50 said:


> About the only time one hears shall used conversationally in the States these days is in the antiquated expression "shilly-shally."
> 
> No relevance to Atmos, just an interesting side note.


Shilly-shally Dilly-dally!





I am one of the few who use shall...but I also use neither-nor and am king at the semicolon.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Guess it will be best to stick with a 7.x.x setup in my small room.
> 
> By the way, what speakers can DSU use and how many of them (in the cause of ceiling speakers)?


It will use all the speakers in your system* - in my case that is 5 at listener level and 4 on the ceiling. In your case, 7 and listener level and however many you have overhead. *DSU does not use Wides though, as noted before.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> DSX feeds the wides a copy of the nearby main L or R speaker, with a little reverb added (you can hear it when vocals are panned outside the centre channel). DSX also lowers the main L/R speakers by 3dB to accentuate the wides, which is what gives the impression of a VERY WIDE soundstage.


IOW, it's 'orrible. IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> So I would agree that placing the side surrounds slightly ahead of seating position in a 7.1 system helps to distribute the speakers more evenly and create a more seamless transition from speaker to speaker. But instead of arguing that the placement of side surrounds at 80 degrees negates the need for wides, I would turn it around and say that adding wides to your system allows you to move those surrounds back to 90 degrees and further tighten up the back surround field while not affecting the transition from front to back (rather, improving it actually). Only a very, very short room would fail to benefit from this, IMO (the sort that cannot accommodate back surrounds mainly, although even a setup such as yours would benefit from wides if you could accommodate it, I suspect). That is how I _shall_ set mine up when the hardware is available for more than 11 channels.


I concur. But the poster has a very short room (like me) and so Wides are less use to him. In a longer room, I'd agree with you. The one caveat I would add is that IMO DSX is not a good solution for various reasons, so I'd have to use DTS Neo:X. And DSU, my favored upmixer, doesn't use Wides at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

AncientYouth said:


> The reason why 5.1 and 7.1 hasn't taken off is people find out too much of an intrusion of tech in the living room, hence sound bars becoming more popular
> 
> With atmos now *you have to stick them on the ceiling*! Not many people wil want to do that esp if they have a wife or gf
> 
> *Atmos is for dedicated cinema rooms* in the main and not many are lucky enough to have one


I disagree. You are forgetting the Atmos-enabled speaker/module option - the real genius of Atmos for the home IMO.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

I need to say that I'm impressed... Ordered the three Atmos movies from Amazon.co.jp two days ago and I will be receiving them this afternoon in Canada...

This is fast international shipping !!!


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> It will use all the speakers in your system* - in my case that is 5 at listener level and 4 on the ceiling. In your case, 7 and listener level and however many you have overhead. *DSU does not use Wides though, as noted before.


Can DSU use height speakers? Can Atmos use height speakers for objects or is all height "information" directed to the ceiling speakers?

Secondly, doesn't placing side surrounds in front of the listening position upset the sound mixer's intentions? I mean what was intended to come from your sides is coming from (slightly) ahead of you?


----------



## AncientYouth

kbarnes701 said:


> I disagree. You are forgetting the Atmos-enabled speaker/module option - the real genius of Atmos for the home IMO.


will speakers that 'fire' sound up to the ceiling sound as good as dedicated ceiling speakers?


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> R.I.P Leonard Nimoy


Here Brits and Yanks can all surely agree: He *shall *be missed!


----------



## chi_guy50

htpcforever said:


> Shilly-shally Dilly-dally!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am one of the few who use shall...but I also use neither-nor *and am king at the semicolon.*


Just so long as you do not use them willy-nilly!


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Can DSU use height speakers? Can Atmos use height speakers for objects or is all height "information" directed to the ceiling speakers?


DSU uses the height speakers. As does Atmos of course. Not sure what you mean in your second sentence, sorry.



Kain said:


> Secondly, doesn't placing side surrounds in front of the listening position upset the sound mixer's intentions? I mean what was intended to come from your sides is coming from (slightly) ahead of you?


Maybe - but you will never know. And nor will you ever hear what the mixer heard, unless you can get an invite to a mixing session.


----------



## kbarnes701

AncientYouth said:


> will speakers that 'fire' sound up to the ceiling sound as good as dedicated ceiling speakers?


At the two demos I went to at Dolby Labs in London, more people preferred the sound of the upfirers than the real speakers on the ceiling. This was in the small HT-sized room. The invited guests were all members of the AV business, one way or another, so a critical audience.

I’d say that neither one is better than the other, but more that they are 'different'. When properly set up, upfirers give a slightly more spacious and diffuse sound while physical speakers give a slightly more 'precise' sound. Which you prefer will depend on personal taste. But IMO neither will disappoint.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> DSU uses the height speakers. As does Atmos of course. Not sure what you mean in your second sentence, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe - but you will never know. And nor will you ever hear what the mixer heard, unless you can get an invite to a mixing session.


Thanks. Since Atmos uses height speakers, can I install front and rear height speakers and have a Atmos/Auro-3D hybrid setup?


----------



## Scott Simonian

@Kain

Next time you go see a movie at the cinema, look at the surround speaker array(s). They will extend in front of you. This is typical. Sound mixers work in the same environment.

The new world of 5.1 surround sound at home started the 'surrounds always behind you' suggestion. IMAX is the only cinema installation with surrounds mounted as such.


----------



## Kain

Scott Simonian said:


> @Kain
> 
> Next time you go see a movie at the cinema, look at the surround speaker array(s). They will extend in front of you. This is typical. Sound mixers work in the same environment.
> 
> The new world of 5.1 surround sound at home started the 'surrounds always behind you' suggestion. IMAX is the only cinema installation with surrounds mounted as such.


But isn't that because there are many rows of seats and (nearly) every row has its own left/right surround speakers? When I hear surround speaker play in a "real" movie theater, I only hear the one for my row (unless I am in an Atmos theater and objects are panning around the room).


----------



## Scott Simonian

I understand your concern but you said:



> Secondly, doesn't placing side surrounds in front of the listening position upset the sound mixer's intentions? I mean what was intended to come from your sides is coming from (slightly) ahead of you?


It doesn't upset the intentions of the sound mixer if they are in the same or similar location as you would be with the array of speakers. 

Do you sit in the middle or 'sweet spot'? So does the sound mixer and he/she has side surrounds extending ahead of them just like you would at your local cinema.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks. Since Atmos uses height speakers, can I install front and rear height speakers and have a Atmos/Auro-3D hybrid setup?


Sort of. I am no expert on Auro speaker placements and, on paper at least, they are very different to Atmos. Atmos has 2 or 4 speakers (currently) on the ceiling. Auro has 4 speakers mounted on the wall, above the FL/FR and SL/SR pairs, with an additional single speaker (VOG) on the ceiling. At first sight these layouts seem incompatible, but some members say that a compromise can be reached, such that one set of speakers will work for both Atmos and Auro. Personally, I am skeptical of that, but don't let that sway you in any way. There are many members here who are much more knowledgeable about Auro speaker layouts and Atmos than I am, so hopefully someone will chime in, or point you to relevant posts.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> At first sight these layouts seem incompatible, but some members say that a compromise can be reached, such that one set of speakers will work for both Atmos and Auro.


The main 5.1 or 7.1 speakers are common to both formats, so that leaves only the heights. Atmos and Auro have the Front Height location in common (as do Neo:X and DSX), so that leaves only the second pair of heights. Mounting that second pair high up on the side walls above the surrounds is better for Auro; moving those speakers closer together and mounting them on the ceiling is better for Atmos. Somewhere between those two locations is a decent compromise. Still, with 9 of 11 speakers sharing common locations, doesn't seem so incompatible.


----------



## AncientYouth

kbarnes701 said:


> At the two demos I went to at Dolby Labs in London, more people preferred the sound of the upfirers than the real speakers on the ceiling. This was in the small HT-sized room. The invited guests were all members of the AV business, one way or another, so a critical audience.
> 
> I’d say that neither one is better than the other, but more that they are 'different'. When properly set up, upfirers give a slightly more spacious and diffuse sound while physical speakers give a slightly more 'precise' sound. Which you prefer will depend on personal taste. But IMO neither will disappoint.


So why even bother with ceiling speakers at all? If there is no discernable difference why would you go to the trouble of cutting holes in your ceiling and running cables to the speakers that would likely look a bit odd in most homes if a simple speaker that looks like a conventional one and is just the same to install sounds better or the same firing upwards


----------



## stikle

AncientYouth said:


> So why even bother with ceiling speakers at all?


I have a vaulted ceiling in my "theater room". The low point is on the right, the high point on the left. Upfiring modules that bounce the sound off my ceiling would not work well.

My ceiling mounted speakers that send the sound directly to my MLP, however, produce a fabulous effect.


----------



## G-Rex

stikle said:


> I have a vaulted ceiling in my "theater room". The low point is on the right, the high point on the left. Upfiring modules that bounce the sound off my ceiling would not work well.
> 
> My ceiling mounted speakers that send the sound directly to my MLP, however, produce a fabulous effect.


What speakers are they? Can you post pics of your speakers mounted on the ceiling? Thanks


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> The main 5.1 or 7.1 speakers are common to both *[the Atmos and Auro]* formats, so that leaves only the heights. Atmos and Auro have the Front Height location in common (as do Neo:X and DSX), so that leaves only the second pair of heights. Mounting that second pair high up on the side walls above the surrounds is better for Auro; moving those speakers closer together and mounting them on the ceiling is better for Atmos. Somewhere between those two locations is a decent compromise. Still, with 9 of 11 speakers sharing common locations, doesn't seem so incompatible.




Even without looking at *Auro3D*, in the near future *Dolby* must determine how to provide for a "unified speaker layout" to support both *Atmos* and *AC-4* (plus *DSU*) on the same "next generation|immersive audio" _mass market_ AVR (_cf._ "unified speaker layout" support for *TrueHD*, *AC-3* [*DD5.1*], and *DPLIIx* on "prior generation" AVRs.)

My understanding is that *Dolby AC-4* (_link_) is currently being codified for standardization as *ETSI TS 103 190 "Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard" V1.1.1 (2014-04)* (_link_) . . . which I believe is intended to support _immersive audio_ in both *hybrid channel|object-based* and (_pure_) *channel-based* encodes...?!

Just looking at *Table D.1: Channel abbreviations* in the draft standard, I'd say *Dolby* has their work cut out for them!


Left L
Center C
Right R
Left Surround Ls
Right Surround Rs
Left Center Lc
Right Center Rc
Left Rear Surround Lrs
Right Rear Surround Rrs
Center Surround Cs
Top Surround Ts
Left Surround Direct Lsd
Right Surround Direct Rsd
Left Wide Lw
Right Wide Rw
Left Vertical Height Vhl
Right Vertical Height Vhr
Center Vertical Height Vhc
Low-Frequency Effects LFE
Low-Frequency Effects 2 LFE2



*Note:* That there are only *three* named height channels makes me think they might be considering the* ETRI|Samsung 10.2-vss* channel audio configuration!    


_


----------



## kbarnes701

AncientYouth said:


> So why even bother with ceiling speakers at all? If there is no discernable difference why would you go to the trouble of cutting holes in your ceiling and running cables to the speakers that would likely look a bit odd in most homes if a simple speaker that looks like a conventional one and is just the same to install sounds better or the same firing upwards


Who said there is no discernible difference? Not me. I thought I’d explained the difference: one is more diffuse, the other is more precise. Both have their merits.


----------



## NorthSky

*Emotiva XMR-1 multichannel pre/pro with Dolby Atmos and 16 channels of Dirac Live EQ.*



Chuck said:


> Their announcement includes support of all 3d formats, Dirac and 16 channels!!


It is indeed an impressive announcement; 16 channels of Dolby Atmos and all EQ by Dirac Live. ...That's a 9.1.6 channel setup. 
...The perfect configuration for many hi-end home theater enthusiasts. DTS:X and 4K pass thru... Auro-3D not sure. 
$5,000 for a hi-end 3D multichannel pre/pro...that's less than an Anthem Statement @ $7,500 and with none of those new 3D surround decoders. 

We sure have something new to talk about here, because we're not talking $20,000-30,000 from the likes of Trinnov Altitude, Datasat or Steinway Lyngdorf.

Is Emotiva climbing back the ladder of success with their pre/pros as they did with their power amps?
Look, the Marantz AV8802 pre/pro is $4,000 MSRP. ...And it only supports 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos right now (plus Auro-3D for an additional $199). 
...And most likely will be DTS:X firmware updateable (that I believe), and HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 firmware upgradeable (by sending your unit to a dedicated retrofit center). 

♦ This is a new spin, a very interesting one for all the audio/video "avocados" between level one (Dolby Atmos AV receivers and SSPs from roughly $1,000 to $4,000) and level three (SSPs from roughly $7,500 and $30,000). 

And, finally, the XMC-1 with Dirac Live is something real concrete now which can be used as a solid foundation with still improvements done to it, and more to come. 

New threads are going to be started here @ AVSForum, and the overall mood is going to improve; I sincerely and seriously think. 

I love life when it is floating peacefully and harmoniously.


----------



## stikle

G-Rex said:


> What speakers are they? Can you post pics of your speakers mounted on the ceiling? Thanks


The speakers I use are Mirage OS3. Mirage was bought by Klipsh, which more or less killed off the brand. I found some on Woot and picked up enough to finish off my setup so all of my surrounds are matching.

Excuse the homemade ceiling mounts - they are functional, not elegant. I meant to paint them and see if it improves the look at all, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

I also finished texturing and painting that sheet rock patch on the upper left and removed the speaker on the upper right and cleaned that up too.

Oh yeah - all surrounds are lower by about a foot too.

Maybe I should just take a new picture when I get home.


----------



## G-Rex

Thanks for posting the pics stikle. Very nice.


----------



## AncientYouth

kbarnes701 said:


> Who said there is no discernible difference? Not me. I thought I’d explained the difference: one is more diffuse, the other is more precise. Both have their merits.




Well if both have their merits then by choosing one you automatically lose out on the benefits of the other unless the suggestion is get both and choose one or the other depending on what you watch at the time!

It's fuzzy stuff like this plus a non settled standard that makes it confusing for an av enthusiast let alone the average customer


----------



## tjenkins95

AncientYouth said:


> Well if both have their merits then by choosing one you automatically lose out on the benefits of the other unless the suggestion is get both and choose one or the other depending on what you watch at the time!
> 
> It's fuzzy stuff like this plus a non settled standard that makes it confusing for an av enthusiast let alone the average customer


 
That's nonsense! They both produce great overhead sound.


----------



## AncientYouth

tjenkins95 said:


> That's nonsense! They both produce great overhead sound.




of course it isn't , if they both have merits that the other one doesn't have which has been stated then if you choose one option you are by definition missing out on the benefits that the other has.


i'm not saying that either sounds good or bad I haven't heard either, but if they produce a different type of sound as has been reported then if you choose one you miss out on the sound the other can produce.........unless you choose both! 


with Aurora , and the DTS variant coming out with differing speaker arrangement requirements and possibly needing a different receiver to play them all its all highly confusing.




No one wants to end up with the Betamax or HDVD of the 3d sound standard ....well I don't want to anyway! and I would guess many others wouldn't want to either.


the seemingly constantly changing speaker configurations and ratios of these competing techs make this a complete mess


----------



## David Susilo

kenoh89 said:


> Who said the XMR-1 will be $5k? It could be $3.5k for all we know...


Even at $500 it's not a bargain if we have to wait for another 5 years for Emotiva to release it. I'd rather buy whatever is available now and enjoy it for the next 5 years!!


----------



## NorthSky

I can wait.  .................................................................................................................................................... Not!


----------



## dvdwilly3

AncientYouth said:


> of course it isn't , if they both have merits that the other one doesn't have which has been stated then if you choose one option you are by definition missing out on the benefits that the other has.
> 
> 
> i'm not saying that either sounds good or bad I haven't heard either, but if they produce a different type of sound as has been reported then if you choose one you miss out on the sound the other can produce.........unless you choose both!
> 
> 
> with Aurora , and the DTS variant coming out with differing speaker arrangement requirements and possibly needing a different receiver to play them all its all highly confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to end up with the Betamax or HDVD of the 3d sound standard ....well I don't want to anyway! and I would guess many others wouldn't want to either.
> 
> 
> the seemingly constantly changing speaker configurations and ratios of these competing techs make this a complete mess


I have been struggling with the apparent diametrically opposed approaches to Atmos as espoused by Dolby. On the one hand, they say use in-ceiling, but set them up so that they are not localizable (...I just made it up...). On the other hand, they say that if you are doing Dolby-enabled upfiring speakers, do everything that you can to make it a diffuse image. They are directly opposite approaches--direct firing and diffuse. I would agree with tjenkins95 that both of are capable of producing great overhead sound, but they are not the same thing in the least. I believe that is what you are getting at.

The best analogy that I can come up with is to envision a garden hose with a sprayer attachment on it. If you put it on stream, then you get a single forceful stream on whatever you are aiming at. If you set the attachment on sprayer, then you get a diffuse spray of water that you can certainly aim at something. It seems to me that the latter is what Dolby is sort of dancing around.

So, I split the difference in a 5.1.2 configuration. I have Def Tech 8060 towers in front, with a Def Tech 8060HD center, and Def Tech 8080SR surrounds. I made mounts from 1" thick ABS and put Supersat 3's mounted in a horizontal configuration on top of the 8060 towers. With 2 drivers in each speaker separated by a tweeter in the middle, I have a more dispersed sound source horizontally aligned, so it is not a single direct-firing driver. And, bouncing it off the ceiling, I get a more diffuse sound. Oh, and I am running an SVS PB-12 Plus sub.

It works very well for me. And, they are full range speakers set to Front Top, so that they are not constrained in band-width by a sub-par driver (A60s, Onkyo SKH...), or baffles, or a complex crossover, and they are fed a full spectrum signal from the receiver. To me, they are sort of like one-half of the Atmos portion of the Triad Inroom Bronze speakers.

The Dolby write-ups read like they are written by completely different teams (maybe they are...). They are saying out of one side of their mouth that in-ceiling direct-firing speakers are the correct approach. But, if you can't do that, use upward-firing speakers that you hamstring so that you create a diffuse sound field. I understand the confusion.


----------



## SoundJunky

Atmos ceiling speaker carnage …










The side surround heights are certainly not ideal (they were wired before atmos was a thing). If they sound terrible I'll lower them, but for now I've had enough with tearing up the walls in this room and would like to wrap the room up so we could finally watch a few movies…


----------



## ambesolman

SoundJunky said:


> Atmos ceiling speaker carnage …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The side surround heights are certainly not ideal (they were wired before atmos was a thing). If they sound terrible I'll lower them, but for now I've had enough with tearing up the walls in this room and would like to wrap the room up so we could finally watch a few movies…



Sweet collection


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## roxiedog13

AncientYouth said:


> So why even bother with ceiling speakers at all? If there is no discernable difference why would you go to the trouble of cutting holes in your ceiling and running cables to the speakers that would likely look a bit odd in most homes if a simple speaker that looks like a conventional one and is just the same to install sounds better or the same firing upwards



The ceiling has to be perfectly flat and solid ( no tiles or acoustic materials allowed), just the right height ( 8-9 ft) and the MLP has to be in the sweat spot for the Atmos enabled speakers to work .


Ceiling speakers are much easier to make work with a given MLP and btw, they do not have to be in the ceiling, they can be on the ceiling too. If you have the all the variables above the floor speakers will work, if any of the variables are out of place it may be best to go with ceiling speakers suited for the MLP . All will work and sound great if installed properly , its more a matter of
what works best in your theater room really .


----------



## roxiedog13

SoundJunky said:


> Atmos ceiling speaker carnage …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The side surround heights are certainly not ideal (they were wired before atmos was a thing). If they sound terrible I'll lower them, but for now I've had enough with tearing up the walls in this room and would like to wrap the room up so we could finally watch a few movies…



I take it you liked Expendables3 , John Wick and Fury possibly?  


I have a collection of old guns, musket loaders, flint locks etc that was given to me. Not sure my wife would let me put them in the HT though. I'd say more a candidate for the Log Cottage
but even then, not sure she'll agree to that. My guess is auction, need the money for more HT stuff anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

Some of those look like staple guns.


----------



## SoundJunky

ambesolman said:


> Sweet collection
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still



Thank you, sir! Still working on a few projects to fill the empty spaces.



roxiedog13 said:


> I take it you liked Expendables3 , John Wick and Fury possibly?
> 
> 
> I have a collection of old guns, musket loaders, flint locks etc that was given to me. Not sure my wife would let me put them in the HT though. I'd say more a candidate for the Log Cottage
> but even then, not sure she'll agree to that. My guess is auction, need the money for more HT stuff anyway.


John Wick is in the mail.  I'm very much looking forward to finally watching a movie after many months of piecing together gear and working on the room whenever I had some free time. I've heard good things about Fury as well. Might have to pick that up.

The lady of the house complains that I "ruined a whole wall", but the theater room is actually a vault/safe room with a vault door. I killed two birds with one space. 



NorthSky said:


> Some of those look like staple guns.


Some of them are as quiet as a stapler.


----------



## Josh Z

I currently have a 7.1.4 system with Front Height and Top Middle. My main Surrounds are on stands at ear level per recommended Atmos guidelines. However, due to the way the room was wired and installed prior to my Atmos upgrade, my Surround Backs are mounted to the ceiling behind my seating. So, they're in the same plane with the height channels and not the other 5.1 base channels. This is not ideal, but it's the compromise I've been living with.

I'm considering adding a new pair of speakers on stands at ground level behind my seating to become the new Surround Backs, in order to level out the base 7.1 plane. This would leave those two rear speakers mounted to the ceiling unused. I fully understand that my receiver, the Denon X5200, cannot decode more than 4 height channels. I had a thought of rewiring those rear speakers to clone my Top Middles, forming a height array from the middle to the back of the room.

Other than the fact that I'll need another amp to power the extra speakers, are there any downsides to this? I suppose that if a discrete height object were intended to pan from the front of the room to the back, its position and direction might get confused. But from what I've been listening to, the height channels are mostly used for non-directional ambient effects like rain and wind anyway, so I don't think that would be too much of a concern.

What other issues should I be worried about with this?

How badly would this mess with my ability to do an Audyssey calibration for the heights?


----------



## AncientYouth

roxiedog13 said:


> The ceiling has to be perfectly flat and solid ( no tiles or acoustic materials allowed), just the right height ( 8-9 ft) and the MLP has to be in the sweat spot for the Atmos enabled speakers to work .
> 
> 
> .



This reminds me of gremlins, don't get wet. Don't feed after midnight etc

Outside of a dedicated installation this isn't giving to work for the vast majority of people, my own cinema room is actually perfectly set up for any speaker arrangement and at some point in the future when the standards settle I might join in and upgrade but right now it seems like the customer has to fit in around the tech rather than the tech fit around the customer and it's still in the R&D stage.


----------



## kbarnes701

AncientYouth said:


> Well if both have their merits then by choosing one you automatically lose out on the benefits of the other unless the suggestion is get both and choose one or the other depending on what you watch at the time!


It's a matter of practicality for most people. If circumstances (WAF, aesthetics) dictate that physical speakers on the ceiling are not possible, then upfirers will give a very good result, if set up properly. If physical speakers are possible, then one has two choices and both will give a good result. In the latter case, one can exercise one's preference for a more diffuse presentation or a more precise presentation. Both have their merits.



AncientYouth said:


> It's fuzzy stuff like this plus a non settled standard that makes it confusing for an av enthusiast let alone the average customer


It isn't in the least "fuzzy". To spell it out in its most basic terms, this is your decision process:

Am I able to mount speakers on or in my ceiling? Yes or No.

If No, I use upfirers. End of.

If Yes, do I prefer A) a more diffuse, more 'ambient' presentation, or B) a more 'precise', more localised presentation? A or B.

If A, choose upfirers. 

If B, choose physical speakers.

Not really all that difficult is it?


----------



## kbarnes701

AncientYouth said:


> the seemingly constantly changing speaker configurations and ratios of these competing techs make this a complete mess


Maybe you'd be better off waiting a year or so until things are more settled.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Even at $500 it's not a bargain if we have to wait for another 5 years for Emotiva to release it. I'd rather buy whatever is available now and enjoy it for the next 5 years!!


+1. With Emotiva's track record with processors, chances are they will launch it, if ever, at precisely the time the world has moved on. 

They managed to do that with the XMC-1 in a way that is almost unbelievable.

They launched a 7.1 channel unit when their competitors were moving to object-based audio and 11.1 systems. 

They launched a TrueHD/DTS-HD MA unit when their competitors were moving to Atmos. 

They launched Dirac Live at precisely the time miniDSP launched a superior implementation, which works with any processor, for half the price.

Only the most ardent Emotiva enthusiast could want the XMC-1 in those circumstances. It was amusing to the uninvolved bystander that those same enthusiasts scoffed at Atmos as an unwanted "gimmick" and dismissed the importance of Dirac Live when the XMC-1 was launched without it, but they will now no doubt be hugely enthusiastic for both since Emotiva is now (allegedly) catering not only for Atmos but also for DTS:X and "anything else they can throw at us" and adopting Dirac's ground-breaking Unison technology too.

And so much for the XMC-1 being an "expandable platform with a life of at least 10 years", as touted by Laufman. Barely 6 months after its launch, it has become stagnant and Emotiva have moved on.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundJunky said:


> Atmos ceiling speaker carnage …
> 
> The side surround heights are certainly not ideal (they were wired before atmos was a thing). If they sound terrible I'll lower them, but for now I've had enough with tearing up the walls in this room and would like to wrap the room up so we could finally watch a few movies…


It must have been heart-breaking to have to attack the ceiling in that way in that lovely room.

The surrounds do look to be very close to the overheads in your second photograph - I wonder if there will be sufficient separation between them to give a good effect? I can well understand your desire to wrap it up and watch some movies - I felt exactly the same when my own HT was out of action during a refurb. But... while you have the tools out, while you have the paint brushes at hand, while the room is in a mess - personally, I'd take the opportunity to lower those surrounds. Would you be able to fish wire through the wall to enable you to lower them to more-or-less ear height? That's what I did. I extended the speaker cable, fished it through and moved the surrounds and I am glad I did. My situation before was very much like yours - my surrounds and my rear overheads were just too close to each other.


----------



## roxiedog13

John Wick is in the mail.  I'm very much looking forward to finally watching a movie after many months of piecing together gear and working on the room whenever I had some free time. I've heard good things about Fury as well. Might have to pick that up.

The lady of the house complains that I "ruined a whole wall", but the theater room is actually a vault/safe room with a vault door. I killed two birds with one space. 


John Wick was more humorous than entertaining, try to count the kills, you'll have a hard time keeping up. Your theater should provide a great setting though, hide the ammo, you could be
inspired to join in .  The rain scene from John Wick is....Wicked in Atmos of course.
Fury was a great movie, good story, good acting and great use of sound especially running DSU. If you have a 50 caliber machine gun would be a good time to get that mounted before
fury.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> It must have been heart-breaking to have to attack the ceiling in that way in that lovely room.
> 
> The surrounds do look to be very close to the overheads in your second photograph - I wonder if there will be sufficient separation between them to give a good effect? I can well understand your desire to wrap it up and watch some movies - I felt exactly the same when my own HT was out of action during a refurb. But... while you have the tools out, while you have the paint brushes at hand, while the room is in a mess - personally, I'd take the opportunity to lower those surrounds. Would you be able to fish wire through the wall to enable you to lower them to more-or-less ear height? That's what I did. I extended the speaker cable, fished it through and moved the surrounds and I am glad I did. My situation before was very much like yours - my surrounds and my rear overheads were just too close to each other.



That was my thought, beautiful room and to see that plaster on the ceiling was a tell all. Not just the work, the mess too. Just cutting holes for my in-ceiling alone made a terrible mess from
the gyproc dust, I did manage to keep that to a minimum by running the vacuum during the hole cutting process. I can't help by say that it was worth it , demolition , mess and all. Hope the 
technology slows down a bit, I can't keep up with the reconstruction.


----------



## roxiedog13

SoundJunky said:


> Atmos ceiling speaker carnage …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The side surround heights are certainly not ideal (they were wired before atmos was a thing). If they sound terrible I'll lower them, but for now I've had enough with tearing up the walls in this room and would like to wrap the room up so we could finally watch a few movies…


 
Just realizing your ceiling is very similar to mine, so Atmos enabled speakers would not have worked unless you at least had separate Atmos modules that you could have moved until a sweet spot found. I did manage to get modules to work but they ended up far ahead of the LCR mains, much lower and in the way between the front seats and the screen. The Atmos did sound great once a location was finally discovered, unfortunately it would not be practical to leave them there at the front in front of the screen. I ended up installing in-ceiling speakers, much cleaner and
out of the way . 
Attached is a picture of my HT, You can see the modules on the stands ( now removed) and the in-ceiling above currently being used.


----------



## SoundJunky

kbarnes701 said:


> It must have been heart-breaking to have to attack the ceiling in that way in that lovely room.
> 
> The surrounds do look to be very close to the overheads in your second photograph - I wonder if there will be sufficient separation between them to give a good effect? I can well understand your desire to wrap it up and watch some movies - I felt exactly the same when my own HT was out of action during a refurb. But... while you have the tools out, while you have the paint brushes at hand, while the room is in a mess - personally, I'd take the opportunity to lower those surrounds. Would you be able to fish wire through the wall to enable you to lower them to more-or-less ear height? That's what I did. I extended the speaker cable, fished it through and moved the surrounds and I am glad I did. My situation before was very much like yours - my surrounds and my rear overheads were just too close to each other.


Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, it is possible, however I will need to patch and paint where the current speaker mounts are, which would most likely require me to repaint the entire wall again. I would probably also need to purchase new speaker mounts because the pinpoint am24's that I used can only support the weight of the speaker if they are tilted as they are in the photo (they suck IMO). I'm not sure I would want them with the same downward tilt at ear level. Once I get the ceiling finished up and repainted I'll debate it. Chairs will be here on Tuesday so I wanted to get it done before then, but I may just bite the bullet and lower them. What's ideal? 45" from the floor?



roxiedog13 said:


> Just realizing your ceiling is very similar to mine, so Atmos enabled speakers would not have worked unless you at least had separate Atmos modules that you could have moved until a sweet spot found. I did manage to get modules to work but they ended up far ahead of the LCR mains, much lower and in the way between the front seats and the screen. The Atmos did sound great once a location was finally discovered, unfortunately it would not be practical to leave them there at the front in front of the screen. I ended up installing in-ceiling speakers, much cleaner and
> out of the way .
> Attached is a picture of my HT, You can see the modules on the stands ( now removed) and the in-ceiling above currently being used.


Wow, your HT is gorgeous! I love the wood flooring on the stage, what a great idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundJunky said:


> Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, it is possible, however I will need to patch and paint where the current speaker mounts are, which would most likely require me to repaint the entire wall again.


Yes, unfortunately so. Or you will never get the new and the old paint to match. If you can fish the wire through you will only have to make a small hole and you may get away with just patching the paint. But you still have the old speaker mount holes to fill and paint of course.

All I can say is that, here, it was worth the effort.



SoundJunky said:


> I would probably also need to purchase new speaker mounts because the pinpoint am24's that I used can only support the weight of the speaker if they are tilted as they are in the photo (they suck IMO). I'm not sure I would want them with the same downward tilt at ear level. Once I get the ceiling finished up and repainted I'll debate it. Chairs will be here on Tuesday so I wanted to get it done before then, but I may just bite the bullet and lower them. What's ideal? 45" from the floor?


IMO ideal is as close to ear level as you can get them, with the proviso that every listener's ears must have direct line of sight to all speakers. This usually entails raising them somewhat above ear height.



SoundJunky said:


> Wow, your HT is gorgeous! I love the wood flooring on the stage, what a great idea.


I am not so sure. There is the potential for unwanted reflection from the center speaker due to that reflective floor. It may or may not be an issue in that particular room, but it is potentially a problem so I would avoid it by ensuring that the floor was heavily damped in that region (thick underlay and carpet would be my choice). A reflective surface between the center speaker and MLP is often a cause of dialogue intelligibility or quality issues.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Roger Dressler said:


> If the home mix is nothing more than a tweak of dialog levels, dynamics, and a "sanity check" of the object spatial mapping to make sure no anomalies pop up from the consumer decoder, then no. All the spatial decisions are still those of the original theatrical mix (as they should be).


Just to update: Thanks to an enjoyable and convivial GTG occasioned by Dan Shulz, FilmMixer confirmed about the nature of near field mixes (preparing an Atmos title for home use), at least as done by Technicolor, Sony, and Formosa (formerly POP Sound, where Lions Gate is a client). It's all about fine tuning the balance, dialog, bass, surrounds. There's no opportunity (or inclination) to move objects around as they are already distilled into "spatially scaled" objects. That means the sound positioning of the original cinematic Atmos mix is well preserved, no matter what elevation may be used for the surrounds in the near field setup.


----------



## richmagnus

I've read on this thread that some feel that DSU isn't as good as they were hoping for. 

I spent a few hours with it recently and loved what it did for movies. This was in a 7.2.4 system. Unfortunately I can't accommodate that many speakers in my family room so I'm going to start with some FH speakers as I believe they will work better in my room than TF and then at a later date add a pair of TM which will give me 5.2.4. In taking my time as I want to install capable FH and TM speakers that will not be inferior to my other speakers.


----------



## AncientYouth

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn't in the least "fuzzy". To spell it out in its most basic terms, this is your decision process:
> 
> 
> Not really all that difficult is it?




well if you are only interested in Atmos but what about DTS ex an Aurora ...if the different approaches require differing speaker set ups and you want to watch movies in all 3 of them then it gets pretty fuzzy doesn't it?


I am in no hurry to upgrade to any of them , don't fancy buying an AMP that suddenly becomes redundant within months


----------



## kbarnes701

AncientYouth said:


> well if you are only interested in Atmos but what about DTS ex an Aurora ...if the different approaches require differing speaker set ups and you want to watch movies in all 3 of them then it gets pretty fuzzy doesn't it?


As Sanjay just pointed out*, the overlap between Auro and Atmos speaker setups is quite considerable. Atmos can use Front Heights and Rear Heights, which are close to Auro's recommended layout, with Auro having one more speaker mounted on the ceiling. So most of the positions overlap well. DTS:X have said that their recommended speaker layout will also overlap with Atmos's. I think, with a little forethought, a pretty good speaker layout could be achieved for all three systems without too much difficulty or compromise.

* _The main 5.1 or 7.1 speakers are common to both formats, so that leaves only the heights. Atmos and Auro have the Front Height location in common (as do Neo:X and DSX), so that leaves only the second pair of heights. Mounting that second pair high up on the side walls above the surrounds is better for Auro; moving those speakers closer together and mounting them on the ceiling is better for Atmos. Somewhere between those two locations is a decent compromise. Still, with 9 of 11 speakers sharing common locations, doesn't seem so incompatible. _



AncientYouth said:


> I am in no hurry to upgrade to any of them , don't fancy buying an AMP that suddenly becomes redundant within months


Fair enough. It isn't compulsory!


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> As Sanjay just pointed out*, the overlap between Auro and Atmos speaker setups is quite considerable. Atmos can use Front Heights and Rear Heights, which are close to Auro's recommended layout, with Auro having one more speaker mounted on the ceiling. So most of the positions overlap well. DTS:X have said that their recommended speaker layout will also overlap with Atmos's. I think, with a little forethought, a pretty good speaker layout could be achieved for all three systems without too much difficulty or compromise.
> 
> * _The main 5.1 or 7.1 speakers are common to both formats, so that leaves only the heights. Atmos and Auro have the Front Height location in common (as do Neo:X and DSX), so that leaves only the second pair of heights. Mounting that second pair high up on the side walls above the surrounds is better for Auro; moving those speakers closer together and mounting them on the ceiling is better for Atmos. Somewhere between those two locations is a decent compromise. Still, with 9 of 11 speakers sharing common locations, doesn't seem so incompatible. _
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. It isn't compulsory!



So I hope all of this settles out soon, I wouldn't want it to hold up my implementation!   


As a few of you might know I will be starting with a clean sheet, only bounded by the room walls, with the targeted speaker locations to be determined but the compatibility required by the above mentioned formats.


----------



## lujan

richmagnus said:


> I've read on this thread that some feel that DSU isn't as good as they were hoping for.
> 
> ...


I watched the Green Lantern movie last night and the DSU on this movie is incredible.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> So I hope all of this settles out soon, I wouldn't want it to hold up my implementation!


Definitely not, Al. I know you've been in a big hurry


----------



## kbarnes701

lujan said:


> I watched the Green Lantern movie last night and the DSU on this movie is incredible.


I have that movie, but I am not sure that even a stellar DSU presentation will tempt me to watch it again


----------



## Dave Vaughn

My one complaint with DSU is that the score bleed into the top front speakers is a little too hot for my tastes...I'll have to tweak my system a little bit more but for the most part, everything sounds great.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> My one complaint with DSU is that the score bleed into the top front speakers is a little too hot for my tastes...I'll have to tweak my system a little bit more but for the most part, everything sounds great.


I've found the same on some discs. Usually I quite like the extension of the score to the overheads though as it makes it nicely immersive.

BTW - nice review of that very interesting Class A Krell m/ch amp in the current issue of the mag...


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> I've found the same on some discs. Usually I quite like the extension of the score to the overheads though as it makes it nicely immersive.
> 
> BTW - nice review of that very interesting Class A Krell m/ch amp in the current issue of the mag...


Thanks...I really liked that Amp A LOT and hated to see it go away. With a kid at UCLA I just couldn't justify the expense to "she who must not be crossed!" At least I got Atmos


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> Thanks...I really liked that Amp A LOT and hated to see it go away. With a kid at UCLA I just couldn't justify the expense to "she who must not be crossed!" At least I got Atmos


 I have a very big soft spot for Class A amps. I've had the same one in my separate music (2ch) system for more than 25 years and I am entranced by the way music sounds on that system - two channels or not. I also had, back in the day when I was less pragmatic about amplification than I am today, a Krell monster amp - so that review really caught my attention. Did it really not cook your room?  My Class A doubles as a space heater, but here in the UK that is no bad thing


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a very big soft spot for Class A amps. I've had the same one in my separate music (2ch) system for more than 25 years and I am entranced by the way music sounds on that system - two channels or not. I also had, back in the day when I was less pragmatic about amplification than I am today, a Krell monster amp - so that review really caught my attention. Did it really not cook your room?  My Class A doubles as a space heater, but here in the UK that is no bad thing



It gets warm, but not overtly so. Driving it as hard as I could, it never got warmer than 117 degrees F, which isn't that hot for an amp IMO--especially for Class A.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Just to update: Thanks to an enjoyable and convivial GTG occasioned by Dan Shulz, FilmMixer confirmed about the nature of near field mixes (preparing an Atmos title for home use), at least as done by Technicolor, Sony, and Formosa (formerly POP Sound, where Lions Gate is a client). It's all about fine tuning the balance, dialog, bass, surrounds. There's no opportunity (or inclination) to move objects around as they are already distilled into "spatially scaled" objects. That means the sound positioning of the original cinematic Atmos mix is well preserved, no matter what elevation may be used for the surrounds in the near field setup.


So Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds to ear level does in fact NOT serve the purpose of replicating as close as possible the sound as intended by the director/re-recording mixer, since they are using a cinematic speaker lay-out with elevated surrounds to place their objects. So what purpose does it serve? I am confused.


----------



## deano86

maikeldepotter said:


> So Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds to ear level does in fact NOT serve the purpose of replicating as close as possible the sound as intended by the director/re-recording mixer, since they are using a cinematic speaker lay-out with elevated surrounds to place their objects. So what purpose does it serve? I am confused.


Well, obviously theaters are a bit larger than your home viewing room... and with much higher ceilings.. Correct? And since they have to disperse sound to a very large audience, the surrounds have to be higher than what they would be in the home. Even with those high surrounds, there still is a large space vertically for the height speakers to operate. But, when implementing ATMOS in the home, it only makes sense to get as much separation as possible between the surround and the heights to better replicate the theater experience in such a comparatively small space.....


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I have about 3 feet separation from my side surrounds and 4 feet from my rear surrounds to my overhead speakers and i have plenty of separation. There was no way that I could lower my speakers and I don't feel like I'm "missing" anything.


----------



## deano86

Totally agree... I have just about the same spacing! .... and it sounds awesome! I did lower my surrounds about 1 foot to get that separation, but with a


----------



## Josh Z

maikeldepotter said:


> So Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds to ear level does in fact NOT serve the purpose of replicating as close as possible the sound as intended by the director/re-recording mixer, since they are using a cinematic speaker lay-out with elevated surrounds to place their objects. So what purpose does it serve? I am confused.


Well, in theory it doesn't matter where the speakers are in the mixing room. The objects are placed in a three-dimensional space in the room itself, and the Atmos processor maps them to the speakers as appropriate. So if the mixer wants the sound of a helicopter flying overhead, he puts the object at the top of the room and the processor should steer it to the height channels.

How this has panned out in actual application, however, is another matter. It's my belief that, in these early days of the object-based formats, some mixers are still relying too heavily on the traditional 7.1 channel beds because that's what they're familiar with and know how to do. (The TMNT mixers, at the very least.) So when that helicopter scene comes, they don't even bother to create an object for it. They just mix it into the main Surround bed where they always used to put it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> So Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds to ear level does in fact NOT serve the purpose of replicating as close as possible the sound as intended by the director/re-recording mixer, since they are using a cinematic speaker lay-out with elevated surrounds to place their objects. So what purpose does it serve? I am confused.


I do not believe Dolby ever stated that lowering the surrounds was in order to replicate someone's intention. They only say things like: >>If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the rear speakers may be higher than the front speakers. However, it is suggested that the height of the rear speakers should not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I watched the Green Lantern movie last night and the DSU on this movie is incredible.


Does it make the movie better?


----------



## NorthSky

deano86 said:


> Well, obviously theaters are a bit larger than your home viewing room... and with much higher ceilings.. Correct? And since they have to disperse sound to a very large audience, the surrounds have to be higher than what they would be in the home. Even with those high surrounds, there still is a large space vertically for the height speakers to operate. But, when implementing ATMOS in the home, it only makes sense to get as much separation as possible between the surround and the heights to better replicate the theater experience in such a comparatively small space.....


That is the logical explanation. And true what Roger just said; @ home Dolby recommends to put the floor surrounds not higher than 1.25 times the height of the three front soundstage speakers (L, C, R). ...So, your front L, C, R speakers are @ four feet from the floor, you can put your four surrounds, side and rear @ five feet from the floor. ...Your ceiling is from 7.5 feet to say 9 feet high (average rooms everywhere), then the four overhead speakers are from 2.5 feet to 4 feet higher.

It makes sense to me, in that spatial graphical representation. ...1.25 is a very fair number for everyone; small and larger home theater rooms. 

Sure, you don't have to go with it, but how can you say that you're not missing anything if you did not explore the ideal positioning?


----------



## maikeldepotter

deano86 said:


> Well, obviously theaters are a bit larger than your home viewing room... and with much higher ceilings.. Correct? And since they have to disperse sound to a very large audience, the surrounds have to be higher than what they would be in the home. Even with those high surrounds, there still is a large space vertically for the height speakers to operate.


All true.



> But, when implementing ATMOS in the home, it only makes sense to get as much separation as possible between the surround and the heights to better replicate the theater experience in such a comparatively small space.....


I would think that trying to replicate the theater experience at home would better be served by mimicking the angular seperation between surrounds and heights, instead of getting as much seperation as possible in terms of physical distance, as you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> I would think that trying to replicate the theater experience at home would better be served by mimicking the angular seperation between surrounds and heights, instead of getting as much seperation as possible in terms of physical distance, as you seem to be suggesting.


Then you have to determine the sweet spot @ the public theater in relation to that one @ the private home theater. 
...Not an easy target as the room's size varies so much, and the distance to the speakers as well. ...And the sheer size of the spatial ambiance of a large public cinema theater. ...The closest to that that I've ever been is from judicious parameters adjustment of a Yamaha DSP surround sound simulator. ...Putting a large theater inside your own small room "bubble".


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> It gets warm, but not overtly so. Driving it as hard as I could, it never got warmer than 117 degrees F, which isn't that hot for an amp IMO--especially for Class A.


Remarkable achievement. I have never measured the temperature mine reaches but if you put your hand on the heatsinks, you'll burn yourself.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> So Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds to ear level does in fact NOT serve the purpose of replicating as close as possible the sound as intended by the director/re-recording mixer, since they are using a cinematic speaker lay-out with elevated surrounds to place their objects. So what purpose does it serve? I am confused.


It serves the purpose of creating separation between the listener level speakers and the overhead speakers.

The cinema thing is a red herring. Our small rooms are not cinemas. In cinemas even with the surrounds mounted above the listener, there is still good separation between them and the overhead speakers simply due to the fact that a cinema has a very high ceiling usually. Our ceilings are typically 8 feet above the floor.

It is also entirely impossible to "replicate" what the mixer heard, so it isn't, IMO, a goal worth pursuing. How can you "replicate" an entirely different room, with entirely different speakers, with entirely different layouts? And how would you even know you had anyway, short of being able to go and listen to your Bluray disc in each studio where the movie was mixed? And as each mixing room is different to every other, how do you decide which one you want to replicate?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> I have about 3 feet separation from my side surrounds and 4 feet from my rear surrounds to my overhead speakers and i have plenty of separation. There was no way that I could lower my speakers and I don't feel like I'm "missing" anything.


I only have about 4-5ft from the surrounds to the overheads too and I'm not missing anything either (by subjective comparison with Dolby's own HT room setup in London). But I think the discussion originated with someone who has his surrounds actually mounted on, or very close to, the ceiling, and IMO that isn't going to provide a very good Atmos experience.

The whole thing is a bit of a road to nowhere really because everyone's room is different and most people have to make some sort of compromises. I would like my surrounds to be at ear level, as in the Dolby room in London, but it isn’t practical here to do that. So I have mounted them as close to that as I can. It all seems to work pretty well. For most of us, HT design is about choosing the least worst compromises I think.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> All true.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that trying to replicate the theater experience at home would better be served by mimicking the *angular separation *between surrounds and heights, instead of getting as much seperation as possible in terms of physical distance, as you seem to be suggesting.


Agreed totally. Although often both things overlap. Also, just for the avoidance of doubt, when I talk about the "distance" between the surrounds and the overheads, I mean the actual physical distance measured from one speaker to the other, in a straight line. Some may mean the vertical distance I guess.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Josh Z said:


> Well, in theory it doesn't matter where the speakers are in the mixing room. The objects are placed in a three-dimensional space in the room itself, and the Atmos processor maps them to the speakers as appropriate. So if the mixer wants the sound of a helicopter flying overhead, he puts the object at the top of the room and the processor should steer it to the height channels.


Absolutely right. In theory, if the Atmos processor in both the mixing room and at your home knows the actual and precise 3-dimensional speaker positions, the objects will be rendered in a way that at MLP all object sounds are coming from the same intended directions, even when the actual speaker lay-outs differ between the two rooms. However, we still don't know what those intended speaker positions for home really are. There are only Dolby specified ranges for different height designations to work with. In addition, we don't have a clue what principle is applied in programming these positions into the Atmos renderer blocks in consumer AVRs/processors: Relative to a main listener position or relative to some kind of standard room dimensions? 

All of this is not a big deal for those of us who are limited in their speaker placement options and are happy with wide ranges. But it can be, and apparently is, brain cracking for the more perfectionistic home theater enthusiasts among us whose aim is to get as close to the mixer's intent as possible. For smooth panning and consistent positioning of object sounds, the angular spread between speakers covering the sound hemisphere may be of more importance than the offset elevation (the absolute height of LCR and surround speakers) and tilt (elevation of surrounds relative to LCR) of this same hemisphere.



> How this has panned out in actual application, however, is another matter. It's my belief that, in these early days of the object-based formats, some mixers are still relying too heavily on the traditional 7.1 channel beds because that's what they're familiar with and know how to do. (The TMNT mixers, at the very least.) So when that helicopter scene comes, they don't even bother to create an object for it. They just mix it into the main Surround bed where they always used to put it.


In contracts to objects, intended playback of the channel bed relies on physical speaker positions. Even when mixers start to exploit the possibilities of object to its max, the traditional channel bed will probably for a long time remain an important part of the sound track. So it still makes sense for Atmos as well, to try and mimic a dubbing stage speaker positioning (firing angles towards main listener) in your home theater. That is, if your intentions are to come as close as possible to the director's/mixer's intent.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dolby has this to say about speaker heights:



> As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these
> recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
> - The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference
> point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the
> listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be
> used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
> - All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2
> meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-
> R BS.1116-1).
> If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the
> front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the rear
> speakers may be higher than the front speakers. However, it is suggested that the
> height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front
> speakers.


See page 7 of http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## RichB

Josh Z said:


> Well, in theory it doesn't matter where the speakers are in the mixing room. The objects are placed in a three-dimensional space in the room itself, and the Atmos processor maps them to the speakers as appropriate. So if the mixer wants the sound of a helicopter flying overhead, he puts the object at the top of the room and the processor should steer it to the height channels.
> 
> How this has panned out in actual application, however, is another matter. It's my belief that, in these early days of the object-based formats, some mixers are still relying too heavily on the traditional 7.1 channel beds because that's what they're familiar with and know how to do. (The TMNT mixers, at the very least.) So when that helicopter scene comes, they don't even bother to create an object for it. They just mix it into the main Surround bed where they always used to put it.



There is limited bandwidth for storage available for audio so there are particle limits the number of objects that can be encoded.
It will be interesting to see if DTS:X can encode the dialog as an object.


We do not know the practical limitations.


- Rich


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby has this to say about speaker heights:
> 
> See page 7 of http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Am I within Dolby Atmos specs having my mains effectively at 4 feet, my surrounds at 5 feet, and my actual MLP height at 3 to 3.5 feet? I think yes. So why should I lower my surrounds to ear level and degrade the immersiveness of the channel bed sound, even with optimally mixed Atmos sound tracks? I honestly cannot think of anything you will gain in doing that, considering that the minimum required separation from the corresponding height speakers can always be achieved by moving the heights closer to the middle of the ceiling.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Does it make the movie better?


I don't know what all the criticism is about this movie (Green Lantern) because I loved it?


----------



## jpco

Regarding speaker heights, if the mixing stage and theater have elevated surrounds, other than Dolby's recommendations, I don't see a technical reason to lower them. Objects are positioned in 3D space based on speaker locations and angles. If the production chain has elevated surrounds throughout, then the intended positioning will be true to the source with angles that match the production environment. 

Since it doesn't know the elevation angles of the base level of speakers, unless it's programmed for all base at the same height, lowering the sounds would change the position of the objects as intended in the mix. 

For practical purposes, it may not matter for enjoyment, but it's not convincing as a reason to alter the experience with 5/7.1 content if one chooses not to upmix (DSU).


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> How this has panned out in actual application, however, is another matter. It's my belief that, in these early days of the object-based formats, some mixers are still relying too heavily on the traditional 7.1 channel beds because that's what they're familiar with and know how to do. (The TMNT mixers, at the very least.) So when that helicopter scene comes, they don't even bother to create an object for it. They just mix it into the main Surround bed where they always used to put it.


Josh.. actually you have no way of knowing if that is what they did because at this point in time the only way you easily identify if a sound is an object is if it travels overheard.. until you playback on a system where the number of surround speakers is greater than the number in bed channels (i.e. 4 at this point) or are using a 9.2 setup with wides, you have no reliable way of knowing if any given sound is in the bed or encoded as an object if it doesn't travel overhead... 

In this case (TMNT) there was a lot of fx and dx activity that traveled up the walls but not into the overheads, and at least half of the music was mixed as objects, with a good deal of it spread into the top.. in certain instances where music and effects are playing, it might not have made sense to have the copter go into the same channels as the music (speculation on my part..) However, I did the 5.1 and 7.1 masters for this title, so I can attest to how many objects there are and how they were used.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I have that movie, but I am not sure that even a stellar DSU presentation will tempt me to watch it again


Send it to me and I'll let you know.


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> Send it to me and I'll let you know.


Try the Hulk in DSU plus it will give your subs a great work out.


----------



## audioguy

We recently went to a BBQ place in the middle of nowhere, Ga and there were photos on the wall showing this place was used in the movie: "Sweet Home Alabama". So we watched it the other night and there was a rain scene with rain coming from the ceilng speakers almost as realistic as the demo on the Dolby Atmos Demo disc. I love DSU !


----------



## nitro28

I'm revisiting my overhead speaker choices now that i am getting ready to install them. Right now I have 4 Definitive in ceiling DI 8r speakers that were going to be mounted about 18" in from the side walls. I am now thinking of selling these and switching to a satellite speaker like the Definitive 800 satellite speaker with a swivel mount so I can play around with how they are aimed more. I like the frequency response of the DI 8Rs but the versatility of the satellites. What do you all think? My build is in my sig.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I don't know what all the criticism is about this movie (Green Lantern) because I loved it?


No sweat, films are like women; the more .... the less ... and ....


----------



## Glenn Baumann

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed totally. Although often both things overlap. Also, just for the avoidance of doubt, when I talk about the "distance" between the surrounds and the overheads, I mean the actual physical distance measured from one speaker to the other, in a straight line. Some may mean the vertical distance I guess.


Keith,

What are your room dimensions? How many seating positions? 


...Glenn


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> Josh.. actually you have no way of knowing if that is what they did because at this point in time the only way you easily identify if a sound is an object is if it travels overheard.. until you playback on a system where the number of surround speakers is greater than the number in bed channels (i.e. 4 at this point) or are using a 9.2 setup with wides, you have no reliable way of knowing if any given sound is in the bed or encoded as an object if it doesn't travel overhead...
> 
> In this case (TMNT) there was a lot of fx and dx activity that traveled up the walls but not into the overheads, and at least half of the music was mixed as objects, with a good deal of it spread into the top.. in certain instances where music and effects are playing, it might not have made sense to have the copter go into the same channels as the music (speculation on my part..) However, I did the 5.1 and 7.1 masters for this title, so I can attest to how many objects there are and how they were used.


I didn't mean to cast aspersions. 

All I can say is, when watching the TMNT Blu-ray, the height channels hardly ever seem to engage. Not for music, not for sound effects, not for ambience. Earlier in this thread, people watched the disc with all other speakers disconnected, waiting around for the rare occasions where they could hear something in the heights. I don't know if this is a fault in the Blu-ray encoding of the Atmos track, or if, for whatever reason, most of the objects in the track were simply positioned at ground level. Whatever the case may be, that scene with the helicopter is very distracting to me when the sounds of the rotors are entirely confined to ear level and the top of the room is silent. It breaks the illusion of having a bubble of sound all around you.

I would probably not feel this way if my main Surrounds and Surround Backs were still mounted high on the walls where I used to have them before upgrading to Atmos.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> The cinema thing is a red herring. Our small rooms are not cinemas. In cinemas even with the surrounds mounted above the listener, there is still good separation between them and the overhead speakers simply due to the fact that a cinema has a very high ceiling usually. Our ceilings are typically 8 feet above the floor.


Does a moviegoer sitting 40' away from a 40' wide screen experience a different field of view than when sitting 10' from a 10' wide screen? No. It's exactly the same -- 53 degrees. The physical distance is, in effect, irrelevant, if the screen and the speaker locations fit the same vectors. Just try to put that 40' screen into your room.  That's why ideal speaker positions and screen sizes are described in terms of angles relative to the listener, not in linear distance. Witness ITU standards. And Dolby's advice (for 5.1 and 7.1), and THX's, and DTS'... Would have been very helpful if Dolby had maintained this angle-based vocabulary when describing height speaker locations in consumer documents, especially since they did exactly that for the cinema guidelines. Even the description of surrounds being 1.25 times the height of L/R makes no sense. Why should the elevation relative to the ears be different if one has taller L/R speakers and a higher chair? What does the floor have to do with it? 



> It is also entirely impossible to "replicate" what the mixer heard, so it isn't, IMO, a goal worth pursuing. How can you "replicate" an entirely different room, with entirely different speakers, with entirely different layouts?


We have always enjoyed the more intimate acoustics of home theaters, all the way back to 1987 when Pro Logic was introduced. But from the perspective of sound directionality, it was and indeed still is the goal to maintain what was heard in the original theatrical experience. Sound placement, in absolute terms and in relation to the on-screen image, is the essence of replicating the original experience (if that is a shared value). The goal remains worthy, even if there are unavoidable differences -- some of which favor the home result over the cinema (better sonics). 



> And how would you even know you had anyway, short of being able to go and listen to your Bluray disc in each studio where the movie was mixed? And as each mixing room is different to every other, how do you decide which one you want to replicate?


Mixing rooms generally adhere to a well defined set of characteristics (unlike music studios). And even when dubbing stages differ, there is an understanding how the content made there will "translate" to the greater cinema world. If that were not the case, that facility would not be used because the content would not sound right in the field.

No, the red herring is this idea that everyone ought to lower their surrounds to ear level. There is no precedent for that, and the reason is quite obvious, Had it sounded better to do that, this is what we'd all have been doing right along.


----------



## LowellG

nitro28 said:


> I'm revisiting my overhead speaker choices now that i am getting ready to install them. Right now I have 4 Definitive in ceiling DI 8r speakers that were going to be mounted about 18" in from the side walls. I am now thinking of selling these and switching to a satellite speaker like the Definitive 800 satellite speaker with a swivel mount so I can play around with how they are aimed more. I like the frequency response of the DI 8Rs but the versatility of the satellites. What do you all think? My build is in my sig.


I am in the same boat, I was debating between in ceiling or not. The dispersion pattern concerns have me leaning towards the 800s. I am curious if anybody is using them and what they set the crossovers at. I bought some 800s to try in place of my SR8080s and I like the direct sound of the monopoles. However, XT32 set the crossover of the 800s at 100 and the SR8080s at 60. So I am giving up that range overhead.


----------



## Movie78

Dolby's all-encompassing Atmos sound comes to virtual reality

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/01/dolby-atmos-comes-to-vr/


----------



## NorthSky

But Roger, I'm sure the Dolby Atmos guys experimented with various speaker's positioning in different size rooms with various Dolby Atmos configurations. 

The acoustics of a large venue with a very large screen, a la IMAX theatre for example, are quite spectacular and grandiose in their overall impact visually and auditory.
And those acoustics are different in a private home theatre room the size like yours for example. 

The scale dictates the best surround sound immersion, I think. ...And the angles (triangulation) could remain quite similar still but without being exactly the same. 

I trust the Dolby Atmos guys, @ both the theater and @ home. ...They are the experts; that's their job.


----------



## jpco

Seems like the lowered surrounds are more for DSU than for Atmos, since Atmos mixes are created with and for raised surrounds.


----------



## smurraybhm

lujan said:


> I don't know what all the criticism is about this movie (Green Lantern) because I loved it?


I own it and am ashamed to admit it - Dan deserves to give me hell for buying this one. Glad you like it - if you need another copy let me know


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a very big soft spot for Class A amps. I've had the same one in my separate music (2ch) system for more than 25 years and I am entranced by the way music sounds on that system - two channels or not. I also had, back in the day when I was less pragmatic about amplification than I am today, a Krell monster amp - so that review really caught my attention. Did it really not cook your room?  My Class A doubles as a space heater, but here in the UK that is no bad thing


What brand of Class A amp have you kept for 25 years! Mine fried after 10 years 

I would love to get a Pass Labs but they are too pricey!


----------



## maikeldepotter

jpco said:


> Seems like the lowered surrounds are more for DSU than for Atmos, since Atmos mixes are created with and for raised surrounds.


Maybe more for _demonstrating_ DSU than for DSU itself. I don't see why elevated surrounds would decrease the DSU effects, if the separation with corresponding heights is kept constant. While a number of people have reported better DSU sound after lowering their surrounds, they all contribute this to an increased separation, if I remember correctly.


----------



## jpco

maikeldepotter said:


> Maybe more for _demonstrating_ DSU than for DSU itself. I don't see why elevated surrounds would decrease the DSU effects, if the separation with corresponding heights is kept constant. While a number of people have reported better DSU sound after lowering their surrounds, they all contribute this to an increased separation, if I remember correctly.



Well that's good because I'm not going to lower my surrounds, but I do plan to have Atmos and whatever immersive formats catch on down the road. As long as theater surrounds are configured as they currently are, all should be fine.


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> But Roger, I'm sure the Dolby Atmos guys experimented with various speaker's positioning in different size rooms with various Dolby Atmos configurations.


On that you can rely.



> The acoustics of a large venue with a very large screen, a la IMAX theatre for example, are quite spectacular and grandiose in their overall impact visually and auditory.
> And those acoustics are different in a private home theatre room the size like yours for example.


Continue.



> The scale dictates the best surround sound immersion, I think. ...And the angles (triangulation) could remain quite similar still but without being exactly the same.


Home systems tend to be more spatially articulate than cinemas (not less), for the reasons you cite plus the use of arrays.



> I trust the Dolby Atmos guys, @ both the theater and @ home. ...They are the experts; that's their job.


It's their job to sell new technology, like DSU and Atmos. Their actions clearly help differentiate it vs "heights off" mode. But some of us think the heights off mode should not be shortchanged in the bargain, not just for the legacy content that may be ill-served by DSU, but moreover for Atmos mixes that have long segments where the heights are silent.



jpco said:


> Seems like the lowered surrounds are more for DSU than for Atmos, since Atmos mixes are created with and for raised surrounds.


That's how I see it.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> So why should I lower my surrounds to ear level and degrade the immersiveness of the channel bed sound, even with optimally mixed Atmos sound tracks?


For the same reason surrounds are sometimes moved forward when going from a 5.1 layout to a 7.1 layout: greater separation. In the case of 7.1 it is to emphasize sounds at your sides vs sounds behind you. For Atmos it is sounds around you vs sounds above you. 

There are people who prefer having all four surrounds behind them in a 7.1 layout just as there are people who prefer having surrounds and heights above them in an Atmos set-up. After all, commercial cinemas didn't move surround speakers forward when switching from 5.1 to 7.1 nor did they lower the surrounds when adding heights. 

So it's not necessary to do either of those things at home. Keep in mind its a Dolby recommendation, not requirement. If you prefer the greater separation, then go for it. If you don't, no one says you have to; not even Dolby.


----------



## roxiedog13

SoundJunky said:


> Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, it is possible, however I will need to patch and paint where the current speaker mounts are, which would most likely require me to repaint the entire wall again. I would probably also need to purchase new speaker mounts because the pinpoint am24's that I used can only support the weight of the speaker if they are tilted as they are in the photo (they suck IMO). I'm not sure I would want them with the same downward tilt at ear level. Once I get the ceiling finished up and repainted I'll debate it. Chairs will be here on Tuesday so I wanted to get it done before then, but I may just bite the bullet and lower them. What's ideal? 45" from the floor?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your HT is gorgeous! I love the wood flooring on the stage, what a great idea.



Thank you for the compliments , not a five star theater but did make the best of what was once a small basement recreation room . The wood flooring was a last minute thing, just wanted to add
that theater touch by adding the stage, the wooden flooring was left over from a renovation in another room. It looks deeper that it actually is, I think it's only 3 feet deep at the curve. Not sure if 
being on a sub floor keeps the reflections down, I sure don't notice any. Besides, the L & R speakers are at the forward edge of the stage, the center is angled up towards the MLP ear level. Rest of the room is carpet, plush furniture and thick velvet curtains to keep the reflections to a minimum. Going to run a few audio calibrations soon, will add some more acoustic panels once the room is measured. 
is measured.


----------



## nitro28

LowellG said:


> I am in the same boat, I was debating between in ceiling or not. The dispersion pattern concerns have me leaning towards the 800s. I am curious if anybody is using them and what they set the crossovers at. I bought some 800s to try in place of my SR8080s and I like the direct sound of the monopoles. However, XT32 set the crossover of the 800s at 100 and the SR8080s at 60. So I am giving up that range overhead.


Its tough. I also like the clean look of the in ceiling speakers. But, I know the satellites might give me more versatility and quite a bit less work. With my duct work in the soffit I would need to build backer boxes to reduce sound escaping into my ducts. If they are external, there will be no need for any of that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glenn Baumann said:


> Keith,
> 
> What are your room dimensions? How many seating positions?
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Tiny except for Hobbits  Approx 11x11x8 ft. Three seats.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Does a moviegoer sitting 40' away from a 40' wide screen experience a different field of view than when sitting 10' from a 10' wide screen? No. It's exactly the same -- 53 degrees. The physical distance is, in effect, irrelevant, if the screen and the speaker locations fit the same vectors. Just try to put that 40' screen into your room.  That's why ideal speaker positions and screen sizes are described in terms of angles relative to the listener, not in linear distance. Witness ITU standards. And Dolby's advice (for 5.1 and 7.1), and THX's, and DTS'... Would have been very helpful if Dolby had maintained this angle-based vocabulary when describing height speaker locations in consumer documents, especially since they did exactly that for the cinema guidelines. Even the description of surrounds being 1.25 times the height of L/R makes no sense. Why should the elevation relative to the ears be different if one has taller L/R speakers and a higher chair? What does the floor have to do with it?


I'm not sure we're on the same page here, Roger. I was observing that in a room with a ceiling that is, say, 30 feet high, there is more latitude to place surround speakers higher up and still have plenty of separation between them and speakers on the ceiling. In a room that has an 8 foot ceiling, placing the surrounds higher up inevitably brings them closer to the overhead speakers.



Roger Dressler said:


> We have always enjoyed the more intimate acoustics of home theaters, all the way back to 1987 when Pro Logic was introduced. But from the perspective of sound directionality, it was and indeed still is the goal to maintain what was heard in the original theatrical experience. Sound placement, in absolute terms and in relation to the on-screen image, is the essence of replicating the original experience (if that is a shared value). The goal remains worthy, even if there are unavoidable differences -- some of which favor the home result over the cinema (better sonics).


For directionality, I agree. And I was discussing mixing rooms not theaters. The OP said his aim was to "replicate" what the mixer heard. I maintain this is impossible because one cannot know what the mixer heard. If one does not know what the original sounded like, it is impossible to replicate it.



Roger Dressler said:


> Mixing rooms generally adhere to a well defined set of characteristics (unlike music studios). And even when dubbing stages differ, there is an understanding how the content made there will "translate" to the greater cinema world. If that were not the case, that facility would not be used because the content would not sound right in the field.


Yes, but there is still a variety of possibilities within the specification. I find it hard to believe that all mixing rooms sound the same. And I find it impossible to believe that any home theater will sound the same as a no-expense-spared mixing room with hugely expensive equipment, set up professionally, calibrated professionally and so on. I would love to have a HT that had two commas in its price, but as I don't, I just fail to see how my room can "replicate" a mixing suite. I think that anyone who thinks this is a realistic goal is living in cloud cuckoo land.

As for standards, again there seems to be a wide variation in what is agreed as the "standard". I am sure you will have seen that graph which shows the response of a bunch of allegedly identical Genelec speakers in a variety of professional rooms - there is a huge variation in each graph. I have no problem in believing that these studios aim for a consistent standard - just that it is an objective rather than a given reality. I am, of course, fully prepared to be wrong. 

If FilmMixer is reading along maybe he would care to chime in - do all the different mixing rooms you use all sound identical to each other? Do you believe that a HT, in a compromised room, on a budget far below that of a pro studio, can "replicate" a mixing suite?



Roger Dressler said:


> No, the red herring is this idea that everyone ought to lower their surrounds to ear level. There is no precedent for that, and the reason is quite obvious, Had it sounded better to do that, this is what we'd all have been doing right along.


I can't follow your logic on this. There is no precedent because until recently we didn't have speakers on the ceiling. When that was the case, there was a good reason to place the surrounds higher up: it gave some impression of sound coming from above. Now we have speakers on the ceiling, there is no need to create that impression from our surround speakers any more. Not to mention that Dolby themselves recommend surrounds be placed at ear height in an Atmos HT setup


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> What brand of Class A amp have you kept for 25 years! Mine fried after 10 years
> 
> I would love to get a Pass Labs but they are too pricey!


Alchemist Kraken. I believe it is a UK design, made in the UK. Mine has been powered on for 25 years, other than when we are on vacation. It is a remarkable achievement I think. I fully expect it to go pop one day. If and when it does, I am not sure what I will replace it with. Nowadays I don't believe that SS amps of good design and manufacture sound different to any other similar amps, so long as they are working within their design parameters, not clipping, not broken etc. So I can't see myself spending silly money on one of the "high end" names. Would I go for another Class A? Not sure. I think they have a seductive quality - but so do tube amps and it has been decades since I gave those up. These days I am more into transparency to the source.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Alchemist Kraken. I believe it is a UK design, made in the UK. Mine has been powered on for 25 years, other than when we are on vacation. It is a remarkable achievement I think. I fully expect it to go pop one day. If and when it does, I am not sure what I will replace it with. Nowadays I don't believe that SS amps of good design and manufacture sound different to any other similar amps, so long as they are working within their design parameters, not clipping, not broken etc. So I can't see myself spending silly money on one of the "high end" names. Would I go for another Class A? Not sure. I think they have a seductive quality - but so do tube amps and it has been decades since I gave those up. These days I am more into transparency to the source.


I still have a Pioneer receiver and Boss Acoustimass speaker system that I bought in 1987, in my family room and used most every day. The receiver is showing signs of eminent failure but I can't throw it out until it pops. Nothing is made to last like this anymore, it's just not good for business. Back then we paid more for our equipment and there were a network of repair shops that were certified to warranty, repair and fix as necessary. Today repair shops are all but gone , the ones left plug in replacement card only. Most equipment is throw away only anyway, we as consumer have exactly what we wanted.
Today we pay less for similar equipment but on the other hand are looking for the newest technology every few years, so I'm not sure the latter isn't better anyway. My old receiver with Dolby Pro Logic is not in the same league as the new equipment certainly, holding onto it is more a test of time and my patience. Don't use the thing for surround anyway, only for music, still does the
job well ........................almost .


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I still have a Pioneer receiver and Boss Acoustimass speaker system that I bought in 1987, in my family room and used most every day. The receiver is showing signs of eminent failure but I can't throw it out until it pops. Nothing is made to last like this anymore, it's just not good for business. Back then we paid more for our equipment and there were a network of repair shops that were certified to warranty, repair and fix as necessary. Today repair shops are all but gone , the ones left plug in replacement card only. Most equipment is throw away only anyway, we as consumer have exactly what we wanted.
> Today we pay less for similar equipment but on the other hand are looking for the newest technology every few years, so I'm not sure the latter isn't better anyway. My old receiver with Dolby Pro Logic is not in the same league as the new equipment certainly, holding onto it is more a test of time and my patience. Don't use the thing for surround anyway, only for music, still does the
> job well ........................almost .


All of my music-only system is 25 years (or more) old. For most of my life, the advancing pace of technology was painfully slow. As a result, stuff would last a long time and was perhaps built to reflect that. I used to keep CRT televisions for decades, routinely. In all that time they barely changed. Nowadays, a TV from 10 years ago is unrecognisable. Even more so with AV gear which moves on in leaps and bounds almost annually. Last year gave us Atmos. This year will give us DTS:X and 4K content and players. Next year will no doubt bring us even more. I guess that if the life of a product is measured now in months, before it is substantially overtaken by the next big thing, there isn't much incentive or point to designing stuff to last for decades. Who wants a 10 year old AV receiver? I'm just glad that my amps and speakers will last for years 

I think this also shows that waiting for the "right time" to buy something is pointless now. When the world moves so quickly, there will never be a "right time", only "now" or "never". IMO life is too short to wait for stuff - grab it while you can, with both hands, and enjoy it is my motto.


----------



## Chesebro

*Atmos ceiling speakers*



Dave Vaughn said:


> My one complaint with DSU is that the score bleed into the top front speakers is a little too hot for my tastes...I'll have to tweak my system a little bit more but for the most part, everything sounds great.


Dave are you using Atlantic Technology's IC6 OBA for your ceiling speakers? I was thinking about using them with my Totem speakers but worry about Timbre matching. My system is a Marantz 7009 with Totem tribe II lf,rf and center with Totem bookshelf's in the rear.


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> Tiny except for Hobbits  Approx 11x11x8 ft. Three seats.


Just more proof that size does not matter - it is enjoyment that matters.


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> Just more proof that size does not matter - it is enjoyment that matters.


True. But I'd dearly love a bigger room. Small rooms present many obstacles. They are mostly able to be overcome, but it takes some doing.


----------



## smurraybhm

http://blog.dolby.com/2015/02/jaunt-using-dolby-atmos-to-tell-stories-in-virtual-reality/
http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/01/lenovo-tablets-mwc2015/
http://blog.dolby.com/2015/02/more-oscars-awarded-to-dolby-atmos-movies/

Slightly off topic here, but as we discuss the future of Atmos its good to see it being used by others. Also, since we had the Razzie thread a few months ago, good to see the other end, last link. Now if we would just see some more releases for HT market. 

Where's Auro 3-D in all of this? Not much being announced ex a few videos on You-Tube.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> http://blog.dolby.com/2015/02/jaunt-using-dolby-atmos-to-tell-stories-in-virtual-reality/
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/01/lenovo-tablets-mwc2015/
> http://blog.dolby.com/2015/02/more-oscars-awarded-to-dolby-atmos-movies/
> 
> Slightly off topic here, but as we discuss the future of Atmos its good to see it being used by others. Also, since we had the Razzie thread a few months ago, good to see the other end, last link. Now if we would just see some more releases for HT market.






smurraybhm said:


> Where's Auro 3-D in all of this?


Dead in the water?


----------



## chi_guy50

htpcforever said:


> Just more proof that *size does not matter* - it is enjoyment that matters.





kbarnes701 said:


> True. But I'd dearly love a bigger room. Small rooms present many obstacles. They are mostly able to be overcome, but it takes some doing.


Hey, check out his avatar; he could be compensating for something.

J/K: As I believe Freud once said, "Sometimes an assault rifle is just an assault rifle."


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> All of my music-only system is 25 years (or more) old. For most of my life, the advancing pace of technology was painfully slow. As a result, stuff would last a long time and was perhaps built to reflect that. I used to keep CRT televisions for decades, routinely. In all that time they barely changed. Nowadays, a TV from 10 years ago is unrecognisable. Even more so with AV gear which moves on in leaps and bounds almost annually. Last year gave us Atmos. This year will give us DTS:X and 4K content and players. Next year will no doubt bring us even more. I guess that if the life of a product is measured now in months, before it is substantially overtaken by the next big thing, there isn't much incentive or point to designing stuff to last for decades. Who wants a 10 year old AV receiver? I'm just glad that my amps and speakers will last for years
> 
> I think this also shows that waiting for the "right time" to buy something is pointless now. When the world moves so quickly, there will never be a "right time", only "now" or "never". IMO life is too short to wait for stuff - grab it while you can, with both hands, and enjoy it is my motto.


We must be around the same age, I too held onto CRT screens forever. Last one I bought a 36" was like $2500 Canadian back in the day. It was heavy too, around 150lb as I recall and I was strong enough to carry it up a flight of stairs by myself. That is a reminder of how long ago that was, though I can still carry a 36" up the stairs now, a flat screen that is.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Chesebro said:


> Dave are you using Atlantic Technology's IC6 OBA for your ceiling speakers? I was thinking about using them with my Totem speakers but worry about Timbre matching. My system is a Marantz 7009 with Totem tribe II lf,rf and center with Totem bookshelf's in the rear.


I'm extremely pleased with them. I'm surprised at how well they mate with my M&K speakers. I'm also impressed with how good the bass response is on them, although this may have something to do with the in-ceiling boxes I made for them during construction that I stuffed with 5 pounds (per speaker) of polyfill


----------



## dvdwilly3

smurraybhm said:


> http://blog.dolby.com/2015/02/jaunt-using-dolby-atmos-to-tell-stories-in-virtual-reality/
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/01/lenovo-tablets-mwc2015/
> http://blog.dolby.com/2015/02/more-oscars-awarded-to-dolby-atmos-movies/
> 
> Slightly off topic here, but as we discuss the future of Atmos its good to see it being used by others. Also, since we had the Razzie thread a few months ago, good to see the other end, last link. Now if we would just see some more releases for HT market.
> 
> Where's Auro 3-D in all of this? Not much being announced ex a few videos on You-Tube.


And, to branch off of this, I hope everyone reconizes the relevance of the gaming community picking up Atmos. The gaming industry in even larger than the movie industry in terms of revenue. And, for anyone who thinks it is not about the money, it's about the money...always.
And, Atmos fits right into the ultimate gaming nirvana of virtual reality.
This is bodes well for the widespread adoption of Atmos.


----------



## Chesebro

Dave Vaughn said:


> I'm extremely pleased with them. I'm surprised at how well they mate with my M&K speakers. I'm also impressed with how good the bass response is on them, although this may have something to do with the in-ceiling boxes I made for them during construction that I stuffed with 5 pounds (per speaker) of polyfill


Thanks Dave I think I will try them. Do you plan on doing a review of your new room and equipment?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> For the same reason surrounds are sometimes moved forward when going from a 5.1 layout to a 7.1 layout: greater separation. In the case of 7.1 it is to emphasize sounds at your sides vs sounds behind you. For Atmos it is sounds around you vs sounds above you.
> 
> There are people who prefer having all four surrounds behind them in a 7.1 layout just as there are people who prefer having surrounds and heights above them in an Atmos set-up. After all, commercial cinemas didn't move surround speakers forward when switching from 5.1 to 7.1 nor did they lower the surrounds when adding heights.
> 
> So it's not necessary to do either of those things at home. Keep in mind its a Dolby recommendation, not requirement. If you prefer the greater separation, then go for it. If you don't, no one says you have to; not even Dolby.


Agreed. Everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they will opt for lowering their surrounds. In doing so, it is good to realize that Dolby's recommendation may not be the only - and possibly not even the best - option for your room and liking. If greater separation is your aim, this can also be achieved by a applying a smaller spread between the overhead speaker arrays. In fact, Dolby's theatrical speaker lay-out guideline seem to follow this kind of reasoning. Moreover, it can be applied at home without jeopardizing the Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines, IMO.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> If greater separation is your aim, this can also be achieved by a applying a smaller spread between the overhead speaker arrays.


This would be like getting greater side-vs-rear separation by reducing the spread between your rear speakers. While this is an alternate approach to moving the side speakers forward, it makes it more difficult to hear stereo separation between the rear speakers where our hearing is not so great. Same with reducing the spread between the overhead speakers.


> In fact, Dolby's theatrical speaker lay-out guideline seem to follow this kind of reasoning.


The home installation guide deviates significantly from the theatrical guide. Seems if Dolby wanted home Atmos layouts to mimic theatrical Atmos layouts, they would not have made the recommendations they did in the home install guide.


> Moreover, it can be applied at home without jeopardizing the Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines, IMO.


The home installation guide recommends placing the height speaker arrays in line with the front L/R speakers. How can you bring those arrays closer together and still be following the home install guide recommendations?


----------



## ambesolman

roxiedog13 said:


> We must be around the same age, I too held onto CRT screens forever. Last one I bought a 36" was like $2500 Canadian back in the day. It was heavy too, around 150lb as I recall and I was strong enough to carry it up a flight of stairs by myself. That is a reminder of how long ago that was, though I can still carry a 36" up the stairs now, a flat screen that is.



I finally took my old 34" hd sony trinitron to goodwill yesterday. Bought in '03 for $1800 but didn't see an HD picture on it until '07. Used it until 2010 when I got my first plasma (samsung pn58c7000) which developed the dreaded pink banding issue. After two replacement panels, they finally gave me a new set (f5500, fingers crossed). We only watch tv in the den and needed the TV storage room for a nursery so the TVs had to go. Sony to goodwill and the old Samsung to my dad, his first hd TV. The CRT was solid, ~200lbs (never risked a hernia lifting it alone) and a great picture, but think the component connections went bad since the picture looked blue and smurfy the last time it was plugged in. Probably a cheap fix, but I had no need for the TV, maybe someone else will. It's the end of an era for long lasting TVs


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## roxiedog13

ambesolman said:


> I finally took my old 34" hd sony trinitron to goodwill yesterday. Bought in '03 for $1800 but didn't see an HD picture on it until '07. Used it until 2010 when I got my first plasma (samsung pn58c7000) which developed the dreaded pink banding issue. After two replacement panels, they finally gave me a new set (f5500, fingers crossed). We only watch tv in the den and needed the TV storage room for a nursery so the TVs had to go. Sony to goodwill and the old Samsung to my dad, his first hd TV. The CRT was solid, ~200lbs (never risked a hernia lifting it alone) and a great picture, but think the component connections went bad since the picture looked blue and smurfy the last time it was plugged in. Probably a cheap fix, but I had no need for the TV, maybe someone else will. It's the end of an era for long lasting TVs
> 
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still



That is the bottom line, it's an end of an era. My guess the future will see garbage dumps as the new Gold mines. Once we run out of resources the dumps will become the goto place for recycled materials. I'll hold off investing for a while though.


----------



## BigScreen

The discussion about mixing rooms, speaker placement, and Dolby's recommendations underscores the need for proper test signals... and for more content, so that such issues can be judged with more than what amounts to anecdotal evidence.

It's been several months since Atmos for the home has been available, but no test signals are available (at least to the general public). Why don't we have something that makes it easy to evaluate speaker placement, speaker choice, and coverage effectiveness? 

Take a single sound element and have it pass front to back, right to left, and perhaps even diagonally from front left to rear right, with all the permutations possible, so that the enthusiast/installer can judge if the ceiling speakers are placed properly in the room and work well with the rest of the system. Add in an "all speakers active" signal that lights everything up to create a sense of "being there," and then introduce directional sound elements into the mix (maybe the middle of Times Square and the middle of the jungle at night, as two examples).

Such test signals must be available, for how can a mixing room be configured and evaluated without them?

Without something consistent to work with, everyone is left guessing. That makes for lots of forum posts, but not much progression of the format/hobby.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> After all, commercial cinemas didn't move surround speakers forward when switching from 5.1 to 7.1 nor did they lower the surrounds when adding heights.


They sort of did move them forward. In 5.1 mode, the surround array comprises both the side wall and half the rear wall speakers. In 7.1 mode the rear wall speakers are not used for side surround channels, so the energy shifts forward in the room.



sdurani said:


> The home installation guide deviates significantly from the theatrical guide. Seems if Dolby wanted home Atmos layouts to mimic theatrical Atmos layouts, they would not have made the recommendations they did in the home install guide. The home installation guide recommends placing the height speaker arrays in line with the front L/R speakers. How can you bring those arrays closer together and still be following the home install guide recommendations?


 I realize this is not directly responsive to your question, but the idea of adhering to the Dolby guidelines implies that they provide a recipe for optimal results. 

It might be understandable if Dolby's home guidelines differed from the cinema's on the basis of listening tests that justify an alternative strategy fine tuned for best home results. But their guidelines do not achieve consistency. The Height speaker elevation angles are indirectly (and inexplicably) keyed to the L/R spacing, and the surround elevation angles likewise inexplicably vary based on ear-to-floor distance. This ensures that different shaped rooms will give unnecessarily different results.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> It might be understandable if Dolby's home guidelines differed from the cinema's on the basis of listening tests that justify an alternative strategy fine tuned for best home results.


What do you think they based the home guidelines on if not listening tests? They certainly/deliberately weren't mimicking their own cinema guidelines.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not sure we're on the same page here, Roger. I was observing that in a room with a ceiling that is, say, 30 feet high, there is more latitude to place surround speakers higher up and still have plenty of separation between them and speakers on the ceiling. In a room that has an 8 foot ceiling, placing the surrounds higher up inevitably brings them closer to the overhead speakers.


Do you not agree that the physical distance between the speakers must be viewed in light of the distance between the listener and the speakers? My screen size example shows that is important. 



> For directionality, I agree. And I was discussing mixing rooms not theaters. The OP said his aim was to "replicate" what the mixer heard. I maintain this is impossible because one cannot know what the mixer heard. If one does not know what the original sounded like, it is impossible to replicate it.


A mixing room is a dubbing stage is a theater. Hence, we do know what the mixer heard. It's what we hear in a proper theater.



> As for standards, again there seems to be a wide variation in what is agreed as the "standard". I am sure you will have seen that graph which shows the response of a bunch of allegedly identical Genelec speakers in a variety of professional rooms - there is a huge variation in each graph. I have no problem in believing that these studios aim for a consistent standard - just that it is an objective rather than a given reality. I am, of course, fully prepared to be wrong.


If we go back to 5.1 movies, we clearly hear differences from movie to movie based on artistic intent across the range of genres. If we can ignore that aspect of the mix, how much difference do we hear that can be attributed to the mixing room itself? The speaker responses you cited?



> If FilmMixer is reading along maybe he would care to chime in - do all the different mixing rooms you use all sound identical to each other? Do you believe that a HT, in a compromised room, on a budget far below that of a pro studio, can "replicate" a mixing suite?


Not quite sure that replicating a dub stage or a cinema is what we expect of our home theaters. The acoustics and scale and numbers of speakers simply cannot be replicated. But we should be able to perceive the essence of the mix -- sound balance, music/effects/dialog relationships, directional cues and integration to on-screen action, with a picture that equally fills our field of view. 



> I can't follow your logic on this. There is no precedent because until recently we didn't have speakers on the ceiling. When that was the case, there was a good reason to place the surrounds higher up: it gave some impression of sound coming from above. Now we have speakers on the ceiling, *there is no need to create that impression from our surround speakers any more*.


Movie mixers can indeed elevate the music as FilmMixer illustrated, but if they do so, it is not because the added heights diminished the effect of the surrounds -- the surround are as effective as before. I suspect there are many mixers who do not spread their music (or ambiences) to the heights as they work just fine. Now these tracks come home but no longer achieve what the mixer heard -- the surrounds are lowered and the space is flatter. 



> Not to mention that Dolby themselves recommend surrounds be placed at ear height in an Atmos HT setup


If it's important, funny that this is not recommended for dubbing stages and cinemas, too.


----------



## SoundJunky

Hmmm… to cut up the walls and lower, or not to lower… that is the question.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> What do you think they based the home guidelines on if not listening tests? They certainly/deliberately weren't mimicking their own cinema guidelines.


I suspect they did them based on listening tests in certain rooms. The guidelines work when the room is similar to theirs. But as we have seen, consumer rooms vary quite a lot more than Dolby's typical listening rooms. It would be preferable to understand the essential criteria underlying the decisions, not just how it maps into certain more ideal rooms.


----------



## NorthSky

That Blu-ray flick, *'Fury'*, with _Brad Pitt_; it sounds awesome in dts high definition master audio 5.1 ... great job from Marc & gang. 

I bet DSU adds to the "elevated" immersive sound experience. ...That BR title should have been mixed in Dolby Atmos, definitely.


----------



## DaveyMac

So here's my current setup:


5.2 with HSU bookshelves for surround. (hsu VTF3-MK5 for subs).


I was thinking of getting two more HSU bookshelves for adding front height channels. My living room is such that I can only really add the top two speakers. 


But then I was thinking maybe upgrading my receiver also to Dolby Atmos. If I did that, I would use the two HSU bookshelves mounted up on wall next to ceiling for the 'Atmos' effect. They can't really point down though.. they would be up on wall next to ceiling pointed forward. 


Would that sound noticeably better than just doing the Front Height? Anyone tried both of these ways?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Chesebro said:


> Thanks Dave I think I will try them. Do you plan on doing a review of your new room and equipment?


Yes. In process right now.


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> That Blu-ray flick, *'Fury'*, with _Brad Pitt_; it sounds awesome in dts high definition master audio 5.1 ... great job from Marc & gang.
> 
> I bet DSU adds to the "elevated" immersive sound experience. ...That BR title should have been mixed in Dolby Atmos, definitely.





Spoiler



The Germans climbed up and over the top of my seat...as they climbed up Fury.



It was pretty awesome, had to listen to that part several times.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> This would be like getting greater side-vs-rear separation by reducing the spread between your rear speakers. While this is an alternate approach to moving the side speakers forward, it makes it more difficult to hear stereo separation between the rear speakers where our hearing is not so great. Same with reducing the spread between the overhead speakers.


Do you really believe that stereo imaging by overhead pairs would be negatively affected going from let's say 90 degrees separation (corresponding to 45 degrees lateral elevation) to 60 degrees (corresponding to 60 degrees lateral elevation)?



> The home installation guide deviates significantly from the theatrical guide.


Not so much on the subject at hand. Surrounds 1,25 times the height of mains fall within home installation guidelines, and lateral elevation angles for the heights are simply not specified in the home installation guide.



> Seems if Dolby wanted home Atmos layouts to mimic theatrical Atmos layouts, they would not have made the recommendations they did in the home install guide.


The theater guidelines are obviously more extensive, but in general not necessarily contradictive to the home installation guidelines.



> The home installation guide recommends placing the height speaker arrays in line with the front L/R speakers. How can you bring those arrays closer together and still be following the home install guide recommendations?


To my knowledge, no such written recommendation from Dolby exists. Can you point me to one? And even if you consider the dotted lines in diagrams to imply such recommendation, it tells you little to nothing about recommended spread between the overhead arrays, which varies with screen width and ceiling height.


----------



## Al Sherwood

stikle said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans climbed up and over the top of my seat...as they climbed up Fury.
> 
> 
> 
> It was pretty awesome, had to listen to that part several times.


I probably missed most of that effect then when I watched it on the back of an airplane seat with headphones on...


----------



## Dave Vaughn

BigScreen said:


> The discussion about mixing rooms, speaker placement, and Dolby's recommendations underscores the need for proper test signals... and for more content, so that such issues can be judged with more than what amounts to anecdotal evidence.
> 
> It's been several months since Atmos for the home has been available, but no test signals are available (at least to the general public). Why don't we have something that makes it easy to evaluate speaker placement, speaker choice, and coverage effectiveness?
> 
> Take a single sound element and have it pass front to back, right to left, and perhaps even diagonally from front left to rear right, with all the permutations possible, so that the enthusiast/installer can judge if the ceiling speakers are placed properly in the room and work well with the rest of the system. Add in an "all speakers active" signal that lights everything up to create a sense of "being there," and then introduce directional sound elements into the mix (maybe the middle of Times Square and the middle of the jungle at night, as two examples).
> 
> Such test signals must be available, for how can a mixing room be configured and evaluated without them?
> 
> Without something consistent to work with, everyone is left guessing. That makes for lots of forum posts, but not much progression of the format/hobby.


That's one thing the Auro3D Demo Disc has on it...useful content along with examples from some movies and concerts. I found the test tones to be the most useful aspect of the disc, even though I prefer Atmos in my particular room. Dolby should put out a similar disc (and soon!).


----------



## NorthSky

S said:


> The home installation guide recommends placing the height speaker arrays in line with the front L/R speakers. How can you bring those arrays closer together and still be following the home install guide recommendations?





maikeldepotter said:


> To my knowledge, no such written recommendation from Dolby exists. Can you point me to one? And even if you consider the dotted lines in diagrams to imply such recommendation, it tells you little to nothing about recommended spread between the overhead arrays, which varies with screen width and ceiling height.


*Installation Guidelines*

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

♦ If you look @ all the room plans (graphs) inside that pdf Dolby Atmos Speaker's Positioning Guide, you'll notice that the four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers are in exact line (dotted lines) with the two front Main L & R speakers. *** Just look @ page number 3 (figure 1. @ left). 

This is truly the Dolby Atmos recommendation. ...It is mentioned somewhere, and this have been discussed before, but I just cannot get my hand on that writing right now, from Dolby Atmos. It'll come; I'm still looking for it, or someone else will before I do.

EDIT: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Do you really believe that stereo imaging by overhead pairs would be negatively affected going from let's say 90 degrees separation (corresponding to 45 degrees lateral elevation) to 60 degrees (corresponding to 60 degrees lateral elevation)?


I was generally pointing out that bringing speakers closer together makes it more difficult to hear left-vs-right separation, especially in directions where hearing is not that good.


> The theater guidelines are obviously more extensive, but in general not necessarly contra-dictionary to the home installation guidelines.


No one said they were contradictory, just different. The cinema guidelines have the overhead arrays aligned with the LoC and RoC speakers while the home version has them lined up with the L/R speakers. The home version assumes L/R with a 60 degree spread while cinemas have L/R speakers closer to 45 degrees spread. This puts the overhead arrays at a much smaller separation angle in cinemas than at home. If Dolby had wanted home Atmos to mimic commercial Atmos, they wouldn't have made the recommendations so different.


> And even if you consider the dotted lines in diagrams to imply such recommendation, it tells you little to none about recommended spread between the overhead arrays, which varies with screen width and ceiling height.


All the overhead speakers in Dolby diagrams are on those dotted lines starting at the front L/R speakers. If Dolby didn't want consumers to follow that recommendation, why have those dotted lines in every placement diagram? Your height arrays can't be off the dotted line AND following Dolby recommendations simultaneously.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> It would be preferable to understand the essential criteria underlying the decisions, not just how it maps into certain more ideal rooms.


While we might not (yet) know the basis for their home recommendations, it seems that replicating theatrical Atmos placement wasn't a high priority. The home recommendations include wider L/R spread, lower surrounds, greater height array separation. That can't be accidental.


----------



## ambesolman

DaveyMac said:


> So here's my current setup:
> 
> 
> 5.2 with HSU bookshelves for surround. (hsu VTF3-MK5 for subs).
> 
> 
> I was thinking of getting two more HSU bookshelves for adding front height channels. My living room is such that I can only really add the top two speakers.
> 
> 
> But then I was thinking maybe upgrading my receiver also to Dolby Atmos. If I did that, I would use the two HSU bookshelves mounted up on wall next to ceiling for the 'Atmos' effect. They can't really point down though.. they would be up on wall next to ceiling pointed forward.
> 
> 
> Would that sound noticeably better than just doing the Front Height? Anyone tried both of these ways?



Nice setup


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## LowellG

What crossover are people using for their ceiling speakers?


----------



## aaranddeeman

LowellG said:


> What crossover are people using for their ceiling speakers?


And what orientation (in terms of woofer and tweeter) for the on ceiling ones.
Woofer to the ceiling or tweeter? or both horizontal woofer outwards and tweeter inwards or vice versa..


----------



## Dave Vaughn

LowellG said:


> What crossover are people using for their ceiling speakers?


80 is what Audyssey chose for me and I went with it. Sounds excellent.


----------



## LowellG

Dave Vaughn said:


> 80 is what Audyssey chose for me and I went with it. Sounds excellent.



What speakers are you using?


Thanks,


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Atlantic Technology IC-6-OBAs: http://www.atlantictechnology.com/products/wall-ceiling-speakers/ic-6-oba/


----------



## DaveyMac

ambesolman said:


> Nice setup
> 
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


Thanks. Maybe this is a better-shorter question:

Would going from 7.2-front height to a 5.2.2 atmos - with the top two speakers (hsu bookshelves) mounted against wall at ceiling level - be a noticeable upgrade?


----------



## jprod

NorthSky said:


> *Installation Guidelines*
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> ♦ If you look @ all the room plans (graphs) inside that pdf Dolby Atmos Speaker's Positioning Guide, you'll notice that the four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers are in exact line (dotted lines) with the two front Main L & R speakers. *** Just look @ page number 3 (figure 1. @ left).
> 
> This is truly the Dolby Atmos recommendation. ...It is mentioned somewhere, and this have been discussed before, but I just cannot get my hand on that writing right now, from Dolby Atmos. It'll come; I'm still looking for it, or someone else will before I do.
> 
> EDIT: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


Looking at the schematics, it also looks like the rear ceiling speakers are more widely spaced than the back surrounds. How important is that?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> While we might not (yet) know the basis for their home recommendations, it seems that replicating theatrical Atmos placement wasn't a high priority. The home recommendations include wider L/R spread, lower surrounds, greater height array separation. That can't be accidental.


Yes, it sometimes happens that marketing influences technical aspects of the materials.  It may have been deemed more important to showcase the height effects than to adhere to the "as the creator experienced" mantra. We may never know...


----------



## NorthSky

jprod said:


> Looking at the schematics, it also looks like the rear ceiling speakers are more widely spaced than the back surrounds. How important is that?


In a 7.1.4 setup, but not in a 5.1.4 one. ...No back surrounds there, and the side surrounds change positions. 

It is what it is I guess, and I am certain that them Dolby Atmos guys tested all possibilities of all the various speaker's positions for all Dolby Atmos configurations. 

It it was me, my room, and my own setup; I would follow exactly Dolby Atmos directives, according to those very clear graphics.
They did all the homework already for me. ...The rest is on my own free exploration time. ...Confirmations and perhaps new preferred discoveries. 
But I truly tend to trust Dolby Atmos in full.

EDIT: When Dolby Atmos come with a new 9.1.6 Atmos configuration (for two rows of seats); that'll open new doors and better covering space. 
Right now, from their pdf Guidelines, they show a 9.1.4 setup, but none 9.1.6 with two couches. ...That should have been included, IMO.


----------



## roxiedog13

stikle said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans climbed up and over the top of my seat...as they climbed up Fury.
> 
> 
> 
> It was pretty awesome, had to listen to that part several times.



Fury was a great movie, acting fantastic and the sound running DSU ,excellent. This is one of those movies where my seat shakers worked well too. You felt like you were in a tank, firing a 50cal
gun and the low level background bombing could be felt too. I've said it before, it's the subtle sound effects that work best , too much sensory overload confuses instead of adding to a movie Atmos or not. Fury was one of those that did it well and I agree, it would have been even better if done in Atmos......I suppose.


----------



## NorthSky

Canadian people are pretty good when it comes to that kind of stuff.  ...'Fury' and all (good suggestions). 
It's because they have great taste in all things audio and video and much much more regarding the arts in general and all that jazz related.


----------



## FilmMixer

roxiedog13 said:


> Fury was a great movie, acting fantastic and the sound running DSU ,excellent. This is one of those movies where my seat shakers worked well too. You felt like you were in a tank, firing a 50cal
> gun and the low level background bombing could be felt too. I've said it before, it's the subtle sound effects that work best , too much sensory overload confuses instead of adding to a movie Atmos or not. Fury was one of those that did it well and I agree, it would have been even better if done in Atmos......I suppose.


Thanks for the comments.. 

Wasn't my choice to not mix in Atmos.. long story.. however still very happy with how the 5.1 came out.


----------



## jprod

One other question. With the 7702 i can either do front height and top middle , or front height and top rear. I just bought front height speakers about 4 months ago and although it would be ideal for atmos to do top front and top rear in ceiling, i am not willing to scrap the front heights at this point.
Any suggestions would be welcome before i have any more speakers installed


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> And what orientation (in terms of woofer and tweeter) for the on ceiling ones.
> Woofer to the ceiling or tweeter? or both horizontal woofer outwards and tweeter inwards or vice versa..


For some reason everyone keeps dodging this question. I had asked it some time before but no response..
Is this a stupid question???


----------



## NorthSky

Dave, can you connect a "Y" connector in Sub Out 1 and have two summed Audyssey equalized subwoofers (mono, of course),
and then connect the VOG amplifier for that special above central speaker from Auro-3D in the Sub Out 2?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks for the comments..
> 
> Wasn't my choice to not mix in Atmos.. long story.. however still very happy with how the 5.1 came out.


Any movement happening using DTS immersive technologies or do you feel their initial releases would be remixes of prior engineering sessions (like some of Lionsgate's Atmos releases)? 

Thanks! 

Still need to see Fury. It's on my list.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

NorthSky said:


> Dave, can you connect a "Y" connector in Sub Out 1 and have two summed Audyssey equalized subwoofers (mono, of course),
> and then connect the VOG amplifier for that special above central speaker from Auro-3D in the Sub Out 2?


Yes, you can do that. The only downside is that each the dual subs will be handled differently by Audyssey, which may be a big deal depending on your room. This is the fun of being on the forefront of technology 

As for the front heights, I believe that's how Ralph Potts has his done (or maybe front widths???). The Marantz (and I presume all D&M models) give you the option during setup.


----------



## Selden Ball

aaranddeeman said:


> For some reason everyone keeps dodging this question. I had asked it some time before but no response..
> Is this a stupid question???


Make sure you tilt the speakers down toward the audience.

It should make little or no difference whatsoever. After you run Audyssey, I doubt very much you'd be able to hear any difference.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Selden Ball said:


> Make sure you tilt the speakers down toward the audience.
> 
> It should make little or no difference whatsoever. After you run Audyssey, I doubt very much you'd be able to hear any difference.


Thank you for the input.
I believe the speaker upside down is accepted (i.e. tweeter towards ground and woofer towards ceiling) when mounted on the wall/ceiling.
But I have heard big "no no" when you want to orient them horizontally (i.e. tweeter and woofer come side by side when seen from MLP). Do you think this is undesirable?


----------



## ambesolman

DaveyMac said:


> Thanks. Maybe this is a better-shorter question:
> 
> 
> 
> Would going from 7.2-front height to a 5.2.2 atmos - with the top two speakers (hsu bookshelves) mounted against wall at ceiling level - be a noticeable upgrade?



Don't have Atmos yet so I can't speak from experience, but from what folks seem to be saying, yes. If you decide to do it and want to mount the HB-1s horizontally, tell Hsu when you order and they'll rotate the horn before its shipped out.


Sent using Tapatalk since the mobile version is still


----------



## DaveyMac

Originally Posted by DaveyMac 

Thanks. Maybe this is a better-shorter question:
Would going from 7.2-front height to a 5.2.2 atmos - with the top two speakers (hsu bookshelves) mounted against wall at ceiling level - be a noticeable upgrade?
-----------

Don't have Atmos yet so I can't speak from experience, but from what folks seem to be saying, yes. If you decide to do it and want to mount the HB-1s horizontally, tell Hsu when you order and they'll rotate the horn before its shipped out.
----------------


Wow, good to know, thx. I suppose I could get modules to go on top my LR hb1s but I hear alot about 'timber matching'. I asked what they thought would be good modules, hopefully they answer soon.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any movement happening using DTS immersive technologies or do you feel their initial releases would be remixes of prior engineering sessions (like some of Lionsgate's Atmos releases)?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Still need to see Fury. It's on my list.


I've no idea what DTS plans on doing.. they certainly haven't, in the past, been responsible for creating new film soundtracks.. that's up to the content owners. The real question is whether they will be able to convince the studios to release content to them in any greater pace than Dolby has... without a cinema system to also support (at this time) that might prove to be a little tricky, both politically and logistically.

My gut tells me their launch will be very similar to the Atmos launch... tied into predetermined speaker locations, very sparse native content, etc.. the real "innovations" of the "codec" will be down the road with version 2 or later... just as Atmos will continue to evolve. I've seen, or heard, of nothing yet that gives them any huge advantage over Atmos technically..... again, they haven't made public their plans, so I'm just spit balling here.. 

On a side note, we just installed the MDA professional creation tools at our facility to evaluate.. initial impressions of the toolset are positive. (and for the cheap seats, MDA is the object authoring ecosystem and technology behind DTS:X.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I've no idea what DTS plans on doing.. they certainly haven't, in the past, been responsible for creating new film soundtracks.. that's up to the content owners. The real question is whether they will be able to convince the studios to release content to them in any greater pace than Dolby has... without a cinema system to also support (at this time) that might prove to be a little tricky, both politically and logistically.
> 
> My gut tells me their launch will be very similar to the Atmos launch... tied into predetermined speaker locations, very sparse native content, etc.. the real "innovations" of the "codec" will be down the road with version 2 or later... just as Atmos will continue to evolve. I've seen, or heard, of nothing yet that gives them any huge advantage over Atmos technically..... again, they haven't made public their plans, so I'm just spit balling here..
> 
> On a side note, we just installed the MDA professional creation tools at our facility to evaluate.. initial impressions of the toolset are positive. (and for the cheap seats, MDA is the object authoring ecosystem and technology behind DTS:X.)


So, for the home side of things anyway they'll basically be on par with Dolby... a lot of hoopla, electronic manufacturer support, and with little to actually show for it.  

However, having heard at least Atmos and knowing what it's capable of doing (even if many mixers are not using it to its fullest potential) I am disheartened that so few discs after its launch have Atmos included.

Does MDA seem to have equivalent potential to Atmos in terms of output "channels" and the like or are you under an NDA? Would it be fair to say that they're basically pretty much apples to apples with one maybe having the advantage of an open-source code?


----------



## billqs

I broke down and got some Tannoy Di5's for use for my Atmos system. I ordered 4 speakers total. It appears 2 are Di5 DC and 2 are regular Di5 low z. Since the the DC use dual concentric and the regular Di's use ICT, will they be compatible with each other?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

billqs said:


> I broke down and got some Tannoy Di5's for use for my Atmos system. I ordered 4 speakers total. It appears 2 are Di5 DC and 2 are regular Di5 low z. Since the the DC use dual concentric and the regular Di's use ICT, will they be compatible with each other?


From my limited understanding of the Tannoy's being used for overheads, I would send back the non DC speakers (pre-paid) and have them swapped for the DC (dual concentric) models. Who did you purchase them from?


----------



## billqs

Dan Hitchman said:


> From my limited understanding of the Tannoy's being used for overheads, I would send back the non DC speakers (pre-paid) and have them swapped for the DC (dual concentric) models. Who did you purchase them from?


Well, that's the problem. I was "sittin' on the dock of ebay..." 

I thought DC and ICT were pretty much the same thing until I researched it tonight. Tannoy is obviously bigger overseas and mostly bigger in proaudio so it takes a little more digging to find out important information. Looks like DC has a tweeter actually mounted at the rear of the low frequency driver and shoots the HF sound in through the center. The ICT has a non-electrically connected dome that is placed in the front of the gap at the Low Frequency driver and is excited from the signal created by the Low Frequency Driver. Sort of like a more hi-fi whizzer cone.

Unfortunately, for me the speakers from the outside look identical. I do think both the Di DC's and the regular Di's have wide dispersion as they are both used to create a point source speaker with excellent wide dispersion characteristics.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

billqs said:


> Well, that's the problem. I was "sittin' on the dock of ebay..."
> 
> I thought DC and ICT were pretty much the same thing until I researched it tonight. Tannoy is obviously bigger overseas and mostly bigger in proaudio so it takes a little more digging to find out important information. Looks like DC has a tweeter actually mounted at the rear of the low frequency driver and shoots the HF sound in through the center. The ICT has a non-electrically connected dome that is placed in the front of the gap at the Low Frequency driver and is excited from the signal created by the Low Frequency Driver. Sort of like a more hi-fi whizzer cone.
> 
> Unfortunately, for me the speakers from the outside look identical. I do think both the Di DC's and the regular Di's have wide dispersion as they are both used to create a point source speaker with excellent wide dispersion characteristics.


Ebay strikes again. I think the DC speakers would be of a higher quality than the "whizzer" cone ICT's from your description and from what others have said about the DC models in their own home theaters. I would still talk with the seller if you expected to buy four DC models.


----------



## billqs

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ebay strikes again. I think the DC speakers would be of a higher quality than the "whizzer" cone ICT's from your description and from what others have said about the DC models in their own home theaters. I would still talk with the seller if you expected to buy four DC models.


I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do. I'm using DefTechs Promonitor800's as Atmos speakers currently. They sound great but don't have the wide dispersion characteristics that Dolby encourages.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Does MDA seem to have equivalent potential to Atmos in terms of output "channels" and the like or are you under an NDA? Would it be fair to say that they're basically pretty much apples to apples with one maybe having the advantage of an open-source code?


MDA is a bit different.

There isn't a channel bed, but you can define object in different ways, such as saying these objects are stationary, these need to be spread across an array, etc.. in this way, you can define an object like a channel in a bed... 

The number of objects is greater than 118.. I don't remember the max number they allow for.

But the biggest, fundamental difference is that it is _one_ mix entirely comprised of objects that render to the playback system at hand in real time (i.e. there isn't a separate 5.1 or 7.1 mix needed.....) So the same mix can play in a 5.1 room, or an auditorium equipped with Auro or Atmos setups, or any combination that might exist... It's really cool, and I have heard a demo where they change the room configuration and play the content as 5.1, 7.1 and through a setup like Atmos with arrays, and then discrete 48 channels including a surround height layer (I believe that was the number..) 

Here is a brief description:

Toward an Open-Standard Surround-Sound Format


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> MDA is a bit different.
> 
> There isn't a channel bed, but you can define object in different ways, such as saying these objects are stationary, these need to be spread across an array, etc.. in this way, you can define an object like a channel in a bed...
> 
> The number of objects is greater than 118.. I don't remember the max number they allow for.
> 
> But the biggest, fundamental difference is that it is _one_ mix entirely comprised of objects that render to the playback system at hand in real time (i.e. there isn't a separate 5.1 or 7.1 mix needed.....) So the same mix can play in a 5.1 room, or an auditorium equipped with Auro or Atmos setups, or any combination that might exist... It's really cool, and I have heard a demo where they change the room configuration and play the content as 5.1, 7.1 and through a setup like Atmos with arrays, and then discrete 48 channels including a surround height layer (I believe that was the number..)
> 
> Here is a brief description:
> 
> Toward an Open-Standard Surround-Sound Format


So, does MDA, at present, have a fixed amount of "renderable" speaker outputs like Atmos or is it only limited by existing hardware support? It does seem to have more flexibility than Atmos being strictly object based, but of course Dolby won't stand still for long. Competition is a great thing.

Is it possible that the DTS:X consumer tracks will not be backwards compatible, requiring two separate audio tracks? It seems like there might be extra steps necessary to re-create a 7.1 channel bed with the rest being extension objects to piggyback onto a backwards compatible DTS-MA track if it is to work like consumer Dolby Atmos. Or am I missing something here and it's just a matter of "pushing a few buttons" to convert the object-only bitstream to a hybrid approach, though wouldn't that affect the original mixers' intent?

Thanks for the info and insight! Sounds intriguing! You have such a wonderful job.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, does MDA, at present, have a fixed amount of "renderable" speaker outputs like Atmos or is it only limited by existing hardware support? It does seem to have more flexibility than Atmos being strictly object based, but of course Dolby won't stand still for long. Competition is a great thing.
> 
> Is it possible that the DTS:X consumer tracks will not be backwards compatible, requiring two separate audio tracks? It seems like there might be extra steps necessary to re-create a 7.1 channel bed with the rest being extension objects to piggyback onto a backwards compatible DTS-MA track if it is to work like consumer Dolby Atmos. Or am I missing something here and it's just a matter of "pushing a few buttons" to convert the object-only bitstream to a hybrid approach, though wouldn't that affect the original mixers' intent?
> 
> Thanks for the info and insight! Sounds intriguing! You have such a wonderful job.


I believe that DTS:X will be a new version of DTS-HD with a new extension set for objects, so it might work as you suspect...

However, remember that MDA and DTS:X aren't synonymous... so just as the USI cinema processors can take an MDA file and render it into channels, DTS:X will surely have it's own way to deliver an MDA file to consumers..


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> If Dolby didn't want consumers to follow that recommendation, why have those dotted lines in every placement diagram?


Firstly, 'that recommendation' is nothing more than 'those dotted lines'. And I don't have a clue why Dolby would want customers to follow those dotted lines.



> Your height arrays can't be off the dotted line AND following Dolby recommendations simultaneously.


Yes they can. See Dolby's recommendation on page 32 of the very same Home Theater guidelines, which puts ceiling mounted height speakers inside the left and right main speakers.


----------



## Frank714

A friend of mine notified me of a new AVS thread, "Demystifying our new IMMERSION GOD: ATMOS RENDERING & MASTERING UNIT for Dummies".

Appears to contain plenty of information how Atmos functions, hope it's helpful.

Also reminded me to wonder how soon we might see a re-release of _Oblivion_ in Dolby Atmos. After the failure of the latest "original" science fiction film _Jupiter Ascending, _I couldn't help but think that it would be a great opportunity to re-appreciate Joe Kosinski's _Oblivion_.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Do you not agree that the physical distance between the speakers must be viewed in light of the distance between the listener and the speakers? My screen size example shows that is important.


From a math POV I can see what you are saying. But I still feel that regardless of the angles there is a difference between two speakers which are separated by, say, 20 feet (cinema) and two which are separated by, say, 5 feet (HT). The angles may be identical in both cases, but the physical distance is not. This is a bit like saying that a 10 inch screen, if viewed from a distance of 1 foot is the same as viewing a 10 foot screen from a distance of 12 feet. According to the math it is - but as we know, IRL the two experiences are entirely different. 



Roger Dressler said:


> A mixing room is a dubbing stage is a theater. Hence, we do know what the mixer heard. It's what we hear in a proper theater.


Every theater I go to sounds different to every other. Some sound really bad. Some sound average. One or two sound great. I can't see how that analogy helps.



Roger Dressler said:


> If we go back to 5.1 movies, we clearly hear differences from movie to movie based on artistic intent across the range of genres. If we can ignore that aspect of the mix, how much difference do we hear that can be attributed to the mixing room itself? The speaker responses you cited?


I'm not referring to differences due to artistic intent, but differences due to acoustics.



Roger Dressler said:


> Not quite sure that replicating a dub stage or a cinema is what we expect of our home theaters. The acoustics and scale and numbers of speakers simply cannot be replicated. But we should be able to perceive the essence of the mix -- sound balance, music/effects/dialog relationships, directional cues and integration to on-screen action, with a picture that equally fills our field of view.


Agreed entirely. But that isn't "replicating the mixing room" which is what I said was a futile goal. We agree then that replicating a dub stage is not what we expect of our HTs. That is what I said to the OP, IIRC. I went further and said it was not even possible.



Roger Dressler said:


> Movie mixers can indeed elevate the music as FilmMixer illustrated, but if they do so, it is not because the added heights diminished the effect of the surrounds -- the surround are as effective as before. I suspect there are many mixers who do not spread their music (or ambiences) to the heights as they work just fine. Now these tracks come home but no longer achieve what the mixer heard -- the surrounds are lowered and the space is flatter.


This is indeed a transitional issue as we move from traditional layouts to layouts with overhead speakers. What is the mixer to do? Is he to assume that most people do not have overheads and have their surrounds mounted high on the walls, and to mix to that? Or is he to assume that people do have overheads? Most people, of course, do not have overheads. But equally most people use soundbars or the speakers in their TVs. Should the mixer therefore mix to the standard of the latter group? We both know the answer to that.  I agree that there is some confusion here. But I also believe that separating the listener level speakers and the overhead speakers is a good idea if one wishes to hear the distinction between the two at its clearest. 

Maybe we are at odds because for me the default position here is 'DSU engaged - HT used for movies only'. Your default position is quite different, hence perhaps our quite different views about what works best?



Roger Dressler said:


> If it's important, funny that this is not recommended for dubbing stages and cinemas, too.


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundJunky said:


> Hmmm… to cut up the walls and lower, or not to lower… that is the question.


Don't be too swayed by the discussion between Roger and myself (and others). Roger uses his HT for music mostly, whereas I use mine for movies only. Roger also dislikes DSU whereas I love it and it is my default sound mode. Both of us have different objectives and different preferences. I think what is important here is that the user determines his objectives and preferences and then designs his HT accordingly. I am adamant that lowering the surrounds, as per Dolby's recommended layout for HT, gives a better overall experience than having them mounted high on the walls. Roger is adamant that the converse is better. I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong" - we just have different aims in mind.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I suspect they did them based on listening tests in certain rooms. The guidelines work when the room is similar to theirs. But as we have seen, consumer rooms vary quite a lot more than Dolby's typical listening rooms. It would be preferable to understand the essential criteria underlying the decisions, not just how it maps into certain more ideal rooms.


IKWYM, but their demo rooms mimic very closely a 'typical' HT. I am sure that if they went to the trouble to create demo rooms like that, they would have had test rooms like that too, during development. Only a supposition on my part (the latter).


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> And what orientation (in terms of woofer and tweeter) for the on ceiling ones.
> Woofer to the ceiling or tweeter? or both horizontal woofer outwards and tweeter inwards or vice versa..


I bypassed that decision by choosing a dual concentric design. I was originally planning to use MK M7s to complement my M&K mains, but in the end decided they were too tall and would therefore protrude too much into the room when mounted vertically (as designed to be used). Also, if mounted vertically, then the issue comes up of tweeter on top or on bottom - no idea which would be best. I had already decided there was no way I was going to use them mounted horizontally as their dispersion pattern had not been designed with that orientation in mind. Taking all of that into account, I decided to go with a DC design, which neatly bypasses every issue. And they sound terrific.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Fury was a great movie, acting fantastic and the sound running DSU ,excellent. This is one of those movies where my seat shakers worked well too. You felt like you were in a tank, firing a 50cal
> gun and the low level background bombing could be felt too. I've said it before, it's the subtle sound effects that work best , too much sensory overload confuses instead of adding to a movie Atmos or not. Fury was one of those that did it well and I agree, it would have been even better if done in Atmos......I suppose.


For a soundtrack with exceptional subtlety, try *Nightcrawler*. Also a really good movie with a stunning performance from Jake Gyllenhaal.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> For some reason everyone keeps dodging this question. I had asked it some time before but no response..
> Is this a stupid question???


It's a good question IMO but there is no one answer to it. I think you would have to try both orientations and see which, if any, sounded better. If you can measure the response at the MLP, even better.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Thank you for the input.
> I believe the speaker upside down is accepted (i.e. tweeter towards ground and woofer towards ceiling) when mounted on the wall/ceiling.
> *But I have heard big "no no" when you want to orient them horizontally (i.e. tweeter and woofer come side by side when seen from MLP). Do you think this is undesirable?*


I do. If the speaker was designed to be used in a vertical orientation, its dispersion pattern/off-axis response will have been designed accordingly. Laying the speaker on its side is contrary to what the designed expected and takes you into uncharted territory.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, having heard at least Atmos and knowing what it's capable of doing (even if many mixers are not using it to its fullest potential) I am disheartened that so few discs after its launch have Atmos included.


Gee, Dan. You should have said!  LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

billqs said:


> I broke down and got some Tannoy Di5's for use for my Atmos system. I ordered 4 speakers total. It appears 2 are Di5 DC and 2 are regular Di5 low z. Since the the DC use dual concentric and the regular Di's use ICT, will they be compatible with each other?


Why did they send two different sorts? If you ordered four Dual Concentrics, that is what they should have sent you. Maybe a genuine mistake. Anyway, the DCs are what you want, so return the other two for exchange.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ebay strikes again. I think the DC speakers would be of a higher quality than the "whizzer" cone ICT's from your description and from what others have said about the DC models in their own home theaters. I would still talk with the seller if you expected to buy four DC models.


Agreed. And the 'whizzers' (great description) should also cost quite a bit less than the DCs.


----------



## roxiedog13

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks for the comments..
> 
> Wasn't my choice to not mix in Atmos.. long story.. however still very happy with how the 5.1 came out.


You were part of the mixing process for this movie? 5.1 was done phenomenally, running in DSU is was better than any of the Atmos mixes I have heard so far. When a movie has a descent
story the sound only needs to compliment not overpower. Most of the movies done thus far in Atmos are weak on the story side, most will agree on that. Trying to make a movie with overpowering Atmos sounds don't work, for me at least. The Michael Bay approach stifles the Atmos mix and it's lost within the sensory overload . 

Just wondering, how long will it be before speakers are required in the floor. The ceiling was a challenge, the concrete floor, now that is going to be work.  Then again, I suppose there will
be an option for down-firing .


----------



## roxiedog13

*MiniDSP arrived*

The UMIK-1 showed up yesterday, much earlier than expected to be honest . Now going to have to read up on REW and drive you guys nuts with questions .


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I do. If the speaker was designed to be used in a vertical orientation, its dispersion pattern/off-axis response will have been designed accordingly. Laying the speaker on its side is contrary to what the designed expected and takes you into uncharted territory.


Thanks Keith. I thought that too, but some setup pictures I saw they were horizontal, but then again as you say, they may be optimized for that orientation.


----------



## aaranddeeman

roxiedog13 said:


> The ceiling was a challenge, the concrete floor, now that is going to be work.  Then again, I suppose there will
> be an option for down-firing .


No. You will have to dig the floor and insert that in-ceiling speaker facing up..


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks Keith. I thought that too, but some setup pictures I saw they were horizontal, but then again as you say, they may be optimized for that orientation.


It isn't guaranteed that they would sound bad if used horizontally so I guess it depends on the design in the first place. But I'd be very wary of it and would want to listen to and measure the response with the speaker in both orientations. With my M7s being THX designs, they have tight specs for dispersion and so I suspect that they need to be used in the way the designer intended. That may not apply to some other designs of course. As I said, the easy way I found to side-step the entire problem was to choose a dual concentric design  I always try for the simplest solution wherever possible.


----------



## Movie78

billqs said:


> I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do. I'm using DefTechs Promonitor800's as Atmos speakers currently. They sound great but don't have the wide dispersion characteristics that Dolby encourages.


So the DefTech Pro800 is not good for ATMOS,what will be the other alternative?


----------



## smurraybhm

Movie78 said:


> So the DefTech Pro800 is not good for ATMOS,what will be the other alternative?


They work fine, just aim them towards the MLP. I use a few PM1000 for FH. Unless you're not happy with the sound no need to go out and buy something else.


----------



## Movie78

smurraybhm said:


> They work fine, just aim them towards the MLP. I use a few PM1000 for FH. Unless you're not happy with the sound no need to go out and buy something else.


Thanks!


----------



## roxiedog13

aaranddeeman said:


> No. You will have to dig the floor and insert that in-ceiling speaker facing up..


Dig, concrete, I suppose a real man could with a pick and shovel. I'm going to bring home one Ingersoll Rand compressor and industrial jack hammer from work. Alternatively, I could raise the house and put in a sub floor, whatever it takes , bring it on!  Atmos is already over the top, may be in the basement before long.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I don't have a clue why Dolby would want customers to follow those dotted lines.


But those dotted lines are there and all 10 height speakers are on them. Not knowing why Dolby made those particular recommendations doesn't mean they suddenly disappear. Anyone is free to not follow the recommendations if they're not to your preference, but let's not pretend they don't exist.


> See Dolby's recommendation on page 32 of the very same Home Theater guidelines, which puts ceiling mounted height speakers inside the left and right main speakers.


Only IF you can't follow their primary recommendation of having them on the wall above the main speakers (dotted line). That's like saying it's Dolby's recommendation to use virtual height speakers. Sure, only IF you can't install actual height speakers.


----------



## RMK!

Finally had a chance to sit down and go through the Dolby Atmos Demo disk last night. It really points out the potiential of these formats and I was especially surprised by the Enrique Iglesias Music Video: Bailando. Simply the best music surround sound I have ever expierenced and I am not necessaritly a fan of that music genre. All of the other clips did a great job of highlighting the formats potential and I am even more anxious to hear the Auro 3D demo that the Auro folks sent me (arriving today). 

Honestly, I was skeptical about these object/3D based formats but after a few weeks of using DSU and Auro-matic, and now hearing the Atmos formats full potential, I am very happy that I made the early move.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

kbarnes701 said:


> I bypassed that decision by choosing a dual concentric design. I was originally planning to use MK M7s to complement my M&K mains, but in the end decided they were too tall and would therefore protrude too much into the room when mounted vertically (as designed to be used). Also, if mounted vertically, then the issue comes up of tweeter on top or on bottom - no idea which would be best. I had already decided there was no way I was going to use them mounted horizontally as their dispersion pattern had not been designed with that orientation in mind. Taking all of that into account, I decided to go with a DC design, which neatly bypasses every issue. And they sound terrific.


Which speakers did you go with in the end?


----------



## Nalleh

Finally found the "missing" Atmos bluray on Ebay: Mary Kom










And the FIRST ONE SO FAR with clear marking on the front cover !


----------



## Dave Vaughn

RMK! said:


> Finally had a chance to sit down and go through the Dolby Atmos Demo disk last night. It really points out the potiential of these formats and I was especially surprised by the Enrique Iglesias Music Video: Bailando. Simply the best music surround sound I have ever expierenced and I am not necessaritly a fan of that music genre. All of the other clips did a great job of highlighting the formats potential and I am even more anxious to hear the Auro 3D demo that the Auro folks sent me (arriving today).
> 
> Honestly, I was skeptical about these object/3D based formats but after a few weeks of using DSU and Auro-matic, and now hearing the Atmos formats full potential, I am very happy that I made the early move.


Admit it...you just liked the hot lady in the red dress


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks for the comments..
> 
> Wasn't my choice to not mix in Atmos.. long story.. however still very happy with how the 5.1 came out.



I think it's really cool that one of the actual people involved with the movies we love is here and participating. Thank you Marc! I'd love to hear more from you on what goes on behind the scenes with the audio mixing. I don't even know what's involved, or what that would entail, but there's gotta be some cool stuff to share.

Fury was fan-freakin-tastic sounding. I'm having people over on Thursday for Movie Night 2 featuring Fury. It should be another great viewing.

Out of interest, have you invested in your own home theater? What are you running? Or is it one of those situations where you do it all day long as a living and that's really the last thing you're interested in when you go home to unwind.



RMK! said:


> I was especially surprised by the Enrique Iglesias Music Video: Bailando. Simply the best music surround sound I have ever expierenced and I am not necessaritly a fan of that music genre.



Man...why'd you have to bring that up? I FINALLY got that song out of my head after 2 weeks...now it's back. I don't consider myself a fan of that genre either, but I LOVE that song. It was fabulous in Atmos.



RMK! said:


> All of the other clips did a great job of highlighting the formats potential



Indeed. The Unfold trailer is actually my least favorite. I don't think it really shows off Atmos anywhere near as well as Amaze does.


----------



## kbarnes701

MalevolentHamster said:


> Which speakers did you go with in the end?


These.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

kbarnes701 said:


> These.


Thanks


----------



## RMK!

Dave Vaughn said:


> Admit it...you just liked the hot lady in the red dress


Ahh yes, the red dress ... 



stikle said:


> I think it's really cool that one of the actual people involved with the movies we love is here and participating. Thank you Marc! I'd love to hear more from you on what goes on behind the scenes with the audio mixing. I don't even know what's involved, or what that would entail, but there's gotta be some cool stuff to share.
> 
> Fury was fan-freakin-tastic sounding. I'm having people over on Thursday for Movie Night 2 featuring Fury. It should be another great viewing.
> 
> Out of interest, have you invested in your own home theater? What are you running? Or is it one of those situations where you do it all day long as a living and that's really the last thing you're interested in when you go home to unwind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man...why'd you have to bring that up? I FINALLY got that song out of my head after 2 weeks...now it's back. I don't consider myself a fan of that genre either, but I LOVE that song. It was fabulous in Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. The Unfold trailer is actually my least favorite. I don't think it really shows off Atmos anywhere near as well as Amaze does.


I thought the F1 demo was the least interesting from an Atmos perspective but when I cranked the volume, it got a lot better. Getting close to the actual sound of Formula 1 is important and unfortunately for my hearing, I can ...


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I actually like the unfold trailer. It's always a hit in my room (limited sample size though at this point). Trailers are fun, but I like actual movie content to highlight the speakers. In fact, the Auro3D disc sounds fantastic with DSU, especially the tractor demo.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> I thought the F1 demo was the least interesting from an Atmos perspective but when I cranked the volume, it got a lot better. Getting close to the actual sound of Formula 1 is important and unfortunately for my hearing, I can ...


You think? That would be 147dB, if the car was driving by. 

http://www.decibelcar.com/menugeneric/87.html


----------



## RMK!

Dave Vaughn said:


> I actually like the unfold trailer. It's always a hit in my room (limited sample size though at this point). Trailers are fun, but I like actual movie content to highlight the speakers. In fact, the Auro3D disc sounds fantastic with DSU, especially the tractor demo.


DSU sounds better than native Auro 3D on the Auro 3D Demo Disk?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RMK! said:


> Finally had a chance to sit down and go through the Dolby Atmos Demo disk last night. It really points out the potiential of these formats and I was especially surprised by the Enrique Iglesias Music Video: Bailando. Simply the best music surround sound I have ever expierenced and I am not necessaritly a fan of that music genre. All of the other clips did a great job of highlighting the formats potential and I am even more anxious to hear the Auro 3D demo that the Auro folks sent me (arriving today).
> 
> Honestly, I was skeptical about these object/3D based formats but after a few weeks of using DSU and Auro-matic, and now hearing the Atmos formats full potential, I am very happy that I made the early move.


The one thing I didn't like about that particular music video is indicative of many modern pop recordings... processed, compressed, limited, and treble-amped all to hell. The Atmos surround effect was cool, especially at CEDIA in 9.1.4, but if the recording was of high fidelity, it would have been so much better.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> You think? That would be 147dB, if the car was driving by.
> 
> http://www.decibelcar.com/menugeneric/87.html


Current Formula 1 cars are not that loud anymore. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> The one thing I didn't like about that particular music video is indicative of many modern pop recordings... processed, compressed, limited, and treble-amped all to hell. The Atmos surround effect was cool, especially at CEDIA in 9.1.4, but if the recording was of high fidelity, it would have been so much better.


Dan, I wonder if there is something wrong with your system ...or ears. Bailando sounds pretty decent. No, not wide dynamic range but it sounds pretty balanced. Good surround mix too even on a lowly 5.1.4 system.


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> You think? That would be 147dB, if the car was driving by.
> 
> http://www.decibelcar.com/menugeneric/87.html


Yeah that sounds about right based upon my Laguna Seca/Infineon experiences. I can't do that but in my room, clean output into the 120's sounds very much like it and my pro cinema ceiling speakers seem to be able to keep up.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Current Formula 1 cars are not that loud anymore.


I think NASCAR is the one with the most potential these days to liquify your bowels.

F1 has been recently measured at 140dB _from the grandstand_. My point was that I doubt if anyone in this thread has a system which can even approach F1 noise levels, let alone get close.


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> But the biggest, fundamental difference is that it is _one_ mix entirely comprised of objects that render to the playback system at hand in real time (i.e. there isn't a separate 5.1 or 7.1 mix needed.....) So the same mix can play in a 5.1 room, or an auditorium equipped with Auro or Atmos setups, or any combination that might exist...


Dolby used to claim the same thing when they first introduced Atmos - that Atmos will negate the need for separate 5.1, 7.1, etc. mixes because those configurations can all be rendered from the Atmos processor.

I take it that has not turned out to be the case?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Current Formula 1 cars are not that loud anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan, I wonder if there is something wrong with your system ...or ears. Bailando sounds pretty decent. No, not wide dynamic range but it sounds pretty balanced. Good surround mix too even on a lowly 5.1.4 system.


Nope. I have a pretty decent setup with ATI amps, HSU sub, and Paradigm Studios, nothing like yours of course, but that recording sounded lousy IMHO at CEDIA too. The surround effect is awesome, but I've been through a few audio mixing classes and listened to enough higher quality recordings to notice when a mix has been overly processed, and that particular music video definitely was.


----------



## RMK!

Dan Hitchman said:


> The one thing I didn't like about that particular music video is indicative of many modern pop recordings... processed, compressed, limited, and treble-amped all to hell. The Atmos surround effect was cool, especially at CEDIA in 9.1.4, but if the recording was of high fidelity, it would have been so much better.


I was concentrating more on the surround sound distribution (which I loved) rather than dynamic range or enhanced HF. Thanks for bursting my bubble ...


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> Yeah that sounds about right based upon my Laguna Seca/Infineon experiences. I can't do that but in my room, clean output into the 120's sounds very much like it and my pro cinema ceiling speakers seem to be able to keep up.


The difference between 120 and 140 is vast though as I am sure you will agree and unattainable in home theaters.

What we believe approximates real life sounds and what those real life sounds actually are two very different things. Gunshots is another good example where people sometimes believe their system accurately reflects the sound of live gun fire at close quarters.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

RMK! said:


> DSU sounds better than native Auro 3D on the Auro 3D Demo Disk?


That's not what I'm saying at all...just that it sounds good with DSU. My room was not setup with Auro3D in mind...it was setup for Atmos with 4 in-ceiling speakers. I don't have front height or rear height speakers. I did test Auro3D remapping my in-ceiling to height speakers, but that's really not a fair comparison to test the Auro3D...I just wanted to make sure that it worked in the Marantz.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I think NASCAR is the one with the most potential these days to liquify your bowels.
> 
> F1 has been recently measured at 140dB _from the grandstand_. My point was that I doubt if anyone in this thread has a system which can even approach F1 noise levels, let alone get close.


I bet I would get pretty close.


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> Dolby used to claim the same thing when they first introduced Atmos - that Atmos will negate the need for separate 5.1, 7.1, etc. mixes because those configurations can all be rendered from the Atmos processor.
> 
> I take it that has not turned out to be the case?


Not yet. They're still maintaining backward compatibility with channel-based technologies.

Maybe they'll be able to drop the channel "beds" a decade from now when Atmos and competing object decoders are ubiquitous.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> I actually like the unfold trailer. It's always a hit in my room (limited sample size though at this point).


Same here. Specially created for Dolby by twice Oscar nominated Erik Aadahl.

EDIT: Look at that list of his movies. It reads like a list of favorite demo movies!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Unfold is my favorite but I also like Conductor and Amaze as well.

Not sure what the name of it is but there is a new Atmos fanfare trailer out there. I saw it with @sdurani when we saw American Sniper at the cinema a month or so ago. It was really good.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I bet I would get pretty close.


LOL. Well if anyone is nuts enough to try it, Scott, my money would be on you


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Well if anyone is nuts enough to try it, Scott, my money would be on you


From 300hz to 20khz I can do a sustained ~126dB. From 30hz to 300hz I can probably do 135dB or more. Both of those are continuous. Probably a little more with a burst.


No way am I going to try that out. I just like that I can.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Unfold is my favorite but I also like Conductor and Amaze as well.
> 
> Not sure what the name of it is but there is a new Atmos fanfare trailer out there. I saw it with @sdurani when we saw American Sniper at the cinema a month or so ago. It was really good.


One or two of my Atmos blurays feature a Dolby trailer before the movie starts. Pity they don't routinely do this as it gets you in the mood for all that overhead goodness and precision sound placement throughout the whole soundstage.


----------



## RMK!

Dave Vaughn said:


> That's not what I'm saying at all...just that it sounds good with DSU. My room was not setup with Auro3D in mind...it was setup for Atmos with 4 in-ceiling speakers. I don't have front height or rear height speakers. I did test Auro3D remapping my in-ceiling to height speakers, but that's really not a fair comparison to test the Auro3D...I just wanted to make sure that it worked in the Marantz.


Thanks for the clarification and I'm in the same boat (4 Atmos placed ceiling speakers). You're an AV writer and must be concerned with "fair". For me it's whatever puts a smile on my face.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> From 300hz to 20khz I can do a sustained ~126dB. From 30hz to 300hz I can probably do 135dB or more. Both of those are continuous. Probably a little more with a burst.
> 
> 
> No way am I going to try that out. I just like that I can.


Like I said....


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the biggest, fundamental difference is that it is _one_ mix entirely comprised of objects that render to the playback system at hand in real time (i.e. there isn't a separate 5.1 or 7.1 mix needed.....) So the same mix can play in a 5.1 room, or an auditorium equipped with Auro or Atmos setups, or any combination that might exist...
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby used to claim the same thing when they first introduced Atmos - that Atmos will negate the need for separate 5.1, 7.1, etc. mixes because those configurations can all be rendered from the Atmos processor.
> 
> I take it that has not turned out to be the case?
Click to expand...

No that is absolutely the case. 

The RMU will provide a 5.1 and 7.1 downmix from the Atmos master. 

However it is still wise to tweak said downmix as needed.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Not sure what the name of it is but there is a new Atmos fanfare trailer out there. I saw it with @sdurani when we saw American Sniper at the cinema a month or so ago. It was really good.


It's called _'Horizon'_:


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> It's called _'Horizon'_:
> 
> http://youtu.be/3TOlN9dLpi8



That's the one! I really enjoyed it. It's a bit long but what a good trailer/demo for the masses. Explains the technology in a fun way while also having good sound and visuals.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Every theater I go to sounds different to every other. Some sound really bad. Some sound average. One or two sound great. I can't see how that analogy helps.


That's why I stipulated a "proper" theater.



> What is the mixer to do? Is he to assume that most people do not have overheads and have their surrounds mounted high on the walls, and to mix to that? Or is he to assume that people do have overheads?


Neither. He is to make it sound good in the dubbing stage. He has no concern about what people do at home.



> But I also believe that separating the listener level speakers and the overhead speakers is a good idea if one wishes to hear the distinction between the two at its clearest.


Of course. But that is not the issue.



> Maybe we are at odds because for me* the default position here is 'DSU engaged* - HT used for movies only'. Your default position is quite different, hence perhaps our quite different views about what works best?


How do you engage DSU while the Atmos decoder is running -- so as to address the music/ambience when no height sounds are present?


----------



## lujan

RMK! said:


> Finally had a chance to sit down and go through the Dolby Atmos Demo disk last night. It really points out the potiential of these formats and I was especially surprised by the Enrique Iglesias Music Video: Bailando. Simply the best music surround sound I have ever expierenced and I am not necessaritly a fan of that music genre. All of the other clips did a great job of highlighting the formats potential and I am even more anxious to hear the Auro 3D demo that the Auro folks sent me (arriving today).
> 
> Honestly, I was skeptical about these object/3D based formats but after a few weeks of using DSU and Auro-matic, and now hearing the Atmos formats full potential, I am very happy that I made the early move.


Would you tell us more about where you got this Atmos Demo disk. I have some demos but nothing with Enrique Iglesias?


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Finally found the "missing" Atmos bluray on Ebay: Mary Kom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the FIRST ONE SO FAR with clear marking on the front cover !


♦ Just looking @ the picture cover, and film's title, it is scary. ...Another smart Dolby Atoms flick?

@ Roger Dressler; could you please purchase this thing and share your impression after viewing it in your Dolby Atmos setup?
That would be very highly appreciated comin' from you.  ...Then we can make up our own mind based from a valued assertion/assessment.


----------



## RMK!

lujan said:


> Would you tell us more about where you got this Atmos Demo disk. I have some demos but nothing with Enrique Iglesias?


I could tell you but I'd have to kill you. Hint, I am in San Francisco every week on business ...


----------



## Eriksdam

Hi all,

Has anyone tried a Yamaha-esque kind of setup with TF and TR speakers in the Front- and Rear presence positions, AKA mounted on the front and back wall or ceiling?

In my room, it should perfectly OK for the TR speakers since my MLP is relatively close to the back wall, which of course means the TF might be too far away.....grrr!
It would mean that the TR speakers would be ca. 1m (3 feet) behind the MLP, and the TF some 3m's (9 feet) in front. Ceiling height is 2,5 meters (7,5 feet)

Of course it's not exactly what Dr. Dolby recommended...

...All thoughts appreciated 


On another note: It looks like Metallica's "Through the Never" will be available in Atmos, if Amazon.de is to be trusted:

TIA,
Erik


----------



## groundtrac

sdurani said:


> It's called _'Horizon'_:


Have you got a download link for this by chance?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'd love to get a BD quality Atmos encoded version of 'Horizon'.

Preferably with a Hollywood movie pre-presentation.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It's called _'Horizon'_:
> 
> http://youtu.be/3TOlN9dLpi8


WOW. I am getting sounds coming from over my shoulder and I am listening to it on my desktop stereo system. Can't wait to hear this one in the HT. Clever how they start with what seems to be good sound, and then it kicks into Atmos...


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That's why I stipulated a "proper" theater.
> 
> Neither. He is to make it sound good in the dubbing stage. He has no concern about what people do at home.
> 
> Of course. But that is not the issue.
> 
> How do you engage DSU while the Atmos decoder is running -- so as to address the music/ambience when no height sounds are present?


Sorry - I meant that DSU is my default for everything other than my (7) Atmos discs. That is, my other 1,500 discs 

I haven’t been disappointed with the Atmos discs to date and I expect Atmos presentations to get better as time goes on and as mixers become more familiar with it, just as 5.1 did. For me, Atmos isn't just about the sounds from overhead - it is about the improved sound throughout the whole soundstage. But no matter what happens, there will probably never come a time when Atmos content overtakes my legacy content, which is why DSU is so important to me.


----------



## sdurani

groundtrac said:


> Have you got a download link for this by chance?


Sorry, just the link to the YouTube version I posted earlier.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry - I meant that DSU is my default for everything other than my (7) Atmos discs. That is, my other 1,500 discs


That was my understanding. But if DSU is the means you use to effectively compensate for the flattening of surround effect caused by the lowered surrounds, then it has to also be used when playing Atmos titles, as they have periods of normal 5.1/7.1 sound just like the other 1500 discs.

I know that is not possible, which is why it may not be a good idea to lower one's surrounds to ear level in the first place.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am getting sounds coming from over my shoulder and I am listening to it on my desktop stereo system.


Seems that the surround (and maybe height) info was put through a virtualizer when the soundtrack was downmixed to 2 channels (the audio on the YouTube video).


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Just looking @ the picture cover, and film's title, it is scary. ...Another smart Dolby Atoms flick?
> 
> @ Roger Dressler; could you please purchase this thing and share your impression after viewing it in your Dolby Atmos setup?
> That would be very highly appreciated comin' from you.  ...Then we can make up our own mind based from a valued assertion/assessment.


I do not have an Atoms processor.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Sorry, just the link to the YouTube version I posted earlier.


It's not on Demoworld yet. I expect it will be eventually.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> That was my understanding. But if DSU is the means you use to effectively compensate for the flattening of surround effect caused by the lowered surrounds, then it has to also be used when playing Atmos titles, as they have periods of normal 5.1/7.1 sound just like the other 1500 discs.
> 
> I know that is not possible, which is why it may not be a good idea to lower one's surrounds to ear level in the first place.



Every solution has it's own set of compromises.

None solve all or are perfect.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That was my understanding. But if DSU is the means you use to effectively compensate for the flattening of surround effect caused by the lowered surrounds, then it has to also be used when playing Atmos titles, as they have periods of normal 5.1/7.1 sound just like the other 1500 discs.


Yes that may be so given that mixers have their surrounds mounted higher than I do. I am living with it for now and, TBH, it isn't spoiling my enjoyment any. Like I say, 99.9% of my library is legacy content anyway, and likely to remain that way, so DSU is actually more important for me than Atmos right now.



Roger Dressler said:


> I know that is not possible, which is why it may not be a good idea to lower one's surrounds to ear level in the first place.


Well it is if 99.9% of your content will be played via DSU


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Seems that the surround (and maybe height) info was put through a virtualizer when the soundtrack was downmixed to 2 channels (the audio on the YouTube video).


That would explain it...


----------



## Josh Z

Selden Ball said:


> Not yet. They're still maintaining backward compatibility with channel-based technologies.
> 
> Maybe they'll be able to drop the channel "beds" a decade from now when Atmos and competing object decoders are ubiquitous.


Strictly talking theory here - even with a hybrid of channel beds and objects, why couldn't the decoder render down the whole Atmos track to 5.1 or 7.1? I'd think it would be even easier to do if more than half the track is already in those channels.

Hell, the home version does this right now.

At all of the early presentations for Atmos, the Dolby team emphasized the scalability of one movie soundtrack from simple stereo up to 64.1 (theatrical). In fact, I recall listening to demos about 3 years ago of Atmos samples played through 5.1 speakers, then 7.1, then the full she-bang.

I'm just curious why, on a movie like TMNT which FilmMixer worked on, he had to make separate 5.1 and 7.1 mixes, rather than let the Atmos decoder render the track out in those formats? Is it because the down-render doesn't sound as good as a manually hand-tuned 5.1 or 7.1 mix?

If it doesn't sound as good as a dedicated mix, then I definitely see the value in making separate tracks. But the implication here is that MDA is better at that and eliminates the need for multiple mixes. If that's the case, what does it do differently?


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Well it is if 99.9% of your content will be played via DSU


That would be true if the goal were to improve the value of DSU. That's not a strong motive for me -- it's not why I added Atmos capability. I want to hear Atmos titles in their best light.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That would be true if the goal were to improve the value of DSU. That's not a strong motive for me -- it's not why I added Atmos capability. I want to hear Atmos titles in their best light.


I know. I said before that our objectives are different. I don't see as a priority optimising the HT for 0.1% of my content.

And, of course, I refer back to Dolby's own guidelines which recommend surround speakers closer to ear height  I can't see why Dolby would recommend tis if it showed Atmos titles in a poor light.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I know. I said before that our objectives are different. I don't see as a priority optimising the HT for 0.1% of my content.


Then it appears we share that same objective, even if we are only talking about movies. 



> And, of course, I refer back to Dolby's own guidelines which recommend surround speakers closer to ear height  I can't see why Dolby would recommend this if it showed Atmos titles in a poor light.


It does not show Atmos in a poor light. It helps make the case that Atmos, and DSU, add real value. It took a while for the euphoria to subside and take a deeper look into the "cost/benefit" impact of this paradigm shift in surround speaker placement. It's not all on the benefit side of the ledger as Dolby might have us believe. But that's marketing.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd love to get a BD quality Atmos encoded version of 'Horizon'.
> 
> Preferably with a Hollywood movie pre-presentation.


God lock; like asking the moon on a silver plate, and even before DTS:X


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> I do not have an Atoms processor.


Lol, that's what it says on the add.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> Then it appears we share that same objective, even if we are only talking about movies.
> 
> It does not show Atmos in a *poor light*. It helps make the case that Atmos, and DSU, add real value. It took a while for the *euphoria* to subside and take a deeper look into the "cost/benefit" impact of this paradigm shift in surround speaker placement.
> It's not all on the benefit side of the ledger as Dolby might have us believe. But that's marketing.


This post (quote) reminds me of the color of that dress. ...White & gold or Blue & black. ...Perhaps we hear differently too?


----------



## stikle

Hey Roger - if you're ever over here in Portland and are curious as to what a Regular Joe Atmos setup sounds like, let me know and I'll pencil you in.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Then it appears we share that same objective, even if we are only talking about movies.
> 
> It does not show Atmos in a poor light. It helps make the case that Atmos, and DSU, add real value. It took a while for the euphoria to subside and take a deeper look into the "cost/benefit" impact of this paradigm shift in surround speaker placement. It's not all on the benefit side of the ledger as Dolby might have us believe. But that's marketing.


True. But on balance, the ledger is firmly in the black IMO.


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> Strictly talking theory here - even with a hybrid of channel beds and objects, why couldn't the decoder render down the whole Atmos track to 5.1 or 7.1? I'd think it would be even easier to do if more than half the track is already in those channels.
> 
> *Hell, the home version does this right now.*
> 
> At all of the early presentations for Atmos, the Dolby team emphasized the scalability of one movie soundtrack from simple stereo up to 64.1 (theatrical). In fact, I recall listening to demos about 3 years ago of Atmos samples played through 5.1 speakers, then 7.1, then the full she-bang.


Josh.. no, the home version doesn't do that.

It goes the other way.... the encoder used to make the 5.1 or 7.1 DD+ or TrueHD stream folds in the objects... and in a 5.1 or 7.1 system, it just plays the package as is.

When Dolby talks about scalability they aren't talking about single format delivery.. the RMU certainly can, and does, produce 5.1 and 7.1 outputs for native Atmos mixes.. but again, it must be delivered as a separate, standalone package. 



> I'm just curious why, on a movie like TMNT which FilmMixer worked on, he had to make separate 5.1 and 7.1 mixes, rather than let the Atmos decoder render the track out in those formats? Is it because the down-render doesn't sound as good as a manually hand-tuned 5.1 or 7.1 mix?
> 
> If it doesn't sound as good as a dedicated mix, then I definitely see the value in making separate tracks. But the implication here is that MDA is better at that and eliminates the need for multiple mixes. If that's the case, what does it do differently?


Because there are differences in how Atmos and 5.1/7.1 present. First off, the surround arrays are SPL'd differently in Atmos (85 vs 82 for 5.1/7.1..) So you sometimes want to accommodate for the build up in the surrounds. 

Or sometimes the down mix puts sounds that were in the overheads in the surrounds or front, and they need to be moved.. for instance, in TMNT, (SLIGHT SPOILER) the first time April O'Neal hears the Turtles on the top of the building and is climbing up the ladder, they are placed in the overheads in the Atmos mix.. in the down mix, they ended up in the side surrounds, which wasn't where they should have been (the image on screen was her climbing up towards them..) so they were moved into the front LCR Small changes like that need to be made sometimes.

Remember that there have been no films mixed in MDA as of yet, so I've only heard one demo, which was truly impressive. But I can't say it's subjectively better.. it's still early. But yes, the one MDA file is rendered in real time, to whatever the theater is setup to handle.. 

My guess is that for the home, the DTS:X encoder will render into channels + objects.. bandwidth is still going to be a big consideration, so a theatrical MDA mix will not go over as is....


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> Because there are differences in how Atmos and 5.1/7.1 present. First off, the surround arrays are SPL'd differently in Atmos (85 vs 82 for 5.1/7.1..) So you sometimes want to accommodate for the build up in the surrounds.
> 
> Or sometimes the down mix puts sounds that were in the overheads in the surrounds or front, and they need to be moved.. for instance, in TMNT, (SLIGHT SPOILER) the first time April O'Neal hears the Turtles on the top of the building and is climbing up the ladder, they are placed in the overheads in the Atmos mix.. in the down mix, they ended up in the side surrounds, which wasn't where they should have been (the image on screen was her climbing up towards them..) so they were moved into the front LCR Small changes like that need to be made sometimes.
> 
> Remember that there have been no films mixed in MDA as of yet, so I've only heard one demo, which was truly impressive. But I can't say it's subjectively better.. it's still early. But yes, the one MDA file is rendered in real time, to whatever the theater is setup to handle..


Very interesting. Thanks for the insider insight!


----------



## Roger Dressler

stikle said:


> Hey Roger - if you're ever over here in Portland and are curious as to what a Regular Joe Atmos setup sounds like, let me know and I'll pencil you in.


Funny you should mention that at this moment. We'll be heading to Salem for the weekend. PM sent.


----------



## Josh Z

Quick follow-up question:



FilmMixer said:


> Or sometimes the down mix puts sounds that were in the overheads in the surrounds or front, and they need to be moved.. for instance, in TMNT, (SLIGHT SPOILER) the first time April O'Neal hears the Turtles on the top of the building and is climbing up the ladder, they are placed in the overheads in the Atmos mix.. in the down mix, they ended up in the side surrounds, which wasn't where they should have been (the image on screen was her climbing up towards them..) so they were moved into the front LCR Small changes like that need to be made sometimes.


Was the sound in ALL of the height channels, or just the heights in the front of the room? For an effect like that, I'd think you'd want to position the sound object up high in front. In which case, I'm curious why the downmix moved it to the Surround channels rather than just dropping it down to the front LCR?

Does the decoder put any height channel info into the Surrounds by default when downmixing, regardless of whether the object was forward or backward in the room?


----------



## BigScreen

FilmMixer said:


> MDA is a bit different.
> 
> There isn't a channel bed, but you can define object in different ways, such as saying these objects are stationary, these need to be spread across an array, etc.. in this way, you can define an object like a channel in a bed...
> 
> The number of objects is greater than 118.. I don't remember the max number they allow for.
> 
> But the biggest, fundamental difference is that it is _one_ mix entirely comprised of objects that render to the playback system at hand in real time (i.e. there isn't a separate 5.1 or 7.1 mix needed.....) So the same mix can play in a 5.1 room, or an auditorium equipped with Auro or Atmos setups, or any combination that might exist... It's really cool, and I have heard a demo where they change the room configuration and play the content as 5.1, 7.1 and through a setup like Atmos with arrays, and then discrete 48 channels including a surround height layer (I believe that was the number..)
> 
> Here is a brief description:
> 
> Toward an Open-Standard Surround-Sound Format


This system, at least on paper, is the ideal scenario IMO. The mixers create a mix (mostly) free of speaker placement concerns, and then the electronics handle the conversion of that original mix to whatever is available in the output system. Rather than having to deal with the fact that one system has speakers at certain locations and angles relative to the MLP and another system has them in different spots, the processor knows where everything is and directs where each object needs to go in order to be reproduced as best possible.

I would imagine the translation to reality is probably a little different, but hopefully the results are an advance on what is possible now.


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> Because there are differences in how Atmos and 5.1/7.1 present. First off, the surround arrays are SPL'd differently in Atmos (85 vs 82 for 5.1/7.1..) So you sometimes want to accommodate for the build up in the surrounds.


Just to add some slight additional detail, when Atmos bed channels are printed to a standard 7.1 DCP file, they are automatically elevated 3 dB to compensate for the 3 dB difference in cinema speaker calibrations. When a 5.1 is printed, there can be the buildup issue Marc mentioned, as the rear and side surround channel are merged. 



> Remember that there have been no films mixed in MDA as of yet, so I've only heard one demo, which was truly impressive. But I can't say it's subjectively better.. it's still early. But yes, the one MDA file is rendered in real time, to whatever the theater is setup to handle.


The same options exist for MDA as Atmos: Print to 5.1/7.1 file for conventional cinemas, or deliver as MDA and render in the cinema. And the MDA mapping to 7.1 is no smarter than Atmos, in that the example Marc gave where the height effects folded into the surrounds is just as likely to happen with MDA. In those cases, the mixer can tag that height sound for a "rendering exception" which is simply a way to use metadata to tell the decoder to override how the sound is rendered specifically for the 7.1 (or 5.1) speaker setup. The tagged sound can be placed wherever desired in the 7.1 soundfield, and it does not impact the original mix. These same tags will be reflected in the home versions, whether it be a generic 5.1 soundtrack, or the 5.1/7.1 playback of a DTS:X mix.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, does MDA, at present, have a fixed amount of "renderable" speaker outputs like Atmos or is it only limited by existing hardware support? It does seem to have more flexibility than Atmos being strictly object based, but of course Dolby won't stand still for long. Competition is a great thing.


It's a hardware limit. But I doubt we see a need for more than 128 simultaneous audio signals delivered to a cinema anytime soon. 

While one can say MDA is all object based, it allows an object to be defined exactly the same as a channel. Exist for 2 hours, play from a designated speaker. As opposed to having a short duration and being given 3D directional coordinates. 



> Is it possible that the DTS:X consumer tracks will not be backwards compatible, requiring two separate audio tracks?


No. It is completely backward compatible with existing BD players and DTS HD-MA AV processors. And even with older units with DTS 5.1 audio via S/PDIF.



> It seems like there might be extra steps necessary to re-create a 7.1 channel bed with the rest being extension objects to piggyback onto a backwards compatible DTS-MA track if it is to work like consumer Dolby Atmos. Or am I missing something here and it's just a matter of "pushing a few buttons" to convert the object-only bitstream to a hybrid approach, though wouldn't that affect the original mixers' intent?


There are buttons to push, but the process is no different whether the source is all objects or objects+channels. The DTS:X encoder must provide a complete 7.1 soundtrack as the compatible core for Blu-ray. It does not matter if there are 10 or 100 objects, they all get folded into the 7.1 mix.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> But those dotted lines are there and all 10 height speakers are on them. Not knowing why Dolby made those particular recommendations doesn't mean they suddenly disappear. Anyone is free to not follow the recommendations if they're not to your preference, but let's not pretend they don't exist.


I am not a believer by nature. That is why I tend to keep on challenging recommendations that may be clear on the 'what' and 'how', but remain vague on the 'why'. Your patience is appreciated.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> Was the sound in ALL of the height channels, or just the heights in the front of the room? For an effect like that, I'd think you'd want to position the sound object up high in front. In which case, I'm curious why the downmix moved it to the Surround channels rather than just dropping it down to the front LCR?
> 
> Does the decoder put any height channel info into the Surrounds by default when downmixing, regardless of whether the object was forward or backward in the room?


Looking forward to Marc's reply. 

But let me say that there are two ways to place sounds in the height speakers in Atmos. One is to address the entire height array, which is a channel-based signal that feeds all the speakers evenly from front to back of the array. Then there's the object option, where a sound can be positioned anywhere along the array. 

The distinction affects how the downmix will sound. If the sound was in an array, it will surely fold into the side surrounds, at minimum. If the sound was an object, where it will appear in the downmix is less certain, as that depends not only on where along the ceiling the sound was positioned, but also on how the renderer was designed. That's not only specific to Dolby's processor, but the object can be tagged to use different renderers. In the end, no matter how smart a renderer may be, it cannot know how the mixer would prefer the downmix to be handled, so some tweaking is inevitable.


----------



## bargervais

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/95098/ 
Mocking Jay still not available it's three days before the release date no one saying it's available not Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart or Amazon. 
Why would all of them say the same thing.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I am not a believer by nature. That is why I tend to keep on challenging recommendations that may be clear on the 'what' and 'how', but remain vague on the 'why'. Your patience is appreciated.


No patience needed when having a discussion with you (your posts are always interesting). Just so we're clear: I'm not endorsing Dolby's recommendations, merely pointing out they exist. As I mentioned to Roger, mimicking a theatrical Atmos presentation (elevated surrounds, narrower height array separation) seems not to be the priority for home Atmos. They've never really explained 'why'. And I'll admit that I'm not as curious about 'why' the change as much as I am about whether those changes work (or not), which I find the more interesting part of the discussion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> If it doesn't sound as good as a dedicated mix, then I definitely see the value in making separate tracks. But the implication here is that MDA is better at that and eliminates the need for multiple mixes. If that's the case, what does it do differently?


I can only imagine that DTS decided it was better to be slow and steady and tweak their immersive products and then release them to the wild rather than be first on the block with object audio as was the case with Dolby. If their software is more flexible and easier to use as well as competitively priced, then perhaps MDA still has a chance to catch on.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> No patience needed when having a discussion with you (your posts are always interesting). Just so we're clear: I'm not endorsing Dolby's recommendations, merely pointing out they exist. As I mentioned to Roger, mimicking a theatrical Atmos presentation (elevated surrounds, narrower height array separation) seems not to be the priority for home Atmos. They've never really explained 'why'. And I'll admit that I'm not as curious about 'why' the change as much as I am about whether those changes work (or not), which I find the more interesting part of the discussion.


I can only imagine that Dolby didn't think most home theaters would be using the two extra behind-the-screen "channels" as in auditoriums with really large screens, so they thought the next best location for overheads was in line with the front Left and Right speakers. For cinema Atmos, the overhead pairs are supposed to line up with the extra Left and extra Right screen speakers, not the regular Left and Right. 

Perhaps if you have a Trinnov or other advanced processor that allows for those extra two screen "channels" (and your screen is large enough to handle them) then you should adhere to the cinema overhead layout rather than the home Atmos layout as prescribed in Dolby's home installation guide. 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> I can only imagine that DTS decided it was better to be slow and steady and tweak their immersive products and then release them to the wild rather than be first on the block with object audio as was the case with Dolby. If their software is more flexible and easier to use as well as competitively priced, then perhaps MDA still has a chance to catch on.




Based on what I saw reported from trade shows over the past few months, it seems to me that *DTS* decided from the beginning to develop *DTS:X* as an integrated _technology+codec_ to support both *disc*|*download* and *OTA*|*CATV*|_*mobile*_|*IP* _immersive|personalized_ audio. While from their theatrical start, it looks like *Dolby* targeted *Atmos* to address *disc*|*download object-based* immersive content initially . . . with *Dolby AC-4* developed separately (in conjunction with *ETSI* standardization) to support *OTA*|*CATV*|_*mobile*_|*IP* _immersive|personalized_ audio encoded in either *hybrid channel|object-based* or (_pure_) *channel-based* format.

I can't guess whether or not the imminent *DTS *announcement will address very much in depth beyond the *DTS:X* *disc*|*download* functionality, as it seems unlikely that either *Dolby* or *DTS* will consider their *OTA*|*CATV*|_*mobile*_|*IP* _immersive|personalized_ audio "architecture" complete before mid August 2015 (when both will find out which _technology+codec_ is to be "recommended" as the *ATSC3.0 TV Sound System*).


_


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> Quick follow-up question:
> 
> Was the sound in ALL of the height channels, or just the heights in the front of the room? For an effect like that, I'd think you'd want to position the sound object up high in front. In which case, I'm curious why the downmix moved it to the Surround channels rather than just dropping it down to the front LCR?
> 
> Does the decoder put any height channel info into the Surrounds by default when downmixing, regardless of whether the object was forward or backward in the room?


The voices were objects, and panned from overheads near the screen moving forward.. same thing with the Britanny Spears song that they hear coming from up above in the city, just without the movement.

There is an option of whether or not to exclude the heights from the fronts in the RMU when down mixing, but it is a global option.. the ideal way to go about doing these down mixes is to run the final mix automation and re-pan the objects as needed before the RMU renders them into 7.1.. however, time doesn't always allow for this, and in the case of Turtles, I was on a second stage doing the deliveries as they were finishing up the final mix (up until the last minute.. literally. )


----------



## Csbooth

jprod said:


> Looking at the schematics, it also looks like the rear ceiling speakers are more widely spaced than the back surrounds. How important is that?


I'd be interested to know if this matters much either, e.g having your Front L/R lined up with your top and rear L/R but also in line with your rear surround L/R as well, instead of being outside of the rear surrounds as per the guideline graphs.

In my situation, it will have to be this way or else the rear overheads would have to be out of line with the front sound stage due to the irregularity of the room.

Personally, I think it will be fine as I will still have proper L/R separation, and height seperation from my floor levels, and will easily be able to get the required rear information. 

I assume that Dolby designed the specs that way to fill in the gap between the rear and side surrounds, kind of like wides and the like, but in my smaller 10x12x8 room, I don't see much lost in not being able to adhere to the recommended setup. 

We all have compromises to make, but what obviously counts is our own enjoyment in the end, not what some documents say.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> I can only imagine that DTS decided it was better to be slow and steady and tweak their immersive products and then release them to the wild rather than be first on the block with object audio as was the case with Dolby. If their software is more flexible and easier to use as well as competitively priced, then perhaps MDA still has a chance to catch on.


I have heard it from a couple of reliable sources that DTS was rather surprised at how quickly Atmos came to market (i.e. they thought they would both be coming out around now.)

Remember that MDA and DTS:X are not wholly intertwined at this point in time... the MDA tool set is independent of what will be needed to encode DTS:X tracks.

I think that Dolby holds one key strategic advantage over DTS, and that is the prevalence of DD+ as a delivery for streaming media..

That being said, there is nothing to stop a BR/UHD from having a DTS:X encode of either an MDA or Atmos master, and conversely doesn't exclude BR/UHD from having a TrueHD encode of an MDA mix (going that way would prove to be a bit more of an effort however..) and we've seen in the past broadcast is almost entirely dominated by DD, so this trend could continue with AC4 moving forward. 

Most interesting times... it's a great one to be a mixer.


----------



## FilmMixer

Nalleh said:


> Finally found the "missing" Atmos bluray on Ebay: Mary Kom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*And the FIRST ONE SO FAR with clear marking on the front cover !*_


Not the first one I think... 

And thanks for the heads up... now I have them all (with HG:MJ and Chicago on the way.)


----------



## Chesebro

billqs said:


> I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do. I'm using DefTechs Promonitor800's as Atmos speakers currently. They sound great but don't have the wide dispersion characteristics that Dolby encourages.


Im going to use 4 Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA in my ceiling. They were designed for Atmos.



IC-6 OBA
Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker

IC-6_OBA_front_sm.JPGExperience true immersive sound in your own home

The IC-6 OBA speaker is specifically designed to be used as the "elevation" component in an Object Based Audio system such as Dolby Atmos®, Auro 3D® and DTS:X® surround systems. The Atlantic Technology research and engineering team developed the IC-6 OBA to deliver the excitement of Object Based Audio encoded soundtracks with startling impact and holographic three-dimensional realism. The IC-6 OBA's frequency response and radiation pattern have been specifically engineered to provide wide dispersion to eliminate hot spots that occur with standard in-ceiling speakers.

Object Based Audio adds the essential characteristic that's been missing from the home theater experience- the sense of true audible three-dimensionality. The audio is mixed as audio "objects" instead of traditional channels. This means the content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. The technology also automatically adapts the object audio to take full advantage of the number and placement of your speakers, whether you have 2 speakers overhead or 10 speakers overhead. Additionally, the surround upmixer used in recently introduced A/V receivers and processors to allows for legacy channel-based content to be expanded to fill the flexible speaker layouts of an Object Based Audio system, providing a new dimension to older movies!

Rated for Medium Rooms
View Room Size Ratings

larger_view.gifbuyingOptions.gif

IC-6_oba_front_angle_sm.JPG


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/95098/
> Mocking Jay still not available it's three days before the release date no one saying it's available not Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart or Amazon.
> Why would all of them say the same thing.


Just to let you know, my order shipping from Amazon.ca today.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Chesebro said:


> Im going to use 4 Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA in my ceiling. They were designed for Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> IC-6 OBA
> Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker
> 
> IC-6_OBA_front_sm.JPGExperience true immersive sound in your own home
> 
> The IC-6 OBA speaker is specifically designed to be used as the "elevation" component in an Object Based Audio system such as Dolby Atmos®, Auro 3D® and DTS:X® surround systems. The Atlantic Technology research and engineering team developed the IC-6 OBA to deliver the excitement of Object Based Audio encoded soundtracks with startling impact and holographic three-dimensional realism. The IC-6 OBA's frequency response and radiation pattern have been specifically engineered to provide wide dispersion to eliminate hot spots that occur with standard in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Object Based Audio adds the essential characteristic that's been missing from the home theater experience- the sense of true audible three-dimensionality. The audio is mixed as audio "objects" instead of traditional channels. This means the content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. The technology also automatically adapts the object audio to take full advantage of the number and placement of your speakers, whether you have 2 speakers overhead or 10 speakers overhead. Additionally, the surround upmixer used in recently introduced A/V receivers and processors to allows for legacy channel-based content to be expanded to fill the flexible speaker layouts of an Object Based Audio system, providing a new dimension to older movies!
> 
> Rated for Medium Rooms
> View Room Size Ratings
> 
> larger_view.gifbuyingOptions.gif
> 
> IC-6_oba_front_angle_sm.JPG



These are what I'm using and I have zero hot spotting issues at all.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just to let you know, my order shipping from Amazon.ca today.


I'll check mine tomorrow thanks for the heads up I was getting worried as all. Info I found on Blu-Ray.com
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Blu-ray/95098/
Is showing sign up to be notified when it becomes available...


----------



## Al Sherwood

BigScreen said:


> This system, at least on paper, is the ideal scenario IMO. The mixers create a mix (mostly) free of speaker placement concerns, and then the electronics handle the conversion of that original mix to whatever is available in the output system. Rather than having to deal with the fact that one system has speakers at certain locations and angles relative to the MLP and another system has them in different spots, the processor knows where everything is and directs where each object needs to go in order to be reproduced as best possible.
> 
> I would imagine the translation to reality is probably a little different, but hopefully the results are an advance on what is possible now.


 
I agree, this seem like a great approach, my concern would be the implementation at the consumer end, who knows how the marketing types will determine what we want out here in the real world!


I doubt very much if we would ever see an implementation that essentially connects all of the HT speakers to a bank of amplifiers either mono blocks or multichannel who are intern fed signals determined by there physical location in the HT, a sort of 3D speaker placement chart... can you imagine the naming convention!?


What a dream!


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Just looking @ the picture cover, and film's title, it is scary. ...Another smart Dolby Atoms flick?
> 
> @ Roger Dressler; could you please purchase this thing and share your impression after viewing it in your Dolby Atmos setup?
> That would be very highly appreciated comin' from you.  ...Then we can make up our own mind based from a valued assertion/assessment.


Scary ?? Why? It's a "female Rocky" boxing film.



Roger Dressler said:


> That was my understanding. But if DSU is the means you use to effectively compensate for the flattening of surround effect caused by the lowered surrounds, then it has to also be used when playing Atmos titles, as they have periods of normal 5.1/7.1 sound just like the other 1500 discs.
> 
> I know that is not possible, which is why it may not be a good idea to lower one's surrounds to ear level in the first place.


Do i understand you correctly: do you prefer not to use DSU on legacy content, but rather the original 5.1/7.1 track?



FilmMixer said:


> Not the first one I think...
> 
> And thanks for the heads up... now I have them all (with HG:MJ and Chicago on the way.)


Ahh, ok. My bad 
But it is bloody difficult to confirm ATMOS soundtrack otherwise! Why not the Atmos logo on the frontcover like they do with 3D?? Very irritating !

No worries


----------



## lovingdvd

Chesebro said:


> billqs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to figure out what I'm going to do. I'm using DefTechs Promonitor800's as Atmos speakers currently. They sound great but don't have the wide dispersion characteristics that Dolby encourages.
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to use 4 Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA in my ceiling. They were designed for Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> IC-6 OBA
> Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker
> 
> IC-6_OBA_front_sm.JPGExperience true immersive sound in your own home
> 
> The IC-6 OBA speaker is specifically designed to be used as the "elevation" component in an Object Based Audio system such as Dolby Atmos:registered:, Auro 3D:registered: and DTS:X:registered: surround systems. The Atlantic Technology research and engineering team developed the IC-6 OBA to deliver the excitement of Object Based Audio encoded soundtracks with startling impact and holographic three-dimensional realism. The IC-6 OBA's frequency response and radiation pattern have been specifically engineered to provide wide dispersion to eliminate hot spots that occur with standard in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Object Based Audio adds the essential characteristic that's been missing from the home theater experience- the sense of true audible three-dimensionality. The audio is mixed as audio "objects" instead of traditional channels. This means the content is not tied to any specific playback configuration. The technology also automatically adapts the object audio to take full advantage of the number and placement of your speakers, whether you have 2 speakers overhead or 10 speakers overhead. Additionally, the surround upmixer used in recently introduced A/V receivers and processors to allows for legacy channel-based content to be expanded to fill the flexible speaker layouts of an Object Based Audio system, providing a new dimension to older movies!
> 
> Rated for Medium Rooms
> View Room Size Ratings
> 
> larger_view.gifbuyingOptions.gif
> 
> IC-6_oba_front_angle_sm.JPG
Click to expand...

These speakers look great. I'm a big fan of Atlantic Technology. Only thing is I want to use in-ceiling speakers so I can tilt them to the MLP or in-ceiling if they support aiming but I don't think these do...?


----------



## audioguy

Dave Vaughn said:


> Admit it...you just liked the hot lady in the red dress


I sure did. And some of her friends as well. Every guy I've shown that to likes her


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> *According to the Dolby white paper for home installation they also show the overhead speakers in alignment with the fronts...*


______

♦ Your four overhead speakers, ceiling, are in direct straight line with the front left and right speakers (floor soundstage). 

** If your front left and right speakers are @ the extreme opposite of your room's width, right by the side walls (people with a very large screen);
then you position your four overhead speakers inside those lines of course, because you don't want them near the side walls but say a foot and half or two from the side walls (18-24"). 

Use the graph above as a good guide, but if your room's plan is different, use common sense by staying away from the side walls for your overheads.

______

Additional info (general):

* www.cnet.com/news/does-dolby-atmos-live-up-to-its-cinematic-reputation-on-a-phone/

** http://gizmodo.com/lenovos-new-phones-a-16mp-camera-lookalike-first-dolb-1688851252

*** www.demo-world.eu/2014/09/15/dolby-atmos-demonstration-disc-august-2014/

______ https://vimeo.com/106033922


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Scary ?? Why? It's a "female Rocky" boxing film.


Exactly, "scary" ... as the opposite of "attractive" ... or simply put; not my style. 

* Dolby Atmos in the ring with female boxers??? ...I bet it is awesome, to hear them punches and kicks from above. 

One of these days people are going to stop buying those inferior Dolby Atmos titles on Blu-ray, and get some real serious and intelligent 3D sound from DTS:X ...And that day is comin' up, and it's about time because Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles are pathetic.

** 'Gravity' though should be good in Atmos 3D sound. ...But no 3D picture; extremely sadly.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> One of these days people are going to stop buying those inferior Dolby Atmos titles on Blu-ray, and get some real serious and intelligent 3D sound from DTS:X ...And that day is comin' up, and it's about time because Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles are pathetic.


While you may think they are "inferior" or "pathetic" not everyone does (including me). What I do find less than ideal in most of the Atmos movies is the VERY limited use of the ceiling speakers!


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Exactly, "scary" ... as the opposite of "attractive" ... or simply put; not my style.
> 
> * Dolby Atmos in the ring with female boxers??? ...I bet it is awesome, to hear them punches and kicks from above.
> 
> One of these days people are going to stop buying those inferior Dolby Atmos titles on Blu-ray, and get some real serious and intelligent 3D sound from DTS:X ...And that day is comin' up, and it's about time because Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles are pathetic.
> 
> ** 'Gravity' though should be good in Atmos 3D sound. ...But no 3D picture; extremely sadly.


C'mon: the opposite of attractive ?!









It's kind of like the " milllion dollar baby", and that was popular.
Besides, it will be interesting to hear how "the Indians" mix a Atmos track  Could be fun


----------



## Dave Vaughn

lovingdvd said:


> These speakers look great. I'm a big fan of Atlantic Technology. Only thing is I want to use in-ceiling speakers so I can tilt them to the MLP or in-ceiling if they support aiming but I don't think these do...?


Why do you want to aim them?


----------



## RichardGS

Mocking Jay - just watched it in atmos via streaming video. (Kodi TV 20GB) . I am definitely going to buy it. 

While a lot of the movie was dialogue, there were several scenes in which dolby atmos shined. 

At times I found the background music to be very immersive. During the taking off and landing of crafts, the transfer of sound between speakers was excellent. Unfortunately, I live in an apartment and wasn't able to watch it at a proper volume. No spoilers here. An enjoyable movie . If you are waiting for your amazon order, I think you will be pleased. 

.


----------



## NorthSky

If you like 'Step Up All In', and 'TMNT', and 'The Expendables 3', and 'TF4', and 'John Wick', and the other few usual suspects, ...just jump all in; it is your taste and life. I won't argue with that. 

Me I just share my opinion of them "inferior" (value) flicks, and that is all. ...For quick fun, 'John Wick' and 'TF4', but for true film value ...

Me (and some people don't like), I like 'Gravity'. ...And in Atmos that would be the first good title. ...Unfortunately not in 3D. ...And that scares me a lot for the future, a serious great deal.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> C'mon: the opposite of attractive ?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of like the " milllion dollar baby", and that was popular.
> Besides, it will be interesting to hear how "the Indians" mix a Atmos track  Could be fun


She's the boxer!  ...Who cares now about Atoms.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> Do i understand you correctly: do you prefer not to use DSU on legacy content, but rather the original 5.1/7.1 track?


Yes. I prefer to not use DSU on anything. Because my surrounds are at 20 deg elevation, I already get a nice bubble effect. No need to add any more.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> C'mon: the opposite of attractive ?!













Yyyyeeaaaahhhhhh

What's this about Atmos, now?


----------



## funhouse69

kbarnes701 said:


> I think NASCAR is the one with the most potential these days to liquify your bowels.
> 
> F1 has been recently measured at 140dB _from the grandstand_. My point was that I doubt if anyone in this thread has a system which can even approach F1 noise levels, let alone get close.


Try standing anywhere near or even in the stands when an pair of Top Fuel Dragsters go down the track. You not only hear it you also feel it, its pretty awesome for sure. Granted NASCAR or Formula 1 Cars are probably more intense as there are a lot more of them but there is really nothing like CH3NO2 (Nitromethane). 

I was in the stands once in Vegas when I noticed that my water bottle fell after a pair of funny cars went down the track so I shot a video of it. You can check it out here (keep in mind that this was only one car as the other smoked the tires) 

https://vimeo.com/121216444


----------



## Scott Simonian

Top Fuel is insane!


----------



## zeus33

funhouse69 said:


> Try standing anywhere near or even in the stands when an pair of Top Fuel Dragsters go down the track. You not only hear it you also feel it, its pretty awesome for sure. Granted NASCAR or Formula 1 Cars are probably more intense as there are a lot more of them but there is really nothing like CH3NO2 (Nitromethane).





Scott Simonian said:


> Top Fuel is insane!



Agreed. F1 is amazing, instant goose bumps, but yes, Top Fuel and Funny cars are insane. If you are standing by the wall when they go by, you can feel your organs vibrating inside your body as they shake the ground. Definitely something to experience in person.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


>


----------



## funhouse69

zeus33 said:


> Agreed. F1 is amazing, instant goose bumps, but yes, Top Fuel and Funny cars are insane. If you are standing by the wall when they go by, you can feel your organs vibrating inside your body as they shake the ground. Definitely something to experience in person.


I know this has gotten a little off topic but back in the day DirecTV used to do a PPV of NHRA Drag Racing (we are talking 15+ years ago) and the sound that they had back then was awesome. Since they've gone to ESPN the sound quality in my opinion is crap, you would think that with today's technology and how relatively inexpensive things have gotten in the video / audio arena they would be leaps and bounds better. 

So to bring it back somewhat on topic - Imagine all of our races in Atmos? I don't really care which but NHRA would be insane! When they say "Top Fuel Thunder" they are not kidding!


----------



## Scott Simonian

We do have a thread for ladies like Priyanka.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-mo...8801-movie-hottest-girl-you-ve-ever-seen.html


----------



## NorthSky

Her dress; is it green with silver trims or orange with gold trims? ...What do you guys see.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> She's the boxer!  ...Who cares now about Atoms.


Yup! She is easy on the eyes 



Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. I prefer to not use DSU on anything. Because my surrounds are at 20 deg elevation, I already get a nice bubble effect. No need to add any more.


So native Atmos only for your heights?

Well, it is safe to say many in here disagree, me included.



Scott Simonian said:


> Yyyyeeaaaahhhhhh
> 
> What's this about Atmos, now?


I know, right! After watching the movie, you go like: hey i forgot to listen to my heights!!



NorthSky said:


> Her dress; is it green with silver trims or orange with gold trims? ...What do you guys see.


Dress? What dress..... :grin::grin:


----------



## NorthSky

(((•))) https://www.avsforum.com/posts/32264561/


----------



## Nalleh

Mary Kom trailer:







She apparently trained more than Keanu Reeves does, for this movie, so she's no poser chick.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> So native Atmos only for your heights?


Absolutely.



> Well, it is safe to say many in here disagree, me included.


Being a loner in my opinions on sound matters is not unfamiliar territory for me. 

I do not know your speaker setup. Are your surrounds at ear level? Is there a diagram of your room posted somewhere?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> No patience needed when having a discussion with you (your posts are always interesting).


Well, that is good to hear and certainly motivates me to continue with digging into and revisiting subjects that fascinate me and in my opinion haven't reach a conclusive and satisfying stage (e.g. how default intended speaker positions are programmed into the consumer Atmos playback renderers).



> Just so we're clear: I'm not endorsing Dolby's recommendations, merely pointing out they exist. As I mentioned to Roger, mimicking a theatrical Atmos presentation (elevated surrounds, narrower height array separation) seems not to be the priority for home Atmos. They've never really explained 'why'. And I'll admit that I'm not as curious about 'why' the change as much as I am about whether those changes work (or not), which I find the more interesting part of the discussion.


In the end I fully agree with that. When the time has arrived for me to purchase a capable processor, I will certainly try and verify with the most appropriate Atmos track available whether or not this theatrical approach works in my room, and how it compares to following the discussed recommendations of the Home Installation guidelines.


----------



## kbarnes701

RichardGS said:


> Mocking Jay - just watched it in atmos via streaming video. (Kodi TV 20GB) . I am definitely going to buy it.
> 
> While a lot of the movie was dialogue, there were several scenes in which dolby atmos shined.
> 
> At times I found the background music to be very immersive. During the taking off and landing of crafts, the transfer of sound between speakers was excellent. Unfortunately, I live in an apartment and wasn't able to watch it at a proper volume. No spoilers here. An enjoyable movie . If you are waiting for your amazon order, I think you will be pleased.
> 
> .


This might be a good time to remind members that I did a 'blow by blow' analysis of the use of Atmos in this movie when I saw it at Dolby's London HQ. Might be interesting to see how the BD compares. The write-up is here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...personal-views-bluray-reviews.html#mockingjay


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> It's kind of like the " milllion dollar baby", and that was popular.
> Besides, it will be interesting to hear how "the Indians" mix a Atmos track  Could be fun


Do let us know how good (or not) the Atmos soundtrack is.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> We do have a thread for ladies like Priyanka.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-mo...8801-movie-hottest-girl-you-ve-ever-seen.html


Oh great, now none of us will have the time to contribute to this thread (or for personal grooming) anymore.

Thanks a lot! (I've got about 10,000 posts to catch up on.)


----------



## coolgeek

Anyone heard any news if there will be any 7.2.4 (all 11 channels powered) receivers on the horizon?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

coolgeek said:


> Anyone heard any news if there will be any 7.2.4 (all 11 channels powered) receivers on the horizon?


The Onkyo TX-NR3030 is already available with 11 powered channels.


----------



## coolgeek

SteveTheGeek said:


> The Onkyo TX-NR3030 is already available with 11 powered channels.


I think the Onkyos are only 'atmos ready' and probably uses some processing software to 'imitate' atmos channels...


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> I think the Onkyos are only 'atmos ready' and probably uses some processing software to 'imitate' atmos channels...


?????? Would you care to elaborate on your theory and explain why you believe that?


----------



## coolgeek

kbarnes701 said:


> ?????? Would you care to elaborate on your theory and explain why you believe that?


The onkyo sales guy told me the 3030 is only 'atmos ready'... they basically juri-rigged their existing channels to play atmos... might be mis-information?


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> Would you tell us more about where you got this Atmos Demo disk. I have some demos but nothing with Enrique Iglesias?





RMK! said:


> I could tell you but I'd have to kill you. Hint, I am in San Francisco every week on business ...


I finally got a hold of the disc on my own and I would have to kill me too if anyone asks.


----------



## bargervais

coolgeek said:


> I think the Onkyos are only 'atmos ready' and probably uses some processing software to 'imitate' atmos channels...


no it comes with Atmos already on it. 

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR3030&class=Receiver&source=prodClass


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I can only imagine that Dolby didn't think most home theaters would be using the two extra behind-the-screen "channels" as in auditoriums with really large screens, so they thought the next best location for overheads was in line with the front Left and Right speakers. For cinema Atmos, the overhead pairs are supposed to line up with the extra Left and extra Right screen speakers, not the regular Left and Right.


Even if a commercial cinema doesn't have the two extra screen speakers, the overhead arrays are still lined up with those locations. And spreading those arrays to line up with the L/R speakers would still make the separation narrower than home Atmos, since the L/R speakers in a cinema are typically around 45 degrees apart compared to Dolby's 60-degree spread recommended for home. So the two extra screen speakers are probably around 30 degrees apart, which means the height arrays aligned with them have roughly half the angular separation recommended for home Atmos. That's some difference.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

coolgeek said:


> The onkyo sales guy told me the 3030 is only 'atmos ready'... they basically juri-rigged their existing channels to play atmos... might be mis-information?


Total misinformation ! They are fully Atmos compliant receivers.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> She's the boxer!  ...Who cares now about Atoms.


If no one else is brave enough, I'll take her on. Not much of a boxer but I have been know to wrestle on occasion. If I need help I'll holler


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> The onkyo sales guy told me the 3030 is only 'atmos ready'... they basically juri-rigged their existing channels to play atmos... might be mis-information?


 It's complete nonsense.


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> Oh great, now none of us will have the time to contribute to this thread (or for personal grooming) anymore.
> 
> Thanks a lot! (I've got about 10,000 posts to catch up on.)



Enjoy!


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> If no one else is brave enough, I'll take her on. Not much of a boxer but I have been know to wrestle on occasion. If I need help I'll holler


Phew, I thought that I was going to have to buy a plane ticket head to India and take a stand, thanks for offering to take one for the team!


----------



## BigScreen

Al Sherwood said:


> I doubt very much if we would ever see an implementation that essentially connects all of the HT speakers to a bank of amplifiers either mono blocks or multichannel who are intern fed signals determined by there physical location in the HT, a sort of 3D speaker placement chart... can you imagine the naming convention!?


Ideally, no naming conventions would be necessary, beyond some sort of letter or number assignment, so you can trace wiring. Just hook everything up and tell the processor to figure it all out. It's high time we divest ourselves of the bonds of the past and move forward to a better future.


----------



## Kurtos

Hi,
I have a marantz 7009 with front height and back height speakers. I can add top front and top back channels. Is this better for atmos or would the difference be minimal? Hope Someone could help me. thanks in advance

Gr kurtos


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Being a loner in my opinions on sound matters is not unfamiliar territory for me.
> 
> I do not know your speaker setup. Are your surrounds at ear level? Is there a diagram of your room posted somewhere?


So high mounted surround 5.1/7.1 alone gives you a better immersion than ear mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 DSU? That don't make sense at all !?!

Then native Atmos with high mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 should be less than optimal too ?
I have always felt that high mounted surrounds(the "old"way) is a strange phenomenon: ALL sounds, cars, voices, "regular" effects, or in short: ground level sounds, sound strange when coming from up high. Altough planes, thunder etc sound right from above, it's all from the same "source. Not natural!
Now with DSU they are seperated to where they belong. Even more with ear level surrounds. Natural !

My setup? Weelll, its a bastard of a setup with my dual Atmos receivers. And yes, ear level surrounds.





















kbarnes701 said:


> Do let us know how good (or not) the Atmos soundtrack is.


Will do


----------



## roxiedog13

Al Sherwood said:


> Phew, I thought that I was going to have to buy a plane ticket head to India and take a stand, thanks for offering to take one for the team!


We're both on the Canuck Beaver team, have to look out to one another after all. I don't mind taking one for the team, happy to do it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> So high mounted surround 5.1/7.1 alone gives you a better immersion than ear mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 DSU? That don't make sense at all !?!


I agree. I think we have to accept that Roger is plowing his own furrow on this. He doesn't use DSU at all so, for him, it makes some sort of sense to have his surrounds mounted higher. It gives the illusion of some sound coming from overhead. Whether one wants car noises, street sounds etc coming from overhead is questionable though IMO. Personally, I don't need the illusion of sound coming from overhead as I have actual sound coming from overhead via DSU. And when I play an Atmos disc, if the mixer hasn't put much sound in the overhead speakers then I have to accept that. Raising my surrounds into a non-standard (per Dolby specs) location to compromise the mixer's decisions seems strange to me. Prior to Atmos, if the mixer hadn't put much into the surrounds, I didn't relocate some of my other speakers to 'compensate'.

I also struggle to get past the notion that Dolby have got this wrong when they suggest that listener level speakers should be at ear level and Atmos speakers should be high up. If Atmos (or DSU) worked best with surrounds mounted higher up, surely Dolby would have said so - after all, it would make installation much easier for everyone whose surrounds were formerly mounted higher up (eg, me). One of the most immediately noticeable things in the Dolby HT demo room in London was that all the listener-level speakers were at ear level. It immediately caused the audience (journalists, insiders, dealers etc) to ask why and the answer was the one that has been given in this thread many times.

Seems to me that I am set up according to spec, but also according to the reality that 99% of my library of discs does not have Atmos. It seems bizarre to me to set up for the


----------



## roxiedog13

Nalleh said:


> So high mounted surround 5.1/7.1 alone gives you a better immersion than ear mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 DSU? That don't make sense at all !?!
> 
> Then native Atmos with high mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 should be less than optimal too ?
> I have always felt that high mounted surrounds(the "old"way) is a strange phenomenon: ALL sounds, cars, voices, "regular" effects, or in short: ground level sounds, sound strange when coming from up high. Altough planes, thunder etc sound right from above, it's all from the same "source. Not natural!
> Now with DSU they are seperated to where they belong. Even more with ear level surrounds. Natural !
> 
> My setup? Weelll, its a bastard of a setup with my dual Atmos receivers. And yes, ear level surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will do


I'm counting 21 speakers + 1 SVS sub , not counting the in floor speakers we cannot see. Very Impressive !!!


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> We're both on the Canuck Beaver team, have to look out to one another after all. I don't mind taking one for the team, happy to do it.


Nice beaver?


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice beaver?


Thank you, Frank Drebin! 





.


----------



## BigScreen

For those looking to pick up The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 on Friday, watch the label! 

According to this post (w/ photo) on blu-ray.com, the Walmart editions do not have Atmos.

The Walmart web site pages for the two editions list the sound formats as "DTS-HD Master Audio, Dolby Digital 5.1"


*The Hunger Games: MockingJay - Part 1 (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital HD) - 2 disc
*
*The Hunger Games MockingJay - Part 1 (Blu-ray + Digital HD) - 1 disc
*

Based on that photo of the box, DTS-HD Master Audio appears to be an error on the web site, and all we have is DVD-quality audio. For that, you might as well rent it from the Redbox at the entrance instead of buying it in the store...

It sounds as though it's becoming more common for Walmart to sell rental-grade discs, so I'll have to watch the sound formats more closely in the future. I don't shop for discs there very often, but there are times when their pricing is attractive compared to other outlets.

I was going to pick up the single-disc version at Walmart, just due to the nearly $4 difference in price (the DVD has no value to me for this title), but even without Atmos, the lack of HD audio is a deal-killer.


----------



## roxiedog13

stikle said:


> Thank you, Frank Drebin!
> 
> The Naked Gun.


He ( A Canadian btw ) is looking up, must be an Atmos Beaver .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BigScreen said:


> For those looking to pick up The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 on Friday, watch the label!
> 
> According to this post (w/ photo) on blu-ray.com, the Walmart editions do not have Atmos.
> 
> The Walmart web site pages for the two editions list the sound formats as "DTS-HD Master Audio, Dolby Digital 5.1"
> 
> 
> *The Hunger Games: MockingJay - Part 1 (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital HD) - 2 disc
> *
> *The Hunger Games MockingJay - Part 1 (Blu-ray + Digital HD) - 1 disc
> *
> 
> Based on that photo of the box, DTS-HD Master Audio appears to be an error on the web site, and all we have is DVD-quality audio. For that, you might as well rent it from the Redbox at the entrance instead of buying it in the store...
> 
> It sounds as though it's becoming more common for Walmart to sell rental-grade discs, so I'll have to watch the sound formats more closely in the future. I don't shop for discs there very often, but there are times when their pricing is attractive compared to other outlets.
> 
> I was going to pick up the single-disc version at Walmart, just due to the nearly $4 difference in price (the DVD has no value to me for this title), but even without Atmos, the lack of HD audio is a deal-killer.



That seems totally odd that a U.S. retail release of a major Hollywood title would only have lossy audio. Yes, there are occasional releases like from the BBC for some of their TV show sets. Though, didn't the regular version of RED from Lioinsgate only have lossy audio and the Special Edition had lossless?


----------



## groundtrac

Sweet! Just got a notice from Amazon for release date on Unbroken. On the product page there is a screenshot of the back cover showing an Atmos soundtrack. Can't wait!


----------



## jrogers

groundtrac said:


> Sweet! Just got a notice from Amazon for release date on Unbroken. On the product page there is a screenshot of the back cover showing an Atmos soundtrack. Can't wait!


Cool - wonder if Universal is going to use that "THEATER QUALITY SOUND" banner on their back covers only for Atmos soundtracks?


----------



## bargervais

groundtrac said:


> Sweet! Just got a notice from Amazon for release date on Unbroken. On the product page there is a screenshot of the back cover showing an Atmos soundtrack. Can't wait!


same here got an e-mail from Amazon about Unbroken 
but my Mockingjay - Part 1 pre-order still says not yet shipped it usually says shipped or prepairing to ship two days before release date...


----------



## jpco

Nalleh said:


> So high mounted surround 5.1/7.1 alone gives you a better immersion than ear mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 DSU? That don't make sense at all !?!


Some prefer not to use upmixers to alter the soundtrack. If one is not using DSU, it makes perfect sense to have elevated surrounds, doesn't it? All 5.1 and 7.1 is rendered fairly closely to how it was mixed. Atmos renders fairly closely to how it was mixed. 



> Then native Atmos with high mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 should be less than optimal too ?
> I have always felt that high mounted surrounds(the "old"way) is a strange phenomenon: ALL sounds, cars, voices, "regular" effects, or in short: ground level sounds, sound strange when coming from up high. Altough planes, thunder etc sound right from above, it's all from the same "source. Not natural!
> Now with DSU they are seperated to where they belong. Even more with ear level surrounds. Natural !


Never seemed strange to me, honestly, to have elevated surrounds. Never was pulled out of a soundtrack because my surrounds were above ear level. You can ask the same question about DSU. Since there's no encoded height info, how does it know which sounds should be up high? How many sounds do we really hear from directly overhead? You may like the effect, but there are definitely some sounds in the heights that were not intended to be there.

The sound in my room has always had height. It never sounded two-dimensional. I absolutely want object-based three-dimensional audio, but I want it in the mix. If it is, it will render appropriately with elevated surrounds.


----------



## Movie78

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm counting 21 speakers + 1 SVS sub , not counting the in floor speakers we cannot see. Very Impressive !!!


21 speakers...

I need to come to your place and listen to some sound..


----------



## Aras_Volodka

groundtrac said:


> Sweet! Just got a notice from Amazon for release date on Unbroken. On the product page there is a screenshot of the back cover showing an Atmos soundtrack. Can't wait!


I picked that up as well. I just had my baby daughter (Ona Rey Volodka) so it might be a while before I get to watch it (haha). 

Have any new Atmos BD announcements been made? I've been at the hospital all week so haven't seen AVS in a while


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Even if a commercial cinema doesn't have the two extra screen speakers, the overhead arrays are still lined up with those locations. And spreading those arrays to line up with the L/R speakers would still make the separation narrower than home Atmos, since the L/R speakers in a cinema are typically around 45 degrees apart compared to Dolby's 60-degree spread recommended for home. So the two extra screen speakers are probably around 30 degrees apart, which means the height arrays aligned with them have roughly half the angular separation recommended for home Atmos. That's some difference.


Maybe Dolby's marketing guys figured out that in a typical home situation people would feel uncomfortable with speakers hanging over their heads, which was solved by spreading the overhead arrays further apart.


----------



## stikle

Aras_Volodka said:


> I just had my baby daughter (Ona Rey Volodka)


Congratulations!

Out of curiosity, what nationality is Volodka? Where do you live?


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice beaver?


Save a tree eat a beaver


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> Congratulations!
> 
> Out of curiosity, what nationality is Volodka? Where do you live?


Thanks!

The first & last names are of Lithuanian origin, both my girlfriend & I are Lithuanian... though we live in Chicago; I grew up out here.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I picked that up as well. I just had my baby daughter (Ona Rey Volodka) so it might be a while before I get to watch it (haha).


Congratulations. Your life has changed (for the better) for ever. Best wishes to you all.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Maybe Dolby's marketing guys figured out that in a typical home situation people would feel uncomfortable with speakers hanging over their heads, which was solved by spreading the overhead arrays further apart.


The Height channel was originally a single speaker right above your head. ...Then it expanded to two. ...And look @ it now; in theaters & @ home. 
* Auro-3D with the VOG speaker is still faithful to the original Height channel.

DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX have nine floor channel speakers. ...And with eleven speakers total (thirteen for all configurations, with Height channels, front and rear), not including the subwoofer(s).
Auro-3D has three layers of channel speakers, plus the VOG channel.

Dolby Atmos has 128 spatial object's rendition, in a 3D space bubble. ...And a 24.1.10-channel possible setup configuration for home.

Where do you exactly put four overhead (or six) Atmos speakers in your OWN room? ...Where you think it's best yourself, or where Dolby Atmos recommend them? ...How can you truly know for sure in your own room? ...Like Dolby Atmos already did; by experimenting. ...And from them experimentation on Dolby Atmos speaker's positioning they came up with a useful/practical/methodological Dolby Atmos Speaker's Guidelines.

All the maybes in the world can only be verified and confirmed in each and every room by the professional acousticians with the most extensive expertise in sound reproduction/distribution/dispersion. ...And by the recording/mixing Dolby Atmos 3D sound mapping engineers from the tools they are using @ best from their experience as well. ...This, is all new. ...Many screw ups before we get to where most will be satisfy entirely. 

I guess it's a combination of established standards between various Dolby Atmos setups and the recordings themselves. ...A balance of all things equally and properly rendered and adjusted. ...Time is part of the tool's arsenal. 

It can only get better from here; perhaps slowly, but surely. ...For now I like Dolby Atmos pdf Guidelines myself, and I intend to observe them when the time finally comes for me.


----------



## helvetica bold

Im curious about the future of Dolby Headphone tech. Since there are a few tablets that now have Atmos Im 
thinking Dolby will review the Headphone tech used in amps. Thoughts?


----------



## NorthSky

* Just click *^* on it.


----------



## Selden Ball

Kurtos said:


> Hi,
> I have a marantz 7009 with front height and back height speakers. I can add top front and top back channels. Is this better for atmos or would the difference be minimal? Hope Someone could help me. thanks in advance
> 
> Gr kurtos


Front Height + Back Height can provide a larger front-to-back soundstage than can Top Front + Top Back. In contrast, if you use Top Front + Top Back, they potentially can provide a soundstage that seems to be more overhead than Front Height + Back Height. Note, however, that the positions allowed by Dolby for the two different pairs of designations actually overlap (see the placement diagrams that I've attached. They're from the 7009's manual), so you might consider putting the two pairs of speakers in positions that are equally valid for both designations. Nonetheless, you'll have to decide what positions sound better to you. That's strictly a personal preference. 

Unfortunately, you cannot have both Front Height+Back Height and Top Front+Top Back connected and active at the same time. The receiver has only two pairs of outputs for overhead speakers: Height1 and Height2. Height1 can be either Front Height or Top Front. Height2 can be either Back Height or Top Back.

Of course, if you're willing to both use manual external switches for the speaker channels and reload the AVR's configuration over the net from your computer (which takes ~10 minutes) then you can select among several different speaker configurations.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just to let you know, my order shipping from Amazon.ca today.


Steve I just want to report that I just got notification that Amazon is preparing my order for shipment of Mocking Jay..... hallelujah.. can't wait till Friday


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Not necessarily. The idea is to create a 'circle' of sound around you. This is best achieved, IMO, by having sufficient speakers, placed at roughly equidistant steps to give an 'unbroken circle' of sound. In a bigger room, Wides may help fill the gap between front and side surrounds. In a smaller room, Wides are unlikely to be needed for that if the side surrounds are moved slightly forward of the MLP.
> 
> These images, some of dozens a google search will reveal, show that it is accepted practice to deploy the speakers in the way I suggest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Atmos, the wides are engaged. With DSU, they are not engaged (if for most of the movies you own they will be silent if you make use of DSU). Other upmixers such as Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X will make use of the wides however.


Hopefully DSU 2.0 will have 9.2.4 so all speakers are engaged!


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. I think we have to accept that Roger is plowing his own furrow on this. He doesn't use DSU at all so, for him, it makes some sort of sense to have his surrounds mounted higher. It gives the illusion of some sound coming from overhead. Whether one wants car noises, street sounds etc coming from overhead is questionable though IMO. Personally, I don't need the illusion of sound coming from overhead as I have actual sound coming from overhead via DSU. And when I play an Atmos disc, if the mixer hasn't put much sound in the overhead speakers then I have to accept that. Raising my surrounds into a non-standard (per Dolby specs) location to compromise the mixer's decisions seems strange to me. Prior to Atmos, if the mixer hadn't put much into the surrounds, I didn't relocate some of my other speakers to 'compensate'.
> 
> I also struggle to get past the notion that Dolby have got this wrong when they suggest that listener level speakers should be at ear level and Atmos speakers should be high up. If Atmos (or DSU) worked best with surrounds mounted higher up, surely Dolby would have said so - after all, it would make installation much easier for everyone whose surrounds were formerly mounted higher up (eg, me). One of the most immediately noticeable things in the Dolby HT demo room in London was that all the listener-level speakers were at ear level. It immediately caused the audience (journalists, insiders, dealers etc) to ask why and the answer was the one that has been given in this thread many times.
> 
> Seems to me that I am set up according to spec, but also according to the reality that 99% of my library of discs does not have Atmos. It seems bizarre to me to set up for the


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Steve I just want to report that I just got notification that Amazon is preparing my order for shipment of Mocking Jay..... hallelujah.. can't wait till Friday


Me too, the current status is "Shipping today".


----------



## lovingdvd

Its now "March 2015" - when will we hear from DTS about DTS:X and its recommended speaker placement?


----------



## bargervais

lovingdvd said:


> Its now "March 2015" - when will we hear from DTS about DTS:X and its recommended speaker placement?


March just started lets hope its soon.. I have speakers I was about to install but I'm waiting for the DTS:X announcement..


----------



## aaranddeeman

lovingdvd said:


> Its now "March 2015" - when will we hear from DTS about DTS:X and its recommended speaker placement?


It was "March"... They did not say which year..


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> Hopefully DSU 2.0 will have 9.2.4 so all speakers are engaged!


DSU 1.0 already has the ability to matrix to 20.1.10 surround (or something like that). The limitation isn't DSU, it's that the standard level (AVR/pre-pro) processors are stuck designating those extra two speakers as "Front Wide" which is one of the locations adjacent to L/C/R, and thus a no-no for DSU. If they gave you the flexibility to set them as "Forward Surrounds" then you could run two pairs of side surrounds as part of the side surround array for Atmos, and get upmixing to them from DSU.

Or just get the Trinnov. For you that would be a "humble" processor.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> It was "March"... They did not say which year..


On Blu-ray.com there seems to be reports that at Walmart at least one of their exclusive versions of _Mockingjay_ only has Dolby Digital lossy and the logo says Dolby Audio. I wonder if Lionsgate has a movie only standard version much like their release of RED where only the "special edition" had lossless audio, and in this title's case Dolby Atmos as well.

If that's the case... look _very_ carefully at what you are buying on release day and beyond! Better yet, don't shop at Walmart.


----------



## FilmMixer

Just received my Japanese import of "Chicago" which was released yesterday.

No Atmos, only TrueHD 5.1

Booooo!!

They were mixing the 7.1 and Atmos at ToddAO before it closed.. disappointed.

EDIT: While this disc was indeed released yesterday, with WB as the international distributor, there is another WB release in a month... so I'm not sure why they would release two version within 8 weeks, but I'll try my luck with that one too.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Dan Hitchman said:


> On Blu-ray.com there seems to be reports that at Walmart at least one of their exclusive versions of _Mockingjay_ only has Dolby Digital lossy and the logo says Dolby Audio. I wonder if Lionsgate has a movie only standard version much like their release of RED where only the "special edition" had lossless audio, and in this title's case Dolby Atmos as well.
> 
> If that's the case... look _very_ carefully at what you are buying on release day and beyond! Better yet, don't shop at Walmart.


Sounds like the version I'd expect to find in the Redbox from Lionsgate.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> On Blu-ray.com there seems to be reports that at Walmart at least one of their exclusive versions of _Mockingjay_ only has Dolby Digital lossy and the logo says Dolby Audio. I wonder if Lionsgate has a movie only standard version much like their release of RED where only the "special edition" had lossless audio, and in this title's case Dolby Atmos as well.
> 
> If that's the case... look _very_ carefully at what you are buying on release day and beyond! Better yet, don't shop at Walmart.


What a scam...

They do have "Dolby 2.0 optimized for late night listening.."


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Just received my Japanese import of "Chicago" which was released yesterday.
> 
> No Atmos, only TrueHD 5.1
> 
> Booooo!!
> 
> They were mixing the 7.1 and Atmos at ToddAO before it closed.. disappointed.


Marc, you got ripped off? ...That's a Miramax (Disney) Blu-ray title? ...Or Lionsgate with an advertised Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround track?

* Japan: Warner Bros. with Dolby Atmos (Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround audio core). ...False advertising?

This title is owned by many Hollywood movie studios! ...Who's next, FOX?


----------



## dannybee

Dan Hitchman said:


> On Blu-ray.com there seems to be reports that at Walmart at least one of their exclusive versions of _Mockingjay_ only has Dolby Digital lossy and the logo says Dolby Audio. I wonder if Lionsgate has a movie only standard version much like their release of RED where only the "special edition" had lossless audio, and in this title's case Dolby Atmos as well.
> 
> If that's the case... look _very_ carefully at what you are buying on release day and beyond! Better yet, don't shop at Walmart.


just got a copy here in australia and states it has dolby atmos 7.1 and also the audio for dts x headphone haven't watched it yet though.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> Steve I just want to report that I just got notification that Amazon is preparing my order for shipment of Mocking Jay..... hallelujah.. can't wait till Friday


Great news !


----------



## SteveTheGeek

FilmMixer said:


> Just received my Japanese import of "Chicago" which was released yesterday.
> 
> No Atmos, only TrueHD 5.1
> 
> Booooo!!
> 
> They were mixing the 7.1 and Atmos at ToddAO before it closed.. disappointed.
> 
> EDIT: While this disc was indeed released yesterday, with WB as the international distributor, there is another WB release in a month... so I'm not sure why they would release two version within 8 weeks, but I'll try my luck with that one too.


Yeah, according to Blu-ray.com, the release for Atmos is the April one : 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Chicago-Blu-ray/123482/


----------



## petetherock

Nalleh said:


> C'mon: the opposite of attractive ?!


I think we can all watch this in MONO if we had to..

I don't know how to insert the video, but I thought of Mask and the "Wolf Tongue Roll"


----------



## NorthSky

Just google *Priyanka Chopra*, the actress playing _Mary Kom_. ...She is abso!utely gorgeous.

* Dolby Atmos or not/

P.S. I didn't want to bee too off topic, but man is she beautiful!


----------



## Scott Simonian

I think many of us have been for the past 24hrs.


----------



## dvdwilly3

NorthSky said:


> This post (quote) reminds me of the color of that dress. ...White & gold or Blue & black. ...Perhaps we hear differently too?


Actually, we do hear differently...
There is often a different perception between right-handers and left-handers. 
This is based mostly on tones and music, but I would be surprised if it did not translate to movie soundtracks.
Dianna Deutsch has been doing research in psychoacoustics since the 70s.

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=201

I find it fascinating, but not really surprising. We are all human, but we are all different to degree or another.


----------



## FilmMixer

lovingdvd said:


> Its now "March 2015" - when will we hear from DTS about DTS:X and its recommended speaker placement?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...meeting-next-generation-audio-atsc-3-0-a.html



> Next up, David McIntyre talked about DTS MDA (Multi-Dimensional Audio), which is used to create object-oriented audio content, and DTS:X, the codec that will be used for delivering that audio to consumers. Unfortunately, he didn't reveal much of anything about DTS:X, saying that more details would be forthcoming in four to six weeks. He did say that backward compatibility is very important to DTS, and that DTS:X can accommodate channels and objects with a high degree of flexibility. He also reminded the audience that most AVR brands—representing 90% of the market—have committed to implementing DTS:X, and we'll see content and products this year.


Three things I found interesting..

1. Four to six weeks.. so end of March/mid-April
2. Content this year
3. Maybe it was how it was reported, but that's the first time I've seen MDA branded as DTS MDA.. interesting..


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I think many of us have been for the past 24hrs.


She just got work on this side of the planet: 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/bollywoods-priyanka-chopra-to-co-star-in-abcs-quantico-1201446536/


----------



## NorthSky

No doubt about that; if we see different colors we also hear different sounds between each other. ...And the same when looking @ women.

* In reply to Willy just above.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I think many of us have been for the past 24hrs.


For the last sixty years here.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> For the last sixty years here.


Wait... you've been _Googling_ *Priyanka Chopra *for the past sixty years?

Interesting. Maybe it's time to take a nap, Bob.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, I have been looking @ women for the last sixty years, but _Priyanka_, seriously for the last few hours or so.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> So high mounted surround 5.1/7.1 alone gives you a better immersion than ear mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 DSU? That don't make sense at all !?!


I have not tried ear-mounted surrounds in this home, as I long ago learned that it deflates the surround bubble. The way I have said it in the past was that what DSU is adding on top of my system is quite minimal, and in the context of watching a movie, the subjective result is not sufficiently compelling for me to turn on DSU. After all, it's just ambience stuff, there's no directional cues. Add to that the high frequency emphasis, and it's not what I'm looking for from a 7.1.4 system.



> Then native Atmos with high mounted surrounds and 7.1.4 should be less than optimal too ?


I heard a few demos at CEDIA, and from what I get here, the Atmos effect comes through in spades. Very effective -- totally happy and eager for more content. And I make the case that when those long stretches of silent height speakers occur, I am not reverting to flat as pancake sound. Music, effects, ambience, still retain their welcoming spatial embrace. 



> I have always felt that high mounted surrounds (the "old"way) is a strange phenomenon: ALL sounds, cars, voices, "regular" effects, or in short: ground level sounds, sound strange when coming from up high. Altough planes, thunder etc sound right from above, it's all from the same "source. Not natural!


There is elevated, and then there is more elevated. It makes a difference. I do not like high-mounted surrounds either. 



> Now with DSU they are separated to where they belong. Even more with ear level surrounds. Natural !


I'm for natural. And flat does not sound natural to me...



> My setup? Weelll, its a bastard of a setup with my dual Atmos receivers. And yes, ear level surrounds.


Good to know, as that clearly shows why you like DSU. 




kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. I think we have to accept that Roger is plowing his own furrow on this. He doesn't use DSU at all so, for him, it makes some sort of sense to have his surrounds mounted higher.


But I came at it from the other direction. My surrounds were already elevated above ear level (20 deg), so I found that DSU did very little for my enjoyment of 5.1/7.1 content. 



> It gives the illusion of some sound coming from overhead. Whether one wants car noises, street sounds etc coming from overhead is questionable though IMO.


Just as with DSU, correlated sounds do not phantom image well above me. In a 5.1 mix, those sounds would be routed to the rear or panned to one side. The "bubble effect" seems most effective with uncorrelated content -- which is quite in keeping with the artistic intent. If what I am hearing is wrong, then so too is it wrong from DSU. 



> And when I play an Atmos disc, if the mixer hasn't put much sound in the overhead speakers then I have to accept that. Raising my surrounds into a non-standard (per Dolby specs) location to compromise the mixer's decisions seems strange to me.


Funny how elevate surrounds was standard advice from Dolby for a quarter century, but now all of a sudden it compromises the mixer's decisions. Especially funny since the mixer heard his work through elevated surrounds. 



> I also struggle to get past the notion that Dolby have got this wrong when they suggest that listener level speakers should be at ear level and Atmos speakers should be high up. If Atmos (or DSU) worked best with surrounds mounted higher up, surely Dolby would have said so - after all, it would make installation much easier for everyone whose surrounds were formerly mounted higher up (eg, me).


I have never once denied that DSU works better with lowered surrounds. The same can be said for Atmos mixes, too, but one has to accept the silent heights means a flat soundfield. Notice that none of the Atmos content on the demo discs goes for very long with silence in the height channels. Hmmm



> One of the most immediately noticeable things in the Dolby HT demo room in London was that all the listener-level speakers were at ear level. It immediately caused the audience (journalists, insiders, dealers etc) to ask why and the answer was the one that has been given in this thread many times.


I presume that also caused a mad scramble to sit in the sweet spot to avoid a heavy dose of surround speakers. 



> Seems to me that I am set up according to spec, but also according to the reality that 99% of my library of discs does not have Atmos. It seems bizarre to me to set up for the


----------



## maikeldepotter

And you did well.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

> Funny how elevate surrounds was standard advice from Dolby for a quarter century, but now all of a sudden it compromises the mixer's decisions. Especially funny since the mixer heard his work through elevated surrounds.


This is exactly why I didn't move my surround speakers one bit when installing my Atmos system. If it ain't broke...


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> Yes, I have been looking @ women for the last sixty years, but _Priyanka_, seriously for the last few hours or so.


Mate, that country is filled with women like that..
It's time to enjoy a few Blu Rays from Bollywood...

The stories aren't hard to follow, you don't need to speaker their lingo to follow the plot, and its a fun ride..
"RA" and anything by "SRK" is fun... just google for him.


----------



## NorthSky

:smile:


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> I have not tried ear-mounted surrounds in this home, as I long ago learned that it deflates the surround bubble. The way I have said it in the past was that what DSU is adding on top of my system is quite minimal, and in the context of watching a movie, the subjective result is not sufficiently compelling for me to turn on DSU. After all, it's just ambience stuff, there's no directional cues. Add to that the high frequency emphasis, and it's not what I'm looking for from a 7.1.4 system.


Well, as long as you are satisfied, that's what is important. But you are the first i have heard who prefer no DSU. The general opinion after listening to DSU is Awsome! Mindblowing! So cool! Etc...



Roger Dressler said:


> I heard a few demos at CEDIA, and from what I get here, the Atmos effect comes through in spades. Very effective -- totally happy and eager for more content. And I make the case that when those long stretches of silent height speakers occur, I am not reverting to flat as pancake sound. Music, effects, ambience, still retain their welcoming spatial embrace.


Atmos flat? Thats the last thing i think of when playing Atmos 



Roger Dressler said:


> There is elevated, and then there is more elevated. It makes a difference. I do not like high-mounted surrounds either.


Yes, and the spread is even better in DSU. The heights are far more active in DSU than Atmos.
Btw, when i say high mounted surrounds, i mean 5-6 feet.


Roger Dressler said:


> I'm for natural. And flat does not sound natural to me...


I respect your opinon, but that 5.1/7.1 is natural and not flat, while DSU W/heights is flat and not natural sounds very strange to me.


Roger Dressler said:


> Good to know, as that clearly shows why you like DSU.


Not clear on what you meant here?



Roger Dressler said:


> Just as with DSU, correlated sounds do not phantom image well above me. In a 5.1 mix, those sounds would be routed to the rear or panned to one side. The "bubble effect" seems most effective with uncorrelated content -- which is quite in keeping with the artistic intent. If what I am hearing is wrong, then so too is it wrong from DSU.


This one is my fault(remember Norwegian, right), but what is correlated and un correlated?



Roger Dressler said:


> Funny how elevate surrounds was standard advice from Dolby for a quarter century, but now all of a sudden it compromises the mixer's decisions. Especially funny since the mixer heard his work through elevated surrounds.


Because there was no other alternative, and at the time the only way to simulate height.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Elevation riddle*

If you assume that:
1) Atmos re-recording mixing studios use elevated surrounds,
2) their position has been accurately programmed into the Atmos mixing tool,
3) in re-mixing the home mix, metadata for object positioning are not adjusted, and
4) the consumer Atmos playback renderer assumes surrounds at listener's level.

This would imply that:
All the objects that are positioned at surround speaker level in the re-recording mixing studio, will at home end up being panned between surround speakers and height speakers. In other words, if the re-recording engineer decides not address the height speakers in panning an helicopter object, the heights at home will still come into action to pan the sound from listener level speakers to the right elevated height.

From the reviews I have read this does not seem to be happening. So which of the 4 assumption is false. Or am I missing something?


----------



## gerchy

I believe there are certain similarities between elevated surrounds and DSU. In both cases the sound is supposedly more spatial. However, both methods provide some errors but that's nothing we haven't seen before, even in good old PL times. We have strong woofer kicks when a hero punches a bad guy or when someone closes the trunk of a car. Certainly not natural. But it sounds good. Most people like dramatic effects (me included) and DSU is very good in that - but only a few tend to more realistic experience. 

I think slightly elevated surrounds (especially in small rooms) are good for preventing localization. I placed mine somewhere at 4,5 feet. I can't remember if that was an official advice but it seem logical to me.


That quote explains a lot:


Roger Dressler said:


> ... one has to accept the silent heights means a flat soundfield. Notice that none of the Atmos content on the demo discs goes for very long with silence in the height channels. Hmmm


If one favors Atmos over DSU then elevated surrounds are welcome. 
The problem is that there is currently no content available.


----------



## maikeldepotter

gerchy said:


> I think slightly elevated surrounds (especially in small rooms) are good for preventing localization. I placed mine somewhere at 4,5 feet. I can't remember if that was an official advice but it seem logical to me.


It is really about the elevation angle of your surrounds which, besides the height, depends on listening distance. What is your distance to those surrounds?


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Just received my Japanese import of "Chicago" which was released yesterday.
> 
> No Atmos, only TrueHD 5.1
> 
> Booooo!!
> 
> They were mixing the 7.1 and Atmos at ToddAO before it closed.. disappointed.
> 
> EDIT: While this disc was indeed released yesterday, with WB as the international distributor, there is another WB release in a month... so I'm not sure why they would release two version within 8 weeks, but I'll try my luck with that one too.


Oh dear. I have that on its way as well. I hope it has an Atmos track - I am sure that is how it was described on Amazon Japan. If it was described that way at least I can return it on their postage as "wrong item sent".


----------



## gerchy

maikeldepotter said:


> It is really about the elevation angle of your surrounds which, besides the height, depends on listening distance. What is your distance to those surrounds?



Yes, but when choosing earheight - that is pretty much a constant.
---
Left: approx. 1 m (3' ⅜'')
Right: approx. 1,2 m (3' 11¼'')


----------



## maikeldepotter

gerchy said:


> Yes, but when choosing earheight - that is pretty much a constant.
> ---
> Left: approx. 1 m (3' ⅜'')
> Right: approx. 1,2 m (3' 11¼'')


So that is roughly a typical 15-20 degrees elevation for your surrounds (at an assumed ear height of 3-3.5 feet). I believe this is a commonly used range, also in re-recording mixing rooms.


----------



## gerchy

maikeldepotter said:


> So that is roughly a typical 15-20 degrees elevation for your surrounds (at an assumed ear height of 3-3.5 feet). I believe this is a commonly used range, also in re-recording mixing rooms.


It was probably commonly used before as now many are considering lowering them to ear hight - which would mean roughly 0 degrees elevation.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh dear. I have that on its way as well. I hope it has an Atmos track - I am sure that is how it was described on Amazon Japan. If it was described that way at least I can return it on their postage as "wrong item sent".


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Chicago-Blu-ray/123482/
It looks like the Chicago BDs will be released in two months with Atmos mix April 22nd


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Not sure what the name of it is but there is a new Atmos fanfare trailer out there. I saw it with @sdurani when we saw American Sniper at the cinema a month or so ago. It was really good.


Holy testicle Tuesday, i just watched "Horizon" Atmos trailer on my Mac, and it was awesome! The coolest demo i have heard from just two speakers!


----------



## maikeldepotter

gerchy said:


> It was probably commonly used before as now many are considering lowering them to ear hight - which would mean roughly 0 degrees elevation.


I meant 'commonly' as in surround sound systems in general. For Atmos in the home, Dolby indeed recommends lowering surrounds to ear level (while allowing surrounds to be max 1.25 times higher than mains, seemingly corresponding with the aforementioned 15-20 degrees elevation range).


----------



## zimmo

Must not forget that in dolby atmos in ceilling speakers should be subtle ,you do not have to on hear live on your head .When you listen to dolby atmos be a bubble whit your sound track ,otherwise there as some something that does not work.
My speakers are placed in the ceilling is 30 degree before and 30 degree after my place listering .MY listering place is 10 feet from the screen and the speakers in the ceilling are a 4 feet a part on each side of the width of my room.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Just received my Japanese import of "Chicago" which was released yesterday.
> 
> No Atmos, only TrueHD 5.1
> 
> Booooo!!
> 
> They were mixing the 7.1 and Atmos at ToddAO before it closed.. disappointed.
> 
> EDIT: While this disc was indeed released yesterday, with WB as the international distributor, there is another WB release in a month... so I'm not sure why they would release two version within 8 weeks, but I'll try my luck with that one too.


The version I ordered from Amazon japan is not released till April 22. It definitely says on the site that it has an Atmos track:



















This is the link to the product page:

http://translate.google.com/transla...&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00


----------



## Romans828

RMK! said:


> I'm another early adopter of this new surround technology. I've had a lot of speaker configurations but was mostly a 7.1 until recently going to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup with 4 on-ceiling speakers for Atmos. I have a Marantz AV-7702 with the Auro upgrade and have been using Atmos (John Wick only), DSU and now Auromatic. All formats produce an acceptable result with the current Front High, Rear High speaker setup. The positioning is closest to the recommended Atmos 5.1.4 setup recommendation. I have true full range mains and so the LCR's are set to large (by Audyssey XT32) and they handle all the bass down to an approx -3db @ 16Hz.
> 
> Here are a few pics of the room, LCR's first, AT screen down:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos placement (JBL 8340A Cinema surround speakers):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the placement isn't ideal but the front row (where I sit most of the time) is pretty much per the Dolby spec in terms of location of the FH and RH speakers. Interestingly, my wife likes the sound from the back row a bit better and I prefer the front. We are currently using the Auro 3D Auromatic upmix but watched a few film's with DSU and found it a nice option as well. John Wick in Atmos provided the best height based surround sound I have heard including Guardians of the Galaxy in an Atmos equipped theater.



That looks great!. Has Dolby released any recommended positioning for two rows? I haven't seen a diagram for that scenario. I don't see how you could do much better than what you have done with only 4 ceiling speakers...at least based on the Dolby diagrams.


----------



## stikle

Dave Vaughn said:


> This is exactly why I didn't move my surround speakers one bit when installing my Atmos system. If it ain't broke...



I lowered mine about a foot or so and noticed a BIG difference.



Nalleh said:


> The general opinion after listening to DSU is Awsome! Mindblowing! So cool! Etc...



I watched House of the Flying Daggers last night. As others have said...wow the bamboo forest scene was just crazy with appropriate overhead effects. Thank you DSU!


----------



## RMK!

Romans828 said:


> That looks great!. Has Dolby released any recommended positioning for two rows? I haven't seen a diagram for that scenario. I don't see how you could do much better than what you have done with only 4 ceiling speakers...at least based on the Dolby diagrams.


Thank you 

The only "good" answer for multiple rows is more height speakers. Until more affordable  SSP/AVR's support more channels, I'm afraid it is a heavy lift to properly outfit for multiple rows. Of course, the Datasat owners and some brave souls who are using multiple AVR's can get more channels now, but for me the current setup is great and more channels aren't justifiable. If I do add a channel it will be the VOG for Auro 3D. Of course, that is dependant upon the availability of Auro source material and that isn't clear at this point (except for the nattering nabobs of negativism  ).

No regrets ...


----------



## aaranddeeman

RMK! said:


> Thank you
> 
> The only "good" answer for multiple rows is more height speakers. Until more affordable  SSP/AVR's support more channels, I'm afraid it is a heavy lift to properly outfit for multiple rows. Of course, the Datasat owners and some brave souls who are using multiple AVR's can get more channels now, but for me the current setup is great and more channels aren't justifiable. If I do add a channel it will be the VOG for Auro 3D. Of course, that is dependant upon the availability of Auro source material and that isn't clear at this point (except for the nattering nabobs of negativism  ).
> 
> No regrets ...


Dual receiver solution... ATMOS-EX by nalleh...


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Funny how elevate surrounds was standard advice from Dolby for a quarter century, but now all of a sudden it compromises the mixer's decisions. Especially funny since the mixer heard his work through elevated surrounds.


Well they gave that advice when nobody had speakers on the ceiling. Now people do have speakers on the ceiling, they give different advice.



Roger Dressler said:


> I have never once denied that DSU works better with lowered surrounds. The same can be said for Atmos mixes, too, but one has to accept the silent heights means a flat soundfield.


I haven't especially noticed that here when playing my Atmos discs. I will pay specific attention next time I watch one and see if I find the same. Mostly I have been very impressed with the amazingly precise three-dimensional sound (in the 'ear-level' plane).



Roger Dressler said:


> Notice that none of the Atmos content on the demo discs goes for very long with silence in the height channels. Hmmm


Well they are *demos*. I don't think we can read a general position into how they did the demo disc.



Roger Dressler said:


> I presume that also caused a mad scramble to sit in the sweet spot to avoid a heavy dose of surround speakers.


 I have honed my scrambling skills over decades... 



Roger Dressler said:


> I think the thing to come away with is there is no perfection, so one must choose one's poison for their own sensibilities. I just wanted to illustrate the merits (tradeoffs for some) of an alternative perspective.


Agreed. I think we have a fundamental difference which means we will never see eye to eye on this: you dislike DSU and never have it engaged, while I love DSU and have it permanently engaged. Those two polarities drive our placement choices for surround speakers.


----------



## cdelena

RMK! said:


> Thank you
> 
> The only "good" answer for multiple rows is more height speakers. Until more affordable  SSP/AVR's support more channels, I'm afraid it is a heavy lift to properly outfit for multiple rows. Of course, the Datasat owners and some brave souls who are using multiple AVR's can get more channels now, but for me the current setup is great and more channels aren't justifiable. If I do add a channel it will be the VOG for Auro 3D. Of course, that is dependant upon the availability of Auro source material and that isn't clear at this point (except for the nattering nabobs of negativism  ).
> 
> No regrets ...



This is really a timely post for me as I am struggling to decide on in-ceiling speaker placement and AVR choice. I have two rows similar to that pictured. Four on front row and three behind on a platform.


I was thinking about two speakers a couple of feet in forward of the front seats and two between the two rows so that the rear seats have coverage. My questions are...


- will four speakers in this limited foot-print be too much, distort the imaging, or be a wasted expense ?


- will using four atmos speakers require a more expensive 7.1.4 AVR or will the 7.1.2 units drive this configuration?


I was really impressed by a home demo of atmos but am finding that limited experience and the challenges fitting into my environment more than I expected.


----------



## jrogers

cdelena said:


> This is really a timely post for me as I am struggling to decide on in-ceiling speaker placement and AVR choice. I have two rows similar to that pictured. Four on front row and three behind on a platform.
> 
> 
> I was thinking about two speakers a couple of feet in forward of the front seats and two between the two rows so that the rear seats have coverage. My questions are...
> 
> 
> - will four speakers in this limited foot-print be too much, distort the imaging, or be a wasted expense ?
> 
> 
> - will using four atmos speakers require a more expensive 7.1.4 AVR or will the 7.1.2 units drive this configuration?
> 
> 
> I was really impressed by a home demo of atmos but am finding that limited experience and the challenges fitting into my environment more than I expected.


I'd pay more attention to what others who already have a 7.1.4 setup recommend, but fwiw, I think I'd go with TF and TR at max Dolby recommended angles from front row MLP (55 and 150 degrees respectively) assuming MLP is in front row. I'm personally waiting to see if DTS:X guidelines will impact placement, before moving from .2 to .4.


----------



## RMK!

cdelena said:


> This is really a timely post for me as I am struggling to decide on in-ceiling speaker placement and AVR choice. I have two rows similar to that pictured. Four on front row and three behind on a platform.
> 
> 
> I was thinking about two speakers a couple of feet in forward of the front seats and two between the two rows so that the rear seats have coverage. My questions are...
> 
> 
> - will four speakers in this limited foot-print be too much, distort the imaging, or be a wasted expense ?
> 
> 
> - will using four atmos speakers require a more expensive 7.1.4 AVR or will the 7.1.2 units drive this configuration?
> 
> 
> I was really impressed by a home demo of atmos but am finding that limited experience and the challenges fitting into my environment more than I expected.


I had a 7.1 setup prior to my Marantz AV-7702 Pre-Pro. I went to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup as the limit was 9 channels (or 10 if using Auro Center Height VOG). I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4. 

If you have room behind the back row for the rear heights (I don't) then I would go that way. The placement guidelines are just that and we must adapt to our room realities and budgets. I am happy with trading off my surround back speakers for the current 5.1.4 but certainly a properly done 7.1.4 would have advantages in the right space. Ignorance is bliss ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

stikle said:


> I lowered mine about a foot or so and noticed a BIG difference.


Just curious whether with BIG difference you are referring to DSU, Atmos or both?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Congratulations. Your life has changed (for the better) for ever. Best wishes to you all.


Thanks so much Keith, greatly appreciated!


----------



## stikle

maikeldepotter said:


> Just curious whether with BIG difference you are referring to DSU, Atmos or both?


Mainly DSU since, as Keith has pointed out, 99.98 of my media is non-Atmos.

The Atmos demo disc sounds amazing though.

Before I lowered the surrounds, it sounded good. Afterwards, the bubble is much more immersive to me.

I'm in the PermaDSU camp.


----------



## Csbooth

RMK! said:


> I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4


Most of the major brands have gear that can do 11ch processing, but only the Onkyo/Integra line will power all 11 as well.


----------



## Movie78

stikle said:


> I lowered mine about a foot or so and noticed a BIG difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched House of the Flying Daggers last night. As others have said...wow the bamboo forest scene was just crazy with appropriate overhead effects. Thank you DSU!


This DTS X wait is killing me.

I love HOUSE OF THE FLYING DRAGON...


----------



## Chesebro

`xwví


----------



## Nalleh

RMK! said:


> I had a 7.1 setup prior to my Marantz AV-7702 Pre-Pro. I went to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup as the limit was 9 channels (or 10 if using Auro Center Height VOG). I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4.


Your 7702 supports 11 channel Atmos, or 7.1.4 !


----------



## NorthSky

RMK! said:


> I had a 7.1 setup prior to my Marantz AV-7702 Pre-Pro. I went to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup as the limit was 9 channels (or 10 if using Auro Center Height VOG). I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4.
> 
> If you have room behind the back row for the rear heights (I don't) then I would go that way. The placement guidelines are just that and we must adapt to our room realities and budgets. I am happy with trading off my surround back speakers for the current 5.1.4 but certainly a properly done 7.1.4 would have advantages in the right space. Ignorance is bliss ...


The Marantz AV7702 SSP supports 11.2 channels. ...So you can have a Dolby Atmos 7.2.4 setup, or a 9.2.2 one (or less of course). 

Other Denon/Marantz products also supporting 11 channels are: Marantz AV8802 SSP, Marantz SR7009 AVR, Denon AVR-X7200W, and Denon AVR-X5200W. 
{All of them support an 11.2-channel setup; only the Denon AVR-X4100W supports less, with 9.2 channels.}

* In your room (if it was my room) I would add those two Back surround speakers. ...You have enough room (very manageable in your superb room), and you also have the means (financially). ...And two back speakers plus some speaker wires are inexpensive, even with installation (you could do, or your friend could do for you, with a trade). 

"The worst enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but the self-assurance of knowing." - Bob (me)


----------



## Josh Z

Dave Vaughn said:


> This is exactly why I didn't move my surround speakers one bit when installing my Atmos system. If it ain't broke...


If the ceiling in my HT were higher, I would probably have left my Surrounds elevated as well. Unfortunately, if I did that, I'd have hardly any separation between the base layer and the height layer.

I suspect a lot of people have this problem, which is probably why Dolby recommends lowering the Surrounds in the first place.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> The Marantz AV7702 SSP supports 11.2 channels. ...So you can have a Dolby Atmos 7.2.4 setup, or a 9.2.2 one (or less of course).
> 
> Other Denon/Marantz products also supporting 11 channels are: Marantz AV8802 SSP, Marantz SR7009 AVR, Denon AVR-X7200W, and Denon AVR-X5200W.
> {All of them support an 11.2-channel setup; only the Denon AVR-X4100W supports less, with 9.2 channels.}


X7200W and X5200W can only process 9 channels in order to do 11 channels you'll need an additional 2 channel external amplifier..


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> X7200W and X5200W can only process 9 channels in order to do 11 channels you'll need an additional 2 channel external amplifier..


Correct, that's what I did to get power to all 11 channels on my X5200W.


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> This DTS X wait is killing me.
> 
> I love HOUSE OF THE FLYING DRAGON...


That is a great movie IMO and DSU really adds to the enjoyment. The bamboo forest scene especially is really enhanced by DSU, but there are also plenty of other scenes where DSU kicks in very effectively.


----------



## chi_guy50

RMK! said:


> Thank you
> 
> The only "good" answer for multiple rows is more height speakers. Until more affordable  SSP/AVR's support more channels, I'm afraid it is a heavy lift to properly outfit for multiple rows. Of course, the Datasat owners and some brave souls who are using multiple AVR's can get more channels now, but for me the current setup is great and more channels aren't justifiable. If I do add a channel it will be the VOG for Auro 3D. Of course, that is dependant upon the availability of Auro source material and that isn't clear at this point (*except for the nattering nabobs of negativism*  ).
> 
> No regrets ...





RMK! said:


> I had a 7.1 setup prior to my Marantz AV-7702 Pre-Pro. I went to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup as the limit was 9 channels (or 10 if using Auro Center Height VOG). I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4.
> 
> If you have room behind the back row for the rear heights (I don't) then I would go that way. The placement guidelines are just that and we must adapt to our room realities and budgets. I am happy with trading off my surround back speakers for the current 5.1.4 but certainly a properly done 7.1.4 would have advantages in the right space. *Ignorance is bliss* ...


In consecutive posts you quote first Spiro Agnew and then Thomas Gray? Talk about going from the ridiculous to the sublime!!! 

But bear in mind that the line (from one of my favorite poems of all time) is "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." If you're following this thread you can no longer plead ignorance of what you may be missing, so no bliss for you, my friend. (And we all feel sorry for you having to make do with that sumptuous dedicated HT.)

Also note that the preceding lines to the one you quote from Gray's "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College" are often espoused here by us early adopters of Atmos: "... sorrow never comes too late, and happiness too swiftly flies." IOW: Carpe diem!


----------



## Selden Ball

RMK! said:


> I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4.


In the D+M equipment lineup which can provide 11 simultaneously active channels, there are the Denon X5200W & X7200W and Marantz SR7009 receivers. All need at least one external stereo amp to drive their full complement of speakers, though. Of course, the 11 channel Marantz AV7702 and AV8802 pre/pros need an external amp channel for each speaker. (They all support 13 speaker channels, although only 11 of them can be active at the same time.)


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> That is a great movie IMO and DSU really adds to the enjoyment. The bamboo forest scene especially is really enhanced by DSU, but there are also plenty of other scenes where DSU kicks in very effectively.


I just ordered Curse of the Golden Flower, since "other people also bought" it. 

Any other recommendations?

Oh hey...um...er...Atmos!

There, back on topic.


----------



## RMK!

Nalleh said:


> Your 7702 supports 11 channel Atmos, or 7.1.4 !


Of course it's 7.1.4 max. In a room the size of mine (3600 CF), more than 4 ceiling speakers is (IMHO) excessive. Also, for music having capable speakers that are a reasonable timbre/efficiency match for the mains is advisable. I have been pleasantly surprised at the level of activity of the ceiling speakers when using Auro-3D and Atmos music demo material. Granted, those are "Sunday Samples" but they present a very compelling case for their use for M/C music.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> I just ordered Curse of the Golden Flower, since "other people also bought" it.
> 
> Any other recommendations?
> 
> Oh hey...um...er...Atmos!
> 
> There, back on topic.


Of that sort of movie, *Hero* is very accessible and has some scenes which really benefit from DSU. Great action/martial arts movie.

Movies of similar genre that I have in my collection include, from memory:



Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Fist of Legend
Red Cliff I & II
Jet Li's Fearless
Legend of the Fist, Return of Chen Zhen
Ran
Ip man
Detective Dee (various movies)
Ip Man 2
Flying Swords of Dragon Gate
Ong-Bak


----------



## Nalleh

RMK! said:


> Of course it's 7.1.4 max. In a room the size of mine (3600 CF), more than 4 ceiling speakers is (IMHO) excessive. Also, for music having capable speakers that are a reasonable timbre/efficiency match for the mains is advisable. I have been pleasantly surprised at the level of activity of the ceiling speakers when using Auro-3D and Atmos music demo material. Granted, those are "Sunday Samples" but they present a very compelling case for their use for M/C music.


You said you have a 5.1.4 Atmos setup, meaning you do not use surround backs. Like Northsky i would definitly recommend mounting 2 surround backs for the full 7.1.4. Your setup deserves it


----------



## Movie78

stikle said:


> I just ordered Curse of the Golden Flower, since "other people also bought" it.
> 
> Any other recommendations?
> 
> Oh hey...um...er...Atmos!
> 
> There, back on topic.


Rise of the Legend.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> I just ordered Curse of the Golden Flower, since "other people also bought" it.
> 
> Any other recommendations?


----------



## batpig

I feel like this whole surround height issue is really a matter of degree. 

The "common wisdom" for Atmos/DSU (starting with Dolby docs and ensuing related discussion) is to have the surrounds as low as possible, while still being high enough to clear everyone's head so the sound isn't blocked. That's probably about a 1-2 foot elevation above ear level. 

Let's say you want to (or do) have well positioned surrounds in a dedicated home space at a 15-20 elevation like the cinemas. In a typical room if your surrounds are 7-8 feet to either side from the center point, a 15 degree elevation is pretty much exactly 2 feet above ear level. That fits fairly perfectly with both paradigms (surrounds as low as possible while still above heads vs. surrounds at theatrical elevations).

I think the only problem is the people who, due to compromised environments and/or bad decisions, have their surrounds WAY up high, like 3-4 feet above ear level or worse in the ceiling. These are the people who should be lowering surrounds. The "theatrical dude" with surrounds slightly elevated can still achieve plenty of separation between overheads and surrounds in the 10-20 degree elevation range and probably even be within the "1.25 times ear height" arbitrary formula noted by Dolby.


----------



## RapalloAV

Confused 


Guys Ive just realised something is wrong with my setup.


I have the 5200 with two Emotiva 5 channel amps, using three fronts, low surrounds, L&R rears, front highs and surround highs.
I have my amps setup for Atmos 7 + 4 highs, but they only show as top front highs which is ok, the other pair are set as top rears, this is incorrect for me and should be top middle as they are directly above my surrounds.


There seems to be no way I can change the top rears to top middle which is where they are positioned. Whats wrong with my setup, I just don't get it.


The sound on DSU is fantastic but I fear my top middle surrounds are actually playing as top rears, this must throw things out somewhat????


----------



## bargervais

RapalloAV said:


> Confused
> 
> 
> Guys Ive just realised something is wrong with my setup.
> 
> 
> I have the 5200 with two Emotiva 5 channel amps, using three fronts, low surrounds, L&R rears, front highs and surround highs.
> I have my amps setup for Atmos 7 + 4 highs, but they only show as top front highs which is ok, the other pair are set as top rears, this is incorrect for me and should be top middle as they are directly above my surrounds.
> 
> 
> There seems to be no way I can change the top rears to top middle which is where they are positioned. Whats wrong with my setup, I just don't get it.
> 
> 
> The sound on DSU is fantastic but I fear my top middle surrounds are actually playing as top rears, this must throw things out somewhat????


No nothing is thrown out I have front high top middle.


----------



## RMK!

Nalleh said:


> You said you have a 5.1.4 Atmos setup, meaning you do not use surround backs. Like Northsky i would definitly recommend mounting 2 surround backs for the full 7.1.4. Your setup deserves it


I appreciate the comments but honestly think that would be a negligible gain move. I have used very capable surround backs for years and always felt they were unnecessary. Eliminating them sealed the deal but I know better than to say never.


----------



## RapalloAV

bargervais said:


> No nothing is thrown out I have front high top middle.



I don't think you understand what I have said here....
I have top middle speakers but the amp selection labels them as rear top not top middle, this is incorrect.


----------



## Josh Z

RapalloAV said:


> I have the 5200 with two Emotiva 5 channel amps, using three fronts, low surrounds, L&R rears, front highs and surround highs.
> 
> I have my amps setup for Atmos 7 + 4 highs, but they only show as top front highs which is ok, the other pair are set as top rears, this is incorrect for me and should be top middle as they are directly above my surrounds.
> 
> There seems to be no way I can change the top rears to top middle which is where they are positioned. Whats wrong with my setup, I just don't get it.


The Denon implementation of Atmos and DSU will not let you set two pairs of heights directly adjacent to one another. There needs to be at least one empty position in between. If you relabel your Top Front speakers are Front Height, the receiver will open up Top Middle as an option.



> The sound on DSU is fantastic but I fear my top middle surrounds are actually playing as top rears, this must throw things out somewhat????


Honestly, I doubt you're losing anything. You can play around with it, but I'd be very surprised if you hear any difference between Front Height/Top Middle or Top Front/Top Rear.


----------



## bargervais

RapalloAV said:


> I don't think you understand what I have said here....
> I have top middle speakers but the amp selection labels them as rear top not top middle, this is incorrect.


Sorry yes you should label them top middle but I believe (maybe someone can chime in) they will sound the same as what you have with them labeled rear high.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi to all I am going to install front height on top of wall speakers in my setup to be used for front atmos duties in a 5.1.4 setup and prob for Auro3d if i pay for upgrade. Can someone please tell me i know the speakers should be positioned at aound 30 degrees from mlp but do they need to be directly above left and right speakers ? Or is this not so important ?


----------



## bargervais

RapalloAV said:


> I don't think you understand what I have said here....
> I have top middle speakers but the amp selection labels them as rear top not top middle, this is incorrect.


Your only choices when you use front high on height1 your only choices for height2 would be top middle or Rear High unless your using enabled speakers which I assume your using in ceiling speakers. I don't believe your missing anything.


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> Confused
> 
> 
> Guys Ive just realised something is wrong with my setup.
> 
> 
> I have the 5200 with two Emotiva 5 channel amps, using three fronts, low surrounds, L&R rears, front highs and surround highs.
> I have my amps setup for Atmos 7 + 4 highs, but they only show as top front highs which is ok, the other pair are set as top rears, this is incorrect for me and should be top middle as they are directly above my surrounds.
> 
> 
> There seems to be no way I can change the top rears to top middle which is where they are positioned. Whats wrong with my setup, I just don't get it.
> 
> 
> The sound on DSU is fantastic but I fear my top middle surrounds are actually playing as top rears, this must throw things out somewhat????


I'm not sure why you believe you can't change the speaker position designations. Something to do with the southern hemispherical twist?

In the menu, go to Audyssey Setup > Amp Assign > -Height Layout; there you should be able to toggle between the possible speaker pair designations (note that on the graphic it should show that the connections are made thru the pre-outs to your external amps where this is the case). I'm assuming, of course, that you have selected "11.1ch" amp assign mode.

If you change the height layout you'll probably want to run Audyssey calibration again, although I doubt there will be any difference in the outcome as a result of this particular change but it certainly couldn't hurt.

ETA: I am also assuming that by "top front highs" you mean Front Height. You can not have Top Front and Top Middle as those pairs are continguous.


----------



## RapalloAV

bargervais said:


> Sorry yes you should label them top middle but I believe (maybe someone can chime in) they will sound the same as what you have with them labeled rear high.



Oh really, I would have thought the sound from top middle would be different to top rear.....
Since the MLP is in the middle of the room and the top middle are directly above the surrounds, I would have thought the sound coming from the top middle should be top middle, not top rear.


But if its exactly the same sound and doesn't sound odd, Ill just leave it as that.


----------



## RapalloAV

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm not sure why you believe you can't change the speaker position designations. Something to do with the southern hemispherical twist?
> 
> In the menu, go to Audyssey Setup > Amp Assign > -Height Layout; there you should be able to toggle between the possible speaker pair designations (note that on the graphic it should show that the connections are made thru the pre-outs to your external amps where this is the case). I'm assuming, of course, that you have selected "11.1ch" amp assign mode.
> 
> If you change the height layout you'll probably want to run Audyssey calibration again, although I doubt there will be any difference in the outcome as a result of this particular change but it certainly couldn't hurt.
> 
> ETA: I am also assuming that by "top front highs" you mean Front Height. You can not have Top Front and Top Middle as those pairs are continguous.



No I haven't set it as 11.1, I set it up for Atmos 7.1.4 which only allows top front and top rear.


I tried to do it as normal 11.1 but that's always asking for wides.


----------



## bargervais

RapalloAV said:


> Oh really, I would have thought the sound from top middle would be different to top rear.....
> Since the MLP is in the middle of the room and the top middle are directly above the surrounds, I would have thought the sound coming from the top middle should be top middle, not top rear.
> 
> 
> But if its exactly the same sound and doesn't sound odd, Ill just leave it as that.


It's easy to change their label go ahead and experiment and see what you prefer I think you'll find that there's no difference.


----------



## pasender91

bargervais said:


> It's easy to change their label go ahead and experiment and see what you prefer I think you'll find that there's no difference.


There must be a difference in the signal of Top Middle and Top Rear, else why would the different names and positions exist?
Based on the average vertical angles of 90° (Top Middle) and 135° (Top Rear), let's assume there is a 45° difference in the signal based on the objects locations. 
45° is quite a lot, so my take is that indeed you could hear a difference or a signal shift when changing the Atmos setting between those positions....


----------



## Josh Z

RapalloAV said:


> Oh really, I would have thought the sound from top middle would be different to top rear.....
> Since the MLP is in the middle of the room and the top middle are directly above the surrounds, I would have thought the sound coming from the top middle should be top middle, not top rear.


In theory, perhaps. In application, most of the sounds in the height channels are non-directional ambient sounds and music.

With Denon receivers, you definitely should use the 11.1 amp assign setting, rather than "Atmos." It's confusing and not well explained, but the latter is only intended for when you use Atmos-enabled speaker modules. 

When you do your Audyssey calibration, the initial sweep will try to detect Front Wide speakers. When it doesn't find any, it will ignore them when you move to the next mic position.


----------



## RapalloAV

Josh Z said:


> In theory, perhaps. In application, most of the sounds in the height channels are non-directional ambient sounds and music.
> 
> With Denon receivers, you definitely should use the 11.1 amp assign setting, rather than "Atmos." It's confusing and not well explained, but the latter is only intended for when you use Atmos-enabled speaker modules.
> 
> When you do your Audyssey calibration, the initial sweep will try to detect Front Wide speakers. When it doesn't find any, it will ignore them when you move to the next mic position.



OMG really, there is nothing I see in the manual that says in the setup page we shouldn't use the Atmos 7.1.4 setup if we use inceiling Atmos top speakers. That's a shocker!


So in other words I set mine up incorrectly weeks ago.


----------



## batpig

RapalloAV said:


> OMG really, there is nothing I see in the manual that says in the setup page we shouldn't use the Atmos 7.1.4 setup if we use inceiling Atmos top speakers. That's a shocker!
> 
> 
> So in other words I set mine up incorrectly weeks ago.


It's not "incorrect" per se, it's that the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode is inflexible. It locks you into either Top Middle (one pair of overheads) or Top Front + Top Rear (two pairs) and forces you to use an external amp for Top Rear if you are doing full 11ch.

Using the 11.1ch amp assign mode gives you a lot more flexibility -- you can change the amp mapping (e.g. to use an external amp for the fronts and internal amps for the Top Rear) and also choose other height layouts (like Front Height + Top Middle which would be more appropriate for you it seems).

We figured this out a long time ago in the X4100/X5200 owner's thread. Basically pretend the "Dolby Atmos" and "Auro3D" amp assign modes don't exist and use "11.1ch" mode so you have more flexibility. It's an unfortunately confusing design in the Denon/Marantz GUI.

No harm done -- just change the settings and re-run Audyssey.


----------



## bargervais

pasender91 said:


> There must be a difference in the signal of Top Middle and Top Rear, else why would the different names and positions exist?
> Based on the average vertical angles of 90° (Top Middle) and 135° (Top Rear), let's assume there is a 45° difference in the signal based on the objects locations.
> 45° is quite a lot, so my take is that indeed you could hear a difference or a signal shift when changing the Atmos setting between those positions....


Yes I understand he was asking seeing as he had his speakers in a top middle position but but called them top rear


----------



## Josh Z

RapalloAV said:


> So in other words I set mine up incorrectly weeks ago.


Batpig beat me to what I was just about to write.

Realistically, if you're getting sounds from the correct speaker positions when you run test tones, it's probably fine and you probably won't hear much difference if you change all the settings and recalibrate. Personally, I would do it anyway if it were me, if only to assuage my OCD and stop me from stressing about it any further.


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> Batpig beat me to what I was just about to write.
> 
> Realistically, if you're getting sounds from the correct speaker positions when you run test tones, it's probably fine and you probably won't hear much difference if you change all the settings and recalibrate. Personally, I would do it anway if it were me, if only to assuage my OCD and stop me from stressing about it any further.


Yes, my Denon X5200W is set for 7.1.4 using top fronts and top rears (using external amp) and I'm not going to change it for 11.1 because I don't think it would make much if any difference.


----------



## RapalloAV

lujan said:


> Yes, my Denon X5200W is set for 7.1.4 using top fronts and top rears (using external amp) and I'm not going to change it for 11.1 because I don't think it would make much if any difference.



Do you have inceiling top speakers?
If so they say we shouldn't setup using the Atmos 7.1.4 amp assign, its for up firing Atmos speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> Do you have inceiling top speakers?
> If so they say we shouldn't setup using the Atmos 7.1.4 amp assign, its for up firing Atmos speakers.


Murray,

There's an old axiom around these here parts that you might want to bear in mind: When all else fails, do it the way batpig told you to do it.


----------



## batpig

RapalloAV said:


> Do you have inceiling top speakers?
> If so they say we shouldn't setup using the Atmos 7.1.4 amp assign, its for up firing Atmos speakers.


No, the "Atmos" amp assign is NOT for up-firing Atmos enabled speakers. It's for the "stock" Atmos layouts -- either 5.1.2/7.1.2 with Top Middle, or 5.1.4/7.1.4 with Top Front + Top Rear.

In order to use up-firing speakers you have to use 11.1ch mode and then select "Using Dolby enabled speakers" in the Height assignment.


----------



## RapalloAV

batpig said:


> No, the "Atmos" amp assign is NOT for up-firing Atmos enabled speakers. It's for the "stock" Atmos layouts -- either 5.1.2/7.1.2 with Top Middle, or 5.1.4/7.1.4 with Top Front + Top Rear.
> 
> In order to use up-firing speakers you have to use 11.1ch mode and then select "Using Dolby enabled speakers" in the Height assignment.


Sorry about that, just quoting what someone else referred to here today.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> Well, as long as you are satisfied, that's what is important. But you are the first i have heard who prefer no DSU. The general opinion after listening to DSU is Awsome! Mindblowing! So cool! Etc...


I am looking forward to hearing Stikle's system this weekend for another perspective.



> Atmos flat? Thats the last thing i think of when playing Atmos


I'm only talking about when the height channels are silent. Then it is the same as regular 7.1.



> Yes, and the spread is even better in DSU. The heights are far more active in DSU than Atmos.


Yes, they are active a lot more in DSU than Atmos, and active almost 100% of the time in AuroMatic. But we should distinguish between duration and spatial characteristics. I think occasional presence of well crafted height sounds is much more interesting than full time ambience.



> I respect your opinon, but that 5.1/7.1 is natural and not flat, while DSU W/heights is flat and not natural sounds very strange to me.


If it is natural, we'd all have been placing our surrounds at ear level for the last 20+ years. Also, this is how Josh_Z and maikeldepotter described it. 



> Not clear on what you meant here?


Just observing that since you have the surrounds at ear level, the value of DSU understandably comes through very well. 



> This one is my fault(remember Norwegian, right), but what is correlated and un correlated?


A phantom center vocal is an example of correlated sound in 2 channels. Same signal. Uncorrelated sounds would be the instruments that spread out on a nice stereo effect. Another example of correlated sound would be a mono recording of rain, while an uncorrelated example would be rain recorded from 2 spaced microphones.



> Because there was no other alternative, and at the time the only way to simulate height.


The prime motive was not to simulate height. It was to distribute the sound evenly across the large audience. The lower the surrounds are mounted, the less uniform the sound levels are across the audience. And as much as that was already a problem, it just got worse because surround sounds are no longer always spread across the whole wall's speaker array. Now with objet panning we can have sound concentrated to 1-2 speakers, which has already been found to irritate folks sitting near the sides of the audience. I dare say things would be even worse if the surrounds were lowered. For these reasons, I do not expect cinemas (or dub stages) to lower their surrounds. But if they do, I will surely consider it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> If you assume that:
> 1) Atmos re-recording mixing studios use elevated surrounds,
> 2) their position has been accurately programmed into the Atmos mixing tool,
> 3) in re-mixing the home mix, metadata for object positioning are not adjusted, and
> 4) the consumer Atmos playback renderer assumes surrounds at listener's level.
> 
> This would imply that:
> All the objects that are positioned at surround speaker level in the re-recording mixing studio, will at home end up being panned between surround speakers and height speakers. In other words, if the re-recording engineer decides not address the height speakers in panning an helicopter object, the heights at home will still come into action to pan the sound from listener level speakers to the right elevated height.
> 
> From the reviews I have read this does not seem to be happening. So which of the 4 assumption is false. Or am I missing something?


2). In all cases, the main speakers are assumed to be at zero elevation. The idea is to prevent the objects panned through the main speakers from being spread upward.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


>


I did not think that we'd see Atmos mixes on top of 5.1, only 7.1. Typo?


----------



## lujan

RapalloAV said:


> Do you have inceiling top speakers?
> If so they say we shouldn't setup using the Atmos 7.1.4 amp assign, its for up firing Atmos speakers.





batpig said:


> No, the "Atmos" amp assign is NOT for up-firing Atmos enabled speakers. It's for the "stock" Atmos layouts -- either 5.1.2/7.1.2 with Top Middle, or 5.1.4/7.1.4 with Top Front + Top Rear.
> 
> In order to use up-firing speakers you have to use 11.1ch mode and then select "Using Dolby enabled speakers" in the Height assignment.


I have the in ceiling top speakers and have it assigned as 7.1.4 so this should be correct?


----------



## Nalleh

RMK! said:


> I appreciate the comments but honestly think that would be a negligible gain move. I have used very capable surround backs for years and always felt they were unnecessary. Eliminating them sealed the deal but I know better than to say never.


Well, if you have tried 7.1 before, then ok. But with all due respect, Atmos is another ballgame, so i would still urge you to reconcider surround backs. Even just temporary, to try with Atmos.



Roger Dressler said:


> I am looking forward to hearing Stikle's system this weekend for another perspective.


To be honest with you, i think it would probably take a lot to surpass your setup, but it is never wrong to get some new inputs 



Roger Dressler said:


> I'm only talking about when the height channels are silent. Then it is the same as regular 7.1.


In Atmos, when the heights are silent, it's for a reason.



Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, they are active a lot more in DSU than Atmos, and active almost 100% of the time in AuroMatic. But we should distinguish between duration and spatial characteristics. I think occasional presence of well crafted height sounds is much more interesting than full time ambience.


They are more active than Atmos, but my impression is not that they are "on all the time", like channels copied, or "just for ambiance" or "all channel stereo". If that was what i heard, i would NOT use DSU/ Auromatic. They make sounds when it is expected, as i see it. And that's what amazes me!



Roger Dressler said:


> If it is natural, we'd all have been placing our surrounds at ear level for the last 20+ years. Also, this is how Josh_Z and maikeldepotter described it.


No, because we did not have ceiling speakers and Atmos 20 years ago.



Roger Dressler said:


> Just observing that since you have the surrounds at ear level, the value of DSU understandably comes through very well.


Ok, got it 



Roger Dressler said:


> A phantom center vocal is an example of correlated sound in 2 channels. Same signal. Uncorrelated sounds would be the instruments that spread out on a nice stereo effect. Another example of correlated sound would be a mono recording of rain, while an uncorrelated example would be rain recorded from 2 spaced microphones.


Ok, thanks.



Roger Dressler said:


> The prime motive was not to simulate height. It was to distribute the sound evenly across the large audience. The lower the surrounds are mounted, the less uniform the sound levels are across the audience. And as much as that was already a problem, it just got worse because surround sounds are no longer always spread across the whole wall's speaker array. Now with objet panning we can have sound concentrated to 1-2 speakers, which has already been found to irritate folks sitting near the sides of the audience. I dare say things would be even worse if the surrounds were lowered. For these reasons, I do not expect cinemas (or dub stages) to lower their surrounds. But if they do, I will surely consider it.


Yes, i see what you mean, but "the old way" was a big compromise in several ways. But we evolve.

Anyway, i guess for you it would be difficult to lower them, since you have inwall surrounds, and i think you probably are within Atmos spec anyway (1.25 x ear level).

However, it was not the "high" surrounds i found strange, but the preference of "no DSU" when watching legacy content.

Footnote:
When i got Atmos, i experimented a lot with both the surrounds and the heights. I graded the heights on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is "insane":
Speakers tested where Klipsch RS42, Dynavoice S5, Dynavoice FX-4 and Patos basic 110.

-assigned-degrees-speakers-caracter-

FH/TM 42/95" S5/FX-4 =Good 7
FH/TM 42/85" S5/FX-4 =Very good 8 
TF/TR 42/120" RS42x4 =Reduced!! 4
FH/TM 42/120" RS42x4 =Better 7.5
FH/TM 42/85" RS42x4 =Hmm, Not so good 6
FH/TM 42/85" Patos/S5 =Best so far!!9.4
TF/TR 50/120" RS42/Patos=hmm 9
TF/TR 50/120" S5/Patos=8 meh
FH/TM 42/85" S5/Patos =9.2 very good
FH/TM 42/85" RS42/S5 = 9,4?!


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> No, the "Atmos" amp assign is NOT for up-firing Atmos enabled speakers. It's for the "stock" Atmos layouts -- either 5.1.2/7.1.2 with Top Middle, or 5.1.4/7.1.4 with Top Front + Top Rear.
> 
> In order to use up-firing speakers you have to use 11.1ch mode and then select "Using Dolby enabled speakers" in the Height assignment.


I stand corrected.


----------



## Wild Blue

RMK! said:


> I had a 7.1 setup prior to my Marantz AV-7702 Pre-Pro. I went to a 5.1.4 Atmos setup as the limit was 9 channels (or 10 if using Auro Center Height VOG). I believe only one Denon and one Marantz AVR's support Atmos with the 11 channels necessary for 7.1.4.
> 
> If you have room behind the back row for the rear heights (I don't) then I would go that way. The placement guidelines are just that and we must adapt to our room realities and budgets. I am happy with trading off my surround back speakers for the current 5.1.4 but certainly a properly done 7.1.4 would have advantages in the right space. Ignorance is bliss ...


Wait, as others have pointed out, the 7702 processes 11.2. The limit isn't 9 channels, (10 with Auro VOG) it's 11 (12 with Auro VOG)



RMK! said:


> Of course it's 7.1.4 max. In a room the size of mine (3600 CF), more than 4 ceiling speakers is (IMHO) excessive. Also, for music having capable speakers that are a reasonable timbre/efficiency match for the mains is advisable. I have been pleasantly surprised at the level of activity of the ceiling speakers when using Auro-3D and Atmos music demo material. Granted, those are "Sunday Samples" but they present a very compelling case for their use for M/C music.


Yup! Sounds like there was no need for you to lose your rear surrounds. No trade-off needed. You could have kept your 7.1, and added the 4 ceiling speakers for 7.1.4. Or are you saying you think all 11 speakers would have cluttered your room too much, and that's why you removed your rear surrounds when you added the ceilings?


----------



## Wild Blue

Josh Z said:


> With Denon receivers, you definitely should use the 11.1 amp assign setting, rather than "Atmos." It's confusing and not well explained, but the latter is only intended for when you use Atmos-enabled speaker modules.


THANK YOU for this! I haven't added ceiling speakers to my 7.1 setup yet, but was reading the Marantz 7702 manual to prepare. I didn't understand what the difference was, if you installed a 7.1.4 setup, between choosing the setup option of 11.1 vs. Atmos. It sounds like, from Batpig's post below, though, that the opposite is actually true?



batpig said:


> No, the "Atmos" amp assign is NOT for up-firing Atmos enabled speakers. It's for the "stock" Atmos layouts -- either 5.1.2/7.1.2 with Top Middle, or 5.1.4/7.1.4 with Top Front + Top Rear.
> 
> In order to use up-firing speakers you have to use 11.1ch mode and then select "Using Dolby enabled speakers" in the Height assignment.


Cool. So if I understand correctly, to properly set up a Marantz AV7702 with 7.1 surrounds and 4 ceiling speakers, one would choose "Atmos".  "11.1" amp assign setting should be used for Atmos enabled speakers.


----------



## RMK!

Chris Dotur said:


> Wait, as others have pointed out, the 7702 processes 11.2. The limit isn't 9 channels, (10 with Auro VOG) it's 11 (12 with Auro VOG)
> 
> 
> 
> Yup! Sounds like there was no need for you to lose your rear surrounds. No trade-off needed. You could have kept your 7.1, and added the 4 ceiling speakers for 7.1.4. Or are you saying you think all 11 speakers would have cluttered your room too much, and that's why you removed your rear surrounds when you added the ceilings?


I don't believe that surround backs are a good idea unless you have enough space behind the back row of seats. I did not have enough space because my back row is only 2' off of the back wall. All of the Atmos/Auro-3D pans around the room sound great with 5.1.4 and I can always add the SB's back in but at this point, I don't feel they are necessary.


----------



## batpig

Let me put it a different way...

The DOLBY Atmos amp assign mode is a limited subset of 11.1ch mode. There is nothing you can do in Atmos amp assign mode that you couldn't do in 11.1ch mode. But there are many things you can't do in Atmos amp assign mode. 

Basically, just use 11.1ch mode for any 11ch+ setup. Unless you are running a "stock" Atmos config and don't want to be hassled with all the extra options.


----------



## batpig

Chris Dotur said:


> Wait, as others have pointed out, the 7702 processes 11.2. The limit isn't 9 channels, (10 with Auro VOG) it's 11 (12 with Auro VOG)


Almost. The 11ch limit is a hard stop. You can't do 12ch with Auro + VOG. If you use VOG you are limited to 10.1 Auro (no S.backs).


----------



## NorthSky

RMK! said:


> I don't believe that surround backs are a good idea unless you have enough space behind the back row of seats. I did not have enough space because my back row is only 2' off of the back wall. All of the Atmos/Auro-3D pans around the room sound great with 5.1.4 and I can always add the SB's back in but at this point, I don't feel they are necessary.


...Only two feet from the back row (back wall), but perfect distance from the front row.


----------



## gerchy

Yesterday I watched Mockingjay. So far the best Atmos soundtrack I've heard!



Nalleh said:


> In Atmos, when the heights are silent, it's for a reason.


Not really. There are PLENTY scenes in TF4 where there could be height effects! Sadly, the speakers are silent most of the time. I really hope this was just a beginner's error.


----------



## desray2k

gerchy said:


> Yesterday I watched Mockingjay. So far the best Atmos soundtrack I've heard!
> 
> 
> Not really. There are PLENTY scenes in TF4 where there could be height effects! Sadly, the speakers are silent most of the time. I really hope this was just a beginner's error.


+1 for the Audio mix in Atmos...but not with the PQ. The PQ lacks contrast and appeared rather "muted"...perhaps it it intentional by the director...compared to the last few Hunger Games release, this is easily the worst for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I did not think that we'd see Atmos mixes on top of 5.1, only 7.1. Typo?


Well spotted. I agree - must be a typo. Seems there's no doubt it's an Atmos mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Honestly, I doubt you're losing anything. You can play around with it, but I'd be very surprised if you hear any difference between Front Height/Top Middle or Top Front/Top Rear.


Mine are set as FH+TM. I did a brief experiment where I had them set as (IIRC) TF+TR. Couldn't hear any difference. Went back to FH+TM as this put the rear pair of speakers on spec for Dolby's recommended angles.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> They are more active than Atmos, but my impression is not that they are "on all the time", like channels copied, or "just for ambiance" or "all channel stereo". If that was what i heard, i would NOT use DSU/ Auromatic. They make sounds when it is expected, as i see it. And that's what amazes me!


This is very easy to verify. Switch off all of the speakers/subs other than the overhead speakers and play some content using Auromatic. If your theory is correct, you will have significant periods where there is no sound coming from the overhead speakers. (There will be odd occasions when they are silent, as is also the case with the listener level speakers now and then during a movie. But I believe you will find that if the listener level speakers are meant to be making noise, then the overheads will also be making noise, when Auromatic is used). Why not give it a try and report back for the team?


----------



## Wild Blue

Much thanks for all the info, Batpig.


----------



## Nalleh

gerchy said:


> Not really. There are PLENTY scenes in TF4 where there could be height effects! Sadly, the speakers are silent most of the time. I really hope this was just a beginner's error.


Yes, they are silent because they are mixed that way.



kbarnes701 said:


> This is very easy to verify. Switch off all of the speakers/subs other than the overhead speakers and play some content using Auromatic. If your theory is correct, you will have significant periods where there is no sound coming from the overhead speakers. (There will be odd occasions when they are silent, as is also the case with the listener level speakers now and then during a movie. But I believe you will find that if the listener level speakers are meant to be making noise, then the overheads will also be making noise, when Auromatic is used). Why not give it a try and report back for the team?


First of all, i did this, as reported in the Auro thread:



Nalleh said:


> I saw that video too, and i may be wrong, because i don't speak german, but thought he said that Auro-matic algoryhtm uses 56 different parameters to place sounds to the different speakers.
> 
> Also looked at this video:
> 
> http://youtu.be/1zUvhEWpZ9E
> 
> Where he tested Atmos vs DSU vs AURO-Matic on Tranformers 4. This was to see what sound is placed in the height speakers only. All other speakers was disconnected, and he puts a mic up to the height speakers to hear what is played.
> 
> I actually did the exact same test after looking at this video, and was amazed at the difference.
> 
> Expample: the steel cables in chapter 14, wich is very loud in Atmos, was completely silent in DSU, but worked very well in Auro-Matic. A very cool way of listening for the differences.


Second of all: i was talking about both upmixers, both DSU and Auromatic.
These height effects are not "in all channels" in neither upmixers, helicopters, thunder etc is CLEARLY from above. And likewise cars, voices etc is clearly from ear level.

Now, with the old upmixers, Neo, DSX etc., and surrounds mounted "the old way", ALL surround sounds came from the same "height plane", and although the surround sense around you was very good, not so much in the "several height planes" area.

Sidenote: Neo:X works SOOO much better on my 5200 than on my last AVR: Onkyo 3010. The front height is really easy too hear now, but almost no difference on the 3010 vs straight 5.1/7.1.


----------



## gerchy

Nalleh said:


> Yes, they are silent because they are mixed that way.


Yes, but that is just wrong IMHO. I think many would agree in such movies the heights should be heard very often.


----------



## Nalleh

gerchy said:


> Yes, but that is just wrong IMHO. I think many would agree in such movies the heights should be heard very often.


I agree, of course. Hopefully that will come, when they get more familiar with the format and it's posibillities.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> First of all, i did this, as reported in the Auro thread:
> 
> Second of all: i was talking about both upmixers, both DSU and Auromatic.
> These height effects are not "in all channels" in neither upmixers, helicopters, thunder etc is CLEARLY from above. And likewise cars, voices etc is clearly from ear level.


I was especially interested in Auromatic - I know what DSU does. Given that we know, with a very high degree of confidence/certainty, that Auromatic takes the 'base' channels and copies them wholly into the height speakers, with levels adjusted and reverb added, how would you explain that the Heights would be silent in an Auromatic playback when the corresponding listener level speakers were making noise?

Or are you saying that Auromatic does not simply make copies of the other channels? If the latter, how do you believe it works and what evidence can you cite to support any claim?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RMK! said:


> I don't believe that surround backs are a good idea unless you have enough space behind the back row of seats. I did not have enough space because my back row is only 2' off of the back wall. All of the Atmos/Auro-3D pans around the room sound great with 5.1.4 and I can always add the SB's back in but at this point, I don't feel they are necessary.


Does your prime seating row have enough space for rear surrounds? If so, then really that's all that matters. You can pretty much have only one or two sweet spots. Wire and place speakers accordingly IMHO.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I was especially interested in Auromatic - I know what DSU does. Given that we know, with a very high degree of confidence/certainty, that Auromatic takes the 'base' channels and copies them wholly into the height speakers, with levels adjusted and reverb added, how would you explain that the Heights would be silent in an Auromatic playback when the corresponding listener level speakers were making noise?
> 
> Or are you saying that Auromatic does not simply make copies of the other channels? If the latter, how do you believe it works and what evidence can you cite to support any claim?


I have no clue how these upmixers work, and although the "height speakers only" is a interesting test, it is not the whole story, by any means.
Example, earlier you did a test with height speakers only regarding TF+TR vs FH+TM, and could not hear a difference. I did the same test only with all speakers on, and i could hear a difference.

Both upmixers get the height info from the base channels, does "something" to it, and puts it in the height speakers.

I am not saying the height is silent in Auromatic, i can only report what i hear when the whole system is playing.
And that is that Auromatic is at least as good, and sometimes better than DSU in upmixing to the heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> I have no clue how these upmixers work, and although the "height speakers only" is a interesting test, it is not the whole story, by any means.
> Example, earlier you did a test with height speakers only regarding TF+TR vs FH+TM, and could not hear a difference. I did the same test only with all speakers on, and i could hear a difference.
> 
> Both upmixers get the height info from the base channels, does "something" to it, and puts it in the height speakers.
> 
> I am not saying the height is silent in Auromatic, i can only report what i hear when the whole system is playing.
> And that is that Auromatic is at least as good, and sometimes better than DSU in upmixing to the heights.


I certainly respect your opinion. But the easy way to ascertain if Auromatic is doing what we think it is doing is to switch off all the other speakers and subs and just listen to the height speakers. Having the entire system playing makes it very difficult to isolate what is happening. If you don't care to do that test that's fine. I can't do it as I don't have Auro. Maybe someone else will take it up?


----------



## mp5475

Does anyone know if mocking jay on redox is atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mp5475 said:


> Does anyone know if mocking jay on redbox is atmos?


It's Dolby Digital lossy like the movie-only Walmart Exclusive. Lionsgate dumbs their rental discs down and apparently certain Walmart discs too.


----------



## mp5475

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's Dolby Digital lossy like the movie-only Walmart Exclusive. Lionsgate dumbs their rental discs down and apparently certain Walmart discs too.


Thanks for the info. I guess another movie that I will buy to only watch it once. Although, I thought John wick was the best sounding of atmos release so far. It now is my go to disk for calibration and showing off.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I certainly respect your opinion. But the easy way to ascertain if Auromatic is doing what we think it is doing is to switch off all the other speakers and subs and just listen to the height speakers. Having the entire system playing makes it very difficult to isolate what is happening. If you don't care to do that test that's fine. I can't do it as I don't have Auro. Maybe someone else will take it up?



Just a reminder that I watched the German-language video Nalleh references above (where the test you suggest is performed) and provided a summary of its main points here. The tester's conclusion was that Auro-matic did a better job than DSU in producing height effects for the subject movie scenes, and both were better than Atmos in this regard on these particular films.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I certainly respect your opinion. But the easy way to ascertain if Auromatic is doing what we think it is doing is to switch off all the other speakers and subs and just listen to the height speakers. Having the entire system playing makes it very difficult to isolate what is happening. If you don't care to do that test that's fine. I can't do it as I don't have Auro. Maybe someone else will take it up?


I can certainly do such a test very easy, as i not only have both Atmos and Auro, but i can switch instantly between full modes. But with a movie scene it is difficult to trace spesific sounds, and seperate them. I need a test disc to do it properly.

Another thing: unlike getting a demo of Atmos or Auro on a big trade show, with different rooms, different gear etc, those of us with both systems can do a comparison in our own HT's, with the same room, same gear etc, and can easy hear pros and cons. Isn't that the best way to test?


----------



## stikle

Roger Dressler said:


> I am looking forward to hearing Stikle's system this weekend for another perspective.





Nalleh said:


> To be honest with you, i think it would probably take a lot to surpass your setup, but it is never wrong to get some new inputs


I have no doubt you are correct.  I'm just a guy that's managed to turn a regular room into a "theater" experience. I don't know anything (yet) about room correction or advanced calibration, but I'm extremely pleased with how it's turned out so far. Some day I may have a house with an actual dedicated room to turn into a fully furnished and decorated theater. I hope.  But until then I think I represent what the average consumer can accomplish.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> 2). In all cases, the main speakers are assumed to be at zero elevation. The idea is to prevent the objects panned through the main speakers from being spread upward.


With 'main speakers' you are referring to LCR _and_ surrounds?


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's Dolby Digital lossy like the movie-only Walmart Exclusive. Lionsgate dumbs their rental discs down and apparently certain Walmart discs too.


I think you are correct in general, but that is not a hard-and-fast rule. I have recently watched some Lionsgate BRD's via Netflix rental that had the lossless codec (i.e., Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA) such as this one _ Laggies_ and this one _Obvious Child_.

BTW, I strongly recommend _Obvious Child_ for anyone who appreciates strong writing and superb collabrative, improvisational acting. It's the funny and quirky story of a young woman who gets an abortion. Wait, I should probably re-word that: "What happens when Brooklyn comedian Donna Stern gets dumped, fired and pregnant just in time for the worst/best Valentine's Day of her life." The film is based on a 23-minute short written and directed by the same team led by Gillian Robespierre (the short is included on the BRD) and is their first feature film. From the production values, you'd never guess that it was a first-time venture filmed on a shoe-string budget. We loved it and thought Jenny Slate, who stars in both the short and the feature film, was marvelous and adorably vulnerable as the young woman in question.


----------



## bargervais

I think I'll have a Hunger Games marathon this weekend I'll watch all three with Mockingjay in Atmos to cap it off.


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> Just a reminder that I watched the German-language video Nalleh references above (where the test you suggest is performed) and provided a summary of its main points here. The tester's conclusion was that Auro-matic did a better job than DSU in producing height effects for the subject movie scenes, and both were better than Atmos in this regard on these particular films.


The question I have is what does he define as "better"? Is it just that Auro puts more sound into the height channels overall? Or does it draw up appropriate sounds in a subjectively superior manner?

If Keith is correct that Auro simply copies the base level channels and adds a little reverb, I have no doubt that it has way more height activity than any other sound format. If that's the only criteria the German tester is using to define "better," of course he would think that Auro is the best format, by volume if not by quality.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Just a reminder that I watched the German-language video Nalleh references above (where the test you suggest is performed) and provided a summary of its main points here. The tester's conclusion was that Auro-matic did a better job than DSU in producing height effects for the subject movie scenes, and both were better than Atmos in this regard on these particular films.


I'm not interested in their subjective impressions. The simple test I proposed will show if the Auromatic overheads are working 'in synch' with the associated base-level speakers, or not. That is what I was interested in discovering. For me, copying the channels wholesale into other channels and adding a bit of reverb doesn't actually constitute an upmixer in the generally understood meaning of the term. People may like how it sounds, as some indeed like all-channel stereo, which also copies whole channels into others. But their preference isn't what I expressed an interest in.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> I can certainly do such a test very easy, as i not only have both Atmos and Auro, but i can switch instantly between full modes. But with a movie scene it is difficult to trace spesific sounds, and seperate them. I need a test disc to do it properly.
> 
> Another thing: unlike getting a demo of Atmos or Auro on a big trade show, with different rooms, different gear etc, those of us with both systems can do a comparison in our own HT's, with the same room, same gear etc, and can easy hear pros and cons. Isn't that the best way to test?


I seem to be asking for something very difficult, whereas it seems to me very simple. Just switch off all speakers other than heights (including subs) and report what comes out of the overheads in Auromatic mode. Is it a) a constant noise, echoing (no pun intended) what is coming from the associated base-level speakers or b) isn't it?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> The question I have is what does he define as "better"? Is it just that Auro puts more sound into the height channels overall? Or does it draw up appropriate sounds in a subjectively superior manner?
> 
> If Keith is correct that Auro simply copies the base level channels and adds a little reverb, I have no doubt that it has way more height activity than any other sound format. If that's the only criteria the German tester is using to define "better," of course he would think that Auro is the best format, by volume if not by quality.


That is what I am trying to get at. 

An upmixer will attempt to extract relevant parts of the base-level speakers and redirect it to other speakers in the system. If Auro is simply copying the base-levels into the others, then it works in a fundamentally different way. Some may like that effect, others (me) won't.

(Auro wouldn't be alone in essentially copying whole channels and calling it upmixing. Audyssey's DSX is also guilty (although not perhaps to the same extent and not working in the same way). If you do a similar test of DSX using the Height speakers, it is readily noticeable that DSX seems to more or less copy the front left and right channels into the heights. This creates a 'wall of sound' at the front, which some people seem to like. I think it wrecks the surround experience personally so I stopped using DSX in favir of Dolby PLIIz or DTS Neo:X when I was using my old Height speaker setup.)


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Of that sort of movie, *Hero* is very accessible and has some scenes which really benefit from DSU. Great action/martial arts movie.
> 
> Movies of similar genre that I have in my collection include, from memory:
> 
> 
> 
> Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
> Fist of Legend
> Red Cliff I & II
> Jet Li's Fearless
> Legend of the Fist, Return of Chen Zhen
> Ran
> Ip man
> Detective Dee (various movies)
> Ip Man 2
> Flying Swords of Dragon Gate
> Ong-Bak


Try "Reign of assassins" and "14 Blades"

Forget Grandmaster... unless you like the showy style of Kungfu Movies... 

For more 'Atmospheric' shows, also see "Kungfu Jungle" and Beast Stalker.. 
And for chest thumping bass, "Dragon Tiger Gate" has plenty of solid fight scenes...


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> I have no doubt you are correct.  I'm just a guy that's managed to turn a regular room into a "theater" experience. I don't know anything (yet) about room correction or advanced calibration, but I'm extremely pleased with how it's turned out so far. Some day I may have a house with an actual dedicated room to turn into a fully furnished and decorated theater. I hope.  But until then I think I represent what the average consumer can accomplish.


I'm sorry, it was not ment to put down your setup, rather that Mr. Dressler has a nice setup himself, with good components and a treated room, so he is no novice, if you understand.

Actually i am intriged by your setup, using all Mirage speakers. I like that concept, and would love to test such speakers, but they are impossible to get over here.
Are you satisfied with them in a Atmos setup?


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> The question I have is what does he define as "better"? Is it just that Auro puts more sound into the height channels overall? Or does it draw up appropriate sounds in a subjectively superior manner?
> 
> If Keith is correct that Auro simply copies the base level channels and adds a little reverb, I have no doubt that it has way more height activity than any other sound format. If that's the only criteria the German tester is using to define "better," of course he would think that Auro is the best format, by volume if not by quality.


The test focuses on specific, overhead-appropriate effects that were missing or underachieved in the Atmos mix. This is the element that Patrick Schappert, in his subjective opinion, rated as better in DSU and even better still in Auro-matic. Even if you don't understand a lick of German, you can watch the video and easily follow the results of the playback comparisons.



kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not interested in their subjective impressions. The simple test I proposed will show if the Auromatic overheads are working 'in synch' with the associated base-level speakers, or not. That is what I was interested in discovering. For me, copying the channels wholesale into other channels and adding a bit of reverb doesn't actually constitute an upmixer in the generally understood meaning of the term. People may like how it sounds, as some indeed like all-channel stereo, which also copies whole channels into others. But their preference isn't what I expressed an interest in.


I guess I don't fully understand the parameters that you are establishing for the test, because I thought this was spot-on. HST, I don't find the conclusions particularly relevant for my purposes because (a) as far as Atmos is concerned, I am not interested in any of the films in question and besides do not believe they are representative of what Atmos can achieve and (b) I can't envision rewickering my setup for Auro as long as Atmos/DSU is still viable.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> I think I'll have a Hunger Games marathon this weekend I'll watch all three with Mockingjay in Atmos to cap it off.


I'm sure there will be a lot of us forum members watching Mockingjay tonight (me included)...


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I seem to be asking for something very difficult, whereas it seems to me very simple. Just switch off all speakers other than heights (including subs) and report what comes out of the overheads in Auromatic mode.


Oh, in that case, let me take the above expample: TAOE, chapter 14, and the steel cables.



kbarnes701 said:


> Is it a) a constant noise,


Not at all, clear sounds(not as clear as Atmos tough), but lower volume "in the background".



kbarnes701 said:


> echoing (no pun intended)


Nope, more so in DSU.



kbarnes701 said:


> what is coming from the associated base-level speakers or b) isn't it?


Is this a trick question? If base speakers are turned off, how do i know what comes out?? LOOL!
No seriously, in this case: Yes, and the steel cables is dominant, as they should be.
In DSU they(cables) are dead silent! (I was really surprised there).
And as Grobi said too, in Auromatic there is much better panning in this clip, both left/right and front/rear.


----------



## stikle

Nalleh said:


> I'm sorry, it was not ment to put down your setup, rather that Mr. Dressler has a nice setup himself, with good components and a treated room, so he is no novice, if you understand.



Oh no worries at all!  I knew exactly what you meant and feel the same way. He's a man with experience and knowledge. I'm sure he's heard at_ least_ one other home setup in his lifetime. I like seeing other setups too just for ideas and comparisons. I've been super unimpressed with every retail demo room I've seen. 



Nalleh said:


> Actually i am intriged by your setup, using all Mirage speakers. I like that concept, and would love to test such speakers, but they are impossible to get over here.
> Are you satisfied with them in a Atmos setup?



Well first off, nobody can get new Mirage speakers anymore. The Klipsch Group bought them and then killed off the brand. Well, mostly. They have limited production runs available on woot.com from time to time (here). That's where I got my last 4 matching surrounds a couple months ago. They can still be found on eBay though.

I went down the Mirage road a while back because my ex-wife had to have everything exactly the way she wanted it...which didn't include wall mounted speakers because they are "ugly". The Mirages were known for their wider dispersion, providing a diffuse sound stage. I really like the sound - maybe it's just because I'm used to it. (My stepdad prefers his PSB speakers as they are more directional. And they DO sound good.) Plus, the Mirages look pretty good sitting on tables the corners and blend well into bookshelves. So I got 5 of them and a (crappy) Klipsch sub for the corner and that's how things were for 3 years until 2 days after the divorce when I wall mounted all of them and expanded to 7.1...which then expanded to 11.1...then 11.2...and now reconfigured as 7.2.4. I can truly say that the current incarnation of my setup sounds the best it ever has. It might be a tad bassy with my last upgrade though. I'm still tweaking it to try and find the right balance.

The one thing I was never really pleased with was the center channel. The mid-bass drivers were just too small to provide any depth to voices so they always seemed lacking. I fixed most of that problem by upgrading it to a different brand (SVS). I was really worried about the mismatch in voicing, but I'm finding it's really not that much of an issue (if any). I suspect I might be upgrading the left/right with SVS at some point in the future, in which case the voicing across the front stage will be the same.

As to your question - I've never heard another Atmos sound system, home OR public cinema, so I have nothing to compare it to. So until such time, yes, I am very satisfied.

I do wonder what other speakers might sound like, if I'd like them better. I don't _really_ want to find out, as I have a bit of money sunk into Mirage at this point, and why change something I like and makes my friends ooh and ahh?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> The test focuses on specific, overhead-appropriate effects that were missing or underachieved in the Atmos mix. This is the element that Patrick Schappert, in his subjective opinion, rated as better in DSU and even better still in Auro-matic. Even if you don't understand a lick of German, you can watch the video and easily follow the results of the playback comparisons.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't fully understand the parameters that you are establishing for the test, because I thought this was spot-on. HST, I don't find the conclusions particularly relevant for my purposes because (a) as far as Atmos is concerned, I am not interested in any of the films in question and besides do not believe they are representative of what Atmos can achieve and (b) I can't envision rewickering my setup for Auro as long as Atmos/DSU is still viable.


It just seems so easy to me to switch off all speakers and subs and listen to Auromatic through the height speakers only and report back what comes out of them. No subjective impressions needed, which are pointless as Josh just said because we have no idea what the listener actually likes.

I am now wondering why Auroheads © are so reluctant to do this simple test?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Oh, in that case, let me take the above expample: TAOE, chapter 14, and the steel cables.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, clear sounds(not as clear as Atmos tough), but lower volume "in the background".
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, more so in DSU.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a trick question? If base speakers are turned off, how do i know what comes out?? LOOL!
> No seriously, in this case: Yes, and the steel cables is dominant, as they should be.
> In DSU they are dead silent! (I was really surprised there).
> And as Grobi said too, in Auromatic there is much better panning in this clip, both left/right and front/rear.


It is important to be sure that the base speakers are not silent. If they are then so should the overheads. It should be obvious from the on-screen activity if there should be sound in the base speakers or not. I actually included that to make the test more fair for Auro.

Your example doesn't help. You say that in that scene there is sound coming from the Height speakers. Yes, I am contending that it is a copy of what is coming from the surrounds and/or the mains.

The test is to play the entire movie with just the heights engaged. If I am correct that they are reproducing just a copy of what is in the base speakers, then then the heights will be making noise *all the time*. (Except for rare scenes where there is no sound from ANY speakers - this can be determined from the on-screen activity). 

If someone's criterion for 'liking' Auromatic is that the height speakers are constantly making noise, then of course they will prefer Auromatic to other upmixers, which are NOT constantly making noise. So the personal preferences of the man in the video are irrelevant as they are unknown to us.


----------



## bkeeler10

bargervais said:


> I think I'll have a Hunger Games marathon this weekend I'll watch all three with Mockingjay in Atmos to cap it off.


Sweet! I'm on my way over . . .


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Your example doesn't help. You say that in that scene there is sound coming from the Height speakers. Yes, I am contending that it is a copy of what is coming from the surrounds and/or the mains.


Ok, let me try again and more spesific, same disc and scene::
Let's start in Atmos(as a base), and of course heights only. When they step out on the steel cables, the heights are silent. Then the camera changes and pans around them in the air. Now the heights are very active and pans together with the changing camera angle. You with me?

Let's try Auromatic, and guess what: it pretty much mirror that whole behaviour! Both in strength and panning.
Until that point, both DSU and Auromatic sound the same, with lower volume sounds, music, speech etc.
Now turn on the rest of the speakers and try again. In DSU the steel cables is "vague" and more from the surrounds , while Auromatic still has a great overhead panning and height effect, very similar to Atmos.


----------



## RMK!

Nalleh said:


> Oh, in that case, let me take the above expample: TAOE, chapter 14, and the steel cables.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, clear sounds(not as clear as Atmos tough), but lower volume "in the background".
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, more so in DSU.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a trick question? If base speakers are turned off, how do i know what comes out?? LOOL!
> No seriously, in this case: Yes, and the steel cables is dominant, as they should be.
> In DSU they are dead silent! (I was really surprised there).
> And as Grobi said too, in Auromatic there is much better panning in this clip, both left/right and front/rear.


What is wrong with you Nalleh? The ever evolving "test protocal" is to listen to the entire film with just the height speakers engaged. You are to note what is missing by observing what is missing, not listening to the base channel silly . May I suggest valium to to set the "tone" for his little 2 hour adventure and remember take comprehensive notes as you are serving science ...


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> Try "Reign of assassins" and "14 Blades"
> 
> Forget Grandmaster... unless you like the showy style of Kungfu Movies...
> 
> For more 'Atmospheric' shows, also see "Kungfu Jungle" and Beast Stalker..
> And for chest thumping bass, "Dragon Tiger Gate" has plenty of solid fight scenes...


Are we talking about DSU? ...Like the rain and above and around and encircling. ...Like the sounds from all around, surrounding us.
...Or Auro-Matic?

* I like your gear & blog.


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> Even if you don't understand a lick of German, you can watch the video and easily follow the results of the playback comparisons.


I am wary of watching German internet videos on my computer at work. At what time code do the whips and ball-gags come out?


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> I am wary of watching German internet videos on my computer at work. At what time code do the whips and ball-gags come out?


You're wary of, or want to jump to those scenes?


----------



## NorthSky

> It just seems so easy to me to switch off all speakers and subs and listen to Auromatic through the height speakers only and report back what comes out of them. No subjective impressions needed, which are pointless as Josh just said because we have no idea what the listener actually likes.
> 
> I am now wondering why Auroheads © are so reluctant to do this simple test?


It is the overall totality that counts, the ensemble. ...Not the singularity, not the depression (here meaning the opposite of sound expansion, spaciousness), not the separation from the other parts. 

Surround sound exploration is not just a mathematical scientific theory, it is also a natural sound development of the environment.

The day they'll replicate accurately sound envelopment we get in real life that'll be the day. ...But with spatial object rendition the tools are getting more accessible, ...now is a matter to master the new tools. ...With realism.


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> I do wonder what other speakers might sound like, if I'd like them better. I don't _really_ want to find out, as I have a bit of money sunk into Mirage at this point, and why change something I like and makes my friends ooh and ahh?


Now here is a perfect example of what Thomas Gray meant when he penned: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise"! (Cf. yesterday's exchange on the subject.)


----------



## Nalleh

RMK! said:


> What is wrong with you Nalleh? The ever evolving "test protocal" is to listen to the entire film with just the height speakers engaged. You are to note what is missing by observing what is missing, not listening to the base channel silly . May I suggest valium to to set the "tone" for his little 2 hour adventure and remember take comprehensive notes as you are serving science ...


Phew, tell me about it !
That Barnes fella is no easy customer to satisfy


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> The test is to play the entire movie with just the heights engaged. If I am correct that they are reproducing just a copy of what is in the base speakers, then then the heights will be making noise *all the time*. (Except for rare scenes where there is no sound from ANY speakers - this can be determined from the on-screen activity).


What might be a good test here is the 5.1 track on the Gravity Blu-ray. The opening scene of that is one of the rare examples of a modern movie with dialogue that pans through the side and surround speakers.

If you can disengage all other speakers except the heights and still hear George Clooney's voice as he floats around to the back of the room, that would suggest that the upmixer is just duplicating everything in the base channels.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> Now here is a perfect example of what Thomas Gray meant when he penned: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise"! (Cf. yesterday's exchange on the subject.)


Heeeeey.....wait....what? Is that a dig or is it life lesson? Who needs literacy when I have Atmos?!


----------



## Josh Z

stikle said:


> You're wary of, or want to jump to those scenes?


Not on my work computer, I don't!


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> I am wary of watching German internet videos on my computer at work. At what time code do the whips and ball-gags come out?


I once watched a German video review of a Chinese restaurant.

One hour later I was hungry . . . for power.


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> Oh no worries at all!
> 
> 
> I went down the Mirage road a while back because my ex-wife had to have everything exactly the way she wanted it...which didn't include wall mounted speakers because they are "ugly". The Mirages were known for their wider dispersion, providing a diffuse sound stage. I really like the sound - maybe it's just because I'm used to it. (My stepdad prefers his PSB speakers as they are more directional. And they DO sound good.) Plus, the Mirages look pretty good sitting on tables the corners and blend well into bookshelves.


Thanks for your post  i enjoyed it, espesially the ex-wife part, LOL .


----------



## Movie78

petetherock said:


> Try "Reign of assassins" and "14 Blades"
> 
> Forget Grandmaster... unless you like the showy style of Kungfu Movies...
> 
> For more 'Atmospheric' shows, also see "Kungfu Jungle" and Beast Stalker..
> And for chest thumping bass, "Dragon Tiger Gate" has plenty of solid fight scenes...



Watch "FIRESTORM"

Then thank me later.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> With 'main speakers' you are referring to LCR _and_ surrounds?


Yes.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> I seem to be asking for something very difficult, whereas it seems to me very simple. Just switch off all speakers other than heights (including subs) and report what comes out of the overheads in Auromatic mode. Is it a) a constant noise, echoing (no pun intended) what is coming from the associated base-level speakers or b) isn't it?


I would suggest a slight variant to the test. Kill the center speaker. With Auro off, listen to the mix -- what sounds are heard. Now kill all the speakers except the 4 heights. Listen to the Auro outputs. Do you hear different sounds? (The loudness will be different -- don't let that fool you). Can also go into the Auro menu and adjust the strength and size parameters. All quite interesting.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Movie78 said:


> Watch "FIRESTORM"
> 
> Then thank me later.


Really, most of Howie Long's movies were not all that well received...


----------



## batpig

Al Sherwood said:


> Really, most of Howie Long's movies were not all that well received...


I see multiple movies called "Firestorm" when I search IMDB. Which one is he referring to?


----------



## Movie78

Al Sherwood said:


> Really, most of Howie Long's movies were not all that well received...


The action scene remind me of Kane & Lynch


----------



## Movie78

batpig said:


> I see multiple movies called "Firestorm" when I search IMDB. Which one is he referring to?


This one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3341072/


----------



## petetherock

Firestorm?
Thanks but I dislike that show .. Nice acoustics no doubt but it's all flash and not much substance .. Hkg needs Chinese money and they piled it on here. Big production values lousy story snd cheesy cgi.


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> Firestorm?
> Thanks but I dislike that show .. Nice acoustics no doubt but it's all flash and not much substance .. Hkg needs Chinese money and they piled it on here. Big production values lousy story snd cheesy cgi.


Try 'John Wick' , and 'Fury' , and 'Oblivion', and 'The 5th Element', and 'Kung Fu Hustle' .


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> 2). In all cases, the main speakers are assumed to be at zero elevation. The idea is to prevent the objects panned through the main speakers from being spread upward.


So lowering surrounds to ear level will result in lowered sounds from side and back as compared to what was heard in the mixing room. This phenomenon apparently applies not only for standard 5.1/7.1 content but - remarkably - also for Atmos soundtracks. Therefore I would suggest the following addition/alternation of Dolby's guidelines for surround placement at home: Ear level for optimizing DSU, and 15-20 degrees elevation for optimizing Atmos (and standard 5.1/7.1 content).


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> So lowering surrounds to ear level will result in lowered sounds from side and back as compared to what was heard in the mixing room. This phenomenon apparently applies not only for standard 5.1/7.1 content but - remarkably - also for Atmos soundtracks. Therefore I would suggest the following addition/alternation of Dolby's guidelines for surround placement at home: Ear level for optimizing DSU, and 15-20 degrees elevation for optimizing Atmos (and standard 5.1/7.1 content).




Is this what you did?


----------



## bargervais

On my way home today i stopped at Sam's Club (Owned by Wal-Mart) to pick up a few things for the weekend, they had a whole display filled with MockingJay Blu-Rays be careful not an Atmos mix on any of them, Dolby audio 5.1
Thank goodness I got mine from Amazon it was waiting for me when I got home it has Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> On my way home today i stopped at Sam's Club (Owned by Wal-Mart) to pick up a few things for the weekend, they had a whole display filled with MockingJay Blu-Rays be careful not an Atmos mix on any of them, Dolby audio 5.1
> Thank goodness I got mine from Amazon it was waiting for me when I got home it has Dolby Atmos.



That is so interesting that they would bother to package a movie with different versions of sound track... I understand geographical and language variances, but in the same country!?


----------



## bargervais

Al Sherwood said:


> That is so interesting that they would bother to package a movie with different versions of sound track... I understand geographical and language variances, but in the same country!?


I thought it very odd as well since they went to the experience of doing some in Atmos the ones at Sam's Club are $19.99 without Atmos and the price from Amazon with Atmos $19.99 I don't get it either.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> I once watched a German video review of a Chinese restaurant.
> 
> One hour later I was hungry . . . for power.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU


Take my wife, please!! 

I just flew in from out of town and boy are my arms tired!! 


I gotta million of 'em!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Al Sherwood said:


> Is this what you did?


In anticipation of purchasing a capable AVR/processor later this year, I provisionally installed heights and lowered my surrounds. The latter I found not to improve my 5.1 sound. Therefore I perceptually lifted the surrounds by splitting their signals to their equidistant upstairs neighbors (which actually seems to sound even better than the physically elevated surrounds I had before). This set-up allows me to switch relatively easy between ear level and elevated surround placement. I am definitely planning to try this out for Atmos, DSU, Auro3D, Auromatic and DTS:X. My 0-hypothesis is expressed in the suggested recommendation, which is predominantly based on replicating as close as possible the director's/mixer's intent (sound directivity wise), and secondly on bringing out the best of the upmixing formats.


----------



## bargervais

When is one immersion audio better then the next one I think it will all boil down to what your preferences are we already went through all kinds of algorithms DSX Dolby PLIIz or DTS Neo:X 
I will continue to enjoy DSU I think it's very immersive


----------



## robert816

stikle said:


> I just ordered Curse of the Golden Flower, since "other people also bought" it.
> 
> Any other recommendations?



13 Assassins
A Better Tomorrow
A Company Man
Brotherhood of Blades
Dragon
Hard Boiled
Iron Monkey
Let the Bullets Fly
New World
Shaolin
Tai Chi Zero
Tai Chi Hero
The Good The Bad The Weird
The Killer
The Man from Nowhere
War of the Arrows
Warriors of the Rainbow


There are a lot of good Asian titles out there


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> So lowering surrounds to ear level will result in lowered sounds from side and back as compared to what was heard in the mixing room.


Yes.



> This phenomenon apparently applies not only for standard 5.1/7.1 content but - remarkably - also for Atmos soundtracks. Therefore I would suggest the following addition/alternation of Dolby's guidelines for surround placement at home: Ear level for optimizing DSU, and 15-20 degrees elevation for optimizing Atmos (and standard 5.1/7.1 content).


Unlike 5.1, 7.1, and Atmos, DSU is not a content format -- it has no metric to measure egainst. Thus, it does not need optimizing. Now the guidelines become even simpler.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have gone through the entire thread and do not believe that I have seen this specific real world issue addressed. I have pictures if it will help...

*Atmos--the X.X.4 solution...*
*
*
So, what is the Atmos X.X.4 question? I have 5.1.2 (or 7.1.2), so how can I get wiring to the back of the room to get Atmos speakers in the rear of the room? This is a serious issue for many with home theaters. You want the best sound that you can get...within limits, either budgetary, structurally, or WAF.
I am lucky enough to have a dedicated home theater in our basement that is completely finished. Mine is 19 ½’ x 14 ½’. For a number of reasons, I am going with up-firing speakers. The front Atmos speakers—no problem. But, the back, that is another question.
The most direct approach would be to just hook wires up to the back of the receiver and run them on the floor along the sides of the room to the rear speaker positions. Hmmm, my wife may not care for my sense of style. What a spoilsport! Oh, yeah! There is also that doorway where I would probably be tripping people coming into the theater.
Okay, so I need to hide them. What are the options? Fish wires through the finished walls? Hmmm, drill several holes in the walls and fish the wire. Messy, a lot of work, and a lot of drywall repair work. My wife is not a fan of my drywall mud work. When we moved into this house, she told me that I could not do any more drywall work because she did not want lumpy walls.
There is a soffit along one side of the room—if I ran the wires down the soffit... But, then I have to come out of the soffit and drill some holes, drywall work, etc. No—see preceding paragraph.
Go through the overhead between the basement ceiling and the ground floor substructure to the rear basement wall, drill through the top plate, and drop the leads down through the back wall and cut outlets. Hey! There is about 2 feet of sort of crawl space. Well, I could load a backpack with two 50’ runs of wire, a cordless drill and bits. From where I would have to get into it would give me about a 30’ crawl to get to the back wall, then 20’ to the front wall, then about 20’ to the exit point.
I actually envisioned doing that. And, I continued thinking about it. I am 73. I then envisioned the fire department doing an extraction of the body, and the firemen wondering, “What in the hell was he doing?”
I am stubborn if nothing else. There is raceway, and I could run wire in the raceway. Oh, yeah, the doorway is still there. Let’s see—if I run the raceway up the side of the door, across the top, and down the other side, that would only add 7 feet, plus 4 feet, plus 7 feet, only another 18 feet to the speaker leads on that side. It might look a little tacky and to balance the resistance and impedance load, add 18 to the left speaker lead.
If I fish the wire under the carpet—all that I need to do is pull the carpet off the tack strips, then cut through the tack strips on each side of the door...still not enough room...if I cut through the carpet seam going into the room. Confer with the son-in-law since he has done a lot of interior remodeling. Pull the carpet loose and cut the seam? No, no, and no.
So, run both speaker leads down the opposite side of the room to the back and avoid the doorway altogether. Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Just make both wiring runs the same length.
Let’s see-- Lowe’s sells raceway, ¾” wide that would give the appearance of quarter-round at the base of the baseboard. Except that the jacketed 12 ga. speaker wire will not quite fit in the ½” internal space.
Never give up! When drywall is installed normally it is raised slightly, though not always. Most of the time, there is a gap at the bottom of about ½”. Depending upon how the carpet installers laid the tack strips, you can usually get at that space. It they laid it tightly to the wall, not so much.
Final solution...run one of the leads along that far wall tucked into that bottom space where you can. Even if the space is too tight there will be a depression where the carpet is tucked onto the tack strip. Then, install the raceway over the first lead and run the second lead down the raceway. And, it actually has a very finished appearance. It is whiter than the baseboard, but then when the lights are out, who sees it?
Now, I have a right speaker lead and a left speaker lead that goes all the way from the receiver at the front of the room to the speakers at the rear of the room. 5.1.4, here I come!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes.
> 
> Unlike 5.1, 7.1, and Atmos, DSU is not a content format -- it has no metric to measure egainst. Thus, it does not need optimizing. Now the guidelines become even simpler.


I gave you that one, didn't I.

Admittedly, I am not particularly fond of the idea to add logic steering on top of a surround track either. But although there is no 'metric' for DSU, there are the numerous reviews on this forum. I want to verify for myself what it's all about, with the most optimal speaker lay-out as recommended by those who rave about it. Then, if I still don't like what it does to the sound in my room, I can safely discard DSU as a determining factor for optimizing my speaker lay-out.


----------



## Gurba

Eriksdam said:


> On another note: It looks like Metallica's "Through the Never" will be available in Atmos, if Amazon.de is to be trusted:
> 
> TIA,
> Erik


I have it on pre-order.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> So lowering surrounds to ear level will result in lowered sounds from side and back as compared to what was heard in the mixing room. This phenomenon apparently applies not only for standard 5.1/7.1 content but - remarkably - also for Atmos soundtracks. Therefore I would suggest the following addition/alternation of Dolby's guidelines for surround placement at home: Ear level for optimizing DSU, and 15-20 degrees elevation for optimizing Atmos (and standard 5.1/7.1 content).


Raised surrounds is just a concession to how movies were mixed in the old days (which still apply to most movies mixed today). There was no height channel so a compromise had to be found between having all sounds at ear height and conveying some sort of ambient envelopment.

Having said that I never liked raised surrounds. I find it distracting when sounds change elevation just because they move backwards. There are more and more mixes that have discrete sounds moving around the listener. Sounds weird when a person or instrument suddenly moves upward just because it moved backward. The movie Birdman would be a good example.

Now we have height channels and this is no longer needed. Sounds can be placed anywhere within a dome around the listener. Having surrounds higher up makes that dome shrink. Counterproductive within an object-based approach in my opinion.
I've watched Apes in a Atmos equipped theater and the surrounds were mounted so high the whole sound stage was tugged into the corners of the ceiling. There was no "dome of sound" nor envelopment.

I hope that dubbing stages will adopt surrounds at ear height because it is better. Movie theaters probably can't have surrounds that low but at home we can.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Ok, let me try again and more spesific, same disc and scene::
> Let's start in Atmos(as a base), and of course heights only. When they step out on the steel cables, the heights are silent. Then the camera changes and pans around them in the air. Now the heights are very active and pans together with the changing camera angle. You with me?
> 
> Let's try Auromatic, and guess what: it pretty much mirror that whole behaviour! Both in strength and panning.
> Until that point, both DSU and Auromatic sound the same, with lower volume sounds, music, speech etc.
> Now turn on the rest of the speakers and try again. In DSU the steel cables is "vague" and more from the surrounds , while Auromatic still has a great overhead panning and height effect, very similar to Atmos.


Yeah - if Auromatic is copying whole channels, it will always have a lot going into the heights. That's my point. One scene isn't sufficient - I am after the whole movie - to see if there is always sound in the heights, as there will be of course because Auromatic is copying whole channels 

We are getting nowhere. Do you disagree that Auromatic works by copying base channels into other channels, with SPL lowered and reverb added? If you do, then you must also agree that the Heights will be constantly active throughout the entire movie. If you don't agree, how do you think it does work and what is your view based on?


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> What is wrong with you Nalleh? The ever evolving "test protocal" is to listen to the entire film with just the height speakers engaged. You are to note what is missing by observing what is missing, not listening to the base channel silly . May I suggest valium to to set the "tone" for his little 2 hour adventure and remember take comprehensive notes as you are serving science ...


Despite the attempted sarcasm, that is exactly the way to do it, if he wants to prove to himself how Auromatic works. Of course, if he is concerned that he may discover that Auromatic isn't really an 'upmixer' at all, but simply copies entire channels elsewhere, I can see he may not want to go there.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Phew, tell me about it !
> That Barnes fella is no easy customer to satisfy


LOL. You're not obligated to do it of course!  It's just an easy way to find out what is actually going on, that's all.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> What might be a good test here is the 5.1 track on the Gravity Blu-ray. The opening scene of that is one of the rare examples of a modern movie with dialogue that pans through the side and surround speakers.
> 
> If you can disengage all other speakers except the heights and still hear George Clooney's voice as he floats around to the back of the room, that would suggest that the upmixer is just duplicating everything in the base channels.


DSU doesn't just duplicate everything in the base channels. I think we know that. The issue is whether Auromatic does. There are authoritative sources who say it does. All I am suggesting to Nalleh is that it is simple to find out just by following the protocol mentioned. It is tedious for sure, but it is an undeniable result.

I will be doing this for all my upcoming BD reviews of Atmos discs. I can promise you, there's no real fun to be had playing an entire movie with all speakers off except for the overhead four


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I would suggest a slight variant to the test. Kill the center speaker. With Auro off, listen to the mix -- what sounds are heard. Now kill all the speakers except the 4 heights. Listen to the Auro outputs. Do you hear different sounds? (The loudness will be different -- don't let that fool you). Can also go into the Auro menu and adjust the strength and size parameters. All quite interesting.


Excellent suggestion, Roger. I am almost tempted to buy the Auro upgrade for my Denon just to do the darn test myself as nobody else seems willing. Almost.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Let’s see-- Lowe’s sells raceway, ¾” wide that would give the appearance of quarter-round at the base of the baseboard. Except that the jacketed 12 ga. speaker wire will not quite fit in the ½” internal space.


Nice post! You seem to have considered all the options. One thing I'd add - there is no need for the outer jacket on wire inside the raceway. Here, with similar issues, I pulled the outer jacket off and installed the individual wires inside the raceway. This way I could use 1/2 inch quarter round and once installed it just melts into the baseboard and you can't even tell it's there when you know it is (once painted to match).


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice post! You seem to have considered all the options. One thing I'd add - there is no need for the outer jacket on wire inside the raceway. Here, with similar issues, I pulled the outer jacket off and installed the individual wires inside the raceway. This way I could use 1/2 inch quarter round and once installed it just melts into the baseboard and you can't even tell it's there when you know it is (once painted to match).


That's a great idea, removing the outer jacket, that's why I come here to AVS to pick out the kernels of wisdom.. Did you use a special tool or did you cut it very carefully inch by inch.
I have speaker wire along the baseboards that I have been to lazy to hide... when it's dark I don't see them but it stills bothers me that they are there.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> That's a great idea, removing the outer jacket, that's why I come here to AVS to pick out the kernels of wisdom.. Did you use a special tool or did you cut it very carefully inch by inch.
> I have speaker wire along the baseboards that I have been to lazy to hide... when it's dark I don't see them but it stills bothers me that they are there.


I just cut it very carefully and peeled the outer insulation off. Once you get it started it comes off pretty easily. You can use a pair of small wire cutters if you like to 'nibble' at the insulation once you have gotten it started. It helps if the outer jacket isn't really thick to start with. Once you have just the pair of wires on their own, they take up hardly any space at all - even 12AWG. The jacket adds a huge amount of volume. And as it's only there for protection, there's no downside to removing it if the wires are protected by the raceway (we call that 'trunking' BTW). Where the wire exits the raceway at the other end, you can leave the jacket intact. I did it this way because I just couldn’t squeeze the wires into suitable sized raceway otherwise. (Like willy, I sent the wires for both speakers down one side of the room to avoid doorways, so there were 4 individual wires to accommodate).


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice post! You seem to have considered all the options. One thing I'd add - there is no need for the outer jacket on wire inside the raceway. Here, with similar issues, I pulled the outer jacket off and installed the individual wires inside the raceway. This way I could use 1/2 inch quarter round and once installed it just melts into the baseboard and you can't even tell it's there when you know it is (once painted to match).


One thing that I forgot to mention in this that is absolutely critical if you were to go this route. I used finishing screws to secure the raceway to the baseboard.

Remember the tucked in wiring run behind the raceway? While improbable, if you somehow got through the outer jacket and each conductor's respective jacket with the screw, you would create a dead short. This would fry whichever rear channel of your pricey new AVR. Err on the side of caution and test that lead for a short before hooking everything up.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> One thing that I forgot to mention in this that is absolutely critical if you were to go this route. I used finishing screws to secure the raceway to the baseboard.
> 
> Remember the tucked in wiring run behind the raceway? While improbable, if you somehow got through the outer jacket and each conductor's respective jacket with the screw, you would create a dead short. This would fry whichever rear channel of your pricey new AVR. Err on the side of caution and test that lead for a short before hooking everything up.


Good call. I used something called *'No More Nails'* to fix the raceway, so no screws needed. IDK if you have something similar in the States but I bet you do.*** It's a really tough glue designed for this sort of job. It goes on white and dries clear. Easy to remove with a damp cloth while wet, in case you get some where you don't want it. Once it's dried, it's there for good.

***Sure you do.... *here*...


----------



## audioguy

batpig said:


> I feel like this whole surround height issue is really a matter of degree.
> 
> The "common wisdom" for Atmos/DSU (starting with Dolby docs and ensuing related discussion) is to have the surrounds as low as possible, while still being high enough to clear everyone's head so the sound isn't blocked. That's probably about a 1-2 foot elevation above ear level.


Some of this is dependent upon ceiling height. My speakers were at about 70 inches (8 foot ceiling) and I lowered them to 49 inches. (My ears are at 42 inches). It made a very substantive improvement. Mind you, the actual angles between the surrouds and the ceiling speakers before I lowered them were such that they met the published spec that I think Roger Dressler posted. But lowering them still increased the "bubble" sensation.

I have a friend whose speakers are probably close to or more than 70 inches. BUT, his ceiling is almost 11 feet. He may or may not get any improvement in lowering his. My guess is not much if any.


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> I thought it very odd as well since they went to the experience of doing some in Atmos the ones at Sam's Club are $19.99 without Atmos and the price from Amazon with Atmos $19.99 I don't get it either.


I guess 99% of the folks don't even care what a lossless audio is, let alone Atmos. Their eyes are now brightened with 4K more than anything else..


----------



## audioguy

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess 99% of the folks don't even care what a lossless audio is, let alone Atmos. Their eyes are now brightened with 4K more than anything else..


I really don't think even close to 1% care about any of this stuff - high bit rate audio or multi-channel or (Heaven forbid) Atmos. Lest we forget, the 99% you refer to are perfectly happy with the TV sound or for those on the really crazy fringes, have gone all of the way with a sound bar. 

Like it or not, AVSers are outliers. WAAAAY outliers!! But that's easy to forget.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Some of this is dependent upon ceiling height. My speakers were at about 70 inches (8 foot ceiling) and I lowered them to 49 inches. (My ears are at 42 inches). It made a very substantive improvement. Mind you, the actual angles between the surrouds and the ceiling speakers before I lowered them were such that they met the published spec that I think Roger Dressler posted. But lowering them still increased the "bubble" sensation.
> 
> I have a friend whose speakers are probably close to or more than 70 inches. BUT, his ceiling is almost 11 feet. He may or may not get any improvement in lowering his. My guess is not much if any.


I agree. And my surrounds were, and now are, pretty much exactly where yours were/are. And my ceiling is 8 foot like yours. It was a huge PITA lowering my surrounds and involved much wire fishing and drywall patching afterwards, so it wasn't something I did lightly. But I have never regretted doing it.


----------



## Al Sherwood

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have gone through the entire thread and do not believe that I have seen this specific real world issue addressed. I have pictures if it will help...
> 
> *Atmos--the X.X.4 solution...*
> 
> 
> So, what is the Atmos X.X.4 question? I have 5.1.2 (or 7.1.2), so how can I get wiring to the back of the room to get Atmos speakers in the rear of the room? This is a serious issue for many with home theaters. You want the best sound that you can get...within limits, either budgetary, structurally, or WAF.
> I am lucky enough to have a dedicated home theater in our basement that is completely finished. Mine is 19 ½’ x 14 ½’. For a number of reasons, I am going with up-firing speakers. The front Atmos speakers—no problem. But, the back, that is another question.
> The most direct approach would be to just hook wires up to the back of the receiver and run them on the floor along the sides of the room to the rear speaker positions. Hmmm, my wife may not care for my sense of style. What a spoilsport! Oh, yeah! There is also that doorway where I would probably be tripping people coming into the theater.
> Okay, so I need to hide them. What are the options? Fish wires through the finished walls? Hmmm, drill several holes in the walls and fish the wire. Messy, a lot of work, and a lot of drywall repair work. My wife is not a fan of my drywall mud work. When we moved into this house, she told me that I could not do any more drywall work because she did not want lumpy walls.
> There is a soffit along one side of the room—if I ran the wires down the soffit... But, then I have to come out of the soffit and drill some holes, drywall work, etc. No—see preceding paragraph.
> Go through the overhead between the basement ceiling and the ground floor substructure to the rear basement wall, drill through the top plate, and drop the leads down through the back wall and cut outlets. Hey! There is about 2 feet of sort of crawl space. Well, I could load a backpack with two 50’ runs of wire, a cordless drill and bits. From where I would have to get into it would give me about a 30’ crawl to get to the back wall, then 20’ to the front wall, then about 20’ to the exit point.
> I actually envisioned doing that. And, I continued thinking about it. I am 73. I then envisioned the fire department doing an extraction of the body, and the firemen wondering, “What in the hell was he doing?”
> I am stubborn if nothing else. There is raceway, and I could run wire in the raceway. Oh, yeah, the doorway is still there. Let’s see—if I run the raceway up the side of the door, across the top, and down the other side, that would only add 7 feet, plus 4 feet, plus 7 feet, only another 18 feet to the speaker leads on that side. It might look a little tacky and to balance the resistance and impedance load, add 18 to the left speaker lead.
> If I fish the wire under the carpet—all that I need to do is pull the carpet off the tack strips, then cut through the tack strips on each side of the door...still not enough room...if I cut through the carpet seam going into the room. Confer with the son-in-law since he has done a lot of interior remodeling. Pull the carpet loose and cut the seam? No, no, and no.
> So, run both speaker leads down the opposite side of the room to the back and avoid the doorway altogether. Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Just make both wiring runs the same length.
> Let’s see-- Lowe’s sells raceway, ¾” wide that would give the appearance of quarter-round at the base of the baseboard. Except that the jacketed 12 ga. speaker wire will not quite fit in the ½” internal space.
> Never give up! When drywall is installed normally it is raised slightly, though not always. Most of the time, there is a gap at the bottom of about ½”. Depending upon how the carpet installers laid the tack strips, you can usually get at that space. It they laid it tightly to the wall, not so much.
> Final solution...run one of the leads along that far wall tucked into that bottom space where you can. Even if the space is too tight there will be a depression where the carpet is tucked onto the tack strip. Then, install the raceway over the first lead and run the second lead down the raceway. And, it actually has a very finished appearance. It is whiter than the baseboard, but then when the lights are out, who sees it?
> Now, I have a right speaker lead and a left speaker lead that goes all the way from the receiver at the front of the room to the speakers at the rear of the room. 5.1.4, here I come!



I admire your creativity and thoughts about getting to your goal, don't give up! I thought pulling up the carpet at the tack strip was a good idea, carefully done it should be invisible at completion, tell the son and law to get his working duds on and come over to help!  Your comment about the 12ga wire not fitting is curious, as the 12ga I have is barely 3/8" diameter. As for the run lengths make them even side to side and with 12ga and extra 18ft won't matter. That Lowes raceway sounds promising, maybe just need to change to different wire?


I didn't see any direct response, and from someone still planning their install I will offer this, your room would appear to big enough to benefit from 4 height speakers, I would think hard about this option. I admire the efforts you are taking to get to your goal, looking forward to report of a positive outcome!


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. And my surrounds were, and now are, pretty much exactly where yours were/are. And my ceiling is 8 foot like yours. It was a huge PITA lowering my surrounds and involved much wire fishing and drywall patching afterwards, so it wasn't something I did lightly. But I have never regretted doing it.


It was both expensive and a huge PITA. (and very messy/dusty). (I had my PJ quadruple wrapped in plastic). And like you, I have never regretted doing it. I would even suggest, in my case, that with DSU and NO ceiling speakers (but lowered surrounds), I have a more enveloping sound-scape than I did previously. 

I don't know what the secret sauce is in DSU but it is my new best friend. I have actually fine tuned the surround levels (on my music server input) for listening to 2 channel music such that I almost NEVER listen to only stereo any longer. I also use DSU when listening to a number of DVD-A multi-channel music discs I have. None of these discs sounds like a concert (voices and instruments in the surrounds, etc) but couple that with DSU, and it is WAY more FUN than trying to figure out how spend more money on my two channel system to try to get it more ACCURATE (whatever that is).


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - if Auromatic is copying whole channels, it will always have a lot going into the heights. That's my point. One scene isn't sufficient - I am after the whole movie - to see if there is always sound in the heights, as there will be of course because Auromatic is copying whole channels
> 
> We are getting nowhere. Do you disagree that Auromatic works by copying base channels into other channels, with SPL lowered and reverb added? If you do, then you must also agree that the Heights will be constantly active throughout the entire movie. If you don't agree, how do you think it does work and what is your view based on?


Well, you could say that they both copy channels from the base layer! But they do it differently.
Like i said, until that scene, they both have sounds in the height channels ALL the time, and they sound rather similar.
The point is when Atmos comes alive in that scene, in DSU, there is no change in the sounds from the height speakers, while Auromatic behaves almost the same as Atmos, and the cables comes very clearly alive in the height speakers.
On both upmixers obviously the cables are alive in the surrounds, because that is where that sounds come from, but only Auromatic correctly places them in the height speakers.
This is a very clear and distinct difference where one upmixer does the same as the "original" track(Atmos), and the other upmixer completely! misses the target!
I am not disagreeing that Auromatic gets all the info from the base channels: they have to! Where else are they getting it from? And so does DSU.
The question is what is beeing done with that info, and where they put it.

You say "all channel stereo"? Actually in this scene/test, the one upmixer that behaves like a "all channel stereo" upmixer, is DSU.

But i have some free time next week. I will try some more testing then.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

How is the new hunger games in atmos?

My Ht is in boxes as I build the finished product


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> Despite the attempted sarcasm, that is exactly the way to do it, if he wants to prove to himself how Auromatic works. Of course, if he is concerned that he may discover that Auromatic isn't really an 'upmixer' at all, but simply copies entire channels elsewhere, I can see he may not want to go there.


Way back when you started your quixotic campaign against Auromatic I did a couple of scenes from Skyfall with just the heights and then all speakers. I repeated this several times and then used DSU the same way. My purely subjective opinion was/is that I preferred Aruomatic especially with music.

Most of my subsequent movie/concert watching has been with Auromatic engaged. I like having both technologies at my disposal as have others who have purchased the Auro upgrade. When DTS-X is available I will likely add that format to the mix. I have satisfied my own curiosity about Auromatic and DSU functionality and have zero interest in playing your little game. Frankly, no test performed by another person will satisfy you and you are too cheap or blinded by your demagoguery to try it for yourself. That's cool with me ...


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> How is the new hunger games in atmos?
> 
> My Ht is in boxes as I build the finished product


Very good the ceiling speakers are active IMHO PQ has more of a sepia tone to it, as alot of the film is shot in district 13 way underground the sound was very cavernous... anyway I enjoyed it I did a marathon and watched all three Blu-Rays


----------



## aaranddeeman

RMK! said:


> Way back when you started your quixotic campaign against Auromatic I did a couple of scenes from Skyfall with just the heights and then all speakers. I repeated this several times and then used DSU the same way. My purely subjective opinion was/is that I preferred Aruomatic especially with music.
> 
> Most of my subsequent movie/concert watching has been with Auromatic engaged. I like having both technologies at my disposal as have others who have purchased the Auro upgrade. When DTS-X is available I will likely add that format to the mix. I have satisfied my own curiosity about Auromatic and DSU functionality and have zero interest in playing your little game. Frankly, no test performed by another person will satisfy you and you are too cheap or blinded by your demagoguery to try it for yourself. That's cool with me ...


It's a bit harsh on Keith. He has contributed in lot of things here.
Having said that, (honestly) when you look at all his posts against Auro, it does smell prejudice (IMHO).


----------



## bargervais

RMK! said:


> Frankly, no test performed by another person will satisfy you and you are too cheap or blinded by your demagoguery to try it for yourself. That's cool with me ...


Wow no need for that.
Some people liked DSX While others enjoyed PLIIz and I preferred DTS Neo:X.
It's not a matter of being too cheap to try. I think it's all just personal preferences...immersion is immersion no matter how it's implemented... when the dust settles each one of us will have their favorite upmixer.... just my $.02


----------



## jdsmoothie

Brian Fineberg said:


> How is the new hunger games in atmos?
> 
> My Ht is in boxes as I build the finished product


I rented the Redbox BD last night and as is typical with Lionsgate, no Atmos track; however, it also only had the DD 5.1 lossy track.


----------



## RMK!

aaranddeeman said:


> It's a bit harsh on Keith. He has contributed in lot of things here.
> Having said that, (honestly) when you look at all his posts against Auro, it does smell prejudice (IMHO).


Yes, he has contributed much time and effort and many have benefited from that work and, my post was as you say a bit harsh. 

Please accept my apologies as this is supposed to be a happy place where ideas and opinions are shared ...


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Well, you could say that they both copy channels from the base layer! But they do it differently.


No - if you said that you'd be wrong. DSU does _not_ copy whole channels from here to there. DSU uses an algorithm to extract sounds it believes are relevant to the other, upmixed locations and directs them there selectively.



Nalleh said:


> Like i said, until that scene, they both have sounds in the height channels ALL the time, and they sound rather similar.
> The point is when Atmos comes alive in that scene, in DSU, there is no change in the sounds from the height speakers, while Auromatic behaves almost the same as Atmos, and the cables comes very clearly alive in the height speakers.


I believe I have said several times that one scene is not enough to base anything meaningful on. If you don't want to try the test I outlined, try the one Roger described.



Nalleh said:


> This is a very clear and distinct difference where one upmixer does the same as the "original" track(Atmos), and the other upmixer completely! misses the target!


Auromatic isn’t an upmixer any more than all-channel stereo is. It copies whole channels to other speakers.




Nalleh said:


> I am not disagreeing that Auromatic gets all the info from the base channels: they have to! Where else are they getting it from? And so does DSU.
> The question is what is beeing done with that info, and where they put it.


The part you keep missing is that Auromatic simply copies the entire content of the base channels to the other speakers.



Nalleh said:


> But i have some free time next week. I will try some more testing then.


Good. For now I have finished with this discussion if you don't mind. I am fed up with saying the same thing time and again and getting nowhere with it, so I am sure everyone else must be too


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> Way back when you started your quixotic campaign against Auromatic I did a couple of scenes from Skyfall with just the heights and then all speakers.


I have no "campaign against Auromatic". Why would I? I like Atmos for sure, but I am as keen as the next guy to see DTS:X come along. My beef with Auro is that there is no content, no sign of any content, and that it is an outdated channel-based technology. My beef with Auromatic is that it just copies other channels elsewhere which is not what an upmixer should do. I have a separate beef about Wilfrid Van Baelen needing to be so economical with the truth when promoting Auro, but that is another issue altogether. But there is no campaign against Auro from here. If you can find a post from me which is not factually accurate about Auro, please link to it.



RMK! said:


> I repeated this several times and then used DSU the same way. My purely subjective opinion was/is that I preferred Aruomatic especially with music.


I have no problem with people's preferences at all. But preferences should not be disguised as facts. Saying that Auromatic works in a way it doesn't work is not a valid basis for putting forward a preference. (Not aimed at you but there are many who do this.)



RMK! said:


> Most of my subsequent movie/concert watching has been with Auromatic engaged. I like having both technologies at my disposal as have others who have purchased the Auro upgrade. When DTS-X is available I will likely add that format to the mix. I have satisfied my own curiosity about Auromatic and DSU functionality and have zero interest in playing your little game.


If you have no interest in discovering how Auromatic works, that is fine. But realise that others, including me, do. There is no requirement for you to do the test yourself or to agree with me.



RMK! said:


> Frankly, no test performed by another person will satisfy you and you are too cheap or blinded by your demagoguery to try it for yourself. That's cool with me ...


I cannot try it as I do not have Auro. And when you say no test performed by another person will satisfy me, how do you know? I have repeatedly asked for this simple test to be done and nobody will do it. It makes me wonder why? Are they scared they will discover that Auromatic does exactly what I (and others) say it does and not what Van Baelen says it does?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> It's a bit harsh on Keith. He has contributed in lot of things here.
> Having said that, (honestly) when you look at all his posts against Auro, it does smell prejudice (IMHO).


Thanks for the kind remarks. Prejudice? My understanding of that word is that it means someone holds a view which is unsupported by facts. What view(s) about Auro do I hold that are not supported by facts?


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Wow no need for that.
> Some people liked DSX While others enjoyed PLIIz and I preferred DTS Neo:X.
> It's not a matter of being too cheap to try. I think it's all just personal preferences...immersion is immersion no matter how it's implemented... when the dust settles each one of us will have their favorite upmixer.... just my $.02


Thanks.

I resent the personal insult in that quote but I’ll let it go. It isn’t an issue of being cheap - I have no use for Auro or Auromatic. 

No use for Auro because my interest is movies and there are no movies in Auro on Bluray, and my belief is there never will be. If you go to the Auro site they have a photo of all the current Blurays. I posted it here recently. It says it all. 

No use for Auromatic because it works in a way I profoundly dislike, in that it just copies the output of one channel to someplace else, wholesale, with just the level reduced and some reverb added. The people who deny this constantly will not take a simple test, proposed by me and modified by Roger, to see who is right and who is not. I can understand that some people will like this effect, as some people like all-channel stereo, but I am not one of them. 

So there seems to be no point in spending the money to add Auro to my AVR. Accusing me of being "cheap" is just someone's way of saying they have no argument to put forward - they have run out facts IOW.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent suggestion, Roger. I am almost tempted to buy the Auro upgrade for my Denon just to do the darn test myself as nobody else seems willing. Almost.


That's why I bought it.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> Yes, he has contributed much time and effort and many have benefited from that work and, my post was as you say a bit harsh.
> 
> Please accept my apologies as this is supposed to be a happy place where ideas and opinions are shared ...


Accepted.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> That's why I bought it.


I admire your focus  And nobody can call you cheap! LOL


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> I have no "campaign against Auromatic". Why would I? I like Atmos for sure, but I am as keen as the next guy to see DTS:X come along. My beef with Auro is that there is no content, no sign of any content, and that it is an outdated channel-based technology. My beef with Auromatic is that it just copies other channels elsewhere which is not what an upmixer should do. I have a separate beef about Wilfrid Van Baelen needing to be so economical with the truth when promoting Auro, but that is another issue altogether. But there is no campaign against Auro from here. If you can find a post from me which is not factually accurate about Auro, please link to it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people's preferences at all. But preferences should not be disguised as facts. Saying that Auromatic works in a way it doesn't work is not a valid basis for putting forward a preference. (Not aimed at you but there are many who do this.)
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no interest in discovering how Auromatic works, that is fine. But realise that others, including me, do. There is no requirement for you to do the test yourself or to agree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot try it as I do not have Auro. And when you say no test performed by another person will satisfy me, how do you know? I have repeatedly asked for this simple test to be done and nobody will do it. It makes me wonder why? Are they scared they will discover that Auromatic does exactly what I (and others) say it does and not what Van Baelen says it does?


Keith Keith Keith ... 

Facts????, your entire argument is based upon conjecture. You accuse Wilfred of lying about his technology (you are a marketing guy and should know exactly what he is doing), you claim to know exactly how Auro's proprietary technology works but you have no "proof" of that. You quote Roger when it suits your purposes and post nothing definitive to support your claims and you have never even heard Auro yourself. Roger said he read the patent application. I'd bet that the Patent was all about Auro 3D and never even mentioned Auromatic upmixing. 

If someone were to perform your little 1+ hour test and tell you what they heard would you be satisfied even if their opinion didn't support your theory? I think not and when your spending $199 (USD) would provide you with the empirical data you seek, why not give a try? I and I'm sure others might even kick in a couple of bucks just to get you off this pedantic trek you are on.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Raised surrounds is just a concession to how movies were mixed in the old days (which still apply to most movies mixed today). There was no height channel so a compromise had to be found between having all sounds at ear height and conveying some sort of ambient envelopment.
> 
> I hope that dubbing stages will adopt surrounds at ear height because it is better. Movie theaters probably can't have surrounds that low but at home we can.


As I mentioned in a recent post, it was at least as important, and probably more important, to achieve more uniform sound distribution across the audience than expressly create height effects. The goal was just called "envelopment." Now, with object panning, that challenge is more acute than before because of the concentration of sounds within the array. And even if cinemas adopt CBT arrays or the like (as some have done), these techniques stop working when the drivers are placed lateral to the listening plane -- they can no longer throw energy over he heads of the nearer seats. 

Since movies are mixed for cinemas, dub stages will continue to be configured like cinemas. And cinemas will always use raised surrounds.



> Having said that I never liked raised surrounds. I find it distracting when sounds change elevation just because they move backwards. There are more and more mixes that have discrete sounds moving around the listener. Sounds weird when a person or instrument suddenly moves upward just because it moved backward. The movie Birdman would be a good example.


I suppose everyone has a different threshold for this annoyance factor. In my room, at 20-deg elevation, I do not notice it as a distraction at all. Could be the years of acclimation. Or that I believe my eyes more than my ears when watching a movie. 



> I've watched Apes in a Atmos equipped theater and the surrounds were mounted so high the whole sound stage was tugged into the corners of the ceiling. There was no "dome of sound" nor envelopment.


I've been in similar rooms. What I hear is a very effective overhead dome, but no lateral or lower level sounds. It's all "up there." I think we'd all agree that is clearly not a recommended way to go in any surround system, let alone Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> Keith Keith Keith ...
> 
> Facts????, your entire argument is based upon conjecture. You accuse Wilfred of lying about his technology (you are a marketing guy and should know exactly what he is doing)


No conjecture there. VB has consistently misled people. There are several examples of this. Do you really want me to quote them all again?

Like I said, if you can link to some posts I have made about Auro/Auromatic which are factually incorrect, please do so.



RMK! said:


> , you claim to know exactly how Auro's proprietary technology works but you have no "proof" of that. You quote Roger when it suits your purposes and post nothing definitive to support your claims and you have never even heard Auro yourself. Roger said he read the patent application. I'd bet that the Patent was all about Auro 3D and never even mentioned Auromatic upmixing.


I claim to know how Auromatic works. There is a real simple test which will prove if I am right or wrong. Care to undertake that test? Then there will be no "conjecture" from you either.



RMK! said:


> If someone were to perform your little 1+ hour test and tell you what they heard would you be satisfied even if their opinion didn't support your theory? I think not...


Real easy to find out. No need for conjecture on your part. Do the test and let me know what you hear. Tell me if it is different to what Roger heard when he did it. 



RMK! said:


> and when your spending $199 (USD) would provide you with the empirical data you seek, why not give a try? I and I'm sure others might even kick in a couple of bucks just to get you off this pedantic trek you are on.


If you're happy to send me two hundred bucks, I'll definitely give it a try.  Otherwise I am not going to waste money on something for which there is no content, and an 'upmixer' which isn’t really an upmixer, thanks.


----------



## chi_guy50

RMK! said:


> Frankly, no test performed by another person will satisfy you and you are too cheap or blinded by your demagoguery to try it for yourself. That's cool with me ...





RMK! said:


> Yes, he has contributed much time and effort and many have benefited from that work and, my post was as you say a bit harsh.
> Please accept my apologies as this is supposed to be a happy place where ideas and opinions are shared ...


You are to be commended for apologizing after posting what you recognize was a regrettable calumny.

Keith Barnes is *not cheap*--an inventory of his current and past A/V equipment and well-outfitted HT will attest to that.

Stubborn? Yes! 
Opinionated? No doubt! 
Intellectually insatiable? Irritatingly so!
An unvanquished debater? Ask anyone who's ever argued with him.
Obsessed with contributing invaluable insight to this forum? Need you really ask? 

_N.B. This post has been vetted with Mrs. Keith _


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> Well, you could say that they both copy channels from the base layer! But they do it differently.
> 
> I am not disagreeing that Auromatic gets all the info from the base channels: they have to! Where else are they getting it from? And so does DSU.
> The question is what is being done with that info, and where they put it.


Agreed. If you perform the test variant I suggested, link, and compare for several minutes the low vs. the height channels, you will notice that Auro copies all but the C channel. There is some remixing -- all the channels (but C) appear in all the speakers in varying degrees, but all the sounds are always present. 

Contrast that with DSU where there can be complete silence for long stretches, or just the ambience appears in the heights while voices or other direct sounds are excluded. 

The only way Auro prevents voices from coming out the heights is by not tapping the C channel to feed them. Very effective! When voices pan L/R (try Toy Story 2), they appear in the heights. Atmos can prevent that wherever they are panned.

Just note, I am making no judgement on which sounds better, just discussing the operational difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You are to be commended for apologizing after posting what you recognize was a regrettable calumny.
> 
> Keith Barnes is *not cheap*--an inventory of his current and past A/V equipment and well-outfitted HT will attest to that.
> 
> Stubborn? Yes!
> Opinionated? No doubt!
> Intellectually insatiable? Irritatingly so!
> An unvanquished debater? Ask anyone who's ever argued with him.
> Obsessed with contributing invaluable insight to this forum? Need you really ask?
> 
> _N.B. This post has been vetted with Mrs. Keith _


I’d say I am Guilty as charged


----------



## Roger Dressler

RMK! said:


> Keith Keith Keith ...
> 
> Facts????, your entire argument is based upon conjecture. You accuse Wilfred of lying about his technology (you are a marketing guy and should know exactly what he is doing), you claim to know exactly how Auro's proprietary technology works but you have no "proof" of that. You quote Roger when it suits your purposes and post nothing definitive to support your claims and you have never even heard Auro yourself. Roger said he read the patent application. I'd bet that the Patent was all about Auro 3D and never even mentioned Auromatic upmixing.


I recently cited the Auromatic patent in *this post*, which concentrates on the reverb generator.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Agreed. If you perform the test variant I suggested, link, and compare for several minutes the low vs. the height channels, you will notice that Auro copies all but the C channel. There is some remixing -- all the channels (but C) appear in all the speakers in varying degrees, but all the sounds are always present.
> 
> Contrast that with DSU where there can be complete silence for long stretches, or just the ambience appears in the heights while voices or other direct sounds are excluded.
> 
> The only way Auro prevents voices from coming out the heights is by not tapping the C channel to feed them. Very effective! When voices pan L/R (try Toy Story 2), they appear in the heights. Atmos can prevent that wherever they are panned.
> 
> Just note, I am making no judgement on which sounds better, just discussing the operational difference.


And you would agree, I believe, that Auromatic does no logic steering at all? It really does just copy, with some changes to level, some reverb added? 

I contend that a proper upmixer extracts sounds and steers them. I further contend that Auromatic does neither of those things, which in my view means it isn't really what I class as an upmixer at all, any more than all-channel stereo is an upmixer. 

I ask for your confirmation here, Roger, because your understanding of these things is unquestioned and unquestionable and it may therefore be more convincing to others than my own affirmations. 

Of course, whether someone prefers Auromatic to other upmixers is a totally different issue and one I have never negatively commented on. Each to their own.

But VB is on record as saying that Auromatic uses extraction and HTRF-based steering, when it clearly does not. He has also said there is no reverb added when it is apparently easily audible - not to mention there is a control where the user can adjust the (allegedly non-existent) reverb decay times. Some have associated such economies with the truth with my own profession (advertising, not marketing as mistakenly said) but I can say for sure that in advertising there are numerous, strictly enforced laws against this sort of deliberate misinformation.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Very good the ceiling speakers are active IMHO PQ has more of a sepia tone to it, as alot of the film is shot in district 13 way underground the sound was very cavernous... anyway I enjoyed it I did a marathon and watched all three Blu-Rays


I agree, I watched the latest Hunger Games last night and enjoyed it a lot. It wasn't as action packed as the others but very emotional. The sound was excellent using the Atmos track.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> ...*but I can say for sure that in advertising there are numerous, strictly enforced laws against this sort of deliberate misinformation.*


Too bad those laws to which you speak pretty much have been driven into the ground here in the States.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> And you would agree, I believe, that Auromatic does no logic steering at all? It really does just copy, with some changes to level, some reverb added?


That is my understanding. Awaiting evidence to the contrary.



> I contend that a proper upmixer extracts sounds and steers them. I further contend that Auromatic does neither of those things, which in my view means it isn't really what I class as an upmixer at all, any more than all-channel stereo is an upmixer.
> 
> But VB is on record as saying that Auromatic uses extraction and HTRF-based steering, when it clearly does not.


There is no formal definition of "extraction" in this context. It can mean almost anything. As to HRTF steering, I cannot find anything detailed from him on that, only the quote I cited in my just referenced Auro patent quote moments ago. 



> He has also said there is no reverb added when it is apparently easily audible - not to mention there is a control where the user can adjust the (allegedly non-existent) reverb decay times. Some have associated such economies with the truth with my own profession (advertising, not marketing as mistakenly said) but I can say for sure that in advertising there are numerous, strictly enforced laws against this sort of deliberate misinformation.


Even on the topic of reveb, there is plausible deniability. He said he doesn't like to hear added reverb, IIRC. Well, when small amounts of reverb are added, the effect is not "I hear reverb," but rather "the space opened up," or "the space is more seamless and cohesive." Only once the reverb is above a certain threshold (which is listener dependent) would we identify it as such. AuroMatic is nothing if not tastefully and artistically executed.


----------



## audioguy

I have Auro but have yet to use it as i couldnt figure how to save and reload my Atmos setup.

I have now solved that problem and will try before this weekend ends to do a very basic setup. I only bought it because of the demo at CEDIA where they demonstrated an organ playing in a huge cathedral and it was the closest thing to a live event i ever heard. I was hoping for some music being recorded in Aura.

But as Keith noted there is ZERO content and i dont need another upmixer (or channel copier or .....).

I'll post as soon as i get this done.


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys. Need a little guidance. I'm planning to buy AVR for Atmos. Price varies quiet a lot based on 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4. 
Question: How big of a difference is there in b/w 5.1.4 VS 7.1.4? Is it worth extra $400.00.?

Also please note that I have full freedom to place ceiling speakers. I have about 11 feet space in b/w MLP and back wall where my rear speakers are currently mounted.
Thx.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad those laws to which you speak pretty much have been driven into the ground here in the States.


Really? That is too bad. We used to take our lead from you guys. I recall at the time I worked in advertising in the States when the law required a company to spend as much money on correcting a misleading statement as they had in making it. If all that has passed, and advertisers can just lie with impunity, that is a real backwards step. There's just no way that anyone in the UK could falsely describe how an 'upmixer' worked in an ad and get away with it. Thankfully.


----------



## bargervais

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys. Need a little guidance. I'm planning to buy AVR for Atmos. Price varies quiet a lot based on 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4.
> Question: How big of a difference is there in b/w 5.1.4 VS 7.1.4? Is it worth extra $400.00.?
> 
> Also please note that I have full freedom to place ceiling speakers. I have about 11 feet space in b/w MLP and back wall where my rear speakers are currently mounted.
> Thx.


As you read in this thread there are many that report 5.1.4 is very effective and they don't miss the back speakers if you can afford the extra $400.00 I would do it you don't want to regret not doing it and then wonder what 7.1.4 would be like.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audioguy said:


> I have Auro but have yet to use it as i couldnt figure how to save and reload my Atmos setup.
> 
> I have now solved that problem and will try before this weekend ends to do a very basic setup. I only bought it because of the demo at CEDIA where they demonstrated an organ playing in a huge cathedral and it was the closest thing to a live event i ever heard. I was hoping for some music being recorded in Aura.
> 
> But as Keith noted there is ZERO content and i dont need another upmixer (or channel copier or .....).
> 
> I'll post as soon as i get this done.


If you are not against music in your theater space, 2L out of Norway has a few audiophile, Auro multi-channel encoded mixes. The Magnificat is probably the best one IMHO since the majestic choral music with piano and organ sounds very much at home in a large cathedral, which is where it was recorded. Of course, I don't have Auro yet, but if there was a product coming out soon with DTS: X, Dolby Atmos, and Auro3D altogether with some meaningful re-mapping ability, I'd snag it. 

But yes, I do agree on the point that Auro3D has no content on the home video front, and from my listening experience it does not really lend itself to movie tracks. I'd leave that to Atmos and X.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys. Need a little guidance. I'm planning to buy AVR for Atmos. Price varies quiet a lot based on 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4.
> Question: How big of a difference is there in b/w 5.1.4 VS 7.1.4? Is it worth extra $400.00.?
> 
> Also please note that I have full freedom to place ceiling speakers. I have about 11 feet space in b/w MLP and back wall where my rear speakers are currently mounted.
> Thx.


I know some guys here  would tell you to not pass go and run out and buy an Atmos receiver right now. I would, however, caution that it would be best to wait and buy one that includes DTS:X in at least late summer/fall. Some studios may support one object format or the other, but not both. Cover all your bases. 

7.1.4 would be my choice. Though, it's possible that some products may show up with 9.1.4 or something like that this year.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> As you read in this thread there are many that report 5.1.4 is very effective and they don't miss the back speakers if you can afford the extra $400.00 I would do it you don't want to regret not doing it and then wonder what 7.1.4 would be like.


Agreed. I have 5.2.4 and enjoy it very much. Atmos is very effective as is DSU. But if I had room to do 7.2.4 I’d do it without hesitation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know some guys here  would tell you to not pass go and run out and buy an Atmos receiver right now. I would, however, caution that it would be best to wait and buy one that includes DTS:X in at least late summer/fall. Some studios may support one object format or the other, but not both. Cover all your bases.
> 
> 7.1.4 would be my choice. Though, it's possible that some products may show up with 9.1.4 or something like that this year.


+1. Even I would wait now to see what DTS:X opportunities open up in the next round of AVRs. And I hardly ever can wait for anything.


----------



## SherazNJ

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know some guys here  would tell you to not pass go and run out and buy an Atmos receiver right now. I would, however, caution that it would be best to wait and buy one that includes DTS:X in at least late summer/fall. Some studios may support one object format or the other, but not both. Cover all your bases.
> 
> 7.1.4 would be my choice. Though, it's possible that some products may show up with 9.1.4 or something like that this year.





kbarnes701 said:


> +1. Even I would wait now to see what DTS:X opportunities open up in the next round of AVRs. And I hardly ever can wait for anything.


7.2.4 it is then. Ah the waiting period. So painful. Do we know for sure that DTS will be out this fall? If yes then can you imagine the price of avrs? Wouldn't they be higher at the beginning? Wouldn't the advice be then to wait a bit for prices to go down?

I thought that all these new avrs that came out this year with Atmos will provide an update to support DTS. No?


----------



## kbarnes701

SherazNJ said:


> 7.2.4 it is then. Ah the waiting period. So painful. Do we know for sure that DTS will be out this fall? If yes then can you imagine the price of avrs? Wouldn't they be higher at the beginning? Wouldn't the advice be then to wait a bit for prices to go down?
> 
> * I thought that all these new avrs that came out this year with Atmos will provide an update to support DTS. No?*


Extremely unlikely. The Denon X7200 probably will but not the lower models in their lineup.


----------



## chi_guy50

SherazNJ said:


> 7.2.4 it is then. Ah the waiting period. So painful. Do we know for sure that DTS will be out this fall? If yes then can you imagine the price of avrs? Wouldn't they be higher at the beginning? *Wouldn't the advice be then to wait a bit for prices to go down?*


Absolutely! And by the time those prices are discounted, it will be close to preview time for the follow-on models which may well sport 2nd-generation Atmos/DTS:X! Ah, the cycle never ends.

Seriously, discounts may be available at any time including at or shortly after launch depending on a number of mostly market-driven factors. Just decide what features you want and how much you're willing spend, then pull the trigger when the timing is right for you. Caveat: Never--but never--pay full MSRP!


----------



## bargervais

SherazNJ said:


> 7.2.4 it is then. Ah the waiting period. So painful. Do we know for sure that DTS will be out this fall? If yes then can you imagine the price of avrs? Wouldn't they be higher at the beginning? Wouldn't the advice be then to wait a bit for prices to go down?
> 
> I thought that all these new avrs that came out this year with Atmos will provide an update to support DTS. No?


That would be sweet if 2014 Atmos receivers would be upgradable but highly unlikely. I would assume there will most likely be an increase in price over 2014 receivers by how much i haven't a clue. I was an early adopter of Atmos got mine last September and November.. I will not upgrade this year as the receivers with Atmos and DTS:X will be first generation AVR'S that's why I'lll wait till the end of next year 2016... by then the dust should have settled. I expect by then there should be many Blu-Rays with Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## NorthSky

*Wilfried*_ Van Baelen_, and not _"Wilfrid"_ or _"Wilfred"_.  ...Just a small typo. 

May I? This is a great thread comprised of all very smart individuals. ...I certainly learn a lot about Dolby Atmos, and Auro-3D too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> 7.2.4 it is then. Ah the waiting period. So painful. Do we know for sure that DTS will be out this fall? If yes then can you imagine the price of avrs? Wouldn't they be higher at the beginning? Wouldn't the advice be then to wait a bit for prices to go down?
> 
> I thought that all these new avrs that came out this year with Atmos will provide an update to support DTS. No?


Just to echo what others have said: DTS:X is coming _this_ manufacturing cycle. More than likely receiver and pre-amp prices will be a bit higher if they add more CPU horsepower to handle a lot more added features (which they should have done a long time ago) and possibly models with more output "channels." 

Perhaps, and it is a real unknown right now, a few of the upper tier Atmos capable products from last year _might _be able to support a DTS:X firmware update. If so, I highly doubt it will be free due to licensing costs. 2015 models and beyond will have the licensing built-in to the prices as they have been in the past. 

Don't buy right away since even new product will come down in price. Patience, man, patience.


----------



## SherazNJ

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just to echo what others have said: DTS:X is coming _this_ manufacturing cycle. More than likely receiver and pre-amp prices will be a bit higher if they add more CPU horsepower to handle a lot more added features (which they should have done a long time ago) and possibly models with more output "channels."
> 
> Perhaps, and it is a real unknown right now, a few of the upper tier Atmos capable products from last year _might _be able to support a DTS:X firmware update. If so, I highly doubt it will be free due to licensing costs. 2015 models and beyond will have the licensing built-in to the prices as they have been in the past.
> 
> Don't buy right away since even new product will come down in price. Patience, man, patience.


I know, I know. I tell you what, I'm gonna just get a cheap refurbished avr (around 650.00) just to get X-32 in my theater. Currently I have XT and based on what I have read about XT32, its a MUCH BETTER VERSION. Hopefully, I should be able to sell it later for say 350-400 and buy a good avr later when Atmos+DTS is available on avr.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> I know, I know. I tell you what, I'm gonna just get a cheap refurbished avr (around 650.00) just to get X-32 in my theater. Currently I have XT and based on what I have read about XT32, its a MUCH BETTER VERSION. Hopefully, I should be able to sell it later for say 350-400 and buy a good avr later when Atmos+DTS is available on avr.


If you can't hold out... sounds like a plan, Stan.


----------



## ggsantafe

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't buy right away since even new product will come down in price. Patience, man, patience.


Patience is a virtue - it's just in short supply in most AVS threads!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ggsantafe said:


> Patience is a virtue - it's just in short supply in most AVS threads!


You said it!


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> I know, I know. I tell you what, I'm gonna just get a cheap refurbished avr (around 650.00) just to get X-32 in my theater. Currently I have XT and based on what I have read about XT32, its a MUCH BETTER VERSION. Hopefully, I should be able to sell it later for say 350-400 and buy a good avr later when Atmos+DTS is available on avr.


Don't do it man! That's exactly what everybody's doing. ...And when time comes to sell their cheap refurb XT32 receivers for which they pay around $650-750, the most they'll get from them is hundred bucks! 

Smarter to wait few more months, I think.  ...For the real deal; DTS:X ...and XT32 of course. ...That way you save @ least $500. 
Anyway, that's my maths.


----------



## NorthSky

ggsantafe said:


> Patience is a virtue - it's just in short supply in most AVS threads!


Tell Keith about virtues of patience.  

* Can't wait for DTS:X and HDCP 2.2


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> Don't do it! That's exactly what everybody's doing. ...And when time comes to sell their cheap refurb XT32 receivers for which they pay around $650-750,
> the most they'll get from them is hundred bucks!
> 
> Smarter to wait few more months, I think.  ...For the real deal; DTS:X ...and XT32 of course. ...That way you save @ least $500.
> Anyway, that's my maths.


Really !!!!!!!!!! one gets only a couple of hundred for refurbished. Now I Wish I could rent it for a few months  In fact, I think its a great idea. If someone has an extra one sitting, why not rent it out? I get to have it for small time period and you(who ever it is renting) gets to make money. PM me anybody who's interested renting their avr with XT32.


----------



## RapalloAV

I watched "Gone Girl" last night with 7.1.4 DSU, the sound was fantastic!
But one thing I did notice when they were in a room with a crowd of people, it was almost overpowering the clatter and noise from the crowd as the leads were talking to each other. The clatter and noises in the room seemed to dominate, would have been easier to understand the leads if all the ceiling speakers and surrounds were toned down a bit. All my settings are as XT32 set them, the only one I change is the crossovers and my four SVS PB13Us up 2dbs.


Thoughts on this, has anyone else noticed this?
Test it out for yourself on "Gone Girl", those indoor crowd scenes are near the start of the film.


I did read here that someone else found this too and had lowered all their surrounds by 2/3db but really I didn't want to do that....


I do believe all these effects speakers should sound subtle and not over dominate and remove our senses from what's happening on the screen.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Really !!!!!!!!!! one gets only a couple of hundred for refurbished. Now I Wish I could rent it for a few months  In fact, I think its a great idea. If someone has an extra one sitting, why not rent it out? I get to have it for small time period and you(who ever it is renting) gets to make money. PM me anybody who's interested renting their avr with XT32.


Ok, now don't do what I'm about to tell you not to do: 

1. Buy a Marantz SR7009 AV rreceiver.
2. After 29 days return it for a full refund (no question ask but you can say that it don't stream well enough).
3. Now buy a Denon 5200 AV receiver.
4. After 29 days return it, ...same as above.
5. Keep doin' this from various places till some AV receivers finally show with onboard DTS:X 3D sound decoders (around this Summer for the first ones; only a guess). 

See, you can profit of Dolby Atmos for free, like some people do with HD front projectors during the Super Bowl. 

Just don't do that. 

____________

Some people purchased inexpensive receivers like the Onkyo 636, or the Denon 4100, so that they can experience DSU. 
{With less than a dozen Dolby Atmos titles in the last 8 months, there is no real experience with discrete Atmos, but mainly from its DS upmixer.}

Then they'll keep it for @ least another year, or till some serious DTS:X content is worth making the move (quality/quantity).

Last; what about if Dolby Atmos and DTS:X would not be selling, the movie studios would not be truly supporting, the content would be almost non-existent, brief it would bust like Plasma TVs, curved TVs, HD DVDs, 3D Blu-ray, Disney movie studios from North America about 3D on Blu, Lionsgate Blu-ray rentals, Sony electronics (laptops, HDTVs, etc.), most likely 4K on Blu-ray, 'Gravity' on Dolby Atmos but without 3D picture on Blu-ray, and simply no money to be made by all parties concerned? ...Then it would simply bust, go caput. ...The remaining ashes would be DSU and DTS:X own upmixer and few more speakers installed above your head. 

It would be a very very small niche without discrete content support, and we'd all be waiting for the next big thing, ten years from now, to talk about in audio/video forums. 

And fifty years from now, our children will be talking about the hi-end audiophiles and videophiles of multichannel 3D sound from the prehistoric era, or Ice age. ...Similar to what we do now with 78 records, turntables, and all that older analog jazz. 
And also the ultra high-end market with $500,000/pair of monoblock amps, $100,000 separate DAC and CD transport, $1,000,000//pair of Magic loudspeakers, $50,000/pair of 3 meters speaker's cables, $25,000/pair of analog stereo (RCA unbalanced) interconnects (2 meters), $20,000/set of three AC power cords that works best when in tandem, etc., just like a niche market is for the ultra rich clientele with nothing else to do but to perfect the art of their audio stereo hi-fi hobby, with gold plated facades, in their $25 million mansions. ...Some up to $100 million! ...For a single palace for just one family with about 50 servants. 

Ok, this is truly some reality here, but fortunately not everyone is doing it. First, most people can't afford it. Second, there is still a sense of normality prevailing in the human race. 

And Dolby Atmos is also a reality, but one that can also fade away if the money and support ain't there. 

It's very hard to predict the future the more we live near it. But we can relate on the past to help us; HD DVD, Plasma, Disney 3D Blu-ray in North America, Blu-ray, streaming, downloading, cassette tapes, DAT, Sony, Onkyo, Toshiba, Panasonic, Samsung, Lexicon, Laser discs, LPs, CDs, hi-res music downloads, the Cloud, music and movie servers, flip phones, smartphones, Internet, Cable/Satellite TV, Communication Service providers, etc. 

Now the question, the big one: *Five years from now, where Dolby Atmos will be?* 

Like I said, very hard nowadays to predict the future when not provided by companie's financial revenues. 
...Brief, what the massed population would be buying.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Tell Keith about virtues of patience.


And you the virtue of being consistant. Since you've proclaim Atmos dead, niche, insignificant (see Emo XMC-1 thread) what keeps bringing you to our thread? Nothing to read here based on your own quotes. 

One thing about Keith, he will be honest and tell it like it is based on the facts at hand. As for patience see Audyssey thread. Look forward to you sharing with us why Atmos is DOA


----------



## NorthSky

No sweat, Dolby Atmos finds a way. - Jurassik Park

* Steve, did you purchase the Auro-3D firmare update with your Denon Atmos 5200 receiver?

________

_"Our thread"_ ...you seem quite possessive of this thread being yours. It's just a thread about Dolby Atmos Steve, and everyone is welcome to share their ideas. It is not strictly reserved to owners of Dolby Atmos receivers and processors, but everyone is allowed to post in it. 
If you prefer to have your own entourage and disregard, ignore, dislike people who don't own and have no right to be here, it is your own personal issue.


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> I watched "Gone Girl" last night with 7.1.4 DSU, the sound was fantastic!
> But one thing I did notice when they were in a room with a crowd of people, it was almost overpowering the clatter and noise from the crowd as the leads were talking to each other. The clatter and noises in the room seemed to dominate, would have been easier to understand the leads if all the ceiling speakers and surrounds were toned down a bit. All my settings are as XT32 set them, the only one I change is the crossovers and my four SVS PB13Us up 2dbs.
> 
> 
> Thoughts on this, has anyone else noticed this?
> Test it out for yourself on "Gone Girl", those indoor crowd scenes are near the start of the film.
> 
> 
> I did read here that someone else found this too and had lowered all their surrounds by 2/3db but really I didn't want to do that....
> 
> 
> I do believe all these effects speakers should sound subtle and not over dominate and remove our senses from what's happening on the screen.


I did not notice this issue. But as a general rule, if you have trouble making out the dialogue in a movie I would suggest that you bump up the center channel rather than toning down the surround channels.

As a matter of fact, I (and many others) routinely run our center channel (in addition to the SW) a few dB hotter than Audyssey sets them.


----------



## RapalloAV

chi_guy50 said:


> I did not notice this issue. But as a general rule, if you have trouble making out the dialogue in a movie I would suggest that you bump up the center channel rather than toning down the surround channels.
> 
> As a matter of fact, I (and many others) routinely run our center channel (in addition to the SW) a few dB hotter than Audyssey sets them.



Good point, will try that too.


----------



## jpco

RapalloAV said:


> I watched "Gone Girl" last night with 7.1.4 DSU, the sound was fantastic!
> But one thing I did notice when they were in a room with a crowd of people, it was almost overpowering the clatter and noise from the crowd as the leads were talking to each other. The clatter and noises in the room seemed to dominate, would have been easier to understand the leads if all the ceiling speakers and surrounds were toned down a bit. All my settings are as XT32 set them, the only one I change is the crossovers and my four SVS PB13Us up 2dbs.
> 
> 
> Thoughts on this, has anyone else noticed this?
> Test it out for yourself on "Gone Girl", those indoor crowd scenes are near the start of the film..



Don't have DSU, but that was a criticism of the movie in theaters. The intent was to capture the ambiance of the room and have it more realistic than typical conversations in scenes such as these. Not sure if the extra speakers make it more difficult to hear, but in a way, it was intentional.


----------



## audioguy

This evening, I played the Auro 3D demo disc using DSU. With the exception of the channel identification test, DSU acquitted itself more than rather nicely. The whole reason I purchased the Auro software was because of what I heard at CEDIA. They played a video of Bach Organ Concerto in a huge reverberant church and the reproduction in the Auro demo suite was uncannily realistic. In fact, the most realistic music reproduction I have ever heard. 

I just played that same piece with DSU. Not a lot of difference that I can recall but will bring up Auro tomorrow and re-listen to that same piece. 

I love Atmos and DSU -- a LOT!!


----------



## Roger Dressler

Roger Dressler said:


> I am looking forward to hearing Stikle's system this weekend for another perspective.





stikle said:


> I have no doubt you are correct.  I'm just a guy that's managed to turn a regular room into a "theater" experience. I don't know anything (yet) about room correction or advanced calibration, but I'm extremely pleased with how it's turned out so far. Some day I may have a house with an actual dedicated room to turn into a fully furnished and decorated theater. I hope.  But until then I think I represent what the average consumer can accomplish.


I suppose average consumers _could _accomplish a theater like yours, but I'd be surprised if many took the effort to do so. Not just the well-matched collection of equipment, but the integration of the whole system into the room. 

Thanks, again, Seth, for your warm hospitality and engaging discussion. A very enjoyable afternoon. I'd love to reciprocate in Bend someday.


----------



## coolgeek

petetherock said:


> Firestorm?
> Thanks but I dislike that show .. Nice acoustics no doubt but it's all flash and not much substance .. Hkg needs Chinese money and they piled it on here. Big production values lousy story snd cheesy cgi.


Outside of hollywood, and a 'few' high budget movies / year total, almost nowhere can anyone afford those ultra realistic cgi effects... the entire budget of a local movie in HK or even China might be what it cost to create 3 mins of CGI of that level... 

As for story line and good story telling.. that's another issue altogether.. i stopped watching chinese movies mostly now because that that... it seems that chinese money, means, great HK directors/producers are churning out movies for the China market (which means they have to hire local China actors which can't act for the most part), and this is like a factory production.. tons of movies that sucks... but the chinese seems to like it...


----------



## petetherock

Yeah you have to re-visit the older movies that Johnnie To shot in the 90s and early 2000s... less production values, but solid plot. PTU for example, has a solid story, and good ambient effects too. You really feel like you are in the middle of a HKG street.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> As I mentioned in a recent post, it was at least as important, and probably more important, to achieve more uniform sound distribution across the audience than expressly create height effects.


Why don't they use line arrays?
Cinemas will always require more compromises to be made than home theaters.



Roger Dressler said:


> Since movies are mixed for cinemas


Let's see if that is still true in a couple of years with streaming becoming mainstream.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Why don't they use line arrays?


Because they do not work when lowered to ear level. Or maybe I'm not understanding how you mean.

If you mean just in general for surrounds, we have seen this in the AMC Burbank. Luke Camp *reported*: >>They have 48 surround speaker, with the ceilings 20 surrounds the same qsc's, and the wall surrounds the jbl cbt series. The largest side surrounds having 12 vertical 5" drivers (another 70JE-1 on the bottom).
http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/general/Product.aspx?PId=419&MId=2


----------



## NorthSky

But eventually cinema theaters too are going to digitally stream the HD movies for their public.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Because they do not work when lowered to ear level. Or maybe I'm not understanding how you mean.


The sound pressure level of line arrays doesn't drop as fast as conventional designs.

Speakers work the same way regardless where they are mounted. Of course there will be some absorption/diffraction caused by the audience if speakers are at ear level but I don't buy the argument that this would be a major problem and therefore speakers have to be mounted higher. If a car drives by there's really not much perceptual difference if there's a few people in between or not. Anyway, in a cinema there are actually a few people in between so having the speakers at ear level should sound more realistic.



Roger Dressler said:


> Cinemas are not going away in a couple years, nor a couple decades.


We'll see where the most revenue will come from in the future


----------



## Roger Dressler

NorthSky said:


> But eventually cinema theaters too are going to digitally stream the HD movies for their public.


How would consumer delivery mechanisms impact the viability of the cinema industry? Until they can deliver a 200-seat experience over the Internet, I don't see these as interrelated issues.


----------



## Wild Blue

Metallica - Through the Never is coming out on Atmos? I just bought the special edition on Blu-Ray. Well, I guess that's what happens.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> The sound pressure level of line arrays doesn't drop as fast as conventional designs.


Understood. But if you are addressing my post about how to achieve ear level surrounds in cinemas, then it does not matter. If, OTOH, you are raising the point that line arrays indeed can help improve sound level uniformity over the audience, I agree. I posted about the AMC as an example. 



> We'll see where the most revenue will come from in the future


What happens once more revenue flows from direct home delivery?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> What happens once more revenue flows from direct home delivery?


The product probably gets tailored to that market. Small rooms, speakers at ear level.


----------



## NorthSky

Roger Dressler said:


> How would consumer delivery mechanisms impact the viability of the cinema industry? Until they can deliver a 200-seat experience over the Internet, I don't see these as interrelated issues.


I don't think we are looking seriously enough into the future. In a capitalism world and fast speed physical mediums are being replaced by faster access and quicker revenues. I believe Markus is right; cinema theaters won't live forever. 

Anyway, we won't be part of that future; we'll be all dead the majority of us here.

Dolby Atmos, 3D, 4K, 48fps, all new tech toys to revitalize cinema theaters, but it is reaching our smartphones even faster, and our homes, with larger and better and curved TVs. ...OLED, UHD TV, ...everyone stream now, everything is streamable everywhere. ...So, only a question of time in our cinema theaters.


----------



## ThePrisoner

RapalloAV said:


> I watched "Gone Girl" last night with 7.1.4 DSU, the sound was fantastic!
> But one thing I did notice when they were in a room with a crowd of people, it was almost overpowering the clatter and noise from the crowd as the leads were talking to each other. The clatter and noises in the room seemed to dominate, would have been easier to understand the leads if all the ceiling speakers and surrounds were toned down a bit. All my settings are as XT32 set them, the only one I change is the crossovers and my four SVS PB13Us up 2dbs.
> 
> 
> Thoughts on this, has anyone else noticed this?
> Test it out for yourself on "Gone Girl", those indoor crowd scenes are near the start of the film.
> 
> 
> I did read here that someone else found this too and had lowered all their surrounds by 2/3db but really I didn't want to do that....
> 
> 
> I do believe all these effects speakers should sound subtle and not over dominate and remove our senses from what's happening on the screen.




I haven't watched Gone Girl yet but the scene you describe sounds like a scene from another David Fincher movie The Social Network. There is a night club scene that is pounding with club music, it actually feels like your in the club. You can barely hear what the actors are saying but it was an intentional sound mix for that scene which does sound great using DSU. Your subs will get a work out from the scene too!


----------



## NorthSky

As for the height of the side and back and front wide surround speakers: @ home = ear level or slightly above (the 1.25 x rule of the Dolby god) while the overhead surrounds are above our ears @ the angles recommended by Dolby Atmos for home, as of their guidelines.

In large public cinema theater venues: it's all fine the way it is now, way high up, up there, and way above. 

In movie sound mastering houses (recording/mixing movie soundtrack studios and small movie theaters): All type of variations here, between nearfiled, home, and movie theaters.

The mixes are mainly done for large venues, and rare that they do a soundmix for home. ...So we do have some leeway up to a certain size proportional to the surround's height. 

It's funny about surround sound, because height has played a major role for the longest time in the history of surround sound. 
Then the position of the surround speakers, their angles relatives to the listeners. ...No problem, we added two more behind to solve our earlier dilemma.

The more speakers the more sophisticated our sound environment. 

It's also funny today, because we are still in the era of Dolby Digital and dts and trying to replicate the large theater inside our small rooms.
Sure Dolby Atmos is here now, but we are still way stuck in the past without advancing much @ all in all the most important aspects of spatial 3-dimensional sound. 
/// Like the movie/music mixing consoles lacking, and now with Dolby Atmos advancement the progression will be "lente", expensive, and a new relearning process by the film sound mixers to be mastered and remastered. 

I can see a day where only five speakers would be enough to complete the full 3D sound bubble. ...Center front, center back, side left, side right, and straight above. 

'Unbroken' ... one @ a time.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> The product probably gets tailored to that market. Small rooms, speakers at ear level.


Why? Will that change the revenue model?



NorthSky said:


> I don't think we are looking seriously enough into the future. In a capitalism world and fast speed physical mediums are being replaced by faster access and quicker revenues.


How does speed disadvantage the cinema?



> I believe Markus is right; cinema theaters won't live forever.


Nothing lasts forever. The timescale for cinema demise under discussion was a couple of years. I do not share that view.



> Dolby Atmos, 3D, 4K, 48fps, all new tech toys to revitalize cinema theaters, but it is reaching our smartphones even faster, and our homes, with larger and better and curved TVs. ...OLED, UHD TV, ...everyone stream now, everything is streamable everywhere. ...So, only a question of time in our cinema theaters.


Time before what? You keep talking about consumer devices as if that impacts the validity of the cinema industry in some fundamental way. How, exactly?


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Why? Will that change the revenue model?


No. My point was that in the future more money is probably made with streaming to the home and less with cinemas. This will (hopefully) change how surrounds are mounted in dubbing stages -- and in Deadwood


----------



## NorthSky

Roger, how fast now does it takes to deliver a blockbuster across the country? 

Time is relative, it'll come. I missed the two-year lapse; it'll take much much longer. 

Time we stream our movies not only @ home but @ the cinemas. Or are we already?


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> Roger, how fast now does it takes to deliver a blockbuster across the country?
> 
> Time is relative, it'll come. I missed the two-year lapse; it'll take much much longer.
> 
> Time we stream our movies not only @ home but @ the cinemas. Or are we already?


They already send 'discs' to digital cinemas. I don't see how streaming won't come soon as broadband is becoming a reality... I have a 20mbps line (nothing like the google gbps lines), and it takes an hour for every 9GB of data... assuming 4K movies will be somewhere along the lines of 200-300GB, you do the math... even if they left the server on over night, it's still cheaper than sending out a physical disc... 

Imax already have connectivity with their 'cinemas'... anything wrong, and their system will report it to them in real time.. (at least that's what their marketing machine says)... for instance, if one of their speakers isn't working or isn't working right, they'll know... etc... 

If you ask me, the idea of a Cinema will not go away soon.. the reason is it's one of the few entertainment left that people can go out to with friends.. i have a world class home theater, with 4k projector and sound to beat... even i prefer to go out to the cinemas with friends... but for movies that aren't block-busters, i may wait for the blu ray... 

We never know what's going to happen with all these virtual reality.. if they pick up, or not... but making movies for such gadgets are hard... it'll take a long time to change formats.. .maybe at least a decade... and no matter what i still feel something of a 'get together place' will exist... whether everyone goes there to the holodeck, or to a cinema...


----------



## NorthSky

I agree with you, as long that the movie studios are still making tons of money ('Frozen' from Disney = $1.2 billion, and they have another rerun).


----------



## markrubin

posts deleted

please discuss the thread title, not each other

and remember: do not quote or respond to a problematic post: just report it to mods to handle


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> I suppose average consumers _could _accomplish a theater like yours, but I'd be surprised if many took the effort to do so. Not just the well-matched collection of equipment, but the integration of the whole system into the room.
> 
> Thanks, again, Seth, for your warm hospitality and engaging discussion. A very enjoyable afternoon. I'd love to reciprocate in Bend someday.


Care to share any impressions regarding placements(height) of the surrounds?


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> I watched "Gone Girl" last night with 7.1.4 DSU, the sound was fantastic!
> But one thing I did notice when they were in a room with a crowd of people, it was almost overpowering the clatter and noise from the crowd as the leads were talking to each other. The clatter and noises in the room seemed to dominate, would have been easier to understand the leads if all the ceiling speakers and surrounds were toned down a bit. All my settings are as XT32 set them, the only one I change is the crossovers and my four SVS PB13Us up 2dbs.
> 
> 
> Thoughts on this, has anyone else noticed this?
> Test it out for yourself on "Gone Girl", those indoor crowd scenes are near the start of the film.
> 
> 
> I did read here that someone else found this too and had lowered all their surrounds by 2/3db but really I didn't want to do that....
> 
> 
> I do believe all these effects speakers should sound subtle and not over dominate and remove our senses from what's happening on the screen.


I didn't notice anything like that when I watched the movie. I've only watched it once so far - I will focus on your observations next time I watch it (soon). I thought the sound throughout the movie was excellent, although not very "showy". The score was the highlight of the soundtrack for me - very good indeed. I found dialgoue was always clear, with Amy's voice especially coming across clearly in those early scenes. I do recall those 'party' scenes as having very good surround sound, putting me right in the middle of a large group of people animatedly discussing whatever it is they were discussing. 

I am wondering if there is a setup issue that is causing the surrounds to overwhelm you. XT32 is notorious for increasing the level of the surrounds when Dynamic EQ is being used. Were you using DEQ? What MV setting were you using at the time (DEQ's effect diminishes as MV is raised, ceasing entirely when the MV is ay 0dB). You can tweak this by using Reference Level Offset, or turning DEQ off, or lowering the surround trims by a couple of dB. 

I no longer use XT32, having moved over to Dirac Live, so when I watched the movie, this may have accounted for why I didn't hear the same overwhelming 'noises off' that you heard.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> But eventually cinema theaters too are going to digitally stream the HD movies for their public.


Agree if they are not already doing this. I'm in the printing business my clients upload their files via FTP we download them and print them. This saves time and money by not having to physically get hard media..


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> I didn't notice anything like that when I watched the movie. I've only watched it once so far - I will focus on your observations next time I watch it (soon). I thought the sound throughout the movie was excellent, although not very "showy". The score was the highlight of the soundtrack for me - very good indeed. I found dialgoue was always clear, with Amy's voice especially coming across clearly in those early scenes. I do recall those 'party' scenes as having very good surround sound, putting me right in the middle of a large group of people animatedly discussing whatever it is they were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> I am wondering if there is a setup issue that is causing the surrounds to overwhelm you. XT32 is notorious for increasing the level of the surrounds when Dynamic EQ is being used. Were you using DEQ? What MV setting were you using at the time (DEQ's effect diminishes as MV is raised, ceasing entirely when the MV is ay 0dB). You can tweak this by using Reference Level Offset, or turning DEQ off, or lowering the surround trims by a couple of dB..



Before he goes wondering if there's a setup problem, he should take a look at this...

http://www.mixonline.com/news/films-tv/gone-girl/387366



> “Fincher really wanted to have backgrounds kind of on the edge, like we did at the beginning of The Social Network, where he wanted to challenge the audience,” Klyce says. “David wanted a do a similar thing here with the opening sequence, where Nick and Amy meet at the party [in New York]. We initially had a mix where it was just dialog and music, and it was this notion that they were falling in love and romantic, and the people in the background weren’t even audible. But David came onto the stage and said, ‘No, no, I don’t want it to be that kind of movie! I want it to be like we’re in New York, we’re at a party and there’s a hundred people in the room they want to escape.’ He was constantly pushing us to amp up the sound effects and he really wanted to feel that texture throughout. - See more at: http://www.mixonline.com/news/films-tv/gone-girl/387366#sthash.0LVCiaJG.dpuf


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Before he goes wondering if there's a setup problem, he should take a look at this...
> 
> http://www.mixonline.com/news/films-tv/gone-girl/387366


That Fincher quote is exactly how I am hearing it here. Just like I was at the party. But dialogue is very clear throughout from the main characters and I had no difficulty at all in hearing what they were saying at any time. My experience is that mixers pay huge attention to dialogue intelligibility and that if there are difficulties in hearing it as such, there is usually a (correctable) setup issue.

There is also the well-known impact of Dynamic EQ raising the level of the surrounds unnecessarily. There's no doubt about that, and if the OP is listening at lower levels (than reference) then the effect is even more vexatious.

BTW, that article linked to is fascinating and well worth looking at prior to watching the movie. Thanks for that link.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> There is also the well-known impact of Dynamic EQ raising the level of the surrounds unnecessarily. There's no doubt about that, and if the OP is listening at lower levels (than reference) then the effect is even more vexatious.


My system doesn't have Dynamic EQ because I don't have audyssey. I don't have any issues with dialogue. My personal preferred listening level -10 to -15 I very rarely listen at reference as I find it too loud for my liking.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> My system doesn't have Dynamic EQ because I don't have audyssey. I don't have any issues with dialogue. My personal preferred listening level -10 to -15 I very rarely listen at reference as I find it too loud for my liking.


Raising the level of surrounds is one of the most complained-of issues with Dynamic EQ. DEQ works well for the bass end of the spectrum but it causes bloated sound in the surrounds for many people. It is a pity that Audyssey didn't let users choose to be able to switch off the surround boost but keep the bass boost. The effect of the surround bloat is worse for people who listen at moderate levels, because DEQ does more when the MV is turned down. For those who listen at about -5dB, DEQ is doing far less and so the effect is less noticeable. If one uses a Reference Level Offset of 5 with DEQ, then at -5dB on the MV, DEQ is effectively off. Same with a RLO of 10 or 15. People can use RLO in conjunction with their own usual listening levels to fine tune the way DEQ works, but remember they will modify the bass boost at the same time. The latter can be offset by tweaking up the bass trim level to some extent.

I am not saying this is the cause of the OP's problem with the surrounds swamping the dialogue in *Gone Girl*, but it is a possibility and one that he can easily check out. As I say above, there is no dialogue clarity issue here in that scene - but then I don't use DEQ anyway, and I have a highly treated room and a highly articulate centre speaker, which are favorable for clear dialogue.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I am wondering if there is a setup issue that is causing the surrounds to overwhelm you. XT32 is notorious for increasing the level of the surrounds when Dynamic EQ is being used. Were you using DEQ? What MV setting were you using at the time (DEQ's effect diminishes as MV is raised, ceasing entirely when the MV is ay 0dB). You can tweak this by using Reference Level Offset, or turning DEQ off, or lowering the surround trims by a couple of dB.





kbarnes701 said:


> Raising the level of surrounds is one of the most complained-of issues with Dynamic EQ. DEQ works well for the bass end of the spectrum but it causes bloated sound in the surrounds for many people. It is a pity that Audyssey didn't let users choose to be able to switch off the surround boost but keep the bass boost. The effect of the surround bloat is worse for people who listen at moderate levels, because DEQ does more when the MV is turned down. For those who listen at about -5dB, DEQ is doing far less and so the effect is less noticeable. If one uses a Reference Level Offset of 5 with DEQ, then at -5dB on the MV, DEQ is effectively off. Same with a RLO of 10 or 15. People can use RLO in conjunction with their own usual listening levels to fine tune the way DEQ works, but remember they will modify the bass boost at the same time. The latter can be offset by tweaking up the bass trim level to some extent.


Whether this is the source of OP's issue or not, those are really good points to keep in mind and useful background information on how these features work. I for one seldom think about those Audyssey features--nor do I want to have to think about them; if I can't treat them as "set and forget" then I don't want to be bothered.

Personally, I have always set DEQ on and Dynamic Volume off. We generally watch at around -15dB, and I have a RLO of -10dB for all of my audio and CBL/SAT/TV sources and 0dB for BR/DVD sources (and a SW boost of 3dB). The only complication is that I have to reset some of the RLO levels after every Audyssey recalibration run.

BTW, some directors in the past, such as Robert Altman and John Cassavetes, were famous for purposefully making films with obscured/mumbling dialogue where the actors are often talking over each other's lines. I believe the intent was to create a naturalistic atmosphere which would mirror real-life settings as opposed to achieving an acoustically engineered soundtrack for the sake of intelligibility. I could cite as examples Altman's _California Split_ (1974) or Cassavetes' _Husbands_ (1970), both wonderfully creative, highly improvised movies that are nonetheless vexing to watch if you try to focus on every word of the dialogue. But you come away from them feeling as though you were listening to real-life conversation.


----------



## bargervais

Just watched Prometheus in DSU. This one would be a great candidate for re-release with an Atmos mix I would buy it again. Lots of overhead action and cavernous echoes it's one of my favorites in DSU.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> No. My point was that in the future more money is probably made with streaming to the home and less with cinemas. This will (hopefully) change how surrounds are mounted in dubbing stages -- and in Deadwood


Sorry I am so dense. I do not see how speaker positions are connected to revenue. 

If a car company starts to sell more pickup trucks than sedans, do they stop making sedans?



NorthSky said:


> Roger, how fast now does it takes to deliver a blockbuster across the country?
> 
> Time is relative, it'll come. I missed the two-year lapse; it'll take much much longer.
> 
> Time we stream our movies not only @ home but @ the cinemas. Or are we already?


 Sorry, I am just not following. Release window timing is a business model, not a technological barrier. 

Anyway, I will not be discussing this further. I've lost interest in futuristic cinema prognostications.


----------



## robert816

I too would buy it again, there are a lot of titles I'd be willing to double dip on with an Atmos release.

Watched The Pirates last night. It's a Korean film that was released to theatres in Korea with an Atmos sound track, but again released on Blu-Ray without said track.

Shame too, had numerous scenes with overhead thunder and lightning, underwater scenes, and up close scenes with fighting, cannonballs whizzing by, and lots of explosions, would have been great to hear in Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> BTW, some directors in the past, such as Robert Altman and John Cassavetes, were famous for purposefully making films with obscured/mumbling dialogue where the actors are often talking over each other's lines. I believe the intent was to create a naturalistic atmosphere which would mirror real-life settings as opposed to achieving an acoustically engineered soundtrack for the sake of intelligibility. I could cite as examples Altman's _California Split_ (1974) or Cassavetes' _Husbands_ (1970), both wonderfully creative, highly improvised movies that are nonetheless vexing to watch if you try to focus on every word of the dialogue. But you come away from them feeling as though you were listening to real-life conversation.


I am familiar with those movies, and yes, there is the issue there of artistic intent. But in *Gone Girl,* all the dialogue is very clear and intelligible so if people are struggling to hear it, I immediately start to think "room or setup issue". I think that even where the artistic intent leads to deliberately mumbled or obscured dialogue, any dialogue which is important to the plot will come across clearly. I’d hope so anyway! Also, those movies you cite were made in a different era, where verisimilitude was not often a prime issue, so some directors chose to go that way for a deliberate 'cinema verité' effect. I think they have moved on from that now. Fincher is certainly a director who uses sound very effectively though.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I am familiar with those movies, and yes, there is the issue there of artistic intent. But in *Gone Girl,* all the dialogue is very clear and intelligible so if people are struggling to hear it, I immediately start to think "room or setup issue". I think that even where the artistic intent leads to deliberately mumbled or obscured dialogue, any dialogue which is important to the plot will come across clearly. I’d hope so anyway! Also, those movies you cite were made in a different era, where verisimilitude was not often a prime issue, so some directors chose to go that way for a deliberate 'cinema verité' effect. I think they have moved on from that now. Fincher is certainly a director who uses sound very effectively though.


Fully agreed on all counts. And, as I said, I do not recall having any problems with the dialogue in _Gone Girl_, but we often employ closed captions (IDK whether we did so on this film) so if dialogue is unintelligible that would usually be our fallback resource.


----------



## Al Sherwood

chi_guy50 said:


> Fully agreed on all counts. And, as I said, I do not recall having any problems with the dialogue in _Gone Girl_, but we often employ closed captions (IDK whether we did so on this film) so if dialogue is unintelligible that would usually be our fallback resource.


 
Curious, did I read that right, you watch movies with subtitles 'ON'? Language barriers?


----------



## audioguy

Al Sherwood said:


> Curious, did I read that right, you watch movies with subtitles 'ON'? Language barriers?


This was not addressed to me but we watch an occasional film with sub titles on. I much prefer to not have it on as I tend to focus on it rather than the movie but on occasion, dialog is just unintelligible so we really have no choice. And it's not just my old ears as my wife has great hearing and she sometimes can't understand the dialog either !!


----------



## chi_guy50

Al Sherwood said:


> Curious, did I read that right, you watch movies with subtitles 'ON'? Language barriers?


Yeah, my (our) hearing is not the best and I hate missing critical dialogue so we frequently resort to the captioning. It's a trade-off, of course, as the subtitles detract from immersion in the action. I'm a linguist but was always a dud as an interpreter because I frequently could not hear what was being said. 

My most embarrassing moment was riding in the back of an Army jeep and being asked to translate what our German maneuver partners were saying over the radio; I couldn't understand a flippin' word of it! And that was almost 40 years ago before my ears (and brain) became calcified. Interesting side note: the officer in the front seat for whom I was supposed to be interpreting was a young major by the name of Wesley Clark. You may have heard of him.


----------



## RapalloAV

kbarnes701 said:


> I didn't notice anything like that when I watched the movie. I've only watched it once so far - I will focus on your observations next time I watch it (soon). I thought the sound throughout the movie was excellent, although not very "showy". The score was the highlight of the soundtrack for me - very good indeed. I found dialgoue was always clear, with Amy's voice especially coming across clearly in those early scenes. I do recall those 'party' scenes as having very good surround sound, putting me right in the middle of a large group of people animatedly discussing whatever it is they were discussing.
> 
> I am wondering if there is a setup issue that is causing the surrounds to overwhelm you. XT32 is notorious for increasing the level of the surrounds when Dynamic EQ is being used. Were you using DEQ? What MV setting were you using at the time (DEQ's effect diminishes as MV is raised, ceasing entirely when the MV is ay 0dB). You can tweak this by using Reference Level Offset, or turning DEQ off, or lowering the surround trims by a couple of dB.
> 
> I no longer use XT32, having moved over to Dirac Live, so when I watched the movie, this may have accounted for why I didn't hear the same overwhelming 'noises off' that you heard.


Hi Keith
I only use DEQ and played the movie at 79db so I was only 3db off reference, DEQ would probably not be used that much at this level. Yes maybe the surrounds need to be dropped a little as they do seem a bit overwhelming most of the time for me.


I also have the new Dirac Live, I was one of the first to buy it. However its still sitting dead!
Ive installed it in my rack but haven't even tried it yet with my 11.1 Atmos/Auro setup, been a bit afraid its going to be overwhelming to get into. Wish you would write a simple easy start tutorial for it Keith. 


Ive done a big three week rebuild of the cinema, new speakers with baffles, stage, curved screen etc etc etc...the works!
I ripped the old cinema to bits and rebuilt it, OMG it was a nightmare job!!!!
See the before and after.


----------



## lujan

audioguy said:


> This was not addressed to me but we watch an occasional film with sub titles on. I much prefer to not have it on as I tend to focus on it rather than the movie but on occasion, dialog is just unintelligible so we really have no choice. And it's not just my old ears as my wife has great hearing and she sometimes can't understand the dialog either !!


+1
I also use subtitles when necessary if there is a lot of background music, noise, etc. causing the dialog to be hard to hear. I also use it when the accents are so strong that it's hard to understand what the actors are saying.


----------



## Al Sherwood

chi_guy50 said:


> Yeah, my (our) hearing is not the best and I hate missing critical dialogue so we frequently resort to the captioning. It's a trade-off, of course, as the subtitles detract from immersion in the action. I'm a linguist but was always a dud as an interpreter because I frequently could not hear what was being said.
> 
> My most embarrassing moment was riding in the back of an Army jeep and being asked to translate what our German maneuver partners were saying over the radio; I couldn't understand a flippin' word of it! And that was almost 40 years ago before my ears (and brain) became calcified. Interesting side note: the officer in the front seat for whom I was supposed to be interpreting was a young major by the name of Wesley Clark. You may have heard of him.



Ahh I see, makes sense, but as you mentioned, I would find it tough to stay immersed in the movie if I had to read subtitles... interesting story about the translators! 


Sorry, being from Canada I don' follow specific members of the US military.


----------



## Al Sherwood

audioguy said:


> This was not addressed to me but we watch an occasional film with sub titles on. I much prefer to not have it on as I tend to focus on it rather than the movie but on occasion, dialog is just unintelligible so we really have no choice. And it's not just my old ears as my wife has great hearing and she sometimes can't understand the dialog either !!


 
I have been there too, either miss the dialog, hit replay or... give up and nod like I understood... *OH* you are talking about the movie, I was thinking wife! 


She say's I am deaf, but I don't think so.


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> Hi Keith
> I only use DEQ and played the movie at 79db so I was only 3db off reference, DEQ would probably not be used that much at this level. Yes maybe the surrounds need to be dropped a little as they do seem a bit overwhelming most of the time for me.


If you regularly use DEQ I would suggest dropping the level by ~2dB in the AVR trims and see if you prefer it that way.



RapalloAV said:


> I also have the new Dirac Live, I was one of the first to buy it. However its still sitting dead!
> Ive installed it in my rack but haven't even tried it yet with my 11.1 Atmos/Auro setup, been a bit afraid its going to be overwhelming to get into. Wish you would write a simple easy start tutorial for it Keith.


It is no more difficult than XT32. Hook up the 88A, put the mic in position No 1 at MLP, run the software. Repeat for 8 more mic positions. Select target curve, create filters, upload to AVR. Done. Loads of help in the 88A thread if you encounter a problem. One of the things that impressed me a lot about Dirac was the ease of use of the software. My First Report outlines some of the procedure etc. 



RapalloAV said:


> Ive done a big three week rebuild of the cinema, new speakers with baffles, stage, curved screen etc etc etc...the works!
> I ripped the old cinema to bits and rebuilt it, OMG it was a nightmare job!!!!
> See the before and after.


Nice job! Worth the effort and all the work.


----------



## RapalloAV

jpco said:


> Before he goes wondering if there's a setup problem, he should take a look at this...
> 
> http://www.mixonline.com/news/films-tv/gone-girl/387366


Thanks very much for that jpco, its a very interesting read.
Now I know and understand why the surrounds are top heavy in this film, there was a reason, not my setup! Happy!


----------



## chi_guy50

Al Sherwood said:


> Ahh I see, makes sense, but as you mentioned, I would find it tough to stay immersed in the movie if I had to read subtitles... interesting story about the translators!
> 
> 
> Sorry, being from Canada I don' follow specific members of the US military.


Wesley Clark, then an impressive young field-grade officer, went on to become Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces (which includes Canada, eh) and more recently vied for nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States.

BTW, the Canadian forces routinely whipped our butts in war game maneuvers. They were always gung-ho and played to win.


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> Ive done a big three week rebuild of the cinema, new speakers with baffles, stage, curved screen etc etc etc...the works!
> I ripped the old cinema to bits and rebuilt it, OMG it was a nightmare job!!!!
> See the before and after.


Wow, that's beautiful! I'd love to see some more pix.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> Sorry I am so dense. I do not see how speaker positions are connected to revenue.
> 
> If a car company starts to sell more pickup trucks than sedans, do they stop making sedans?


If the seats for those two car types would need to be the same, would the car manufacturer compromise the seat design for the pickup rather than for the sedan?

Atmos can do a full dome of sound with surrounds at ear level or a compromised version of it with surrounds above ear level. I'd like to have the former.


----------



## RapalloAV

chi_guy50 said:


> Fully agreed on all counts. And, as I said, I do not recall having any problems with the dialogue in _Gone Girl_, but we often employ closed captions (IDK whether we did so on this film) so if dialogue is unintelligible that would usually be our fallback resource.


Guys lets make this clear, I never said I had any problems understanding the dialog in "Gone Girl", it is perfectly clear to understand. 


I said the crowd scenes were very loud in the surrounds in this film (not on others) we now know after reading the article the director intended them to be so, even the cicadas! LOUD


----------



## chi_guy50

rapalloav said:


> guys lets make this clear, i never said i had any problems understanding the dialog in "gone girl", it is perfectly clear to understand.
> 
> 
> I said the crowd scenes were very loud in the surrounds in this film (not on others) we now know after reading the article the director intended them to be so, even the cicadas! Loud :d


eh, what's that? Speak up please, i can't hear you!


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Atmos can do a full dome of sound with surrounds at ear level or a compromised version of it with surrounds above ear level. I'd like to have the former.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

RMK! said:


> Way back when you started your quixotic campaign against Auromatic I did a couple of scenes from Skyfall with just the heights and then all speakers. I repeated this several times and then used DSU the same way. My purely subjective opinion was/is that I preferred Aruomatic especially with music.
> 
> Most of my subsequent movie/concert watching has been with Auromatic engaged. I like having both technologies at my disposal as have others who have purchased the Auro upgrade. When DTS-X is available I will likely add that format to the mix. I have satisfied my own curiosity about Auromatic and DSU functionality and have zero interest in playing your little game. Frankly, no test performed by another person will satisfy you and you are too cheap or blinded by your demagoguery to try it for yourself. That's cool with me ...





aaranddeeman said:


> It's a bit harsh on Keith. He has contributed in lot of things here.
> Having said that, (honestly) when you look at all his posts against Auro, it does smell prejudice (IMHO).





kbarnes701 said:


> I have no "campaign against Auromatic". Why would I? I like Atmos for sure, but I am as keen as the next guy to see DTS:X come along. My beef with Auro is that there is no content, no sign of any content, and that it is an outdated channel-based technology. My beef with Auromatic is that it just copies other channels elsewhere which is not what an upmixer should do. I have a separate beef about Wilfrid Van Baelen needing to be so economical with the truth when promoting Auro, but that is another issue altogether. But there is no campaign against Auro from here. If you can find a post from me which is not factually accurate about Auro, please link to it.
> 
> I have no problem with people's preferences at all. But preferences should not be disguised as facts. Saying that Auromatic works in a way it doesn't work is not a valid basis for putting forward a preference. (Not aimed at you but there are many who do this.)
> 
> If you have no interest in discovering how Auromatic works, that is fine. But realise that others, including me, do. There is no requirement for you to do the test yourself or to agree with me.
> 
> I cannot try it as I do not have Auro. And when you say no test performed by another person will satisfy me, how do you know? I have repeatedly asked for this simple test to be done and nobody will do it. It makes me wonder why? Are they scared they will discover that Auromatic does exactly what I (and others) say it does and not what Van Baelen says it does?


Campaign against Auro? Has anyone here watched the HTG interview with Van Baelen? I thought he was totally obnoxious, whatever interest in Auro I might have had evaporated after hearing him speak. I don't for one second believe Kbarnes holds an unfair bias regarding Auro. The impression I get is that it's the other way around... Baelen makes some *very* bold claims without sufficient evidence. I'm obviously not the only one who didn't notice... it's very telling that a lot of the HT enthusiasts who attended SMPTE got Atmos setups.


----------



## NorthSky

Do you have the link of that interview, please?


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Do you have the link of that interview, please?


----------



## NorthSky

Thanks. Meanwhile (earlier) I watched those:














* Galaxy studios: That building is something else; from the ground up to the rooftop. ...All layers. ...And unique in the entire world. 
A lot of care went into the acoustics. Wilfried's life into this hobby is also very interesting. 

You can say whatever on the concept, but it is the final immersion through the journey that counts. ...The guy had/has a vision, and a valid vision @ that too. Music ♫ is certainly his passion, like me, and many of you. 

Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (MDA), along with Auro-3D and their respective up-mixers; DSU, dts:xpand and Auro-Matic is a triple tour-de-force
in 3-Dimensional sound for all of us. 
...Very spatial (special) indeed.


----------



## NorthSky

Remember; Audio/Video with Audio preceding, and audio encompasses music and movie soundtracks.


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> Thanks. Meanwhile (earlier) I watched those:
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SuLjEoR-KY
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=AitvPndi0eU
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjP-TDMxjA
> 
> * Galaxy studios: That building is something else; from the ground up to the rooftop. ...All layers. ...And unique in the entire world.
> A lot of care went into the acoustics. Wilfried's life into this hobby is also very interesting.
> 
> You can say whatever on the concept, but it is the final immersion through the journey that counts. ...The guy had/has a vision, and a valid vision @ that too. Music ♫ is certainly his passion, like me, and many of you.
> 
> Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (MDA), along with Auro-3D and their respective up-mixers; DSU, dts:xpand and Auro-Matic is a triple tour-de-force
> in 3-Dimensional sound for all of us.
> ...Very spatial (special) indeed.


Nice.. thanks for posting.. i learned a lot from this... 

In the end, regardless of what technology is use, what a user experience is key... i have yet to hear someone experience Auro-3D that is properly set up and wasn't impressed. I know some here say it's just an upmixing of lower channels to upper... but the key point of what he's saying is that that's exactly what we usually hear in real life anyways... and if you can duplicate the experience, then who cares how it's done??? To me, the data is more important than the 'theory'...


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> Raised surrounds is just a concession to how movies were mixed in the old days (which still apply to most movies mixed today).


But aren't we still very much living in those days? Not most but all movies, including Atmos ones, remain being mixed with raised surrounds, and apparently will be in the foreseeable future. Lowering our surrounds at home is not going to change that, neither is Dolby 's recommendation to do just that. 



> Now we have height channels and this is no longer needed. Sounds can be placed anywhere within a dome around the listener. Having surrounds higher up makes that dome shrink. Counterproductive within an object-based approach in my opinion.


Theoretically it might be no longer needed, but there is still no content for lowered surrounds. You can choose to believe that for the best approximation of the intended sound you should follow Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds and spread your height arrays further apart as compared to reference. But I am simply not buying that. Not without any solid explanation on how that is even possible.


----------



## RapalloAV

coolgeek said:


> Nice.. thanks for posting.. i learned a lot from this...
> 
> In the end, regardless of what technology is use, what a user experience is key... i have yet to hear someone experience Auro-3D that is properly set up and wasn't impressed. I know some here say it's just an upmixing of lower channels to upper... but the key point of what he's saying is that that's exactly what we usually hear in real life anyways... and if you can duplicate the experience, then who cares how it's done??? To me, the data is more important than the 'theory'...



Ive been reading the debate on Auro 3D Vs Atmos with interest, but waited to comment, now its my turn....


I think Im the only person in the world who setup for Auro, paid for it and then went back to Atmos.
My speakers are better arranged for Auro than Atmos and I put in a 13.1 setup, front top centre, all the rest and VOG. It cost me the earth to have all THX Klipsch in ceiling speakers installed and I must admit it is impressive with Auromatic. But to be frank I think my system sounds much better in Atmos, even thought the speakers are better configured for Auro 3D. I feel Auro sounds too airy, bright and light, when I went back to Atmos 11.1 and re did XT32, I really noticed my L&R fronts opened up and were much more distinct! The bass and warmth of the sound really returned with a vengeance, its big, deep, and really WARM, I just love it! On Auro its bright and airy and bass seems to resonate. I prefer my front stage speakers to be distinct and the voices to have depth, they do with atmos/DSU for me, but they just seem to loose the warmth and depth when I go to Auro. On DSU I also find sounds seem to come from different surround speakers, they are well defined, on Auro much less, seem to be from everywhere.


The best thing is all my older films, mono, two channel etc etc are heaps better on DSU, they are impossible to listen to on Auro, the speech doesn't just come from the centre channel, its all over the place and echo's from the front L&R, no good. I mentioned this on the Auro thread some time ago when I wondered why these movies sound so bad, seems like they always will on Auro.


Well Im here to stay, Ive done extensive testing and for me DSU sounds a heap better. I feel Auro will die, I wish I hadn't spent the money to setup correctly for Auro now as Im disappointed with the result. I just cant wait now for DTS X, maybe my front top centre will start to work, but probably my VOG is now a goner forever!


Anyway I wouldn't advise anyone to install for Auro now, just wait and see what DTS X brings forth. If you need to go for it, go Atmos install. My 2cents worth


----------



## coolgeek

RapalloAV said:


> Ive been reading the debate on Auro 3D Vs Atmos with interest, but waited to comment, now its my turn....
> 
> 
> I think Im the only person in the world who setup for Auro, paid for it and then went back to Atmos.
> My speakers are better arranged for Auro than Atmos and I put in a 13.1 setup, front top centre, all the rest and VOG. It cost me the earth to have all THX Klipsch in ceiling speakers installed and I must admit it is impressive with Auromatic. But to be frank I think my system sounds much better in Atmos, even thought the speakers are better configured for Auro 3D. I feel Auro sounds too airy, bright and light, when I went back to Atmos 11.1 and re did XT32, I really noticed my L&R fronts opened up and were much more distinct! The bass and warmth of the sound really returned with a vengeance, its big, deep, and really WARM, I just love it! On Auro its bright and airy and bass seems to resonate. I prefer my front stage speakers to be distinct and the voices to have depth, they do with atmos/DSU for me, but they just seem to loose the warmth and depth when I go to Auro. On DSU I also find sounds seem to come from different surround speakers, they are well defined, on Auro much less, seem to be from everywhere.
> 
> 
> The best thing is all my older films, mono, two channel etc etc are heaps better on DSU, they are impossible to listen to on Auro, the speech doesn't just come from the centre channel, its all over the place and echo's from the front L&R, no good. I mentioned this on the Auro thread some time ago when I wondered why these movies sound so bad, seems like they always will on Auro.
> 
> 
> Well Im here to stay, Ive done extensive testing and for me DSU sounds a heap better. I feel Auro will die, I wish I hadn't spent the money to setup correctly for Auro now as Im disappointed with the result. I just cant wait now for DTS X, maybe my front top centre will start to work, but probably my VOG is now a goner forever!
> 
> 
> Anyway I wouldn't advise anyone to install for Auro now, just wait and see what DTS X brings forth. If you need to go for it, go Atmos install. My 2cents worth


Thanks for the review... 

Did you use auro up-mixing of old content or source with auro embedded in it?

Anyways, auro (good or bad) is out for me anyways because of the size of my room.. my seats lean right up against the wall, so 'low' speakers are out of the question.. my surrounds are only about a foot below the ceiling (so, they are like auro heights, but without the lower sides)... 

And you might have a point... I think in this competitive marketplace, a 3rd sound format may be too much to ask from content providers... DTS and Dolby already have a strangle hold on the blu ray format.. and they will likely be the only players in that 'expensive real estate (ie, space on the disk)... perhaps there will be some special release concerts, music, specialty content with auro...


----------



## RapalloAV

coolgeek said:


> Thanks for the review...
> 
> Did you use auro up-mixing of old content or source with auro embedded in it?
> 
> Anyways, auro (good or bad) is out for me anyways because of the size of my room.. my seats lean right up against the wall, so 'low' speakers are out of the question.. my surrounds are only about a foot below the ceiling (so, they are like auro heights, but without the lower sides)...
> 
> And you might have a point... I think in this competitive marketplace, a 3rd sound format may be too much to ask from content providers... DTS and Dolby already have a strangle hold on the blu ray format.. and they will likely be the only players in that 'expensive real estate (ie, space on the disk)... perhaps there will be some special release concerts, music, specialty content with auro...



I used Auro upmixing with everything, there are no movies in the English speaking world for us to see in Auro 3D.
The lowered surrounds are well worth it, they make a wonderful realism I never had before. Lows with highs work great!


----------



## coolgeek

RapalloAV said:


> I used Auro upmixing with everything, there are no movies in the English speaking world for us to see in Auro 3D.
> The lowered surrounds are well worth it, they make a wonderful realism I never had before. Lows with highs work great!


Upmixing is a hit and miss... my receivers comes with all sorts of dts settings.. neo x, ochestra, etc, etc... and for different content, i sometimes find different upmixing works best... 

After watching the Auro youtube presentation, eveything makes sense.. if anyone have the space in their room, the best setup would be to have LCR + Surrounds, all as the same speaker on the same low plane... then add the heights and ceilings... i can already imagine a tracktor moving from the screen towards you and the sound just comes out right on the side... that'll be awesome!!


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Lowering our surrounds at home is not going to change that


If most people are listening that way and if most revenue is coming from those listeners then things will change.



maikeldepotter said:


> Theoretically it might be no longer needed, but there is still no content for lowered surrounds. You can choose to believe that for the best approximation of the intended sound you should follow Dolby's recommendation to lower your surrounds and spread your height arrays further apart as compared to reference. But I am simply not buying that. Not without any solid explanation on how that is even possible.


Sure there is content for lowered surrounds, people talking, drummers drumming, cars driving by, footsteps, doors, etc. Right now all that content is coming form unnaturally high locations. I had my surrounds always at ear height because it didn't sound right having them higher up. Movie theaters have to compromise but at home we don't need to.


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> Ive been reading the debate on Auro 3D Vs Atmos with interest, but waited to comment, now its my turn....
> 
> I think Im the only person in the world who setup for Auro, paid for it and then went back to Atmos.
> My speakers are better arranged for Auro than Atmos and I put in a 13.1 setup, front top centre, all the rest and VOG. It cost me the earth to have all THX Klipsch in ceiling speakers installed and I must admit it is impressive with Auromatic. But to be frank I think my system sounds much better in Atmos, even thought the speakers are better configured for Auro 3D. I feel Auro sounds too airy, bright and light, when I went back to Atmos 11.1 and re did XT32, I really noticed my L&R fronts opened up and were much more distinct! The bass and warmth of the sound really returned with a vengeance, its big, deep, and really WARM, I just love it! On Auro its bright and airy and bass seems to resonate. I prefer my front stage speakers to be distinct and the voices to have depth, they do with atmos/DSU for me, but they just seem to loose the warmth and depth when I go to Auro. On DSU I also find sounds seem to come from different surround speakers, they are well defined, on Auro much less, seem to be from everywhere.
> 
> The best thing is all my older films, mono, two channel etc etc are heaps better on DSU, they are impossible to listen to on Auro, the speech doesn't just come from the centre channel, its all over the place and echo's from the front L&R, no good. I mentioned this on the Auro thread some time ago when I wondered why these movies sound so bad, seems like they always will on Auro.
> 
> Well Im here to stay, Ive done extensive testing and for me DSU sounds a heap better. I feel Auro will die, I wish I hadn't spent the money to setup correctly for Auro now as Im disappointed with the result. I just cant wait now for DTS X, maybe my front top centre will start to work, but probably my VOG is now a goner forever!
> 
> Anyway I wouldn't advise anyone to install for Auro now, just wait and see what DTS X brings forth. If you need to go for it, go Atmos install. My 2cents worth


Good read.  /// And I believe what you just said. 

* My own take: Auro-3D music recordings (real discrete music recordings, not Auro-Matic the up-mixer) have a good chance for the multichannel music lovers. ...If recorded with intelligent/realistic taste by the right and experienced recording/mixing professional music engineers. 
...The mastering art of "miking/milking" the music ♫


----------



## coolgeek

I have a question... 

Assuming you have a regular 7.1 speaker setup.. what happens when you play a blu-ray that comes with Atmos soundtrack? do they down-mix the signals? do you lose something as compared to if the blu-ray comes with original 7.1 surround sound?


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> In the end, regardless of what technology is use, what a user experience is key... i have yet to hear someone experience Auro-3D that is properly set up and wasn't impressed. I know some here say it's just an upmixing of lower channels to upper... but the key point of what he's saying is that that's exactly what we usually hear in real life anyways... and if you can duplicate the experience, then who cares how it's done??? To me, the data is more important than the 'theory'...


I think the issue is that VB deliberately misleads or obfuscates. The most famous example is probably the one where he says that Atmos requires a new Bluray player whereas Auro does not. He's said that more than once and it is, of course, untrue. Another well-known falsehood is that Auro uses objects when the consumer version is 100% channel-based. And another is repeating that TrueHD can be lossy but DTS-MA can't when the exact opposite is true.

WRT to how Auromatic works, VB has talked about extracting information from the 'base' channels and using HRTF steering. Neither of those is what actually happens. Why not just say that Auromatic copies the base channel in its entirety and sends it to another speaker, reduced in level with some reverb added. That is what it does so why not just say so? Then it becomes just a question of whether people like it (you) or dislike it (me). Preference IOW. Why try to pretend that it works like a genuine upmixer, extracting information and steering it elsewhere?


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> On DSU I also find sounds seem to come from different surround speakers, they are well defined, on Auro much less, seem to be from everywhere.
> 
> 
> The best thing is all my older films, mono, two channel etc etc are heaps better on DSU, they are impossible to listen to on Auro, the speech doesn't just come from the centre channel, its all over the place and echo's from the front L&R, no good.


Those findings are consistent with how Auromatic actually works.

Like you, I am eagerly awaiting DTS:X. That will give Atmos some proper competition, which can only be good for consumers.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> I have a question...
> 
> Assuming you have a regular 7.1 speaker setup.. what happens when you play a blu-ray that comes with Atmos soundtrack? do they down-mix the signals? do you lose something as compared to if the blu-ray comes with original 7.1 surround sound?


You don't lose anything. It is all folded down into the 7.1 channels.


----------



## markus767

coolgeek said:


> I have a question...
> 
> Assuming you have a regular 7.1 speaker setup.. what happens when you play a blu-ray that comes with Atmos soundtrack? do they down-mix the signals? do you lose something as compared to if the blu-ray comes with original 7.1 surround sound?


What is on the disc is already a downmix. If the decoder is Atmos-capable it removes the objects from that downmix and places objects according to the Atmos metadata included on the disc. A non-Atmos-decoder simply ignores that metadata and plays the downmix.


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> Guys lets make this clear, I never said I had any problems understanding the dialog in "Gone Girl", it is perfectly clear to understand.


Not quite what you said Murray. You said that the dialogue was not so easy to understand. Not 'impossible' to understand I agree, but you said it wasn't so easy to understand. To quote:



RapalloAV said:


> The clatter and noises in the room seemed to dominate, would have been easier to understand the leads if all the ceiling speakers and surrounds were toned down a bit.


What you said certainly implies that the dialogue could have been clearer if the surrounds were less loud.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Thanks. Meanwhile (earlier) I watched those:
> .


Thanks for the links, have not seen those before. Very intreresting.

So he brags about his system, and trashes the competition a little, who doesn't ? He is a businessman, that's what they do


----------



## RapalloAV

kbarnes701 said:


> Not quite what you said Murray. You said that the dialogue was not so easy to understand. Not 'impossible' to understand I agree, but you said it wasn't so easy to understand. To quote:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said certainly implies that the dialogue could have been clearer if the surrounds were less loud.


Keith don't put words in my mouth please. The dialog is overpowered by the surrounds in the crowd scenes in the film more than any other film that Ive ever noticed. 


I know that many have said on the Audyssey thread for years that their surrounds are too high after running Audyssey, Ive never ever mentioned that in any thread Ive ever posted in all these years. Go back and check if you wish.....


"Gone Girl" is the first ever movie I mentioned this surround boost in, Ive never heard this type of recording in any other film before. One does need to strain a bit listening to the dialog since the crowd scene boost in the surrounds is higher than normal. Looks like after reading the article that the director intended it to be this way, so that's all good.


If the surrounds are recorded louder than normal when two people are talking of course its going to be more difficult to understand or hear some of the words they say, I didn't need a hearing aid, but one does really need to listen above all the clatter in the background. The director intended us to really listen hard as the surround clatter is meant to dominate and be way louder than usual, please read that.


You mentioned you didn't notice this at all, Im now wondering if you don't have your setup tuned properly now since your using Dirac. 


My ears must be ok as I noticed the surrounds were louder than usual for this film, the director wanted us to notice that. 


Ever been in a noisy restaurant with hundreds of people, no carpet, hard surfaces, its almost impossible to hear the people at your table. You really have to move closer to people at your table to hear what they say. This is exactly what the director intended us to also do in the crowd scenes in "Gone Girl" listen hard....


----------



## NorthSky

> I think the issue is that VB deliberately misleads or obfuscates. The most famous example is probably the one where he says 1. that Atmos requires a new Bluray player whereas Auro does not. He's said that more than once and it is, of course, untrue. Another well-known falsehood is 2. that Auro uses objects when the consumer version is 100% channel-based. And another 3. is repeating that TrueHD can be lossy but DTS-MA can't when the exact opposite is true.


♦ 1. Thing is that for many Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays (all Lionsgate titles) many Blu-ray players, if not recent, cannot handle the "seamless branching" audio packing of Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio together. They don't have enough DSP horsepower in their chip to deal with the demanding complexity of algorithms without audio dropouts. We have talked about that here and in many other threads, and not only more than once and twice and thrice, but several times. 
Eg.; https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> That thread is only nine posts long.

2. Also, on other occasions he mentioned that Auro-3D is "channel" based.

3. And, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are not totally "lossy". ...We've been through that already in the past.

All in all he is not entirely wrong, but 'voluptuously' right.  ...Wilfried is human, just like the Dolby Atmos guys who also said this and that @ one point and another and without being perfectly clear and accurate, which that too we've been already through before.

I'm just sayin' man, just some real readings and thoughts. 



> WRT to how Auromatic works, VB has talked about extracting information from the 'base' channels and using HRTF steering. Neither of those is what actually happens. Why not just say that Auromatic copies the base channel in its entirety and sends it to another speaker, reduced in level with some reverb added. That is what it does so why not just say so? Then it becomes just a question of whether people like it (you) or dislike it (me). Preference IOW. Why try to pretend that it works like a genuine upmixer, extracting information and steering it elsewhere?


♦ I'll get back on this later... /// And this is no reason to "like" or "dislike" a guy for. ... whether he said this or that or didn't say. IMHO

I'm simply expressing my sincere opinion. ...Just like you.  ... And like I said, I will get back on it.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> You don't lose anything. It is all folded down into the 7.1 channels.


Is this entirely true? Because I have an interview in mind, while a mixer was telling about his Atmos mixes and as far as I remember, he said, he has to take care about that - there is no automatic in order to get all objects in the channels, too.
And if I check the "Amaze" trailer, I'm very sure, I hear more differentiated sounds (e.g. raindrops at bottom and at leaves) with the Atmos track than listen to the base channel mix instead.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Thanks for the links, have not seen those before. Very intreresting.
> 
> So he brags about his system, and trashes the competition a little, who doesn't ? *He is a businessman*, that's what they do


He certainly is, and a musician, and a sensitive human being as well. ...And a true sound luminary and visionary and surround sound developer and lover of music and of all people around. He worked with some of the best in Europe.

Brief, he is the perfect human being.  - The Fifth Element

* Stick around, you haven't heard anything yet.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Chris Dotur said:


> Metallica - Through the Never is coming out on Atmos? I just bought the special edition on Blu-Ray. Well, I guess that's what happens.


I just searched for this after reading your post, found it on Amazon Germany for a release date of April 21, 2015. Think I'll be throwing in a preorder on this. Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

*Metallica | 'Through the Never' Blu-ray 3D*



ThePrisoner said:


> I just searched for this after reading your post, found it on Amazon Germany for a release date of April 21, 2015. Think I'll be throwing in a preorder on this. Thanks


Great Blu-ray title; got it in 3D.


----------



## ThePrisoner

NorthSky said:


> Great Blu-ray title; got it in 3D.


I currently own the 3D blu-ray and it is great. Later today I will fire up my blu-ray and give it a listen through DSU for the first time!


----------



## NorthSky

*Metallica | Through the Never*



ThePrisoner said:


> I currently own the 3D blu-ray and it is great.
> Later today I will fire up my blu-ray and give it a listen through DSU for the first time!


Keep tracking.


----------



## jpco

NorthSky said:


> Thing is that for many Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays (all Lionsgate titles) many Blu-ray players, if not recent, cannot handle the "seamless branching" audio packing of Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio together. They don't have enough DSP horsepower in their chip to deal with the demanding complexity of algorithms without audio dropouts. We have talked about that here and in many other threads, and not only more than once and twice and thrice, but several times.
> Eg.; https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> That thread is only nine posts long.


I can't bitstream Mockingjay in True HD on either my Oppo BDP-83 or my newly purchased Sony S3200 without dropouts, which I purchased due to BDP-83 problems with the most recent X-Men disc. Since it was the first Atmos movie I wanted to own, I actually considered getting an AVR this weekend to upgrade to Atmos (I can be that impulsive). Too bad I wouldn't have been able to listen to it cleanly.

I searched for the issue last night and found someone with a Panasonic player that described dropouts in exactly the same places in the movie. AIUI, it is not necessarily an Atmos issue, but the whole thing makes me wonder what the future of discs is going to look like. If three players can't play what is one of the biggest disc releases of the year, how do studios expect consumers to react?

For now, I'll have the Oppo decode in the player, and maybe all will be fine (at least is was with Mockingjay). I ask for anyone who has watched Mockingjay and bitstreamed True HD without dropouts (check the scene where Katniss is at the house and gets the cat), please share what player worked. PM will be fine if we don't want to muddy up this thread. I want to be sure my next player purchase can handle current authoring techniques as well as possible. Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

That thread now, from that link I just posted, and inside your quote above, is twice as long, with nineteen posts.

This is a serious issue, I'd say. And it is not Dolby Atmos' fault. ...Most likely embedded copy protection for the seamless branching audio packing with Dolby Atmos in it and which has more demanding data that our Blu-ray players simply cannot handle anymore.

* The thing is this though: It's not helping Dolby Atmos @ all. ...And neither us.


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> Keith don't put words in my mouth please. The dialog is overpowered by the surrounds in the crowd scenes in the film more than any other film that Ive ever noticed.


LOL. If a direct quote from you is "putting words in your mouth" I give up 



RapalloAV said:


> "Gone Girl" is the first ever movie I mentioned this surround boost in, Ive never heard this type of recording in any other film before. One does need to strain a bit listening to the dialog since the crowd scene boost in the surrounds is higher than normal. Looks like after reading the article that the director intended it to be this way, so that's all good.


I didn’t need to strain at all here to hear the dialogue in that scene. I thought the whole scene was exceptionally well-balanced from a sound POV, with a lot of loud chatter all around, as would be the case at the actual venue, but with dialogue from the main characters coming through with complete clarity.



RapalloAV said:


> You mentioned you didn't notice this at all, Im now wondering if you don't have your setup tuned properly now since your using Dirac.


A properly set up system never has any problems with dialogue intelligibility.


----------



## Nalleh

RapalloAV said:


> I used Auro upmixing with everything, there are no movies in the English speaking world for us to see in Auro 3D.
> The lowered surrounds are well worth it, they make a wonderful realism I never had before. Lows with highs work great!


If you contact Auro, they will send you the Auro 3D demo disc. For free!
It has over two hours of Auro encoded masteriale  Recommended !


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> Is this entirely true? Because I have an interview in mind, while a mixer was telling about his Atmos mixes and as far as I remember, he said, he has to take care about that - there is no automatic in order to get all objects in the channels, too.
> And if I check the "Amaze" trailer, I'm very sure, I hear more differentiated sounds (e.g. raindrops at bottom and at leaves) with the Atmos track than listen to the base channel mix instead.


Yes it's entirely true. The entire soundtrack is in the TrueHD stream. If you have an Atmos AVR, then the objects are extracted and sent to their respective speakers and if you don't have an Atmos AVR, the sound goes to the 5.1 or 7.1 speakers you do have. Nothing is missed out, lost etc.

How are you listening to Amaze without Atmos? Sending PCM from your player? If you do, then you get 100% of the sounds but obviously coming from different speakers as the overheads will be getting no content.

Edit: my use of "folded down" was sloppy wording on my part. There is no need to fold down, or downmix the Atmos track to 7.1. The downmix is already there from the start, as Markus's post following mine above confirms.


----------



## NorthSky

> A properly set up system never has any problems with dialogue intelligibility.


The content has a lot to do with it; the recording. ...From the movie audio soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> I can't bitstream Mockingjay in True HD on either my Oppo BDP-83 or my newly purchased Sony S3200 without dropouts, which I purchased due to BDP-83 problems with the most recent X-Men disc. Since it was the first Atmos movie I wanted to own, I actually considered getting an AVR this weekend to upgrade to Atmos (I can be that impulsive). Too bad I wouldn't have been able to listen to it cleanly.
> 
> I searched for the issue last night and found someone with a Panasonic player that described dropouts in exactly the same places in the movie.


Have you asked Panasonic/Sony if they plan a FW update to enable their players to handle complex seamless branching properly? The Oppo is a hopeless case - Oppo have already said that the 83 and 93 players cannot be FW updated to handle this problem.



jpco said:


> AIUI, it is not necessarily an Atmos issue, but the whole thing makes me wonder what the future of discs is going to look like. If three players can't play what is one of the biggest disc releases of the year, how do studios expect consumers to react?


It's nothing to do with Atmos at all. It is to do with overly complex seamless branching which some studios are using to try to foil illegal copying. The 2012 disc of *Total Recall*, for example, won’t play on your Oppo without dropouts either, and that isn't an Atmos title of course. 



jpco said:


> For now, I'll have the Oppo decode in the player, and maybe all will be fine (at least is was with Mockingjay).


But you will lose Atmos of course if you send PCM from your player.

I solved the problem by selling my Oppo 93 and replacing it with an Oppo 103.


----------



## maikeldepotter

multit said:


> Is this entirely true? Because I have an interview in mind, while a mixer was telling about his Atmos mixes and as far as I remember, he said, he has to take care about that - there is no automatic in order to get all objects in the channels, too.
> And if I check the "Amaze" trailer, I'm very sure, I hear more differentiated sounds (e.g. raindrops at bottom and at leaves) with the Atmos track than listen to the base channel mix instead.


That trailer is to show off Atmos with the base channel mix being the reference point. Maybe they 'forgot' to fold back some differentiating sounds properly into the channel bed? (Edit: I don't know if such manipulation possibility would even exist, but if it does...).


----------



## zimmo

please this is a topic on the dolby atmos if you talked about auro 3d start new topic on auro 3d.


thank you


----------



## NorthSky

> Have you asked Panasonic/Sony if they plan a FW update to enable their players to handle complex seamless branching properly? The Oppo is a hopeless case - Oppo have already said that the 83 and 93 players cannot be FW updated to handle this problem.


And all along I thought Oppo Blu-ray players were the best. 



> It's nothing to do with Atmos at all. It is to do with overly complex seamless branching which some studios are using to try to foil illegal copying. The 2012 disc of *Total Recall*, for example, won’t play on your Oppo without dropouts either, and that isn't an Atmos title of course.


Lionsgate studios; all their Blu-ray Dolby Atmos encoded titles are like that. 

* 'Total Recall' (Sony Pictures) was a totally different issue. It was recalled too and eventually replaced by a properly operating BR disc.
{Just the film's itself own title says it all: 'Total Recall'  } 



> But you will lose Atmos of course if you send PCM from your player.
> 
> I solved the problem by selling my Oppo 93 and replacing it with an Oppo 103.


True, LPCM will work, if you have a non-Dolby Atmos receiver (SSP). 

* Yup, just buy another Blu-ray player, the most recent; issue fixed.  
{Well "planted" strategy, by whoever.  }


----------



## dvdwilly3

zimmo said:


> please this is a topic on the dolby atmos if you talked about auro 3d start new topic on auro 3d.
> 
> 
> thank you


Sort along those lines...does anyone plan on starting a DTS:X thread once DTS makes their pending announcement?


----------



## chi_guy50

dvdwilly3 said:


> Sort along those lines...does anyone plan on starting a DTS:X thread once DTS makes their pending announcement?


Did you mean ANOTHER thread?

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-immersive-sound-format-due-march-2015-a.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html

(et alia)


----------



## dvdwilly3

chi_guy50 said:


> Did you mean ANOTHER thread?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-immersive-sound-format-due-march-2015-a.html
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html
> 
> (et alia)


Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to ask.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> How are you listening to Amaze without Atmos? Sending PCM from your player? If you do, then you get 100% of the sounds but obviously coming from different speakers as the overheads will be getting no content.


I don't know if this is what Multit is doing, but...

With a D+M AVR (like your X5200W, Keith) when you press the "Movie" button on the remote, you'll find that there's a "TrueHD" option in the on-screen menu right above the "Atmos/Surround" option. When the TrueHD option is selected, the AVR will play the soundtrack as 5.1 (or 7.1) instead of 5.1.4 (7.1.4).


----------



## RAllenChristenson

jpco said:


> I can't bitstream Mockingjay in True HD on either my Oppo BDP-83 or my newly purchased Sony S3200 without dropouts, which I purchased due to BDP-83 problems with the most recent X-Men disc. Since it was the first Atmos movie I wanted to own, I actually considered getting an AVR this weekend to upgrade to Atmos (I can be that impulsive). Too bad I wouldn't have been able to listen to it cleanly.
> 
> I searched for the issue last night and found someone with a Panasonic player that described dropouts in exactly the same places in the movie. AIUI, it is not necessarily an Atmos issue, but the whole thing makes me wonder what the future of discs is going to look like. If three players can't play what is one of the biggest disc releases of the year, how do studios expect consumers to react?
> 
> For now, I'll have the Oppo decode in the player, and maybe all will be fine (at least is was with Mockingjay). I ask for anyone who has watched Mockingjay and bitstreamed True HD without dropouts (check the scene where Katniss is at the house and gets the cat), please share what player worked. PM will be fine if we don't want to muddy up this thread. I want to be sure my next player purchase can handle current authoring techniques as well as possible. Thanks.


I use the Samsung BD-7500 3D Blu-ray player. I own every Atmos movie released in the US along with the Atmos demo disc and have never had a single drop out. Everything plays to absolute perfection!


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> If most people are listening that way and if most revenue is coming from those listeners then things will change.


There is always hope. Just to be clear, I am not against the concept to put surrounds at ear level in small home theater set-ups. I even went through the hassle of lowering my surrounds in my one-couch home theater for that matter. 



> Sure there is content for lowered surrounds, people talking, drummers drumming, cars driving by, footsteps, doors, etc. Right now all that content is coming form unnaturally high locations. I had my surrounds always at ear height because it didn't sound right having them higher up. Movie theaters have to compromise but at home we don't need to.


What I meant was 'intended content', for which there is none for ear level surrounds, as they do not exist in mixing rooms/ dubbing stages for movie sound tracks. 

But in the end, everyone's personal preference prevails in deciding where to put the surrounds for Atmos IMO. Anyone that has always preferred ear level surrounds should by all means keep them there, with the apparent additional advantage to have superior DSU sound. But the same goes for those who always have liked slightly (15-20%) elevated surrounds, they could keep them there as well, with the additional advantage to have the better representation of what the director / re-recording engineer intended.


----------



## Al Sherwood

RapalloAV said:


> Ive been reading the debate on Auro 3D Vs Atmos with interest, but waited to comment, now its my turn....
> 
> 
> I think Im the only person in the world who setup for Auro, paid for it and then went back to Atmos.
> My speakers are better arranged for Auro than Atmos and I put in a 13.1 setup, front top centre, all the rest and VOG. It cost me the earth to have all THX Klipsch in ceiling speakers installed and I must admit it is impressive with Auromatic. But to be frank I think my system sounds much better in Atmos, even thought the speakers are better configured for Auro 3D. I feel Auro sounds too airy, bright and light, when I went back to Atmos 11.1 and re did XT32, I really noticed my L&R fronts opened up and were much more distinct! The bass and warmth of the sound really returned with a vengeance, its big, deep, and really WARM, I just love it! On Auro its bright and airy and bass seems to resonate. I prefer my front stage speakers to be distinct and the voices to have depth, they do with atmos/DSU for me, but they just seem to loose the warmth and depth when I go to Auro. On DSU I also find sounds seem to come from different surround speakers, they are well defined, on Auro much less, seem to be from everywhere.
> 
> 
> The best thing is all my older films, mono, two channel etc etc are heaps better on DSU, they are impossible to listen to on Auro, the speech doesn't just come from the centre channel, its all over the place and echo's from the front L&R, no good. I mentioned this on the Auro thread some time ago when I wondered why these movies sound so bad, seems like they always will on Auro.
> 
> 
> Well Im here to stay, Ive done extensive testing and for me DSU sounds a heap better. I feel Auro will die, I wish I hadn't spent the money to setup correctly for Auro now as Im disappointed with the result. I just cant wait now for DTS X, maybe my front top centre will start to work, but probably my VOG is now a goner forever!
> 
> 
> Anyway I wouldn't advise anyone to install for Auro now, just wait and see what DTS X brings forth. If you need to go for it, go Atmos install. My 2cents worth



Thank-you very much for the honest appraisal of your Auro install, considering the effort you made to get all of this installed it must be disappointing. Being in the design stages myself for a new HT this kind of feedback is invaluable!


Now just waiting on the DTS announcement and their recommendations for speaker layouts...


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> What I meant was 'intended content', for which there is none for ear level surrounds, as they do not exist in mixing rooms/ dubbing stages for movie sound tracks.


If all you have is elevated surrounds then what can the re-recording mixer do? He has to use that elevated location even for foot steps. The intend is certainly a different one.


----------



## RMK!

*Opinions are not facts!*

I try to caveat all of my opinions and listening experiences as my opinion. Others here like to use the word "facts" when it is simply their opinion or understanding of the facts. I recall a conversation with Keith Yates and he was discussing his strong aversion to Forums that become dominated by people who have their version of the "facts" and will argue endlessly that they know the truth. He said that he and other industry insiders often won't participate in Forums due to those types of individuals with as he would say, high school educations in audio and acoustics. 

I know Roger Dressler is a friend of Keith's (Yates) and I'm sure he has heard this from him as well. There are degrees of this "my opinions are facts" syndrome exhibited every day and it makes the open discussion of opinions difficult and at times annoyingly unpleasant. The real dilemma is that these people often have good and valuable opinions but they are tainted by this dogmatic and narcissistic approach to discourse. Some may think it charming or amusing (oh that's just the way he or she is), but I find it annoying regardless of the source. 

Discourse is fine and in fact , it is the engine that drives internet forums. It would be great if we could have useful dialog about our experiences with these new and interesting technologies without constant bickering about facts that are in fact ... opinions!. 

Sorry for the OT and rant, and my apologies to anyone who takes this personally but I needed to get this off my chest. Perhaps the mod's will delete this post (and others) so that the Thread can go back to being the Official Dolby Atmos Thread it was intended to be.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I don't know if this is what Multit is doing, but...
> 
> With a D+M AVR (like your X5200W, Keith) when you press the "Movie" button on the remote, you'll find that there's a "TrueHD" option in the on-screen menu right above the "Atmos/Surround" option. When the TrueHD option is selected, the AVR will play the soundtrack as 5.1 (or 7.1) instead of 5.1.4 (7.1.4).


Yes of course! I was thinking of testing DSU on an Atmos disc. I will slap my wrist.... ouch... there...


----------



## coolgeek

markus767 said:


> If all you have is elevated surrounds then what can the re-recording mixer do? He has to use that elevated location even for foot steps. The intend is certainly a different one.


Markus,

I like your signature line... 

Yes, and what do people do with footsteps... ?

I actually like the concept of Auro-3D as explained by those videos... I find that it makes sense, ie:

- Most sounds we hear are from around us to a certain degree height... and our ears are designed to be able to easily locate them on the horizontal plane, and not the height plane... 

As for up-mixing, that i am not sure of... I guess it's like any other DSP mode.. it may work with some materials and not with others... I sometimes switch the DSP mode on my receiver depending on what I am listening to..


----------



## stikle

Roger Dressler said:


> I suppose average consumers _could _accomplish a theater like yours, but I'd be surprised if many took the effort to do so. Not just the well-matched collection of equipment, but the integration of the whole system into the room.
> 
> Thanks, again, Seth, for your warm hospitality and engaging discussion. A very enjoyable afternoon. I'd love to reciprocate in Bend someday.



Thanks for visiting Roger! I enjoyed meeting you too. I appreciate the sub level tweak advice. I will look forward to visiting Bend at some point to figure out what I need to justify purchasing next. 



Nalleh said:


> Care to share any impressions regarding placements(height) of the surrounds?



Please feel free to comment if you wish. I can take it.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> *Opinions are not facts!*
> 
> I try to caveat all of my opinions and listening experiences as my opinion. Others here like to use the word "facts" when it is simply their opinion or understanding of the facts. I recall a conversation with Keith Yates and he was discussing his strong aversion to Forums that become dominated by people who have their version of the "facts" and will argue endlessly that they know the truth. He said that he and other industry insiders often won't participate in Forums due to those types of individuals with as he would say, high school educations in audio and acoustics.
> 
> I know Roger Dressler is a friend of Keith's (Yates) and I'm sure he has heard this from him as well. There are degrees of this "my opinions are facts" syndrome exhibited every day and it makes the open discussion of opinions difficult and at times annoyingly unpleasant. The real dilemma is that these people often have good and valuable opinions but they are tainted by this dogmatic and narcissistic approach to discourse. Some may think it charming or amusing (oh that's just the way he (or she) is, but I find it annoying regardless of the source.
> 
> Discourse is fine and in fact , it is the engine that drives internet forums. It would be great if we could have useful dialog about our experiences with these new and interesting technologies without constant bickering about facts that are in fact ... opinions!.
> 
> Sorry for the OT and rant, and my apologies to anyone who takes this personally but I needed to get this off my chest. Perhaps the mod's will delete this post (and others) so that the Thread can go back to being the Official Dolby Atmos Thread it was intended to be.


I agree with that entirely. That is why it is so annoying when VB presents his misleading information. He doesn’t even disguise it as opinion though - he disguises it as facts, which is even worse.

Rather than simply not participating in the forums though, surely the best plan is to participate and use the Ignore feature. That's what it's there for surely?


----------



## markus767

coolgeek said:


> our ears are designed to be able to easily locate them on the horizontal plane, and not the height plane...


Localization in the vertical plane is actually quite good. Roffler/Butler found that localization judgments of complex sounds were within 4° of the actual source.


----------



## coolgeek

RMK! said:


> *Opinions are not facts!*
> 
> I try to caveat all of my opinions and listening experiences as my opinion. Others here like to use the word "facts" when it is simply their opinion or understanding of the facts. I recall a conversation with Keith Yates and he was discussing his strong aversion to Forums that become dominated by people who have their version of the "facts" and will argue endlessly that they know the truth. He said that he and other industry insiders often won't participate in Forums due to those types of individuals with as he would say, high school educations in audio and acoustics.
> 
> I know Roger Dressler is a friend of Keith's (Yates) and I'm sure he has heard this from him as well. There are degrees of this "my opinions are facts" syndrome exhibited every day and it makes the open discussion of opinions difficult and at times annoyingly unpleasant. The real dilemma is that these people often have good and valuable opinions but they are tainted by this dogmatic and narcissistic approach to discourse. Some may think it charming or amusing (oh that's just the way he (or she) is, but I find it annoying regardless of the source.
> 
> Discourse is fine and in fact , it is the engine that drives internet forums. It would be great if we could have useful dialog about our experiences with these new and interesting technologies without constant bickering about facts that are in fact ... opinions!.
> 
> Sorry for the OT and rant, and my apologies to anyone who takes this personally but I needed to get this off my chest. Perhaps the mod's will delete this post (and others) so that the Thread can go back to being the Official Dolby Atmos Thread it was intended to be.


I for once won't want a MOD to delete this... THIS is exactly the reason why so many forums fail today, and comments on sites like youtube, etc are totally worthless.. it's the constant bickering, trolling, bullying, etc... 

And I totally agree that what people say on forums are usually just their opinions... in fact, one don't even need to put IMO, or IMHO, because when everyone understood that most of what people say are their own experience and opinions, then it's redundant to use those acronyms... 

It's like having to use the phrase, 'in general'.. when everything means 'in general'.. one can always find the exception to the rule...


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> Markus,
> 
> 
> As for up-mixing, that i am not sure of... I guess it's like any other DSP mode.. it may work with some materials and not with others... I sometimes switch the DSP mode on my receiver depending on what I am listening to..


That is true of genuine upmixing which uses an algorithm to extract content. If the 'upmixer' works like Auromatic, then it doesn't extract anything, it just copies it someplace else. This does have one virtue of course: it can never 'get it wrong'. When there is no processing going on, there can't be any processing errors or artefacts. However it does mean that sounds which should be rooted in the lower speakers will get a copy, albeit at a lower level, sent to height speakers, and this is just plain wrong _all the time_. Real upmixers will get it wrong _sometimes_ too of course.

BTW, no fact in this post has been presented as opinion


----------



## coolgeek

markus767 said:


> Localization in the vertical plane is actually quite good. Roffler/Butler found that localization judgments of complex sounds were within 4° of the actual source.


Really? hmm... then i'll have to take what the Auro guy said about heights with a grain of salt then... hmm hmm....


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Remember; Audio/Video with Audio preceding, and audio encompasses music and movie soundtracks.


Not sure what that means


----------



## Dan Hitchman

coolgeek said:


> Really? hmm... then i'll have to take what the Auro guy said about heights with a grain of salt then... hmm hmm....


Take whatever "the Auro guy" says with a grain of salt. 

For instance, if DTS or Dolby just released something like an 11.1 discrete channel capable extension to their Master Audio or TrueHD lossless codecs (especially for live recorded acoustic music that may not work well with "objects" like classical, jazz, blues, bluegrass, etc.)... there would be no need for Auro in the first place. For one thing, you wouldn't have "nearly lossless" you would just have "lossless."


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Rather than simply not participating in the forums though, surely the best plan is to participate and use the Ignore feature. That's what it's there for surely?


In theory, the ignore function is great, but in fact, not so much. It would work well if no-one every quoted the individual I was trying to ignore but that seldom happens. I just keep taking my blood pressure medication !! [or risk getting reprimanded yet again by one of the mods ]


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> That is true of genuine upmixing which uses an algorithm to extract content. If the 'upmixer' works like Auromatic, then it doesn't extract anything, it just copies it someplace else. This does have one virtue of course: it can never 'get it wrong'. When there is no processing going on, there can't be any processing errors or artefacts. However it does mean that sounds which should be rooted in the lower speakers will get a copy, albeit at a lower level, sent to height speakers, and this is just plain wrong _all the time_. Real upmixers will get it wrong _sometimes_ too of course.
> 
> BTW, no fact in this post has been presented as opinion


My opinion is all upmixing is incorrect when it comes to reproducing the content. If one likes the effect, all good (all preference), but right is how the original content was mixed...or is that _wrong_?


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> If all you have is elevated surrounds then what can the re-recording mixer do? He has to use that elevated location even for foot steps. The intend is certainly a different one.


Sure, as he also uses that elevated location for sounds that _are_ actually intended to come from a slightly elevated direction. Either way, you will always end up with sounds that in the ears of the listener should come from a little lower or a little higher. Each one of us will have their preference to choose for one or the other. My first choice would however always be to try and replicate the directions that the mixer has actually been hearing while mixing, and not speculate what he would have liked to hear but was actually not hearing himself while mixing.


----------



## Selden Ball

jpco said:


> My opinion is all upmixing is incorrect when it comes to reproducing the content. If one likes the effect, all good (all preference), but right is how the original content was mixed...or is that _wrong_?


 It's right, but how are we know what that "right" is? Certainly some mixers of stereo content must take into account the fact that many people use matrix decoders, while other mixers ignore it.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Sure, as he also uses that elevated location for sounds that _are_ actually intended to come from a slightly elevated direction.


With Atmos mixers don't need to compromise anymore IF the surrounds were mounted lower


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you asked Panasonic/Sony if they plan a FW update to enable their players to handle complex seamless branching properly? The Oppo is a hopeless case - Oppo have already said that the 83 and 93 players cannot be FW updated to handle this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> It's nothing to do with Atmos at all. It is to do with overly complex seamless branching which some studios are using to try to foil illegal copying. The 2012 disc of *Total Recall*, for example, won’t play on your Oppo without dropouts either, and that isn't an Atmos title of course.
> 
> But you will lose Atmos of course if you send PCM from your player.
> 
> I solved the problem by selling my Oppo 93 and replacing it with an Oppo 103.


 


I also use the Oppo 103 and have not had any audio dropout issues.


Ray


----------



## coolgeek

jpco said:


> My opinion is all upmixing is incorrect when it comes to reproducing the content. If one likes the effect, all good (all preference), but right is how the original content was mixed...or is that _wrong_?


One of my friend's a wine distributor in my country.. he travels all over the world looking for wine to stock up and recommend to his clients... once I had dinner with him and he ask us a simple question... 'What is the best wine in the world?'... 

After everyone gave their 'opinion'.. his answer was:

You're all right.. if the wine tastes good to you, it's the right wine...


----------



## NorthSky

RAllenChristenson said:


> I use the Samsung BD-7500 3D Blu-ray player. I own every Atmos movie released in the US along with the Atmos demo disc and have never had a single drop out. Everything plays to absolute perfection!


If Samsung can build a Blu-ray player of this high caliber (two years ago) and with two HDMI outputs, and with the best 4K upscaling video,
and the multitude of great performing apps, and for only couple hundred bucks, why can't ..... .. ...... ............. .. the same?

Seems to be an awesome BR player.


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> If Samsung can build a Blu-ray player of this high caliber (two years ago) and with two HDMI outputs, and with the best 4K upscaling video,
> and the multitude of great performing apps, and for only couple hundred bucks, why can't ..... .. ...... ............. .. the same?
> 
> Seems to be an awesome BR player.


BTW: How does one go about finding out if an audio is dropped or not? Is it something that is 'very audible'? or, do you need to train to hear it?


----------



## SoundJunky

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't be too swayed by the discussion between Roger and myself (and others). Roger uses his HT for music mostly, whereas I use mine for movies only. Roger also dislikes DSU whereas I love it and it is my default sound mode. Both of us have different objectives and different preferences. I think what is important here is that the user determines his objectives and preferences and then designs his HT accordingly. I am adamant that lowering the surrounds, as per Dolby's recommended layout for HT, gives a better overall experience than having them mounted high on the walls. Roger is adamant that the converse is better. I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong" - we just have different aims in mind.


My HT is only used for movies and the main reason for making the Atmos jump was for DSU (for me). So, darn you guys and your justification for ripping the surrounds off the walls while the last coat of ceiling paint dries.  I'll be lowering them by 21", which will still put them 10" above ear height, but with a downward tilt. I think it's a good compromise. Let the wall carnage ensue…


----------



## Selden Ball

coolgeek said:


> BTW: How does one go about finding out if an audio is dropped or not? Is it something that is 'very audible'? or, do you need to train to hear it?


It is blatantly obvious and extremely annoying. Everything goes silent for a while, sometimes just long enough to loose a syllable, sometimes much longer. *grump* I had this problem when playing MockingJay on my Sony BDP-S590, which has not had the problem with any other title.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Take whatever "the Auro guy" says with a grain of salt.
> 
> For instance, if DTS or Dolby just released something like an 11.1 discrete channel capable extension to their Master Audio or TrueHD lossless codecs (especially for live recorded acoustic music that may not work well with "objects" like classical, jazz, blues, bluegrass, etc.)... there would be no need for Auro in the first place. For one thing, you wouldn't have "nearly lossless" you would just have "lossless."


True.

Oh and just FYI, objects work fine for live recorded music. Each other recorded vector (or assigned speaker position) would be encoded as a stationary object in addition to the conventional 7.1 layer of sound. Objects don't have to move around or fly all over the place.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Not sure what that means


Means multichannel Music recordings without moving pictures (Hybrid SACD, DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio, AIX Auro-3D Music Blu-rays, L2, ...),
and audio soundtracks (music scores, special effects, dialog, ...) from Blu-ray Dolby Atmos audio encoding, BR with Dolby TrueHD 7.1, with DTS-HD MA 7.1, DVDs with DD, with dts, ...from motion pictures (Movies).

The Audio side of the equation, as in Dolby Atmos, and not the Video side (4K, 3D, ...). 
...But the audio (music) has to be sync with the video (pictures), of course.

AVSForum ... Audio/Video ... science (theory) ... Audio discussion ... among all people from all venues ... with a common interest, passion for sound envelopment, aural pleasure, sensory hearing, in a realistic 3-dimensional impact, atmosphere. ...The spatial musical integrity, the sound bubble inside a hall, a club, ... And then Video ...

That's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that simple short line; the audio aspect. ...Including the music.


----------



## NorthSky

> *Opinions are not facts!*
> 
> I try to caveat all of my opinions and listening experiences as my opinion. Others here like to use the word "facts" when it is simply their opinion or understanding of the facts. I recall a conversation with Keith Yates and he was discussing his strong aversion to Forums that become dominated by people who have their version of the "facts" and will argue endlessly that they know the truth. He said that he and other industry insiders often won't participate in Forums due to those types of individuals with as he would say, high school educations in audio and acoustics.
> 
> I know Roger Dressler is a friend of Keith's (Yates) and I'm sure he has heard this from him as well. There are degrees of this "my opinions are facts" syndrome exhibited every day and it makes the open discussion of opinions difficult and at times annoyingly unpleasant. The real dilemma is that these people often have good and valuable opinions but they are tainted by this dogmatic and narcissistic approach to discourse. Some may think it charming or amusing (oh that's just the way he or she is), but I find it annoying regardless of the source.
> 
> Discourse is fine and in fact , it is the engine that drives internet forums. It would be great if we could have useful dialog about our experiences with these new and interesting technologies without constant bickering about facts that are in fact ... opinions!.
> 
> Sorry for the OT and rant, and my apologies to anyone who takes this personally but I needed to get this off my chest. Perhaps the mod's will delete this post (and others) so that the Thread can go back to being the Official Dolby Atmos Thread it was intended to be.





> I agree with that entirely. That is why it is so annoying when VB presents his misleading information. He doesn’t even disguise it as opinion though - he disguises it as facts, which is even worse.
> 
> Rather than simply not participating in the forums though, surely the best plan is to participate and use the Ignore feature. That's what it's there for surely?





> I for once won't want a MOD to delete this... THIS is exactly the reason why so many forums fail today, and comments on sites like youtube, etc are totally worthless.. it's the constant bickering, trolling, bullying, etc...
> 
> And I totally agree that what people say on forums are usually just their opinions... in fact, one don't even need to put IMO, or IMHO, because when everyone understood that most of what people say are their own experience and opinions, then it's redundant to use those acronyms...
> 
> It's like having to use the phrase, 'in general'.. when everything means 'in general'.. one can always find the exception to the rule...





> Not sure what that means





> In theory, the ignore function is great, but in fact, not so much. It would work well if no-one every quoted the individual I was trying to ignore but that seldom happens. I just keep taking my blood pressure medication !! [or risk getting reprimanded yet again by one of the mods ]


Here's my opinion: This is a Dolby Atmos (home theater version) thread, in the Audio section of Receivers, Amps, and Processors;
and it is a discussion all around it going to theaters outside (cinemas), studios inside, comparing all three new 3D processing surround modes, ... etc., etc., etc., and have fun, and where the subject is not about member's personalities, it's not talking about who should be ignored, it's not talking about members who don't have a valid opinion and should not be allowed to be here, it's not a forum where only few people are allowed to be in, it's not a place where we encourage others to put some people down, ... brief it's an open discussion where everyone is welcome to share his ideas, free to respect and being respected equally, a friendly atmosphere, and all that great jazz.

The things that aren't nice to say, they stay home. 

That's what I think.


----------



## Al Sherwood

SoundJunky said:


> My HT is only used for movies and the main reason for making the Atmos jump was for DSU (for me). So, darn you guys and your justification for ripping the surrounds off the walls while the last coat of ceiling paint dries.  *I'll be lowering them by 21", which will still put them 10" above ear height, but with a downward tilt. I think it's a good compromise*. Let the wall carnage ensue…


 
I read the word 'compromise', but had to ask, why not the final 10" drop for the surrounds?


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> BTW: How does one go about finding out if an audio is dropped or not? Is it something that is 'very audible'? or, do you need to train to hear it?


No, it is very obvious. You'd notice right away. ...You'd feel annoyed, you'd want another BR player.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> In theory, the ignore function is great, but in fact, not so much. It would work well if no-one every quoted the individual I was trying to ignore but that seldom happens. I just keep taking my blood pressure medication !! [or risk getting reprimanded yet again by one of the mods ]


Yeah - it would be great if someone could program the s/w so that when you add someone to the Ignore list, they also disappeared from quote-backs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Or just use your brain to actively ignore someone.


----------



## chi_guy50

coolgeek said:


> One of my friend's a wine distributor in my country.. he travels all over the world looking for wine to stock up and recommend to his clients... once I had dinner with him and he ask us a simple question... 'What is the best wine in the world?'...
> 
> After everyone gave their 'opinion'.. his answer was:
> 
> You're all right.. if the wine tastes good to you, it's the right wine...


Nope, he was dead wrong. The correct answer is the "Queen of Wines": *Château d'Yquem*.











AVS: Accueil des Vins Supérieurs


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> My opinion is all upmixing is incorrect when it comes to reproducing the content. If one likes the effect, all good (all preference), but right is how the original content was mixed...or is that _wrong_?


Not an issue of right or wrong IMO. A matter of preference. Some people really like upmixers such as DSU or PLII etc before it and the way they work on most content. Some don't. DSU, for example, is a really clever upmixer which seems to get things right most of the time, but not always. Seems almost everyone in this thread likes what DSU does with movie soundtracks. Auromatic isn't really an upmixer so is excluded from the discussion - but that doesn't mean some people won’t like how it works. The mystery is why VB feels the need to obfuscate on the way it does work.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> BTW: How does one go about finding out if an audio is dropped or not? Is it something that is 'very audible'? or, do you need to train to hear it?


Oh you'll hear it. The sound disappears completely for a split second.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Or just use your brain to actively ignore someone.


A technique which my wife has honed to perfection.


----------



## SoundJunky

Al Sherwood said:


> I read the word 'compromise', but had to ask, why not the final 10" drop for the surrounds?


I like elevated surrounds.  Also my surround speaker mounts tilt downward so if they were exactly at ear level they wouldn't be pointing at the MLP.


----------



## Al Sherwood

SoundJunky said:


> I like elevated surrounds.  Also my surround speaker mounts tilt downward so if they were exactly at ear level they wouldn't be pointing at the MLP.



That is just it, close to 'ear level' is in the sweet spot, heck if I sit upright as opposed to reclining the chair right back, not only does the MLP position change but so does the ear height! 


For the first take (and hopefully the only) on surround positions I am going to match the surrounds to the tweeter heights in the L-C-R towers.


----------



## RapalloAV

Nalleh said:


> If you contact Auro, they will send you the Auro 3D demo disc. For free!
> It has over two hours of Auro encoded masteriale  Recommended !


I have all those discs.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Or just use your brain to actively ignore someone.


Not everyone is @ that level Scott.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> A technique which my wife has honed to perfection.


Best post today so far.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - it would be great if someone could program the s/w so that when you add someone to the Ignore list, they also disappeared from quote-backs.


OR

"Yeah - it would be great if someone could program the s/w so that when you add someone to the Ignore list, they also disappeared!"


----------



## jpco

Scott Simonian said:


> Or just use your brain to actively ignore someone.


Don't like to use ignore function...it's easy enough to scroll by. And you never know when you might learn something. After all, there's often as much to be learned from wrong thinking as there is right.


----------



## NorthSky

Better yet, learn to love the good qualities in everyone, and respect them for being part of the society we all built/build together, and surrounding us.

If we can do that, then we live pretty good, I think.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Same. Never put anyone on ignore in all the years I've been here.


----------



## NorthSky

jpco said:


> Don't like to use ignore function...it's easy enough to scroll by.
> *And you never know when you might learn something.
> After all, there's often as much to be learned from wrong thinking as there is right.*


I like that.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Same. Never put anyone on ignore in all the years I've been here.


i don't even know where the ignore option is I read it all
i watched MockingJay no audio drop out is Unbroken the next one to come out here in the States


----------



## SoundJunky

Nalleh said:


> If you contact Auro, they will send you the Auro 3D demo disc. For free!
> It has over two hours of Auro encoded masteriale  Recommended !


If you contact Dolby will they send you an atmos demo disk?  $80 on ebay seems a little ridiculous.


----------



## smurraybhm

SoundJunky said:


> If you contact Dolby will they send you an atmos demo disk?  $80 on ebay seems a little ridiculous.


Not yet, but at least we have the free downloads for now, which give us a taste of our favorite wine


----------



## RapalloAV

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A properly set up system never has any problems with dialogue intelligibility.



Very true, I never have any problems with dialog intelligibility in my cinema like I do in commercial cinemas. Ive spent over 250K in this room and the very best of everything has gone into it. I hired Nyal from Acoustic Frontiers who designed all the speaker baffles and acoustics. The new speakers and design has made the sound absolutely breath-taking, the Atmos is just the icing on the cake.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> With Atmos mixers don't need to compromise anymore IF the surrounds were mounted lower


Absolutely, IF. And we will call soundtracks re-recorded with ear level surrounds: TrueATMOS


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RapalloAV said:


> Very true, I never have any problems with dialog intelligibility in my cinema like I do in commercial cinemas. Ive spent over 250K in this room and the very best of everything has gone into it. I hired Nyal from Acoustic Frontiers who designed all the speaker baffles and acoustics. The new speakers and design has made the sound absolutely breath-taking, the Atmos is just the icing on the cake.


Oh, you'll have intelligibility issues when you rent Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. Heck, even his last Batman film had an atrociously bad sound mix. 

He says he's trying to be "realistic." I say he's going deaf.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

smurraybhm said:


> Not yet, but at least we have the free downloads for now, which give us a taste of our favorite wine


I thought Dolby was supposed to be coming out with a new Atmos demo disc with actual film clips this time (maybe with their newest trailers?). Hmmm...


----------



## NorthSky

...Some flicks with Russell Crowe in it. ...A good setup should allow you to have great intelligibility from the dialog channel speaker.

...Mickey Rourke, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, ...


----------



## smurraybhm

Dan Hitchman said:


> I thought Dolby was supposed to be coming out with a new Atmos demo disc with actual film clips this time (maybe with their newest trailers?). Hmmm...


Not that I've seen yet - outside of the eBay items.
I guess its delayed like the DTS:X details 
Object based sound requires patience.


----------



## HTinParadise

Al Sherwood said:


> That is just it, close to 'ear level' is in the sweet spot, heck if I sit upright as opposed to reclining the chair right back, not only does the MLP position change but so does the ear height!
> 
> 
> For the first take (and hopefully the only) on surround positions I am going to match the surrounds to the tweeter heights in the L-C-R towers.


When Dolby claims, "all base layer speakers ideally should be at ear level," that really reads: all base layer speaker _tweeters _ideally should be at ear level.

When a stereo pair of tweeters are at ear level the speakers produce width, height and depth, why not also with multichannel applications too? 

I have (always) had my multi channel system with all ear level tweeters, ongoing for more than 8 years now. Elevated surrounds never were as effective as having all tweeters at ear level.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HTinParadise said:


> When Dolby claims, "all base layer speakers ideally should be at ear level," that really reads: all base layer speaker _tweeters _ideally should be at ear level.
> 
> When a stereo pair of tweeters are at ear level the speakers produce width, height and depth, why not also with multichannel applications too?
> 
> I have (always) had my multi channel system with all ear level tweeters, ongoing for more than 8 years now. Elevated surrounds never were as effective as having all tweeters at ear level.


However, having tweeters right at ear level it great for a theater designed for one person. I think a better standard is main level surrounds just high enough, so they aren't blocked by viewers' heads.


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> Very true, I never have any problems with dialog intelligibility in my cinema like I do in commercial cinemas. Ive spent over 250K in this room and the very best of everything has gone into it. I hired Nyal from Acoustic Frontiers who designed all the speaker baffles and acoustics. The new speakers and design has made the sound absolutely breath-taking, the Atmos is just the icing on the cake.


Agreed. Whenever anyone says they find dialogue unintelligible, there is usually a reason. Some icing, some cake!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, you'll have intelligibility issues when you rent Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. Heck, even his last Batman film had an atrociously bad sound mix.
> 
> He says he's trying to be "realistic." I say he's going deaf.


Hahaha. I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but read about the difficulty with dialogue and Nolan's defence of it as "intentional". I guess that so long as nothing important is lost it's OK if it is unintelligible. That then begs the question of why does the script contain dialogue of such little importance that it matters not if the audience can understand it or not.

I can’t recall any dialogue issues with the *Dark Knight Rises*. I know people said they couldn't hear what Bane was saying, but I heard it in an IMAX theater and here at home and I never had any problem with it. I didn't like the mix overall. Far too loud, and too front-centric. I have largely gone off Nolan's work though latterly - he seems to have his head too far up his own posterior orifice for my liking. And when success has swelled your head, that can be mighty uncomfortable


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Hahaha. I haven't seen Interstellar yet, *snip*



Wut?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Wut?


Well it isn't available yet on Bluray here. And I couldn't be bothered to drag my ass to the cinema to see another Nolan movie. Like I say, I've become disillusioned with his work lately. And they usually have pretty crappy sound as he doesn't, IIRC, really like surround sound. But I have Interstellar on pre-order. Whether I can sit through almost 3 hours of it is as yet undecided. That's another gripe I have with Nolan - he's forgotten what the word 'edit' originally meant. Good example: in *The Dark Knight,* if you ever watch it again, when you get to that sequence on the boat, with the convicts and the explosives, just chapter skip past it. Then tell me if you felt you 'missed' anything worthwhile in the movie. It's all personal of course - one man's meat etc etc.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> That's another gripe I have with Nolan - he's forgotten what the word 'edit' originally meant.


That'll be in the back of your mind when watching Interstellar. It was probably my favourite movie last year, but it could/should have been half an hour shorter.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Interstellar was excellent. I think you'll enjoy it, Keith.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Wut?


I haven't either. Waiting for the BD on Amazon.


----------



## NorthSky

HTinParadise said:


> When Dolby claims, "all base layer speakers ideally should be at ear level," that really reads: all base layer speaker _tweeters _ideally should be at ear level.
> 
> When a stereo pair of tweeters are at ear level the speakers produce width, height and depth, why not also with multichannel applications too?
> 
> I have (always) had my multi channel system with all ear level tweeters, ongoing for more than 8 years now. Elevated surrounds never were as effective as having all tweeters at ear level.


Same here, all my speakers (seven of them) now are @ or very near ear level. ...It works best with multichannel music recordings from SACDs (and other multichannel music mediums), and it works very well too with movie soundtracks (mainly Blu-ray now, 99%). 

I had all various setups over many many years, with up to 13 satellite speakers and three subwoofers, and I experimented @ all different heights and combinations; I spent a considerable amount of time in my life to explore surround sound envelopment that represented real life sound situations; name almost anything, I did it. ...Angles, height variations, aiming @ MLP, aiming @ room's center in front of me, ...almost playing every day with angling, and many screws in my walls (sides and rear). ...From three to eight feet high and everywhere between. 

Looking @ the Dolby Atmos Guidelines in their pdf papers, I am happy with what's in it. ...I can tell that these Dolby Atmos guys did their job. 
I would have been a good team member too. 

Anyway, it's fun to read all the opinions from experienced people.


----------



## dvdwilly3

jpco said:


> I can't bitstream Mockingjay in True HD on either my Oppo BDP-83 or my newly purchased Sony S3200 without dropouts, which I purchased due to BDP-83 problems with the most recent X-Men disc. Since it was the first Atmos movie I wanted to own, I actually considered getting an AVR this weekend to upgrade to Atmos (I can be that impulsive). Too bad I wouldn't have been able to listen to it cleanly.
> 
> I searched for the issue last night and found someone with a Panasonic player that described dropouts in exactly the same places in the movie. AIUI, it is not necessarily an Atmos issue, but the whole thing makes me wonder what the future of discs is going to look like. If three players can't play what is one of the biggest disc releases of the year, how do studios expect consumers to react?
> 
> For now, I'll have the Oppo decode in the player, and maybe all will be fine (at least is was with Mockingjay). I ask for anyone who has watched Mockingjay and bitstreamed True HD without dropouts (check the scene where Katniss is at the house and gets the cat), please share what player worked. PM will be fine if we don't want to muddy up this thread. I want to be sure my next player purchase can handle current authoring techniques as well as possible. Thanks.


I just checked it today. My Sony BDP-S7200 plays it flawlessly. My understanding is that the S6200 whic is less expensive has the same processors as ths S7200, but without a fancier case (and the higher price).


----------



## Al Sherwood

HTinParadise said:


> When Dolby claims, "all base layer speakers ideally should be at ear level," that really reads: all base layer speaker _tweeters _ideally should be at ear level.
> 
> When a stereo pair of tweeters are at ear level the speakers produce width, height and depth, why not also with multichannel applications too?
> 
> I have (always) had my multi channel system with all ear level tweeters, ongoing for more than 8 years now. Elevated surrounds never were as effective as having all tweeters at ear level.



Although I took apart my HT long ago (a long story), the surrounds were at the 72" level that was the recommendation of the day. 


Last year before I had even heard about Atmos and ear level base layers I wired and cut holes in the living room plaster for a modest 5.1 TV viewing system, and yes the surrounds are at 72" 


Doubt very much if I would even consider moving them down from their current lofty heights, the WAF would surely rule against any additional plaster work over the new floor! 


Suffice to say the HT will be different.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, having tweeters right at ear level it great for a theater designed for one person. I think a better standard is main level surrounds just high enough, so they aren't blocked by viewers' heads.


One room, one row of seats, front soundstage: Speakers positioning with their between tweeters and midrange drivers @ ear level.
Side walls; same.
Rear walll; just slightly higher so that it reaches your ears over the seat's back. ...We're talking few inches here in general.
And Dolby Atmos mentioned not higher than a foot (12" roughly) when using the 1.25x guide. ...Not more than 1.25 times the height of your speakers (tweet/mid driver's intersection) in your front soundstage (LCR). 

Another room, two rows of seats: No Dolby Atmos guidelines yet for that important scenario. ...We use our common sense for now. 

Brief, the main thing is regarding the rear of the room, behind our seat's backs; we just want to clear them so that the sound can reach our ears directly. 
@ the front and directly to our sides, no problemo. 
The seats we have, the couch we use, their backs...determine the height of our rear surround speakers. And it is generally only few inches, or none @ all, or up to twelve inches max above ear level. ...All within the Dolby Atmos main pdf guidelines.


----------



## audioguy

Just got Auro up and running. And I can confirm that Keith is correct in that the heights are an *EXACT* replica of the surrounds for playing some up-mixed two channel music. It's playing in the other room (height speakers only) as I type this and is no different than listening to the ear level speakers. I tried DSU and totally different sounds come from the height speakers. 

And I found no such option as "Auromatic". If I was supposed to, then something is amiss! I used Auro3D.

At this point, I would have to say wasted $200 as I bought Auro to listen to up sampled 2 channel music and, for me, DSU is far superior.

The only highlight is that he Organ piece on the Auro demo disc is outstanding - but unfortunately it is almost as good with DSU.

I will try up sampled film in a bit but if it does no more than what I am hearing with music, it is a total bust.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> I thought Dolby was supposed to be coming out with a new Atmos demo disc with actual film clips this time (maybe with their newest trailers?). Hmmm...


Yes, you are right; it has been mentioned, and with a considerable amount of time in it with all types of movie demo clips, and nothing like the first short Dolby Atmos demo disc. 
...Some' like close to two hours of Dolby Atmos demo's content.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That'll be in the back of your mind when watching Interstellar. It was probably my favourite movie last year, but it could/should have been half an hour shorter.


I think you will be proved right. Bloat in a movie is one of my pet peeves. I like them to be lean and stripped down if possible. Definitely a case of less is more. Not always of course. Nonetheless I am looking forward to seeing Interstellar.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Just got Auro up and running. And I can confirm that Keith is correct in that the heights are an *EXACT* replica of the surrounds for playing some up-mixed two channel music. It's playing in the other room (height speakers only) as I type this and is no different than listening to the ear level speakers. I tried DSU and totally different sounds come from the height speakers.
> 
> And I found no such option as "Auromatic". If I was supposed to, then something is amiss! I used Auro3D.
> 
> At this point, I would have to say wasted $200 as I bought Auro to listen to up sampled 2 channel music and, for me, DSU is far superior.
> 
> The only highlight is that he Organ piece on the Auro demo disc is outstanding - but unfortunately it is almost as good with DSU.
> 
> I will try up sampled film in a bit but if it does no more than what I am hearing with music, it is a total bust.


I am sorry to hear that you wasted the $$$, but gratified that you have confirmed the way Auromatic works.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> That'll be in the back of your mind when watching Interstellar. It was probably my favourite movie last year, but it could/should have been half an hour shorter.



Hmmm, I don't recall much that can be removed, but we are all different in what we like.



kbarnes701 said:


> I think you will be proved right. Bloat in a movie is one of my pet peeves. I like them to be lean and stripped down if possible. Definitely a case of less is more. Not always of course. Nonetheless I am looking forward to seeing Interstellar.



I saw this in the theatre and it was very good, definitely a favorite of mine, and I will watch it again at home someday... Must burn out the airport, additional speakers for the HT have arrived!


----------



## NorthSky

> Hahaha. I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but read about the difficulty with dialogue and Nolan's defence of it as "intentional". I guess that so long as nothing important is lost it's OK if it is unintelligible. That then begs the question of why does the script contain dialogue of such little importance that it matters not if the audience can understand it or not.
> 
> I can’t recall any dialogue issues with the *Dark Knight Rises*. I know people said they couldn't hear what Bane was saying, but I heard it in an IMAX theater and here at home and I never had any problem with it. I didn't like the mix overall. Far too loud, and too front-centric. I have largely gone off Nolan's work though latterly - he seems to have his head too far up his own posterior orifice for my liking. And when success has swelled your head, that can be mighty uncomfortable


_Bane_ in *'The Dark Knight Rises'* was no picnic with that mouthpiece. We are so used to see lips moving when we listen to our friends, families, and even our enemies. I admit, my setup is not up to it because @ times I couldn't decipher what he was saying the poor guy. 

In *'Interstellar'*, @ the IMAX theater, now the music and some sound effects were real loud. ...Way too loud, no doubt about it.
I have no idea how the Blu-ray @ this month's end would sound like, but I'm getting it anyway; to see if I can hear some of the dialog I missed @ IMAX.


----------



## NorthSky

*Interstellar' on Blu-ray => March 30-31st (general release public date)*



> *Well it isn't available yet on Bluray here.* And I couldn't be bothered to drag my ass to the cinema to see another Nolan movie. Like I say, I've become disillusioned with his work lately. And they usually have pretty crappy sound as he doesn't, IIRC, really like surround sound. But I have Interstellar on pre-order. Whether I can sit through almost 3 hours of it is as yet undecided. That's another gripe I have with Nolan - he's forgotten what the word 'edit' originally meant. Good example: in *The Dark Knight,* if you ever watch it again, when you get to that sequence on the boat, with the convicts and the explosives, just chapter skip past it. Then tell me if you felt you 'missed' anything worthwhile in the movie. It's all personal of course - one man's meat etc etc.


*'Interstellar'* is comin' up on Blu on March 31st for most of the globe release.
...On March 30th in the UK. ...Earliest date. 

...And on April (1st to 10) for few other world's regions.


----------



## NorthSky

*Auro-3D*



> I am sorry to hear that you wasted the $$$, but gratified that you have confirmed the way Auromatic works.


Many other AVS members are very happy with Auro-3D and they don't feel that they wasted their $199 to get it, and they love some of the Auro-3D music selections, and their free Auro-3D demo disc. 

It is the average of all the people who have experienced it in their own setups that makes the larger 'elevated' difference. 
And so far, the balance is roughly 98.5% in favor of people who like Auro-3D. ...From all the readings I've done here and over there ... other threads, forums, audio websites, ....


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmm, I don't recall much that can be removed, but we are all different in what we like.


♦ Indeed, movies and music and women and paintings and wines and watches and cars and cigars,,,,we all have our own preference and discontentment. 



> I saw this in the theatre and it was very good, definitely a favorite of mine, and I will watch it again at home someday... Must burn out the airport, additional speakers for the HT have arrived!


♦ Same here, and it was quite a ride! ...Overall I loved the experience, the film, the storyline, the journey from the beginning of no beginning to the end of eternity.  

In about three weeks, and it's here on Blu-ray, to sing along with your new speakers for your new setup. 

P.S. Al, when you're all done, will you invite me over to watch a good flick? ...I can bring the Blu-ray movie of your choice (I got them all, a!mos),
and I'll bring a good dry red bottle of wine (France).


----------



## Kain

Just needed a quick clarification:

If I were to have a 9.x.x setup with front wides for Atmos, what are the front wides used for? Only object-based sounds or does the 5.1/7.1 "bed" spill into the front wides as well?


----------



## NorthSky

Good question.


----------



## cannga

Roger Dressler said:


> Agreed. If you perform the test variant I suggested, link, and compare for several minutes the low vs. the height channels, you will notice that Auro copies all but the C channel. There is some remixing -- all the channels (but C) appear in all the speakers in varying degrees, but all the sounds are always present.
> 
> Contrast that with DSU where there can be complete silence for long stretches, or just the ambience appears in the heights while voices or other direct sounds are excluded.
> 
> The only way Auro prevents voices from coming out the heights is by not tapping the C channel to feed them. Very effective! When voices pan L/R (try Toy Story 2), they appear in the heights. Atmos can prevent that wherever they are panned.
> 
> Just note, I am making no judgement on which sounds better, just discussing the operational difference.


 
Roger, thanks for the interesting posts. So what seems to be happening is Auromatic Upmixer generates upper channels by duplicating associate lower channels's sound, except center, and adding reverb? But as you've noted, using reverb in and of itself does not mean that it will not sound good right?

For the unitiated among us, what other "tools" besides reverberation does any upmixer use in general to "upmix" please?
1. HTRF effects?
2. Some form of steering logic?
3. Eliminate common left right signal from any given L/R pair (like center channel of Dolby Pro Logic)?
4. Reverb?
TIA


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> I don't recall much that can be removed, but we are all different in what we like.


One example: by the first dust storm, I had gotten the point about the condition of the planet, without needing those sequences repeated a couple more times.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> One example: by the first dust storm, I had gotten the point about the condition of the planet, without needing those sequences repeated a couple more times.


Editing out any more 'dust storms' would net about 3mins less runtime. You'll need to cut out a whole lot more than that to effectively shorten the movie.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Editing out any more 'dust storms' would net about 3mins less runtime. You'll need to cut out a whole lot more than that to effectively shorten the movie.


Oh more that three minutes. Besides, that was just one example. When I see it again, I'll be reminded of more. As much as I liked the movie, I remember thinking _'get on with it'_ a few times.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Editing out any more 'dust storms' would net about 3mins less runtime. You'll need to cut out a whole lot more than that to effectively shorten the movie.


Don't think of it as the movie you saw but with sections removed. One way to edit for a leaner cut is to use the filmed material in a different way altogether. Without knowing what was shot and what was left on the floor it isn't possible to describe how the movie could have been shorter while still retaining the same impact. The editor probably had enough material to cut an an entirely different movie, let alone a shorter one. 

And, of course, the skill of the editor can make an entirely different movie out of the parts that you actually did see in the theatrical release. An interesting example of how this can work is the Mel Gibson movie, *Payback*. There is the theatrical release of this movie and a Director's Cut version where the last 45 minutes of the movie are entirely different in each. They did shoot additional footage for this, but using it also required additional editing of the first section of the movie too. It's a good movie and both cuts are good, albeit very different.

HST, as per my earlier example, in *The Dark Knight*, that entire ferryboat scene can be removed, and with a little additional editing, you'd never even know it was there. And nor, IMO, would the movie be worse for it. In fact, I contend it would be better for it. But it's pretty unusual that you can just take the (figurative) scissors to an entire chunk of the movie and remove it wholesale, I'd agree.


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> I can confirm that Keith is correct in that the heights are an *EXACT* replica of the surrounds for playing some up-mixed two channel music.


Irrespective of how it works, how do you like the results with 2-channel music? Enjoyable? Annoying? 

(Even though it wasn't my cup o'tea, I though it sounded pleasant.)


----------



## NorthSky

cannga said:


> Roger, thanks for the interesting posts. So what seems to be happening is Auromatic Upmixer generates upper channels by duplicating associate lower channels's sound, except center, and adding reverb? But as you've noted, using reverb in and of itself does not mean that it will not sound good right?
> 
> For the unitiated among us, what other "tools" besides reverberation does any upmixer use in general to "upmix" please?
> 1. HTRF effects?
> 2. Some form of steering logic?
> 3. Eliminate common left right signal from any given L/R pair (like center channel of Dolby Pro Logic)?
> 4. Reverb?
> TIA


...Phase shifting? ...Raised surround levels?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Oh more that three minutes. Besides, that was just one example. When I see it again, I'll be reminded of more. As much as I liked the movie, I remember thinking _'get on with it'_ a few times.


I think we were thinking, 'MOAR SPACE PORN!!' 

Let's make Interstellar the movie to watch when you come over next month.


----------



## multit

audioguy said:


> ...At this point, I would have to say wasted $200 as I bought Auro to listen to up sampled 2 channel music and, for me, DSU is far superior.
> The only highlight is that he Organ piece on the Auro demo disc is outstanding - but unfortunately it is almost as good with DSU.
> I will try up sampled film in a bit but if it does no more than what I am hearing with music, it is a total bust.


Thats very interesting to hear, because I have very different experiences with Auro-Matic and 2 ch music. But I might be in advantage here, because I made my 1st tries already beginning of december and have listened much since (often in comparism with stereo and DSU). My height speakers are from the same series as the whole other speakers are - means e.g. same timbre. Furthermore, I took the effort to spend a bit more time in order to adjust the speaker location according to the Auro-3D needs. They are still at the ceiling and match the Dolby specifications, but are in a vertical (thought) line MLP - Front - Front High, as I found out, this is essential.... and not that claim only to have them at the wall above the base speakers.

Coming back to music and remembering some of the statements, WvB gave in those interviews regarding "keeping the original intention", I have to admit - that's very important especially for music. To keep the original stage is imho the "thing" here and while Auro-Matic is doing that exactly, DSU often widens the stage not only vertical, but horizontal (putting a lot of sounds to the surrounds).
The best way to experience that is playing a jazz title, when someone is still able to distinguish different instruments and their original location at the stage. I just listening to Pat Metheny Group "The way up" ... nice word playing here by the way  and it's a pleasure to listen either in Stereo or Auro-Matic, while it's quite disturbing to use DSU here.

Also the fails, DSU is producing sometimes are more noticable in music than in movies. For example DSU likes hi hats very much  and loves to put them in the middle of the room (steering to the surrounds). This is very unnatural and far from any immersive benefit at all.

So, please do some further checks and consider your the speaker location again - I'm quite sure, at the end you are satiesfied to have one more options to enhance the sound into an immersive experience.

Besides all those discussions, if Auro-Matic is permitted to consider itself an upmixer or even discuss it under the label "upmixer", which seems to be called it wrong here, it's still a valid and proper option... unfortunately for an extra price.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Editing out any more 'dust storms' would net about 3mins less runtime.
> *You'll need to cut out a whole lot more than that to effectively shorten the movie.*


Can't do that; it's not our baby. ...It's _Christopher Nolan_'s own creative _"cinematique"_ masterpiece. 

Us, we simply take it all as it is; like it or not.  
...It's like _Ridley Scott_'s own sci-fi masterpiece *'Blade Runner'* ... with five (5) versions of it! 
* Which 'Blade Runner's version should be tested with DSU?

______

P.S. Great post just above.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> Oh more that three minutes. Besides, that was just one example. When I see it again, I'll be reminded of more. As much as I liked the movie, I remember thinking _'get on with it'_ a few times.



Any repeated scenes like that are supposed to be used for digging into to the popcorn and a slurping on the Big Gulp!


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Can't do that; it's not our baby. ...It's _Christopher Nolan_'s own creative _"cinematique"_ masterpiece.
> 
> Us, we simply take it all as it is; like it or not.
> ...It's like _Ridley Scott_'s own sci-fi masterpiece *'Blade Runner'* ... with five (5) versions of it!
> * Which 'Blade Runner's version should be tested with DSU?



More choices is good, especially when we get to choose at home. Wish Star Wars was like that. Actually, I don't care but it would be nice and fun to compare at home. I'm fine with the current-ish version.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Let's make Interstellar the movie to watch when you come over next month.


Gonna take a break from romantic tear-jerkers just for me? Mighty nice of you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Al Sherwood said:


> Any repeated scenes like that are supposed to be used for digging into to the popcorn and a slurping on the Big Gulp!


Extra time to finish my nachos and large root beer.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Gonna take a break from romantic tear-jerkers just for me? Mighty nice of you.


Interstellar followed up with The Notebook to set the mood. :kiss:


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> Irrespective of how it works, how do you like the results with 2-channel music? Enjoyable? Annoying?
> 
> (Even though it wasn't my cup o'tea, I though it sounded pleasant.)


Not annoying but nowhere near as effective (for me) as DSU. Unfortunately, that is why I bought Auro.

I also played the Auro demo disc with DSU and for the most part it was as effective as Auro. The helicopter fly over with Auro was more precise in image placement, but the truck pass by, the organ piece and the symphony were every bit as effective with DSU as with Auro.

I think Auro is toast. It provides nothing that Atmos doesn't provide, its upsampler is very poor(for my tastes) and there is no content!


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Indeed, movies and music and women and paintings and wines and watches and cars and cigars,,,,we all have our own preference and discontentment.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Same here, and it was quite a ride! ...Overall I loved the experience, the film, the storyline, the journey from the beginning of no beginning to the end of eternity.
> 
> In about three weeks, and it's here on Blu-ray, to sing along with your new speakers for your new setup.
> 
> P.S. Al, when you're all done, will you invite me over to watch a good flick? ...I can bring the Blu-ray movie of your choice (I got them all, a!mos),
> and I'll bring a good dry red bottle of wine (France).


 
Bob, the wine will be aging a bit yet (no comments Keith!), although I think I have more then enough speakers for the HT job the front and rear stairs and deck are unfortunately ahead of it on the 'reno schedule', but I will pencil you in for an early fall premier...


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Bob, the wine will be aging a bit yet (no comments Keith!), although I think I have more then enough speakers for the HT job the front and rear stairs and deck are unfortunately ahead of it on the 'reno schedule', but I will pencil you in for an early fall premier...


You are a real trooper Al. 

* Should we pitch in together and pay for Keith's airfare so that he can join us?


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> ...and there is no content!


Maybe it's time for Auro Sampler II: The Quickening.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't think of it as the movie you saw but with sections removed. One way to edit for a leaner cut is to use the filmed material in a different way altogether. Without knowing what was shot and what was left on the floor it isn't possible to describe how the movie could have been shorter while still retaining the same impact. The editor probably had enough material to cut an an entirely different movie, let alone a shorter one.
> 
> And, of course, the skill of the editor can make an entirely different movie out of the parts that you actually did see in the theatrical release. An interesting example of how this can work is the Mel Gibson movie, *Payback*. There is the theatrical release of this movie and a Director's Cut version where the last 45 minutes of the movie are entirely different in each. They did shoot additional footage for this, but using it also required additional editing of the first section of the movie too. It's a good movie and both cuts are good, albeit very different.
> 
> HST, as per my earlier example, in *The Dark Knight*, that entire ferryboat scene can be removed, and with a little additional editing, you'd never even know it was there. And nor, IMO, would the movie be worse for it. In fact, I contend it would be better for it. But it's pretty unusual that you can just take the (figurative) scissors to an entire chunk of the movie and remove it wholesale, I'd agree.


Frankly, you could say that about all of the Nolan Batman films, especially the last one. I thought it would never end and the editing that was released was pretty poor IMO.


----------



## NorthSky

> Maybe it's time for Auro Sampler II: The Quickening.


Appropriate thinking; atmospheric and accommodating title.


----------



## audioguy

multit said:


> Thats very interesting to hear, because I have very different experiences with Auro-Matic and 2 ch music. But I might be in advantage here, because I made my 1st tries already beginning of december and have listened much since (often in comparism with stereo and DSU). My height speakers are from the same series as the whole other speakers are - means e.g. same timbre. Furthermore, I took the effort to spend a bit more time in order to adjust the speaker location according to the Auro-3D needs. They are still at the ceiling and match the Dolby specifications, but are in a vertical (thought) line MLP - Front - Front High, as I found out, this is essential.... and not that claim only to have them at the wall above the base speakers.
> 
> Coming back to music and remembering some of the statements, WvB gave in those interviews regarding "keeping the original intention", I have to admit - that's very important especially for music. To keep the original stage is imho the "thing" here and while Auro-Matic is doing that exactly, DSU often widens the stage not only vertical, but horizontal (putting a lot of sounds to the surrounds).
> The best way to experience that is playing a jazz title, when someone is still able to distinguish different instruments and their original location at the stage. I just listening to Pat Metheny Group "The way up" ... nice word playing here by the way  and it's a pleasure to listen either in Stereo or Auro-Matic, while it's quite disturbing to use DSU here.
> 
> Also the fails, DSU is producing sometimes are more noticable in music than in movies. For example DSU likes hi hats very much  and loves to put them in the middle of the room (steering to the surrounds). This is very unnatural and far from any immersive benefit at all.
> 
> So, please do some further checks and consider your the speaker location again - I'm quite sure, at the end you are satiesfied to have one more options to enhance the sound into an immersive experience.
> 
> Besides all those discussions, if Auro-Matic is permitted to consider itself an upmixer or even discuss it under the label "upmixer", which seems to be called it wrong here, it's still a valid and proper option... unfortunately for an extra price.


It's great that you (and most others) like AuroMatic. 

I come from a much different place. After having been involved in music a lot for the last 25 years and season tickets for the last 25 years to the Atlanta symphony, I know what real music sounds like. And there is not an audio system at any price and in any room on the planet that comes even marginally close to being able to accurately reproduce that. I chased "accurate" for almost 40 years and spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to reproduce "live". Not happening. The closest I have heard a recording sounding like live are the two demos on the Auro disc - the organ and the full symphony. And while they are the best I have heard, they are not real AND, DSU is every bit as effective in presenting a more real presentation. (It was those two pieces that I heard at CEDIA that got me to buy the Auro upgrade).

So I got off the "accurate" train and jumped on the "fun/entertaining" train. I had my "audiophile card" taken from me recently because I like DVD-Audio music that has instruments and voices in places the true audiophile does not approve of. But it is really a lot of fun!!

So back to DSU. Yes, it does widen the soundstage. And sometimes it does so that is far more "real" that not doing so. The choir director I worked under for so many years has heard my system and felt that the wider sound stage was far more representative of what he hears on the podium than the one that has not been made wider. I actually don't care. I like exciting and fun and entertaining.

AuroMatic, on the other hand, does nothing to make the sound more accurate or more fun (for me). It simply copies (and I know that because I listened to just the heights) the ear level channels to the height channels. "Keeping the original intention"? Really? 

Auro sounds fine but adds nothing to what Atmos provides. 

As for my speaker positioning, I refuse to compromise both Auro AND Atmos so picked one and stuck within their guidelines. I am more than confident that the fact that my ceiling speakers are not of the same make as my surrounds and mains has little if anything to do with my not being impressed with AuroMatic. It sure has no impact on Atmos or DSU. 

I will be listening to a bit more music upmixed but I'd be more than flabbergasted that my opinion will change.

I am not saying AuroMatic is bad or others should not enjoy it. It's not for me!!


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Many other AVS members are very happy with Auro-3D and they don't feel that they wasted their $199 to get it, and they love some of the Auro-3D music selections, and their free Auro-3D demo disc.
> 
> It is the average of all the people who have experienced it in their own setups that makes the larger 'elevated' difference.
> And so far, the balance is roughly 98.5% in favor of people who like Auro-3D. ...From all the readings I've done here and over there ... other threads, forums, audio websites, ....


I have listened to the Auro3D music selections on the demo disc and they are very nice. Now if Auro wants to start getting the major music recording studios using their technology, that would be terrific. But that won't happen. 

But given that 98.5% of the people like it (I'm sure you have the data to back up that number), then I am FINALLY part of *"the 1%"* that has been talked about for so long.

I still think Auro is toast. No content, and they are fighting against two gorillas (DTS and Dolby). And Auro (forget AuroMatic) brings no additional value. But that's just me.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Many other AVS members are very happy with Auro-3D and they don't feel that they wasted their $199 to get it, and they love some of the Auro-3D music selections, and their free Auro-3D demo disc.
> 
> It is the average of all the people who have experienced it in their own setups that makes the larger 'elevated' difference.
> And so far, the balance is roughly 98.5% in favor of people who like Auro-3D. ...From all the readings I've done here and over there ... other threads, forums, audio websites, ....


That reminds me? I saw that the Denon site indicated a free Auro 3D demo disk once you purchase the upgrade but I never got a disk. Where should it come from, Denon? Should I call to ask for it?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

The best part of Auro IMO is their demo disc...it's much better than Dolby's. That being said, I think it's toast (at least in North America) as well. Dolby and DTS will dominate the market share and co-exist like they've done on home video for as long as I can remember.


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> Just needed a quick clarification:
> 
> If I were to have a 9.x.x setup with front wides for Atmos, what are the front wides used for? Only object-based sounds or does the 5.1/7.1 "bed" spill into the front wides as well?


Since this question seems to have gotten lost in all the Auro comparisons...

The Front Wides are used only for objects, and that's only if you have a 9.x.2 configuration. Since current D+M models support a maximum of only 11 simultaneously active channels (not counting the subwoofer channel), if you configure a D+M AVR for a (13 channel) 9.x.4 configuration, the Front Wides are the pair which are silent when playing an Atmos soundtrack. Also, the Front Wides are never used by DSU, no matter what speaker configuration you have.

The Atmos bed channels are sent only to their corresponding speaker channels, which are the "traditional" Front LCR, Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds. They are not expanded to the Front Wides unless you disable Atmos decoding and enable a non-Dolby upmixer like DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX or all-channel stereo.


----------



## audioguy

RMK! said:


> BTW, nice job on the room and glad you like DSU. Have you tried any Atmos films? John Wick is pretty good.


Thank you. I have almost all of the Atmos films and I did watch John Wick the other night. But I was so taken up with the film itself, I paid no attention to Atmos or surrounds or anything else. I am going to re-watch it and pay more attention.

I love Atmos and since 99.99 % of the movies I have (and am still buying) do not have Atmos, I love DSU as well.

Some of the movies make better use of the ceiling speakers than others but it is still early in the game. Just like the original stereo records were very "ping pongy", but finally figured it out, sound mixers will figure Atmos out as well. In the meantime, I have DSU.


----------



## RMK!

audioguy said:


> Thank you. I have almost all of the Atmos films and I did watch John Wick the other night. But I was so taken up with the film itself, I paid no attention to Atmos or surrounds or anything else. I am going to re-watch it and pay more attention.
> 
> I love Atmos and since 99.99 % of the movies I have (and am still buying) do not have Atmos, I love DSU as well.
> 
> Some of the movies make better use of the ceiling speakers than others but it is still early in the game. Just like the original stereo records were very "ping pongy", but finally figured it out, sound mixers will figure Atmos out as well. In the meantime, I have DSU.


You're welcome.
I'm on my 4th go around with John Wick and the Atmos presentation at home sounds better than Guardians of the Galaxy that I saw at an Atmos Theater. At this juncture it is the only watchable Atmos movie. The other two Atmos movies are The Expendibles (should be called The Depends-ables ) and Transformers whatever, right?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Mockingjay sounds pretty damn impressive, especially during the bombing scene and ship flyovers.


----------



## mp5475

RMK! said:


> You're welcome.
> I'm on my 4th go around with John Wick and the Atmos presentation at home sounds better than Guardians of the Galaxy that I saw at an Atmos Theater. At this juncture it is the only watchable Atmos movie. The other two Atmos movies are The Expendibles (should be called The Depends-ables ) and Transformers whatever, right?


Out of the four atmos movies I have watched, John Wick was definitely the best. My favorite is the last fight scene/car chase. This includes mocking jay that I watched last night. 

Mocking jay was good but just not a lot of action going on and way way too long. But I saw the potential with the John Wick.


----------



## mp5475

Dave Vaughn said:


> Mockingjay sounds pretty damn impressive, especially during the bombing scene and ship flyovers.


Agree with that. It felt like my room was getting bombed.


----------



## RMK!

mp5475 said:


> Out of the four atmos movies I have watched, John Wick was definitely the best. My favorite is the last fight scene/car chase. This includes mocking jay that I watched last night.
> 
> Mocking jay was good but just not a lot of action going on and way way too long. But I saw the potential with the John Wick.


Oh yeah, I forgot I own that Atmos bluray. It's on hold waiting for a "family night" viewing.


----------



## dvdwilly3

NorthSky said:


> Can't do that; it's not our baby. ...It's _Christopher Nolan_'s own creative _"cinematique"_ masterpiece.
> 
> Us, we simply take it all as it is; like it or not.
> ...It's like _Ridley Scott_'s own sci-fi masterpiece *'Blade Runner'* ... with five (5) versions of it!
> * Which 'Blade Runner's version should be tested with DSU?
> 
> ______
> 
> P.S. Great post just above.


*The Final Cut (2007)*

Ridley Scott's *Final Cut* (2007, 117 minutes), or the "25th Anniversary Edition", briefly released by Warner Bros. theatrically on October 5, 2007, and subsequently released on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray in December 2007 (UK December 3; US December 18)[14] is the only version over which Ridley Scott had complete artistic control, as the _Director's Cut_ production did not place Scott directly in charge.

My personal favorite...and, it is awesome with DSU...but if it were to be re-mastered in Atmos, I would have to have that one as well...


----------



## mp5475

RMK! said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot I own that Atmos bluray. It's on hold waiting for a "family night" viewing.


I made mistake of watching it with my two and half year old son. Next day, it was f this, f that, and more f,f,f,f

I guess he gets it more than I thought.


----------



## batpig

audioguy said:


> Just got Auro up and running. And I can confirm that Keith is correct in that the heights are an *EXACT* replica of the surrounds for playing some up-mixed two channel music. It's playing in the other room (height speakers only) as I type this and is no different than listening to the ear level speakers. I tried DSU and totally different sounds come from the height speakers.


Quite note -- but most upmixers work differently when upmixing 2ch content vs. multich content. You should also test a 5.1 mix upmixed to the four heights -- where the upmixer is only adding height information, not matrixing to all speakers.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you will be proved right. Bloat in a movie is one of my pet peeves. I like them to be lean and stripped down if possible. Definitely a case of less is more. Not always of course. Nonetheless I am looking forward to seeing Interstellar.


And yet you continue to defend TF4 as the greatest movie ever made, lauding Michael Bay for his filmmaking genius. Or something like that. 

No schlocky sci-fi action romp should have a 165 minute runtime.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> I have listened to the Auro3D music selections on the demo disc and they are very nice. Now if Auro wants to start getting the major music recording studios using their technology, that would be terrific. But that won't happen.
> 
> But given that 98.5% of the people like it (I'm sure you have the data to back up that number), then I am FINALLY part of *"the 1%"* that has been talked about for so long.
> 
> I still think Auro is toast. No content, and they are fighting against two gorillas (DTS and Dolby). And Auro (forget AuroMatic) brings no additional value. But that's just me.


Chuck, no problemo my friend, I fully respect your viewpoint ('earpoint'). 

As for that number I came up with, like I said, from my various readings here and there.
It is just an estimate, the margin of error could well be around 5% give-n-take. 
It's not very important; it is still the vast majority of people who like Auro-3D. 

________

♦ Earlier I was reading and learning some @ other AVS forum sections, on various audio/video subjects, my deep passion (music and cinema - music recordings, concerts & movies, history in surround sound, the future of Blu-ray, 3D, 4K, new UHD TVs, etc.). 
And I accidentally stumbled upon this gentleman's post: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## audioguy

batpig said:


> Quite note -- but most upmixers work differently when upmixing 2ch content vs. multich content. You should also test a 5.1 mix upmixed to the four heights -- where the upmixer is only adding height information, not matrixing to all speakers.


I did watch some 5.1/7.1 movie clips but again, I thought DSU did a better job. It sitll appears that AuroMatic does nothing but copy the surround/front channels to the height channels

I have a number of DVD Audio multi-channel music DVD's. I am going to try them tomorrow.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mp5475 said:


> I made mistake of watching it with my two and half year old son. Next day, it was f this, f that, and more f,f,f,f
> 
> I guess he gets it more than I thought.


Oh man, I hope you weren't serious. 

Be mindful of what your kids watch, especially at those impressionable ages. They soak the bad stuff up like a sponge and don't understand/can't process that it's not real or not appropriate behavior.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> *If you contact Auro, they will send you the Auro 3D demo disc. For free!
> It has over two hours of Auro encoded material  Recommended !*





lujan said:


> That reminds me? I saw that the Denon site indicated a free Auro 3D demo disk once you purchase the upgrade but I never got a disk.
> Where should it come from, Denon? Should I call to ask for it?


♦ Check that quote just above yours.


----------



## mp5475

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh man, I hope you weren't serious.
> 
> Be mindful of what your kids watch, especially at those impressionable ages. They soak the bad stuff up like a sponge and don't understand it's not real.


He has been watching movies with us since 6 month. I would not considered his age to be impressionable yet, but it will be his last time he gets to watch adult content. Also didn't know too much about the movie other than it was a gangster movie. I guess I should have checked.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> I accidentally stumbled upon this gentleman's post: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


That's pretty loaded. Lot's of folks are not gonna like it...


----------



## NorthSky

Poor kid, another future John Wick. 

* In reply to *mp5475*, just above the above.


----------



## RMK!

mp5475 said:


> I made mistake of watching it with my two and half year old son. Next day, it was f this, f that, and more f,f,f,f
> 
> I guess he gets it more than I thought.


Sorry but a 2 1/2 YO dropping F bombs is pretty funny. My "family night" is with teenagers and twenty somethings so no worries here...


----------



## mp5475

RMK! said:


> Sorry but a 2 1/2 YO dropping F bombs is pretty funny. My "family night" is with teenagers and twenty somethings so no worries here...


You try not to react to it but I couldn't help but to laugh. Then immediately felt terrible.


----------



## RMK!

mp5475 said:


> You try not to react to it but I couldn't help but to laugh. Then immediately felt terrible.


This is too funny, I was talking about Mockingjay and you were talking about John Wick. No wonder ... 

BTW, John Wick himself never swears in the film, only the puppy killing soon to be dead A$$ bad guys.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> That's pretty loaded. Lot's of folks are not gonna like it...


I totally respect his opinion. And on top (3D elevation) of that I agree with him. ...It just happened that way. 

1. Look @ all those crappy Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles (except for John Wick).
2. Look @ all the audio dropouts from a large number of Blu-ray model players from all the manufacturers.
3. Look @ what's comin' up soon ... DTS:X
4. Look @ the less than stellar performance from DSU with multichannel music recordings.
5. Look @ the missing two overhead speakers and two floor speakers (it should be 9.1.6 for people who have two rows of seats).
6. Look @ the discontinuity on speaker positioning and ease of switching between Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D in Denon/Marantz products.
7. Look @ the minuscule amount of Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles.
8. Look @ 'Gravity' comin' up next month with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack which was supervised with a 7.1.4 Atmos setup.
9. Look @ number 8 just above without the 3D picture.
10. Look @ the hostility from some members if you are not a Dolby Atmos supporter and lover. ...And don't have the patience to be smart about DTS:X.
11. Look @ the gravity and seriousness some members take so much @ heart. ...That they become defenders and offenders @ the same time. 
12. Look @ the atmosphere once in a while that is no more fun @ all. 

...I can keep up that beat till @ least number 24. 

But other than that it's all ****-n-span tid-liddam Atmos good, almost.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Up'* ... the PIXAR animation Blu-ray title from Disney studios, in 3D ... anyone have watched it with DSU?


----------



## FilmMixer

aaranddeeman said:


> That's pretty loaded. Lot's of folks are not gonna like it...


If most of it were true, maybe..

Most of rdgrimes info is highly off base, and in most cases completely wrong.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...possibly-dolbyatmos-related.html#post32461098


----------



## scarabaeus

scarabaeus said:


> A couple more:
> 
> Torrente 5 - Operación Eurovegas
> https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00RBV6MA8
> 
> Mortadelo Y Filemón Contra Jimmy El Cachondo
> 2D: https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00SFXR1QK
> 3D: http://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B00SWUNFYI
> 
> Hard to make out, but you can see it on the cover pictures.


Confirming my own post, Torrente 5 is Atmos, spanish with english subtitles, region free. From what I can tell at first glance, it's a very silly crime movie, and has Alec Baldwin in it. Have to check out the whole movie one of these days.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh noooooo.  ...Not again. ...That hurts.


----------



## multit

audioguy said:


> ...AuroMatic, on the other hand, does nothing to make the sound more accurate or more fun (for me). It simply copies (and I know that because I listened to just the heights) the ear level channels to the height channels. "Keeping the original intention"? Really?
> Auro sounds fine but adds nothing to what Atmos provides. ...


Why let you the way of upmixing influence your experience? I for myself don't care really about that, because the result is important for my fun.
Here, the Auro-Matic opens the stage in a vertical direction... amount is dependant from the settings of course. Together with the sounds coming from surrounds and back surrounds (I prefer actally "half" Auro without surround heights) it's that immersive experience, I like very much.

As I said, I like it more, to keep the stage and the instruments where they are, but to enhance softly upwards into the room dimensions. I never heard a drum playing right beside me at a concert, like the DSU is sometimes doing it.

If the music source is already multi channel, then I often switch to DSU, because those fails are much less then... I could imagine, now the DSU has more proper information about the room as it is in 2 ch and do it better then.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Nalleh said:


> Care to share any impressions regarding placements(height) of the surrounds?





stikle said:


> Thanks for visiting Roger! I enjoyed meeting you too. I appreciate the sub level tweak advice. I will look forward to visiting Bend at some point to figure out what I need to justify purchasing next.
> Please feel free to comment if you wish. I can take it.


Seth's 4 surrounds (and the pair of wides) are all slightly more elevated than mine. I'd guess 25-30 degrees, give or take? The height are higher, as the room has a vaulted ceiling. The elevations/azimuths of the 4 heights seemed quite consistent with my setup. The Atmos demo disc did its usual job acquitting itself very well. It was less obvious to me when DSU was on/off, no surprise, and not much different than what I hear at home. 

If I were to offer free advice (and we know what that's worth ) on the next purchase, I'd try some basic acoustic treatment. There's a lot of exposed sheetrock, and the draped side wall, sloped ceiling, and open rear wall already help avoid the usual slap echo twangs nicely. But I suspect that some absorption would help dampen or "dry up" the room a little. I think that will expose a bit more detail. We're talking fine tuning, here.


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> Seth's 4 surrounds (and the pair of wides) are all slightly more elevated than mine. I'd guess 25-30 degrees, give or take? The height are higher, as the room has a vaulted ceiling. The elevations/azimuths of the 4 heights seemed quite consistent with my setup. The Atmos demo disc did its usual job acquitting itself very well. It was less obvious to me when DSU was on/off, no surprise, and not much different than what I hear at home.


Ok, not a big difference from your mounting then.

Those omnipolar Mirage's are supposed to be mounted upside down, if mounted more than 6 feet from the floor, but i guess that is not the case here?


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> I totally respect his opinion. And on top (3D elevation) of that I agree with him. ...It just happened that way.
> 
> 1. Look @ all those crappy Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles (except for John Wick).
> 2. Look @ all the audio dropouts from a large number of Blu-ray model players from all the manufacturers.
> 3. Look @ what's comin' up soon ... DTS:X
> 4. Look @ the less than stellar performance from DSU with multichannel music recordings.
> 5. Look @ the missing two overhead speakers and two floor speakers (it should be 9.1.6 for people who have two rows of seats).
> 6. Look @ the discontinuity on speaker positioning and ease of switching between Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D in Denon/Marantz products.
> 7. Look @ the minuscule amount of Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles.
> 8. Look @ 'Gravity' comin' up next month with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack which was supervised with a 7.1.4 Atmos setup.
> 9. Look @ number 8 just above without the 3D picture.
> 10. Look @ the hostility from some members if you are not a Dolby Atmos supporter and lover. ...And don't have the patience to be smart about DTS:X.
> 11. Look @ the gravity and seriousness some members take so much @ heart. ...That they become defenders and offenders @ the same time.
> 12. Look @ the atmosphere once in a while that is no more fun @ all.
> 
> ...I can keep up that beat till @ least number 24.
> 
> But other than that it's all ****-n-span tid-liddam Atmos good, almost.


OMG!!! I was so excited about #8 ... until I got to #9 ... bummer!! Gravity in Atmos 3D would be the best ever!!! I just saw gravity again, 10 feet away from my 16:9 10 feet wide screen in 3D projected by the Sony 4K projector.. it was HEAVEN!! I utterly felt like i was in Space.. and with my current 7.2 setup, the surround sound field was absolutely smooth... even more so than the Imax... (I am yet to install the 4 ceiling speakers I left space for in my HT).

On another note: You sound like a 'writer/author'...


----------



## coolgeek

Is there a 'Mastered for 4K' blu ray with Atmos and 3D?

Also, how much space does the audio channels like atmos take up compared to regular dolby digital? Is it a space issue that they don't put Atmos with 3D in the same disc?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Gonna take a break from romantic tear-jerkers just for me? Mighty nice of you.


That's a joke, right? Right?


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Bob, the wine will be aging a bit yet (no comments Keith!), although I think I have more then enough speakers for the HT job the front and rear stairs and deck are unfortunately ahead of it on the 'reno schedule', but I will pencil you in for an early fall premier...


 You will surely get the award for the longest theater build in history Al 

But *French* red wine? Surely everyone by now knows that the best reds come from Australia. And the best whites from New Zealand. Basically, that is all that anybody needs know about wine nowadays IMO. Red = Oz, White = NZ. Sorted.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> Frankly, you could say that about all of the Nolan Batman films, especially the last one. I thought it would never end and the editing that was released was pretty poor IMO.


Yes I think you are probably right. I found the first one OK, then the second had a fair amount of bloat and by the time the dark knight rose, well.... Structurally I think the last of the three was poor. I can't remember who edited it but in the hands of a more incisive editor it could have been an astonishingly good movie. 

I had to look up the editor and guess what - it was Lee Smith - the guy who also edited *Interstellar,* discussed just above in similar context. He has a good record though:_* Elysium, Master & Commander, X-Men: First Class, The Prestige*_ and.... *The Truman Show*. I can forgive him a lot for that last movie mentioned.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I have listened to the Auro3D music selections on the demo disc and they are very nice. Now if Auro wants to start getting the major music recording studios using their technology, that would be terrific. But that won't happen.
> 
> But given that 98.5% of the people like it (I'm sure you have the data to back up that number), then I am FINALLY part of *"the 1%"* that has been talked about for so long.
> 
> I still think Auro is toast. No content, and they are fighting against two gorillas (DTS and Dolby). And Auro (forget AuroMatic) brings no additional value. But that's just me.


And me  Yes, it is toast. It's the lack of content which will be the real nail in the coffin. 

HST, it must have been devastating to launch a channel-based system at the same time that the industry decided to make the move to object-based, with all of its inherent advantages at the production end. Being unable to run on the chipsets of any of the affordable AVRs other than Denon/Marantz (the other mainstream players use currently non-compatible TI chips) has also dealt another death blow. It leaves Auro with D&M and the uber-expensive end of the market. VB initially tried to convince us that the best marketing strategy was to go initially for the high end and let it trickle down. Nonsensical as that is, from a marketing POV and from the POV of a new company trying to gain traction in a highly competitive arena, his words have been shown to be no more than hot air by Auro's speedy introduction into lower end D&M units. So much for a 'high end only' strategy.

What will finally put it to sleep will be DTS:X IMO. DTS:X are coming late to the game but they have some huge inbuilt advantages: industry muscle, a known and respected brand, historical dominance in the Bluray area, and, by coming late, the ability to shape their system to use current (ie Atmos) speaker layouts in the HT arena. 

I suspect that once DTS:X is available, it will spur Dolby and Atmos on through competition. As things stand I am sure Dolby don't see Auro as a real competitive threat, but that might change dramatically when DTS:X is here. That can only be good for consumers, but it then does signal the end for Auro. I can’t see any place they can go. They've no presence in theatrical movies, no presence in Bluray movies, and virtually no content for music, which is supposed to be its forte.

And for original recordings of music, the notion of using that 'mic tree' concept seems to me to be a non-starter too. Music will continue to be recorded the way it has been for decades. Other than a few obscure European and Eastern European classical pieces, Auro has nothing to offer even for music as far as I can see. And those pieces it does have don't have any commercial value, which is why VB hasn't released the "400" recordings he has supposedly made.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> You're welcome.
> I'm on my 4th go around with John Wick and the Atmos presentation at home sounds better than Guardians of the Galaxy that I saw at an Atmos Theater. At this juncture it is the only watchable Atmos movie. The other two Atmos movies are The Expendibles (should be called The Depends-ables ) and Transformers whatever, right?


IMO *Transcendence* is the best Atmos movie on Bluray currently. Has to be imported from Japan though. And from a pure Atmos perspective, I. *Frankenstein* is very good as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> You're welcome.
> I'm on my 4th go around with John Wick and the Atmos presentation at home sounds better than Guardians of the Galaxy that I saw at an Atmos Theater. At this juncture it is the only watchable Atmos movie. The other two Atmos movies are The Expendibles (should be called The Depends-ables ) and Transformers whatever, right?


IMO *Transcendence* is the best Atmos movie on Bluray currently. Has to be imported from Japan though. And from a pure Atmos perspective, *I, Frankenstein* is very good as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> Mockingjay sounds pretty damn impressive, especially during the bombing scene and ship flyovers.


Yes - I heard that at Dolby but the disc isn't available here in Europe yet. I am very much looking forward to it. As I recall, overhead effects were used sparingly (in line with the 'talky' content') but dramatically when they did kick in.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Quite note -- but most upmixers work differently when upmixing 2ch content vs. multich content. You should also test a 5.1 mix upmixed to the four heights -- where the upmixer is only adding height information, not matrixing to all speakers.


Auromatic doesn't use 'height information'. It just copies the base channels to the heights, entirely, at a lower level. There's no extraction, no logic steering. Not sure if that is what you meant though.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> And yet you continue to defend TF4 as the greatest movie ever made, lauding Michael Bay for his filmmaking genius. Or something like that.
> 
> No schlocky sci-fi action romp should have a 165 minute runtime.


Hahaha. LOL. That is the craziest, most inaccurate post I have ever seen you make, batpig. I’d love to see you quote me back where I say TF4 is the greatest movie ever made! IIRC I said something along the lines there is a lot to like in the movie. And there is - the action sequences, the sound, the CGI etc. But "greatest movie ever made" - come off it batpig.

Michael Bay is a filmmaking genius though. You don't have to like his movies to be able to see that he is a master craftsman of his art.

And yes, I agree - TF4 is too long.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I did watch some 5.1/7.1 movie clips but again, I thought DSU did a better job. It sitll appears that AuroMatic does nothing but copy the surround/front channels to the height channels
> 
> I have a number of DVD Audio multi-channel music DVD's. I am going to try them tomorrow.


Whatever you try, Auromatic will work the same way, just copying whole channels. If you don't like that, you won't like it when you try it again. Like spinach


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Whatever you try, Auromatic will work the same way, just copying whole channels. If you don't like that, you won't like it when you try it again. Like spinach


Well then there is hope. I like spinach


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> Auromatic doesn't use 'height information'. It just copies the base channels to the heights, entirely, at a lower level. There's no extraction, no logic steering. Not sure if that is what you meant though.


Even, when you post that very "convenient" simplification of the Auro-Matic behaviour a hundred times - it won't become entirely true, since there is more than this simple copying. Please do me a favor and let others (trustful sources, you know  ) check the following ... take the "Dolby TrueHD 7.1 channel check" track and play it with Auro-Matic. 1st time with all speakers on in order to get to know the sequence and then without base speakers (no fronts / no surrounds).

My findings... just as a pre information of course without any proper value 


 There is the whole signal from left speaker at the corresponding left height speaker. It seems not altered despite level, which is according to that "amplitude altering" topic, the definition of "head related transfer function" is talking about in order to allow a human to distinguish height information.
There is an altered signal from right speaker at the left height speaker. It sounds still complete, but kind of reverberant and of course lower at level.
There is an altered signal from right surround speaker at the left height speaker. It's still complete, also a bit reverberant and very low at level.
There is an altered signal from right surround speaker at the left height speaker. It's also complete, less reverberant than from right surround and low at level.
There are no sounds coming from the back surrounds.
So, my question is, why the heck should that not be considered as logic steering? But putting parts of a drum set right beside me with DSU active is logic steering then? Whats the difference? Only, because DSU is copying only partial sound information to the height channels? Really?



As I always say, if the result is sufficient and the immersive effect is present ... without any partial fails and a lot of Auro users are reporting that. why the hell is that not proper upmixing? I mean, who is actually creating definitions here?


I totally agree, that we will probably not see a lot of movies with Auro-3D on Blu-ray, but perhaps and hopefully more music recordings.
Auro-Matic produces often a nice immersive effect, even when other upmixer fail and it's simply a proper and valid sound option!



Ok, I know, you don't care about music in your HT, but why would permanent bashing Auro-Matic just a single bit helpful for others then?
Because I'm still wondering, why are you doing this and with that enthusiasm?


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> Even, when you post that very "convenient" simplification of the Auro-Matic behaviour a hundred times - it won't become entirely true, since there is more than this simple copying. Please do me a favor and let others (trustful sources, you know  ) check the following ... take the "Dolby TrueHD 7.1 channel check" track and play it with Auro-Matic.


It is a simple explanation because what Auromatic does is simple: it copies whole channels and lowers the levels and adds some reverb. That is really simple. 

You may prefer an argument from authority, but it won’t change the way Auromatic works, much as so many Auro fans seem to be in denial about it. If you want an authority to tell you how it works, Roger Dressler is about as authoritative as you'll find wrt to how upmixers work, so ask him and see if he says it works differently to how I say it works. Not forgetting of course that it is very easy to check it for yourself. 

I can't imagine why Auro fans seem to want to believe so much that Auromatic extracts information and steers it elsewhere, instead of accepting it for what it is. It's almost as if they believe that the way Auromatic works is really bad and they so desperately wished it was a proper umpixer with logic steering and so on. Why not just enjoy it for what it is, if you do enjoy it, and stop trying to pretend that it is something it isn't? 



multit said:


> So, my question is, why the heck should that not be considered as logic steering? But putting parts of a drum set right beside me with DSU active is logic steering then? Whats the difference? Only, because DSU is copying only partial sound information to the height channels? Really?


Because it isn’t logic steering. Here is my understanding of how upmixers work. You'll need to ask Roger to confirm if I am right or not - Roger invented PLII with Jim Fosgate so I imagine you will take his word for things. Upmixers work by taking two or more channels and 'expanding' them to more channels in an intelligent way (that is they are not simply copied). Part of this 'intelligence' uses phase shift techniques, filtering, delays, alterations of relative levels and controls the response time to changes in direction of the sound. In addition, PLII's great claim to fame was that the steering logic was greatly improved thus giving a much better 'illusion' of a genuine, discreet multichannel source. In all these real upmixers, content is 'extracted' from the base channels using spatial differences between them and then this is added to all of the processing just mentioned to 'steer' the sounds appropriately (as possible) to the intended speakers. I am not an expert so my understanding may be a little fuzzy, but in essence that is how I understand upmixers to work.

By contrast, Auromatic does none of these things. It just takes the signal in the base channel and copies it to another channel, reduced in level and with some reverb added to simulate decorrelation. 



multit said:


> As I always say, if the result is sufficient and the immersive effect is present ... without any partial fails and a lot of Auro users are reporting that. why the hell is that not proper upmixing? I mean, who is actually creating definitions here?


There can be no "partial fails" with Auromatic. That is one of its virtues - when no processing is being done, there can be no processing errors . It is not proper upmixing because it isn't upmixing, as can be seen by comparison with PLII etc. It is copying. To call Auromatic and PLLII or DSU both by the same names isn't sensible IMO as they work in such fundamentally different ways. It would be like calling all-channel stereo an 'upmixer'. Or, like calling a second set of speakers in another room, playing the same content as in the main room, but at a slightly lower level, 'upmixing'. It is clearly not upmixing in any real sense of the use of the word.

Why does it matter to you so much to try to convince people that Auromatic is an 'upmixer'? Why not just enjoy it for what it is and be done with it?



multit said:


> I totally agree, that we will probably not see a lot of movies with Auro-3D on Blu-ray, but perhaps and hopefully more music recordings.
> Auro-Matic produces often a nice immersive effect, even when other upmixer fail and it's simply a proper and valid sound option!


Who said it was not a valid sound option? I have been describing how it works, not how it sounds. Yamaha's "Hall" and "Jazz Club" modes are also valid sound options, and no doubt some people like them. But they ain't upmixers!



multit said:


> Ok, I know, you don't care about music in your HT, but why would permanent bashing Auro-Matic just a single bit helpful for others then?
> Because I'm still wondering, why are you doing this and with that enthusiasm?


 [/quote]

Because every time I describe how it works, people come along and try to prove that it doesn’t work that way at all. I am not "bashing" Auromatic. How could I? I have never even heard it. I am just describing how it works. And every time it is mentioned, it spawns pages of denial from Auro enthusiasts.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Hahaha. LOL. That is the craziest, most inaccurate post I have ever seen you make, batpig. I’d love to see you quote me back where I say TF4 is the greatest movie ever made! IIRC I said something along the lines there is a lot to like in the movie. And there is - the action sequences, the sound, the CGI etc. But "greatest movie ever made" - come off it batpig.


Where's your sense of humor today, Keith? Batpig was just funnin' with you; I laughed out loud yesterday when I read that sardonic post of his!

Maybe you have a hangover from drinking too much cheap Aussie red with your boiled beef?


----------



## kbarnes701

*The Book of Eli.*

For reasons I don't fully understand, this has become one of my favorite movies and I have watched it several times. It has a great turn from Denzel, one of my favorite actors, and a wonderful production design. It also features an amazing 5.1 soundtrack, with near constant use of all channels and in a very relevant and creative way.

Last night was the first time I have seen the movie using DSU for the sound. I can say that anyone who has this movie and who hasn't yet watched it with DSU working, needs to correct that immediately! Even before the movie starts, while the distributor's logo is on screen, you will hear what I mean. Wind whips through the soundstage from all directions and paves the way for the post-apocalyptic adventure which is to follow. And just listen to those first 5 minutes!

All through the movie, DSU brings an amazing extra layer of immersion. Gunshot ricochets, wind, explosions, atmospherics - they are all enhanced very significantly by DSU.

But the real killer scene comes later in the movie. I have omitted the characters' names here so as not to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it, as the scene in question is a pivotal one. If you have seen the movie or don't care, the names are revealed by clicking the spoiler button. It is the scene where Xxxxxx


Spoiler



Carnegie


 shoots Xxxxxx


Spoiler



Eli


after the siege at the old couple's isolated home (riveting cameos from Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour). After the initial gunshot, just listen to the after-effect sound effect. Wow oh wow! Listen and be amazed as it criss-crosses your ceiling, from left to right, around behind you, back to the front, into the surrounds and mains. Marvel at DSU's steering of this sound. It is just a fabulous demonstration of what DSU is capable of doing. Even though I almost never do this, I stopped the movie, rewound and listened to that scene not once, not twice but three times.


----------



## DaveyMac

*Need some advice*

I currently have a 5.1 set up with atmos enabled receiver. My LR and surrounds are HSU HB-1's. AVR Denon X4100W. My MLP is within 7 feet of all speakers and its on a couch with back against wall (so my surround right is 2 feet directly to my right and surround left 7 feet directly to my left).

I just ordered two more HB1's.

Can these be installed for 5.1.2 Atmos? If so, would I want to install them in the front height location or on the ceiling, against my back wall facing down?

If you think they just aren't very good for Atmos, any recommendation for 2 upward firing modules? And would you put them on LR speakers in front? Or on the surround speakers in rear?


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> It is a simple explanation because what Auromatic does is simple: it copies whole channels and lowers the levels and adds some reverb. That is really simple.
> 
> You may prefer an argument from authority, but it won’t change the way Auromatic works, much as so many Auro fans seem to be in denial about it. If you want an authority to tell you how it works, Roger Dressler is about as authoritative as you'll find wrt to how upmixers work, so ask him and see if he says it works differently to how I say it works. Not forgetting of course that it is very easy to check it for yourself.
> 
> I can't imagine why Auro fans seem to want to believe so much that Auromatic extracts information and steers it elsewhere, instead of accepting it for what it is. It's almost as if they believe that the way Auromatic works is really bad and they so desperately wished it was a proper umpixer with logic steering and so on. Why not just enjoy it for what it is, if you do enjoy it, and stop trying to pretend that it is something it isn't?
> 
> Sorry about the font size...I have cut and pasted from Word, and it did not come out like I thought it would.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it isn’t logic steering. Here is my understanding of how upmixers work. You'll need to ask Roger to confirm if I am right or not - Roger invented PLII with Jim Fosgate so I imagine you will take his word for things. Upmixers work by taking two or more channels and 'expanding' them to more channels in an intelligent way (that is they are not simply copied). Part of this 'intelligence' uses phase shift techniques, filtering, delays, alterations of relative levels and controls the response time to changes in direction of the sound. In addition, PLII's great claim to fame was that the steering logic was greatly improved thus giving a much better 'illusion' of a genuine, discreet multichannel source. In all these real upmixers, content is 'extracted' from the base channels using spatial differences between them and then this is added to all of the processing just mentioned to 'steer' the sounds appropriately (as possible) to the intended speakers. I am not an expert so my understanding may be a little fuzzy, but in essence that is how I understand upmixers to work.
> 
> By contrast, Auromatic does none of these things. It just takes the signal in the base channel and copies it to another channel, reduced in level and with some reverb added to simulate decorrelation.
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no "partial fails" with Auromatic. That is one of its virtues - when no processing is being done, there can be no processing errors . It is not proper upmixing because it isn't upmixing, as can be seen by comparison with PLII etc. It is copying. To call Auromatic and PLLII or DSU both by the same names isn't sensible IMO as they work in such fundamentally different ways. It would be like calling all-channel stereo an 'upmixer'. Or, like calling a second set of speakers in another room, playing the same content as in the main room, but at a slightly lower level, 'upmixing'. It is clearly not upmixing in any real sense of the use of the word.
> 
> Why does it matter to you so much to try to convince people that Auromatic is an 'upmixer'? Why not just enjoy it for what it is and be done with it?
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was not a valid sound option? I have been describing how it works, not how it sounds. Yamaha's "Hall" and "Jazz Club" modes are also valid sound options, and no doubt some people like them. But they ain't upmixers!


Because every time I describe how it works, people come along and try to prove that it doesn’t work that way at all. I am not "bashing" Auromatic. How could I? I have never even heard it. I am just describing how it works. And every time it is mentioned, it spawns pages of denial from Auro enthusiasts.[/QUOTE]

I do not believe that Keith is Auro-bashing. I think that he is trying to provide a perspective on how effectively Auro can be expected to work, or not, in a home theater for movies, and, yes, that is the complete context of the discussion here. We all have or want to have a home theater. Some may choose to use it for music, as well. And, for those, Auro may certainly have it benefits. But, the primary purpose is watching movies.

What you describe in Auro used to be called crosstalk and was considered for the most part undesirable. And, from everything that I have read, I understand that is what they are doing. And, your description matches that. Auro is using crosstalk in a constructive manner by adding reverb to mimic reflected sounds from the boundaries of a larger space to create a sense of spaciousness. And, I would think that it would add that sense. 


And, I would expect that it could work quite well for music. The musical instruments are static and do not move in the frame of reference, that is, the orchestra pit, the studio, or reproduced in the listening room. The music moves, if you would, because the different musical instruments are located at different physical locations within the original space.

But, the instruments do not move per se, unless it is a marching band. The oboist is still in the same chair in the space as he or she ever was...and, he or she is sitting, and not alternately, running across the  stage; standing on the chair; jumping off the chair; crouching on the floor; etc. The sound sources are static.

However, from a physics standpoint, given the way that Auro seems to function, I would not expect Auro to work that well for movies. Here the sound field being reproduced is anything but static. There are multiple sound sources moving in 3 dimensions throughout the sound field.

Of course, there are exceptions, for instance, dialogue heavy movies. But, any scene that depicts motion does not have, say, a helicopter that is idling, then takes over and moves not only across the screen, but over the head of the listener. In this case, the sound source itself moves across the sound field. 

And, I think that you would have to admit, having that oboist position in the orchestra move across the stage, levitate, and advance directly toward and over the head of the listener, would not be a desirable effect.

No amount of crosstalk supplemented with reverb no matter how well done can realistically replicate the dynamic sound field. However, treating those moving sound sources as discrete objects and moving them within the frame of reference, that is, the sound field, would yield a more realistic effect, and, hence, more believable.

And, for movies, isn't it all ultimately about suspending disbelief?


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> *The Book of Eli.*
> 
> For reasons I don't fully understand, this has become one of my favorite movies and I have watched it several times. It has a great turn from Denzel, one of my favorite actors, and a wonderful production design. It also features an amazing 5.1 soundtrack, with near constant use of all channels and in a very relevant and creative way.
> 
> Last night was the first time I have seen the movie using DSU for the sound. I can say that anyone who has this movie and who hasn't yet watched it with DSU working, needs to correct that immediately! Even before the movie starts, while the distributor's logo is on screen, you will hear what I mean. Wind whips through the soundstage from all directions and paves the way for the post-apocalyptic adventure which is to follow. And just listen to those first 5 minutes!
> 
> All through the movie, DSU brings an amazing extra layer of immersion. Gunshot ricochets, wind, explosions, atmospherics - they are all enhanced very significantly by DSU.
> 
> But the real killer scene comes later in the movie. I have omitted the characters' names here so as not to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it, as the scene in question is a pivotal one. If you have seen the movie or don't care, the names are revealed by clicking the spoiler button. It is the scene where Xxxxxx
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Carnegie
> 
> 
> shoots Xxxxxx
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Eli
> 
> 
> after the siege at the old couple's isolated home (riveting cameos from Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour). After the initial gunshot, just listen to the after-effect sound effect. Wow oh wow! Listen and be amazed as it criss-crosses your ceiling, from left to right, around behind you, back to the front, into the surrounds and mains. Marvel at DSU's steering of this sound. It is just a fabulous demonstration of what DSU is capable of doing. Even though I almost never do this, I stopped the movie, rewound and listened to that scene not once, not twice but three times.


Bro, you should give Cloverfield a try as well...when played back in DSU, one word, "Outstanding"!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Where's your sense of humor today, Keith? Batpig was just funnin' with you; I laughed out loud yesterday when I read that sardonic post of his!
> 
> Maybe you have a hangover from drinking too much cheap Aussie red with your boiled beef?


It was a disgraceful calumny. 

As is the notion that the Aussie red drunk here is "cheap".


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> I do not believe that Keith is Auro-bashing. I think that he is trying to provide a perspective on how effectively Auro can be expected to work, or not, in a home theater for movies, and, yes, that is the complete context of the discussion here. We all have or want to have a home theater. Some may choose to use it for music, as well. And, for those, Auro may certainly have it benefits. But, the primary purpose is watching movies.


TBH I'd leave it, but people keep picking up on it and saying it ain't so. Then, I feel the need to reply to correct what I see as incorrect information. So it assumes a life of its own. I expect it will rumble on.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Re my previous post, I tried to edit it to explain about the font size. I cut and pasted from Word, and I thought that what showed up here was smaller. 
It even looks like it is in bold, and that was not my intent.
My apologies...


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> Bro, you should give Cloverfield a try as well...when played back in DSU, one word, "Outstanding"!


Ah yes - thanks. I like that movie and haven’t seen it in ages. I will add it to the watch-soon list.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Re my previous post, I tried to edit it to explain about the font size. I cut and pasted from Word, and I thought that what showed up here was smaller.
> It even looks like it is in bold, and that was not my intent.
> My apologies...


Just go into it and edit out the [size] command and the [/size] at the end of the relevant paragraphs and it will revert to regular size. ATM it is size = 4.


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah yes - thanks. I like that movie and haven’t seen it in ages. I will add it to the watch-soon list.


Haha...believe it or not, this is now my NUMBER 1 DSU-mix titles to showcase DSU upmixing. 
Let me know how you "feel" after watching it


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go - I did it for you. Select all that, then copy it to the clipboard, then go back to your post, click EDIT, select everything and delete it all, then paste in the above. I’ll delete this post later.


It worked! Thanks for the help.


----------



## robert816

Peace guys, it's an Atmos thread. 

I'm more interested in Atmos, how it works and how to get the best out of my system.


----------



## desray2k

robert816 said:


> Peace guys, it's an Atmos thread.
> 
> I'm more interested in Atmos, how it works and how to get the best out of my system.


+1...unless of course everything on Atmos setup and tweaks etc has already been covered in previous postings?


----------



## Wild Blue

SoundJunky said:


> My HT is only used for movies and the main reason for making the Atmos jump was for DSU (for me). So, darn you guys and your justification for ripping the surrounds off the walls while the last coat of ceiling paint dries.  I'll be lowering them by 21", which will still put them 10" above ear height, but with a downward tilt. I think it's a good compromise. Let the wall carnage ensue…


Is that AR-15 there for a custom effects channel? Like recreating gunfire in Atmos tracks?


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Peace guys, it's an Atmos thread.
> 
> I'm more interested in Atmos, how it works and how to get the best out of my system.





desray2k said:


> +1...unless of course everything on Atmos setup and tweaks etc has already been covered in previous postings?


There may be some truth in that. Most of the Atmos setup issues are now fully covered in this thread somewhere. I think comparisons with Auro are valid and could be relevant to owners of Denon/Marantz units who are wondering whether to spring the 200 bucks for the Auro upgrade. A useful part of that decision process will be how well Auromatic works. It will be years, if ever, before most people have collections in which their non-Atmos content is overtaken by their Atmos content, so most will be using the upmixers more than the actual sound format for a long time to come. Given that, I think it is helpful to people to know what exactly they are getting, from both Atmos and Auro, so they can make an informed decision.


----------



## Wild Blue

SoundJunky said:


> If you contact Dolby will they send you an atmos demo disk?  $80 on ebay seems a little ridiculous.


I just tried this about 5 days ago by sending a message to Dolby through their website contact form. No response as of yet.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> ...Part of this 'intelligence' uses phase shift techniques, filtering, delays, alterations of relative levels and controls the response time to changes in direction of the sound...
> By contrast, Auromatic does none of these things. It just takes the signal in the base channel and copies it to another channel, reduced in level and with some reverb added to simulate decorrelation...


And you know for sure, that nothing of those mentioned intelligent techniques is in use with Auro-Matic... do you accept bets? ... I also like wine 
And please, I don't deny the channel copying thing, I mean why would I, but I'm not sure about the whole processing and stearing topic.



kbarnes701 said:


> ...Why does it matter to you so much to try to convince people that Auromatic is an 'upmixer'? Why not just enjoy it for what it is and be done with it?...


You really believe, that I or a any other Auro user started to claim that? Isn't it exactly the opposite? Who started to claim it's not and more important --> why?
Content from front speakers and surround speakers is being upmixed in each a different way to the height speakers with a logic in order to create an immersive experience. It's not a simple copy from left to left height and reverb is only to reckongnise from the cross speakers (right/surround).
--> If you show me a proper definition of "upmixer" anywhere written, I immediately stop, but remember, you started to claim it's not... not vice versa!



kbarnes701 said:


> ... Because every time I describe how it works, people come along and try to prove that it doesn’t work that way at all. I am not "bashing" Auromatic. How could I? I have never even heard it. I am just describing how it works. And every time it is mentioned, it spawns pages of denial from Auro enthusiasts.


You claim to be able, to describe how it really works, seriously? I'm not, I just listen and tell honestly the experiences I had. Aand you see, I have nothing to hide, as I also can confirm the whole content is used. But anything after that including the cross mixing and altering... I would not lay my hands in fire...

By the way... regarding those spawns... my feeling is a bit different. Do you still count your postings?


----------



## stikle

Roger Dressler said:


> If I were to offer free advice (and we know what that's worth ) on the next purchase, I'd try some basic acoustic treatment. There's a lot of exposed sheetrock, and the draped side wall, sloped ceiling, and open rear wall already help avoid the usual slap echo twangs nicely. But I suspect that some absorption would help dampen or "dry up" the room a little. I think that will expose a bit more detail. We're talking fine tuning, here.


Thanks again Roger. I've been contemplating removing the two bookshelves at the rear of the room, which would expose even more sheetrock. But, that it seems that would be the perfect place to apply some kind of acoustic paneling. It definitely bears some further exploratio.



Nalleh said:


> Those omnipolar Mirage's are supposed to be mounted upside down, if mounted more than 6 feet from the floor, but i guess that is not the case here?


No, they are mounted upside down, and are right around 6 feet.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> That's a joke, right? Right?


Of course it is. (Or is it?)


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> And you know for sure, that nothing of those mentioned intelligent techniques is in use with Auro-Matic... do you accept bets? ... I also like wine
> And please, I don't deny the channel copying thing, I mean why would I, but I'm not sure about the whole processing and stearing topic.
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe, that I or a any other Auro user started to claim that? Isn't it exactly the opposite? Who started to claim it's not and more important --> why?
> Content from front speakers and surround speakers is being upmixed in each a different way to the height speakers with a logic in order to create an immersive experience. It's not a simple copy from left to left height and reverb is only to reckongnise from the cross speakers (right/surround).
> --> If you show me a proper definition of "upmixer" anywhere written, I immediately stop, but remember, you started to claim it's not... not vice versa!
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be able, to describe how it really works, seriously? I'm not, I just listen and tell honestly the experiences I had. Aand you see, I have nothing to hide, as I also can confirm the whole content is used. But anything after that including the cross mixing and altering... I would not lay my hands in fire...


I don't think you have added anything significant to the discussion, different to what has already been said, so I can't see any point in continuing it. You complain about the posts but seem to want to continue. Feel free to believe that Auromatic is a genuine, ground-breaking upmixer and I'll continue to believe that it isn't 



multit said:


> By the way... regarding those spawns... my feeling is a bit different. Do you still count your postings?


Is that the best you've got?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Of course it is. (Or is it?)


Phew. You had me worried for a while....


----------



## RMK!

Re-watched John Wick (for the 4th time) last night in Atmos. Also watched the bonus material for the first time. What a great action movie made by what are essentially stunt men. Very little CG and action sequences that aren't cut short/fast like a music video that make you nauseous watching it. The violence is intentionally over the top but is essentially the point of the movie so not a film for kids or the squeamish. Music is beautifully integrated and is a perfect background for the action sequences. What dialog there is is clear and legible even with Keanu Reeves quiet mumbling style . 

The Atmos presentation is very good and doesn't draw attention to itself which is good. Just very immersive and natural. I was alone and pushed the volume up to -5 reference and it made the gun play amazingly authentic. It is the kind of film that plays to having pro cinema grade, high efficiency loudspeakers in the home environment. 

I wasn't tempted to try alternate surround sound modes as why bother if the encoded soundtrack is available. It is one Bluray disk I am happy to own. Hope there are more like it coming to a theater near me soon.


----------



## robert816

desray2k said:


> +1...unless of course everything on Atmos setup and tweaks etc has already been covered in previous postings?


Hopefully not everything has been found or covered yet. 

I'm trying something a little different with my setup right now. I've moved my "fake Atmos" modules off the top of my speakers, the front pair are now on the entertainment stand with the television, the rear pair now are on their own stands next to the rear surrounds. This actually put both the front and rear Atmos speakers below the MLP's ear level which is not what Dolby reccomends, but is does allow me line up my fake Atmos speakers front to back at about 28 inches in height.

I changed the setting in the AVR from Atmos enabled, to in ceiling speakers (large). I tweaked the levels and adjusted the tone controls to my taste. and tried the Atmos demos on VUDU and to my surprise I am able to make Atmos work quite well this way, in fact it seems to sound better to me in my home this way. I tried this due to some re-arranging of furniture, and I still have some other pieces coming soon, so more change may need to be made to the home theatre, but it's nice to know that there are alternatives to the conventional ways of setting up Atmos.

There is a lot more to what I've mentioned, I simplified it to keep things brief, but it is good to know that Atmos can be made to work in so many different ways, it's just how well it works, that is the issue.


----------



## lujan

Dave Vaughn said:


> The best part of Auro IMO is their demo disc...it's much better than Dolby's. That being said, I think it's toast (at least in North America) as well. Dolby and DTS will dominate the market share and co-exist like they've done on home video for as long as I can remember.


I think I will load my Auro 3D configuration today as I've not had a chance to spend much time with the Auro demo disk. I end up using the Atmos configuration more because it utilizes all 11 channels and the Auro doesn't.


----------



## lujan

RMK! said:


> You're welcome.
> I'm on my 4th go around with John Wick and the Atmos presentation at home sounds better than Guardians of the Galaxy that I saw at an Atmos Theater. At this juncture it is the only watchable Atmos movie. The other two Atmos movies are The Expendibles (should be called The Depends-ables ) and Transformers whatever, right?


I watched Guardians of the Galaxy using the Atmos upmixer last night and wasn't impressed with it on that movie. I have been impressed with it on other movies but not for this one.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> ... Feel free to believe that Auromatic is a genuine, ground-breaking upmixer and I'll continue to believe that it isn't...


I never said that, I just tell about the immersive experiences I have. But it's exactly why I have to react sometimes, while often I have a similar opinion like you to other topics. You add things, where it suits and simplify other things by the same reason... and that intention is still kind of a mystery to me. Why here, when you even didn't spend the money for that and never hear it live? Why this enthusiasm, when you don't want it? Why the obligation to answer quite all postings about positive findings with Auro ala "nice, that you enjoy, but remember, it's a cheap trick only!"
That is the problem I have!


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Check that quote just above yours.


Oh, ok. I thought they were two different demo disks. If they are the same, I already have the one from Auro.


----------



## RMK!

lujan said:


> I watched Guardians of the Galaxy using the Atmos upmixer last night and wasn't impressed with it on that movie. I have been impressed with it on other movies but not for this one.


That's unfortunate. I like the movie and it was one I wanted to try with DSU. 

Maybe I'll give that base channel copying upmixer a try ...


----------



## desray2k

RMK! said:


> That's unfortunate. I like the movie and it was one I wanted to try with DSU.
> 
> Maybe I'll give that base channel copying upmixer a try ...


Agreed! The GOTG is a disappointment...just like Big Hero 6 when we expected "more" from the movies


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> So, my question is, why the heck should that not be considered as logic steering?


Logic steering is a part of surround processing that suppresses unwanted sounds in certain channels. Simplest example is converting an old 2-channel movie soundtrack to 3 channels (i.e., adding a centre output) so that you don't have to hear the dialogue in dual-mono (from the L/R speakers). 

First step is to send any sounds that are exactly the same in both channels (like dialogue) to the centre speaker (those sounds would have phantom imaged at the middle of the soundstage anyway). Unfortunately, this gives you triple-mono, since those sounds (including dialogue) are coming from all 3 speakers. 

So you take the centre output and invert it, then send this out-of-phase signal back to the L/R channels. This way, those sounds are cancelled from the L/R speakers and dialogue is only heard from the centre speaker. This cancellation step (suppressing centre info from the L/R speakers) is called logic steering. 

Auro doesn't do that, nor de-construct channels in any way.


----------



## bargervais

multit said:


> I never said that, I just tell about the immersive experiences I have. But it's exactly why I have to react sometimes, while often I have a similar opinion like you to other topics. You add things, where it suits and simplify other things by the same reason... and that intention is still kind of a mystery to me. Why here, when you even didn't spend the money for that and never hear it live? Why this enthusiasm, when you don't want it? Why the obligation to answer quite all postings about positive findings with Auro ala "nice, that you enjoy, but remember, it's a cheap trick only!"
> That is the problem I have!


There is an Auro thread 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...cial-auro-3d-thread-home-theater-version.html


----------



## jrogers

bargervais said:


> There is an Auro thread
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...cial-auro-3d-thread-home-theater-version.html


In fact, it seems to me - given this is "*The official Dolby Atmos thread*" - that in addition to what I consider to be very objective posts on how Auro-matic works from Keith, Roger and others - we could stand a bit more straight-up Auro bashing (along with all of those other existing and yet-to-be-released inferior sound formats)  

More seriously, though, I do very much appreciate the posts to this Atmos thread that are objective descriptions and comparisons of the various surround formats, as well as the subjective evaluations and comparisons of how they sound... it would just be nice if everyone could learn to separate the two.


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> No, they are mounted upside down, and are right around 6 feet.


Aha, well there you go. By no means ear level mounted then 

However those omnipolars have a different dispersion pattern than most speakers, so it still might be the best way to mount them. Even by Atmos standards.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> That's a joke, right? Right?


Go with _The Princess Bride_ or _When Harry Met Sally_, if that's not the case. 

But seriously, those are excellent classic comedic movies from Rob Reiner. And they are _not_ chick flicks. To me, a "chick flick" is defined as something soppily romantic and poorly written/acted (like those made for the Lifetime or Hallmark Channels), which these two are neither.

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!" 

"Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I’ve got my country’s 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder, and Guilder to frame for it; I’m swamped." 

"You made a woman... _meow??_"


----------



## jrogers

Speaking of competitive formats...

ATSC to Review Audio Proposals for 3.0 Standard

Granted it's targeted to "broadcast television" - but should be interesting to see where they net out.


----------



## stikle

Nalleh said:


> Aha, well there you go. By no means ear level mounted then
> 
> However those omnipolars have a different dispersion pattern than most speakers, so it still might be the best way to mount them. Even by Atmos standards.



Correct. But with the unique wide dispersion, I think that's why they sound the way they do (great) mounted upside down @ 6 feet. I've thought about lowering them another foot, which would provide even more separation from the overheads. I'm curious if doing so would give DSU even more impact. It would also bring the perceived height at MLP down a little more. It goes against Mirage recommendations, but it may be worth it based on the difference when I last lowered them.

But would the benefit be worth it vs. sheetrock work? I'm going to let it ride as-is for now as I mull it over.


----------



## sdurani

jrogers said:


> Granted it's targeted to "broadcast television" - but should be interesting to see where they net out.


Broadcast television is likely where we will see a feature like adjustable dialogue level (dialogue/announcer stem transmitted as a separate object, so that its level can be adjusted by the viewer/listener) that would otherwise be balked at by movie studios (you want to do WHAT to my mix!).


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> Correct. But with the unique wide dispersion, I think that's why they sound the way they do (great) mounted upside down @ 6 feet. I've thought about lowering them another foot, which would provide even more separation from the overheads. I'm curious if doing so would give DSU even more impact. It would also bring the perceived height at MLP down a little more. It goes against Mirage recommendations, but it may be worth it based on the difference when I last lowered them.
> 
> But would the benefit be worth it vs. sheetrock work? I'm going to let it ride as-is for now as I mull it over.


Well, isn't there a way to move them temporarily? Just to test them lower. 
How about 3 feet and right side up? could be interesting 
Then if it does not sound any better/different, you could just return to previous mounting. No harm done


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> ...Logic steering is a part of surround processing that suppresses unwanted sounds in certain channels...


Thanks for your explaination. So, this is to consider right in sequence after extracting certain sounds from the channels (DSU).
Now, I know, why sometimes there is too less sound coming from the overheads with DSU... too many subtractions 

Ok, DSU is sometimes *reducing* too much, while with Auro-Matic *it's* sometimes too much actually. That is at least my observation. In complex scenes (regarding sound), for me the Auro-Matic fails because of mixing the entire stuff up... I immediatley switch to DSU then, if I was @auro-Matic first. But in the meantime I often got a feeling in advance in order to choose right. Movies and tv series with a quite constant music soundtrack, but lack of much effects are benefitting from Auro-Matic, but those with a e.g. proper mixed shooting along with explosions are great with DSU, exactly because of the extraction and logic steering DSU is doing!


----------



## batpig

stikle said:


> Correct. But with the unique wide dispersion, I think that's why they sound the way they do (great) mounted upside down @ 6 feet. I've thought about lowering them another foot, which would provide even more separation from the overheads. I'm curious if doing so would give DSU even more impact. It would also bring the perceived height at MLP down a little more. It goes against Mirage recommendations, but it may be worth it based on the difference when I last lowered them.
> 
> But would the benefit be worth it vs. sheetrock work? I'm going to let it ride as-is for now as I mull it over.


What are you using for overheads? More Nanosats? (I'm assuming Nanosats, or are they Omnisats?)

You are probably just going to have to experiment. I'd be concerned about dropping them too low in the upside down orientation, at a certain point the sound is going to be dispersing too far downward. If it was me, the experiment I would run would be to temporarily take them off the walls and place them on temporary support much lower -- ear level-ish -- and facing upright. So you are comparing two signficantly different deployments -- elevated and upside down vs. ear level and facing up.

Personally, I wouldn't have much appetite for major renovations to accomodate a minor tweak of lowering them by a foot.


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> Now, I know, why sometimes there is too less sound coming from the overheads with DSU... too many subtractions


The ONLY thing being subtracted from the speakers above you are the sounds coming from the speakers around you.


> Ok, DSU is sometimes *reducing* too much, while with Auro-Matic *it's* sometimes too much actually.


DSU isn't reducing anything, just preventing sounds around you from also being heard above you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Speaking of logic steering and center extraction...

I bought an old Harman Kardon AVR on eBay yesterday. With it I will pair another of the same AVR from HK to do some home brew 7.1.*6* surround sound. 

Should be an interesting summer/fall.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I bought an old Harman Kardon AVR on eBay yesterday. With it I will pair another of the same AVR from HK to do some home brew 7.1.*6* surround sound.


Wouldn't you need two AVRs in order to extract a centre output from each front and rear height speaker? Have you found another of the same?


----------



## batpig

Keith -- one thing I don't understand is why you are wasting so much energy on the semantics of "upmixing". I'm not sure at what point you determined the word "upmixer" means there has to be steering / extraction (a la PLII) vs generation of reflection/ambiance (a la Cinema DSP, Audyssey DSX, and Auromatic). As far as I'm concerned, and I would assume the same is true for most, the common use of the term "upmixer/upmixing" in the area of HT simply refers to the act of making more speakers make noise than are in the input signal. You are listening to a 5.1 track and you have 9 or 11 or however many speakers, and you want them all to make noise -- that's what upmixers do. 

It's like "upscaling" with video -- it makes more pixels out of fewer pixels. There are many ways to do it, the crudest upscaling is to simply duplicate pixels, whereas more sophisticated upscalers will interporalate the pixels and/or apply other fancy processing. We don't need different terms to talk about them though, everyone knows it as "upscaling" and then we can get into the subtle distinctions between different types. 

It seems like you are taking a categorical distinction of different upmixing methodologies (the "extraction/steering" class vs. the "ambiance/reflection generation" class) and then forcing this semantic distinction for rhetorical purposes Who cares what they are called? What is the alternate term you would propose if I can no longer use the word "upmix" to talk about Auromatic or Cinema DSP or Audyssey DSX? That just seems an unncessary complication for what is essentially a well understood term. 

Obviously we know that you strongly dislike the latter class, which is what I believe is (subconsciously at least) driving your need to defend this semantic distinction so vigorously. 

Can't we just stop arguing about whether or not the word "upmixer" is appropriate and leave the term as is commonly understood -- making your extra speakers make noise in the absence of discrete content -- and stick to the objective aspects of the methodology?


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Speaking of logic steering and center extraction...
> 
> I bought an old Harman Kardon AVR on eBay yesterday. With it I will pair another of the same AVR from HK to do some home brew 7.1.*6* surround sound.
> 
> Should be an interesting summer/fall.





sdurani said:


> Wouldn't you need two AVRs in order to extract a centre output from each front and rear height speaker?


Did you miss the word "pair"?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Did you miss the word "pair"?


Apparently I did.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Go with _The Princess Bride_ or _When Harry Met Sally_, if that's not the case.
> 
> But seriously, those are excellent classic comedic movies from Rob Reiner. And they are _not_ chick flicks. To me, a "chick flick" is defined as something soppily romantic and poorly written/acted (like those made for the Lifetime or Hallmark Channels), which these two are neither.
> 
> "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"
> 
> "Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I’ve got my country’s 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder, and Guilder to frame for it; I’m swamped."
> 
> "You made a woman... _meow??_"


Sometimes Dan, you really worry me


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's actually not _exactly_ the same. It's a 5.1 version of the same AVR. The one I've had is 7.1 but ... in this case it won't matter.

They both have PL2 and Neo:6 and that's all I needed.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith -- one thing I don't understand is why you are wasting so much energy on the semantics of "upmixing". I'm not sure at what point you determined the word "upmixer" means there has to be steering / extraction (a la PLII) vs generation of reflection/ambiance (a la Cinema DSP, Audyssey DSX, and Auromatic). As far as I'm concerned, and I would assume the same is true for most, the common use of the term "upmixer/upmixing" in the area of HT simply refers to the act of making more speakers make noise than are in the input signal. You are listening to a 5.1 track and you have 9 or 11 or however many speakers, and you want them all to make noise -- that's what upmixers do.
> 
> It's like "upscaling" with video -- it makes more pixels out of fewer pixels. There are many ways to do it, the crudest upscaling is to simply duplicate pixels, whereas more sophisticated upscalers will interporalate the pixels and/or apply other fancy processing. We don't need different terms to talk about them though, everyone knows it as "upscaling" and then we can get into the subtle distinctions between different types.
> 
> It seems like you are taking a categorical distinction of different upmixing methodologies (the "extraction/steering" class vs. the "ambiance/reflection generation" class) and then forcing this semantic distinction for rhetorical purposes Who cares what they are called? What is the alternate term you would propose if I can no longer use the word "upmix" to talk about Auromatic or Cinema DSP or Audyssey DSX? That just seems an unncessary complication for what is essentially a well understood term.
> 
> Obviously we know that you strongly dislike the latter class, which is what I believe is (subconsciously at least) driving your need to defend this semantic distinction so vigorously.
> 
> Can't we just stop arguing about whether or not the word "upmixer" is appropriate and leave the term as is commonly understood -- making your extra speakers make noise in the absence of discrete content -- and stick to the objective aspects of the methodology?


By your use of the word, all-channel stereo is upmixing. So is using additional speakers in another room to play the same content. DSU, PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X are all upmixers. Auromatic is a 'copier' if you like.

It isn’t the term 'upmixer' that is the issue anyway, although we might as well get it right. The issue is that there are people trying to affirm that Auromatic works in a way in which it does not work. They say it is a true upmixer, with logic steering, and all the other processing I already mentioned, when we know that it is not. It copies base channels to other channels. So long as people keep insisting that Auromatic works differently to that, there is a valid case for correcting them IMO. The alternative is to let misinformation go unchallenged, which is a dangerous precedent to set, also just IMO.

For example, one poster asked how Auromatic is different from logic steering, showing that despite several posts arguing to the contrary, he doesn't understand how a true upmixer works nor why Auromatic cannot be classed as similar technology to DSU etc. Fortunately, Sanjay has provided a very lucid explanation and now he does understand why Auromatic cannot be classed as similar to DSU.

I've said several times I can't see what the fuss is all about and why the Auro enthusiasts need to constantly claim that Auromatic works in a way it doesn’t work in. They are trying to defend an indefensible position. Why? Are they sort of "ashamed" that Auromatic simply copies entire channels to other speakers, with no steering at all? Why can they not just enjoy how it works, if they do enjoy it. (It seems pretty useless to me, but I haven’t heard it so I refrain from commenting on how it sounds). Why not just say "I like Auromatic" instead of then having to try to convince people that it uses steering and so on when it doesn't? Why do defensive? 

Personally my theory is that they have intellectually accepted that Auro is toast, but emotionally they are in denial. But that, I admit, is just my own outrageous opinion


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Sometimes Dan, you really worry me


Glad I do.  I'd rather worry you with me enjoying classic comedies than you worrying me with your enthusiasm for stuff like Transformers, TMNT, and the like.  But hey... it's all good.

We clearly have different tastes in movies, that much is apparent.


----------



## SoundChex

jrogers said:


> Speaking of competitive formats...
> ATSC to Review Audio Proposals for 3.0 Standard
> Granted it's targeted to "broadcast television" - but should be interesting to see where they net out.




_For the "longer term" (say in 2016, when the first ATSC3.0 TVs are predicted to arrive!) the pertinent question would seem to be "What speaker configurations will AVRs support?"_ 

On the "prior generation" of mass market AVRs, *Dolby TrueHD*, *AC-3*|*DD5.1*, and *DPLIIx* coexisted on the same _single layer_ 7.1 speaker configuration which "complied" with the *ATSC(1.0) TV Audio System* _codec_, i.e., *AC-3*|*DD5.1*.

In the near future, AVRs manufacturers must determine how to provide for a "unified immersive speaker configuration" to support *Dolby Atmos*, *Dolby AC-4*, and *DSU*, and that is also in compliance with the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec_ [_which may support delivery of immersive audio as any of *hybrid channel*|*object-based*, (pure) *channel-based*, and|or *scene-based (HOA)* formats!_] regardless of whether the selected *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec_ is *Dolby AC-4*, *DTS:X*, or *MPEG-H 3D*...?!



_


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Auromatic is a 'copier' if you like.


Being the only one using that term will confirm the accusations of bias.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> By your use of the word, all-channel stereo is upmixing. So is using additional speakers in another room to play the same content. DSU, PLIIz, DSX, Neo:X are all upmixers. Auromatic is a 'copier' if you like.


See Keith. This is what I meant when I said "it smells prejudice.."
You don't even have that technology (ok, "copier"), and hence people have hard time digesting what you are saying.
It's like "a virgin teaching sex lessons by (merely) reading Kamasutra" ...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Auro's Xerox-matic surround processing has a nice ring to it!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Glad I do.  I'd rather worry you with me enjoying classic comedies than you worrying me with your enthusiasm for stuff like Transformers, TMNT, and the like.  But hey... it's all good.
> 
> We clearly have different tastes in movies, that much is apparent.


What makes you think I don't like classic comedies?


----------



## jrogers

aaranddeeman said:


> See Keith. This is what I meant when I said "it smells prejudice.."
> You don't even have that technology (ok, "copier"), and hence people have hard time digesting what you are saying.
> It's like "a virgin teaching sex lessons by (merely) reading Kamasutra" ...


So you're arguing that a virgin is incapable of describing how sex works? Keith has repeatedly stated that he is describing how it works, not what it sounds like (Auro-matic, that is, not sex :wink


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> See Keith. This is what I meant when I said "it smells prejudice.."
> You don't even have that technology (ok, "copier"), and hence people have hard time digesting what you are saying.
> It's like "a virgin teaching sex lessons by (merely) reading Kamasutra" ...


Nothing you can say will alter the fact that Auromatic works the way I have said it works. I don't need to listen to it to know how it works. And I have never once commented on how it sounds.

If you believe that the word "prejudice" means 'objective reporting of factual content', then this would explain your remarks. But it doesn't mean that.

If you can link to a post which I have made on the topic which is factually incorrect, please do so.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn’t the term 'upmixer' that is the issue anyway


But YOU are the one making the term an issue. The question is why? By vigorously repeating this semantic distinction, there is an implicit judgement of those that don't fit into the categorical/semantic distinction you keep trying trying to push. Now you have moved into calling the upmixers you feel merit the term as "true upmixers" -- that is a loaded phrasing.

My point is forget about the semantics -- everyone else uses the term "upmixing" to refer to the process of routing audio to speakers that otherwise would be silent. Regardless of how the sounds are routed. 

Multich Stereo is the very simplest form of upmix -- straight copy. On the far other end of the spectrum are complex extraction algorithms with sophisticated steering logic. Everything else is in the middle of that spectrum. And they are all called "upmixers". Can we move on to the actual substance now?

Your continued focus on the terminology is distracting from the point you are trying to make and allowing people to accuse you of bias. It doesn't help when you accuse them of being in denial 



sdurani said:


> Being the only one using that term will confirm the accusations of bias.


Exactly.


----------



## kbarnes701

jrogers said:


> So you're arguing that a virgin is incapable of describing how sex works? Keith has repeatedly stated that he is describing how it works, not what it sounds like (Auro-matic, that is, not sex :wink


I am amazed that they keep coming back for more TBH. Batpig asks why I am expending so much energy in it - we can see why. The Auro camp will not give up on their insistence that I am wrong, despite the facts, despite industry luminaries like Roger confirming it, despite highly knowledgeable people like Sanjay explaining it, despite direct user reports confirming it and so on. 

Every time they post incorrect information, I will correct them. Why do they keep doing it? I have no idea!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Being the only one using that term will confirm the accusations of bias.


Just trying to find a word to explain how Auromatic works to differentiate it from how DSU, PLII etc work. Copier isn't a very good word I agree, even though that's what Auromatic does.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> What are you using for overheads? More Nanosats? (I'm assuming Nanosats, or are they Omnisats?)



I'm running Omisat OS3s for all surrounds and overheads.



batpig said:


> You are probably just going to have to experiment. I'd be concerned about dropping them too low in the upside down orientation, at a certain point the sound is going to be dispersing too far downward.



Agreed.



batpig said:


> If it was me, the experiment I would run would be to temporarily take them off the walls and place them on temporary support much lower -- ear level-ish -- and facing upright. So you are comparing two signficantly different deployments -- elevated and upside down vs. ear level and facing up.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't have much appetite for major renovations to accomodate a minor tweak of lowering them by a foot.



Personally, that's kind of where I'm at too. "Good enough". Maybe. It's not TOO major. It would be easier to just lower them and screw them to the walls to test, as I don't have any kind of temp support for all positions. That just leaves screw holes to fill in, texture, and paint. And if I made it permanent then the old speaker wire holes. It's all manageable really.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> What makes you think I don't like classic comedies?



Speaking of which, Foul Play just showed up.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> But YOU are the one making the term an issue. The question is why? By vigorously repeating this semantic distinction, there is an implicit judgement of those that don't fit into the categorical/semantic distinction you keep trying trying to push. Now you have moved into calling the upmixers you feel merit the term as "true upmixers" -- that is a loaded phrasing.


Ok - suggest a term that would be appropriate to describe Auromatic. We can't use the same term for both DSU, PLII etc and Auromatic because they are miles apart in how they work, what they are and what they do. You miss the point though. It's the Auro enthusiasts who are keeping this going not me. Even since your last post another poster has chimed in calling me "prejudiced". Prejudiced for factually describing how something works, in the face of constant misinformation describing it falsely? Give me a break.



batpig said:


> My point is forget about the semantics -- everyone else uses the term "upmixing" to refer to the process of routing audio to speakers that otherwise would be silent. Regardless of how the sounds are routed.


So all channel stereo is upmixing then? Sorry but it isn't.



batpig said:


> Multich Stereo is the very simplest form of upmix -- straight copy. On the far other end of the spectrum are complex extraction algorithms with sophisticated steering logic. Everything else is in the middle of that spectrum. And they are all called "upmixers". Can we move on to the actual substance now?


I disagree with your interpretation but an happy to move on. What it is called is not the issue - the issue is the endless parade of misinformation. Go back a few pages and read it again... the descriptions of how Auromatic work are ludicrously incorrect. If someone in one of the Denon threads kept saying that the 4520 was a CD player, would you just let it go? If they kept saying the X5200 could handle 9.2.6 Atmos, would you let it go? I imagine you'd stop correcting them when they stopped perpetrating the same misinformation.



batpig said:


> Your continued focus on the terminology is distracting from the point you are trying to make and allowing people to accuse you of bias. It doesn't help when you accuse them of being in denial


I am not focusing on the terminology - you are. I am focusing on how Auromatic works and why it is fundamentally different (and yes, inferior) to DSU. So long as people keep saying Auromatic works in a different way to reality, they can expect to be corrected.

Are they in denial? Why do they keep denying (how Auromatic works)? Isn’t denying reality being "in denial"?


----------



## jpco

Based on descriptions, Auromatic clearly does not just copy and add reverb. Part of the height information crosses channels as described by those who have the technology. That seems to create the ambient effect.


----------



## captclueless

So am I correct in reading that if I want to properly output dolby atmos, I need to buy a blu ray player that supports it, and a receiver that supports it?
Or will setting my current blu ray player (sony bdp-s570) to pcm, and my onkyo 705 will work fine?
I can't do bitstream, or the audio drops out.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> What it is called is not the issue - the issue is the endless parade of misinformation. Go back a few pages and read it again... the descriptions of how Auromatic work are ludicrously incorrect. If someone in one of the Denon threads kept saying that the 4520 was a CD player, would you just let it go? If they kept saying the X5200 could handle 9.2.6 Atmos, would you let it go? I imagine you'd stop correcting them when they stopped perpetrating the same misinformation.


Keith, here is the problem. 
I do agree that you should correct the misinformation, once may be twice or may be three times. Then just leave it at that.
But look at all your "reactions" when someone posts something positive about Auro. You are very quick in responding ("correcting") .
Now those who are posting positive about Auro, they are mostly sharing their actual experience (may be subjective) after listening, but your reaction is only "paper" based (may be you are 100% correct).
But this contrast makes people think that it's your life time agenda to trash Auro in every which way. So just leave it alone. You have done correcting enough number of times.
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> Oh boy, I love it when someone challenges Keith.
> 
> I'm going to grab a six-pack and a bag of popcorn and settle in for the dust-up!


*It never gets old!*


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> *1.* Is there a 'Mastered for 4K' blu ray with Atmos and 3D?
> *2.* Also, how much space does the audio channels like atmos take up compared to regular dolby digital?
> *3.* Is it a space issue that they don't put Atmos with 3D in the same disc?


Those are great questions. ...I'll have a stab.

1. No. ...By "Mastered 4K" you mean a "pseudo" like those from Sony? ...Because in my book that doesn't count as being UHD picture. 
{I don't know about 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' but the picture is pretty looking for 1080p - 2K - 3D - Dolby Atmos.}

2. Because the audio core is lossless Dolby TrueHD 7.1 it takes more data/space than just plain highly compressed/lossy Doby Digital audio.
{DD 5.1 is roughly 448 kbps. Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio is roughly (on average, my guess) 4-8 times more? ...And the max is 18 mbps. ...MLP coding.}

3. 'TF4' and 'TMNT' are in 3D with Dolby Atmos. 
{But it's the upcoming new BR 4K that won't have 3D, but only Dolby Atmos, or DTS:X - And space, from what I've read, is not an issue.  }

* Anyone is welcome to add, correct, contribute more info as I'd like to know more myself as well.
==> In particular about the upcoming 4K Blu-ray disc, with Dolby Atmos audio (or DTS:X), but no 3D picture!!! ...Because that smells "bummer". 

** And the upcoming Blu-ray of 'Gravity' with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, but without the 3D picture??? ...Beats me, royally.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Keith, here is the problem.
> I do agree that you should correct the misinformation, once may be twice or may be three times. Then just leave it at that.


New misinformation comes along regularly, unfortunately. It just happened right above your post. Another poster affirming, on the basis of subjective reports it seems, that Auromatic does not simply copy the base channels. This poster is affirming that there is some steering too. There isn't. How many times will people keep posting this stuff? You’d be better employed, IMO, asking them to stop posting, not me.



aaranddeeman said:


> But look at all your "reactions" when someone posts something positive about Auro. You are very quick in responding ("correcting") .


You mean when they post something positive like "I love the way Auromatic steers the sound when it upmixes legacy content?" 



aaranddeeman said:


> Now those who are posting positive about Auro, they are mostly sharing their actual experience (may be subjective) after listening, but your reaction is only "paper" based (may be you are 100% correct).


I am not commenting on subjective 'how it sounds' stuff. Why is it so hard to distinguish between comments on how something _works_ and comments on how something _sounds_?



aaranddeeman said:


> But this contrast makes people think that it's your life time agenda to trash Auro in every which way. So just leave it alone. You have done correcting enough number of times.
> Just my 2 cents.


As I say, go tell the people who keep posting misinformation, not me.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Based on descriptions, Auromatic clearly does not just copy and add reverb. Part of the height information crosses channels as described by those who have the technology. That seems to create the ambient effect.


So you are saying Auromatic uses steering? It doesn't. You are wrong, the people you are taking notice of are wrong. DSU steers. Auromatic copies.


----------



## kbarnes701

captclueless said:


> So am I correct in reading that if I want to properly output dolby atmos, I need to buy a blu ray player that supports it, and a receiver that supports it?
> Or will setting my current blu ray player (sony bdp-s570) to pcm, and my onkyo 705 will work fine?
> I can't do bitstream, or the audio drops out.


You need an AVR that supports Atmos. Most modern Bluray players which conform to Bluray standards will be fine. Some older players won't work properly.

Audio dropouts are nothing to do with Atmos. They are to do with overly complex seamless branching, used by studios in a (futile) attempt to stop piracy. If the player cannot handle the overly complex seamless branching, it can't handle it: nothing to do with Atmos. For example, *Total Recall* (2012) will not play properly on these players, and that isn't an Atmos disc.


----------



## prince.nothing

hey folks, I have a 5.1.4 atmos setup with ceiling speakers. I had originally had my front ceiling speakers around 4.5' in front of the MLP, and my rears ceiling speakers around 4.5' behind. The distance was calculated as per the dolby specs: 45degrees in front and 135degrees behind MLP.

After running the audyssey calibration I had to manually lower the levels of all my speakers, except the ceiling speakers, to really hear the sounds from above. This weekend, as an experiment I moved my ceiling speakers closer to each other: around 1.5' in front and behind the MLP (speakers separated by 3'). I haven't run audyssey yet (will do it tonight), but I noticed a *significant* improvement. The demo disk never sounded so good. 

What distances do you guys have your ceiling speakers from the MLP?

Thanks


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> So you are saying Auromatic uses steering? It doesn't. You are wrong, the people you are taking notice of are wrong. DSU steers. Auromatic copies.


Would you admit that it's more sophisticated than just Multich Stereo? It seems to be copying the info from one base layer speaker to multiple height speakers, with different levels of attenuation/reverb, in order to synthesize a "natural reflection". 

jpco (to whom you were responding) did not use the word "steering". So why do you say he is "wrong"?


----------



## kbarnes701

prince.nothing said:


> hey folks, I have a 5.1.4 atmos setup with ceiling speakers. I had originally had my front ceiling speakers around 4.5' in front of the MLP, and my rears ceiling speakers around 4.5' behind. After running the audyssey calibration I had to manually lower the levels of all my speakers, except the ceiling speakers, to really hear the sounds from above. This weekend, as an experiment I moved my ceiling speakers closer to each other: around 1.5' in front and behind the MLP (speakers separated by 3'). I haven't run audyssey yet (will do it tonight), but I noticed a *significant* improvement. The demo disk never sounded so good.
> 
> What distances do you guys have your ceiling speakers from the MLP?
> 
> Thanks


Most follow Dolby's guidelines on the recommended angles for the overhead speakers, from MLP. For example, I use 42° for my front pair and 80° for my rear pair (designated as Front Height and Top Middle). In my room that puts the rear pair just slightly in front of MLP and the front pair about 5 feet in front of me, from memory. So long as you meet the angles, and there is quite a range, you are good to go. After that, some listening is advised to ensure it is all it should be. If not, then experiment, staying within the angular ranges. I initially had my rearmost pair slightly behind me, still within spec, but I moved them after a while to their current position, also in spec, and prefer them there.

The Dolby installation guide is on their website someplace, in case you haven't seen it. Or you can click here to grab my copy, although I am not sure it is the latest version.

EDIT: I checked - my version is the latest so just click above to download it.


----------



## Eriksdam

chi_guy50 said:


> *It never gets old!*


Actually, it _does_ get old - and rather quickly at that....


----------



## prince.nothing

kbarnes701 said:


> Most follow Dolby's guidelines on the recommended angles for the overhead speakers, from MLP. For example, I use 42° for my front pair and 80° for my rear pair (designated as Front Height and Top Middle). In my room that puts the rear pair just slightly in front of MLP and the front pair about 5 feet in front of me, from memory. So long as you meet the angles, and there is quite a range, you are good to go. After that, some listening is advised to ensure it is all it should be. If not, then experiment, staying within the angular ranges. I initially had my rearmost pair slightly behind me, still within spec, but I moved them after a while to their current position, also in spec, and prefer them there.
> 
> The Dolby installation guide is on their website someplace, in case you haven't seen it. Or you can click here to grab my copy, although I am not sure it is the latest version.
> 
> EDIT: I checked - my version is the latest so just click above to download it.



Thanks. I actually did refer the installation guide. To achieve 45 and 135 degrees I had to have my ceiling speakers at 4.5' in front and behind the MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Would you admit that it's more sophisticated than just Multich Stereo? It seems to be copying the info from one base layer speaker to multiple height speakers, with different levels of attenuation/reverb, in order to synthesize a "natural reflection".


More sophisticated than all-channel stereo, sure.



batpig said:


> jpco (to whom you were responding) did not use the word "steering". So why do you say he is "wrong"?


How do you interpret this then, in the context of his post: _"Part of the height information crosses channels..."_? If he didn't mean it was being steered, then I apologise to him.

If he didn't mean there is steering, what did he mean?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yamaha has been doing a far, far more sophisticated version of Auromatic for a couple of decades now.

It's called CinemaDSP and there are several modes and variables to change to taste. Doesn't cost extra money either.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Yamaha has been doing a far, far more sophisticated version of Auromatic for a couple of decades now.
> 
> It's called CinemaDSP and there are several modes and variables to change to taste. Doesn't cost extra money either.


Unless you don't own a Yamaha


----------



## Scott Simonian

Auromatic.... unless you own a Yamaha. 

Yamaha also has a nice 9ch stereo mode with configurable front, rear and height balance.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you admit that it's more sophisticated than just Multich Stereo? It seems to be copying the info from one base layer speaker to multiple height speakers, with different levels of attenuation/reverb, in order to synthesize a "natural reflection".
> 
> 
> 
> More sophisticated than all-channel stereo, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> jpco (to whom you were responding) did not use the word "steering". So why do you say he is "wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you interpret this then, in the context of his post: _"Part of the height information crosses channels..."_? If he didn't mean it was being steered, then I apologise to him.
> 
> If he didn't mean there is steering, what did he mean?
Click to expand...

I believe someone (audioguy?) reported that its not a single channel copy (ie FL gets copied to FHL) but that there's some "crossover" (ie FL goes to both FHL and also a reduced copy to FHR). 

I'm assuming this reported result is accurate although it would be nice if others (Roger?) confirm. But assuming so, while that's not "steering" in the sense you mean, it's what was being referred to as info "crossing channels".


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Just trying to find a word to explain how Auromatic works to differentiate it from how DSU, PLII etc work.


Your insistence on differentiating the two is bordering on hysteria. Consider dropping the semantics while continuing to explain how they operate. Back in the day, there were two types of surround processing: ones based on extracting information from the recording itself (PLII, Neo:6) and those that generated reverb and early reflections to simulate larger spaces (Audyssey DSX, Yamaha CinemaDSP). Both were referred to as surround processing (now called upmixing). There was no need to find "a word" to differentiate the two approaches. If anyone was interested, a simple explanation clarified the differences.


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> The ONLY thing being subtracted from the speakers above you are the sounds coming from the speakers around you. *DSU isn't reducing anything*, just preventing sounds around you from also being heard above you.


Then other explainations are very different - so please enlighten me!
Is DSU extracting *only certain sounds* from base channels or not?
If so, then one valid definition is certainly "reduced"!


----------



## Josh Z

captclueless said:


> So am I correct in reading that if I want to properly output dolby atmos, I need to buy a blu ray player that supports it, and a receiver that supports it?
> Or will setting my current blu ray player (sony bdp-s570) to pcm, and my onkyo 705 will work fine?
> I can't do bitstream, or the audio drops out.


Atmos can only be transmitted by Bitstream. If your current Blu-ray player gives you dropouts with Bitstream, you will need a new player.

You will also of course need a new receiver with an Atmos decoder built in, as well as extra speakers.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> It's actually not _exactly_ the same. It's a 5.1 version of the same AVR. The one I've had is 7.1 but ... in this case it won't matter.
> 
> They both have PL2 and Neo:6 and that's all I needed.


Scott - out of curiosity would you use Cinema mode for extracting the extra overhead speaker? My concern is that any overhead content shared by the whole array (things that were originally part of the overhead bed, ambiance and music etc) would collapse to the TM speaker since Roger has reported that the overheads are not decorrelated.


----------



## Scott Simonian

multit said:


> Then other explainations are very different - so please enlighten me!
> Is DSU extracting *only certain sounds* from base channels or not?
> If so, then one valid definition is certainly "reduced"!


It extracts out-of-phase sound from the front and surrounds to generate the overhead surround field. No extra reverb is added.


----------



## chi_guy50

Eriksdam said:


> Actually, it _does_ get old - and rather quickly at that....


Okay, not everybody has the same tolerance for debate, and repetition can be boring, I will grant you that. But I do enjoy a lively discussion, and if you have no interest in the minutiae of A/V then this is probably not a forum in which you will want to hang out. (And with all of four posts under your belt I say you haven't earned the right to be bored just yet.)

As long as it's civil, I will always appreciate the exchange of views--including those I disagree with--on this and related topics. Hey, it's free entertainment!


----------



## captclueless

Josh Z said:


> Atmos can only be transmitted by Bitstream. If your current Blu-ray player gives you dropouts with Bitstream, you will need a new player.
> 
> You will also of course need a new receiver with an Atmos decoder built in, as well as extra speakers.


yeah, I need to find a dolby atmos movie that isn't lionsgate, cause someone else said the seamless branching on lionsgate movies may be causing it too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Scott - out of curiosity would you use Cinema mode for extracting the extra overhead speaker? My concern is that any overhead content shared by the whole array (things that were originally part of the overhead bed, ambiance and music etc) would collapse to the TM speaker since Roger has reported that the overheads are not decorrelated.


That's going to be the truly fun and interesting part of this.

As you know, with PL2 (and Neo6) you get a cinema mode (center extraction) and a music mode (center fill). 

I will use both depending on the situation and/or my mood. 

In 'movie' mode, I will get a middle overhead with common information extracted to it. So if you have x.x.4 system as there is an object that is supposed to image directly above you, it will output identically between the front and rear to image above you. This information will be extracted to the center (middle height) properly and cancelled out of the front/rear. 

In 'music' mode I will get the same center extraction but it will leave that same information in the front and rear surrounds which will effectively give me a 'center fill' up above me.

When I do this I will also use a stereo sound mode as an optional 'bypass' setting.


I've thought about this a lot and I think it will be fun. I might end up using the 'movie' mode just for true Atmos/DTS:X and the 'music' mode for DSU/NeoX/CinemaDSP. Obviously I do not know yet what will sound best or what I'll like but I have pretty good idea. I think it will be _really_ fun! 

Obviously it won't be perfect or as effective as a true six channel overhead system but right now there is no hardware that can do it save for a $30,000 Trinnov. No thanks.  When hardware comes out that does true 7.1.6 audio then I'll start using that but in the meantime I'll have the full 7.1.6 system ready to go.


----------



## audioguy

I know this is the Atmos thread but I just did a test using both processes to do some comparisons. 

*AuroMatic*.

I used the Disney WOW disc and played the individual speaker calibration portion and turned off the main level speakers.

- Left Front output goes to all 4 ceilings with the highest volume at left front height. Hard to tell if the output on the other 3 is identical, phase shifted or anything other than lower volume

- Center goes nowhere

- Right Front the same as left front but louder on right front ceiling speaker

- Right side wall surround and right rear surround have highest volume on right rear ceiling speaker

- The left rear and side surrounds act just like the right side except the left rear ceiling speaker gets the loudest volume.

Conclusion: More going on than I first thought but I'm still not sure what the logic is that determines what they are doing ("Auro secret sauce")

I don't know what this tells us as I have no way to analyze the specifics of all that is in the sound of each speaker (since it was white, or pink noise or some other combination)

A test disc with vocals on each channel might be easier to tell what is going on.

*Atmos/DSU*

I then did the same test after re-loading my Atmos configuration. Here are the results that appeared in the height speakers:

Left Front NOTHING

Center NOTHING

Right Front NOTHING

Right Surround NOTHING

Right Rear NOTHING

Right Surround NOTHING

I then listened to 5 or 6 different film segment with only the heights enabled. Mostly music was playing but a slightly more diffuse version of what was playing on the main level. On occasion some other sounds were heard that would enhance the onscreen material. 

I now have no more useful information than I had before I started - so I quit.

Back to watching movies and listening to music!!!


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> multit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then other explainations are very different - so please enlighten me!
> Is DSU extracting *only certain sounds* from base channels or not?
> If so, then one valid definition is certainly "reduced"!
> 
> 
> 
> It extracts out-of-phase sound from the front and surrounds to generate the overhead surround field. No extra reverb is added.
Click to expand...

Also worth pointing out that DSU is multi-band (frequency dependent) -- it seems it specifically extracts high frequency info to the overheads to focus on ambiance and avoid accidentally placing dialogue etc overhead.


----------



## NorthSky

captclueless said:


> *So am I correct in reading that if I want to properly output dolby atmos, I need to buy a blu ray player that supports it, and a receiver that supports it?
> Or will setting my current blu ray player (sony bdp-s570) to pcm, and my onkyo 705 will work fine?
> I can't do bitstream, or the audio drops out.*





K said:


> You need an AVR that supports Atmos. Most modern Bluray players which conform to Bluray standards will be fine. Some older players won't work properly.
> 
> Audio dropouts are nothing to do with Atmos. They are to do with overly complex seamless branching, used by studios in a (futile) attempt to stop piracy. If the player cannot handle the overly complex seamless branching, it can't handle it: nothing to do with Atmos. For example, *Total Recall* (2012) will not play properly on these players, and that isn't an Atmos disc.


♦ I will add this: If you like Lionsgate Blu-ray Dolby Atmos movie titles, get the latest Blu-ray player you can get. 
Because that studio is not operating normally. They have some of the greatest sounding BR titles around (they are huge on special effect sounds), 
but right now with Dolby Atmos encoding (the way they do it; "seamless branching" with Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core side-by-side, inside), and the extreme paranoia about piracy - copy protection, it wrecks total havoc among the majority of BR players out there; ...and that, is very very unfortunate, helas. 
And I truly hope that they are going to get their act together real soon. ...Because if they don't they aren't helping Dolby Atmos' cause @ all. 

Dolby Atmos needs all the help it can get right now, because when DTS:X comes to town, watch out. ...And you can kiss John Wick bye bye.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott - out of curiosity would you use Cinema mode for extracting the extra overhead speaker? My concern is that any overhead content shared by the whole array (things that were originally part of the overhead bed, ambiance and music etc) would collapse to the TM speaker since Roger has reported that the overheads are not decorrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> I might end up using the 'movie' mode just for true Atmos/DTS:X and the 'music' mode for DSU/NeoX/CinemaDSP. Obviously I do not know yet what will sound best or what I'll like but I have pretty good idea. I think it will be _really_ fun!
Click to expand...

Yeah - my concern is that if you use Cinema mode with DSU you will get a complete collapse of the overhead ambiance into the single middle overhead speaker. The same could also happen with discrete Atmos/DTS:X content if there is general "stuff up there" that's shared equally among all the speakers, as opposed to a specific object panning.


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> Is DSU extracting *only certain sounds* from base channels or not?


In my previous 2-channel to 3-speaker example, everything was extracted: mono info went to the centre speaker while stereo info (minus the centre) stayed in the L/R speakers. Nothing was reduced. Likewise, DSU keeps direct sounds from the soundtrack in the speakers around you and lifts diffuse sounds from the soundtrack to the speakers above you. Everything is extracted, nothing is reduced.


> If so, then one valid definition is certainly "reduced"!


Oh joy, more semantic games. Separating something into two parts isn't the same as shrinking/reducing it.


----------



## kbarnes701

prince.nothing said:


> Thanks. I actually did refer the installation guide. To achieve 45 and 135 degrees I had to have my ceiling speakers at 4.5' in front and behind the MLP.


And if you use different angles but still within spec?


----------



## batpig

audioguy said:


> I know this is the Atmos thread but I just did a test using both processes to do some comparisons.
> 
> *AuroMatic*.
> 
> I used the Disney WOW disc and played the individual speaker calibration portion and turned off the main level speakers.
> 
> - Left Front output goes to all 4 ceilings with the highest volume at left front height. Hard to tell if the output on the other 3 is identical, phase shifted or anything other than lower volume
> 
> - Center goes nowhere
> 
> - Right Front the same as left front but louder on right front ceiling speaker
> 
> - Right side wall surround and right rear surround have highest volume on right rear ceiling speaker
> 
> - The left rear and side surrounds act just like the right side except the left rear ceiling speaker gets the loudest volume.
> 
> Conclusion: More going on than I first thought but I'm still not sure what the logic is that determines what they are doing ("Auro secret sauce")
> 
> I don't know what this tells us as I have no way to analyze the specifics of all that is in the sound of each speaker (since it was white, or pink noise or some other combination)
> 
> A test disc with vocals on each channel might be easier to tell what is going on.
> 
> *Atmos/DSU*
> 
> I then did the same test after re-loading my Atmos configuration. Here are the results that appeared in the height speakers:
> 
> Left Front NOTHING
> 
> Center NOTHING
> 
> Right Front NOTHING
> 
> Right Surround NOTHING
> 
> Right Rear NOTHING
> 
> Right Surround NOTHING
> 
> I then listened to 5 or 6 different film segment with only the heights enabled. Mostly music was playing but a slightly more diffuse version of what was playing on the main level. On occasion some other sounds were heard that would enhance the onscreen material.
> 
> I now have no more useful information than I had before I started - so I quit.
> 
> Back to watching movies and listening to music!!!


Thanks for that. 

I'm wondering if the reason you heard NOTHING in the overheads with DSU is that you were using band-limited test tones, and the frequency band upper limit falls below the threshold for DSU (which is a multiband upmixer) to steer sound overhead.


----------



## multit

batpig said:


> I believe someone (audioguy?) reported that its not a single channel copy (ie FL gets copied to FHL) but that there's some "crossover" (ie FL goes to both FHL and also a reduced copy to FHR).
> I'm assuming this reported result is accurate although it would be nice if others (Roger?) confirm. But assuming so, while that's not "steering" in the sense you mean, it's what was being referred to as info "crossing channels".


I did report it also some posts ago and I considered it also steering. But I learned from Keith, I'm not allowed to use the word "steer" here, because it's already claimed by his definition, which might be kind of smart steering or dependent steering instead of simple steering but anyway... so are the rules. Same with the bad word "upmixing". Someone is claiming, how it must be used, instead of clarifying the things in a more interesting (from the point of learning) way, like Roger, Scott, sdurani or batpig did.

I had one of those much more interesting conversations some days ago with Roger, where he even pulled a patent information, but we were stuck at the moment, a detailed explaination of how is Auro-Matic is working is still missing. But we now know one, who actually exactly know how it works - isn't that great?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Yeah - my concern is that if you use Cinema mode with DSU you will get a complete collapse of the overhead ambiance into the single middle overhead speaker. The same could also happen with discrete Atmos/DTS:X content if there is general "stuff up there" that's shared equally among all the speakers, as opposed to a specific object panning.


Definitely a possibility! It really depends on the content. Good news is I'll have the option to either: center extract, center fill, bypass or have no overhead used at all.

Choice is good!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Your insistence on differentiating the two is bordering on hysteria.


No - you don't know what hysteria is if you think this is it 



sdurani said:


> Consider dropping the semantics while continuing to explain how they operate. Back in the day, there were two types of surround processing: ones based on extracting information from the recording itself (PLII, Neo:6) and those that generated reverb and early reflections to simulate larger spaces (Audyssey DSX, Yamaha CinemaDSP). Both were referred to as surround processing (now called upmixing). There was no need to find "a word" to differentiate the two approaches. If anyone was interested, a simple explanation clarified the differences.


That's a good idea - "surround processing". Oh - but Auromatic doesn't do any 'processing' does it? Damn. I thought we had it there for a moment. 

But it doesn't matter. It was batpig, not me, who focused on the word 'upmixer'. My personal view is that it isn't a 'proper' upmixer, since it doesn't do what 'proper' upmixers do (eg DSU, PLII). But that's just a personal view and it is clear in context that it is so. But it isn't important - what is important is to refute these regular misinformational posts. I could care less what it's called TBH.


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> Oh joy, more semantic games. Separating something into two parts isn't the same as shrinking/reducing it.


Why would I say, that certain sounds disappear completely with DSU? I never meant that!
We are talking about, what is coming from the height speakers and I talked about movies or tv shows, where it's quite nothing to here, while in DSU mode, but of course with Auro-Matic since they don't loose anything on the way up and still give me an immersive experience... of course it's cheap to do so, I know! 
--> But, this has nothing to do with stupid semantics, but with actual experiences!


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> I did report it also some posts ago and I considered it also steering. But I learned from Keith, I'm not allowed to use the word "steer" here, because it's already claimed by his definition,


No - wrong again. Sanjay already explained very lucidly what steering means. He also confirmed Auromatic doesn't do it.



multit said:


> which might be kind of smart steering or dependent steering instead of simple steering but anyway... so are the rules. Same with the bad word "upmixing". Someone is claiming, how it must be used, instead of clarifying the things in a more interesting (from the point of learning) way, like Roger, Scott, sdurani or batpig did.


Trying to deflect the discussion into one of my use of a particular word isn't going to work either. You can call it cream cheese if you like. It still won't change the way it works.



multit said:


> I had one of those much more interesting conversations some days ago with Roger, where he even pulled a patent information, but we were stuck at the moment, a detailed explaination of how is Auro-Matic is working is still missing. But we now know one, who actually exactly know how it works - isn't that great?


Quite a few know how it works. Roger even devised a very simple test to prove it. Did you do the test yet? The people who don't know how it works all seem to be enthusiastic supporters and adopters of Auro 

I can see the problem TBH. If I’d spent money for the gear, and spent time and money installing speakers into a layout for which there is no content, and which is incompatible with the system for which there _is_ content (Atmos) and the systems for which there will be even more content going forward (Atmos and DTS:X), I’d be ticked off too. I might even be in denial. Backing the losing horse is always painful (and I speak as a regular racegoer).


----------



## NorthSky

prince.nothing said:


> hey folks, I have a 5.1.4 atmos setup with ceiling speakers. I had originally had my front ceiling speakers around 4.5' in front of the MLP, and my rears ceiling speakers around 4.5' behind. The distance was calculated as per the dolby specs: 45degrees in front and 135degrees behind MLP.
> 
> After running the audyssey calibration I had to manually lower the levels of all my speakers, except the ceiling speakers, to really hear the sounds from above. *This weekend, as an experiment I moved my ceiling speakers closer to each other: around 1.5' in front and behind the MLP (speakers separated by 3'). I haven't run audyssey yet (will do it tonight), but I noticed a significant improvement. The demo disk never sounded so good.*
> 
> What distances do you guys have your ceiling speakers from the MLP?
> 
> Thanks


Thanks for sharing that.  ...Experimenting in one own's room is the key to sound success. ...It's the journey, across all boundaries.

* I'm not there yet myself, but I sure do intend. And what you just shared here is big time useful info to me. ...It's worth exploring. 
- My urge to hear Dolby Atmos @ home is so powerful that I have to take several walks up the mountain in my backyard almost every day.
I'll survive; not much more time of endurance now...more content...dts:x up-mixer. ...And John Wick.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> ...I can see the problem TBH. If I’d spent money for the gear, and spent time and money installing speakers into a layout for which there is no content, and which is incompatible with the system for which there _is_ content (Atmos) and the systems for which there will be even more content going forward (Atmos and DTS:X), I’d be ticked off too. I might even be in denial. Backing the losing horse is always painful (and I speak as a regular racegoer).


No, I think, *you* got it wrong!
As I explained it several times, I have found a compatible setup, which satisfy both worlds. So I'm *not in any* circumstance to loose, because I have both and I *can* tell about different experiences with both - I even have the full Atmos setup running most of the times. And I don't have to do "backing" something, which costs somehow similar to a proper visit in a restaurant with 4 persons. I even don't regret the much more money, I spent for my Denon 5200, because I have much fun since with both sound formats!

Auro has given already proof, that the sound system itself is very capable to enable immersive experience... unfortunatly still with music content only, but very impressive! And if there are never movies out on Blu-ray with Auro, but with Atmos... I'm still able to enjoy! So please don't put me in such a corner - thank you.


----------



## prince.nothing

kbarnes701 said:


> And if you use different angles but still within spec?


yes, my current angle is around half what dolby recommends: around 23 degrees front, and 157 degrees behind.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I'm wondering if the reason you heard NOTHING in the overheads with DSU is that you were using band-limited test tones, and the frequency band upper limit falls below the threshold for DSU (which is a multiband upmixer) to steer sound overhead.


Like any extraction-based processing, DSU has to compare two incoming channels in order to separate direct sounds from diffuse sound. 

A channel cannot be out of phase with itself, but sounds can be out of phase in a pair of channels. Since de-correlated sounds don't really image at a specified location (they sound like they're generally everywhere), DSU moves those sounds to the height speakers, similar to what PLIIz did. The idea being to keep the original intent by not sending anything directional to the heights since the soundtrack wasn't mixed with heights in mind. 

So, sending a test tone to a single channel/speaker is not going to result in any extraction. BTW, DSU does its processing/extraction on pairs of channels (front L/R, surround L/R).


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> Why would I say, that certain sounds disappear completely with DSU?


Who accused you of saying that? You said that with DSU, sounds are "reduced". I explained that separating sounds into two parts isn't the same as reducing the sound. When you spread the sound from 2 channels across 3 speakers, all the energy is still there, nothing is reduced. Same when DSU separates sounds into direct and diffuse parts.


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> No, I think, *you* got it wrong!
> As I explained it several times, I have found a compatible setup, which satisfy both worlds. So I'm *not in any* circumstance to loose, because I have both and I *can* tell about different experiences with both - I even have the full Atmos setup running most of the times. And I don't have to do "backing" something, which costs somehow similar to a proper visit in a restaurant with 4 persons. I even don't regret the much more money, I spent for my Denon 5200, because I have much fun since with both sound formats!
> 
> Auro has given already proof, that the sound system itself is very capable to enable immersive experience... unfortunatly still with music content only, but very impressive! And if there are never movies out on Blu-ray with Auro, but with Atmos... I'm still able to enjoy! So please don't put me in such a corner - thank you.


Good. I am genuinely pleased that you are happy with it all. Why don't we bring this Auromatic stuff to an end now, for the sake of everyone in the thread, as well as for ourselves? I will stop posting about Auromatic if you and the other guys stop trying to convince us that it works in a way it doesn't work in? 

Deal? 

(BTW, I wasn't specifically singling you out in the part you quoted back. It was meant as a general comment. Sorry if I gave the impression I meant to direct it at you).


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> Good. I am genuinely pleased that you are happy with it all. Why don't we bring this Auromatic stuff to an end now, for the sake of everyone in the thread, as well as for ourselves? I will stop posting about Auromatic if you and the other guys stop trying to convince us that it works in a way it doesn't work in?
> Deal?


Sounds good, I'm on it! I rather go listening and enjoying my setup than arguing about wording and semantics


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh - but Auromatic doesn't do any 'processing' does it?


Even the simple act of adding reverb is 'processing' the original signal. The problem with semantic games is you end up resorting to your own definitions of commonly used terms (e.g., upmixing, processing) in an attempt to maintain consistency. Not worth it, IMO.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Like any extraction-based processing, DSU has to compare two incoming channels in order to separate direct sounds from diffuse sound.... So, sending a test tone to a single channel/speaker is not going to result in any extraction. BTW, DSU does its processing/extraction on pairs of channels (front L/R, surround L/R).


Yeah, duh. That makes sense. 

But I am correct that DSU does its extraction on a frequency dependent basis, right? That's the "multi-band" part.


----------



## NorthSky

multit said:


> I did report it also some posts ago and I considered it also steering. But I learned from Keith, I'm not allowed to use the word "steer" here, because it's already claimed by his definition, which might be kind of smart steering or dependent steering instead of simple steering but anyway... so are the rules. Same with the bad word "upmixing". Someone is claiming, how it must be used, instead of clarifying the things in a more interesting (from the point of learning) way, like Roger, Scott, sdurani or batpig did.
> 
> I had one of those much more interesting conversations some days ago with Roger, where he even pulled a patent information, but we were stuck at the moment, a detailed explaination of how is Auro-Matic is working is still missing. But we now know one, who actually exactly know how it works - isn't that great?


If someone knows something that we would love to know and that we don't know just yet, that would be awesome to know, so let us know (let it snow). 
...Anything, anything @ all; D Atmos (Up-mix), Auro (Aroma-tic), dts:x (X-pansion) ... all that 3D spatial ♪ jazz.


----------



## NorthSky

captclueless said:


> yeah, I need to find a dolby atmos movie that isn't lionsgate, cause someone else said the seamless branching on lionsgate movies may be causing it too.


If you skip Lionsgate Blu-ray Dolby Atmos movie titles; you would give up on such great flicks as 'John Wick'. 
...And 'The Expendables 3'. ...And 'Mockingjay Part 1'. ...'Step Up All In' ? 

* Here's one of my predictions: I bet that the Dolby Atmos John Wick Blu-ray would sound just fine with the DTS:X Up-mixer.
{If there are no audio dropouts of course.}


----------



## SoundChex

For an "entertaining" albeit "insubstantial" look at the future* ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _competition_, read the *Proposal Summaries* from *Dolby*, *DTS*, and *Fraunhofer*|*Qualcomm*|*Technicolor* [published] in this *ATSC* March 10, 2015, _Press Release_ "*Advanced Television Systems Committee Begins Review of ATSC 3.0 Audio System Proposals*" (_link_).


_


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> I'm wondering if the reason you heard NOTHING in the overheads with DSU is that you were using band-limited test tones, and the frequency band upper limit falls below the threshold for DSU (which is a multiband upmixer) to steer sound overhead.


That might be true. I did the same test, with the same result. However i also did a sine sweep (in 7.1) in DSU with only the height speakers, and the sweep was present in all 4 heights speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

desray2k said:


> Haha...believe it or not, this is now my NUMBER 1 DSU-mix titles to showcase DSU upmixing.
> Let me know how you "feel" after watching it


Edit: CLOVERFIELD.

Thanks for that, watched it tonight. HOLYCRAP! That is definitly on my top 3 DSU list. I have seen it before, but MAN was it cool in DSU! Totally wicked. Recommended!!

Just watch 28 min in, when the brigde collaps, and they are running from it. So immersive, unbeliveble.

And when the army attacks the beast in the same street as the lead actors at 35min, it feels like you are there. The handheld filming together with DSU was genious !


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> But I am correct that DSU does its extraction on a frequency dependent basis, right? That's the "multi-band" part.


Correct. Steering parts of the channel makes for faster reaction time than full-band steering (PLII). Neo:X also uses multi-band steering, and so it is likely that the upmixer that arrives with DTS:X will use it too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm really interested in finding out more info on DTS's new/updated upmixer. 

March can't get here any sooner. Oh wait. I guess that's right! Damnit. C'mon DTS! We need info.


----------



## audioguy

batpig said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> I'm wondering if the reason you heard NOTHING in the overheads with DSU is that you were using band-limited test tones, and the frequency band upper limit falls below the threshold for DSU (which is a multiband upmixer) to steer sound overhead.


That would make sense. If I cared enough (I don't) I could re-do that and measure the FR of the noise and also measure the FR that some of the other OH sounds consisted of. But as I said, I'm tired of futzing around. Because no matter what I (or someone else) determines, at the end of the day, I like DSU and thee is no source material for Auro.

If that later changes, then I might get reinvigorated.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> But as you've noted, using reverb in and of itself does not mean that it will not sound good right?


Not at all. As I have noted, it is well done, and quite pleasant to listen to.



> For the unitiated among us, what other "tools" besides reverberation does any upmixer use in general to "upmix" please?
> 1. HRTF effects?
> 2. Some form of steering logic?
> 3. Eliminate common left right signal from any given L/R pair (like center channel of Dolby Pro Logic)?
> 4. Reverb?
> TIA


Any of the above, and more. Endless ways to do it.


----------



## mp5475

I watched/listened to Chris Botti Boston concert bluray today. I don't do much of music listening. But I found that I prefer DS over neo x, which I was suprised since neo x uses the wides and DS doesn't.

I actually preferred the stereo over both. Is this just me? What do you guys prefer?

Also I had turn off my subs for neo x and DS. It sounded unnatural to me.


----------



## desray2k

Nalleh said:


> Thanks for that, watched it tonight. HOLYCRAP! That is definitly on my top 3 DSU list. I have seen it before, but MAN was it cool in DSU! Totally wicked. Recommended!!
> 
> Just watch 28 min in, when the brigde collaps, and they are running from it. So immersive, unbeliveble.
> 
> And when the army attacks the beast in the same street as the lead actors at 35min, it feels like you are there. The handheld filming together with DSU was genious !


Glad u luv it. 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk


----------



## Al Sherwood

desray2k said:


> Glad u luv it.
> 
> Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk


Ok I gave up scrolling back to figure out what movie you guys are talking about?


----------



## SoundJunky

Before on the left and after on the right… 










Getting closer. I can *almost* hear the atmos mix in my head.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I wanna know more about those guns.


----------



## Nalleh

Al Sherwood said:


> Ok I gave up scrolling back to figure out what movie you guys are talking about?


Sorry: Cloverfield


----------



## SoundJunky

Chris Dotur said:


> Is that AR-15 there for a custom effects channel? Like recreating gunfire in Atmos tracks?


It's mostly for use when the wifey complains about the length of the LOTR.  BTW, the top middle is a SCAR 16s, but when I'm done hacking up the walls it will have a few ARs hanging on there as well.



Chris Dotur said:


> I just tried this about 5 days ago by sending a message to Dolby through their website contact form. No response as of yet.


Very cool. Please keep us posted.


----------



## Spanglo

mp5475 said:


> I watched/listened to Chris Botti Boston concert bluray today. I don't do much of music listening. But I found that I prefer DS over neo x, which I was suprised since neo x uses the wides and DS doesn't.
> 
> I actually preferred the stereo over both. Is this just me? What do you guys prefer?
> 
> Also I had turn off my subs for neo x and DS. It sounded unnatural to me.


NeoX + DS is a hard to beat combination.


----------



## SoundJunky

Scott Simonian said:


> I wanna know more about those guns.


Patience my friend. At the pace I've been working on this room ETA for completion is mid-2030.  The room was actually built as a vault and doubles as a HT.


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> More sophisticated than all-channel stereo, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you interpret this then, in the context of his post: _"Part of the height information crosses channels..."_? If he didn't mean it was being steered, then I apologise to him.
> 
> If he didn't mean there is steering, what did he mean?



What I meant was what I said. The height information crosses channels, not as active steering, but as part of the algorithm. Based on first hand accounts, it's not just copying.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I wanna know more about those guns.


No, you do not.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundJunky said:


> Before on the left and after on the right…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting closer. I can *almost* hear the atmos mix in my head.


Now you talkin'. ...John Wick is going to sound just right.  ...And The Expendables 3, of course.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Chris Dotur said:


> I just tried this about 5 days ago by sending a message to Dolby through their website contact form. No response as of yet.


They will tell you to get VuDu..


----------



## SoundJunky

NorthSky said:


> Now you talkin'. ...John Wick is going to sound just right.  ...And The Expendables 3, of course.


I picked up John Wick the other day (looking forward to it), but after sitting through the first Expendables movie I don't think number 3 will be playing anytime soon. Yes, even the guy with rifles on the wall has standards…. unless we're talking about an 80's Arnold action flick in which case I throw those out the window.


----------



## batpig

SoundJunky said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you talkin'. ...John Wick is going to sound just right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...And The Expendables 3, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I picked up John Wick the other day (looking forward to it), but after sitting through the first Expendables movie I don't think number 3 will be playing anytime soon. Yes, even the guy with rifles on the wall has standards?. unless we're talking about an 80's Arnold action flick in which case I throw those out the window.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you are referring to the standards not the guns.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundJunky said:


> I picked up John Wick the other day (looking forward to it), *but after sitting through the first Expendables movie I don't think number 3 will be playing anytime soon. Yes, even the guy with rifles on the wall has standards….* unless we're talking about an 80's Arnold action flick in which case I throw those out the window.


Wow, never judge from looking @ pictures; you got that right. 

* The Expendables trilogy is just that, expendable. ...Even if I have the three Blus, that don't make me a "supernatural".
By the way, they are in the comedy section of my collection.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> They will tell you to get VuDu..


No Vudu here in Canada.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> No Vudu here in Canada.


They don't care a squat.


----------



## bargervais

Book of Eli OMG thanks Keith I forgot about it I watched again... I only watched once when I first bought the Blu-Ray so I pulled it out wiped the dust off the jacket LOL This is great in DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> They don't care a squat.


Something else's new?


----------



## cfraser

Dan Hitchman said:


> Glad I do.  I'd rather worry you with me enjoying classic comedies than you worrying me with your enthusiasm for stuff like Transformers, TMNT, and the like.  But hey... it's all good.
> 
> We clearly have different tastes in movies, that much is apparent.


I like your taste in movies too. The Transformers movies are unbearable, simply awful, maybe good for an hour of A/V "looking" but not for anything else. I wish I'd stop buying them...  My (not so new) policy which I'm really starting to enforce thanks to Hollywood's increasing penchant for repeating itself ("rebooting" with the well-known ADHD school of directors) is no BAD movies just because they sound or look good. Atmos better get some meat and fast, or it'll be another dead good idea in the home. Not that even 0.1% (probably an exaggeration by a magnitude) of people will use it, until it works with just a soundbar or a TV's built-in speakers.


----------



## Wild Blue

Scott Simonian said:


> Speaking of logic steering and center extraction...
> 
> I bought an old Harman Kardon AVR on eBay yesterday. With it I will pair another of the same AVR from HK to do some home brew 7.1.*6* surround sound.
> 
> Should be an interesting summer/fall.


I'm curious how you'll be doing this, Scott--what connections, processing, and settings you'll use to create this setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Chris Dotur said:


> I'm curious how you'll be doing this, Scott--what connections, processing, and settings you'll use to create this setup.


Fairly simple.

Two AVR's running in Pro Logic 2 with surrounds and subwoofer disabled. Don't need them. Using these older AVR's for center extraction.

So what you do is route the front and rear heights (one for left the other for the right) from the main Atmos AVR via stereo RCA cable. One set is for the left the other for the right (this is why I need two AVR's for this in addition to the Atmos one. Three total.) Then set the surround mode on the two PL2 AVR's to PL2 movie for center extraction. This will net a proper-ish middle height channel in addition to the front and rear heights. Because of the center extraction, I will have steered sound. Something could originate just in the front, center or rear and move around. It won't work as robust as a true discrete six channel height system but none really exist right now. A >$30,000 Trinnov doesn't count. 

Make sense? If not I can try again later.


----------



## multit

@Scott - That's an interesting idea in general!
But since I have only one old AVR, I might start with a high center instead, just like the Trinnov is processing in Auro-3D.
Just putting the signal of both front height speaker into the old AVR and getting out a center signal.
But I'm also interested in having 7.2.*6* since I have 7m (>22ft) room lenght in my HT. So probably buying another cheap old AVR...


----------



## desray2k

Al Sherwood said:


> Ok I gave up scrolling back to figure out what movie you guys are talking about?




LoL....the movie is Cloverfield.


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> Sounds good, I'm on it! I rather go listening and enjoying my setup than arguing about wording and semantics


Cool. Now let's hope the others agree with us and also leave it alone.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Even the simple act of adding reverb is 'processing' the original signal. The problem with semantic games is you end up resorting to your own definitions of commonly used terms (e.g., upmixing, processing) in an attempt to maintain consistency. Not worth it, IMO.


You know what is usually meant by "processing" in this context. I have agreed with multit to leave this topic now, so long as others do. I think all sides have made their points fully and it is now just becoming repetitive.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm really interested in finding out more info on DTS's new/updated upmixer.
> 
> March can't get here any sooner. Oh wait. I guess that's right! Damnit. C'mon DTS! We need info.


I read that the announcement had been put back to April. I'm excited about DTS:X too.


----------



## Wild Blue

I'm watching John Wick as I type this, rented from neighborhood Blockbuster. 7.1 setup with Marantz AV7702, Parasound Halo amps, all M&K S-150 speakers & dual SVS subs. My first movie actually trying out Atmos, and even with me not yet putting in ceiling speakers, the sound is EXCEPTIONAL. I have never heard such a detailed and precised sounding movie before--anywhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Book of Eli OMG thanks Keith I forgot about it I watched again... I only watched once when I first bought the Blu-Ray so I pulled it out wiped the dust off the jacket LOL This is great in DSU.


Glad you enjoyed it. Isn't that scene just after the siege at the old people's house just amazing?


----------



## Wild Blue

prince.nothing said:


> Thanks. I actually did refer the installation guide. To achieve 45 and 135 degrees I had to have my ceiling speakers at 4.5' in front and behind the MLP.


That sounds about right. At 45 degrees, if your ears while listening are 4.5' below your ceiling, then the speakers would be put 4.5 feet forward and behind. Interesting that you said you got better results by pulling them in closer. I may have missed it--did you say you have just one row of seating?


----------



## Wild Blue

Scott Simonian said:


> Fairly simple.
> 
> Two AVR's running in Pro Logic 2 with surrounds and subwoofer disabled. Don't need them. Using these older AVR's for center extraction.
> 
> So what you do is route the front and rear heights (one for left the other for the right) from the main Atmos AVR via stereo RCA cable. One set is for the left the other for the right (this is why I need two AVR's for this in addition to the Atmos one. Three total.) Then set the surround mode on the two PL2 AVR's to PL2 movie for center extraction. This will net a proper-ish middle height channel in addition to the front and rear heights. Because of the center extraction, I will have steered sound. Something could originate just in the front, center or rear and move around. It won't work as robust as a true discrete six channel height system but none really exist right now. A >$30,000 Trinnov doesn't count.
> 
> Make sense? If not I can try again later.


It does, Scott. That's cool. I've actually been contemplating doing the same thing to create matrixed front wides. Given that my AVR is max 11.1 channels, but I have room for both front wides and 4 ceiling, I was thinking it'd be nice to do a 7.1.4 Atmos setup, then matrix new front wides to get a 9.1.4. Difference is, I'd be concerned with degrading the front main channels, since their quality is second-most important only behind the center channel in a surround setup.


----------



## chi_guy50

Spanglo said:


> NeoX + DS is a hard to beat combination.


You took the words right out of my mouth--provided you meant side by side and not combined!

If neither one of those upmixers™ will float your boat, then you might as well just scuttle that tub and swim for shore.


----------



## chi_guy50

Al Sherwood said:


> Ok I gave up scrolling back to figure out what movie you guys are talking about?


Al, in a situation such as this it is not necessary to scroll back to find the original post; just click on the ">" symbol next to the "Originally Posted by . . ." line and follow the chain of post/response until you find the one you are looking for. This way you can navigate through hundreds (or thousands of posts) with just a few mouse clicks.

And FWIW, just in case you were interested in "Cloverfield" for its content rather than just the sound and special effects, here's what Manohla Dargis wrote about it in her N.Y. Times review of the movie she calls "a feature-length gimmick": "Like too many big-studio productions, “Cloverfield” works as a showcase for impressively realistic-looking special effects, a realism that fails to extend to the scurrying humans whose fates are meant to invoke pity and fear but instead inspire yawns and contempt. Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm."


----------



## audioguy

cfraser said:


> Not that even 0.1% (probably an exaggeration by a magnitude) of people will use it, until it works with just a soundbar or a TV's built-in speakers.


You are absoluteky correct. We get all hyped up about something like ceiling speaker naming conventions and the other 99.9999% simply could care less.

The masses response: Atmos? Auro? DTS-X? Seriously? Just get me a larger screen for less money!


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Fairly simple.
> 
> Two AVR's running in Pro Logic 2 with surrounds and subwoofer disabled. Don't need them. Using these older AVR's for center extraction.
> 
> So what you do is route the front and rear heights (one for left the other for the right) from the main Atmos AVR via stereo RCA cable. One set is for the left the other for the right (this is why I need two AVR's for this in addition to the Atmos one. Three total.) Then set the surround mode on the two PL2 AVR's to PL2 movie for center extraction. This will net a proper-ish middle height channel in addition to the front and rear heights. Because of the center extraction, I will have steered sound. Something could originate just in the front, center or rear and move around. It won't work as robust as a true discrete six channel height system but none really exist right now. A >$30,000 Trinnov doesn't count.
> 
> Make sense? If not I can try again later.


I would guess that you are undertaking this project principally for your own "home hobbyist" satisfaction. But my working assumption is that within two product cycles we will have mainstream AVR's that can process up to 9.1.6 or possibly more. 

Is the consensus here that this is a good or bad assumption?


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Fairly simple.
> 
> Two AVR's running in Pro Logic 2 with surrounds and subwoofer disabled. Don't need them. Using these older AVR's for center extraction.
> 
> So what you do is route the front and rear heights (one for left the other for the right) from the main Atmos AVR via stereo RCA cable. One set is for the left the other for the right (this is why I need two AVR's for this in addition to the Atmos one. Three total.) Then set the surround mode on the two PL2 AVR's to PL2 movie for center extraction. This will net a proper-ish middle height channel in addition to the front and rear heights. Because of the center extraction, I will have steered sound. Something could originate just in the front, center or rear and move around. It won't work as robust as a true discrete six channel height system but none really exist right now. A >$30,000 Trinnov doesn't count.
> 
> Make sense? If not I can try again later.


It a great idea, and on paper it should work. I do not know if this is doing to be a problem in this case, but it might : lipsync!
Lipsync is not just the sound from the center channel or speech, its the delay of the whole soundtrack vs the picture. And since Pro Logic 2 is on type of processing( and with two different receivers?), and DSU is another type of processing, the chance is there is different lipsync on them, and that could result in echo.
Example: on my dual receiver setup, if one is in DSU, and the other in NEO:X, there is a noticable echo between them. This is different as the format change: 2.0 pcm,5.1DD, 5.1 Dolby true HD, DTS etc. So one lipsync delay setting will not fix it.
And that is with just the back surrounds from receiver nr 2.

Something to concider


----------



## Movie78

Nalleh said:


> It a great idea, and on paper it should work. I do not know if this is doing to be a problem in this case, but it might : lipsync!
> Lipsync is not just the sound from the center channel or speech, its the delay of the whole soundtrack vs the picture. And since Pro Logic 2 is on type of processing( and with two different receivers?), and DSU is another type of processing, the chance is there is different lipsync on them, and that could result in echo.
> Example: on my dual receiver setup, if one is in DSU, and the other in NEO:X, there is a noticable echo between them. This is different as the format change: 2.0 pcm,5.1DD, 5.1 Dolby true HD, DTS etc. So one lipsync delay setting will not fix it.
> And that is with just the back surrounds from receiver nr 2.
> 
> Something to concider


Why do you have 2 AVR
-Denon AVR X5200W+AVRX4100W

Wouldn't have been cheaper getting Denon X7200 ?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I would guess that you are undertaking this project principally for your own "home hobbyist" satisfaction. But my working assumption is that within two product cycles we will have mainstream AVR's that can process up to 9.1.6 or possibly more.
> 
> Is the consensus here that this is a good or bad assumption?


Could be. How many people will have a room big enough to those speakers justice though is moot IMO. I think you'd need a pretty big room to be able to hear the benefit of 3 overhead pairs.


----------



## Nalleh

Movie78 said:


> Why do you have 2 AVR
> -Denon AVR X5200W+AVRX4100W
> 
> Wouldn't have been cheaper getting Denon X7200 ?


To expand beyond the 11.1 or 7.1.4 limit. And the 7200 has the same limit.

With my setup i have Atmos 9.1.6 and Auro 12.1 with a button on the remote(s).


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> Those are great questions. ...I'll have a stab.
> 
> 1. No. ...By "Mastered 4K" you mean a "pseudo" like those from Sony? ...Because in my book that doesn't count as being UHD picture.
> {I don't know about 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' but the picture is pretty looking for 1080p - 2K - 3D - Dolby Atmos.}


Yup, those pseudo ones... According to Sony's website, they sample from a 4K source, then uses the .x.y color space (which is not used) to add additional content,... basically, how i understand it is this:

Since a 50GB disk has extra space in it for more than a single blu ray movie, Sony uses the extra space to store additional content information. They do this by passing these additional info using the x.y color space... they start with a 4K master copy, then uses an algorithm to reduce it to a 2K copy (blu-ray), then add additional information to re-generate the 4K image... it won't be perfect 4K, but will be close... or, at least better than just upscaling from blu ray without the additional iformation... I know I am not making myself clear here.. but you can look up sony's website. So, yes, it's pseudo, but it'll actually have 'real extra pixels to be added'... not quite 4K, but maybe close... 



> 2. Because the audio core is lossless Dolby TrueHD 7.1 it takes more data/space than just plain highly compressed/lossy Doby Digital audio.
> {DD 5.1 is roughly 448 kbps. Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio is roughly (on average, my guess) 4-8 times more? ...And the max is 18 mbps. ...MLP coding.}


Hos does this convert to size on the disk??? I have no clue... 



> 3. 'TF4' and 'TMNT' are in 3D with Dolby Atmos.
> {But it's the upcoming new BR 4K that won't have 3D, but only Dolby Atmos, or DTS:X - And space, from what I've read, is not an issue.  }


I heard differently... a 4K blu ray movie may take up to 100 GB of space already... using the newest hevc codec... and they can only squeeze up to a reported 128GB into the blu ray disc, without creating a whole new generation of discs... so, you either have all the stuff they'll add to 4K such as HDR, HFR, Expanded color space,.. you just won't be able to fit in a 3D copy as well... plus, they say the hevc codec is not ready for 3d yet... anyways, i have a feeling it really have somethign to do with technical difficulties at this moment... i am just disappointed they can't fit in 3D... 




Nalleh said:


> To expand beyond the 11.1 or 7.1.4 limit. And the 7200 has the same limit.
> 
> With my setup i have Atmos 9.1.6 and Auro 12.1 with a button on the remote(s).


That is awesome for 2 rows of seat.. i wish my room is big enough for a 9.1.6 setup...


----------



## mp5475

chi_guy50 said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth--provided you meant side by side and not combined!
> 
> If neither one of those upmixers™ will float your boat, then you might as well just scuttle that tub and swim for shore.


Don't get me wrong. I like them both. But I liked stereo better. But it sounds like that is just me.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> To expand beyond the 11.1 or 7.1.4 limit. And the 7200 has the same limit.
> 
> With my setup i have Atmos 9.1.6 and Auro 12.1 with a button on the remote(s).


And I call this sheer genius idea..
Your life may be in danger though... 
(As you have challenged corporate giants)


----------



## thestoneman

Quick opinion question on the best direction for my overhead tweeters. Currently I have them angled outward toward the wall...i.e., the right side is angled to the right, left side angled to the left. I'm please so far, but wondering what others are doing.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> It a great idea, and on paper it should work. I do not know if this is doing to be a problem in this case, but it might : lipsync!
> Lipsync is not just the sound from the center channel or speech, its the delay of the whole soundtrack vs the picture. And since Pro Logic 2 is on type of processing( and with two different receivers?), and DSU is another type of processing, the chance is there is different lipsync on them, and that could result in echo.
> Example: on my dual receiver setup, if one is in DSU, and the other in NEO:X, there is a noticable echo between them. This is different as the format change: 2.0 pcm,5.1DD, 5.1 Dolby true HD, DTS etc. So one lipsync delay setting will not fix it.
> And that is with just the back surrounds from receiver nr 2.
> 
> Something to concider


This can easily be solved by using the auto calibration function of the Atmos AVR/processor, which will then automatically take into account the delay caused by ADA conversion and PLII processing in the other two receivers. This because they are not installed in parallel, like in your dual receiver set-up, but in series.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you'd need a pretty big room to be able to hear the benefit of 3 overhead pairs.


Even in a small room, you should be able to get enough angular separation (e.g., 30°, 80°, 135°) to hear the difference in elevation. From what I remember, you still have a pair of heights above your mains that are not currently being used. Down the road, if you could activate them, would you?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Even in a small room, you should be able to get enough angular separation (e.g., 30°, 80°, 135°) to hear the difference in elevation.


Do you think it would be a worthwhile difference though with the overheads so close together?



sdurani said:


> From what I remember, you still have a pair of heights above your mains that are not currently being used. Down the road, if you could activate them, would you?


Not sure. Accepting what you say about angles, they would only be about 30 inches in distance from the foremost overhead pair. Would that be enough difference for their contribution to be heard? I am thinking that the sound from that Height Pair would be simply conflated with that of the adjacent pair.

Where do you feel that the 'point of no further benefit' comes?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Even in a small room, you should be able to get enough angular separation (e.g., 30°, 80°, 135°) to hear the difference in elevation. From what I remember, you still have a pair of heights above your mains that are not currently being used. Down the road, if you could activate them, would you?


Dare I say it again....? (it is all about angles)


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think it would be a worthwhile difference though with the overheads so close together?


If you can tell the difference between sounds directly above vs forward of you vs rearward of you, then it will be a benefit.


> Would that be enough difference for their contribution to be heard?


Depends on what the angles turn out to be. Can we humans hear the difference between 30° and 45° elevation in front of us? Sure.


> Where do you feel that the 'point of no further benefit' comes?


After 3 overhead pairs, I think we get into diminishing returns for a single row of listeners.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> This can easily be solved by using the auto calibration function of the Atmos AVR/processor, which will then automatically take into account the delay caused by ADA conversion and PLII processing in the other two receivers. This because they are not installed in parallel, like in your dual receiver set-up, but in series.


Not sure how that would work?
When running Audyssey it sends signals to each speakers, right?
Is the "pl2 recievers" supposed to be on/active during this? Then witch of the overhead speakers will get the signal? The front left high? The "pl2" left top middle? If both, what about correct length, levels and EQ?
And then the top left rear, what then?

In order to get the calibration correct for the 4 "original" height speakers, i don't think the "pl2 receivers" can be on.


----------



## cannga

cannga said:


> For the unitiated among us, what other "tools" besides reverberation does any upmixer use in general to "upmix" please?
> 1. HTRF effects?
> 2. Some form of steering logic?
> 3. Eliminate common left right signal from any given L/R pair (like center channel of Dolby Pro Logic)?
> 4. Reverb?
> TIA





Roger Dressler said:


> Any of the above, and more. Endless ways to do it.


Thanks. I know the topic has been beaten to death, but just curious as I couldn't find a definitive discussion other than over semantics: is it known for sure that Auro is *not* using any of the above (and more) algorithms/methodologies, besides its obvious use of reverb? 

There has been some comparison to Yamaha's infamous stadium, etc., reverb algorithms in the early 90's (I admit I had one of those things .). One major difference: Auro uses height level speakers, Yamaha did not. Could this be why Auro appears to be"better"?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Not sure how that would work?
> When running Audyssey it sends signals to each speakers, right?


Yes, to all the speakers that are assigned in the given receiver.



> Is the "pl2 recievers" supposed to be on/active during this?


Yes.



> Then witch of the overhead speakers will get the signal? The front left high? The "pl2" left top middle?


All four 'original' height speakers as assigned in the Atmos receiver. Not the 'added middle' speaker, since the test signals are not panned between the two height speakers of one array.



> If both, what about correct length, levels and EQ?


(Correct length = correct delay) This is all being taken caren of during the Atmos receiver calibration process for the 'original' height speakers. Prior to this, each 'added middle' speaker should be calibrated together with its front and back neighbors, by the PLII receiver. 

Why wouldn't this work?


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> All four 'original' height speakers as assigned in the Atmos receiver. Not the 'added middle' speaker, since the test signals are not panned between the two height speakers of one array.
> 
> Why wouldn't this work?


Ahh, ok. So when the Atmos receiver send the test signal to top left front output, wich is left front input on one PL2 receiver, there is no extraction to the "center" channel?

No sound from center when only *one* (left or right) get sound?

Then, yes it could work. Carry on


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you'd need a pretty big room to be able to hear the benefit of 3 overhead pairs.





sdurani said:


> Even in a small room, you should be able to get enough angular separation (e.g., 30°, 80°, 135°) to hear the difference in elevation.





sdurani said:


> If you can tell the difference between sounds directly above vs forward of you vs rearward of you, then it will be a benefit. Depends on what the angles turn out to be. Can we humans hear the difference between 30° and 45° elevation in front of us? Sure. After 3 overhead pairs, I think we get into diminishing returns for a single row of listeners.


Without knowing how much the configuration options or recommended speaker placements will change in the near term, I would like to envision 9.1.6 in my smallish room (roughly 15 ft. front to back and 18 ft. between FW/L & FW/R locations)--if only because I can do it. 

My FH (Polk OWM5)--which are wall-mounted at ceiling height above my mains IAW DTS recommendations--are currently at a shallower than optimal elevation angle for Atmos and about 12 ft. forward of my in-ceiling TM (Polk 80F/X-RT), which are located just behind the MLP. I recently grabbed a second pair of 80-F/X-RT's and--rather than mounting them at around 45° elevation in place of the OWM5's as FH--would like to wait and see if I could go 9.1.6, in which case I would split the difference and mount them half-way between the current front and rear pair. Even if I had to redesignate my rear pair as RH to make this work (if adjacent pairs were still not allowed) I think it would provide a much more enveloping height effect. Of course, if DTS:X's upmixer changes the parameters for the FH, then I might rethink my plan.

I am not at all dissatisfied with my current setup--everything so far sounds amazingly good in all surround modes. I can't see going beyond three overhead pairs, though, unless you have a huge expanse and multiple rows to cover.


----------



## brahman12

You guys got me itching for a monster movie weekend with all the Cloverfield talk....follow that up with Godzilla and Pacific Rim. Just bought the 3D version of PR and looking forward to that. Received my Japanese Atmos imports last night and watched I Frankenstein cuz it was 90 minutes long and wanted to hear something bombastic. The movie was quite silly overall but had two standout Atmos scenes. The first fight scene in the graveyard had some powerful activity going on and really nice overhead usage. And the final battle scene with the "re-animator" machine had some redonkulous base and surround activity. Gotta watch Transcendence, Mockingjay, Nature and On Any Sunday throughout the week.


----------



## brahman12

Art of Flight via DSU was loud and entertaining as well...right from the beginning Dolby promo sequence. Pretty cool to say the least. Also someone posted earlier about Yamaha DSP modes and they work much better than I expected. I have been an Onkyo and Pioneer man up until my purchase of the Yammy 3040. Watched Jeff Beck's Performing This Week bluray with the "cellar club" DSP mode engaged and it sounded very real, very live, very nice. And John Mayer's Where the Light Is bluray with "village vanguard" DSP mode and "music video" mode engaged throughout the disc. Again very interesting and engaging live audio sound. DSU sounded great in its own right with both discs...wide, deep and realistically live as well....but the DSP modes were more intense and in ur face sounding.


----------



## Scott Simonian

multit said:


> @Scott - That's an interesting idea in general!
> But since I have only one old AVR, I might start with a high center instead, just like the Trinnov is processing in Auro-3D.
> Just putting the signal of both front height speaker into the old AVR and getting out a center signal.
> But I'm also interested in having 7.2.*6* since I have 7m (>22ft) room lenght in my HT. So probably buying another cheap old AVR...


That's not a bad idea either. If your room is especially wide having a center front height would stabilize the imaging there even further.

If you're interested in doing the same thing I'm doing then see if you could find another AVR of what you have now. The HK I'm using is old enough that it was pretty cheap on eBay.



kbarnes701 said:


> I read that the announcement had been put back to April. I'm excited about DTS:X too.


Oh boo!



Chris Dotur said:


> It does, Scott. That's cool. I've actually been contemplating doing the same thing to create matrixed front wides. Given that my AVR is max 11.1 channels, but I have room for both front wides and 4 ceiling, I was thinking it'd be nice to do a 7.1.4 Atmos setup, then matrix new front wides to get a 9.1.4. Difference is, I'd be concerned with degrading the front main channels, since their quality is second-most important only behind the center channel in a surround setup.


Definitely. I could do the same and have considered it as well but for the same reason you post I may not try it. Certainly is an option for those out there to try!



chi_guy50 said:


> I would guess that you are undertaking this project principally for your own "home hobbyist" satisfaction. But my working assumption is that within two product cycles we will have mainstream AVR's that can process up to 9.1.6 or possibly more.
> 
> Is the consensus here that this is a good or bad assumption?


I would like to think so! I doubt that anything will support six overhead channels this summer but I'd like to be wrong, seriously. There really is no reason for that support to not be there with a supposed release of 9.1.4 support. If a piece of hardware can support 13ch of decoding then you as the user should be able to choose either: 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 output. Why not? 

But yeah, I'm just doing it for fun. I figured the endgame for me is 7.1.6 (maybe 9.1.6 later on) and I'd be happy for a long time. I could prepare for it now with installed speakers. Thought about doing something like this anyway since this past summer with x.x.4 support. If I was getting the speakers (for middle height) anyway why not drop a couple hundred to test this out? As soon as the true hardware that can do 7.1.6 comes out I'll get that and disconnect the extra PL2 AVR's as I won't need them. Won't have cost much to try out.



Nalleh said:


> It a great idea, and on paper it should work. I do not know if this is doing to be a problem in this case, but it might : lipsync!
> Lipsync is not just the sound from the center channel or speech, its the delay of the whole soundtrack vs the picture. And since Pro Logic 2 is on type of processing( and with two different receivers?), and DSU is another type of processing, the chance is there is different lipsync on them, and that could result in echo.
> Example: on my dual receiver setup, if one is in DSU, and the other in NEO:X, there is a noticable echo between them. This is different as the format change: 2.0 pcm,5.1DD, 5.1 Dolby true HD, DTS etc. So one lipsync delay setting will not fix it.
> And that is with just the back surrounds from receiver nr 2.
> 
> Something to concider


Yeah, it is a possibility but I am not expecting it to be, really. I found that as soon as I moved up to HDMI receivers that I had more delay in the signal. Specifically I remember moving from this HK receiver to my current Onkyo and playing Rock Band. I have a significant delay to have to compensate for. Thankfully the game has a calibration system for such things. Also these channels are slightly less important than the rest. Lipsync is not something I'm concerned will be an issue in this circumstance. If it is minimal enough I can still compensate for this on the main receiver will additional delay on the lower channels. Pretty easy fix. Also PL2 itself is fairly low on processing demand and there will be no room correction or other processing inline to compound the issue.

You bring up a really good point and may be an issue but I expect it not to be when I set it up. Let's hope not!


----------



## SoundJunky

Getting closer. Tonight will be spackle and sanding drywall (my favorite  ).










I know that FH/TM is popular among smaller rooms. Has anyone run FH and TR instead? My room is 14' deep with the seating around 3' off the back wall with the rear ceiling speakers at the rear of the ceiling and the front ceiling speakers 3' off the front wall (10' from MLP and inline with the front L/C/R speakers). I'm not a human protractor, but my angle estimation tells me that the rear are between TM and TR specs (somewhere between 100 and 125 degrees). I understand that this should have been set in stone prior to mounting ceiling speakers, but due to the relatively large tray ceiling in the small room it was really the only option for mounting with any type of aesthetics in mind.


----------



## Josh Z

SoundJunky said:


> I know that FH/TM is popular among smaller rooms. Has anyone run FH and TR instead?


I did some testing with switching back and forth from Front Height/Top Middle to Front Height/Top Rear. I didn't find much of any difference. 

There's a scene in John Wick around time code 1:25:00 that has a couple of helicopter pans that are good tests for this.


----------



## SoundJunky

Josh Z said:


> I did some testing with switching back and forth from Front Height/Top Middle to Front Height/Top Rear. I didn't find much of any difference.
> 
> There's a scene in John Wick around time code 1:25:00 that has a couple of helicopter pans that are good tests for this.


Thank you. I'll test that scene out.


----------



## maikeldepotter

brahman12 said:


> Art of Flight via DSU was loud and entertaining as well...right from the beginning Dolby promo sequence. Pretty cool to say the least. Also someone posted earlier about Yamaha DSP modes and they work much better than I expected. I have been an Onkyo and Pioneer man up until my purchase of the Yammy 3040. Watched Jeff Beck's Performing This Week bluray with the "cellar club" DSP mode engaged and it sounded very real, very live, very nice. And John Mayer's Where the Light Is bluray with "village vanguard" DSP mode and "music video" mode engaged throughout the disc. Again very interesting and engaging live audio sound. DSU sounded great in its own right with both discs...wide, deep and realistically live as well....but the DSP modes were more intense and in ur face sounding.


So instead of pushing Yamaha's almost forgotten DSP modes further back into oblivion, the introduction of Atmos/DSU seems to put them back into the spotlights as an alternative, and for some possibly more rewarding, upmixing algorithm (can I use that term?) Competition is great (for Yamaha)!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If you can tell the difference between sounds directly above vs forward of you vs rearward of you, then it will be a benefit.


That's what I'm not sure about. When there is so little space between the different pairs of speakers, will I be able to tell exactly which pair is making noise? And even if I can, will it matter all that much. I wouldn't, even if it were possible, want to install speakers between the left-centre and right-centre, as they do in cinemas, for example, because they would be so close to each other I don't think it would be worth it.



sdurani said:


> Depends on what the angles turn out to be. Can we humans hear the difference between 30° and 45° elevation in front of us? Sure. After 3 overhead pairs, I think we get into diminishing returns for a single row of listeners.


I'm sceptical, but open to persuasion. I'd have to hear a setup in a room of similar size to my own before I spent money on it.


----------



## Spanglo

chi_guy50 said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth--provided you meant side by side and not combined!
> 
> If neither one of those upmixers™ will float your boat, then you might as well just scuttle that tub and swim for shore.





mp5475 said:


> Don't get me wrong. I like them both. But I liked stereo better. But it sounds like that is just me.


Yes combined. 2ch expanded to 7ch + overheads works amazingly well.


----------



## mp5475

Spanglo said:


> Yes combined. 2ch expanded to 7ch + overheads works amazingly well.


I don't believe you can run Neo x and DS at same time. Can you clarify what you mean?


----------



## brahman12

Yeah... I didn't think I would like the DSP modes but ended up enjoying them quite a bit. I can't say I like them better than our beloved DSU but very cool nonetheless. DSU was more relaxed and gentle with what it was doing especially with the vocals and strings.


----------



## Spanglo

mp5475 said:


> I don't believe you can run Neo x and DS at same time. Can you clarify what you mean?


Yes NeoX + DS at the same time.


----------



## mp5475

Spanglo said:


> Yes NeoX + DS at the same time.


This doesn't make sense. Which receiver do you have? As Far as I know, current gen AVRs can only do max 11.2. 

Also how can you use two different up mixers at same time. It is not even a choice for me. Are you using two AVRs?


----------



## batpig

Spanglo said:


> Yes NeoX + DS at the same time.


Something is off here -- that's not possible. They are mutually exclusive upmixers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Neo:X and DSU can not be used at the same time on any hardware.


----------



## Spanglo

mp5475 said:


> This doesn't make sense. Which receiver do you have? As Far as I know, current gen AVRs can only do max 11.2.
> 
> Also how can you use two different up mixers at same time. It is not even a choice for me. Are you using two AVRs?


I have the X5200.

Put on a 2ch music source, and press the music mode button until you get the option for Neox + ds. 

Unless I'm losing my mind, but I'm fairly certain it's an option.


----------



## mp5475

Spanglo said:


> I have the X5200.
> 
> Put on a 2ch music source, and press the music mode button until you get the option for Neox + ds.
> 
> Unless I'm losing my mind, but I'm fairly certain it's an option.


I also have 5200. I have not tried the music mode, But it doesn't make sense to me since max out is 11.2. How does it use both? Maybe some of the experts like batpig can answer this.


----------



## pasender91

Spanglo said:


> I have the X5200.
> 
> Put on a 2ch music source, and press the music mode button until you get the option for Neox + ds.
> 
> Unless I'm losing my mind, but I'm fairly certain it's an option.


For info, on my 7009, this is NOT a valid option, Neo and DS are mutuallly exclusive.
But even if it is possible, you can do it simpler by activating DS only, it will upmix to 7.1.4 as well, and might do a better integration than combining two upmixers ...


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> When there is so little space between the different pairs of speakers, will I be able to tell exactly which pair is making noise? And even if I can, will it matter all that much.


In the front hemisphere, I do think you'd be able to tell which height pair is making noise, but you make a good point about whether it will matter. Sorta like wides for me. Will I be able to tell that they're there? Yes. Will it matter all that much? Probably not.


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> Yup, those pseudo ones... According to Sony's website, they sample from a 4K source, then uses the .x.y color space (which is not used) to add additional content,... basically, how i understand it is this:
> 
> Since a 50GB disk has extra space in it for more than a single blu ray movie, Sony uses the extra space to store additional content information. They do this by passing these additional info using the x.y color space... they start with a 4K master copy, then uses an algorithm to reduce it to a 2K copy (blu-ray), then add additional information to re-generate the 4K image... it won't be perfect 4K, but will be close... or, at least better than just upscaling from blu ray without the additional information... I know I am not making myself clear here.. but you can look up sony's website. So, yes, it's pseudo, but it'll actually have 'real extra pixels to be added'... not quite 4K, but maybe close...


♦ ...Similar to Superbit on DVD. I have a bunch of those, as well "remastered in 4K" Blu-rays. ...Sony simply uses more space on the disk to "enhanced" the picture (slightly more polished, with a grain of detail observed). ...But no way like the real 4K encoded deal. ...And those they'll never see their true light the way they supposed to look. For that you need a 500GB Blu-ray disc, and a slow-motion movie. ...Methinks //\\//\\



> How does this convert to size on the disk??? I have no clue...


♦ On a 50GB BR disc, roughly 0.01% (DD 5.1) to 0.1% (Dolby TrueHD 7.1) ...more or less. ...A very rough approximation. ...On average.



> I heard differently... a 4K blu ray movie may take up to 100 GB of space already... using the newest hevc codec... and they can only squeeze up to a reported 128GB into the blu ray disc, without creating a whole new generation of discs... so, you either have all the stuff they'll add to 4K such as HDR, HFR, Expanded color space,.. you just won't be able to fit in a 3D copy as well... plus, they say the hevc codec is not ready for 3d yet... anyways, i have a feeling it really have somethign to do with technical difficulties at this moment... i am just disappointed they can't fit in 3D...


♦ I'm not up to full speed yet on the new 4K Blu-ray disc coming up later on this year.
I'll have to wait till they truly deliver, and see what compression might affect them, because they'll use that as it is part of life: Compression.
The full capacity; I don't know, if it will still be 50GB or if they have the tools, the capability, the technology to increase that by creating a 100GB Blu-ray disc. ...There may be some barriers here, out of control from the human artistic side. ...Meaning money and anti-piracy copy protection heavy duty protocols. ...It is scary to make available publicly "the best picture & sound". ...It has to be protected, taking care of, and thoroughly thought. 
But like I just said; I'm not just up to full speed yet with the undercover, and exposed world on Blu-ray 4K, without 3D picture. 
And space doesn't seem to be the issue; then what? ...I just learned some more from you above.



> That is awesome for 2 rows of seat.. i wish my room is big enough for a 9.1.6 setup...


♦ The Dolby Atmos pdf guidelines have a graph for a 9.1.4 setup, with one couch (one row only).
Me, I think they forgot to include the one with two couches (two rows of seats), and that 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos setup.
Was it deliberate? Of course it was; we are only @ the very beginning of 3D sound. 

Some Dolby Atmos AV receivers have up to eleven internal power amplifiers in them (Onkyo/Integra).
And along with some SSPs they support up to eleven channels, top, plus the subwoofer channel (7.1.4 or 9.1.2 setup).

Tomorrow, they could support up to sixteen channels (subwoofer channel included) for a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos configuration.
Just add the requisite four additional preouts, some more DSP processing power into a chip, that's all. 

There are various size rooms, here @ AVS and around the world. 
But many we've seen are good for a 5.1.4 setup, others for a 7.1.4 one, and many for a 9.1.6 setup with two rows of seats.
And that last one is still missing in the affordable equation of Dolby Atmos "pudding".  
It has more to do with the economics of scales from AV receivers and SSPs manufacturers, ...for now.


----------



## Spanglo

mp5475 said:


> I also have 5200. I have not tried the music mode, But it doesn't make sense to me since max out is 11.2. How does it use both? Maybe some of the experts like batpig can answer this.





pasender91 said:


> For info, on my 7009, this is NOT a valid option, Neo and DS are mutuallly exclusive.
> But even if it is possible, you can do it simpler by activating DS only, it will upmix to 7.1.4 as well, and might do a better integration than combining two upmixers ...


Ok, sorry for the confusion, it sounds like I'm mistaken. Going off memory, and I'm not at home so I can't say exact what mode I was using.


----------



## Kain

Selden Ball said:


> Since this question seems to have gotten lost in all the Auro comparisons...
> 
> The Front Wides are used only for objects, and that's only if you have a 9.x.2 configuration. Since current D+M models support a maximum of only 11 simultaneously active channels (not counting the subwoofer channel), if you configure a D+M AVR for a (13 channel) 9.x.4 configuration, the Front Wides are the pair which are silent when playing an Atmos soundtrack. Also, the Front Wides are never used by DSU, no matter what speaker configuration you have.
> 
> The Atmos bed channels are sent only to their corresponding speaker channels, which are the "traditional" Front LCR, Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds. They are not expanded to the Front Wides unless you disable Atmos decoding and enable a non-Dolby upmixer like DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX or all-channel stereo.


Thanks.

Two more questions. 

1. All speakers "outside" or in addition to the standard/base 7.1 bed used only for objects, correct? DSU can use all speakers expect the front wides? Meaning it can use front heights, rear heights, etc. but not front wides?

2. In my small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room, would it be worth it to have 6 ceiling speakers vs. 4 ceiling speakers?


----------



## chi_guy50

Spanglo said:


> NeoX + DS is a hard to beat combination.





chi_guy50 said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth--provided you meant side by side and not combined!
> 
> If neither one of those upmixers™ will float your boat, then you might as well just scuttle that tub and swim for shore.





Spanglo said:


> Yes NeoX + DS at the same time.





Spanglo said:


> Ok, sorry for the confusion, it sounds like I'm mistaken. Going off memory, and I'm not at home so I can't say exact what mode I was using.


I was poking fun at the wording of your original post (ergo the ) assuming that you meant one or the other--not both combined, which would be akin to having scrambled eggs sunny-side up!

But you mistakenly hit the nail on the head as far as my tastes go: Either Neo:X (music) or DSU (video) will suit almost any occasion. No mixing up these upmixers™!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> In the front hemisphere, I do think you'd be able to tell which height pair is making noise, but you make a good point about whether it will matter. Sorta like wides for me. Will I be able to tell that they're there? Yes. Will it matter all that much? Probably not.


Yes - good analogy.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cannga said:


> Thanks. I know the topic has been beaten to death, but just curious as I couldn't find a definitive discussion other than over semantics: is it known for sure that Auro is *not* using any of the above (and more) algorithms/methodologies, besides its obvious use of reverb?


They make a claim about HRTF related processing, and that may indeed be in there. It's just frequency shaping, and it can be very mild.



> There has been some comparison to Yamaha's infamous stadium, etc., reverb algorithms in the early 90's (I admit I had one of those things .). One major difference: Auro uses height level speakers, Yamaha did not. Could this be why Auro appears to be"better"?


Yes. And Auro is also better because is does not commit such heavy-handed processing as in the Yamaha DSPs. Though it should be said that was their default modes, probably to make their effect obvious. They always allowed users to reduce the effect, but maybe few of us explored those adjustments.


----------



## tjenkins95

SoundJunky said:


> Getting closer. Tonight will be spackle and sanding drywall (my favorite  ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that FH/TM is popular among smaller rooms. Has anyone run FH and TR instead? My room is 14' deep with the seating around 3' off the back wall with the rear ceiling speakers at the rear of the ceiling and the front ceiling speakers 3' off the front wall (10' from MLP and inline with the front L/C/R speakers). I'm not a human protractor, but my angle estimation tells me that the rear are between TM and TR specs (somewhere between 100 and 125 degrees). I understand that this should have been set in stone prior to mounting ceiling speakers, but due to the relatively large tray ceiling in the small room it was really the only option for mounting with any type of aesthetics in mind.


 
You mentioned that your room is 14' deep - what is the width of the back wall we are seeing?
Thanks. 

Ray


----------



## Selden Ball

Spanglo said:


> Ok, sorry for the confusion, it sounds like I'm mistaken. Going off memory, and I'm not at home so I can't say exact what mode I was using.


 The on-screen naming of the DTS option is unnecessarily complicated and confusing, which doesn't help. I've attached a photo of the OSD of my SR7009, which should be the same as what's shown on Denon AVRs (except for the coloring). Also, I don't have Front Wide speakers, which probably would add to the complexity.


----------



## brahman12

Yamaha currently uses front and rear presence speakers (which correlate to my top front and top rear atmos setup) with their cinema DSP hd3....thus I get to use my Atmos setup with other options besides DSU. Again, putting all purist banter aside, the DSP modes sound pretty good with the concert discs I have. Gotta listen to some classical/opera music to comment on next.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Don't feel like you have to apologize. If you know you like it, use it. There is nothing pure about DSU. It's just the Dolby flavor.


----------



## Spanglo

Selden Ball said:


> The on-screen naming of the DTS option is unnecessarily complicated and confusing, which doesn't help. I've attached a photo of the OSD of my SR7009, which should be the same as what's shown on Denon AVRs (except for the coloring). Also, I don't have Front Wide speakers, which probably would add to the complexity.


Thx for that pic. 

I'm likely using using DS, since all speakers are being utilized. Think the confusion came from the display on the receiver which lists DS as the mode, and underneath lists NeoX as an option. Seeing both modes on the display at the same time made me think both were active.


----------



## prince.nothing

Chris Dotur said:


> That sounds about right. At 45 degrees, if your ears while listening are 4.5' below your ceiling, then the speakers would be put 4.5 feet forward and behind. Interesting that you said you got better results by pulling them in closer. I may have missed it--did you say you have just one row of seating?




Yes, I have only one row of seating, and it's in the middle of the front and rear ceiling speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Could be. How many people will have a room big enough to those speakers justice though is moot IMO. I think you'd need a pretty big room to be able to hear the benefit of 3 overhead pairs.


With 3 pairs, you could spread them better?
And what about phantom sources from 2 vs 3 pairs?
Would not 3 pairs be able to pan better from front to rear?


----------



## chi_guy50

Selden Ball said:


> The on-screen naming of the DTS option is unnecessarily complicated and confusing, which doesn't help. I've attached a photo of the OSD of my SR7009, which should be the same as what's shown on Denon AVRs (except for the coloring). Also, I don't have Front Wide speakers, which probably would add to the complexity.




OTOH it could hardly be any simpler provided you have the whole enchilada (11ch)


----------



## SoundJunky

tjenkins95 said:


> You mentioned that your room is 14' deep - what is the width of the back wall we are seeing?
> Thanks.
> 
> Ray


It's 10' wide.


----------



## NorthSky

SoundJunky said:


> It's 10' wide.


That was my guess.


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> ♦ ...Similar to Superbit on DVD. I have a bunch of those, as well "remastered in 4K" Blu-rays. ...Sony simply uses more space on the disk to "enhanced" the picture (slightly more polished, with a grain of detail observed). ...But no way like the real 4K encoded deal. ...And those they'll never see their true light the way they supposed to look. For that you need a 500GB Blu-ray disc, and a slow-motion movie. ...Methinks //\\//\\
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ On a 50GB BR disc, roughly 0.01% (DD 5.1) to 0.1% (Dolby TrueHD 7.1) ...more or less. ...A very rough approximation. ...On average.


I did a search on this subject as it's making me more and more curious... you can find out all the bit rates of various blu rays here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...lu-ray-audio-video-specifications-thread.html

Apparently True HD can be something like 2-3 mbps bit rates... so, probably takes up about 8-10% of the space used total.. for instance, if a movie has a total bit rate of 32mbps, maybe 3.2mbps is the audio... this is quite significant, if you add 2 high bit rate streams, for instance, Dolby Atmos (which is about 20% higher than a regular 7.1), and say DTS:X... say, each takes up about 10% of the total content space, that means audio alone will take up about 20% of the total space needed for the movie. Give or take.




> ♦ I'm not up to full speed yet on the new 4K Blu-ray disc coming up later on this year.
> I'll have to wait till they truly deliver, and see what compression might affect them, because they'll use that as it is part of life: Compression.
> The full capacity; I don't know, if it will still be 50GB or if they have the tools, the capability, the technology to increase that by creating a 100GB Blu-ray disc. ...There may be some barriers here, out of control from the human artistic side. ...Meaning money and anti-piracy copy protection heavy duty protocols. ...It is scary to make available publicly "the best picture & sound". ...It has to be protected, taking care of, and thoroughly thought.
> But like I just said; I'm not just up to full speed yet with the undercover, and exposed world on Blu-ray 4K, without 3D picture.
> And space doesn't seem to be the issue; then what? ...I just learned some more from you above.


Here's what I learned... 

Current Blu Ray uses Hevc.264 compression... in the 4K blu ray, they will be using a newer and more powerful compression engine the H265. Basically this article explains it all:

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-he...eo-coding-h-265-and-4k-compression-explained/

So, to simply things, h265 could get you 'similar' picture quality for half the disk space. For instance, if a current 2K blu ray fits in 30GB space, then using the newer H265 will compress it further down to 15GB of space without losing picture quality.

Now, regular Blu Ray movies typically fits in a 30-50 GB disk space, and since 4K is 4 times the size (plus whatever they add in like HDR, HFR, 2020 color space, etc), then the space requirement could be about 120 GB - 200GB (using the same H264 codec),. but if you use the newer H265, that means half of that, ie, 60-100GB, which would fit nicely into a 3 layer Blu Ray disk, 100GB.... 

So, there really is no more space left for 3D in that equation, unless they can increase the physical disc size (which could be a few years down the road), or have a much better compression algorithm...


----------



## Wild Blue

thestoneman said:


> Quick opinion question on the best direction for my overhead tweeters. Currently I have them angled outward toward the wall...i.e., the right side is angled to the right, left side angled to the left. I'm please so far, but wondering what others are doing.



Here's what the Atmos installation guide says:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...tmos-Home-Theater-Installation-Guidelines.pdf



> _Mounting considerations_
> 
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately
> 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to
> 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For
> speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements
> should be angled toward the primary listening position.


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> I did a search on this subject as it's making me more and more curious... you can find out all the bit rates of various blu rays here:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...lu-ray-audio-video-specifications-thread.html
> Apparently True HD can be something like 2-3 mbps bit rates... so, probably takes up about 8-10% of the space used total.. for instance, if a movie has a total bit rate of 32mbps, maybe 3.2mbps is the audio... this is quite significant, if you add 2 high bit rate streams, for instance, Dolby Atmos (which is about 20% higher than a regular 7.1), and say DTS:X... say, each takes up about 10% of the total content space, that means audio alone will take up about 20% of the total space needed for the movie. Give or take.
> Here's what I learned...
> Current Blu Ray uses Hevc.264 compression... in the 4K blu ray, they will be using a newer and more powerful compression engine the H265. Basically this article explains it all:
> http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-he...eo-coding-h-265-and-4k-compression-explained/
> So, to simply things, h265 could get you 'similar' picture quality for half the disk space. For instance, if a current 2K blu ray fits in 30GB space, then using the newer H265 will compress it further down to 15GB of space without losing picture quality.
> Now, regular Blu Ray movies typically fits in a 30-50 GB disk space, and since 4K is 4 times the size (plus whatever they add in like HDR, HFR, 2020 color space, etc), then the space requirement could be about 120 GB - 200GB (using the same H264 codec),. but if you use the newer H265, that means half of that, ie, 60-100GB, which would fit nicely into a 3 layer Blu Ray disk, 100GB....
> So, there really is no more space left for 3D in that equation, unless they can increase the physical disc size (which could be a few years down the road), or have a much better compression algorithm...


Alright, I am learning more from you than from anyone else. ...And that is truly sad about 3D; it's a huge downer for me, a direct blow to my heart.


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> Alright, I am learning more from you than from anyone else. ...And that is truly sad about 3D; it's a huge downer for me, a direct blow to my heart.


I must say I am most disappointed. I was so looking forward to 4K 3D... it would really be like living in a holodeck! I have everything set up, ready to go, only to find out there will never be anymore 3D content going forward...


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> I must say I am most disappointed. I was so looking forward to 4K 3D... it would really be like living in a holodeck! I have everything set up, ready to go, only to find out there will never be anymore 3D content going forward...


There will be, just like there is now, in 2K so it's still 0K. 

* But, where are they going to put Dolby Atmos, with 2K Blu-ray or the new 4K Blu-ray? ...Hope both.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Alright, I am learning more from you than from anyone else. ...And that is truly sad about 3D; it's a huge downer for me, a direct blow to my heart.


I would give up 3D to get Atmos on a Blu-Ray I have always enjoyed an immersive sound. 3D I have also enjoyed but eye fatigue would always set in, but I could enjoy Atmos and DSU 24/7...


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> With 3 pairs, you could spread them better?
> And what about phantom sources from 2 vs 3 pairs?
> Would not 3 pairs be able to pan better from front to rear?


Yes to all those - IF there is enough separation between the sets of speakers in a typical room. Would you put speakers between your left-center and right-center for example? They do in cinemas. But at home the room size makes it pointless. I agree with you, if the room is big enough, go for it. I just don't think there are many HTs of a size that would warrant it.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes to all those - IF there is enough separation between the sets of speakers in a typical room. Would you put speakers between your left-center and right-center for example? They do in cinemas. But at home the room size makes it pointless. I agree with you, if the room is big enough, go for it. I just don't think there are many HTs of a size that would warrant it.


I believe one pair (TM) would be sufficient and two pairs (e.g., TF/TR) ample--as Dolby currently recommends--in most cases (especially when complemented by a 7ch base w/SB), but three represents a potentially meaningful improvement IMHO, even in modest-sized rooms. Take a situation such as mine, where the front pair is at or under the low end of the recommended elevation angles for reasons of compatibility with other sound modes, room layout, aesthetics, etc.; there would appear to be an opportunity to enhance the overhead bubble continuity by means of inserting a third pair (e.g., FH/TM/RH). Then again, perhaps the future addition of speaker location mapping would effectively address this situation and obviate the third pair?

In the meantime, to quote the prophet: "Mo' speakers, mo' better!"


----------



## aaranddeeman

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe one pair (TM) would be sufficient and two pairs (e.g., TF/TR) ample--as Dolby currently recommends--in most cases (especially when complemented by a 7ch base w/SB), but three represents a potentially meaningful improvement IMHO, even in modest-sized rooms. Take a situation such as mine, where the front pair is at or under the low end of the recommended elevation angles for reasons of compatibility with other sound modes, room layout, aesthetics, etc.; there would appear to be an opportunity to enhance the overhead bubble continuity by means of inserting a third pair (e.g., FH/TM/RH). Then again, perhaps the future addition of speaker location mapping would effectively address this situation and obviate the third pair?
> 
> In the meantime, to quote the prophet: "Mo' speakers, mo' better!"


Yes. 3 pairs should be more than adequate and better for any average sized HT.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe one pair (TM) would be sufficient and two pairs (e.g., TF/TR) ample--as Dolby currently recommends--in most cases (especially when complemented by a 7ch base w/SB), but three represents a potentially meaningful improvement IMHO, even in modest-sized rooms. Take a situation such as mine, where the front pair is at or under the low end of the recommended elevation angles for reasons of compatibility with other sound modes, room layout, aesthetics, etc.; there would appear to be an opportunity to enhance the overhead bubble continuity by means of inserting a third pair (e.g., FH/TM/RH). Then again, perhaps the future addition of speaker location mapping would effectively address this situation and obviate the third pair?
> 
> In the meantime, to quote the prophet: "Mo' speakers, mo' better!"


I am open to persuasion but skeptical. More speakers will certainly fill any 'holes', but if the holes aren't there to begin with, I'm not so sure. If my room was bigger, and I had the option of 3 pairs, I'd do it just because I could. Whether I'd hear any real improvement is another issue though 

I assume that, if it were possible, people would also put speakers in between their left and center and right and center pair too? And they'd hear a similar improvement? Yet never once I have ever seen anyone clamoring for that.


----------



## htpcforever

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes to all those - IF there is enough separation between the sets of speakers in a typical room. Would you put speakers between your left-center and right-center for example? They do in cinemas. But at home the room size makes it pointless. I agree with you, if the room is big enough, go for it. I just don't think there are many HTs of a size that would warrant it.


How long of a room do you feel would benefit from three sets of ceiling speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

htpcforever said:


> How long of a room do you feel would benefit from three sets of ceiling speakers?


Longer than mine for sure! 

Seriously, I guess it would depend on which speaker config was being used. If someone is using FH+RH for example, then even a short room like mine would probably benefit from a TM set. (I guess that makes me a candidate after all - hadn’t considered moving from my FH+TM arrangement). But if someone is using TF+TR, depending on where, within the allowed range, they have mounted them, then I think they'd need a longer room than mine. It's hard to generalise. Maybe 15 feet and upwards?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Would you put speakers between your left-center and right-center for example? They do in cinemas. But at home the room size makes it pointless. I agree with you, if the room is big enough, go for it. I just don't think there are many HTs of a size that would warrant it.


I still don't see what the physical size of the room has to do with it. IF your front L/R speakers are at ±30° from centre, as Dolby recommends in the Atmos install guide, what would be the problem with placing a speaker at the middle of each 30° arc?


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> There will be, just like there is now, in 2K so it's still 0K.
> 
> * But, where are they going to put Dolby Atmos, with 2K Blu-ray or the new 4K Blu-ray? ...Hope both.


Atmos is going to be part of the Dolby sound format, so if the movie supports Atmos, it'll be in the Blu-Ray, 2K or 4K... according to Dolby, atmos is only going to take up about 20% more space so it's not a big deal. It's still a very minor part of the disk space consumption.

As for 3D.. here's my worry.. since the next generation media, ie, 4K blu ray will not support the format, I fear next generations tv or display devices manufacturers will also stop supporting it.. for instance, Vizio have stopped supporting 3D in ALL their new 4K tvs... other manufacturers may follow suit.. so, one thing will lead to another and this may be the very start of the killing off of 3D in the consumer market for a long time to come.


----------



## coolgeek

bargervais said:


> I would give up 3D to get Atmos on a Blu-Ray I have always enjoyed an immersive sound. 3D I have also enjoyed but eye fatigue would always set in, but I could enjoy Atmos and DSU 24/7...


Yup... some people just can't stand 3D.. I have some friends who will not be able to watch a full 3D movie even at the Imax...

As for me, I'll give up atmos anyday for 4K 3D... but this is not a 'if you have atmos you can't have 3d issue'... this is a totally killing off 3D once and for all...

For those with a huge screen, with a 4K projector, sit close enough to get a 'looking out a window' feel such as imax, then 3D is a pleasure to watch... on TVs, yeah, i get why ppl hate it...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I still don't see what the physical size of the room has to do with it. IF your front L/R speakers are at ±30° from centre, as Dolby recommends in the Atmos install guide, what would be the problem with placing a speaker at the middle of each 30° arc?


No problem - just not necessary. If the left speaker and the center speaker are 40 inches apart (speaker center to speaker center) - which is realistic in many smaller rooms, what value do you believe there'd be in putting another speaker between them? How significantly would it improve the sound, imaging, panning etc?

But my real point was that people now seem to be supporting the idea of an extra pair on the ceiling, in similar circumstances, yet never once I have ever read on AVS anyone wanting to add two more speakers in between their front LRC speakers. If there's a significant benefit overhead, there will surely be a similar benefit up front. Yet nobody has seen fit to demand it.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> Atmos is going to be part of the Dolby sound format, so if the movie supports Atmos, it'll be in the Blu-Ray, 2K or 4K... according to Dolby, atmos is only going to take up about 20% more space so it's not a big deal. It's still a very minor part of the disk space consumption.
> 
> As for 3D.. here's my worry.. since the next generation media, ie, 4K blu ray will not support the format, I fear next generations tv or display devices manufacturers will also stop supporting it.. for instance, Vizio have stopped supporting 3D in ALL their new 4K tvs... other manufacturers may follow suit.. so, one thing will lead to another and this may be the very start of the killing off of 3D in the consumer market for a long time to come.


Isn’t this always what happens with 3D? It comes along every now and then, some people are excited by it, most don't want it, then it disappears again, to surface years later. TV manufacturers needed something new to persuade people to buy new TVs. 3D happened to be there. It didn't achieve the desired result, and now they have 4K to persuade people with. And so it goes on...


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> Yup... some people just can't stand 3D.. I have some friends who will not be able to watch a full 3D movie even at the Imax...


That's me. After about 20-30 minutes it starts to kinda 'hurt my brain' and I feel compelled to revert to 2D. I have no idea why, but the feeling is so uncomfortable I feel the need to put an end to it. I have nothing at all against 3D in principle, and know that many do enjoy it. I find it quite exciting for the period until the discomfort sets in.


----------



## coolgeek

kbarnes701 said:


> That's me. After about 20-30 minutes it starts to kinda 'hurt my brain' and I feel compelled to revert to 2D. I have no idea why, but the feeling is so uncomfortable I feel the need to put an end to it. I have nothing at all against 3D in principle, and know that many do enjoy it. I find it quite exciting for the period until the discomfort sets in.


I tried to figure out why some ppl can watch 3D with no issue and why some have so much issue with it... Everyone who have issues with it have different types of issue... for example, one of my friend get's dizzy watching 3D... In fact, I read that the Occulus CEO is one of them... he gets virtigo... and he thinks everyone else would.. (funny how we see the world thru our own eyes)...

I have only found 1 particular reason so far.. (this does not apply to all)... i found that people with differing eyesight in each eye will have a lot of trouble with 3D.. for example, friends who have a little power/astiq in one eye for example.. or a higher power in one eye vs the other...


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> No problem - just not necessary. If the left speaker and the center speaker are 40 inches apart (speaker center to speaker center) - which is realistic in many smaller rooms, what value do you believe there'd be in putting another speaker between them? How significantly would it improve the sound, imaging, panning etc?
> 
> But my real point was that people now seem to be supporting the idea of an extra pair on the ceiling, in similar circumstances, yet never once I have ever read on AVS anyone wanting to add two more speakers in between their front LRC speakers. If there's a significant benefit overhead, there will surely be a similar benefit up front. Yet nobody has seen fit to demand it.


Following Dolby's guidelines, even the smallest possible gap between TF and TR still covers an arch of 70 degrees. How would you call that 'similar circumstances' when comparing a gap of only 30 degrees between L/R and C?


----------



## Al Sherwood

htpcforever said:


> How long of a room do you feel would benefit from three sets of ceiling speakers?


I would say (only a guess) but anything over let's say 20' might show a benefit to 3 overhead pairs.




In full disclosure, my room is 21' and I am provisioning for this!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn’t this always what happens with 3D? It comes along every now and then, some people are excited by it, most don't want it, then it disappears again, to surface years later. TV manufacturers needed something new to persuade people to buy new TVs. 3D happened to be there. It didn't achieve the desired result, and now they have 4K to persuade people with. And so it goes on...


It's sort of a new thing in regards to the market, 3D from this era looks a lot better than the 3D from older films. 
For the first time 1080p 3D is affordable for a much larger segment of the population (myself included)... I actually wouldn't be surprised to see more 3D content coming to Bluray. 
Faux holographic 3D might not be so far in the future, as well. I think 3D will continue to develop & perhaps a lot of the issues which nauseate viewers might start to go away. Glasses free 3D displays will help a great deal in that regard. 



coolgeek said:


> I must say I am most disappointed. I was so looking forward to 4K 3D... it would really be like living in a holodeck! I have everything set up, ready to go, only to find out there will never be anymore 3D content going forward...





NorthSky said:


> There will be, just like there is now, in 2K so it's still 0K.
> 
> * But, where are they going to put Dolby Atmos, with 2K Blu-ray or the new 4K Blu-ray? ...Hope both.


Keep in mind guys the 4k disc spec is still being worked out, though it looks like initially it will be a smaller disc size. For those of you who can afford large enough displays to take advantage of it, I feel bad for you (sort of... haha). But I'm thinking if HDMI is modified it could handle more data. All this 4k stuff is still premature, I wouldn't expect anything concrete for a few years. It took Bluray a few years to really get going, and the hurdles facing 4k are much larger... I mean just the color spec alone is a huge change. 

I'm obviously not an expert, but I think it's a fair assumption that the 4k disc spec will change over time... I think when people really get a chance to see material that's mastered with HDR & in 4k 3D the disc association might want to make revisions (assuming discs are still a viable medium in a few years). Keep in mind, Avatar 2 & Star Wars 7 are on the way... *BIG* game changers. Well anyhow... I sat out for the initial 4k round... I ended up getting a Plasma in fall of '14. This will probably be my display until 2020... all the tech I care about won't be worked out & affordable until then anyhow. Atmos was the only thing in my grasp... so I settled on that... hopefully DTS:X will allow for some Atmos blurays to hit the market. If The force awakens comes out in dolby Atmos I will be delirious with joy, though I'm expecting it to be a DTS disc since Lucasfilm released all their recent films in DTS.


----------



## thestoneman

Chris Dotur said:


> Here's what the Atmos installation guide says:
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...tmos-Home-Theater-Installation-Guidelines.pdf


Welp...looks like I did the opposite. Will have to make the adjustment.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I am open to persuasion but skeptical. More speakers will certainly fill any 'holes', but if the holes aren't there to begin with, I'm not so sure.


But clearly we ARE talking about "filling holes"--otherwise it's just an exercise in excess.



kbarnes701 said:


> If my room was bigger, and I had the option of 3 pairs, I'd do it just because I could.


Apparently we are quibbling over arcane minutiae in that case, because you and I are evidently of one mind on this score!



kbarnes701 said:


> Whether I'd hear any real improvement is another issue though


Well, that's the crux of the issue: Will the (as of today largely hypothetical) addition of a third pair in a modest-sized room make an audible improvement to the overhead coverage, or even just the overall effect in a more general sense? I suppose it's going to be an academic question to this point since no one is likely to have a true x.x.6 Atmos-capable system installed in any HT that could qualify as modest. Academically speaking, I think it is reasonable to expect a noticeable improvement as the result of upping the ante from two to three well-spaced overhead arrays. 



kbarnes701 said:


> I assume that, if it were possible, people would also put speakers in between their left and center and right and center pair too? And they'd hear a similar improvement? Yet never once I have ever seen anyone clamoring for that.


I fail to see the analogy. I'm not as adept at speaker technology as you, but I do not perceive any functional lacunae in the space of my L/C/R front. Here is where "extrapolation" (in the larger sense) in the role of FW can serve a purpose IMHO, as opposed to the "interpolation" we are discussing up top. And just in terms of linear distances, I suspect my case is not atypical where there is far more space to be covered from front to rear of the room than from FL speaker to FR speaker.



kbarnes701 said:


> Longer than mine for sure!


That's what he said.



kbarnes701 said:


> If someone is using FH+RH for example, then even a short room like mine would probably benefit from a TM set. (I guess that makes me a candidate after all - hadn’t considered moving from my FH+TM arrangement). But if someone is using TF+TR, depending on where, within the allowed range, they have mounted them, then I think they'd need a longer room than mine. It's hard to generalise. Maybe 15 feet and upwards?


I think it also depends in part on the speakers one is using, if only from the point of view of aesthetics. You have those big honkin' Tannoy Di5's; imagine someone with the even larger Di6's or Di8's trying to put three rows on a shortish ceiling: Maybe they could skip drywall and just line the ceiling with speakers! But smaller satellites or in-ceilings would be less problematic.



kbarnes701 said:


> But my real point was that people now seem to be supporting the idea of an extra pair on the ceiling, in similar circumstances, yet never once I have ever read on AVS anyone wanting to add two more speakers in between their front LRC speakers. If there's a significant benefit overhead, there will surely be a similar benefit up front. Yet nobody has seen fit to demand it.


Again, the linear distances are not comparable as far as I can judge.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> I tried to figure out why some ppl can watch 3D with no issue and why some have so much issue with it... Everyone who have issues with it have different types of issue... for example, one of my friend get's dizzy watching 3D... In fact, I read that the Occulus CEO is one of them... he gets virtigo... and he thinks everyone else would.. (funny how we see the world thru our own eyes)...
> 
> I have only found 1 particular reason so far.. (this does not apply to all)... i found that people with differing eyesight in each eye will have a lot of trouble with 3D.. for example, friends who have a little power/astiq in one eye for example.. or a higher power in one eye vs the other...


I have better than 20/20 vision in both eyes and they are also evenly matched, so it isn't that with me. It's more of a physio-pyschological effect I think. 3D works by 'tricking' the brain that objects which actually exist in a 2 dimensional plane (the screen) are actually in a 3 dimensional space and I suspect that some brains are more easily tricked than others. The ones which resist the trickery get fatigued quite quickly from the effort involved. Just a theory though.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Following Dolby's guidelines, even the smallest possible gap between TF and TR still covers an arch of 70 degrees. How would you call that 'similar circumstances' when comparing a gap of only 30 degrees between L/R and C?


Because if the speakers end up being 18 inches apart, I can't see the point. The smaller the room, the closer the speakers end up to each other.


----------



## BigScreen

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe one pair (TM) would be sufficient and two pairs (e.g., TF/TR) ample--as Dolby currently recommends--in most cases (especially when complemented by a 7ch base w/SB), but three represents a potentially meaningful improvement IMHO, even in modest-sized rooms. Take a situation such as mine, where the front pair is at or under the low end of the recommended elevation angles for reasons of compatibility with other sound modes, room layout, aesthetics, etc.; there would appear to be an opportunity to enhance the overhead bubble continuity by means of inserting a third pair (e.g., FH/TM/RH). Then again, perhaps the future addition of speaker location mapping would effectively address this situation and obviate the third pair?
> 
> In the meantime, to quote the prophet: "Mo' speakers, mo' better!"


This would be an easy question to answer if there were test signals in Dolby Atmos. A simple set of front-to-back, back-to-front, and side-to-side pans of a particular frequency or sound pattern would provide evidence of whether there were "holes" in overhead coverage. Instead, we're left guessing.

What's the possibility that we could get such a test signal made, FilmMixer?


----------



## coolgeek

kbarnes701 said:


> Because if the speakers end up being 18 inches apart, I can't see the point. The smaller the room, the closer the speakers end up to each other.





BigScreen said:


> This would be an easy question to answer if there were test signals in Dolby Atmos. A simple set of front-to-back, back-to-front, and side-to-side pans of a particular frequency or sound pattern would provide evidence of whether there were "holes" in overhead coverage. Instead, we're left guessing.
> 
> What's the possibility that we could get such a test signal made, FilmMixer?


Actually speakers being too close together may not be a good thing at all.. we're talking about issues with lobing, cancellations, interference, etc.

I currently have a 7.1 setup, and the surround speakers are perhaps 6-7 feet apart. When you have tuned the 'distance' to listener carefully, the processor will do its job well.. sort if you have a stereo only music speakers.. panning left to right will be perfect... and if your speakers all have similar timbre and matching efficiency... 

I put in Gravity, and at the beginning when the astronaut was turning around and around while talking, his voice was seamless... going around me... Sometimes more isn't always better.... and there are a lot of 'speaker technical design' issues that are involved. I don't know the exact technical terms but understand what some of the issues are...


----------



## lujan

kbarnes701 said:


> That's me. After about 20-30 minutes it starts to kinda 'hurt my brain' and I feel compelled to revert to 2D. I have no idea why, but the feeling is so uncomfortable I feel the need to put an end to it. I have nothing at all against 3D in principle, and know that many do enjoy it. I find it quite exciting for the period until the discomfort sets in.


I like 3D for the most part but for the last two 3D available movies I've selected the 2D version because the 3D version is so dark. I've watched the 2D version of Godzilla and Guardians of the Galaxy in 2D because the 3D version is so dark.


----------



## coolgeek

lujan said:


> I like 3D for the most part but for the last two 3D available movies I've selected the 2D version because the 3D version is so dark. I've watched the 2D version of Godzilla and Guardians of the Galaxy in 2D because the 3D version is so dark.


What projector do you have and screen size/type?

I find the Sony 4K projector to have so much light that all the 3D movies I have seen so far are great (in fact, far brighter than the Imax).

As for Godzilla, I am afraid the blu-ray copy was terrible in the dark scenes. It was bordering on the unwatchable. The sound mix was fantastic though.. one of the best.


----------



## chi_guy50

BigScreen said:


> This would be an easy question to answer if there were test signals in Dolby Atmos. A simple set of front-to-back, back-to-front, and side-to-side pans of a particular frequency or sound pattern would provide evidence of whether there were "holes" in overhead coverage. Instead, we're left guessing.
> 
> What's the possibility that we could get such a test signal made, FilmMixer?


It's been reported that there is a new Dolby Atmos demo disk forthcoming, but I don't whether it will offer test signals--that's probably too much to hope for.

And, AFAIK, Dolby hasn't offered any guidelines for three or more overhead arrays in an HT application (although I would think something of this nature will be available whenever CEM's launch x.x.6-capable mainstream AVR/SSP's); that would give us the basis for planning at any rate. Still, there's no substitute for in situ experimentation to determine actual results in our specific rooms.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> It's been reported that there is a new Dolby Atmos demo disk forthcoming, but I don't whether it will offer test signals--that's probably too much to hope for.
> 
> And, AFAIK, Dolby hasn't offered any guidelines for three or more overhead arrays in an HT application (although I would think something of this nature will be available whenever CEM's launch x.x.6-capable mainstream AVR/SSP's); that would give us the basis for planning at any rate. Still, there's no substitute for in situ experimentation to determine actual results in our specific rooms.


I did pick up Mockingjay on Bluray... it's the only film that I saw in the theater which I have @ home on disc. That was actually a great way to test it, because I remember how cool it sounded when that dropship took off after dropping off (Katniss?). 

To my disappointment my HT didn't replicate the sense of height that was conveyed at the theater... that dropship really sounded like it was flying off far into the sky, very high, I remember being really wow'd by that @ the theater. @ home it sounded more like it was flying off *kind of* high but, not as drastic. I'm not sure if perhaps that could be due to film remastering or if it's more to due with the acoustical limitations of my space/ setup? (My ceilings are only 8' high).

All that being said though I don't regret the decision of going Atmos/ DSU, the HT sounds great nonetheless, a lot better than when I upgraded.


----------



## Steve Goff

kbarnes701 said:


> More sophisticated than all-channel stereo, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you interpret this then, in the context of his post: _"Part of the height information crosses channels..."_? If he didn't mean it was being steered, then I apologise to him.
> 
> If he didn't mean there is steering, what did he mean?



Roger may have suggested that each height channel sounds like it has both information from the channel below it and information from the other channels (the latter delayed and manipulated).


----------



## Steve Goff

Roger Dressler said:


> They make a claim about HRTF related processing, and that may indeed be in there. It's just frequency shaping, and it can be very mild.
> 
> Yes. And Auro is also better because is does not commit such heavy-handed processing as in the Yamaha DSPs. Tough it should be said that was their default modes, probably to make their effect obvious. They always allowed users to reduce the effect, but maybe few of us explored those adjustments.



I once used a Yamaha processor with front height speakers and their hall dsp modes. Properly dialed in they were not that bad.


----------



## wse

Great instruction videos https://www.youtube.com/user/AcousticFields/videos


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Longer than mine for sure!
> 
> Seriously, I guess it would depend on which speaker config was being used. If someone is using FH+RH for example, then even a short room like mine would probably benefit from a TM set. (I guess that makes me a candidate after all - hadn’t considered moving from my FH+TM arrangement). But if someone is using TF+TR, depending on where, within the allowed range, they have mounted them, then I think they'd need a longer room than mine. It's hard to generalise. Maybe 15 feet and upwards?



If you didn't sit up against the rear wall then it would make plenty of sense to have six overheads. Anyone with a full 7.1 system would benefit and could manage a full six channel overhead array.

Likewise if you can't accommodate a rear surround field then I wouldn't worry about recreating a rear height surround field.

In your case, Keith and for many others 5.1.4 would be ideal but if you can work a full 7.1 system then you can work in a full 7.1.6 system.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If the left speaker and the center speaker are 40 inches apart (speaker center to speaker center) - which is realistic in many smaller rooms, what value do you believe there'd be in putting another speaker between them?


The value is in stabilizing phantom imaging between the speakers. If I had a pair of speakers spread 40 inches apart on my desk top, I would place a centre speaker between them. If I was sitting 10 feet away, then it wouldn't be helpful to put a speaker between. The physical distance apart isn't the determinant, the angle of separation is. 

I can be in a phone booth with a speaker in front of me and speakers on the left & right walls. They might be a foot or two apart in physical distance, but they would have 90 degrees of angular separation between them, making left vs right vs front directionality absolutely clear.


> But my real point was that people now seem to be supporting the idea of an extra pair on the ceiling, in similar circumstances, yet never once I have ever read on AVS anyone wanting to add two more speakers in between their front LRC speakers. If there's a significant benefit overhead, there will surely be a similar benefit up front. Yet nobody has seen fit to demand it.


Never once had I ever read on AVS anyone wanting object based audio soundtracks for movies. But here it is. Again, the reason for an additional pair of height speakers won't be physical distance apart (or AVS member demand) but angular separation. 

If your front and rear heights are both at 30 degrees elevation (within Atmos spec), then there is a 120-degree gap between them where you'll be relying on phantom imaging above you. A pair of height speakers at the middle of that 120-degree arc will help stabilize overhead imaging, especially when there is more than one listener. 

If you follow consumer Atmos guidelines, with your front and surround speakers around ear level, then there is a 180-degree overhead arc from front to back that needs to be covered. You might feel that only 2 locations (2 pairs of height speakers) are needed to describe that entire 180-degree arc, but I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to want 3 points on that arc (3 pairs of heights) for greater imaging stability.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Great instruction videos https://www.youtube.com/user/AcousticFields/videos


thanks


----------



## aaranddeeman

wse said:


> Great instruction videos https://www.youtube.com/user/AcousticFields/videos


Thanks.
In the first video he said, any room less than 1500 cuFt is good for nothing. And I stopped there..


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> If you didn't sit up against the rear wall then it would make plenty of sense to have six overheads. Anyone with a full 7.1 system would benefit and could manage a full six channel overhead array.
> 
> Likewise if you can't accommodate a rear surround field then I wouldn't worry about recreating a rear height surround field.
> 
> In your case, Keith and for many others 5.1.4 would be ideal but if you can work a full 7.1 system then you can work in a full 7.1.6 system.


I think that's what I said originally - in a small room like mine, I’d hear no benefit. In a bigger room, sure.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The value is in stabilizing phantom imaging between the speakers. If I had a pair of speakers spread 40 inches apart on my desk top, I would place a centre speaker between them. If I was sitting 10 feet away, then it wouldn't be helpful to put a speaker between. The physical distance apart isn't the determinant, the angle of separation is.
> 
> I can be in a phone booth with a speaker in front of me and speakers on the left & right walls. They might be a foot or two apart in physical distance, but they would have 90 degrees of angular separation between them, making left vs right vs front directionality absolutely clear. Never once had I ever read on AVS anyone wanting object based audio soundtracks for movies. But here it is. Again, the reason for an additional pair of height speakers won't be physical distance apart (or AVS member demand) but angular separation.
> 
> If your front and rear heights are both at 30 degrees elevation (within Atmos spec), then there is a 120-degree gap between them where you'll be relying on phantom imaging above you. A pair of height speakers at the middle of that 120-degree arc will help stabilize overhead imaging, especially when there is more than one listener.
> 
> If you follow consumer Atmos guidelines, with your front and surround speakers around ear level, then there is a 180-degree overhead arc from front to back that needs to be covered. You might feel that only 2 locations (2 pairs of height speakers) are needed to describe that entire 180-degree arc, but I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to want 3 points on that arc (3 pairs of heights) for greater imaging stability.


I agree with all your reasoning. But the fact remains that in my room if I put the front speakers at 30° they'd be on the front wall. That is because the room is small and the size dictates where I sit. I can’t see how that can be ignored. Similarly, if I put my rear overheads at 30° they'd be in the yard! The room size dictates where in the range of permitted angles I actually mount my speakers. In my case, with the front pair at 42° and the rear pair at 80° (both within spec), the space between them is fairly small and I doubt that an additional pair of speakers between them would be worthwhile. For people with longer rooms, absolutely.

One possibility that 3 pairs of speakers would open up here is using FH+FR with an additional pair in between. But still, TBH, in a room less than 11 feet long, I doubt it would be all that worthwhile. I just don't see how the room size can be dismissed as a factor, regardless of the validity of the angles argument (which latter I accept).


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks.
> In the first video he said, any room less than 1500 cuFt is good for nothing. And I stopped there..


Gee. I’d have stopped there too. My room is smaller than that by a good margin, and I think it sounds pretty darn good. So does everyone who has been in it. A small room might be harder to get right, but it isn't impossible by any means. Small rooms have their own set of issues and mostly it seems they can all be dealt with, with enough attention, effort, work and, often, cash. Would I like a bigger room? Of course I would. But in AV, as in life, we have to play the cards we are dealt to the best of our ability.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Because if the speakers end up being 18 inches apart, I can't see the point. The smaller the room, the closer the speakers end up to each other.


Agreed. But height speakers in a TF+TM+TR combination will never end up being only 18 inches apart, unless you have a very low ceiling that puts them only 2 feet above ear level. With a normal 8 foot ceiling the smallest inter-speaker distance will be about 3 feet, which for most - if not all - domestic speakers is not a problem at all. And BTW, all this has nothing to do with the length or width of the room.

_Edit: In other words, if your 8 foot high room allows squeezing in TF+TR (dependent on the length of your room), adding TM speakers will always be a reasonable and viable option for optimizing overhead coverage (INDEPENDENT of the length of your room)._


----------



## lujan

coolgeek said:


> What projector do you have and screen size/type?
> 
> I find the Sony 4K projector to have so much light that all the 3D movies I have seen so far are great (in fact, far brighter than the Imax).
> 
> As for Godzilla, I am afraid the blu-ray copy was terrible in the dark scenes. It was bordering on the unwatchable. The sound mix was fantastic though.. one of the best.


92" Mitsubishi DLP using the Disney WOW disc for calibration.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> It's been reported that there is a new Dolby Atmos demo disk forthcoming


Hopefully someone here gets it and we can get a torrent going for it.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> 92" Mitsubishi DLP using the Disney WOW disc for calibration.


Learned something new i thought they stopped making DLP maybe your bulb needs changing if thing are too dark in 3D. just my $.02


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think that's what I said originally - in a small room like mine, I’d hear no benefit. In a bigger room, sure.


Scott was talking about seating location, not room size. Even in your 10.5-foot long room, sitting closer to the middle of room length would allow you to localize height information forward of you, directly overhead and rearward of you. The physical size of your room isn't preventing you from making use of 3 height pairs, your seating placement (near the back wall) is.


kbarnes701 said:


> That is because the room is small and the size dictates where I sit.


No, only you determine where you sit. Everything else, including screen size, is dictated by your seating location. Every placement recommendation in the consumer Atmos install guide is keyed off listener location, not room size. My first 7.1 set-up was in a spare bedroom barely longer than your HT room, but I didn't sit as close as you do to the back wall, so I ended up with good rear-vs-side separation in the surround field.


> Similarly, if I put my rear overheads at 30° they'd be in the yard!


No, they'd be on your back wall, 30 degrees above ear height.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I think that's what I said originally - in a small room like mine, I’d hear no benefit. In a bigger room, sure.


I think is what you said originally. I'm not sure but I can't let you and Sanjay hog all the action!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Because if the speakers end up being 18 inches apart, I can't see the point. The smaller the room, the closer the speakers end up to each other.


I agree with that definitely, my room is small and tried to follow the Dolby guidelines for placing my Rear speakers closer together. When I followed Dolby's spec for the scale of my room, I could no longer identify which direction the sound of the speaker was coming from (in terms of Left Vs. Right). My rear speakers are about 28" apart while my fronts are 5' apart. But 28" is enough for me to make out from which direction the sound is coming. I really wish my room were just a couple feet wider!


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> I think is what you said originally. I'm not sure but I can't let you and Sanjay hog all the action!


And then there's the argument I believe you made a long time ago regarding the disparity of having only two to four speakers up top versus seven or nine at listener level. Although you may have meant it at least partly tongue in cheek, it does seem logical that--assuming you feel there is a valid call for all seven or nine base channels--closing that disparity would achieve desirable results


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> And then there's the argument I believe you made a long time ago regarding the disparity of having only two to four speakers up top versus seven or nine at listener level. Although you may have meant it at least partly tongue in cheek, it does seem logical that--assuming you feel there is a valid call for all seven or nine base channels--closing that disparity would achieve desirable results


Only slightly. 

The fact is that 7.1 standard sound pretty damn good! So not having two, four or six speakers overhead certainly isn't the end of the world or yield insufficient sounding audio. Far from it. 

But... to get that 'bubble of sound' we need to best create a ...bubble of sound reproduction. We gotta cover the front, side and rear. Likewise do this above us. _"Her derrr why not below us too, Scott!?"_ Yeah, well... I guess we could be that's not too practical.  

So anyway... we can get to _that_ later down the road. We're already working on height speakers so let's concentrate on that and get it right.... and then worry about floor surround. 

You're right. I'd prefer to close in all the gaps created by the technology available. At the current time, this is the space above us. The new standard is something like 7.1.4 and really it's a good sweet spot. I just don't like the huge gap with no speaker coverage directly above my head in a front/rear height/overhead system. Just as I would in a conventional 5.1 system. Get that side wall imaging there. Now treat the ceiling as such. 

Boom! 

Bubble of sound achieved. 

Receive cookie.


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> Atmos is going to be part of the Dolby sound format, so if the movie supports Atmos, it'll be in the Blu-Ray, 2K or 4K... according to Dolby, atmos is only going to take up about 20% more space so it's not a big deal. It's still a very minor part of the disk space consumption.
> 
> As for 3D.. here's my worry.. since the next generation media, ie, 4K blu ray will not support the format, I fear next generations tv or display devices manufacturers will also stop supporting it.. for instance, Vizio have stopped supporting 3D in ALL their new 4K tvs... other manufacturers may follow suit.. so, one thing will lead to another and this may be the very start of the killing off of 3D in the consumer market for a long time to come.


I'm afraid. With Disney studios not supporting 3D PIXAR animation and 3D fantasy flicks no more here in North America, new UHDTVs without 3D capability, talks of the new 4K Blu-ray format not supporting 3D, with 3D elevated sound taking precedence nowadays (Dolby Atmos and his two other 3D sound partners), ...it already smells strange when you look @ *'Gravity'* on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos coming up March 31st, but without 3D picture, James Cameron with *'Avatar 2, 3 & 4'* coming up the pipeline in 3D and most likely in 4K separate from the 2K/3D BR discs, Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuaron, Steven Spielberg, other cinema directors looking @ their own home entertainment movie rooms, I wonder what they think of all of this Atmos 3D sound and 4K pictures without 3D video. ...These guys are the ones who we're following, what they have to say is highly valuable for the future of the movie industry and the best developments in sound and in picture quality and immersion. ...OLED, UHD, 4K, 3D, Atmos, Auro, DTS, and all.

Because after all, we want it all. ...I do. ...I'm not immortal. ...Are you. 

Hold on tight, 'Gravity' is comin'; in Dolby Atmos _"resplendissant''_ immersing 3-Dimensional surround sound-proof, 
and in 2D flat dimensionless picture. 

♦ Is 3D sound the new 3D picture murderer?
Is Dolby Atmos 3D sound going to fly above ground?

*What's up in the sky's future?*


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Learned something new i thought they stopped making DLP maybe your bulb needs changing if thing are too dark in 3D. just my $.02


Yes they did, I bought it in 2012. I don't think I have enough hours yet to need a bulb and it's only during 3D movies where it's dark and not all the time.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all i have posted some pics of my room setup as it is at the minute running a 5.1.2 top middle setup, i am awaiting delivery of a further pair of speakers (tomorrow i hope) to expand my setup to a 5.1.4, as you can see from the pics my room is slightly challenging with my front speakers/tv in an alcove and my mlp also in an alcove, i use a marantz sr7009 receiver that allows front height speakers in an atmos setup my query is whether it would be best to keep my mlp where it is with top middle speakers and then place my second pair of speakers as top height speakers on the outer wall of the alcove ? Or would i gain a much better effect by moving my mlp/sofa out of the alcove and use the existing top middle speakers as top rear and the new speakers i am mounting at front as top front speakers ? Any tips on what would work best would be very much apreciated, and if any of my existing speaker placements would work better positioned elsewhere to get the best from an atmos setup ? Thankyou


----------



## pasender91

Hi Zebidou,

I think the starting point is to move the sofa forward in any case, this will certainly help regarding acoustics.
And then go with a FH+TR config as you described.
Another benefit is that you could also shift your surrounds forward as well to keep them at the same level as the sofa, and put them further away on the sides...


----------



## zebidou81

pasender91 said:


> Hi Zebidou,
> 
> I think the starting point is to move the sofa forward in any case, this will certainly help regarding acoustics.
> And then go with a FH+TR config as you described.
> Another benefit is that you could also shift your surrounds forward as well to keep them at the same level as the sofa, and put them further away on the sides...


Could you tell me which is best FH+TR or FH+TM and why ? Yes i could move the surrounds if i bought some stands to mount them on that would work, i am not sure what i would gain by doing so ?


----------



## pasender91

The consensus is that FH+TM and FH+TR are pretty similar, even if FH+TR ought to be slightly better due to an optimal angular separation.

Regarding the sofa position, experts will be able to confirm, but it is clearly a bad acoustic solution to have it against the back wall, its a position where you will get a lot of standing waves and be in an acoustic node, basically getting "bad vibes" 
The ideal position is 2/3 of the length of the room, in order to avoid the most powerful resonances.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I would give up 3D to get Atmos on a Blu-Ray I have always enjoyed an immersive sound. 3D I have also enjoyed but eye fatigue would always set in, but I could enjoy Atmos and DSU 24/7...


Totally understandable. 

Long live the King!


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Hi Zebidou,
> 
> I think the starting point is to move the sofa forward in any case, this will certainly help regarding acoustics.
> And then go with a FH+TR config as you described.
> Another benefit is that you could also shift your surrounds forward as well to keep them at the same level as the sofa, and put them further away on the sides...





pasender91 said:


> The consensus is that FH+TM and FH+TR are pretty similar, even if FH+TR ought to be slightly better due to an optimal angular separation.
> 
> Regarding the sofa position, experts will be able to confirm, but it is clearly a bad acoustic solution to have it against the back wall, its a position where you will get a lot of standing waves and be in an acoustic node, basically getting "bad vibes"
> The ideal position is 2/3 of the length of the room, in order to avoid the most powerful resonances.


I concur. ...For best sound immersion without the nefarious side effects from the enclave space of your couch in that bay window area.

- Also, tilt down your front L & R speakers towards the MLP; by putting small rubber feet under their back bases. 
- And tilt up the center channel speaker. 
- Move the couch forward few feet.
- Position your two surrounds ideally.
- Lower your flat panel TV, if not too much trouble.
- And follow the Dolby Atmos Guidelines: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
{Look @ the corresponding setup approaching yours the most; with the overhead speakers positioning. ...Page 18, and/or 22 perhaps.}


----------



## SoundChex

Recall that *DTS:X* and *Dolby AC-4* (_"low-bitrate sibling"_ to home *Dolby Atmos*) are both _candidate technologies|codecs_ for the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* and are likely optimized to meet the competition speaker configurations...?!

An article for the *ATSC org* _March 2015 Newsletter_, "*ATSC 3.0 Audio System tests will be world’s first to evaluate immersive sound for a broadcast television standard*" (_link_), details the various speaker configurations which will be used to compare the three *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* _candidate technologies|codecs_: 



> These formats include 2.0 (stereo), 5.1 (surround), and three immersive audio (or “3D audio”) formats.





> The ATSC 3.0 Audio System tests will be the first to evaluate any type of immersive sound for a broadcast television standard. Test materials were selected for three Immersive Audio formats:
> 
> 7.1+4 channels – a 7.1 surround system with 4 height channels added in a square above the listener,
> 
> 22.2 channels – the three-dimensional surround format pioneered by NHK as part of its Super Hi-Vision system, and
> 
> High-Order Ambisonics (HOA) – a “scene-based” format that’s independent of channels and can be rendered and optimally mapped into whatever reproduction channels are available to the listener. (HOA will be tested by ATSC as rendered to 22.2 channels.)




The following *7.1+4* speaker layout image is taken from the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System* requirements (_link_):












Front Height speaker pair: Azimuth ±45° (±5°) 
Rear Height speaker pair: Azimuth ±135° (±5°)
All Front|Rear Height speakers: Elevation +35° (±10°)



_


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> I'm afraid. With Disney studios not supporting 3D PIXAR animation and 3D fantasy flicks no more here in North America, new UHDTVs without 3D capability, talks of the new 4K Blu-ray format not supporting 3D, with 3D elevated sound taking precedence nowadays (Dolby Atmos and his two other 3D sound partners), ...it already smells strange when you look @ *'Gravity'* on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos coming up March 31st, but without 3D picture, James Cameron with *'Avatar 2, 3 & 4'* coming up the pipeline in 3D and most likely in 4K separate from the 2K/3D BR discs, Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuaron, Steven Spielberg, other cinema directors looking @ their own home entertainment movie rooms, I wonder what they think of all of this Atmos 3D sound and 4K pictures without 3D video. ...These guys are the ones who we're following, what they have to say is highly valuable for the future of the movie industry and the best developments in sound and in picture quality and immersion. ...OLED, UHD, 4K, 3D, Atmos, Auro, DTS, and all.
> 
> Because after all, we want it all. ...I do. ...I'm not immortal. ...Are you.
> 
> Hold on tight, 'Gravity' is comin'; in Dolby Atmos _"resplendissant''_ immersing 3-Dimensional surround sound-proof,
> and in 2D flat dimensionless picture.
> 
> ♦ Is 3D sound the new 3D picture murderer?
> Is Dolby Atmos 3D sound going to fly above ground?
> 
> *What's up in the sky's future?*


Sad, but true.. it is looking more and more like 3D is truly dead in the water going forward. Once the hardware manufacturers stop supporting it, and even the next generation format doesn't support it, the writing's on the wall... 

I believe this is due to the lack of 3D movie sales in the past.... Unfortunately, 3D is a new format, and tvs haven't got to the point where watching 3D is a pleasure such as watching it on the projector (like the sony 4K)... but now that tvs are getting bigger and better, they decide to kill 3D.. just when the display devices of the home is getting caught up with properly displaying 3d... I can see why most people don't care about 3D on their tiny tvs... i don't either... but for those of us with a proper home theater with nice projectors, that sucks!!!


----------



## NorthSky

If more people would be buying 3D front projectors, 3D Blu-ray movies, 3D Blu-ray players, 3D plasma flat panel HDTVs (3D LED, OLED, 3D UHD TVs, ...), 3D AVRs, 3D SSPs, ... this world would be a much better 3D place to be. ...But we still have 3D Dolby.

...John Wick.


----------



## audioguy

I was around for the first round of 3D in the 50's and as soon as it came again, I predicted its demise - and for the same reason it failed the first time. For most folks, too gimmicky and those miserable glasses (uncomfortable, eye strain, headaches, etc).

I saw almost all of the original 3D movies but even though I have a 3D capable projector that throws a very bright picture (Sony 600ES), I have watched zero since the 50's (and many of the Bluray sets I purchase have a 3D copy in them).

Why? See above. 

Just sayin'


----------



## lovingdvd

kbarnes701 said:


> No problem - just not necessary. If the left speaker and the center speaker are 40 inches apart (speaker center to speaker center) - which is realistic in many smaller rooms, what value do you believe there'd be in putting another speaker between them? How significantly would it improve the sound, imaging, panning etc?...


How much separation across the from LCR is considered "enough"? See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...ough-speaker-separation-my-fronts-movies.html .


----------



## lovingdvd

coolgeek said:


> Sad, but true.. it is looking more and more like 3D is truly dead in the water going forward. Once the hardware manufacturers stop supporting it, and even the next generation format doesn't support it, the writing's on the wall...
> 
> I believe this is due to the lack of 3D movie sales in the past.... Unfortunately, 3D is a new format, and tvs haven't got to the point where watching 3D is a pleasure such as watching it on the projector (like the sony 4K)... but now that tvs are getting bigger and better, they decide to kill 3D.. just when the display devices of the home is getting caught up with properly displaying 3d... I can see why most people don't care about 3D on their tiny tvs... i don't either... but for those of us with a proper home theater with nice projectors, that sucks!!!


I was really disappointed to see video games drop the little momentum they had in 3D gaming going into these next-gen consoles. A great example is Killzone 3. It has excellent 3D that made the game very enjoyable and the 3D aiming adding a whole other level of dimension to playing (pardon the pun). Then Killzone 4 comes out on the PS4 and no 3D support at all. Same for some other games like COD. And just at a time when the hardware was finally capable of doing 1080p60 frame packed 3D without lowering the graphics quality like in the previous gen consoles.


----------



## coolgeek

audioguy said:


> I was around for the first round of 3D in the 50's and as soon as it came again, I predicted its demise - and for the same reason it failed the first time. For most folks, too gimmicky and those miserable glasses (uncomfortable, eye strain, headaches, etc).
> 
> I saw almost all of the original 3D movies but even though I have a 3D capable projector that throws a very bright picture (Sony 600ES), I have watched zero since the 50's (and many of the Bluray sets I purchase have a 3D copy in them).
> 
> Why? See above.
> 
> Just sayin'


I totally agree.. for 99.9% of the population, who doesn't have the right equipment (for example a nice 4K projector like the Sony 500ES) and a dedicated room, watching 3D on tv just isn't all that it's cracked up to be. 

For the


----------



## RapalloAV

What are the smallest *(best quality)* speakers that one could use for atmos ceiling mounted?
Small (tiny) so they are not very obvious.


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> What are the smallest *(best quality)* speakers that one could use for atmos ceiling mounted?
> Small (tiny) so they are not very obvious.


Genelec makes some of the best studio monitors in the world.


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> Genelec makes some of the best studio monitors in the world.




I just looked at their website but it looks like all there speakers are powered, one wouldn't want that would you for atmos?


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> I just looked at their website but it looks like all there speakers are powered, one wouldn't want that would you for atmos?


No. You didn't find any non-powered ones? Then they are truly pro studio monitors. I didn't realize that they don't make some using speaker binding posts. 

If one can build a full 9.4.6 Dolby Atmos setup with all active speakers, that would be some' else. ...All XLR balanced.


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> No. You didn't find any non-powered ones? Then they are truly pro studio monitors. I didn't realize that they don't make some using speaker binding posts.
> 
> If one can build a full 9.4.6 Dolby Atmos setup with all active speakers, that would be some' else. ...All XLR balanced.



Whats the next best thing then that's small like these without being powered?


----------



## zebidou81

NorthSky said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Zebidou,
> 
> I think the starting point is to move the sofa forward in any case, this will certainly help regarding acoustics.
> And then go with a FH+TR config as you described.
> Another benefit is that you could also shift your surrounds forward as well to keep them at the same level as the sofa, and put them further away on the sides...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus is that FH+TM and FH+TR are pretty similar, even if FH+TR ought to be slightly better due to an optimal angular separation.
> 
> Regarding the sofa position, experts will be able to confirm, but it is clearly a bad acoustic solution to have it against the back wall, its a position where you will get a lot of standing waves and be in an acoustic node, basically getting "bad vibes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ideal position is 2/3 of the length of the room, in order to avoid the most powerful resonances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I concur. ...For best sound immersion without the nefarious side effects from the enclave space of your couch in that bay window area.
> 
> - Also, tilt down your front L & R speakers towards the MLP; by putting small rubber feet under their back bases.
> - And tilt up the center channel speaker.
> - Move the couch forward few feet.
> - Position your two surrounds ideally.
> - Lower your flat panel TV, if not too much trouble.
> - And follow the Dolby Atmos Guidelines: www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> {Look @ the corresponding setup approaching yours the most; with the overhead speakers positioning. ...Page 18, and/or 22 perhaps.}
Click to expand...

Ok thanks guys the options you have suggested are the options that i will take forward (apart from lower tv as i hardly use it prefer pj)i had considering some of them to, i use 2ps at the min to tilt front speakers forward but will use rubber feet for them and center to toe in, i will move sofa out to see the difference in sound, another option i was considering is i did have sattelite speakers (kef 6001) mounted either side of sofa on wall faceing each other at one point before i purchased the surrounds i have now, do you think it would work placeing 2 more speakers back on side wall as side surrounds and use surrounds where they are now as rear surrounds or would they be to close together ?


----------



## Roger Dressler

RapalloAV said:


> Whats the next best thing then that's small like these without being powered?


These might fit the bill. KEF E Series.


----------



## RapalloAV

Roger Dressler said:


> These might fit the bill. KEF E Series.


Don't know how one would ceiling mount those?


----------



## RapalloAV

Any thoughts on these for ceiling mount atmos, they are very small?
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-wyC4xaIiuno/p_779MINX21B/Cambridge-Audio-Minx-Min-21-Black.html


----------



## pasender91

Yes those are small.
They go down to 120 Hz while Dolby recommends speakers going down to 110 Hz.
So they are OUT of recommendation, but knowing what goes on top speakers, and assuming you have a subwoofer, then they should still be OK, barely ...


----------



## pasender91

zebidou81 said:


> Ok thanks guys the options you have suggested are the options that i will take forward (apart from lower tv as i hardly use it prefer pj)i had considering some of them to, i use 2ps at the min to tilt front speakers forward but will use rubber feet for them and center to toe in, i will move sofa out to see the difference in sound, another option i was considering is i did have sattelite speakers (kef 6001) mounted either side of sofa on wall faceing each other at one point before i purchased the surrounds i have now, do you think it would work placeing 2 more speakers back on side wall as side surrounds and use surrounds where they are now as rear surrounds or would they be to close together ?


Actually i thought of this as being a nice upgrade, but didn't want to suggest the extra spending 
With your sofa forward, then yes you can upgrade to 7 speakers at lower level, with back surrounds at your current surround location


----------



## RapalloAV

pasender91 said:


> Yes those are small.
> They go down to 120 Hz while Dolby recommends speakers going down to 110 Hz.
> So they are OUT of recommendation, but knowing what goes on top speakers, and assuming you have a subwoofer, then they should still be OK, barely ...



Actually I really don't think they are that good for the job knowing that they only go to 120Hz.


----------



## Bumper

coolgeek said:


> What projector do you have and screen size/type?
> 
> I find the Sony 4K projector to have so much light that all the 3D movies I have seen so far are great (in fact, far brighter than the Imax).
> 
> As for Godzilla, I am afraid the blu-ray copy was terrible in the dark scenes. It was bordering on the unwatchable. The sound mix was fantastic though.. one of the best.


For selecting 3D movies at home I use this site:
http://www.realorfake3d.com/

I find it to be spot on 99% of the times. Fake 3D movies are a much better view in 2D and Real 3D is very watchable in 3D.


----------



## kenoh89

No new 2015 receivers announced? Looking to buy a Atmos system with the full HDMI 2.0 spec with HDCP 2.2. I don't want to spend money on something that won't work with future 4k blu-ray titles!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> These might fit the bill. KEF E Series.


And if you don't mind the bill, you could go for something just a little bit bigger and twice as heavy: Dynaudio Countour SR (they come in white too), can elegantly be fixed to the ceiling with brackets from Axiom.


----------



## pletwals

RapalloAV said:


> I just looked at their website but it looks like all there speakers are powered, one wouldn't want that would you for atmos?


On the contrary, dear chap! I reckon something like Mackie HR624 would be perfect.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mackie-HR62...990?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5b0d2e96be


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> And if you don't mind the bill, you could go for something just a little bit bigger and twice as heavy: Dynaudio Countour SR (they come in white too), can elegantly be fixed to the ceiling with brackets from Axiom.


Wow, 2300 USD ceiling speakers, as you say it, "if you don't mind the bill" 
What is the advantage of this type of speaker compared to a good & compact & cheaper bookshelf like a B&W CM5 S2 or a Monitor Audio Gold GX50 ?


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Wow, 2300 USD ceiling speakers, as you say it, "if you don't mind the bill"
> What is the advantage of this type of speaker compared to a good & compact & cheaper bookshelf like a B&W CM5 S2 or a Monitor Audio Gold GX50 ?


If you do not want to compromise on sound quality, it's likely a safe bet. They have quite a reputation. I have not compared them to the alternatives you mention though.


----------



## zebidou81

pasender91 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok thanks guys the options you have suggested are the options that i will take forward (apart from lower tv as i hardly use it prefer pj)i had considering some of them to, i use 2ps at the min to tilt front speakers forward but will use rubber feet for them and center to toe in, i will move sofa out to see the difference in sound, another option i was considering is i did have sattelite speakers (kef 6001) mounted either side of sofa on wall faceing each other at one point before i purchased the surrounds i have now, do you think it would work placeing 2 more speakers back on side wall as side surrounds and use surrounds where they are now as rear surrounds or would they be to close together ?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually i thought of this as being a nice upgrade, but didn't want to suggest the extra spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With your sofa forward, then yes you can upgrade to 7 speakers at lower level, with back surrounds at your current surround location
Click to expand...

If i was to move the sofa forward would the side surrounds be in the right place if i was to mount on wall or just move the sofa out a few inches ?
I have some spare kef 3001se speakers now and just wonderd would these work as back surrounds and place my q100s as surround sides or go the other way round i would prefer to keep the q100s doing most of the surround work ?


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all i am about to install a second pair of atmos speakers as front heights, before i start drilling could i ask i know that they should be above left and right speakers but with regards to height would you position touching the ceiling or a few inches feet away from ceiling ? I also coul put each one in each corner of wall i just wonderd what people found was best ? I have reposted pic of front wall which they are to be mounted on if anyone could suggest best position ?


----------



## petetherock

RapalloAV said:


> Whats the next best thing then that's small like these without being powered?


Orbs or Anthony Gallo Micros?


----------



## pasender91

zebidou81 said:


> If i was to move the sofa forward would the side surrounds be in the right place if i was to mount on wall or just move the sofa out a few inches ?
> I have some spare kef 3001se speakers now and just wonderd would these work as back surrounds and place my q100s as surround sides or go the other way round i would prefer to keep the q100s doing most of the surround work ?


It indeed makes sense to keep the q100s doing most of the surround work, so move them to surround and place your Kef 3001 as back surround ...


----------



## aaranddeeman

RapalloAV said:


> Whats the next best thing then that's small like these without being powered?


Instead of "any" speaker, can you try to find those that can match (or close to) your surrounds (make and model). May be you should look into used market.
I have JBL Northridge E series in the "bed". I have mounted Northridge N series on ceiling (as it was easier). (I do have set of 4 exact clones of my surrounds (E10), but to mount them I have to do something creative, so they are on the backup right now).
I don't have ATMOS AVR yet. This is just the prep. And I got these additional speakers from local CL.


----------



## Kain

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Two more questions.
> 
> 1. All speakers "outside" or in addition to the standard/base 7.1 bed used only for objects, correct? DSU can use all speakers expect the front wides? Meaning it can use front heights, rear heights, etc. but not front wides?
> 
> 2. In my small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room, would it be worth it to have 6 ceiling speakers vs. 4 ceiling speakers?


Bump.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Kain said:


> Bump.


for #2 4 speakers should be good. (You don't have an AVR today that can handle more than 4 anyways). 6 might be overcrowded.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> All speakers "outside" or in addition to the standard/base 7.1 bed used only for objects, correct?


There are two overhead channels, so sounds above you can be delivered as objects or mixed into the height channels. Doesn't matter anyway; sound is sound.


> DSU can use all speakers expect the front wides? Meaning it can use front heights, rear heights, etc. but not front wides?


Correct.


> In my small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room, would it be worth it to have 6 ceiling speakers vs. 4 ceiling speakers?


Depends on seating location and whether consumer gear supports 6 overhead speakers any time soon.


----------



## Kain

aaranddeeman said:


> for #2 4 speakers should be good. (You don't have an AVR today that can handle more than 4 anyways). 6 might be overcrowded.





sdurani said:


> There are two overhead channels, so sounds above you can be delivered as objects or mixed into the height channels. Doesn't matter anyway; sound is sound. Correct. Depends on seating location and whether consumer gear supports 6 overhead speakers any time soon.


Thanks.

I am looking at the Trinnov Altitude32 as my processor for when I re-do my home theater from scratch. Supporting 6 ceiling speakers is not the problem but just wondering if it is worth it to have 6 vs. 4 ceiling speakers in my small room. Seating location will be roughly 3-4 feet from the back wall.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Kain said:


> 2. In my small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room, would it be worth it to have 6 ceiling speakers vs. 4 ceiling speakers?


The answer to this question is the same as coming from this one:

Does my room size and seating position allow installment of a TF+TR combination (following Dolby's guidelines)?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> And then there's the argument I believe you made a long time ago regarding the disparity of having only two to four speakers up top versus seven or nine at listener level. Although you may have meant it at least partly tongue in cheek, it does seem logical that--assuming you feel there is a valid call for all seven or nine base channels--closing that disparity would achieve desirable results


I've already achieved parity there - I have 5 speakers at ear level, one of which is the center speaker, which is unique of course as it is the only one that is just one, and 4 speakers on the ceiling. So that is 4+1, +4.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I am looking at the Trinnov Altitude32 as my processor for when I re-do my home theater from scratch. Supporting 6 ceiling speakers is not the problem but just wondering if it is worth it to have 6 vs. 4 ceiling speakers in my small room. Seating location will be roughly 3-4 feet from the back wall.


Well, 4 feet from back wall should just be enough for squeezing in 3 pairs of heights. I would go for it!

Edit: Correction, 4 pair of heights (e.g. at 30, 55, 85 and 125 degrees).


----------



## Josh Z

Bumper said:


> For selecting 3D movies at home I use this site:
> http://www.realorfake3d.com/
> 
> I find it to be spot on 99% of the times. Fake 3D movies are a much better view in 2D and Real 3D is very watchable in 3D.


You shouldn't make a sweeping generalization like this. The quality of 3D conversions has greatly improved. The real issue is whether the movie was photographed and designed with 3D in mind, and how well that was handled.

Both Gravity and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were conversions that have awesome 3D, better than some movies that were shot natively (but poorly) in the format, such as the disappointing 3D in Tron Legacy or X-Men: Days of Future Past.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> Seating location will be roughly 3-4 feet from the back wall.


If your room is 12 feet long, having your ears 4 feet from the back wall will put them at a location where these is less frequency response variation (fewer/smaller peaks & dips). Odd divisions (thirds, fifths, etc) of room length are better than even divisions (halves, quarters) because they avoid nulls. 

Considering that location and your room dimensions, you can have a pair of rear heights at 45 degrees elevation high up on your back wall (our human hearing can't tell much difference in height above that elevation behind us), a pair of front heights at 30 degrees elevation on your front wall and a pair of overhead speakers at about 80 degrees elevation on the ceiling. You should be able to clearly differentiate the three locations.


----------



## Kain

sdurani said:


> If your room is 12 feet long, having your ears 4 feet from the back wall will put them at a location where these is less frequency response variation (fewer/smaller peaks & dips). Odd divisions (thirds, fifths, etc) of room length are better than even divisions (halves, quarters) because they avoid nulls.
> 
> Considering that location and your room dimensions, you can have a pair of rear heights at 45 degrees elevation high up on your back wall (our human hearing can't tell much difference in height above that elevation behind us), a pair of front heights at 30 degrees elevation on your front wall and a pair of overhead speakers at about 80 degrees elevation on the ceiling. You should be able to clearly differentiate the three locations.


Thanks. That setup would probably make my setup Auro-3D compatible as well, correct?


----------



## Wild Blue

coolgeek said:


> Atmos is going to be part of the Dolby sound format, so if the movie supports Atmos, it'll be in the Blu-Ray, 2K or 4K...


Unfortunately, so far that's not proving to be the case. Many Atmos films are being released on BD without Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Kain said:


> That setup would probably make my setup Auro-3D compatible as well, correct?


Yes, but you'll probably need to invoke Trinnov's remapping feature to make it sound like the overhead pair of heights are wider apart (asthough they were placed high up on the side walls above your surround speakers).


----------



## sdrucker

Kain said:


> 2. In my small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room, would it be worth it to have 6 ceiling speakers vs. 4 ceiling speaker


 Hi Kain,
If you haven't already mentioned it on the existing Trinnov Altitude thread, which Altitude are you considering? The 16? Given the room size, unless you're going with active speakers that should be plenty unless you're planning for a bigger room in the future, or have a large number of subs to go with something like a 7.1.6 setup. at the Scott Simonian level of bass .

I'm in the same boat: right now I've got a multi-purpose 24x17x8.5 living room, where I could (with some work and annoying our condo board with ceiling and high wall-mounted speakers) go as far as 11.2.6. Likewise, our MLP sofa is about 4 feet away from a back wall, but I'm planning to move it more toward the center of the room if I don't suffer more by losing the current near field bass from my subs, and the resulting placement tradeoffs, as a result.

But since we're moving later this year, I may have to trade off a larger, but less dedicated space like this one for a smaller one (I'm aiming for at least 15x12x8) to have a dedicated HT room. In my case, I decided to go for the Altitude 24 over the 16 I wanted the extra channels to plan against the unknown future, so to speak, since depending on our real estate market I won't know which way I'll have to go until we narrow the choices down. As much as I'd love to buy a place just to have a certain sized HT room, real life tends to interfere with that kind of choice when you have a family . Based on some input I got @ CEDIA, the "ideal" Atmos configuration starts at the 9.1.6 space, but we can only go as far as our resources and room constraints take us. 

Either way I should be set for supporting Atmos and other 3D codecs in the future, or simply support two different rooms' configurations.


----------



## andrebilha

kenoh89 said:


> No new 2015 receivers announced? Looking to buy a Atmos system with the full HDMI 2.0 spec with HDCP 2.2. I don't want to spend money on something that won't work with future 4k blu-ray titles!



Pioneer VSX-1130-K 7.2-Channel Network AV Receiver B&H # PIVSX1130K MFR # VSX-1130-K
COMING SOON
Ship Time: Not available 
Expected availability: May 01 2015

In BHPhotovideo


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> What are the smallest *(best quality)* speakers that one could use for atmos ceiling mounted?
> Small (tiny) so they are not very obvious.


When you say "ceiling mounted"; you mean screwed with brackets (on-ceiling), right? 
Would a mounted in-ceiling (inside the ceiling, flushed & screwed, with back enclosure and detachable front grille) be acceptable; like from an inside pivoting 360° tweeter for example so that you still have freedom to aim it @ the MLP? 

I don't know if Magico or Wilson Audio make such ceiling speakers for the home theater crowd. ...Maybe Revel. ...Or HK. 
I can always check, and report back, and see who has the very best, and the smallest...say good down to 80Hz would do? 
"Smallest"; do you have an idea of the woofer's size you are thinking about? 

"Not very obvious"; in-ceiling would appear much more discrete, and you can make them disappear (invisibility), with judicious "decor" skills.


----------



## smurraybhm

Josh Z said:


> You shouldn't make a sweeping generalization like this. The quality of 3D conversions has greatly improved. The real issue is whether the movie was photographed and designed with 3D in mind, and how well that was handled.
> 
> Both Gravity and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were conversions that have awesome 3D, better than some movies that were shot natively (but poorly) in the format, such as the disappointing 3D in Tron Legacy or X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Way off topic on this 3D picture discussion. Glad you think 3D has improved. I thought Gravity in 3D looked like crap, seemed if I was watching a cheap model used for special effects on my screen and talk about scenes made for 3D - floating screws?? I've always said a properly calibrated picture on a quality screen will have that extra dimensional look. I'll take object based sound over a few 3D flicks any day. To each their own, I buy the highly rated ones (thanks Ralph) but never watch them.


----------



## Al Sherwood

bargervais said:


> Learned something new i thought they stopped making DLP maybe your bulb needs changing if thing are too dark in 3D. just my $.02


 
You are of course referring to "rear projection" DLP right... 

I doubt TI has abandoned their technology. http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/dlp-technology/products/products-overview.page


----------



## Al Sherwood

kenoh89 said:


> No new 2015 receivers announced? Looking to buy a Atmos system with the full HDMI 2.0 spec with HDCP 2.2. I don't want to spend money on something that won't work with future 4k blu-ray titles!



Have patience, summer to fall timeframe is when you should expect to be able to buy the 2015 models... there are a few of waiting!


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Two more questions.
> 
> 1. All speakers "outside" or in addition to the standard/base 7.1 bed used only for objects, correct? DSU can use all speakers expect the front wides? Meaning it can use front heights, rear heights, etc. but not front wides?
> 
> 2. In my small 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room, would it be worth it to have 6 ceiling speakers vs. 4 ceiling speakers?


1. a) ...And for music too.
1. b) Correct. ...The Front Wides are avail in Dolby Atmos audio listening mode.
1. c) With DSU, very correct. 

2. I would go with 4 myself. Yep, I would try my very best effort to squeeze a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos/DTS:X setup in there.

* Do you have a 4K/3D front projector?


----------



## NorthSky

Speaking of 3D (dimensional sound from Dolby Atmos); *'Gravity'* is coming up with a remixed Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu-ray March 31st (roughly two more weeks from now). I intend, eventually, to sync it with my 3D BR version, so that I can have full 3D immersion; Space, Sound, & Picture.

Maybe one day, maybe, there will be a new remastered one with all of it in one Blu-ray disc, just maybe. 
...Like five to ten years from now; 'Gravity' on 4K Blu-ray, in 3D picture, and with Dolby Atmos. 

It's nice to dream, it brightens our vision.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Speaking of 3D (dimensional sound from Dolby Atmos); *'Gravity'* is coming up with a remixed Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu-ray March 31st (roughly two more weeks from now). I intend, eventually, to sync it with my 3D BR version, so that I can have full 3D immersion; Space, Sound, & Picture.
> 
> Maybe one day, maybe, there will be a new remastered one with all of it in one Blu-ray disc, just maybe.
> ...Like five to ten years from now; 'Gravity' on 4K Blu-ray, in 3D picture, and with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> It's nice to dream, it brightens our vision.


How are you going to sync it as I would like to do this as well? I don't know why they just didn't release the Atmos 3D version in the first place.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> How are you going to sync it as I would like to do this as well? I don't know why they just didn't release the Atmos 3D version in the first place.


I think he meant put the 3D Blu-Ray into the jacket of the Atmos jacket I'll do the same I'll put the 3D version in with the new Atmos release of gravity.
Syncing it may be a tall order.


----------



## aaranddeeman

andrebilha said:


> Pioneer VSX-1130-K 7.2-Channel Network AV Receiver B&H # PIVSX1130K MFR # VSX-1130-K
> COMING SOON
> Ship Time: Not available
> Expected availability: May 01 2015
> 
> In BHPhotovideo


It doesn't say HDMI 2.0 and/or HDCP 2.2 though. And I doubt for the price mentioned it will be..


----------



## jrogers

*The case for going to ..4 from ..2*

I was one of the first to get an Atmos system up and running in my small theater, and can't say enough about how much I've enjoyed Atmos - and DSU in particular - over the past months (I commented early on that I thought it sounded better than a 7.1 setup I have in an upstairs room). Well, with all the talk of trying 6 top speakers (thanks Scott) I finally decided to get out the tools and add two more height speakers to the mix (running Top Middle with Front Height). After finally getting the wires in place and the speakers mounted, amp connected and Denon recalibrated I've now listening to a bunch of demo material, watched a couple movies with DSU, and re-watched John Wick (which was the last film I watched in 5.1.2 only a few days earlier) and I would say that adding the additional speakers up top to my 5.1.2 setup - while perhaps not quite as profound the original jump to Atmos - makes a tremendous difference in how well the sound "flows" around the room and the immersion felt when watching and listening.

So, for anyone else out there with an Atmos 5.1.2 configuration who is considering whether the effort (pita) to run two additional speakers (and in my case add an amp) is worth it - I would say definitely. Now I just have to cross my fingers that DTS:X will make use of them as well


----------



## Kain

sdrucker said:


> Hi Kain,
> If you haven't already mentioned it on the existing Trinnov Altitude thread, which Altitude are you considering? The 16? Given the room size, unless you're going with active speakers that should be plenty unless you're planning for a bigger room in the future, or have a large number of subs to go with something like a 7.1.6 setup. at the Scott Simonian level of bass .
> 
> I'm in the same boat: right now I've got a multi-purpose 24x17x8.5 living room, where I could (with some work and annoying our condo board with ceiling and high wall-mounted speakers) go as far as 11.2.6. Likewise, our MLP sofa is about 4 feet away from a back wall, but I'm planning to move it more toward the center of the room if I don't suffer more by losing the current near field bass from my subs, and the resulting placement tradeoffs, as a result.
> 
> But since we're moving later this year, I may have to trade off a larger, but less dedicated space like this one for a smaller one (I'm aiming for at least 15x12x8) to have a dedicated HT room. In my case, I decided to go for the Altitude 24 over the 16 I wanted the extra channels to plan against the unknown future, so to speak, since depending on our real estate market I won't know which way I'll have to go until we narrow the choices down. As much as I'd love to buy a place just to have a certain sized HT room, real life tends to interfere with that kind of choice when you have a family . Based on some input I got @ CEDIA, the "ideal" Atmos configuration starts at the 9.1.6 space, but we can only go as far as our resources and room constraints take us.
> 
> Either way I should be set for supporting Atmos and other 3D codecs in the future, or simply support two different rooms' configurations.


This is what I'm planning to get in the next 2-3 years.

Display: 65-77" LG OLED UHDTV
Ultra HD Blu-ray player: Some good player that is out at the time
Processor: Trinnov Altitude32 8-16 (or 16-24 "just in case" for that extra "headroom")
Mains: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
Center: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
Side surrounds: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
Back surrounds: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
Ceiling speakers: 4 x the upcoming Seaton Sound Catalyst on-walls or the upcoming/updated Spark
Subwoofers: 2 x Seaton Sound SubMersive HPi+ with 2 x Seaton Sound SubMersive HP-Slave

So, in total, it will be a 7.4.4 setup unless I should squeeze-in a 7.4.6 or 9.4.6 setup in my 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room.



NorthSky said:


> 1. a) ...And for music too.
> 1. b) Correct. ...The Front Wides are avail in Dolby Atmos audio listening mode.
> 1. c) With DSU, very correct.
> 
> 2. I would go with 4 myself. Yep, I would try my very best effort to squeeze a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos/DTS:X setup in there.
> 
> * Do you have a 4K/3D front projector?


See my reply to sdrucker.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> How are you going to sync it as I would like to do this as well? I don't know why they just didn't release the Atmos 3D version in the first place.


I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy. 

But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):

a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips. 

So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
...And if you see any flaw on that concept. 

♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios. 

What do you think?


----------



## brahman12

I have recently become a fan of 3D at home since purchasing a JVC RS4910 through AVS. I was reluctant to jump into 3D over the last several years but very glad I did since my experience over the last few months has been crazy fun with Atmos and 3D. I have enjoyed it more at home than at the cinema. Plenty bright and plenty detailed via the JVC and 120" screen. 

As for recently watched Atmos, watching Transcendence and Mockingjay over the last couple of nights has kept my romance with Atmos alive and kicking. Transcendence was sneaky cool use of our beloved tech. A few scenes had some nice powerful impact all around (yes overhead use was present and impactful as well). And the music/score was quite fun too, especially the music during the first few minutes of the credits. Add in some powerful bass scenes, and the movie turned out better than expected. Love going into movies with low expectations cause I set myself up for the good in the experience.

Mockingjay was expert use of Atmos in my opinion....and thus far may be my favorite track (although the Transformers track was off da hook awesome, yeah that's right, I said Transformers sounded awesome in Atmos LOL). Again very smart use of the overheads when necessary and great panning/directional sound use as well. Subtle but very impressive track overall. I think our very own Ralph Potts' official AVS review nails this flick right on the head when it comes to the audio track. I would have given it a slightly higher Atmos score than Ralph but hey no body's perfect  lol


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> This is what I'm planning to get in the next 2-3 years.
> 
> Display: 65-77" LG OLED UHDTV
> Ultra HD Blu-ray player: Some good player that is out at the time
> Processor: Trinnov Altitude32 8-16 (or 16-24 "just in case" for that extra "headroom")
> Mains: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
> Center: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
> Side surrounds: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
> Back surrounds: Seaton Sound Catalyst 8C
> Ceiling speakers: 4 x the upcoming Seaton Sound Catalyst on-walls or the upcoming/updated Spark
> Subwoofers: 2 x Seaton Sound SubMersive HPi+ with 2 x Seaton Sound SubMersive HP-Slave
> 
> So, in total, it will be a 7.4.4 setup unless I should squeeze-in a 7.4.6 or 9.4.6 setup in my 12 x 11 x 9.5 feet room.


Too much man.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy.
> 
> But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):
> 
> a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
> b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
> c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
> d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
> e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
> f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips.
> 
> So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
> ...And if you see any flaw on that concept.
> 
> ♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> What do you think?


Interesting you would have to sync very precisely might work lets hope the lip sync will match that drives me nuts when the lip sync is off even a tiny bit...


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Too much man.


More like, "just right".


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> More like, "just right".


It means pretty much the same think.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy.
> 
> But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):
> 
> a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
> b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
> c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
> d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
> e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
> f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips.
> 
> So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
> ...And if you see any flaw on that concept.
> 
> ♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> What do you think?


What if the Atmos version is not the same as the 3D version?
Say, it has a few more scenes in there somewhere??
Ex.: runtime 1:53,26 vs 1:58,46...


----------



## bargervais

Nalleh said:


> What if the Atmos version is not the same as the 3D version?
> Say, it has a few more scenes in there somewhere??
> Ex.: runtime 1:53,26 vs 1:58,46...


Or if the new pressing doesn't track the same as the first pressing.


----------



## Selden Ball

aaranddeeman said:


> It doesn't say HDMI 2.0 and/or HDCP 2.2 though. And I doubt for the price mentioned it will be..


Manufacturers are not allowed to specify HDMI version numbers. V2 has many optional features, so just specifying the version of the standard is too misleading. You have to look for the specific features that you want.

An online version of the common manual for the upcoming European Pioneer AVR models 830, 930 and 1130 seems to be available at http://docs.pioneer.eu/Manuals/VSX_830_S_ARB7592_manual/

I've attached a screenshot of the "Features" page. Note that both [email protected] and HDCP v2.2 are mentioned, but DTS:X isn't.
I suspect the manufacturers are all under Non-Disclosure Agreements with DTS, so aren't supposed to publish that info about its availability until after the formal DTS:X announcement, currently scheduled for mid-April.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy.
> 
> But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):
> 
> a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
> b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
> c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
> d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
> e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
> f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips.
> 
> So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
> ...And if you see any flaw on that concept.
> 
> ♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> What do you think?


I was thinking the same thing except that it may be off even by a fraction of a second.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy.
> 
> But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):
> 
> a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
> b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
> c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
> d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
> e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
> f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips.
> 
> So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
> ...And if you see any flaw on that concept.
> 
> ♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> What do you think?


You will probably need a software controlled transmission of "play/Pause" for (e) for precise sync.
And this is not considering the latency of individual blu ray player (even if they are of same brand and model and spec).


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy.
> 
> But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):
> 
> a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
> b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
> c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
> d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
> e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
> f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips.
> 
> So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
> ...And if you see any flaw on that concept.
> 
> ♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> What do you think?


I wonder if you can do the following:

Option 1
---------

- Copy all the files from both versions into your computer.... then replace the 3D version with the Atmos soundtrack (for ppl who understand the file system).
- Use a media player to play it. Or, burn into another blu-ray disc and play that.

Option 2
---------

- Do the same above, except rip into a different format, say MKV... 
- Use the Atmos track instead.
- Run from Media Player.

Now, I have no clue if the above can or will work as i have no idea how the file system or how ripping works. Perhaps some very technical ppl can do that...


----------



## aaranddeeman

Selden Ball said:


> Manufacturers are not allowed to specify HDMI version numbers. V2 has many optional features, so just specifying the version of the standard is too misleading. You have to look for the specific features that you want.
> 
> An online version of the common manual for the upcoming European Pioneer AVR models 830, 930 and 1130 seems to be available at http://docs.pioneer.eu/Manuals/VSX_830_S_ARB7592_manual/
> 
> I've attached a screenshot of the "Features" page. Note that both [email protected] and HDCP v2.2 are mentioned, but DTS:X isn't.
> I suspect the manufacturers are all under Non-Disclosure Agreements with DTS, so aren't supposed to publish that info about its availability until after the formal DTS:X announcement, currently scheduled for mid-April.


Looks like it supports 18Gbps full bandwidth.
But it's still the crappy 2 height speakers only configuration..


----------



## aaranddeeman

coolgeek said:


> I wonder if you can do the following:
> 
> Option 1
> ---------
> 
> - Copy all the files from both versions into your computer.... then replace the 3D version with the Atmos soundtrack (for ppl who understand the file system).
> - Use a media player to play it. Or, burn into another blu-ray disc and play that.
> 
> Option 2
> ---------
> 
> - Do the same above, except rip into a different format, say MKV...
> - Use the Atmos track instead.
> - Run from Media Player.
> 
> Now, I have no clue if the above can or will work as i have no idea how the file system or how ripping works. Perhaps some very technical ppl can do that...



This is exactly why HDCP is born


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Speaking of 3D (dimensional sound from Dolby Atmos); *'Gravity'* is coming up with a remixed Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu-ray March 31st (roughly two more weeks from now). I intend, eventually, to sync it with my 3D BR version, so that I can have full 3D immersion; Space, Sound, & Picture.
> 
> Maybe one day, maybe, there will be a new remastered one with all of it in one Blu-ray disc, just maybe.
> ...Like five to ten years from now; 'Gravity' on 4K Blu-ray, in 3D picture, and with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> It's nice to dream, it brightens our vision.



I thought that was available from Amazon Japan ?


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> I'm still working on it; when I'll find the perfect solution I will post it here, in the space of Dolby Atmos' gravitational energy.
> 
> But here's the plan so far (not perfected yet because the best would be to have it in both 3D and with Dolby Atmos; a la 'TF4' and 'TMNT'):
> 
> a) Put the 3D Blu-ray version in your Blu-ray player connected directly to your front projector or flat panel HDTV.
> b) Put the Dolby Atmos 2D version in your other Blu-ray player connected directly to your surround sound pre/pro or AV receiver.
> c) Set the source on your pre/pro to the BR player where you want the Dolby Atmos sound.
> d) Set both BR players @ the 00:00:01 mark, right @ the very beginning. ...And press Pause.
> e) Press both Pause buttons @ the exact same time.
> f) Hope for the best. ...If not start over from d) ... eventually it will be in sync (good enough, by a fraction of a second). Check the actor's lips.
> 
> So far that's my best thinking of the feasible conceptual realisation ...If anyone has a better one please feel free to share.
> ...And if you see any flaw on that concept.
> 
> ♦ Amazing what they make us do nowadays, the Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> What do you think?



Better have a pee before the movie starts. If the Sync is close enough and I doubt it ever will, then you wouldn't want to have to pause for any reason .


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> What if the Atmos version is not the same as the 3D version?
> Say, it has a few more scenes in there somewhere??
> Ex.: runtime 1:53,26 vs 1:58,46...


Then we're screwed, as soon that the first new scene kicks off.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I was thinking the same thing except that it may be off even by a fraction of a second.


We don't have to be too anal about it; it's only a flick after all.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> We don't have to be too anal about it; it's only a flick after all.


If you were not "anal", you wouldn't be here.
You would be happy with your "sound bar"...


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> You will probably need a software controlled transmission of "play/Pause" for (e) for precise sync.
> And this is not considering the latency of individual blu ray player (even if they are of same brand and model and spec).


You guys are all funny; you find all the reasons to make my plan fail, lol. 

* I said it before; I'm trying to perfect it, help me out. 

And you know what; with practice, and I do have some in that department, you can succeed in syncing two players almost perfectly to a fraction of a second. But I'm first to admit; as you get further into the movie that fraction diminishes (expands actually), and become a larger fraction.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> You guys are all funny; you find all the reasons to make my plan fail, lol.
> 
> * I said it before; I'm trying to perfect it, help me out.


"Make" your plan fail??


----------



## kenoh89

andrebilha said:


> Pioneer VSX-1130-K 7.2-Channel Network AV Receiver B&H # PIVSX1130K MFR # VSX-1130-K
> COMING SOON
> Ship Time: Not available
> Expected availability: May 01 2015
> 
> In BHPhotovideo





> 4K with HDCP 2.2 (4K/60p/4:4:4/24-bit, 4K/24p/4:4:4/36-bit, 4K/60p/4:2:2/36-bit)


Am I reading it right? It says it's capable of 4k/24p 12-bit 4:4:4 and 4k/60p 12-bit 4:2:2, meaning it can do 4k/60p 10-bit 4:4:4 full chroma?


also, do these models use class D amps?


----------



## funhouse69

Just watched Hunger Games Mocking Jay Part 1 and I have to say I really enjoyed the Atmos Mix a lot. Sure it doesn't seem like the overheads are used a lot but where they are used does make for a really nice effect / addition to the sound field. 

Can't wait for the next one to come out.

On a side note I was surprised to see on the Disc itself that it has DTS-X Headphone or maybe its DTS Headphone X?


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> This is exactly why HDCP is born


♦ But can you do it; what he just proposed? ...Like perfect 3D sound with perfect 3D picture, and in perfect sync.



roxiedog13 said:


> I thought that was available from Amazon Japan ?


♦ I don't know; you tell me with a link and I'll tell you. 



roxiedog13 said:


> Better have a pee before the movie starts. If the Sync is close enough and I doubt it ever will, then you wouldn't want to have to pause for any reason .


♦ You got that one right mister. ...The good thing about 'Gravity' is that it is a short movie @ 90 minutes. 

____________

Anyway, with all that "sync" talk between 3D sound from Dolby Atmos and 3D picture from a different BR disc, this is totally ridiculous! 
We should not have to do those kind of 3D stunts @ home, or even think about it.

It's all Warner Bros' fault to not reissue it in 3D with that new Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack; what were they thinking, or drinking, or smoking! 
You know what too; I think that a 50GB Blu-ray disc is simply not good enough for a 90 minutes movie, with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and a 3D picture. 

But then, how the heck 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' got to be released in both 3D Atmos sound and 3D picture! ...Plus it's almost three hours long! 

♦ Here's what I think: On 'TF4' (Blu-ray 3D disc) the Dolby Atmos soundtrack was not on par with the 3D picture. They used less space for the sound.
On 'Gravity' (Blu-ray 2D disc) the Dolby Atmos soundtrack; they used all the space necessary for the best 3D sound experience, and there was simply not enough space for the 3D picture. 
- I know, it doesn't make sense; but what does today. ...And who's in charge, us? ...Certainly not; the movie studios are, that's who.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> If you were not "anal", you wouldn't be here.
> You would be happy with your "sound bar"...


Touché!


----------



## NorthSky

By the way; both the old 3D Blu-ray version of 'Gravity' and the upcoming new Dolby Atmos 2D Blu-ray version click @ 91 minutes sharp.
...Exactly both the same length.
* Sync between them should be a walk @ the park. ...If done by a skilled user, like me. 

And 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' Blu-ray 3D picture with 3D Dolby Atmos sound, is 165 minutes long (only 15 minutes short of three hours). 

Food for thought. ...Or scientific theoretical explanation and atmospheric extrapolation.


----------



## brahman12

*Mocking jay mix*



funhouse69 said:


> Just watched Hunger Games Mocking Jay Part 1 and I have to say I really enjoyed the Atmos Mix a lot. Sure it doesn't seem like the overheads are used a lot but where they are used does make for a really nice effect / addition to the sound field.
> 
> Can't wait for the next one to come out.
> 
> On a side note I was surprised to see on the Disc itself that it has DTS-X Headphone or maybe its DTS Headphone X?


I really loved this mix and felt that it was very intelligently crafted. I truly feel that overheads should be used when necessary (i.e. when there is actual activity occurring overhead in correlation to what is happening within the scene, and also to create a specific and realistic effect like increased room size within a scene) and this film mix played to those parameters perfectly. Very realistic use of the Atmos tech.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I thought that was available from Amazon Japan ?


I just checked; nothing of that sort from Japan.

But from France there is a 3-disc set coming up March 31st in 3D. ...But nothing mentioning what kind of audio, zip. 
One can only hope, but I doubt it as it is not Warner Bros studios' usual routine. 
If Warner releases a BR disc in 3D with DTS-HD MA 5.1, and a new 2D one with Dolby Atmos in it, it would be avail here, in America (our full continent).
They wouldn't make an exception for the French people from France by delivering them one with both 3D sound and picture; just no way Jose. 
If they'd do, the rest of the world would be ordering from amazon.fr


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> "Make" your plan fail??


Way of speech; when someone comes up with a plan, usually others find flaws in it. ...In particular here, @ AVS. ...But that's a very good thing. 
We are true analysts and observers and pro critics. ...That's my favorite part about AVS. ...It's all about the products delivery and performance.
...And never about the people. 

* I did put "lol" @ the end of my sentence; to emphasize the non-seriousness. ...But only the fun humorous part of it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Way of speech; when someone comes up with a plan, usually others find flaws in it. ...In particular here, @ AVS. ...But that's a very good thing.
> We are true analysts and observers and pro critics. ...That's my favorite part about AVS. ...It's all about the products delivery and performance.
> ...And never about the people.
> 
> * I did put "lol" @ the end of my sentence; to emphasize the non-seriousness. ...But only the fun humorous part of it.


No. What I meant was there is no "Make", it's already "failed"...


----------



## cfraser

jrogers said:


> I was one of the first to get an Atmos system up and running in my small theater, and can't say enough about how much I've enjoyed Atmos - and DSU in particular - over the past months (I commented early on that I thought it sounded better than a 7.1 setup I have in an upstairs room). Well, with all the talk of trying 6 top speakers (thanks Scott) I finally decided to get out the tools and add two more height speakers to the mix (running Top Middle with Front Height). After finally getting the wires in place and the speakers mounted, amp connected and Denon recalibrated I've now listening to a bunch of demo material, watched a couple movies with DSU, and re-watched John Wick (which was the last film I watched in 5.1.2 only a few days earlier) and I would say that adding the additional speakers up top to my 5.1.2 setup - while perhaps not quite as profound the original jump to Atmos - makes a tremendous difference in how well the sound "flows" around the room and the immersion felt when watching and listening.
> 
> So, for anyone else out there with an Atmos 5.1.2 configuration who is considering whether the effort (pita) to run two additional speakers (and in my case add an amp) is worth it - I would say definitely. Now I just have to cross my fingers that DTS:X will make use of them as well


I think this is related to what I came to ask: are Front Height speakers a part of Atmos? An important part? Somehow, I thought it was all about Top speakers (or reflecting modules). Is 5.1.2 where the .2 is FH an Atmos config? Why I'm asking is I have never bothered to install FH speakers; no reason, I have the amps and speakers already. I guess I just needed a good reason, my fronts are already ~6' tall, so "height" in more speakers is relative.

I read a few pages back that FH + TM is not bad (also FH + TR), I think I could go for that. TF + TR instead of TM might be too many speakers (heresy), for the room, more specifically the actual listening area, isn't really that big. There are a lot of treatments, and it does prevent certain configs because it would affect the performance of the existing "base" speakers (i.e. treatments on ceiling).

To sum up: if I wanted to install 4 more speakers for Atmos, would putting two of them in the FH position be a good idea? Better than using the same two speakers as TF, like would there be more general usage of them with non-Atmos soundtracks? (I've never even tried PLIIz, sort of inferred by no FH.) Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

Must have some' to do with the French accent (mine). 

♦ I will sure give it a try (sync) when that new BR release of 'Gravity' comes. ...Because I sure will repurchase it; one for when I'd get a new Atmos/dts:x ss processor, and two for the additional special features. After all, it is a new "spatial" edition, a brand new Dolby Atmos 3-disc set.

How many members here got LOTR in various editions/versions? If I'd tell you you would say that I'm totally nuts. ...And you'd be only half right. 
And 'Gravity', me I like very much so.

* In reply to post number *21366*


----------



## jrogers

cfraser said:


> I think this is related to what I came to ask: are Front Height speakers a part of Atmos? An important part? Somehow, I thought it was all about Top speakers (or reflecting modules). Is 5.1.2 where the .2 is FH an Atmos config? Why I'm asking is I have never bothered to install FH speakers; no reason, I have the amps and speakers already. I guess I just needed a good reason, my fronts are already ~6' tall, so "height" in more speakers is relative.
> 
> I read a few pages back that FH + TM is not bad (also FH + TR), I think I could go for that. TF + TR instead of TM might be too many speakers (heresy), for the room, more specifically the actual listening area, isn't really that big. There are a lot of treatments, and it does prevent certain configs because it would affect the performance of the existing "base" speakers (i.e. treatments on ceiling).
> 
> To sum up: if I wanted to install 4 more speakers for Atmos, would putting two of them in the FH position be a good idea? Better than using the same two speakers as TF, like would there be more general usage of them with non-Atmos soundtracks? (I've never even tried PLIIz, sort of inferred by no FH.) Thanks.


I think you're correct that Front Height speakers are not officially counted in the .2 or .4 of the Atmos syntax- this last digit is reserved for "top" speakers - either in-ceiling or reflecting (and so the title of my post was a bit misleading). That said, at least for the Denon receivers, the Atmos and Dolby Surround processing will both utilize Front Height speakers along with Top speakers if both are present; and since my seating is against the back wall and Denon doesn't allow for configuration of Top Front together with Top Middle speakers (I have no room for Top Rear) - I instead added front height speakers. If I had the room for it, I would likely have installed a "standard" Atmos 7.1.4 configuration - but it's hard for me to imagine improving the sound much over what I'm now getting.

In your case - I think the TF + TR would provide the same significant improvement over just TM that I saw by adding FH+TM.


----------



## Gurba

kbarnes701 said:


> I have better than 20/20 vision in both eyes and they are also evenly matched, so it isn't that with me. It's more of a physio-pyschological effect I think. 3D works by 'tricking' the brain that objects which actually exist in a 2 dimensional plane (the screen) are actually in a 3 dimensional space and I suspect that some brains are more easily tricked than others. The ones which resist the trickery get fatigued quite quickly from the effort involved. Just a theory though.


I have problems With 3D too. I really need to consentrate to relax to see the effect properly. It only lasts for a few Seconds so it goes back and forth. I also have problems adjusting the Depth. Needless to say I don't watch much 3D.


----------



## smurraybhm

jrogers said:


> I think you're correct that Front Height speakers are not officially counted in the .2 or .4 of the Atmos syntax- this last digit is reserved for "top" speakers - either in-ceiling or reflecting (and so the title of my post was a bit misleading.


Wrong. FH speakers are part of the Atmos speaker count and an Atmos speaker designation. If you have read or take the time to go through this thread you'll read that speaker placement up top has been discussed in detail. Most have opted for FH along with TM or TB/BH and found those combinations to work well. The in ceiling crowd TF/TB. Again all of this is dependent on the room and more importantly angles from the MLP.

FH is a popular choice as well since it lets you use Neo:X for music - again discussed a lot in the early days of this thread. You also have Auro as part of the equation if interested. By going with FH you have met the basic up high requirement for that - then by having TM you could use that as the SH for Auro.

If only able to use on pair of speakers up top - popular and effective choice seems to be TM for Atmos. For Auro you must have FH if I remember correctly when only using 2 up top. 

The difference in sound between TF and FH along with TB or BH as been discussed earlier as well. I don't know of anyone who could make out any difference to what was being sent to those similar configs regarding sound. Most of us believe it is the same. Thus if one is choosing between FH or TF - I would use FH assuming angle is correct (see manual or Dolby white paper). Gives you Neo and Auro if upgrading now or possibly later. When looking at the back - BH due to flexibility between Atmos/Auro. 

For those against the wall - like Keith B and yours truly. FH and TM for most of us who have tinkered with speaker placement putting the TM speakers slightly in front of the MLP.

Got it? 
Remember the angles and if you have a few step ladders you can move them around in your room to see what works best. As for the angles - there is a "little" flexibility but keep them close or within.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi All i have posted some pics regarding my room setup post 21267 of this thread earlier and thanks for the tips i received.

with regards to my setup i have now installed 2 front height speakers and i am also now running 2 kef htb2se subs in my setup and i have pulled sofa away from bay slightly and just trialing now with regards to FH+TM AND ALSO FH+TR,

I am thinking of also installing some side surrounds and running my Q100s that are cureently surrounds as back surrounds, as in my pics of my mlp i was thinking if i install some Q800s speakers on the side walls of my setup would this work as they would match my Q series setup ? would it be a big problem that the q800s are dipole or that they are in close proximety of my Q100s ?

also are dipoles ok with atmos as they would be close to my top middle speakers to ?


----------



## ThePrisoner

smurraybhm said:


> For those against the wall - like Keith B and yours truly. FH and TM for most of us who have tinkered with speaker placement putting the TM speakers slightly in front of the MLP.


Count me in too! My TM speakers are just in front of my MLP as recommended by many in this thread including you guys. I also use them as SH when I decide to load my Auro 3D configuration.


----------



## Selden Ball

kenoh89 said:


> Am I reading it right? It says it's capable of 4k/24p 12-bit 4:4:4 and 4k/60p 12-bit 4:2:2, meaning it can do 4k/60p 10-bit 4:4:4 full chroma?


Right.




> also, do these models use class D amps?


 These are non-Elite models, so No.

You need to get an Elite model if you want Class D amps.

I haven't seen any info about the 2015 Elite models yet, so I don't know if they'll be supporting DTS:X and/or more than 9 speaker channels (i.e. more than 5.1.4).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Right.
> 
> 
> These are non-Elite models, so No.
> 
> You need to get an Elite model if you want Class D amps.
> 
> I haven't seen any info about the 2015 Elite models yet, so I don't know if they'll be supporting DTS:X and/or more than 9 speaker channels (i.e. more than 5.1.4).


It will also be interesting to see how much influence Onkyo will have over Pioneer products from now on, and whether the famous build quality problems of Onkyo will leak into Pioneer.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> It will also be interesting to see how much influence Onkyo will have over Pioneer products from now on, and whether the famous build quality problems of Onkyo will leak into Pioneer.


Onkyo may use Pioneer EQ to replace AccuEQ. I have had Onkyo now for 7 years and I have never had any issues, I keep them well ventilated that may be why????
Let's see what comes in these new line of 2015 receivers Atmos DTS:X that's all I want.


----------



## jrogers

smurraybhm said:


> Wrong. FH speakers are part of the Atmos speaker count and an Atmos speaker designation. If you have read or take the time to go through this thread you'll read that speaker placement up top has been discussed in detail. Most have opted for FH along with TM or TB/BH and found those combinations to work well. The in ceiling crowd TF/TB. Again all of this is dependent on the room and more importantly angles from the MLP.
> 
> FH is a popular choice as well since it lets you use Neo:X for music - again discussed a lot in the early days of this thread. You also have Auro as part of the equation if interested. By going with FH you have met the basic up high requirement for that - then by having TM you could use that as the SH for Auro.
> 
> If only able to use on pair of speakers up top - popular and effective choice seems to be TM for Atmos. For Auro you must have FH if I remember correctly when only using 2 up top.
> 
> The difference in sound between TF and FH along with TB or BH as been discussed earlier as well. I don't know of anyone who could make out any difference to what was being sent to those similar configs regarding sound. Most of us believe it is the same. Thus if one is choosing between FH or TF - I would use FH assuming angle is correct (see manual or Dolby white paper). Gives you Neo and Auro if upgrading now or possibly later. When looking at the back - BH due to flexibility between Atmos/Auro.
> 
> For those against the wall - like Keith B and yours truly. FH and TM for most of us who have tinkered with speaker placement putting the TM speakers slightly in front of the MLP.
> 
> Got it?
> Remember the angles and if you have a few step ladders you can move them around in your room to see what works best. As for the angles - there is a "little" flexibility but keep them close or within.


Not sure why the condescension (fwiw, I have taken the time to read this entire thread as I've been on it from the beginning, and have read all of the white papers, and read and listented to a myriad of other technical papers and interviews on the subject), but I have no arguments at all with your description or the fact that Front Heights are fully supported by Dolby Atmos, and are commonly referred to as part of the Atmos speaker designation (in fact I did so in the title of my earlier post). I thought the quote "official" made it clear, but I was simply commenting on the "official" meaning of that third digit - which granted doesn't matter much - but is consistently described by Dolby as either "in ceiling" or "up firing" speakers, and apparently by Denon as well as their "Dolby Atmos" Amp Assign Modes don't allow for FH+TM (you have to use "9.1ch")

From the Dolby web site:

"Dolby Atmos speaker setups: What the 5.1.4 description means 

[5] This refers to the number of traditional surround speakers (front, center, surround). 

[.1] The middle number refers to how many powered subwoofers you can connect to your receiver. 

*[.4] This number refers to how many in ceiling or upward-firing speakers are in your Dolby Atmos setup.* "

From the whitepaper:

"With the debut of Dolby Atmos, there is a new method of referring to surround sound speaker configurations. It is based on the standard nomenclature (stereo, 5.1, and 7.1) but
10 adds a number at the end to specify the number of ceiling or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers you use (for example, 7.1.4)."


----------



## smurraybhm

^ condensation 
bad day?

I'm bowing out of the .4 debate, FH is a valid ceiling position for Atmos and the white paper has been shown to have more than a few typos, errors, etc.


----------



## jrogers

smurraybhm said:


> ^ condensation
> bad day?
> 
> I'm bowing out of the .4 debate, FH is a valid ceiling position for Atmos and the white paper has been shown to have more than a few typos, errors, etc.


Agreed. Just had a bad reaction to the "Wrong." start and "Got It?" finish in your response. On to other topics...


----------



## pasender91

Smurray answer was very clear, ..X refers to the count of HIGH speakers, and this includes FH and RH, so a FH+RH config is a ..4 without any doubt.
You are insisting even after that very clear response, this is not fair to him, and only generates confusion ...

Peace


----------



## smurraybhm

pasender91 said:


> Smurray answer was very clear, ..X refers to the count of HIGH speakers, and this includes FH and RH, so a FH+RH config is a ..4 without any doubt.
> You are insisting even after that very clear response, this is not fair to him, and only generates confusion ...
> 
> Peace


Thank you. Just trying to help as speaker placement down low and up high remains an active topic on this thread after a lot of discussion. JRogers - the "Got it" was in reference to all the up high options - my way of making sure they aren't any other questions. A lot to take in regarding configs considering equipment limitations, angles, MLP, Auro/Atmos, room, WAF , etc.

Peace out.


----------



## cfraser

Thanks for the info re my FH and Top speaker query yesterday. Bottom line seems to be that FH is a "good idea" if you need to limit speakers due to the listening space size.

When I look at it, there would not be a lot of physical mounting location difference after all between FH and TF in my room. I have to mount FH on the ceiling too BTW, as fronts are nowhere near a wall, nor is the MLP for that matter. The difference between FH and TF here would mostly be the orientation angle of the drivers. So...if I use a decent bracket, I could adjust the angle and probably get a good sense of both, presumably with just a minor pre-pro/AVR definition change, or at worst also moving a couple of connectors or speaker wires (if AVR). [Edit: I'd have to run Audyssey for both configs too, and load the right one. So now I have to examine the angles, I haven't even touched on that important aspect yet...]


----------



## chi_guy50

jrogers said:


> From the Dolby web site:
> 
> "Dolby Atmos speaker setups: What the 5.1.4 description means
> 
> [5] This refers to the number of traditional surround speakers (front, center, surround).
> 
> [.1] The middle number refers to how many powered subwoofers you can connect to your receiver.
> 
> *[.4] This number refers to how many in ceiling or upward-firing speakers are in your Dolby Atmos setup.* "


You shouldn't read too much into the exact wording of these descriptions. Obviously, when Dolby wrote "in ceiling" they were not ruling out speakers mounted on the ceiling. The focus is on speakers mounted in the top or "height" level as opposed to the base or "listener" level. In this regard, all five currently recognized positions for Dolby Atmos/DSU top-level pairs (Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, and Rear Height) are equally valid within the recommended elevation angles.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that "Denon . . . don't allow for FH+TM (you have to use "9.1ch")." D&M models allow for use of any combination of two non-contiguous top-level pairs, to include FH+TM. Many of us here--including yours truly--are using this very combination. (ETA: Never mind; I reread your post and understand now that you were simply referring to the options available under the "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode.)


----------



## chi_guy50

cfraser said:


> Thanks for the info re my FH and Top speaker query yesterday. Bottom line seems to be that FH is a "good idea" if you need to limit speakers due to the listening space size.
> 
> When I look at it, *there would not be a lot of physical mounting location difference after all between FH and TF in my room*. I have to mount FH on the ceiling too BTW, as fronts are nowhere near a wall, nor is the MLP for that matter. The difference between FH and TF here would mostly be the orientation angle of the drivers. So...if I use a decent bracket, I could adjust the angle and probably get a good sense of both, presumably with just a minor pre-pro/AVR definition change, or at worst also moving a couple of connectors or speaker wires (if AVR). [Edit: I'd have to run Audyssey for both configs too, and load the right one. So now I have to examine the angles, I haven't even touched on that important aspect yet...]


This will be generally true--not just in your room--as verified by the high degree of overlap (60%) between the recommended elevation angles for FH *(30° - 45°*) and TF (*30° - 55°*). In most cases, therefore, you could designate the front pair as either FH or TF interchangeably.


----------



## cfraser

My TM speaker location is essentially fixed due to ceiling treatments and angles to MLP: has to fire almost straight down. That'll seem weird to me at first, not only sonically but because I'm not keen on things hanging over/near my head, like e.g. the ceiling treatments bothered me for a while at first.

New question: if you have to choose, does it make sense to use the best pair of speakers (of FH and TM) for the FH? This seems like a definite "yes" since FH will potentially be used more and by more listening modes. But I really don't know as I wasn't able to test the Atmos part of the Atmos AVR I had here for a short time, for all sorts of reasons (some obvious). I do not have 4 of the same speakers to install up high at this point, I foolishly bought all my speakers in pairs over the years... 

Edit: I'm asking these questions so I can be ready to properly better "interview" some Atmos-capable gear, I can not have it for very long.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> I have better than 20/20 vision in both eyes and they are also evenly matched, so it isn't that with me. It's more of a physio-pyschological effect I think. 3D works by 'tricking' the brain that objects which actually exist in a 2 dimensional plane (the screen) are actually in a 3 dimensional space and I suspect that some brains are more easily tricked than others. The ones which resist the trickery get fatigued quite quickly from the effort involved. Just a theory though.





Gurba said:


> I have problems With 3D too. I really need to consentrate to relax to see the effect properly. It only lasts for a few Seconds so it goes back and forth. I also have problems adjusting the Depth. Needless to say I don't watch much 3D.



Interesting to read these ideas, I do not like watching 3D, fatiguing for a mental perspective for me, not to mention the effect tend to pull me out of the story, personally I don't *see* the need for it.


----------



## BigScreen

NorthSky said:


> Anyway, with all that "sync" talk between 3D sound from Dolby Atmos and 3D picture from a different BR disc, this is totally ridiculous!
> We should not have to do those kind of 3D stunts @ home, or even think about it.
> 
> It's all Warner Bros' fault to not reissue it in 3D with that new Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack; what were they thinking, or drinking, or smoking!
> You know what too; I think that a 50GB Blu-ray disc is simply not good enough for a 90 minutes movie, with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and a 3D picture.
> 
> On 'Gravity' (Blu-ray 2D disc) the Dolby Atmos soundtrack; they used all the space necessary for the best 3D sound experience, and there was simply not enough space for the 3D picture.
> - I know, it doesn't make sense; but what does today. ...And who's in charge, us? ...Certainly not; the movie studios are, that's who.


It might have to do with the fact that the PS3 can't do Dolby TrueHD and 3D at the same time, and perhaps the bean counters at WB decided that PS3 owners represented enough of the target audience that it wasn't worth the hassle that they might get when people can't play the movie in 3D and TrueHD/Atmos.

That's an outside chance of why, but it's possible.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> I have recently become a fan of 3D at home since purchasing a JVC RS4910 through AVS. I was reluctant to jump into 3D over the last several years but very glad I did since my experience over the last few months has been crazy fun with Atmos and 3D. I have enjoyed it more at home than at the cinema. Plenty bright and plenty detailed via the JVC and 120" screen.
> 
> As for recently watched Atmos, watching Transcendence and Mockingjay over the last couple of nights has kept my romance with Atmos alive and kicking. Transcendence was sneaky cool use of our beloved tech. A few scenes had some nice powerful impact all around (yes overhead use was present and impactful as well). And the music/score was quite fun too, especially the music during the first few minutes of the credits. Add in some powerful bass scenes, and the movie turned out better than expected. Love going into movies with low expectations cause I set myself up for the good in the experience.
> 
> Mockingjay was expert use of Atmos in my opinion....and thus far may be my favorite track (although the Transformers track was off da hook awesome, yeah that's right, I said Transformers sounded awesome in Atmos LOL). Again very smart use of the overheads when necessary and great panning/directional sound use as well. Subtle but very impressive track overall. I think our very own Ralph Potts' official AVS review nails this flick right on the head when it comes to the audio track. I would have given it a slightly higher Atmos score than Ralph but hey no body's perfect  lol


I loved the Atmos mix of Transcendence. Especially the way Johnny Depp's 'transcended' character's voice poured from the overheads when he was up on those big monitors.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Onkyo may use Pioneer EQ to replace AccuEQ. I have had Onkyo now for 7 years and I have never had any issues, I keep them well ventilated that may be why????
> Let's see what comes in these new line of 2015 receivers Atmos DTS:X that's all I want.


Same here - 4 Onkyos in a row - no problems with any of them. And always well ventilated here too.


----------



## NorthSky

*The future of 3D sound?*



coolgeek said:


> ... it is looking more and more like 3D is truly dead in the water going forward. Once the hardware manufacturers stop supporting it, and even the next generation format doesn't support it, the writing's on the wall...
> 
> I believe this is due to the lack of 3D movie sales in the past.... Unfortunately, 3D is a new format, and tvs haven't got to the point where watching 3D is a pleasure such as watching it on the projector (like the sony 4K)... but now that tvs are getting bigger and better, they decide to kill 3D.. just when the display devices of the home is getting caught up with properly displaying 3d... I can see why most people don't care about 3D on their tiny tvs... i don't either... but for those of us with a proper home theater with nice projectors, that sucks!!!





lovingdvd said:


> I was really disappointed to see video games drop the little momentum they had in 3D gaming going into these next-gen consoles. A great example is Killzone 3. It has excellent 3D that made the game very enjoyable and the 3D aiming adding a whole other level of dimension to playing (pardon the pun). Then Killzone 4 comes out on the PS4 and no 3D support at all. Same for some other games like COD. And just at a time when the hardware was finally capable of doing 1080p60 frame packed 3D without lowering the graphics quality like in the previous gen consoles.





NorthSky said:


> It's all Warner Bros' fault to not reissue it in 3D with that new Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack; what were they thinking, or drinking, or smoking!
> You know what too; I think that a 50GB Blu-ray disc is simply not good enough for a 90 minutes movie, with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, and a 3D picture.
> 
> *But then, how the heck 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' got to be released in both 3D Atmos sound and 3D picture! ...Plus it's almost three hours long!*
> [Because Warner Bros is not Paramount; different financial 3D vision, just like 'TMNT' also from Paramount. --- And then there is also Disney, and Sony too.]
> 
> Here's what I think: On 'TF4' (Blu-ray 3D disc) the Dolby Atmos soundtrack was not on par with the 3D picture. They used less space for the sound.
> On 'Gravity' (Blu-ray 2D disc) the Dolby Atmos soundtrack; they used all the space necessary for the best 3D sound experience, and there was simply not enough space for the 3D picture.
> - I know, it doesn't make sense; but what does today. ...And who's in charge, us? ...Certainly not; the movie studios are, that's who.
> {There is something financially motivated under the sky here, and each movie studio do what's best for them, simply, must be, I think.}





BigScreen said:


> It might have to do with the fact that the PS3 can't do Dolby TrueHD and 3D at the same time, and perhaps the bean counters at WB decided that PS3 owners represented enough of the target audience that it wasn't worth the hassle that they might get when people can't play the movie in 3D and TrueHD/Atmos.
> 
> That's an outside chance of why, but it's possible.


♦ Very good point. And I quoted some above yours to flow all together, to makes sense of it all.

Paramount released two Blu-ray movies in 3D and with Dolby Atmos on the same BR disc: 'TF4' (165 mins) and 'TMNT'.
Lionsgate four BR flicks with Dolby Atmos (no 3D).
Universal one coming soon; 'Unbroken' with Dolby Atmos (no 3D).
And Warner Bros one coming soon too; 'Gravity' with Dolby Atmos (no 3D, unlike their first release!).

Disney is backing off.
Sony is in limbo, and the father of the PS3 game console & BR player in one (SACD is gone, from their PS4, I think). 
Universal is too new in the 3D picture and sound (Atmos) game right now.

As many know I am big on 3D picture, but that's not enough; 3D is dying, no doubt about it, when the studios are separating themselves from it.
And it has to do with revenues, there are simply no other reasons. ...Or if there are they are secondary.

So, looking @ this picture, and looking @ 3D sound now (Dolby Atmos, and Auro-3D too) as they are with us in the here and now, 
and with only two handful of Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos encoding (since last June's announcement), and Auro-3D having even less,
and DTS:X not here yet and it might take a while (months) before we see the first BR titles encoded with it, plus the gear (this Summer),
well, how much support are we going to get from all the movie studios? ...Is Lionsgate the one that tries the hardest? ...And then we know some issues.

If it cost money for Hollywood movie studios to encode their movies on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X), and they are not selling more than simple 2D sound (Dolby TrueHD & DTS-HD MA), ...can you see a similar pattern happening from 3D picture? ...Me, I certainly do.
And my deepest and highest love for 3D picture with 3D sound (Dolby Atmos, DSU, Auro-3D, Auro-Matic, the upcoming DTS:X and with its own dts up-mixer) has no weight @ all on their realistic/financial future support. 

♦ Just like 3D picture is dying right now (I can clearly see that now, very unfortunately for us all 3D lovers), 3D sound might not lift very far from the ground before it disappears into the sky above. 
What might save 3D sound is cost. It is probably much less expensive than encoding a 3D picture on Blu-ray. ...Even film the 3D movie.
The movie studios just need to get new mixing/recording Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 3D sound consoles, and pay the engineers to practice their skills. 

Another point of importance; how many Dolby Atmos films played @ the cinema theaters that weren't released on Blu-rays with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack? 

And my next question; is DTS:X going to change that playing field when it truly show up? ...Are we going to see some real strong support finally? 
Because after all; if they want to sell us more AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors, they have to provide us with something tangible. 

I think that we are @ a new threshold of sound and picture immersion today; with 4K coming soon, OLED persevering (prohibitive too), with Blu-rays disintegrating slowly because of downloading and streaming, with the masses voting for the cheapest alternatives, and leaving us (us the 3D sound & picture gurus) with a small niche market that will never expand much, and that will never develop to show its full true valuable potential. 
...Because simply the money won't be there for us, and without money there is no support. 

I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. ...Objectively speaking.


----------



## NorthSky

zebidou81 said:


> If i was to move the sofa forward would the side surrounds be in the right place if i was to mount on wall or just move the sofa out a few inches ?
> I have some spare kef 3001se speakers now and just wonder would these work as back surrounds and place my q100s as surround sides or go the other way round i would prefer to keep the q100s doing most of the surround work ?


♦ The side surrounds would be best, I think, @ the sides on their own speaker stands. ...The Q100s.
The KEF speakers would go as your Rear surrounds, close to where your side surrounds are now (in that bay window area). 
The Q100 speakers are definitely your Side surrounds.



zebidou81 said:


> Hi all i am about to install a second pair of atmos speakers as front heights, before i start drilling could i ask i know that they should be above left and right speakers but with regards to height would you position touching the ceiling or a few inches feet away from ceiling ? I also could put each one in each corner of wall i just wonder what people found was best ? I have re-posted pic of front wall which they are to be mounted on if anyone could suggest best position ?


♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ==> Page 22 (7.1.4 Atmos setup)



pasender91 said:


> It indeed makes sense to keep the q100s doing most of the surround work, so move them to surround (Side) and place your Kef 3001 as Back surround ...


♦ Exactly what he said. 



zebidou81 said:


> Hi All i have posted some pics regarding my room setup post 21267 of this thread earlier and thanks for the tips i received.
> 
> with regards to my setup i have now installed 2 front height speakers and i am also now running 2 kef htb2se subs in my setup and i have pulled sofa away from bay slightly and just trialing now with regards to FH+TM AND ALSO FH+TR,
> 
> I am thinking of also installing some side surrounds and running my Q100s that are cureently surrounds as back surrounds, as in my pics of my mlp i was thinking if i install some Q800s speakers on the side walls of my setup would this work as they would match my Q series setup ? would it be a big problem that the q800s are dipole or that they are in close proximety of my Q100s ?
> 
> also are dipoles ok with atmos as they would be close to my top middle speakers to ?


♦ Dipole speakers are not particularly recommended; I would simply discard them, if not too emotionally affected. 
But it's true; with Dolby Atmos now, dipole speakers don't serve the purpose, like they did in the prehistoric dark ages of THX and Star Wars' Darth Vader.
We have evolved since then, from the darkness to the above light; and in all discretion (discrete object rendition).
{Speaking of Star Wars; I hope...that Episodes VII, VIII and IX will get the full DTS:X 3D Sound & Picture treatment,,,but it's only a vague distant hope.}

* And again, look @ the above Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines link.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I may be completely wrong here, but did anyone else notice that Mockingjay included a DTS:X headphone mix for the movie? Anyone think there's a chance that there's a DTS:X mix on the disc as well that will suddenly become "active" once the DTS:X decoders are in the AVRs and pre/pros? Just a thought....


----------



## ThePrisoner

Dave Vaughn said:


> I may be completely wrong here, but did anyone else notice that Mockingjay included a DTS:X headphone mix for the movie? Anyone think there's a chance that there's a DTS:X mix on the disc as well that will suddenly become "active" once the DTS:X decoders are in the AVRs and pre/pros? Just a thought....


That would be sick!


----------



## LowellG

Dave Vaughn said:


> I may be completely wrong here, but did anyone else notice that Mockingjay included a DTS:X headphone mix for the movie? Anyone think there's a chance that there's a DTS:X mix on the disc as well that will suddenly become "active" once the DTS:X decoders are in the AVRs and pre/pros? Just a thought....



I saw that audio track on my Blu Ray, never thought of it just working once the DTS:X coders go in place, but that would be nice. What I though was, wow, DTS just came out with this and one studio already has the mix on BluRay. Makes me think they are going to dominate ATMOS.


----------



## zeus33

Dave Vaughn said:


> I may be completely wrong here, but did anyone else notice that Mockingjay included a DTS:X headphone mix for the movie? Anyone think there's a chance that there's a DTS:X mix on the disc as well that will suddenly become "active" once the DTS:X decoders are in the AVRs and pre/pros? Just a thought....



Possible, but unlikely. Headphones are 2 channels instead of 5,7,9, etc. It's probably a very different mix.

Besides, I seriously doubt DTS would put that data out before their official release.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dave Vaughn said:


> I may be completely wrong here, but did anyone else notice that Mockingjay included a DTS:X headphone mix for the movie? Anyone think there's a chance that there's a DTS:X mix on the disc as well that will suddenly become "active" once the DTS:X decoders are in the AVRs and pre/pros? Just a thought....


No. There is zero chance of that 

I think there is going to be a mass sense of "meh" on AVS once DTS:X launches. 

What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ? 

Just curious what people's expectations are....


----------



## jpco

FilmMixer said:


> What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?



More releases.


----------



## jpco

Really, the anticipation fir DTS:X is for hardware to handle it. Some of us are waiting for support for both Atmos and DTS:X. Seven years ago I upgraded my AVR so I could decode True HD and DTS-MA in the receiver. The timing worked out well. This next generation or so could be 5 year plus keepers.


----------



## NorthSky

________

* No Blu-ray yet with Dolby Atmos Headphone mix. ...DTS:X took the lead here, with that dts:x headphone audio mix on Mockingjay Blu-ray. 
If Dolby has Dolby Headphone feature on some receivers and pre/pros, I bet we'll eventually see Dolby Surround Headphone (Dolby Atmos up-mixer for cans).


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> I think there is going to be a mass sense of "meh" on AVS once *DTS:X* launches.
> 
> *What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?*
> 
> Just curious what people's expectations are....





jpco said:


> *More releases.*


♦ That *^* ... and quality flicks.


----------



## FilmMixer

jpco said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?
> 
> 
> 
> More releases.
Click to expand...

Why? 

There have been absolutely zero films mixed in MDA?

Auro has a good library of titles ready to go. How many have been released on BR?

People like to reiterate that one of the reasons that DTS was used by many studios early on in the BR years was the ease and speed of encoding. 

Now DTS will have to convince studios that produced films in Atmos to turn over those masters and convert them over to MDA. 

While it certainly isn't a difficult task, it is most definitely a resource that requires time and money. Just some food for thought.


----------



## NorthSky

Marc, what was it you were saying a month or so before this past Christmas? 

Now how many Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles have been released since then?


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> No. There is zero chance of that
> 
> I think there is going to be a mass sense of "meh" on AVS once DTS:X launches.
> 
> What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?
> 
> Just curious what people's expectations are....



Possibly: a dialog object, some mapping to current locations, more releases.


- Rich


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> While it certainly isn't a difficult task, it is most definitely a resource that requires time and money. Just some food for thought.



... Food for film mixers  


- Rich


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Marc, what was it you were saying a month or so before this past Christmas?
> 
> Now how many Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles have been released since then?


That I thought there would be more titles than there are today IIRC.

The reason why is more important than the number.... And it's certainly less than Dolby would've liked. 

I don't expect the release of DTS:X to change the rate of release of object based content in a meaningful way. 

Nor will I expand on that comment any further so don't ask. 

Do you any meaningful insight (other than speculation) to add to you line of questioning?


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> Possibly: a dialog object, some mapping to current locations, more releases.
> 
> - Rich


Rich, what are people saying over @ Audioholics regarding Dolby Atmos vs DTS:X ?


----------



## NorthSky

Marc,

Nope; things didn't turn out the way some people were expecting (good surprises), that's all.


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is zero chance of that
> 
> I think there is going to be a mass sense of "meh" on AVS once DTS:X launches.
> 
> What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?
> 
> Just curious what people's expectations are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly: a dialog object, some mapping to current locations, more releases.
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...

Dolby could encode dialog as an object if they wanted. They have told me they migh add user object volume control in the future. 

The bigger issue is if the content makers will allow such a practice. 

It becomes a bigger issue than simply having the dialog as an object. I mix dialog in all five channels sometimes. With reverb and effects. So then I would need to have that delivered as 5 objects because taking the center would create more, not less, intelligibility issues. 

Add to that there are many times that there are holes in the production dialog track covered up by background sound effects, etc. Unwinidng a mix is like pulling a thread on a sweater.









There are better ways to skin the cat regarding dialog intelligibility IMO. 

DTS will be constrained by the same thing Dolby is...... Bandwidth and storage space. 

I expect the dialog as an object "benefit" will only be realized in live broadcast applications. 

Mapping to speakers isn't soley a function of the codec. Atmos could do the same thing if the AVR/SSP designers built that into their products. The Atmos renderer can report the data in the same way according to Dolby. IMO you will see this as we move past 7.1.4 in future products. See what Trinnov and Datasat does with 
Atmos










More releases... See my other comments.


----------



## RichB

NorthSky said:


> Rich, what are people saying over @ Audioholics regarding Dolby Atmos vs DTS:X ?



Things are pretty quiet there as well.
We are all awaiting the DTS announcement.


- Rich


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby could encode dialog as an object if they wanted. They have told me they migh add user object volume control in the future.
> 
> The bigger issue is if the content makers will allow such a practice.
> 
> It becomes a bigger issue than simply having the dialog as an object. I mix dialog in all five channels sometimes. With reverb and effects. So then I would need to have that delivered as 5 objects because taking the center would create more, not less, intelligibility issues.
> 
> Add to that there are many times that there are holes in the production dialog track covered up by background sound effects, etc. Unwinidng a mix is like pulling a thread on a sweater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are better ways to skin the cat regarding dialog intelligibility IMO.
> 
> DTS will be constrained by the same thing Dolby is...... Bandwidth and storage space.
> 
> I expect the dialog as an object "benefit" will only be realized in live broadcast applications.
> 
> Mapping to speakers isn't soley a function of the codec. Atmos could do the same thing if the AVR/SSP designers built that into their products. The Atmos renderer can report the data in the same way according to Dolby. IMO you will see this as we move past 7.1.4 in future products. See what Trinnov and Datasat does with
> Atmos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More releases... See my other comments.



Perhaps some of these features may require 4K media and the associated bandwidth.


- Rich


----------



## David Susilo

RichB said:


> Things are pretty quiet there as well.
> We are all awaiting the DTS announcement.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Really? I thought Audioholics will be too busy bashing DTS:X like they bashed Dolby Atmos


----------



## audioguy

Watched Mockingjay tonight. Of all of the Atmos films I have watched, this easily was the best use of the height channels. By far!!


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> Perhaps some of these features may require 4K media and the associated bandwidth.
> 
> 
> - Rich


Even if that is the case, it doesn't make DTS any more compelling than what Dolby has to offer IMO.

Look... there are many people who think DTS is audibly superior to Dolby when it comes to the lossless codecs.

It's simply not true, nor is it a claim DTS has even ever made...

One of our fellow forum members is fond of saying that DTS has something that no other audio codec has ever had... 

A fan base.

I've no doubt that DTS will bring a great competitor to the market..

However, from all the whispering I've heard, it is going to be way more similar to Atmos (as it exists in these first gen rollout products) than different.

But to think that a company that has no presence in the film business since they sold off the cinema business to Datasat is going to come to the party with a plethora of content that was originally produced in theatrical Atmos... that would be a big surprise to me.

Dolby isn't rolling over like they did when Blu Ray was launched... not by a long shot.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Watched Mockingjay tonight. Of all of the Atmos films I have watched, this easily was the best use of the height channels. By far!!


Did you like the movie?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

FilmMixer said:


> Even if that is the case, it doesn't make DTS any more compelling than what Dolby has to offer IMO.
> 
> Look... there are many people who think DTS is audibly superior to Dolby when it comes to the lossless codecs.
> 
> It's simply not true, nor is it a claim DTS has even ever made...
> 
> One of our fellow forum members is fond of saying that DTS has something that no other audio codec has ever had...
> 
> A fan base.
> 
> I've no doubt that DTS will bring a great competitor to the market..
> 
> However, from all the whispering I've heard, it is going to be way more similar to Atmos (as it exists in these first gen rollout products) than different.
> 
> But to think that a company that has no presence in the film business since they sold off the cinema business to Datasat is going to come to the party with a plethora of content that was originally produced in theatrical Atmos... that would be a big surprise to me.
> 
> Dolby isn't rolling over like they did when Blu Ray was launched... not by a long shot.


Great points Marc. I've heard the same things, which is why I think Auro-3D is DOA.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Did you like the movie?


A lot!


----------



## aaranddeeman

FilmMixer said:


> Even if that is the case, it doesn't make DTS any more compelling than what Dolby has to offer IMO.
> 
> Look... there are many people who think DTS is audibly superior to Dolby when it comes to the lossless codecs.
> 
> It's simply not true, nor is it a claim DTS has even ever made...
> 
> One of our fellow forum members is fond of saying that DTS has something that no other audio codec has ever had...
> 
> A fan base.
> 
> I've no doubt that DTS will bring a great competitor to the market..
> 
> However, from all the whispering I've heard, it is going to be way more similar to Atmos (as it exists in these first gen rollout products) than different.
> 
> But to think that a company that has no presence in the film business since they sold off the cinema business to Datasat is going to come to the party with a plethora of content that was originally produced in theatrical Atmos... that would be a big surprise to me.
> 
> Dolby isn't rolling over like they did when Blu Ray was launched... not by a long shot.



But what about the complexity of the DTHD codec and it's licensing cost compared to DTS. (You will have the best insight. For us it's just based on what we read).
Would that make a difference once DTS comes into play. Obviously studios would like to get the best bang for their buck.
Isn't that the reason DTS-HDMA is preferred over DTHD. (I wanted to check something unrelated today and wanted a disk that has DTHD and I had hard time finding one in my stock. I did, but after flipping numerous DTS-HD titles).


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> A lot!


Wow, gotta watch it now. 

* We're talking film's storyline, acting, main interest here, right?


----------



## RichB

David Susilo said:


> Really? I thought Audioholics will be too busy bashing DTS:X like they bashed Dolby Atmos



I suppose we all have our sensibilities... and non-sensibilities 


- Rich


----------



## NorthSky

RichB said:


> I suppose we all have our sensibilities... and non-sensibilities
> 
> - Rich


I do miss all my "sensible" friends from over there. ...I think they're all mainly gone now, except for the few great ones with a heart of gold.


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> Even if that is the case, it doesn't make DTS any more compelling than what Dolby has to offer IMO.
> 
> Look... there are many people who think DTS is audibly superior to Dolby when it comes to the lossless codecs.
> 
> It's simply not true, nor is it a claim DTS has even ever made...
> 
> One of our fellow forum members is fond of saying that DTS has something that no other audio codec has ever had...
> 
> A fan base.
> 
> I've no doubt that DTS will bring a great competitor to the market..
> 
> However, from all the whispering I've heard, it is going to be way more similar to Atmos (as it exists in these first gen rollout products) than different.
> 
> But to think that a company that has no presence in the film business since they sold off the cinema business to Datasat is going to come to the party with a plethora of content that was originally produced in theatrical Atmos... that would be a big surprise to me.
> 
> Dolby isn't rolling over like they did when Blu Ray was launched... not by a long shot.



I also expect it the very similar and as you say, there is should be no difference in lossless encoding.
I am not a fan of dialog normalization since it seems, in practice to have the opposite effect.


Does the DTS core save some bandwidth in space over Dolby that must provide a lossey track for BD?


DTS seems the thrive when both essentially equivalent options are available.


Dolby wants to translate theatrical dominance into BD market dominance.
DTS wants open authoring to permit its format to thrive.
Having a choice is in the best interest of the studios.


DTS does not have seamless branching so it may be more backward compatible, but we will have to wait and see.


- Rich


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?
> 
> Just curious what people's expectations are....


It's going to sound WAY better, obviously.


----------



## NorthSky

I was afraid to say it Marc, but now that Scott just broke the code of silence; he is abso!utely right.


----------



## brahman12

*Shocking Transcendence!!!*



kbarnes701 said:


> I loved the Atmos mix of Transcendence. Especially the way Johnny Depp's 'transcended' character's voice poured from the overheads when he was up on those big monitors.


I am glad guys like you and Nalleh put me up on the Amazon Japan idea cuz it was worth picking this one up as a big fan of the tech. I wasn't expecting much from this flick but the sound mix and somewhat effective acting efforts of the cast made me brave through it and ultimately ended up digging most of the movie. I was surprised with some of the bass moments and the overhead use was mad cool. As a side note, I think it is very important for us to keep in mind, and I believe you have talked about this is past posts as well...ATMOS does not mean overhead sounds alone...a lot of the Atmos magic can be subtle at times (don't get me wrong, I love the in yo face stuff too) and has a lot to do with the increased perceived resolution via immersive, 3D techniques that make all of the sound mix to seem more realistic and in the room, so to speak....freed from the speakers and more present/alive within the listening space. This is just as sexy to me and sometimes more so, than those immediately impressive overhead effects. Atmos induced Nirvana....let's hope she stays around for good while.


----------



## FilmMixer

aaranddeeman said:


> But what about the complexity of the DTHD codec and it's licensing cost compared to DTS. (You will have the best insight. For us it's just based on what we read).
> Would that make a difference once DTS comes into play. Obviously studios would like to get the best bang for their buck.
> Isn't that the reason DTS-HDMA is preferred over DTHD. (I wanted to check something unrelated today and wanted a disk that has DTHD and I had hard time finding one in my stock. I did, but after flipping numerous DTS-HD titles).


There is no licensing cost to either codec. Cost isn't the issue.

The initial encoding tools were indeed slower.

The differences in speed of encoding, as of today, is negligible from what I have been told.


----------



## Roger Dressler

RichB said:


> *DTS does not have seamless branching* so it may be more backward compatible, but we will have to wait and see.


Seamless branching is possible with either Dolby or DTS codecs. Have you seen something to the contrary?


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> Wow, gotta watch it now.
> 
> * We're talking film's storyline, acting, main interest here, right?


You sure would not watch it because I liked it. I am VERY easily entertained by most movies. I can be entertained my movies that don't necessarily have great story lines or great acting. (e.g. I like all of the Bruce Willis movies as I find them fun to watch. Great acting? NO! Well developed story linie? NO! Entertaining? YES)

So watch at your own risk


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> I am glad guys like you and Nalleh put me up on the Amazon Japan idea cuz it was worth picking this one up as a big fan of the tech. I wasn't expecting much from this flick but the sound mix and somewhat effective acting efforts of the cast made me brave through it and ultimately ended up digging most of the movie. I was surprised with some of the bass moments and the overhead use was mad cool. As a side note, I think it is very important for us to keep in mind, and I believe you have talked about this is past posts as well...ATMOS does not mean overhead sounds alone...a lot of the Atmos magic can be subtle at times (don't get me wrong, I love the in yo face stuff too) and has a lot to do with the increased perceived resolution via immersive, 3D techniques that make all of the sound mix to seem more realistic and in the room, so to speak....freed from the speakers and more present/alive within the listening space. This is just as sexy to me and sometimes more so, than those immediately impressive overhead effects. Atmos induced Nirvana....let's hope she stays around for good while.


+1.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> You sure would not watch it because I liked it. I am VERY easily entertained by most movies. I can be entertained my movies that don't necessarily have great story lines or great acting. (e.g. I like all of the Bruce Willis movies as I find them fun to watch. Great acting? NO! Well developed story linie? NO! Entertaining? YES)
> 
> So watch at your own risk


You seen *Whiplash* yet? Nothing special from an Atmos/DSU POV. But OMG. Even Dan might like *Whiplash*.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> Thats up to Dolby to divulge if they close to. I know the answer and think its acceptable.
> 
> So of course I was speaking about home Atmos.
> 
> It's more than 2... And less than 118.


This was an earlier response in this thread to the question on the maximum number of simultaneous objects in home Atmos.

The answer suggests that preparing the Atmos soundtrack for home could involve reducing the total number of simultaneous objects. How this is done? I can imagine that one way of doing that - besides clustering a number of objects into one - is to fold some objects permanently into the channel bed during the re-mixing stage.

If objects are chosen that do originally not address any height channel, it will have no audible effects on 5.1.x and 7.1.x systems, since those lay-outs are standardized for channel bed reproduction at ear level.

However, if you go beyond 7 ear level speakers it will. For example, the wides in a 9.1.x system will now remain silent when a sound moves from center to side. I wonder if anyone did already experience such an occasion in practice with an Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## David Susilo

*Transcendence Japan Release*

Can anybody please link me to which version should I buy at Amazon Japan? i see three different versions and don't know which one to buy.

Furthermore, are there any additional releases from other countries that are in Atmos? (Zone A or Zone Free please)

Thank you so much in advance


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Can anybody please link me to which version should I buy at Amazon Japan? i see three different versions and don't know which one to buy.
> 
> Furthermore, are there any additional releases from other countries that are in Atmos? (Zone A or Zone Free please)
> 
> Thank you so much in advance


*Transcendence* (taken from my order confirmation).

Don't forget *I, Frankenstein *and *Chicago*, also available on Amazon Japan (Chicago coming soon).


----------



## SteveTheGeek

David Susilo said:


> Can anybody please link me to which version should I buy at Amazon Japan? i see three different versions and don't know which one to buy.
> 
> Furthermore, are there any additional releases from other countries that are in Atmos? (Zone A or Zone Free please)
> 
> Thank you so much in advance


Transcendence : http://www.amazon.co.jp/Transcenden...65953&creativeASIN=B00MXZQFPY&m=AN1VRQENFRJN5

Enchanted Kingdom 3D : http://www.amazon.co.jp/Enchanted-K...65953&creativeASIN=B00MOD2KP4&m=AN1VRQENFRJN5

I Frankenstein : http://www.amazon.co.jp/I-Frankenst...65953&creativeASIN=B00OK6O5O2&m=AN1VRQENFRJN5

And soon to come (still no one tested so not sure 100%) :

Chicago : http://www.amazon.co.jp/Chicago-Blu...65953&creativeASIN=B00SIDCLS0&m=AN1VRQENFRJN5


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> And soon to come (*still no one tested so not sure 100%*) :
> 
> Chicago : http://www.amazon.co.jp/Chicago-Blu...65953&creativeASIN=B00SIDCLS0&m=AN1VRQENFRJN5


But clearly labeled as an Atmos disc, even in the disc title, (as well as the disc spec) so should be OK.


----------



## David Susilo

Thank you!!!! (and I just ordered Transcendence and Enchanted Kingdom)


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Thank you!!!! (and I just ordered Transcendence and Enchanted Kingdom)


You're welcome!

Not *Chicago* too? That's one I am really looking forward too.


----------



## David Susilo

I think I'm one of the very few people who dislike Chicago.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> I think I'm one of the very few people who dislike Chicago.


Fair enough. It does have Richard Gere in it, so it's a stretch for me too sometimes 

Best musical I've seen for ages is *Whiplash*. (It IS a musical isn't it?  )


----------



## Nalleh

David Susilo said:


> I think I'm one of the very few people who dislike Chicago.


+1


----------



## Bumper

Josh Z said:


> You shouldn't make a sweeping generalization like this. The quality of 3D conversions has greatly improved. The real issue is whether the movie was photographed and designed with 3D in mind, and how well that was handled.
> 
> Both Gravity and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were conversions that have awesome 3D, better than some movies that were shot natively (but poorly) in the format, such as the disappointing 3D in Tron Legacy or X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Hence not the 100%. Btw much about Gravity is written on that inernet page I linked to. CGI can be done using the Real3D models. And yes, obviously it makes all the difference if the Director had 3D in mind. Prometheus is a very nice example of that. I guess I should have written a number less than 99%. My experience remains spot on though. I tried to watch Captain America in 3D because I figured this would for sure be a Real3D movie but I simply couldn't watch it in 3D. The movie just didn't look right and so I checked the Fake/Real web page and found it was complying to the Fakes. I really like watching movies in 3D but anytime I see something is odd about the movie in 3D, the Fake/Real page tells me I was watching a fake and visa versa. So sorry for generalizing.
Good examples to prove you right are Iron Man 3 and Transformers DOTM but they contain heavy CGI complying to the Real3D model.


----------



## Bumper

Josh Z said:


> You shouldn't make a sweeping generalization like this. The quality of 3D conversions has greatly improved. The real issue is whether the movie was photographed and designed with 3D in mind, and how well that was handled.
> 
> Both Gravity and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were conversions that have awesome 3D, better than some movies that were shot natively (but poorly) in the format, such as the disappointing 3D in Tron Legacy or X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Hence not the 100%. Btw much about Gravity is written on that inernet page I linked to. CGI can be done using the Real3D models. And yes, obviously it makes all the difference if the Director had 3D in mind. Prometheus is a very nice example of that. I guess I should have written a number less than 99%. My experience remains spot on though. I tried to watch Captain America in 3D because I figured this would for sure be a Real3D movie but I simply couldn't watch it in 3D. The movie just didn't look right and so I checked the Fake/Real web page and found it was complying to the Fakes. I really like watching movies in 3D but anytime I see something is odd about the movie in 3D, the Fake/Real page tells me I was watching a fake and visa versa. So sorry for generalizing.
Good examples to prove you right are Iron Man 3 and Transformers DOTM but they contain heavy CGI complying to the Real3D model.

Sorry for being a little Off Topic here BTW.


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> Fair enough. It does have Richard Gere in it, so it's a stretch for me too sometimes
> 
> Best musical I've seen for ages is *Whiplash*. (It IS a musical isn't it?  )


Man, that kid can play!


----------



## bargervais

I just noticed that Insurgent is added to the list of Blu-Ray with Atmos ????
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> Man, that kid can play!


Yeah - and it really is Miles Teller playing, albeit massively edited to make an entire piece. Teller has a musical background and could play drums anyway, albeit rock not jazz. He must have worked his butt off to carry off those scenes so realistically. 

For me, it was a poor _movie_ but great performances. And my first love in music is jazz, so it was a double-delight for me, even though a lot of what is in the movie jarred with me. The kids in the band just didn't strike me as 'real' musicians (even though a lot of them were), in the sense nowhere in the movie do we see them doing what young musicians do - hang out, play together, do college gigs, busking even. It wouldn't have taken much to include a couple of scenes showing that sort of thing. Even the few scenes where Teller's character is practising aren't very real in feel. And we never once see him studying music theory, as, for example, Charlie Parker did intensively. There's too much emphasis on him making his hands bleed (also unrealistic - I have never once read a biography of a jazz drummer where hands bleeding like that was a feature - and I have read a lot). In the movie, the theme of blood is returned to way too often IMO. It's everywhere - on his hands, on his kit, on the floor, in ice water - everywhere. More like Rambo: First Drum Kit than a movie about a jazz drummer. But it makes its impact I guess. Also, I found the sub plot of Teller's character's relationship with his girlfriend rushed and unfulfilling. I know they were trying to make the point that he would throw away a good relationship if he felt it advanced his drumming career, but IMO it wasn't needed. We get it anyway. I’d have preferred to see those scenes removed in totality and replaced with some scenes showing the guys in the band hanging together. And surely, they all would unite when presented with a vile, disgusting, animalistic, brutish, insensitive, crass, obnoxious person like Fletcher? 

Incidentally, the story of Charlie Parker being "almost decapitated" by a cymbal thrown by Jo Jones is fiction. Fletcher uses the story to his own ends, to justify his outrageous violence. It is inconceivable that a jazz obsessive like Fletcher wouldn't know the true story of that cymbal throwing incident, so one assumes that he twisted it for his own ends, either knowingly or subconsciously. But it may jar with jazz enthusiasts who know the real story.

Stanley Crouch tells the real story in his biography of Parker:

_“Bird had gotten up there and got his meter turned around,” Ramey remembered. “When they got to the end of the thirty-two-bar chorus, he was in the second bar on that next chorus. Somehow or other he got ahead of himself or something. He had the right meter. He was with the groove all right, but he was probably anxious to make it. Anyway, he couldn’t get off. Jo Jones hit the bell corners—ding. Bird kept playing. Ding. Ding. Everybody was looking, and people were starting to say, ‘Get this cat off of here.’ Ding! So finally, finally, Jo Jones pulled off the cymbal and said ‘DING’ on the floor. Some would call it a crash, and they were right, a DING trying to pass itself as under a crash. Bird jumped, you know, and it startled him and he eased out of the solo. Everybody was screaming and laughing. The whole place."_

Sorry for the OT. I'll delete the post if anyone objects to it here.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I just noticed that Insurgent is added to the list of Blu-Ray with Atmos ????
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


Let's hope so. I'm looking forward to that movie.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - and it really is Miles Teller playing, albeit massively edited to make an entire piece. Teller has a musical background and could play drums anyway, albeit rock not jazz. He must have worked his butt off to carry off those scenes so realistically.
> 
> For me, it was a poor _movie_ but great performances. And my first love in music is jazz, so it was a double-delight for me, even though a lot of what is in the movie jarred with me.
> 
> Sorry for the OT. I'll delete the post if anyone objects to it here.


Delete it? Are you kidding me? This is an invaluable, insightful bit of movie analysis (and is much less OT than all the chatter about 3D video IMO). I'm still planning to watch _Whiplash_, but your comments will help to tone down my expectations. As a life-long jazz enthusiast, I thank you for posting this, Keith.

BTW, it's not exactly contradictory to your comments, but here's how my favorite reviewer, the N.Y. Times's A.O. Scott, summed up the film: "By going deeper into the details of musicianship than most such movies — by allowing us to hear things as Andrew and Fletcher do, and to understand the endless and exacting discipline of their work — this one breaks free of the constraints of realism and takes wing toward the sublime. It may get a few things wrong, but it aims at, and finally achieves, an authenticity at once more exalted and more primal than mere verisimilitude."


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> I just noticed that Insurgent is added to the list of Blu-Ray with Atmos ????
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


 
If you read the rest of the posts - there is no conclusive evidence at this time!
IMO, it should not be listed there until there is solid proof.


----------



## brahman12

*Chicago Atmos vs DSU*



kbarnes701 said:


> Fair enough. It does have Richard Gere in it, so it's a stretch for me too sometimes
> 
> Best musical I've seen for ages is *Whiplash*. (It IS a musical isn't it?  )


I am gonna let a few people give their impressions with this one before I jump in.....Not sure how much better in Atmos this movie will sound over DSU since music is the star of the show in this film. So you and anyone else on this thread that purchases this disc better post immediately after watching, lol.


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> I also expect it the very similar and as you say, there is should be no difference in lossless encoding.
> I am not a fan of dialog normalization since it seems, in practice to have the opposite effect.


DTS also uses dialog normalization... it is set by default to -31 (off) in the encoder, whereas in the Dolby encoder it defaults to -27/+4 dialog norm.

I agree it's never been properly used by many authoring companies... however, it has zero effect on the quality of the decoded signal.



> Does the DTS core save some bandwidth in space over Dolby that must provide a lossey track for BD?


No... the DTS core is usually 1509 vs the companion 640 DD track... however, the core is always there in a DTS track.. when there are close to silent sections, the TrueHD bitrate can go very low... . I've been told it's of no import in the grand scheme of things.



> DTS seems the thrive when both essentially equivalent options are available.


They aren't essentially equivalent.. they reproduce the exact same audio... thats the definition of a losslesss codec..



> Dolby wants to translate theatrical dominance into BD market dominance.
> DTS wants open authoring to permit its format to thrive.
> Having a choice is in the best interest of the studios.
> 
> DTS does not have seamless branching so it may be more backward compatible, but we will have to wait and see.
> 
> - Rich


DTS is a much smaller company, and doesn't have the breadth of products and technology that Dolby does...

End to end solutions, which are reasonable in execution and cost, are what the studios want.

I've said it in the past, but Dolby has a huge leg up on everyone with the dominance of DD in broadcast and DD+ in streaming..

IMO, ATSC 3.0 isn't going to change that... but we will see.. 

I've been wrong before... once I think.


----------



## FilmMixer

brahman12 said:


> I am gonna let a few people give their impressions with this one before I jump in.....Not sure how much better in Atmos this movie will sound over DSU since music is the star of the show in this film. So you and anyone else on this thread that purchases this disc better post immediately after watching, lol.


The Chicago Atmos mix was made from the original 5.1 stems, plus some new sweetners...

The mixers didn't have a ton of flexibility.


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> If you read the rest of the posts - there is no conclusive evidence at this time!
> IMO, it should not be listed there until there is solid proof.


Yes I read the entire thread about it that's why my ????? At the end of my statement. But it will be great if it is indeed released with Atmos.. I will buy it with or without a Atmos mix.


----------



## DaveyMac

robert816 said:


> In the VUDU Atmos package there is actually 5 clips, only 4 are displayed when you go into the package, there should be a small > on the right to get to the last clip.
> 
> Haven't found anything yet on digital releases with Atmos on VUDU as yet, would have been nice if the digital copies that came with our Blu-Ray discs were redeemed in an Atmos version since the disc is in Atmos.


When you play the VUDU Atmos demos, does it show 'atmos' on your AVR?

I have Denon AVR X4100w and for the life of me I can't get it to show Atmos or DSU on anything.


----------



## FilmMixer

maikeldepotter said:


> This was an earlier response in this thread to the question on the maximum number of simultaneous objects in home Atmos.
> 
> The answer suggests that preparing the Atmos soundtrack for home could involve reducing the total number of simultaneous objects. How this is done? I can imagine that one way of doing that - besides clustering a number of objects into one - is to fold some objects permanently into the channel bed during the re-mixing stage.
> *
> If objects are chosen that do originally not address any height channel, it will have no audible effects on 5.1.x and 7.1.x systems, since those lay-outs are standardized for channel bed reproduction at ear level.*
> 
> However, if you go beyond 7 ear level speakers it will. For example, the wides in a 9.1.x system will now remain silent when a sound moves from center to side. I wonder if anyone did already experience such an occasion in practice with an Atmos soundtrack.


Dolby uses a technique/technology called "spatial coding" to do exactly what you suggest... clustering objects based on proximity, frequency response, etc... I'm not sure of the voodoo behind it, but I suspect they setup zones and as objects come in and out of them they are grouped and encoded.

Regarding the bolded point..

You can't do that for the reasons you mention.... the bed channels (LS, RS, LBS and RBS) must be able to be presented as arrays in >7.1 systems... there is a flag in the Atmos stream that can tell the decoder if the surround bed channels should be played as arrays or point sources. 

Because of this, you cannot hard encode objects into the beds..


----------



## bargervais

DaveyMac said:


> When you play the VUDU Atmos demos, does it show 'atmos' on your AVR?
> 
> I have Denon AVR X4100w and for the life of me I can't get it to show Atmos or DSU on anything.


When I use the app on my Samsung smart TV no Atmos but when using the app on my Panasonic Blu-Ray DMP-BDT 220 Atmos lights up.


----------



## DaveyMac

bargervais said:


> When I use the app on my Samsung smart TV no Atmos but when using the app on my Panasonic Blu-Ray DMP-BDT 220 Atmos lights up.


Hmmm, I'm playing through PS4.

I have my system set up as 7.1 front height, and I can't figure out how to get those front top speakers to do atmos instead.


----------



## bargervais

DaveyMac said:


> Hmmm, I'm playing through PS4.
> 
> I have my system set up as 7.1 front height, and I can't figure out how to get tdhose front top speakers to do atmos instead.


I don't have a PS4 but my Blu-Ray player I have it set for bitstream and secondary audio turned off maybe someone can help you, if a PS4 can do Atmos from the VUDU app.


----------



## RichB

Roger Dressler said:


> Seamless branching is possible with either Dolby or DTS codecs. Have you seen something to the contrary?



Seamless branching is causing backward compatibility problems.
Is it required for an Atmos?


- Rich


----------



## coolgeek

aaranddeeman said:


> This is exactly why HDCP is born





NorthSky said:


> ♦ Very good point. And I quoted some above yours to flow all together, to makes sense of it all.
> 
> Paramount released two Blu-ray movies in 3D and with Dolby Atmos on the same BR disc: 'TF4' (165 mins) and 'TMNT'.
> Lionsgate four BR flicks with Dolby Atmos (no 3D).
> Universal one coming soon; 'Unbroken' with Dolby Atmos (no 3D).
> And Warner Bros one coming soon too; 'Gravity' with Dolby Atmos (no 3D, unlike their first release!).
> 
> Disney is backing off.
> Sony is in limbo, and the father of the PS3 game console & BR player in one (SACD is gone, from their PS4, I think).
> Universal is too new in the 3D picture and sound (Atmos) game right now.
> 
> As many know I am big on 3D picture, but that's not enough; 3D is dying, no doubt about it, when the studios are separating themselves from it.
> And it has to do with revenues, there are simply no other reasons. ...Or if there are they are secondary.
> 
> So, looking @ this picture, and looking @ 3D sound now (Dolby Atmos, and Auro-3D too) as they are with us in the here and now,
> and with only two handful of Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos encoding (since last June's announcement), and Auro-3D having even less,
> and DTS:X not here yet and it might take a while (months) before we see the first BR titles encoded with it, plus the gear (this Summer),
> well, how much support are we going to get from all the movie studios? ...Is Lionsgate the one that tries the hardest? ...And then we know some issues.
> 
> If it cost money for Hollywood movie studios to encode their movies on Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X), and they are not selling more than simple 2D sound (Dolby TrueHD & DTS-HD MA), ...can you see a similar pattern happening from 3D picture? ...Me, I certainly do.
> And my deepest and highest love for 3D picture with 3D sound (Dolby Atmos, DSU, Auro-3D, Auro-Matic, the upcoming DTS:X and with its own dts up-mixer) has no weight @ all on their realistic/financial future support.
> 
> ♦ Just like 3D picture is dying right now (I can clearly see that now, very unfortunately for us all 3D lovers), 3D sound might not lift very far from the ground before it disappears into the sky above.
> What might save 3D sound is cost. It is probably much less expensive than encoding a 3D picture on Blu-ray. ...Even film the 3D movie.
> The movie studios just need to get new mixing/recording Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 3D sound consoles, and pay the engineers to practice their skills.
> 
> Another point of importance; how many Dolby Atmos films played @ the cinema theaters that weren't released on Blu-rays with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack?
> 
> And my next question; is DTS:X going to change that playing field when it truly show up? ...Are we going to see some real strong support finally?
> Because after all; if they want to sell us more AV receivers and Surround Sound Processors, they have to provide us with something tangible.
> 
> I think that we are @ a new threshold of sound and picture immersion today; with 4K coming soon, OLED persevering (prohibitive too), with Blu-rays disintegrating slowly because of downloading and streaming, with the masses voting for the cheapest alternatives, and leaving us (us the 3D sound & picture gurus) with a small niche market that will never expand much, and that will never develop to show its full true valuable potential.
> ...Because simply the money won't be there for us, and without money there is no support.
> 
> I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. ...Objectively speaking.


You said it all.. 

Sad, sad, sad... TBH, I would give up 4K, Atmos if they keep releasing 3Ds in HD... looks like even 3D in HD is going away... 

The only other hope for me is that the Sony projector can auto-create 3D on the fly with the 4K blu ray and it turns out pretty darn good.. i have actually tried quite a lot of 2D content using their auto-3D feature, and it's pretty good.. not as good as if the content were in 3D itself, but still pretty good... if that's all the option we have left...


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> They aren't essentially equivalent.. they reproduce the exact same audio... thats the definition of a losslesss codec..
> ...
> 
> DTS is a much smaller company, and doesn't have the breadth of products and technology that Dolby does...
> 
> End to end solutions, which are reasonable in execution and cost, are what the studios want.
> 
> I've said it in the past, but Dolby has a huge leg up on everyone with the dominance of DD in broadcast and DD+ in streaming..
> 
> IMO, ATSC 3.0 isn't going to change that... but we will see..
> 
> I've been wrong before... once I think.


There must be a reason that DTS dominates BD.

Unless content producers are irrational, there must be a cause:

Cost, space, bandwidth, tools, customer satisfaction, support.... ?

- Rich


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> You seen *Whiplash* yet? Nothing special from an Atmos/DSU POV. But OMG. *Even Dan might like* *Whiplash*.


Hey, it's on my must watch list.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Delete it? Are you kidding me? This is an invaluable, insightful bit of movie analysis (and is much less OT than all the chatter about 3D video IMO). I'm still planning to watch _Whiplash_, but your comments will help to tone down my expectations. As a life-long jazz enthusiast, I thank you for posting this, Keith.
> 
> BTW, it's not exactly contradictory to your comments, but here's how my favorite reviewer, the N.Y. Times's A.O. Scott, summed up the film: "By going deeper into the details of musicianship than most such movies — by allowing us to hear things as Andrew and Fletcher do, and to understand the endless and exacting discipline of their work — this one breaks free of the constraints of realism and takes wing toward the sublime. It may get a few things wrong, but it aims at, and finally achieves, an authenticity at once more exalted and more primal than mere verisimilitude."


Actually, one of the things I take issue with concerning the movie is its _lack_ of authenticity. Now I am not a musician, but I have been a jazz enthusiast since my teens and I have read hundreds of books on the subject and I don't think I have ever read one which describes anything remotely like what took place in the movie. But so what? It's a movie not a documentary and authenticity isn't necessarily something I'd be looking for. Credibility, yes. And I think *Whiplash* is mostly credible. I can believe there are people so obsessed that they become monsters like Fletcher. What I didn't find credible, or which was not sufficiently explored in the screenplay, is why the students, all talented in their own ways, would tolerate the abuse handed down daily by Fletcher. Jazz musicians, in my experience, and in my reading, are not usually the *****-cat type. Charlie Parker invented modern jazz, and Jo Jones invented modern jazz drumming, but AFAIK they did not have to suffer terrible abuse at the hands of their mentors for it to happen. It happened because they themselves were driven to make it happen. There is a telling line towards the end of the movie when Fletcher is trying to explain (or rationalise) his monstrous behavior and he tells Andrew that without people like him, driving forward talented musicians, the art would be the less for it. Andrew asks him if he had done the same with Bird, wouldn't there be the possibility that Bird would be discouraged and give up


Spoiler



(reflecting Andrew's temporary giving up of his drumming)


? Fletcher replies with "Bird would never give up that's the point" (or words to that effect - I am paraphrasing). And I think this is the point: great artists propel themselves - they don't need abusing to do it. That seems to me the central paradox of the movie: if Andrew is so driven, he would have driven himself. Hell, this is a guy who gave up his attractive girlfriend for his art


Spoiler



and who didn't even let a horrific car crash stop him getting on the stand


 and who practiced so hard his hands poured with blood on several occasions. Do guys like that need abusive bullying to drive them on?

This is a first movie from a new director (himself a drummer) and is semi-autobiographical. So I expect it to be flawed as a movie. But the acting is great, the script is good and the characters are electrifyingly drawn. And J K Simmon's performance was such that he richly deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. All in all, this is a movie I will come back to more than once.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> I am gonna let a few people give their impressions with this one before I jump in.....Not sure how much better in Atmos this movie will sound over DSU since music is the star of the show in this film. So you and anyone else on this thread that purchases this disc better post immediately after watching, lol.


I didn't especially notice much from the overheads, except for one scene where there is a special effect when Andrew sort of 'fades out', so intensively is he concentrating. You'll know it when you hear it - it is all over the ceiling. TBH I was so engrossed in the dialogue and the music I didn't actually pay much attention to the sound, as such.

EDIT: Sorry - you were discussing *Chicago* I think - I thought you were discussing *Whiplash*!


----------



## robert816

DaveyMac said:


> When you play the VUDU Atmos demos, does it show 'atmos' on your AVR?
> 
> I have Denon AVR X4100w and for the life of me I can't get it to show Atmos or DSU on anything.


Yes, it switches to Atmos when I play the demos. I have the Pioneer so unfortunately I do not know the settings for the Denon, but there are a lot of members here who could probably help.

One thing to check though, are you playing the Atmos demos through your Blu-Ray player? If so make certain you have the output set to bitstream, and if your player has secondary audio, turn this off

The default audio setting for the PS4 I believe is Linear PCM, change your audio output on the PS4 to Bitstream


----------



## coolgeek

RichB said:


> There must be a reason that DTS dominates BD.
> 
> Unless content producers are irrational, there must be a cause:
> 
> Cost, space, bandwidth, tools, customer satisfaction, support.... ?
> 
> - Rich


I can't swear by this nor want to bet money on it.. but wasn't it because when DTS came out, Dolby Digital was a far inferior sound-track.. i remember, whenever there's DTS and Dolby as choices, I always chose DTS... DTS had a huge headstart in lossless audio.. then years later, Dolby came up with DolbyTrueHD which leveled out the playing field... but it was too late, DTS found a foothold in most content by then... 

But in going forward, I think Atmos will take over... Also, after Dolby TrueHD, there weren't that much difference between the 2 anyways, and so, in going forward, I am not sure where DTS can play a crucial role anymore...


----------



## DaveyMac

robert816 said:


> Yes, it switches to Atmos when I play the demos. I have the Pioneer so unfortunately I do not know the settings for the Denon, but there are a lot of members here who could probably help.
> 
> 
> One thing to check though, are you playing the Atmos demos through your Blu-Ray player? If so make certain you have the output set to bitstream, and if your player has secondary audio, turn this off


I def have PS4 on Dolby(bitstream) option. I have never seen any secondary audio options. 

Now for the first time I put in a atmos BD, TMNT. No Atmos there either. In fact, much to my dismay AVR just shows 'Dolby Digital' and when I hit 'info' it shows its ONLY getting FL and FR for source. Yet it does show all my speakers are outputting sound, and they are. I think this has escalated to a question for X4100 thread. 

But if anyone can confirm they see 'atoms' when playing vudu atmos demos via PS4 , that would be great.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaveyMac said:


> I def have PS4 on Dolby(bitstream) option. I have never seen any secondary audio options.
> 
> Now for the first time I put in a atmos BD, TMNT. No Atmos there either. In fact, much to my dismay AVR just shows 'Dolby Digital' and when I hit 'info' it shows its ONLY getting FL and FR for source. Yet it does show all my speakers are outputting sound, and they are. I think this has escalated to a question for X4100 thread.
> 
> But if anyone can confirm they see 'atoms' when playing vudu atmos demos via PS4 , that would be great.


There is another setting you don't have set correctly, it seems. Set *BD Audio MIX* to OFF. You _are_ using an HDMI cable, right?


----------



## robert816

I was just about to ask whether he was using Optical or HDMI, but I did not know about the BD Audio Mix setting, good to know!


----------



## Al Sherwood

coolgeek said:


> You said it all..
> 
> Sad, sad, sad... TBH, I would give up 4K, Atmos if they keep releasing 3Ds in HD... looks like even 3D in HD is going away...
> 
> The only other hope for me is that the Sony projector can auto-create 3D on the fly with the 4K blu ray and it turns out pretty darn good.. i have actually tried quite a lot of 2D content using their auto-3D feature, and it's pretty good.. not as good as if the content were in 3D itself, but still pretty good... if that's all the option we have left...


 
Interesting, and please remember this is only a counterpoint, I would rather 4K and Atmos over 3D at any resolution. Just my preference. 


I am looking forward to one day upgrading my PJ to 4K too.


----------



## coolgeek

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting, and please remember this is only a counterpoint, I would rather 4K and Atmos over 3D at any resolution. Just my preference.
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to one day upgrading my PJ to 4K too.


There are obviously more of you than of me in the world... 

And that's why 3D is dead! Dinosaurs like me who loves his 3D is going extinct!


----------



## DaveyMac

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is another setting you don't have set correctly, it seems. Set *BD Audio MIX* to OFF. You _are_ using an HDMI cable, right?


HDMI and I had denon x3100 a day ago - was getting Master Audio, TrueHD, etc. just fine.

I do think my ps4 got settings resets, so I made sure its on Dolby(bitstream) setting. 

I don't see any BD AUDIO MIX options anywhere on PS4.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DaveyMac said:


> HDMI and I had denon x3100 a day ago - was getting Master Audio, TrueHD, etc. just fine.
> 
> I do think my ps4 got settings resets, so I made sure its on Dolby(bitstream) setting.
> 
> I don't see any BD AUDIO MIX options anywhere on PS4.


It seems Sony put it under one setting on the PS4, *Audio Format*, in the setup menu. It should be on *Bitstream Direct. *Dynamic Range Control should be OFF.


----------



## robert816

Have you checked this? While a movie is playing, hit the Options button on your controller then go under Settings. There's an option called Audio Format, under there you can change it from Linear PCM to Bitstream (Direct).


Wow! That Dan guy is good!


----------



## DaveyMac

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Reset both the PS4 and the AVR.


JD is the best, I reset and just tested - atmos is working, and I flipped over to a DTS BD, and all that's working also!


----------



## robert816

Awsome! Welcome to the Atmos fold! 
Now if we could just get MS and the Xbox One onboard.


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> There must be a reason that DTS dominates BD.
> 
> Unless content producers are irrational, there must be a cause:
> 
> Cost, space, bandwidth, tools, customer satisfaction, support.... ?
> 
> - Rich





coolgeek said:


> I can't swear by this nor want to bet money on it.. but wasn't it because when DTS came out, Dolby Digital was a far inferior sound-track.. i remember, whenever there's DTS and Dolby as choices, I always chose DTS... DTS had a huge headstart in lossless audio.. then years later, Dolby came up with DolbyTrueHD which leveled out the playing field... but it was too late, DTS found a foothold in most content by then...
> 
> But in going forward, I think Atmos will take over... Also, after Dolby TrueHD, there weren't that much difference between the 2 anyways, and so, in going forward, I am not sure where DTS can play a crucial role anymore...


When DTS first came to market on LD, there were instances of them "cooking" the soundtrack, and quite frankly, playing dumb about it... the early titles had the surrounds and sub levels elevated, and they admitted to "re-mastering" the audio for their releases...

I can tell you that from my experience, DD at 384/448 and DTS at 1509 are incredibly close when listening to the same material.. except it takes DTS almost 4x the space to do it... IMO, DTS is incredibly inefficient compared to DD and DD+....

Add to that the continued misunderstanding of dialog normalization, which resulted in many DD tracks playing back lower than and almost any DTS track, and consumers made up their minds... 

DTS never had a head start in lossless audio... 

Dolby TrueHD is based on Meridian lossless, which was the same encoding technique used on DVD-A, which preceded TrueHD and DTS-HD MA by several years... 

Neither lossless codec beat the other to market by a meaningful margin..

When the authoring tools first came out, DTS-HD could do an encoding and QC pass at the same time... which of course was a time saver... 

Dolby most definitely, IMO, dropped the ball and wasn't very aggressive on BR's launch... and they got their lunch handed to them.

But in reality, both DD and DTS decoders are mandatory in a BR player... they both get royalties from that... software dominance, in the end, doesn't matter.... 

Dolby is a required codec for ATSC, so they also have their decoders in every tv with an HD tuner built in... and every Directv box, dish box, etc...

Add to that the almost total domination in streaming (Netflix, HBO Go, Vudu, etc...) and Dolby has a large market share...

They aren't making the same mistakes this time from all that I have seen..

MDA is a strong and flexible production tool set.. it's real time rendering to whatever system you have works amazingly well... it's going to be attractive to theater owners if they can gain some traction.. I've most definitely been touting it's virtues (and obviously I'm a huge fan of Atmos as well...) 

I can't wait for DTS:X to launch... competition is good... 

I just think people write Dolby off unfairly, thinking DTS:X is some holy grail.... there will be no increase in audio fidelity.... the lossless codecs are the same.

Since we know backwards compatibility is going to be mandatory, it will be interesting to see what object limitations they have, if they use a lossless or lossy approach to encoding objects, the complexity of decoding, etc... (since nothing is publicly known at this point about how the codec words, we've no idea if they have something like "spatial coding" for complex, large number of objects content....) We know it will use a core + extensions model (I going to play some DTS:X content vs the same clips in DTS-HD MA 7.1 to see if I can notice a bit rate increase... however, since the DTS:X extension is being ignored at this point in time, I'm not sure the PS3's bitrate indicator will factor it in....)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well said, Marc.


----------



## coolgeek

FilmMixer said:


> When DTS first came to market on LD, there were instances of them "cooking" the soundtrack, and quite frankly, playing dumb about it... the early titles had the surrounds and sub levels elevated, and they admitted to "re-mastering" the audio for their releases...
> 
> I can tell you that from my experience, DD at 384/448 and DTS at 1509 are incredibly close when listening to the same material.. except it takes DTS almost 4x the space to do it... IMO, DTS is incredibly inefficient compared to DD and DD+....
> 
> Add to that the continued misunderstanding of dialog normalization, which resulted in many DD tracks playing back lower than and almost any DTS track, and consumers made up their minds...
> 
> DTS never had a head start in lossless audio...
> 
> Dolby TrueHD is based on Meridian lossless, which was the same encoding technique used on DVD-A, which preceded TrueHD and DTS-HD MA by several years...
> 
> Neither lossless codec beat the other to market by a meaningful margin..
> 
> When the authoring tools first came out, DTS-HD could do an encoding and QC pass at the same time... which of course was a time saver...
> 
> Dolby most definitely, IMO, dropped the ball and wasn't very aggressive on BR's launch... and they got their lunch handed to them.
> 
> But in reality, both DD and DTS decoders are mandatory in a BR player... they both get royalties from that... software dominance, in the end, doesn't matter....
> 
> Dolby is a required codec for ATSC, so they also have their decoders in every tv with an HD tuner built in... and every Directv box, dish box, etc...
> 
> Add to that the almost total domination in streaming (Netflix, HBO Go, Vudu, etc...) and Dolby has a large market share...
> 
> They aren't making the same mistakes this time from all that I have seen..
> 
> MDA is a strong and flexible production tool set.. it's real time rendering to whatever system you have works amazingly well... it's going to be attractive to theater owners if they can gain some traction.. I've most definitely been touting it's virtues (and obviously I'm a huge fan of Atmos as well...)
> 
> I can't wait for DTS:X to launch... competition is good...
> 
> I just think people write Dolby off unfairly, thinking DTS:X is some holy grail.... there will be no increase in audio fidelity.... the lossless codecs are the same.
> 
> Since we know backwards compatibility is going to be mandatory, it will be interesting to see what object limitations they have, if they use a lossless or lossy approach to encoding objects, the complexity of decoding, etc... (since nothing is publicly known at this point about how the codec words, we've no idea if they have something like "spatial coding" for complex, large number of objects content....) We know it will use a core + extensions model (I going to play some DTS:X content vs the same clips in DTS-HD MA 7.1 to see if I can notice a bit rate increase... however, since the DTS:X extension is being ignored at this point in time, I'm not sure the PS3's bitrate indicator will factor it in....)


Nice... great info!!!

Looks like a simple 'sounds louder' made everyone choose it... 

Actually, I am not sure if it just sounds louder part.. because I have many DTS vs Dolby Digital tracks, and there were something like a 10dB difference... even when my receiver is at full power, it can't drive the dolby digital to the level i like to listen to.. while, with the DTS tracks, I can easily do it... 

So, not sure how that works??


----------



## Roger Dressler

RichB said:


> Seamless branching is causing backward compatibility problems.


Yes, some older Mediatek were not able to be updated with Dolby MAT. But at least there was a workaround for Lionsgate discs -- PCM output (until Atmos bitstreams were desired -- then a newer player had to be used).



> Is it required for an Atmos?


Seamless branching is a disc format requirement. All codecs need to support it. And do.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Actually, one of the things I take issue with concerning the movie is its _lack_ of authenticity. Now I am not a musician, but I have been a jazz enthusiast since my teens and I have read hundreds of books on the subject and I don't think I have ever read one which describes anything remotely like what took place in the movie. But so what? It's a movie not a documentary and authenticity isn't necessarily something I'd be looking for. Credibility, yes. And I think *Whiplash* is mostly credible. I can believe there are people so obsessed that they become monsters like Fletcher. What I didn't find credible, or which was not sufficiently explored in the screenplay, is why the students, all talented in their own ways, would tolerate the abuse handed down daily by Fletcher. Jazz musicians, in my experience, and in my reading, are not usually the *****-cat type. Charlie Parker invented modern jazz, and Jo Jones invented modern jazz drumming, but AFAIK they did not have to suffer terrible abuse at the hands of their mentors for it to happen. It happened because they themselves were driven to make it happen. There is a telling line towards the end of the movie when Fletcher is trying to explain (or rationalise) his monstrous behavior and he tells Andrew that without people like him, driving forward talented musicians, the art would be the less for it. Andrew asks him if he had done the same with Bird, wouldn't there be the possibility that Bird would be discouraged and give up
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> (reflecting Andrew's temporary giving up of his drumming)
> 
> 
> ? Fletcher replies with "Bird would never give up that's the point" (or words to that effect - I am paraphrasing). And I think this is the point: great artists propel themselves - they don't need abusing to do it. That seems to me the central paradox of the movie: if Andrew is so driven, he would have driven himself. Hell, this is a guy who gave up his attractive girlfriend for his art
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> and who didn't even let a horrific car crash stop him getting on the stand
> 
> 
> and who practiced so hard his hands poured with blood on several occasions. Do guys like that need abusive bullying to drive them on?
> 
> This is a first movie from a new director (himself a drummer) and is semi-autobiographical. So I expect it to be flawed as a movie. But the acting is great, the script is good and the characters are electrifyingly drawn. And J K Simmon's performance was such that he richly deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. All in all, this is a movie I will come back to more than once.


 
I thought *Whiplash* was a great movie. I played clarinet and sax in a concert band and jazz band. I continued in college as a Music major and eventually became the Music Director at a high school for 5 years. When I was a high school student, our music teacher used to scream and shout and throw things - like a baton or a music stand. Mind you he never threw them directly at us. If practice wasn't going well he would keep us late until he was satisfied. Obviously the guy had issues and you could always quit - but you don't want to let the rest of the group down so you just sit there and take it. We were just students. I had a similar music teacher in college but when he got angry, he would turn all red and start shaking and looked like he was going to explode. We just watched him and hoped he would! And after practice we would just laugh about it. In the professional world that behavior wouldn't be tolerated! I identified alot with the movie - great music! I have watched it twice already!


----------



## BigScreen

NorthSky said:


> Dipole speakers are not particularly recommended; I would simply discard them, if not too emotionally affected.
> But it's true; with Dolby Atmos now, dipole speakers don't serve the purpose, like they did in the prehistoric dark ages of THX and Star Wars' Darth Vader.
> We have evolved since then, from the darkness to the above light; and in all discretion (discrete object rendition).
> {Speaking of Star Wars; I hope...that Episodes VII, VIII and IX will get the full DTS:X 3D Sound & Picture treatment,,,but it's only a vague distant hope.}
> 
> * And again, look @ the above Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines link.


Here we go again with the "toss the dipoles" recommendation...

Maybe I'm defensive because I have dipole surrounds (side and rear), and I really don't want to think about what it would take to replace them, but aside from a light mention by Dolby in an interview, and perhaps the documentation (?), I have yet to see any hard and fast evidence that says the dipoles don't work. In fact, we have so little in the way of actual Atmos material, that I would go so far as to say that we don't have a definitive clue as to what works better than anything else. With so few movies to go on, and with everyone having very drastically different rooms, speakers, treatments, and not to mention approaches to how they like surround sound (elevated vs. lowered, dipole vs. bipole vs. direct vs. hybrid), I would not listen to anyone that gave me a blanket statement like that. 

This isn't a slam on Northsky, but rather a cautionary comment against making generalized statements like this. There just isn't enough evidence to support it. Much like the surround speaker height issue, even if direct radiators are better for Atmos/DTS:X, there are thousands of titles out there that don't have that encoding. I've been very happy with my surrounds up to this point, and tossing them in order to serve the few height-encoded titles would be quite premature.

I have my surrounds at about 5.5 feet, and I do not have any intention to replace them once I make the Atmos/DTS:X upgrade, nor do I intend to lower them. Rather than install in-ceiling height speakers, I will likely go with ceiling mounted speakers of some kind. All this will allow for experimentation and tweaking based on my own observations, research here and other places, and other factors. I fully expect to have an initial impression that will be very different from my opinions after long-term listening.

We're way too early in this game to be coming up with hard and fast rules of thumb. Many here have found that Dolby's installation guidelines are only the beginning, and their individual situations and preferences call for variations on those guidelines.


----------



## lujan

tjenkins95 said:


> I thought *Whiplash* was a great movie. I played clarinet and sax in a concert band and jazz band. I continued in college as a Music major and eventually became the Music Director at a high school for 5 years. When I was a high school student, our music teacher used to scream and shout and throw things - like a baton or a music stand. Mind you he never threw them directly at us. If practice wasn't going well he would keep us late until he was satisfied. Obviously the guy had issues and you could always quit - but you don't want to let the rest of the group down so you just sit there and take it. We were just students. I had a similar music teacher in college but when he got angry, he would turn all red and start shaking and looked like he was going to explode. We just watched him and hoped he would! And after practice we would just laugh about it. In the professional world that behavior wouldn't be tolerated! I identified alot with the movie - great music! I have watched it twice already!


I played trumpet and piano and had a band director who was scary and mean like this guy. Didn't throw things but intimidated the heck out of all his students. A teacher couldn't get away with those type of things these days IMHO.


----------



## brahman12

kbarnes701 said:


> I didn't especially notice much from the overheads, except for one scene where there is a special effect when Andrew sort of 'fades out', so intensively is he concentrating. You'll know it when you hear it - it is all over the ceiling. TBH I was so engrossed in the dialogue and the music I didn't actually pay much attention to the sound, as such.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry - you were discussing *Chicago* I think - I thought you were discussing *Whiplash*!


Yeah....I was referring to Chicago in Atmos as opposed to the already released version watched with DSU engaged. So let us know the scoop after you check it out KB. Thanks.


----------



## BigScreen

FilmMixer said:


> I think there is going to be a mass sense of "meh" on AVS once DTS:X launches.
> 
> What does anyone think it will offer over Atmos ?
> 
> Just curious what people's expectations are....


My expectation is that we'll see something regarding DTS' speaker placement processing, so that the processor will determine where the speakers are in the room (or be told via the GUI) and perhaps even what kind of speakers are being used, and then use that information along with the source material to have a very flexible input-output scenario.

If my surrounds are at 90/270 degrees to the side and at 160/200 to the rear (or whatever), and the 4 height channels are at such-and-such angles etc., it would be really cool if the processor could take that information and use it to more accurately position the sounds from a DTS:X soundtrack. 

From my understanding, DTS has always had the ability to encode the profile being used to mix it (I don't recall the exact profiles, but it had largely to do with the positions of the side and rear surround speakers), and if that's the case, such processing could bring immediate benefits to all those thousands of DTS-encoded movies that are already out there.

FilmMixer, do you know if such profile flags have existed for DTS soundtracks? Are they optional, or a standard part of the encoding process?

Maybe that kind of intelligent processing is expecting too much from the first generation products, but I certainly hope it will be there.

Moreover, if waiting for DTS:X has created a logjam on the part of the studios, having it released should free that logjam. I don't really care which sound format is used at this point; I just want every movie that was released with Atmos/MDA in theaters to be released with Atmos/DTS:X on Blu-ray.

I fully expect that Atmos vs. DTS:X to be very similar to TrueHD/DTS-HD MA in that the differences will be miniscule in application, even if on paper, one seems better than the other.

Now, what I expect from the receiver manufacturers in this round of products is a different story...


----------



## Glenn Baumann

coolgeek said:


> Nice... great info!!!
> 
> Looks like a simple 'sounds louder' made everyone choose it...
> 
> Actually, I am not sure if it just sounds louder part.. because I have many DTS vs Dolby Digital tracks, and there were something like a 10dB difference... even when my receiver is at full power, it can't drive the dolby digital to the level i like to listen to.. while, with the DTS tracks, I can easily do it...
> 
> So, not sure how that works??




"Looks like a simple 'sounds louder' made everyone choose it..."

Sounds familiar right?

When the pictures brighter... It gets picked! 


...Glenn : )


----------



## brahman12

*Star Trek Into The Darkness*



coolgeek said:


> There are obviously more of you than of me in the world...
> 
> And that's why 3D is dead! Dinosaurs like me who loves his 3D is going extinct!


Just came in from my theater room from watching Star Trek ITD in 3D. The 3D was great.....the DSU treated audio was off da hook, redunkulous good. I have seen this movie five times including the cinema house and this was hands down the best it has sounded to my ears. Must check this out if you haven't already.


----------



## RMK!

coolgeek said:


> I can't swear by this nor want to bet money on it.. but wasn't it because when DTS came out, Dolby Digital was a far inferior sound-track..* i remember, whenever there's DTS and Dolby as choices, I always chose DTS.*.. DTS had a huge headstart in lossless audio.. then years later, Dolby came up with DolbyTrueHD which leveled out the playing field... but it was too late, DTS found a foothold in most content by then...
> 
> But in going forward, I think Atmos will take over... Also, after Dolby TrueHD, there weren't that much difference between the 2 anyways, and so, in going forward, I am not sure where DTS can play a crucial role anymore...


RE the bolded comment, before bluray what I recall is that DTS played louder than Dolby (especially the low frequencies). Now, the opposite seems true. TrueHD seems louder than DTS-MA. Other than that, they are indeed indistinguishable.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> Here we go again with the "toss the dipoles" recommendation...
> 
> Maybe I'm defensive because I have dipole surrounds (side and rear), and I really don't want to think about what it would take to replace them, but aside from a light mention by Dolby in an interview, and perhaps the documentation (?), I have yet to see any hard and fast evidence that says the dipoles don't work. In fact, we have so little in the way of actual Atmos material, that I would go so far as to say that we don't have a definitive clue as to what works better than anything else. With so few movies to go on, and with everyone having very drastically different rooms, speakers, treatments, and not to mention approaches to how they like surround sound (elevated vs. lowered, dipole vs. bipole vs. direct vs. hybrid), I would not listen to anyone that gave me a blanket statement like that.
> 
> This isn't a slam on Northsky, but rather a cautionary comment against making generalized statements like this. There just isn't enough evidence to support it. Much like the surround speaker height issue, even if direct radiators are better for Atmos/DTS:X, there are thousands of titles out there that don't have that encoding. I've been very happy with my surrounds up to this point, and tossing them in order to serve the few height-encoded titles would be quite premature.
> 
> I have my surrounds at about 5.5 feet, and I do not have any intention to replace them once I make the Atmos/DTS:X upgrade, nor do I intend to lower them. Rather than install in-ceiling height speakers, I will likely go with ceiling mounted speakers of some kind. All this will allow for experimentation and tweaking based on my own observations, research here and other places, and other factors. I fully expect to have an initial impression that will be very different from my opinions after long-term listening.
> 
> We're way too early in this game to be coming up with hard and fast rules of thumb. Many here have found that Dolby's installation guidelines are only the beginning, and their individual situations and preferences call for variations on those guidelines.


I totally agree with you; keep your dipoles, keep their 5.5' height, and just don't buy a Dolby Atmos receiver. ...Or if you do, just do as you please.
I should not make general statements; just simple suggestions from what Dolby Atmos "generally" recommends. ...And I thought I did just that. 

Plus, with roughly a dozen Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles on our planet; why change all our setups to just accommodate them?
Besides, they are not the most extreme great flicks around, for the majority of people. ...Certainly not for me, except for John Wick. 

All in all it's all good; high elevation surrounds, dipoles and bipoles, and a free for all. Because Dolby Atmos they did say that it is very hard to go wrong.
...And we're free people living in a free country of the free planet Earth.  ...All for one and one for all.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1' ... with Dolby Atmos audio.*



audioguy said:


> You sure would not watch it because I liked it. I am VERY easily entertained by most movies. I can be entertained my movies that don't necessarily have great story lines or great acting. (e.g. I like all of the Bruce Willis movies as I find them fun to watch. Great acting? NO! Well developed story linie? NO! Entertaining? YES)
> 
> So watch at your own risk


Very well said Chuck. ...Not because you liked it that I'm going to like it too.  ...And I like Bruce Willix flicks too, some of them, and John Wick.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> I think I'm one of the very few people who dislike Chicago.


'Chicago' plays like a Broadway musical. ...The music is the main star.


----------



## David Susilo

NorthSky said:


> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm one of the very few people who dislike Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Chicago' plays like a Broadway musical. ...The music is the main star.
Click to expand...

I love musicals, actually. Even have annual pass for Mirvish. I just don't like the songs in it. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> I have yet to see any hard and fast evidence that says the dipoles don't work.


Not sure what you mean by "work", but dipole surrounds are certainly antithetical to what Atmos is trying to achieve. Holman originally proposed dipole surrounds for his home THX program in order to mimic the long arrays of surround speakers in commercial cinemas and dubbing stages. By sitting in the null of a dipole, the listener got very little direct sound and was instead enveloped by reflected sound, resulting in a very general left-ish, right-ish directionality rather than precise imaging in the surround field, which didn't exist in movie theatres anyway... 

...Until Atmos. Having heard over three dozen Atmos movies in theatres over the last couple years, it's obvious that movie mixers are more interested in the object-based nature of Atmos rather than the height aspect of the format. Greg Russell, who mixed Transformers, has said as much during interviews, expressing excitement about panning sounds through surround arrays while barely mentioning overhead imaging. So it is very much in keeping with the intent of Atmos to have precise imaging in the surround field, the opposite of what dipole surrounds deliver.


BigScreen said:


> My expectation is that we'll see something regarding DTS' speaker placement processing, so that the processor will determine where the speakers are in the room (or be told via the GUI) and perhaps even what kind of speakers are being used, and then use that information along with the source material to have a very flexible input-output scenario.


If receiver and pre-pro manufacturers could have implemented such a feature, they would have already done so for Atmos. Positional rendering is not exclusive to DTS:X.


----------



## NorthSky

*The Divergent Series: Insurgent -- Dolby Atmos?*



tjenkins95 said:


> If you read the rest of the posts - there is no conclusive evidence at this time!
> IMO, it should not be listed there until there is solid proof.


♦ Plus, no official anything about the audio in general. 



RichB said:


> *There must be a reason that DTS dominates BD.*
> 
> Unless content producers are irrational, there must be a cause:
> 
> *Cost, space, bandwidth, tools, customer satisfaction, support*.... ?
> 
> - Rich


♦ All of the above, indeed.



coolgeek said:


> I can't swear by this nor want to bet money on it.. but wasn't it because when DTS came out, Dolby Digital was a far inferior sound-track.. i remember, whenever there's DTS and Dolby as choices, I always chose DTS... DTS had a huge headstart in lossless audio.. then years later, Dolby came up with DolbyTrueHD which leveled out the playing field... but it was too late, DTS found a foothold in most content by then...
> 
> But in going forward, I think Atmos will take over... Also, after Dolby TrueHD, there weren't that much difference between the 2 anyways, and so, in going forward, I am not sure where DTS can play a crucial role anymore...


♦ dts was cleaner, with better lows and highs (much less compressed than DD, by a factor of four; 1500 vs 384 kbps).

Methinks that DTS:X will become the dominant audio factor, again and as always and by a considerable margin and fast enough, faster than Dolby Atmos. Plus it has a much greater support from all the movie studios and from all the mainstream electronic manufacturers. 

Dolby is great, DTS is better. I would even advance this to superiority on all aspects. Those are my ears, my readings, my understanding, my opinion.

Dolby Atmos will take second spot, and Auro-3D third spot.


----------



## NorthSky

*Ding ding ding ding dong dong dong dang dang dang*



coolgeek said:


> There are obviously more of you than of me in the world...
> 
> And that's why 3D is dead! Dinosaurs like me who loves his 3D is going extinct!


Yeah, I'm from the Ice Age too.  ...But I want it all; 4K, and 3D Sound & Picture. 
I don't want to miss a thing, not a single ♪ beat from all my senses and sensibilities.

Am I asking too much or not enough?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> When DTS first came to market on LD, there were instances of them "cooking" the soundtrack, and quite frankly, playing dumb about it... the early titles had the surrounds and sub levels elevated, and they admitted to "re-mastering" the audio for their releases...
> I can tell you that from my experience, DD at 384/448 and DTS at 1509 are incredibly close when listening to the same material.. except it takes DTS almost 4x the space to do it... IMO, DTS is incredibly inefficient compared to DD and DD+....
> Add to that the continued misunderstanding of dialog normalization, which resulted in many DD tracks playing back lower than and almost any DTS track, and consumers made up their minds...
> DTS never had a head start in lossless audio...
> Dolby TrueHD is based on Meridian lossless, which was the same encoding technique used on DVD-A, which preceded TrueHD and DTS-HD MA by several years...
> Neither lossless codec beat the other to market by a meaningful margin..
> When the authoring tools first came out, DTS-HD could do an encoding and QC pass at the same time... which of course was a time saver...
> Dolby most definitely, IMO, dropped the ball and wasn't very aggressive on BR's launch... and they got their lunch handed to them.
> But in reality, both DD and DTS decoders are mandatory in a BR player... they both get royalties from that... software dominance, in the end, doesn't matter....
> Dolby is a required codec for ATSC, so they also have their decoders in every tv with an HD tuner built in... and every Directv box, dish box, etc...
> Add to that the almost total domination in streaming (Netflix, HBO Go, Vudu, etc...) and Dolby has a large market share...
> They aren't making the same mistakes this time from all that I have seen..
> MDA is a strong and flexible production tool set.. it's real time rendering to whatever system you have works amazingly well... it's going to be attractive to theater owners if they can gain some traction.. I've most definitely been touting it's virtues (and obviously I'm a huge fan of Atmos as well...)
> I can't wait for DTS:X to launch... competition is good...
> I just think people write Dolby off unfairly, thinking DTS:X is some holy grail.... there will be no increase in audio fidelity.... the lossless codecs are the same.
> Since we know backwards compatibility is going to be mandatory, it will be interesting to see what object limitations they have, if they use a lossless or lossy approach to encoding objects, the complexity of decoding, etc... (since nothing is publicly known at this point about how the codec words, we've no idea if they have something like "spatial coding" for complex, large number of objects content....) We know it will use a core + extensions model (I going to play some DTS:X content vs the same clips in DTS-HD MA 7.1 to see if I can notice a bit rate increase... however, since the DTS:X extension is being ignored at this point in time, I'm not sure the PS3's bitrate indicator will factor it in....)


Marc, you just brought me back to all the Widsecreen Review's interviews and articles on Dolby versus dts and Dolby EX 5.1 and dts:ES 6.1 ...etc.
That was back then with all the pros and cons, but @ the end the ultimate winner was (and still is) *dts* 
The majority of people voted with their ears, and objective data too, for dts.

Dolby is great, but dts is greater.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> I love musicals, actually. Even have annual pass for Mirvish. I just don't like the songs in it. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


'Chicago' on Blu-ray is not the type of "Musical" that I'm going to re-watch over and over; once (or twice) is plenty enough. 

* I did watch it twice; first on DVD, then on Blu. ...The Atmos version; I'll skip it. ...I can use the DTS:X up-mixer with my present Blu, for curiosity sake.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Marc, you just brought me back to all the Widsecreen Review's interviews and articles on Dolby versus dts and Dolby EX 5.1 and dts:ES 6.1 ...etc.
> That was back then with all the pros and cons, but @ the end the ultimate winner was (and still is) *dts*
> The majority of people voted with their ears, and objective data too, for dts.
> 
> Dolby is great, but dts is greater.


Pray tell Bob how people voted with their ears?

How exactly did they do that? Did they have a choice?

Can you tell me how many titles offered more than one encode?

And have you ever mixed a film and listened to the encode in both codecs?

Have you ever listened to the differential data (what the lossy encoders are throwing out) of a DD or DTS encode? 

Please point to the "objective" data you're referencing with your conclusion?

Give me a break.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Marc, you just brought me back to all the Widsecreen Review's interviews and articles on Dolby versus dts and Dolby EX 5.1 and dts:ES 6.1 ...etc.
> 
> Dolby is great, but dts is greater.


Bob - how does this relate to DTS:X and Atmos? Marc's comments seem difficult to dispute. Are you saying he is wrong? Thanks. Steve


----------



## NorthSky

I'm not a film mixer like you; I'm just a collector. ...Of DVD movies and music and Blu-ray movies and audio. // I vote with my vast collection; what's in it.


----------



## NorthSky

This is a too vast subject with too many opinions from all over and intensity. ...Way too much.

Let's just stick with the here and now; Dolby Atmos and seven Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie titles released so far here in North America.
/// And what the future reserves.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> ♦ dts was cleaner, with better lows and highs (much less compressed than DD, by a factor of four; 1500 vs 384 kbps).


That shows you know nothing about lossy encoding..

DTS Core is way less efficient that Dolby Digital or DD+..



> Methinks that DTS:X will become the dominant audio factor, again and as always and by a considerable margin and fast enough, faster than Dolby Atmos.


I'm quoting it so that by the time you come back here under yet another screen name I can remind you of your prediction..



> Plus it has a much greater support from all the movie studios and from all the mainstream electronic manufacturers.


Which film studios have announced support for the codec exactly?

And which of the mainstream manufacturers have picked one over the other? 

Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha or Pioneer.. 

Oh... right... none of them has chosen one over the other...



> Dolby is great, DTS is better. I would even advance this to superiority on all aspects. Those are my ears, my readings, my understanding, my opinion.


Besides title count, please name one objective area of superiority...

Your opinion doesn't count... and where are all of the outraged sound engineers crying foul when their hard work is degraded by such an inferior set of technologies as offered by Dolby. 

Hate to say it Bob... 

I think I've found a first candidate for my ignore list.


----------



## bargervais

I think Mark explained it very clearly he said

( I can't wait for DTS:X to launch... competition is good... 
I just think people write Dolby off unfairly, thinking DTS:X is some holy grail.... there will be no increase in audio fidelity.... the lossless codecs are the same.)

I Also have never really noticed much of a difference. Now with Atmos here and DTS:X not far in our future immersion is immersion I find Atmos has a strong head start.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> This is a too vast subject with too many opinions from all over and intensity. ...Way too much.
> 
> Let's just stick with the here and now; Dolby Atmos and seven Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie titles released so far here in North America.
> /// And what the future reserves.


Do you think that once DTS:X comes around that there will be a flood of Blu-Rays with DTS:X?? 
I personally look forward to see the competition as I believe Atmos is not going to fail as far as I see it.


----------



## FilmMixer

BigScreen said:


> *My expectation is that we'll see something regarding DTS' speaker placement processing, so that the processor will determine where the speakers are in the room (or be told via the GUI) and perhaps even what kind of speakers are being used, and then use that information along with the source material to have a very flexible input-output scenario.*
> 
> If my surrounds are at 90/270 degrees to the side and at 160/200 to the rear (or whatever), and the 4 height channels are at such-and-such angles etc., it would be really cool if the processor could take that information and use it to more accurately position the sounds from a DTS:X soundtrack.
> 
> From my understanding, DTS has always had the ability to encode the profile being used to mix it (I don't recall the exact profiles, but it had largely to do with the positions of the side and rear surround speakers), and if that's the case, such processing could bring immediate benefits to all those thousands of DTS-encoded movies that are already out there.
> 
> FilmMixer, do you know if such profile flags have existed for DTS soundtracks? Are they optional, or a standard part of the encoding process?
> 
> Maybe that kind of intelligent processing is expecting too much from the first generation products, but I certainly hope it will be there.
> 
> Moreover, if waiting for DTS:X has created a logjam on the part of the studios, having it released should free that logjam. I don't really care which sound format is used at this point; I just want every movie that was released with Atmos/MDA in theaters to be released with Atmos/DTS:X on Blu-ray.
> 
> I fully expect that Atmos vs. DTS:X to be very similar to TrueHD/DTS-HD MA in that the differences will be miniscule in application, even if on paper, one seems better than the other.
> 
> Now, what I expect from the receiver manufacturers in this round of products is a different story...


Remember that the Atmos rendering engine can report the same positional information to a supported re-mapping feature inside the processor..

AFAIK and from what I understand, this will be coming in future products.... 

As most have postulated, the AVR needs to know where the speakers are for such remapping to work... Trinnov has done this in a couple of products...

So while DTS made a big splash about the speaker placement agnostic attributes of their codec in January 2014, I will be surprised if such a technology would be inside the codec and not part of the fundamental workings of a processor. 

But since details on DTS:X haven't been made public, I could be completely wrong.. time will tell.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

I have been drawing my home theater layout in sketchup and noticed that the speaker positions in a 9.1.4 setup would align nicely with a 7.1 layouts first reflection points. The front side surrounds and front height speaker angles seem to be landing at about the first reflection points of the front L/R mains. Also, the two mounting positions possibly considered for a top middle OR top rear would be at the side surround or rear surround first reflection points, respectively. Any comments...? 

I also wanted to hear some comments from anyone with front wide surrounds with a 9.1.2 setup (or similar). I would like to know how much this first batch of movies has used wide speakers vs heights. Any personal experience would be appreciated.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> That shows you know nothing about lossy encoding..
> DTS Core is way less efficient that Dolby Digital or DD+..


No sweat. I believe you, if you say.



> I'm quoting it so that by the time you come back here under yet another screen name I can remind you of your prediction..


No sweat Marc, Bob is my name.



> Which film studios have announced support for the codec exactly?
> And which of the mainstream manufacturers have picked one over the other?
> Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha or Pioneer..
> Oh... right... none of them has chosen one over the other...


DTS:X had a link about two-three months ago or so. Don't have it out of my head.
And I never said _"over the other"_ ... you did.



> Besides title count, please name one objective area of superiority...
> Your opinion doesn't count... and where are all of the outraged sound engineers crying foul when their hard work is degraded by such an inferior set of technologies as offered by Dolby.
> Hate to say it Bob...
> I think I've found a first candidate for my ignore list.


My opinion doesn't count; why ask for it? 
And why mentioning _"ignore list"_ ... do what you must do and no need to say. 

______

I have the greatest respect for all AVS members, including you mister FilmMixer; you can share your view and opinion freely from your experience.
And you can respect mine also, even if you don't like it.


----------



## coolgeek

brahman12 said:


> Just came in from my theater room from watching Star Trek ITD in 3D. The 3D was great.....the DSU treated audio was off da hook, redunkulous good. I have seen this movie five times including the cinema house and this was hands down the best it has sounded to my ears. Must check this out if you haven't already.


I love the new star trek franchise... I have seen both several times in the Imax and I'll likely be watching they several times a year going forward at my own HT... the sound mixing is one of the most incredible ever... it's not 'in your face' bang, bang boom.. but really inspirational stuff... it can bring the small hairs at the back of your neck up... In my HT, I totally feel like i was on the enterprise... (certain scenes, bass was intense... they go from extremely low bass, the ones that go right thru your bones but you hear nothing, to silent, to loud bang)... It's just incredible.. nothing like a well treated room that does not vibrate (making unwanted noice), and huge gobs of clean, tactile bass that rattles the bones



RMK! said:


> RE the bolded comment, before bluray what I recall is that DTS played louder than Dolby (especially the low frequencies). Now, the opposite seems true. TrueHD seems louder than DTS-MA. Other than that, they are indeed indistinguishable.


Exactly right. That was the days that I totally did not understand what goes behind the Blu Ray, technically speaking. All I know was, if i switch from Dolby Digital to DTS, suddenly the world opened up... it's like listening to your regular speaker and suddenly switched to high efficiency ones.. the difference were huge... (In fact, so many dolby tracks had volume so low to begin with that even at +10 on my receiver, it's still feels dead)



NorthSky said:


> ♦ Plus, no official anything about the audio in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ All of the above, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ dts was cleaner, with better lows and highs (much less compressed than DD, by a factor of four; 1500 vs 384 kbps).
> 
> Methinks that DTS:X will become the dominant audio factor, again and as always and by a considerable margin and fast enough, faster than Dolby Atmos. Plus it has a much greater support from all the movie studios and from all the mainstream electronic manufacturers.
> 
> Dolby is great, DTS is better. I would even advance this to superiority on all aspects. Those are my ears, my readings, my understanding, my opinion.
> 
> Dolby Atmos will take second spot, and Auro-3D third spot.


So far, Dolby TrueHD sounds really good... I am sure Atmos will sound fantastic as well.. unless DTS plays the 'play louder, boost the bass' trick again, I have a feeling it's going to be a pretty even game... 




NorthSky said:


> Yeah, I'm from the Ice Age too.  ...But I want it all; 4K, and 3D Sound & Picture.
> I don't want to miss a thing, not a single ♪ beat from all my senses and sensibilities.
> 
> Am I asking too much or not enough?


Me too.. you're not asking too much.. I would so love to watch a 3D 4K flick... but alas, it's likely never going to happen.. unless James Cameron insists that studios release his new avatars that way on Blu Ray.. he has the power to demand!!! Remember, he persuaded cinemas to build 3D screens, install new projectors, just for Avatar...


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Do you think that once DTS:X comes around that there will be a flood of Blu-Rays with DTS:X??
> I personally look forward to see the competition as I believe Atmos is not going to fail as far as I see it.


Yes, I do believe so; that eventually we are going to see a larger flow. 

Dolby Atmos will always remain, just like Dolby Surround (1982 and 2014-15) and Dolby TrueHD (2006).


----------



## coolgeek

BigScreen said:


> Here we go again with the "toss the dipoles" recommendation...
> 
> Maybe I'm defensive because I have dipole surrounds (side and rear), and I really don't want to think about what it would take to replace them, but aside from a light mention by Dolby in an interview, and perhaps the documentation (?), I have yet to see any hard and fast evidence that says the dipoles don't work. In fact, we have so little in the way of actual Atmos material, that I would go so far as to say that we don't have a definitive clue as to what works better than anything else. With so few movies to go on, and with everyone having very drastically different rooms, speakers, treatments, and not to mention approaches to how they like surround sound (elevated vs. lowered, dipole vs. bipole vs. direct vs. hybrid), I would not listen to anyone that gave me a blanket statement like that.
> 
> This isn't a slam on Northsky, but rather a cautionary comment against making generalized statements like this. There just isn't enough evidence to support it. Much like the surround speaker height issue, even if direct radiators are better for Atmos/DTS:X, there are thousands of titles out there that don't have that encoding. I've been very happy with my surrounds up to this point, and tossing them in order to serve the few height-encoded titles would be quite premature.
> 
> I have my surrounds at about 5.5 feet, and I do not have any intention to replace them once I make the Atmos/DTS:X upgrade, nor do I intend to lower them. Rather than install in-ceiling height speakers, I will likely go with ceiling mounted speakers of some kind. All this will allow for experimentation and tweaking based on my own observations, research here and other places, and other factors. I fully expect to have an initial impression that will be very different from my opinions after long-term listening.
> 
> We're way too early in this game to be coming up with hard and fast rules of thumb. Many here have found that Dolby's installation guidelines are only the beginning, and their individual situations and preferences call for variations on those guidelines.


NorthSky is correct.. she says 'It's not particularly recommended'.. which is a true statement no matter how you look at it..

Dipoles will give you diffuse sound, Atmos is more of a direct sound format... With 3D Objects as sound source, you can't really pin down an object with 'diffuse' sound... The whole idea of Atmos is to have very accurate, pin point objects that producers can place anywhere in the room... 

But if you say, 'can you live with dipoles'... sure, why not... most ppl are happy with a soundbar... (I am sure soundbars are going to claim atmos abilities soon too) 

If you're happy with your dipoles, keep them...


----------



## dvdwilly3

I want to throw out something that I have observed and have someone tell me what is going on. I am running an Onkyo TX-NR737, so I can do 7.1 or 5.1.2 (which I am). So, I play the DTS Demo 2015 disc which includes several DTS:X tracks. My Onkyo has the firmware upgrade so it will do Atmos. So far, so good.
When I play the DTS demo disk and I compare a DTS HD MA 7.1 track to a DTS:X track, it is running about 4 mbps versus 7 mbps. So my Sony Bluray player is feeding the Onkyo a higher bit rate stream. At first, I thought that the Onkyo was just ignoring or discarding the additional data.
But, there are a couple of musical tracks that are in both 7.1 and DTS:X so that it is an apples to apples comparison. I would swear that there sounds like there is additional sound in the DTS:X track and that it sounds more...open. How could that be? If I do not have the DTS decoder, then my AVR cannot even do any kind of DTS upmix. 
I set the Onkyo to decode an incoming DTS stream to DTS:Cinema, so it is not being transcoded to DSU to create additional sound or an different mix via Atmos.
I will go back tomorrow and listen to those musical tracks again and try to be more specific on how they are different.
But, from a logical standpoint, I don't think that I should be hearing any difference between the 7.1 and the DTS:X.
What am I missing?


----------



## NorthSky

The movie studios supporting DTS:X are also joining in force; just still looking for few links (give me some time). 

Plus:

♦ www.bigpicturebigsound.com/DTS-X-Vaporware-or-Next-Big-Thing-in-Immersive-Sound.shtml --> Some supporting audio/video manufacturers mentioned.

♦ www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dtsx---raising-the-bar-in-immersive-sound-300014462.html --> Check video (scroll down a bit)

__________

Marc, I still have all my Widescreen Review mags, but I won't go thru them. ...Suffice to say that dts is the preferred audio codec by the majority. ...."PREFERRED"


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> No sweat. I believe you, if you say.
> 
> No sweat Marc, Bob is my name.
> 
> DTS:X had a link about two months ago or so. Don't have it out of my head.
> 
> My opinion doesn't count; why ask for it?
> ______
> 
> I have the greatest respect for all AVS members, including you mister FilmMixer; you can share your view and opinion freely from your experience.
> And you can respect mine also, even if you don't like it.


The problem is when you pass off your opinion as fact and are wrong (like saying that DTS uses 4x less compression...)

No offense, but if you had more respect for _all_ AVS members maybe you could start by being more judicious with your posts so I don't get multiple notifications every time you want to pontificate on what others have said rather than adding something meaningful, factual and germane to the conversation...


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> The movie studios supporting DTS:X are also joining in force; just still looking for few links (give me some time).
> 
> Plus:
> 
> ♦ www.bigpicturebigsound.com/DTS-X-Vaporware-or-Next-Big-Thing-in-Immersive-Sound.shtml --> Some supporting audio/video manufacturers mentioned.
> 
> ♦ www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dtsx---raising-the-bar-in-immersive-sound-300014462.html --> Check video (scroll down a bit)
> 
> __________
> 
> Marc, I still have all my Widescreen Review mags, but I won't go thru them. ...Suffice to say that dts is the preferred audio codec by the majority. ...."PREFERRED"


Ok Bob.. let's see..

We all know that Gary Reber is the bastion of journalistic integrity when it comes to Dolby... 

Form your earlier post, which you conveniently never quoted:



NorthSky said:


> Plus it has a _*much greater support from all the movie studios and from all the mainstream electronic manufacturers. *_


From your first link:



> *According to DTS*, brands such as Anthem, Denon, Integra, Krell, Marantz, McIntosh, Onkyo, Outlaw Audio, Pioneer, Steinway Lyngdorf, Theta Digital, Trinnov Audio, and Yamaha are expected to have products which include DTS:X decoding. _*The manufacturers themselves remain silent*_, except Steinway Lyngdorf, who has confirmed that their P200 processor ($18,000) will include DTS:X decoding.


It mentions none of the mainstream manufacturers picking DTS over Dolby...

So, Bob... you are wrong..

There is no "greater support" from either the studios or the "mainstream electronics manufacturers.."

Not one studio has announced support, and none of the "mainstream" manufacturers has offered "greater" support... 

And you can bet not one of those companies will offer DTS:X support but not Atmos.

Again, your option doesn't matter.. the facts don't back it up.


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> So far, Dolby TrueHD sounds really good... I am sure Atmos will sound fantastic as well.. unless DTS plays the 'play louder, boost the bass' trick again, I have a feeling it's going to be a pretty even game...


♦ I love Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA both equally. ...I just happen to have about 85% of my Blu-rays encoded in DTS-HD MA over the rest with Dolby TrueHD and uncompressed multichannel PCM 5.1 surround audio mixes. ...Roughly. 



> I would so love to watch a 3D 4K flick... but alas, it's likely never going to happen.. unless James Cameron insists that studios release his new avatars that way on Blu Ray.. he has the power to demand!!! Remember, he persuaded cinemas to build 3D screens, install new projectors, just for Avatar...


♦ James Cameron is the 3D godfather and savior. ...He's the guy that can resurrect from the depths of the abyss. ...I'm counting on James. 
...On Pandora.


----------



## NorthSky

Marc, I would love to discuss with you as two respectable gentlemen; but for that to freely and comfortably happen you would need to tone down a little, have some friendly respect.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> The problem is when you pass off your opinion as fact and are wrong (like saying that DTS uses 4x less compression...)
> 
> No offense, but if you had more respect for _all_ AVS members maybe you could start by being more judicious with your posts so I don't get multiple notifications every time you want to pontificate on what others have said rather than adding something meaningful, factual and germane to the conversation...


Could you please discuss the post's content and not the poster as a contender. ...Thank you for your cooperation.

* Marc, I need a break from your spurious tone. ...Nothing bad, just a break so that a peaceful atmosphere can be restored quickly.


----------



## KMFDMvsEnya

Oh for the love...



Spoiler















Such sanctimonious BS.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> It mentions none of the mainstream manufacturers picking DTS over Dolby...


Ok, Marc; I have never said _"over Dolby"_ (Atmos) in reference to DTS:X being chosen. 
Please don't put misinformation in my posting.

And please, be nice.  I'm not a bad person; nobody is. Be friendly, and we all are going to be just perfectly fine.
I have nothing against Dolby Atmos; just like you I'm very happy that DTS:X is going to join real soon. ...It's all very good, for all of us, and no matter what. ...Even if there are some more or less than perfect Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie titles right now; it's only been roughly nine months since Dolby Atmos first announcement (June 2014), and we're only still @ the very beginning of the new 3D elevated sound. Nobody is going to die, and nobody is going to hate anyone because of that. 

We are talking Dolby Atmos, and DTS:X and Auro-3D as our three new 3D sound contenders, and for the better of everyone in comparing them.
It's only a discussion, and not a gathering of members to take a strong position side in order to put down another team member.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> I'm free to do both, as are you.


Excuse me; you and I and any other member we are not the topic of this thread...Dolby Atmos is.
If you want to address me with a friendly tone then yes good humor has a place. 
And I said it before; dts versus Dolby is too intense to talk about...much better to simply forget it. ...Or start a new thread? 
If you have an emotional and personal issue with me, just PM me Marc; I'm very open and cooperative with everyone in private.
You can ask around if you're not sure. 

Peace man, cool down.


----------



## Craig Mecak

I have a question about ATMOS encoding & playback when the base soundtrack is only 5.1. ie "5.1 Atmos", not 7.1.

Imagine you have a base (ear level) speaker setup that is 7.1. The number of ceiling/height speakers is not important in this example, but let's say you have 7.1.4.

When playing back/decoding an Atmos 5.1 track, what (if anything) will come out of your rear surround speakers? I imagine "nothing" from the 5.1 'base TruHD' track, but what about objects? Can they utilize the rear speakers for rendering objects buried in the soundtrack?

And I take it there is no way to expand the 5.1 base track to 7.1 like previously via ProLogic IIx [or indeed DSU] as the Atmos decoder is already active.

Just something to ponder.....

There might be a lot of silent rear surround speakers if there are many 5.1 Atmos mixes released instead of 7.1


----------



## Csbooth

Craig Mecak said:


> I have a question about ATMOS encoding & playback when the base soundtrack is only 5.1. ie "5.1 Atmos", not 7.1.
> 
> Imagine you have a base (ear level) speaker setup that is 7.1. The number of ceiling/height speakers is not important in this example, but let's say you have 7.1.4.
> 
> When playing back/decoding an Atmos 5.1 track, what (if anything) will come out of your rear surround speakers? I imagine "nothing" from the 5.1 'base TruHD' track, but what about objects? Can they utilize the rear speakers for rendering objects buried in the soundtrack?
> 
> And I take it there is no way to expand the 5.1 base track to 7.1 like previously via ProLogic IIx [or indeed DSU] as the Atmos decoder is already active.
> 
> Just something to ponder.....
> 
> There might be a lot of silent rear surround speakers if there are many 5.1 Atmos mixes released instead of 7.1


I'm not 100% positive on this, but I'm almost certain that I've read numerous statements regarding the base channels of ALL Atmos tracks are done using a 7.1 bed. Which obviously means that there's no worries about your rear surround activities lol.


----------



## NorthSky

True, the few Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie titles released so far have all a core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround audio mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I thought *Whiplash* was a great movie. I played clarinet and sax in a concert band and jazz band. I continued in college as a Music major and eventually became the Music Director at a high school for 5 years. When I was a high school student, our music teacher used to scream and shout and throw things - like a baton or a music stand. Mind you he never threw them directly at us. If practice wasn't going well he would keep us late until he was satisfied. Obviously the guy had issues and you could always quit - but you don't want to let the rest of the group down so you just sit there and take it. We were just students. I had a similar music teacher in college but when he got angry, he would turn all red and start shaking and looked like he was going to explode. We just watched him and hoped he would! And after practice we would just laugh about it. In the professional world that behavior wouldn't be tolerated! I identified alot with the movie - great music! I have watched it twice already!


I very much enjoyed it too. I think there are numerous flaws just looking at it from a strictly 'movie' POV - but hey, it was shot in less than 3 weeks, cost just 3 million dollars to make and has a novice director, so there's plenty of slack to be cut. What makes it so well worth watching are the performances of the two main characters, and of course the music.

I too have had teachers who have been obsessive and emotional - but Fletcher is a borderline psychopath and in real life I can only imagine he would have been dismissed years before the movie takes place and probably been subject to civil and/or criminal prosecution. No matter - it's a movie and we have to suspend disbelief. That is what I meant by lack of "authenticity". I've only seen the movie once so far, so I can't recall - but is it set in the modern day, or is it set somewhat back in time? Andrew used a cellphone so it can't be too far back. I only ask because in today's litigious and 'correct' environment, Fletcher wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real world. None of this matters of course - as I say, it's a movie and is primarily for entertainment. And it sure did entertain me! But I’d have like to have seen some explanation in the movie as to how and why Fletcher could get away with monstrously abusive behavior for so long. There is the brief reference to the former student who died in tragic circumstances but some additional exposition on how and why Fletcher could continue to behave that way would have been good IMO. Again, we have to remember they were on a limited budget so there was likely insufficient money to develop this theme.

I loved the music and wished there had been more, rather than just brief snatches and only one or two complete pieces, but that is just me: I am a big jazz enthusiast and have been since I was a teenager. Again, I don't think it was 'authentic' for Andrew to play until his hands were raw meat, not once but several times, and that was there just for dramatic effect and as a sort of shorthand for his dedication, obsession and willingness to suffer for his art. Did you ever, even once, meet a drummer who's hands bled that way on a regular basis? I imagine not. Jo Jones practically invented modern jazz drumming and I can't recall reading anything about his hands bleeding due to intensive practice or playing. TBH, I think the bleeding hands thing was overdone. Once would have been good, twice would have given us pause for thought, but four times... well, we get it. We really do get it! Sometimes less really is more.

Please don't get me wrong. I hugely enjoyed the movie. I can point to a fair number of flaws in it, as a movie, but there is no denying the emotional impact on the viewer, and IMO that was what it set out to do and it does it very well. Whether the young director is a one-trick pony (the movie is based on his personal experiences) or has more to deliver will remain to be seen. I hope it's the latter. 

BTW, from a purely 'movie' perspective, I thought the editing was fabulous.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> That shows you know nothing about lossy encoding..
> 
> DTS Core is way less efficient that Dolby Digital or DD+..
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quoting it so that by the time you come back here under yet another screen name I can remind you of your prediction..
> 
> 
> 
> Which film studios have announced support for the codec exactly?
> 
> And which of the mainstream manufacturers have picked one over the other?
> 
> Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha or Pioneer..
> 
> Oh... right... none of them has chosen one over the other...
> 
> 
> 
> Besides title count, please name one objective area of superiority...
> 
> Your opinion doesn't count... and where are all of the outraged sound engineers crying foul when their hard work is degraded by such an inferior set of technologies as offered by Dolby.
> 
> Hate to say it Bob...
> 
> I think I've found a first candidate for my ignore list.


A great post, coming logically to a great conclusion.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> A great post, coming logically to a great conclusion.


Or in other words:


----------



## petetherock

David Susilo said:


> I think I'm one of the very few people who dislike Chicago.


You are not alone....


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> And I said it before; dts versus Dolby is too intense to talk about.


*The following post is just my opinion.* 

There are many readers of these threads who have very little or no knowledge about specific areas of their interest. They come to learn and to get advice from those who have direct experience (i.e. someone who actually uses or used the product or feature or service, ....) in question. Or maybe from someone who does not have direct experience but has been down the path that the person posting the question is interested in. Given that, I believe it is critical that when a post is made, it should be stated such that there is NO ambiguity about whether it is fact or opinion. Otherwise a lot of folks are going to potentially misled. Phrases like: "in my opinion" or "I believe that.....", or "based upon my experience" can really keep the thread on track.

When someone states an opinion as an opinion, I seldom see "too intense". But when someone states an opinion but fails in any way to note that it is an opinion and it comes across as "fact", that, to me, is a different matter altogether. It is particularly problematic to me if that statement (opinion) has no facts to back it up and just so happens to be in error. THEN the intensity begins. 

Yes, this is a thread about Dolby Atmos. And it certainly should not be about personalities. But when opinions are continually posted as if fact (but aren't), I believe it more than appropriate to either point out to the poster that he or she has done so, OR ask the poster if it is an opinion or fact, and if fact, request the information that supports the stated "facts". Sure seems reasonable to me.

But that's just me.  (and my opinion)

Now let's get back to discussing Dolby Atmos!


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I love Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA both equally. ...I just happen to have about 85% of my Blu-rays encoded in DTS-HD MA over the rest with Dolby TrueHD and uncompressed multichannel PCM 5.1 surround audio mixes. ...Roughly.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ James Cameron is the 3D godfather and savior. ...He's the guy that can resurrect from the depths of the abyss. ...I'm counting on James.
> ...On Pandora.


As I understand all the Avatar sequels will be 3D and with the new 120FPM technology at that . If anything will put 3D back on track it will indeed be Avatar 2 , 3 and 4 . To be honest I think there is enough 3D content being done anyway. If I had to watch 3D on a 55" screen I wouldn't bother. Only the 3D equipped cinemas and dedicated home theater rooms with appropriate equipment will benefit mostly, for the rest it is diluted . I enjoy 3D when done right, only a handful have been done properly in my opinion . Take Drive Angry for example , yes take it away
please.


----------



## coolgeek

roxiedog13 said:


> As I understand all the Avatar sequels will be 3D and with the new 120FPM technology at that . If anything will put 3D back on track it will indeed be Avatar 2 , 3 and 4 . To be honest I think there is enough 3D content being done anyway. If I had to watch 3D on a 55" screen I wouldn't bother. Only the 3D equipped cinemas and dedicated home theater rooms with appropriate equipment will benefit mostly, for the rest it is diluted . I enjoy 3D when done right, only a handful have been done properly in my opinion . Take Drive Angry for example , yes take it away
> please.


I don't believe Cameron will do 120fps... I heard that, the guy (don't remember his name), who did a demo film on 120fps in 3D approached James Cameron to use his technology, but initially reports indicate that Cameron will not be doing it... it may end up too expensive... remember, CGI intensive films are very expensive, and costs add up per frame!!! Last i heard, it cost something like $3 Million dollars for a ONE minute cgi effect (first rate ones).. it may be more expensive now... 

And I believe studios will continue to release films in 3D at the cinemas / imaxes... but when they transfer it to blu-ray they may not waste the time / effort /money on 3D which did not sell well... and since many tv manufacturers are starting to drop 3D capability in their tv sets altogether, plus the next generation blu rays won't even allow you to encode in 3D, then I believe it's pretty much dead... I still hold up hope though...


----------



## BigScreen

NorthSky said:


> I totally agree with you; keep your dipoles, keep their 5.5' height, and just don't buy a Dolby Atmos receiver. ...Or if you do, just do as you please.
> I should not make general statements; just simple suggestions from what Dolby Atmos "generally" recommends. ...And I thought I did just that.


Robert, this is what I was responding to:



NorthSky said:


> ♦ Dipole speakers are not particularly recommended; I would simply discard them, if not too emotionally affected.
> But it's true; with Dolby Atmos now, dipole speakers don't serve the purpose, like they did in the prehistoric dark ages of THX and Star Wars' Darth Vader.
> We have evolved since then, from the darkness to the above light; and in all discretion (discrete object rendition).


Re-reading your post leads me to think that you might have been intentionally sarcastic about the situation, but it's difficult to tell.

As you said later in your post, we're still sitting here with very few Atmos titles to enjoy. That means that thousands of movies are to be watched using the same "prehistoric" approach that has worked great for me for all these years. It's possible that I don't know what I'm missing by not using direct radiators, and that Gary Reber was actually right when he was chasing his "holographic" sound unicorn. However, I never bought into it because his approach meant that only one seat in the room was the sweet spot, and every other seat (by definition) was going to have compromised sound. If you are aiming every speaker for the best performance in just one spot, every other seat gets something very different, especially in this case when those seats might be just a couple of feet away from a surround speaker.



sdurani said:


> Not sure what you mean by "work", but dipole surrounds are certainly antithetical to what Atmos is trying to achieve. Holman originally proposed dipole surrounds for his home THX program in order to mimic the long arrays of surround speakers in commercial cinemas and dubbing stages. By sitting in the null of a dipole, the listener got very little direct sound and was instead enveloped by reflected sound, resulting in a very general left-ish, right-ish directionality rather than precise imaging in the surround field, which didn't exist in movie theatres anyway...
> 
> ...Until Atmos. Having heard over three dozen Atmos movies in theatres over the last couple years, it's obvious that movie mixers are more interested in the object-based nature of Atmos rather than the height aspect of the format. Greg Russell, who mixed Transformers, has said as much during interviews, expressing excitement about panning sounds through surround arrays while barely mentioning overhead imaging. So it is very much in keeping with the intent of Atmos to have precise imaging in the surround field, the opposite of what dipole surrounds deliver. If receiver and pre-pro manufacturers could have implemented such a feature, they would have already done so for Atmos. Positional rendering is not exclusive to DTS:X.


I agree that object-based sound has great potential, but I don't think that is necessarily means that we throw everything out the window in the process. Commercial theaters deliver surround sound from arrays, largely because they need to cover a large area with the soundfield. Atmos does provide for the ability to get near 1:1 correlation between objects and speakers (theatrical Atmos can handle up to 64 speakers, which is quite a few speakers, even in a large commercial theater), but what about all the other movies that aren't in the format? That entire wall on each side of the listener is playing the same sound in a traditional 5.1/7.1 configuration. If the theater were tuned to just one listener, as the "holographic" approach to home theater is done, there would be just one single speaker on each side, along with two speakers behind. Would this produce the same quality of sound, or would there be something lacking, especially in that space in between the speakers? As long as the angles match the Dolby recommendations (for home Atmos), the concept is the same, isn't it? Given the larger dispersion area due to the distances between the speakers and the listeners, the effect would be better for a larger number of seating positions than in a home theater environment where the sweet spot is very small if everything is perfectly aimed for one position only.

If point-source sound transmission was so critical, Dolby would not have allowed for reflecting speakers, because the dispersion of reflected sound is naturally more diffuse. Keith even reported that some people at the Dolby presentations last summer preferred the reflecting speaker configuration. Some here have found that even when they had in-ceiling speakers where the drivers could be aimed toward the listener, the effect was better when the driver was pointed downward, which is a very non-direct source of sound. Granted, that's the height speakers and not side speakers, but in this object-based scenario we're heading toward, I think it's difficult to say that diffuse above is better, but not on the side or in the back.


Until I can try it out for myself, I'm going to continue my belief that spreading the surround around a little is going to provide a better overall effect than a point-source direct radiator, especially when an overwhelming majority of movies were mixed in those "prehistoric" days. I'm somewhat amazed by the fact that so many have gone to so many lengths to accommodate a handful of movies. That shows the promise that people think this new technology has...

I'm very open to having my mind changed, though. I have yet to hear of many first-hand reports of someone doing a comparison between the various speaker types for both Atmos and non-Atmos source material (I think I remember seeing one here). It's quite possible that I'm in the minority and it's a non-issue, but I'm somewhat surprised by the fact that so many seemed to just accept Dolby's guidelines without question, even after their other guidelines have shown to be just starting points and real-world experimentation showed that adjustments were needed for the best results.

There are so few movies available in the new sound format, that compromising everything else doesn't make sense to me. Even if/when the balance begins to tilt in favor of Atmos, the jury is still out as to whether having diffuse surrounds produces a lesser result than direct radiators, in my mind. I could be completely delusional, and I might do a complete about-face in time, but I believe that the evidence does not support any suggestions to "throw them out" when it comes to surround speakers that have worked just fine for many movies made in the past, those being made right now, and many well into the future.


----------



## BigScreen

FilmMixer said:


> Remember that the Atmos rendering engine can report the same positional information to a supported re-mapping feature inside the processor..
> 
> AFAIK and from what I understand, this will be coming in future products....
> 
> As most have postulated, the AVR needs to know where the speakers are for such remapping to work... Trinnov has done this in a couple of products...
> 
> So while DTS made a big splash about the speaker placement agnostic attributes of their codec in January 2014, I will be surprised if such a technology would be inside the codec and not part of the fundamental workings of a processor.
> 
> But since details on DTS:X haven't been made public, I could be completely wrong.. time will tell.


I do remember that positional rendering is part of Atmos, but not part of the 1st-gen mainstream products. While it's difficult to know what impact such processing would have in a typical home theater configuration, it certainly seems like a good idea. I very much look forward to it being included in the 2nd-gen products, and DTS' announcement gave me some hope that it may come to fruition. If it's part of the processor and can benefit all soundtracks, so much the better!

And that leads to the part of my comment that I was hoping to get your input on:



> From my understanding, DTS has always had the ability to encode the profile being used to mix it (I don't recall the exact profiles, but it had largely to do with the positions of the side and rear surround speakers), and if that's the case, such processing could bring immediate benefits to all those thousands of DTS-encoded movies that are already out there.
> 
> FilmMixer, do you know if such profile flags have existed for DTS soundtracks? Are they optional, or a standard part of the encoding process?


If the positional rendering capability of the processor/receiver is present, is it reasonable that such processing could benefit existing soundtracks? If the profile used during mixing was embedded into the DTS soundtrack, and the processor was able to read that profile and render it accordingly, that could potentially impact the DTS soundtracks on all those movies.

Or was the idea of profiles just an optional part of the DTS spec that never got implemented?

Having the new tech be able to benefit the "old" tech is an exciting proposition, especially since the soundtracks for the new tech will likely be constrained to a slow trickle for some time to come.


----------



## Alanlee

*I agree*



kbarnes701 said:


> A great post, coming logically to a great conclusion.


 Great Moments in AVS History 

*After Dark August 1270 -*Two Mongols siting around a campfire. One of them is telling a story about hunting. He stands up and gestures with his hands. His buddy says, “You know, when you raise your hand like that, it casts a shadow on the yurt.” The guy turns around and wiggles his hand. He sees the dancing shadow. He gestures towards his hip. His partner says, “Gross dude.”

The man continues his story using his hands to make images of the golden eagles he uses to hunt and the rabbit prey. He extols the virtues of the great Kublai Khan, their leader. When he finishes his story, his friend says, “Nice, very nice, but it's kind of a black and white world isn't it?”

*Shanghai -1942* – Two guys walking out of a theater – one of them says, “_Casablanca_ –what a movie.” His friend says, “Yeah, this was a movie with a very complicated plot, and who was the guy playing the piano,” He begins to sing, “You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss –great stuff.” The other guy says, “Nice, very nice, but it's kind of a black and white world isn't it?”

*Central Mongolia – last night –*Two guys siting inside a yurt: the smell of a goat roasting on a spit outside wafts through the open doors. The soft putt, putt sound of a small generator can be heard in the distance. The walls inside are riddled with speakers and audio gear: wires hanging everywhere. There is a 90 inch 4K TV spread out in front of them. One of the men says with a trepidacious lilt in his voice, “So – whatdoyouwanna watchtonight? How about _House of the Flying Daggers_?

The other rises to the bait, “Oh that damn movie. Why do you keep bringing it up? Great color, great sound, great story until the end, and then the whole thing falls apart. It makes me angry thinking about it, and you know that.” His friend knowingly prods him further, “I don't understand why you don't like the end.” He responds, “OK well, you got two guys wrestling around with swords in a snow storm that comes out of nowhere, and then they kill the girl. The director, Zhang Yimou, did not think that one through.”

“What do you expect,” says his friend, “It's like Shakespeare.” Now the other guy is getting angry, “It's not like Shakespeare. It's straight out of the opera _Carmen_. Carmen has an affair with a country bumpkin, and then she runs off with a bullfighter. The country bumpkin tracks her down and stabs her.” It fits the opera, not the movie. Even so, when I watch the opera, I am always rooting for another ending. Carmen should be a survivor.”

The first guy tries again, “We could watch _Marco Polo......_It's on Netflix._”_There is a moment of silence. The other guy takes a long breath and says, “Maybe someday: I have to get over the fact that they make a mini-series about one of our greatest ancestors, Kublai Khan, and they name the series after an Italian. The actions of Kublai Khan and his grandfather Genghis set the stage for the existence of modern China. Their blood runs through our veins, and the West is trying to horn in on our glory.”

“OK- so– whatdoyouwanna watch tonight?...... “How about _Fury_?”says his friend. Finally there is a positive response from the other guy .“A great movie about men killing Nazis. Good acting, nice photography, and phenomenal sound. Maybe we could exercise the new speakers we put in the ceiling.”

“Alright– I'll put it on. Don't start whining if everybody gets killed in the end.”


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> I agree that object-based sound has great potential, but I don't think that is necessarily means that we throw everything out the window in the process.


Not everything, just the inability to image in the surround field.


> ...but what about all the other movies that aren't in the format?


That's a good point, since the vast majority of movies on home video are not in Atmos, nor will be for the foreseeable future. Listeners have to decide between mimicking the arrays of commercial theatres or getting precise imaging in the surround field. Many have already chosen the latter, inadvertently, by using regular bookshelf speakers as surrounds.


> As long as the angles match the Dolby recommendations (for home Atmos), the concept is the same, isn't it?


Only for sounds mixed into the surround channel beds, which were meant to be heard through arrays. For sounds mixed as objects that pan through the arrays, moving along the side and back walls of a theatre, dipoles cannot recreate that effect, even when their placement angles match the Dolby recommendations (for home Atmos).


> If point-source sound transmission was so critical, Dolby would not have allowed for reflecting speakers, because the dispersion of reflected sound is naturally more diffuse.


Different concept. The upfiring speakers are using the ceiling as an acoustical mirror: imagine a copy of the upfiring speaker on the 'other side' of the ceiling, the same distance away, pointing down at the listening area. The goal is to still hear direct energy from the speaker, albeit via a bankshot from a specific direction. By comparison, sitting in the null of a dipole surround speaker suppresses direct sound to the listener in exchange for hearing mostly reflected sound coming from multiple directions simultaneously.


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> ♦ James Cameron is the 3D godfather and savior. ...He's the guy that can resurrect from the depths of the abyss. ...I'm counting on James.



Don't count on James. It's been many years and he still hasn't resurrected The Abyss from the depths. My original non-anamorphic DVD is un-watchable to me now. I want it on Bluray in Atmos.

I wonder if Mr. Cameron is interested in object based audio at all, or if his focus is still on 3D.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Keith even reported that some people at the Dolby presentations last summer preferred the reflecting speaker configuration. Some here have found that even when they had in-ceiling speakers where the drivers could be aimed toward the listener, the effect was better when the driver was pointed downward, which is a very non-direct source of sound. Granted, that's the height speakers and not side speakers, but in this object-based scenario we're heading toward, I think it's difficult to say that diffuse above is better, but not on the side or in the back.


Not "some" people. _Most_ people (at the two presentations I attended). IDK if or how this relates to the surround speakers issue, although I did replace my former tripoles with monopole dual concentrics as part of my Atmos upgrade. I tend to agree with Sanjay that the world has moved on from Holman's day, when surround sound was non-directional and since the advent of discrete 5.1/7.1, monopoles seem to fit the concept better. This is regardless of Atmos.

HST, if you like what you hear, that is all that matters. 



BigScreen said:


> Until I can try it out for myself, I'm going to continue my belief that spreading the surround around a little is going to provide a better overall effect than a point-source direct radiator, especially when an overwhelming majority of movies were mixed in those "prehistoric" days. I'm somewhat amazed by the fact that so many have gone to so many lengths to accommodate a handful of movies. That shows the promise that people think this new technology has...


Not sure that the dipole speaker issue is confined to Atmos. As I say above, the need for directional surround speakers came when mixers started using surrounds for intentional directional effects, which would have been when discrete m/ch came along I guess. Of course, the mixer was still hamstrung by the fact that cinemas use arrays, so 'directional' means less than it does for us at home, using single speakers in each position. But since the advent of object-based mixing, mixers can now place sounds with precision in the surround speakers, and so it seems to favor the use of more directional speakers at home. Conversely, if mixers want "diffuse" in the surrounds, they can do that too, in the mix. And, perhaps most importantly, with the advent of object-based mixing, mixers are now able to use surround speakers 'working together' to image precisely in the surround field as they have always done up front. 



BigScreen said:


> I'm very open to having my mind changed, though. I have yet to hear of many first-hand reports of someone doing a comparison between the various speaker types for both Atmos and non-Atmos source material (I think I remember seeing one here). It's quite possible that I'm in the minority and it's a non-issue, but I'm somewhat surprised by the fact that so many seemed to just accept Dolby's guidelines without question, even after their other guidelines have shown to be just starting points and real-world experimentation showed that adjustments were needed for the best results.


I didn't accept 'without question'. I worked through it as logically as I was able and then came to the conclusion I outline above.



BigScreen said:


> There are so few movies available in the new sound format, that compromising everything else doesn't make sense to me.


That is true if you don't believe that many, non-Atmos, movies have directional sounds in the surround channels. 



BigScreen said:


> Even if/when the balance begins to tilt in favor of Atmos, the jury is still out as to whether having diffuse surrounds produces a lesser result than direct radiators, in my mind. I could be completely delusional, and I might do a complete about-face in time, but I believe that the evidence does not support any suggestions to "throw them out" when it comes to surround speakers that have worked just fine for many movies made in the past, those being made right now, and many well into the future.


Well I certainly wouldn't throw them out lightly I agree  If you were able to compare them with monopoles that would be the best way to go - then you could make up your mind based on how things sound to you, in your HT, which is all that matters.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I use Tri-poles...the best of both worlds


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> I use Tri-poles...the best of both worlds


I did too. M&K SS150Ts. I still miss them sometimes. But on balance, I am happier with the dual concentrics these days. I wouldn't go back.


----------



## cfraser

sdurani said:


> ...or getting precise imaging in the surround field. Many have already chosen the latter, inadvertently, by using regular bookshelf speakers as surrounds.


Inadvertent? Really? Or did you mean to say knowledgable?  [Speaking as a person who uses Maggies, appropriately.]


----------



## roxiedog13

coolgeek said:


> I don't believe Cameron will do 120fps... I heard that, the guy (don't remember his name), who did a demo film on 120fps in 3D approached James Cameron to use his technology, but initially reports indicate that Cameron will not be doing it... it may end up too expensive... remember, CGI intensive films are very expensive, and costs add up per frame!!! Last i heard, it cost something like $3 Million dollars for a ONE minute cgi effect (first rate ones).. it may be more expensive now...
> 
> And I believe studios will continue to release films in 3D at the cinemas / imaxes... but when they transfer it to blu-ray they may not waste the time / effort /money on 3D which did not sell well... and since many tv manufacturers are starting to drop 3D capability in their tv sets altogether, plus the next generation blu rays won't even allow you to encode in 3D, then I believe it's pretty much dead... I still hold up hope though...


$3Million a minute and James Cameron films always go two hours minimum. Factor in 150 minutes and say $4 million a minute equals $600 million. Avatar cost $500 million total and I believe he did make a few on that one, gross worldwide sales was over $3 billion including the home market . Can he do it again, we shall see ??

I heard the on-line rumors about 120FPS as well, not sure if it is ready for Avartar 2 but likely will be for 3 and 4. If the technology is ready I'm sure Cameron will embrace it, that guy is certainly not afraid to take risks. 

Hope your wrong about 3D not being transferred to Blu-Ray, that would be a shame. In my opinion 3D will always be around, just in limited quantities as it should be. 

Read this article, according to Forbes 3D is only going to grow: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/11/16/why-3d-will-dominate-cinema-in-the-future/6/ 

Have a look on page 5 for the future of 3D , these are certainly people in the know.


----------



## Josh Z

roxiedog13 said:


> I heard the on-line rumors about 120FPS as well, not sure if it is ready for Avartar 2 but likely will be for 3 and 4. If the technology is ready I'm sure Cameron will embrace it, that guy is certainly not afraid to take risks.


James Cameron initially said that he would shoot the Avatar sequels at 60fps, but he later backed down and announced that he would shoot them at 48fps, like the Hobbit movies.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/27/avatar-sequels-to-shoot-at-48fps/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Live on Broadway: Avatar 2!!!!


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> Inadvertent? Really? Or did you mean to say knowledgable?


I doubt most people who use bookshelf speakers as surrounds were doing so in a conscious effort to purposely deviate from the effect of arrayed surrounds they hear in commercial theatres. More likely they wanted smaller versions of speakers they were using up front, or just small speakers in general. What they ended up with, if set up properly, was imaging between their fronts & sides and between their sides & rears, which doesn't occur in commercial theatres. But I don't think they set out thinking to themselves that they didn't want their system to sound like what the rerecording engineer heard when doing the mix. Using monopoles ended up providing imaging that arrays (and dipole surrounds) cannot.


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> James Cameron initially said that he would shoot the Avatar sequels at 60fps, but he later backed down and announced that he would shoot them at 48fps, like the Hobbit movies.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/27/avatar-sequels-to-shoot-at-48fps/


Eventually the director will have variable frame rates at his disposal and discretion , for now 48 fps is better than 24 fps and most important will be 3D .


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> I doubt most people who use bookshelf speakers as surrounds were doing so in a conscious effort to purposely deviate from the effect of arrayed surrounds they hear in commercial theatres. More likely they wanted smaller versions of speakers they were using up front, or just small speakers in general. What they ended up with, if set up properly, was imaging between their fronts & sides and between their sides & rears, which doesn't occur in commercial theatres. But I don't think they set out thinking to themselves that they didn't want their system to sound like what the rerecording engineer heard when doing the mix. Using monopoles ended up providing imaging that arrays (and dipole surrounds) cannot.


Twice when I upgraded my front speakers, I moved the previous ones to the rear as surrounds. Hanging them overhead wouldn't have worked very well....


----------



## cranster

I went in to our local av place to listen to atmos today which was transformers through a Marantz 7702. It was a 7.1.4 setup, and I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear in my 7.1 setup with wides through my 7008. This is a total pass for me. No reason to get rid of the 7008.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Live on Broadway: Avatar 2!!!!



*Ok*_ . . . but do we still have to wear 3D glasses...?_  


_


----------



## Selden Ball

cranster said:


> I went in to our local av place to listen to atmos today which was transformers through a Marantz 7702. It was a 7.1.4 setup, and I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear in my 7.1 setup with wides through my 7008. This is a total pass for me. No reason to get rid of the 7008.


Obviously they weren't trying very hard.

What kind of overhead speaker configuration did they have?
Upfiring Dolby-Enabled, but with acoustic tiles left in the ceiling, perhaps? 

Of course, that results in essentially no overhead audio at all, but there have been reports of BestBuy/Magnolia demo rooms set up like that. Direct-firing overhead speakers usually work quite well... if they remember to turn them on.


----------



## Josh Z

roxiedog13 said:


> for now 48 fps is better than 24 fps


You're in a minority for feeling that way. Most viewers disagree.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> James Cameron initially said that he would shoot the Avatar sequels at 60fps, but he later backed down and announced that he would shoot them at 48fps, like the Hobbit movies.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/27/avatar-sequels-to-shoot-at-48fps/


Perfect for the "video" look then


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Eventually the director will have variable frame rates at his disposal and discretion , for now 48 fps is better than 24 fps and most important will be 3D .


It's 'better' if you want movies to look like TV video...


----------



## kbarnes701

cranster said:


> I went in to our local av place to listen to atmos today which was transformers through a Marantz 7702. It was a 7.1.4 setup, and I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear in my 7.1 setup with wides through my 7008. This is a total pass for me. No reason to get rid of the 7008.


 Do you think we're all hallucinating in this thread then? 

I mean, it didn't occur to you that your one experience might have been a bad one, due to, for example, really poor setup?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> You're in a minority for feeling that way. Most viewers disagree.


Count me in to the "most"!


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> You're in a minority for feeling that way. Most viewers disagree.





kbarnes701 said:


> Count me in to the "most"!


I really enjoyed the 48fps effect in the first two Hobbit movies. I really felt "there". Missed seeing Armies in the theater, and just found out that OMSI (15 minutes from my house) completely redid their IMAX theater and it now has Atmos...and I missed Armies there too. DOH.


----------



## coolgeek

roxiedog13 said:


> $3Million a minute and James Cameron films always go two hours minimum. Factor in 150 minutes and say $4 million a minute equals $600 million. Avatar cost $500 million total and I believe he did make a few on that one, gross worldwide sales was over $3 billion including the home market . Can he do it again, we shall see ??
> 
> I heard the on-line rumors about 120FPS as well, not sure if it is ready for Avartar 2 but likely will be for 3 and 4. If the technology is ready I'm sure Cameron will embrace it, that guy is certainly not afraid to take risks.
> 
> Hope your wrong about 3D not being transferred to Blu-Ray, that would be a shame. In my opinion 3D will always be around, just in limited quantities as it should be.
> 
> Read this article, according to Forbes 3D is only going to grow: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/11/16/why-3d-will-dominate-cinema-in-the-future/6/
> 
> Have a look on page 5 for the future of 3D , these are certainly people in the know.


$3 million a minute was many years back.. and that was for 24 frames per second.. remember, you need to do it frame by frame... takes a huge amount of CPU power to render an image, and also lots of man hours... 

If you factor in inflation, it could be $4-5 million per minute per 24 frames.. if you take into consideration of 120 fps, that's like almost 5 times the amount of rendering... so, $20 million per minute???? I am just getting this figure out of thin air now, and speculating... but whatever it is, it's gonna be extremely expensive..

BTW: I believe gone are the days where a movie can stay at the top of the box office for months at a time... i don't think avatar 2 will beat avatar in the box office.. budget is always a consideration... the reason cameron is making 3 films together is partly to save cost... i believe it is going to end up about $1 billion dollars or so for all 3 films... 

As for the article, I believe it's talking about the Cinema, which i totally agree...

Cinemas need to continue to improve.. i think we'll eventually get to a holodeck kind of experience.. maybe 3D in a dome type cinema, with films that is 180 or even 360 degrees... (might be decades away though)... but for the home, that's another matter... you can just do some mental calculations.. Vizio is one of the biggest flat screen sellers in the USA and they have removed 3D on their tv sets... lots of other brands are also forgoing 3d for 4k... so, if moving forward, there are not going to be increasing 3D sets in the market, producing 3D blu ray would be expensive and can't recoup their costs... so, why release them? Also, if the future format of blu ray won't even support it.. i think the writing's on the wall for this one.. 

Though i still hope a sliver of hope.. for some miracles...


----------



## coolgeek

Josh Z said:


> You're in a minority for feeling that way. Most viewers disagree.


I like 48 fps..

The problem with higher frame rate right now is you get 'more real'.. and you can see things more 'clearly'.. it's geting close to our eye's maybe 120 natural 120fps or so... so, people and objects look far more real (and since we're used to seeing 'unreal' some people hate it)... and also, CGI needs to also go up a level of 'realness' because our brain can detect the most minor issues the higher the frame rate you go... if you go 120 fps, with extremely well done CGI, that would then look no different from 'real world' to us.. you'll be transported into the movie.. you'll be among the characters... (provided you have full color gamut that our eyes can see, and it's in retina display resolution, and in high dynamic range).... making such films will be prohibitively expensive right now... but that could change with better chips, better processing powers, laser projectors, etc...

BTW: My mom thinks the monsters in movies in the 60s looks 'more real' than the dinosaurs in jurassic park.. i remembered when i first brought her to watch jurassic park, she said the dinosaurs looked 'fake'... 

Our brain takes a bit of time to 'adjust' to newer realities...


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> Bob... you are wrong..
> 
> There is no "greater support" from either the studios or the "mainstream electronics manufacturers.."
> 
> Not one studio has announced support, and none of the "mainstream" manufacturers has offered "greater" support...
> 
> Again, your option doesn't matter.. the facts don't back it up.





NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dtsx---raising-the-bar-in-immersive-sound-300014462.html --> Check video (scroll down a bit)


In the second paragraph of that link above.


----------



## cfraser

sdurani said:


> I doubt most people who use bookshelf speakers as surrounds were doing so in a conscious effort to purposely deviate from the effect of arrayed surrounds they hear in commercial theatres. More likely they wanted smaller versions of speakers they were using up front, or just small speakers in general. What they ended up with, if set up properly, was imaging between their fronts & sides and between their sides & rears, which doesn't occur in commercial theatres. But I don't think they set out thinking to themselves that they didn't want their system to sound like what the rerecording engineer heard when doing the mix. Using monopoles ended up providing imaging that arrays (and dipole surrounds) cannot.


OK... I was coming more from the place of a "bad idea" that was made to sound like a "good idea". I don't believe for a second that the people who chose what they did, did so for the reasons you stated. Not for one second. They were _sold_ that solution, they don't have a fraction of your insight.


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> I was coming more from the place of a "bad idea" that was made to sound like a "good idea".


The bad idea being dipoles or monopoles?


----------



## cfraser

^ I meant dipoles as surrounds as the "bad idea". Never liked the idea, coming from the pro-dipole side of things myself. They just don't work everywhere, not an audio hammer. Edit: should say that if you wanted to use dipoles as surrounds, if your room was large enough so you didn't have to place them near walls, then I'd be all for that. And if your ceilings were so high and you could suspend them far enough away, there too.


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> There is no *"greater support"* from either the studios or the "mainstream electronics manufacturers.."
> 
> Not one studio has announced support, and none of the "mainstream" manufacturers has offered *"greater"* support...





NorthSky said:


> In the second paragraph of that link above.



That paragraph states that _Manufacturers_ (hardware) have announced support. Not that they will be supporting DTS more than Dolby or instead of. 

It also says nothing about Studio support.



> Manufacturers representing nearly 90 percent of the home AV receiver and surround processor market, including Anthem, Denon, Integra, Krell, Marantz, McIntosh, Onkyo, Outlaw Audio, Pioneer, Steinway Lyngdorf, Theta Digital, Trinnov Audio, and Yamaha, have agreed to launch products supporting DTS:X in 2015. Additional manufacturer partners will be announced in the coming months. DTS:X solutions are also available for leading 2015 AV receiver silicon platforms representing the majority of the DSP platform market share, including Cirrus Logic, Analog Devices and Texas Instruments.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob... you are wrong..
> 
> There is no "greater support" from either the studios or the "mainstream electronics manufacturers.."
> 
> Not one studio has announced support, and none of the "mainstream" manufacturers has offered "greater" support...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your option doesn't matter.. the facts don't back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> :diamonds: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dtsx---raising-the-bar-in-immersive-sound-300014462.html --> Check video (scroll down a bit)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the second paragraph of that link above.
Click to expand...

Bob. 

You said "greater" mainstream support. 

2 things. 

Not one manufacturer besides Steinway has publicly announced support. That manufacture lineup came form a DTS spokesperson, and not the the companies they mentioned. 

The only compnaies that I would consider "mainstream" (your word not mine) in that press release are Onkyo, Pioneer, Denon/Marantz and Yamaha. 

All of them have Atmos products on the market. And again, I will be willing to bet money that not one company will offer DTS:X without also offering Dolby Atmos in the same product. 

So your claim of "greater" support from mainstream companies is wrong, false, incorrect. Not to mention your claim of studio support. 

Need this go on?


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> The problem is when you pass off your opinion as fact and are wrong (like saying that DTS uses 4x less compression...)
> 
> No offense, but if you had more respect for _all_ AVS members maybe you could start by being more judicious with your posts so I don't get multiple notifications every time you want to pontificate on what others have said rather than adding something meaningful, factual and germane to the conversation...


dts used 1509 kpbs @ the beginning (Universal studios) on DVDs, and DD 384 kbps (on average). 
I did not say 4 times less compression (in exact words), go back and read what I said. ...Plus, it's not the bible what I posted, ...only my understanding.

I take no offense. And I can work on my way of saying few things in a more easy way to mean my opinion, not the bible. 

I do take it @ heart what you say; people's opinion count a lot. ...Even more so when they say it in a friendly and constructive tone. 

One last thing Marc,

If some people want to ignore some members, usually they don't even bother to say it, they do it in a mature way and discreetly, no fanfare. 
That's the peaceful way; everyone is intelligent and has the capability to make his own decision. 

* I take our last exchange as a positive going forwards. ...With a more attentive appreciation in good communication.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> ... And again, I will be willing to bet money that not one company will offer DTS:X without also offering Dolby Atmos in the same product.
> So your claim of "greater" support from mainstream companies is wrong, false, incorrect. Not to mention your claim of studio support.


Of course not; DTS:X doesn't go without Dolby Atmos. 

It seems to me that you attach too much importance in the word "greater" ... perhaps because couple more names came to the table when DTS:X came to the news, ...Anthem was one of them. 

Marc, I've read you good, I put my emotions aside and concentrated on what I said, what you said, what he said. 
I took my time to see objectively and maturely and intelligently; and I shared my thought in my above post.


----------



## NorthSky

In my opinion, next month when DTS:X is going to make its official "entry" to the world of 3D sound, ...it is going to be a good boost for the better.
...And the manufacturers are going to benefit, and the customers too (us), and the main movie studios are going to have a larger embrace.

Then, eventually, with now both Dolby Surround and DTS:X own up-mixer, people are going slowly to lower their surrounds and buy monopole speakers. 

______

I've read what one member was saying on this (*BigScreen*), and he was right; for most people (99%) we are still in the speaker's arrays of yesteryear, a la THX. ...So high elevated surrounds, and dipoles.

______

P.S. Instead of replying to few members who quoted me earlier today, I would say this:
Don't take word for word as the utmost importance in life; be _"souple"_, flexible, beyond borders. ...I'll do the same; make my best effort.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think we're all hallucinating in this thread then?
> 
> I mean, it didn't occur to you that your one experience might have been a bad one, due to, for example, really poor setup?


I hate to say this but some people look hard to justify..... convincing themselves to keep what they have not really wanting anything new.
I for one am enjoying my hallucinations I want more..


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> I like 48 fps..
> 
> The problem with higher frame rate right now is you get 'more real'.. and you can see things more 'clearly'.. it's geting close to our eye's maybe 120 natural 120fps or so... so, people and objects look far more real (and since we're used to seeing 'unreal' some people hate it)... and also, CGI needs to also go up a level of 'realness' because our brain can detect the most minor issues the higher the frame rate you go... if you go 120 fps, with extremely well done CGI, that would then look no different from 'real world' to us.. you'll be transported into the movie.. you'll be among the characters... (provided you have full color gamut that our eyes can see, and it's in retina display resolution, and in high dynamic range).... making such films will be prohibitively expensive right now... but that could change with better chips, better processing powers, laser projectors, etc...
> 
> BTW: My mom thinks the monsters in movies in the 60s looks 'more real' than the dinosaurs in jurassic park.. i remembered when i first brought her to watch jurassic park, she said the dinosaurs looked 'fake'...
> 
> Our brain takes a bit of time to 'adjust' to newer realities...


It's a thread in itself, so I won't go on and on about it, but everything you say is true. Of television.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Need this go on?


On and on and on and on unfortunately. It all adds to the post-count, which seems to be all that matters 

I think we all know who to take notice of here, and who to ignore.


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> I meant dipoles as surrounds as the "bad idea". Never liked the idea, coming from the pro-dipole side of things myself. They just don't work everywhere, not an audio hammer.


Depends on what you mean by "work". When placed properly (i.e., with the null pointing to the listeners), they do what they were supposed to do. Questions is, whether you like that particular effect? 

In my experience, approaches to home theatre seem to fall under two broad categories: those that want to recreate (an optimal version) of the experience they just had at a movie theatre and those that want to go beyond the limitations of commercial cinemas. I think both are valid goals. 

The whole point of the home THX program was to get as close as possible to hearing what the mixer heard on the dubbing stage when the soundtrack was being created. Certainly that's not an unreasonable goal. To that end, sitting in the null of dipole surrounds got you much closer to the very generalized left vs right vs back directionality you hear with surround arrays. 

While a monople surround doesn't mimic an array of speakers, it can deliver a level of localization and directionality that is beyond what you hear in even the best commercial cinemas. Even more impressive is the phantom imaging you hear between every adjacent pair of speakers in a home set-up. Of course, who knows how much of precision (or any of it) was intended when the soundtrack was mixed using surround arrays. But I happen to like it. 

So dipole surrounds do work. Just because you or I might not like the effect doesn't make them a bad idea. Having said that, dipole surrounds cannot recreate some of the precise localization we now hear in commercial cinemas with object-based sounds. But they do get you closer to how we hear channel-based sounds, even in an Atmos soundtrack. 

Still comes down to personal preference rather than right or wrong choice.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> Don't count on James. It's been many years and he still hasn't resurrected The Abyss from the depths. My original non-anamorphic DVD is un-watchable to me now. I want it on Bluray in Atmos.
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Cameron is interested in object based audio at all, or if his focus is still on 3D.


'The Abyss' should get the DVD anamorphic treatment as soon that James is done with Avatar 4. 

I just couldn't resist. 

* Yeah, you're right; this one is one of the deepest mysteries in our abysmal cinema world.


----------



## NorthSky

> On and on and on and on unfortunately. It all adds to the post-count, which seems to be all that matters
> 
> I think we all know who to take notice of here, and who to ignore.


It's funny how Dolby Atmos works; object rendition in space .... for the good of mankind. 

* Did you see the flick 'Interstellar' ?

P.S. You keep singing the same tune over and over, do you need the support of an audience to truly get over it and move above?
I enjoy reading the majority of your posts; except for those types which bring no joy, no constructive purpose, no truth, and no value.


----------



## cfraser

sdurani said:


> While a monople surround doesn't mimic an array of speakers, it can deliver a level of localization and directionality that is beyond what you hear in even the best commercial cinemas. Even more impressive is the phantom imaging you hear between every adjacent pair of speakers in a home set-up. Of course, who knows how much of precision (or any of it) was intended when the soundtrack was mixed using surround arrays. But I happen to like it.


That's where I'm coming from. I can't help it if I can't promote things I don't like (Edit: meaning on-the-wall surround dipoles), that's why I've always known I can never be in sales. 

I do honestly believe my sound at home is better than I get at the local cinemas, overall. Probably not alone...


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Anyone with a 9.1.2 atmos setup? 
I'd like to know how much usage the front side surrounds are getting?


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> I do honestly believe my sound at home is better than I get at the local cinemas, overall. Probably not alone...


To be fair, your home system is all based your personal preferences. How can a local multiplex compete with that?


----------



## cfraser

^ I try to be fair in evaluating the cinema sound, it's not like I have any say or it's (directly) my money. It's not a preference thing that's the diff, it's about _caring_. At least around here, they don't seem to care enough. I imagine in more prominent venues they do moreso. I wish I could say that the way things are here was even mostly about preference. Almost everything I have/do is extremely limited by my space. But I've done a good job (slowly, over many years and iterations), the treatments (a bit painful!) elevated my satisfaction a lot, in fact has made me even fussier about new things I do.


----------



## lujan

cranster said:


> I went in to our local av place to listen to atmos today which was transformers through a Marantz 7702. It was a 7.1.4 setup, and I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear in my 7.1 setup with wides through my 7008. This is a total pass for me. No reason to get rid of the 7008.


I was in the very same boat as you a couple of months ago when I went to our local Listen Up place and heard a transformers demo using Atmos and also indicated on this forum that I was unimpressed. Transformers is not a good example when demonstrating Atmos. I have heard many other demos and movies now that I have it and it does make a great deal of difference when having the right source material.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Live on Broadway: Avatar 2!!!!


In 3D!!! 

Shhh!!! Best not give Cameron any ideas. 

I'm just hoping he spends more time on the scripts and plot than the effects this time around.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cranster said:


> I went in to our local av place to listen to atmos today which was transformers through a Marantz 7702. It was a 7.1.4 setup, and I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear in my 7.1 setup with wides through my 7008. This is a total pass for me. No reason to get rid of the 7008.


Transformers 4 is the last title you should be using in drawing any conclusions about 3D audio. It uses very little overhead positioning. I'm sure it has more in the way of main level speaker array panning, however we have to plunk down a hell of a lot of money for a high end processor to experience that.


----------



## NorthSky

*The Quest*

Hi Scott,

Of course I was half dipole saying my opinion on a humorous monopole tone. 

Sarcastic; yes sure there was some of it too, but not the emphasized imprint from my mind, ...humor more, mixed with the main idea.

For Dolby Atmos, monopoles speakers all around and above are their "general" recommendation, as previously said.
And the height of the surrounds is no more than 1.25 times the height of the fronts; from Dolby Atmos guidelines (pdf). 

I don't have a Dolby Atmos processor yet, but I will. And right now my four main surrounds are @ ear level (side) and roughly nine inches above ear level (rear). And they have been like this now for the last three years plus, going four. 
My main rig is also used for multichannel music listening.

For strictly movies, with a non-Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP), dipoles are good for the older VHS tapes (THX certified ones from FOX studios), and for some DVDs. I don't watch tapes anymore and about one or two DVDs per year. ...Plus no cable/satellite TV and no streaming, no downloading, no burning, no gaming, no nothing than music and movies on Blu-ray, hybrid SACD, the odd DVD Audio, some Blu-ray Audio, ...in my main rig.
So my speakers are positioned accordingly with my preference and practical purpose from my software.

And it would perfectly correspond with Dolby Surround (DSU); just have to add four more above. 

The point you brought is extremely valid for the majority of people (about 98%+), because they don't have Dolby Atmos, they watch DVDs and Blu-rays, they stream (Netflix), they have cable TV, and dipoles are still good for all the people (98%), and with the surrounds being roughly 5-6 feet high. 

It's just that we are in this Dolby Atmos thread here. ...But cool; you reflect the majority and not the minuscule minority.
And your post is polite, respectable, informative, with the labor of love "construction" from your mind and soul. 
And that, we can make giant steps in the discussion, for everyone; and no just the people already here, but also all the new ones on the sidelines who would love to participate, and share their own ideas with their own questions. 

There were some posts mentioning about THX dipole speakers from back then; that's good info, and a good reflection too from then to now. ...With the new spatial 3D sound from Dolby Atmos. We are in a new atmospheric zone, where surround sound is no longer diffused and confused, I think. 
It adds precision more now, with spatial integration from object renderer machines. ...Imaging is real, like holographic gel. ...There is more substance all around. 

That's my opinion. 




BigScreen said:


> Robert, this is what I was responding to:
> 
> Re-reading your post leads me to think that you might have been intentionally sarcastic about the situation, but it's difficult to tell.
> 
> As you said later in your post, we're still sitting here with very few Atmos titles to enjoy. That means that thousands of movies are to be watched using the same "prehistoric" approach that has worked great for me for all these years. It's possible that I don't know what I'm missing by not using direct radiators, and that Gary Reber was actually right when he was chasing his "holographic" sound unicorn. However, I never bought into it because his approach meant that only one seat in the room was the sweet spot, and every other seat (by definition) was going to have compromised sound. If you are aiming every speaker for the best performance in just one spot, every other seat gets something very different, especially in this case when those seats might be just a couple of feet away from a surround speaker.
> 
> I agree that object-based sound has great potential, but I don't think that is necessarily means that we throw everything out the window in the process. Commercial theaters deliver surround sound from arrays, largely because they need to cover a large area with the soundfield. Atmos does provide for the ability to get near 1:1 correlation between objects and speakers (theatrical Atmos can handle up to 64 speakers, which is quite a few speakers, even in a large commercial theater), but what about all the other movies that aren't in the format? That entire wall on each side of the listener is playing the same sound in a traditional 5.1/7.1 configuration. If the theater were tuned to just one listener, as the "holographic" approach to home theater is done, there would be just one single speaker on each side, along with two speakers behind. Would this produce the same quality of sound, or would there be something lacking, especially in that space in between the speakers? As long as the angles match the Dolby recommendations (for home Atmos), the concept is the same, isn't it? Given the larger dispersion area due to the distances between the speakers and the listeners, the effect would be better for a larger number of seating positions than in a home theater environment where the sweet spot is very small if everything is perfectly aimed for one position only.
> 
> If point-source sound transmission was so critical, Dolby would not have allowed for reflecting speakers, because the dispersion of reflected sound is naturally more diffuse. Keith even reported that some people at the Dolby presentations last summer preferred the reflecting speaker configuration. Some here have found that even when they had in-ceiling speakers where the drivers could be aimed toward the listener, the effect was better when the driver was pointed downward, which is a very non-direct source of sound. Granted, that's the height speakers and not side speakers, but in this object-based scenario we're heading toward, I think it's difficult to say that diffuse above is better, but not on the side or in the back.
> 
> Until I can try it out for myself, I'm going to continue my belief that spreading the surround around a little is going to provide a better overall effect than a point-source direct radiator, especially when an overwhelming majority of movies were mixed in those "prehistoric" days. I'm somewhat amazed by the fact that so many have gone to so many lengths to accommodate a handful of movies. That shows the promise that people think this new technology has...
> 
> I'm very open to having my mind changed, though. I have yet to hear of many first-hand reports of someone doing a comparison between the various speaker types for both Atmos and non-Atmos source material (I think I remember seeing one here). It's quite possible that I'm in the minority and it's a non-issue, but I'm somewhat surprised by the fact that so many seemed to just accept Dolby's guidelines without question, even after their other guidelines have shown to be just starting points and real-world experimentation showed that adjustments were needed for the best results.
> 
> There are so few movies available in the new sound format, that compromising everything else doesn't make sense to me. Even if/when the balance begins to tilt in favor of Atmos, the jury is still out as to whether having diffuse surrounds produces a lesser result than direct radiators, in my mind. I could be completely delusional, and I might do a complete about-face in time, but I believe that the evidence does not support any suggestions to "throw them out" when it comes to surround speakers that have worked just fine for many movies made in the past, those being made right now, and many well into the future.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Transformers 4 is the last title you should be using in drawing any conclusions about 3D audio. It uses very little overhead positioning. I'm sure it has more in the way of main level speaker array panning, however we have to plunk down a hell of a lot of money for a high end processor to experience that.


That's it IMO. Having only a 5.1 or 7.1 base, an Atmos capable AVR/processor only adds the benefit of being able to playback overhead sounds. The other benefits of an Atmos mixed soundtrack can be easily enjoyed without it, using the 5.1/7.1 down mix.


----------



## cfraser

Where should I look to see pics of peoples' "height"/Top speaker installs, where the speakers are mounted to the ceiling? Not in-ceiling speakers though. For ideas. Thanks.

I am not seeing many brackets for speakers >10lbs (maybe a lot greater) that don't require drilling into the speakers. Few enough non-industrial-looking that do require drilling even. Maybe I looked into this several years ago, and _this_ was the reason I didn't install the (front) heights (back in the ancient PLIIz days)... Plenty of decent _wall_ brackets though, especially from the UK.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> That's it IMO. Having only a 5.1 or 7.1 base, an Atmos capable AVR/processor only adds the benefit of being able to playback overhead sounds. The other benefits of an Atmos mixed soundtrack can be easily enjoyed without it, using the 5.1/7.1 down mix.


It's a small improvement to be sure based on a more aggressive surround usage in general derived from using object mixing, but take for instance _Gravity_. It really utilized the panning and anchoring of sound and dialog along the speaker arrays more so than most movies mixed in Atmos to this date. You really would need more than 7.1 in the base layer to get a solid idea of what the sound mixers were trying to accomplish unless the home mix pulls more of the effects into the overheads.


----------



## maikeldepotter

WhiskeyConway said:


> Anyone with a 9.1.2 atmos setup?
> I'd like to know how much usage the front side surrounds are getting?


Should be a lot. At least all the sounds being panned from front to sides.

_Edit: Referring to the usage of wides when playing an Atmos soundtrack._


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> Should be a lot. At least all the sounds being panned from front to sides.


That's what appeared to be happening at CEDIA in the two demos utilizing a 9.1.4 speaker array. Granted, they were using a Trinnov and a Steinway processor along with the Atmos demo disc.

The Enrique Iglesias music video also showed how instrumentation and overdubs could be spread out wider around the viewer using more base layer speakers than normal.


----------



## NorthSky

*Imho*

Most of all our posts are opinions, ideas, speculations, preferences, and with few links for good measure on the Dolby Atmos prospect and convention. 
How many times in the past have we been through this...IMHO...as if it is necessary to stipulate. 

I will adapt to the style recommended by people's comments, opinions, supports. ...No problemo, with much appreciation. 
I acknowledge what I am reading (your post, and others), and even what I am not reading but can easily sense @ times from some confusion and _"désarroi"_ inter-lapsing and spilling. ...As long that we don't make this a personal and larger issue, and that we can see the simplicity and honest views from people's opinions including mine and all of us. 

Discussions, even in the scientific classes of theories proposed are always opinions, and nothing is solid forever, even the relativity, the gravity, the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the exploration of 3-dimensional sound, the worm holes, ....
Many unexplored worlds remain, nothing is abso!ute, and all are opinions. 

You said your peace; IMO it is valid and deserves a replied opinion. 



audioguy said:


> *The following post is just my opinion.*
> 
> There are many readers of these threads who have very little or no knowledge about specific areas of their interest. They come to learn and to get advice from those who have direct experience (i.e. someone who actually uses or used the product or feature or service, ....) in question. Or maybe from someone who does not have direct experience but has been down the path that the person posting the question is interested in. Given that, I believe it is critical that when a post is made, it should be stated such that there is NO ambiguity about whether it is fact or opinion. Otherwise a lot of folks are going to potentially misled. Phrases like: "in my opinion" or "I believe that.....", or "based upon my experience" can really keep the thread on track.
> 
> When someone states an opinion as an opinion, I seldom see "too intense". But when someone states an opinion but fails in any way to note that it is an opinion and it comes across as "fact", that, to me, is a different matter altogether. It is particularly problematic to me if that statement (opinion) has no facts to back it up and just so happens to be in error. THEN the intensity begins.
> 
> Yes, this is a thread about Dolby Atmos. And it certainly should not be about personalities. But when opinions are continually posted as if fact (but aren't), I believe it more than appropriate to either point out to the poster that he or she has done so, OR ask the poster if it is an opinion or fact, and if fact, request the information that supports the stated "facts". Sure seems reasonable to me.
> 
> But that's just me.  (and my opinion)
> 
> Now let's get back to discussing Dolby Atmos!


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> Should be a lot. At least all the sounds being panned from front to sides.


Not much. Only objects will pan through the wide position speakers in a 9.1.2 system. Otherwise it's Neo:X and DSX using them. Wides are silent when using DSU.





Dan Hitchman said:


> That's what appeared to be happening at CEDIA in the two demos utilizing a 9.1.4 speaker array. Granted, they were using a Trinnov and a Steinway processor along with the Atmos demo disc.
> 
> The Enrique Iglesias music video also showed how instrumentation and overdubs could be spread out wider around the viewer using more base layer speakers than normal.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

My room will be 12' wide x 21' long (about 3' will be behind an acoustically transparent screen) When I map out a seating position at 68% depth, I noticed that the room should have speakers placed at approximately 1/3 of wall length all around for 9.1.4 (except for LCR) . Overhead heights would also simply subdivide the the ceiling space. 

Do most of you work strictly from angles or have any of you simply subdivided the space as I layed out above? 

These are off screen objects and I see a lot of passion about exact angle positioning. I kinda question the physical spacing as a priority vs angular spacing when dealing with small rooms such as mine. 

Maybe my math will work for the space I am using. I just completely moved my first floor ductwork and switched to a 4 zone damper system. I am still at the beginning stages of construction and have read (sadly) almost every page of this thread. (Ignoring Northsky helped speed things up)((why do you guys keep quoting him?))  I just imagine some emotional guy sitting by his computer waiting for a response to his last post.... all... day.... long. Then taking some cheap 7th grade attempt at being poetic toward the art that completes and unifies the soul & dts:x rules/atmos sucks... or some adalecent gibberish.

So, I am going for 9.1.4, knowing it isn't readily available for Atmos, unless two AVR setups like Nallah sp? are used. I just feel that the wides make so much more sense, even if DSU doesn't use it. This is an Atmos thread. 

So, are angles the only route or has anyone placed their seats about 2/3rd back and let speaker spacing prevail? Or do both work because this is only off screen content we're talking about and after the front stage is taken care of the surrounds are used as an afterthought? FilmMixer?


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Scott Simonian said:


>


You serious Clark?


----------



## NorthSky

WhiskeyConway said:


> Anyone with a 9.1.2 atmos setup?
> I'd like to know how much usage the front side surrounds are getting?


How many Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles do you own?

* Front Wide surrounds can be used with Atmos BR titles, not with DSU the up-mixer, I believe.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Atsc 3.0*

" Current Dolby Atmos receivers doesn't include Dolby AC-4 decoders yet. " 

http://www.twice.com/news/audio/how-atsc-30-audio-could-connect-home-theaters/56435


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Not much. Only objects will pan through the wide position speakers in a 9.1.2 system. Otherwise it's Neo:X and DSX using them. Wides are silent when using DSU.


It would seem that it's the same issue if you call them front wides or extra sides. The speakers can be addressed by objects or _possibly _spread out/duplicated bed information as per instructions given during the studio rendering session.


----------



## kingwiggi

Even though I knew this disc was out there. This is the first track listing I've seen. Not much of any use since most people have the video clips; however the most interesting thing on there seems to be the 'AV Sync Test Signal'.

Has anyone come across this ?

http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/03/14/dolby-atmos-reference-disc/


----------



## kingwiggi

Short article about 'Dolby Atmos on the Go' 

http://www.whathifi.com/news/dolby-atmos-mobile-everything-you-need-to-know


.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> Even though I knew this disc was out there. This is the first track listing I've seen. Not much of any use since most people have the video clips; however the most interesting thing on there seems to be the 'AV Sync Test Signal'.
> 
> Has anyone come across this ?
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/03/14/dolby-atmos-reference-disc/


♦ There is this one too: www.demo-world.eu/2015/01/16/2015-dts-blu-ray-demo-disc-vol-19/


----------



## sdurani

WhiskeyConway said:


> So, are angles the only route or has anyone placed their seats about 2/3rd back and let speaker spacing prevail?


First, good idea placing the seats (actually, the listeners' ears) at one of the 1/3rd divisions of room length, where frequency response swings are far smaller than, say, the midpoint of room length, where it's all peaks & nulls. 










As for following the speaker placement angles in the Atmos install guide, everything in the guide is based on angles relative to the main listening position. However, in your situation, it won't always work out. For example: Dolby recommends placing your front speakers at ±30° from centre. In your room, that would put your L/R speakers on the side walls, about 9-10 feet forward of your listening position (about a foot in front of your acoustically transparent screen). Not happening. 

So rather than adhere strictly to Dolby's recommendations, try to get as close as reasonably possible. That will still be better than placing speakers based on subdividing room dimensions, which will result in arbitrary placement. Your front soundstage will end up narrower than Dolby's recommendation, but at least you can place the wides, sides, rears and overheads at the recommended angles.


----------



## billqs

Hey Guys! I'm still trying to find wide dispersion speakers for my Atmos home theater. There is a great closeout deal right now on Mirage Omni 150 bookshelp speakers. From description they sound like great candidates to be mounted on the ceiling for Top Ceiling and Rear Ceiling. Does this sound good?


----------



## NorthSky

billqs said:


> Hey Guys! I'm still trying to find wide dispersion speakers for my Atmos home theater. There is a great closeout deal right now on Mirage Omni 150 bookshelp speakers. From description they sound like great candidates to be mounted on the ceiling for Top Ceiling and Rear Ceiling. Does this sound good?


What are your floor speakers? 

I ask this because the Mirage Omni 150 have their own signature sound, and would be best timbre-matched with the rest of your speakers.
I've heard them in the past, in a full 5.1-channel setup. It was fun to be enveloped with five small satellites. ...But it didn't last.
They have a mix of direct and reflective sound, and those highs are different. They can sound too "present", bordering on the "scream". 

Best to listen to them first, and take your time to see if you can get used to them. Me I couldn't, I need a "smooth" speaker (I'm used to).
And the Mirage Omni speakers are best when they are all timbre-matched. 

Omnipolar speakers are not best for imaging, but best for envelopment; from diffusion and reflections. 

That's my opinion, and from personal experience. ...In a Dolby Atmos setup I would skip them, but that's me.
Plus I certainly never tried them upside-down and over my head in the past.


----------



## billqs

NorthSky said:


> What are your floor speakers?
> 
> I ask this because the Mirage Omni 150 have their own signature sound, and would be best timbre-matched with the rest of your speakers.
> I've heard them in the past, in a full 5.1-channel setup. It was fun to be enveloped with five small satellites. ...But it didn't last.
> They have a mix of direct and reflective sound, and those highs are different. They can sound too "present", bordering on the "scream".
> 
> Best to listen to them first, and take your time to see if you can get used to them. Me I couldn't, I need a "smooth" speaker (I'm used to).
> And the Mirage Omni speakers are best when they are all timbre-matched.
> 
> Omnipolar speakers are not best for imaging, but best for envelopment; from diffusion and reflections.
> 
> That's my opinion, and from personal experience. ...In a Dolby Atmos setup I would skip them, but that's me.
> Plus I certainly never tried them upside-down and over my head in the past.


The rest of my system are Def Tech. I'm using 3 Procenter 1000's for LCR, Mythos Gems for Side Surround, and 8040BP for rear surround. I'm using Promonitor 800's for my ceiling speakers. There is nothing wrong per se using the Promonitors, I'm just looking for a wide dispersion speaker like the Dolby Recommendations.


----------



## NorthSky

billqs said:


> The rest of my system are Def Tech. I'm using 3 Procenter 1000's for LCR, Mythos Gems for Side Surround, and 8040BP for rear surround. I'm using Promonitor 800's for my ceiling speakers. There is nothing wrong per se using the Promonitors, I'm just looking for a wide dispersion speaker like the Dolby Recommendations.


There are members who have such wide dispersion overhead speakers in their own Dolby Atmos setups; I let them reply.

By the way, which Dolby Atmos receiver do you have, or intend to get?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Not much. Only objects will pan through the wide position speakers in a 9.1.2 system. Otherwise it's Neo:X and DSX using them. Wides are silent when using DSU.


Correct. I edited my post, referring to Atmos soundtracks and wides only.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> In 3D!!!
> 
> Shhh!!! Best not give Cameron any ideas.
> 
> I'm just hoping he spends more time on the scripts and plot than the effects this time around.


No doubt the special effects in Avatar is where Cameron concentrated his efforts but in all honesty, the story wasn't too bad either. Titanic was pretty much the same , the overall product for special
effects and the story obviously worked. I guess a balance has to be maintained between the story , cinematography and sound for a movie to have success. If it's a little weak on plot but makes up the gap with special effects and sound then a movie can be successful. 

Is Cameron going to use Atmos/DTS 3D sound as well I wonder ? Looks like the release for Avatar 2 is now late 2017, apparently writing the script for three successive films was more work
than he had anticipated. Maybe the script will be better afterall.


----------



## Nalleh

billqs said:


> The rest of my system are Def Tech. I'm using 3 Procenter 1000's for LCR, Mythos Gems for Side Surround, and 8040BP for rear surround. *I'm using Promonitor 800's for my ceiling speaker*s. There is nothing wrong per se using the Promonitors, I'm just looking for a wide dispersion speaker like the Dolby Recommendations.


Well, then you are set! The Pro Monitors ARE wide dispersion, and a lot of people use them for ceiling Atmos use.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Nalleh,

Do you have a thread about your dual AVR setup for Atmos? 

It seems like a good option on paper. What are the caveats?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> No doubt the special effects in Avatar is where Cameron concentrated his efforts but in all honesty, the story wasn't too bad either. Titanic was pretty much the same , the overall product for special
> effects and the story obviously worked. I guess a balance has to be maintained between the story , cinematography and sound for a movie to have success. If it's a little weak on plot but makes up the gap with special effects and sound then a movie can be successful.
> 
> Is Cameron going to use Atmos/DTS 3D sound as well I wonder ? Looks like the release for Avatar 2 is now late 2017, apparently writing the script for three successive films was more work
> than he had anticipated. Maybe the script will be better afterall.


Cameron's _Avatar_ script was probably IMHO his clunkiest and most derivative yet next to _Titanic_. Very much _Dances With Wolves_ meets Disney's _Pocahontas _meets _Ferngully: The Last Rainforest..._ in space.


----------



## Chesebro

*Atmos speakers*



billqs said:


> Hey Guys! I'm still trying to find wide dispersion speakers for my Atmos home theater. There is a great closeout deal right now on Mirage Omni 150 bookshelp speakers. From description they sound like great candidates to be mounted on the ceiling for Top Ceiling and Rear Ceiling. Does this sound good?


Im using the new Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA they where designed for Atmos.


----------



## saf01

Newbie checking in. Just finished up reading this entire thread and I must say I'm going to just throw in the towel regarding any Atmos planning  Quick history in a nutshell. Old school, simple Yamaha C-60 amplifier, powering a even older pair of ESS Tempist Classics. That is what I listen to music with. 

We recently purchased a new house which came pre-wired for 7.1 surround using in-ceiling speakers. I've been trying to figure out how to plan something in two phases so I don't go all in at once and waste a lot of time and money (don't we all). Seems several affordable choices regarding receivers (currently looking at another Yamaha, 2040, since my current one is doing well) but speakers and placement seem a bit of a ho hum. 

I guess an easy way to say this is that ignorance is bliss for me  I've not really paid much attention to surround sound and home theater and now we bought this massive TV and the home comes pre-wired trying to add reasonable sound is a challenge. Don't even know where to begin and buying 7 speakers plus a subwoofer or two could add up. Figured there has to be a road map or insert something for dummies here 

Then again, maybe I have it all wrong in that there isn't really a single set up that works for both home theater and audio. I like the idea of Dolby Atmos and we watch a lot of movies, almost daily, so I'm very interested. Just don't get the whole speaker thing or if it even works using ceiling speakers...

Thanks for the thread though - very interesting and some amazing stuff you guys/gals have done. 

V/R yours,
Confused newbie


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cameron's _Avatar_ script was probably IMHO his clunkiest and most derivative yet next to _Titanic_. Very much _Dances With Wolves_ meets Disney's _Pocahontas _meets _Ferngully: The Last Rainforest..._ in space.


Not defending Avatar or Titanic, and derivatives or not they were in fact top grossing movies of all time. My brother the artist thought Titanic was a disgraceful movie minimalizing the tragedy of thousands to the sordid affair between two teens. I guess if Mr. Cameron was writing a documentary those arguments would be valid but this was a movie . I enjoyed both but certainly not my personal all time favorites. Both worth the cost of admission and both occupy a place on my shelf. Like any movie for me, it is simply a departure from reality, if the movie can keep my interest the director has done his job. I think the average movie goer expects more than script nowadays, the visual special effects and the Atmos 3D audio are selling seats , the best script is not enough anymore, well if making money is the goal. 

Anyway, will be interesting to see if Avartar2 is filmed using Atmos, only time will tell and that looks to be two more years at least. By then I'll probably have a new audio format anyway.


----------



## roxiedog13

Chesebro said:


> Im using the new Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA they where designed for Atmos.


I think they refer to those speakers as object based speakers because they do not have the Dolby stamp of approval. I tried to buy the same speakers but the dealer couldn't get them for me
in Canada at the time. They were my first choice unfortunately I had to use others or wait until spring.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

saf01 said:


> Newbie checking in. Just finished up reading this entire thread and I must say I'm going to just throw in the towel regarding any Atmos planning  Quick history in a nutshell. Old school, simple Yamaha C-60 amplifier, powering a even older pair of ESS Tempist Classics. That is what I listen to music with.
> 
> We recently purchased a new house which came pre-wired for 7.1 surround using in-ceiling speakers. I've been trying to figure out how to plan something in two phases so I don't go all in at once and waste a lot of time and money (don't we all). Seems several affordable choices regarding receivers (currently looking at another Yamaha, 2040, since my current one is doing well) but speakers and placement seem a bit of a ho hum.
> 
> I guess an easy way to say this is that ignorance is bliss for me  I've not really paid much attention to surround sound and home theater and now we bought this massive TV and the home comes pre-wired trying to add reasonable sound is a challenge. Don't even know where to begin and buying 7 speakers plus a subwoofer or two could add up. Figured there has to be a road map or insert something for dummies here
> 
> Then again, maybe I have it all wrong in that there isn't really a single set up that works for both home theater and audio. I like the idea of Dolby Atmos and we watch a lot of movies, almost daily, so I'm very interested. Just don't get the whole speaker thing or if it even works using ceiling speakers...
> 
> Thanks for the thread though - very interesting and some amazing stuff you guys/gals have done.
> 
> V/R yours,
> Confused newbie


You _cannot_ use Atmos or DTS:X with _just_ ceiling speakers. You need a combo of main level speakers (three front - L/C/R - plus subs) with the side and rear and possibly "front wide" or "front side" surrounds (two, four, or six) just above ear level, plus ceiling speakers (on or in) that sit within the recommended location angles set by Dolby in order to create a quality three-dimensional plane of sound.


----------



## billqs

Thanks, Nalleh! I had not ever heard of the Promonitors being wide dispersion before, but I've researched it and you are correct. My problem most likely lies in the fact I have the 800s mounted horizontally on the ceiling instead of vertically. I probably need to reorient them.

This is good news... guess I can spend on something more needed like a new sub!


----------



## Wild Blue

bargervais said:


> I just noticed that Insurgent is added to the list of Blu-Ray with Atmos ????
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


Certainly hope so. Haven't seen the movie yet. But with the good things I've heard about it, and Atmos track, it'd be a blind purchase for me for sure.


----------



## stikle

NorthSky said:


> Best to listen to them first, and take your time to see if you can get used to them.



Always good advice.



NorthSky said:


> And the Mirage Omni speakers are best when they are all timbre-matched.



That's true with all brands in my experience. That does not mean it's set in stone though. I have an all Mirage system with the exception of the subs. I swapped the Center Channel for a completely different brand (SVS) and think it sounds phenomenal now. Timbre matching was a non-issue to me.



NorthSky said:


> Omnipolar speakers are not best for imaging, but best for envelopment; from diffusion and reflections.



I agree. They make a very wide sound stage - I very much enjoy the sound (as have all of my guests). I still feel there is pretty good imaging though. And I'm not just saying that due to all of the money I have invested in Mirage.



NorthSky said:


> In a Dolby Atmos setup I would skip them, but that's me.



Speaker preference is subjective. I really like mine, and that's all that matters at the end of the day. I added 4 more for my overheads since they do match the rest of my surrounds. It just made sense to me.



NorthSky said:


> Plus I certainly never tried them upside-down and over my head in the past.



I had them up pretty high at first, upside down. Now they're lower and still upside down...sounding and looking great.


----------



## bargervais

Chris Dotur said:


> Certainly hope so. Haven't seen the movie yet. But with the good things I've heard about it, and Atmos track, it'd be a blind purchase for me for sure.


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html

Insurgent will be in theaters March 20th


----------



## Wild Blue

bargervais said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html
> 
> Insurgent will be in theaters March 20th


Whoops... I was thinking "Interstellar". You're right, of course.


----------



## robert816

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cameron's _Avatar_ script was probably IMHO his clunkiest and most derivative yet next to _Titanic_. Very much _Dances With Wolves_ meets Disney's _Pocahontas _meets _Ferngully: The Last Rainforest..._ in space.


Exactly what I thought after watching it, I still enjoyed the movie though. Have both the regular edition and the extended collectors edition, but would be willing to buy again if it had an Atmos mix.


----------



## coolgeek

roxiedog13 said:


> Not defending Avatar or Titanic, and derivatives or not they were in fact top grossing movies of all time. My brother the artist thought Titanic was a disgraceful movie minimalizing the tragedy of thousands to the sordid affair between two teens. I guess if Mr. Cameron was writing a documentary those arguments would be valid but this was a movie . I enjoyed both but certainly not my personal all time favorites. Both worth the cost of admission and both occupy a place on my shelf. Like any movie for me, it is simply a departure from reality, if the movie can keep my interest the director has done his job. I think the average movie goer expects more than script nowadays, the visual special effects and the Atmos 3D audio are selling seats , the best script is not enough anymore, well if making money is the goal.
> 
> Anyway, will be interesting to see if Avartar2 is filmed using Atmos, only time will tell and that looks to be two more years at least. By then I'll probably have a new audio format anyway.


I agree...

People like to bash Avatar as 'derivative, or lack of a good script, or lack of something'... this or that..

To me, James Cameron is the world's best 'movie maker' (director). What makes a good movie? There are obviously many things that makes a good movie, good plot, good script, good acting, etc, etc, etc... and people likes to harp on any one of these things.. but in the end, how well does a movie entertain its audiences in general? That, IMHO, is the single most important factor...

Jame Cameron is a genius in that respect.. he brings out the best in his actors, he brings out the best in technology and applies it to his movies without anyone 'seeing' the technology... till today, Avatar is the ONLY movie (other than Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), that the CGI is not even noticeable.. everything looks 'as real as can be' and you're lost in the movie, not the cgi effects... and that was how many years before Dawn??? After dozens of CGI heavy movies, none of them, in my eyes can touch Avatar in terms of it's CGI... 

Also, there's a magic to his story telling that appeals to many... you don't get to 2.7 billion dollars without appealing to almost everyone who goes to the movies (or close to everyone), plus, tons and tons of people coming back for more... 

A 'simple' story-line is no excuse... sometimes the greatest things in life are the simplest... some movies have great scripts, great actors, but the execution is so bad, it fails to entertain at all... 

The proof is in the pudding... and James Cameron delivered... over, and over, and over again.. it's not a one 'movie' wonder... it's every movie he makes... 

Just my 2-cents...


----------



## Jrek

cranster said:


> I went in to our local av place to listen to atmos today which was transformers through a Marantz 7702. It was a 7.1.4 setup, and I heard absolutely nothing different from what I hear in my 7.1 setup with wides through my 7008. This is a total pass for me. No reason to get rid of the 7008.


Well then something was not right,because I watched this transformers movie many times and when I heard it in atmos it was way different than my normal 7.1 set-up.Atmos takes things to a whole new level. I'm just going by my experience if you didn't hear any difference then something was certainly not right. Thanks Jim


----------



## bargervais

coolgeek said:


> Jame Cameron is a genius in that respect.. he brings out the best in his actors, he brings out the best in technology and applies it to his movies without anyone 'seeing' the technology... till today, Avatar is the ONLY movie (other than Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), that the CGI is not even noticeable.. everything looks 'as real as can be' and you're lost in the movie, not the cgi effects... and that was how many years before Dawn??? After dozens of CGI heavy movies, none of them, in my eyes can touch Avatar in terms of it's CGI...
> ..


Sorry had to look up what CGI was. LOL Computer-generated imagery
I thought avatar was simply brilliant. I loved it both in 2D and 3D I would buy it again if it is re-released with Atmos or soon to be DTS:X 
Being transported to a planet get a new body and defeat a bad ass war machine...


----------



## coolgeek

bargervais said:


> Sorry had to look up what CGI was. LOL Computer-generated imagery
> I thought avatar was simply brilliant. I loved it both in 2D and 3D I would buy it again if it is re-released with Atmos or soon to be DTS:X
> Being transported to a planet get a new body and defeat a bad ass war machine...


It's definitely one of my all time favorite...

He created a whole world of alien species, flora and fauna... all totally immersive and believable... 

James Cameron is the ultimate story-teller cum technologist... like Steve Jobs is the Artist cum Technologist... 

I totally believe that geniuses are people who are a master of both the Arts and the Engineering / Science... like Leonardo da vinci...


----------



## jrogers

Realize this isn't the "home theater version", but came across this short video last night and thought some of you might find it interesting if you haven't already seen it - a lot of video of the various mastering interfaces. Also interesting (at least to someone unfamiliar with the whole mixing process) was some info on the 7.1.2 edit room and the Atmos mixing stage.

Case study: Remix of the Berlinale trailer in Dolby Atmos


----------



## smurraybhm

Great review of Unbroken by Ralph on the AVS home page. Looking forward to Universal's first blu with an Atmos mix.


----------



## Nalleh

WhiskeyConway said:


> Nalleh,
> 
> Do you have a thread about your dual AVR setup for Atmos?
> 
> It seems like a good option on paper. What are the caveats?


No, not a thread, but i posted earlier how i did it:

"Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
Frustrated about the 7.1.4 limit of speaker in Atmos?
Don't want the hassle of 8min config loads to get both Atmos/Auro full setups?
Can't afford the overly expensive Trinnov or Datasat?

Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup! 

How?
Well, as you know, i have my Denon 5200, connected to 14 speakers, and it is setup with full 10.1 Auro:
5.1+FH+SH+TS(VOG).
Press the movie remote button and the 9.1.2 Atmos is selected:
5.1+FW+SB+FH.
Ok, since i got over a grand for my old Onkyo 3010 receiver, i used the money to buy a second Denon, this time the little brother: 4100.
So, connected some of the 5200's speakers and some new to get it calibrated, this has amp assign as follows:

Amp Assign: 9.1
Height Speakers: 4 height speakers
Height Layout: Top Middle+Rear Height
Pre-out: Front and rear height

The two receivers are connected using a HDMI from the Zone2 HDMI out from the 5200, that send full image and sound, by the way, to one of the HDMI input on the 4100.

I do not have fronts connected to the 4100, but the 4 ceiling seakers make the new native Atmos setup a full 9.1.6 :
5.1+FW+SB+FH(as before from the 5200) +TM+RH(from the 4100).










The 5200:










The 4100:










Movie button again switch to the full 10.1 Auro setup from the 5200 and with a dual source speaker switch for the Surround backs between 5200/4100 , and i gain the SB from the 4100 on the Auro setup= 12.1.

But wait, there's more. The following are connected to the 4100, eq'd and separatly calibrated from the 5200' speakers.
Side Surround B. Since the 4100 have empty surround speaker post, why not use them with a second set surround speakers placed at ca 80 degrees(surround A at 110 degrees).
Center Height. Same here, empty center speakers posts, so connected another center speaker high on the front wall.

And remember the pesky use of sub pre-out 2 for the Top Surround in Auro 10.1 setup?
Well, the 4100 has 2 brand new seperatly calibrated sub pre-outs available!

Actually, with a second dual source speaker switch, i can use the Atmos RH as SBH in Auro, since the SBH is ganged in SH anyway in Auro 15.1 setup.

So, one could say the following:

Atmos: 5.1+SB+S2+FW+FH+TM+RH+CH=11.1.7

Auro 3D:
5.1+SB+S2+FH+SH+SBH+TS+CH= 17.1

It works!! The lip sync is spot on, and espesially the 6 ceiling speakers really woke up the "spaceious" feeling, and i believe the 4100 will be staying 

A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them."

Caveats? Well, altough all speakers all correctly calibrated and EQ with Audyssey, it is not quite "correct", since the ceiling speakers in the two receivers do not "know" about each other, and therefore you could call it "fake", but i do not hear anything that indicate such. It works very well in all situations i have tried so far.
And of course two volume controls s not optimal either.






billqs said:


> Thanks, Nalleh! I had not ever heard of the Promonitors being wide dispersion before, but I've researched it and you are correct. My problem most likely lies in the fact I have the 800s mounted horizontally on the ceiling instead of vertically. I probably need to reorient them.
> 
> This is good news... guess I can spend on something more needed like a new sub!


You're welcome  I actually considered those my self, but went with theyre "brother": DefTech AW5500.


----------



## saf01

coolgeek said:


> I agree...
> 
> People like to bash Avatar as 'derivative, or lack of a good script, or lack of something'... this or that..
> 
> To me, James Cameron is the world's best 'movie maker' (director). What makes a good movie? There are obviously many things that makes a good movie, good plot, good script, good acting, etc, etc, etc... and people likes to harp on any one of these things.. but in the end, how well does a movie entertain its audiences in general? That, IMHO, is the single most important factor...
> 
> Jame Cameron is a genius in that respect.. he brings out the best in his actors, he brings out the best in technology and applies it to his movies without anyone 'seeing' the technology... till today, Avatar is the ONLY movie (other than Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), that the CGI is not even noticeable.. everything looks 'as real as can be' and you're lost in the movie, not the cgi effects... and that was how many years before Dawn??? After dozens of CGI heavy movies, none of them, in my eyes can touch Avatar in terms of it's CGI...
> 
> Also, there's a magic to his story telling that appeals to many... you don't get to 2.7 billion dollars without appealing to almost everyone who goes to the movies (or close to everyone), plus, tons and tons of people coming back for more...
> 
> A 'simple' story-line is no excuse... sometimes the greatest things in life are the simplest... some movies have great scripts, great actors, but the execution is so bad, it fails to entertain at all...
> 
> The proof is in the pudding... and James Cameron delivered... over, and over, and over again.. it's not a one 'movie' wonder... it's every movie he makes...
> 
> Just my 2-cents...


Pretty much how I sum up Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. I was lucky enough to see it on the big screen. Recently watched it again on our new TV and it is simply amazing. Then again as you already saw my sound isn't anywhere near you what you guys/gals have but still enjoyable. 

Looking forward to what he can pull off with the second endeavor.

BTW thanks for the help above regarding ceiling speakers. I'll continue to lurk, read, and learn while going back to the drawing board to find something to fill in the 7 holes in my ceiling


----------



## MalevolentHamster

stikle said:


> I swapped the Center Channel for a completely different brand (SVS) and think it sounds phenomenal now. Timbre matching was a non-issue to me.


Interesting. I have the OMD-C1 Center Speaker and am not at all impressed. Have FS for fronts, OMD for front wide and surrounds and Nano prestige for rear. Have SVS SB13-Ultra sub. The sub transformed my system (had prestige 10-inch before). Dialog is still poor, but room does not lend itself to any treatments, so I'm off to a poor start. 

Will be mving this year, so hopefully will have a better canvas to work with


----------



## Movie78

Nalleh said:


> No, not a thread, but i posted earlier how i did it:
> 
> "Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
> Frustrated about the 7.1.4 limit of speaker in Atmos?
> Don't want the hassle of 8min config loads to get both Atmos/Auro full setups?
> Can't afford the overly expensive Trinnov or Datasat?
> 
> Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup!
> 
> How?
> Well, as you know, i have my Denon 5200, connected to 14 speakers, and it is setup with full 10.1 Auro:
> 5.1+FH+SH+TS(VOG).
> Press the movie remote button and the 9.1.2 Atmos is selected:
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH.
> Ok, since i got over a grand for my old Onkyo 3010 receiver, i used the money to buy a second Denon, this time the little brother: 4100.
> So, connected some of the 5200's speakers and some new to get it calibrated, this has amp assign as follows:
> 
> Amp Assign: 9.1
> Height Speakers: 4 height speakers
> Height Layout: Top Middle+Rear Height
> Pre-out: Front and rear height
> 
> The two receivers are connected using a HDMI from the Zone2 HDMI out from the 5200, that send full image and sound, by the way, to one of the HDMI input on the 4100.
> 
> I do not have fronts connected to the 4100, but the 4 ceiling seakers make the new native Atmos setup a full 9.1.6 :
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH(as before from the 5200) +TM+RH(from the 4100).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5200:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4100:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Movie button again switch to the full 10.1 Auro setup from the 5200 and with a dual source speaker switch for the Surround backs between 5200/4100 , and i gain the SB from the 4100 on the Auro setup= 12.1.
> 
> But wait, there's more. The following are connected to the 4100, eq'd and separatly calibrated from the 5200' speakers.
> Side Surround B. Since the 4100 have empty surround speaker post, why not use them with a second set surround speakers placed at ca 80 degrees(surround A at 110 degrees).
> Center Height. Same here, empty center speakers posts, so connected another center speaker high on the front wall.
> 
> And remember the pesky use of sub pre-out 2 for the Top Surround in Auro 10.1 setup?
> Well, the 4100 has 2 brand new seperatly calibrated sub pre-outs available!
> 
> Actually, with a second dual source speaker switch, i can use the Atmos RH as SBH in Auro, since the SBH is ganged in SH anyway in Auro 15.1 setup.
> 
> So, one could say the following:
> 
> Atmos: 5.1+SB+S2+FW+FH+TM+RH+CH=11.1.7
> 
> Auro 3D:
> 5.1+SB+S2+FH+SH+SBH+TS+CH= 17.1
> 
> It works!! The lip sync is spot on, and espesially the 6 ceiling speakers really woke up the "spaceious" feeling, and i believe the 4100 will be staying
> 
> A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them."
> 
> Caveats? Well, altough all speakers all correctly calibrated and EQ with Audyssey, it is not quite "correct", since the ceiling speakers in the two receivers do not "know" about each other, and therefore you could call it "fake", but i do not hear anything that indicate such. It works very well in all situations i have tried so far.
> And of course two volume controls s not optimal either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome  I actually considered those my self, but went with theyre "brother": DefTech AW5500.



Can you do a Video Review of your setup?

Thanks!


----------



## stikle

MalevolentHamster said:


> Interesting. I have the OMD-C1 Center Speaker and am not at all impressed. Have FS for fronts, OMD for front wide and surrounds and Nano prestige for rear.



I bought the OS3 CC since I figured that was the right thing to do, as it matched all the rest. Since Day 1, I was never really impressed with it as far as voices. They always sounded nasally and not natural.

Give the SVS Prime Center a try. Free in-home audition for 45 days. If you don't like it, they pay to take it back. Plus you get a 5% discount as a return customer.



MalevolentHamster said:


> Have SVS SB13-Ultra sub. The sub transformed my system (had prestige 10-inch before).



I had a Klipsch 10" and thought it was ok. Dialog sucked and had no bottom end. Upgraded to an SVS PB-10NSD and my whole audio world was turned upside down. Changed out the CC and all was well. Upgraded to dual PB-2000's and all was betterer.

Everyone else - Sorry for the OT Post. Sorta.


----------



## NorthSky

billqs said:


> Thanks, Nalleh! I had not ever heard of the Promonitors being wide dispersion before, but I've researched it and you are correct. My problem most likely lies in the fact I have the 800s mounted horizontally on the ceiling instead of vertically. I probably need to reorient them.
> 
> This is good news... guess I can spend on something more needed like a new sub!


Bill, you have a Dolby Atmos receiver?


----------



## scarabaeus

Nalleh said:


> Caveats? Well, altough all speakers all correctly calibrated and EQ with Audyssey, it is not quite "correct", since the ceiling speakers in the two receivers do not "know" about each other, and therefore you could call it "fake", but i do not hear anything that indicate such. It works very well in all situations i have tried so far.


I would like to chime in as well on those caveats. Your 4 ceiling speakers connected to the 5.1.4 AVR are carrying the same audio information as the 2 on the 9.1.2 AVR. Only that the 2 ceiling speakers are basically carrying a front-back downmix of the other 4. So you are duplicating the ceiling audio, which will lead to inferior positioning of the audio.

Also, you will have twice as much sound pressure at the ceiling than you should, but I suppose you can correct for that by trimming the gain.


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigScreen*
> _There are so few movies available in the new sound format, that compromising everything else doesn't make sense to me._
> 
> That is true if you don't believe that many, non-Atmos, movies have directional sounds in the surround channels.


Actually, I've found that I get great directionality from my surrounds. Sounds that are obviously intended to come from the right or the left, indeed do so. What I imagine that I might be missing is some sort of ability to bring that sound off the wall and into the room; creating that "holographic" sound if I recall Gary Reber's term for it (was it "holosonic"? whatever...) That would be a big detriment, but I can't think of ever coming across a movie that has attempted doing that. Nor have I ever read any reviews where the reviewer said, "yeah, it was just like that person/character/sound was in the room with me." 

I think when some people hear the word "dipole" they think fuzzy and indistinct. Maybe what's fuzzy to one person is not-over-localized to another... Your M&K tripoles should have been able to provide you with the best of both worlds (from what I understand on paper), which is to use Dave Vaughn's words about his tripoles.

This discussion has had me questioning just whether my sides are truly dipole, or if they are more bipole in design, and the information is strangely hard to come by. While my rear surrounds are Boston Acoustics VRS Pro and very much dipoles, the sides are Boston Acoustics VR-MX, which are billed in the manual as "wide dispersion home theater surround speakers." Looking at the manual, they never mention the words "dipole" or "bipole" but rather concentrate on the diffuse and direct characteristics, depending on placement. I don't experience the null effect that I had with the VRS Pros, but I don't think that it is exactly a strict bipole either.

(I was somewhat reluctant to bring this question up as not to seem unknowledgeable about my own equipment, but decided that adding to the knowledgebase and discussion here trumped my own pride.)

What I do know is that I'm very happy with the results that I've had with these speakers over the years. I've never felt that I was missing something, but I think that tends to be the case with any decent setup. If you're not sorely lacking in performance, it's near impossible to put a finger on that last x% of performance you could get by making changes without extensive in-place comparisons. Do I think that I'm missing some level of performance? It's possible, but that should be said for anyone's setup. If someone can point me to some really great examples of imaging which would demonstrate this for me, I would be all ears!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigScreen*
> _Even if/when the balance begins to tilt in favor of Atmos, the jury is still out as to whether having diffuse surrounds produces a lesser result than direct radiators, in my mind. I could be completely delusional, and I might do a complete about-face in time, but I believe that the evidence does not support any suggestions to "throw them out" when it comes to surround speakers that have worked just fine for many movies made in the past, those being made right now, and many well into the future._
> 
> Well I certainly wouldn't throw them out lightly I agree  If you were able to compare them with monopoles that would be the best way to go - then you could make up your mind based on how things sound to you, in your HT, which is all that matters.


Agreed. I guess what I'm standing up for is that there are many ways to deliver a great experience. What qualifies as "great" is going to vary from person to person, based on their preferences, and I think there's validity in every approach that has been vetted over the course of time by the person doing it.

If we were to get all technical about adhering to guidelines, Nalleh's dual Atmos receiver setup for quasi-9.1.6, Josh's dual heights, Roger's non-lowered surrounds, batpig's egg reflectors, and Dave's tripoles and Atlantic Technology heights would all be dismissed out-of-hand as having no merit. One difference in my situation is that I don't yet have Atmos, so I can't weigh in on how my setup performs with the latest sound format. (I'd like nothing more than to rectify that situation)

What I'm asking for, and what got me to bring this up again, is for people not to make blanket statements about what will and won't work, as we aren't anywhere near having enough real-word samples, _or any test patterns at all_ with which to come to anything close to approaching *definitive* information.


----------



## cfraser

Nalleh said:


> You're welcome  I actually considered those my self, but went with theyre "brother": DefTech AW5500.


I'm going to make a wild guess that a large part of your preference for that model is their ease of mounting?


----------



## noah katz

Nalleh said:


> Well, then you are set! The Pro Monitors ARE wide dispersion, and a lot of people use them for ceiling Atmos use.


Not compared to the Omnipolars.

I got a pair off ebay to try as TF (bit of a PITA so haven't done it yet), as my current monopoles draw a bit too much attention to themselves.

If I like it I'll try replacing the Mirage's midwoofers with better quality coaxes.


----------



## Alanlee

Nalleh said:


> No, not a thread, but i posted earlier how i did it:
> 
> "Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
> 
> 
> Very nice -I love work-arounds.


----------



## NorthSky

Chris Dotur said:


> Whoops... I was thinking "Interstellar". You're right, of course.


Speaking of 'Interstellar' ...it should be quite a ride comes March 31st, on Blu-ray, and with DSU audio processing. 
Strap yourself real good because your subs are going to get a real workout. 
...In particular going through that wormhole; a 5-dimensional paradox "sound" experience. 

I sure was during the Cinema theater presentation.  ...That Blu-ray is a Must, in my strongest opinion. ...Atmos or not (you still have DSU).


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Actually, I've found that I get great directionality from my surrounds. Sounds that are obviously intended to come from the right or the left, indeed do so. What I imagine that I might be missing is some sort of ability to bring that sound off the wall and into the room; creating that "holographic" sound if I recall Gary Reber's term for it (was it "holosonic"? whatever...) That would be a big detriment, but I can't think of ever coming across a movie that has attempted doing that. Nor have I ever read any reviews where the reviewer said, "yeah, it was just like that person/character/sound was in the room with me."


What you won't get is any imaging between adjacent pairs. How much you miss that, or want it, or not, is entirely your own preference of course.



BigScreen said:


> I think when some people hear the word "dipole" they think fuzzy and indistinct. Maybe what's fuzzy to one person is not-over-localized to another... Your M&K tripoles should have been able to provide you with the best of both worlds (from what I understand on paper), which is to use Dave Vaughn's words about his tripoles.


I guess they are fuzzy in the sense that you sit in a null, by design, and therefore only hear reflected and diffuse sound. The M&K tripoles were wonderful speakers and did indeed give the best of both worlds. My reason for swapping them out had nothing to do with their tripole design - it was because of my wish to move my surrounds to 110° in order to give greater angular separation from my Atmos overhead speakers (rear pair) and this would put them in a corner. A corner isn't really a good place for that design, so I had to change them. I am happy with that decision though (Tannoy Di6 Dual Concentrics).



BigScreen said:


> What I do know is that I'm very happy with the results that I've had with these speakers over the years. I've never felt that I was missing something, but I think that tends to be the case with any decent setup. If you're not sorely lacking in performance, it's near impossible to put a finger on that last x% of performance you could get by making changes without extensive in-place comparisons. Do I think that I'm missing some level of performance? It's possible, but that should be said for anyone's setup. If someone can point me to some really great examples of imaging which would demonstrate this for me, I would be all ears!


I agree. If you are happy, you are happy. That is the goal surely?


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Well, then you are set! The Pro Monitors ARE wide dispersion, and a lot of people use them for ceiling Atmos use.


But the 800s have a 4 1/2" mid/woofer; ...tough to cross them @ 80Hz. ...More likely around 150-200Hz. ...125Hz very minimum.

And the Mirage Omni 150 has a 5 1/2" mid/woofer; ...better to cross them around 120-150Hz. ...100Hz very minimum. 
=> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

That's my opinion. If you want to cross your overhead Atmos speakers @ say 80Hz, best is to get a 6 1/2 mid/woofer driver. 
...For best sound balance/integration between satellite and subwoofer. [email protected] that 80Hz x-over point.

There is a limit in what a 4.5 and 5.5 woofer can do. ...And if you cross them too high you are going to localize your sub(s). 
And if you cross them too low you are are going to miss that important region around 80Hz. 

Again, that's just my opinion.


----------



## jrogers

scarabaeus said:


> I would like to chime in as well on those caveats. Your 4 ceiling speakers connected to the 5.1.4 AVR are carrying the same audio information as the 2 on the 9.1.2 AVR. Only that the 2 ceiling speakers are basically carrying a front-back downmix of the other 4. So you are duplicating the ceiling audio, which will lead to inferior positioning of the audio.
> 
> Also, you will have twice as much sound pressure at the ceiling than you should, but I suppose you can correct for that by trimming the gain.


I agree - instead go with Scott Simonian's 3-AVR approach for .6 as it avoids these issues (and you can easily get two PL2 receivers for the price of one x4100w)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

saf01 said:


> Newbie checking in. Just finished up reading this entire thread and I must say I'm going to just throw in the towel regarding any Atmos planning  Quick history in a nutshell. Old school, simple Yamaha C-60 amplifier, powering a even older pair of ESS Tempist Classics. That is what I listen to music with.
> 
> We recently purchased a new house which came pre-wired for 7.1 surround using in-ceiling speakers. I've been trying to figure out how to plan something in two phases so I don't go all in at once and waste a lot of time and money (don't we all). Seems several affordable choices regarding receivers (currently looking at another Yamaha, 2040, since my current one is doing well) but speakers and placement seem a bit of a ho hum.
> 
> I guess an easy way to say this is that ignorance is bliss for me  I've not really paid much attention to surround sound and home theater and now we bought this massive TV and the home comes pre-wired trying to add reasonable sound is a challenge. Don't even know where to begin and buying 7 speakers plus a subwoofer or two could add up. Figured there has to be a road map or insert something for dummies here
> 
> Then again, maybe I have it all wrong in that there isn't really a single set up that works for both home theater and audio. I like the idea of Dolby Atmos and we watch a lot of movies, almost daily, so I'm very interested. Just don't get the whole speaker thing or if it even works using ceiling speakers...
> 
> Thanks for the thread though - very interesting and some amazing stuff you guys/gals have done.
> 
> V/R yours,
> Confused newbie





Dan Hitchman said:


> You _cannot_ use Atmos or DTS:X with _just_ ceiling speakers. You need a combo of main level speakers (three front - L/C/R - plus subs) with the side and rear and possibly "front wide" or "front side" surrounds (two, four, or six) just above ear level, plus ceiling speakers (on or in) that sit within the recommended location angles set by Dolby in order to create a quality three-dimensional plane of sound.


Definitely, I'd recommend breaking the bank, getting all the floor speakers if you don't have any. I went from 5.1 Yamaha with tiny speakers to a full blown HT last year, I was blown away just when I made the investment in large floor speakers. If you watch movies everyday I'd say it's a must, but of course waiting on DTS:X news can be a deciding factor as far as AVR's go. 
For me personally getting the Atmos AVR made sense because I got a new plasma set... so I'm looking to sit on this setup for a good 5 years or so. I've got kids, one is just a baby so I probably won't get much use of the HT for a couple years. I wanted to wait on 4k (another deciding factor) because I'm waiting until HDR becomes a standard thing... that could take a while. 

If DTS:X is important to you but you need something to tide you over I'd just get a used 7.1 receiver for a bit until the dust settles... but the dust won't be settling for a while, tech is moving so fast now that it seems like never is a good time to buy (haha). My only regret with getting the Atmos receiver was the DTS announcement, but I'm not *that* broken up about it, because a good mix will still sound amazing... though Atmos mixes are noticeably more 3D sounding so I'd be sad if DTS dominated the market when it starts to roll out bluray titles. 

I'd avoid getting one of those cheaper AVR's, they don't have the capability to do 7.1.4 Atmos, for that it's like around 1,500 for a receiver... but it's worth it. I now get antsy if I can't get to sit on the couch & use my HT atleast a few times a week. 
I had the chance to A/B 5.1.4 vs. 7.1.4 (my rear speakers were in the shop for a while), when I got those speakers back home I was blown away... the 7 channel experience in Atmos is really something else


----------



## aaranddeeman

jrogers said:


> I agree - instead go with Scott Simonian's 3-AVR approach for .6 as it avoids these issues (and you can easily get two PL2 receivers for the price of one x4100w)


Can you link what Scott has done? Sorry I may have missed it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Haven't done it ... yet.

Get two extra AVR's. They don't need to be new. Just PL2 capable.

Hook up one to the front left height and the rear left height preouts on main Atmos/DTS:X AVR. 

Repeat for the right on the second PL2 AVR.

Wire the center from each output to your new middle heights.

Engage!


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Haven't done it ... yet.
> 
> Get two extra AVR's. They don't need to be new. Just PL2 capable.
> 
> Hook up one to the front left height and the rear left height preouts on main Atmos/DTS:X AVR.
> 
> Repeat for the right on the second PL2 AVR.
> 
> Wire the center from each output to your new middle heights.
> 
> Engage!


Just for the clarity, I will use actual devices.
You should have
1. Denon X5200W - 1 no.
2. Denon 1909 - 2 nos.

1. Connect Height1 Speaker out from 5200 to TF/FH speaker pair
2. Connect Height2 Speaker out from 5200 to TR/RH speaker pair
3. Connect Height1 Left preout from 5200 to 1909-1 (where? any analog device in like CD L ?)
4. Connect Height2 Left preout from 5200 to 1909-1 (where? any analog device in like CD R ?)
5. Connect Height1 Right preout from 5200 to 1909-2 (where? any analog device in like CD L ?)
6. Connect Height2 Right preout from 5200 to 1909-2 (where? any analog device in like CD R ?)
7. Connect Center Speaker out from 1909-1 to TM Left speaker
8. Connect Center Speaker out from 1909-2 to TM Right speaker


Is this about right??

Thanks in advance..


----------



## Scott Simonian

The two extra receivers will power all the heights. The main Atmos/DTS:X receiver will not power any of the heights using my method. It will process them but you will use only the preouts to send the signal to the two extra receivers.

Use any stereo RCA input jack on each Denon 1909 as the input from the x5200. 

For one 1909 you will use the: left, center and right front outputs. These will end up being (either left or right) front, middle and rear heights.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Also make sure your bass management is in check.

On the 1909's just leave everything set to large/fullrange. Disable surrounds and subwoofer. Although using this method does allow one to get proper processing for height subs. 

On the 5200 just leave your bass management as it was.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> The two extra receivers will power all the heights. The main Atmos/DTS:X receiver will not power any of the heights using my method. It will process them but you will use only the preouts to send the signal to the two extra receivers.
> 
> Use any stereo RCA input jack on each Denon 1909 as the input from the x5200.
> 
> For one 1909 you will use the: left, center and right front outputs. These will end up being (either left or right) front, middle and rear heights.


Ah. I never thought of no heights (speaker posts) being used from 5200. This is interesting. So basically you are splitting 2 left heights into 3 using PL2 and same with right. 
Would that lose any rendering??


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Also make sure your bass management is in check.
> 
> On the 1909's just leave everything set to large/fullrange. Disable surrounds and subwoofer. Although using this method does allow one to get proper processing for height subs.
> 
> On the 5200 just leave your bass management as it was.


So the Audyssey should be run separately on 5200 and the the two 1909s. It sounds strange that Audyssey will run for LCR but the speakers are actually on the ceiling...


----------



## Nalleh

Movie78 said:


> Can you do a Video Review of your setup?
> 
> Thanks!


Not much to look at, but i posted some pictures in here somewere. 



scarabaeus said:


> I would like to chime in as well on those caveats. Your 4 ceiling speakers connected to the 5.1.4 AVR are carrying the same audio information as the 2 on the 9.1.2 AVR. Only that the 2 ceiling speakers are basically carrying a front-back downmix of the other 4. So you are duplicating the ceiling audio, which will lead to inferior positioning of the audio.
> 
> Also, you will have twice as much sound pressure at the ceiling than you should, but I suppose you can correct for that by trimming the gain.


Yes, it is not a textbook example, but it works better than one would think. And much better than just hooking two sets of speakers to one set of outputs.
And panning both front to rear, and left to right is better, and the soundstage is "bigger" than with just the 4 i had before.



cfraser said:


> I'm going to make a wild guess that a large part of your preference for that model is their ease of mounting?


Correct. They are also cheaper, and have bigger boxes and radiators.



jrogers said:


> I agree - instead go with Scott Simonian's 3-AVR approach for .6 as it avoids these issues (and you can easily get two PL2 receivers for the price of one x4100w)


Sure, that is a alternative. But not yet tested. And this will not provide front wides in native Atmos.
Or instant switch full Atmos 9.1.6 to full Auro 12.1.
Or 3 (or 4 if not full Auro)seperatly calibrated sub outs.


And a couple more things...


----------



## cdelena

NorthSky said:


> But the 800s have a 4 1/2" mid/woofer; ...tough to cross them @ 80Hz. ...More likely around 150-200Hz. ...125Hz very minimum.
> 
> And the Mirage Omni 150 has a 5 1/2" mid/woofer; ...better to cross them around 120-150Hz. ...100Hz very minimum.
> => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> That's my opinion. If you want to cross your overhead Atmos speakers @ say 80Hz, best is to get a 6 1/2 mid/woofer driver.
> ...For best sound balance/integration between satellite and subwoofer. [email protected] that 80Hz x-over point.
> 
> There is a limit in what a 4.5 and 5.5 woofer can do. ...And if you cross them too high you are going to localize your sub(s).
> And if you cross them too low you are are going to miss that important region around 80Hz.
> 
> Again, that's just my opinion.


 
I was a little worried about those issues and did a some looking around before starting my Atmos install.


I really didn't think about sub localization as I thought that was mostly a room issue. What situations create a problem?


Looking at specs it appears that a good 4.5 inch speaker could effectively cross at 80Hz and a good 5.25 at 60Hz. Am I being misled? I know there is marginal volume near the response limits but won't staying within the stated range mostly avoid bad replay?


Since Atmos approved speakers are generally small and Dolby strongly recommends base management I guessed localization of low frequencies is not a problem. My limited audition time with a couple of system led me to believe I was on track... maybe not?


Limitations in my theater have me mostly dealing with smaller speakers and the Atmos speakers are no different. I will install four 5.25 ceiling speakers and will need to do much more work to use larger units. 


What are the users here happy or unhappy with?


----------



## NorthSky

Some small bookshelf speakers with a smallish 5.25" mid/woofer driver you can cross @ around 90-100Hz. /// That's good. 
Best is to look for reviews with graphs, and check for the true -3dB point, as a guide where to roughly cross them.

Me, my opinion, is that if a speaker has a true minus 3dB point @ say 50Hz (in-room response), I like to cross it @ double that frequency; 100Hz. 
That, is my own practice. 

* I don't go with the speaker manufacturer's published specs. ...I like reviews, say from Stereophile, on speakers.
And some more ...

______

As for our sub; we usually like to keep stuff in there below the 100Hz range, @ the very max. ...That's a good general rule, I think. 
{By the way, in my own setup all my speakers are crossed @ 80Hz.}
...And for my future overhead Atmos speakers; the same, with a 6.5" mid/woofer driver. /// A 5.25" (5.5) driver would be the very minimum, for me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> So the Audyssey should be run separately on 5200 and the the two 1909s. It sounds strange that Audyssey will run for LCR but the speakers are actually on the ceiling...


Oh, right. Audyssey. Oye. I don't plan on using or any RC products save for DIRAC...maybe.

So no... do not double up on Audyssey. Run Audyssey on the main Atmos device only. Leave the EQ off on the 1909s.

No, you do not lose any rendering whatsoever. You would get improper rendering using Nalleh's method, ambitious as it is. The only thing that could happen using my method is that some content would seem to "collapse" to the middle heights. Say you have something that is supposed to image directly above you using all four height speakers. This sound would come out equally from all heights. That common info will fall into the center extracted heights. Whether this would sound good or sound like what the mixer intended is up for discussion.



Nalleh said:


> Sure, that is a alternative. But not yet tested. And this will not provide front wides in native Atmos.
> Or instant switch full Atmos 9.1.6 to full Auro 12.1.
> Or 3 (or 4 if not full Auro)seperatly calibrated sub outs.
> 
> 
> And a couple more things...


Neither would your method work, I'm afraid. You can not split Atmos rendering across multiple AVR's and have them take the load off one another. 

For example... use two Atmos devices to get a full 9.1.4 surround (right now). Say one is just doing the bottom 9ch layer with one device and the 2nd for the 4ch heights (since nothing does 9.1.4 now). The 4ch height content in the first device will have already been collapsed into the lower layer as this device is not aware that you are trying to do the heights with another device. It just doesn't work that way. WOULD BE COOL! Unfortunately there are no products that can be daisy-chained to be aware of one another.

And Auro? Pfft, who cares? 

Seriously though you really can't have both a proper Atmos system and a proper Auro system with out compromise. Really, just concentrate on one or another or admit one isn't 'proper'. Not saying a compromised system can't yield pleasing results. People do it all the time.

Sub outputs? C'mon man. I've got them in spades. Use an external DSP and be a king.  Own your product. Don't let it own you.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> For example... use two Atmos devices to get a full 9.1.4 surround (right now). Say one is just doing the bottom 9ch layer with one device and the 2nd for the 4ch heights (since nothing does 9.1.4 now). The 4ch height content in the first device will have already been collapsed into the lower layer as this device is not aware that you are trying to do the heights with another device.


But he can trick the AVR by enabling the speakers say 11.1 amp assign, but actually disconnect them from the bed AVR. And vice versa with the height AVR.
Should'nt that work. Each AVR "thinks" the not connected speakers are actually there and try to output appropriate content.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nope. It will not work.

They are not aware of one another nor are they aware of you disconnected a speaker so to mute the rendering of that position.

The current max is 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 audio. There is no way around this. You must purchase a Trinnov or own an actual Atmos cinema processor to go any further.

My method is simply a work around. I can use this work around to add 'wides' in a 7.1.4 system to do 9.1.4 audio if I wanted. Or I could use the same method to add a left-center and right-center. And so on.

No matter what the Atmos device will have to work with a max of 11ch and that is a limitation of current hardware. You can buy 100 Atmos receivers and it will not gain you a single extra channel of decoding.

Trust me, I find it annoying too. If it worked the way Nalleh suggests then you'd see me with a bunch of Atmos receivers. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Nope. It will not work.
> 
> They are not aware of one another nor are they aware of you disconnected a speaker so to mute the rendering of that position.


That's my point. I don't want it to mute. 
The AVR-1 should function as a standalone 9.1.2, but actual connections being say 9.1.0
The AVR-2 should function as a standalone x.1.4, but actual connections being 0.0.4.
That would make 9.1.0 + 0.0.4 = 9.1.4
Let's park Auro for now. Why don't that work for Atmos. Yes. This has more cost than 3 AVR one, but it looks functional as well.
You should similarly be able to do 7.1.6 with the same setup if you so desire.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It might work. If you tell the first Atmos processor to do 9.1.2 then it might be possible depending on what it does with the rendering of the heights.

If all the height info falls into the front 2ch heights then you can simply not use them. Then use the 2nd Atmos receiver to do 4ch heights. That might work but only if ALL the height content falls into the first Atmos receivers 2ch heights that you skipped.

If it worked then you could do 9.1.6 now but you'd still need to use my method to get 6ch heights. That's four receivers, two with Atmos.  Hmmm. 


Buuuutttt.... why wides? They will only be used for objects in Atmos and will be silent with DSU. If you use NeoX or DSX to get wides with legacy content then you will not get heights or maybe 2ch front heights at most.


Hardware sucks right now.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Hardware sucks right now.


What about the software?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> It might work. If you tell the first Atmos processor to do 9.1.2 then it might be possible depending on what it does with the rendering of the heights.
> 
> If all the height info falls into the front 2ch heights then you can simply not use them. Then use the 2nd Atmos receiver to do 4ch heights. That might work but only if ALL the height content falls into the first Atmos receivers 2ch heights that you skipped.
> 
> If it worked then you could do 9.1.6 now but you'd still need to use my method to get 6ch heights. That's four receivers, two with Atmos.  Hmmm.
> 
> 
> Buuuutttt.... why wides? They will only be used for objects in Atmos and will be silent with DSU. If you use NeoX or DSX to get wides with legacy content then you will not get heights or maybe 2ch front heights at most.
> 
> 
> Hardware sucks right now.



No. I am not too worried about wides.
The main goal of using 2 AVRs is to get 6 heights (which is the major limitation). It may be with your method or two ATMOS AVRs. Cheaper will always be better.. 
In case of 2 AVRs, one 5200 and one 4100 should do the trick. 5200 is set for FH and TM while 4100 is set for TM and RH (Wides are out of this equation). 5200 drives FH, 4100 drives RH and use any of the TMs to drive your TM.


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> No. I am not too worried about wides.
> The main goal of using 2 AVRs is to get 6 heights (which is the major limitation). It may be with your method or two ATMOS AVRs. Cheaper will always be better..
> In case of 2 AVRs, one 5200 and one 4100 should do the trick. 5200 is set for FH and TM while 4100 is set for TM and RH (Wides are out of this equation). 5200 drives FH, 4100 drives RH and use any of the TMs to drive your TM.


I'm lost here using two AVR's how can this work I need a simpler explanation please pretend I'm an imbecile how can you hook up two Atmos AVR'S are you splitting the output from the source to the two AVR's....???


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> I'm lost here using two AVR's how can this work I need a simpler explanation please pretend I'm an imbecile how can you hook up two Atmos AVR'S are you splitting the output from the source to the two AVR's....???


Please see post # 21620

PS. : Those who have Atmos they are enjoying and those who don't (me included) are just discussing (page after page)..


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> No. I am not too worried about wides.
> The main goal of using 2 AVRs is to get 6 heights (which is the major limitation). It may be with your method or two ATMOS AVRs. Cheaper will always be better..
> In case of 2 AVRs, one 5200 and one 4100 should do the trick. 5200 is set for FH and TM while 4100 is set for TM and RH (Wides are out of this equation). 5200 drives FH, 4100 drives RH and use any of the TMs to drive your TM.


Then if that is the case you should follow my method to a 't'. No hardware can do six overheads currently. 

There might be gear that can do 9.1.4 audio this year and I sure hope this same hardware will let the user choose that or 7.1.6 if they want.


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> Then if that is the case you should follow my method to a 't'. No hardware can do six overheads currently.


 Except for the Altitude32, of course. But that's a tad more expensive.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Then if that is the case you should follow my method to a 't'.


I agree. And that is the best bang for the buck method. Please do let us know when you put in place.


----------



## FilmMixer

kingwiggi said:


> Even though I knew this disc was out there. This is the first track listing I've seen. Not much of any use since most people have the video clips; however the most interesting thing on there seems to be the 'AV Sync Test Signal'.
> 
> Has anyone come across this ?
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/03/14/dolby-atmos-reference-disc/


No..

But there are some new demo discs coming soon.. 

(Sorry for the crooked shots.. taken off my screen on my phone.)

(I think I'm allowed to post these pics... if not, down they'll come. )


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> I agree. And that is the best bang for the buck method. Please do let us know when you put in place.


By that time Yamaha will have a new (2nd gen) 16-channel AV receiver with Dolby Atmos (9.1.6) and DTS:X (9.1.6) and HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 version 
for Blu-ray 4K (software & hardware). 

...In my opinion.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> By that time Yamaha will have a new (2nd gen) 13-channel AV receiver with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (9.1.4) and HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 version
> for Blu-ray 4K (software & hardware).
> 
> ...In my opinion.


Then no one cares about the kluge.. 
It's only till then...


----------



## NorthSky

...Maybe third gen.  ...The perfect machine; no kluge.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> ...Maybe third gen.  ...The perfect machine; no kluge.


But that's gonna take long time..
Life is short..


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> But that's gonna take long time..
> *Life is short..*


You got that right.

...In my opinion. ...But if we can get through a wormhole, like in 'Interstellar', ....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> No..
> 
> But there are some new demo discs coming soon..
> 
> (Sorry for the crooked shots.. taken off my screen on my phone.)
> 
> (I think I'm allowed to post these pics... if not, down they'll come. )


9.1.6. Hmmm... 

Things are looking up. 

Now, if only sound mixers started utilizing the overheads more often. (When appropriate, of course). :grin:


----------



## RapalloAV

I currently use my two previously installed in ceiling surround speakers as my top middle for Atmos. These are not in the correct position for Atmos as they were previously installed at the junction of the wall and ceiling pointed to the MLP. Under these I have two new lowered Klipsch Ultra 2 THX 7800 inwalls for the low surrounds. I actually setup for a full 13.1 Auro but after weeks of listening Ive gone back to Atmos as I prefer the sound.
Current top middle 
http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker


Now that Ive come to the conclusion Im staying with Atmos or DTS X (not Auro) 
Would I be better off to call it a day and place two top middles in the correct place inline with the front L&R? I do have a spare pair of these Klipsch CDT5650 CII would they be good in the correct position than the other existing THX Klipsch in ceiling Im currently using? 
Or do I wait and find out what the speaker placement is for DTS X before I cut anymore holes in the ceiling? I cut all these holes for Auro, front top middle, VOG etc etc and now they aren't used. Its still cheaper for me to leave these all in place rather than remove the speakers, seal the holes etc etc.... You never know if we need any of these when they change again to something new! 


The spare 5650 I have left over.
http://www.klipsch.com/CDT-5650-C-II


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Then if that is the case you should follow my method to a 't'. No hardware can do six overheads currently.
> 
> There might be gear that can do 9.1.4 audio this year and I sure hope this same hardware will let the user choose that or 7.1.6 if they want.


At least 9.1.6 this year please, more if possible!


----------



## markus767

RapalloAV said:


> Whats the next best thing then that's small like these without being powered?


You probably want to look at speakers with at least a 6,5" woofer to get some reasonable output down to 80Hz.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all,

while playing around with my set Audyssey levels with regards to output for front height and top middle speakers in a 5.2.4 setup i find that i like the sound of the height speakers set higher than Audyssey sets them to, i think they are set to -4 or -5 by Audyssey but listening to them set to 0db i like the added sound, does anybody else run there height channels hot ? and if so what do you feel it adds to the Atmos effect and by what difference from Audyssey or eq settings do you change them from ?


----------



## chi_guy50

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> while playing around with my set Audyssey levels with regards to output for front height and top middle speakers in a 5.2.4 setup i find that i like the sound of the height speakers set higher than Audyssey sets them to, i think they are set to -4 or -5 by Audyssey but listening to them set to 0db i like the added sound, does anybody else run there height channels hot ? and if so what do you feel it adds to the Atmos effect and by what difference from Audyssey or eq settings do you change them from ?


In the past I have played around with increasing the levels for my surrounds, but I have found that the best overall results can be derived from trusting in the settings of a well-executed Audyssey calibration run. The only settings I ever override now are the SW (I generally like it 3dB hotter than the Audyssey setting) and occasionally the center channel.


----------



## billqs

NorthSky said:


> Bill, you have a Dolby Atmos receiver?


Yes, I have a Denon X7200W. Before that I had an Onkyo 636. I'm on my 3rd Audessey configuration, have all surrounds lowered to ear level and I finally have really good separation that makes both Atmos and DSU so much fun to listen to.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Dipole side surround testing*

There has been some discussion about dipoles for side surrounds lately and I have added some comments because I have dipoles for the side surrounds only. First of all I have a 7.2.4 Atmos set up with everything per the Dolby recommendations except for my side surrounds which are in-wall Paridigm dipole speakers not the monopole Dolby recommends. The dipole I have were in the custom location long before Atmos was an option and I paid a small fortune for them, so pulling them out wasn't an option...........for now. See diagram below and link to the speaker. 

OK, so with reference to the dipole they are mounted in a custom made pillar slightly above ear level just behind the front row seats, and just in front of the second row of seats. Essentially the speaker is between the front and back row of seats favoring the front row. The way these speakers work the tweeter and mid range are pointed fore and aft at 30 degree angles. My thought was that I would be firing the tweeters and mid range from each side towards the front row and the back row acting more as a dual direct radiating instead of getting the diffuse sound the dipole is suppose to give. From the rear seat position I can look directly at the tweeter and mid range so the angle there is perfect. From the front seat and because the speaker is closer to the front row, I cannot see the tweeter and mid range direct line of site, they are aiming just slightly ahead of my position. So what did I learn? Well, the speakers did exactly as I expected , the rear seat position in direct line of site to the rear firing tweeter gave a perfect direct radiating, localized sound just as a monopole would. The front seat however was in that diffuse null zone, the sound was there but muddy, did not have the impact it should have. All I had to do was lean ahead about 2ft and voila there it was, the direct radiating monopole sound as it should be. I cannot move my seats and I cannot move the custom mahogany pillar ( unless I want a divorce),so I have to change the speaker or live with the results which in all honestly do favor one MLP best. I am going to try one more trick first though and that is to put a small angle bracket on the face of the speaker to redirect the sound another 15 degrees towards the front seat. I'll report back how that goes, certainly would be the easiest fix.

Anyway, big point is, dipole can work to ones advantage if the mounting position was right. In my opinion if you have two rows of seats and mounted the dipole ( paridigm adapted dipole btw) equal distant between the two rows , then you would effectively have a fantanstic working system for two rows instead of favoring one MLP. 

BTW, my observations were done watching the movie Canopy. I received my JVB region code unblocker in the mail and installed it last night. The movie Canopy has now cost me like $250 but at least I have a region free Oppo 130D now. Excellent movie, plenty of surround sounds which had to be since there was no dialog. The movie was Atmos in the theaters , the blu-ray I had 7.1 .
DSU was awsome, would love to hear the Atmos version for comparison



http://www.paradigm.com/products-current/type=inwall/model=sa-adp/page=specs


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> while playing around with my set Audyssey levels with regards to output for front height and top middle speakers in a 5.2.4 setup i find that i like the sound of the height speakers set higher than Audyssey sets them to, i think they are set to -4 or -5 by Audyssey but listening to them set to 0db i like the added sound, does anybody else run there height channels hot ? and if so what do you feel it adds to the Atmos effect and by what difference from Audyssey or eq settings do you change them from ?


Just for giggles I too tried raising the level of the overheads by a few dB. There is no doubt an obvious and immediate increase in 'awareness' of the sound coming from overhead and, at first, it is quite seductive, especially as it is novel to have sound 'up there'. But after a short experiment, I put them back to where they had been. The idea of the overheads (and all the other speakers too) is not to continuously draw attention to themselves but to seamlessly integrate into an immersive 'bubble' of sound and when some speakers are set too high, in relation to others, this bubble is disturbed.


----------



## Chesebro

roxiedog13 said:


> I think they refer to those speakers as object based speakers because they do not have the Dolby stamp of approval. I tried to buy the same speakers but the dealer couldn't get them for me
> in Canada at the time. They were my first choice unfortunately I had to use others or wait until spring.


You can buy the speakers directly from the Atlantic Technology online store.


----------



## bargervais

RapalloAV said:


> I currently use my two previously installed in ceiling surround speakers as my top middle for Atmos. These are not in the correct position for Atmos as they were previously installed at the junction of the wall and ceiling pointed to the MLP. Under these I have two new lowered Klipsch Ultra 2 THX 7800 inwalls for the low surrounds. I actually setup for a full 13.1 Auro but after weeks of listening Ive gone back to Atmos as I prefer the sound.
> Current top middle
> http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker
> 
> 
> Now that Ive come to the conclusion Im staying with Atmos or DTS X (not Auro)
> Would I be better off to call it a day and place two top middles in the correct place inline with the front L&R? I do have a spare pair of these Klipsch CDT5650 CII would they be good in the correct position than the other existing THX Klipsch in ceiling Im currently using?
> Or do I wait and find out what the speaker placement is for DTS X before I cut anymore holes in the ceiling? I cut all these holes for Auro, front top middle, VOG etc etc and now they aren't used. Its still cheaper for me to leave these all in place rather than remove the speakers, seal the holes etc etc.... You never know if we need any of these when they change again to something new!
> 
> 
> The spare 5650 I have left over.
> http://www.klipsch.com/CDT-5650-C-II


I also wanted to install two in ceiling speakers in the correct middle position but I'm opting to wait a little to see what DTS:X announcement for speaker placement. Even though my in ceiling speakers need to move forward I still enjoy a nice enveloping sound, hopefully in a month we will know.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

roxiedog13 said:


> There has been some discussion about dipoles for side surrounds lately and I have added some comments because I have dipoles for the side surrounds only. First of all I have a 7.2.4 Atmos set up with everything per the Dolby recommendations except for my side surrounds which are in-wall Paridigm dipole speakers not the monopole Dolby recommends. The dipole I have were in the custom location long before Atmos was an option and I paid a small fortune for them, so pulling them out wasn't an option...........for now. See diagram below and link to the speaker.
> 
> OK, so with reference to the dipole they are mounted in a custom made pillar slightly above ear level just behind the front row seats, and just in front of the second row of seats. Essentially the speaker is between the front and back row of seats favoring the front row. The way these speakers work the tweeter and mid range are pointed fore and aft at 30 degree angles. My thought was that I would be firing the tweeters and mid range from each side towards the front row and the back row acting more as a dual direct radiating instead of getting the diffuse sound the dipole is suppose to give. From the rear seat position I can look directly at the tweeter and mid range so the angle there is perfect. From the front seat and because the speaker is closer to the front row, I cannot see the tweeter and mid range direct line of site, they are aiming just slightly ahead of my position. So what did I learn? Well, the speakers did exactly as I expected , the rear seat position in direct line of site to the rear firing tweeter gave a perfect direct radiating, localized sound just as a monopole would. The front seat however was in that diffuse null zone, the sound was there but muddy, did not have the impact it should have. All I had to do was lean ahead about 2ft and voila there it was, the direct radiating monopole sound as it should be. I cannot move my seats and I cannot move the custom mahogany pillar ( unless I want a divorce),so I have to change the speaker or live with the results which in all honestly do favor one MLP best. I am going to try one more trick first though and that is to put a small angle bracket on the face of the speaker to redirect the sound another 15 degrees towards the front seat. I'll report back how that goes, certainly would be the easiest fix.
> 
> Anyway, big point is, dipole can work to ones advantage if the mounting position was right. In my opinion if you have two rows of seats and mounted the dipole ( paridigm adapted dipole btw) equal distant between the two rows , then you would effectively have a fantanstic working system for two rows instead of favoring one MLP.
> 
> BTW, my observations were done watching the movie Canopy. I received my JVB region code unblocker in the mail and installed it last night. The movie Canopy has now cost me like $250 but at least I have a region free Oppo 130D now. Excellent movie, plenty of surround sounds which had to be since there was no dialog. The movie was Atmos in the theaters , the blu-ray I had 7.1 .
> DSU was awsome, would love to hear the Atmos version for comparison
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.paradigm.com/products-current/type=inwall/model=sa-adp/page=specs


Thank you very much for your insightful subjective analysis regarding the use of Dipolar speakers!

You have confirmed my previous thoughts as to the on / off axis response of using dipolar speakers as side surrounds with a Atmos setup.

You could also investigate the possibility of rewiring the speakers in order to have them function as "Bipoles". This might further solidify the off axis sound making it sound less diffuse in general.


...Glenn


----------



## roxiedog13

Glenn Baumann said:


> Thank you very much for your insightful subjective analysis regarding the use of Dipolar speakers!
> 
> You have confirmed my previous thoughts as to the on / off axis response of using dipolar speakers as side surrounds with a Atmos setup.
> 
> You could also investigate the possibility of rewiring the speakers in order to have them function as "Bipoles". This might further solidify the off axis sound making it sound less diffuse in general.
> 
> 
> ...Glenn


Not sure if this can be done with the paradigm speaker, I will call their engineering department to see if this is doable and reasonable to expect results as you suggest, certainly makes sense .
First thing I will try is a deflector for the front to angle the sound toward the front seat MLP. Easiest thing to do is replace the speakers with a direct replacement monopole that will fit in the
same mounting holes. At $2100 for the pair  and discard the $2200 ones there now , I may have to consider that one a bit first. 

EDIT: Just spoke with Paradigm and the tech said I CANNOT rewire the speaker for bipole. He's not an engineer and would not let me speak to one so I'm not sure if this is an absolute. I've seen
many similar speakers with a Bipole/Dipole switch , my guess it's just a matter of putting both speakers in phase instead of opposing , simply reverse the wires on one of the dipole speakers.
I cannot see electronics being involved. Only one way to know I guess .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> Not sure if this can be done with the paradigm speaker, I will call their engineering department to see if this is doable and reasonable to expect results as you suggest, certainly makes sense .
> First thing I will try is a deflector for the front to angle the sound toward the front seat MLP. Easiest thing to do is replace the speakers with a direct replacement monopole that will fit in the
> same mounting holes. At $2100 for the pair  and discard the $2200 ones there now , I may have to consider that one a bit first.


You could always sell the pair you have.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Just for giggles I too tried raising the level of the overheads by a few dB. There is no doubt an obvious and immediate increase in 'awareness' of the sound coming from overhead and, at first, it is quite seductive, especially as it is novel to have sound 'up there'. But after a short experiment, I put them back to where they had been. The idea of the overheads (and all the other speakers too) is not to continuously draw attention to themselves but to seamlessly integrate into an immersive 'bubble' of sound and when some speakers are set too high, in relation to others, this bubble is disturbed.


I did the same experiment and found the same. Still think I have the overheads too high to be honest . Waiting until I'm ready to do a "proper" calibration with the new mic and REW software
and then start making some adjustments.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> You could always sell the pair you have.


May have to but higher priced speakers are tougher to move and I'm a little off the grid here in Canada.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Neither would your method work, I'm afraid. You can not split Atmos rendering across multiple AVR's and have them take the load off one another.


Sure it works. Maybe not perfect, but in this price range its as close as you can get 



Scott Simonian said:


> For example... use two Atmos devices to get a full 9.1.4 surround (right now). Say one is just doing the bottom 9ch layer with one device and the 2nd for the 4ch heights (since nothing does 9.1.4 now). The 4ch height content in the first device will have already been collapsed into the lower layer as this device is not aware that you are trying to do the heights with another device. It just doesn't work that way. WOULD BE COOL! Unfortunately there are no products that can be daisy-chained to be aware of one another


My wides is getting the right info in native Atmos.



Scott Simonian said:


> And Auro? Pfft, who cares?


Well, dohh! I care 



Scott Simonian said:


> Seriously though you really can't have both a proper Atmos system and a proper Auro system with out compromise. Really, just concentrate on one or another or admit one isn't 'proper'. Not saying a compromised system can't yield pleasing results. People do it all the time.


Correct, but this is the best compromise i came up with. You are entitled to have a different opinion.



Scott Simonian said:


> Sub outputs? C'mon man. I've got them in spades. Use an external DSP and be a king.  Own your product. Don't let it own you.


Sure, pile on another unit. 

Like i said, i bought the 4100 with a 30 day return policy. If it did not improved the sound, i would have returned it after testing. But within minutes after first listening, i said to myself: it is staying.
Make of it what you want 

I hope your alternative works too, so that there are more options for those wanting more, but to be honest, i think these "cheats" soon will be irrelevent, since next gen AVR's will be able to go 9.1.6 and beyond.


----------



## Josh Z

aaranddeeman said:


> In case of 2 AVRs, one 5200 and one 4100 should do the trick. 5200 is set for FH and TM while 4100 is set for TM and RH (Wides are out of this equation). 5200 drives FH, 4100 drives RH and use any of the TMs to drive your TM.


The Denon 4100 can only decode one pair of heights. 

Let's say that you use the 5200 for FH and TM, and the 4100 for RH. The problem with this is that your 5200 thinks that you have no RH speakers, so it will move all the sound objects intended for the back of the room to TM. Meanwhile, your 4100 thinks that you have no FH or TM, so it will consolidate all of your height channel activity to RH. You will wind up with duplicated sound from different parts of the room. That's a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that you have mismatched overlapping sounds.

Your proposal will not give you the six discrete channels of precisely positioned sound that you desire, because your two receivers can't talk to each other or know what the other is doing. They will each make independent decoding and steering decisions assuming that they're the only receiver in the room.

That being the case, you might as well just do what I do, which is much easier, cheaper and cleaner solution. Use on 5100 plus a 2-channel amp. Set it for FH and TM (or Top Rear, it really doesn't make a difference from my testing), then simply wire out from the TM posts on the receiver or amp to drive two cloned pairs of speakers at the TM and TR positions. You get duplicated sound from the TM and TR, but it fills both the middle and back of the room better.


----------



## jrogers

Josh Z said:


> The Denon 4100 can only decode one pair of heights.
> 
> Let's say that you use the 5200 for FH and TM, and the 4100 for RH. The problem with this is that your 5200 thinks that you have no RH speakers, so it will move all the sound objects intended for the back of the room to TM. Meanwhile, your 4100 thinks that you have no FH or TM, so it will consolidate all of your height channel activity to RH. You will wind up with duplicated sound from different parts of the room. That's a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that you have mismatched overlapping sounds.
> 
> Your proposal will not give you the six discrete channels of precisely positioned sound that you desire, because your two receivers can't talk to each other or know what the other is doing. They will each make independent decoding and steering decisions assuming that they're the only receiver in the room.
> 
> That being the case, you might as well just do what I do, which is much easier, cheaper and cleaner solution. Use on 5100 plus a 2-channel amp. Set it for FH and TM (or Top Rear, it really doesn't make a difference from my testing), then simply wire out from the TM posts on the receiver or amp to drive two cloned pairs of speakers at the TM and TR positions. You get duplicated sound from the TM and TR, but it fills both the middle and back of the room better.


Actually, 4100 can handle 5.1.4 (4 heights) - this is the configuration I run. imho, duplicated sound between TM and TR makes no sense, and the only reasonable .6 hack is that suggested by Scott - using PL2 to matrix TM from TF and TR.


----------



## Josh Z

jrogers said:


> Actually, 4100 can handle 5.1.4 (4 heights) - this is the configuration I run.


I stand corrected.



> imho, duplicated sound between TM and TR makes no sense,


It makes plenty of sense when you realize that there is effectively no difference between those positions anyway.

I did some testing with all speakers except the heights disconnected, then switched my receiver settings between TM and TR with a scene from John Wick where a helicopter pans from front to back. There's really no difference in the amount of sound or its directionality regardless of whether you choose TM or TR.



> and the only reasonable .6 hack is that suggested by Scott - using PL2 to matrix TM from TF and TR.


If it works for him, it works for him. My concern, which others have voiced, is that any sound intended to come from both front and back simultaneously may collapse to the middle. So something like a rain shower may sound like it's only falling in the center of the room rather than all around. That wouldn't happen in my system.

I agree with Scott's comment that a lot of these cheats will be irrelevant as soon as some newer receivers start offering decoding for 6 discrete height channels.


----------



## jrogers

Josh Z said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> It makes plenty of sense when you realize that there is effectively no difference between those positions anyway.
> 
> I did some testing with all speakers except the heights disconnected, then switched my receiver settings between TM and TR with a scene from John Wick where a helicopter pans from front to back. There's really no difference in the amount of sound or its directionality regardless of whether you choose TM or TR.
> 
> If it works for him, it works for him. My concern, which others have voiced, is that any sound intended to come from both front and back simultaneously may collapse to the middle. So something like a rain shower may sound like it's only falling in the center of the room rather than all around. That wouldn't happen in my system.
> 
> I agree with Scott's comment that a lot of these cheats will be irrelevant as soon as some newer receivers start offering decoding for 6 discrete height channels.


Good points - I guess it's effectively a very "short" speaker array. Had missed the earlier post about collapse - seems that would be a significant issue (works great for panning, not so well for ambiance) Agree its likely best to wait at this point as it looks from filmmixer's recent post like 9.1.6 may be close at hand.


----------



## FilmMixer

jrogers said:


> Agree its likely best to wait at this point as it looks from filmmixer's recent post like 9.1.6 may be close at hand.


Just to clarify. 

I've had that disc since October 2014. 

Dolby got it to me as they had been working on a new demo disc and I had been bugging them for it. It's a BD-R and I think that actual demo has been scrapped for something newer. It's a one off, and even has my name on it. 

So it's definitely unique... But the fact that it has 9.1.6 tones has nothing to do with upcoming expanded >11 channel decoders.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Selden Ball said:


> Except for the Altitude32, of course. But that's a tad more expensive.


Lol! The one time I didn't specify that the only other alternative is a +$30,000 processor. Good catch! 

Obviously not at all a practical solution for about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of A/V enthusiasts. 

Wonder how many Altitudes have shipped out to people who paid up for one. 



Al Sherwood said:


> At least 9.1.6 this year please, more if possible!


Yeah, I know right? Would be nice. Probably won't happen this year.

Preferably it would be nice if any 9.1.4 products come out this year and they gave the option for users to do that or 7.1.6 audio. That way you just go with discrete six channel overhead which is what I'd do. Although you could use the kludge to process x.x.6 and then have 9.1.6 audio. I just don't see much use for wides with Atmos. It will only get objects. That's it. DSU they will be silent. I just hope that DTS will update their NeoX to allow for wides (btw, wides with NeoX is a center extraction just like what I'll do with the overheads) and four or more heights. Then we can all just use that and be on our merry way! 



Nalleh said:


> Sure it works. Maybe not perfect, but in this price range its as close as you can get
> 
> *If you say so.*
> 
> 
> 
> My wides is getting the right info in native Atmos.
> 
> *Maybe the occasional object. I'd like to know how active they really are with Atmos decoded material of which there is very little*
> 
> Well, dohh! I care
> 
> *I know you do. It's fun to poke you Auro guys though.*
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but this is the best compromise i came up with. You are entitled to have a different opinion.
> 
> *As are you, bud.  This place and the discussions would not be very interesting if we all agreed with each other about everything. *
> 
> 
> Sure, pile on another unit.
> 
> Like i said, i bought the 4100 with a 30 day return policy. If it did not improved the sound, i would have returned it after testing. But within minutes after first listening, i said to myself: it is staying.
> Make of it what you want
> 
> I hope your alternative works too, so that there are more options for those wanting more, but to be honest, i think these "cheats" soon will be irrelevent, since next gen AVR's will be able to go 9.1.6 and beyond.


True that! This is only what I would/will do for the 'in the meantime' filler. I'd much rather have proper discrete decoding out of one box and not three. 




Josh Z said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes plenty of sense when you realize that there is effectively no difference between those positions anyway.
> 
> I did some testing with all speakers except the heights disconnected, then switched my receiver settings between TM and TR with a scene from John Wick where a helicopter pans from front to back. There's really no difference in the amount of sound or its directionality regardless of whether you choose TM or TR.
> 
> 
> 
> If it works for him, it works for him. My concern, which others have voiced, is that any sound intended to come from both front and back simultaneously may collapse to the middle. So something like a rain shower may sound like it's only falling in the center of the room rather than all around. That wouldn't happen in my system.
> 
> I agree with Scott's comment that a lot of these cheats will be irrelevant as soon as some newer receivers start offering decoding for 6 discrete height channels.


Man, I hope so! I'd rather not go this route but I just want a full overhead effect than a front/back one. I'll get to test it all as soon as I get it all installed and buy a new AVR this summer/fall. I already had an old PL2 receiver and getting another one cost $200. I'm not out much money to give it a try. I seriously have doubts that there will be hardware (not Trinnov) that will do six overheads any time soon. Boy do I want to be wrong about that!


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It would seem that it's the same issue if you call them front wides or extra sides. The speakers can be addressed by objects or _possibly _spread out/duplicated bed information as per instructions given during the studio rendering session.


Extra sides get bed channel information and upmixed sounds. Wides don't get either. Should be a noticeable difference in output.


----------



## jrogers

FilmMixer said:


> Just to clarify.
> 
> I've had that disc since October 2014.
> 
> Dolby got it to me as they had been working on a new demo disc and I had been bugging them for it. It's a BD-R and I think that actual demo has been scrapped for something newer. It's a one off, and even has my name on it.
> 
> So it's definitely unique... But the fact that it has 9.1.6 tones has nothing to do with upcoming expanded >11 channel decoders.


Thanks for clarifying - do you think they (Dolby) held off on including the 9.1.6 tones because none of the 2014 processors supported that config? How about a few pics of your personal, pre-release DTS:X demo disc


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Extra sides get bed channel information and upmixed sounds. Wides don't get either. Should be a noticeable difference in output.


I wonder what gets more content in an Atmos decoded environment: any of the heights or wides.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Neither would your method work, I'm afraid. You can not split Atmos rendering across multiple AVR's and have them take the load off one another.
> 
> For example... use two Atmos devices to get a full 9.1.4 surround (right now). Say one is just doing the bottom 9ch layer with one device and the 2nd for the 4ch heights (since nothing does 9.1.4 now). The 4ch height content in the first device will have already been collapsed into the lower layer as this device is not aware that you are trying to do the heights with another device. It just doesn't work that way. WOULD BE COOL! Unfortunately there are no products that can be daisy-chained to be aware of one another.


While I admire Nalleh for trying different things, I have always thought that the point you make above is correct. If the two AVRs are unaware of each other, they cannot be configured as though they were.



Scott Simonian said:


> Seriously though you really can't have both a proper Atmos system and a proper Auro system with out compromise. Really, just concentrate on one or another or admit one isn't 'proper'. Not saying a compromised system can't yield pleasing results. People do it all the time.


That's it. It can't be a proper Auro system and a proper Atmos system - but it may well be pleasing.


----------



## Nalleh

Third time's the charm  
See the gold winner?










Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days.



Sidenote: both of these versions have a 7.1 Dolby True HD soundtrack AND a DTS HD MASTER AUDIO soundtrack ! Isn't that rather rare?

One(obviously) has Atmos, and the other a 7.1 96khz 24bit True HD sound.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I wonder what gets more content in an Atmos decoded environment: any of the heights or wides.


Hard to tell. Heights include bed channel info while wides do not, which would make me think that heights would be more active than wides in an Atmos decoded track. But many of the Atmos mixes showing up on Blu-ray seem to have very little coming from above, making me wonder whether the wides end up playing back more over the course of the entire movie than the heights do.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> While I admire Nalleh for trying different things, I have always thought that the point you make above is correct. If the two AVRs are unaware of each other, they cannot be configured as though they were.
> 
> 
> 
> That's it. It can't be a proper Auro system and a proper Atmos system - but it may well be pleasing.


Yeah and it's too bad but they (Auro and Atmos) are not only different technologies of delivery but also in philosophy. You can get pretty close to being fully compatible with a 9.1.6 system but there is the argument of compromise with the position of the side height/middle height. Everything else would be fully compatible.



sdurani said:


> Hard to tell. Heights include bed channel info while wides do not, which would make me think that heights would be more active than wides in an Atmos decoded track. But many of the Atmos mixes showing up on Blu-ray seem to have very little coming from above, making me wonder whether the wides end up playing back more over the course of the entire movie than the heights do.


Ah, yes. It's more of a 'depends on the mix' situation.

Wides as-is will be fairly underused. Dolby needs to update DSU to center-extract a set of wides like NeoX has been doing for a few years. Give the consumer the option to use them or not.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Third time's the charm
> See the gold winner?
> 
> Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidenote: both of these versions have a 7.1 Dolby True HD soundtrack AND a DTS HD MASTER AUDIO soundtrack ! Isn't that rather rare?
> 
> One(obviously) has Atmos, and the other a 7.1 96khz 24bit True HD sound.


 Be sure to let us know if the movie is a good one (in addition to the sound I mean). So far, Bollywood is a genre that is totally unknown to me.


----------



## BigScreen

roxiedog13 said:


> There has been some discussion about dipoles for side surrounds lately and I have added some comments because I have dipoles for the side surrounds only. First of all I have a 7.2.4 Atmos set up with everything per the Dolby recommendations except for my side surrounds which are in-wall Paridigm dipole speakers not the monopole Dolby recommends. The dipole I have were in the custom location long before Atmos was an option and I paid a small fortune for them, so pulling them out wasn't an option...........for now. See diagram below and link to the speaker.
> 
> OK, so with reference to the dipole they are mounted in a custom made pillar slightly above ear level just behind the front row seats, and just in front of the second row of seats. Essentially the speaker is between the front and back row of seats favoring the front row. The way these speakers work the tweeter and mid range are pointed fore and aft at 30 degree angles. My thought was that I would be firing the tweeters and mid range from each side towards the front row and the back row acting more as a dual direct radiating instead of getting the diffuse sound the dipole is suppose to give. From the rear seat position I can look directly at the tweeter and mid range so the angle there is perfect. From the front seat and because the speaker is closer to the front row, I cannot see the tweeter and mid range direct line of site, they are aiming just slightly ahead of my position. So what did I learn? Well, the speakers did exactly as I expected , the rear seat position in direct line of site to the rear firing tweeter gave a perfect direct radiating, localized sound just as a monopole would. The front seat however was in that diffuse null zone, the sound was there but muddy, did not have the impact it should have. All I had to do was lean ahead about 2ft and voila there it was, the direct radiating monopole sound as it should be. I cannot move my seats and I cannot move the custom mahogany pillar ( unless I want a divorce),so I have to change the speaker or live with the results which in all honestly do favor one MLP best. I am going to try one more trick first though and that is to put a small angle bracket on the face of the speaker to redirect the sound another 15 degrees towards the front seat. I'll report back how that goes, certainly would be the easiest fix.
> 
> Anyway, big point is, dipole can work to ones advantage if the mounting position was right. In my opinion if you have two rows of seats and mounted the dipole ( paridigm adapted dipole btw) equal distant between the two rows , then you would effectively have a fantanstic working system for two rows instead of favoring one MLP.
> 
> BTW, my observations were done watching the movie Canopy. I received my JVB region code unblocker in the mail and installed it last night. The movie Canopy has now cost me like $250 but at least I have a region free Oppo 130D now. Excellent movie, plenty of surround sounds which had to be since there was no dialog. The movie was Atmos in the theaters , the blu-ray I had 7.1 .
> DSU was awsome, would love to hear the Atmos version for comparison
> 
> http://www.paradigm.com/products-current/type=inwall/model=sa-adp/page=specs


Thanks for the report on your experiences with your dipoles and 7.1 content upmixed with DSU. I've never had any experience with in-wall dipoles/bipoles, and I wonder how different these sound compared to what I'm using.

I don't have the extreme drop-off in soundfield that you reported when moving your listening position just a couple of feet forward/backward, so that leads me to believe that the design of my speakers is not a true dipole configuration. It's odd that I can't find out a definitive answer, and since the speakers are no longer made, I'm not sure that I will get one short of tearing it apart to see how it's wired. 

From your description, it basically sounds like you are confirming what some others here have said, which is that the null area of the dipole creates an unsatisfactory effect, and that when you were in a position to get direct sound from the speaker, the effect was much improved. Is that correct? 

If so, then it would seem to me that the best results came from using the speaker essentially as a dual-direct-radiating speaker combo package, covering a wider space with a single component instead of two separate speakers. (This would be similar to what the Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA in-ceiling speaker is doing)

I've attached a photo of where I have the side surrounds mounted relative to the seating position. Height-wise, they are about 20" above my ears when seated upright. When fully upright, I get a similar effect as when reclined. The sound is not indistinct, fuzzy, or muddy in any way in my judgement, but I've had them for 10 years, so it's possible that I just don't know what I'm missing.

When it comes time for height speakers, my thinking is that I will mount something to the ceiling between the soffits (there's a matching soffit on the other side), which would be inside the line of the front L/R. My hope is that separation between the sides/rears and the heights will create an effective illusion of height without having to lower the sides/rears.



kbarnes701 said:


> What you won't get is any imaging between adjacent pairs. How much you miss that, or want it, or not, is entirely your own preference of course.


I can see that being possible, but I can't think of any examples of movies off the top of my head that would have such imaging (but maybe that's because I don't have the ability to reproduce said imaging... ) I've never felt that there were gaps or issues with transitions from front to side or side to rear. Do you have any favorites that I could try out? My copy of Gravity is still sitting in its shrink-wrap, and I remember seeing a reference to the initial scene where a voice is panned around the room. Maybe I'll try that...


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah and it's too bad but they (Auro and Atmos) are not only different technologies of delivery but also in philosophy. You can get pretty close to being fully compatible with a 9.1.6 system* but there is the argument of compromise with the position of the side height/middle height*. Everything else would be fully compatible.


Don't know if you are aware, but in my case, i have one set of speakers designated Surround Height, mounted above the side surrounds as pr Auro spec, and one set mounted on ceiling designated Top Middle, as pr Atmos spec. Height2 is not shared between the formats, as is "normal" in here.



kbarnes701 said:


> Be sure to let us know if the movie is a good one (in addition to the sound I mean). So far, Bollywood is a genre that is totally unknown to me.


Sure will. I am exited as well


----------



## Josh Z

Nalleh said:


> Sidenote: both of these versions have a 7.1 Dolby True HD soundtrack AND a DTS HD MASTER AUDIO soundtrack ! Isn't that rather rare?


Off the top of my head, Close Encounters has both TrueHD and DTS MA 5.1. Top Gun has TrueHD 5.1 and DTS MA 6.1.

But yeah, kind of pointless to include both lossless compression formats.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Man, I hope so! I'd rather not go this route but I just want a full overhead effect than a front/back one. I'll get to test it all as soon as I get it all installed and buy a new AVR this summer/fall. I already had an old PL2 receiver and getting another one cost $200. I'm not out much money to give it a try. I seriously have doubts that there will be hardware (not Trinnov) that will do six overheads any time soon. Boy do I want to be wrong about that!


Make no mistake, I find your experiment fascinating and am interested to hear about the results of it.


----------



## stikle

Nalleh said:


> Third time's the charm
> See the gold winner?



Third time? You had to order it 3 times to get an Atmos version? I ordered it when it was first brought up in this thread. I'm still waiting on it's arrival from India.



kbarnes701 said:


> Bollywood is a genre that is totally unknown to me.



Me too. I ordered it partially just for that reason.

I got frustrated with Amazon Japan's site, so never bothered ordering Transcendence.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Don't know if you are aware, but in my case, i have one set of speakers designated Surround Height, mounted above the side surrounds as pr Auro spec, and one set mounted on ceiling designated Top Middle, as pr Atmos spec. Height2 is not shared between the formats, as is "normal" in here.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure will. I am exited as well


I knew you were doing something to this effect. Though you have two sets of speakers that are not shared if I understand you? One set will be silent when using the other processing. When you listen to Auro the side heights will be on but the middle heights (for Atmos) will be silent, yes?



Josh Z said:


> Make no mistake, I find your experiment fascinating and am interested to hear about the results of it.


Thanks! It's a simple but not very elegant solution to the problem I have with 4ch heights (front/rear). Supposed I could just go with top front and top rear but then (if I get a Yamaha) wouldn't be able to use full 11ch CinemaDSP (which I want to use). Plus, I find that there is no benefit using two sets of rear heights (top rear+rear height). Turns out the way the human hears directional cues past 45 degrees above and behind us is not effective when a sound cue goes above 45 degrees. I'll have to find that study. Paging @sdurani 

Anyway.... I'm annoyed that I told myself I'd wait for DTS:X to get added to a Yammy, hopefully this summer/fall. Otherwise I'd get an Atmos receiver right now.


----------



## roxiedog13

BigScreen said:


> Thanks for the report on your experiences with your dipoles and 7.1 content upmixed with DSU. I've never had any experience with in-wall dipoles/bipoles, and I wonder how different these sound compared to what I'm using.
> 
> I don't have the extreme drop-off in soundfield that you reported when moving your listening position just a couple of feet forward/backward, so that leads me to believe that the design of my speakers is not a true dipole configuration. It's odd that I can't find out a definitive answer, and since the speakers are no longer made, I'm not sure that I will get one short of tearing it apart to see how it's wired.
> 
> From your description, it basically sounds like you are confirming what some others here have said, which is that the null area of the dipole creates an unsatisfactory effect, and that when you were in a position to get direct sound from the speaker, the effect was much improved. Is that correct?
> 
> If so, then it would seem to me that the best results came from using the speaker essentially as a dual-direct-radiating speaker combo package, covering a wider space with a single component instead of two separate speakers. (This would be similar to what the Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA in-ceiling speaker is doing)
> 
> I've attached a photo of where I have the side surrounds mounted relative to the seating position. Height-wise, they are about 20" above my ears when seated upright. When fully upright, I get a similar effect as when reclined. The sound is not indistinct, fuzzy, or muddy in any way in my judgement, but I've had them for 10 years, so it's possible that I just don't know what I'm missing.
> 
> When it comes time for height speakers, my thinking is that I will mount something to the ceiling between the soffits (there's a matching soffit on the other side), which would be inside the line of the front L/R. My hope is that separation between the sides/rears and the heights will create an effective illusion of height without having to lower the sides/rears.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that being possible, but I can't think of any examples of movies off the top of my head that would have such imaging (but maybe that's because I don't have the ability to reproduce said imaging... ) I've never felt that there were gaps or issues with transitions from front to side or side to rear. Do you have any favorites that I could try out? My copy of Gravity is still sitting in its shrink-wrap, and I remember seeing a reference to the initial scene where a voice is panned around the room. Maybe I'll try that...


Where you have that dipole speaker ( assuming it is dipole not bipole) speaker mounted 90 degrees to the MLP I would expect a null zone, the muddy fuzzy sound that you describe. If you only have the one row of seats simply replace that speaker with a monopole, or if two seats then mount your dipole directly centered between the two. I don't think you would actually get any increased response from the speaker moving ahead slightly because you are directly in that null zone. I would bet that if you moved forward or backwards about 3-4 feet you would notice it. Try running a test tone from the speaker play it several times in the MLP then slowly move forward as you repeat. I bet you will definitely hear it more clearly about 3-4 feet fore and aft of the MLP.
From my rear seat the sound is like a direct radiating, very clear not muddy because that row is directly in line with the rear facing dipole tweeter. My front row is not in line with the front firing tweeter but not far off and this is why by only moving slightly forward I hear it clearly. See my sketch below showing my side surround location relative to the two rows of seats.

So yea, the sound from my dipole is much improved when directly in line with one of the two dipole speakers , as you say like a dual direct radiating speaker ( bipole). The side surround for a Dolby Atmos or DTS:X is supposed to be at ear level to ensure separation between it and the heights. If I were you I would just drop the speaker to that level and go with the monopole. If you have two rows of seats you can use the dipole, split the difference but favor the MLP you intend to use the most. I'm going to toy with my setup a little more to see if my dipoles can be modified slightly, moving the seats or the speakers is not an option for me at this point.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

stikle said:


> Third time? You had to order it 3 times to get an Atmos version? I ordered it when it was first brought up in this thread. I'm still waiting on it's arrival from India.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too. I ordered it partially just for that reason.
> 
> I got frustrated with Amazon Japan's site, so never bothered ordering Transcendence.


Can I ask where both of you ordered it? I'm curious too!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> many of the Atmos mixes showing up on Blu-ray seem to have very little coming from above


Now that a couple of BRs with Atmos are out, do we have any reliable data how much content there actually is in the height channels vs surrounds vs fronts?


----------



## stikle

SteveTheGeek said:


> Can I ask where both of you ordered it? I'm curious too!


eBay...


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> Third time's the charm
> See the gold winner?
> 
> Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days.


Wait, you bought three copies of that Bollywood flick?

Gee, if I had your money I'd burn my money!


----------



## roxiedog13

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Nalleh*  
_Third time's the charm  
See the gold winner?

Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days._

Wait, you bought three copies of that Bollywood flick?

Gee, if I had your money I'd burn my money![

We use to say if I had your money, I'd burn my million dollars. The movie Canopy I just purchased from Australia cost me about $250. $50 For the movie with postage another $200 for the region unblocker card purchased from JVB. At least my Oppo is Region free now .


----------



## SteveTheGeek

stikle said:


> eBay...


Thanks, just ordered it !!!


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Josh Z said:


> Off the top of my head, Close Encounters has both TrueHD and DTS MA 5.1. Top Gun has TrueHD 5.1 and DTS MA 6.1.
> 
> But yeah, kind of pointless to include both lossless compression formats.


Josh...those are the only two I can think of as well. 


As for the tri-pole, Bi-pole, Di-pole, mono-pole surround question, when I get the 8802 back from the lab I'll put my Surround Speakers (all four of them) in di-pole mode and out of tri-pole mode and see if there's a huge difference with DSU and Atmos. Give me about 10 days or so...I'm not supposed to get the 8802 back until next Wednesday.


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> Third time? You had to order it 3 times to get an Atmos version? I ordered it when it was first brought up in this thread. I'm still waiting on it's arrival from India.



Yes. The first one was from Amazon, and i thought it had to be the correct version.
The second was the one linked from the "black friday" thread in here somewhere, wich should be Atmos(also Amazon, but different ASIN), but turned out to be the exact same version.
Third, correct one found on Ebay.
Unless it says Atmos on the front cover, like mine does, it is NOT the Atmos Version !



Scott Simonian said:


> I knew you were doing something to this effect. Though you have two sets of speakers that are not shared if I understand you? One set will be silent when using the other processing. When you listen to Auro the side heights will be on but the middle heights (for Atmos) will be silent, yes?


Correct. My 5200 has the full 10.1 Auro setup. Wich means when switched to Atmos(native), the height2 goes silent, but wides kick in=9.1.2. This is all CORRECT version, no cheating!
But in Atmos, the 4100 comes into play, with its Top Middle+Rear Height.
So i have CORRECT Atmos 9.1.2 + "cheating" 4 rear heights 




SteveTheGeek said:


> Can I ask where both of you ordered it? I'm curious too!


Yes. Ebay  I tried two Indian webshops, and altough they had this version, they did not ship outside India.


chi_guy50 said:


> Wait, you bought three copies of that Bollywood flick?
> 
> Gee, if I had your money I'd burn my money!


Pocket change!! $20 each? Everybody can afford that.
But will admit, the first two ones was bloody irritating to open


----------



## stikle

Nalleh said:


> Third, correct one found on Ebay.


Oh good. I didn't want to assume that you ordered from the same place 3 times before getting the correct one.


----------



## Josh Z

markus767 said:


> Now that a couple of BRs with Atmos are out, do we have any reliable data how much content there actually is in the height channels vs surrounds vs fronts?


Depends on the mix. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, hardly any height channel activity at all. John Wick, tons of it all through the movie.


----------



## NorthSky

billqs said:


> Yes, I have a *Denon X7200W*. Before that I had an Onkyo 636. I'm on my 3rd Audessey configuration, have all surrounds lowered to ear level and I finally have really good separation that makes both Atmos and DSU so much fun to listen to.


...

Right on; you are fully covered with that machine. ...Hero-3D, DTS:X, HDMI/HDCP 4K.  ...And Dolby Atmos of course.

My honest opinion. 

* Get some 6.5" coaxial overhead Atmos speakers.  ...And cross them @ 80Hz.


----------



## robert816

stikle said:


> I got frustrated with Amazon Japan's site, so never bothered ordering Transcendence.


I'm surprised you had trouble with Amazon Japan, I've ordered from them a number of times and have never had any issues. Do you mind if I ask what trouble you are having and possibly I may be able to offer some assistance, not certain I can but I'm willing to help if possible.

Also you guys should take a look at an older Bollywood film called "Chandni Chowk to China", has lots of over the top fly-by-wire, kung fu, and special effects mixed with comedy, it is not available on Blu-Ray or with an Atmos mix unfortunately, but you can purchase the DVD on Amazon or an HD digital copy on VUDU. Look for the trailer, it'll give you a good idea of the movie.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> I can see that being possible, but I can't think of any examples of movies off the top of my head that would have such imaging (but maybe that's because I don't have the ability to reproduce said imaging... ) I've never felt that there were gaps or issues with transitions from front to side or side to rear. Do you have any favorites that I could try out? My copy of Gravity is still sitting in its shrink-wrap, and I remember seeing a reference to the initial scene where a voice is panned around the room. Maybe I'll try that...


You are abso!utely correct. 

And speaking of 'Gravity'... no matter your setup you'll hear that voice panned around and behind you. ...With high elevated surrounds (IMAX 3D theater), and with ear level surrounds (@ home). ...None I found superior over the other. It's very hard to go wrong nowadays. 
And 'Gravity' is now coming up on Blu-ray (2D only, very unfortunate), but with a new remastered/supervised @ 7.1.4 - Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
{I would love to see that remixing/recording movie studio, for simple curiosity.}


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> Right on; you are fully covered with that machine.


Does that mean you are finally buying an Atmos AVR, now that you know it can be upgraded to your beloved DTS:X?


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> And 'Gravity' is now coming up on Blu-ray (2D only, very unfortunate), [...]


By the way, Blu-ray.com now shows that the korean and hong kong versions will be 3D!


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


>


That picture cover is truly scary man.  ...Hope that Dolby Atmos does the trick.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> Does that mean you are finally buying an Atmos AVR, now that you know it can be upgraded to your beloved DTS:X?


Actually, right now, that receiver (Denon 7200) and the Marantz 8802 pre/pro are the only two units I am considering.
But I'll wait next month, April.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> By the way, Blu-ray.com now shows that the korean and hong kong versions will be 3D!


Got an official sure link?


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> Got an official sure link?


No, just what's on blu-ray.com. And they don't even have any links to order those releases. The south korean one is supposedly by Warner directly, and comes out the same day as the US one. Nothing on YesAsia or Play-Asia yet, either.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Gravity' 3D picture ... and sound?*



scarabaeus said:


> No, just what's on blu-ray.com. And they don't even have any links to order those releases. The south korean one is supposedly by Warner directly, and comes out the same day as the US one. Nothing on YesAsia or Play-Asia yet, either.


That's why I asked, because I usually keep track of stuff like that.


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nalleh*
> _Third time's the charm
> See the gold winner?
> 
> Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days._
> 
> Wait, you bought three copies of that Bollywood flick?
> 
> Gee, if I had your money I'd burn my money![
> 
> We use to say if I had your money, I'd burn my million dollars. The movie Canopy I just purchased from Australia cost me about $250. $50 For the movie with postage another $200 for the region unblocker card purchased from JVB. At least my Oppo is Region free now .


I'm sorry ill pass on spending $250.00 U.S. for any Blu-Ray even $250 Canadian is way too much I would rather by an amp, or speakers but never a Blu-Ray...


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> Oh good. I didn't want to assume that you ordered from the same place 3 times before getting the correct one.


Fool me once fool me twice third time


----------



## NorthSky

*'Canopy' (2013)*



bargervais said:


> I'm sorry ill pass on spending $250.00 U.S. for any Blu-Ray even $250 Canadian is way too much I would rather by an amp, or speakers but never a Blu-Ray...


♦ This would be the perfect flick for Dolby Surround up-mixer use. ...DSU






______






______


----------



## stikle

robert816 said:


> I'm surprised you had trouble with Amazon Japan, I've ordered from them a number of times and have never had any issues. Do you mind if I ask what trouble you are having and possibly I may be able to offer some assistance, not certain I can but I'm willing to help if possible.


First off, I was annoyed that my US/CAN/UK login didn't work. I had to translate each page as I went. Then I decided to create a new login...and got hung up on the "phonetic" requirement. I didn't know what to put there. Since I was at work I didn't really have much more time to spend on it, so I moved on. I didn't really need to be spending $50 on a movie anyway.


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> Pocket change!! $20 each? Everybody can afford that.
> But will admit, the first two ones was bloody irritating to open


I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I wouldn't spend $20--let alone $60--on a Blu-ray movie unless it were something very special that I absolutely had to have and wanted to keep for the long term. [Full disclosure: I did in fact spend $23 to purchase Le Chat from Amazon.fr last year, but only because it was otherwise unavailable and I was waxing nostalgic to rewatch it not having seen it since it first came out in the early '70's.] Can I afford it? Sure, many times over; but it just doesn't represent value to me.

I have a Netflix subscription for Blu-ray disks (two at a time) which runs me $16.19 p.m. (including taxes); with the currently typical turnaround times, we can easily watch 8 to 10 movies a month for an average cost of less than $2.00 per movie. That "affordable" $60 BRD (admittedly, an outlier even by your standards) represents about 30 to 40 movies on Blu-ray that we can watch once or twice each before mailing back.

Note that I'm not judging how you spend your _kroner _(my original post was just some lighthearted ribbing), and I'm confessing that I seem to be in the minority here, but amassing a library of Blu-rays that will just take up shelf space after one viewing doesn't seem like a worthwhile expenditure to me. But then, I won't spend $12 for a movie ticket either. (Insert Jewish joke here.)

Am I the only one?


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> First off, I was annoyed that my US/CAN/UK login didn't work. I had to translate each page as I went. Then I decided to create a new login...and got hung up on the "phonetic" requirement. I didn't know what to put there. Since I was at work I didn't really have much more time to spend on it, so I moved on. I didn't really need to be spending $50 on a movie anyway.


I too found it very hard to navigate and wasn't 100% sure what I wanted was atmos. I didn't want to order and end up with a non Atmos Blu-Ray. Ill stick to what I know Amazon U.S. and buy two Blu-Rays for $50.00......


----------



## robert816

stikle said:


> First off, I was annoyed that my US/CAN/UK login didn't work. I had to translate each page as I went. Then I decided to create a new login...and got hung up on the "phonetic" requirement. I didn't know what to put there. Since I was at work I didn't really have much more time to spend on it, so I moved on. I didn't really need to be spending $50 on a movie anyway.


Yeah, the US account doesn't work, you have to setup an account on Amazon's Japanese site, but the good news is you can use the same information as your US/CDN/UK account.

If you should decide to try again in the future, you can use the directions here to create an account, and yeah, with shipping the cost does rise.

Weird, for some reason I could not create a link, so here's the URL: http://cdn.halcyonrealms.com/japan/how-to-order-from-amazon-japan-a-detailed-buying-guide/


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I wouldn't spend $20--let alone $60
> 
> Am I the only one?


I'll spend $20.00 but I'm very frugal and limit myself to two maybe three a month or more like one a month until I got a Atmos receiver.. if Netflix Blu-Rays came with full blown audio I would do the same I don't want a dumb down audio Blu-Ray. I want it all and I want it now...


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> I'll spend $20.00 but I'm very frugal and limit myself to two maybe three a month or more like one a month until I got a Atmos receiver.. if Netflix Blu-Rays came with full blown audio I would do the same I don't want a dumb down audio Blu-Ray. I want it all and I want it now...


I hear you on that score; but so far I haven't watched a single movie from Netflix that didn't have the lossless codec if such was available (maybe I've been lucky, but even the Lionsgate movies I've gotten so far this year have had the "full-blown" audio, as you put it).

And lately Netflix has been extremely flexible to compensate for the USPS's recently increased delivery times due to cutbacks. They've instituted a procedure whereby they receive electronic notice when the USPS has received a disk for return and use that notice to start mailing out the next disk to the customer. Right now, on my two-at-a-time plan, I have three disks in my possession (_Rosewater_, _Nightcrawler_ and _Birdman_) and there is a fourth en route (_The Judge_) that is due for delivery on Saturday. And after a period of constantly late deliveries in Jan/Feb (in compensation for which I was given six weeks of one extra disk out at no charge), almost all of my disks this month have reached me on the estimated arrival date.


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> I'm sorry ill pass on spending $250.00 U.S. for any Blu-Ray even $250 Canadian is way too much I would rather by an amp, or speakers but never a Blu-Ray...


The $250 wasn't for the Blu-Ray only, that was $50 still too much really. The balance was for the electronic device I had to order because the disk from Australia was region locked and I could not play it. Now I can buy Blu-Ray from any continent which opens up other options.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> ♦ This would be the perfect flick for Dolby Surround up-mixer use. ...DSU
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5rPKws8PI
> 
> ______
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzJl6TSxxhg
> 
> ______


That is the main reason I bought it, it was touted as being amazing movie with DSU running. DSU effects have to be good, there little to no dialog in this movie . I'm going to have to watch this again tonight and pay more attention to the sound. I usually get lost in the first run of any movie if it's interesting.


----------



## tjenkins95

stikle said:


> First off, I was annoyed that my US/CAN/UK login didn't work. I had to translate each page as I went. Then I decided to create a new login...and got hung up on the "phonetic" requirement. I didn't know what to put there. Since I was at work I didn't really have much more time to spend on it, so I moved on. I didn't really need to be spending $50 on a movie anyway.


 

I use the same login for 4 Amazon sites. If you use the Chrome browser it will translate each page for you.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> That is the main reason I bought it, it was touted as being amazing movie with DSU running. DSU effects have to be good, there little to no dialog in this movie . I'm going to have to watch this again tonight and pay more attention to the sound. I usually get lost in the first run of any movie if it's interesting.


Not everyone would pay that price, but I do occasionally pay over $100 for some Blus. ...So I understand very well. 
And thank you for putting 'Canopy' to my attention.


----------



## tjenkins95

roxiedog13 said:


> That is the main reason I bought it, it was touted as being amazing movie with DSU running. DSU effects have to be good, there little to no dialog in this movie . I'm going to have to watch this again tonight and pay more attention to the sound. I usually get lost in the first run of any movie if it's interesting.


I also have the blu-ray version of *Canopy.* I have watched it twice.
The movie has received great reviews - 74% on http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/canopy/
but I can honestly say the film is not for everyone.

I think the movie is brilliant! The cinematograpy and sound are superb!
It's like the viewer is dropped off (no pun intended) into 1942 Singapore, for 80 minutes,
to observe the war taking place in this dense forest.


Ray


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Third time's the charm
> See the gold winner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidenote: both of these versions have a 7.1 Dolby True HD soundtrack AND a DTS HD MASTER AUDIO soundtrack ! Isn't that rather rare?
> 
> One(obviously) has Atmos, and the other a 7.1 96khz 24bit True HD sound.


Nalleh,

Did you buy the Mary Kom (Atmos) from ebay seller? or did you get it from amazon and such.
I am not able to find the Atmos bluray other than ebay.

Also, do you understand Hindi or are going with "subtitles" alone?


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Nalleh,
> 
> Did you buy the Mary Kom (Atmos) from ebay seller? or did you get it from amazon and such.
> I am not able to find the Atmos bluray other than ebay.
> 
> Also, do you understand Hindi or are going with "subtitles" alone?


Like i said, the first two was from Amazon, and were wrong.
Found the right one on Ebay, from this seller:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mary-Kom-Bl...886?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20f892583e

Shipping took less than two weeks from India to Norway. Not bad 
This is all region version with english subtitles.


----------



## kingwiggi

Nalleh said:


> Third time's the charm
> See the gold winner?
> 
> 
> 
> Got my Mary Kom Atmos bluray today, will try go watch it in the next couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidenote: both of these versions have a 7.1 Dolby True HD soundtrack AND a DTS HD MASTER AUDIO soundtrack ! Isn't that rather rare?
> 
> One(obviously) has Atmos, and the other a 7.1 96khz 24bit True HD sound.


I made this mistake also and ordered (1) from Amazon US only to find that it was just a TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack. 

In general this is going to be a real pain in the ass going forward if they continue to master different audio tracks for different regions and this is before a 3rd disc format drops.

Got to say the 7.1 Soundtrack was excellent using DSU.


----------



## noah katz

chi_guy50 said:


> I have a Netflix subscription for Blu-ray disks...


Do Atmos BD's come with the Atmos soundtracks?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Like i said, the first two was from Amazon, and were wrong.
> Found the right one on Ebay, from this seller:
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mary-Kom-Bl...886?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20f892583e
> 
> Shipping took less than two weeks from India to Norway. Not bad
> This is all region version with english subtitles.


Thanks. 
FYI. The ebay price is more than double the cost of the bluray (non-Atmos) being sold at amazon.in
Could you please share the ASIN #, barcode, UPC. Such that we can look for other sources as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Hard to tell. Heights include bed channel info while wides do not, which would make me think that heights would be more active than wides in an Atmos decoded track. But many of the Atmos mixes showing up on Blu-ray seem to have very little coming from above, making me wonder whether the wides end up playing back more over the course of the entire movie than the heights do.


We'll definitely find that at out, at least in one case, with _Gravity_. Much of the main dialog (what little there was) was pulled to the front sides whenever a character was just off screen when I saw it at the cinema. Excellent use of directionalized dialog. Too bad more movies don't do this... it's more natural sounding IMHO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Now that a couple of BRs with Atmos are out, do we have any reliable data how much content there actually is in the height channels vs surrounds vs fronts?


Better ask that in the Trinnov thread. We'll know more when people get their hands on it and have more speakers hooked up than a normal person.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Better ask that in the Trinnov thread. We'll know more when people get their hands on it and have more speakers hooked up than a normal person.


Are there abnormal persons with more speakers? 

* Question for you Dan: What do you consider more important between the overhead Dolby Atmos speakers and the floor subwoofers?
...If given no choice in having both, but just one option.
[The center channel speaker is out of the equation for this specific question; it is already part of the system as all the other floor speakers, ... front, wide, side, rear surrounds.]


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Are there abnormal persons with more speakers?
> 
> * Question for you Dan: What do you consider more important between the overhead Dolby Atmos speakers and the floor subwoofers?
> ...If given no choice in having both, but just one option.
> [The center channel speaker is out of the equation for this specific question; it is already part of the system as all the other floor speakers, ... front, wide, side, rear surrounds.]


Both overhead Atmos speakers and the floor subwoofers are for me there is no other options, I have to have both. In order for me to have no subwoofers I would need monster full range speakers they would take up too much space. Speakers and subwoofers are what I need and like.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Both overhead Atmos speakers and the floor subwoofers are for me there is no other options, I have to have both. In order for me to have no subwoofers I would need monster full range speakers they would take up too much space. Speakers and subwoofers are what I need and like.


I must admit: Full range loudspeakers all around with the LFE/.1-channel redirected to the four corner ones, is a heck of a great answer, and you can have your six full range Dolby Atmos overhead loudspeakers too.  ...For a full full range *9.0.6* Dolby Atmos sound system setup. ...Full Bass/LFE included. ...Down say to 16Hz. ...Good enough for 97.775% of all movies (or more).


----------



## dfergie

Dave Vaughn said:


> Josh...those are the only two I can think of as well.


ZZ Top Live From Texas also has both ...


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> We'll definitely find that at out, at least in one case, with _Gravity_.


Yup, it would be interesting to configure the AVR for 9.1.2 and watch the first 20 minutes of the movie with only the wide speakers connected to see how much use they get.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Nalleh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pocket change!! $20 each? Everybody can afford that.
> But will admit, the first two ones was bloody irritating to open
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I wouldn't spend $20--let alone $60
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --on a Blu-ray movie unless it were something very special that I absolutely had to have and wanted to keep for the long term. [Full disclosure: I did in fact spend $23 to purchase Le Chat from Amazon.fr last year, but only because it was otherwise unavailable and I was waxing nostalgic to rewatch it not having seen it since it first came out in the early '70's.] Can I afford it? Sure, many times over; but it just doesn't represent value to me.
> 
> I have a Netflix subscription for Blu-ray disks (two at a time) which runs me $16.19 p.m. (including taxes); with the currently typical turnaround times, we can easily watch 8 to 10 movies a month for an average cost of less than $2.00 per movie. That "affordable" $60 BRD (admittedly, an outlier even by your standards) represents about 30 to 40 movies on Blu-ray that we can watch once or twice each before mailing back.
> 
> Note that I'm not judging how you spend your _kroner _(my original post was just some lighthearted ribbing), and I'm confessing that I seem to be in the minority here, but amassing a library of Blu-rays that will just take up shelf space after one viewing doesn't seem like a worthwhile expenditure to me. But then, I won't spend $12 for a movie ticket either. (Insert Jewish joke here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Am I the only one?
Click to expand...

You're not the only one. I own maybe 30-40 HD-DVD and BD titles total. I am often shocked at the reports of people with 1,000+ BDs. Obviously some folks here have the disposable income to not GAF but even at the bargain bins and $10 a pop that's $10k+ on media, several times more than I've spent on all of my hardware, and way more than most folks could dream of spending on their entire HT. 

There are some movies I'd happily watch over again but there are no way that many require multiple viewings. Godspeed to those who have experienced enough success in life that they will just buy a movie for $15-20 when they could watch them for $2 a pop via Neflix/Redbox, but I do shake my head in wonder every time I read something like that.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Josh Z said:


> If it works for him, it works for him. My concern, which others have voiced, is that any sound intended to come from both front and back simultaneously may collapse to the middle. So something like a rain shower may sound like it's only falling in the center of the room rather than all around. That wouldn't happen in my system.


Why would a mixer use solely correlated sounds if they are intended to come from various directions? In such a case those rain shower sounds will be partly uncorrelated, or decorrelated, and for that part unaffected by the 'PLII center extractor'.


----------



## petetherock

Nalleh :
Mary Kom - is it worth keeping as a movie, ATMOS not withstanding ?


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks.
> FYI. The ebay price is more than double the cost of the bluray (non-Atmos) being sold at amazon.in
> Could you please share the ASIN #, barcode, UPC. Such that we can look for other sources as well.


Here is the backside cover:









You can look all you want but this is the only way to get it as of today. Two webshops in India have it, but do not ship outside India. Sheemaroo, and Flipart.


----------



## Wild Blue

scarabaeus said:


> By the way, Blu-ray.com now shows that the korean and hong kong versions will be 3D!


Oh, really? That would certainly satisfy many of us who are disappointed. Perhaps I bought my 3D Gravity a bit too early.



chi_guy50 said:


> And lately Netflix has been extremely flexible to compensate for the USPS's recently increased delivery times due to cutbacks. They've instituted a procedure whereby they receive electronic notice when the USPS has received a disk for return and use that notice to start mailing out the next disk to the customer.


Huh... Netflix isn't doing this for me.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Here is the backside cover:
> 
> 
> You can look all you want but this is the only way to get it as of today. Two webshops in India have it, but do not ship outside India. Sheemaroo, and Flipart.


Thanks Nalleh.
I do see the MRP (MSRP) as Rs 999.00 That is around $17-$18. So the price is not that bad I guess.
It includes DTS-HDMA and also the Atmos (and DTHD I guess). Wow. That's a rarity...


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I wouldn't spend $20--let alone $60--on a Blu-ray movie unless it were something very special that I absolutely had to have and wanted to keep for the long term. [Full disclosure: I did in fact spend $23 to purchase Le Chat from Amazon.fr last year, but only because it was otherwise unavailable and I was waxing nostalgic to rewatch it not having seen it since it first came out in the early '70's.] Can I afford it? Sure, many times over; but it just doesn't represent value to me.
> 
> I have a Netflix subscription for Blu-ray disks (two at a time) which runs me $16.19 p.m. (including taxes); with the currently typical turnaround times, we can easily watch 8 to 10 movies a month for an average cost of less than $2.00 per movie. That "affordable" $60 BRD (admittedly, an outlier even by your standards) represents about 30 to 40 movies on Blu-ray that we can watch once or twice each before mailing back.
> 
> Note that I'm not judging how you spend your _kroner _(my original post was just some lighthearted ribbing), and I'm confessing that I seem to be in the minority here, but amassing a library of Blu-rays that will just take up shelf space after one viewing doesn't seem like a worthwhile expenditure to me. But then, I won't spend $12 for a movie ticket either. (Insert Jewish joke here.)
> 
> Am I the only one?



I spend a fortune feeding my Bluray addiction. I don't regret the price when I know I will watch a movie multiple times, but it is irksome to buy a movie, watch it and realise that, even if it was enjoyable, it is not likely to be watched more than once. I try to minimise occurrences of this by reading reviews etc, but they still creep through. I guess I could sell them on but I never seem to get around to that so they occupy precious shelf space for no real gain. Cinema tickets here, to the Atmos theater with the big screen and comfy chairs is about $20. I don't go very often (nothing to do with the price, more the inconvenience) but when I do I don't mind spending the money. It's nice to see a really huge screen and hear a really good sound system now and again, just to let us know we're on the right track at home.


----------



## Bassfeen

I gave up on HT precisely because of this, new codecs, new demands for speakers, amplifiers and constant upgrade. BACK to 2 channel for me. Its a never ending game to keep up.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> You're not the only one. I own maybe 30-40 HD-DVD and BD titles total. I am often shocked at the reports of people with 1,000+ BDs. Obviously some folks here have the disposable income to not GAF but even at the bargain bins and $10 a pop that's $10k+ on media, several times more than I've spent on all of my hardware, and way more than most folks could dream of spending on their entire HT.
> 
> There are some movies I'd happily watch over again but there are no way that many require multiple viewings. Godspeed to those who have experienced enough success in life that they will just buy a movie for $15-20 when they could watch them for $2 a pop via Neflix/Redbox, but I do shake my head in wonder every time I read something like that.


I'm one of the people with 1000+, and I shake my head too sometimes. It's a sort of 'collector thing' I think and cannot be explained rationally, any more than people's collections of postage stamps or horse brasses or whatever can. I know a lot of people who buy books this way - they buy dozens of books a month, way more than they can possibly read. I am genuinely trying to wean myself off this, trying hard to only buy movies I can be fairly sure of watching multiple times and renting the rest. But it isn't working very well - I like to be able to go to my shelves each night and scan them and pick a movie to watch on impulse. Often this will be a movie I may have only watched once yet owned for years, so this makes me feel better  And I do like to go back and dip into the 'Extras' from time to time too (which I watch on a TV rather than via the PJ in the HT room). My main problem is shelf space. I am continually running out and my disc collection starts to invade more and more of the available space, which is not fair to Mrs Keith, although her angelic nature means she doesn't complain (much). That makes me feel even more guilty of course 

But yeah, I totally understand your incomprehension


----------



## kbarnes701

Bassfeen said:


> I gave up on HT precisely because of this, new codecs, new demands for speakers, amplifiers and constant upgrade. BACK to 2 channel for me. Its a never ending game to keep up.


I gave up on cars because of this. New models, new designs, new engine types, new electronics, satnav, ICE, onboard computers. It's a never ending game to keep up. Back to the horse and cart for me.

LOL. Just kiddin'... but you are missing out on a lot of good stuff. And you don't have to keep upgrading. It's not like something new comes out and it spoils what you already got. If you have an enjoyable system today, it will be an enjoyable system tomorrow, regardless of Atmos, DTS:X, HDCP 2.2, 4K and so on.


----------



## Glenn Baumann

Bassfeen said:


> I gave up on HT precisely because of this, new codecs, new demands for speakers, amplifiers and constant upgrade. BACK to 2 channel for me. Its a never ending game to keep up.


 



"Its a never ending game to keep up."


Actually it is not IMHO!


No one says that you have to keep up with the game! 


A basic 5.1 system set up properly can give much joy for many years... set it up, forget it and just enjoy. 


Do you really NEED the latest codecs... maybe you do?  Missing out on basic multi channel movie fun us short changing yourself IMHO!


Actually, I know it can be frustrating and I used to kind of feel that way until I soul searched, got real and wised up... my wallet loves me! 




...Glenn


----------



## petetherock

Well I cant match Keith yet, but I have about half the number he has.. And I tell my partner I don't smoke, drink, gamble, do other vices, and she knows where I am and she can also enjoy her girlie discs in 11.2 surround...

We all have our little vices, and mine comes in a little blue box


----------



## chi_guy50

noah katz said:


> Do Atmos BD's come with the Atmos soundtracks?


That is an excellent question, Noah. Unfortunately, I can not provide a definitive answer as there have not been any Atmos BRD releases to date that I have been interested in watching. However, I have yet to find a single one that is specifically listed on the Netflix web site as having the Atmos track; but then the audio specifics for newer releases are frequently erroneous since it seems that the data is entered based on whatever the distributor's system provides to Netflix. I have often received disks (e.g., Lionsgate releases) that were listed by Netflix with the lossy codec but which actually contained the lossless codec.

I have already spoken several times over the past several months with Netflix CSR's and technical support personnel about this issue, and they tell me that they can not access technical data regarding their inventory beyond what is published on the web site. I would like to think that someone somewhere in the bowels of the corporation has the ability to provide a definitive answer regarding which disks in their inventory, if any, have the Atmos soundtrack, but perhaps this kind of esoteric (to the _acognoscenti_) detail just hasn't yet risen to a level of sufficient interest to merit the trouble that tracking it would require.

Suffice to say that, if in due course I find that Atmos-encoded movies are not available through Netflix with the full soundtrack, I will most probably be cancelling my subscription.


----------



## chi_guy50

Chris Dotur said:


> Huh... Netflix isn't doing this for me.


Why not? I know there are some factors--such as proximity to the distribution point--that affect transit times, but that should not have any bearing on the expedited shipping procedure unless it is only being implemented in select areas for beta-testing. Give Netflix a call and ask for an explanation: 1-866-579-7172.


----------



## robert816

petetherock said:


> Well I cant match Keith yet, but I have about half the number he has.. And I tell my partner I don't smoke, drink, gamble, do other vices, and she knows where I am and she can also enjoy her girlie discs in 11.2 surround...
> 
> We all have our little vices, and mine comes in a little blue box


I hear ya, like you I don't have the "fun" vices, sports cars, mountain biking, computers, and home theatre are where my funds go. My media library (which includes Digital, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, Laserdisc, and yes still working VHS) exceeds 3000 titles, little more than half are Blu-ray. I only buy titles I will watch multiple times so the cost isn't important, with the exception of some collectables. I like having a well stocked library so that if anyone were to come by and want to watch a movie, I'm certain there is something for just about anyone on my media shelves.

Was it you that suggested "14 Blades" with Donnie Yen? If so, thank you, I picked it up and enjoyed it. I also picked up "No tears for the Dead", same director who did "The Man From Nowhere".


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I gave up on cars because of this. New models, new designs, new engine types, new electronics, satnav, ICE, onboard computers. It's a never ending game to keep up. Back to the horse and cart for me.
> 
> LOL. Just kiddin'... but you are missing out on a lot of good stuff. And you don't have to keep upgrading. It's not like something new comes out and it spoils what you already got. If you have an enjoyable system today, it will be an enjoyable system tomorrow, regardless of Atmos, DTS:X, HDCP 2.2, 4K and so on.


You like cars too Keith and I know your approximate age. I have a Sierra Cosworth RS500 in my garage, I'd bet you know that one?


----------



## petetherock

robert816 said:


> I hear ya, like you I don't have the "fun" vices, sports cars, mountain biking, computers, and home theatre are where my funds go. My media library (which includes Digital, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, Laserdisc, and yes still working VHS) exceeds 3000 titles, little more than half are Blu-ray. I only buy titles I will watch multiple times so the cost isn't important, with the exception of some collectables. I like having a well stocked library so that if anyone were to come by and want to watch a movie, I'm certain there is something for just about anyone on my media shelves.
> 
> Was it you that suggested "14 Blades" with Donnie Yen? If so, thank you, I picked it up and enjoyed it. I also picked up "No tears for the Dead", same director who did "The Man From Nowhere".



Yeah.. Try Breaking News, Eye in the Sky and PTU for more ambience..

Then pick up a dvd, yes DVD copy of The Cave for some serious cave surrounds


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Cinema tickets here, to the Atmos theater with the big screen and comfy chairs is about $20. I don't go very often (nothing to do with the price, more the inconvenience) but when I do I don't mind spending the money. It's nice to see a really huge screen and hear a really good sound system now and again, just to let us know we're on the right track at home.


I can't remember the last time I bought a movie ticket; the only times we've gone to the cinema in the past few years has been when we've gotten free passes to advance screenings, and even then it's been something that I loathe to do--and I'm an ardent movie lover who in his salad days would think nothing of going to two or three different cinemas in a single day! The traffic, the crowds, the noise, the interminable and annoying advertising, not to mention the expense, just make it a less than enjoyable outing these days. It would be a different story if I hadn't assembled a more than decent HT setup and with access to more movies via Netflix and HBO/SHO than we could ever watch if we did nothing else all day. Right now I've got better than 100 HD movies on the HDD in my TiVo DVR alone that we would like to get around to viewing. 

This is why I value my ongoing investment in A/V technology: not only can we enjoy a superior movie (and sports and TV) experience in the comfort of our home, but we save the trouble and money we would have spent on going to the cinema. Keith, I can't imagine that my setup could compete with your HT (Hobbit-sized though it be) and yet we find it surpasses the movie-going experience. I am saddened to say it, but at least here in the States movie theaters no longer hold an appeal for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> You like cars too Keith and I know your approximate age. I have a Sierra Cosworth RS500 in my garage, I'd bet you know that one?


I do. I'm amazed it was never stolen!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I can't remember the last time I bought a movie ticket; the only times we've gone to the cinema in the past few years has been when we've gotten free passes to advance screenings, and even then it's been something that I loathe to do--and I'm an ardent movie lover who in his salad days would think nothing of going to two or three different cinemas in a single day! The traffic, the crowds, the noise, the interminable and annoying advertising, not to mention the expense, just make it a less than enjoyable outing these days. It would be a different story if I hadn't assembled a more than decent HT setup and with access to more movies via Netflix and HBO/SHO than we could ever watch if we did nothing else all day.
> 
> This is why I value my ongoing investment in A/V technology: not only can we enjoy a superior movie (and sports and TV) experience in the comfort of our home, but we save the trouble and money we would have spent on going to the cinema. Keith, I can't imagine that my setup could compete with your HT (Hobbit-sized though it be) and yet we find it surpasses the movie-going experience. I am saddened to say it, but at least here in the States movie theaters no longer hold an appeal for me.


IKWYM. I feel the same about most cinemas, but the brand new Atmos theater I mentioned is really good. The only drawback for me is that it is about 40 minutes each way, but that isn't too bad. When I go I always go to the first showing of the day - that way I usually have the cinema to myself, or no more than half a dozen people, so there's no added annoyance from the audience to cope with. It was the latter which stopped me being a regular moviegoer. And, as you say, our HTs generally have better SQ and better PQ than most commercial places.




chi_guy50 said:


> Right now I've got better than 100 HD movies on the HDD in my TiVo DVR alone that we would like to get around to viewing.


Ah yes - that's the definition of a DVR isn’t it? A machine that watches TV for you


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah yes - that's the definition of a DVR isn’t it? A machine that watches TV for you


Now *that *would be quite the technology advancement: a machine that would actually save you time by watching the programs for you and then, presumably, uploading the experience to your brain? Pure genius!

But my wife plans to finally retire next month (I only beat her by 22 years), so maybe we will find the time to catch up on our own eventually. Now if the movie industry would just halt new releases for a couple of years . . .


----------



## stikle

robert816 said:


> If you should decide to try again in the future, you can use the directions here to create an account, and yeah, with shipping the cost does rise.
> 
> Weird, for some reason I could not create a link, so here's the URL: http://cdn.halcyonrealms.com/japan/how-to-order-from-amazon-japan-a-detailed-buying-guide/



Thanks for the unrequested assistance Robert, very nice of you. I'll check that link and give it another try. 

Oh, and yes I use Chrome and it did the translation for me. I don't read Japanese. But I had to do it on every page, which got a little annoying. Stupid hobbies anyway.



Bassfeen said:


> I gave up on HT precisely because of this, new codecs, new demands for speakers, amplifiers and constant upgrade. BACK to 2 channel for me. Its a never ending game to keep up.



That's an unfortunate attitude to have. It's a hobby to me, and change is good. I'm not sure what you're talking about with "new demands for speakers" though. If you spend the money upfront and get speakers that you really like, then there's no need to change them...hardly ever. Like someone else mentioned, a good 5.1 system will just keep working for years.


----------



## Bassfeen

kbarnes701 said:


> I gave up on cars because of this. New models, new designs, new engine types, new electronics, satnav, ICE, onboard computers. It's a never ending game to keep up. Back to the horse and cart for me.
> 
> LOL. Just kiddin'... but you are missing out on a lot of good stuff. And you don't have to keep upgrading. It's not like something new comes out and it spoils what you already got. If you have an enjoyable system today, it will be an enjoyable system tomorrow, regardless of Atmos, DTS:X, HDCP 2.2, 4K and so on.



I guess for me its time and work, I go early morning and come back late evenings around 9pm. Weekends im spending time working and then just trying to sort out stuff in the home or with family just cant justify the cost im spending with the time i have with the systems. 

One reason why im selling of everything i got. My datasat just got sold last week. Now my LCR Quested system is up for sale. Im just going to stick to monitor speakers as my new place is much smaller too. I was planning to keep the quested system but the big ass speakers will not work in a 4 meter by 5 meter room.

Everything has to go, a dream broken into peices :-(


----------



## dormie1360

batpig said:


> You're not the only one. I own maybe 30-40 HD-DVD and BD titles total. I am often shocked at the reports of people with 1,000+ BDs. Obviously some folks here have the disposable income to not GAF but even at the bargain bins and $10 a pop that's $10k+ on media, several times more than I've spent on all of my hardware, and way more than most folks could dream of spending on their entire HT.
> 
> There are some movies I'd happily watch over again but there are no way that many require multiple viewings. Godspeed to those who have experienced enough success in life that they will just buy a movie for $15-20 when they could watch them for $2 a pop via Neflix/Redbox, but I do shake my head in wonder every time I read something like that.


Thread creep.

I have quite a few BD's. For me, it's a hobby collecting movies. And then there is the idea of putting all the money, time, effort, etc., in making my HT the best I can and then streaming something with less than optimum video, or listening to a disk missing HD audio tracks. I guess that might sound a little snobbish to some. (And dependent on your equipment). Disposable income is a factor, which I think is a legitimate reason for not buying a lot of BD disks. They really haven't come down in price, the MSRP on many is rediculous.


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm one of the people with 1000+, and I shake my head too sometimes. It's a sort of 'collector thing' I think and cannot be explained rationally, any more than people's collections of postage stamps or horse brasses or whatever can. I know a lot of people who buy books this way - they buy dozens of books a month, way more than they can possibly read. I am genuinely trying to wean myself off this, trying hard to only buy movies I can be fairly sure of watching multiple times and renting the rest. But it isn't working very well - I like to be able to go to my shelves each night and scan them and pick a movie to watch on impulse. Often this will be a movie I may have only watched once yet owned for years, so this makes me feel better  And I do like to go back and dip into the 'Extras' from time to time too (which I watch on a TV rather than via the PJ in the HT room). My main problem is shelf space. I am continually running out and my disc collection starts to invade more and more of the available space, which is not fair to Mrs Keith, although her angelic nature means she doesn't complain (much). That makes me feel even more guilty of course
> 
> But yeah, I totally understand your incomprehension


I'm in the same boat. 800 DVDs, 1000 Blu-rays, spent somewhere around $35,000 since 1999. I somehow rationalize it with being able to revisit a movie I like years later, which would be difficult with all the comings and goings of movies in online services (see Netflix). Also, the streaming quality sucks. I do have a bunch of rare ones, that were only available during a short window.

And, I went through the same thing years ago with VHS. Growing up in Germany in the 80's, it was still legal to make "personal backup" copies of rental tapes, leading to a 1000+ movie collection (including approx. 150 original tapes, which were way more expensive than DVD/Blu-rays now) with lots of odd stuff. When I moved to the US around the turn of the century, VHS was on the way out and I left the collection behind in my mother's attic. Years later, I went through it and recyled about 90% of the tapes, just keeping the ones that never made it to DVD or Blu, in hopes to digitze them at some point. And now I'm starting to go through the same thing again with discs, though I hope to hold on to those for much longer than VHS.


----------



## sdurani

Ralph's review of Gravity is up: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...dition-blu-ray-official-avs-forum-review.html 

(spoiler: Atmos track was worth the wait)


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> And you don't have to keep upgrading. It's not like something new comes out and it spoils what you already got..



Up until recently, I'd agree. But X-Men DOFP and Mockingjay BDs have changed that. Spoiled BD Player (BDP-83) and possibly AVR (Yamaha RX-V1800).


----------



## bsoko2

I figured that I have 384 BD movies in my collection. On the shelf this breaks down to, 24 movies per foot X 16 feet = 384 movies. Cost is average of $18 per movie X 384 = $6912. Bought over a period of 6 years.


----------



## Josh Z

maikeldepotter said:


> Why would a mixer use solely correlated sounds if they are intended to come from various directions? In such a case those rain shower sounds will be partly uncorrelated, or decorrelated, and for that part unaffected by the 'PLII center extractor'.


It was just a hypothetical example. I'm sure at some point he'll run into a sound sent to all four height channels that collapses to the center. I guess we'll have to wait for Scott to get his system up and running and tell us how often (or not often) this actually happens.


----------



## philmike21

kbarnes701 said:


> I spend a fortune feeding my Bluray addiction. I don't regret the price when I know I will watch a movie multiple times, but it is irksome to buy a movie, watch it and realise that, even if it was enjoyable, it is not likely to be watched more than once. I try to minimise occurrences of this by reading reviews etc, but they still creep through. I guess I could sell them on but I never seem to get around to that so they occupy precious shelf space for no real gain. Cinema tickets here, to the Atmos theater with the big screen and comfy chairs is about $20. I don't go very often (nothing to do with the price, more the inconvenience) but when I do I don't mind spending the money. It's nice to see a really huge screen and hear a really good sound system now and again, just to let us know we're on the right track at home.


 I have the bluray addiction also. I will buy a new bluray if I really want the movie. Usually I will buy a bunch of used blurays on half.com or used on amazon. Way cheaper going this route for real. Good way to go about it without spending a boat load of money and still getting a lot of blurays. I got over 200 blurays and probably about 250 bluray rips on my media center pc in my theater room.


----------



## coolgeek

batpig said:


> You're not the only one. I own maybe 30-40 HD-DVD and BD titles total. I am often shocked at the reports of people with 1,000+ BDs. Obviously some folks here have the disposable income to not GAF but even at the bargain bins and $10 a pop that's $10k+ on media, several times more than I've spent on all of my hardware, and way more than most folks could dream of spending on their entire HT.
> 
> There are some movies I'd happily watch over again but there are no way that many require multiple viewings. Godspeed to those who have experienced enough success in life that they will just buy a movie for $15-20 when they could watch them for $2 a pop via Neflix/Redbox, but I do shake my head in wonder every time I read something like that.


I have friends who collects movies.. you can say that it's their hobby/interest... some collect stamps, some comics, some movies... Back in the day, while I was in college, these friends collected the VHS copies, and when DVD came out, they bought the DVD version again, and then the same movie in Blu Ray.. I suppose then 4K is released, they'll buy those too.. 

BTW: I guarantee you if you have the ability to keep your Blu Rays in plastic wraps (after you watched em that is), and hand them over to your grand-children, and they then hand it down to their children/grandkids, your collection would become one of the best investments you can think of in your life.. (this is also true of any junk you keep for that many years).

For example, my grandfather's jar of half-cents (is now worth $10 each).. if you calculate the years and the growth of those 1/2 cent's value, it'll be far, far higher than putting your money in the bank, or buying Apple stocks even when it was cheap...


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> I can't remember the last time I bought a movie ticket; the only times we've gone to the cinema in the past few years has been when we've gotten free passes to advance screenings, and even then it's been something that I loathe to do--and I'm an ardent movie lover who in his salad days would think nothing of going to two or three different cinemas in a single day! The traffic, the crowds, the noise, the interminable and annoying advertising, not to mention the expense, just make it a less than enjoyable outing these days. It would be a different story if I hadn't assembled a more than decent HT setup and with access to more movies via Netflix and HBO/SHO than we could ever watch if we did nothing else all day. Right now I've got better than 100 HD movies on the HDD in my TiVo DVR alone that we would like to get around to viewing.
> 
> ...


I very much agree with you. I only go to the movies when I have a free pass and don't like it even when it's free. It seems like every time I go, there are more and more previews. I should remember to go 10 minutes after the movie is supposed to start. BTW, how do you fit 100 HD movies on your TiVo DVR? What size to they come with now?


----------



## coolgeek

Here's a question for the videophiles... (I believe there are many here)...

If you watched a 3D blu-ray disc, and then opt to watch it in 2D mode, does that mean you're only watching 1 half of the content (for one eye?).. which means you get inferior picture quality over buying a 2D only blu ray copy? Anyone know? Because, for instance Avatar in 2D and 3D are about the same in disk size... On the reverse of this question, if the 2D and 3D version of the same movie is about the same in size, does it mean watching it in 3D means you lose something in the picture quality because each eye gets an inferior picture? Does the question makes any sense?


----------



## kbarnes701

Bassfeen said:


> I guess for me its time and work, I go early morning and come back late evenings around 9pm. Weekends im spending time working and then just trying to sort out stuff in the home or with family just cant justify the cost im spending with the time i have with the systems.
> 
> One reason why im selling of everything i got. My datasat just got sold last week. Now my LCR Quested system is up for sale. Im just going to stick to monitor speakers as my new place is much smaller too. I was planning to keep the quested system but the big ass speakers will not work in a 4 meter by 5 meter room.
> 
> *Everything has to go, a dream broken into peices :-*(


----------



## edfowler

Hey, at least you have a job:relaxed:


----------



## Josh Z

coolgeek said:


> Here's a question for the videophiles... (I believe there are many here)...
> 
> If you watched a 3D blu-ray disc, and then opt to watch it in 2D mode, does that mean you're only watching 1 half of the content (for one eye?).. which means you get inferior picture quality over buying a 2D only blu ray copy? Anyone know? Because, for instance Avatar in 2D and 3D are about the same in disk size... On the reverse of this question, if the 2D and 3D version of the same movie is about the same in size, does it mean watching it in 3D means you lose something in the picture quality because each eye gets an inferior picture? Does the question makes any sense?


This question is better asked in the 3D Content forum, but the answer may depend on whether you're watching a movie that intentionally puts the 2D and 3D on the same disc, or one that puts them on separate discs and locks out 2D playback on the 3D disc.

In the case of the latter, there's no guarantee that the 2D and 3D video transfers will be the same. In some cases, the 3D transfer is brightened to compensate for wearing 3D glasses. In others, objects are repositioned to take advantage of 3D (like the fish that jump into the letterbox bars in Life of Pi - an effect that doesn't happen in the 2D version).

As far as disc space goes, the second eye view is not as large as the first eye view. There's a lot of redundant data in common between them. I believe that, in general, a 3D file is about 25% larger than a 2D file. Avatar is not a good comparison to make, because the original 2D disc was essentially a "Superbit" release with the bit rate cranked to maximum just for the sake of doing so, while the 3D disc uses normal bit rates.

You can't judge picture quality by bit rate numbers, anyway. That's just a statistic, meaningless on its own without context.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I very much agree with you. I only go to the movies when I have a free pass and don't like it even when it's free. It seems like every time I go, there are more and more previews. I should remember to go 10 minutes after the movie is supposed to start. BTW, *how do you fit 100 HD movies on your TiVo DVR? What size to they come with now?*


Those 100+ HD movies only take up 50% of the storage capacity of my TiVo Premiere Elite, which has a 2-terabyte (2000-gigabyte) drive and can store up to 300 hours of HD programming; it features four built-in tuners which operate off a single multi-stream CableCARD. The newer Roamio Pro has a 3TB drive and six tuners, and the recently announced over-the-top Mega will have--get ready for it--a mind-blowing total of 24TB of storage space via 10 user-swappable hard drives that will store up to 4,000 hours of HD recording. Binge-watching anyone?

*Tivo Mega*


----------



## coolgeek

Josh Z said:


> This question is better asked in the 3D Content forum, but the answer may depend on whether you're watching a movie that intentionally puts the 2D and 3D on the same disc, or one that puts them on separate discs and locks out 2D playback on the 3D disc.
> 
> In the case of the latter, there's no guarantee that the 2D and 3D video transfers will be the same. In some cases, the 3D transfer is brightened to compensate for wearing 3D glasses. In others, objects are repositioned to take advantage of 3D (like the fish that jump into the letterbox bars in Life of Pi - an effect that doesn't happen in the 2D version).
> 
> As far as disc space goes, the second eye view is not as large as the first eye view. There's a lot of redundant data in common between them. I believe that, in general, a 3D file is about 25% larger than a 2D file. Avatar is not a good comparison to make, because the original 2D disc was essentially a "Superbit" release with the bit rate cranked to maximum just for the sake of doing so, while the 3D disc uses normal bit rates.
> 
> You can't judge picture quality by bit rate numbers, anyway. That's just a statistic, meaningless on its own without context.


Thanks Josh, that was very helpful.

What about the former situation? One that puts the 2D and 3D in the same disc? I am assuming if you choose to watch it in 2D, you only get to watch say, the left channel? Which means you won't get the full quality as if a movie is just encoded in 2D by itself all on one disc? I mean, in terms of color saturations, bit rate, etc?


----------



## noah katz

chi_guy50 said:


> Suffice to say that, if in due course I find that Atmos-encoded movies are not available through Netflix with the full soundtrack, I will most probably be cancelling my subscription.


I checked their site for audio info of Transformers/Extinction and they only list DD 5.1, yet the one I rented from Redbox had Atmos.

Guess I'll be canceling too.


----------



## cfraser

Are your ears really at 3.9 feet (~*47"*)? That is supposedly the average/"standard" sitting ear height used in the Atmos docs, and I've been pondering that and what it means, both to the way things are mixed in Atmos and mainly as to where I should move/lower my surround speakers. They are kind of high, in exactly the place Dolby said to mount them in one iteration of their continually-changing positions for whatever "sound format" they were marketing at the time. Not a big deal to move them, what's a few dozen more holes in the wall at this point?? (I've already moved them a couple times before.)

I'm not a teensy tiny person, nor do I slouch when viewing/listening, in fact I like to sit completely upright. (Strange, considering I'm not exactly a poster boy for posture at other times...) My ears are at *37"* (when sitting, smart guy...), and that's the height I mount my Audyssey/REW microphones, so I know it like my name, I've measured enough. If 47" is typical, that must mean a bunch of you are much higher to make up for me being so low...is 47" realistic?


----------



## bsoko2

noah katz said:


> I checked their site for audio info of Transformers/Extinction and they only list DD 5.1, yet the one I rented from Redbox had Atmos.
> 
> Guess I'll be canceling too.


There are bare bones BD discs are produced just for the rental industry. These disc are cheaply made and mostly only contain DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1. So when buying used discs be careful that you are not buying a used rental disc.


----------



## NorthSky

Bassfeen said:


> I guess for me its time and work, I go early morning and come back late evenings around 9pm. Weekends im spending time working and then just trying to sort out stuff in the home or with family just cant justify the cost im spending with the time i have with the systems.
> One reason why im selling of everything i got. My datasat just got sold last week. Now my LCR Quested system is up for sale. Im just going to stick to monitor speakers as my new place is much smaller too. I was planning to keep the quested system but the big ass speakers will not work in a 4 meter by 5 meter room.
> Everything has to go, a dream broken into peices :-(


Do you have mountains and lakes, ocean near where you live? ...Stripjoints? ...Music ♫ halls? ...Dolby Atmos movie theaters? 
...Tuner (AM/FM r.a.d.i.o.)?


----------



## NorthSky

*Right on!*



> Ralph's review of Gravity is up:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...dition-blu-ray-official-avs-forum-review.html
> 
> (spoiler: Atmos track was worth the wait)


...And it's a great review too, with the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack scoring a perfect rank: *100*


----------



## Josh Z

coolgeek said:


> What about the former situation? One that puts the 2D and 3D in the same disc? I am assuming if you choose to watch it in 2D, you only get to watch say, the left channel? Which means you won't get the full quality as if a movie is just encoded in 2D by itself all on one disc? I mean, in terms of color saturations, bit rate, etc?


On a disc that has both 2D and 3D on the same disc (like Dredd or Resident Evil Afterlife), you are correct that when you watch in 2D you only get the primary eye view. However, it's a full 1080p picture with normal color quality. The bit rate may be on the low side to make room for the 3D's extra eye view, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Bit rate is just a measure of how much digital compression was applied. The actual number itself is less important than the type of content being compressed and how well the compression is performed. Unless you see specific artifacts in the picture, there's no point paying any attention to the bit rate numbers at all.


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> That is an excellent question, Noah. Unfortunately, I can not provide a definitive answer as there have not been any Atmos BRD releases to date that I have been interested in watching. However, I have yet to find a single one that is specifically listed on the Netflix web site as having the Atmos track; but then the audio specifics for newer releases are frequently erroneous since it seems that the data is entered based on whatever the distributor's system provides to Netflix. I have often received disks (e.g., Lionsgate releases) that were listed by Netflix with the lossy codec but which actually contained the lossless codec.
> 
> I have already spoken several times over the past several months with Netflix CSR's and technical support personnel about this issue, and they tell me that they can not access technical data regarding their inventory beyond what is published on the web site. I would like to think that someone somewhere in the bowels of the corporation has the ability to provide a definitive answer regarding which disks in their inventory, if any, have the Atmos soundtrack, but perhaps this kind of esoteric (to the _acognoscenti_) detail just hasn't yet risen to a level of sufficient interest to merit the trouble that tracking it would require.
> 
> Suffice to say that, if in due course I find that Atmos-encoded movies are not available through Netflix with the full soundtrack, I will most probably be cancelling my subscription.





noah katz said:


> I checked their site for audio info of Transformers/Extinction and they only list DD 5.1, yet the one I rented from Redbox had Atmos.
> 
> Guess I'll be canceling too.





bsoko2 said:


> There are bare bones BD discs are produced just for the rental industry. These disc are cheaply made and mostly only contain DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1. So when buying used discs be careful that you are not buying a used rental disc.




This has been discussed a few times. The Netflix Blu-ray version of Transformers 4 DOES include the Atmos track. I received it as well as some other members. Lionsgate has separate rental discs that don't include Atmos or Lossless tracks. So, if the film is a Lionsgate film, you have to purchase it to get the lossless & Atmos tracks. The other studios don't seem to be crippling their rental discs with the same limitations.


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> Here's a question for the videophiles... (I believe there are many here)...
> 
> If you watched a 3D blu-ray disc, and then opt to watch it in 2D mode, does that mean you're only watching 1 half of the content (for one eye?).. which means you get inferior picture quality over buying a 2D only blu ray copy? Anyone know? Because, for instance Avatar in 2D and 3D are about the same in disk size... On the reverse of this question, if the 2D and 3D version of the same movie is about the same in size, does it mean watching it in 3D means you lose something in the picture quality because each eye gets an inferior picture? Does the question makes any sense?


It's 3D, or it's 2D. ...In 99.99% majority (there is a trick for the remaining 0.001%, but I'll skip it as it won't effect anyone here). 

* In 2D you get full 1080p (from the 2D version; can't do that from 3D).
* In 3D you also get full 1080p (per each eye, with active 3D, and not with passive 3D). 

You lose nothing in 2D, and you lose very little on 3D passive. ...And you lose nothing with 3D active (shutter 3D glasses).

But with 4K we are losing 3D all together. 

Does the answer make any sense?


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> Why not? I know there are some factors--such as proximity to the distribution point--that affect transit times, but that should not have any bearing on the expedited shipping procedure unless it is only being implemented in select areas for beta-testing. Give Netflix a call and ask for an explanation: 1-866-579-7172.



I think it is beta testing that they are doing in certain markets. However, his info says he's in Alaska, so I highly doubt they are implementing it in his area. It doesn't hurt to call though.


----------



## htpcforever

I just measured myself - while sitting, my ear is 43 inches from the floor.


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> Off the top of my head, Close Encounters has both TrueHD and DTS MA 5.1. Top Gun has TrueHD 5.1 and DTS MA 6.1.
> 
> But yeah, kind of pointless to include both lossless compression formats.





Dave Vaughn said:


> Josh...those are the only two I can think of as well.





dfergie said:


> ZZ Top Live From Texas also has both ...


*ZZ Top - Live from Texas* ... has highly compressed (Lossy) _Doby Digital 5.1_ (not Dolby TrueHD).
...And it also has DTS-HD Master Audio (Lossless). 

* By the way, this Blu-ray sounds truly awful!  ...No kidding.


----------



## NorthSky

coolgeek said:


> Thanks Josh, that was very helpful.
> 
> What about the former situation? One that puts the 2D and 3D in the same disc? I am assuming if you choose to watch it in 2D, you only get to watch say, the left channel? Which means you won't get the full quality as if a movie is just encoded in 2D by itself all on one disc? I mean, in terms of color saturations, bit rate, etc?


In 2D both your eyes are watching the same 1080p picture.
In active 3D both your eyes are watching two different 1080p pictures (1920 x 1080).
In passive 3D both your eyes are watching two 540p pictures (1920 x 540). ...The brain "might" fill the missing gap, or not. ...Half vertical video res is missing.

I think.


----------



## cfraser

htpcforever said:


> I just measured myself - while sitting, my ear is 43 inches from the floor.


Thanks for checking. I just checked my ear height with my kitchen and dining room chairs and...my ears are at exactly 47", about what Dolby says is "standard". They don't _look_ that much higher than my couch/comfy chairs. So guess what I'm going to try tonight.


----------



## chi_guy50

noah katz said:


> I checked their site for audio info of Transformers/Extinction and they only list DD 5.1, yet the one I rented from Redbox had Atmos.
> 
> Guess I'll be canceling too.


As I've already pointed out a couple of times, you can not conclude anything from the audio codec listing for newer disks on the Netflix site. I believe I've watched at least two or three Lionsgate releases this year alone that contained the lossless codec even though the lossy version was listed for the BRD specs on the web page.



zeus33 said:


> This has been discussed a few times. The Netflix Blu-ray version of Transformers 4 DOES include the Atmos track. I received it as well as some other members. Lionsgate has separate rental discs that don't include Atmos or Lossless tracks. So, if the film is a Lionsgate film, you have to purchase it to get the lossless & Atmos tracks. The other studios don't seem to be crippling their rental discs with the same limitations.


That's good news and tracks with my (limited) experiences to date. Kudos to Netflix for providing (mostly) the non-crippled BRD's for their customers!


----------



## smurraybhm

Lionsgate is not the only studio who provides only DD 5.1 on their rental discs. Choose carefully when renting or using Netflix.


----------



## chi_guy50

smurraybhm said:


> Lionsgate is not the only studio who provides only DD 5.1 on their rental discs. Choose carefully when renting or using Netflix.


Again, that caveat does NOT seem to apply to Netflix. So far I have only experienced or heard of the inverse situation--where the lossy audio track was listed on their web site but the BRD contained the lossless/Atmos version. 

Can anyone cite a specific instance of receiving a BRD title from Netflix that did not measure up to the published specs? I would be keenly interested to hear specifics.


----------



## chi_guy50

cfraser said:


> Are your ears really at 3.9 feet (~*47"*)? ...is 47" realistic?


Gee, I dunno . . . Let's ask Keith Barnes:


----------



## smurraybhm

chi_guy50 said:


> Again, that caveat does NOT seem to apply to Netflix. So far I have only experienced or heard of the inverse situation--where the lossy audio track was listed on their web site but the BRD contained the lossless/Atmos version.
> 
> Can anyone cite a specific instance of receiving a BRD title from Netflix that did not measure up to the published specs? I would be keenly interested to hear specifics.


I don't want to link to forum outside AVS, but Steve Hoffman's forum seems to have a fairly active discussion on rental/Netflix titles and DD 5.1 - look under visual arts I believe.


----------



## zebidou81

kbarnes701 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> while playing around with my set Audyssey levels with regards to output for front height and top middle speakers in a 5.2.4 setup i find that i like the sound of the height speakers set higher than Audyssey sets them to, i think they are set to -4 or -5 by Audyssey but listening to them set to 0db i like the added sound, does anybody else run there height channels hot ? and if so what do you feel it adds to the Atmos effect and by what difference from Audyssey or eq settings do you change them from ?
> 
> 
> 
> Just for giggles I too tried raising the level of the overheads by a few dB. There is no doubt an obvious and immediate increase in 'awareness' of the sound coming from overhead and, at first, it is quite seductive, especially as it is novel to have sound 'up there'. But after a short experiment, I put them back to where they had been. The idea of the overheads (and all the other speakers too) is not to continuously draw attention to themselves but to seamlessly integrate into an immersive 'bubble' of sound and when some speakers are set too high, in relation to others, this bubble is disturbed.
Click to expand...

Yes i agree, i was playing around with my setup and i did like the added sound with running the height speakers hot it sounded well with certain sky content, i then tried to watch a film on amazon prime and the sound coming from above was just to much. I have reran Audyssey today after deciding to stick with FH+TM and also with a new tripod (old one a leg snapped) and i managed to get a very good run with front speakers down to 80hz from 110hz and center and surrounds at 40-60hz, the atmos .4 speakers crossover set at 120hz which seems about right ? I am happy with new Audyssey run and levels of speakers so i shall leave it as set and trust in Audyssey to be correct it sounds very well now, 1 funny thing is i have never managed to get my fronts to 80hz i wonder if the new tripod played a part plus i took more care to make sure it was ear level.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Why would a mixer use solely correlated sounds if they are intended to come from various directions? In such a case those rain shower sounds will be partly uncorrelated, or decorrelated, and for that part unaffected by the 'PLII center extractor'.


If the source has more than one channel, then they might be uncorrelated. Even then those sounds may be spread to more speakers, and in that case, the mixer can flag it as "diffuse" to tell the playback system to apply some decorrelation -- and it can actually do that. It should all work nicely if all the "ifs" are in alignment.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> If the source has more than one channel, then they might be uncorrelated. Even then those sounds may be spread to more speakers, and in that case, the mixer can flag it as "diffuse" to tell the playback system to apply some decorrelation -- and it can actually do that. It should all work nicely if all the "ifs" are in alignment.


Sweet.


----------



## kbarnes701

cfraser said:


> Are your ears really at 3.9 feet (~*47"*)? That is supposedly the average/"standard" sitting ear height used in the Atmos docs, and I've been pondering that and what it means, both to the way things are mixed in Atmos and mainly as to where I should move/lower my surround speakers. They are kind of high, in exactly the place Dolby said to mount them in one iteration of their continually-changing positions for whatever "sound format" they were marketing at the time. Not a big deal to move them, what's a few dozen more holes in the wall at this point?? (I've already moved them a couple times before.)
> 
> I'm not a teensy tiny person, nor do I slouch when viewing/listening, in fact I like to sit completely upright. (Strange, considering I'm not exactly a poster boy for posture at other times...) My ears are at *37"* (when sitting, smart guy...), and that's the height I mount my Audyssey/REW microphones, so I know it like my name, I've measured enough. If 47" is typical, that must mean a bunch of you are much higher to make up for me being so low...is 47" realistic?


I agree with you. My ears are 36 inches when seated. A human being's height is mostly determined by the length of his femur - we are all much more similar than different when we are sitting down. So I'd be staggered at who was so long in the body that his ears were 47 inches off the floor when seated. Of course, if you normally watch while seated on a bar stool, things might measure differently


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Gee, I dunno . . . Let's ask Keith Barnes:


Depends - if you measure to the lobe of my right ear, it's 36 inches. If you measure to the top of the ear, it's 49.


----------



## nucky

My ears are 38 inches when seated.


----------



## kbarnes701

nucky said:


> My ears are 38 inches when seated.


 This is so weird - a discussion about ear height when seated! I wonder if there's a dedicated thread for it? *"What is your seated ear height?"*.


----------



## Roger Dressler

cfraser said:


> Are your ears really at 3.9 feet (~*47"*)? That is supposedly the average/"standard" sitting ear height used in the Atmos docs, and I've been pondering that and what it means, both to the way things are mixed in Atmos and mainly as to where I should move/lower my surround speakers.


The 1.2m figure comes from REC BS.775 (not BS.1116 as stated in Dolby's paper). BS.1116 is fastidious about the ears being the same height as all the speakers, as it is concerned with critical sound evaluation and achieving repeatable results in multiple labs. 

OTOH, BS.775 is about defining a standard 5.1 speaker setup to promote uniformity in how content is created and presented. Even though BS.775 states a height figure, it is less stringent on how precisely the ears and speakers have to match in alignment: 


> the acoustic centre of frontal loudspeakers should ideally be at a height approximately equal to that of the listener’s ears. This implies an acoustically transparent screen. Where a non-acoustically transparent screen is used, the centre loudspeaker should be placed immediately above or below the picture. The height of side/rear loudspeakers is less critical;


 Elsewhere the doc states the surrounds can be elevated up to 15 degrees. 

In other words, do not worry about the absolute height of your ears. Just use that as the reference for the speaker elevations.


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> You're not the only one. I own maybe 30-40 HD-DVD and BD titles total. I am often shocked at the reports of people with 1,000+ BDs. Obviously some folks here have the disposable income to not GAF but even at the bargain bins and $10 a pop that's $10k+ on media, several times more than I've spent on all of my hardware, and way more than most folks could dream of spending on their entire HT.
> 
> There are some movies I'd happily watch over again but there are no way that many require multiple viewings. Godspeed to those who have experienced enough success in life that they will just buy a movie for $15-20 when they could watch them for $2 a pop via Neflix/Redbox, but I do shake my head in wonder every time I read something like that.



Hmmm, to each there own of course, but I feel that the flipside is this, I am not about to spend 2 or more hours watching compressed video and or audio streams that do not have the desired sound track, my time is too valuable for that. For me it is all about the 'movie experience', I didn't dedicate a part of my house and invest thousands of dollars to watch a poor quality presentation, I want the best possible audio and video or I might as well watch it on my phone or table like most of the kids out there.  Haven't there been dozens of posts in the Atmos thread complaining about short comings of the Netflix and Redbox when it comes to this, I really believe that the old saying might hold some truth on this one, "you get what you pay for". 


Having said the forgoing, yes I feel fortunate to indulge in the occasional movie purchase, this is my hobby, I don't gamble or smoke, but do possibly consume a bit too much wine, but that is the journey I have chosen. Batpig, your choices are fine as well, just not for everybody, if you get complete satisfaction out of your method then I say 'good on you' no need to change things.

I don't know what the costs have averaged out to with my collection, but I suspect less then $10 a copy, I have about 500 movies gathered over the last 15 years or so.


----------



## Al Sherwood

smurraybhm said:


> Lionsgate is not the only studio who provides only DD 5.1 on their rental discs. Choose carefully when renting or using Netflix.





chi_guy50 said:


> Again, that caveat does NOT seem to apply to Netflix. So far I have only experienced or heard of the inverse situation--where the lossy audio track was listed on their web site but the BRD contained the lossless/Atmos version.
> 
> Can anyone cite a specific instance of receiving a BRD title from Netflix that did not measure up to the published specs? I would be keenly interested to hear specifics.



Rentals, either electronic or hardcopy... *Caveat Emptor! *


----------



## sdrucker

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmm, to each there own of course, but I feel that the flipside is this, I am not about to spend 2 or more hours watching compressed video and or audio streams that do not have the desired sound track, my time is too valuable for that. For me it is all about the 'movie experience', I didn't dedicate a part of my house and invest thousands of dollars to watch a poor quality presentation, I want the best possible audio and video or I might as well watch it on my phone or table like most of the kids out there.  Haven't there been dozens of posts in the Atmos thread complaining about short comings of the Netflix and Redbox when it comes to this, I really believe that the old saying might hold some truth on this one, "you get what you pay for".
> 
> Having said the forgoing, yes I feel fortunate to indulge in the occasional movie purchase, this is my hobby, I don't gamble or smoke, but do possibly consume a bit too much wine, but that is the journey I have chosen. Batpig, your choices are fine as well, just not for everybody, if you get complete satisfaction out of your method then I say 'good on you' no need to change things.
> 
> I don't know what the costs have averaged out to with my collection, but I suspect less then $10 a copy, I have about 500 movies gathered over the last 15 years or so.


 I'm somewhere in the middle on all of this. My own collection is maybe 150 or so BDs and another 400 to 500 DVDs, of which a good 30% of the latter are foreign. Across the board, perhaps 20% or so of my shiny discs are live concerts. So not quite at the utilitarian Batpig level, but a far cry from the 1000s of discs that a Keith might have to enjoy in his Hobbit room. I'm going to be working for a long time to come, so I won't have his kind of leisure time LOL...

For me, part of the fun of watching content is being able to watch it again and again, moving to specific scenes I like (I can't tell you how many times I've watched Godfather II), but I want uncompressed audio and video to make the most use of my HT. And more than that, there are some movies where the deleted scenes and extras are at least at much fun as the actual movie. Think "Get Him to the Greek", the Star Wars trilogy, "Almost Famous", and the great documentary on the making of Mockingjay Part I. You'd lose a lot of that with just Netflix rentals. To me, renting is browsing through a book at an old Barnes and Noble, vs. owning the book.

We're also going through a cocooning phase, having a toddler (and from all signs, a budding AVSer as he's my viewing buddy and handy with an Oppo control) at home to go with a teenager, so if anything the content is going to ramp up rather than down in the next couple of years when we're home with him. I'm also moving toward building a dedicated HT room after we move from a urban condo to probably a urban townhome later this year. In the cart pushing the horse category: a lot of this is being driven by me taking the 3D object audio revolution seriously enough to spring for a 24-channel Altitude (which is inbound as soon as Trinnov tells me it's ready), and having the flexibility to have our decision where to live partially revolve around the kind of HT room I plan to have. 

Hey, it's more my idea of fun than driving a motorcycle, buying a fancy luxury car, or gambling , and my own wife appreciates the idea of immersive sound after going to a few theatrical releases with Atmos (it didn't hurt that her first Atmos movie was X-Men, which she's a big fan). And I'm really, really jonesing for Gravity now on BD thanks to the Ralph Potts review....


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm one of the people with 1000+, and I shake my head too sometimes. It's a sort of 'collector thing' I think and cannot be explained rationally, any more than people's collections of postage stamps or horse brasses or whatever can. I know a lot of people who buy books this way - they buy dozens of books a month, way more than they can possibly read. I am genuinely trying to wean myself off this, trying hard to only buy movies I can be fairly sure of watching multiple times and renting the rest. But it isn't working very well - I like to be able to go to my shelves each night and scan them and pick a movie to watch on impulse. Often this will be a movie I may have only watched once yet owned for years, so this makes me feel better  And I do like to go back and dip into the 'Extras' from time to time too (which I watch on a TV rather than via the PJ in the HT room). My main problem is shelf space. I am continually running out and my disc collection starts to invade more and more of the available space, which is not fair to Mrs Keith, although her angelic nature means she doesn't complain (much). That makes me feel even more guilty of course
> 
> But yeah, I totally understand your incomprehension


I too tend to collect Blu-Rays but have justified it by knowing that a night out to the cinema for the family can cost as much as three Blu-Rays getting the tickets a little popcorn gas for the car..... I do a lot by previewing a movie on XBMC as I can see if it worth it. So yes when I look a all the movies I have purchased it does blow my mind realizing the amount of money spent.. we all have our passions.
I have a big selection of DVDs, Blu-Rays, 3D Blu-Rays, now Atmos Blu-Rays no regrets we all spend our money drink, metals out, entertainment, travel..... I have a little home theater that I enjoy.


----------



## sdrucker

bargervais said:


> I too tend to collect Blu-Rays but have justified it by knowing that a night out to the cinema from the family can cost as much as three Blu-Rays getting the tickets a little popcorn gas for the car..... I do a lot by previewing a movie on XBMC as I can see if it worth it. So yes when I look a all the movies I have purchased it does blow my mind realizing the amount of money spent.. we all have our passions.
> I have a big selection of DVDs, Blu-Rays, 3D Blu-Rays, now Atmos Blu-Rays no regrets we all spend our money drink, metals out, entertainment, travel..... I have a little home theater that I enjoy.


 
I look at going to a theater and watching a BD or DVD at home as two different experiences. Maybe having kids has something to do with that LOL...


A theater is somewhere where you're seeing something first run in a larger than human scale setting (by definition), and it's an event that's a break from your regular routine to get you out of the house. The sound quality of the theater doesn't really play a role as much as the convenience of experience the content. There's also the social aspect - what you do or where you're going before and after going to the theater. And you're there to see it uninterrupted, generally speaking.


OTOH, seeing the same title at home is completely different - you can tailor the volume, surround mix, and for some of us, even the target curve for what we're experiencing on the fly to match our tastes. You can be as comfortable or as casual as you'd like. You can stop, pause, fast forward/rewind as you can't in real time at a theater. And most of all you can enjoy the content at will. The social aspect is far more muted IMO unless it's around a specific reason for sitting there (i.e. everyone's asleep so you can watch Nymphomania LOL).


----------



## audioguy

My ears are at ~42 inches. I'm 6'1" tall.


----------



## NorthSky

> I don't want to link to forum outside AVS, but Steve Hoffman's forum seems to have a fairly active discussion on rental/Netflix titles and DD 5.1 - look under visual arts I believe.


Great forum, nice people. ...Not as nice as here though.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmm, to each there own of course, but I feel that the flipside is this, I am not about to spend 2 or more hours watching compressed video and or audio streams that do not have the desired sound track, my time is too valuable for that. For me it is all about the 'movie experience', I didn't dedicate a part of my house and invest thousands of dollars to watch a poor quality presentation, I want the best possible audio and video or I might as well watch it on my phone or table like most of the kids out there.  Haven't there been dozens of posts in the Atmos thread complaining about short comings of the Netflix and Redbox when it comes to this, I really believe that the old saying might hold some truth on this one, "you get what you pay for".
> 
> 
> Having said the forgoing, yes I feel fortunate to indulge in the occasional movie purchase, this is my hobby, I don't gamble or smoke, but do possibly consume a bit too much wine, but that is the journey I have chosen. Batpig, your choices are fine as well, just not for everybody, if you get complete satisfaction out of your method then I say 'good on you' no need to change things.
> 
> I don't know what the costs have averaged out to with my collection, but I suspect less then $10 a copy, I have about 500 movies gathered over the last 15 years or so.


This is interesting Al; some people have a dedicated home theater room with a 200" screen (more or less), comfy chairs, two or three rows of seats, with a total combined cost of about $50,000 to $500,000 (gear, room, acoustics, decor).
And on the other hand some people have a frugal one ($5,000-10,000). With a 60-90" screen.
Then you have other movie enthusiasts with a PC setup dignified of high pedigree, with a 40" hi-res display and a full 5.1 setup.

Sure, some people watch Netflix on their touchpads. ...10" screen.

And you have some above ($1 million+) and others below ($500 total or so, HTIB plus a free TV from the flee market).
...And all in between.

Some people watch Blu-rays exclusively, others mainly Netflix and others streaming movies apps, and I know few who watch mainly VHS tapes and the odd DVD. ...Classes they come from all factions and directions. 

Is there a class that is more important than another for the true Dolby Atmos experience? ...Yes there is, the one with a Dolby Atmos receiver and Dolby Atmos flicks. And I sure hope to join that great class soon myself. I envy all the first time adopters; they pave the way for all the rest of us. 
We should never ignore that. 

And now with 'Gravity', even more so. ...And I want it real bad. ...John Wick too.

* My ears: 33" from the floor (I'm over 6' tall with my shoes on, and just over 180).
My BR collection: Irrelative.
No Dolby Atmos SSP yet. 
My net income and my true passion in life: guess.


----------



## bargervais

Dolby Atmos Horizon trailer. Very cool


----------



## SteveTheGeek

It's a nice one bagervais, just wishing we'll be able to get it downloadable in Atmos !

By the way, I'm I the only one a bit worried about what will happen after Gravity is out? I'm hoping for American Sniper being confirmed with Atmos, but right now there is no title at all after Gravity (other than titles outside of North America)...

Does this mean we'll wait until May/June to get a new title ? :|


----------



## SoundChex

Roger Dressler said:


> The 1.2m figure comes from REC BS.775 (not BS.1116 as stated in Dolby's paper). BS.1116 is fastidious about the ears being the same height as all the speakers, as it is concerned with critical sound evaluation and achieving repeatable results in multiple labs.
> 
> OTOH, BS.775 is about defining a standard 5.1 speaker setup to promote uniformity in how content is created and presented. Even though BS.775 states a height figure, it is less stringent on how precisely the ears and speakers have to match in alignment:
> Elsewhere the doc states the surrounds can be elevated up to 15 degrees.
> 
> In other words, do not worry about the absolute height of your ears. Just use that as the reference for the speaker elevations.




From *IEC 62574 Ed. 1.0 b:2011 Audio, video and multimedia systems - General channel assignment of multichannel audio*...



> _*2 Terms and definitions
> 2.2 middle layer*
> middle layer of three loudspeaker-layers located at the vertical center of the TV screen, alternatively at the same height as the height of viewer's ear_




This avoids many common problems:



Replacement spouse has different ear height than original.


Children grow in spite of contrary parental dicta.


Untreated bi-lateral ear height asymmetry.


Only living|dead occupant of home theater is Schrodinger's cat.


_


----------



## Roudan

Hi 

I am very interested in Atmos now. But I do have few questions before buying the atmos receiver to join this club.

1. I am concerned if Dolby Atmos receiver will be outdated once DTS UHD receiver is released soon. so do I need to wait to buy the receiver until DTS UHD receiver is released?

The reason I asked this question is: 90% of Blu-ray 2D or 3D I am having have DTS HD Master 7.1 but only Dolby Digital 5.1. It seems to me that DTS has more engagement in higher quality audio in blu-ray disc


2. what is difference between Atmos Ready and Atmos Built-in?

3. Can I use height speaker pointing to seating area to be atmos speaker?

4. Does 4 ceiling speakers created much better atmos performance than 2 ceiling speakers. I am debating if I go with 7.2 or 9.2 receiver?

Thank you so much for your help.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Roudan said:


> 1. I am concerned if Dolby Atmos receiver will be outdated once DTS UHD receiver is released soon. so do I need to wait to buy the receiver until DTS UHD receiver is released?


Only if you are going to want the DTS:X option. Many of us, as in this writer, have opted to get the feet wet with Atmos just to see what new dimension in sound would be provided. To me, it's a "nice to have" but not a vital addition in the way that going from Pro Logic to 5.1 discrete was. That was huge. Or going from DVD to Blu-ray with HD video. Be advised, I am in a minority around here. 

DTS:X will allegedly open access to further titles, but that may take a while to materialize. And even when they do, they will probably sound much the same as Atmos titles -- as opposed to being a different experience.



> The reason I asked this question is: 90% of Blu-ray 2D or 3D I am having have DTS HD Master 7.1 but only Dolby Digital 5.1. It seems to me that DTS has more engagement in higher quality audio in blu-ray disc


If you search for some posts by FilmMixer in the last couple of weeks, you will see that the shift to object audio will change all the realities that led to DTS' strong position on Blu-ray to date. That's not to say that history cannot repeat itself, but it is certainly not assured. And since all Atmos tracks on Blu-ray are built on lossless 7.1, there's no quality advantage for DTS:X. 



> 2. what is difference between Atmos Ready and Atmos Built-in?


Whether the Atmos firmware is installed in the field after purchase or in the factory.



> 3. Can I use height speaker pointing to seating area to be atmos speaker?


That's exactly what I did with 4 speakers. If you are talking about just one speaker, you'd need to add at least 1 more, in the correct positions.



> 4. Does 4 ceiling speakers created much better atmos performance than 2 ceiling speakers. I am debating if I go with 7.2 or 9.2 receiver?


I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> It's a nice one bagervais, just wishing we'll be able to get it downloadable in Atmos !
> 
> By the way, I'm I the only one a bit worried about what will happen after Gravity is out? I'm hoping for American Sniper being confirmed with Atmos, but right now there is no title at all after Gravity (other than titles outside of North America)...
> 
> Does this mean we'll wait until May/June to get a new title ? :|


Your not the only one, but I'm hoping American Snipper has Atmos and Insurgent. I'm not one to shop overseas.


----------



## Roudan

Roger Dressler said:


> Only if you are going to want the DTS:X option. Many of us, as in this writer, have opted to get the feet wet with Atmos just to see what new dimension in sound would be provided. To me, it's a "nice to have" but not a vital addition in the way that going from Pro Logic to 5.1 discrete was. That was huge. Or going from DVD to Blu-ray with HD video. Be advised, I am in a minority around here.
> 
> DTS:X will allegedly open access to further titles, but that may take a while to materialize. And even when they do, they will probably sound much the same as Atmos titles -- as opposed to being a different experience.
> 
> If you search for some posts by FilmMixer in the last couple of weeks, you will see that the shift to object audio will change all the realities that led to DTS' strong position on Blu-ray to date. That's not to say that history cannot repeat itself, but it is certainly not assured. And since all Atmos tracks on Blu-ray are built on lossless 7.1, there's no quality advantage for DTS:X.
> 
> Whether the Atmos firmware is installed in the field after purchase or in the factory.
> 
> That's exactly what I did with 4 speakers. If you are talking about just one speaker, you'd need to add at least 1 more, in the correct positions.
> 
> I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.


Thank you so much Roger. Now I am ready to buy the receiver. But I do have few more questions. SOrry

1. I have three options with increasing price

a. Onkyo 636 7.2
b. Denon X4100 7.2
c. Marantz SR7009 9.2

Does it worth to pay much more going from Onkyo 7.2 to Marantz 9.2 ? Or stay with medium price of Denon? What do you think? Is 9.2 channel much better than 7.2 for atmos?

2. For 9.2 Marantz 7009, how many ceiling or height speakers does it have?

Or do you have other recommendation? 

3. Now I am wondering if I use this Marantz, does it damage my speakers?

For Marantz 7009, the power is 6 ohms, 1ch Drive 200w, 6 ohms 2ch Drive 165 w, 8 ohms 2ch Drive 125w. 

For my speakers, the front Paradigm monitor 9 has 8 ohms suitable amplifier power range of 15-200 w but with maximum input power of 125w. The back surround speaker has only 125 w.

Thanks I appreciate your help.


----------



## audioguy

I personally would never consider the Onkyo as the room correction in the Marantz and Denon (Audyssey X32) is far superior.


----------



## bargervais

Roger Dressler said:


> I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.


I totally agree Roger. In my den a very small room I'm running 5.1.2 and it is very immersive in my living room I'm running 7.1.4 and it's also very immersive... if I watch John Wick in the den with only two overhead speakers I don't miss any of what I hear overhead compared to the four overhead speakers in the living room.


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> I personally would never consider the Onkyo as the room correction in the Marantz and Denon (Audyssey X32) is far superior.


Not everyone lives and dies by their auto room correction.


----------



## Roudan

What about my speakers? Is it ok to go with Marantz?

And if I play non-atmos blu-ray movie, does ceiling speakers have sound?


----------



## philmike21

audioguy said:


> I personally would never consider the Onkyo as the room correction in the Marantz and Denon (Audyssey X32) is far superior.


 Im a big fan boy of Onkyo, but not anymore. Not having XT32 is a big deal breaker for me now. Either Marantz or Yamaha Adventage now, maybe Denon maybe.


----------



## philmike21

bargervais said:


> I totally agree Roger. In my den a very small room I'm running 5.1.2 and it is very immersive in my living room I'm running 7.1.4 and it's also very immersive... if I watch John Wick in the den with only two overhead speakers I don't miss any of what I hear overhead compared to the four overhead speakers in the living room.


 Speaker placement is definitely going to be important with Atmos and DTS X.


----------



## bargervais

Watching the movie The Tall Man (a 2012 release) in DSU very nice sound


----------



## Roudan

Roudan said:


> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are going to want the DTS:X option. Many of us, as in this writer, have opted to get the feet wet with Atmos just to see what new dimension in sound would be provided. To me, it's a "nice to have" but not a vital addition in the way that going from Pro Logic to 5.1 discrete was. That was huge. Or going from DVD to Blu-ray with HD video. Be advised, I am in a minority around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X will allegedly open access to further titles, but that may take a while to materialize. And even when they do, they will probably sound much the same as Atmos titles -- as opposed to being a different experience.
> 
> If you search for some posts by FilmMixer in the last couple of weeks, you will see that the shift to object audio will change all the realities that led to DTS' strong position on Blu-ray to date. That's not to say that history cannot repeat itself, but it is certainly not assured. And since all Atmos tracks on Blu-ray are built on lossless 7.1, there's no quality advantage for DTS:X.
> 
> Whether the Atmos firmware is installed in the field after purchase or in the factory.
> 
> That's exactly what I did with 4 speakers. If you are talking about just one speaker, you'd need to add at least 1 more, in the correct positions.
> 
> I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much Roger. Now I am ready to buy the receiver. But I do have few more questions. SOrry
> 
> 1. I have three options with increasing price
> 
> a. Onkyo 636 7.2
> b. Denon X4100 7.2
> c. Marantz SR7009 9.2
> 
> Does it worth to pay much more going from Onkyo 7.2 to Marantz 9.2 ? Or stay with medium price of Denon? What do you think? Is 9.2 channel much better than 7.2 for atmos?
> 
> 2. For 9.2 Marantz 7009, how many ceiling or height speakers does it have?
> 
> Or do you have other recommendation?
> 
> 3. Now I am wondering if I use this Marantz, does it damage my speakers?
> 
> For Marantz 7009, the power is 6 ohms, 1ch Drive 200w, 6 ohms 2ch Drive 165 w, 8 ohms 2ch Drive 125w.
> 
> For my speakers, the front Paradigm monitor 9 has 8 ohms suitable amplifier power range of 15-200 w but with maximum input power of 125w. The back surround speaker has only 125 w.
> 
> Thanks I appreciate your help.
Click to expand...

Hi

Can anyone help me with my 3rd question about speaker waltz vs receiver waltz ? I have no idea about that. Thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

philmike21 said:


> Speaker placement is definitely going to be important with Atmos and DTS X.


It wasn't before?


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> What about my speakers? Is it ok to go with Marantz?
> 
> And if I play non-atmos blu-ray movie, does ceiling speakers have sound?



Marantz 7009 is nice, Denon 5200 is also nice. ...Both nice for your Paradigm model speakers, all around.
Both are good match for your speakers, and both can do 4 overhead speakers (7.1.4) or you can also do 9.1.2 
Two great receivers for your speakers; they'll be happy, you too, and nobody gets hurt, including your speakers.

Yes, DSU will play the ceiling speakers, so 100% all the time with all Blu-rays. ...And other mediums too, plus streaming, plus plus plus.

*But! Wait next month, April, @ the end @ the latest; to see about DTS:X , because you want it too.*


----------



## RapalloAV

kbarnes701 said:


> This is so weird - a discussion about ear height when seated! I wonder if there's a dedicated thread for it? *"What is your seated ear height?"*.


Keith please be serious, these things are very important for us addicted mic fanatics!


----------



## RapalloAV

audioguy said:


> My ears are at ~42 inches. I'm 6'1" tall.




Im worried now and will never sleep, everyone seems to have different ear heights here. I'll never get my EQ right for everyone, unless I change the mic height 1/2" for each seat


----------



## philmike21

Scott Simonian said:


> It wasn't before?


 Every room is different meaning people will have different placement for speakers than the suggested placing of the codecs.


----------



## NorthSky

All for one room and one room for all.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I too tend to collect Blu-Rays but have justified it by knowing that a night out to the cinema from the family can cost as much as three Blu-Rays getting the tickets a little popcorn gas for the car.....


I look at it that way too. One ticket to the cinema costs the same as the Bluray. And I can watch the Bluray multiple times. Or sell it on - you can't go to the cinema, see a movie that disappointed you and get most of the ticket price back! And as Stuart says above, you usually get some interesting extras too with the Bluray.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roudan said:


> Thank you so much Roger. Now I am ready to buy the receiver. But I do have few more questions. SOrry
> 
> 1. I have three options with increasing price
> 
> a. Onkyo 636 7.2
> b. Denon X4100 7.2
> c. Marantz SR7009 9.2
> 
> Does it worth to pay much more going from Onkyo 7.2 to Marantz 9.2 ? Or stay with medium price of Denon? What do you think? Is 9.2 channel much better than 7.2 for atmos?
> 
> 2. For 9.2 Marantz 7009, how many ceiling or height speakers does it have?
> 
> Or do you have other recommendation?
> 
> 3. Now I am wondering if I use this Marantz, does it damage my speakers?
> 
> For Marantz 7009, the power is 6 ohms, 1ch Drive 200w, 6 ohms 2ch Drive 165 w, 8 ohms 2ch Drive 125w.
> 
> For my speakers, the front Paradigm monitor 9 has 8 ohms suitable amplifier power range of 15-200 w but with maximum input power of 125w. The back surround speaker has only 125 w.
> 
> Thanks I appreciate your help.


Denon and Marantz units have Audyssey XT32, which is a significantly superior room correction technology to Onkyo's AccuEQ. I was a big Onkyo fan until they dropped XT32 in favor of AccuEQ and since moved to Denon, for that reason alone. I am very happy with my Denon X5200W. In Europe, the equivalent Marantz SR7009 is much cheaper now than the Denon, so if I was buying tomorrow I would go for the Marantz.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Not everyone lives and dies by their auto room correction.


True- but if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roudan said:


> What about my speakers? Is it ok to go with Marantz?
> 
> And if I play non-atmos blu-ray movie, does ceiling speakers have sound?


Oh yes. Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) is fabulous with movies. Many of us would say that even if there were no Atmos Blurays released at all, we would still be happy with our Atmos AVRs just because of DSU!


----------



## kbarnes701

RapalloAV said:


> Keith please be serious, these things are very important for us addicted mic fanatics!


True! I have slapped my wrist on everyone's behalf


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm one of the people with 1000+, and I shake my head too sometimes. It's a sort of 'collector thing' I think and cannot be explained rationally, any more than people's collections of postage stamps or horse brasses or whatever can. I know a lot of people who buy books this way - they buy dozens of books a month, way more than they can possibly read. I am genuinely trying to wean myself off this, trying hard to only buy movies I can be fairly sure of watching multiple times and renting the rest. But it isn't working very well - I like to be able to go to my shelves each night and scan them and pick a movie to watch on impulse. Often this will be a movie I may have only watched once yet owned for years, so this makes me feel better  And I do like to go back and dip into the 'Extras' from time to time too (which I watch on a TV rather than via the PJ in the HT room). My main problem is shelf space. I am continually running out and my disc collection starts to invade more and more of the available space, which is not fair to Mrs Keith, although her angelic nature means she doesn't complain (much). That makes me feel even more guilty of course
> 
> But yeah, I totally understand your incomprehension


 

DITTO to what you said. It is a "collector" thing.
I use Invelos Dvdprofiler software to catalog my collection on my PC and this software allows me to export the data to other programs.
I lend alot of my movies to friends and neighbors - like the local library


http://www.raysdvds.org


Ray


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> The 1.2m figure comes from REC BS.775 (not BS.1116 as stated in Dolby's paper). BS.1116 is fastidious about the ears being the same height as all the speakers, as it is concerned with critical sound evaluation and achieving repeatable results in multiple labs.
> 
> OTOH, BS.775 is about defining a standard 5.1 speaker setup to promote uniformity in how content is created and presented. Even though BS.775 states a height figure, it is less stringent on how precisely the ears and speakers have to match in alignment:
> Elsewhere the doc states the surrounds can be elevated up to 15 degrees.
> 
> In other words, do not worry about the absolute height of your ears. Just use that as the reference for the speaker elevations.


That is how I came up with a 3-4-5 rule for my room, which has a speaker-MLP distance of around 7.5 feet:

3 feet high = ears
4 feet high = LCR (= vertical center of screen) -> about 7.5 degrees elevation
5 feet high = surrounds -> about 15 degrees elevation

In my book, all within Dolby Atmos specs/guidelines for base level speaker lay-out.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> DITTO to what you said. It is a "collector" thing.
> I use Invelos Dvdprofiler software to catalog my collection on my PC and this software allows me to export the data to other programs.
> I lend alot of my movies to friends and neighbors - like the local library


I use DVDPedia, which is a Mac-only program to catalog mine. It's essential when you have thousands of discs to be able to catalog them in some way IMO. One thing I do with my database, for example, is have a list of movies I have only watched once (excluding the last 6 months of purchases), so I can keep track of any that may be deserving of another viewing, and have been overlooked, or movies that need to be sold on.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh yes. Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) is fabulous with movies. Many of us would say that even if there were no Atmos Blurays released at all, we would still be happy with our Atmos AVRs just because of DSU!


On that subject, last night we watched _Nightcrawler_ in DTS-HD MA + DSU (N.B.: Netflix rental). I can not recall ever hearing a more realistic, immersive car chase scene than the one near the end of the movie (no spoilers here). 

Good thriller BTW (or is it perhaps a documentary about U.S. TV news?) and a chilling performance by a chameleon-like Jake Gyllenhaal as a borderline sociopath.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> On that subject, last night we watched _Nightcrawler_ in DTS-HD MA + DSU (N.B.: Netflix rental). I can not recall ever hearing a more realistic, immersive car chase scene than the one near the end of the movie (no spoilers here).
> 
> Good thriller BTW (or is it perhaps a documentary about U.S. TV news?) and a chilling performance by a chameleon-like Jake Gyllenhaal as a borderline sociopath.


Great movie isn't it? I've only watched it once so far but am looking forward already to the next viewing. Last night I watched the 4K remaster of Michael Mann's *Thief* - another great movie. PQ and SQ nothing like a modern movie of course, but the remaster and remix do a very good job indeed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

philmike21 said:


> Every room is different meaning people will have different placement for speakers than the suggested placing of the codecs.


This doesn't change because object based sound came about.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> True- but if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ.


Well.... that's like your opinion, man.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> What about my speakers? Is it ok to go with Marantz?
> 
> And if I play non-atmos blu-ray movie, does ceiling speakers have sound?



Though Roger gave a very good reply, I would have to point out that not every studio will support Dolby Atmos and not every studio will support DTS:X, just as before. If you have a receiver or pre-pro with both formats... you should have your bases covered. Only a few more months to go. 

The overheads will have some steered sound if you engage Dolby Surround or whatever upmixer DTS includes in their DTS:X suite of formats on top of standard stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 mixes.


----------



## brahman12

Thief....second time that flick has been mentioned in this thread (believe it was Keith and Bob)...was interested before but now I'm really in. Big Michael Mann fan....ever since TV Miami Vice in the 80's lol. Night Crawler... I bought as a blind buy a couple of weeks ago based on some solid reviews and I kind of put it on the mental backburner since messing with my Atmos Japanese imports took center stage. Gonna give it a spin this weekend. Just watched Brotherhood of The Wolf (UK import - French version of HD DVD). Nothing special as far as sound with DSU, but I have always been charmed by this movie and brought back nostalgic memories of seeing it at the Cinema with my then girlfriend and current wife. She slept pretty much through the whole thing that day lol.


----------



## chi_guy50

brahman12 said:


> Thief....second time that flick has been mentioned in this thread (believe it was Keith and Bob)...was interested before but now I'm really in. Big Michael Mann fan....ever since TV Miami Vice in the 80's lol. Night Crawler... I bought as a blind buy a couple of weeks ago based on some solid reviews and I kind of put it on the mental backburner since messing with my Atmos Japanese imports took center stage. Gonna give it a spin this weekend. Just watched Brotherhood of The Wolf (UK import - French version of HD DVD). Nothing special as far as sound with DSU, but I have always been charmed by this movie and brought back nostalgic memories of seeing it at the Cinema with my then girlfriend and current wife. *She slept pretty much through the whole thing *that day lol.


That's what she said.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well.... that's like your opinion, man.


It isn’t an opinion that XT32 is superior to AccuEQ. It's a fact. AccuEQ doesn't EQ the Left and Right speakers or, unbelievably, the sub. Measurements also show that AccuEQ does more or less nothing at all. None of that is true of XT32, hence it is a superior solution.


----------



## brahman12

LOL.... The Office... I miss that show. Funny how so many shows copied that style of the "faux documentary" delivery of the written material. Never watched the British version but heard it was very funny too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn’t an opinion that XT32 is superior to AccuEQ. It's a fact. AccuEQ doesn't EQ the Left and Right speakers or, unbelievably, the sub. Measurements also show that AccuEQ does more or less nothing at all. None of that is true of XT32, hence it is a superior solution.


I know but that's not what you said. You said, "all else being equal". If you're not ever going to use the auto-EQ function, you can ignore it as a factor to the decision of purchase. Now there are other reasons to not consider the Denon and make it "a better buy".

So it is just... your opinion that you consider the Denon a "better buy". For someone else, it isn't.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I know but that's not what you said. You said, "all else being equal". If you're not ever going to use the auto-EQ function, you can ignore it as a factor to the decision of purchase. Now there are other reasons to not consider the Denon and make it "a better buy".


If all else (other than REQ) is equal, then it is impossible for the Onkyo to be better than the Denon, and vice-versa: they would be equal/the same. The discriminator is the room EQ, hence my remark that if all else is equal, the Denon is the better buy.



Scott Simonian said:


> So it is just... your opinion that you consider the Denon a "better buy". For someone else, it isn't.


Nope. *If all else is equal *then the superiority of XT32 over AccuEQ makes the Denon the better buy. None of the other features come into it.


----------



## jrogers

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> I am very interested in Atmos now. But I do have few questions before buying the atmos receiver to join this club.
> 
> 1. I am concerned if Dolby Atmos receiver will be outdated once DTS UHD receiver is released soon. so do I need to wait to buy the receiver until DTS UHD receiver is released?
> 
> The reason I asked this question is: 90% of Blu-ray 2D or 3D I am having have DTS HD Master 7.1 but only Dolby Digital 5.1. It seems to me that DTS has more engagement in higher quality audio in blu-ray disc
> 
> 
> 2. what is difference between Atmos Ready and Atmos Built-in?
> 
> 3. Can I use height speaker pointing to seating area to be atmos speaker?
> 
> 4. Does 4 ceiling speakers created much better atmos performance than 2 ceiling speakers. I am debating if I go with 7.2 or 9.2 receiver?
> 
> Thank you so much for your help.





Roger Dressler said:


> 4. ... I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.


I've had a 5.1.2 setup since last fall and just recently added an amp and two front height speakers to go to 5.1.4, and while I would certainly agree with Roger that you get a majority of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers - in my theater at least, the improvement in sound with the additional heights was still very noticeable and more than worth the cost / effort. So, just thought I'd give you a heads up that once you hear Atmos and DSU with 5.1.2 you may well want to keep adding speakers


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> If all else (other than REQ) is equal, then it is impossible for the Onkyo to be better than the Denon, and vice-versa: they would be equal/the same. The discriminator is the room EQ, hence my remark that if all else is equal, the Denon is the better buy.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. *If all else is equal *then the superiority of XT32 over AccuEQ makes the Denon the better buy. None of the other features come into it.


Keith, mighty convenient of you to leave out the point of what I just said which was: "if you don't intend to use the auto-EQ, there is no advantage to owning the Denon".


If someone wants Atmos and for a fully powered 11ch system and they have zero intention to use Audyssey then the Onkyo is the 'better buy'.

C'mon man. You want to live in a world where everyone owns just Denons? I don't.


----------



## batpig

Seems like you don't quite understand the meaning of "all else being equal"?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I do. The *reality* is that they aren't. 


He can skew the discussion to fit his view but it isn't as simple as, "all else being equal" because they aren't.

Get _that_?


----------



## batpig

Of course, but those are non mutually exclusive statements. Keith's theoretical statement isn't wrong, nor is it opinion. But you may also be right when you focus on the reality. You are talking past each other as those are distinct arguments.

That said, in your reality based context, what exactly makes the Onkyo a "better buy" if you decide to ignore REQ? I could understand you *preferring* Yamaha for the Cinema DSP or Pioneer because ICE amps give you a stiffy, but what does the Onkyo offer that the Denon/Marantz models don't?


----------



## Scott Simonian

11 channels of power. 

For someone that alone might be worth buying.

I'm not defending Onkyo, I'm certainly not buying one again but Denon isn't the 'end-all be-all' of surround sound processing either.


The world needs all flavors, not just vanilla.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brahman12 said:


> LOL.... The Office... I miss that show. Funny how so many shows copied that style of the "faux documentary" delivery of the written material. Never watched the British version but heard it was very funny too.


It's superior to the copied American version in almost every way. More hidden humanity in it as well. The fate of David Brent (Ricky Gervais - actor and co-creator/writer with his friend Stephen Merchant) is actually quite heart felt and poignant, which the American version fails to deliver on, especially given that he's a basically a terribly incompetent manager and a bit of a git.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> 11 channels of power.
> 
> For someone that alone might be worth buying.


OK, but then you could flip it around just as easily. Most people who have 11ch setups have at least some external amplification, rendering that "advantage" irrelevant also. So it seems they are functionally equal again?




Scott Simonian said:


> I'm not defending Onkyo, I'm certainly not buying one again but Denon isn't the 'end-all be-all' of surround sound processing either.


I don't think anyone said that or implied that. Keith -- a long-time Onkyo owner until very recently -- certainly wasn't. Brand had nothing to do with it, only the objective superiority of Audyssey room correction which is a differentiating factor. If D+M had dropped Audyssey and Onkyo hadn't, Keith would be saying the exact opposite thing. 

Obviously there are some folks (like you) with the speaker setup, setup know-how and preference such that auto EQ is irrelevant. But I think you'd agree you are in a small minority. For the VAST majority of users who are going to plug in the mic, let the software go beep-boop-beep, and then start enjoying, the quality of the room EQ is an extremely important factor in how likely they are to get great sound.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Have we concluded which is the best layout for a 16-channel pre-pro: 9.1.6 or 11.1.4? I am fiddling with my design again. I am about to start building the first pair of satellites.

To me, 9.1.6 seems the logical distribution rate between ear level and elevated speakers. And since my screen is so wide with the L and R speakers next to it, the L and R are almost 35° off axis. There's about 2m00 (close to 7') between each LCR. Then it's 1m70 (close to 6') to the Wides. Then 2m00 to the Side Surround. Another 1m70 to the Rear. It's very symmetrical, which I like. The Side Surrounds are slightly behind MLP, which has the advantage that the tweeter is not blocked by the head of the person next to each other.

OTOH, 11 ear level speakers would make panning bliss... There would be only 1m40 (close to 5') between each speaker from front to rear speakers.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I was a big Onkyo fan until they dropped XT32 in favor of AccuEQ and since moved to Denon, for that reason alone. I am very happy with my Denon X5200W.



And I as well. I've had two Pioneers, a Sherwood Newcastle, 3 Onkyos, and now my Denon. It's the best AVR I've owned, all things considered. (I still use my 1995 DD5.1 Pioneer on my gaming PC, mainly because it still works awesomely for gaming and isn't worth the hassle of selling for $25 or whatever.) 

And now for a non-Atmos related digression...




Spoiler



I really liked Onkyo...solid units. The less than a year old Onkyo TX-NR-929 that I just replaced was almost perfect with 2 caveats: The main one was a sync problem that was just annoying. I've had the same DirecTV receiver for years. I never had a single problem running it through my previous Onkyo. All I did was switch out that one for the 929 and immediately noticed that during random shows on random channels, there would all of a sudden be an audio dropout for 4-5 seconds. I tried switching to Optical but the same issue remained. I've seen other references online to this same behavior. It seems that the DirecTV stream has, for lack of a better concept, errors in it. The 929 took an inordinate amount of time to recover from these errors and resync the audio. Onkyo was no help, and online searching was no help. It just annoyed me that an AVR of this cost couldn't handle this issue as well as the AVR that cost half as much that it replaced. So I just lived with it since the 11 channel Audyssey DSX Bluray experience was so awesome.

The second issue, which is more of a user error, is that it was not upgradeable to Atmos/DSU. I didn't do my homework before buying the 929. I had no idea that Atmos was on the horizon and eminent. I really became interested in it after finding this forum but had kinda screwed myself by not waiting. So I just bit the bullet and decided to try a completely new brand (to me) and go with Denon. It always seems to be at the top of lists for brand quality and reliability. I looked at Onkyo and that's when I discovered they dropped XT32 but the X5200 had it. Since I already had the external 2 channel amp, it seemed like the wise move to just shift over and leave Onkyo behind to go full Atmos. I don't regret that one bit. Early adopter, here I am. The early adopter that once again didn't do full research and see that DTS:X was on the way too. I agonized over it for quite some time, but finally got over it and embraced how my system sounds NOW as-is...and love it. And still no DTS:X announcement months later.

I don't plan to go UHD anytime soon, so lack of HDCP 2.2 doesn't really affect or bother me.

However, historically, what I plan and what actually occurs are typically two different things. So I'll just leave that right there and we'll see. 





Scott Simonian said:


> C'mon man. You want to live in a world where everyone owns just Denons?



As they should.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> OK, but then you could flip it around just as easily. Most people who have 11ch setups have at least some external amplification, rendering that "advantage" irrelevant also. So it seems they are functionally equal again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone said that or implied that. Keith -- a long-time Onkyo owner until very recently -- certainly wasn't. Brand had nothing to do with it, only the objective superiority of Audyssey room correction which is a differentiating factor. If D+M had dropped Audyssey and Onkyo hadn't, Keith would be saying the exact opposite thing.
> 
> Obviously there are some folks (like you) with the speaker setup, setup know-how and preference such that auto EQ is irrelevant. But I think you'd agree you are in a small minority. For the VAST majority of users who are going to plug in the mic, let the software go beep-boop-beep, and then start enjoying, the quality of the room EQ is an extremely important factor in how likely they are to get great sound.


That's true. Well put.

I'll shut up now. 



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Have we concluded which is the best layout for a 16-channel pre-pro: 9.1.6 or 11.1.4? I am fiddling with my design again. I am about to start building the first pair of satellites.
> 
> To me, 9.1.6 seems the logical distribution rate between ear level and elevated speakers. And since my screen is so wide with the L and R speakers next to it, the L and R are almost 35° off axis. There's about 2m00 (close to 7') between each LCR. Then it's 1m70 (close to 6') to the Wides. Then 2m00 to the Side Surround. Another 1m70 to the Rear. It's very symmetrical, which I like. The Side Surrounds are slightly behind MLP, which has the advantage that the tweeter is not blocked by the head of the person next to each other.
> 
> OTOH, 11 ear level speakers would make panning bliss... There would be only 1m40 (close to 5') between each speaker from front to rear speakers.


9.1.6, obviously. 

Not much gained with more speakers down low and still being stuck with 4ch heights. 

Here's my personal opinion of how we should consider anything >9.1.6 speaker system, assuming 9.1.6 is 7.1+wides/front surrounds and front,mid,rear heights:

First to consider is how many rows you have. 9.1.6 is a sweet setup for a single row but it could work with two rows. However if you had two rows, I'd align the main side surround to the front row. This way the wide/front surround is always ahead of any listeners.

Next up after 9.1.6 would be another set of side surrounds per extra row of seating. So if you have two rows of seating, you'd want 11.1.6 surround. Going along that reasoning maybe consider an additional pair if you have three rows but personally I think you'd be fine since I bet that last row will be near the back wall and you'll have the rear surrounds.

After that... now consider doing a full ten channel height surround system. If you have two rows or more this would be worthy for smoother panning and more stability of the height surround field for all listeners.

After that... now it gets ridiculous. Lol.

Now consider, since your room is so large, getting another pair of whatever your main LCR speakers are and placing them at the center-right and center-left position. 

If you've got this far then seriously consider getting an extra pair of whatever surrounds you are using to add in a pair of rear centers. This will put four total surrounds on your back wall including the original rear surrounds from the 7.1 layout.

I wouldn't do anything beyond this with Atmos.



BTW - that is 15.1.10 surround, if I counted it right.


----------



## batpig

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Have we concluded which is the best layout for a 16-channel pre-pro: 9.1.6 or 11.1.4?


Not sure how one could "conclude" anything at this point. Besides the fact that it's ultimately preference, there aren't any affordable processors that can handle that setup.

I think most would agree that 9.1.6 makes more sense though. It seems a more balanced distribution of resources; unless you had a really long room with three rows of seats I can't see much advantage beyond 2 pairs of side wall surrounds that would be worth sacrificing the front/top/back coverage that three pairs of overheads would provide.

If you do go that route I'd consider the extra floor speakers "front surounds" as opposed to "wides" so they get addressed as an array for the surround bed info but also allow object pan-through. The "wide" position will only get object pan throughs and won't do anything for the surround bed content which will be much more useful than the occasional thing zooming by the sides. It remains to be seen if the typical AVR processors will allow that in the future, but if you are going for the higher end Trinnov type processors that is definitely an allowable configuration.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott, LOL!

I think am sticking to 9.1.6 (with up to 4 subs, as one does...) for the moment. There will be realistically priced 16-channel pre-pro's soon enough. That should be enough. There are indeed two rows, but the rear row is in fact a diner table with chairs, which would be used for casual viewing while reading/computing/eating...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, mighty convenient of you to leave out the point of what I just said which was: "if you don't intend to use the auto-EQ, there is no advantage to owning the Denon".
> 
> 
> If someone wants Atmos and for a fully powered 11ch system and they have zero intention to use Audyssey then the Onkyo is the 'better buy'.
> 
> C'mon man. You want to live in a world where everyone owns just Denons? I don't.


You have lost me entirely here Scott. I said that if all else was equal then the discriminator for the Denon/Onkyo units was the Room EQ. 

IOW, if the units were identical, then the REQ would swing things in favor of the Denon, as XT32 is demonstrably superior to AccuEQ.

Of course, there may well be other features that either unit has which the other doesn't, and those features may swing the choice on way or another. But then, "all else" would not be equal would it? Which is not what I said. So I will say it one more time:

*Everything else being equal*, the fact that the Denon has XT32 and the Onkyo has AccuEQ will make the Denon the better choice  That is why I qualified my remark with "if all else is equal". IOW, if the different features of each unit don't matter to the buyer, then the REQ of the Denon will make it the best choice.

I can't explain this any more clearly unfortunately.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Seems like you don't quite understand the meaning of "all else being equal"?


Ah - yes! I see why he is still arguing with me then...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I do. The *reality* is that they aren't.
> 
> 
> He can skew the discussion to fit his view but it isn't as simple as, "all else being equal" because they aren't.
> 
> Get _that_?


No. What it means when someone says "everything else being equal...." is that the other factors are not taken into consideration.

For example, if the Denon is made in Japan, and the Onkyo is made in China, if the Denon has only 9 channels and the Onkyo has 11, *but these things do not matter to the buyer *(as may well be the case) then,* all else being equal*, the Denon is the better buy because XT32 is demonstrably and objectively superior to AccuEQ. Sheesh.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> That's true. Well put.
> 
> I'll shut up now.


Smart move. 

And the next time you feel the urge to enter into a semantical debate with Keith, just put down the pizza and instead go challenge Stephen Curry to a free-throw shooting contest. You might have a better chance at winning.



Scott Simonian said:


> 9.1.6, obviously.
> 
> Not much gained with more speakers down low and still being stuck with 4ch heights.
> 
> Here's my personal opinion of how we should consider anything >9.1.6 speaker system, assuming 9.1.6 is 7.1+wides/front surrounds and front,mid,rear heights:
> 
> First to consider is how many rows you have. 9.1.6 is a sweet setup for a single row but it could work with two rows. However if you had two rows, I'd align the main side surround to the front row. This way the wide/front surround is always ahead of any listeners.
> 
> Next up after 9.1.6 would be another set of side surrounds per extra row of seating. So if you have two rows of seating, you'd want 11.1.6 surround. Going along that reasoning maybe consider an additional pair if you have three rows but personally I think you'd be fine since I bet  that last row will be near the back wall and you'll have the rear surrounds.
> 
> After that... now consider doing a full ten channel height surround system. If you have two rows or more this would be worthy for smoother panning and more stability of the height surround field for all listeners.
> 
> After that... now it gets ridiculous.


IMHO this should go into a sticky--words to live by!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah okay, Keith.

I'm sorry that your argument fails because in reality, all things are not equal between your comparison. You were simply incorrect that the Denon "is the better buy" for the only reason being it has Audyssey XT32. Woopie! Not everyone cares about that.

I want you to make it more clear so I can keep arguing with you. Please.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> OK, but then you could flip it around just as easily. Most people who have 11ch setups have at least some external amplification, rendering that "advantage" irrelevant also. So it seems they are functionally equal again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone said that or implied that. Keith -- a long-time Onkyo owner until very recently -- certainly wasn't. Brand had nothing to do with it, only the objective superiority of Audyssey room correction which is a differentiating factor. If D+M had dropped Audyssey and Onkyo hadn't, Keith would be saying the exact opposite thing.
> 
> Obviously there are some folks (like you) with the speaker setup, setup know-how and preference such that auto EQ is irrelevant. But I think you'd agree you are in a small minority. For the VAST majority of users who are going to plug in the mic, let the software go beep-boop-beep, and then start enjoying, the quality of the room EQ is an extremely important factor in how likely they are to get great sound.


Yes - you state my position with eloquence  I am not saying Denon is better than Onkyo. I don't think either one is necessarily better than the other - *except as far as REQ is concerned*, where XT32 is better than AccuEQ. And, as you observe, that statement isn't an opinion but is backed by objective facts and measurements (available here on AVS in the AccuEQ vs Audyssey thread).

And you are right. I am a long-time Onkyo owner who switched to Denon solely because Onkyo dropped XT32. As you say, if the situation had been the other way around I would be saying the exact opposite thing. 

I think Scott has temporarily rattled his brain with 120dB bass overload


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mmmm. Pizza. 



Man it gets stale in here.  WHERE ARE MOAR ATMOS!?!?!?!


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I think Scott has temporarily rattled his brain with 120dB bass overload


Yeah, maybe but I don't need Audyssey XT32 to change my diapers for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah okay, Keith.
> 
> I'm sorry that your argument fails because in reality, all things are not equal between your comparison. You were simply incorrect that the Denon "is the better buy" for the only reason being it has Audyssey XT32. Woopie! Not everyone cares about that.


No, I was not incorrect because I qualified my comment with "if all else is equal". I didn't say what you say I said, above. I didn’t say that the Denon was the better buy _for the only reason it has XT32_. I said, if everything else in the decision-making process is equal (ie of no concern to the buyer) then the presence of XT32 in the Denon makes it a better buy than the Onkyo. Which it does. And the superiority of XT32 can be, and has been, backed up with objective measurements.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, maybe but I don't need Audyssey XT32 to change my diapers for me.


Neither do I. I'm not an XT32 or Audyssey user, but that isn't relevant to the discussion we were having.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> No, I was not incorrect because I qualified my comment with "if all else is equal". I didn't say what you say I said, above. I didn’t say that the Denon was the better buy _for the only reason it has XT32_. I said, if everything else in the decision-making process is equal (ie of no concern to the buyer) then the presence of XT32 in the Denon makes it a better buy than the Onkyo. Which it does. And the superiority of XT32 can be, and has been, backed up with objective measurements.


You seem to believe that I have something out for XT32 or something. I fully agree that it is MUCH better than whatever the f**k Onkyo put in their last batch. No duh! XT32 is the better technology. When did I ever say otherwise? You continue on and on and on about it. Yeah, we get it. It's better than what Onkyo has right now.

But you're making your own argument of this in here. Things. Are. Not. All. Equal. In. Reality.

Spin the discussion your way by saying "all else being equal" for eternity. Doesn't make you right. 

The enjoyment of home theater does not lay in the balance of the all mighty Audyssey XT32 auto room correction. Dear lord, how did any of us get along with out it!?!?!


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Neither do I. I'm not an XT32 or Audyssey user,


Yeah. _Now._ 



kbarnes701 said:


> but that isn't relevant to the discussion we were having.


Hasn't stopped you from bringing it up in each post.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just hope you, Keith, can tell I'm ribbing you. Hard ribbing but it's just in good fun.


----------



## batpig

How much for just ONE rib??


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> But you're making your own argument of this in here. Things. Are. Not. All. Equal. In. Reality.


No I am not. I am speaking English. When someone says "all other things being equal" they don't mean that somehow everything has suddenly become the same. They mean that the differences are not being taken into consideration. So when I say, all other things being equal, Denon is the better buy than the Onkyo because the Denon has XT32, that is what I mean.



Scott Simonian said:


> Spin the discussion your way by saying "all else being equal" for eternity. Doesn't make you right.


I'm not spinning it - I am repeating it in slightly different ways pending the light going on in your head. It isn't a question of 'being right'. What I said is incontrovertible. If all else is equal (translation: if the differences are of no concern or interest) then the presence of XT32 in the Denon makes it a better choice than the Accu-EQ-equipped Onkyo. 



Scott Simonian said:


> The enjoyment of home theater does not lay in the balance of the all mighty Audyssey XT32 auto room correction. Dear lord, how did any of us get along with out it!?!?!


Only you are saying that. I certainly didn't, so you are now arguing with yourself. That is a sign of something, I am sure


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. _Now._


And that fact should tell you that I am not trying to promote XT32 in some way, which is what you accused me of.




Scott Simonian said:


> Hasn't stopped you from bringing it up in each post.


Obviously. It is what we are discussing. All else being equal, the presence of XT32 in the Denon makes it a better choice than the Accu-EQ-equipped Onkyo.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Just hope you, Keith, can tell I'm ribbing you. Hard ribbing but it's just in good fun.


*BA****D!*

LOL. Hahahaha.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> How much for just ONE rib??


A half rack will cost you $12. Full rack for $24 but it comes with your choice of two sides.

Neither of them will have XT32 though. 



kbarnes701 said:


> That is a sign of something, I am sure


Obviously I am completely insane. :serious:


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Obviously I am completely insane. :serious:


Well, I have seen photos of your subwoofers, so I won't argue with you there


----------



## Kris Deering

Well I just heard my amp is showing up today. I have two pairs of Golden Ear HTR-7000's sitting in the office and a Marantz 8802 in my rack in the theater room. So unless things get too busy I should have a full 5.1.4 rig up and running by the end of the weekend. The biggest obstacle is finding time to get up in the attic and install the ceiling speakers.


----------



## Patrick Murphy

kbarnes701 said:


> Nope. *If all else is equal *then the superiority of XT32 over AccuEQ makes the Denon the better buy. None of the other features come into it.


Completely agree. My last 3 receivers were Onk's, 1 with MultEQ and the current 818 with XT32, and I wouldn't buy another Onkyo until they get a decent EQ system. Hopefully they will come to their senses and bring back Audyssey.


I recently put up a bunch of sound panels (best thing I ever did) and messed with the speakers and I always rerun Audyssey after every tweak.


I'm seriously looking at D/M for my next AVR after they include DTS in the next generation.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> How much for just ONE rib??


Isn't that what Adam asked God way back when?

And look where THAT'S gotten us.


----------



## Spanglo




----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Well I just heard my amp is showing up today. I have two pairs of Golden Ear HTR-7000's sitting in the office and a Marantz 8802 in my rack in the theater room. So unless things get too busy I should have a full 5.1.4 rig up and running by the end of the weekend. The biggest obstacle is finding time to get up in the attic and install the ceiling speakers.


About time!  Looking forward to your first report...


----------



## sdrucker

Patrick Murphy said:


> Completely agree. My last 3 receivers were Onk's, 1 with MultEQ and the current 818 with XT32, and I wouldn't buy another Onkyo until they get a decent EQ system. Hopefully they will come to their senses and bring back Audyssey.
> 
> I recently put up a bunch of sound panels (best thing I ever did) and messed with the speakers and I always rerun Audyssey after every tweak.
> 
> I'm seriously looking at D/M for my next AVR after they include DTS in the next generation.


I think it's safe to say that XT32 is the superior EQ and most convenient solution to use for an Atmos installation as the best value for the money, IF you want all your speakers and up to two independent channels/arrays of your subs to have the benefits of room EQ. 

OTOH, if you're willing to spend $2K for a couple of MiniDSP 88As, you can have Dirac (which from the reports on the 88A thread from former Audyssey users, including Keith, is superior to XT32 due to the mixed phase room EQ) across the board with some target curve finessing, and go the AVR-agnostic route, along you to decide exactly what "all other things being equal" really means for you. However, it's not quite the "turn it on and let the automated room EQ go beepX3" route.

There's at least one guy I know who's a passionate advocate of the 88A making most users potentially free of having to make that "all other things equal" choice altogether - wonder what he'd say . Of course, it would be nice if MiniDSP got the memo and came up with a 16 channel version of their solution..


----------



## batpig

Spanglo said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNQRqAoT-2c


At least someone got it


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> Well.... that's like your opinion, man.


And mine as well!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Of course, it would be nice if MiniDSP got the memo and came up with a 16 channel version of their solution..


Two 88A units used in tandem gives 16 channels of Dirac Live for less than 2 grand. Got to be a bargain? There's no real problem with using two units - just a bit more setting up work.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Two 88A units used in tandem gives 16 channels of Dirac Live for less than 2 grand. Got to be a bargain? There's no real problem with using two units - just a bit more setting up work.


Not really less than $2K: the 88A is $999 per unit, unless they're now offering a volume discount.

I guess it depends on how you define "bargain"....if you can afford a $1K cheaper Denon or Yamaha AVR that meets your needs, and put the savings into getting a second 88A, you're set. If you've got to allocate that $1K toward getting the Atmos-equipped (later this year and/or DTS:X) AVR in the first place, it's a different story.


Let's put it this way: a Denon X5200 and two 88As is still a heck of a lot cheaper than a Datasat LS10 with those two 88A, or a Datasat RS20i that's still going to require the user to pay for the DSP upgrade board with Dolby Atmos (price TBD). Everything is relative.


----------



## NorthSky

> I look at it that way too. One ticket to the cinema costs the same as the Bluray. And I can watch the Bluray multiple times. Or sell it on - you can't go to the cinema, see a movie that disappointed you and get most of the ticket price back! And as Stuart says above, you usually get some interesting extras too with the Bluray.


♦ $17 (average) a ticket here for the theater (IMAX in 3D). ...A premium Blu-ray (3D) I normally pay $34 (more sometimes; with tax).
So the Blu is roughly twice as expensive than going to the theater. ...That's where I live, on my Island.

So many movies so little time. ...Who's got some for extras ....



> Denon and Marantz units have Audyssey XT32, which is a significantly superior room correction technology to Onkyo's AccuEQ. I was a big Onkyo fan until they dropped XT32 in favor of AccuEQ and since moved to Denon, for that reason alone. I am very happy with my Denon X5200W. In Europe, the equivalent Marantz SR7009 is much cheaper now than the Denon, so if I was buying tomorrow I would go for the Marantz.


♦ Superior? No, different; yes. This is not the law, this is life. ...And different strokes for different folks. 



> On that subject, last night we watched *Nightcrawler* in DTS-HD MA + DSU (N.B.: Netflix rental). I can not recall ever hearing a more realistic, immersive car chase scene than the one near the end of the movie (no spoilers here).
> Good thriller BTW (or is it perhaps a documentary about U.S. TV news?) and a chilling performance by a chameleon-like Jake Gyllenhaal as a borderline sociopath.


♦ Great flick, awesome performance by Jake. 



> *Thief* ....second time that flick has been mentioned in this thread (believe it was Keith and Bob)...was interested before but now I'm really in. Big Michael Mann fan....ever since TV Miami Vice in the 80's lol. Night Crawler... I bought as a blind buy a couple of weeks ago based on some solid reviews and I kind of put it on the mental backburner since messing with my Atmos Japanese imports took center stage. Gonna give it a spin this weekend. Just watched Brotherhood of The Wolf (UK import - French version of HD DVD). Nothing special as far as sound with DSU, but I have always been charmed by this movie and brought back nostalgic memories of seeing it at the Cinema with my then girlfriend and current wife. She slept pretty much through the whole thing that day lol.


♦ Michael Mann's 'Thief' is a masterpiece of suspense with the music to match it (Tangerine Dream) and _James_ is @ its best in it.  
Thunder; this flick is like the thunder under a man's quest and set of values. 



> It isn’t an opinion that XT32 is superior to AccuEQ. It's a fact. AccuEQ doesn't EQ the Left and Right speakers or, unbelievably, the sub. Measurements also show that AccuEQ does more or less nothing at all. None of that is true of XT32, hence it is a superior solution.


♦ Again; and facts are only from abstract visions, in my humble opinion.
Measurements are cool to look @, real cool. ...And more measurements on other aspects of mastering from the movie studios are even more cool. 



> If all else (other than REQ) is equal, then it is impossible for the Onkyo to be better than the Denon, and vice-versa: they would be equal/the same. The discriminator is the room EQ, hence my remark that if all else is equal, the Denon is the better buy.


♦ None is exactly the same. All is variation and differentiation. And nothing is impossible; only in our mind. 
The better buy is the one we choose for ourselves, the one you picked yourself. ...Not Denon, not Onkyo, but maybe Yamaha, or maybe Pioneer.
...Or any of the other hundred brands of receivers and pre/pros out there; including Anthem, Krell, McIntosh, Bryston, Arcam, Meridian, Trinnov, Sherwood, Emotiva, etc.

Yes, the room ... the room is the one that should be measured above all else. ...All else being equal. 



> Nope. *If all else is equal *then the superiority of XT32 over AccuEQ makes the Denon the better buy. None of the other features come into it.


♦ If _"all else was truly being equal"_, none would be superior or inferior. ...They would be "equal" up to the limits of quantitative and qualitative equilateral equation. ...And from the dimensional perspective of an equilibrium from one person or group of people. ...There are no absolute settings for all people equally. ...Or set of mathematical values. ...Superiority is an euphemism, an ephemeral supposition. 

That's my own opinion, of course. 



Erwin said:


> Have we concluded which is the best layout for a 16-channel pre-pro: 9.1.6 or 11.1.4? I am fiddling with my design again. I am about to start building the first pair of satellites.
> 
> To me, 9.1.6 seems the logical distribution rate between ear level and elevated speakers. And since my screen is so wide with the L and R speakers next to it, the L and R are almost 35° off axis. There's about 2m00 (close to 7') between each LCR. Then it's 1m70 (close to 6') to the Wides. Then 2m00 to the Side Surround. Another 1m70 to the Rear. It's very symmetrical, which I like. The Side Surrounds are slightly behind MLP, which has the advantage that the tweeter is not blocked by the head of the person next to each other.
> 
> OTOH, 11 ear level speakers would make panning bliss... There would be only 1m40 (close to 5') between each speaker from front to rear speakers.


♦ Hi Erwin, you should post more often.  ...Go *9.4.6* go Erwin go!  
{True term is still 9.1.6 , as the multiple number of subwoofers are still summed as one: LFE/.1/Bass channel; even with 4-8 subs or more.}



Erwin said:


> I think am sticking to 9.1.6 (with up to 4 subs, as one does...) for the moment. There will be realistically priced 16-channel pre-pro's soon enough. That should be enough. There are indeed two rows, but the rear row is in fact a diner table with chairs, which would be used for casual viewing while reading/computing/eating...


♦ Wise "connection" ... I think so too.  ...And MiniDSP, with Dirac Live, might be working on a 16-channel unit, for a future not too far release (2016). 



> No. What it means when someone says "everything else being equal...." is that the other factors are not taken into consideration.
> 
> For example, if the Denon is made in Japan, and the Onkyo is made in China, if the Denon has only 9 channels and the Onkyo has 11, *but these things do not matter to the buyer *(as may well be the case) then,* all else being equal*, the Denon is the better buy because XT32 is demonstrably and objectively superior to AccuEQ. Sheesh.


♦ Convictions are good for people; we depend on them. ...No matter if they are right or wrong. 
What's right for one is wrong for another, and vice versa. ...Go Yamaha and don't look back. 



Scott said:


> Mmmm. Pizza.
> 
> Man it gets stale in here.  WHERE ARE MOAR ATMOS!?!?!?!


♦ Pizzazz with movies Scott, really? 

Wait, more Atmos movies are coming up this Summer. ...And by then you might get the perfect Atmos/dts:x/DSP Quadfield Yamaha machine. 



> No, I was not incorrect because I qualified my comment with "if all else is equal". I didn't say what you say I said, above. I didn’t say that the Denon was the better buy _for the only reason it has XT32_. I said, if everything else in the decision-making process is equal (ie of no concern to the buyer) then the presence of XT32 in the Denon makes it a better buy than the Onkyo. Which it does. And the superiority of XT32 can be, and has been, backed up with objective measurements.


♦ If you didn't it sure sounded like it. ...I think you said the same thing five fold. ...As if no one read it the first time around. 



Kris said:


> Well I just heard my amp is showing up today. I have two pairs of Golden Ear HTR-7000's sitting in the office and a Marantz 8802 in my rack in the theater room. So unless things get too busy I should have a full 5.1.4 rig up and running by the end of the weekend. The biggest obstacle is finding time to get up in the attic and install the ceiling speakers.


♦ Awesome Kris, but one quick question; why not 7.1.4 instead? 



stikle said:


> Isn't that what Adam asked God way back when?
> And look where THAT'S gotten us.


♦ VOG took the rib of man down below, and created woman with it, up above all around.


----------



## NorthSky

I gotta work on my post count.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Not really less than $2K: the 88A is $999 per unit, unless they're now offering a volume discount.


Oh yes it is... you don't need two mics do you!  It comes to $1,928. Less than 2 grand... 



sdrucker said:


> I guess it depends on how you define "bargain"....


Well Datasat define 16 channels of Dirac Live as about 20 grand.... 



sdrucker said:


> if you can afford a $1K cheaper Denon or Yamaha AVR that meets your needs, and put the savings into getting a second 88A, you're set. If you've got to allocate that $1K toward getting the Atmos-equipped (later this year and/or DTS:X) AVR in the first place, it's a different story.


It's still a bargain for 16 channels of world class room correction. Whether someone can afford it or not doesn't change that.



sdrucker said:


> Let's put it this way: a Denon X5200 and two 88As is still a heck of a lot cheaper than a Datasat LS10 with those two 88A, or a Datasat RS20i that's still going to require the user to pay for the DSP upgrade board with Dolby Atmos (price TBD). Everything is relative.


Exactement.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Bob,

I just don't have the same stamina as you or Keith and others to keep reading and posting in this thread...


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh yes it is... you don't need two mics do you!  It comes to $1,928. Less than 2 grand...



True - forgot about the discount for not having a second UMIK-1 mic. But then there's the import duties...you'll be closer to $2K if not quite there.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Bob,
> 
> I just don't have the same stamina as you or Keith and others to keep reading and posting in this thread...


 
That's why I mostly lurk and post sporadically until I actually have an SSP with Atmos.  Spinning one's wheels with speculation isn't a good use of time....

I remember you posting about the Altitude early on after one of the international trade shows last year. Are you still considering a 16 or 24 channel Altitude or leaning toward a cheaper 16 channel capable pre/pro or AVR that's a little cheaper is out this year?

BTW I'm starting with 7.2.4 in my room, but once we move to what I hope is a place with space for a separate HT room later this year, might go as far out as 9.2.6 or 9.4.6, pending room size and in-room measurements.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> .
> 
> [♦ Superior? No, different; yes. This is not the law, this is life. ...And different strokes for different folks.


Really?



> ♦ Again; and facts are only from abstract visions, in my humble opinion.


So it apparently is only an "abstract vision" that 2+2 = 4; or that the earth is round;



> Measurements are cool to look @, real cool. ...And more measurements on other aspects of mastering from the movie studios are even more cool


Given folks have preferences, then one is certainly allowed to prefer a room correction system that does not correct the most important speakers in the system (L + R + subs). But unless measurements mean absolutely nothing (and to some apparently they do), Audyssey results are measureably superior to no correction (Onkyo's approach) in 90% of the cases. As I noted, one gets to prefer no mearuements if one so chooses.

I must say, I continue to be amazed. Simply amazed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just speak the magic words 'Trinnov Altitude' and Stuart appears. 

Can't wait to see your sig changed to 'arrived', man.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Wait, more Atmos movies are coming up this Summer. ...And by then you might get the perfect Atmos/dts:x/DSP Quadfield Yamaha machine.


Yer g'damned right I will!


----------



## stikle

audioguy said:


> I must say, I continue to be amazed. Simply amazed.


Some people need to comment just for the sake of commenting without really ever adding anything to the conversation (much like this comment of mine right here). 

Just because one can doesn't mean one should.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Just speak the magic words 'Trinnov Altitude' and Stuart appears.
> 
> Can't wait to see your sig changed to 'arrived', man.



You and I both, Scott! Then I can go from being a poltergeist to actually having something concrete to talk about. It's a dirty job but someone's got to bring up this toy , since it's currently the only thing that can go beyond 7.1.4 on the market...AFAIK there's not more than a few people with Atmos and an Altitude (mostly but not 100% in Europe), if that, and very little to no actual discussion of what the experience is like except that they've got one. 


Latest ETA is when I get mine delivered I'll tell you . If you start seeing some guys on the Altitude thread talking about getting their units and their Atmos setup you'll know that it's imminent. 


Until then, I'm mostly reading and getting placement ideas, like your comment about how to leverage beyond a 9.1.6 setup.


----------



## pasender91

Alleluia !!!

We should mark this day in the calendar for 2 things : a full solar eclipse over europe and NorthSky deciding to multi-quote his responses, this makes the thread so much easier to read


----------



## sdrucker

pasender91 said:


> Alleluia !!!
> 
> We should mark this day in the calendar for 2 things : a full solar eclipse over europe and NorthSky deciding to multi-quote his responses, this makes the thread so much easier to read


Yes, it's proof there's a higher deity of some sort out there. Although it would be nice if that deity would start cranking out those BD Atmos releases!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> True - forgot about the discount for not having a second UMIK-1 mic. But then there's the import duties...you'll be closer to $2K if not quite there.


 No import duties for me - I can buy in the UK. And it still comes in under 2 grand


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I must say, I continue to be amazed. Simply amazed.


You are not alone


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Bob,
> I just don't have the same stamina as you or Keith and others to keep reading and posting in this thread...


I totally understand; we all put our stamina where it falls into play @ a certain time in our lives. 
But one thing is certain; without Dolby Atmos' new introduction last June I probably wouldn't be here, and so other members. 
And the energy we develop is proportional to the time and space that becomes our interest, ...one of them. 



pasender91 said:


> Alleluia !!!
> We should mark this day in the calendar for 2 things : a full solar eclipse over europe and NorthSky deciding to multi-quote his responses, this makes the thread so much easier to read


Don't sweat it too much; Atmos is still here and will only expand more.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott said:


> Yer g'damned right I will!


Scott, I am truly looking forward to Yamaha's CX-A5000 next pre/pro replacement.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, I am truly looking forward to Yamaha's CX-A5000 next pre/pro replacement.


Yeah, me too. Would be interesting what feature set it rocks and when they plan to release one. I know they will though. I talked with a couple guys from Yamaha at Cedia (one of which was an engineer) and they said they fully intend to make a successor to the 5000 as it sold _very_ well. Knowing their history of releasing the flagship type gear, it probably won't be until next summer at the earliest. I would be very surprised if it came out this summer. And by "surprised" I meant, emptying my wallet in surprise.


----------



## saf01

Odd follow up question to a earlier one I had about ceiling speakers and Atmos. Since our current pre-wire is all ceiling based and Atmost requires and/or uses both floor and ceiling; does the AVS forum have any 5.1 other recommendations for reasonable home theater using in-ceiling speakers?

I've run a few searches and end up with all sorts of posts/threads. Or maybe the better question to ask is which forum is for the beginners  The builder stopped by today and said he could throw in some speakers in the ceiling and a yamaha av 7xx amp but I'm going to pass and read up a bit more. I'm sure there are plenty enough threads on this site to educate me a bit so I don't waste a huge chunk of change and maybe build off the amp or whatever in stages.

Figured I'd ask since this is a interesting thread with some pretty knowledgeable people


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> ♦ $17 (average) a ticket here for the theater (IMAX in 3D). ...A premium Blu-ray (3D) I normally pay $34 (more sometimes; with tax).
> So the Blu is roughly twice as expensive than going to the theater. ...That's where I live, on my Island.
> 
> So many movies so little time. ...Who's got some for extras ....


You said it! I keep saying one of these years I'm going to watch the extras on every blu-ray I have but that never happens. 

I'm going to start watching the Harry Potter series using DSU tonight...


----------



## Roudan

jrogers said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I am very interested in Atmos now. But I do have few questions before buying the atmos receiver to join this club.
> 
> 1. I am concerned if Dolby Atmos receiver will be outdated once DTS UHD receiver is released soon. so do I need to wait to buy the receiver until DTS UHD receiver is released?
> 
> The reason I asked this question is: 90% of Blu-ray 2D or 3D I am having have DTS HD Master 7.1 but only Dolby Digital 5.1. It seems to me that DTS has more engagement in higher quality audio in blu-ray disc
> 
> 
> 2. what is difference between Atmos Ready and Atmos Built-in?
> 
> 3. Can I use height speaker pointing to seating area to be atmos speaker?
> 
> 4. Does 4 ceiling speakers created much better atmos performance than 2 ceiling speakers. I am debating if I go with 7.2 or 9.2 receiver?
> 
> Thank you so much for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. ... I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've had a 5.1.2 setup since last fall and just recently added an amp and two front height speakers to go to 5.1.4, and while I would certainly agree with Roger that you get a majority of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers - in my theater at least, the improvement in sound with the additional heights was still very noticeable and more than worth the cost / effort. So, just thought I'd give you a heads up that once you hear Atmos and DSU with 5.1.2 you may well want to keep adding speakers
Click to expand...

Thanks is 5.1.4 better than 7.1.2? I only have 9 speakers so far wondering what configuration is best?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdrucker said:


> I remember you posting about the Altitude early on after one of the international trade shows last year. Are you still considering a 16 or 24 channel Altitude or leaning toward a cheaper 16 channel capable pre/pro or AVR that's a little cheaper is out this year?


My money is on the Emotiva XMR-1. 16 channels, MSRP $5,000. Announced for next Christmas. I know, it might be the next one... 

I have 2 upgrade cards (-40% on MSRP), so I might get the XMC-1 first, which would replace my UMC-1 in our current home when the big processor surfaces. Or I might go for a 7702 as an intermediate if I can get it cheap enough.

I scored 2 Marantz MM8003 8-channel amps this week (very affordable - less than €100/ch - and plenty powerful for surrounds and such) to complement the XPR-5 I already have. 8+8+5=21 amps for 3 tri-amped fronts and 12 satellites.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> My money is on the Emotiva XMR-1. 16 channels, MSRP $5,000. Announced for next Christmas. I know, it might be the next one...
> 
> I have 2 upgrade cards (-40% on MSRP), so I might get the XMC-1 first, which would replace my UMC-1 in our current home when the big processor surfaces. Or I might go for a 7702 as an intermediate if I can get it cheap enough.


Have they priced the XMR-1 yet? I only read the Emo Board sporadically so I hadn't seen that, other than knowing that they had announced an XMR was under development. For your sake, I hoped they learned from their XMC-1 experience and that date has some basis in reality rather than a guesstimate of a best case. But yes, it's hard to have patience  with all these guys changing up their systems to be in the bleeding edge of watching TMNT in Atmos or fall in love with DSU...



> I scored 2 Marantz MM8003 8-channel amps this week (very affordable - less than €100/ch - and plenty powerful for surrounds and such) to complement the XPR-5 I already have. 8+8+5=21 amps for 3 tri-amped fronts and 12 satellites.


Whatever works for you...and that MM8003 is a good buy if you get even close to 100 W/channel all driven. 

In my case I've got a NAD M27 for my 7.1 floor channels. I'm leaning toward picking up a couple of pairs of Atlantic Tech 44-DAs for Atmos height channels in the short term, and after some back and forth, possibly a Wyred4Sound MMC-7 or a Crown Amp CTI 8150 (seven and eight channels respectively). Either one will free me up for future expansion to two to four more floor speakers, with 14 to 16 channels to amp, so I'll have a ton of potential Atmos placement flexibility. 

I'm going balanced with my existing 7.1 speakers, so I'd like to stay balanced across the board to have as low a S/N ratio as possible (and also to keep the gain structure tight as per advice from a Trinnov user I respect). Given physical space and heat/efficiency considerations, I'm sticking with Class D as I have with the M27, hence the non-Emo choice for an amp (which I'd do if I had unlimited rack space to deal with). 

Right now I'm just looking at straight amplification, but down the road I might wind up looking at two or three-way crossovers with active speakers, possibly for a separate music-only room. That was a factor in my decision to go with 24 channels rather than 16, BTW. Or maybe for four vs. two subs....anyway those are decisions for the future.


Anyway, your setup's impressive. Enjoy!


----------



## Al Sherwood

^^ My vote is for 11.1.6 !


----------



## NorthSky

> Given folks have preferences, then one is certainly allowed to prefer a room correction system that does not correct the most important speakers in the system (L + R + subs). But unless measurements mean absolutely nothing (and to some apparently they do), Audyssey results are measureably superior to no correction (Onkyo's approach) in 90% of the cases. As I noted, one gets to prefer no mearuements if one so chooses.


Check this out (read it all): https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Scott Simonian

Al Sherwood said:


> ^^ My vote is for 11.1.6 !


You have two rows of seating, Al?


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> I do. I'm amazed it was never stolen!



OK, I confess , it's not a 'real' Cosworth . It started life in Canada as a Merkur XR4Ti . I restored it as a Cosworth, all OEM parts . Except for the rear
window you'd never know.


----------



## coolgeek

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn’t an opinion that XT32 is superior to AccuEQ. It's a fact. AccuEQ doesn't EQ the Left and Right speakers or, unbelievably, the sub. Measurements also show that AccuEQ does more or less nothing at all. None of that is true of XT32, hence it is a superior solution.





Scott Simonian said:


> I know but that's not what you said. You said, "all else being equal". If you're not ever going to use the auto-EQ function, you can ignore it as a factor to the decision of purchase. Now there are other reasons to not consider the Denon and make it "a better buy".
> 
> So it is just... your opinion that you consider the Denon a "better buy". For someone else, it isn't.


If 'all else being equal', saying Audyssey is better than AccuEQ has an inherent flaw...

Just because Audyssey 'does more' does not make it 'objectively better'... because 'sound' is a subjective experience.

I for one, NEVER LIKED audyssey... Before I invested in the Onkyo receiver, one of the MAIN feature I looked for was Audyssey XT32 because i kept reading good things about it on forums... But when I got it, and used it, the 'curve it generated' just isn't my taste... since then I have found numerous people who hated the 'curve' audyssey set... I much prefer using simple EQ... So, which is better is a very subjective matter when it comes to 'preference'... If a feature that does a whole lot of things end up doing things you neither want nor like then it's not 'better' in any way you slice or dice it...

Remember, the discussion here is 'Better'... usually when such a word is used, it's almost always an 'opinion'... If one were to say, 'If all else being equal, then Audyssey seems to do more than an AutoEQ' then, that might be an 'objective argument'... .'better' isn't... what's better for one isn't for another...


----------



## coolgeek

Al Sherwood said:


> ^^ My vote is for 11.1.6 !


This would be perfect for 2 rows of seat!! I would love to be able to do this.. alas, my room can only accommodate at most 9.1.4... but I am wired for 7.1.4... the back row is basically 1 feet away from the back wall...


----------



## coolgeek

audioguy said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> So it apparently is only an "abstract vision" that 2+2 = 4; or that the earth is round;
> 
> 
> 
> Given folks have preferences, then one is certainly allowed to prefer a room correction system that does not correct the most important speakers in the system (L + R + subs). But unless measurements mean absolutely nothing (and to some apparently they do), Audyssey results are measureably superior to no correction (Onkyo's approach) in 90% of the cases. As I noted, one gets to prefer no mearuements if one so chooses.
> 
> I must say, I continue to be amazed. Simply amazed.


I am sorry.. I just can't seem to sit here looking at you 'reprimand' someone and 'act like the scientist' while making the exact same errors you accuse others of making...

1+1=2 isn't the same as saying 'audyssey is superior'...

Audyssey has it's own proprietary curve that it's engineers think 'people like'.. and many do... I personally do not like it's curve and I have since found many others do not either.. i find it 'flat' and 'bright'... I much prefer a simple eq where i can adjust to my own taste... 

It's one thing to offer your own opinion for preference of Audyssey over AutoEQ and another altogether to 'act like you are the scientist' and have scientific data on 'sound superiority' and how 'everyone should like to listen'...

So, yes, 1+1=2, everyone agrees on that.. it's a definition... 

AutoEQ vs Audyssey, which is superior... can you seriously suggest that after running both in all rooms, that EVERYONE would say 'Audyssey' did a superior job?


----------



## petetherock

IMO: Page 730 was a total waste of thread space on this forum...


----------



## Roger Dressler

brahman12 said:


> LOL.... The Office... I miss that show. Funny how so many shows copied that style of the "faux documentary" delivery of the written material. Never watched the British version but heard it was very funny too.


If you'd have seen the British one first, you could have saved many hours of TV watching. It's uproariously good. Nothing since has come close.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> If 'all else being equal', saying Audyssey is better than AccuEQ has an inherent flaw...
> 
> Just because Audyssey 'does more' does not make it 'objectively better'... because 'sound' is a subjective experience.
> 
> I for one, NEVER LIKED audyssey... Before I invested in the Onkyo receiver, one of the MAIN feature I looked for was Audyssey XT32 because i kept reading good things about it on forums... But when I got it, and used it, the 'curve it generated' just isn't my taste... since then I have found numerous people who hated the 'curve' audyssey set... I much prefer using simple EQ... So, which is better is a very subjective matter when it comes to 'preference'... If a feature that does a whole lot of things end up doing things you neither want nor like then it's not 'better' in any way you slice or dice it...
> 
> Remember, the discussion here is 'Better'... usually when such a word is used, it's almost always an 'opinion'... If one were to say, 'If all else being equal, then Audyssey seems to do more than an AutoEQ' then, that might be an 'objective argument'... .'better' isn't... what's better for one isn't for another...


It isn't subjective to say that XT32 is a superior REQ solution to AccuEQ, when the latter actually doesn't do anything worthwhile. If you look at the measurements posted comparing the two you can clearly see, objectively, which is the superior solution. This isn't opinion, it is fact. Whether someone likes the superior result or not doesn’t invalidate its superiority.

I already posted where to find the comparison graphs, but I'll make it easier. They are *here*.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> I am sorry.. I just can't seem to sit here looking at you 'reprimand' someone and 'act like the scientist' while making the exact same errors you accuse others of making...
> 
> 1+1=2 isn't the same as saying 'audyssey is superior'...
> 
> Audyssey has it's own proprietary curve that it's engineers think 'people like'.. and many do... I personally do not like it's curve and I have since found many others do not either.. i find it 'flat' and 'bright'... I much prefer a simple eq where i can adjust to my own taste...
> 
> It's one thing to offer your own opinion for preference of Audyssey over AutoEQ and another altogether to 'act like you are the scientist' and have scientific data on 'sound superiority' and how 'everyone should like to listen'...
> 
> So, yes, 1+1=2, everyone agrees on that.. it's a definition...
> 
> AutoEQ vs Audyssey, which is superior... can you seriously suggest that after running both in all rooms, that EVERYONE would say 'Audyssey' did a superior job?


Yes. You are confusing whether the end result is subjectively pleasing with whether one is a better room EQ solution than the other, objectively. XT32 is very effective and there are thousands of measurements on AVS which show this. AccuEQ does* NO EQ AT ALL* on the subwoofer, which is where EQ is most needed, and no EQ on the left and right speakers. Clearly, a room EQ technology which _does not do any EQ _cannot be regarded as superior to a room EQ technology which does very effective EQ.


----------



## chi_guy50

coolgeek said:


> I am sorry.. I just can't seem to sit here looking at you 'reprimand' someone and 'act like the scientist' while making the exact same errors you accuse others of making...
> 
> 1+1=2 isn't the same as saying 'audyssey is superior'...
> 
> Audyssey has it's own proprietary curve that it's engineers think 'people like'.. and many do... I personally do not like it's curve and I have since found many others do not either.. i find it 'flat' and 'bright'... I much prefer a simple eq where i can adjust to my own taste...
> 
> It's one thing to offer your own opinion for preference of Audyssey over AutoEQ and another altogether to 'act like you are the scientist' and have scientific data on 'sound superiority' and how 'everyone should like to listen'...
> 
> *So, yes, 1+1=2, everyone agrees on that.. it's a definition...*
> 
> AutoEQ vs Audyssey, which is superior... can you seriously suggest that after running both in all rooms, that EVERYONE would say 'Audyssey' did a superior job?


No, not everyone agrees: I asked my computer and its OS thinks that 1 + 1 = 10, so you see in the final analysis everything is subjective (decimal vs. binary) if you want to quibble.



petetherock said:


> IMO: Page 730 was a total waste of thread space on this forum...


FWIW, the number of posts per page is a user-settable function (e.g., I use 100 posts per page and am currently on page 220 in this thread), so ironically even *this* is subjective.


----------



## audioguy

coolgeek said:


> I am sorry.. I just can't seem to sit here looking at you 'reprimand' someone and 'act like the scientist' while making the exact same errors you accuse others of making...
> 
> 1+1=2 isn't the same as saying 'audyssey is superior'...
> 
> Audyssey has it's own proprietary curve that it's engineers think 'people like'.. and many do... I personally do not like it's curve and I have since found many others do not either.. i find it 'flat' and 'bright'... I much prefer a simple eq where i can adjust to my own taste...
> 
> It's one thing to offer your own opinion for preference of Audyssey over AutoEQ and another altogether to 'act like you are the scientist' and have scientific data on 'sound superiority' and how 'everyone should like to listen'...
> 
> So, yes, 1+1=2, everyone agrees on that.. it's a definition...
> 
> AutoEQ vs Audyssey, which is superior... can you seriously suggest that after running both in all rooms, that EVERYONE would say 'Audyssey' did a superior job?


You need to re-read my post. I quite clearly said "measureably superior" and it is. That you or anyone else might like the room distortion that Audyssey reduces is another matter all together. That is preference. And if one thinks the Audyssey curve is bright, there is always Audyssey Pro. And you may not like that either.

I stand by my post.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> You have two rows of seating, Al?



Hey Scott, this is was I am hoping for, the room is currently undergoing a rebirth and I am at the deconstruction phase.


I will know if the space can actually support two rows properly after a few sketch up sessions and some vetting here on the forum. 

As for hardware, I have already have the seating, screen, PJ and more then enough speakers, what is missing (other then the room) is an AVR that does it all.


----------



## dvdwilly3

audioguy said:


> You need to re-read my post. I quite clearly said "measureably superior" and it is. That you or anyone else might like the room distortion that Audyssey reduces is another matter all together. That is preference. And if one thinks the Audyssey curve is bright, there is always Audyssey Pro. And you may not like that either.
> 
> I stand by my post.


*AccuEQ vs Audyssey...*
The debate rages on...I think that what people are getting hung up on is the use of “superior”...so let’s agree on “more accurate” (accurater?) 


To me, the primary intent of EQ is to provide the most accurate (flattest) sound profile at the MLP. And, insofar as I understand it, AccuEQ simply ignores the front left and front right and subwoofer, and deals with the sides and surrounds. And, Audyssey EQs everything. That sort of begs the question as to how AccuEQ could ever be as accurate as Audyssey
. 
Their (Onkyo) approach seems to take the stance that there is no need to EQ either of the fronts or the subwoofer. And, I think that is erroneous, unless you were running it in some acoustically “perfect” space.


I will take my HT as an example of what I am getting at. It is 19 ½’ long by 14 ½’ wide...so far so good. However, there is a soffit that runs down roughly 1/3 the width of the room from front to back. So, my ceiling is 8’ high under the soffit (1/3 the width of the room), and 9’ high under the non-soffit (2/3 the wide of the room). Sound reflections cannot and will not ever be symmetrical...ever.


From the standpoint of pure physics, there is no way that the front left and front right speakers are producing the same frequency/amplitude at my MLP which is about 14’ from the screen and midway between the side walls. It simply cannot.


So, if we accept that AccuEQ does not EQ the fronts alone (without getting into the SW issues in my room), then it is less accurate than Audyssey. And, hence, Audyssey is more accurate or superior.


Now, whether you may prefer a flat sound profile at your MLP or not is wholly a matter of preference.


----------



## audioguy

I will agree on "more accurater". Absolutely a "more better" way of describing it!!


----------



## Roudan

Hi

If I place Atmos enable upward speaker, does reflected sound from ceiling has to cover the seating area? What happen if reflected sound from ceiling only goes to some locations in front of seating area?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> If I place Atmos enable upward speaker, does reflected sound from ceiling has to cover the seating area? What happen if reflected sound from ceiling only goes to some locations in front of seating area?


 
The whole idea of the reflected sound is to have it come to the listeners ears, if it is going elsewhere the effect is lost. 


Some spill over to other areas is OK, but if not enough or no sound reaches the seating area you won't have the proper Atmos overhead effect.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I am going to move from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4, so I will need to upgrade my AVR. I currently am running an Onkyo TX-NR737. For roughly the same amount of $$, I can get...an Onkyo TX-NR1030; a Denon W5200 (refurb) or a Marantz 7009 (refurb).

Can I get an opinion, in particular, between the Denon and Marantz with relative merits? I will probably hold off til DTS makes some kind of commitment (they have already made a declaration, which does not count for much...). To DTS--drop the other friggin' shoe, please!!

Forget the AccuEQ vs Audyssey issue. I am running Def Tech towers and I never get x-over results that I find pleasing. I only use either of them, AccuEQ or Audyssey, to set distances and gross levels and tweak from there.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am going to move from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4, so I will need to upgrade my AVR. I currently am running an Onkyo TX-NR737. For roughly the same amount of $$, I can get...an Onkyo TX-NR1030; a Denon W5200 (refurb) or a Marantz 7009 (refurb).
> 
> Can I get an opinion, in particular, between the Denon and Marantz with relative merits? I will probably hold off til DTS makes some kind of commitment (they have already made a declaration, which does not count for much...). To DTS--drop the other friggin' shoe, please!!
> 
> Forget the AccuEQ vs Audyssey issue. I am running Def Tech towers and I never get x-over results that I find pleasing. I only use either of them, AccuEQ or Audyssey, to set distances and gross levels and tweak from there.


Signs are pointing to an April DTS announcement. Yes, DTS:X should be showing up in product at the normal A/V electronics cycle of late summer/early fall.


----------



## lubeman1

What's the consensus on whether or not an DTS-X firmware upgrade will be made available to say a Marantz SR7009 AVR?


I've read different opinions on this and am getting ready to pick one up today.....but should I wait?


----------



## chi_guy50

noah katz said:


> Do Atmos BD's [from Netflix] come with the Atmos soundtracks?





zeus33 said:


> This has been discussed a few times. The Netflix Blu-ray version of Transformers 4 DOES include the Atmos track. I received it as well as some other members. Lionsgate has separate rental discs that don't include Atmos or Lossless tracks. So, if the film is a Lionsgate film, you have to purchase it to get the lossless & Atmos tracks. The other studios don't seem to be crippling their rental discs with the same limitations.





chi_guy50 said:


> Can anyone cite a specific instance of receiving a BRD title from Netflix that did not measure up to the published specs? I would be keenly interested to hear specifics.



I would like to reiterate my request for feedback regarding Atmos soundtracks on Netflix Blu-ray disks. Since I plan to rely on Netflix as my principal source for Atmos-encoded movies, this is more than an issue of idle curiosity on my part.

As I have previously noted, so far I have yet to receive a single BRD from Netflix that had the lossy codec in lieu of the lossless version--and that includes a number of Lionsgate releases. But I don't know what I can extrapolate from my limited experience, which to this point has not included any Atmos movies.

Other than zeus33's confirmation above regarding TF4, can anyone relate of a Netflix rental they received that either did or did not contain the Atmos soundtrack otherwise available? TIA.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

petetherock said:


> IMO: Page 730 was a total waste of thread space on this forum...


I think what we need is a good dose of Dolby Atmos announcements... hopefully we get some more bluray announcements soon!


----------



## cfraser

If the EQ doesn't improve the sound experience for you, I hope you don't use it, regardless of what brand it is. The problem with all the built-in (to AVR/pre-pro) EQ systems I've seen are they're too inflexible, "Pro" or not. I fully understand why, from a marketing etc. perspective. Almost nobody in this thread is going to be satisfied with a built-in EQ, not after they've used a stand-alone system. So we're kind of arguing which built-in EQ system is the least terrible, and why they give us such small portions of it.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> Signs are pointing to an April DTS announcement. *Yes, DTS:X should be showing up in product at the normal A/V electronics cycle of late summer/early fall.*



With _selection|recommendation_ of the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec_ "scheduled" for *mid-August 2015*, the putative announcement of *DTS:X* (_disc|download_) capable AVRs at *CEDIA 2015* in September is perfectly timed to begin an online angst regarding possible announcements at *CES 2016* about the inclusion of *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _decoders_ in AVRs starting next year (when first availability of *ATSC3.0 *_smart _TVs is anticipated) . . . and whether or not AVRs will need to support *all three* (*ATSC3.0* candidate) _broadcast|streaming codecs_, viz: *Dolby AC-4*, *DTS:X*, and *MPEG-H*...?!    


_


----------



## htpcforever

Isn't there already a long, futile, thread about AccuEQ vs Audyssey?


----------



## cfraser

lubeman1 said:


> What's the consensus on whether or not an DTS-X firmware upgrade will be made available to say a Marantz SR7009 AVR?
> 
> 
> I've read different opinions on this and am getting ready to pick one up today.....but should I wait?


I can't help, but interesting you asked that, I was just wondering that myself before I turned the PC on.

You'd think that if the 7702 gets it, the 7009 should be fully capable of handling it too, so that wouldn't _prevent_ it. I am still not sure the 7702 will get it as an upgrade, but maybe it will in a slightly modded model number, or for a small (?) cost to existing owners. If there's a cost, then it would make sense to offer it to 7009 owners too, it's not like the 7702 is a "premium" product in the way the 8802 is, so no "platinum treatment" should be expected for/by the 7702 owners.

The 7009/7702-successors will have hardware differences from the 7009/7702, so that will already significantly differentiate them from the 7009/7702. So no need for Marantz to further differentiate them by just the DTS-X, they will have a hard enough time moving the 7009/7702 product as soon as any new format-handling capabilities are announced, might as well make it as easy as possible (applies to all brands, but we're talking Marantz).

That's my speculation. Bottom line is, you have to buy for your needs/plans today. If you're worried about tomorrow (in this stuff), you better not buy today. In this instance though, you know what's coming, just not exactly when, so you can't get angry or be surprised or disappointed in 6 months or a year (not saying you would, people in _this_ thread likely won't, but some people do, daily).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> With _selection|recommendation_ of the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _codec_ "scheduled" for *mid-August 2015*, the putative announcement of *DTS:X* (_disc|download_) capable AVRs at *CEDIA 2015* in September is perfectly timed to begin an online angst regarding possible announcements at *CES 2016* about the inclusion of *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _decoders_ in AVRs starting next year (when first availability of *ATSC3.0 *_smart _TVs is anticipated) . . . and whether or not AVRs will need to support *all three* (*ATSC3.0* candidate) _broadcast|streaming codecs_, viz: *Dolby AC-4*, *DTS:X*, and *MPEG-H*...?!
> 
> 
> _


It never ends. They had best have ATSC 3.0 firmware updates ready for _at least_ the 2014 and 2015 units or the industry is going to start shooting its own toes off. They've already alienated more than a few potential customers with their never-ending cycle of updates needing _brand new _hardware... more so than any other time. It's usually taken _years_ between needing to buy new A/V receivers/processors, now it's almost yearly. And every one of these companies are hurting financially.


----------



## lubeman1

I agree with you, If we all waited till the next "best" thing to come along, none of us would ever buy anything new. That's how quick new stuff comes out!


I've been out of the TH game for about 10 years now so anything new that I get is hopefully going to be a MAJOR upgrade to what I have now anyway.


I'm going for it and IF DTS-X is an option down the road as a firmware upgrade then bonus I guess if not oh well.


----------



## FilmMixer

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am going to move from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4, so I will need to upgrade my AVR. I currently am running an Onkyo TX-NR737. For roughly the same amount of $$, I can get...an Onkyo TX-NR1030; a Denon W5200 (refurb) or a Marantz 7009 (refurb).
> 
> Can I get an opinion, in particular, between the Denon and Marantz with relative merits? I will probably hold off til DTS makes some kind of commitment (they have already made a declaration, which does not count for much...). To DTS--drop the other friggin' shoe, please!!
> 
> Forget the AccuEQ vs Audyssey issue. I am running Def Tech towers and I never get x-over results that I find pleasing. I only use either of them, AccuEQ or Audyssey, to set distances and gross levels and tweak from there.


I subjectively liked the sound of the 5200 over the 7009 (I've had both in my room.)


----------



## DAK4

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am going to move from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4, so I will need to upgrade my AVR. I currently am running an Onkyo TX-NR737. For roughly the same amount of $$, I can get...an Onkyo TX-NR1030; a Denon W5200 (refurb) or a Marantz 7009 (refurb).
> 
> Can I get an opinion, in particular, between the Denon and Marantz with relative merits? I will probably hold off til DTS makes some kind of commitment (they have already made a declaration, which does not count for much...). To DTS--drop the other friggin' shoe, please!!
> 
> Forget the AccuEQ vs Audyssey issue. I am running Def Tech towers and I never get x-over results that I find pleasing. I only use either of them, AccuEQ or Audyssey, to set distances and gross levels and tweak from there.


If all else is equal, then Onkyo with HDCP 2.2 is going to be the better buy than D&M without it.
If all else is equal, then Onkyo with lower price is going to be the better buy than D&M with higher price.
If all else is equal, then Onkyo (Non Refurb) is going to be the better buy than D&M (Refurb)
IMO


----------



## cfraser

FilmMixer said:


> I subjectively liked the sound of the 5200 over the 7009 (I've had both in my room.)


Uh oh. I've had the 5200 in my room and thought it sounded the same as a (non-Atmos) pre-pro as my X4000 "pre-pro". No chance to try a 7009 here, but a 7702 should be coming tonight. I am looking for a more "refined" sound; I actually have no problem per se with the Denon sound, but know it could be better. I'm probably barking up the wrong tree though, I may have to move way on up to get what I'd like.

I would rather have tried the 7009 (as a pre-pro), because then I could judge its sound, and assume the 7702 would be similar in major respects...I'd have a sense of it and any differences to Denon (except the 7200, which I gather is somewhat different). The case for the 7009 vs the 7702 here is I would use 4 internal amps for the "high" speakers = convenient.


----------



## Scott Simonian

coolgeek said:


> This would be perfect for 2 rows of seat!! I would love to be able to do this.. alas, my room can only accommodate at most 9.1.4... but I am wired for 7.1.4... the back row is basically 1 feet away from the back wall...


You'll be fine in that case. The rear surrounds will be so close to the back row having an extra set of side surrounds would not be of any benefit.



petetherock said:


> IMO: Page 730 was a total waste of thread space on this forum...


Well I think post *#21932* isn't all that useful either. :kiss:



Al Sherwood said:


> Hey Scott, this is was I am hoping for, the room is currently undergoing a rebirth and I am at the deconstruction phase.
> 
> 
> I will know if the space can actually support two rows properly after a few sketch up sessions and some vetting here on the forum.
> 
> As for hardware, I have already have the seating, screen, PJ and more then enough speakers, what is missing (other then the room) is an AVR that does it all.


Sweet! Sounds awesome, Al.  You're in a good spot to at least prepare for inevitable speaker layout. Prewiring alone will save you a whole heaping load of headache down the road.


----------



## FilmMixer

cfraser said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I subjectively liked the sound of the 5200 over the 7009 (I've had both in my room.)
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh. I've had the 5200 in my room and thought it sounded the same as a (non-Atmos) pre-pro as my X4000 "pre-pro". No chance to try a 7009 here, but a 7702 should be coming tonight. I am looking for a more "refined" sound; I actually have no problem per se with the Denon sound, but know it could be better. I'm probably barking up the wrong tree though, I may have to move way on up to get what I'd like.
> 
> I would rather have tried the 7009 (as a pre-pro), because then I could judge its sound, and assume the 7702 would be similar in major respects...I'd have a sense of it and any differences to Denon (except the 7200, which I gather is somewhat different). The case for the 7009 vs the 7702 here is I would use 4 internal amps for the "high" speakers = convenient.
Click to expand...

No uh oh needed. 

I suspect what I didn't love about the 7009 was the amp section. 

I have heard great things about the 7702... I suspect you will be very happy.


----------



## chi_guy50

DAK4 said:


> If all else is equal, then Onkyo with HDCP 2.2 is going to be the better buy than D&M without it.
> If all else is equal, then Onkyo with lower price is going to be the better buy than D&M with higher price.
> If all else is equal, then Onkyo (Non Refurb) is going to be the better buy than D&M (Refurb)
> IMO


LOL, nothing is the equal of a clever parody!


----------



## coolgeek

kbarnes701 said:


> True- but *if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ*.





kbarnes701 said:


> It isn't subjective to say that XT32 is a superior REQ solution to AccuEQ, when the latter actually doesn't do anything worthwhile. If you look at the measurements posted comparing the two you can clearly see, objectively, which is the superior solution. This isn't opinion, it is fact. Whether someone likes the superior result or not doesn’t invalidate its superiority.
> 
> I already posted where to find the comparison graphs, but I'll make it easier. They are *here*.





kbarnes701 said:


> Yes. You are confusing whether the end result is subjectively pleasing with whether one is a better room EQ solution than the other, objectively. XT32 is very effective and there are thousands of measurements on AVS which show this. AccuEQ does* NO EQ AT ALL* on the subwoofer, which is where EQ is most needed, and no EQ on the left and right speakers. Clearly, a room EQ technology which _does not do any EQ _cannot be regarded as superior to a room EQ technology which does very effective EQ.



Your statement:

- *if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ*

is FALSE...

You said, a 'better buy'... you're assuming everyone:

1. Cares about the auto-eq function
2. Will be happier with Audyssey than not having Audyssey.
3. Prefers the 'sound' post audyssey calibration vs post AccuEQ

That's a lot of assumptions... 

I am not even discussing which product is subjectively superior.... That was not my intention at all.. I was just pointing out your own statement which you made out as 'fact' is totally false... nothing else... 

Everyone has opinions on this forum, and it's ok to have one... that's why we all come here to learn from each other.. I am wrong sometimes, you're wrong sometimes, others are wrong sometimes.. and we all have very vast differing tastes... What I, personally find really irritating is when people on forums bully everyone else into submission.


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am going to move from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4, so I will need to upgrade my AVR. I currently am running an Onkyo TX-NR737. For roughly the same amount of $$, I can get...an Onkyo TX-NR1030; a Denon W5200 (refurb) or a Marantz 7009 (refurb).
> 
> Can I get an opinion, in particular, between the Denon and Marantz with relative merits? I will probably hold off til DTS makes some kind of commitment (they have already made a declaration, which does not count for much...). To DTS--drop the other friggin' shoe, please!!
> 
> Forget the AccuEQ vs Audyssey issue. I am running Def Tech towers and I never get x-over results that I find pleasing. I only use either of them, AccuEQ or Audyssey, to set distances and gross levels and tweak from there.


I would look @ Yamaha Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 2nd gen of AV receivers. ...But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Roudan

Al Sherwood said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> If I place Atmos enable upward speaker, does reflected sound from ceiling has to cover the seating area? What happen if reflected sound from ceiling only goes to some locations in front of seating area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole idea of the reflected sound is to have it come to the listeners ears, if it is going elsewhere the effect is lost.
> 
> 
> Some spill over to other areas is OK, but if not enough or no sound reaches the seating area you won't have the proper Atmos overhead effect.
Click to expand...

What about using front height (close to ceiling) speaker which can only point to seating area a little bit? My understanding is that it need to bounce off the floor like using ceiling speaker ? Is that correct? If it is true then front height speaker won't work?

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> If I place Atmos enable upward speaker, does reflected sound from ceiling has to cover the seating area? What happen if reflected sound from ceiling only goes to some locations in front of seating area?





Al Sherwood said:


> The whole idea of the reflected sound is to have it come to the listeners ears, if it is going elsewhere the effect is lost.
> 
> Some spill over to other areas is OK, but if not enough or no sound reaches the seating area you won't have the proper Atmos overhead effect.


Like Al said; the angle @ which they hit the ceiling in relation to the MLP (main listening chair - area) has to be precise. 

Me, I would simply go with two or four Atmos overhead speakers. ...Some that you can aim freely, with perhaps a rotating tweeter, wide dispersion design, adjustable brackets. ...A coaxial design perhaps. 

But that's me, my opinion.


----------



## Kain

@kbarnes701 and anyone else that recommended me to place the side surrounds in a 7.x.x setup slightly in-front of the seating position:

While it might work for the bed channel sounds, what about for objects? Won't placing the side surround speakers slight in-front of the seating position "mess" with the location of object sounds because the preamp/processor thinks the side surrounds are placed at 90-110 degrees from the seating position?


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> What about using front height (close to ceiling) speaker which can only point to seating area a little bit? My understanding is that it need to bounce off the floor like using ceiling speaker ? Is that correct? If it is true then front height speaker won't work?
> 
> Thanks


No, nothing is supposed to bounce off the floor. 

Front height speakers; do you mean on the ceiling or high up on the front wall?
You mentioned "close to ceiling"; that would be high up on the front wall near the ceiling joint. 
Dolby Atmos overhead speakers do go on or in the ceiling, not on the front and back walls.


----------



## NorthSky

*Ceiling-firing speakers ("Atmos-enabled speakers"):*

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf

*Installation guidelines:*

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

* This should help.


----------



## kbarnes701

coolgeek said:


> Your statement:
> 
> - *if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ*
> 
> is FALSE...
> 
> You said, a 'better buy'... you're assuming everyone:
> 
> 1. Cares about the auto-eq function
> 2. Will be happier with Audyssey than not having Audyssey.
> 3. Prefers the 'sound' post audyssey calibration vs post AccuEQ
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions...
> 
> I am not even discussing which product is subjectively superior.... That was not my intention at all.. I was just pointing out your own statement which you made out as 'fact' is totally false... nothing else...
> 
> Everyone has opinions on this forum, and it's ok to have one... that's why we all come here to learn from each other.. I am wrong sometimes, you're wrong sometimes, others are wrong sometimes.. and we all have very vast differing tastes... What I, personally find really irritating is when people on forums bully everyone else into submission.


It's a fact that XT32 is a superior room EQ technology to AccuEQ. I have posted a link to a reliable set of objective measurements which show this. Whether someone likes the result is not relevant.


----------



## RapalloAV

coolgeek said:


> If 'all else being equal', saying Audyssey is better than AccuEQ has an inherent flaw...
> 
> Just because Audyssey 'does more' does not make it 'objectively better'... because 'sound' is a subjective experience.
> 
> I for one, NEVER LIKED audyssey... Before I invested in the Onkyo receiver, one of the MAIN feature I looked for was Audyssey XT32 because i kept reading good things about it on forums... But when I got it, and used it, the 'curve it generated' just isn't my taste... since then I have found numerous people who hated the 'curve' audyssey set... I much prefer using simple EQ... So, which is better is a very subjective matter when it comes to 'preference'... If a feature that does a whole lot of things end up doing things you neither want nor like then it's not 'better' in any way you slice or dice it...
> 
> Remember, the discussion here is 'Better'... usually when such a word is used, it's almost always an 'opinion'... If one were to say, 'If all else being equal, then Audyssey seems to do more than an AutoEQ' then, that might be an 'objective argument'... .'better' isn't... what's better for one isn't for another...


coolgeek can you explain to me the reasons you didn't like XT32 and turn it off please? (this is not a trick question to come back and attack)


Do you only use it doe setting distances and levels then turn it off?


You say you only use a simple EQ, is that the one which comes with your AVR?


What changes in the EQ are you making for your room?
Is your room dedicated HT and heavily treated?


Interested in what you have to say....


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> @kbarnes701 and anyone else that recommended me to place the side surrounds in a 7.x.x setup slightly in-front of the seating position:
> 
> While it might work for the bed channel sounds, what about for objects? Won't placing the side surround speakers slight in-front of the seating position "mess" with the location of object sounds because the preamp/processor thinks the side surrounds are placed at 90-110 degrees from the seating position?


The ITU spec permits it. I don't think you can bring into the equation how the mixer mixed it, as he is mixing for a side array of speakers not a single surround speakers (and for Atmos he is mixing for multiple side surrounds not a single one), so personally I think the point about the AVR 'knowing' where the side surround is is not entirely valid. However, 'filling the gaps' between the speaker sets is a valid notion. It's easy enough to try - just stick with whatever sounds best to you. Pay special attention to front to rear pans along the side walls. Does the sound move seamlessly from front speakers to rear surrounds or does it 'jump' the gap? Go with whichever gives the most seamless result.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> The ITU spec permits it. I don't think you can bring into the equation how the mixer mixed it, as he is mixing for a side array of speakers not a single surround speakers (and for Atmos he is mixing for multiple side surrounds not a single one), so personally I think the point about the AVR 'knowing' where the side surround is is not entirely valid. However, 'filling the gaps' between the speaker sets is a valid notion. It's easy enough to try - just stick with whatever sounds best to you. Pay special attention to front to rear pans along the side walls. Does the sound move seamlessly from front speakers to rear surrounds or does it 'jump' the gap? Go with whichever gives the most seamless result.


Thanks. I don't have an issue with placing the side surrounds in-front of the seating position (actually prefer it due to space limitations) as long as it doesn't mess with the localization of object-based sounds. Objects use individual speakers while the bed channels use the whole side surround array. So if an object-based sound is supposed to come from the right side of the listener, how will it work with the side surrounds in-front of the listener and the back surrounds at the rear? However, I can see forgoing this small "irregularity" in certain sound localizations for a more seamless front-to-back "sound-stage" or speaker setup.


----------



## cfraser

FilmMixer said:


> No uh oh needed.
> 
> I suspect what I didn't love about the 7009 was the amp section.
> 
> I have heard great things about the 7702... I suspect you will be very happy.


Unfortunately I just found out the 7702 I was going to borrow from the dealer over the weekend was sold, the last in stock so they sold the demo model. I presume they're selling like hotcakes because Marantz found the price-performance sweet-spot.

I was babbling the other day in the 7009 thread about how the 5200 amps seemed much beefier than the Denon AVR amps I had previously seen/owned. So yes, I can see how you might prefer those amps, I posited that as one benefit of the 5200 over the 7009. [The 5200/7009/7702 all cost exactly the same _here_, now.] The 5200's amps are clearly rated for 4-ohm loads; not just "kinda works with 4 ohms", but _really works_ with 4-ohm loads.


----------



## RapalloAV

htpcforever said:


> Isn't there already a long, futile, thread about AccuEQ vs Audyssey?


Yes that's the one I started when Onkyo dropped Audyssey


----------



## RapalloAV

Im sorry to repeat a question but no one ever responded to the one I asked many pages back, can someone please offer some advice?




I currently use my two previously installed in ceiling surround speakers as my top middle for Atmos. These are not in the correct position for Atmos as they were previously installed at the junction of the wall and ceiling pointed to the MLP. Under these I have two new lowered Klipsch Ultra 2 THX 7800 inwalls for the low surrounds. I actually setup for a full 13.1 Auro but after weeks of listening Ive gone back to Atmos as I prefer the sound.
Current top middle 
http://www.klipsch.com/kl-7502-thx-in-ceiling-speaker


Now that Ive come to the conclusion Im staying with Atmos or DTS X (not Auro) 
Would I be better off to call it a day and place two top middles in the correct place inline with the front L&R? I do have a spare pair of these Klipsch CDT5650 CII would they be good in the correct position than the other existing THX Klipsch in ceiling Im currently using? 
Or do I wait and find out what the speaker placement is for DTS X before I cut anymore holes in the ceiling? I cut all these holes for Auro, front top middle, VOG etc etc and now they aren't used. Its still cheaper for me to leave these all in place rather than remove the speakers, seal the holes etc etc.... You never know if we need any of these when they change again to something new! 


The spare 5650 I have left over.
http://www.klipsch.com/CDT-5650-C-II


----------



## asharma

lubeman1 said:


> What's the consensus on whether or not an DTS-X firmware upgrade will be made available to say a Marantz SR7009 AVR?
> 
> 
> I've read different opinions on this and am getting ready to pick one up today.....but should I wait?



I have an email from Marantz customer service that the 7009 will not be upgradeable to DTS:X


----------



## cfraser

^^ Murray: I'm sure you know you can get grille covers to cover the unwanted holes; you usually have to buy them separately anyway for PA etc. speaker installs. True they (probably) won't look the same, but get something even nicer to impress your friends with all your (now non-existent) Atmos ceiling speakers. Some may even say your system is the best Atmos they've ever heard, and will rush to match you, only you will know.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> What about using front height (close to ceiling) speaker which can only point to seating area a little bit? My understanding is that it need to bounce off the floor like using ceiling speaker ? Is that correct? If it is true then front height speaker won't work?
> 
> Thanks


You want a wide dispersion type speaker (non dipole), even if you can only mount it close to the ceiling as a height speaker, not _on_ the ceiling as an overhead. You want to be able to aim the speaker towards the main listening position, so some sort of adjustable mounting bracket is recommended. 

Again, many have used the Tannoy Di outdoor series of speakers with the dual concentric drivers (DC in the model name) because of their fairly wide dispersion and ease of mounting and aiming (and relatively inexpensive nature). 

The main layer surround speakers should be placed so they just clear the average seated viewer's head (no sound blockage) in order to keep some sort of good separation between the layers... otherwise almost everything in the surrounds will sound like they're above you.


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> Yes that's the one I started when Onkyo dropped Audyssey


I enjoyed it; there was a lot of practical info there. It was an excellent subject, and very apropos too in these new times.


----------



## noah katz

Good to know, thanks.



zeus33 said:


> This has been discussed a few times. The Netflix Blu-ray version of Transformers 4 DOES include the Atmos track. I received it as well as some other members. Lionsgate has separate rental discs that don't include Atmos or Lossless tracks. So, if the film is a Lionsgate film, you have to purchase it to get the lossless & Atmos tracks. The other studios don't seem to be crippling their rental discs with the same limitations.





chi_guy50 said:


> As I've already pointed out a couple of times, you can not conclude anything from the audio codec listing for newer disks on the Netflix site. I believe I've watched at least two or three Lionsgate releases this year alone that contained the lossless codec even though the lossy version was listed for the BRD specs on the web page.


----------



## bargervais

asharma said:


> I have an email from Marantz customer service that the 7009 will not be upgradeable to DTS:X


That's good to know


----------



## Movie78

asharma said:


> I have an email from Marantz customer service that the 7009 will not be upgradeable to DTS:X


Please can we see the content of that email..


----------



## asharma

Movie78 said:


> Please can we see the content of that email..


Ok, I'm not sure why you need to see it, but here goes:

DTS:X? [Incident: 141230-000779]

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 30 days.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

To access your question from our support site, click here.

Subject
DTS:X?

Discussion Thread From Submitted Question
Response Via Email (Bryan Billeaud)	01/07/2015 10:03 AM
Good Morning, 

Unfortunately the SR7009 will not be updated or upgraded to DTS: X. 

Thanks,
Marantz

Question Reference #141230-000779 
Product Level 1: AV Receivers
Product Level 2: SR7009
Category Level 1: Pre-Sales
Category Level 2: Product Information
Date Created: 12/30/2014 05:47 PM
Last Updated: 01/07/2015 10:03 AM
Status: Complete
Serial # (optional): 
List additional Models: 
Marantz Dealer: Online Dealer
Dealer : 
Country: United States
Source:


----------



## RapalloAV

cfraser said:


> ^^ Murray: I'm sure you know you can get grille covers to cover the unwanted holes; you usually have to buy them separately anyway for PA etc. speaker installs. True they (probably) won't look the same, but get something even nicer to impress your friends with all your (now non-existent) Atmos ceiling speakers. Some may even say your system is the best Atmos they've ever heard, and will rush to match you, only you will know.


No I didn't know you could buy speaker covers to block the holes, Ive always gone the long tedious way of re Gib stopping etc etc etc....
However re using the KL7502 as Atmos top speakers I really don't think is an option, they have a fixed tweeter on a 45deg angle, don't think that's what we want.


Yet the spare pair of CDT 5650 I have left over might, as they have a movable tweeter. Yet I don't know if these are considered "wide dispersion" ?
http://www.klipsch.com/CDT-5650-C-II


----------



## HotAhr

asharma said:


> Ok, I'm not sure why you need to see it, but here goes:
> 
> DTS:X? [Incident: 141230-000779]
> 
> Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
> 
> If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 30 days.
> 
> Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.
> 
> To access your question from our support site, click here.
> 
> Subject
> DTS:X?
> 
> Discussion Thread From Submitted Question
> Response Via Email (Bryan Billeaud)	01/07/2015 10:03 AM
> Good Morning,
> 
> Unfortunately the SR7009 will not be updated or upgraded to DTS: X.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marantz
> 
> Question Reference #141230-000779
> Product Level 1: AV Receivers
> Product Level 2: SR7009
> Category Level 1: Pre-Sales
> Category Level 2: Product Information
> Date Created: 12/30/2014 05:47 PM
> Last Updated: 01/07/2015 10:03 AM
> Status: Complete
> Serial # (optional):
> List additional Models:
> Marantz Dealer: Online Dealer
> Dealer :
> Country: United States
> Source:




Well, that was short and to the point. Whoa! For me the question now becomes, will my current receiver hold up until the fall, when the new line of products comes out. Or, should I just submit to the reality that if I go with an Atmos only based receiver, I guess I could live with it? Oh, how I love my hobby.

Wait. Hmmm... this is not from Corporate Marantz. This is from an online dealer. I think there is a difference there.


----------



## FilmMixer

HotAhr said:


> asharma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm not sure why you need to see it, but here goes:
> 
> DTS:X? [Incident: 141230-000779]
> 
> Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
> 
> If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 30 days.
> 
> Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.
> 
> To access your question from our support site, click here.
> 
> Subject
> DTS:X?
> 
> Discussion Thread From Submitted Question
> Response Via Email (Bryan Billeaud)	01/07/2015 10:03 AM
> Good Morning,
> 
> Unfortunately the SR7009 will not be updated or upgraded to DTS: X.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marantz
> 
> Question Reference #141230-000779
> Product Level 1: AV Receivers
> Product Level 2: SR7009
> Category Level 1: Pre-Sales
> Category Level 2: Product Information
> Date Created: 12/30/2014 05:47 PM
> Last Updated: 01/07/2015 10:03 AM
> Status: Complete
> Serial # (optional):
> List additional Models:
> Marantz Dealer: Online Dealer
> Dealer :
> Country: United States
> Source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was short and to the point. Whoa! For me the question now becomes, will my current receiver hold up until the fall, when the new line of products comes out. Or, should I just submit to the reality that if I go with an Atmos only based receiver, I guess I could live with it? Oh, how I love my hobby.
> 
> Wait. Hmmm... this is not from Corporate Marantz. This is from an online dealer. I think there is a difference there.
Click to expand...

And it's from January.

While I have no contrary information I wouldn't go by a customer care rep. 

No way.


----------



## jrref

FilmMixer said:


> And it's from January.
> 
> While I have no contrary information I wouldn't go by a customer care rep.
> 
> No way.


Go to the DTS:X forum, someone just got confirmation recently from Marantz in the UK that the 7009 will be upgradable to DTS:X. Just don't know if it's free or at an additional cost like Auro-3d.


----------



## kingwiggi

erwinfrombelgium said:


> My money is on the Emotiva XMR-1. 16 channels, MSRP $5,000. Announced for next Christmas. I know, it might be the next one...
> 
> I have 2 upgrade cards (-40% on MSRP), so I might get the XMC-1 first, which would replace my UMC-1 in our current home when the big processor surfaces. Or I might go for a 7702 as an intermediate if I can get it cheap enough.


Interesting

When you say "next Chistmas" is that suppose to be Chistmas 2015 or Christmas 2016. 

I'm genuinely interested because I also have one of the 40% upgrade cards.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Who knows. All I know is that I want to end up with a 9.1.6 set-up hence I am keeping my Upgrade Cards. My room wil at best be ready by July/August this year and probably with only a limited amount of speakers finished. Wait and see.


----------



## markus767

chi_guy50 said:


> I would like to reiterate my request for feedback regarding Atmos soundtracks on Netflix Blu-ray disks..


...and where are all those Atmos streaming titles??? Nothing on iTunes, Amazon or Netflix yet. Anybody got more info?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Thanks. I don't have an issue with placing the side surrounds in-front of the seating position (actually prefer it due to space limitations) as long as it doesn't mess with the localization of object-based sounds. Objects use individual speakers while the bed channels use the whole side surround array. So if an object-based sound is supposed to come from the right side of the listener, how will it work with the side surrounds in-front of the listener and the back surrounds at the rear? However, I can see forgoing this small "irregularity" in certain sound localizations for a more seamless front-to-back "sound-stage" or speaker setup.


It's a compromise anyway - the mixer is mixing to a whole bank of side speakers, whereas you have just one.


----------



## asharma

FilmMixer said:


> And it's from January.
> 
> While I have no contrary information I wouldn't go by a customer care rep.
> 
> No way.


All I know is the internal escalation took like 2 weeks to get an answer...I'll be peeved if it is upgradeable as I returned it and bought the 4100 in the interim...who has the right answer here??


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> All I know is the internal escalation took like 2 weeks to get an answer...I'll be peeved if it is upgradeable as I returned it and bought the 4100 in the interim...who has the right answer here??


Nobody knows. You get different answers depending who you ask. My dealer has asked Denon UK and they say they don't know.

Logically, the current units, other than the 7200, will not get the DTS:X upgrade. Why would they? New units will be released in September and they will have DTS:X. It makes no commercial sense for Denon to add DTS:X to existing units. The only reason they will add it to the 7200 is because if they didn't, the lower models coming in September would have DTS:X and the 7200 wouldn't. Can’t have the flagship unit not having the goodies that the lesser units have.

Looking on the bright side, by the time there is significant DTS:X content, another model year will probably have passed, so you can upgrade in 2016 to a unit that has DTS:X and also has HDCP 2.2, 4K and everything else. And in the meantime, you can use your DTS:X encoded discs (if any) in DSU mode, and then get to enjoy them all over again in DTS:X when you upgrade.

I hope I am wrong, obviously.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody knows. You get different answers depending who you ask. My dealer has asked Denon UK and they say they don't know.
> 
> Logically, the current units, other than the 7200, will not get the DTS:X upgrade. Why would they? New units will be released in September and they will have DTS:X. It makes no commercial sense for Denon to add DTS:X to existing units. The only reason they will add it to the 7200 is because if they didn't, the lower models coming in September would have DTS:X and the 7200 wouldn't. Can’t have the flagship unit not having the goodies that the lesser units have.
> 
> Looking on the bright side, by the time there is significant DTS:X content, another model year will probably have passed, so you can upgrade in 2016 to a unit that has DTS:X and also has HDCP 2.2, 4K and everything else. And in the meantime, you can use your DTS:X encoded discs (if any) in DSU mode, and then get to enjoy them all over again in DTS:X when you upgrade.
> 
> I hope I am wrong, obviously.


Thanks thats why I filed the email from Marantz in a safe place. If the 7009 does turn out to be upgradeable, we will have a good discussion. I agree on the plan for 2016 upgrade. In the interim DSU and ATMOS are awesome. I still have TMTN sharing wrapped and on the to be watched list. I am waaaay behind in my movie watching but there is a department store chain here in Canada that went bankrupt so I bought 15 new release blu rays the other day at 40-60 percent off...


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody knows. You get different answers depending who you ask. My dealer has asked Denon UK and they say they don't know.
> 
> *Logically, the current units, other than the 7200, will not get the DTS:X upgrade.* Why would they? New units will be released in September and they will have DTS:X. It makes no commercial sense for Denon to add DTS:X to existing units. The only reason they will add it to the 7200 is because if they didn't, the lower models coming in September would have DTS:X and the 7200 wouldn't. Can’t have the flagship unit not having the goodies that the lesser units have.
> 
> Looking on the bright side, by the time there is significant DTS:X content, another model year will probably have passed, so you can upgrade in 2016 to a unit that has DTS:X and also has HDCP 2.2, 4K and everything else. And in the meantime, you can use your DTS:X encoded discs (if any) in DSU mode, and then get to enjoy them all over again in DTS:X when you upgrade.
> 
> I hope I am wrong, obviously.


In the above mentioned context there can also be another logic which is that all D&M units that already have the capacity to integrate DTS:X (Denon 7200/5200/4100 & Marantz 8802/7702/7009) will be untitled to do so via a FW upgrade, in order for DTS to immediately take advantage of the already existing base of today's marketed receivers. 

As does the next generation of products absolutely need DTS:X to promote it? No, as the promotion or "need" for this next generation of products will be directly driven by the inclusion of the new HDMI 2.0 chipsets having a HDCP 2.2 capacity, something our actual generation of processors doesn't have.

Now this is the logic that can be seen in the Denon 7200W and 7200WA case of products and something that we will probably also see in the Marantz 8802 and possibly 7702 contexts... 

Then and obviously, I could also be wrong. 

Have a nice Sunday,

Amicalement,

Hugo


----------



## desray2k

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> In the above mentioned context there can also be another logic which is that all D&M units that already have the capacity to integrate DTS:X (Denon 7200/5200/4100 & Marantz 8802/7702/7009) will be untitled to do so via a FW upgrade, in order for DTS to immediately take advantage of the already existing base of today's marketed receivers.
> 
> As does the next generation of products absolutely need DTS:X to promote it? No, as the promotion or "need" for this next generation of products will be directly driven by the inclusion of the new HDMI 2.0 chipsets having a HDCP 2.2 capacity, something our actual generation of processors doesn't have.
> 
> Now this is the logic that can be seen in the Denon 7200W and 7200WA case of products and something that we will probably also see in the Marantz 8802 and possibly 7702 contexts...
> 
> Then and obviously, I could also be wrong.
> 
> Have a nice Sunday,
> 
> Amicalement,
> 
> Hugo


Agreed that the next generation selling point will be the inclusion of the new hdcp2.2 for 4k rather than DTS:X playing a key factor. 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> *The Book of Eli.*


 
Thanks for the recommendation! I watched it with DSU last night and the soundtrack was excellent!
I also rewound the gunshot scene you mentioned - I didn't catch the lightning in the cloud the first time. 




Ray


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Thanks thats why I filed the email from Marantz in a safe place. If the 7009 does turn out to be upgradeable, we will have a good discussion. I agree on the plan for 2016 upgrade. In the interim DSU and ATMOS are awesome. I still have TMTN sharing wrapped and on the to be watched list. I am waaaay behind in my movie watching but there is a department store chain here in Canada that went bankrupt so I bought 15 new release blu rays the other day at 40-60 percent off...


Nice buys! I do hope I am wrong and that my 5200 is upgradeable to DTS:X. But in my heart of hearts, I know it won't be


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> In the above mentioned context there can also be another logic which is that all D&M units that already have the capacity to integrate DTS:X (Denon 7200/5200/4100 & Marantz 8802/7702/7009) will be untitled to do so via a FW upgrade, in order for DTS to immediately take advantage of the already existing base of today's marketed receivers.


Ca va, Hugo? Commercially though, they would much prefer to sell you the 2015 model with DTS:X than give a longer life to an old model.



Hugo S said:


> As does the next generation of products absolutely need DTS:X to promote it? No, as the promotion or "need" for this next generation of products will be directly driven by the inclusion of the new HDMI 2.0 chipsets having a HDCP 2.2 capacity, something our actual generation of processors doesn't have.


That is true, but DTS:X will just be bundled with all that. When AVR manufacturers have introduced new features, how many times have they allowed older units to be upgraded?



Hugo S said:


> Then and obviously, I could also be wrong.


And so could we all!



Hugo S said:


> Have a nice Sunday,


Toi aussi!


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks for the recommendation! I watched it with DSU last night and the soundtrack was excellent!
> I also rewound the gunshot scene you mentioned - I didn't catch the lightning in the cloud the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray


Glad you enjoyed it. Had you already figured out Eli's distinguishing feature by the end? I didn't, first time around, and then immediately had to watch the entire movie again. Once you know, the entire movie is full of clues.


----------



## desray2k

Let's all hope that exciting x5200 users can upgrade to DTS:X when the time comes....

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

asharma said:


> Thanks thats why I filed the email from Marantz in a safe place. If the 7009 does turn out to be upgradeable, we will have a good discussion. I agree on the plan for 2016 upgrade. In the interim DSU and ATMOS are awesome. I still have TMTN sharing wrapped and on the to be watched list. I am waaaay behind in my movie watching but there is a department store chain here in Canada that went bankrupt so I bought 15 new release blu rays the other day at 40-60 percent off...


"In the interim DSU and ATMOS are awesome." I agree with this statement. However, I do have a question. 

I have a Sony BDP-S7200 and it feeds the AVR bitstream. My AVR, an Onkyo TX-NR737 has a setting where you tell it how to translate, for lack of a better term, an incoming data stream for each source.
Under DVD/Bluray, I have set Dolby incoming to output as Dolby Surround. DSU works great, and Atmos is even better...both very immersive.

I have tried setting the incoming DTS stream for any number of things--Direct, Straight Decode, DTS Cinema, and Dolby Surround. With any of those settings, I get no activity whatsoever on the Atmos speakers. This is true whether I am playing a DTS 7.1 or DTS:X sound clip from their 2015 demo disk. From a logical standpoint, this is consistent--that is, my AVR does not have a DTS:X decoder so I should not expect that there will be any activity in the Atmos (set for Top Front) speakers. And, DTS 7.1 does not have height speakers anyway, so I should not expect anything there.

Is this consistent with everyone else's experience, or am I missing something somewhere? That is, given the current codecs, is there any way that I can get sound from the Atmos speakers from any DTS format?


----------



## kbarnes701

While we sometimes (most times) moan about lack of movies on Atmos Bluray, I look at the eight that I own so far and feel rather differently about them when I see the exciting new content coming along on Auro disc. No movies at all of course, but, thankfully, no shortage of Belgian 'gentle pop' music.... 

This, for me at least, kind of puts things into perspective...




multit said:


> I just got the newest Auro-3D Release "Paramount" von Ozark Henry (Pure Audio Blu-ray w/ Auro-3D 9.1), so I had to reload my real Auro config into the Denon immediatley.
> The belgian musician (named Piet Goddaer) has brought up an elaborately produced album on the market, which translates very well the connection between classical and pop.
> His songs will be accompanied by the Belgian National Orchestra. I would classify the genre as gentle pop with slight elements of rock, his voice is very pleasant and at the same time pithily.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> "In the interim DSU and ATMOS are awesome." I agree with this statement. However, I do have a question.
> 
> I have a Sony BDP-S7200 and it feeds the AVR bitstream. My AVR, an Onkyo TX-NR737 has a setting where you tell it how to translate, for lack of a better term, an incoming data stream for each source.
> Under DVD/Bluray, I have set Dolby incoming to output as Dolby Surround. DSU works great, and Atmos is even better...both very immersive.
> 
> I have tried setting the incoming DTS stream for any number of things--Direct, Straight Decode, DTS Cinema, and Dolby Surround. With any of those settings, I get no activity whatsoever on the Atmos speakers. This is true whether I am playing a DTS 7.1 or DTS:X sound clip from their 2015 demo disk. From a logical standpoint, this is consistent--that is, my AVR does not have a DTS:X decoder so I should not expect that there will be any activity in the Atmos (set for Top Front) speakers. And, DTS 7.1 does not have height speakers anyway, so I should not expect anything there.
> 
> Is this consistent with everyone else's experience, or am I missing something somewhere? That is, given the current codecs, is there any way that I can get sound from the Atmos speakers from any DTS format?


Of course. Just send the 7.1 DTS track via bitstream and DSU will upmix it to all your speakers. I am not sure I am reading you correctly - we have all been using DSU with DTS-HD MA and DTS 5.1/7.1 tracks ever since we got our Atmos AVRs. And very good it is too.


----------



## asharma

dvdwilly3 said:


> "In the interim DSU and ATMOS are awesome." I agree with this statement. However, I do have a question.
> 
> I have a Sony BDP-S7200 and it feeds the AVR bitstream. My AVR, an Onkyo TX-NR737 has a setting where you tell it how to translate, for lack of a better term, an incoming data stream for each source.
> Under DVD/Bluray, I have set Dolby incoming to output as Dolby Surround. DSU works great, and Atmos is even better...both very immersive.
> 
> I have tried setting the incoming DTS stream for any number of things--Direct, Straight Decode, DTS Cinema, and Dolby Surround. With any of those settings, I get no activity whatsoever on the Atmos speakers. This is true whether I am playing a DTS 7.1 or DTS:X sound clip from their 2015 demo disk. From a logical standpoint, this is consistent--that is, my AVR does not have a DTS:X decoder so I should not expect that there will be any activity in the Atmos (set for Top Front) speakers. And, DTS 7.1 does not have height speakers anyway, so I should not expect anything there.
> 
> Is this consistent with everyone else's experience, or am I missing something somewhere? That is, given the current codecs, is there any way that I can get sound from the Atmos speakers from any DTS format?


I'm at a loss. More of a question for Onkyo users. Sorry. You should get DSU from any DTS track also.


----------



## chi_guy50

desray2k said:


> Let's all hope that exciting x5200 users can upgrade to DTS:X when the time comes....


I may be an old fuddy-duddy, but I insist that we boring users receive equal treatment!!!


----------



## desray2k

chi_guy50 said:


> I may be a old fuddy-duddy, but I insist that we boring users receive equal treatment!!!


LOL... Actually I meant to type 'existing' as opposed to 'exciting'...  

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> *Nobody knows.* You get different answers depending who you ask. My dealer has asked Denon UK and they say they don't know.


^^^ This. Until we get definitive word from D&M (not some dealer or third-party support contractor)--which is not likely until after the DTS:X launch--it's all just conjecture and speculation.



kbarnes701 said:


> *Logically, the current units, other than the 7200, will not get the DTS:X upgrade.* Why would they? New units will be released in September and they will have DTS:X. It makes no commercial sense for Denon to add DTS:X to existing units. The only reason they will add it to the 7200 is because if they didn't, the lower models coming in September would have DTS:X and the 7200 wouldn't. Can’t have the flagship unit not having the goodies that the lesser units have.


No, logic implies that the X4100/X5200X/X7200 would all get the upgrade assuming they have the processing capacity (see Hugo's post below). But logic really has nothing to do with it in the first order; it will undoubtedly be a marketing decision, which as you know is not necessarily logic-driven!



kbarnes701 said:


> I hope I am wrong, obviously.


I believe that the process by which you arrived at your conclusion is wrong, and I just hope that the conclusion will prove wrong as well.



Hugo S said:


> In the above mentioned context there can also be another logic which is that all D&M units that already have the capacity to integrate DTS:X (Denon 7200/5200/4100 & Marantz 8802/7702/7009) will be untitled to do so via a FW upgrade, in order for DTS to immediately take advantage of the already existing base of today's marketed receivers.
> 
> Then and obviously, I could also be wrong.


Ah mais non, mon vieux, à mon avis vous ne vous y trompez point!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> No, logic implies that the X4100/X5200X/X7200 would all get the upgrade assuming they have the processing capacity (see Hugo's post below). But logic really has nothing to do with it in the first order; it will undoubtedly be a marketing decision, which as you know is not necessarily logic-driven!


I see it the other way around. Logically (commercially) it makes no sense to upgrade old gear when you can sell more brand new gear. If the clamor for DTS:X as an upgrade is real, then people will rush out and buy the new hardware that features it. If they don't, then the clamor wasn't all that real to begin with and they just wanted something for nothing.

I've already made my decision. I will not be swapping my 5200 in the fall. I will swap it in fall 2016 though, when DTS:X and the other goodies have all been added. I doubt I will miss much. I don't foresee a huge number of DTS:X releases in the first 6 months, and I can wait after that until fall when the new models come out. And I have DSU in the meantime for everything.

If Denon offer DTS:X upgrades to the 4100 and 5200 I will eat my hat, without mustard, ketchup, pepper or salt.



chi_guy50 said:


> Ah mais non, mon vieux, à mon avis vous ne vous y trompez point!


So emphatic!


----------



## asharma

chi_guy50 said:


> ^^^ This. Until we get definitive word from D&M (not some dealer or third-party support contractor)--which is not likely until after the DTS:X launch--it's all just conjecture and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, logic implies that the X4100/X5200X/X7200 would all get the upgrade assuming they have the processing capacity (see Hugo's post below). But logic really has nothing to do with it in the first order; it will undoubtedly be a marketing decision, which as you know is not necessarily logic-driven!
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the process by which you arrived at your conclusion is wrong, and I just hope that the conclusion will prove wrong as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah mais non, mon vieux, à mon avis vous ne vous y trompez point!



The email I received was straight from D&M customer service and it took a couple weeks to get an answer from them... It states no upgrade to the 7900...


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I see it the other way around. Logically (commercially) it makes no sense to upgrade old gear when you can sell more brand new gear. If the clamor for DTS:X as an upgrade is real, *then people will rush out and buy the new hardware that features it.* If they don't, then the clamor wasn't all that real to begin with and they just wanted something for nothing.
> 
> I've already made my decision. *I will not be swapping my 5200 in the fall.* I will swap it in fall 2016 though, when DTS:X and the other goodies have all been added. I doubt I will miss much. I don't foresee a huge number of DTS:X releases in the first 6 months, and I can wait after that until fall when the new models come out. And I have DSU in the meantime for everything.
> 
> If Denon offer DTS:X upgrades to the 4100 and 5200 I will eat my hat, without mustard, ketchup, pepper or salt.
> So emphatic!


I think the lather (bold) will be most likely for most exisiting Atmos owners( me included), so what does that say for the sales of the new 2015 units?
I mean, most of us have already invested(big) to get a Atmos AVR, and will NOT buy a new one, just for DTS:X.
But ALL of us would upgrade if we could, so that would get the format(DTS:X) out to customers much quicker.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I see it the other way around. Logically (commercially) it makes no sense to upgrade old gear when you can sell more brand new gear. If the clamor for DTS:X as an upgrade is real, then people will rush out and buy the new hardware that features it. If they don't, then the clamor wasn't all that real to begin with and they just wanted something for nothing.


As I've said, that's not logic--it's a (hypothetical) marketing calculation. Hugo has it right.

Again, I'm not saying your conclusion is necessarily wrong--although we both hope so--just that the process by which you arrived at it is. 



kbarnes701 said:


> I've already made my decision. I will not be swapping my 5200 in the fall. I will swap it in fall 2016 though, when DTS:X and the other goodies have all been added. I doubt I will miss much. I don't foresee a huge number of DTS:X releases in the first 6 months, and I can wait after that until fall when the new models come out. And I have DSU in the meantime for everything.


I totally agree. I myself do not intend to upgrade unless/until I can get an AVR for under $5000 that will allow 9.1.6. (Eat it, you Hobbit-sized HT!)



kbarnes701 said:


> If Denon offer DTS:X upgrades to the 4100 and 5200 I will eat my hat, without mustard, ketchup, pepper or salt.


Better than offal stew or whatever it is you Brits consider a meal these days!



kbarnes701 said:


> So emphatic!


STOP CALLING ME PHAT!


----------



## zimmo

Currently,we do not know its gonna go but seeing the denon avr-x7200wa whit dolby atmos and dts-x together understooldprobably that he have an update for DTS-X because you see all middle ranges denon ,marrantz onkyo and Yamaha and had a firmware for the dolby atmos ,so I do not see why it will not do the same whit the 2014 which had only dolby atmos .


----------



## chi_guy50

asharma said:


> The email I received was straight from D&M customer service and it took a couple weeks to get an answer from them... It states no upgrade to the 7900...


D&M has long since farmed out their customer support to a third-party contractor. Unfortunately, they are undertrained and frequently misinformed.


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> I think the lather (bold) will be most likely for most exisiting Atmos owners( me included), so what does that say for the sales of the new 2015 units?
> I mean, most of us have already invested(big) to get a Atmos AVR, and will NOT buy a new one, just for DTS:X.
> But ALL of us would upgrade if we could, so that would get the format(DTS:X) out to customers much quicker.


Yes, that sounds logical  to me. But, as I have already said, I don't think logic plays a first-hand role in it; the decision will be driven by marketing calculations. If those calculations point to leveraging customer satisfaction through providing the upgrade to existing models that have the processing capacity, then they may well do so.

I'm not marketing-savvy, but I would guess that there is plenty of room for potential sales of new units either way. After all, how many Atmos-capable AVR/SSP's are currently in the hands of customers and how many potential customers still remain blissfully unaware of the enhancements offered by MDA for the home?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> I think the lather (bold) will be most likely for most exisiting Atmos owners( me included), so what does that say for the sales of the new 2015 units?
> I mean, most of us have already invested(big) to get a Atmos AVR, and will NOT buy a new one, just for DTS:X.
> But ALL of us would upgrade if we could, so that would get the format(DTS:X) out to customers much quicker.


New buyers of 2015 units are new buyers. Buyers of 2014 units are no longer of any interest to the manufacturers. They want to sell us new units. Whether we buy them or not is up to us of course. When did you last see a new feature of a new unit offered to owners of old units as an upgrade?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> As I've said, that's not logic--it's a (hypothetical) marketing calculation. Hugo has it right.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying your conclusion is necessarily wrong--although we both hope so--just that the process by which you arrived at it is.


It is commercial logic. Commercial logic dictates that new units with new features do not get their sales cannibalised by offering the new features to owners of old units. When has this ever happened before? 



chi_guy50 said:


> Better than offal stew or whatever it is you Brits consider a meal these days!


Sweetbreads casseroled are quite nice  Stuffed heart is better though


----------



## kbarnes701

zimmo said:


> Currently,we do not know its gonna go but seeing the denon avr-x7200wa whit dolby atmos and dts-x together understooldprobably that he have an update for DTS-X because you see all middle ranges denon ,marrantz onkyo and Yamaha and had a firmware for the dolby atmos ,so I do not see why it will not do the same whit the 2014 which had only dolby atmos .


Those units were sold on the understanding and promise that they would be upgradeable to Atmos via FW. It's not the same thing. DTS:X wasn't even finalised when the current Atmos units were released, let alone promised as an upgrade.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, that sounds logical  to me. But, as I have already said, I don't think logic plays a first-hand role in it; the decision will be driven by marketing calculations. If those calculations point to leveraging customer satisfaction through providing the upgrade to existing models that have the processing capacity, then they may well do so.
> 
> I'm not marketing-savvy, but I would guess that there is plenty of room for potential sales of new units either way. After all, how many Atmos-capable AVR/SSP's are currently in the hands of customers and how many potential customers still remain blissfully unaware of the enhancements offered by MDA for the home?


It just isn't going to happen. No way. Make a note of this post and then you can come back and taunt me with it if I am wrong.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> New buyers of 2015 units are new buyers. Buyers of 2014 units are no longer of any interest to the manufacturers. They want to sell us new units. Whether we buy them or not is up to us of course. When did you last see a new feature of a new unit offered to owners of old units as an upgrade?


Then you don't think manufacturers have any interest in sales of existing 2014 inventories? Not to mention that many (most?) of these units are still under production at the present time.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It is commercial logic. Commercial logic dictates that new units with new features do not get their sales cannibalised by offering the new features to owners of old units. When has this ever happened before?


You frequently ask this rhetorical question, but the answer is: PLENTY. 

TiVo is a good example with many, many features of the newer line migrating down to previous lines that have the processing capacity to handle them. As you yourself are undoubtedly well aware from your business experience, manufacturers have many ways to incite sales of new products--whether improved or not.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It just isn't going to happen. No way. Make a note of this post and then you can come back and taunt me with it if I am wrong.


I don't have to wait to taunt you, I'll do it right now: First you state that, although you don't think the upgrade will be made available for the X4100/X5200 (with which I mostly agree), you admit that you could be wrong. And now you firmly and conclusively state that it won't happen, "no way." 

That's just too . . . what's the word? . . . oh yeah, emphatic.


----------



## Jack.K

*Dsu?*

I just setup my new Marantz 7009 and I would like to know how to get DSU to work and what doe's it do?
Will it show up on the panel if correctly selected?


----------



## aaranddeeman

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, that sounds logical  to me. But, as I have already said, I don't think logic plays a first-hand role in it; the decision will be driven by marketing calculations. If those calculations point to leveraging customer satisfaction through providing the upgrade to existing models that have the processing capacity, then they may well do so.
> 
> I'm not marketing-savvy, but I would guess that there is plenty of room for potential sales of new units either way. After all, how many Atmos-capable AVR/SSP's are currently in the hands of customers and how many potential customers still remain blissfully unaware of the enhancements offered by MDA for the home?


or they simply decide to skip the 2015 model year for 5200 (and 4100) and just provide a "paid" upgrade for DTS:X (and possibly HDCP 2.2)
or may be both. Separate paid upgrades (DTS:X and HDCP 2.2) for 2014 models or go for 2015 models that has it built-in


----------



## Glenn Baumann

asharma said:


> All I know is the internal escalation took like 2 weeks to get an answer...I'll be peeved if it is upgradeable as I returned it and bought the 4100 in the interim...who has the right answer here??



"who has the right answer here??"

Ostensibly... no one! 


...Glenn


----------



## chi_guy50

Glenn Baumann said:


> "who has the right answer here??"
> 
> Ostensibly... no one!
> 
> ...Glenn


Right answer!


----------



## RMK!

Jack.K said:


> I just setup my new Marantz 7009 and I would like to know how to get DSU to work and what doe's it do?
> Will it show up on the panel if correctly selected?


Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU) which in your menu system is called "Dolby Surround". What it does is distribute sound (via a magical and mystical set of algorithms) to all of your speakers including properly named height speakers that can be ceiling mounted or up-firing from select base channel locations. 

Clear as mud?


----------



## cfraser

Nothing anybody from Marantz or any other planet says re a DTS:X upgrade, paid or free, is pertinent until it's available to _me_. (Substitute your own _me_ for mine.) That is when we'll know.

[People in marketing can and will say anything, and assuming they really understood the OP's (or the CS rep's) query, they may truly believe what they said. They often have absolutely no way to judge if what they were told is fact or fiction or metaphysical, they are just a conduit.]


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Then you don't think manufacturers have any interest in sales of existing 2014 inventories? Not to mention that many (most?) of these units are still under production at the present time.


They will do what they always do ahead of a new model release: sell them off real cheap to clear the shelves for the new product.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody knows. You get different answers depending who you ask. My dealer has asked Denon UK and they say they don't know.
> 
> Logically, the current units, other than the 7200, will not get the DTS:X upgrade. Why would they? New units will be released in September and they will have DTS:X. It makes no commercial sense for Denon to add DTS:X to existing units. The only reason they will add it to the 7200 is because if they didn't, the lower models coming in September would have DTS:X and the 7200 wouldn't. Can’t have the flagship unit not having the goodies that the lesser units have.
> 
> Looking on the bright side, by the time there is significant DTS:X content, another model year will probably have passed, so you can upgrade in 2016 to a unit that has DTS:X and also has HDCP 2.2, 4K and everything else. And in the meantime, you can use your DTS:X encoded discs (if any) in DSU mode, and then get to enjoy them all over again in DTS:X when you upgrade.
> 
> I hope I am wrong, obviously.


Since all of these companies are about making a profit, one way to do so is to encourage product churn --- so that you sell your 5200/7702 and buy the next new things. BUT, assuming the 5200/7702 have the horse power/capacity to actually run DTS:X, they could keep us happy and STILL make money by charging a more substantial fee for the upgrade. Let's assume they charge $400. While a lot of money on the one hand, it is still probably a lot better (for the consumer) than taking a huge hit (more than $400) on selling and upgrading. If they offered that kind of upgrade, I would wait for the feedback on how good (or not) DSX is and if good spend the $400.

They certainly have no obligation to provide it but they can keep us happy and get (well) paid at the same time.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You frequently ask this rhetorical question, but the answer is: PLENTY.
> 
> TiVo is a good example with many, many features of the newer line migrating down to previous lines that have the processing capacity to handle them. As you yourself are undoubtedly well aware from your business experience, manufacturers have many ways to incite sales of new products--whether improved or not.


And AVRs, which is what we are talking about. How many AVRs have been upgradeable to the new features? (Not counting things like the recent Onkyos etc which were designed and sold with the promise of the upgrade when it was released). I think it speaks volumes that although I have asked this question "frequently". nobody so far has answered it. And when you did, you had to pull a switcheroo to the TiVo.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't have to wait to taunt you, I'll do it right now: First you state that, although you don't think the upgrade will be made available for the X4100/X5200 (with which I mostly agree), you admit that you could be wrong. And now you firmly and conclusively state that it won't happen, "no way."
> 
> That's just too . . . what's the word? . . . oh yeah, emphatic.


No contradiction there. I don't think it will happen. It is possible I may be wrong. I don't think it will happen. That's a summary of what I said.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jack.K said:


> I just setup my new Marantz 7009 and I would like to know how to get DSU to work and what doe's it do?
> Will it show up on the panel if correctly selected?


Just select it as the sound mode (Movie Mode on the remote). It's called Dolby Surround. It upmixes regular 2.0, 5.1, 7.1 etc content so that you get sound out of your overhead speakers even on movies not mixed in Atmos. It is very, very good. Almost everyone who has tried it with movies loves it. Give it a go.


----------



## jpco

D + M have a strong 2014 lineup that seems to have plenty of processing power in all Atmos units. There's 5-6 months of selling to do prior to the expected 2015 models. There may be more financial opportunity in providing the upgrade and completely outclassing Yamaha, Onkyo, and Pioneer for the remainder of this cycle comparing to rushing "obsolescence" on the 2014 models.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Since all of these companies are about making a profit, one way to do so is to encourage product churn --- so that you sell your 5200/7702 and buy the next new things. BUT, assuming the 5200/7702 have the horse power/capacity to actually run DTS:X, they could keep us happy and STILL make money by charging a more substantial fee for the upgrade. Let's assume they charge $400. While a lot of money on the one hand, it is still probably a lot better (for the consumer) than taking a huge hit (more than $400) on selling and upgrading. If they offered that kind of upgrade, I would wait for the feedback on how good (or not) DSX is and if good spend the $400.
> 
> They certainly have no obligation to provide it but they can keep us happy and get (well) paid at the same time.


That is the one glimmer of hope. A paid upgrade. Given that brand new 5200s are now on sale here in the UK at about 40% less than I paid for mine, the price of secondhand units once the new model year has been introduced is clearly going to be well under half of the new price - maybe even a third of it. So we will all be losing a lot of $$$ as you say. In that scenario a paid upgrade, even at $400, makes sense. I still don't think it will happen though. They want to sell the new units they are churning off the production lines, not extend the life of old units. That is how I'd do it if I owned Denon. 

If people *really* want DTS:X, they will buy the new unit. If they don't buy the new unit, they don't want DTS:X that badly.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> And AVRs, which is what we are talking about. How many AVRs have been upgradeable to the new features? (Not counting things like the recent Onkyos etc which were designed and sold with the promise of the upgrade when it was released). I think it speaks volumes that although I have asked this question "frequently". nobody so far has answered it. And when you did, you had to pull a switcheroo to the TiVo.


How about pre/pros?

Like the Denon AVP-A1HDCI.

Of course, it was one which was sold as being upgradeable. 

Others are listed at http://usa.denon.com/us/downloads/productupdates


----------



## Jack.K

kbarnes701 said:


> Just select it as the sound mode (Movie Mode on the remote). It's called Dolby Surround. It upmixes regular 2.0, 5.1, 7.1 etc content so that you get sound out of your overhead speakers even on movies not mixed in Atmos. It is very, very good. Almost everyone who has tried it with movies loves it. Give it a go.


Thanks Keith


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> And AVRs, which is what we are talking about. How many AVRs have been upgradeable to the new features? (Not counting things like the recent Onkyos etc which were designed and sold with the promise of the upgrade when it was released). I think it speaks volumes that although I have asked this question "frequently". nobody so far has answered it. And when you did, you had to pull a switcheroo to the TiVo.


No "switcheroo" involved, kiddo; you had not limited your question specifically to AVR's but rather stated it (as you have in the past) generically and I answered it in the context of electronics manufacturers, which I believe is a pertinent category here.

AVR's as computerized, networked processors do not have a long history--and I do not have a long history of AVR ownership to draw from--but in my limited experience I can think of the AirPlay upgrade which was provided free of charge to my post-sale AVR-3311CI. I do not recall, however, whether there was any promise--implicit or otherwise--that the upgrade would be forthcoming so this might not be a valid instance to cite.

The fact remains that the ability to upgrade the processes on an AVR via FW release is fairly new and creates a scenario for which there is not much precedence.


----------



## dvdwilly3

asharma said:


> I'm at a loss. More of a question for Onkyo users. Sorry. You should get DSU from any DTS track also.


Keith and Asharma, thanks for the responses. I knew that this should not be. All of my AVR settings were as stated above. And, no matter which combination I used, the result was the same.
I searched the TX-NR737 manual--no joy! 

Finally, I went back and fooled with everything again. The answer was the Movie/TV button on the remote. You have to select DTS-MSTR Dolby Surround.

The interesting thing is that I found it by cycling the Movie/TV button. This particular setting does not show in the Onkyo manual, and I cannot find any documentation where Onkyo addresses it.
As a matter of fact, on the Onkyo User Support forum, I found someone who had raised this very issue, and the forum moderator researched it and told the inquirer that they could confirm that DTS-MSTR cannot deal with it and will default to 5.1!

Obviously, and thankfully not true.
Probably a poor attitude on my part, but it just does not seem like we should have to go figure these things out ourselves.
And, but for AVS, I would probably have given up.
Thanks, again.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. Had you already figured out Eli's distinguishing feature by the end? I didn't, first time around, and then immediately had to watch the entire movie again. Once you know, the entire movie is full of clues.


 
It wasn't until Carnegie finally got Eli's bible opened that I realised his "distinguishing feature!" After I watched the movie, I searched on the internet and found the spoilers/clues. But while watching the movie, I didn't take any notice of the clues. I will rewatch it in a few weeks.


----------



## jrref

chi_guy50 said:


> No "switcheroo" involved, kiddo; you had not limited your question specifically to AVR's but rather stated it (as you have in the past) generically and I answered it in the context of electronics manufacturers, which I believe is a pertinent category here.
> 
> AVR's as computerized, networked processors do not have a long history--and I do not have a long history of AVR ownership to draw from--but in my limited experience I can think of the AirPlay upgrade which was provided free of charge to my post-sale AVR-3311CI. I do not recall, however, whether there was any promise--implicit or otherwise--that the upgrade would be forthcoming so this might not be a valid instance to cite.
> 
> The fact remains that the ability to upgrade the processes on an AVR via FW release is fairly new and creates a scenario for which there is not much precedence.


I still believe it's going to be dependent on when the DTS:X announcement is made. You have to remember that D&M has existing inventory and a production lines going right now for the 2104 units. I can't conceive of any business model that would support them saying that DTS:X is not going to be supported on the 2104 models if in fact they can be upgraded, if we get an announcement in the next month or two. You also need to consider another big variable that we really haven't seen before, the paid upgrade, aka Auro-3d, could also change the business equation for D+M. Again I don't know how many Auro-3d upgrades they sold but if they sold a lot why wouldn't they do the same for DTS:X on 2104 models? It's the best of both worlds for them, paid upgrades for 2104 and built in the product for 2015. You have to remember that if DTS:X is only available in 2015, there is probably going to be a relatively small percentage of existing customers who are going to sell their 2014 units and purchase a 2015 unit so why not get the whole market via a paid upgrade. As someone said before in this forum DTS:X isn't going to be the main driver for the 2015 models. It's going to be HDCP 2.2, more configurability of the speaker configurations, more supported channels, etc.... Of course we are all guessing but if you look at it from a business point of view for the "masses" and not just the customers who can afford to switch out their equipment every year, then maybe we can guess a little better


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Keith and Asharma, thanks for the responses. I knew that this should not be. All of my AVR settings were as stated above. And, no matter which combination I used, the result was the same.
> I searched the TX-NR737 manual--no joy!
> 
> Finally, I went back and fooled with everything again. The answer was the Movie/TV button on the remote. You have to select DTS-MSTR Dolby Surround.
> 
> The interesting thing is that I found it by cycling the Movie/TV button. This particular setting does not show in the Onkyo manual, and I cannot find any documentation where Onkyo addresses it.
> As a matter of fact, on the Onkyo User Support forum, I found someone who had raised this very issue, and the forum moderator researched it and told the inquirer that they could confirm that DTS-MSTR cannot deal with it and will default to 5.1!
> 
> Obviously, and thankfully not true.
> Probably a poor attitude on my part, but it just does not seem like we should have to go figure these things out ourselves.
> And, but for AVS, I would probably have given up.
> Thanks, again.


Glad you got it sorted and are now able to enjoy all the DSU goodness. Really, DSU is the same as any other upmixer, in concept, and will upmix pretty much any source to use more speakers. It will work on any format you have - DTS-HD MA, TrueHD, DTS 5.1.7.1, DD 5.1/7.1, 2.0, 2.1 etc etc. Enjoy!


----------



## kingwiggi

chi_guy50 said:


> No, logic implies that the X4100/X5200X/X7200 would all get the upgrade assuming they have the processing capacity (see Hugo's post below). But logic really has nothing to do with it in the first order; it will undoubtedly be a marketing decision, which as you know is not necessarily logic-driven!


Lets hope that DTS are pushing manufacturers to ensure that DTS:X is compatible with the 1st gen of players this way they are more likely to get studios on-side faster. If big box manufacturers can shoehorn DTS:X into 2014 machines and DTS announce in April that they have 10-15 titles in production they have immediately caught up with Atmos. 

If DTS:X is going to launch in 2015 machines then they have quite a bit of catching up to do, not just in blu-ray sales but also in compatible AVR's in the field.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> It wasn't until Carnegie finally got Eli's bible opened that I realised his "distinguishing feature!" After I watched the movie, I searched on the internet and found the spoilers/clues. But while watching the movie, I didn't take any notice of the clues. I will rewatch it in a few weeks.


It's very interesting to watch the movie again but with full knowledge. It's amazing how many clues there are.


----------



## kbarnes701

I am just going to _love_ coming back and saying I told you so when Denon finally announce that DTS:X won't be available as an upgrade


----------



## TennisPro02

I guess it's know secret that some people are not too bright but does anyone think that any model that was firmware upgrade able for Dolby Atmos won't be the same for DTS:X?? Think about what you're saying. Denon, Onkyo, Marantz etc didn't have any Auro component on them so paying $200 for that makes sense..... why would DTS think they could get away with making people pay for a DTS: X upgrade when Dolby Atmos did it for free? Dolby already has a corner on the market and DTS can't afford to turn people off when they're already so far behind.

The DTS: X upgrade will be free for ALL receivers that have Dolby Atmos. For the guy who said if he owned Denon he would charge $400 for the upgrade.... Good to know you would risk your company over a 16K net profit. DTS:X, Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos are all the same thing in the end. DTS can't afford to do anything but upgrade and play catch up.


----------



## jrref

TennisPro02 said:


> I guess it's know secret that some people are not too bright but does anyone think that any model that was firmware upgrade able for Dolby Atmos won't be the same for DTS:X?? Think about what you're saying. Denon, Onkyo, Marantz etc didn't have any Auro component on them so paying $200 for that makes sense..... why would DTS think they could get away with making people pay for a DTS: X upgrade when Dolby Atmos did it for free? Dolby already has a corner on the market and DTS can't afford to turn people off when they're already so far behind.
> 
> The DTS: X upgrade will be free for ALL receivers that have Dolby Atmos. For the guy who said if he owned Denon he would charge $400 for the upgrade.... Good to know you would risk your company over a 16K net profit. DTS:X, Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos are all the same thing in the end. DTS can't afford to do anything but upgrade and play catch up.


The only reason for a paid upgrade could be that the cost of DTS:X was not built into the cost of the receiver. Atmos was free because it came standard with the receiver and the cost already built into the purchase price. But all that said I agree that most of the major manufacturers knew DTS:X was coming in the near term and probably made provisions for it but they can't announce anything until the final implementation is announced.


----------



## NorthSky

Time is money, and time is running out?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I am just going to _love_ coming back and saying I told you so when Denon finally announce that DTS:X won't be available as an upgrade


Contrary to the above opinion, I'll wager that at least the X7200 gets an upgrade for DTS:X.









*"**A̶ ̶B̶e̶a̶d̶l̶e̶!̶ ̶A̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶b̶e̶a̶d̶l̶e̶ No upgrade, no upgrade at all, or I'll eat my head." said M̶r̶.̶ ̶G̶r̶i̶m̶w̶i̶g̶ Barnes
*


----------



## awblackmon

I know this may be a bit crazy. I have said it in the past and don't know anything to feel it may be true but I keep thinking IF DTS says upgrades are available for these following models. Whoever has one of those models will of course jump for joy! Then I wonder IF it might even be possible that DTS then surprises us with several titles that are ALREADY sitting on our shelves that were quietly mastered with DTS:X. What a coup that would turn out to be. Of course all this is just me having a bit of what if fun. Kind of like buying a lottery ticket and dreaming what I would do if I won.


----------



## David Susilo

That would be awesome!!!


----------



## NorthSky

Deja vu all over again?  ...The last two hundred pages.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes said:


> It is commercial logic. Commercial logic dictates that new units with new features do not get their sales cannibalised by offering the new features to owners of old units. When has this ever happened before?





chi_guy50 said:


> You frequently ask this rhetorical question, but the answer is: PLENTY


Apple & IOS releases is a big one that comes to mind...each version with new features is backwards compatible with several generations of previous hardware (for the most part).


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Deja vu all over again?  ...The last two hundred pages.


Its a good subject to talk about...


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> New buyers of 2015 units are new buyers. Buyers of 2014 units are no longer of any interest to the manufacturers. They want to sell us new units. Whether we buy them or not is up to us of course. *When did you last see a new feature of a new unit offered to owners of old units as an upgrade*?


Almost all of the 2014 AVR's sold was later upgradable to Atmos!
Some even Auro 3D!


----------



## David Susilo

Those are not firmware updates, they are firmware unlock. The Atmos capable chip is already in there.


----------



## brahman12

*Not so sure that's true!!!*



Roger Dressler said:


> If you'd have seen the British one first, you could have saved many hours of TV watching. It's uproariously good. Nothing since has come close.


Even if I would have seen and thoroughly enjoyed the British version....I still would have watched the American version, and still enjoyed it as well. I really liked the U.S. version....found it very funny. I have a way of watching and experiencing things with an appreciation for exactly what they are on their own...thus, enhancing the chance that I will enjoy various versions of an artistic expression without needing any particular version to live up to the other (i.e. The Doors version of LA Woman and Billy Idol's version are both equally cool in my opinion).


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Its a good subject to talk about...


Of course it is; it's brand new.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Of course it is; it's brand new.


Like 3-D movies 

Some of us have bought receivers this year, so forgive us for taking interest in the upgrade topic.


----------



## NorthSky

No, like 3D Sound; Dolby Atmos, and Auro-3D, and DTS:X.


----------



## coolgeek

kbarnes701 said:


> It's a fact that XT32 is a superior room EQ technology to AccuEQ. I have posted a link to a reliable set of objective measurements which show this. Whether someone likes the result is not relevant.


I am going to paste what I just said below since you have conveniently 'moved the discussion away from your original statement of 'better buy' and into which is better'... 

Read it a few times to absorb it... this is not an argument about whether Audyssey is a superior auto-eq, it's about your insistent that your statement isn't an opinion... when you said it's a 'better buy' you're assuming people 'cares about auto eq'... which many don't.. such as myself... so, whether a receiver comes with an auto eq like audyssey or accueg, it makes ZERO difference to me as a buyer, thus, if all else being equal, then both receivers will be exactly equal to me.. everything else would be bloatware...!!! 

In fact, I might be swayed into buying a receiver WITHOUT audyssey as it's almost impossible to turn off.. everytime i turn it off, it appears to turn itself back on... and that's irritating... (basically it turns on when you're switching between dsp modes, even if you have turned audyssey off in the 'audyssy settings'... 

This is the logical argument... :

Your statement:

- if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ

is FALSE...

You said, a 'better buy'... you're assuming everyone:

1. Cares about the auto-eq function
2. Will be happier with Audyssey than not having Audyssey.
3. Prefers the 'sound' post audyssey calibration vs post AccuEQ

That's a lot of assumptions... 



RapalloAV said:


> coolgeek can you explain to me the reasons you didn't like XT32 and turn it off please? (this is not a trick question to come back and attack)
> 
> 
> Do you only use it doe setting distances and levels then turn it off?
> 
> 
> You say you only use a simple EQ, is that the one which comes with your AVR?
> 
> 
> What changes in the EQ are you making for your room?
> Is your room dedicated HT and heavily treated?
> 
> 
> Interested in what you have to say....


Hi RapalloAV... I set up audyssey a few times in my 'current room', and didn't like their curve... just didn't care for the sound.. (I am sure many people like that curve and I am happy for them).... And yes, after which, i just used their 'distance setting... 

But sometimes, if your audyssey mic is not set up correctly, they can even screw up your 'distance setting'.. i remember going to a friend's house, and he used audyssey... he had really good speakers and 2x24inch subs... those subs are a power-house.. but when i was at his house, the sound was anaemic... after looking around, i found audyssey turned on.. and all his 'distances were set completely wrong... for example, the left speaker was set at 3 feet, while his right was 11 feet.. when they are the exact same distance away'... so, even setting up audyssey could be a challenge.. you usually don't get consistent results.. the slightest noise from outside (if you don't live in an ideal place) could set it off... 

In anycase, i turned off audyssey, set the distance myself, adjusted his sub volume, and voila! suddenly it was a different world.. he's a happy man now... 

As for my Home Theater, yes, it's a completely treated room.. my speakers never sounded as good as they do... i love it... and no, again, audyssey sounded really bad to me... and apparently so far to most of my friends.. 

I am still adding some finishing touch to the room, so it's changing yet... so, nothing concrete in terms of my final setup... at one point, just using the 7 band equalizer on the Onkyo, i was able to get my curve pretty smooth down to 7 hz... with a house curve going up from 150hz (mid bass) to 20hz before curving back down to flat at 7hz... (note: I don't trust the omnimic beyond 15hz, though, so that that with a grain of salt... but i do feel the earthquake so it might just be flat to 7hz)...

Here's a couple of pics:


----------



## NorthSky

Gorgeous home theater room. ...Chairs look real comfy, and the surrounds I like very much, with their inclination. 

The walls, ceiling, ...everything, perfect.


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> I guess it's know secret that some people are not too bright but does anyone think that any model that was firmware upgrade able for Dolby Atmos won't be the same for DTS:X?? Think about what you're saying. Denon, Onkyo, Marantz etc didn't have any Auro component on them so paying $200 for that makes sense..... why would DTS think they could get away with making people pay for a DTS: X upgrade when Dolby Atmos did it for free? Dolby already has a corner on the market and DTS can't afford to turn people off when they're already so far behind.
> 
> The DTS: X upgrade will be free for ALL receivers that have Dolby Atmos. For the guy who said if he owned Denon he would charge $400 for the upgrade.... Good to know you would risk your company over a 16K net profit. DTS:X, Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos are all the same thing in the end. DTS can't afford to do anything but upgrade and play catch up.


IMO there will be no upgrade to the 4100 and 5200, paid or otherwise. All we can do is wait and see who is right and who is wrong on this. Denon are saying nothing officially at this time.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Contrary to the above opinion, I'll wager that at least the X7200 gets an upgrade for DTS:X.


Yes, I have always said so. But not the 4100 and 5200.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Gorgeous home theater room. ...Chairs look real comfy, and the surrounds I like very much, with their inclination.
> 
> The walls, ceiling, ...everything, perfect.


I seem to remember someone thinkiig those big soft comfy highback chairs were a bad idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Apple & IOS releases is a big one that comes to mind...each version with new features is backwards compatible with several generations of previous hardware (for the most part).


You mean Apple are upgrading all the iPhone 5 models to iPhone 6 models? Wow. There'll be loads of people who want that bigger screen! Good to know it's being upgraded. I was always real happy they when I had an iPhone, Apple upgraded the processor in my iPhone 4 when the iPhone 5 came out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Almost all of the 2014 AVR's sold was later upgradable to Atmos!


They were launched on the basis that they would be FW upgradable to Atmos when the latter became available. Not the same thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I seem to remember someone thinkiig those big soft comfy highback chairs were a bad idea.


Can you recall who that was who said that by any chance?


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I have always said so. But not the 4100 and 5200.


I bought my 5100 because it was the best deal , half the price of the X7200 wich only promised the upgrades and even then with sufficient inconvenience .
If the X5200 does get some upgrades, bonus, I never planned on that anyway. Even if the 7200 had the HDCP2.2 and DTS:X capability I'm not sure I would
have bothered , we don't even need the 2.2 to date really. DTS:X would have been a decision maker, now behind the competition the early adopters have already
adopted. I'm going to skip the next wave of receivers and see what is coming 2016 ,by then 2.2 and DTS:X will be available and useable I assume. 

Atmos and DTS:X both being object based will provide an immersive 3-D sound experience. My speakers are installed per the Atmos guidelines
and I will not be adding any more for a while. I could possibly add the VOG speaker I suppose and hope the rest are cross compatible just for curiosity.
If DTS:X had been the forerunner I likely would have gone that route and been happy enough. For me it was more about the timing and Atmos was the
one available.

To me its like comparing a vehicles AWD to 4WD. Both are different by design , have advantages and disadvantages over the other but in the end both will get the 
job done when the conditions are *appropriate for the application.* 2WD will do just nicely , even better under the appropriate conditions .


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Can you recall who that was who said that by any chance?


Hmmm, North and Sky come to mind, but I could be wrong .Actually, maybe it was a kbarnes,are you confessing ??


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Hmmm, North and Sky come to mind, but I could be wrong .Actually, maybe it was a kbarnes,are you confessing ??


Let's put it this way: it definitely wasn't me


----------



## coolgeek

NorthSky said:


> Gorgeous home theater room. ...Chairs look real comfy, and the surrounds I like very much, with their inclination.
> 
> The walls, ceiling, ...everything, perfect.


Thanks NorthSky...


----------



## Chris Blount

I know this might be old news so sorry if this had been mentioned before. On VUDU there are four Atmos demos available. No need to download them. Just play them through your streaming device. I have a Sony Blu-Ray player hooked to a Pioneer SC-87 and the Atmos came through just fine. Didn't work with my Roku however ( I got 5.1) which is weird because the Atmos demo on Amazon streaming worked fine through the Roku.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Chris Blount said:


> I know this might be old news so sorry if this had been mentioned before. On VUDU there are four Atmos demos available. No need to download them. Just play them through your streaming device. I have a Sony Blu-Ray player hooked to a Pioneer SC-87 and the Atmos came through just fine. Didn't work with my Roku however ( I got 5.1) which is weird because the Atmos demo on Amazon streaming worked fine through the Roku.


But one needs VuDu subscription..


----------



## lujan

aaranddeeman said:


> But one needs VuDu subscription..


Vudu is not a subscription based company. You only pay for the movies you want and the Atmos demonstration videos are free.


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> They were launched on the basis that they would be FW upgradable to Atmos when the latter became available. Not the same thing.


The Onkyo NR 636 was not release with the intention of getting Atmos,but it did get Atmoas firmware upgrade.

If DTS X is going to be same as ATMOS, i don't see why it will be problem upgrade the existing ATMOS receivers to DTS X.


----------



## audioguy

My prediction:

(A) The 5200/7702/etc will NOT be firmware upgradeable.

(B) If (A) is false, then the upgrade cost will not be trivial.

I'll be perfectly fine with (B)!!


----------



## Movie78

audioguy said:


> My prediction:
> 
> (A) The 5200/7702/etc will NOT be firmware upgradeable.
> 
> (B) If (A) is false, then the upgrade cost will not be trivial.
> 
> I'll be perfectly fine with (B)!!


(A) Wrong
(B) Wrong
(C) 

Firmware upgrade should not be charge,i am surprise that nobody found a solution to get AURO 3D upgrade for free.

If the firmware provided by Auro is base the Device ID,it should be possible use HEX editor to change the someone firmware to match your device then upload it on your device..(just saying)


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> The Onkyo NR 636 was not release with the intention of getting Atmos,but it did get Atmoas firmware upgrade.



Not true. The NR 636 was always going to be Atmos upgradeable. As the quote below shows, the upgrade was announced in August '14. Full article here. This unit was always intended to have Atmos and was designed as such. It wasn't the subject of an 'upgrade' in the sense we are discussing DTS:X upgrades, where DTS:X hadn't even been announced when the 2014 Denons were released.


_[Editor's note, 8/12/14: Onkyo has informed us that the TX-NR636 will receive a firmware update some time in September to make it Dolby Atmos ready, so that's another feature to add to the list. For more info on Dolby Atmos, check out this story.]_



Movie78 said:


> If DTS X is going to be same as ATMOS, i don't see why it will be problem upgrade the existing ATMOS receivers to DTS X.


I don't think there is a problem doing it - I think it doesn’t make commercial sense for them to do it, which is why it won't happen IMO.

I bet someone from Denon who actually knows is reading all this speculation and laughing his socks off


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think there is a problem doing it - I think it doesn’t make commercial sense for them to do it, which is why it won't happen IMO.
> 
> I bet someone from Denon who actually knows is reading all this speculation and laughing his socks off


Can you explain why it doesn't make commercial sense?

If the complication on HDCP 2.2 , i don't manufacture is going to release a device without it,until all the HDCP is sorted out.
Their only option to sell their current device it to upgrade firmware to support DTS X.


----------



## audioguy

Movie78 said:


> (A) Wrong
> (B) Wrong
> (C)
> 
> Firmware upgrade should not be charge,i am surprise that nobody found a solution to get AURO 3D upgrade for free.
> 
> If the firmware provided by Auro is base the Device ID,it should be possible use HEX editor to change the someone firmware to match your device then upload it on your device..(just saying)


You may be OK with what is clearly illegal because you disagree with D&M charging, but I'm not!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

I believe the most important factor in getting updates or not, to a fee or not, is how DTS themselves want their technology to be growing in the market and thus providing more compatible devices already in the field for movies with DTS:X soundtracks to sell more. This would encourage movie studios to move forward in a more efficient manner with the format.

So as much as I agree with the commercial analysis of selling new receivers is better for D&M, Onkyo, Yamaha and the others, I could see DTS:X working closely with those brands to bring a maybe a bit limited (as with Atmos on the current receiver with the limit of 7.1.4) support of the format on 2014 receivers.

I think this is our only hope, as slim as it is...


----------



## RMK!

coolgeek said:


> I am going to paste what I just said below since you have conveniently 'moved the discussion away from your original statement of 'better buy' and into which is better'...
> 
> Read it a few times to absorb it... this is not an argument about whether Audyssey is a superior auto-eq, it's about your insistent that your statement isn't an opinion... when you said it's a 'better buy' you're assuming people 'cares about auto eq'... which many don't.. such as myself... so, whether a receiver comes with an auto eq like audyssey or accueg, it makes ZERO difference to me as a buyer, thus, if all else being equal, then both receivers will be exactly equal to me.. everything else would be bloatware...!!!
> 
> In fact, I might be swayed into buying a receiver WITHOUT audyssey as it's almost impossible to turn off.. everytime i turn it off, it appears to turn itself back on... and that's irritating... (basically it turns on when you're switching between dsp modes, even if you have turned audyssey off in the 'audyssy settings'...
> 
> This is the logical argument... :
> 
> Your statement:
> 
> - if all else is equal, then D&M with XT32 is going to be a better buy than Onkyo with AccuEQ
> 
> is FALSE...
> 
> You said, a 'better buy'... you're assuming everyone:
> 
> 1. Cares about the auto-eq function
> 2. Will be happier with Audyssey than not having Audyssey.
> 3. Prefers the 'sound' post audyssey calibration vs post AccuEQ
> 
> That's a lot of assumptions...
> 
> 
> 
> Hi RapalloAV... I set up audyssey a few times in my 'current room', and didn't like their curve... just didn't care for the sound.. (I am sure many people like that curve and I am happy for them).... And yes, after which, i just used their 'distance setting...
> 
> But sometimes, if your audyssey mic is not set up correctly, they can even screw up your 'distance setting'.. i remember going to a friend's house, and he used audyssey... he had really good speakers and 2x24inch subs... those subs are a power-house.. but when i was at his house, the sound was anaemic... after looking around, i found audyssey turned on.. and all his 'distances were set completely wrong... for example, the left speaker was set at 3 feet, while his right was 11 feet.. when they are the exact same distance away'... so, even setting up audyssey could be a challenge.. you usually don't get consistent results.. the slightest noise from outside (if you don't live in an ideal place) could set it off...
> 
> In anycase, i turned off audyssey, set the distance myself, adjusted his sub volume, and voila! suddenly it was a different world.. he's a happy man now...
> 
> As for my Home Theater, yes, it's a completely treated room.. my speakers never sounded as good as they do... i love it... and no, again, audyssey sounded really bad to me... and apparently so far to most of my friends..
> 
> I am still adding some finishing touch to the room, so it's changing yet... so, nothing concrete in terms of my final setup... at one point, just using the 7 band equalizer on the Onkyo, i was able to get my curve pretty smooth down to 7 hz... with a house curve going up from 150hz (mid bass) to 20hz before curving back down to flat at 7hz... (note: I don't trust the omnimic beyond 15hz, though, so that that with a grain of salt... but i do feel the earthquake so it might just be flat to 7hz)...
> 
> Here's a couple of pics:



Beautiful HT there CG. 

As to the first topic of above post let me pass along some well worn words of wisdom from my father. "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk". I changed my signature after several "exchanges" with said polecat.


----------



## audioguy

coolgeek said:


> (note: I don't trust the omnimic beyond 15hz


If you have not upgraded the OmniMic calibration file (which costs nothing but some postage), you are correct. I just got mine upgraded and if you care about accurate low end bass, I highly recommend it.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> I bet someone from Denon who actually knows is reading all this speculation and laughing his socks off


Well, if this person is actually reading us, then i want to say that if as a company they have the slightest sense of good customer care and building up reputation, then they should propose an upgrade (free or paid) in the same way as they did for Auro3D.

If they did it for Auro which has a very limited audience, i don't see why they couldn't do it for DTS:X


----------



## BigScreen

Movie78 said:


> The Onkyo NR 636 was not release with the intention of getting Atmos,but it did get Atmoas firmware upgrade.


Actually, the press release issued by Onkyo on June 23, 2014 did mention that the TX-NR636, as well as the TX-NR737 and TX-NR838, would be getting Atmos:



> UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NJ. Onkyo has announced that its upcoming TX-NR1030 and TX-NR3030 network A/V receivers, flagship PR-SC5530 Network A/V Controller, HT-S7700 and HT-S9700THX HTiB systems, and SKS-HT693 and SKH-410 speaker packages will launch with Dolby Atmos, a next-generation audio format that delivers captivating multidimensional sound in home theater environments.
> 
> The company will also release a firmware update, targeted in September, enabling Dolby Atmos® on its mid-range TX-NR636, TX-NR737, and TX-NR838 network A/V receivers now available worldwide.


----------



## chi_guy50

RMK! said:


> As to the first topic of above post let me pass along some well worn words of wisdom from my father. "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk".


Why not? What's the worst that could happen? . . . Oh, right!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

BigScreen said:


> Actually, the press release issued by Onkyo on June 23, 2014 did mention that the TX-NR636, as well as the TX-NR737 and TX-NR838, would be getting Atmos:


Yes, but the key thing is the receivers were already out before the upgrade being announced, don't you think ?

Again, not saying I believe it will happen for DTS:X...


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> Well, if this person is actually reading us, then i want to say that if as a company they have the slightest sense of good customer care and building up reputation, then they should propose an upgrade (free or paid) in the same way as they did for Auro3D.
> 
> If they did it for Auro which has a very limited audience, i don't see why they couldn't do it for DTS:X


From your lips (or in this case keyboard) . . .


----------



## Movie78

pasender91 said:


> Well, if this person is actually reading us, then i want to say that if as a company they have the slightest sense of good customer care and building up reputation, then they should propose an upgrade (free or paid) in the same way as they did for Auro3D.
> 
> If they did it for Auro which has a very limited audience, i don't see why they couldn't do it for DTS:X


If D+M AVR can upgrade to Auro,i don't see why it can't upgrade to DTS X

Isn't Auro look more complex that ATMOS or DTS X ?


----------



## lubeman1

asharma said:


> I have an email from Marantz customer service that the 7009 will not be upgradeable to DTS:X



Ok thanks for the response, went ahead and pulled the trigger anyway and picked one up this weekend. Loving it so far!


Now just have to get more speakers!! Dammit!


----------



## Gurba

kbarnes701 said:


> You mean Apple are upgrading all the iPhone 5 models to iPhone 6 models? Wow. There'll be loads of people who want that bigger screen! Good to know it's being upgraded. I was always real happy they when I had an iPhone, Apple upgraded the processor in my iPhone 4 when the iPhone 5 came out.


OMG!! Now I know why you don't think a DTS:X update is possible. You don't know the difference between firmware/software and hardware. The rest of us are talking about the possibility of having the firmware updated to support DTS:X. Not having the hardware of the avr updated to support DTS:X a you seem to belive.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's really not as simple as just a "software upgrade" to add to these hard coded DSP chips.


If only....


----------



## sdurani

Gurba said:


> Now I know why you don't think a DTS:X update is possible.


Except he never said it was not possible, just not going to happen for commercial reasons (cannibalizing sales of 2015 models with an upgrade for 2014 models).


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> It's really not as simple as just a "software upgrade" to add to these hard coded DSP chips.
> 
> If only....


But I don't think that caveat applies to D&M's Atmos-capable models, do you?

I think if there's one point we're all pretty much agreed on assuming (in the absence of technical specifications to the contrary) it's that--at least in the case of D&M--the capacity is already built-in for whatever DTS:X will require, and that it's more a question of whether (and/or at what point) the manufacturer decides to provide the process via FW update. So IOW not "can they do it" but "will they?"

The advance (unauthorized) leaking of the probability of such an update for the X5200--which it would have been unwise to promote since it was still uncertain at that point when or even whether the DTS release would occur--would also tend to corroborate this point.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ALL of the consumer level products are based on DSP chips doing the processing.

So no, D&M products are not exempt from this limitation.


Something like the Trinnov Altitude would be an example of a software driven processor that could be upgraded 'like that'. It's pretty much just a computer with AV inputs and outputs.... and is awesome............ly expensive.


----------



## BigScreen

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yes, but the key thing is the receivers were already out before the upgrade being announced, don't you think ?
> 
> Again, not saying I believe it will happen for DTS:X...


Ah yes, I see your point. Those receivers were announced March 17, 2014:

http://www.onkyousa.com/Info/pressreleases.php

The press release mentions that the 636 would be available in April, pre-dating the June Atmos press release. There is no mention in that March press release about Atmos, so your contention, at least within the context of the March 2014 press release, is accurate. 

I don't believe that existing receivers will get a DTS:X update, no matter how nice it would be for those that have purchased Atmos receivers. It's harsh, but I think that those people are going to be left behind in the march of progress. They got what they were promised, just maybe not what they were hoping for.

Personally, I hope that we're going to see more than just DTS:X coming from the new crop of receivers. I'd like to see architectural improvements that perhaps didn't have the time to see the light of day before they had to be released for production that will benefit all sound formats. I'm likely going to be disappointed with the feature sets that are revealed, but so it is with expectations vs. reality.


----------



## joemannnnn

Hey Guys, this may be a better place for me to post. I need some setup advice. I purchased a Denon x5200 and want to try and turn my current setup into an atmos setup. Right now I run a 5.1 setup, and my (2) surrounds are 6.5" HTD's in the ceiling, right above the seating. I'm hoping to pull those out to fish another speaker wire and run actual surrounds to the corners. Then the (2) overhead will be my Atmos speakers in a 5.1.2 setup. I've attached a photo of my room for reference. You'll see my sectional and recliner are in the corners which will make the placement of these surrounds a bit challenging. The surrounds in the corners at ear level I'm guessing may not be ideal with my setup, but it's what's recommended. What is the best way to go about this?

I have a pair of super zeros I can use in the corners, but worry those may be big so close to the seating. My other option is some energy micros I have. Thoughts?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

BigScreen said:


> I don't believe that existing receivers will get a DTS:X update, no matter how nice it would be for those that have purchased Atmos receivers. It's harsh, but I think that those people are going to be left behind in the march of progress. They got what they were promised, just maybe not what they were hoping for.
> 
> Personally, I hope that we're going to see more than just DTS:X coming from the new crop of receivers. I'd like to see architectural improvements that perhaps didn't have the time to see the light of day before they had to be released for production that will benefit all sound formats. I'm likely going to be disappointed with the feature sets that are revealed, but so it is with expectations vs. reality.


I'm totally agreeing with you there...


----------



## kenoh89

Have any new Onkyo models been announced yet? Any other HDCP 2.2 capable Atmos receivers, besides the already mentioned Pioneer coming out next month?


----------



## Argyle

Scott Simonian said:


> It's really not as simple as just a "software upgrade" to add to these hard coded DSP chips.
> 
> 
> If only....





Scott Simonian said:


> ALL of the consumer level products are based on DSP chips doing the processing.
> 
> So no, D&M products are not exempt from this limitation.
> 
> 
> Something like the Trinnov Altitude would be an example of a software driven processor that could be upgraded 'like that'. It's pretty much just a computer with AV inputs and outputs.... and is awesome............ly expensive.


Well...

What do you mean by "hard coded"?

I don't design electronics, but my understanding is that you'd probably call a "hard coded" chip an "ASIC" (application specific integrated circuit). On the flip side a DSP is essentially a programmable processor - think of a CPU but with optimizations so that it is very efficient at signal processing, but still fully programmable.

I don't know which flavor of SHARC processor is in the current D&M models, but for reference here is the user's manual for one of the SHARC processors: http://www.analog.com/media/en/dsp-...106xSHARCProcessorUsersManual_Revision2_1.pdf

I guess it comes down to this, as an example: do you think that the SHARC processors rolled out of the chip foundry completely capable of decoding Auro-3D, it's just that D&M asked you to wait a few months after release to pay $200 to flip a bit in a configuration file to turn it on, or do you think the upgrade actually installs new code for the DSPs to run that enables Auro-3D decoding? For Onkyo/Yamaha/Pioneer and whoever else released "Atmos ready" AVRs last year, do you think that all of those units had a fully functional implementation of Atmos baked into their DSPs on day one that was held back until later for marketing reasons?

As for speculation on current models getting DTS:X - I think it depends a lot on DTS and their relationship with the receiver manufacturers. If I were running DTS I would encourage all of the receiver manufacturers to upgrade older models with the DTS:X if they are capable of doing so, to increase their installed base quickly amongst the influential early adopter crowd (that's pretty much everyone with an Atmos setup at this point). Depending on what resources I had and any information I had on how well Atmos had been received, I would probably consider incentives to encourage this, anything from reduced licensing costs to outright paying the manufacturers to do it.

On the receiver manufacturer end, I think it would depend a lot on inventory levels of current receivers...people knowing that a new codec is coming out later this year could be hurting sales of current receivers. If I felt that next year's models were sufficiently better (for example, upgraded HDMI ports) outside of being DTS:X capable I would probably strongly consider implementing DTS:X on current receivers to clear inventory but still have each model occupy its niche in the product line.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Well, if this person is actually reading us, then i want to say that if as a company they have the slightest sense of good customer care and building up reputation, then they should propose an upgrade (free or paid) in the same way as they did for Auro3D.
> 
> If they did it for Auro which has a very limited audience, i don't see why they couldn't do it for DTS:X


I agree entirely that it would be fantastic if they did. It's just that I think they won't. 

I can't see why customers would have a legitimate beef with Denon. They got what they were promised: an AVR with Atmos. Nobody ever said the unit would be upgradable to DTS:X. You make it sound as if Denon reneged on something but they didn't. They delivered the advertised product. Anyone complaining now that they have a unit lacking DTS:X should have waited until DTS:X was announced.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gurba said:


> OMG!! Now I know why you don't think a DTS:X update is possible. You don't know the difference between firmware/software and hardware. The rest of us are talking about the possibility of having the firmware updated to support DTS:X. Not having the hardware of the avr updated to support DTS:X a you seem to belive.


LOL! We’ll see who is right and who isn’t eventually I guess 

I am sure it is possible. What I keep saying is that, IMO, it isn’t going to happen. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is sure to happen - otherwise Warren Buffet would be sending me a billion dollars next week. 

What Firmware updates of Apple's were you referring to? I can’t ever recall them updating the FW on an iPhone. And, of course, you know that the analogy with an operating system is specious.


----------



## cfraser

Following on from what I asked the other day about "sitting ear height" with reference to the surround (side/back) speaker mounting height and the Dolby Atmos "standard":

Some people talked about the angles to those surround speakers being the important matter, not their exact height. I assume you meant the angles in the _z_ plane since we were talking speaker height. Where did you get those elevation angles from? I haven't found a good reference to them _for Atmos_, so far I haven't seen the elevation angles mentioned since ear height mounting is assumed/pictured. Thanks.

I am assuming here that from what some people said the other day, the surround speakers (not heights/tops, I know those) have a range of acceptable elevation, just like they do in the x/y planes.

Edit: BTW, thanks for checking ear height back then, it's good to know that my sitting setup isn't totally weird. I think if I had a La-Z-Boy or similar recliner that would make up a large part of the height diff. I prefer to sit in a seat more like a Recaro, you know, for those video g forces...actually, it keeps my posture better, and me awake...

And again: if *Roger Dressler*  reads this...do you have any other info, I recall you're one who has high-ish Atmos surrounds from numerous posts...sorry, I forget who else was "defending" them re angles etc.


----------



## Argyle

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL! We’ll see who is right and who isn’t eventually I guess
> 
> I am sure it is possible. What I keep saying is that, IMO, it isn’t going to happen. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is sure to happen - otherwise Warren Buffet would be sending me a billion dollars next week.
> 
> What Firmware updates of Apple's were you referring to? I can’t ever recall them updating the FW on an iPhone. And, of course, you know that the analogy with an operating system is specious.


This seems like semantics to me, even if you make the argument that the OS on an iPhone is not "firmware" (you could make a pretty strong argument that it is, see definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware) I am pretty sure that Apple updates the firmware for the baseband processor all the time, which is a separate processor responsible for actually talking to the cellular networks/wifi/etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> The advance (unauthorized) leaking of the probability of such an update for the X5200--which it would have been unwise to promote since it was still uncertain at that point when or even whether the DTS release would occur--would also tend to corroborate this point.


You have to be careful with that one. Originally Denon did 'leak' that a DTS:X upgrade may be on the cards. However, this was at the time when it was believed that DTS:X was imminent. As it got more and more delayed (which continues with the latest delay from March to April this year) it passed a point where it made sense for Denon to offer it as an upgrade to existing units, other than the 7200. The reason for that was that the flagship models (eg the 7200) generally have a two year product life whereas the others have a one year cycle. Offering a DTS:X upgrade would thus have meant that the lower models in the range would have DTS:X while the flagship would not. Hence the decision to offer it on the 7200 (at that time). As DTS:X got delayed more and more, it was soon evident that it would not be available in time, and thus could be included in the next year's model release (ie fall 2015). IOW, Denon changed their mind in light of new evidence - their prerogative of course.

All just my opinion, of course


----------



## kbarnes701

Argyle said:


> This seems like semantics to me, even if you make the argument that the OS on an iPhone is not "firmware" (you could make a pretty strong argument that it is, see definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware) I am pretty sure that Apple updates the firmware for the baseband processor all the time, which is a separate processor responsible for actually talking to the cellular networks/wifi/etc.


This has become very tedious I think. Time to call a day on it...


----------



## Josh Z

I just talked to the president of D&M. He told me that they fully intended to provide a free DTS:X upgrade to all the 2014 receivers, but then they read all the posts by Keith here, which convinced them that it would be a bad business decision. Instead, they're going to discontinue all support for those models and jack up the price of the 2015 models to twice the previous year's price. Thanks for nothing, Keith! *




*None of this actually happened. If you believe this post, that's nobody's fault but your own.


----------



## quinn4528

sdurani said:


> Except he never said it was not possible, just not going to happen for commercial reasons (cannibalizing sales of 2015 models with an upgrade for 2014 models).


I am not sure how DTS will eventually sell DTS X but if they do not offer a firmware upgrade for DTS X, cannibalization of the 2015/2016 model would not be the reason. Firmware updates to 2014/2015 models would have little impact at best and probably would increase their net revenue. For there to be cannibalization on 2015/2016 DTS X models you would have to assume those who purchased 2014/2015 ATMOS models are still in your market for a new receiver in 2015/2016. They would not be unless DTS X were offered as an firmware update similar to Auro. Also in my view the potential for these same 2014/2015 customers to purchase the upgrade would be be very high and none of them will impact 2015/2016 model sales. This would be gravy.


----------



## pasender91

Scott Simonian said:


> It's really not as simple as just a "software upgrade" to add to these hard coded DSP chips.
> 
> 
> If only....


Actually, yes it is as simple as that.
DSP chips are not "hard-coded" in any way, they propose a set of signal management instructions and have to be "programmed" using a set of instructions that are "loaded".

This is why D&M could propose an Auro-3D update, which loads a different program onto the DSP.
Both programs are stored in memory and the correct one is loaded in the DSP when the user wishes to switch from Atmos to Auro3D.
This is why it is *100% POSSIBLE* to create a new program to manage DTS:X onto the DSP, as long as it has enough power.

The only 3 items preventing this from happening could be:
- If DTS:X requires more ressources than Atmos to process the signal (quite unlikely).
- development costs for this program (this could be adressed by making the update non-free, or costs could be covered by DTS if they wanted to increase the DTS:X AVR footprint to existing models)
- marketing strategy from AVR vendors, wishing to force users to buy the 2015 models if they want to have DTS:X (this is what Keith believe will happen)

Let's see where this goes ....


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. I guess we'll see.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kenoh89 said:


> Have any new Onkyo models been announced yet? Any other HDCP 2.2 capable Atmos receivers, besides the already mentioned Pioneer coming out next month?



Nothing that I have heard about, and you do know that the Onkyo units of 2014 (like 1030/3030) are HDCP 2.2 (lite) right? 4K 60 fps at 2.0.0


----------



## Stanton

pasender91 said:


> - marketing strategy from AVR vendors, wishing to force users to buy the 2015 models if they want to have DTS:X (this is what Keith believe will happen)


This is exactly why I'm still "on the fence" regarding an AVR purchase. On the one hand, I think it would create "ill will" with 2014 owners if they did this on such a high $$ item; on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past profit-starved CE companies to do such a thing knowing they don't get very many chances (although that seems to be changing) to sell new technology/standards. I can't believe how DTS has been able to over-hang the entire AVR market the last few months!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree entirely that it would be fantastic if they did. It's just that I think they won't.
> 
> I can't see why customers would have a legitimate beef with Denon. They got what they were promised: an AVR with Atmos. Nobody ever said the unit would be upgradable to DTS:X. You make it sound as if Denon reneged on something but they didn't. They delivered the advertised product. Anyone complaining now that they have a unit lacking DTS:X should have waited until DTS:X was announced.


Absolutely agreed (with the proviso that I am not quite as pessimistic as you about the probability of an upgrade). I share your complete satisfaction with the X5200 regardless of the outcome of this issue.

There can be no legitimate basis for complaint since no explicit promises were made (even if some of us were led to believe prior to purchase that it was a possibility). To pretend otherwise is just plain silly.



kbarnes701 said:


> LOL! We’ll see who is right and who isn’t eventually I guess


We will, and it shouldn't take much longer, either. In the meantime we just can't keep ourselves from speculating, can we?



kbarnes701 said:


> You have to be careful with that one. Originally Denon did 'leak' that a DTS:X upgrade may be on the cards. However, this was at the time when it was believed that DTS:X was imminent. *As it got more and more delayed (which continues with the latest delay from March to April this year) it passed a point where it made sense for Denon to offer it as an upgrade to existing units, other than the 7200.* The reason for that was that the flagship models (eg the 7200) generally have a two year product life whereas the others have a one year cycle. Offering a DTS:X upgrade would thus have meant that the lower models in the range would have DTS:X while the flagship would not. Hence the decision to offer it on the 7200 (at that time). As DTS:X got delayed more and more, it was soon evident that it would not be available in time, and thus could be included in the next year's model release (ie fall 2015). IOW,* Denon changed their mind in light of new evidence* - their prerogative of course.


You see, this is where you lose me, Keith. Unless you have insider information (a possibility which I am not discounting and which you couldn't rightfully confirm if it were so, anyway) there is no way you could know this, and yet you state it as firmly and without qualification as if you were citing a D&M corporate decision paper. If you meant it as conjecture, then you should word it accordingly. And if it is D&M gospel, please send me confirmation via the secret encrypted channels we have established for this purpose.


----------



## Movie78

Josh Z said:


> I just talked to the president of D&M. He told me that they fully intended to provide a free DTS:X upgrade to all the 2014 receivers, but then they read all the posts by Keith here, which convinced them that it would be a bad business decision. Instead, they're going to discontinue all support for those models and jack up the price of the 2015 models to twice the previous year's price. Thanks for nothing, Keith! *
> 
> *Well Said*
> 
> 
> *None of this actually happened. If you believe this post, that's nobody's fault but your own.


Keith is a little too much


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> I just talked to the president of D&M. He told me that they fully intended to provide a free DTS:X upgrade to all the 2014 receivers, but then they read all the posts by Keith here, which convinced them that it would be a bad business decision. Instead, they're going to discontinue all support for those models and jack up the price of the 2015 models to twice the previous year's price. Thanks for nothing, Keith!


You see what you've done, Keith? I warned you last year that this could happen: LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS.


----------



## Gurba

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL! We’ll see who is right and who isn’t eventually I guess
> 
> I am sure it is possible. What I keep saying is that, IMO, it isn’t going to happen. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is sure to happen - otherwise Warren Buffet would be sending me a billion dollars next week.
> 
> What Firmware updates of Apple's were you referring to? I can’t ever recall them updating the FW on an iPhone. And, of course, you know that the analogy with an operating system is specious.


I don't believe it will happen either but you compared softwareupdate With hardwareupdate so... It is a bigger chance of an old avr geting DTS:X as an Upgrade than an old iPhone getting a bigger screen as an Upgrade. That's mypoint.


----------



## Steve Goff

David Susilo said:


> Those are not firmware updates, they are firmware unlock. The Atmos capable chip is already in there.



The chip is there, but that does not mean the firmware is there.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree entirely that it would be fantastic if they did. It's just that I think they won't.
> 
> I can't see why customers would have a legitimate beef with Denon. They got what they were promised: an AVR with Atmos. Nobody ever said the unit would be upgradable to DTS:X. You make it sound as if Denon reneged on something but they didn't. They delivered the advertised product. Anyone complaining now that they have a unit lacking DTS:X should have waited until DTS:X was announced.


I would only have a problem with it if a simple software update was all it took to get DTS: X, I think when spending this much on a receiver that they should allow at least for a paid upgrade . If it's that simple & they do it... great. If it isn't that simple then I understand... but if it's something that they could easily handle & don't offer it, then I'll take my business elsewhere the next time around. 

Keep in mind... not all consumers are aware of the different formats. (I wasn't, I just got into HT seriously this last summer), though I'm sure Denon was aware & perhaps in contact with DTS about the upcoming format.


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> I just talked to the president of D&M. He told me that they fully intended to provide a free DTS:X upgrade to all the 2014 receivers, but then they read all the posts by Keith here, which convinced them that it would be a bad business decision. Instead, they're going to discontinue all support for those models and jack up the price of the 2015 models to twice the previous year's price. Thanks for nothing, Keith! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *None of this actually happened. If you believe this post, that's nobody's fault but your own.


Can you PM me the President of D&M's number, every time I've tried to call no one picks up the phone or returns calls.


----------



## kenoh89

Al Sherwood said:


> Nothing that I have heard about, and you do know that the Onkyo units of 2014 (like 1030/3030) are HDCP 2.2 (lite) right? 4K 60 fps at 2.0.0


those don't have the full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, and won't support 10-bit color or handle the upcoming HDR standards. Usually Onkyo makes announcements in April, so hopefully by then they'll be some news of upcoming models.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kenoh89 said:


> those don't have the full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, and won't support 10-bit color or handle the upcoming HDR standards. Usually Onkyo makes announcements in April, so hopefully by then they'll be some news of upcoming models.


 
I know that is why I said (lite)... your question wasn't clear that you wanted/needed the full shopping cart, many people are just wanting to ensure that the HDCP compliance doesn't get in the way. 


I will be curious what is being announced, not so much for the HDCP HDMI, because I think that should be a given, but rather DTS-X and additional processing for Atmos overhead channels.


----------



## David Susilo

Steve Goff said:


> The chip is there, but that does not mean the firmware is there.



Yes but the chip itself should be there to begin with. If the chip is not there, no amount of firmware update will be able to do anything.


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> Can you PM me the President of D&M's number, every time I've tried to call no one picks up the phone or returns calls.


If you get kbarnes701 on the phone,just hung up..

All you are going to get is bad news


----------



## Josh Z

lujan said:


> Can you PM me the President of D&M's number, every time I've tried to call no one picks up the phone or returns calls.


I'm sorry, he can only be reached by telepathy. We had a nice conversation in my head.


----------



## sdurani

quinn4528 said:


> Firmware updates to 2014/2015 models would have little impact at best and probably would increase their net revenue.


You might be sincerely convinced of that, but do AVR manufacturers feel the same way? IF the firmware upgrade really would increase their net revenue, then obviously they would want to do it. If it doesn't end up happening, then it either means they don't want to do it (they don't believe it will result in increased revenue) OR they cannot do it (the DSP engines can't run DTS:X).


> Also in my view the potential for these same 2014/2015 customers to purchase the upgrade would be be very high and none of them will impact 2015/2016 model sales. This would be gravy.


Who doesn't want gravy? So why are they not reassuring their customers that a DTS:X firmware update is coming?


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> What Firmware updates of Apple's were you referring to? I can’t ever recall them updating the FW on an iPhone. And, of course, you know that the analogy with an operating system is specious.


Apple has updated the OS on their iPhones for free every year. Granted, some models don't get the updates as the hardware dates but that is usually hardware that is at least 3-4 years old. Not that this has any bearing at all on the discussion here, but iPhones are constantly updated for free to the latest and greatest software suite.


----------



## Kris Deering

kenoh89 said:


> those don't have the full HDMI 2.0 bandwidth, and won't support 10-bit color or handle the upcoming HDR standards. Usually Onkyo makes announcements in April, so hopefully by then they'll be some news of upcoming models.


Not sure you're right on the 10-bit thing. Depends on the color space and frame rate. For UHD Blu-ray at 4:2:0 (most likely) or 4:2:2 (possibly) at 24p, you'd be fine. HDR standards are still in flux, but I don't think that will matter for content for quite sometime now anyways. 60p is where things get difficult, and it will be a long time before that will matter to most. Broadcast 4K is a LONG way away and I would bet most will be 30p at best (if it ever even gets here).


----------



## RapalloAV

I don't believe anyone has mentioned this regarding the DTS X upgrade...


I believe everyone who paid $199.00 for the Auro 3D upgrade will get DTS X for free.
I believe everyone here that criticised Auro 3D, will have to buy it for $199.00, then pay another $199.00 to get the DTS X update.:kiss:


----------



## quinn4528

sdurani said:


> You might be sincerely convinced of that, but do AVR manufacturers feel the same way? IF the firmware upgrade really would increase their net revenue, then obviously they would want to do it. If it doesn't end up happening, then it either means they don't want to do it (they don't believe it will result in increased revenue) OR they cannot do it (the DSP engines can't run DTS:X). Who doesn't want gravy? So why are they not reassuring their customers that a DTS:X firmware update is coming?


As I said at the outset, I do not know how they will attempt to sell DTS X into the current market, I can only comment on cannibalization and how I do not believe this is a factor if DTS denies firmware updates of DTS X on 2014/2015 AVRs and to that I have yet to hear anything that supports cannibalization of 2015 / 2016 AVRs. As to why they are not assuring the masses that there will be an upgrade assuming this is incremental sales, I have no idea. In my view, the DTS X role out seems a little out of step and DTS may just be playing catch up. They did just miss another deadline and may miss the momentum created last year with immersive sound.


----------



## Scott Simonian

RapalloAV said:


> I don't believe anyone has mentioned this regarding the DTS X upgrade...
> 
> 
> I believe everyone who paid $199.00 for the Auro 3D upgrade will get DTS X for free.
> I believe everyone here that criticised Auro 3D, will have to buy it for $199.00, then pay another $199.00 to get the DTS X update.:kiss:


Not as bad as the Auro Insecurity Tax that comes with that $199 Auro upgrade. 



Nobody talks about that one though.


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> I don't believe anyone has mentioned this regarding the DTS X upgrade...
> 
> I believe everyone who paid $199.00 for the Auro 3D upgrade will get DTS X for free.
> I believe everyone here that criticised Auro 3D, will have to buy it for $199.00, then pay another $199.00 to get the DTS X update.:kiss:


And what about those blasphemous bastards who paid for the Auro upgrade and then reverted back to Atmos? 

Shot by firing squad at sunrise?


----------



## quinn4528

Stanton said:


> This is exactly why I'm still "on the fence" regarding an AVR purchase. On the one hand, I think it would create "ill will" with 2014 owners if they did this on such a high $$ item; on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past profit-starved CE companies to do such a thing knowing they don't get very many chances (although that seems to be changing) to sell new technology/standards. I can't believe how DTS has been able to over-hang the entire AVR market the last few months!


This only make sense if you assume one would by a 2015/2016 high end AVR after purchasing one in 2014/2015. Oh and by the way there are no announced DTS X tittles to date. The only potential customers left are those early adopters who were savvy enough to wait for second gen AVRs. The rest of us will wait for some future role out when there are DTS X titles and perhaps hardware that better handle new video requirements. I can't believe this was planned optimally by DTS. To miss the entire roll out of immersive sound last year and allow Auro to get one dime before DTS X is available in AVRs is very surprising.


----------



## RapalloAV

chi_guy50 said:


> And what about those blasphemous bastards who paid for the Auro upgrade and then reverted back to Atmos?
> 
> Shot by firing squad at sunrise?



Now that's not nice!


----------



## sdurani

quinn4528 said:


> I can only comment on cannibalization and how I do not believe this is a factor if DTS denies firmware updates of DTS X on 2014/2015 AVRs and to that I have yet to hear anything that supports cannibalization of 2015 / 2016 AVRs.


The update is rumored to happen for D&M's flagship models only, since they are on a 2-year cycle. If the update ends up not being offered for other D&M models, then the company either can't or won't update them. It's one of those two choices. IF the lesser models are running the same DSP chipsets as the flagship models, then it means that they don't want to offer the firmware update. In that case, concern about cannibalizing sales of new AVRs makes sense to me, since it would mean a net loss. If that reason doesn't makes sense to you, then you'll have to come up with one that explains why D&M would deliberately throw away an opportunity to increase revenue.


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> Now that's not nice!


You missed your cue, Murray. You were supposed to say: "I resemble that remark!"


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Absolutely agreed (with the proviso that I am not quite as pessimistic as you about the probability of an upgrade). I share your complete satisfaction with the X5200 regardless of the outcome of this issue.
> 
> There can be no legitimate basis for complaint since no explicit promises were made (even if some of us were led to believe prior to purchase that it was a possibility). To pretend otherwise is just plain silly.
> 
> 
> 
> We will, and it shouldn't take much longer, either. In the meantime we just can't keep ourselves from speculating, can we?
> 
> 
> 
> You see, this is where you lose me, Keith. Unless you have insider information (a possibility which I am not discounting and which you couldn't rightfully confirm if it were so, anyway) there is no way you could know this, and yet you state it as firmly and without qualification as if you were citing a D&M corporate decision paper. If you meant it as conjecture, then you should word it accordingly. And if it is D&M gospel, please send me confirmation via the secret encrypted channels we have established for this purpose.


Just my reasoned opinion


----------



## SoundChex

Stanton said:


> This is exactly why I'm still "on the fence" regarding an AVR purchase. On the one hand, I think it would create "ill will" with 2014 owners if they did this on such a high $$ item; on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past profit-starved CE companies to do such a thing knowing they don't get very many chances (although that seems to be changing) to sell new technology/standards. *I can't believe how DTS has been able to over-hang the entire AVR market the last few months!*



Perhaps not so unreasonable a delay, since *DTS:X* "seems to be" the functional equivalent of *Dolby Atmos plus Dolby AC-4* . . . and we are still only seeing *AC-4* demoed at shows (_next status update at *NAB 2015* in April?_)

Anyway, my thought is that it makes sense to add *DTS:X* to an existing "*Atmos* capable AVR" only when the *Atmos* decoder is also updated to a ("revised") _integrated_ *Atmos|AC-4* decoder (e.g., to include support for *AC-4* speaker configurations)...?!


_


----------



## gammanuc

Dear AVS,
The DTS X thread called, someone has moved all their posts into the official Dolby Atmos thread and have run amok.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well we can't have TWO threads full of nothing to talk about.

Best to just consolidate it into one.


----------



## quinn4528

sdurani said:


> ...IF the lesser models are running the same DSP chipsets as the flagship models, then it means that they don't want to offer the firmware update. In that case, concern about cannibalizing sales of new AVRs makes sense to me, since it would mean a net loss. If that reason doesn't makes sense to you, then you'll have to come up with one that explains why D&M would deliberately throw away an opportunity to increase revenue.


I agree with your conclusion as to what denial of firmware updates to lower end AVRs may mean ( fear of canalization ), I just do not believe the fear is well placed. Whether you spend $800 for an AVR or $3000, your cycle for replacement is not going to change. AVR manufacturers are wrong if they think most customers would upgrade to new equipment for such a small change. However, I contend that same customer would consider purchasing a firmware upgrade.


----------



## bargervais

I think the people like myself that care about sound that buy these flagship AVR'S are such a small part of receivers that any manufacturers sell the vast majority of people.most people buy the low end models and couldn't care less if it had Atmos, DTS:X 
So I can't see that we impact their bottom line. The amount of money they are making from us enthusiast  .....we are just a small populous that care. I think we should get a firmware upgrade to these flagship units. I know it's wishful thinking.... we are such a small segment of their revenue stream.


----------



## kingwiggi

Another thing worth considering is how usable a DTS:X software upgrade to the current gen would be, especially if we had to re-flash the DSP everytime we want to switch between Atmos & DTS:X, as is the case with the Auro upgrade.

Even if speaker placement is compatible thats 7-8 minutes everytime you want to switch between audio formats. 

I think I'm quickly loosing my enthusiasm to see it in last years product.


----------



## SoundChex

kingwiggi said:


> Another thing worth considering is how usable a DTS:X software upgrade to the current gen would be, especially if we had to re-flash the DSP everytime we want to switch between Atmos & DTS:X, as is the case with the Auro upgrade.
> Even if speaker placement is compatible thats 7-8 minutes everytime you want to switch between audio formats.
> I think I'm quickly loosing my enthusiasm to see it in last years product.



It seems likely that speaker configuration options offered by future _integrated_ *Dolby AC-4|**Atmos* decoders should *not* conflict with either *DTS:X* or *Auro-3D* on the same AVR...?!  



_


----------



## aaranddeeman

Josh Z said:


> I just talked to the president of D&M. He told me that they fully intended to provide a free DTS:X upgrade to all the 2014 receivers, but then they read all the posts by Keith here, which convinced them that it would be a bad business decision. Instead, they're going to discontinue all support for those models and jack up the price of the 2015 models to twice the previous year's price. Thanks for nothing, Keith! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *None of this actually happened. If you believe this post, that's nobody's fault but your own.


Did he also tell you that Keith is getting brand spanking new 7200WA in return for his efforts...


----------



## jrref

kingwiggi said:


> Another thing worth considering is how usable a DTS:X software upgrade to the current gen would be, especially if we had to re-flash the DSP everytime we want to switch between Atmos & DTS:X, as is the case with the Auro upgrade.
> 
> Even if speaker placement is compatible thats 7-8 minutes everytime you want to switch between audio formats.
> 
> I think I'm quickly loosing my enthusiasm to see it in last years product.


I would be shocked if you had to re-flash the DSP every time! Reason being that there is a finite amount of times that you can flash the DSP. It's the same as a flash memory stick for your PC. If you had to do that eventually you would reach the limit and couldn't flash it anymore. The limit is very high but they would never implement something like that lol.


----------



## jrref

jrref said:


> I would be shocked if you had to re-flash the DSP every time! Reason being that there is a finite amount of times that you can flash the DSP. It's the same as a flash memory stick for your PC. If you had to do that eventually you would reach the limit and couldn't flash it anymore. The limit is very high but they would never implement something like that lol.


To add to all the humor, I think we should all start writing letters and e-mail to D+M telling them our thoughts on the DTS:X upgrade lol! I know they have people reading the major forums and reviews at Amazon and others. Whomever is reading all these posts are probably loving all of the attention they are getting and probably having a good laugh at all the business models everyone is coming up with!


----------



## NorthSky

Bob said:


> Gorgeous home theater room. ...*Chairs look real comfy*, and the surrounds I like very much, with their inclination.
> The walls, ceiling, ...everything, is...perfect.





roxiedog said:


> I seem to remember
> *someone thinking those big soft comfy high-back chairs were a bad idea*.





Keith said:


> Can you recall who that was who said that by any chance?





roxiedog said:


> Hmmm, North and Sky come to mind, but I could be wrong. Actually, maybe it was a kbarnes, are you confessing ??


♦ If you find a quote from me saying something very similar to that effect, I will ban myself permanently/eternally (for life, forever) from AVSForum.  

God lock! 

* And Keith, like he just mentioned in a prior post; he never said that either. ...I read Keith's majority of posts, and I confirm.


----------



## audioguy

bargervais said:


> we are such a small segment of their revenue stream.


I would change "small" to "incredibly small - maybe .01% of their revenue".

While I like your reasoning that justifies why we should get an upgrade, I'm in Keith's camp: Don't see it happening. It was not promised either directly or indirectly; there is virtually zero incentive for D&M to provide it to us - free or other wise; and they care as much about us as Integra/Onkyo cared about their potential customers. Integra/Onkyo stripped away a perfectly good (for most iusers) room correction system and replaced it with one that doesn't even correct the most important speakers. My guess is that move did not hurt their profit one bit. Why? Because the majority of their users have no clue! And when D&M does not provide us an upgrade, it won't hurt their future profit either. Same reason.

Remember you stated that we are a miniscule part of their user base!! Even a smaller percent of those who buy the same products we are discussing. So what do they care if we get mad. Also don't forget, the majority of the customers who have these units have no clue about any of this stuff. The have no clue about DTS or Atmos or Auro or anything else. They just enjoy the system someone sold them!!


----------



## bargervais

audioguy said:


> I would change "small" to "incredibly small - maybe .01% of their revenue".
> 
> While I like your reasoning that justifies why we should get an upgrade, I'm in Keith's camp: Don't see it happening. It was not promised either directly or indirectly; there is virtually zero incentive for D&M to provide it to us - free or other wise; and they care as much about us as Integra/Onkyo cared about their potential customers. Integra/Onkyo stripped away a perfectly good (for most iusers) room correction system and replaced it with one that doesn't even correct the most important speakers. My guess is that move did not hurt their profit one bit. Why? Because the majority of their users have no clue! And when D&M does not provide us an upgrade, it won't hurt their future profit either. Same reason.


I was an Im still hoping for a firmware upgrade ( I know will be very unlikely). But I'll be content with DSU and Atmos till the end of next year 2016 then I'll consider an upgrade. Still no regrets for being an early adopter...


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ♦ If you find a quote from me saying something very similar to that effect, I will ban myself permanently/eternally (for life, forever) from AVSForum.


I don't wish for you to ban yourself or be banned I'm not going to waste my time looking for when you said those high back chairs would block out sound.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky: It would be helpful if you did not use highlite colors like light green that are incredibly difficult to read - at least for my eyes!!


----------



## petetherock

aaranddeeman said:


> Did he also tell you that Keith is getting brand spanking new 7200WA in return for his efforts...


I heard about a spanking... missed the new 7200 part 

But I do agree, marketing will force people to buy a new amp, even if the boffins say that all 2014 models can accept the upgrade...

That's why I bought a 7200 instead of the cheaper and very similar 5200 / 7009.

Cheers


----------



## NorthSky

*Right on!*



Nalleh said:


> Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
> Frustrated about the 7.1.4 limit of speaker in Atmos?
> Don't want the hassle of 8min config loads to get both Atmos/Auro full setups?
> Can't afford the overly expensive Trinnov or Datasat?
> 
> Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup!
> 
> How?
> Well, as you know, i have my Denon 5200, connected to 14 speakers, and it is setup with full 10.1 Auro:
> 5.1+FH+SH+TS(VOG).
> Press the movie remote button and the 9.1.2 Atmos is selected:
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH.
> Ok, since i got over a grand for my old Onkyo 3010 receiver, i used the money to buy a second Denon, this time the little brother: 4100.
> So, connected some of the 5200's speakers and some new to get it calibrated, this has amp assign as follows:
> 
> Amp Assign: 9.1
> Height Speakers: 4 height speakers
> Height Layout: Top Middle+Rear Height
> Pre-out: Front and rear height
> 
> The two receivers are connected using a HDMI from the Zone2 HDMI out from the 5200, that send full image and sound, by the way, to one of the HDMI input on the 4100.
> 
> I do not have fronts connected to the 4100, but the 4 ceiling seakers make the new native Atmos setup a full 9.1.6 :
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH(as before from the 5200) +TM+RH(from the 4100).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5200:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4100:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Movie button again switch to the full 10.1 Auro setup from the 5200 and with a dual source speaker switch for the Surround backs between 5200/4100 , and i gain the SB from the 4100 on the Auro setup= 12.1.
> 
> But wait, there's more. The following are connected to the 4100, eq'd and separatly calibrated from the 5200' speakers.
> Side Surround B. Since the 4100 have empty surround speaker post, why not use them with a second set surround speakers placed at ca 80 degrees(surround A at 110 degrees).
> Center Height. Same here, empty center speakers posts, so connected another center speaker high on the front wall.
> 
> And remember the pesky use of sub pre-out 2 for the Top Surround in Auro 10.1 setup?
> Well, the 4100 has 2 brand new seperatly calibrated sub pre-outs available!
> 
> Actually, with a second dual source speaker switch, i can use the Atmos RH as SBH in Auro, since the SBH is ganged in SH anyway in Auro 15.1 setup.
> 
> So, one could say the following:
> 
> Atmos: 5.1+SB+S2+FW+FH+TM+RH+CH=11.1.7
> 
> Auro 3D:
> 5.1+SB+S2+FH+SH+SBH+TS+CH= 17.1
> 
> It works!! The lip sync is spot on, and espesially the 6 ceiling speakers really woke up the "spaceious" feeling, and i believe the 4100 will be staying
> 
> A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them."
> 
> Caveats? Well, altough all speakers all correctly calibrated and EQ with Audyssey, it is not quite "correct", since the ceiling speakers in the two receivers do not "know" about each other, and therefore you could call it "fake", but i do not hear anything that indicate such. It works very well in all situations i have tried so far.
> And of course two volume controls s not optimal either.


♦ I was looking and reading @ the content here, and wondering out loud if some smart people, like the person of the above quote, can do something like that, how come AV receiver's expert technical team designers for the major manufacturers can't? ...Integrated in one single unit. 

...Perhaps in a near future ... and with DTS:X of course. 

__________

* I have a glimpse of hope, small but still, on the possibility for DTS:X to be not only firmware updateable for the Marantz AV8802 SSP and Denon AVR-X7200W receiver, but also for the Marantz AV7702 SSP, SR7709 receiver, and the Denon AVR-X5200W & AVR-X4100W receivers.

I was looking for a link, few weeks old of course, which mentioned Denon/Marantz' firmware updateable to _"future 3D sound formats"_, when referring to Auro-3D. What triggered my attention was _"formats"_ in plural. I know that it is not much and that a press release is not a bible book of the future of 3D audio, but still; it was clearly written ("3D sound formats"), in plural. 

Everything else I have read is more towards the high probability for only the Marantz AV8802 and the Denon AVR-X7200W to get that DTS:X firmware update. 

This is my thought I'm sharing here, nothing more nothing less, just like the rest.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> NorthSky: It would be helpful if you did not use highlite colors like light green that are incredibly difficult to read - at least for my eyes!!


Thanks Chuck to let me know; I will gladly oblige.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Everytime I read Keith's posts and arguments I hear the voice of Robert Shawn's character, "Vizzini" from Princess Bride. 

Someone please attach an image of the character.

Keith, please use that image for you user.


Oh, and I do appreciate your posts and help. I just hear his voice when reading some of these silly back and forth comments.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I was looking and reading @ the content here, and wondering out loud if some smart people, like the person of the above quote, can do something like that, how come AV receiver's expert technical team designers for the major manufacturers can't? ...Integrated in one single unit.
> 
> ...Perhaps in a near future ... and with DTS:X of course.


Good question, and i think it will be answered in the nearest couple of months, when next gen AVR's come out.

Meanwhile i will enjoy my ATMOS EXPAND "bastard" setup, eventhough someone(always) will argue that "it won't work", or "it can not render correctly"! 

Should it bother me?
No, they have not heard how it works. I have, and i know.

Sure, i'll admit: it is not the "correct way" or the "perfect setup" on paper, but it got me what i wanted(and more), and it works just as good as i dared to hope.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Sorry all, I forgot to put the real topic on my last post.

There was a good discussion going on about setups a few pages back. I value all of the time and respect the input you all had. Scott's multi avr plan seemed to make the most sense for extracting an additional speaker info for overhead surrounds. Nalleh's seemed more direct at first, plus he is actually using it. Huge kudos for attempting to bypass the need to spend an additional $25k for a similar sound. I doubt the Trinnov sounds that much better in the same room. 

Has anyone actually just set up an array duplicating the forward and overhead heights yet? A 9.1.2 with the .2 sent to both height sets.


Also, if the current dsp's require recalibration or uploading between atmos and auro, then why would there be room for dts:x? Can a current, sub $5k, avr switch between the two?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I noticed something weird going on @ the Dolby Atmos site... Avengers: age of ultron was taken off their list of future Atmos releases... I'm wondering if it's going to be mixed in a different format? (perhaps DTS:X will make a theater debut?)


----------



## coolgeek

RMK! said:


> Beautiful HT there CG.
> 
> As to the first topic of above post let me pass along some well worn words of wisdom from my father. "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk". I changed my signature after several "exchanges" with said polecat.


Thanks RMK... appreciate the kind words.

As for the 2nd Topic, your father is a wise man indeed! I usually just avoid such pointless arguments... for some reasons, bullies, just gets on my nerve... 




audioguy said:


> If you have not upgraded the OmniMic calibration file (which costs nothing but some postage), you are correct. I just got mine upgraded and if you care about accurate low end bass, I highly recommend it.


I have the v2 calibration (basically i type in the Serial number and it auto-calibrates)... do they have an upgrade other than that? If they do, i'll definitely need to get it.


----------



## coolgeek

Nalleh said:


> Good question, and i think it will be answered in the nearest couple of months, when next gen AVR's come out.
> 
> Meanwhile i will enjoy my ATMOS EXPAND "bastard" setup, eventhough someone(always) will argue that "it won't work", or "it can not render correctly"!
> 
> Should it bother me?
> No, they have not heard how it works. I have, and i know.
> 
> Sure, i'll admit: it is not the "correct way" or the "perfect setup" on paper, but it got me what i wanted(and more), and it works just as good as i dared to hope.


Great job Nalleh... And ingenius I may add..

You're always gonna get arm-chair philosophers telling you what can or cannot be done, all the while people like you are already enjoying life to the fullest with the possibilities...


----------



## audioguy

coolgeek said:


> I have the v2 calibration (basically i type in the Serial number and it auto-calibrates)... do they have an upgrade other than that? If they do, i'll definitely need to get it.


Almost. There is no "auto-calibration". When you key in your mic serial number, it downloads the new calibration file (into your Download folder) which you then need to select within the OmniMic program. Otherwise, it will keep using the original file.

If you can't find the spot within OmniMic (I'm not at my PC) to do that, let me know and I will send you how to accomplish it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

WhiskeyConway said:


> Everytime I read Keith's posts and arguments I hear the voice of Robert Shawn's character, "Vizzini" from Princess Bride.
> 
> Someone please attach an image of the character.
> 
> Keith, please use that image for you user.
> 
> 
> Oh, and I do appreciate your posts and help. I just hear his voice when reading some of these silly back and forth comments.












*"Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? ... Morons!!!" *


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> I noticed something weird going on @ the Dolby Atmos site... Avengers: age of ultron was taken off their list of future Atmos releases... I'm wondering if it's going to be mixed in a different format? (perhaps DTS:X will make a theater debut?)


It is being mixed in Atmos. 

There is no DTS:X theatrical format. 

It could be released in MDA however.


----------



## marlon1925

*Upgrading to Atmos*

Hi Guys,

I presently have 7.1 set up using B&W speakers and Onkyo AV receiver and I'm planing to upgrade to an Atmos setup.

At present, the maximum is 11.2.4 for atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

marlon1925 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I presently have 7.1 set up using B&W speakers and Onkyo AV receiver and I'm planing to upgrade to an Atmos setup.
> 
> At present, the maximum is 11.2.4 for atmos?



For mainstream product, the upper limit is 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. Hard to say what it will be in 2015 units. Some of the upper tier receivers/processors from D+M and Onkyo/Integra tend to have 13.1 outputs that _might_ become candidates for 9.1.4 Atmos rendering this year.

If you can afford quite a few thousand on an upscale processor, you can go up to 32 outputs. The maximum for home Atmos rendering is 24.1.10. Any sub output beyond the LFE channel is synthetically derived from the bass management software included in the processor.


----------



## marlon1925

Dan Hitchman said:


> For mainstream product, the upper limit is 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. Hard to say what it will be in 2015 units. Some of the upper tier receivers/processors from D+M and Onkyo/Integra tend to have 13.1 outputs that _might_ become candidates for 9.1.4 Atmos rendering this year.
> 
> If you can afford quite a few thousand on an upscale processor, you can go up to 32 outputs. The maximum for home Atmos rendering is 24.1.10. Any sub output beyond the LFE channel is synthetically derived from the bass management software included in the processor.


Sir, I am planning to get Onkyo TX-NR3030. It says in the description that it's capable of 11.2 set up and is atmos ready.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

marlon1925 said:


> Sir, I am planning to get Onkyo TX-NR3030. It says in the description that it's capable of 11.2 set up and is atmos ready.


If you can, I would definitely hold out a little longer for upcoming 2015 products with DTS:X object surround included. As I've mentioned to others, not all studios will support Atmos and not all will support X. This will make sure you are pretty much covered for all around 3D audio support.


----------



## marlon1925

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you can, I would definitely hold out a little longer for upcoming 2015 products with DTS:X object surround included. As I've mentioned to others, not all studios will support Atmos and not all will support X. This will make sure you are pretty much covered for all around 3D audio support.


Ok Sir, Thanks


----------



## Csbooth

marlon1925 said:


> Sir, I am planning to get Onkyo TX-NR3030. It says in the description that it's capable of 11.2 set up and is atmos ready.


11.2 channels is the maximum number it can process and amplify, and currently there are no AVR/SSP other than the boutique items such as the Trinnov that can do more than 7.x.4 or 9.x.2 (11).

The 3030 is only capable of the aformentioned solutions.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You see what you've done, Keith? I warned you last year that this could happen: LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS.


 You did indeed, and in French too


----------



## kbarnes701

quinn4528 said:


> I agree with your conclusion as to what denial of firmware updates to lower end AVRs may mean ( fear of canalization ), I just do not believe the fear is well placed. Whether you spend $800 for an AVR or $3000, your cycle for replacement is not going to change. AVR manufacturers are wrong if they think most customers would upgrade to new equipment for such a small change. *However, I contend that same customer would consider purchasing a firmware upgrade.*


The, as Sanjay said, you have to propose a reason why Denon would deliberately choose to go down a route which brought them lower revenue. 

I think we can assume that Denon is not run by complete idiots. So they will have considered the options and decided on the one that makes them the most revenue. In your view, that is the offering of an upgrade.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I think the people like myself that care about sound that buy these flagship AVR'S are such a small part of receivers that any manufacturers sell the vast majority of people.most people buy the low end models and couldn't care less if it had Atmos, DTS:X
> So I can't see that we impact their bottom line. The amount of money they are making from us enthusiast  .....we are just a small populous that care. I think we should get a firmware upgrade to these flagship units. I know it's wishful thinking.... we are such a small segment of their revenue stream.


No necessarily - the top end of a product range usually makes the biggest share of profits. Like airline seats - the few first class seats bring in more revenue than all the economy class sets put together. So that small populous is very important indeed.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Did he also tell you that Keith is getting brand spanking new 7200WA in return for his efforts...


They upped me to a 8200 in fact


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> NorthSky: It would be helpful if you did not use highlite colors like light green that are incredibly difficult to read - at least for my eyes!!


White on white would be good


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> White on white would be good


Now THAT is funny!


----------



## zimmo

(MARLON 1925)I have onkyo-tx-nr3030 and i can tell you that these wonderful machine .i am currently in 7.4.4 and éventually i will added some power amp to have more speakers ,also primarily expected new dts-x see that,s what he,s different from dolby atmos.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

zimmo said:


> (MARLON 1925)I have onkyo-tx-nr3030 and i can tell you that these wonderful machine .i am currently in 7.4.4 and éventually i will added some power amp to have more speakers ,also primarily expected new dts-x see that,s what he,s different from dolby atmos.


Hi Zimmo, unfortunately you will not be able to add more speakers to your setup. The Onkyo 3030 does not decode more than 11ch simultaneously. You could add front wides and have them be used in some modes in a 9.4.2 layout, but you would loose 2 height speakers then. 7.x.4 is currently the maximum for Atmos with 4 height channels.


----------



## chi_guy50

WhiskeyConway said:


> Sorry all, I forgot to put the real topic on my last post.
> 
> There was a good discussion going on about setups a few pages back. I value all of the time and respect the input you all had. Scott's multi avr plan seemed to make the most sense for extracting an additional speaker info for overhead surrounds. Nalleh's seemed more direct at first, plus he is actually using it. Huge kudos for attempting to bypass the need to spend an additional $25k for a similar sound. I doubt the Trinnov sounds that much better in the same room.
> 
> *Has anyone actually just set up an array duplicating the forward and overhead heights yet?* A 9.1.2 with the .2 sent to both height sets.


Yes, @Josh Z has done something along those lines (see his posts in this thread here and here). If memory serves, he is still running a 7.1.4 setup (FH + TM) with duplicate TM arrays for quasi-7.1.6.

I am planning to do likewise with duplicate FH arrays since my current FH are just below the recommended elevation angle range for Atmos due to their prior optimal positioning for DTS Neo:X (and, perhaps, DTS:X?). I already have the spare in-ceiling speakers (Polk 80F/X-RT), which are the same as I am currently using for TM and which I purchased in anticipation of eventually having a true x.x.6 Atmos setup. Since I also have an available second set of stereo speaker connections on both of the external amps that are powering the FH and TM respectively, I could already hook up the third height speaker pair and have it replicate either the front or back array. 

As it will entail cutting holes in my (textured) living room ceiling, I will wait to see what, if any, revised height speaker position recommendations are forthcoming in the next few months with the advent of DTS:X and perhaps second-generation Atmos AVR's. Otherwise, I could proceed now by splitting the distance between my current FH and TM or just by aiming for a given elevation angle of, say, 45° to 55° for the new pair, or through some similar calculation.

My current setup with the shallow FH (for Atmos) sounds great to us in DSU mode (haven't listened to any Atmos content yet other than the demos), and we're getting plenty of reproduction out of the FH at the MLP using the channel levels set by Audyssey. But in the absence of a set of calibration signals for Atmos I can't be certain just how much room for improvement might be exposed through repositioning or replicating the FH.


----------



## jrogers

kbarnes701 said:


> The, as Sanjay said, you have to propose a reason why Denon would deliberately choose to go down a route which brought them lower revenue.
> 
> I think we can assume that Denon is not run by complete idiots. So they will have considered the options and decided on the one that makes them the most revenue. In your view, that is the offering of an upgrade.


One spin on Denon providing the DTS:X upgrade for us x4100 and x5200 owners (wishful thinking I know) is that Denon can't necessarily assume current Denon owners who want DTS:X will replace their AVR with another Denon (even if "all else being equal" Denon is the best buy  ). Denon definitely gets more revenue if current Denon owners who want DTS:X in 2015/16 upgrade to a new Denon - but, if the disruption of DTS:X causes some significant number of Denon owners to switch to a competing brand, they might not. As you said, I'm sure they have analysts doing the math and we'll find out in the not-too-distant future what they've decided.


----------



## quinn4528

kbarnes701 said:


> The, as Sanjay said, you have to propose a reason why Denon would deliberately choose to go down a route which brought them lower revenue.
> 
> I think we can assume that Denon is not run by complete idiots. So they will have considered the options and decided on the one that makes them the most revenue. In your view, that is the offering of an upgrade.



Of course D & M are not "idiots", those were not my words. I only stated that I do not understand the assertion of cannibalization made by Sanjay. He may also be correct for additional reasons beside the ones he stated. I am no expert on the business side of this industry, but I have been involved with product roll outs and the variables considered including cannibalization. In this case I am an active consumer. Part of the small percentage of AV enthusiast they (D&M/DTS/etc) are targeting. I just would not understand a decision that would have them miss an opportunity to sell to me with my ceiling mounteds ready to purchase. D & M will let us know their thinking based on their decision to allow or not to allow a paid firmware update (if possible). I wish the conversation DTS X was more definitive, but this is what we are left with until we here some real news.


----------



## TennisPro02

Particular reason that only Denon 4100, 5200, 7200 being addressed when talking about DTS :X upgrades? The Onkyo 636, 737, 838 where all firmware updated receivers..... if Dolby Atmos is firmware capable I imagine these could be as well.


----------



## quinn4528

jrogers said:


> One spin on Denon providing the DTS:X upgrade for us x4100 and x5200 owners (wishful thinking I know) is that Denon can't necessarily assume current Denon owners who want DTS:X will replace their AVR with another Denon (even if "all else being equal" Denon is the best buy  ). Denon definitely gets more revenue if current Denon owners who want DTS:X in 2015/16 upgrade to a new Denon - but, if the disruption of DTS:X causes some significant number of Denon owners to switch to a competing brand, they might not. As you said, I'm sure they have analysts doing the math and we'll find out in the not-too-distant future what they've decided.


I wonder how current sales of ATMOS ready (2014/2015) hardware will suffer if DTS X is available only in new 2015/2016 equipment that will not be available until the fall season.


----------



## sdurani

quinn4528 said:


> I just would not understand a decision that would have them miss an opportunity to sell to me with my ceiling mounteds ready to purchase.


If the decision to not offer the upgrade doesn't make sense to you, then you need to check your assumptions. You're starting from the premise that a paid firmware upgrade will result in increased revenue. From that vantage point, I agree that it doesn't make sense to not offer an upgrade (similar to what they did with Auro). 

But what if that premise turned out to be wishful thinking on the part of a consumer? What if the revenue from a DTS:X firmware upgrade was more than offset by the drop in sales it caused for 2015 models, resulting in an overall net loss? Then their decision makes sense.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TennisPro02 said:


> Particular reason that only Denon 4100, 5200, 7200 being addressed when talking about DTS :X upgrades? The Onkyo 636, 737, 838 where all firmware updated receivers..... if Dolby Atmos is firmware capable I imagine these could be as well.


For one thing, it's about remaining space on the chips and shear processing power. For example, the Onkyo's/Integra's, except for their upper tier product, don't seem to have the horsepower necessary to add DTS:X. They had to scrap Audyssey to fit in Atmos, so it seems like they're tapped out. 

The likely candidates are D&M products since they added chips to their 4100, 5200, and 7200 receivers (and pre-amp's). Now, it may be that they cannot hold both Auro3D and DTS:X along with Atmos.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Dan Hitchman said:


> For one thing, it's about remaining space on the chips and shear processing power. For example, the Onkyo's/Integra's, except for their upper tier product, don't seem to have the horsepower necessary to add DTS:X. They had to scrap Audyssey to fit in Atmos, so it seems like they're tapped out.
> 
> The likely candidates are D&M products since they added chips to their 4100, 5200, and 7200 receivers (and pre-amp's). Now, it may be that they cannot hold both Auro3D and DTS:X along with Atmos.


 
Maybe D&M will follow Onkyo's lead and drop Audyssey to make room for DTS-X? 


OK, it is now where I "duck and cover" right?


----------



## chi_guy50

Al Sherwood said:


> Maybe D&M will follow Onkyo's lead and drop Audyssey to make room for DTS-X?


----------



## chi_guy50

Al Sherwood said:


> OK, it is now where I "duck and cover" right?


Too late--you've already been zapped!


----------



## quinn4528

sdurani said:


> If the decision to not offer the upgrade doesn't make sense to you, then you need to check your assumptions. You're starting from the premise that a paid firmware upgrade will result in increased revenue. From that vantage point, I agree that it doesn't make sense to not offer an upgrade (similar to what they did with Auro).
> 
> But what if that premise turned out to be wishful thinking on the part of a consumer? What if the revenue from a DTS:X firmware upgrade was more than offset by the drop in sales it caused for 2015 models, resulting in an overall net loss? Then their decision makes sense.


No wishful thinking here. I would have never been able to put off my initial purchase for a year. I am just very curious. When you consider that it may be several months before new AVRs are available with DTS X, what will they sell in the mean time if not upgrades? Just very curious.


----------



## Eriksdam

Maybe someone should start a thread that's actually about Dolby Atmos....


----------



## sdurani

quinn4528 said:


> No wishful thinking here.


Did someone from Denon confirm to you that offering a DTS:X firmware upgrade would be a net revenue increase for the company or did you come up with that on your own?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Eriksdam said:


> Maybe someone should start a thread that's actually about Dolby Atmos....


Thank goodness Gravity comes out next week.


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> Thank goodness Gravity comes out next week.


Then those who are still sitting on the side-lines with no Atmos SSP will make 72,918 posts and quotes about many things that have absolutely nothing to do with how Gravity sounds with Atmos!


----------



## htpcforever

audioguy said:


> Now THAT is funny!


What is funny?


----------



## Eriksdam

Scott Simonian said:


> Thank goodness Gravity comes out next week.


Already ordered, should arrive Thursday. 

Last poweramp and last two ceiling speakers (upgrading from 7.2.2 to 7.2.4) will be there tomorrow.

Now, if only my livingroom weren't completely empty because of a leaking pipe, next weekend would have been fun.....ARRRRRGH! 

-Erik


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> Then those who are still sitting on the side-lines with no Atmos SSP will make 72,918 posts and quotes about many things that have absolutely nothing to do with how Gravity sounds with Atmos!


Audyssey is that good, yo!



And DTS-X.... cuz it ain't Dolby.


----------



## htpcforever

quinn4528 said:


> I wonder how current sales of ATMOS ready (2014/2015) hardware will suffer if DTS X is available only in new 2015/2016 equipment that will not be available until the fall season.


I do not think it will suffer at all since most people do not even know DTS X exists. Heck, most people do not know ATMOS exists, but at least it has a catchy name.


----------



## Josh Z

WhiskeyConway said:


> Also, if the current dsp's require recalibration or uploading between atmos and auro, then why would there be room for dts:x? Can a current, sub $5k, avr switch between the two?


The only reason (and the only scenario in which) the current receiver models require you to reload different firmware when switching between Atmos and Auro is that the two formats use different recommended speaker locations and different naming conventions for the height channels in the middle and back of the room. Therefore, they cannot share those speakers in common. 

However, they do share the "Front Height" designation in common. So, you can have a full 7.1.4 Atmos set-up simultaneously with Auro using only Front Heights. Or you can have a full Auro set-up (four height channels) with Atmos only using Front Heights. But you cannot have both Auro and Atmos simultaneously with four heights each. Although you can manually switch your speakers designations within the receiver if you want, doing so disables Audyssey, because Audyssey thinks you've moved your speakers around and requires you to run a new calibration. 

The solution, then, is to save your Audyssey configuration settings for each format independently and reflash the firmware when switching between then. It's a real pain in the neck.

DTS:X can easily avoid this problem by using the same speaker designations as Atmos (or as Auro). Statements from the company have hinted that their format will be flexible when it comes to speaker locations and assignments.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Josh Z said:


> The only reason (and the only scenario in which) the current receiver models require you to reload different firmware when switching between Atmos and Auro is that the two formats use different recommended speaker locations and different naming conventions for the height channels in the middle and back of the room. Therefore, they cannot share those speakers in common.
> 
> However, they do share the "Front Height" designation in common. So, you can have a full 7.1.4 Atmos set-up simultaneously with Auro using only Front Heights. Or you can have a full Auro set-up (four height channels) with Atmos only using Front Heights. But you cannot have both Auro and Atmos simultaneously with four heights each. Although you can manually switch your speakers designations within the receiver if you want, doing so disables Audyssey, because Audyssey thinks you've moved your speakers around and requires you to run a new calibration.
> 
> The solution, then, is to save your Audyssey configuration settings for each format independently and reflash the firmware when switching between then. It's a real pain in the neck.
> 
> *DTS:X can easily avoid this problem by using the same speaker designations as Atmos (or as Auro). Statements from the company have hinted that their format will be flexible when it comes to speaker locations and assignments*.



This would make life a whole lot easier for most of us, my fingers are crossed they can implement it this way. I only want to deal with one speaker configuration.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> The update is rumored to happen for D&M's flagship models only, since they are on a 2-year cycle. If the update ends up not being offered for other D&M models, then the company either can't or won't update them. It's one of those two choices. IF the lesser models are running the same DSP chipsets as the flagship models, then it means that they don't want to offer the firmware update. In that case, concern about cannibalizing sales of new AVRs makes sense to me, since it would mean a net loss. If that reason doesn't makes sense to you, then you'll have to come up with one that explains why D&M would deliberately throw away an opportunity to increase revenue.


Has D&M confirmed that only the flagship models will be updated with DTS:X? For that matter, has D&M confirmed that any models at all either will or will not be updated with DTS:X?

To my knowledge, they have not, and your entire argument here is based around rumors and speculation that people on boards like this have invented out of thin air.

Maybe you're right, and only the flagship models will be updated. Or perhaps, even worse, no models at all will be updated. But we don't actually know that this is D&M's plan. Until they officially confirm something one way or the other, I personally choose to remain optimistic that my 5200 will be upgradeable. Hopefully, we'll know more soon.


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> Audyssey is that good, yo!
> 
> 
> 
> And DTS-X.... cuz it ain't Dolby.


Audyssey is apparently not that good for some but this has nothing to do with Audyssey: Let me say it slightly differently: replace "Atmos" with "3D sound"


----------



## jrref

Dan Hitchman said:


> For one thing, it's about remaining space on the chips and shear processing power. For example, the Onkyo's/Integra's, except for their upper tier product, don't seem to have the horsepower necessary to add DTS:X. They had to scrap Audyssey to fit in Atmos, so it seems like they're tapped out.
> 
> The likely candidates are D&M products since they added chips to their 4100, 5200, and 7200 receivers (and pre-amp's). Now, it may be that they cannot hold both Auro3D and DTS:X along with Atmos.


This is all good information but how do you know this kind of engineering detail about these receivers? I've never seen information to the detail that you are saying for these products published anywhere. In fact, I would doubt that these manufacturers would ever publish this kind of detailed engineering information concerning their designs. Maybe there is a different way to look at it. All of these manufacturers know what's coming probably 6 months to a year out or more with Dolby, DTS, Barco, etc.. since they have relationships with these companies and manufactures of their DSPs. Coming from a product design background, D+M and the rest have to be designing their equipment with a specific feature set based on what's available or imminently coming out. In the case of DTS:X, since it wasn't announced, they "probably" made provisions for it because the announcement was supposed to be very close to their new product release, but can't say they can support it, assuming they want to provide an upgrade, until they have a production version that they can test with and make sure it will work with what's out there. Also i'm quite confident that even if they do have production software or something close to it by now, they won't be able to say anything until DTS:X is announced. I guess my point is that no one is going to know what's supported or not until DTS makes an announcement so all this speculation about special chips, DSP "horsepower", available memory, flashing the DSP, Audyssey and all these other things are interesting and imaginative thoughts but nevertheless we are going to have to wait to see what's supported.


----------



## quinn4528

sdurani said:


> Did someone from Denon confirm to you that offering a DTS:X firmware upgrade would be a net revenue increase for the company or did you come up with that on your own?


No one confirmed to me as I assume no one confirmed to you about there not being a firmware update because of fear this would cannibalize future sales. We are just talking right.


----------



## NorthSky

Keith said:


> White on white would be good





Chuck said:


> Now THAT is funny!


It is funny, indeed.  

* Chuck, regarding the "Lime" color; you were right...it is too light against a white (very light blue hue) background.
{I use the DARK background myself (Black); so the color white is the very best one for that.} ...I bet 95% of all AVS members use the white background. 

__________

I saw the new thread about Dirac Live, from Scott. 
...Good bunch of people.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Thank goodness Gravity comes out next week.


Finally; that could become the first gravitational Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title making sense...after nine months. ...In discrete sound.


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> DTS:X can easily avoid this problem by using the same speaker designations as Atmos (or as Auro). *Statements from the company have hinted that their format will be flexible when it comes to speaker locations and assignments.*





Al Sherwood said:


> This would make life a whole lot easier for most of us,* my fingers are crossed they can implement it this way.* I only want to deal with one speaker configuration.


They've done more than hint at it: they've made multiple statements that outright corroborate the layout flexibility. Now, it remains to be seen (1) what they deliver and (2) how CEM's implement it.

Besides my previous post on the subject (inter alia), there's this article on Twice, which includes the following nuggets: 

QUOTE: DTS:X delivers an immersive effect “across the whole gamut of speaker configurations,” said Dave Casey, DTS’s senior director of product development. DTS:X is also more forgiving of speaker placement than other surround formats. END QUOTE


QUOTE: A DTS spokesperson confirmed that home-theater speaker configurations designed for playback of Dolby Atmos object-based soundtracks could be used to play back DTS:X soundtracks. END QUOTE


----------



## audioguy

jrref said:


> I guess my point is that no one is going to know what's supported or not until DTS makes an announcement so all this speculation about special chips, DSP "horsepower", available memory, flashing the DSP, Audyssey and all these other things are interesting and imaginative thoughts but nevertheless we are going to have to wait to see what's supported.


That DTS chooses NOT to enable upgrades still does not really answer the question about horsepower, memory or any other technical issue. It only means they choose to not provide an upgrade.


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> The update is *rumored* to happen for D&M's flagship models only...





Josh Z said:


> ...your entire argument here is based around *rumors* and speculation...


I was clearly trying to hide it, but you read between the lines.


----------



## sdurani

quinn4528 said:


> No one confirmed to me as I assume no one confirmed to you about there not being a firmware update because of fear this would cannibalize future sales. We are just talking right.


Sure. You said didn't understand their decision to not make money (not offer the DTS:X upgrade). But that is because you're viewing their decision from the premise that the DTS:X upgrade will increase net revenue. What if it doesn't? IF you don't start from your premise, then their decision makes sense. So if it ends up that Denon doesn't offer the firmware update, then you have to believe that: a) your premise was wishful thinking and Denon didn't want to lose money, or b) your premise was correct but Denon doesn't want to make easy money. Which do you think is more likely?


----------



## Gurba

I for one would be willing to pay to get DTS:X on my Yamaha RX-A3040 if DTS:X turns out to be good ****. I will not buy a New AVR if the 3040 can't be updated to decode DTS:X just to get DTS:X. I think that quite a few others agree With this. What would ie Yamaha make if they offered DTS:X as an Upgrade by payment as opposed to not selling New AVRs to those who think like me whom I think is in greater numbers than those willing to sell a newly aquired atmos/non-DTS:X-AVR to buy on With both.


----------



## Argyle

Josh Z said:


> Has D&M confirmed that only the flagship models will be updated with DTS:X? For that matter, has D&M confirmed that any models at all either will or will not be updated with DTS:X?
> 
> To my knowledge, they have not, and your entire argument here is based around rumors and speculation that people on boards like this have invented out of thin air.
> 
> Maybe you're right, and only the flagship models will be updated. Or perhaps, even worse, no models at all will be updated. But we don't actually know that this is D&M's plan. Until they officially confirm something one way or the other, I personally choose to remain optimistic that my 5200 will be upgradeable. Hopefully, we'll know more soon.





sdurani said:


> I was clearly trying to hide it, but you read between the lines.


I posted this in the DTS:X thread, but as far as the flagship X7200W it's not rumored (if you live in Japan). Here are the press releases from Denon Japan:

http://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000078.000003601.html (for Denon X7200WA announcement)
http://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000077.000003601.html (for details on the X7200W upgrade to X7200WA)

X7200WA coming in May with HDMI board upgrade preinstalled. Upgrade service for existing X7200W customers also to begin around the same time, upgraded X7200W models are equivalent to X7200WA. X7200WA to get DTS:X support, details to follow.

If the American and European X7200Ws do not get DTS:X that would be strange and everyone with an X7200W should complain loudly if that is the case, since it's clearly not a technical issue.


----------



## NorthSky

> I was clearly trying to hide it, but you read between the lines.


Good one.


----------



## sdurani

Argyle said:


> I posted this in the DTS:X thread, but as far as the flagship X7200W it's not rumored (if you live in Japan).


Thanx for the info. I was using the word "rumored" just to be extra careful, but good to see that it confirmed (at least for Japan).


----------



## NorthSky

TennisPro02 said:


> Particular reason that only Denon 4100, 5200, 7200 being addressed when talking about DTS :X upgrades? The Onkyo 636, 737, 838 where all firmware updated receivers..... if Dolby Atmos is firmware capable I imagine these could be as well.


I don't think that the Onkyo products have the necessary hardware in them to be firmware update-able into DTS:X transformation. 

Denon/Marantz products now have four (4) powerful DSP chips in them; they can handle it, I think.
In comparison Onkyo/Integra products have two-three (2-3) DSP chips inside of them; they are limited in what they can do and not do. 

Yamaha? I just don't know. ...Most likely not.
Pioneer? ...Same. 

______ 

I think 2014 is gone now, and DTS:X will start appearing in new 2015 products. ...The most likely lucky ones are the AV8802 SSP from Marantz, and the AVR-X7200W AV receiver from Denon. ...The rest...rest in peace.  ...A year is gone by, we are already in a new year, and time is approaching fast now. ...DTS:X


----------



## David Susilo

Quite honestly I don't understand why so many people are so afraid in buying Atmos without the guarantee of upgradeability to DTS:X. The same thing already happenec during DTS added to DD DVD player and receivers, again DTS-MA added to TrueHD blu-ray player and receivers.

Money is tight for me too, but buying into Atmos and not thinking that DTS will come up with something to counter Dolby, especially after what had happened...twice, is very naive. Especially for years we already know that DTS have been working on DTS-UHD to counter theatre version of Atmos.


----------



## Stanton

David Susilo said:


> Quite honestly I don't understand why so many people are so afraid in buying Atmos without the guarantee of upgradeability to DTS:X. The same thing already happenec during DTS added to DD DVD player and receivers, again DTS-MA added to TrueHD blu-ray player and receivers.


And wasn't that a *CF*! I had one of those early DVD players, and eventually upgraded to a "DTS capable" one. It amazes me that DTS can over-hang the AVR market like it has since the late December announcement, but history tells me I have to acknowledge their position/status. I just hope they've done enough "behind the scenes" work with the manufacturers to ensure 2015 product announcements closely follow their own.


----------



## Al Sherwood

chi_guy50 said:


> They've done more than hint at it: they've made multiple statements that outright corroborate the layout flexibility. Now, it remains to be seen (1) what they deliver and (2) how CEM's implement it.
> 
> Besides my previous post on the subject (inter alia), there's this article on Twice, which includes the following nuggets:
> 
> QUOTE: DTS:X delivers an immersive effect “across the whole gamut of speaker configurations,” said Dave Casey, DTS’s senior director of product development. DTS:X is also more forgiving of speaker placement than other surround formats. END QUOTE
> 
> 
> QUOTE: A DTS spokesperson confirmed that home-theater speaker configurations designed for playback of Dolby Atmos object-based soundtracks could be used to play back DTS:X soundtracks. END QUOTE




Thanks for taking the time to post this and link back to your original post, I must have missed it. 


This is all good news, I will be designing my new HT soon and want to position all of the speakers correctly for the best results!


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> I was clearly trying to hide it, but you read between the lines.


Given that these are unsubstantiated rumors, I don't see much point in giving them credence and acting as if we already know them to be true.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Quite honestly I don't understand why so many people are so afraid in buying Atmos without the guarantee of upgradeability to DTS:X. The same thing already happened during DTS added to DD DVD player and receivers, again DTS-MA added to TrueHD blu-ray player and receivers.
> 
> Money is tight for me too, but buying into Atmos and not thinking that DTS will come up with something to counter Dolby, especially after what had happened...twice, is very naive. Especially for years we already know that DTS have been working on DTS-UHD to counter theatre version of Atmos.


David, now we are more aware than we were back in 1996-97 (with DVD and DD and dts). ...We know the score now, we are getting used to that routine.
And it happened again back in 2006-07 (HD DVD, Blu-ray, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA). 

For many of us it means money savings by roughly waiting a year, that's all...quite simple really. 
Nobody is afraid of anything, when it comes to our hobby; surround sound.
The scariest part is the software out there; the lack of it, and not the very best representation. IMHO

But when things'll get slowly moving around then all should be peachy...around 2018 or so. IMHO ...Till we have enough quality stuff around to call it "finally it has arrived in enough decent quantity" for the niche market to play with; us. 

And comes March 31st, a bunch of people are going to enjoy 'Gravity' on Blu, all over again (except in 3D). 
...And, DSU with 'Interstellar' on Blu.. 

Everybody is happy; yesterday, today and tomorrow.


----------



## David Susilo

I totally agree. Money is also an issue for me. However, the quality of DSU is amazing enough for me to bite the bullet and not wait for software and/or DTS:X capability.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Given that these are unsubstantiated rumors, I don't see much point in giving them credence and acting as if we already know them to be true.


Calling it "rumored" isn't acting asthough it was true; quite the opposite.


----------



## NorthSky

2014-15 is all deja vu over again (Dolby Atmos, DTS:X). ...With now the new addition of a third player; Auro-3D.


----------



## quinn4528

sdurani said:


> Sure. You said didn't understand their decision to not make money (not offer the DTS:X upgrade). But that is because you're viewing their decision from the premise that the DTS:X upgrade will increase net revenue. What if it doesn't? IF you don't start from your premise, then their decision makes sense. So if it ends up that Denon doesn't offer the firmware update, then you have to believe that: a) your premise was wishful thinking and Denon didn't want to lose money, or b) your premise was correct but Denon doesn't want to make easy money. Which do you think is more likely?


I have to start from some point of reference and I do so by what makes sense to me NOT as a wishful consumer, that is of course too easy, but as a person willing to explore this question from the view of D&M (If I dare). From that view, I would not understand the move. Not very complicated. I see myself as typical of early adopter and it interests me how this manufacturer(s) attempts to anticipate my behavior (will I buy again or wait). This is the crux of what we were talking when we speak about cannibalization of either 2014/2015 or 2015/2016 and beyond. When will I buy again. I have a thought and so does D & M. We just need to wait and see if I am still perplexed after their announcement.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> I totally agree. Money is also an issue for me. However, the quality of DSU is amazing enough *for me* to bite the bullet and not wait for software and/or DTS:X capability.


You just said it right there; _"for me"_ ...and few others like you. ...But certainly not for the vast majority of us. 

Very simple again; it seems to me that sometimes some members here @ AVS are high enthusiast folks with a good life.  
And we're happy to follow them too. ...And them too are following us afterwards. ...They'll have to eventually purchase another machine in order to keep up. ...With on-board DTS:X 3D surround sound audio decoder. 

When you have the money stuff like that we don't worry about; but that's about 0.00000000000000001% of the population.
The rest, they simply cannot afford this type of prestige. 

That's my opinion, for what it's worth, my two small cents.


----------



## quinn4528

Gurba said:


> I for one would be willing to pay to get DTS:X on my Yamaha RX-A3040 if DTS:X turns out to be good ****. I will not buy a New AVR if the 3040 can't be updated to decode DTS:X just to get DTS:X. I think that quite a few others agree With this. What would ie Yamaha make if they offered DTS:X as an Upgrade by payment as opposed to not selling New AVRs to those who think like me whom I think is in greater numbers than those willing to sell a newly aquired atmos/non-DTS:X-AVR to buy on With both.


I totally agree. By the time they actually have enough software out there to make me even think about DTS X in a new receiver, I will have to get a number of things including wides, additional heights, 4k, etc. But
I would pay for the FW upgrade if offered.


----------



## bargervais

Unbroken just arrived popped it in as soon as I got Home you all are going to like this one......Atmos IMHO is fantastic.. I'll keep watching and thank goodness I was an early adopter of Atmos and just dove in.

This Atmos/DTS:X discussion OMG I can't take no more discussion about it......Will there be an upgrade .... Will I have to buy a new AVR... shall I wait.

I'm glad I dove right in.. 2016 is my next target date for an upgrade Maybe by the end of next year we will see a lot of Atmos/DTS:X Blu-Rays...
I'll be happy with Atmos and DSU till then...


----------



## jrref

You know, maybe DTS:X might not be as good as Atmos all around. Maybe not worth the investment. I have Auro-3d and Atmos and at the end of the day I use Atmos 99.9% of the time and I suspect I will continue when DTS:X comes about.


----------



## cfraser

^ Maybe it won't. But I would have felt dumb if I didn't have DTS when DD was also available. I would have felt dumb if I didn't have DTS-HD MA when TrueHD was also available. You get the idea.

If you never liked DTS, no prob, as few discs _only_ had DTS. Not so with DTS-HD MA eh?

I wonder how this 3D audio will pan out on discs? One format or none. Suggesting it will be _both_ formats appearing on most discs rather than just one of them: that hasn't happened so far with DVD/BD, rarely are both formats there. So, based on what we've seen, and no reason the future has to be like that, but it is also foolish to ignore the past: no 3D audio at all (i.e. = 3D video), or _one_. And again: assuming the first format will be "the one" is also ignoring the past, and the present.

Thus the interest in the DTS:X topic in _this_ thread.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrref said:


> You know, maybe DTS:X might not be as good as Atmos all around. Maybe not worth the investment. I have Auro-3d and Atmos and at the end of the day I use Atmos 99.9% of the time and I suspect I will continue when DTS:X comes about.


It's not about whether Atmos or DTS:X is better than the other. Marc (FilmMixer) has already intimated that they're basically the same on the home video front once you boil it all down. However, studio support will probably be like it is for TrueHD and Master Audio. Some will support one, some will support the other, and sometimes one title will have Atmos and the other X from the same studio. 

If you don't have a product with both on board, and you like 3D audio... you're kind of screwing yourself over.

DTS MDA, as a linear bitstream of metadata encoded sound objects that can be "channelized" if need be rather than a hybrid 9.1 channel/object format like Dolby Atmos sounds to me like it's the more flexible of the two (plus the fact it's an open platform). However, in order for DTS to deliver it on standard Blu-ray and for it to meet spec... they have to limit it to the same channel/object hybrid design as Atmos wrapped in their core+extension lossless codec, so DTS:X becomes pretty much like Atmos. Except it may include speaker re-mapping of some sort.


----------



## Kamikaze13

Speaker Placement Dilemma for Future Atmos.

I'm looking for some guidance on where to place my Polk MC60 ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters for Atmos. 
Due to ceiling restrictions i can either install them directly above my soffit tray which has them firing right into the soffit tray but positioned wider and more in line with my mains. 
Or I would need to install them much farther into the room. 
See attached photos.
The red circles indicate ceiling speakers.
The front row seating is right in front of the horizontal dotted line and the back row seating isn't a concern for me sound wise.


----------



## BigScreen

On the Atmos front, here's the forecast for new releases on Blu-ray of movies that were released theatrically in Atmos:

*Unbroken *- Mar 24, 2015 - Dolby Atmos / TrueHD 7.1

*The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies* - Mar 24, 2015 - DTS-HD MA 7.1

*Taken 3* - Apr 21, 2015 - DTS-HD MA 5.1

*American Sniper* - May 19, 2015 - TBA (my prediction: 30% chance of Atmos)

*Jupiter Ascending* - May 19, 2015 - TBA (my prediction: 30% chance of Atmos)

*Kingsman: The Secret Service* - Jun 9, 2015 - TBA (my prediction: 90% chance of DTS-HD MA)

That's all that's had release dates announced so far. (Of course, there's next week's release of Gravity in Atmos, but since it's a catalog release, it didn't make the list above.) 

I would anticipate that *McFarland USA* will hit around early- to mid-June. Given that Disney has yet to release in Atmos, we're looking at a 90% chance of DTS-HD MA. *Home* will likely be in late June/early July and share Kingsman's chances for DTS-HD MA, because of Fox's past releases. 

Next up would be *Insurgent*, which should be in early August if they follow Divergent's release schedule.I predict at 100% chance of Atmos because of Lionsgate's past support.

That pretty much takes us through the end of summer.

There's a high pressure front coming in April which could bring in a new weather system, but if it doesn't develop, then we might just have a greater chance of Atmos in more releases this summer.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Unbroken just arrived popped it in as soon as I got Home you all are going to like this one......Atmos IMHO is fantastic.. I'll keep watching and thank goodness I was an early adopter of Atmos and just dove in.
> 
> This Atmos/DTS:X discussion OMG I can't take no more discussion about it......Will there be an upgrade .... Will I have to buy a new AVR... shall I wait.
> 
> I'm glad I dove right in.. 2016 is my next target date for an upgrade Maybe by the end of next year we will see a lot of Atmos/DTS:X Blu-Rays...
> I'll be happy with Atmos and DSU till then...


I was just about to post asking if this movie was worth a blind buy? Let's finally talk about something available to us now and stop speculating about whether DTS:X will be available to 2014 AVRs.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Kamikaze13 said:


> Speaker Placement Dilemma for Future Atmos.
> 
> I'm looking for some guidance on where to place my Polk MC60 ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters for Atmos.
> Due to ceiling restrictions i can either install them directly above my soffits which has them firing right into the soffit but positioned wider and more in line with my mains.
> Or I would need to install them much farther into the room.
> See attached photos.
> The red circles indicate ceiling speakers.
> The front row seating is right in front of the horizontal dotted line and the back row seating isn't a concern for me sound wise.



I would suggest they fire down, you mention "firing right into the soffit ", that would not be a good thing, hard to tell from the drawing, but the positions don't seem to be that much further into the room?


----------



## Kamikaze13

Al Sherwood said:


> I would suggest they fire down, you mention "firing right into the soffit ", that would not be a good thing, hard to tell from the drawing, but the positions don't seem to be that much further into the room?


Each square = 1' so 2' farther in on each side, which is 4' closer together.
Yeah I figured firing right into the soffit tray was a bad idea.
The soffit tray is 1' below the speakers.


----------



## Kamikaze13

Al Sherwood said:


> "firing right into the soffit "


Oops sorry I meant soffit tray / light tray.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> I was just about to post asking if this movie was worth a blind buy? Let's finally talk about something available to us now and stop speculating about whether DTS:X will be available to 2014 AVRs.


I watched the first quarter of it and what I saw I was very impressed with the use of Atmos very immersive the first part of the movie without spoiling it when they are flying getting ready for a bombing run. I must say it's a Great use of the Atmos effect. Then There is a rain scene when they are captured by the Japanese also very good the rain pouring down from my ceiling LOL.
I will watch it again later with the wife. I just had to have a little taste..before I sit down with her and eat in the full meal of sight and sound.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Kamikaze13 said:


> Oops sorry I meant soffit tray / light tray.


So is the area where the lights are currently mounted actually vertical? 


A quick picture of the soffit layout would make things clearer.


----------



## RapalloAV

jrref said:


> You know, maybe DTS:X might not be as good as Atmos all around. Maybe not worth the investment. I have Auro-3d and Atmos and at the end of the day I use Atmos 99.9% of the time and I suspect I will continue when DTS:X comes about.


Exactly!


I paid for Auro 3D and don't like it, what a waste of money after cutting all the holes in the ceiling for it.
Not an easy task to remove them now, block them up and re fabric the ceiling, so its cheaper and easier to leave them installed and dead.


Im not going through all this again for DTS X to find I like DSU more.
All my speakers were placed more for Auro 3D than Atmos, now my Atmos configuration isn't exactly to the book but it does still sound amazing!
I made this mistake by listening to someone who said how good it was, they hadn't even heard it just read positive things. I will never believe one more person without doing first heaps research myself. I'm sick of wasting money for VOG, front top middle etc etc........ VOG did nothing to turn me on! 


Better to talk about Atmos, be patient and wait. All the talk isn't going to make Denon do it the way "you" want!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RapalloAV said:


> Exactly!
> 
> 
> I paid for Auro 3D and don't like it, what a waste of money after cutting all the holes in the ceiling for it.
> Not an easy task to remove them now, block them up and re fabric the ceiling, so its cheaper and easier to leave them installed and dead.
> 
> 
> Im not going through all this again for DTS X to find I like DSU more.
> All my speakers were placed more for Auro 3D than Atmos, now my Atmos configuration isn't exactly to the book but it does still sound amazing!
> I made this mistake by listening to someone who said how good it was, they hadn't even heard it just read positive things. I will never believe one more person without doing first heaps research myself. I'm sick of wasting money for VOG, front top middle etc etc........ VOG did nothing to turn me on!
> 
> 
> Better to talk about Atmos, be patient and wait. All the talk isn't going to make Denon do it the way "you" want!


That's just silly talk.  

DTS:X operates very similarly to Dolby Atmos and can use the same speaker locations as Atmos. If you just wait for Atmos content, you'll potentially lose out on good 3D audio mixed titles.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's just silly talk.
> 
> DTS:X operates very similarly to Dolby Atmos and can use the same speaker locations as Atmos. If you just wait for Atmos content, you'll potentially lose out on good 3D audio mixed titles.


Agree that's what I'll do as well but I'll be content with Atmos and DSU till late 2016 when I'll upgrade my receiver.


----------



## RapalloAV

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's just silly talk.
> 
> DTS:X operates very similarly to Dolby Atmos and can use the same speaker locations as Atmos. If you just wait for Atmos content, you'll potentially lose out on good 3D audio mixed titles.


Yes know that Ive read it heaps of times. 


What I was saying is I made a mistake and installed for Auro 3D as a 13.1 setup before D&M even had the paid upgrade. I was stupid to listen to someone who told me it was good when they had never even heard it.


All Im saying is be patient and wait for the news from D&M if you get a firmware paid or not for the 4100,5200 etc etc..
Patience is a thing few people seem to have these days. If you don't get it free or paid and you want DTS X, you will have to buy a new AVR, its simple. Being patient and waiting for an official announcement isn't hard.


If you want Atmos or DTS X go and install the speakers for an Atmos configuration, you should be safe. Thinking or wanting Auro 3D now is a bit late to catch the boat, its gone.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> It is being mixed in Atmos.
> 
> There is no DTS:X theatrical format.
> 
> It could be released in MDA however.


I was mildly joking considering the impending doom for us Denon users.

BTW I'm waiting on the gravity bluray... Ralph mentioned you did the mix for it? Can't wait to check it out... about to watch Fury tonight


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is being mixed in Atmos.
> 
> There is no DTS:X theatrical format.
> 
> It could be released in MDA however.
> 
> 
> 
> I was mildly joking considering the impending doom for us Denon users.
> 
> BTW I'm waiting on the gravity bluray... Ralph mentioned you did the mix for it? Can't wait to check it out... about to watch Fury tonight
Click to expand...

No on "Gravity..." a fantastic mix. 

However I had the pleasure of working on "Fury" with Steven Price who composed both films.


----------



## Nalleh

Well, well, it's starting to gain momentum.
Atmos to the left, Auro 3D to the right.


----------



## kenoh89

Kris Deering said:


> Not sure you're right on the 10-bit thing. Depends on the color space and frame rate. For UHD Blu-ray at 4:2:0 (most likely) or 4:2:2 (possibly) at 24p, you'd be fine. HDR standards are still in flux, but I don't think that will matter for content for quite sometime now anyways. 60p is where things get difficult, and it will be a long time before that will matter to most. Broadcast 4K is a LONG way away and I would bet most will be 30p at best (if it ever even gets here).


Well Pioneer just announced the Elite VSX-90, which clearly advertises 4k60p 4:4:4 and HDMI 2.0 18GBPS with HDCP 2.2. Only problem is it's only capable of 7.2.2 and not 7.2.4, No support for DTS:X either, probably because of the deal they struck with Dolby for their Atmos enabled speaker system  


I'll just have to wait till they announce a follow up to their higher-end models....


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> ... about to watch Fury tonight





FilmMixer said:


> However I had the pleasure of working on "Fury" with Steven Price who composed both films.


I thought the soundtrack on _Fury_ was fantastic--very, very impressive work; I can only imagine how much more immersive and realistic it might have been in Atmos. However, I was not terribly impressed with the film; as an Army vet I just could not suspend disbelief at the outlandish feats of that isolated tank crew and this hindered my ability to identify with the characters, whom I really, really wanted to care about. I have seen many far better WWII movies.

In an ironic sense it's sad that we're reduced to watching so-so to awful movies just in order to experience the advances in sound engineering for which we've upgraded our HT systems. I hope the studios catch up sooner rather than later and bring us a variety of quality movies that are as memorable for the stories they tell as they are for the immersive audio technology provided to them. I want to get up from a movie-watching session and think: "Wow, that was a terrific flick; and, oh yeah, wasn't that Atmos soundtrack a great complement."


----------



## marlon1925

Csbooth said:


> 11.2 channels is the maximum number it can process and amplify, and currently there are no AVR/SSP other than the boutique items such as the Trinnov that can do more than 7.x.4 or 9.x.2 (11).
> 
> The 3030 is only capable of the aformentioned solutions.


Thanks sir,

So if it's the maximum, what set up do you suggest to fully utilize 11.2 setup? Can I add heights and surround rear to my existing 7.1 wides set up?

Does this mean that putting up ceiling speakers (two or four) will be useless if I use Onkyo's 3030?

Thanks


----------



## labman1

Wanted to know what everyone installing Height speakers, are you using to match your base speakers? How important is it to timbre match your 5.1 or 7.2 set up?
I have a 7.2 system with Von Schweikert Audio speakers all around and I don't think they will make Height speakers or Atmos speakers. Appreciate the feedback.


----------



## aaranddeeman

marlon1925 said:


> Thanks sir,
> 
> So if it's the maximum, what set up do you suggest to fully utilize 11.2 setup? Can I add heights and surround rear to my existing 7.1 wides set up?
> 
> Does this mean that putting up ceiling speakers (two or four) will be useless if I use Onkyo's 3030?
> 
> Thanks


It can to maximum 4 heights. So you can do either 7.x.4 or 9.x.2 as the earlier poster mentioned.


----------



## roxiedog13

Kamikaze13 said:


> Each square = 1' so 2' farther in on each side, which is 4' closer together.
> Yeah I figured firing right into the soffit tray was a bad idea.
> The soffit tray is 1' below the speakers.



I think I have the same dilemma, my speakers are inboard of my soffit instead of in the soffit. I aimed my tweeters ( two opposing on my speakers) to not reflect off the soffit and it works very well. My speakers are closer together and not in line with the mains but it was the best I could do . See my setup picture below. 


Maybe you could do a profile drawing so I can understand. Maybe you could do a 3D drawing if you're really good.


----------



## marlon1925

aaranddeeman said:


> It can to maximum 4 heights. So you can do either 7.x.4 or 9.x.2 as the earlier poster mentioned.


Oh, I was confused sorry. I thought I can do 11.X plus either 2 or 4 for the ceiling.


I have an existing 7.1 wides set up sir. What's the best upgrade to make it 9.X.2? Do I add a pair of heights or surround rear?


----------



## bargervais

kenoh89 said:


> Well Pioneer just announced the Elite VSX-90, which clearly advertises 4k60p 4:4:4 and HDMI 2.0 18GBPS with HDCP 2.2. Only problem is it's only capable of 7.2.2 and not 7.2.4, No support for DTS:X either, probably because of the deal they struck with Dolby for their Atmos enabled speaker system
> 
> 
> I'll just have to wait till they announce a follow up to their higher-end models....


Do you think that's it's odd that Pioneer is releasing new receivers before the DTS:X announcement next month. Even though they may have a deal with dolby for their Atmos enabled speaker system. It doesn't make sense to me unless they are not going to include DTS:X in into their entry level receivers.


----------



## aaranddeeman

marlon1925 said:


> Oh, I was confused sorry. I thought I can do 11.X plus either 2 or 4 for the ceiling.
> 
> 
> I have an existing 7.1 wides set up sir. What's the best upgrade to make it 9.X.2? Do I add a pair of heights or surround rear?


If I understand you correctly. You have 5.1 plus wides. Is there a reason you don't have rears already. Typically people go with 7.1 and then add wides to make it 9.1
However with your current setup you can either go with 5.1 + Wides + 4 heights or you can drop the wides and instead go for 7.1 (with rears) and 4 heights.
Actually speaking you can just add 6 more speakers (2 for rear and 4 for height) and keep them connected to the receiver. Based on the sound format the receiver will let you choose all possible speaker configurations.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Well, well, it's starting to gain momentum.
> Atmos to the left, Auro 3D to the right.


You sir are truly the real deal; hardware ingenious and software supporter.


----------



## marlon1925

aaranddeeman said:


> If I understand you correctly. You have 5.1 plus wides. Is there a reason you don't have rears already. Typically people go with 7.1 and then add wides to make it 9.1
> However with your current setup you can either go with 5.1 + Wides + 4 heights or you can drop the wides and instead go for 7.1 (with rears) and 4 heights.
> Actually speaking you can just add 6 more speakers (2 for rear and 4 for height) and keep them connected to the receiver. Based on the sound format the receiver will let you choose all possible speaker configurations.


This is my current setup sir, I don't have surround rears.


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> Oh, I was confused sorry. I thought I can do 11.X plus either 2 or 4 for the ceiling.
> 
> 
> I have an existing 7.1 wides set up sir. What's the best upgrade to make it 9.X.2? Do I add a pair of heights or surround rear?


By the sound of what you are saying you want to keep your wides 9.X then add two height speakers to make 9.X.2 if that's what you wish, then I would add top middle for best results for 9.X.2.... but know this that wides will only be used with Atmos and they will be silent for Dolby Surround (DSU). I have mine set up 7.2.4 front high/top middle I forsake my wides for two more above speakers. Then they are all used for both DSU and Atmos.


----------



## aaranddeeman

marlon1925 said:


> This is my current setup sir, I don't have surround rears.


Yes. So now you can add 6 additional speaker as I mentioned. (13 speakers in total, but max 11 active at any point in time). You can still keep your wides and they will be used as per the format.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

marlon1925 said:


> This is my current setup sir, I don't have surround rears.


I still think you're going to be kicking yourself if you go with the Onkyo right now without waiting a few more months.


----------



## petetherock

@Nalleh
You are the front line adopter sir..
But I don't see much on the Auro side that will make me spend that $$ on buying the update... actually none of the titles there interest me


----------



## marlon1925

bargervais said:


> By the sound of what you are saying you want to keep your wides 9.X then add two height speakers to make 9.X.2 if that's what you wish, then I would add top middle for best results for 9.X.2.... but know this that wides will only be used with Atmos and they will be silent for Dolby Surround (DSU). I have mine set up 7.2.4 front high/top middle I forsake my wides for two more above speakers. Then they are all used for both DSU and Atmos.


Thanks sir. Can you share diagram of placement of your speakers sir?


----------



## philmike21

Dan Hitchman said:


> I still think you're going to be kicking yourself if you go with the Onkyo right now without waiting a few more months.


 That's what I don't get is peoples impatience on buying a new receiver now or within the last 6 months, instead wait and see to whats coming down the pipeline this summer or fall. Or wait and see next couple months and see if any of the receivers out will get the DTS X upgrade. Could get a killer deal on a receiver that has been out for a while. Who knows next crop of receivers or pre pros could let you go out to 13.2. That's what im waiting for, a receiver you can go out 13.2. Patience, its not a bad thing when your going to drop some coin lol.


----------



## kenoh89

bargervais said:


> Do you think that's it's odd that Pioneer is releasing new receivers before the DTS:X announcement next month. Even though they may have a deal with dolby for their Atmos enabled speaker system. It doesn't make sense to me unless they are not going to include DTS:X in into their entry level receivers.


Well I didn't find it too surprising since most A/V manufactures are going to put more support for the most dominant player, and that right now is Atmos. Add to the fact that Dolby has the most feature films using it's format and has garnered support from the major picture studio's for over 3 years now. I believe DTS:X is going to have a rough first 2 years before we see any major support for home formats that could mirror the events we saw between Dolby True-HD and DTS MA


Do remember that Pioneer now a subsidiary of Onkyo and that could spell bad news if the 2 major players ignore it this year all together. If only the very high-end brands have it as an added feature, "for a cost", that's not going to work well with their already small support.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> I thought the soundtrack on _Fury_ was fantastic--very, very impressive work; I can only imagine how much more immersive and realistic it might have been in Atmos. However, I was not terribly impressed with the film; as an Army vet I just could not suspend disbelief at the outlandish feats of that isolated tank crew and this hindered my ability to identify with the characters, whom I really, really wanted to care about. I have seen many far better WWII movies.
> 
> In an ironic sense it's sad that we're reduced to watching so-so to awful movies just in order to experience the advances in sound engineering for which we've upgraded our HT systems. I hope the studios catch up sooner rather than later and bring us a variety of quality movies that are as memorable for the stories they tell as they are for the immersive audio technology provided to them. I want to get up from a movie-watching session and think: "Wow, that was a terrific flick; and, oh yeah, wasn't that Atmos soundtrack a great complement."


I couldn't agree more, especially when regarding that climactic scene @ the end... battle hardened SS probably wouldn't approach the front of a tank point blank (haha). It's odd because it looks like they sort of did their homework in many other regards. 

I really enjoyed the sound when they get to towns, the ambience sounded really great in those scenes especially. Film mixer... hopefully you don't mind but I watched in with DSU (I'm not sure how you feel about your mixes being upmixed? I was always a tad curious how engineers view the practice)


----------



## NorthSky

Love that film (*'Fury'*) and the sound (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1).


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> Other than zeus33's confirmation above regarding TF4, can anyone relate of a Netflix rental they received that either did or did not contain the Atmos soundtrack otherwise available? TIA.



TMNT will arrive from Netflix tomorrow. I will let you know if it has the Atmos track.


----------



## NorthSky

I'm sure it does; it's a Paramount Pictures BR title.


----------



## Kamikaze13

Al Sherwood said:


> So is the area where the lights are currently mounted actually vertical?
> 
> 
> A quick picture of the soffit layout would make things clearer.





roxiedog13 said:


> I think I have the same dilemma, my speakers are inboard of my soffit instead of in the soffit. I aimed my tweeters ( two opposing on my speakers) to not reflect off the soffit and it works very well. My speakers are closer together and not in line with the mains but it was the best I could do . See my setup picture below.
> 
> 
> Maybe you could do a profile drawing so I can understand. Maybe you could do a 3D drawing if you're really good.


I'm just getting to my light tray construction but I'm planning to do it similar to Cinemars as seen in this photo. After looking at it, I've answered my own question. It probably won't sound great having them above the light tray.


----------



## NorthSky

Wow, another gorgeous home theater room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kenoh89 said:


> Well I didn't find it too surprising since most A/V manufactures are going to put more support for the most dominant player, and that right now is Atmos. Add to the fact that Dolby has the most feature films using it's format and has garnered support from the major picture studio's for over 3 years now. I believe DTS:X is going to have a rough first 2 years before we see any major support for home formats that could mirror the events we saw between Dolby True-HD and DTS MA
> 
> 
> Do remember that Pioneer now a subsidiary of Onkyo and that could spell bad news if the 2 major players ignore it this year all together. If only the very high-end brands have it as an added feature, "for a cost", that's not going to work well with their already small support.


If they have a deal with DTS then they aren't going to announce DTS:X support before DTS makes a press release. That's how NDA's work.


----------



## marlon1925

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'm just getting to my light tray construction but I'm planning to do it similar to Cinemars as seen in this photo. After looking at it, I've answered my own question. It probably won't sound great having them above the light tray.


drool


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> If they have a deal with DTS then they aren't going to announce DTS:X support before DTS makes a press release. That's how NDA's work.


My German is not that good, but I just saw this on a Danish website with today's date...

http://www.areadvd.de/news/denon-plant-dtsx-update-fuer-avr-x7200w/

Unless I am mistaken, it says that Denon plans a DTS:X update for the 7200...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> My German is not that good, but I just saw this on a Danish website with today's date...
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/denon-plant-dtsx-update-fuer-avr-x7200w/
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, it says that Denon plans a DTS:X update for the 7200...


It's simply quoting the same Japanese page we have all seen, nothing new there...


----------



## pletwals

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'm just getting to my light tray construction but I'm planning to do it similar to Cinemars as seen in this photo. After looking at it, I've answered my own question. It probably won't sound great having them above the light tray.


It seems that the more inwards placement of the Top speakers is fine. If you look in the direction of the screen, the vertical elevation can be 60° (minimum 45° if side surrounds @ 0°).

Alternatively: can't you adapt your soffit to fit the speakers?


----------



## chi_guy50

dvdwilly3 said:


> My German is not that good, but I just saw this on a Danish* [N.B.: you mean German (.de = Deutschland = Germany)]* website with today's date...
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/denon-plant-dtsx-update-fuer-avr-x7200w/
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, it says that Denon plans a DTS:X update for the 7200...





SteveTheGeek said:


> It's simply quoting the same Japanese page we have all seen, nothing new there...


I see confirmatory information in the German article that I hadn't noticed on the Japanese web sites (but then my Japanese is just rudimentary). For one, it cites a Denon Japan press release (although you could be correct, Steve, in surmising that this is just circular reporting); and for another, it unambiguously states that owners of the X7200W will be able to upgrade their units to DTS:X, a fact that was not clear to me in the Japanese text.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> Unbroken just arrived popped it in as soon as I got Home you all are going to like this one......Atmos IMHO is fantastic.. I'll keep watching and thank goodness I was an early adopter of Atmos and just dove in





lujan said:


> I was just about to post asking if this movie was worth a blind buy? Let's finally talk about something available to us now and stop speculating about whether DTS:X will be available to 2014 AVRs.


I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.

Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


----------



## roxiedog13

Kamikaze13 said:


> I'm just getting to my light tray construction but I'm planning to do it similar to Cinemars as seen in this photo. After looking at it, I've answered my own question. It probably won't sound great having them above the light tray.


My theater ceiling and soffit areexactly like those in the photo you attached here and I have my speakers exactly where you show the placement with the blue circles. My tweeters are not aiming at the soffit , they are instead pointing down to the left and right which makes for a well balanced diffuse sound.


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of war movies and it seems like it might one of those? I think I will rent first and then decide.


----------



## Kamikaze13

pletwals said:


> Alternatively: can't you adapt your soffit to fit the speakers?


Yes I could but I thought I would probably get a better effect having the speakers 9' above the floor. If I install them in the soffit they would be at 8'. Will it be noticeable?




roxiedog13 said:


> My theater ceiling and soffit areexactly like those in the photo you attached here and I have my speakers exactly where you show the placement with the blue circles. My tweeters are not aiming at the soffit , they are instead pointing down to the left and right which makes for a well balanced diffuse sound.


Good to know thanks. I guess I'm kind of running full circle on this. 
Grrr I hate not knowing what to do.


----------



## philmike21

dvdwilly3 said:


> My German is not that good, but I just saw this on a Danish website with today's date...
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/denon-plant-dtsx-update-fuer-avr-x7200w/
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, it says that Denon plans a DTS:X update for the 7200...


http://www.areadvd.de/news/denon-plant-dtsx-update-fuer-avr-x7200w/


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> Yeah, I'm not a big fan of war movies and it seems like it might one of those? I think I will rent first and then decide.


Neither one is a war movie in the sense of a film centered around combat action like _Fury_. They are both based on biographical accounts of an actual WWII POW's (American enlisted man Louis Zamperini in _Unbroken_, and British officer Eric Lomax in _The Railway Man_) experiences at the hands of his brutal Japanese captors.

BTW, many thanks for your earlier post about the Atmos demos availability via free VUDU subscription service. I already had the downloaded clips, but it's nice to have another source for those and perhaps for future streaming features.


----------



## zebidou81

Roudan said:


> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are going to want the DTS:X option. Many of us, as in this writer, have opted to get the feet wet with Atmos just to see what new dimension in sound would be provided. To me, it's a "nice to have" but not a vital addition in the way that going from Pro Logic to 5.1 discrete was. That was huge. Or going from DVD to Blu-ray with HD video. Be advised, I am in a minority around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X will allegedly open access to further titles, but that may take a while to materialize. And even when they do, they will probably sound much the same as Atmos titles -- as opposed to being a different experience.
> 
> If you search for some posts by FilmMixer in the last couple of weeks, you will see that the shift to object audio will change all the realities that led to DTS' strong position on Blu-ray to date. That's not to say that history cannot repeat itself, but it is certainly not assured. And since all Atmos tracks on Blu-ray are built on lossless 7.1, there's no quality advantage for DTS:X.
> 
> Whether the Atmos firmware is installed in the field after purchase or in the factory.
> 
> That's exactly what I did with 4 speakers. If you are talking about just one speaker, you'd need to add at least 1 more, in the correct positions.
> 
> I would not say so. I think you get 87.5% of the Atmos effect from the first pair of top speakers, give or take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much Roger. Now I am ready to buy the receiver. But I do have few more questions. SOrry
> 
> 1. I have three options with increasing price
> 
> a. Onkyo 636 7.2
> b. Denon X4100 7.2
> c. Marantz SR7009 9.2
> 
> Does it worth to pay much more going from Onkyo 7.2 to Marantz 9.2 ? Or stay with medium price of Denon? What do you think? Is 9.2 channel much better than 7.2 for atmos?
> 
> 2. For 9.2 Marantz 7009, how many ceiling or height speakers does it have?
> 
> Or do you have other recommendation?
> 
> 3. Now I am wondering if I use this Marantz, does it damage my speakers?
> 
> For Marantz 7009, the power is 6 ohms, 1ch Drive 200w, 6 ohms 2ch Drive 165 w, 8 ohms 2ch Drive 125w.
> 
> For my speakers, the front Paradigm monitor 9 has 8 ohms suitable amplifier power range of 15-200 w but with maximum input power of 125w. The back surround speaker has only 125 w.
> 
> Thanks I appreciate your help.
Click to expand...

I would get the marantz sr7009, i had the Onkyo txnr636 before upgrading to the marantz about 3 weeks ago and man the quality and more the sound quality has improved massively, im not sure if its the Audyssey xt32 or it is the marantz itself but the sound is increadible and worth every penny more than the onkyo which is very good in its own right @399uk.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


I plan on watching _Unbroken _tonight and enjoyed _The Railway Man_ a few months ago. I'll be sure to post back.


----------



## Wild Blue

Supposedly, we're only a few weeks away from the DTS:X announcement at this point.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave Vaughn said:


> I plan on watching _Unbroken _tonight and enjoyed _The Railway Man_ a few months ago. I'll be sure to post back.


Thanks, Dave. I'll be looking forward to your comments.


----------



## thestoneman

Dave Vaughn said:


> I plan on watching _Unbroken _tonight and enjoyed _The Railway Man_ a few months ago. I'll be sure to post back.


Watching tonight myself...fantastic book. I hope the Atmos mix is equally as good!


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> Neither one is a war movie in the sense of a film centered around combat action like _Fury_. They are both based on biographical accounts of an actual WWII POW's (American enlisted man Louis Zamperini in _Unbroken_, and British officer Eric Lomax in _The Railway Man_) experiences at the hands of his brutal Japanese captors.
> 
> BTW, many thanks for your earlier post about the Atmos demos availability via free VUDU subscription service. I already had the downloaded clips, but it's nice to have another source for those and perhaps for future streaming features.


Thanks for the movie information. I'm still debating as to whether I should get it because of the Atmos mix.


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


 Isn't it great now that there are more choices in Atmos Blu-Rays we can thumb our nose up and choose what we want to see and buy.... in the beginning we would buy any title with Atmos now we can choose but i for one enjoyed Unbroken and it's use of atmos one of my favorites..... Im looking forward to hear Gravity and to me Gravity Stunk as far as a movie and I hated Birdman.. But what do i know.


----------



## roxiedog13

Kamikaze13 said:


> Yes I could but I thought I would probably get a better effect having the speakers 9' above the floor. If I install them in the soffit they would be at 8'. Will it be noticeable?
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know thanks. I guess I'm kind of running full circle on this.
> Grrr I hate not knowing what to do.


I think the way it works is Dolby Atmos sets guidelines and we come as close as we can given our imperfect home theater situations. In all honesty even a perfect room really only benefits one sweet spot only the rest is in the not so sweet zone . Stop fretting, put the speakers close to the correct distance and then play with the aiming angles. My first run with Dolby used the up-firing modules and they did not work in the position Dolby recommended. To get these to work I had to move them way out in front and to the center of the MLP to get the best results. Evey room is
different size and acoustic wise, get it as close as you can within reason and then tinker . It worked for me. 

BTW, my theater is not this long, it's the wide angle lens that distorts this way. 12' X 30' x 7' 9" to the main ceiling...for reference.


----------



## Nalleh

*FRONT WIDES IN ATMOS*

Did a little test yesterday. Played all the Atmos trailers with ONLY the front wides connected.

I was surprised at how active they were! In the 4 main trailers there were sounds from them almost all the time, and they helped with panning sounds, effects and even thunder.
In the F1 Redbull trailer they played a lot of the mechanical sounds.
But in the Bailando music trailer there were a lot of silence.

However what this means if you do not have wides, is another question. I guess one option is that those sounds are downmixed into the fronts.

To sum it up: the wides seem alot more active than the heights.


----------



## Josh Z

Nalleh said:


> Did a little test yesterday. Played all the Atmos trailers with ONLY the front wides connected.
> 
> I was surprised at how active they were! In the 4 main trailers there were sounds from them almost all the time, and they helped with panning sounds, effects and even thunder.


I don't think you can count on this for most movie content. From my understanding, the Wide speakers are only active specifically for sound objects, not channel bed activity. Those trailers were created explicitly to show off the capabilities of Atmos, and use a lot more objects than most movie soundtracks, which still rely heavily on channel beds.

Also, as we know, those Wides are not active at all during DSU upmixing of 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> *FRONT WIDES IN ATMOS*
> 
> Did a little test yesterday. Played all the Atmos trailers with ONLY the front wides connected.
> 
> I was surprised at how active they were! In the 4 main trailers there were sounds from them almost all the time, and they helped with panning sounds, effects and even thunder.
> In the F1 Redbull trailer they played a lot of the mechanical sounds.
> But in the Bailando music trailer there were a lot of silence.
> 
> However what this means if you do not have wides, is another question. I guess one option is that those sounds are downmixed into the fronts.
> 
> To sum it up: the wides seem alot more active than the heights.*....with native Atmos content*




Nice find! I'm glad you put the time in to try this out for yourself. However, Josh makes the point clear.



Josh Z said:


> I don't think you can count on this for most movie content. From my understanding, the Wide speakers are only active specifically for sound objects, not channel bed activity. Those trailers were created explicitly to show off the capabilities of Atmos, and use a lot more objects than most movie soundtracks, which still rely heavily on channel beds.
> 
> Also, as we know, those Wides are not active at all during DSU upmixing of 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks.


This is correct. Usage will be highly dependent on the mix so it is impossible to quantify the percentage of use compared to heights. With more content we can compare more but it's slim pickin' right now.

DSU will not use these locations.


----------



## Ralph Potts

chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


Greetings,

I have seen both and wouldn't say that one pales in comparison to the other. You can see my Blu-ray review for details:

Unbroken Official AVS Forum Blu-ray review

Regards,


----------



## NorthSky

Was it Audyssey that first came up with the Front Wides (DSX)? ...And they recommend them first (preference), over the Rear Surrounds and over the Front Heights. 

The Front Wides are active during discrete Dolby Atmos, but cannot be used with DSU processing. ...Kind of restrict their use, now that DSU is the preferred movie mode.

And who first came up with four height surrounds; Lexicon (Trifield - Quantum Logic) or Yamaha (Presence - Quadfield)? 

Which movie was the very first one (@ the theater) encoded with an overhead height channel? ...Was it *'We Were Soldiers'* (2002)? 
...Starring _Mel Gibson_ and directed by _Randall Wallace._


----------



## RMK!

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I have seen both and wouldn't say that one pales in comparison to the other. You can see my Blu-ray review for details:
> 
> Unbroken Official AVS Forum Blu-ray review
> 
> Regards,


Nice review Ralph (as usual ), I read the book and have been looking forward to this one. It is available on VUDU now but based upon your recommendation, I think I'll buy the Bluray for the Atmos soundtrack.

BTW, I saw The Railway Man a couple of months ago and thought it was interesting. I'm sure that I will get more entertainment value from Unbroken.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I have seen both and wouldn't say that one pales in comparison to the other. You can see my Blu-ray review for details:
> 
> Unbroken Official AVS Forum Blu-ray review
> 
> Regards,


Thanks, Ralph. I appreciate the work you put into your many posts. Actually, I had already seen your review and had read between the lines of what I interpreted as faint praise. Now, from what I have seen, my film sensitivities do not equate to yours so we will not weight certain aspects of movies equally, specifically concerning plot and genre. You qualified your review with the remark that you tend to favor biopics anyway implying to me that you might be predisposed to like this movie due to its subject matter. I also read your statement "_Unbroken_ doesn’t break the mold from a conceptual standpoint but that doesn’t make it any less impactful" as a (no doubt unintentional) cue to me that it has overworked elements that fall into the category of schlock.

I may very well have read too much into your review--or I may have interpreted your words correctly signifying that you liked the movie despite elements that would set my eyes to rolling. You did give it a high overall rating, but could the presence of your family members at the screening have influenced how you judged its impact?

I'd be curious to hear you specifically address your impressions of the hagiographic quotient I mentioned in my earlier post, since this is the sort of overblown treatment that tends to leave me cold. TIA.


----------



## bargervais

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks, Ralph. I appreciate the work you put into your many posts. Actually, I had already seen your review and had read between the lines of what I interpreted as faint praise. Now, from what I have seen, my film sensitivities do not equate to yours so we will not weight certain aspects of movies equally, specifically concerning plot and genre. You qualified your review with the remark that you tend to favor biopics anyway implying to me that you might be predisposed to like this movie due to its subject matter. I also read your statement "_Unbroken_ doesn’t break the mold from a conceptual standpoint but that doesn’t make it any less impactful" as a (no doubt unintentional) cue to me that it has overworked elements that fall into the category of schlock.
> 
> I may very well have read too much into your review--or I may have interpreted your words correctly signifying that you liked the movie despite elements that would set my eyes to rolling. You did give it a high overall rating, but could the presence of your family members at the screening have influenced how you judged its impact?
> 
> I'd be curious to hear you specifically address your impressions of the hagiographic quotient I mentioned in my earlier post, since this is the sort of overblown treatment that tends to leave me cold. TIA.


Yes agree I liked the review and Ralph's review helped me decide to get the Blu-Ray I totally enjoyed the movie and the Atmos mix.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Was it Audyssey that first came up with the Front Wides (DSX)? ...And they recommend them first (preference), over the Rear Surrounds and over the Front Heights.
> 
> The Front Wides are active during discrete Dolby Atmos, but cannot be used with DSU processing. ...Kind of restrict their use, now that DSU is the preferred movie mode.
> 
> And who first came up with four height surrounds; Lexicon (Trifield - Quantum Logic) or Yamaha (Presence - Quadfield)?
> 
> Which movie was the very first one (@ the theater) encoded with an overhead height channel? ...Was it *'We Were Soldiers'* (2002)?
> ...Starring _Mel Gibson_ and directed by _Randall Wallace._


Atmos will direct sound to speakers the studios have mixed them for including wides. I think DSU was designed to send sound above for height to create a bubble above to feel the immersive. Just my $.02


----------



## NorthSky

Ok; *'Gravity'* is coming up next week on Blu-ray (2D version only) and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
Was it supervised in a 7.1.4-channel setup? ...And if yes, then the front Wides will have no content (no sound coming out of them)? 

* Ralph should know with certitude. If he has them installed and using a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2-channel configuration system setup that is.
{My guess: Sound is coming out of them, from spatial object rendering, and not channel related. ...But I have no abso!ute 'assuredness'. }

=> We're talking "discrete" sound encoding and decoding here.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> Ok; *'Gravity'* is coming up next week on Blu-ray (2D version only) and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> Was it supervised in a 7.1.4-channel setup? ...And if yes, then the front Wides will have no content (no sound coming out of them)?
> 
> * Ralph should know with certitude. If he has them installed and using a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2-channel configuration system setup that is.
> {My guess: Sound is coming out of them, from spatial object rendering, and not channel related. ...But I have no abso!ute 'assuredness'. }
> 
> => We're talking "discrete" sound encoding and decoding here.


No, they will not be silent, the AVR will use them based on the objects location... This is how object based formats work however they are monitored in studio...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> *FRONT WIDES IN ATMOS*
> 
> Did a little test yesterday. Played all the Atmos trailers with ONLY the front wides connected.
> 
> I was surprised at how active they were! In the 4 main trailers there were sounds from them almost all the time, and they helped with panning sounds, effects and even thunder.
> In the F1 Redbull trailer they played a lot of the mechanical sounds.
> But in the Bailando music trailer there were a lot of silence.
> 
> However what this means if you do not have wides, is another question. I guess one option is that those sounds are downmixed into the fronts.
> 
> To sum it up: the wides seem alot more active than the heights.


As people with Steinway, Datasat, and Trinnov processors will more than likely find out is that the main layer of surrounds will be used_ far _more often than the overheads. Dolby emphasized the wrong thing in their marketing of Atmos IMHO. We need more main layer front and surround outputs than 7.1 or even 9.1 in mainstream products.


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> No, they will not be silent, the AVR will use them based on the objects location...
> This is how object based formats work however they are monitored in studio...


You are right; I just revisited Ralph's review (@ this instant) and near the end (****) there is a short section in accentuated characters (larger letters) mentioning about that (not sure if it was an addendum or an edit as I don't recall from prior to reading it in the review; very possibly me missing it).

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Ok; *'Gravity'* is coming up next week on Blu-ray (2D version only) and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> Was it supervised in a 7.1.4-channel setup? ...And if yes, then the front Wides will have no content (no sound coming out of them)?
> 
> * Ralph should know with certitude. If he has them installed and using a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2-channel configuration system setup that is.
> {My guess: Sound is coming out of them, from spatial object rendering, and not channel related. ...But I have no abso!ute 'assuredness'. }
> 
> => We're talking "discrete" sound encoding and decoding here.


 Ralph did a great review as always looking forward for my copy to arrive.
I love this clarification.
The object based mix was monitored in a 7.1.4 room when completed. This led to the misprint on the packaging which should state on the package label English Dolby Atmos or English Dolby Atmos (7.1 Dolby TrueHD compatible). On behalf of Dolby and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment we can confirm that Gravity Diamond Luxe edition, as well as all future Dolby Atmos releases from Warner Bros., is an object based mix and is scalable for playback in Dolby Atmos home theatre systems. In addition, Dolby Atmos soundtracks are fully backward compatible with traditional audio configurations and legacy home entertainment equipment.

I especially like (as well as all future Dolby Atmos releases from Warner Bros.) 
So maybe there's hope for American Sniper in a couple months


----------



## NorthSky

Ralph is one of my main men to go for Blu-ray movies' technical scores, and for several years. ...He's got the chops.


----------



## WhiskeyConway

Nalleh said:


> *FRONT WIDES IN ATMOS*
> ....
> To sum it up: the wides seem alot more active than the heights.


Thank you for the testing and feedback. 

Mr. Dressler's 87.5% comment, and your brief sampling have me thinking about room priorities.

Any movie tests yet? And just for fun, have you listened to your atmos samples with neo:x ?


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> Ok; *'Gravity'* is coming up next week on Blu-ray (2D version only) and with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
> Was it supervised in a 7.1.4-channel setup? ...And if yes, then the front Wides will have no content (no sound coming out of them)?
> 
> * Ralph should know with certitude. If he has them installed and using a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2-channel configuration system setup that is.
> {My guess: Sound is coming out of them, from spatial object rendering, and not channel related. ...But I have no abso!ute 'assuredness'. }
> 
> => We're talking "discrete" sound encoding and decoding here.


Personally I won't be doing the double dip.. I expect the prices to be high on a 'new' release, and what I get on DSU is pretty decent already... 

My general summary of Atmos discs so far 
Some increased ambience, in the form of rain, flyovers, and most important for me, the envelop of sound and the ability to trace sound from from to back, side to side, the back to top and to front kind of 'sound path'.

But honestly to paraphrase Charlton Heston:
"it's not blowing my skirt up"... 

Perhaps it's been the rather dismal quality of the Atmos discs thus far... apart from John Wick and now Hunger Games III.


----------



## bargervais

petetherock said:


> Personally I won't be doing the double dip.. I expect the prices to be high on a 'new' release, and what I get on DSU is pretty decent already...
> 
> My general summary of Atmos disc so far has been some increased ambience, in the form of rain, flyovers, and most importance for me, the envelop of sound and the ability to trace sound from from to back, side to side, the back to top and to front kind of 'sound path'.
> 
> But honestly to paraphrase Charlton Heston:
> "it's not blowing my skirt up"...
> 
> Perhaps it's been the rather dismal quality of the Atmos discs thus far... apart from John Wick and now Hunger Games III.


$19.00 not a bad price
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/118022/
I like John Wick,and Hunger Games Mocking Jay, yes my two favorites but now that I have Unbroken. These three are my favorites


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> Personally I won't be doing the double dip.. I expect the prices to be high on a 'new' release, and what I get on DSU is pretty decent already...
> 
> My general summary of Atmos disc so far has been some increased ambience, in the form of rain, flyovers, and most importance for me, the envelop of sound and the ability to trace sound from from to back, side to side, the back to top and to front kind of 'sound path'.
> 
> But honestly to paraphrase Charlton Heston:
> "it's not blowing my skirt up"...
> 
> Perhaps it's been the rather dismal quality of the Atmos discs thus far... apart from John Wick and now Hunger Games III.


Gravity is definitely one of those titles that can "blow your skirt up." It's just too bad that mainstream products currently don't have options for more main level speaker outputs. Then some of these 3D mixes, even those already out, will really shine since the audio activity is more concentrated in the main level surround arrays than the overheads.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Gravity' on Blu-ray (2D) with Dolby Atmos*



petetherock said:


> Personally I won't be doing the double dip.. I expect the prices to be high on a 'new' release, and what I get on DSU is pretty decent already...
> 
> My general summary of Atmos disc so far has been some increased ambience, in the form of rain, flyovers, and most importance for me, the envelop of sound and the ability to trace sound from from to back, side to side, the back to top and to front kind of 'sound path'.
> 
> But honestly to paraphrase Charlton Heston:
> "it's not blowing my skirt up"...
> 
> Perhaps it's been the rather dismal quality of the Atmos discs thus far... apart from John Wick and now Hunger Games III.


I got you Peter. ...And it even ain't in 3D anyway; which is the main attraction of this flick IMHO. ...Very unfortunate the huge missed opportunity. 
But I'll get it anyway (along with 'Interstellar'), because Dolby Atmos will be in my home eventually (along with DTS:X), and @ full blast. 

______

* As for _Charlton Heston;_ I won't even mention what I truly think about this man; it ain't pink. 

- And Hunger Games; that too I won't elaborate in fear to have members despising me, like in the great 3D animation flick; 'Despicable Me' 
- John Wick; s cool ... but I'm starting to get sick of it.


----------



## marlon1925

*9.X.2 Atmos Set up*

someone please share proper placement of speakers for 9.X.2 atmos set up.


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> someone please share proper placement of speakers for 9.X.2 atmos set up.


Go Here you can see
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html


----------



## pletwals

Check the links in the first post of this thread.
My ideal take:

Ear level, from axis MLP to screen center:
C @ 0°
L/R @ +/-30° 
L/R Wide @ +/-60°
L/R Surround @ +/- 90°
L/R Back Surround @ +/- 135°

Ceiling 
L/R Top Middle @ +/- 80° (elevation 60°)


----------



## Ralph Potts

Greetings,



NorthSky said:


> You are right; I just revisited Ralph's review (@ this instant) and near the end (****) there is a short section in accentuated characters (larger letters) mentioning about that (not sure if it was an addendum or an edit as I don't recall from prior to reading it in the review; very possibly me missing it).
> 
> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs





bargervais said:


> Ralph did a great review as always looking forward for my copy to arrive.
> I love this clarification.
> The object based mix was monitored in a 7.1.4 room when completed. This led to the misprint on the packaging which should state on the package label English Dolby Atmos or English Dolby Atmos (7.1 Dolby TrueHD compatible). On behalf of Dolby and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment we can confirm that Gravity Diamond Luxe edition, as well as all future Dolby Atmos releases from Warner Bros., is an object based mix and is scalable for playback in Dolby Atmos home theatre systems. In addition, Dolby Atmos soundtracks are fully backward compatible with traditional audio configurations and legacy home entertainment equipment.
> 
> I especially like (as well as all future Dolby Atmos releases from Warner Bros.)
> So maybe there's hope for American Snipper in a couple months


The paragraph referenced in both of the above posts was an addendum to the review. After questions were raised based on the confusing information on the Blu-ray label, Dolby and Warner Brothers Home Entertainment reached out to me with the clarification.



NorthSky said:


> Ralph is one of my main men to go for Blu-ray movies' technical scores, and for several years. ...He's got the chops.


Thanks Bob.. 


Regards,


----------



## coolgeek

audioguy said:


> Almost. There is no "auto-calibration". When you key in your mic serial number, it downloads the new calibration file (into your Download folder) which you then need to select within the OmniMic program. Otherwise, it will keep using the original file.
> 
> If you can't find the spot within OmniMic (I'm not at my PC) to do that, let me know and I will send you how to accomplish it.


Thanks for the info.. i'll try to locate this.


----------



## mattboyer

bargervais said:


> Go Here you can see
> dolby .com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html


And it's interesting to me on that 9.X.2 guide that Dolby has Wides as the 8/9's while in the 9.X (non-Atmos) Dolby recommends the 8/9s as the Heights. I'm wondering why they changed that placement to Wides for Atmos but did not update it for the regular DD.

dolby .com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/9-1-setup.html


----------



## tjenkins95

Ok - I give up!
Does anyone have the link to Dolby's website that shows the lists - by year - of movies with Dolby Atmos? 
I never had any problems looking for the list in the past but I just cannot seem to find it.
Thanks.
Ray


----------



## SteveTheGeek

tjenkins95 said:


> Ok - I give up!
> Does anyone have the link to Dolby's website that shows the lists - by year - of movies with Dolby Atmos?
> I never had any problems looking for the list in the past but I just cannot seem to find it.
> Thanks.
> Ray


Looks like there is a problem with their site right now, lots of content missing, including this set of pages.


----------



## tjenkins95

SteveTheGeek said:


> Looks like there is a problem with their site right now, lots of content missing, including this set of pages.




Thanks for confirming that. Nice to know it wasn't me  doing something wrong!


Ray


----------



## kenoh89

Current Atmos titles don't do use wide's in a 9.2.4 configuration, am I right? Wide's are only used as clones, or for added ambience for use with DSU?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kenoh89 said:


> Current Atmos titles don't do use wide's in a 9.2.4 configuration, am I right? Wide's are only used as clones, or for added ambience for use with DSU?


It's not a title limitation, it's a receiver limitation. The max channels decoded right now is 11 at the same time, so either 7.x.4 or 9.x.2.


----------



## Selden Ball

kenoh89 said:


> Current Atmos titles don't do use wide's in a 9.2.4 configuration, am I right? Wide's are only used as clones, or for added ambience for use with DSU?





SteveTheGeek said:


> It's not a title limitation, it's a receiver limitation. The max channels decoded right now is 11 at the same time, so either 7.x.4 or 9.x.2.


A slight clarification: in a 9.2.4 configuration, the Front Wides are silent when using Atmos and Dolby Surround. They are not used as clones or ambience. The Front Wides are used by DTS Neo:X, in which case the rear overhead (Height2) speakers are silent.


----------



## bargervais

Selden Ball said:


> A slight clarification: in a 9.2.4 configuration, the Front Wides are silent when using Atmos and Dolby Surround. They are not used as clones or ambience. The Front Wides are used by DTS Neo:X, in which case the rear overhead (Height2) speakers are silent.



I thought that Wides work with Atmos and they are silent if you use DSU 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html

sorry after rereading your post yes 9.2.4 wides will be silent they will be active 9.2.2 with atmos


----------



## roxiedog13

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I have seen both and wouldn't say that one pales in comparison to the other. You can see my Blu-ray review for details:
> 
> Unbroken Official AVS Forum Blu-ray review
> 
> Regards,


I cannot figure out which one you feel pales in comparison . You gave Unbroken a 94 , Lee Weber gave Railway Man a 92 , seems rather close to me. Guess I'll just have to watch both 
I have Unbroken already . I will probably order the UK version of Railway Man because it is unedited . The US version has 8 minutes cut out thanks to Weinstein apparently .


----------



## sdurani

Ralph Potts said:


> I have seen both and *wouldn't* say that one pales in comparison to the other.





roxiedog13 said:


> I cannot figure out which one you feel pales in comparison .


He doesn't feel one pales in comparison.


----------



## kenoh89

Selden Ball said:


> A slight clarification: in a 9.2.4 configuration, the Front Wides are silent when using Atmos and Dolby Surround. They are not used as clones or ambience. The Front Wides are used by DTS Neo:X, in which case the rear overhead (Height2) speakers are silent.


So if wide's do work in a 9.2.2 configuration, what does that say about receivers that support 11.2.2 channel processing and optional 2 channel amplification? 


So your saying, for example, the Marrantz av8802 wouldn't be able to support full on 9.2.4 surround with wide channel amplification?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kenoh89 said:


> So if wide's do work in a 9.2.2 configuration, what does that say about receivers that support 11.2.2 channel processing and optional 2 channel amplification?
> 
> 
> So your saying, for example, the Marrantz av8802 wouldn't be able to support full on 9.2.4 surround with wide channel amplification?


Exactly, the actual limit is 11 channels, even on the 8802.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kenoh89 said:


> So if wide's do work in a 9.2.2 configuration, what does that say about receivers that support 11.2.2 channel processing and optional 2 channel amplification?
> 
> 
> So your saying, for example, the Marrantz av8802 wouldn't be able to support full on 9.2.4 surround with wide channel amplification?


As others have said... it's a current limitation of 11.1 Atmos rendering... even in products with 13.1 outputs (except for the Trinnov and other high dollar processors). Maybe in this year's units they'll rectify that situation... ???... since Dolby added 9.1.4 to their layout schematics.


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> I cannot figure out which one you feel pales in comparison . You gave Unbroken a 94 , Lee Weber gave Railway Man a 92 , seems rather close to me.


Ralph was responding in the negative to the question I asked in my earlier post:



chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). * It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.*





roxiedog13 said:


> Guess I'll just have to watch both I have Unbroken already . I will probably order the UK version of Railway Man because it is unedited . The US version has 8 minutes cut out thanks to Weinstein apparently .


Please share your impressions after you've watched both films and let us know how you feel they compare.


----------



## kenoh89

SteveTheGeek said:


> Exactly, the actual limit is 11 channels, even on the 8802.


What does that say about the Trinnov Altitude32 and other high-end Atmos receivers with native 11+ channel support? 


Have you personally tried to see if any current Atmos receivers pick up actual information from the wide's, without emulation?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kenoh89 said:


> What does that say about the Trinnov Altitude32 and other high-end Atmos receivers with native 11+ channel support?
> 
> 
> Have you personally tried to see if any current Atmos receivers pick up actual information from the wide's, without emulation?


You're right, I was only referring to the typical customer receivers/prepros and not the Trinov/Ati/...

I did not try it personally but the documentation is clear about this and multiple discussions on the forum confirmed this.


----------



## Ralph Potts

Greetings,



roxiedog13 said:


> I cannot figure out which one you feel pales in comparison . You gave Unbroken a 94 , Lee Weber gave Railway Man a 92 , seems rather close to me. Guess I'll just have to watch both
> I have Unbroken already . I will probably order the UK version of Railway Man because it is unedited . The US version has 8 minutes cut out thanks to Weinstein apparently .





sdurani said:


> He doesn't feel one pales in comparison.


Sanjay, is correct. 

For clarification roxiedog, the numeric rating in our reviews is relative to the combining of the Blu-ray's technical scores for audio/video. For the film rating we use a five star rating system. In the case of *Unbroken* and *The Railway Man*, they were rated 4 out of 5 and 4.5 out of 5 respectively. Having seen them both I feel that each warrants high marks. Thanks!


Regards,


----------



## roxiedog13

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I have seen both and wouldn't say that one pales in comparison to the other. You can see my Blu-ray review for details:
> 
> Unbroken Official AVS Forum Blu-ray review
> 
> Regards,





sdurani said:


> He doesn't feel one pales in comparison.


Right you are ,he did say "wouldn't" , I somehow read would in that sentence. The ratings on the movies support that as well and why I was confused.

Now to find a source for the UK unedited version of Railway Man. 

Actually, has anyone seen both and know what was cut out of the UK version for North America? If it's not significant I will just pick it up locally.


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> Other than zeus33's confirmation above regarding TF4, can anyone relate of a Netflix rental they received that either did or did not contain the Atmos soundtrack otherwise available? TIA.





zeus33 said:


> TMNT will arrive from Netflix tomorrow. I will let you know if it has the Atmos track.


 @chi_guy50 Confirmed. The Netflix TMNT does contain the Atmos track.


----------



## chi_guy50

zeus33 said:


> @chi_guy50 Confirmed. The Netflix TMNT does contain the Atmos track.


Good to know; thanks for that confirmation and let's hope that's indicative of a trend that will hold across all distribution sources for Netflix Blu-rays in future.

I'm feeling very good about the value offered to this point for my two-disks-at-a-time $15.00 monthly subscription. Having received 10 Blu-rays through the mail last month and 11 already so far this month with more on the way, I don't know how you could ask for better. 

At this rate I might even stoop to getting TMNT, TOE, and all the other barrel-scrapers just for the heck of it! 



Spoiler



j/k of course


----------



## cfraser

bargervais said:


> So maybe there's hope for American Snipper in a couple months


Sounds too scary for me [crosses legs], not sure Atmos would help.


----------



## Eriksdam

American Snipper - that's the prequel to Edward Scissorhands, right?

(sorry, couldn't resist...)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Eriksdam said:


> American Snipper - that's the prequel to Edward Scissorhands, right?
> 
> (sorry, couldn't resist...)


No, it's_ American Snipper: The Lorena Bobbitt Story_.


----------



## BigScreen

tjenkins95 said:


> Ok - I give up!
> Does anyone have the link to Dolby's website that shows the lists - by year - of movies with Dolby Atmos?
> I never had any problems looking for the list in the past but I just cannot seem to find it.
> Thanks.
> Ray


It's working now:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Wilkinson has cleared up one of the thread's recurring topics of speculation and discussion:



Scott Wilkinson said:


> I asked Dr. Mathias Johansson, CEO of Dirac, about exactly when and why the local computer needs to be connected to the Internet; here is his reply:
> 
> "We use the server access both for a license check and for computing a certain part of the overall filter. The part that’s done at the server concerns the time-domain correction, and, yes, that's done on the server to prevent piracy. This means that the first time you make a filter for a certain measurement set, you need to access the server. But if you then just want to change the target response, the server does not need to be accessed again. The time-domain correction does not change from a target change."


----------



## bargervais

cfraser said:


> Sounds too scary for me [crosses legs], not sure Atmos would help.


i would prefer American Sniper in Atmos then Birdman I just could not stand Birdman can't believe it got best picture


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> i I just could not stand Birdman can't believe it got best picture


I haven't seen it yet - but isn’t it about an old, white, washed-up actor? Remember that the Academy is composed of old, white, washed-up actors for the most part... and then the inevitability of its win becomes more clear


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> I was just about to post asking if this movie was worth a blind buy? Let's finally talk about something available to us now and stop speculating about whether DTS:X will be available to 2014 AVRs.


I finally caved and bought "Unbroken" today but will probably not watch until later because I also rented "Vice". I had heard "Vice" was going to have Atmos but found out after renting that it does not have an Atmos track.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> i would prefer American Sniper in Atmos then Birdman I just could not stand Birdman can't believe it got best picture


Ehhhhh, American Sniper? That was just a mindless american propaganda piece... I saw it in the theater & the Atmos mix was very uninspiring. There was only one scene where I heard something cool (Jets flying from Mid height left to mid height right). Even the guns sounded boring! I hope we get some more Atmos surprises like John Wick/ legacy remixes. Atmos offerings in the theaters were very poor post summer 2014... though I have yet to see unbroken which I just got in the mail today. 

Birdman was a very unconventional... I really, really liked the audio in that film.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ehhhhh, American Sniper? That was just a mindless American propaganda piece... I saw it in the theater & the Atmos mix was very uninspiring. There was only one scene where I heard something cool (Jets flying from Mid height left to mid height right). Even the guns sounded boring! I hope we get some more Atmos surprises like John Wick/ legacy remixes. Atmos offerings in the theaters were very poor post summer 2014... though I have yet to see unbroken which I just got in the mail today.
> 
> Birdman was a very unconventional... I really, really liked the audio in that film.


Sorry, that's "Am_err_-ican" propaganda film. Get it right... jeez!  I've heard that said a few times about A.S.'s Atmos mix - very ho-hum. Have yet to see _Birdman_, but looking forward to it. That's definitely one that screamed (or screeched) for a 3D sound mix.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ehhhhh, American Sniper? That was just a mindless american propaganda piece... I saw it in the theater & the Atmos mix was very uninspiring. There was only one scene where I heard something cool (Jets flying from Mid height left to mid height right). Even the guns sounded boring! I hope we get some more Atmos surprises like John Wick/ legacy remixes. Atmos offerings in the theaters were very poor post summer 2014... though I have yet to see unbroken which I just got in the mail today.
> 
> Birdman was a very unconventional... I really, really liked the audio in that film.


You need to go to another Atmos theater because I heard it and it was one of the better Atmos mixes yet.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry, that's "Am_err_-ican" propaganda film. Get it right... jeez!  I've heard that said a few times about A.S.'s Atmos mix - very ho-hum. Have yet to see _Birdman_, but looking forward to it. That's definitely one that screamed (or screeched) for a 3D sound mix.


Definitely, there are a lot of cool atmospheric ear candy moments throughout the film!

One question that crossed my mind today... if a few years down the road Dolby comes out with a new format... perhaps Atmos 2.0, will current gen Atmos receivers be able to decode it? Or would it be a similar situation like putting a DTS:X disc into an only Atmos capable receiver? (I actually did try that with the DTS demo disc, which I heard some goofy things going on height wise). Or is that something even worth speculating/ impossible to forecast?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't seen it yet - but isn’t it about an old, white, washed-up actor? Remember that the Academy is composed of old, white, washed-up actors for the most part... and then the inevitability of its win becomes more clear


LOL.

I agree that we should dismiss those senile old, white, washed-up actors who still seem to command the studios' respect and attention despite their outrageous antics.

But enough about the director of American Sniper.

Seriously, Birdman is a fine, fine movie that challenges the viewer with a blurred line between reality and fantasy--mirroring the main character's presumed schizophrenia. I am not surprised that not everyone likes it, but you have to tip your hat to Alejandro González Iñárritu, who co-wrote and directed, for his imaginative film-making. I thought his _Amores Perros_, _21 Grams_ and _Babel_ were also memorable, and I have been saving _Biutiful_ for a while now. It's great that the movie industry has room for such unconventional talents next to the ever-popular blockbuster war horses the studios keep trotting out. (For my part, I'd love to see all the "franchise" movies carted off to the glue factory.)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> You need to go to another Atmos theater because I heard it and it was one of the better Atmos mixes yet.


I did... I went to the RPX theater in woodridge IL, it's the best Atmos system in the area (I've actually tested all the atmos theaters in the area). So far Into the storm & maze runner were the best mixes I've heard since August 2014, & I've seen pretty much every film with an Atmos mix aside from the kid's movies & unbroken since then. 

If it was an Eastwood film I would have preferred seeing Iwo Jima or flags of our fathers in Atmos.... those films had much better opportunities to showcase atmospheric sound + were far better films.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> I did... I went to the RPX theater in woodridge IL, it's the best Atmos system in the area (I've actually tested all the atmos theaters in the area). .


I'm sorry


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> You need to go to another Atmos theater because I heard it and it was one of the better Atmos mixes yet.


Yup, loved how the soundtrack would switch from a normal sounding mix (when he was home) to an immersive bubble of sound (when he was deployed), which made me crave going back to the combat scenes. I realized later that the sound mix had cleverly made me feel what the main character must have felt, helping me to better understand why he kept going back for another tour.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Yup, loved how the soundtrack would switch from a normal sounding mix (when he was home) to an immersive bubble of sound (when he was deployed), which made me crave going back to the combat scenes. I realized later that the sound mix had cleverly made me feel what the main character must have felt, helping me to better understand why he kept going back for another tour.


And I loved how you articulated that. Had seen it two times before we went to go see it and I never thought of it that way. Certainly affects you psychologically in a way you just describe. Clever indeed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Definitely, there are a lot of cool atmospheric ear candy moments throughout the film!
> 
> One question that crossed my mind today... if a few years down the road Dolby comes out with a new format... perhaps Atmos 2.0, will current gen Atmos receivers be able to decode it? Or would it be a similar situation like putting a DTS:X disc into an only Atmos capable receiver? (I actually did try that with the DTS demo disc, which I heard some goofy things going on height wise). Or is that something even worth speculating/ impossible to forecast?


If it's a new format then no, the current Atmos renderers won't handle it, however it seems that Dolby likes Atmos as is (they spent years designing it) and has no plans to upgrade or overhaul it anytime soon, as they mentioned at CEDIA. There are, however, add-on's that could be included in the renderer software placed inside mainstream A/V electronics like speaker/object positional re-mapping and things of that nature (only available on the priciest processors currently)... not so much the fundamental mixing and disc mastering/encoding side of things. 

Dolby could even go after the lucrative calibration software championship title with a consumer version of their much touted Lake calibration engine.


----------



## jrref

Just saw that VUDU is going to be one of the first streaming services to provide Dolby Atmos content.. If you go to the VUDU application and search for Atmos you will see the Atmos demo disk for free. If you play it through the VUDU application on your BluRay player you will get the Atmos audio just as if you loaded the actual demo disk. Very cool.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrref said:


> Just saw that VUDU is going to be one of the first streaming services to provide Dolby Atmos content.. If you go to the VUDU application and search for Atmos you will see the Atmos demo disk for free. If you play it through the VUDU application on your BluRay player you will get the Atmos audio just as if you loaded the actual demo disk. Very cool.


Meh. I'll take the disc version with lossless audio and better over all video.


----------



## tjenkins95

BigScreen said:


> It's working now:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html





Thanks!


----------



## tjenkins95

Scott Simonian said:


> You need to go to another Atmos theater because I heard it and it was one of the better Atmos mixes yet.


 

I watched it in an Atmos theater and it also sounded great to me! Also great cinematography and great story.


----------



## lujan

jrref said:


> Just saw that VUDU is going to be one of the first streaming services to provide Dolby Atmos content.. If you go to the VUDU application and search for Atmos you will see the Atmos demo disk for free. If you play it through the VUDU application on your BluRay player you will get the Atmos audio just as if you loaded the actual demo disk. Very cool.


This has been true for a while now but I'm still waiting for the first Atmos streaming movie on Vudu.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks, Dave. I'll be looking forward to your comments.


I thought the movie was good, not great. I thought it dragged in the third act. You can read my review over at Home Theater Equipment.


----------



## jrref

Dan Hitchman said:


> Meh. I'll take the disc version with lossless audio and better over all video.


I have to say that this was the first time I used VUDU from my Sony BluRay because I use the app built into my Samsung TV but the picture quality was excellent because my Samsung HU9000 does a great job of upscaling the video. I was really surprised how close the video and audio was to the actual BluRay DVD.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Depending on your screen size, Vudu HDX does an outstanding job. On my 50 inch plasma, I'd be hard pressed to pick Blu-ray over HDX on a well-lit scene. Dark scenes are a different matter though...HDX still can have some compression issues.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry, that's "Am_err_-ican" propaganda film. Get it right... jeez!  I've heard that said a few times about A.S.'s Atmos mix - very ho-hum. Have yet to see _Birdman_, but looking forward to it. That's definitely one that screamed (or screeched) for a 3D sound mix.


'Birdman' in Dolby Atmos sound? ...I don't think so; that wouldn't fly. 

'American Sniper' ... Clint is getting old with his war stuff and baseball games and barbecues and lawn. ...He should direct a good Western instead, I think. 
I like Clint, when he's not too serious. ...Yeah, a good Western flick...it's been a while now. ...Unforgiven.


----------



## Scott Simonian

On the contrary. This is the 'change of pace'.

He's done a lot of westerns.


----------



## NorthSky

> Yup, loved how the soundtrack would switch from a normal sounding mix (when he was home) to an immersive bubble of sound (when he was deployed), which made me crave going back to the combat scenes. I realized later that the sound mix had cleverly made me feel what the main character must have felt, helping me to better understand why he kept going back for another tour.


I experienced similarly with Birdman.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> On the contrary. This is the 'change of pace'.
> 
> He's done a lot of westerns.


I was just thinking in the now. ...Wars are not nice, kids die everyday, every minute because of wars,,,religions. 
It's a virus; it spreads, into time, never let go. Wars are chain reactions, dominoes, they create more and more...wars 

Anyway, I would enjoy better a good Western right now. ...That's all; with horses.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Actually, I would too.

I want a new Open Range. Not a sequel though. Just something _that_ good.


----------



## NorthSky

jrref said:


> Just saw that VUDU is going to be one of the first streaming services to provide Dolby Atmos content.. If you go to the VUDU application and search for Atmos you will see the Atmos demo disk for free. If you play it through the VUDU application on your BluRay player you will get the Atmos audio just as if you loaded the actual demo disk. Very cool.


Too bad Canadians don't have Vudu. They too would love to have that free Dolby Atmos demo disc. ...And future Atmos flicks, like John Wick, Gravity.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Meh. I'll take the disc version with lossless audio and better over all video.


Of course, there is no question about that. ...It's like making love to a beautiful young woman ....


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> It's working now:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


...And this one for Dolby Atmos @ home (on Blu-ray): www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, I would too.
> 
> I want a new *Open Range*. Not a sequel though. Just something _that_ good.


Yeah, that's a good one Scott; with some great shotgun shots.


----------



## ghiggs001

*Unbroken with Dolby Atmos*

Just watched newly released on Blu-Ray, Unbroken with Dolby Atmos. It was clear and had very good rendering of Dolby Atmos. For those who want to exercise their system, go ahead and try this one.


----------



## gerchy

I watched it too. Not many height activity as there is very little action going on. But when there were planes, the sound was really clear and spacious.
One thing bothered me though. Action scenes were really loud but everything else through the rest of the movie could be louder.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> LOL.
> 
> I agree that we should dismiss those senile old, white, washed-up actors who still seem to command the studios' respect and attention despite their outrageous antics.


You are either hyperbolising or missing my point, or both  What I was trying to get across is that the voting membership of the Academy is outrageously skewed towards white, old actors. IOW, younger people are grossly and disproportionately misrepresented, as are blacks, women, minorities, other cinematic professions and so on. So any movie submitted for judging is being judged by a very non-representative group and, as such, the final judgement may be, and usually is these days, hopelessly out of line with the judgement of the wider audience which is ultimately the prospective viewership. As such, the Oscars can no longer, IMO, be used as a guide to the best movies of the year, if it ever was. Movies which are unlikely to appeal to old, white male actors are not likely to be picked. Add to this the increasing element of 'political correctness' which more and more pervades the nominations and it starts to look, to me at least, like a pointless annual mutual-masturbation-fest. 



chi_guy50 said:


> But enough about the director of American Sniper.


 I cannot and will not hear a word said against one of my all-time movie heroes. I probably have every movie Clint made as an actor, and definitely have every movie he made as a director. His output is patchy these days, as would be expected from a man of his considerable age, but he can still deliver winners. If ever I am undecided as to what to watch for the nightly movie, I can usually rely on one of his to satisfy.



chi_guy50 said:


> Seriously, Birdman is a fine, fine movie that challenges the viewer with a blurred line between reality and fantasy--mirroring the main character's presumed schizophrenia. I am not surprised that not everyone likes it, but you have to tip your hat to Alejandro González Iñárritu, who co-wrote and directed, for his imaginative film-making. I thought his _Amores Perros_, _21 Grams_ and _Babel_ were also memorable, and I have been saving _Biutiful_ for a while now. It's great that the movie industry has room for such unconventional talents next to the ever-popular blockbuster war horses the studios keep trotting out. (For my part, I'd love to see all the "franchise" movies carted off to the glue factory.)


Birdman isn’t available here yet but I have it in pre-order. I do like Iñárritu's work very much.


----------



## jrref

Dave Vaughn said:


> Depending on your screen size, Vudu HDX does an outstanding job. On my 50 inch plasma, I'd be hard pressed to pick Blu-ray over HDX on a well-lit scene. Dark scenes are a different matter though...HDX still can have some compression issues.


Right but for streaming it's come a long way. It's really good if you want to see a movie and don't want to buy it and with Dolby Atmos and really great video, it's a winner right out of the gate. Now all we need are some Atmos rentals which i'm sure are coming.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yup, loved how the soundtrack would switch from a normal sounding mix (when he was home) to an immersive bubble of sound (when he was deployed), which made me crave going back to the combat scenes. I realized later that the sound mix had cleverly made me feel what the main character must have felt, helping me to better understand why he kept going back for another tour.


I haven't seen the movie yet, but your observation prompted another thought in my mind. I have now become totally comfortable and familiar with sounds coming from over my head, either via Atmos or DSU, to the point now where they have become a 'natural' part of the experience for me. I now only notice the overheads by their absence, so to speak. IOW, in a movie scenario such as you describe: if there are scenes with no overhead activity, I really notice the expansion of the soundstage, vertically, when the movie switches to a scene where the overheads spring back to life. I take this to be A Good Sign - I have accepted the overhead speakers in the same way I have, for a long time, accepted the surround speakers. They add to the immersion without drawing attention to themselves, other than when dictated by the mixer (for occasional directional effects, ricochets, the classic door slam etc).

As this post is entirely on topic (so far) may I be permitted a couple of lines to mention a Hong Kong movie I watched this week called *Firestorm*? It is not a 'great' movie but it is the most out and out totally mental mind-boggling action movie I think I have ever seen. I cannot describe the mayhem and carnage contained in this movie. HK actioners have always been full-on, but this one makes all the others look like SpongeBob SquarePants. And, to return to topic, it makes DSU really shine, adding an even greater layer of excitement. Anyone who likes actioners, who likes to see cars creatively destroyed time and time again, and who likes HK movies especially: you cannot miss this!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> You are either *hyperbolising* or missing my point, or both


Guilty as charged.



kbarnes701 said:


> What I was trying to get across is that the voting membership of the Academy is outrageously skewed towards white, old actors. IOW, younger people are grossly and disproportionately misrepresented, as are blacks, women, minorities, other cinematic professions and so on. So any movie submitted for judging is being judged by a very non-representative group and, as such, the final judgement may be, and usually is these days, hopelessly out of line with the judgement of the wider audience which is ultimately the prospective viewership. As such, the Oscars can no longer, IMO, be used as a guide to the best movies of the year, if it ever was. Movies which are unlikely to appeal to old, white male actors are not likely to be picked. Add to this the increasing element of 'political correctness' which more and more pervades the nominations and it starts to look, to me at least, like a pointless annual mutual-masturbation-fest.


I have never put much stock in the Oscars, which seem to amount to little more than over-hyped industry self-promotion. I feel the SAG awards are a more accurate reflection of cinematic excellence [full disclosure: my brother is a voting member and serves on a board committee], but in the final analysis I try to ignore the Hollywood awards circus altogether and rely more on the narrative analysis of trusted film critics as a guide to the movies I think I will enjoy.



kbarnes701 said:


> I cannot and will not hear a word said against *one of my all-time movie heroes*.














kbarnes701 said:


> I probably have every movie Clint made as an actor, and definitely have every movie he made as a director. His output is patchy these days, as would be expected from a man of his considerable age, but he can still deliver winners. If ever I am undecided as to what to watch for the nightly movie, I can usually rely on one of his to satisfy.


I don't think much of him as an actor, and I feel an even greater repulsion toward Eastwood the man than I do regarding Elia Kazan, but I love many of the films they directed nonetheless. _On the Waterfront_ (a contemptible apologia) is one of my very favorite movies, and I could make a long list of Eastwood's movies than I've enjoyed, including his more recent _Gran Torino_, where he pretty much seems to be playing a movie version of himself.



kbarnes701 said:


> Birdman isn’t available here yet but I have it in pre-order. I do like Iñárritu's work very much.


Knowing you as I think I do, I would be quite surprised if you didn't enjoy _Birdman_.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I try to ignore the Hollywood awards circus altogether and rely more on the narrative analysis of trusted film critics as a guide to the movies I think I will enjoy.


Yes - much more reliable. Which then begs the question as to what is the point of the Oscars if not to guide the movie-going public. And that brings is to the answer you already identified: self-congratulation of multimillionaires by other multimillionaires.



chi_guy50 said:


> I don't think much of him as an actor,


It's not so much that he is a great actor as that he has been in a lot of great movies.



chi_guy50 said:


> and I feel an even greater repulsion toward Eastwood the man


I know almost nothing of him other than through his movies.



chi_guy50 said:


> Knowing you as I think I do, I would be quite surprised if you didn't enjoy _Birdman_.


I am open-minded. These days, an Oscar win for Best Picture is almost a contrary indicator for me and biases me _against_ the movie not towards it. But I am open-minded and will watch it anyway. I initially had the same feeling about *12 Years A Slave* which, while not agreeing that it is the best possible picture made that year -- far from it -- was still an enjoyable watch.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I have now become totally comfortable and familiar with sounds coming from over my head, either via Atmos or DSU, to the point now where they have become a 'natural' part of the experience for me.


I was previously accustomed to overhead sounds (to some degree) since I have been using front heights for several years. But Atmos/DSU seems a quantum leap forward (upward?) nonetheless.

Last night we watched_ I Love You Philip Morris_ in DTS-HD MA + DSU, and the immersive effect--particularly in respect to the cloyingly obtrusive score--was dynamic, thereby heightening what I assume was an intentional attempt to highlight the protagonist's embellished personality.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I was previously accustomed to overhead sounds (to some degree) since I have been using front heights for several years. But Atmos/DSU seems a quantum leap forward (upward?) nonetheless.


I too had Height speakers for a number of years, but they never seemed to immerse me in sound from above - they just made the front soundstage 'taller'. Quantum leap is right...



chi_guy50 said:


> Last night we watched_ I Love You Philip Morris_ in DTS-HD MA + DSU, and the immersive effect--particularly in respect to the cloyingly obtrusive score--was dynamic, thereby heightening what I assume was an intentional attempt to highlight the protagonist's embellished personality.


I have that movie but have not yet gotten around to watching it. It languishes on the "Not yet seen" shelf, which seems to become more and more occupied.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I have that movie but have not yet gotten around to watching it. It languishes on the "Not yet seen" shelf, which seems to become more and more occupied.


As a matter of fact, it might make an interesting bookend to _Birdman_. Try watching them back to back and see what you think.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lenovo A7000 smartphone first such device to feature Atmos technology.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gerchy said:


> I watched it too. Not many height activity as there is very little action going on. But when there were planes, the sound was really clear and spacious.
> One thing bothered me though. Action scenes were really loud but everything else through the rest of the movie could be louder.


It's called a balanced mixed... or possibly the lack thereof. They probably should have lowered the action scenes a tad and raised the dramatic scenes a little to help even things out. They obviously don't want _everything_ to be given extra weight or the fight sequences wouldn't be as sonically dramatic.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I now only notice the overheads by their absence, so to speak.


Yeah, and once you get used to it, feels kinda odd without it. That was used by Walter Murch for his Oscar winning mix for Apocalypse Now, in the scene where the tiger jumps out of the bushes. Right before the tiger springs, Murch dropped the surround channels completely. Audiences aren't aware of what happened technically, they just suddenly have an uneasy feeling that something is not quite right. And just as that feeling is starting to creep in, BANG, the tiger roar scares the crap out of them. Surround sound in movies had become so normal that activity around you wasn't noticeable, it's lack of activity around you that felt strange. Murch took advantage of that. But it's like so many other things in life that are so easy to get used to that they eventually get noticed only by their absence (e.g., internet access, toilets, etc).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Yeah, and once you get used to it, feels kinda odd without it. That was used by Walter Murch for his Oscar winning mix for Apocalypse Now, in the scene where the tiger jumps out of the bushes. Right before the tiger springs, Murch dropped the surround channels completely. Audiences aren't aware of what happened technically, they just suddenly have an uneasy feeling that something is not quite right. And just as that feeling is starting to creep in, BANG, the tiger roar scares the crap out of them. Surround sound in movies had become so normal that activity around you wasn't noticeable, it's lack of activity around you that felt strange. Murch took advantage of that. But it's like so many other things in life that are so easy to get used to that they eventually get noticed only by their absence (e.g., internet access, toilets, etc).



If I ever met him, I would beg Walter Murch to remix _Apocalypse Now_ into Dolby Atmos or DTS MDA. That movie is _absolutely perfect_ for 3D audio.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yeah, and once you get used to it, feels kinda odd without it. That was used by Walter Murch for his Oscar winning mix for Apocalypse Now, in the scene where the tiger jumps out of the bushes. Right before the tiger springs, Murch dropped the surround channels completely. Audiences aren't aware of what happened technically, they just suddenly have an uneasy feeling that something is not quite right. And just as that feeling is starting to creep in, BANG, the tiger roar scares the crap out of them. Surround sound in movies had become so normal that activity around you wasn't noticeable, it's lack of activity around you that felt strange. Murch took advantage of that.


Great story about Walter Murch. I remember being totally blown away by the sound in that movie. I happened to see it in Odeon, Leicester Square, London which, at the time, was probably the best cinema in Europe for sound. Very clever idea to drop the surrounds and then reinstate them at just the right time. I wonder if that is carried over to the Bluray? I must watch the movie again soon anyway - it's been a while.



sdurani said:


> But it's like so many other things in life that are so easy to get used to that they eventually get noticed only by their absence (e.g., internet access, toilets, etc).


Yep.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> As this post is entirely on topic (so far) may I be permitted a couple of lines to mention a Hong Kong movie I watched this week called *Firestorm*? It is not a 'great' movie but it is the most out and out totally mental mind-boggling action movie I think I have ever seen. I cannot describe the mayhem and carnage contained in this movie. HK actioners have always been full-on, but this one makes all the others look like SpongeBob SquarePants. And, to return to topic, it makes DSU really shine, adding an even greater layer of excitement. Anyone who likes actioners, who likes to see cars creatively destroyed time and time again, and who likes HK movies especially: you cannot miss this!


Keith
I have this in 7.1 - lovely action, but it stinks of the new Chinese money that has penetrated Hong Kong cinema. All boom, no plot, I wanted to email Johnnie To and tell him to resist the onslaught of Chinese $$... sigh...

On the other hand, I watched Master and Commander again tonight, and listening to all that cacophony of footsteps, and creaking wood on boat the HMS Surprise was a wonderful symphony, and with Atmos, the sound was truly 3D.... DSU uplifts the Award winning soundtrack to a totally different level - literally too...


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Keith
> I have this in 7.1 - lovely action, but it stinks of the new Chinese money that has penetrated Hong Kong cinema. All boom, no plot, I wanted to email Johnnie To and tell him to resist the onslaught of Chinese $$... sigh...


Yes, I agree. No real plot - but what a visual and sonic feast! Doesn’t begin to compare with other HK movies I own in terms of character-driven, action plots with more balance. Nonetheless, I was tired at the end of the movie from constantly having to pick my jaw up off the floor 



petetherock said:


> On the other hand, I watched Master and Commander again tonight, and listening to all that cacophony of footsteps, and creaking wood on boat the HMS Surprise was a wonderful symphony, and with Atmos, the sound was truly 3D.... DSU uplifts the Award winning soundtrack to a totally different level - literally too...


Absolutely.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Guys...my Atmos renovation article (part 1) has finally gone live. Here's the link: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-makeover-space-odyssey-part-1


----------



## Jack.K

Dave Vaughn said:


> I thought the movie was good, not great. I thought it dragged in the third act. You can read my review over at Home Theater Equipment.


Dave.
Off the subject but I need help. I also have M&K Tripoles. How do you run them in atmos, Dipole or Tripole?
and what do you set the crossover at? and can you adjust for only these in the 7009 (4ohm)
thanks Jack


----------



## bargervais

Dave Vaughn said:


> Guys...my Atmos renovation article (part 1) has finally gone live. Here's the link: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-makeover-space-odyssey-part-1


nice  looking forward for part II


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Jack.K said:


> Dave.
> Off the subject but I need help. I also have M&K Tripoles. How do you run them in atmos, Dipole or Tripole?
> and what do you set the crossover at? and can you adjust for only these in the 7009 (4ohm)
> thanks Jack


I use them in Tri-pole mode.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I agree that we should dismiss those senile old, white, washed-up actors who still seem to command the studios' respect and attention despite their outrageous antics.
> 
> 
> 
> You are either hyperbolising or missing my point, or both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I was trying to get across is that the voting membership of the Academy is outrageously skewed towards white, old actors. IOW, younger people are grossly and disproportionately misrepresented, as are blacks, women, minorities, other cinematic professions and so on. So any movie submitted for judging is being judged by a very non-representative group and, as such, the final judgement may be, and usually is these days, hopelessly out of line with the judgement of the wider audience which is ultimately the prospective viewership. As such, the Oscars can no longer, IMO, be used as a guide to the best movies of the year, if it ever was. Movies which are unlikely to appeal to old, white male actors are not likely to be picked. Add to this the increasing element of 'political correctness' which more and more pervades the nominations and it starts to look, to me at least, like a pointless annual mutual-masturbation-fest.
> 
> 
> 
> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But enough about the director of American Sniper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As a member of the Academy I will have to come back and correct some of the very false presumptions and assumptions you make about the process and its membership. 

I won't argue about the nominations or what films make the cut each year. But again, I don't think you have a clear idea of how the process works (even if it admittedly has its flaws.) 

But it will have to wait until I reutrn form my first pleasure vacation in years.


----------



## batpig

Just a couple of old white guys hypothesizing about other old white guys 

Have a fun vacation Marc and I look forward to your upcoming insight!


----------



## toofast68

batpig said:


> Just a couple of old white guys hypothesizing about other old white guys
> 
> Have a fun vacation Marc and I look forward to your upcoming insight!


I have a good friend on the Academy....certain facts are indeed missing.  But not sure this is the right thread for that....


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> As a member of the Academy I will have to come back and correct some of the very false presumptions and assumptions you make about the process and its membership.
> 
> I won't argue about the nominations or what films make the cut each year. But again, I don't think you have a clear idea of how the process works (even if it admittedly has its flaws.)
> 
> But it will have to wait until I reutrn form my first pleasure vacation in years.


I assume your comments are directed to Keith and not me since I don't recall making any assumptions of any kind about the process. I just don't pay the Oscars much heed at all since I don't consider them meaningful for my purposes. But I for one will be very interested to hear your standpoint as an Academy member. (I do get some insider perspective from an actor/producer point of view from my brother, although he is a minor player.)



batpig said:


> Just a couple of old white guys hypothesizing about other old white guys


Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> Guys...my Atmos renovation article (part 1) has finally gone live. Here's the link: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-makeover-space-odyssey-part-1


Great start, Dave. I hear you on drywall dust! It is the curse of my life here. No matter what you do, it gets to every part of the house to some extent. Has to be done though. And kudos for persuading Mrs Dave to go along with the grand plan! Looking forward to part 2.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> As a member of the Academy I will have to come back and correct some of the very false presumptions and assumptions you make about the process and its membership.
> 
> I won't argue about the nominations or what films make the cut each year. But again, I don't think you have a clear idea of how the process works (even if it admittedly has its flaws.)
> 
> But it will have to wait until I reutrn form my first pleasure vacation in years.


I shall look forward to being corrected. As far as I am aware Academy membership is heavily skewed to old, white guys. Clearly there will be exceptions.

Of the 17 branches, which ones have the biggest and most influential memberships? I know the Academy doesn't publish a full list of members, so it will be difficult to determine the socio-ethnic age breakdown, but maybe you can gives us an indication.

And it's interesting to note that, although the current President is a woman, she is the first in over 30 years, so my guess that women are under-represented may have some basis. And you have to go back to Bette Davis in the early '40s to find another woman President IIRC. And she only lasted for a few weeks! 

Have a great vacation!


----------



## Dave Vaughn

That damn dust sits around for months too...I'm still seeing it land on dark furniture and it's been over 2 months now!


----------



## bargervais

Dave Vaughn said:


> That damn dust sits around for months too...I'm still seeing it land on dark furniture and it's been over 2 months now!


not to mention that dust get's inside your AVR and any other electronics you may have restricting proper cooling the heat sink gets a coating of dust on them. i replaced some windows and the dust was so bad the air-handler on the AC unit froze solid because of the lack of air flow.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just a couple of old white guys hypothesizing about other old white guys


It's not entirely hypothesis. There are about 6,500 members, mostly living in the Los Angeles area as you'd expect. They are mostly male and their average age is about 57. That is the _average_ age - so you can be sure that there will be a lot of members who are way older than that. Remember when Henry Fonda and James Garner admitted they got their wives to watch the nominated movies for them? 

Of the 17 branches, the biggest and most powerful voting bloc is the actors, with over 1,200 members - almost a quarter of the total. Then come producers and executives, then the so-called 'craft guilds' and then the guys who come right at the end of the credits - set builders and so on.

The point is it is nowhere near a representative audience for the movies they decide on. And it explains why a lot of worthy movies that don't appeal to old guys never stand a chance. IMO of course.


----------



## Ralph Potts

Dave Vaughn said:


> Guys...my Atmos renovation article (part 1) has finally gone live. Here's the link: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-makeover-space-odyssey-part-1


Greetings,

Just read it Dave. Looks like the plan was executed very well. Nice job...


Regards,


----------



## Dave Vaughn

bargervais said:


> not to mention that dust get's inside your AVR and any other electronics you may have restricting proper cooling the heat sink gets a coating of dust on them. i replaced some windows and the dust was so bad the air-handler on the AC unit froze solid because of the lack of air flow.


I opened up all of my units and vacuum them out yearly anyway. I do the same thing with all my PCs in order to keep the airflow through them going strong.


----------



## Nalleh

MARY KOM Atmos bluray.








Finally got to watch it today, and i was pleseantly surprised: i liked it ! 
As you may know by now, the movie is based on the story of Mary Kom, the first Indian female world champion boxing fighter. It goes from her childhood on to present day.
It was a really good story about her struggles both in her private life, and professionally.
It had a very good soundtrack in Atmos, but this is not a "action" movie, so it does not have a "explosive" sound. But very immersive, dynamic, with nice music scores that suited the story, and good use of the surrounds. It actually had some helicopters above too, hehe. And some rain scenes, all exellent in Atmos.
And man is Prianka a Fox! She even sings some of the songs in the movie.
All in all, i enjoyed it and would recommend it 

But not the best movie for demoing your Atmos heights, though 


ON ANY SUNDAY: next chapter Atmos bluray.










I do not get why this was mixed in Atmos! Not once! did i hear any sounds from the heights!
This is a documentary, not a movie, about all kinds of two wheeled enthusiasts.
But this, alongside Step Up All In, is the least impressive Atmos tracks so far, in my opinion. SUAL because the film sucked balls( altough a tiny bit better track), and OASNC because the soundtrack could barely be described as "normal" surround.
But if interested in motorcycles, ok then you would like it, but that's all.

Not recommended 


So strange that a lot of movies upmixed with DSU sound so much better than native Atmos! Who would have thought?


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> I finally caved and bought "Unbroken" today but will probably not watch until later because I also rented "Vice". I had heard "Vice" was going to have Atmos but found out after renting that it does not have an Atmos track.


I ended up watching "Vice" last night and thought it was ok. Not as bad as I thought it would be based on all the negative reviews but only ok to watch once. I would not care to watch it again.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> I ended up watching "Vice" last night and thought it was ok. Not as bad as I thought it would be based on all the negative reviews but only ok to watch once. I would not care to watch it again.


Yes Vice was slated for an Atmos mix I guess Lionsgate thought better of it. I watched it as well and will most likely never watch it again. I didn't think it was that good.


----------



## richmagnus

Jack.K said:


> Dave.
> Off the subject but I need help. I also have M&K Tripoles. How do you run them in atmos, Dipole or Tripole?
> and what do you set the crossover at? and can you adjust for only these in the 7009 (4ohm)
> thanks Jack



Run them as Tripoles.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> So strange that a lot of movies upmixed with DSU sound so much better than native Atmos! Who would have thought?


...Like 2-channel stereo ♫ music up-mixed with Auro-Matic?


----------



## petetherock

I suspect the early ATMOS discs will be a little like 3D... Some will be a full on ATMOS experience like John Wick, and others mixed with a little overhead action as an afterthought... Kind of like Avatar vs Clash of The Titan in the difference in quality of their 3D effect..


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> I suspect the early ATMOS discs will be a little like 3D... Some will be a full on ATMOS experience like John Wick, and others mixed with a little overhead action as an afterthought... Kind of like Avatar vs Clash of The Titan in the difference in quality of their 3D effect..


John Wick is the coolest guy on the block  ...Atmos or not.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> ...Like 2-channel stereo ♫ music up-mixed with Auro-Matic?


In my setup neither formats is optimal, because with two recliners side by side, neither is in the center of the front speakers.

So with 2.0 PCM(stereo), i actually prefer DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> In my setup neither formats is optimal, because with two recliners side by side, neither is in the center of the front speakers.
> 
> *So with 2.0 PCM(stereo), i actually prefer DSU.*


Ah, very ear-opening comment.


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> Birdman isn’t available here yet but I have it in pre-order. I do like Iñárritu's work very much.


Good old Redbox....DVD only.

S hit the bed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jive Turkey said:


> Good old Redbox....DVD only.
> 
> S hit the bed.


_Into the Woods_ is DVD only too.


----------



## marlon1925

bargervais said:


> Go Here you can see
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html


Thank you sir!

planning to get Onkyo TX-NR3030...where do I connect the ceiling speakers for my planned 9.2.2 set up?


----------



## brahman12

*Always Interesting How We All Hear Differently*

So strange that a lot of movies upmixed with DSU sound so much better than native Atmos! Who would have thought?[/QUOTE]

Although DSU is quite awesome most of the time and many movies do sound very impressive with DSU engaged.....to my ears, in my home theater, and in my personal experience....Atmos is definitely superior to DSU, even within the limited early iterations we have been provided with. Atmos is able to make the sounds appear more resolved, fuller, and thus more 3D-like. Instead of the soundtrack sounding awesome as it enters the room via your speakers (DSU)....the soundtrack via Atmos actually sounds like it is *in* your room. Also, the super-precise placement/panning of sounds all around you, including up above, is uncanny to say the least. Just a deeper sense of realism with Atmos than with DSU.

Gotta agree with you on the On Any Sunday soundtrack Nalleh. It was indeed mostly underwhelming (although I did catch a brief glimpse of overhead action very early in the film as an aircraft flew over).

Our senses are very personal tools with which we experience the world around us. Thus, our sense experiences, although similar to each other because we share our biological humanity....our sense experiences are utterly unique and colored by our personal preferences and capabilities. So, although our opinions may be different Nalleh....neither one of us is "right" or "wrong" and that is one of the cool things about being human.


----------



## brahman12

*Revolver via DSU*

Watched this movie (Revolver - a Guy Ritchie film with Jason Statham in it) earlier tonight. Its been a long time since I first watched this movie and I didn't remember it sounding so good. I remembered that I liked the film (all Guy Ritchie stuff is mega cool lol) but the soundtrack with DSU made me want to watch it again very soon. Great overhead involvement throughout with music, ambiance, and multiple rain storm scenes. Really tight panning, and smooth subtle sound cues throughout all channels frequently within various scenes (especially in the casino and billiards hall scenes). The music soundtrack sounded sweet via DSU as well. Also cool was how some of the gunshots emanating from inside sounded discretely different from gunshots fired outside (also the distance from where the sounds were taking place in the scene were reflected in the track as well). Really, really good time watching this again. Definitely a DSU winner once again. Cheers!!!!


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> Thank you sir!
> 
> planning to get Onkyo TX-NR3030...where do I connect the ceiling speakers for my planned 9.2.2 set up?


Height 1 and I would place ceiling speaker top middle position and assign it as top middle but if you assign it as front high then you can use both Atmos and DTS Neo:X


----------



## marlon1925

bargervais said:


> Height 1 and I would place ceiling speaker top middle position and assign it as top middle but if you assign it as front high then you can use both Atmos and DTS Neo:X



Can't I assign Surround Back as top middle insted?

I am planning to have wides, heights and middle top at the same time, is this possible?

can you share your speaker placement sir,including the elevations?


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> Watched this movie (Revolver - a Guy Ritchie film with Jason Statham in it) earlier tonight. Its been a long time since I first watched this movie and I didn't remember it sounding so good. I remembered that I liked the film (all Guy Ritchie stuff is mega cool lol) but the soundtrack with DSU made me want to watch it again very soon. Great overhead involvement throughout with music, ambiance, and multiple rain storm scenes. Really tight panning, and smooth subtle sound cues throughout all channels frequently within various scenes (especially in the casino and billiards hall scenes). The music soundtrack sounded sweet via DSU as well. Also cool was how some of the gunshots emanating from inside sounded discretely different from gunshots fired outside (also the distance from where the sounds were taking place in the scene were reflected in the track as well). Really, really good time watching this again. Definitely a DSU winner once again. Cheers!!!!


You might also like* RockNRolla* if you like Guy Ritchie. It's a better movie than *Revolver* IMO and also has a great sound track.


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> Can't I assign Surround Back as top middle insted?
> 
> I am planning to have wides, heights and middle top at the same time, is this possible?
> 
> can you share your speaker placement sir,including the elevations?


I have a normal 7 speaker base front left right center surrounds and surround back my height 1 as front high my front high speakers are on the front wall just below the ceiling. My height 2 ceiling speakers that I assigned as top middle are behind MLP about five feet from my MLP. My top middle are not in the ideal Atmos position, but sound great. I have new speakers that I will place in the proper top middle position but I'm waiting for DTS:X announcement.

I am planning to have wides, heights and middle top at the same time, is this possible?
Not sure this is possible when I assigned height 2 as top middle this disables wides.


----------



## Nalleh

brahman12 said:


> Although DSU is quite awesome most of the time and many movies do sound very impressive with DSU engaged.....to my ears, in my home theater, and in my personal experience....Atmos is definitely superior to DSU, even within the limited early iterations we have been provided with. Atmos is able to make the sounds appear more resolved, fuller, and thus more 3D-like. Instead of the soundtrack sounding awesome as it enters the room via your speakers (DSU)....the soundtrack via Atmos actually sounds like it is *in* your room. Also, the super-precise placement/panning of sounds all around you, including up above, is uncanny to say the least. Just a deeper sense of realism with Atmos than with DSU.
> 
> Gotta agree with you on the On Any Sunday soundtrack Nalleh. It was indeed mostly underwhelming (although I did catch a brief glimpse of overhead action very early in the film as an aircraft flew over).
> 
> Our senses are very personal tools with which we experience the world around us. Thus, our sense experiences, although similar to each other because we share our biological humanity....our sense experiences are utterly unique and colored by our personal preferences and capabilities. So, although our opinions may be different Nalleh....neither one of us is "right" or "wrong" and that is one of the cool things about being human.


I agree with you, and on my other 9 Atmos BD's, that holds true.

But On any raceday and Step up all in was a let down!
(I actually started writing my review in the middle of watching 
: On any raceday, because it was so bad).

Ex: watch one of those first, and afterwards watch either Into the storm or Cloverfield(two of my favourite DSU movies), and you will hear what i mean.


----------



## brahman12

*Watched that a few times already*



kbarnes701 said:


> You might also like* RockNRolla* if you like Guy Ritchie. It's a better movie than *Revolver* IMO and also has a great sound track.


I have all of Guy Ritchie's US released major work except for the "Swept Away" Madonna project lol. He has a mad cool style that is kind of like Tarrantino (witty dialogue and back and forth character banter) but not as over the top or shockingly graphic as Quentin. Love both of them really, but I have to get my mind ready for Tarrantino because he will throw pretty graphic stuff at you, I tend to hold onto images and energy for a bit longer than most.

I watched RockNRolla about two months ago and it was as cool as ever with a bit more oomph via DSU cuz of Ritchie's love of soundtrack detail. However, Revolver's sound mix was very active in all channels with DSU throughout pretty much the whole film (subtly and dynamically) with clearly perceived overhead use. Like you Keith, I have come to realize that Atmos' awesomeness is not just about those overheads....but they are fun to pick up on, especially when watching a flick with DSU engaged and your're not expecting the tops to be so active and rich.  As a movie, per se, RockNRolla is tighter and has a stronger supporting cast effort. But I like them both about the same for different reasons. I liked the whole Ego concept in Revolver being played out within a fairly simple piece of film work. Cool juxtaposition in my opinion. Thanks for the heads up though....keep em comin' cuz I love movies....gonna check out Firestorm as soon as it comes in from Amazon. BTW, have you seen Raid and Raid 2....two Asian made films with "off da hook" and dynamic action (mostly hand to hand fight choreography) with Raid 2 being especially potent and better produced. Cheers!!!


----------



## tjenkins95

*Gravity: Diamond Luxe Edition*

Not sure if this link was already posted: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/15248/gravitydiamondluxeedition.html


Great review from Michael S. Palmer on the new blu-ray release of *Gravity*.
Scroll down for the superb Atmos audio review.


Ray


----------



## brahman12

*Heck Yes!!!*



Nalleh said:


> I agree with you, and on my other 9 Atmos BD's, that holds true.
> 
> But On any raceday and Step up all in was a let down!
> (I actually started writing my review in the middle of watching
> : On any raceday, because it was so bad).
> 
> Ex: watch one of those first, and afterwards watch either Into the storm or Cloverfield(two of my favourite DSU movies), and you will hear what i mean.


I gotta watch Cloverfield via DSU...gonna do a monster movie weekend soon. But definitely know what you mean by Into the Storm. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that DSU is better than Atmos all the time, regardless what is being watched. However, Step Up All In and On Any Sunday were both underwhelming mixes and are indeed bettered by several DSU upmixed films like Into the Storm, Oblivion, Avatar and a bunch of others.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> Not sure if this link was already posted: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/15248/gravitydiamondluxeedition.html
> 
> 
> Great review from Michael S. Palmer on the new blu-ray release of *Gravity*.
> Scroll down for the superb Atmos audio review.
> 
> 
> Ray


Too bad Palmer had to settle for listening with Atmos enabled speakers. You need precise localization for this Atmos track in particular and real overheads would have made things much, much better and more cohesive. It should also act as a very fine demo for those blessed with a Trinnov processor (or Steinway or Datasat) and more than the normal amount of main layer speakers. Sound effects and dialog are placed all over the room and the mixers used the individual speakers in the surround arrays beyond just about any Atmos mix to date. 

It's an expert mix and a benchmark in 3D audio environmental rendering. 

I just wish I liked the movie more than I do... well, maybe when it's in the discount bin at the holidays...


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad Palmer had to settle for listening with Atmos enabled speakers. You need precise localization for this Atmos track in particular and real overheads would have made things much, much better and more cohesive. It should also act as a very fine demo for those blessed with a Trinnov processor (or Steinway or Datasat) and more than the normal amount of main layer speakers. Sound effects and dialog are placed all over the room and the mixers used the individual speakers in the surround arrays beyond just about any Atmos mix to date.
> 
> It's an expert mix and a benchmark in 3D audio environmental rendering.
> 
> I just wish I liked the movie more than I do... well, maybe when it's in the discount bin at the holidays...


I too wished I could have liked this movie lots of people I know loved it  but I'm looking forward to hearing it in Atmos. I enjoyed it in DSU. I couldn't take Sandra and it was hard for me to believe that she should even have been in space.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Dan, I liked it a little better the second time through. Maybe it's because my expectations were so low the first time. That being said, the Atmos mix is definitely a reason to watch it again. It's outstanding.


----------



## tjenkins95

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad Palmer had to settle for listening with Atmos enabled speakers. You need precise localization for this Atmos track in particular and real overheads would have made things much, much better and more cohesive. It should also act as a very fine demo for those blessed with a Trinnov processor (or Steinway or Datasat) and more than the normal amount of main layer speakers. Sound effects and dialog are placed all over the room and the mixers used the individual speakers in the surround arrays beyond just about any Atmos mix to date.
> 
> It's an expert mix and a benchmark in 3D audio environmental rendering.
> 
> I just wish I liked the movie more than I do... well, maybe when it's in the discount bin at the holidays...


 
Dan - I have the same Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers used my Michael in my home theater - please don't burst my bubble before the magic happens this Tuesday night!


----------



## dvdwilly3

tjenkins95 said:


> Dan - I have the same Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers used my Michael in my home theater - please don't burst my bubble before the magic happens this Tuesday night!


As sn experiment, you might try running the as Top Front instead of Dolby enabled. That way you will be feeding them closer to a full range signal. I would be interested to see if you find any difference.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dave Vaughn said:


> Dan, I liked it a little better the second time through. Maybe it's because my expectations were so low the first time. That being said, the Atmos mix is definitely a reason to watch it again. It's outstanding.


I too had a very difficult time suspending my disbelief that Sandra's character could have made it out of space training. Also, Clooney's departure was totally unnecessary and completely unbelievable and some of the dialog is just cringe-worthy. If only they had spent as much time on the story aspects as they did on the visual effects. 

_2001_ this is not. 

But I will love to hear how the stellar Atmos track I heard at the cinema translates to the home. If they left the original object mix pretty much alone, it'll be fantastic.


----------



## Nalleh

tjenkins95 said:


> Not sure if this link was already posted: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/15248/gravitydiamondluxeedition.html
> 
> Great review from Michael S. Palmer on the new blu-ray release of *Gravity*.
> Scroll down for the superb Atmos audio review.
> 
> Ray


That sounds great! Can't wait to get it 



brahman12 said:


> I gotta watch Cloverfield via DSU...gonna do a monster movie weekend soon. But definitely know what you mean by Into the Storm. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that DSU is better than Atmos all the time, regardless what is being watched. However, Step Up All In and On Any Sunday were both underwhelming mixes and are indeed bettered by several DSU upmixed films like Into the Storm, Oblivion, Avatar and a bunch of others.


Yes i meant those two, not all Atmos, haha.
I think two possible great DSU movies could be: World invasion Battle Los Angeles and District 9. Gotta try watch them soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> I have all of Guy Ritchie's US released major work except for the "Swept Away" Madonna project lol. He has a mad cool style that is kind of like Tarrantino (witty dialogue and back and forth character banter) but not as over the top or shockingly graphic as Quentin. Love both of them really, but I have to get my mind ready for Tarrantino because he will throw pretty graphic stuff at you, I tend to hold onto images and energy for a bit longer than most.
> 
> I watched RockNRolla about two months ago and it was as cool as ever with a bit more oomph via DSU cuz of Ritchie's love of soundtrack detail. However, Revolver's sound mix was very active in all channels with DSU throughout pretty much the whole film (subtly and dynamically) with clearly perceived overhead use. Like you Keith, I have come to realize that Atmos' awesomeness is not just about those overheads....but they are fun to pick up on, especially when watching a flick with DSU engaged and your're not expecting the tops to be so active and rich.  As a movie, per se, RockNRolla is tighter and has a stronger supporting cast effort. But I like them both about the same for different reasons. I liked the whole Ego concept in Revolver being played out within a fairly simple piece of film work. Cool juxtaposition in my opinion. Thanks for the heads up though....keep em comin' cuz I love movies....gonna check out Firestorm as soon as it comes in from Amazon. BTW, have you seen Raid and Raid 2....two Asian made films with "off da hook" and dynamic action (mostly hand to hand fight choreography) with Raid 2 being especially potent and better produced. Cheers!!!


*Firestorm *is totally nuts. You will be whooping and hollering at the action scenes, which is pretty much all the movie  And yes, *Raid a*nd *Raid 2 *are fantastic too. If you like martial arts, I watched *Man of Tai Chi *last night and it has some of the best choreographed martial arts sequences I have ever seen.


----------



## brahman12

*Keanu Strikes Again*



kbarnes701 said:


> *Firestorm *is totally nuts. You will be whooping and hollering at the action scenes, which is pretty much all the movie  And yes, *Raid a*nd *Raid 2 *are fantastic too. If you like martial arts, I watched *Man of Tai Chi *last night and it has some of the best choreographed martial arts sequences I have ever seen.


I've had that one in my save for later list for a while now but haven't jumped on it cuz nobody I know has watched it. Seems like you dig the martial arts flicks...so I'll give it a shot. Gracias amigo.


----------



## tjenkins95

dvdwilly3 said:


> As sn experiment, you might try running the as Top Front instead of Dolby enabled. That way you will be feeding them closer to a full range signal. I would be interested to see if you find any difference.


 
I believe that would defeat the purpose of having Atmos-enabled speakers. The Pioneer speakers work beautifully and the sound disperses directly from above as intended. 


Ray


----------



## smurraybhm

tjenkins95 said:


> Not sure if this link was already posted: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/15248/gravitydiamondluxeedition.html
> 
> 
> Great review from Michael S. Palmer on the new blu-ray release of *Gravity*.
> Scroll down for the superb Atmos audio review.
> 
> 
> Ray


I check Bluray.com daily, good site, but let's not forget our own AVS reviewer extraordinaire Ralph Potts gave the Atmos mix for Gravity a perfect score. By the way the latest Hobbit flick sounds great with DSU. Still have Unbroken and Into the Woods to watch. Tough weekend


----------



## multit

smurraybhm said:


> ...Still have Unbroken and Into the Woods to watch. Tough weekend


Was "Into The Woods" an direct order from your daughter? For a while me and my wife joined her in the cinema watching this... but honestly, for me it was too much singing. If I knew it earlier, I would have found an excuse 
But anyway, best role was Johnny Depp as the bad wolf... ok, and Anna Kendrick is really cute, so not a complete waste of time. 
Hopefully, DSU is making everything even better...


----------



## smurraybhm

multit said:


> Was "Into The Woods" an direct order from your daughter? For a while me and my wife joined her in the cinema watching this... but honestly, for me it was too much singing. If I knew it earlier, I would have found an excuse
> But anyway, best role was Johnny Depp as the bad wolf... ok, and Anna Kendrick is really cute, so not a complete waste of time.
> Hopefully, DSU is making everything even better...


Kids are grown up, and the reviews (which are good) have said its a little dark for children so grandkids need to get a little older. I enjoy a broad range of movies be it Disney (which knows how to put out reference material) or newer ones - Birdman/Whiplash. Also like a good Michael Bay flick too 

Movies, Atmos or Auro, we all have our own preferences.


----------



## NorthSky

tjenkins95 said:


> Not sure if this link was already posted: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/15248/gravitydiamondluxeedition.html
> 
> Great review from Michael S. Palmer on the new blu-ray release of *Gravity*.
> Scroll down for the superb Atmos audio review.
> Ray





Dave Vaughn said:


> Dan, I liked it a little better the second time through. Maybe it's because my expectations were so low the first time. That being said, the Atmos mix is definitely a reason to watch it again. It's outstanding.


♦ I'm getting this again. ...For the Sound (Atmos @ its best; finally), and for the Silent Audio Track (special feature), plus the extras. 

And I am 100% sure that it kicks John Wick's ass big time; picture quality wise (John Wick is a total mess, with half the movie, @ least, with unfocused camera and very very bad quality picture for a recent Blu-ray flick), plus nothing extraordinary sound wise (guns in the faces, with some rain @ the cemetary and few umbrellas, plus a Mustang). ...John Wick is actually a rip-off on Blu-ray. ...It shouldn't be double the price of 'Step Up All In' or of 'The Expendables 3'. ...Lionsgate studios is just having fun selling low-grade flicks and overcharging for them because of their paranoid anti-piracy stratagem with seamless branching. ...Very very cheap way of doing business, in my humble and sincere opinion. 

John Wick (ex-Matrix) is a cool guy, with full revenge inside him; he's quick John Wick. The flick is sick; in a guilty kind of way.
But John Wick ain't no 'Gravity' high caliber flick; it's a low budget B movie for video gamers type of kids. ...Just like most of us. 
By the way, John Wick's technical score for picture and sound (Dolby TrueHD 7.1) ... my own personal score:
* Picture: 70/100
* Sound: 80/100

And I'm in a generous mood. 

__________

As for 'Gravity' ... we all know the score, and it ain't in 3D, very very very unfortunately.
But it's the first serious Dolby Atmos Blu-ray release; one day before DTS:X announcement. ...Talk about a business coincidence. 
{If not one day perhaps a week or two; but was supposed to be in March originally...as talked and planned.}

DSU is the most thing talked about in this Dolby Atmos thread; it just doesn't sound right to me. ...In the way that we have only seven Dolby Atmos discrete Blu-ray title releases so far. That is no support @ all; let's face reality here. ...And those seven BR titles; let's be truly honest...they are not what we call quality movies for quality adult movie aficionados, videophiles and audiophiles. 

I'm just telling it like it is; not shy to say the truth. 

It took till March 31st 2015 to have one decent (for many people it is not their bag) Blu-ray title release ('Gravity') to get the Dolby Atmos audio treatment, but in the process we lost its excellent 3D picture quality! 

Now, say all what you want, ...and looking @ reality it ain't "pink" on the Dolby Atmos waterfront. 

♦ And I hope that DTS:X will fair much better than that or I will simply use DSU like everybody else. ...Or maybe I'll go all the way with Auro-Matic instead. ...And listen to more music, and watch less movies but better ones, in five-point-one. 

That's pretty much all I have to say, for today, on that.


----------



## NorthSky

Now with 'Unbroken' and 'Gravity' in Dolby Atmos; the Blu-ray releases total Atmos count is nine (9), as of March 31st.


----------



## NorthSky

Dolby Atmos @ home (on Blu-ray ): www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## tjenkins95

smurraybhm said:


> I check Bluray.com daily, good site, but let's not forget our own AVS reviewer extraordinaire Ralph Potts gave the Atmos mix for Gravity a perfect score. By the way the latest Hobbit flick sounds great with DSU. Still have Unbroken and Into the Woods to watch. Tough weekend


 


Yes, thanks. I am fully aware of Ralph's reviews - I read them all. Michael's review also includes a list of what he feels are go-to demo chapters on the disc which I thought was a great idea.


----------



## curtishd

Are there any hdmi 2.0 hdcp 2.2 dolby atmos 7.1.2 receivers out there?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

curtishd said:


> Are there any hdmi 2.0 hdcp 2.2 dolby atmos 7.1.2 receivers out there?


If you mean UHD Blu-ray friendly... not yet. This summer/fall along with DTS:X.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Now with 'Unbroken' and 'Gravity' in Dolby Atmos; the Blu-ray releases total Atmos count is nine (9), as of March 31st.


With those two, my count is 13


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> With those two, my count is 13


I was referring to the American continent. 

If we talk worldwide it is 16. ...Including the Dolby Atmos demo disc. 

Yourself you are probably the only member here with the largest collection of Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles; with a grand total of thirteen. 
@ this pace you should have approximately *26* by the end of this year (another nine months).


----------



## bargervais

curtishd said:


> Are there any hdmi 2.0 hdcp 2.2 dolby atmos 7.1.2 receivers out there?


Yes TX-NR 1030


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you mean UHD Blu-ray friendly... not yet. This summer/fall along with DTS:X.


Do you know for sure that UHD Blu-Ray will be here this summer/fall. Summer is only three months from now....I haven't seen any confirmation of this I heard rumors the end of the year at the earliest and I thought that was pushed to 2016. But I hope your correct.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Do you know for sure that UHD Blu-Ray will be here this summer/fall. Summer is only three months from now....I haven't seen any confirmation of this I heard rumors the end of the year at the earliest and I thought that was pushed to 2016. But I hope your correct.


I meant the _receivers_ and _pre-amps_ with improved HDMI 2.0a (18 Gb/s) and HDCP 2.2 support along with DTS:X, not the next Blu-ray format. Sorry to get your hopes up.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Yes


No. ...Really?



bargervais said:


> Do you know for sure that UHD Blu-Ray will be here this summer/fall. Summer is only three months from now....I haven't seen any confirmation of this I heard rumors the end of the year at the earliest and I thought that was pushed to 2016. But I hope your correct.


This Fall, according to the latest. ...Like November, perhaps late November.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> I meant the _receivers_ and _pre-amps_ with improved HDMI (18 Gb/s) and HDCP 2.2 support along with DTS:X, not the next Blu-ray format. Sorry to get your hopes up.


Thanks yes I'm excited too I want to see what DTS:X and the new receivers can do.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> No. ...Really?
> 
> 
> .


Yes really.


----------



## NorthSky

So Onkyo is the real deal then.


----------



## desray2k

NorthSky said:


> So Onkyo is the real deal then.



If u can live without the convenience of Audyssey calibration that is....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> I was referring to the American continent.
> 
> If we talk worldwide it is 16. ...Including the Dolby Atmos demo disc.
> 
> Yourself you are probably the only member here with the largest collection of Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles; with a grand total of thirteen.
> @ this pace you should have approximately *26* by the end of this year (another nine months).


Well, let me put it this way: only a couple of the Nordic BD releases actually has the Atmos soundtrack, so we have to order online anyway. So for me to order from Amazon US, Japan, Germany, Ebay, or whatever, is no difference for me 
And as long as it has english subs( in case no english language, like Mary Kom), I am good to go 

I am targeting 100 Atmos BD's by the end of the year, loool.


----------



## NorthSky

God lock!


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> I am targeting 100 Atmos BD's by the end of the year, loool.


You will probably need to buy 10 of each to make it 100...


----------



## cdelena

NorthSky said:


> ♦
> ...
> DSU is the most thing talked about in this Dolby Atmos thread; it just doesn't sound right to me. ...
> ...


 
That is what put me on the Atmos track... after a weekend of listening to DSU on what was a mediocre system upgraded just to add Atmos I was convinced.


I would like to have a wide variety of Atmos material but doubt I will, but DSU added enough for me to move on this technology regardless of inventory and DTS announcements.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> God lock!



What do you have GOD putting a lock on , Atmos releases maybe?  


100 Atmos is mere child's play maybe that's What Nalleh is praying for . You never know Bob, if all goes well ,God could be speaking to you from your very own TOP center speaker , you know the one, in DTS:X certainly.


----------



## roxiedog13

Watched Tinker Tailor Solder Spy , great movie, DSU not really necessary for this kind of movie . Will have to watch this one again though, very thought provoking, I love that style of movie.


Exodus last night, 3D version was OK, DSU helped a little on this one, it needed it . Probably will not want to watch this one again for a while unless company asks for it.


Tonight it was Unbroken, great movie, I can see why it didn't raise the roof at the Oscars though . Atmos worked well the few times it was called on, certainly enhanced the movie . This will be watched again soon , great story, great acting .Much of the cinematography seems to mirror Life of Pi, and not quite as good really .


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> You will probably need to buy 10 of each to make it 100...


♦ He's an optimist; I like him. 



cdelena said:


> That is what put me on the Atmos track... after a weekend of listening to DSU on what was a mediocre system upgraded just to add Atmos I was convinced.
> 
> I would like to have a wide variety of Atmos material but doubt I will, but DSU added enough for me to move on this technology regardless of inventory and DTS announcements.


♦ ...And many others like you; actually most of you guys are in it for DSU alone. ...Not much choice anyway. ...Still, the audio is processed, and not discrete. And we are still praying for a very long time now ....
But that's ok, 3D picture is going the way of the dodo too. 



roxiedog13 said:


> What do you have GOD putting a lock on , Atmos releases maybe?
> 100 Atmos is mere child's play maybe that's What Nalleh is praying for . You never know Bob, if all goes well ,God could be speaking to you from your very own TOP center speaker , you know the one, in DTS:X certainly.


♦ I meant "Good luck"  ...VOG has nothing to do with it (god, or lock). 
I don't believe in luck, and I don't believe in hope (god). ...For me it is a physical world with some scientific theories. 
We came with nothing and we go with nothing. Between we live the "phase". ...And right now it seems to be DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Watched Tinker Tailor Solder Spy , great movie, DSU not really necessary for this kind of movie . Will have to watch this one again though, very thought provoking, I love that style of movie.
> Exodus last night, 3D version was OK, DSU helped a little on this one, it needed it . Probably will not want to watch this one again for a while unless company asks for it.
> Tonight it was Unbroken, great movie, I can see why it didn't raise the roof at the Oscars though . Atmos worked well the few times it was called on, certainly enhanced the movie . This will be watched again soon , great story, great acting .Much of the cinematography seems to mirror Life of Pi, and not quite as good really .


'Exodus' in 3D was ok, ...'Unbroken' was ok too.

Did you see this one in 3D? 










* Could be fun with DSU.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> God lock!


Yes, God is locking all future Atmos releases


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Yes, God is locking all future Atmos releases


One thing is certain; everything is @ a dead lock right now. ...No new Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles announcement, and no DTS:X announcement either.
As if all the gods of heaven were taking a break @ this moment. 

You think, us here @ AVS, we have an influence in determining the future? ...Like quieting things down a little? ...Business wise? 
...Disney too, with their "no more" 3D Blus.... And Dolby Atmos no better with titles like 'Step *UP* All In'. ...Not only there just isn't any decent quantity (end of March 2015; only nine BRs) but the quality is laughable @ best. 

I also know that there is nobody to blame anybody; it's just the way it is. ...So yes, good luck in hoping to get 100 Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles by the end of this year. I am no expert in figuring things out, I'm just a normal guy who love good flicks all around. ...And I go with past history to have an objective vision on the future. ...Streaming Dolby Atmos is what people would mostly love. ...And gamers too. ...Dolby Atmos Headphones. ...On our laptops, PCs, Macs systems, soundbars, car surround sound stereo hi-fi systems, iPods, iPads, iPhones...

Some of us we build dedicated home theater rooms from between $10,000 and $100,000+ ...and all we have to show for it is stuff like 'The Expendables 3', 'John Wick', and 'TMNT'. ...Now we'll have 'Gravity' (3D-less). 

* Here's another prediction of mine: They are going to try selling us (keep pursuing) more electronics (3D sound, 4K, ...) but without serious content.
People on the assembly line need to keep working, it's the name of the game; meanwhile the movie studios they just keep @ it like before. ...They talk, they have meetings, they try to set standards, they have demos, they talk some more, they look for new standards some more, and nothing gets seriously done on that front. No need to be a scientist to figure that one out; just look @ it today. 

We're a different breed here; we are not representing the masses. ...We're pilots above a sea of sand, searching for an opening, and talking between us as to where we think it is.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

roxiedog13 said:


> Tonight it was Unbroken, great movie, I can see why it didn't raise the roof at the Oscars though . Atmos worked well the few times it was called on, certainly enhanced the movie . This will be watched again soon , great story, great acting .Much of the cinematography seems to mirror Life of Pi, and not quite as good really .


The problem with Unbroken was in the editing, which was very weak. Also, Jolie stayed on scenes much longer than she should have and killed the pacing (especially in the second and third acts).


Spoiler



For example, the time spent on the boat could have been shortened quite a bit, the beating scene in the internment camp dragged, as did the time spent in the last camp before the war ended. We get it...the Japanese leader in the camps was an a-hole (first class one at that), but the message kept getting repeated over and over.



In the hands of a more capable director, the movie would have been much tighter and better served for a shorter run time and the only thing that saved the movie IMO was the true life story of an American hero.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> So Onkyo is the real deal then.


The question was...

Are there any hdmi 2.0 hdcp 2.2 dolby atmos 7.1.2 receivers out there?

I simply acknowledged that yes the Onkyo TX-NR 1030 can do this.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> 'Exodus' in 3D was ok, ...'Unbroken' was ok too.
> 
> Did you see this one in 3D?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Could be fun with DSU.


I'm not a fan of animate movies will have a look for this one though. My favorite animated movie thus far is UP, equally as good 3D too.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dave Vaughn said:


> The problem with Unbroken was in the editing, which was very weak. Also, Jolie stayed on scenes much longer than she should have and killed the pacing (especially in the second and third acts).
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the time spent on the boat could have been shortened quite a bit, the beating scene in the internment camp dragged, as did the time spent in the last camp before the war ended. We get it...the Japanese leader in the camps was an a-hole (first class one at that), but the message kept getting repeated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> In the hands of a more capable director, the movie would have been much tighter and better served for a shorter run time and the only thing that saved the movie IMO was the true life story of an American hero.


Your comments pretty much mirror what I felt about this movie, it certainly had a lot of potential. Like you said, some scenes were either dragged out or done to overkill. There was much more that could have been done still, it was a great movie. Angie will improve with age


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Now with 'Unbroken' and 'Gravity' in Dolby Atmos; the Blu-ray releases total Atmos count is nine (9), as of March 31st.


Unbroken has Dolby Atmos version? I bought one yesterday from Costco . It only has Dolby 5.1? Where did you buy it from?


----------



## UdoG

Can I use every speaker for Atmos? I have to decide between the following speakers:

http://www.canton.de/en/hifi/atelier/atelier-200

or 

http://www.canton.de/en/hifi/atelier/atelier-300

Are the atelier 200 powerful for Atmos?

Thanks.


----------



## bargervais

Roudan said:


> Unbroken has Dolby Atmos version? I bought one yesterday from Costco . It only has Dolby 5.1? Where did you buy it from?


You have to be very careful buying from Costco and Sam's Club they most likely have the dumbed down versions you have to read the jacket if it doesn't say Atmos don't buy it.
Check here before you buy.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unbroken-Blu-ray/109881/

I got mine from Amazon and it includes Atmos..


----------



## awblackmon

In hopes I don't offend anyone I have to say that having dumbed down soundtracks at some sales outlets makes no sense to me. Why would the studios do that. Would't it cost more to release the same title with different soundtracks? Yet they do it. What an offense that is to the buying public EVEN if they may not be playing the disc on a full Atmos system. Any of us might be buying a title there, but no, we have to make sure it isn't the dumbed down track. So I take a bit of offense the studios are even doing that. Then there is the rental discs.... I think that is just nuts too.


----------



## Roudan

bargervais said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbroken has Dolby Atmos version? I bought one yesterday from Costco . It only has Dolby 5.1? Where did you buy it from?
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be very careful buying from Costco and Sam's Club they most likely have the dumbed down versions you have to read the jacket if it doesn't say Atmos don't buy it.
> Check here before you buy.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unbroken-Blu-ray/109881/
> 
> I got mine from Amazon and it includes Atmos..
Click to expand...

Thanks. From Amazon , there is not much detail on audio, like this

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00HL...&dpID=51rHWTr3CML&ref=plSrch&pi=AC_SY200_QL40

How do you know if it has Atmos before you buy it ? Thanks


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

UdoG said:


> Can I use every speaker for Atmos? I have to decide between the following speakers:
> 
> http://www.canton.de/en/hifi/atelier/atelier-200
> 
> or
> 
> http://www.canton.de/en/hifi/atelier/atelier-300
> 
> Are the atelier 200 powerful for Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


The 200 is better since it is coaxial and will disperse the sound more evenly.
Efficiency is unimpressive with 87 dB/Watt. Satellites should be capable of 99 dB at MLP. If you are @ 3 meters, you lose 10 dB to start with. So you get this:
87-10 = 77 dB @ 3m with 1 Watt
80dB = 2W
83db = 4W
86dB = 8W
89db = 16W
92db = 32W
95dB = 64W
98dB = 128W 
99dB = +/- 165W (which is more they are rated for)
101dB = 256W


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> I finally caved and bought "Unbroken" today but will probably not watch until later because I also rented "Vice". I had heard "Vice" was going to have Atmos but found out after renting that it does not have an Atmos track.


I finally got a chance to watch "Unbroken" last night and all I can say are 2 words.. "intense" & "emotional". I was so entrenched on the movie I barely even noticed the Atmos audio track. I have to admit that I've heard better Atmos audio on other movies but I rate this movie as a 5 out of 5.

Lastly, I'll never understand how human beings can be so brutally vicious to other human beings.


----------



## UdoG

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The 200 is better since it is coaxial and will disperse the sound more evenly.
> Efficiency is unimpressive with 87 dB/Watt. Satellites should be capable of 99 dB at MLP. If you are @ 3 meters, you lose 10 dB to start with. So you get this:
> 87-10 = 77 dB @ 3m with 1 Watt
> 80dB = 2W
> 83db = 4W
> 86dB = 8W
> 89db = 16W
> 92db = 32W
> 95dB = 64W
> 98dB = 128W
> 99dB = +/- 165W (which is more they are rated for)
> 101dB = 256W


OK - thanks. I will check the 200.


----------



## pasender91

UdoG said:


> OK - thanks. I will check the 200.


This 200 might be quite limited in bass though, with 4" speaker.
They say it goes down to 45 Hz, yes but at which level ??? 
I'm sure they can go down to 30HZ !!!! simply with -20 dB or more, so it is useless to publish a frequency response without giving the -X dB value 

On the other side Dolby only says the Atmos speakers should be capable of rendering down to 110 Hz, so we can still assume the 200 fits the bill ...


----------



## Nalleh

Hey, hey, guys, guess what i found?











Look in the lower right corner


----------



## bargervais

Roudan said:


> Thanks. From Amazon , there is not much detail on audio, like this
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00HL...&dpID=51rHWTr3CML&ref=plSrch&pi=AC_SY200_QL40
> 
> How do you know if it has Atmos before you buy it ? Thanks


That's why I check here on all my Blu-Ray purchases...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unbroken-Blu-ray/109881/

This site gives good information on sound track and a link to where to buy it. IMHO.
I have never been steered wrong.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Hey, hey, guys, guess what i found?
> 
> 
> Look in the lower right corner


Good find! Ordered! I liked that movie and it had a good soundtrack so it should shine with Atmos. Thanks for finding that.


----------



## Gurba

Nalleh said:


> Hey, hey, guys, guess what i found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look in the lower right corner


Kinda expensive + freight.


----------



## hendry98

I have a question regarding my inceiling Triad bronze /8 LCR which will be used for Atmos front and rear heights speakers. They are suggesting to install them inline with front right and left channel speaker. but, do i have to tilt them toward my seat? i know they are designed with built it an angled tweeter, but i am talking about tilting the whole speaker. (imagine a laser beam coming from the tweeter, it will technically pass the seat next to me, and a bit far from my ear)

I am bit confused, so what do you suggest?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

UdoG said:


> OK - thanks. I will check the 200.


I really think the KEF's are superior in wall speakers:

KEF Ci speakers


----------



## UdoG

In wall is not possible - maybe the KEF T301 is a good alternative?

http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom.../tseries/fact_sheets/speakers/t301/index.html


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> Good find! Ordered! I liked that movie and it had a good soundtrack so it should shine with Atmos. Thanks for finding that.


I saw Lucy at the cinema in Atmos, and YES the sound track rocks, with plenty of atmospheric effects.
For example, the scene where she listens to dozens of phone calls in the street is WOW, you can distinctly hear individual conversations coming from every direction 
This one willl actuallly show i believe the limits of our small 7.1.4 systems 


On a general note i don't understand why "they" make our life harder. If lucy has been mixed in Atmos, why is it available ONLY in Hong-Kong version ?
Another example is John Wick, not available in France with the Atmos soundtrack, only 5.1.
As the English Atmos track exists, why not make it available everywhere ????


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> i saw lucy at the cinema in atmos, and yes the sound track rocks, with plenty of atmospheric effects.
> For example, the scene where she listens to dozens of phone calls in the street is wow, you can distinctly hear individual conversations coming from every direction
> This one willl actuallly show i believe the limits of our small 7.1.4 systems
> 
> 
> on a general note i don't understand why "they" make our life harder. If lucy has been mixed in atmos, why is it available only in hong-kong version ?
> Another example is john wick, not available in france with the atmos soundtrack, only 5.1.
> As the english atmos track exists, why not make it available everywhere ????


stupid marketing...


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Good find! Ordered! I liked that movie and it had a good soundtrack so it should shine with Atmos. Thanks for finding that.


You're welcome 
Here is the link:

http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html

Look at the country of orgin!
Was there not talk of a screening of a french version earlier her? Guess this is the result of that mix.



Gurba said:


> Kinda expensive + freight.


Agreed. But worth it 

BTW: i contacted Amazon JP about White storm and Journey to the west, and altough they both have Atmos soundtrack, they only have japanes subtitles 
So no go for me there.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html


Release date of 1st April.. Hmm (Please let us know if it was really Atmos)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Thanks. From Amazon , there is not much detail on audio, like this
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00HL...&dpID=51rHWTr3CML&ref=plSrch&pi=AC_SY200_QL40
> 
> How do you know if it has Atmos before you buy it ? Thanks


You have to go to websites like blu-ray.com and search in their database. The Amazon version of _Unbroken_ includes Dolby Atmos as does the version from Best Buy. Don't rely on Amazon or Best Buy's web specification listings as they're almost always wrong.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I saw Lucy at the cinema in Atmos, and YES the sound track rocks, with plenty of atmospheric effects.
> For example, the scene where she listens to dozens of phone calls in the street is WOW, you can distinctly hear individual conversations coming from every direction
> This one willl actuallly show i believe the limits of our small 7.1.4 systems


I am looking forward to this one - I did enjoy the sound design and the mix. I'll have to sell my standard copy now...



pasender91 said:


> On a general note i don't understand why "they" make our life harder. If lucy has been mixed in Atmos, why is it available ONLY in Hong-Kong version ?
> Another example is John Wick, not available in France with the Atmos soundtrack, only 5.1.
> As the English Atmos track exists, why not make it available everywhere ????


IDK. It must be something to do with licensing and distribution deals, the inside details of which are unknown to us. John Wick, for example, wasn't released theatrically as Atmos, but Lionsgate decided to do their own Atmos mix for it. Go figure.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> stupid marketing...


It won’t be marketing. Marketing departments will want every possible feature to aid sales. It is more likely the incredibly complex distribution arrangements which movies have post-theatrical release. Maybe the HK distributors thought it was worth bidding more for an Atmos mix to assist sales in HK, where *Lucy* is a foreign language movie and thus harder to sell. Just a guess of course.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It won’t be marketing. Marketing departments will want every possible feature to aid sales. It is more likely the incredibly complex distribution arrangements which movies have post-theatrical release. Maybe the HK distributors thought it was worth bidding more for an Atmos mix to assist sales in HK, where *Lucy* is a foreign language movie and thus harder to sell. Just a guess of course.


Stupid _studios_...


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Release date of 1st April.. Hmm (Please let us know if it was really Atmos)


It better be as it is printed on the packaging and in the title of the disc on the website!


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have to go to websites like blu-ray.com and search in their database. The Amazon version of _Unbroken_ includes Dolby Atmos as does the version from Best Buy. Don't rely on Amazon or Best Buy's web specification listings as they're almost always wrong.


That's where I get all my Blu-Ray reviews (and Ralph's reviews) and what sound track they have... they also give you a link to where to buy. Blu-Ray.com IMHO is a very trusted site. Blu-Ray.com and AVS forums are my two go too sites..


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> The question was...
> Are there any hdmi 2.0 hdcp 2.2 dolby atmos 7.1.2 receivers out there?
> I simply acknowledged that yes the Onkyo TX-NR 1030 can do this.


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ www.techradar.com/news/television/h...-is-probably-wrong-thanks-to-hdcp-2-2-1256763
♦ www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2
♦ www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/4k-hdmi-2-0-compatible-hdcp-2-0/2718

The video chip inside your Onkyo TX-NR1030 AV receiver is not the latest chip for full UHD signal transfer; that chip is only coming up later this year.
Now, you can say that it don't matter, but for most of us it does.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Stupid _studios_...


Not sure if it is anybody being stupid as such. The distribution rights are sold to the highest bidder, so if they want more for an Atmos mix, or more for a version packaged with extras etc, then the company bidding will have to decide if the premium is worth it for them, in their territory. I can see that a foreign language movie might have more appeal if it is packaged as an Atmos mix, so this could explain why the HK distributors thought it was worth paying more for than, say, the US or UK distributors. It makes sense commercially IMO although we might not like the outcomes.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



Nalleh said:


> Hey, hey, guys, guess what i found?
> 
> Look in the lower right corner


You want to have an idea of how Lucy sounds in 7.2.4? You can have a look to an article I wrote (in French) in Dec'14 :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/

with a short video embeded in the middle of this article shoving how Atmos objects evolve in space in a specific scene in this Lucy movie.

Now is this title going to be really edited in an Atmos BRD, sorry but I don't know. 

Hugo


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Not sure if it is anybody being stupid as such. The distribution rights are sold to the highest bidder, so if they want more for an Atmos mix, or more for a version packaged with extras etc, then the company bidding will have to decide if the premium is worth it for them, in their territory. I can see that a foreign language movie might have more appeal if it is packaged as an Atmos mix, so this could explain why the HK distributors thought it was worth paying more for than, say, the US or UK distributors. It makes sense commercially IMO although we might not like the outcomes.


It's almost never about what's best for consumers, that's for sure. Region/Zone locking is also the work of the devil. Hyperbole? Yes. The truth, probably... :devil:


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ♦ www.techradar.com/news/television/h...-is-probably-wrong-thanks-to-hdcp-2-2-1256763
> ♦ www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2
> ♦ www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/4k-hdmi-2-0-compatible-hdcp-2-0/2718
> 
> The video chip inside your Onkyo TX-NR1030 AV receiver is not the latest chip for full UHD signal transfer; that chip is only coming up later this year.
> Now, you can say that it don't matter, but for most of us it does.


I Know this I was simply answering a question I personally don't need to worry things will iron itself out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's almost never about what's best for consumers, that's for sure.


Well, no. Companies have a duty to put their owners/shareholders first so decisions are made to benefit those who own the company not those who might (or might not) buy from it. That seems sensible to me: if you start a company, you expect, as owner, to benefit the most from it. Of course, successful companies find they make the most money when they appeal to the most consumers so it is an incestuous relationship anyway. Of course, we as consumers might not always agree with or like the decisions made. And being fortunate to live in a free country, we have the option of taking our business elsewhere if we feel we are not getting a fair shake of the stick: a course I highly commend.


----------



## Nalleh

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> You want to have an idea of how Lucy sounds in 7.2.4? You can have a look to an article I wrote (in French) in Dec'14 :
> 
> Hugo


Yes, that's article i was thinking about, thanks.

Looking forward to this one


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm not a fan of animate movies will have a look for this one though.
> My favorite animated movie thus far is *UP*, equally as good 3D too.


♦ Disney PIXAR *'Up'* (in 3D) is one of the very top bests. 



lujan said:


> I finally got a chance to watch "Unbroken" last night and all I can say are 2 words.. "intense" & "emotional". I was so entrenched on the movie I barely even noticed the Atmos audio track. I have to admit that I've heard better Atmos audio on other movies but I rate this movie as a 5 out of 5.
> Lastly, I'll never understand how human beings can be so brutally vicious to other human beings.


♦ The history of the human species through eternal time right from the very first Big Bang of the universe. It is an unstoppable virus. 
No none can do anything about it; it's just the way it is, from our vast galaxy. ...Unbroken it is; you cannot break the spread through time and space. 
Only far far away peaceful aliens looking @ us just don't want to even come near us. They want nothing to do with all our wars and killing and hatred. 



pasender91 said:


> This 200 might be quite limited in bass though, with 4" speaker.
> They say it goes down to 45 Hz, yes but at which level ???
> I'm sure they can go down to 30HZ !!!! simply with -20 dB or more, so it is useless to publish a frequency response without giving the -X dB value
> On the other side Dolby only says the Atmos speakers should be capable of rendering down to 110 Hz, so we can still assume the 200 fits the bill ...


♦ A four-inch (4") woofer will start to descend @ roughly 200Hz; by roughly 125Hz (without the vent tuning support) you'll get non-energy. 



Nalleh said:


> Hey, hey, guys, guess what i found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look in the lower right corner


♦ WoW! Awesome! ...We've read about this too before.  ...I luv *'Lucy'* ♥



pasender91 said:


> I saw Lucy at the cinema in Atmos, and YES the sound track rocks, with plenty of atmospheric effects.
> For example, the scene where she listens to dozens of phone calls in the street is WOW, you can distinctly hear individual conversations coming from every direction
> This one willl actuallly show i believe the limits of our small 7.1.4 systems
> - On a general note i don't understand why "they" make our life harder. If lucy has been mixed in Atmos, why is it available ONLY in Hong-Kong version ?
> Another example is John Wick, not available in France with the Atmos soundtrack, only 5.1.
> As the English Atmos track exists, why not make it available everywhere ????


♦ Everyone is different in the world. Everywhere is not the same; different taste, different priorities, different economic climates, different beliefs. 
- *'Lucy'* was made and mixed in France. *'John Wick'* was made and mixed in America. 
They are distributed with this and that feature(s) to wherever there is financial profitability. ...Just like Disney is doing with their 3D Blu-rays. 



Nalleh said:


> You're welcome
> Here is the link: http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> Look at the country of origin!
> Was there not talk of a screening of a french version earlier her? Guess this is the result of that mix.


♦ Indeed; there was a full article (link provided) on that, and which was supplied to us by one of our own members here; Frenchman...Hugo perhaps? 
...I believe so, if my memory is still serving me well. 

______

*'Lucy'* should be available everywhere with Dolby Atmos; including USA and not excluding Canada (France, Italy, UK, South America, ...).

But, we have no control on things of this worldwide business matter; not us movie lovers, not Dolby Atmos, but movie distributors and decision business makers affiliated with the major movie studios around the globe. 
Here @ AVS we just go and get it if we want it, ...bad enough. ...Wherever they are and how much they cost. That is just one of our several audio/video obsessions.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I Know this I was simply answering a question I personally don't need to worry things will iron itself out.


...And I was only adding some precision.  ...All


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

LOL, I thought I was the weird one for liking Lucy and Eric Serra's Soundtrack! My wife hated the movie. Maybe it's a guy thing... Ms Johansson's performance/appearance was striking after all!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ...And I was only adding some precision.  ...All


I'm very surprised that you didn't once again bring up the fact that it has AccuEQ and not audyssey. This Atmos receiver I have it set up 7.2.4 and it's a great sounding unit.


----------



## NorthSky

Hello Hugo; I've read your post after posting mine on the other page. ...While I had you in mind ('Lucy's article), and constructing my post; @ the very same time you posted. ...There is definitely something "magic" UP in the air, and it must be in Dolby Atmos if indeed it is UP there, in the atmosphere. 

Happy Sunday! 
_Robert_


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I'm very surprised that you didn't once again bring up the fact that it has AccuEQ and not audyssey. This Atmos receiver I have it set up 7.2.4 and it's a great sounding unit.


I'll be honest with you: I believe that AccuEQ has potential already. I have nothing against it; I simply love to learn about it.
And even if I'm using Audyssey XT32 it don't make me an elite soldier on the front of a combat zone.
I am human, sensitive, intelligent, and all that jazz. ...Extremely flexible and versatile. 

What I love most about Atmos is the DISCUSSIONS. ...Same about all ROOM EQs. 

All I ever wanted since the very first time I came into this planet; is Peace & Love. ...And I would love to leave Earth with the same.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

UdoG said:


> In wall is not possible - maybe the KEF T301 is a good alternative?
> 
> http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom.../tseries/fact_sheets/speakers/t301/index.html


My mistake, I took them for in walls. So you want shallow on wall speakers, correct? Not on ceiling?

Jamo does decent shallow on wall speakers: Jamo A 500

But remember, there's no substitute for cubic inches.

If these don't have to be shallow, there are more possibilities.


----------



## UdoG

erwinfrombelgium said:


> My mistake, I took them for in walls. So you want shallow on wall speakers, correct? Not on ceiling?
> 
> Jamo does decent shallow on wall speakers: Jamo A 500
> 
> But remember, there's no substitute for cubic inches.
> 
> If these don't have to be shallow, there are more possibilities.


I am looking for ceiling speakers which are not so heavy. Because I need to find a solution to install them on my wood ceiling. 

Sorry for my english...


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> It better be as it is printed on the packaging and in the title of the disc on the website!


Heard of Photoshop?


----------



## Kurtos

Hi,
I asked this question in the speaker thread but I got no answer.
I want to install the KEF 101 or 301 on my ceiling for atmos. They Will be used with a marantz 7009 as top middle speakers. Is there a big difference between the 2 for this setup? I hope Someone can help because I want to order and install them next week 
My other speakers are teufel thx select 2 monopole speakers with 2 thx subwoofers and a buttkicker lfe.

Thanks in advance


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Heard of Photoshop?


You think a reputable Internet trader is deliberately Photoshopping package images in order to misrepresent their products, and also including that misrepresentation in the title of the item offered for sale? If so, then you should avoid such Internet sites I agree


----------



## Al Sherwood

Kamikaze13 said:


> Yes I could but I thought I would probably get a better effect having the speakers 9' above the floor. If I install them in the soffit they would be at 8'. Will it be noticeable?
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know thanks. I guess I'm kind of running full circle on this.
> Grrr I hate not knowing what to do.


 
What about the bottom of the soffits, seems like the most logical placement.


----------



## Kamikaze13

Al Sherwood said:


> What about the bottom of the soffits, seems like the most logical placement.


I think to get the best vertical separation they should be in the raised section of the ceiling. My back row is only 6'10" from the floor to the soffit.

I've decided to move the heat duct that's in the way and install them in the raised section and just a bit closer together.


----------



## marlon1925

bargervais said:


> I have a normal 7 speaker base front left right center surrounds and surround back my height 1 as front high my front high speakers are on the front wall just below the ceiling. My height 2 ceiling speakers that I assigned as top middle are behind MLP about five feet from my MLP. My top middle are not in the ideal Atmos position, but sound great. I have new speakers that I will place in the proper top middle position but I'm waiting for DTS:X announcement.
> 
> I am planning to have wides, heights and middle top at the same time, is this possible?
> Not sure this is possible when I assigned height 2 as top middle this disables wides.



uhm.....so I can just assign surround rears as top middle?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Kamikaze13 said:


> I think to get the best vertical separation they should be in the raised section of the ceiling. My back row is only 6'10" from the floor to the soffit.
> 
> I've decided to move the heat duct that's in the way and install them in the raised section and just a bit closer together.



I may have a very similar issue in my room, one side slightly off center, running down the length of the room is the supply and return heat plenums for the house, no way possible to move them.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Robert,



NorthSky said:


> ...There is definitely something "magic" UP in the air, and it must be in Dolby Atmos if indeed it is UP there, in the atmosphere.
> 
> Happy Sunday!
> Robert


Yes I do agree that there is a sort of "magic" in Lucy... and in my experience Atmos definitivel pushes further on the perception of this "magic"... I though hope that we won't have to wait too long for the release of a US/EU Atmos (or DTS:X_MDA?) BRD version of this title... 

Hugo


----------



## NorthSky

Lucy in 4K and in 3D?


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> uhm.....so I can just assign surround rears as top middle?


No you can't the only ones that are assignable are height1 and height2 and neither one can do surround rears... and the surround backs can only be used as surround backs they are not assignable to use as top middle


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> What about the bottom of the soffits, seems like the most logical placement.


Test

That's a nice room!


----------



## smurraybhm

bargervais said:


> You have to be very careful buying from Costco and Sam's Club they most likely have the dumbed down versions you have to read the jacket if it doesn't say Atmos don't buy it.
> Check here before you buy.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unbroken-Blu-ray/109881/
> 
> I got mine from Amazon and it includes Atmos..


I buy a lot of blurays from Costco including a number of my Atmos flicks like Unbroken and Mokingjay. My copy has Atmos, either they bought the DVD or pulled the DVD from the case by mistake. Now Sam's is another issue since it is owned by that company that loves to treat its employees so well - Wal-Mart. We know they are selling dumbed down versions of a number of new releases - guess they are trying to make the physical media closer to what Vudu offers - another Wal-Mart owned company. Of course there is always the possibility of a setup issue as well.

Unbroken from an Atmos perspective is well done. Sound is up top when it should be and I continue to enjoy the precision that object based audio provides. I suspect it is the "accuracy" of the sounds a
that helps provide the "bubble." Heights are used when they should be, and the effect is great. Personally I don't want a bunch of audio up top when it's not the same as how I would hear if I was there myself. Shark scene just about popped me out of my chair. Movie itself drags in a few places, but it is definitely a buy for those with Atmos, I suspect in a month or so the price will drop as have some other recent releases like Whiplash and Birdman, to name a few.

People keep taking shots at quality and number of releases, in the past six weeks things have changed/improved in that category. Look forward to Gravity in a few days.


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> I buy a lot of blurays from Costco including a number of my Atmos flicks like Unbroken and Mokingjay. My copy has Atmos, either they bought the DVD or pulled the DVD from the case by mistake. Now Sam's is another issue since it is owned by that company that loves to treat its employees so well - Wal-Mart. We know they are selling dumbed down versions of a number of new releases - guess they are trying to make the physical media closer to what Vudu offers - another Wal-Mart owned company. Of course there is always the possibility of a setup issue as well.
> 
> Unbroken from an Atmos perspective is well done. Sound is up top when it should be and I continue to enjoy the precision that object based audio provides. I suspect it is the "accuracy" of the sounds a
> that helps provide the "bubble." Heights are used when they should be, and the effect is great. Personally I don't want a bunch of audio up top when it's not the same as how I would hear if I was there myself. Shark scene just about popped me out of my chair. Movie itself drags in a few places, but it is definitely a buy for those with Atmos, I suspect in a month or so the price will drop as have some other recent releases like Whiplash and Birdman, to name a few.
> 
> People keep taking shots at quality and number of releases, in the past six weeks things have changed/improved in that category. Look forward to Gravity in a few days.


agree I was at Sam's Club and looked at the jacket for unbroken it didn't mention Atmos can't speak for Costco. I have always learned to read the Jack carefully. If it's not o my liking I don't buy it.
I'm looking forward for Gravity as well.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Birdman'* is only $13 right now (amazon), but no Dolby Atmos, unfortunately. /// Next time around.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *'Birdman'* is only $13 right now (amazon), but no Dolby Atmos, unfortunately. /// Next time around.


I wouldn't buy it if it was $10.00 I watched and couldn't believe I didn't switch to something else after fifteen minutes into it. It's most likely $13.00 because they burnt too many and didn't sell very well. If it had Atmos I may have bought it for $10.00.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Step Up All In'* with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu-ray is only $9.96 right now (Canadian $) @ amazon.ca 

And *'The Expendables 3'* (Dolby Atmos BR) is only $13 (USD) @ amazon.com (same price as *'Birdman'*). 

*'On Any Sunday: The Next Chapter'* (Dolby Atmos BR) ... $9.96 (USD) @ amazon.com

*'TMNT'* (Dolby Atmos BR) ... $15 @ amazon.com ... the 2D version; the 3D version is $33.99* USD! 
{This must be a better BR title; the reason why it costs a little bit more...popular title with kids.}

* The 3D version's price is simply outrageous!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> I wouldn't buy it if it was $10.00 I watched and couldn't believe I didn't switch to something else after fifteen minutes into it. It's most likely $13.00 because they burnt too many and didn't sell very well. If it had Atmos I may have bought it for $10.00.


It's not a movie for everyone. But I will say it was quite creative. 

I saw _Nightcrawler_ after hearing such good things, but I found the only really standout element was Jake Gyllenhaal's super-creepy, Oscar worthy performance. The film started out strong and I understood the point the filmmakers' were trying to make about the state of the media, and journalism and news specifically, but it started to lose its focus about half-way in and the screenwriter started to get way too expository and over the top.


----------



## NorthSky

* Small correction:

$34.32 (USD) for *'TMNT'* (3D with Atmos)! ....Wouaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh! 



________

*'Birdman'* .... a Masterpiece! ... And that solo drummer audio quality soundtrack ....  ... DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1


----------



## kenoh89

NorthSky said:


> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ♦ www.techradar.com/news/television/hdtv/everything-you-know-about-4k-ultra-hd-is-probably-wrong-thanks-to-hdcp-2-2-1256763
> ♦ www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2
> ♦ www.audiogurus.com/learn/news/4k-hdmi-2-0-compatible-hdcp-2-0/2718
> 
> The video chip inside your Onkyo TX-NR1030 AV receiver is not the latest chip for full UHD signal transfer; that chip is only coming up later this year.
> Now, you can say that it don't matter, but for most of us it does.


Pioneer is the only one I know of to announce their mainstream models with the newest chips. Which is clearly advertised as having full spec HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. They also announced two Elite models, the VSX-45 and VSX-90 - http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Elite+Receivers/VSX-90



bargervais said:


> I Know this I was simply answering a question I personally don't need to worry things will iron itself out.


 Well you won't have to wait long to have fully capable HDMI 2.0 receivers and HDCP 2.2 because next month Pioneer releases their 2015 models, but they're only capable of 5.2.2 and 5.2.4 configuration. If you want 7.2.4, you have to wait for the higher-end models


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1124244-REG/pioneer_vsx_1130_k_7_2_channel_av_receiver.html


----------



## marlon1925

bargervais said:


> No you can't the only ones that are assignable are height1 and height2 and neither one can do surround rears... and the surround backs can only be used as surround backs they are not assignable to use as top middle


Ok ok, now I got it.

Thank a lot sir, appreciate it much


----------



## NorthSky

Sometime some people ask about what kind of Dolby Atmos top firing (up-firing) modules are good (best) for an Atmos setup when using the ceiling to reflect/bounce the sounds. 
Pioneer's Andrew Jones own Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers' design is (was) often mentioned in the past as being one of them. ...Def Tech not so much. 

And earlier today (while surfing the World Wide Web) I bounced against this: www.areadvd.de/tests/test-elac-5-1-4-lautsprecher-set-fs-409fs-407cc-400ts-3000sub-2070/


----------



## kenoh89

NorthSky said:


> Sometime some people ask about what kind of Dolby Atmos top firing (up-firing) modules are good (best) for an Atmos setup when using the ceiling to reflect/bounce the sounds.
> Pioneer's Andrew Jones own Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers' design is (was) often mentioned in the past as being one of them. ...Def Tech not so much.
> 
> And earlier today (while surfing the World Wide Web) I bounced against this: www.areadvd.de/tests/test-elac-5-1-4-lautsprecher-set-fs-409fs-407cc-400ts-3000sub-2070/


They look nice but those speakers are $9000 a pair! I wonder if they sell the modules separate because I would love to pair them with my future Legacy Audio Signature SE setup!


----------



## DS-21

kenoh89 said:


> They look nice but those speakers are $9000 a pair! I wonder if they sell the modules separate because I would love to pair them with my future Legacy Audio Signature SE setup!


According to the review, in Germany they're EUR299 each.

Also, another good example of how "timbre matching" should really be spelled "timber (or paint) matching." The main speakers have I think an AMT type tweeter.* The Atmos module is a non-concentric coax with a tiny oval midrange and a dome tweeter.

If you're looking for a separate Atmos module made from quality parts, it still looks like the KEF R50 is still the only game in town. Unfortunately.

*Maybe it's a planar, I didn't read too deeply and don't really care because it's obvious the set's a joke. Just look at the tiny toppled MTM center channel: 








A toppled-MTM center is a clear indication that sound quality was not at all a priority.


----------



## NorthSky

kenoh89 said:


> They look nice but those speakers are $9000 a pair!
> *I wonder if they sell the modules separate because I would love to pair them with my future Legacy Audio Signature SE setup!*


Yes, *$325* USD (MSRP) each.


----------



## kenoh89

DS-21 said:


> According to the review, in Germany they're EUR299 each.
> 
> Also, another good example of how "timbre matching" should really be spelled "timber (or paint) matching." The main speakers have I think an AMT type tweeter.* The Atmos module is a non-concentric coax with a tiny oval midrange and a dome tweeter.
> 
> If you're looking for a separate Atmos module made from quality parts, it still looks like the KEF R50 is still the only game in town. Unfortunately.
> 
> *Maybe it's a planar, I didn't read too deeply and don't really care because it's obvious the set's a joke. Just look at the tiny toppled MTM center channel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A toppled-MTM center is a clear indication that sound quality was not at all a priority.


Yeah, I really don't expect these to be in the same league as Legacy Audio, which is built for large home theater spaces, but a soft dome tweeter paired with ATM tweeters? What were they thinking!


----------



## NorthSky

Woofers look nice.


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> Woofers look nice.


Elac also sounds very good


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Elac also sounds very good


The reviewer seems to think so too.


----------



## roxiedog13

Kamikaze13 said:


> I think to get the best vertical separation they should be in the raised section of the ceiling. My back row is only 6'10" from the floor to the soffit.
> 
> I've decided to move the heat duct that's in the way and install them in the raised section and just a bit closer together.


Exactly the same situation I had, My second row was only 6' 3" feet to the bottom of the soffit. The soffit was also there for a reason, there are HRV ducts and piping running through there and there was no way to install a speaker. My main ceiling was 7 ' 9" , the soffit 6' 11" from the main floor. It worked out where they are even though it is not idea. Using a speaker than disperses the
sound better will help.


----------



## roxiedog13

erwinfrombelgium said:


> LOL, I thought I was the weird one for liking Lucy and Eric Serra's Soundtrack! My wife hated the movie. Maybe it's a guy thing... Ms Johansson's performance/appearance was striking after all!


Hey, I Love Lucy......that sounds familiar ?  Scarlett did a great job, the movie was enjoyable just mediocre overall. A little bit of a rip from the movie Limitless in my opinion. Wish I had the Atmos version, that part irks me to no end, why is the Atmos version not available in North America?


----------



## petetherock

pasender91 said:


> I saw Lucy at the cinema in Atmos, and YES the sound track rocks, with plenty of atmospheric effects.
> For example, the scene where she listens to dozens of phone calls in the street is WOW, you can distinctly hear individual conversations coming from every direction
> This one willl actuallly show i believe the limits of our small 7.1.4 systems
> 
> 
> On a general note i don't understand why "they" make our life harder. If lucy has been mixed in Atmos, why is it available ONLY in Hong-Kong version ?
> Another example is John Wick, not available in France with the Atmos soundtrack, only 5.1.
> As the English Atmos track exists, why not make it available everywhere ????


Well do you know that most HKG shows sold off Amazon USA only have 5.1 soundtracks?
If you buy the same disc in HKG, they usually have a 7.1 soundtrack... and frequently come with DTS-MA AND Tru-HD on the same disc...

Go figure...


----------



## petetherock

UdoG said:


> I am looking for ceiling speakers which are not so heavy. Because I need to find a solution to install them on my wood ceiling.
> 
> Sorry for my english...


Have you considered Anthony Gallo A'Divas or Micros?
You can see what I did in my signature...


----------



## dvdwilly3

petetherock said:


> Well do you know that most HKG shows sold off Amazon USA only have 5.1 soundtracks?
> If you buy the same disc in HKG, they usually have a 7.1 soundtrack... and frequently come with DTS-MA AND Tru-HD on the same disc...
> 
> Go figure...


I don't know about the HKG disks, but I can tell you that any number of my disks come with both DTS MA and True HD. 

BUT, the English soundtrack is DTS MA, not Dolby in any flavor. The Dolby variations are all in the foreign language tracks...French, Spanish, what have you...


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> I wouldn't buy it if it was $10.00 I watched and couldn't believe I didn't switch to something else after fifteen minutes into it. It's most likely $13.00 because they burnt too many and didn't sell very well. If it had Atmos I may have bought it for $10.00.


I haven't yet heard a good thing about this movie (Birdman) from anyone who has watched it.


----------



## Frohlich

Sorry for the newbie question. I have a Marantz 7702. I have finally decided to give Atmos a try. I have 10 channels of amplification and am currently using 7, so I have 3 spare channels. My initial thought was to start with 2 channels for Atmos and use to middle overhead position. I wonder if I could use 2 front overhead position speakers and use the last channel of amplification to do a single rear overhead position (since I can't do 2 rear overhead speakers unless I buy another amp). Thoughts? Has anybody tried this already? I am guessing that Atmos can't be configured for a single speaker (instead of dual) in any of the positions but I thought I would ask.


----------



## pasender91

You guess right , Atmos can only assign speakers in pairs, so with 7 speakers at ground level, you can only add a pair and reach 9 channels as 7.1.2.

If you really want to go to 10, then you can go down to 6.1 at ground level by removing a surround back (this is supported even if not ideal), and then you can add 4 speakers for Atmos, for a total of 6.1.4 . You lose at ground level and win at top level ...

Which one is best, i don't know


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I haven't yet heard a good thing about this movie (Birdman) from anyone who has watched it.


Then you haven't been paying attention. A quick search just of recent posts in this thread alone turns up this, this, and this.


----------



## batpig

Kurtos said:


> Hi,
> I asked this question in the speaker thread but I got no answer.
> I want to install the KEF 101 or 301 on my ceiling for atmos. They Will be used with a marantz 7009 as top middle speakers. Is there a big difference between the 2 for this setup? I hope Someone can help because I want to order and install them next week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My other speakers are teufel thx select 2 monopole speakers with 2 thx subwoofers and a buttkicker lfe.
> 
> Thanks in advance


The bigger speakers have better performance. Larger volume (important when you are dealing with an already slimmed down profile) better sensitivity and higher power handling. You want something that can basically keep up with your surround speakers.


----------



## smurraybhm

lujan said:


> I haven't yet heard a good thing about this movie (Birdman) from anyone who has watched it.


Way off topic, but I enjoyed it. Plus its a good test for your subwoofer.


----------



## MGBPUFF

Frohlich said:


> Sorry for the newbie question. I have a Marantz 7702. I have finally decided to give Atmos a try. I have 10 channels of amplification and am currently using 7, so I have 3 spare channels. My initial thought was to start with 2 channels for Atmos and use to middle overhead position. I wonder if I could use 2 front overhead position speakers and use the last channel of amplification to do a single rear overhead position (since I can't do 2 rear overhead speakers unless I buy another amp). Thoughts? Has anybody tried this already? I am guessing that Atmos can't be configured for a single speaker (instead of dual) in any of the positions but I thought I would ask.


 My opinion - buy another amp, scoot your leather seating up to even with your surround speakers and install ceiling atmos top front and atmos top rear speakers. Your built in surrounds and back speakers are mounted high for atmos but it should work o.k.


----------



## Kris Deering

kenoh89 said:


> They look nice but those speakers are $9000 a pair! I wonder if they sell the modules separate because I would love to pair them with my future Legacy Audio Signature SE setup!


I am using Legacy Audio in my setup (Focus, Marquis and Phantom) and I am using the HTR-7000 in walls from Golden Ear with great result.


----------



## UdoG

petetherock said:


> Have you considered Anthony Gallo A'Divas or Micros?
> You can see what I did in my signature...



Thanks for your tip but the Speaker Chassis is very small - only one 3" Driver. Are you sure that they are powerful enough for Atmos?


----------



## kenoh89

Kris Deering said:


> I am using Legacy Audio in my setup (Focus, Marquis and Phantom) and I am using the HTR-7000 in walls from Golden Ear with great result.


I have a pair of Paradigm Studio 100's mixed with signatures. Do you think the Legacy Audio would be a big step up from what I have? Even to justify the cost, do you think it's better then Paradigm's latest Signatures?


I'm really interested in trying out a set of the LG Studio HD's and Marquis center.


----------



## Kris Deering

kenoh89 said:


> I have a pair of Paradigm Studio 100's mixed with signatures. Do you think the Legacy Audio would be a big step up from what I have? Even to justify the cost, do you think it's better then Paradigm's latest Signatures?
> 
> 
> I'm really interested in trying out a set of the LG Studio HD's and Marquis center.


I'll PM you to keep this on topic.


----------



## petetherock

UdoG said:


> Thanks for your tip but the Speaker Chassis is very small - only one 3" Driver. Are you sure that they are powerful enough for Atmos?


That's where you need to make the paradigm shift... it's not like your regular front or even surround speaker... it's about creating directional ambient effects.. and the freq response range is perfectly fine for it.. cheers


----------



## dragonleepenn

Frohlich said:


> Sorry for the newbie question. I have a Marantz 7702. I have finally decided to give Atmos a try. I have 10 channels of amplification and am currently using 7, so I have 3 spare channels. My initial thought was to start with 2 channels for Atmos and use to middle overhead position. I wonder if I could use 2 front overhead position speakers and use the last channel of amplification to do a single rear overhead position (since I can't do 2 rear overhead speakers unless I buy another amp). Thoughts? Has anybody tried this already? I am guessing that Atmos can't be configured for a single speaker (instead of dual) in any of the positions but I thought I would ask.


Buy another amp! Why compromise,your setup is very high level.
Most would agree here get the other speaker and amp do four upper layer speakers. I really like your theater room and equipment you have.



PeterV


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Frohlich said:


> Sorry for the newbie question. I have a Marantz 7702. I have finally decided to give Atmos a try. I have 10 channels of amplification and am currently using 7, so I have 3 spare channels. My initial thought was to start with 2 channels for Atmos and use to middle overhead position. I wonder if I could use 2 front overhead position speakers and use the last channel of amplification to do a single rear overhead position (since I can't do 2 rear overhead speakers unless I buy another amp). Thoughts? Has anybody tried this already? I am guessing that Atmos can't be configured for a single speaker (instead of dual) in any of the positions but I thought I would ask.


Start by putting a pair of Top Middle against the ceiling and get to listen.

Then buy a 5-channel amp and you are ready when the 16-channel processors become available for normal money.... 9.1.6 should be all we mortals ever need. BTW, I just bought 2 used Marantz MM8003, so I am already ready for 9.1.6!


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> Then you haven't been paying attention. A quick search just of recent posts in this thread alone turns up this, this, and this.


I was referring to people that I've talked to in person and not those opinions on these forums.


----------



## dvdwilly3

lujan said:


> I was referring to people that I've talked to in person and not those opinions on these forums.


Here is the thing--this one is a matter of what you like. The production values are exceptional. However, it is about an aging actor who is having a psychological breakdown, and you see him veering fro reality to psychosis and back as he breaks down. Sort of black humor... If you like that, you will enjoy it. If not, then not so much... Exceedingly well done, but probably not for everyone. My wife and enjoyed it, but thought that it was a bit out there.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I was referring to people that I've talked to in person and not those opinions on these forums.


Oh, puh-lease! No one you know could POSSIBLY have a more trustworthy opinion than we forumites.


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> Here is the thing--this one is a matter of what you like. The production values are exceptional. However, it is about an aging actor who is having a psychological breakdown, and you see him veering fro reality to psychosis and back as he breaks down. Sort of black humor... If you like that, you will enjoy it. If not, then not so much... Exceedingly well done, but probably not for everyone. My wife and enjoyed it, but thought that it was a bit out there.


yes an aging actor in real life and in the movie. I talked to friends and family and they didn't like it. I didn't like it.  How it got the best picture i'll never know.


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> yes an aging actor in real life and in the movie most people i talked to... freinds and family didn't like it i personally didn't like it and i couldn't for the life of me.  How it got best picture!?


If Box office sales are an indicator Birman is a failure. Currently though, it ranks as the second-lowest-grossing movie to receive the top prize in the last 40 years . 

This is on my list of have to see, not available on BR yet though.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> yes an aging actor in real life and in the movie most people i talked to... freinds and family didn't like it i personally didn't like it and i couldn't for the life of me.  How it got best picture!?


What is it that you are confused about (besides spelling, punctuation and verbal conjugation)? 

Seriously, even though you couldn't pay me enough to make me sit through some of the comic book movies that so many people seem to dote on, still I do understand their appeal.

Although I certainly wouldn't rank it among my favorite movies, _Birdman_ was unquestionably creative, imaginative, well written and acted, and had an interesting psychological premise that is very relatable to the film industry. Add to those attributes the cachet of accomplished writer/director Iñárritu and you have the quintessential makings of an award nominee.


----------



## dvdwilly3

roxiedog13 said:


> If Box office sales are an indicator Birman is a failure. Currently though, it ranks as the second-lowest-grossing movie to receive the top prize in the last 40 years .
> 
> This is on my list of have to see, not available on BR yet though.


Actually, it is out on Bluray...I have it...


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> Actually, it is out on Bluray...I have it...


yes it's out on blu-ray 
$13.00

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Birdman-Blu-ray/117901/


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> yes an aging actor in real life and in the movie. I talked to friends and family and they didn't like it. I didn't like it.  How it got the best picture i'll never know.


I would say that it may have something to do with the fact that 95% of the critics liked it and 80% of the moviegoers liked it.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elac also sounds very good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reviewer seems to think so too.
Click to expand...


Hi Northsky, where did you normally buy blu Ray movie? Thx


----------



## chi_guy50

tjenkins95 said:


> I would say that it may have something to do with the fact that 95% of the critics liked it and 80% of the moviegoers liked it.


Oh, yeah, and that, too, I guess.

When the vast majority of both moviegoers and film critics give a movie plaudits, the award recognition is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned.


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> yes it's out on blu-ray
> $13.00
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Birdman-Blu-ray/117901/



Tkx will have a look. Have a gift certificate from Amazon time to use it I guess.


----------



## Scottyb09

Question: I'm thinking of upgrading from the Marantz 7701 to the 7702 to enable Dolby Atmos (the 8802 is too expensive for me). My understanding is that there are only a handful of blu rays currently mastered in Atmos with lots more on the way. However, I also understand non-Atmos movies to be "converted" to Atmos-like soundtracks. Is this accurate? Would gaming work similarly? This would cost me a few grand and I'm looking to make an informed decision. Thanks!


----------



## pasender91

ALL existing sound tracks can be "converted" to Atmos-like, this is called Dolby Surround and the 7702 has it 
It does wonders on most 5.1 movies, also works for music (some like it, some don't) and for games (usually sounds great).

At this stage, i am happy to have taken the plunge on Atmos just for Dolby Surround alone, the few Atmos movies are the icing on the cake


----------



## Csbooth

Scottyb09 said:


> Question: I'm thinking of upgrading from the Marantz 7701 to the 7702 to enable Dolby Atmos (the 8802 is too expensive for me). My understanding is that there are only a handful of blu rays currently mastered in Atmos with lots more on the way. However, I also understand non-Atmos movies to be "converted" to Atmos-like soundtracks. Is this accurate? Would gaming work similarly? This would cost me a few grand and I'm looking to make an informed decision. Thanks!


Games are Three-Dimensional by their very nature. Gaming works fine with DSU, and I've read numerous examples across various forums confirming it.

As games are done using a 6 channel base as the Norm now (Call of Duty, as an example, seems to like utilizing only 4 speakers however, and the center only during cutscenes, but nevertheless has sound from your usual positions), and a great deal more now are doing 8 channel; extrapolating and steering sounds to the height layer is fairly straight forward as the markers placed in the stems when coded have height information that is easily redirected to the ceiling speakers.

In any case, I would look forward to the matrixing that would come along with the new technology and speaker placement.


----------



## RapalloAV

I want to place two height speakers above mymiddle row that are wide dispersion for atmos. The current ones I use are inceiling but located at the wall/ceiling join which as we know isn't ideal foratmos.

These wide dispersion Klipsch KS7502THX arefrom the same THX family as the rest of my speakers. Yet they have onetweeter/horn facing front and back. If I was to use these over the middle row,would I point the tweeters to the front and back wall or sideways to the sidewalls? My concern is the middle row might miss out on valuable information. Themiddle row is the most important row.

http://images.klipsch.com/KS7502THX_635042118457360000.pdf


----------



## bkeeler10

Just another data point regarding Atmos titles at Walmart. My in-laws bought Mockingjay, and I saw it sitting there with a Walmart sticker on it so I had to check. Nothing but lossy DD 5.1  I told them they should return it. They do have a decent 5.1 setup with fairly new AVR so they can play lossless tracks, but I doubt they would notice. But hey, just on principle alone, they should return it. Plus, I intend to borrow it  and I'll be annoyed to not have lossless (even if I'm not quite there yet with an Atmos setup).


----------



## bargervais

My order for Gravity will be here tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing how it sounds in Atmos, so far my favorite Atmos Blu-Rays are John Wick, Mocking Jay and Unbroken. I'm also getting Interstellar not Atmos but I hear it's great in DSU.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Scottyb09 said:


> Question: I'm thinking of upgrading from the Marantz 7701 to the 7702 to enable Dolby Atmos (the 8802 is too expensive for me). My understanding is that there are only a handful of blu rays currently mastered in Atmos with lots more on the way. However, I also understand non-Atmos movies to be "converted" to Atmos-like soundtracks. Is this accurate? Would gaming work similarly? This would cost me a few grand and I'm looking to make an informed decision. Thanks!


I listened to a podcast with the designer of ATMOS and the new surround algorithms from Dolby. He said the new upmixing was WAY better on ATMOS receivers compared to the old Dolby X stuff


----------



## richmagnus

DTS:X launch event 9th April.


----------



## Scottyb09

Interesting. I may need to upgrade - I would sell my 7701 for a 7702 (realizing I'd need to upgrade again down the road when HDCP 2.2 4K is commonplace), pick up another Marantz amp, and four in-ceiling speakers. Not a bad thing to spend my annual bonus on!


----------



## Roudan

richmagnus said:


> DTS:X launch event 9th April.


Hi where did u find this? I am very looking forward to it. Thx


----------



## SoundChex

richmagnus said:


> DTS:X launch event 9th April.



We might hope that 'likely' discussion related to the *ATSC3.0 TV Audio System* _candidate technology+codec_ implications of *DTS:X* at [_the immediately subsequent_] *NAB Show* (April 11 - 16, 2015) might also prompt disclosure of _substantive_ details about *Dolby AC-4* . . . and "capabilities|requirements" for future AVRs containing _integrated_ *Dolby Atmos|**AC-4* decoders...?!  


_


----------



## richmagnus

Roudan said:


> Hi where did u find this? I am very looking forward to it. Thx



Bigpicturebigsound.com

Can't post link from phone


----------



## RapalloAV

richmagnus said:


> Bigpicturebigsound.com
> 
> Can't post link from phone


 http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/DTS-X-Details-to-be-Unveiled-April-9th.shtml


----------



## chi_guy50

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ....................Let's all tell D&M that Jon Kirchner says they should give us an upgrade!

DTS president Jon Kirchner previously said the emergence of DTS:X object-based surround as a Dolby Atmos competitor shouldn’t inject uncertainty or confusion into the market. For one thing, he said, audio suppliers already accommodate multiple formats – such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master—in A/V receivers and preamp processors, and they’ll likely be able to do it again. “Major chip companies historically have built multicodec solutions,” Kirchner said at the time. *Many audio components are also firmware-upgradable, so it’s likely that many Dolby Atmos AVRs and preamp processors could be upgraded to include DTS:X decoding to prevent obsolescence, he said.*

With *DTS:X’s ability to support Atmos speaker configurations*, another factor that could contribute to confusion is eliminated, he noted

- See more at: http://www.twice.com/news/audio/more-dtsx-details-be-revealed-april-9/56575#sthash.otJhHZUt.dpuf


----------



## bargervais

richmagnus said:


> DTS:X launch event 9th April.


Great find thank you for sharing. I wonder how many of us will jump into replacing their receivers again this year. I will wait till next year's second generation receivers with DTS:X/Atmos, by then we should see more clearly. There will be more Blu-Rays with either DTS:X or Atmos on them, I don't think there will be a flood of Blu-Rays with DTS:X this year.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> it’s likely that many dolby atmos avrs and preamp processors could be upgraded to include dts:x decoding to prevent obsolescence, he said.[/b]
> 
> with *dts:x’s ability to support atmos speaker configurations*, another factor that could contribute to confusion is eliminated, he noted
> 
> - see more at: http://www.twice.com/news/audio/more-dtsx-details-be-revealed-april-9/56575#sthash.otjhhzut.dpuf


thank god.


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> I wonder how many of us will jump into replacing their receivers again this year.


Questioning!!!!



> I will wait till next year's second generation receivers with DTS:X/Atmos, by then we should see more clearly.


Justifying!!!



> There will be more Blu-Rays with either DTS:X or Atmos on them, I don't think there will be a flood of Blu-Rays with DTS:X this year.


Consoling!!!


----------



## mars5l

Curious question, if you do the Pioneer setup with the upfiring speakers would you wanna aim them a certain way and equip the ceilings with special tiles that bounce the sound better? Well maybe not a special tile, but something that bounces sound better than popcorn ceilings?


----------



## NorthSky

*'Birdman' (Non-Dolby Atmos)*



smurraybhm said:


> Way off topic, but I enjoyed it. Plus its a good test for your subwoofer.


Not only for your subwoofer but also for all your other speakers; on accuracy of drum reproduction (the recording quality is top-notch). 
And this flick is also real good for your "brain". 

Sure, some people (many hate it with high energy; including some of my best friends); and that's why it takes artist musicians and filmmakers to get the hang of it; I think. This is much more than a movie; this is a revelation. ...A piece of art in film making, a different view from a true artist, and artists are very often not recognized @ their true valor. That's life, that's normal; you don't push anyone, you let them free. ...'Birdman' is like that; it has power that is realistic. ...It goes a little bit deeper than other flicks; like John Wick, like Step Up All In, like The Expendables 3, like TMNT, like TF4, like ....


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Northsky, where did you normally buy blu Ray movie? Thx


Everywhere.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I was referring to people that I've talked to in person and not those opinions on these forums.


Some of them opinions on these forums are highly valuable, IMHO.


----------



## NorthSky

richmagnus said:


> DTS:X launch event 9th April.


Perfect; my lucky number...9.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> ALL existing sound tracks can be "converted" to Atmos-like, this is called Dolby Surround


Atmos is all about object-based sound, Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU) has nothing to do with that. And if you are referring to making use of height channels: currently, DSU seems to do much better job at that than most Atmos tracks. Either way, it seems a long stretch to refer to DSU as being an Atmos-like conversion.


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> Atmos is all about object-based sound, Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU) has nothing to do with that. And if you are referring to making use of height channels: currently, DSU seems to do much better job at that than most Atmos tracks. Either way, it seems a long stretch to refer to DSU as being an Atmos-like conversion.


Hey, i was responding with non-technical terms to a basic request, to confirm that YES, you can get sound in the top speakers even from legacy 2.0 and 5.1 content, so yes my focus was on making use of height channels.

If you admit that, for the general public, having sounds on 4 top speakers can be assimilated to "Atmos-like", then yes DSU is Atmos-like 
And Atmos objects need to be reproduced by the same physical speakers as used by DSU, so for the genaral public it is the same ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Hey, i was responding with non-technical terms to a basic request, to confirm that YES, you can get sound in the top speakers even from legacy 2.0 and 5.1 content, so yes my focus was on making use of height channels.
> 
> If you admit that, for the general public, having sounds on 4 top speakers can be assimilated to "Atmos-like", then yes DSU is Atmos-like
> And Atmos objects need to be reproduced by the same physical speakers as used by DSU, so for the genaral public it is the same ...


Speaking for the general public, I believe you are absolutely right (edit: for that matter you could also refer to Auro-like, NEOX-like or Dolby PLIIz-like, all involving sounds coming from above...)


----------



## tjenkins95

mars5l said:


> Curious question, if you do the Pioneer setup with the upfiring speakers would you wanna aim them a certain way and equip the ceilings with special tiles that bounce the sound better? Well maybe not a special tile, but something that bounces sound better than popcorn ceilings?


 
If you are referring to Pioneer's set of up-firing speakers, popcorn ceilings work great! I first experimented with my speakers in a room with a popcorn ceiling. My actual home theater has absorptive, acoustical panels on the ceiling. I covered 4 areas of the absorptive panels with foam core board sheets and the up-firing speakers were placed under them. The front and rear speakers face forward and are tilted in a litte, to point towards the seating area. I would definitely stick with the popcorn ceiling. 


Ray


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Am I the only one wondering why Warner did not announce the details yet of American Sniper ? I'm wondering if it's not because it's a launch title of DTS:X...


----------



## lujan

SteveTheGeek said:


> Am I the only one wondering why Warner did not announce the details yet of American Sniper ? I'm wondering if it's not because it's a launch title of DTS:X...


Vivid imagination


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> Am I the only one wondering why Warner did not announce the details yet of American Sniper ? I'm wondering if it's not because it's a launch title of DTS:X...


Of the studios I would imagine the first might be Fox and/or Disney (since they haven't released ANY Atmos discs) and maybe Lions Gate since they're not above trying out different surround formats to see what sticks.


----------



## roxiedog13

bkeeler10 said:


> Just another data point regarding Atmos titles at Walmart. My in-laws bought Mockingjay, and I saw it sitting there with a Walmart sticker on it so I had to check. Nothing but lossy DD 5.1  I told them they should return it. They do have a decent 5.1 setup with fairly new AVR so they can play lossless tracks, but I doubt they would notice. But hey, just on principle alone, they should return it. Plus, I intend to borrow it  and I'll be annoyed to not have lossless (even if I'm not quite there yet with an Atmos setup).


My John Wick , TMNT, Expendables 3, Transformers and Unbroken Blu-Ray disks came from Wamart , all are Atmos thus far. I'll keep an eye on that though just to be sure. I'm from Canada
maybe we are "special."


----------



## bkeeler10

roxiedog13 said:


> My John Wick , TMNT, Expendables 3, Transformers and Unbroken Blu-Ray disks came from Wamart , all are Atmos thus far. I'll keep an eye on that though just to be sure. I'm from Canada
> maybe we are "special."


So strange, the inconsistency. I wonder how this works. I presume Walmart must be saving some pennies when they choose what version to stock in their stores. The question is why, within the same country, are there different options for distribution of a movie? Why do the studios have multiple versions of a movie with different soundtracks? I can't see how they are saving any money by doing so. 

I suppose I could see the studios deciding to offer two versions, one stripped down to just the movie in 2D only with lossy audio and no extras/special features, and another that includes all the extras, 3D if applicable and lossless audio. And then charge a higher price for the latter version. But even then, to me that just has too much potential to anger and frustrate customers when they unwittingly buy a stripped-down version and take it home only to realize (too late if they've opened and watched it) that they did not get what they though they were paying for. I mean, what percentage of the buying public actually researches these things and makes sure to get the version they want, versus the percentage of those that are walking through a store, spot a movie that they remembered they wanted, and pick it up without even glancing at the back side to see what version they're getting.


----------



## smurraybhm

SteveTheGeek said:


> Am I the only one wondering why Warner did not announce the details yet of American Sniper ? I'm wondering if it's not because it's a launch title of DTS:X...


That wouldn't make any sense since there will not be a "mainstream" unit on the market that could play DTS:X until late summer (remember no official announcements yet from mainstream manufacturers what audio formats they will be supporting next year on higher end units and if it is rolled out like Atmos updates could come a few months later for some). Now if they provide those of us with 2014 Atmos receivers an upgrade path, that's a different story (one can dream Keith). Great opportunity to release a American Sniper diamond edition in time for the holidays - see Gravity 

And make it a 3-D version to keep NorthSky happy.


----------



## roxiedog13

bkeeler10 said:


> So strange, the inconsistency. I wonder how this works. I presume Walmart must be saving some pennies when they choose what version to stock in their stores. The question is why, within the same country, are there different options for distribution of a movie? Why do the studios have multiple versions of a movie with different soundtracks? I can't see how they are saving any money by doing so.
> 
> I suppose I could see the studios deciding to offer two versions, one stripped down to just the movie in 2D only with lossy audio and no extras/special features, and another that includes all the extras, 3D if applicable and lossless audio. And then charge a higher price for the latter version. But even then, to me that just has too much potential to anger and frustrate customers when they unwittingly buy a stripped-down version and take it home only to realize (too late if they've opened and watched it) that they did not get what they though they were paying for. I mean, what percentage of the buying public actually researches these things and makes sure to get the version they want, versus the percentage of those that are walking through a store, spot a movie that they remembered they wanted, and pick it up without even glancing at the back side to see what version they're getting.


My guess is, the average Walmart shopper is not concerned about audio/video quality just price only, so to me it would make sense to have the cheapest vision . These companies negotiate down to the penny and cheapest sells more at Walmart. Personally I feel there should be one copy only and the only choice being DVD or Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> My John Wick , TMNT, Expendables 3, Transformers and *Unbroken* Blu-Ray disks came from Wamart , all are Atmos thus far. I'll keep an eye on that though just to be sure. I'm from Canada
> maybe we are "special."


*'Unbroken'* has the smallest Atmos word (on the back) ever written. ...You cannot see it with a naked eye, nobody can; you need a magnifier.
Universal studios is the very worst in that regard; the specs for their Blus use the smallest of the smallest lettering ever. 
{Have a look, and you won't see.} 

* Canadians are no more special than Americans; they simply live further North across the border. ...Different president, smaller number of people, but good people all around nonetheless, on all three major sides of the borders; America (continent). ...Amerindians.


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> My John Wick , TMNT, Expendables 3, Transformers and Unbroken Blu-Ray disks came from Wamart , all are Atmos thus far. I'll keep an eye on that though just to be sure. I'm from Canada
> maybe we are "special."


That's great to hear. I was at Sam's Club day one of Mocking Jays release, the audio was not Atmos, it was Dolby Audio. I was there the following week then the one's they were selling had Atmos.... the doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## bkeeler10

bargervais said:


> That's great to hear. I was at Sam's Club day one of Mocking Jays release, the audio was not Atmos, it was Dolby Audio. I was there the following week then the one's they were selling had Atmos.... the doesn't make sense to me.


Yeah the one from Walmart was also Dolby Audio. Further digging on the back side showed it was Dolby Digital. Putting "Dolby Audio" on the front is truthful of course, but also steathily deceptive. 

"But it's Dolby Audio so it must be just the best available . . . "


----------



## Garchiba

roxiedog13 said:


> My John Wick , TMNT, Expendables 3, Transformers and Unbroken Blu-Ray disks came from Wamart , all are Atmos thus far. I'll keep an eye on that though just to be sure. I'm from Canada
> maybe we are "special."


We are not special in New Zealand! Expendables 3, John Wick, Step Up All In; all released on Blu Ray in NZ without the Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## blastermaster

> And make it a 3-D version to keep NorthSky happy.


And me. I love 3D on my projection setup. 



> Amerindians.


Or Americanadians. 



> We are not special in New Zealand!


Oh yes you are! The best trilogy ever was filmed there.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> That wouldn't make any sense since there will not be a "mainstream" unit on the market that could play DTS:X until late summer (remember no official announcements yet from mainstream manufacturers what audio formats they will be supporting next year on higher end units and if it is rolled out like Atmos updates could come a few months later for some). Now if they provide those of us with 2014 Atmos receivers an upgrade path, that's a different story (one can dream Keith). Great opportunity to release a American Sniper diamond edition in time for the holidays - see Gravity
> 
> And make it a 3-D version to keep NorthSky happy.


*'American Sniper'* in 3D? ...No way, just no way. ...First it's not the type of flick for it, and second Clint isn't into 3D @ all. 

* With DSU (Dolby Atmos' own sound up-mixing/processing; Dolby Surround); yeah, that ok. ...3D sound, with choppers flying overhead, and high caliber bullets firing by. ...The resonating (echoes from above). ...Long-range powerful rifles (a mile and a half dead on target).


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> My guess is, the average Walmart shopper is not concerned about audio/video quality just price only, so to me it would make sense to have the cheapest vision . These companies negotiate down to the penny and cheapest sells more at Walmart. Personally I feel there should be one copy only and the only choice being DVD or Blu-ray.


Then shop eBay, or amazon.  ...And go international for Disney 3D.


----------



## bargervais

I just received my copy of DIAMOND LUXE EDITION of Gravity. It comes in a beautiful package going to pop it in and give a listen. Not sure if I can take too much of Sandra Bullock, but I'll give it a go. 
I also received INTERSTELLAR, I'm looking forward to this one in DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

Garchiba said:


> We are not special in New Zealand! Expendables 3, John Wick, Step Up All In; all released on Blu Ray in NZ without the Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


Bummer!  
...I would speak directly to _Peter Jackson_ about that, and see what he can do. ...Peter is one of the best guys when it comes to "justice & equality". 

And to be perfectly honest with you; out of those three BR titles you just mentioned above, only John Wick is cool sick.


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> And me. I love 3D on my projection setup.


♦ It feels so good, to not feel so alone. 



> Or Americanadians.


♦ That too.  ...Southamericananindians.  



> Oh yes you are! The best trilogy ever was filmed there.


♦ You got that right; the very best ever! ... *LOTR*


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> I just received my copy of DIAMOND LUXE EDITION of Gravity. It comes in a beautiful package going to pop it in and give a listen. Not sure if I can take too much of Sandra Bullock, but I'll give it a go.
> I also received INTERSTELLAR, I'm looking forward to this one in DSU.


Yeah, I too got both of these today... which one to see first? I think I'll watch Gravity tonight to hear the Atmos difference.


----------



## lubeman1

No ATMOS for Interstellar?? What's up with that?


----------



## NorthSky

lubeman1 said:


> no atmos for interstellar?? What's up with that?


That's what DSU is for.


----------



## lubeman1

NorthSky said:


> That's what DSU is for.



I know, but just doesn't seem right!!


----------



## NorthSky

There are other more important things in life that don't seem to be fair, right.


----------



## batpig

lubeman1 said:


> No ATMOS for Interstellar?? What's up with that?


It was mixed in 5.1 originally. Christopher Nolan barely likes surround sound, let alone Atmos.


----------



## lubeman1

batpig said:


> It was mixed in 5.1 originally. Christopher Nolan barely likes surround sound, let alone Atmos.



Bummer man, will still sound great I'm sure though. Just picked it up today as well.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> *'Unbroken'* has the smallest Atmos word (on the back) ever written. ...You cannot see it with a naked eye, nobody can; you need a magnifier.
> Universal studios is the very worst in that regard; the specs for their Blus use the smallest of the smallest lettering ever.
> {Have a look, and you won't see.}
> 
> * Canadians are no more special than Americans; they simply live further North across the border. ...Different president, smaller number of people, but good people all around nonetheless, on all three major sides of the borders; America (continent). ...Amerindians.



You are correct, the Atmos logo on the Unbroken disk is the smallest icon I have ever seen on a cover. It took me almost 5 minutes of intense searching to find this with my 50+ year old eyes and arms at their maximum distance. I took it to the young kid on the counter to confirm which he did,I was elated. I was elated that I could see the symbol with my unaided eyes not that it was Atmos.


----------



## roxiedog13

Garchiba said:


> We are not special in New Zealand! Expendables 3, John Wick, Step Up All In; all released on Blu Ray in NZ without the Dolby Atmos soundtrack.



That sucks, I just don't get it . What in the world is the problem with providing the correct product to everyone just as it was at the theater ? Must have something to do with the laws governing each particular country/region , I cannot see why or how it would benefit the studio.


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> I just received my copy of DIAMOND LUXE EDITION of Gravity. It comes in a beautiful package going to pop it in and give a listen. Not sure if I can take too much of Sandra Bullock, but I'll give it a go.
> I also received INTERSTELLAR, I'm looking forward to this one in DSU.



I was never a fan of Sandra either but to be honest I thought she really did a great job with this one. It's like her acting finally matured, hard to explain really . I'm holding out for the 3D version, ok maybe not. 


Also waiting for Interstellar too and DSU will have to do , boo hoo . Sorry got on a roll there, speaking of maturity.


----------



## stikle

bargervais said:


> I just received my copy of DIAMOND LUXE EDITION of Gravity.
> I also received INTERSTELLAR



I as well!



lujan said:


> Yeah, I too got both of these today... which one to see first? I think I'll watch Gravity tonight to hear the Atmos difference.



That's my plan too. At least the first 15 minutes tonight.



roxiedog13 said:


> I was never a fan of Sandra either but to be honest I thought she really did a great job with this one. It's like her acting finally matured, hard to explain really.



I thought her performance in The Blind Side was excellent. She's not the Girl Next Door anymore, that's for sure.


See Bob? That's how Multi-Quoting works.


----------



## asharma

*Gravity release for Canada*

I looked everywhere in Halifax Nova Scotia today...was the new ATMOS Gravity released in Canada? No one had it...


----------



## Jacob305

roxiedog13 said:


> I was never a fan of Sandra either but to be honest I thought she really did a great job with this one. It's like her acting finally matured, hard to explain really . I'm holding out for the 3D version, ok maybe not.
> 
> 
> Also waiting for Interstellar too and DSU will have to do , boo hoo . Sorry got on a roll there, speaking of maturity.


I got some great news about the new gravity with trueHD/atmos. I do have atmos. I can only hear it in trueHD.. first there ARE NO AUDIO DROP OUT during the movie. I am using the oppo 93 blu ray player.. 

now I understand why people complained about the 5.1 and not the 7.1 that it should have gotten in its first release. my receiver turns everything 5.1 to 7.1 while its good, it never good like this. this is probably my first time understand atmos even with it being out for a while. it adds more intensity to the soundtrack if I am saying it right. still a fine movie to watch compared to garbage like transformers 4. 

its true that there is no 3d. 3D is losing stream in the us for some reason. there are a few good titles in 3d like say gravity. I also must say that George Clooney gives a very underrated performance in this movie. 

I also have interstellar to watch, so like others in this thread I got both titles.

Jacob


----------



## roxiedog13

asharma said:


> I looked everywhere in Halifax Nova Scotia today...was the new ATMOS Gravity released in Canada? No one had it...




Wal-Mart in Corner Brook NL normally has videos on the shelf the day they are released. I see the release date as March 31st so I expect it should be on the shelf
at most major retailers after today.


----------



## asharma

roxiedog13 said:


> Wal-Mart in Corner Brook NL normally has videos on the shelf the day they are released. I see the release date as March 31st so I expect it should be on the shelf
> at most major retailers after today.


I just found it strange as every other new release was on the shelf today...but not Gravity...


----------



## roxiedog13

asharma said:


> I just found it strange as every other new release was on the shelf today...but not Gravity...



Likely just short supply or a misjudgment , I'd expect you will see this soon . Did you see the original or is this your first copy?


----------



## asharma

roxiedog13 said:


> Likely just short supply or a misjudgment , I'd expect you will see this soon . Did you see the original or is this your first copy?


First copy...should be awesome in ATMOS...!


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have been running an Atmos 5.1 setup with my Onkyo TX-NR737. Very impressive... I wanted to go to 5.1.4, and got an Onkyo TX-NR1030. I have it all running with front Atmos speakers hooked up as Height 1 and designed Top Front and the rear Atmos speakers hooked up as Height 2 and designated as Top Rear. No sound from the rear height speakers. So, I changed to Dolby enabled front and Dolby enable back.

I know that the receiver is feeding signal at least in the setup with the level configuration, I get sound from those rear speakers normally at normal levels. The receiver is the only element that has changed (outside of the 2 new speakers which do work--see previous).

I am using a Sony BDP-7200 for source. The 1030 display lights up as incoming Dolby Atmos. I do not believe that the Sony is the issue--either it feeds a Dolby Atmos signal, or it does not.
No matter which configuration I try with the Onkyo TX-NR1030, the only time that I get sound from that rear speaker set is setting the levels in set up.

One other thing, perhaps worth noting, in the speaker configuration, it shows me as having surrounds, which I do not. It even permits me to change the x-over on these phantom speakers. And, they show up on the level configuration, but of course there is nothing to play on them since they are not there.

Any clues? I am about 2 days short of sending it back.


----------



## Garchiba

NorthSky said:


> Bummer!
> ...I would speak directly to _Peter Jackson_ about that, and see what he can do. ...Peter is one of the best guys when it comes to "justice & equality".
> 
> And to be perfectly honest with you; out of those three BR titles you just mentioned above, only John Wick is cool sick.


Yeah well Peter lives just round the corner from me - I'll mention it next time I bump into him at the Roxy!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have been running an Atmos 5.1 setup with my Onkyo TX-NR737. Very impressive... I wanted to go to 5.1.4, and got an Onkyo TX-NR1030. I have it all running with front Atmos speakers hooked up as Height 1 and designed Top Front and the rear Atmos speakers hooked up as Height 2 and designated as Top Rear. No sound from the rear height speakers. So, I changed to Dolby enabled front and Dolby enable back.
> 
> I know that the receiver is feeding signal at least in the setup with the level configuration, I get sound from those rear speakers normally at normal levels. The receiver is the only element that has changed (outside of the 2 new speakers which do work--see previous).
> 
> I am using a Sony BDP-7200 for source. The 1030 display lights up as incoming Dolby Atmos. I do not believe that the Sony is the issue--either it feeds a Dolby Atmos signal, or it does not.
> No matter which configuration I try with the Onkyo TX-NR1030, the only time that I get sound from that rear speaker set is setting the levels in set up.
> 
> One other thing, perhaps worth noting, in the speaker configuration, it shows me as having surrounds, which I do not. It even permits me to change the x-over on these phantom speakers. And, they show up on the level configuration, but of course there is nothing to play on them since they are not there.
> 
> Any clues? I am about 2 days short of sending it back.


What is your setting for surround back right now ? Are they disabled ?


----------



## dvdwilly3

SteveTheGeek said:


> What is your setting for surround back right now ? Are they disabled ?


Surround back is enabled, and they are functioning normally...
P.S. I am the same one that emailed you from your website. I like the tonal quality of the Onkyo, but this is driving me nuts!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have been running an Atmos 5.1 setup with my Onkyo TX-NR737. Very impressive... I wanted to go to 5.1.4, and got an Onkyo TX-NR1030. I have it all running with front Atmos speakers hooked up as Height 1 and designed Top Front and the rear Atmos speakers hooked up as Height 2 and designated as Top Rear. No sound from the rear height speakers. So, I changed to Dolby enabled front and Dolby enable back.
> 
> I know that the receiver is feeding signal at least in the setup with the level configuration, I get sound from those rear speakers normally at normal levels. The receiver is the only element that has changed (outside of the 2 new speakers which do work--see previous).
> 
> I am using a Sony BDP-7200 for source. The 1030 display lights up as incoming Dolby Atmos. I do not believe that the Sony is the issue--either it feeds a Dolby Atmos signal, or it does not.
> No matter which configuration I try with the Onkyo TX-NR1030, the only time that I get sound from that rear speaker set is setting the levels in set up.
> 
> One other thing, perhaps worth noting, in the speaker configuration, *it shows me as having surrounds, which I do not.* It even permits me to change the x-over on these phantom speakers. And, they show up on the level configuration, but of course there is nothing to play on them since they are not there.
> 
> Any clues? I am about 2 days short of sending it back.


How can you have a Dolby Atmos setup and not have any surround speakers (placed in the main layer positions or not)? Your explanation isn't jiving.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> Surround back is enabled, and they are functioning normally...
> P.S. I am the same one that emailed you from your website. I like the tonal quality of the Onkyo, but this is driving me nuts!


Just saw that, do you have Skype or Google Talk ? PM me with an account info and we'll take this offline of this thread, I'm sure it's related to the surround back config, but it will go faster directly than on the forum.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> How can you have a Dolby Atmos setup and not have any surround speakers (placed in the main layer positions or not)? Your explanation isn't jiving.


I don't have a picture of the rear of the AVR in front of me, but I am running Front Right, Front Left, Center, Rear Right, Rear Left, Subwoofer; (5.1). 
Then, Height 1, right and left; and Height 2, right and left.
The surround speaker connections are on the outer-most locations on the panel, and they are empty.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> I don't have a picture of the rear of the AVR in front of me, but I am running Front Right, Front Left, Center, Rear Right, Rear Left, Subwoofer; (5.1).
> Then, Height 1, right and left; and Height 2, right and left.
> The surround speaker connections are on the outer-most locations on the panel, and they are empty.


You should not run Rear L/R, you should run Surround L/R and disable the rears. You should also not activate the 11ch mode (in speaker configuration) also.


----------



## dvdwilly3

SteveTheGeek said:


> You should not run Rear 1/2, you should run Surround 1/2 and disable the rears. You should also not activate the 11ch mode (in speaker configuration) also.


I do not have the 11 channel mode activated.

In the morning, I will follow your configuration as above, and disconnect the speakers that are Rear Right and Rear Left and move those to the respective Surround jacks and try again.

I feel that there has to be some simple explanation since I do hear the rear heights in the level setting and I am hoping that this is it.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> What is your setting for surround back right now ? Are they disabled ?


I was going to ask him the same thing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> You should not run Rear 1/2, you should run Surround 1/2 and disable the rears. You should also not activate the 11ch mode (in speaker configuration) also.


Sounds about right. You have the side surrounds in the rear surround slots. If you have the rear surrounds active, the back heights will not get power... it thinks you're using the receiver in a 7.1.4 configuration and thusly you must use the Height 2 pre-amp out and a separate power amp to run the back heights. That's why they're silent right now.

Rewire and re-run the calibration.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I'm reading, it looks like you need a stereo amp for the back height speakers.


Dan, thanks, but I do not believe that should be so. I am only running (attempting to run...) 5.1.4. The TX-NR1030 is capable of 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 without external amplification.
I am going to try the configuration change as suggested by Steve, and will get back to everyone.
I have to say that the Onkyo manual is about as clear as mud...on the other hand, maybe it is just me...
Thanks to all for the help.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Dan, thanks, but I do not believe that should be so. I am only running (attempting to run...) 5.1.4. The TX-NR1030 is capable of 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 without external amplification.
> I am going to try the configuration change as suggested by Steve, and will get back to everyone.
> I have to say that the Onkyo manual is about as clear as mud...on the other hand, maybe it is just me...
> Thanks to all for the help.


I edited my post just above yours. Should read correctly now.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sounds about right. You have the side surrounds in the rear surround slots. If you have the rear surrounds active, the back heights will not get power... it thinks you're using the receiver in a 7.1.4 configuration and thusly you must use the Height 2 pre-amp out and a separate power amp to run the back heights. That's why they're silent right now.


I think (and hope) that this will be the answer. It has to be...this thing is a beast in terms of sound. I really want to keep it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> I think (and hope) that this will be the answer. It has to be...this thing is a beast in terms of sound. I really want to keep it.



Double check, re-wire, and re-run your auto calibration. Should be good to go.


----------



## ultraflexed

Nalleh said:


> Hey, hey, guys, guess what i found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look in the lower right corner


I ordered this but it's not listed as a atmos blue-ray release on dolby' s website, keeping fingers crossed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ultraflexed said:


> I ordered this but it's not listed as a atmos blue-ray release on dolby' s website, keeping fingers crossed.


They usually only list Region A titles.


----------



## bargervais

I watched gravity in Atmos, height speakers are very active. Sound was all around, Huston control were talking from the height speakers..very nice. 
I'm a little disappointed that the Gravity: Silent Space version is not in Atmos, but in Dolby digital 5.1, I actually really like this version without all that dramatic music. 
I would definitely recommend this as a good Blu-Ray to show off your Atmos set up.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> I watched gravity in Atmos, height speakers are very active. Sound was all around, Huston control were talking from the height speakers..very nice.
> I'm a little disappointed that the Gravity: Silent Space version is not in Atmos, but in Dolby digital 5.1, I actually really like this version without all that dramatic music.
> I would definitely recommend this as a good Blu-Ray to show off your Atmos set up.


This is definitely a title where the better the processor and more speakers you have, the better the Atmos mix gets. They had sounds coming from just about everywhere and still easily placed in the auditorium.


----------



## edfowler

ultraflexed said:


> I ordered this but it's not listed as a atmos blue-ray release on dolby' s website, keeping fingers crossed.


Please keep us posted as to how it sounds compared to the regular release. I love this movie.


----------



## Kris Deering

I'm torn after watching the entire opening sequence of Gravity in discrete Stmos and then DSU (and watching it in DSU yesterday) I may be crazy enough to say I prefer the DSU upmixer to the native Atmos mix. The Atmos mix is a bit more
aggressive with hard panning to channels with voices and it can be distracting. The DSU mix seems more aggressive on the low end as well.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> Double check, re-wire, and re-run your auto calibration. Should be good to go.


Steve and Dan...I couldn't stand it. So I went downstairs and just re-wired it and turned the Onkyo on and re-configured. I did not run the calibration.

BUT, the rear heights are now active.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! 

To both of you...you are, if not lifesavers, at least sanity savers!


----------



## bargervais

Kris Deering said:


> I'm torn after watching the entire opening sequence of Gravity in discrete Stmos and then DSU (and watching it in DSU yesterday) I may be crazy enough to say I prefer the DSU upmixer to the native Atmos mix. The Atmos mix is a bit more
> aggressive with hard panning to channels with voices and it can be distracting. The DSU mix seems more aggressive on the low end as well.


There are two versions on that gravity Atmos Blu-Ray, an Atmos sound mix and the Gravity: Silent Space version
I watched the the Gravity: Silent Space version I actually liked it without all the dramatic music, the Gravity: Silent Space version is Dolby D 5.1 so I watched using DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> I as well!
> That's my plan too. At least the first 15 minutes tonight.
> I thought her performance in The Blind Side was excellent. She's not the Girl Next Door anymore, that's for sure.
> 
> See Bob? That's how Multi-Quoting works.


Dolby Atmos has nothing to do with multi-quoting; it's a free country and I live in the present moment. Everyone has his own style on a daily basis; tomorrow we'll see. Today is now, and I don't worry about anything; only some do. ...That's their prerogative in life; they live by their own set of values which they don't even respect themselves.  
The complainers all they complain about is about themselves, and nobody else. 

Don't worry about me; I know how to multitask and to multi-quote in this Atmos multiverse of atoms. The atmosphere is full of it here. 
And post count my axe, you think I give a squirrel. ...My passion about cinema and music brought me here like all the people in the world, even the trolls. 

I'm good man, real good; don't worry about me for even a fraction of a second of your precious time. Do go along and float freely among all your comrades and the love they share with you.  

Life is great, it's good to be in it and alive. Live the moment now, and the light will always be shinning...don't worry about anyone else than your own yourself and everything will be alright...three little birds...in the air...singing...in Dolby Atmos. - _Bob_ Marley


----------



## NorthSky

asharma said:


> I looked everywhere in Halifax Nova Scotia today...was the new ATMOS Gravity released in Canada? No one had it...


Online.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I'm torn after watching the entire opening sequence of Gravity in discrete Stmos and then DSU (and watching it in DSU yesterday) I may be crazy enough to say I prefer the DSU upmixer to the native Atmos mix. The Atmos mix is a bit more
> aggressive with hard panning to channels with voices and it can be distracting. The DSU mix seems more aggressive on the low end as well.


Hi Kris, you just confirmed once more what all along everyone was saying; DSU is the main "menu" (entry)...and Dolby Atmos is just an afterthought like from TF4 4 example, the first discrete BR title of its kind to be released. 

Makes sense to you as it does to me?


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> asharma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked everywhere in Halifax Nova Scotia today...was the new ATMOS Gravity released in Canada? No one had it...
> 
> 
> 
> Online.
Click to expand...


I looked at the Gravity blu Ray I boight before and it does not have Atmos ? What happens ? Thx


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> Steve and Dan...I couldn't stand it. So I went downstairs and just re-wired it and turned the Onkyo on and re-configured. I did not run the calibration.
> 
> BUT, the rear heights are now active.
> 
> Thank you, thank you, thank you!
> 
> To both of you...you are, if not lifesavers, at least sanity savers!


Great, happy to see this fixed !


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> I looked at the Gravity blu Ray I boight before and it does not have Atmos ? What happens ? Thx


Where did you get it and was it the Diamond Luxe edition with fancy packaging?


----------



## petetherock

Roudan said:


> I looked at the Gravity blu Ray I boight before and it does not have Atmos ? What happens ? Thx


If you have the first release, that's not equipped with Atmos ..


----------



## NorthSky

What *^* he just said above.

* Here in Canada you won't find it @ Walmart, but *online* yes. ...Just make sure it is the "Diamond Luxe Edition".

♦ www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Diamond-Edition-Blu-ray-Import/dp/B00PGHUJOO


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> What *^* he just said above.
> 
> * Here in Canada you won't find it @ Walmart, but *online* yes. ...Just make sure it is the "Diamond Luxe Edition".
> 
> ♦ www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Diamond-Edition-Blu-ray-Import/dp/B00PGHUJOO


Yeah, well finding it online is a great work, pre-ordered a month and a half ago, still has not ship from Amazon as of tonight. And it says 1-3 weeks. Meanwhile, other online retailers in Canada talk about a May 5th release here...


----------



## richmagnus

Installed my MK MP150MK2'S FH speakers and watched Transformers. Don't know why many say the additional Atmos speakers don't add that much cos in my full 5.2.2 MK 300 system, I class 2 subs as they are configured as true stereo subs apart from the LFE channel, the sound was epic. Much much better with the FH's. The additional detail that was added is fantastic and boy do I now have a massive soundstage. 

My room has simply disappeared and I am immersed in the movie. 

I've heard many great Atmos systems but I really think the FH application is over looked. 
I prefer it to ceiling height speakers. 

Would be interested in people's thoughts on FH's.


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yeah, well finding it online is a great work, pre-ordered a month and a half ago, still has not ship from Amazon as of tonight. And it says 1-3 weeks. Meanwhile, other online retailers in Canada talk about a May 5th release here...


Yeah, for this particular Blu-ray Dolby Atmos title it seems that they don't have enough copies made; so Canada has been delayed by five weeks. 
It's the price to pay with such a vast territory (northern land) and with so few people living on it.  

Next for our Blu-rays we'll have to order them from India, or China...like Disney 3D Blu-ray titles (PIXAR & others). 

We live in a different world than just two years ago (2013); and we would have to adapt with the new rules (BR Atmos, 3D, and 4K).
...Just wait, you'll see more and more. 

It's also a reality that starting in November 2015, the new Blu-ray 4K (UHD) will not support 3D. 
Things are not really improving when they should, but they are digressing. 

The only thing remaining to do for the Blu-ray association, is to invent a new format with a 500Gb capacity disc; the Hologram multiverse Purple-ray disc.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Wal-Mart in Corner Brook NL normally has videos on the shelf the day they are released. I see the release date as March 31st so I expect it should be on the shelf at most major retailers after today.


Just don't expect to find *'Gravity' Diamond Luxe Edition* (with Dolby Atmos) on their shelf of new Blu-ray releases, because it won't be there. 
And don't go to your local Future Shop because it will be close. * It will reopen on April 4th under the BestBuy's name. 

The times they are a changin'. - _Bob_ Dylan


----------



## NorthSky

Yamaha has just come up with its brand new flagship dual Dolby Atmos & DTS:X 3D surround sound AV receiver. ...Scott?


----------



## pasender91

richmagnus said:


> Installed my MK MP150MK2'S FH speakers and watched Transformers. Don't know why many say the additional Atmos speakers don't add that much cos in my full 5.2.2 MK 300 system, I class 2 subs as they are configured as true stereo subs apart from the LFE channel, the sound was epic. Much much better with the FH's. The additional detail that was added is fantastic and boy do I now have a massive soundstage.
> 
> My room has simply disappeared and I am immersed in the movie.
> 
> I've heard many great Atmos systems but I really think the FH application is over looked.
> I prefer it to ceiling height speakers.
> 
> Would be interested in people's thoughts on FH's.



Well, if you like FH configuration, then you should try FH+RH, you might be as convinced as i am 
Watched "house of flying daggers" in DSU yesterday night, the sound track is very nice, and the battle in the bamboo forest is epic !!!


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Yamaha has just come up with its brand new flagship dual Dolby Atmos & DTS:X 3D surround sound AV receiver. ...Scott?


Seriously Bob... contribute or move on...

This thread crapping has to stop...


----------



## Csbooth

FilmMixer said:


> Seriously Bob... contribute or move on...
> 
> This thread crapping has to stop...


Almost 500 posts in 9 days, but who's counting? Lol


----------



## NorthSky

You guys have no sense of humor @ all. ...Which day is it today? 

C'mon, get it all out, liberate yourself from all your demons.  ...Oh I can smell the rage, the hatred, the lost souls. 
And nothing to do with the post content, no, but only to do with Bob, the poster. ...Personal comment on Bob, direct judgement, and we forgot about his posts.

* If you have a personal issue, you are very welcome to PM me; I don't bite.


----------



## UdoG

I need your help regarding the speaker positions of the top rear Atmos speaker. If I check the Dolby speaker placement guide the top rear is placed *before* the surround speaker. In the documentation of my AVR the top rear are *behind* the surround speaker!

When I measure the angle (45 degree) from my listening position the top rear are also behind my surround speaker. What is correct and which angle should I use for the top front and top rear?

Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

UdoG said:


> I need your help regarding the speaker positions of the top rear Atmos speaker. If I check the Dolby speaker placement guide the top rear is placed *before* the surround speaker.
> In the documentation of my AVR the top rear are *behind* the surround speaker!
> 
> When I measure the angle (45 degree) from my listening position the top rear are also behind my surround speaker.
> What is correct and which angle should I use for the top front and top rear?
> 
> Thanks.


Which Dolby Atmos AV receiver do you have?

EDIT: You have a Denon. And I bet there is not much room behind you (MLP)?

About *55°* & *125°* ? ...Front Height & Rear Height respectively.


----------



## Csbooth

UdoG said:


> I need your help regarding the speaker positions of the top rear Atmos speaker. If I check the Dolby speaker placement guide the top rear is placed *before* the surround speaker. In the documentation of my AVR the top rear are *behind* the surround speaker!
> 
> When I measure the angle (45 degree) from my listening position the top rear are also behind my surround speaker. What is correct and which angle should I use for the top front and top rear?
> 
> Thanks.


I want to say that the Denon graph is for an 11ch setup, and the Dolby one is for 9.

As you seem to grasp,

If you're running a 5.1 setup, then the Top Rear ideally needs to be ahead of the surrounds, per the placement documents where they (The Surrounds) are positioned slightly to the rear and sides.

In a 7.1 configuration, this would change to the side surrounds being ahead of the top rear, but the rear surrounds being behind the top rear. 

In either solution, the Top Rear need to be forward of the surrounds. This is the way I have interpreted the layouts, if others have better ideas, I'm sure they will chime in lol.

I personally would adhere to Dolby's at home installation guide, but I would not think there would be a detrimental experience going with your Mfr suggestion.


----------



## UdoG

AVR = Marantz SR7009 (near identically with Denon). 

I have room behind the MLP but I do not understand which speaker placement is correct. If I use the 45 / 135 degrees from Dolby the Rear Height are definitely behind the surrounds - but maybe this is not a problem?!?


----------



## NorthSky

UdoG said:


> AVR = Marantz SR7009 (near identically with Denon).
> 
> I have room behind the MLP but I do not understand which speaker placement is correct. If I use the 45 / 135 degrees from Dolby the Rear Height are definitely behind the surrounds - but maybe this is not a problem?!?


The height of your ceiling? Because that can affect the positioning in relation to your back (Side) surrounds. 

* When looking @ the Dolby Atmos Speaker's Guidelines (you attached the right graph, middle one), you can see that the Rear Top Height speakers are almost in line (above) with the Side/Back Floor surrounds. ...In some rooms they would be. 

I see no problem to have your Top Rear surrounds behind your Side surrounds (5.1.4 Atmos setup).


----------



## UdoG

Ceiling = 2,45m (8 ft) and yes, I would like to install a 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup. If I measure the angle from the MLP and including the placement of my surrounds I have a result of around 65-75 degree (Back Height). If I use this angle - do I have the same angle for the Front Height? 

Maybe it's enough to have the same distance from MLP to the front and rear hight?


----------



## NorthSky

0° is straight in front of you (Center Channel speaker). /// 90° is straight above your head (MLP). /// 180° is straight behind you (horizontally). ....


----------



## jdsmoothie

UdoG said:


> Ceiling = 2,45m (8 ft) and yes, I would like to install a 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup. If I measure the angle from the MLP and including the placement of my surrounds I have a result of around 65-75 degree (Back Height). If I use this angle - do I have the same angle for the Front Height?
> 
> *Maybe it's enough to have the same distance from MLP to the front and rear hight?*


Yup.  Don't worry so much about the "side" surrounds.


----------



## UdoG

OK - I measure front the Center and the Rear Heigt ar behind the MLP my result is 145 degrees (135 degrees are directly over my MLP).


----------



## dvdwilly3

SteveTheGeek said:


> Great, happy to see this fixed !


I could get it via Amazon in 2 days, that is, 4/3. Any idea what transit time is from VA, USA to Quebec City?


----------



## NorthSky

jdsmoothie said:


> Yup.  Don't worry so much about the "side" surrounds.





UdoG said:


> OK - I measure front the Center and the Rear Heigt ar behind the MLP my result is 145 degrees (135 degrees are directly over my MLP).


All looking good to me. ...But straight above you (vertically) is 90° ... 135° should be behind you.


----------



## maikeldepotter

UdoG said:


> OK - I measure front the Center and the Rear Heigt ar behind the MLP my result is 145 degrees (135 degrees are directly over my MLP).


How much feet behind MLP do you actually have?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> I could get it via Amazon in 2 days, that is, 4/3. Any idea what transit time is from VA, USA to Quebec City?


It's usually a week depending on the service used, but I can order it also direct from Amazon.com, I'm just waiting to see if Amazon.ca will send it or not, still saying they will, but I'm starting to doubt as it's not moving to Shipping Soon...


----------



## Nalleh

ultraflexed said:


> I ordered this but it's not listed as a atmos blue-ray release on dolby' s website, keeping fingers crossed.


Dolby's website only has the US releases, but Atmos has released in India, Japan and like this one: Hong Kong.



Dan Hitchman said:


> They usually only list Region A titles.


Actually HK is region A too


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Dolby Atmos has nothing to do with multi-quoting; it's a free country and I live in the present moment. Everyone has his own style on a daily basis; tomorrow we'll see. Today is now, and I don't worry about anything; only some do. ...That's their prerogative in life; they live by their own set of values which they don't even respect themselves.
> The complainers all they complain about is about themselves, and nobody else.
> 
> Don't worry about me; I know how to multitask and to multi-quote in this Atmos multiverse of atoms. The atmosphere is full of it here.
> And post count my axe, you think I give a squirrel. ...My passion about cinema and music brought me here like all the people in the world, even the trolls.
> 
> I'm good man, real good; don't worry about me for even a fraction of a second of your precious time. Do go along and float freely among all your comrades and the love they share with you.
> 
> Life is great, it's good to be in it and alive. Live the moment now, and the light will always be shinning...don't worry about anyone else than your own yourself and everything will be alright...three little birds...in the air...singing...in Dolby Atmos. - _Bob_ Marley


Best post of the week!



Spoiler



April Fool!

Seriously folks, it's because of abusers like this that we can't have legalized pot.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> I watched gravity in Atmos, height speakers are very active. Sound was all around, Huston control were talking from the height speakers..very nice.
> I'm a little disappointed that the Gravity: Silent Space version is not in Atmos, but in Dolby digital 5.1, I actually really like this version without all that dramatic music.
> I would definitely recommend this as a good Blu-Ray to show off your Atmos set up.


I also watched the Gravity Atmos version last night and thought the sound was amazing. I temporarily switched to Silent Mode but noticed it did not have the Atmos track so went back to that. I think I prefer the Atmos 2D version to the non-Atmos 3D version. I also love the packaging of this copy and wish they packaged all BD's like this.


----------



## stikle

Bob...you're a decent fellow. Out there, but decent.




> You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you.
> 
> YOU seem a decent fellow, I hate to die.
> 
> -Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Roberts



So I watched the first 20 minutes of Gravity last night. The Silent Space version I was disappointed to find no Atmos just on principle. But it did completely change the feel of the movie for me (in it's own good and unique way), especially when Sandra was spinning away out into space and all you could hear was her breathing. I didn't try it without DSU, but with it on (my default mode), the experience was pretty cool.

The Atmos track was pretty intense during the satellite collision scene. Pretty immersive to me and got the heart beating pretty good.

I fear I may be buying Blurays lately just to watch selected scenes. I REALLY need to get back to watching whole movies. But wedging a full movie in between the workday and trying to keep up with my weekly TV shows and other life happenings/domestic chores is getting a little rugged. A few friends have been coming over once a week for "movie" night since my system is better than anything they've ever heard (yay me!), so I at least get one movie in a week. I'll finish this thought in a moment, I have to go click checkout on Amazon to get the next delivery on the way...


----------



## CarguyHere

I have not had the chance to hear an ATMOS system, but from what I have read, its fantastic!


Last week I bought a NON-Atmos receiver from future shop, so I can return it. I bought the Pioneer SC-1228-K on sale (two year old new model), but could exchange it for the Onkyo TX-NR636 for about the same price.


Good move? or is the 636 not at the same level of amp quality as the 1228? (the 1228 is D class amp)


Thanks in advance for the help!


----------



## Movie78

CarguyHere said:


> I have not had the chance to hear an ATMOS system, but from what I have read, its fantastic!
> 
> 
> Last week I bought a NON-Atmos receiver from future shop, so I can return it. I bought the Pioneer SC-1228-K on sale (two year old new model), but could exchange it for the Onkyo TX-NR636 for about the same price.
> 
> 
> Good move? or is the 636 not at the same level of amp quality as the 1228? (the 1228 is D class amp)
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for the help!


Get the New Pioneer VSX 1130


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It was mixed in 5.1 originally. Christopher Nolan barely likes surround sound, let alone Atmos.


Yep. And judging by the The Dark Knight and its sequel he barely likes _good_ sound anyway. He seems to believe LOUD is what matters.


----------



## UdoG

maikeldepotter said:


> How much feet behind MLP do you actually have?


Attached you will find more Information about my home cinema area and my planning about Dolby Atmos.


----------



## richmagnus

UdoG said:


> Attached you will find more Information about my home cinema area and my planning about Dolby Atmos.



I would put your surrounds to your sides and def put some rear back surrounds in so you are running 7.1.4. I would also assign your TF as TM or move them forward a little.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. And judging by the The Dark Knight and its sequel he barely likes _good_ sound anyway. He seems to believe LOUD is what matters.


Loud _does_ matter! 

But it's gotta be good, first.


----------



## NorthSky

UdoG said:


> Attached you will find more Information about my home cinema area and my planning about Dolby Atmos.


Your room setup is excellent. ...I would do the exact same as you, and actually I am with the floor speakers right now (plus two more in the back) and my four upcoming overheads will look just like yours (positioning). I will have a 7.2.4 Atmos setup (& DTS:X). 

* I also love 5.1 multichannel music listening (SACDs, etc.) ... so your setup is also great for that.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Loud _does_ matter!
> 
> But it's gotta be good, first.


I love the audio soundtracks of the three Batman movies directed by _Christopher Nolan_. 'The Dark Knight' is totally awesome.

* Did anyone here tried them with DSU?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

UdoG said:


> Attached you will find more Information about my home cinema area and my planning about Dolby Atmos.


If you can, maybe put the Atmos L/R speakers no more than 10 feet apart. Unless your ceiling is very high, this wil serve a better vertical angle. Ideally, there can be 60/60/60° between Side-L/Atmos-L/Atmos-R/Side-R.


----------



## NorthSky

UdoG said:


> Attached you will find more Information about my home cinema area and my planning about Dolby Atmos.


* One good tip: The distance from your MLP to your front wall...make it *9.857 feet* (9' & 10") so that it is 1/7 times 3 of your total room's length (23 feet). That way the MLP is in a comfortable zone with less modal room's responses. 

So you simply move your couch forward by only 1.143 feet (14"). ...It will make a sound difference for the best. ...And reciprocally you can move your four overheads by a small amount with the proper angles to the new couch position. And your floor surrounds they too can move forward by roughly 14 inches.
{Your floor surrounds will be better positioned; in particular the one on the Left of the MLP.}

♦ It's the acoustic rule of thirds, and fifths, and sevenths, etc. (1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9, 1/11 ...) and their multiples.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> If you can, maybe put the Atmos L/R speakers no more than 10 feet apart. Unless your ceiling is very high, this wil serve a better vertical angle. Ideally, there can be 60/60/60° between Side-L/Atmos-L/Atmos-R/Side-R.


Good suggestion Erwin (his ceiling is 8 feet high). 

* I would also move the two front flankers (Front Left & Right speakers) closer to the MLP (farther away from the front wall) and also move them closer to each other (say eleven feet apart, if possible).


----------



## RapalloAV

Sorry but Ive had to repeat this question as no one has responded....


------------------


I want to place two height speakers above my middle row that are a wide dispersion type for atmos. The current ones I use are inceiling but located at the wall/ceiling join which as we know isn't ideal for atmos.

These wide dispersion Klipsch KS7502THX are from the same THX family as the rest of my speakers. Yet they have one tweeter/horn facing front and back. If I was to use these over the middle row, would I point the tweeters to the front and back wall or sideways to the sidewalls? My concern is the middle row might miss out on valuable information. The middle row is the most important row.

http://images.klipsch.com/KS7502THX_635042118457360000.pdf



 
Attached Thumbnails


----------



## NorthSky

​


RapalloAV said:


> Sorry but Ive had to repeat this question as no one has responded....
> ------------------
> I want to place two height speakers above my middle row that are a wide dispersion type for atmos. The current ones I use are inceiling but located at the wall/ceiling join which as we know isn't ideal for atmos.
> 
> These wide dispersion Klipsch KS7502THX are from the same THX family as the rest of my speakers. Yet they have one tweeter/horn facing front and back. If I was to use these over the middle row, would I point the tweeters to the front and back wall or sideways to the sidewalls? My concern is the middle row might miss out on valuable information. The middle row is the most important row.
> http://images.klipsch.com/KS7502THX_635042118457360000.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Attached Thumbnails


♦ I would simply treat my middle row as my main couch (MLP) as illustrated in the Dolby Atmos Speaker's Guidelines (link from post number 1). 
And position my Top ceiling speakers as they suggest in the Guide. 
...For a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup because you are using an Audyssey mic (in your picture). 

* Your room is cool; it looks like a mini commercial theater.


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I would simply treat my middle row as my main couch (MLP) as illustrated in the Dolby Atmos Speaker's Guidelines (link from post number 1).
> And position my Top ceiling speakers as they suggest in the Guide.
> ...For a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup because you are using an Audyssey mic (in your picture).
> 
> * Your room is cool; it looks like a mini commercial theater.


NorthSky I don't think you understand the question....
I know where to place the speakers that's simple..... Im asking is the speaker right and which way to place the twin horns????


Or is there a better speaker I should be using....???


----------



## NorthSky

I answered the part that I could. In regards to their positioning as per the Dolby Atmos Guide which also contains other good tips on speaker's type and dispersion.


----------



## bargervais

My collection of Blu-Rays with Atmos has grown to 9. My favorites are John Wick, Mocking Jay, Unbroken, and Gravity, for best examples of Atmos. 
Let's hope more come along by the end of this summer.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

RapalloAV said:


> I want to place two height speakers above my middle row that are a wide dispersion type for atmos. The current ones I use are inceiling but located at the wall/ceiling join which as we know isn't ideal for atmos.
> 
> These wide dispersion Klipsch KS7502THX are from the same THX family as the rest of my speakers. Yet they have one tweeter/horn facing front and back. If I was to use these over the middle row, would I point the tweeters to the front and back wall or sideways to the sidewalls? My concern is the middle row might miss out on valuable information. The middle row is the most important row.


I think these are just fine (nice efficiency BTW) but I would indeed put them with the tweeters facing side walls. As you say, this will ensure that people sitting anywhere on the middle row are within the dispersion angle.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> My collection of Blu-Rays with Atmos has grown to 9. My favorites are John Wick, Mocking Jay, Unbroken, and Gravity, for best examples of Atmos.
> Let's hope more come along by the end of this summer.


You now got them all nine Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles from the Dolby website; congrats!


----------



## RapalloAV

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I think these are just fine (nice efficiency BTW) but I would indeed put them with the tweeters facing side walls. As you say, this will ensure that people sitting anywhere on the middle row are within the dispersion angle.


Thank you so much for your answer, Ive tried to get a response on a few threads and your the first to comment....


So do you think they should be placed inline with the front L&R which is inline with the two outside seats of the row of four or closer into the centre of the row?


The tweeter facing the side walls would that create a problem bouncing around?


----------



## sdrucker

Hey guys - quick question. Has anyone done a head to head comparison of the Kef R50's to the Atlantic Tech 44-DAs as far as being able to produce an immersive 3D audio presentation? 

I have an opportunity to get a pair of the ATs to start off my Atmos configuration with the Altitude and am leaning toward it unless there's any compelling thinking otherwise. It seems like there's more AT than Kef users from the AVS threads, to the extent that either module has much usage. For now I'm only looking at a single pair as a "dip the toe in the water", but pending the results I'd pick up at least another pair in the next month or so, maybe two eventually as I can expand out in my HT room (current or future). I'd probably wind up putting the ATs on stands to have optimal room placement. Any thoughts about the pro/cons of either module?

Before anyone asks, I can't do in-ceiling speakers because of wiring issues in our ceiling...we're in a condo building and there's a PITA factor for having inter-floor electrical wiring. Plus our location and my need for upfiring vs. high-mounted speakers may be temporary....how temporary depends on whether we move or I do a build-out in our condo to create a media room, but that's a subject for another time. Hence I'm starting small, for now.

Thanks....

(yes, Scott, it means that I'm just waiting for the processor now; I've got T4 and Mockingjay Part I at home, and Gravity on the way)


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> You now got them all nine Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles from the Dolby website; congrats!


Thanks I could have more titles, buy I'm a little reluctant to by from Japan and China. I like to keep my money right here where I live in the U.S. even though I'm Canadian living in the States I'm a big believer in supporting the country you live in.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Thanks I could have more titles, buy I'm a little reluctant to by from Japan and China. I like to keep my money right here where I live in the U.S. even though I'm Canadian living in the States I'm a big believer in supporting the country you live in.


I didn't know that you were Canadian. 

* My Mum is in Florida right now, with her boyfriend, Bob, a pro golfer. 

Me too I love to encourage the locals, here in North America; Disney PIXAR 3D Blu-rays, among others (non-PIXAR).


----------



## pasender91

sdrucker said:


> Before anyone asks, I can't do in-ceiling speakers because of wiring issues in our ceiling...we're in a condo building and there's a PITA factor for having inter-floor electrical wiring. Plus our location and my need for upfiring vs. high-mounted speakers may be temporary....how temporary depends on whether we move or I do a build-out in our condo to create a media room, but that's a subject for another time. *Hence I'm starting small, for now*.
> 
> Thanks....


Starting small with a Trinnov Altitude ??? 
What will be next ? 

BTW, a serious CR will be expected after you install the beast.
What model did you order and which speaker configuration do you intend to install ?


----------



## roxiedog13

RapalloAV said:


> Sorry but Ive had to repeat this question as no one has responded....
> 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> 
> I want to place two height speakers above my middle row that are a wide dispersion type for atmos. The current ones I use are inceiling but located at the wall/ceiling join which as we know isn't ideal for atmos.
> 
> These wide dispersion Klipsch KS7502THX are from the same THX family as the rest of my speakers. Yet they have one tweeter/horn facing front and back. If I was to use these over the middle row, would I point the tweeters to the front and back wall or sideways to the sidewalls? My concern is the middle row might miss out on valuable information. The middle row is the most important row.
> 
> http://images.klipsch.com/KS7502THX_635042118457360000.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached Thumbnails



My gut feeling is to aim one of the tweeter/horns forward the second would be aft. I have a similar twin opposing tweeter in-ceiling speaker and one is pointed just to the left and right of the MLP. I've tried different positions and this one seems to give the best results.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

CarguyHere said:


> I have not had the chance to hear an ATMOS system, but from what I have read, its fantastic!
> 
> 
> Last week I bought a NON-Atmos receiver from future shop, so I can return it. I bought the Pioneer SC-1228-K on sale (two year old new model), but could exchange it for the Onkyo TX-NR636 for about the same price.
> 
> 
> Good move? or is the 636 not at the same level of amp quality as the 1228? (the 1228 is D class amp)
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for the help!


It is fantastic... if possible wait until the DTS announcement (April 9th?) it appears as if current gen Atmos receivers will have DTS:X capability, if not consider the decision carefully. 

I'm not an expert on amp classifications, I do recall reading about it because my bro in law said his pioneer had better amps than my denon because it's class so-and-so, but after researching it I determined there was no audible difference... could be wrong but that's the impression I got. 

If you can afford it go Denon... I was going to get the onkyo but I wanted more than 5.1.2. Whatever receiver has DSU get one of them atleast (I forget does Onkyo have DSU?) because DSU is just as fantastic as having atmos in many regards


----------



## RapalloAV

roxiedog13 said:


> My gut feeling is to aim one of the tweeter/horns forward the second would be aft. I have a similar twin opposing tweeter in-ceiling speaker and one is pointed just to the left and right of the MLP. I've tried different positions and this one seems to give the best results.



Oh dear now Im totally confused, you say front and back for the horns to face the other guy says sideways


----------



## sdrucker

pasender91 said:


> Starting small with a Trinnov Altitude ???
> What will be next ?
> 
> BTW, a serious CR will be expected after you install the beast.
> What model did you order and which speaker configuration do you intend to install ?


24 channel Altitude. Which means Atmos, for now, and other 3D audio codecs to come in the future when they're available. At this point I know about as much anyone here where that goes. Basically 24 is a hedge against the future. Or put another way, it was easier to get wife approval now then later .

The "starting small" part is taking my current floor setup (7.1, with two subs) and adding two to four Atmos-capable speakers in our current room, and pending exactly WHAT media/HT room we have, expanding out as we go through iterations of what works best on observed measurement. But where those speakers go, and how many we use beyond the bed channels, will depend on what we hear and the recommendations that the Trinnov folks make. Frankly, it's a bold long-term investment, but it allows us to grow as we see fit. Since the Altitude's software upgradable, this could well be a decade's worth of enjoyment.

Ultimately I see us doing something like a 9.2.6, with some channels left over for remapping and future expansion needs. I could have stopped at 16 but I'm thinking long-term, since I might have a media room that's intermediate term where I might only (!) use 14 to 18 of the channels, vs. a bigger dedicated room in the future where we're use the whole kit and caboodle

FYI, the reason I'm being kind of vague is that we're going through a child-inspired phase...I don't know whether we'll have a 26x14 room (one idea we're working on that allows us to stay where we are in a desirable part of our city, with some AV-related room compromises) or a 25x20 that we build from scratch from a family room or a finished basement space. I'm also starting from the perspective of a single row of three seats, although this may change as needs and room capabilities warrant. We'll add treatments as best we can given what's measured in the (future) room.

FWIW I actually feel a little lonely on this, especially living in a central city urban environment...I wish there were a few more "regular folks" that could share this journey, since the Altitude's in a very early stage of release and there's an extremely small handful of users or soon-to-be users AFAIK on AVS. But I can't help on that one. Still, it's kind of fun to be a pioneer. I'm just very lucky this is something I can do, and that I can work very hard to make feasible for us.

As to the rest, stay tuned somewhere on AVS. Not sure if that might be here exactly or a dedicated room thread. Probably the latter, I'm guessing. One reason is that I'm also very lucky that the wife will give me total control over the area I'm going to use for A/V as long as she gets to enjoy her favorite movie and TV shows there, so the room will evolve over time. I just get to pay for the favor by letting her plan our vacations for the next decade and some other stuff that she finds will make her happy....

Besides, I blame AVSers for this. If I weren't here, I'd probably still be happy with my Denon 5803 and 5.1 Klipsch setup circa 2009.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka;33138649 said:


> If you can afford it go Denon... I was going to get the onkyo but I wanted more than 5.1.2. Whatever receiver has DSU get one of them atleast (I forget does Onkyo have DSU?) because DSU is just as fantastic as having atmos in many regards


Of course it does they all have DSU if it's an Atmos receiver. That's part of what Dolby Atmos is. When you asked does Onkyo have DSU I thought you were joking.
My Onkyo receiver does 5.2.4 with the an external amp I'm running 7.2.4


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> My collection of Blu-Rays with Atmos has grown to 9. My favorites are John Wick, Mocking Jay, Unbroken, and Gravity, for best examples of Atmos.
> Let's hope more come along by the end of this summer.


I have all of those but didn't think Unbroken was very good on the Atmos part. It's the best of the movies but not for Atmos.


----------



## roxiedog13

RapalloAV said:


> Oh dear now Im totally confused, you say front and back for the horns to face the other guy says sideways



Mine are front and back but not directly at the center MLP. My tweeter is kind of pointed towards a point just to the right and left of the MLP. Try both like I said, maybe something in
between will be better for your room.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I have all of those but *didn't think Unbroken was very good on the Atmos part. It's the best of the movies but not for Atmos*.


I thought that *'Gravity'* was (@ excelling best); for both Atmos and film itself.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Hey guys - quick question. Has anyone done a head to head comparison of the Kef R50's to the Atlantic Tech 44-DAs as far as being able to produce an immersive 3D audio presentation?
> 
> I have an opportunity to get a pair of the ATs to start off my Atmos configuration


Don't. 

Between the two, I'd never even consider the AT option. But that's like... my opinion. 



sdrucker said:


> (yes, Scott, it means that I'm just waiting for the processor now; I've got T4 and Mockingjay Part I at home, and Gravity on the way)


I want you to get that Altitude more than you do!


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't.
> 
> Between the two, I'd never even consider the AT option. But that's like... my opinion.


 
Why? Have you heard both? They're certainly more available (in stock) than the KEF, pricing aside.


Feel free to PM me on this, BTW.



> I want you to get that Altitude more than you do!


 
Oh, sure. Somehow I doubt that very much


----------



## Jack.K

*Interstellar*

I watched Interstellar last nite, got from Netflix. Only sound in English was
DTS, no DD. Bummer.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Interstellar' | Blu-ray | Audio = DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1*



Jack.K said:


> I watched Interstellar last nite, got from Netflix. Only sound in English was DTS, no DD. Bummer.


'Interstellar', is in dts. ... DTS-HD MA 5.1 (English language).


----------



## Jack.K

sdrucker said:


> 24 channel Altitude. Which means Atmos, for now, and other 3D audio codecs to come in the future when they're available. At this point I know about as much anyone here where that goes. Basically 24 is a hedge against the future. Or put another way, it was easier to get wife approval now then later .
> 
> The "starting small" part is taking my current floor setup (7.1, with two subs) and adding two to four Atmos-capable speakers in our current room, and pending exactly WHAT media/HT room we have, expanding out as we go through iterations of what works best on observed measurement. But where those speakers go, and how many we use beyond the bed channels, will depend on what we hear and the recommendations that the Trinnov folks make. Frankly, it's a bold long-term investment, but it allows us to grow as we see fit. Since the Altitude's software upgradable, this could well be a decade's worth of enjoyment.
> 
> Ultimately I see us doing something like a 9.2.6, with some channels left over for remapping and future expansion needs. I could have stopped at 16 but I'm thinking long-term, since I might have a media room that's intermediate term where I might only (!) use 14 to 18 of the channels, vs. a bigger dedicated room in the future where we're use the whole kit and caboodle
> 
> FYI, the reason I'm being kind of vague is that we're going through a child-inspired phase...I don't know whether we'll have a 26x14 room (one idea we're working on that allows us to stay where we are in a desirable part of our city, with some AV-related room compromises) or a 25x20 that we build from scratch from a family room or a finished basement space. I'm also starting from the perspective of a single row of three seats, although this may change as needs and room capabilities warrant. We'll add treatments as best we can given what's measured in the (future) room.
> 
> FWIW I actually feel a little lonely on this, especially living in a central city urban environment...I wish there were a few more "regular folks" that could share this journey, since the Altitude's in a very early stage of release and there's an extremely small handful of users or soon-to-be users AFAIK on AVS. But I can't help on that one. Still, it's kind of fun to be a pioneer. I'm just very lucky this is something I can do, and that I can work very hard to make feasible for us.
> 
> As to the rest, stay tuned somewhere on AVS. Not sure if that might be here exactly or a dedicated room thread. Probably the latter, I'm guessing. One reason is that I'm also very lucky that the wife will give me total control over the area I'm going to use for A/V as long as she gets to enjoy her favorite movie and TV shows there, so the room will evolve over time. I just get to pay for the favor by letting her plan our vacations for the next decade and some other stuff that she finds will make her happy....
> 
> Besides, I blame AVSers for this. If I weren't here, I'd probably still be happy with my Denon 5803 and 5.1 Klipsch setup circa 2009.


Go as wide as you can, the result is a wider screen. Better video bang. with your Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

I was using this as a guide:
http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

With our current Panny VT50, that works out to somewhere between 6 and 10 feet, with optimal being 6.6 for 1080p. We're a bit away from useful Ultra HD content so that's not an immediate concern. I'm figuring somewhere in that range - probably more towards the higher side - from MLP to the screen, with exactly what we do depending on what works for speaker placement and imaging at the end of the day as I measure. I'd putting having a more optimal 3D audio imaging ahead of having an exactly optimal seating distance.

That's also a bit interim, since we'll probably get a 65' or 70' OLED when HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 and content are more widespread and tech's stabilized. Assuming we can live without the essentially dead technology of plasma, that is . Personally I can live with a TV over the full blown projector/AT screen setup, since my primary focus is audio, but I see your point.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> Of course it does they all have DSU if it's an Atmos receiver. That's part of what Dolby Atmos is. When you asked does Onkyo have DSU I thought you were joking.
> My Onkyo receiver does 5.2.4 with the an external amp I'm running 7.2.4


My mistake, that's why I asked... to be fair I have a migraine headache and didn't feel like googling it. The 636 doesn't do 7.(1).4, that's why I passed on it initially. I'm guessing Rapallo is aware of that but I just wanted to point it out in case he wasn't aware... I was *this* close to buying that exact unit until I started reading about it on the forums here on AVS.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> My mistake, that's why I asked... to be fair I have a migraine headache and didn't feel like googling it. The 636 doesn't do 7.(1).4, that's why I passed on it initially. I'm guessing Rapallo is aware of that but I just wanted to point it out in case he wasn't aware... I was *this* close to buying that exact unit until I started reading about it on the forums here on AVS.


No problem I was considering getting something else because Onkyo dropped audyssey. I was a little hesitant, when these Atmos receivers first became available, I just wanted to get my feet wet. When I saw a deal on this TX-NR 1030 for $800 less then one with audyssey I jump on it, knowing I would upgrade once DTS joined the party. 
I'm glad I did this beast meets the bill. I have been enjoying Atmos and DSU since November, glad I jumped in in the beginning.


----------



## kingwiggi

lujan said:


> I also watched the Gravity Atmos version last night and thought the sound was amazing. I temporarily switched to Silent Mode but noticed it did not have the Atmos track so went back to that. I think I prefer the Atmos 2D version to the non-Atmos 3D version. * I also love the packaging of this copy and wish they packaged all BD's like this.*


FYI

Walmarts Collectors Edition of Interstellar also has the same Deluxe High Gloss packaging, I picked up a copy today.


----------



## zapper

This question has been asked already in the forum but unable to find what I am looking for can Dolby Atmos be set on a 7' ceiling ?


----------



## NorthSky

zapper said:


> This question has been asked already in the forum but unable to find what I am looking for can Dolby Atmos be set on a 7' ceiling ?


Yes, it's possible; and that is the very minimum according to Dolby Atmos guys (7.5 feet would be it but it's worth experimenting).
Use angles that distance them from the MLP: Top FH @ 35° and Top RH @ 145° ...to help, perhaps. ...And if feasible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

CarguyHere said:


> I have not had the chance to hear an ATMOS system, but from what I have read, its fantastic!
> 
> 
> Last week I bought a NON-Atmos receiver from future shop, so I can return it. I bought the Pioneer SC-1228-K on sale (two year old new model), but could exchange it for the Onkyo TX-NR636 for about the same price.
> 
> 
> Good move? or is the 636 not at the same level of amp quality as the 1228? (the 1228 is D class amp)
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for the help!



I must echo other voices here: wait for the DTS announcement on April 9th about DTS:X. Get something with that capability included, otherwise you'll probably (I'd even say _will_) lose out on certain titles with 3D audio mixes.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> No problem I was considering getting something else because Onkyo dropped audyssey. I was a little hesitant, when these Atmos receivers first became available, I just wanted to get my feet wet. When I saw a deal on this TX-NR 1030 for $800 less then one with audyssey I jump on it, knowing I would upgrade once DTS joined the party.
> I'm glad I did this beast meets the bill. I have been enjoying Atmos and DSU since November, glad I jumped in in the beginning.


I've got nothing against Onkyo, though admittedly I did hear there were issues with defective units (with 636 in particular) & not the best customer support around... though I'm not too sure how good customer support of any AVR manufacturer is so that's not a bias I hold against any one manufacturer. I spent July through Oct agonizing & researching the atmos receivers... I even told JD I changed my mind about getting the 5200 and a week later I just figured I'm gonna be living in 1080p land for a while so I might as well get a receiver that works for the plasma I recently got. (My entire decision basically hinged on the availability of HDR... since HDR material won't be hitting the market for quite a while I decided to plunge into Atmos right away & enjoy 1080p to it's fullest until it totally dies. Otherwise I would have waited for 4k to take off but by then my daughter will be 2 or 3 & I wouldn't have been able to blast my system at home. So I'm glad I dived into Atmos, I'm getting my chance to rock the house with 3D sound until my baby moves into the house this summer (haha). 

Audyssey wasn't what lead me to purchase the Denon. I didn't really believe a calibration could do better than I could but I was proved wrong (thankfully haha). I know there are debates about the quality of one calibration tool over the other, I'm not invested in that debate because if I had the money I'd just hire an acoustician & get the proper treatments installed  

I was totally green when Atmos announced they were going to be introducing products for the at home market... I was sitting there with a 400 dollar home theater in the box that I had gradually been upgrading... yup... I've got no regrets about this receiver even if DTS & current gen receivers can't be friends. Atmos is bad ass & I couldn't recommend it any more highly, as this upgrade was far from subtle.

I'll probably upgrade again in 3 to 5 years if I get a new 4k (8k?) TV by then, or at least to use a 4k player with my set if possible. Exciting times ahead tech wise... I can't wait


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> I thought that *'Gravity'* was (@ excelling best); for both Atmos and film itself.


& trust me guys, I know Nightsky talks 3D to death... but Gravity really was made exclusively for 3D. Like there were plenty of shots composed specifically to showcase 3D objects to make them look more DOF'Y or whatever... I'm at a loss as to why they made this such a beautiful presentation yet couldn't get the 3D version on another disc at least. 

I watched the first half of it last night but I was totally high on ambien, I wasn't in the proper frame of mind to make an evaluation, but from what I recall hearing astronaughts talking from all directions in my living room was a reeeeaaaal trip!


----------



## NorthSky

Is this about Dolby Atmos, or about you being high, or about me loving 3D, ...and 'Gravity' made especially for 3D but re-released in 2D only with 3D sound this time around? ...Must be April 1st in the air.


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> If you can, maybe put the Atmos L/R speakers no more than 10 feet apart. Unless your ceiling is very high, this wil serve a better vertical angle. Ideally, there can be 60/60/60° between Side-L/Atmos-L/Atmos-R/Side-R.


Intuitively I agree. But following Dolby's placement guideline of putting the heights in line with your mains and having them 4 foot above listener's pane, you would need to have your mains only 4.6 feet apart to accomplish such a 60/60/60 distribution.


----------



## UdoG

NorthSky said:


> All looking good to me. ...But straight above you (vertically) is 90° ... 135° should be behind you.


Sorry - that's me again...

To be on the save side - Center = 0° 

For the Rear Top - I use an angle meter from center speaker and measure around 135-140°
For the Front Top - I use an angle meter from the MLP and measure around 45°

Is this correct?

If the position directly over my MLP = 90° then 135° is 5.25 feet behind the MLP - far behind my surrounds...

I'm lost. I think I have trouble to understand vertical and horizontal angles resp. in which way I measure them.


----------



## pasender91

UdoG said:


> Sorry - that's me again...
> 
> To be on the save side - Center = 0°
> 
> For the Rear Top - I use an angle meter from center speaker and measure around 135-140°
> For the Front Top - I use an angle meter from the MLP and measure around 45°
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> If the position directly over my MLP = 90° then 135° is 5.25 feet behind the MLP - far behind my surrounds...
> 
> I'm lost. I think I have trouble to understand vertical and horizontal angles resp. in which way I measure them.


Top speakers are defined by their VERTICAL angle, with 90° being right over your head and 0° looking horizontally in front of you.
With X being the distance between your ears and the ceiling:
45° means the speakers are X in front of you, from the position over your head.
135° means the speakers are X behind of you, from the position over your head.
This may result in being behind your surrounds, and this is not an issue.

In terms of horizontal placement, it is not based on angles, Dolby simply recommends to align them with the front speakers.

I believe (and i'm not alone) that those rules can be bent a little depending on specific rooms, for example vertical angles can be a bit tighter (55 and 125) to make it easier in regards to speaker directivity, and horizontal placement can also shift from reference placement to accomodate a very narrow room (top speakers "inside" front speakers) or very wide room (top speakers "outside" front speakers)


----------



## pletwals

UdoG said:


> I'm lost. I think I have trouble to understand vertical and horizontal angles resp. in which way I measure them.


The horizontal angles start from the axis MLP - screen center. So the speaker at the side equidistant with MLP to the front wall is at 90°. The speaker right behind you is at 180°.

Vertical angles are *not* givven from MLP to the speaker. Instead, there are two vertical angles: one when viewing back to front and the other viewing sideways. The former isn't really givven: Dolby says they have to be in line with both front L/R speakers. But they should ideally be at 45°-60°. Only then you can start to move them back and forth to get the correct "sideview" angle.

Hope this helps!


----------



## chi_guy50

UdoG said:


> Sorry - that's me again...
> 
> To be on the save side - Center = 0°
> 
> For the Rear Top - I use an angle meter from center speaker and measure around 135-140°
> For the Front Top - I use an angle meter from the MLP and measure around 45°
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> If the position directly over my MLP = 90° then 135° is 5.25 feet behind the MLP - far behind my surrounds...
> 
> I'm lost. I think I have trouble to understand vertical and horizontal angles resp. in which way I measure them.


Lieber Udo,

Vielleicht kannst Du Dir die empfohlenen Winkel mittels dieser Illustration besser vorstellen (maybe this will help):


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Is this about Dolby Atmos, or about you being high, or about me loving 3D, ...and 'Gravity' made especially for 3D but re-released in 2D only with 3D sound this time around? ...Must be April 1st in the air.


Haha, I did mention the astronaut dialogue in Atmos  I plan to re-watch it on a night that I neither have a migraine or ambien high.... can't wait. I love 3D as well, but I know it's not (yet) for everyone in it's current state.


----------



## stef2

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, I did mention the astronaut dialogue in Atmos  I plan to re-watch it on a night that I neither have a migraine or ambien high.... can't wait. I love 3D as well, but I know it's not (yet) for everyone in it's current state.


You had me puzzled with you Ambien...aah, zolpidem, now, I understand (Sublinox in Canada)...


----------



## scarabaeus

My collection is growing, and I have one more on the way (Mort&Phil).










I was checking out just a couple scenes of 'Gravity' and 'Mary Kom' last night. Gravity is quite amazing.

And I thought the studio lawyers are punishing U.S. Blu-ray buyers a lot already, but Indians seem to have it much worse. 'Mary Kom' had a whopping 2 minutes and 50 seconds of sponsor logos and distributor bumps before the movie, and then had the logo of distributor Shemaroo superimposed in the bottom right corner, FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I have not seen anything like that since the early days of VHS, and certainly not on Blu-ray. The Atmos mix was pretty good, though it seems to be a dialog heavy movie with most of it in the front center.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Part II of the upgrade is now live: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-makeover-space-odyssey-part-2

There is one error in the piece (I've requested it to be changed...hopefully soon). I'm running a 7.2.4 system, not a 7.4.2 system. 

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/atmos-makeover-space-odyssey-part-2


----------



## lujan

scarabaeus said:


> My collection is growing, and I have one more on the way (Mort&Phil).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was checking out just a couple scenes of 'Gravity' and 'Mary Kom' last night. Gravity is quite amazing.
> 
> And I thought the studio lawyers are punishing U.S. Blu-ray buyers a lot already, but Indians seem to have it much worse. 'Mary Kom' had a whopping 2 minutes and 50 seconds of sponsor logos and distributor bumps before the movie, and then had the logo of distributor Shemaroo superimposed in the bottom right corner, FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I have not seen anything like that since the early days of VHS, and certainly not on Blu-ray. The Atmos mix was pretty good, though it seems to be a dialog heavy movie with most of it in the front center.


Where did you find the Dolby Atmos Reference Disk as I haven't been able to find it?


----------



## scarabaeus

lujan said:


> Where did you find the Dolby Atmos Reference Disk as I haven't been able to find it?


True, that one is not available to the general public. I have some connections...


----------



## robert816

scarabaeus said:


> True, that one is not available to the general public. I have some connections...


Mort&Phil is a Spanish title is it not?


----------



## scarabaeus

robert816 said:


> Mort&Phil is a Spanish title is it not?


Yes, it is. Hope it has english subtitles. The first live-action M&P on DVD did, the second, on Blu-ray, did not. My spanish sucks.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mortadelo-y-Filemon-contra-Jimmy-el-Cachondo-Blu-ray/124119/


----------



## zapper

Greetings:

Currently have a 7.2 system non Atmos if I wanted a 9.2 Atmos receiver then would have to have a 9.2 receiver, correct but the receiver would cost a arm and a leg for one what alternatives do I have, if any??? I just want 4 speakers on the ceiling and the typical 3 in front 2 sides and 2 back...


----------



## bargervais

scarabaeus said:


> Yes, it is. Hope it has english subtitles. The first live-action M&P on DVD did, the second, on Blu-ray, did not. My spanish sucks.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mortadelo-y-Filemon-contra-Jimmy-el-Cachondo-Blu-ray/124119/


doesn't list any subtitles but the 3D version has Spanish subtitles
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mortadelo-y-Filemon-contra-Jimmy-el-Cachondo-3D-Blu-ray/124118/


----------



## robert816

scarabaeus said:


> Yes, it is. Hope it has english subtitles. The first live-action M&P on DVD did, the second, on Blu-ray, did not. My spanish sucks.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mortadelo-y-Filemon-contra-Jimmy-el-Cachondo-Blu-ray/124119/


I know just enough Spanish to wind up in a bar fight  I remember looking at this on Blu-Ray.com when I was searching for other (non US) Atmos titles. I didn't spend much time on it since it was region B and I do not have a region free player. Also there is no info about whether or not there were subtitles, so passed on this one. Since China and Korea now have Dolby Atmos theatres, maybe we will see some Asian movies on Blu-Ray with Atmos


----------



## pasender91

zapper said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Currently have a 7.2 system non Atmos if I wanted a 9.2 Atmos receiver then would have to have a 9.2 receiver, correct but the receiver would cost a arm and a leg for one what alternatives do I have, if any??? I just want 4 speakers on the ceiling and the typical 3 in front 2 sides and 2 back...


What you want is called 7.1.4 
The cheapest AVRs supporting it are:
- Marantz SR 7009
- Denon X 5200 W
- Onkyo TX NR 1030

Check the price of those where you live, but don't forget you need to add a 2-channel amp if you want to activate all of the 7+4=11 channels ...


----------



## dvdwilly3

scarabaeus said:


> My collection is growing, and I have one more on the way (Mort&Phil).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was checking out just a couple scenes of 'Gravity' and 'Mary Kom' last night. Gravity is quite amazing.
> 
> And I thought the studio lawyers are punishing U.S. Blu-ray buyers a lot already, but Indians seem to have it much worse. 'Mary Kom' had a whopping 2 minutes and 50 seconds of sponsor logos and distributor bumps before the movie, and then had the logo of distributor Shemaroo superimposed in the bottom right corner, FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I have not seen anything like that since the early days of VHS, and certainly not on Blu-ray. The Atmos mix was pretty good, though it seems to be a dialog heavy movie with most of it in the front center.


I have the Dolby Atmos Demo disk. Where did you get the Dolby Atmos Refernence disk? It has 5.1 and 7.1 tracks on it as well.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have the Dolby Atmos Demo disk. Where did you get the Dolby Atmos Refernence disk? It has 5.1 and 7.1 tracks on it as well.


My apologies...I had scrolled down to see that Lujan had already asked.

I have been looking for that. Demo World (?) has the graphics, but i don't think that they have the actual tracks yet...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> My apologies...I had scrolled down to see that Lujan had already asked.
> 
> I have been looking for that. Demo World (?) has the graphics, but i don't think that they have the actual tracks yet...


Yes the most important demos are on Demo World on this page : http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


----------



## zapper

pasender91 said:


> What you want is called 7.1.4
> The cheapest AVRs supporting it are:
> - Marantz SR 7009
> - Denon X 5200 W
> - Onkyo TX NR 1030
> 
> Check the price of those where you live, but don't forget you need to add a 2-channel amp if you want to activate all of the 7+4=11 channels ...


Thanks for the reply but is the Dolby Atmos really that good only have a 7' ceiling in the basement where my first home theater is with 3D, in the Family room have a Sony 4K and a 5.1 system but the ceiling is angled.


----------



## scarabaeus

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have the Dolby Atmos Demo disk. Where did you get the Dolby Atmos Refernence disk? It has 5.1 and 7.1 tracks on it as well.


It's basically an older version of the demo disc. Just a few clips (Amaze, Leaf, etc.) and speaker ID tracks for 5.1.2 and 7.1.4, in TrueHD and DD+ Atmos. No separate 5.1 or 7.1 tracks. And no Iglesias.


----------



## dvdwilly3

scarabaeus said:


> It's basically an older version of the demo disc. Just a few clips (Amaze, Leaf, etc.) and speaker ID tracks for 5.1.2 and 7.1.4, in TrueHD and DD+ Atmos. No separate 5.1 or 7.1 tracks. And no Iglesias.


I misspoke...what I was after were the speaker ID tracks for 5.1.2 and 7.1.4, in TrueHD and DD+ Atmos.
I see them on Demo World, but it says to use a downloader, so I am looking for one...a downloader, that is.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> I believe (and i'm not alone) that those rules can be bent a little depending on specific rooms, *for example vertical angles can be a bit tighter (55 and 125) to make it easier in regards to speaker directivity, and horizontal placement can also shift from reference placement to accommodate a very narrow room (top speakers "inside" front speakers) or very wide room (top speakers "outside" front speakers)*


♦ 55° (TF) & 125° (TR) : Those angles could be very good for *UdoG*. ... Even 60° & 120° (Top Front ceiling & Top Rear ceiling respectively).



chi_guy50 said:


>


♦ Good show, once again, my man.  ... Clear, clean, sober, informative. ... Denon/Marantz



Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, I did mention the astronaut dialogue in Atmos  I plan to re-watch it on a night that I neither have a migraine or ambien high.... can't wait. I love 3D as well, but I know it's not (yet) for everyone in it's current state.


♦ Yes, you did mention about that, too.  



stef2 said:


> You had me puzzled with you Ambien...aah, zolpidem, now, I understand (Sublinox in Canada)...


♦ I was just a little puzzled for a second myself too, but I quickly snapped out of it.  ... _"Ambiance"_



scarabaeus said:


> *My collection (Dolby Atmos BR titles) is growing*, and I have one more on the way (Mort&Phil).


♦ I'm just curious: How come you don't have *'Unbroken'* ?



> I was checking out just a couple scenes of 'Gravity' and 'Mary Kom' last night. Gravity is quite amazing.
> And I thought the studio lawyers are punishing U.S. Blu-ray buyers a lot already, but Indians seem to have it much worse. *'Mary Kom' had a whopping 2 minutes and 50 seconds of sponsor logos and distributor bumps before the movie, and then had the logo of distributor Shemaroo superimposed in the bottom right corner, FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE!* I have not seen anything like that since the early days of VHS, and certainly not on Blu-ray. The Atmos mix was pretty good, though it seems to be a dialog heavy movie with most of it in the front center.


♦  ... I've never seen this myself; even from my VHS movie tape collection! ...Oh well. 



scarabaeus said:


> It's basically an older version of the demo disc. Just a few clips (Amaze, Leaf, etc.) and speaker ID tracks for 5.1.2 and 7.1.4, in TrueHD and DD+ Atmos. No separate 5.1 or 7.1 tracks. And no Iglesias.


♦ How many Dolby Atmos Demo discs are there all together; one, two, three? 

______

Only one more week to go (next Thursday, the 9th; DTS:X). ...Hold on to your hat.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> *I must echo other voices here: wait for the DTS announcement on April 9th about DTS:X. Get something with that capability included, otherwise you'll probably (I'd even say will) lose out on certain titles with 3D audio mixes.*


I concur; @ 100%.


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> It's basically an older version of the demo disc.


I think it's the other way 'round: Atmos demo disc is from CEDIA 2014, Atmos reference disc is from CES 2015.


----------



## batpig

We need to get that reference disc! Lots of people clamoring for Atmos test tones.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Only one more week to go (next Thursday, the 9th; DTS:X). ...Hold on to your hat.


I'm eager for the announcement as well, you would think by the way some are talking that it is the second coming. 
I expect DTS:X to be close to what Atmos is right now, I'm waiting on moving some speakers in a true middle top position but haven't as of yet.


----------



## blastermaster

> I'm eager for the announcement as well, you would think by the way some are talking that it is the second coming.
> I expect DTS:X to be close to what Atmos is right now, I'm waiting on moving some speakers in a true middle top position but haven't as of yet.


It's a pretty big announcement, that's for sure. DTS-X is what's causing many of us to wait on getting a new receiver. As soon as the announcement is made and, assuming the speaker layout is the same (which apparently it is compatible with Atmos) I'm jumping in as soon as these receivers come out. As soon as I get time, I'm gonna wire up the ceiling speakers and new surrounds. Can't wait!


----------



## Kris Deering

I'm just hoping the DTS:X announcement has more than one title to announce come game day. That was the biggest thud for me when it came to Dolby's announcement and here we are almost 8 months later with just over a handful of actual titles with almost nothing else announced in the pipeline. Sure I'm a fan of DSU so far, but the excuses for lack of content are getting a bit thin now. I've heard whispers that studios are holding out for UHD Blu-ray to tag it on to the list of features for a stronger selling point, and that may be the case, but I hope DTS:X will get us more content sooner than later.


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I'm just curious: How come you don't have *'Unbroken'* ?


Just was not interested in that one.



NorthSky said:


> ♦ How many Dolby Atmos Demo discs are there all together; one, two, three?


I do not know the answer to that. All the one's I've seen had more or less the same content, some with the "retail loop" play-all button. They were mainly for demos at trade shows, and the discs got slight updates for each of those. So there should be no need to collect 'em all.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> Intuitively I agree. But following Dolby's placement guideline of putting the heights in line with your mains and having them 4 foot above listener's pane, you would need to have your mains only 4.6 feet apart to accomplish such a 60/60/60 distribution.


It all depends on the room and the height of the ceiling obviously. But I always consult the guidelines for the commercial theaters too. 

There's a room ratio (with a high ceiling, maybe 12 feet - 3m60) which makes everything fall in place, but you'd heave to build the room around it! Unfortunately it doesn't work that way for 99.99% of us...


----------



## lujan

batpig said:


> We need to get that reference disc! Lots of people clamoring for Atmos test tones.


If anyone knows how to get one or can provide a download link, please send me a PM. Thanks!


----------



## Stanton

blastermaster said:


> It's a pretty big announcement, that's for sure. DTS-X is what's causing many of us to wait on getting a new receiver. As soon as the announcement is made and, assuming the speaker layout is the same (which apparently it is compatible with Atmos) I'm jumping in as soon as these receivers come out. As soon as I get time, I'm gonna wire up the ceiling speakers and new surrounds. Can't wait!


Agreed. I already have some "top middle" speakers mounted high on the side walls, and hope the actual product announcements (Yamaha for me) aren't too far after the DTS announcement.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Kris Deering said:


> I'm just hoping the DTS:X announcement has more than one title to announce come game day. That was the biggest thud for me when it came to Dolby's announcement and here we are almost 8 months later with just over a handful of actual titles with almost nothing else announced in the pipeline. Sure I'm a fan of DSU so far, but the excuses for lack of content are getting a bit thin now. I've heard whispers that studios are holding out for UHD Blu-ray to tag it on to the list of features for a stronger selling point, and that may be the case, but I hope DTS:X will get us more content sooner than later.


I couldn't agree more Kris.


----------



## Movie78

It looks like Yamaha has better DSP because of their CinemaDSP,is this TRUE OR NOT ?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Movie78 said:


> It looks like Yamaha has better DSP because of their CinemaDSP,is this TRUE OR NOT ?


Absolutely!


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> We need to get that reference disc! Lots of people clamoring for Atmos test tones.


I want an Atmos encoded 'Horizon' trailer. I'd be happy with that!


But we _really_ could use test tones.


A LOT of test tones. :serious:


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> I've heard whispers that studios are holding out for UHD Blu-ray to tag it on to the list of features for a stronger selling point...


Makes sense if some studios are convinced that people won't re-buy movies they already have just to get higher video resolution. So holding back on titles that already have theatrical Atmos mixes, as well as other features like 3D (coughDisneycough), could be the things that push some consumers over the fence into re-buying movies they already have.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> We need to get that reference disc! Lots of people clamoring for Atmos test tones.





lujan said:


> If anyone knows how to get one or can provide a download link, please send me a PM. Thanks!


Well, just need someone to get it going on Bitten Torrent... I'd be willing to start it if I could get my hands on it. Then the masses would have access to it...


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> It looks like Yamaha has better DSP because of their CinemaDSP, is this TRUE OR NOT ?


Definite!y; Yamaha is the DSP expert. Plus they have an amazing amount of manual user adjustable parameters. ...Total control over their sophisticated measurements across the globe.
You can spend a lifetime adjusting each recording to perfection; Movie Cinema DSP and Music DSP. 

Nobody else can touch Yamaha when it comes to sophisticated DSP; not Denon/Marantz, not Onkyo/Integra, not Pioneer Elite, not Sony ES, not Anthem, not NAD, not Rotel, not Sherwood, not Arcam, not Emotiva, not Sherbourn, not McIntosh, not Krell, not nobody else. ...Their top gun pre/pro is the real DSP deal. And their line of Aventage AV receivers cannot be touched by any other AV receivers; DSP wise and with total freedom of manual adjustments. 

I think Yamaha in combination with Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and DSP, has the potential to propel some people into the next 3D sound stratosphere.
Nobody can build the DSP chips like Yamaha does. ...And Yamaha is also @ the forefront of many other frontiers, like sound mixing boards, parametric equalizers, keyboards, pianos, guitars, wind musical instruments, motorcycles, yacht engines, etc., etc., etc. 

Yamaha: Natural Sound.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Well, just need someone to get it going on Bitten Torrent... I'd be willing to start it if I could get my hands on it. Then the masses would have access to it...


Just put it in a Drop Box. Torrent sites are notorious for all kinds of malware and viruses.


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just put it in a Drop Box. Torrent sites are notorious for all kinds of malware and viruses.


You need nerves of pure chrome steel to handle all the topless.


----------



## bargervais

blastermaster said:


> It's a pretty big announcement, that's for sure. DTS-X is what's causing many of us to wait on getting a new receiver. As soon as the announcement is made and, assuming the speaker layout is the same (which apparently it is compatible with Atmos) I'm jumping in as soon as these receivers come out. As soon as I get time, I'm gonna wire up the ceiling speakers and new surrounds. Can't wait!


I'm hoping that once the announcement, things move along faster than what we have experienced with Atmos. Here we are 6 months after we got our hands on an Atmos receiver, 9 Blu-Rays with Atmos here in the U.S. I don't think it's a matter of studio's waiting for this announcement and then they will flood the market with DTS:X Blu-Rays. How many Blu-Rays are optimized for DTS Neo:X. I think studio's will continue business as usual, and throw us a bone once in a while, with a Blu-Ray with an Atmos or DTS:X codec.


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> Definite!y; Yamaha is the DSP expert. Plus they have an amazing amount of manual user adjustable parameters. ...Total control over their sophisticated measurements across the globe.
> You can spend a lifetime adjusting each recording to perfection; Movie Cinema DSP and Music DSP.
> 
> Nobody else can touch Yamaha when it comes to sophisticated DSP; not Denon/Marantz, not Onkyo/Integra, not Pioneer Elite, not Sony ES, not Anthem, not NAD, not Rotel, not Sherwood, not Arcam, not Emotiva, not Sherbourn, not McIntosh, not Krell, not nobody else. ...Their top gun pre/pro is the real DSP deal. And their line of Aventage AV receivers cannot be touched by any other AV receivers; DSP wise and with total freedom of manual adjustments.
> 
> I think Yamaha in combination with Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and DSP, has the potential to propel some people into the next 3D sound stratosphere.
> Nobody can build the DSP chips like Yamaha does. ...And Yamaha is also @ the forefront of many other frontiers, like sound mixing boards, parametric equalizers, keyboards, pianos, guitars, wind musical instruments, motorcycles, yacht engines, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Yamaha: Natural Sound.



Except EQ


----------



## Scott Simonian

_Auto_ EQ. 

Who needs that?

Oh wait. _Everybody_ for some reason. 


*yawn*


----------



## brahman12

*Batman Love*



NorthSky said:


> I love the audio soundtracks of the three Batman movies directed by _Christopher Nolan_. 'The Dark Knight' is totally awesome.
> 
> * Did anyone here tried them with DSU?


Dark Knight sounded spectacular, with Dark Knight Rises sounded awesome, and Batman Begins sounded really good. Not so much happening in the tops but overall resolution, depth and width of soundstage, and directionality of sounds were definitely enhanced via DSU. On a side note I already felt that all three soundtracks were pretty awesome to begin with and liked the sound design of each film in the same order as I indicated with DSU engaged.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> _Auto_ EQ.
> 
> Who needs that?
> 
> Oh wait. _Everybody_ for some reason.
> 
> 
> *yawn*


Dude, what's with the anti auto-EQ comments lately?


----------



## Scott Simonian

What's with all the "if it ain't AudysseyXT32, it's garbage" comments, always, from nearly everybody?


I've always been anti-"I can't get good sound unless I use AutoEQ". It's a crutch that everyone seems to fall on as if surround systems never sounded good before them. God forbid a surround processor doesn't have Audyssey XT32 on it. "Throw it in the trash if it doesn't change my diapers. YPAO? I say, "good day, sir!"". 

Yeah, okay.

That's all. 


Plus... I'm hungry so I'm grumpy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I guess I'll just continue to not need to rely on them, Sanjay. And I'll keep my mouth shut about it cuz I don't want to upset anybody.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> What's with all the "if it ain't AudysseyXT32, it's garbage" comments, always, from nearly everybody?


Except for XT32, most of the mass market room correction systems have done a poor job where it is most important: the low frequencies. So it's not unreasonable for people to recommend receivers with XT32.


Scott Simonian said:


> I'll keep my mouth shut about it cuz I don't want to upset anybody.


You're not upsetting anybody.


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> Except EQ


Yamaha's own YPAO (Yamaha Parametric Room Acoustic Optimizer) Room Calibration/Correction & EQ system ain't no small shuffles. 
Besides, you can always add Dirac Live in the form of the Mini*DSP* DDRC-88A magic black box. ...For just under a thousand bucks.

When there's a up way there's a up hill. :-D


----------



## SteveTheGeek

According to Blu-ray.com's forum, we have a new Atmos movie upcoming, finally, Jupiter Ascending : 










It looks good for American Sniper too doesn't it !


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> What's with all the "if it ain't AudysseyXT32, it's garbage" comments, always, from nearly everybody?
> I've always been anti-"I can't get good sound unless I use AutoEQ". It's a crutch that everyone seems to fall on as if surround systems never sounded good before them.
> *God forbid a surround processor doesn't have Audyssey XT32 on it*. "Throw it in the trash if it doesn't change my diapers. YPAO? I say, "good day, sir!"".
> Yeah, okay.
> That's all.
> Plus... I'm hungry so I'm grumpy.


God has nothing to do with it Scott,  unless he raises his voice from the heavens (VOG).


----------



## SteveTheGeek

And for you Bob, it seems the 3D version will also have Atmos, best of both worlds for you !


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> And for you Bob, it seems the 3D version will also have Atmos, best of both worlds for you !


And while you were posting ...



_"This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship"_ - Casablanca 
[Click *^* on the above picture cover] ...On June 2nd.
Right on! 3D Blu-ray, Dolby Atmos, and a Sci-fi flick directed and conceived by the Matrix' brother & sister | Locking forward big time for that one. :nerd:
__________


----------



## NorthSky

*'American Sniper'* is also a WB Blu-ray movie title. ...Like 'Gravity' and 'Jupiter Ascending'. 
...Who knows if it will get the Dolby Atmos 3D elevated sound treatment.
That sure would be real cool. 

No 3D picture here though, and that's perfectly ok with that type of flick, from Clint.

*** But 'Gravity' .... that one, they'd better reissue it all over again, for the third time this time, next year perhaps, or @ Christmas (who truly knows ...);
in full glory 3D Picture & Sound, just like the way it should have been the second time around, two days ago.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I guess I'll just continue to not need to rely on them, ******. And I'll keep my mouth shut about it cuz I don't want to upset anybody.


Scott, your always good sense of humor, plus your knowledge on all things "Sound" related (Subs & all, including 3D sound), plus pizza, plus plus plus,
is very addictive, always refreshing, and it makes you one of the very best favorite members here @ AVSForum website. 
For me, you are that guy.

* If some members, once in a blue moon, have any problem whatsoever about being too serious to the point of atmos no return; that's their own issue.
Don't worry Scott, be always happy, be you. 

♦ Besides, 4K Blu-ray ain't even here yet.


----------



## scarabaeus

scarabaeus said:


> Yes, it is. Hope it has english subtitles. The first live-action M&P on DVD did, the second, on Blu-ray, did not. My spanish sucks.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mortadelo-y-Filemon-contra-Jimmy-el-Cachondo-Blu-ray/124119/





bargervais said:


> doesn't list any subtitles but the 3D version has Spanish subtitles
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mortadelo-y-Filemon-contra-Jimmy-el-Cachondo-3D-Blu-ray/124118/


Collection is growing by the day. Tuesday Gravity, yesterday Mary Kom, and today Mortadelo y Filemon (aka Mort & Phil, or Clever & Smart for the germans here).










Good news: English subtitles and region free! We have another 3D Atmos disc! Take that, Gravity!

The 2D version has a DVD and one Blu-ray. The 3D version has the exact same 2D Blu-ray, and a 3D Blu-ray. All Blu-rays have the same language options, see below.


----------



## blastermaster

> Agreed. I already have some "top middle" speakers mounted high on the side walls, and hope the actual product announcements (Yamaha for me) aren't too far after the DTS announcement.


Great minds think alike. I'm pretty sure I'm going with Yamaha this time around as well. 



> *** But 'Gravity' .... that one, they'd better reissue it all over again, for the third time this time, next year perhaps, or @ Christmas (who truly knows ...);
> in full glory 3D Picture & Sound, just like the way it should have been the second time around, two days ago.


With all this talk about Gravity and 3D sound, I decided to watch it again last night and see if the 3D in the movie is all it's really cracked up to be. After watching it, I can honestly say I can't imagine not watching it in 3D. It's a pretty weak movie IMHO, but the 3D totally adds to the immersion in a movie that is less about plot and more about joining in the main character's unimaginable experience. If all you really have is the cinematography and ambient sound, you'd better make damn sure it has an impact on the viewer. The 3D does just that. At any rate, I also will jump in if/when they come out with the movie in 3D picture AND sound, as I'm sure Atmos also adds an element that 7.1 just can't match.


----------



## zimmo

(SCOTT SIMONIAN)you do not even this system then you do not know what were talking about.i have one and i like then we do not talk about that ,we donot know.


have good day


----------



## NorthSky

Which one? ...Room EQ system you have.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> According to Blu-ray.com's forum, we have a new Atmos movie upcoming, finally, Jupiter Ascending :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks good for American Sniper too doesn't it !


Great find thanks for finding Jupiter Ascending and sharing.

That would be sweet, I'm hoping for American Sniper. American Sniper it won an Oscar for sound so, Let's hope Warner Brothers shows it off.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> I'm hoping that once the announcement, things move along faster than what we have experienced with Atmos. Here we are 6 months after we got our hands on an Atmos receiver, 9 Blu-Rays with Atmos here in the U.S. I don't think it's a matter of studio's waiting for this announcement and then they will flood the market with DTS:X Blu-Rays. How many Blu-Rays are optimized for DTS Neo:X. I think studio's will continue business as usual, and throw us a bone once in a while, with a Blu-Ray with an Atmos or DTS:X codec.


Hoping you're wrong but I'm just as pessimistic... though perhaps worst case scenario if it is slow going for a while perhaps 3D sound will just become the standard format in the same way that most films are in 5.1 right now. Though judging by Dolby's film list it seems like Atmos titles are slightly less frequent than they were in 2014.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hoping you're wrong but I'm just as pessimistic... though perhaps worst case scenario if it is slow going for a while perhaps 3D sound will just become the standard format in the same way that most films are in 5.1 right now. Though judging by Dolby's film list it seems like Atmos titles are slightly less frequent than they were in 2014.


I would be happy with at least one Atmos announcement Per month, I can't afford more then two a month anyway LOL.


----------



## David Susilo

If the movies are already in Atmos for theatrical presentation, isn't it easier to downscale from theatrical Atmos to home Atmos than to re-mix from theatrical Atmos to DTS-MA or TrueHD?


----------



## Wild Blue

blastermaster said:


> Or Americanadians.


Freedom, eh?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> If the movies are already in Atmos for theatrical presentation, isn't it easier to downscale from theatrical Atmos to home Atmos than to re-mix from theatrical Atmos to DTS-MA or TrueHD?


If the master soundtrack is in Atmos or MDA, it's much easier to do a down-conversion from the object mix. The process is very automated. Maybe some minor tweaks here and there.


----------



## Wild Blue

Just watched Unbroken in Atmos. I have to say, I really think that everybody is missing out, who has not experienced a proper Atmos demonstration. And I'm not even talking about the full 3D immersion with height channels--I still only have a 7.1 system for now. But the clarity of Atmos is really amazing. At the beginning of Atmos movies, I'm simply stunned by the PRECISION of the sound that is put out. Today, when viewers seem to just be impressed with *loud*, and *low bass*, the precision of Atmos can be very impressive. After a while in Atmos movies, I'm not even thinking about the sound precision, it just draws me into movies even more.

I'm so disappointed in how Atmos is being demonstrated to the public. Primarily, it seems to me this is through Best Buy Magnolia, where the demos are quite mediocre. The viewers seem to be looking for, in order, (1) "can it put out monster bass?" (2) "Can it get really loud?" And then (3) "so it does ceiling speakers? Can I hear them make noise?" When the demos are mediocre, it leads the customer to conclude, "meh... Atmos is nothing special. I don't need it." How many A/V enthusiasts have we even see here on AVS that have jumped to the same strong conclusion, from 1-2 bad demos?

I'm worried that Dolby is not marketing and putting out Atmos to the public correctly, and thus may not succeed as well. Heck, I can't even get Dolby to send me a demo disc, as an industry professional. I don't know why those are so closely held. We custom installers and enthusiasts are left to try to get out the word of Atmos with just the few Atmos BD titles that are out there.


----------



## NorthSky

Good *^* post.


----------



## blazar

Chris Dotur said:


> Just watched Unbroken in Atmos. I have to say, I really think that everybody is missing out, who has not experienced a proper Atmos demonstration. And I'm not even talking about the full 3D immersion with height channels--I still only have a 7.1 system for now. But the clarity of Atmos is really amazing. At the beginning of Atmos movies, I'm simply stunned by the PRECISION of the sound that is put out. Today, when viewers seem to just be impressed with *loud*, and *low bass*, the precision of Atmos can be very impressive. After a while in Atmos movies, I'm not even thinking about the sound precision, it just draws me into movies even more.
> 
> I'm so disappointed in how Atmos is being demonstrated to the public. Primarily, it seems to me this is through Best Buy Magnolia, where the demos are quite mediocre. The viewers seem to be looking for, in order, (1) "can it put out monster bass?" (2) "Can it get really loud?" And then (3) "so it does ceiling speakers? Can I hear them make noise?" When the demos are mediocre, it leads the customer to conclude, "meh... Atmos is nothing special. I don't need it." How many A/V enthusiasts have we even see here on AVS that have jumped to the same strong conclusion, from 1-2 bad demos?
> 
> I'm worried that Dolby is not marketing and putting out Atmos to the public correctly, and thus may not succeed as well. Heck, I can't even get Dolby to send me a demo disc, as an industry professional. I don't know why those are so closely held. We custom installers and enthusiasts are left to try to get out the word of Atmos with just the few Atmos BD titles that are out there.


Because their marketing wizards are either geniuses or morons... I suspect morons. Ineptitude is vastly more common.

They should release demo discs readily available for a nominal price on amazon. If they were smart they would add a demo to the intro screen of your bluray player that you can swap out with a download.


----------



## desray2k

Chris Dotur said:


> Just watched Unbroken in Atmos. I have to say, I really think that everybody is missing out, who has not experienced a proper Atmos demonstration. And I'm not even talking about the full 3D immersion with height channels--I still only have a 7.1 system for now. But the clarity of Atmos is really amazing. At the beginning of Atmos movies, I'm simply stunned by the PRECISION of the sound that is put out. Today, when viewers seem to just be impressed with *loud*, and *low bass*, the precision of Atmos can be very impressive. After a while in Atmos movies, I'm not even thinking about the sound precision, it just draws me into movies even more.
> 
> I'm so disappointed in how Atmos is being demonstrated to the public. Primarily, it seems to me this is through Best Buy Magnolia, where the demos are quite mediocre. The viewers seem to be looking for, in order, (1) "can it put out monster bass?" (2) "Can it get really loud?" And then (3) "so it does ceiling speakers? Can I hear them make noise?" When the demos are mediocre, it leads the customer to conclude, "meh... Atmos is nothing special. I don't need it." How many A/V enthusiasts have we even see here on AVS that have jumped to the same strong conclusion, from 1-2 bad demos?
> 
> I'm worried that Dolby is not marketing and putting out Atmos to the public correctly, and thus may not succeed as well. Heck, I can't even get Dolby to send me a demo disc, as an industry professional. I don't know why those are so closely held. We custom installers and enthusiasts are left to try to get out the word of Atmos with just the few Atmos BD titles that are out there.


+1....i have this sentiments as you. Here's a post I made in another forum a few months back on the issue with dolby marketing been the crux of the problem. Reproduced below. 

Most unusual indeed, considering that most of the movies released in cinemas are mixed in dolby atmos. What's causing the dearth in titles really baffles me. Of course, most have come to agree that studios are out to milk the customers for subsequent press with atmos track...case in point, gravity to be re released in atmos but release date being pushed further to late 1st qtr of this year. But is this really the case? No one knows for sure. 

My take on this which I think is more sound and logical is the mere fact that the adoption rate of the new breed of avr with dolby atmos decoding capability is too low and many consumers can't really appreciate the improvement to warrant their attention, let alone purchase a new avr when atmos benefits requires more than merely an upgrade of the amp. U need to factor in additional speakers and not just ordinary speakers but in ceiling or dolby certified reflection speakers. That alone is not going to be spouse friendly to say the least. Or another aspect contributing to the omission of atmos track could be the amount of time or additional steps or hardware acquisition to press the disc. If u add it all up, it's not hard to see why it is not really that attractive to push for titles with atmos mix. Ironically, each requires the other to perform and reach a certain mass to make it successful. In retrospect, object based track is great if u have additional speakers to utilise but that alone is harder to push the idea. Studios backing the atmos should push for every discs to have atmos so as to accentuate the object based selling point. But the biggest marketing mistake is how dolby introduce atmos as being having overhead speakers which can be rather gimmicky to some. Who needs overhead speakers for certain scenes like rain drops and helicopters hovering?! 

For the discerning ones, u would know it will add more realism to the enjoyment of the film.




Sent from my Nexus 6


----------



## RapalloAV

Its all bit of a worry I think for Atmos/DTS-X for HT.


3D didn't last long, I hope this doesn't go the same way!


What next will they do to put bums on seats?


----------



## desray2k

I'm more optimistic on immersive sound technology than the 3D fad here... 

Sent from my Nexus 6


----------



## Wild Blue

NorthSky said:


> It's also a reality that starting in November 2015, the new Blu-ray 4K (UHD) will not support 3D.


Umm... this has been guessed at, but has it been confirmed?


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> *'American Sniper'* is also a WB Blu-ray movie title. ...Like 'Gravity' and 'Jupiter Ascending'.
> ...Who knows if it will get the Dolby Atmos 3D elevated sound treatment.
> That sure would be real cool.
> 
> No 3D picture here though, and that's perfectly ok with that type of flick, from Clint.
> 
> *** But 'Gravity' .... that one, they'd better reissue it all over again, for the third time this time, next year perhaps, or @ Christmas (who truly knows ...);
> in full glory 3D Picture & Sound, just like the way it should have been the second time around, two days ago.



I'm almost convinced that is what is going on. Milk the consumer by releasing original, then 3D, then Atmos and finally 3D with Atmos. That was a movie made for
3D, it does not make any sense why it's release with Atmos does not have the 3D option. I'm one of those consumers that just can't wait so I buy early. The one movie I did not see until it was released 3D was Avatar and it took 100% of my willpower to wait almost a year. Bet I'll end up with four versions of gravity in my collection I certainly have up to three versions of others. 


As far as 4K Blu-Ray players coming out without 3D capability, I cannot believe that will occur. Not having that capability will eliminate too many consumers from the picture ( excuse the pun). If the processing power is not available or too cost prohibitive then yea, I suppose. 4K material is still a long way out and to be honest I don't personally see a big difference with true 4K and 1080 upscaled with my projector. I've seen both on my system and the resolution is just about indistinguishable on my 136" screen from 12 feet. What did make a huge difference was a better projector with huge improvements in the optics. Point is 4K is not something that will enhance the experience, it will continue to be a good marketing tool though.


----------



## dvdwilly3

A friend of mine pointed out that Demo-World.eu will be taking all trailers offline on 4/3/15...
I have not used it, I know others on here have...too bad.


----------



## petetherock

scarabaeus said:


> My collection is growing, and I have one more on the way (Mort&Phil).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was checking out just a couple scenes of 'Gravity' and 'Mary Kom' last night. Gravity is quite amazing.
> 
> And I thought the studio lawyers are punishing U.S. Blu-ray buyers a lot already, but Indians seem to have it much worse. 'Mary Kom' had a whopping 2 minutes and 50 seconds of sponsor logos and distributor bumps before the movie, and then had the logo of distributor Shemaroo superimposed in the bottom right corner, FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I have not seen anything like that since the early days of VHS, and certainly not on Blu-ray. The Atmos mix was pretty good, though it seems to be a dialog heavy movie with most of it in the front center.


Lovely collection sir..
But half of them have very little real "Atmosphere"... and for some of them, I won't watch them even if I was paid a wad of cash... 

Half a year into Atmos, and this is the kind of disc selection offered avid buyers with cash ???

Wait... I guess it's because most of the known universe is still watching DVDs on players connected directly to their CRT TVs....

I guess that's why the studios are not flooding us with more titles...


----------



## hendry98

I got confused with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Ceiling Speakers placement, so let me tell you what I understand and correct me if I am wrong!

- place the front ceiling speaker in 45 degree from MLP ear level. (e.g., if your ear level to the ceiling is 6ft (90 degree), just move the front ceiling speaker 6ft in front of you to get 45 degree, and then align it with your main left/right speakers).

- Toe in the speaker so the tweeter points to your seat. 

The same goes for rear ceiling speaker.

Is this correct?


----------



## NorthSky

Chris Dotur said:


> Umm... this has been guessed at, but has it been confirmed?


I've heard it on the r.a.d.i.o. news the other day. ...UHD (4K) Blu-ray coming up, and the specs don't allow for 3D (not enough room, some' like that). 
{'Gravity' with Dolby Atmos was only in 2D, but 'TF4' with Atmos was in 3D - some studios are better @ that than others; it all depends...}

♦ www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1422517486

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

* Also, if you have a Web browser, google around to check @ what people are "guessing" according the the new 4K Blu-ray specs. 
Then, you can deduct a reality coming out of it. 

And, it goes even much deeper than that. ...True 4K on Blu-ray takes a lot of data space, a lot. And adding 3D picture, and 3D sound (Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro-3D) takes space too (it has to be hi-res audio "compacting"). 

I believe that the new 4K Blu-ray format is a 100Gb disc. ...Some people mentioned one terabyte would be needed for all of it to be "full UHD and all". 
...Or a 500Gb disc, @ minimum. If they do it with less you can easily "guess" what needs to be done; compression. ...And with it, Lossless audio and picture with new encoding algorithm in a more compact format; to save many many bites. 

Quality picture and sound requires full data replication. Less than true UHD and hi-res is not quality, it's business savings. 

For true confirmation we need to be living it. For reality we need to comprehend it from a realistic perspective. 

What do you think?


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm almost convinced that is what is going on. Milk the consumer by releasing original, then 3D, then Atmos and finally 3D with Atmos. That was a movie made for 3D, it does not make any sense why it's release with Atmos does not have the 3D option. I'm one of those consumers that just can't wait so I buy early. The one movie I did not see until it was released 3D was Avatar and it took 100% of my willpower to wait almost a year. Bet I'll end up with four versions of gravity in my collection I certainly have up to three versions of others.


♦ If I was the president of Warner Brothers movie studios in Hollywood, I would make sure of future guaranteed revenues for my company. 
I'm not here, it's not my job, to make the world happy; my job is to make my company wealthy with all the stems attached to it. 
- 'Gravity' is the future.... It's money in the bank, from the safeguarded WB's vault. ...Just like LOTR, ...3D and Dolby Atmos.
{Disney they have 'Star Wars', and they no longer support 3D like they used to; they go where the money goes.}



> As far as 4K Blu-Ray players coming out without 3D capability, I cannot believe that will occur. Not having that capability will eliminate too many consumers from the picture ( excuse the pun). If the processing power is not available or too cost prohibitive then yea, I suppose. 4K material is still a long way out and to be honest I don't personally see a big difference with true 4K and 1080 upscaled with my projector. I've seen both on my system and the resolution is just about indistinguishable on my 136" screen from 12 feet. What did make a huge difference was a better projector with huge improvements in the optics. Point is 4K is not something that will enhance the experience, it will continue to be a good marketing tool though.


♦ I wasn't talking about Blu-ray players (4K & 3D); I was referring @ the new UHD 4K Blu-ray disc format, coming up just before Christmas (100Gb disc).
- See my above post. 

* To take full advantage of UHD and 3D together (plus 3D sound); it seems to take a lot more than what we are going to see and experience later near this year's end. ...I think we are going to cry foul. ...Some slight disappointment is on the horizon; not the full expectation yet. ...Ahead is a very long an winding road before we get to where we truly want to, and can. Our technological world is simply way to slow. We need a lot more developments and resources and financial wisdom. 

OLED 4K is cool, ...but the software is even cooler. ...And it doesn't have to be "curved" for true attraction and real world performance. 
But it will be 'curved', just like that brand new OLED 4K TV.


----------



## robert816

While the Blu-Ray 4K UHD spec may not include 3D, we could still see 4K Blu-Ray players that would play 3D at 1080P as we do now. No reason I can think of to drop it from the current 1080P spec.

Of course this is all just speculation on my part since I'm not involved with the powers that be.


----------



## NorthSky

hendry98 said:


> I got confused with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 Ceiling Speakers placement, so let me tell you what I understand and correct me if I am wrong!
> - place the front ceiling speaker in 45 degree from MLP ear level. (e.g., if your ear level to the ceiling is 6ft (90 degree), just move the front ceiling speaker 6ft in front of you to get 45 degree, and then align it with your main left/right speakers).
> - Toe in the speaker so the tweeter points to your seat.
> The same goes for rear ceiling speaker.
> Is this correct?


♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## hendry98

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


I followed the same, but is my understanding or interpretation of Dolby guide is correct?


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> While the Blu-Ray 4K UHD spec may not include 3D, we could still see 4K Blu-Ray players that would play 3D at 1080P as we do now. No reason I can think of to drop it from the current 1080P spec.


Yes, of course, no problemo playing 3D in 2K (1080p); just like we're doing right now. 
The new 4K BR players will play 1080p BR discs too (in both 2D & 3D). ...But 4K BR discs in 3D? ...God lock. 



> Of course this is all just speculation on my part since I'm not involved with the powers that be.


The universe is all theoretically speculation...it has several layers and many dark holes (multiverse among an infinity of black holes into unexplored dimensions). Our science is so little advanced that time will never be enough to gravitate around full expansion and comprehension. ...Even from eternity.
It's all quite relative really. ...There is no single explanation, no singularity.


----------



## NorthSky

hendry98 said:


> I followed the same, but is my understanding or interpretation of Dolby guide is correct?


You sit @ the MLP. You look in front of you. There is a display and a center channel speaker (0 degree, straight horizontally).
From there, in relation to where you sit you start climbing up to get your overhead Dolby Atmos speakers set on your ceiling. 
Straight above you (MLP), vertically, is that 90 degree angle. ...And behind you, on that back wall, flat horizontally, is that 180 degree angle.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I believe that Kokishin still monitors the thread. I need to update my home theater info. I am now set up with:

Onkyo TX-NR1030
Def Tech 8060 towers, front right & left
Def Tech 8060HD center
Def Tech 8080SR surrounds
Goldenear Supersat 3s on top of the 8060 towers Top Front
Def Tech Procenter 1000 Top Rear mounted on speaker stands in line with the fronts

I ran the Onkyo calibration and the settings that I got actually made sense, as opposed to Audyssey. All that Audyssey ever saw for the 8060 towers was 150 Hz, whereas Audyssey sees them as 40 Hz.

The sound is the best...most well-articulated and balanced that I have heard in any theater space, including commercial theaters (no, I did not attend CES, and consequently did not hear those demos...).

It is that "magic" space where sound simply comes out of the air where it is supposed to.

It is all a matter of perspective, I suppose. My wife is appalled that I have so many movies (300+). I am appalled that I only have that many movies.


----------



## hendry98

NorthSky said:


> You sit @ the MLP. You look in front of you. There is a display and a center channel speaker (0 degree, straight horizontally).
> From there, in relation to where you sit you start climbing up to get your overhead Dolby Atmos speakers set on your ceiling.
> Straight above you (MLP), vertically, is that 90 degree angle. ...And behind you, on that back wall, flat horizontally, is that 180 degree angle.


Exactly what I did!

But I just want to confirm the next step,,, you need to shift their location to be in line with your main Left and Right speakers, right? and then toe in the speakers to point the tweeter to your seat?


----------



## NorthSky

hendry98 said:


> But I just want to confirm the next step,,, you need to shift their location to be in line with your main Left and Right speakers, right?
> And then toe in the speakers to point the tweeter to your seat?


Yes, as a guide.


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> I believe that Kokishin still monitors the thread. I need to update my home theater info. I am now set up with:
> 
> Onkyo TX-NR1030
> Def Tech 8060 towers, front right & left
> Def Tech 8060HD center
> Def Tech 8080SR surrounds
> Goldenear Supersat 3s on top of the 8060 towers Top Front
> Def Tech Procenter 1000 Top Rear
> 
> I ran the Onkyo calibration and the settings that I got actually made sense, as opposed to Audyssey. All that Audyssey ever saw for the 8060 towers was 150 Hz, whereas Audyssey sees them as 40 Hz.
> 
> The sound is the best...most well-articulated and balanced that I have heard in any theater space, including commercial theaters (no, I did not attend CES, and consequently did not hear those demos...).
> 
> It is that "magic" space where sound simply comes out of the air where it is supposed to.
> 
> It is all a matter of perspective, I suppose. My wife is appalled that I have so many movies (300+). I am appalled that I only have that many movies.


Great my 1030 also has 40Hz for the fronts because AccuEQ Doesn't EQ the fronts. I think this thing sounds great in both DSU and Atmos and simply amazes.
I'm hoping for a firmware upgrade for DTS:X, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## robert816

It's likely that he does, but to insure he notices your post and updates your information you should use the "mention" tag with his name so that it sends him a notice. The mention tag is the one that looks like a blue speaker or donut.


----------



## dvdwilly3

bargervais said:


> Great my 1030 also has 40Hz for the fronts because AccuEQ Doesn't EQ the fronts. I think this thing sounds great in both DSU and Atmos and simply amazes.
> I'm hoping for a firmware upgrade for DTS:X, but I'm not holding my breath.


From your mouth to God's ear...re DTS...


----------



## dvdwilly3

The problem is that if I try to edit the original, I only seem to see an abbreviated cont editor, that is, no blue speaker icon.

I do see that icon in the full content editor, but I do not want to repeat that entire post making the thread even longer.

Can I somehow...forward it to him? @kokishin
Post #22814 ...


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> ♦ If I was the president of Warner Brothers movie studios in Hollywood, I would make sure of future guaranteed revenues for my company.
> I'm not here, it's not my job, to make the world happy; my job is to make my company wealthy with all the stems attached to it.
> - 'Gravity' is the future.... It's money in the bank, from the safeguarded WB's vault. ...Just like LOTR, ...3D and Dolby Atmos.
> {Disney they have 'Star Wars', and they no longer support 3D like they used to; they go where the money goes.}
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ I wasn't talking about Blu-ray players (4K & 3D); I was referring @ the new UHD 4K Blu-ray disc format, coming up just before Christmas (100Gb disc).
> - See my above post.
> 
> * To take full advantage of UHD and 3D together (plus 3D sound); it seems to take a lot more than what we are going to see and experience later near this year's end. ...I think we are going to cry foul. ...Some slight disappointment is on the horizon; not the full expectation yet. ...Ahead is a very long an winding road before we get to where we truly want to, and can. Our technological world is simply way to slow. We need a lot more developments and resources and financial wisdom.
> 
> OLED 4K is cool, ...but the software is even cooler. ...And it doesn't have to be "curved" for true attraction and real world performance.
> But it will be 'curved', just like that brand new OLED 4K TV.



Hey Bob, me thinks you are an early riser. Your post was 9:30NST which is like 5AM in BC is it not? I'm used to seeing kbarnes early because he is on the other side of the pond, a further 4 hours ahead of North America .


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> Hey Bob, me thinks you are an early riser. Your post was 9:30NST which is like 5AM in BC is it not? I'm used to seeing kbarnes early because he is on the other side of the pond, a further 4 hours ahead of North America .


It's 5:45 AM right now here @ the south of Vancouver Island. ...I sleep very little sometimes, and last night even less. ...Still dark outside.


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> While the Blu-Ray 4K UHD spec may not include 3D, we could still see 4K Blu-Ray players that would play 3D at 1080P as we do now. No reason I can think of to drop it from the current 1080P spec.
> 
> Of course this is all just speculation on my part since I'm not involved with the powers that be.


 
Well then, that is a great idea. You'd be selling the new 4K technology and still keeping the options to play the older formats too. Really though, I don't see 4K as something to get excited about, even if the equipment was available the movie products are not abundant. At least with my 4K projector I realized better quality and up-scaling now just like DSU does with my Atmos set-up and older movies.


----------



## robert816

My Panasonic plasma never supported 3D anyway, so for me it doesn't matter. I do have a number of 3D titles and when I purchase a new television if it supports 3D I'll certainly check them out, but I was never a big fan of 3D anyway. I only purchase 3D titles when they are within a few dollars of the 2D titles.

Now 3D audio, I'm all about that. I don't see DTS:X as being any kind of game changer, just more of the same as Atmos. The fact that DTS:X will support the Atmos speaker configurations means I'm certainly not against it, bring it on, the more we have the better I say.

I picked up another pair of KEF eggs in the hope that future AVR's will support more than 4 overhead speakers. I'm using them as fake Atmos speakers but have them configured in the AVR as large in ceiling speakers. Took some tweaking of distance and gain levels, but it works really well.


----------



## NorthSky

Without DSU, right now, Dolby Atmos would be just a minuscule blip in the _"crepuscule"_. 

'Gravity' is a welcome boost. ...And so will be 'Jupiter Ascending', two months from now. ...In the interim...dts:x


----------



## robert816

NorthSky said:


> Without DSU, right now, Dolby Atmos would be just a minuscule blip in the _"crepuscule"_.
> 
> 'Gravity' is a welcome boost. ...And so will be 'Jupiter Ascending', two months from now. ...In the interim...dts:x


Careful Bob, I don't believe you mean anything by some of the things you say, but sometimes your posts reek of DTS:X fanboyism toward Atmos.

We'll soon read about DTS:X, but in the interim we still do not have it in our homes, and they could just as easily announce DTS:X coming in 2016 instead of 2015, I don't believe that they would want Dolby Atmos to have that much of a lead on them, but until it is officially announced we don't know what will happen.

DTS:X will not be enough to make me buy a new AVR this year anyway, now that combined with support for at least 7.2.6 could certainly push me over the threshold.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Without DSU, right now, Dolby Atmos would be just a minuscule blip in the _"crepuscule"_.
> 
> 'Gravity' is a welcome boost. ...And so will be 'Jupiter Ascending', two months from now. ...In the interim...dts:x


We will be playing DTS:X on what device over the next few months given new receivers won't be released until the end of summer or early fall? Sure I'd like to believe Denon will push an update out to my receiver by the end of April providing me with DTS:X, but not making any bets on that happening. 

Certain folks on this thread seem to bounce back and forth on other threads taking shots at Atmos and DSU. Maybe they've heard a demo at Best Buy or their local HT store, but in most cases they haven't even heard the home version yet. Guess they are trying to work on the "like" counts. Having watched the latest version of Gravity last night it was easy to hear the benefits of object based sound, love the *precision* compared to the first version of Gravity using DSU. I even sat through the credits just to listen a little longer. Didn't miss the screws floating at me in 3-D. Not that the thread has anything to do with 3-D pictures, but I will say when Vizio stops putting it on their high end displays (oxymoron?), 3-D on blu-ray is in trouble/dying.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we are going to see a flood of DTS:X announcements by studios releasing blurays over the next few months. Until there are more products on the market made for the masses I believe we are in for a trickle of releases using either format.


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just put it in a Drop Box. Torrent sites are notorious for all kinds of malware and viruses.



That may be true. However, that's how I got the Ultimate Bass Demo BD 1 & 2 with no problem.

And the root problem is that nobody that has one seems to want to step up. If someone wanted to trust me and send me theirs to make an image of, I'd gladly go through the process of making it more available. I'll even send it back.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dolby ATMOS Speaker Placement aide for anyone who needs.
Please use this excel sheet.
Just enter your ceiling height in inches and the ear height (if different than 36 inches). You should get min-max values for all your speaker placements.


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> Careful Bob, I don't believe you mean anything by some of the things you say, but sometimes your posts reek of DTS:X fanboyism toward Atmos.
> 
> We'll soon read about DTS:X, but in the interim we still do not have it in our homes, and they could just as easily announce DTS:X coming in 2016 instead of 2015, I don't believe that they would want Dolby Atmos to have that much of a lead on them, but until it is officially announced we don't know what will happen.
> 
> DTS:X will not be enough to make me buy a new AVR this year anyway, now that combined with support for at least 7.2.6 could certainly push me over the threshold.


No, in the interim (on April 9th) we'll have more (news) on dts:x --- no need to read more than what it is written. 
That's the problem sometimes on the Internet, on forums, blogs, chit-chats, social discussions, Facebook, Twitter, even in real life; people misinterpret the state-of-mind from their brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends. 

One, I have never heard dts:x ... so how can I be a fanboy ... think.
Two, by the time the tenth (10th) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title surfaces in our hands ('Jupiter Ascending') and plays in our home theater rooms, we might have a couple more Auro-3D Blu-ray titles to contemplate with.
Three, life is what it is. ...Today, yesterday, and tomorrow.


----------



## Movie78

RELAX

Its COMING!!!:smile:


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> We will be playing DTS:X on what device over the next few months given new receivers won't be released until the end of summer or early fall? Sure I'd like to believe Denon will push an update out to my receiver by the end of April providing me with DTS:X, but not making any bets on that happening.
> Certain folks on this thread seem to bounce back and forth on other threads taking shots at Atmos and DSU. Maybe they've heard a demo at Best Buy or their local HT store, but in most cases they haven't even heard the home version yet. Guess they are trying to work on the "like" counts. Having watched the latest version of Gravity last night it was easy to hear the benefits of object based sound, love the *precision* compared to the first version of Gravity using DSU. I even sat through the credits just to listen a little longer. Didn't miss the screws floating at me in 3-D. Not that the thread has anything to do with 3-D pictures, but I will say when Vizio stops putting it on their high end displays (oxymoron?), 3-D on blu-ray is in trouble/dying.
> I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we are going to see a flood of DTS:X announcements by studios releasing blurays over the next few months. Until there are more products on the market made for the masses I believe we are in for a trickle of releases using either format.


There are nine (9) Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles here in the now that we can enjoy, and DSU for everything else. ...And some folks are experimenting with Auro-3D as well, and Auro-Matic (2D & 3D). 

I am not part of that elite (first time adopters) this time around. We all made our choice and we all respect each other.

* One more thing; personal dissatisfaction and direct mention towards another member's post count, "Likes", keeping scores, comments that have nothing to do with the topic and that are negative, destructive, inciting/inviting others @ bullying and ...; spare me. Would you do that please Steve? ...For a much better world. I am asking you very politely, and for the very last time.
I would sincerely appreciate. ...Just let it go, move forward, positively. Discuss the post content, not the poster, not his post count, not the number of "Likes", not things that are irrelevant to Dolby Atmos, and not things that promote hatred. 

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chris Dotur said:


> Umm... this has been guessed at, but has it been confirmed?


As of right now, there doesn't seem to be a provision for UHD 3D (2160p in both eyes) as part of the HEVC spec (it may be added later if there is enough industry support, which is flagging). There is, however, continued support for HD 3D (1080p in both eyes) - I wonder if it's only available using H.264 compression as before. Though, the whole 3D craze is starting to fade as it has time and time again.


----------



## NorthSky

One thing I would like to clarify here, just in case that I wasn't understood:

3D Blu-rays @ 1080p we will still have; no problem here. ...But it is with UHD (4K) newer Blu-ray disc specs from the BDA that would not support 3D. 
I hope that it is clear. 

Who knows how long that will last; they might invent another newer and much better Blu-ray disc format with "rainbow" layers having a content capacity of 500+ Gbs.

But 3D @ 2K is still a sure thing (less so now with Disney @ home, but we can manage without their support). ...eBay.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> * One more thing; personal dissatisfaction and direct mention towards another member's post count, "Likes", keeping scores, comments that have nothing to do with the topic and that are negative, destructive, inciting/inviting others @ bullying and ...; spare me. Would you do that please Steve? ...For a much better world. I am asking you very politely, and for the very last time.
> I would sincerely appreciate. ...Just let it go, move forward, positively. Discuss the post content, not the poster, not his post count, not the number of "Likes", not things that are irrelevant to Dolby Atmos, and not things that promote hatred.
> 
> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.


Bob.. there is no rule we are not allowed to discuss a poster who continues to clog threads up with comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand (just like I am doing now..) and ask them to stop.

AVS Forum Rules

Your constant postings lead to multiple notifications on an ongoing, tiring basis.... Yes, I can put you on ignore.. but I shouldn't have to.. and quite frankly, life is too short for me to keep coming here and having to sift through pages of your musing to get to the information that is pertinent, real and of material value... your activity has made me spend less and less time here quite frankly.. there's a lot of ramblings in this thread (and the XMC, 8802, etc threads) by you that aren't pertinent to what is being discussed.

You were here before you were reborn as NorthSky... we all remember how that ended. 

If the mods want to ban me for speaking my mind, I will accept that.

But I found nothing in the ToS or Forum Rules that states I am not allowed to do so in a manner that is civilized and respectful.. 

As you point out, this is a community Bob.. you must remember that while you are absolutely free to do whatever you want, it does affects others around you.... while you don't like it when others point out it isn't always welcomed, such messages (like mine) should make you take a good hard look at how your are being perceived as a fellow member of said family, and understand that IMO, such behavior takes away some of the value of what having a place like this means to others.. 

As you said better than I could.. For a much better world. I am asking you very politely...

Just my .02.


----------



## smurraybhm

Marc - I would just like to thank you for taking time to participate in this thread and others. Hopefully you will continue to do so because your insight and knowledge has helped me improve mine - all the way back to when I first started posting on the AVS in SC-05/07 thread - the old days  You offer a unique perspective given your occupation on object based sound and the movie industry's use of it. 

I don't think I'm venturing any further off topic than some other posts on this thread with this question to you. I know you had an Atmos receiver and some Andrew Jones Atmos speakers, now you've shifted gears and bought an XMC-1. I would bet I'm not the only one on this thread who is wondering why you gave up a device that could take advantage of at least one object based format. Is it the slow adoption rate, the fact that Dirac is really making things sound that much better, XMC-1 is a better 2-channel option or something I may have missed reading. If it was for Dirac, why not just get the MiniDSP DDRC-88A and do something similar to what Keith has done to keep Atmos/DSU in the mix. If inclined, would love a little insight from the film mixer. Thanks. Steve


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> My Panasonic plasma never supported 3D anyway, so for me it doesn't matter. I do have a number of 3D titles and when I purchase a new television if it supports 3D I'll certainly check them out, but I was never a big fan of 3D anyway. I only purchase 3D titles when they are within a few dollars of the 2D titles.
> 
> Now 3D audio, I'm all about that. I don't see DTS:X as being any kind of game changer, just more of the same as Atmos. The fact that DTS:X will support the Atmos speaker configurations means I'm certainly not against it, bring it on, the more we have the better I say.
> 
> I picked up another pair of KEF eggs in the hope that future AVR's will support more than 4 overhead speakers. I'm using them as fake Atmos speakers but have them configured in the AVR as large in ceiling speakers. Took some tweaking of distance and gain levels, but it works really well.



If I had to watch 3D on a TV I wouldn't even bother. I have a 65" TV with 3D capability, I haven't even considered it for 3D. The only way 3D works is in a dedicated room with a large screen. This is why 3D at home for the most part does not interest the average consumer, it is not done right and the effect just does not work . First of all the screen needs to fill out your entire visual field and that does not happen with the average Family room TV. 3D is good but also upsold to people as a gimmick that does not work well on a small TV. 


3D audio will on the other hand be easier, cheaper and certainly very effective if done right , so everyone will benefit from the technology. Besides, once a new level of audio advancement happens the process is here to stay and normally grows from there on to something even better. Video is more gimmicky and manufactures are always trying to upsell to the newest latest and greatest . 480 ,720, 1080i , 1080P, LCD, DLP,EDTV, HDTV,UHD, OLED, 4K, Curved, Plasma, LED, digital to analog, smart TV, OTT and 4K UHD soon .....and on it will go.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Dolby ATMOS Speaker Placement aide for anyone who needs.
> Please use this excel sheet.
> Just enter your ceiling height in inches and the ear height (if different than 36 inches). You should get min-max values for all your speaker placements.


Very useful - thanks for that.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> ... activity has made me spend less and less time here quite frankly..


And that is the real tragedy of the situation IMO. In a sort of parallel world to Gresham's when he defined his memorable Law, bad posters drive out good. You are feeding the flame with the oxygen of attention, Marc. Just do what so many others have done and use the Ignore feature so handily provided by AVS. That way, we can continue to see your insightful posts from the 'sharp end' of Atmos and ignore the endless, pointless blather from elsewhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Marc - I would just like to thank you for taking time to participate in this thread and others. Hopefully you will continue to do so because your insight and knowledge has helped me improve mine - all the way back to when I first started posting on the AVS in SC-05/07 thread - the old days  You offer a unique perspective given your occupation on object based sound and the movie industry's use of it.
> 
> I don't think I'm venturing any further off topic than some other posts on this thread with this question to you. I know you had an Atmos receiver and some Andrew Jones Atmos speakers, now you've shifted gears and bought an XMC-1. I would bet I'm not the only one on this thread who is wondering why you gave up a device that could take advantage of at least one object based format. Is it the slow adoption rate, the fact that Dirac is really making things sound that much better, XMC-1 is a better 2-channel option or something I may have missed reading. If it was for Dirac, why not just get the MiniDSP DDRC-88A and do something similar to what Keith has done to keep Atmos/DSU in the mix. If inclined, would love a little insight from the film mixer. Thanks. Steve


+1 all round.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Dolby ATMOS Speaker Placement aide for anyone who needs.
> Please use this excel sheet.
> Just enter your ceiling height in inches and the ear height (if different than 36 inches). You should get min-max values for all your speaker placements.


Your pdf link will become very useful for many.  ...I will sure use it when the opportunity arise in helping others.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> No, not so much.
> But hey, you HAVE been posting some helpful things recently regarding angles and speaker placements. So that's an improvement of sorts.
> I had 3 of my bosses over the other day on lunch for an Atmos demo. They were suitably blown away.
> Of course, all three have wives, and subwoofers like mine would never pass the WAF. One's talking about getting a sound bar now, another is going to re-examine his setup for potential upgrades, and the director "says" that he's pumped and wants to do something. I've seen his house and have met his wife. He's deluded - no speakers are going up in her house. Ha.
> So...does that count as a successful Atmos demonstration or a fail?


Very cool man.  Right on! ...I'd say it's a success.


----------



## Movie78

roxiedog13 said:


> If I had to watch 3D on a TV I wouldn't even bother. I have a 65" TV with 3D capability, I haven't even considered it for 3D. The only way 3D works is in a dedicated room with a large screen. This is why 3D at home for the most part does not interest the average consumer, it is not done right and the effect just does not work . First of all the screen needs to fill out your entire visual field and that does not happen with the average Family room TV. 3D is good but also upsold to people as a gimmick that does not work well on a small TV.
> 
> 
> 3D audio will on the other hand be easier, cheaper and certainly very effective if done right , so everyone will benefit from the technology. Besides, once a new level of audio advancement happens the process is here to stay and normally grows from there on to something even better. Video is more gimmicky and manufactures are always trying to upsell to the newest latest and greatest . 480 ,720, 1080i , 1080P, LCD, DLP,EDTV, HDTV,UHD, OLED, 4K, Curved, Plasma, LED, digital to analog, smart TV, OTT and 4K UHD soon .....and on it will go.



+2


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> If I had to watch 3D on a TV I wouldn't even bother. I have a 65" TV with 3D capability, I haven't even considered it for 3D. The only way 3D works is in a dedicated room with a large screen. This is why 3D at home for the most part does not interest the average consumer, it is not done right and the effect just does not work . First of all the screen needs to fill out your entire visual field and that does not happen with the average Family room TV. 3D is good but also upsold to people as a gimmick that does not work well on a small TV.
> 
> 
> 3D audio will on the other hand be easier, cheaper and certainly very effective if done right , so everyone will benefit from the technology. Besides, once a new level of audio advancement happens the process is here to stay and normally grows from there on to something even better. Video is more gimmicky and manufactures are always trying to upsell to the newest latest and greatest . 480 ,720, 1080i , 1080P, LCD, DLP,EDTV, HDTV,UHD, OLED, 4K, Curved, Plasma, LED, digital to analog, smart TV, OTT and 4K UHD soon .....and on it will go.


True, which is why I didn't buy the more expensive Panny at the time that had 3D. I'm good with current 3D technology for about 20 minutes before I start developing a severe headache, so yeah, not a big fan of 3D video.

3D audio. couldn't get it in my home quick enough. After watching/hearing several movies with Atmos in the theatre, I bought the first week the Pioneer SC-87 was available, and I have been a happy boy. I do not have any family to deal with like a lot of the forum members, so being able to add/remove speakers and subs as I see fit has been nothing short of sheer happiness.

I am shopping for a replacement for the Panny though, it's begun to display light banding at the top of the screen, this time I am considering a projector along with regular flat panels, but thank goodness I'm in no hurry so plenty of time to shop and compare.


----------



## FilmMixer

smurraybhm said:


> I don't think I'm venturing any further off topic than some other posts on this thread with this question to you. I know you had an Atmos receiver and some Andrew Jones Atmos speakers, now you've shifted gears and bought an XMC-1. I would bet I'm not the only one on this thread who is wondering why you gave up a device that could take advantage of at least one object based format. Is it the slow adoption rate, the fact that Dirac is really making things sound that much better, XMC-1 is a better 2-channel option or something I may have missed reading. If it was for Dirac, why not just get the MiniDSP DDRC-88A and do something similar to what Keith has done to keep Atmos/DSU in the mix. If inclined, would love a little insight from the film mixer. Thanks. Steve


Steve. It was really a matter of wanting to step it up regarding sound quality. 

The AVRs weren't doing it and I didn't want to spend a mint at this point 

For ~2k I got the XMC and a warehouse deal XPA-5. Add 100 for Dirac Full and I knew I couldn't approach the bang for the buck quotient. 

My room is fairly wide and a little deep (we are renting now). The constraints of where I can plug in gear, put the couch, etc made it so the up firing speakers weren't as effective as I would like them to be. The surrounds sit right behind my couch on the sides and the mains are around 9-1/2 feet in front of me. So the upfiring on the surrounds shoot in front of me and the fronts don't go as far back as I sit. They work really, really well when I am centered in the space. Not as much when I'm on the couch. 

So I wanted pure audio quality at this point in time. The XMC definitely is amazing for its price. 

When we move in a year I will most certainly get a place with an ideal space for a theater and install speakers in the ceiling. And I wil go the 8802 route. Or add Dirac if needed. Or see if Emotiva can get the XMR together. Or???

But for now I wanted to have a great 5.1 system over compromised atmos. 

On a side note I know tha Dolby is disappointed about the speed the studios are releasing content... I don't expect we will see that drastically change until early 2016. Same goes for DTS. Maybe they'll surprise me on my birthday (the 9th). 

All speculation on my part. But as of today I'd venture it's a good guess.


----------



## Wildbrando

*Building a 9.4.10 atmos on the cheap*

Any thoughts on building an Atmos system 9+.4.10 with out spending 20-30 on a high end processor ?


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> .
> On a side note I know tha Dolby is disappointed about the speed the studios are releasing content... I don't expect we will see that drastically change until early 2016. Same goes for DTS. Maybe they'll surprise me on my birthday (the 9th).
> 
> All speculation on my part. But as of today I'd venture it's a good guess.


So Dolby has no say on what the studios choose to use as a mix. I'm not totally disappointed, look how long it took studios to put 7.1 on their Blu-Rays. I'm thinking studios will not flood the market with DTS:X Blu-Rays once the announcement is made on the 9th. Once 2016 rolls in I too agree, we should start seeing that Atmos and DTS:X Blu-Rays will pick up speed. I'm not completely disappointed with what we have up to now.
By the way happy birthday and thanks for you insight.


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> Bob.. there is no rule we are not allowed to discuss a poster who continues to clog threads up with comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand (just like I am doing now..) and ask them to stop. . .


Thank you for your well-worded, frank but cordial and diplomatic post. It is a timely and constructive contribution to this thread, and I hope that the person you are addressing will take it to heart in the spirit in which it was offered.


----------



## batpig

Wildbrando said:


> Any thoughts on building an Atmos system 9+.4.10 with out spending 20-30 on a high end processor ?


Not gonna happen. At least not with fully discrete channels. If you are willing to take the Scott Simonian (TM) Franken-PLII- system approach you can matrix some extra channels by using some cheap receivers with PLII processing. For example with two old PLII receivers you could extract a semi-discrete center overhead from the front/rear height channels. 

But it would start to get ridiculous once you get beyond 9.1.6 or so. 

The only other way to exceed the 11ch limit would be to use arrays for each channel. Wouldn't increase the channel count but you'd have more speakers making noise. For example using a two speaker array for surround and all 4 height channels you could have two side surrounds on each wall and eight speakers above for 17 speakers total playing back an 7.1.4 channel output. I'd only bother with that if you wanted to get more even coverage for multiple rows.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Very useful - thanks for that.


You are welcome. My tiny little contribution.
Unfortunately AVS does not allow direct excel sheets to be attached, so had to zip it. 
It's an extra step for some one who want to take a quick look..


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Your pdf link will become very useful for many.  ...I will sure use it when the opportunity arise in helping others.


Thanks Bob.
As you can see, I have added it in my signature for easy access.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

FilmMixer said:


> Steve. It was really a matter of wanting to step it up regarding sound quality.
> 
> The AVRs weren't doing it and I didn't want to spend a mint at this point
> 
> For ~2k I got the XMC and a warehouse deal XPA-5. Add 100 for Dirac Full and I knew I couldn't approach the bang for the buck quotient.
> 
> So I wanted pure audio quality at this point in time. The XMC definitely is amazing for its price.
> 
> When we move in a year I will most certainly get a place with an ideal space for a theater and install speakers in the ceiling. And I wil go the 8802 route. Or add Dirac if needed. Or see if Emotiva can get the XMR together. Or???
> 
> But for now I wanted to have a great 5.1 system over compromised atmos.
> 
> On a side note I know tha Dolby is disappointed about the speed the studios are releasing content... I don't expect we will see that drastically change until early 2016. Same goes for DTS. Maybe they'll surprise me on my birthday (the 9th).
> 
> All speculation on my part. But as of today I'd venture it's a good guess.


Well, +1 I guess. 

I want 9.1.6 Atmos and I want Dirac. Dirac won. I could have delayed my buying decision between the AV7702 and the XMC-1 since the HT is still a few months from ready (the DIY sound proof door has just been put in position), but the imminent prices raise has finally gotten to me: I ordered the XMC-1.

Hoping for the XMR-1 in about a year, which promises to have it all.

The XMC-1 will temporarily replace my UMC-1 in my living room set, then move to the HT when ready, then come back when the XMR-1 surfaces.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Wildbrando said:


> Any thoughts on building an Atmos system 9+.4.10 with out spending 20-30 on a high end processor ?


x.x.10... not yet..
people are dreaming about x.x.6 to be possible this year.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So for those of you who watched gravity (I just watched the space debris scenes mostly) did you guys hear a lot of overhead stuff going on? It seems like most of the first 15 min of the movie was dialogue panning around the room (which was very cool/clever). I heard the height go into full swing when Bullock was flung out into space/ spinning (the music sounded like it was panning overhead) & the interior scenes where she's in the escape capsules / when the fire ignites in the Chinese station. Otherwise the overheads didn't seem to see much action, though the sound was very good. Does that seem consistent with your experience? 

I'm using the atlantic tech 44-DA's, so far my impression seems to be that some overhead stuff sounds fantastic while at other times it's washed out... and I've tried a lot of tricks (moving the front speakers closer to the MLP, tilting the tweeters or the speakers themselves, etc etc.)


----------



## Wildbrando

batpig said:


> Not gonna happen. At least not with fully discrete channels. If you are willing to take the Scott Simonian (TM) Franken-PLII- system approach you can matrix some extra channels by using some cheap receivers with PLII processing. For example with two old PLII receivers you could extract a semi-discrete center overhead from the front/rear height channels.
> 
> But it would start to get ridiculous once you get beyond 9.1.6 or so.
> 
> The only other way to exceed the 11ch limit would be to use arrays for each channel. Wouldn't increase the channel count but you'd have more speakers making noise. For example using a two speaker array for surround and all 4 height channels you could have two side surrounds on each wall and eight speakers above for 17 speakers total playing back an 7.1.4 channel output. I'd only bother with that if you wanted to get more even coverage for multiple rows.


two Atmos AVRs split ? Is that even possible ?


----------



## pasender91

Look for past posts of a fellow called Nalleh, he has such a crazy config  with 2 Atmos AVRs, denons 4100 and 5200 if i'm correct ...
Personally, i'm not convinced , prefer to have one AVR and wait for futur hardware improvements


----------



## Wild Blue

aaranddeeman said:


> Dolby ATMOS Speaker Placement aide for anyone who needs.
> Please use this excel sheet.
> Just enter your ceiling height in inches and the ear height (if different than 36 inches). You should get min-max values for all your speaker placements.


Yes, thanks for this--puts it in a different interface for people to make concrete measurements for installation!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Wildbrando said:


> two Atmos AVRs split ? Is that even possible ?


Not really, no. I mean, you could set up one with 7.1.4 and another as 9.1.2 and find some way to just use the wide speaker outputs on the second for Atmos content... Talk about a PITA and double the price for two additional outputs.

Let's see what 2015 units have in store for us.


----------



## NorthSky

wildbrando said:


> two atmos avrs split ? Is that even possible ?





pasender91 said:


> look for past posts of a fellow called nalleh, he has such a crazy config :d with 2 atmos avrs, denons 4100 and 5200 if i'm correct ...
> Personally, i'm not convinced , prefer to have one avr and wait for futur hardware improvements


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/32693593/


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> True, which is why I didn't buy the more expensive Panny at the time that had 3D. I'm good with current 3D technology for about 20 minutes before I start developing a severe headache, so yeah, not a big fan of 3D video.
> 
> 3D audio. couldn't get it in my home quick enough. After watching/hearing several movies with Atmos in the theatre, I bought the first week the Pioneer SC-87 was available, and I have been a happy boy. I do not have any family to deal with like a lot of the forum members, so being able to add/remove speakers and subs as I see fit has been nothing short of sheer happiness.
> 
> I am shopping for a replacement for the Panny though, it's begun to display light banding at the top of the screen, this time I am considering a projector along with regular flat panels, but thank goodness I'm in no hurry so plenty of time to shop and compare.


 
Too bad you get a headache watching 3D, not something I have a problem with or I certainly wouldn't bother either. I have friends that get a headache watching 2D on my screen, some people are just sensitive to any extending viewing even on a CRT and especially for work


You will be happy with the Projector large screen flat screen TV combo , after all not all programming is better suited to a big projection screen . 


The new 3D audio formats certainly add another fantastic dimension to the theater experience
looking forward to something well beyond TMNT though .  I`m sure plenty is on the way.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Aras_Volodka said:


> So for those of you who watched gravity (I just watched the space debris scenes mostly) did you guys hear a lot of overhead stuff going on? Otherwise the overheads didn't seem to see much action, though the sound was very good. Does that seem consistent with your experience?


In my 7.1.4 system I heard overhead activity quite frequently on Gravity. So much I stopped critically listening to it and just let the whole thing happen.

Excellent choice of material for the mixers to go nuts with Atmos. One of the reasons is that often there's not so much going on at the same time that it makes it harder to discern what the heck is going on where.

And for as far reaching as Gravity is, I do enjoy it.


----------



## zapper

Unfortunately I was one of the first bunch to buy The Toshiba Blue Ray player when it first came out and the player had excellent picture quality, in my opinion and others. It had better picture quality then the current players, don't forget Sony induced other movie companies together to defeat Toshiba and it worked so here I was stuck with a Blue Ray player and movies that was absolute.

What I am leading to is this will look around the Atmos threads and wait until everything is finalizes and then if Atmos is the leader and best sound by then it will be cheaper then it is currently and wont get burned again in going into a new technology.. This are my thoughts and opinion only.


----------



## SoopaFly

hendry98 said:


> Exactly what I did!
> 
> But I just want to confirm the next step,,, you need to shift their location to be in line with your main Left and Right speakers, right? and then toe in the speakers to point the tweeter to your seat?


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


----------



## petetherock

aaranddeeman said:


> x.x.10... not yet..
> people are dreaming about x.x.6 to be possible this year.


Thanks for the Atmos file, but it's password protected, can you pm me the password?
Or is there a link to your website that has a unprotected version?

Cheers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> Thanks for the Atmos file, but it's password protected, can you pm me the password?
> Or is there a link to your website that has a unprotected version?
> 
> Cheers


Strange. It opened right up for me. No issues. No password needed.


----------



## petetherock

I am using a Mac - wonder if that's the issue?
It comes 'protected' ?
Dan:
Maybe you can send it to me?


----------



## petetherock

Jupiter Ascending..
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jupiter-Ascending-Blu-ray/124311/

Looks like a Hunger Games Meet Divergent In Space With The Twilight Teenage Pout - but with lots of bangs, booms and babes


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> Jupiter Ascending..
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jupiter-Ascending-Blu-ray/124311/
> 
> Looks like a Hunger Games Meet Divergent In Space With The Twilight Teenage Pout - but with lots of bangs, booms and babes


It's a rental for sure. Personally, I just don't see how or why the W's are still given money to make movies.


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a rental for sure. Personally, I just don't see how or why the W's are still given money to make movies.


You are lucky mate..
There isn't a rental store within 50km of my home that carries anything but DVDs 

It might come up on cable, but that's in DD 5.1 if I get lucky... I guess I could buy it when it becomes cheaper, then sell it to someone after I have seen it...

Certainly I feel no compulsion to own every disc that comes up... Step Up... ewww..


----------



## brahman12

*Unbroken - mosdef awesome sound*

Just watched Unbroken.....really nice sound mix. The dogfight/flight scenes in the early part of the movie were very cool. Some of the anti-aircraft explosions were so precisely following what was happening on screen that I couldn't stop grinning .....good action happening within the tops and those Japanese Zero fighters were actually flying THROUGH the room, not just around and above. Lots of nice, subtly sexy effects throughout the film. About an hour and twenty minutes into the movie (chapter 12 or 13, not perfectly sure) when the guys are working on cleaning out the POW camp toilets, there are flies buzzing around, and right before the scene ends, a fly buzzes and it sounds like it is about half an inch from your left ear .....dude!!!! I actually flinched and swatted at my left ear...I replayed the scene and it sounded exactly the same once more....bug in my left ear lol. Don't want to blow up too much of the movie, but it is awesome in a subtle way....similar to how I feel Mockingjay is a mad cool mix as well. The movie is beautifully shot via some gorgeous cinematography magic....I felt Angelina did a strong job in directing her actors and being able to emote beauty within all of the powerful emotions being portrayed on screen....and I definitely like the movie all around. An Atmos gem that should be experienced at least once if you got the setup....and I reckon I will watch this movie quite a few times. Cheers Atmos brethren !!!! Enjoy it.


----------



## Wildbrando

NorthSky said:


> ♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/32693593/


Thanks for the link...... Good talk on multible AVRs
I'm on board with Scott on just wanting full overhead sound field, this year next year with x.x.6 from the manufatures ? hate waiting on someone else.. Grab the bull by the horns !


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> You are lucky mate..
> There isn't a rental store within 50km of my home that carries anything but DVDs
> 
> It might come up on cable, but that's in DD 5.1 if I get lucky... I guess I could buy it when it becomes cheaper, then sell it to someone after I have seen it...
> 
> Certainly I feel no compulsion to own every disc that comes up... Step Up... ewww..


That's too bad about the rental situation. Buy it in the bargain bin because if you didn't like Step Up, you _really_ will want to get this one out of your head quickly. Mila Kunis is definite eye candy, but even she can't save this turkey. 

The crack pipes were running 24/7 when the W Duo was creating this one.


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> Thanks for the Atmos file, but it's password protected, can you pm me the password?
> Or is there a link to your website that has a unprotected version?
> 
> Cheers


The sheet is protected (for a reason). You will be able to change only 2 fields: Ceiling Height and Ear Height.


----------



## NorthSky

Wildbrando said:


> Thanks for the link...... Good talk on multiple AVRs
> I'm on board with Scott on just wanting full overhead sound field, this year next year with x.x.6 from the manufacturers ? hate waiting on someone else.. Grab the bull by the horns !


You are very welcome; it's my pleasure.


----------



## desray2k

brahman12 said:


> Just watched Unbroken.....really nice sound mix. The dogfight/flight scenes in the early part of the movie were very cool...The movie is beautifully shot via some gorgeous cinematography magic....I felt Angelina did a strong job in directing her actors and being able to emote beauty within all of the powerful emotions being portrayed on screen....and I definitely like the movie all around. An Atmos gem that should be experienced at least once if you got the setup....and I reckon I will watch this movie quite a few times. Cheers Atmos brethren !!!! Enjoy it.


Touche!


----------



## aaranddeeman

I have updated the Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator with another tab to validate your current distance.
Again you will need to specify ceiling height and ear height in inches as before, plus the distance of a given height speaker from MLP.
Based on where the speaker is (in front or behind MLP), you should get the vertical angle achieved and the speaker designation.
Hope this is useful.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> I have updated the Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator with another tab to validate your current distance.
> Again you will need to specify ceiling height and ear height in inches as before, plus the distance of a given height speaker from MLP.
> Based on where the speaker is (in front or behind MLP), you should get the vertical angle achieved and the speaker designation.
> Hope this is useful.


Cool beans!  Thanks!


----------



## pasender91

aaranddeeman said:


> I have updated the Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator with another tab to validate your current distance.
> Again you will need to specify ceiling height and ear height in inches as before, plus the distance of a given height speaker from MLP.
> Based on where the speaker is (in front or behind MLP), you should get the vertical angle achieved and the speaker designation.
> Hope this is useful.


Don't take this too seriously...
Its a nice calculator except for one point, unrelated to the quality of the results.
It is the chosen unit, the inch.
Is AVS so much US and UK centric, that it ignores the units used by 90% of the people on this lovely planet, based on the metric system ? 
British Imperial units are something dating from 1825, it is time to move on, who needs units that multiply by 12 (inch to foot) or 14 (pound to stone) !!!
As a reminder a mile is 8 furlongs, a furlong is 10 chains, a chain is 22 yards, a yard is 3 feet, and a foot is 12 inches , what a mess !!! 

Metric system is all based on decimal system, which makes quite some sense when we use a decimal system for computing, doesn't it ? 

So in my wildest dreams, i can see aaranddeeman doing a new version of the xls using cm or m as the unit ...


----------



## jdsmoothie

^^
Keeping in mind of course that AVSForum is primarily a US forum whereas its sister forum AVForums is the Europe equivalent where metric system measurements are much more appropriate.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> I just received my copy of DIAMOND LUXE EDITION of Gravity. It comes in a beautiful package going to pop it in and give a listen. Not sure if I can take too much of Sandra Bullock, but I'll give it a go.
> I also received INTERSTELLAR, I'm looking forward to this one in DSU.





lujan said:


> Yeah, I too got both of these today... which one to see first? I think I'll watch Gravity tonight to hear the Atmos difference.


I was finally able to watch Intersteller last night and forum members were right about the amazing sound for a non-Atmos movie. It's great using DSU on this 5.1 DTS HD Master sound track. I did have to turn on subtitles which I'm doing more and more these days probably due to the loud surround audio. The only recent movie I can think of that had a strong center channel was The Imitation Game. Anyone else notice this?


----------



## roxiedog13

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Keeping in mind of course that AVSForum is primarily a US forum whereas its sister forum AVForums is the Europe equivalent where metric system measurements are much more appropriate.



We use metric in Canada too eh ! :wink:


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> Don't take this too seriously...
> Its a nice calculator except for one point, unrelated to the quality of the results.
> It is the chosen unit, the inch.
> Is AVS so much US and UK centric, that it ignores the units used by 90% of the people on this lovely planet, based on the metric system ?
> British Imperial units are something dating from 1825, it is time to move on, who needs units that multiply by 12 (inch to foot) or 14 (pound to stone) !!!
> As a reminder a mile is 8 furlongs, a furlong is 10 chains, a chain is 22 yards, a yard is 3 feet, and a foot is 12 inches , what a mess !!!
> 
> Metric system is all based on decimal system, which makes quite some sense when we use a decimal system for computing, doesn't it ?
> 
> So in my wildest dreams, i can see aaranddeeman doing a new version of the xls using cm or m as the unit ...


Thanks.
Please note however that it doesn't matter what unit you use. inches is just mentioned. You can read it as "cm" or "feet" or "meter". It's just a number. There is no unit specific calculation involved.
I will update it to call "units" in stead of "inches". Until then please replace it mentally


----------



## roxiedog13

brahman12 said:


> Just watched Unbroken.....really nice sound mix. The dogfight/flight scenes in the early part of the movie were very cool. Some of the anti-aircraft explosions were so precisely following what was happening on screen that I couldn't stop grinning .....good action happening within the tops and those Japanese Zero fighters were actually flying THROUGH the room, not just around and above. Lots of nice, subtly sexy effects throughout the film. About an hour and twenty minutes into the movie (chapter 12 or 13, not perfectly sure) when the guys are working on cleaning out the POW camp toilets, there are flies buzzing around, and right before the scene ends, a fly buzzes and it sounds like it is about half an inch from your left ear .....dude!!!! I actually flinched and swatted at my left ear...I replayed the scene and it sounded exactly the same once more....bug in my left ear lol. Don't want to blow up too much of the movie, but it is awesome in a subtle way....similar to how I feel Mockingjay is a mad cool mix as well. The movie is beautifully shot via some gorgeous cinematography magic....I felt Angelina did a strong job in directing her actors and being able to emote beauty within all of the powerful emotions being portrayed on screen....and I definitely like the movie all around. An Atmos gem that should be experienced at least once if you got the setup....and I reckon I will watch this movie quite a few times. Cheers Atmos brethren !!!! Enjoy it.



+1 . Not only heard the great Atmos, my seat shakers made it feel as though I was on the plane shooting the 50cal guns . I had the same thing going on with the movie Fury .


----------



## aaranddeeman

roxiedog13 said:


> We use metric in Canada too eh ! :wink:


Ok guys. It's more generic now. 
Hope it's "Universal" happiness now...


----------



## RMK!

lujan said:


> I was finally able to watch Intersteller last night and forum members were right about the amazing sound for a non-Atmos movie. It's great using DSU on this 5.1 DTS HD Master sound track. I did have to turn on subtitles which I'm doing more and more these days probably due to the loud surround audio. The only recent movie I can think of that had a strong center channel was The Imitation Game. Anyone else notice this?


Stealing from a post I made in another thread:



> Back to Interstellar, is it just me or is that film an hour too long? It has some great bits and the audio is "stellar" but I felt myself growing older watching it. Many complained about dialog intelligibility but with our super CD's we XXX owners don't have to worry. Even with McConaughey mumbling like in his Lincoln ads, I heard every word ... even the ones I could have done without . The liftoff, worm hole and black hole scenes were epic from a sound and visual perspective.


I removed the speaker brand name to avoid brand bickering but honestly, high efficiency design Home Theater speakers overcome many limitations of smallish horizontal MTM (soft dome) center channel speaker designs. I realize that not everyone can nor would want to accommodate these mostly industrial looking speakers in their homes, but they are IMHO the best way to combat the dialog intelligibility issues that many here experience.


----------



## aaranddeeman

RMK! said:


> Stealing from a post I made in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> I removed the speaker brand name to avoid brand bickering but honestly, high efficiency design Home Theater speakers overcome many limitations of smallish horizontal MTM (soft dome) center channel speaker designs. I realize that not everyone can nor would want to accommodate these mostly industrial looking speakers in their homes, but they are IMHO the best way to combat the dialog intelligibility issues that many here experience.


Ah. So you have a center like this...


----------



## Nugget

pasender91 said:


> who needs units that multiply by 12?


Anyone who needs to cut a board into three equal pieces, as happens all the time in construction.

http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk/metrix/pontius


----------



## jrref

RMK! said:


> Stealing from a post I made in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> I removed the speaker brand name to avoid brand bickering but honestly, high efficiency design Home Theater speakers overcome many limitations of smallish horizontal MTM (soft dome) center channel speaker designs. I realize that not everyone can nor would want to accommodate these mostly industrial looking speakers in their homes, but they are IMHO the best way to combat the dialog intelligibility issues that many here experience.


The dialogue in this movie was terrible!!!! Half the time, you are right, everyone was mumbling and you really needed to hear every word to understand this movie!


----------



## nucky

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Keeping in mind of course that AVSForum is primarily a US forum whereas its sister forum AVForums is the Europe equivalent where metric system measurements are much more appropriate.





lujan said:


> I was finally able to watch Intersteller last night and forum members were right about the amazing sound for a non-Atmos movie. It's great using DSU on this 5.1 DTS HD Master sound track. I did have to turn on subtitles which I'm doing more and more these days probably due to the loud surround audio. The only recent movie I can think of that had a strong center channel was The Imitation Game. Anyone else notice this?


I have Atmos and my center speaker is fine, everything is crystal clear.


----------



## chi_guy50

jrref said:


> The dialogue in this movie was terrible!!!! Half the time, you are right, everyone was mumbling and *you really needed to hear every word to understand this movie!*


So join us deaf old fogies and turn on the closed captions.


----------



## multit

There is a preview of a renewed "deep note audio" trailer available, named Eclipse: http://www.thx.com/consumer/movies/120832135 
Three different version with 30 to 60 seconds will be available also in Dolby Atmos, but it seems only in those rare THX movie theaters with Dolby Atmos installed.

And like the Dolby Horizon trailer unfortunately no news about an availability for home use...


----------



## RMK!

jrref said:


> The dialogue in this movie was terrible!!!! Half the time, you are right, everyone was mumbling and you really needed to hear every word to understand this movie!


Unfortunately and as is the case here, hearing all of the dialog does not a good movie make. 

OTOH, Interstellar is a audio/video feast.


----------



## lujan

jrref said:


> The dialogue in this movie was terrible!!!! Half the time, you are right, everyone was mumbling and you really needed to hear every word to understand this movie!


Even after hearing (seeing) every word (subtitles), it's hard to understand this movie but it was fun to watch.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> I have updated the Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator with another tab to validate your current distance.
> Again you will need to specify ceiling height and ear height in inches as before, plus the distance of a given height speaker from MLP.
> Based on where the speaker is (in front or behind MLP), you should get the vertical angle achieved and the speaker designation.
> Hope this is useful.


Fabulous! Thanks for this. Really useful tool. I hope it is going to be linked to from Post 1 in the thread! And it confirms that all of my overhead speakers are right on specification for Atmos too!


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Don't take this too seriously...
> Its a nice calculator except for one point, unrelated to the quality of the results.
> It is the chosen unit, the inch.
> Is AVS so much US and UK centric, that it ignores the units used by 90% of the people on this lovely planet, based on the metric system ?
> British Imperial units are something dating from 1825, it is time to move on, who needs units that multiply by 12 (inch to foot) or 14 (pound to stone) !!!
> As a reminder a mile is 8 furlongs, a furlong is 10 chains, a chain is 22 yards, a yard is 3 feet, and a foot is 12 inches , what a mess !!!
> 
> Metric system is all based on decimal system, which makes quite some sense when we use a decimal system for computing, doesn't it ?
> 
> So in my wildest dreams, i can see aaranddeeman doing a new version of the xls using cm or m as the unit ...


Yeah - we often have a little laugh to ourselves at how the rest of the world had to find a real easy way to measure things so they could understand stuff. 

It's based on counting on one's fingers and toes isn't it? 
































_Just kidding._


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Fabulous! Thanks for this. Really useful tool. I hope it is going to be linked to from Post 1 in the thread! And it confirms that all of my overhead speakers are right on specification for Atmos too!


Thanks.
I guess markus should link it there at some point.


----------



## brahman12

*Buttkickers!!!*



roxiedog13 said:


> +1 . Not only heard the great Atmos, my seat shakers made it feel as though I was on the plane shooting the 50cal guns . I had the same thing going on with the movie Fury .


Gonna get some new subs next winter, and I am thinking of getting some seat shakers as well after experiencing them in a movie theater here in NYC and at the Brooklyn Aquarium SpongeBob SquarePants family exhibit.....I got two little dudes in my house, so no jokes about a grown man in a SpongeBob exhibit LOL


----------



## kbarnes701

jdsmoothie said:


> ^^
> Keeping in mind of course that AVSForum is primarily a US forum whereas its sister forum AVForums is the Europe equivalent where metric system measurements are much more appropriate.


AVForums is a *UK* forum JD, where we are proud to use feet and inches.  They’ve tried for 45 years to force the metric system on us and failed.


----------



## kbarnes701

lujan said:


> I was finally able to watch Intersteller last night and forum members were right about the amazing sound for a non-Atmos movie. It's great using DSU on this 5.1 DTS HD Master sound track. I did have to turn on subtitles which I'm doing more and more these days probably due to the loud surround audio. The only recent movie I can think of that had a strong center channel was The Imitation Game. * Anyone else notice this?*


Not me. Lack of dialog clarity is usually a setup issue of some sort. Although in the case of Interstellar, which I have on BD but haven’t yet summoned up the energy to watch, I gather Nolan thought it was a good idea to have dialog nobody could understand. Great. A bit like having the Dark Knight Rises play at a gazillion dB in IMAX theaters. Problem with superstar directors is nobody dare tell them when they are having a really, really crap idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> We use metric in Canada too eh ! :wink:


Yeah but you're French really! .


----------



## kbarnes701

jrref said:


> The dialogue in this movie was terrible!!!! Half the time, you are right, everyone was mumbling and you really needed to hear every word to understand this movie!


I am coming to the conclusion that this is probably the last Nolan movie I will be buying. I have had it here for a week and not watched it yet, choosing last night, instead, *Despicable Me*. Now there's a movie with a soundtrack worth listening to!


----------



## Scott Simonian

zimmo said:


> (SCOTT SIMONIAN)you do not even this system then you do not know what were talking about.i have one and i like then we do not talk about that ,we donot know.
> 
> 
> have good day


lolwut?


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> I am coming to the conclusion that this is probably the last Nolan movie I will be buying. I have had it here for a week and not watched it yet, choosing last night, instead, *Despicable Me*. *Now there's a movie with a soundtrack worth listening to!*


Mixed by a good friend of mine who has also done the last 6 Nolan film. 

Just goes to show you that some directors put more of a stamp on the sound track than others.. and that we aren't just button pushers or "engineers."


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> There is a preview of a renewed "deep note audio" trailer available, named Eclipse: http://www.thx.com/consumer/movies/120832135


Nice find!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Not me. Lack of dialog clarity is usually a setup issue of some sort. Although in the case of Interstellar, which I have on BD but haven’t yet summoned up the energy to watch, I gather Nolan thought it was a good idea to have dialog nobody could understand. Great. A bit like having the Dark Knight Rises play at a gazillion dB in IMAX theaters. *Problem with superstar directors is nobody dare tell them when they are having a really, really crap idea.*


On that subject, we just finished watching the hilarious What Just Happened (2008) directed by Barry Levinson and based on the tell-all book by Art Linson about his experiences as a producer in Hollywood. The film is a farcical look at two weeks in the harried life of a movie producer (Robert De Niro); I highly recommend it if you haven't already seen it. De Niro says he contacted Linson upon reading his book and had to convince him that "there's a movie here." As comical as the action is, De Niro says that he, Linson, and Levinson relied on their vast collective movie industry experience to ensure that every scene in the film rang true.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Mixed by a good friend of mine who has also done the last 6 Nolan film.
> 
> Just goes to show you that some directors put more of a stamp on the sound track than others.. and that we aren't just button pushers or "engineers."


Excellent. I just adore the *Despicable* track. Would I be right in thinking that when the Director is one of the 'superstar' dudes, it is much harder for the sound designers, mixers, editors and so on to stand up for their own art? I mean, who's going to be guy who tells someone like Nolan that he's wrong?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> On that subject, we just finished watching the hilarious What Just Happened (2008) directed by Barry Levinson and based on the tell-all book by Art Linson about his experiences as a producer in Hollywood. The film is a farcical look at two weeks in the harried life of a movie producer (Robert De Niro); I highly recommend it if you haven't already seen it. De Niro says he contacted Linson upon reading his book and had to convince him that "there's a movie here." As comical as the action is, De Niro says that he, Linson, and Levinson relied on their vast collective movie industry experience to ensure that every scene in the film rang true.


That sounds like a movie I'd like - thanks. Talking of movies we might like in common, I have been feeling unwell these last few days (virus or some sort of bug) so this afternoon I watched one of my old DVDs on the smaller TV in the sitting room, me loafing on the couch. The movie was *The Offence *with Sean Connery and Trevor Howard. Have you seen it? If not, you will surely be in for a rare treat. Sound is basic as befits its age - but the performances...


----------



## kbarnes701

zimmo said:


> (SCOTT SIMONIAN)you do not even this system then you do not know what were talking about.i have one and i like then we do not talk about that ,we donot know.





Scott Simonian said:


> lolwut?




https://youtu.be/8fvTxv46ano?t=41


----------



## tjenkins95

nucky said:


> I have Atmos and my center speaker is fine, everything is crystal clear.


 
I've watched *Interstellar* and had absolutely no issues with the dialog. It was "crystal clear."


----------



## Eriksdam

pasender91 said:


> Don't take this too seriously...
> Its a nice calculator except for one point, unrelated to the quality of the results.
> It is the chosen unit, the inch.
> Is AVS so much US and UK centric, that it ignores the units used by 90% of the people on this lovely planet, based on the metric system ?
> British Imperial units are something dating from 1825, it is time to move on, who needs units that multiply by 12 (inch to foot) or 14 (pound to stone) !!!
> As a reminder a mile is 8 furlongs, a furlong is 10 chains, a chain is 22 yards, a yard is 3 feet, and a foot is 12 inches , what a mess !!!
> 
> Metric system is all based on decimal system, which makes quite some sense when we use a decimal system for computing, doesn't it ?
> 
> So in my wildest dreams, i can see aaranddeeman doing a new version of the xls using cm or m as the unit ...


Converting this to metric to me all of 2 minutes - no big deal.

Thanks for the calculators, they're really helpful!

-Erik


----------



## RapalloAV

aaranddeeman said:


> I have updated the Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator with another tab to validate your current distance.
> Again you will need to specify ceiling height and ear height in inches as before, plus the distance of a given height speaker from MLP.
> Based on where the speaker is (in front or behind MLP), you should get the vertical angle achieved and the speaker designation.
> Hope this is useful.



So does this replace your previous version?


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> I've watched *Interstellar* and had absolutely no issues with the dialog. It was "crystal clear."


I didn't have an issue with dialogue either, but you sure had to pay attention. Matthew's accent or delivery I think was the issue, I listened at -15 didn't like it much louder if you like a lot of bass this one delivers, my subs were getting an incredible workout.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> I didn't have an issue with dialogue either, but you sure had to pay attention. Matthew's accent or delivery I think was the issue, I listened at -15 didn't like it much louder if you like a lot of base this one delivers, my subs were getting an incredible workout.


I guess it also depends on what your brain does with all the background music? My brain tends to pay too much attention to the background music that it keeps from listening clearly enough on the dialog. Hence, the subtitles on movies with a lot or loud background music.


----------



## sdrucker

bargervais said:


> I didn't have an issue with dialogue either, but you sure had to pay attention. Matthew's accent or delivery I think was the issue, I listened at -15 didn't like it much louder if you like a lot of base this one delivers, my subs were getting an incredible workout.


I must be in the minority on this as well. I've watched Interstellar multiple times this week, usually at about -10 to -15 on my soon to be replaced Sherwood R-972/NAD M27 combo. The dialogue across the board has been very clear; you do have to pay attention, as bagervais put it, on the quieter scenes with Matthew ("Coop") and Anne Hathaway, but I can't see it's much of a strain. However, if I listened with, say, Audyssey XT32 and DEQ engaged at a lower volume, with the bass and surrounds boosted, I could see where possibly the front stage might be subtly impacted by lower mixed front stage dialogue depending on your listening distance from the speakers.

However, I will add that I use the R-972's 3D remapping, which compensates for a less than perfect placement of my L/R PSB Imagine T2 speakers (approximately 15 degrees from center than a more optimal 30). I wonder if the greater "spread" due to my speaker placement has something to do with the enhanced clarity. Maybe I'll listen without remapping and see if the dialog is more mumbled without this use of pseudo-speaker imagery to create an idealized SMPTE 7.1 placement.


It's curious because a few folks that are using the mixed phase EQ of Dirac Live in their MiniDSP 88As or Emotiva XMC-1s are reporting the unlistenable Nolan factor. Or maybe it's just Matthew mumbling like Dylan on a bad day...


----------



## Scott Simonian

The dialog in 95% of the movie is fine. There are just a few scenes where the sfx and music totally overwhelm the dialog.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> The dialog in 95% of the movie is fine. There are just a few scenes where the sfx and music totally overwhelm the dialog.


 
If you're running a +10 db house curve up to 80 Hz, and then declining to about +3 db at 200 Hz like I am with my HSU ULS-15 & MiniDSP at the moment, the LFE effects are just ridiculous on the initial crash/dream sequence and the liftoff into space. That's more overwhelming IMO than the SFX or music.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Heh. You want to talk about ridiculous bass, Stuart? 


Anyway, the bass has nothing to do with the dialog being buried into the mix. It's pretty bad in a few parts. Thankfully it wasn't anything important, really.


----------



## Csbooth

I have a theory concerning the unintelligibility of some scenes in the movie Interstellar such as; the truck in the cornfield chasing the drone, the lift-off sequence into space, and the docking scene (my personal favorite, where the score is not only intense, but the drama of it all). 

I don't recall if Nolan ever explicitly states why he chose this direction, but if I had to guess, it would be to place us (as in the viewer) like we were physically there. If you think about it, it probably would be somewhat hard to hear what people are saying in those situations.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> That sounds like a movie I'd like - thanks. Talking of movies we might like in common, I have been feeling unwell these last few days (virus or some sort of bug) so this afternoon I watched one of my old DVDs on the smaller TV in the sitting room, me loafing on the couch. The movie was *The Offence *with Sean Connery and Trevor Howard. Have you seen it? If not, you will surely be in for a rare treat. Sound is basic as befits its age - but the performances...


I'll have to look around for _The Offence_ (Connery and Howard are two of my all-time favorite actors), but that's going back a ways. 

Today I finally got around to watching _The Proposition_, which you had recommended to me back in February. It is definitely a very good Australian "western" and we enjoyed it very much. Thanks for the tip! 

BTW, the reason I thought of mentioning _What Just Happened_ in my previous post is because your remark about directors who impose their "crap ideas" put me in mind of the _enfant terrible_ director character played by Michael Wincott in this film. When you see it, you will howl.


----------



## Roudan

Dave Vaughn said:


> I'm going to be getting the Atlantic Technology speakers next week (fingers crossed) and plan on using them in my Atmos setup. One of my main concerns was hot spotting, which is why I decided to try these speakers out. Given that their sizing is pretty common, I figured if I didn't like them I could always find another speaker of similar size to try in their place. Worst case scenario is my drywall installer gets some extra work


Hi Dave, How is that in-ceiling speakers? I am thinking to order it. Is it only one size of 8 inch cut out? I came cross model number of IC-6OBA-S. What does S means? Thanks.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roudan said:


> Hi Dave, How is that in-ceiling speakers? I am thinking to order it. Is it only one size of 8 inch cut out? I came cross model number of IC-6OBA-S. *What does S means?* Thanks.


The "S" identifies the speaker as being sold as a "single" speaker as opposed to a speaker pair.


----------



## brahman12

*Give it a Shot!!!*



kbarnes701 said:


> I am coming to the conclusion that this is probably the last Nolan movie I will be buying. I have had it here for a week and not watched it yet, choosing last night, instead, *Despicable Me*. Now there's a movie with a soundtrack worth listening to!


Give it a shot Keith, the audio is actually awesome in this flick. I was able to hear every word....sure the score bleed can be strong at times, but the dialogue can definitely be heard. I ain't trying to diss anybody that had trouble hearing the dialogue but I saw this movie in the theater as well and did not have a problem hearing the dialogue. Nolan wanted a different effect with the audio and certain scenes have superimposed elements of sound as the track plays out...similar to a couple of scenes in Gone Girl. Just a different effect but not something that has never been done before. The mix sounds awesome overall and DSU does its thing rather nicely as well. The space flight scenes (especially the black hole sequences) are stellar, lol. The cinematography is excellent and the movie looks great on Bluray. You should be able to hear this movie just fine unless you have trouble hearing in general, and/or you have a setup/gear issue. And from your past posts, I can venture to say that you do not suffer from either of those issues. Give it a shot...it is a longer movie, but again, it is a technical feast for the senses and IMO the story is interesting and involving as well. Suave Chico !!!


----------



## WayneJoy

I still wouldn't say that the dialogue in Interstellar is crystal clear, but I can understand it at home much better than I could at 3 separate theaters during it's theatrical run.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Interstellar'*

I watched *'Interstellar'* last night and what I can say is WoW! ...The audio soundtrack was fantastic. 
I can only imagine what it would sound like with a Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) and superimposing Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU) on top of its DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround audio soundtrack. ...And in 3D (Picture; for the 2nd and 3rd acts).

'Interstellar' has to be experienced @ home to fully be engulfed in its awesomeness. ...But it won't be as majestic as seeing it @ the theater, be it @ a 70mm IMAX true screen size or even @ the regular size IMAX. 

* By the way, the dialog; it is perfectly fine @ home on Blu-ray. ...Sure some scenes are so realistic that it is hard to hear the dying on their final hours. 
I had zero problem with any aspect of this Blu-ray flick, none whatsoever; all is peachy...it was the perfect ride on a Good Friday night.

♦ _Christopher Nolan_, Thank You for providing us with High Caliber Entertainment.


----------



## NorthSky

*Test: Average Listening Position | For two rows of seats*

♦ Doby Atmos overhead speakers positioning (angle) for two rows of seats


----------



## UdoG

aaranddeeman said:


> Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator and Validatorhttp://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=645649&d=1428156142



Thanks for your calculator and Validator. What did you mean with "Speaker distance from MLP" (Validator)? Which Speaker?

Thanks.


----------



## ThePrisoner

NorthSky said:


> I watched *'Interstellar'* last night and what I can say is WoW! ...The audio soundtrack was fantastic.
> I can only imagine what it would sound like with a Dolby Atmos receiver (or SSP) and superimposing Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU) on top of its DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround audio soundtrack. ...And in 3D (Picture; for the 2nd and 3rd acts).
> 
> 'Interstellar' has to be experienced @ home to fully be engulfed in its awesomeness. ...But it won't be as majestic as seeing it @ the theater, be it @ a 70mm IMAX true screen size or even @ the regular size IMAX.
> 
> * By the way, the dialog; it is perfectly fine @ home on Blu-ray. ...Sure some scenes are so realistic that it is hard to hear the dying on their final hours.
> I had zero problem with any aspect of this Blu-ray flick, none whatsoever; all is peachy...it was the perfect ride on a Good Friday night.
> 
> ♦ _Christopher Nolan_, Thank You for providing us with High Caliber Entertainment.


I watched it for the first time last night and my wife and I loved it! The audio was incredible using DSU, the LFE was great even though I heard rattling throughout my living room that I've never heard before. Certain scenes I had a little trouble understanding dialog but nothing major and I really enjoyed Hans Zimmer score and the use of pipe organs. Wish I went to see this in 15/70 IMAX.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> It's curious because a few folks that are using the mixed phase EQ of Dirac Live in their MiniDSP 88As or Emotiva XMC-1s are reporting the unlistenable Nolan factor.


Maybe they're hearing it the way Nolan intended them to?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Heh. You want to talk about ridiculous bass, Stuart?
> 
> 
> Anyway, the bass has nothing to do with the dialog being buried into the mix. It's pretty bad in a few parts.* Thankfully it wasn't anything important,* really.


How do you know if you couldn’t make it out?


----------



## kbarnes701

Csbooth said:


> I have a theory concerning the unintelligibility of some scenes in the movie Interstellar such as; the truck in the cornfield chasing the drone, the lift-off sequence into space, and the docking scene (my personal favorite, where the score is not only intense, but the drama of it all).
> 
> I don't recall if Nolan ever explicitly states why he chose this direction, but if I had to guess, it would be to place us (as in the viewer) like we were physically there. If you think about it, it probably would be somewhat hard to hear what people are saying in those situations.


I do believe that Nolan said something similar. Fincher said the same about the party scene in Gone Girl too. The problem is that as moviegoers, we don't necessarily subscribe to the same view and we are accustomed to being able to hear the words the actors speak. So if we can't, we assume there is a problem, or we strain to try to make out what was said, and it takes us out of the movie. Also, the notion falls down when there is intense action and we are supposed to be able to hear what is being said or we will not be able to follow the story properly. On the latter occasions, we CAN hear what is said because we HAVE to. This leads to the Director sometimes giving us dialog we can't really hear on the basis it "puts us there" but at other times, we can hear the dialog because it's necessary. IMO this trying to have the cake and eat it makes the movie a mess and dialog, when spoken, should be intelligible. If there's no need to understand it, then there's no need to have it in the movie in the first place.

There's also the concept that, as viewers, we are not physically 'part of the movie' but observers of the action taking place. That’s a whole different issue though


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I'll have to look around for _The Offence_ (Connery and Howard are two of my all-time favorite actors), but that's going back a ways.


Then you will love *The Offence*.



chi_guy50 said:


> Today I finally got around to watching _The Proposition_, which you had recommended to me back in February. It is definitely a very good Australian "western" and we enjoyed it very much. Thanks for the tip!


Glad you enjoyed it. Aussie movies are really on a roll right now IMO - there are some fabulous films out there. And they have a distinctive 'difference' from Hollywood movies which is difficult to define but clear when you experience it.



chi_guy50 said:


> BTW, the reason I thought of mentioning _What Just Happened_ in my previous post is because your remark about directors who impose their "crap ideas" put me in mind of the _enfant terrible_ director character played by Michael Wincott in this film. When you see it, you will howl.


Howling is good!


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> Give it a shot Keith, the audio is actually awesome in this flick. I was able to hear every word....sure the score bleed can be strong at times, but the dialogue can definitely be heard. I ain't trying to diss anybody that had trouble hearing the dialogue but I saw this movie in the theater as well and did not have a problem hearing the dialogue. Nolan wanted a different effect with the audio and certain scenes have superimposed elements of sound as the track plays out...similar to a couple of scenes in Gone Girl. Just a different effect but not something that has never been done before. The mix sounds awesome overall and DSU does its thing rather nicely as well. The space flight scenes (especially the black hole sequences) are stellar, lol. The cinematography is excellent and the movie looks great on Bluray. You should be able to hear this movie just fine unless you have trouble hearing in general, and/or you have a setup/gear issue. And from your past posts, I can venture to say that you do not suffer from either of those issues. Give it a shot...it is a longer movie, but again, it is a technical feast for the senses and IMO the story is interesting and involving as well. Suave Chico !!!


I’ll definitely watch it. It wasn't the sound that was putting me off but the length and, well, TBH, the fact that it's another Nolan movie. I'm just going off his humorless, overlong plots I think. He takes himself too seriously and it shows in the product, IMO. I mean, this is a guy who made three movies about a grown man who dresses up as a bat and he couldn't seem to find any irony or humor there, so what are the chances he will in a movie about the end of human civilisation?  I'm not describing 'laugh out loud' humour of course - more what Moliere described in the 17 Century as making _"rire dans l'ame"_ (laughter in the soul) which he said was the aim of his (not very funny) comedies. A sort of lightness of touch, which seems to have eluded Nolan.

Anyway, I will reserve final judgement until I've actually seen it. I'm not expecting any dialog issues with it - dialog here is always very clear.


----------



## Csbooth

kbarnes701 said:


> I do believe that Nolan said something similar. Fincher said the same about the party scene in Gone Girl too. The problem is that as moviegoers, we don't necessarily subscribe to the same view and we are accustomed to being able to hear the words the actors speak. So if we can't, we assume there is a problem, or we strain to try to make out what was said, and it takes us out of the movie. Also, the notion falls down when there is intense action and we are supposed to be able to hear what is being said or we will not be able to follow the story properly. On the latter occasions, we CAN hear what is said because we HAVE to. This leads to the Director sometimes giving us dialog we can't really hear on the basis it "puts us there" but at other times, we can hear the dialog because it's necessary. IMO this trying to have the cake and eat it makes the movie a mess and dialog, when spoken, should be intelligible. If there's no need to understand it, then there's no need to have it in the movie in the first place.
> 
> There's also the concept that, as viewers, we are not physically 'part of the movie' but observers of the action taking place. That’s a whole different issue though


I can definitely relate to the sentiments here. For the wife and myself, we are lucky, as we use subtitles on just about everything. We both grew up in households where it was very noisy, and as such; requested captions to understand what was being said for our media.

It's second nature by now I suppose, as when we watch films together; we simultaneously have short discussions about the content on occasion, without the need to pause, and still grasp all facets of the movie. Unless of course further points or views need to be made, but usually we will save those until the end lol. 

If you do get around to watching it, I hope that you can see past inherent flaws and 'enjoy the ride' so to speak , I know it was one of my favorites of 2014.

Personally, I can't say enough positive things about the score, performances, and visual effects (which won an Oscar). I'm happy to say that I watched the 70mm presentation in an Omnimax at the Huntsville U.S Space and Rocket Center, so it felt very fitting.


----------



## kbarnes701

Csbooth said:


> I can definitely relate to the sentiments here. For the wife and myself, we are lucky, as we use subtitles on just about everything. We both grew up in households where it was very noisy, and as such; requested captions to understand what was being said for our media.
> 
> It's second nature by now I suppose, as when we watch films together; we simultaneously have short discussions about the content on occasion, without the need to pause, and still grasp all facets of the movie. Unless of course further points or views need to be made, but usually we will save those until the end lol.
> 
> If you do get around to watching it, I hope that you can see past inherent flaws and 'enjoy the ride' so to speak , I know it was one of my favorites of 2014.
> 
> Personally, I can't say enough positive things about the score, performances, and visual effects (which won an Oscar). I'm happy to say that I watched the 70mm presentation in an Omnimax at the Huntsville U.S Space and Rocket Center, so it felt very fitting.


Yes, I am looking forward to the "ride" as everything I have read about the movie indicates that it is worth it. I just wish Nolan would let his Editor work a bit harder 

I watch a lot of Chinese and Hong Kong movies so I use subtitles a lot but they always irritate me a bit as I have to look away from the movie to read them, and with the rapid editing that most modern movies use, with shot lengths averaging just a few seconds, it is easy to miss an entire shot while reading the subs. If it's a movie I'm familiar with I can often 'understand' what is going on without reading most of the subs though.


----------



## lujan

ThePrisoner said:


> I watched it for the first time last night and my wife and I loved it! The audio was incredible using DSU, the LFE was great even though I heard rattling throughout my living room that I've never heard before. Certain scenes I had a little trouble understanding dialog but nothing major and I really enjoyed Hans Zimmer score and the use of pipe organs. Wish I went to see this in 15/70 IMAX.


This is true that the dialog is hard to hear on only certain scenes but since I don't know where that is, I have to leave the subtitles turned on throughout the movie (Intersteller).


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Not me. Lack of dialog clarity is usually a setup issue of some sort. Although in the case of Interstellar, which I have on BD but haven’t yet summoned up the energy to watch, I gather Nolan thought it was a good idea to have dialog nobody could understand. Great. A bit like having the Dark Knight Rises play at a gazillion dB in IMAX theaters. Problem with superstar directors is nobody dare tell them when they are having a really, really crap idea.


The issue with the dialogue/center channel has been noted by a number of reviewers like this one so you are right yet again:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Interstellar-Blu-ray/77552/

So I would venture to say that for those having problems understanding dialogue with this movie are not experiencing setup issues. Intersteller is on my to-do list for this afternoon. Looking forward to watching it since I have yet to see it. Steve


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I am looking forward to the "ride" as everything I have read about the movie indicates that it is worth it. I just wish Nolan would let his Editor work a bit harder
> 
> I watch a lot of Chinese and Hong Kong movies so I use subtitles a lot but they always irritate me a bit as I have to look away from the movie to read them, and with the rapid editing that most modern movies use, with shot lengths averaging just a few seconds, it is easy to miss an entire shot while reading the subs. If it's a movie I'm familiar with I can often 'understand' what is going on without reading most of the subs though.


I think this observation re Nolan captures it perfectly..."I just wish that Nolan would let his Editor work a bit harder."

He is capable of brilliance...Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento...some of my favorites, but he tends to get carried away with it all sometimes. 

Thinking of The Dark Knight still brings some sense of loss in Heath Ledger...a brilliant actor who had so much more to give.


----------



## jdsmoothie

smurraybhm said:


> The issue with the dialogue/center channel has been noted by a number of reviewers like this one so you are right yet again:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Interstellar-Blu-ray/77552/
> 
> So I would venture to say that for those having problems understanding dialogue with this movie are not experiencing setup issues. Intersteller is on my to-do list for this afternoon. Looking forward to watching it since I have yet to see it. Steve


I watched Interstellar last night at my usual listening volume of -10db with no dialog issues and again this morning at -20db with only a few instances where dialog was difficult to understand. This is one of those movies where bumping up the center channel a few db prior to the movie starting would be recommended if listening at lower volume levels below -20db. Also wise to set Dynamic EQ to OFF as well.


----------



## chi_guy50

Csbooth said:


> I can definitely relate to the sentiments here. For the wife and myself, we are lucky, as we use subtitles on just about everything. We both grew up in households where it was very noisy, and as such; requested captions to understand what was being said for our media.
> 
> It's second nature by now I suppose, as when we watch films together; we simultaneously have short discussions about the content on occasion, without the need to pause, and still grasp all facets of the movie. Unless of course further points or views need to be made, but usually we will save those until the end lol.
> 
> If you do get around to watching it, I hope that you can see past inherent flaws and 'enjoy the ride' so to speak , I know it was one of my favorites of 2014.
> 
> Personally, I can't say enough positive things about the score, performances, and visual effects (which won an Oscar).


_Interstellar_ was not on my immediate radar, but based on your comments--and those of a few others here--I am definitely going to put it in my queue. Thanks for the heads-up.



Csbooth said:


> I'm happy to say that I watched the 70mm presentation in an Omnimax at the Huntsville U.S Space and Rocket Center, so it felt very fitting.


I am a "graduate of Red Rock U" (Redstone Arsenal) having served there in the early '70's with the U.S. Army Missile and Munitions Center and School. It was an interesting time as some of the old-timer German scientists were still around whom the U.S. intelligence agencies had brought to the U.S. in the post-WWII ex-Nazi brain drain recruitment. As I recall, Wernher von Braun was idolized locally as a founding father of Huntsville's scientific community. It always brings to my mind the old Tom Lehrer song parody, in particular the stanza: 

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, 
That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun."


----------



## t_garp

I'm just wondering if Atmos is really worth it for the casual user? Especially now, with 4k (hdmi 2, new HDCP, etc..) on the way, i'd hate to have to buy and change receivers...


----------



## t_garp

brahman12 said:


> Gonna get some new subs next winter, and I am thinking of getting some seat shakers as well after experiencing them in a movie theater here in NYC and at the Brooklyn Aquarium SpongeBob SquarePants family exhibit.....I got two little dudes in my house, so no jokes about a grown man in a SpongeBob exhibit LOL


I'm thinking of adding buttkicker to my new HT chairs...was it hard ot install?


----------



## aaranddeeman

UdoG said:


> Thanks for your calculator and Validator. What did you mean with "Speaker distance from MLP" (Validator)? Which Speaker?
> 
> Thanks.


This is kinda reverse of the calculator.
Calculator helps you get the min and max distance from MLP for a given speaker location.
When you mount them (or have already mounted), if you want to see what is the angle you have achieved (and the designation to use), use the validator and enter that distance of any speaker from MLP and it will tell you the angle you are getting (depending on behind or in front of MLP).
It will also let you know the designation of the speaker as per Dolby spec.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you still have some questions.


----------



## aaranddeeman

ThePrisoner said:


> I watched it for the first time last night and my wife and I loved it! The audio was incredible using DSU, the LFE was great even though I heard rattling throughout my living room that I've never heard before. Certain scenes I had a little trouble understanding dialog but nothing major and I really enjoyed Hans Zimmer score and the use of pipe organs. Wish I went to see this in 15/70 IMAX.


Just a question on the rattling. 
Is it avoidable without sacrificing the SQ. Or is this the indication of setup issues, room treatment (needed) etc.


----------



## Selden Ball

t_garp said:


> I'm just wondering if Atmos is really worth it for the casual user? Especially now, with 4k (hdmi 2, new HDCP, etc..) on the way, i'd hate to have to buy and change receivers...


Only you can make that decision. 

However, if you can wait until fall, the next generation of AVRs should be out within the next six months with support for DTS:X and 4K HDCP V2.2. The next generation of D+M equipment typically becomes available in September/October, although their competition often ships before then. Entry level devices usually are available a couple of months before the more sophisticated models.


----------



## RMK!

kbarnes701 said:


> I’ll definitely watch it. It wasn't the sound that was putting me off but the length and, well, TBH, the fact that it's another Nolan movie. I'm just going off his humorless, overlong plots I think. *He takes himself too seriously and it shows in the product, IMO. I mean, this is a guy who made three movies about a grown man who dresses up as a bat and he couldn't seem to find any irony or humor there*, so what are the chances he will in a movie about the end of human civilisation?  I'm not describing 'laugh out loud' humour of course - more what Moliere described in the 17 Century as making _"rire dans l'ame"_ (laughter in the soul) which he said was the aim of his (not very funny) comedies. A sort of lightness of touch, which seems to have eluded Nolan.
> 
> Anyway, I will reserve final judgement until I've actually seen it. I'm not expecting any dialog issues with it - dialog here is always very clear.


You couldn't find humor (or irony) Heath Ledger's amazing performance as "The Joker" in the Dark Knight? That in itself is ironic ...  

I found Interstellar about 45 minutes too long. Great audio and CG with mumbling Matthew doing the same shtick he does in the Lincoln television ads.


----------



## sdurani

t_garp said:


> I'm just wondering if Atmos is really worth it for the casual user? Especially now, with 4k (hdmi 2, new HDCP, etc..) on the way, i'd hate to have to buy and change receivers...


If you can tell the difference between sounds around vs sounds above you, then it is worth it, even for the casual user. 

But that's different from it being urgent. If you wait for the dust to settle on the other things you mentioned (as well as DTS:X), so you don't have to change receivers yet again, Atmos will still be worth at that time. 

It's the difference between wanting it vs needing to have it right now. You might be in the former category instead of the latter. Lots of people are.


----------



## gammanuc

aaranddeeman said:


> Just a question on the rattling.
> Is it avoidable without sacrificing the SQ. Or is this the indication of setup issues, room treatment (needed) etc.


I used to have a rattling problem with my T-bar (Drop) ceiling and a door in my room. I placed pieces of close cell foam under my sub to decouple it from the floor.
The foam is actually part of the packing material that came around my SVS sub.


----------



## aaranddeeman

gammanuc said:


> I used to have a rattling problem with my T-bar (Drop) ceiling and a door in my room. I placed pieces of close cell foam under my sub to decouple it from the floor.
> The foam is actually part of the packing material that came around my SVS sub.


Thanks. 
Would that help if the floor is concrete (under the carpet), like typical basement floor.
May be we should find what is rattling (hopefully the door and any other loose articles) and fix them as appropriate.


----------



## gammanuc

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks.
> Would that help if the floor is concrete (under the carpet), like typical basement floor.
> May be we should find what is rattling (hopefully the door and any other loose articles) and fix them as appropriate.


My floor has a wood sub floor over concrete, so your case may be different. For the door you could install some foam weather 
stripping that will help also.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah but you're French really! .



Well, I suppose I could have been French had they won the battle for ownership of Newfoundland. Newfoundland eventually ended up in the hands of the English 
and Newfoundland became a colony up until 1949 . My family arrived here from England in the late 1500's. 


I can speak a little French and swear fluently in French as necessary, but sorry mon ami, I'm probably closer to being your cousin .


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Doby Atmos overhead speakers positioning (angle) for two rows of seats



What is this supposed to be??


----------



## roxiedog13

aaranddeeman said:


> Just a question on the rattling.
> Is it avoidable without sacrificing the SQ. Or is this the indication of setup issues, room treatment (needed) etc.



I have the Disney WOW disk and part of the setup for the audio side goes through all the various frequencies for each speaker. I forget what it is called but it
is something like rattle test. Anyway, it was absolutely amazing how many different things in my room either buzzed or rattled. I'm pretty sure there were at least
6-10 issues that I had to take care of. I had problems with wall sconces, wooden grills, picture frames, a snare drum, a guitar, glass table top and metal frame in a
cabinet door. All made some kind of noise at various different frequencies, the WOW disk was worth the purchase price for that solution alone.


----------



## aaranddeeman

roxiedog13 said:


> I have the Disney WOW disk and part of the setup for the audio side goes through all the various frequencies for each speaker. I forget what it is called but it
> is something like rattle test. Anyway, it was absolutely amazing how many different things in my room either buzzed or rattled. I'm pretty sure there were at least
> 6-10 issues that I had to take care of. I had problems with wall sconces, wooden grills, picture frames, a snare drum, a guitar, glass table top and metal frame in a
> cabinet door. All made some kind of noise at various different frequencies, the WOW disk was worth the purchase price for that solution alone.


WOW.. Looks to be a worthwhile purchase.
Thanks for that info. I will tray to get my hands on one.
I have DVE, but I don't think it has something similar.


----------



## roxiedog13

brahman12 said:


> Gonna get some new subs next winter, and I am thinking of getting some seat shakers as well after experiencing them in a movie theater here in NYC and at the Brooklyn Aquarium SpongeBob SquarePants family exhibit.....I got two little dudes in my house, so no jokes about a grown man in a SpongeBob exhibit LOL



I did plenty of sponge bob watching over the years, it was a great period of time when the kids were young . I'm envious , besides that show is just funny for all ages
ny favorite one is when Sponge Bob and Patrick start swearing and are not aware of what they are saying.


----------



## chi_guy50

aaranddeeman said:


> *Just a question on the rattling.
> Is it avoidable without sacrificing the SQ*. Or is this the indication of setup issues, room treatment (needed) etc.





gammanuc said:


> I used to have a rattling problem with my T-bar (Drop) ceiling and a door in my room. I placed pieces of close cell foam under my sub to decouple it from the floor.
> *The foam is actually part of the packing material that came around my SVS sub.*




That should be an effective, if inelegant, solution.

I just got an SVS SB-2000 SW and replaced the screw-on feet with these isolation feet. They are a proven effective inhibitor of "room rattle."


----------



## gammanuc

chi_guy50 said:


> That should be an effective, if inelegant, solution.
> 
> I just got an SVS SB-2000 SW and replaced the screw-on feet with these isolation feet. They are a proven effective inhibitor of "room rattle."


Quite effective and elegant as the foam is not visible in my situation, plus it is $50 cheaper than those feet.

Seriously though, it is a good method to determine if de-coupling the sub actually helps before spending money on something like feet or a subdude.


----------



## robert816

roxiedog13 said:


> I did plenty of sponge bob watching over the years, it was a great period of time when the kids were young . I'm envious , besides that show is just funny for all ages
> ny favorite one is when Sponge Bob and Patrick start swearing and are not aware of what they are saying.



Ah, the Sailor Mouth episode using "sentence enhancers", not that I would admit to knowing what you are talking about


----------



## Jive Turkey

gammanuc said:


> Quite effective and elegant as the foam is not visible in my situation, plus it is $50 cheaper than those feet.
> 
> Seriously though, it is a good method to determine if de-coupling the sub actually helps before spending money on something like feet or a subdude.


I use three inch thick x 2'x2' foam lawn chair cushions bought from Walmart, available in a number of differernt print patterns. Put a piece of 3/8" MDF on top and set my SVS cylinders down on that. Works great.


----------



## ThePrisoner

aaranddeeman said:


> Just a question on the rattling.
> Is it avoidable without sacrificing the SQ. Or is this the indication of setup issues, room treatment (needed) etc.


Could be avoidable without sacrificing SQ. I don't get to much rattle in my room but this movie (Interstellar) really brought it with its LFE. We watched this at -5db below reference level (which is pretty loud in my room). Dynamic EQ was turned off. The movie has some great LFE. It really didn't distract me hearing rattling in my small living room, after all I run 2 SVS subwoofers.


----------



## brahman12

*Not Sure!!!*



t_garp said:


> I'm thinking of adding buttkicker to my new HT chairs...was it hard ot install?


Hello buddy....I am not sure if they are hard to install because I do not have any seat shakers in my theater room as of yet. The quote you were inquiring about was a response to another member (Roxie Dog) who does indeed have seat shakers. What I was saying was that I am interested in them after experiencing them. I will probably install them in December or January once I purchase two new subwoofers. I've had two SVS cylinder subs for about seven years now and want to try something different and perhaps more powerful. Welcome to the forum amigo!!!


----------



## chi_guy50

gammanuc said:


> Quite effective and elegant as *the foam is not visible in my situation*, plus it is $50 cheaper than those feet.
> 
> Seriously though, it is a good method to determine if de-coupling the sub actually helps before spending money on something like feet or a subdude.


As long as it's not visible and it works, ya gotta love the idea of saving 50 smackers. Unfortunately, in my case the SW is visible and must fit the decor of our living room in which it sits.



Jive Turkey said:


> I use three inch thick x 2'x2' *foam lawn chair cushions bought from Walmart, available in a number of differernt print patterns*. Put a piece of 3/8" MDF on top and set my SVS cylinders down on that. Works great.




Way to live up (down?) to your user name!


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> What is this supposed to be??  => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


It's a suggestion on Dolby Atmos overhead speakers positioning for people who have two rows of seats. 
...One that I would surely experiment with if in that situation myself. ...And I simply wanted to share; what's good for me might be also good to others.

We have talked about this previously, and this is something new and fresh, with merit too. ...I sincerely believe.


----------



## bsoko2

The first scenes of "Unbroken" with the air attack on the B-24's with the air craft engines and.50 cal machine guns firing on the Zeros will tell you how well Atmos works. Totally worth the money!


----------



## jdsmoothie

chi_guy50 said:


> That should be an effective, if inelegant, solution.
> 
> I just got an SVS SB-2000 SW and replaced the screw-on feet with these isolation feet. *They are a proven effective inhibitor of "room rattle."*


Depends on the room dynamics and sub volume of course. I have wood floors and use the "isolation feet" on both of my SVS subs and the room still rattled when watching Interstellar.


----------



## roxiedog13

robert816 said:


> Ah, the Sailor Mouth episode using "sentence enhancers", not that I would admit to knowing what you are talking about



It's been a while but yes indeed, that was the show .


----------



## roxiedog13

t_garp said:


> I'm thinking of adding buttkicker to my new HT chairs...was it hard ot install?



I installed three base shakers in each of three seats. May have taken me 45 minutes per seat max , no big deal . Certainly easier to order the seats with it installed
already but theater seats with all the bells and whistles are expensive. I bought three seats with the shakers already installed, that was even easier.


----------



## Csbooth

chi_guy50 said:


> _Interstellar_ was not on my immediate radar, but based on your comments--and those of a few others here--I am definitely going to put it in my queue. Thanks for the heads-up.


I do hope that it is enjoyable for you, just don't chew me out if there are scenes that are questionable(?) to you lol, I am an odd bird with some of my favorite movie choices lol.





chi_guy50 said:


> I am a "graduate of Red Rock U" (Redstone Arsenal) having served there in the early '70's with the U.S. Army Missile and Munitions Center and School. It was an interesting time as some of the old-timer German scientists were still around whom the U.S. intelligence agencies had brought to the U.S. in the post-WWII ex-Nazi brain drain recruitment. As I recall, Wernher von Braun was idolized locally as a founding father of Huntsville's scientific community. It always brings to my mind the old Tom Lehrer song parody, in particular the stanza:
> 
> "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down,
> That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun."
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio


This was very enlightening, thank you!


----------



## aaranddeeman

roxiedog13 said:


> I installed three base shakers in each of three seats. May have taken me 45 minutes per seat max , no big deal . Certainly easier to order the seats with it installed
> already but theater seats with all the bells and whistles are expensive. I bought three seats with the shakers already installed, that was even easier.


Anyone know if this al-cheap shaker (even) works decently?


----------



## cdelena

NorthSky said:


> It's a suggestion on Dolby Atmos overhead speakers positioning for people who have two rows of seats.
> ...One that I would surely experiment with if in that situation myself. ...And I simply wanted to share; what's good for me might be also good to others.
> 
> We have talked about this previously, and this is something new and fresh, with merit too. ...I sincerely believe.


That is basically what I did... after looking at the Dolby papers and compromises with what is possible with my room and seating there was little other reasonable choice. The MLP focus point on my installation is a bit forward from the diagram, closer to the back of the front row.


I have the speakers in and will have the receiver up in a week so I will report then. This upgrade was a lot of work as I made changes to refine the base level by lowering my R&L (much work in my room) and raising center a little. Jumped through hoops to get ceiling speakers installed and wired as I have no direct access to the 8" space between the ceiling and the floor of the room above.


I would guess that the majority will find the change to add Atmos capabilities more challenging that most upgrades.


----------



## roxiedog13

aaranddeeman said:


> Anyone know if this al-cheap shaker (even) works decently?



Physically that is a really small unit, my guess is that it will not have the mass necessary to do the job. The ones I purchased were at least 5-6 times the mass of this one so this is certainly a case where size does matter.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm just going off his humorless, overlong plots I think. He takes himself too seriously and it shows in the product, IMO. I mean, this is a guy who made three movies about a grown man who dresses up as a bat and he couldn't seem to find any irony or humor there, so what are the chances he will in a movie about the end of human civilisation?


There was some humor in the Dark Knight... one scene that comes to mind is when Morgan Freeman taunts the guy who is trying to blackmail Bruce Wayne. I liked the gritty take on Batman, it's a welcome change to all the other superhero movies we get... very unique in comparison. 
I really can't think of any superhero movies that can touch the Dark Knight. Though I don't think Nolan's other batman films are any good at all, I really only enjoyed Momento, Inception, Dark Knight, & Interstellar. I do agree that the films are a bit too serious but I kind of dig that... in a way it reminds me of the very moody "vertigo". Or to go to the far extreme... Requiem for a dream. Kubrick also seemed to take himself very seriously, though... He was in an entirely different league. 

As for the dialogue intelligibility I think this issue is highly exaggerated. Saving Private Ryan comes to mind as a film which has a lot of drowned out dialogue, and the audio for that film I'd argue is one of the best 10 film mixes in existence.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> There was some humor in the Dark Knight... one scene that comes to mind is when Morgan Freeman taunts the guy who is trying to blackmail Bruce Wayne. I liked the gritty take on Batman, it's a welcome change to all the other superhero movies we get... very unique in comparison.
> I really can't think of any superhero movies that can touch the Dark Knight. Though I don't think Nolan's other batman films are any good at all, I really only enjoyed Momento, Inception, Dark Knight, & Interstellar. I do agree that the films are a bit too serious but I kind of dig that... in a way it reminds me of the very moody "vertigo". Or to go to the far extreme... Requiem for a dream. Kubrick also seemed to take himself very seriously, though... He was in an entirely different league.
> 
> As for the dialogue intelligibility I think this issue is highly exaggerated. Saving Private Ryan comes to mind as a film which has a lot of drowned out dialogue, and the audio for that film I'd argue is one of the best 10 film mixes in existence.


'The Dark Knight' is awesomeness all the way; visually and auditory...and the script and the acting. 

'Memento' is a tour-de-force (in reverse). 

Both 'Inception' and 'Interstellar' are high quality entertainment @ the movies.

Brief _Christopher Nolan_ is one of the top best movie directors in Hollywood and abroad. ...A true "cinematique" artist, from start to end. 

__________

* 'Requiem for a Dream' ... exce!!ent. ...The entire cast; superb performances. ...What a great flick! 
- 'Saving Private Ryan' ... try that one with DSU. 
- Stanley Kubrick; a master!


----------



## Eriksdam

Looks like American Sniper is confirmed (not my find):

- Erik


----------



## NorthSky

Eriksdam said:


> Looks like American Sniper is confirmed (not my find):
> 
> - Erik


May 19th.  ...Another Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title, right on!


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> I think this observation re Nolan captures it perfectly..."I just wish that Nolan would let his Editor work a bit harder."
> 
> He is capable of brilliance...Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento...some of my favorites, but he tends to get carried away with it all sometimes.
> 
> Thinking of The Dark Knight still brings some sense of loss in Heath Ledger...a brilliant actor who had so much more to give.


Yes - they are good movies but could be better movies if Nolan would a) lighten up a bit and b) learn that sometimes 'less is more'. The sound in all of them is poor by today's highest standards though. And it can't be the mixer's fault. FilmMixer has already said that the Nolan movies were mixed by his friend, who also mixed *Despicable Me* and that movie has a sublime mix IMO.

Agreed about HL - a great talent, sadly lost. Philip Seymour Hoffman similarly.


----------



## kbarnes701

RMK! said:


> You couldn't find humor (or irony) Heath Ledger's amazing performance as "The Joker" in the Dark Knight? That in itself is ironic ...


I wasn't referring to Ledger's performance. I was referring to Nolan's directing.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks.
> Would that help if the floor is concrete (under the carpet), like typical basement floor.
> May be we should find what is rattling (hopefully the door and any other loose articles) and fix them as appropriate.


Download some single frequency test tones off the Internet and play them one at a time. Each low bass tone may excite a frequency at which something in the room resonates in sympathy. Then, with the tone playing, find the thing that's rattling and find how to stop it. Usually inserting some small bits of foam or rubber or whatever you can find will do the trick. Sometimes things need tightening up a bit - eg curtain poles etc. It doesn't take long and can be quite good fun hunting them down and fixing them.


----------



## audioguy

erwinfrombelgium said:


> LOL, I thought I was the weird one for liking Lucy and Eric Serra's Soundtrack! My wife hated the movie. Maybe it's a guy thing... Ms Johansson's performance/appearance was striking after all!


My wife liked the movie as much as I did. And I would like to see/hear it in Atmos.

If I were Dolby, I would offer some kind of short term incentives for the release of as many Atmos Bluray movies as possible world wide. This trickle of Atmos BR releases is not helpipng their cause. I recognize the studios are in control but Dolby incetnive might push them along.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Finally got to watching Mockingjay part 1...incredible sound overall!! very impressed...and the movie is the best of the bunch IMHO.

weird thing though...(this would be the first ATMOS title I have watched since mostly completeing my dedicated HT) after setting everything up I ran audyssey with atmos configuration as it was pre-build etc)...I DID notice all my non atmos movies I have been watching arent as good with DSU as I had rememebred a month ago,....I was chalking it up to the new room etc.

pop in HG:MJ pt1 and the fold ATMSO trailer comes on...and yuck..not impressed...and having seen it multiple times it wasnt wat I remembered at all!! so i stand up pn my HT seats and sure enough nothings playing..

i go into settings and my x4100 has changed to BI-AMP MODE!!!!! how the hell does this automatically HAPPEN? so i have to drag out the mic stand and audyssey mic and run it all again before watching my movie!! grrrrrrr

silver lining is this time I tried out 9.1 setup with top front and top middle...and I think it is much more immersive...and even better than I had it before!!

and yes...ATMOS is a HUGE stepup from 5.1...as I just witnessed it frst hand haha

EDIT: very happy to see American Sniper get the ATMOS treatment!


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> i go into settings and my x4100 has changed to BI-AMP MODE!!!!! how the hell does this automatically HAPPEN? so i have to drag out the mic stand and audyssey mic and run it all again before watching my movie!! grrrrrrr


Wow. As you say, HTF does that happen all by itself. Glad you discovered it.


----------



## chi_guy50

Brian Fineberg said:


> i go into settings and my x4100 has changed to BI-AMP MODE!!!!! how the hell does this automatically HAPPEN? so i have to drag out the mic stand and audyssey mic and run it all again before watching my movie!! grrrrrrr


That's a new one on me; I've run dozens of Audyssey calibrations on my two Denon AVR's and have never seen anything remotely similar occur. My guess is that somehow someone inadvertently changed the setting.



Brian Fineberg said:


> silver lining is this time I tried out* 9.1 setup with top front and top middle*...and I think it is much more immersive...and even better than I had it before!!


I assume you mean 9.1ch *amp assign mode* (5.1.4 setup), but TF and TM are not an allowable combination. Did you mean FH and TM?


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Download some single frequency test tones off the Internet and play them one at a time. Each low bass tone may excite a frequency at which something in the room resonates in sympathy. Then, with the tone playing, find the thing that's rattling and find how to stop it. Usually inserting some small bits of foam or rubber or whatever you can find will do the trick. Sometimes things need tightening up a bit - eg curtain poles etc. It doesn't take long and can be quite good fun hunting them down and fixing them.


Thanks Keith. Will try that...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a new one on me; I've run dozens of Audyssey calibrations on my two Denon AVR's and have never seen anything remotely similar occur. My guess is that somehow someone inadvertently changed the setting.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you mean 9.1ch *amp assign mode* (5.1.4 setup), but TF and TM are not an allowable combination. Did you mean FH and TM?


Yes that's what I meant. Sorry 

And no one has access to my stuff but me. I'm stumped


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - they are good movies but could be better movies if Nolan would a) lighten up a bit and b) learn that sometimes 'less is more'. The sound in all of them is poor by today's highest standards though. And it can't be the mixer's fault. FilmMixer has already said that the Nolan movies were mixed by his friend, who also mixed *Despicable Me* and that movie has a sublime mix IMO.
> 
> Agreed about HL - a great talent, sadly lost. Philip Seymour Hoffman similarly.


Despicable me is a kid's film with a very direct, clean presentation in the same way that an i-phone is, & the mix reflects that... I too enjoyed the mix & the music. 

I value Film Mixer's opinion very much & thought the Fury mix was fantastic. 
I'd have to watch the Dark Knight again with my system to evaluate what I think about the sound, but I thought Interstellar sounded great @ the theater... just turned up way too loud.
I did get the chills several times throughout the film; specifically truck driving through the field @ the start of the film, when the shuttle enters space & when they reach the wormhole, & the docking... oh man. Sometimes grandiose drama is just what I need. 

I know a lot of people think Hans Zimmer sucks, but I do remember really enjoying the climax of the Dark Knight with nonstop music that gradually builds up the tension. Ultimately this issue comes down to taste, though I do agree Nolan's films could be better... it was obvious that Nolan was trying to emulate Kubrick's 2001 with interstellar. If I recall the topic came up with an interview with him... to his credit he did come clean about the similarity & said he could never touch kubrick's talent (I could be remembering things wrong)(too lazy to google right now). 

I actually thought the Dark Knight was stripped down... at least visually speaking ( though I could see why people think the audio is a busy onslaught on the ears). I'm into the crazy big epic films & I feel most of those aren't done very well, which is why I enjoy Nolan's approach. It's very different from the CGI dependent blockbusters which I don't think will age as well as Nolan's films. My only complaint was how Harvey Dent looked after the explosion... the 2 face thing looked very fake. The film was very long but that doesn't bother me, though it is an endurance test emotionally speaking.Again though, that doesn't bother me... some of my favorite films are 2.5 hours +


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> There was some humor in the Dark Knight... one scene that comes to mind is when Morgan Freeman taunts the guy who is trying to blackmail Bruce Wayne. I liked the gritty take on Batman, it's a welcome change to all the other superhero movies we get... very unique in comparison.
> I really can't think of any superhero movies that can touch the Dark Knight. Though I don't think Nolan's other batman films are any good at all, I really only enjoyed Momento, Inception, Dark Knight, & Interstellar. I do agree that the films are a bit too serious but I kind of dig that...* in a way it reminds me of the very moody "vertigo"*. Or to go to the far extreme... Requiem for a dream. Kubrick also seemed to take himself very seriously, though... He was in an entirely different league.
> 
> As for the dialogue intelligibility I think this issue is highly exaggerated. Saving Private Ryan comes to mind as a film which has a lot of drowned out dialogue, and the audio for that film I'd argue is one of the best 10 film mixes in existence.


Damn you, damn you to hell, Aras!

_Vertigo_ is my very favorite of all of Hitch's films, and easily in my all-time movie top 10.

But thanks to you I'll now forever be fixated on the thought of how much better it would sound in Atmos. That soaring Bernard Hermann score, the opening rooftop chase scene, the recurring effects of Scotty's vertigo, the cavernous museum scene, the chase up the tower staircase--just imagine what an Atmos (or DTS:X) soundtrack could do for those elements! But really, how likely is it that older classics such as this one will ever get the MDA treatment? You've put me in the fifth circle of hell!

On the plus side, I just checked and found out that Universal Studies reissued _Vertigo_ last year on BRD remastered in DTS-HD MA 5.1! Bob's your uncle and my copy is on its way. All is forgiven, Aras, and may the Cubs win the pennant.


----------



## chi_guy50

Brian Fineberg said:


> Yes that's what I meant. Sorry
> 
> And *no one has access to my stuff but me*. I'm stumped


I'm no Columbo, but I would say that narrows the list of suspects considerably.


----------



## chi_guy50

jdsmoothie said:


> *Depends on the room dynamics and sub volume of course.* I have wood floors and use the "isolation feet" on both of my SVS subs and the room still rattled when watching Interstellar.


Of course, that goes without saying. My SW with the isolation feet rests on wall-to-wall carpeting, but I do have some glass shelves in the room that have had a tendency to rattle in the past (which is why I ordered the isolation feet in the first place). I'll have to do some experimenting with different audio settings when I eventually watch _Interstellar _to see how my current setup reacts. But from what you and others here have noted, I'm assuming this film is something of an outlier in its rattle-inducing bass.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> Damn you, damn you to hell, Aras!
> 
> _Vertigo_ is my very favorite of all of Hitch's films, and easily in my all-time movie top 10.
> 
> But thanks to you I'll now forever be fixated on the thought of how much better it would sound in Atmos. That soaring Bernard Hermann score, the opening rooftop chase scene, the recurring effects of Scotty's vertigo, the cavernous museum scene, the chase up the tower staircase--just imagine what an Atmos (or DTS:X) soundtrack could do for those elements! But really, how likely is it that older classics such as this one will ever get the MDA treatment? You've put me in the fifth circle of hell!
> 
> On the plus side, I just checked and found out that Universal Studies reissued _Vertigo_ last year on BRD remastered in DTS-HD MA 5.1! Bob's your uncle and my copy is on its way. All is forgiven, Aras, and may the Cubs win the pennant.


I have that version as well, the image quality is especially superb... enjoy!  It would be great to get some Atmos mastered legacy content... I remember hearing we were supposed to get Die Hard... just rumors?


----------



## bargervais

Great news we have three more Atmos Blu-Rays coming, American Sniper is one I was hoping for as it got best sound at the Oscars.
Remember we are only 6 months into Atmos, receivers first became available in September, I would have liked to have seen more Atmos Blu-Rays. I'm not disappointed that we only have 9 Atmos Blu-Rays to date here in the U.S.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

what are the other two?


----------



## FilmMixer

bargervais said:


> Great news we have three more Atmos Blu-Rays coming, American Sniper is one I was hoping for as it got best sound at the Oscars.


Sniper won for Best Sound Editing...

Whiplash won for Best Sound (which is for the mixers.).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Brian Fineberg said:


> what are the other two?


Jupiter Ascending (*blech*) 

What's the other?


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> what are the other two?


According to 
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos
Jupiter Ascending, and Insurgent


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> Sniper won for Best Sound Editing...
> 
> Whiplash won for Best Sound (which is for the mixers.).


Thanks for the correction. I knew it won something for sound.


----------



## ilkinandr92

Man thats quite impressive


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> According to
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos
> Jupiter Ascending, and Insurgent


Both low on the tomometer... I guess that's par for the course. At least we got John Wick & Gravity!


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Both low on the tomometer... I guess that's par for the course. At least we got John Wick & Gravity!


I do agree, I loved John Wick. Gravity  the only thing that did it for me was the Atmos sound mix, as far as a movie goes I didn't like it. So for tomometer that doesn't tell me what I like or dislike.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> Both low on the tomometer... I guess that's par for the course. At least we got John Wick & Gravity!


IMHO the operative word here is "least."


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> I do agree, I loved John Wick. Gravity  the only thing that did it for me was the Atmos sound mix, as far as a movie goes I didn't like it. So for tomometer that doesn't tell me what I like or dislike.


I agree with you there, I thought it was a little silly that Bullock's arrivals @ each space station coincided with space debris attack which could would've had an extremely low probability of ending up @ those stations in the first place... but it is very pretty looking. 

I swear, I will stop all my complaining if Star Wars Episode VII gets an Atmos mix & bluray release... crossing fingers.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Roudan said:


> Hi Dave, How is that in-ceiling speakers? I am thinking to order it. Is it only one size of 8 inch cut out? I came cross model number of IC-6OBA-S. What does S means? Thanks.


You'll have to contact AT. I have no idea.


----------



## Wild Blue

All this discussion here on "Interstellar". My $.02, movie itself was ok. I too found the sound somewhat cloudy. I think today's consumer thinks "great sound" = LOUD, and BIG BASS, with a third priority surround sound usage. Well, this movie had that in spades. But we Atmos adopters should know better than anyone what sound *clarity* and *precision* sounds like, and how great sound really can be. IMHO, Interstellar was neither crystal clear, nor precise. And FWIW, I use M&K S-150 THX speakers and Parasound Halo amps, the same gear used by Skywalker Sound and others. Currently using a Marantz 7702 pre/pro for Atmos and DSU.

On another note, I was in my local Alaska Wal Mart yesterday, and took a peek at Unbroken and John Wick packaging. Both were in Atmos.



pasender91 said:


> Don't take this too seriously...
> Its a nice calculator except for one point, unrelated to the quality of the results.
> It is the chosen unit, the inch.
> Is AVS so much US and UK centric, that it ignores the units used by 90% of the people on this lovely planet, based on the metric system ?  (snip)


LOL - while I agree with the merits of the metric system, I doubt one post will make us in the imperial measurement world switch to metric. And when it comes to proportional measurement, inputting 50 inches and getting an output of 100 inches, is not different from inputting 50cm and getting an output of 100 cm! A rose by any other name...



t_garp said:


> I'm just wondering if Atmos is really worth it for the casual user? Especially now, with 4k (hdmi 2, new HDCP, etc..) on the way, i'd hate to have to buy and change receivers...


Is Atmos worth it? Properly set up, absolutely! Now, is now the right time to buy Atmos? Like others here have said, that's up to you. Me, I'm glad I'm not missing out right now on not just Atmos specifically, but DSU processing too. Really adds to the entertainment enjoyment of EVERYTHING I do in my theater.



Eriksdam said:


> Looks like American Sniper is confirmed (not my find):
> 
> - Erik


This is awesome news. Given the way I identified with "Lone Survivor", this one may be difficult for me to watch too. But looking forward to giving it a try.



Jive Turkey said:


> In my 7.1.4 system I heard overhead activity quite frequently on Gravity. So much I stopped critically listening to it and just let the whole thing happen.


And THAT, is when any HT technology really does its job. When you forget it's there, and instead it draws you in and immerses you in enjoying the experience, everything is that much better.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Chris Dotur said:


> LOL - while I agree with the merits of the metric system, I doubt one post will make us in the imperial measurement world switch to metric. And when it comes to proportional measurement, inputting 50 inches and getting an output of 100 inches, is not different from inputting 50cm and getting an output of 100 cm! A rose by any other name...


After reading your post just thought how would be the metric translation of 
"The enemy was inching towards city gates..."


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> ... Yes, I can put you on ignore.. but I shouldn't have to...


Neither should I have, but I did, and what a timesaver and annoyance reducer.

I highly recommend it for all our benefit, yours for the above reasons and ours to minimize the chance of losing you.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Chris,

"Lone Survivor" and "American Sniper" are two totally different types of movies, but I enjoyed each of them in different ways. You should definitely give it a viewing when it hits Blu-ray.


----------



## Wild Blue

Thanks, Dave. I most certainly will watch it, although with a bit of emotional caution.

Oh, and something I bring up often on the subject of "American Sniper"...

Jesse Ventura can go f&*#ck himself.


----------



## kbarnes701

noah katz said:


> neither should i have, but i did ...


+1.



noah katz said:


> ... And what a timesaver...


+1.



noah katz said:


> ... And annoyance reducer.


+1.



noah katz said:


> i highly recommend it for all our benefit...


+1.



noah katz said:


> ... Yours for the above reasons...


+1.



noah katz said:


> ... And ours to minimize the chance of losing you.


+1.

 It would be a tragedy to lose someone like FilmMixer with his unique insights on Atmos and its incorporation into the movies we love, and at the same time retain, well, you know what I mean...


----------



## kbarnes701

Chris Dotur said:


> Thanks, Dave. I most certainly will watch it, although with a bit of emotional caution.
> 
> Oh, and something I bring up often on the subject of "American Sniper"...
> 
> Jesse Ventura can go f&*#ck himself.


Chris Kyle did a pretty good job of doing that for him when he punched him to the ground in that bar IIRC...  I haven't seen the movie yet (not yet released in the UK on disc) but I am looking forward to it. Is Ventura referenced in the movie at all?


----------



## chi_guy50

Chris Dotur said:


> Thanks, Dave. I most certainly will watch it, although with a bit of emotional caution.
> 
> Oh, and something I bring up often on the subject of "American Sniper"...
> 
> *Jesse Ventura can go f&*#ck himself.*


As Groucho Marx may have observed, I believe that would be beneath his OWN standards.



kbarnes701 said:


> Chris Kyle did a pretty good job of doing that for him when he punched him to the ground in that bar IIRC...  I haven't seen the movie yet (not yet released in the UK on disc) but I am looking forward to it. *Is Ventura referenced in the movie at all?*


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/jesse-ventura-chris-kyle_n_6570304.html

"Ventura testified Kyle fabricated a subchapter in his "American Sniper" book in which Kyle claimed he punched out a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, at a California bar in 2006 for allegedly saying the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq. Ventura said it never happened.
*The jury gave Ventura the legal vindication he craved. Publisher HarperCollins removed the passage from the best-seller, and it gets no mention in the movie. *Kyle's estate has appealed. Ventura's separate lawsuit against HarperCollins remains pending."


----------



## TennisPro02

This could be something different entirely but when I load John Wick and Hunger Games: Mockingjay it checks for updates. Does anyone think that this is because in 2 days both of these films will be compatible with DTS:X? I know my Onkyo receiver just got a firmware update for the first time since it getting Atmos capabilities. Can anyone else see the possibility that Dolby Atmos movies will be Atmos and DTS:X compatible at the same time?

I'm not sure why but I've got a gut feeling that it will.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

This is what the Onkyo firmware update is for, not for DTS:x : 

"The 4/02/2015 update will address the following:
1. Improves operation of Spotify Connect.
2. Improves DLNA playback stability, especially useful for enjoying hi-res audio."


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> This could be something different entirely but when I load John Wick and Hunger Games: Mockingjay it checks for updates. Does anyone think that this is because in 2 days both of these films will be compatible with DTS:X? I know my Onkyo receiver just got a firmware update for the first time since it getting Atmos capabilities. Can anyone else see the possibility that Dolby Atmos movies will be Atmos and DTS:X compatible at the same time?
> 
> I'm not sure why but I've got a gut feeling that it will.


Do you think it is likely that DTS would choose to deliver DTS:X via *Dolby TrueHD *bitstream? Does either of your two discs have any other track but Dolby TrueHD?

If the answer to both questions is 'no' then you have your answer 

DTS:X movies will require DTS's DTS:X decoder. There can be no possibility that DTS:X is identical, for decoding purposes to Atmos, or Dolby would be in court right now suing DTS for patent infringement, so this leaves us with one possibility: DTS:X will require its own decoder in the AVR. Of course, one can play DTS:X movies via Dolby Surround Upmixer, which I am expecting will deliver the same good results it does with all the other movies I have played this way. So one can confidently buy any DTS:X discs which come along (none have been announced so far) and enjoy them via DSU. Then, when one eventually gets hold of an AVR with DTS:X decoding capability, one can enjoy the discs all over again in their full DTS:X glory. One will have to wait until fall for this to be realised though as it seems highly unlikely that any current Atmos unit from any of the main players will be FW upgradeable to DTS:X (with the possible exception of Denon's 7200 flagship model).


----------



## stikle

TennisPro02 said:


> This could be something different entirely but when I load John Wick and Hunger Games: Mockingjay it checks for updates. Does anyone think that this is because in 2 days both of these films will be compatible with DTS:X?


I think it's more likely that the updates being checked for are extra movie content online...or possibly Bluray Player updates. Loading a particular movie is not going to cause your AVR to check for updated firmware.


----------



## bargervais

TennisPro02 said:


> This could be something different entirely but when I load John Wick and Hunger Games: Mockingjay it checks for updates. Does anyone think that this is because in 2 days both of these films will be compatible with DTS:X? I know my Onkyo receiver just got a firmware update for the first time since it getting Atmos capabilities. Can anyone else see the possibility that Dolby Atmos movies will be Atmos and DTS:X compatible at the same time?
> 
> I'm not sure why but I've got a gut feeling that it will.


I think when you see checking for updates, I think it's downloading latest trailers and previews. My Blu-Ray player says the same thing because maybe there's not enough room on the Blu-Ray to include trailers of up coming movies.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> This is what the Onkyo firmware update is for, not for DTS:x :
> 
> "The 4/02/2015 update will address the following:
> 1. Improves operation of Spotify Connect.
> 2. Improves DLNA playback stability, especially useful for enjoying hi-res audio."


I haven't updated my receiver yet as I don't use Spotify.


----------



## smurraybhm

TennisPro02 said:


> This could be something different entirely but when I load John Wick and Hunger Games: Mockingjay it checks for updates. Does anyone think that this is because in 2 days both of these films will be compatible with DTS:X? I know my Onkyo receiver just got a firmware update for the first time since it getting Atmos capabilities. Can anyone else see the possibility that Dolby Atmos movies will be Atmos and DTS:X compatible at the same time?
> 
> I'm not sure why but I've got a gut feeling that it will.


Checking for updates for blu-ray live - that way you get the latest content in regards to previews, etc. Has nothing to do with updates to your unit, player or DTS:X - nice try


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think it is likely that DTS would choose to deliver DTS:X via *Dolby TrueHD *bitstream? Does either of your two discs have any other track but Dolby TrueHD?
> 
> If the answer to both questions is 'no' then you have your answer
> 
> DTS:X movies will require DTS's DTS:X decoder. There can be no possibility that DTS:X is identical, for decoding purposes to Atmos, or Dolby would be in court right now suing DTS for patent infringement, so this leaves us with one possibility: DTS:X will require its own decoder in the AVR. Of course, one can play DTS:X movies via Dolby Surround Upmixer, which I am expecting will deliver the same good results it does with all the other movies I have played this way. So one can confidently buy any DTS:X discs which come along (none have been announced so far) and enjoy them via DSU. Then, when one eventually gets hold of an AVR with DTS:X decoding capability, one can enjoy the discs all over again in their full DTS:X glory. One will have to wait until fall for this to be realised though as it seems highly unlikely that any current Atmos unit from any of the main players will be FW upgradeable to DTS:X (with the possible exception of Denon's 7200 flagship model).


Doesn't one or another of current (Denon?) also have Auro on board? Or, it was avallable as a FW upgrade? 

If the chip(s) can hold both Atmos and Auro, why couldn't one of them hold both Atmos and DTS:X? 

But, not necessarily all 3...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Doesn't one or another of current (Denon?) also have Auro on board? Or, it was avallable as a FW upgrade?
> 
> If the chip(s) can hold both Atmos and Auro, why couldn't one of them hold both Atmos and DTS:X?
> 
> But, not necessarily all 3...


Auro3D was a paid upgrade on Denon and Marantz units. However, we don't have any idea if there is extra room for DTS:X (or if they can add DTS:X if you didn't upload Auro) in these same 2014 models or if there is if Denon will play nice and add DTS:X to these units.


----------



## billqs

NorthSky said:


> It's a suggestion on Dolby Atmos overhead speakers positioning for people who have two rows of seats.
> ...One that I would surely experiment with if in that situation myself. ...And I simply wanted to share; what's good for me might be also good to others.
> 
> We have talked about this previously, and this is something new and fresh, with merit too. ...I sincerely believe.


That graphic looks useful for a two row setup which is what I have. Is there a reason the TR speakers are slightly to the front of the rear row? I have my TR speakers behind the 2nd row, but I have to admit, I get much better sound immersion on the 2nd row than I do my first.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Doesn't one or another of current (Denon?) also have Auro on board? Or, it was avallable as a FW upgrade?


Yes, a paid upgrade.



dvdwilly3 said:


> If the chip(s) can hold both Atmos and Auro, why couldn't one of them hold both Atmos and DTS:X?


IDK - maybe DTS:X requires more capacity. Nobody who knows is saying at this time.



dvdwilly3 said:


> But, not necessarily all 3...


True. It is possible to upgrade a unit to DTS:X - Denon is (allegedly) going to do so with the 7200. None of the other models is likely to be upgraded in a similar way though.


----------



## NorthSky

Chris Dotur said:


> ..., I was in my local Alaska Wal Mart yesterday, and took a peek at Unbroken and John Wick packaging. Both were in Atmos.


Hi Chris,

♦ *'John Wick'* - On the BR rear cover we can read *English Dolby TrueHD Atmos* ... it is small but readable, for most people.

♦ *'Unbroken'* - On the rear, the word *Atmos* is so small that it took great strength for me to hardly discern it. Universal Studios are re-known for using the smallest of the smallest specs (characters, lettering) for their Blu-rays. 
{My eyes are super excellent when I read and look @ things closely and that are small; I'm a graphic designer, and don't wear/need glasses for my work.}

* Was it hard for you, as it was for me, to see that tiny Atmos word on the back of 'Unbroken' Blu-ray cover?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Chris Kyle did a pretty good job of doing that for him when he punched him to the ground in that bar IIRC...  I haven't seen the movie yet (not yet released in the UK on disc) but I am looking forward to it. Is Ventura referenced in the movie at all?


You guys realize the story about Ventura was fabricated, right?


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, a paid upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> IDK - maybe DTS:X requires more capacity. Nobody who knows is saying at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> True. It is possible to upgrade a unit to DTS:X - Denon is (allegedly) going to do so with the 7200. None of the other models is likely to be upgraded in a similar way though.


Hmmm...so does the 7200 have a different (larger, better, more powerful...) DSP chip(s) than, say, the 6200? With more storage?


----------



## TennisPro02

Hunger Games has a DTS:X headphone track. 


kbarnes701 said:


> TennisPro02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could be something different entirely but when I load John Wick and Hunger Games: Mockingjay it checks for updates. Does anyone think that this is because in 2 days both of these films will be compatible with DTS:X? I know my Onkyo receiver just got a firmware update for the first time since it getting Atmos capabilities. Can anyone else see the possibility that Dolby Atmos movies will be Atmos and DTS:X compatible at the same time?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why but I've got a gut feeling that it will.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is likely that DTS would choose to deliver DTS:X via *Dolby TrueHD *bitstream? Does either of your two discs have any other track but Dolby TrueHD?
> 
> If the answer to both questions is 'no' then you have your answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X movies will require DTS's DTS:X decoder. There can be no possibility that DTS:X is identical, for decoding purposes to Atmos, or Dolby would be in court right now suing DTS for patent infringement, so this leaves us with one possibility: DTS:X will require its own decoder in the AVR. Of course, one can play DTS:X movies via Dolby Surround Upmixer, which I am expecting will deliver the same good results it does with all the other movies I have played this way. So one can confidently buy any DTS:X discs which come along (none have been announced so far) and enjoy them via DSU. Then, when one eventually gets hold of an AVR with DTS:X decoding capability, one can enjoy the discs all over again in their full DTS:X glory. One will have to wait until fall for this to be realised though as it seems highly unlikely that any current Atmos unit from any of the main players will be FW upgradeable to DTS:X (with the possible exception of Denon's 7200 flagship model).
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Hmmm...so does the 7200 have a different (larger, better, more powerful...) DSP chip(s) than, say, the 6200? With more storage?


No - it will be a commercial decision not a practical one.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Can someone please refresh my memory? I thought that there was a thread of conversation through here to the effect that the Onkyo AccuEQ does not EQ the front speakers. Am I remembering that correctly?


----------



## TennisPro02

I know that but I've also known for 6 months that Onkyo was doing a FW upgrade in April and May. 

I never said that DTS:X was included in the April firmware release but the May one is suppose to have it. 



SteveTheGeek said:


> This is what the Onkyo firmware update is for, not for DTS:x :
> 
> "The 4/02/2015 update will address the following:
> 1. Improves operation of Spotify Connect.
> 2. Improves DLNA playback stability, especially useful for enjoying hi-res audio."


----------



## TennisPro02

dvdwilly3 said:


> Can someone please refresh my memory? I thought that there was a thread of conversation through here to the effect that the Onkyo AccuEQ does not EQ the front speakers. Am I remembering that correctly?


That's correct but I'm not sure what that has to do with DTS:X. 

I personally like AccuEQ


----------



## pasender91

TennisPro02 said:


> That's correct but I'm not sure what that has to do with DTS:X.
> 
> I personally like AccuEQ


Yes it is OT.
You may like AccuEQ, but MANY (i'm one of them) do not like an EQ system that does NOT EQ speakers


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, a paid upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> IDK - maybe DTS:X requires more capacity. Nobody who knows is saying at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> True. It is possible to upgrade a unit to DTS:X - Denon is (allegedly) going to do so with the 7200. None of the other models is likely to be upgraded in a similar way though.


So much negative...
Why can't you be positive like others


----------



## dvdwilly3

TennisPro02 said:


> That's correct but I'm not sure what that has to do with DTS:X.
> 
> I personally like AccuEQ


Sorry, I was not looking to hi-jack a Onkyo/DTS:X firmware upgrade discussion. I took delivery on a TX-NR1030 a week ago Monday, and I would welcome such an upgrade. Even if it is not coming, I am so happy with Atmos and DSU, that it is sort of a moot point anyway. I am keeping it.

I originally bought a TX-NR737 as a proof-of-concept vehicle for Atmos as 5.1.2. If it wasn't all that, I was not out so much money. If it proved out, then I would get a 9.1 receiver, two more speakers, and move 5.1.4.

During one period, I had a Denon 2313 which, of course, did have Audyssey. When I ran it, it always set the Def Tech front towers at 150 Hz--it basically ignored the built-in subwoofer and EQed based on the 4 1/2 " drivers, for which 150 Hz is reasonable. But, I have always been an Onkyo fan, and as I was researching what AVR to move up to, I kept seeing references to AccuEQ not EQing the front speakers. There was an article from Germany that was referenced in several places that seem to indicate that was true.

However, it is not true. AccuEQ does EQ the front speakers. What is true is that in Pure Audio which the guy in Germany was using in his exercise, AccuEQ does not EQ the fronts. There are a couple of other modes, Direct, comes to mind, where all DSP is bypassed (including AccuEQ) and the original signal is played.

I accepted all of this, mainly because I am running a full Definitive Technology set up and Audyssey never dealt correctly as noted above. So, I set my cross-over points for the fronts at and 60 Hz playing with the setup. I had moved some of the other speakers around. I do like having the configuration software tell me distance, etc. So, I plugged in the calibration mike into the 1030 and ran AccuEQ.

When I got through lo and behold, the cross-over for the fronts was set at 150 Hz. So, AccuEQ does, in fact, EQ, the fronts. It does NOT EQ the fronts in several modes.

I raise this issue because I know that several people who have looked at Onkyo as a prosect dismissed it because of this piece of misinformation.

If someone else has a better explanation, I would be happy to hear it, but in my case, AccuEQ demonstrably works. I could post some pix of the set up screen, but I don't know that would help. Anyone with an Onkyo can run the same experiment.

And, yes, after I running AccuEQ, I went back and re-tweaked all of the speaker configurations, until I got them where I wanted them.


----------



## NorthSky

billqs said:


> That graphic looks useful for a two row setup which is what I have. Is there a reason the TR speakers are slightly to the front of the rear row? I have my TR speakers behind the 2nd row, but I have to admit, I get much better sound immersion on the 2nd row than I do my first.


I believe that the first row of seats is the one optimized for Dolby Atmos overhead speakers; from that particular graph. 
And looking @ it we can see the rear wall being close to that second row. It is more an "European" type of room. 

There are other home theater owners who optimize the second row for the best sound. ...And they have larger space behind them too.
"American" rooms are generally larger, bigger, more spacious. 

But I thought of bringing it here because of several members in the past inquiring about two rows of seats and as to where to put those Dolby Atmos overhead speakers. 

Dolby Atmos' own guide doesn't have recommendations for two rows of seats, only one main couch (MLP). 

Perhaps in the future we'll see that, with six Dolby Atmos overhead speakers (good covering for the two rows of seats).
Right now it is possible, but with equipment that is much more expensive; the ultra hi-end clientele...Trinnov, Lyngdorf and all.


----------



## batpig

dvdwilly3 said:


> Doesn't one or another of current (Denon?) also have Auro on board? Or, it was avallable as a FW upgrade?
> 
> If the chip(s) can hold both Atmos and Auro, why couldn't one of them hold both Atmos and DTS:X?
> 
> But, not necessarily all 3...





dvdwilly3 said:


> Hmmm...so does the 7200 have a different (larger, better, more powerful...) DSP chip(s) than, say, the 6200? With more storage?


It sounds to me like you are confusing/conflating memory and processing power. Whether the receiver has the MEMORY to store all the necessary code is a totally separate question from whether the DSP has the architecture and horespower to execute a specific process.

The DSP doesn't have to "hold" all three at the same time. It's only processing one at a time, whatever is actively engaged.

So this idea that it can only "hold" 2 out of 3 because of some space limit seems misguided. The more relevant questions are (1) is it POSSIBLE for the DSP in these receivers to run the DTS:X code? and (2) if it IS possible, are the manufacturers willing to expend the time and effort implementing it and making it available to end users?

I see a lot of uneducated speculation to the effect of, "well, if it can run both Atmos and Auro then surely it can handle DTS:X!" We have no idea if that's true; also remember that different manufacturers use different brand DSP chips (e.g. Denon/Marantz uses Analog Devices SHARC processors whereas I believe Onkyo and other models use Texas Instruments DSP chips) so just because one brand can do it doesn't mean the other can. 

In all likelihood we will never know the answer to question #1 above (at least not publicly) but the only thing that matters is whether the upgrade happens or not. And no amount of speculation will get us closer to that answer. It will either happen or it won't -- right now it's Schrödinger's Immersive Audio cat....


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Tonight is unbroken. Any reviews on here about what to expect?


----------



## dvdwilly3

batpig said:


> It sounds to me like you are confusing/conflating memory and processing power. Whether the receiver has the MEMORY to store all the necessary code is a totally separate question from whether the DSP has the architecture and horespower to execute a specific process.
> 
> The DSP doesn't have to "hold" all three at the same time. It's only processing one at a time, whatever is actively engaged.
> 
> So this idea that it can only "hold" 2 out of 3 because of some space limit seems misguided. The more relevant questions are (1) is it POSSIBLE for the DSP in these receivers to run the DTS:X code? and (2) if it IS possible, are the manufacturers willing to expend the time and effort implementing it and making it available to end users?
> 
> I see a lot of uneducated speculation to the effect of, "well, if it can run both Atmos and Auro then surely it can handle DTS:X!" We have no idea if that's true; also remember that different manufacturers use different brand DSP chips (e.g. Denon/Marantz uses Analog Devices SHARC processors whereas I believe Onkyo and other models use Texas Instruments DSP chips) so just because one brand can do it doesn't mean the other can.
> 
> In all likelihood we will never know the answer to question #1 above (at least not publicly) but the only thing that matters is whether the upgrade happens or not. And no amount of speculation will get us closer to that answer. It will either happen or it won't -- right now it's Schrödinger's Immersive Audio cat....


Batpig, thank you, as always, for the clarification...


----------



## cdelena

The last two receivers I had in my theater had Audyssey and it was a tool I used but always had to tweak the results to get what I wanted. My new TX-NR3030 has AccuEQ and it did basically the same job and I applied a couple of different tweaks. I know it is apples and oranges but the wife is much happier and always claimed the previous setup was calm (or flat as some observed).



Too often we get members repeating some post rather than reporting on actual experience. Thus far I am very happy with the Onkyo and AccuEQ .


----------



## batpig

dvdwilly3 said:


> During one period, I had a Denon 2313 which, of course, did have Audyssey. When I ran it, it always set the Def Tech front towers at 150 Hz--it basically ignored the built-in subwoofer and EQed based on the 4 1/2 " drivers, for which 150 Hz is reasonable. But, I have always been an Onkyo fan, and as I was researching what AVR to move up to, I kept seeing references to AccuEQ not EQing the front speakers. There was an article from Germany that was referenced in several places that seem to indicate that was true.
> 
> However, it is not true. AccuEQ does EQ the front speakers. What is true is that in Pure Audio which the guy in Germany was using in his exercise, AccuEQ does not EQ the fronts. There are a couple of other modes, Direct, comes to mind, where all DSP is bypassed (including AccuEQ) and the original signal is played.
> 
> I accepted all of this, mainly because I am running a full Definitive Technology set up and Audyssey never dealt correctly as noted above. So, I set my cross-over points for the fronts at and 60 Hz playing with the setup. I had moved some of the other speakers around. I do like having the configuration software tell me distance, etc. So, I plugged in the calibration mike into the 1030 and ran AccuEQ.
> 
> *When I got through lo and behold, the cross-over for the fronts was set at 150 Hz. So, AccuEQ does, in fact, EQ, the fronts.* It does NOT EQ the fronts in several modes.
> 
> I raise this issue because I know that several people who have looked at Onkyo as a prosect dismissed it because of this piece of misinformation.


You are also confused about this -- setting a crossover is NOT the same thing as EQ!! Equalization is selective filtering (cuts/boosts) of different frequencies to attempt to "shape" the response to meet a certain target. When a calibration system sets a crossover freq it is just saying "hand off from the speaker to the sub at this frequency", based on a basic measurement of frequency response.

What that result tells you is that Audyssey was correct all along by setting the xover to 150Hz, since AccuEQ gave the same result. This is likely because you are wiring directly to the powered SW portion of the speaker from the LFE output of the receiver so that part is not active when pinging the FR/FL channels.

It is not "misinformation" that AccuEQ doesn't EQ the fronts -- Onkyo themselves have spun it such that they advertise it as a FEATURE!



> Many calibration systems apply equalization to all channels. This in turn results in your speaker producing an “Equalized Sound” not necessarily the natural sound of your speakers.
> 
> The main benefit of AccuEQ is that it does not apply an Equalized effect to Front channels and Subwoofer. This allows the natural sound of your speakers to be heard while taking into consideration things such as room furnishings, speaker distance and speaker type.
> 
> We will continue to refine AccEQ as we move forward to make it the best calibration system available.


----------



## dvdwilly3

batpig said:


> You are also confused about this -- setting a crossover is NOT the same thing as EQ!! Equalization is selective filtering (cuts/boosts) of different frequencies to attempt to "shape" the response to meet a certain target. When a calibration system sets a crossover freq it is just saying "hand off from the speaker to the sub at this frequency", based on a basic measurement of frequency response.
> 
> What that result tells you is that Audyssey was correct all along by setting the xover to 150Hz, since AccuEQ gave the same result. This is likely because you are wiring directly to the powered SW portion of the speaker from the LFE output of the receiver so that part is not active when pinging the FR/FL channels.
> 
> It is not "misinformation" that AccuEQ doesn't EQ the fronts -- Onkyo themselves have spun it such that they advertise it as a FEATURE!


I have to think about the distinction between equalizing and setting cross-overs to get my head around it.

The one thing that I can tell you is that I am running the 8060 towers straight off of the main speaker feeds.

I am not using the LFE feeds to the 8060 towers at all.


----------



## Nalleh

TennisPro02 said:


> Hunger Games has a DTS:X headphone track.


Really??
It has a DTS Headphone:X soundtrack! NOT the same AT ALL!


----------



## roxiedog13

Brian Fineberg said:


> Tonight is unbroken. Any reviews on here about what to expect?



I thought it was a good movie overall , the aircraft dog fighting sequence will make good use of your Atmos system, if you have it of course . 
Personally ,if a movie is really good, I'm anxious to watch it again soon. I will watch this one again but I'm not in a hurry. The movie could have
been much shorter in my opinion, many scenes were just overdone. Then again, movies are subjective, this could be the best movie you have ever
seen. I hope it is, and do let us know .


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Tonight is unbroken. Any reviews on here about what to expect?


You'll like it Brian; right from the opening.


----------



## batpig

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have to think about the distinction between equalizing and setting cross-overs to get my head around it.
> 
> The one thing that I can tell you is that I am running the 8060 towers straight off of the main speaker feeds.
> 
> I am not using the LFE feeds to the 8060 towers at all.


OK, that's weird. You are running speaker wire straight to the 8060 towers but NOT a separate RCA cable feed to the powered subwoofer section?

In that arrangement the subs should fire as part of the speaker so both Audyssey and AccuEQ (or any other RC system) should detect them as "large" or "full range". The 150Hz crossover that both systems reported indicates that the powered subs weren't active during the calibration pings.

Do you hear the subs playing with actual content? Are you sure everything is hooked up right and/or both speakers are functioning correctly?


----------



## dvdwilly3

batpig said:


> OK, that's weird. You are running speaker wire straight to the 8060 towers but NOT a separate RCA cable feed to the powered subwoofer section?
> 
> In that arrangement the subs should fire as part of the speaker so both Audyssey and AccuEQ (or any other RC system) should detect them as "large" or "full range". The 150Hz crossover that both systems reported indicates that the powered subs weren't active during the calibration pings.
> 
> Do you hear the subs playing with actual content? Are you sure everything is hooked up right and/or both speakers are functioning correctly?


Looking at the Onkyo Speaker Configuration menu it says that you set the x-over or set it to Full Range.

I will try setting it to Full Range and see what happens...

My apologies, but I am going to be offline periodically...probably for awhile.

I am doing a colonoscopy prep and am just about to start drinking that miserable "clean out" drink. Argghhh!


----------



## BillyNedwell

Just got back from being away for 2 weeks. Where has the official dolby atmos (home theatre thread) gone? Spent the last 5 hours catching up on general bollox discussions. Sorry to all those who have posted worthwhile comments but 70% was just not worth reading. Yes, I know I don't contribute much but at least no one has to read my blatherings..............................until now.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

TennisPro02 said:


> I know that but I've also known for 6 months that Onkyo was doing a FW upgrade in April and May.
> 
> I never said that DTS:X was included in the April firmware release but the May one is suppose to have it.


Where do you hold this from ?


----------



## batpig

BillyNedwell said:


> Just got back from being away for 2 weeks. Where has the official dolby atmos (home theatre thread) gone? Spent the last 5 hours catching up on general bollox discussions. Sorry to all those who have posted worthwhile comments but 70% was just not worth reading. Yes, I know I don't contribute much but at least no one has to read my blatherings..............................until now.


A huge chunk of the 70% not worth reading can be elimited by one click of the "Ignore" button 

I do agree with you, this thread has sort of gone of the rails in general as there's really not much to talk about anymore. All of the basic questions about speaker positioning etc. are hashed out ad nauseum and there's a tiny trickle of mostly mediocre BD's being released in Atmos so..... here we are!


----------



## chi_guy50

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am doing a colonoscopy prep and am just about to start drinking that miserable "clean out" drink. Argghhh!





BillyNedwell said:


> Just got back from being away for 2 weeks. Where has the official dolby atmos (home theatre thread) gone? Spent the last 5 hours catching up on general bollox discussions. Sorry to all those who have posted worthwhile comments but 70% was just not worth reading. Yes, I know I don't contribute much but at least no one has to read my blatherings..............................until now.


Seeing these two posts back to back makes me suspect the universe is telling us to purge the thread of something. 

Is there an AVS Forum laxative solution? 

(Cue Keith's exultation over the "ignore" feature.)


----------



## aaranddeeman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Doesn't one or another of current (Denon?) also have Auro on board? Or, it was avallable as a FW upgrade?
> 
> If the chip(s) can hold both Atmos and Auro, why couldn't one of them hold both Atmos and DTS:X?
> 
> But, not necessarily all 3...


Hold your horses for another 48 hours.


----------



## bargervais

TennisPro02 said:


> I know that but I've also known for 6 months that Onkyo was doing a FW upgrade in April and May.
> 
> I never said that DTS:X was included in the April firmware release but the May one is suppose to have it.


Can you post where you found that the May firmware will have DTS:X pleased post it in the 1030 thread. I Would like to know this if it's true.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...13-onkyo-tx-nr1030-anticipation-thread-7.html


----------



## NorthSky

*'American Sniper' | (((Dolby Atmos))) Blu-ray (Official) | May 19th, 2015*



♦ Click on the above picture *^* cover.


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> Can you post where you found that the May firmware will have DTS:X pleased post it in the 1030 thread. I Would like to know this if it's true.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...13-onkyo-tx-nr1030-anticipation-thread-7.html


No. He said it "may" have firmware upgrade for DTS:X


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> No. He said it "may" have firmware upgrade for DTS:X


I need to get my eyes tested and polish up on my reading skills and comprehension.


----------



## TennisPro02

The keyword I used is "personally" that means my opinion and it EQs all my speakers but two so that's quite possibly as many speakers as your Denon EQs. 


pasender91 said:


> TennisPro02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct but I'm not sure what that has to do with DTS:X.
> 
> I personally like AccuEQ
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is OT.
> You may like AccuEQ, but MANY (i'm one of them) do not like an EQ system that does NOT EQ speakers
Click to expand...


----------



## TennisPro02

I'm from Nashville and I know people that work for Onkyo and they've discussed it so I upgraded my 636 to a 1030. 



bargervais said:


> TennisPro02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that but I've also known for 6 months that Onkyo was doing a FW upgrade in April and May.
> 
> I never said that DTS:X was included in the April firmware release but the May one is suppose to have it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post where you found that the May firmware will have DTS:X pleased post it in the 1030 thread. I Would like to know this if it's true.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...13-onkyo-tx-nr1030-anticipation-thread-7.html
Click to expand...


----------



## bargervais

TennisPro02 said:


> I'm from Nashville and I know people that work for Onkyo and they've discussed it so I upgraded my 636 to a 1030.


So what your saying is the 1030 may get an upgrade to DTS:X in "May" and you heard this from people who work for Onkyo. Interesting I thought that the AVR manufacturers were not to talk about it till the official DTS:X announcement.


----------



## kingwiggi

Sorry if this was previously posted, only skimmed over the last few days postings - 

*DTS Exits Competition To Be ATSC 3.0 Sound System*



http://www.tvnewscheck.com/playout/tag/dtsx/


http://atsc.org/newsletter/evaluation-of-proposed-atsc-3-0-audio-systems-begins/


Seems a strange time for DTS to pull out of such a major new broadcast standard only days before their own major launch


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kingwiggi said:


> Sorry if this was previously posted, only skimmed over the last few days postings -
> 
> *DTS Exits Competition To Be ATSC 3.0 Sound System*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tvnewscheck.com/playout/tag/dtsx/
> 
> 
> http://atsc.org/newsletter/evaluation-of-proposed-atsc-3-0-audio-systems-begins/
> 
> 
> Seems a strange time for DTS to pull out of such a major new broadcast standard only days before their own major launch


It was probably a foregone conclusion that Dolby would get it. Irrespective of whether or not it was the best codec for the job.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> It was probably a foregone conclusion that Dolby would get it. Irrespective of whether or not it was the best codec for the job.



Then we should expect Dolby to demo AC-4 with immersive content at NAB next week . . . otherwise it would seem that MPEG-H is still a strong contender...?!  


_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> Then we should expect Dolby to demo AC-4 with immersive content at NAB next week . . . otherwise it would seem that MPEG-H is still a strong contender...?!
> 
> 
> _


Whichever group has the most industry clout will get it. Has MPEG's other various audio codecs ever really taken off? 

Dolby is a known commodity.


----------



## jrogers

Dan Hitchman said:


> Whichever group has the most industry clout will get it. Has MPEG's other various audio codecs ever really taken off?
> 
> Dolby is a known commodity.


It seems Dolby is also a sponsor of ATSC (as indicated by the big Dolby logo scrolling across the bottom of the atsc.org website) which can't hurt their chances either...


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> Whichever group has the most industry clout will get it. Has MPEG's other various audio codecs ever really taken off? Dolby is a known commodity.



Fraunhofer developed significant portions of the mp3 and MPEG AAC environments.

The *MPEG-H Audio* _technology+codec_ proposal comes from the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance*, a triumvirate of *Fraunhofer*, *Technicolor*, and *Qualcomm* (_link_).


_


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> I believe that the first row of seats is the one optimized for Dolby Atmos overhead speakers; from that particular graph.
> And looking @ it we can see the rear wall being close to that second row. It is more an "European" type of room.
> 
> There are other home theater owners who optimize the second row for the best sound. ...And they have larger space behind them too.
> "American" rooms are generally larger, bigger, more spacious.
> 
> But I thought of bringing it here because of several members in the past inquiring about two rows of seats and as to where to put those Dolby Atmos overhead speakers.
> 
> Dolby Atmos' own guide doesn't have recommendations for two rows of seats, only one main couch (MLP).
> 
> Perhaps in the future we'll see that, with six Dolby Atmos overhead speakers (good covering for the two rows of seats).
> Right now it is possible, but with equipment that is much more expensive; the ultra hi-end clientele...Trinnov, Lyngdorf and all.



OK so where do we place those atmos speakers if we have three rows of seats, the centre being the MLP?


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> OK so where do we place those atmos speakers if we have three rows of seats, the centre being the MLP?


Six Dolby Atmos overhead speakers would be best for that. 

* If only four are available, optimize the middle row; same as represented in the graph from the link I posted prior. 
...The back row is for the secondary guests, and the front row is for the kids.  

Or! Use the graph as for your middle and back rows. ...The front row would have the TF speakers as their TR. ...And no TF.
Prioritize the middle and back rows (the middle one being the front one in the graph).


----------



## blazar

I second that, prioritize the row that has the main listening position. The spot the owner sits in is most likely to get the most mileage and is likely to the person that actually cares the most about how things sound.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It was probably a foregone conclusion that Dolby would get it. Irrespective of whether or not it was the best codec for the job.


How do you know that Dolby's codec wasn't the best? Maybe DTS couldn't hang in the broadcast realm.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> How do you know that Dolby's codec wasn't the best? Maybe DTS couldn't hang in the broadcast realm.


I said "whether or not." I didn't say DTS's solution was better or Dolby's was better. It's just that ATSC already uses Dolby audio compression, Dolby has clout, Dolby is a member, and so it's possible that DTS saw the handwriting on the wall.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> I said "whether or not." I didn't say DTS's solution was better or Dolby's was better. It's just that ATSC already uses Dolby audio compression, Dolby has clout, Dolby is a member, and so it's possible that DTS saw the handwriting on the wall.




I don't know what was requested during the development of *ATSC* [_1.0_], but for the *ATSC 3.0 TV Audio System*, the *Call for Proposals* was certainly looking for much more than '_just a codec_', viz:



> _"Systems proposed will be judged discretely and in their entirety, as comprehensive, end-to-end systems for emission of the ATSC signal. ATSC does not intend to develop the ATSC 3.0 audio system out of independent components from multiple sources. As such, this CfP solicits from proponents only complete audio solutions satisfying the system needs described herein."_



_


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's just that ATSC already uses Dolby audio compression, *Dolby has clout, Dolby is a member,* and so it's possible that DTS saw the handwriting on the wall.


Or maybe DTS's solution to the broadcast world would never have a chance because it was no good in this situation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> So much negative...
> Why can't you be positive like others


We'll see who was right soon enough


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> I kept seeing references to AccuEQ not EQing the front speakers. There was an article from Germany that was referenced in several places that seem to indicate that was true.
> 
> However, it is not true. AccuEQ does EQ the front speakers.


No it doesn't. From Onkyo's own website (http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/tx-nr3030-117903.html?tab=Details)

*"For the ultimate in pure stereo performance, AccuEQ bypasses the front channels so the unique characteristics of your loudspeakers can be enjoyed without DSP correction to potentially alter the sound."*

Can't make it much clearer than that can they?


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have to think about the distinction between equalizing and setting cross-overs to get my head around it.


Imagine you have a big bump in your frequency response of, say, 10dB at, say, 200Hz. EQ creates an inverse signal at that frequency of -10dB. This results in a 'flat' response at 200Hz when that 'filter' is applied to the signal. That is "equalizing".

Now imagine you have a big phat sub sitting there and you want it to play all frequencies below, say, 80Hz. You set a "crossover" of 80Hz. It is literally a crossing over point of the signal from one speaker to another at the chosen frequency. That is a "crossover".

You can apply an equalized signal to the crossover if you wish - the two things are separate.

Both of the above explanations are gross simplifications but they get across the difference between the two I hope.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> I believe that the first row of seats is the one optimized for Dolby Atmos overhead speakers; from that particular graph.
> And looking @ it we can see the rear wall being close to that second row. It is more an "European" type of room.
> 
> There are other home theater owners who optimize the second row for the best sound. ...And they have larger space behind them too.
> "American" rooms are generally larger, bigger, more spacious.
> 
> But I thought of bringing it here because of several members in the past inquiring about two rows of seats and as to where to put those Dolby Atmos overhead speakers.
> 
> Dolby Atmos' own guide doesn't have recommendations for two rows of seats, only one main couch (MLP).
> 
> Perhaps in the future we'll see that, with six Dolby Atmos overhead speakers (good covering for the two rows of seats).
> Right now it is possible, but with equipment that is much more expensive; the ultra hi-end clientele...Trinnov, Lyngdorf and all.





RapalloAV said:


> OK so where do we place those atmos speakers if we have three rows of seats, the centre being the MLP?


If you have three rows of seats you have one of two options: Use the current technology available from Denon, Marantz or Onkyo and select one MLP ( sweat spot). 95% of the
time you will likely use the MLP yourself and with one or two others. Most of your guests are non discriminating anyway, especially kids and the great sound they will still get from
your surround system will more than suffice. As technology catches up add speakers, just make a plan now where to install, you could even install the same and add them later . I have
two rows and I put my TF on the near side of my front row MLP, my TR speakers are just slightly behind the second row. My plan is to add a third set of speakers (TM) between the front
and second row when 6 channel Atmos is available, some time in the fall or early 2016 I hope. I'm not getting the best Atmos effect because my TR are a little too far back, I actually get a
better experience from the rear seats. 
Your second option , if money is no option, is to buy a Trinnov or Lyngdorf currently available that will do all the speakers required just like a commercial theater and at a similar price I 
believe. I think the Walmart roll-back the price for one of these is $30,000-$75,000. I'm holding out for the sale flyer and a seniors discount personally.


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> I have two rows and I put my TF on the near side of my front row MLP, my TR speakers are just slightly behind the second row. *My plan is to add a third set of speakers (TM) between the front and second row when 6 channel Atmos is available, some time in the fall or early 2016 I hope.* I'm not getting the best Atmos effect because my TR are a little too far back, I actually get a better experience from the rear seats.


Have you considered emulating @Josh Z's "hacked" 7.1.6 setup with cloned pairs of TM+TR speaker arrays? With this arrangement--which Josh at last report described as working well for him--you can have your three top arrays in place and producing sound ahead of true x.x.6 mainstream availability. Plus you would presumably reap the immediate benefit of ameliorating your current less-than-ideal Atmos effect at the MLP.

I know that this is what I plan to do; I have the extra speakers on hand and I'm just holding off until I can be confident of the proper placement for the third pair compatible with what a future Denon AVR will require.


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> We'll see who was right soon enough


Unless you are an insider,how can you be so sure of your statement.

What if you wrong? 
Everything you say from this point forward in this forum will be meaningless.


----------



## pasender91

I can distinctly remember Keith mention he would "eat his hat" if current models other than the 7200 get a DTS:X update, free or paid 
So i suggest we keep some chili sauce aside in case it happens, it will make it easier for him ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

I am still puzzled as to why Dolby never took the effort to disclose the intended speaker positions as programmed into the Atmos rendering blocks of consumer AVRs/processors. It is probably the same reason why they never made available appropriate test tones to verify accurate positioning and panning of object sounds at home. To me this shows that Dolby is taking their consumer Atmos users not as serious as their theatrical users. Not a good move if you want to persuade as much home theater aficionados as possible to invest in your technology. I believe some professional home theater installers have expressed similar frustrations. If DTS:X is going to do a lot better on this, it may very well become a nail in the Atmos-for-home coffin.


----------



## cdelena

kbarnes701 said:


> No it doesn't. From Onkyo's own website (http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/tx-nr3030-117903.html?tab=Details)
> 
> *"For the ultimate in pure stereo performance, AccuEQ bypasses the front channels so the unique characteristics of your loudspeakers can be enjoyed without DSP correction to potentially alter the sound."*
> 
> Can't make it much clearer than that can they?


When used in my system it sets the distance, cutover, and makes gain adjustments just like all other channels. I assume that AccuEQ was left active during playback it affects all... there is no indication that it does not.


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> I can distinctly remember Keith mention he would "eat his hat" if current models other than the 7200 get a DTS:X update, free or paid
> So i suggest we keep some chili sauce aside in case it happens, it will make it easier for him ...


IF it turns out that Keith's 5200 does get a DTS:X upgrade, I think you'll find him more than happy to be wrong. The advantage of being a pessimist: if things don't go as he predicted, he still comes out ahead.


----------



## desray2k

Let's hope he's wrong... 

Sent from my Nexus 6


----------



## lujan

desray2k said:


> Let's hope he's wrong...
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6


Yes


----------



## smurraybhm

cdelena said:


> When used in my system it sets the distance, cutover, and makes gain adjustments just like all other channels. I assume that AccuEQ was left active during playback it affects all... there is no indication that it does not.


Those functions are not "EQ." You can assume all you want but even Onkyo has been clear about what AccuEQ does and doesn't do. There was a thread on AVS that you can search for and read if you want to learn more about this topic. Let's not rehash all of this again in the *Atmos* thread. If you've got an Onkyo and your happy with the sound that's all that matters.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1580129-accueq-vs-audyssey.html


----------



## batpig

cdelena said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. From Onkyo's own website (http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/products/tx-nr3030-117903.html?tab=Details)
> 
> *"For the ultimate in pure stereo performance, AccuEQ bypasses the front channels so the unique characteristics of your loudspeakers can be enjoyed without DSP correction to potentially alter the sound."*
> 
> Can't make it much clearer than that can they?
> 
> 
> 
> When used in my system it sets the distance, cutover, and makes gain adjustments just like all other channels. I assume that AccuEQ was left active during playback it affects all... there is no indication that it does not.
Click to expand...

Those things you mention are not EQ. Do you think Onkyo would lie about their product on their own website and advertise that it lacks functionality that it secretly has?

Strange that people want to be in denial about this.


----------



## DoyleS

So the DTS:X announcement starts Thursday at 11 AM Pacific time. So far the only place that I can find for details is going to be on their FB page. 
I guess being a Bay Area techie, I am a little too used to the Apple announcements with lots of teasers beforehand and then a grand announcement.


----------



## lorjam

Not just Apple.....Elon Musk?


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> Have you considered emulating @Josh Z's "hacked" 7.1.6 setup with cloned pairs of TM+TR speaker arrays? With this arrangement--which Josh at last report described as working well for him--you can have your three top arrays in place and producing sound ahead of true x.x.6 mainstream availability. Plus you would presumably reap the immediate benefit of ameliorating your current less-than-ideal Atmos effect at the MLP.
> 
> I know that this is what I plan to do; I have the extra speakers on hand and I'm just holding off until I can be confident of the proper placement for the third pair compatible with what a future Denon AVR will require.


I have not seen the JoshZ's hacked 7.1.6 setup but would be interested certainly. I do have the extra speakers available to install TM, just have not done so yet. If you could provide the thread link or page number I would appreciate that .


----------



## NorthSky

> *The advantage of being a pessimist: if things don't go as we predicted, we still come out ahead.*


I'll try to remember this one in the unpredictable future.


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> I have not seen the JoshZ's hacked 7.1.6 setup but would be interested certainly. I do have the extra speakers available to install TM, just have not done so yet. If you could provide the thread link or page number I would appreciate that .


It's not that complicated -- he just combined standard Front Height speakers with a pair of in-ceilings wired in parallel as Top Middle. So as far as the processor is concerned it's playing 7.1.4 but the Top Middle signal is then played back by a pair (array) of speakers for each channel. So you get sound out of all six overheads and you get broader coverage for multiple rows. Not as good obviously as truly discrete channels but probably quite effective.


----------



## UKTexan

Does anybody have any information regarding the lack of Dolby Atmos content via streaming services?
Netflix and Vudu were mentioned at product launch but have yet to begin streaming Atmos movies.
I know Vudu and Amazon have the Dolby Atmos demo trailers, but no actual movies AFAIK. 

I bought the 2015 DTS demo disc with DTSX trailers. Obviously I am not able to decode them but they sure do sound great with DSU, Divergent especially.
Looking forward to the announcement tomorrow, Keith may be pleasantly surprised as will I, I'm also a proud owner of the Denon X-5200W. 

Thanks gentlemen.


----------



## jrref

UKTexan said:


> Does anybody have any information regarding the lack of Dolby Atmos content via streaming services?
> Netflix and Vudu were mentioned at product launch but have yet to begin streaming Atmos movies.
> I know Vudu and Amazon have the Dolby Atmos demo trailers, but no actual movies AFAIK.
> 
> I bought the 2015 DTS demo disc with DTSX trailers. Obviously I am not able to decode them but they sure do sound great with DSU, Divergent especially.
> Looking forward to the announcement tomorrow, Keith may be pleasantly surprised as will I, I'm also a proud owner of the Denon X-5200W.
> 
> Thanks gentlemen.


No word on Atmos for these streaming services. I did play the Atmos demo from Vudu and it sounds just like the actual Bluray demo disk I have. The only problem with Streaming movies with Atmos is that you need to do it via a Bluray player or an external device because the built in apps on Smart TVs will not pass anything more than Dolby 5.1 via the ARC or Optical connections.


----------



## SoundChex

UKTexan said:


> Does anybody have any information regarding the lack of Dolby Atmos content via streaming services?
> Netflix and Vudu were mentioned at product launch but have yet to begin streaming Atmos movies.
> I know Vudu and Amazon have the Dolby Atmos demo trailers, but no actual movies AFAIK.




I am under the impression that "streamed Atmos content" will use the Dolby AC-4 codec...? If my understanding is correct then that would suggest there is little value to having content available until some [current] Atmos decoders in AVRs are "upgraded" to 'integrated Atmos|AC-4' decoders...?!    


_


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> I have not seen the JoshZ's hacked 7.1.6 setup but would be interested certainly. I do have the extra speakers available to install TM, just have not done so yet. If you could provide the thread link or page number I would appreciate that .


I linked to his most recent post on the subject (to the best of my knowledge) in my post which you quoted. (Here's that link once more.) And batpig's succinct description provides further explanation. I hope that Josh will chime in and let us know how he likes the arrangement now that he's had about a month to try it out.

In my situation, my FH is at a relatively shallow angle on the front wall and I might be tempted to use a third array somewhere between my current FH and TM to clone the front pair for now. But before I cut more holes in my living room's textured ceiling I'd like to know that whatever exact location I choose will work well with a follow-on true x.x.6 processor.


----------



## NorthSky

roxiedog13 said:


> I have not seen the JoshZ's hacked 7.1.6 setup but would be interested certainly. I do have the extra speakers available to install TM, just have not done so yet. If you could provide the thread link or page number I would appreciate that .


Full progression:

° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *♦*
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *♦♦*
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## batpig

SoundChex said:


> I am under the impression that "streamed Atmos content" will use the Dolby AC-4 codec...? If my understanding is correct then that would suggest there is little value to having content available until some [current] Atmos decoders in AVRs are "upgraded" to 'integrated Atmos|AC-4' decoders...?!


That's not necessary -- Dolby Atmos can be carried with DD+ which is the de facto standard for streaming services like Netflix, Vudu, etc. The Atmos demo clips already stream from Vudu with Atmos (encased in DD+ codec) right NOW so it's not an issue of (lack of) present technical capability.


----------



## UKTexan

jrref said:


> No word on Atmos for these streaming services. I did play the Atmos demo from Vudu and it sounds just like the actual Bluray demo disk I have. The only problem with Streaming movies with Atmos is that you need to do it via a Bluray player or an external device because the built in apps on Smart TVs will not pass anything more than Dolby 5.1 via the ARC or Optical connections.


Agreed regarding the streaming quality, I could not discern a difference between the blu ray demo disc and the streamed content via dolby digital plus. 
I currently use my Sony blu ray player for all streamed content.


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> Unless you are an insider,how can you be so sure of your statement.
> 
> What if you wrong?
> Everything you say from this point forward in this forum will be meaningless.


*Everything*? Wow. Even if it's about Dirac, or speaker drivers or whatever?

In that case, we’ll definitely have to wait and see if I'm right or wrong. I never realised that being wrong about one thing then invalidated everything said after it though. In that case, everything I have ever posted on AVS has been meaningless because I was wrong about the World Cup in the 80s.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I can distinctly remember Keith mention he would "eat his hat" if current models other than the 7200 get a DTS:X update, free or paid
> So i suggest we keep some chili sauce aside in case it happens, it will make it easier for him ...


In fact I said I'd eat it without sauce or mustard. But if you guys want to take pity on me and allow me a little ketchup, I am very grateful


----------



## kbarnes701

cdelena said:


> When used in my system it sets the distance, cutover, and makes gain adjustments just like all other channels. I assume that AccuEQ was left active during playback it affects all... there is no indication that it does not.


Setting distances, levels and crossovers is not the same as equalising though, as previously explained. There's no question about this: AccuEQ does not equalise the front L&R speakers. Onkyo themselves are very clear about this.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> IF it turns out that Keith's 5200 does get a DTS:X upgrade, I think you'll find him more than happy to be wrong. The advantage of being a pessimist: if things don't go as he predicted, he still comes out ahead.


Oh I would LOVE to be wrong about this. Just love it. It would save me from buying a whole new AVR for one thing, which can only be good news.


----------



## NorthSky

Keith, any Dolby Atmos Blu-ray flick you watched recently? ...Revisited.


----------



## lujan

jrref said:


> No word on Atmos for these streaming services. I did play the Atmos demo from Vudu and it sounds just like the actual Bluray demo disk I have. The only problem with Streaming movies with Atmos is that you need to do it via a Bluray player or an external device because the built in apps on Smart TVs will not pass anything more than Dolby 5.1 via the ARC or Optical connections.


I don't know about ARC but I know Optical (or component) was never meant to pass the high definition audio codecs so you have to use HDMI (or maybe DVI). Also, you need to use a receiver that can decode the audio because your TV is only meant for stereo sound in most cases if not all cases.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> I don't know about ARC but I know Optical (or component) was never meant to pass the high definition audio codecs so you have to use HDMI (or maybe DVI). Also, you need to use a receiver that can decode the audio because your TV is only meant for stereo sound in most cases if not all cases.


Hmmm any app or broadcast signal that originates from the TV will send 5.1 to your receiver.
The only time is when you use a external device like a Blu-Ray player hooked to the TV then only two channel stereo will be sent to your AVR.


----------



## bargervais

batpig said:


> Those things you mention are not EQ. Do you think Onkyo would lie about their product on their own website and advertise that it lacks functionality that it secretly has?
> 
> Strange that people want to be in denial about this.


Exclusive AccuEQ Room Calibration
Calibrating the sound to suit your room's acoustics is simple with AccuEQ. Once you've connected your speakers, plug-in the included mic and wait a few moments as the TX-NR xxxx measures things such as speaker distance, type, crossover, and output, taking into account any reflections from your walls and floor. The system is designed specifically to by-pass your front left and right speakers. The system then optimizes the frequency response of the remaining speakers so you can enjoy balanced surround sound regardless of room shape or furnishing while retaining the characteristics of your front left and right speakers for optimum enjoyment

I have known this all along and still chose an Onkyo. I'm very happy with their performances.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> Hmmm any app or broadcast signal that originates from the TV will send 5.1 to your receiver.
> The only time is when you use a external device like a Blu-Ray player hooked to the TV then only two channel stereo will be sent to your AVR.


If I'm not mistaken, I believe lujan was responding to jrref's prior post and confirming (1) that a digital optical (aka TOSLINK) connection cannot pass any lossless multi-channel audio codec (i.e., Dolby TrueHD or Atmos, or DTS-HD MA), and (2) that a conventional TV set cannot play back anything more than stereo via the set's internal audio system.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Keith, any Dolby Atmos Blu-ray flick you watched recently? ...Revisited.


You do know that he has you on "Ignore," right? (He may have mentioned this fact once or twice.)

But thanks to this response he will now see your post and can reply if he so chooses (between bites of his hat).


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> You do know that he has you on "Ignore," right? (He may have mentioned this fact once or twice.)
> 
> But thanks to this response he will now see your post and can reply if he so chooses (between bites of his hat).


I know Keith still reads all pertinence to Dolby Atmos; I am not worry the least.  ...I luv Keith, he is a true sound explorer. 
And he is free to ignore or not whoever he wants. ...And we all are intelligent and matured people here to make those decisions ourselves, without Keith's help.


----------



## jdsmoothie

bargervais said:


> Hmmm any app or broadcast signal that originates from the TV will send 5.1 to your receiver.
> The only time is when you use a external device like a Blu-Ray player hooked to the TV then only two channel stereo will be sent to your AVR.


This is very much TV dependent as most TVs can only pass PCM 2.0 over HDMI(ARC).


----------



## bargervais

jdsmoothie said:


> This is very much TV dependent as most TVs can only pass PCM 2.0 over HDMI(ARC).


Yes that's what I was trying to say anything passed through the TV will be PCM 2.0. But most modern TV'S if there is a 5.1 signal that originates from the tv, like over the air broadcast, or an app like Netflix,or Amazon Prime or VUDU..... or what ever it will send 5.1 to the receiver via ARC


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Imagine you have a big bump in your frequency response of, say, 10dB at, say, 200Hz. EQ creates an inverse signal at that frequency of -10dB. This results in a 'flat' response at 200Hz when that 'filter' is applied to the signal. That is "equalizing".
> 
> Now imagine you have a big phat sub sitting there and you want it to play all frequencies below, say, 80Hz. You set a "crossover" of 80Hz. It is literally a crossing over point of the signal from one speaker to another at the chosen frequency. That is a "crossover".
> 
> You can apply an equalized signal to the crossover if you wish - the two things are separate.
> 
> Both of the above explanations are gross simplifications but they get across the difference between the two I hope.


Keith, thanks for the reminder... I used to know that. I had graphic equalizers when I was using 2-channel stereo, but had not used them since adopting 5.1.

I get it--one is signal correction and the other is signal limiting. Most certainly, not the same thing...

And, I do not mind at all that the simplifications are gross...

Thanks, again.


----------



## jrref

chi_guy50 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, I believe lujan was responding to jrref's prior post and confirming (1) that a digital optical (aka TOSLINK) connection cannot pass any lossless multi-channel audio codec (i.e., Dolby TrueHD or Atmos, or DTS-HD MA), and (2) that a conventional TV set cannot play back anything more than stereo via the set's internal audio system.


What I said was that the best ARC and the optical link can send from the TV to the A/V receiver is Dolby 5.1. It will not send Atmos for example. If for example you go to Vudu on your bluray player and play their Atmos demo disk, it's free, you will get the Dolby Atmos audio. If you go to Vudu on your smart TV, I have a Samsung HU9000, and play the same demo then I got Dolby 5.1 no matter how I set the audio settings on the TV. I'm not sure if this is a limitation of my Samsung TV or a limitation in the ARC specification. Optical, I know was not designed for HD audio.


----------



## NorthSky

No Vudu here in Canada, so no Dolby Atmos demo disc or any other Dolby Atmos title.


----------



## jdsmoothie

bargervais said:


> Yes that's what I was trying to say anything passed through the TV will be PCM 2.0. But most modern TV'S if there is a 5.1 signal that originates from the tv, like over the air broadcast, or an app like Netflix,or Amazon Prime or VUDU.....* or what ever it will send 5.1 to the receiver via ARC*


And what I was saying is that most will in fact not do more than 2CH audio over HDMI(ARC) with on board smart apps.


----------



## jrref

jdsmoothie said:


> And what I was saying is that most will in fact not do more than 2CH audio over HDMI(ARC) with on board smart apps.


Ok got it! thanks


----------



## dvdwilly3

bargervais said:


> Exclusive AccuEQ Room Calibration
> Calibrating the sound to suit your room's acoustics is simple with AccuEQ. Once you've connected your speakers, plug-in the included mic and wait a few moments as the TX-NR xxxx measures things such as speaker distance, type, crossover, and output, taking into account any reflections from your walls and floor. The system is designed specifically to by-pass your front left and right speakers. The system then optimizes the frequency response of the remaining speakers so you can enjoy balanced surround sound regardless of room shape or furnishing while retaining the characteristics of your front left and right speakers for optimum enjoyment
> 
> I have known this all along and still chose an Onkyo. I'm very happy with their performances.


Bargervais and Batpig, thank you both for your elaboration and partial clarification.

I am going to lay out my problem. If I need to take it to another thread please tell me. This is running me nuts...

I will explain my response--I am running a Def Tech system including 8060 towers for fronts; 8060HD for center; and 8080SR for surrounds, and SVS PB-12 Plus. I have had this 5.1 system thru an Onkyo older model; Denon 1712; Denon 1912; Denon 2313; Onkyo TX-NR737; and finally, Onkyo TX-NR-1030. 

Whether Audyssey or AccuEQ, when I run the calibration, the fronts consistently come back as 150 Hz. So, either calibration system is seeing the 4 1/2" drivers and not the built-in subwoofer. Batpig thought that either should have seen the towers as full, and surmised that I must be running the sub unit of the tower as wired thru the LFE output of the receiver. That is not the case.

I am running the front towers off of the front jacks straight wired as speakers, no LFE. The SVS is plugged into the LFE (SW 1).

I just went downstairs and ran an experiment in the AccuEQ with an older CD that generates sine waves, and herein is the dilemma.

If I set the Onkyo speaker configuration with 1 subwoofer selected, all LFE goes to the SVS sub only. This is with the crossover for the front towers set to 40, 50, 60,....no matter what I set the crossover to be. And, no matter what level I try to set the tower volume control on. I only get sound from the upper unit starting around 80 Hz.

If, on the other hand, I set subwoofer in the Onkyo configuration to no sub, then the Onkyo sets the fronts to Full Range, and then LFE goes to the 8060 towers. I have confirmed this standing next to each with my ear to the driver.

I cannot find a speaker configuration in the Onkyo that will give me LFE to both the subwoofer as well as the towers. 

So, should I wire the 8060 tower subs directly to one of the 2 subwoofer jacks on the 1030?? That is, run a splitter off of SW2 and from each side of the splitter go to the LFE sub input on the towers?

What am I missing?

Help!!


----------



## bargervais

jdsmoothie said:


> And what I was saying is that most will in fact not do more than 2CH audio over HDMI(ARC) with on board smart apps.


My Samsung PN60E8000 send 5.1 from my TV'S smart apps through HDMI ARC to my receiver, it shows 5.1 all day long playing from on board smart apps. My VUDU app on my TV plays the Atmos demos in 5.1 no matter what I do to the settings. But my VUDU app on my Blu-Ray player will play those Atmos demos in Atmos. TV will only do 5.1 no bitstream that's why I think the TV app won't play in Atmos no bitstream.


----------



## billqs

dvdwilly3 said:


> Bargervais and Batpig, thank you both for your elaboration and partial clarification.
> 
> I am going to lay out my problem. If I need to take it to another thread please tell me. This is running me nuts...
> 
> I will explain my response--I am running a Def Tech system including 8060 towers for fronts; 8060HD for center; and 8080SR for surrounds, and SVS PB-12 Plus. I have had this 5.1 system thru an Onkyo older model; Denon 1712; Denon 1912; Denon 2313; Onkyo TX-NR737; and finally, Onkyo TX-NR-1030.
> 
> Whether Audyssey or AccuEQ, when I run the calibration, the fronts consistently come back as 150 Hz. So, either calibration system is seeing the 4 1/2" drivers and not the built-in subwoofer. Batpig thought that either should have seen the towers as full, and surmised that I must be running the sub unit of the tower as wired thru the LFE output of the receiver. That is not the case.
> 
> I am running the front towers off of the front jacks straight wired as speakers, no LFE. The SVS is plugged into the LFE (SW 1).
> 
> I just went downstairs and ran an experiment in the AccuEQ with an older CD that generates sine waves, and herein is the dilemma.
> 
> If I set the Onkyo speaker configuration with 1 subwoofer selected, all LFE goes to the SVS sub only. This is with the crossover for the front towers set to 40, 50, 60,....no matter what I set the crossover to be. And, no matter what level I try to set the tower volume control on. I only get sound from the upper unit starting around 80 Hz.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I set subwoofer in the Onkyo configuration to no sub, then the Onkyo sets the fronts to Full Range, and then LFE goes to the 8060 towers. I have confirmed this standing next to each with my ear to the driver.
> 
> I cannot find a speaker configuration in the Onkyo that will give me LFE to both the subwoofer as well as the towers.
> 
> So, should I wire the 8060 tower subs directly to one of the 2 subwoofer jacks on the 1030?? That is, run a splitter off of SW2 and from each side of the splitter go to the LFE sub input on the towers?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Help!!


The Def Tech 8060 is an odd bird wth the built in sub in the tower. You might want to post in the def tech thread to see what other 8060 owners have done in similar situations. Sorry, I can't be of further help. I own Def Techs but they are of the Procinema variety.


----------



## Jive Turkey

NorthSky said:


> Keith, any Dolby Atmos Blu-ray flick you watched recently? ...Revisited.



I don't usually bite at things that don't involve me, but every now and then....

Think about how many more he's watched than you? That equals the count of how many have been released. You offer so much commentary on a format that you haven't found worth risking around $1600 to have gotten into to this point. It's tiring to hear you tout how smart you are not to have spent a dollar to date.


----------



## batpig

billqs said:


> dvdwilly3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bargervais and Batpig, thank you both for your elaboration and partial clarification.
> 
> I am going to lay out my problem. If I need to take it to another thread please tell me. This is running me nuts...
> 
> I will explain my response--I am running a Def Tech system including 8060 towers for fronts; 8060HD for center; and 8080SR for surrounds, and SVS PB-12 Plus. I have had this 5.1 system thru an Onkyo older model; Denon 1712; Denon 1912; Denon 2313; Onkyo TX-NR737; and finally, Onkyo TX-NR-1030.
> 
> Whether Audyssey or AccuEQ, when I run the calibration, the fronts consistently come back as 150 Hz. So, either calibration system is seeing the 4 1/2" drivers and not the built-in subwoofer. Batpig thought that either should have seen the towers as full, and surmised that I must be running the sub unit of the tower as wired thru the LFE output of the receiver. That is not the case.
> 
> I am running the front towers off of the front jacks straight wired as speakers, no LFE. The SVS is plugged into the LFE (SW 1).
> 
> I just went downstairs and ran an experiment in the AccuEQ with an older CD that generates sine waves, and herein is the dilemma.
> 
> If I set the Onkyo speaker configuration with 1 subwoofer selected, all LFE goes to the SVS sub only. This is with the crossover for the front towers set to 40, 50, 60,....no matter what I set the crossover to be. And, no matter what level I try to set the tower volume control on. I only get sound from the upper unit starting around 80 Hz.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I set subwoofer in the Onkyo configuration to no sub, then the Onkyo sets the fronts to Full Range, and then LFE goes to the 8060 towers. I have confirmed this standing next to each with my ear to the driver.
> 
> I cannot find a speaker configuration in the Onkyo that will give me LFE to both the subwoofer as well as the towers.
> 
> So, should I wire the 8060 tower subs directly to one of the 2 subwoofer jacks on the 1030?? That is, run a splitter off of SW2 and from each side of the splitter go to the LFE sub input on the towers?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Help!!
> 
> 
> 
> The Def Tech 8060 is an odd bird wth the built in sub in the tower. You might want to post in the def tech thread to see what other 8060 owners have done in similar situations. Sorry, I can't be of further help. I own Def Techs but they are of the Procinema variety.
Click to expand...

+1 -- I think it's time to seek help from other DT owners. My understanding was that if you wire with just speaker wire the internal powered subs should be engaged and fed via the internal crossover in the speaker. But your consistent 150hz result indicates the powered subs aren't being engaged. 

Have you confirmed with actual content that the 8060s powered subs are pumping the bass? If so, the other unlikely possibility is that there is a strange room mode (a deep null around the listening position) that keeps fooling the auto EQ programs. The way to test this theory is to test run the calibration with the mic in a totally different spot and/or the speakers moved to a different location. If all of a sudden you get a 40hz crossover you know it's actually a room acoustics problem.


----------



## NorthSky

Jive Turkey said:


> I don't usually bite at things that don't involve me, but every now and then....
> 
> Think about how many more he's watched than you? That equals the count of how many have been released. You offer so much commentary on a format that you haven't found worth risking around $1600 to have gotten into to this point. It's tiring to hear you tout how smart you are not to have spent a dollar to date.


Do I need to spend money to post here?...No, so please. I'm doing the best I can to learn and share and have fun too.
I would like to hear more about 'Gravity' and Dolby Atmos...and Keith (and others too) are people I learn from. 

This thread is not for owners only; it's for everyone interested. ...Please, give me a break; I have listened...real good. 
No need to keep @ it. ...Let's all move forward, shall we. ...Read all my posts, I am a good person, just like you.


----------



## gammanuc

dvdwilly3 said:


> Bargervais and Batpig, thank you both for your elaboration and partial clarification.
> 
> I am going to lay out my problem. If I need to take it to another thread please tell me. This is running me nuts...
> 
> I will explain my response--I am running a Def Tech system including 8060 towers for fronts; 8060HD for center; and 8080SR for surrounds, and SVS PB-12 Plus. I have had this 5.1 system thru an Onkyo older model; Denon 1712; Denon 1912; Denon 2313; Onkyo TX-NR737; and finally, Onkyo TX-NR-1030.
> 
> Whether Audyssey or AccuEQ, when I run the calibration, the fronts consistently come back as 150 Hz. So, either calibration system is seeing the 4 1/2" drivers and not the built-in subwoofer. Batpig thought that either should have seen the towers as full, and surmised that I must be running the sub unit of the tower as wired thru the LFE output of the receiver. That is not the case.
> 
> I am running the front towers off of the front jacks straight wired as speakers, no LFE. The SVS is plugged into the LFE (SW 1).
> 
> I just went downstairs and ran an experiment in the AccuEQ with an older CD that generates sine waves, and herein is the dilemma.
> 
> If I set the Onkyo speaker configuration with 1 subwoofer selected, all LFE goes to the SVS sub only. This is with the crossover for the front towers set to 40, 50, 60,....no matter what I set the crossover to be. And, no matter what level I try to set the tower volume control on. I only get sound from the upper unit starting around 80 Hz.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I set subwoofer in the Onkyo configuration to no sub, then the Onkyo sets the fronts to Full Range, and then LFE goes to the 8060 towers. I have confirmed this standing next to each with my ear to the driver.
> 
> _*I cannot find a speaker configuration in the Onkyo that will give me LFE to both the subwoofer as well as the towers. *_
> 
> So, should I wire the 8060 tower subs directly to one of the 2 subwoofer jacks on the 1030?? That is, run a splitter off of SW2 and from each side of the splitter go to the LFE sub input on the towers?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Help!!




Does the Onkyo have a setting called "Double Bass"?? If so, it is the same as LFE + Main on other receivers and selecting it should solve your problem.


----------



## NorthSky

gammanuc said:


> Does the Onkyo have a setting called "Double Bass"?? If so, it is the same as LFE + Main on other receivers and selecting it should solve your problem.


Onkyo receivers sure do have that feature; but it sounds awful. I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sounds fine. Depends on your setup.


----------



## NorthSky

Too much bass, I found Scott. ...It negates what the Auto Room Correction and EQ system has done. ...In my case, Audyssey MultEQ XT32. 
I don't know about AccuEQ, do you?


----------



## dvdwilly3

gammanuc said:


> Does the Onkyo have a setting called "Double Bass"?? If so, it is the same as LFE + Main on other receivers and selecting it should solve your problem.


gammanuc, yes, I do have a setting called Double Bass. But, that does not appear to be the way that it works in the Onkyo setup.

*Setting Item*
*Default Value*
*Setting Details*
Double Bass
-----
Boost bass output by feeding bass sounds from the front left and right, and center speakers to the subwoofer.
"On": Bass output will be boosted. "Off(THX)": Bass output will not be boosted.
• The setting will not automatically be configured even if you performed the automatic speaker setup.
• If "Subwoofer" is set to "No" or if "Front" is set to other than "Full Band", the setting will be fixed to "-----".

I am not getting bass to the fronts to begin with. Curiously, I am getting bass to the center channel which is responding in the lower frequencies.


----------



## dvdwilly3

batpig said:


> +1 -- I think it's time to seek help from other DT owners. My understanding was that if you wire with just speaker wire the internal powered subs should be engaged and fed via the internal crossover in the speaker. But your consistent 150hz result indicates the powered subs aren't being engaged.
> 
> Have you confirmed with actual content that the 8060s powered subs are pumping the bass? If so, the other unlikely possibility is that there is a strange room mode (a deep null around the listening position) that keeps fooling the auto EQ programs. The way to test this theory is to test run the calibration with the mic in a totally different spot and/or the speakers moved to a different location. If all of a sudden you get a 40hz crossover you know it's actually a room acoustics problem.


Batpig, I will post in the Def Tech forum.

I did confirm that IF the Onkyo is set to None for Subwoofer, and the DefTechs are then set to Full Range, then I do get the lower frequencies through the tower subwoofers.

I have not tried it in this current setup. However, with the Denon 2313, I did use their setup of 6 different microphone positions, and the Audyssey still consistently set it at 120 Hz.


----------



## Steve Goff

dvdwilly3 said:


> Batpig, I will post in the Def Tech forum.
> 
> I did confirm that IF the Onkyo is set to None for Subwoofer, and the DefTechs are then set to Full Range, then I do get the lower frequencies through the tower subwoofers.
> 
> I have not tried it in this current setup. However, with the Denon 2313, I did use their setup of 6 different microphone positions, and the Audyssey still consistently set it at 120 Hz.



Have you set the level of the 8060 subs on the back of the speakers? They suggest that you start with the level control at 12 noon. You can also run the LFE to the speakers, in addition to the speaker wire connection. Def Tech also suggests that if bass is lacking you check to be sure that the speakers are wired in phase.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Exclusive AccuEQ Room Calibration
> _Calibrating the sound to suit your room's acoustics is simple with AccuEQ. Once you've connected your speakers, plug-in the included mic and wait a few moments as the TX-NR xxxx measures things such as speaker distance, type, crossover, and output, taking into account any reflections from your walls and floor. *The system is designed specifically to by-pass your front left and right speakers*. The system then optimizes the frequency response of the remaining speakers so you can enjoy balanced surround sound regardless of room shape or furnishing while retaining the characteristics of your front left and right speakers for optimum enjoyment_
> 
> I have known this all along and still chose an Onkyo. I'm very happy with their performances.


Yes that is true - you at least are not in denial about it though, like some who, despite Onkyo themselves being perfectly clear on this, still want to insist that AccuEQ EQs the L&R speakers.


----------



## Wild Blue

Well, here we are, on the big day of DTS:X. Get to see what the other half of the next generation sound will be like.



Aras_Volodka said:


> You guys realize the story about Ventura was fabricated, right?


Ummm... he sued the estate of a dead, murdered Navy Seal, and has made multiple public derogatory statements that my brothers in arms deserve to be dead. Yup. He can go f$%&k himself.

And Jesse Ventura won't stop me from sitting and watching American Sniper in Atmos, thank you very much.


----------



## roxiedog13

NorthSky said:


> Full progression:
> 
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *♦*
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *♦♦*
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


Thanks for that will have to find time for a read through now. Certainly may be worth a try regardless, I have all the equipment already, just need to install the TM speakers .


----------



## dvdwilly3

Steve Goff said:


> Have you set the level of the 8060 subs on the back of the speakers? They suggest that you start with the level control at 12 noon. You can also run the LFE to the speakers, in addition to the speaker wire connection. Def Tech also suggests that if bass is lacking you check to be sure that the speakers are wired in phase.


Yep, i eve tried turning it all way up as well as all the way donw (in case I was directionally challenged...)...

Nada...and re phase, they are not producing sound that is out of phase. 

Neither of them is producing sound...

I am going to try feeding the SW2 left channel output to the left tower LFE input and the SW2 right channel output to the right tower LFE input. They are line level pre-outs so there should be no harm in trying.

LOL! If works, I will effectively be running a 5.3.4 setup...

I think that is Keith that has something "There is no such thing as too much woofage" in his signature...

Here's hoping...


----------



## kingwiggi

Here is the first confirmed DTS:X news story. Not that it matters to most of us.

http://www.insideci.co.uk/news/steinway-lyngdorf-confirms-dtsx-support-for-p200.aspx


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Chris Dotur said:


> Ummm... he sued the estate of a dead, murdered Navy Seal, and has made multiple public derogatory statements that my brothers in arms deserve to be dead. Yup. He can go f$%&k himself.


Yes, because a Jury determined that Kyle lied about it (lawsuit filed before Kyle's death FYI). The "derogatory statements" were made in an event that never happened! Somehow the small detail of Ventura being a veteran isn't involved in this ficticious narrative of yours. I don't even know why you brought it up in this thread... It's Atmos not Hannity.


----------



## kingwiggi

Here is the main info - DTS:X news release

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...udio-coming-to-cinema-and-home-300063437.html


----------



## multit

I'm disappointed really... no new speaker layout to consider... and to work on it 
.. and no details about the DTS:X upmixer ...


----------



## FilmMixer

And if the press release is complete, no AVR upgrades except the X7200... 

They also mention the 8802... 

Yamaha and Onkyo it seems will only be for new models. And Pioneer hasn't said anything yet.

And this... 

"2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels
Content created for a specific speaker layout can be remapped for playout through a different layout
Enables remapping of outputs to custom or OEM-defined speaker layouts, and remapping legacy content to new output configurations"

As I said a while ago.... 

Not much different than Atmos.... 

And Dolby will ask add features to the v2.0 products. 

I will be curious if they announce any content today.


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> And if the press release is complete, no AVR upgrades except the X7200...



Disappointing...but not unexpected.


----------



## Csbooth

This thread should probably be renamed to 3D immersive audio and be done with it lol. If not that, maybe an 'official' thread for DTS:X, as of now I have two open on my phone that I'm switching between.

Aside from that, I'm expecting around 1-2k DTS:X remastered BD (4K?) that will be released in the next week. /sarcasm


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> Disappointing...but not unexpected.


Oh mannnnnnnnnnnnn. Ty for the info guys... at least I don't regret my purchase too much, it's still light years ahead of what I had last year, & it seems like it will take the new formats a while to really get rolling. Now the only thing I really care about is if SW 7 gets Atmos bluray release or not. Anyone have a crystal ball?


----------



## kingwiggi

*2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels*

Thats the most disappointing item on that news release.

Its either time to dump the 5200 before the prices drop through the floor and look for a deal on a 7200, or hold off another year for Gen2 hardware.


----------



## jrref

kingwiggi said:


> *2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels*
> 
> Thats the most disappointing item on that news release.
> 
> Its either time to dump the 5200 before the prices drop through the floor and look for a deal on a 7200, or hold off another year for Gen2 hardware.


I'd wait for Gen2 hardware unless you want to be the test bed for them! Everyone knew that over time the new AVrs will have more channel support so this shouldn't be a surprise. Enjoy what you have till the next best thing comes along.


----------



## sdurani

kingwiggi said:


> *2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels*
> 
> Thats the most disappointing item on that news release.


What were people expecting? Did anyone think that AVRs would grow additional channels solely for DTS?


> Its either time to dump the 5200 before the prices drop through the floor and look for a deal on a 7200, or hold off another year for Gen2 hardware.


The latter. HDMI announced a new rev yesterday (version 2.0a) to accommodate HDR. Holding off for another year for Gen2 hardware will give it time for the dust to settle on all three things that are changing: audio, video and connectivity.


----------



## jrogers

FilmMixer said:


> And if the press release is complete, no AVR upgrades except the X7200...
> 
> They also mention the 8802...
> 
> Yamaha and Onkyo it seems will only be for new models. And Pioneer hasn't said anything yet.
> 
> And this...
> 
> "2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels
> Content created for a specific speaker layout can be remapped for playout through a different layout
> Enables remapping of outputs to custom or OEM-defined speaker layouts, and remapping legacy content to new output configurations"
> 
> As I said a while ago....
> 
> Not much different than Atmos....
> 
> And Dolby will ask add features to the v2.0 products.
> 
> I will be curious if they announce any content today.


So now, given it looks like my AVR won't be upgraded to DTS:X, I'll be anxiously waiting for some of you 7200, 8802, etc. owners to upgrade and publish your thoughts on actually listening to 7.1 content with DSU vs the DTS:X "spatial reformatter." 

As for content, their statement in the press release seemed pretty underwhelming to me: "DTS is presently working with several major studios and mixing stages in Los Angeles, Northern California and Canada that are evaluating DTS:X. DTS:X content announcements will be made by the studios when ready, in alignment with DTS."


----------



## sdrucker

jrogers said:


> So now, given it looks like my AVR won't be upgraded to DTS:X, I'll be anxiously waiting for some of you 7200, 8802, etc. owners to upgrade and publish your thoughts on actually listening to 7.1 content with DSU vs the DTS:X "spatial reformatter."
> 
> As for content, their statement in the press release seemed pretty underwhelming to me: "DTS is presently working with several major studios and mixing stages in Los Angeles, Northern California and Canada that are evaluating DTS:X. DTS:X content announcements will be made by the studios when ready, in alignment with DTS."


IOW, you'll see a very slow trickle the way we have with Atmos. Meaning you'll be enjoying the DTS:X demo BD if you can get it on Ebay or from DTS (assuming they'll send one out on request), or the handful of DTS:X releases you might see after CEDIA. But if we're really, really lucky, there will be an actual movie release with a DTS:X mix before Labor Day for the bleeding edge .


Of course, I'd be happy to be off-base....


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I can distinctly remember Keith mention he would "eat his hat" if current models other than the 7200 get a DTS:X update, free or paid
> So i suggest we keep some chili sauce aside in case it happens, it will make it easier for him ...


Well, now we know who was right and who wasn't.  

As predicted, the Denon 7200 (and the Marantz 8200) will be getting DTS:X upgrades and the "lesser" models will not - just new 2015 models with DTS:X capability included.

So, as Sanjay says above, the smart thing to do now is to skip a year and wait for the 2016 models, which will have everything in place in one unit. Meanwhile. enjoy DSU on DTS:X content (if there is any, anytime soon).


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, now we know who was right and who wasn't.
> 
> As predicted, the Denon 7200 (and the Marantz 8200) will be getting DTS:X upgrades and the "lesser" models will not - just new 2015 models with DTS:X capability included.
> 
> So, as Sanjay says above, the smart thing to do now is to skip a year and wait for the 2016 models, which will have everything in place in one unit. Meanwhile. enjoy DSU on DTS:X content (if there is any, anytime soon).


You are forgetting that that press release was issued by DTS, not D&M. Let's wait to hear what the manufacturer announces regarding their products.


----------



## kingwiggi

sdurani said:


> What were people expecting? Did anyone think that AVRs would grow additional channels solely for DTS?


No, not just for DTS:X but that also puts a nail in the coffin for any consumer grade hardware to do 9.1.6 until 2016.


----------



## sdurani

kingwiggi said:


> No, not just for DTS:X but that also puts a nail in the coffin for any consumer grade hardware to do 9.1.6 until 2016.


Then wait until 2016. You already have an excellent AVR (Denon 5200), so enjoy it for another year and see what news comes out of CES in 9 months. Things like 9.1.6 outputs and positional rendering and dialogue control are out of the hands of companies like DTS and Dolby. AVR manufacturers determine when those features will be implemented, and even they are at the mercy of DSP chipmakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kingwiggi said:


> No, not just for DTS:X but that also puts a nail in the coffin for any consumer grade hardware to do 9.1.6 until 2016.





sdurani said:


> Then wait until 2016. You already have an excellent AVR (Denon 5200), so enjoy it for another year and see what news comes out of CES in 9 months. Things like 9.1.6 outputs and positional rendering and dialogue control are out of the hands of companies like DTS and Dolby. AVR manufacturers determine when those features will be implemented, and even they are at the mercy of DSP chipmakers.


But I want it nnnnnooooooowwwwwww!


----------



## robert816

sdrucker said:


> IOW, you'll see a very slow trickle the way we have with Atmos. Meaning you'll be enjoying the DTS:X demo BD if you can get it on Ebay or from DTS (assuming they'll send one out on request), or the handful of DTS:X releases you might see after CEDIA. But if we're really, really lucky, there will be an actual movie release with a DTS:X mix before Labor Day for the bleeding edge .
> 
> 
> Of course, I'd be happy to be off-base....


I was thinking the same thing, information going from a drip to a trickle.

I have the DTS:X demo BD and it sounds awsome with Dolby DSU!


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> I linked to his most recent post on the subject (to the best of my knowledge) in my post which you quoted. (Here's that link once more.) And batpig's succinct description provides further explanation. I hope that Josh will chime in and let us know how he likes the arrangement now that he's had about a month to try it out.


Sorry for the lack of response. I've been sick for the past couple days. Here's a blog post I wrote about my "7.1.4 (2)" configuration.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-speaker-upgrade/


----------



## Nalleh

chi_guy50 said:


> You are forgetting that that press release was issued by DTS, not D&M. Let's wait to hear what the manufacturer announces regarding their products.


Technically it was not issued by DTS either, but from PRNewswire.


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> Technically it was not issued by DTS either, but from PRNewswire.


PRNewswire quoted the DTS press release verbatim. Here's the same article, word-for-word, on DTS's web site:

http://www.dts.com/corporate/press-...ct-based-audio-coming-to-cinema-and-home.aspx

N.B.: Your attribution of the release to PRNewswire is what we in the intel game used to call "circular reporting."


----------



## kingwiggi

Scott Simonian said:


> But I want it nnnnnooooooowwwwwww!


+1

lol


----------



## FilmMixer

jrogers said:


> As for content, their statement in the press release seemed pretty underwhelming to me: "DTS is presently working with several major studios and mixing stages in Los Angeles, Northern California and Canada that are evaluating DTS:X. DTS:X content announcements will be made by the studios when ready, in alignment with DTS."


I can't speak for other studios. 

But we are one of the mixing stages with the MDA tools (I guess from the release they are officially calling it DTS:X - Cinema...)

At this time evaluating is a good descriptor. We are are not yet ready to mix a film in the format. 

So a time line for home content is what I am most interested in from their press event today.


----------



## Nalleh

chi_guy50 said:


> *PRNewswire quoted the DTS *press release verbatim. Here's the same article, word-for-word, on DTS's web site:
> 
> http://www.dts.com/corporate/press-...ct-based-audio-coming-to-cinema-and-home.aspx
> 
> N.B.: Your attribution of the release to PRNewswire is what we in the intel game used to call "circular reporting."


Is'nt it the other way around ?!
On the first line in the DTS press release it says PRNewswire!
Unless they are the ones handling DTS's press releases?


----------



## bkeeler10

kingwiggi said:


> *2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels*
> 
> Thats the most disappointing item on that news release.


Agreed. That doesn't bode well for Atmos 9.1.4 this fall. I would think that if any manufacturers released 13.1 channel units, DTS:X would also be able to take advantage of all 13.1 channels. Hopefully I'm wrong and Atmos 9.1.4 will be available from someone this fall, even if DTS will only use 11.1 of those.


----------



## UdoG

For me it's important that the Atmos speaker config can be used for DTS:X. What did you think about this?


----------



## Scott Simonian

UdoG said:


> For me it's important that the Atmos speaker config can be used for DTS:X. What did you think about this?


They will be compatible.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

UdoG said:


> For me it's important that the Atmos speaker config can be used for DTS:X. What did you think about this?





Scott Simonian said:


> They will be compatible.


There will be one setup parameter in the Marantz AV8802 (or so I've been told by Marantz). The firmware will probably be much later this year...I couldn't pin them down on a timeline.


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> Is'nt it the other way around ?!
> On the first line in the DTS press release it says PRNewswire!
> Unless* they are the ones handling DTS's press releases?*


That is correct (at least in this instance). The source is DTS; PRNewswire is the disseminator.

The distinction is important inasfar as verifiability is concerned, since DTS is the authoritative source of the information reported.


----------



## BillyNedwell

So far, a massive anti climax. Perhaps dts share the same marketing department with dolby.................................yawn!


----------



## Nalleh

chi_guy50 said:


> That is correct (at least in this instance). The source is DTS; PRNewswire is the disseminator.
> 
> The distinction is important inasfar as verifiability is concerned, since DTS is the authoritative source of the information reported.



Ahh, my bad


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> But I want it nnnnnooooooowwwwwww!


You and everyone else... including ME.


----------



## FilmMixer

Good for home theater trickle down... 

http://deadline.com/2015/04/amc-theaters-dolby-prime-1201406648/


----------



## bsoko2

And once again early adopters get screwed. I'll use my 5200 for a doorstop!


----------



## HT-Eman

DTS posted a video on their facebook page and a link to their website on DTS:X . There must be a lot of traffic on their website cause everything freezes when I go there.

There are better updates on DTS twitter page.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> Good for home theater trickle down...
> 
> http://deadline.com/2015/04/amc-theaters-dolby-prime-1201406648/


There's definitely some coverage holes for cinema Atmos in urban areas. For example, unless you count the fringes of the Loop, there's no Dolby Atmos-capable screens in the Chicago Central Business District, where there's a lot of foot traffic and visiting tourists. 

We've got an IMAX at Navy Pier, a 21 screen AMC multiplex maybe five minutes walk from us, and another nine screen AMC theater 10 minuted in the other direction, and none have Atmos capability. Urban visitors and city dwellers aren't going to do the kind of drives that SoCal folks might do or those in rural areas.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Full progression:
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *♦*
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs *♦♦*
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> ° https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs





roxiedog13 said:


> Thanks for that will have to find time for a read through now. Certainly may be worth a try regardless, I have all the equipment already, just need to install the TM speakers .


♦ It takes only roughly ten to fifteen (max) minutes to read them all eleven posts.
Also, Josh just added the full "enchilada" in a quote below (red lettering).



kingwiggi said:


> Here is the main info - DTS:X news release
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...udio-coming-to-cinema-and-home-300063437.html


♦ Thx for that.



kingwiggi said:


> *2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels*
> Thats the most disappointing item on that news release.
> Its either time to dump the 5200 before the prices drop through the floor and look for a deal on a 7200, or hold off another year for Gen2 hardware.


♦ As predicted by most of us. ...Denon 7200 and Marantz 8802 are good to get the goods. 
Meanwhile everyone is happy because DSU works great, plus there are two more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles coming: 'American Sniper' & 'Jupiter Ascending' ... two good titles IMO.
But the main thing is this: How long till we see the first DTS:X encoded Blu-ray title (software), and how long till the new AVRs appear? 
So there is still plenty of time till the new ball gets rolling, and Atmos (DSU) has been rolling for the last seven months now, and will keep rolling for another good long while. 

* I agree with most posters; 2016 till we see some serious waves. 



Josh Z said:


> Sorry for the lack of response. I've been sick for the past couple days. *Here's a blog post I wrote about my "7.1.4 (2)" configuration.*
> *http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-speaker-upgrade/*


♦ Thx Josh for that. 



BillyNedwell said:


> So far, a massive anti climax. Perhaps dts share the same marketing department with dolby.................................yawn!


♦ Not @ all, just a simple reality check, that's all. ...And no; they don't share the same office dept.  ...They're just good friends. 

______

Is everyone happy? ...I am. ...Time is on our side...no rush to get all stressed out; movies on Blu-ray (and streaming too) are still watched and enjoyed, one way (DolbyAtmos/DSU/Auro-3D/Auro-Matic/DTHD/DTS-HDMA/MLPCM) or another. ...Plus we got 3D picture still being released on 3D; perhaps not all here in North America but in the world somewhere for sure. ...It's just too bad that 'Gravity' wasn't given the full treatment the way it should have been (3D picture omitted from that 'Diamond Luxe Edition' with Dolby Atmos audio).
It's ok though, because 'Jupiter Ascending' will have the full enchilada...3D Picture and Sound (Dolby Atmos).  

As for 'Interstellar'; well, this is a Nolan's flick and a great one @ that...simply awesome just the way it is...picture and sound.
And besides, some of you lucky people can add DSU or Auro-Matic 3D on top of its DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround sound.

'American Sniper'; with Dolby Atmos...  /// And 2D picture is just fine by me; for this genre of flick by Clint.


----------



## SoundChex

With the announcement of a _theatrical_ push for *DTS:X*, perhaps we might finally see something tangible about the (rumored)  "*20.1 Cinema Audio Solution Coming from Barco*" (_link_):




> "The Barco 20.1 immersive sound solution (no formal name yet) will add more speakers to the configuration in the theater. It also appears to scrap the legacy 5.1 component in Auro 11.1 and focus on using all the speakers in a new way. These speakers will now be effectively clustered into zones. Each zone can have one or more speakers attached to it. There will be six zones in the front (high bank and low bank), four zones on the right, left and back sides (high and low, font and back), and two overhead zones, plus the subwoofer (.1)."




_


----------



## WayneJoy

Keep in mind that the next Home Theater Geeks comes live from DTS today. Maybe we can get more info from that.


----------



## M_R_2015

Help with the Atmos, and some other speaker placement q’s…

Just finished framing the basement and new ideas have arisen with the walls in place.

I have 3 pair of in ceiling speakers (Paradigm CS60R’s) and was originally thinking of having all 6 in the ceiling in either a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 set up. (Marantz 7009 avr, 75’ Samsung 7150, floor standing LCR’s)
However with walls in place I’m now thinking that my surrounds should be placed in the walls on either side. I am however worried that they might be too far away at 10’ and 13’. I plan on using the cs60R in the wall if I go this way. I know they are not optimal for in wall surrounds, but they are what I have and I will be using them.

The next Q is about the fore and aft ceiling Atmos placement. According the Dolby site they are suggesting that the speakers be placed at 45 degrees to the primary seating location. With 7 ½’ ceilings, that means 7.5 feet forward and 7.5 feet behind. I can accommodate that but am worries that with downward firing speakers, their sound field may not even reach the seating location at this distance. Same worry even at 55 degrees which translates to 5 feet fore and aft. What would you guys recommend as optimal fore and aft distance? My original plan was for 3’ before I did the math.

And lastly I’m thinking of prewiring for rear surrounds. The 7009 will can preamp out these channels and I have an old HK AVR30 that I could bring out of storage to power these rears. Should I even bother to do this with a 5.1.4 in place already? Is 10’ behind the primary seating location to far?

One last opinion, at what height should the surrounds be placed in the walls? At ear level? At the mid point between the floor and ceiling which is slightly higher than ear level? I am leaning towards the later.

Many thanks in advance

Matthew


----------



## Scott Simonian

bsoko2 said:


> And once again early adopters get screwed. I'll use my 5200 for a doorstop!


Or you know... enjoy it. 


Should know better than to think your AVR is impervious of future revisions. There will always be something new.


----------



## sdurani

M_R_2015 said:


> The next Q is about the fore and aft ceiling Atmos placement. According the Dolby site they are suggesting that the speakers be placed at 45 degrees to the primary seating location. With 7 ½’ ceilings, that means 7.5 feet forward and 7.5 feet behind.


Only if your ears are on the floor. Those speakers should be 45 degrees above ear level.


> I can accommodate that but am worries that with downward firing speakers, their sound field may not even reach the seating location at this distance.


Point the speakers towards the seating location.


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> Sorry for the lack of response. I've been sick for the past couple days. Here's a blog post I wrote about my "7.1.4 (2)" configuration.
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-speaker-upgrade/


Thank you for linking us to that write-up, Josh. 

I might come back at you to pick your brain a little bit more when I'm ready to plan the installation of my own third height array.

Nice job!


----------



## Tin_Can

Just thought I'd post that Atmos upfiring speakers are compatible with DTS:X, as confirmed by a DTS rep on reddit. I know I was curious about an official response concerning that.


----------



## FilmMixer

WayneJoy said:


> Keep in mind that the next Home Theater Geeks comes live from DTS today. Maybe we can get more info from that.


I watched a bit of it. 

No content annoncements. 

The one comment I found funny.. 

Paraphrasing here...

"We own 90% of the Blu Ray market... We expect that not to change going forward..."

My follow up would have been... With what content. 

I think the company is underestimating the value Dolby brings to the cinema space. Maybe not underestimating.... But definitely down playing. 

They stated that MDA/DTS-X Cinema will be free to use and they aren't going to make any hardware, etc for the cinema market. 

While Atmos does indeed come at a cost, the support offered to film makers, studios and cinemas is invaluable. DTS abandoned this part of the business years ago and now want to supply free authoring tools and workflow with out much infrastructure to support it. It looks as if they are now goong to be counting on the cinema systems manufacturers to do so. It will be interesting to be in the middle of it, watching how this whole thing plays out.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> There's definitely some coverage holes for cinema Atmos in urban areas. For example, unless you count the fringes of the Loop, there's no Dolby Atmos-capable screens in the Chicago Central Business District, where there's a lot of foot traffic and visiting tourists.
> 
> We've got an IMAX at Navy Pier, a 21 screen AMC multiplex maybe five minutes walk from us, and another nine screen AMC theater 10 minuted in the other direction, and none have Atmos capability. Urban visitors and city dwellers aren't going to do the kind of drives that SoCal folks might do or those in rural areas.


There is an Atmos capable theater close to Chicago loop (Icon), & the theater off western (AMC) has an Atmos theater, accessible by public transit.


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> There is an Atmos capable theater close to Chicago loop (Icon), & the theater off western (AMC) has an Atmos theater, accessible by public transit.


 
You're absolutely right. I've been to both. But at least if you live where we do, it's harder to justify when that big River East AMC is a couple of blocks from us, literally. And at least at the Icon, they tend to crank the volume up to earbleed. Just my $0.02.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I am repenting for waiting for DTS....
I would be enjoying the Atmos since more than 2-3 months otherwise...

It should now be called Dolby (has) Totaled (this) Sound format...


----------



## NorthSky

SoundChex said:


> With the announcement of a _theatrical_ push for *DTS:X*, perhaps we might finally see something tangible about the (rumored)  "*20.1 Cinema Audio Solution Coming from Barco*" (_link_):
> _


Barco, do they have their own proprietary audio encoding too, or are they just another multiple speakers array positioning in space 3D system solution? 
...Not like Auro-3D with also their own audio encoding (mapping)? ...With their few Auro-3D multichannel discs on Blu-ray. 

Because Auro-3D would be next on the block for AV receivers and SSP manufacturers to make it easier to integrate in their products with Atmos and dts:x when switching from one to the next. ...Quickly and EQualized all together in harmony; unlike right now. 

Of course, my question is suppository as it is most likely adaptable to all other audio codecs without having their own (Barco audio 3D encoding).
...Like Blu-rays saying "Barco Audio" for movies and music. ...With 20.1 channels (audio object stems, or zones of speaker's clusters).


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> Sorry for the lack of response. I've been sick for the past couple days. Here's a blog post I wrote about my "7.1.4 (2)" configuration.
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-speaker-upgrade/


 
I have the Denon 5200 as well , thinking I will duplicate what you have done as well until the receivers are available with 6 height channels.
I have the 4 in-ceiling in place and have the speakers to install for the TM, just haven't gotten around to it. 


Thanks so much for the link to the article, just wondering if you could do a sketch of what you did just to be sure I'm following you ?


I assume you are wiring the left speakers together in series and the right in series . No other amp required and the audyssey adjusts the sound
without issue ??


----------



## bargervais

bsoko2 said:


> And once again early adopters get screwed. I'll use my 5200 for a doorstop!


I'll buy that one for a dollar.


----------



## NorthSky

M_R_2015 said:


> Help with the Atmos, and some other speaker placement q’s…
> Just finished framing the basement and new ideas have arisen with the walls in place.
> I have 3 pair of in ceiling speakers (Paradigm CS60R’s) and was originally thinking of having all 6 in the ceiling in either a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 set up. (Marantz 7009 avr, 75’ Samsung 7150, floor standing LCR’s)
> However with walls in place I’m now thinking that my surrounds should be placed in the walls on either side. I am however worried that they might be too far away at 10’ and 13’. I plan on using the cs60R in the wall if I go this way. I know they are not optimal for in wall surrounds, but they are what I have and I will be using them.
> The next Q is about the fore and aft ceiling Atmos placement. According the Dolby site they are suggesting that the speakers be placed at 45 degrees to the primary seating location. With 7 ½’ ceilings, that means 7.5 feet forward and 7.5 feet behind. I can accommodate that but am worries that with downward firing speakers, their sound field may not even reach the seating location at this distance. Same worry even at 55 degrees which translates to 5 feet fore and aft. What would you guys recommend as optimal fore and aft distance? My original plan was for 3’ before I did the math.
> And lastly I’m thinking of pre-wiring for rear surrounds. The 7009 will can preamp out these channels and I have an old HK AVR30 that I could bring out of storage to power these rears. Should I even bother to do this with a 5.1.4 in place already? Is 10’ behind the primary seating location to far?
> One last opinion, at what height should the surrounds be placed in the walls? At ear level? At the mid point between the floor and ceiling which is slightly higher than ear level? I am leaning towards the later.
> Many thanks in advance
> Matthew


Welcome to AVS Matthew. 

I would put the MLP nine feet from the front wall (twelve feet from the rear wall; future 2nd row of seats). 
The Side surrounds would also be nine feet from the front wall. 
The Back surrounds could be on speaker's stands (for now, and also nine feet from the MLP).

And of course the four Dolby Atmos overhead surrounds accordingly (like in your attachment graph, as for their angles related to the MLP). 

It is only a suggestion; based on the rule of sevenths (1/7th). ...21 divided by 7 equals 3, and 3 multiplied by 3 equals 9.
And the reason why I chose that fraction is because of your screen display; you want to be closer for full immersion...I would, from a 75" Class size. 

But if you want too, you can use the rule of fifths (1/5th). That would make 12.6 feet from the front wall (MLP) and 8.4 feet from the back wall 
...Food for thought, in your own room with your own distance taste from your screen (75" diag).
* Perhaps a UHD front projector in the future? 

Also, it would be great if your ceiling speakers could be aim somehow. ...You know...having the flexibility to be aim @ the MLP. 
And your angles; 40° for the TF, and 140° for the TR (calculated from the MLP, always). ...Just a possible option to consider. ...And 0° being straight in front of you (center channel), and 180° being straight back behind you, horizontally flat. ...90° is straight in perfect vertical line above the MLP.

♥ The rules of thirds, fifths, sevenths, etc., is a good positioning measurement for less modal room influences. ...Acoustically sound. 
...A more balanced neutral zone. Sound wise of course.


----------



## RichardGS

*Getting off the fence?*

I know that a lot of people have been waiting.... and waiting... and waiting. DTSX & HDMI 2.2 upgradable later this year.... Dolby Atmos and DSU NOW... sounds good to me. If interested, I am selling a factory sealed Denon 7200 that was purchased at Best Buy. $2550 Shipped.



Richard


----------



## Wild Blue

Interesting day, although not earthshaking. Here's my takeaway summaries from what I understand of DTS:X based on their announcement today, and how it plays with Atmos:

- Big picture, it looks like there is nothing new about DTS:X, it is just DTS's version of object-based audio. So... nothing glaring yet that DTS:X can do that Atmos can't

- DTS isn't touting a recommended setup or requiring specialized speakers. They're marketing this as "DTS:X can work with whatever speakers and layout you have", i.e. flexibility

- Therefore, no conflicts projected between Atmos and DTS:X, or reconfiguration needed, like Auro can. Even "Atmos enabled" upfiring speakers seem to work.

- No DTS:X material announced yet, which seems odd. Wonder when it'll start showing up. But when it does, it seems like studios will just make their own decision which flavor of the same thing they prefer, just like DD vs DTS, or DTS-MA vs Tru-HD. (perhaps we should just refer to this new chapter as "Audio format war v3"?)

- Not too surprised that mainstream DTS:X AVR's in 2015 will not do more than 11.2 channels, just like Atmos. I think it's a current processor limitation of this generation. Will we see more channels next year? It definitely seems possible, and one can only hope.

- Very limited number of existing AVR's that can be upgraded to DTS:X. Also not a surprise. So far, Marantz hasn't said that my AV7702 **can't** be upgraded, its just that they've only so far listed the 8802 as definitely being upgradable. But I REALLY don't think it'll happen for my 7702.

- DTS saying that they can "ramap other decoded sound formats into immersive layouts" leads me to believe you can apply DTS:X to anything, the way DSU can. Post-decoding processing, not just proprietary encoding.


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> Thank you for linking us to that write-up, Josh.
> 
> I might come back at you to pick your brain a little bit more when I'm ready to plan the installation of my own third height array.


To avoid cluttering this thread, ask your questions in the comments to that post. I will see them there a lot faster than I'll see them here.


----------



## Josh Z

roxiedog13 said:


> Thanks so much for the link to the article, just wondering if you could do a sketch of what you did just to be sure I'm following you ?


I'm no good with sketches, unfortunately.



> I assume you are wiring the left speakers together in series and the right in series . No other amp required and the audyssey adjusts the sound without issue ??


The Denon X5200 can decode 11 channels of sound but only has amps for 9, so I pair it with an external 2-channel amp. 

I have six height speakers, which for convenience sake we'll call Front Height (FH), Top Middle (TM) and Top Rear (TR). The receiver is programmed to decode FH and TM. I use the external amp to drive the TM and TR height speakers. 

The speaker terminals on the receiver for FH go to the FH speakers. Pretty straightforward there.

The speaker terminals on the amp for TM have two pairs of wire attached to each, one that goes to the TM speakers and one that goes to the TR speakers. The TR speakers are a clone of the TM channels, not separate discrete channels. In my testing, I found that there wasn't much difference between those two positions anyway.

I have wired them in parallel (my blog post had that wrong, and I've corrected it now) because my wires had already been run through the walls before I upgraded to Atmos and parallel was most convenient for me. I'm sure you could wire in series if you're starting from scratch, though.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> You're absolutely right. I've been to both. But at least if you live where we do, it's harder to justify when that big River East AMC is a couple of blocks from us, literally. And at least at the Icon, they tend to crank the volume up to earbleed. Just my $0.02.


The Icon has several Atmos capable theaters at that location. I forget which auditorium it was but it was next to the 21+ location (on the east side of the complex). I saw the Hobbit five armies there & was impressed... though I do remember thinking the sword clanking was abrasive on the ears... very harsh treble, but the immersion was very 3-dimensional. There might be good days & bad as far as theaters go... I remember when Interstellar came out I saw it @ 2 Imax's (one out in the burbs & the other @ navy pier). The one in the burbs was insanely loud, though Navy pier was just right.


----------



## roxiedog13

kingwiggi said:


> *2015 DTS:X AVRs can support up to 11.2 speaker output channels*
> 
> Thats the most disappointing item on that news release.
> 
> Its either time to dump the 5200 before the prices drop through the floor and look for a deal on a 7200, or hold off another year for Gen2 hardware.



My 5200 will be just dandy in place for another year, enjoying it now and will continue to do so until another receiver comes along with 6 height channels.
DTS:X, HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 is not worth the switch, agreed it is disappointing but it was also VERY expected to remain as is. DSU and Atmos is 
perfect at the moment, the rest will be a couple of years before it is in full swing anyway, look how slow Dolby Atmos is flowing to the shelves. 
I'm more than happy I picked up the 5200 for half the price of the 7200 but would have been happy to pay double if it already had the upgrades AND 6 height
channels, without that, not worth it.


----------



## Csbooth

I understand people that already purchased equipment in the last 6-9 months holding out for 2016-17 models, but people that are holding out because of HDMI 2.0a(this is a FW/SW situation, not HW) HDCP 2.2,...More than 50% 2015 4K TVs conform to full 2.0/2.2 standards INCLUDING HDR/DCI-P3 (several of Samsung's SUHD) at reasonable prices. 

As far as AVR/SSP and the like, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if this (standards) didn't follow suit. Waiting for Gen 2 (over 15 months?) for a few extra features is strange to me as beside from maybe more models allowing for FALD on TVs, and a lower price point on all equipment if it catches on, it's not going to be some holy grail time to buy lol.

All I'm saying is, buying a mid-high end TV(I can't speak on behalf of PJ) and an AVR/SSP in the model year 2015 (provided you diligently research) will future proof you with 3D audio, HDR/DCI-P3/10bit, and all protected content, so I can't see any reason that you'd need to upgrade before 5 years.


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> I'm no good with sketches, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> The Denon X5200 can decode 11 channels of sound but only has amps for 9, so I pair it with an external 2-channel amp. I have the same.
> 
> I have six height speakers, which for convenience sake we'll call Front Height (FH), Top Middle (TM) and Top Rear (TR). The receiver is programmed to decode FH and TM. I use the external amp to drive the TM and TR height speakers. So TR from the Denon pre out goes to the external amp then paralleled for TM and TR?
> 
> The speaker terminals on the receiver for FH go to the FH speakers. Pretty straightforward there. You mean FH from the Denon go to FH speakers direct?
> 
> The speaker terminals on the (external amp?) amp for TM have two pairs of wire attached to each, one that goes to the TM speakers and one that goes to the TR speakers. The TR speakers are a clone of the TM channels, not separate discrete channels. In my testing, I found that there wasn't much difference between those two positions anyway.
> 
> I have wired them in parallel (my blog post had that wrong, and I've corrected it now) because my wires had already been run through the walls before I upgraded to Atmos and parallel was most convenient for me. I'm sure you could wire in series if you're starting from scratch, though.



Thanks again and sorry for the additional questions.


----------



## NorthSky

> I understand people that already purchased equipment in the last 6-9 months holding out for 2016-17 models, but people that are holding out because of HDMI 2.0a(this is a FW/SW situation, not HW) HDCP 2.2,...More than 50% 2015 4K TVs conform to full 2.0/2.2 standards INCLUDING HDR/DCI-P3 (several of Samsung's SUHD) at reasonable prices.
> 
> As far as AVR/SSP and the like, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if this (standards) didn't follow suit. Waiting for Gen 2 (over 15 months?) for a few extra features is strange to me as beside from maybe more models allowing for FALD on TVs, and a lower price point on all equipment if it catches on, it's not going to be some holy grail time to buy lol.
> 
> All I'm saying is, buying a mid-high end TV(I can't speak on behalf of PJ) and an AVR/SSP in the model year 2015 (provided you diligently research) will future proof you with 3D audio, HDR/DCI-P3/10bit, and all protected content, so I can't see any reason that you'd need to upgrade before 5 years.


We're all different when it comes to buying audio/video gear, and that's the beauty of it.

Btw, gen 2 AV receivers are only two months or three away (Summer starts June 21st). ...Onkyo/Integra, Yamaha, Pioneer, Denon/Marantz. 
And I believe 1st gen Atmos were first made available last September? ...Roughly nine months separation.


----------



## Josh Z

roxiedog13 said:


> So TR from the Denon pre out goes to the external amp then paralleled for TM and TR?


I have the receiver programmed to decode those channels as TM, but you could do them as TR if you wanted to. I didn't find much difference between one or the other when I tested. 

There's a scene in John Wick where a helicopter pans from front heights to rear heights that makes a good test for this. I disconnected all speakers except the height channels and listened to it over and over again, switching between TM and TR. 



> You mean FH from the Denon go to FH speakers direct?


Correct.


----------



## Csbooth

NorthSky said:


> We're all different when it comes to buying audio/video gear, and that's the beauty of it.
> 
> Btw, gen 2 AV receivers are only two months or three away (Summer starts June 21st). ...Onkyo/Integra, Yamaha, Pioneer, Denon/Marantz.
> And I believe 1st gen Atmos were first made available last September? ...Roughly nine months separation.


I was more speaking about Gen2 for the latest Atmos/DTS:X gear and full HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2 equipment, the second round, and as some like to say 'waiting for all the kinks to iron out'. If you waited for Gen2 for those then it would be 15 months or so away in summer/fall 2016.

2013-2014 was a wishy washy time to buy new toys, but most here that did, already knew that lol. 2015 will be the start of at least some stability for a reasonable amount of years (on the higher end models of course).

You can only buy when you're ready, as we all know, I'm just trying to point out that a lot of equipment releasing this year will conform to all the standards that content will be released for over the next 5 years. 

Also, it's likely the stuff released later on won't offer such a huge increase to be worth it as well (unless it's BT.2020 compliant), so people who purchase this year would likely be set for more than the aforementioned 5 years.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh I see.


----------



## batpig

I highly doubt BT2020 will be a factor. Only a few displays today can even do the P3 cinema color gamut. We are a long way away from such an extreme color gamut and I doubt it will be part of forthcoming UHD specs.


----------



## Frank714

Aras_Volodka said:


> Now the only thing I really care about is if SW 7 gets Atmos bluray release or not. Anyone have a crystal ball?


Just talked with Yoda, but all he had to offer was "always in motion the future is" 

Nevertheless, I just ordered _Gravity_ in Dolby Atmos and in two weeks _Chicago_ becomes available in Japan with an English Dolby Atmos track. 

Somehow I also believe that the extended edition of the _Hobbit Trilogy_ later this year will feature Dolby Atmos tracks.

Simply put I currently see no real reason to loose sleep over DTS:X.

P.S. I remember there were rumors in January that Dolby might be producing a new Dolby Atmos demo disc. Did anything happen in the meantime?


----------



## Bumper

*6 height channels*

Why is eveybody referring to 2016 hardware to be able to use 6 height channels?
Is there no chance the next X5300W (September 2015?) will have options like 9.2.4 or 7.2.6? If this is or can be confirmed, the 7200 becomes into view again until september 2016 where it will be replaced or maybe even the 5400 will be introduced..





@NorthSky: T - 4 posts


----------



## kbarnes701

bsoko2 said:


> And once again early adopters get screwed. I'll use my 5200 for a doorstop!


Why? There's no content been announced yet for DTS:X. DSU will play it nicely anyway. And since 99.9% of consumers don't GAF about Atmos or DTS:X, chances are your 5200 will still command a reasonable price on the used market. It doesn't become a doorstop just because it won't play native DTS:X any more than it's a doorstop because it doesn't have HDCP 2.2. That latter, for example, is of ZERO interest to me - I don't see 4K in my future for years. Same with the 5200 and DTS:X - most people don't care.


----------



## roxiedog13

Bumper said:


> Why is eveybody referring to 2016 hardware to be able to use 6 height channels?
> Is there no chance the next X5300W (September 2015?) will have options like 9.2.4 or 7.2.6? If this is or can be confirmed, the 7200 becomes into view again until september 2016 where it will be replaced or maybe even the 5400 will be introduced..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @NorthSky : T - 4 posts


I think most have been speculating/hoping/wishing that late fall 2015 or first quarter 2016 for the upgraded receivers with 6 height channels, DTS:X, HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0. Some may arrive earlier with partial upgrades as did the X7200 last fall but I think many are saying wait until 2016 when several units should be available with all the options on board. Would be nice if Denon introduced a model in the Fall with all the upgrades, I'll be the first in line.


----------



## Bumper

roxiedog13 said:


> I think most have been speculating/hoping/wishing that late fall 2015 or first quarter 2016 for the upgraded receivers with 6 height channels, DTS:X, HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0. Some may arrive earlier with partial upgrades as did the X7200 last fall but I think many are saying wait until 2016 when several units should be available with all the options on board. Would be nice if Denon introduced a model in the Fall with all the upgrades, I'll be the first in line.


OK, so it is all about speculation then. I really think the 5300 should be up2spec with the 7200 concerning hdmi / hdcp and really should be able to play DTS:X. It's just the "more channels" thing I would be interested in, but by introducing such a model, it would probably hurt the 7200 market again. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## jrref

roxiedog13 said:


> I think most have been speculating/hoping/wishing that late fall 2015 or first quarter 2016 for the upgraded receivers with 6 height channels, DTS:X, HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0. Some may arrive earlier with partial upgrades as did the X7200 last fall but I think many are saying wait until 2016 when several units should be available with all the options on board. Would be nice if Denon introduced a model in the Fall with all the upgrades, I'll be the first in line.


So if you do this then what about HDR and HDMI 2.0A? I'll be behind you in 2016 waiting for the 2nd Gen units that have this feature for sure!


----------



## aaranddeeman

Bumper said:


> Why is eveybody referring to 2016 hardware to be able to use 6 height channels?
> Is there no chance the next X5300W (September 2015?) will have options like 9.2.4 or 7.2.6? If this is or can be confirmed, the 7200 becomes into view again until september 2016 where it will be replaced or maybe even the 5400 will be introduced..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @NorthSky : T - 4 posts


Denon has to stop producing 7200w or 7200wa if they introduce 6 heights (13 channel processing) with HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 in the 2015 model refresh.
So the answer is simple. They won't even if it is technically possible.
On the other hand other manufacturers like Yamaha, Onkyo can take that step and that will create a tough competition to Denon.


----------



## kingwiggi

Bumper said:


> Why is eveybody referring to 2016 hardware to be able to use 6 height channels?
> Is there no chance the next X5300W (September 2015?) will have options like 9.2.4 or 7.2.6? If this is or can be confirmed, the 7200 becomes into view again until september 2016 where it will be replaced or maybe even the 5400 will be introduced..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @NorthSky : T - 4 posts





aaranddeeman said:


> Denon has to stop producing 7200w or 7200wa if they introduce 6 heights (13 channel processing) with HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 in the 2015 model refresh.
> So the answer is simple. They won't even if it is technically possible.
> On the other hand other manufacturers like Yamaha, Onkyo can take that step and that will create a tough competition to Denon.



It's really a case of product life cycles. Denons flagship 7200 has a product lifecycle of 2 years so it would be unlikley but not impossible for Denon to introduce a lower tier model capable of 13+ channel processing since this could potentially cannibalise sales of the upper tier product. The 5200 might see slight improvements but my guess is that they will be modest, i.e extra onboard ram/rom so that they can fit the DTS:X code onboard, expand the GUI etc. Denon are already using newer Shark DSP's so theres little doubt that they can already handle the DTS:X processing.

This boils down to the fact that we won't be seeing significant hardware upgrades from Denon before 2016.

Onkyo on the other hand are at the point where they need to ditch or make major changes to their current hardware platform. Make significant upgrades in terms of DSP processing power ram/rom etc. So what we might actually see from Onkyo in their new hardware is a re-introduction of Auydessy and 13 channel processing for fall 2015 even if its just in thier higher end models.


----------



## tjenkins95

I am more than happy with my purchase of the Denon 5200W and the set of Andrew Jones' Atmos-enabled Pioneer speakers. I bought all of this stuff for Dolby Atmos and the DSU is a big bonus!! And I am posting this in the Dolby Atmos thread.


----------



## Jack.K

*Dsu?*

Being that I won't be able to get DTS.X on my new 7009 Receiver how can I listen to
a movie that has DTS-HD master audio 5.1 on my 9.1.2 Atmos speaker setup in DSU
full channel sound?


----------



## petetherock

9.4.6 channels?
Sure, some members here will go all the way, but I don't actually see that happening unless you go to one of the higher end Trinnov or the like...

The mainstream makes cater to, well, mainstream folks, and even 7 channels is actually a stretch... so I don't see more than 11-13 channels of processing for the next year or two.

As much as consumers crave an update for their 2014 models, I seriously doubt it, not because the amps can be updated, but it has always been a marketing decision IMO. It's amusing to see remarks like "I won't buy another Marantz because my SR 7009 won't get the update", because they aren't in the business of taking sales from the new 2015 models, which in all likelihood carry the new formats including DTS X.

So why only the 7200 and AV 8802? Well there was a price premium, and it gives product differentiation. 

It's just business.... even if it means there will be a minority of buyers (and we are in the minority, albeit a loud one) in AVS compare to the entire AV amp buying field...


----------



## jdsmoothie

Jack.K said:


> Being that I won't be able to get DTS.X on my new 7009 Receiver how can I listen to
> a movie that has DTS-HD master audio 5.1 on my 9.1.2 Atmos speaker setup in DSU
> full channel sound?


As noted on p. 154 in your Owner's manual, simply select DTS-HD + Dolby Surround.


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> Good for home theater trickle down...



Unrelated, but just watched Fury again last night with some friends over for Movie Night. Fantastic mix Marc, thanks for all you do.



bsoko2 said:


> And once again early adopters get screwed. I'll use my 5200 for a doorstop!



Oh the drama! 



kbarnes701 said:


> I don't see 4K in my future for years.



I didn't either. However, a larger screen is. And it just so happens that the 80" I've been waiting for will be forthcoming before long...and it's 4K. There's a rumored 75" for $1K less that will more likely be the choice I go with.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> So what we might actually see from Onkyo in their new hardware is a re-introduction of Auydessy ... for fall 2015 even if its just in thier higher end models.


That is something I’d welcome, being a former longtime Onkyo owner, but I doubt it will happen. Audyssey licensing is, so we are told, very expensive and that might have been worth paying when Audyssey was cutting edge - but Audyssey haven't developed their MultEQ tech for close on 5 years now. In human years that's about 50 years  Onkyo took the decision that customers wouldn't care if they dropped Audyssey and it seems they were right, so Onkyo spent their money elsewhere - the only AVR with 11 onboard channels of amplification, for example, or HDCP 2.2. 

Audyssey seem to no longer be interested in room EQ unfortunately so XT32 may be the last version we ever see. Currently it is only available on a handful of Denon and Marantz units. If D&M decide to drop Audyssey, then they are effectively out of the REQ business.

And of course we are seeing superior solutions becoming more affordable now - Dirac Live is in the Emotiva XMC-1 7.2 channel processor, and miniDSP have it available as an outboard solution via their DDRC-88A, giving any processor or AVR (with preouts) you care to own Dirac Live capability. If Denon went the Dirac route, they'd have a killer solution on their hands IMO (pure speculation BTW).


----------



## kbarnes701

Jack.K said:


> Being that I won't be able to get DTS.X on my new 7009 Receiver how can I listen to
> a movie that has DTS-HD master audio 5.1 on my 9.1.2 Atmos speaker setup in DSU
> full channel sound?


Just select Dolby Surround from the Movie Mode menu. 

This assumes you have your BD player set to bitstream output and secondary audio switched off.


----------



## zimmo

he made us wait for nothing DTS-X is simply a dolby atmos no2then enjoy our receiver av dolby atmos .


----------



## jrogers

stikle said:


> I didn't either. However, a larger screen is. And it just so happens that the 80" I've been waiting for will be forthcoming before long...and it's 4K. There's a rumored 75" for $1K less that will more likely be the choice I go with.


Speaking as a 75" 4k set owner (would've gone larger but for wall space) - I'm sure you'll love it - but unfortunately until UHD blu-ray and/or some solid 4k streaming players arrive, you'll have to choose between the best picture and the best sound  These 4k sets can stream some beautiful content, but sadly cannot pass DD+ (incl. Atmos) to the receiver due to limitations of ARC and s/pdif - only DD.


----------



## bargervais

I'm not disapointed that my reciever will not get a firmware update to DTS:X, Just to play a Blu-Ray with DTS:X that will *trickle *onto the market this year and next. I think DSU will sound just fine for me. I was an early adopter to Atmos and glad i did, as it was the next step in sound evolution. DTS:X will be similar which i can achieve with DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I'm not disapointed that my reciever will not get a firmware update to DTS:X, Just to play a Blu-Ray with DTS:X that will *trickle *onto the market this year and next. I think DSU will sound just fine for me. I was an early adopter to Atmos and glad i did, as it was the next step in sound evolution. DTS:X will be similar which i can achieve with DSU.


Same here. I never expected a DTS:X upgrade anyway. I bought an Atmos AVR and that is what I got. It would be churlish to complain that it isn't something which Denon never said it would be.

BTW, so far, I enjoy DSU and Atmos more or less equally. I recognise the superiority of Atmos, but also recognise that I have about 1,500 more movies to watch via DSU.


----------



## brahman12

Gotta agree with brother bargervais and kid kbarnes....Atmos has been crazy fun and DSU has been all dat with just about anything I've thrown its way. DTS:X will probably be awesome as well but they are dragging their feet worse than Atmos and yesterday left me with blue balls...no happy ending after that "much ado about nothing" announcement. My current Yamaha 3040 plays real nice with the rest of my gear and my current pj and bluray setup looks absolutely beautiful. No big hurry at all to get into the 4K and DTS ballgame...I will jump back into the spending brigade in few years once the prices for upgrades over what I currently have aren't in the premium range.


----------



## ThePrisoner

I'll raise my glass also, still love my 4100, it took me from Oct. 2014 - Jan. 2015 to get my 5.2.4 Atmos setup singing and I have been enjoying it ever since! I'm eyeing a bigger display 75"-80" in the near future too! Cheers!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

As I recall, lest we forget, Dolby's initial home Atmos press releases were fairly limited in scope as well. Things didn't really start rolling until just before CEDIA and the debut of actual A/V products. 
*
If *what DTS stated is true and that DTS:X (MDA) software makes it easier to convert theatrical MDA encoded mixes to consumer DTS:X tracks than Dolby's current process (and it's cheaper too due to their open source, royalty free licensing structure), then it's possible that more releases may be forthcoming than a trickle. Hollywood loves to shave time and cut costs anyway they can (well, sans actor and executive pay compensation, that is). 

Those who cling to their Atmos-only products like grim death may be the ones with the blue balls (just as those owners of early products with Dolby Digital AC-3 and no DTS decoding at the start of all this digital surround "mess.")  

Only time will tell.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


If only it were as easy as picking up a Millennium 2.4.6 decoder for $699.


Things just aren't as simple as they used to be.


----------



## BigScreen

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I recall, lest we forget, Dolby's initial home Atmos press releases were fairly limited in scope as well. Things didn't really start rolling until just before CEDIA and the debut of actual A/V products.


That's a very good point, and important when evaluating DTS' announcement yesterday and its potential impact on the marketplace. While many, myself included, wanted to see them come out swinging, they're following in the footsteps of those that came before.

June 23, 2014: Dolby Atmos for the Home announced. Onkyo and Integra announce their plans for new products and updates for some existing products.
June 25, 2014: Yamaha announces Atmos-capable products
June 28, 2014: Dolby provides additional information about Atmos for the Home
July 24, 2014: Denon announces Atmos-capable products
September 8, 2014: Paramount Announces that Transformers: Age of Extinction to be First Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos
September 30, 2014: Onkyo/Integra and Denon Deliver Atmos Firmware Updates
September 30, 2014: Transformers: Age of Extinction Blu-ray with Atmos Released. 
November 6, 2014: Yamaha Delivers Atmos Firmware Update

77 days between the first Atmos announcement and the first movie announcement, and 99 days until that title was released. If DTS:X were to follow that timeframe, we won't hear a movie announcement until the end of June, and not have it in our hands until mid-July. That timing would mean that the new releases of this weekend and maybe the two weeks before and after today would be the best candidates for the first DTS:X release on Blu-ray. Of course, no hardware will likely be able to play it, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we're looking at the end of August/September.

Bringing this back on-topic, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the advent of DTS:X in receivers will do to lift the feature-sets of new units. It will be quite disappointing if all they do is shoe-horn DTS:X alongside Atmos, as if it were a firmware-only upgrade (a la Auro). Based on their press release yesterday, it certainly seems as though DTS is not expecting any additional channel support from the next-gen receivers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> I'm not disapointed that my reciever will not get a firmware update to DTS:X, Just to play a Blu-Ray with DTS:X that will *trickle *onto the market this year and next. I think DSU will sound just fine for me. I was an early adopter to Atmos and glad i did, as it was the next step in sound evolution. DTS:X will be similar which i can achieve with DSU.





kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. I never expected a DTS:X upgrade anyway. I bought an Atmos AVR and that is what I got. It would be churlish to complain that it isn't something which Denon never said it would be.
> 
> BTW, so far, I enjoy DSU and Atmos more or less equally. I recognise the superiority of Atmos, but also recognise that I have about 1,500 more movies to watch via DSU.





brahman12 said:


> Gotta agree with brother bargervais and kid kbarnes....Atmos has been crazy fun and DSU has been all dat with just about anything I've thrown its way. DTS:X will probably be awesome as well but they are dragging their feet worse than Atmos and yesterday left me with blue balls...no happy ending after that "much ado about nothing" announcement. My current Yamaha 3040 plays real nice with the rest of my gear and my current pj and bluray setup looks absolutely beautiful. No big hurry at all to get into the 4K and DTS ballgame...I will jump back into the spending brigade in few years once the prices for upgrades over what I currently have aren't in the premium range.


I 2nd all that... though I am a tad disappointed. Spending 1k plus should ensure at least a year's worth of non-planned obsolescence unless if some type of processing or space limitation stands in the way. I won't be able to afford a new receiver for probably 5 years, so it is sort of an issue for me but at the same time I did get this receiver for Atmos, but was unaware of DTS as a format (the last time I bought a receiver was back in 2002!) This year was a pretty big learning curve for me to say the least. But when all is said & done my 400 dollar Best buy home theater in a box is completely laughable in comparison to my current setup, so whatever qualms I have fall somewhere between "first world problems" & "top 1%'er problems". 

One quick question for you guys since you are HT enthusiasts with experience & are also presumably living in 1080p land: If you have a good size bluray collection, will that be completely obsolete in comparison to 4k when it gets rolling? I've been finding myself slowly replacing my DVD collection because I can't tolerate that quality any longer. I'm wondering if my classic film collection would have any added benefits in 4k... would remasters of old films be done in expanded color gamuts & HDR? I really hope I don't have to worry about rebuying the 7 samurai/ 2001 space Odyssey/ you get the idea. I wouldn't mind re-purchasing old films if remixed in Atmos though


----------



## HotAhr

Aras_Volodka said:


> I 2nd all that... though I am a tad disappointed. Spending 1k plus should ensure at least a year's worth of non-planned obsolescence unless if some type of processing or space limitation stands in the way. I won't be able to afford a new receiver for probably 5 years, so it is sort of an issue for me but at the same time I did get this receiver for Atmos, but was unaware of DTS as a format (the last time I bought a receiver was back in 2002!) This year was a pretty big learning curve for me to say the least. But when all is said & done my 400 dollar Best buy home theater in a box is completely laughable in comparison to my current setup, so whatever qualms I have fall somewhere between "first world problems" & "top 1%'er problems".
> 
> One quick question for you guys since you are HT enthusiasts with experience & are also presumably living in 1080p land: If you have a good size bluray collection, will that be completely obsolete in comparison to 4k when it gets rolling? I've been finding myself slowly replacing my DVD collection because I can't tolerate that quality any longer. I'm wondering if my classic film collection would have any added benefits in 4k... would remasters of old films be done in expanded color gamuts & HDR? I really hope I don't have to worry about rebuying the 7 samurai/ 2001 space Odyssey/ you get the idea. I wouldn't mind re-purchasing old films if remixed in Atmos though


I'd keep your Blue Ray Movies. 4K and then 8K TV's will up convert all of those and should look pretty good. They won't be true 4 or 8K though...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

* correction... I might not be able to buy a *new* receiver for another 5 years. Though perhaps if one of you replaces their AVR on a yearly basis I could buy your used 2015/2016 model... though JD might not be too happy about that!


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> I have the receiver programmed to decode those channels as TM, but you could do them as TR if you wanted to. I didn't find much difference between one or the other when I tested.
> 
> There's a scene in John Wick where a helicopter pans from front heights to rear heights that makes a good test for this. I disconnected all speakers except the height channels and listened to it over and over again, switching between TM and TR.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.


 
This is what I am guessing you are doing:


Paralleling wires from the Denon preout of TM or TR to your two channel external amp. One pair (left/right) going to one channel the other pair from the same post( left/right) going to the second channel. Basically your taking the preout from one output of the Denon in parallel and 
feeding it to the left and right of each amp. 


How does this affect the Audyssey calibration ? 


Hmmm, maybe this is a good idea for adding multiple side surrounds for multiple seats . I wonder??  


From all the feedback lately I'm guessing 6 height channels is a long way off so faux height
and side channels may be the way to go.


----------



## jpco

Nothing is ever obsolete if it works. At the end of the day, it's the content that matters first.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> If only it were as easy as picking up a Millennium 2.4.6 decoder for $699.
> 
> 
> Things just aren't as simple as they used to be.


I resemble that remark. That was my first DTS decoder for laserdisc and CD's.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

The jump from 1080p to 4K isn't as huge as it was from 480p to 1080p unless you're going to sit extremely close to your display (resolution only). The bigger jump will be moving from 8-bit color to 10-bit...that will be noticeable by most people with the expansion of the colors and a more lifelike image. Through in HDR and we'll start to see a shift beyond just resolution. As for upgrading my collection...it will be an extremely slow process and I'm personally happy with 1080p for the foreseeable future. (at least that's what I keep telling myself )


----------



## Josh Z

roxiedog13 said:


> This is what I am guessing you are doing:
> 
> Paralleling wires from the Denon preout of TM or TR to your two channel external amp. One pair (left/right) going to one channel the other pair from the same post( left/right) going to the second channel. Basically your taking the preout from one output of the Denon in parallel and
> feeding it to the left and right of each amp.


The parallel wiring is for the speaker wire, from the speaker posts on the amp to the speakers themselves. The pre-outs on the receiver are connected with the standard two RCA cables, one for the left channel and one for the right. As far as the receiver knows, I only have FH and TM speakers. It doesn't know about the TR.

I've simply piggybacked a second set of speakers off the TM from the amp by attaching extra speaker wire to those posts.



> How does this affect the Audyssey calibration ?


I got really weird results the first time I ran Audyssey after connecting everything in the current configuration. Not just for the height channels, but everywhere. Speaker distances were way off. Channel levels didn't make sense. I don't know what happened there. I don't even know if the cloned TR speakers had anything to do with it, or if it was just a coincidence. I ran Audyssey again and the speaker distances came in a lot closer to correct. Some of the levels were still off, but not as much. I was able to manually adjust them with a sound level meter. Again, I don't know whether this speaker configuration had anything to do with that or not.

Anyway, it sounds fine now after some minor manual tweaking.


----------



## NorthSky

Josh, when are you planning to upgrade, by adding DTS:X decoding on top of Dolby Atmos? ...Your next AV receiver, with both new 3D audio decoders.


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> The parallel wiring is for the speaker wire, from the speaker posts on the amp to the speakers themselves. The pre-outs on the receiver are connected with the standard two RCA cables, one for the left channel and one for the right. As far as the receiver knows, I only have FH and TM speakers. It doesn't know about the TR.
> 
> I've simply piggybacked a second set of speakers off the TM from the amp by attaching extra speaker wire to those posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I got really weird results the first time I ran Audyssey after connecting everything in the current configuration. Not just for the height channels, but everywhere. Speaker distances were way off. Channel levels didn't make sense. I don't know what happened there. I don't even know if the cloned TR speakers had anything to do with it, or if it was just a coincidence. I ran Audyssey again and the speaker distances came in a lot closer to correct. Some of the levels were still off, but not as much. I was able to manually adjust them with a sound level meter. Again, I don't know whether this speaker configuration had anything to do with that or not.
> 
> Anyway, it sounds fine now after some minor manual tweaking.



Thanks for the response and sorry for all the questions. I'm going to give this a go but probably not for another month now. Going to Turks & Caicos in a week getting back May 1st. I would love to try this over the weekend but have to install the TM speakers first and will need another 2 channel amp. Will have to note 
all the current Audyssey settings first just in case I have a snag with the results, I do in fact have the same Denon X5200 receiver . My speakers are overhead in
the ceiling though, will be interesting to see how this works out . My TF and TR are spaced a little too wide for the MLP ( front row of seats), the new TM speakers should fill in the gap. Can't hurt to experiment I suppose, and when the 13 channel receivers show up I'll be already be set-up.


----------



## Josh Z

roxiedog13 said:


> Will have to note all the current Audyssey settings first just in case I have a snag with the results,


As far as Audyssey goes, what you could do is this:

1) Wire everything up.
2) Set your receiver for TM rather than TR (because the TM speakers are closer to your seating position and more sensitive to calibration).
3) Disconnect the TR speakers.
4) Run Audyssey, calibrating for 4 height channels (FH and TM).
5) Reconnect the TR speakers.
6) Run test tones and manually adjust the volume of the combined TM/TR channels (which will be too loud because you have twice as many speakers producing the sound now). 

At least in theory, cloning a second pair of speakers (assuming you use the same speaker model) shouldn't affect your crossover settings, and probably wouldn't affect EQ enough to worry about. Your distance might be off, but that's not a big deal. You can fudge it manually. 

Worst case scenario, you've got 11 perfectly calibrated speakers, and 2 (the TRs) that have less than perfect EQ, but those are probably the least critical channels in the room anyway.

My $.02.


----------



## NorthSky

_"Perfectly calibrated"_; that is open to discussion, IMHO. ...But good enough, and all automatic anyway.


----------



## brahman12

Aras_Volodka said:


> I 2nd all that... though I am a tad disappointed. Spending 1k plus should ensure at least a year's worth of non-planned obsolescence unless if some type of processing or space limitation stands in the way. I won't be able to afford a new receiver for probably 5 years, so it is sort of an issue for me


It is a bit messed up that most of us early adopters won't be able to have both Atmos and DTS:X unless we are willing to pony up some more cash for another head unit....but again, Atmos and DSU are sexy enough to keep me home for a good while, lol. Tell ya something though....if DTS whips Dolby's butt again....I will never ever EVER be a first adopter again!!! As for the 4K question....I would not upgrade from 1080p bluray for a good long time. IMO, we currently are at a very high quality sweet spot with bluray and front projection/tv panel performance. The jump up isn't gonna be that impressive nor meaningful enough for my visual tastes. Hold on to your hard earned cash for those 5 years like you estimated, and enjoy it some other way.


----------



## Eriksdam

At the beginning of the week I was given the task to come up with an Atmos setup for a major tradeshow. Since the listening area would be ca. 9 by 6 meters and I "only" had commercial gear (albeit around 50K €'s worth...!) with 4 overhead channels, some improvisation was nescessary. 

What I found to work pretty well was a FH/RH setup. I then added a third pair in the TM position in order to smoothen the front-to-back transition. These were then fed with a time- and level-aligned FH signal from a parallel output on the AVP, via an external DSP. A basic delay-line, really.

The end-result was pretty good, with decent imaging and natural panning. 

For those of you who can't stand having empty jacks on the back of your second MiniDSP, and are itching to go to X.X.6, this is definately an option. 

- Erik


----------



## roxiedog13

Dave Vaughn said:


> The jump from 1080p to 4K isn't as huge as it was from 480p to 1080p unless you're going to sit extremely close to your display (resolution only). The bigger jump will be moving from 8-bit color to 10-bit...that will be noticeable by most people with the expansion of the colors and a more lifelike image. Through in HDR and we'll start to see a shift beyond just resolution. As for upgrading my collection...it will be an extremely slow process and I'm personally happy with 1080p for the foreseeable future. (at least that's what I keep telling myself )


 
Biggest improvement I have ever really noticed was going from a Sony HW50ES to my current Sony VPL VW600ES. Forget the 4K, it was the improved optics, the up-scaling and electronic enhancements that made the picture more lifelike. Picture sharpness and detail, dynamic contrast, improved blacks all contributed to a immediate and marked improvement like nothing I ever notice before. You may be correct about the jump from 8 bit to 10 bit color but it would have to be paired to better optics first though . A 12MP iPhone or POS camera does not even come close to the quality achieved with a full frame DSLR also rated 12MP. 


There is also that law of diminishing returns too I believe. Will we be able to see the difference between HD1080P vs 4K on a 55" screen? On my 136" 4K screen running a 4K movie back to back with the up-scaled or 1080P version I cannot perceive the difference from 10 feet. 


I'm expecting the same in the race between the two 3D sound technologies Atmos and DTS:X. Well, I suppose it's no race unless slow and undefined ultimately wins . Neither is going to blow the other out of the water, both will do the job well, maybe one will have advantages over the other for certain formats. Regardless, I believe the competition is good and gives us some fodder to argue over.  Well, no real debate yet DTS:X is still sucking the hind tit .  Bring it on !


----------



## roxiedog13

Josh Z said:


> As far as Audyssey goes, what you could do is this:
> 
> 1) Wire everything up.
> 2) Set your receiver for TM rather than TR (because the TM speakers are closer to your seating position and more sensitive to calibration).
> 3) Disconnect the TR speakers.
> 4) Run Audyssey, calibrating for 4 height channels (FH and TM).
> 5) Reconnect the TR speakers.
> 6) Run test tones and manually adjust the volume of the combined TM/TR channels (which will be too loud because you have twice as many speakers producing the sound now).
> 
> At least in theory, cloning a second pair of speakers (assuming you use the same speaker model) shouldn't affect your crossover settings, and probably wouldn't affect EQ enough to worry about. Your distance might be off, but that's not a big deal. You can fudge it manually.
> 
> Worst case scenario, you've got 11 perfectly calibrated speakers, and 2 (the TRs) that have less than perfect EQ, but those are probably the least critical channels in the room anyway.
> 
> My $.02.



Thanks again, will give this consideration in a month or so following vacation. Then again, once the weather warms up locally I'll totally abandon my HT for the great outdoors, this may not get done until fall now. I don't spend a lot of time inside during the long and warm days of summer. The HT is for the long, COLD winter months . Right now I'm thinking more about doing maintenance on my floatplane and the great fishing around the corner.


----------



## dvdwilly3

ThePrisoner said:


> I'll raise my glass also, still love my 4100, it took me from Oct. 2014 - Jan. 2015 to get my 5.2.4 Atmos setup singing and I have been enjoying it ever since! I'm eyeing a bigger display 75"-80" in the near future too! Cheers!


It is uncanny how similar our home theater setups are. And, I finally after 2 1/2 years have my Def Tech setup as you so aptly put it "singing".

I had always thought (and others who had heard it) that it was exceptional. However, I was always bothered with the way that Audyssey and then AccuEQ configured them.

I finally got around to hooking the subwoofer inputs correctly and the results are stunning to say the least.

DTS:X? With Atmos and DSU, who cares?

As a side note, how do you put your equipment in your signature?


----------



## ThePrisoner

dvdwilly3 said:


> It is uncanny how similar our home theater setups are. And, I finally after 2 1/2 years have my Def Tech setup as you so aptly put it "singing".
> 
> I had always thought (and others who had heard it) that it was exceptional. However, I was always bothered with the way that Audyssey and then AccuEQ configured them.
> 
> I finally got around to hooking the subwoofer inputs correctly and the results are stunning to say the least.
> 
> DTS:X? With Atmos and DSU, who cares?
> 
> As a side note, how do you put your equipment in your signature?



Sweet bro! Yes, the Def Techs take time setting up correctly and there really is no right or wrong way, just what sounds best to you. Room EQ is very tricky with these too.

As for your sig, upper right top corner you will see User CP, right before Log Out. Click it and in there on the left column, scroll down you'll see edit Signature.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

dvdwilly3 said:


> It is uncanny how similar our home theater setups are. And, I finally after 2 1/2 years have my Def Tech setup as you so aptly put it "singing".
> 
> I had always thought (and others who had heard it) that it was exceptional. However, I was always bothered with the way that Audyssey and then AccuEQ configured them.
> 
> I finally got around to hooking the subwoofer inputs correctly and the results are stunning to say the least.
> 
> DTS:X? With Atmos and DSU, who cares?
> 
> As a side note, how do you put your equipment in your signature?


As you can see in my signature I also have all Def Techs including the ceiling speakers and couldn't be more pleased with the bang for the buck! I recently swapped out the CS-8060HD for the CS-8080HD which was a nice upgrade. btw, I have 11 ft flat ceilings with large area rug and I did not use Audyssey or any other room eq because the speakers are bipolar. Per Def Tech support and a local HT store, Audyssey seldom improves the performance of bipolar speakers. It actually sucked the life out of the whole system. I guess going without room eq would depend on the condition of the room but even my friends with B&W's top tier speakers are amazed at the result I'm getting from the Def Techs running flat with the Denon 5200W. While listening to DSU on an average 7.1 Bluray I'm in heaven! I have all of the Atmos Blurays released in the U.S. to date but I'm starting to think that I might prefer DSU to the real thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> One quick question for you guys since you are HT enthusiasts with experience & are also presumably living in 1080p land: If you have a good size bluray collection, will that be completely obsolete in comparison to 4k when it gets rolling? I've been finding myself slowly replacing my DVD collection because I can't tolerate that quality any longer. I'm wondering if my classic film collection would have any added benefits in 4k... would remasters of old films be done in expanded color gamuts & HDR? I really hope I don't have to worry about rebuying the 7 samurai/ 2001 space Odyssey/ you get the idea. I wouldn't mind re-purchasing old films if remixed in Atmos though


I personally don't see the difference between 1080p and 4k being as great as the difference going from SD to 1080p. Here, with my screen size and viewing distance, the increase in resolution will only have a marginal positive impact. The real benefit for me will be from the wider color gamut/greater bit depth, once we have real 4LK content of course and I see that more as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Plus, upscaled 1080p>4K looks better than upscaled SD>1080p. So I won't be upgrading (m)any of my current collection of Bluray discs.


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> I 2nd all that... though I am a tad disappointed. Spending 1k plus should ensure at least a year's worth of non-planned obsolescence unless if some type of processing or space limitation stands in the way. I won't be able to afford a new receiver for probably 5 years, so it is sort of an issue for me but at the same time I did get this receiver for Atmos, but was unaware of DTS as a format (the last time I bought a receiver was back in 2002!) This year was a pretty big learning curve for me to say the least. But when all is said & done my 400 dollar Best buy home theater in a box is completely laughable in comparison to my current setup, so whatever qualms I have fall somewhere between "first world problems" & "top 1%'er problems".
> 
> One quick question for you guys since you are HT enthusiasts with experience & are also presumably living in 1080p land: If you have a good size bluray collection, will that be completely obsolete in comparison to 4k when it gets rolling? I've been finding myself slowly replacing my DVD collection because I can't tolerate that quality any longer. I'm wondering if my classic film collection would have any added benefits in 4k... would remasters of old films be done in expanded color gamuts & HDR? I really hope I don't have to worry about rebuying the 7 samurai/ 2001 space Odyssey/ you get the idea. I wouldn't mind re-purchasing old films if remixed in Atmos though


I've become a bluray snob ,like yourself I cannot watch a DVD quality movie on my big screen anymore. As older movies are remastered and available on bluray I have been picking them 
up. Watching Jaws the other night, the remastered version ,is like seeing the movie all over again, I am seeing much more than I did originally at the theater to be honest. Actually, in some movies like The Fifth Element and Star Wars, I am seeing too much detail,  more than the director would ever have intended. 

So yea, I have a large bluray collection, the older DVD versions are being relegated to the cottage where I have a 32" screen only and rarely watch TV anyway. I doubt 4K by itself will threaten my 1080P bluray collection, some other significant innovation milestone will have to be achieved first and I don't see that on the horizon yet. My guess, I'm good for at least 5 years .


----------



## lujan

roxiedog13 said:


> I've become a bluray snob ,like yourself I cannot watch a DVD quality movie on my big screen anymore. As older movies are remastered and available on bluray I have been picking them
> up. Watching Jaws the other night, the remastered version ,is like seeing the movie all over again, I am seeing much more than I did originally at the theater to be honest. Actually, in some movies like The Fifth Element and Star Wars, I am seeing too much detail,  more than the director would ever have intended.
> 
> So yea, I have a large bluray collection, the older DVD versions are being relegated to the cottage where I have a 32" screen only and rarely watch TV anyway. I doubt 4K by itself will threaten my 1080P bluray collection, some other significant innovation milestone will have to be achieved first and I don't see that on the horizon yet. My guess, I'm good for at least 5 years .


I'm pretty much the same as you can see from my signature I don't have too many DVDs left. They are the ones have have never come out on blu-ray or HD streaming.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I personally don't see the difference between 1080p and 4k being as great as the difference going from SD to 1080p. Here, with my screen size and viewing distance, the increase in resolution will only have a marginal positive impact. The real benefit for me will be from the wider color gamut/greater bit depth, once we have real 4LK content of course and I see that more as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Plus, upscaled 1080p>4K looks better than upscaled SD>1080p. So I won't be upgrading (m)any of my current collection of Bluray discs.


I'm not too worried about 4K, I just bought two plasmas a 60" in 2012 and a 51" in 2013 still working flawlessly. My big purchase for 2014 was Atmos AVR'S and speakers that set me back over three grand. Even though DTS:X is coming I'm going to wait till at least the end of next year, before I even think about upgrading again. If I stay out of these AVS forums, I'll stay ignorant about what's coming and I won't miss a thing.  I'm very happy with Atmos and what DSU does to my non Atmos Blu-Rays.


----------



## Roudan

Hi guys, I am in the dilemma now. I have been waiting for DTS X launch from last month before deciding to buy my next receiver, Marantz 7009, which turn out not to have DTS X. My current receiver is quite old, Yamaha RX V1500, which does not have HDMI. And calibration tool was lost as well. currently I am using oppo 103 7 channel analogy audio output as multi-channel audio. It sounds good but I'd like t upgrade to 3D sound. Now I think I have to wait one more year to get next generation 3D audio receiver with both ATMOS and DTS X, HDCP2.2 etc.

So what do I buy now? keep using old receiver? Or just go buy some entry level ATMOS receiver, like Onkyo 636. Next year sell it and upgrade to much better one? or go buy very expensive Marantz 8802 now? Marantz 8802 is beyond my current budget. so don't know what to do now? any suggestion? Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Hi guys, I am in the dilemma now. I have been waiting for DTS X launch from last month before deciding to buy my next receiver, Marantz 7009, which turn out not to have DTS X. My current receiver is quite old, Yamaha RX V1500, which does not have HDMI. And calibration tool was lost as well. currently I am using oppo 103 7 channel analogy audio output as multi-channel audio. It sounds good but I'd like t upgrade to 3D sound. Now I think I have to wait one more year to get next generation 3D audio receiver with both ATMOS and DTS X, HDCP2.2 etc.
> 
> So what do I buy now? keep using old receiver? Or just go buy some entry level ATMOS receiver, like Onkyo 636. Next year sell it and upgrade to much better one? or go buy very expensive Marantz 8802 now? Marantz 8802 is beyond my current budget. so don't know what to do now? any suggestion? Thanks.



You don't have to wait until next year to get HDMI 2.0a, HDCP 2.2, DTS:X, and Dolby Atmos in one unit. Wait a few more _months_.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Just watched the first 20 minutes of Gravity and I'm still in shock! Wow this sounds great...


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> Just watched the first 20 minutes of Gravity and I'm still in shock! Wow this sounds great...


That's great Steve; and exactly what I would love to hear more from members here who own this latest Blu-ray 'Diamond Luxe Edition' in all Dolby Atmos glory. And the music soundtrack in 'Gravity' is so immersive and senses' impacting. I cannot see a better and more appropriate Blu-ray title than this one for a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack treatment. It was a great act what Warner Brothers did here...if only they would have kept the 3D picture. ...Perhaps in another future...

* You do have this newer edition with discrete Dolby Atmos, right?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roudan said:


> Hi guys, I am in the dilemma now. I have been waiting for DTS X launch from last month before deciding to buy my next receiver, Marantz 7009, which turn out not to have DTS X. My current receiver is quite old, Yamaha RX V1500, which does not have HDMI. And calibration tool was lost as well. currently I am using oppo 103 7 channel analogy audio output as multi-channel audio. It sounds good but I'd like t upgrade to 3D sound. *Now I think I have to wait one more year to get next generation 3D audio receiver with both ATMOS and DTS X, HDCP2.2* etc.
> 
> So what do I buy now? keep using old receiver? Or just go buy some entry level ATMOS receiver, like Onkyo 636. Next year sell it and upgrade to much better one? or go buy very expensive Marantz 8802 now? Marantz 8802 is beyond my current budget. so don't know what to do now? any suggestion? Thanks.


The SR7010 (as well as the other D&M XT32 models) will meet all three of your requirements and should be released in 5 months.


----------



## jrref

jdsmoothie said:


> The SR7010 (as well as the other D&M XT32 models) will meet all three of your requirements and should be released in 5 months.


We will let you know how much we are enjoying our Atmos AVRs here on this thread in the mean time while you are waiting . In my opinion if you don't want to wait get an inexpensive unit until all the bugs and standards settle down a little and the 2nd Gen products come out which may not be until 2016 ish. HDR and other features are now on the horizon! There will always be changes on the horizon but right now there is too much in flux.


----------



## bargervais

jdsmoothie said:


> The SR7010 (as well as the other D&M XT32 models) will meet all three of your requirements and should be released in 5 months.


You have to be loving this, new receivers for everybody every year


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I recall, lest we forget, Dolby's initial home Atmos press releases were fairly limited in scope as well. Things didn't really start rolling until just before CEDIA and the debut of actual A/V products.
> *
> If *what DTS stated is true and that DTS:X (MDA) software makes it easier to convert theatrical MDA encoded mixes to consumer DTS:X tracks than Dolby's current process (and it's cheaper too due to their open source, royalty free licensing structure), then it's possible that more releases may be forthcoming than a trickle. Hollywood loves to shave time and cut costs anyway they can (well, sans actor and executive pay compensation, that is).


Dan.. a couple of things..

1. MDA isn't open source. It's open standard.
2. The Dolby tools take the theatrical Atmos master file directly for encoding.. "easier" isn't a factor. I think the maximum number of objects for DTS:X is less than home Atmos allows.. and I need to get clarification if 8 of those objects end up being render exceptions (i.e. objects that don't move aka bed channels..) But I need to get clarification on that as my information is a couple of months old at this point. 
3. I will get clarification on what you term "royalty free..." Dolby, AFAIUI, doesn't charge a license fee for Home Atmos... but they most certainly do for theatrical.. MDA will not... now that might be good for some, but in the grand scheme of what studios pay for finishing a film, I don't think it's of utmost concern... the flexibility of MDA to mix once and render to all will be a time saver for going to IMAX, 5.1, 7.1, etc.. however, all renders need to be QC'd on a mixing stage, so the cost savings to production remain to be seen.. you could mix in Atmos, "translate" to MDA and then use the MDA tools to output for other formats (or the other way around...) Available screens will also have a big impact moving forward... lots of pieces in play here...

MDA is really exciting.. I am a huge fan.

As I've said recently, the fan boys were expecting the second coming with the DTS:X announcement... and as I've said, all of the "benefits" over Dolby are largely moot... if AVR manufacturers decide to design and implement precise speaker measurements and placement data, both codecs should be able to render properly... I'm not sure if v1 Atmos can output the beds in a flexible way, but they most certainly can with the objects.. and Dolby has stated in the past that object type is supported, so being able to tag a stationary object as dialog and then raise and lower it should be doable... However, for reasons I've explained in the past, content providers might be very reluctant to do so outside of broadcast.. 

Lastly, Dolby still has an almost monopolistic market share for OTT... and I think we can all see the end of physical media looming on the horizon..

MDA might still become the creation toolset of choice... but Dolby ain't going anywhere.


----------



## asarose247

re: Gravity deluxe ed
getting my copy today and still setting up the new l/c/r of Fusion 15's and an 88 Special
Monday should hopefully prove to be epic . . .


----------



## dvdwilly3

RAllenChristenson said:


> As you can see in my signature I also have all Def Techs including the ceiling speakers and couldn't be more pleased with the bang for the buck! I recently swapped out the CS-8060HD for the CS-8080HD which was a nice upgrade. btw, I have 11 ft flat ceilings with large area rug and I did not use Audyssey or any other room eq because the speakers are bipolar. Per Def Tech support and a local HT store, Audyssey seldom improves the performance of bipolar speakers. It actually sucked the life out of the whole system. I guess going without room eq would depend on the condition of the room but even my friends with B&W's top tier speakers are amazed at the result I'm getting from the Def Techs running flat with the Denon 5200W. While listening to DSU on an average 7.1 Bluray I'm in heaven! I have all of the Atmos Blurays released in the U.S. to date but I'm starting to think that I might prefer DSU to the real thing.


The problem that I have found with Audyssey and then AccuEQ was that they were being truthful. They both came back with a 150 Hz crossover for the towers and the center channel. After some discussion here, it finally dawned upon me that those calibration systems were only "hearing" the 4 1/2" drivers in each of the Def Techs, and in that sense was reporting accurately.

Once I correctly hooked up the subwoofer inputs for the towers and the center, they were set at 80 Hz for towers, 40 Hz for the center channel, and 70 Hz for the surrounds. This is more in line with what I would have expected. I think that the internal x-over of the Def Tech powered speakers (towers and center) are reflected in this configuration. But, I am only guessing.

While the room has always had plenty of punch, it was really coming from the SVS sub which will play cleanly down to about 16 Hz. The Def Techs even improperly set still played smoothly with the SVS. But, now that it is set up correctly, the bass occurs more evenly throughout the room.

So, I am really running 4 subwoofers in the room--the SVS, the 2 in the towers, and the 1 in the center channel.

What is it Keith says? "You can never have too much woofage!"

Right on, Keith!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.. a couple of things..
> 
> 1. MDA isn't open source. It's open standard.
> 2. The Dolby tools take the theatrical Atmos master file directly for encoding.. "easier" isn't a factor. I think the maximum number of objects for DTS:X is less than home Atmos allows.. and I need to get clarification if 8 of those objects end up being render exceptions (i.e. objects that don't move aka bed channels..) But I need to get clarification on that as my information is a couple of months old at this point.
> 3. I will get clarification on what you term "royalty free..." Dolby, AFAIUI, doesn't charge a license fee for Home Atmos... but they most certainly do for theatrical.. MDA will not... now that might be good for some, but in the grand scheme of what studios pay for finishing a film, I don't think it's of utmost concern... the flexibility of MDA to mix once and render to all will be a time saver for going to IMAX, 5.1, 7.1, etc.. however, all renders need to be QC'd on a mixing stage, so the cost savings to production remain to be seen.. you could mix in Atmos, "translate" to MDA and then use the MDA tools to output for other formats (or the other way around...) Available screens will also have a big impact moving forward... lots of pieces in play here...
> 
> MDA is really exciting.. I am a huge fan.
> 
> As I've said recently, the fan boys were expecting the second coming with the DTS:X announcement... and as I've said, all of the "benefits" over Dolby are largely moot... if AVR manufacturers decide to design and implement precise speaker measurements and placement data, both codecs should be able to render properly... I'm not sure if v1 Atmos can output the beds in a flexible way, but they most certainly can with the objects.. and Dolby has stated in the past that object type is supported, so being able to tag a stationary object as dialog and then raise and lower it should be doable... However, for reasons I've explained in the past, content providers might be very reluctant to do so outside of broadcast..
> 
> Lastly, Dolby still has an almost monopolistic market share for OTT... and I think we can all see the end of physical media looming on the horizon..
> 
> MDA might still become the creation toolset of choice... but Dolby ain't going anywhere.



Thanks for the comments and clarifications, Marc!! 

I wonder if DTS:X Consumer, in order to save space, is based not on _individual object_ count (128 for Atmos that have specific vector metadata attached), but _speaker_ _output_ count (32 for DTS: X)... almost like metadata tagged channels that can be re-rendered/re-positioned (re-mapped) and sound can pass through or be anchored to any of those 32 positions or folded down if you don't happen to have all 32 spots available. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well enough or not.


----------



## Csbooth

jrref said:


> We will let you know how much we are enjoying our Atmos AVRs here on this thread in the mean time while you are waiting . In my opinion if you don't want to wait get an inexpensive unit until all the bugs and standards settle down a little and the 2nd Gen products come out which may not be until 2016 ish. HDR and other features are now on the horizon! There will always be changes on the horizon but right now there is too much in flux.


HDR is here in a plethora of mid to high-end products for 2015. Majority of all AVR/SSP that will release in 2015 conform to 18Gbit/s bandwith which is the only prerequisite to revision 2.0a for HDR support. 

Upgrading in 2015 will future-proof you for at least 5 years as the only niche thing out other than OLED is FALD. Next years Audio/Visual equipment will more than likely not achieve any higher of the DCI-P3 color space on their products, maybe an inconceivable 2-3%, and any other feature sets that MFRS want to tout will be inconsequential advancements as well. 

Again, the only upgrades or relevance are OLED and FALD; we know OLED is still a few years from good pricing, and judging by this years select few displays with the latter, I highly doubt there will be a salvo of FALDs available at consumer friendly price-points either.

There's literally only one good reason to wait until 2016 to upgrade your gear (not counting consumers that just upgraded of course) which is to have more competitive pricing for better savings.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Csbooth said:


> There's literally only one good reason to wait until 2016 to upgrade your gear (not counting consumers that just upgraded of course) which is to have more competitive pricing for better savings.


And hopefully, more speaker output rendering than 11.1. 

Hoping hoping hoping.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> That's great Steve; and exactly what I would love to hear more from members here who own this latest Blu-ray 'Diamond Luxe Edition' in all Dolby Atmos glory. And the music soundtrack in 'Gravity' is so immersive and senses' impacting. I cannot see a better and more appropriate Blu-ray title than this one for a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack treatment. It was a great act what Warner Brothers did here...if only they would have kept the 3D picture. ...Perhaps in another future...
> 
> * You do have this newer edition with discrete Dolby Atmos, right?


Yes it was the Diamond Luxe edition!

The voice panning and music, just wow... Eager to fully watch it.

I sampled a couple of minutes of Mary Kom and I was pleasantly surprised by the music mixing. But it seems a bit hot compared to dialogue though.


----------



## dvdwilly3

One of the reasons that I buy into AccuEQ is that, unlike, Audyssey, it relies upon only one location for calibration--my MLP. I believe that Audyssey and AccuEQ are coming at the issue from 2 different perspectives. And, for me, I prefer AccuEQ.

To be fair about it, I do believe that Audyssey will render a more correct calibration for the complete listening space (well, a lot of it). And, for me, that is the problem. The Audyssey calibration is a compromise of the best calibration for 6 seating positions.

AccuEQ on the other hand relies upon a calibration for that one single position--mine. I am not that concerned about the accuracy at the other listening positions. I know full well that even if it is not as accurate for the other seats as it could be with Audyssey, that it is still better that what most other people would have elsewhere anyway.

And, in truth, I am probably the only one that cares as much...but, I do.

Just for my own curiosity, I intend to move my mike to at least a couple of different positions in the theater just to see if the calibration comes up any differently. I know that I have standing waves along each of the axes--29 Hz for the length (19 1/2'); 39 Hz for the width (14 1/2'); and 59 Hz more or less for the ceiling (9' for 2/3 of the width and 8' for 1/3 of the width).

Unless someone here tells me that somebody on the forum has already done it. And, in that case, I would simply ask that you point me to it.


----------



## NorthSky

> Upgrading in 2015 will future-proof you for at least 5 years as the only niche thing out other than OLED is FALD.


I wish we can all be ascertain of this, with abso!ute 'definity'.


----------



## Csbooth

NorthSky said:


> I wish we can all be ascertain of this, with abso!ute 'definity'.


The thing is, it's really not much of a guessing game when you look at most of the angles. There isn't any features that are forthcoming that will revolutionize your viewing pleasure. OLED, FALD, HDR, QDF(And their competitors equivalent proprietary), latest colorspace, full bandwith HDMI/HDCP are here now in majority of 2015 products, albeit pricey ones. 

Speaking of the DCI-P3, and HDR featureset... content will be rolling out for it through Netflix later this year, and I wouldn't be that surprised if 4KBD support it right out of the gate either; You can guarantee the 2016 4KBD will, as the BDA won't want streaming to have such a leg up in these departments.

Next year won't have any significant advancements as these things are pretty much talked to death such as FALD/HDR has been for over a year now.

The only thing waiting will do is give you a better entry price and inconsequential advancements to Panels/DSP. It will be a minimum of 3 years before you see any leaps, and 5+ before real upticks in the industry such as BT.2020. The awkward 2013-2014 > 2015 transition phase is pretty much fin.


----------



## HTPCat

Roudan said:


> Hi guys, I am in the dilemma now. I have been waiting for DTS X launch from last month before deciding to buy my next receiver, Marantz 7009, which turn out not to have DTS X. My current receiver is quite old, Yamaha RX V1500, which does not have HDMI. And calibration tool was lost as well. currently I am using oppo 103 7 channel analogy audio output as multi-channel audio. It sounds good but I'd like t upgrade to 3D sound. Now I think I have to wait one more year to get next generation 3D audio receiver with both ATMOS and DTS X, HDCP2.2 etc.
> 
> So what do I buy now? keep using old receiver? Or just go buy some entry level ATMOS receiver, like Onkyo 636. Next year sell it and upgrade to much better one? or go buy very expensive Marantz 8802 now? Marantz 8802 is beyond my current budget. so don't know what to do now? any suggestion? Thanks.


 Denon AVR x7200 seems like a possibility now with DTS X upgrade coming later this year and if you pick up a refurb unit they can be had for a little over 2K.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> You don't have to wait until next year to get HDMI 2.0a, HDCP 2.2, DTS:X, and Dolby Atmos in one unit. Wait a few more _months_.



If you added 6 height channels to that list I would have been excited.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> If you added 6 height channels to that list I would have been excited.


It's those damn manufacturers again. They can't seem to advance beyond their old receiver and pre-pro platforms with a bunch of space still taken over by outdated legacy connections (component video and S-video... _really??_). 

3D audio needs something... "more."


----------



## aaranddeeman

HTPCat said:


> Denon AVR x7200 seems like a possibility now with DTS X upgrade coming later this year and if you pick up a refurb unit they can be had for a little over 2K.


Yup, 7200 seems the best option as of current offerings and availability.


----------



## aaranddeeman

jrref said:


> We will let you know how much we are enjoying our Atmos AVRs here on this thread in the mean time while you are waiting . In my opinion if you don't want to wait get an inexpensive unit until all the bugs and standards settle down a little and the 2nd Gen products come out which may not be until 2016 ish. HDR and other features are now on the horizon! There will always be changes on the horizon but right now there is too much in flux.


The problem has been the inexpensive units are really lame. e.g. then lower end Onkyo's. They can do only 2 height channels. Once you move to 4 height, then you cross the $1k barrier and then when you start thinking about it's re-selling value, it does not remain inexpensive anymore.


----------



## Al Sherwood

roxiedog13 said:


> If you added 6 height channels to that list I would have been excited.



+1!



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's those damn manufacturers again. They can't seem to advance beyond their old receiver and pre-pro platforms with a bunch of space still taken over by outdated legacy connections (component video and S-video... _really??_).
> 
> 3D audio needs something... "more."



Wouldn't be nice if they realized that most of us have long abandoned those old video formats, or at least those here on the forums!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Yup, 7200 seems the best option as of current offerings and availability.


And yet if you want the HDMI 2.0a board and don't want to have to ship it back to D+M then you'll have to wait for the *version 2* model coming this year with everything already in place from the dealer. Either way, it's $200 more out of pocket.


----------



## Roudan

Hi

I am wondering if adding front surrounds to 5.1.4 will be better but without side surround?

The reason I am asking is because I can not have side surround due to my room space limit. Originally I am thinking to do 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 only. Now after seeing 9.1.2 setup with front surround, as shown below link (the link was sent to me by Dan, thx), I start to think if I can do surround layout with front/rear surrounds only but without side surround ?

How does it sound compare to normal 7.1.2 setup which has y side and rear surround? 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html

Thanks.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> And yet if you want the HDMI 2.0a board and don't want to have to ship it back to D+M then you'll have to wait for the *version 2* model coming this year with everything already in place from the dealer. Either way, it's $200 more out of pocket.


Of course. Buying 7200W now comes with that understanding. The positive thing being, you get "immersed" right away than waiting for 3-4 more months.
As for shipping, some may be even able to drop the units off if Denon so offers (assuming you are living closer to one of their service centers).
Since this morning Denon website kept saying "Under Maintenance". Now it gives an error.
I am not sure what they are cooking behind there. May be some key information is forthcoming (or may be not)...


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> One of the reasons that I buy into AccuEQ is that, unlike, Audyssey, it relies upon only one location for calibration--my MLP. I believe that Audyssey and AccuEQ are coming at the issue from 2 different perspectives. And, for me, I prefer AccuEQ.
> 
> To be fair about it, I do believe that Audyssey will render a more correct calibration for the complete listening space (well, a lot of it). And, for me, that is the problem. The Audyssey calibration is a compromise of the best calibration for 6 seating positions.
> 
> AccuEQ on the other hand relies upon a calibration for that one single position--mine. I am not that concerned about the accuracy at the other listening positions. I know full well that even if it is not as accurate for the other seats as it could be with Audyssey, that it is still better that what most other people would have elsewhere anyway.


The issue with AccuEQ isn't how many mic positions it uses/needs in order to feed its algorithm with sufficient data to create effective filters. The issue is that it does not EQ the main L&R speakers _at all_. Given the importance of these two speakers in a system, this is astonishing and incomprehensible.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> The issue with AccuEQ isn't how many mic positions it uses/needs in order to feed its algorithm with sufficient data to create effective filters. The issue is that it does not EQ the main L&R speakers _at all_. Given the importance of these two speakers in a system, this is astonishing and incomprehensible.


As I started thinking about room resonances at your MLP regardless, it occurs to me that even IF you had a "perfect" loudspeaker with board-flat response, room resonances would ensure that at the MLP you would no longer have a flat response.

And, given that unless your system were mono, the 2 fronts need to be correct more than any of the other speakers, you would think that you might want to EQ at a minimum, those 2.

If they are not right, then how much difference can it make if the rest of the speakers are EQed?

I see your point. But, it all still sounds good to me. But, given your point, IF Audyssey could be downloaded as FW, I would do that.

Thanks for the discussion. Happy for now...I thik that I may go watch a movie...


----------



## bargervais

*+1*



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's those damn manufacturers again. They can't seem to advance beyond their old receiver and pre-pro platforms with a bunch of space still taken over by outdated legacy connections (component video and S-video... _really??_).
> 
> 3D audio needs something... "more."


They pack so much junk into these new AVR'S , too many bells and whistles so everyone is happy. That leaves less horsepower for what I want. All I need my AVR for, is to pass video and process sound. Eliminate all the useless fluff, why does every device in your rack have to be smart.


----------



## petetherock

I had a chance to visit someone's setup recently, and IMHO, it has the best surround / bass setup I have ever heard:

http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2015/04/the-bass-gurus-den-visiting-home-of.html


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> As I started thinking about room resonances at your MLP regardless, it occurs to me that even IF you had a "perfect" loudspeaker with board-flat response, room resonances would ensure that at the MLP you would no longer have a flat response.


Indeed. Which shows the importance of room EQ for those who can't acoustically treat their room (and even for those who can). The speaker doesn't exist in isolation: it is part of a 'system' which includes the speaker and the room. They interact together.



dvdwilly3 said:


> And, given that unless your system were mono, the 2 fronts need to be correct more than any of the other speakers, you would think that you might want to EQ at a minimum, those 2.


Indeed you would. And all the other REQ systems, such as XT32, Dirac Live, ARC, YPAO, MCACC etc do.



dvdwilly3 said:


> If they are not right, then how much difference can it make if the rest of the speakers are EQed?


Quite. The L&R speakers contribute a substantial percentage of the total sound, even in a multichannel system (along with the center speaker).



dvdwilly3 said:


> I see your point. But, it all still sounds good to me. But, given your point, IF Audyssey could be downloaded as FW, I would do that.


If it sounds good to you, then it IS good. The question then becomes, 'could it be better?'



dvdwilly3 said:


> Thanks for the discussion. Happy for now...I think that I may go watch a movie...


Always a good idea IMO  Never underestimate the importance of being happy!


----------



## roxiedog13

Watch Mocking Jay last night, the Atmos version. The Dolby Atmos demo before the movie certainly indicated the speakers are all working great, the movie itself, not a lot of Atmos effects.
Movie was descent, not quite as good as the previous ones in my opinion. 

We watched The Imitation Game Friday night, now that is a movie. Certainly not done with Atmos but DSU presented it well. Really though, when a movie is as good as this one, I don't even notice the audio. I become transfixed, the story pulls me in and I'm not paying attention to anything but. After all , in the movie, the real life character Alan Touring did say, " now pay attention" and I suppose I did .


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I had a chance to visit someone's setup recently, and IMHO, it has the best surround / bass setup I have ever heard:
> 
> http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2015/04/the-bass-gurus-den-visiting-home-of.html


Interesting that he turned up the Atmos overhead speakers +4dB. I did that a while back, and while initially enjoying the more obvious effect, in the end I found it to be intrusive that way and ended up setting them back to where Audyssey had put them. Since then I have moved away from XT32 to Dirac Live. Maybe I ought to try the experiment again.

Incidentally the latest Atmos demo disk has the new 'Horizon' trailer and it also has three 'sound only' demo tracks which are really useful for evaluating the setup. Well worth getting hold of if you can.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

How do you get one? Do you have one?


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting that he turned up the Atmos overhead speakers +4dB. I did that a while back, and while initially enjoying the more obvious effect, in the end I found it to be intrusive that way and ended up setting them back to where Audyssey had put them. Since then I have moved away from XT32 to Dirac Live. Maybe I ought to try the experiment again.
> 
> Incidentally the latest Atmos demo disk has the new 'Horizon' trailer and it also has three 'sound only' demo tracks which are really useful for evaluating the setup. Well worth getting hold of if you can.


Where did you get your demo of Horizon? 

Dirac Live doesn't work with AVR receivers and has limited channels that it can evaluate, correct? I've heard others say the calibration with Dirac is better than Audyssey but it's also a lot more 
work too .


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> How do you get one? Do you have one?


http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2015-Dol...y-Blu-Ray-Disc-BRAND-NEW-SEALED-/271830470195


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2015-Dol...y-Blu-Ray-Disc-BRAND-NEW-SEALED-/271830470195


Thanks for the link.

Rather steep for a Demo disk and I have all but the Horizon Demo anyway. 

The opening scene for Into The Storm has one of the best overhead effects I have heard thus far and its not even Atmos. The rolling thunder at the very
end of that scene is incredible, there is the rain too but I think the "RAIN" samples as a Atmos demo are starting to get old .


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting that he turned up the Atmos overhead speakers +4dB. I did that a while back, and while initially enjoying the more obvious effect, in the end I found it to be intrusive that way and ended up setting them back to where Audyssey had put them. Since then I have moved away from XT32 to Dirac Live. Maybe I ought to try the experiment again.
> 
> Incidentally the latest Atmos demo disk has the new 'Horizon' trailer and it also has three 'sound only' demo tracks which are really useful for evaluating the setup. Well worth getting hold of if you can.


Afer visiting him, I decided on an increase of +2db... +4 was a bit too hot for me


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting that he turned up the Atmos overhead speakers +4dB. I did that a while back, and while initially enjoying the more obvious effect, in the end I found it to be intrusive that way and ended up setting them back to where Audyssey had put them. Since then I have moved away from XT32 to Dirac Live. Maybe I ought to try the experiment again.
> 
> Incidentally the latest Atmos demo disk has the new 'Horizon' trailer and it also has three 'sound only' demo tracks which are really useful for evaluating the setup. Well worth getting hold of if you can.


Worth trying to get a copy from Dolby directly? Any particular e-mail address I should be using? Thx!


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> How do you get one? Do you have one?





roxiedog13 said:


> Where did you get your demo of Horizon?


At the risk of sounding ridiculously cloak-and-dagger, I am not at liberty to say, sorry.



roxiedog13 said:


> Dirac Live doesn't work with AVR receivers and has limited channels that it can evaluate, correct?


Dirac Live via the miniDSP 88A requires separates. But Dirac Live via the new miniDSP nanoAVR-DL works just dandy with AVRs. Check it out!

In both cases it is a 7.1 solution. Although you can use two 88As together for a 16 channel experience (not sure if that also applies to the nanoAVR-DL).



roxiedog13 said:


> I've heard others say the calibration with Dirac is better than Audyssey but it's also a lot more
> work too .


It is definitely superior. I don't see it as more work to run a basic auto cal.

Here is what XT32 requires:



Plug in mic to AVR
Run Audyssey Setup
Place mic at MLP
Measure subwoofer levels
Measure position No 1
Repeat for 8 positions
Save to AVR
Done.

Here is what Dirac Live requires:



Plug mic into laptop (via USB)
Plug laptop into 88A (via USB)
Open Dirac software on laptop
Place mic at MLP
Set speaker/sub levels using slider in software
Measure position No 1
Repeat for 9 positions
Click to create filters
Upload filters to AVR
Done

A calibration using XT32 takes about the same time to complete as one using Dirac Live.

One of the huge benefits of Dirac Live (aside from a superior calibration to begin with) is that you can, if you so choose, modify the target curve to your room/preference and create new filters using your new curve. so, more flexibility and no more _"where's my bass gone?"_. Also, the 88A allows you to save up to 4 filter sets, so you can have one, for example, optimised for MLP, one for a group of listeners, one for music and a spare... etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Afer visiting him, I decided on an increase of +2db... +4 was a bit too hot for me


I’ll give it another go and report back.


----------



## zimmo

somes people talks about accueq,most do not know because you not have onkyo 2104,everyone who is a onkyo this year whit accueq calibration system like this.its simple and make the job,most not forget that this system has been designed whit dolby laboratories or the most important is the top speakers in ceilling front ans back ,also back surround and side surrounds . when you put the front speakers principal to height this system work perfect.


----------



## pasender91

Hey guys, this is an *ATMOS* thread, can you please stop commenting in here how the AccuEQ is great even if it has been documented very precisely and several times that is does not EQ main speakers (which ARE by far the most important speakers) and consequently CANNOT BE GREAT as a room EQ system ?

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

zimmo said:


> somes people talks about accueq,most do not know because you not have onkyo 2104,everyone who is a onkyo this year whit accueq calibration system like this.its simple and make the job,most not forget that this system has been designed whit dolby laboratories or the most important is the top speakers in ceilling front ans back ,also back surround and side surrounds . when you put the front speakers principal to height this system work perfect.


Well, the surrounds and overheads are the least important speakers in the system, not the most important.

But that isn't the point. AccuEQ does not EQ the L&R speakers, and has no significant impact on the subwoofer either. This means it is not really a room EQ solution at all. People may like what it does/doesn’t do, but that won't change any of the facts.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Hey guys, this is an *ATMOS* thread, can you please stop commenting in here how the AccuEQ is great even if it has been documented very precisely and several times that is does not EQ main speakers (which ARE by far the most important speakers) and consequently CANNOT BE GREAT as a room EQ system ?
> 
> Thanks


Good point. Not much Atmos-related content to discuss right now I guess, other than endless "where should I put my speakers?" stuff, which has all been covered thousands of times before already. But you are right, AccuEQ is way OTY for this thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Worth trying to get a copy from Dolby directly? Any particular e-mail address I should be using? Thx!


Dolby may be happy to send you one if you ask. I don't see why not really as the disc really helps sell the concept of Atmos, especially as this new disc has 4 clips where they switch between 5.1 and Atmos and back, so you can really hear the impact of Atmos.

I’d try their main Customer Service email or, if you can locate who they use, their PR company's Atmos team.


----------



## lujan

roxiedog13 said:


> ...
> 
> We watched The Imitation Game Friday night, now that is a movie. Certainly not done with Atmos but DSU presented it well. Really though, when a movie is as good as this one, I don't even notice the audio. I become transfixed, the story pulls me in and I'm not paying attention to anything but. After all , in the movie, the real life character Alan Touring did say, " now pay attention" and I suppose I did .


The same thing happened to me when watching "Unbroken" as I didn't even notice the Atmos sound as I was so transfixed on the goings on of the movie.


----------



## zimmo

(pasender 910
Just my av receiver is a dolby atmos and i know what im talking here ,i have hte right to give my opinion because i do notice that the calibration system accueq has been dedigned whit dolby atmos.


And for close this discussion accueq,AVS forum respect the subjet .


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> Watch Mocking Jay last night, the Atmos version. The Dolby Atmos demo before the movie certainly indicated the speakers are all working great, the movie itself, not a lot of Atmos effects.
> Movie was descent, not quite as good as the previous ones in my opinion.
> 
> We watched The Imitation Game Friday night, now that is a movie. Certainly not done with Atmos but DSU presented it well. Really though, when a movie is as good as this one, I don't even notice the audio. I become transfixed, the story pulls me in and I'm not paying attention to anything but. After all , in the movie, the real life character Alan Touring did say, " now pay attention" and I suppose I did .


Yes I do agree that the Imitation Game was one of the best movies of 2014. DSU presents it very nicely, it's good to see a movie like this, well done and that keeps you from start to finish, unlike all the shoot em up Hollywood stuff.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. Not much Atmos-related content to discuss right now I guess, other than endless "where should I put my speakers?" stuff, which has all been covered thousands of times before already. But you are right, AccuEQ is way OTY for this thread.



Well, at least the "where should i put my speakers?" question is spot on in the right thread 

For a change, i can do a CR of Gravity in Atmos, for those that are not aware yet.

The concise version is *WAOUW*

Ok, if you want to know a bit more about it:
- The mix is using all speakers to the max, including surrounds and heights.
- The SW is also heavily used, the heart beats of Sandra are so loud they are pushing my SW to its limits 
- The dynamic range of sound is amazing, between silence, then very quiet messages , and then BOUM, extreme level of mayhem from all directions.

Regarding audio hardware, i have in the past suggested to several HT owners and friends that surrounds can be small, i believe this WAS correct, but if Gravity is an exemple of future soundtracks in Atmos and DTS:X, then let me tell you that *surrounds and heights cannot be small speakers any more*.
In my case, as i also listen to multichannel audio so i have relatively large surrounds, and this is the first movie that really use them fully.
There was so much sound inside the room that all the vents from the speakers were generating quite a lot of wind, i almost had to hold on to my coffee table 

I listened to several high-end 5.1 systems, but this is completely another dimension of sound immersion, even with my modest system.
For people out there like NorthSky and others still hesitating, IT IS FINALLY TIME TO JUMP IN 
Two options now that DTS:X announcement is past us:
1) Get an "entry-level" 11 channel Atmos AVR (Marantz 7009, Denon 5200, Yamaha 3040), deploy 7.1.4, and enjoy for at least 3 years.
2) Get a Denon 7200 and enjoy on top of 1) a guaranteed DTS:X, but count 1000 USD more. 
My recommendation would be to proceed with option 1)


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Well, at least the "where should i put my speakers?" question is spot on in the right thread
> 
> For a change, i can do a CR of Gravity in Atmos, for those that are not aware yet.
> 
> c range of sound is amazing, between silence, then very quiet messages , and then BOUM, extreme level of mayhem from all directions.
> 
> Regarding audio hardware, i have in the past suggested to several HT owners and friends that surrounds can be small, i believe this WAS correct, but if Gravity is an exemple of future soundtracks in Atmos and DTS:X, then let me tell you that *surrounds and heights cannot be small speakers any more*.


You don't need much of a speaker to handle down to 100Hz pretty well though - and in a bass-managed system, that is perfectly possible.


----------



## pasender91

zimmo said:


> (pasender 910
> Just my av receiver is a dolby atmos and i know what im talking here ,i have hte right to give my opinion because i do notice that the calibration system accueq has been dedigned whit dolby atmos.
> 
> 
> And for close this discussion accueq,AVS forum respect the subjet .


I fully respect your right to discuss AccuEQ on AVS forum, but in the AccuEQ thread it would be better 
Or there is some special relationship between AccuEQ and Atmos that i'm not aware of ?
If there is a linkage to Dolby in terms of research, then fine, but stilll this doesn't make it related to Atmos in any way, but to re-assure you it is the same way for Audyssey or for Dirac, right Keith ?


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I fully respect your right to discuss AccuEQ on AVS forum, but in the AccuEQ thread it would be better
> Or there is some special relationship between AccuEQ and Atmos that i'm not aware of ?
> If there is a linkage to Dolby in terms of research, then fine, but stilll this doesn't make it related to Atmos in any way, but to re-assure you it is the same way for Audyssey or for Dirac, right Keith ?


Totally.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby may be happy to send you one if you ask. I don't see why not really as the disc really helps sell the concept of Atmos, especially as this new disc has 4 clips where they switch between 5.1 and Atmos and back, so you can really hear the impact of Atmos.
> 
> I’d try their main Customer Service email or, if you can locate who they use, their PR company's Atmos team.


I just fired off an e-mail. Hopefully something comes of it.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> I just fired off an e-mail. Hopefully something comes of it.


Same


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian Fineberg said:


> Same


And the response is gonna be " Sorry we don't have any........ but you can go to VuDu where Atmos demos are available... blah blah..."
Been there. Done that...


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Same


Fired off an email to who? Can you post a link


----------



## Roudan

Hi is there a way to organize the main Atmos topics you guys have talked before in this thread into different sub-threads so the new people like me won't need to ask the question again which has been covered before ? 

There are thousands of discussion already in this thread and it is really hard for me to go through every discussion from the beginning to search the question I am in search especially for the people who use mobile phone mainly. I cannot use company's laptop to view this thread when working daily so most of time I use my iPhone .

I love this forum especially the people here. You guys are awesome!!! I am new here and I got many help to get good gear. 

Thanks for your attention .


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roudan said:


> Hi is there a way to organize the main Atmos topics you guys have talked before in this thread into different sub-threads so the new people like me won't need to ask the question again which has been covered before ?
> 
> There are thousands of discussion already in this thread and it is really hard for me to go through every discussion from the beginning to search the question I am in search especially for the people who use mobile phone mainly. I cannot use company's laptop to view this thread when working daily so most of time I use my iPhone .
> 
> I love this forum especially the people here. You guys are awesome!!! I am new here and I got many help to get good gear.
> 
> Thanks for your attention .


You can use the "Search this Thread" link in the upper right corner of this page, otherwise, the same questions are asked repeatedly in threads, so ask away.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Dan Hitchman said:


> I just fired off an e-mail. Hopefully something comes of it.


Others have had no luck requesting the first disc directly from Dolby ..... so I wouldn't expect anything different with the second disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I just fired off an e-mail. Hopefully something comes of it.


AFAIK, Dolby monitor this thread, so hopefully they will see that the early adopters are all clamoring for the latest demo disk and maybe they will act accordingly. I hope so. The more demo disks out there, the more demos. The more demos, the more people will enjoy the wow factor of Atmos. The more people who enjoy the wow factor, the more Atmos systems will be sold... etc etc...


----------



## roxiedog13

pasender91 said:


> Well, at least the "where should i put my speakers?" question is spot on in the right thread
> 
> For a change, i can do a CR of Gravity in Atmos, for those that are not aware yet.
> 
> The concise version is *WAOUW*
> 
> Ok, if you want to know a bit more about it:
> - The mix is using all speakers to the max, including surrounds and heights.
> - The SW is also heavily used, the heart beats of Sandra are so loud they are pushing my SW to its limits
> - The dynamic range of sound is amazing, between silence, then very quiet messages , and then BOUM, extreme level of mayhem from all directions.
> 
> Regarding audio hardware, i have in the past suggested to several HT owners and friends that surrounds can be small, i believe this WAS correct, but if Gravity is an exemple of future soundtracks in Atmos and DTS:X, then let me tell you that *surrounds and heights cannot be small speakers any more*.
> In my case, as i also listen to multichannel audio so i have relatively large surrounds, and this is the first movie that really use them fully.
> There was so much sound inside the room that all the vents from the speakers were generating quite a lot of wind, i almost had to hold on to my coffee table
> 
> I listened to several high-end 5.1 systems, but this is completely another dimension of sound immersion, even with my modest system.
> For people out there like NorthSky and others still hesitating, IT IS FINALLY TIME TO JUMP IN
> Two options now that DTS:X announcement is past us:
> 1) Get an "entry-level" 11 channel Atmos AVR (Marantz 7009, Denon 5200, Yamaha 3040), deploy 7.1.4, and enjoy for at least 3 years.
> 2) Get a Denon 7200 and enjoy on top of 1) a guaranteed DTS:X, but count 1000 USD more.
> My recommendation would be to proceed with option 1)


Now you have me all fired up , I can't wait to get my Atmos version of Gravity , I know it will show up after I leave for vacation in a week. What you describe 
is exactly the Atmos experience that I went through all the expense and time to achieve and so far I feel I've been less than thrilled. In my opinion ,the best Atmos movies
have been non Atmos running DSU. Unbroken was a pretty good Atmos mix and it supported the movie very well, I expect Gravity will be much better though . Fury
was one of my favorites non atmos as was Into The Storm and Canopy. 

Looks like critiquing Atmos and DSU movies will have to fill the technical gap until something else comes up.


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> At the risk of sounding ridiculously cloak-and-dagger, I am not at liberty to say, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirac Live via the miniDSP 88A requires separates. But Dirac Live via the new miniDSP nanoAVR-DL works just dandy with AVRs. Check it out!
> 
> In both cases it is a 7.1 solution. Although you can use two 88As together for a 16 channel experience (not sure if that also applies to the nanoAVR-DL).
> 
> 
> 
> It is definitely superior. I don't see it as more work to run a basic auto cal.
> 
> Here is what XT32 requires:
> 
> 
> 
> Plug in mic to AVR
> Run Audyssey Setup
> Place mic at MLP
> Measure subwoofer levels
> Measure position No 1
> Repeat for 8 positions
> Save to AVR
> Done.
> 
> Here is what Dirac Live requires:
> 
> 
> 
> Plug mic into laptop (via USB)
> Plug laptop into 88A (via USB)
> Open Dirac software on laptop
> Place mic at MLP
> Set speaker/sub levels using slider in software
> Measure position No 1
> Repeat for 9 positions
> Click to create filters
> Upload filters to AVR
> Done
> 
> A calibration using XT32 takes about the same time to complete as one using Dirac Live.
> 
> One of the huge benefits of Dirac Live (aside from a superior calibration to begin with) is that you can, if you so choose, modify the target curve to your room/preference and create new filters using your new curve. so, more flexibility and no more _"where's my bass gone?"_. Also, the 88A allows you to save up to 4 filter sets, so you can have one, for example, optimised for MLP, one for a group of listeners, one for music and a spare... etc.


I'm waiting for my new SVS PC13 Ultra to show up before I run another calibration. After I get the SVS , install two more in-ceiling speakers and redo the calibration I will then have to consider Dirac . According to the latest news I have the feeling I will be waiting quite some time before anything comes along that will necessitate replacing my X5200 . Best to make the most
of what I have and a proper calibration is likely the key for a modest improvement. From what you say, Dirac will work well with my AVR , has more flexibility and is not as difficult as I 
had originally believed. Just need to spend a little more money. Can someone offer to explain this to my wife, I don't think I have the nerve.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> I'm waiting for my new SVS PC13 Ultra to show up before I run another calibration. After I get the SVS , install two more in-ceiling speakers and redo the calibration I will then have to consider Dirac . According to the latest news I have the feeling I will be waiting quite some time before anything comes along that will necessitate replacing my X5200 . Best to make the most
> of what I have and a proper calibration is likely the key for a modest improvement. From what you say, Dirac will work well with my AVR , has more flexibility and is not as difficult as I
> had originally believed. Just need to spend a little more money. Can someone offer to explain this to my wife, I don't think I have the nerve.


 All agreed. I won’t be swapping my X5200 for at least another year. I can wait for DTS:X content to be plentiful before I feel the need to jump in there. And in the meantime, I can use DSU on any DTS:X content that is released. I note that DTS said in their recent DTS:X announcement that they expected content _"by the end of the year"_ so I am guessing we won't see much this year at all. The sweet spot for swapping AVRs out seems to be fall 2016. By then Atmos, DTS:X, HDMI 2.0, 4K and HDCP 2.2 will all be done deals and the 2016 units will have them all, giving us some stability for a year or two. This last couple of years has been a real transition period for both sound and picture. Hopefully it will settle down next year.


----------



## jrref

kbarnes701 said:


> All agreed. I won’t be swapping my X5200 for at least another year. I can wait for DTS:X content to be plentiful before I feel the need to jump in there. And in the meantime, I can use DSU on any DTS:X content that is released. I note that DTS said in their recent DTS:X announcement that they expected content _"by the end of the year"_ so I am guessing we won't see much this year at all. The sweet spot for swapping AVRs out seems to be fall 2016. By then Atmos, DTS:X, HDMI 2.0, 4K and HDCP 2.2 will all be done deals and the 2016 units will have them all, giving us some stability for a year or two. This last couple of years has been a real transition period for both sound and picture. Hopefully it will settle down next year.


And maybe they will have HDR compatibility and better speaker mapping for the different formats.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> All agreed. I won’t be swapping my X5200 for at least another year. I can wait for DTS:X content to be plentiful before I feel the need to jump in there. And in the meantime, I can use DSU on any DTS:X content that is released. I note that DTS said in their recent DTS:X announcement that they expected content _"by the end of the year"_ so I am guessing we won't see much this year at all. The sweet spot for swapping AVRs out seems to be fall 2016. By then Atmos, DTS:X, HDMI 2.0, 4K and HDCP 2.2 will all be done deals and the 2016 units will have them all, giving us some stability for a year or two. This last couple of years has been a real transition period for both sound and picture. Hopefully it will settle down next year.


Lets hope once all these upgrades are on the 2016 AVR'S, let's hope the price stays friendly. If prices go north of $2,500 for an AVR I'll have to consider if it's even worth it.
I have a hard time right now justifying spending $1,500 to $2,500 on a receiver.


----------



## NorthSky

*Multiverse (tasking)*



K said:


> The issue with AccuEQ isn't how many mic positions it uses/needs in order to feed its algorithm with sufficient data to create effective filters. The issue is that it does not EQ the main L&R speakers _at all_. Given the importance of these two speakers in a system, this is astonishing and incomprehensible.


♦ AccuEQ was created with "simplicity" in mind (one mic measurement, and Dolby behind).



zimmo said:


> somes people talks about accueq,most do not know because you not have onkyo 2104,everyone who is a onkyo this year whit accueq calibration system like this.its simple and make the job,most not forget that this system has been designed whit dolby laboratories or the most important is the top speakers in ceilling front ans back ,also back surround and side surrounds . when you put the front speakers principal to height this system work perfect.


♦ People who know best are the ones who try them both in their own rigs; like Warren, and few other members here. 
...In the AccuEQ vs Audyssey thread.



K said:


> Well, the surrounds and overheads are the least important speakers in the system, not the most important.
> But that isn't the point. AccuEQ does not EQ the L&R speakers, and has no significant impact on the subwoofer either. This means it is not really a room EQ solution at all. People may like what it does/doesn’t do, but that won't change any of the facts.


♦ Audyssey has a "Bypass Front L & R" curve mode, and there are a bunch of members here who prefer it to the Audyssey main target curve.
Besides, Audyssey has given up on improving the technology, but AccuEQ is just starting and they will keep refining and improving it.



pasender91 said:


> Hey guys, this is an *ATMOS* thread, can you please stop commenting in here how the AccuEQ is great even if it has been documented very precisely and several times that is does not EQ main speakers (which ARE by far the most important speakers) and consequently CANNOT BE GREAT as a room EQ system ?
> Thanks


♦ True; this is a Dolby Atmos thread, and we ALL are guilty to go off the borders. But then, like some people mentioned it before; this thread has already explored pretty much all avenues. ...There is a lot of repetition, good humor, movies talking, balls rolling, and all that jazz that makes this world going around in the gravity of space. 



K said:


> Good point. Not much Atmos-related content to discuss right now I guess, other than endless "where should I put my speakers?" stuff, which has all been covered thousands of times before already. But you are right, AccuEQ is way OTY for this thread.


♦ True; we are having multiple conversations related to much more than Dolby Atmos.
Is it good, is it bad? ...Only us can decide for ourselves that question. ...No one more than another has the right answer; it's a balance of life.



pasender91 said:


> For people out there like NorthSky (Bob) and others still hesitating, IT IS FINALLY TIME TO JUMP IN


♦ That is one of the main reasons why I'm here; to LEARN. ...And to decide when is the right time for me. 



K said:


> AFAIK, Dolby monitor this thread, so hopefully they will see that the early adopters are all clamoring for the latest demo disk and maybe they will act accordingly. I hope so. The more demo disks out there, the more demos. The more demos, the more people will enjoy the wow factor of Atmos. The more people who enjoy the wow factor, the more Atmos systems will be sold... etc etc...


♦ Dolby people should make their Dolby Atmos Blu-ray demo discs easily accessible to ALL, and for a very cordial/inviting/minimal fee. ...Free. IMHO



jrref said:


> And maybe they will have HDR compatibility and better speaker mapping for the different formats.


♦ HDR has the potential for great things...and the proverbial unleashing unto new higher levels of 3D picture & sound exploration...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Dolby people should made their Dolby Atmos Blu-ray demo discs easily accessible to ALL, and for a very cordial/inviting/minimal fee. ...Free. IMHO


I was going to post the same thing and agree so MUCH with you. I understand they may need to remove the movie based segments for copyright reasons, but there is no reason at all to not do it for all of the trailers and speaker configuration videos.

They should be easily downloadable at M2TS file or whatever else format they see fit...


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all i am looking at the speaker setup that i currently have and these include front heights as in diagram below, i understand that the speakers should be about 30 degrees from listener but it just states that speakers should be pointed slightly down and in the diagram it looks as if speaker driver would point above listener head if line was drawn ? I have mine pointing directly at me ie driver to ear, has anybody played about with front height speaker placement and is it best to have just a very slight tilt on speakers so that sound passes over ones head ?


----------



## jdsmoothie

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all i am looking at the speaker setup that i currently have and these include front heights as in diagram below, i understand that the speakers should be about 30 degrees from listener but it just states that speakers should be pointed slightly down and in the diagram it looks as if speaker driver would point above listener head if line was drawn ? I have mine pointing directly at me ie driver to ear, has anybody played about with front height speaker placement and is it best to have just a very slight tilt on speakers so that sound passes over ones head ?


The drawing shows the line of sight directly at the FH/RH, rather the actual "box" is simply drawn imperfectly.


----------



## noah katz

I'm considering getting Apple TV for HBO etc.

Anyone know if streamed movies will be Atmos versions if available?


----------



## WayneJoy

All 2.0 content on Apple TV is currently 5.1. So it won't be Atmos at least for now.


----------



## dvdwilly3

WayneJoy said:


> All 2.0 content on Apple TV is currently 5.1. So it won't be Atmos at least for now.


No, but DSU will work with it.

An example, Bloodline, on Netflix is in 5.1 and DSU works very well for it. Largely staged in South Florida, it captures the bugs, the storms, and all the other associated noises as well as height effects. We were watching ine scene where people were talking outside and a plane completely off camera flew by on my right at about 2 o'clock.

The folks who did Bloodline are the same ones who did Damages, another exceptional drama.

Atmos would be great, but DSU is very fine indeed.


----------



## noah katz

WayneJoy said:


> All 2.0 content on Apple TV is currently 5.1. So it won't be Atmos at least for now.


Really, only 2.0 for streaming?

That's a non-starter; even OTA TV gives you 5.1.


----------



## WayneJoy

No, if it isn't 2.0 it is DD 5.1. It isn't only 2.0. But not Atmos.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Apple TV _can_ do 5.1 bit-stream passthrough, but only with regular Dolby Digital AC-3, not with DD+, which is what is required for Atmos.


----------



## noah katz

From the 8802 thread:



noah katz said:


> Marc, any idea if streamed movies will have Atmos soundtracks if available?





FilmMixer said:


> That's the plan.
> 
> Why it hasn't happened yet I don't know.


So apparently they can stream Atmos but it's a question if they will.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> So apparently they can stream Atmos but it's a question if they will.


The Atmos demos are streaming today on Vudu IIRC.


----------



## Csbooth

FilmMixer said:


> The Atmos demos are streaming today on Vudu IIRC.


Correct, my 4yo daughter likes conducter best, and then amaze. She likes to go over to each speaker to listen lol.


----------



## Frank714

pasender91 said:


> For a change, i can do a CR of Gravity in Atmos, for those that are not aware yet.
> 
> The concise version is *WAOUW*
> 
> Ok, if you want to know a bit more about it:
> - The mix is using all speakers to the max, including surrounds and heights.
> - The SW is also heavily used, the heart beats of Sandra are so loud they are pushing my SW to its limits
> - The dynamic range of sound is amazing, between silence, then very quiet messages , and then BOUM, extreme level of mayhem from all directions.


Watched it last night with a friend and wholeheartedly concur, this is the best Dolby Atmos I've heard thus far.



pasender91 said:


> Regarding audio hardware, i have in the past suggested to several HT owners and friends that surrounds can be small, i believe this WAS correct, but if Gravity is an exemple of future soundtracks in Atmos and DTS:X, then let me tell you that *surrounds and heights cannot be small speakers any more*.
> In my case, as i also listen to multichannel audio so i have relatively large surrounds, and this is the first movie that really use them fully.
> There was so much sound inside the room that all the vents from the speakers were generating quite a lot of wind, i almost had to hold on to my coffee table


Frankly, already with my rather small overhead and surround speakers I was rather terrified during the opening sequence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the kind of guy who travels to jet fighter airshows and picks the sweet spots near the runway to get a healthy dosis of sound when the afterburners kick in during blast-off.

But that _Gravity_ opening sequence in Dolby Atmos made me feel like the sound was trying to suffocate me while the walls of my home theatre seemed to be closing in on me. I never experienced such a thing, the abrupt ending of this crescendo of sound felt like a relief.

I'm also pretty confident that Dolby Atmos made an additional dosis of adrenaline kick in, I had seen the film before but everything this time felt more "intense".



pasender91 said:


> Two options now that DTS:X announcement is past us:
> 1) Get an "entry-level" 11 channel Atmos AVR (Marantz 7009, Denon 5200, Yamaha 3040), deploy 7.1.4, and enjoy for at least 3 years.
> 2) Get a Denon 7200 and enjoy on top of 1) a guaranteed DTS:X, but count 1000 USD more.
> My recommendation would be to proceed with option 1)


Pardon my pun, but there could be another option concerning Denon & Marantz models from 2014, which I didn't mention in this thread, yet.

On April 10, 2014 ("press Information") D & M Germany did announce that DTS:X will come as a *software upgrade* for the Denon 7200 and the Marantz 8802.

I think we may have obfuscated the discussion ourselves in the past months up to the point of being confident that it will be a firmware upgrade, instead.

_Should the processor architecture of both the 7200 and the 8802 be equal to that of the 2014 models, the inevitable question to D & M should be: Can we please get a DTS:X software upgrade for these models, too?!_

I mean, it was nice to get the Auro 3D software upgrade as an option and at an extra charge. But following this great example, I'd rather like D & M to present us with an option to do a DTS:X software upgrade at a later point in time, if it's technically feasible (I haven't upgraded my Marantz SR 7009 to Auro 3D, yet)

I also feel that D & M would be well advised to provide this information as soon as possible, should they intend to increase their sales numbers of the entry Dolby Atmos AVRs which are currently still available.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Lets hope once all these upgrades are on the 2016 AVR'S, let's hope the price stays friendly. If prices go north of $2,500 for an AVR I'll have to consider if it's even worth it.
> I have a hard time right now justifying spending $1,500 to $2,500 on a receiver.


The history has usually been that new features are added to AVRs without significant cost increases, so hopefully this will continue.


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> The history has usually been that new features are added to AVRs without significant cost increases, so hopefully this will continue.


Possible, and D & M's strategy for this year may be owed to the fact, that they don't want the Denon AVR-X7200W to compete with the Denon AVR-X7200W*A *(i.e. you can get the 7200W now in Germany for € 2.799 and later send it in for the HDCP 2.2 firmware upgrade for € 199 *or *wait for the 7200WA which will have HDCP 2.2 onboard but will cost you € 2.999).

Nevertheless, in both cases, Auro 3D will remain a software upgrade you probably still have to pay for. It's totally unclear at this moment whether you could have all three in one unit (i.e. Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D).

Press information translation (Denon only):

_"Denon already has the next evolution of its flagship planned; a software update for the new DTS:X surround sound format, which shall become available this year for the AVR-X7200W and the AVR-X7200WA. Details will be announced at a later time. Currently the revolutionary 3D sound formats Dolby Atmos (factory) and Auro 3D (via update) are being supported and enable an impressive three-dimensional sound experience."_


----------



## Brian Fineberg

got a response from Dolby asking for the new demo disc..

they stated its for retail demos only and not for the general public to purchase.

boooo


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> got a response from Dolby asking for the new demo disc..
> 
> they stated its for retail demos only and not for the general public to purchase.
> 
> boooo


I suspected they'd say that. Pity. Maybe they could make a downloadable demo disk for enthusiasts? I’d have thought the more people who have demo material to show off to their friends and family, the more Atmos would gain market share. People are finding the reluctance difficult to understand. I'm not talking about movie clips, which have tons of rights issued attached, but more the Dolby trailers and the latest 'sound only' clips, which really show what Atmos is capable of.


----------



## ThePrisoner

Shouldn't be long before Horizon trailer is up on Demo-World. Really looking forward to hearing that.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I suspected they'd say that. Pity. Maybe they could make a downloadable demo disk for enthusiasts? I’d have thought the more people who have demo material to show off to their friends and family, the more Atmos would gain market share. People are finding the reluctance difficult to understand. I'm not talking about movie clips, which have tons of rights issued attached, but more the Dolby trailers and the latest 'sound only' clips, which really show what Atmos is capable of.


Probably decided by some 22 year old PhD Marketing Genius (or bean counter) who has an IQ of 184 but not "smart" enough to put on his/her pants correctly. "They" were all over the place when I worked in very large corporations.


----------



## zebidou81

Dts x has still not been ruled out from Marantz for the sr7009, i have just come off the phone to the same technical advisor in Belfast that i had spoken to earlier and he has stated that there will be a press release within the next couple of days with regards to the sr7009, he has said that a firmware update is not ruled out for the Sr7009 as i was wanting to know why he stated earlier that it more or less was, now users of this forum who know more than me with regards to avr upgrades and how the AVR companys work will probably know the possibility is slim, but the above response is what i was just told when i asked the question a few minutes ago, The number for Marantz is 02890279830 here in the uk and it is the same guy in the technical department if some1 else would like to ask the same question ?


----------



## smurraybhm

noah katz said:


> I'm considering getting Apple TV for HBO etc.
> 
> Anyone know if streamed movies will be Atmos versions if available?


I know a lot of folks are jumping on Apple's devices for HBO Go, etc. There is a new Apple TV device coming in a few months. I would hold off buying one, the new version will have an upgraded processor, which is likely to be important as more content and audio codes move into the streaming world.


----------



## Frank714

zebidou81 said:


> The number for Marantz is 02890279830 here in the uk and it is the same guy in the technical department if some1 else would like to ask the same question ?


General Allenby's "big push to Damascus" briefing from _Lawrence of Arabia_ came to my mind: _Pound them, Harry, pound them! _


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> I suspected they'd say that. Pity. Maybe they could make a downloadable demo disk for enthusiasts? I’d have thought the more people who have demo material to show off to their friends and family, the more Atmos would gain market share. People are finding the reluctance difficult to understand. I'm not talking about movie clips, which have tons of rights issued attached, but more the Dolby trailers and the latest 'sound only' clips, which really show what Atmos is capable of.


I will make the offer to anyone having the disk.
I can rip it to m2ts and make copies and then return the disk(s).
And, I will make copies for anyone who wants one.

I believe that Dolby is flat out stupid for not handing these things out like candy.

FWIW...


----------



## ThePrisoner

quick question, I going to experiment with raising the level of my overheads. Just to clarify, one click is 0.5db (half) correct? To raise 1db higher it translates to 2 clicks. Sorry for dumb question.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ThePrisoner said:


> quick question, I going to experiment with raising the level of my overheads. Just to clarify, one click is 0.5db (half) correct? To raise 1db higher it translates to 2 clicks. Sorry for dumb question.


Depends on the processor and if yours does .5dB increments. 

If you're going to raise the volume of them (make them more noticable?) try 2-3dB. You probably won't ever hear a .5dB difference and even 1dB will be pretty minor.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> I will make the offer to anyone having the disk.
> I can rip it to m2ts and make copies and then return the disk(s).
> And, I will make copies for anyone who wants one.
> 
> I believe that Dolby is flat out stupid for not handing these things out like candy.
> 
> FWIW...


Be aware that copying this material without permission is a criminal offence.


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Dts x has still not been ruled out from Marantz for the sr7009, i have just come off the phone to the same technical advisor in Belfast that i had spoken to earlier and he has stated that there will be a press release within the next couple of days with regards to the sr7009, he has said that a firmware update is not ruled out for the Sr7009 as i was wanting to know why he stated earlier that it more or less was, now users of this forum who know more than me with regards to avr upgrades and how the AVR companys work will probably know the possibility is slim, but the above response is what i was just told when i asked the question a few minutes ago, The number for Marantz is 02890279830 here in the uk and it is the same guy in the technical department if some1 else would like to ask the same question ?


Counterpoint:


----------



## ThePrisoner

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on the processor and if yours does .5dB increments.
> 
> If you're going to raise the volume of them (make them more noticable?) try 2-3dB. You probably won't ever hear a .5dB difference and even 1dB will be pretty minor.


Thanks! It does .5db increments, Denon X4100. Will try 2-3db.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Be aware that copying this material without permission is a criminal offence.


Point taken...
So is downloading said material, so I guess all off those on the forum who downloaded the m2ts or other format files from demo world or other sites are, likewise, criminals.
As I recall, that will include a number of members of this forum.

I am not making light of it. I just think that some people are either being realistic or being somewhat hypocritical, whichever you choose.

And, no, I am not referring to you personally...

I just find it annoying for Dolby to take the approach that they have. Sure drives the eBay market for those disks...


----------



## jrref

kbarnes701 said:


> Counterpoint:


Yep right now that's all they can say because there has been no other announcements. Let's wait a couple of days and see what the next announcement is from them, that is if they make another announcement. You never know what they will do. Stepping back from this all, it seems so odd that only the 8802 would get the upgrade and No other unit, unless that's the only unit that gets the upgrade for free. The 8802 is their flagship and really expensive. You can buy two 7009's for the cost of one 8802 and you don't have the amps! Just seems odd to me unless the existing 2014 units just don't have the capability to run DTS:X. Hopefully we will get something from D+M. I was also thinking that D+M can differentiate their 2014 from the 2015 lineup by offering DTS:X for a cost like Auro-3D for the 2014 AVRs and having it standard in the 2015 units. That would make good business sense for D+M and keep their existing customer base happy.


----------



## brahman12

I jumped over to Yamaha from Onkyo because I heard/read about their customer care and support, along with build quality, was supposed to be top notch. I definitely dig the sound and capabilities of my Yammy but it seems like D&M is the only brand that is offering a viable option or even entertaining a possibility for DTS:X upgrades for models on the market and purchased in 2014 to now. I will definitely purchase a D&M product on my next go around since purchasing the Yamaha flagship AVR seems to not matter a flying frak to Yamaha at all.


----------



## smurraybhm

jrref said:


> Yep right now that's all they can say because there has been no other announcements. Let's wait a couple of days and see what the next announcement is from them, that is if they make another announcement. You never know what they will do. Stepping back from this all, it seems so odd that only the 8802 would get the upgrade and No other unit, unless that's the only unit that gets the upgrade for free. The 8802 is their flagship and really expensive. You can buy two 7009's for the cost of one 8802 and you don't have the amps! Just seems odd to me unless the existing 2014 units just don't have the capability to run DTS:X. Hopefully we will get something from D+M. I was also thinking that D+M can differentiate their 2014 from the 2015 lineup by offering DTS:X for a cost like Auro-3D for the 2014 AVRs and having it standard in the 2015 units. That would make good business sense for D+M and keep their existing customer base happy.


Without the DTS:X upgrade discussion what would be we talking about? 

It makes perfect sense why we aren't getting it and I've got skin in this game as one who entered it early. The 8802 and 7200 are the flagship models for D&M and they are updated every other year as things stand now. Given that I can see why they would do this for those that paid a substantial premium (as you noted above) for those units vs. the 7702 or 5200. Those of us who bought the"annual" units knew exactly what we were getting and for some of us the Auro upgrade was a bonus (depends on when you bought) and if you consider Auro a bonus at $200 

Why would anyone expect D&M to upgrade a soon to be replaced unit with a feature that wasn't around or spec'd at the time it was manufactured? Seriously guys, I can dream but that isn't required to keep me happy or satisfied - see unit specifications at the time of your purchase if confused. Would I like an upgrade to DTS:X - hell yes. Can I understand why I'm not getting it? Definitely. Am I pissed at D&M for not giving it to me? Hell no, they delivered what they promised (and more - see Auro), plus the 5200 is a great unit, well reviewed and with secret Audyssey sauce - sorry I couldn't resist, but regardless of the camp, the measurements are better and one can only wonder.

D&M has to give consumers a reason to buy a new model for 2015/16 - there are 2 we know of - DTS:X and HDMI 2.2. I can live without both because DSU is that good and I'm in no hurry for 4k or "Dolby Vision" until that all that gets worked out in the next 2 or 3 years - by then it will be 8k (see LG/Apple). Its hard to agree with Keith on this one


----------



## Scott Simonian

brahman12 said:


> I jumped over to Yamaha from Onkyo because I heard/read about their customer care and support, along with build quality, was supposed to be top notch. I definitely dig the sound and capabilities of my Yammy but it seems like D&M is the only brand that is offering a viable option or even entertaining a possibility for DTS:X upgrades for models on the market and purchased in 2014 to now. I will definitely purchase a D&M product on my next go around since purchasing the Yamaha flagship AVR seems to not matter a flying frak to Yamaha at all.


Wait, what?

So you bought a Yamaha because "heard/read about their customer care and support, along with build quality ... supposed to be top notch" but now you're all like "f**k that, I'm getting a Denon next" because Yamaha doesn't have an upgrade to DTS:X for your current hardware?

*sigh* 

That like... makes tons of sense, bro. Good luck with your next Denon. Don't forget to ask all the 5200 owners how they feel.


----------



## bargervais

jrref said:


> Yep right now that's all they can say because there has been no other announcements. Let's wait a couple of days and see what the next announcement is from them, that is if they make another announcement. You never know what they will do. Stepping back from this all, it seems so odd that only the 8802 would get the upgrade and No other unit, unless that's the only unit that gets the upgrade for free. The 8802 is their flagship and really expensive. You can buy two 7009's for the cost of one 8802 and you don't have the amps! Just seems odd to me unless the existing 2014 units just don't have the capability to run DTS:X. Hopefully we will get something from D+M. I was also thinking that D+M can differentiate their 2014 from the 2015 lineup by offering DTS:X for a cost like Auro-3D for the 2014 AVRs and having it standard in the 2015 units. That would make good business sense for D+M and keep their existing customer base happy.


I'm a little tired, it seems we are always waiting for another announcement.  just like every year announcements of new stuff will come on next years receivers...
but really what will DTS:X deliver that Atmos does not, But having the ability to play a Blu-Ray with DTS:X.....My thinking is it's going to be the same immersion. 
I'm going to sit back and enjoy what I have Atmos / DSU, i won't even consider upgrading to include DTS:X till content is more abundant.


----------



## smurraybhm

brahman12 said:


> I jumped over to Yamaha from Onkyo because I heard/read about their customer care and support, along with build quality, was supposed to be top notch. I definitely dig the sound and capabilities of my Yammy but it seems like D&M is the only brand that is offering a viable option or even entertaining a possibility for DTS:X upgrades for models on the market and purchased in 2014 to now. I will definitely purchase a D&M product on my next go around since purchasing the Yamaha flagship AVR seems to not matter a flying frak to Yamaha at all.


Come on Brahman - this thread is going downhill fast even though I'm glad you will be doing business with D&M in the future, call JD for quote 

Are there a bunch of millennials on this thread today? Can you say entitlement? Before any millennials get upset with my post - the marketing/survey data backs up that statement not that it applies to every millennial or those frequenting AVS. 

No need to trash Yamaha for delivering a very good receiver and giving you exactly what they promised to give you - see product specifications. Sorry guys/gals - don't understand the trashing of manufacturers for not giving us an upgrade that was never part of the promise. Plus we all assume its possible and no big deal. The TV I bought was 1080P, I want 4k since it was on the new unit, otherwise my business is going elsewhere


----------



## brahman12

I remember a time when companies and manufacturers really cared about customer service and customer satisfaction. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" lol. Seems like companies have adopted a consumer hostile modus operandi over the last decade or so, and instead of trying hard to keep customers, they now seem to focus more on duping new customers into purchasing their products/services. It is like they're saying " take it or leave it buddy cuz if you don't buy our stuff then some other schlepp will " LOL


----------



## Scott Simonian

You know this is exactly how the industry has always worked, right? 

You'd think that coming out with a new product every year was a new thing.

Again... good luck with Denon. I'm sure they will be happy to give you a brand new product/upgrade every year.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brahman12 said:


> I remember a time when companies and manufacturers really cared about customer service and customer satisfaction. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" lol. *Seems like companies have adopted a consumer hostile modus operandi over the last decade or so, and instead of trying hard to keep customers, they now seem to focus more on duping new customers into purchasing their products/services. It is like they're saying " take it or leave it buddy cuz if you don't buy our stuff then some other schlepp will "* LOL


Very, very true. You hit on a very salient point. 

However, some companies were already cramming Dolby Atmos as it was into a very "tight" space, so to speak, last year. Some are consciously choosing to not provide a DTS:X upgrade (even if they probably can... like D&M with upgrades only to their top models, but not two of the lower models with the same or similar chip architecture) and others barely had room for Atmos and so there's no room in the inn for DTS:X.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> The Atmos demos are streaming today on Vudu IIRC.


I was asking in particular about Apple TV/HBO Now, or does all streaming use the same technology?



smurraybhm said:


> There is a new Apple TV device coming in a few months. I would hold off buying one, the new version will have an upgraded processor, which is likely to be important as more content and audio codes move into the streaming world.


Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## smurraybhm

brahman12 said:


> I remember a time when companies and manufacturers really cared about customer service and customer satisfaction. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" lol. Seems like companies have adopted a consumer hostile modus operandi over the last decade or so, and instead of trying hard to keep customers, they now seem to focus more on duping new customers into purchasing their products/services. It is like they're saying " take it or leave it buddy cuz if you don't buy our stuff then some other schlepp will " LOL


We had a discussion at work Friday about "firing customers." You are a perfect example of when that needs to happen. Technology is changing quickly, I can only imagine what the next few years will bring us and I don't expect anyone I bought a product from this year to "give" me something that wasn't part of the deal next year when upgrades/enhancements are on the new model of whatever. Good luck buying anything going forward, you're going to be upset for a while. Buy the way, as an old guy, this isn't something new that just happen as your post implies, purchasing a computer is a great example, simple, but relevant. 

There are still plenty of companies that care about their customers too, sometimes its the customer that is the difficult one


----------



## brahman12

Scott... I ain't trashing Yamaha brother... just making a point out loud that D&M are the only ones at least willing to make attempts to add the option for their flagship AVR... Which is classy in my book and a good reason to look into their stuff my next go around. I stated the Yammy sounds great and I ain't that hurt the situation since I am not jumping into another head unit for a good while... But again I like the fact that Dennon is offering something to flagship owners other than sorry see ya next year.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh, I'm sure you do like the Yamaha.  Never said you were bashing it but your argument for not sticking with and moving to Denon makes no sense as Denon is "shafting" their customers too. No different. All the companies are at the mercy of their hardware capabilities and nearly all of them are not capable of a simple drop in upgrade to DTS:X. This is not a new trend. This is how the industry has always worked. New year brings new gear with new capabilities. Current and previous owners will always have to buy something new if they want the 'latest and greatest'.


----------



## brahman12

Smurrybhm...you just proved my point IMHO. Lol  I have the right as a consumer to look at all angles and weigh my options for future purchases and D&M choice to at least lend an ear and do a lil sumptin sumptin for flagship owners was a nice UNEXPECTED touch. Not that I am saying I am supposed to get such treatment every time I make a purchase from every company but such gestures speak volumes in today's "well ya should have known better" society.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just want to add.... you know that the 7200 can be upgraded to DTS:X...

Well....how does one know if it will be a good/proper upgrade? It could have issues or come with limitations based on old hardware. Yep. That kind of sucks too but hey.... means you don't have to get a new AVR, right? Well, maybe you do cuz that limitation (whatever it may be) might just push your buttons. Holy crap people! What if you can get DTS:X as a free upgrade but can't activate XT32 while decoding DTS:X? Hell on Earth, amiright?

We don't know but speculation is totally okay in this thread.


----------



## brahman12

Scott... I Dig what you and smurrybrhm are saying on one side but as a consumer I like that Dennon is gonna hook up flagship AVR owners...which I am a flagship Yamaha owner. Thus, they have very much earned my future consideration and possibly my future money. That''s all I am saying bruddahs and sistas LOL


----------



## smurraybhm

brahman12 said:


> Scott... I Dig what you and smurrybrhm are saying on one side but as a consumer I like that Dennon is gonna hook up flagship AVR owners...which I am a flagship Yamaha owner. Thus, they have very much earned my future consideration and possibly my future money. That''s all I am saying bruddahs and sistas LOL


I hate to tell you but the 3040 isn't the model to compare to the 7200, that would be Denon's 5200, the one that isn't getting an update (and I want more than ketchup if I have to eat a hat). Yamaha (Scott please correct me if wrong) hasn't made a "flagship" receiver/pre since the RX-Z1/CX-A5000. Those are the two, especially the later that would compare to Denon's flagship pre - 8802. The Z has not been updated in a while, thus the hesitation to compare it to a newer model.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Point taken...
> So is downloading said material, so I guess all off those on the forum who downloaded the m2ts or other format files from demo world or other sites are, likewise, criminals.
> As I recall, that will include a number of members of this forum.
> 
> I am not making light of it. I just think that some people are either being realistic or being somewhat hypocritical, whichever you choose.
> 
> And, no, I am not referring to you personally...
> 
> I just find it annoying for Dolby to take the approach that they have. Sure drives the eBay market for those disks...


My point was that AVS might take a dim view of members promoting illegal activities - I wouldn't want to see you facing a ban.


----------



## kbarnes701

jrref said:


> Yep right now that's all they can say because there has been no other announcements.


What other announcements would negate one saying categorically that the 7009 will not get a DTS:X upgrade? They were asked if the 7009 was going to get DTS:X. The answer was "no". Not "maybe" or "we can't say", but "no".


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> My point was that AVS might take a dim view of members promoting illegal activities - I wouldn't want to see you facing a ban.


Understood, and I do appreciate it...seriously.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> I jumped over to Yamaha from Onkyo because I heard/read about their customer care and support, along with build quality, was supposed to be top notch. I definitely dig the sound and capabilities of my Yammy but it seems like D&M is the only brand that is offering a viable option or even entertaining a possibility for DTS:X upgrades for models on the market and purchased in 2014 to now. I will definitely purchase a D&M product on my next go around since purchasing the Yamaha flagship AVR seems to not matter a flying frak to Yamaha at all.


When you bought the Yamaha, did Yamaha promise you an upgrade to DTS:X?


----------



## Scott Simonian

smurraybhm said:


> I hate to tell you but the 3040 isn't the model to compare to the 7200, that would be Denon's 5200, the one that isn't getting an update (and I want more than ketchup if I have to eat a hat). Yamaha (Scott please correct me if wrong) hasn't made a "flagship" receiver/pre since the RX-Z1/CX-A5000. Those are the two, especially the later that would compare to Denon's flagship pre - 8802. The Z has not been updated in a while, thus the hesitation to compare it to a newer model.


That's correct. There hasn't been a *Z* model in some time. The Z-11, iirc was the last Z. The last "flagship" type was their CX-A5000 that came out a couple of years ago. I was told that they were going to release another like it pretty soon. Maybe this summer, probably next summer.

I wouldn't compare the 3040 to the 7200 either but ... it is.


----------



## brahman12

It is their flagship receiver...the CX is Yamaha 's pre/pro....granted the dennon 7200 is a grand more...then Yamaha could perhaps offer a paid upgrade.....I respect that option too


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's the top of the range of the AVENTAGE line but I wouldn't necessarily call it their "flagship". 

Yamaha every few years produces their flagship type product. The last one was their Z-11 but the CXA5000 has been considered a successor to that even being a pre-pro.


----------



## chi_guy50

brahman12 said:


> I remember a time when companies and manufacturers really cared about customer service and customer satisfaction. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" lol. Seems like companies have adopted a consumer hostile modus operandi over the last decade or so, and instead of trying hard to keep customers, they now seem to focus more on duping new customers into purchasing their products/services. It is like they're saying " take it or leave it buddy cuz if you don't buy our stuff then *some other schlepp will* " LOL


First and foremost, the Yiddish police have asked me to point out to you that the word you're looking for is schlub, not schlepp. Schlepp is a verb which means "to drag along;" as a noun it means "a tedious journey." Don't be a schlub who murders the Mamaloshen or I'll have to schlepp you out to the woodshed!

Secondly, as Scott just pointed out, this is still all just speculation. Until D&M announces their upgrade policy (and an email from an uninformed third-party CSR does not qualify as such) there is nothing to complain (or cheer) about. And even then, with no significant DTS:X content likely until 2016, what's the big deal? I'm as anxious as anyone (and probably more anxious than most) to have DTS:X capability alongside Atmos, but I'm also aware that it's going to take a while before that capability will translate into a meaningful audio experience.

There will be plenty of time for gnashing of teeth and rending of garments after the fact. Let's chillax for now and watch a movie in DSU.


----------



## roxiedog13

smurraybhm said:


> I hate to tell you but the 3040 isn't the model to compare to the 7200, that would be Denon's 5200, the one that isn't getting an update (and I want more than ketchup if I have to eat a hat). Yamaha (Scott please correct me if wrong) hasn't made a "flagship" receiver/pre since the RX-Z1/CX-A5000. Those are the two, especially the later that would compare to Denon's flagship pre - 8802. The Z has not been updated in a while, thus the hesitation to compare it to a newer model.


Is it official the X5200 isn't getting any upgrade? Well then, guess I will have to keep enjoying it without the upgrades that mean diddlisquat anyway. I bought my X5200 without any expectations for an upgrade, when it was discussed I thought, that might be nice if it happened. Now, if 4K movies were available and I needed a 4K bluray player that would be a different story.

I'm just happy I purchased the X5200 fort half the price of the X7200 , it does everything just as well and I'm not missing out . When Denon has a unit worthy of double the price with options I can use, I'll certainly check it out . I'll also be checking out the competition too, all are equally as good in my opinion.


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> First and foremost, the Yiddish police have asked me to point out to you that the word you're looking for is schlub, not schlepp. Schlepp is a verb which means "to drag along;" as a noun it means "a tedious journey." Don't be a schlub who murders the Mamaloshen or I'll have to schlepp you out to the woodshed!



Urban dictionary: 

schlepp

2.n/common laborer


----------



## smurraybhm

zeus33 said:


> Urban dictionary:
> 
> schlepp
> 
> 2.n/common laborer


Well I am going to schlepp downstairs tonight and enjoy my Denon 5200 while I watch Netflix's new series Daredevil. Game of Thrones sounded great last night and I've enjoyed the first 6 episodes of Daredevil. Atmos or some other audio format I'm happy for now with my 5200 upgrade or not. The only temptation for me isn't DTS:X, but a miniDSP DDRC-88A. Fortunately the investment required - amp(s), a windows laptop and the cost of the DDRC-88A have been keeping the temptation to a minimum. 

Keith please keep the Dirac gushing to minimum - I have car tags to renew next month and Wednesday is tax day here in the US. Steve


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I personally don't see the difference between 1080p and 4k being as great as the difference going from SD to 1080p. Here, with my screen size and viewing distance, the increase in resolution will only have a marginal positive impact. The real benefit for me will be from the wider color gamut/greater bit depth, once we have real 4LK content of course and I see that more as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Plus, upscaled 1080p>4K looks better than upscaled SD>1080p. So I won't be upgrading (m)any of my current collection of Bluray discs.


Completely agree as my set is 64" so I realize far too small for 4k benefit. My question relates more towards legacy films... for instance... would Kubrick's films be remastered in wider color gamut/ HDR or would that be impeding upon the original intent of the artist? (I'm not sure how long P3 color space has been utilized for so perhaps it might not be an issue?) I do imagine we'll be seeing older films remastered in P3 with HDR if P3 is the color space used for 4k sets next year. 



brahman12 said:


> It is a bit messed up that most of us early adopters won't be able to have both Atmos and DTS:X unless we are willing to pony up some more cash for another head unit....but again, Atmos and DSU are sexy enough to keep me home for a good while, lol. Tell ya something though....if DTS whips Dolby's butt again....I will never ever EVER be a first adopter again!!! As for the 4K question....I would not upgrade from 1080p bluray for a good long time. IMO, we currently are at a very high quality sweet spot with bluray and front projection/tv panel performance. The jump up isn't gonna be that impressive nor meaningful enough for my visual tastes. Hold on to your hard earned cash for those 5 years like you estimated, and enjoy it some other way.


I will  



roxiedog13 said:


> I've become a bluray snob ,like yourself I cannot watch a DVD quality movie on my big screen anymore. As older movies are remastered and available on bluray I have been picking them
> up. Watching Jaws the other night, the remastered version ,is like seeing the movie all over again, I am seeing much more than I did originally at the theater to be honest. Actually, in some movies like The Fifth Element and Star Wars, I am seeing too much detail,  more than the director would ever have intended.


I noticed the same thing with the original Star Wars on bluray, when I got my 64" display the first disc I went for was return of the Jedi. Funny thing is, there were things I'd never seen before as a child (watching countless times on VHS) so in a way the extra resolution helped but at the same time I saw a lot of disappearing ships @ the start of the space battle above Endor (the tie fighter swarm was glitchy!). Lots of space ship outlines as well... and the matte backgrounds were all the sudden much more noticeable... but I don't mind, I think it's sort of cool.



FilmMixer said:


> Lastly, Dolby still has an almost monopolistic market share for OTT... and I think we can all see the end of physical media looming on the horizon..


Since you work at the industry I'd imagine there is a good reason to think you are correct... though if we want the same or better quality than what bluray offers then we all better get some google fiber soon! (Or else we'll end up getting lower quality delivery right? Maybe our standards will devolve for a while) Perhaps my somewhat modest bluray collection will have some extra shelf life. 

I wouldn't be opposed to all media going digital so long as we could keep the files we buy as opposed to purchasing streaming content from providers that might disappear at some point.


----------



## brahman12

Chi_Guy I will defer to you in the Yiddish department but as Zeus indicated via his urban dictionary post... I Have heard the term " poor schlepp or dumb schlepp " used here in Brooklyn . But I agree, watching a movie is more fun than arguing over semantics and other such things.... But at least we got the posts jumping for a bit and the juices flowing lol. Salom and Amor to us all


----------



## Aras_Volodka

One major correction I need to make... this one might make you guys roll your eyes a bit. After spending some time with my 44DA speakers I wrote about being not as impressed as I'd hoped after testing out mockingjay... the only film I saw both in Atmos theater & at home. 

Well I re-wired some of my speakers today & noticed I hadn't wired them properly to my preamp... so I fixed that. My rear heights were both set up on 1 channel in the preamp so were being sent the same signal. Well I retested the film after re-wiring & wow! I really do dig the sound, it was far more effective... no regrets about the 44DA at all now. My cielings are only 8' high so it's probably better off this way anyhow.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> One major correction I need to make... this one might make you guys roll your eyes a bit. After spending some time with my 44DA speakers I wrote about being not as impressed as I'd hoped after testing out mockingjay... the only film I saw both in Atmos theater & at home.
> 
> Well I re-wired some of my speakers today & noticed I hadn't wired them properly to my preamp... so I fixed that. My rear heights were both set up on 1 channel in the preamp so were being sent the same signal. Well I retested the film after re-wiring & wow! I really do dig the sound, it was far more effective... no regrets about the 44DA at all now. My cielings are only 8' high so it's probably better off this way anyhow.


Yep. Hooking up your speakers correctly will make a dramatic improvement to your enjoyability. 

Good to hear, Aras.


----------



## brahman12

Cool Aras.... I watched Mockingjay in Atmos at the cinema and then once again home in Atmos and loved it both times. I think it sounds great on bluray Atmos in a very subtle and refined way. Lots of small nuances to the mix and when the action scenes kick in... They kick in sexy and such lol. Glad to hear ur getting better results after ur little " tweak " lol.


----------



## lujan

dvdwilly3 said:


> I will make the offer to anyone having the disk.
> I can rip it to m2ts and make copies and then return the disk(s).
> And, I will make copies for anyone who wants one.
> 
> I believe that Dolby is flat out stupid for not handing these things out like candy.
> 
> FWIW...


I personally don't need the Demo disk but there is another called the Atmos Reference Disk that I'm unable to find anywhere. If someone can provide a download for that I would appreciate it?


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> Is it official the X5200 isn't getting any upgrade?


No, it is not. 

Once again, that is the expected news (regarding DTS:X), but it is not official (or final) until D&M releases an announcement to that effect.

Please ungnash your teeth until further notice.


----------



## brahman12

Loving those Biblical references Chi_Guy


----------



## RapalloAV

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on the processor and if yours does .5dB increments.
> 
> If you're going to raise the volume of them (make them more noticable?) try 2-3dB. You probably won't ever hear a .5dB difference and even 1dB will be pretty minor.


I raised all mine last night 2db and didn't like it! I found it just dominated the room too much. I lowered to +1db and still thought it took over the room. When I went back to the levels XT32 set it too I found everything in the room is seamless, blends beautifully with the fronts, trust Audyssey.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Some people rather be told what is best for them.


----------



## chi_guy50

brahman12 said:


> Loving those Biblical references Chi_Guy


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Counterpoint:


The difference here seems to be "verbal" vs "written".
No one wants to commit in "writing" if not 100% sure.. so


----------



## RAllenChristenson

RapalloAV said:


> I raised all mine last night 2db and didn't like it! I found it just dominated the room too much. I lowered to +1db and still thought it took over the room. When I went back to the levels XT32 set it too I found everything in the room is seamless, blends beautifully with the fronts, trust Audyssey.


I agree. Using a scene from Expendables 3 as a test file (early on in the movie where 2 guys were talking in a plane and the roar of the engine was overhead) I raised my overheads +1db. Just that small amount made the engine noise totally annoying and conflicted with the dialog. Back to original volume and everything was again perfect!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brahman12 said:


> Scott... I Dig what you and smurrybrhm are saying on one side but as a consumer I like that Dennon is gonna hook up flagship AVR owners...which I am a flagship Yamaha owner. Thus, they have very much earned my future consideration and possibly my future money. That''s all I am saying bruddahs and sistas LOL


The only other possibility is that Yamaha has some press announcement forthcoming that states what products can and cannot be updated to DTS:X. They could say: "Sorry, folks! You have to buy a 2015 model," or they could say their flagship will get a firmware upgrade (free or for a fee). Maybe hold off before you throw the Yammie in the trash.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The 2014 models are not going to be upgradable with DTS:X.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> Spoiler


I prefer the Mel Brooks version myself.


----------



## Kevilz

Anyone have Ideas what is the best blu ray movie to test out the Dolby Atmos feature. Thx


----------



## Scott Simonian

Gravity.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kevilz said:


> Anyone have Ideas what is the best blu ray movie to test out the Dolby Atmos feature. Thx


To expand upon Scott's reply, the _Gravity _Diamond Luxe Edition specifically.


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> One major correction I need to make... this one might make you guys roll your eyes a bit. After spending some time with my 44DA speakers I wrote about being not as impressed as I'd hoped after testing out mockingjay... the only film I saw both in Atmos theater & at home.
> 
> Well I re-wired some of my speakers today & noticed I hadn't wired them properly to my preamp... so I fixed that. My rear heights were both set up on 1 channel in the preamp so were being sent the same signal. Well I retested the film after re-wiring & wow! I really do dig the sound, it was far more effective... no regrets about the 44DA at all now. My cielings are only 8' high so it's probably better off this way anyhow.



I messed up a height speaker as well and didn't pick it up until the second calibration with Audyssey . Not sure how I missed it first time around but missed it I did. Indeed , a big improvement once the fix was done.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> To expand upon Scott's reply, the _Gravity _Diamond Luxe Edition specifically.


Yes. Definitely this version.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Definitely this version.


Well, in fairness, there_ are_ two versions of _Gravity_ on Blu-ray and some people are not "Atmos-Aware." A sickness, I know, but the disease_ is _out there among the masses.


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> No, it is not.
> 
> Once again, that is the expected news (regarding DTS:X), but it is not official (or final) until D&M releases an announcement to that effect.
> 
> Please ungnash your teeth until further notice.



Not disappointed really, will save the teeth grinding for something else .


----------



## Kevilz

Thx for the suggestion. I will get myself a copy.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kevilz said:


> Thx for the suggestion. I will get myself a copy.


You may only be able to find it online. Hopefully, yours doesn't come scuffed up and the disc itself is flawless. The packaging, while pretty, has its problems. I may just wait for the Atmos version in a regular case.


----------



## NorthSky

Kevilz said:


> Anyone have Ideas what is the best blu ray movie to test out the Dolby Atmos feature. Thx





Scott Simonian said:


> *Gravity*.


Very most likely what he *^* just said. ...And it would be nice to hear more about from the Dolby Atmos AV receiver's owners themselves. 
And Ralph here has a very nice review too.
I think he gave a 100 score for the Dolby Atmos audio. https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## ThePrisoner

Just a head's up, I preordered Metallica Through The Never from Amazon Germany, includes Dolby Atmos along with 2D & 3D versions. Release date is 4/21. The total with shipping came to $23. I currently own the Best Buy 3D version but looking forward to watching this in Atmos. I believe it may be Region B only, I do have a region free mod for my Oppo.


----------



## NorthSky

Right on!


----------



## roodof

is it true you can't play 3d movies with dolby atmos soundtrack? WTF!!!!


----------



## Bubba3

Kevilz said:


> Anyone have Ideas what is the best blu ray movie to test out the Dolby Atmos feature. Thx


I enjoyed Gravity the Mose on the releases to date.


----------



## batpig

roodof said:


> is it true you can't play 3d movies with dolby atmos soundtrack? WTF!!!!


No it's not true.


----------



## aaranddeeman

roodof said:


> is it true you can't play 3d movies with dolby atmos soundtrack? WTF!!!!


With PS3? yes. This is correct.


----------



## petetherock

RapalloAV said:


> I raised all mine last night 2db and didn't like it! I found it just dominated the room too much. I lowered to +1db and still thought it took over the room. When I went back to the levels XT32 set it too I found everything in the room is seamless, blends beautifully with the fronts, trust Audyssey.


IMO, it will also depend on how far the speakers are from the mike, and what kind of ceiling an owner has..

My friend raised his by +4db, and I suspect that it may be a result of his relatively low ceiling of 2.7-2.8m and the proximity of his mike..

Some tweaking to personal preference will be needed, cheers.


----------



## NorthSky

roodof said:


> is it true you can't play 3d movies with dolby atmos soundtrack? WTF!!!!


Only 'Gravity' (the best one). ...But no problemo for the lesser ones; TF4 and TMNT. ...Step Up All In? 

...And no PS3 needing to apply.


----------



## brahman12

*Just Like Options*



Dan Hitchman said:


> The only other possibility is that Yamaha has some press announcement forthcoming that states what products can and cannot be updated to DTS:X. They could say: "Sorry, folks! You have to buy a 2015 model," or they could say their flagship will get a firmware upgrade (free or for a fee). Maybe hold off before you throw the Yammie in the trash.


I would never trash my Yamaha....she may be missing a couple things but she's all I got and I'm sticking with her  .... At least for a while that is. It's a nice little piece but I just thought it was cool of D&M to at least try to offer something to at least some of the early adopters that purchased their stuff." I just want a little love is that so wrong"? Lol, that is an SNL reference for those not in the know . Come on Yamaha...you could at least try to tickle me a little or something...I mean, throw me a frickin' bone here (Austin Powers)...


----------



## brahman12

chi_guy50 said:


>


That is funny and cool at the same time!!!


----------



## aaranddeeman

brahman12 said:


> That is funny and cool at the same time!!!


Even better if replace those tablets, one with 5200 and another 4100...


----------



## brahman12

Dan Hitchman said:


> I prefer the Mel Brooks version myself.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I48hr8HhDv0


That is a very funny movie and I miss this type of comedy in movies today. Not saying it is better than today's stuff....but I miss the craftiness and simplicity of greats like Mel Brooks, Monty Python, and Blake Edwards.


----------



## jrref

aaranddeeman said:


> Even better if replace those tablets, one with 5200 and another 4100...


I saw one the other day of a guy throwing his 5200 in a dumpster after the DTS:X announcement! Pretty funny!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrref said:


> I saw one the other day of a guy throwing his 5200 in a dumpster after the DTS:X announcement! Pretty funny!


Sad watching that kind of waste.


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> Gravity.


Amen to that!!! I just finished watching it. THAT is what 3D audio is all about. I'm not a fan of 3D video but if I were, this would be the movie (with Atmos) to enjoy it on!!

And while I am apparently in the minority, I did raise my 4 height speaker trims just a bit and thought it dramatically INCREASED the overall cohesiveness of the sonic presentation. I have always had my rear surrounds increased about 1.5 to 2db's as well. I leave the side surrounds as set by me+Audyssey. (I use an 7 channel external source to verify all of Audyssey's trim levels. Most are spot on but there are always a few that are a tad off). I need test signal for my ceiling speakers!

While I watched the Masters yesterday, I fiddled around with the trim of the overheads and adding between 0.5 to 2 db did wonders. Much more realistic (gallery and background noise) to my (old) ears with a smidgen of an increase.

Just like the rest of audio, it's all about preference.


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> I do imagine we'll be seeing older films remastered in P3 with HDR if P3 is the color space used for 4k sets next year.


In case you weren't aware there are several displays this year which render DCI-P3 color space, off the top of my head are ones such as the SUHD series from Samsung (9500,9000,[email protected]%). Sony hasn't released information (that I'm aware of) if their sets support true or pseudo HDR/P3 or not, but it is one of them, and lastly Panasonic will have a few that support DCI-P3 as well; one even that I believe conforms to 100% of it.


----------



## Frank714

Scott Simonian said:


> The 2014 models are not going to be upgradable with DTS:X.


Then it comes down to one simple question, I would like to see Denon & Marantz to answer: *WHY?* 

Is it a technical difficulty because of different processors?

Now, I understand that the 2014 models can't be upgraded to HDCP 2.2 because that would require a physical processor upgrade and accept that this is a privilege reserved for the more expensive units. D & M, _please_ elaborate!

*or*

Is it a business decision? ("Yes we could, but we won't")

Again and for the umpteenth time we did have in this thread a qoute from a D & M manager last year which I just have not been able to relocate, but according to which it had been suggested that Auro 3D would become available as a you-have-to-pay-for-it software upgrade at the end of 2014 *and *that a DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) software upgrade could be possibly free.

_Thus, already last late summer, D & M had apparently talked to DTS and learned that DTS:X would probably arrive as a software upgrade. Three days ago this has become "official", but now the 2014 models apparently are no longer candidates to apply for such a software upgrade (even though, I dare to state, the majority of AVS users and owners of a late 2014 D & M AVR or pre-Amp have expressed a willingness that they would pay for such a software upgrade)_

Last year D & M stuck out among its competitors by being the only brand/s offering the option for an Auro 3D update, although except for a few music titles, there remains little program content (and D & M was probably aware that with DTS:X coming, Auro 3D would probably become the odd man out).

In simpler words, by providing this Auro 3D update, D & M has lured certain buyers into a sense of upgrade security and inevitably created certain expectations, they now seem no longer willing to meet.

In D & M's own interest I believe there is still the need for some clarification.

With great reviews and earwitness reports of _Gravity_ in Dolby Atmos, I'm certain that a lot of AVS readers _who simply cannot afford a Denon 7200 or a Marantz 8802_ would instantly go for a 2014 D & M model, *NOW*, provided there was a DTS:X software upgrade option for later on.

D & M, please think about that. Thanx for listening.


----------



## NorthSky

And why not Yamaha as well? ...And Onkyo/Intregra too. ...Add Pioneer to the lot. 

Is Denon/Marantz apart because of Auro-3D? ...They have their pros, and their cons too, like everyone else. 

The best is not the one you choose; it's the one that lasts, is solid all around, is supported and doesn't have too many issues to deal with. 
...And sound sublime/sweet.


----------



## pasender91

Northsky, as Frank very rightly said, D&M is apart of other vendors because they DID propose an Auro 3D upgrade.
If they did it for Auro 3D, then WHY NOT for DTS:X ???????


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> *The best is not the one you choose; it's the one that* lasts, is solid all around,* is supported* and doesn't have too many issues to deal with.
> ...And sound sublime/sweet.


Exactly (*bold* emphasis mine)! Hence my irritation


----------



## HT-Eman

*DTS:X Demo Room*

Here are some pics of the DTS:X demo room in Calabasas . ( I know this is the atmos thread but I just thought i'll show how they have it set up )


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally the latest Atmos demo disk has the new 'Horizon' trailer and it also has three 'sound only' demo tracks which are really useful for evaluating the setup.


Do these 'sound only' tracks happen to allow some kind of directional checks, like static sounds projected at certain intended azimuth and elevation angles?


----------



## Frank714

HT-Eman said:


> Here are some pics of the DTS:X demo room in Calabasas. ( I know this is the atmos thread but I just thought i'll show how they have it set up )


Thanks. Curiously, out of the six overhead speakers being arranged in a circle, four of these are actually more or less in the same position (and with tweeters aimed at the main listening position) as in my own Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Since you work at the industry I'd imagine there is a good reason to think you are correct... though if we want the same or better quality than what bluray offers then we all better get some google fiber soon! (Or else we'll end up getting lower quality delivery right? Maybe our standards will devolve for a while) Perhaps my somewhat modest bluray collection will have some extra shelf life.
> 
> I wouldn't be opposed to all media going digital so long as we could keep the files we buy as opposed to purchasing streaming content from providers that might disappear at some point.


While I think the industry is moving to streaming and downloading for content, I cannot see the physical disc disappearing. There are just too many problems with a stream/download-only model:



Many people in rural areas have very slow Internet speeds which are impractical for streaming
Many people have data caps which makes downloading HD movies impractical
The move to 4K will see even bigger data sizes, making the two points above even more relevant
People like to own content physically and to be able to sell it, swap it, lend it etc.
Content stored on remote servers is at the vagaries of the service provider, who may disappear, change terms etc at any time
Can you imagine settling down for 'movie night' and halfway through the movie your Internet connection goes down?
Many people like to take their content with them when they travel - discs are not dependent on your destination having high speed broadband
Streaming invariably leads to lower quality due to bandwidth demands, especially when Internet speeds are slow
Storing downloaded content on disc is unreliable - discs will always fail
Because of the unreliability of magnetic media, complex backups are required (and they cost money)
Backing up to optical media is a good idea - so you may as well buy the optical media in the first place
Do you want to be at the mercy of distant content providers who may change their terms of access at short notice, or hold you to ransom with price increases for accessing content you thought you owned?

These are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head for not wanting to relinquish physical media. It will be years, maybe never, before all these issues are properly resolved.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> No, it is not.
> 
> Once again, that is the expected news (regarding DTS:X), but it is not official (or final) until D&M releases an announcement to that effect.
> 
> Please ungnash your teeth until further notice.


I posted a written official announcement from D&M....


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Amen to that!!! I just finished watching it. THAT is what 3D audio is all about. I'm not a fan of 3D video but if I were, this would be the movie (with Atmos) to enjoy it on!!
> 
> And while I am apparently in the minority, I did raise my 4 height speaker trims just a bit and thought it dramatically INCREASED the overall cohesiveness of the sonic presentation. I have always had my rear surrounds increased about 1.5 to 2db's as well. I leave the side surrounds as set by me+Audyssey. (I use an 7 channel external source to verify all of Audyssey's trim levels. Most are spot on but there are always a few that are a tad off). I need test signal for my ceiling speakers!
> 
> While I watched the Masters yesterday, I fiddled around with the trim of the overheads and adding between 0.5 to 2 db did wonders. Much more realistic (gallery and background noise) to my (old) ears with a smidgen of an increase.
> 
> Just like the rest of audio, it's all about preference.


I have experimented with this too. Initially I raised the levels by 4dB for all overhead speakers. This is immediately impressive and has plenty of wow factor, but after a while it becomes dominating and too much of the soundstage is 'up there' - especially with DSU. I lowered the trims to a 3dB boost and this was better but still too much. I then tried 2dB boost and believe I could live with it, but will have to have more listening experience to be sure. I suspect I will go back to +1dB or 0dB boost over time. Often these sort of changes are immediately impressive but become 'unnatural' after a while. However, I am in full agreement with you that preference is important and that we may all have different tastes for how much sound we prefer to come from above us, vs around us.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Then it comes down to one simple question, I would like to see Denon & Marantz to answer: *WHY?*
> 
> 
> 
> Again and for the umpteenth time we did have in this thread a qoute from a D & M manager last year which I just have not been able to relocate, but according to which it had been suggested that Auro 3D would become available as a you-have-to-pay-for-it software upgrade at the end of 2014 *and *that a DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) software upgrade could be possibly free.


That announcement was made when it was assumed that DTS would release DTS:X in a timely manner, not delay it for months. In fact they delayed it so long that the 2015 units are in the pipeline already, making it pointless to offer upgrades to older units. If people want the latest gizmos, they need to buy the latest units. It has always been thus and probably always will be.

The exception is the 7200 which has a 2 year life cycle not a 1 year.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Do these 'sound only' tracks happen to allow some kind of directional checks, like static sounds projected at certain intended azimuth and elevation angles?


No - they are normal demos but have no movie content attached (just a sort of moving graphic thing).


----------



## kbarnes701

zeus33 said:


> Urban dictionary:
> 
> schlepp
> 
> 2.n/common laborer


None of my Yiddish speaking friends recognise that definition. Schlub, as Chi-guy says, is common, and schlepp is common to mean "to drag one's a$$ over to someplace". I suggest the urban dictionary is farkakte.


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> That announcement was made when it was assumed that DTS would release DTS:X in a timely manner, not delay it for months.


That announcement was made anticipating an Auro 3D upgrade for D & M models in December 2014 and already commented on DTS:X (then DTS-UHD). We got the official DTS:X announcement on December 30, 2014, stating that DTS already had hardware manufacturer commitment from various companies _and I'm certain they just didn't talk to those during the Christmas Holidays. _



kbarnes701 said:


> In fact they delayed it so long that the 2015 units are in the pipeline already, making it pointless to offer upgrades to older units.


Excuse me, but the Denon AVR-X7200W was already announced in November 2014 to become available in January 2015. If - now - the X7200W is technically capable to receive a DTS:X software upgrade, why should that not apply to the X4100W, the X5200W or the Marantz SR 7009? 

Again, is there a sound technical obstacle or is it a company decision that inevitably then comes at the expense of early adopters? 



kbarnes701 said:


> If people want the latest gizmos, they need to buy the latest units. It has always been thus and probably always will be.


I was under the erroneous impression that for both HDCP 2.2 *and* DTS:X a *firmware upgrade* would be necessary for the Denon X7200W and the Marantz AV8802.
I joked with a friend of mine, a D & M dealer (who had already complained that he is now installing D & M components only to unhook these later to be send in for physical upgrades) that at least he'll be able to hit two flies with one stone.

But now, it turns out that for DTS:X *all* that will be required for both the X7200W *and* the upcoming X7200WA (and the Marantz AV8802) is a *freaking software upgrade*.

_*Now, I believe it's totally appropriate and really not too much asked of D & M whether this software upgrade can also be applied to the 2014 Denon & Marantz Dolby Atmos AVRs. *_

Frankly, I'm at a loss why you are trying to talk everyone out of even _asking_ this question. With the Marantz SR 7009 I purchased an AVR with the inherent option for such software upgrades (as proven by the Auro 3D upgrade possibility!). It's only logical that I'd like to make use of it...YMMV


----------



## roxiedog13

HT-Eman said:


> Here are some pics of the DTS:X demo room in Calabasas . ( I know this is the atmos thread but I just thought i'll show how they have it set up )


Boy, that is one small screen


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> Excuse me, but the Denon AVR-X7200W was already announced in November 2014 to become available in January 2015. If - now - the X7200W is technically capable to receive a DTS:X software upgrade, why should that not apply to the X4100W, the X5200W or the Marantz SR 7009?
> 
> Again, is there a sound technical obstacle or is it a company decision that inevitably then comes at the expense of early adopters?


Like I said, the 7200 is a two year cycle product - the others are one year. The 2015 models will be here at the same time as DTS:X.




Frank714 said:


> But now, it turns out that for DTS:X *all* that will be required for both the X7200W *and* the upcoming X7200WA (and the Marantz AV8802) is a *freaking software upgrade*.
> 
> _*Now, I believe it's totally appropriate and really not too much asked of D & M whether this software upgrade can also be applied to the 2014 Denon & Marantz Dolby Atmos AVRs. *_


Ask away - it's been answered. The answer is "no".



Frank714 said:


> Frankly, I'm at a loss why you are trying to talk everyone out of even _asking_ this question. With the Marantz SR 7009 I purchased an AVR with the inherent option for such software upgrades (as proven by the Auro 3D upgrade possibility!). It's only logical that I'd like to make use of it...YMMV


By all means ask. I posted the reply by D&M for someone who asked. It was "no".


----------



## roxiedog13

Frank714 said:


> That announcement was made anticipating an Auro 3D upgrade for D & M models in December 2014 and already commented on DTS:X (then DTS-UHD). We got the official DTS:X announcement on December 30, 2014, stating that DTS already had hardware manufacturer commitment from various companies _and I'm certain they just didn't talked to those during the Christmas Holidays. _
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but the Denon AVR-X7200W was already announced in November 2014 to become available in January 2015. If - now - the X7200W is technically capable to receive a DTS:X software upgrade, why should that not apply to the X4100W, the X5200W or the Marantz SR 7009?
> 
> Again, is there a sound technical obstacle or is it a company decision that inevitably then comes at the expense of early adopters?
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the erroneous impression that for both HDCP 2.2 *and* DTS:X a *firmware upgrade* would be necessary for the Denon X7200W and the Marantz AV8802.
> I joked with a friend of mine, a D & M dealer (who had already complained that he is now installing D & M components only to unhook these later to be send in for physical upgrades) that at least he'll be able to hit two flies with one stone.
> 
> But now, it turns out that for DTS:X *all* that will be required for both the X7200W *and* the upcoming X7200WA (and the Marantz AV8802) is a *freaking software upgrade*.
> 
> _*Now, I believe it's totally appropriate and really not too much asked of D & M whether this software upgrade can also be applied to the 2014 Denon & Marantz Dolby Atmos AVRs. *_
> 
> Frankly, I'm at a loss why you are trying to talk everyone out of even _asking_ this question. With the Marantz SR 7009 I purchased an AVR with the inherent option for such software upgrades (as proven by the Auro 3D upgrade possibility!). It's only logical that I'd like to make use of it...YMMV


For every 2014 unit that would get the upgrade , a 2015 will not be sold, so what do you think they are going to do?  I bought the X5200 knowing there were hints of an upgrade not even sure where the rumors came from actually. I did know the X7200 was promised an upggrade from Denon if you were willing to send it back for the same as required. If Denon promised, even hinted there could be an upgrade then I could understand some backlash. Without some solid evidence that they did in fact hint ( I'll call that baiting) then better to just drop this now and focus on other issues. If they did in fact hint that an upgrade was possible we should collectively do something about it. Not one SINGLE person will cause a ripple but ALL of us might and that includes all the other Forums too not just us. 

Question is : Did they ( a legitimate Denon employee ) promise or hint the upgrade was possible??


----------



## Wild Blue

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby may be happy to send you one if you ask. I don't see why not really as the disc really helps sell the concept of Atmos, especially as this new disc has 4 clips where they switch between 5.1 and Atmos and back, so you can really hear the impact of Atmos.
> 
> I’d try their main Customer Service email or, if you can locate who they use, their PR company's Atmos team.


That would be awesome, if anyone could get it to work. I E-mailed Dolby about 2 months ago, and didn't even get a reply. I'm a pro in the industry myself, but can't get an Atmos demo disc to show to clients. I think that tells you something about how well Dolby is marketing Atmos to the public. (or not...)



Kevilz said:


> Anyone have Ideas what is the best blu ray movie to test out the Dolby Atmos feature. Thx


Looks like everybody else is saying Gravity, but I say John Wick.




ThePrisoner said:


> Just a head's up, I preordered Metallica Through The Never from Amazon Germany, includes Dolby Atmos along with 2D & 3D versions. Release date is 4/21. The total with shipping came to $23. I currently own the Best Buy 3D version but looking forward to watching this in Atmos. I believe it may be Region B only, I do have a region free mod for my Oppo.


Do let all of us know how it turns out. I bought it in 3D, right before I heard it may be coming out in Atmos.




HT-Eman said:


> Here are some pics of the DTS:X demo room in Calabasas . ( I know this is the atmos thread but I just thought i'll show how they have it set up )


Thanks for sharing, that's really interesting. That settles it for me, though... no way am I building a trestle to hang from my ceiling.

(wink)


----------



## aaranddeeman

Frank714 said:


> Again and for the umpteenth time we did have in this thread a qoute from a D & M manager last year which I just have not been able to relocate, but according to which it had been suggested that Auro 3D would become available as a you-have-to-pay-for-it software upgrade at the end of 2014 *and *that a DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) software upgrade could be possibly free.


If this is true then I would say that D&M is not delivering what they "promised".
Now Keith mentioned it was delayed (DTS announcement). That's a lame excuse in my book.
In summary D&M were aware and have provisioned the units such that they were upgradable. The delay does not take away that capability.
It's just the "greed"...


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> If this is true then I would say that D&M is not delivering what they "promised".
> Now Keith mentioned it was delayed (DTS announcement). That's a lame excuse in my book.
> In summary D&M were aware and have provisioned the units such that they were upgradable. The delay does not take away that capability.
> It's just the "greed"...


It's not a lame excuse. D&M have to plan their new product launches like anyone else and they can't put them on hold while DTS get their act together. Everyone in the industry expected DTS:X to be sorted out months ago. Now we are almost at the 2015 launch times so it makes sense for DTS:X to go into the 2015 model year product.

The bottom line is everyone got what they should have expected in their 2014 models. The spec is the spec and it doesn't mention DTS:X. It is ludicrous IMO for people to feel entitled to have a new feature added to their old product just because they think it is somehow their right. If you want the latest spec, buy the latest product!

I bought a new Mercedes a couple of years ago and now they have brought out the new 2015 model. This new model has satnav included in the spec. Should I contact Mercedes now and ask for my upgrade do you think, or should I wait and see if they offer it to me? Or should I go onto a Mercedes forum and demand that satnav be added to my car _right now_?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I posted a written official announcement from D&M....


If you are referring to this recent post of yours, that is not comfirmatory as it is not a corporate communication. We have seen several contradictory responses from Denon's contract support people, who are notoriously unreliable sources of information.

Again, I am unaware of any official D&M announcement; please correct me if I am wrong. I think we know what it will be, but until it's made there is always room for hope.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not a lame excuse. D&M have to plan their new product launches like anyone else and they can't put them on hold while DTS get their act together. Everyone in the industry expected DTS:X to be sorted out months ago. Now we are almost at the 2015 launch times so it makes sense for DTS:X to go into the 2015 model year product.
> 
> The bottom line is everyone got what they should have expected in their 2014 models. The spec is the spec and it doesn't mention DTS:X. It is ludicrous IMO for people to feel entitled to have a new feature added to their old product just because they think it is somehow their right. If you want the latest spec, buy the latest product!
> 
> I bought a new Mercedes a couple of years ago and now they have brought out the new 2015 model. This new model has satnav included in the spec. Should I contact Mercedes now and ask for my upgrade do you think, or should I wait and see if they offer it to me? Or should I go onto a Mercedes forum and demand that satnav be added to my car _right now_?


No. You are missing the point.
Nobody would complain if it needed H/W upgrade. And yes that planning applies if that is the case.
This is freaking firmware upgrade,
Also no one is saying they are entitled to get the latest. From what I learned just now that D&M "did promise" to provide it. They should stand by it.
In that sense your Mercedes analogy does not hold water.

P.S. : And why are you acting like you are D&M spokes person all the time. D&M themselves have not said a word officially yet. This is a forum for people to discuss their issues, vent their frustration about a given product etc etc. So let it go.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> If you are referring to this recent post of yours, that is not comfirmatory as it is not a corporate communication. We have seen several contradictory responses from Denon's contract support people, who are notoriously unreliable sources of information.
> 
> Again, I am unaware of any official D&M announcement; please correct me if I am wrong. I think we know what it will be, but until it's made there is always room for hope.


There is no room for hope whatsoever unfortunately. Anyone with a D&M unit other than the two specifically stated to have a DTS:X upgrade will not be getting a DTS:X upgrade. I doubt if D&M will announce that they will not be upgrading units (companies don't usually announce things they are not going to do) so presumably people will still be waiting for their upgrade announcement in 2017, 2018 and beyond 

What D&M most assuredly will announce soon is the 2015 product lineup, featuring Atmos and DTS:X and other goodies.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> No. You are missing the point.
> Nobody would complain if it needed H/W upgrade. And yes that planning applies if that is the case.
> This is freaking firmware upgrade,
> Also no one is saying they are entitled to get the latest. From what I learned just now that D&M "did promise" to provide it. They should stand by it.
> In that sense your Mercedes analogy does not hold water.
> 
> P.S. : And why are you acting like you are D&M spokes person all the time. D&M themselves have not said a word officially yet. This is a forum for people to discuss their issues, vent their frustration about a given product etc etc. So let it go.


*Me *let it go??? I'm not the one constantly complaining that their 5200 won't be getting a DTS:X upgrade. I'm the one telling people it isn't going to happen. They are the ones who need to let go and move on!

One of us is right and one of us is wrong. At some stage we'll see who is right. My money is on me


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> In that sense your Mercedes analogy does not hold water.


You’re right. Last year I bought a new laptop. It came with Windows 7. I understand that Windows 10 is soon to be released. Obviously, I expect Asus to offer me Windows 10 as a free upgrade. After all, it is only "freakin' software".


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> *Me *let it go??? I'm not the one constantly complaining that their 5200 won't be getting a DTS:X upgrade. I'm the one telling people it isn't going to happen. They are the ones who need to let go and move on!
> 
> One of us is right and one of us is wrong. At some stage we'll see who is right. My money is on me


But you are the one "constantly" reacting when someone talks of DTS:X on 5200 (and 4100)... 
So looks like you are arguing to prove yourselves "right" and when D&M will officially say no (which most likely it is), you will shine as a "star"..


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> You’re right. Last year I bought a new laptop. It came with Windows 7. I understand that Windows 10 is soon to be released. Obviously, I expect Asus to offer me Windows 10 as a free upgrade. After all, it is only "freakin' software".


Another wrong analogy.
Lots of people wishing to get DTS:X have expressed their okay for a nominal fee for that upgrade. 
And BTW windows 10 is being offered "free" for one year by Microsoft. Imagine that if "Microsoft" can do that.... then


----------



## Frank714

roxiedog13 said:


> If they did in fact hint that an upgrade was possible we should collectively do something about it. Not one SINGLE person will cause a ripple but ALL of us might and that includes all the other Forums too not just us.


I just wrote a very compassionate email to Marantz Germany and my dealer friend (he knows the D & M product managers rather well) to encourage Marantz to think this thing over and get in touch with Japan regarding the issue (before statements are issued that will be difficult to be taken back later on, "loosing face" and these sort of things).

At the same time I started to develop an idea along your lines, so I'll take your suggestion as a friendly encouragement.


----------



## pltan75

*5.1.2 Questions*

So I moved into a new condo and was talked into adding a pair of roof speakers for Dolby Atmos and to be relatively future-proof, by the local salesman.

This may be a stupid question ..... I am running a Pioneer LX58, and Goldenear speakers( 5.1.2 setup)....long story short, is there any way to have the receiver make use of the top speakers for normal blu-ray (i.e. non Atmos ) soundtracks? I tried playing around with the various surround settings, but it seems they just say quiet.

I appreciate any help , trying to understand what the new set-up can and can't do


----------



## robert816

kbarnes701 said:


> You’re right. Last year I bought a new laptop. It came with Windows 7. I understand that Windows 10 is soon to be released. Obviously, I expect Asus to offer me Windows 10 as a free upgrade. After all, it is only "freakin' software".


Actually they most likely will offer you a free upgrade or will provide a direct link to MS to download the Windows 10 upgrade for free. MS has alreay announced that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade for owners of Windows 7, 8, and 8.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> But you are the one "constantly" reacting when someone talks of DTS:X on 5200 (and 4100)...
> So looks like you are arguing to prove yourselves "right" and when D&M will officially say no (which most likely it is), you will shine as a "star"..


 I hate to see people with false hopes and expectations so when others constantly post that they believe the 4100 and 5200 will get DTS:X, it seems only right to put them straight. It won't be a very bright star - I said months ago that these units would not be upgradeable so it won't come as some huge bolt from the blue or anything 

Maybe as well as telling me to drop it you should be telling all those who keep posting to the contrary as well? Why should they be allowed to carry on unimpeded and yet I be forced to drop it? 

IDK what we'll find to talk about when the 2015 models are announced, with DTS:X, and still no mention will be made by D&M of the chance of an upgrade to the 2014 models....


----------



## desray2k

Frank714 said:


> I just wrote a very compassionate email to Marantz Germany and my dealer friend (he knows the D & M product managers rather well) to encourage Marantz to think this thing over and get in touch with Japan regarding the issue (before statements are issued that will be difficult to be taken back later on, "loosing face" and these sort of things).
> 
> At the same time I started to develop an idea along your lines, so I'll take your suggestion as a friendly encouragement.


Thanks Frank for the effort...


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Another wrong analogy.
> Lots of people wishing to get DTS:X have expressed their okay for a nominal fee for that upgrade.


Great idea. Instead of selling new units every year, D&M should just allow people to pay for the new bits as and when they see fit. Do you really think this makes sense as a business model? I mean, really?



aaranddeeman said:


> And BTW windows 10 is being offered "free" for one year by Microsoft. Imagine that if "Microsoft" can do that.... then


And at the end of the year? That isn’t 'free' by even the loosest definition of the word. It is 'deferred payment'.


----------



## pasender91

roxiedog13 said:


> *For every 2014 unit that would get the upgrade , a 2015 will not be sold*, so what do you think they are going to do?  I bought the X5200 knowing there were hints of an upgrade not even sure where the rumors came from actually. I did know the X7200 was promised an upggrade from Denon if you were willing to send it back for the same as required. If Denon promised, even hinted there could be an upgrade then I could understand some backlash. Without some solid evidence that they did in fact hint ( I'll call that baiting) then better to just drop this now and focus on other issues. If they did in fact hint that an upgrade was possible we should collectively do something about it. Not one SINGLE person will cause a ripple but ALL of us might and that includes all the other Forums too not just us.
> 
> Question is : Did they ( a legitimate Denon employee ) promise or hint the upgrade was possible??


The bold statement is wrong, many would be ok to pay for a software upgrade, say 200$ like for Auro 3D, but not ok to buy a new 2015 model. So if this upgrade exists, it would be additional revenues for D&M 

The underlined question has an answer, and it is yes, official statements came out in the past from D&M that upgrade*S* (notice the S which means several ones) would be available to support future 3D sound formats. Auro 3D was update Nb 1, now we expect update Nb 2


----------



## kbarnes701

pltan75 said:


> So I moved into a new condo and was talked into adding a pair of roof speakers for Dolby Atmos and to be relatively future-proof, by the local salesman.
> 
> This may be a stupid question ..... I am running a Pioneer LX58, and Goldenear speakers( 5.1.2 setup)....long story short, is there any way to have the receiver make use of the top speakers for normal blu-ray (i.e. non Atmos ) soundtracks? I tried playing around with the various surround settings, but it seems they just say quiet.
> 
> I appreciate any help , trying to understand what the new set-up can and can't do


Yes -Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) will send upmix all your non-Atmos content to use all the speakers in the system. I am not familiar with Pioneer AVRs but you need to find the control which allows you to change the 'sound mode'. It could be labelled 'Movie Mode' or something like that. In that setting you should see all of the upmixers your unit offers - eg DTS Neo:X etc. It is usually accessible via a separate button on the remote as it is an 'on the fly' setting.


----------



## asarose247

My DIY trestle system -just attach the speakers in the 4 corners as it was ALL designed within angle-range specs
DSU and ATMOS for one sweet MLP


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> The bold statement is wrong, many would be ok to pay for a software upgrade, say 200$ like for Auro 3D, but not ok to buy a new 2015 model. So if this upgrade exists, it would be additional revenues for D&M


So you think D&M are deliberately following a course which will result in lower revenue? How likely do you think that is?

Do you not think they may have analysed the revenue expected from new product sales vs the revenue lost by not offering an upgrade? And if you think they did, you have come to the conclusion that they deliberately decided to choose the option which delivered them the least revenue? Really?


----------



## roxiedog13

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not a lame excuse. D&M have to plan their new product launches like anyone else and they can't put them on hold while DTS get their act together. Everyone in the industry expected DTS:X to be sorted out months ago. Now we are almost at the 2015 launch times so it makes sense for DTS:X to go into the 2015 model year product.
> 
> The bottom line is everyone got what they should have expected in their 2014 models. The spec is the spec and it doesn't mention DTS:X. It is ludicrous IMO for people to feel entitled to have a new feature added to their old product just because they think it is somehow their right. If you want the latest spec, buy the latest product!
> 
> I bought a new Mercedes a couple of years ago and now they have brought out the new 2015 model. This new model has satnav included in the spec. Should I contact Mercedes now and ask for my upgrade do you think, or should I wait and see if they offer it to me? Or should I go onto a Mercedes forum and demand that satnav be added to my car _right now_?


I agree 100% IF and only if Mercedes did not suggest or hint that they would provide the satmav option upgrade on the 2013 model. Like you said , no-one is untitled to any upgrades unless it was promised in the beginning. Again I have to ask, why do people think they are entitled unless they have been misled ? Thinking otherwise in my opinion is unrealistic and not the industry standard. Upgrades might be appropriate for computer and other types of software as stated, not for audio hardware.

My 50 year old Mercedes has been upgraded every year especially lately. First the tummy tuck, lypo, eyelid lift and facial peal, the BIGGEST upgrade was the implants, my favorite.  
OK, the upgrades are fabricated she actually bought the BMW X3, no upgrades necessary.


----------



## kbarnes701

robert816 said:


> Actually they most likely will offer you a free upgrade or will provide a direct link to MS to download the Windows 10 upgrade for free. MS has alreay announced that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade for owners of Windows 7, 8, and 8.1.


Is that right? As a user of W7 I can get W10 for free? If so, that is terrific.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> Great idea. Instead of selling new units every year, D&M should just allow people to pay for the new bits as and when they see fit. Do you really think this makes sense as a business model? I mean, really?
> 
> 
> 
> And at the end of the year? That isn’t 'free' by even the loosest definition of the word. It is 'deferred payment'.


It is unrelated to Atmos, but the Windows 10 will be free "forever" if you upgrade within one year, free as in 0$, 0 €, or 0 £.
We can expect this offer will be extended "forever" too, how could they stop it after one year ...

As i explained on the post above, the only way D&M is going to extract cash from many 2014 customers in the next few years is by proposing a paid upgrade for DTS:X, so yes it could even make economical sense ...
Also to take into account that people on the edge of buying an AVR now in wait of the DTS:X announcement could also purchase an existing and available AVR if they knew it would be upgradable to DTS:X later, so this could also be a competitive advantage. I know for a fact sales people like immediate sales rather than plans for the next fiscal year ....


----------



## audioguy

I am fascinated that so many folks think D&M somehow "owe" us early adopter's an upgrade to DTS-X. They owe us exactly what was in the spec sheet and nothing more. If you think that is an unreasonable approach, then go elsewhere on your next SSP/AVR. For almost $30,000, you can get the fully loaded RS20i with Auro, Atmos when it's available and then for a few more dollars, DTS-X. And you can have up to 24 channels (or stack two of them and have 48 channels). But you are paying through the nose for that upgrade-ability. 

I, for one, think D&M would be marketing morons if they bastardized their future product sales by providing older products the upgrade. That is an outstanding "going out of business strategy". This has nothing to do with whether or not a particular unit has the in-place hardware to support the upgrade. It's called being smart business people. 

Or, you can do what some on this forum are doing --- just keep waiting until all the product features you want are available . And then get really pi$$ed (yet again) when a new feature is announced on the next release!

Life is short. Enjoy this moment. You are not guaranteed the next one!!


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I am fascinated that so many folks think D&M somehow "owe" us early adopter's an upgrade to DTS-X. They owe us exactly what was in the spec sheet and nothing more. If you think that is an unreasonable approach, then go elsewhere on your next SSP/AVR. For almost $30,000, you can get the fully loaded RS20i with Auro, Atmos when it's available and then for a few more dollars, DTS-X. And you can have up to 24 channels (or stack two of them and have 48 channels). But you are paying through the nose for that upgrade-ability.
> 
> I, for one, think D&M would be marketing morons if they bastardized their future product sales by providing older products the upgrade. That is an outstanding "going out of business strategy". This has nothing to do with whether or not a particular unit has the in-place hardware to support the upgrade. It's called being smart business people.
> 
> Or, you can do what some on this forum are doing --- just keep waiting until all the product features you want are available . And then get really pi$$ed (yet again) when a new feature is announced on the next release!


I agree with you 100%. Especially this:



audioguy said:


> Life is short. Enjoy this moment. You are not guaranteed the next one!!


----------



## roxiedog13

pasender91 said:


> The bold statement is wrong, many would be ok to pay for a software upgrade, say 200$ like for Auro 3D, but not ok to buy a new 2015 model. So if this upgrade exists, it would be additional revenues for D&M
> 
> The underlined question has an answer, and it is yes, official statements came out in the past from D&M that upgrade*S* (notice the S which means several ones) would be available to support future 3D sound formats. Auro 3D was update Nb 1, now we expect update Nb 2


Maybe you are correct, some would pay for an upgrade( I thought it was free) and Denon could pocket some revenue. I still think they would be shooting themselves in the foot unless they charged a really high upgrade fee, something at least $500 or more. 

On your second remark, if they did promise upgrades and are now saying no, there is a remedy for that called, CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT . They could certainly offer the upgrade at an unreasonable fee and still be within their rights. I have no sympathy for a company that would offer an upgrade and then recant. I honestly find it hard to believe a company like Denon would
make a promise and then back-pedal .


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with you 100%. Especially this:


30 to 40 year old folks usually have little appreciation for that. All one needs is to lose a loved one suddenly or receive some startling negative report from a Doctor or .....

Almost everyone I know (at least until something like I noted above occurs) lives life as though tomorrow will be just a slightly different version of today. I, for fact, know differently.


----------



## jrref

kbarnes701 said:


> You’re right. Last year I bought a new laptop. It came with Windows 7. I understand that Windows 10 is soon to be released. Obviously, I expect Asus to offer me Windows 10 as a free upgrade. After all, it is only "freakin' software".


Totally different. You will be able to buy Windows 10 and load it but how would you feel if they said "Sorry, you laptop can't be upgraded. Go buy the latest laptop and they you can have it!"


----------



## lujan

Kevilz said:


> Thx for the suggestion. I will get myself a copy.


You won't be disappointed.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> That announcement was made when it was assumed that DTS would release DTS:X in a timely manner, not delay it for months. In fact they delayed it so long that the 2015 units are in the pipeline already, making it pointless to offer upgrades to older units. *If people want the latest gizmos, they need to buy the latest units. It has always been thus and probably always will be.*
> 
> The exception is the 7200 which has a 2 year life cycle not a 1 year.


That is a perfectly logical and cogent analysis (with the exception of the bolded editorializing, which appears to be your own personal point of view) of D&M's standpoint, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turns out to be entirely accurate. It tracks with my knowledge of the history of this saga, which started with provisional, unauthorized statements within D&M last fall to the effect that a DTS:X upgrade would be forthcoming for their 2014 model year Atmos AVR's. DTS's product delay may have scuttled that plan or other events may have led to a change of mind.



kbarnes701 said:


> There is no room for hope whatsoever unfortunately. Anyone with a D&M unit other than the two specifically stated to have a DTS:X upgrade will not be getting a DTS:X upgrade. *I doubt if D&M will announce that they will not be upgrading units (companies don't usually announce things they are not going to do) so presumably people will still be waiting for their upgrade announcement in 2017, 2018 and beyond*
> 
> What D&M most assuredly will announce soon is the 2015 product lineup, featuring Atmos and DTS:X and other goodies.


To my knowledge no official announcement has been made yet about any DTS:X upgrades (including for the X7200). My understanding is that the upgrade will be made available as soon as next month so I would expect a corporate communiqué to be issued shortly. 

Sigh, only two more weeks to speculate wildly.


----------



## Frank714

audioguy said:


> I am fascinated that so many folks think D&M somehow "owe" us early adopter's an upgrade to DTS-X. They owe us exactly what was in the spec sheet and nothing more.


I never claimed and never will that D & M "owes". I'm merely noticing that the 2014 D & M Dolby Atmos AVRs came with a software upgrade capability and Auro 3D was offered to make use of that upgrade capability.

So I think there's nothing wrong wondering, whether we can now use this option to software upgrade DTS:X later this year. 



audioguy said:


> I, for one, think D&M would be marketing morons if they bastardized their future product sales by providing older products the upgrade. That is an outstanding "going out of business strategy". This has nothing to do with whether or not a particular unit has the in-place hardware to support the upgrade. It's called being smart business people.


Frankly, I'd call this something else, but YMMV. Fact is that in my country we had a D & M customer who complained in the AV press, that D & M neglected to inform potential Auro 3D upgraders that the speaker setup for Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D wasn't compatible.

And without any substantial Auro 3D program content support, I'm still wondering why D & M even committed resources to make this upgrade possible. I'd like to believe that D & M wanted to show "we do care and are eager to give you additional choices the other brands won't"

I'd think that's a way to attract new customers and followers ("staying in business strategy") but as a consequence that DTS:X software upgrade option would be somewhat mandatory. 

_To provide people with the upgrade option for Auro 3D (which most have no use for) but then deny that option for DTS:X (most are certain they will need) sounds rather erratic and not thought-through IMHO._

(Add to this I believe that D & M was aware in Fall 2014 that DTS:X would be coming as a software upgrade, Auro 3D was merely available for software upgrade several months earlier)


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> 30 to 40 year old folks usually have little appreciation for that. All one needs is to lose a loved one suddenly or receive some startling negative report from a Doctor or .....
> 
> Almost everyone I know (at least until something like I noted above occurs) lives life as though tomorrow will be just a slightly different version of today. I, for fact, know differently.


Wise words. I had cancer many years ago and the experienced changed my life for ever. You are totally correct.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> To my knowledge no official announcement has been made yet about any DTS:X upgrades (including for the X7200). My understanding is that the upgrade will be made available as soon as next month so I would expect a corporate communiqué to be issued shortly.
> 
> Sigh, only two more weeks to speculate wildly.


I can’t believe that DTS announced that the upgrade would be in the 7200 and the equivalent Marantz, without approval from D&M.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> You’re right. Last year I bought a new laptop. It came with Windows 7. I understand that Windows 10 is soon to be released. Obviously, I expect Asus to offer me Windows 10 as a free upgrade. After all, it is only "freakin' software".





kbarnes701 said:


> And at the end of the year? That isn’t 'free' by even the loosest definition of the word. It is 'deferred payment'.





kbarnes701 said:


> Is that right? As a user of W7 I can get W10 for free? If so, that is terrific.



Indeed. You have 1 year to upgrade for free, and it will be free to you on that system forever.

Official Microsoft Page



> Free Upgrade Offer*
> Great news! We will offer a free upgrade to Windows 10 for qualified new or existing Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows Phone 8.1 devices that upgrade in the first year! And even better: once a qualified Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it up to date for the supported lifetime of the device, keeping it more secure, and introducing new features and functionality over time – for no additional charge. Sign up with your email today, and we will send you more information about Windows 10 and the upgrade offer in the coming months.


----------



## J_Palmer_Cass

kbarnes701 said:


> Is that right? As a user of W7 I can get W10 for free? If so, that is terrific.





You may have to give up some Windows 7 features if you upgrade to Windows 10, but that is another off topic discussion!


----------



## chi_guy50

roxiedog13 said:


> On your second remark, if they did promise upgrades and are now saying no, there is a remedy for that called, CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT . They could certainly offer the upgrade at an unreasonable fee and still be within their rights. I have no sympathy for a company that would offer an upgrade and then recant. I honestly find it hard to believe a company like Denon would make a promise and then back-pedal .


Wow, between Keith's "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" approach and the idea of a class-action lawsuit, I don't know which is the more extreme.

Oh yeah, I do--it's the idea that any actionable promises were made. That's just beyond the pale.

No promises were made, and no one's "entitled" to any upgrade in this instance. Which does not in any way negate our right to advocate for such or imply that it will not or can not happen where technically feasible. AFAIK, the 2014 models are still being produced, and an upgrade path to DTS:X could help to move them. 

So, with apologies to Keith, *non lascio ogni speranza*!


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Indeed. You have 1 year to upgrade for free, and it will be free to you on that system forever.
> 
> Official Microsoft Page


That is great - thanks for that info. I am normally a Mac user so not too familiar with Microsoft stuff. I use Windows mostly for REW and Dirac Live. I have signed up to their upgrade program.


----------



## petetherock

As speculative as it may be, I enjoy the optimism... 
So c'est la vie... and let hope spring eternal


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, between Keith's "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" approach and the idea of a class-action lawsuit, I don't know which is the more extreme.
> 
> Oh yeah, I do--it's the idea that any actionable promises were made. That's just beyond the pale.
> 
> No promises were made, and no one's "entitled" to any upgrade in this instance. Which does not in any way negate our right to advocate for such or imply that it will not or can not happen where technically feasible. AFAIK, the 2014 models are still being produced, and an upgrade path to DTS:X could help to move them.
> 
> So, with apologies to Keith, *non lascio ogni speranza*!


 Bravissimo.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I can’t believe that DTS announced that the upgrade would be in the 7200 and the equivalent Marantz, without approval from D&M.


I agree entirely, and I do not question for a second that owners of the X7200 will be eligible for a DTS:X upgrade. But that is all we unwashed masses can be reasonably certain of at this point.

The fact remains that D&M are so far playing their cards close to the vest and that opens the window to speculation.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree entirely, and I do not question for a second that owners of the X7200 will be eligible for a DTS:X upgrade. But that is all we unwashed masses can be reasonably certain of at this point.
> 
> The fact remains that D&M are so far playing their cards close to the vest and that opens the window to speculation.


I think we should impose a voluntary ban on this topic  I will kick it off: if everyone else can stop speculating, I will stop pi**ing on their strawberries


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I think we should impose a voluntary ban on this topic  I will kick it off: if everyone else can stop speculating, I will stop pi**ing on their strawberries


Now that's a radical idea: Stop speculating about DTS:X on the thread devoted to HT Atmos? Honestly, Keith, what will you come up with next?

In the meantime, Sanjay just pointed out this interesting contrarian article for those who wish to follow the news about you-know-what.


----------



## kingwiggi

kbarnes701 said:


> I think we should impose a voluntary ban on this topic  I will kick it off: if everyone else can stop speculating, I will stop pi**ing on their strawberries


Then I'll have nothing to sit on the fence and chuckle about.


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> I bought a new Mercedes a couple of years ago and now they have brought out the new 2015 model. This new model has satnav included in the spec. Should I contact Mercedes now and ask for my upgrade do you think, or should I wait and see if they offer it to me? Or should I go onto a Mercedes forum and demand that satnav be added to my car _right now_?


I don't think that's a good analogy, unless your old Mercedes had a slot especially designed to include satnav at a later time, which would be a more appropriate analogy in our particular discussion, i.e. to ask D & M if all they ever designed that extra data storage for was for Auro 3D? 

But here is a real one: Back in 1995 my Mercedes 124 got wrecked in Southern France. But I still had a set of custom painted rims that made this look like spoke wheels. When I bought myself the 124CE, Mercedes declined to put these rims on, claiming these would not be compatible and dangerous. Got a second opinion from a free garage, they said that Mercedes obviously tried to sell me a new set of wheels and that my old ones were perfect for either model. 



kbarnes701 said:


> I hate to see people with false hopes and expectations so when others constantly post that they believe the 4100 and 5200 will get DTS:X, it seems only right to put them straight.


No pun intended, but I think that's D & M's prerogative to tell us why it is possible for the Denon 7200 to receive a DTS:X software upgrade and *not* for the 2014 Dolby Atmos models.

Thus far, I've heard no one raise his voice and tell us, that the processor architecture of the X7200 is not compatible with the one of either the 5200 and 4100.

I too hate to see people get false hopes and expectations, especially when some claim what a crowning accomplishment DSU is and mostly fail to mention that they merely upgraded from 5.1 to 5.1.4 and not from 7.1 to 7.1.4.


----------



## jrref

chi_guy50 said:


> Now that's a radical idea: Stop speculating about DTS:X on the thread devoted to HT Atmos? Honestly, Keith, what will you come up with next?
> 
> In the meantime, Sanjay just pointed out this interesting contrarian article for those who wish to follow the news about you-know-what.




Great article and not being an expert, I had some of the same kinds of questions when thinking about "any speaker arrangement will work"! More reason to wait till the 2nd Gen AVRs come out in 2016 to upgrade. Hopefully then the bugs will be worked out. Maybe this is why D+M and the other AVR manufacturers are not rushing to upgrade existing 2014 AVRs. They are probably hoping that the dust clears in time for their 2015 units. I do have to agree that Atmos and DSU really work incredibly well, it's definitely thought out and there is some content to play right now. No need for DTS:X for a while and at the end of the day we will really need to get some reviews from actual users in the home setting to see how much better if any DTS:X is over Atmos or even Auro-3D for that matter!


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Northsky, as Frank very rightly said, D&M is apart of other vendors because they DID propose an Auro 3D upgrade.
> If they did it for Auro 3D, then WHY NOT for DTS:X ???????


♦ I have read all the other posts above (but I didn't have to, because it doesn't change my line of thought).

* When Dolby Atmos was first announced last year (June 2014), I knew right then that dts would come up with their own 3D Surround sound scheme a year or so after. It was just an introduction of things to come. I sat down and read, and learn, and ask questions, and extrapolated into the future 3D sound.

We all have different life's situation; some people can afford to buy new audio products every single year (I know, I was in that situation for a very long time), and others (now me included) have to weight things up and down and based on past history between Dolby and dts (the main two giants, after THX and Auro-3D). And I did just that; making the sacrifice in not experimenting with DSU.

This is a business; this audio electronics affair which is our passion. Firmware updates/upgrades are bad for business (yes I know, it sounds strange but it is a reality).



Frank714 said:


> Exactly (*bold* emphasis mine)! Hence my irritation


_"The best is the one that is supported."_


----------



## philmike21

stikle said:


> Indeed. You have 1 year to upgrade for free, and it will be free to you on that system forever.
> 
> Official Microsoft Page


Can that reciever process 13 channels? How do you have the extra 4 channels hooked up to your receiver?


----------



## stikle

philmike21 said:


> Can that reciever process 13 channels? How do you have the extra 4 channels hooked up to your receiver?


It works quite well. Thank you for asking and for your valuable input.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Now that's a radical idea: Stop speculating about DTS:X on the thread devoted to HT Atmos? Honestly, Keith, what will you come up with next?


How about Hillary for President? 



chi_guy50 said:


> In the meantime, Sanjay just pointed out this interesting contrarian article for those who wish to follow the news about you-know-what.


Off for a read...


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> I too hate to see people get false hopes and expectations, especially when some claim what a crowning accomplishment DSU is and mostly fail to mention that they merely upgraded from 5.1 to 5.1.4 and not from 7.1 to 7.1.4.


Do you think having more speakers at listener level impacts on the sound coming from the four overhead? Is the sound from overhead changed in some way by the rear surrounds? Have you found that DSU doesn't do all that it claims?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> In the meantime, Sanjay just pointed out this interesting contrarian article for those who wish to follow the news about you-know-what.


Interesting article. Brent makes a very good point that the DTS:X demo was far, far from what anyone would ever do at home, whereas Dolby demoed Atmos in a very, very typical home theater room with fairly normal speakers, subs and so on. That Dolby demo really gave a feel for what Atmos at home would sound like, and everyone who attended the two I went to came away hugely impressed. DTS took to demoing in a room festooned with more speakers than I have ever owned in my life, in total, so it would give zero idea of how DTS:X would sound at home.

Atmos's huge advantage is the upfiring speaker concept. This is what will cause Atmos to gain traction in the home, for the simple reason that Atmos-enabled speakers, or speakers with Atmos modules on top, look exactly the same as the setup that people currently have. WAF isn't only not an issue - the W likely likely will not even know that Atmos is in her house unless she's specifically told. Any system (eg Auro, and maybe DTS:X) which _mandates_ speakers physically on or in the ceiling is never going to achieve wide acceptance. So if DTS:X won't work with Atmos upfirers, then it is probably doomed for wide market acceptability. And it is extraordinary that DTS didn't seem to know if :X would work with the Atmos upfirers or not (not to mention they didn't actually know how the upfirers work in the first place). So the jury is still out IMO.


----------



## petetherock

Actually it will be a good idea not to cramp the ATMOS thread with "the upgrade which will now not be named"...

Someone can of course start a thread on why D&M isn't doing what AVS members want and give that upgrade to the non 7200 / 8802 models... and leave this thread to the propagation of all things Atmospheric


----------



## batpig

Maybe we can start a general early-adopter outrage thread where folks can pound their fists on virtual podiums in a feeble attempt to change reality.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frank714 said:


> Thanks. Curiously, out of the six overhead speakers being arranged in a circle, four of these are actually more or less in the same position (and with tweeters aimed at the main listening position) as in my own Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 setup.


DTS copied your setup! Sue, man, sue!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> maybe we can start a general early-adopter outrage thread where folks can pound their fists on virtual podiums in a feeble attempt to change reality.


rotlfmao.


----------



## UKTexan

Just to add a little fuel to the fire.
I contacted Denon USA (Live chat with customer services) from the great republic of Texas yesterday regarding the DTS:X upgrade for the X5200W. I stated I was aware the X7200W would be upgradable but questions persist for other models. 
The official response from Denon:

" At this time there is NO information as to whether or not that will be made available for the X5200W. "

I have a captured picture on my iPhone of the transcript but either way, at least in the U.S. market, it appears the writing is not yet on the wall.
I expect a communique to be forthcoming regarding the X7200W with a little clarity, good or bad, about all other models.
I agree with many other posters; we should not feel entitled, I certainly do not, but I live in hope, until proven otherwise. My next receiver purchase will be in 1 to 2 years, once the dust settles and further expanded speaker outputs such as 9.1.6 are available in mass market AVR's. 

On an Atmos note, the Gravity mix is simply stunning. 
There is a point in the movie (need to timestamp), where a sound object travels from my left side surround ( I have a 7.2.4 setup) up towards my front height left speaker. The sound clearly seems to diagonally track between both speakers, traveling towards the FHL, simply traveling and literally hanging out in space. Almost sound like North Sky now. 
Anyway, very, very impressive and a stand out moment that really demonstrates objects can sound as though they are out there in 3D space where no speakers are actually present. I'm sure there are other similar moments in the movie but that one really stood out,IMO. 
Again, impressive and hopefully a sign of great things to come.

Best regards to all.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Is that right? As a user of W7 I can get W10 for free? If so, that is terrific.


It was MS's way of saying: Sorry about 8.0 & 8.1. We were only joking.


----------



## chi_guy50

Chris Dotur said:


> Looks like everybody else is saying Gravity, but I say John Wick.


In six months I have yet to watch a single Atmos movie on my HT system but will finally be getting around to watching _John Wick_ this week.

Chris, could you please elaborate on why you think this is a good HT Atmos exemplar and point out any particularly noteworthy scenes for audio demo purposes? TIA.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> In six months I have yet to watch a single Atmos movie on my HT system but will finally be getting around to watching _John Wick_ this week.
> 
> Chris, could you please elaborate on why you think this is a good HT Atmos exemplar and point out any particularly noteworthy scenes for audio demo purposes? TIA.


I'm not Chris, but John Wick is indeed a good Atmos movie. There are more than a few scenes with rain that are just immersive and realistic. The fight sequences are over the top and flat out awesome. Turn it up loud and enjoy the ride.


----------



## dschulz

Interesting news from NAB, related to the creation of new Atmos content. Link here, summary below:

*Avid and Dolby announce partnership*

At the Avid Connect event in Las Vegas, Avid and Dolby have announced plans to develop deeper integration of Dolby Atmos immersive multichannel surround sound in Pro Tools to streamline editing and mixing workflows across Pro Tools software and Avid Pro Mixing solutions. With the more advanced integration of Dolby Atmos workflows, media professionals will be able to use built-in 3D Pro Tools panners and Pro Mixing solutions to send audio object positioning metadata to the Dolby Atmos RMU, without the need for an additional plug-in. Some of the highlights include built-in 3D panning and bus support in Pro Tools to send metadata for Atmos positioning and automation, as well as support for 9.1 tracks and busses in Pro Tools.

Sound Supervisor and Re-Recording Mixer Will Files responded to the news:

_“I’m thrilled about this news, it’s exactly what we’ve been hoping for! This is a big deal for us, and will give filmmakers and their sound teams the most streamlined, flexible and creative workflow for our film soundtracks.” 

Many Directors and Mixers have embraced mixing “virtually” in Pro Tools, because it allows us to have a constantly evolving mix that can change gracefully along with the film throughout all of Post Production,” he continues. “They’re also excited by the immersive experience and creative opportunities enabled by mixing natively in Dolby Atmos, and this new integration will eliminate some of the technical hurdles and help us mix faster and spend more time simply being creative.”_

Please come by the booth at NAB and visit the Pro Mixing section. You will also see likely see some other S6 tech preview of features in progress! And, you’ll hear an S6 mix with Dolby Atmos! Hope to see you there…


----------



## brahman12

Chi_Guy... I believe you hit it right on the head with regards to what many of us are trying to express. IMHO I don't believe that many of us are saying that we demand to be given something that wasn't promised to us, but rather that we are attempting to advocate for something we would very much like to acquire. Thus, at the very least opening up a dialogue with said companies(considering the fact that the upgrade is entirely possible)and getting a more satisfying response than just "sorry, that's just the business." Or in urban dictionary terminology, "ur dead on that, son" lol....


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting article. Brent makes a very good point that the DTS:X demo was far, far from what anyone would ever do at home, whereas Dolby demoed Atmos in a very, very typical home theater room with fairly normal speakers, subs and so on. That Dolby demo really gave a feel for what Atmos at home would sound like, and everyone who attended the two I went to came away hugely impressed. DTS took to demoing in a room festooned with more speakers than I have ever owned in my life, in total, so it would give zero idea of how DTS:X would sound at home.


On that point, I will be forever grateful to @Hugo S for his enlightening reportage way back in July 2014 on the Onkyo demo on a very modest HT-type setup which he attended in Paris (and which he linked to in this thead here). It is the fact that the results could be so impressive using systems similar to or lesser than what I would be using that cemented my intention to install an Atmos system of my own.



kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos's huge advantage is the upfiring speaker concept. This is what will cause Atmos to gain traction in the home, for the simple reason that Atmos-enabled speakers, or speakers with Atmos modules on top, look exactly the same as the setup that people currently have. WAF isn't only not an issue - the W likely likely will not even know that Atmos is in her house unless she's specifically told. Any system (eg Auro, and maybe DTS:X) which _mandates_ speakers physically on or in the ceiling is never going to achieve wide acceptance. * So if DTS:X won't work with Atmos upfirers, then it is probably doomed for wide market acceptability. And it is extraordinary that DTS didn't seem to know if :X would work with the Atmos upfirers or not *(not to mention they didn't actually know how the upfirers work in the first place). So the jury is still out IMO.


Actually, Dave Casey, DTS’s senior director of product development, has specifically stated that "it [DTS:X] will work on any speaker layout, *including up-firing speakers*."


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> While I think the industry is moving to streaming and downloading for content, I cannot see the physical disc disappearing. There are just too many problems with a stream/download-only model:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people in rural areas have very slow Internet speeds which are impractical for streaming
> Many people have data caps which makes downloading HD movies impractical
> The move to 4K will see even bigger data sizes, making the two points above even more relevant
> People like to own content physically and to be able to sell it, swap it, lend it etc.
> Content stored on remote servers is at the vagaries of the service provider, who may disappear, change terms etc at any time
> Can you imagine settling down for 'movie night' and halfway through the movie your Internet connection goes down?
> Many people like to take their content with them when they travel - discs are not dependent on your destination having high speed broadband
> Streaming invariably leads to lower quality due to bandwidth demands, especially when Internet speeds are slow
> Storing downloaded content on disc is unreliable - discs will always fail
> Because of the unreliability of magnetic media, complex backups are required (and they cost money)
> Backing up to optical media is a good idea - so you may as well buy the optical media in the first place
> Do you want to be at the mercy of distant content providers who may change their terms of access at short notice, or hold you to ransom with price increases for accessing content you thought you owned?
> 
> These are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head for not wanting to relinquish physical media. It will be years, maybe never, before all these issues are properly resolved.


Let's hope the marketing departments aren't making the calls on this as they do on what upgrades our receivers get!


----------



## brahman12

UKTexan.... That was a really cool post. really digging the was you helped us mentally picture what you experienced bro. BatPig...yeah that was a funny post about the virtual podium and such LOL. Atmos lives.., que viva Atmos!!!! (Trying to do like Keith and Chi - see what I did there  )


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> Maybe we can start a general early-adopter outrage thread where folks can pound their fists on virtual podiums in a feeble attempt to change reality.


Maybe we could get real answers instead of conjecture ?

As I have asked *three times* now, did Denon " OFFICIALLY " state they were going to upgrade 2014 models? And don't come back with yes, or I heard so so say, etc. without real evidence. No second hand conjecture, real actual facts please.

There is a right or wrong. If they did not officially state they would upgrade then I agree, we have absolutely no right to ask for an upgrade , end of story. If they did officially state an upgrade was coming, even a possibility then they owe us an explanation at the very least.

I see opinions in going in both directions but so far its all rhetoric unless it is backed up. Neither is right or wrong without real factual evidence , so far I have seen nothing solid.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> I am normally a Mac user


That explains a lot about your attitude. You're used to a company screwing you over year after year after year, forcing you to buy a whole new product to get an incremental improvement or new feature while discontinuing all support for the old model.

Fortunately, not every company works that way.


----------



## chi_guy50

UKTexan said:


> Just to add a little fuel to the fire.
> I contacted Denon USA (Live chat with customer services) from the great republic of Texas yesterday regarding the DTS:X upgrade for the X5200W. I stated I was aware the X7200W would be upgradable but questions persist for other models.
> The official response from Denon:
> 
> " At this time there is NO information as to whether or not that will be made available for the X5200W. "


Thank you for sharing. That is in fact the current state of play as I understand it.

I simply want to point out, for those who may still be confused on this issue, that D&M's customer support (the folks with whom you corresponded) is provided by a third-party contractor. They are not corporate spokespersons and are, unfortunately, frequently misinformed or out of the loop. In this case, you happened to get an accurate response.


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> That explains a lot about your attitude. You're used to a company screwing you over year after year after year, forcing you to buy a whole new product to get an incremental improvement or new feature while discontinuing all support for the old model.
> 
> Fortunately, not every company works that way.


Hmmmm, I could be wrong, but I don't see Keith as the type to bend over for anyone.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> How about Hillary for President?


That is the most unkind post you have ever made!!!


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> Maybe we could get real answers instead of conjecture ?
> 
> As I have asked *three times* now, did Denon " OFFICIALLY " state they were going to upgrade 2014 models? And don't come back with yes, or I heard so so say, etc. without real evidence. No second hand conjecture, real actual facts please.
> 
> There is a right or wrong. If they did not officially state they would upgrade then I agree, we have absolutely no right to ask for an upgrade , end of story. If they did officially state an upgrade was coming, even a possibility then they owe us an explanation at the very least.
> 
> I see opinions in going in both directions but so far its all rhetoric unless it is backed up. Neither is right or wrong without real factual evidence , so far I have seen nothing solid.


Well, considering that it's impossible to prove a negative -- I can't make you read the entire internet to substantiate that Denon did NOT promise to upgrade the 2014 models with DTS:X -- the only reasonable outcome is for someone to come up with the affirmative evidence that D+M actually DID promise something.

But they never did. So it's not going to happen.


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> Maybe we could get real answers instead of conjecture ?


You will, but Denon isn't obligated to meet your demand for answers right now. The frustration is understandable, but they will release the info on their time table, not yours.


----------



## audioguy

I have another example: I drive a 2012 Lexus RX350. I have a friend who drives the exact same car. We both have the nav system. His car has the most recent map update and mine does not (?). Lexus wants about $300 for the update - no exceptions. [By the way, this is the worst GPS system I have ever been exposed to. Google Maps (free) and my Garmin (less than $200 ) are far superior products]. My friend received the update at no cost (was included when he bought the car).

So how is that "fair"? What could possibly be the logic? 

Will I never buy or recommend Lexus again? Of course not. Would it be nice/reasonable/fair/appropriate for them to give me the update at no charge? Yes, but they are not going to.


----------



## smurraybhm

Josh Z said:


> That explains a lot about your attitude. You're used to a company screwing you over year after year after year, forcing you to buy a whole new product to get an incremental improvement or new feature while discontinuing all support for the old model.
> 
> Fortunately, not every company works that way.


There always has to be someone taking a shot at the most successful company out there right now  Confused with the support statement, but further discussion is way off topic. I will go on record and say I'm not paying $400 for a watch that needs to be charged everyday, but I'm glad to see others are willing to do so, good for the stock price. At least we've moved on to something other than DTS:X upgrades. 

Josh - if you've got a 401k or something similar, be careful your trashing a company that you own. Steve


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> That explains a lot about your attitude. You're used to a company screwing you over year after year after year, forcing you to buy a whole new product to get an incremental improvement or new feature while discontinuing all support for the old model.
> 
> Fortunately, not every company works that way.


Hahaha. How little you know. I bought my iMac *8 years ago*. Still works perfectly. Just upgraded the OS from time to time - sometimes it's a paid upgrade, sometimes it's free.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Hmmmm, I could be wrong, but I don't see Keith as the type to bend over for anyone.


Sounds painful! You’re right BTW....


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> That is the most unkind post you have ever made!!!


LOL. Sometimes I like to deliver a killer blow


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I have another example: I drive a 2012 Lexus RX350. I have a friend who drives the exact same car. We both have the nav system. His car has the most recent map update and mine does not (?). Lexus wants about $300 for the update - no exceptions. [By the way, this is the worst GPS system I have ever been exposed to. Google Maps (free) and my Garmin (less than $200 ) are far superior products]. My friend received the update at no cost (was included when he bought the car).
> 
> So how is that "fair"? What could possibly be the logic?
> 
> Will I never buy or recommend Lexus again? Of course not. Would it be nice/reasonable/fair/appropriate for them to give me the update at no charge? Yes, but they are not going to.


 I have never seen a car manufacturer's sat nav system that is anything other than dire. The one in my Mercedes is just about OK but not nearly as good as the Garmin or TomTom. I am changing the Mercedes for a Jaguar in 5 weeks and the satnav in that is the absolute worst in the entire world, no exceptions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Sometimes I like to deliver a killer blow


No more killer than Jeb Bush for Prez (or most of the ass clowns running). Sorry... I just threw up in my mouth a little.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> No more killer than Jeb Bush for Prez (or most of the ass clowns running). Sorry... I just threw up in my mouth a little.


I'll up the ante on Keith's "killer blow."


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I have never seen a car manufacturer's sat nav system that is anything other than dire. The one in my Mercedes is just about OK but not nearly as good as the Garmin or TomTom. I am changing the Mercedes for a Jaguar in 5 weeks and the satnav in that is the absolute worst in the entire world, no exceptions.


Given the horsepower in most cars these days, it would seem pretty straight forward to do something like enable communications from a smart phone to the car's nav screen. Then use Goggle Maps, which is very good and supplies excellent traffic updates. But what do I know!!

Maybe we have a new thread possibility: The worst built-in automobile nav system!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> No more killer than Jeb Bush for Prez (or most of the ass clowns running). Sorry... I just threw up in my mouth a little.


You think you got it bad? We are about to elect Prime Minister Milliband...


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Actually, Dave Casey, DTS’s senior director of product development, has specifically stated that "it [DTS:X] will work on any speaker layout, *including up-firing speakers*."


The only problem is that as they think the HRTF element is in the speaker, they are going to have a bit of a hard time getting it to work.


----------



## kbarnes701

roxiedog13 said:


> Maybe we could get real answers instead of conjecture ?
> 
> As I have asked *three times* now, did Denon " OFFICIALLY " state they were going to upgrade 2014 models? And don't come back with yes, or I heard so so say, etc. without real evidence. No second hand conjecture, real actual facts please.
> 
> There is a right or wrong. If they did not officially state they would upgrade then I agree, we have absolutely no right to ask for an upgrade , end of story. If they did officially state an upgrade was coming, even a possibility then they owe us an explanation at the very least.
> 
> I see opinions in going in both directions but so far its all rhetoric unless it is backed up. Neither is right or wrong without real factual evidence , so far I have seen nothing solid.


Ask whoever told you that to provide a link to where it was said...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> While I think the industry is moving to streaming and downloading for content, I cannot see the physical disc disappearing. There are just too many problems with a stream/download-only model:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people in rural areas have very slow Internet speeds which are impractical for streaming
> Many people have data caps which makes downloading HD movies impractical
> The move to 4K will see even bigger data sizes, making the two points above even more relevant
> People like to own content physically and to be able to sell it, swap it, lend it etc.
> Content stored on remote servers is at the vagaries of the service provider, who may disappear, change terms etc at any time
> Can you imagine settling down for 'movie night' and halfway through the movie your Internet connection goes down?
> Many people like to take their content with them when they travel - discs are not dependent on your destination having high speed broadband
> Streaming invariably leads to lower quality due to bandwidth demands, especially when Internet speeds are slow
> Storing downloaded content on disc is unreliable - discs will always fail
> Because of the unreliability of magnetic media, complex backups are required (and they cost money)
> Backing up to optical media is a good idea - so you may as well buy the optical media in the first place
> Do you want to be at the mercy of distant content providers who may change their terms of access at short notice, or hold you to ransom with price increases for accessing content you thought you owned?
> 
> These are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head for not wanting to relinquish physical media. It will be years, maybe never, before all these issues are properly resolved.


The problem is... what happens if the media providers just don't care? I do hope physical media is around for a good long while... though as a PC gamer I am thankful that installing a game is only a Steam click away (no worries about scratched/ lost discs) 

"People like to own content physically and to be able to sell it, swap it, lend it etc."

That gets me thinking about what would happen to used sales on Ebay & Amazon if it's all digital... no way to sell a "used" digital file is there? That could actually have quite a huge impact on the economy. 

"Streaming invariably leads to lower quality due to bandwidth demands, especially when Internet speeds are slow"

Even the 4k bluray spec has issues, correct? I've heard HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the required bandwidth to support high frame rate or 3D @ 4k, among perhaps other things as well. On home theater geeks I think I-magic had said the disc association proposed using skimpy disc sizes that might not allow for many features that the likes of us might enjoy. I have a feeling 4k might have 2 different specs to accommodate data requirements. 

I'm looking forwards to hearing about what the disc association plans are... especially when HDR really hits the market.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Csbooth said:


> In case you weren't aware there are several displays this year which render DCI-P3 color space, off the top of my head are ones such as the SUHD series from Samsung (9500,9000,[email protected]%). Sony hasn't released information (that I'm aware of) if their sets support true or pseudo HDR/P3 or not, but it is one of them, and lastly Panasonic will have a few that support DCI-P3 as well; one even that I believe conforms to 100% of it.


I was not aware. I saw those SUHD tv's... very impressive, actually the smaller one (55"?) might have been the best picture I saw... I thought I was looking at an OLED. I'm not sure what the differences are from model to model or if they were calibrated differently but for some reason that tv stood out the most. I forget... are the SUHD tv's actually equipped with dolbyvision/ HDR or is it *just* a FALD? 

So I guess P3 is already here... I'm wondering how drastic of a change that will be in comparison to rec 709?


----------



## jrref

Aras_Volodka said:


> The problem is... what happens if the media providers just don't care? I do hope physical media is around for a good long while... though as a PC gamer I am thankful that installing a game is only a Steam click away (no worries about scratched/ lost discs)
> 
> "People like to own content physically and to be able to sell it, swap it, lend it etc."
> 
> That gets me thinking about what would happen to used sales on Ebay & Amazon if it's all digital... no way to sell a "used" digital file is there? That could actually have quite a huge impact on the economy.
> 
> "Streaming invariably leads to lower quality due to bandwidth demands, especially when Internet speeds are slow"
> 
> Even the 4k bluray spec has issues, correct? I've heard HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the required bandwidth to support high frame rate or 3D @ 4k, among perhaps other things as well. On home theater geeks I think I-magic had said the disc association proposed using skimpy disc sizes that might not allow for many features that the likes of us might enjoy. I have a feeling 4k might have 2 different specs to accommodate data requirements.
> 
> I'm looking forwards to hearing about what the disc association plans are... especially when HDR really hits the market.




What's really going to make streaming "kick in" for the masses is if Roku comes out with a 4K streaming device capable of sending Atmos audio. You can store all you purchases on Ultra Violet and other sites. Go to Vudu and play the Atmos demo disk and compare it to the Bluray. It might not be exactly the same but I can tell you that it is very very good. This is the wave of the future coming much faster than you might imagine.


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was not aware. I saw those SUHD tv's... very impressive, actually the smaller one (55"?) might have been the best picture I saw... I thought I was looking at an OLED. I'm not sure what the differences are from model to model or if they were calibrated differently but for some reason that tv stood out the most. I forget... are the SUHD tv's actually equipped with dolbyvision/ HDR or is it *just* a FALD?
> 
> So I guess P3 is already here... I'm wondering how drastic of a change that will be in comparison to rec 709?


I couldn't really elaborate on the severity of the change the WCG will bring but I do know it's definitely noticeable lol. 

Concerning FALD, sadly only the 9500 comes equipped with that and it's very pricey compared to the 9000/8500. As you saw though, the PQ of the other two SUHD are remarkably improved thanks to the QDF deployed by Samsung.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> So you think D&M are deliberately following a course which will result in lower revenue? How likely do you think that is?
> 
> Do you not think they may have analysed the revenue expected from new product sales vs the revenue lost by not offering an upgrade? And if you think they did, you have come to the conclusion that they deliberately decided to choose the option which delivered them the least revenue? Really?


99.9% of people who bought a 2014 Atoms receiver are not going to buy a new one. They are not going to get much revenue out of me just to add DTS:X.... then in 2016 some will upgrade but most people who bought in 2014, will keep their receivers north of 5 years. So my thinking is it's no skin off their nose if a receiver has the horsepower to do both DTS:X and Atmos, then why not give us an update. Giving us an upgrade will not effect their bottom line.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> You think you got it bad? We are about to elect Prime Minister Milliband...


Did he look around furtively and then eat it too?  

I think politicians are mainly grown up looking first graders.

God help us all...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> The only problem is that as they think the HRTF element is in the speaker, they are going to have a bit of a hard time getting it to work.



When I was at CEDIA, I sat in on a panel with Dolby and Auro's main "dudes" (Brett Crockett and Wilfried Van Baelen along with Andrew Jones, etc.) and it was surprising how little they seemingly knew about each others competing systems - to the point I thought they were going to take their arguments outside and scrap it out. These execs live in a corporate bubble of their own making.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

jrref said:


> This is the wave of the future coming much faster than you might imagine.


I might not want it to...lol!


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> The only problem is that as they think the HRTF element is in the speaker, they are going to have a bit of a hard time getting it to work.


Actually they are half right -- there IS a special "Dolby certified" internal crossover which includes the HRTF notches in the analog domain, built into the speakers. Then, additionally, room correction partners have to make sure to maintain that HRTF as part of their target curve if the speakers are designated as "Dolby enabled" in the processor.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> When I was at CEDIA, I sat in on a panel with Dolby and Auro's main "dudes" (Brett Crockett and Wilfried Van Baelen along with Andrew Jones, etc.) and it was surprising how little they seemingly knew about each others competing systems - to the point I thought they were going to take their arguments outside and scrap it out. * These execs live in a corporate bubble of their own making.*


I have no clue how those companies function, but surely their corporate structure contains some sort of "opposition research" department responsible for scouting out what the competition is doing (and, in some cases, recommending how to put major stink on it). If so, there is really no excuse for the senior execs not to have a basic idea of the competition's product. And if such is not the case, then it's an anomaly in the world of international commerce.

As a member of the U.S. Embassy in Paris back in the 1980's I recall having to counsel visiting American corporate reps not to leave any sensitive proprietary documents in their hotel room unattended. We knew the French were apt to covertly copy anything they could get their hands on if it could assist their government-subsidized companies. And those were our allies; you can imagine what the climate was like in a hostile country!


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Great idea. Instead of selling new units every year, D&M should just allow people to pay for the new bits as and when they see fit. Do you really think this makes sense as a business model? I mean, really?


Yeah. That's what only you and D&M think.
You like analogies. So let me give you one.
Canon 5D Mark III provided a firmware upgrade just last year that adds a feature (making AF work with f/8.0. If you know photography this is a big deal). And it was "freeeeeeeee".
They did not say oh that feature? Get the next model or take a hike..
There are "business models" like this out there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Totally not comparable but okay.


----------



## RapalloAV

kbarnes701 said:


> While I think the industry is moving to streaming and downloading for content, I cannot see the physical disc disappearing. There are just too many problems with a stream/download-only model:
> 
> 
> These are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head for not wanting to relinquish physical media. It will be years, maybe never, before all these issues are properly resolved.


In NZ and Australia DVD/BD rental shops have closed there doors in most of the suburbs, there are few left.
Is this the same in the USA and Europe?


----------



## RapalloAV

roxiedog13 said:


> Boy, that is one small screen


 All these demos seem to run postage stamp screens, seems like the guys into sound arnt into video.
Make the screen look small, makes the sound bigger


----------



## petetherock

chi_guy50 said:


> In six months I have yet to watch a single Atmos movie on my HT system but will finally be getting around to watching _John Wick_ this week.
> 
> Chris, could you please elaborate on why you think this is a good HT Atmos exemplar and point out any particularly noteworthy scenes for audio demo purposes? TIA.


Rain scenes, night club, and many basic ambient scenes...

Also listen to Hunger Games III, esp the bombardment and when the hovercraft takes off...


----------



## petetherock

audioguy said:


> I have another example: I drive a 2012 Lexus RX350. I have a friend who drives the exact same car. We both have the nav system. His car has the most recent map update and mine does not (?). Lexus wants about $300 for the update - no exceptions. [By the way, this is the worst GPS system I have ever been exposed to. Google Maps (free) and my Garmin (less than $200 ) are far superior products]. My friend received the update at no cost (was included when he bought the car).
> 
> So how is that "fair"? What could possibly be the logic?
> 
> Will I never buy or recommend Lexus again? Of course not. Would it be nice/reasonable/fair/appropriate for them to give me the update at no charge? Yes, but they are not going to.


+1
Along the same lines, my 2007 Honda Civic did not have the folding rear seats. Six months later, the 2008 model had them. Do I go back, and jump on the sales rep's table to get my folding rear seats?

No, and my next car is likely to be another Honda...

I bought my 7200 knowing it costs a lot more, despite the lack of real differences (some DACs, maybe power, and some weight aside), simply because I knew it was going to be the only AV receiver that could be updated. Otherwise I would have settled for a SR 7009.

Cheers


----------



## brahman12

*Awesome!!!*



kbarnes701 said:


> Wise words. I had cancer many years ago and the experienced changed my life for ever. You are totally correct.


It is great to read such wonderful news...glad you beat it and many blessings and much prosperity to you and your family bruddah!!!


----------



## RapalloAV

brahman12 said:


> It is great to read such wonderful news...glad you beat it and many blessings and much prosperity to you and your family bruddah!!!


 Keith and I have two things in common, one was cancer which I too beat, the other is HT which Im still trying to beat!


----------



## jrref

petetherock said:


> +1
> Along the same lines, my 2007 Honda Civic did not have the folding rear seats. Six months later, the 2008 model had them. Do I go back, and jump on the sales rep's table to get my folding rear seats?
> 
> No, and my next car is likely to be another Honda...
> 
> I bought my 7200 knowing it costs a lot more, despite the lack of real differences (some DACs, maybe power, and some weight aside), simply because I knew it was going to be the only AV receiver that could be updated. Otherwise I would have settled for a SR 7009.
> 
> Cheers


Your comparisons are ridicules. For the Honda seats, that's hardware and no one expects an upgrade. As for the nav system, the latest disk that runs the maps was shipped with the car. At least if you wanted to pay for the new map disk you could event though you should have gotten it for free. What everyone is talking about is if the 2014 AVR is capable and the manufacturer can provide the software then it should be available to purchase. The big issue is can the software for the 7200 work on the 7009 and how much work is involved to provide it. It may involve a lot of changes and not be worth supporting multiple versions of the software for the different units or it might be close like Auro-3d and be another income stream for the manufacturer. No one really knows and we might never get to know.


----------



## brahman12

*Audio is a Mistress!!!*



RapalloAV said:


> Keith and I have two things in common, one was cancer which I too beat, the other is HT which Im still trying to beat!


That is great to hear brother....I thoroughly enjoy reading genuinely good news like strong people beating difficult times. As for audio/video...don't try to beat her, just keep her in check...HT is like a mistress...you got to keep her around and pay just enough attention to her so that the rest of your world stays interesting, lol ...not that I would actually know about such things.


----------



## pasender91

chi_guy50 said:


> As a member of the U.S. Embassy in Paris back in the 1980's I recall having to counsel visiting American corporate reps not to leave any sensitive proprietary documents in their hotel room unattended. We knew the French were apt to covertly copy anything they could get their hands on if it could assist their government-subsidized companies. And those were our allies; you can imagine what the climate was like in a hostile country!


You're joking right ?
We're amateurs looking at unattended papers in hotel rooms, while your government's NSA spies on a global scale on the whole internet, emails, and telephone comms (proven facts spying on many governments like Germany and Brazil at highest level), under cover of the patriot and FISA act, to also feed companies like Boeing or Northtrop with key info in order to win most military contracts over the planet ... 
And as you may know, this is not science fiction or conspiracy theory, thanks to Mr Snowden 

OH ****, i used the words snowden and NSA in the same message, now i will be under surveillance as well !!!!


----------



## audioguy

My example is NOT ridiculous. What folks want is a firmware update on a product (free or not) and the manufacturer has chosen (apparently) not to provide the update (this all assumes the hardware can support it). The issue is the mfr can do what they want, user desires be-darned. My Lexus example is identical: the mfr, not the user, gets to decide!!!


----------



## dannybee

batpig said:


> Actually they are half right -- there IS a special "Dolby certified" internal crossover which includes the HRTF notches in the analog domain, built into the speakers. Then, additionally, room correction partners have to make sure to maintain that HRTF as part of their target curve if the speakers are designated as "Dolby enabled" in the processor.


 I just use bookshelf speakers which I have positioned high up for 5.2.4 atmos and in the receiver I have just set them as normal, would you suggest setting them to atmos speakers or would it not make any difference with the effect I have the back two behind mlp facing down and front two directly above L+R facing slightly down at mlp I only live in small unit not much room.


----------



## MarkNZL

So what does the future hold for Atmos with regards to speaker configurations? Currently it just supports two predefined configurations.

I assume the algorithms for determining the object locations could work with any speaker configuration. In fact, even improving on the sound quality of a standard 5:1 or 7:1 installation. For example, my surround and rear speakers are mounted on the wall close to the ceiling. So the zones that exist between the rear and fronts must encompass a number of the Atmos object locations. All that is needed is for the receiver to map where my current speakers are, which is what Audessey can already do, then run the appropriate computations, which I'm sure most microprocessors are capable to running.


----------



## pasender91

MarkNZL said:


> So what does the future hold for Atmos with regards to speaker configurations? *Currently it just supports two predefined configurations.*
> 
> I assume the algorithms for determining the object locations could work with any speaker configuration. In fact, even improving on the sound quality of a standard 5:1 or 7:1 installation. For example, my surround and rear speakers are mounted on the wall close to the ceiling. So the zones that exist between the rear and fronts must encompass a number of the Atmos object locations. All that is needed is for the receiver to map where my current speakers are, which is what Audessey can already do, then run the appropriate computations, which I'm sure most microprocessors are capable to running.


What do you mean with the part in bold ?
As a reminder, Atmos for HT supports TODAY up to 24.1.10 output channels, so the number of supported configurations is very high, in the hundreds actually ... 

And yes, it also supports speaker re-mapping, which only Mega-bucks Trinnov PrePro implemented until now. 
What it can do as well is position the Atmos effects based on the actual speaker positions in space 
Those features will come to cheaper AVR, we need to give it some time but it will happen...


----------



## petetherock

jrref said:


> Your comparisons are ridicules. For the Honda seats, that's hardware and no one expects an upgrade. As for the nav system, the latest disk that runs the maps was shipped with the car. At least if you wanted to pay for the new map disk you could event though you should have gotten it for free. What everyone is talking about is if the 2014 AVR is capable and the manufacturer can provide the software then it should be available to purchase. The big issue is can the software for the 7200 work on the 7009 and how much work is involved to provide it. It may involve a lot of changes and not be worth supporting multiple versions of the software for the different units or it might be close like Auro-3d and be another income stream for the manufacturer. No one really knows and we might never get to know.


Mate
You really want the update, and it shows..
For your sake, I hope you get it, even if it doesn't make sense for D&M.
All the best.
Perhaps when you next buy an amp, get it down on paper that the amp that you will buy is upgradable to all future formats, or you may again be disappointed.


----------



## batpig

dannybee said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are half right -- there IS a special "Dolby certified" internal crossover which includes the HRTF notches in the analog domain, built into the speakers. Then, additionally, room correction partners have to make sure to maintain that HRTF as part of their target curve if the speakers are designated as "Dolby enabled" in the processor.
> 
> 
> 
> I just use bookshelf speakers which I have positioned high up for 5.2.4 atmos and in the receiver I have just set them as normal, would you suggest setting them to atmos speakers or would it not make any difference with the effect I have the back two behind mlp facing down and front two directly above L+R facing slightly down at mlp I only live in small unit not much room.
Click to expand...

We are only talking about up-firing Atmos speakers. They are referred to as "Dolby enabled" and bounce the sound off the ceiling. 

If you are actually using physically elevated speakers than what I we are discussing is irrelevant


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> +1
> Along the same lines, my 2007 Honda Civic did not have the folding rear seats. Six months later, the 2008 model had them. Do I go back, and jump on the sales rep's table to get my folding rear seats?
> 
> No, and my next car is likely to be another Honda...


I think you are not "reading"...
No one is talking about the H/W change here.
No one is demanding it either.
No one holding D&M hostage for not doing it.
They are just exploring the possibility and wishing till the official announcement comes out. After that it' all gonna quiet down.
But some folks here are reacting to it as if sky is falling.
So chill folks..
Few more days and it will all be crystal clear. One way or the other..


----------



## petetherock

aaranddeeman said:


> I think you are not "reading"...
> No one is talking about the H/W change here.
> No one is demanding it either.
> No one holding D&M hostage for not doing it.
> They are just exploring the possibility and wishing till the official announcement comes out. After that it' all gonna quiet down.
> But some folks here are reacting to it as if sky is falling.
> So chill folks..
> Few more days and it will all be crystal clear. One way or the other..


Amen sir
I agree that D&M should make it clear, one way or the other.
IMHO, I believe that technically it's possible, but the bean counters / trolls in the marketing section want everyone to buy a new amp.
But hey, like I said, C'est la vie, and hope it all works out


----------



## roxiedog13

roxiedog13 said:


> Maybe we could get real answers instead of conjecture ?
> 
> As I have asked *three times* now, did Denon " OFFICIALLY " state they were going to upgrade 2014 models? And don't come back with yes, or I heard so so say, etc. without real evidence. No second hand conjecture, real actual facts please.
> 
> There is a right or wrong. If they did not officially state they would upgrade then I agree, we have absolutely no right to ask for an upgrade , end of story. If they did officially state an upgrade was coming, even a possibility then they owe us an explanation at the very least.
> 
> I see opinions in going in both directions but so far its all rhetoric unless it is backed up. Neither is right or wrong without real factual evidence , so far I have seen nothing solid.





batpig said:


> Well, considering that it's impossible to prove a negative -- I can't make you read the entire internet to substantiate that Denon did NOT promise to upgrade the 2014 models with DTS:X -- the only reasonable outcome is for someone to come up with the affirmative evidence that D+M actually DID promise something.
> 
> But they never did. So it's not going to happen.


 
Impossible to prove a negative? For a start, that statement "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable.


Agreed though, someone please anti up the proof that D+M offered an upgrade if you have the evidence . And for goodness sakes, give up with the Analogy's to cars and computers, it's only making things worst.  











kbarnes701 said:


> Ask whoever told you that to provide a link to where it was said...


 
Whoever are the members of the Forum. I just personally assumed there was a promise for an upgrade because it was so commonly discussed here. Yes indeed Mr. Whoever, please do come forward and provide the link......should I start a drum roll now ?? 


I have to wonder, assuming nobody does come forward , how in the blazzes does rumors such as these get started.....really ? I bought my X5200 for a great price, knew what it could do, also knowing the X7200 was there for the taking at a higher price and upgradeable later. I settled on the X5200 and happy with it as is , I certainly did not expect any entitlement to an upgrade . 


Have to wonder though , If there never was any promise for an upgrade why did Denon make a statement that there would not in fact be an upgrade for 2014 models.
If they didn't promise it in the first place, why did they have to make a statement denying upgrades, doesn't that seem odd ?


----------



## aaranddeeman

I finally pulled the trigger on X7200.
OpenBox from authorized dealer at amazon.
I think the price is good. MSRP of X5200.


----------



## kjenkins

kbarnes701 said:


> rotlfmao.


I am trying to break this down ... you kids and your shorthand :devil:


----------



## pltan75

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes -Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) will send upmix all your non-Atmos content to use all the speakers in the system. I am not familiar with Pioneer AVRs but you need to find the control which allows you to change the 'sound mode'. It could be labelled 'Movie Mode' or something like that. In that setting you should see all of the upmixers your unit offers - eg DTS Neo:X etc. It is usually accessible via a separate button on the remote as it is an 'on the fly' setting.


Thank you very much I will try to find some help in a Pioneer thread. As it is playing a Blu Ray there seems to be only three available options...TrueHD, Dolby Surround and Stereo. As far as I can tell nothing is coming out from the top speakers ....using Star Trek Into the Darkness Blu Ray.


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> You're joking right ?
> We're amateurs looking at unattended papers in hotel rooms, while your government's NSA spies on a global scale on the whole internet, emails, and telephone comms (proven facts spying on many governments like Germany and Brazil at highest level), under cover of the patriot and FISA act, to also feed companies like Boeing or Northtrop with key info in order to win most military contracts over the planet ...
> And as you may know, this is not science fiction or conspiracy theory, thanks to Mr Snowden
> 
> OH ****, i used the words snowden and NSA in the same message, now i will be under surveillance as well !!!!


Calme-toi, mon vieux! My point was that corporate spying is common practice everywhere, even among allies. You do it, we know you do it, you know that we know that you do it, but nobody's going to admit doing or knowing anything. The difference in France is that the government was involved at the time on behalf of the companies that were State-subsidized. You can believe me when I tell you that U.S. companies were incensed that we could not provide them with anything approaching the backing that their French competitors had from their government--from espionage to 100% offsets. There's a good reason why, year after year, the French were always among the top three nations in foreign military sales behind only the U.S. and the Soviet Union!


----------



## NorthSky

Canadians (French speaking ones; from Quebec)?

Irishmen too?


----------



## batpig

roxiedog13 said:


> I have to wonder, assuming nobody does come forward , how in the blazzes does rumors such as these get started.....really ?


Speculation, repeated over and over on the internet, eventually begins to crystalize as fact in the minds of some. 

I've been following this from the beginning and I'm confident Denon never made any official "promise" or even semi-concrete implication that DTS upgrades were going to happen.



roxiedog13 said:


> Have to wonder though , If there never was any promise for an upgrade why did Denon make a statement that there would not in fact be an upgrade for 2014 models.
> If they didn't promise it in the first place, why did they have to make a statement denying upgrades, doesn't that seem odd ?


When did Denon make a statement that there would not in fact be an upgrade? All I'm aware of is the positive affirmation of the 7200/8802, and a comment pasted here from a chat with an online CSR, which hardly qualifies as a "statement" from the company.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> You're joking right ?
> We're amateurs looking at unattended papers in hotel rooms, while your government's NSA spies on a global scale on the whole internet, emails, and telephone comms (proven facts spying on many governments like Germany and Brazil at highest level), under cover of the patriot and FISA act, to also feed companies like Boeing or Northtrop with key info in order to win most military contracts over the planet ...
> And as you may know, this is not science fiction or conspiracy theory, thanks to Mr Snowden
> 
> OH ****, i used the words snowden and NSA in the same message, now i will be under surveillance as well !!!!


Nope, the tables have turned. Now the NSA can do the f--k all they want and our pathetic worm-like politicians just bend over and take it... you know where... because they want military contracts in their districts. Every bit of data throughout the world is scooped up at their catch-all black sites. A HUGE collection facility is located in Utah. 

Sleep tight Planet Earth.


----------



## NorthSky

Lol, what a bunch.


----------



## maximus74

RapalloAV
"In NZ and Australia DVD/BD rental shops have closed there doors in most of the suburbs, there are few left.
Is this the same in the USA and Europe?"

Same here in East Europe....from 6 centres here in my city, 10 years ago,now is only one left,and i think soon he will close the doors.


----------



## RapalloAV

maximus74 said:


> RapalloAV
> "In NZ and Australia DVD/BD rental shops have closed there doors in most of the suburbs, there are few left.
> Is this the same in the USA and Europe?"
> 
> Same here in East Europe....from 6 centres here in my city, 10 years ago,now is only one left,and i think soon he will close the doors.


This is a real shame, think its a world wide trend.


----------



## RapalloAV

maximus74 said:


> RapalloAV
> "In NZ and Australia DVD/BD rental shops have closed there doors in most of the suburbs, there are few left.
> Is this the same in the USA and Europe?"
> 
> Same here in East Europe....from 6 centres here in my city, 10 years ago,now is only one left,and i think soon he will close the doors.


 I think this is a world wide trend.


----------



## maximus74

We all know here,who is to blame...


----------



## NorthSky

...Streaming (Internet)?


----------



## maximus74

Yeahh...streaming,download...


----------



## NorthSky

Can't blame the explosion of evolution.


----------



## maximus74

You are right,even me i embraced this trend....and i also have a large collection of CD,HD DVD,BLU RAY.


----------



## dvdwilly3

RapalloAV said:


> I think this is a world wide trend.


Not so in the U.S. Here the the business model has changed. True, jUst about every dedicated rental store has closed.

But, there is a company called Redbox that is basically a vending machine that takes credit cards and rents DVDs for $1 and Bluray s for $1.50.

They are located in every grocery store chain that I know of as well as many gas stations, including all 7/11 stores.

They are quite literally everywhere...


----------



## kbarnes701

jrref said:


> What's really going to make streaming "kick in" for the masses is if Roku comes out with a 4K streaming device capable of sending Atmos audio. You can store all you purchases on Ultra Violet and other sites. Go to Vudu and play the Atmos demo disk and compare it to the Bluray. It might not be exactly the same but I can tell you that it is very very good. This is the wave of the future coming much faster than you might imagine.


It makes no difference what they offer if local broadband is too slow to deliver it, which it is for millions of people in rural areas.

Once that problem has been solved then the question is whether the quality of the content is absolutely the best that can be delivered. People spending serious money on 4K displays and PJs, Atmos sound systems etc etc, want the best possible quality. Currently that means discs. And as higher def images become the norm the demand for bandwidth becomes even greater, making it even less likely that people with poor BB speeds will be able to take advantage of it. 

And all of that is also dependent on the other points I made about whether one wants one's paid content in the hands of others.

"Very good" isn’t good enough for me and many enthusiasts. We demand "the best" and that means disc, currently. When broadband is good enough to deliver 40 gig files really fast, then downloading might be an option. And then we have the issue of where we store the downloads. On unreliable magnetic media? I don't think so. The average life of a hard drive is about 5 years - do you want all your movies to disappear one day in 5 years time? No - so you will have to back them up to multiple drives - or to optical media!

The people dreaming up all this stuff need to live in the real world. They may all have 100 meg BB connections and multiple RAID arrays, but most people don't. That is the hard reality behind their dream.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> 99.9% of people who bought a 2014 Atoms receiver are not going to buy a new one. They are not going to get much revenue out of me just to add DTS:X.... then in 2016 some will upgrade but most people who bought in 2014, will keep their receivers north of 5 years. So my thinking is it's no skin off their nose if a receiver has the horsepower to do both DTS:X and Atmos, then why not give us an update. Giving us an upgrade will not effect their bottom line.


The problem is that wanting it, really, really wanting it, isn't going to actually bring it about. It really isn’t going to happen. Time to accept that and to move on. Moving on means either buying a new unit if you have the 4100 or 5200 and want DTS:X - or staying with your current unit and enjoying it until the 2016 models arrive with everything on board. I am in the latter group.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> When I was at CEDIA, I sat in on a panel with Dolby and Auro's main "dudes" (Brett Crockett and Wilfried Van Baelen along with Andrew Jones, etc.) and it was surprising how little they seemingly knew about each others competing systems - t*o the point I thought they were going to take their arguments outside and scrap it out.* These execs live in a corporate bubble of their own making.


Now _that_ is a great way to solve these format war issues. Have the CEOs duke it out on the parking lot! I'll back Crockett over Van Baelen any day


----------



## zimmo

(dvdwilly3)true we have the same in montreal.


----------



## roxiedog13

batpig said:


> Speculation, repeated over and over on the internet, eventually begins to crystalize as fact in the minds of some.
> 
> I've been following this from the beginning and I'm confident Denon never made any official "promise" or even semi-concrete implication that DTS upgrades were going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> When did Denon make a statement that there would not in fact be an upgrade? All I'm aware of is the positive affirmation of the 7200/8802, and a comment pasted here from a chat with an online CSR, which hardly qualifies as a "statement" from the company.


Well then, no promise initially and also no current statement saying they are NOT supporting means this issue is absolutely 100% dead. Lets put this to bed........channels. 

When I arrived on this thread the conversation regarding upgrades was in full swing and I joined the flock immediately like all good sheep do. Well, at least I didn't go over the cliff
with the others.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I have no clue how those companies function, but surely their corporate structure contains some sort of "opposition research" department responsible for scouting out what the competition is doing (and, in some cases, recommending how to put major stink on it). If so, there is really no excuse for the senior execs not to have a basic idea of the competition's product. And if such is not the case, then it's an anomaly in the world of international commerce.


The clients I used to work for all took their competitors' products, took them to pieces, figured out their strengths and weaknesses and then we started working on the advertising knowing which buttons to press.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Yeah. That's what only you and D&M think.
> You like analogies. So let me give you one.
> Canon 5D Mark III provided a firmware upgrade just last year that adds a feature (making AF work with f/8.0. If you know photography this is a big deal). And it was "freeeeeeeee".
> They did not say oh that feature? Get the next model or take a hike..
> There are "business models" like this out there.


AF didn't work if you used f8??? That would be what we call "broken" then. No wonder they fixed it for free. My 5200 isn't broken in any way.


----------



## kbarnes701

pltan75 said:


> Thank you very much I will try to find some help in a Pioneer thread. As it is playing a Blu Ray there seems to be only three available options...TrueHD, Dolby Surround and Stereo. As far as I can tell nothing is coming out from the top speakers ....using Star Trek Into the Darkness Blu Ray.


You selected *Dolby Surround* and nothing is coming from your overhead speakers? Then it seems you have a setup issue. Best answered in the Pioneer thread.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> AF didn't work if you used f8??? That would be what we call "broken" then. No wonder they fixed it for free. My 5200 isn't broken in any way.


No. It's not like that.
AF sensors need enough light to work. Typically with f/5.6 they have no problems. Any smaller and it starts failing.
This f number is not what you are setting when taking picture, it's the one any lens can have as maximum.
E.g. Canon 70-200 f2.8. It's max f stop is f/2.8 which is way better than f/5.6
There is also Canon 70-200 f4. It's max f stop is f/4 as you can see. This will shed less light compared to the one above. This lens is less expensive that the above for this very reason.
Most consumer grade lenses the max f stop is f/5.6. But when someone adds a Teleconverter (say a 1.4x TC that increases the focal length 1.4 times), the f stop also increases by the same factor of the TC.
So for a 200mm lens with max f/5.6 if you add 1.4x TC, it will become 280mm f/8 lens. And now it will not be able to AF if your camera does not have that ability. This feature is available only select few flagship models. Now it is available with 5D MK III and also the newly released 7D MK II which are of prosumer grade.
Sorry for the OT, but I thought it needed elaboration.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> No. It's not like that.
> AF sensors need enough light to work. Typically with f/5.6 they have no problems. Any smaller and it starts failing.
> This f number is not what you are setting when taking picture, it's the one any lens can have as maximum.
> E.g. Canon 70-200 f2.8. It's max f stop is f/2.8 which is way better than f/5.6
> There is also Canon 70-200 f4. It's max f stop is f/4 as you can see. This will shed less light compared to the one above. This lens is less expensive that the above for this very reason.
> Most consumer grade lenses the max f stop is f/5.6. But when someone adds a Teleconverter (say a 1.4x TC that increases the focal length 1.4 times), the f stop also increases by the same factor of the TC.
> So for a 200mm lens with max f/5.6 if you add 1.4x TC, it will become 280mm f/8 lens. And now it will not be able to AF if your camera does not have that ability. This feature is available only select few flagship models. Now it is available with 5D MK III and also the newly released 7D MK II which are of prosumer grade.
> Sorry for the OT, but I thought it needed elaboration.


I use Canon SLRs and my AF works at all stops, even f22. Let's leave it - it is even more OT than usual


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> The clients I used to work for all took their competitors' products, took them to pieces, figured out their strengths and weaknesses and then we started working on the advertising knowing which buttons to press.


Say it isn't so.


----------



## kbarnes701

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/techno...novo-a7000-sold-out-on-flipkart/1/430265.html

Atmos-enabled smartphone takes off.


----------



## Frank714

petetherock said:


> Actually it will be a good idea not to cramp the ATMOS thread with "the upgrade which will now not be named"...
> 
> Someone can of course start a thread on why D&M isn't doing what AVS members want and give that upgrade to the non 7200 / 8802 models... and leave this thread to the propagation of all things Atmospheric


Well...ahem...propagation of all things ATMOSpheric is actually the core issue of my DTS:X software upgrade campaign or whatever you'd like to call it.

I would like everybody reading this to purchase a Dolby Atmos AVR or pre-amp at the earliest next convenience and upgrade their home theaters, because next those fine enthusiasts would buy / watch Dolby Atmos encoded program content and with a little luck we'd arrive at a point where other content providers acknowledge that Dolby Atmos has marketing potential and we'd see more Dolby Atmos encoded program content arrive.

However, because of this DTS:X issue (software upgrade possible for 2014 D & M models?) a vocal majority of eager Dolby Atmos adopter candidates (i.e. those that either cannot afford purchasing a new AVR every two years and/or are budget limited to one of D & M entry models from 2014) are holding back, unless they get an assurance that the entry models, too, could receive this fracking software upgrade once it becomes available.

In simpler language: The DTS:X software upgrade would benefit DOLBY ATMOS in terms of the "big picture", therefore I do not understand why anybody claiming to be a Dolby Atmos aficionado could have any objections. 

Ideal scenario: 2014 D & M Dolby Atmos models are eligible for a DTS:X software upgrade, case closed until DTS:X program content arrives, and we could finally all enjoy and focus entirely on Dolby Atmos program content without loosing sleep over DTS:X.



roxiedog13 said:


> As I have asked *three times* now, did Denon " OFFICIALLY " state they were going to upgrade 2014 models? And don't come back with yes, or I heard so so say, etc. without real evidence. No second hand conjecture, real actual facts please.


The straightforward answer to your straightforward question would be "No" followed by a considerable "but":

First I refer to this post from September 18, 2014 (also try keyword "DTS-UHD"): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-282.html#post27527266

IIRC, the deleted text was a written statement by a D & M manager from the US describing several features of the new Dolby Atmos AVRs. It did highlight the software upgrade capabilities to be used first for Auro 3D (estimated to arrive in December 2014) and probably later for DTS-UHD, once it became available.

In terms of the expectations it created or the assurances it provided (or seemed to provide) I refer to some memoral qoutes from several AVS members: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-44.html#post27617881

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-80.html#post28302578

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-283.html#post27537962

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-284.html#post27542530

As for myself I felt pretty assured (the Auro 3D upgrade became available in December as originally announced) and purchased my Marantz SR 7009 thinking that I would be eligible for a DTS-UHD software upgrade once it became available.

Just a few days later on December 30, 2014 came the big news that DTS-UHD would be coming, but now unter the name DTS:X.

For whatever reason speculation shifted from a "software upgrade" to a "firmware upgrade" and the consensus was that no 2014 D & M entry level model would be eligible for an HDCP 2.2 *and* DTS:X firmware upgrade. As for myself I didn't realistically expect any kind of firmware upgrade for my SR 7009.

And now came April 10, 2015, where D & M issued a press information, stating that DTS:X would arrive as a software upgrade only. 

_So we are exactly back to what we had learned in August / September last year, except that now there is no comment from D & M about using the software upgrade capability of the 2014 models for DTS:X, although one of their managers had highlighted this feature for exactly that kind of purpose!_

Am I seriously to believe that D & M just created this software upgrade capability for the sole purpose of Auro 3D _and nothing else? _



roxiedog13 said:


> There is a right or wrong. If they did not officially state they would upgrade then I agree, we have absolutely no right to ask for an upgrade , end of story. If they did officially state an upgrade was coming, even a possibility then they owe us an explanation at the very least.


According to German law companies are liable for statements of their employees. In this particular case we _had_ a written statement by a D & M manager and this information was also reportedly spread through that mentioned UK dealer. Possibly for internal purposes it leaked (accidentally or deliberately) to the AV public and gave D & M effectively a competing advantage over other AV brands.
However, unless you consider Auro 3D an important asset, it now turns out that the 2014 D & M models (unless these are also eligible for the DTS:X software upgrade) do not have the advantage over the competing models from Onkyo, Yamaha or Pioneer, IMHO. 

Therefore I do think D & M Holdings owes us an explanation at the very least.


----------



## tjenkins95

Seriously - enough of this DTS:X crap! Please give it a rest.:kiss:


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-x4100-x5200-x7200-44.html#post27617881


While I agree with tjenkins, I feel I should point out that in the quote you linked to my post, I was referring to DTS:UHD (as it was then) arriving - not an upgrade to any AVRs.


----------



## lujan

dvdwilly3 said:


> Not so in the U.S. Here the the business model has changed. True, jUst about every dedicated rental store has closed.
> 
> But, there is a company called Redbox that is basically a vending machine that takes credit cards and rents DVDs for $1 and Bluray s for $1.50.
> 
> They are located in every grocery store chain that I know of as well as many gas stations, including all 7/11 stores.
> 
> They are quite literally everywhere...


How long has it been since you've been to Redbox? It is now $1.50 for DVDs and $2.00 for bluray.


----------



## dvdwilly3

lujan said:


> How long has it been since you've been to Redbox? It is now $1.50 for DVDs and $2.00 for bluray.


If it is a movie that I even care about seeing, I generally buy it. So, it has been several weeks...a month or two...since I have rented from Redbox.

Even at that, $2 to rent a Bluray? You pay that much for a cup of coffee out.

But, they are often hamstrung...that is, no Atmos...


----------



## jrogers

lujan said:


> How long has it been since you've been to Redbox? It is now $1.50 for DVDs and $2.00 for bluray.


Problem is, at least from what I've read on AVS, that Redbox Blu-rays often (always?) only have DD 5.1 audio and, of course, none of the extras. I'm guessing this is the studios' decision and not Redbox's - but I would think this is something they'd want to change in order to continue to better compete with streaming services (most now offering DD+)

I guess just another indication of what a small percentage of the viewing audience we (who care about things such as lossless audio, Atmos, TrueHD, etc.) are


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It makes no difference what they offer if local broadband is too slow to deliver it, which it is for millions of people in rural areas.
> 
> Once that problem has been solved then the question is whether the quality of the content is absolutely the best that can be delivered. People spending serious money on 4K displays and PJs, Atmos sound systems etc etc, want the best possible quality. Currently that means discs. And as higher def images become the norm the demand for bandwidth becomes even greater, making it even less likely that people with poor BB speeds will be able to take advantage of it.
> 
> And all of that is also dependent on the other points I made about whether one wants one's paid content in the hands of others.
> 
> "Very good" isn’t good enough for me and many enthusiasts. We demand "the best" and that means disc, currently. When broadband is good enough to deliver 40 gig files really fast, then downloading might be an option. And then we have the issue of where we store the downloads. On unreliable magnetic media? I don't think so. The average life of a hard drive is about 5 years - do you want all your movies to disappear one day in 5 years time? No - so you will have to back them up to multiple drives - or to optical media!
> 
> The people dreaming up all this stuff need to live in the real world. They may all have 100 meg BB connections and multiple RAID arrays, but most people don't. That is the hard reality behind their dream.


I live in a major metropolitan area, but my ISP can only give me 3Mbps (DSL) connection speed, which is suboptimal for full HD video. That's issue no. 1.

Issue no. 2 is that the title selection for streaming is much more limited than it is for disk rental from major providers such as Netflix. This may well change over time if streaming becomes the main entertainment delivery option, but for now the restricted availability of what I what to watch makes streaming unattractive to me except as an alternative to my principal source of movies.



dvdwilly3 said:


> If it is a movie that I even care about seeing, I generally buy it. So, it has been several weeks...a month or two...since I have rented from Redbox.
> 
> Even at that, $2 to rent a Bluray? You pay that much for a cup of coffee out.
> 
> But, they are often hamstrung...that is, no Atmos...


AFAIK, Redbox has a very limited selection concentrated on the most popular recent releases. Additionally, you are generally limited to whatever titles happen to be in stock at the kiosk you choose to visit. Then, on top of all that, there's the downgraded audio codec issue.

I have found Netflix to be an unbeatable bargain compared to all of the other options available to me. Not only do they have the largest selection of titles (although I see room for improvement in some areas such as foreign movies), but they can respond from a national inventory if your choice is not available locally. Furthermore, the Blu-rays typically contain the full-scale audio codec. Plus, they are delivered to your mailbox, obviating the trip to the store to pick up and return the disks. On my current plan of two Blu-ray disks at a time (total cost $16.19 p.m. including tax), I am averaging between 10 and 12 movies a month, which amounts to about $1.50 per disk including the cost of two-way mailing. Netflix has a host of other plans to fit any budget from $5.00 p.m. on up, and you can change your plan from month to month to suit your schedule or wallet at no additional charge. And there are no late fees.

For my purposes, Netflix strikes me as a very good deal indeed. I will be counting on them for a steady supply of Atmos movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I live in a major metropolitan area, but my ISP can only give me 3Mbps (DSL) connection speed, which is suboptimal for full HD video. That's issue no. 1.
> 
> Issue no. 2 is that the title selection for streaming is much more limited than it is for disk rental from major providers such as Netflix. This may well change over time if streaming becomes the main entertainment delivery option, but for now the restricted availability of what I what to watch makes streaming unattractive to me except as an alternative to my principal source of movies.


Quite. There are more disadvantages with the streaming/download model than there are advantages. The sole driver for it is the studios - they know that if they control the content you (think you) own then they control you and how you use, what you do with it and so on. It's way too restrictive for my personality type to be controlled in that sort of way. If I buy something, I want to be the person who decides what I do with it. And that is setting aside for the time being the issue of quality over low bandwidth broadband. What on earth is the point of spending thousands of dollars on a HD TV or 4K TV, or PJ, and then having lousy, compressed video?



chi_guy50 said:


> Plus, they are delivered to your mailbox, obviating the trip to the store to pick up and return the disks. On my current plan of two Blu-ray disks at a time (total cost $16.19 p.m. including tax), I am averaging between 10 and 12 movies a month, which amounts to about $1.50 per disk including the cost of two-way mailing. Netflix has a host of other plans to fit any budget from $5.00 p.m. on up, and you can change your plan from month to month to suit your schedule or wallet at no additional charge. And there are no late fees.


I have a similar rental deal with Lovefilm in the UK (part of Amazon) - 2 Bluray discs at a time. I buy most of my content but I rent stuff I am unsure about or pretty certain I will only watch one time. If I end up really liking the movie, I'll buy it. This MO means that I can usually buy the Blurays later in their release timeframe, or secondhand, so saving me money in the long term.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> It makes no difference what they offer if local broadband is too slow to deliver it, which it is for millions of people in rural areas.
> 
> Once that problem has been solved then the question is whether the quality of the content is absolutely the best that can be delivered. People spending serious money on 4K displays and PJs, Atmos sound systems etc etc, want the best possible quality. Currently that means discs. And as higher def images become the norm the demand for bandwidth becomes even greater, making it even less likely that people with poor BB speeds will be able to take advantage of it.
> 
> And all of that is also dependent on the other points I made about whether one wants one's paid content in the hands of others.
> 
> "Very good" isn’t good enough for me and many enthusiasts. We demand "the best" and that means disc, currently. When broadband is good enough to deliver 40 gig files really fast, then downloading might be an option. And then we have the issue of where we store the downloads. On unreliable magnetic media? I don't think so. The average life of a hard drive is about 5 years - do you want all your movies to disappear one day in 5 years time? No - so you will have to back them up to multiple drives - or to optical media!
> 
> The people dreaming up all this stuff need to live in the real world. They may all have 100 meg BB connections and multiple RAID arrays, but most people don't. That is the hard reality behind their dream.


The only problem is that we're such a small minority, so we don't matter much to the studios. They want the large group in the middle who unfortunately have TVs that are stuck on Vivid mode, they sit 10 feet away from a 40" TV, and use the TV speakers in their flat panel as their "reference" audio system. A Dolby 2.0 stereo feed and crappy Internet stream makes the mass majority happy campers. Frankly, with the system outlined above they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the Blu-ray and streaming anyway...that's what we're fighting against. 

Look at what Lionsgate is doing. Want to rent from Redbox, go ahead, but you'll get the basics (no lossless audio, no supplements). While I can live with the latter, the former is a deal breaker for me and many other enthusiasts, so what happens...we buy the movie. The studio wins either way...they get the rental from Joe-6-pack and the purchase from the small minority of enthusiasts (maybe 100-200K people here in the states).


----------



## BigScreen

I dislike streaming and use it only on the same level as watching cable/satellite. It's an option, but it's far from my primary choice, and I don't see a way for that to change without major changes in how streaming titles are delivered (which I don't see happening) 

Another challenge against streaming taking over the marketplace is that streaming runs the risk of suffering from its own success. The more people stream, the more stress it places on the infrastructure that is being depended upon to deliver it. The servers have to be up to the task and the service providers have to be as well. This is all (mostly) functional at the current adoption rate, but what happens in the extreme situation of no disc-based media being available? (which is the end-game of where I think studios want things)

Imagine if Avengers: Age of Ultron (insert your favorite major movie release here) is only available via streaming. Amazon, Netflix, VUDU, iTunes, and all the other services make it available on the same day, and the initial reaction is high because it's an A-list title that probably was one of the top movies of the year in terms of popularity. How many servers will it take to absorb that demand? SlingTV had quite a few issues when the NCAA Basketball Final Game was broadcast over its online service geared to cord-cutters that couldn't get ESPN any other way. Given the lack of such issues with the big players in the past, we can assume that the various services are pretty good at anticipating demand and having the equipment necessary to deliver it. 

But what about the other end of the line? I imagine that a fair number of people are using cable-based Internet service, which means that, even though they might be paying for 15 or 30 Mbps service, the ISP is not structured to handle a large number of their customers using a large amount of bandwidth all at the same time.

If that's the case, the consumer is left with jerky playback issues or highly reduced quality due to the lack of bandwidth. Personally, I don't like the idea of inconsistent picture and sound quality, and I will always prefer disc-based playback over streaming. Maybe that's why we haven't seen Atmos made available on any streaming movie releases to date. The extra data overhead may be too much, and would the height channels go away entirely if the bandwidth were to drop too low? Imagine watching an immersive movie, and suddenly the height channels disappear altogether, or come and go along with the picture quality as impacted by congestion...

They can have my disc-based media when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands!


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> While I agree with tjenkins, I feel I should point out that in the quote you linked to my post, I was referring to DTS:UHD (as it was then) arriving - not an upgrade to any AVRs.


I selected the quote exclusively to illustrate that we had noticed the news, the one concerning the software upgrade possibilities is the last of the four: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-284.html#post27542530

What happened to your enthusiasm? Then you considered the _"possibility of upgrading an existing unit to Auro and/or DTS-UHD fabulous"_ but now you suggest we shouldn't expect or ask D & M to make use of this feature.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> The only problem is that we're such a small minority, so we don't matter much to the studios. They want the large group in the middle who unfortunately have TVs that are stuck on Vivid mode, they sit 10 feet away from a 40" TV, and use the TV speakers in their flat panel as their "reference" audio system. A Dolby 2.0 stereo feed and crappy Internet stream makes the mass majority happy campers. Frankly, with the system outlined above they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the Blu-ray and streaming anyway...that's what we're fighting against.


Sadly, Dave, there is much truth in that. But the hardware manufacturers are our friends. They are constantly striving to go the extra mile in SQ and PQ - look at all the advances made in the past couple of years with 4K, Dolby Vision, UHD, Atmos, DTS:X etc etc. All of these advances become pointless if all we have are low-res images and basic sound. So if we are buying all this gear, then we must assume a supply of high quality content to watch on it, or it is pointless. I hope so anyway...



Dave Vaughn said:


> Look at what Lionsgate is doing. Want to rent from Redbox, go ahead, but you'll get the basics (no lossless audio, no supplements). While I can live with the latter, the former is a deal breaker for me and many other enthusiasts, so what happens...we buy the movie. The studio wins either way...they get the rental from Joe-6-pack and the purchase from the small minority of enthusiasts (maybe 100-200K people here in the states).


Well yeah - that's the model that have adopted. They sell cheap to Redbox etc, but a basic product and a luxury product to stores like Amazon etc, for those who want more. I personally don't see a problem with that - it's the standard, good-better-best product concept with something in each price range for everyone. When I rent I am happy with basic - just the movie and even DD 5.1 sound. When I buy, I pay more and demand the full package.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I dislike streaming and use it only on the same level as watching cable/satellite. It's an option, but it's far from my primary choice, and I don't see a way for that to change without major changes in how streaming titles are delivered (which I don't see happening)
> 
> Another challenge against streaming taking over the marketplace is that streaming runs the risk of suffering from its own success. The more people stream, the more stress it places on the infrastructure that is being depended upon to deliver it. The servers have to be up to the task and the service providers have to be as well. This is all (mostly) functional at the current adoption rate, but what happens in the extreme situation of no disc-based media being available? (which is the end-game of where I think studios want things)
> 
> Imagine if Avengers: Age of Ultron (insert your favorite major movie release here) is only available via streaming. Amazon, Netflix, VUDU, iTunes, and all the other services make it available on the same day, and the initial reaction is high because it's an A-list title that probably was one of the top movies of the year in terms of popularity. How many servers will it take to absorb that demand? SlingTV had quite a few issues when the NCAA Basketball Final Game was broadcast over its online service geared to cord-cutters that couldn't get ESPN any other way. Given the lack of such issues with the big players in the past, we can assume that the various services are pretty good at anticipating demand and having the equipment necessary to deliver it.
> 
> But what about the other end of the line? I imagine that a fair number of people are using cable-based Internet service, which means that, even though they might be paying for 15 or 30 Mbps service, the ISP is not structured to handle a large number of their customers using a large amount of bandwidth all at the same time.
> 
> If that's the case, the consumer is left with jerky playback issues or highly reduced quality due to the lack of bandwidth. Personally, I don't like the idea of inconsistent picture and sound quality, and I will always prefer disc-based playback over streaming. Maybe that's why we haven't seen Atmos made available on any streaming movie releases to date. The extra data overhead may be too much, and would the height channels go away entirely if the bandwidth were to drop too low? Imagine watching an immersive movie, and suddenly the height channels disappear altogether, or come and go along with the picture quality as impacted by congestion...
> 
> They can have my disc-based media when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands!


Excellent points. +1. No matter what bandwidth we get, imagine on the release day of a tentpole movie and everyone in the neighborhood is streaming it at the same time. I have 30-40 meg broadband where I live. As soon as all the kids get home from school, it drops to about 15 meg as they all go online at the same time. About 9.30pm when they all go to bed, speed goes back to normal. Now that isn't too bad for someone who starts with 30-40 meg, but imagine what it is like for those who start with 3 meg, like chi-guy. For most of the evening, he won't be able to stream diddly.


----------



## kbarnes701

Frank714 said:


> I selected the quote exclusively to illustrate that we had noticed the news, the one concerning the software upgrade possibilities is the last of the four: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-284.html#post27542530
> 
> What happened to your enthusiasm? Then you considered the _"possibility of upgrading an existing unit to Auro and/or DTS-UHD fabulous"_ but now you suggest we shouldn't expect or ask D & M to make use of this feature.


I still think it would be fabulous to have the upgrade. But now I know we ain't getting it (on my 5200) so I am just being realistic.


----------



## cdelena

Dave Vaughn said:


> ...
> 
> Look at what Lionsgate is doing. Want to rent from Redbox, go ahead, but you'll get the basics (no lossless audio, no supplements). While I can live with the latter, the former is a deal breaker for me and many other enthusiasts, so what happens...we buy the movie. The studio wins either way...they get the rental from Joe-6-pack and the purchase from the small minority of enthusiasts (maybe 100-200K people here in the states).



Yes, it has forced us into an alliance here. We and two other couples coordinate purchases on titles and share the disks. 


We were big Redbox fans once but as the studio limited sound tracks we started selective purchases and since we don't really want a collection it was not ideal. Now all usually watch in my theater and after a few showings I really don't worry who has the disk.


I just have to buy all magnifying glasses so they can read the labels and find the Atmos releases.


----------



## lorjam

Speaking of finding the Atmos releases, does anyone see any upcoming Blu-ray releases with Atmos encoded audio? It looks to me like the deluxe "Gravity" is it for a while.


----------



## Scott Simonian

lorjam said:


> Speaking of finding the Atmos releases, does anyone see any upcoming Blu-ray releases with Atmos encoded audio? It looks to me like the deluxe "Gravity" is it for a while.


American Sniper
Insurgent
Jupiter Ascending


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> That announcement was made when it was assumed that DTS would release DTS:X in a timely manner, not delay it for months. In fact they delayed it so long that the 2015 units are in the pipeline already, making it pointless to offer upgrades to older units. If people want the latest gizmos, they need to buy the latest units. It has always been thus and probably always will be.
> 
> The exception is the 7200 which has a 2 year life cycle not a 1 year.


IMHO with all your appreciated pragmatic contributions on the matter here, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people reading this Forum, are by now starting to become really convinced that there won't be a DTS:X uppgrade beyond the Denon 7200 and Marantz 8802 products.

Now if I was to be a smart D&M marketing guy (which I am not), I would take advantage of all this... by proving you wrong... and providing this upgrade free of charge... in which case this would become one of the SMARTEST marketing decisions lately. No? 

Amicalement,

Hugo


----------



## lujan

dvdwilly3 said:


> If it is a movie that I even care about seeing, I generally buy it. So, it has been several weeks...a month or two...since I have rented from Redbox.
> 
> Even at that, $2 to rent a Bluray? You pay that much for a cup of coffee out.
> 
> But, they are often hamstrung...that is, no Atmos...





jrogers said:


> Problem is, at least from what I've read on AVS, that Redbox Blu-rays often (always?) only have DD 5.1 audio and, of course, none of the extras. I'm guessing this is the studios' decision and not Redbox's - but I would think this is something they'd want to change in order to continue to better compete with streaming services (most now offering DD+)
> 
> I guess just another indication of what a small percentage of the viewing audience we (who care about things such as lossless audio, Atmos, TrueHD, etc.) are


I think it depends on the studio. I don't remember exactly which one but it might have been John Wick or maybe Prince that I rented that had the Atmos sound track on the rental?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO with all your appreciated pragmatic contributions on the matter here, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people reading this Forum, are by now starting to become really convinced that there won't be a DTS:X uppgrade beyond the Denon 7200 and Marantz 8802 products.
> 
> Now if I was to be a smart D&M marketing guy (which I am not), I would take advantage of all this... by proving you wrong... and providing this upgrade free of charge... in which case this would become one of the SMARTEST marketing decisions lately. No?
> 
> Amicalement,
> 
> Hugo


On the flip side, maybe a D&M accountant would suggest that they not do that and release new hardware that will cost much more than free and make a profit.

Sounds like a smarter decision if I owned a big business.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I use Canon SLRs and my AF works at all stops, even f22. Let's leave it - it is even more OT than usual


You are absolutely right. What you are referring to is the f stop you want to use for picture taking.
This is not what is used when it does Auto Focus.
AF always uses the wide open max aperture of the lens to focus.
The f stop you set is only when the actual picture is taken.
So an a picture taking scenario, when you press the shutter, following happens
1. Focus and meter
2. Set user selected f stop and or shutter (or auto adjust)
3. Open shutter to take picture

If focussing is done at what you set, you will not be able to see anything through the viewfinder (especially with f22) when you set those small apertures.
Sorry folks. This was the last OT.


----------



## TennisPro02

Has anyone else gotten access to the Dolby Atmos Demo Blu Ray created Jan 2015? The new "Horizon" trailer is awesome plus the 3 Dolby Atmos movie clips. Sorry if this has been discussed but I haven't seen an actual physical copy until I got one yesterday.


----------



## lorjam

Scott Simonian said:


> American Sniper
> Insurgent
> Jupiter Ascending


Went back to my Amazon shopping cart. Now I see it in the lower right hand corner on the back of the case.


----------



## NorthSky

> The problem is that wanting it, really, really wanting it, isn't going to actually bring it about. It really isn’t going to happen. Time to accept that and to move on. Moving on means either buying a new unit if you have the 4100 or 5200 and want DTS:X - or staying with your current unit and enjoying it until the 2016 models arrive with everything on board. I am in the latter group.


♦ "Wanting" ...that's more important today than being. 

* Some folks are passionate on exploring all "impossible" avenues; it's in the human nature, survival's instinct.
And audio forums are the perfect highway medium for exploration and furthering discussions. 



> The clients I used to work for all took their competitors' products, took them to pieces, figured out their strengths and weaknesses and then we started working on the advertising knowing which buttons to press.


♦ That sounds quite nasty. 



> Seriously - enough of this DTS:X crap! Please give it a rest.:kiss:


♦ Lol, DTS:X is a big part of Dolby Atmos...they are like two inseparable brother and sister. 



> I dislike streaming and use it only on the same level as watching cable/satellite. It's an option, but it's far from my primary choice, and I don't see a way for that to change without major changes in how streaming titles are delivered (which I don't see happening)
> 
> Another challenge against streaming taking over the marketplace is that streaming runs the risk of suffering from its own success. The more people stream, the more stress it places on the infrastructure that is being depended upon to deliver it. The servers have to be up to the task and the service providers have to be as well. This is all (mostly) functional at the current adoption rate, but what happens in the extreme situation of no disc-based media being available? (which is the end-game of where I think studios want things)
> 
> Imagine if Avengers: Age of Ultron (insert your favorite major movie release here) is only available via streaming. Amazon, Netflix, VUDU, iTunes, and all the other services make it available on the same day, and the initial reaction is high because it's an A-list title that probably was one of the top movies of the year in terms of popularity. How many servers will it take to absorb that demand? SlingTV had quite a few issues when the NCAA Basketball Final Game was broadcast over its online service geared to cord-cutters that couldn't get ESPN any other way. Given the lack of such issues with the big players in the past, we can assume that the various services are pretty good at anticipating demand and having the equipment necessary to deliver it.
> 
> But what about the other end of the line? I imagine that a fair number of people are using cable-based Internet service, which means that, even though they might be paying for 15 or 30 Mbps service, the ISP is not structured to handle a large number of their customers using a large amount of bandwidth all at the same time.
> 
> If that's the case, the consumer is left with jerky playback issues or highly reduced quality due to the lack of bandwidth. Personally, I don't like the idea of inconsistent picture and sound quality, and I will always prefer disc-based playback over streaming. Maybe that's why we haven't seen Atmos made available on any streaming movie releases to date. The extra data overhead may be too much, and would the height channels go away entirely if the bandwidth were to drop too low? Imagine watching an immersive movie, and suddenly the height channels disappear altogether, or come and go along with the picture quality as impacted by congestion...
> They can have my disc-based media when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands!


♦ Great post. ...Support is going down and down...3D picture, and 3D sound. ...Only the true hardcore ones (us) are fighting for our own survival in this new streaming/downloading economic reality.

I was @ some local BestBuy and Walmart and HMV stores not long ago; and everything Movie (Blu-ray) and Music (CD) is diminishing very rapidly; quantity wise (no more good selection). Plus, I saw some outrageous prices on Blu-rays...3D, Criterion, Disney, and others. It is truly scary and scarce. Physical stores for electronics and entertainment software are no longer supported; you won't find experienced staff to help you out there.

Today, it's amazon, worldwide, ...and eBay for some. For others it's thrift stores, Salvation Army stores, and Good Will stores, and pawn shops.



> Speaking of finding the Atmos releases, does anyone see any upcoming Blu-ray releases with Atmos encoded audio? It looks to me like the deluxe "Gravity" is it for a while.


♦ Indeed (see below).



> *- American Sniper
> - Insurgent
> - Jupiter Ascending*


♦ I guess those are the three next ones; for next May and June.



> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> IMHO with all your appreciated pragmatic contributions on the matter here, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people reading this Forum, are by now starting to become really convinced that there won't be a DTS:X uppgrade beyond the Denon 7200 and Marantz 8802 products.
> 
> *Now if I was to be a smart D&M marketing guy (which I am not), I would take advantage of all this...and providing this upgrade free of charge... in which case this would become one of the SMARTEST marketing decisions lately. No?*
> 
> Amicalement, Hugo


♦ Good morning Hugo,

This is awesomeness what you just said; and something myself has contemplated for quite a while. 
I know they can do it, and I also know they won't. 

But if they do, it would be one of the very best _"coup"_ in the history of audio development/strategy/business. 
...They would create a fan club, and also another group of "hatred" manufacturers.
It's just not the way all those audio manufacturers are doing business...Microsoft, Apple, Androids, Macs, dts, Dolby, Samsung, Sony, Lexicon, Oppo, Onkyo, Denon, Harman Kardon, and all that audio/video jazz including HDMI and 4K on Blu-ray. ...And 3D picture too; Disney, WB ('Gravity'), and aspect ratio (IMAX, 'Interstellar', 'The Dark Knight', Woody Allen, 'Maleficent', 70mm, 35mm, 2.40:1, 1.85:1, Digital, Film, etc.). 

Avec mes meilleurs souhaits de la journee,
_Robert_


----------



## lujan

TennisPro02 said:


> Has anyone else gotten access to the Dolby Atmos Demo Blu Ray created Jan 2015? The new "Horizon" trailer is awesome plus the 3 Dolby Atmos movie clips. Sorry if this has been discussed but I haven't seen an actual physical copy until I got one yesterday.


If that's the same one that has the Enrique Iglesias music video, then yes.


----------



## robert816

I guess in a way I'm lucky, as a Pioneer Atmos AVR owner, I have no future expectations.  
(for the current model that is )

With Pioneer you get what you got when you bought it, any new features, codecs, or DSP modes, have normally been associated with buy the new model.

I'm waiting to see what Pioneer will offer this year, but I'm starting to lean toward the D&M line for the future. Hope we start seeing 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 capable AVR's in the coming years.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO with all your appreciated pragmatic contributions on the matter here, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people reading this Forum, are by now starting to become really convinced that there won't be a DTS:X uppgrade beyond the Denon 7200 and Marantz 8802 products.
> 
> Now if I was to be a smart D&M marketing guy (which I am not), I would take advantage of all this... *by proving you wrong*... and providing this upgrade free of charge... in which case this would become one of the SMARTEST marketing decisions lately. No?
> 
> Amicalement,
> 
> Hugo


Maybe this is my cunning plan? Je suis le Maquis


----------



## NorthSky

robert said:


> I guess in a way I'm lucky, as a Pioneer Atmos AVR owner, *I have no future expectations*.
> (for the current model that is )
> With Pioneer you get what you got when you bought it, any new features, codecs, or DSP modes, have normally been associated with buy the new model.
> 
> I'm waiting to see what Pioneer will offer this year, but I'm starting to lean toward the D&M line for the future.
> * Hope we start seeing 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 capable AVR's in the coming years.


Hi Robert,
You are realistic, bravo!

* As for more channels; I highly doubt it to be perfectly honest and realistic with you. ...The only dream we can afford to have is perhaps *9.1.4*
...And that, would be it. ...And perhaps three years from now, if not more. ...I think, and with abso!ute uncertainty.


----------



## Oledurt

For you millennials who can't stand reading. I'll break it down to you right up front. #stopwhiningaboutdtsxupgrade ...*stop reading here* everyone else carry on...

Some of the whining about the DTS X upgrade is just infantile. Probably 80% of this hobby is researching, learning, planning, and obsessing about the next upgrade. True lovers of this hobby are technophiles first and foremost. We were the nerds with stacks of popular science magazines. When it comes to anything in my home theater the option to upgrade is always open. I guarantee no matter how awesome a persons HT is and how "perfect" they claim it is, if suddenly given cash there will be some upgrading

Bottom line is this...true lovers of this hobby don't care about some stupid upgrade, because they are too busy enjoying the hell out of their Atmos enabled pre/pro right now. There is always a reason to upgrade, and that is the fun for true technophile HT enthusiasts like me, and many many others on these forums.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But now I know we ain't getting it (on my 5200) so I am just being realistic.


To make people feel better, maybe you could pretend the last 6 months didn't happen and go back to being as enthusiastic as you were last September.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oledurt said:


> For you millennials who can't stand reading. I'll break it down to you right up front. #stopwhiningaboutdtsxupgrade ...*stop reading here* everyone else carry on...
> 
> Some of the whining about the DTS X upgrade is just infantile. Probably 80% of this hobby is researching, learning, planning, and obsessing about the next upgrade. There is always some new hope on the horizon true lovers of this hobby are technophiles first and foremost. We were the nerds with stacks of popular science magazines. When it comes to anything in my home theater the option to upgrade is always open. I guarantee no matter how awesome a persons HT is and how "perfect" they claim it is, if suddenly given cash there will be some upgrading
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this...true lovers of this hobby don't care about some stupid upgrade, because they are too busy enjoying the hell out of their Atmos enabled pre/pro right now. There is always a reason to upgrade, and that is the fun for true technophile HT enthusiasts like me, and many many others on these forums.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The password is 'tightwad'. 



sdurani said:


> To make people feel better, maybe you could pretend the last 6 months didn't happen and go back to being as enthusiastic as you were last September.


Yeah but Atmos isn't new and shiny anymore. The new hotness is DTS:X.


----------



## NorthSky

> Yeah but Atmos isn't new and shiny anymore. The new hotness is *dts:X*


----------



## robert816

I saw the initial still scene in that You Tube video and thought "did that woman in the Red dress just fart?"


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> ... Je suis le Maquis


 ... je m'en doutais... sans Echelon... 

H.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> To make people feel better, maybe you could pretend the last 6 months didn't happen and go back to being as enthusiastic as you were last September.


Hahaha. Good idea.

I am really pumped at the idea that we will all be getting a free upgrade on our D&M units for the new DTS:UHD format. It will be really great - D&M will be setting the way for AVR manufacturers who for too long have forced us, against our will, to buy a brand new AVR every year, throwing the old one in the trash where it so richly deserves to go, with its totally outdated feature set. Not only are D&M going to upgrade our 4100 and 5200 units to DTS:UHD, but I am given to understand that we will be getting HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 for free as well, along with a new front panel featuring the much rumored D&M full color HD OLED display. 

Anyone care to speculate on what DTS will call their new 3D sound format - I've heard it's definitely going to be called DTS:Auromos.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> The password is 'tightwad'.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but Atmos isn't new and shiny anymore. The new hotness is DTS:X.


Is that what they're calling it then? :X? Are they naming it after Charles Xavier? DTS:Magneto sounds better to me. I bet that's what they call it you know. I've already seen a picture on the Internet showing the new full color HD OLED display that D&M are bringing in this fall and it definitely showed 9.4.6 DTS:Magneto on the front. Rumour has it that all D&M models going back to 1999 will get the OLED display as a free upgrade.

This is a sneak preview of the sort of thing the display can do - please do not pass this info on as it is currently under embargo. I only got it because my cousin's husband's uncle Larry works for a company which supplies hot dogs to D&M's staff restaurant in Seattle.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> American Sniper
> Insurgent
> Jupiter Ascending


yes thanks Scott for answering 
here is a good place you can go to find whats being announced blu-rays with Atmos.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=atmos+list


----------



## NorthSky

> Anyone care to speculate on what DTS will call their new 3D sound format - I've heard it's definitely going to be called DTS:Auromos.


dts Neural:eX ?


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> ... je m'en doutais... sans Echelon...
> 
> H.


Je t'ai dit de ne jamais mentionner Échelon. Maintenant, il me faut te tuer.


----------



## NorthSky

> Je t'ai dit de ne jamais mentionner Échelon. Maintenant, il me faut te tuer.


That's a terrible thing to say, and completely OT. ...Ya I know, you weren't serious.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent points. +1. No matter what bandwidth we get, imagine on the release day of a tentpole movie and everyone in the neighborhood is streaming it at the same time. I have 30-40 meg broadband where I live. As soon as all the kids get home from school, it drops to about 15 meg as they all go online at the same time. About 9.30pm when they all go to bed, speed goes back to normal. *Now that isn't too bad for someone who starts with 30-40 meg, but imagine what it is like for those who start with 3 meg, like chi-guy. For most of the evening, he won't be able to stream diddly.*


Correction: You will note in my post that I stated I have a *DSL* connection. No shared traffic = no connection speed downgrades. I get a rock-solid, dependable 3Mbps 24/7. No more, and no less. Oh, and no data caps, thank you very much.

But your broader point is well taken. The commercial data infrastructure will have to be significantly improved--particularly in third-world countries such as my own--if we all want to stream hi-rez A/V simultaneously. And did I mention data caps?


----------



## NorthSky

> Correction: You will note in my post that I stated I have a *DSL* connection. No shared traffic = no connection speed downgrades. I get a rock-solid, dependable 3Mbps 24/7. No more, and no less. Oh, and no data caps, thank you very much.
> 
> But your broader point is well taken. The commercial data infrastructure will have to be significantly improved--particularly in third-world countries such as my own--if we all want to stream hi-rez A/V simultaneously. And did I mention data caps?


With that type of bandwidth can you get 240p VHS quality? 

* Me I got less than 1Mbps, so don't feel too sad about it; do as I do...buy Blu-ray movies directly from amazon and the rest. 
That way you get full high-def pic and high-res aud without any dropout and buffering issues. ...Plus you own your material, like it's yours; you have it in physical form in your movie collection, including the ones encoded with Dolby Atmos audio, like 'John Wick'.


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> These are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head for not wanting to relinquish physical media. It will be years, maybe never, before all these issues are properly resolved.


And yet, Fox just announced this week that there will be no more DVD releases of future seasons of the Simpsons. It's starting.


----------



## batpig

BigScreen said:


> Maybe that's why we haven't seen Atmos made available on any streaming movie releases to date. The extra data overhead may be too much, and would the height channels go away entirely if the bandwidth were to drop too low? Imagine watching an immersive movie, and suddenly the height channels disappear altogether, or come and go along with the picture quality as impacted by congestion...


Minor point (in an otherwise excellent post) but it wouldn't work like that -- streaming Atmos is delivered as bitstream DD+ audio (like the Atmos demos at VUDU). If the stream drops it drops, it can't selecticely drop channels on the fly. The processor decoding the bitstream audio on the other end is the part doing the heavy lifting of extracting the object metadata and rendering to the speakers. 

Lack of Atmos streaming is most likely due to foot dragging from the content producers etc.


----------



## RapalloAV

dvdwilly3 said:


> Not so in the U.S. Here the the business model has changed. True, jUst about every dedicated rental store has closed.
> 
> But, there is a company called Redbox that is basically a vending machine that takes credit cards and rents DVDs for $1 and Bluray s for $1.50.
> 
> They are located in every grocery store chain that I know of as well as many gas stations, including all 7/11 stores.
> 
> They are quite literally everywhere...


 And is their library as large as what a store front shop was, plus have all the obscure titles as a good shop or just limited the usual blockbusters?


----------



## jrref

batpig said:


> Minor point (in an otherwise excellent post) but it wouldn't work like that -- streaming Atmos is delivered as bitstream DD+ audio (like the Atmos demos at VUDU). If the stream drops it drops, it can't selecticely drop channels on the fly. The processor decoding the bitstream audio on the other end is the part doing the heavy lifting of extracting the object metadata and rendering to the speakers.
> 
> Lack of Atmos streaming is most likely due to foot dragging from the content producers etc.


If you use Ultraflix today and the bandwidth drops, that's exactly what happens. The audio scales back after re-negotiating the video. Terrible experience! Will never use that service again but on the other hand, Netflix is rock solid with 4K streaming but only 5.1 audio. If you look at the cable industry everyone is gearing up for higher dedicated speeds because they know at some point customers will be streaming everything and they want to be the data pipe when that happens. Look at Verizon FiOS, where you can get it, you can get 50, 75, 150, 300 and in some places 500 mbs symmetrical! The problem once the internet providers make the pipe big enough is the content providers. They will have to have enough servers and bandwidth to keep up with the demand. Look what happened to Netflix. I saw a statistic that at prime time Netflix streaming comprises close to 30% of the entire internet traffic! Really that's incredible! With Ultra Violet and other online media storage, it's not going to be "if" but "when" streaming will be the norm and hard media will be the exception. And whether we like it or not it's coming way faster than we think. One last thing, I recently purchased a new car and CAN'T get a 6 CD changer anymore. Why because it has a Bluetooth interface to my phone that has all my CD's loaded. Any my iPhone has 64 GB of storage! Crazy! I want CD quality sound but now most people buy their music online and download it to their devices. It's going to be similar with Video really soon. Hey I can watch FiOS TV on my computer, phone, tablet right now. Not that great quality wise but it works and that's what the "masses" want. lol


----------



## azula

Movie78 said:


> I am going to mount Definitive Technology Pro 800 for my Atmos speakers.
> 
> More like 7.2.2 speaker setup
> 
> Either Denon 5200 or Yamaha A2040


How would you mount these to the ceiling?


----------



## ThePrisoner

azula said:


> How would you mount these to the ceiling?


I have 4 Def Tech ProMonitor 800 on my ceiling using the the Def Tech ProMount 80


----------



## smurraybhm

azula said:


> How would you mount these to the ceiling?


Using the mounts that Def Tech makes for the 800's or a knockoff. They can be mounted upside down without any impact on sound - vertically - and I would aim them towards the MLP. If you have only two up-top I would mount them in the TM locations. slightly in front of the MLP. Then look for a pair of used ones and ad the fronts. Back when Atmos/DSU first came out, a number of us experimented with speaker locations and I believe nearly all found the TM to work the best when limited to only 2. Of course room and preferences for Neo X availability may cause you to chose FH. I use the PM1000s for FH in my Atmos setup, good speakers. I have 4 800s upstairs in a traditional 5.1 setup and they hold there own plus high on the WAF.


----------



## BigScreen

batpig said:


> Minor point (in an otherwise excellent post) but it wouldn't work like that -- streaming Atmos is delivered as bitstream DD+ audio (like the Atmos demos at VUDU). If the stream drops it drops, it can't selecticely drop channels on the fly. The processor decoding the bitstream audio on the other end is the part doing the heavy lifting of extracting the object metadata and rendering to the speakers.


I wasn't sure if the stream could be flexible in that the extra data could be dropped in very low bandwidth scenarios. Pure speculation on my part... That said, it is somewhat surprising that not a single movie has been released in streaming format with an Atmos soundtrack. I would think (again, speculation here) that producing a source file for the streaming provider would be using the same source as for creating the movie portion of the Blu-ray release. It must not be as simple as export profile templates in Sony Vegas.




jrref said:


> One last thing, I recently purchased a new car and CAN'T get a 6 CD changer anymore. Why because it has a Bluetooth interface to my phone that has all my CD's loaded. Any my iPhone has 64 GB of storage! Crazy! I want CD quality sound but now most people buy their music online and download it to their devices.


At least with music, you still have the option of CD-quality audio (or better) if you want it. Your 64GB iPhone can store more uncompressed CD quality music than that 6-disc CD changer, and if you use an AUX-in jack instead of bluetooth, the audio quality should not be at all diminished. The amount of music goes way up without any loss of quality if you use a lossless compression codec such as AAC Lossless.

Unfortunately, a streaming movie is going to be a choice of the lesser of all evils. I've never heard of a service that will allow you to stream a Blu-ray quality movie (for both audio and video), and because of the limitations of electronic delivery and paranoia surrounding piracy, I can't see it ever happening.

I see streaming as competing for the same space as Netflix Disc-by-mail and Redbox. Redbox probably has the most to worry about because it does not have the catalog depth that Netflix has. I'm actually quite surprised that Redbox can sustain its business (I've used it because I would much rather rent a disc for an impulse movie night than stream the same movie, but I have been known to choose that route out of laziness).


----------



## azula

ThePrisoner said:


> I have 4 Def Tech ProMonitor 800 on my ceiling using the the Def Tech ProMount 80



Thanks! Can you share pictures of your set up when you get a chance? I'm looking at doing the same thing.


----------



## azula

smurraybhm said:


> Using the mounts that Def Tech makes for the 800's or a knockoff. They can be mounted upside down without any impact on sound - vertically - and I would aim them towards the MLP. If you have only two up-top I would mount them in the TM locations. slightly in front of the MLP. Then look for a pair of used ones and ad the fronts. Back when Atmos/DSU first came out, a number of us experimented with speaker locations and I believe nearly all found the TM to work the best when limited to only 2. Of course room and preferences for Neo X availability may cause you to chose FH. I use the PM1000s for FH in my Atmos setup, good speakers. I have 4 800s upstairs in a traditional 5.1 setup and they hold there own plus high on the WAF.


Thanks for the explanation! Can you tell me what TM and FH mean? It's been a looooong time. lol


----------



## NorthSky

Top Middle and Front Height.


----------



## batpig

jrref said:


> If you use Ultraflix today and the bandwidth drops, that's exactly what happens. The audio scales back after re-negotiating the video. Terrible experience!


I could see a scenario where limited bandwidth drops the stream completely from the bitstream multich to the stereo track; I was specifically commenting on the hypothesis of dropping only the height channels. I seriously doubt they can modify the packed DD+ bitstream on the fly. As far as the system chain is concerned it's still the same DD+ bitstream -- until it hits the processor and is decoding neither end "knows" it's got Atmos metadata packed in.


----------



## batpig

azula said:


> Thanks for the explanation! Can you tell me what TM and FH mean? It's been a looooong time. lol


Five overhead pair locations for home Atmos, arrayed from front to back:

FH = front height
TF = top front
TM = top middle
TR = top rear
RH = rear height

Current processors (excepting the uber bucks Trinnov type stuff) let you use any two non-adjacent locations from the five above. So FH+TM would be front height and top middle locations.


----------



## dvdwilly3

RapalloAV said:


> And is their library as large as what a store front shop was, plus have all the obscure titles as a good shop or just limited the usual blockbusters?


Unfortunately, rather limited. You can go to their website and see what they have.


----------



## ThePrisoner

azula said:


> Thanks! Can you share pictures of your set up when you get a chance? I'm looking at doing the same thing.


 First pic is the front heights from MLP. Next pic is from standing front left looking toward rear of my living room. Those are top middle, just slightly forward of MLP. Hope those help. You can see previous spot on back wall were my surrounds where originally mounted before Atmos upgrade. They were lowered down and are just above ear level


----------



## bargervais

I can see streaming in our not to distant future. My bandwidth was just updated to 150mbs. a free upgrade LOL. Now their talking about upping it again to 300. No limit, as for the point for people in rural America there is satellite internet, so things are soon to end as far as physical media... look at music everything's going to digital downloads, do they still sell CDs. 
And if streaming is an issue they could easily download the movie for viewing latter.
I can see Blu-Rays eventually going away, the future is the cloud if it's Amazon, Vudu (and Vudu can already stream atmos) or whatever...just go right now to your big box store and see how many Blu-Rays they stock....compared to just five years ago.


----------



## markrubin

Moderator

if you want to talk DTS:X, there is a separate thread for that

Respectfully request we get back to technical posts re Dolby Atmos on this thread

thanks 

thread cleanup too


----------



## petetherock

Interesting discussion on bandwidth for video streaming.. I always thought you need at least 50-100 mps to get HD video..


----------



## NorthSky

That's nice that Vudu streams Dolby Atmos audio, but that would be even nicer if it would be all across North America.


----------



## Alanlee

kbarnes701 said:


> Je t'ai dit de ne jamais mentionner Échelon. Maintenant, il me faut te tuer.


 One of the members of the avs forum who lurks can see the future of the AVS Dolby Atmos thread:

New member post: “hello I'm new to this forum and interested in getting some information about Dolby Atmos”

three days later: “hello three days ago I asked about getting some information about Dolby Atmos, and there has been no reply. Is any one out there?”

veteran thread member answer: “hello new guy – my suggestion is for you to go back to 06-21-14 on this thread and read forward. Frankly we have run out of stuff to say about Dolby Atmos

and would rather discuss DTS X even though there is a DTS X thread. Also we have begun a discussion of politics, so we don't have time for Dolby Atmos.”

“Please don't ask again – there may be threats of violence in French if you do.”


----------



## RapalloAV

Alanlee said:


> One of the members of the avs forum who lurks can see the future of the AVS Dolby Atmos thread:
> 
> New member post: “hello I'm new to this forum and interested in getting some information about Dolby Atmos”
> 
> three days later: “hello three days ago I asked about getting some information about Dolby Atmos, and there has been no reply. Is any one out there?”
> 
> veteran thread member answer: “hello new guy – my suggestion is for you to go back to 06-21-14 on this thread and read forward. Frankly we have run out of stuff to say about Dolby Atmos
> 
> and would rather discuss DTS X even though there is a DTS X thread. Also we have begun a discussion of politics, so we don't have time for Dolby Atmos.”
> 
> “Please don't ask again – there may be threats of violence in French if you do.”


 
This is not the only thread on this forum that does that, I see it on many and that's a real shame.... 
It is embarrassing for new comers to see what goes on at times.....


It just seems at times that some people have forgotten how to be nice to each other at times.... my 2 cents..


----------



## UKTexan

petetherock said:


> Interesting discussion on bandwidth for video streaming.. I always thought you need at least 50-100 mps to get HD video..


If you go by the network speed test on the Vudu app, the requirement for HDX (1080P) is between 4.5 to 9Mbps, HD (720P) is 2.25 to 4.5Mbps.
I'm currently on "up to 45Mbps" the key is up to, as speeds do vary on any network. Luckily I have fiber to the home (FTTH) so in the future I will be able to upgrade to ATT&T Gigapower, 1Gbps downstream.(Houston area)
Austin TX has even more choice with both AT&T and Google offering 1Gbps services.
I worked on a rollout of 20 Virgin Media Headends and hubs with regards to the HVAC side of the projects 5 to 6 years ago in the UK. They were offering 50Mbps in most areas at that time and were therefore increasing cooling capacity in readiness for the new DOCSIS3.0 technology and the switch from analog to fully digital TV with upgrades to the IPTV platform. 
They were running successful trials of 200Mbps back then with a view to offering 400Mbps down the road. They had already carried out limited trials of 1.5Gbps with success. Again that was 5 years ago. Their current offering is up to 152Mbps. My main point is regardless of the country and type of delivery system involved, ISP's are overhauling their networks in preparation for the likes of 4K, HDR, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X etc.
However with the advent of Dolby's AC-4, the requirement for bandwidth will be cut in half by all accounts, when comparing a Dolby Digital Plus stream using E-AC-3. It's not all doom and gloom with regards to streaming.
My personal preference is hard copies of media, much the same as most on AVS. If other services such as the model Kaleidescape uses with true Blu-Ray quality downloads come to fruition, that may be a route I would be prepared to go. Kaleidescape is a pricey solution, great interface, hopefully other services may go that way if physical media does indeed eventually disappear. If not, Kaleidescape may earn themselves another customer, presuming Dolby Atmos is supported of course.


----------



## brahman12

*Lucy (Hong Kong Version)*

Anybody get their hands on the Atmos Lucy disc? And how does it compare to the non-Atmos upmixed with DSU (if you've watched the non-Atmos version of course)?


----------



## NorthSky

brahman12 said:


> Anybody get their hands on the Atmos Lucy disc? And how does it compare to the non-Atmos upmixed with DSU (if you've watched the non-Atmos version of course)?


I would love to know that as well.


----------



## dfergie

bargervais said:


> I can see streaming in our not to distant future. My bandwidth was just updated to 150mbs. a free upgrade LOL. Now their talking about upping it again to 300. No limit, as for the point for people in rural America there is satellite internet, so things are soon to end as far as physical media... look at music everything's going to digital downloads, do they still sell CDs.
> And if streaming is an issue they could easily download the movie for viewing latter.
> I can see Blu-Rays eventually going away, the future is the cloud if it's Amazon, Vudu (and Vudu can already stream atmos) or whatever...just go right now to your big box store and see how many Blu-Rays they stock....compared to just five years ago.


Satellite internet throttles you down if you use too much bandwidth and you are limited, not an option ... Hoping to get both Atmos & dts:X later this year, waiting on receivers that do both without having to send in for upgrade...


----------



## Eriksdam

brahman12 said:


> Anybody get their hands on the Atmos Lucy disc? And how does it compare to the non-Atmos upmixed with DSU (if you've watched the non-Atmos version of course)?


I ordered it about a week ago, so it should be here in a week or two, if the tradewinds prevail 

I'll keep you posted.

- Erik


----------



## RapalloAV

Interesting statement I just read since we have been talking about raising the levels of our Atmos speakers, I prefer mine as XT32 finds them. This may depend on the placement and the brand maybe:


Playing back standard Blu-ray movies like Dark Knight Rises through the DSU slightly expanded the sound field without drawing too much attention to itself. I did find I preferred turning down the in-ceiling speakers about 3dB lower than the five main channels to really allow everything to sound natural and not overdone. 
Using high quality in-ceiling speakers proved to be a superior listening experience over Dolby Atmos elevation speakers in my listening tests. I couldn’t imagine anyone NOT preferring discrete ceiling speakers over the reflective Atmos speakers. This is especially true if you have a very high quality five or seven channel speaker system already installed. I believe it’s paramount to add similar quality speakers for the Atmos height channels. Otherwise, you do this technology and your sound system a disservice. 


http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w/listening-tests


----------



## kbarnes701

scarabaeus said:


> And yet, Fox just announced this week that there will be no more DVD releases of future seasons of the Simpsons. It's starting.


Just Bluray releases. I see the discontinuing of DVD as a good thing. I wish all studios would just kill it off now, like they did with VHS when DVD took over from it.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I can see streaming in our not to distant future. My bandwidth was just updated to 150mbs. a free upgrade LOL. Now their talking about upping it again to 300. No limit, as for the point for people in rural America there is satellite internet, so things are soon to end as far as physical media... look at music everything's going to digital downloads, do they still sell CDs.


Satellite Internet is always subject to data caps - often very low such as 20GB a month. OK if you want to download half a movie every month and nothing else 

I understand that it is a bandwidth issue with the very expensive satellite means of delivery. I had satellite here and junked it for that very reason. I now have a wireless (as in the old definition of the word - RF) solution which delivers 30-40 meg but you wouldn't believe the hoops I had to jump through to get it. Where I live 1 meg is a typical BB speed, and nobody has more than 5 meg unless they adopt the same solution as I have. Chances of high speed BB getting to this area in the next 5 years? Low.



bargervais said:


> And if streaming is an issue they could easily download the movie for viewing latter.


Then what do you with it? Where do you keep your new movie for future viewing? On magnetic media? With a typical lifespan of 5 years before failure? Or on an expensive RAID array? And also backed up elsewhere? I’d transfer it to optical media for long term security. Oh - if I do that, I may as well have bought it on optical media to begin with... d'oh.



bargervais said:


> I can see Blu-Rays eventually going away, the future is the cloud if it's Amazon, Vudu (and Vudu can already stream atmos) or whatever...just go right now to your big box store and see how many Blu-Rays they stock....compared to just five years ago.


Physical media can't go away until everyone who buys it has an alternative. Currently, that isn't happening for all the reasons recently mentioned.

And this is without even discussing quality loss from compressed files - compressed so they can be distributed via streaming. Might as well dig out that old 720p screen, or even an SD screen - your shiny new 4K OLED will be entirely wasted.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> Anybody get their hands on the Atmos Lucy disc? And how does it compare to the non-Atmos upmixed with DSU (if you've watched the non-Atmos version of course)?


Mine is on its way. I'll let you know what it sounds like when I get hold of it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Alanlee said:


> “Please don't ask again – there may be threats of violence in French if you do.”


 You do realise that that was a joke between me and Hugo? Have you never heard the lighthearted saying "if I tell you I will have to kill you"? Maybe not - but it is a joke (of sorts) and definitely not a threat of violence to_ mon vrai copain, Hugo_. Just thought I'd set that straight. I agree with you about the thread veering OT lately - not many new Atmos topics at the moment. But I disagree that people who do ask serious Atmos-related questions are ignored and see no evidence to substantiate that claim.


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> Interesting discussion on bandwidth for video streaming.. I always thought you need at least 50-100 mps to get HD video..


With my measly *3Mbps DSL* I have been able to stream HD video (1080P), although not without occasional hiccups. Netflix recommends a minimum of 5Mbps, which I believe should prove sufficient for HD video in most cases. The addition of an Atmos audio codec might represent a slightly greater onus, although I doubt it would be terribly significant. For example, I was able to stream the Dolby Atmos demo clips on VUDU in HD (720p) with no problem and even in the highest quality (HDX) with only occasional buffering delays.


----------



## Frank714

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> IMHO with all your appreciated pragmatic contributions on the matter here, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people reading this Forum, are by now starting to become really convinced that there won't be a DTS:X upgrade beyond the Denon 7200 and Marantz 8802 products.
> 
> Now if I was to be a smart D&M marketing guy (which I am not), I would take advantage of all this... by proving you wrong... and providing this upgrade free of charge... in which case this would become one of the SMARTEST marketing decisions lately. No?
> 
> Amicalement, Hugo


Bonjour Hugo, tu as raison, parce que c'est la philosophie officielle du Denon:



Frank714 said:


> Well, I did get a lot of beating for even suggesting that Denon should consider offering the DTS:X upgrade later this year also to owners of the 4100 and the 5200 in the Dolby Atmos thread.
> 
> Therefore, I'd like to turn the attention of everyone concerned to the Denon press release from October 16, 2014 for AVR-X5200W and the AVR-X4100W
> 
> “We are proud that our customers will be able to upgrade their A/V receivers to incorporate Auro-3D® as an additional feature”, says Yoshinori Yamada, global business team leader audio and video at D+M Group. *“It demonstrates our constant ambition to offer brand new technologies to existing products, adding value for the proud owner as well.”*
> 
> _Therefore, asking Denon to make a DTS:X ugrade available (like they are willing to do for the X7200W) for the aforementioned two AVRs from 2014 is completely appropriate for anybody who hasn't asked them, yet. Feel free to remind them of their ambition... _


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> Just Bluray releases. I see the discontinuing of DVD as a good thing. I wish all studios would just kill it off now, like they did with VHS when DVD took over from it.


That bit of information was not conveyed in the newspostings I've seen. Where did you read that? Dropping DVD in favor of Blu-ray would be a great and welcome step forward, considering that Blu-ray has now been out longer than DVD had been when Blu-ray first became available. I was under the impression they are dropping DVD and Blu-ray in favor of streaming and syndication.


----------



## brahman12

Thanks Eriksdam and Kbarnes.....kind of on the fence about double-dipping on this one. Love Scarlette and the movie was one of Luc Besson's better efforts in a while, but the DSU treated sound mix on the non-Atmos disc was pretty spankin' and on point. Thus, waiting for some educated opinions from our AVS crew in order to get a better feel before jumping in. I feel the same about Gravity, although a couple of our AVSers have already given their stamp of approval on that one. Decisions decisions!!!


----------



## HTPCat

Dave Vaughn said:


> The only problem is that we're such a small minority, so we don't matter much to the studios. They want the large group in the middle who unfortunately have TVs that are stuck on Vivid mode, they sit 10 feet away from a 40" TV, and use the TV speakers in their flat panel as their "reference" audio system. A Dolby 2.0 stereo feed and crappy Internet stream makes the mass majority happy campers. Frankly, with the system outlined above they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the Blu-ray and streaming anyway...that's what we're fighting against.
> 
> Look at what Lionsgate is doing. Want to rent from Redbox, go ahead, but you'll get the basics (no lossless audio, no supplements). While I can live with the latter, the former is a deal breaker for me and many other enthusiasts, so what happens...we buy the movie. The studio wins either way...they get the rental from Joe-6-pack and the purchase from the small minority of enthusiasts (maybe 100-200K people here in the states).


 Lionsgate is doing the same for Netflix at least no lossless audio, which of course is a no go for me, but for most you are correct they love it.


----------



## chi_guy50

HTPCat said:


> *Lionsgate is doing the same for Netflix* at least no lossless audio, which of course is a no go for me, but for most you are correct they love it.


That is not correct. I (and others in this thread) have pointed to several instances in this year alone in which we have received Lionsgate releases on Blu-ray disk from Netflix with the full lossless codec. In fact, AFAICR I have yet to get a single disk from Netflix that did not have the best available codec.

This is a major reason why I am maintaining my subscription with Netflix, and I hope to rely on them as my main source for upcoming Atmos releases.


----------



## batpig

That's not the case for Redbox. Score a point for Netflix.


----------



## cholmes1

I mentioned this in the speakers forum, but so few have ATMOS that the responses were next to nothing and the ones that did reply were useless. I am looking to improve my current Monoprice 8" ceiling speakers for front and rear heights.

Below is my current setup (5.2.4) and I was thinking B&W CCM662's. That said, has anyone noticed that they need this level of range in their ATMOS speakers, meaning will I actually notice a difference by utilizing a better speaker? I only have experience with my current setup, which sounds very nice, but I would like to keep the branding the same throughout as it is a pet-peeve of mine. 

FRONT SPEAKERS: B&W 603 S2 (x2)
 LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/spea...ers/b-and-w/dm-605-s2/prd_122523_1594crx.aspx
 


 CENTER CHANNEL: B&W CC6 S2

 LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/center-channels/b-and-w/cc-6-s2/prd_119118_2743crx.aspx
 


SURROUND SPEAKERS: B&W DS6 (x2)
 
 LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/surround-speakers/b-and-w/ds-6/prd_119129_2742crx.aspx

ATMOS HEIGHTS (F & R): Monoprice 8" 4929 (x4)
LINK: http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_...83703&p_id=4929&seq=1&format=2#specifications 


 SUB-WOOFER: B&W ASW1000 (x2)

 LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/subwoofers/b-and-w/asw-1000/prd_119111_2741crx.aspx


Should I try to keep the same frequency range as my DS6 surrounds for the heights or would I be safe using a lower end B&W CCM 300 series ceiling speaker?

Thanks for the help. You all have been extremely helpful in getting my system up an going.

Best,
Charles


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> That bit of information was not conveyed in the newspostings I've seen. Where did you read that? Dropping DVD in favor of Blu-ray would be a great and welcome step forward, considering that Blu-ray has now been out longer than DVD had been when Blu-ray first became available. I was under the impression they are dropping DVD and Blu-ray in favor of streaming and syndication.


By the way, DVDs are more present @ my local stores than Blu-rays. ...I don't know if they are outselling Blu-rays but from what I could see I would not be surprised @ all. ...Dolby Atmos or not. 

Maybe the Blu-ray niche here (me included) think they are doing good, but it is just an optical illusion, IMHO. 

One thing is for sure though; you won't get the same Dolby Atmos audio quality and 3D picture quality from a DVD compared to its Blu-ray version format.

And regarding Dolby Atmos audio streaming and 3D picture streaming quality; I wish I was living in a big city where everything is possible and available.

* I just can't wait for *'Jupiter Ascending'* (Atmos audio, 3D picture), because it's going in my Blu collection, big time.
...And I will experience Atmos soon enough, along with the other 3D guy.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> That is not correct. I (and others in this thread) have pointed to several instances in this year alone in which we have received Lionsgate releases on Blu-ray disk from Netflix with the full lossless codec. In fact, AFAICR I have yet to get a single disk from Netflix that did not have the best available codec.
> 
> This is a major reason why I am maintaining my subscription *with Netflix, and I hope to rely on them as my main source for upcoming Atmos releases*.


Dolby Atmos with Netflix; god lock.


----------



## mfranke

I just added Dolby Atmos with some Boston acoustic ceiling speakers and a new Onkyo 1030
Phenomenal sound. The movie Unbroken is great in this format. Ceiling speakers definitely add a new depth to sound.
Netflix would be incredible with Atmos

Very few people putting these kind of in theaters in these days. I hope the format survives.

Mark
Fairfax VA


----------



## NorthSky

Hi Charles,

If I could install the same speakers on my ceiling as my surrounds, I would.  ...That would be the best timbre-matched speaker to install above.
But in my own setup I cannot do that, as my main surrounds are towers (42" tall with four drivers in each, three 6.5" drivers plus a 1" silk tweeter).

* Looking @ those Monoprice speakers (coax 8" woofer with adjustable angling)...very nice. 

Cheers,
_Bob_


----------



## RapalloAV

Would this work????


My setup was always more suited to Auro 3D which was installed on my AVR X5200 
I stopped using Auro 3D as I didn't like it then upgraded to the Marantz AV8802.
My two top middle surrounds are in the Auro location inceiling (ceiling / side wall) with tweeters pointing to MLP.
I also have a VOG speaker inceiling that's pretty expensive but sits there dead today since I only use DSU.


Could I use a Y joiner and use that VOG speaker connected to the L&R top middle speakers to bring that top level into the centre of the room?


Interested in your thoughts?


----------



## HTPCat

chi_guy50 said:


> That is not correct. I (and others in this thread) have pointed to several instances in this year alone in which we have received Lionsgate releases on Blu-ray disk from Netflix with the full lossless codec. In fact, AFAICR I have yet to get a single disk from Netflix that did not have the best available codec.
> 
> This is a major reason why I am maintaining my subscription with Netflix, and I hope to rely on them as my main source for upcoming Atmos releases.


I have received several movies from netflix (I have never rented from redbox so I wouldn't know about them) that did not contain the lossless codec, both hunger games movies and Divergent were missing them and several others that i can't recall off the top of my head. Most if not all of them have been lionsgate releases (I know because it really bugged me when it happened the first time so I began looking). I always check the audio to see what codec is playing and if it is only DD I check the available streams in the menu. If there isn't a lossless codec available I then verify this with BDInfo. Perhaps you have been lucky, I have not. I believe that the Hunger Games: Catching Fire is available in Atmos but wasn't present on my rental. If you require evidence I could re-rent the hunger games movies and provide a screen shot of bdinfo of both or maybe you could rent them and verify for yourself before making such bold statements.

Forgot about John Wick which is a Lionsgate Atmos release and which the rental was crippled as well with DD only....so good luck with Lionsgate/Atmos/Netflix.


----------



## Rileyrott

chi_guy50 said:


> That is not correct. I (and others in this thread) have pointed to several instances in this year alone in which we have received Lionsgate releases on Blu-ray disk from Netflix with the full lossless codec. In fact, AFAICR I have yet to get a single disk from Netflix that did not have the best available codec.
> 
> This is a major reason why I am maintaining my subscription with Netflix, and I hope to rely on them as my main source for upcoming Atmos releases.


Not true here in Arizona. I can confirm that I recently received The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 and John Wick from Netflix and BOTH were restricted to DD 5.1 and no extras. The same happened with Hunger Games: Catching Fire last year.

This is really disappointing as I rely on Netflix Blu-Ray rentals for my main source for movies.


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> That is not correct. I (and others in this thread) have pointed to several instances in this year alone in which we have received Lionsgate releases on Blu-ray disk from Netflix with the full lossless codec. In fact, AFAICR I have yet to get a single disk from Netflix that did not have the best available codec.
> 
> This is a major reason why I am maintaining my subscription with Netflix, and I hope to rely on them as my main source for upcoming Atmos releases.





Rileyrott said:


> Not true here in Arizona. I can confirm that I recently received The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 and John Wick from Netflix and BOTH were restricted to DD 5.1 and no extras. The same happened with Hunger Games: Catching Fire last year.
> 
> This is really disappointing as I rely on Netflix Blu-Ray rentals for my main source for movies.



I get the same treatment here in FL. I have never received a Lionsgate rental from Netflix that has a lossless track on it. I don't know how chi_guy gets special discs in GA, but I wish I knew! 

Also, there is a thread on the blu-ray forum from 2012 that is still going with the same complaint about Lionsgate removing the lossless tracks from rentals, so it is a widespread problem.

As I've mentioned before, I do get discs from Netflix that have lossless and Atmos tracks on them, as long as they aren't a Lionsgate film.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RapalloAV said:


> Would this work????
> 
> 
> My setup was always more suited to Auro 3D which was installed on my AVR X5200
> I stopped using Auro 3D as I didn't like it then upgraded to the Marantz AV8802.
> My two top middle surrounds are in the Auro location inceiling (ceiling / side wall) with tweeters pointing to MLP.
> I also have a VOG speaker inceiling that's pretty expensive but sits there dead today since I only use DSU.
> 
> 
> Could I use a Y joiner and use that VOG speaker connected to the L&R top middle speakers to bring that top level into the centre of the room?
> 
> 
> Interested in your thoughts?


You might want to wait to see what DTS:X has in store for us and what, if any, layout choices manufacturers give us right off the bat (besides an Atmos configuration). We still don't have a lot of details to work with as this is the initial start just like the early days of Atmos. 

Your 8802 is DTS:X upgradable, thankfully.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> That is not correct. I (and others in this thread) have pointed to several instances in this year alone in which we have received Lionsgate releases on Blu-ray disk from Netflix with the full lossless codec. In fact, AFAICR I have yet to get a single disk from Netflix that did not have the best available codec.
> 
> This is a major reason why I am maintaining my subscription with Netflix, and I hope to rely on them as my main source for upcoming Atmos releases.





HTPCat said:


> I have received several movies from netflix (I have never rented from redbox so I wouldn't know about them) that did not contain the lossless codec, both hunger games movies and Divergent were missing them and several others that i can't recall off the top of my head. Most if not all of them have been lionsgate releases (I know because it really bugged me when it happened the first time so I began looking). I always check the audio to see what codec is playing and if it is only DD I check the available streams in the menu. If there isn't a lossless codec available I then verify this with BDInfo. Perhaps you have been lucky, I have not. I believe that the Hunger Games: Catching Fire is available in Atmos but wasn't present on my rental.


Your experience has unfortunately been different from mine.



HTPCat said:


> If you require evidence I could re-rent the hunger games movies and provide a screen shot of bdinfo of both or maybe you could rent them and verify for yourself before making such bold statements.


There was nothing the least bit bold about my statement; I simply stated facts based on my own first-hand knowledge (see here and here, for instance) and what others have posted (e.g., this). The most we can conclude, assuming neither of us is a fabricator, is that not all BRD rentals from Netflix will necessarily have the lossless codec. Which version trends in future remains to be seen, but I hope others will post of their experiences as well.


----------



## NorthSky

I was going to say the exact same when I first read his post; but I didn't, because DTS:X is off topic. 

* In reply to Dan's post, just above chi_guy.


----------



## HTPCat

chi_guy50 said:


> Your experience has unfortunately been different from mine.
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing the least bit bold about my statement; I simply stated facts based on my own first-hand knowledge (see here and here, for instance) and what others have posted (e.g., this). The most we can conclude, assuming neither of us is a fabricator, is that not all BRD rentals from Netflix will necessarily have the lossless codec. Which version trends in future remains to be seen, but I hope others will post of their experiences as well.


If you want to see others experiences just google Lionsgate crippled audio for rentals you will get plenty of info.


----------



## RapalloAV

Dan Hitchman said:


> You might want to wait to see what DTS:X has in store for us and what, if any, layout choices manufacturers give us right off the bat (besides an Atmos configuration). We still don't have a lot of details to work with as this is the initial start just like the early days of Atmos.
> 
> Your 8802 is DTS:X upgradable, thankfully.


Thanks for that Dan, and yes I bought the 8802 knowing that I probably will get the DTS-x upgrade. Im also hoping they might allow a VOG channel as I would love to use this installed speaker again...


In the meantime since it looks like its much later this year for the DTS-X update, I just wonder if the Y connecter now with Atmos?


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> In the meantime since it looks like its much later this year for the DTS-X update,
> *I just wonder if the Y connecter now with Atmos?*


Of course it would work; Josh has done some' similar. ...Main key: Experiment.


----------



## chi_guy50

HTPCat said:


> If you want to see others experiences just google Lionsgate crippled audio for rentals you will get plenty of info.


I'm well aware of the issue, but the question is to what extent this crippling applies to Netflix rentals. As the single biggest source of rental disks, I would assume that Netflix has significant leverage that they can apply against their suppliers.

As you can see from the links in my previous post, I am able to document at least three specific Lionsgate BRD's that I have rented from Netflix since January that had the full codec (either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA). And I have not yet had any lossy copies sent to me that I can recall. (N.B.: I do not keep exhaustive records of such things.)

I hope that my experience will prove to be the norm; but location in a major distribution hub could be a factor for all I know. Or I could be on a preferred customer list without my knowing it.


----------



## NorthSky

Don't live in an uncertain world; just buy the Blu-rays (with Atmos).


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> Of course it would work; Josh has done some' similar. ...Main key: Experiment.




Ok I understand that it would work, but is the effect ok?
Those that might have tried did they keep it connected this way?


Also If you connect up the VOG with the two top middle atmos speakers one wouldn't EQ with them connected to the VOG would you?
If one did XT32 would measure the pings from the TMR speaker with the VOG, when the TML speaker is pinged it would then also include the VOG in the EQ.


What does one do for the EQ, leave VOG connected or connect after the EQ?


----------



## NorthSky

Josh is the only guy that I know of from around who did the closest to your quest. The other member, *Nalleh*, he uses two Dolby Atmos receivers.

What you asked is extremely rare; only the true hard core 3D sound explorers dare to go there. And that's why I said to you to be one of them too,
by experimenting, just like they did, them two fellows.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Got my 7200 today.
Ran Audyssey and tested basics. No issues there.
But Atmos. I am not too thrilled. 
Weekend is going to be busy I guess.


----------



## HTPCat

NorthSky said:


> Don't live in an uncertain world; just buy the Blu-rays (with Atmos).


Exactly, this is what I do for any movie that I am interested in.


----------



## kenoh89

Can someone tell me which receiver is the best out of these two, sound quality wise? *AVR-X7200W* or Marantz AV8802


----------



## kingwiggi

kenoh89 said:


> Can someone tell me which receiver is the best out of these two, sound quality wise? *AVR-X7200W* or Marantz AV8802


The 8802 is arguably the better of the two but unless you already have external amplification then the 7200 is the one to get.


----------



## NorthSky

kenoh89 said:


> Can someone tell me which receiver is the best out of these two, sound quality wise? *AVR-X7200W* or Marantz AV8802


The first one is a receiver (X7200W), and the second one (AV8802) is a pre/pro (SSP).
$3,000 and $4,000 respectively (US list price). ...They are similar in the way they share the same DACs. 

The best one is the one you pick.  ...I don't know anyone here who compared those two in their room. 
It comes down to a receiver or a pre/pro, but the receiver can also be used as a pre/pro. 
Only you can decide for yourself the most suiting unit in your own rig and setup and room, and with the rest of your gear. 

Me, I think both units are top-notch, but with the Marantz AV8802 most likely being more refined sounding. ...Internal's implementation and no amplifiers noise contamination inside the same box.


----------



## Aerodude73

hoping to get a new Amp soon; looking at the Emotiva XPA-3


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> Got my 7200 today.
> Ran Audyssey and tested basics. No issues there.
> But Atmos. I am not too thrilled.
> Weekend is going to be busy I guess.


When using PS3 VuDu app, I can not get the Dolby Atmos on the receiver. I am sure it's got to do with PS3. There is no problem with the Atmos disks though.
The blu rays I have are not the best Atmos ones (TF4 and Expendables 3) so I wanted to check out the demos.
But it always displays Multi Ch in and I could only add DSU on top.

Another question about DSU, when I played the DD 5.1 disk, the DD+DSU did not engage the Surround back speakers. Is this how it works?


----------



## Alanlee

*Dig in*



kenoh89 said:


> Can someone tell me which receiver is the best out of these two, sound quality wise? *AVR-X7200W* or Marantz AV8802


There is a separate thread for each of these pieces. Here is the one for the AVR-X7200W http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...0w-9-2-13-2ch-2014-2015-receiver-details.html I suggest you start there, and then search for the Marantz AV8802, and you will be able to decide for yourself. Both threads have posts from people like you who are looking and from people who are using the pieces. I just completed going through the 8802 thread. I was quite an education.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> When using PS3 VuDu app, I can not get the Dolby Atmos on the receiver. I am sure it's got to do with PS3. There is no problem with the Atmos disks though.
> The blu rays I have are not the best Atmos ones (TF4 and Expendables 3) so I wanted to check out the demos.
> But it always displays Multi Ch in and I could only add DSU on top.
> 
> Another question about DSU, when I played the DD 5.1 disk, the DD+DSU did not engage the Surround back speakers. Is this how it works?


1. Your PS3; is the HDMI Audio Out set to "Bitstream"? 
2. The Back surrounds should be playing; double-check your speakers settings.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> 1. Your PS3; is the HDMI Audio Out set to "Bitstream"?
> 
> Yes
> 
> 2. The Back surrounds should be playing; double-check your speakers settings.
> 
> On "Info" they are shown grayed out.


Thanks..


----------



## philmike21




----------



## Josh Z

RapalloAV said:


> Could I use a Y joiner and use that VOG speaker connected to the L&R top middle speakers to bring that top level into the centre of the room?


I don't understand what you mean by using a Y-joiner to connect the L&R height speakers to the Voice-of-God. The L&R are two different, independent channels. How would you connect them both to a single speaker in the middle?

What I have done is cloned a pair of Top Rear speakers off my Top Middles. My Right TM is mirrored to the TR behind it. Likewise for Left TM and TR. This is not the same thing you're proposing. You would need to have two VOG speakers side by side, one cloned from Right TM and the other from Left TM.

Earlier in the thread, Scott Simonian had proposed an elaborate system of connecting the Left and Right heights, along with a VOG, to a second A/V receiver with ProLogic II, which would matrix a center channel between the sides. I'd think you'd need to do something like that, though it's convoluted and runs the risk of sounds collapsing to the center that should be spread across the top of the room.


----------



## RapalloAV

Josh Z said:


> I don't understand what you mean by using a Y-joiner to connect the L&R height speakers to the Voice-of-God. The L&R are two different, independent channels. How would you connect them both to a single speaker in the middle?
> 
> What I have done is cloned a pair of Top Rear speakers off my Top Middles. My Right TM is mirrored to the TR behind it. Likewise for Left TM and TR. This is not the same thing you're proposing. You would need to have two VOG speakers side by side, one cloned from Right TM and the other from Left TM.
> 
> Earlier in the thread, Scott Simonian had proposed an elaborate system of connecting the Left and Right heights, along with a VOG, to a second A/V receiver with ProLogic II, which would matrix a center channel between the sides. I'd think you'd need to do something like that, though it's convoluted and runs the risk of sounds collapsing to the center that should be spread across the top of the room.


Ok thanks Josh for that explanation, I understand, no point in me even trying to get my VOG speaker in the middle of the room working.
Looks like Bob had it wrong...


----------



## pasender91

aaranddeeman said:


> When using PS3 VuDu app, I can not get the Dolby Atmos on the receiver. I am sure it's got to do with PS3. There is no problem with the Atmos disks though.
> The blu rays I have are not the best Atmos ones (TF4 and Expendables 3) so I wanted to check out the demos.
> But it always displays Multi Ch in and I could only add DSU on top.
> 
> Another question about DSU, when I played the DD 5.1 disk, the DD+DSU did not engage the Surround back speakers. Is this how it works?


Regarding DSU, what you describe is not right.
I just tested, in DD+DS setup my back surrounds are activated in the "info" screen, and they do emit sounds....


----------



## batpig

If back surrounds aren't active when you are trying for 11ch playback it's almost certainly an issue with the amp assign settings config.


----------



## Frank714

aaranddeeman said:


> Got my 7200 today.
> Ran Audyssey and tested basics. No issues there.
> But Atmos. I am not too thrilled.
> Weekend is going to be busy I guess.


Which Atmos titles did you listen to, thus far?


----------



## Frank714

According to an Austrian "upcoming Blu-rays list", the film _Attention: A Life in Extremes_, is supposed to be released on Blu-ray with a Dolby Atmos track.

Here is the German Amazon link, I'll investigate the issue further: http://www.amazon.de/Attention-Life...&sr=1-1&keywords=attention+a+life+in+extremes


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> Regarding DSU, what you describe is not right.
> I just tested, in DD+DS setup my back surrounds are activated in the "info" screen, and they do emit sounds....


Yes. From "Info" screen I noticed they were not active.
I was playing a DD5.1 (DVD not BD).
I will check again tonight.
Probably I may have to play with "Surround parameter" setting in the AVR to expand 5.1 source bed to 7.1 and the DSU will then add 4 heights.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Frank714 said:


> Which Atmos titles did you listen to, thus far?


Expendables 3 and TF4 (Yes I know they are the last to be demoed as Atmos but that is what I have now)


----------



## aaranddeeman

Frank714 said:


> Which Atmos titles did you listen to, thus far?


I have my speaker angles as 36 deg. from fronts and 140 deg. for rears.
The speaker are in line with FL and FR and my room is 17ft9in x 11ft8in with 7ft8in ceiling height.

I was wondering if it would benefit to bring the speakers inwards and changing the angles to 45 deg. and 135 deg. or so respectively.


----------



## ahmedreda

I am in the process of upgrading my speakers and using an AT screen.. What is the recommended layout for ATMOS? Should I install two heights on top of the fronts behind the screen at an angle and use 2 speakers in the back or should I use two in ceiling speakers between the screen and the listening position along with the back speakers?


----------



## PeterLewis

Anyone know if Sony will be adding Atmos to their recent ES recievers (DA5800ES,ZA3000ES) via firmware ?


Thanks.


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> According to an Austrian "upcoming Blu-rays list", the film _Attention: A Life in Extremes_, is supposed to be released on Blu-ray with a Dolby Atmos track.
> 
> Here is the German Amazon link, I'll investigate the issue further: http://www.amazon.de/Attention-Life...&sr=1-1&keywords=attention+a+life+in+extremes



This has already been reported in this thread. See below.



chi_guy50 said:


> . . . the Austrian documentary film _Attention: A Life in Extremes_ will be available on Blu-ray on May 29 and will be just the second film (after Expendables 3) to be issued with a German-language Atmos track. It will also have an English-language track, but I assume that will be in DD5.1.


----------



## Frank714

^^ Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed, yet



ahmedreda said:


> I am in the process of upgrading my speakers and using an AT screen.. What is the recommended layout for ATMOS? Should I install two heights on top of the fronts behind the screen at an angle and use 2 speakers in the back or should I *use two in ceiling speakers between the screen and the listening position along with the back speakers*?


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html

Dolby doesn't recommend front heights but overhead speakers (unless you consider making use of Auro 3D and want to go for a compromise).


----------



## petetherock

I use B&W 8xx series speakers for my mains and rears, but I won't dream of using the same for the Atmos ceiling mounts.
Perhaps I am being cheap, but IMHO, for the ambient speakers, I don't think it's vital to go with the same series.
In fact I use Anthony Gallo A'Divas. You can see my setup in my signature.
Cheers


cholmes1 said:


> I mentioned this in the speakers forum, but so few have ATMOS that the responses were next to nothing and the ones that did reply were useless. I am looking to improve my current Monoprice 8" ceiling speakers for front and rear heights.
> 
> Below is my current setup (5.2.4) and I was thinking B&W CCM662's. That said, has anyone noticed that they need this level of range in their ATMOS speakers, meaning will I actually notice a difference by utilizing a better speaker? I only have experience with my current setup, which sounds very nice, but I would like to keep the branding the same throughout as it is a pet-peeve of mine.
> 
> FRONT SPEAKERS: B&W 603 S2 (x2)
> LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/spea...ers/b-and-w/dm-605-s2/prd_122523_1594crx.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> CENTER CHANNEL: B&W CC6 S2
> 
> LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/center-channels/b-and-w/cc-6-s2/prd_119118_2743crx.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> SURROUND SPEAKERS: B&W DS6 (x2)
> 
> LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/surround-speakers/b-and-w/ds-6/prd_119129_2742crx.aspx
> 
> ATMOS HEIGHTS (F & R): Monoprice 8" 4929 (x4)
> LINK: http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_...83703&p_id=4929&seq=1&format=2#specifications
> 
> 
> SUB-WOOFER: B&W ASW1000 (x2)
> 
> LINK: http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/subwoofers/b-and-w/asw-1000/prd_119111_2741crx.aspx
> 
> 
> Should I try to keep the same frequency range as my DS6 surrounds for the heights or would I be safe using a lower end B&W CCM 300 series ceiling speaker?
> 
> Thanks for the help. You all have been extremely helpful in getting my system up an going.
> 
> Best,
> Charles


----------



## petetherock

kenoh89 said:


> Can someone tell me which receiver is the best out of these two, sound quality wise? *AVR-X7200W* or Marantz AV8802


The key difference is one is a processor, equipped with HDAM modules, which have a reputation of being very musical, and the other is a AV receiver.

If you are largely into HT, the difference is less, and will also depend a lot on what kind of power amps you are willing to buy to partner with the AV 8802.

If you are like me and feel that the quality of amps matter, then you will need to spend a significant amount of money. No sense buying a fancy processor and using it with budget amps I say. And that will take the dent on your wallet to a whole new level.

Don't forget interconnect cables, and the issue of hum / ground loops..


----------



## cholmes1

petetherock said:


> I use B&W 8xx series speakers for my mains and rears, but I won't dream of using the same for the Atmos ceiling mounts.
> Perhaps I am being cheap, but IMHO, for the ambient speakers, I don't think it's vital to go with the same series.
> In fact I use Anthony Gallo A'Divas. You can see my setup in my signature.
> Cheers


Thank you for the feedback. With you having similar speakers I may take the money I was going to invest in 600 ceilings and put it towards 300's and something else. 

Best,
Charles


----------



## smurraybhm

Frank714 said:


> ^^ Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed, yet
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
> 
> Dolby doesn't recommend front heights but overhead speakers (unless you consider making use of Auro 3D and want to go for a compromise).


Wrong. See the white paper and you have FH, TF, TM, TR and BH (as well as options for those using the upfiring modules) as options for the 2 or 4 up top speakers. I am betting most of us are using FH vs. TF. We also had a debate earlier in the thread where I believe it was found that pretty much the same sound was being provided to both locations - not that you can group them together for 4. As Batpig and others have pointed out many times you have to skip the adjoining location when setting up 4 - FH/TM is okay - FH/TF is not. FH gives you greater flexibility beyond just Auro - like NeoX for music. Speaker placement should be based on room and what angles one can achieve from the MLP or prime listening positions. In the end we must not forget that per Dolby, there is some flexibility regarding angles and placement. Experimenting with speaker placement as some of us have done can verify that as correct


----------



## multit

A new Dolby Atmos "Shatter" trailer is available @ vimeo 

https://vimeo.com/125183403


----------



## dvdwilly3

smurraybhm said:


> ...Speaker placement should be based on room and what angles one can achieve from the MLP or prime listening positions. In the end we must not forget that per Dolby, there is some flexibility regarding angles and placement. Experimenting with speaker placement as some of us have done can verify that as correct


This advice cannot be stressed enough, in particular, with upfiring speakers. In the latter case because you are dealing with reflected sound, any angle error is basically doubled.

The Dolby-enabled speaker modules that are being sold are usually at a 20 degree angle. If you place them on top of your front speakers, the reflected sound will hit about 6 to 8 feet in front of the speakers. That is great if your MLP is located there.

My MLP is about 13.5 feet from my fronts--so, guess what, very weak Atmos effect. Adjust the angle of either direct firing or upfiring so that the sound is received at or very near your MLP. I say, or very near, because I have 2 rows of seats, front about 11' and rear about 13', and I split the sound between them at 12'.

Atmos works very well in my setup.

Too many people read the Dolby Atmos papers and then treat the angles as absolutes. They are not.


----------



## Frank714

smurraybhm said:


> Wrong. See the white paper and you have FH, TF, TM, TR and BH (as well as options for those using the upfiring modules) as options for the 2 or 4 up top speakers.


Excuse me, the straightforward question had been what does Dolby _"recommend"_ and that's what we see illustrated as _"recommended placement"_ in the Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup Guide.

And the "recommended placement" illustrations neither show front heights or back heights.


----------



## smurraybhm

Frank714 said:


> Excuse me, the straightforward question had been what does Dolby _"recommend"_ and that's what we see illustrated as _"recommended placement"_ in the Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup Guide.
> 
> And the "recommended placement" illustrations neither show front heights or back heights.


Frank - not going to engage. This argument is about as silly as trying to say that Denon owes us an upgrade of sorts 
I'm out and have a nice weekend 

P.S. I encourage the poster to do a little homework and use the search function, you will quickly see that there are 5, not 3 *very *viable possibilities for speaker placement when using Atmos or DSU - plus as noted above, above, the upfiring modules. I would also point out that the link referenced above to Dolby, those instructions have been shown to have more than a few errors, as mentioned in this thread.


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> ^^ Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed, yet


Keine Ursache!



Frank714 said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
> 
> Dolby doesn't recommend front heights but overhead speakers (unless you consider making use of Auro 3D and want to go for a compromise).


There's nothing inherently wrong with using the front height position; the salient factor is the elevation angle relative to the MLP. There will be advantages as well as compromises with both FH and TF.


----------



## Frank714

^^ I see, the elevation angle relative to main listening position, depending on the speaker design, could either speak for an FH or FT installation.



smurraybhm said:


> This argument is about as silly as trying to say that Denon owes us an upgrade of sorts .


There is no argument regarding what Dolby does recommend. But I concede there may be alternatives they overlooked of didn't explore.

And I'm not saying that Denon (& Marantz) "owe" us a DTS:X upgrade, nor have I been the one giving raise to false hopes or such expectations (just go back to September 2014 in this thread and read for yourself!).

All I'm saying is that D & M laid down it's product philosophy on October 16, 2014 which entitles every concerned owner to *ask* them whether a DTS:X upgrade for the 2014 models is technically possible and whether we will get this upgrade option or not. 

Now I'm off for the weekend, eager to see whether the new Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc arrived in my mailbox.


----------



## NorthSky

RapalloAV said:


> Ok thanks Josh for that explanation, I understand, no point in me even trying to get my VOG speaker in the middle of the room working.
> Looks like Bob had it wrong...


I guess I was, and I do apologize.


----------



## helvetica bold

Gamers out there I found some amazing info today!
Battlefront EA new Star Wars video game looks like will use Dolby Atmos! 
Perhaps the first video game to use the format!

"DICE has always excelled with audio in the Battlefield series, and it would appear Battlefront is setting another benchmark for the developer. DICE is using Dolby Atmos to make the wars dynamic and thunderous for surround sound setups."


http://www.gameinformer.com/games/s...at-star-wars-battlefront.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

EDIT: PC only for Atmos
http://stevivor.com/2015/04/star-wa...st-dolby-atmos-supported-game-but-only-on-pc/

Darn I was hoping for PS4 and Xbox One!


----------



## bargervais

multit said:


> A new Dolby Atmos "Shatter" trailer is available @ vimeo
> 
> https://vimeo.com/125183403


It would be cool to have this as an atmos trailer on upcoming Blu-Rays so far they have the unfold one. Short and sweet.


----------



## kenoh89

helvetica bold said:


> Gamers out there I found some amazing info today!
> Battlefront EA new Star Wars video game looks like will use Dolby Atmos!
> Perhaps the first video game to use the format!
> 
> "DICE has always excelled with audio in the Battlefield series, and it would appear Battlefront is setting another benchmark for the developer. DICE is using Dolby Atmos to make the wars dynamic and thunderous for surround sound setups."
> 
> 
> http://www.gameinformer.com/games/s...at-star-wars-battlefront.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
> 
> EDIT: PC only for Atmos
> http://stevivor.com/2015/04/star-wa...st-dolby-atmos-supported-game-but-only-on-pc/
> 
> Darn I was hoping for PS4 and Xbox One!


With this news, and the fact that the New and Original trilogy is rumored for a Dolby Atmos remix like Die Hard, I will have no choice but to upgrade!


Question is, which video cards support it. I'm going to guess HDMI 2.0 compatible cards like the Nvidia 900 series, Titan X and upcoming AMD graphic cards?


----------



## helvetica bold

On a PC Isn't the audio CPU bound or GPU? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SteveTheGeek

helvetica bold said:


> EDIT: PC only for Atmos
> http://stevivor.com/2015/04/star-wa...st-dolby-atmos-supported-game-but-only-on-pc/
> 
> Darn I was hoping for PS4 and Xbox One!


Damn this ads a gaming PC cost to the home theater room...


----------



## blastermaster

> On a PC Isn't the audio CPU bound or GPU?


Wouldn't you just bitstream from your gpu hdmi to your receiver and the receiver decodes it?


----------



## helvetica bold

Good point blastmaster! So the PS4 should be able to do it as well. Why a PC feature only?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SteveTheGeek

helvetica bold said:


> Good point blastmaster! So the PS4 should be able to do it as well. Why a PC feature only?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As far as I know, for lossless audio in gaming the PS4 does only PCM 7.1, not Dolby TrueHD...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kenoh89 said:


> With this news, and the fact that the New and Original trilogy is rumored for a Dolby Atmos remix like Die Hard, I will have no choice but to upgrade!
> 
> 
> Question is, which video cards support it. I'm going to guess HDMI 2.0 compatible cards like the Nvidia 900 series, Titan X and upcoming AMD graphic cards?


Where did you hear about possible Atmos remixes for the other Star Wars films???????????????????????????????????

Of course, it does me no good if they aren't the original trilogy.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where did you hear about possible Atmos remixes for the other Star Wars films???????????????????????????????????
> 
> Of course, it does me no good if they aren't the original trilogy.


That would be great to have star wars with an atmos mix. It won't be a double dip for me as I didn't buy them the first go around.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> That would be great to have star wars with an atmos mix. It won't be a double dip for me as I didn't buy them the first go around.


I say F the prequels and the Special Edition Trilogy. They're crap... crap I tell you! 

I would rather have the _ORIGINAL_ ORIGINAL Uncut Trilogy fully restored in 4k with an option for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and a close proximity to the _final_ approved theatrical Dolby Stereo mixes for purists (there were multiple versions of the Dolby print master, not just one).


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would rather have the _ORIGINAL_ ORIGINAL Uncut Trilogy fully restored in 4k with an option for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and a close proximity to the _final_ approved theatrical Dolby Stereo mixes for purists (there were multiple versions of the Dolby print master, not just one).


Well, I want a toilet made out of solid gold but it's just not in the cards, now is it? 

The Harmy Despecialized Edition (fan edit) in 720P 5.1 is the single best version of ANH I've seen yet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Well, I want a toilet made out of solid gold but it's just not in the cards, now is it?
> 
> The Harmy Despecialized Edition (fan edit) in 720P 5.1 is the single best version of ANH I've seen yet.


But I refuse to buy the abomination that is the Special Edition Blu-ray's in order to watch it.


----------



## kenoh89

Dan Hitchman said:


> I say F the prequels and the Special Edition Trilogy. They're crap... crap I tell you!
> 
> I would rather have the _ORIGINAL_ ORIGINAL Uncut Trilogy fully restored in 4k with an option for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and a close proximity to the _final_ approved theatrical Dolby Stereo mixes for purists (there were multiple versions of the Dolby print master, not just one).


Disney has already created something like that using the superior Dolby mix tapes. People in the industry already know this, so expect a rerelease of the original trilogy in 4k and possibly Dolby Atmos mix sometime during or after the new movies release.


As for Dolby Atmos for the new trilogy? I guarantee you an Atmos release, you'll know about it once we get closer to release as it's something that gets done during post production.


For the Original trilogy I'm 50/50 on an Atmos release, but know for sure it will sport the higher quality 65mm Dolby mix tapes remixed into 7.1.


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> Well, I want a toilet made out of solid gold but it's just not in the cards, now is it?


Seems like a perfectly reasonable desire to me. But then, so does a 34-speaker HT, so what do I know?


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> But I refuse to buy the abomination that is the Special Edition Blu-ray's in order to watch it.


The one I referenced is not available for purchase. It's a FAN edit. Many hours sourcing OT material and soundtracks .

Back on topic: Atmos RAH RAH RAH!


----------



## NorthSky

New Star Wars trilogy: Dolby Atmos audio? ...DTS:X audio? ...3D Picture on Blu? ...HDR 4K on Blu?


----------



## multit

I don't know, if already posted, but VUDU will soon offer streaming with Dolby Vision and Atmos...
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/V...ion-HDR-4K-Ultra-HD-Movies-Home-on-VUDU.shtml

Important is the small comment below the VUDU selection screen picture:
"At a press event in New York City on April 13, 2015, we got a peek at VUDU's initial collection of Dolby Vision-encoded Ultra HD titles, all released by Warner. Dolby reps tell us they expect that *at least some of these titles will also be available in Dolby Atmos immersive sound* on VUDU once they become generally available."

I'm curious, how they be able to stream this... UHD + Dolby Vision + Atmos ... in real time. With my 16Mbit connection for sure not 
So maybe, the step with HD + Dolby Atmos within Dolby Digital Plus is simply not happen?


----------



## lujan

Dan Hitchman said:


> ...
> 
> I would rather have the _ORIGINAL_ ORIGINAL Uncut Trilogy fully restored in 4k with an option for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and a close proximity to the _final_ approved theatrical Dolby Stereo mixes for purists (there were multiple versions of the Dolby print master, not just one).


I really don't know what the fascination is about the original Stars Wars movies? I much prefer the enhancements made by Lucas on the later versions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I really don't know what the fascination is about the original Stars Wars movies? I much prefer the enhancements made by Lucas on the later versions.


Because those are the original, unaltered films (yes, Han shoots _ONLY_ in the theatrical version and the laser blast hits are more aggressive among other things) and the CGI and other additions in the SE's go from merely okay to downright bad and cartoonish/childish. 

It's a generational thing. I grew up on the original movies, understand what they were before Lucas tinkered with them, and that's also what the Library of Congress wants restored and archived for future generations.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I really don't know what the fascination is about the original Stars Wars movies? I much prefer the enhancements made by Lucas on the later versions.


Same here. ...More modern, better CGI effects, better sound, better picture, better all around technically, and also just better better. 
...More more entertaining. I'm talking about the second trilogy here; the prequels.

* The original trilogy is more humorous though, more fun, more laughs, cooler actors and actresses too. 

♦ Not a big fan of _George Lucas_; too simple, too boring, too little substance, just not my bag; Star Wars included. 
I much prefer *'Forbidden Planet'* and *'Buck Rogers'* (1939).

____________

As for the original versions; _George Lucas_ shouldn't have touched it (them). He committed a sacrilege, I think.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> New Star Wars trilogy: Dolby Atmos audio? ...DTS:X audio? ...3D Picture on Blu? ...HDR 4K on Blu?


Unfortunately I don't think Star Wars will be in Atmos... the new trailer already had the "IMAX" logo & all that so I'd imagine the format is settled. Dolby's site makes no mention of it as being an Atmos feature... with such a high profile film you'd think we'd have that info by now. No use in keeping it a surprise as the public at large knows nothing about Atmos. JJ's Star Trek into Darkness was Atmos I believe... so I had thought it would be as he enjoys using the same tools @ his disposal... though perhaps Ben Burtt was against the idea?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Unfortunately I don't think Star Wars will be in Atmos... the new trailer already had the "IMAX" logo & all that so I'd imagine the format is settled. Dolby's site makes no mention of it as being an Atmos feature... with such a high profile film you'd think we'd have that info by now. No use in keeping it a surprise as the public at large knows nothing about Atmos. JJ's Star Trek into Darkness was Atmos I believe... so I had thought it would be as he enjoys using the same tools @ his disposal... though perhaps Ben Burtt was against the idea?


It's _WAAAAAAAAY _too early to be announcing what audio formats will be utilized in the new Star Wars film. Heck, they'll probably be mixing the soundtrack three weeks before its Christmas debut! 

I would imagine it will have multiple versions: IMAX 5.1, IMAX 12.0, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D, 5.1, 7.1, uncompressed PCM multi-channel DCP versions, etc. etc.

Ben Burtt loves new immersive audio formats. He's like Gary Rydstrom in that way.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> I say F the prequels and the Special Edition Trilogy. They're crap... crap I tell you!
> 
> I would rather have the _ORIGINAL_ ORIGINAL Uncut Trilogy fully restored in 4k with an option for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X and a close proximity to the _final_ approved theatrical Dolby Stereo mixes for purists (there were multiple versions of the Dolby print master, not just one).





Dan Hitchman said:


> Because those are the original, unaltered films (yes, Han shoots _ONLY_ in the theatrical version and the laser blast hits are more aggressive among other things) and the CGI and other additions in the SE's go from merely okay to downright bad and cartoonish/childish.
> 
> It's a generational thing. I grew up on the original movies, understand what they were before Lucas tinkered with them, and that's also what the Library of Congress wants restored and archived for future generations.


Reliance media works did the 4k original trilogy remaster in 16 bit color... I have a feeling it will be the untouched versions unless if George Lucas really wanted to stick it to his fan base by forever torturing them with the revised (butchered) version. I have a feeling Disney is holding out on releasing it until 4k bluray hits the market? Perhaps they didn't want it to coincide with their digital release? Well... whatever the case is, they seem to know how to handle this franchise well. That new trailer is STUNNING! It's gonna blow those horrible prequels away! Maybe Disney will allow JJ to make his own version of the Prequels (haha).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Reliance media works did the 4k original trilogy remaster in 16 bit color... I have a feeling it will be the untouched versions unless if George Lucas really wanted to stick it to his fan base by forever torturing them with the revised (butchered) version. I have a feeling Disney is holding out on releasing it until 4k bluray hits the market? Perhaps they didn't want it to coincide with their digital release? Well... whatever the case is, they seem to know how to handle this franchise well. That new trailer is STUNNING! It's gonna blow those horrible prequels away! Maybe Disney will allow JJ to make his own version of the Prequels (haha).


From what I've been hearing/reading, any storytelling quality or lack thereof will be laid at the feet of screenwriter Lawrence "Empire Strikes Back & Raiders of the Lost Ark" Kasdan and not so much JJ. 

In fact, there was a rumor swirling that Kasdan's script was considered around the production to be too good for the likes of JJ Abrams. The battles were supposed to be elegantly old school and beautiful to behold, but whether JJ could adapt them visually... is still unknown.

I hope these new SW flicks are good and I hope they get a great Atmos or DTS:X 3D mix on Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray. I want some quality titles to go along with quality audio mixes!! Damn it!!


----------



## NorthSky

> I would imagine it will have multiple versions: IMAX 5.1, IMAX 12.0, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D, 5.1, 7.1, uncompressed PCM multi-channel DCP versions, etc. etc.


Dolby Cinema?


----------



## gene4ht

Quick question: How does one download files from Demo World...specifically the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc here:

http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/09/15/dolby-atmos-demonstration-disc-august-2014/

I'm told that there is a "download" button on this page but I don't see one when I open the page...just random ads. What am I missing???


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's _WAAAAAAAAY _too early to be announcing what audio formats will be utilized in the new Star Wars film. Heck, they'll probably be mixing the soundtrack three weeks before its Christmas debut!
> 
> I would imagine it will have multiple versions: IMAX 5.1, IMAX 12.0, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D, 5.1, 7.1, uncompressed PCM multi-channel DCP versions, etc. etc.
> 
> Ben Burtt loves new immersive audio formats. He's like Gary Rydstrom in that way.


I hope you're right... but if you look at Dolby's Atmos film page they usually do post which films will get Atmos very far in advance.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> If back surrounds aren't active when you are trying for 11ch playback it's almost certainly an issue with the amp assign settings config.


Thanks. You are right. The amp assign setting was wrong for Wide/Height2..

Now if only I could stream the VuDu demos from PS3 in Atmos. Is that even possible? I can only get DSU to work no Atmos on those demos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> I hope you're right... but if you look at Dolby's Atmos film page they usually do post which films will get Atmos very far in advance.


Maybe Disney has gone to the DTS: X side. Who knows.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks. You are right. The amp assign setting was wrong for Wide/Height2..
> 
> Now if only I could stream the VuDu demos from PS3 in Atmos. Is that even possible? I can only get DSU to work no Atmos on those demos.



Which version of the PS3 do you have (fat or slim)? That may be your problem right there.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I got the new Dolby Atmos demo disc today and it has a lot of the same material that was handed out at CEDIA, but there are some audio only demos that really highlight how great Atmos can sound (it toggles between 5.1 and Atmos). Still missing are any test tones, but I plan on reaching out to Dolby next week to see if one is in the works. I'll post back what I find out.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Which version of the PS3 do you have (fat or slim)? That may be your problem right there.


I have the slim version.
And again, it's only Vudu the problematic.
I have no issues with Atmos Bluray disks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> I have the slim version.
> And again, it's only Vudu the problematic.
> I have no issues with Atmos Bluray disks.


Then it's the app that Vudu has for the PS3. They'll have to update it to allow DD+ bitstreams through the HDMI output... and Sony will have to be willing to include it in a new software download.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then it's the app that Vudu has for the PS3. They'll have to update it to allow DD+ bitstreams through the HDMI output... and Sony will have to be willing to include it in a new software download.


So is it available or in works?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> So is it available or in works?


With the PS3 being "long in the tooth" it may be down the list of Vudu's app update priorities. If a Roku3 or other streaming device allows for DD+ streams off Vudu's A/V data, and you use the service a lot (Blu-ray turn coat! ), then it might be best to switch streaming devices.


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> Got my 7200 today.
> Ran Audyssey and tested basics. No issues there.
> But Atmos. I am not too thrilled.
> Weekend is going to be busy I guess.


I don't have "Gravity" in Atmos, but just watched the few initial minutes of the non-Atmos Bluray in DSU. That was encouraging (compared to the Atmos versions of TF4 and Expendables 3).
So yeah, the "re-view" of blu ray collection continues..


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> With the PS3 being "long in the tooth" it may be down the list of Vudu's app update priorities. If a Roku3 or other streaming device allows for DD+ streams off Vudu's A/V data, and you use the service a lot (Blu-ray turn coat! ), then it might be best to switch streaming devices.


I do have the Roku. I might give it a shot.


----------



## Selden Ball

gene4ht said:


> Quick question: How does one download files from Demo World...specifically the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc here:
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/09/15/dolby-atmos-demonstration-disc-august-2014/
> 
> I'm told that there is a "download" button on this page but I don't see one when I open the page...just random ads. What am I missing???


They do not provide downloads of entire discs. That page and the others like it are just directory listings so you can decide if you want to try to get the discs through other channels, like Ebay.

For downloads look on the trailers pages.


----------



## batpig

aaranddeeman said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the PS3 being "long in the tooth" it may be down the list of Vudu's app update priorities. If a Roku3 or other streaming device allows for DD+ streams off Vudu's A/V data, and you use the service a lot (Blu-ray turn coat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), then it might be best to switch streaming devices.
> 
> 
> 
> I do have the Roku. I might give it a shot.
Click to expand...

The Roku should definitely work. I get Atmos from those VUdu trailers on both my Roku and my Sony BDP.


----------



## RapalloAV

Frank714 said:


> ^^ Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed, yet
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
> 
> Dolby doesn't recommend front heights but overhead speakers (unless you consider making use of Auro 3D and want to go for a compromise).


What about front heights with top middle?
Where do they say they don't recommend front height?


----------



## gene4ht

Selden Ball said:


> They do not provide downloads of entire discs. That page and the others like it are just directory listings so you can decide if you want to try to get the discs through other channels, like Ebay.
> 
> For downloads look on the trailers pages.


Ahh...ok...appreciate the explanation....will look to the trailers then!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RapalloAV said:


> What about front heights with top middle?
> Where do they say they don't recommend front height?


For non Trinnov buyers (), front and rear heights near the ceiling are second best to top front and top rear overhead positions, but they are doable if need be. You *CAN* do front heights and top middles at the same time, from what I've read.


----------



## RapalloAV

Dan Hitchman said:


> For non Trinnov buyers (), front and rear heights near the ceiling are second best to top front and top rear overhead positions, but they are doable if need be. However, you cannot do front heights and top middles at the same time, from what I've read.


 Sorry but you can run front heights with top middle, that's how I run mine


Its top front and top middle you cant run, front height works well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RapalloAV said:


> Sorry but you can run front heights with top middle, that's how I run mine
> 
> 
> Its top front and top middle you cant run, front height works well.


Ooops! My bad.


----------



## NorthSky

I also get a little confused sometimes, and then there is Auro-3D...to make it just a little tiny bit more confusing; but nothing complicated for common mortals like us here @ AVS.


----------



## jdsmoothie

RapalloAV said:


> Sorry but you can run front heights with top middle, that's how I run mine
> 
> 
> *Its top front and top middle you cant run,* front height works well.


Keeping in mind the limitation being you simply can't use the Top Front label with Top Middle, but rather you can physically place Top Front (if necessary) and simply label them as Front Height.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> For non Trinnov buyers (), front and rear heights near the ceiling are second best to top front and top rear overhead positions, but they are doable if need be. You *CAN* do front heights and top middles at the same time, from what I've read.


So, if you are within spec for either Front Height/Rear Height or Top Front/Top Rear, is it most appropriate to set it Top Front/Top Rear in the AVR than Front Height/Rear Height?
I was thinking is really does not matter. But I may be wrong.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> The Roku should definitely work. I get Atmos from those VUdu trailers on both my Roku and my Sony BDP.


Ah nice. Time for some "real" Atmos experience..


----------



## Selden Ball

aaranddeeman said:


> So, if you are within spec for either Front Height/Rear Height or Top Front/Top Rear, is it most appropriate to set it Top Front/Top Rear in the AVR than Front Height/Rear Height?
> I was thinking is really does not matter. But I may be wrong.


The Front Height designation is compatible with Auro-3D and with the upmixers DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX. Top Front is not. The physical positions suggested by Dolby for Front Height overlap with those recommended for Top Front.


----------



## pasender91

The overall optimal recommendation is TF+ TR, but FH + RH does work.
Many of us are configured in FH + RH, including me (didn't want holes and cables on my ceiling )


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> The overall optimal recommendation is TF+ TR, but FH + RH does work.
> Many of us are configured in FH + RH, including me (didn't want holes and cables on my ceiling )


Yep. And some of us are configured for FH+TM, with the FH speakers in the TF position but labelled as FH. Works really well here. Lots of possibilities.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. And some of us are configured for FH+TM, with the FH speakers in the TF position but labelled as FH. Works really well here. Lots of possibilities.


My front and rear heights are in that overlapping FH/TF, TR/RH angular range. So either is good I guess.
But FH+RH seems a better designation to handle the shared FH for other formats..


----------



## wse

Dave Vaughn said:


> I got the new Dolby Atmos demo disc today and it has a lot of the same material that was handed out at CEDIA, but there are some audio only demos that really highlight how great Atmos can sound (it toggles between 5.1 and Atmos). Still missing are any test tones, but I plan on reaching out to Dolby next week to see if one is in the works. I'll post back what I find out.


is it this one

Dolby Short Film: Silent (2:39) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos In The Home (2:38) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Red Bull F1 (1:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos Amaze Trailer (1:04) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos Leaf Trailer (0:58) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
AV Sync Test Signal (3:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
General Listening 5.1.2 Test Signal (0:30) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
General Listening 5.1.4 Test Signal (0:38) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
*Offerer:* Dolby Laboratories Inc.
*Produced:* 2014
*Running Time:* 14min.
*Format:* 1080/24p
*Video Codec:* AVC
*Type:* BD-25
*Size:* 2.18GB
*Region Code:* A,B,C
*Packing:* Amaray




or 



Dolby Atmos Retail Loop (15:20) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos In The Home (2:28) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos Amaze Trailer (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos Leaf Trailer (1:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos Conductor Trailer (0:32) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Atmos Unfold Trailer (0:27) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Dolby Short Film: Silent (2:41) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Enrique Iglesias Music Video: Bailando (4:22) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Red Bull Video Clip: F1 Racing (1:02) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Red Bull Movie Trailer: On Any Sunday (2:05) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Napa Valley Dreams: Time-Lapse Clip (2:05) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Offerer:* Dolby Laboratories Inc.
*Produced:* 2014

*Running Time:* 18min.
*Format:* 1080/24p
*Video Codec:* AVC
*Type:* BD-25
*Size:* 3.40GB
*Region Code:* A,B,C
*Packing:* Amaray


or this one



Introduction To Dolby Atmos For The Home (4:08) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Trailers:*
Horizon (1:52) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Silent (2:42) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Amaze (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Leaf (1:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Movies:*
Transformers: Age Of Extinction (1:07) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Where The Trail Ends (2:22) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
On Any Sunday: The Next Chapter (2:07) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Audio Only:*
Rainstorm (0:48) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
The Encounter (1:32) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Santeria (1:24) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Music:*
Enrique Iglesias – Bailando (4:23) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Sports:*
F1 Red Bull (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Retail Loop (21:28) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Offerer:* Dolby Laboratories Inc.
*Produced:* 2015
*Running Time:* 24min.
*Format:* 1080/24p
*Video Codec:* AVC
*Type:* BD-25
*Size:* 5.56GB
*Region Code:* A,B,C
*Packing:* Amaray


----------



## wse

Looking back at the dates I assume it is this one

* Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Jan 2015) *


Introduction To Dolby Atmos For The Home (4:08) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos


*Trailers:*
Horizon (1:52) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Silent (2:42) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Amaze (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Leaf (1:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Movies:*
Transformers: Age Of Extinction (1:07) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Where The Trail Ends (2:22) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
On Any Sunday: The Next Chapter (2:07) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Audio Only:*
Rainstorm (0:48) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
The Encounter (1:32) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Santeria (1:24) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Music:* Enrique Iglesias – Bailando (4:23) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Sports:*
F1 Red Bull (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
Retail Loop (21:28) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos

*Offerer:* Dolby Laboratories Inc.

*Produced:* 2015

*Running Time:* 24min.

*Format:* 1080/24p

*Video Codec:* AVC

*Type:* BD-25
*Size:* 5.56GB

*Region Code:* A,B,C
*Packing:* Amaray


----------



## wse

Now that's a demo disc

*015 DTS Blu-Ray Demo Disc Vol.19 *

  

*Movies:*
300: Rise Of An Empire (1:43) DTS-HD MA 5.1
Between Zero And One (4:53) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
The Book Thief (2:01) DTS-HD MA 5.1
Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2:07) DTS-HD MA 7.1
Divergent (2:01) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (1:27) DTS-HD MA 7.1
The LEGO Movie (1:36) DTS-HD MA 5.1
Locked Up (1:32) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
A Million Ways To Die In The West (2:16) DTS-HD MA 5.1
The Olympians (3:31) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Pinnipèdes (1:39) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Rio 2 (2:09) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Robocop (1:48) DTS-HD MA 5.1
X:Men: Days Of Future Past (3:08) DTS-HD MA 7.1

*3D:*
Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2:07) DTS-HD MA 7.1
Rio 2 (2:09) DTS-HD MA 7.1
X:Men: Days Of Future Past (3:08) DTS-HD MA 7.1

*Music:*
Morgan Page And Michael S. – Against The World (3:56) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Ume – Black Stone (3:04) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Painted Palms – Forever (3:11) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Run River North – Monsters Calling Home (4:11) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X
Wampire – Wizard Staff (4:01) DTS-HD MA 7.1 / DTS:X

*Extras:*
Sound Check (3:25) DTS-HD MA 5.1
Sound Check (4:18) DTS-HD MA 7.1

*Offerer:* DTS Entertainment

*Produced:* 2015

*Running Time:* 66min.

*Format:* 1080/24p

*Video Codec:* AVC-MVC

*Type:* BD-50

*Size:* 27.4GB

*Region Code:* A,B,C

*Packing:* Paper Sleeve


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> My front and rear heights are in that overlapping FH/TF, TR/RH angular range. So either is good I guess.
> But FH+RH seems a better designation to handle the shared FH for other formats..


If by 'other' you mean Auro, well, that will never be an issue here  DTS:X can, apparently, be happy with the Atmos layout. If you sometimes want to use Neo:X or DSX etc then I agree with you - FH and RH mounted in the FH and RH positions works well. My only issue with that is for Atmos where the sound is meant to come from overhead not so much from the front and rear but it probably makes little difference in practice.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> So, if you are within spec for either Front Height/Rear Height or Top Front/Top Rear, is it most appropriate to set it Top Front/Top Rear in the AVR than Front Height/Rear Height?
> I was thinking is really does not matter. But I may be wrong.


Both settings seem to get the same audio content. If you have front height designated, you can use DTS Neo:X (their older upmixer) too and share the front height speakers if need be (some like it for certain content).


----------



## pasender91

Dan Hitchman said:


> Both settings seem to get the same audio content. If you have front height designated, you can use DTS Neo:X (their older upmixer) too and share the front height speakers if need be (some like it for certain content).


Dan, for sure FH and TF do not get the same audio content, else they would be the same.
Let's say you're rich and have a trinnov 32 and setup all 10 top speakers, do you think FH would do the same sound as TF, i dont think so.
I agree it is difficult to spot a difference when switching from FH to TF, but still they must be different, their reference and rendering angles are not the same ....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Dan, for sure FH and TF do not get the same audio content, else they would be the same.
> Let's say you're rich and have a trinnov 32 and setup all 10 top speakers, do you think FH would do the same sound as TF, i dont think so.
> I agree it is difficult to spot a difference when switching from FH to TF, but still they must be different, their reference and rendering angles are not the same ....


I'm talking about gear from Denon and the like, _not_ the Trinnov. Even Keith tried setting his receiver's speaker mapping differently and it sounded the same.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan, for sure FH and TF do not get the same audio content, else they would be the same.
> Let's say you're rich and have a trinnov 32 and setup all 10 top speakers, do you think FH would do the same sound as TF, i dont think so.
> I agree it is difficult to spot a difference when switching from FH to TF, but still they must be different, their reference and rendering angles are not the same ....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about gear from Denon and the like, _not_ the Trinnov. Even Keith tried setting his receiver's speaker mapping differently and it sounded the same.
Click to expand...

Just because some people tried it out and couldn't hear a difference doesn't mean it's actually the same. Just that the difference is not significant enough with most content not to be noticeable.

Also I doubt the result would be different with a Trinnov (leaving aside the proprietary remapping which isn't part of Atmos). It's the same 10 overhead positions for home Atmos that an uber bucks processor would use.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour,



kbarnes701 said:


> You do realise that that was a joke between me and Hugo? Have you never heard the lighthearted saying "if I tell you I will have to kill you"? Maybe not - but it is a joke (of sorts) and definitely not a threat of violence to_ mon vrai copain, Hugo_. Just thought I'd set that straight. I agree with you about the thread veering OT lately - not many new Atmos topics at the moment. But I disagree that people who do ask serious Atmos-related questions are ignored and see no evidence to substantiate that claim.


This is to confirm to Alan, that what _ mon Bien Cher Ami _ Keith wrote here, is obviously the way I understood his remark (in French). 

So no problem at all. But thank you Alan and Bob for your appreciated concern.

Have a nice WE,

Hugo


----------



## Dave Vaughn

wse said:


> Looking back at the dates I assume it is this one
> 
> * Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Jan 2015) *
> 
> 
> Introduction To Dolby Atmos For The Home (4:08) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> 
> 
> *Trailers:*
> Horizon (1:52) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> Silent (2:42) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> Amaze (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> Leaf (1:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> 
> *Movies:*
> Transformers: Age Of Extinction (1:07) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> Where The Trail Ends (2:22) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> On Any Sunday: The Next Chapter (2:07) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> 
> *Audio Only:*
> Rainstorm (0:48) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> The Encounter (1:32) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> Santeria (1:24) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> 
> *Music:* Enrique Iglesias – Bailando (4:23) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> 
> *Sports:*
> F1 Red Bull (1:03) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> Retail Loop (21:28) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
> 
> *Offerer:* Dolby Laboratories Inc.
> 
> *Produced:* 2015
> 
> *Running Time:* 24min.
> 
> *Format:* 1080/24p
> 
> *Video Codec:* AVC
> 
> *Type:* BD-25
> *Size:* 5.56GB
> 
> *Region Code:* A,B,C
> *Packing:* Amaray


It's this one.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> 
> 
> This is to confirm to Alan, that what _ mon Bien Cher Ami _ Keith wrote here, is obviously the way I understood his remark (in French).
> 
> So no problem at all. But thank you Alan and Bob for your appreciated concern.
> 
> Have a nice WE,
> 
> Hugo


Merci bien pour ça mon ami!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just because some people tried it out and couldn't hear a difference doesn't mean it's actually the same. Just that the difference is not significant enough with most content not to be noticeable.


Quite. I couldn’t hear any significant difference here but the test was hardly scientific. There ought to be some sort of difference or otherwise, why have the different designations?


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I agree it is difficult to spot a difference when switching from FH to TF, but still they must be different, their reference and rendering angles are not the same ....


FH and TF overlap significantly wrt to the recommended angles. It is quite possible to put FH speakers in a TM TF position and still be within spec. 

I agree there ought to be a difference, but whatever that difference is, it is so subtle that I can't hear it here. And, of course, if we can't hear it then it doesn't exist


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> FH and TF overlap significantly wrt to the recommended angles. *It is quite possible to put FH speakers in a TM position and still be within spec*.


Uhh, say what? Did that come out right?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Uhh, say what? Did that come out right?


Of course. Permitted angles for FH are 30-45° and permitted angles for TF are 30-55°. Mount a speaker at 40° (for example) and it can be designated as FH or TF. So you can put the speaker at 40° and designate it TF or FH.


----------



## Jack.K

I use FH and TM in my 9.0.2 and I watched The Equalizer from Netflix last nite it was in DTS-HD 7.1. The reason I use 0 in my speaker layout is because I have Goldenear Tritons.


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour,
> This is to confirm to Alan, that what _ mon Bien Cher Ami _ Keith wrote here, is obviously the way I understood his remark (in French).
> So no problem at all. But thank you Alan and Bob for your appreciated concern.
> Have a nice WE,
> Hugo


We all knew that Hugo; everyone here has good humor.  

* By the way, you should post more often; definitely. ...You're a pro, and pros are what we breathe here for our advancement. 

♥ Have a great weekend as well Mr. Hugo.
_Robert_


----------



## Lucky Strike

oh man this is a monster of a thread....got a couple questions.....i'm building a theater room in my basement that's currently just studs so I've got plenty of opportunity to figure out sound options before putting up drywall. It's a 2300ish cf room...19' x 17' with the screen on the 17' wall. back wall is all fireplace or a doorway to storage room so can't wall mount back there. The ceilings are 7.5' now and only going to get shorter when the drywall goes up.

Due to cost restrictions i can only get a receiver that can do 5.2.2 which means only one set of heights.....at first i thought i'd have to go with reflective modules on top of my LR fronts due to my low ceiling heights. On Dolby's literature it said that in-ceilings that low give too much localization. But reading a couple posts on here it seems that some people have been doing in-ceilings with ceiling height in the 7' range and getting great results. So now i'm back to being confused on which option would be better.

One consideration is that my rear surrounds (which will be bookshelfs) can't be placed at ear height due to room layout. Also can't be mounted on the back wall due to previously mentioned fireplace/door. So they have to be wall mounted on the side walls behind the listening position about a foot or so below the ceiling.

Given that restriction what is the better option for my two height speakers? Go ahead with the reflective modules in front? Or go with in ceilings....and if i do go with in-ceilings should i have them above the L/R/C or kinda mid room just in front of the listening position. the thinking being to not have them behind the listening position since it'd be too close to the rear surrounds that are gonna be near the ceilings?

Any help is much appreciated. just learned about all this Atmos stuff (and thankfully before i finished the room) so I'm just trying to figure out what'll work best for me.


----------



## NorthSky

1. In-ceiling Atmos speakers are fine with a seven-foot high ceiling.
2. Top Middle, right above your head - 90° - for two ceiling speakers.
3. Your Side surrounds are ok, but if you could put them roughly a foot above your head, that would be swell.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Check this link, page 16.


----------



## helvetica bold

SteveTheGeek said:


> As far as I know, for lossless audio in gaming the PS4 does only PCM 7.1, not Dolby TrueHD...


Could a future firmware update allow for Atmos or DTS X on the PS4 or the Xbox One? From what i understand they both have very powerful audio chips.


----------



## HTPCat

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course. Permitted angles for FH are 30-45° and permitted angles for TF are 30-55°. Mount a speaker at 40° (for example) and it can be designated as FH or TF. So you can put the speaker at 40° and designate it TF or FH.


My room is 14' X 14' missing the right side wall (opens to much larger area) and the MLP is on a sofa that is 2' from back wall with a slightly sloped ceiling height of 100" to 90" (right to left). I am in the planning stages of adding some top layer Atmos speakers to my current 5.2 (JTR 212HT LCR & Slanted 8HT Surrounds with Seaton master/slave subs) system (all 5 of the base speakers are at ear level of 39"). I am not tied to any type of speaker install (up-firing module, on ceiling, or in ceiling) although on wall is not possible for the sides since I don't have a right side wall and the front wall is probably out as it is 12' from MLP. Mainly trying to decide on if I should go with 2 or 4 speakers with TM as the first set and TF (labeled as FH) as second set . The TM could be placed on line with main L/R speakers 20" - 24" in front of MLP and if I was to go with a 2nd set as TF they could also be in line with Main L/R speakers and be about 80" in front of MLP. Secondary, is whether I should install as in ceiling or on ceiling and of course which brand/model speaker . My wife would of course prefer in ceiling or smaller size on ceiling speakers, I on the other hand would like JBL LSR705i or JBL SCS8 or similar. I have also looked at DefTech Pro Monitor 1000's for on ceiling and many different in ceiling speakers like: Klipsch CDT 5800, DefTech DI8R/UIW 94/A, Golden Ear HRT 7000 & JBL L228C. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## bkeeler10

Nalleh said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FH and TF overlap significantly wrt to the recommended angles. *It is quite possible to put FH speakers in a TM position and still be within spec*.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, say what? Did that come out right?
Click to expand...




kbarnes701 said:


> Nalleh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, say what? Did that come out right?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Permitted angles for FH are 30-45? and permitted angles for TF are 30-55?. Mount a speaker at 40? (for example) and it can be designated as FH or TF. So you can put the speaker at 40? and designate it TF or FH.
Click to expand...

Keith I believe Nalleh was referring to your typo saying that TM speakers could be put in a FH position. Of course you meant that TF speakers can be put in a FH position.


----------



## NorthSky

HTPCat said:


> My room is 14' X 14' missing the right side wall (opens to much larger area) and the MLP is on a sofa that is 2' from back wall with a slightly sloped ceiling height of 100" to 90" (right to left). I am in the planning stages of adding some top layer Atmos speakers to my current 5.2 (JTR 212HT LCR & Slanted 8HT Surrounds with Seaton master/slave subs) system (all 5 of the base speakers are at ear level of 39"). I am not tied to any type of speaker install (up-firing module, on ceiling, or in ceiling) although on wall is not possible for the sides since I don't have a right side wall and the front wall is probably out as it is 12' from MLP. Mainly trying to decide on if I should go with 2 or 4 speakers with TM as the first set and TF (labeled as FH) as second set . The TM could be placed on line with main L/R speakers 20" - 24" in front of MLP and if I was to go with a 2nd set as TF they could also be in line with Main L/R speakers and be about 80" in front of MLP. Secondary, is whether I should install as in ceiling or on ceiling and of course which brand/model speaker . My wife would of course prefer in ceiling or smaller size on ceiling speakers, I on the other hand would like JBL LSR705i or JBL SCS8 or similar. I have also looked at DefTech Pro Monitor 1000's for on ceiling and many different in ceiling speakers like: Klipsch CDT 5800, DefTech DI8R/UIW 94/A, Golden Ear HRT 7000 & JBL L228C. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


1. Side surrounds: On speaker's stands.
2. On or in-celing Atmos speakers I would recommend; between you and your wife. ...What makes her happy is very very important.
3. If you could go with four overhead surrounds, go for it.
4. TM and FH (labelled as TF) just like you said; I think. ...Or if you can: TF & TR.
5. For the overhead speakers; Wide dispersion, closest timbre-matched possible to your floor speakers, aimable/adjustable, good frequency response down to approximately 80Hz (a 6" woofer/driver should do - I wouldn't go smaller than say 5.25" and I'd cross them @ 100-110Hz).

* Look @ the link just above I provided; page 18.


----------



## HTPCat

NorthSky said:


> 1. Side surrounds: On speaker's stands.
> 2. On or in-celing Atmos speakers I would recommend; between you and your wife. ...What makes her happy is very very important.
> 3. If you could go with four overhead surrounds, go for it.
> 4. TM and FH (labelled as TF) just like you said; I think. ...Or if you can: TF & TR.
> 5. For the overhead speakers; Wide dispersion, closest timbre-matched possible to your floor speakers, aimable/adjustable, good frequency response down to approximately 80Hz (a 6" woofer/driver should do - I wouldn't go smaller than say 5.25" and I'd cross them @ 100-110Hz).
> 
> * Look @ the link just above I provided; page 18.


1. Yes side surrounds are on speaker stands.
2. I agree my wife's happiness is most important.
3. I can - so I will do 4.
4. I can't do TR as MLP is only 24" from back wall so TM & TF/FH it is.
5. My mains consist of two 12” woofers in a vented enclosure, combined with a coaxial compression driver fitted on a large, 1/4″ thick aluminum horn. So maybe klipsch would be a good match something like the CDT 5650cii.
Thanks for the link.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Could a future firmware update allow for Atmos or DTS X on the PS4 or the Xbox One? From what i understand they both have very powerful audio chips.


More than likely the HDMI chipset included only allows for 7.1 PCM throughput. Object audio would need an updated HDMI chipset that allows for the new spec of 32 channels of PCM audio given internal decoding/rendering inside a player rather than a pre-amp processor or receiver.


----------



## batpig

Lucky Strike said:


> oh man this is a monster of a thread....got a couple questions.....i'm building a theater room in my basement that's currently just studs so I've got plenty of opportunity to figure out sound options before putting up drywall. It's a 2300ish cf room...19' x 17' with the screen on the 17' wall. back wall is all fireplace or a doorway to storage room so can't wall mount back there. The ceilings are 7.5' now and only going to get shorter when the drywall goes up.
> 
> Due to cost restrictions i can only get a receiver that can do 5.2.2 which means only one set of heights.....at first i thought i'd have to go with reflective modules on top of my LR fronts due to my low ceiling heights. On Dolby's literature it said that in-ceilings that low give too much localization. But reading a couple posts on here it seems that some people have been doing in-ceilings with ceiling height in the 7' range and getting great results. So now i'm back to being confused on which option would be better.
> 
> One consideration is that my rear surrounds (which will be bookshelfs) can't be placed at ear height due to room layout. Also can't be mounted on the back wall due to previously mentioned fireplace/door. So they have to be wall mounted on the side walls behind the listening position about a foot or so below the ceiling.
> 
> Given that restriction what is the better option for my two height speakers? Go ahead with the reflective modules in front? Or go with in ceilings....and if i do go with in-ceilings should i have them above the L/R/C or kinda mid room just in front of the listening position. the thinking being to not have them behind the listening position since it'd be too close to the rear surrounds that are gonna be near the ceilings?
> 
> Any help is much appreciated. just learned about all this Atmos stuff (and thankfully before i finished the room) so I'm just trying to figure out what'll work best for me.


A few points...

1. If you are only running 5 ear level channels there are no rear surrounds. Surround back is for a 7.1 system. Your proposed mounting location to the sides of the LP and a bit behind and a bit elevated is actually the correct position for 5.1. 

2. Reflective modules will actually be worse with a really low ceiling unless you are seated very close to the display. With very low ceilings the angle of the bounce will be way too far in front of you due to the room geometry. Many people have reported this leads to overly diffuse overhead effects that don't image properly overhead. So I would suggest using physical in/on ceiling speakers, especially since you have the luxury of open studs to wire wherever you want. 

3. Although you can only afford a 7ch receiver right now, you might as well run wire for everywhere you could conceivably put a speaker in the future. Wire is cheap and ripping up drywall later will suck. At minimum wire for 4 overheads. One pair a few feet forward and the other pair a few feet behind the LP. For now just use the front pair and designate them as Top Middle or Top Front. When you get a new receiver at some point you'll be ready for more.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Avengers in Cinemas*

So it looks like the new avengers movie in IMAX will be in DTS:X .


----------



## NorthSky

HT-Eman said:


> So it looks like the new *Avengers:* movie in IMAX will be in DTS:X .


...* Age of Ultron*; yes, DTS:X ... maybe?

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ...* Age of Ultron*; yes, DTS:X



And the game begin, will DTS:x will take over Dolby ATMOS remains to be seen 

Here is why I think it could win the war.*

"DTS is hoping to make its new system more accessible than Dolby’s Atmos, however, by making it easy to use with the hardware that’s already installed in theaters and homes, and by offering the tools to mix movies in DTS:X to movie studios for free. 

That’s right: it will cost movie studios nothing to make the move to this new format.*


----------



## smurraybhm

wse said:


> And the game begin, will DTS:x will take over Dolby ATMOS remains to be seen
> 
> Here is why I think it could win the war.*
> 
> "DTS is hoping to make its new system more accessible than Dolby’s Atmos, however, by making it easy to use with the hardware that’s already installed in theaters and homes, and by offering the tools to mix movies in DTS:X to movie studios for free.
> 
> That’s right: it will cost movie studios nothing to make the move to this new format.*


I believe FilmMixer said the free mix ping tools were not a game changer. No time to look for the post, maybe he will address this again.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> ...* Age of Ultron*; yes, DTS:X


Sorry Bob - see FilmMixers post at 4:41 pm on the DTS:X thread. As he stated earlier it's going to be an interesting game between Dolby and DTS. Lots of claims, many of which will be similar to watching a PAC paid election ad in the States. 

By the way I finished watching Netflix's latest new series Daredevil using DSU for most of the 13 episodes. Great job on the mix Marc - Fury and Daredevil - you've got it going. For those unable to access it - when it's released on blu-ray I highly recommend it. I will likely buy it just to see/hear the improvement the disk will bring.


----------



## FilmMixer

HT-Eman said:


> So it looks like the new avengers movie in IMAX will be in DTS:X .


No. That is not correct. 

It will be in IMAX 5.0 and the new 12 channel system. 

It is not DTS:X


----------



## FilmMixer

smurraybhm said:


> By the way I finished watching Netflix's latest new series Daredevil using DSU for most of the 13 episodes. Great job on the mix Marc - Fury and Daredevil - you've got it going. For those unable to access it - when it's released on blu-ray I highly recommend it. I will likely buy it just to see/hear the improvement the disk will bring.


Thanks. Very proud of both projects. i can tell you that the DD+ stream on Netflix is exactly as intended. Netflix is amazing in regards to leaving the audio as is (i.e. no dynamic compression like most networks, etc )


----------



## pasender91

HTPCat said:


> 1. Yes side surrounds are on speaker stands.
> 2. I agree my wife's happiness is most important.
> 3. I can - so I will do 4.
> 4. I can't do TR as MLP is only 24" from back wall so TM & TF/FH it is.
> 5. My mains consist of two 12” woofers in a vented enclosure, combined with a coaxial compression driver fitted on a large, 1/4″ thick aluminum horn. So maybe klipsch would be a good match something like the CDT 5650cii.
> Thanks for the link.


Ideally, you want to re use the same speakers as for the surrounds , the JTR 8HT, 8HT-slanted for FH and 8HT-LP for TM.
You don't mention them, so i guess that they are too massive for this usage in your room, is that correct ?
Plan B with the JBLs you mention is totally acceptable, those are also 8" speakers that will have no problem handling Atmos


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Dan Hitchman said:


> More than likely the HDMI chipset included only allows for 7.1 PCM throughput. Object audio would need an updated HDMI chipset that allows for the new spec of 32 channels of PCM audio given internal decoding/rendering inside a player rather than a pre-amp processor or receiver.


I don't think so, as it can output the bitstream for blu-rays.

It's more a matter of the audio chipset and I would think processing power to encode this...

So I don't think we can rule this out for the consoles yet, with multiple years in front of them, I hope we'll see some innovation like this on the PS4 and Xbox One...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> I don't think so, as it can output the bitstream for blu-rays.
> 
> It's more a matter of the audio chipset and I would think processing power to encode this...
> 
> So I don't think we can rule this out for the consoles yet, with multiple years in front of them, I hope we'll see some innovation like this on the PS4 and Xbox One...


The topic was real time object rendering for games in these game consoles. Normal bitstreams for movies can easily get spit out as Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio like a normal Blu-ray player.


----------



## HTPCat

pasender91 said:


> Ideally, you want to re use the same speakers as for the surrounds , the JTR 8HT, 8HT-slanted for FH and 8HT-LP for TM.
> You don't mention them, so i guess that they are too massive for this usage in your room, is that correct ?
> Plan B with the JBLs you mention is totally acceptable, those are also 8" speakers that will have no problem handling Atmos


 Yes the JTR 8HT/Slanted 8/8HT-LP are all just too big & expensive at 1K/each + shipping for ambient sounds IMO. I don't really want to spend more than 500/ea and preferably less.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Avengers: Age of Ultron' | Audio? | dts:X ?*

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/33493074/

* Not really. But it sure sounds like they're getting ready. ...With MDA & all that jazz.


----------



## tjenkins95

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks. Very proud of both projects. i can tell you that the DD+ stream on Netflix is exactly as intended. Netflix is amazing in regards to leaving the audio as is (i.e. no dynamic compression like most networks, etc )


 
I also watched the Daredevil series - I didn't know that you mixed it. I enjoyed the series very much - great sound!




Ray


----------



## tjenkins95

HT-Eman said:


> So it looks like the new avengers movie in IMAX will be in DTS:X .


 
The Showcase X-Plus theaters in my area are showing the new Avengers with the Dolby ATMOS track! 



Ray


----------



## Josh Z

pasender91 said:


> Dan, for sure FH and TF do not get the same audio content, else they would be the same.
> Let's say you're rich and have a trinnov 32 and setup all 10 top speakers, do you think FH would do the same sound as TF, i dont think so.


You're talking about two very different scenarios here. The Atmos decoder has to take into consideration how many speakers you have when it decides where to send sound objects.

In a system like the Trinnov with all 10 height channels, the sound object range for each individual channel is going to be fairly narrow. If you have both FH and TF engaged, they will each get independent content, because the processor knows you have separate speakers in each location.

In a system with only four height channels, however, each of those speakers has to cover a larger area in the room. Because you can't have both FH and TF simultaneously, any sound object that's supposed to come from up high in the front portion of the room is going to go to the speakers you have there, regardless of whether you call them FH or TF in the processor. When you're only allowed one of those options, they effectively become the same thing. Otherwise, you'd lose sound elements that are supposed to go to FH if you only have TF, or vice versa, and we already know that doesn't happen.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Dan Hitchman said:


> The topic was real time object rendering for games in these game consoles. Normal bitstreams for movies can easily get spit out as Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio like a normal Blu-ray player.


Yeah I got that, I was just saying it cannot be a limitation of the HDMI chip as the previous poster said it could be...


----------



## wse

Imagine a room set up like for DTS X with 28 of these





By the way: http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=138


----------



## wse

Want to do ATMOS or AURO 3D or DTS:X and don't want to do in walls


Try these in the front http://www.dynaudioprofessional.com/en/bm-series/bm-mkiii-series/bm12-mkiii/




and these all around you

http://www.dynaudioprofessional.com/en/bm-series/bm-mkiii-series/bm5-mkiii/



mounted with these 

http://www.dynaudioprofessional.com/en/bm-series/bm-mkiii-series/accessories/


----------



## NorthSky

The KEF LS50 all around for a full 9.1.4 Atmos setup...  ... 7.1.4's good enough. ...And play 'Gravity' Diamond Luxe Edition on Blu-ray. 

Saturday night live. ...Blues's in the air.


----------



## pasender91

Josh Z said:


> You're talking about two very different scenarios here. The Atmos decoder has to take into consideration how many speakers you have when it decides where to send sound objects.
> 
> In a system like the Trinnov with all 10 height channels, the sound object range for each individual channel is going to be fairly narrow. If you have both FH and TF engaged, they will each get independent content, because the processor knows you have separate speakers in each location.
> 
> In a system with only four height channels, however, each of those speakers has to cover a larger area in the room. Because you can't have both FH and TF simultaneously, any sound object that's supposed to come from up high in the front portion of the room is going to go to the speakers you have there, regardless of whether you call them FH or TF in the processor. When you're only allowed one of those options, they effectively become the same thing. Otherwise, you'd lose sound elements that are supposed to go to FH if you only have TF, or vice versa, and we already know that doesn't happen.


You're obviously right in saying that both FH and TF will play sounds for objects in the high-front quadrant.
BUT those sounds will still play differently because as far as Atmos decoding is concerned the FH and TF positions in space are not identical.
We're coming back to the point that Dolby keeps those positions a big secret , but let's assume FH is 35° and TF is 45°, then an object at say 30° high will not be rendered with exactly the same strength in those respective 35° and 45° positions...


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys,

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html

In the above line for 5.1.4 setup, there are 3 angle numbers 30, 45, 55 degree. Do they represent the ranges (30 to 55) for the angles of front ceiling speaker relative to MLP or do they require the center of in-ceiling speaker has to be at ONE angle of 45 degree relative to MLP?

In my room setup, front in-ceiling speaker is only 3ft ahead of MLP and rear ceiling speaker is 42 inch behind MLP. 

The distance between ear level and ceiling is 5ft. If the angle require 45 degree, does it mean MLP has to be away from each ceiling speaker by 5ft as well and two pairs of ceiling speaker has to be spaced like 10ft? 

Could you comment if the positions of my front ceiling and rear ceiling speakers are adequate?

Thanks.


----------



## helvetica bold

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks. Very proud of both projects. i can tell you that the DD+ stream on Netflix is exactly as intended. Netflix is amazing in regards to leaving the audio as is (i.e. no dynamic compression like most networks, etc )


I second that, I'm on episode 9 of DD and LOVE it! It looks and sounds awesome!


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys,
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> In the above line for 5.1.4 setup, there are 3 angle numbers 30, 45, 55 degree. Do they represent the ranges (30 to 55) for the angles of front ceiling speaker relative to MLP or do they require the center of in-ceiling speaker has to be at ONE angle of 45 degree relative to MLP?


♦ Yes, they represent the area where to put your Top Front Atmos speakers; with 45° being the sweet spot (it's flexible, by +/- 15° roughly).
...Relative to the MLP, yes. ...0° is straight in front of you, horizontally (TV screen - Center channel speaker) and 90° straight above you, vertically.



> In my room setup, front in-ceiling speaker is only 3ft ahead of MLP and rear ceiling speaker is 42 inch behind MLP.
> The distance between ear level and ceiling is 5ft. If the angle require 45 degree, does it mean MLP has to be away from each ceiling speaker by 5ft as well and two pairs of ceiling speaker has to be spaced like 10ft?
> Could you comment if the positions of my front ceiling and rear ceiling speakers are adequate?
> Thanks.


♦ Just get your angles in the ball park and don't worry about the distance from the MLP.
And aligned your overhead two pairs of speakers with your main front floor L & R speakers. 
* If your floor front L & R speakers are separated by ten feet, then roughly the same for your overheads (between L & R).
Just stay away from too close of your side walls, like your front main floor ones. ...If not, respect a distance of roughly eighteen inches from each side wall (twelve minimum). 

** The distance between your Top Front and Top Rear speakers is variable, just like the angles are on the graph. 
Every room's size is different, as the ceiling's height; play with the angles to give you a reasonable separation but not too wide either.
- Ten feet seems like quite a bit, try less, like seven-eight feet perhaps. ...Again, it is flexible; aim for what you consider well balanced.


----------



## Josh Z

pasender91 said:


> You're obviously right in saying that both FH and TF will play sounds for objects in the high-front quadrant.
> BUT those sounds will still play differently because as far as Atmos decoding is concerned the FH and TF positions in space are not identical.
> We're coming back to the point that Dolby keeps those positions a big secret , but let's assume FH is 35° and TF is 45°, then an object at say 30° high will not be rendered with exactly the same strength in those respective 35° and 45° positions...


What's you're forgetting is that representatives from Dolby have repeatedly said that the placement of height speakers has some flexibility. I believe the quote was something to the effect of, "Atmos is difficult to screw up." Honestly, I think people in this thread have fretted over precise speaker angles more than the engineers at Dolby have.

If there really is a difference in how sound objects are rendered between FH and TF when you can only have one or the other, it's negligible enough that no one who has tested and listened for it has been able to detect it. The same applies to TM vs. TR (which I personally compared extensively). What all these settings really boil down to is that you're supposed to put two speakers in the front of the room and two in the back. Beyond that, it's mostly just semantics.

The distinction between FH and TF, or TM and TR, will be more relevant when we have processors that allow all of those channels to be used simultaneously.


----------



## RichB

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks. Very proud of both projects. i can tell you that the DD+ stream on Netflix is exactly as intended. Netflix is amazing in regards to leaving the audio as is (i.e. no dynamic compression like most networks, etc )


The Daredevil sound track is excellent. 
I demoed it to a friend and he was surprised that Nettlix DD+ could sound that good.


- Rich


----------



## batpig

RichB said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Very proud of both projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can tell you that the DD+ stream on Netflix is exactly as intended. Netflix is amazing in regards to leaving the audio as is (i.e. no dynamic compression like most networks, etc )
> 
> 
> 
> The Daredevil sound track is excellent.
> I demoed it to a friend and he was surprised that Nettlix DD+ could sound that good.
> 
> 
> - Rich
Click to expand...

Plus one to all the praise for DD, terrific soundtrack. I had no idea Marc mixed it. Great show top to bottom. 

Marc - was it mixed in 5.1 or object audio?


----------



## Ocielz

Sorry guys to go a bit off the current convo but I need some help.
I want to add 4 In-ceiling speaker to use with Atmos sound. I have the Onkyo TX-NR1030 and have an external Amp for 11.2 surround.
What are some thoughts regarding these speakers?
Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA-S Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TZOB27W/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_2GYmvb1H5C7ZN

I want some that aren't to expensive and don't need fancy looking ones. I have a budget of around $200 per speaker.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Yes, they represent the area where to put your Top Front Atmos speakers; with 45° being the sweet spot (it's flexible, by +/- 15° roughly).
> ...Relative to the MLP, yes. ...0° is straight in front of you, horizontally (TV screen - Center channel speaker) and 90° straight above you, vertically.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Just get your angles in the ball park and don't worry about the distance from the MLP.
> And aligned your overhead two pairs of speakers with your main front floor L & R speakers.
> * If your floor front L & R speakers are separated by ten feet, then roughly the same for your overheads (between L & R).
> Just stay away from too close of your side walls, like your front main floor ones. ...If not, respect a distance of roughly eighteen inches from each side wall (twelve minimum).
> 
> ** The distance between your Top Front and Top Rear speakers is variable, just like the angles are on the graph.
> Every room's size is different, as the ceiling's height; play with the angles to give you a reasonable separation but not too wide either.
> - Ten feet seems like quite a bit, try less, like seven-eight feet perhaps. ...Again, it is flexible; aim for what you consider well balanced.


Thank You Bob, That is a very clear instruction!


----------



## Lucky Strike

NorthSky said:


> 1. In-ceiling Atmos speakers are fine with a seven-foot high ceiling.
> 2. Top Middle, right above your head - 90° - for two ceiling speakers.
> 3. Your Side surrounds are ok, but if you could put them roughly a foot above your head, that would be swell.


ok, thanks for the help.

One other question is any suggestions on in ceiling speakers? Any particular standouts in the budget price point (thinking $300 max for the pair)? I was thinking maybe the JBL Control 16C/T. I know nothing about in-ceiling speakers and installing them....people seem to say you need a backerbox but i don't have any idea what that is...although logic would seem that it'd be a box that the speaker goes into.

I just wanna buy something that'll work well without me having to build anything custom that attaches easily to a ceiling joist before i install the ceiling drywall in my room..


----------



## NorthSky

Lucky Strike said:


> One other question is any suggestions on in ceiling speakers? Any particular standouts in the budget price point (thinking $300 max for the pair)? I was thinking maybe the JBL Control 16C/T. I know nothing about in-ceiling speakers and installing them....people seem to say you need a backerbox but i don't have any idea what that is...although logic would seem that it'd be a box that the speaker goes into.
> 
> I just wanna buy something that'll work well without me having to build anything custom that attaches easily to a ceiling joist before i install the ceiling drywall in my room..





Ocielz said:


> Sorry guys to go a bit off the current convo but I need some help.
> I want to add 4 In-ceiling speaker to use with Atmos sound. I have the Onkyo TX-NR1030 and have an external Amp for 11.2 surround.
> What are some thoughts regarding these speakers?
> 
> *Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA-S Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TZOB27W/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_2GYmvb1H5C7ZN*
> 
> I want some that aren't to expensive and don't need fancy looking ones. I have a budget of around $200 per speaker.


♦ Those, from that link just above; look the works, perfectly.


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys,

I got my speaker layout (5.2.4) in the paper now, pls see attached. could you please help me review it to see if there is any problem?


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course. Permitted angles for FH are 30-45° and permitted angles for TF are 30-55°. Mount a speaker at 40° (for example) and it can be designated as FH or TF. So you can put the speaker at 40° and designate it TF or FH.


That is correct, but that is not what you said!


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I got my speaker layout (5.2.4) in the paper now, pls see attached. could you please help me review it to see if there is any problem?


1. Top Front speakers: One foot ahead (towards the front).
2. Your Left Surround: On the Left Side wall, closer to the MLP (same distance as the RS).


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> 1. Top Front speakers: One foot ahead (towards the front).
> 2. Your Left Surround: On the Left Side wall, closer to the MLP (same distance as the RS).


 Bob, Thanks for your review. 

1. Are you saying the distance between two pairs of ceiling speaker need to be bigger, like 8 feet?
2. Did you mean the both rear left and rear right surround speakers need to have same distance to MLP? I cannot do it due to limitation of wall shape since both of them are onwall speakers. What I can do is to move rear right speaker to the back wall, but it will not be aligned with right ceiling and right front speakers.

Any other comments? Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> 1. Are you saying the distance between two pairs of ceiling speaker need to be bigger, like 8 feet? *Yes - that would look right.*
> 2. Did you mean the both rear left and rear right surround speakers need to have same distance to MLP? I cannot do it due to limitation of wall shape since both of them are onwall speakers. What I can do is to move rear right speaker to the back wall, but it will not be aligned with right ceiling and right front speakers. *Your Left Surround would be much better positioned on your left side wall, closer to the couch - and yes about the same distance as your Right Surround, as where it is now, from the MLP.*
> 
> Any other comments? Thanks


That's it. 

* Actually; if ever you could considerate 7.2.4 - like two Side surrounds and two Rear (Back) surrounds...I would myself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I got my speaker layout (5.2.4) in the paper now, pls see attached. could you please help me review it to see if there is any problem?


The right rear should be along the same wall as the left rear, not veered off at a weird angle. IMHO.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> That's it.


 Thanks Bob. 

1. My rear left can not put on side wall as side wall has a windows.
2. I like 7.2.4, but the right side of MLP is an open stair area, hard to place side surround speaker!


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> The right rear should be along the same wall as the right left, not veered off at a weird angle. IMHO.


Thanks Dan, if I put right rear on the same wall as rear left, then it is not aligned with right front, right top ceiling, it will be like 2 ft on the left of those speakers, that is why I move it to the right but at a weird angle. I was thinking that it could be ok since it still aim to MLP.

What do you think? Do I need to move to same back wall as rear left? Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. My rear left can not put on side wall as side wall has a windows.


* I just edited my above post, with a new suggestion...future option, or present option. 

Ok, about putting your two Side/Rear surrounds on speaker's stands?


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> The right rear should be along the same wall as the left rear, not veered off at a weird angle. IMHO.


That is another good option; the Right surround right @ the two walls intersection, on the back wall, as your Left surround already is, and because of that window on your left wall where the LS cannot go.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Thanks Dan, if I put right rear on the same wall as rear left, then it is not aligned with right front, right top ceiling, it will be like 2 ft on the left of those speakers, that is why I move it to the right but at a weird angle. I was thinking that it could be ok since it still aim to MLP.
> 
> What do you think? Do I need to move to same back wall as rear left? Thanks.


I would probably bring the rear left and right in just a little so they're in proportion on the back wall without the right rear facing off at a strange angle in comparison to the left rear. If the distance becomes a little narrower than the spacing between the front left and right... that should be okay. It's more aesthetically pleasing as well.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> * I just edited my above post, with a new suggestion...future option, or present option.
> 
> Ok, about putting your two Side/Rear surrounds on speaker's stands?


Thanks Bob. I plan to use the area behind MLP as future recreation area, so prefer not to place a speaker inside the area, and like to place the speaker on the wall. Any comments?


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would probably bring the rear left and right in just a little so they're in proportion on the back wall without the right rear facing off at strange angle in comparison to the left rear. If the distance becomes a little narrower than the spacing between the front left and right... that should be okay. It's more aesthetically pleasing as well.


Wow, Dan, that is a very good idea. Thanks. I will do that!!


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> 1. My rear left can not put on side wall as side wall has a windows.
> 2. I like 7.2.4, but the right side of MLP is an open stair area, hard to place side surround speaker!


1. Got that.
2. I would make a big effort to get 7.2.4 - no matter what (speakers stands, rod extensions from the ceilings, ...). 
{If impossibly not, then 5.2.4 like you already planned, except for the Right surround now going on the back wall, just @ the corner's intersection of those two walls, like Dan first suggested. But do experiment, and pick the spot that sounds best to you; the auto room calibration will adjust the distance/delay accordingly.}


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. I plan to use the area behind MLP as future recreation area, so prefer not to place a speaker inside the area, and like to place the speaker on the wall. Any comments?


Excellent.


----------



## Roudan

Thanks guys. Here is my updated layout. pls see attached. The distance between two rear speaker is narrowed to be 8 ft, which is 3 ft less than the distance of two front speakers. I should write my layout earlier and posted it here for review. I have been lazy to use my laptop to do some planning at home after work. I have this layout with my current old speakers for few months already.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> 1. Got that.
> 2. I would make a big effort to get 7.2.4 - no matter what (speakers stands, rod extensions from the ceilings, ...).
> {If impossibly not, then 5.2.4 like you already planned, except for the Right surround now going on the back wall, just @ the corner's intersection of those two walls, like Dan first suggested. But do experiment, and pick the spot that sounds best to you; the auto room calibration will adjust the distance/delay accordingly.}


Thanks Bob. Would you educate me a little bit why 7.2.4 will have big sounding improvement? I might be able to hide right side surround underneath a desk at a height of ear level. Sand I will use speaker stand. Very good idea. I will keep it in mind.

Another question is, the wire length is 70 ft from receiver to the rear right speaker. Is it too long? I use monoprice 12 gauge wire.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks guys. Here is my updated layout. pls see attached. I should write my layout earlier and posted it here for review. I have been lazy to use my laptop to do some planning at home after work. I have this layout with my current old speakers for few months already.


Yes. 

* And you can try the Top Fronts a foot further; eight feet separation between the TF pair and TR pair - and you should be still within the quite flexible Dolby Atmos angles guidelines. 

Everything's perfect.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. Would you educate me a little bit why 7.2.4 will have big sounding improvement? I might be able to hide right side surround underneath a desk at a height of ear level. Sand I will use speaker stand. Very good idea. I will keep it in mind.
> 
> Another question is, the wire length is 70 ft from receiver to the rear right speaker. Is it too long? I use monoprice 12 gauge wire.


1. All Dolby Atmos soundtracks have a 7.1-channel Dolby TrueHD audio core. 
2. Better surround envelopment @ Side & Back (discrete 7.1 as intended by the movie sound mixer).
3. I'm so used to it now myself, with several DTS-HD MA 7.1 Blu-ray titles, and few Dolby TrueHD 7.1 discrete surround ones.
4. If not I use DPLIIx, to make it that way, and I do prefer it that way, in my room.
5. You, you have DSU for all your movie sources, and your room is large and spaced for it.
6. The side surrounds, @ about 100° are the most impacting ones...read envelopment.
7. The rear (back) surrounds, @ about 150° are the final completion of the total surrounding/immersion.
8. What comes from the side and back surrounds are what the film sound mixers put in them, and that's what I want, as intended.
9. I can keep going, energizer, but that's basically it. ...And there is ♪ music (multichannel music) too. 

* I no have Dolby Atmos yet meself, but I will...along with DTS:X ... a fact. ...In my life.

__________

70 feet is very long; I recommend two spools of 100 feet from Monoprice, or Canare speaker cable...12AWG (gauge) ... no less.
- 14AWG....hmmmm ... @ the very very strict minimum.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Yes.
> 
> * And you can try the Top Fronts a foot further; eight feet separation between the TF pair and TR pair - and you should be still within the quite flexible Dolby Atmos angles guidelines.
> 
> Everything's perfect.


Thanks Bob, yes just updated. So I move sofa 0.5 ft further to the back. If I use inceiling square shape speakers, like this one,

http://triadspeakers.com/products/ics6sat.html

Do I need to aim tweeter to the middle of MLP instead of aiming straight forward? Not sure how to change aiming angle for square shape speaker?


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> One last thing; no one is going to stop me of being me.


 Thank Bob. Appreciate your and Dan's help tonight.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob, yes just updated. So I move sofa 0.5 ft further to the back. If I use in-ceiling square shape speakers, like this one,
> 
> http://triadspeakers.com/products/ics6sat.html
> 
> Do I need to aim tweeter to the middle of MLP instead of aiming straight forward? Not sure how to change aiming angle for square shape speaker?


1. Your ears (your couch); do use the rule of thirds...position it @ 2/3, 3/5, 4/7, ... from the length of your room (for less boosts/nulls, room's modals).
2. If like originally, the distance between your two Top Front and Top Rear speakers was ten feet, and by following the Dolby Atmos guidelines (angles @ 45° and @ 135° for them respectively), it might be good. Or eight feet might as well...experiment...your ears are your best tool. My suggestions are just that, a combination of experimentation. 
3. Aim the tweeter @ the MLP, to start off with, if you can. If you cannot, position the Atmos in-ceiling speakers so that they closely disperse their sound towards the MLP, as best you can. * Nice those Triads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> What's you're forgetting is that representatives from Dolby have repeatedly said that the placement of height speakers has some flexibility. I believe the quote was something to the effect of, "Atmos is difficult to screw up." *Honestly, I think people in this thread have fretted over precise speaker angles more than the engineers at Dolby have.
> *
> If there really is a difference in how sound objects are rendered between FH and TF when you can only have one or the other, it's negligible enough that no one who has tested and listened for it has been able to detect it. The same applies to TM vs. TR (which I personally compared extensively). What all these settings really boil down to is that you're supposed to put two speakers in the front of the room and two in the back. Beyond that, it's mostly just semantics.
> 
> The distinction between FH and TF, or TM and TR, will be more relevant when we have processors that allow all of those channels to be used simultaneously.


LOL - I am sure you are right! I have asked Dolby people several times about this and the answer has always been the same: _"try to follow the recommendations, don't sweat it all that much, it's hard to make Atmos *not* work..."_


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> That is correct, but that is not what you said!


I thought I'd said you could mount a FH speaker in a TF position - which of course you can. At, say, 40°. I suspect we both know what we mean.

EDIT: My bad - I just checked and I typed TM instead of TF - I have amended my post to make the correction clear. Thanks!


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I thought I'd said you could mount a FH speaker in a TF position - which of course you can. At, say, 40°. I suspect we both know what we mean.
> 
> EDIT: My bad - I just checked and I typed TM instead of TF - I have amended my post to make the correction clear. Thanks!


Right, that was what i thought you meant. Just had to make sure 
Good man, carry on.


----------



## kbarnes701

Star Wars: Battlefront will be the First Game to Support Dolby Atmos but Only on PC.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Star Wars: Battlefront will be the First Game to Support Dolby Atmos but Only on PC.


What will I need for my PC to support atmos?


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> What will I need for my PC to support atmos?


Sorry, I have no idea. I am not a PC person, I am a Mac user.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry, I have no idea. I am not a PC person, I am a Mac user.


Thanks I'll have to check this out. I would assume that it would be DD+ with Atmos. I'm able to do bitstream on my PC, so I'll check out AMD site.


----------



## bargervais

http://wccftech.com/star-wars-battlefront-game-support-dolby-atmos-pc/
Back in 2013 AMD upcoming gpus
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7370/amd-announces-trueaudio-technology-for-upcoming-gpus

https://share.oculus.com/app/tuscany-feat-astoundsound--trueaudio


----------



## richmagnus

I run FH and it's fantastic. I don't del I lose out on anything.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would probably bring the rear left and right in just a little so they're in proportion on the back wall without the right rear facing off at a strange angle in comparison to the left rear. If the distance becomes a little narrower than the spacing between the front left and right... that should be okay. It's more aesthetically pleasing as well.





Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. Would you educate me a little bit why 7.2.4 will have big sounding improvement? I might be able to hide right side surround underneath a desk at a height of ear level. Sand I will use speaker stand. Very good idea. I will keep it in mind.
> 
> Another question is, the wire length is 70 ft from receiver to the rear right speaker. Is it too long? I use monoprice 12 gauge wire.


Where are your electronics in relation to everything else in the room? If there are inordinately long wire runs from the amp to the speaker after positioning everything the best you can, I usually go with 10 gauge in those particular cases just for peace of mind (doesn't hurt to go a little overkill on wire gauges). Bluejeanscable.com has quality Belden wire. 

Given how deep your total room is (I would assume it's in the basement?), I too would recommend adding side surrounds (making the rear speakers actual rear channels) in order to have more room filling sound. There are ways of doing this in your layout. The easiest is another pair of Silver LCR's secured to stands just behind and flanking your main seating. You might want to ask in the dedicated theater construction thread for tips from the expert builders about how best to run the wires to those locations. 

I would talk to Dawn or Triad directly about positioning your Silver in-ceilings correctly.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Anyone still looking for Atmos Demo disk, you can get it from below

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281616374778?lpid=82&chn=ps



Spoiler



Costs only $499


----------



## helvetica bold

bargervais said:


> http://wccftech.com/star-wars-battlefront-game-support-dolby-atmos-pc/
> Back in 2013 AMD upcoming gpus
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7370/amd-announces-trueaudio-technology-for-upcoming-gpus
> 
> https://share.oculus.com/app/tuscany-feat-astoundsound--trueaudio


I posted this news a while back. What I can't figure out is why the PS4 and the Xbox One won't support it. The PS4 has AMDs true audio tech built in so it should be capable.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> The Roku should definitely work. I get Atmos from those VUdu trailers on both my Roku and my Sony BDP.


Tried Roku. 
Good news : Dolby Atmos displays on AVR.
Bad news : No sound comes out anywhere. (The "silent" is really "silent" and so are others)

This happens only when "Atmos" shows up on the AVR display. For other content from roku, no such problem.
I gave up.

I must say Dolby is just a ba$%#d for not giving away the demo disks and make us run around in circles.


----------



## lubeman1

aaranddeeman said:


> Anyone still looking for Atmos Demo disk, you can get it from below
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281616374778?lpid=82&chn=ps
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Costs only $499




That's just crazy......


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> Anyone still looking for Atmos Demo disk, you can get it from below
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281616374778?lpid=82&chn=ps
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Costs only $499


Thanks but no thanks, I already have to buy a new receiver to get DTS:X when does it stop  I'll just go to my money tree in the back yard, but the neighborhood kids already picked it clean.


----------



## jrref

lubeman1 said:


> That's just crazy......


Someone posted a link to his cloud drive with the content. All I had to do was download it then burn it to a bluray disk. Works great. You will have to search for it since it was about a month ago I think in this thread.


----------



## aaranddeeman

jrref said:


> Someone posted a link to his cloud drive with the content. All I had to do was download it then burn it to a bluray disk. Works great. You will have to search for it since it was about a month ago I think in this thread.


I have that. But have no BR burner. I tried to create on eon DVD but didn't play..


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would probably bring the rear left and right in just a little so they're in proportion on the back wall without the right rear facing off at a strange angle in comparison to the left rear. If the distance becomes a little narrower than the spacing between the front left and right... that should be okay. It's more aesthetically pleasing as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Bob. Would you educate me a little bit why 7.2.4 will have big sounding improvement? I might be able to hide right side surround underneath a desk at a height of ear level. Sand I will use speaker stand. Very good idea. I will keep it in mind.
> 
> Another question is, the wire length is 70 ft from receiver to the rear right speaker. Is it too long? I use monoprice 12 gauge wire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are your electronics in relation to everything else in the room? If there are inordinately long wire runs from the amp to the speaker after positioning everything the best you can, I usually go with 10 gauge in those particular cases just for peace of mind (doesn't hurt to go a little overkill on wire gauges). Bluejeanscable.com has quality Belden wire.
> 
> Given how deep your total room is (I would assume it's in the basement?), I too would recommend adding side surrounds (making the rear speakers actual rear channels) in order to have more room filling sound. There are ways of doing this in your layout. The easiest is another pair of Silver LCR's secured to stands just behind and flanking your main seating. You might want to ask in the dedicated theater construction thread for tips from the expert builders about how best to run the wires to those locations.
> 
> I would talk to Dawn or Triad directly about positioning your Silver in-ceilings correctly.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan. 

The reason I got very long wire for rear right speaker is that my receiver is located in the right side of screen and there is open area in the right side wall so I have to run the wire all the way from left side of wall to rear back wall. 

Yes after last night discussion I started to look into side surround. I can do that but the wire has to be like 80ft. I am wondering if the sound quality will go down for that long wire even using 10awg?

Thanks


----------



## aaranddeeman

Hi kokishin

You seem to be very silent lately. Please update the Atmos sheet with my info when you have some time.

Config : 7.1.4
Pre/Pro : Denon X7200W
Speakers : JBL N24-II (Yeah. Tell me about it. I wanted to match as close to my JBL E series bed and hence)
Auro-3D : None (yet)
Mounted : On Ceiling
Atmos Config : FH+RH
Other Info : 2x Crown X-1000 AMPs (Total speakers connected are 13 including Front wides)


----------



## jrref

aaranddeeman said:


> I have that. But have no BR burner. I tried to create on eon DVD but didn't play..


You can save it on a thumb drive and play it via your usb port on your BR player if it has that kind of port. My Sony BP does and it works.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Thanks Dan.
> 
> The reason I got very long wire for rear right speaker is that my receiver is located in the right side of screen and there is open area in the right side wall so I have to run the wire all the way from left side of wall to rear back wall.
> 
> Yes after last night discussion I started to look into side surround. I can do that but the wire has to be like 80ft. I am wondering if the sound quality will go down for that long wire even using 10awg?
> 
> Thanks


It shouldn't... unless you are under-powering your speakers to begin with. This is where theater owners consider getting a pre-amp/processor and separate power amps _or_ getting a receiver and using it as a pre-amp and also getting separate amps (if that combo is significantly cheaper given a 7.1.4 layout). I usually recommend separate power amps anyway for better, cleaner power headroom. Most quality speakers really open up and their sound noticeably improves with adequate amp power.


----------



## jrref

Dan Hitchman said:


> It shouldn't... unless you are under-powering your speakers to begin with. This is where theater owners consider getting a pre-amp/processor and separate power amps _or_ getting a receiver and using it as a pre-amp and also getting separate amps (if that combo is significantly cheaper given a 7.1.4 layout). I usually recommend separate power amps anyway for better, cleaner power headroom. Most quality speakers really open up and their sound noticeably improves with adequate amp power.


Also as someone previously said use as thick speaker wire that you can use to keep the resistance/impedance of the wire that long as minimal as possible. Nothing fancy just good quality 12 gauge wire from monoprice or what ever your favorite is.


----------



## Frank714

Dave Vaughn said:


> I got the new Dolby Atmos demo disc today and it has a lot of the same material that was handed out at CEDIA, but there are some audio only demos that really highlight how great Atmos can sound (it toggles between 5.1 and Atmos). Still missing are any test tones, but I plan on reaching out to Dolby next week to see if one is in the works. I'll post back what I find out.


Found mine in the mailbox on Friday (Demo Disc January 2015) and agree wholeheartedly, the "audio only" demos (in Dolby Atmos) were really impressive (next to the "Horizon" trailer overhead and flyby spaceship footage).

In 5.1 I could hear the limitations or borders of my room, in Dolby Atmos it sounded like the side walls had gone and I listened to sound in an open space. Very impressive.

Spent the evening listening to clips from the August 2014 and the January 2015 demo disc and scenes from _Gravity_.
In order to prepare myself for the Japanese release of _Chicago_ remixed in Dolby Atmos, I gave my (old) Blu-ray a spin and after having spent two hours with Dolby Atmos recorded material, the 5.1 sound sounded "confined" and rather "flat" (amazing how you get accustomed so fast to better Dolby Atmos quality).
I then also gave my _Chicago_ multi-channel SACD a spin and was somewhat relieved that it sounded like Dolby Atmos (which was one of the things I had expected after having read UKTexan's graphic earwitness report many months ago), so now I'm naturally looking forward to the Japanese remix in Dolby Atmos this week. 

Regarding the discussion I somewhat started last Friday ("don't kill the messenger") I should add that there was one detail I found noteworthy on that Dolby Demonstration Disc from January 2015, namely during the "Introduction to Dolby Atmos" video.

We get CGI room views with 7.1.4 setups, one with "Dolby enabled" sound speakers and one with four top speakers.

But as the camera view spins around the room and that sequence comes to an end, _two front height speakers materialize left and right about the flat screen..._

No mentioning in the video and no blue sound-emanating visualization. Would be nice if Dolby could explain this sometime.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Anyone still looking for Atmos Demo disk, you can get it from below
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281616374778?lpid=82&chn=ps
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Costs only $499


Outrageous, radica!!y.


----------



## TennisPro02

I received my copy this past Monday and thought Horizon was by far the best clip to date. I posted a question regarding who all had heard the new disc. Only one person replied so I guess that didn't know which disc I was referring too or had not heard it. I'm glad you and Dave like it too. 




Frank714 said:


> Dave Vaughn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got the new Dolby Atmos demo disc today and it has a lot of the same material that was handed out at CEDIA, but there are some audio only demos that really highlight how great Atmos can sound (it toggles between 5.1 and Atmos). Still missing are any test tones, but I plan on reaching out to Dolby next week to see if one is in the works. I'll post back what I find out.
> 
> 
> 
> Found mine in the mailbox on Friday (Demo Disc January 2015) and agree wholeheartedly, the "audio only" demos (in Dolby Atmos) were really impressive (next to the "Horizon" trailer overhead and flyby spaceship footage).
> 
> In 5.1 I could hear the limitations or borders of my room, in Dolby Atmos it sounded like the side walls had gone and I listened to sound in an open space. Very impressive.
> 
> Spent the evening listening to clips from the August 2014 and the January 2015 demo disc and scenes from _Gravity_.
> In order to prepare myself for the Japanese release of _Chicago_ remixed in Dolby Atmos, I gave my (old) Blu-ray a spin and after having spent two hours with Dolby Atmos recorded material, the 5.1 sound sounded "confined" and rather "flat" (amazing how you get accustomed so fast to better Dolby Atmos quality).
> I then also gave my _Chicago_ multi-channel SACD a spin and was somewhat relieved that it sounded like Dolby Atmos (which was one of the things I had expected after having read UKTexan's graphic earwitness report many months ago), so now I'm naturally looking forward to the Japanese remix in Dolby Atmos this week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the discussion I somewhat started last Friday ("don't kill the messenger") I should add that there was one detail I found noteworthy on that Dolby Demonstration Disc from January 2015, namely during the "Introduction to Dolby Atmos" video.
> 
> We get CGI room views with 7.1.4 setups, one with "Dolby enabled" sound speakers and one with four top speakers.
> 
> But as the camera view spins around the room and that sequence comes to an end, _two front height speakers materialize left and right about the flat screen..._
> 
> No mentioning in the video and no blue sound-emanating visualization. Would be nice if Dolby could explain this sometime.
Click to expand...


----------



## NorthSky

*Runs of 80-foot speaker wires | 10AWG | In use with an AV receiver*



Dan Hitchman said:


> It shouldn't... unless you are under-powering your speakers to begin with. This is where theater owners consider getting a pre-amp/processor and separate power amps _or_ getting a receiver and using it as a pre-amp and also getting separate amps (if that combo is significantly cheaper given a 7.1.4 layout). I usually recommend separate power amps anyway for better, cleaner power headroom. Most quality speakers really open up and their sound noticeably improves with adequate amp power.


I fully agree with Dan here.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry, I have no idea. I am not a PC person, I am a Mac user.





bargervais said:


> Thanks I'll have to check this out. I would assume that it would be DD+ with Atmos. I'm able to do bitstream on my PC, so I'll check out AMD site.


So GPU's are the only potential way to get dolby Atmos? I actually just upgarded my PC with the gigabyte GTX 970 which doesn't appear to have true audio. 

I actually had a hard time finding a decent surround soundcard and settled for a 5.1 (Hoped to get a 7.1 card but saw nothing @ microcenter that offered it, only the ultra low end 20 dollar sound cards for some reason). (Though I chuckled in my head a little bit when the salesperson said that there's no point to 7.1 since the games would have to be *mixed* that way). 

Although while the audio in DICE games is pretty good, most other games on my setup seem to use very low quality samples (world of tanks, Rising storm) The audio in Minecraft & Terraria are pretty good though. 

Unless if I drag my PC into my HT, I'm not really going to get the best audio anyway as I'm just using extra speakers... though my old Klipsh center channel does a pretty good job of making guns sound cool. I wonder... does the HDMI out from my receiver provide Atmos capbility to my PC?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> http://wccftech.com/star-wars-battlefront-game-support-dolby-atmos-pc/
> Back in 2013 AMD upcoming gpus
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7370/amd-announces-trueaudio-technology-for-upcoming-gpus
> 
> https://share.oculus.com/app/tuscany-feat-astoundsound--trueaudio


Speaking of the Oculus... I'm trying to figure out if Battlefront will have Oculus rift support? Man that would be sweet... though I'm sad the battle max size will only accomodate 40 players total... kind of hard to have epic battles with 20 people on each side?


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> So GPU's are the only potential way to get dolby Atmos? I actually just upgarded my PC with the gigabyte GTX 970 which doesn't appear to have true audio.


I don't know what you mean by "true audio."
Make sure you're using media player software which supports WASAPI or was built with the very latest version of FFMPEG. There were bugs in older versions of FFMPEG which prevented it from decoding DOLBY TrueHD soundtracks which included Atmos metadata.

Atmos is available when playing an appropriate video file on a PC if you can bitstream its Atmos soundtrack over HDMI to an AVR or pre/pro which then can decode it.

Alternatively, you should be able to get Atmos through a network connection by sending a video file which contains an Atmos soundtrack over DLNA to a video player (BD player or HTPC) which has an HDMI connection to the receiver.



> does the HDMI out from my receiver provide Atmos capbility to my PC?


I think you might be confusing input with output.

Modern PC graphics cards have HDMI *outputs* which can be used for both audio and video.

Receivers have HDMI *inputs* which can be used by players like computers, Blu-ray players, Roku sticks, etc.
Receivers have HDMI *outputs* which can be connected to display devices like TVs and projectors. As I understand it, the Zone2 HDMI output of current model D+M equipment can be used to forward an HDMI signal from one of the receiver's HDMI inputs to some other device which has an HDMI input -- like another receiver.

HDMI video *input* cards are available for computers, but they're relatively expensive. Once you've got the HDMI audio/video signal into the computer, you still have to do something with it.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> So GPU's are the only potential way to get dolby Atmos? I actually just upgarded my PC with the gigabyte GTX 970 which doesn't appear to have true audio.
> 
> I actually had a hard time finding a decent surround soundcard and settled for a 5.1 (Hoped to get a 7.1 card but saw nothing @ microcenter that offered it, only the ultra low end 20 dollar sound cards for some reason). (Though I chuckled in my head a little bit when the salesperson said that there's no point to 7.1 since the games would have to be *mixed* that way).
> 
> Although while the audio in DICE games is pretty good, most other games on my setup seem to use very low quality samples (world of tanks, Rising storm) The audio in Minecraft & Terraria are pretty good though.
> 
> Unless if I drag my PC into my HT, I'm not really going to get the best audio anyway as I'm just using extra speakers... though my old Klipsh center channel does a pretty good job of making guns sound cool. I wonder... does the HDMI out from my receiver provide Atmos capbility to my PC?


I have a Radeon HD7000 series video card, I play atmos from my PC, you have use a media player to make it work. I use cyberlink, and it plays Atmos through my receiver all day long


----------



## aaranddeeman

jrref said:


> You can save it on a thumb drive and play it via your usb port on your BR player if it has that kind of port. My Sony BP does and it works.


It has a BDMV file along with other stuff. I doubt that will play on USB. My player is PS3.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Yes.
> 
> * And you can try the Top Fronts a foot further; eight feet separation between the TF pair and TR pair - and you should be still within the quite flexible Dolby Atmos angles guidelines.
> 
> Everything's perfect.


Hi Bob, today I found out that I can not do 8ft separation between TF and TR pair. I can only do 7 ft or 11 ft. There are two heated gas pipe running through the locations at 8 and 9 ft.

Based on the following ATMOS setup, I did some calculation,

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html

With the listening ear lever is around 40 inch (3.3 ft).,

a) For the maximum angle of 55 degree. The distance between TF and MLP could be as short as (8-3.3)/tan(55)=3.3 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 3.3*2=6.6 ft

b) For angle of 30 degree, the minimum distance between TF and ML is (8-3.3)/tan(30)=8.15 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 2*8.15=16.3 ft,

So the range of distance between TF and TR is from 6.6 ft to 16.3 ft.

So separation of 7 ft in my setup is still within the range, although it is in the lower end.

And if I do 11 ft separation and don't move my MLP ( which is preferred) , the distance between TR and MLP will be as large as 7 ft, while distance between TF ad MLP is only 4ft, so they are not symmetric. 

So my questions are:

1. Could you please advise if my calculation is correct and 7ft separation is ok?

2. Another option is to use only one pair of ceiling speaker. which option is better?


Thanks.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob, today I found out that I can not do 8ft separation between TF and TR pair. I can only do 7 ft or 11 ft. There are two heated gas pipe running through the locations at 8 and 9 ft.
> 
> Based on the following ATMOS setup, I did some calculation,
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> With the listening ear lever is around 40 inch (3.3 ft).,
> 
> a) For the maximum angle of 55 degree. The distance between TF and MLP could be as short as (8-3.3)/tan(55)=3.3 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 3.3*2=6.6 ft
> 
> b) For angle of 30 degree, the minimum distance between TF and ML is (8-3.3)/tan(30)=8.15 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 2*8.15=16.3 ft,
> 
> So the range of distance between TF and TR is from 6.6 ft to 16.3 ft.
> 
> So separation of 7 ft in my setup is still within the range, although it is in the lower end.
> 
> And if I do 11 ft separation and don't move my MLP ( which is preferred) , the distance between TR and MLP will be as large as 7 ft, while distance between TF ad MLP is only 4ft, so they are not symmetric.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
> 1. Could you please advise if my calculation is correct and 7ft separation is ok?
> 
> 2. Another option is to use only one pair of ceiling speaker. which option is better?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Use the calculator from my signature. That should help you crunch the numbers faster...


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob, today I found out that I can not do 8ft separation between TF and TR pair. I can only do 7 ft or 11 ft. There are two heated gas pipe running through the locations at 8 and 9 ft.
> Based on the following ATMOS setup, I did some calculation,
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> With the listening ear lever is around 40 inch (3.3 ft).,
> a) For the maximum angle of 55 degree. The distance between TF and MLP could be as short as (8-3.3)/tan(55)=3.3 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 3.3*2=6.6 ft
> b) For angle of 30 degree, the minimum distance between TF and ML is (8-3.3)/tan(30)=8.15 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 2*8.15=16.3 ft,
> So the range of distance between TF and TR is from 6.6 ft to 16.3 ft.
> So separation of 7 ft in my setup is still within the range, although it is in the lower end.
> And if I do 11 ft separation and don't move my MLP ( which is preferred) , the distance between TR and MLP will be as large as 7 ft, while distance between TF ad MLP is only 4ft, so they are not symmetric.
> So my questions are:
> *1. Could you please advise if my calculation is correct and 7ft separation is ok?
> 2. Another option is to use only one pair of ceiling speaker. which option is better?*
> Thanks.


1. Seven feet is just fine (perfect). ...You'll have great separation and imaging from above.
2. Twopairstwopairstwopairstwopairstwopairs 

NOTE: The TF angle doesn't have to match the TR angle. So it is very flexible still. Anything between 7 feet and 10 feet is mighty fine.

* My front Left and Right speakers are separated by 8 feet, and I sit 8 feet from them; to give you an idea of great holographic imaging.
So, if your overheads are roughly 5 to 7 feet from the MLP (your ears), or even 8 feet, the separation between the TF pair and the TR pair of roughly anywhere between say 6 feet and 9 feet would be totally adequate. ...If you can have that separation above, you are doing just perfect. 

I've seen your schematics, and it looks real good.


----------



## Frank714

*Front Heights versus Front Tops*

As I had stated last week, Dolby's "recommended speaker locations" on their website illustrate "Dolby enabled" solutions ('top speakers' via ceiling reflection) and overhead top speakers.

Quite possible they don't want to irritate consumers with too many options and according to several experiences by AVS members, the front height solution is considered as an alternative to front top speakers (feel free to correct or remind me or elaborate).

However, my inevitable question should be "based on what exactly"?

While I'm reportedly excited with Dolby Atmos and can produce a noticable improvement in sound experience (I somehow believe that the better your speakers are, the improvement will be even more noticable), what I've experienced thus far is essential 7.1.4 "channel audio".

At the beginning of the Dolby Atmos "Conductor" trailer I can hear the bird fly from the top left to the top right, at the end of _Gravity_ I can hear insects buzzing up there and above Sandra Bullock, but all the other effects (leaf or birds making a 360° degree spin behind my MLP back) are more or less the same, what I've already experienced in selected 5.1 recordings.

I still haven't heard an insect buzzing in front of my face and provoking me to clap my hands to get it, i.e. I'm still lacking the immersive effect of an "object based" in the middle of the room and right in front and/or above me.

I'm starting to believe it might be limited to the current generation of AV receivers processing capabilities and I wonder if that's going to be noticably different with the Fall 2015 models.

My concern here, put simply, is that deviating from the current and illustrated Dolby speaker recommendations may not have an adverse effect on the current Dolby Atmos "channel based" listening experience, but once true "object based" recordings become available or their reproduction possible, top or "Dolby enabled" speakers might be doing a better job than just front heights.


----------



## pasender91

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob, today I found out that I can not do 8ft separation between TF and TR pair. I can only do 7 ft or 11 ft. There are two heated gas pipe running through the locations at 8 and 9 ft.
> 
> Based on the following ATMOS setup, I did some calculation,
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> With the listening ear lever is around 40 inch (3.3 ft).,
> 
> a) For the maximum angle of 55 degree. The distance between TF and MLP could be as short as (8-3.3)/tan(55)=3.3 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 3.3*2=6.6 ft
> 
> b) For angle of 30 degree, the minimum distance between TF and ML is (8-3.3)/tan(30)=8.15 ft, which means separation between TF and TR could be 2*8.15=16.3 ft,
> 
> So the range of distance between TF and TR is from 6.6 ft to 16.3 ft.
> 
> So separation of 7 ft in my setup is still within the range, although it is in the lower end.
> 
> And if I do 11 ft separation and don't move my MLP ( which is preferred) , the distance between TR and MLP will be as large as 7 ft, while distance between TF ad MLP is only 4ft, so they are not symmetric.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
> 1. Could you please advise if my calculation is correct and 7ft separation is ok?
> 
> 2. Another option is to use only one pair of ceiling speaker. which option is better?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


1) 7ft is OK and within specs, and should be quite good indeed. 55° looks like a good idea as the angular separation of speakers ensure a smaller "gap" between the top speakers.

2) as said already by northsky, 2 pairs is much better and ensures you can do a proper panning in the front back direction


----------



## audioguy

Frank714 said:


> As I had stated last week, Dolby's "recommended speaker locations" on their website illustrate "Dolby enabled" solutions ('top speakers' via ceiling reflection) and overhead top speakers.
> 
> Quite possible they don't want to irritate consumers with too many options and according to several experiences by AVS members, the front height solution is considered as an alternative to front top speakers (feel free to correct or remind me or elaborate).
> 
> However, my inevitable question should be "based on what exactly"?
> 
> While I'm reportedly excited with Dolby Atmos and can produce a noticable improvement in sound experience (I somehow believe that the better your speakers are, the improvement will be even more noticable), what I've experienced thus far is essential 7.1.4 "channel audio".
> 
> At the beginning of the Dolby Atmos "Conductor" trailer I can hear the bird fly from the top left to the top right, at the end of _Gravity_ I can hear insects buzzing up there and above Sandra Bullock, but all the other effects (leaf or birds making a 360° degree spin behind my MLP back) are more or less the same, what I've already experienced in selected 5.1 recordings.
> 
> I still haven't heard an insect buzzing in front of my face and provoking me to clap my hands to get it, i.e. I'm still lacking the immersive effect of an "object based" in the middle of the room and right in front and/or above me.
> 
> I'm starting to believe it might be limited to the current generation of AV receivers processing capabilities and I wonder if that's going to be noticably different with the Fall 2015 models.
> 
> My concern here, put simply, is that deviating from the current and illustrated Dolby speaker recommendations may not have an adverse effect on the current Dolby Atmos "channel based" listening experience, but once true "object based" recordings become available or their reproduction possible, top or "Dolby enabled" speakers might be doing a better job than just front heights.


Do I think object placement will get better as the mixers get more experience? Yes. Have I had a fly just in front of my face? No. But unlike you, I do get things floating around the space and not just "attached" to the ceilngs or walls. I have lived with a 7.1 system for a LONG LONG LONG time and this is far, far, far more 3D immersive than anything I have ever experienced - and it is nothing like "channel based".

It is certainly possible that your expectations are far greater than mine but given this technology has only been in the home for less than a year, I am way more than pleased. What I want is way more Atmos source material. I have zero complaints on how the technologuy provides a far more 3D immersive experience.

If you have not already done so, you may want to diddle around with trim levels. I have always run my rear surrounds 2 db hot and have now added a bit to the ceiling speakers (but had to turn down the subs to compensate). Just because Audyssey sets the trims at "x" does not mean you can't change them. There are no "trim police" wating outside your home to arrest you (yet)!

Sorry you are not having your expectations met.


----------



## tulsabrown

In joining the Atmos world I just purchased an Onkyo TX-NR737.

I have since the purchase discovered my 7.1 setup can stay as is, my two rears are actually ceiling speakers over my couch and my surrounds are located in the corners of my living room slightly behind the couch. Or I can change to a 5.1.2 setup. 

So here's my question. 

Is it best to leave the setup as 7.1 or should I shift it to enhance the Atmos using the 5.1.2 setup? Also since I can't get my surrounds in front of the couch because of the open architecture of the room (no side walls) should I use the surrounds as the rear or Atmos speakers and use the ceiling?

I was under a wrong impression I could add some Atmos speakers in front that would project upwards but apparently that isn't an accurate impression.


----------



## NorthSky

Did you check the first post of this thread; there are some great links...guidelines as to how best setup your Dolby Atmos speakers configuration.


----------



## dvdwilly3

tulsabrown said:


> In joining the Atmos world I just purchased an Onkyo TX-NR737.
> 
> I have since the purchase discovered my 7.1 setup can stay as is, my two rears are actually ceiling speakers over my couch and my surrounds are located in the corners of my living room slightly behind the couch. Or I can change to a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> So here's my question.
> 
> Is it best to leave the setup as 7.1 or should I shift it to enhance the Atmos using the 5.1.2 setup? Also since I can't get my surrounds in front of the couch because of the open architecture of the room (no side walls) should I use the surrounds as the rear or Atmos speakers and use the ceiling?
> 
> I was under a wrong impression I could add some Atmos speakers in front that would project upwards but apparently that isn't an accurate impression.


"I was under a wrong impression I could add some Atmos speakers in front that would project upwards but apparently that isn't an accurate impression."

Why do you say that? You can, in fact, run upfiring speakers for a 5.1.2 setup. Depending upon what your front speakers are, they can be mounted directly on top of them. And, they are very effective.
You can mount the Atmos modules on stands separately from the front speakers, but for my room layout, on top of the towers worked best.

And, yes, the Supersat's are not Atmos-enabled. Makes no difference... The HRTF (head related transfer function) filtering that is promoted by Dolby as necessary is somewhat specious. Even the basic HRTF model falls apart as soon as you change any part of it. I run my Supersats as Top Front.

I have mounted GoldenEar Supersat 3's on top of my Definitive Technology 8060ST fronts. I took their top plate off, made an ABS mounting plate, bolted DefTech Promount 90 speaker mounts onto it, and mounted that directly on top of the towers. The Supersat 3's are mounted horizaontally so that it is sort of like 1/2 of the top of a Triad Bronze.

Works exceptionally well... My wife and I watched Unbroken the other night and the intro was as if you were directly in the bomber under attack. Quite harrowing...


----------



## tulsabrown

> "I was under a wrong impression I could add some Atmos speakers in front that would project upwards but apparently that isn't an accurate impression."
> 
> Why do you say that?


I should have said in addition to my existing speakers not in replacement of. Now that is also an interesting scenario. Would it ultimately be better dropping my ceiling speakers in place of up firing fronts?


----------



## Frank714

audioguy said:


> Do I think object placement will get better as the mixers get more experience? Yes. Have I had a fly just in front of my face? No. But unlike you, I do get things floating around the space and not just "attached" to the ceilngs or walls. I have lived with a 7.1 system for a LONG LONG LONG time and this is far, far, far more 3D immersive than anything I have ever experienced - and it is nothing like "channel based".


I really don't want to sound like a smartass, but I just reported a few posts ago, that I equally do find it impressive that with Dolby Atmos sound no longer appears to be attached to speakers and walls. This was also highlighted in one of the first earwitness reports (UKTexan) that attracted me to Dolby Atmos because it sounded like SACD multi-channel sound, and my recent listening to _Chicago_ on SACD (after two hours Dolby Atmos only program content) was so much closer to Dolby Atmos than 7.1 or 5.1. 

Nevertheless, SACD multi-channel recordings are "channel based", which IMHO just proves what SACD and Dolby Atmos are both capable of, but that isn't "object based" surround sound, yet.



audioguy said:


> Sorry you are not having your expectations met.


 (sigh) _My_ expectations were met up to the point, that I'll hand out my Dolby Atmos discs _when you pry these from my cold, dead hands._

It's Dolby creating such expectations when they show us sound editing monitors and visualize sound objects (green spheres) that move from the surroundings _towards the front of the listener_. 

I'd dare to say that both in the "Amaze" and the "Horizon" trailers (as well as in the latest "audio only" clips) there were opportunities to simulate these objects as buzzing insects.

I can currently only guess that the Dolby Atmos AVRs either do not yet have the calculating processor power to render such objects or you may need more speakers for that. The DTS:X presentation reportedly featured this effect (buzzing insects), but this may be owed to the numbers of speakers they utilized and/or the hardware, which must not necessarily be the same that's ending up in our AVRs or pre-amps.


----------



## pasender91

tulsabrown said:


> I should have said in addition to my existing speakers not in replacement of. Now that is also an interesting scenario. Would it ultimately be better dropping my ceiling speakers in place of up firing fronts?


As you already have speakers on the ceiling over your head, the best solution on a 737 that can only do 5.1.2 anyway is to simply activate those speakers as Atmos Top Middle, this will give you the best possible immersion on a 737


----------



## dvdwilly3

pasender91 said:


> As you already have speakers on the ceiling over your head, the best solution on a 737 that can only do 5.1.2 anyway is to simply activate those speakers as Atmos Top Middle, this will give you the best possible immersion on a 737


The best layout for your situation only you can determine. I sort of belatedly realized that you were really asking about a 5.1.4 layout.

As Passender91 says, you are limited to 5.1.2 with the 737. I had the 737 and found it to be an excellent performer. However, I wanted 5.1.4 and moved to a TX-NR1030.

It is the least expensive AVR for 5.1.4 that I know of, but costs slightly over twice what the 737 costs.

And, yes, I do think that it was worth it. But, that is me...


----------



## tulsabrown

dvdwilly3 said:


> The best layout for your situation only you can determine. I sort of belatedly realized that you were really asking about a 5.1.4 layout.
> 
> As Passender91 says, you are limited to 5.1.2 with the 737. I had the 737 and found it to be an excellent performer. However, I wanted 5.1.4 and moved to a TX-NR1030.
> 
> It is the least expensive AVR for 5.1.4 that I know of, but costs slightly over twice what the 737 costs.
> 
> And, yes, I do think that it was worth it. But, that is me...


Certainly my question is more of a perceptional one and it is opinions I'm looking for and appreciate all the responses. Manuals can't tell you if you'll prefer 7.1 vs. 5.1.2. As this is my first experience with Atmos, I was looking for just such opinions. 

I was a bit disappointed when learning I could not do a 5.1.4 layout as I did want to add front up-firing speakers. I was scouring the manual last night trying to find someway of using the zone 2 speaker outputs for just such a layout but I couldn't. I find it difficult to justify doubling the price of the receiver for two more speakers. Then again I'm, lets say, frugal.  

Overall it's a great sounding receiver I'm am enjoying the purchase.


----------



## sdurani

I know this is the home Atmos thread, but just in case any of you have an Atmos-equipped commercial cinema nearby, the list of Atmos movies coming out this year recently got updated (probably timed for CinemaCon). Seven movies in July alone. Wish home video releases were as plentiful. 

MAY 
Avengers: Age of Ultron 
Mad Max: Fury Road 
Tomorrowland 
San Andreas 

JUNE
Spy 
Entourage 
Inside Out (Pixar)

JULY
Magic Mike XXL 
Terminator Genisys 
Minions 
Ant-Man (Marvel)
Pixels 
Pan 
Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation 

REST OF 2015
Fantastic Four 
Man From U.N.C.L.E. 
Everest 
Hands of Stone (Roberto Duran biopic) 
Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
In the Heart of the Sea 
Monster Trucks
No Letting Go 
Last Days in the Desert
Kung Fu Panda 3 
The 33 (Chilean mine disaster)


----------



## bargervais

tulsabrown said:


> Certainly my question is more of a perceptional one and it is opinions I'm looking for and appreciate all the responses. Manuals can't tell you if you'll prefer 7.1 vs. 5.1.2. As this is my first experience with Atmos, I was looking for just such opinions.
> 
> I was a bit disappointed when learning I could not do a 5.1.4 layout as I did want to add front up-firing speakers. I was scouring the manual last night trying to find someway of using the zone 2 speaker outputs for just such a layout but I couldn't. I find it difficult to justify doubling the price of the receiver for two more speakers. Then again I'm, lets say, frugal.
> 
> Overall it's a great sounding receiver I'm am enjoying the purchase.


Your rear speakers will be more active in the 5.1.2 setting the height speakers as top middle that is my set up. The top speakers will be more active with Atmos and DSU set up with 5.1.2

In order to do 5.1.4 you will need a 9 channel receiver I have the 737 in the den and the 1030 in the living room.,


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Another opportunity missed, McFarland, USA from Disney will be in DTS HD MA 5.1...

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16569


----------



## scantek999

Hello

I have question about my setup.

So as you can see on my pictures, how i have installed my 7.4.2 speakers.

As there anything you would change ?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I would lower all 4 of your surrounds


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Apologies I'm on my cell and haven't figured out how to quote on this os yet. In response to atoms impact / the fly in the face example... I was dissappointed by Dolby claims / the "green spheres" as well. Though it is a giant leap for audio tech, so wasn't displeased after installing atmos in my HT. I have noticed certain sound textures are better suited than others as far as object placement goes. Specifically the type of Soundwave with a quick attack and a bit of resonance or reverb afterwards (nearby raindrops in a cave or hitting hard surfaces overhead) I've been less excited about "overhead" helicopter pans than others on this forum. But atoms has paved the way for many exciting possibilities, and I'm sure will improve.


----------



## bargervais

scantek999 said:


> Hello
> 
> I have question about my setup.
> 
> So as you can see on my pictures, how i have installed my 7.4.2 speakers.
> 
> As there anything you would change ?
> 
> 
> I would lower your 4 surround speakers


----------



## azula

Does this video offer accurate 2 row ceiling speaker placement suggestions for .4?


----------



## philmike21

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-speaker-upgrade/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> I would lower all 4 of your surrounds


+1,000 on lowering the main four surrounds to just above ear level.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dolby Atmos just got interesting.... again. 

http://stevivor.com/2015/04/star-wa...st-dolby-atmos-supported-game-but-only-on-pc/


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos just got interesting.... again.
> 
> http://stevivor.com/2015/04/star-wa...st-dolby-atmos-supported-game-but-only-on-pc/


Hasn't video game sound been object-based for the last decade?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Hasn't video game sound been object-based for the last decade?


Yes but it wasn't branded as Dolby Atmos 20 years ago when I had 128 voice 4ch surround sound.


----------



## Csbooth

sdurani said:


> Hasn't video game sound been object-based for the last decade?


This is what I have come to understand as well, as when you pan your camera around in games, sounds change relative to their position in game and your speakers will represent that alteration. 

My guess is however, this announcement is more to signify that studios are making a commitment to and will make sure that sounds will start to be coded in the stems to recognize proper placement above you, with additional metadata for the bed level, for extreme accuracy.

I haven't personally had any experience with DSU and games, but from what I have read is that folks have said what is placed above is more ambience than anything. I would imagine with full support for the height information this will make the fun all the better, especially when VR comes into play lol.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Computer games never had overhead effects nor physical outputs that supported such.


----------



## NorthSky

> I know this is the home Atmos thread, but just in case any of you have an Atmos-equipped commercial cinema nearby, the list of Atmos movies coming out this year recently got updated (probably timed for CinemaCon). Seven movies in July alone. Wish home video releases were as plentiful.
> 
> MAY
> Avengers: Age of Ultron
> Mad Max: Fury Road
> Tomorrowland
> San Andreas
> 
> JUNE
> Spy
> Entourage
> Inside Out (Pixar)
> 
> JULY
> Magic Mike XXL
> Terminator Genisys
> Minions
> Ant-Man (Marvel)
> Pixels
> Pan
> Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation
> 
> REST OF 2015
> Fantastic Four
> Man From U.N.C.L.E.
> Everest
> Hands of Stone (Roberto Duran biopic)
> Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
> In the Heart of the Sea
> Monster Trucks
> No Letting Go
> Last Days in the Desert
> Kung Fu Panda 3
> The 33 (Chilean mine disaster)


This is great. I want them all, on Blu-ray, and with Dolby Atmos. ...We'll see when the time comes. ...Meanwhile, June, *'Jupiter Ascending'* on Blu, in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos. And next month, May, *'American Sniper'*, on Blu, and in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

scantek999 said:


> Hello
> 
> I have question about my setup.
> 
> So as you can see on my pictures, how i have installed my 7.4.2 speakers.
> 
> As there anything you would change ?
> 
> View attachment 675929
> 
> 
> View attachment 675937
> 
> 
> View attachment 675945





Brian Fineberg said:


> *I would lower all 4 of your surrounds*


Definite!y; @ near ear level...for better separation and balanced sound distribution (imaging all around). ...That's it.


----------



## NorthSky

azula said:


> *Does this video offer accurate 2 row ceiling speaker placement suggestions for .4?*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orkz0nplRoM&index=41&list=WL


♦ It sure does.


----------



## azula

Ok, need some advice. It seems like the general consensus reading through this thread is that TF + TR is the ideal placement for .4 ceiling speakers for people with two rows. However, I don't think TR is an option for me. Here are a couple pictures of my space.....



















MLP is the rear middle seat. Should I even use 4 ceiling speakers? The room is 13'10" length x 10'9" width x 8'3" height. 

I was looking at two pair of these (polk atrium 4's) but clearing the soffit in the back will be really tight! Suggestions wanted please!


----------



## NorthSky

1. Your rear surrounds become your Top Rear surrounds; on the alcove above the second row.
2. Your side surrounds: a little bit lower. ...About a foot+ lower (down to a foot and half - @ ear level with the 2nd row).
3. Your Top Front surrounds @ approximately 55-60° angle. ...From 0° being straight horizontally in front of you (MLP).

* A 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup.


----------



## nickoakdl

Question:

I'm thinking about upgrading to a 7.1.4 atmos system, but I'm noticing a lack of Blu-ray releases. So I'm wondering what do these receivers do with regular 5.1 and 7.1 Blu-ray releases? I assume the take the surround channels and use them for the overhead speakers, but how well does that work? If you are listening to a Blu-ray released with a DTS-HD 5.1 track, will playing it on a 7.1.4 atmos set-up sound that much more immersive?


----------



## petetherock

Just sharing a little something I learnt from a while back, which was reinforced recently:

With some setups now having so many speakers, those of us who are using the living room or a shared space for HT, there's a significant margin for error, and interactions between the Audyssey mike and many surfaces, room nodes, direct energy from the speakers, as well as reflected sound etc.

So if the first run of Audyssey sounds odd, do run another, in the same mike positions, or simply move the mike up or down a little. The back of the seat also plays a role in influencing the readings, eg a high back chair can block sound waves, and interfere with readings.

Cutting down ambient noise is also very important. 
Just a re-run of Audyssey recently after moving my subs around a bit and the first run resulted in some weird readings from the centre, and ceiling speakers.
Lowered the mike a little, closed all my curtains, and chose a quieter time of the day, and viola, things are much better after the second re-calibration.

So spend some time, and also use a SPL meter to check even after running the latest XT 32 Audyssey or other autoeq systems.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nickoakdl said:


> Question:
> 
> I'm thinking about upgrading to a 7.1.4 atmos system, but I'm noticing a lack of Blu-ray releases. So I'm wondering what do these receivers do with regular 5.1 and 7.1 Blu-ray releases? I assume the take the surround channels and use them for the overhead speakers, but how well does that work? If you are listening to a Blu-ray released with a DTS-HD 5.1 track, will playing it on a 7.1.4 atmos set-up sound that much more immersive?


Dolby Surround and Neural: X upmixers take a stereo, 5.1, or 7.1 track (Dolby or DTS or PCM variety) and pull sounds into all the speakers (even the overheads) to create a more spacious mix. It's very content dependent on how well they work.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> This is great. I want them all, on Blu-ray, and with Dolby Atmos. ...We'll see when the time comes. ...Meanwhile, June, *'Jupiter Ascending'* on Blu, in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos. And next month, May, *'American Sniper'*, on Blu, and in Dolby Atmos.


Mee to but don't hold your breath!


----------



## wse

azula said:


> Ok, need some advice. It seems like the general consensus reading through this thread is that TF + TR is the ideal placement for .4 ceiling speakers for people with two rows. However, I don't think TR is an option for me. Here are a couple pictures of my space.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLP is the rear middle seat. Should I even use 4 ceiling speakers? The room is 13'10" length x 10'9" width x 8'3" height.
> 
> I was looking at two pair of these (polk atrium 4's) but clearing the soffit in the back will be really tight! Suggestions wanted please!


Lower the surround to ear level


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Mee to but don't hold your breath!


If past is a good indicator of future; I won't.


----------



## wse

When do you think we will see more than a hand full of BR in 4K with ATMOS or DTS:X?

- 2016
- 2017
- 2018
- 2020


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> When do you think we will see more than a hand full of BR in 4K with ATMOS or DTS:X?
> 
> - 2016
> - 2017
> - 2018
> - 2020


Lol, no 3D picture for sure. 

* As for your question: 2016 (Christmas 2015 @ the earliest - for only one Blu-ray 4K movie title with Dolby Atmos audio - if lock enough on our side)


----------



## sdurani

Csbooth said:


> This is what I have come to understand as well, as when you pan your camera around in games, sounds change relative to their position in game and your speakers will represent that alteration.


Right, which means those sounds were all encoded as objects, otherwise you wouldn't be able to re-mix them in real time with your game controller. The only reason this old technology is such a big deal suddenly is because the movie industry is finally using it.


> My guess is however, this announcement is more to signify that studios are making a commitment to and will make sure that sounds will start to be coded in the stems to recognize proper placement above you, with additional metadata for the bed level, for extreme accuracy.


Plus, the object-based audio that game sound took for granted will now have a famous brand name: Dolby Atmos. Everything helps when trying to differentiate yourself from the competition.


----------



## Roudan

Roudan said:


> Thanks guys. Here is my updated layout. pls see attached. The distance between two rear speaker is narrowed to be 8 ft, which is 3 ft less than the distance of two front speakers. I should write my layout earlier and posted it here for review. I have been lazy to use my laptop to do some planning at home after work. I have this layout with my current old speakers for few months already.


Hi Dan and Bob,

After you two's help on the positioning of rear speakers, I really think hard trying to move rear speaker to the sides for 5.2.4 setup, yes maybe I can do that.

So I have two options now.

Option 1. still put speakers at the back wall as shown before, so the angle will be 150 degree relative to MLP. Is it too big? In the following Dolby's link, the maximum angle is 110 degree.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html

Option 2. Put speakers to the sides, the angle will be 100 degree relative to MLP. But I have to put the speaker either under or on a desk on the right side of sofa, please see attached for the desk. so tweeter of right side speaker will be either at 28 inch height ( under the desk) or at 48 inch height ( on the desk). My ear lever is 40 inch. 

I am using Triad Silver LCR

http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/irslcr.html

So which option is better?

Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

2. 100° @ the sides, and on top of the desk @ 48" height.

* And! The two back surrounds, as mentioned before; on the back wall, also @ 48" height...for a full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> 2. 100° @ the sides, and on top of the desk @ 48" height.
> 
> * And! The two back surrounds, as mentioned before; on the back wall, also @ 48" height...for a full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup.


Thanks Bob. If I put on the desk, the speaker has to lean on the wall so it is not located at the edge of desk, I am wondering if the edge of the desk will block the sound?


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. If I put on the desk, the speaker has to lean on the wall so it is not located at the edge of desk, I am wondering if the edge of the desk will block the sound?


Put a piece of absorbing material on the desk. ...And some small rubber feet under the speaker.


----------



## RealDeal

I'm setting up Dolby Atmos for a new house and I need some assistance deciding between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. The main listening position will be 12 inches from the back wall (see attached diagram) That means if we do 4 overhead speakers, the 2 overhead speakers towards the back will be almost straight above instead of behind the main listening position as suggested in the atmos guide. The other 2 overhead speakers could be positioned ahead of the MLP at a 45 degree angle which would match up with the recommendations in the guide.

My basic question is what happens if you do 5.1.4 but the rear set of in-ceiling speakers end up being straight overhead instead of behind the MLP? Would I just be better off doing 5.1.2 or will this 5.1.4 configuration still sound better than 5.1.2?

I have attached a diagram that is to scale if that helps. (unfortunately I can't rotate the room setup due to a fireplace being on the other wall)

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> This is great. I want them all, on Blu-ray, and with Dolby Atmos. ...We'll see when the time comes. ...Meanwhile, June, *'Jupiter Ascending'* on Blu, in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos. And next month, May, *'American Sniper'*, on Blu, and in Dolby Atmos.


Not to forget the _*Chicago*_ Dolby Atmos remix (English version) that becomes available tomorrow in Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-l...LS0/ref=dp_change_lang?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP


----------



## ThePrisoner

RealDeal said:


> I'm setting up Dolby Atmos for a new house and I need some assistance deciding between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. The main listening position will be 12 inches from the back wall (see attached diagram) That means if we do 4 overhead speakers, the 2 overhead speakers towards the back will be almost straight above instead of behind the main listening position as suggested in the atmos guide. The other 2 overhead speakers could be positioned ahead of the MLP at a 45 degree angle which would match up with the recommendations in the guide.
> 
> My basic question is what happens if you do 5.1.4 but the rear set of in-ceiling speakers end up being straight overhead instead of behind the MLP? Would I just be better off doing 5.1.2 or will this 5.1.4 configuration still sound better than 5.1.2?
> 
> I have attached a diagram that is to scale if that helps. (unfortunately I can't rotate the room setup due to a fireplace being on the other wall)
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Myself and I'm sure others here will say go 5.1.4. Even though your 12" from back wall (my setup also) you can do top middle speaker location and place them slightly in front of the MLP. Dolby gives alot of flexibility when placing speakers in TM configuration. My TM are also placed just in front of MLP. Your front overheads can be placed as recommended by Dolby. The experts here will give you more detailed instructions, I took their advice and went 5.2.4. Good luck.


----------



## pletwals

^^ Yeah, what he says!

Top Middle and Front Height!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Sdurani... There is a difference between pc object based sound & the sound atmos delivers. The perceived image created is far more effective on my discs than with my games. The speakers don't "disappear" so to speak + there are all sorts of quircky things going on with pc sound that you don't get when watching films. When playing battlefield I often hear tons of sound disappearing or cutting in and out. That doesn't happen when I watch films.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

A better way of putting it might be that the sound shoots out at you 3 dimensionally speaking with atmos (sometimes). I don't experience that sensation with pc gaming... Yet.


----------



## jrogers

ThePrisoner said:


> Myself and I'm sure others here will say go 5.1.4. Even though your 12" from back wall (my setup also) you can do top middle speaker location and place them slightly in front of the MLP. Dolby gives alot of flexibility when placing speakers in TM configuration. My TM are also placed just in front of MLP. Your front overheads can be placed as recommended by Dolby. The experts here will give you more detailed instructions, I took their advice and went 5.2.4. Good luck.


+1 (I actually had 5.1.2 for about six months and was very happy with it, but recently added an additional amp and FH speakers and it made a very significant and enjoyable difference)


----------



## batpig

RealDeal said:


> I'm setting up Dolby Atmos for a new house and I need some assistance deciding between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. The main listening position will be 12 inches from the back wall (see attached diagram) That means if we do 4 overhead speakers, the 2 overhead speakers towards the back will be almost straight above instead of behind the main listening position as suggested in the atmos guide. The other 2 overhead speakers could be positioned ahead of the MLP at a 45 degree angle which would match up with the recommendations in the guide.
> 
> My basic question is what happens if you do 5.1.4 but the rear set of in-ceiling speakers end up being straight overhead instead of behind the MLP? Would I just be better off doing 5.1.2 or will this 5.1.4 configuration still sound better than 5.1.2?
> 
> I have attached a diagram that is to scale if that helps. (unfortunately I can't rotate the room setup due to a fireplace being on the other wall)
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


The consensus is that if possible go wigh 4 overheads. Many others have a similar situation as yours and have gone with 5.1.4 with a Top Middle + Front Height designation. Place the TM above and slightly ahead (1-2ft) and then FH at around a 35-45 degree elevation (which probably puts the on the ceiling a few feet from front wall). Then sit back and enjoy!


----------



## batpig

azula said:


> Ok, need some advice. It seems like the general consensus reading through this thread is that TF + TR is the ideal placement for .4 ceiling speakers for people with two rows. However, I don't think TR is an option for me. Here are a couple pictures of my space.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLP is the rear middle seat. Should I even use 4 ceiling speakers? The room is 13'10" length x 10'9" width x 8'3" height.
> 
> I was looking at two pair of these (polk atrium 4's) but clearing the soffit in the back will be really tight! Suggestions wanted please!


See the last few posts. Go with TM + FH designation with the TM between the two rows and the FH forward of the front row.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> The speakers don't "disappear" so to speak + there are all sorts of quircky things going on with pc sound that you don't get when watching films.


One of those is being re-mixed/re-rendered in real time based on live input from a game controller while the other has been carefully mixed & massaged over the course of weeks by an industry professional. Never said that would result in the same sound. My point was simply that they use the same technology.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> One of those is being re-mixed/re-rendered in real time based on live input from a game controller while the other has been carefully mixed & massaged over the course of weeks by an industry professional. Never said that would result in the same sound. My point was simply that they use the same technology.


But it's not just a nominal distinction -- while games have obviously been using object audio for a while, there is still no mechanism for them to deliver more than a 7.1 decoded channel payload to the processor (meaning no discrete overhead effects). AFAIK there is a 7.1 PCM limit on HDMI transmission so if video game audio wants to go 3D immersive there needs to be a delivery mechansim to a 3D audio capable processor.


----------



## Jack.K

*Atmos rear speaker*

I have B&W 601 bookshelf speakers as my rear in 9.0.2 Atmos configuration. My question is the speakers are flush with the books 4 ft high in a wall to wall book case 8 ft tall, is this good or bad? I can't put them on stands.Suggestions please.


----------



## Jack.K

wse said:


> Lower the surround to ear level


Heres a thought. put your dipoles on the rear wall and the speakers that are on the rear wall on the side walls. Should be a easy test.


----------



## azula

batpig said:


> See the last few posts. Go with TM + FH designation with the TM between the two rows and the FH forward of the front row.


Thanks! I think I will do this only problem I see with this is I was told the denon x5200 will not let you choose two adjacent ceiling locations, I haven't purchased it yet but I may go for another alternative receiver if this is the case. 



NorthSky said:


> 1. Your rear surrounds become your Top Rear surrounds; on the alcove above the second row.
> 2. Your side surrounds: a little bit lower. ...About a foot+ lower (down to a foot and half - @ ear level with the 2nd row).
> 3. Your Top Front surrounds @ approximately 55-60° angle. ...From 0° being straight horizontally in front of you (MLP).
> 
> * A 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup.


Thank you Northsky. Will I experience any negatives if I lower all four surrounds and add TM+FH like batpig suggested? Also, my surrounds are Polk FXI A6 bipolar/dipolar which I will set to bipole.


----------



## Nalleh

3 more Blu´s with Atmos this last week 

Unbroken and Gravity was awesome. Not seen Lucy yet, but it is region A, and has english subs.


----------



## smurraybhm

azula said:


> Thanks! I think I will do this only problem I see with this is I was told the denon x5200 will not let you choose two adjacent ceiling locations, I haven't purchased it yet but I may go for another alternative receiver if this is the case.


They are not adjoining and many of us are using that same config 
FH, TF, TM, TB, BH - so you can see you are skipping TF - thus the reason FH/TM works.
I use bi-poles on my back wall - sounds great - setup is below. Keep those questions coming.


----------



## smurraybhm

I would also add that I dropped my surrounds when making the move to Atmos, made a huge difference in sound for my HT.


----------



## brahman12

Nalleh.....can you give a comparison between Gravity 5.1 with DSU against the Atmos version? And don't forget to let us know what you think about Lucy when you get that one. Thanks bruddah!!!


----------



## azula

smurraybhm said:


> They are not adjoining and many of us are using that same config
> FH, TF, TM, TB, BH - so you can see you are skipping TF - thus the reason FH/TM works.
> I use bi-poles on my back wall - sounds great - setup is below. Keep those questions coming.


Thanks Smurray! Totally forgot about TF. I stole this diagram from earlier on in the thread. I modified the ceiling speakers I will be using in red. I'm thinking the Top Middle should be pushed back slightly to be evenly placed between row one and two. How is the location for FH? Also, should the speakers be outside the seating area like pictured or more in front of the outermost seats?


----------



## audioguy

Frank714 said:


> Not to forget the _*Chicago*_ Dolby Atmos remix (English version) that becomes available tomorrow in Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-l...LS0/ref=dp_change_lang?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP


Other than the cover of the Bluray, I can't decipher any of the remainder. What is the price in USD? Do I sign in with my regular account or set up a new one. And if I need to set up a new one, is the set up,process in English? (Probably not)


----------



## bargervais

Nalleh said:


> 3 more Blu´s with Atmos this last week
> 
> Unbroken and Gravity was awesome. Not seen Lucy yet, but it is region A, and has english subs.


So the language for Atmos on Lucy is Chinese??? I wouldn't like that if that's the case. I get too distracted reading the captions to really enjoy the film.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I think he means that it also has English subs.


----------



## pasender91

brahman12 said:


> Nalleh.....can you give a comparison between Gravity 5.1 with DSU against the Atmos version? And don't forget to let us know what you think about Lucy when you get that one. Thanks bruddah!!!


BEWARE, very small spoiler on one of the scenes ...

I'm not Nalleh, but still i decided i would like to do this test, for my own education and to share the result, and here it is.
I did the test on gravity, scene 6, she is on ISS, first part is quiet while she tries to repair the Soyouz, and second part of the scene is very active as ISS is getting bombarded by debris:
- Dolby 5.1 => classic soundstage, everything appears to be in a 2D scene.
- Dolby 5.1 with DS, on 7.1.4 => a 3D immersion appears, most noticably during the active part of the scene, but effects remain quite "diffuse".
- Atmos, on 7.1.4 => 3D immersion clearly goes to another level, even during the quiet part every little sound like breathing, tools hitting the soyouz, screwdriver spinning, ..., is very precisely positioned in space. It is much better. During the active part of the scene, no way to analyze where the sounds come from precisely, but the overall immersion is much better too.

Overall, i give the following rating and comment:
Dolby => 1/10, this was actually the most shocking news to me, how flat it sounds now that i am accustomed to DSU on all movies 
Dolby + DS => 5/10, the overall sound immersion is quite good, but the added effects are not very precisely positioned.
Atmos => 9/10, it is to me quite a revelation, every little sound is positioned so nicely from every direction, and the overall soundtrack also feels much more precise and dynamic as a result.

Another way to say it is DD is crap, DD+DS is good, and Atmos is great


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> Another way to say it is DD is crap, DD+DS is good, and Atmos is great


Wow. So we have so much crap we (still) have around ...


----------



## pasender91

aaranddeeman said:


> Wow. So we have so much crap we (still) have around ...


Well, my statement was quite extreme, but on purpose, as i knew it would spark some remarks 
On the other side, it is the law of evolution, older species are outclassed and replaced by newer & better ones ....


----------



## bargervais

pasender91 said:


> Well, my statement was quite extreme, but on purpose, as i knew it would spark some remarks
> On the other side, it is the law of evolution, older species are outclassed and replaced by newer & better ones ....


I totally agree after listening in DSU... Dolby digital doesn't sound that great anymore.


----------



## robert816

audioguy said:


> Other than the cover of the Bluray, I can't decipher any of the remainder. What is the price in USD? Do I sign in with my regular account or set up a new one. And if I need to set up a new one, is the set up,process in English? (Probably not)


You will need to setup an account on the Japan Amazon site. The good news is that you can use the same information you used on your American Amazon account.
While the instructions are not 100% exact since the site has changed a bit you can follow the instructions here http://cdn.halcyonrealms.com/japan/how-to-order-from-amazon-japan-a-detailed-buying-guide/

As for the price, you can have it display the final cost in dollars, but if you just want an idea of the cost, a simple trick is to move the comma one space to the right. So an item that is 2,229 Yen becomes 22.29 dollars.
It's not exact, but can get you close enough to figure out what the approximate cost will be. Shipping for one item is about $13.00, additional Blu-Rays or DVD's will add about $3 dollars per item to the final shipping cost.

Just checked and the Yen is down to the dollar, currently 0.0083, so a Blu-Ray that is 2,229 Yen is about $18.61 Dollars.


----------



## ThePrisoner

My Metallica Through The Never (Dolby Atmos) shipped from Amazon Germany, will report back when I receive it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> 3 more Blu´s with Atmos this last week
> 
> Unbroken and Gravity was awesome. Not seen Lucy yet, but it is region A, and has english subs.


Does anyone know if the Redbox rental of Unbroken has Atmos?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Why would anyone want to watched a dubbed atmos film ? I can't imagine the mix would sound all that great after dubbing. One of my big pet peeves is see ing British actors play Nazis... Is it really that hard to read subtitles?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Aras_Volodka said:


> Why would anyone want to watched a dubbed atmos film ? I can't imagine the mix would sound all that great after dubbing. One of my big pet peeves is see ing British actors play Nazis... Is it really that hard to read subtitles?


Do you have kids ? As much as I'm trying to get the kids to watch as much english content as possible, they still prefer to listen in French and not be forced to read and not concentrate on the images themselves... And it's a lot of words to read for a 6-7 y.o...

As much as I try to watch VO's only, I had to adjust to those three little ones asking for the French version 

So that's why I'd like, at least for animated movies and movies that are reaching them directly as a target, to have a French Atmos version. American Sniper will be the first one, I don't think it will happen very often.

Yes the dub does diminish the quality, but it's still better to have a lossless version, ideally with object based effects, than a Dolby Digital 5.1 track as we often see for alternate languages...


----------



## brahman12

pasender91 said:


> BEWARE, very small spoiler on one of the scenes ...
> 
> I'm not Nalleh, but still i decided i would like to do this test, for my own education and to share the result, and here it is.
> I did the test on gravity, scene 6, she is on ISS, first part is quiet while she tries to repair the Soyouz, and second part of the scene is very active as ISS is getting bombarded by debris:
> - Dolby 5.1 => classic soundstage, everything appears to be in a 2D scene.
> - Dolby 5.1 with DS, on 7.1.4 => a 3D immersion appears, most noticably during the active part of the scene, but effects remain quite "diffuse".
> - Atmos, on 7.1.4 => 3D immersion clearly goes to another level, even during the quiet part every little sound like breathing, tools hitting the soyouz, screwdriver spinning, ..., is very precisely positioned in space. It is much better. During the active part of the scene, no way to analyze where the sounds come from precisely, but the overall immersion is much better too.
> 
> Overall, i give the following rating and comment:
> Dolby => 1/10, this was actually the most shocking news to me, how flat it sounds now that i am accustomed to DSU on all movies
> Dolby + DS => 5/10, the overall sound immersion is quite good, but the added effects are not very precisely positioned.
> Atmos => 9/10, it is to me quite a revelation, every little sound is positioned so nicely from every direction, and the overall soundtrack also feels much more precise and dynamic as a result.
> 
> Another way to say it is DD is crap, DD+DS is good, and Atmos is great


Thanks for your input and your effort in response to my post request.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Does anyone know if the Redbox rental of Unbroken has Atmos?


It should. Universal hasn't started the practice of stripping out the lossless audio tracks like Lions Gate and Summit.


----------



## RealDeal

batpig said:


> The consensus is that if possible go wigh 4 overheads. Many others have a similar situation as yours and have gone with 5.1.4 with a Top Middle + Front Height designation. Place the TM above and slightly ahead (1-2ft) and then FH at around a 35-45 degree elevation (which probably puts the on the ceiling a few feet from front wall). Then sit back and enjoy!


Thanks for all of the information! Just so I'm clear with this recommendation...if I were to use a Denon receiver, I would choose the setting "Front Height, Top Middle", not "Top Front, Rear Height" or "Top Front, Top Rear" correct?

It is my understanding that the receiver considers Front Height to be against the front wall and as high as they can go but it sounds like you've had great luck having the front height speakers out away from the wall a bit.

I'll attach and updated room diagram which may help.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## RealDeal

Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers?

I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer advice or see if I'm missing anything.

Thanks,
Dave

PS If anyone is in Colorado, I'd love to get together sometime and talk home theater sometime!


----------



## wse

SteveTheGeek said:


> Do you have kids ? As much as I'm trying to get the kids to watch as much english content as possible, they still prefer to listen in French and not be forced to read and not concentrate on the images themselves... And it's a lot of words to read for a 6-7 y.o...
> 
> As much as I try to watch VO's only, I had to adjust to those three little ones asking for the French version
> 
> So that's why I'd like, at least for animated movies and movies that are reaching them directly as a target, to have a French Atmos version. American Sniper will be the first one, I don't think it will happen very often.
> 
> Yes the dub does diminish the quality, but it's still better to have a lossless version, ideally with object based effects, than a Dolby Digital 5.1 track as we often see for alternate languages...


Je comprend


----------



## zapper

RealDeal said:


> Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers?
> 
> I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer advice or see if I'm missing anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
> PS If anyone is in Colorado, I'd love to get together sometime and talk home theater sometime!


Just curious what receiver do you have, or how many channels????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

RealDeal said:


> Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers?
> 
> I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer advice or see if I'm missing anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
> PS If anyone is in Colorado, I'd love to get together sometime and talk home theater sometime!



I too am a Coloradoan. FYI


----------



## RealDeal

zapper said:


> Just curious what receiver do you have, or how many channels????


I've got an older Denon 7.1 receiver but I plan on buying a new Denon receiver that does 5.1.4 or 9.1 as they seem to call it. I may actually wait until they add DTS:X but i need to get the speakers prewired and pre-construction brackets put up before they start drywall next week.


Dave


----------



## ShaneHar

*ATMOS Basement HT Build Questions*

I'm new to the AVS forum and wanted to see if I could get some expert help on my Dolby ATMOS HT basement build. I plan on making a dedicated ATMOS 7.2.4 room with two rows of seating, but all of the configurations on the Dolby website only show one row of seating and one LFE in the front. MY setup is a little unique seeing as though the rear seating will be pretty much be at the back wall of the room. I'm trying to figure out the best placement for the 4 over head speakers with a two row setup. My other obstacle is that behind the first row across the ceiling there is an air duct that drops down 10'. I'm not sure if the rear above speakers should go behind the air duct or in front. I want both rows to have great sound, but I'm limited with the configuration of the room. I already purchased 4 monitor audio gold ceiling speakers, and I will be using Sunfire speakers for the other 7 channels. My 2 subs are both Sunfire True EQ. I have not made my ATMOS Receiver purchase yet because I'm waiting for second generation gear, so for the time being I'll be using a Sony 6400ES and just running 7.2 surround. I'm about to run all of the speaker wire, and just want to make sure I have the ATMOS speaker placement right. I've left two messages with the Dolby ATMOS guys, and have not heard a response, so I thought this would be a great place to help figure out an ideal solution. Thanks for any help. By the way my screen size should be 170" with a from row seating 12' away and the second row being 17' away.


----------



## NorthSky

azula said:


> Will I experience any negatives if I lower all four surrounds and add TM+FH like batpig suggested?
> Also, my surrounds are Polk FXI A6 bipolar/dipolar which I will set to bipole.





NorthSky said:


> ♦ Doby Atmos overhead speakers positioning (angle) for two rows of seats


♦ That's another option. ...For the four Atmos overheads.

Your main surrounds; they go near ear level (no more than a foot above). ...So they would have to come down.
And if the back row of seats is against the back wall, I would simply discard the Back (rear) surrounds. 

In the first post of this thread there is a link: *Installation Guidelines*


----------



## Frank714

audioguy said:


> Other than the cover of the Bluray, I can't decipher any of the remainder. What is the price in USD? Do I sign in with my regular account or set up a new one. And if I need to set up a new one, is the set up,process in English? (Probably not)


If you scroll down you can read in the product information and in English "Dolby Atmos".

On the upper right hand side, there is a field in English you should click on to see information displayed in English. The little confusing thing is that you _seem_ to sign into your regular "amazon.com" account, but your usual information won't help, you have to create a new account.

After I did that I entered "Chicago Blu-ray", then put two _Chicago_ Blu-rays into my shopping basket and proceeded to checkout. Clicked on "international shipping address" (!), entered my address and next my credit card data (had to indicate my domestic currency as Euro).

Thus I completed my order (first time for me, too) and was rather surprised that even including shipping, the total amount was only 50 € (expect the same in US $).

Anybody here remember those days back in the early 1990's when LaserDisc collectors were importing like mad Japanese LBX (!!!) Laserdiscs of the original Star Wars Trilogy from Japan? 
FoxVideo (USA) noticed and finally decided to make these available in the US, too. 

I'll give the Dolby Atmos remixed _Chicago_ Blu-ray an in-depth review, once it has arrived.


----------



## Nalleh

bargervais said:


> So the language for Atmos on Lucy is Chinese??? I wouldn't like that if that's the case. I get too distracted reading the captions to really enjoy the film.


The language is english, with chinese or english subtexts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> The language is english, with chinese and english subtexts.


*Lucy* arrived here today, with the Atmos track, delivered from Amazon Japan. Looking forward to it for tonight's movie.


For those considering using Amazon japan, it is real easy to set up the account. I use the same user login details as I do for all my other Amazon international accounts which makes life easier. One small issue is that your confirmation etc emails all come in Japanese - but you can generally figure them out, and there is a picture of the BD cover so you know which movie they are referring to. Go for it!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> *Lucy* arrived here today, with the Atmos track, delivered from Amazon Japan. Looking forward to it for tonight's movie.
> 
> 
> For those considering using Amazon japan, it is real easy to set up the account. I use the same user login details as I do for all my other Amazon international accounts which makes life easier. One small issue is that your confirmation etc emails all come in Japanese - but you can generally figure them out, and there is a picture of the BD cover so you know which movie they are referring to. Go for it!


Do you have the product link for Lucy in Atmos on Amazon Japan ?

Thanks !


----------



## aaranddeeman

I have a question on center speaker position w.r.t. Atmos.
I have my center above the screen (Suspended from ceiling).
Now with Atmos speakers on the ceiling, would it make sense (/difference) if I mount it rather below the screen. (The only problem being I have hardly 16"-18" space below the screen from visible screen area).
As it is recommended to lower the surrounds to ear level, I was wondering if the center should take a proper place (I know the ideal is behind screen, but that is not option currently).
Appreciate your inputs..


----------



## robert816

SteveTheGeek said:


> Do you have the product link for Lucy in Atmos on Amazon Japan ?
> 
> Thanks !


I wasn't aware it was available on Amazon Japan, and I'm not finding a listing for the Atmos version, however it is available from Play-Asia here http://www.play-asia.com/lucy-paOS-13-49-en-70-8p1h.html


----------



## SteveTheGeek

robert816 said:


> I wasn't aware it was available on Amazon Japan, and I'm not finding a listing for the Atmos version, however it is available from Play-Asia here http://www.play-asia.com/lucy-paOS-13-49-en-70-8p1h.html


Thanks, I'm looking at it also on yesasia, but was wondering if I could combine the order with Chicago on Amazon. I was also surprised to see kbarnes701 ordered it there?


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Thanks, I'm looking at it also on yesasia, but was wondering if I could combine the order with Chicago on Amazon. I was also surprised to see kbarnes701 ordered it there?


My bad. It was *Chicago* from Amazon Japan and *Lucy *from Yes-Asia. My apologies.

HST, it is even easier to order from YesAsia.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

http://www.ramascreen.com/kingsman-t...oduct-details/

Kingsman : The Secret Service is the next Fox title to not have Dolby Atmos... :|


----------



## robert816

It does say Dolby and DTS Stereo, most likely the DTS 2.0 is a language dub track, but I read through the description and didn't see Atmos listed. It doesn't come up on the Dolby Atmos search on Amazon Japan, only the previously known titles appear.

Guess we'll have to wait for confirmation from KBarnes701

Nevermind


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I wouldn't be too sad about kingsman not getting the atmos bd. I saw that in the theater and didn't notice anything special about it's atmos mix.


----------



## Patrick Murphy

pasender91 said:


> On the other side, it is the law of evolution, older species are outclassed and replaced by newer & better ones ....



Kinda like 2D and 3D TV.


----------



## azula

ShaneHar said:


> I'm new to the AVS forum and wanted to see if I could get some expert help on my Dolby ATMOS HT basement build. I plan on making a dedicated ATMOS 7.2.4 room with two rows of seating, but all of the configurations on the Dolby website only show one row of seating and one LFE in the front. MY setup is a little unique seeing as though the rear seating will be pretty much be at the back wall of the room. I'm trying to figure out the best placement for the 4 over head speakers with a two row setup. My other obstacle is that behind the first row across the ceiling there is an air duct that drops down 10'. I'm not sure if the rear above speakers should go behind the air duct or in front. I want both rows to have great sound, but I'm limited with the configuration of the room. I already purchased 4 monitor audio gold ceiling speakers, and I will be using Sunfire speakers for the other 7 channels. My 2 subs are both Sunfire True EQ. I have not made my ATMOS Receiver purchase yet because I'm waiting for second generation gear, so for the time being I'll be using a Sony 6400ES and just running 7.2 surround. I'm about to run all of the speaker wire, and just want to make sure I have the ATMOS speaker placement right. I've left two messages with the Dolby ATMOS guys, and have not heard a response, so I thought this would be a great place to help figure out an ideal solution. Thanks for any help. By the way my screen size should be 170" with a from row seating 12' away and the second row being 17' away.


I am actually having quite the similar issue (with the exception of the air duct). With our second row being on the back wall, it seems like a good combination for overheads are Front Height + Top Middle as depicted in my poorly edited diagram below:










However, I might do Top Front + Top Rear like North suggested if I can get away with the TR firing downwards on top of the listener's head in the second row: 










Screw the people in the second row! lol. If the overhead you choose has a wide enough dispersion the sound difference should be negligible.


----------



## azula

NorthSky said:


> ♦ That's another option. ...For the four Atmos overheads.
> 
> Your main surrounds; they go near ear level (no more than a foot above). ...So they would have to come down.
> And if the back row of seats is against the back wall, I would simply discard the Back (rear) surrounds.
> 
> In the first post of this thread there is a link: *Installation Guidelines*



Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I took this excerpt from the dolby installation guide: 


> Front height mounted speakers
> Most AVRs will support the use of front height (Dolby® Pro Logic® IIz) mounted
> speakers with Dolby Atmos playback; however, Dolby recommends the use of either
> overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to create the most lifelike and enveloping
> audio experience. Front height speakers may be used in conjunction with overhead
> speakers in larger room installations that can support a greater number of
> overhead/height outputs.


Seems like they politely steer the end user to other speaker arrangements rather than front height as well. My room is small so I'm leaning towards TF + TR with the understanding that my second row will not have the greatest listening experience being on the rear wall. 


Second issue is hardware. I'm torn between Polk Atriums (on ceiling) and Polk RC80i (in ceiling). Will the extra 4-5 inches of a recessed ceiling speaker give a greater dispersion area? I have 8 foot ceilings, so I'm figuring the higher the speaker, the better dispersion. The downside obviously is that recessed speakers are far more permanent than ceiling mounted.


----------



## pasender91

Well, to keep it quite generic for everyone asking about new Atmos installations, the following can be said for top speakers placement in a standard rectangular room with a standard ceiling:

- Always consider 4 top speakers rather than 2.
- Ideally, you want the MLP to be at about 2/3 of the length of the room, and then configure Atmos as TF + TR.
- if the MLP must be near the rear wall, then FH + TM becomes the best option.


----------



## cdelena

azula said:


> ...
> Screw the people in the second row! lol. If the overhead you choose has a wide enough dispersion the sound difference should be negligible.
> ...


 
Sometimes compromises must be made and I decided that the front row is my priority so I did everything based upon that MLP. Now that I have done my first phase I am pleased with the results; the second row does not get quite the impact the first does but it is only used 10% of the time so it is fine.


The second phase of my upgrade is the one I didn't really plan on. My LR speakers were high because of the room layout and their size so I had to get different speakers to get them lower. 


The new LR speakers were a compromise that now that I have lived with must be replaced. The new speakers (replacing the new) are higher quality and the tweeters will be at 50" high. Now it is clear I will be happier when replacing and repositioning all speakers. So what started as a sizable upgrade has turned into an audio overhaul replacing all components.


All that said I am so pleased with the immersive sound that I don't regret busting the budget.


----------



## dlechner

RealDeal said:


> Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers?
> 
> I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer advice or see if I'm missing anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
> PS If anyone is in Colorado, I'd love to get together sometime and talk home theater sometime!


I do and have a dedicated 5.1.4 system right now. Would be fun to geek it up with more Coloradans.


----------



## azula

cdelena said:


> Sometimes compromises must be made and I decided that the front row is my priority so I did everything based upon that MLP. Now that I have done my first phase I am pleased with the results; the second row does not get quite the impact the first does but it is only used 10% of the time so it is fine.
> 
> 
> The second phase of my upgrade is the one I didn't really plan on. My LR speakers were high because of the room layout and their size so I had to get different speakers to get them lower.
> 
> 
> The new LR speakers were a compromise that now that I have lived with must be replaced. The new speakers (replacing the new) are higher quality and the tweeters will be at 50" high. Now it is clear I will be happier when replacing and repositioning all speakers. So what started as a sizable upgrade has turned into an audio overhaul replacing all components.
> 
> 
> All that said I am so pleased with the immersive sound that I don't regret busting the budget.


Tell me about it. I only came back to AVS because my Onkyo 809 took a crap on me and I was looking to update the receiver. Then I see all this atmos stuff and I'm completely redoing the entire theater....LOL. I can't stand you guys.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Well, to keep it quite generic for everyone asking about new Atmos installations, the following can be said for top speakers placement in a standard rectangular room with a standard ceiling:
> 
> - Always consider 4 top speakers rather than 2.
> - Ideally, you want the MLP to be at about 2/3 of the length of the room, and then configure Atmos as TF + TR.
> - *if the MLP must be near the rear wall, then FH + TM becomes the best option*.


Not necessarily; in particular with two rows of seats, and with the second row near the back wall.
...And also when the second row (center seat) is the MLP. 

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

______

* The MLP @ 2/3 of the room's length is good; so is 3/5, 4/7, 5/9, 6/11, 7/11, ... all those fractions from uneven numbers. 
And it even works for the room's width; as the center of the room's width is not ideal. 
So, off center and even slightly to the left or right of the center channel speaker. ...Even the center speaker could be off, for better acoustics. 

That is my calculated opinion, with refined methodology. ...And experiments. ...And from various readings as well.

______

Most home theater rooms center the MLP dead center of the room's width; that's the norm, but is the norm the best?
...Or is it simply more practical?


----------



## clipper57

aaranddeeman said:


> Does anyone know if the Redbox rental of Unbroken has Atmos?


i rented unbroken yesterday from redbox and my copy had atmos.


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Thanks, I'm looking at it also on yesasia, but was wondering if I could combine the order with Chicago on Amazon. I was also surprised to see kbarnes701 ordered it there?


I just order Lucy from yesasia I chose expedited shipping for $12.00 total cost $46.00 I thought it to be a little expensive but I did it anyway. I have set a limit for myself to spend no more then $27.00 on a blu-ray, but I had to have Lucy in Atmos.


----------



## Stanton

bargervais said:


> I just order Lucy from yesasia I chose expedited shipping for $12.00 total cost $46.00 I thought it to be a little expensive but I did it anyway. I have set a limit for myself to spend no more then $27.00 on a blu-ray, but I had to have Lucy in Atmos.


Have you SEEN this movie? I don't think it's worth $20 let alone $40! I'm excited about Atmos too, but there has to be better movies out there later this year.


----------



## bargervais

Stanton said:


> Have you SEEN this movie? I don't think it's worth $20 let alone $40! I'm excited about Atmos too, but there has to be better movies out there later this year.


Agree I did see it, I think $19.99 should be my limit for Lucy, lets hope atmos will add something. I had to do it as it was my first overseas order.


----------



## David Susilo

Lucy in Atmos? I went to yesasia and I only see Lucy in "Dolby EX"


----------



## bargervais

David Susilo said:


> Lucy in Atmos? I went to yesasia and I only see Lucy in "Dolby EX"


Go here and follow buy now.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/128360/


----------



## aaranddeeman

clipper57 said:


> i rented unbroken yesterday from redbox and my copy had atmos.


Fantabulous...
Thanks for confirming..


----------



## tjenkins95

Stanton said:


> Have you SEEN this movie? I don't think it's worth $20 let alone $40! I'm excited about Atmos too, but there has to be better movies out there later this year.


 
Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't me that others wouldn't. Everyone has different tastes.
My friends and I saw it in the theater and totally enjoyed it.
The rest of the audience liked it too - a very good action movie and it was great fun!
67% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave it a great review.


----------



## David Susilo

I love the movie and when I watched it in the theatre, Atmos actually made the story telling process much better.


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't me that others wouldn't. Everyone has different tastes.
> My friends and I saw it in the theater and totally enjoyed it.
> The rest of the audience liked it too - a very good action movie and it was great fun!
> 67% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave it a great review.


Those Rotten Tomatoe bunch are a tough bunch


----------



## petetherock

Of course no one is saying that we buy discs at ridiculous prices just for the bragging rights


----------



## bargervais

petetherock said:


> Of course no one is saying that we buy discs at ridiculous prices just for the bragging rights


Now that's a low blow.. it may be bragging but I enjoy what atmos brings to my listening environment. The reason I got Lucy from HK , IS one it has atmos, two it has the four atmos demos on it and three I just wanted to. Sorry if you think we are bragging. Or are you saying it in a good way?


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> it has the four atmos demos on it


Ah. This is good to know.
Which four are those demos?


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> Of course no one is saying that we buy discs at ridiculous prices just for the bragging rights


I paid $25 plus 12% Canadian tax for *'Lucy'* on Blu (cheap from my standards for a new release @ the time; first day). 

* I have a friend who has a $30,000 pre/pro, another a $125,000 pair of stereo speakers, another a $30,000 DAC, ...tra-la-la. 
...Mono block amps ... Cable interconnects, power purifier, AC chords, speaker wires, turntable for $650,000 (German designer), ....

I know a guy and his wife living in a $15 million palace. ...They don't have Dolby Atmos though.

______

* Bargervais, Pete was just kidding.


----------



## petetherock

bargervais said:


> Now that's a low blow.. it may be bragging but I enjoy what atmos brings to my listening environment. The reason I got Lucy from HK , IS one it has atmos, two it has the four atmos demos on it and three I just wanted to. Sorry if you think we are bragging. Or are you saying it in a good way?


Well it's partly in jest, but it's also true mate..
We are all here to learn, share and admire.
Just look at the number of "official" threads, why official and we even have bold print for the word thread starter. We also have plenty of threads which we share our setup pics.
As hobbyists, I guess we all love our hobby, and having the latest and greatest is what we do, and I have been using the word 'we' throughout, because all of us do it in some way here 

Some of these expensive discs we import aren't really good and I hope you will share about the quality of the Atmos coding vs the regular flavor soon so we can learn if it's worth that extra outlay.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> I know a guy and his wife living in a $15 million palace. ...They don't have Dolby Atmos though.


No. They don't need the artificial Atmos(phere). They will have live people on their ceiling to entertain them. And they can not complain about only 4 height channels..


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> Ah. This is good to know.
> Which four are those demos?



Read post 118 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mos-home-personal-views-bluray-reviews-4.html


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> No. They don't need the artificial Atmos(phere). They will have live people on their ceiling to entertain them. And they can not complain about only 4 height channels..


Very good point; it's like being in heavens here down on Earth.


----------



## bargervais

petetherock said:


> Well it's partly in jest, but it's also true mate..
> We are all here to learn, share and admire.
> Just look at the number of "official" threads, why official and we even have bold print for the word thread starter. We also have plenty of threads which we share our setup pics.
> As hobbyists, I guess we all love our hobby, and having the latest and greatest is what we do, and I have been using the word 'we' throughout, because all of us do it in some way here
> 
> Some of these expensive discs we import aren't really good and I hope you will share about the quality of the Atmos coding vs the regular flavor soon so we can learn if it's worth that extra outlay.


I know it' was a jest I'm hoping it's worth my $45.00

Once I get it I'll let you know


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> read post 118
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mos-home-personal-views-bluray-reviews-4.html


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/33661649/


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> Read post 118
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mos-home-personal-views-bluray-reviews-4.html


Got it. Thanks.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi folks, could somebody tell me who has experimented with speaker positions wether there is a noticeable difference between having front height atmos speakers vs top front ? Im asking as i currently run top middle and front height in my atmos setup and wonderd if it would be best changing to top rear and top front ? Would height effects become more noticeable ?


----------



## NorthSky

Very good question.


----------



## aaranddeeman

zebidou81 said:


> Hi folks, could somebody tell me who has experimented with speaker positions wether there is a noticeable difference between having front height atmos speakers vs top front ? Im asking as i currently run top middle and front height in my atmos setup and wonderd if it would be best changing to top rear and top front ? Would height effects become more noticeable ?


Far as I know, those who have no adequate space behind MLP have gone with TM configuration. It's always recommended to use TR or RH if you have room behind MLP. This will help give better panning front to back and vice versa.


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, but what he's asking is very specific: Has anyone experimented with both options? ...And what difference did they observe.


----------



## aaranddeeman

northsky said:


> yes, but what he's asking is very specific: Has anyone experimented with both options? ...and what difference did they observe.





northsky said:


> very good question.


:d:d:d:d:d:d


----------



## NorthSky

Fair enough; your answer was adequate, to the best of your knowledge.


----------



## Patrick Murphy

I have a couple of questions; has anyone used DSU/Atmos with a conventional 5.1/7.1 setup and is the object placement in use with DSU or just Atmos?


----------



## lujan

petetherock said:


> Of course no one is saying that we buy discs at ridiculous prices just for the bragging rights


 I have no one to brag about it except here on these forums. My family (2 brothers, sister & Mom) don't care about the latest in movie technology. I have a brother who is a movie fanatic like me but doesn't even spend money to get a decent surround system and he makes more than I do. I seem to be the only one in my circle of family and friends that even cares to have the latest and greatest in audio/video technolgy.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> *Lucy* arrived here today, with the Atmos track, delivered from Amazon Japan. Looking forward to it for tonight's movie.
> ...


So how was Lucy in Atmos? Did you like it as much as I did?

Have you tried to synchronize the movie sequence with the small video I made to see the Atmos objects evolving in space? Could be fun to listen and watch. 

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/ 

Amclt, 

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> So how was Lucy in Atmos? Did you like it as much as I did?


I loved it! And especially so with the great Atmos mix.



Hugo S said:


> Have you tried to synchronize the movie sequence with the small video I made to see the Atmos objects evolving in space? Could be fun to listen and watch.
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/
> 
> Amclt,
> 
> Hugo


That's an interesting idea!


----------



## zebidou81

aaranddeeman said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi folks, could somebody tell me who has experimented with speaker positions wether there is a noticeable difference between having front height atmos speakers vs top front ? Im asking as i currently run top middle and front height in my atmos setup and wonderd if it would be best changing to top rear and top front ? Would height effects become more noticeable ?
> 
> 
> 
> Far as I know, those who have no adequate space behind MLP have gone with TM configuration. It's always recommended to use TR or RH if you have room behind MLP. This will help give better panning front to back and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks, my avr also has the option for front heights and top rear but i would like to know if there is any noticeable difference if i was to move front heights to top front, i have not had many answers so i suppose nobody has actually experimented in moving there speakers from front heights to top fronts, i am keen to see if there is a noticeable difference before i move my speakers


----------



## petetherock

Just tried Ghost Protocol, and Atmos DSU really makes that sandstorm come alive.. very nice


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> That's an interesting idea!


C'est pour ça, I published it that for... 

H.


----------



## PeterTHX

SteveTheGeek said:


> http://www.ramascreen.com/kingsman-t...oduct-details/
> 
> Kingsman : The Secret Service is the next Fox title to not have Dolby Atmos... :|





Aras_Volodka said:


> I wouldn't be too sad about kingsman not getting the atmos bd. I saw that in the theater and didn't notice anything special about it's atmos mix.



We need to get FOX on the home Atmos train.


More titles = more incentive for people to upgrade and establish the format at home.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I have no one to brag about it except here on these forums. My family (2 brothers, sister & Mom) don't care about the latest in movie technology. I have a brother who is a movie fanatic like me but doesn't even spend money to get a decent surround system and he makes more than I do. I seem to be the only one in my circle of family and friends that even cares to have the latest and greatest in audio/video technolgy.


You should choose your family and friends more carefully.


----------



## chi_guy50

zebidou81 said:


> Ok thanks, my avr also has the option for front heights and top rear but i would like to know if there is any noticeable difference if i was to move front heights to top front, i have not had many answers so i suppose nobody has actually experimented in moving there speakers from front heights to top fronts, i am keen to see if there is a noticeable difference before i move my speakers


The main concern IRT immersive audio should be to complete the hemisphere of sound. Therefore the imperative for TR or RH placement is at least partially contingent on whether your base (listener-level) includes speakers to the rear (either SB or, perhaps, side surrounds > 90° in conjunction with FW).


----------



## gene4ht

zebidou81 said:


> Ok thanks, my avr also has the option for front heights and top rear but i would like to know if there is any noticeable difference if i was to move front heights to top front, i have not had many answers so i suppose nobody has actually experimented in moving there speakers from front heights to top fronts, i am keen to see if there is a noticeable difference before i move my speakers


I have a similar situation...FH and TM. Additionally, I will be installing TF and TR very soon just to experiment with the different configurations. Although I have extremely limited room for TR's, I'll experiment anyway...just to know as I'm comfortable with drywall work.  Any input welcomed...


----------



## batpig

Patrick Murphy said:


> I have a couple of questions; has anyone used DSU/Atmos with a conventional 5.1/7.1 setup and is the object placement in use with DSU or just Atmos?


DSU is an upmixer. No objects involved.


----------



## zebidou81

gene4ht said:


> I have a similar situation...FH and TM. Additionally, I will be installing TF and TR very soon just to experiment with the different configurations. Although I have extremely limited room for TR's, I'll experiment anyway...just to know as I'm comfortable with drywall work.  Any input welcomed...[/QUOTE
> 
> my experience at the minute with Front height speakers seems to be that it widens the front sound stage, but i feel that with the front heights moved to top front position that it would make for a more noticeable top sound bed with better panning from rear to front ? this is just my guess and i hope somebody with knowledge in this can share ?


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> You should choose your family and friends more carefully.


Hard to choose your family...


----------



## Frank714

Patrick Murphy said:


> I have a couple of questions; has anyone used DSU/Atmos with a conventional 5.1/7.1 setup and is the object placement in use with DSU or just Atmos?


Assuming that you are referring to sound objects placed in front of your face (which is my favorite analogy) I'd have to reply "neither".

I brought this up a couple of thread pages ago and other AVS members also reported that they haven't experienced something like that, yet.

With Atmos sound appears to be detached from the speakers and is very immersive, listening to the audio only samples on the latest Dolby disc (Jan 15) sounded like the walls of my home theatre room had been removed and I was sitting in an open space, instead, but the "objects" still stay at some distance from my listening position.

With DSU channel based content is now also directed to the top speakers. While I'm fascinated with what it does to 2.0 program content, I've been unable to share the DSU excitment of my fellow AV enthusiasts, improvements are rather subtle or negligible to my ears.

My working theory thus far is that a 5.1 setup will benefit tremendously from DSU as the additional top speakers substitute the lack of back surround back Speakers to some extent. 

Although I added top speakers to my 7.1 setup, I can only confirm really audible benefits thamks to Dolby Atmos encoded program content.


----------



## batpig

gene4ht said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok thanks, my avr also has the option for front heights and top rear but i would like to know if there is any noticeable difference if i was to move front heights to top front, i have not had many answers so i suppose nobody has actually experimented in moving there speakers from front heights to top fronts, i am keen to see if there is a noticeable difference before i move my speakers
> 
> 
> 
> I have a similar situation...FH and TM. Additionally, I will be installing TF and TR very soon just to experiment with the different configurations. Although I have extremely limited room for TR's, I'll experiment anyway...just to know as I'm comfortable with drywall work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any input welcomed...
Click to expand...

As chi_guy intimated, from what we know the physical speaker position is more important than worrying about the designation in the processor. Those who have experimented found very little difference in the specific content sent to TM+FH vs TF+TR. 

So IMO what you want to do is examine the physical layout of your speakers / room and then use common sense to place those 4 overheads where they best "fill the gaps" in sonic coverage and complete the dome of sound. Then choose the designation in the professor that best meets your needs.


----------



## zebidou81

chi_guy50 said:


> The main concern IRT immersive audio should be to complete the hemisphere of sound. Therefore the imperative for TR or RH placement is at least partially contingent on whether your base (listener-level) includes speakers to the rear (either SB or, perhaps, side surrounds > 90° in conjunction with FW).


i currently run 5.2.4 with surround speakers at 110 degrees, i am looking at installing some side surround in the near future as well, which would be a priority to you ? do you feel moving front height to top front is more immersive than installing side surrounds and using surrounds as rears ?


----------



## batpig

zebidou81 said:


> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main concern IRT immersive audio should be to complete the hemisphere of sound. Therefore the imperative for TR or RH placement is at least partially contingent on whether your base (listener-level) includes speakers to the rear (either SB or, perhaps, side surrounds > 90? in conjunction with FW).
> 
> 
> 
> i currently run 5.2.4 with surround speakers at 110 degrees, i am looking at installing some side surround in the near future as well, which would be a priority to you ? do you feel moving front height to top front is more immersive than installing side surrounds and using surrounds as rears ?
Click to expand...

More speakers more better. Completing the base layer 7ch bed will yield more benefit than tweaking the overhead positions. There is more content in the base later than overhead and you will enjoy full benefit from 7.1 mixes. Of course these aren't mutually exclusive options so nothing stopping you from doing both! 

Note however that in 7.1 you don't need speakers at 110 degrees. This is a compromise location for 5.1 since you only have two speakers to cover sides and rear. Adding two more surrounds means you can have one pair to the sides and the other pair behind you for better lateral coverage.


----------



## gene4ht

zebidou81 said:


> gene4ht said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a similar situation...FH and TM. Additionally, I will be installing TF and TR very soon just to experiment with the different configurations. Although I have extremely limited room for TR's, I'll experiment anyway...just to know as I'm comfortable with drywall work.  Any input welcomed...[/QUOTE
> 
> my experience at the minute with Front height speakers seems to be that it widens the front sound stage, but i feel that with the front heights moved to top front position that it would make for a more noticeable top sound bed with better panning from rear to front ? this is just my guess and i hope somebody with knowledge in this can share ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll post my findings after experimenting. But as everyone is suggesting, the best results are no doubt obtained when speaker placement puts the MLP in the middle or within the "bubble."
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> C'est pour ça, I published it that for...
> 
> H.


Bien sur!


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> my experience at the minute with Front height speakers seems to be that it widens the front sound stage, but i feel that with the front heights moved to top front position that it would make for a more noticeable top sound bed with better panning from rear to front ? this is just my guess and i hope somebody with knowledge in this can share ?


I'd agree with that. I have front overhead speakers designated as FH but they are in the TF position and I am very happy with the immersion. I have recently experimented with raising the overhead speakers in level by about 2.5dB and I am finding that the extra immersion is worthwhile. Whether I keep them set that way long term I am not sure.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> We need to get FOX on the home Atmos train.
> 
> 
> More titles new features like immersive audio = more incentive for people to upgrade and establish the format *UHD Blu-ray* at home.


Fixed that for ya. 


Unfortunately probably true.


----------



## wse

lujan said:


> Hard to choose your family...


Same here none of my Family is interested or worst understand, but when them come to our home and watch a movie they go whoa that's amazing! But the wives are no way are we doing that in our houses! I guess, I am very lucky as my wife loves it except when I go over board 

I can't wait until we can do 9.9.4.2


----------



## chi_guy50

zebidou81 said:


> i currently run 5.2.4 with surround speakers at 110 degrees, i am looking at installing some side surround in the near future as well, which would be a priority to you ? do you feel moving front height to top front is more immersive than installing side surrounds and using surrounds as rears ?


As batpig points out, the base layer is going to be the more critical element. (Just think for a minute about the linguistic ramifications of that nomenclature--i.e., base or foundation.) Space and budget permitting, I would always want at least 7.1 as a base. Thinking about legacy content, everything beyond 7.1 is going to be matrixed; and even current 3D immersive content folds down to a 7.1 base. I happen to enjoy a wide front sound stage, so my preference is for front wide or "forward surround" in combination with side surrounds slightly to the rear of the MLP and *in addition to* surround back.

Once you've established the best feasible placement of the base layer in your space, you can then address the positioning of the top layer by filling in the hemispherical gaps while adhering to the recommended elevation angles for each respective array.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> Hard to choose your family...


I don't know about that. My sainted mother used to point out to me that she had brought me into this world and she could take me out, too. (Something about retroactive abortion?)

And yet I was such a well-behaved tyke!


----------



## robert816

Received my copy of Chicago with Dolby Atmos this morning. The sound is terrific, the Jazz bands, dialogue, gun shots, even the camera flash had nice sound, too bad the video quality isn't as good as I hoped for, seemed rather grainy for a remastered film.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd agree with that. I have front overhead speakers designated as FH but they are in the TF position and I am very happy with the immersion. I have recently experimented with raising the overhead speakers in level by about 2.5dB and I am finding that the extra immersion is worthwhile. Whether I keep them set that way long term I am not sure.


I am a little surprised to hear you say this and would guess that you will eventually want to go back to the default settings given your devotion to exactitude and accuracy of reproduction.

I am fairly fastidious myself, and I find my overhead levels more than ample for any content I've sampled to this point.

ETA: My wife has asked me to strike the adverb "fairly" from the above comment.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I am a little surprised to hear you say this and would guess that you will eventually want to go back to the default settings given your devotion to exactitude and accuracy of reproduction.


I'm not so much interested in "accuracy" as in enjoyment. I'm not sure we can even know what accuracy is, nor how to know if we have achieved it. But we can and do know if we are enjoying something more or less or the same. Raising the levels of the overheads obviously makes them more noticeable and, on the surface at least, therefore a more immersive experience. However, the idea, as you suggest, is not to 'notice' the speakers but just to hear the coherent soundstage. I am not currently sure that raising their levels by 2.5dB is making the speakers more 'obviously there' or not. There's no doubt when dropping them back to their regular levels that they 'disappear' (while the sounds they make don't disappear of course but blend cohesively into the overall soundstage). I need to listen more before I come to a conclusion. I suspect it is a bit like the guy who just got a 5.1 system and gooses his surrounds 'just because he can' and he revels in hearing sounds coming from around him. But later, when he is a more 'mature' 5.1-phile, he drops them a little in level so they just blend in nicely, without drawing attention to themselves. I shall monitor it for a week or two. You are right - when I did this before, after a while I went back to standard settings. 



chi_guy50 said:


> I am fairly fastidious myself, and I find my overhead levels more than ample for any content I've sampled to this point.


I am sure. As did I. I am just experimenting that's all.



chi_guy50 said:


> ETA: My wife has asked me to strike the adverb "fairly" from the above comment.


I am sure she is right fairly often


----------



## gene4ht

wse said:


> Same here none of my Family is interested or worst understand, but when them come to our home and watch a movie they go whoa that's amazing!


I'm sure most of us here share the same experience. 



> But the wives are no way are we doing that in our houses!


The WAF is talked about all the time and can be a controversial/polarizing topic.  It is understood that one of the partners is the "nest" builder, but it is also suggested that love is always ensuring your significant other is happy...two way street. "No way" is a one way street.



> I guess, I am very lucky as my wife loves it except when I go over board


Same here...more than lucky.


----------



## TennisPro02

I just left Georgia Home Theater and the Integra receivers..... .6 Dolby Atmos models will be getting firmware updates in the next 30 days


----------



## TennisPro02

DTS:X firmware updates


----------



## robert816

TennisPro02 said:


> I just left Georgia Home Theater and the Integra receivers..... .6 Dolby Atmos models will be getting firmware updates in the next 30 days


Wow, good deal for Integra owners


----------



## SoundChex

TennisPro02 said:


> I just left Georgia Home Theater and the Integra receivers..... .6 Dolby Atmos models will be getting firmware updates in the next 30 days





TennisPro02 said:


> DTS:X firmware updates





robert816 said:


> Wow, good deal for Integra owners



And for the rest of us a chance to read a User Manual Annex detailing the DTS:X setup options for a mass market AVR . . . and the "interactions" with Atmos options|configuration! Plus a _possible _30 day window in which we might expect to see _first-draft_ DTS:X White Papers...?!


_


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> DTS:X firmware updates


Got a link to that announcement please?

EDIT: Anyone know what DSP chips the current Onkyos are using? Is it Cirrus?


----------



## bargervais

TennisPro02 said:


> I just left Georgia Home Theater and the Integra receivers..... .6 Dolby Atmos models will be getting firmware updates in the next 30 days


Do you have a link to confirm this because if Integra receivers get this update so will my onkyo as they are the same build. I'm not counting on it but it's still wishful thinking.


----------



## smurraybhm

It's this same type of supposed official information coming from dealers that is anything but official until confirmed by the company itself. Someone posted a CSR from Onkyo saying that it wasn't coming to the Onkyo models a few days ago. Let's not get Frank going again


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> I wasn't aware it was available on Amazon Japan, and I'm not finding a listing for the Atmos version, however it is available from Play-Asia here http://www.play-asia.com/lucy-paOS-13-49-en-70-8p1h.html


♦ Very expensive for a 2D Blu-ray disc with Atmos (*'Lucy'*), ...$39 Canadian plus shipping. Honestly, this is taking advantage; not a fair deal in my book.
{I love this flick though, very much so.}



SteveTheGeek said:


> http://www.ramascreen.com/kingsman-t...oduct-details/
> 
> Kingsman : The Secret Service is the next Fox title to not have Dolby Atmos... :|


♦ The link goes empty.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

PeterTHX said:


> We need to get FOX on the home Atmos train.
> 
> 
> More titles = more incentive for people to upgrade and establish the format at home.


I certainly can't argue with that, I just wasn't a big fan of the mix... or the film... but I guess I knew what I was getting into before I went to the theater! 

I'm having a hard time understanding what goes into which films get the atmos mix vs. those that don't. For instance... I'm willing to bet Ex machina would have been an excellent choice for Atmos seeing as how it's a sci fi that reviewed really well. I might go see that tonight 

I'm going to see Age of Adeline this weekend in Atmos... that seems like something a tolerable film with Atmos, along with Age of Ultron next weekend  
After Xmas this winter was a real drag as far as films & atmos soundtracks go, though it looks like there will be some watch worthy films with Atmos throughout the summer. I'd like to see more Drama/artsy films getting into immersive sound. For the home we atleast got unbroken... but I can't say I'm looking forwards to any bluray releases for a while unless if we get some Atmos legacy content or recent films remixed in atmos like John Wick was. 

P.S.... I've noticed that scenes filmed underwater sound amazing with Atmos or DSU! I noticed the DTS X demo disc had a film segment that was done underwater... even though I obviously don't have DTS X decoding, that sounded amazing on my system.


----------



## zebidou81

my experience at the minute with Front height speakers seems to be that it widens the front sound stage, but i feel that with the front heights moved to top front position that it would make for a more noticeable top sound bed with better panning from rear to front ? this is just my guess and i hope somebody with knowledge in this can share ?[/quote]

I'd agree with that. I have front overhead speakers designated as FH but they are in the TF position and I am very happy with the immersion. I have recently experimented with raising the overhead speakers in level by about 2.5dB and I am finding that the extra immersion is worthwhile. Whether I keep them set that way long term I am not sure.[/QUOTE]

I keep altering the levels of the overhead speakers as well, i read an article where one user had added 4db to overhead speakers, i tried the same and did seem to like the effect, i am unsure if i will keep overhead speakers louder as i feel when listening at loud levels certain sounds coming from above can sound distorted or overdone, but with some content like sky documentary channels i like the sound coming from them with discovery hd and nat geographic hd sounding like never before.


----------



## bargervais

zebidou81 said:


> my experience at the minute with Front height speakers seems to be that it widens the front sound stage, but i feel that with the front heights moved to top front position that it would make for a more noticeable top sound bed with better panning from rear to front ? this is just my guess and i hope somebody with knowledge in this can share ?


I'd agree with that. I have front overhead speakers designated as FH but they are in the TF position and I am very happy with the immersion. I have recently experimented with raising the overhead speakers in level by about 2.5dB and I am finding that the extra immersion is worthwhile. Whether I keep them set that way long term I am not sure.[/QUOTE]

I keep altering the levels of the overhead speakers as well, i read an article where one user had added 4db to overhead speakers, i tried the same and did seem to like the effect, i am unsure if i will keep overhead speakers louder as i feel when listening at loud levels certain sounds coming from above can sound distorted or overdone, but with some content like sky documentary channels i like the sound coming from them with discovery hd and nat geographic hd sounding like never before.[/QUOTE]

I raised the db on my height speakers but then ending up going back to what the EQ set them at. It just seemed I was chasing my tail. One time it was good then next movie not good. I ended up just tweaking them +1db above what EQ did and haven't gone back in.


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys

I am wondering if I can run speaker cables with power cable ,HDMI cable together in one cable raceway? Is there any static interference? I am adding my side surround and top rear speakers. I am using legrand cord mate to organize my cable. The speaker cable will be 45ft, 12awg. Thanks


----------



## robert816

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Very expensive for a 2D Blu-ray disc with Atmos (*'Lucy'*), ...$39 Canadian plus shipping. Honestly, this is taking advantage; not a fair deal in my book.
> {I love this flick though, very much so.}
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ The link goes empty.


I only said it was available, didn't say it was a good deal. 

I have the non-Atmos version and DSU works quite well, maybe when the price comes down to a more reasonable level, maybe then I'll
consider buying the Atmos version. I wasn't a big fan of the movie to begin with, so I see no reason to spend that much on a movie I already own.


----------



## jrogers

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I am wondering if I can run speaker cables with power cable ,HDMI cable together in one cable raceway? Is there any static interference? I am adding my side surround and top rear speakers. I am using legrand cord mate to organize my cable. The speaker cable will be 45ft, 12awg. Thanks


You should not run power cables parallel to speaker cables - you will get a 60Hz hum (assuming you're in the US). I think the recommendation is for >= 6" of separation, and try to cross perpendicularly when necessary.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrogers said:


> You should not run power cables parallel to speaker cables - you will get a 60Hz hum (assuming you're in the US). I think the recommendation is for >= 6" of separation, and try to cross perpendicularly when necessary.


+1


----------



## brahman12

Frank714 said:


> Assuming that you are referring to sound objects placed in front of your face (which is my favorite analogy) I'd have to reply "neither".
> 
> I brought this up a couple of thread pages ago and other AVS members also reported that they haven't experienced something like that, yet.
> 
> With Atmos sound appears to be detached from the speakers and is very immersive, listening to the audio only samples on the latest Dolby disc (Jan 15) sounded like the walls of my home theatre room had been removed and I was sitting in an open space, instead, but the "objects" still stay at some distance from my listening position.


Hey Frank...you may have missed my post a few pages back, which is understandable since this thread is HUGE lol. During "Unbreakable" there was a moment when the POW's are cleaning out the toilets and bugs are buzzing around. Very realisticly buzzing...and at the end of the scene there is a singular buzz sound that actually made me swat at my ear...it was funny cuz I reacted instinctually. I re-played the scene and there was that damn bug again at my left ear, not my left surround channel . Also way back I posted about John Wick...during the final battle when he goes after the mobsters at the docks. His black charger goes from left side of room, through the MLP, and precisely into the area between the center channel and front right channel. Really awesome stuff bro!!! There where a couple other instances in other flicks, but those stand out in my memory most.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Unbroken:
The opening scene is a demo material IMHO.


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> I only said it was available, didn't say it was a good deal.
> 
> I have the non-Atmos version and DSU works quite well, maybe when the price comes down to a more reasonable level, maybe then I'll
> consider buying the Atmos version. I wasn't a big fan of the movie to begin with, so I see no reason to spend that much on a movie I already own.


No sweat Robert, I wasn't commenting on that, but only on the Canadian price alone.  

* *'Lucy'* on Blu-ray (non-Atmos version) is only twenty dollars right now (both USD and CDN), and there is no way that I'm paying more than double that to get another copy with Dolby Atmos and four DA trailers. 

'Lucy' is not in the same caliber as 'Gravity', but they both have now a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack; and that in itself is a great accomplishment.
The negatives: 
- 'Gravity' is only in 2D, even if it costs only $20. (That one I bought, and it'll be playing in all its sound glory in my rig, eventually). 
- 'Lucy' is overpriced, very. (No way I'll get this one; @ $20 ok I will buy it again). 

What is it with this wor!d.  ...Might as well live in space, or on another p!anet.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Unbroken:
> The opening scene is a demo material IMHO.


Is this CGI or real? ...Did you find the picture quality of this particular scene "convincingly" realistic enough? ...Or not. 

* The sound was great, even without Dolby Atmos (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio).


----------



## robert816

Agreed, if I didn't already have Lucy with a lenticular cover (I'm a sucker for these things), I would buy it because of Atmos.

I'll be receiving another movie tomorrow that may have Atmos, White Storm. I know for certain it has a 96k Dolby TrueHD track,
but I'm not 100% on the Atmos track. Will know for certain tomorrow and will post further information.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Is this CGI or real? ...Did you find the picture quality of this particular scene "convincingly" realistic enough? ...Or not.
> 
> * The sound was great, even without Dolby Atmos (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio).


I am only talking about sound. Let's talk about PQ during 4K frenzy..


----------



## NorthSky

I was just asking, because of those planes and them bombs; that's all. 

* And what is this now with Integra 2014 Dolby Atmos receivers and a DTS:X firmare update "rumor"? ...That can't be, no, yes? 

@Roudan; running AC power chords parallel to interconnects and speaker wires is never recommended; it would introduce distortion in your sound.
Best to always cross them @ a 90° angle if they have to meet. Better yet to keep them completely separated.


----------



## TennisPro02

You want a link to a conversation I had? The dealer was on the phone with Integra. 



kbarnes701 said:


> TennisPro02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X firmware updates
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link to that announcement please?
> 
> EDIT: Anyone know what DSP chips the current Onkyos are using? Is it Cirrus?
Click to expand...


----------



## Frank714

brahman12 said:


> Hey Frank...you may have missed my post a few pages back, which is understandable since this thread is HUGE lol. During "Unbreakable" there was a moment when the POW's are cleaning out the toilets and bugs are buzzing around. Very realisticly buzzing...and at the end of the scene there is a singular buzz sound that actually made me swat at my ear...it was funny cuz I reacted instinctually. I re-played the scene and there was that damn bug again at my left ear, not my left surround channel .


Wow! _Unbroken_ is next on my list, now I wonder whether I will get myself the US version asap or hope that the upcoming Euro version features Atmos as well. Thanks for the heads-up! 

Integra providing DTS:X upgrades? That would be great for concerned owners. We are currently continuing the DTS:X upgrade discussion in the Denon thread, please check out my latest post there and the ones preceeding it, if you own a 2014 Dolby Atmos D & M model.


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> I keep altering the levels of the overhead speakers as well, i read an article where one user had added 4db to overhead speakers, i tried the same and did seem to like the effect, i am unsure if i will keep overhead speakers louder as i feel when listening at loud levels certain sounds coming from above can sound distorted or overdone, but with some content like sky documentary channels i like the sound coming from them with discovery hd and nat geographic hd sounding like never before.


The problem with raising the levels of the overheads is that you may draw attention to them. IOW they will be 'heard' as a separate sound source rather than heard as part of an integrated soundstage. If you cannot hear them as a separate sound source and they are not constantly drawing attention to themselves, then raising the level a little could be advantageous in giving extra immersion - after all, all rooms, speakers, listeners etc are different. So long as you are careful this can be a worthwhile experiment IMO and one I am undertaking myself. I find that if I go beyond +2.5dB then the overheads are just too 'obvious' - they are always drawing attention to themselves. I find that with +1dB I can’t really hear much, if any, difference. So the sweet spot for me seems to be somewhere between those two. It's a bit like normal surrounds - you don't really want to be noticing them all the time, but you'd immediately recognise if they had been switched off.

One of the hallmarks of a good setup, IMO, is that all the speakers disappear sonically and you are left with just 'sounds in the room'. I have found that moving to Dirac Live as my room EQ has really iced that particular cake and when I am watching a movie now there are no speakers anywhere in the room at all - just the sounds from the movie, in the right places, at the right levels etc. It is very hard to describe but very easy to hear and several friends have commented on it here. The danger when futzing with the levels is that you can ruin that effect by having some speakers drawing attention to themselves.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I am wondering if I can run speaker cables with power cable ,HDMI cable together in one cable raceway? Is there any static interference? I am adding my side surround and top rear speakers. I am using legrand cord mate to organize my cable. The speaker cable will be 45ft, 12awg. Thanks


You might get away with it but it is really bad practice. Ideally mains cable should be kept away from low level signal cables. If they have to cross try to do at right angles and not run parallel at all. HDMI and speaker should be OK. I spent quite a bit of time wiring my rack so that HDMI and speaker wires run down the left side, interconnects down the middle and power down the right. You might get away with bunching them all together, but it is recommended not to. A 45 foot run will make the problem, if there is one, worse too.


----------



## kbarnes701

TennisPro02 said:


> You want a link to a conversation I had? The dealer was on the phone with Integra.


So there is no actual official confirmation or evidence that the information is correct? It's just "what someone said"? Hearsay evidence as they say in Court? Fair enough - I was hoping that Onkyo would add DTS:X as an upgrade - it would be good for them after their mistake (IMO) of dropping Audyssey. And it would give them a real advantage over Denon of course who are only adding DTS:X upgrade capability to the 7200.


----------



## Frank714

robert816 said:


> Received my copy of Chicago with Dolby Atmos this morning. The sound is terrific, the Jazz bands, dialogue, gun shots, even the camera flash had nice sound, too bad the video quality isn't as good as I hoped for, seemed rather grainy for a remastered film.


Sound sounds promising. Spent last night to listen to my old Blu-ray and the SACD to prepare myself for the comparison. 

However, I'm still somewhat under the impression, that the Japanese release hopefully features the Dolby Vision remastered (but standard Blu-ray down converted) version previously released as the "Diamond Edition". 

Here is a screencap analysis between the previous and the remastered version, the remastered version looks to have more clarity and detail and better color fidelity.

I was about to get myself the "Diamond Edition", but then I fortunately learned about the coming Japanese release in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## audioguy

Like Keith, I have played around with the height trim levels and have settled on +2db. However, I have also reduced the level of the subs by 1 db each as the additional volume in the overheads made the bass much less articulate.

While there is no guarantee I will leave it like this, my guess is that I will (I also have my rear surrounds at +2db and have had it that way for many years). Is this according to the "Mixers intent" (also defined as "accurate")? NO. But I only care about my perssonal enjoyment. I gave up "accurate" a long time ago. That was a never ending, super expensive, frustrating experience for me. And almost no two people agreed on the definition of "accurate". I'm all about "fun", "enjoyable", "entertaining".


----------



## JamesE

Many have expressed the desire for more over head channels. MiniDSP may have an inexpensive solution for this. They created this option for making a subwoofer channel from 2 the two main channels but it would work for most of the overhead channels.


2 Way Advanced plugin
http://www.minidsp.com/images/documents/miniDSP%202x4%20and%20Kit%20-%20User%20Manual%20v2.1.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Like Keith, I have played around with the height trim levels and have settled on +2db. However, I have also reduced the level of the subs by 1 db each as the additional volume in the overheads made the bass much less articulate.
> 
> While there is no guarantee I will leave it like this, my guess is that I will (I also have my rear surrounds at +2db and have had it that way for many years). Is this according to the "Mixers intent" (also defined as "accurate")? NO. But I only care about my perssonal enjoyment. I gave up "accurate" a long time ago. That was a never ending, super expensive, frustrating experience for me. And almost no two people agreed on the definition of "accurate". I'm all about "fun", "enjoyable", "entertaining".


I'm with you on this. "Accurate" begs the question "accurate to what?" and it is very difficult or even impossible to answer as we have no way at all of knowing what the content creators heard when they mixed the movie. There is also another point: almost everyone in this thread likes the effect of DSU on their movie soundtracks. Well, as soon as DSU is engaged, all pretence of "accuracy" goes right out the window. We can now be 100% sure that this is *not* what the mixer heard when he mixed the soundtrack. We are now letting a computer algo determine what sounds go to where and, enjoyable though it is, nobody can pretend they are looking for "accuracy" when they engage an upmixer. No - they are looking for fun, enjoyment and entertainment, as you so ably describe.

Having seen photos of your HT, I bet you have fun, enjoyment and entertainment in spades in there! I'd love to hear your room in real life.


----------



## Patrick Murphy

Frank714 said:


> Assuming that you are referring to sound objects placed in front of your face (which is my favorite analogy) I'd have to reply "neither".
> 
> I brought this up a couple of thread pages ago and other AVS members also reported that they haven't experienced something like that, yet.
> 
> With Atmos sound appears to be detached from the speakers and is very immersive, listening to the audio only samples on the latest Dolby disc (Jan 15) sounded like the walls of my home theatre room had been removed and I was sitting in an open space, instead, but the "objects" still stay at some distance from my listening position.
> 
> With DSU channel based content is now also directed to the top speakers. While I'm fascinated with what it does to 2.0 program content, I've been unable to share the DSU excitment of my fellow AV enthusiasts, improvements are rather subtle or negligible to my ears.
> 
> My working theory thus far is that a 5.1 setup will benefit tremendously from DSU as the additional top speakers substitute the lack of back surround back Speakers to some extent.
> 
> Although I added top speakers to my 7.1 setup, I can only confirm really audible benefits thamks to Dolby Atmos encoded program content.





batpig said:


> DSU is an upmixer. No objects involved.


 
Thank you.


----------



## robert816

Frank714 said:


> Sound sounds promising. Spent last night to listen to my old Blu-ray and the SACD to prepare myself for the comparison.
> 
> However, I'm still somewhat under the impression, that the Japanese release hopefully features the Dolby Vision remastered (but standard Blu-ray down converted) version previously released as the "Diamond Edition".
> 
> Here is a screencap analysis between the previous and the remastered version, the remastered version looks to have more clarity and detail and better color fidelity.
> 
> I was about to get myself the "Diamond Edition", but then I fortunately learned about the coming Japanese release in Dolby Atmos.


I took another look at it and comparing the two images to what I see on my plasma, I'd say the quality is the Diamond Luxe edition.
I selected photo #3 since it had the best black to work with, my setup shows a little more lighting but without the blooming in the regular edition. 

Most likely it is the setup of my system that makes the difference. My Panny has always had a beautiful sharp picture, but with nice blacks,
and great detail. My family room is 19x32 and I use half the room for the home theatre and the other half is my office. From my desk I can
watch the television and from here you cannot see the grain in the film. My normal seated position for watching movies is about 11 feet from
the television. Prior to Atmos I was at 15 feet and usually didn't notice film grain, I moved the seating position closer to allow for a better Atmos bubble.

I'm probably being more critical than I should be given the age of the movie, I would say buy this edition of Chicago over the others for both
the visual and sound quality. From now on I'll leave the reviews to Mr Potts.


----------



## tjenkins95

robert816 said:


> Agreed, if I didn't already have Lucy with a lenticular cover (I'm a sucker for these things), I would buy it because of Atmos.
> 
> I'll be receiving another movie tomorrow that may have Atmos, White Storm. I know for certain it has a 96k Dolby TrueHD track,
> but I'm not 100% on the Atmos track. Will know for certain tomorrow and will post further information.


 
I can confirm that the White Storm blu-ray from Japan does have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. I don't know what other languages you speak or comprehend but please note that this edition only contains Chinese and Japanese - no English.


Ray


----------



## Frank714

robert816 said:


> From now on I'll leave the reviews to Mr Potts.


Oh no, please don't feel discouraged. I was very happy to hear that you were impressed with the new Dolby Atmos Remix, first earwitness report!

I was just concerned for a minute, that it might not have been the remastered image quality (I confess, that lately I've gotten somewhat sceptical regarding AV decisions made in Japan: JVC abandoning its entry level D-ILA front projectors, while maintaining their FullHD prestige models to compete with Sony's 4K projectors - Sony implementing frame interpolation in its flatscreens but not 4K projectors - Konami showing Kojima the door just months before the release of the much awaited latest _Metal Gear Solid_ game etc. ... )



smurraybhm said:


> Let's not get Frank going again


That's unfair. To my knowledge Onkyo never even suggested the possibility of a DTS:X upgrade, with D & M that's different and to verify, you can just revisit the posts from mid-September 2014 in this thread.


----------



## robert816

tjenkins95 said:


> I can confirm that the White Storm blu-ray from Japan does have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. I don't know what other languages you speak or comprehend but please note that this edition only contains Chinese and Japanese - no English.
> 
> 
> Ray


Thank you! I thought it did since I read some of the description and it mentioned Atmos. My concern was it might have been referring to the Onkyo release which has Atmos but the other editions did not.

As to the language tracks, I'm fine with the original language and subtitles, I prefer to hear the original dialogue and I'm a very fast reader so subtitles are are nothing to me, they do not detract from the movie at all.

My copy should arrive today, don't know why it didn't ship with Chicago which I received yesterday morning, but oh well. Thank you again for the Atmos confirmation!


----------



## Roudan

jrogers said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Guys
> 
> I am wondering if I can run speaker cables with power cable ,HDMI cable together in one cable raceway? Is there any static interference? I am adding my side surround and top rear speakers. I am using legrand cord mate to organize my cable. The speaker cable will be 45ft, 12awg. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> You should not run power cables parallel to speaker cables - you will get a 60Hz hum (assuming you're in the US). I think the recommendation is for >= 6" of separation, and try to cross perpendicularly when necessary.
Click to expand...

Thank Rogers, Dan and Bob. 

Want to double check, i can still run multiple speakers wires in parallel in one raceway. They should not have distortion to each other . Is it correct ?

Last night i started to wiring for my 7.2.4 setup, very exciting even though I don't have Atmos receiver . My basement was furnished so I can only use cable raceway to add more channels. Want to double check I did not any wrong thing.


----------



## robert816

Frank714 said:


> Oh no, please don't feel discouraged. I was very happy to hear that you were impressed with the new Dolby Atmos Remix, first earwitness report!
> 
> I was just concerned for a minute, that it might not have been the remastered image quality (I confess, that lately I've gotten somewhat sceptical regarding AV decisions made in Japan: JVC abandoning its entry level D-ILA front projectors, while maintaining their FullHD prestige models to compete with Sony's 4K projectors - Sony implementing frame interpolation in its flatscreens but not 4K projectors - Konami showing Kojima the door just months before the release of the much awaited latest _Metal Gear Solid_ game etc. ... )
> 
> 
> 
> That's unfair. To my knowledge Onkyo never even suggested the possibility of a DTS:X upgrade, with D & M that's different and to verify, you can just revisit the posts from mid-September 2014 in this thread.


I realized after reading your post that I have been watching a lot of digitally filmed movies lately and I guess seeing film grain after such a long time caught me off guard.

But the sound was excellent! I'd be interested in your comparison of this Atmos soundtrack vs the SACD version. When you get it (and you know you will!) please post your opinions.

I read about the Kojima incident, doesn't make a lot of sense, but we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. Reminds me of Itagaki and Team Ninja's fallout with Tecmo.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Thank Rogers, Dan and Bob.
> 
> Want to double check, i can still run multiple speakers wires in parallel in one raceway. They should not have distortion to each other . Is it correct ?
> 
> Last night i started to wiring for my 7.2.4 setup, very exciting even though I don't have Atmos receiver . My basement was furnished so I can only use cable raceway to add more channels. Want to double check I did not any wrong thing.


Shouldn't be a problem. Happy remodeling!


----------



## smurraybhm

Frank714 said:


> That's unfair. To my knowledge Onkyo never even suggested the possibility of a DTS:X upgrade, with D & M that's different and to verify, you can just revisit the posts from mid-September 2014 in this thread.


Frank - you saw the smiley face right? Trust me my fellow AVSer I am familiar with your posts, respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding D&M/DTS:X and my compliments on your English, you're way ahead of a lot of those in the US who grew up speaking English.

I hope Onkyo owners get DTS:X for their 2014 models, but until we see an official release from the company its just another rumor, which is what seemed to cause some of the D&M upgrade to DTS:X hard feelings - assuming we don't get it. As I've said before, the product specifications are in writing, my 5200 was delivered as promised in writing and I got an Auro upgrade as a bonus (even if it cost $200). Enjoy the weekend all.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Frank - you saw the smiley face right? Trust me my fellow AVSer I am familiar with your posts, respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding D&M/DTS:X and my compliments on your English, you're way ahead of a lot of those in the US who grew up speaking English.
> 
> I hope Onkyo owners get DTS:X for their 2014 models, but until we see an official release from the company its just another rumor, which is what seemed to cause some of the D&M upgrade to DTS:X hard feelings - assuming we don't get it. As I've said before, the product specifications are in writing, my 5200 was delivered as promised in writing and I got an Auro upgrade as a bonus (even if it cost $200). Enjoy the weekend all.


It seems some people will believe anything that anyone says, take it on face value and work for ever after on the basis that it is the absolute, incontrovertible truth.

On that basis, I can tell you that I met a man in the pub who told me his friend's cousin's wife is the sister of a guy who's brother works for a company which supplies paperclips to both Onkyo and Denon, and this guy was on the phone to his aunt in Wisconsin and she told him that her sister-in-law had it on good authority that her great-nephew had been told, in confidence, that both companies were pulling out of the AVR market entirely in 2016. You heard it here first.


----------



## TennisPro02

I was at Georgia Home Theater yesterday inquiring about purchasing B&W 683 S2 for my fronts and moving my 685 S2 to side surround and 686 S2 to rear surround. They sell Integra and MacIntosh and we started talking about DTS:X. He grabbed his cell phone and dialed a number.... no answer. He dialed another number which was his contact at Integra that told him the .6 models would have a DTS:X firmware update in the next 30 days.


----------



## TennisPro02

He didn't directly ask about Onkyo but he also said he was doubtful as Onkyo " is made of plastic" his words not mine. 



bargervais said:


> TennisPro02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just left Georgia Home Theater and the Integra receivers..... .6 Dolby Atmos models will be getting firmware updates in the next 30 days
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to confirm this because if Integra receivers get this update so will my onkyo as they are the same build. I'm not counting on it but it's still wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

TennisPro02 said:


> He didn't directly ask about Onkyo but he also said he was doubtful as Onkyo " is made of plastic" his words not mine.


Yeah that makes the guy very reliable


----------



## SteveTheGeek

robert816 said:


> My copy should arrive today, don't know why it didn't ship with Chicago which I received yesterday morning, but oh well. Thank you again for the Atmos confirmation!


When you receive it and confirm again, can you give us the link to the product on Amazon.co.jp ?

Thanks a lot !


----------



## robert816

Will do sir, the tracking shows it out with the delivery courier so I should know something between now and the next few hours.


----------



## helvetica bold

I live in a small apt in NYC. I have a flat 12 foot ceilings that i can't drill into.
Right now I have Energy Take Classic 5.1 speakers and I love them. However, iby the end of the year I want to transition to Atmos and DTS:X.
My question is, who makes the smallest speakers that I can use for an Atmos setup?


----------



## jrogers

Dolby "Shattered" clip on Vimeo. Still waiting for this, along with Horizon and some DTS:X trailers to be available somewhere for download...

Edit: looks like you can download directly from Vimeo - but I'm not home to check if it includes the Atmos audio when you do so.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Want to double check, i can still run multiple speakers wires in parallel in one raceway. They should not have distortion to each other . Is it correct ?


♦ Multiple speaker wires (for all your surrounds) running all together side-by-side is no problem.
It is when running AC power cords alongside them that is a problem; then you have high chance to get interference in your sound. 
The AC cords are emitting 60Hz hum that can easily transfer to your speaker wires.

And if running cable interconnects @ proximity of your speaker wires, try to keep a reasonable distance.
And if running cable interconnects @ proximity of your AC power cords, cross them @ 90 degree angle, and get double or even triple-shielded ones;
in particular with RCA interconnects for your subwoofers. 
- XLR interconnects help for long runs; say over 5 meters. 



> Last night i started to wiring for my 7.2.4 setup, very exciting even though I don't have Atmos receiver . My basement was furnished so I can only use cable raceway to add more channels. Want to double check I did not any wrong thing.


♦ Your cable raceway; it is for your speaker surround wires. ...No AC power cords, and no cable interconnects go in there. 
Your gear is @ front; so your cable interconnects and AC power cords that's where they are. Try to keep them all separated as best you can, with the AC power cords on one side, and the cable interconnects on the other side. ...And use double-shielded RCA interconnects (even triple for your two subs). 

Fall 2015 is the time to check the offerings from various manufacturers; for both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.
It would be wiser; but if some people want to rush it, they should concentrate on two products only: Denon AVR-X7200W receiver, and Marantz AV8802 pre/pro (SSP). ...Three and four $thousands respectively (MSRP). 

The times they are a changin'.


----------



## NorthSky

helvetica bold said:


> I live in a small apt in NYC. I have a flat 12 foot ceilings that i can't drill into.
> Right now I have Energy Take Classic 5.1 speakers and I love them. However, iby the end of the year I want to transition to Atmos and DTS:X.
> My question is, who makes the smallest speakers that I can use for an Atmos setup?


Energy, KEF, Gallo, Bose cubes, ...


----------



## NorthSky

> It seems some people will believe anything that anyone says, take it on face value and work for ever after on the basis that it is the absolute, incontrovertible truth.
> 
> On that basis, I can tell you that I met a man in the pub who told me his friend's cousin's wife is the sister of a guy who's brother works for a company which supplies paperclips to both Onkyo and Denon, and this guy was on the phone to his aunt in Wisconsin and she told him that her sister-in-law had it on good authority that her great-nephew had been told, in confidence, that both companies were pulling out of the AVR market entirely in 2016. You heard it here first.


Very true; many people will believe all sort of verbiage full of diarrhea. ...With great power comes great responsibility.


----------



## batpig

helvetica bold said:


> I live in a small apt in NYC. I have a flat 12 foot ceilings that i can't drill into.
> Right now I have Energy Take Classic 5.1 speakers and I love them. However, iby the end of the year I want to transition to Atmos and DTS:X.
> My question is, who makes the smallest speakers that I can use for an Atmos setup?


Any speaker can be used for an Atmos setup. There is nothing different about the job the speaker performs whether it's the front left channel or the top rear right channel. It turns electricity into sound like any other speaker.

So you basically have two options if you are happy with the Energy Takes:

Option 1: Get better (but still small) speakers (e.g. RC-Mini or V-Mini if you stick with Energy) and then repurpose the Take satellites as overheads
Option 2: Grab some more Take satellites and have 9 matching speakers (5 base layer / 4 overhead)

Although you can't mount on the ceiling having 12 foot height means that high wall mounting should still give you good angular separation. For example if you are 10 feet back and mount 8 feet above ear level on the front wall, that's about a 40 degree elevation so perfect for Front Height designation. 

Another option if you want a more diffuse presentation is to use Mirage NanoSats as the overheads -- mount them upside down when placed that high, two on the front wall and two on the back wall. They should match well with the Takes (Energy and Mirage are/were sister companies) and give a spacious overhead surround field.

EDIT: now that I think about it more, I think Mirage NanoSats are the perfect solution. Mounting Takes up high would require a special speaker mount to angle them down, whereas the NanoSats are designed to flush mount upside down when used up high. Plus they will throw a big soundfield and really fill in the immersion.


----------



## scarabaeus

bargervais said:


> I just order Lucy from yesasia I chose expedited shipping for $12.00 total cost $46.00 I thought it to be a little expensive but I did it anyway. I have set a limit for myself to spend no more then $27.00 on a blu-ray, but I had to have Lucy in Atmos.





Stanton said:


> Have you SEEN this movie? I don't think it's worth $20 let alone $40! I'm excited about Atmos too, but there has to be better movies out there later this year.


I orderd it this week from DDDHouse: http://www.dddhouse.com/v3/product_details.php?ProductID=14722
Was only $32.44 shipped. Let's see how that goes, have never ordered there before.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Anyone combining the modules with in-ceilings to get four heights? I'm a ways away (not till like Xmas time) from being able to get any height speakers but if i go the in-ceiling route I may be limited to only 2 speakers due to room lighting/wife factor.....if I combined those with some of the better working upfiring modules like the 44-DA's to get the four heights would that potentially work alright?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stanton said:


> Have you SEEN this movie? I don't think it's worth $20 let alone $40! I'm excited about Atmos too, but there has to be better movies out there later this year.


Just personal preference. I really enjoyed *Lucy* for example and the Atmos soundtrack is stellar, adding even more to the enjoyment. Of course, not everyone will like the movie. *The Seventh Seal* is one of my favorite movies and hardly anybody I have ever met likes that. One person even said to me that he was fed up with movies about The United States Navy's Sea, Air, Land Teams


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> EDIT: now that I think about it more, I think *Mirage NanoSats are the perfect solution*. Mounting Takes up high would require a special speaker mount to angle them down, whereas the NanoSats are designed to flush mount upside down when used up high. Plus they will throw a big soundfield and *really fill in the immersion.*



I'm kind of biased, but believe batpig speaks the truth.

They're no longer in production, but either the Nanosats or the Nanosat Prestige will fit the bill for a smaller speaker with a big presence.

There are several on eBay.

Amazon has the full size (which are still small) OS3 Satellites listed for $140 each. I have 10 of them installed and love them. Well, for surrounds and overheads anyway.


----------



## zeus33

Self edit: moved to the DTS:X thread where it belongs.


----------



## helvetica bold

Batpig, thank you for the great speaker advice!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## billqs

Those of you who use Tannoy DC speakers on ceiling for heights. Do you mount driver toward floor, toe in to MLP or mount facing audience but straight ahead? I finally got some Tannoy DC Speakers (actually 6.25 DC Drivers in a custom chassis... long story) that I am getting ready to put up high in place of my DT ProMonitor 800's. I was wanting really big dispersion and omnidirectionality like the Tannoys seem to give.


----------



## bargervais

scarabaeus said:


> I orderd it this week from DDDHouse: http://www.dddhouse.com/v3/product_details.php?ProductID=14722
> Was only $32.44 shipped. Let's see how that goes, have never ordered there before.


I ordered mine (Lucy) on Wednesday from HK I chose express shipping $12.00 got it today very excited, the Blu-Ray was $32.44 plus shipping. I thought it was a very fast delivery, took two days for it to get to my door very nice, it was worth the twelve dollars.
I'm watching it now


----------



## zebidou81

i am just expanding my Atmos setup from a 5.2.4 to add rear surround channels and was wondering if anybody could help, this is my first time that i would be using rear surrounds and i have read that a good few years ago that 6.1 was widely used until 7.1 came along, and also that some people still prefer a 6.1 base sound bed driven by star wars films ? my question is i have a spare kef 3001se centre speaker that i thought could work in my Atmos setup ? i have moved my Q100 surrounds to the 90 degree either side position and if i use the 3001se centre behind me would this work for Atmos ? would the rears l/r in a 7.1 setup just come out of the rear centre, and would it sound similar to having the two seperate rear speakers as i have read that there will not be much sound coming from the rears but it adds to the immersion of Atmos ?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Lucky Strike said:


> Anyone combining the modules with in-ceilings to get four heights? I'm a ways away (not till like Xmas time) from being able to get any height speakers but if i go the in-ceiling route I may be limited to only 2 speakers due to room lighting/wife factor.....if I combined those with some of the better working upfiring modules like the 44-DA's to get the four heights would that potentially work alright?


I'm not but I have the 44-DA's... my recommendation is use cieling speakers for front & 44DA's as rears. 44DA's have to be closer than your Front L/R speakers because otherwise the sound gets washed out. I have my front 44-DA's placed on speaker stands a few feet infront of the Front L/R speakers... so if I was gonna re-do my setup I'd prefer the fronts to be in ceiling, but the rear sounds fantastic.


----------



## NorthSky

zebidou81 said:


> i am just expanding my Atmos setup from a 5.2.4 to add rear surround channels and was wondering if anybody could help, this is my first time that i would be using rear surrounds and i have read that a good few years ago that 6.1 was widely used until 7.1 came along, and also that some people still prefer a 6.1 base sound bed driven by star wars films ? my question is i have a spare kef 3001se centre speaker that i thought could work in my Atmos setup ? i have moved my Q100 surrounds to the 90 degree either side position and if i use the 3001se centre behind me would this work for Atmos ? would the rears l/r in a 7.1 setup just come out of the rear centre, and would it sound similar to having the two seperate rear speakers as i have read that there will not be much sound coming from the rears but it adds to the immersion of Atmos ?


You could, if you want to, use two back surround speakers but in mono mode. ...Or simply use one.

Soundtracks on Blu-ray that are encoded in 7.1 discrete channels are not all created equal. Rare are the sound mixers taking advantage of this, even today.
Disney Blu-rays are some of the best in that regard, and also some from Lionsgate studios.

That's in general. ...Your room's dimensions will play a large role in that too.

* If your room is on the smallish side, and that your couch is against the back wall; then there is no need to use back surrounds; 5.1 is just fine.

** And true about 'Star Wars' flicks on Blu ... DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1


----------



## zebidou81

NorthSky said:


> You could, if you want to, use two back surround speakers but in mono mode. ...Or simply use one.
> 
> Soundtracks on Blu-ray that are encoded in 7.1 discrete channels are not all created equal. Rare are the sound mixers taking advantage of this, even today.
> Disney Blu-rays are some of the best in that regard, and also some from Lionsgate studios.
> 
> That's in general. ...Your room's dimensions will play a large role in that too.
> 
> * If your room is on the smallish side, and that your couch is against the back wall; then there is no need to use back surrounds; 5.1 is just fine.
> 
> ** And true about 'Star Wars' flicks on Blu ... DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1


i feel i have room for rear surrounds as my mlp would be about 4.5 feet from the rear surround and my mlp from front speakers is around 8.5 feet, i just wanted to make sure that it will work with 1 centre speaker vs 2 rear satellite speakers and what would be best ? i suppose as i already have the 3001se centre speaker i should give it a try, i need to purchase some length of speaker wire and then work out how to pair my external intergrated amplifier with my av receiver as it is my first time doing so also to add extra channel to my atmos setup.


----------



## NorthSky

zebidou81 said:


> i feel i have room for rear surrounds as my mlp would be about 4.5 feet from the rear surround and my mlp from front speakers is around 8.5 feet, i just wanted to make sure that it will work with 1 centre speaker vs 2 rear satellite speakers and what would be best ? i suppose as i already have the 3001se centre speaker i should give it a try, i need to purchase some length of speaker wire and then work out how to pair my external intergrated amplifier with my av receiver as it is my first time doing so also to add extra channel to my atmos setup.


One of my back surround speakers is @ only 3 feet from the MLP and the other one @ 4 feet. ...My room is simply not long enough @ 16 feet for an ideal distance of 8 feet for all my surrounds, as my three front mains are @ that distance (8') from the MLP. 
My side surrounds are @ 6.5 and 4.7 feet from the MLP. 
{My three front mains are five feet from the front wall.}

We play with what we have; and my ceiling, @ the highest spot (centre), is @ eleven feet from the floor. 
The width of my room is 19 feet. 

* Go for two back surrounds...7.1 floor speakers. ...And four overheads. ...For a full 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup, like I'll be doing too. ... 7.2.4


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Lucky Strike said:


> Anyone combining the modules with in-ceilings to get four heights? I'm a ways away (not till like Xmas time) from being able to get any height speakers but if i go the in-ceiling route I may be limited to only 2 speakers due to room lighting/wife factor.....if I combined those with some of the better working upfiring modules like the 44-DA's to get the four heights would that potentially work alright?


I was thinking room size & general idea of the layout might be helpful to determine what the right solution for you should be. My room is on the small size. My rear speakers are 4' behind the couch, with the 44-DA's on top, which work really well for back side. My ceilings are 8' tall, and the front speakers are only 8' away, but even with such a short distance the front 44-DA's don't reach well, which is why I moved them up and placed them on top of speaker stands. 

The further away the 44-DA is the more distorted the sound becomes (in terms of being able to deliver a clear interpretation of the sound... just to give an example, a bird flapping it's wings sounds nice and full when the 44-DA's are closer... move them farther away and the flapping loses it's fullness, sounds more faint).

I wouldn't know how to compare it to overhead speakers... but the general idea that I get is for my space, the modules are probably best because my ceilings are so short. In the tests carried out with Atmos demos, some people complained about overhead speakers because they were so close overhead... but I know that could be due to less than ideal seating or perhaps improper installation of speakers for demos. 

When I'm watching films @ home, some stuff sounds amazing, while other things aren't as obvious as I'd like them to be... although I'm still playing around with my settings.
Stuff that sounds great includes rain falling from overhead, elemental effects (fire or water going overhead), ambient sounds, and small high pitched objects like chains clanging against one another. Sounds that seem less effective are overhead pans, like if a helicopter is flying overhead. I do get the panning effect, but it almost sounds like the helicopter looses it's fullness when it's going directly overhead... perhaps reflections in my room are causing the frequencies to cancel eachother out? 

In expendables 3, there is a scene where a plane takes off and goes overhead... that sounded very obvious, I didn't feel like I missed out on the effect there.


----------



## robert816

SteveTheGeek said:


> When you receive it and confirm again, can you give us the link to the product on Amazon.co.jp ?
> 
> Thanks a lot !


Steve,

I can confirm that the Japanese release of White Storm does have Dolby Atmos.

Track one is Chinese Dolby Atmos
Track two is Chinese 96k Dolby TrueHD
Track three is Japanese Dolby 2.0

Subtitles are Japanese only, there are no English subtitles and there is only a small amount of English spoken during the movie.

For those interested the Blu-Ray is available here: White Storm


----------



## SteveTheGeek

robert816 said:


> Steve,
> 
> I can confirm that the Japanese release of White Storm does have Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Track one is Chinese Dolby Atmos
> Track two is Chinese 96k Dolby TrueHD
> Track three is Japanese Dolby 2.0
> 
> Subtitles are Japanese only, there are no English subtitles and there is only a small amount of English spoken during the movie.
> 
> For those interested the Blu-Ray is available here: White Storm


Thanks a lot !


----------



## NorthSky

It is a bit strange; that in order to get more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles some of you have to go to almost extreme length to import them from other countries in different languages.
It is like Disney and their 3D Blu-rays here not available in North America.

* And Dolby and Disney are pure American land born companies.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> It is a bit strange; that in order to get more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles some of you have to go to almost extreme length to import them from other countries in different languages.
> It is like Disney and their 3D Blu-rays here not available in North America.
> 
> * And Dolby and Disney are pure American land born companies.


Agreed...

If I have one complain to make against the current situation is that I feel Dolby is not pushing enough with the studios (mostly Fox and Disney) to get the movies out with Atmos on Blu-ray.

They should be pushing this as far as possible while they still have a 4-6 months window before DTS can compete with DTS:X at home.

I understand they're not directly in the process, but they can use marketing money to facilitate this for the studios.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was thinking room size & general idea of the layout might be helpful to determine what the right solution for you should be. My room is on the small size. My rear speakers are 4' behind the couch, with the 44-DA's on top, which work really well for back side. My ceilings are 8' tall, and the front speakers are only 8' away, but even with such a short distance the front 44-DA's don't reach well, which is why I moved them up and placed them on top of speaker stands.
> 
> The further away the 44-DA is the more distorted the sound becomes (in terms of being able to deliver a clear interpretation of the sound... just to give an example, a bird flapping it's wings sounds nice and full when the 44-DA's are closer... move them farther away and the flapping loses it's fullness, sounds more faint).
> 
> I wouldn't know how to compare it to overhead speakers... but the general idea that I get is for my space, the modules are probably best because my ceilings are so short. In the tests carried out with Atmos demos, some people complained about overhead speakers because they were so close overhead... but I know that could be due to less than ideal seating or perhaps improper installation of speakers for demos.
> 
> When I'm watching films @ home, some stuff sounds amazing, while other things aren't as obvious as I'd like them to be... although I'm still playing around with my settings.
> Stuff that sounds great includes rain falling from overhead, elemental effects (fire or water going overhead), ambient sounds, and small high pitched objects like chains clanging against one another. Sounds that seem less effective are overhead pans, like if a helicopter is flying overhead. I do get the panning effect, but it almost sounds like the helicopter looses it's fullness when it's going directly overhead... perhaps reflections in my room are causing the frequencies to cancel eachother out?
> 
> In expendables 3, there is a scene where a plane takes off and goes overhead... that sounded very obvious, I didn't feel like I missed out on the effect there.


My room is around appx. 19 x 16.....16' is the front wall. Ceilings are rather low at 7.5" Due to room layout my surrounds have to go on the wall at like 130 degrees and about 6 feet up. Not sure if i'd be able to have modules behind the seating position...and i couldn't mount them on the back wall either since it's a fireplace. For me I think it's basically going to be two in or on ceiling speakers and two modules that can kind of only be in the front. I guess i can just go with a 5.1.2 setup with the two ceiling heights but i'd actually probably be able to have the modules on stands like you have even if you're finding it's less than ideal.


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> Agreed...
> If I have one complain to make against the current situation is that I feel Dolby is not pushing enough with the studios (mostly Fox and Disney) to get the movies out with Atmos on Blu-ray.
> They should be pushing this as far as possible while they still have a 4-6 months window before DTS can compete with DTS:X at home.
> I understand they're not directly in the process, but they can use marketing money to facilitate this for the studios.


Not only that, but I sense that many people are afraid to speak up in fear of being rejected by the Dolby Atmos fanboys.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lucky Strike said:


> My room is around appx. 19 x 16.....16' is the front wall. Ceilings are rather low at 7.5" Due to room layout my surrounds have to go on the wall at like 130 degrees and about 6 feet up. Not sure if i'd be able to have modules behind the seating position...and i couldn't mount them on the back wall either since it's a fireplace. For me I think it's basically going to be two in or on ceiling speakers and two modules that can kind of only be in the front. I guess i can just go with a 5.1.2 setup with the two ceiling heights but i'd actually probably be able to have the modules on stands like you have even if you're finding it's less than ideal.


Is there a reason the side surrounds have to be mounted so high? That pretty much negates the separation of the main layer and height sound planes. Are you using just one row? You always mount them just above seated ear level. You don't want them 6 feet up with a 7.5 foot ceiling, that's for sure, or you might as well forget 3D audio. The other option is to put them on speaker stands just slightly higher than the ones for the front.


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> * And Dolby and Disney are pure American land born companies.


Dolby is of british origin.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> Dolby is of british origin.


Yes, Ray Dolby. But Dolby is an American company with headquarters in San Francisco, California, of the United States of America.


----------



## FilmMixer

SteveTheGeek said:


> Agreed...
> 
> If I have one complain to make against the current situation is that I feel Dolby is not pushing enough with the studios (mostly Fox and Disney) to get the movies out with Atmos on Blu-ray.
> 
> They should be pushing this as far as possible while they still have a 4-6 months window before DTS can compete with DTS:X at home.
> 
> I understand they're not directly in the process, but they can use marketing money to facilitate this for the studios.


They have no control over the what the studio do. Trust me.  

Look no further than Dolby to see frustration with the lack of releases. 

However, it's clear those two studios are waiting for UHD before committing to any immersive audio format.


----------



## jrref

Does anyone know if Vudu is streaming any movies beyond the Atmos demo in Atmos yet?


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> Yes, Ray Dolby. But Dolby is an American company with headquarters in San Francisco, California, of the United States of America.


Dolby Labs was founded by Ray in London on 5/17/1965 (Crabtree Lane, London SW6, to be exact). The headquarter wasn't officially moved to San Francisco until 1977.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> Dolby Labs was founded by Ray in London on 5/17/1965 (Crabtree Lane, London SW6, to be exact). The headquarter wasn't officially moved to San Francisco until 1977.


...Almost forty years on American soil. ...But born in London, very true. 

Yes, I wikipedia it. ...And who is the biggest Dolby Atmos supporter here @ AVSFrorum?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Lucky Strike said:


> My room is around appx. 19 x 16.....16' is the front wall. Ceilings are rather low at 7.5" Due to room layout my surrounds have to go on the wall at like 130 degrees and about 6 feet up. Not sure if i'd be able to have modules behind the seating position...and i couldn't mount them on the back wall either since it's a fireplace. For me I think it's basically going to be two in or on ceiling speakers and two modules that can kind of only be in the front. I guess i can just go with a 5.1.2 setup with the two ceiling heights but i'd actually probably be able to have the modules on stands like you have even if you're finding it's less than ideal.


I'd definitely stick with your original idea of atleast having .4, it adds so much to have all the heights going on. 

I'm guessing your wife wouldn't be cool with this... but ever consider getting a 7.1.4 system and putting the modules on top of rear floor speakers? That's what I did... though my girlfriend is very understanding (so far). 

Another possible route... put rear modules on top of the surrounds, after taking Dan's advice here:



Dan Hitchman said:


> Is there a reason the side surrounds have to be mounted so high? That pretty much negates the separation of the main layer and height sound planes. Are you using just one row? You always mount them just above seated ear level. You don't want them 6 feet up with a 7.5 foot ceiling, that's for sure, or you might as well forget 3D audio. The other option is to put them on speaker stands just slightly higher than the ones for the front.


A+++ advice, surrounds should be low to allow for contrast of the heights. I just recently got 29" speaker stands for my surrounds, even that I feel might be a tad high for the 8' cieling. 

With a 7.5 foot ceiling the modules should be atleast halfway up the wall according to dolby? Even if you could just dig a few spikes into that rear fireplace, do whatever you gotta do to mount those suckers! 

Oh quick question... what kind of ceiling do you have? I'm guessing it's flat... is it textured or just plain drywall? Plain drywall works the best with modules... the more reflective the better.


----------



## kbarnes701

billqs said:


> Those of you who use Tannoy DC speakers on ceiling for heights. Do you mount driver toward floor, toe in to MLP or mount facing audience but straight ahead? I finally got some Tannoy DC Speakers (actually 6.25 DC Drivers in a custom chassis... long story) that I am getting ready to put up high in place of my DT ProMonitor 800's. I was wanting really big dispersion and omnidirectionality like the Tannoys seem to give.


I've tried them both ways and TBH there doesn't seem to be much difference. Currently mine are angled towards MLP. The dispersion is so wide it doesn't seem to make much difference. One thing you can do is just swivel them in their brackets so they either point towards you or to the floor, so long as you mount the bracket at the correct angle so the speaker is facing MLP when it is swivelled 'up'. As the speakers are more or less omnidirectional, it doesn't matter that when they are facing down they are at a slight angle IYSWIM. Hard to explain in words. That is how I mounted mine and so I can have them pointing at MLP or pointing down to the floor simply by loosening the mounting bolts, swivelling them and retightening the bolts. Takes less than 1 minute per speaker.


----------



## petetherock

helvetica bold said:


> I live in a small apt in NYC. I have a flat 12 foot ceilings that i can't drill into.
> Right now I have Energy Take Classic 5.1 speakers and I love them. However, iby the end of the year I want to transition to Atmos and DTS:X.
> My question is, who makes the smallest speakers that I can use for an Atmos setup?


Do consider Anthony Gallo Micros with the mini stand that you can screw into the ceiling, wooden / concrete. And you can turn or adjust them.

See my signature for my setup and pics. Cheers


----------



## petetherock

Nice, but way overpriced, another disc for those who must have all things Atmos and the right to be the first to own and post about it 



robert816 said:


> Steve,
> 
> I can confirm that the Japanese release of White Storm does have Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Track one is Chinese Dolby Atmos
> Track two is Chinese 96k Dolby TrueHD
> Track three is Japanese Dolby 2.0
> 
> Subtitles are Japanese only, there are no English subtitles and there is only a small amount of English spoken during the movie.
> 
> For those interested the Blu-Ray is available here: White Storm


----------



## zebidou81

NorthSky said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i feel i have room for rear surrounds as my mlp would be about 4.5 feet from the rear surround and my mlp from front speakers is around 8.5 feet, i just wanted to make sure that it will work with 1 centre speaker vs 2 rear satellite speakers and what would be best ? i suppose as i already have the 3001se centre speaker i should give it a try, i need to purchase some length of speaker wire and then work out how to pair my external intergrated amplifier with my av receiver as it is my first time doing so also to add extra channel to my atmos setup.
> 
> 
> 
> One of my back surround speakers is @ only 3 feet from the MLP and the other one @ 4 feet. ...My room is simply not long enough @ 16 feet for an ideal distance of 8 feet for all my surrounds as my three front mains. My side surrounds are @ 6.5 and 4.7 feet from the MLP.
> {My three front mains are five feet from the front wall.}
> 
> We play with what we have; and my ceiling, @ the highest spot (centre), is @ eleven feet from the floor.
> The width is 19 feet.
> 
> * Go for two back surrounds...7.1 floor speakers. ...And four overheads. ...For a full 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup, like I'll be doing too. ... 7.2.4
Click to expand...

Glad to hear the rear surrounds work at the distances you mention as very similar to mine, i will wire for 2 rear surrounds, will try the 1 centre speaker i have as single rear, but i can see myself going with the 7.1 like you say as this will probably improve the 3d sound effects rear l/r instead of just rear. Does timbre matching make a difference with rear surrounds ? If i use l/r rear will just use kef 3001se eggs as are my atmos speakers, as i feel the q100s would be to much for rear duties


----------



## SteveTheGeek

FilmMixer said:


> They have no control over the what the studio do. Trust me.
> 
> Look no further than Dolby to see frustration with the lack of releases.
> 
> However, it's clear those two studios are waiting for UHD before committing to any immersive audio format.


Thanks for the insight, it's sad that they cannot fund/influence things... I mean just add titles like Big Hero 6, Penguins of Madagascar and Exodus and it would be a different discussion right now...

Thanks for your industry input, this is really appreciated !


----------



## robert816

petetherock said:


> Nice, but way overpriced, another disc for those who must have all things Atmos and the right to be the first to own and post about it


Haha 

I was going to buy this movie anyway, you can find it for around $20, but not with Atmos.
Since I already had an order in with Amazon Japan, I figured I would go ahead and buy it.

The real fun will start when I buy a new AVR with Atmos and DTS:X and move the Pioneer
SC-87 to my computer's 5.1 setup and add a pair of overheads, I'll be rocking Atmos and DSU
on my home PC. Now that's bragging rights!


----------



## wse

stikle said:


> I'm kind of biased, but believe batpig speaks the truth.
> 
> They're no longer in production, but either the Nanosats or the Nanosat Prestige will fit the bill for a smaller speaker with a big presence.
> 
> There are several on eBay.
> 
> Amazon has the full size (which are still small) OS3 Satellites listed for $140 each. I have 10 of them installed and love them. Well, for surrounds and overheads anyway.



Or you can try these 

http://www.jamo.com/speaker-lines/360series/?sku=S-25-HCS


----------



## zebidou81

Kurtos said:


> Hi,
> I asked this question in the speaker thread but I got no answer.
> I want to install the KEF 101 or 301 on my ceiling for atmos. They Will be used with a marantz 7009 as top middle speakers. Is there a big difference between the 2 for this setup? I hope Someone can help because I want to order and install them next week
> My other speakers are teufel thx select 2 monopole speakers with 2 thx subwoofers and a buttkicker lfe.
> 
> Thanks in advance


 
Hi did you decide on what Atmos speakers you want to go with ? I have the Kef 3001se speakers that are the same spec as the E301s and they do a great job for Atmos overhead duty,
they are very easy to fit as the have a stand/wall mount that I fixed to the ceiling and they can be tilted and rotated slightly to toe in to mlp but this isn't necessary as they have the uniq array which has a very wide dispersion characteristic, they work well with my base kef speakers which are much larger but have the same uniQ tech and I run all off the same amp as you which works very well with setup.


----------



## RealDeal

Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers? I'm wanting to do 5.1.4 with a Denon receiver. 

I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer some feedback or see if I'm missing anything.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## zebidou81

RealDeal said:


> Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers? I'm wanting to do 5.1.4 with a Denon receiver.
> 
> I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer some feedback or see if I'm missing anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


 
Your speakers above the couch are in the position of top middle, and the location of your front ceiling speakers are in the top front position, I am unsure of what Denon receiver you have but with my Marantz 7009 this is not a valid configuration, I think you would have to place your sofa forward of the most rear speakers so that it is inbetween both ceiling speakers for them to be top rear and top front, or tell your receiver that the top front as in diagram are actually front height speakers I think so you could run top middle and front height which would be your most forward ceiling speakers.


----------



## rgood

wse said:


> Or you can try these


Interesting.


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> Steve,
> 
> I can confirm that the Japanese release of White Storm does have Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Track one is Chinese Dolby Atmos
> Track two is Chinese 96k Dolby TrueHD
> Track three is Japanese Dolby 2.0
> 
> Subtitles are Japanese only, there are no English subtitles and there is only a small amount of English spoken during the movie.
> 
> For those interested the Blu-Ray is available here: White Storm


I don't speak Chinese or Japanese I don't think a Blu-Ray even with Atmos would be worth it to me if I can't understand it.


----------



## robert816

bargervais said:


> I don't speak Chinese or Japanese I don't think a Blu-Ray even with Atmos would be worth it to me if I can't understand it.


True, it has limited appeal, but at least it's out there for those who are interested.

Anyone posting information about Atmos (home theatre related) gives everyone
the opportunity to decide for themselves if it something they want or not. I passed
on Mary Kom, Lucy, and the Spanish titles, although I'm glad someone posted that
information so I could decide whether or not to buy.


----------



## bargervais

robert816 said:


> True, it has limited appeal, but at least it's out there for those who are interested.
> 
> Anyone posting information about Atmos (home theatre related) gives everyone
> the opportunity to decide for themselves if it something they want or not. I passed
> on Mary Kom, Lucy, and the Spanish titles, although I'm glad someone posted that
> information so I could decide whether or not to buy.


Agreed and thank you for sharing, that White Storm had very little English.. I got Lucy from HK and it at least has English in it, the same audio except with Atmos as the American version.


----------



## Selden Ball

RealDeal said:


> Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers? I'm wanting to do 5.1.4 with a Denon receiver.
> 
> I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer some feedback or see if I'm missing anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


As has been mentioned, the speakers over the sofa probably should be designated Top Middle.
I'd suggest moving the front overhead speakers somewhat closer to the front main speakers so that they're in the vertical angular range allowed for being designated Front Height.


----------



## NorthSky

zebidou81 said:


> Glad to hear the rear surrounds work at the distances you mention as very similar to mine, i will wire for 2 rear surrounds, will try the 1 centre speaker i have as single rear, but i can see myself going with the 7.1 like you say as this will probably improve the 3d sound effects rear l/r instead of just rear. *Does timbre matching make a difference with rear surrounds ?* If i use l/r rear will just use kef 3001se eggs as are my atmos speakers, as i feel the q100s would be to much for rear duties


If you could, do it. ...I would. ...If not, rely on your internal Room EQ to perform its magic trick.  
But if not using Auto Room EQ (or manual), then yes; timbre-matched speakers all around is the very best, for both multichannel music listening and movie watching. ...For a normal 11.4-channel setup (5.1/7.1 too) as well for a 7.2.4-channel Dolby Atmos configuration.

* If you are into Hybrid Multichannel 5.1 SACDs, timbre-matched speakers all around is "vital" for the very best multichannel music listening experience and effective transmission. And not only that, but I would say that for movies that "guide" applies as well. ...If we can we'll all do. ...If we cannot we'll all accept the compromises; such is life in general. ...There is best then there is lesser best. ...That is my sincere opinion. 

Mine are not timbre-matched by the way, but close enough. ...And I do use MultEQ XT32 for movies (only). ...But I am also 100% aware that my setup is not the perfect best. ...Unfortunately but true. 

Also, when we go to a theater (IMAX & all), I believe that all the speakers are timbre-matched. ...That's our guide.


----------



## NorthSky

RealDeal said:


> Here is an updated room diagram with the speakers (to scale) and the angles. Can you please give me recommendations on the angles of the speakers? I'm wanting to do 5.1.4 with a Denon receiver.
> I think I can figure out where to put the in-ceiling Atmos speakers from the dolby diagrams. That's how I came up with the locations in this diagram but I'd love for someone to offer some feedback or see if I'm missing anything.
> Thanks, Dave





zebidou81 said:


> Your speakers above the couch are in the position of top middle, and the location of your front ceiling speakers are in the top front position, I am unsure of what Denon receiver you have but with my Marantz 7009 this is not a valid configuration, I think you would have to place your sofa forward of the most rear speakers so that it is inbetween both ceiling speakers for them to be top rear and top front, or tell your receiver that the top front as in diagram are actually front height speakers I think so you could run top middle and front height which would be your most forward ceiling speakers.


Yes Dave, like *zebidou* just mentioned above; move your couch forward...say 2/3rd of your room's length from the front wall. ...Or 3/5ths. ... 5/7
* That would be best.


----------



## NorthSky

Bumper said:


> Why is everybody referring to 2016 hardware to be able to use 6 height channels?
> Is there no chance the next X5300W (September 2015?) will have options like 9.2.4 or 7.2.6? If this is or can be confirmed, the 7200 becomes into view again until september 2016 where it will be replaced or maybe even the 5400 will be introduced..
> @NorthSky: T - 4 posts


I missed your previous post. ...I think we are hoping/dreaming but the reality is that, most likely than not, 7.2.4 will remain the max for a good while.
The next Denon X5300W ... no exception. ...The X5400W (Fall 2016) ... the same. 

That is my realistic opinion, unfortunately, ...and thank you.


----------



## Roudan

Hi


I upgrade my setup to 7.2.4. Could you please help me again reviewing my layout plan especially side surround and rear surround speakers? Please see attached.

Firstly I do have 3 questions.

1. Do I placed the rear surround speaker at 4ft height? Is 4ft for height of tweeter or height of he bottom of speaker? I used the following Triad Silver LCR as rear surround. The height of speaker is 20 inch while tweeter is at the center. so the distance of tweeter to the bottom is quite big like10 inch. So at what height do I place the bottom of speaker? 

http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/irslcr.html

2. I plan to have pool area/tennis table behind the MLP in the future. Its height is 30 inch. Currently I placed two rear speakers at real wall. Although the bottom of speaker is higher than the height of tennis table, I am wondering if the table will block the sound and if I need to move these two speakers to the side in the direction, like the dash arrow I indicated in the layout? If I still keep them at rear wall, could I just place some soft carpet on the top of table to absorb the sound?

3. Do you recommend a speaker stand for my speakers? I am just wondering how to attach the speaker to the stand without the risk of tipping over?

Thank you so much for your help.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi
> I upgrade my setup to 7.2.4. Could you please help me again reviewing my layout plan especially side surround and rear surround speakers? Please see attached.
> Firstly I do have 3 questions.
> 1. Do I placed the rear surround speaker at 4ft height? Is 4ft for height of tweeter or height of he bottom of speaker? I used the following Triad Silver LCR as rear surround. The height of speaker is 20 inch while tweeter is at the center. so the distance of tweeter to the bottom is quite big like10 inch. So at what height do I place the bottom of speaker?
> http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/irslcr.html
> 2. I plan to have pool area/tennis table behind the MLP in the future. Its height is 30 inch. Currently I placed two rear speakers at real wall. Although the bottom of speaker is higher than the height of tennis table, I am wondering if the table will block the sound and if I need to move these two speakers to the side in the direction, like the dash arrow I indicated in the layout? If I still keep them at rear wall, could I just place some soft carpet on the top of table to absorb the sound?
> 3. Do you recommend a speaker stand for my speakers? I am just wondering how to attach the speaker to the stand without the risk of tipping over?
> Thank you so much for your help.


1. 4 feet high is great; the tweeter height. ...From the floor, so the base of the speaker is @ 38" from the floor. 
* If your ears are say @ 36" from the floor, that is very reasonable to have your surrounds @ near ear level, not more than say a foot.

2. Wow, just put a thick blanket on top of it to cover it when not in use (during serious movie watching, multichannel music listening).
So, what you just suggested is the right idea. It should be fine with the tweeter @ 48" from the floor.

3. The beauty with speaker stands is that you are less restricted with speaker's positioning. Of my four surround speakers two are screwed on stands (home-made) and very solid (back surrounds), and my side surround speakers are towers, so I can move them too. 
I have nothing on my walls, and when I install my four Atmos overheads they are going to be freely movable too, with my own creative apparatus. 
I want nothing permanently fix in my room; everything has to be free so that I can experiment @ will.

* I told about my setup two days ago; well next week it could change just like that, very easily. ...But that's me, with a no dedicated home theater room but with a dedicated experimental sound room. ...And with natural acoustics; very light room's treatments...metamorphosis for day and night time. 
It takes no time to get used to speaker's stands so that you don't knock them around. ...Do you have young children @ home?
Blue Tack will connect your speakers to your speaker's stands top plates. ...So that you don't have to drill holes like I did myself. ...My back speakers are inexpensive so it was no big deal for me. And I did a very clean job, with extremely small screws so the holes under my speakers are minimal and not deep @ 1/4" or less. 

By the way, my speaker's stands are 36" high, so that puts the tweeters @ 47" high, above my couch's back, which is 36" high. 
My side towers are 45" high with their tweeters @ 34" from the floor.
My ears (MLP) are 33.5" from the floor, and my main front flankers (tweeters) are @ 33.5" from the floor.
My center channel speaker (tweeter) is @ 20" from the floor and tilted up exactly to my ears (precise laser measurement). ...One of my main compromises, as it is under my display (no choice here as putting it above would be too high). ...But I do like a center channel speaker above the display in some circumstances and tilted down @ the ears, of course. 

I have been experimenting with surround sound starting back in 1969. 
...And I'm still @ it, and I will die experimenting with positioning my all around speakers. For me life is like today is the first day; I try.


----------



## petetherock

Actually I know this might be a challenge, but the Hong Kong sound engineers have been very impressive and you will find that you can show off your DSU / Atmos setup far better with most recent HKG productions.

White Storm, Atmos or not is a very solid, hard hitting BR disc.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is there a reason the side surrounds have to be mounted so high? That pretty much negates the separation of the main layer and height sound planes. Are you using just one row? You always mount them just above seated ear level. You don't want them 6 feet up with a 7.5 foot ceiling, that's for sure, or you might as well forget 3D audio. The other option is to put them on speaker stands just slightly higher than the ones for the front.



Well originally i thought i was going to have to put them kinda high and at like 135 degrees due to room layout (foot traffic to a storage room door) but after actually laying out the room with the proper angles i found that if we just buy a bookshelf that's around 3 or so feet high then i can put it on that and it'll be just about perfect....it's only a little off (it's at about 115 or so degrees) of dolby's recommended angle for surrounds. good thing is if i end up not being able to do in-ceilings now my fronts and surrounds will both be low enough to put modules on.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> I upgrade my setup to 7.2.4. Could you please help me again reviewing my layout plan especially side surround and rear surround speakers? Please see attached.
> Firstly I do have 3 questions.
> 1. Do I placed the rear surround speaker at 4ft height? Is 4ft for height of tweeter or height of he bottom of speaker? I used the following Triad Silver LCR as rear surround. The height of speaker is 20 inch while tweeter is at the center. so the distance of tweeter to the bottom is quite big like10 inch. So at what height do I place the bottom of speaker?
> http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/irslcr.html
> 2. I plan to have pool area/tennis table behind the MLP in the future. Its height is 30 inch. Currently I placed two rear speakers at real wall. Although the bottom of speaker is higher than the height of tennis table, I am wondering if the table will block the sound and if I need to move these two speakers to the side in the direction, like the dash arrow I indicated in the layout? If I still keep them at rear wall, could I just place some soft carpet on the top of table to absorb the sound?
> 3. Do you recommend a speaker stand for my speakers? I am just wondering how to attach the speaker to the stand without the risk of tipping over?
> Thank you so much for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 4 feet high is great; the tweeter height. ...From the floor, so the base of the speaker is @ 38" from the floor.
> * If your ears are say @ 36" from the floor, that is very reasonable to have your surrounds @ near ear level, not more than say a foot.
> 
> 2. Wow, just put a thick blanket on top of it to cover it when not in use (during serious movie watching, multichannel music listening).
> So, what you just suggested is the right idea. It should be fine with the tweeter @ 48" from the floor.
> 
> 3. The beauty with speaker stands is that you are less restricted with speaker's positioning. Of my four surround speakers two are screwed on stands (home-made) and very solid (back surrounds), and my side surround speakers are towers, so I can move them too.
> I have nothing on my walls, and when I install my four Atmos overheads they are going to be freely movable too, with my own creative apparatus.
> I want nothing permanently fix in my room; everything has to be free so that I can experiment @ will.
> 
> * I told about my setup two days ago; well next week it could change just like that, very easily. ...But that's me, with a no dedicated home theater room but with a dedicated experimental sound room. ...And with natural acoustics; very light room's treatments...metamorphosis for day and night time.
> It takes no time to get used to speaker's stands so that you don't knock them around. ...Do you have young children @ home?
> Blue Tack will connect your speakers to your speaker's stands top plates. ...So that you don't have to drill holes like I did myself. ...My back speakers are inexpensive so it was no big deal for me. And I did a very clean job, with extremely small screws so the holes under my speakers are minimal and not deep @ 1/4" or less.
> 
> By the way, my speaker's stands are 36" high, so that puts the tweeters @ 47" high, above my couch's back, which is 36" high.
> My side towers are 45" high with their tweeters @ 34" from the floor.
> My ears (MLP) are 33.5" from the floor, and my main front flankers (tweeters) are @ 33.5" from the floor.
> My center channel speaker (tweeter) is @ 20" from the floor and tilted up exactly to my ears (precise laser measurement). ...One of my main compromises, as it is under my display (no choice here as putting it above would be too high). ...But I do like a center channel speaker above the display in some circumstances and tilted down @ the ears, of course.
> 
> I have been experimenting with surround sound starting back in 1969.
> ...And I'm still @ it, and I will die experimenting with positioning my all around speakers. For me life is like today is the first day; I try.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob, that is really helpful !!! My puzzle is gone now. Also it is very nice to know your setup so I can use it as a reference. Thanks Bob.

You mention you prefer to put Center channel above display , could you explain why? 

My old setup did put the center channel above the display, but now I put it below the display , Now you make me think to move it back, however the wire will be 16awg instead of 12awg which I dm using . Does it matter ? Please advise which option is better?

Also you started experiencing surrounding in 1969? That is really long time ago! That is really impressive!!!


----------



## petetherock

I just found another two discs to show off the DSU function :

Judge Dredd has very solid use of the surrounds and ceiling speakers. 

Black Hawk Down

If your speakers are set up correctly when Josh Harnett is shot at with a RPG, the round goes from the front centre to the left but it's free from the speaker and seems to pass in front of the left surround and continues to the rear. 

Impressive.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Got everything laid out today.....won't be able to get the atmos stuff till after Xmas but at least i know it'll all be able to be laid out per Dolby's specs. Surrounds are supposed to be approximately a foot or less above listening height right?


----------



## desray2k

petetherock said:


> I just found another two discs to show off the DSU function :
> 
> *Judge Dredd* has very solid use of the surrounds and ceiling speakers.
> 
> Black Hawk Down
> 
> If your speakers are set up correctly when Josh Harnett is shot at with a RPG, the round goes from the front centre to the left but it's free from the speaker and seems to pass in front of the left surround and continues to the rear.
> 
> Impressive.


Which version you referring to?

Dredd (by Karl Urban?) or Judge Dredd (by Stallone?)


----------



## kenoh89

Which are the best Dolby Modules out so far?


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob, that is really helpful !!! My puzzle is gone now.
> *You mention you prefer to put Center channel above display , could you explain why?*
> My old setup did put the center channel above the display, but now I put it below the display , Now you make me think to move it back, however the wire will be 16awg instead of 12awg which I dm using . Does it matter ? Please advise which option is better?
> Also you started experiencing surrounding in 1969? That is really long time ago! That is really impressive!!!


Yes, years ago I had my center channel speaker above my display, with the tweeter @ 56" from the floor, and tilted down to my ears.
What I found back then is that I had a better coverage all around; at couch's extremities, and standing up listening to multichannel music. 
It had more room to breathe on top and @ the sides, and also below, where the floor was much farther. 
That, was my main findings. 
Now my center channel speaker is under my plasma TV, inside an audio/video rack on a shelf, and with foam all around; top, bottom, sides, and rear.
It is fully enclosed and slightly in front of my display (the front face), few inches, so that it is not flush with any near surfaces but forward of them.
It was built for that. 
It anchors the dialog pretty good to my display's center. ...Good enough for me (my display starts @ 6" above it).
{It would be too high now with that larger display; the tweeter would be 66" high, and for practical reasons in my new environment, ...mansion.}

And yes, back in 1969 I built my own back surround channel two-way speaker (mono, just one), and positioned it straight behind the MLP (few feet). 
It was connected directly to the speaker's terminals of an old 27" console TV (black & white tube TV, with tube transistors). 
It was very simple, no crossover, a 10" driver, a 2" tweeter, and inside the TV a 5 or 6" mono speaker (under the tube, in the console), dead center. 
So I had surround (back) sound experience a long time ago, much before it was officially invented. ...Mono sound from front center, and mono sound from back center (all the same sound from broadcast movies, and music concerts). That was downstairs @ my Dad's home (RIP John).
Upstairs, in my bedroom, I had the full enchilada stereo system, with record player (turntable) and all that jazz. ...Receiver, 8-track tape player, bunch of LPS and 45s, two big speakers, and other stuff to keep me entertained. 
I was also playing music; guitar, steel alto flute _traversiere_, and harmonicas. 

Music, sounds, ...are big in my life. ...So is cinema, and nature, and people. ...Arts, the planet.

* Best is to have the tweeter from your center channel in line with its two flankers, if not try to remain within 14 inches or so.
Say your front L & R speakers have their tweeters @ 36" from the floor, don't go below 22" or above 50" for the center speaker's tweeter; & aim it (MLP).
The majority (96.875%) of people put their center channel speaker below their display. ...Some behind (projection screen). 

** I use 9 AWG speaker wire gauge for my center speaker, it is only 2 meters long. I wouldn't use less than 14 AWG. ...But that's me. 
16 AWG is just...too reminiscent of the old days.


----------



## SoundChex

desray2k said:


> Which version you referring to? Dredd (by Karl Urban?) or Judge Dredd (by Stallone?)



_"I knew you were going to say that!"_


_


----------



## petetherock

desray2k said:


> Which version you referring to?
> 
> Dredd (by Karl Urban?) or Judge Dredd (by Stallone?)



Naturally the newer Brit version.. 7 channels of surround field and some nice mid bass too.


----------



## NorthSky

Lucky Strike said:


> Got everything laid out today.....won't be able to get the atmos stuff till after Xmas but at least i know it'll all be able to be laid out per Dolby's specs. *Surrounds are supposed to be approximately a foot or less above listening height right?*


Yes, @ or near ear level, just above your chair's back (or couch) so that their sound dispersion is not obstructed. 
For some people @ ear level is ok, with low back seats, and for others @ approximately 12 inches above ear level, for high back seats.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kenoh89 said:


> Which are the best Dolby Modules out so far?


Depends on how much you are willing to spend... for the price & what you are getting for them, the 44-DA is the best value. The definitive tech (the same price I believe?) can't compare. 44-DA's are way easier on the eyes too  

Is KEF the top of the line right now? I don't know much about the KEF's... only that they were more than what I could afford (haha).


----------



## LilScrappy

Someone to change speakers placement from left and right high surround in wall (like auro 3D), and latter to put high surround in ceiling for Atmos?
Wondered if have a huge difference between wall and in ceiling placement for atmos?
Because now i satisfied, when watch atmos movie and use wall high surround not in ceiling placement, but curiosity someone has tested both variants if you can say in who is worth more?


----------



## petetherock

petetherock said:


> Naturally the newer Brit version.. 7 channels of surround field and some nice mid bass too.


I also look forward to checking out Dredd when DTS X comes.. this should be a fabulous demo disc.


----------



## smurraybhm

kenoh89 said:


> Which are the best Dolby Modules out so far?


I agree with Aras regarding the Atlantic Tech modules - good choice. Give JD a call for a quote (AV Science and frequent poster on AVS - contact info is part of his sig). Those were what I was going to use until I received permission to mount speakers on the ceiling  Once you get them post back any placement questions - some tweaking may be required.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Actually I know this might be a challenge, but the Hong Kong sound engineers have been very impressive and you will find that you can show off your DSU / Atmos setup far better with most recent HKG productions.


Yeah - these HK sound guys are all like us AVSers - they really rock and understand deep bass, fantastic use of surrounds, amazing pans and so on. Almost all the HK actioners I have have amazing sound.

US and European mixers show more restraint and create what is perhaps a more satisfying long-term experience with less 'obvious' _"freakin' hell WTF was *that*_?" as some sound scares the cr&p out of you during a car chase or shootout....


----------



## Lucky Strike

NorthSky said:


> Yes, @ or near ear level, just above your chair's back (or couch) so that their sound dispersion is not obstructed.
> For some people @ ear level is ok, with low back seats, and for others @ approximately 12 inches above ear level, for high back seats.


Sounds good, since the surrounds will be sitting on some sort of furniture like a bookshelf (which I haven't bought yet) I can experiment with putting them on something temporary like a step ladder and various books until i find the perfect height....then just go shopping (or make) a bookshelf that's exactly that tall


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Bob, that is really helpful !!! My puzzle is gone now.
> *You mention you prefer to put Center channel above display , could you explain why?*
> My old setup did put the center channel above the display, but now I put it below the display , Now you make me think to move it back, however the wire will be 16awg instead of 12awg which I dm using . Does it matter ? Please advise which option is better?
> Also you started experiencing surrounding in 1969? That is really long time ago! That is really impressive!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, years ago I had my center channel speaker above my display, with the tweeter @ 56" from the floor, and tilted down to my ears.
> What I found back then is that I had a better coverage all around; at couch's extremities, and standing up listening to multichannel music.
> It had more room to breathe on top and @ the sides, and also below, where the floor was much farther.
> That, was my main findings.
> Now my center channel speaker is under my plasma TV, inside an audio/video rack on a shelf, and with foam all around; top, bottom, sides, and rear.
> It is fully enclosed and slightly in front of my display (the front face), few inches, so that it is not flush with any near surfaces but forward of them.
> It was built for that.
> It anchors the dialog pretty good to my display's center. ...Good enough for me (my display starts @ 6" above it).
> {It would be too high now with that larger display; the tweeter would be 66" high, and for practical reasons in my new environment, ...mansion.}
> 
> And yes, back in 1969 I built my own back surround channel two-way speaker (mono, just one), and positioned it straight behind the MLP (few feet).
> It was connected directly to the speaker's terminals of an old 27" console TV (black & white tube TV, with tube transistors).
> It was very simple, no crossover, a 10" driver, a 2" tweeter, and inside the TV a 5 or 6" mono speaker (under the tube, in the console), dead center.
> So I had surround (back) sound experience a long time ago, much before it was officially invented. ...Mono sound from front center, and mono sound from back center (all the same sound from broadcast movies, and music concerts). That was downstairs @ my Dad's home (RIP John).
> Upstairs, in my bedroom, I had the full enchilada stereo system, with record player (turntable) and all that jazz. ...Receiver, 8-track tape player, bunch of LPS and 45s, two big speakers, and other stuff to keep me entertained.
> I was also playing music; guitar, steel alto flute _traversiere_, and harmonicas.
> 
> Music, sounds, ...are big in my life. ...So is cinema, and nature, and people. ...Arts, the planet.
> 
> * Best is to have the tweeter from your center channel in line with its two flankers, if not try to remain within 14 inches or so.
> Say your front L & R speakers have their tweeters @ 36" from the floor, don't go below 22" or above 50" for the center speaker's tweeter; & aim it (MLP).
> The majority (96.875%) of people put their center channel speaker below their display. ...Some behind (projection screen).
> 
> ** I use 9 AWG speaker wire gauge for my center speaker, it is only 2 meters long. I wouldn't use less than 14 AWG. ...But that's me.
> 16 AWG is just...too reminiscent of the old days.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob , your experience is very impressive to me!!!

Mr ceiling is only 8ft and I have 133 inch screen , so my center can only either put on the floor at 7 inch but aim to MLP or at 7.5 ft . Either way tweeter of center is more than 40 inch below or higher than tweeter of front left/right. Any solution to my problem except using AT screen, which was recommended by Dan( good but cannot do it now)? I can only think of moving center to the side?? Not good either . Or lower front left /right to 25 inch, is it too low ? will keep Dan' AT screen suggestion in mind in the future.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



ThePrisoner said:


> My Metallica Through The Never (Dolby Atmos) shipped from Amazon Germany, will report back when I receive it.


Even though Metallica genre is not quite my favourite type of music, I have to confess that after watching this Bluray yesterday, the Atmos mix is quite impressive. 

Have a nice Sunday,

Hugo


----------



## ThePrisoner

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ThePrisoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Metallica Through The Never (Dolby Atmos) shipped from Amazon Germany, will report back when I receive it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Metallica genre is not quite my favourite type of music, I have to confess that after watching this Bluray yesterday, the Atmos mix is quite impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice Sunday,
> 
> Hugo
Click to expand...

Very excited to hear your thoughts! Now I wish I wasn't so cheap and paid for express shipping!


----------



## SoundChex

petetherock said:


> I also look forward to checking out Dredd when DTS X comes.. this should be a fabulous demo disc.



As the *Dredd* (2012) soundtrack on *BD* was *DTS-HDMA 7.1*|*Neo:X 11.1* we might expect *DTS Neural:X* to first execute a "perfect replication" of the *Neo:X* expansion to _pseudo-discrete_ 11.1 before it performs any further content-based _inferential_ 3D upmixing...?!


_


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Mr ceiling is only 8ft and I have 133 inch screen , so my center can only either put on the floor at 7 inch but aim to MLP or at 7.5 ft . Either way tweeter of center is more than 40 inch below or higher than tweeter of front left/right. Any solution to my problem except using AT screen, which was recommended by Dan( good but cannot do it now)? I can only think of moving center to the side?? Not good either . Or lower front left /right to 25 inch, is it too low ? will keep Dan' AT screen suggestion in mind in the future.


Most people with a front projector and a big screen like yours don't have much choice, ...the best setups I've seen the screen starts @ roughly two feet from the floor, so these folks can have a 3-way (tweeter above the midrange driver and flanked by two or four woofers) center channel speaker with the tweeter @ roughly 20" height. The center speaker is tilted up/aim directly @ the MLP. The front Left and Right speakers have their tweeter/midrange centered @ roughly 34" height. The difference is only 14" which is very fine for movie watching (less for serious multichannel music listening, but compromises are part of this planet's equilibrium). ...They can also listen to STEREO music, ...then all is normal. 

* Ok, you just said that your center speaker is 7" from the floor, and that its tweeter is 40" below the ones in your front left and right speakers.
My question: *How high are the tweeters from your front left and right speakers from the floor?*

1. I know nothing about transparent screens with all the speakers behind them. ...Only that I would never do that myself because it is not the ideal sound and picture.

2. If there is that much difference between all three tweet/mid centered height of your three front sound stage speakers; simply aim them all @ the MLP.

3. Usually, for a normal positioned speaker in a normal room for serious sound, the tweeter would be between 30" and 40" high, a very little more or less.
When seated our ears are @ roughly between 28" (min) and 48" (very max) height. ...Average is about between 30" and 42" with 36" being pretty much it, three inches more or less. 
So, say 36" for example, and your center channel speaker is reposing on a small speaker stand 8" high. ...The tweeter would be roughly @ 12" to 16" height, depending of the speaker's size. Let's say 14" ... so the difference between 14 and 36 is 22". ...That is very normal for people with a large front projector screen. ...And 40" would be an enormous difference. ...And the reason why my question just above


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> 1. I know nothing about transparent screens with all the speakers behind them. ...Only that I would never do that myself because it is not the ideal sound and picture.


Bob: I'm confused. First you state that you know nothing about tranparent screens and then tell us why you won't use one??? It must have been a very, very long time since you saw/listened to an acoustically transparent screen. With (most) current room correction technologies, the frequency response from any speaker behind the screen can be virtually identical to that with no screen present. Furthermore, with current screen weave technologies, and unity gain AT screens , the video is spectacular. 

I went from a non-AT screen to an AT screen. The screen brightness is not an issue (so many of the newer PJ's have incredible brightness), and the improvement in placement of sonic images is far more accurate and much less of a distraction - and for those that care, much more theater-like. There may be lots of reasons why one can not use an AT screen but neither audio NOR video are one of them.


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Bob: I'm confused. First you state that you know nothing about tranparent screens and then tell us why you won't use one??? It must have been a very, very long time since you saw/listened to an acoustically transparent screen. With (most) current room correction technologies, the frequency response from any speaker behind the screen can be virtually identical to that with no screen present. Furthermore, with current screen weave technologies, and unity gain AT screens , the video is spectacular.
> 
> I went from a non-AT screen to an AT screen. The screen brightness is not an issue (so many of the newer PJ's have incredible brightness), and the improvement in placement of sonic images is far more accurate and much less of a distraction - and for those that care, much more theater-like. There may be lots of reasons why one can not use an AT screen but neither audio NOR video are one of them.


I just don't know enough about Chuck; I don't have one so I don't read much about it.
And the little I've read about in the past is that the screen is a slight veil to your carefully chosen hi-end loudspeakers of high resolution sound.
Sure you can EQ with a manual or auto EQ system, but I think I preferred my speakers "naked" where I can see them.
But true, some speakers, JBL, etc. are specially designed for being behind a screen. ...JBL Synthesis system for example.

Now the screen itself; for best picture quality...contrast, whites, blacks, dynamic range, colors accuracy, etc., has to be the proper grain for your room and projector...and I'm just not knowledgeable on this. I did read that a quality screen is solid, not the transparent type. ...But I don't know where the technology is today. 

I said that I wouldn't use one myself because I like the type of setup where all the speakers are visible and easily movable. It's my choice, and many people are like me. 

Sure, some home theater rooms are splendid and you see no speakers @ all. Some are permanently installed and not so easily removable and replaceable by similar size's speakers to fit the construction's enclosures. 

I always thought that a transparent screen is a compromise, but like I said I don't know the technology today.

There are two type of home theaters; the invisible speakers all around and the visible ones. ...The first one is usually from the ultra hi-end category, the second one from the more modest type. It's my own personal view, and both types are equally adequately appropriate for different people. 

My own life's situation dictates my movie and music direction, plus the degree of my fervent passion mixed with my own bank account and life's priorities.

Some folks have a 5.1-channel surround sound system with a 40" LCD TV. ...AV receiver, affordable quality speakers, and a Sony PS4, for $2,000 total.
Other folks have a room with a $200,000 sound&picture investment in it.
I'm just in the lower middle spot. 

You seem to have experience on this (transparent screen, and front projectors); so please share that with my friend *Roudan*.
That's what forums are all about. ...It's all together that we are the force. ...We all support each other with our good ideas and suggestions, and not gang up by criticizing and reject others. ...Am I right? 

It is up to all of us, we have the power to become better; let's take that opportunity...it's free. And we come from all different backgrounds with different colors. Nobody is perfect, we all have our best attributes and some lesser ones...it never is the end of the world but the beginning of a new one, a better one. 

Yes, I want to learn some more on what other options *Roudan* has for his room and his new Dolby Atmos (DTS:X) system configuration.
I do what I can, and you too can contribute and everyone else as well. 

Life is too short, I got no time to waste on criticizing others. ...I feel much better in doing what I do best; giving all of me, my energy on what my passion is...audio/visual. ...And there are many ways to live in harmony for many different folks of various avenues, poor and rich and between.


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> It is a bit strange; that in order to get more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles some of you have to go to almost extreme length to import them from other countries in different languages.
> It is like Disney and their 3D Blu-rays here not available in North America.


Remember the 1990's? "Laserdisc manufactured in Japan" "Cover manufactured in the USA" 

Somehow it tells me that Blu-ray is still a _niché_ market. There are certain films I have to get elsewhere because neither Germany, the UK or the US offer these (what I found amazing: I can get Seasons Two and Three of _Shaun the Sheep_ on Blu-ray from a German content provider or from Hongkong or Japan but *not* from the UK )


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I went to see Age of Adaline in Atmos last night... so so Atmos wise... but I think the engineer did take every opportunity to utilize it. 

On a side note, I think the Atmos effect I have with my modules is better than what I heard tonight... my friend agreed. However, we were sitting @ the exact center of the theater; but it was divided by sections so there was a wall behind us blocking off some of the rear speakers.... I picked that spot because it's where all the ceiling speakers were toe'd in. Next time I'll sit the next row up & see how different it is. 

The "Amaze" trailer was the one they used... I knew something was wrong when the bird pan went to the rear and it got very faint. The overhead rain towards the end of that trailer didn't sound as overhead-ish or clean as it does in my humble HT. At that same theater I went to see the Hobbit w/ Atmos, that time the leaf trailer was used, and that sounded better than my setup @ the time... maybe the theater has good days & bad?


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



ThePrisoner said:


> Very excited to hear your thoughts! Now I wish I wasn't so cheap and paid for express shipping!


Yes, an impressive Atmos mix... with a high level of perceived equilibrated immersion and without any too perceivable or exagerated heights effects...  

And by the way, we recently watched the Matrix trilogy in DSU, that's also really worth a try... 

Have a nice week,

Hugo


----------



## NorthSky

Frank714 said:


> Remember the 1990's? "Laserdisc manufactured in Japan" "Cover manufactured in the USA"
> 
> Somehow it tells me that Blu-ray is still a _niché_ market. There are certain films I have to get elsewhere because neither Germany, the UK or the US offer these (what I found amazing: I can get Seasons Two and Three of _Shaun the Sheep_ on Blu-ray from a German content provider or from Hongkong or Japan but *not* from the UK )


Yes, but those Laser Discs didn't have Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby Atmos. 

* True, Blu-ray in some quarters are collector's items; SteelBox, Digibook, 3D, Special Extended Editions with hard covers, sp. features and books. ...
But it is also a mass produced product for all the common mortals, just like DVDs and LPs and CDs and downloads and Netflix. 

Looking forward to *'Jupiter Ascending'*. 

Question: Did any of you, you too Frank, watch *'Interstellar'* with Dolby Surround (DSU) engaged on top of DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround?


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Question: Did any of you, you too Frank, watch *'Interstellar'* with Dolby Surround (DSU) engaged on top of DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround?


It sounds great 
Just need to find 2.5 hours to watch it again soon.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Question: Did any of you, you too Frank, watch *'Interstellar'* with Dolby Surround (DSU) engaged on top of DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround?


I watched the highlights of the film to test it out, the sound was very similar to what I remember hearing in the cinema... very good. If you liked it in the theater you will like it at home with DSU. I'm too lazy to look up the IMAX specs but my system is 7.1.4, so it might have been more enveloping (if I recall Interstellar was 5.1?)

I saw it on 70mm film projection @ navy pier... it was not as impressive visually speaking. At the start of the film with the truck driving through cornfields, I remember how 3D the field looked and the saturation of color was very full & bright. On the bluray through my Plasma TV I didn't see the same green glow of the corn stalks... but not bad as far as bluray goes. Nothing can beat those enormous space scapes I saw on the Navy Pier screen which was f****** huge.


----------



## NorthSky

*Metallica | 'Through the Never' Blu-ray 3D | Dolby Atmos*



Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> Yes, an impressive Atmos mix... with a high level of perceived equilibrated immersion and without any too perceivable or exagerated heights effects...
> Have a nice week,
> Hugo


♦ www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-filme/me...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc

Hi Hugo,
For people with a good sense of observation, could you confirm what we are seeing in that link, 
regarding the audio soundtracks of that particular 3D Blu-ray live music concert title? 

* I don't think I have ever seen that before. ...I think people will know what I am referring to. 
{By the way, I do have the regular BR 3D version of this, without Dolby Atmos audio.}


----------



## NorthSky

*'Interstellar'*



smurraybhm said:


> It sounds great
> Just need to find 2.5 hours to watch it again soon.


Yes Steve, it's a little longer than your average flick, but then it is totally perfect in this instance here...the *"time"* goes very nicely, very.

By the way, I watched it again last night, and what a great ride. ...My couch trembling, but without the sky falling from above (no Atmos yet).


----------



## TennisPro02

I watched Interstellar last night upmixed with DSU in all it's glory. Full 7.2.4 sound. Life is good.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Interstellar' | Blu-ray | Audio = DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1*



Aras_Volodka said:


> I watched the highlights of the film to test it out, the sound was very similar to what I remember hearing in the cinema... very good. If you liked it in the theater you will like it at home with DSU. I'm too lazy to look up the IMAX specs but my system is 7.1.4, so it might have been more enveloping (if I recall Interstellar was 5.1?)
> 
> I saw it on 70mm film projection @ navy pier... it was not as impressive visually speaking. At the start of the film with the truck driving through cornfields, I remember how 3D the field looked and the saturation of color was very full & bright. On the bluray through my Plasma TV I didn't see the same green glow of the corn stalks... but not bad as far as bluray goes. Nothing can beat those enormous space scapes I saw on the Navy Pier screen which was f****** huge.


On Blu-ray the audio is DTS-HD Master Audio *5.1* surround sound. ...So yes.

@ the theater it was in 2D, and not in 3D. * I saw it too @ the theater. ...But not in 70mm.


----------



## NorthSky

TennisPro02 said:


> I watched Interstellar last night upmixed with DSU in all it's glory. Full 7.2.4 sound. Life is good.


Glad to hear, it's encouraging.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Question: Did any of you, you too Frank, watch *'Interstellar'* with Dolby Surround (DSU) engaged on top of DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround?


Yuuup! And it sounded "Interstellar"  The wormhole scenes espesially was extremely cool and immersive 

BTW: tried it in Auromatic two nights later, and it was just as good as DSU


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> On Blu-ray the audio is DTS-HD Master Audio *5.1* surround sound. ...So yes.
> 
> @ the theater it was in 2D, and not in 3D. * I saw it too @ the theater. ...But not in 70mm.


I know it was a 2D film... just meant the image looked very 3 dimensional... perhaps just due to the sheer size and curve of the screen along with the 70 mm print. That was an experience I'll never forget! Who even knows if it will be possible to see 70mm film projection in chicago after that? 

You know what's funny... when I was a kid I saw an IMAX film @ the museum of science & industry in chicago. It was (is?) an egg shaped theater, the illusion was very convincing to me at that age. They had a demo where you are shot through space very fast through a worm hole kind of thing, it terrified me... I both loved it & wanted to puke at the same time.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know it was a 2D film... just meant the image looked very 3 dimensional... perhaps just due to the sheer size and curve of the screen along with the 70 mm print. That was an experience I'll never forget! Who even knows if it will be possible to see 70mm film projection in chicago after that?


Gotcha now Aras. ...3D looking...I love that scene behind the bookcase wall, near the end. ...Very 5D lookin'. 
♥ For 3D sound, one word: *Gargantua*.



> You know what's funny... when I was a kid I saw an IMAX film @ the museum of science & industry in chicago. It was (is?) an egg shaped theater, the illusion was very convincing to me at that age. They had a demo where you are shot through space very fast through a worm hole kind of thing, it terrified me... I both loved it & wanted to puke at the same time.


♦ I remember going to the planetarium in Vancouver, and was totally fascinated and mesmerized @ the infinity of the universe.
* When I was living in my camper in those days, that's where I was parking; @ the Vancouver planetarium's vast parking lot, @ the back, by the trees. 
I used to hang with musicians and artists and poets and philosophers and lovers and friends on 4th avenue and @ the Soft Rock Cafe. 
...And the planetarium was only few blocks from there. 

Montreal and Toronto (in Canada) have IMAX theaters where new technologies are usually first tested. 
And you also have the NRC in Toronto (National Research Council of Canada) where major speaker's developments took place over the years (famous anechoic chamber), from some of the most prestigious scientists and speaker's designers, including Dr. Floyd E. Toole.

________


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Question for those of you who keep track of theater tech: I was reading about the Dolby Cinema (apparently in the U.S. it's referred to as "AMC Prime"?) because I'm interested in finding a theater that has dolby Atmos with Laser projection. Are the only theater chains that are installing laser projectors the AMC prime locations & the new IMAX laser? 

So far I see nothing in Chicago yet, there are about 7 atmos capable theaters (3 of which that don't seem capable of Atmos playback). The AMC RPX 17's and the ICON theater are Atmos capable, but the RPX 17 screen is very dim, while the ICON might not have as good sound as the RPX locations. I'm hoping that at least there might be a theater that will upgrade this year.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was reading about the Dolby Cinema (apparently in the U.S. it's referred to as "AMC Prime"?)


AMC has a couple of names for their PLF (Premium Large Format) auditoriums: ETX and Prime. Rather than building new theatres from scratch initially, Dolby seems to have worked out a deal with AMC to convert their ETX theatres and Prime theatres into Dolby Cinema theatres. Do any of your local AMC multiplexes have PLF auditoriums (Prime or ETX)? They're probably the most likely candidates for conversion to Dolby Cinema.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> BTW: tried it in Auromatic two nights later, and it was just as good as DSU


Don't be scared.. Say what you have got to say...


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Don't be scared.. Say what you have got to say...


Say what now??


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Say what now??


That Auromatic is *much* better than DSU...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> AMC has a couple of names for their PLF (Premium Large Format) auditoriums: ETX and Prime. Rather than building new theatres from scratch initially, Dolby seems to have worked out a deal with AMC to convert their ETX theatres and Prime theatres into Dolby Cinema theatres. Do any of your local AMC multiplexes have PLF auditoriums (Prime or ETX)? They're probably the most likely candidates for conversion to Dolby Cinema.


Cool thanks... though for sure ETX wouldn't have the updated projectors correct? There actually is an ETX theater, about 50 minutes drive but I'm willing to drive farther than that to see Laser projection  

I wonder... if the ETX theater is laser equipped, will HDR graded films like Tomorrow Land & Inside out be displayed in HDR? Oh man would that be something!


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> That Auromatic is *much* better than DSU...


In this case they both were equally impressive


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> ...though for sure ETX wouldn't have the updated projectors correct?


Correct, I suspect they'll update as part of the conversion to Dolby Cinema.


----------



## robert816

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool thanks... though for sure ETX wouldn't have the updated projectors correct? There actually is an ETX theater, about 50 minutes drive but I'm willing to drive farther than that to see Laser projection
> 
> I wonder... if the ETX theater is laser equipped, will HDR graded films like Tomorrow Land & Inside out be displayed in HDR? Oh man would that be something!


While it is most likely too far to travel for just a movie, if you ever find yourself in Tulsa/Broken Arrow area, there is a Warren Theatre that has 4K laser projection and 64 channel Dolby Atmos.

http://www.warrentheatres.com/brokenarrow.asp

I've not been there but a good friend has and he said it was the best picture he had ever seen at a theatre. We are making plans to go to a showing of Avengers: Age of Ultron


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Correct, I suspect they'll update as part of the conversion to Dolby Cinema.





robert816 said:


> While it is most likely too far to travel for just a movie, if you ever find yourself in Tulsa/Broken Arrow area, there is a Warren Theatre that has 4K laser projection and 64 channel Dolby Atmos.
> 
> http://www.warrentheatres.com/brokenarrow.asp
> 
> I've not been there but a good friend has and he said it was the best picture he had ever seen at a theatre. We are making plans to go to a showing of Avengers: Age of Ultron


TY... certainly out of my radius haha!


----------



## UdoG

Did you angled your atmos speaker in direction MLP?


----------



## NorthSky

UdoG said:


> Did you angled your atmos speaker in direction MLP?


That's the general consensus.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Bob,



NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-filme/me...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc
> 
> Hi Hugo,
> For people with a good sense of observation, could you confirm what we are seeing in that link,
> regarding the audio soundtracks of that particular 3D Blu-ray live music concert title?
> 
> * I don't think I have ever seen that before. ...I think people will know what I am referring to.
> {By the way, I do have the regular BR 3D version of this, without Dolby Atmos audio.}


Thank you for mentionning it. Acually I didn't pay attention to this detail when I watched this Bluray, as I only focused on the Atmos track. 

But this could be a very interesting opportunity to try DSU with all the different 7.1_5.1_2.0 versions of the same mix... and _maybe_ somewhere in the future the DTS-MA 7.1 will end up as being in fact a "hidden" DTS:X (test) track... :devil: + :angel: .











Hugo


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> Question: Did any of you, you too Frank, watch *'Interstellar'* with Dolby Surround (DSU) engaged on top of DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround?


I just watched it recently at low levels during nighttime and focused entirely on the story and its ramifications (got the feeling _Interstellar _could be the long overdue American reply to Andrej Tarkovsky's 1972 _Solaris_).

DSU is my default mode, but as I reported repeatedly (made an extensive back and forth listening test with _Oblivion_) I can only notice subtle improvement with DSU engaged in my 7.1.4 setup compared to the original DTS-HD track. 

With 2.0 program content that's an entirely different story, hadn't believed such a dramatic improvement were technically possible. There's a scene in the _Hornblower_ TV series on the quarterdeck and in stereo it sounds like crap, as if the actors had been locked into a toilet room with a broken flush. DSU correctly interpreted the background noise as wind and relocated it to the surround speakers.


----------



## kenoh89

Aras_Volodka said:


> On a side note, I think the Atmos effect I have with my modules is better than what I heard tonight


Which modules do you use? I was thinking about getting the Atlantic Technology 44-DA, but I don't know how well they would be timbre matched with a Salk system with raal tweeters?


----------



## pasender91

Let me guess that nearly 100% of informed people and Atmos AVSers did, as this is a basic guideline for Atmos


----------



## petetherock

Another disc for the DSU demo:
Try Assault on Precint 13
The snow storm sounds really real with the ceiling speakers firing, adding plenty of ambient effects. 

Sweet


----------



## audioguy

aaranddeeman said:


> That Auromatic is *much* better than DSU...


To my ears, for music, possibly. For movies, not close. The $200 spent could have been spent elsewhere. But even if Auro/Auromatic were better, WHERE IS THE AURO CONTENT????


----------



## smurraybhm

petetherock said:


> Another disc for the DSU demo:
> Try Assault on Precint 13
> The snow storm sounds really real with the ceiling speakers firing, adding plenty of ambient effects.
> 
> Sweet


Thanks for the recommendation Pete, you just gave me a reason to fire up my HD-DVD player


----------



## petetherock

smurraybhm said:


> Thanks for the recommendation Pete, you just gave me a reason to fire up my HD-DVD player


You still have the HD DVD?
I know it's stupid, but I kept it, even though I don't have a player any more, and I have since bought a BR disc version 

It's a solid gripping action thriller, and there's very decent surround with a meaty bass to underpin the right moments.


----------



## scantek999

*Thanks*



NorthSky said:


> Definite!y; @ near ear level...for better separation and balanced sound distribution (imaging all around). ...That's it.



Just wanted to say thanks for the advise, regarding lowering my sides and back surrounds. It is amazing how much it enhanced the Atmos experience ! I now have a roomsize feeling i never have felt before


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kenoh89 said:


> Which modules do you use? I was thinking about getting the Atlantic Technology 44-DA, but I don't know how well they would be timbre matched with a Salk system with raal tweeters?


Yup 44-DA's  I don't know much about speaker types & ribbon tweeters... I'm using 4x Klipsch Chorus with the 62 surrounds... but as far as I can tell there is zero issue with timbre matching. Honestly I think it will be splitting hairs. 

I like the 44-DA's... at first I wasn't impressed but I did a lot of tricks to squeeze the most that I could out of them. I need to do some testing first, but last week I went to a Dolby Atmos show; my HT outperformed the theater's Atmos rig... but I want to test it out again & sit in a different part of the theater to be sure. 

My room is small with flat 8' ceilings. What's your room like?


----------



## Wild Blue

Hugo S said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for mentionning it. Acually I didn't pay attention to this detail when I watched this Bluray, as I only focused on the Atmos track.
> 
> But this could be a very interesting opportunity to try DSU with all the different 7.1_5.1_2.0 versions of the same mix... and _maybe_ somewhere in the future the DTS-MA 7.1 will end up as being in fact a "hidden" DTS:X (test) track... :devil: + :angel: .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hugo


Much thanks, Hugo. I have this on 3D without Atmos, and am waiting to hear from someone that buys this to play in 3D, with Atmos, on a Region 1/A player. (I see on the link you show it's region B) I think someone here, from the US, says they have it on order. Standing by for more reports!


----------



## Wild Blue

I posted some of this in the DTS:X thread, but I think it's worth mentioning here. I got the opportunity to provide some input to a key Dolby executive yesterday, and passed on much of the information we've been discussing here, to include the mediocrity of Best Buy Magnolia demonstrations and the resulting opinions we've been seeing in the public. We focused, though, on Atmos demo disc (non)availability, and suggestions to make them more available for us to get out the word to the public of what object based audio really can do. Thankfully, this input seemed to generate significant enough interest, that it is now being discussed internally at Dolby.

I also passed on the request for Atmos calibration test tones, and I'll just say that I think we all will be happy this fall!


----------



## wse

Chris Dotur said:


> I posted some of this in the DTS:X thread, but I think it's worth mentioning here. I got the opportunity to provide some input to a key Dolby executive yesterday, and passed on much of the information we've been discussing here, to include the mediocrity of Best Buy Magnolia demonstrations and the resulting opinions we've been seeing in the public. We focused, though, on Atmos demo disc (non)availability, and suggestions to make them more available for us to get out the word to the public of what object based audio really can do. Thankfully, this input seemed to generate significant enough interest, that it is now being discussed internally at Dolby.
> 
> I also passed on the request for Atmos calibration test tones, and I'll just say that I think we all will be happy this fall!


Thank you :kiss:


----------



## Eriksdam

Hugo S said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for mentionning it. Acually I didn't pay attention to this detail when I watched this Bluray, as I only focused on the Atmos track.
> 
> But this could be a very interesting opportunity to try DSU with all the different 7.1_5.1_2.0 versions of the same mix... and _maybe_ somewhere in the future the DTS-MA 7.1 will end up as being in fact a "hidden" DTS:X (test) track... :devil: + :angel: .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hugo


Got mine yesterday. As always, Amazon got it wrong, It "only" contains the Atmos/DD sountrack.

@ Chris: it says Region B on the tin too. If someone can tell me how to verify it, I'll do so...

-Erik


----------



## NorthSky

scantek999 said:


> Just wanted to say thanks for the advise, regarding lowering my sides and back surrounds. It is amazing how much it enhanced the Atmos experience ! I now have a roomsize feeling i never have felt before


They all said the same; the people who lowered down all their floor surrounds @ or near ear level in a Dolby Atmos setup with four overhead surrounds.

Furthermore, @ home with a 7.1-channel setup, it still holds well. ...But that's me, with all my baggage behind. 
I don't want to feel like in a theater @ home, I want to feel much closer to a higher level experience.

♥ Try *Tron: Legacy'* in 3D Blu-ray @ home with all your floor speakers @ or near ear level, and crank it up to eleven o'clock (reference master level).
Then you'll know exactly what I am referring to.

And if you have a Dolby Atmos receiver or pre/pro with four overhead speakers installed on your ceiling above your head, just superimpose Dolby Surround on top. ...The new Dolby up-mixer. ...Just for the sake of experimentation and transportation, into the grid.


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> Hi Bob,
> Thank you for mentionning it. Acually I didn't pay attention to this detail when I watched this Bluray, as I only focused on the Atmos track.
> But this could be a very interesting opportunity to try DSU with all the different 7.1_5.1_2.0 versions of the same mix... and _maybe_ somewhere in the future the DTS-MA 7.1 will end up as being in fact a "hidden" DTS:X (test) track... :devil: + :angel: .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hugo


No DTS:X hidden audio track here Hugo; but what is totally new is this: When we have a Dolby Atmos audio sountrack the core audio is always Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (and it still is)...always, but here for the first time you also have DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio...and 5.1 and 2.0 ...I don't recall to have ever seen this so far. 

Metallica is a different band; those guys are very rich and they love experimenting with all the best visuals and sounds, for all their fans. 
They're the real deal...live and on Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

Eriksdam said:


> Got mine yesterday. As always, Amazon got it wrong, It "only" contains the Atmos/DD sountrack.
> -Erik


Ha! I thought of that the very first time I saw it; misprint. ...Thank you sir. 

* The regular 3D Blu-ray (sans Dolby Atmos) is in DTS-HD MA 5.1


----------



## ThePrisoner

Chris Dotur said:


> Much thanks, Hugo. I have this on 3D without Atmos, and am waiting to hear from someone that buys this to play in 3D, with Atmos, on a Region 1/A player. (I see on the link you show it's region B) I think someone here, from the US, says they have it on order. Standing by for more reports!


I'm waiting to receive mine from Amazon.de, I do believe it is Region B, I will confirm it once I receive as my Oppo BDP-103 has the region-free-mod kit. Wasn't the prior releases region locked.


----------



## NorthSky

Region Free.


----------



## UKTexan

The Gunman Blu Ray will feature a Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Release is scheduled for June 30th. Slow trickle but keep them coming I say. 

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16651


----------



## Tin_Can

So far, have the sounds coming out of the ceiling speakers been mostly atmospheric (no pun intended) such as rain, or have they been full range sound effects? Is it different depending on if it's a native Atmos track, or DSU?


----------



## wse

Tin_Can said:


> So far, have the sounds coming out of the ceiling speakers been mostly atmospheric ......?


Primarily yes


----------



## aaranddeeman

Tin_Can said:


> So far, have the sounds coming out of the ceiling speakers been mostly atmospheric (no pun intended) such as rain, or have they been full range sound effects? Is it different depending on if it's a native Atmos track, or DSU?


Yup. I have yet to experience any 3D placement of object around...
May be the demos do it a bit. Unfortunately I have not had any success playing any of the Demos from any where (streaming)..


----------



## sdurani

UKTexan said:


> The Gunman Blu Ray will feature a Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


While it wasn't released theatrically in Atmos, the end credits showed that it was mixed in Atmos. Glad that's the mix being used for the Blu-ray release.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Tin_Can said:


> So far, have the sounds coming out of the ceiling speakers been mostly atmospheric (no pun intended) such as rain, or have they been full range sound effects? Is it different depending on if it's a native Atmos track, or DSU?


It depends. Dolby Atmos demo disc... the conductor has a bird that flies overhead front, then you hear a tiger up in the rear. In the leaf trailer the wind goes overhead, & it sounds quite real. 

I have a few atmos films, in gravity when she's in the space station fire flies overhead. There is also a scene when she's spinning out of control @ the start of the movie, a synth pans from rear to front overhead (to help accentuate the spinning sensation). 

In mockingjay near the start of the film a dropship takes off... it goes up to the left. 

Expendables 3 has some fly overs with airplanes & helicopters. 

Keep in mind it's not just about overhead stuff, the heights help place sounds above your floorspeakers but below the ceiling... some very cool effects created that way as well. It's not just about ambience.


----------



## NorthSky

Cool.


----------



## blazar

"It's not just about the ambience"

... and this is exactly why the positioning of the speakers and speaker mapping is such an important part of getting object oriented audio "right".

If you buy a processor without mapping... be sure you have the flexibility to put the speakers where the receiver manufacturer recommends. Otherwise, don't believe the hype.... wait for processors that can map your speaker locations.


----------



## Csbooth

blazar said:


> "It's not just about the ambience"
> 
> ... and this is exactly why the positioning of the speakers and speaker mapping is such an important part of getting object oriented audio "right".
> 
> If you buy a processor without mapping... be sure you have the flexibility to put the speakers where the receiver manufacturer recommends. Otherwise, don't believe the hype.... wait for processors that can map your speaker locations.


Personally, if I'm going to be spending 1.5-4k on one piece of Audio equipment, I am going to make sure that I am conforming to the recommended positioning; WAF, or even personal preferences be damned lol.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Erik,



Eriksdam said:


> Got mine yesterday. As always, Amazon got it wrong, It "only" contains the Atmos/DD sountrack.
> 
> @ Chris: it says Region B on the tin too. If someone can tell me how to verify it, I'll do so...
> 
> -Erik


After Bob's inital post with the link, yesterday I checked my Metallica Bluray sample which also originated from Amazon.de and... no joy... there is only the Atmos track of the mix and the bonuses are in DD recognised mostly as 2.0 .

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Robert,



NorthSky said:


> ... but what is totally new is this: When we have a Dolby Atmos audio sountrack the core audio is always Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (and it still is)...always, but here for the first time you also have DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio...and 5.1 and 2.0 ...I don't recall to have ever seen this so far.
> 
> Metallica is a different band; those guys are very rich and they love experimenting with all the best visuals and sounds, for all their fans.
> They're the real deal...live and on Blu-ray.


This initial link that you published :

http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-f...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc

is either wrong, either there are multiple versions of this Bluray. But in the case of the Metallica Bluray samples sold by Amazon.de, besides their Dolby Atmos track, they definitively don't have any DTS track of any kind.

So nice find... but not this time...

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

blazar said:


> "It's not just about the ambience"
> 
> ... and this is exactly why the positioning of the speakers and speaker mapping is such an important part of getting object oriented audio "right".
> 
> If you buy a processor without mapping... be sure you have the flexibility to put the speakers where the receiver manufacturer recommends. Otherwise, don't believe the hype.... wait for processors that can map your speaker locations.


That might be a long wait unless you want to spend IRO of 20,000-30,000 dollars.  It has always been important to place speakers according to established practice and guidelines, and Atmos has made no difference to that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Seems Atmos is doing well in other markets...

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...to-india-via-more-gadgets-115042801196_1.html


----------



## wse

blazar said:


> "It's not just about the ambience"
> 
> ... and this is exactly why the positioning of the speakers and speaker mapping is such an important part of getting object oriented audio "right".
> 
> If you buy a processor without mapping... be sure you have the flexibility to put the speakers where the receiver manufacturer recommends. Otherwise, don't believe the hype.... wait for processors that can map your speaker locations.


Like which one can map loaction beside Trinnov and DATASAT?


----------



## RUR

wse said:


> Like which one can map loaction beside Trinnov and DATASAT?


Datasat doesn't include speaker remapping. Nor does it include Atmos......yet.


----------



## lujan

UKTexan said:


> The Gunman Blu Ray will feature a Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Release is scheduled for June 30th. Slow trickle but keep them coming I say.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16651


Never heard of the movie, is it any good?


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,

Even though it's not fair, I have to say that there is a _high probability_ that you end up being wrong... 

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868

Amicalement,

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> Even though it's not fair, I have to say that there is a _high probability_ that you end up being wrong...
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868
> 
> Amicalement,
> 
> Hugo


Thanks for that, Hugo. I do hope I end up being wrong about this, but again, there have been many 'sources' for similar information to that in your post on the French forum  I am still backing my own instinct on this (and indeed my own source) which says that there will be no DTS:X update for the 5200. It won't be too long before we know for sure. 

Amitiés.

K.


----------



## UKTexan

lujan said:


> Never heard of the movie, is it any good?


I haven't seen the movie yet. Most reviews appear to be negative, although what do the critics know?? 
A decent cast with Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Ray Winstone, Idris Elba....
Check out the trailers and see if it's your bag


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that, Hugo. I do hope I end up being wrong about this, but again, there have been many 'sources' for similar information to that in your post on the French forum  I am still backing my own instinct on this (and indeed my own source) which says that there will be no DTS:X update for the 5200. It won't be too long before we know for sure.
> 
> Amitiés.
> 
> K.


It's coming from someone I trust, otherwise I wouldn't have published it, even if it's with "_probable"_... but for sure, we won't have to wait for long. 

In any case, a potentially GREAT D&M decision!

Amitiés à Toi,

Hugo


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> Even though it's not fair, I have to say that there is a _high probability_ that you end up being wrong...
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868
> 
> Amicalement,
> 
> Hugo


Bonjour Hugo!

Je vous donne un grand coup de chapeau (celui de Keith avant qu'il ne le mange).



kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that, Hugo. I do hope I end up being wrong about this, but again, there have been many 'sources' for similar information to that in your post on the French forum  I am still backing my own instinct on this (and indeed my own source) which says that there will be no DTS:X update for the 5200. It won't be too long before we know for sure.
> 
> Amitiés.
> 
> K.


Bon appétit!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Seems Atmos is doing well in other markets...


Not surprising that immersive audio is taking off in movie-crazed countries like India. Lots of Auro and Atmos theatres there. 20 movies mixed in Atmos just in 2013.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> Never heard of the movie, is it any good?


You can read A.O. Scott's typically witty and incisive review here.

Some extracts:

"It’s not a hard and fast rule, but in general when the main character, sometime in the third act, says, “I did some bad things ... ” and stares off into the middle distance, the implied end of the sentence is “including this movie.” I take no particular pleasure in reporting that this is the case in “The Gunman" . . ."

"The atmosphere is leathery and masculine, redolent of stale cologne and weary bravado, with a token woman . . ."

". . . Mr. Penn, grimacing and flexing his impressive brows and well-veined biceps, is put through the paces of the midlife-crisis action thriller. Minions are slaughtered. Cellphones are dialed. Interpol is invoked."

"Mr. Bardem at least seems to be having fun, playing a big, silly drunk scene and exiting the movie before things get completely stupid. The poor gunman has to stick around until the end. No wonder he’s jealous."

(Full disclosure: I intend to watch the movie despite Scott's dismissive assessment; I expect it will be fun but forgettable.)


----------



## Frank714

*Chicago remixed in Dolby Atmos or who stole my home theater's side walls?*

*What’s it about?*

In general I give musicals a wide berth, and prior to _Chicago_ the only one I really liked was _Cabaret _(directed by Bob Fosse, who also helped to bring _Chicago_ to the stage in 1975).

The story revolves around Roxie Heart (RenéeZellweger), who shoots her lover and ends up in Cook County Jail’s Murderess’ Row. There she tries to bribe and swindle her way out by teaming up with slick lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), hoping her notoriety may eventually help her vaudeville star ambitions, which her fellow inmate Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) regards as unbearable competition.

Except at the beginning and at the end, the musical performances come as daydreams or metaphors representing the characters or the situations these find themselves in, peppered with plenty of black humor and satire aiming at both the shallowness of criminal justice and showbiz.

The actors are driven by a passion and ferociousness I would not have believed possible, Chicago is fast paced, cleverly edited, entertaining, thought-provoking and as the sum of all its parts so whole, so perfect that I strongly recommend this film to anyone who hasn’t seen it yet (it’s also the first film I watched together with my wife and we are still happily together). 

*Previously available for home theater systems*

Chicago had been available on DVD, multi-channel SACD and Blu-ray. Admittedly, mentioning the SACD along with the video releases is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. As an audio only medium the SACD takes liberties localizing sound objects and instruments directly in the surround channels, but even the LPCM 5.1 mix of my older Blu-ray didn’t achieve the clarity and precision of instruments and voices as the SACD does (I didn’t have the Diamond Edition from 2014 for comparison purposes).

*The remixed in Dolby Atmos Japanese release*

Apparently inspired by the 2014 US Diamond Edition release, the Japanese Blu-ray comes in a slipcover, which is a little bigger in size than your standard DVD keepcase. Japanese texts and product information are on a sheet of paper you can easily remove, after removal there is no indication this was ever a Japanese release. I tested playback for equally Regions A and B, no problems (bear in mind this is a Warner Brothers release in Japan). Upon inserting the disc in your player it starts immediately playing the film in the original English version, Japanese subtitles can be swapped for English ones or just be switched off (pressing the top menu button revealed the menu in Japanese, but it could be owed to the fact that English is not my default language setting).

*How does it sound remixed in Dolby Atmos?*

 Marvelous! I have a 7.1.4 setup according to Dolby’s recommendations with overhead speakers whose tweeters (like my back surrounds) are angled towards the main listening position. Only the front speakers are somewhat in one straight line right below and within the 9’ width of my viewing screen(s).

Instruments and voices now come with the clarity and precision of my SACD, and with a couple of extra punches, especially noticeable in the LFE range which add an adrenaline kick to the listening experiencing (it’s vaudeville, so even enhancements that _might _be artificial are entirely appropriate, IMHO).

I assume that the Diamond Edition might be close to that listening experience but I’m certain it does not have what the Dolby Atmos remix delivers in addition - and plentiful.

In my previous viewings of_ Chicago_ the soundstage was very much anchored to the frontspeakers which includes the audiences’ reactions. To me it had always sounded as if the audience were present in a semi-circle (or 180°) in front of the main speakers, it felt as if I had been allotted the last row of the theater but now, Dolby Atmos has profoundly changed that.

*Not only does the Dolby Atmos remix put you in the center of the audience (surrounded by applause), but it also puts you in a much, much bigger theater (or cellblock), making it sound like the side walls of your home theater room have vanished and you actually listen from a position in a wide open space* (I was already impressed with this effect by the “audio only” samples on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc January 2015, but now this is the “real thing”).

It’s an effect that’s immediately noticeable and has the potential for addiction, I couldn’t help but instantly think that I would love Warner Brothers to remix _Oblivion_, the _Matrix_ Trilogy, the _Lord of the Rings_ Trilogy and others in Dolby Atmos – and _asap_ and _pronto_, please! _(“If you want my gravy, give me Atmos, too…”)._

*In a nutshell:*

After _Gravity_, Warner Brothers has delivered yet another magnificent demonstration of what Dolby Atmos is capable of, especially since this is a remix that had never been available in Dolby Atmos before (!).

I’m just a bit perplexed that mostly Dolby talks and shows sound objects moving _into_ the room but understates that they can also _expand _existing rooms into much, much larger ones for a more lifelike and immersive listening experience.

Considering that many state-of-the-art private home theaters I’ve seen published are mostly long and rectangular “boxes”, I could imagine that their owners will tremendously benefit from Dolby Atmos - and maybe regardless whether it’s a 7.2.4 or 7.2.6 setup.


----------



## cdelena

Tin_Can said:


> So far, have the sounds coming out of the ceiling speakers been mostly atmospheric (no pun intended) such as rain, or have they been full range sound effects? Is it different depending on if it's a native Atmos track, or DSU?


Yes, there are differences. And of course every Atmos mix will be different.


I find that much more is mixed to the ceiling with DSU and I think I prefer it most of the time.


I am actually reconsidering by choice of ceiling speakers and thinking I need larger and more musical capabilities (at least in the front) as so much of my use is DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> It's coming from someone I trust, otherwise I wouldn't have published it, even if it's with "_probable"_... but for sure, we won't have to wait for long.
> 
> In any case, a potentially GREAT D&M decision!
> 
> Amitiés à Toi,
> 
> Hugo


J'espere vraiment que tu as raison!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Bonjour Hugo!
> 
> Je vous donne un grand coup de chapeau (celui de Keith avant qu'il ne le mange).
> 
> 
> 
> Bon appétit!


LOL. Gulp....


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Not surprising that immersive audio is taking off in movie-crazed countries like India. Lots of Auro and Atmos theatres there. 20 movies mixed in Atmos just in 2013.


Indeed - and they also seem to be leading the way with Atmos in mobile devices too.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I expect it will be fun but forgettable.)


Sometimes, that is enough


----------



## Hugo S

kbarnes701 said:


> J'espere vraiment que tu as raison!


Et moi encore plus... 

H.


----------



## Tin_Can

kbarnes701 said:


> Indeed - and they also seem to be leading the way with Atmos in mobile devices too.


Is that when you hold the cellphone above your head?


----------



## Hugo S

Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Gulp....


If all this ends up being the case, I promise here I'll send you a bottle of Champagne Ruinart... 

H.


----------



## Frank714

Hugo S said:


> It's coming from someone I trust, otherwise I wouldn't have published it, even if it's with "_probable"_... but for sure, we won't have to wait for long.


Shall we set the countdown to May 6th? 

(I'd love my fellow AV enthusiasts to be able to experience _Gravity_ and _Chicago _before Fall 2015, should there be less reasons to postpone D & M AVR purchases...)


----------



## kbarnes701

Tin_Can said:


> Is that when you hold the cellphone above your head?


In fact, you have to hold *four* above your head!


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> If all this ends up being the case, I promise here I'll send you a bottle of Champagne Ruinart...
> 
> H.


Wow! In that case, I have definitely heard that the 5200 is getting a DTS:X upgrade  

Your country has exported many fine things, but Champagne has to be one of the very, very best. As La Veuve used to say: in victory you deserve it, in defeat you need it


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Franck,



Frank714 said:


> Shall we set the countdown to May 6th?
> 
> (I'd love my fellow AV enthusiasts to be able to experience _Gravity_ and _Chicago _before Fall 2015, should there be less reasons to postpone D & M AVR purchases...)


A good idea for a HAPPY day. 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> Wow! In that case, I have definitely heard that the 5200 is getting a DTS:X upgrade
> 
> Your country has exported many fine things, but Champagne has to be one of the very, very best. As La Veuve used to say: in victory you deserve it, in defeat you need it


With what you wrote here I have another proposal : as we've both been at Dolby's in London, I could make a quick jump to London and we could meet in the small park in the center of the square in front of Dolby. Then we could symbolically have a drink to "Object Sound" with you bringing the "flutes" glasses and I bringing the Champagne. What do you say?

Hugo


----------



## Dave_1

I have a Yamaha 2040 rec and I did do the firmware update for Dolby atmos. I don't have the ceiling speakers installed as of yet, but was wondering if Dolby Atmos displays on the receiver when you play a movie in that format. Does the receiver have to have all the speakers installed in order for that to happen.
I tried the new transformers movie and it just displayed the True Hd format on the receiver. I was thinking that the receiver would only use what was available as it does not show the other ceiling speakers as being setup in the receiver setup.
Just wondering if somebody could provide some knowledge with the new Yamaha rec that have the Dolby atmos firmware upgrade.

Tks
Dave


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> In fact, you have to hold *four* above your head!


That's really only feasible in India.


----------



## batpig

Dave_1 said:


> I have a Yamaha 2040 rec and I did do the firmware update for Dolby atmos. I don't have the ceiling speakers installed as of yet, but was wondering if Dolby Atmos displays on the receiver when you play a movie in that format. Does the receiver have to have all the speakers installed in order for that to happen.
> I tried the new transformers movie and it just displayed the True Hd format on the receiver. I was thinking that the receiver would only use what was available as it does not show the other ceiling speakers as being setup in the receiver setup.
> Just wondering if somebody could provide some knowledge with the new Yamaha rec that have the Dolby atmos firmware upgrade.
> 
> Tks
> Dave


Don't know how it works on Yamaha but on Denon/Maranz products you can see Dolby Atmos as the decoded input signal regardless of how many speakers you are running. You may want to check the input signal format and also the surround mode selection, you might have the option of choosing Dolby Atmos (although I doubt it will sound different than the TrueHD signal w/o metadata if you aren't using overhead speakers).


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> If all this ends up being the case, I promise here I'll send you a bottle of Champagne Ruinart...
> 
> H.


Can I get on that mailing list, Hugo?

(Moi aussi, je veux "boire des étoiles." Mais, en fin de compte, je préférerais du Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, s'il te plâit!)


----------



## Nalleh

Dave_1 said:


> I have a Yamaha 2040 rec and I did do the firmware update for Dolby atmos. I don't have the ceiling speakers installed as of yet, but was wondering if Dolby Atmos displays on the receiver when you play a movie in that format. Does the receiver have to have all the speakers installed in order for that to happen.
> I tried the new transformers movie and it just displayed the True Hd format on the receiver. I was thinking that the receiver would only use what was available as it does not show the other ceiling speakers as being setup in the receiver setup.
> Just wondering if somebody could provide some knowledge with the new Yamaha rec that have the Dolby atmos firmware upgrade.
> 
> Tks
> Dave


From the Yamaha Atmos manual:


----------



## muinchja

So, I've been looking for this information, (and while I'm sure it's out there, I sure can't find anything about it) but while it's clear that you can use any in ceiling speaker you'd like, everything I've read states that you must use an Atmos enabled upward firing speaker for on top of your floor L/Rs. Is that true, or could you (at least temporarily) take two bookshelf speakers and lay them at an angle on their backs, or even make a DIY version using some Monoprice in walls and wooden box that would actually match my existing floors. 

I'm sure that neither of these situations is ideal (the cheaper way rarely is!) but how bad would this setup sound in comparison to the in ceiling or Atmos enabled option?


----------



## Dave_1

Nalleh said:


> From the Yamaha Atmos manual:


Thanks, I will check that out and give it a try.

Tks
Dave


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> With what you wrote here I have another proposal : as we've both been at Dolby's in London, I could make a quick jump to London and we could meet in the small park in the center of the square in front of Dolby. Then we could symbolically have a drink to "Object Sound" with you bringing the "flutes" glasses and I bringing the Champagne. What do you say?
> 
> Hugo


A splendid idea!! If you are right, and I am wrong, we must do it. Or, if I am right and you are wrong, we must do it!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That's really only feasible in India.


The image is forbidden access....


----------



## lubeman1

Dave_1 said:


> I have a Yamaha 2040 rec and I did do the firmware update for Dolby atmos. I don't have the ceiling speakers installed as of yet, but was wondering if Dolby Atmos displays on the receiver when you play a movie in that format. Does the receiver have to have all the speakers installed in order for that to happen.
> I tried the new transformers movie and it just displayed the True Hd format on the receiver. I was thinking that the receiver would only use what was available as it does not show the other ceiling speakers as being setup in the receiver setup.
> Just wondering if somebody could provide some knowledge with the new Yamaha rec that have the Dolby atmos firmware upgrade.
> 
> Tks
> Dave


 
You have to select Dolby Atmos in the disk sound menu first, or it defaults to something else


----------



## wse

chi_guy50 said:


> Can I get on that mailing list, Hugo?
> 
> (Moi aussi, je veux "boire des étoiles." Mais, en fin de compte, je préférerais du Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, s'il te plâit!)


I will take a Chateau D'Yquem 1999

http://yquem.fr/int-en/


----------



## batpig

muinchja said:


> So, I've been looking for this information, (and while I'm sure it's out there, I sure can't find anything about it) but while it's clear that you can use any in ceiling speaker you'd like, everything I've read states that you must use an Atmos enabled upward firing speaker for on top of your floor L/Rs. Is that true, or could you (at least temporarily) take two bookshelf speakers and lay them at an angle on their backs, or even make a DIY version using some Monoprice in walls and wooden box that would actually match my existing floors.
> 
> I'm sure that neither of these situations is ideal (the cheaper way rarely is!) but how bad would this setup sound in comparison to the in ceiling or Atmos enabled option?


Many people (myself included) are using "normal" speakers pointed upwards as "fake" Atmos-enabled modules. Besides some unknown specs about directivity on the "official" enabled speakers, they have a special crossover which shapes the high frequency response to implement a crude HRTF (head related transfer function) which Dolby says enhances the trickery of the virtual overhead speaker.

So using an "unofficial" speaker pointed up means you're not sure if the directivity will be appropriate, and you don't have that HRTF filter. However, if you use your receiver's auto correction software, the target curve for the "Dolby enabled" speakers includes that HRTF, so it will insert it electronically. So really the only variable is if the directivity of the speaker is appropriate for the use -- but IMHO there are so many variables involved with getting a "virtual" speaker bouncing off the ceiling to sound right that it's not worth worrying too much about.

Just make sure to experiment with the height and angle of the speaker to try and maximize the overhead effect. A good trick is to first hook them up as FR/FL mains and then run them in stereo mode with music and sit in your sweet spot. You will find if you move your head around and/or adjust the speakers that the sound will vary, sometimes it will sound like it's coming from overhead but other times it will sound like it's just "smeared" upwards in front of you.


----------



## robert816

Frank714 said:


> *What’s it about?*
> 
> In general I give musicals a wide berth, and prior to _Chicago_ the only one I really liked was _Cabaret _(directed by Bob Fosse, who also helped to bring _Chicago_ to the stage in 1975).
> 
> The story revolves around Roxie Heart (RenéeZellweger), who shoots her lover and ends up in Cook County Jail’s Murderess’ Row. There she tries to bribe and swindle her way out by teaming up with slick lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), hoping her notoriety may eventually help her vaudeville star ambitions, which her fellow inmate Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) regards as unbearable competition.
> 
> Except at the beginning and at the end, the musical performances come as daydreams or metaphors representing the characters or the situations these find themselves in, peppered with plenty of black humor and satire aiming at both the shallowness of criminal justice and showbiz.
> 
> The actors are driven by a passion and ferociousness I would not have believed possible, Chicago is fast paced, cleverly edited, entertaining, thought-provoking and as the sum of all its parts so whole, so perfect that I strongly recommend this film to anyone who hasn’t seen it yet (it’s also the first film I watched together with my wife and we are still happily together).
> 
> *Previously available for home theater systems*
> 
> Chicago had been available on DVD, multi-channel SACD and Blu-ray. Admittedly, mentioning the SACD along with the video releases is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. As an audio only medium the SACD takes liberties localizing sound objects and instruments directly in the surround channels, but even the LPCM 5.1 mix of my older Blu-ray didn’t achieve the clarity and precision of instruments and voices as the SACD does (I didn’t have the Diamond Edition from 2014 for comparison purposes).
> 
> *The remixed in Dolby Atmos Japanese release*
> 
> Apparently inspired by the 2014 US Diamond Edition release, the Japanese Blu-ray comes in a slipcover, which is a little bigger in size than your standard DVD keepcase. Japanese texts and product information are on a sheet of paper you can easily remove, after removal there is no indication this was ever a Japanese release. I tested playback for equally Regions A and B, no problems (bear in mind this is a Warner Brothers release in Japan). Upon inserting the disc in your player it starts immediately playing the film in the original English version, Japanese subtitles can be swapped for English ones or just be switched off (pressing the top menu button revealed the menu in Japanese, but it could be owed to the fact that English is not my default language setting).
> 
> *How does it sound remixed in Dolby Atmos?*
> 
> Marvelous! I have a 7.1.4 setup according to Dolby’s recommendations with overhead speakers whose tweeters (like my back surrounds) are angled towards the main listening position. Only the front speakers are somewhat in one straight line right below and within the 9’ width of my viewing screen(s).
> 
> Instruments and voices now come with the clarity and precision of my SACD, and with a couple of extra punches, especially noticeable in the LFE range which add an adrenaline kick to the listening experiencing (it’s vaudeville, so even enhancements that _might _be artificial are entirely appropriate, IMHO).
> 
> I assume that the Diamond Edition might be close to that listening experience but I’m certain it does not have what the Dolby Atmos remix delivers in addition - and plentiful.
> 
> In my previous viewings of_ Chicago_ the soundstage was very much anchored to the frontspeakers which includes the audiences’ reactions. To me it had always sounded as if the audience were present in a semi-circle (or 180°) in front of the main speakers, it felt as if I had been allotted the last row of the theater but now, Dolby Atmos has profoundly changed that.
> 
> *Not only does the Dolby Atmos remix put you in the center of the audience (surrounded by applause), but it also puts you in a much, much bigger theater (or cellblock), making it sound like the side walls of your home theater room have vanished and you actually listen from a position in a wide open space* (I was already impressed with this effect by the “audio only” samples on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc January 2015, but now this is the “real thing”).
> 
> It’s an effect that’s immediately noticeable and has the potential for addiction, I couldn’t help but instantly think that I would love Warner Brothers to remix _Oblivion_, the _Matrix_ Trilogy, the _Lord of the Rings_ Trilogy and others in Dolby Atmos – and _asap_ and _pronto_, please! _(“If you want my gravy, give me Atmos, too…”)._
> 
> *In a nutshell:*
> 
> After _Gravity_, Warner Brothers has delivered yet another magnificent demonstration of what Dolby Atmos is capable of, especially since this is a remix that had never been available in Dolby Atmos before (!).
> 
> I’m just a bit perplexed that mostly Dolby talks and shows sound objects moving _into_ the room but understates that they can also _expand _existing rooms into much, much larger ones for a more lifelike and immersive listening experience.
> 
> Considering that many state-of-the-art private home theaters I’ve seen published are mostly long and rectangular “boxes”, I could imagine that their owners will tremendously benefit from Dolby Atmos - and maybe regardless whether it’s a 7.2.4 or 7.2.6 setup.


Very nice write up Frank, well said!


----------



## muinchja

batpig said:


> Many people (myself included) are using "normal" speakers pointed upwards as "fake" Atmos-enabled modules. Besides some unknown specs about directivity on the "official" enabled speakers, they have a special crossover which shapes the high frequency response to implement a crude HRTF (head related transfer function) which Dolby says enhances the trickery of the virtual overhead speaker.
> 
> So using an "unofficial" speaker pointed up means you're not sure if the directivity will be appropriate, and you don't have that HRTF filter. However, if you use your receiver's auto correction software, the target curve for the "Dolby enabled" speakers includes that HRTF, so it will insert it electronically. So really the only variable is if the directivity of the speaker is appropriate for the use -- but IMHO there are so many variables involved with getting a "virtual" speaker bouncing off the ceiling to sound right that it's not worth worrying too much about.
> 
> Just make sure to experiment with the height and angle of the speaker to try and maximize the overhead effect. A good trick is to first hook them up as FR/FL mains and then run them in stereo mode with music and sit in your sweet spot. You will find if you move your head around and/or adjust the speakers that the sound will vary, sometimes it will sound like it's coming from overhead but other times it will sound like it's just "smeared" upwards in front of you.


Wow! Fantastic reply, and not just because you said what I wanted to hear!  Thanks!


----------



## Dave_1

lubeman1 said:


> You have to select Dolby Atmos in the disk sound menu first, or it defaults to something else


Yes, I did that, but it showed up as Dolby True HD anyway. I will give it another try this evening and see if I can get any further. I figured it would be no different that than any other movie that you watch. You select the audio format and you are good to go.

I will let you know how I made out on the second attempt. 

Tks
Dave


----------



## pasender91

On one side, you don't want this to become a public event, but on the other side a bottle a champagne is too large for two 
Being in London quite often for business, i could join you guys for this mini Atmos-AVS-HFCR meet 
In any case, santé


----------



## chi_guy50

wse said:


> I will take a* Chateau D'Yquem* 1999
> 
> http://yquem.fr/int-en/


I said it here first. (Royalties, please)


----------



## Oledurt

I have a full 7.1.4 atmos system in my dedicated room. Everything is placed optimally according to the dolby atmos white sheet. I wanted to share a tweak I made that was minor but turned out to have a really major impact to my on ceiling martin logan motion 4 speakers. I oriented the speakers horizontally vs vertically. They are mounted pointing toward floor 8 feet overhead. I found changing the orientation caused them to blend in better, the imaging, and placement of audio objects was really improved. I watched into the storm with dsu activated. I was literally ninja gripping my leather chair during the tornado scenes. Not sure why this made such a good improvement, but I thought I would share.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dave_1

Nalleh said:


> From the Yamaha Atmos manual:


Halleh,

I gave your suggestion a try and it work out. Dolby Atmos was displayed on the receiver screen. I sort of did by the blind method as I did not have the PJ on. I new what the blu ray player screen would look like when it stopped at the menu screen and guessed from that. I guess I guess I did all the right buttons and the movie started and Dolby Atmos showed up. I did have time to have the pj running as I don't like turning it on for just a few minutes.

Will let you know how it turns out this evening. Tks Dave


T


----------



## batpig

Oledurt said:


> I have a full 7.1.4 atmos system in my dedicated room. Everything is placed optimally according to the dolby atmos white sheet. I wanted to share a tweak I made that was minor but turned out to have a really major impact to my on ceiling martin logan motion 4 speakers. I oriented the speakers horizontally vs vertically. They are mounted pointing toward floor 8 feet overhead. I found changing the orientation caused them to blend in better, the imaging, and placement of audio objects was really improved. I watched into the storm with dsu activated. I was literally ninja gripping my leather chair during the tornado scenes. Not sure why this made such a good improvement, but I thought I would share.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The folded ribbon tweeter on those speakers have a wide horizontal dispersion but narrow vertical dispersion. If they are pointed straight down at the floor and not angled at the LP then orienting them "vertical" (perpendicular to the screen) puts you way off axis of that narrow vertical dispersion. Rotating them 90 degrees brought you into the wider horizontal dispersion. So not surprising. 

This is why in the white paper Dolby recommends 90 degree dispersion when the speakers are pointing straight down.


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Robert,
> This initial link that you published :
> http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-f...d-dolby-atmos-edition-blu-ray-3d-blu-ray-disc
> is either wrong, either there are multiple versions of this Bluray. But in the case of the Metallica Bluray samples sold by Amazon.de, besides their Dolby Atmos track, they definitively don't have any DTS track of any kind.
> So nice find... but not this time...
> Hugo


Oui Hugo, the audio specs from that link are simply wrong; a misprint error. And I was trapped by it myself, and very surprised...and the reason why I mentioned it. ...Now it's all good because the mystery has been resolved.  

Rejouissement en cette belle journee de Printemps,
Robert


----------



## smurraybhm

Dave_1 said:


> Yes, I did that, but it showed up as Dolby True HD anyway. I will give it another try this evening and see if I can get any further. I figured it would be no different that than any other movie that you watch. You select the audio format and you are good to go.
> 
> I will let you know how I made out on the second attempt.
> 
> Tks
> Dave


Dave - are you settings correct on your blu-ray player? Bitstream, secondary audio off? What are you using for a player?


----------



## zebidou81

Oledurt said:


> I have a full 7.1.4 atmos system in my dedicated room. Everything is placed optimally according to the dolby atmos white sheet. I wanted to share a tweak I made that was minor but turned out to have a really major impact to my on ceiling martin logan motion 4 speakers. I oriented the speakers horizontally vs vertically. They are mounted pointing toward floor 8 feet overhead. I found changing the orientation caused them to blend in better, the imaging, and placement of audio objects was really improved. I watched into the storm with dsu activated. I was literally ninja gripping my leather chair during the tornado scenes. Not sure why this made such a good improvement, but I thought I would share.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
> 
> Thanks for the tip, i have just rotated my kef3001se ceiling mounted atmos speakers and it seems to have made an improvement to the overhead sound delivery, i wasnt sure that orientation would matter when using wide dispersion speakers but it seems to, i had mine running vertically to tv but now run horizontally and pointed as intended when wall mounted.


----------



## dvdwilly3

muinchja said:


> Wow! Fantastic reply, and not just because you said what I wanted to hear!  Thanks!


I am doing something similar in my 5.1.4 layout. My front "fake Dolby" speakers are GoldenEar Supersat 3s mounted horizontally on mounts on top of the front right and left towers, respectively. Similarly, my rear "fake Dolby" speakers are Definitive Technology Procenter 1000s mounted on top of stands behind my MLP.
You really do need to experiment with angles. If you stuck with the Dolby-enabled angle of about 20 degrees, you would find that the main impact point sound-wise would be about 6' in front of the front height speakers. My Top Front speakers are more at 32 degrees and my MLP is about 12' in front of them (my front row is about 11' and my rear row is about 13.5' from the front speakers).
It works like a champ!
Personally, I believe that the HRTF is somewhat irrelevant, but that is a whole other discussion.


----------



## bargervais

*d*



UKTexan said:


> The Gunman Blu Ray will feature a Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Release is scheduled for June 30th. Slow trickle but keep them coming I say.


Thanks for point this out, Great news.... a trickle of Atmos Blu-Rays are still coming 
Not sure how good this movie is but it's great they are coming with an Atmos mix

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/


----------



## Nalleh

*Unbroken, Gravity and Lucy in Atmos*

Almost forgot the reviews 











*Unbroken*.
Very cool opening scene with WWII fighter planes in combat. Definitively a good Atmos demo scene. I liked the movie, it had a good story and good use of Atmos. The scenes out on the ocean was truly immersive and felt very realistic, and all scenes with planes was excellent. All in all i would recommend this movie.

PS: Don't forget to see the behind the scenes film about the man the movie is about. 

*Gravity.*
I have the first version, the 3D, and of course have seen that one, and i would say it is the best 3D movie since Avatar. It blew me away, and the 5.1 DTS-HD audio track was a new standard regarding panning and definition.

This new version lacks 3D video, but gains 3D audio in Atmos. The Atmos track in this version is superb and so much fun to listen to, as you can trace every movement and panning, even outside the screen. You have to watch it loud, as there is so much detail and stuff happening, you just sit there smiling.
HOWEVER: this should be in 3D!! This movie in 3D picture AND Atmos would be the match made in heaven. I might have to triple dip 

HOWEVER 2: Went back to the 3D version, and tried the 5.1 DTS-HD track with the Dolby Surround Upmixer, and it was truly remarkably good! A lot better than i remember from the first viewing, before Atmos, but with Neo:X 11.1.

Recommended!!

*Lucy.*
Same here, i had the NON-Atmos version and really liked this movie, so when a Atmos version popped up in Hong-kong: A no-brainer! And i was not disapointed, this was a big improvement with the Atmos track. So much more clarity, overhead action, panning, definition, and you really "get into" the movie.

Recommended!!

However 3: went back to non-Atmos (5.1 DTS-HD) and tried it with DSU. Well, this was not anywhere near as good as the Gravity example! There was a BIG difference here, and the Atmos version was miles better than the DSU.

I have experienced this before, that DSU sometimes can make a non-Atmos movie BETTER than some native ATMOS movies, and sometimes it just barely makes an improvement.
Ah-well, what can you do....


----------



## Mre_man

Would like a little advice. I will add a diagram later. The new room for my setup is a sunken family room with a fire place on the right side in the middle of the wall sandwiched between two windows. The left wall is not as long because the second stair case is in the front left corner of room with the doorway leading to the garage. What would be the back corner on the left wall is actually the steps leading into the sunken room with the door leading to the garage. There is no back wall because it's open to the breakfast nook and kitchen. Instead of a back wall there is a banister overlooking the sunken room. This is the best way I can describe this space. As I said I'll add a diagram later. 

The problem I'm having is deciding how to setup my 7.2.4 atmos setup. Not too worried about ceiling speaker placement although there is a ceiling fan. Hope it does not interfere with the overhead layer of sound. The family room is 18x18x9. I originally wanted to mount the tv above the fire place which would put the LCR about 12 feet from the MLP, which is ideal but due to the location of the steps leading to the sunken room I have no choice but to put the couch against the wall and that would leave no room behind the MLP for surround back speakers. Even if the surround backs were in wall it would still be one inch behind the MLP. 

I decided to put the tv on the front wall by the staircase. Again the LCR will be about 12 feet from MLP so I'm good there. This leaves me with about 2 feet from the surround backs and the MLP. 3 feet if I scooch the couch up a little more. I would use either speaker stands or mount the speakers to the rails of the banister, both options have a very low WAF, lol. Not a big deal for me. The real problem I'm having is with the surround speakers. Can't decide if I should put the left one just before the steps to the sunken room or on the wall behind the same steps in order to give some coverage to the second seating area that is located on the wall on the opposite side of the fireplace. Difference is one location is 3 feet from MLP but no coverage to second seating area and the other is about 8 feet from MLP but gives coverage to second seating area. The right surround speaker can be toed-in to give coverage to both listening positions but unfortunately it can only be place at about 1 foot from the MLP. 

I'm really racking my brains on this one because I don't know which placement of my surrounds is the best compromise of sound quality due to the layout of my room. Any suggestions would really help. I'll get that diagram up soon.

Here's a rundown of my gear:
Mains: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-980
Center: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-28ii
Sourrounds and surround backs: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-66
Subs: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-200
Overhead speakers: JBL CONTROL ONE OUTDOOR SPEAKERS

Thanks again guys for your help!!!!


----------



## blazar

wse said:


> Like which one can map loaction beside Trinnov and DATASAT?


Nothing can remap besides the Trinnov at the moment. But that is my point entirely... it is time to wait for most folks, not go out and buy based on that Atmos label on the front of the box.


----------



## aaranddeeman

blazar said:


> Nothing can remap besides the Trinnov at the moment. But that is my point entirely... it is time to wait for most folks, not go out and buy based on that Atmos label on the front of the box.


Waiting will never end...
There is no such thing called tomorrow..


----------



## blazar

aaranddeeman said:


> Waiting will never end...
> There is no such thing called tomorrow..


well just buying a bunch of junk doesn't exactly make the waiting any easier...


----------



## pasender91

blazar said:


> well just buying a bunch of junk doesn't exactly make the waiting any easier...


Hey Blazar, maybe we don't live on the same planet, but i don't think a 7009 or a 8802 or a 5200 are junk.
If your avatar speakers are what you have in your room, then yes indeed we llive on different planets 

I was also dreaming about having precise speaker mapping in 1st generation Atmos AVRs, i still got my 7009 after release and without this feature, and let's say the 3D immersion is there and i don't regret it.

So i believe it is not time to wait anymore, people can get a very good sound immersion NOW, and we also have enough movies at this stage to enjoy it.


----------



## petetherock

Some interesting thoughts:

- when you play a DTS-MA track on Atmos, you usually need to press the cinema (green button) and choose DSU, even if you used a quick select button - I guess DTS doesn't like something from Dolby 

I have spent a while doing the re-cal on my setup with Audyssey, then adjusting the various levels of the speakers and subs and now I feel I have found the right mix to match my old lair









I can feel the bullets, RPG rounds whizzing right past my ears with good transitions from front to back and vice versa.

So when you play with your setups, Atmos or otherwise, spend a little time using a SPL meter to get the right balance of sound.

Other things I did was to move my subs a bit, and try them with and without the Subdude pads. Finally I turned my rear back 805s so they point a little outward and that also helped.

With the May Day long weekend coming, it will be a nice time to try out some new and old hits.

It will be a big pity to lose this current setting when the upgrade board becomes available for us here.


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868
> Hugo


Bonjour Hugo, 

In your "Message" (Post) from that link above you mentioned both the Marantz AV7702 pre/pro and the Denon AVR-X5200W receiver as the two future recipients of the DTS:X firmware update. ...In addition of course of the Marantz AV8802 and the Denon AVR-X7200W. ...All Dolby Atmos products.
That is simply amazing and great news for a lot of people.  ...D&M is gaining more supporters by the day. 

* We all are impatiently waiting for the official confirmation, that's for sure.

My very bests,
Robert


----------



## pasender91

If this is true, let's hope the 7009 also gets this upgrade, as it is similar to the 77O2


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> If this is true, let's hope the 7009 also gets this upgrade, as it is similar to the 77O2


Unfortunately there is no mention of the Marantz SR7009 and Denon AVR-X4100W Dolby Atmos receivers in Hugo's post (_"message"_ in French).


----------



## Wild Blue

NorthSky said:


> Bonjour Hugo,
> 
> In your "Message" (Post) from that link above you mentioned both the Marantz AV7702 pre/pro and the Denon AVR-X5200W receiver as the two future recipients of the DTS:X firmware update. ..


Really? Hugo, you have a source? That would be the first rumor of those models getting DTS:X. You'd make a bunch of owners very happy, including myself.


----------



## Frank714

Chris Dotur said:


> Hugo, you have a source? That would be the first rumor of those models getting DTS:X. You'd make a bunch of owners very happy, including myself.


I think there is a good probability that within a week something "official" could be announced. Although I don't know the location and the details a reliable source told me there is going to be some sort of D & M press event. I suggest we just wait one more week to see what's going to happen - or not.


----------



## Frank714

Nalleh said:


> *Unbroken*.
> Very cool opening scene with WWII fighter planes in combat. Definitively a good Atmos demo scene. I liked the movie, it had a good story and good use of Atmos. The scenes out on the ocean was truly immersive and felt very realistic, and all scenes with planes was excellent. All in all I would recommend this movie.


_Unbroken_ is now on the top of my "listen to" list. Just can't decide whether to wait for the Euro version or go ahead with the "Dolby Atmos confirmed" US edition. 

AVS member "brahman" had mentioned that near the end, IIRC, there is a scene with insects that's truly "object based", i.e. they buzz around your head and not just above the screen as they did near the end of _Gravity_.

I wonder if the Dolby Atmos listening experience advantages could be categorized into three sections (or more if you think) that could or should reflect in reviews:

use of top speakers for overhead objects
use of "object based" audio, i.e. locating sound objects in the immediate vicinity of the main listening position (e.g. insects)
use of "listening room expansion" to simulate a much wider space to add a sense of realism to the listening experience (e.g. _Chicago_)


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Jeff,



chi_guy50 said:


> Can I get on that mailing list, Hugo?
> 
> (Moi aussi, je veux "boire des étoiles." Mais, en fin de compte, je préférerais du Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, s'il te plâit!)


With pleasure... 

(Il me semble que la "couleur" des étoiles que l'on peut avoir dans les yeux, s'efface rapidement avec leur nombre, pour ne laisser la place qu'au seul plaisir...) 

Belle journée à Toi,

Hugo


----------



## scantek999

NorthSky said:


> They all said the same; the people who lowered down all their floor surrounds @ or near ear level in a Dolby Atmos setup with four overhead surrounds.
> 
> Furthermore, @ home with a 7.1-channel setup, it still holds well. ...But that's me, with all my baggage behind.
> I don't want to feel like in a theater @ home, I want to feel much closer to a higher level experience.
> 
> ♥ Try *Tron: Legacy'* in 3D Blu-ray @ home with all your floor speakers @ or near ear level, and crank it up to eleven o'clock (reference master level).
> Then you'll know exactly what I am referring to.
> 
> And if you have a Dolby Atmos receiver or pre/pro with four overhead speakers installed on your ceiling above your head, just superimpose Dolby Surround on top. ...The new Dolby up-mixer. ...Just for the sake of experimentation and transportation, into the grid.


You are absolutely right, and that is why i rarely go to the cinema, and rather want to go into the basement to watch movies.

Check - Tron is awesome in DSU mode, really nice !

Im running Marantz 7702, and some misc. amps.

A quick picture after the lowering project


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> A splendid idea!! If you are right, and I am wrong, we must do it. Or, if I am right and you are wrong, we must do it!


That's how I like things, so it's a deal and let's do it. 

And as we'll be next to Dolby's why not knock on their door and ask for a copy their latest Atmos test disk? ... joindre l'utile à l'agréable. 

Amts,

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Chris,



Chris Dotur said:


> Really? Hugo, you have a source? That would be the first rumor of those models getting DTS:X. You'd make a bunch of owners very happy, including myself.


Concerning the source, nothing more than what I wrote here (in French) :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868

and please be aware of what JD wrote here :

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...l-marantz-av7702-pre-pro-75.html#post33864802

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> On one side, you don't want this to become a public event, *but on the other side a bottle a champagne is too large for two ;*)
> Being in London quite often for business, i could join you guys for this mini Atmos-AVS-HFCR meet
> In any case, santé


????????


----------



## kbarnes701

blazar said:


> well just buying a bunch of junk doesn't exactly make the waiting any easier...


So in your view an AVR which does not permit speaker mapping is "a bunch of junk"? So that will be *ALL* AVRs other than the Trinnov?


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Hey Blazar, maybe we don't live on the same planet, but i don't think a 7009 or a 8802 or a 5200 are junk.
> If your avatar speakers are what you have in your room, then yes indeed we llive on different planets
> 
> I was also dreaming about having precise speaker mapping in 1st generation Atmos AVRs, i still got my 7009 after release and without this feature, and let's say the 3D immersion is there and i don't regret it.
> 
> So i believe it is not time to wait anymore, people can get a very good sound immersion NOW, and we also have enough movies at this stage to enjoy it.


+1. Speaker mapping is irrelevant if one places one's speakers in the recommended positions. It was always thus for stereo, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 and it is thus for 7.2.4. Atmos hasn't changed anything in that regard.


----------



## lorjam

I may be unfairly reading too into his posts, but I have the impression he is implying that if we all wait long enough the "trickle down" effect will eventually result in equipment nearly as good as what he has now.


----------



## kbarnes701

lorjam said:


> I may be unfairly reading too into his posts, but I have the impression he is implying that if we all wait long enough the "trickle down" effect will eventually result in equipment nearly as good as what he has now.


I've no idea what he has now so can't comment. If he has spent a lot on speakers, then one assumes he has taken the trouble to position them properly in the room, so why he feels that one needs to wait for speaker mapping before having a unit that is not a "piece of junk" is a mystery.


----------



## aaranddeeman

blazar said:


> well just buying a bunch of junk doesn't exactly make the waiting any easier...


Yup. With the same token waiting for something "non-existent" shows mental illness..


----------



## audioguy

lorjam said:


> I may be unfairly reading too into his posts, but I have the impression he is implying that if we all wait long enough the "trickle down" effect will eventually result in equipment nearly as good as what he has now.


I would much prefer an SSP with Dirac rather than an SSP with speaker maping which would probably not improve my listening experience at all since I chose to follow Dolby guidelines. I know (have experienced) the improvement of Dirac over Audyssey.

Plus your assumption suggests that the other manufactureres think mapping is good and would follow suit. I think maybe not!!!

Whether it actually happens or not is another matter but the SSP that Emotiva has sort of "pre-announced" is a much more relevant (to me) advance than "speaker mapping". It will support 16 channels, Dirac and all current and forecasted 3D audio formats. For most mere mortals, 16 channels should be more than sufficient.

Clearly YMMV.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Frank714 said:


> AVS member "brahman" had mentioned that near the end, IIRC, there is a scene with insects that's truly "object based", i.e. they buzz around your head and not just above the screen


That I don't think is true.
I replayed that scene and did not find any bug buzzing, let alone around my head.
Now it could be my "hearing", the way my speakers are "setup" or the bug does not "exist".
I have not seen anyone else mentioning it and I also recall his last sentence from that post that read something like "it was not from my surround channel....". Whatever that means.


----------



## tjenkins95

aaranddeeman said:


> That I don't think is true.
> I replayed that scene and did not find any bug buzzing, let alone around my head.
> Now it could be my "hearing", the way my speakers are "setup" or the bug does not "exist".
> I have not seen anyone else mentioning it and I also recall his last sentence from that post that read something like "it was not from my surround channel....". Whatever that means.


 


brahman12 said:


> Just watched Unbroken.....really nice sound mix. The dogfight/flight scenes in the early part of the movie were very cool. Some of the anti-aircraft explosions were so precisely following what was happening on screen that I couldn't stop grinning .....good action happening within the tops and those Japanese Zero fighters were actually flying THROUGH the room, not just around and above. Lots of nice, subtly sexy effects throughout the film. About an hour and twenty minutes into the movie (chapter 12 or 13, not perfectly sure) when the guys are working on cleaning out the POW camp toilets, there are flies buzzing around, and right before the scene ends, a fly buzzes and it sounds like it is about half an inch from your left ear .....dude!!!! I actually flinched and swatted at my left ear...I replayed the scene and it sounded exactly the same once more....bug in my left ear lol. Don't want to blow up too much of the movie, but it is awesome in a subtle way....similar to how I feel Mockingjay is a mad cool mix as well. The movie is beautifully shot via some gorgeous cinematography magic....I felt Angelina did a strong job in directing her actors and being able to emote beauty within all of the powerful emotions being portrayed on screen....and I definitely like the movie all around. An Atmos gem that should be experienced at least once if you got the setup....and I reckon I will watch this movie quite a few times. Cheers Atmos brethren !!!! Enjoy it.


 
Above is the quote from Brahman12 and I have to agree with Aaranddeeman. I re-watched the latrine scene and I didn't see any flies buzzing around nor did I hear any buzzing flies. Has anyone else seen and heard these pesky insects?


Ray


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Above is the quote from Brahman12 and I have to agree with Aaranddeeman. I re-watched the latrine scene and I didn't see any flies buzzing around nor did I hear any buzzing flies. Has anyone else seen and heard these pesky insects?
> 
> 
> Ray


It is possible that, at that precise moment, a fly in his room buzzed around near his left ear and he went to swat it


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> It is possible that, at that precise moment, a fly in his room buzzed around near his left ear and he went to swat it


Either that or he had too much beer..


----------



## aaranddeeman

tjenkins95 said:


> Above is the quote from Brahman12 and I have to agree with Aaranddeeman. I re-watched the latrine scene and I didn't see any flies buzzing around nor did I hear any buzzing flies. Has anyone else seen and heard these pesky insects?
> 
> 
> Ray


But then he has this too at some point...



> Hey Frank...you may have missed my post a few pages back, which is understandable since this thread is HUGE lol. During "Unbreakable" there was a moment when the POW's are cleaning out the toilets and bugs are buzzing around. Very realisticly buzzing...and at the end of the scene there is a singular buzz sound that actually made me swat at my ear...it was funny cuz I reacted instinctually. *I re-played the scene and there was that damn bug again at my left ear, not my left surround channel *. Also way back I posted about John Wick...during the final battle when he goes after the mobsters at the docks. His black charger goes from left side of room, through the MLP, and precisely into the area between the center channel and front right channel. Really awesome stuff bro!!! There where a couple other instances in other flicks, but those stand out in my memory most.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Either that or he had too much beer..


Or both...


----------



## ThePrisoner

Just received my Metallica Through The Never BD from Amazon.de and it is region B locked so make sure you have the capability to play it. Very nice ambience added from Atmos encoding. Looking forward to watching this in it's entirety later. So far Ian enjoying what I'm hearing, also nice to have 2D & 3D on separate discs even though I already own the 3D U.S. version


----------



## Movie78

Hugo S said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the source, nothing more than what I wrote here (in French) :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868
> 
> and please be aware of what JD wrote here :
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...l-marantz-av7702-pre-pro-75.html#post33864802
> 
> Hugo


Great News..

But i am getting tired of all these unknown(sources)
Why can the manufactures come out and make this clear for everybody to know.

I taught the NDA was release...


----------



## smurraybhm

Frank714 said:


> _Unbroken_ is now on the top of my "listen to" list. Just can't decide whether to wait for the Euro version or go ahead with the "Dolby Atmos confirmed" US edition.
> 
> AVS member "brahman" had mentioned that near the end, IIRC, there is a scene with insects that's truly "object based", i.e. they buzz around your head and not just above the screen as they did near the end of _Gravity_.
> 
> I wonder if the Dolby Atmos listening experience advantages could be categorized into three sections (or more if you think) that could or should reflect in reviews:
> 
> use of top speakers for overhead objects
> use of "object based" audio, i.e. locating sound objects in the immediate vicinity of the main listening position (e.g. insects)
> use of "listening room expansion" to simulate a much wider space to add a sense of realism to the listening experience (e.g. _Chicago_)


Frank - IMO Unbroken demonstrates what Atmos (and DTS:X) will offer those of us who are set up to enjoy it. It puts all the sounds where they should be. I really like the precision Atmos provides. One of my favorite Atmos movies, Gravity we all expected the sound to be all around, Unbroken a great example of how a "regular" movie benefits from Atmos.


----------



## Eriksdam

Since we're talking software:

I can really recommend Enchanted Kingdom (available from Amazon Japan). It's a BBC produced nature documentary (about the African continent), and made to said company's very high standards. If you are looking for the Ultimate Bass Experience and spaceship fly-overs, look elsewhere, but there are some really interesting scenes, especially underwater shots, falling lava etc. that does exactly what immersive sound is supposed to do: suck you in.

In scene 3, the camera flies over a cliff and dives down through the tree canopy into the rainforest - it's interesting to compare that shot to Dolby's "Leaf" trailer; both are more foley than foliage, so to speak, but it's interesting to hear the different approaches to very similar images.

What I also like, is that it is a recording of something where we have a reference: We _Know_ what the sea sounds like, for instance. For me, this is the real litmus test: with sci-fi or whatever, we can only guess at the engineer/mixer/director/producer's intent, with nature sounds, human voices, acoustical instruments etc, it becomes a bit harder to cheat (which is why I always test displays with videos of scantily clad women, to see if those all-important skin tones are displayed correctly...).

The only negative things I can think of are the over-vivid colors (green is very, very, very green...), and Idris Elba's narration, that is somewhat dumbed down and overdramatized - not totally National Geographic horrible, just *well* below par if you, like me, are used to David Attenborough. 

Otherwise an interesting and highly recommended disc - almost worth the money 

- Erik


----------



## Dave_1

smurraybhm said:


> Dave - are you settings correct on your blu-ray player? Bitstream, secondary audio off? What are you using for a player?


Looks like it is working fine now. I gave it a try this morning with the PJ running. The Blu-Ray player is a OPPO 103D. The settings have always been set to Bitstream since I had it hooked up. 
I did notice that I had to adjust the base on the sub as I thought the side wa coming out of the house...lol. I had on the transformers movie and that was just at the beginning. I didn't want to watch too much as the wife wants to see it at the same time. 
I can't wait now to get the ceiling speakers installed.

Dave


----------



## brahman12

*Ur Kidding, Right?*



aaranddeeman said:


> That I don't think is true.
> I replayed that scene and did not find any bug buzzing, let alone around my head.
> Now it could be my "hearing", the way my speakers are "setup" or the bug does not "exist".
> I have not seen anyone else mentioning it and I also recall his last sentence from that post that read something like "it was not from my surround channel....". Whatever that means.


I mean exactly what Frank inferred....that the sound was so far removed from the speaker baffle that it sounded right by my left ear. Why would I make something like that up brother?....I ain't twelve years old man, lol. I hear it it fairly clearly in my left ear at the end of that scene (it isn't super loud but definitely noticeable) and during that same small scene you can hear bugs buzzing in ur front soundstage. The sound is there fellas...TJ, Keith, aa...perhaps you can't hear it for various possible reasons but if anybody finds their way to Brooklyn, NY and drops me a PM, I would gladly welcome you to my humble mancave and we can put it to the test. Tell you what...the Yammy 3040 is badass (still wish they would offer the DTS:X upgrade, but let's not go there) and gives off some incredible channel separation, steering, clarity compared to the Pioneers and Onkyos I have owned. I also use crown amps for my front soundstage which I have meticulously dialed in to blend with the amps in the Yammy since the crowns are very powerful and can easily blow out the surrounds...and the Yammy most likely can't even power those bad boys fully due to voltage output limitations in pre-amp section (don't know the exact spec on the Yammy output section but many AVR's can't fully push pro gear). Again..either you guys are kidding about not being able to hear it, or perhaps you just can't hear it for whatever reason...but again, I would actually like some audiophile company...don't get much of that in my circles...and you can mosdef come through and give the disc a test run.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> The sound is there fellas...TJ, Keith, aa...perhaps you can't hear it for various possible reasons ...


I can categorically say that I cannot hear this at all. No way.

But that is probably because I don't have the disc yet  It isn't released in the UK for another few days. I will be getting it of course, and I will definitely listen out for these insects.


----------



## brahman12

*Take a trip over the pond....*



kbarnes701 said:


> I can categorically say that I cannot hear this at all. No way.
> 
> But that is probably because I don't have the disc yet  It isn't released in the UK for another few days. I will be getting it of course, and I will definitely listen out for these insects.


Come over to BK,NY...I will give you a tour of our SOHO if you've never been, and the glorious new Brooklyn which is prime real estate these days, a far cry from how most of Brooklyn used to be when I was a wee lad and prior to the gentrification movement that began in the early 1990's...lol...all my AVS family is welcome!!!!


----------



## aaranddeeman

brahman12 said:


> I mean exactly what Frank inferred....that the sound was so far removed from the speaker baffle that it sounded right by my left ear. Why would I make something like that up brother?....I ain't twelve years old man, lol. I hear it it fairly clearly in my left ear at the end of that scene (it isn't super loud but definitely noticeable) and during that same small scene you can hear bugs buzzing in ur front soundstage. The sound is there fellas...TJ, Keith, aa...perhaps you can't hear it for various possible reasons but if anybody finds their way to Brooklyn, NY and drops me a PM, I would gladly welcome you to my humble mancave and we can put it to the test. Tell you what...the Yammy 3040 is badass (still wish they would offer the DTS:X upgrade, but let's not go there) and gives off some incredible channel separation, steering, clarity compared to the Pioneers and Onkyos I have owned. I also use crown amps for my front soundstage which I have meticulously dialed in to blend with the amps in the Yammy since the crowns are very powerful and can easily blow out the surrounds...and the Yammy most likely can't even power those bad boys fully due to voltage output limitations in pre-amp section (don't know the exact spec on the Yammy output section but many AVR's can't fully push pro gear). Again..either you guys are kidding about not being able to hear it, or perhaps you just can't hear it for whatever reason...but again, I would actually like some audiophile company...don't get much of that in my circles...and you can mosdef come through and give the disc a test run.


Looks like Denons are "killing" those bugs entirely.
All those said they can't hear are Denon owners is my guess.. 
So this is now more interesting and disappointing/annoying for Denon owners?


----------



## brahman12

*Lol*



aaranddeeman said:


> Looks like Denons are "killing" those bugs entirely.
> All those said they can't hear are Denon owners is my guess..
> So this is now more interesting and disappointing/annoying for Denon owners?


I hope that is not the problem...and there are many AVSers that say that electronics (solid state amps) all sound the same and should not have any sound differences if they are properly made. Who nows for sure? But I do know dem bugs are in dat scene!!!! lol


----------



## Roudan

Hi

Can someone advise me the minimum distance between speakers and wall for both fronts and rear surround ? I forgot the numbers. Thx


----------



## blazar

pasender91 said:


> Hey Blazar, maybe we don't live on the same planet, but i don't think a 7009 or a 8802 or a 5200 are junk.
> If your avatar speakers are what you have in your room, then yes indeed we llive on different planets
> 
> I was also dreaming about having precise speaker mapping in 1st generation Atmos AVRs, i still got my 7009 after release and without this feature, and let's say the 3D immersion is there and i don't regret it.
> 
> So i believe it is not time to wait anymore, people can get a very good sound immersion NOW, and we also have enough movies at this stage to enjoy it.


Just trying to propose a counter argument to the marketing armada ... nothing personal. DTS neo x is already good immersion now. I have been running it in different setups including channel doubling to get to 19 channels. I am trying to spare folks some grief by suggesting patience. if you are itching to buy... go right ahead. Don't forget, there is barely any actual content. You really lose nothing by waiting a bit longer.

Get 24 channels into your room, the money will be better spent if you need to satisfy the itch to start upgrading.


----------



## blazar

kbarnes701 said:


> So in your view an AVR which does not permit speaker mapping is "a bunch of junk"? So that will be *ALL* AVRs other than the Trinnov?


Yes they are all junk. I predicted the existence of devices such as Trinnov about 4 years ago which is why I have all the channels ready to go. They are the only one that satisfied my vision of a properly built device.

I don't want to pay that much for a Trinnov... I really don't. If the other manufacturers would have gotten their business together, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Object oriented surround just will not work correctly in those devices but if you want to believe their misinformation then go ahead and spend the money.

I am trying to save folks the grief of falling prey to this nonsensical marketing.

If you use a channel splitter and double the usual dts neo x layer in a height layer using a marantz 8801 you will get a VERY immersive effect RIGHT NOW. It won't be perfect but flyover effects already sound pretty damn good.

The absolute BEST thing serious enthusiasts can do NOW is to get your 16+ amps and speakers ready. Do a speaker configuration that covers as much of your surface area as evenly as possible.

The computing power required to do object oriented audio at home has been existence already for at least 10 years... They have really been monkeying around for quite some time to get this finally released. I seriously recommend waiting for mainstream processors with speaker mapping unless you don't mind buying again.

I have bought heavily in the refurbished and used markets for most of my crap and therefore I am not some sort of Trinnov elitist. On the contrary, I don't think most people are going to blow $20k+ on a processor. Processors are among the most rapidly depreciating "assets" in audio.

Simple "immersion" that 5.1 and 7.1 provide do not even come CLOSE to the type of acoustic illusions that object oriented methods will provide with accurate speaker mapping. In the hands of increasingly experience sound engineers, the effect is nothing short of magical.

I have been waiting a LONG time for this stuff to be released correctly, and I am quite frankly PISSED at the straight up JUNK that is being put out by mainstream manufacturers. It is so disappointing that it has come down to this. They must have fired all their useful software engineers long ago if this is the crap they are releasing.

I blame dolby and dts for the incompetence involved with the release of the hardware announced thusfar. Using the Atmos name on the home gear is straight up false advertising.... and the DTS "firmware updates".... what a JOKE.


----------



## wse

audioguy said:


> I would much prefer an SSP with Dirac rather than an SSP with speaker maping which would probably not improve my listening experience at all since I chose to follow Dolby guidelines. I know (have experienced) the improvement of Dirac over Audyssey. Plus your assumption suggests that the other manufactureres think mapping is good and would follow suit. I think maybe not!!!
> 
> Whether it actually happens or not is another matter but the SSP that Emotiva has sort of "pre-announced" is a much more relevant (to me) advance than "speaker mapping". It will support 16 channels, Dirac and all current and forecasted 3D audio formats. For most mere mortals, 16 channels should be more than sufficient. Clearly YMMV.


I hear Room Perfect was really good as well, I would like 24 speakers set up if I can ever do a dedicated room 9.9.6 with 4 subs


----------



## wse

blazar said:


> .......If you use a channel splitter and double the usual dts neo x layer in a height layer using a marantz 8801 you will get a VERY immersive effect RIGHT NOW. It won't be perfect but flyover effects already sound pretty damn good.


I am thinking I would love to try just 9.9.4 with 4 subs using Y XLR with ATMOS or DSU just for that, but unfortunately I don't have the room to do that or money right now!

DTS:NEOX would be 11.11.4 that could be cool to!


----------



## audioguy

wse said:


> I hear Room Perfect was really good as well, I would like 24 speakers set up if I can ever do a dedicated room 9.9.6 with 4 subs


I hear that as well. Once Mcintosh has an Atmos SSP, it could be interesting!


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> I am thinking I would love to try just 9.9.4 with 4 subs using Y XLR with ATMOS or DSU just for that, but unfortunately I don't have the room to do that or money right now!
> 
> DTS:NEOX would be 11.11.4 that could be cool to!


 
I think it would be funnier to have nine subs and four heights , That room would have enough bass for even Scott Simonian LOL. Imagine if they were Seatons...


----------



## Spanglo

aaranddeeman said:


> Looks like Denons are "killing" those bugs entirely.
> All those said they can't hear are Denon owners is my guess..
> So this is now more interesting and disappointing/annoying for Denon owners?


Denon checking in, and yes the flies exist. Happens at 1:22:39 while one of the characters is speaking.

Just turn the volume up to 0 and you should hear 'em. Otherwise, something may be up with your system or hearing.


----------



## petetherock

Ok, I am a little lost, where does this 'bugs' scene come from?
Which BR disc and when?


----------



## Spanglo

Unbroken.


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> Come over to BK,NY...I will give you a tour of our SOHO if you've never been, and the glorious new Brooklyn which is prime real estate these days, a far cry from how most of Brooklyn used to be when I was a wee lad and prior to the gentrification movement that began in the early 1990's...lol...all my AVS family is welcome!!!!


That is most kind of you. If I do venture that way, I will be sure to take you up on your offer. Last time I was in Brooklyn was not long after that gentrification began - interesting to see how the place has changed.


----------



## kbarnes701

blazar said:


> junk. nonsensical .
> 
> monkeying around .
> 
> crap.
> 
> not even CLOSE.
> 
> straight up JUNK. crap.
> 
> straight up false.... what a JOKE.


I know it's selective quoting, but I think I got the general sense of your post there  Thanks for the contribution...


----------



## petetherock

Spanglo said:


> Unbroken.


Thanks, I don't think I will pay 19 bucks for 5 mins of surround action, plus some ambient sounds.. will wait for the inevitable price drop before I jump in..

I have become more selective after paying pre-order prices for titles like TMNT, Transformers and even Expendables, with scant activity in the Atmos channels.

My best buy to date:

John Wick and the Japanese version of the BBC production. Hunger Games III was not bad, but the DSU module has been more fun than the Atmos titles.

YMMV of course.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Spanglo said:


> Denon checking in, and yes the flies exist. Happens at 1:22:39 while one of the characters is speaking.
> 
> Just turn the volume up to 0 and you should hear 'em. Otherwise, something may be up with your system or hearing.


Wow at MV="0". I am typically at -22 or max -20dB
At "0" dB that will be the last thing one would hear.. 
That also means Denon has suppressed it so much (that Yamaha did not).
I had rented the disk so no way to retry it immediately.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Wow at MV="0". I am typically at -22 or max -20dB
> At "0" dB that will be the last thing one would hear..
> That also means Denon has suppressed it so much (that Yamaha did not).
> I had rented the disk so no way to retry it immediately.


Well, it could possibly be the ol' Audyssey EQ filter kicking in. Some have stated it's too aggressive at rolling off high frequencies, which could be squelching the psychoacoustic effect.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, it could possibly be the ol' Audyssey EQ filter kicking in. Some have stated it's too aggressive at rolling off high frequencies, which could be squelching the psychoacoustic effect.


Ah. And the remedy for that is..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Ah. And the remedy for that is..


Turn off Audyssey and use a different, external method of calibration and EQ?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Turn off Audyssey and use a different, external method of calibration and EQ?


Yeah. Then buying an AVR with Audyssey is a waste. Especially with XT32 which is supposed to be the best-est (according to majority that use it)..


----------



## tjenkins95

Spanglo said:


> Denon checking in, and yes the flies exist. Happens at 1:22:39 while one of the characters is speaking.
> 
> 
> Just turn the volume up to 0 and you should hear 'em. Otherwise, something may be up with your system or hearing.


 
Thanks for the information.
I turned the volume to 0 and was able to hear the buzzing fly twice.
Unfortunately that volume level is way too loud for the room I am using so I will forgo the fly for now.


----------



## smurraybhm

aaranddeeman said:


> Looks like Denons are "killing" those bugs entirely.
> All those said they can't hear are Denon owners is my guess..
> So this is now more interesting and disappointing/annoying for Denon owners?



I will check it out this weekend. I am throwing away my 5200 if I can't hear the damn buzz, first DTS:X (maybe ) and now this. Damn and its Friday on top of it. 
Just to be clear this entire post is in jest. Cheers and as it should be on this day of the week - TGIF and more importantly what am I going to enjoy watching in my HT this weekend (besides some POWs cleaning out buckets of crap).


----------



## multit

Hey guys, the "Horizon" trailer has finally arrived at the demo-world site.
Very recommended as lossless and of course with Dolby Atmos!!!


----------



## maikeldepotter

brahman12 said:


> I hope that is not the problem...and there are many AVSers that say that electronics (solid state amps) all sound the same and should not have any sound differences if they are properly made. Who nows for sure? But I do know dem bugs are in dat scene!!!! lol


Since volume setting undoubtedly plays a major role in hearing such fine details: What is your listening level as compared to reference (the zero point at which -20 dB pink noise plays at 85 dB)?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

multit said:


> Hey guys, the "Horizon" trailer has finally arrived at the demo-world site.
> Very recommended as lossless and of course with Dolby Atmos!!!


Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## tjenkins95

multit said:


> Hey guys, the "Horizon" trailer has finally arrived at the demo-world site.
> Very recommended as lossless and of course with Dolby Atmos!!!


 

I just downloaded it and played it using my Oppo.
Excellent Atmos demo. I even heard the flies!


----------



## bargervais

multit said:


> Hey guys, the "Horizon" trailer has finally arrived at the demo-world site.
> Very recommended as lossless and of course with Dolby Atmos!!!


Thanks i was able to download it but i had to use a Download Manager. all is good


----------



## jrogers

Dan Hitchman said:


> Turn off Audyssey and use a different, external method of calibration and EQ?


Wonder if using flat curve instead of reference would allow you to hear it at lower volume?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrogers said:


> Wonder if using flat curve instead of reference would allow you to hear it at lower volume?


Probably depends on the frequency range the "buzzing" is located in and whether the reference curve is filtering that range out.


----------



## distobj

brahman12 said:


> The sound is there fellas


Confirmed! It's brief (0.5s?), but unmistakeable, right after he says, "Oh yah, I think that one's mine"


----------



## pasender91

Hey guys is that all a running joke ?
For sure audyssey will not filter out "flies frequencies" 
There could me many different reasons more logical to explain why some don't hear the fly.


----------



## dvdwilly3

pasender91 said:


> Hey guys is that all a running joke ?
> For sure audyssey will not filter out "flies frequencies"
> There could me many different reasons more logical to explain why some don't hear the fly.


Many, many reasons... I did try it briefly this morning...nada! I replayed it several times...still nada!

But, it is probably there...

Now, for at least 2 reasons for me...I have a high frequency hearing loss in my left ear that starts around 4000 Hz and gets worse going higher. In addition, in that same ear I suffer from tinnitus that is fairly loud. When I found an example tone online and raised to a level where I actually could hear it, my wife's response was "Wow!"

I would not be able to hear that fly on a good day!


----------



## zebidou81

Will the new star wars be released as atmos 6.1.4 or dts x ?


----------



## Stanton

zebidou81 said:


> Will the new star wars be released as atmos 6.1.4 or dts x ?


Given LucasFilm's past ties with Dolby, I would guess Atmos. I would also venture a guess that this could be one of the first UHD/4k Blu-Rays to hit the market (next year).


----------



## batpig

pasender91 said:


> Hey guys is that all a running joke ?
> For sure audyssey will not filter out "flies frequencies"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There could me many different reasons more logical to explain why some don't hear the fly.


Seriously. So many variables at play between speakers, room layout, and the listener themselves. The whole Denon and/or Audyssey takes away the flies conspiracy is ridiculous.


----------



## batpig

zebidou81 said:


> Will the new star wars be released as atmos 6.1.4 or dts x ?


Where did you pull 6.1.4 from??? An object audio mix wouldnt have a channel count. 

Also DTS:X is not a theatrical format. If they mix it via DTS tools it would be an MDA mix. That's separate from how it would be delivered on Blu-Ray for home viewing. And it's way too early to know in any case. 

JJ Abrams has used Atmos in the past (eg the Star Trek reboot) so it's a safe bet it will be an object audio mix one way or another.


----------



## zebidou81

batpig said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the new star wars be released as atmos 6.1.4 or dts x ?
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you pull 6.1.4 from??? An object audio mix wouldnt have a channel count.
> 
> Also DTS:X is not a theatrical format. If they mix it via DTS tools it would be an MDA mix. That's separate from how it would be delivered on Blu-Ray for home viewing. And it's way too early to know in any case.
> 
> JJ Abrams has used Atmos in the past (eg the Star Trek reboot) so it's a safe bet it will be an object audio mix one way or another.
Click to expand...

6.1.4 as i thought that all releases of star wars on dvd/blu ray were 6.1 surround so i just wonderd if they would go with a 6.1 release


----------



## batpig

With object audio there is no channel count. That's kind of the point.


----------



## zebidou81

batpig said:


> With object audio there is no channel count. That's kind of the point.


Ok well i suppose i am missing out with not adding an extra rear surround, i run a 6.2.4 setup with only 1 rear surround a centre speaker, the release would be a 7.1.4 one then hopefully ( 6.1.4 in my case)


----------



## batpig

zebidou81 said:


> the release would be a 7.1.4 one then hopefully


I'm not sure how I can say it more clearly (again) -- an object audio mix doesn't have a channel count. So there is no distinction between an 7.1.4 Atmos mix or a 6.1.4 Atmos mix. There is just an Atmos mix and then it renders to whatever your speaker layout is (assuming your receiver has an Atmos decoder). 

For theatrical Atmos there are 9 fixed "beds" (the standard 7ch array plus two overhead beds) but in home Atmos the "base" layer is always a 7.1 channel bed with metadata for objects. But that doesn't mean it's a "7.1.4" mix, it's just an Atmos mix and whether you have 7.1.4 or 5.1.2 or 3.1 speaker layout it will play back properly.

With a 6.1 base layout of speakers like you have, instead of getting two surround back channels in stereo you will get a single back surround (mono) channel, just like you would if you were listening to a 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track. The processor will know how to route the audio to your speaker layout.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zebidou81 said:


> Ok well i suppose i am missing out with not adding an extra rear surround, i run a 6.2.4 setup with only 1 rear surround a centre speaker, the release would be a 7.1.4 one then hopefully ( 6.1.4 in my case)


No, the current *hardware* would be up to a 7.1.4 speaker output. Atmos currently supports up to 24.1.10 surround but there isn't any hardware available that can do it short of a $30,000 Trinnov Altitude.

Atmos can scale down to 5.1.2 or all the way up to 24.1.10 but right now 7.1.4 is the 'norm'.


----------



## zebidou81

batpig said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the release would be a 7.1.4 one then hopefully
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how I can say it more clearly (again) -- an object audio mix doesn't have a channel count. So there is no distinction between an 7.1.4 Atmos mix or a 6.1.4 Atmos mix. There is just an Atmos mix and then it renders to whatever your speaker layout is (assuming your receiver has an Atmos decoder).
> 
> For theatrical Atmos there are 9 fixed "beds" (the standard 7ch array plus two overhead beds) but in home Atmos the "base" layer is always a 7.1 channel bed with metadata for objects. But that doesn't mean it's a "7.1.4" mix, it's just an Atmos mix and whether you have 7.1.4 or 5.1.2 or 3.1 speaker layout it will play back properly.
> 
> With a 6.1 base layout of speakers like you have, instead of getting two surround back channels in stereo you will get a single back surround (mono) channel, just like you would if you were listening to a 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track. The processor will know how to route the audio to your speaker layout.
Click to expand...

Ok i hope it gets an Atmos blu ray release (or a dts x release when the firmware becomes available for my sr7009 in a few days/weeks) either way the battlefront game and following release of the film will be mega cant wait.


----------



## zebidou81

Scott Simonian said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well i suppose i am missing out with not adding an extra rear surround, i run a 6.2.4 setup with only 1 rear surround a centre speaker, the release would be a 7.1.4 one then hopefully ( 6.1.4 in my case)
> 
> 
> 
> No, the current *hardware* would be up to a 7.1.4 speaker output. Atmos currently supports up to 24.1.10 surround but there isn't any hardware available that can do it short of a $30,000 Trinnov Altitude.
> 
> Atmos can scale down to 5.1.2 or all the way up to 24.1.10 but right now 7.1.4 is the 'norm'.
Click to expand...

I suppose it makes more sense to change setup to the norm but i do like the way the rear centre sounds in my setup, i wonder if i would notice a massive difference going from 1 rear centre to 2 rears in my atmos setup ?


----------



## Scott Simonian

You'll get rear room stereo separation. 

I would notice that.

Are you using two speakers in mono or just one speaker directly behind you? If so then you will get an appreciable increase in rear wall stability and separation.


----------



## brahman12

*Greenwich Village 2.0*



kbarnes701 said:


> That is most kind of you. If I do venture that way, I will be sure to take you up on your offer. Last time I was in Brooklyn was not long after that gentrification began - interesting to see how the place has changed.


Brooklyn is New York's hipster and trendy hot spot now....basically most of the town is full of restaurants, bar and grills, little boutiques and storefronts galore. The old guard hates the change but I kind of like most of the change...except for the no parking anywhere, and sky-high rent/real estate prices. But perhaps when I sell my house, these inconveniences will be worth it.


----------



## wse

multit said:


> Hey guys, the "Horizon" trailer has finally arrived at the demo-world site.
> Very recommended as lossless and of course with Dolby Atmos!!!


I downloaded it but how does it play on the OPPO from the laptop or from a disc?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> DTS:X is not a theatrical format. If they mix it via DTS tools it would be an MDA mix.


DTS is keeping the MDA name for the studio mixing tools but announced recently that they're branding the theatrical release format DTS:X (keeps the format name recognizable as and when those soundtrack are released on home video, just like Atmos and Auro did).


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X is not a theatrical format. If they mix it via DTS tools it would be an MDA mix.
> 
> 
> 
> DTS is keeping the MDA name for the studio mixing tools but announced recently that they're branding the theatrical release format DTS:X (keeps the format name recognizable as and when those soundtrack are released on home video, just like Atmos and Auro did).
Click to expand...

Allrighty then. That's why we keep you around.


----------



## tjenkins95

wse said:


> I downloaded it but how does it play on the OPPO from the laptop or from a disc?


You can put the file on a USB stick and plug that into the Oppo.


----------



## brahman12

maikeldepotter said:


> Since volume setting undoubtedly plays a major role in hearing such fine details: What is your listening level as compared to reference (the zero point at which -20 dB pink noise plays at 85 dB)?


My master volume is usually set up at -5 on average, sometimes a bit lower at -7, and sometimes higher at about -3.5....depending on the movie. I have noticed from reading threads on AVS, my MV setting is significantly higher than many people...but at these levels I am able to get the best all around soundtrack impact via my setup.


----------



## aaranddeeman

brahman12 said:


> My master volume is usually set up at -5 on average, sometimes a bit lower at -7, and sometimes higher at about -3.5....depending on the movie. I have noticed from reading threads on AVS, my MV setting is significantly higher than many people...but at these levels I am able to get the best all around soundtrack impact via my setup.


Aa ha.
I am not sure if the treated rooms need the MV at those ranges. Untreated rooms causing the reflections may be creating chaotic noise at such volumes. Just my guess.
Is your room treated?
Also may be someone with treated room can chime in with their MV.


----------



## rnewste

tjenkins95 said:


> You can put the file on a USB stick and plug that into the Oppo.


My Bluray player (Denon 2010ci) does not support playback from a USB stick. How does one burn this file (.m2ts) to a playable Bluray disc?

Thanks,

Raybo


----------



## brahman12

*Minimal treatments*



aaranddeeman said:


> Aa ha.
> I am not sure if the treated rooms need the MV at those ranges. Untreated rooms causing the reflections may be creating chaotic noise at such volumes. Just my guess.
> Is your room treated?
> Also may be someone with treated room can chime in with their MV.


My room has always sounded pretty good with no treatments...naturally not a very reflective room, just right with minimal treatment panels at the front (projector screen side) of the room. I have actually always preferred the sound of all my gear sans any room correction engaged (audessey, ypao, etc.) I like the natural sound of the gear interacting with my room, which as I stated earlier has a nice balance of absorption and reflection, pretty good bass response. It's like I have posted in the past....how we hear things is very unique from person to person due to all sorts of variables that can come into play. To my ears...everything sounds tight and clear in my room, thus my ability to hear the fine details in just about anything I listen to. Again, I will say....our senses perceive environmental input in varied and unique ways, thus whatever someone tells me a recording, or anything for that matter, may sound like to them, I know that their experience can never substitute for my own experience...they can offer me useful and educated estimations but never definitive information. For that, one needs to experience and interpret the sensory stimuli for themselves. Cheers aaranddeeman


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> Thanks i was able to download it but i had to use a Download Manager. all is good


Somehow it does not work with PS3 (again!).
I downloaded it to a USB and tried to play. There is a picture but no sound..


----------



## wse

tjenkins95 said:


> You can put the file on a USB stick and plug that into the Oppo.


I will try that and see if it works! Can it read mt2s files?


----------



## Spanglo

brahman12 said:


> My master volume is usually set up at -5 on average, sometimes a bit lower at -7, and sometimes higher at about -3.5....depending on the movie. I have noticed from reading threads on AVS, my MV setting is significantly higher than many people...but at these levels I am able to get the best all around soundtrack impact via my setup.


Reference volume varies depending on the receiver and mic. An AVR shootout last year showed the reference varied as much as 20-25dB between the tested receivers. 

I think most here have a X5200, so there should be some consistency, but your -5 could be someone else's -20. 

Here's a link to the post in the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1717346-archaea-s-auto-room-eq-avr-comparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city-12.html#post29151994


----------



## Csbooth

aaranddeeman said:


> Somehow it does not work with PS3 (again!).
> I downloaded it to a USB and tried to play. There is a picture but no sound..


I don't have an Atmos AVR right now but I did download the .m2ts file and noticed no sound as well. Now, the other files from Demo world will work but not Horizon, so I went into sound settings and deselected AAC, and that gave me 2ch stereo.

I don't know if whether or not I had an Atmos decoder and/or an AVR with HDMI sound it would work properly, but I do know unticking AAC and leaving only the two default grayed out PCM (using optical, so it would be more for HDMI connection), DTS 5.1, and DD 5.1 selected in sound options gave me sound from the file. 

I would just play around with the sound settings some. I have to imagine something is going on here because even when I downloaded the DD5.1 basic file it wouldn't work like the others did, and another thing I noticed is that the basic 5.1 file was .mkv format which the others were .m2ts last time I downloaded them, but I did convert the Horizon demo to a few different formats supported by PS3 and it showed 6 channels was still in the file, so I know I didn't mess up there and not include that information in the conversion.

EDIT: Out of curiosity I checked the Leaf and Amaze demo downloads and it does seem that they have replaced the basic 5.1 DD download file containers with .mkv format as opposed to the previous .m2ts when I downloaded it last time. I'm not sure why they changed it, as they sounded and looked fine before, in addition to working without fail when plugged into the PS3 directly.


----------



## multit

wse said:


> I will try that and see if it works! Can it read mt2s files?


An Oppo is usually very capable of playing m2ts-files either from USB or network.


----------



## blazar

kbarnes701 said:


> I know it's selective quoting, but I think I got the general sense of your post there  Thanks for the contribution...


yeah my irritation is hard to contain...


----------



## zebidou81

Scott Simonian said:


> You'll get rear room stereo separation.
> 
> I would notice that.
> 
> Are you using two speakers in mono or just one speaker directly behind you? If so then you will get an appreciable increase in rear wall stability and separation.


One centre speaker directly behind me and my surrounds at 90 degrees directly at sides, i used to have my surrounds behind me, but since moving them either side of me on stands it has made a huge difference in sound quality, the 1 kef centre speaker i run as a single rear surround, i was told you get about 2% rear surround sounds during a movie but i feel i get more and may in the future use 2 rear surrounds for better seperation as you say but i was unsure if it would make much a difference in atmos with 1-2% activation a movie


----------



## zebidou81

Csbooth said:


> aaranddeeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow it does not work with PS3 (again!).
> I downloaded it to a USB and tried to play. There is a picture but no sound..
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an Atmos AVR right now but I did download the .m2ts file and noticed no sound as well. Now, the other files from Demo world will work but not Horizon, so I went into sound settings and deselected AAC, and that gave me 2ch stereo.
> 
> I don't know if whether or not I had an Atmos decoder and/or an AVR with HDMI sound it would work properly, but I do know unticking AAC and leaving only the two default grayed out PCM (using optical, so it would be more for HDMI connection), DTS 5.1, and DD 5.1 selected in sound options gave me sound from the file.
> 
> I would just play around with the sound settings some. I have to imagine something is going on here because even when I downloaded the DD5.1 basic file it wouldn't work like the others did, and another thing I noticed is that the basic 5.1 file was .mkv format which the others were .m2ts last time I downloaded them, but I did convert the Horizon demo to a few different formats supported by PS3 and it showed 6 channels was still in the file, so I know I didn't mess up there and not include that information in the conversion.
> 
> EDIT: Out of curiosity I checked the Leaf and Amaze demo downloads and it does seem that they have replaced the basic 5.1 DD download file containers with .mkv format as opposed to the previous .m2ts when I downloaded it last time. I'm not sure why they changed it, as they sounded and looked fine before, in addition to working without fail when plugged into the PS3 directly.
Click to expand...

The .m2ts files i downloaded and try to use from demo world do not play on a ps3 or a ps4 i think it has something to do with an update not to long ago that does not allow playback, the files work on the sony bdps6200 blu ray player i have that has a very similar interface to the ps 3/4, the files playback on my xbox1 but they do not play in atmos as is the case with atmos blu rays as the xbox1 cant handle true bitstream for some reason ?


----------



## multit

Not yet with Dolby Atmos, but anyway a "must have" in everyones demo collection... the new THX trailer "Eclipse" finally as a download in multiple formats (incl. 5.1 and 4k). Note: you have to register first!
Have fun!!!


----------



## Nalleh

multit said:


> Not yet with Dolby Atmos, but anyway a "must have" in everyones demo collection... the new THX trailer "Eclipse" finally as a download in multiple formats (incl. 5.1 and 4k). Note: you have to register first!
> Have fun!!!


No HD sound on those?


----------



## lujan

batpig said:


> With object audio there is no channel count. That's kind of the point.


That's why I'm confused sometimes when I see an audio as "Dolby Atmos 7.1.4" on a BD case. They should leave out the 7.1.4 out of the description but seem to leave it in on some cases that I've seen.


----------



## multit

Nalleh said:


> No HD sound on those?


It seems so, yes. But anyway, the 5.1 isn't that bad 
The typical THX sound (I like it) with an additional panning.


----------



## zebidou81

lujan said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> With object audio there is no channel count. That's kind of the point.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I'm confused sometimes when I see an audio as "Dolby Atmos 7.1.4" on a BD case. They should leave out the 7.1.4 out of the description but seem to leave it in on some cases that I've seen.
Click to expand...

Yes it can be a little confusing i agree, i have been in to surround sound for over 10 years and if it can be confusing for us i can see how it can be a minefield for any newcomers to home cinema, i still get asked "dolby atmos whats that" by most folk out of AVS


----------



## audioguy

aaranddeeman said:


> Looks like Denons are "killing" those bugs entirely.
> All those said they can't hear are Denon owners is my guess..
> So this is now more interesting and disappointing/annoying for Denon owners?


I played that sequence 4 times - at reference - and could not hear any fly, anywhere!! I have the Marantz 7702.

One thing I noticed again when we watched that movie (last night). The more involving the movie, the less I notice the individual special Atmos effects. Clearly planes flying overhead, water over head when they were submerged, etc are all clearly audible but the audio and video become so immersive, I just forget about the how and the why. 

Great audio in the film. 

I find it absolutely amazing that he could suffer all of that torture and still live to be over 90+!! Some of those parts were very difficult to watch.


Spoiler



And when the shark jumped out of the water, my wife SCREAMED and scared everyone in the room


----------



## brahman12

Spanglo said:


> Reference volume varies depending on the receiver and mic. An AVR shootout last year showed the reference varied as much as 20-25dB between the tested receivers.
> 
> I think most here have a X5200, so there should be some consistency, but your -5 could be someone else's -20.
> 
> Here's a link to the post in the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1717346-archaea-s-auto-room-eq-avr-comparison-g2g-november-8-2014-kansas-city-12.html#post29151994


Thanks Spanglo....this should be an interesting read. Peace!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> That's why I'm confused sometimes when I see an audio as "Dolby Atmos 7.1.4" on a BD case. They should leave out the 7.1.4 out of the description but seem to leave it in on some cases that I've seen.


The 7.1.4 label was a mistake on Warner Brothers' part. They will correct it in future releases. Dolby Atmos allows for 24.1.10 on all Blu-ray soundtracks.


----------



## aaranddeeman

audioguy said:


> I played that sequence 4 times - at reference - and could not hear any fly, anywhere!! I have the Marantz 7702.


This means that something is going on with D&M models (and or Audyssey) that can not reproduce what Yamaha (and/or YPAO) can.
Now I do not agree that "It depends....".
If someone wants to create Atmos object effect, they will make sure that it will not work only in "certain" setting/room/frequency.


----------



## zebidou81

aaranddeeman said:


> audioguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I played that sequence 4 times - at reference - and could not hear any fly, anywhere!! I have the Marantz 7702.
> 
> 
> 
> This means that something is going on with D&M models (and or Audyssey) that can not reproduce what Yamaha (and/or YPAO) can.
> Now I do not agree that "It depends....".
> If someone wants to create Atmos object effect, they will make sure that it will not work only in "certain" setting/room/frequency.
Click to expand...

All this talk of the fly sound has got me curious, i was not going to order this movie
For my collection but i think i will to try on my 7009 and see if i can hear that fly


----------



## audioguy

zebidou81 said:


> All this talk of the fly sound has got me curious, i was not going to order this movie
> For my collection but i think i will to try on my 7009 and see if i can hear that fly


We used our neighbors copy from Netflix and it had the Atmos encoding. Redbox probably does as well so you won't have to buy it. It is a great movie (a tad long) but pretty intense and would be hard to watch again.

Why it won no Academy Awards is beyond me, however !!


----------



## NorthSky

For what it's worth; I have this Blu-ray movie (*'Unbroken'*), and I don't have a Dolby Atmos AV receiver or pre/pro, and I checked that scene @ reference master volume level (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround core audio soundtrack), from my own Integra pre/pro and with my own speakers and in my own room, and I have not heard any flies around.
Perhaps it's time to upgrade all my gear... I intend to do some of that, with a new Dolby Atmos/DTS:X pre/pro (Marantz most likely), and I will re-listen to that scene again when that time comes. 

I don't doubt the people who have heard that/those fly/ies, but I do feel that my system (surround sound setup) is not up to snuff. ...Now.


----------



## chi_guy50

audioguy said:


> We used our neighbors copy from Netflix and it had the Atmos encoding. Redbox probably does as well so you won't have to buy it. It is a great movie (a tad long) but pretty intense and would be hard to watch again.
> 
> *Why it won no Academy Awards is beyond me, however !!*


Two words: schlocky hagiography. 



chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


----------



## zebidou81

audioguy said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk of the fly sound has got me curious, i was not going to order this movie
> For my collection but i think i will to try on my 7009 and see if i can hear that fly
> 
> 
> 
> We used our neighbors copy from Netflix and it had the Atmos encoding. Redbox probably does as well so you won't have to buy it. It is a great movie (a tad long) but pretty intense and would be hard to watch again.
> 
> Why it won no Academy Awards is beyond me, however !!
Click to expand...

I may have a look on Netflix but i dont think Netflix has atmos mix on any movies here in the uk ?


----------



## wse

audioguy said:


> We used our neighbors copy from Netflix and it had the Atmos encoding. Redbox probably does as well so you won't have to buy it. It is a great movie (a tad long) but pretty intense and would be hard to watch again. Why it won no Academy Awards is beyond me, however !!


What movie!


----------



## aaranddeeman

wse said:


> What movie!


I guess it's "Unbroken"


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Perhaps it's time to upgrade all my gear... I intend to do some of that, with a new Dolby Atmos/DTS:X pre/pro (Marantz most likely), and I will re-listen to that scene again when that time comes.


Yamaha only for that "fly". Nothing else will fly.



> I don't doubt the people who have heard that/those fly/ies, but I do feel that my system (surround sound setup) is not up to snuff. ...Now.


Good call. It's about time.. Remember "Life is short"..


----------



## aaranddeeman

chi_guy50 said:


> I plan to skip _Unbroken_, although at first glance I thought it might be worth watching. I might change my mind if someone who has seen it can correct my impression that it is more schlocky hagiography than nuanced filmmaking.
> 
> Last month I watched the excellent _The Railway Man_ (2013), which is also the biographical story of survival in a WWII Japanese POW camp but told with considerable depth and true character development (albeit in DTS-HD MA 5.1 rather than Atmos). It would be interesting to hear from someone who has seen both films and can confirm whether the former pales in comparison to the latter.


Okay. So looks like I should get the "Railway Man" next in the list of my movie viewing..

Edit: Oh cr&p. Redbox only has the DVD version of that movie. Go figure..


----------



## audioguy

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess it's "Unbroken"


Correct!


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Yamaha only for that "fly". Nothing else will fly.
> Good call. It's about time.. Remember "Life is short"..


You think I should get the next Yamaha pre/pro instead? ...Did you hear that fly with a Yamaha receiver/pre-pro? If you say yes, then Yamaha it is. 
...I'm easy; I like to hear everything.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> ...Did you hear that fly with a Yamaha receiver/pre-pro?


No. I have Denon.. And I did not hear it..
The poster with the Yamaha did..


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> No. I have Denon.. And I did not hear it..
> The poster with the Yamaha did..


It has to be the ESS Sabre DACs, in the Yamaha.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> It has to be the ESS Sabre DACs, in the Yamaha.


E.._zzz_..abre DACs


----------



## desray2k

NorthSky said:


> For what it's worth; I have this Blu-ray movie (*'Unbroken'*), and I don't have a Dolby Atmos AV receiver or pre/pro, and I checked that scene @ reference master volume level (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround core audio soundtrack), from my own Integra pre/pro and with my own speakers and in my own room, and I have not heard any flies around.
> Perhaps it's time to upgrade all my gear... I intend to do some of that, with a new Dolby Atmos/DTS:X pre/pro (Marantz most likely), and I will re-listen to that scene again when that time comes.
> 
> I don't doubt the people who have heard that/those fly/ies, but I do feel that my system (surround sound setup) is not up to snuff. ...Now.


I'm using X5200W and I heard the fly buzzing for fleeting moments...Its really nothing to shout about IMO.


----------



## multit

I can also confirm a fly buzzing at exactly 01:22:52 right after someone said "that one is mine".
It's coming from the left front and left surround speaker and there is nothing from the height speakers the same time.
So, I guess, it's not an object, but simply recorded while the conversation and catched by the left microphon.

Audissey is on (reference) and I did not listen with high volume, because this seems the mistake, others made.


----------



## maikeldepotter

multit said:


> I can also confirm a fly buzzing at exactly 01:22:52 right after someone said "that one is mine".
> It's coming from the left front and left surround speaker and there is nothing from the height speakers the same time.
> So, I guess, it's not an object, but simply recorded while the conversation and catched by the left microphon.


Any given object sound projected between front and surround speaker will be heard in the wide speaker. If the wide speaker remains silent, it is obviously not an object.


----------



## petetherock

Now we are spending $$$ trying to hear flies buzz. Don't tell our partners, this will only make them shake their heads, and figure that we have finally gone nuts.


----------



## multit

petetherock said:


> Now we are spending $$$ trying to hear flies buzz. Don't tell our partners, this will only make them shake their heads, and figure that we have finally gone nuts.


You are absolutely right - and my wife had kind of a sceptical look, seeing me on the ladder while checking the height speakers. 
But I was just curious, why a lot of others couldn't hear anything at this particular timecode and wanted proof


----------



## audioguy

multit said:


> I can also confirm a fly buzzing at exactly 01:22:52


That's a different time stamp than the previous poster recommended which was at 1:22:39.

My guess would be that this is a Foley effect so why did the mixer or whomever make the sound so subtle that it was dependent on so many variables to even be able to hear it?


----------



## desray2k

The power of forum... Just one member mentioned about the buzzing flies and it got everyone curious and go checking out. LOL... I admit I also did that. This leads me to conclude that either there is really nothing better to do with our time on hand or there is hopelessly nothing in the dolby atmos front for us to explore... So much so that we need to hear the buzzing flies for that mere 3 to 5 secs...


----------



## aaranddeeman

maikeldepotter said:


> Any given object sound projected between front and surround speaker will be heard in the wide speaker. If the wide speaker remains silent, it is obviously not an object.


Yeah. But with 11 (only) channel processing wide is silent mostly (as you tend to use 4 heights and 2 back surrounds).


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> Now we are spending $$$ trying to hear flies buzz. Don't tell our partners, this will only make them shake their heads, and figure that we have finally gone nuts.


And on top of that we are re-viewing the sh%t scene to here for those flies..


----------



## wse

petetherock said:


> Now we are spending $$$ trying to hear flies buzz. Don't tell our partners, this will only make them shake their heads, and figure that we have finally gone nuts.


I agree that is quite something! If I want to hear flies buzzing I just go to the barn they are always around the horses! 

This is why 95% of the population not on AVS thinks we are nuts!


----------



## multit

audioguy said:


> That's a different time stamp than the previous poster recommended which was at 1:22:39.
> My guess would be that this is a Foley effect so why did the mixer or whomever make the sound so subtle that it was dependent on so many variables to even be able to hear it?


I think, my mentioned timestamp is exactly corresponding with description in the very first posting about this fly thing from brahman12 
_"About an hour and twenty minutes into the movie (chapter 12 or 13, not perfectly sure) when the guys are working on cleaning out the POW camp toilets, there are flies buzzing around, and right before the scene ends, a fly buzzes and it sounds like it is about half an inch from your left ear .....dude!!!!"_
I did not studied all the posting after that, but it was clear for me from the very first listening run.


----------



## roxiedog13

*Back Home After 2weeks vacation*

So, what's all the buzz, other than a fly from Unbroken? Didn't even try to log on during vacation, was too busy having fun at the resort Beaches Turks and Caicos.


No TV, lots of food and 3-4 hours of solid fitness per day, movies and certainly HT in general not even considered. 


Are we still taking Denon upgrades, is there any more DTS:X news ? Don't have time to read two weeks of posts, will need a week to catch up now. Maybe someone
could offer the Coles notes for the last two weeks.


----------



## multit

roxiedog13 said:


> So, what's all the buzz, other than a fly from Unbroken?


Nothing substantial... I mean, why are we talking about about **** scenes and flies at all?


----------



## RMK!

desray2k said:


> The power of forum... Just one member mentioned about the buzzing flies and it got everyone curious and go checking out. LOL... I admit I also did that. This leads me to conclude that either there is really nothing better to do with our time on hand or there is hopelessly nothing in the dolby atmos front for us to explore... So much so that we need to hear the buzzing flies for that mere 3 to 5 secs...




I own the Atmos bluray Unbroken and don't recall the fly buzzing scene and wasn't the least in interested in looking for it p) ... Now the opening bomb run scene is exactly the type of movie making that (IMO) justifies the time and expense involved in setting up Atmos. 

The best fly buzzing around the room is on the Auro 3D 2014 Demo Disk. The animated clip with the frogs.

In any case, I have seen both Railway Man and Unbroken. Railway Man is the more interesting and Unbroken is the more entertaining film. Although different, both can be enjoyed for what they are ... movies based upon factual events with liberties taken. Real life is boring ...


----------



## Nalleh

RMK! said:


> The best fly buzzing around the room is on the Auro 3D 2014 Demo Disk. The animated clip with the frogs.


That's not from the Auro demo disk, it's on the DTS:X demo disc


----------



## RMK!

Nalleh said:


> That's not from the Auro demo disk, it's on the DTS:X demo disc


Thats right, sorry for the confusion but I was using the AuroMatic processing at the time and this is in the Atmos Thread   ...


----------



## NorthSky

RMK! said:


> I own the Atmos bluray Unbroken and don't recall the fly buzzing scene and wasn't the least in interested in looking for it p) ... Now the opening bomb run scene is exactly the type of movie making that (IMO) justifies the time and expense involved in setting up Atmos.
> *The best fly buzzing around the room is on the Auro 3D 2014 Demo Disk. The animated clip with the frogs.*
> In any case, I have seen both Railway Man and Unbroken. Railway Man is the more interesting and Unbroken is the more entertaining film. Although different, both can be enjoyed for what they are ... movies based upon factual events with liberties taken. Real life is boring ...





Nalleh said:


> That's not from the Auro demo disk, *it's on the DTS:X demo disc*





RMK! said:


> Thats right, sorry for the confusion but I was using the AuroMatic processing at the time and this is in the *Atmos Thread*   ...


Rob, did you try that "animated clip with the frogs" from that dts:x demo disc with *Dolby Surround* (Dolby Atmos up-mixer)?
...Just to hear which up-mixer you prefer between Auro-Matic and Dolby Surround for that particular DTS:X short animated clip*.

* Is that clip (fly buzzing around) encoded with DTS:X or in DTS-HD MA 7.1 surround?


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Rob, did you try that "animated clip with the frogs" from that dts:x demo disc with *Dolby Surround* (Dolby Atmos up-mixer)?
> ...Just to hear which up-mixer you prefer between Auro-Matic and Dolby Surround for that particular DTS:X short animated clip*.
> 
> * Is that clip (fly buzzing around) encoded with DTS:X or in DTS-HD MA 7.1 surround?


Downloads are not available


----------



## zebidou81

Does anybody know if Amazon Prime or Netflix stream Dolby Atmos in the Uk ?
I ask as I was watching a series of Turn I think when the British are off to torch Washington it seem to have the option of Dolby surround/Atmos on receiver but I thought that streaming was not Atmos mixes in the Uk ?


----------



## NorthSky

desray2k said:


> I'm using X5200W and I heard the fly buzzing for fleeting moments...Its really nothing to shout about IMO.


I totally agree with you. 

* What is the thing you like the most about your new Dolby Atmos receiver (Denon 5200), if I may ask? 
And which other model/brand receiver were u using prior?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Another fly (or flies) can be heard in the ending scene of gravity (in the water)..
Even with DSU it feels around you. I can only imagine what native Atmos will sound like.
Eureka... We found our fly...


----------



## wse

aaranddeeman said:


> Another fly (or flies) can be heard in the ending scene of gravity (in the water)..
> Even with DSU it feels around you. I can only imagine what native Atmos will sound like.
> Eureka... We found our fly...


Here you are


----------



## aaranddeeman

wse said:


> Here you are



Nope. I can't hear anything. (Just see 'em)..


----------



## brahman12

Avengers - Age of Ultron is gonna be absolutely awesome on bluray if released in Atmos. Please...Lord, let it be released in Atmos for the home. I just watched it and it had multiple scenes that were absolutely stunning to listen to and visually behold as well. Loads of fun at the Regal E- Walk theater on 42nd Street between 7th and 8th ave. Hope you get to enjoy it as much as I did. Cheers!!!


----------



## nucky

I watched the new Gravity Atmos film on saturday night and all I can say is absolutely brilliant, there were butterflies flying around and flew up the front left hand side and past my left ear.very impressed.
Time of scene 1.21.15s


----------



## Frank714

desray2k said:


> The power of forum... Just one member mentioned about the buzzing flies and it got everyone curious and go checking out. LOL... I admit I also did that. This leads me to conclude that either there is really nothing better to do with our time on hand or there is hopelessly nothing in the dolby atmos front for us to explore... So much so that we need to hear the buzzing flies for that mere 3 to 5 secs...


As we say where I live, a mosquito may have been turned into an elephant in this AVS thread, but the elephant in the room was / is, that thus far we haven't really heard any true Dolby advertised objects moving in proximity to our main listening position (heck, even the insects in _Gravity_ keep too much distance from MLP, IMHO), IIRC.

Thus, an insect next to our heads would prove that our AVRs and speaker setups are up to the job reproducing object based audio, provided it's part of the soundtrack.

For their DTS:X demo, DTS also used insects (Brent Butterworth reported) which makes perfect sense to me as a showcase for object based audio because we can all relate to this kind of sound experience (with the flying fish in _Life of Pi_ this may be somewhat different).


----------



## petetherock

Look guys, you want some Atmos flies?

Buy the Jap version of the BBC doco:
*Enchanted Kingdom 

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=246985

Those are really flies!
*


----------



## Frank714

^^ Wasn't the UK Blu-ray edition expected to be out by now? And the Australian (2D only) edition doesn't feature Dolby Atmos?

Universal's _Unbroken_ later this month here in Europe supposedly features an Atmos track, maybe we can expect the same for Universal's _Enchanted Kingdom_. 

(Hmm...anyway, looks like I'm somehow stuck with Universal to get my Atmos flies - LOL)


----------



## AidenL

I'm just wiring a dedicated room, using a Marantz 8802.

Looking at the spreadsheet, not many members have gone 9.4 format, I seem to recall having read somewhere that this format could be a good compromise for both Atmos and DTS X - or am I dreaming? 

Just thought more would have investigated. 

Are front heights / wides necessary now in the times of object based audio?


----------



## Franin

Frank714 said:


> ^^ Wasn't the UK Blu-ray edition expected to be out by now? And the Australian (2D only) edition doesn't feature Dolby Atmos?
> 
> Universal's _Unbroken_ later this month here in Europe supposedly features an Atmos track, maybe we can expect the same for Universal's _Enchanted Kingdom_.
> 
> (Hmm...anyway, looks like I'm somehow stuck with Universal to get my Atmos flies - LOL)


I hope the Unbroken Australian version features Atmos. The Australian version of John Wick didn't so I had to buy mine from the U.S.


----------



## aaranddeeman

AidenL said:


> I'm just wiring a dedicated room, using a Marantz 8802.
> 
> Looking at the spreadsheet, not many members have gone 9.4 format, I seem to recall having read somewhere that this format could be a good compromise for both Atmos and DTS X - or am I dreaming?
> 
> Just thought more would have investigated.
> 
> Are front heights / wides necessary now in the times of object based audio?


What do you mean by 9.4?
Many do have 7(9).x.4(2) setups.


----------



## chi_guy50

AidenL said:


> I'm just wiring a dedicated room, using a Marantz 8802.
> 
> Looking at the spreadsheet, not many members have gone 9.4 format, I seem to recall having read somewhere that this format could be a good compromise for both Atmos and DTS X - or am I dreaming?
> 
> Just thought more would have investigated.
> 
> Are front heights / wides necessary now in the times of object based audio?


If you mean 9.1.4 (nine listener-level and four height speakers), a number of us do have this setup, myself included. However, current CEM implementation of Atmos--including your 8802--is limited to 11-channel (7.1.4 or 9.1.2) playback in all but the ultra-high-end SSPs.

FH is one of the five possible height array designations for Atmos/DSU. FW is not utilized in DSU mode and in Atmos is only used for objects. However, DTS Neo:X will matrix sound to the FW, and it's a safe bet that DTS:X and its associated upmixer Neural:X will utilize this speaker position as well.

I would recommend that you wire for at least 9.1.6 so that you are prepared for future upgrades.


----------



## pasender91

AidenL said:


> I'm just wiring a dedicated room, using a Marantz 8802.
> 
> Looking at the spreadsheet, not many members have gone 9.4 format, I seem to recall having read somewhere that this format could be a good compromise for both Atmos and DTS X - or am I dreaming?
> 
> Just thought more would have investigated.
> 
> Are front heights / wides necessary now in the times of object based audio?


On the 8802, like all other AVRs below 20 K USD, you can only manage up to 11 Atmos channels at the same time, meaning you can do 7.1.4 or 9.1.2, but NOT 9.1.4.
You can still connect 9.1.4 speakers so you can switch from 7.1.4 to 9.1.2 depending on your mood, even if 7.1.4 should sound better in most cases


----------



## AidenL

aaranddeeman said:


> What do you mean by 9.4?
> Many do have 7(9).x.4(2) setups.


I was vague there, but yeah, I meant 9.2.4



chi_guy50 said:


> If you mean 9.1.4 (nine listener-level and four height speakers), a number of us do have this setup, myself included. However, current CEM implementation of Atmos--including your 8802--is limited to 11-channel (7.1.4 or 9.1.2) playback in all but the ultra-high-end SSPs.
> 
> FH is one of the five possible height array designations for Atmos/DSU. FW is not utilized in DSU mode and in Atmos is only used for objects. However, DTS Neo:X will matrix sound to the FW, and it's a safe bet that DTS:X and its associated upmixer Neural:X will utilize this speaker position as well.
> 
> I would recommend that you wire for at least 9.1.6 so that you are prepared for future upgrades.


Yep, exactly what I was thinking. I'll be using actives for the front three, and will have 14 channels of amps, so I will be ready for 17 channel - if I can ever afford one of the mega processors like Trinnov or Datasat.....



pasender91 said:


> On the 8802, like all other AVRs below 20 K USD, you can only manage up to 11 Atmos channels at the same time, meaning you can do 7.1.4 or 9.1.2, but NOT 9.1.4.
> You can still connect 9.1.4 speakers so you can switch from 7.1.4 to 9.1.2 depending on your mood, even if 7.1.4 should sound better in most cases


I hear what you mean  I'll go with wiring for now anyway, whether I install the speakers or not, will be another story ! 

Now, I better go look for that Atmos layout diagram again !


----------



## AidenL

aaranddeeman said:


> What do you mean by 9.4?
> Many do have 7(9).x.4(2) setups.


Just noticed your calculator - very helpful, thanks for that !


----------



## aaranddeeman

AidenL said:


> Just noticed your calculator - very helpful, thanks for that !


You are welcome.
It has validator too (next tab). Don't miss that..


----------



## AidenL

aaranddeeman said:


> You are welcome.
> It has validator too (next tab). Don't miss that..


Yeah, its fantastic - going to save me a lot of head scratching ! 

Thanks again, much appreciated !


----------



## sdurani

AidenL said:


> Looking at the spreadsheet, not many members have gone 9.4 format, I seem to recall having read somewhere that this format could be a good compromise for both Atmos and DTS X - or am I dreaming?


DTS said that the initial version of DTS:X is going to be 11.1 channels. So if you do a 9.1.4 set-up, don't know when you'll be able to get all 13 speaker firing simultaneously (unless you buy a Trinnov Altitude). Since speaker wire is inexpensive, I would wire for 9 around me and at least 6 above me (maybe wire for a centre height between the front L/R heights). Hopefully, manufacturers will catch up to the number of speakers you've wired for.


----------



## AidenL

sdurani said:


> DTS said that the initial version of DTS:X is going to be 11.1 channels. So if you do a 9.1.4 set-up, don't know when you'll be able to get all 13 speaker firing simultaneously (unless you buy a Trinnov Altitude). Since speaker wire is inexpensive, I would wire for 9 around me and at least 6 above me (maybe wire for a centre height between the front L/R heights). Hopefully, manufacturers will catch up to the number of speakers you've wired for.



Yeah, I agree - future proofing is good


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> DTS said that the initial version of DTS:X is going to be 11.1 channels. So if you do a 9.1.4 set-up, don't know when you'll be able to get all 13 speaker firing simultaneously (unless you buy a Trinnov Altitude). Since speaker wire is inexpensive, I would wire for 9 around me and at least 6 above me (maybe wire for a centre height between the front L/R heights). Hopefully, manufacturers will catch up to the number of speakers you've wired for.


Does this mean that DTS:X is not going to have height channels?


----------



## sdurani

lujan said:


> Does this mean that DTS:X is not going to have height channels?


11.1 doesn't mean 11 speakers around you and no heights. All the DTS:X demos so far have been with a 7.1.4 set-up.


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> 11.1 doesn't mean 11 speakers around you and no heights. All the DTS:X demos so far have been with a 7.1.4 set-up.


To me 11.1 and 7.1.4 mean very different things. 7.1.4 is referring to the height speakers (x.x.4) whereas 11.1 indicates no heights at all. I think we should always make this distinction. What do others of you out there think?


----------



## Josh Z

lujan said:


> Does this mean that DTS:X is not going to have height channels?


It's just different nomenclature for the same thing. Dolby came up with the idea of giving the height channels their own separate number. DTS doesn't want to be seen copying Dolby, so they do it the old way.


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> It's just different nomenclature for the same thing. Dolby came up with the idea of giving the height channels their own separate number. DTS doesn't want to be seen copying Dolby, so they do it the old way.


Don't tell me that there's not going to be any standardization on the nomenclature?


----------



## sdurani

lujan said:


> 7.1.4 is referring to the height speakers (x.x.4) whereas 11.1 indicates no heights at all.


No, the term 11.1 was routinely used to describe set-ups with DSX heights and Neo:X heights years before Dolby came out with their X.x.X nomenclature. There is nothing in the term 11.1 that "indicates no heights at all".


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> No, the term 11.1 was routinely used to describe set-ups with DSX heights and Neo:X heights years before Dolby came out with their X.x.X nomenclature. There is nothing in the term 11.1 that "indicates no heights at all".


To me the DTS designation is more confusing. With its designation, 11.1 could be 11 channels (I know...) total, which may or may not include height channels.

To me, the Dolby designation more clearly indicates what you are referring to, as in, 9.1 vs 7.2.1 vs 5.4.1.

If i am following correctly, under DTS all 3 would be simply 9.1.

Am I missing something?


----------



## lujan

dvdwilly3 said:


> To me the DTS designation is more confusing. With its designation, 11.1 could be 11 channels (I know...) total, which may or may not include height channels.
> 
> To me, the Dolby designation more clearly indicates what you are referring to, as in, 9.1 vs 7.2.1 vs 5.4.1.
> 
> If i am following correctly, under DTS all 3 would be simply 9.1.
> 
> Am I missing something?


I agree that the DTS terminology is more confusing and wish they both would have standard terminology.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> To me, the Dolby designation more clearly indicates what you are referring to, as in, 9.1 vs 7.2.1 vs 5.4.1.


The Dolby nomenclature is clearer but hasn't yet been adopted universally because it is more difficult to get right (people sometimes mix up the order, making it look like they have multiple subs and only one height speaker).


> If i am following correctly, under DTS all 3 would be simply 9.1.


Correct, you'd have to look at the context of the description to see what 9.1 means. For example, if someone says they only have 2 height speakers in their 9.1 set-up, then you know it is a 7.1.2 configuration.


----------



## Oledurt

Just wanted to put this out there I purchased the polk audio owm 5 (white) speakers and installed them with omnimount brackets. They are mounted perpendicular to the screen approximately 8 feet overhead. Aesthetically they look awesome and blend right into the white ceiling. They sound really good for atmos. They have really good vertical and horizontal dispersion. They are designed with a slightly convex cabinet the top and bottom mid range drivers are angled slightly which improves vertical dispersion. I ran audyssey, and played the atmos trailers on vudu. Wow! These work very well as atmos speakers and only cost $100 or less per speaker. If you are looking for a good on ceiling speaker for atmos give these a try!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

Oledurt said:


> Just wanted to put this out there I purchased the polk audio owm 5 (white) speakers and installed them with omnimount brackets. They are mounted perpendicular to the screen approximately 8 feet overhead. Aesthetically they look awesome and blend right into the white ceiling. They sound really good for atmos. They have really good vertical and horizontal dispersion. They are designed with a slightly convex cabinet the top and bottom mid range drivers are angled slightly which improves vertical dispersion. I ran audyssey, and played the atmos trailers on vudu. Wow! These work very well as atmos speakers and only cost $100 or less per speaker. If you are looking for a good on ceiling speaker for atmos give these a try!


I agree that the Polk Audio OWM5 works very well as a height speaker. I have been using them wall-mounted as FH for almost a year now; in Atmos/DSU mode they perform admirably. I had already installed mine IAW DTS specs for Neo:X 11.1 and they are thus actually at less than the minimum elevation angle recommended by Dolby for Atmos. Yet I couldn't ask for a more cohesive contribution to the hemispherical immersion from that position than they are delivering at present. (I'm also using the OWM5 as Sr and SB.)

HST, I recently picked up two more (deeply discounted) pairs of Polk Audio 80F/X-RT in-ceiling speakers to match my current TM and I plan to install them soon as FH1 and FH1(2) for three overhead arrays and in replacement of the wall-mounted OWM5. I'll run the two new FH pairs in parallel until an affordable AVR comes along that will permit me to send a discrete signal to each of the three arrays. (Shout-out to @Josh Z for inspiring me to make this move ahead of the x.x.6 game.)


----------



## Oledurt

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree that the Polk Audio OWM5 works very well as a height speaker. I have been using them wall-mounted as FH for almost a year now; in Atmos/DSU mode they perform admirably. I had already installed mine IAW DTS specs for Neo:X 11.1 and they are thus actually at less than the minimum elevation angle recommended by Dolby for Atmos. Yet I couldn't ask for a more cohesive contribution to the hemispherical immersion from that position than they are delivering at present. (I'm also using the OWM5 as Sr and SB.)
> 
> HST, I recently picked up two more (deeply discounted) pairs of Polk Audio 80F/X-RT in-ceiling speakers to match my current TM and I plan to install them soon as FH1 and FH1(2) for three overhead arrays and in replacement of the wall-mounted OWM5. I'll run the two new FH pairs in parallel until an affordable AVR comes along that will permit me to send a discrete signal to each of the three arrays. (Shout-out to @Josh Z for inspiring me to make this move ahead of the x.x.6 game.)



Sounds like an awesome setup! I am running the owm's with polk rti's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

Oledurt said:


> Sounds like an awesome setup! I am running the owm's with polk rti's.


Same here. They are not a perfect timbre-match but blend in well nonetheless as a very adaptable, multipurpose speaker.

My current speaker set-up: RTiA7 (F/LR), CSiA5 (C), RTiA5 (FW) OWM5 (Sr, SB, FH), 80F/X-RT (TM), SVS SB-2000 (SW).


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> To me 11.1 and 7.1.4 mean very different things. 7.1.4 is referring to the height speakers (x.x.4) whereas 11.1 indicates no heights at all. I think we should always make this distinction. What do others of you out there think?


I like Dolby Atmos new "concept" best; it is self-explanatory, incisive, precise, clear. There are no ambiguities.
Their pdf guidelines are also very well done.

Yeah, 5.1.2 - 5.1.4 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 - 9.1.2 - 9.1.4 ...I really like that. ... 7.1.6
...Floor channel speakers, LFE channel subwoofer, and overhead Atmos channel speakers...first number, middle number, and last number, respectively.


----------



## blazar

I think a speaker location agnostic principle is best and you would just put however many speakers are you wanted, anywhere you wanted.

X.y.Z is crazy with the subs in the middle. This doesnt even take into account a height layer vs a ceiling layer.

Once you get to 16+ channels, the immersion level is quite good irrespective of the absolute exact configuration.


----------



## audioguy

blazar said:


> I think a speaker location agnostic principle is best and you would just put however many speakers are you wanted, anywhere you wanted.
> 
> X.y.Z is crazy with the subs in the middle. This doesnt even take into account a height layer vs a ceiling layer.
> 
> Once you get to 16+ channels, the immersion level is quite good irrespective of the absolute exact configuration.


You've been pretty clear on this matter previously.


----------



## SoundChex

lujan said:


> Josh Z said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just different nomenclature for the same thing. Dolby came up with the idea of giving the height channels their own separate number. DTS doesn't want to be seen copying Dolby, so they do it the old way.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me that there's not going to be any standardization on the nomenclature?
Click to expand...



Getting standards *written* is not the problem . . . arranging to have them *followed* is...

For an "exciting" and|or "challenging" experience related to speaker layout naming, you might want to see what the *ITU* "recommends":

*Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_link_)

*Report ITU-R BS.2159-6 (11/2013) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications* (_link_)



*Inter*|*intra* document "_nomenclature deconfliction_" is left as an exercise for the reader!


----------



## blazar

audioguy said:


> You've been pretty clear on this matter previously.


Just saying that the current nomenclature is really somewhat of a mess and I think they should have just scrapped it. They want to preserve legacy speaker locations. I agree with that to an extent since its crazy to tear apart your house. On the other hand, preserving the old nomenclature is extremely confusing. I suppose you could also argue that anyone who is hardcore enough to put up 32 speakers will be hardcore enough to figure out their unusual naming schemes.

Marketing and naming becoming almost irrelevant if the system simply maps whatever speakers you happen to have. So many of the houses of friends that I have visited have extremely odd options for speaker locations. If they really wanted to sell the most Atmos to the most people, they should have simply taken into account that folks want placement convenience.

Realistically, it is the LEAST hardcore customer who wants to put their speakers in random crazy places in their gameroom or non-dedicated living room area. These are the folks for which fixed speaker locations become just a hassle. These are the folks that will figure, "if it can't be done right, I just won't bother".

The DTS folks have their marketing right in my opinion. Place your speakers somewhere in your room and we will do the rest... We all know that a "hemisphere" is not entirely necessary since the speaker's delays can be adjusted by the room correction algorithm. Sure some speakers may be significantly off axis... but its still going to sound pretty damn awesome.

I am curious what the first DTS HTiB looks like. I wonder if Bose will come out with a 20+ satellite speaker box set.


----------



## FilmMixer

blazar said:


> The DTS folks have their marketing right in my opinion. Place your speakers somewhere in your room and we will do the rest...


Do you really think that how it's going to work? 

You seem smart enough to not believe everything coming out of marketing speak..

IMO DTS is promising a lot that they've yet to clarify, demonstrate or back up... as others have pointed out even during the role out, they were very careful to clarify that you can put speakers anywhere in a _cinema environment _and it will be properly rendered to.. they most definitely made the distinction... both in specifically and omission...

I also find it curious why everyone I've spoken to who was at the launch even didn't see one example of the supposed "remapping..." all the setups were carefully setup for optimal playback...

"Remapping" (which isn't what they are talking about anyways) is wholly a function of the AVR/SSP... 

Atmos can render in the same way... _if the processor supports it. _ And right now there is only one solution that still isn't in the wild yet...

Dolby just doesn't go around telling consumers they can put speakers where ever they want and all will be right.. 

I expect you to be very disappointed for a very long while with what is coming down the pike...

As always.. just my .02.


----------



## kingwiggi

blazar said:


> The DTS folks have their marketing right in my opinion. Place your speakers somewhere in your room and we will do the rest... We all know that a "hemisphere" is not entirely necessary since the speaker's delays can be adjusted by the room correction algorithm. Sure some speakers may be significantly off axis... but its still going to sound pretty damn awesome.



You do know what DTS said about you being able to put your speakers anywhere is a load of baloney :right !

For the foreseeable future that's certainly not going to be possible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on a way to retract that nonsense, or else they will put the blame firmly at the feet of the AVR manufacturers when people wake up and start saying 'but you said I could ...".


----------



## dormie1360

sdurani said:


> The Dolby nomenclature is clearer but hasn't yet been adopted universally because it is more difficult to get right (people sometimes mix up the order, making it look like they have multiple subs and only one height speaker). Correct, you'd have to look at the context of the description to see what 9.1 means. For example, if someone says they only have 2 height speakers in their 9.1 set-up, then you know it is a 7.1.2 configuration.


Speaking of multiple subs, so is the second number suppose to be the total number of subs, even though there is still only one channel for LFE and managed base?


----------



## Mre_man

Would like a little advice. I will add a diagram later. The new room for my setup is a sunken family room with a fire place on the right side in the middle of the wall sandwiched between two windows. The left wall is not as long because the second stair case is in the front left corner of room with the doorway leading to the garage. What would be the back corner on the left wall is actually the steps leading into the sunken room with the door leading to the garage. There is no back wall because it's open to the breakfast nook and kitchen. Instead of a back wall there is a banister overlooking the sunken room. This is the best way I can describe this space. As I said I'll add a diagram later. 

The problem I'm having is deciding how to setup my 7.2.4 atmos setup. Not too worried about ceiling speaker placement although there is a ceiling fan. Hope it does not interfere with the overhead layer of sound. The family room is 18x18x9. I originally wanted to mount the tv above the fire place which would put the LCR about 12 feet from the MLP, which is ideal but due to the location of the steps leading to the sunken room I have no choice but to put the couch against the wall and that would leave no room behind the MLP for surround back speakers. Even if the surround backs were in wall it would still be one inch behind the MLP. 

I decided to put the tv on the front wall by the staircase. Again the LCR will be about 12 feet from MLP so I'm good there. This leaves me with about 2 feet from the surround backs and the MLP. 3 feet if I scooch the couch up a little more. I would use either speaker stands or mount the speakers to the rails of the banister, both options have a very low WAF, lol. Not a big deal for me. The real problem I'm having is with the surround speakers. Can't decide if I should put the left one just before the steps to the sunken room or on the wall behind the same steps in order to give some coverage to the second seating area that is located on the wall on the opposite side of the fireplace. Difference is one location is 3 feet from MLP but no coverage to second seating area and the other is about 8 feet from MLP but gives coverage to second seating area. The right surround speaker can be toed-in to give coverage to both listening positions but unfortunately it can only be place at about 1 foot from the MLP. 

I'm really racking my brains on this one because I don't know which placement of my surrounds is the best compromise of sound quality due to the layout of my room. Any suggestions would really help. I'll get that diagram up soon.

Here's a rundown of my gear:
Mains: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-980
Center: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-28ii
Sourrounds and surround backs: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-66
Subs: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-200
Overhead speakers: JBL CONTROL ONE OUTDOOR SPEAKERS

Thanks again guys for your help!!!!


----------



## NorthSky

It should always remain *.1* in my clear opinion and for clarity sake of everyone. 

If that stays *.1* @ all time then everyone would know that there is only one LFE channel.

* In reply to John's post just above. ...Number 24444


----------



## blazar

dormie1360 said:


> Speaking of multiple subs, so is the second number suppose to be the total number of subs, even though there is still only one channel for LFE and managed base?


lmao... see ... confusion


----------



## billqs

Mre_man said:


> Would like a little advice. I will add a diagram later. The new room for my setup is a sunken family room with a fire place on the right side in the middle of the wall sandwiched between two windows. The left wall is not as long because the second stair case is in the front left corner of room with the doorway leading to the garage. What would be the back corner on the left wall is actually the steps leading into the sunken room with the door leading to the garage. There is no back wall because it's open to the breakfast nook and kitchen. Instead of a back wall there is a banister overlooking the sunken room. This is the best way I can describe this space. As I said I'll add a diagram later.
> 
> The problem I'm having is deciding how to setup my 7.2.4 atmos setup. Not too worried about ceiling speaker placement although there is a ceiling fan. Hope it does not interfere with the overhead layer of sound. The family room is 18x18x9. I originally wanted to mount the tv above the fire place which would put the LCR about 12 feet from the MLP, which is ideal but due to the location of the steps leading to the sunken room I have no choice but to put the couch against the wall and that would leave no room behind the MLP for surround back speakers. Even if the surround backs were in wall it would still be one inch behind the MLP.
> 
> I decided to put the tv on the front wall by the staircase. Again the LCR will be about 12 feet from MLP so I'm good there. This leaves me with about 2 feet from the surround backs and the MLP. 3 feet if I scooch the couch up a little more. I would use either speaker stands or mount the speakers to the rails of the banister, both options have a very low WAF, lol. Not a big deal for me. The real problem I'm having is with the surround speakers. Can't decide if I should put the left one just before the steps to the sunken room or on the wall behind the same steps in order to give some coverage to the second seating area that is located on the wall on the opposite side of the fireplace. Difference is one location is 3 feet from MLP but no coverage to second seating area and the other is about 8 feet from MLP but gives coverage to second seating area. The right surround speaker can be toed-in to give coverage to both listening positions but unfortunately it can only be place at about 1 foot from the MLP.
> 
> I'm really racking my brains on this one because I don't know which placement of my surrounds is the best compromise of sound quality due to the layout of my room. Any suggestions would really help. I'll get that diagram up soon.
> 
> Here's a rundown of my gear:
> Mains: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-980
> Center: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-28ii
> Sourrounds and surround backs: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-66
> Subs: BIC ACOUSTECH PL-200
> Overhead speakers: JBL CONTROL ONE OUTDOOR SPEAKERS
> 
> Thanks again guys for your help!!!!


You might want to forego the rear surrounds and just use side surrounds. You can still run 4 overhead speakers for height and get plenty of immersion.


----------



## sdurani

dormie1360 said:


> Speaking of multiple subs, so is the second number suppose to be the total number of subs, even though there is still only one channel for LFE and managed base?


Depends on the context. If you're listening to a 5.1.4 Auro soundtrack, then the middle number is describing the LFE channel. If your home theatre has a 9.2.4 layout, then the middle number is describing a pair of subs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Depends on the context. If you're listening to a 5.1.4 Auro soundtrack, then the middle number is describing the LFE channel. If your home theatre has a 9.2.4 layout, then the middle number is describing a pair of subs.


Pretty much this.

Now, what about multiples of subwoofers in one or several locations?

Let's use my room as an example. I have seven physical subwoofer enclosures, each with two 18" drivers. Now, I'd call each one a single subwoofer. So that could be 7.7.4 or...

Would I (in the context of describing my surround layout) call them out by designated output? So I'll have four enclosures up front but those will be grouped to one (or maybe two) output(s). Then I'll have two enclosures in the rear of the room in each corner, also used as if they were one subwoofer and then another enclosure which is a riser and that gets its own signal. Counting all that up I have anywhere from three to four discrete outputs of subwoofer (level, delay, EQ etc.) though all of them really getting the same bass managed signal from the AVR.

Do I call my room 7.7.4 or do I call it 7.3.4?

Is it how many enclosures or how many discrete outputs?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> Now, what about multiples of subwoofers in one or several locations?
> 
> Let's use my room as an example. I have seven physical subwoofer enclosures, each with two 18" drivers. Now, I'd call each one a single subwoofer. So that could be 7.7.4 or...
> 
> Would I (in the context of describing my surround layout) call them out by designated output? So I'll have four enclosures up front but those will be grouped to one (or maybe two) output(s). Then I'll have two enclosures in the rear of the room in each corner, also used as if they were one subwoofer and then another enclosure which is a riser and that gets its own signal. Counting all that up I have anywhere from three to four discrete outputs of subwoofer (level, delay, EQ etc.) though all of them really getting the same bass managed signal from the AVR.
> 
> Do I call my room 7.7.4 or do I call it 7.3.4?
> 
> Is it how many enclosures or how many discrete outputs?


The term 'discrete output' should be better defined. If I make a 2 speaker array out both of my surrounds using miniDSP (adjusting level, delay and eq) instead of applying a simple Y-splitter, have I added two 'discrete outputs' to my system?


----------



## mtbdudex

^^Scott seems 7.7.4 as your subs are exciting room modes per your layout strategy for overall freq flatness at seating positions. Your (4) dual subs couple to act as 1 sub each, what I type you well know.

This is academic, as pointed out there is only 1 LFE feed... However for discussion some examples below...

I feel the "individual" sub counting game depends if you consider sub coupling effects, and from there look at the "sub" exciting room modes viewpoint; regardless of level, delay, EQ.

Examples:
If someone only has a front wall SBA with (4) 21" subs at the 1/4 wavelength does that count as 1 or 4 subs ?

If someone has 2 line array subs on the front wall in both corners, (4) 18" drivers each spanning floor to ceiling, does that count as 2 subs (drivers couple still) or 8?

If someone has 4 subs, 1 in each corner of the room, does that count as 4? 

This can't be first time it's come up here at AVS, right?
Some thread in the DIY section has covered this, even under pre Atmos speaker naming scheme ?



Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> The term 'discrete output' should be better defined. If I make a 2 speaker array out both of my surrounds using miniDSP (adjusting level, delay and eq) instead of applying a simple Y-splitter, have I added two 'discrete outputs' to my system?


The one where you have two independent outputs from your minidsp would be, imo, two discrete outputs. The y-splitter version would not.

In my case, I'd have three to four discrete sub outputs all coming from one subwoofer output from the AVR. Each 'cluster' would get it's own delay, level and EQ so they are not all the same signal.

I'm going to settle on that. 7.4.4 7.4.6 it is.


----------



## Scott Simonian

mtbdudex said:


> ^^Scott seems 7.7.4 as your subs are exciting room modes per your layout strategy for overall freq flatness at seating positions. Your (4) dual subs couple to act as 1 sub each, what I type you well know.
> 
> This is academic, as pointed out there is only 1 LFE feed... However for discussion some examples below...
> 
> I feel the "individual" sub counting game depends if you consider sub coupling effects, and from there look at the "sub" exciting room modes viewpoint; regardless of level, delay, EQ.


Good point. Back to _just_ 7.1.6 then. 

All those subwoofers! I can't brag with a number drop. Agh!


----------



## lorjam

With multiple subs, whatever you call it someone is going to be confused......probably me


----------



## pasender91

The second number MUST be the number of discrete channels, not speakers, like it is for the first and 3rd number by the way.
Say i have a 7.1.4 and i decide to split top channels and have a pair of speakers for each, then can i call call that a 7.1.8 ?. For sure not !
So it is the same for subs, even if you have 8 subs, if they are fed with the same signal then it is a .1, that's final and anyone not agreeing will be shot 

In case there is processing changing the source signal (for example with MiniDSP as described by maikeldepotter), then the signal reaching the sub is different and in this case you can say x.2.x or x.4.x


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd call each one a single subwoofer. So that could be 7.7.4 or...


That dilemma has been around since way before Dolby's new nomenclature. Years ago people used to post that they were running a 7.4 set-up. We understood what that meant in the context of a speaker layout (no one thought the soundtrack had magically grown 3 extra LFE channels). So whether that nomenclature is used to describe the number of discrete source channels (as it was originally intended to do) or the number of speakers/subs, most of us will understand what is being described as long as it is in context.


----------



## BigScreen

The discussion of how to refer to one's setup (5.1, 7.1, 7.1.4, et al) began to get complicated once rear surrounds were introduced (if you have two rear surrounds, is it 7.1, or only 6.1 because there was no 7.1 surround?), and then Atmos and Auro took that to a new level, literally.

As a result, I don't think you can make an isolated reference without also providing some context, at least not without confusion.

If one wants to say that you can't refer to having two subs with a .2 reference because the source only has one LFE channel, that would be OK, except for the fact that the source material and the output configuration can be very different. If you're going to use the source material as the reference, then technically, all Atmos-capable systems are 24.1.10 systems, with varying output configurations. 

Not too many people are going to refer to their system as a 24.1.10 setup, so then it comes down to what the processor is capable of. However, what if you have a processor capable of four height channels, but you're only using two of them? What if you're using wides but not rear surrounds?

There are more exceptions than there are commonalities, even though a majority of people probably have one of maybe three configurations.

Maybe we need to fragment the nomenclature even more with a layered approach:

[Fronts]-[Sides]-[Rears].[Subs].[Heights]

The numbers would be the individual outputs available from the processing equipment, not source material, and not number of physical speakers.

A traditional system that has three fronts, two side surrounds, and one sub would be 3-2.1. Adding two rear surrounds would turn it into 3-2-2.1. Adding four heights would be 3-2-2.1.4. If you had two subs that were driven by independently controlled outputs (whether from a receiver, or from an intermediary device like a Mini-DSP that does something to process the single sub signal into two, but not just for leveling purposes), then it would be 3-2-2.2.4. Adding wides would turn it into a 5-2-2.2.4 because the wides would be part of the front portion.

Do I think this will happen? No, probably not. 

But if it does, I claim the right to call it the "BigScreen Naming System (BNS)"


----------



## lorjam

Now I'm REALLY confused. I'm going to pick up all my marbles and go home.


----------



## dormie1360

Thanks for all the comments on nomenclature. I guess I've always thought of it based on how many outputs you are connected to on the back of your processor/AVR. My theater will have 3 subs, 4 overheads, 6 surrounds (4 side arrays) and LCR. I'll probably call it a 7.1.4 theater. To Sanjay's point, however, if I said 7.3.4 I don't think most would be confused as to what my setup is.....as there is only one LFE.


----------



## scarabaeus

The Atmos content itself does not have any such designations, only locations for sound objects (except for the LFE, which has no location).

At the point of rendering Atmos, the renderer is using a locally defined set of speaker locations, and essentially converts object based audio into channel based audio.

The X.Y.Z nomenclature describes the local channel configuration that the renderer renders the Atmos audio to. Usually Y is one, for the subwoofer channel, but an AVR can do different post-processing for more than one subwoofer, and then Y becomes greater than one.

(Notice the distiction between LFE and Sub: LFE is the source signal, which together with the extracted bass from the bass management becomes the subwoofer speaker feed)


----------



## Josh Z

You guys are really overthinking this nomenclature stuff. Dolby's naming convention is very logical and easy to understand from context, regardless of anyone's quibbling about the semantics of it. When someone says they have a "7.1.4" system, you instantly know where their speakers are.

Calling that exact same speaker configuration "11.1" is confusing, however, because it doesn't give any indication of whether all 11 channels are on the ground or if some are up above.

7.1.4 means 7 speakers on the ground and 4 up above. Easy. Very little room for misunderstanding there.

Meanwhile, 11.1 could mean 11 speakers on the ground, or 9 on the ground and 2 above, or 7 on the ground and 4 above, or 5 on the ground and 6 above, or other possible permutations. 

The ambiguity over whether the ".1" should be used to refer only to the discrete LFE channel in the signal, or to the number of subwoofers in use, has been an issue ever since 5.1 audio was introduced in the 1990s and is neither new nor at all specific to the immersive formats. You can decide how you want to treat that one for yourself, but splitting the other channels into separate numbers for ground speakers and height speakers makes perfectly logical sense.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I agree. Now we can see at a glance how someone has their room configured.

11.1 would make sense a year or two ago. It meant they were using 7.1+wides and heights for Neo:X and/or DSX but now I prefer the new way.


----------



## Frank714

rillo said:


> Which titles do you know with Dolby Atmos track?


Titles I personally listened to would be _Gravity_ (Diamond Luxe Edition), _Chicago_ (latest Japanese release), _Expendables 3_, _John Wick_, the two Dolby Atmos demo discs and in a few days the Euro version of _Unbroken_, just released in the UK.

But I believe you have a complete overview in mind? Indeed, a global overview of Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays would be cool, IMHO.


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> That dilemma has been around since way before Dolby's new nomenclature. Years ago people used to post that they were running a 7.4 set-up. We understood what that meant in the context of a speaker layout (no one thought the soundtrack had magically grown 3 extra LFE channels). So whether that nomenclature is used to describe the number of discrete source channels (as it was originally intended to do) or the number of speakers/subs, most of us will understand what is being described as long as it is in context.


That is how I understand it ("number of discrete source channels"). I always say that I have 7.1.4 but I actually have 2 subs but I don't believe they are discrete so I don't say I have 7.2.4.


----------



## lujan

More Atmos movies coming up:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Dolby-Atmos-Blu-ray-Hat-Trick.shtml


----------



## sdurani

lujan said:


> That is how I understand it ("number of discrete source channels").


That was the original intent of the X.x nomenclature. So if you were really anal, you would use the term 5.1EX to describe a soundtrack with a surround-back channel that was matrix encoded rather than discrete (6.1). 

But that same nomenclature started to be used to describe speaker layouts, like when someone asks if your running a 5.1 or 7.1 set-up. I have no problem with the change of usage, as long as there is some context to let me know what those numbers are describing.


----------



## blazar

9.1.10 is my actual setup (without true ceiling speakers yet).

The naming system doesn't differentiate height layer and ceiling speakers necessarily.

I plan on adding 4 more ceiling speakers, likely in a X configuration.

I suppose that makes it 9.1.10.4 or 9.1.14?

Not sure what dts's naming scheme might be...

Also not sure if Auro will be viable with all the other more seasoned competition. Their scheme may either be irrelevant or simply compatible with dts or future remapping schemes.

Personally I would have liked 9.9.9.1 (ground - ear level, height - high on wall, ceiling, sub channel). Only in rare circumstances are you goung to have more layers than that. Maybe a floor layer if you like the japanese codec out there.

Instead of the upfiring atmos speaker, a cool idea i was wondering about: what about a ceiling mounted speaker that reflects off the floor of your room and provides the illusion of sound coming from the ground? That might actually be a cooler use for the reflective technique that some companies are using to bounce sound off the ceiling. I can't see myself putting a speaker grill on the floor... Too many technical issues.

I would agree with others about the read speakers being the least impactful on the main listening position experience, however they still seem to help if you have people sitting in the far edges of the room.


----------



## maikeldepotter

My personal philosophy is that a given channel is only to be called 'discrete' (and therefore part of a channel count) if it is being fed by a signal that is unique in its content, in which SPL, delay setting and equalization do not count as such. 

I currently run a 5.2.2 system. And while having 4 ceiling speakers installed and active, I do not count the rear heights since at the moment they only serve to perceptually lift the ear-leveled surrounds. My two subs are not connected in parallel (otherwise I would have sticked to a 5.1.2 description) but in series, where the first one acts as a bass manager for the second, which makes them reproduce different part of the bass spectrum and thus unique in their content.

Another example (not currently deployed by myself) would be the use of a center height speaker to perceptually lift the center channel. If this center height does in addition not receive exclusive content, it should not be counted as a discrete channel, irrespective of its unique level, delay, and eq settings. Same goes for side surround arrays for that matter.

Just my 2 cts.


----------



## TheSynergy

The question I have though, is what content are you currently playing with the Dolby Atmos setup, or are you simply using a built in matrix sound setting?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

TheSynergy said:


> The question I have though, is what content are you currently playing with the Dolby Atmos setup, or are you simply using a built in matrix sound setting?


I'm guessing this question was meant for someone else but any mix that's 5.1 or above sounds fantastic through the upmixer... it really is an amazing technology. The only formats that don't get a big benefit are mono or stereo films... atleast as far as my experience goes. Get it & enjoy your new 7.1 collection (if that's your setup) my rear channels have been very busy since october.


----------



## lujan

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm guessing this question was meant for someone else but any mix that's 5.1 or above sounds fantastic through the upmixer... it really is an amazing technology. The only formats that don't get a big benefit are mono or stereo films... atleast as far as my experience goes. Get it & enjoy your new 7.1 collection (if that's your setup) my rear channels have been very busy since october.


Very true... latest example was last night when I watch "I Robot" using the DSU. I heard sounds that I had never noticed this time around.


----------



## TL5

I need some help/advice with Atmos speaker placement. My MLP is only about 2 feet from back wall, my fronts/screen are about 10.5 feet away. I'm thinking I should use a FH & TM set up, but if I install my FH's on front wall according to calculator my angles will be out of spec. Do I mount the FH's on ceiling about 3-4 feet from front wall to get the correct angle? Is that OK? 


Thanks!


----------



## batpig

TL5 said:


> I need some help/advice with Atmos speaker placement. My MLP is only about 2 feet from back wall, my fronts/screen are about 10.5 feet away. I'm thinking I should use a FH & TM set up, but if I install my FH's on front wall according to calculator my angles will be out of spec. Do I mount the FH's on ceiling about 3-4 feet from front wall to get the correct angle? Is that OK?


It's all about the angles. When the lights are off your ears will not know whether those FH speakers are installed on the wall or the ceiling.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> It's all about the angles. When the lights are off your ears will not know whether those FH speakers are installed on the wall or the ceiling.


Yeah. Lots of deceptions and imaginations can happen when lights go off..


----------



## pasender91

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm guessing this question was meant for someone else but any mix that's 5.1 or above sounds fantastic through the upmixer... it really is an amazing technology. The only formats that don't get a big benefit are mono or stereo films... atleast as far as my experience goes. Get it & enjoy your new 7.1 collection (if that's your setup) my rear channels have been very busy since october.


Obviously, for mono, there is not much DSU or any other upmixer can do.
But i don't agree with you on 2.0 sources, i often found DSU was doing a good job, it can still isolate ambient noise (wind, rain, ...) and send it to the top speakers, and use surrounds and surroundbacks to augment the stereo effects, all with good measure.
Of course it is not as good as with 5.1 sources, but still is an overall benefit, so for me DSU is always ON.

I also noticed that on 2.0 sources the result was usually much better with "center spread" set to ON, which is NOT the default setting, so maybe you should try that to change your perception of DSU on 2.0 sources.


----------



## Frank714

pasender91 said:


> But i don't agree with you on 2.0 sources, i often found DSU was doing a good job, it can still isolate ambient noise (wind, rain, ...) and send it to the top speakers, and use surrounds and surroundbacks to augment the stereo effects, all with good measure.


Same here. While I only notice a subtle improvement with multi-channel DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD program content upmixed with DSU in my 7.1.4 setup, I'm rather impressed with what DSU does with 2.0 sources, ranging from TV live shows to TV series (e.g. _Star Trek-TNG, Hornblower_) and original 2.0 films (e.g._ Alien_). In the latter cases I even prefer to listen to the original stereo sound upmixed as for my taste the DTS-HD multi-channel remixes sound somewhat exaggerated or pimped. 



pasender91 said:


> I also noticed that on 2.0 sources the result was usually much better with "center spread" set to ON, which is NOT the default setting, so maybe you should try that to change your perception of DSU on 2.0 sources.


I tried that but then went back to the default setting, but YMMV. As usual, test and check it out to determine which one works best for your personal taste.


----------



## Nalleh

BigScreen said:


> A traditional system that has three fronts, two side surrounds, and one sub would be 3-2.1. Adding two rear surrounds would turn it into 3-2-2.1. Adding four heights would be 3-2-2.1.4. If you had two subs that were driven by independently controlled outputs (whether from a receiver, or from an intermediary device like a Mini-DSP that does something to process the single sub signal into two, but not just for leveling purposes), then it would be 3-2-2.2.4. Adding wides would turn it into a 5-2-2.2.4 because the wides would be part of the front portion.
> 
> Do I think this will happen? No, probably not.
> 
> But if it does, I claim the right to call it the "BigScreen Naming System (BNS)"


Actually, this is kind of what Yamaha and Denon(maybe others to) call it, if you go to info-audio.
Ex. with a stereo source it shows:
2/0/.0
2 fronts/no surrounds/. No subs
Or 5.1:
3/2/.1
3 fronts/2 surrounds/.1 sub
Or 7.1:
3/4/.1
3 fronts/4 surrounds/. 1 sub

So 7.1.4 would be:
3/4/.1/4


----------



## roxiedog13

Nalleh said:


> Actually, this is kind of what Yamaha and Denon(maybe others to) call it, if you go to info-audio.
> Ex. with a stereo source it shows:
> 2/0/.0
> 2 fronts/no surrounds/. No subs
> Or 5.1:
> 3/2/.1
> 3 fronts/2 surrounds/.1 sub
> Or 7.1:
> 3/4/.1
> 3 fronts/4 surrounds/. 1 sub
> 
> So 7.1.4 would be:
> 3/4/.1/4


I guess the thread has hit an all time low, the only thing left to debate is speaker terminology  . When I left two weeks ago the debate du jour was upgrades
or rather lack thereof , for older Denon receivers. 
Well, spring has sprung and summer is around the corner. My theater is closing for the rest of the summer will be available for special occasions only except for
the finals of the NHL. I will be listening on a 7.2.4 and hoping no flies, in the room, background or ointment . 
New gear is coming, still hoping to upgrade to 7.2.6 and hoping there is plenty of options to argue over.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lujan said:


> More Atmos movies coming up:
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Dolby-Atmos-Blu-ray-Hat-Trick.shtml


News of these titles has been around here for some time. There is a list somewhere that compiled all Atmos bluray releases... does anyone remember the URL? 
I actually really am curious because I want to know if there's something I don't know about yet on the horizon. 

I'm surprised no one's been talking about Age of Ultron... if you guys saw it with Atmos what did you think? 

I saw it at an Atmos theater, while that theater usually has top notch sound I found this time they turned the sound down too far (a rare problem for premium screens), so I couldn't really evaluate it. I'm going to see it again tomorrow night @ a different Atmos theater to see out it sounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> News of these titles has been around here for some time. There is a list somewhere that compiled all Atmos bluray releases... does anyone remember the URL?


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


----------



## Frank714

roxiedog13 said:


> I guess the thread has hit an all time low, the only thing left to debate is speaker terminology  . When I left two weeks ago the debate du jour was upgrades or rather lack thereof , for older Denon receivers.


...and Marantz, I insist (supposedly there is a D & M press event today, so maybe you should have just waited a day longer). 

But I'd agree that we should read more Dolby Atmos earwitness listening reports, highlighting impressive scenes in the various programs. 

Surely, I'm not the only one who got himself the _Chicago_ Dolby Atmos remix from Japan (and listened to it and reported)?

_Unbroken, Enchanted Kingdom_ (Japanese release) and a few others are next on my list.


----------



## lujan

kbarnes701 said:


> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos





Aras_Volodka said:


> News of these titles has been around here for some time. There is a list somewhere that compiled all Atmos bluray releases... does anyone remember the URL?
> I actually really am curious because I want to know if there's something I don't know about yet on the horizon.
> 
> I'm surprised no one's been talking about Age of Ultron... if you guys saw it with Atmos what did you think?
> 
> I saw it at an Atmos theater, while that theater usually has top notch sound I found this time they turned the sound down too far (a rare problem for premium screens), so I couldn't really evaluate it. I'm going to see it again tomorrow night @ a different Atmos theater to see out it sounds.


The complete list of Atmos movies is also available at the bottom of the link I provided earlier which lists the new movies being released in Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm surprised no one's been talking about Age of Ultron... if you guys saw it with Atmos what did you think?


Went with several other AVS members to hear it in the new IMAX 12-channel immersive format (4 heights, 4 surrounds), which is based on the Atmos mix. Overhead effects were noticeable in the first 30 seconds (dialogue from the PA system at the bad guys' secret base) and distinct rear-vs-side separation in the surround field (unusual for IMAX). Will try to catch it in Atmos before those theatres switch over to Mad Max.


----------



## Kris Deering

I'm going to see Ultron in Atmos tonight. I was planning on seeing it at some point in IMAX as the local IMAX here in Seattle got the upgrade to the new sound system and 4K laser projectors but I am just not keen on seeing it in 3D. Maybe I'll change my mind tonight if I like the movie enough to sit through it a second time. I'm seeing it in laser projection tonight in probably the best theater I've been to in all my travels, the Cinerama in Seattle. www.cinerama.com


----------



## multit

A new Dolby Cinema Trailer Elements has been released at th Dolby Vimeo channel
As always ... still no home version with Dolby Atmos available, but the trailer is anyway cool with DSU!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=dolby+atmos


TY keith!



lujan said:


> The complete list of Atmos movies is also available at the bottom of the link I provided earlier which lists the new movies being released in Atmos.


TY



sdurani said:


> Went with several other AVS members to hear it in the new IMAX 12-channel immersive format (4 heights, 4 surrounds), which is based on the Atmos mix. Overhead effects were noticeable in the first 30 seconds (dialogue from the PA system at the bad guys' secret base) and distinct rear-vs-side separation in the surround field (unusual for IMAX). Will try to catch it in Atmos before those theatres switch over to Mad Max.


Please do! IMAX 12 channel... will that be the standard for all IMAX theaters or is there a way to tell which theaters or films have the 12 channel immersive sound mix & capability? 



Kris Deering said:


> I'm going to see Ultron in Atmos tonight. I was planning on seeing it at some point in IMAX as the local IMAX here in Seattle got the upgrade to the new sound system and 4K laser projectors but I am just not keen on seeing it in 3D. Maybe I'll change my mind tonight if I like the movie enough to sit through it a second time. I'm seeing it in laser projection tonight in probably the best theater I've been to in all my travels, the Cinerama in Seattle. www.cinerama.com


I'm jealous... I really want to see the IMAX laser desperately... I'm hoping one of the chicago theaters gets an update. We have one of the ultra deluxe screens @ Navy pier who's scale is impressive enough on it's own... I could only imagine how cool that would look with laser! 



multit said:


> A new Dolby Cinema Trailer Elements has been released at th Dolby Vimeo channel
> As always ... still no home version with Dolby Atmos available, but the trailer is anyway cool with DSU!


We need more of the AMC prime/Dolby Cinema theaters as well... there is an ETX theater in the area about an hour away from chicago... I hear the ETX theaters are the ones slated to get AMC prime upgrade. 

I've found one of the problems with going to Atmos films is that the projection isn't on par with the sound. If only we could get something like dolbyvision with atmos in most cities... oh man would that be fantastic!


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> IMAX 12 channel... will that be the standard for all IMAX theaters or is there a way to tell which theaters or films have the 12 channel immersive sound mix & capability?


I hope it becomes standard for all IMAX theatres, so I can experience it at my local one instead of driving to tourist-packed Hollywood. Currently, there are only three IMAX locations in the world with their new immersive format: Los Angeles, Seattle, and one in Canada.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I hope it becomes standard. Would love it if my local IMAX got the upgrade.


----------



## lansings




----------



## chi_guy50

lansings said:


>


Что это значет, друг мой? (What do you mean by this, buddy?)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> I hope it becomes standard for all IMAX theatres, so I can experience it at my local one instead of driving to tourist-packed Hollywood. Currently, there are only three IMAX locations in the world with their new immersive format: Los Angeles, Seattle, and one in Canada.


That's a real shame... for me it would be a 3 day drive to any of those locations (haha). Hopefully Chicago gets some type of laser theater with immersive sound before this X-mas... I wanna see Star Wars with laser projection!


----------



## wse

I want one of those  with B&W speakers


----------



## triplejs15

I couldn't read through all 800 plus pages, have anyone posted reviews on the difference between 7.x.4 and 5.x.4 ?


I would like to get some input before purchasing an external amp.


----------



## JamesE

wse said:


> I want one of those  with B&W speakers


Where is this?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JamesE said:


> Where is this?


DTS Headquarters.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS Headquarters.


Do you know where they are located?


----------



## Alanlee

triplejs15 said:


> I couldn't read through all 800 plus pages, have anyone posted reviews on the difference between 7.x.4 and 5.x.4 ?
> 
> 
> I would like to get some input before purchasing an external amp.


 
If this is not a joke, go to post #24415 and read forward to 24480. If it is a joke.


----------



## petetherock

triplejs15 said:


> I couldn't read through all 800 plus pages, have anyone posted reviews on the difference between 7.x.4 and 5.x.4 ?
> 
> 
> I would like to get some input before purchasing an external amp.


I had a 4100 with 5.2.4 and now a 7200 with 7.2.4
The difference is mainly a little more immersion, and the rest is bragging rights 

But seriously, the variables are room size, and if you are going to compromise on budget because you need to spread the money amongst two more speakers, then, go for the former.
I think it does make a difference, but it won't be day and night. Cheers
You can see my setup in my signature.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Do you know where they are located?


 Calabasas, California


----------



## maikeldepotter

TheSynergy said:


> The question I have though, is what content are you currently playing with the Dolby Atmos setup, or are you simply using a built in matrix sound setting?


With height speakers on the ceiling and positioned right above mains and surrounds (MLP perspective), my lay-out is more of a hybrid between an Atmos and an Auro speaker set-up. All speakers are installed equidistant from MLP, with LCR and surrounds at ear-level and heights at about 35 degrees elevation. 

I am currently not using any 3D capable AVR/processor, and the matrixing is carried out in the analog domain. The heights are used to lift the perceived sound of all 5 base level speakers from ear level (3') to 10 and 15 percent elevation for fronts (to 4') and surrounds (to 5') respectively. The fronts heights get an additional ambient extraction (Hafler matrix) from the mains, a method I am currently in the process of replicating for the surrounds.


----------



## RapalloAV

I think Ive read some in here have Railway Man...
For those that do, have the Japanese actors got English subtitles at the bottom?


----------



## Frank714

*No DTS:X firmware upgrade for D & M Dolby Atmos AV units from 2014*

:frown:

I guess now it is more or less official, I refer to my post in one of the DTS:X threads.

(and I'll add this to my list of Japanese AV industry decisions that defy common sense, Denon & Marantz now join JVC and Sony)


----------



## CBdicX

A friend is using now a Bi-amp 3.1 setup, so he is using all his 5 channels.
Will it work for him to get a DD Atmos receiver and use it as 3.1.2 ?
(he has no room for any surround speakers)
And with "will it work" i mean could or will there be a notable Atmos effect in this setup ?


Thx


----------



## zorg43x

The importance of channels, IMHO:
1) center
2) L, R
3) Ls, Rs
4) LFE
5) ...
last) upper channels


----------



## petetherock

I still don't understand why not giving DTS for 2014 defies common sense ..
A pity perhaps but for D&M it makes perfect sense. 
Sorry Frank


----------



## Frank714

petetherock said:


> I still don't understand why not giving DTS for 2014 defies common sense ..
> A pity perhaps but for D&M it makes perfect sense.
> Sorry Frank


Well, last year some of us were able to read that letter of that D & M Manager prior to its deletion according to which D & M even expected to be able to provide this DTS-UHD (= DTS:X) for free (I had thus far preferred not to mention this delicate detail, too, because the vocal majority - myself included - would have been willing to pay for that).

Then we had Mr. Yamada's mouthful company policy (since Mr. Barnes found fault with "philosophy") statement about "constant ambition" to provide "proud" D & M owners with upgrades for already "existing products", which now is obviously not happening and null and void. 

As a consequence D & M will not be selling any still actual 2014 "Dolby Atmos only" AV units to AVS members that feel the issue to be important (which, I need to stress this, was started by a D & M manager last year by suggesting this upgrade possibility!) and for the future any D & M statements of their employees and personnel should be merely regarded as claims, wishful thinking and hot air that shouldn't be taken serious unless it's officially written down in public documents available on their official websites.

I was under the impression that D & M is proud of its reputation and credibility, but this particular issue casts doubts which is not good PR and therefore, IMHO, defies common sense. YMMV.


----------



## tjenkins95

Frank714 said:


> Well, last year some of us were able to read that letter of that D & M Manager prior to its deletion according to which D & M even expected to be able to provide this DTS-UHD (= DTS:X) for free (I had thus far preferred not to mention this delicate detail, too, because the vocal majority - myself included - would have been willing to pay for that).
> 
> Then we had Mr. Yamada's mouthful company policy (since Mr. Barnes found fault with "philosophy") statement about "constant ambition" to provide "proud" D & M owners with upgrades for already "existing products", which now is obviously not happening and null and void.
> 
> As a consequence D & M will not be selling any still actual 2014 "Dolby Atmos only" AV units to AVS members that feel the issue to be important (which, I need to stress this, was started by a D & M manager last year by suggesting this upgrade possibility!) and for the future any D & M statements of their employees and personnel should be merely regarded as claims, wishful thinking and hot air that shouldn't be taken serious unless it's officially written down in public documents available on their official websites.
> 
> I was under the impression that D & M is proud of its reputation and credibility, but this particular issue casts doubts which is not good PR and therefore, IMHO, defies common sense. YMMV.


 

In my humble opinion, this issue does NOT cast any doubts about D & M's reputation and credibility for me. From a sales perspective it also makes perfectly good sense to provide the new DTS:X capability in a future AVR release. I have been using DENON products for many, many years and I think they provide great products!


Ray


----------



## lujan

multit said:


> A new Dolby Cinema Trailer Elements has been released at th Dolby Vimeo channel
> As always ... still no home version with Dolby Atmos available, but the trailer is anyway cool with DSU!


I tried to access this on my Roku 3 using the Vimeo channel and did a search for "Element" and "Dolby" and it didn't come up on the results. Did I need to search on the entire string "Element: Introducing Dolby Cinema"?


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> In my humble opinion, this issue does NOT cast any doubts about D & M's reputation and credibility for me. From a sales perspective it also makes perfectly good sense to provide the new DTS:X capability in a future AVR release. I have been using DENON products for many, many years and I think they provide great products!
> 
> 
> Ray


Absolutely. And as for people not buying a Denon, of course they will - they may have _deferred_ the purchase until the new versions with DTS:X are released, just as some people have deferred purchases while waiting for 4K or HDMI 2.0 or whatever. But most normal people will still buy Denons and do not hold it against them that they delivered exactly what they promised when the last round of units were released. 

It is beyond absurd that some people have such a sense of entitlement that they cannot comprehend that Denon (and most other people) do not see it the same way as they do. I guess they will still be complaining in 5 years time that their 2014 unit didn't get a DTS:X upgrade that was never once mentioned on Denon's official website.

The best thing those people can do, IMO, is to sell their non-DTS:X 2014 unit and make a solemn and binding vow to themselves never to purchase a Denon, ever again. This will also have a knock-on benefit for the rest of us that they will stop posting in Denon threads!


----------



## petetherock

zorg43x said:


> The importance of channels, IMHO:
> 1) center
> 2) L, R
> 3) Ls, Rs
> 4) LFE
> 5) ...
> last) upper channels


For me it's:

Centre, then sub, then the L&R and the rears. Cheers


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I still don't understand why not giving DTS for 2014 defies common sense ..
> A pity perhaps but for D&M it makes perfect sense.
> Sorry Frank


Of course. Otherwise Denon wouldn't do it. It makes sense to them to do it the way they are doing it and that is that. Individual customers cannot dictate a company's policy and it is ludicrous to think that they should. Would I like a DTS:X upgrade to my 5200? Of course I darn well would! Was I ever promised a DTS:X upgrade when I bought my 5200? No I was not. Will I replace my 5200 with a new unit this year? No I won't. Will I replace it next year, when DTS:X, HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0 are all on board? Yes I will. It all seems so straightforward to me.


----------



## jrref

Frank714 said:


> :frown:
> 
> I guess now it is more or less official, I refer to my post in one of the DTS:X threads.
> 
> (and I'll add this to my list of Japanese AV industry decisions that defy common sense, Denon & Marantz now join JVC and Sony)


It's not the end of the world. Still no date on when the units they say will be upgraded will get it and still no DTS:X content on the horizon, But there is plenty of Atmos content in the pipeline to enjoy right now. Also if you read the blogs carefully on DTS:X, they are not releasing the really "cool" features in the first release anyway, probably because the 32 bit DSPs don't have the capacity yet. So we are probably going to have to wait for the 64 bit DSPs and DTS:X and the AVR manufacturers to see the 2nd generation of DTS:X anyway which will make the 2015 AVRs obsolete in 2016 because they will have the same 32 bit DSPs as we have right now. Best to enjoy what we have right now until the 2nd generation of these formats are available to upgrade.


----------



## kbarnes701

jrref said:


> It's not the end of the world. Still no date on when the units they say will be upgraded will get it and still no DTS:X content on the horizon, But there is plenty of Atmos content in the pipeline to enjoy right now. Also if you read the blogs carefully on DTS:X, they are not releasing the really "cool" features in the first release anyway, probably because the 32 bit DSPs don't have the capacity yet. So we are probably going to have to wait for the 64 bit DSPs and DTS:X and the AVR manufacturers to see the 2nd generation of DTS:X anyway which will make the 2015 AVRs obsolete in 2016 because they will have the same 32 bit DSPs as we have right now. Best to enjoy what we have right now until the 2nd generation of these formats are available to upgrade.


I agree. I think the best plan is for anyone with a 2014 unit to sit it out now until 2016. And anyone who doesn't have a current Atmos unit should perhaps buy in 2015 (with DTS:X on board), with a view to updating again in 2017. A 2 year cycle for an AVR is reasonable these days where progress is so rapid. Inevitably one will miss out on something - if units are on a 12 month manufacturing cycle - but the pros have to be weighed against the cons (mostly expense in the latter case).


----------



## Stanton

kbarnes701 said:


> A 2 year cycle for an AVR is reasonable these days where progress is so rapid.


Not it's not: I've barely bought 2 AVRs (in almost 20 years) and I don't expect to shell out $2k+ every other year for a piece of A/V gear. That said, you have to pick your features and "must haves"; for me that's DTS:X (Dolby Atmos is a given) and HDCP 2.2 (I'm also buying a 4k TV later this year). I've been heading towards a 2015 AVR purchase, but won't know for sure until 2015 models/specs are announced.


----------



## petetherock

Actually IMHO, NONE of the surround modes are needed to enjoy a movie.
Putting aside our egos / bragging rights etc, if it was about the movie, a solid movie can be fun to watch, sans subwoofer, sans surround. Heck even a stereo or mono setup can be fun.

Do we need Atmos? Does our life end if we don't have DTS X? No way! 

But to paraphrase "300" : This is AVS! The land of speaker excesses and where watts are measured by the kilo, and if it cannot be heard four floors up and around, it's not home theatre 

I once watched "Usual Suspects" on a 4" screen, listening with the most rubbish cans on a UA flight, and it was wonderful. I forget how awful the food was, and how rude the stewardesses were, and I could not leave my seat until the movie ended (well the queue for the toilet lasted almost as long too  )


----------



## Franin

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. I think the best plan is for anyone with a 2014 unit to sit it out now until 2016. And anyone who doesn't have a current Atmos unit should perhaps buy in 2015 (with DTS:X on board), with a view to updating again in 2017. A 2 year cycle for an AVR is reasonable these days where progress is so rapid. Inevitably one will miss out on something - if units are on a 12 month manufacturing cycle - but the pros have to be weighed against the cons (mostly expense in the latter case).


Depending on the progress. I had my Denon AVP A1HD close to 6 years before I got rid of it. Once you got the DTS X and the HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 for some that could be enough for a good number of years. Then again depending on the progress it will have to be a big step for some to change.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stanton said:


> Not it's not: I've barely bought 2 AVRs (in almost 20 years) and I don't expect to shell out $2k+ every other year for a piece of A/V gear. That said, you have to pick your features and "must haves"; for me that's DTS:X (Dolby Atmos is a given) and HDCP 2.2 (I'm also buying a 4k TV later this year). I've been heading towards a 2015 AVR purchase, but won't know for sure until 2015 models/specs are announced.


I didn't say it was cost-effective! It is reasonable if one wants most of the latest features simply because things move on so quickly these days, as the last year has amply shown.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Actually IMHO, NONE of the surround modes are needed to enjoy a movie.
> Putting aside our egos / bragging rights etc, if it was about the movie, a solid movie can be fun to watch, sans subwoofer, sans surround. Heck even a stereo or mono setup can be fun.


It can, but you are missing much of what makes the movie a movie. The sound is half the movie, as they say, so missing a lot of it by using range-restricted speakers is missing a lot of what the creators intended you to experience.



petetherock said:


> Do we need Atmos? Does our life end if we don't have DTS X? No way!


Same is true of the Internet, anything other than a basic car, water piped into our homes and so on. We can live perfectly well without them, but who wants to?



petetherock said:


> But to paraphrase "300" : This is AVS! The land of speaker excesses and where watts are measured by the kilo, and if it cannot be heard four floors up and around, it's not home theatre


 I think the aim is to be able to reproduce the content as the content creators intended it to be seen and heard when they were working so hard to make it. 



petetherock said:


> I once watched "Usual Suspects" on a 4" screen, listening with the most rubbish cans on a UA flight, and it was wonderful. I forget how awful the food was, and how rude the stewardesses were, and I could not leave my seat until the movie ended (well the queue for the toilet lasted almost as long too  )


I have done the same. But to pretend that you are watching the "whole movie" is wrong.


----------



## multit

lujan said:


> I tried to access this on my Roku 3 using the Vimeo channel and did a search for "Element" and "Dolby" and it didn't come up on the results. Did I need to search on the entire string "Element: Introducing Dolby Cinema"?


I just tried it and yes, the search algorithm seems to be odd... you have either search for the whole name: "Element: Introducing Dolby Cinema" or you can simply download the 1080p version first for your pleasure


----------



## Frank714

kbarnes701 said:


> Individual customers cannot dictate a company's policy and it is ludicrous to think that they should. Would I like a DTS:X upgrade to my 5200? Of course I darn well would! Was I ever promised a DTS:X upgrade when I bought my 5200? No I was not.


The one thing I consider ludicrous is that Mr. Barnes (who recently put me on an ignore list, apparently because he felt uncomfortable when I reminded him of his statements from last year) provided another poster with this reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Chaospling*  
_Someone mentioned that a later firmware upgrade would contain DTA UHD processing. Should this be treated as a rumour or has it been confirmed?_

_"*Confirmed.* But don't expect it any time soon, given how far behind the curve DTS are running."_ 

To my knowledge Mr. Barnes is not the official spokesperson for D & M here at the AVS, but I find it rather disturbing - to say the least - that he has been nurturing these very same expectations he now deems ludicrous or else. 

Rather than to use his weight and _support_ the campaign to ask D & M about the DTS:X upgrade and/or encourage them to do so, he has instead attempted to discourage it at any given opportunity.

Frankly, I find it increasingly annoying to read posts at my expense which either do suggest that some of you have amnesia, short attention span or some difficulties opening the links I provided. *I was never the one giving raise to DTS:X upgrade expectations, I've merely been trying to remind everyone what was known and discussed prior to the official DTS:X announcement and encourage everyone affected to ask D & M about the issue.*

And again: A DTS:X upgrade option for the 2014 D & M models would have encouraged some AVS members to purchase a Dolby Atmos AVR before Fall 2015, as a result more Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays would have been sold before Fall 2015 and that would have been a good thing on behalf of Dolby Atmos in general (for those that still wonder what this DTS:X issue has to do in a Dolby Atmos devoted thread)


----------



## Tin_Can

For those of you with Atmos, how does an Atmos track sound using regular truehd decoding? Do you just lose the overhead effects? Is it possible to use DSU on an Atmos track (truehd + DSU)?

The reason I ask is because I'm curious as to how a DTS:X track may sound using DSU vs native decoding for those that have only Atmos capable units.


----------



## smurraybhm

Frank714 said:


> The one thing I consider ludicrous is that Mr. Barnes (who recently put me on an ignore list, apparently because he felt uncomfortable when I reminded him of his statements from last year) provided another poster with this reply:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chaospling*
> _Someone mentioned that a later firmware upgrade would contain DTA UHD processing. Should this be treated as a rumour or has it been confirmed?_
> 
> _"*Confirmed.* But don't expect it any time soon, given how far behind the curve DTS are running."_
> 
> To my knowledge Mr. Barnes is not the official spokesperson for D & M here at the AVS, but I find it rather disturbing - to say the least - that he has been nurturing these very same expectations he now deems ludicrous or else.
> 
> Rather than to use his weight and _support_ the campaign to ask D & M about the DTS:X upgrade and/or encourage them to do so, he has instead attempted to discourage it at any given opportunity.
> 
> Frankly, I find it increasingly annoying to read posts at my expense which either do suggest that some of you have amnesia, short attention span or some difficulties opening the links I provided. *I was never the one giving raise to DTS:X upgrade expectations, I've merely been trying to remind everyone what was known and discussed prior to the official DTS:X announcement and encourage everyone affected to ask D & M about the issue.*


Frank - I think it was suggested when you started your quest for this upgrade that you start a separate thread on the topic which IMO is the right thing to do since this is the Atmos thread. Keith explained his comments and reasoning more than once which I understood and I'm confident you did as well. Admire your perseverance, but enough is enough. Denon never promised DTS:X, show it to me in writing where they said definitely that would happen and I will be happy to eat hat as Mr. Barnes was going to do if we got DTS:X. 

You're being completely unfair to Denon, who has made some fine a/v equipment over the years and continues to do so. Some off the cuff comment about hoping to bring new technologies to our customers (see Auro) isn't close to a promise about DTS:X, 2.2 or whatever else comes down the road this year or the next one. Steve


----------



## petetherock

Tin_Can said:


> For those of you with Atmos, how does an Atmos track sound using regular truehd decoding? Do you just lose the overhead effects? Is it possible to use DSU on an Atmos track (truehd + DSU)?
> 
> The reason I ask is because I'm curious as to how a DTS:X track may sound using DSU vs native decoding for those that have only Atmos capable units.


You can choose DSU on an Atmos track, just use the Movie (Green) button on your amp.
If you don't use DSU or Atmos, the ceiling speakers go quiet. Cheers


----------



## chi_guy50

RapalloAV said:


> I think Ive read some in here have Railway Man...
> For those that do, have the Japanese actors got English subtitles at the bottom?


I rented the Blu-ray from Netflix and don't have it around any more, but my recollection is that all of the salient Japanese language dialogue had English subtitles. And all of the interrogation scenes were conducted in English through the Japanese interpreter/interrogator IIRC. (Shout-out to all of my U.S. Army 96C Interrogator colleagues at lovely Fort Huachuca, AZ!)


----------



## smurraybhm

Tin_Can said:


> For those of you with Atmos, how does an Atmos track sound using regular truehd decoding? Do you just lose the overhead effects? Is it possible to use DSU on an Atmos track (truehd + DSU)?
> 
> The reason I ask is because I'm curious as to how a DTS:X track may sound using DSU vs native decoding for those that have only Atmos capable units.


It sounds great, overhead effects and others are well placed, the same when using DTS:HD Master Audio that is well mixed. The quality of the mix is the important part. Crap in mostly crap out. As for the Atmos question the way I do that is to set the blu-ray player to do the decoding. If I don't, using bitstream the Oppo will default to the Atmos mix on the movies I own. DSU also works well with DD 5.1, Daredevil on Netflix is demo material IMO, great job mixing by fellow forum member FilmMixer.


----------



## Tin_Can

petetherock said:


> You can choose DSU on an Atmos track, just use the Movie (Green) button on your amp.
> If you don't use DSU or Atmos, the ceiling speakers go quiet. Cheers


Is there a dramatic difference between an Atmos track using Atmos decoding vs an Atmos track using DSU?


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> :frown:
> 
> I guess now it is more or less official, I refer to my post in one of the DTS:X threads.
> 
> (and I'll add this to my list of Japanese AV industry decisions that defy common sense, Denon & Marantz now join JVC and Sony)


Frankly (no pun intended), I'm far more disappointed in DTS's long-delayed and thus far anti-climactic roll-out of DTS:X than I am in D&M's decision-making on any upgrade.

As a result, my level of concern regarding having DTS:X capability this year (or next) has ebbed to the point of negligibility. Until the software is readily available and/or the CEM AVR processing proves to offer a serious challenge to what Atmos/DSU provide, it's a non-issue for me.



kbarnes701 said:


> Would I like a DTS:X upgrade to my 5200? Of course I darn well would! Was I ever promised a DTS:X upgrade when I bought my 5200? No I was not. Will I replace my 5200 with a new unit this year? No I won't. Will I replace it next year, when DTS:X, HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0 are all on board? Yes I will.


I feel much the same way. Only I might wait a little longer if necessary in order to have 9.1.6 playback and/or speaker remapping capability.


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> A friend is using now a Bi-amp 3.1 setup, so he is using all his 5 channels.
> Will it work for him to get a DD Atmos receiver and use it as 3.1.2 ?
> (he has no room for any surround speakers)
> And with "will it work" i mean could or will there be a notable Atmos effect in this setup ?
> 
> Thx


Install TM speakers and split each surround channel to be combined with mains and TM speakers. One pair of Y-splitters, two pair of stereo-to-mono converters, and some additional interconnects will do the job. No sound from the back, but plenty of overhead and (elevated) front wide immersion, especially with DSU I would expect.

Edit: I should add that for this DIY solution you need to have fronts and height speakers equidistant from MLP, or use miniDSPs to add appropriate delays. But more importantly, the current AVRs apparently can down-mix to such a 3.1.2 configuration (that I did not realize) and with satisfying results. This makes my suggested solution unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## Oledurt

Who the hell cares about a DTS X upgrade...There isn't even any content out there or in the pipeline yet. Why the impaitence? If you are smart you will wait until the 2nd generation of these formats. I purchased a Marantz AV7702 I am enjoying it greatly, and between DSU, and Dolby Atmos content I couldn't be happier! I will not be upgrading until 2017 when I expect the 2nd generation 3D object audio AVR's to come out. 3 years to enjoy a state of the art AVR is acceptable to me. By the time the new equipment is out in 2017 there will be plenty of content out, reviews between the technologies pros and cons etc...LETS BE PATIENT!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lujan

Oledurt said:


> Who the hell cares about a DTS X upgrade...There isn't even any content out there or in the pipeline yet. Why the impaitence? If you are smart you will wait until the 2nd generation of these formats. I purchased a Marantz AV7702 I am enjoying it greatly, and between DSU, and Dolby Atmos content I couldn't be happier! I will not be upgrading until 2017 when I expect the 2nd generation 3D object audio AVR's to come out. 3 years to enjoy a state of the art AVR is acceptable to me. By the time the new equipment is out in 2017 there will be plenty of content out, reviews between the technologies pros and cons etc...LETS BE PATIENT!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I agree completely with your points. I was also very disillusioned when finding out that DTS uses the 11.1 terminology rather than the 7.1.4 for example. I will be enjoying my Denon X5200W for a few years to come before upgrading AVRs.


----------



## jrref

Oledurt said:


> Who the hell cares about a DTS X upgrade...There isn't even any content out there or in the pipeline yet. Why the impaitence? If you are smart you will wait until the 2nd generation of these formats. I purchased a Marantz AV7702 I am enjoying it greatly, and between DSU, and Dolby Atmos content I couldn't be happier! I will not be upgrading until 2017 when I expect the 2nd generation 3D object audio AVR's to come out. 3 years to enjoy a state of the art AVR is acceptable to me. By the time the new equipment is out in 2017 there will be plenty of content out, reviews between the technologies pros and cons etc...LETS BE PATIENT!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Besides, the 1st generation of DTS:X is probably going to be no better or worse that Atmos and every title at some point will have an Atmos track including streaming before we see DTS:X in the main stream so we really won't be missing much.


----------



## Tin_Can

Oledurt said:


> Who the hell cares about a DTS X upgrade...There isn't even any content out there or in the pipeline yet. Why the impaitence? If you are smart you will wait until the 2nd generation of these formats. I purchased a Marantz AV7702 I am enjoying it greatly, and between DSU, and Dolby Atmos content I couldn't be happier! I will not be upgrading until 2017 when I expect the 2nd generation 3D object audio AVR's to come out. 3 years to enjoy a state of the art AVR is acceptable to me. By the time the new equipment is out in 2017 there will be plenty of content out, reviews between the technologies pros and cons etc...LETS BE PATIENT!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Well, for anyone in my position, it is a concern right now. If my preamp doesn't get DTS:X, the problem isn't buying a new preamp, the problem is flying a calibrator to my home to recalibrate.


----------



## petetherock

Tin_Can said:


> Is there a dramatic difference between an Atmos track using Atmos decoding vs an Atmos track using DSU?


Why not try it for you yourself mate?
Cheers


----------



## Tin_Can

petetherock said:


> Why not try it for you yourself mate?
> Cheers


I can't! Theater isn't built, but equipment is ordered.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tin_Can said:


> I can't! Theater isn't built, but equipment is ordered.


Well, you haven't opened the box yet have you? Send the receiver back. Wait a couple months and get something with both formats on board. Like you said, the theater isn't constructed yet. You have time. Unless you're the impatient type. 

DTS was mentioning they should have X encoded discs for the fourth quarter.


----------



## Movie78

Oledurt said:


> Who the hell cares about a DTS X upgrade...There isn't even any content out there or in the pipeline yet. Why the impaitence? If you are smart you will wait until the 2nd generation of these formats. I purchased a Marantz AV7702 I am enjoying it greatly, and between DSU, and Dolby Atmos content I couldn't be happier! I will not be upgrading until 2017 when I expect the 2nd generation 3D object audio AVR's to come out. 3 years to enjoy a state of the art AVR is acceptable to me. By the time the new equipment is out in 2017 there will be plenty of content out, reviews between the technologies pros and cons etc...LETS BE PATIENT!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Marantz AV7702 is not 2nd Generation Atmos PreAmp.


----------



## Tin_Can

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, you haven't opened the box yet have you? Send the receiver back. Wait a couple months and get something with both formats on board. Like you said, the theater isn't constructed yet. You have time. Unless you're the impatient type.
> 
> DTS was mentioning they should have X encoded discs for the fourth quarter.


Impatient? Naww, not me. .

I don't even have the prepro, it's just been ordered. But, I'm not sure I can wait until this fall for new units, as construction will be finished by then. That basically leaves me with the marantz 8802 as an option, which is $2k more. Bleh.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tin_Can said:


> Impatient? Naww, not me. .
> 
> I don't even have the prepro, it's just been ordered. But, I'm not sure I can wait until this fall for new units, as construction will be finished by then. That basically leaves me with the marantz 8802 as an option, which is $2k more. Bleh.


There's always the Denon flagship receiver, which is cheaper. It has a pre-amp mode where you can shut all internal amps off, and it will get DTS:X as well as the HDMI board upgrade.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's always the Denon flagship receiver, which is cheaper. It has a pre-amp mode where you can shut all internal amps off, and it will get DTS:X as well as the HDMI board upgrade.


Just FYI but Denon has already started shipping the factory upgraded X7200W*A* model which has the new HDCP 2.2 compliant hardware onboard. Since DTS:X will be a downloadable firmware upgrade you can buy right now and never have to worry about unhooking things and sending the unit to a repair shop for an upgrade.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Well, then there's the X7200WA model option for you (see above), Tin_Can.


----------



## batpig

CBdicX said:


> A friend is using now a Bi-amp 3.1 setup, so he is using all his 5 channels.
> Will it work for him to get a DD Atmos receiver and use it as 3.1.2 ?
> (he has no room for any surround speakers)
> And with "will it work" i mean could or will there be a notable Atmos effect in this setup ?
> 
> 
> Thx


To address the original question -- the answer is YES. Atmos/DSU processing work fine without surround speakers. I've tested on my Denon X5200 and you can get Atmos decoding and DSU upmix with a 2.1.2 setup (only fronts + two overheads). So if your friend cannot or is unwilling to use actual surrounds, he could add a pair of Front Height on the front wall or up-firing module speakers on top of his mains and it will work. 

Whether the effect will be "notable" is YMMV, but when I played with it a 2.1.2 upmix of stereo material did provide a nice enhancement of "spaciousness" to the content. Obviously it will not be as effective as a true 5.1.2 setup in terms of complete immersion but you do what you can. It's certainly more immersive/enveloping than the 3.1 setup, at least you'll get some content placed above/around you. If you think about it that's probably how "3D audio surround bars" will work, with all the speakers in front of you but some firing up, some firing out...


----------



## CBdicX

batpig said:


> To address the original question -- the answer is YES. Atmos/DSU processing work fine without surround speakers. I've tested on my Denon X5200 and you can get Atmos decoding and DSU upmix with a 2.1.2 setup (only fronts + two overheads). So if your friend cannot or is unwilling to use actual surrounds, he could add a pair of Front Height on the front wall or up-firing module speakers on top of his mains and it will work.
> 
> Whether the effect will be "notable" is YMMV, but when I played with it a 2.1.2 upmix of stereo material did provide a nice enhancement of "spaciousness" to the content. Obviously it will not be as effective as a true 5.1.2 setup in terms of complete immersion but you do what you can. It's certainly more immersive/enveloping than the 3.1 setup, at least you'll get some content placed above/around you. If you think about it that's probably how "3D audio surround bars" will work, with all the speakers in front of you but some firing up, some firing out...



Thanks for your clear answer


----------



## Tin_Can

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, then there's the X7200WA model option for you (see above), Tin_Can.


Yeah, but my preamp is feeding into a QSC unit, so I'd like to keep the balanced outs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tin_Can said:


> Yeah, but my preamp is feeding into a QSC unit, so I'd like to keep the balanced outs.


You can get shielded single-ended RCA to balanced XLR cables. For short distances XLR really doesn't help much anyway unless you have a bad ground loop hum (which should be fixed at the electrical power source)... and here's a nasty little secret: the XLR outputs on many consumer grade pre-amps are not fully balanced to begin with (for that, you need balanced circuitry throughout, found in much more expensive pro gear). 

They just look cool and have a better click connector. That's it.


----------



## Movie78

Where is *Hugo S* and his source?

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> You can get shielded single-ended RCA to balanced XLR cables. For short distances XLR really doesn't help much anyway unless you have a bad ground loop hum (which should be fixed at the electrical power source)... and here's a nasty little secret: the XLR outputs on many consumer grade pre-amps are not fully balanced to begin with (for that, you need balanced circuitry throughout, found in much more expensive pro gear).
> 
> They just look cool and have a better click connector. That's it.


But ... people think it makes an audible improvement so therefor it _does_ make an audible improvement.


----------



## chi_guy50

Movie78 said:


> Where is *Hugo S* and his source?
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868


That's a very good question; and the plot thickens!

Perhaps, as Inspector Clouseau might have surmised, "Il faut chercher la femme!"


----------



## Movie78

Great Clip!!!


----------



## slansing

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a very good question; and the plot thickens!
> 
> Perhaps, as Inspector Clouseau might have surmised, "Il faut chercher la femme!"
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3UP2FraDCU


I love that series.  Good post, you made Picard happy.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Frank - I think it was suggested when you started your quest for this upgrade that you start a separate thread on the topic which IMO is the right thing to do since this is the Atmos thread. Keith explained his comments and reasoning more than once which I understood and I'm confident you did as well. Admire your perseverance, but enough is enough. Denon never promised DTS:X, show it to me in writing where they said definitely that would happen and I will be happy to eat hat as Mr. Barnes was going to do if we got DTS:X.
> 
> You're being completely unfair to Denon, who has made some fine a/v equipment over the years and continues to do so. Some off the cuff comment about hoping to bring new technologies to our customers (see Auro) isn't close to a promise about DTS:X, 2.2 or whatever else comes down the road this year or the next one. Steve


Agreed. 

There will always be a fringe element who cannot comprehend the realities of commercial life. I have consistently advised people not to expect a DTS:X upgrade to 2014 AVRs, other than the 7200 and the Marantz equivalent. This poster is now obsessed with a comment I made months ago, which was correct at the time, but has since been overtaken by events. If that cannot be comprehended, so be it. The fact remains: the 5200 will not get a DTS:X upgrade and constantly whining about it being "unfair" is totally futile.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I feel much the same way. Only I might wait a little longer if necessary in order to have 9.1.6 playback and/or speaker remapping capability.


Fair enough. It might be a long wait of course  Unless you want to lay out 20k+ and go for a Trinnov of course  I know I don't!


----------



## Movie78

*'Fair is a place where they judge pigs'*


----------



## Patrick Murphy

*This is not my post.*

Nexgen76 


*Denon INCommand Series will have DTS X upgrade ?* 
I was in Bestbuy Magnolia store today & i met the regional sales rep(He happen to just drop by today) and i told him that i was looking at the Denon X7200( really want the x5200) because i wanted to future proof myself with the DTS-X upgrade. So i told him what my setup was, very knowledgeable guy he told me period point blank Denon INCommand series that has Atmos will receive the DTS-X firmware upgrade. So i told him no so far Denon has confirmed that the flagship x7200 is the only model.....He told me that he was in a meeting last month & Denon reps confirmed to Bestbuy Magnolia the upgrade will be for the INCommand series that has Atmos only. So after i told him i didn't belive it he offer me a deal.....He told me if i got the x5200 & they didn't offer the DTS-X firmware upgrade he would fully refund my money & give me a Bestbuy hundred dollar GC on top of that. Should i take it ? 


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...incommand-series-will-have-dts-x-upgrade.html


----------



## Movie78

*DO you trust BestBuy Sales guys?*


----------



## Scott Simonian

Patrick Murphy said:


> ...because i wanted to future proof myself ...


Never buy anything then.


----------



## wse

Movie78 said:


> *DO you trust BestBuy Sales guys?*


*NO!* Used car sales man


----------



## thebland

Are there any diagrams / principles for an array placement of speakers? I am contemplating putting in two sets of front heights so as to give my front and middle rows ideal placement.

Thanks! (or where is the PDF from Dolby for placement)?

Thanks!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> Are there any diagrams / principles for an array placement of speakers? I am contemplating putting in two sets of front heights so as to give my front and middle rows ideal placement.
> 
> Thanks! (or where is the PDF from Dolby for placement)?
> 
> Thanks!!


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf


Regarding two sets of front heights: No

There is no Dolby recommended accommodation for doubling up front heights. What you can do is follow the actual documentation for 3-5 pairs of stereo overheads. Currently there is no hardware that supports the ceiling speakers as an "array". I'm not sure if the Trinnov does but you have the Datasat RS20i, iirc.

I guess you could double up those speakers with rewiring and/or external DSP but ...might as well not, imho. If you absolutely must, rewire your mid heights to the front height output but again, I'd not if I were you. Can your middle row not hear the front heights?


----------



## petetherock

Movie78 said:


> *DO you trust BestBuy Sales guys?*


Err... reminds me of that show with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino in that lawyer show?


----------



## bargervais

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/D...and-You-re-Going-to-Need-a-New-Receiver.shtml

You will need new gear. I'm not disappointed. Maybe by the end of this year we may have one Blu-Ray with DTS:X on it. I'll patiently wait till the end of 2016 or 2017 before I upgrade. I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU while I wait. If I would have stayed out of these AVS forums I wouldn't have even know what Atmos or DTS:X was....... 90% of the population don't even have an AVR. They use TV speakers or sound bar. And I can see Atmos and or DTS:X sound bars in our not to distant future..


----------



## wse

*You will need new gear!!!*



bargervais said:


> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/D...and-You-re-Going-to-Need-a-New-Receiver.shtml  I'm not disappointed. Maybe by the end of this year we may have one Blu-Ray with DTS:X on it. I'll patiently wait till the end of 2016 or 2017 before I upgrade. I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU while I wait. If I would have stayed out of these AVS forums I wouldn't have even know what Atmos or DTS:X was....... 90% of the population don't even have an AVR. They use TV speakers or sound bar. And I can see Atmos and or DTS:X sound bars in our not to distant future..


Great read _" As far as speaker configurations go, DTS says that DTS:X will render the immersive surround mix to be optimized for virtually any speaker environment, with up to *32 independent speaker outputs.* 2015 DTS:X AVRs are expected to support up to 11 speaker outputs (plus one or two subwoofers). DTS says that DTS:X will use an advanced speaker remapping engine to support "any speaker configuration within a hemispherical layout." We expect that this means it will work for those who have already installed ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos or AURO-3D immersive surround. But we're not sure yet whether this means you can get a virtual height effect from an existing 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound system. The company is hosting a press event later today and we'll be sure to ask about that."


Oh well I will just have to move the Marantz SR-7009 to the gym, and get a brand spanking new AVR with all the surround sound formats!! I would love to do 22.4.4_


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> Great read _" with up to *32 independent speaker outputs.* _



Juuuuusssssttt like Dolby Atmos.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> Juuuuusssssttt like Dolby Atmos.


I know why is it that only DATASAT allows that


----------



## Scott Simonian

wse said:


> I know why is it that only DATASAT allows that


You mean a Trinnov Altitude?

Why? Because 'money', that's why.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Juuuuusssssttt like Dolby Atmos.


Preeeeeettty close. 34 speaker outputs on Atmos. 30 speaker outputs and 2 LFE outputs on DTS:X.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Movie78 said:


> *DO you trust BestBuy Sales guys?*


But why not a free $100 GC for testing X5200 for 30 days.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Preeeeeettty close. 34 speaker outputs on Atmos. 30 speaker outputs and 2 LFE outputs on DTS:X.


Yup. Pretty much the same thing.

I still see a lot are under the spell of DTS that it can do _anything!_ .....that any object based audio system would be able to do.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. Pretty much the same thing.
> 
> I still see a lot are under the spell of DTS that it can do _anything!_ .....that any object based audio system would be able to do.


Check out these two clowns they seem to say that DTS:X is the second coming.






They seem to bash Atmos saying who would be so stupid as to bounce sound off the ceiling.


----------



## Tin_Can

bargervais said:


> Check out these two clowns they seem to say that DTS:X is the second coming.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLgXcbraV4Q
> 
> They seem to bash Atmos saying who would be so stupid as to bounce sound off the ceiling.


*slow jerk*


----------



## LowellG

Patrick Murphy said:


> *This is not my post.*
> 
> Nexgen76
> 
> 
> *Denon INCommand Series will have DTS X upgrade ?*
> I was in Bestbuy Magnolia store today & i met the regional sales rep(He happen to just drop by today) and i told him that i was looking at the Denon X7200( really want the x5200) because i wanted to future proof myself with the DTS-X upgrade. So i told him what my setup was, very knowledgeable guy he told me period point blank Denon INCommand series that has Atmos will receive the DTS-X firmware upgrade. So i told him no so far Denon has confirmed that the flagship x7200 is the only model.....He told me that he was in a meeting last month & Denon reps confirmed to Bestbuy Magnolia the upgrade will be for the INCommand series that has Atmos only. So after i told him i didn't belive it he offer me a deal.....He told me if i got the x5200 & they didn't offer the DTS-X firmware upgrade he would fully refund my money & give me a Bestbuy hundred dollar GC on top of that. Should i take it ?
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...incommand-series-will-have-dts-x-upgrade.html


If they will put it in writing, and give a time frame like no more than 90days, I would go for it.


----------



## roxiedog13

Patrick Murphy said:


> *This is not my post.*
> 
> Nexgen76
> 
> 
> *Denon INCommand Series will have DTS X upgrade ?*
> I was in Bestbuy Magnolia store today & i met the regional sales rep(He happen to just drop by today) and i told him that i was looking at the Denon X7200( really want the x5200) because i wanted to future proof myself with the DTS-X upgrade. So i told him what my setup was, very knowledgeable guy he told me period point blank Denon INCommand series that has Atmos will receive the DTS-X firmware upgrade. So i told him no so far Denon has confirmed that the flagship x7200 is the only model.....He told me that he was in a meeting last month & Denon reps confirmed to Bestbuy Magnolia the upgrade will be for the INCommand series that has Atmos only. So after i told him i didn't belive it he offer me a deal.....He told me if i got the x5200 & they didn't offer the DTS-X firmware upgrade he would fully refund my money & give me a Bestbuy hundred dollar GC on top of that. Should i take it ?
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...incommand-series-will-have-dts-x-upgrade.html





LowellG said:


> If they will put it in writing, and give a time frame like no more than 90days, I would go for it.



This is just like the Habs Hockey game tonight. Just when you though it was all over and now there is a glimmer of hope. Somebody may have to eat a shirt
after all .


----------



## bargervais

roxiedog13 said:


> This is just like the Habs Hockey game tonight. Just when you though it was all over and now there is a glimmer of hope. Somebody may have to eat a shirt
> after all .


There is always hope I grew up in Montreal. I now live in the Tampa Bay area, it's really surprising how big a hockey town we got here, great support for the Lighting.


----------



## NorthSky

> Well, you haven't opened the box yet have you? Send the receiver back (Dolby Atmos receiver). Wait a couple months and get something with both formats on board. Like you said, the theater isn't constructed yet. You have time. Unless you're the impatient type.
> DTS was mentioning they should have X encoded discs for the fourth quarter.


I totally agree with that; perfect common sense.


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Where is *Hugo S* and his source?
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868


I believe Hugo is from Paris, France. Since April 29, the day he posted that, everything is very quiet on the other side of the Atlantic. 
I speak French (that's my native Montreal hockey language), and Montreal won't make it to the next level playoff series, and I'm just not sure about the Marantz AV7702 Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D pre/pro regarding a DTS:X firmware update. ...The last 2014 Dolby Atmos pre/pro (bastion) product with a small remaining doubt. 
Today I'm much less certain than on April 29; since then the light has dimmed, considerably. 

Canada is different than USA, and France and Germany are different than the UK and Ireland. ...Who knows what is the AV7702's destiny for each country? I'm talking about DTS:X of course. ...Firmware update possible vanishing official confirmation...total speculation from the oblivion world. ...The movie.

But yes, good question; _"Where is Hugo and his source?"_ ...Me too I want to know, because from that forum across the Atlantic there is nothing to indicate a happy surprise. But I know less than nothing; only from what I read here, and over there.

...And that, is all.


----------



## Tin_Can

NorthSky said:


> I totally agree with that; perfect common sense.


Because you clearly know my situation to conclude I lack common sense.


----------



## NorthSky

> Because you clearly know my situation to conclude I lack common sense.


Not @ all; waiting few more months is the logical/best solution. You don't have the unit yet; it is easy to cancel your order, without being stuck. 

Did I say that you lack common sense? No, I did not say that, and I didn't even think about it. ...Then why do you say that?


----------



## petetherock

I would like to think the avs members are prudent hobbyists who won't buy things based on a single post or link, be it from someone's post here or from another forum outside of USA.


----------



## CBdicX

Any news on DTS:X, will the 8802 get a (software) update to use DTS:X ?


And a Atmos question:
Onkyo has a choice between Atmos Height Front, middle and back, and Enabled Front and Back.
Has the 8802 the same options ?


----------



## CBdicX

batpig said:


> To address the original question -- the answer is YES. Atmos/DSU processing work fine without surround speakers. I've tested on my Denon X5200 and you can get Atmos decoding and DSU upmix with a 2.1.2 setup (only fronts + two overheads). So if your friend cannot or is unwilling to use actual surrounds, he could add a pair of Front Height on the front wall or up-firing module speakers on top of his mains and it will work.
> 
> Whether the effect will be "notable" is YMMV, but when I played with it a 2.1.2 upmix of stereo material did provide a nice enhancement of "spaciousness" to the content. Obviously it will not be as effective as a true 5.1.2 setup in terms of complete immersion but you do what you can. It's certainly more immersive/enveloping than the 3.1 setup, at least you'll get some content placed above/around you. If you think about it that's probably how "3D audio surround bars" will work, with all the speakers in front of you but some firing up, some firing out...


Hello, you say you tested in a 2.1.2 setup, will the use of a center (3.1.2) be good or not so good compared to 2.1.2 ?


----------



## thebland

Scott Simonian said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf
> 
> 
> Regarding two sets of front heights: No
> 
> There is no Dolby recommended accommodation for doubling up front heights. What you can do is follow the actual documentation for 3-5 pairs of stereo overheads. Currently there is no hardware that supports the ceiling speakers as an "array". I'm not sure if the Trinnov does but you have the Datasat RS20i, iirc.
> 
> I guess you could double up those speakers with rewiring and/or external DSP but ...might as well not, imho. If you absolutely must, rewire your mid heights to the front height output but again, I'd not if I were you. Can your middle row not hear the front heights?


With the AUro Upmixes, I seem to get a better effect from my front row. Now my Front Height is aimed at my middle row but it seems that it being closer to it is better. The Datasat can support an array set up. My mid-heights are an array of my rears but I am thinking og moving my mid heights forward and and using them in a front height array.

I am going to wat until I get Atmos (of course) but it is my thinking so far...

Thanks!


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

_- sorry to enter OFF topic -_



Movie78 said:


> Where is *Hugo S* and his source?
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178520868.html#p178520868


Where am I? Right here... and I'm fine, thank you for asking. 

Now concerning what I wrote in this above link, I stand by it... as far as the source is concerned. 

And do I have or know something else or complementary to what I wrote here on AVS? No.

Now and to be transparent, I should have remained silent on all this matter... as - *as far as I privately understand* -, there seems to be VERY different D&M positions depending on World areas or countries concerned.

An it also appears now that this small post has "indisposed" quite some people in different places and for various reasons, some of these people now being suddenly stroke by amnesia. Anyway nothing astonishing when you enter some "mined" fields...

So today what is starting to remain of all this? *In my own opinion* excellent D&M products built to be _potentially_ up-gradable, but which for some "XXX" marketing reasons, won't be.

Now can or should all the customers who bought these _potentially_ up-gradable products, be "pixxed off" by this D&M position? IMHO it's up to any person in this situation to make up his own mind... and do (or not) what is of his own best interest... 

Have a nice WE and brgds,

_- now back to ON topic -_

Hugo


----------



## discodol

*Proper Atmos Demonstrations*

I read in an earlier thread about how poor the Atmos demos were at BB. For those of you in the Ft Lauderdale area the Sound Advice on N. Federal Highway between Oakland and Commercial across from Jack's Hamburgers has a proper demo room setup. After hearing it I was jazzed enough to try and put a system together buy my husband nixed it.  If you drop in ask for Richard Julian, he knows his stuff.


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Now and to be transparent, I should have remained silent on all this matter...


Hugo,

Your contributions are always greatly appreciated. Please don't give the controversy--or the accuracy of your source's info--a second thought (although if his info does turn out not to be valid you might want to factor that into your evaluation of his trustworthiness). 

Keep those posts coming, if you please! Bien amicalement, Jeff


----------



## Tin_Can

NorthSky said:


> Not @ all; waiting few more months is the logical/best solution. You don't have the unit yet; it is easy to cancel your order, without being stuck.
> 
> Did I say that you lack common sense? No, I did not say that, and I didn't even think about it. ...Then why do you say that?


No worries. I read too much into your post, which is never a good idea on the internet. I see you're from Canada, so that prevents you from being rude, anyway


----------



## Dan Hitchman

discodol said:


> I read in an earlier thread about how poor the Atmos demos were at BB. For those of you in the Ft Lauderdale area the Sound Advice on N. Federal Highway between Oakland and Commercial across from Jack's Hamburgers has a proper demo room setup. After hearing it *I was jazzed enough to try and put a system together but my husband nixed it*.  If you drop in ask for Richard Julian, he knows his stuff.


Wow, that's a first. Usually the other way 'round. 

The world is getting more mysterious by the day.


----------



## chi_guy50

thebland said:


> With the AUro Upmixes, I seem to get a better effect from my front row. Now my Front Height is aimed at my middle row but it seems that it being closer to it is better. The Datasat can support an array set up. My mid-heights are an array of my rears but I am thinking og moving my mid heights forward and and using them in a front height array.
> 
> I am going to wat until I get Atmos (of course) but it is my thinking so far...
> 
> Thanks!


You might also glean some insight from a similar setup that @Josh Z is using (FH + two TM arrays). See his blog post here.

I am planing something along those lines by replacing my wall-mounted FH with two in-ceiling FH arrays identical to my current TM (Polk Audio 80F/X-RT) speakers. Although I am happy with the current overall effect, my FH--which I originally installed per DTS guidelines--are shallower than the minimum recommended elevation angle for Atmos. But in addition to the higher elevation angle and improved coverage I would be achieving, I also want to be ready to transition seamlessly to 9.1.6 whenever that option is available in a mainstream AVR. And then there's the added bonus of reducing the clutter (WAF) in our 14- (going on 16)-speaker living room by swapping the black wall-mounted satellites for disappearing white flush-mounted in-ceilings.

I just have to settle on an exact placement scheme before I go ahead with the installation.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wow, that's a first. Usually the other way 'round.
> 
> The world is getting more mysterious by the day.


Not so much. If you look at OP's sig it would appear that his name is David. Two dudes = mystery solved!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> Not so much. If you look at OP's sig it would appear that his name is David. Two dudes = mystery solved!


Hmmm... too bad for the OP it didn't work out that they both argued over who would install the home theater first.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Jeff,



chi_guy50 said:


> Hugo,
> 
> Your contributions are always greatly appreciated. Please don't give the controversy--or the accuracy of your source's info--a second thought (although if his info does turn out not to be valid you might want to factor that into your evaluation of his trustworthiness).
> 
> Keep those posts coming, if you please! Bien amicalement, Jeff


In fact what annoys me most is that in conjunction to the Champagne that we'll drink with Keith in London, I initially planned to also bring a small hat made of chocolate... but that won't happen now (chocolate hat)... 

Amicalement,

Hugo


----------



## stikle

discodol said:


> After hearing it I was jazzed enough to try and put a system together buy my husband nixed it.



Time to upgrade to Husband 2.0 - the 2015 model.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Check out these two clowns they seem to say that DTS:X is the second coming.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLgXcbraV4Q
> 
> They seem to bash Atmos saying who would be so stupid as to bounce sound off the ceiling.


I think they sounded pretty objective to me and didn't hear any bashing of Atmos. I also agree that if you upgrade to an Atmos system you should put up discrete height speakers and NOT use the type that are supposed to bounce the sound on the ceiling.


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Jeff,
> 
> 
> 
> In fact what annoys me most is that in conjunction to the Champagne that we'll drink with Keith in London, I initially planned to also bring a small hat made of chocolate... but that won't happen now (chocolate hat)...
> 
> Amicalement,
> 
> Hugo


J'espère bien que c'était du chocolat belge!


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> I think they sounded pretty objective to me and didn't hear any bashing of Atmos. I also agree that if you upgrade to an Atmos system you should put up discrete height speakers and NOT use the type that are supposed to bounce the sound on the ceiling.


sorry this was the one i should have posted that they seem to say that DTS:X was like the second coming, and were laughing how bouncing sound off the ceiling was a dumb idea.They now say that now DTS:X has come into the mix now all the manufactures are on board with it, implying that not all AV manufactures support Atmos, i may have read more into it then what they ment to say.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. Pretty much the same thing.


Yeah, just being tragically technical about the number of speaker outputs (34 vs 30). Not that any of us are going to use that many outputs, but more potential locations could mean greater placement flexibility.


> I still see a lot are under the spell of DTS that it can do _anything!_ .....that any object based audio system would be able to do.


DTS has something that no other audio compression codec has: a fan base.


----------



## Movie78

stikle said:


> Time to upgrade to Husband 2.0 - the 2015 model.


LoL
Stop it!!!!


----------



## batpig

CBdicX said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> To address the original question -- the answer is YES. Atmos/DSU processing work fine without surround speakers. I've tested on my Denon X5200 and you can get Atmos decoding and DSU upmix with a 2.1.2 setup (only fronts + two overheads). So if your friend cannot or is unwilling to use actual surrounds, he could add a pair of Front Height on the front wall or up-firing module speakers on top of his mains and it will work.
> 
> Whether the effect will be "notable" is YMMV, but when I played with it a 2.1.2 upmix of stereo material did provide a nice enhancement of "spaciousness" to the content. Obviously it will not be as effective as a true 5.1.2 setup in terms of complete immersion but you do what you can. It's certainly more immersive/enveloping than the 3.1 setup, at least you'll get some content placed above/around you. If you think about it that's probably how "3D audio surround bars" will work, with all the speakers in front of you but some firing up, some firing out...
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, you say you tested in a 2.1.2 setup, will the use of a center (3.1.2) be good or not so good compared to 2.1.2 ?
Click to expand...

More speakers more better.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> More speakers more better.


I am a strict grammarian, but I still much prefer the original _"Mo' speakers, mo' better."_ *™*batpig


----------



## dormie1360

lujan said:


> I think they sounded pretty objective to me and didn't hear any bashing of Atmos. I also agree that if you upgrade to an Atmos system you should put up discrete height speakers and NOT use the type that are supposed to bounce the sound on the ceiling.


What is your reasoning? Are you talking about a specific room, or for all rooms?

As far as the video......... personally I have no biases towards either format, but I sure wouldn't make any 3D sound design decisions based on these two gentleman's comments. Just sayin....


----------



## tjenkins95

lujan said:


> I think they sounded pretty objective to me and didn't hear any bashing of Atmos. I also agree that if you upgrade to an Atmos system you should put up discrete height speakers and NOT use the type that are supposed to bounce the sound on the ceiling.


Well I totally disagree with you and I will match my Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers with whatever crap you are using. :kiss:


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> Well I totally disagree with you and I will match my Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers with whatever crap you are using. :kiss:


That's what got under my skin when they were laughing saying how silly Atmos enabled speakers were, bouncing sound off the ceiling.
I prefer ceiling speakers as that's what I already had up there, but I would never laugh at using enabled speakers. If they would have said what they preferred as opposed to laughing, it would have been more palatable.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> I am a strict grammarian, but I still much prefer the original _"Mo' speakers, mo' better."_ *™*batpig


Much easier to spell the full word(s) when typing on a phone. Normally I would adhere to my gangsta roots but then I would be battling the autocorrect gods.


----------



## NorthSky

> DTS has something that no other audio compression codec has: a fan base.


Tell that to the Widescreen Review's fan base. ...Plus all the other people who have been loyal since Jurassic Park in 1993. ...Twenty-two years now.
...Laser Disc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, dts theater systems... Just look @ your BD player today, and your AV receiver or pre/pro...the logos.


----------



## lujan

tjenkins95 said:


> Well I totally disagree with you and I will match my Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers with whatever crap you are using. :kiss:


----------



## frankpc3

lujan said:


> I also agree that if you upgrade to an Atmos system you should put up discrete height speakers and NOT use the type that are supposed to bounce the sound on the ceiling.


Please put my concerns to rest: My HT has an 8' drop ceiling. The ceiling surface is relatively smooth, but not hard. So bouncing sound probably isn't an option. But I've read that discreet Atmos speakers on 8' ceilings could result in the audio not being dispersed sufficiently. And perhaps some of the realism will be lost. 

I prefer to keep experimentation to a minimum. What advice can be offered?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

frankpc3 said:


> Please put my concerns to rest: My HT has an 8' drop ceiling. The ceiling surface is relatively smooth, but not hard. So bouncing sound probably isn't an option. But I've read that discrete Atmos speakers on 8' ceilings could result in the audio not being dispersed sufficiently. And perhaps some of the realism will be lost.
> 
> I prefer to keep experimentation to a minimum. What advice can be offered?


Most people have 8 foot ceilings. On or in ceiling overheads work just fine, but since many don't have extremely wide dispersion patterns, it's best that they're aimed at or around the MLP. Just make sure your side and rear surrounds are very near ear level to keep the layer separation as great as possible, but not so low as to be blocked by people's heads.


----------



## batpig

frankpc3 said:


> Please put my concerns to rest: My HT has an 8' drop ceiling. The ceiling surface is relatively smooth, but not hard. So bouncing sound probably isn't an option. But I've read that discreet Atmos speakers on 8' ceilings could result in the audio not being dispersed sufficiently. And perhaps some of the realism will be lost.
> 
> I prefer to keep experimentation to a minimum. What advice can be offered?


If you are concerned about "hot spotting" with Atmos speakers on a lowish ceiling, I think you have two options:

1. Go with a dual-concentric speaker like the Tannoy DCs or (for the cheap like me) some used KEF egg satellites, and use "energy trading" by aiming each speaker at the furthest listener, thus the closest listener is the most off-axis.

2. Go with a purpose designed wide-dispersion in-ceiling, i.e. a bipole/dipole type design with dual tweeters like the Atlantic Tech offering: http://www.atlantictechnology.com/products/wall-ceiling-speakers/ic-6-oba/

The AT speaker is intentionally designed to be diffuse and avoid hot-spotting, although be aware that despite the "made for 3D audio!" branding there are many other dual-tweeter in ceiling options that would probably do the job as well.

Also, just a side note but I don't think having a drop ceiling is in and of itself rules out the Atmos-enabled speakers.


----------



## dormie1360

frankpc3 said:


> Please put my concerns to rest: My HT has an 8' drop ceiling. The ceiling surface is relatively smooth, but not hard. So bouncing sound probably isn't an option. But I've read that discreet Atmos speakers on 8' ceilings could result in the audio not being dispersed sufficiently. And perhaps some of the realism will be lost.
> 
> I prefer to keep experimentation to a minimum. What advice can be offered?


Here is a short discussion on the topic. Part of the answer depends on how many rows you want and what type of ceiling you have.

Atmos Speakers 

Atmos enabled speakers may not be the best choice in your situation, however anyone making a blanket statement that would dismiss this option lacks understanding IMO.


----------



## NorthSky

Experiment; nobody has your room and your gear and your set of ears, nobody.


----------



## frankpc3

^^^

Thank you all. I appreciate your support of Atmos speaker placement in my situation in particular. I'll check out each of the speaker models you specified.


----------



## cdelena

The first demo I heard of Atmos was very impressive and used Atmos speakers to bounce off the ceiling. The person lives in a leased condo with 8ft painted concrete ceilings. His install options are very limited.


In my case it actually worked better to install in-ceiling speakers but I see some of you have the option to install on the ceiling. As pointed out above there are a huge variety of sites and constraints that make across the board proclamations about the best install kind of silly.


I have been very happy with Atmos sound, especially DSU and don't have any regrets being an early adapter counting on Dolby guidelines and mixes. In fact I find this thread so much of a D&M, DTS fan club that I don't enjoy it much or visit often anymore.


----------



## NorthSky

What ATS stands for? ...ATMOS?


----------



## BillyNedwell

bargervais said:


> Check out these two clowns they seem to say that DTS:X is the second coming.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLgXcbraV4Q
> 
> They seem to bash Atmos saying who would be so stupid as to bounce sound off the ceiling.


The original Bert and Ernie, a right pair of muppets.


----------



## pasender91

On my side, i decided a long time ago that i would never accept advice from a guy whose biceps are larger than his brain


----------



## Scott Simonian

pasender91 said:


> On my side, i decided a long time ago that i would never accept advice from a guy whose biceps are larger than his brain


Unless it's advice about building massive biceps. Then I'd listen to the man.


----------



## wse

pasender91 said:


> On my side, i decided a long time ago that i would never accept advice from a guy whose biceps are larger than his brain


I could not agree more


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BillyNedwell said:


> The original Bert and Ernie, a right pair of muppets.


We may disagree with the way they go about presenting themselves and some or maybe all of what they're saying (depends, I guess), but we don't have to get personal.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> We may disagree with the way they go about presenting themselves and some or maybe all of what they're saying (depends, I guess), but we don't have to get personal.


Yes well said they are well meaning except when they are pushing EMOTIVA junk


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> We may disagree with the way they go about presenting themselves and some or maybe all of what they're saying (depends, I guess), but we don't have to get personal.


Yes thanks agreed, my point was they acted like DTS:X was like the second coming then towards the end they laughed about how silly Atmos enabled speakers are, sound bouncing like a pinball that just got under my skin.


----------



## NorthSky

> We may disagree with the way they go about presenting themselves and some or maybe all of what they're saying (depends, I guess),
> but *we don't have to get personal*.


Words of wisdom.


----------



## BillyNedwell

Dan Hitchman said:


> We may disagree with the way they go about presenting themselves and some or maybe all of what they're saying (depends, I guess), but we don't have to get personal.


If it was i who had invested time and money in developing atmos enabled speakers, I would take their opinions personal. Or is it just their opinion? Like my opinion of who they are reminding me of. Nothing personal there. Very good entertainment. They just appear to lack wisdom.


----------



## sdrucker

BillyNedwell said:


> If it was i who had invested time and money in developing atmos enabled speakers, I would take their opinions personal. Or is it just their opinion? Like my opinion of who they are reminding me of. Nothing personal there. Very good entertainment. They just appear to lack wisdom.


 
Not sure if this is just a curiosity statistic, but I took a look through Kokishin's database of Atmos and Auro users, based on posts on this thread. As of 12/2014, out of 89 AVSers that described their room configurations and were using Atmos, only nine (9) had Dolby Enabled speaker setups from what I could tell of the speakers listed. They were roughly split between all four major manufacturers of the time (DefTech, Pioneer, Onkyo and Atlantic Technology), counting a couple of guys that had models from multiple manufacturers, and batpig that did a DIY version of sorts of the upward-firing modules.


In lieu of any other evidence, or overt errors in my math, that would suggest that on AVS, using the upward-firing speakers is a rare interest at best. I could add another two or three guys anecdotally who I've seen mention the AT 44-DA on a separate thread, but even so it's a relative handful of users compared to use of a more conventional height or ceiling approach. If someone wants to correct or amend this, feel free.

Oh, and of those 89, almost 50 (49) had a 7.x.4 configuration, 5 with 7.x.2, 21 had 5.x.4, 11 were going with 5.x.2. with assorted oddball (one guy stating 6.x.4, and a couple of Marantz guys with 9.x.2). 

Not dissuading anyone, since I'll probably go the upfiring route at the beginning, but I thought worth noting as a conclusion of...something. A biased sample? A lack of penetration of upfiring brands? Early adaptors? Who knows.


----------



## batpig

I do think it's a biased sample -- this is the bleeding edge and certainly a group that is much more likely to go to the time/effort/expense to physically mount speakers overhead. I know that as soon as I move to my new place (now a short 2 weeks away!) I will be going on-ceiling for Atmos. 

The appeal of the up-firing module seems greater for the casual user, especially if they become standard with Onkyo HTIB setups. Although if I had ended up with one of the other homes I was seriously considering I probably would have ended up with a living room setup with up-firing speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> I do think it's a biased sample -- this is the bleeding edge and certainly a group that is much more likely to go to the time/effort/expense to physically mount speakers overhead. I know that as soon as I move to my new place (now a short 2 weeks away!) I will be going on-ceiling for Atmos.
> 
> The appeal of the up-firing module seems greater for the casual user, especially if they become standard with Onkyo HTIB setups. Although if I had ended up with one of the other homes I was seriously considering I probably would have ended up with a living room setup with up-firing speakers.


I believe you; almost nobody here is a casual user that's going to do a simple position and play, and many would measure angles to get the best ceiling position as per Dolby. BTW, the most popular AVR by my count was the Denon 5200W, with the next most popular processor being the Marantz 7702, and over 70 of our 89 guys had D&M AVRs or pre/pros. Also, 79 have two subs or more. All of these help show that this isn't the typical world. I don't remember if Yamaha had a Dolby capable AVR at this point in time, but seeing no Yammies was a surprise.

In our case the only reason I'm starting with up-firing speakers, even with an almost 9' flat ceiling in our new condo, is because we might move MLP a few times before settling on a final configuration and it's convenient as a relatively small investment (compared to my still-in-transit Trinnov Altitude, anyway!). At that point, if the new association doesn't give us a hard time about it, I'm doing ceiling mounted speakers too as a best practice approach.


----------



## Tin_Can

I'll throw my hat in the ring for upfiring speakers. I know the audioholics guys like to assume upfiring isn't for serious theaters, but my setup is designed and soon to be built built by Erskine Group. I'm expecting a good result.


----------



## NorthSky

BillyNedwell said:


> If it was i who had invested time and money in developing atmos enabled speakers, I would take their opinions personal. Or is it just their opinion? Like my opinion of who they are reminding me of. Nothing personal there. Very good entertainment. They just appear to lack wisdom.


They sure lack wisdom. ...The way they misrepresented Dolby Atmos. ...It's all in the open for all to see very clearly; don't need a University degree.


----------



## petetherock

I just realised that posters in the Atmos / DTS related threads are divided into three camps:

- those who own an Atmos / DTS / Auro type amp, and come to share info, or whine about their 2014 models
- those who want to own one and are looking for info
- the third which is actually dominated by folks who post even more frequently than some in the first two groups: those who don't own one, and from their posts, don't seem likely to commit to one anyway.



Interesting ...


----------



## Scott Simonian

I like them all. I don't own any gear yet because of either lack of money or lack of worthy gear on the market. I fully understand how the technology works and the strengths and weaknesses of them all. I'm here because I love surround sound technology. I'm not influenced by any marketing spin or hyperbole.


Which camp do I belong in?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Tin_Can said:


> I'll throw my hat in the ring for upfiring speakers. I know the audioholics guys like to assume upfiring isn't for serious theaters, but my setup is designed and soon to be built built by Erskine Group. I'm expecting a good result.


Up-firing speakers, if done correctly, can yield excellent results. It has the further advantage of being able to re-locate your up-firing speakers if you decide to re-format you room/set up. In-ceiling speakers, not so much... Similarly, if you decide to upgrade speakers, etc.


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> I just realised that posters in the Atmos / DTS related threads are divided into three camps:
> - those who own an Atmos / DTS / Auro type amp, and come to share info, or whine about their 2014 models
> - those who want to own one and are looking for info
> - the third which is actually dominated by folks who post even more frequently than some in the first two groups: those who don't own one, and from their posts, don't seem likely to commit to one anyway.
> Interesting ...


There is another camp; the one who likes to criticize people more instead of discussing the topics.


----------



## DCMlover

Is there any receivers that do atmos and dts x now?


----------



## petetherock

Scott
If we have owners, posters, wanters and whiners then I'll say you are a wanter mate.


----------



## batpig

DCMlover said:


> Is there any receivers that do atmos and dts x now?


Considering DTS:X is not on ANY consumer product yet.... I'm going with no


----------



## smurraybhm

As for the upfiring speaker observation vs. mounted or in-ceiling it's important to point out that when most of us jumped early into Atmos there wasn't much available in the module camp. Batpig tested some Def Techs that were way overpriced and under performed. Bet we all crossed those off quickly and honestly it made me skeptical about the concept of bouncing. Too bad he couldn't get the ATs. The Pioneer speakers took about a month to be available. I already had some very good speakers so in my case I didn't need to buy those just to get sound up top. If I had needed speakers, they would be downstairs right now.

Atlantic Tech and KEF modules seem to work very well now that they are out/in-use and Pioneer's speakers as all in ones. The first two took months to be available and had just come out or weren't out when the stats were quoted earlier.

On or in ceiling for me was the only good option available at the time I set my theatre up (timber matching needs aside). Originally I planned to use AT modules but didn't want to wait 2 months before I could buy them after getting my 5200. Based on using any of the three ways to do tops (on, in, modules), it seems they all work equally well, the key to good sound is in the setup - not counting room limitations like a vaulted ceiling, etc. or those using Atmos & Auro combo setups. Remember Keith and others who heard demos with the modules actually preferred them. Room and setup importance reminder again.

The Bicep guys can make fun of pinball sound, but it's been said many times that Dolby's use of them makes the ability to add sound from up top much easier for the masses and something that could be put in a sound bar, HT in a box and maybe even add a couple of speakers to a TV that aim up. In those cases the effect won't have to be perfect, most buyers aren't like us as we know. Having that flexibility though is key IMO in helping Atmos continue to gain traction in the HT market, and hopefully give us more titles. Finally, remember DTS will be able to use them as well. So that is a benefit to them as well moving forward, easy to add a DTS:X symbol to the HT in a box.

It would have been interesting if more module options and even the AJ speakers had been available in early Sept and Oct, and whether those numbers quoted might have been different now. Now back to the type of poster discussion and how to make your biceps bigger than your brain


----------



## audioguy

wse said:


> Yes well said they are well meaning except when they are pushing EMOTIVA junk


Interesting comment. While not the mainstay of my system, I have used a number of Emotiva products with great success (and reliability) I am currently using one of the amps to drive my ceiling speakers. There are certainly some things they could do better (e.g. put locking connectors for XLR interconnects) but that does not make them "junk" in my opinion.

I'm curious what Emotiva products you have experienced that caused you such an issue to label the product this way?


----------



## tjenkins95

I had a home theater room built about 10 years ago and originally started with a full set of Atlantic Technology speakers. Eight years ago I purchased a full set of Klipsch speakers. When the news about Dolby Atmos was first announced, like everyone else in this forum, we had to wait before the products became available. I waited until I heard the feedback from the AVSforum guys who attended CEDIA. As far as speakers go, the consensus of opinion was that it was very difficult to detect any difference between the sound coming from in-ceiling speakers and the up-firing, Atmos-enabled speakers -- in a well setup demo room! If anything, the sound from in-ceiling speakers is more localized whereas the sound from Atmos-enabled speakers is more dispersed due to sound being reflected off the ceiling. So, I purchased a full set of the Andrew Jones Pioneer speakers with the up-firing Atmos. They sound great! For the record, when Klipsch releases their new Atmos-enabled speaker modules, I will be switching back to my Klipsch set and my nephew gets my set of Pioneers.


----------



## brahman12

*DTS Fanboyism!!!*



bargervais said:


> sorry this was the one i should have posted that they seem to say that DTS:X was like the second coming, and were laughing how bouncing sound off the ceiling was a dumb idea.They now say that now DTS:X has come into the mix now all the manufactures are on board with it, implying that not all AV manufactures support Atmos, i may have read more into it then what they ment to say.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAbNEB0W0rc


I agree with you Bargervais.... I definitely sense a lot of DTS fanboyism in this clip. Although some of their info is incorrect about what DTS:X is and what it can do (obviously an older video) with regards to competing with Atmos. I don't prefer one company over another myself but we got to keep it real if we are gonna report about a product. DTS has since said that they are compatible with Atmos set-ups and ultimately have not shown how their product will be BETTER than Atmos.

Also, a number of members have noted how their reflective Dolby Atmos enabled speakers sound great and many members have posted about how a lot of the professionally produced live demos sounded quite impressive when the up-firing speakers were used. I always say that sensory interpretation can be highly varied since it is a very personal experience. Opinions of so called experts are often not any more true or correct than our own experiences and opinions. Opinions are reflections of that person's level of understanding, ability to perceive and receive information, and then their ability to convey to others what it is THEY experienced. Although experts in particular fields can be very helpful and provide us with very useful information...they can't provide us with the Holy Grail....and so, especially when it comes to sensory perception/interpretation, only our own perceptions can provide the ultimate truth (i.e. yes, I like this, or meh, not for me).


----------



## zimmo

We have to wait to try the dts-x,but for now dolby atmos is the best current sound and whit educat announced that dts has doing for dts-x.it seems tobe similar except the disposition of speakers .


wow a lot of peaple talking about french avs forum. 


northsky,pasender 67,hugo,bargervaisand my zimmo.


bargervais; ce soir; montreal 3 tampa bay 1


----------



## chi_guy50

brahman12 said:


> I agree with you Bargervais.... I definitely sense a lot of DTS fanboyism in this clip.


There's nothing inherently wrong with being an ardent admirer of a given product or technology. But that admiration shouldn't blind you to the positive qualities in the competition. I love what DTS brings to the market AND I'm prepared to assess DTS:X/Neural:X in relation to the features of Dolby Atmos/DSU. 

I'm also a die-hard Chicago Blackhawks fan, but I can still admire and appreciate the strengths of opposing teams.








*




























Go 'Hawks!!*


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I don't think having a drop ceiling is in and of itself rules out the Atmos-enabled speakers.


Indeed, when several of us AVS members attended the Atmos presser last August, Dolby was demonstrating upfiring speakers in a room with a drop ceiling (with really good results).


smurraybhm said:


> In those cases the effect won't have to be perfect, most buyers aren't like us as we know.


Making perfect the enemy of good is part of their anti-Dolby bias, asthough imperfect overhead imaging is worse than no overhead imaging at all.


----------



## TennisPro02

Anyone else heard that DTS:X won't be firmware upgraded until Feb 2016?


----------



## billqs

TennisPro02 said:


> Anyone else heard that DTS:X won't be firmware upgraded until Feb 2016?


For what, the Denon/Marantz models?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TennisPro02 said:


> Anyone else heard that DTS:X won't be firmware upgraded until Feb 2016?


Are you talking about 2014 product that may get the upgrade or are you talking about brand new 2015 product that may not ship with DTS:X installed and we have to wait that long for new firmware?


----------



## stikle

One of our managers at work that recently heard my system recently went to Fry's and came home with an Onkyo 5.1 HTIB with the upfiring speakers. He listens to a lot of music and says he's blown away by it. I'm supposed to go over and check out his system this next week - looking forward to hearing the speakers first hand just to see how they really sound.


----------



## TennisPro02

I'm talking about the Denon 7200 and Marantz AV8802. February firmware upgrade date. 




Dan Hitchman said:


> TennisPro02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else heard that DTS:X won't be firmware upgraded until Feb 2016?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about 2014 product that may get the upgrade or are you talking about brand new 2015 product that may not ship with DTS:X installed and we have to wait that long for new firmware?
Click to expand...


----------



## smurraybhm

TennisPro02 said:


> I'm talking about the Denon 7200 and Marantz AV8802. February firmware upgrade date.


Is this question a result of what you heard from the same source that said 2014 D&M units would get the upgrade? I am remembering that correctly, right. Dealer friend or something like that. If so 
I'm confident those two units will get it when everything else starts having it if not before. We had Atmos pretty quick this year. Board upgrades offered right on time too.

With what is known at this point - just about anything regarding DTS:X is pure speculation.


----------



## wse

smurraybhm said:


> With what is known at this point - just about anything regarding DTS:X is pure speculation.


Patience Obi-Wan


----------



## bargervais

zimmo said:


> We have to wait to try the dts-x,but for now dolby atmos is the best current sound and whit educat announced that dts has doing for dts-x.it seems tobe similar except the disposition of speakers .
> 
> 
> wow a lot of peaple talking about french avs forum.
> 
> 
> bargervais; ce soir; montreal 3 tampa bay 1


Nice call Montreal 2 Tampa Bay 1 the longer these series go the more fans they pack into their arena and the more money each club makes.


----------



## zebidou81

Does anybody know which Atmos configuration is best between front height and top middle or front height and top rear.

Also is there any benefit of designating speakers in the front height position as top front speakers ? Receiver is a Sr7009 but Denon config would be the same if anybody has tried these configs or can advise which is best ?


----------



## chi_guy50

zebidou81 said:


> Does anybody know which Atmos configuration is best between front height and top middle or front height and top rear.


I doubt there is much (if any) audible difference in the signals that are sent to each pair (TM vs. TR). I would choose the position designator that best fits the location of the speaker IRT elevation angle from the MLP.



zebidou81 said:


> Also is there any benefit of designating speakers in the front height position as top front speakers ? Receiver is a Sr7009 but Denon config would be the same if anybody has tried these configs or can advise which is best ?


The sole benefit I am aware of is in the inverse case of designating top front speakers as front height, in which case the speakers can also be active for Neo:X and A-DSX as well as Atmos/DSU.


----------



## zebidou81

chi_guy50 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody know which Atmos configuration is best between front height and top middle or front height and top rear.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there is much (if any) audible difference in the signals that are sent to each pair (TM vs. TR). I would choose the position designator that best fits the location of the speaker IRT elevation angle from the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also is there any benefit of designating speakers in the front height position as top front speakers ? Receiver is a Sr7009 but Denon config would be the same if anybody has tried these configs or can advise which is best ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sole benefit I am aware of is in the inverse case of designating top front speakers as front height, in which case the speakers can also be active for Neo:X and A-DSX as well as Atmos/DSU.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks if there is not much difference as you say i may leave my setup alone, i have top middle and front height and i was looking at moving mlp so that top middle become top rear, and also physically move front heights to top front position but if there is no point i will leave as is if i lose Neo:x.

Could i ask how important the angles are with the atmos setup i am using a laser pen to get all angles right but this might be overkill ? Do you know if top middle are better slightly on front or slightly behind mlp ?


----------



## Jack.K

wse said:


> Yes well said they are well meaning except when they are pushing EMOTIVA junk


What? You had one Lemon in a million and now they are junk


----------



## kingwiggi

wse said:


> Yes well said they are well meaning except when they are pushing EMOTIVA junk





Jack.K said:


> What? You had one Lemon in a million and now they are junk


I'm certainly no Emotiva fan boy however I'm counting on them to be one of the first out of the gate with an affordable 16 channel processor.

And yes I'm aware of their reputation for meeting product delivery timelines.


----------



## zebidou81

Does anybody who is running top midle speakers and front heights prefer there top middle speakers in front of them or behind them slighty? Which sounds best ?


----------



## chi_guy50

zebidou81 said:


> Could i ask how important the angles are with the atmos setup i am using a laser pen to get all angles right but this might be overkill ? Do you know if top middle are better slightly on front or slightly behind mlp ?


I suspect the main benefit is psychological, knowing that your speakers are EXACTLY where you think they should be.

In actuality, I doubt five degrees one way or another is going to make any discernible difference. Judging by the wide angle range specified for each of the five overhead Atmos speaker positions, you have a lot of latitude to adjust the final positioning to your liking.



zebidou81 said:


> Do you know if top middle are better slightly on front or slightly behind mlp ?


Your overall objective should be to create a hemispherical bubble of sound. To the extent that you want to close any gaps, there should be speakers relatively evenly spaced all around you. So if you have no SB speakers, you will probably want to move either the side surrounds or the rearmost height pair--or both--beyond the MLP plane. If you have SB--particularly if they are above ear level--it will probably make more sense to use TM than TR since the SB will provide the necessary coverage to the rear. Assuming the algorithm employed by the immersive audio codec (or upmixer) is effective, the appropriate sounds will be steered to whatever speakers are deployed in the points on the three-dimensional hemisphere you have established.


----------



## zebidou81

chi_guy50 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could i ask how important the angles are with the atmos setup i am using a laser pen to get all angles right but this might be overkill ? Do you know if top middle are better slightly on front or slightly behind mlp ?
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the main benefit is psychological, knowing that your speakers are EXACTLY where you think they should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In actuality, I doubt five degrees one way or another is going to make any discernible difference. Judging by the wide angle range specified for each of the five overhead Atmos speaker positions, you have a lot of latitude to adjust the final positioning to your liking.
> 
> 
> 
> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if top middle are better slightly on front or slightly behind mlp ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your overall objective should be to create a hemispherical bubble of sound. To the extent that you want to close any gaps, there should be speakers relatively evenly spaced all around you. So if you have no SB speakers, you will probably want to move either the side surrounds or the rearmost height pair--or both--beyond the MLP plane. If you have SB--particularly if they are above ear level--it will probably make more sense to use TM than TR since the SB will provide the necessary coverage to the rear. Assuming the algorithm employed by the immersive audio codec (or upmixer) is effective, the appropriate sounds will be steered to whatever speakers are deployed in the points on the three-dimensional hemisphere you have established.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the info, i think this will help me further tweek my system and try to get the best possible out of it, i have just orderd a new pair of rear surrounds after realising that using 1 rear surround it is not active using dsu only Atmos mix its active so once they arrive i will keep keep top middle slightly in front of mlp and set all angles correctly so i know it is set up right. Thanks again


----------



## Jack.K

*Atmos*

I just watched Unbroken on Blu-ray disc from Netflix it had Atmos on all speakers on my 7009 also Atmos printed on rental disc. Super


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> There is always hope I grew up in Montreal. I now live in the Tampa Bay area, it's really surprising how big a hockey town we got here, great support for the Lighting.



Except the prices for tickets to the game is one tenth the price I believe. Wish I had tickets to either venue, not going to happen now.


----------



## marky301067

Jack.K said:


> I just watched Unbroken on Blu-ray disc from Netflix it had Atmos on all speakers on my 7009 also Atmos printed on rental disc. Super


Unbroken has a very good Atmos soundtrack, I just watched American Sniper last night, the movie was amazing and the sound was good in plain vanilla 7.1, there is practically 0 use of the Atmos speakers throughout the full 2 hours, even with fly overs there is nothing! I'm very disappointed with this showing  if this is a sign of things to come, then we are in for a bumpy ride!


----------



## NorthSky

You had an advanced Blu-ray copy?


----------



## maikeldepotter

The theater version seems to have amazing overhead action, so something must be/ have been going wrong somewhere down the line...


----------



## aaranddeeman

marky301067 said:


> I just watched American Sniper last night, the movie was amazing and the sound was good in plain vanilla 7.1, there is practically 0 use of the Atmos speakers throughout the full 2 hours, even with fly overs there is nothing! I'm very disappointed with this showing  if this is a sign of things to come, then we are in for a bumpy ride!


That blu ray releases on May 19. How did you get your hands on it almost 2 weeks before?


----------



## petetherock

aaranddeeman said:


> That blu ray releases on May 19. How did you get your hands on it almost 2 weeks before?


The question of course, is how legit is it


----------



## Movie78

marky301067 said:


> Unbroken has a very good Atmos soundtrack, I just watched American Sniper last night, the movie was amazing and the sound was good in plain vanilla 7.1, there is practically 0 use of the Atmos speakers throughout the full 2 hours, even with fly overs there is nothing! I'm very disappointed with this showing  if this is a sign of things to come, then we are in for a bumpy ride!


How did you get American Sniper so early?


----------



## wse

*Dolby Laboratories President and CEO Kevin Yeaman to Present at 43rd Annual J.P. Morgan Global Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference*


SAN FRANCISCO --(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSELB) today announced that Kevin Yeaman , President and CEO, Dolby Laboratories , will present at the 43rd Annual J.P. Morgan Global Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in Boston, Massachusetts , on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 , at 10:40 a.m. EDT . 
A live webcast and replay of the presentation will be available at http://investor.dolby.com. 
*About Dolby Laboratories*


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> I hope it becomes standard for all IMAX theatres, so I can experience it at my local one instead of driving to tourist-packed Hollywood. Currently, there are only three IMAX locations in the world with their new immersive format: Los Angeles, Seattle, and one in Canada.


Where in Canada?


Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> Where in Canada?


Don't know.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> The theater version seems to have amazing overhead action, so something must be/ have been going wrong somewhere down the line...


I made similar comments about the recent BD of Gravity, which seemed to have toned down the height effect compared to what I heard during its theatrical release (saw it in two different Atmos theatres). I wonder if Warners is remixing these soundtracks rather than remastering them (re-equalizing for nearfield playback).


----------



## Mr. Integration

You can watch this on streaming services now. Perhaps it is not encoded properly?


----------



## marky301067

NorthSky said:


> You had an advanced Blu-ray copy?


Yep sure did, from Germany.

I just put the disc through some tests with DSU engaged, it's a much better experience than the Atmos!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

marky301067 said:


> Yep sure did, from Germany.
> 
> I just put the disc through some tests with DSU engaged, it's a much better experience than the Atmos!


_American Sniper_ has been mentioned more times than not to have a less than stellar theatrical Atmos track. Must have been budget cut backs. A fake baby... and now this.


----------



## Movie78

Watch Avenger Age of Ultron supposedly an ATMOS theater (Franks Theater)in south Florida,was very disappointing.

16 overhead 
8 surround left
8 surround right
8 surround back

The sound was very low and sound effect was bad.


----------



## bargervais

marky301067 said:


> Yep sure did, from Germany.
> 
> I just put the disc through some tests with DSU engaged, it's a much better experience than the Atmos!


the release date for American Sniper on the German site is June 26th did they send you an early release 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/American-Sniper-Blu-ray/124784/


----------



## marky301067

bargervais said:


> the release date for American Sniper on the German site is June 26th did they send you an early release
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/American-Sniper-Blu-ray/124784/


Contacts


----------



## HTinParadise

sdurani said:


> Don't know.


Cineplex Scotiabank, IMAX Toronto.


----------



## bargervais

marky301067 said:


> Contacts


that's cool it's always nice to have contacts


----------



## dvdwilly3

Movie78 said:


> How did you get American Sniper so early?


I had started to post this, but got otherwise busy. My wife and I were in Costco about 2 weeks ago, and she pointed out that they had American Sniper.

My response was "That's okay, I have it on order at Ama...". I said, "I must have been mistaken about the release date. It will probably be on the porch when we get home" (this was a Tuesday...).

But, it wasn't. I don't know how Costco pulled that off.


----------



## wse

dvdwilly3 said:


> I had started to post this, but got otherwise busy. My wife and I were in Costco about 2 weeks ago, and she pointed out that they had American Sniper.
> 
> My response was "That's okay, I have it on order at Ama...". I said, "I must have been mistaken about the release date. It will probably be on the porch when we get home" (this was a Tuesday...).
> 
> But, it wasn't. I don't know how Costco pulled that off.


Really!


----------



## sdurani

HTinParadise said:


> Cineplex Scotiabank, IMAX Toronto.


Thanx. I should have known, since Toronto was home to the first IMAX theatre.


----------



## Al Sherwood

HTinParadise said:


> Cineplex Scotiabank, IMAX Toronto.





sdurani said:


> Thanx. I should have known, since Toronto was home to the first IMAX theatre.



A little far from my location, but if I am ever there overnight I will try to check it out... Thanks.


----------



## smurraybhm

dvdwilly3 said:


> I had started to post this, but got otherwise busy. My wife and I were in Costco about 2 weeks ago, and she pointed out that they had American Sniper.
> 
> My response was "That's okay, I have it on order at Ama...". I said, "I must have been mistaken about the release date. It will probably be on the porch when we get home" (this was a Tuesday...).
> 
> But, it wasn't. I don't know how Costco pulled that off.


Correct - it was the ability to purchase a digital copy. Which as most of us know has been an option for about a month now. They have done this in the past for other "big" releases. Not to start a debate on whether one considers this a big release or whatever the right word is/isn't.


----------



## bargervais

I always wondered this. The German release of American Sniper compared to the American release. will the U.S. release have an Identical Atmos mix to the German release. And why are the release dates so different.
I know they both are under the Warner bros label.


----------



## Josh Z

dvdwilly3 said:


> I had started to post this, but got otherwise busy. My wife and I were in Costco about 2 weeks ago, and she pointed out that they had American Sniper.
> 
> My response was "That's okay, I have it on order at Ama...". I said, "I must have been mistaken about the release date. It will probably be on the porch when we get home" (this was a Tuesday...).
> 
> But, it wasn't. I don't know how Costco pulled that off.


You sure they were actually selling the disc? My local Costco has a display with little cardboard placards you can use to preorder American Sniper, but you can't walk out of the store with it yet.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Josh Z said:


> You sure they were actually selling the disc? My local Costco has a display with little cardboard placards you can use to preorder American Sniper, but you can't walk out of the store with it yet.


That must be it. I did not go over and actually pick it up. That makes more sense.


----------



## NorthSky

*'American Sniper' | (((Dolby Atmos))) Blu-ray | May 19th, 2015 - North America*



M said:


> Yep sure did, from Germany.
> I just put the disc through some tests with DSU engaged, it's a much better experience than the Atmos!





B said:


> The release date for American Sniper on the German site is June 26th did they send you an early release
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/American-Sniper-Blu-ray/124784/





M said:


> Contacts





B said:


> that's cool it's always nice to have contacts


Yup, with the right contacts you can get the Blu-ray ahead of everyone else; two weeks ahead, roughly. 

* One more week to go here, May 19 for the Blu, and many here will check that Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.

______


----------



## zebidou81

Can somebody advise on the best way forward, i am making sure all my angles are correct for my atmos setup and all are correct apart from front heights which are at an angle of around 24-26degrees and not the 30-45degrees which is stated from Dolby, does anybody know if this will have a negative effect and is it worth re positioning them ? I have pointed front heights to fire slightly above mlp so i feel this would help ? Any ideas or is angle difference of 5 degrees not worth worrying about


----------



## smurraybhm

zebidou81 said:


> Can somebody advise on the best way forward, i am making sure all my angles are correct for my atmos setup and all are correct apart from front heights which are at an angle of around 24-26degrees and not the 30-45degrees which is stated from Dolby, does anybody know if this will have a negative effect and is it worth re positioning them ? I have pointed front heights to fire slightly above mlp so i feel this would help ? Any ideas or is angle difference of 5 degrees not worth worrying about


Aim them at the MLP, remember Dolby said themselves that speaker placements are "foregiving" for those with less than ideal situations. If the mains are at ear level then your fronts should work just fine. Enjoy and while the guidelines should not be dismissed don't let them keep you from experimenting for what works best in your room. I speak from experience.


----------



## nucky

American sniper was brilliant and so was the Atmos sound. My wife and I really enjoyed it.


----------



## zebidou81

smurraybhm said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can somebody advise on the best way forward, i am making sure all my angles are correct for my atmos setup and all are correct apart from front heights which are at an angle of around 24-26degrees and not the 30-45degrees which is stated from Dolby, does anybody know if this will have a negative effect and is it worth re positioning them ? I have pointed front heights to fire slightly above mlp so i feel this would help ? Any ideas or is angle difference of 5 degrees not worth worrying about
> 
> 
> 
> Aim them at the MLP, remember Dolby said themselves that speaker placements are "foregiving" for those with less than ideal situations. If the mains are at ear level then your fronts should work just fine. Enjoy and while the guidelines should not be dismissed don't let them keep you from experimenting for what works best in your room. I speak from experience.
Click to expand...

Yes i should just sit back and enjoy the sound for once, i just keep thinking are the front heights active and working even though they are, maybe i will realise they are working when watching more atmos content


----------



## chi_guy50

smurraybhm said:


> Aim them at the MLP, remember Dolby said themselves that speaker placements are "foregiving" for those with less than ideal situations. If the mains are at ear level then your fronts should work just fine. Enjoy and while the guidelines should not be dismissed don't let them keep you from experimenting for what works best in your room. I speak from experience.


I concur fully based on my experience. My front heights at ca. 23° are aimed at the MLP and are as present during Atmos/DSU (at the levels at which Audyssey set them) as I could ever wish them to be.


----------



## pasender91

My FH are at 27° and i am also very happy with Atmos and DSU, yesterday the "black hawk down" choppers and RPGs sounded very real to me in DSU, even at 27°


----------



## billqs

I've gotten set up running a Denon X7200w 7.1.4 system with in-ceiling Tannoy CMS 501s for Heights and Def Tech speakers for front and surrounds and an SVS SB12ND and Boston Acoustic HPS 12HO subs. I have a two row theater & may add a bar and chairs at the back. I placed the side surrounds between the first and second row in the gap between rows so people could get to seats with my narrow walkway. It's a 10x20 room with practically wall to wall screen. The back wall has the rear surrounds. I have two Top Front in-ceiling Tannoys in front of the first row and two Top Rear in-ceiling Tannoys behind the back row. Both are within tolerances based on the Dolby Atmos Angle Calculator and Validator.

My problem is that the 2nd row has much better 3d Sound immersion than the front row. It's not quite as lopsided as it was before I switched my overheads from DT Promonitor 800's to the Tannoys but is still present.

I was considering doing what Josh Z did and adding a third pair of speakers up top, making a mini-array. Rather than make them rear heights as he did, I would be making them Top Heights, mounting them up top of my screen and they would share a signal with the Top Front speakers I have. I think that will allow for better immersion up front, while preserving the already good sound bubble for the 2nd row. 

It won't be perfect because 2 sets os speakers will share the same signal so some directional pans will show up in two speakers at a distance from one another, but I think otherwise it would work. I have the extra ProMonitor 800's to mount. Would this work?


----------



## gerchy

Yeah, I missed more height activity in "Sniper" too. There were some cool chopper flybyes but I had to stand up and checked the speaker from a close range. 
Gravity was great. Way more height action. Excellent!
I wonder how "Jupiter Ascending" will sound!
DSU worked very well in "Pride and Glory". We all know that rain scenes are good but there was a train above the street. Very convincing!


----------



## Frank714

*Essentially it comes down to the fundamental question of whom we can trust or not*












kbarnes701 said:


> There will always be a fringe element who cannot comprehend the realities of commercial life. I have consistently advised people not to expect a DTS:X upgrade to 2014 AVRs, other than the 7200 and the Marantz equivalent.


Incorrect. Back in 2014 and being the prominent voice in both this Dolby Atmos and the corresponding Denon thread, Mr. Barnes - among others - interpreted the statement of this D & M manager as official and reacted accordingly to the question whether the DTS:X (then DTS-UHD) upgrade was merely a "rumor" or not by declaring it as "confirmed".



kbarnes701 said:


> [Frank714] is now obsessed with a comment I made months ago, which was correct at the time, but has since been overtaken by events.


Incorrect. The D & M manager announced the arrival of the Auro 3D upgrade for late 2014 (the fact that it did reveals how genuine this statement was) and that a free DTS:X firmware update would follow at a later time once it became available. In the meantime commitment to a DTS:X firmware update had been announced for the Denon 7200 and the Marantz 8802 and, from what I heard in the meantime, the "DTS:X-ready" Fall 2015 models will be eligible for a free DTS:X firmware update.

Rather simply, the plans for a DTS:X firmware update remain unchanged since September 2014. 



kbarnes701 said:


> If that cannot be comprehended, so be it. The fact remains: the 5200 will not get a DTS:X upgrade and constantly whining about it being "unfair" is totally futile.


Incorrect. I'm not whining, lamenting or else, I merely urge every concerned owner of the Denon 4100 and 5200 and Marantz 7009 and 7702 to get active and ask D & M about the issue, especially after Mr. Yamada's vocal "constant ambition" to provide [firmware] upgrades for already "existing products" to "add value" to the "proud owners".
The more affected owners of these units make themselves known to D & M, the higher the probability that D & M may consider doing something about _if it's technically feasible._

From what I heard in the meantime, D & M is currently devoting all its engineering strength to see to it that the Denon 7200 and the Marantz 8802 will get the DTS:X upgrade via firmware update. Apparently, it's not as easy as the Auro 3D update.

Thus, the firmware update looks like "Plan A". Of course, with their flagship models, I'd like to believe that they also have a "Plan B", i.e. should the firmware update option not work, they could probably still do a physical hardware upgrade for these units.

Thus, it's quite possible (and assuming that the processing architecture of the 7200 and the 8802 is the same as with the four aforementioned D & M models) that until D & M actually knows that a DTS:X firmware update is technically feasible, they understandably prefer not to comment on the 2014 models or - if pushed - resort to a "No" (better safe than sorry ).

However, the one thing I will not be sitting still for is this: Had I been the vocal Dolby Atmos and Denon 5200 promoter, claiming that a later DTS:X firmware update was "confirmed" (as Mr. Barnes did), I would have been the first to ask D & M about their DTS:X firmware upgrade scenarios for the 2014 models, _rather than to discourage or criticize anybody suggesting that we should ask them. _

In this matter you are either a part of a problem or a solution. It's obvious Mr. Barnes does not want to be a part of the solution, despite the fact that his statement gave AV enthusiasts a kind of assurance, he now doesn't want to be reminded of.

To paraphrase Captain Picard: Since we found that our trust has been misplaced, we should re-evaluate whom or what kind of statements to trust here at the AVS in the future or not.


----------



## zebidou81

chi_guy50 said:


> I concur fully based on my experience. My front heights at ca. 23° are aimed at the MLP and are as present during Atmos/DSU (at the levels at which Audyssey set them) as I could ever wish them to be.


Can i ask do you ever ask yourself are they on ? i have stood on a chair to make sure they are active and they are, is there any good test material that make good use of the front heights ? i have bumped mine up by 2db and i am sure they are working well but i just wanted to make sure.


----------



## zebidou81

Ok for height speakers is it now safe to say that most people bump them up by a minimum of 2db so that they sound the best, is it possible that using Audyssey XT32 that as the speaker is firing directly in to the mic that it sets the height speakers at a lower trim level i am pretty sure this is the case, i was trying an Audyssey calibration with the mic tilted at a 25 degree angle but i feel this gave mixed results to the base level speakers ? i know height makes a big impact on calibration, i had my front l/r raised off the floor by 1.5ft and my xover was being set at 120hz now i have them on floor xover is set at 60hz so maybe speakers firing directly into mic gives a false level reading


----------



## aaranddeeman

zebidou81 said:


> Ok for height speakers is it now safe to say that most people bump them up by a minimum of 2db so that they sound the best, is it possible that using Audyssey XT32 that as the speaker is firing directly in to the mic that it sets the height speakers at a lower trim level i am pretty sure this is the case, i was trying an Audyssey calibration with the mic tilted at a 25 degree angle but i feel this gave mixed results to the base level speakers ? i know height makes a big impact on calibration, i had my front l/r raised off the floor by 1.5ft and my xover was being set at 120hz now i have them on floor xover is set at 60hz so maybe speakers firing directly into mic gives a false level reading


I thought it's the other way around.
i.e. if speakers are not towed in towards MLP, Audyssey tend to set them wrongly and the overall response becomes "brighter"..


----------



## chi_guy50

zebidou81 said:


> *Can i ask do you ever ask yourself are they on ?* i have stood on a chair to make sure they are active and they are, is there any good test material that make good use of the front heights ? i have bumped mine up by 2db and i am sure they are working well but i just wanted to make sure.


Generally, no. Depending on the source material I always have a good three-dimensional soundscape.

As for test material, at some point we should have access to a calibration disk for the immersive audio codecs. (Maybe BEFORE the Cubs win the World Series?)


----------



## zimmo

Onkyo always first. L,onkyo receiver av tx-nr646 advance in europe at arround 750 euros whit contains the dolby atmos and dts-x together .:d


----------



## tjenkins95

I don't know if this was posted earlier: 

Ultra HD Blu-ray Specifications Finalized, Licensing Begins This Summer

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/U...-Finalized-Licensing-Begins-This-Summer.shtml


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> I don't know if this was posted earlier:
> 
> Ultra HD Blu-ray Specifications Finalized, Licensing Begins This Summer
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/U...-Finalized-Licensing-Begins-This-Summer.shtml


The article didn't mention the big bugaboo: whether or not UHD Blu-ray has online disc authorization. If a key server goes dark or movie rights transfer to another studio (and that does happen on both counts)... does that mean the disc won't play if you get a new player without the authentication keys?


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> I don't know if this was posted earlier:
> 
> Ultra HD Blu-ray Specifications Finalized, Licensing Begins This Summer
> 
> http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/U...-Finalized-Licensing-Begins-This-Summer.shtml


I'm waiting for Blu-Rays to come out with neither Atmos or DTS:X just an immersive code that will play on any receiver that has Auro or Atmos or DTS:X and we get to choose how we want to listen to it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> I'm waiting for Blu-Rays to come out with neither Atmos or DTS:X just an immersive code that will play on any receiver that has Auro or Atmos or DTS:X and we get to choose how we want to listen to it.


It still needs to be compressed.

And really, what difference does it make? Just like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio... they're all the same in the end. People just perceive that they are different or that one is better than another. It's all the same. It's called "lossless" for a reason. You unpack the product using either brand and get the same LPCM audio in the end.

So why exactly would you want to choose between either Atmos or DTS:X if the end result is exactly the same and your hardware supports both?


----------



## chi_guy50

Chris Dotur said:


> All this discussion here on "Interstellar". My $.02, movie itself was ok. I too found the sound somewhat cloudy. I think today's consumer thinks "great sound" = LOUD, and BIG BASS, with a third priority surround sound usage. Well, this movie had that in spades. But we Atmos adopters should know better than anyone what sound *clarity* and *precision* sounds like, and how great sound really can be. IMHO, Interstellar was neither crystal clear, nor precise. And FWIW, I use M&K S-150 THX speakers and Parasound Halo amps, the same gear used by Skywalker Sound and others. Currently using a Marantz 7702 pre/pro for Atmos and DSU.


We finally got around to watching _Interstellar_ last night (rental BRD from Netflix).

I agree that the sound clarity and precision were less than spectacular. Nonetheless, we found the soundtrack immersive (DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DSU) and extremely effective in furthering the plot. We are not big fans of the fantasy genre, and yet we enjoyed this movie very much. It was gripping and creatively written--not at all the stereotypical protagonist-saves-the-world-from-doom scenario. One illustrative element is how the robots were fully anthropomorphized in terms of speech, emotions, and thought processes and yet their monolithic appearance and clunky movements were something right out of a low-budget 1950's-era sci-fi flick (a trope which Terry Gilliam used to great effect in his extraordinary _Brazil_).

The 2h50m length of the film did not bother us because we found the 1h44m mark a suitable point for taking a long break (another reason--if one was needed--why we much prefer our HT to the commercial cinema). And we had no problem understanding each word of the dialogue (of course, the fact that we had subtitles on the whole time might have had something to do with that).

I also agree that the volume was unusually loud. I played it at lower than typical setting for our room and it was still a bit uncomfortable on the ears during some of the action scenes in the spaceship.

All in all, my wife and I both thought it a remarkable film and would highly recommend it to fellow non-enthusiasts of the genre.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> It still needs to be compressed.
> 
> And really, what difference does it make? Just like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio... they're all the same in the end. People just perceive that they are different or that one is better than another. It's all the same. It's called "lossless" for a reason. You unpack the product using either brand and get the same LPCM audio in the end.
> 
> So why exactly would you want to choose between either Atmos or DTS:X if the end result is exactly the same and your hardware supports both?


Thank you....that's what I was trying to say, they are all the same in the end.


----------



## Roudan

zimmo said:


> Onkyo always first. L,onkyo receiver av tx-nr646 advance in europe at arround 750 euros whit contains the dolby atmos and dts-x together .:d


Thanks. 
Wow, Yes Onkyo NR646 has DTS X. The following article was just puiblished today. Do they have 11 channels?

http://www.whathifi.com/news/onkyo-tx-nr646-and-747-amps-feature-dolby-atmos-and-dtsx

How is Onkyo sounding comparing to D&M?

I saw the following website said NR636 is one of the best sounding receiver? Any comments on this website? This thread always talked about D&M. What about Onkyo?

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-receiver/

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Thanks.
> Wow, Yes Onkyo NR646 has DTS X. The following article was just puiblished today. Do they have 11 channels?
> 
> http://www.whathifi.com/news/onkyo-tx-nr646-and-747-amps-feature-dolby-atmos-and-dtsx
> 
> How is Onkyo sounding comparing to D&M?
> 
> I saw the following website said NR636 is one of the best sounding receiver? Any comments on this website? This thread always talked about D&M. What about Onkyo?
> 
> http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-receiver/
> 
> Thanks.


Some don't like Onkyo because they dropped Audyssey calibration for a somewhat lesser format. 

These are super basic receivers that have 5.1.2 processing... only two height speakers and no rear surrounds for DTS:X and Dolby Atmos and no pre-amp outputs (except sub outs). That's why they're relatively cheap for immersive surround capable receivers. You'll need to a wait a bit longer.


----------



## zebidou81

chi_guy50 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Can i ask do you ever ask yourself are they on ?* i have stood on a chair to make sure they are active and they are, is there any good test material that make good use of the front heights ? i have bumped mine up by 2db and i am sure they are working well but i just wanted to make sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, no. Depending on the source material I always have a good three-dimensional soundscape.
> 
> As for test material, at some point we should have access to a calibration disk for the immersive audio codecs. (Maybe BEFORE the Cubs win the World Series?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
Click to expand...

Im going to try and enjoy my system for a while and maybe not look into it 2 much i just want it sounding the best it could, i may end up getting an audio installer to take a look to see if its at its best to reassure me there is nothing i can improve and maybe get a Audyssey pro cal done


----------



## billqs

I had the Onkyo 636 and I thought it was a great sounding receiver. I left it for probably the same reason you wouldn't be interested in the 646, and that is the 5.1.2 decoding limit. I wanted to fully implement Dolby Atmos height speakers and it couldn't be done with the 636. BTW, theres a HUGE ($1000+) price jump before you can get at least 2 more channels.

If you only plan on doing 5.1.2 or old fashioned 7.1 (actually it has 2 subwoofer outs) then I wouldn't hesistate to recommend it. My old Onkyo HRC 230 is still going strong in my den upstairs.


----------



## billqs

zebidou81 said:


> Ok for height speakers is it now safe to say that most people bump them up by a minimum of 2db so that they sound the best, is it possible that using Audyssey XT32 that as the speaker is firing directly in to the mic that it sets the height speakers at a lower trim level i am pretty sure this is the case, i was trying an Audyssey calibration with the mic tilted at a 25 degree angle but i feel this gave mixed results to the base level speakers ? i know height makes a big impact on calibration, i had my front l/r raised off the floor by 1.5ft and my xover was being set at 120hz now i have them on floor xover is set at 60hz so maybe speakers firing directly into mic gives a false level reading


Thanks, zebidou. Even though you didn't aim your answer to me, I think your answer would help me, too. Once I get back my Denon from Upgradeville I will try upping the volume level on the front heights by a couple of decibels before I try to pull off something as exotic as an array.


----------



## bargervais

American Sniper is in Dolby Atmos 7.1 in English and in French


----------



## discodol

BluesSailor said:


> Thanks guys. Any other suggestions out there from the collective mind?



Do you have a way to get the speaker wire into the ceiling? If so google "hang speaker from ceiling" and you will gethttps://encrypted.google.com/search...m=shop&ei=BVZSVaDIGcKjgwTF2IDwAw&start=0&sa=N more solutions than you can shake a stick at! From simple single wire pendant speakers to more elaborate setups.


----------



## scarabaeus

bargervais said:


> American Sniper is in Dolby Atmos 7.1 in English and in French


It's in "Atmos", without "7.1". The downmix options, such as 7.1, are mandatory and implied. Marketing folks creating confusion by trying to avoid confusion.

Furthermore, the french track is encoded as Dolby Digital Plus, a first for Atmos on Blu-ray (besides the Dolby demo discs, but they were not retail).


----------



## zebidou81

billqs said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok for height speakers is it now safe to say that most people bump them up by a minimum of 2db so that they sound the best, is it possible that using Audyssey XT32 that as the speaker is firing directly in to the mic that it sets the height speakers at a lower trim level i am pretty sure this is the case, i was trying an Audyssey calibration with the mic tilted at a 25 degree angle but i feel this gave mixed results to the base level speakers ? i know height makes a big impact on calibration, i had my front l/r raised off the floor by 1.5ft and my xover was being set at 120hz now i have them on floor xover is set at 60hz so maybe speakers firing directly into mic gives a false level reading
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, zebidou. Even though you didn't aim your answer to me, I think your answer would help me, too. Once I get back my Denon from Upgradeville I will try upping the volume level on the front heights by a couple of decibels before I try to pull off something as exotic as an array.
Click to expand...

An array sounds good sounds like it would need a powerfull amp, i feel adding extra db to height levels help, there was an article posted in this forum that reviewd a home atmos setup i think it was bass guru article and it stated the setup was the best he had ever heard powerd by a Denon amp and one of the secrets was adding 4db to the height channels gave the best sound


----------



## bargervais

scarabaeus said:


> It's in "Atmos", without "7.1". The downmix options, such as 7.1, are mandatory and implied. Marketing folks creating confusion by trying to avoid confusion.
> 
> Furthermore, the french track is encoded as Dolby Digital Plus, a first for Atmos on Blu-ray (besides the Dolby demo discs, but they were not retail).


Still It's very cool that *American Sniper* has an *Atmos track* *both* in French and English on it.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> Still It's very cool that *American Sniper* has an *Atmos track* *both* in French and English on it.


Agreed, it will be a good occasion to show the format a little bit more to the members of my family who do not speak English, I'll finally be able to invite my Dad over for a Dolby Atmos viewing


----------



## Roudan

bargervais said:


> American Sniper is in Dolby Atmos 7.1 in English and in French


Where to buy this? Also does new avengers have DTS x?


----------



## zebidou81

billqs said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok for height speakers is it now safe to say that most people bump them up by a minimum of 2db so that they sound the best, is it possible that using Audyssey XT32 that as the speaker is firing directly in to the mic that it sets the height speakers at a lower trim level i am pretty sure this is the case, i was trying an Audyssey calibration with the mic tilted at a 25 degree angle but i feel this gave mixed results to the base level speakers ? i know height makes a big impact on calibration, i had my front l/r raised off the floor by 1.5ft and my xover was being set at 120hz now i have them on floor xover is set at 60hz so maybe speakers firing directly into mic gives a false level reading
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, zebidou. Even though you didn't aim your answer to me, I think your answer would help me, too. Once I get back my Denon from Upgradeville I will try upping the volume level on the front heights by a couple of decibels before I try to pull off something as exotic as an array.
Click to expand...

Here is the link with the best Atmos setup (possibly) and it states the Audyssey mic is not the best for setting the Atmos levels per its shape and speakers firing direct in to mic. + 2 to +4db on all atmos speakers works very well.

http://peteswrite.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-bass-gurus-den-visiting-home-of.html?m=1


----------



## gerchy

Jupiter asceding is by far the best Atmos movie so far! Now we are talking Atmos!


----------



## zebidou81

gerchy said:


> Jupiter asceding is by far the best Atmos movie so far! Now we are talking Atmos!


What are the best parts or is it the full movie mix thats absorbing ? Does it make good use of overheads or is it just the overall mix ?


----------



## wse

Onkyo plans June shipments of its first two AVRs to support two object-based surround formats: Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. 

DTS:X will be available as a firmware upgrade sometime later this year.







_Onkyo’s $699-suggested 7.2-channel networked TX-NR646 AVR _ 

The TX-NR646, due in early June at a suggested $699, and the TX-NR747, due in late June at a suggested of $999, will also be the brand’s first AVRs with HDMI 2.0a inputs and outputs, which pass through high dynamic range (HDR) video formats to a compatible TV. 

Both are networked 7.2-channel models that support a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos or DTS:X speaker configuration. An outboard amp can’t be added to support a 5.1.4 speaker configuration, a spokesperson said. 

Both models also feature HDCP 2.2 copy protection on three of eight HDMI inputs and both HDMI outputs to pass through copy-protected UltraHD 4K video from future 4K IP set-top boxes and 4K Blu-ray players to 4K TVs equipped with HDCP 2.2. 

The AVRs are also the company’s first with HDMI/HDCP2.2 inputs and outputs that support full-bandwidth 18Gbps HDMI instead of 10.2Gbps HDMI. The change enables the AVRs to pass through 4K video at 60fps with 4:4:4 color sampling, a step up from 4:2:0 color sampling. 

They’re also the company’s first AVRs with Apple AirPlay and first with 384kHz/32-bit DACs. 

To find out more about lower-priced AVRs planned and more specs for the current AVR line


----------



## NorthSky

gerchy said:


> *Jupiter Ascending'* is by far the best Atmos movie so far! Now we are talking Atmos!


Only three weeks to go (June 02): Blu-ray in 3D Sound & Picture...right on! ...Supposedly better than 'Avatar 3D' and 'Gravity 3D'. 

* By the way, how come they don't remaster 'Avatar 3D' in Dolby Atmos? ...'The Abyss' 3D Picture & Sound. ...They can spread it over two BD50 discs. 
...And 'Star Wars', 'Star Treks', 'LOTR'. ...'The Incredibles' in 3D Picture and Sound (Atmos). ...'The Incredibles 2' too.


----------



## zebidou81

Interstellar to get uk Atmos release


----------



## Scott Simonian

zebidou81 said:


> Interstellar to get uk Atmos release


Oh yeah, I heard about that one.

It comes with the non-existing Atmos mix that never has been made. Nice.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh yeah, I heard about that one.
> 
> It comes with the non-existing Atmos mix that never has been made. Nice.


Is that the brand new remastered _Silent Space_ audio soundtrack version? ...The one recorded directly in space.


----------



## zebidou81

NorthSky said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I heard about that one.
> 
> It comes with the non-existing Atmos mix that never has been made. Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the brand new remastered _Silent Space_ audio soundtrack version? ...The one recorded directly in space.
Click to expand...

Ha am i missing something. New uk blu ray atmos blu rays soon to be released - jupiter ascending - american sniper - gunman - john wick - remixed Interstellar - cnet


----------



## Nalleh

zebidou81 said:


> Ha am i missing something. New uk blu ray atmos blu rays soon to be released - jupiter ascending - american sniper - gunman - john wick - remixed Interstellar - cnet


Link ?!?


----------



## batpig

zebidou81 said:


> billqs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok for height speakers is it now safe to say that most people bump them up by a minimum of 2db so that they sound the best, is it possible that using Audyssey XT32 that as the speaker is firing directly in to the mic that it sets the height speakers at a lower trim level i am pretty sure this is the case, i was trying an Audyssey calibration with the mic tilted at a 25 degree angle but i feel this gave mixed results to the base level speakers ? i know height makes a big impact on calibration, i had my front l/r raised off the floor by 1.5ft and my xover was being set at 120hz now i have them on floor xover is set at 60hz so maybe speakers firing directly into mic gives a false level reading
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, zebidou. Even though you didn't aim your answer to me, I think your answer would help me, too. Once I get back my Denon from Upgradeville I will try upping the volume level on the front heights by a couple of decibels before I try to pull off something as exotic as an array.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the link with the best Atmos setup (possibly) and it states the Audyssey mic is not the best for setting the Atmos levels per its shape and speakers firing direct in to mic. + 2 to +4db on all atmos speakers works very well.
> 
> http://peteswrite.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-bass-gurus-den-visiting-home-of.html?m=1
Click to expand...

The part about levels doesn't make sense. Mic orientation relative to the speakers would only Impact high frequencies, but levels aren't really impacted by that. 

Rather the more sensible explanation is that it's just a preference for people who like to hear more overhead action.


----------



## batpig

billqs said:


> I had the Onkyo 636 and I thought it was a great sounding receiver. I left it for probably the same reason you wouldn't be interested in the 646, and that is the 5.1.2 decoding limit. I wanted to fully implement Dolby Atmos height speakers and it couldn't be done with the 636. BTW, theres a HUGE ($1000+) price jump before you can get at least 2 more channels.
> 
> If you only plan on doing 5.1.2 or old fashioned 7.1 (actually it has 2 subwoofer outs) then I wouldn't hesistate to recommend it. My old Onkyo HRC 230 is still going strong in my den upstairs.


Minor nitpick but the $1000+ comment isn't quite accurate. A Denon X4100 wouldn't be more than $1k more than the cost of the Onk 7ch models even factoring in $100 for a basic 2ch amp to expand to 9 channels.


----------



## Dbruce13

Does Dolby Atmos have a site which lists the new titles coming out? That will be the limiting factor for mainstream interest


----------



## FilmMixer

Dbruce13 said:


> Does Dolby Atmos have a site which lists the new titles coming out?


Kind of....

Dolby Atmos Blu Ray Titles



> That will be the limiting factor for mainstream interest


That's your opinion, not a fact.


----------



## UKTexan

The comedy "Get hard" featuring Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart will be released on Blu-Ray in Atmos on June 30th.


http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16750


Accidently posted this in a Denon thread earlier.


----------



## aaranddeeman

UKTexan said:


> The comedy "Get hard" featuring Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart will be released on Blu-Ray in Atmos on June 30th.
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16750
> 
> 
> Accidently posted this in a Denon thread earlier.


Laaaugh from ceiling. This is new.

(When @ Denon thread, I was responding and suddenly the quote was blank, now I know why)


----------



## bargervais

UKTexan said:


> The comedy "Get hard" featuring Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart will be released on Blu-Ray in Atmos on June 30th.
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16750
> 
> 
> Accidently posted this in a Denon thread earlier.


Not a big Will Ferrell fan, I'm not into stupid comedy. LOL 
But it's nice to see a faster trickle of Atmos month after month.


----------



## aaranddeeman

bargervais said:


> Not a big Will Ferrell fan, I'm not into stupid comedy. LOL


Stupid comedy in Atmos "sounds" even more "stupid"...


----------



## Heresy80

Talladega Nights, (Staring Will Ferrell) Best Movie Ever Made! Just Sayin.


----------



## bargervais

Heresy80 said:


> Talladega Nights, (Staring Will Ferrell) Best Movie Ever Made! Just Sayin.


Best movie ever made  or the best movie you saw Will Ferrell in.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

gerchy said:


> Jupiter asceding is by far the best Atmos movie so far! Now we are talking Atmos!


To bad it is one of the worse movies of the year.... ~_~ man was it terrible...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Where to buy this? Also does new avengers have DTS x?



We won't know about Age of Ultron until later this summer when the Blu-ray specs are made known. Disney may not jump into the immersive sound arena until UHD Blu-ray. That's just a vibe I'm getting.


----------



## billqs

batpig said:


> Minor nitpick but the $1000+ comment isn't quite accurate. A Denon X4100 wouldn't be more than $1k more than the cost of the Onk 7ch models even factoring in $100 for a basic 2ch amp to expand to 9 channels.


You're right. More like $5-800 depending on where you would purchase each. More toward the lower end if talking MSRP. For some reason the 636 had a much softer street price than the Denon x4100W.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Jupiter Ascending'*



Daniel Chaves said:


> To bad it is one of the worse movies of the year.... ~_~ man was it terrible...


For roughly 99% of the movie population, it don't really matter. ...People still pay to see it (yours included).
* Did you also pay to see it?


----------



## AidenL

Are Definitive Technology DI 6.5 RS suitable for use as overheads for Atmos? 

My dealer is recommending them as being wide dispersion.


----------



## gerchy

Daniel Chaves said:


> To bad it is one of the worse movies of the year.... ~_~ man was it terrible...


True. 
It had potencial and could be better. The soundtrack could also use some "detailing". 
But it's still enjoyable.


----------



## Csbooth

I've noticed on the Onkyo 646/747 product features page (other than support for HDMI 2.0a, yay ) that it has ADVANCED in the column regarding AccuEQ,... And from what I have gleaned from their respective manuals, I can only assume that there is test tones and EQ calibration on the Front 2 speakers and subwoofers being done now. Is this a return to form?, I could be totally wrong here, but it seemed worth noting.

Also, I asked this in another thread but I'm going to do so here as well: I noticed that the only difference between the two mid-grade models is that the latter 747 sports a THX certification. Now, because the seating recommendation is for 10-12 feet from the screen/speakers, and my own will be a mere 6-8 ft from a 55" SUHD 8500, would THX certification even present any kind of benefit to me? 

My guess is that it might not even matter in the end sadly, as the higher end models (1030/3030) last year that give 11 channels for the preferred 7.x.4 setup also have this certification and don't offer a model such as the 646 in their tier lol. I can only assume it will be the same this year as the 1040/3040 will again put that extra $200 feature on there that people may not want or need.


----------



## zebidou81

batpig said:


> The part about levels doesn't make sense. Mic orientation relative to the speakers would only Impact high frequencies, but levels aren't really impacted by that.
> 
> Rather the more sensible explanation is that it's just a preference for people who like to hear more overhead action.


Ok well orientation seems to make a difference with levels to me, if i was to tilt the mic facing the back of the room the rear surrounds are set to a much lower db level and the fronts are set to around a +4 db from if i had the mic pointing to the ceiling, so it is obvious that orientation both with my tests and the blog with regards to one of the best atmos setup is correct orientation plays a factor, and also does the shape of the mic.


----------



## roxiedog13

bargervais said:


> Best movie ever made  or the best movie you saw Will Ferrell in.


Movie tastes are certainly subjective, so if it's the best movie he's ever seen, and assuming he has seen a few others, then it is so . Will Ferrell is very accomplished at what he
does , I have watched most of his work some of it I certainly enjoy. Hardly ranks best movie ever, then again, I have never seen any comedy that I would categorize that way.

Atmos object based sound and comedy, maybe if the character has a multiple personality....


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> *Not a big Will Ferrell fan, I'm not into stupid comedy.* LOL
> But it's nice to see a faster trickle of Atmos month after month.


He's actually a very intelligent man, an accomplished actor, and one of the funniest, most respected comedians around. Unfortunately, his acting career was formed by some of the silliest, most asinine and forgettable movies imaginable.

If you want a glimpse of what he can offer in a watchable movie, check out the delightful _Everything Must Go_ (2011), based on a Raymond Carver short story.


----------



## Dbruce13

FilmMixer said:


> Kind of....
> 
> Dolby Atmos Blu Ray Titles
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion, not a fact.


Dont get me wrong... I want to go out and buy 4 ceiling speakers and a new receiver today..lol. I am just using my better judgement until costs come down on Atmos receivers and more titles are available. The sound difference is INCREDIBLE if any of you have not had a chance to demo it yet in theater or at your local avs store.


----------



## jrref

Daniel Chaves said:


> To bad it is one of the worse movies of the year.... ~_~ man was it terrible...


 Really? Why was it so bad? I was really looking forward to seeing it, sigh


----------



## roxiedog13

chi_guy50 said:


> He's actually a very intelligent man, an accomplished actor, and one of the funniest, most respected comedians around. Unfortunately, his acting career was formed by some of the silliest, most asinine and forgettable movies imaginable.
> 
> If you want a glimpse of what he can offer in a watchable movie, check out the delightful _Everything Must Go_ (2011), based on a Raymond Carver short story.


Watched the trailer , looks interesting , borderlines as a comedy though, kind of tragedy / comedy maybe? Will have to watch this one soon and see how he does in a more
dramatic kind of role.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Not a big Will Ferrell fan, I'm not into stupid comedy. LOL
> But it's nice to see a faster trickle of Atmos month after month.


Yeah, not a big fan of either actor and the comedies that they make these days are just not funny. Will not be purchasing this one.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> He's actually a very intelligent man, an accomplished actor, and one of the funniest, most respected comedians around. Unfortunately, his acting career was formed by some of the silliest, most asinine and forgettable movies imaginable.
> 
> If you want a glimpse of what he can offer in a watchable movie, check out the delightful* Everything Must Go *(2011), based on a Raymond Carver short story.


That was a fantastic intimate dramedy. Too bad he can't get more rolls like that. And he was great in _Stranger Than Fiction_ with Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Queen Latifah, and Dustin Hoffman.


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> * By the way, how come they don't remaster 'Avatar 3D' in Dolby Atmos? ...'The Abyss' 3D Picture & Sound. ...They can spread it over two BD50 discs.
> ...And 'Star Wars', 'Star Treks', 'LOTR'. ...'The Incredibles' in 3D Picture and Sound (Atmos). ...'The Incredibles 2' too.


I would just take The Abyss in 1080P (Directors Cut only). Atmos would be icing on the cake. Avatar in Atmos would (or more correctly "could") be spectacular in Atmos.


----------



## audioguy

Frank714 said:


> From what I heard in the meantime, D & M is currently devoting all its engineering strength to see to it that the Denon 7200 and the Marantz 8802 will get the DTS:X upgrade via firmware update. Apparently, it's not as easy as the Auro 3D update.
> 
> Thus, the firmware update looks like "Plan A". Of course, with their flagship models, I'd like to believe that they also have a "Plan B", i.e. should the firmware update option not work, they could probably still do a physical hardware upgrade for these units.
> 
> Thus, it's quite possible (and assuming that the processing architecture of the 7200 and the 8802 is the same as with the four aforementioned D & M models) that until D & M actually knows that a DTS:X firmware update is technically feasible, they understandably prefer not to comment on the 2014 models or - if pushed - resort to a "No" (better safe than sorry ).


Your active and constant disapproval of Keith Barnes notwithstanding, I am curious about why you think that if enough users of the 5200/7702 (etc) SSP's protest, beg, plead, or ask nicely that D&M would agree to upgrade these units to DTS. 

That they did it for Auro, in my opinion, does not logically lead to a conclusion they might/should/will do it for DTS (even if the horsepower is available on the units).

I guess there is nothing wrong with asking but I have been in the audio business on and off for about 20 years and nothing that I have seen would ever lead me to believe that there is one shot in a million that D&M will give in (the Auro upgrade included). That they can make the user base happy by doing so is no more logical than if they sent us all $200 discount coupons on the next D&M product we would like to buy, that also would make me happy too. If I were running D&M, I would ignore the clamor/internet chatter. 

If you really believe an existing user campaign asking D&M to provide the upgrade will be effective, it had best be very formal and organized. Create some kind of petition and see how many existing users will sign on. Then present it to D&M. Get a few thousand "signatures" (good luck with that), and see what happens . Whining, complaining, cajoling, arguing on the forums, even if participated in by hundreds (and there are not "hundreds" participating), will get no attention.

And by the way, I sure do hope I am way off target!


----------



## cdelena

AidenL said:


> Are Definitive Technology DI 6.5 RS suitable for use as overheads for Atmos?
> 
> My dealer is recommending them as being wide dispersion.


Dispersion is much more important if you have relatively low ceilings. The swivel tweeter allows some aiming for high frequency. I am a real fan of DT speakers and think these would work well but you do have to select the right gear for your environment.


----------



## RAllenChristenson

AidenL said:


> Are Definitive Technology DI 6.5 RS suitable for use as overheads for Atmos?
> 
> My dealer is recommending them as being wide dispersion.


I use 4 DI 6.5LCR which are probably overkill but they sound absolutely amazing! I have all tweeters pointed toward the MLP. Per my signature I have all Def Techs so they blend in perfectly. btw, I have 11' flat ceilings with top fronts and top rears, all at a 45 degree angles to MLP. The "disappearing" grills which are magnetic truly are nearly invisible.


----------



## AidenL

cdelena said:


> Dispersion is much more important if you have relatively low ceilings. The swivel tweeter allows some aiming for high frequency. I am a real fan of DT speakers and think these would work well but you do have to select the right gear for your environment.





RAllenChristenson said:


> I use 4 DI 6.5LCR which are probably overkill but they sound absolutely amazing! I have all tweeters pointed toward the MLP. Per my signature I have all Def Techs so they blend in perfectly. btw, I have 11' flat ceilings with top fronts and top rears, all at a 45 degree angles to MLP. The "disappearing" grills which are magnetic truly are nearly invisible.


I have quite low ceilings, and glad to hear you both rate these very highly.

Ive ordered them up now.


----------



## Josh Z

zebidou81 said:


> Ha am i missing something. New uk blu ray atmos blu rays soon to be released - jupiter ascending - american sniper - gunman - john wick - remixed Interstellar - cnet


I cannot find any such article on CNET. Please do not spread rumors without providing a direct link to the source.

Interstellar did not have an Atmos sound mix in theaters. Christopher Nolan did not want the movie to have much surround activity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/m...expansive-mind-of-christopher-nolan.html?_r=0

"The most important thing, he said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides. "


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> I cannot find any such article on CNET. Please do not spread rumors without providing a direct link to the source.
> 
> Interstellar did not have an Atmos sound mix in theaters. Christopher Nolan did not want the movie to have much surround activity.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/m...expansive-mind-of-christopher-nolan.html?_r=0
> 
> "The most important thing, he said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides. "


What does Christopher Nolan know?


----------



## stikle

lujan said:


> What does Christopher Nolan know?


How to make less than (Inter)stellar sound mixes...


----------



## wse

Josh Z said:


> I cannot find any such article on CNET. Please do not spread rumors without providing a direct link to the source. Interstellar did not have an Atmos sound mix in theaters. Christopher Nolan did not want the movie to have much surround activity. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/magazine/the-exacting-expansive-mind-of-christopher-nolan.html?_r=0
> 
> "The most important thing, he said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides. "


Seriously!


----------



## roxiedog13

Just watched Gravity Deluxe Diamond edition in Silent Space option , Atmos 7.2.4 . Disappointed that I didn't find it any more engaging than the original. 
Did I need to watch in regular mode to be impressed??


----------



## SteveTheGeek

roxiedog13 said:


> Just watched Gravity Deluxe Diamond edition in Silent Space option , Atmos 7.2.4 . Disappointed that I didn't find it any more engaging than the original.
> Did I need to watch in regular mode to be impressed??


Yes, the Silent Space track is not in Atmos...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

roxiedog13 said:


> Just watched Gravity Deluxe Diamond edition in Silent Space option , Atmos 7.2.4 . Disappointed that I didn't find it any more engaging than the original.
> Did I need to watch in regular mode to be impressed??


The Silent Space version is lossy Dolby Digital 5.1. The original theatrical soundtrack is lossless Atmos encoded.


----------



## roxiedog13

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Silent Space version is lossy Dolby Digital 5.1. The original theatrical soundtrack is lossless Atmos encoded.



Well then, going to have to endure another viewing. Better be good, I've watched this one to many times now.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> How to make less than (Inter)stellar sound mixes...


A soundtrack doesn't have to be in Atmos to be a good soundtrack. Interstellar was mixed the way it was so that the music & the raw power of spaceships/whatever could be captured. 

If people want to complain about things like dialogue intelligibility... then I'd refer them to saving private ryan which was also a fantastic mix... but made use of obscured dialogue to capture the loudness of battle. No one would have been able to have a nice discussion over tea & biscuits on the beaches of Normandy.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Do any of you guys go to see a lot of films in Atmos? I go to see about half of the theatrical releases. I'm curious if anyone else has had this experience... I've been going to 2 different Atmos theaters in the area (Chicago). There is an RPX theater (RPX 17) in the burbs that I thought had an amazing Atmos sound system... "Into the storm", "Mockingjay", & "Maze Runner" sounded *amazing* at that theater. @ Chicago I've been going to the south loop's ICON theater because the projection there is much better than the RPX 17. Unfortunately... I've found that the atmos sound has been waning at both theaters.... has anyone else noticed this? 

I can give one very clear example... at my house on the 7.1.4 system when I watch the "amaze" trailer, the bird does it's 360 pan... that pan is clear the whole way across the room, the flapping of the wings is very full. 
@ the ICON theater, the bird's pan almost disappears when it goes to the rear. I've also found that the sound there isn't as robust as it is in my HT... however the atmosphere is due to the size of the theater. I've tried to compare the ICON theater to RPX... when I went to the RPX theater to see "age of ultron" the sound was very quiet (strange because before it was way too loud... perhaps they turned the sound down due to complaints?) Well... in any case, Avengers did sound a bit better @ ICON... but from what I recall there was nothing like the 3D sound I experienced when I saw "into the storm" (notably the beginning of the film when the kids are in the car & the rain hits the roof... man it felt like I was in the car with them). I haven't experienced anything like that with the atmos films recently. 

What I'm getting at I guess is... are my ears just getting used to Atmos? Or have you theater goers noticed a decline in Atmos theater quality? Or maybe it's just the mixes? 

(p.s. my best friend said the same thing... he was there with me when we saw "into the storm", but also finds the atmos theatrical experience as of late to be "meh")


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Do any of you guys go to see a lot of films in Atmos?


Seen (heard) almost 40 movies in Atmos over the last 3 years, a good chunk with other local AVS members. Due to the proximity to Hollywood, we have 14 Atmos theatre within a 40-mile radius here in Los Angeles.


> What I'm getting at I guess is... are my ears just getting used to Atmos? Or have you theater goers noticed a decline in Atmos theater quality? Or maybe it's just the mixes?


In my case, it's a little of the first (ears getting used to it) but mostly the third (the mixes). Out of all the Atmos movies I've seen, I could probably count on two hands how many really took advantage of Atmos' unique capabilities (panning through the arrays, overhead imaging). By comparison, I've lost count of how many movies left me scratching my head wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos.


----------



## stikle

Aras_Volodka said:


> A soundtrack doesn't have to be in Atmos to be a good soundtrack. Interstellar was mixed the way it was so that the music & the raw power of spaceships/whatever could be captured.



I made no mention of Atmos (Odd, since this is the Atmos thread (but that's par for the course)), I was commenting on the mix itself. The music was far too loud IMO.



Aras_Volodka said:


> If people want to complain about things like dialogue intelligibility... then I'd refer them to saving private ryan which was also a fantastic mix... but made use of obscured dialogue to capture the loudness of battle.



I don't agree with your opinion in this example. In all of the times I've seen SPR, I don't recall having any issue understanding dialogue.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> I made no mention of Atmos (Odd, since this is the Atmos thread (but that's par for the course)), I was commenting on the mix itself. The music was far too loud IMO.
> 
> I don't agree with your opinion in this example. In all of the times I've seen SPR, I don't recall having any issue understanding dialogue.


Was the music in 2001 mixed too loud? Interstellar was obviously going for that approach... I liked in both films... very powerful. 

Film makers like Nolan, weather you love them or hate them, are unique. They are treating film as a medium, just like a painter does with oil. I feel like the vast majority of film makers are taking the cookie cutter Thomas Kinkade approach (if a name wasn't attached to a film... would you be able to tell who directed it?) and mixes are a part of that. I wish people would complain more about the use of fake orchestra samples or other generic hollywood trends. 

In regards to saving private ryan: the part when the mortar strike knocks Tom Hanks as he's getting onto the beach, there is a part where you see a guy yelling at him & he can't hear him for a few moments. Not long afterwards when they are laying the bangalore charges I recall the dialogue wasn't easy to understand.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Seen (heard) almost 40 movies in Atmos over the last 3 years, a good chunk with other local AVS members. Due to the proximity to Hollywood, we have 14 Atmos theatre within a 40-mile radius here in Los Angeles. In my case, it's a little of the first (ears getting used to it) but mostly the third (the mixes). Out of all the Atmos movies I've seen, I could probably count on two hands how many really took advantage of Atmos' unique capabilities (panning through the arrays, overhead imaging). By comparison, I've lost count of how many movies left me scratching my head wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos.


Laser projectors & countless Atmos theaters... I'm jealous! 

Ok so I'm not the only one then... I forget, did you ever get to see Ultron in Atmos? If I recall you said you saw it in IMAX's immersive sound format. I wasn't impressed with Ultron's use of Atmos... it wasn't bad, but I wasn't blown away either.

I'm going to see Mad Max next week... hopefully that will deliver some good use of Atmos!


----------



## Josh Z

Aras_Volodka said:


> A soundtrack doesn't have to be in Atmos to be a good soundtrack. Interstellar was mixed the way it was so that the music & the raw power of spaceships/whatever could be captured.
> 
> If people want to complain about things like dialogue intelligibility... then I'd refer them to saving private ryan which was also a fantastic mix... but made use of obscured dialogue to capture the loudness of battle. No one would have been able to have a nice discussion over tea & biscuits on the beaches of Normandy.


The difference between these two is that Spielberg didn't stage tea-and-biscuits dialogue conversations important to following the story during those scenes where they'd be overwhelmed by sound effects and music. Christopher Nolan does. 

I don't recall any overpoweringly loud spaceships or exploding mortar shells in the room when



Spoiler



Michael Caine's character dies.



So why is his dialogue inaudible?


----------



## lujan

Aras_Volodka said:


> Do any of you guys go to see a lot of films in Atmos? I go to see about half of the theatrical releases. I'm curious if anyone else has had this experience... I've been going to 2 different Atmos theaters in the area (Chicago). There is an RPX theater (RPX 17) in the burbs that I thought had an amazing Atmos sound system... "Into the storm", "Mockingjay", & "Maze Runner" sounded *amazing* at that theater. @ Chicago I've been going to the south loop's ICON theater because the projection there is much better than the RPX 17. Unfortunately... I've found that the atmos sound has been waning at both theaters.... has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> I can give one very clear example... at my house on the 7.1.4 system when I watch the "amaze" trailer, the bird does it's 360 pan... that pan is clear the whole way across the room, the flapping of the wings is very full.
> @ the ICON theater, the bird's pan almost disappears when it goes to the rear. I've also found that the sound there isn't as robust as it is in my HT... however the atmosphere is due to the size of the theater. I've tried to compare the ICON theater to RPX... when I went to the RPX theater to see "age of ultron" the sound was very quiet (strange because before it was way too loud... perhaps they turned the sound down due to complaints?) Well... in any case, Avengers did sound a bit better @ ICON... but from what I recall there was nothing like the 3D sound I experienced when I saw "into the storm" (notably the beginning of the film when the kids are in the car & the rain hits the roof... man it felt like I was in the car with them). I haven't experienced anything like that with the atmos films recently.
> 
> What I'm getting at I guess is... are my ears just getting used to Atmos? Or have you theater goers noticed a decline in Atmos theater quality? Or maybe it's just the mixes?
> 
> (p.s. my best friend said the same thing... he was there with me when we saw "into the storm", but also finds the atmos theatrical experience as of late to be "meh")


No, I can only listen to Atmos at home since our town (Albuquerque) just barely got an IMAX theater much less one that has Atmos.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Josh Z said:


> The difference between these two is that Spielberg didn't stage tea-and-biscuits dialogue conversations important to following the story during those scenes where they'd be overwhelmed by sound effects and music. Christopher Nolan does.
> 
> I don't recall any overpoweringly loud spaceships or exploding mortar shells in the room when
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Caine's character dies.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is his dialogue inaudible?


Because I'm sure all the people on their death beds sound very coherent in their final moments (like Yoda). Was that a Serious complaint? I mean... even if you couldn't hear it... they go over that in the following scene.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lujan said:


> No, I can only listen to Atmos at home since our town (Albuquerque) just barely got an IMAX theater much less one that has Atmos.


My condolences, one of my best friends lives there... I've been wanting to go so that I could at least check out the breaking bad locations


----------



## Kris Deering

Josh Z said:


> The difference between these two is that Spielberg didn't stage tea-and-biscuits dialogue conversations important to following the story during those scenes where they'd be overwhelmed by sound effects and music. Christopher Nolan does.
> 
> I don't recall any overpoweringly loud spaceships or exploding mortar shells in the room when
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Caine's character dies.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is his dialogue inaudible?


I've never understood the complaints about the dialogue in Interstellar. I saw the movie twice in theaters (IMAX digital and IMAX 70mm) and at home. Not once did I ever have an issue with the dialogue or had any issues understanding anything.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Laser projectors & countless Atmos theaters... I'm jealous!


Compensates for traffic, gangs, taxes and now drought.


> I forget, did you ever get to see Ultron in Atmos? If I recall you said you saw it in IMAX's immersive sound format.


Saw it both ways. My post from Sunday:


sdurani said:


> Scott Wilkinson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dolby Atmos soundtrack was quite immersive, with lots of activity in the overhead speakers.
> 
> I thought the [IMAX] soundtrack was not as immersive as it had been earlier in Dolby Atmos. The Imax 12.1 system is channel-based, not object-based, with four speakers on the ceiling and one speaker array high up on each side wall. I didn't sense the sound from overhead as much, though the side-height speakers got a good workout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heard the movie in IMAX 12.0 opening weekend and got to hear it in Atmos today (my last chance before local Atmos theatres switch over to Mad Max). Of the two mixes, the Atmos presentation was more enveloping and seamless, what with its arrays of speakers across the walls and ceiling. It was a bubble of sound with no gaps, but slightly more generalized directionality.
> 
> By comparison, the IMAX mix felt familiar: 4 surrounds, 4 overheads, each channel being played back by one and only one speaker. This was home theatre on steroids. The soundfield wasn't as seamless, but the directionality was more distinct. The most noticeable difference was the clearer side-vs-rear and around-vs-above separation in the surround field.
Click to expand...


----------



## wse

sdurani said:


> ...........By comparison, I've lost count of how many movies left me scratching my head wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos.


Agreed


----------



## roxiedog13

Quote:
Originally Posted by *sdurani*  
_...........By comparison, I've lost count of how many movies left me scratching my head wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos._
Agreed 


Agreement here as well . To be honest, I haven't heard one mix that has me saying wow, best I have heard are DSU upmix with older movies. Dolby is 
just throwing out bones to keep us busy, I'm still waiting for a steak personally .


----------



## sdurani

roxiedog13 said:


> Dolby is just throwing out bones to keep us busy, I'm still waiting for a steak personally .


Dolby isn't doing the mixes, movie studios are. The type of mixes that show up on the big screen and on Blu-ray are out of Dolby's control.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dolby isn't doing the mixes, movie studios are. The type of mixes that show up on the big screen and on Blu-ray are out of Dolby's control.


Too bad. 

Both Dolby and DTS need to take a lot of these audio engineers back to school. They can't seem to grasp how to effectively use these new tools.


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> Compensates for traffic, gangs, taxes and now drought. Saw it both ways. My post from Sunday:


I know as I used to live in Long Beach, CA and I don't miss anything except the weather in the winter time.


----------



## billqs

lujan said:


> No, I can only listen to Atmos at home since our town (Albuquerque) just barely got an IMAX theater much less one that has Atmos.


Same way here in Birmingham. No Atmos, one non-commercial IMAX, one multiplex mini IMAX. No laser, no Dolbyvision.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Both Dolby and DTS need to take a lot of these audio engineers back to school. They can't seem to grasp how to effectively use these new tools.


Indeed, an Atmos mix like the kind Gravity had should be the norm, not the lone exception that has to be always be pointed out to show the full capabilities of the format.


----------



## sdurani

lujan said:


> I know as I used to live in Long Beach, CA and I don't miss anything except the weather in the winter time.


Long Beach misses you.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Compensates for traffic, gangs, taxes and now drought. Saw it both ways. My post from Sunday:


What was your impression of the Atmos mix for that film in comparison to other Atmos flicks? 

Another question for all of you... how do you feel about the sound systems in the theaters compared to your own HT's? 

My general impression so far seems to be that even with modules, the overhead sound is more full with my HT... but that the size of movie theaters trumps my HT's ability to convey large cavernous spaces or to make things appear to come from far overhead (like airplanes in the distance)... but that's also a trade off because stuff like rain drops sounds more realistic in my HT, more accurate.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad.
> 
> Both Dolby and DTS need to take a lot of these audio engineers back to school. They can't seem to grasp how to effectively use these new tools.


It seems like they get the whole panning overhead thing down, but they need to work more on the projecting objects into the space. I know I haven't been able to shut up about the rain hitting the car roof in "into the storm"... but man that was convincing, it really did sound like it was falling and hitting a roof just a few feet over my head. We need more of that kind of thing!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad.
> 
> Both Dolby and DTS need to take a lot of these audio engineers back to school. They can't seem to grasp how to effectively use these new tools.


I suspect it will also be a matter of developing speaker technology that can place objects literally in a 3D space with pinpoint accuracy?


----------



## RapalloAV

Does anyone know what the atmos track is like on American Sniper?


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> What was your impression of the Atmos mix for that film in comparison to other Atmos flicks?


Just OK, but that's been par for the course with all the Marvel movies mixed in Atmos. Those soundtracks are so loud and busy that it is difficult to appreciate any overhead imaging or pans through the arrays. A quieter movie, like Planet of the Apes, really let me hear overhead sounds and precise localization in the surround field.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> I suspect it will also be a matter of developing speaker technology that can place objects literally in a 3D space with pinpoint accuracy?


Much of it is how well they can master psychoacoustic audio principals (not just panning multiple mono sounds everywhere until it becomes a jumbled mess), so that you feel like you're in a small, cramped space or a vast space and any scene specific environment in between. Better spatial rendering tools need to be developed that blend with the object mixing software as well. They have these plug ins for music mixers, so why not for movie soundtracks?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

RapalloAV said:


> Does anyone know what the atmos track is like on American Sniper?


Sort of like Expendables with the gunfire, there is one part of the movie where jets fly overhead from mid surround left to right... that's pretty much it. Yawn. As far as war films go, I thought Unbroken was far superior.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Just OK, but that's been par for the course with all the Marvel movies mixed in Atmos. Those soundtracks are so loud and busy that it is difficult to appreciate any overhead imaging or pans through the arrays. A quieter movie, like Planet of the Apes, really let me hear overhead sounds and precise localization in the surround field.


I didn't get to hear planet of the apes in Atmos... I got into Atmos right after that unfortunately  But I agree, when I saw it the 2nd time I was actually focusing on the overheads to see what I could hear... but it was futile due to the complexity of the mix. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Much of it is how well they can master psychoacoustic audio principals (not just panning multiple mono sounds everywhere until it becomes a jumbled mess), so that you feel like you're in a small, cramped space or a vast space and any scene specific environment in between. Better spatial rendering tools need to be developed that blend with the object mixing software as well. They have these plug ins for music mixers, so why not for movie soundtracks?


Interesting, I had just thought it would have been as simple as dragging one of those objects closer to the listener (based on those graphics showing the yellow orbs moving around). I haven't heard an atmos music disc... you've found that those do a better job of placing objects closer to the listener?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> I didn't get to hear planet of the apes in Atmos... I got into Atmos right after that unfortunately  But I agree, when I saw it the 2nd time I was actually focusing on the overheads to see what I could hear... but it was futile due to the complexity of the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, I had just thought it would have been as simple as dragging one of those objects closer to the listener (based on those graphics showing the yellow orbs moving around). I haven't heard an atmos music disc... you've found that those do a better job of placing objects closer to the listener?


I haven't run across Atmos music tools. I'm just talking generally like Pro Tools or other DAW in-the-box programs. There are cool plug-in's that are digital recreations of real acoustic spaces based on multiple miced, spatially mapped recording techniques for use in music mixing. That's a very rare animal for_ movie _mixing.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sort of like Expendables with the gunfire, there is one part of the movie where jets fly overhead from mid surround left to right... that's pretty much it. Yawn. As far as war films go, I thought Unbroken was far superior.


Did you intend to damn through faint praise?


----------



## jpco

Aras_Volodka said:


> Interesting, I had just thought it would have been as simple as dragging one of those objects closer to the listener (based on those graphics showing the yellow orbs moving around). I haven't heard an atmos music disc... you've found that those do a better job of placing objects closer to the listener?


I'm not sure how objects can be placed closer to the listener because there's no way to know where the listener is. The listener's location will affect the perception of where the objects are. That, and sounds can image in 3D space, but I can't see how precise it can actually be. After all, sound waves will not just get to a point in space and stop. We can draw lines from speakers to a point, but after intersection, the sound waves will continue on, reflecting and diffusing around the room, limiting precision.

3D sound can be immersive, but I am thinking we may be expecting more than is possible with objects in audio.


----------



## wse

RapalloAV said:


> Does anyone know what the atmos track is like on American Sniper?


Duck


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Caine's character dies.
> 
> 
> 
> So why is his dialogue inaudible?





Kris Deering said:


> I've never understood the complaints about the dialogue in Interstellar. I saw the movie twice in theaters (IMAX digital and IMAX 70mm) and at home. Not once did I ever have an issue with the dialogue or had any issues understanding anything.


Michael Caine's character, in his hospital bed, nearer the end, said something very important...a revelation. 
*What was it, and did you hear it?*

♦ I did not myself, and that was realism intentional by the director; I fully respect his choice, and understand the value.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

jpco said:


> I'm not sure how objects can be placed closer to the listener because there's no way to know where the listener is. The listener's location will affect the perception of where the objects are. That, and sounds can image in 3D space, but I can't see how precise it can actually be. After all, sound waves will not just get to a point in space and stop. We can draw lines from speakers to a point, but after intersection, the sound waves will continue on, reflecting and diffusing around the room, limiting precision.
> 
> 3D sound can be immersive, but I am thinking we may be expecting more than is possible with objects in audio.


I thought that's what the MLP is for? 

Keep in mind, dolby is advertising that their system does just that. In some situations I think it actually does work... I mean we might not get a fly buzzing around our head but there are times where I hear things and can say that it sounds like it's not just coming from the speaker but somewhere above & closer than where the speaker is. 

Perhaps we might not get the holodeck version of audio but I think 3D sound will continue to evolve.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Seems like Blu-ray.com were wrong about Get Hard featuring Atmos sound, nothing in the PR says that : http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/340703-whv-press-release-get-hard-blu-ray/


----------



## NorthSky

> Dolby isn't doing the mixes, movie studios are. The type of mixes that show up on the big screen and on Blu-ray are out of Dolby's control.


Maybe Dolby should step in in that process as well? ...By having certified Dolby Atmos sound film mixers, and hired by the movie studios. 
...That, would be a good investment, in my honest opinion.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I suspect it will also be a matter of developing speaker technology that can place objects literally in a 3D space with pinpoint accuracy?


I agree, and also the sound mixes should be able to convey "depth" in space from sound objects...their distances related to the MLP. 
...Two feet above your head as well two hundred feet above it. ...And the same @ the sides, front and rear. 

/// Tough challenge for sound recordists and mixers. ...But if the tools are available from their new Dolby Atmos mixing consoles, and inside our AV receivers and SSPs (speaker's mapping); then we have the means in place (in space). 

We are only beginning; it can take years, ...ten-twenty years before they/we finally master the art of film sound mixing. IMO


----------



## UKTexan

SteveTheGeek said:


> Seems like Blu-ray.com were wrong about Get Hard featuring Atmos sound, nothing in the PR says that : http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/340703-whv-press-release-get-hard-blu-ray/


Looks like your right. The rear cover art shown on Amazon displays DTS HD master audio. Not really a shame, I was surprised the comedy genre was using object audio in the first place.


----------



## Scott Simonian

SteveTheGeek said:


> Seems like Blu-ray.com were wrong about Get Hard featuring Atmos sound, nothing in the PR says that : http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/340703-whv-press-release-get-hard-blu-ray/


Not sure I would trust the PR either. It lists Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital for sound.


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> Long Beach misses you.


Thank you


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> Seems like Blu-ray.com were wrong about Get Hard featuring Atmos sound, nothing in the PR says that : http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/340703-whv-press-release-get-hard-blu-ray/


Thank goodness that was one I was not going to buy. Atmos or no Atmos


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Both Dolby and DTS need to take a lot of these audio engineers back to school. They can't seem to grasp how to effectively use these new tools.


I'm not defending anyone. 

But since 99%+ of audiences at this point will experience the film in 5.1, it's hard to escape the fact that a lot of film makers still want to focus on that experience. 

The other issue is that much of the benefit from atmos, IMO, derives from having the extra surround speakers. The overhead stuff is cool, if not sometimes gimmicky, but isn't where a lot of mixers tend to focus on. In a film like Gravity, where there are almost no sound effects and little ambiences, the dialog pans (mostly through the 7.1) stand out as does the overhead music stuff. 

Most of what really makes Atmos cool in the theater is having bed arrays and multiple surrounds that extend to the screen. So for more than 99% of HTs these tracks won't benefit from that... 

So it might very well be that for the home stuff we can focus more on envelopment coming from the overheads , and might need to rethink how we take the theatrical masters and prep them for the home.

We don't need Dolby or DTS to tell us that.


----------



## asarose247

rainy day thoughts #1 and #2 (no apologies to bob dylan)

the technology to determine the totality of the geometrical relationships wrt "your" set-up : room size. spaciality, placements angles distances, ALL THAT DSP/EQ STUFF, is out there (multi XT32)(that DIRAC 88A thing or 2 if needed)

4 microphones set up in a fixed pattern of known angles, distances and heights per the ROM/DSP chip/programming/algorithm could figure that all out 
talking about overlapping geometric solids 
and "know" what's where easily, your room and stuff have become a unitized known mapped to within .1 feet 3D "matrix" ,
a visual as the chip see it could be stunning

Ultimate Audyssey , NEO, or some such moniker, IYF (In Your Face), leave it to marketing

then the chip could control/modify the playback tailored by what it knows specifically for your space , its size, response capacity, etc. in any mode you might wish, 
mainstream biggies, ATMOS, DTS, DSU, AURO and others i at the time can't recall
why not, 
that's all I ask

time for rainy day woman #3


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I'm not defending anyone.
> 
> But since 99%+ of audiences at this point will experience the film in 5.1, it's hard to escape the fact that a lot of film makers still want to focus on that experience.
> 
> The other issue is that much of the benefit from atmos, IMO, derives from having the extra surround speakers. The overhead stuff is cool, if not sometimes gimmicky, but isn't where a lot of mixers tend to focus on. In a film like Gravity, where there are almost no sound effects and little ambiences, the dialog pans (mostly through the 7.1) stand out as does the overhead music stuff.
> 
> Most of what really makes Atmos cool in the theater is having bed arrays and multiple surrounds that extend to the screen. So for more than 99% of HTs these tracks won't benefit from that...
> 
> So it might very well be that for the home stuff we can focus more on envelopment coming from the overheads , and might need to rethink how we take the theatrical masters and prep them for the home.
> 
> We don't need Dolby or DTS to tell us that.


One reason we've been advocating for more consumer products than the super expensive Trinnov, Datasat, Steinway, etc. to include a few more outputs than just 11.1. I know receivers, in particular, are stretched for amp space, but that shouldn't stop them from at least having pre-amp outputs if they drop some of the superfluous, retro analog inputs few use anymore. 

I do notice quite a number of immersive mixes utilizing the surround arrays more so than the overheads (even when overhead usage might be effective during particular scenes), and I, for one, would like maybe two pairs of sides, two pairs of rears, the front wides, as well as the matched overheads, and standard three screen wall speakers and front and rear sub outs. That would be pretty sweet and cover most everyone's needs except for the Theo K movie palaces of the rich and shameless.


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> I agree, and also *the sound mixes should be able to convey "depth" in space from sound objects.*..their distances related to the MLP.
> ...Two feet above your head as well two hundred feet above it. ...And the same @ the sides, front and rear.
> 
> /// Tough challenge for sound recordists and mixers. ...But if the tools are available from their new Dolby Atmos mixing consoles, and inside our AV receivers and SSPs (speaker's mapping); then we have the means in place (in space).
> 
> We are only beginning; it can take years, ...ten-twenty years before they/we finally master the art of film sound mixing. IMO


ehem .... that's what Atmos and DTS:X do , an object can be placed near or far away in 3D, and depending on this distance, it will sound louder or softer...

You can even set the object size to control if it should pinpoint to a single set of speaker or if it can spread on a bigger "direction cone"


----------



## NorthSky

..."Should" and "do" are two different words. ...And "do" to what truly effective extent?


----------



## wse

Has any one heard these for ATMOS they might work great!

Soundsphere

 

The Q-8 offers Soundsphere's trademark hemispherical coverage pattern and is distinguished by its high sensitivity (94dB 1W/1m) and high power handling capability (100 watts RMS).The Q-8 is available for either surface or hanging mounts, in both standard and custom colors.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Has any one heard these for ATMOS they might work great!
> Soundsphere
> 
> The Q-8 offers Soundsphere's trademark hemispherical coverage pattern and is distinguished by its high sensitivity (94dB 1W/1m) and high power handling capability (100 watts RMS).The Q-8 is available for either surface or hanging mounts, in both standard and custom colors.


$3,000+ for two pairs ($756 US each - almost $1,000 CDN each). [email protected] that price you would like them timbre-matched with all your floor mains.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Multiple speaker wires (for all your surrounds) running all together side-by-side is no problem.
> It is when running AC power cords alongside them that is a problem; then you have high chance to get interference in your sound.
> The AC cords are emitting 60Hz hum that can easily transfer to your speaker wires.
> 
> And if running cable interconnects @ proximity of your speaker wires, try to keep a reasonable distance.
> And if running cable interconnects @ proximity of your AC power cords, cross them @ 90 degree angle, and get double or even triple-shielded ones;
> in particular with RCA interconnects for your subwoofers.
> - XLR interconnects help for long runs; say over 5 meters.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Your cable raceway; it is for your speaker surround wires. ...No AC power cords, and no cable interconnects go in there.
> Your gear is @ front; so your cable interconnects and AC power cords that's where they are. Try to keep them all separated as best you can, with the AC power cords on one side, and the cable interconnects on the other side. ...And use double-shielded RCA interconnects (even triple for your two subs).
> 
> Fall 2015 is the time to check the offerings from various manufacturers; for both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.
> It would be wiser; but if some people want to rush it, they should concentrate on two products only: Denon AVR-X7200W receiver, and Marantz AV8802 pre/pro (SSP). ...Three and four $thousands respectively (MSRP).
> 
> The times they are a changin'.


Hi Bob

If I have to run speaker wire in parallel with power canle, could I place them in the separate raceway and two raceways are just beside each other? Does this case still have problem ? Thx


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> $3,000+ for two pairs ($756 US each - almost $1,000 CDN each). [email protected] that price you would like them timbre-matched with all your floor mains.


Yeah. Change all of them to timber match.. 
Spheres around the hemi-sphere


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob
> 
> If I have to run speaker wire in parallel with power canle, could I place them in the separate raceway and two raceways are just beside each other? Does this case still have problem ? Thx


Hi sir (*Roudan*), 

I'm no expert; I just know that they shouldn't run parallel close to each other. ...I don't know the reasonable distance, and the the type of preferred shielding for a situation like this. Perhaps someone with expertise in that domain can chime in.


----------



## roxiedog13

sdurani said:


> Dolby isn't doing the mixes, movie studios are. The type of mixes that show up on the big screen and on Blu-ray are out of Dolby's control.



Yes indeed, I did know this, just saying we are getting fed scraps for a while until someone uses the format appropriately. Better is on the way....I hope


----------



## roxiedog13

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob
> 
> If I have to run speaker wire in parallel with power canle, could I place them in the separate raceway and two raceways are just beside each other? Does this case still have problem ? Thx



If you run them in separate conduit keeping more than a couple inches of separation you will not have an issue.


----------



## Roudan

roxiedog13 said:


> If you run them in separate conduit keeping more than a couple inches of separation you will not have an issue.


Thank you ! They will be in two separate plastic conduit . The distance between two cabled will be 2 inches. I am wondering if wrapping speaker wire with foil inside the conduit can further help reducing interference? Thanks


----------



## Csbooth

This is something that I have recently thought of and haven't seen talked about; pertaining to when objects pan around your system with 3D audio. Has anyone heard more than one object (I'm not aware of the amount of objects at one time that the consumer processing is capable of) that is being passed around (such as a fly) and then simultaneously hearing another independent object(s) (such as a POV character walking down the street and hear individual people talking and concurrently "pass you by" and at the same time a 737 is getting ready to land or depart from above)? Is this something that the gear available now is possible with? It would seem to me that a scene like this would place you in the "Thick of it" so to speak.

For instance, when I watched The Hobbit: BOTFA in Atl, because AL sucks at change, that during a scene on the beach after Smaug was defeated and the townspeople rejoicing; I could hear a multitude of independent voices and many a time notice that some of those same voices were traveling around the POV along with independent sounds that were behind and above me all at the same time. 

It's akin to how it works in video games now (which I believe is what the industry is striving to replicate) in that you are placed in a 3D environment with an active set of objects that are operating in their own space for full immersion.

I may be talking about things that are already being done or maybe engineers are trying to do, but I just don't see that much conversation about independent simultaneous objects happening, not including ambience and the like of course.


----------



## pasender91

This is something Atmos can do without a sweat, and for more than 50 objects (64?) at the same time.

In gravity it does happen, after watching the movie "normally", i played some scenes placing myself near the top speakers, and you can clearly hear disctinct objects flying around, like space station debris for example, so yes it does work like you describe it 

Another very potent test would be in Lucy, there is a scene where she stands in the street and listens to about 30 phone conversations at the same time, coming from every direction. In the cinema it was superb, i am wondering how this would render in a HT 

The problem is that until now, most Atmos soundtracks do not make extensive use of the objects.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> This is something Atmos can do without a sweat, and for more than 50 objects (64?) at the same time.


Assuming you are referring to home Atmos, I was not aware of Dolby having disclosed the amount of objects that can individually be rendered simultaneously during playback at home, other than that it is less than the theater maximum of 128. At the same time, it might not be that important, since objects that exceed the maximum number apparently can be clustered in a special way (using some kind of 'zones') when translating the theater soundtrack into the home soundtrack.


----------



## roxiedog13

Roudan said:


> Thank you ! They will be in two separate plastic conduit . The distance between two cabled will be 2 inches. I am wondering if wrapping speaker wire with foil inside the conduit can further help reducing interference? Thanks


# 1 thing to do is separate the two wires as much as possible, #2 is to NOT run the wires in parallel. If you shield the wire it will need to be grounded at each end, can't hurt probably just not necessary. Because of the low impedance of the speaker wire circuit it is unlikely to get much interference anyway. 

I have been running speaker wires, co-axle ,RCA, HDMI, cat5 etc together for years and to date no issues that I have noticed.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> I'm not defending anyone.
> 
> But since 99%+ of audiences at this point will experience the film in 5.1, it's hard to escape the fact that a lot of film makers still want to focus on that experience.
> 
> The other issue is that much of the benefit from atmos, IMO, derives from having the extra surround speakers. The overhead stuff is cool, if not sometimes gimmicky, but isn't where a lot of mixers tend to focus on. In a film like Gravity, where there are almost no sound effects and little ambiences, the dialog pans (mostly through the 7.1) stand out as does the overhead music stuff.
> 
> Most of what really makes Atmos cool in the theater is having bed arrays and multiple surrounds that extend to the screen. So for more than 99% of HTs these tracks won't benefit from that...
> 
> So it might very well be that for the home stuff we can focus more on envelopment coming from the overheads , and might need to rethink how we take the theatrical masters and prep them for the home.
> 
> We don't need Dolby or DTS to tell us that.


To me, this post summarizes a whole lot of valuable information, in and between the lines, on the true value of object based sound in the theaters and our homes. Highly recommended to add to everyone's list of reference posts IMO.


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> Assuming you are referring to home Atmos, I was not aware of Dolby having disclosed the amount of objects that can individually be rendered simultaneously during playback at home, other than that it is less than the theater maximum of 128. At the same time, it might not be that important, since objects that exceed the maximum number apparently can be clustered in a special way (using some kind of 'zones') when translating the theater soundtrack into the home soundtrack.


For cinema it is 10 bed channels+ 118 objects (128 total).
Dolby did release the info for HT in one of the initial white paper, i believe it was 8 beds + 56 objects (64 total) for the home version, but anyway as you mention it will still contain the original 128 objects using "spatial encoding" to regroup objects if required.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> For cinema it is 10 bed channels+ 118 objects (128 total).
> Dolby did release the info for HT in one of the initial white paper, i believe it was 8 beds + 56 objects (64 total) for the home version, but anyway as you mention it will still contain the original 128 objects using "spatial encoding" to regroup objects if required.


I don't remember any of the white papers saying how many total individual objects were allowed in home Atmos extension file encoding before they were lumped together spatially. There are 62.2 (64) outputs with 10 beds and 118 objects in the commercial version. You may be remembering the cinema version's 64 output capabilities. 

As far as DTS:X goes, all that's been stated in the wild was from an AES meeting where they said 32 objects/channels were supported. Maybe DTS is encoding specific speaker/channel positions rather than individual tagged sounds... don't know... as long as it works.


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> So it might very well be that for the home stuff we can focus more on envelopment coming from the overheads , and might need to rethink how we take the theatrical masters and prep them for the home.



Hey Marc- 

Out of interest, what kind of oversight is there for the home mixing? Is there someone from the studio checking in and providing direction like "louder music", "less/more surround levels" etc, or is it pretty much in the mixing house's court?

And the followup question is: When you're working on a mix, is it a team doing the actual mixing for a project, or is it typically a single individual that does most of the initial work before QA?

I've grown curious about the process flow. It sounds like a really interesting and fun job...although I suspect one doesn't have a lot of inclination to re-watch movies one has spent so much time mixing. 

Thanks for your time!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Dan Hitchman said:


> As far as DTS:X goes, all that's been stated in the wild was from an AES meeting where they said 32 objects/channels were supported. Maybe DTS is encoding specific speaker/channel positions rather than individual tagged sounds... don't know... as long as it works.


According to the Onkyo DTS:X page, they are limited to 16 channels/objects : 

"Support for up to 16 audio objects and / or channels, plus an additional two LFE (Low Frequency Effect) channels. Among the various ways content creators may take advantage of this are, for example:
5.1 or 7.1 channel bed plus 3 channels (Left, Center, Right) for dialog control
7.1 channel bed plus 9 moving objects (for immersive sounds like a flying helicopter, wind-driven rain, etc.)"

Source : http://dtsx.onkyousa.com/


----------



## Tin_Can

roxiedog13 said:


> # 1 thing to do is separate the two wires as much as possible, #2 is to NOT run the wires in parallel. If you shield the wire it will need to be grounded at each end, can't hurt probably just not necessary.


I would double check, but I think the shield should be grounded at the source end only. At least that's what I learned when I was attempting to build a plc. If you ground at both ends you've effectively created an antenna, which doesn't help interference. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> According to the Onkyo DTS:X page, they are limited to 16 channels/objects :
> 
> "Support for up to 16 audio objects and / or channels, plus an additional two LFE (Low Frequency Effect) channels. Among the various ways content creators may take advantage of this are, for example:
> 5.1 or 7.1 channel bed plus 3 channels (Left, Center, Right) for dialog control
> 7.1 channel bed plus 9 moving objects (for immersive sounds like a flying helicopter, wind-driven rain, etc.)"
> 
> Source : http://dtsx.onkyousa.com/


I think DTS needs to clarify the capacity of consumer DTS: X. There are two different specs flying around. At AES they said the capability was close to home Dolby Atmos, 32 rather than 34 outputs.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> At AES they said the capability was close to home Dolby Atmos, 32 rather than 34 outputs.


Those outputs are the number of potential speaker locations that the objects can be rendered to. The blurb on the Onkyo page seems to be talking about the make-up of the consumer DTS:X soundtrack itself: a combination of channels and objects to total 16 (plus two LFE channels). It's a matter of how the mixer wants to allocate sounds. If 7 channel beds are used, then that leaves 9 moving objects. If 11 beds are used, then that leaves 5 moving objects. Etc.


----------



## JamesE

Shielded speaker wire.


I don't know if this is true or not but....... http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/showthread.php?1388-Speaker-Wire-Shielded-Versus-Unshielded


----------



## bkeeler10

Anthem has announced the AVM 60 on their Facebook page. Not many details, with more forthcoming at CEDIA in September. But it will be a pre-pro with (only) 11.1 channel support, Atmos and DTS:X decoding on board, Anthem Room Correction, etc. And they're touting it as "high end sound without the high end price." Whatever that will mean.

Sounds great to me, except that, as Dan alluded to several posts back, we need more channels. I was really hoping they would release something with at least 13.1, and preferably 15.1, processing capability. When are we going to get something like that in the sub-five-figure price range? Are we really going to have to wait for Emotiva's XMR pre-pro? Sure hope not


----------



## Marauder

Hi, I was hoping to get some advice on whether my setup could be modified to add Atmos--I currently have a 5.1 system with 4 speakers installed at ceiling height at the corners of a 14'x20' room. My TV is located on the 14' wall along with a center channel and sub. So I don't have side-surround placements, but rear-surround instead. I attached a diagram.

So I'm thinking I could upgrade to a 5.1.2 Atmos setup by installing two ceiling speakers above the middle couch. Is that the appropriate placement? Is the distance from the listener to my rear speakers going to be problematic? Is a 5.1.2 Atmos setup going to be a noticeable improvement over just 5.1?

Also, I've noticed in some of the recent mid-range receivers with Atmos (like the Pioneer VSX-1130), it would have me connecting my rear-surround speakers to the side-surround terminals to use 5.1.2. Is that going to create problems when listening to non-Atmos materials?

Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Stanton

Marauder said:


> Hi, I was hoping to get some advice on whether my setup could be modified to add Atmos--I currently have a 5.1 system with 4 speakers installed at ceiling height at the corners of a 14'x20' room. My TV is located on the 14' wall along with a center channel and sub. So I don't have side-surround placements, but rear-surround instead. I attached a diagram.


I'm sure you'll get many recommendations for what you should/could do, but I see one big problem right off the top: you don't have any speakers at ear level (do you listen to 2 channel music in this setup?). In fact, you could almost just add 4 speakers "on the ground" (5.1.x) and use your existing speakers for height (x.x.4), but you may have some alignment problems. As long as your height speakers are at/close to the ceiling, you can adapt back/side surround speakers to your (future) AVR.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Guidelines:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

With your room's size; I would go for a *7.1.4* Dolby Atmos setup (page 22 from that link above). ...That's me (Option Number 1 - Best).

Other Options:
* 9.1.2 Atmos setup: Page 24 (Second Best)
* 7.1.2 Atmos setup: Page 20 (Third)
* 5.1.4 Atmos setup: Page 18 (Fourth)
* 5.1.2 Atmos setup: Page 16 (Fifth)

♠ This, is my own personal opinion. And I don't have a Dolby Atmos audio decoder, yet. 
...I am not an owner yet, just a collector of information and knowledge. ...For an eventual purchase. 
...Most likely from Yamaha, or Marantz, or Emotiva next pre/pro with Atmos and DTS:X with 16 channels of Dirac Live EQ (in the year 2020 or near). 
...Or maybe Denon; their flagship model. 

But before 2020, and most likely 2016. ...But wait; later on this year, for DTS:X ... @ least.



Marauder said:


> Hi, I was hoping to get some advice on whether my setup could be modified to add Atmos--I currently have a 5.1 system with 4 speakers installed at ceiling height at the corners of a 14'x20' room. My TV is located on the 14' wall along with a center channel and sub. So I don't have side-surround placements, but rear-surround instead. I attached a diagram.
> So I'm thinking I could upgrade to a 5.1.2 Atmos setup by installing two ceiling speakers above the middle couch. Is that the appropriate placement? Is the distance from the listener to my rear speakers going to be problematic? Is a 5.1.2 Atmos setup going to be a noticeable improvement over just 5.1?
> Also, I've noticed in some of the recent mid-range receivers with Atmos (like the Pioneer VSX-1130), it would have me connecting my rear-surround speakers to the side-surround terminals to use 5.1.2. Is that going to create problems when listening to non-Atmos materials?
> Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Marauder

Stanton said:


> I'm sure you'll get many recommendations for what you should/could do, but I see one big problem right off the top: you don't have any speakers at ear level (do you listen to 2 channel music in this setup?). In fact, you could almost just add 4 speakers "on the ground" (5.1.x) and use your existing speakers for height (x.x.4), but you may have some alignment problems. As long as your height speakers are at/close to the ceiling, you can adapt back/side surround speakers to your (future) AVR.


Thanks for your help. Actually the front LR speakers are sitting lower on a built-in bookcase at around 5' height, so higher than sitting position, but lower than the ceiling. My center speaker is flexible, so I could put it below the TV at seated ear level or above the TV at almost ceiling height. Wiring/positioning of speakers any lower than that would be problematic, so I'm hoping to stick with this layout (with adding the x.x.2 height speakers installed in the ceiling as future possibility).

I just moved into this house, so I actually haven't listened to the full setup yet (since I don't yet have an AVR). For the AVR, I'm deciding whether it's worth looking at Atmos or DTS:X capable receivers for expandability or just going with a 5.1 setup. I could just stick with the latter for now, but I'm not a fan of spending $200-300 on a receiver that I might want to replace in a year or two (though I guess it could still be cost effective in the long-run).


----------



## frankpc3

Tin_Can said:


> I would double check, but I think the shield should be grounded at the source end only. At least that's what I learned when I was attempting to build a plc. If you ground at both ends you've effectively created an antenna, which doesn't help interference. I could be wrong, though.


You woudn't want to ground on both ends. You don't want the conduit to carry any current. I would put the power in steel conduit -emt. Leave the speaker wires alone. Then ground that conduit on one end only unless it is run between two metal boxes.


----------



## cdelena

JamesE said:


> Shielded speaker wire.
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is true or not but....... http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/showthread.php?1388-Speaker-Wire-Shielded-Versus-Unshielded


Years ago I worked in a facility that had quality audio in one lab and decided to extend it to another. There was only one conduit between them so they just ran the speaker wire some 100+ ft. along side the 60hz electrical. There was a hum so they spent the money to put in shielded wire which made no difference. Turned out the hum was from another source and after too much time and money it was decided cheap unshielded 14 gauge wire did the job with no problems.


----------



## jrref

Tin_Can said:


> I would double check, but I think the shield should be grounded at the source end only. At least that's what I learned when I was attempting to build a plc. If you ground at both ends you've effectively created an antenna, which doesn't help interference. I could be wrong, though.


Ground only on one end. Positive about this.
John


----------



## batpig

Marauder said:


> So I don't have side-surround placements, but rear-surround instead. I attached a diagram.


While your speakers are physically in the rear, they are still SURROUNDS which are supposed to be towards the sides. Your room limitations causing improper placement doesn't change the fundamentals of the speaker channel layout. 



Marauder said:


> Also, I've noticed in some of the recent mid-range receivers with Atmos (like the Pioneer VSX-1130), it would have me connecting my rear-surround speakers to the side-surround terminals to use 5.1.2. Is that going to create problems when listening to non-Atmos materials?


It's not "recent mid-range receivers with Atmos". It's every single multichannel receiver ever that supports at least a 5.1 layout. The first pair of surrounds will ALWAYS be connected to the Surround L/R speaker outputs. The Surround Back L/R speaker outputs will not do anything unless you first have Surround L/R (i.e. surround back is for expanding 5.1 to 6.1 or 7.1 layouts).

Anyway, the bottom line is that you could certainly put two more speakers in the ceiling and call them "Top Middle" and have a pseudo Atmos-ish thing going on. I bet it would sound better since, you know, mo' speakers mo' better, but you would not get the full effect that you would if you were truly able to get separation between lower levels and overhead effects.


----------



## CINERAMAX

pasender91 said:


> This is something Atmos can do without a sweat, and for more than 50 objects (64?) at the same time.
> 
> In gravity it does happen, after watching the movie "normally", i played some scenes placing myself near the top speakers, and you can clearly hear disctinct objects flying around, like space station debris for example, so yes it does work like you describe it
> 
> Another very potent test would be in Lucy, there is a scene where she stands in the street and listens to about 30 phone conversations at the same time, coming from every direction. In the cinema it was superb, i am wondering how this would render in a HT
> 
> The problem is that until now, most Atmos soundtracks do not make extensive use of the objects.


cinema can handle 128 objects/stems in mixer, they are vector angle grouped for home, i believe the ratio is 4 or 3 to 1 so I am thinking 32 channels for home.


----------



## RichB

CINERAMAX said:


> cinema can handle 128 objects/stems in mixer, they are vector angle grouped for home, i believe the ratio is 4 or 3 to 1 so I am thinking 32 channels for home.


I don't think we know the practical object limit when you account for processing power, bandwidth, and space considerations.
FilmMixer has, in the past, questioned the practicality of encoding the dialog as an object.

When Eggers was asked how many objects could be encoded in home Atmos, the answer was (paraphrased): no objects are lost.
So, there is no reason to believe that either format will in practice deliver more objects when delivered on BD.

That could change with UHD's higher bandwidth and capacity.

- Rich


----------



## Oledurt

Need a little advice from the community. I have a 7.1.4 system all of my surrounds are monoploes. I know dolby recommends surrounds at ear level which makes sense in an atmos system separation between surround layer and height layer. My surrounds now are directly to the sides of my seating area 2 1/2 feet above me head while seated. This puts them up near the ceiling were the atmos speakers are. There is about 3 feet seperation between surrounds and atmos speakers. I have plenty of area behind my seating probably 7 feet or so. I could lower my surrounds and move them behind my seating area so they are not pointed straight into the ear of whomever is in the right/left seat. Or i can leave them up high. Thoughts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## asarose247

look up a discussion of "energy exchange" wrt to surround placement/aiming
you might move them ahead of the mlp, aimed back in a cross fire effect, they don't have to be only 90 degrees
you didn't mention any system eq or room size, the usual list of enlightening info


----------



## FilmMixer

RichB said:


> I don't think we know the practical object limit when you account for processing power, bandwidth, and space considerations.
> FilmMixer has, in the past, questioned the practicality of encoding the dialog as an object.
> 
> When Eggers was asked how many objects could be encoded in home Atmos, the answer was (paraphrased): no objects are lost.
> So, there is no reason to believe that either format will in practice deliver more objects when delivered on BD.
> 
> That could change with UHD's higher bandwidth and capacity.
> 
> - Rich


According to what I have been told, and now what they confirmed on the Onkyo site, DTS:X for the home can handle 16 audio "streams.." + 2 LFE tracks.. 

So 7.1 + 9 objects.. or 16 objects.. or 7.1 + 3.0 LCR dialog + 6 objects.. or...... 

As I understand it Atmos is max 20 objects + 7.1 bed with the current encoder toolset... The default encoder setting is 7.1 + 12 objects.

There is no reason for Atmos to scale more than 20 when the max outputs are 34... what you might see if less spacial coding on those with the higher bit budget.. but 20 objects to 34 outputs is enough to do the job well enough IMO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> According to what I have been told, and now what they confirmed on the Onkyo site, DTS:X for the home can handle 16 audio "streams.." + 2 LFE tracks..
> 
> So 7.1 + 9 objects.. or 16 objects.. or 7.1 + 3.0 LCR dialog + 6 objects.. or......
> 
> As I understand it Atmos is max 20 objects + 7.1 bed with the current encoder toolset... The default encoder setting is 7.1 + 12 objects.
> 
> There is no reason for Atmos to scale more than 20 when the max outputs are 34... what you might see if less spacial coding on those with the higher bit budget.. but 20 objects to 34 outputs is enough to do the job well enough IMO.


So, the "better" or "more capable" consumer 3D codec is currently Dolby Atmos from a sonic perspective? 

Do you think DTS went with fewer available objects in order to keep everything lossless without the need for spatial coding (like for audiophile music applications) or was there some other reason?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, the "better" or "more capable" consumer 3D codec is currently Dolby Atmos from a sonic perspective?
> 
> Do you think DTS went with fewer available objects in order to keep everything lossless without the need for spatial coding (like for audiophile music applications) or was there some other reason?


I don't think that you can say object count is any kind of barometer... how they get the objects encoded is also pertinent.

Regarding the second point, I don't think we can infer anything until we see how it works.. they will have to employ something similar since MDA mixes will most assuredly have large channel and object counts, just like Atmos mixes.. 

Some other interesting things I hope we will get clarity on:

DTS:X and Onkyo



> LOSSLESS QUALITY
> 
> DTS:X supports lossless encoding, preserving fidelity to deliver a pristine listening experience.
> 
> In situations where bit-rate is of high concern, DTS:X can also operate in a high-quality lossy mode.
> 
> Audio quality is the number one concern at DTS.
> 
> DTS:X is based on discrete, lossless coding of audio objects.


What does that mean? They can encode DTS:X in DTS HD-HR? Or that they apply lossy compression to the objects then losslessly encode them? It was confusing to me..



> FLEXIBLE
> One of the biggest benefits of DTS:X is the ability to render audio perfectly across any type of speaker layout, from hundreds of speakers down to headphones. Because DTS:X doesn't require any specific speaker layout, you can arrange your home theater system however you want.


Hundreds? Maybe in the cinema, but most definitely not in the home... 

They say on the same page they are limited to 11.1.. 



> DTS:X MAKES SOUND MOVE: Because DTS:X doesn't require any specific speaker layout, you can arrange your home theater system however you want it.


However you want it? What about the 99% of legacy content? Or the fact that almost all content will be mixed on a standardized speaker layout.... content makers aren't going to go commando...


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys,

I need your help again. Thanks.

I decided to use Tannoy Di6 DC as overhead speakers.

http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1499

I have two options for these 4 overhead speakers. Please see the attached pictures.

The first picture is option A, where I place these speaker beside the couch area but aim them to MLP. The 2nd picture is Option B, where I place the speakers in parallel in front of and behind the couch area but still aim them to MLP vertically. The reason doing option B is that it is easier to attach entire Yoke bracket to the stud since the stud behind the ceiling drywall is parallel to MLP. 

So from sounding perspective, which option is better? My understanding is that option B can still disperse the sound to entire MLP area, is it correct?

Thanks for your help. Appreciate it!


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I need your help again. Thanks.
> 
> I decided to use Tannoy Di6 DC as overhead speakers.
> 
> http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1499
> 
> I have two options for these 4 overhead speakers. Please see the attached pictures.
> 
> The first picture is option A, where I place these speaker beside the couch area but aim them to MLP. The 2nd picture is Option B, where I place the speakers in parallel in front of and behind the couch area but still aim them to MLP vertically. The reason doing option B is that it is easier to attach entire Yoke bracket to the stud since the stud behind the ceiling drywall is parallel to MLP.
> 
> So from sounding perspective, which option is better? My understanding is that option B can still disperse the sound to entire MLP area, is it correct?
> 
> Thanks for your help. Appreciate it!


Option A is better IMO. Option B has the overhead speakers way too close together IMO.


----------



## NorthSky

I would also go with option *A* ...with perhaps only couple inches inside (only the Right ones). 
...And they are in line with your two front mains L & R speakers, as recommended by Dolby Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Guidelines:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

=> Look @ page 22 again.


----------



## Roudan

Dave Vaughn said:


> Option A is better IMO. Option B has the overhead speakers way too close together IMO.


Thanks Dave. I saw the article in your signature, you used Atlantic Technology IC 6 OBA. How is it? I originally plan to use it, but dropped it since I cannot have backer box installled inside my ceiling.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> I would also go with option *A* ...with perhaps only couple inches inside (only the Right ones).
> ...And they are in line with your two front mains L & R speakers, as recommended by Dolby Atmos.


Thanks Bob, I will go with Option A as you and Dave suggested. Thanks.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Roudan said:


> Thanks Dave. I saw the article in your signature, you used Atlantic Technology IC 6 OBA. How is it? I originally plan to use it, but dropped it since I cannot have backer box installled inside my ceiling.


I'm pleased with them. They mated much better than I expected with my M&K speaker system.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> By comparison, I've lost count of how many movies left me scratching my head wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos.


It has parallels with good old 5.1 IMO. Some movies make fantastic use of the surround speakers but many don't and have a very front-centric presentation. Others will be mostly focused on the front speakers with occasional ambience from the surrounds. I guess because Atmos is new, we all go in expecting it to be fabulously 'Atmos' but the reality will always be that some mixers take more advantage than others, not to mention that many movies don't really lend themselves thematically to a whizz-bang sound track. Most romcoms and romdrams and the like could be subject to the same view you mention: "why did they bother with 5.1?", but they do because it's just the way movies are mixed nowadays - in 5.1 or 7.1. As Atmos mixes become the norm I expect the same sort of thing to continue - some mixes will really take advantage and many/most won't.

There is also the other point, which I have made more times than I care to recall now, which is that Atmos is about far, far more than just 'overhead effects', but it is the latter that most people are focusing on since overhead speakers are novel. For me, the much greater precision with which sounds are placed in the entire soundstage is just as important - or even more important - than overhead effects. *Lucy* is a good example of that among the recent Atmos Blurays I have watched.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Because I'm sure all the people on their death beds sound very coherent in their final moments (like Yoda). Was that a Serious complaint? I mean... even if you couldn't hear it... they go over that in the following scene.


The point was that there is important dialog in that scene and if it is not intelligible then it compromises one's understanding of the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Does anybody who is running top midle speakers and front heights prefer there top middle speakers in front of them or behind them slighty? Which sounds best ?


I think it will depend on the other speakers in the system. I moved my TM set forward after a few weeks of having them slightly behind me and they do sound better in the slightly forward position. But I have a 5.2.4 setup and my surrounds are at 110°, so with the TMs behind me they were very close, angle-wise, to the surrounds. Moving them forwards increased the angular separation. If I had more room behind me, and my surrounds were at 90° and I was also using rear surrounds, I suspect the TMs would be better behind me as they would fill in nicely between the surrounds and rear surrounds. HST, if I was running 7.2.4 I would probably be using TF+TR designations anyway.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> The point was that there is important dialog in that scene and if it is not intelligible then it compromises one's understanding of the movie.


I rewatched that scene on my bluray... the important parts are audible, I could clearly hear him saying that it was a lie & then his last words = the poem... the scene made it very clear what happened + in the next scene they do clarify it. People are picking at gnats here... from my experience dying people aren't very intelligible usually.


----------



## brahman12

So, is DTS saying that there is no need for overhead or upfiring speakers to get overhead sound like Atmos? Which would be funny because Audioholics (who came off as DTS fanboys on a couple of their video posts IMO) lambasted Dolby for having upfiring speakers that reflect sound to create overhead sound and emphatically said (I am paraphrasing) that if you want overhead sound then you need overhead channels. So, how is DTS gonna give us that overhead and all around immersion if they do not promote overhead placement of channels? I am not a promoter of one over the other, just a lover of A/V....so doesn't matter to me who stands supreme at the end of the day...all I want is badass sound when I watch flicks or listen to music. But even if your product comes after another company's product....if your stuff is on point and you got the right backing, it doesn't matter if you give the pioneering company at least some props for what they put out. So, DTS should just say...yeah we got a similar product, but although theirs is good ours is better because of XYZ reasons. I have not been able to pick up much straight forward clarity from them about their product....just much ado about nothing thus far. From past experiences with their products I can say without pause that I enjoy their work and appreciate their efforts within the audio world...but let's stop half stepping and start doing some real dancing DTS.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

brahman12 said:


> So, is DTS saying that there is no need for overhead or upfiring speakers to get overhead sound like Atmos? Which would be funny because Audioholics (who came off as DTS fanboys on a couple of their video posts IMO) lambasted Dolby for having upfiring speakers that reflect sound to create overhead sound and emphatically said (I am paraphrasing) that if you want overhead sound then you need overhead channels. So, how is DTS gonna give us that overhead and all around immersion if they do not promote overhead placement of channels? I am not a promoter of one over the other, just a lover of A/V....so doesn't matter to me who stands supreme at the end of the day...all I want is badass sound when I watch flicks or listen to music. But even if your product comes after another company's product....if your stuff is on point and you got the right backing, it doesn't matter if you give the pioneering company at least some props for what they put out. So, DTS should just say...yeah we got a similar product, but although theirs is good ours is better because of XYZ reasons. I have not been able to pick up much straight forward clarity from them about their product....just much ado about nothing thus far. From past experiences with their products I can say without pause that I enjoy their work and appreciate their efforts within the audio world...but let's stop half stepping and start doing some real dancing DTS.


DTS is claiming that they can simulate overhead activity with DSP manipulation without the need of additional upfiring speaker modules or built-in "enabled" speakers. Since I'm not a big fan of Dolby's compromise approach to overhead reproduction, I can't see how DTS will be as good or better than that. Yes, I'm damning Dolby's simulated Atmos products with faint praise.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

If you listen to "The Mazerunner's" DTS-MA soundtrack without overhead speakers, you'd swear they were there (even though they aren't). That was an amazing 7.1 track.


----------



## bargervais

Dave Vaughn said:


> If you listen to "The Mazerunner's" DTS-MA soundtrack without overhead speakers, you'd swear they were there (even though they aren't). That was an amazing 7.1 track.


The same thing with Masters and Commanders you would swear those footsteps are coming from the ceiling


----------



## cdelena

So you guys think that manipulating the soundtrack at ear level can fool the listener to hear sound over his head? Color me very skeptical.


----------



## RichB

cdelena said:


> So you guys think that manipulating the soundtrack at ear level can fool the listener to hear sound over his head? Color me very skeptical.


In theory, it can be done and much better in the digital domain than in analog crossovers .


Even so, I suspect it would be akin to a good stereo image where the sound seems to be above you.
The sweet spot may be small.


- Rich


----------



## dschulz

Dave Vaughn said:


> If you listen to "The Mazerunner's" DTS-MA soundtrack without overhead speakers, you'd swear they were there (even though they aren't). That was an amazing 7.1 track.





bargervais said:


> The same thing with Masters and Commanders you would swear those footsteps are coming from the ceiling


To give credit where it's due, those effects are there because of the talents of the mixers, not anything DTS did. The sound would be the same if the 5.1 or 7.1 mix was on the Blu-Ray as uncompressed LPCM or as Dolby TrueHD.


----------



## bargervais

dschulz said:


> To give credit where it's due, those effects are there because of the talents of the mixers, not anything DTS did. The sound would be the same if the 5.1 or 7.1 mix was on the Blu-Ray as uncompressed LPCM or as Dolby TrueHD.


Agree


----------



## bargervais

dschulz said:


> To give credit where it's due, those effects are there because of the talents of the mixers, not anything DTS did. The sound would be the same if the 5.1 or 7.1 mix was on the Blu-Ray as uncompressed LPCM or as Dolby TrueHD.


That's the reason I'm not going to dive in on this round of DTS:X upgrades. I'll give it a year or two to settle in. I'll continue tweaking my Atmos receivers. I'll enjoy Dolby in Atmos and I'll enjoy DTS using DSU.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

dschulz said:


> To give credit where it's due, those effects are there because of the talents of the mixers, not anything DTS did. The sound would be the same if the 5.1 or 7.1 mix was on the Blu-Ray as uncompressed LPCM or as Dolby TrueHD.


I know that...I wasn't saying that it was just DTS that could do that.


----------



## Movie78

Any suggestion for a cheap in ceiling speakers for ATMOS?


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Any suggestion for a cheap in ceiling speakers for ATMOS?


How much "cheap" is?


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> How much "cheap" is?


A pair $70 max!!


----------



## NorthSky

I just checked quickly like that, just for fun. 

♦ www.amazon.ca/dp/B00F0R4VB2?psc=1


----------



## Nalleh

What is wrong with this picture?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jupiter-Ascending-Blu-ray/131116/


----------



## NorthSky

Wrong picture cover.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I rewatched that scene on my bluray... the important parts are audible, I could clearly hear him saying that it was a lie & then his last words = the poem... the scene made it very clear what happened + in the next scene they do clarify it. People are picking at gnats here... from my experience dying people aren't very intelligible usually.


I too had no difficulty with dialog intelligibility - I hardly ever do, on any movie. When people complain about dialog intelligibility I always suspect a problem with the system setup or the room. But the fact remains that many people have reported issues with this movie, and that scene in particular, so clearly a lot of people are not finding the dialog intelligible there. When the scene in question contains crucial dialog which needs to be understood for comprehension of the movie, IMO the creators of the content should make a considerable and specific effort to ensure the dialog is crystal clear. If this conflicts with realism (eg people about to die may not speak all that clearly), then another way should be found to convey that crucial information. In Interstellar, it appears that Nolan made no such effort and the result was that, for many viewers, their comprehension of the movie would be seriously impaired. There is no such issue when, for example, dialog cannot be clearly heard (eg over an explosion or something) and all that character is doing is reacting and it makes no difference if we clearly hear him shout "holy crap!" or not.

But Nolan isn’t interested in how his movies sound, and all of his recent work bears witness to that. So long as they are LOUD he seems to be happy.


----------



## kbarnes701

cdelena said:


> So you guys think that manipulating the soundtrack at ear level can fool the listener to hear sound over his head? Color me very skeptical.


It happens now and then - the scene often referenced from *Master & Commander: Far Side of the World *is a good example. But it is pretty random and hit and miss. Seems to me that the way to get convincing sounds coming from above the listener is to have speakers above the listener. HST, I have heard the upfiring modules twice now, both times at the Dolby HQ 'home theater' room, and they do an amazing job of placing sounds above.


----------



## smurraybhm

Movie78 said:


> A pair $70 max!!


I would check out Monoprice. Their speakers seem to get a lot of love over in the speaker thread.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> I just checked quickly like that, just for fun.
> 
> ♦ www.amazon.ca/dp/B00F0R4VB2?psc=1


Thanks!

That was around that price i was looking for.


----------



## rboster

I thought I would dip my toe into Atmos last Fall....sort of dumb move, since I bought a Denon 4100 and a pair of IC-650-T Klipsch in-ceiling speakers for Top Front (in front of the first row). I love what Dolby Surround did and wished I had stepped up to the Denon 5100 after a couple of months. My MLP is in the second row and felt I was missing out on some of the Atmos experience.

Fast forward to the last couple weeks, sold my Denon 4100 and bought a 5200 from another member. Added a second pair of Klipsch 650's in-ceiling speakers in the Top Middle (slightly behind front row and slightly forward to the back row). Now I have 7.1.4 set up. I have not lowered my surround side and rear speakers down to ear level (yet). They are slanted towards the seating positions. I reran a couple of Atmos titles, Gravity and John Wick....WOW....I know now I was missing out on the 100% Atmos experience. I can't believe how much more immersive adding the second set of in-ceiling speakers added to the experience. Even more impressed.

I will hold tight till this Fall or early 2016, to see what DTS:X provides. I am excited about the possibilities. Looking ahead and using the Atmos diagrams, I don't know that I would add Top Rear speakers, since the second row is fairly close to the back wall. I do see adding front height speakers (right now my top front in-ceiling speakers are "designated" in the denon as front height, best way to work within the limitations of the denon). 

This is a very exciting time for HT audio. I can't wait to hear what's on the horizon.

Ron

BTW: I bought the Klipsch speakers from local internet retailer called Bstock.net. They say they are a Klipsch dealer. I felt comfortable buying from them since they are local and have been around for a while. I was also allowed to pick up at their offices/warehouse to save the shipping. Terrific price vs what I paid for the same pair 7 months ago from Parts Express. I thought about just buying another pair and sitting on them knowing I might need them down the road....but would probably be low on the WAF.


----------



## bskultety

TennisPro02 said:


> I received my copy this past Monday and thought Horizon was by far the best clip to date. I posted a question regarding who all had heard the new disc. Only one person replied so I guess that didn't know which disc I was referring too or had not heard it. I'm glad you and Dave like it too.


It would be great if you would upload a copy of the new demo disc like kokishin did, see post #15199 .


----------



## Stanton

rboster said:


> Fast forward to the last couple weeks, sold my Denon 4100 and bought a 5200 from another member. Added a second pair of Klipsch 650's in-ceiling speakers in the Top Middle (slightly behind front row and slightly forward to the back row). Now I have 7.1.4 set up. I have not lowered my surround side and rear speakers down to ear level (yet). They are slanted towards the seating positions. I reran a couple of Atmos titles, Gravity and John Wick....WOW....I know now I was missing out on the 100% Atmos experience. I can't believe how much more immersive adding the second set of in-ceiling speakers added to the experience. Even more impressed.


My guess is you're hearing the impact of TM much greater than TF; I'm going with a 5.1.2 system for that very reason (I really want that "overhead" sound).


----------



## rboster

Nalleh said:


> What is wrong with this picture?
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jupiter-Ascending-Blu-ray/131116/


The description of the film and title heading are for Jupiter Ascending. The cover image and release date are for Chappie.


----------



## rboster

Stanton said:


> My guess is you're hearing the impact of TM much greater than TF; I'm going with a 5.1.2 system for that very reason (I really want that "overhead" sound).


Yes, placement of the second set of speakers relative to where I sit made the difference, as one would expect. Gravity in particular has a soundtrack that amps up the usage of Atmos, which adds to the belief you are in the middle of the on screen action. 

I really languished over using in ceiling speakers and am glad I bit the bullet in cutting 9 inch holes in my ceiling....though with my DIY skill set...I was very nervous about screwing up.


----------



## Movie78

rboster said:


> Yes, placement of the second set of speakers relative to where I sit made the difference, as one would expect. Gravity in particular has a soundtrack that amps up the usage of Atmos, which adds to the belief you are in the middle of the on screen action.
> 
> I really languished over using in ceiling speakers and am glad I bit the bullet in cutting 9 inch holes in my ceiling....though with my DIY skill set...I was very nervous about screwing up.


What kind of in ceiling speakers did you buy?


----------



## rboster

Movie78 said:


> What kind of in ceiling speakers did you buy?





rboster said:


> I bought the Klipsch speakers from local internet retailer called Bstock.net. They say they are a Klipsch dealer. I felt comfortable buying from them since they are local and have been around for a while. I was also allowed to pick up at their offices/warehouse to save the shipping. Terrific price vs what I paid for the same pair 7 months ago from Parts Express. I thought about just buying another pair and sitting on them knowing I might need them down the road....but would probably be low on the WAF.


They are the IC-650-T (in black) First pair I bought at Parts Express (MSRP). I bought the second pair at the local company mentioned above (50% less). 


http://www.klipsch.com/ic-650-t

The other 7 speakers are from Reaction Audio (CX-10's in front and CX-8's in the sides/rear). I thought the Klipsch blended very well with the Reaction Line.


----------



## jrogers

Stanton said:


> My guess is you're hearing the impact of TM much greater than TF; I'm going with a 5.1.2 system for that very reason (I really want that "overhead" sound).


Just to warn you - I too really wanted the overhead sound, and so installed a 5.1.2 Atmos setup last year, which sounded great. But based on what I was reading from others in this forum, after a few months enjoying Atmos/DSU, I went through the trouble of adding an amp and two more (FH) speakers - and was surprised with what a significant improvement it made over 5.1.2.

IOW, you might want to consider going directly to 5.1.4 if your budget and room allows.


----------



## Wild Blue

chi_guy50 said:


> As for test material, at some point we should have access to a calibration disk for the immersive audio codecs. (Maybe BEFORE the Cubs win the World Series?)


I think you'll be quite happy come this fall, from what I've been told.


----------



## Movie78

Can someone please help find the exact position for mounting my ATMOS speakers.

Room size 
L=145
W=122
H=104

ATMOS speaker configuration

7.2.4 
5.2.2 (with future upgrade to 7.2.4)

Thanks!


----------



## chi_guy50

Chris Dotur said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chi_guy50*
> _As for test material, at some point we should have access to a calibration disk for the immersive audio codecs. (Maybe BEFORE the Cubs win the World Series?)_
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll be quite happy come this fall, from what I've been told.


WHAT??? The Cubs are going to win the World Series?


----------



## rboster

Movie78 said:


> Can someone please help find the exact position for mounting my ATMOS speakers.
> 
> Room size
> L=145
> W=122
> H=104
> 
> ATMOS speaker configuration
> 
> 7.2.4
> 5.2.2 (with future upgrade to 7.2.4)
> 
> Thanks!


From the previous page, this is a resource you'll want to start with



NorthSky said:


> ♦ Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Guidelines:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Movie78

rboster said:


> From the previous page, this is a resource you'll want to start with


I am reading the PDF and trying to find the exact position to mount speakers.

One thing i realize listening to ATMOS soundtrack this weekend is speaker placement is very important.


----------



## rboster

Movie78 said:


> I am reading the PDF and trying to find the exact position to mount speakers.
> 
> One thing i realize listening to ATMOS soundtrack this weekend is speaker placement is very important.


If you are looking for specific placement feedback, then you'll need to outline the seating positions for the theater.


----------



## Spanglo

Nalleh said:


> What is wrong with this picture?
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Jupiter-Ascending-Blu-ray/131116/


Jupiter Ascending was terrible... the worst Atmos movie to date. Probably the only way they can sell copies of the movie is if people buy it by accident.


----------



## Movie78

Spanglo said:


> Jupiter Ascending was terrible... the worst Atmos movie to date. Probably the only way they can sell copies of the movie is if people buy it by accident.


I think Mila Kunis acting kill the movie


----------



## Movie78

rboster said:


> If you are looking for specific placement feedback, then you'll need to outline the seating positions for the theater.


My Seating distance is about 108 inches.


----------



## Spanglo

Movie78 said:


> I Mila Kunis acting kill the movie


I thought everyone in the movie struggled, with the exception of Sean Bean. I blame the writers/directors, because the movie failed me on every level. 

I would suggest renting.


----------



## bargervais

Spanglo said:


> Jupiter Ascending was terrible... the worst Atmos movie to date. Probably the only way they can sell copies of the movie is if people buy it by accident.


Is this based on seeing it at the cinema, or do you have an early Blu-Ray with Atmos.


----------



## Spanglo

bargervais said:


> Is this based on seeing it at the cinema, or do you have an early Blu-Ray with Atmos.


Yeah got an early BR release with Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Can someone please help find the exact position for mounting my ATMOS speakers.
> Room size
> L=145
> W=122
> H=104
> ATMOS speaker configuration
> 7.2.4
> 5.2.2 (with future upgrade to 7.2.4)
> Thanks!





Movie78 said:


> I am reading the PDF and trying to find the exact position to mount speakers.
> One thing i realize listening to ATMOS soundtrack this weekend is speaker placement is very important.





Movie78 said:


> My Seating distance is about 108 inches.


1. Your room is 12 feet long (145") ...and your screen is @ one end of that length.
2. Your chair (MLP) is @ 9 feet (108") from the screen.
3. *Move your chair(s) slightly forward by one foot...that would be 8 feet from the screen, or 96 inches. 
And it is 2/3 from your room's length, which is the best spot (MLP) for best acoustics (balance between nils and peaks)*
4. Put the Top Front (TF) overhead in-ceiling speakers @ a 45-50° angle from the MLP (Zero degree is right in front of you, flat horizontal).
5. Put the Top Rear (TR) overhead in-ceiling speakers @ a 130-135° angle from the MLP (90 degree is right above your head/MLP, straight vertical).

That, is for a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos speaker's setup (page 22 from the Dolby Atmos pdf white paper; speaker setup guidelines).

♦ For a 5.2.2 Dolby Atmos setup, the Top Middle (TM) overhead in-ceiling speakers go @ a 75-80° angle, just slightly forward of straight above your head/MLP (page 16). ...And that is if you don't mind to cut holes there, and then later on when you upgrade to the 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos configuration you'll have to fill those two holes nicely and cut the four new ones. 
- Me, I would go straight up with the 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup. 

* I did look @ your link in your sig (your room).


----------



## bargervais

Spanglo said:


> Yeah got an early BR release with Atmos.


Thanks that will help me decide, if I even want to buy it. Why are you saying it's a bad Atmos mix... Atmos is more then overhead sound, is that why your saying it's bad mix.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> 1. Your room is 12 feet long (145") ...and your screen is @ one end of that length.
> 2. Your chair (MLP) is @ 9 feet (108") from the screen.
> 3. *Move your chair(s) slightly forward by one foot...that would be 8 feet from the screen, or 96 inches.
> And it is 2/3 from your room's length, which is the best spot (MLP) for best acoustics (balance between nils and peaks)*
> 4. Put the Top Front (TF) overhead in-ceiling speakers @ a 45° angle from the MLP (Zero degree is right in front of you, flat horizontal).
> 5. Put the Top Rear (TR) overhead in-ceiling speakers @ a 135° angle from the MLP (90 degree is right above your head/MLP, straight vertical).
> 
> That, is for a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos speaker's setup (page 22 from the Dolby Atmos pdf white paper; speaker setup guidelines).
> 
> ♦ For a 5.2.2 Dolby Atmos setup, the Top Middle (TM) overhead in-ceiling speakers go @ roughly 75-80°, just slightly forward of straight above your head/MLP (page 16). ...And that is if you don't mind to cut holes there, and then later on when you upgrade to the 7.2.2 Dolby Atmos configuration you'll have to fill those two holes nicely and cut the four new ones.
> - Me, I would go straight up with the 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup.
> 
> * I did look @ your link in your sig (your room).


You the man!

Do you think 7.2.4 is too much for my room base on the dimensions?


----------



## sdurani

Spanglo said:


> Yeah got an early BR release with Atmos.


How's the Atmos mix?


----------



## Spanglo

bargervais said:


> Thanks that will help me decide, if I even want to buy it. Why are you saying it's a bad Atmos mix... Atmos is more then overhead sound, is that why your saying it's bad mix.


I was saying it was a bad movie, but the Atmos mix was also underwhelming. By underwhelming I mean there was nothing immersive about the soundtrack or movie. 

Out of the 13 Atmos movies I've watched at home, Jupiter Ascending and Overheard 3 were the weakest of the bunch. The other Atmos movies good or bad had impactful Atmos tracks.


----------



## lujan

Spanglo said:


> Yeah got an early BR release with Atmos.


I'll be happy to have it if you don't want it?


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> 1. Your room is 12 feet long (145") ...and your screen is @ one end of that length.
> 2. Your chair (MLP) is @ 9 feet (108") from the screen.
> 3. *Move your chair(s) slightly forward by one foot...that would be 8 feet from the screen, or 96 inches.
> And it is 2/3 from your room's length, which is the best spot (MLP) for best acoustics (balance between nils and peaks)*
> 4. Put the Top Front (TF) overhead in-ceiling speakers @ a *45-50°* angle from the MLP (Zero degree is right in front of you, flat horizontal).
> 5. Put the Top Rear (TR) overhead in-ceiling speakers @ a *130-135°* angle from the MLP (90 degree is right above your head/MLP, straight vertical).
> 
> That, is for a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos speaker's setup (page 22 from the Dolby Atmos pdf white paper; speaker setup guidelines).
> 
> ♦ For a 5.2.2 Dolby Atmos setup, the Top Middle (TM) overhead in-ceiling speakers go *@ a 75-80° angle*, just slightly forward of straight above your head/MLP (page 16). ...And that is if you don't mind to cut holes there, and then later on when you upgrade to the *7.2.4* Dolby Atmos configuration you'll have to fill those two holes nicely and cut the four new ones.
> - Me, I would go straight up with the 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup.
> 
> * I did look @ your link in your sig (your room).


♣ I made some very small adjustments (precision) in that above quote. ...In *red* enlightened characters.



Movie78 said:


> You the man!
> 
> Do you think 7.2.4 is too much for my room base on the dimensions?


♠ *7.2.4* is perfect for your room, I truly think. ...You have now four feet behind you (MLP to the rear wall). ...Good for the two rear surround speakers (@ ear level, or near like 6 inches or so above, and no more than 12 inches above). ...And you also have room above and behind your head, for the two Top Rear overhead Dolby Atmos speakers.
- You have the perfect setup in the perfect room, what else is there to add...you also already have two subwoofers.
...Enjoy the shows, in full Dolby Atmos glory, or using the splendid Dolby Surround up-mixer (for non-Dolby Atmos flicks). 

And I'll pray to see more Dolby Atmos Blu-rays in the near future (should really kick off more with UHD Blu-rays, later on starting this Fall, around there). 

Also, don't forget *dts:X* ...and only the 2014 Denon AVR-X7200W model AV receiver is updatable to that new 3D audio surround sound decoder. ...Or wait for the Denon AVR-X5300W (which will be the 5200's new replacement comin' up this Fall). 
...And also from the other manufacturers; Onkyo starting next month, Integra and Pioneer soon afterwards, then Marantz and Yamaha. 
...Plus from more manufacturers, but most likely in 2016, ...Anthem, McIntosh, ...

What a life! What a hobby! What a 3D world in both Sound & Picture! What a wonderful life!


----------



## Kain

Got some questions!

How come some movies don't have Atmos for the theatrical mix/run but have Atmos on the home Blu-ray? Is it to give the movie a "selling point" for the Blu-ray? Are these Atmos mixes as good as the mixes that originally had a Atmos mix for the theatrical mix?


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> ♣ I made some very small adjustments (precision) in that above quote. ...In *red* enlightened characters.
> 
> 
> 
> ♠ *7.2.4* is perfect for your room, I truly think. ...You have now four feet behind you (MLP to the rear wall). ...Good for the two rear surround speakers (@ ear level, or near like 6 inches or so above, and no more than 12 inches above). ...And you also have room above and behind your head, for the two Top Rear overhead Dolby Atmos speakers.
> - You have the perfect setup in the perfect room, what else is there to add...you also already have two subwoofers.
> ...Enjoy the shows, in full Dolby Atmos glory, or using the splendid Dolby Surround up-mixer (for non-Dolby Atmos flicks).
> 
> And I'll pray to see more Dolby Atmos Blu-rays in the near future (should really kick off more with UHD Blu-rays, later on starting this Fall, around there).
> 
> Also, don't forget *dts:X* ...and only the 2014 Denon AVR-X7200W model AV receiver is updatable to that new 3D audio surround sound decoder. ...Or wait for the Denon AVR-X5300W (which will be the 5200's new replacement comin' up this Fall).
> ...And also from the other manufacturers; Onkyo starting next month, Integra and Pioneer soon afterwards, then Marantz and Yamaha.
> ...Plus from more manufacturers, but most likely in 2016, ...Anthem, McIntosh, ...
> 
> What a life! What a hobby! What a 3D world in both Sound & Picture! What a wonderful life!


Thanks!

Just bought the Pioneer VSX 90 as a stop gap until the D+M and other manufacture release a DTS X AVR..

For now i am trying to enjoy ATMOS.


----------



## wse

This is s great recording in 5.1 give it a spin!



*Legend 30th Anniversary Edition CD + Blu-Ray Book*


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> There is also the other point, which I have made more times than I care to recall now, which is that Atmos is about far, far more than just 'overhead effects', but it is the latter that most people are focusing on since overhead speakers are novel. For me, the much greater precision with which sounds are placed in the entire soundstage is just as important - or even more important - than overhead effects. *Lucy* is a good example of that among the recent Atmos Blurays I have watched.


I think the precise localization is more of an enhancement in commercial theatres because that same effect cannot be achieved with channel-based surround arrays (no phantom imaging between arrayed channels). However, at home, each channel is reproduced by a single speaker, so phantom imaging between speakers is routinely able to deliver precise localization (how 'stereo' normally works). Hence the focus on overhead imaging, since we were already getting the precise localization aspect of Atmos.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Movie78 said:


> Can someone please help find the exact position for mounting my ATMOS speakers.
> 
> Room size
> L=145
> W=122
> H=104
> 
> ATMOS speaker configuration
> 
> 7.2.4
> 5.2.2 (with future upgrade to 7.2.4)
> 
> Thanks!



Bob has already provided you with intricate details.
To perfect the angles, feel free to use the calculator from my signature..


----------



## JamesE

Why are they not releasing Lucy with Atmos in the US?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I too had no difficulty with dialog intelligibility - I hardly ever do, on any movie. When people complain about dialog intelligibility I always suspect a problem with the system setup or the room. But the fact remains that many people have reported issues with this movie, and that scene in particular, so clearly a lot of people are not finding the dialog intelligible there. When the scene in question contains crucial dialog which needs to be understood for comprehension of the movie, IMO the creators of the content should make a considerable and specific effort to ensure the dialog is crystal clear. If this conflicts with realism (eg people about to die may not speak all that clearly), then another way should be found to convey that crucial information. In Interstellar, it appears that Nolan made no such effort and the result was that, for many viewers, their comprehension of the movie would be seriously impaired. There is no such issue when, for example, dialog cannot be clearly heard (eg over an explosion or something) and all that character is doing is reacting and it makes no difference if we clearly hear him shout "holy crap!" or not.
> 
> But Nolan isn’t interested in how his movies sound, and all of his recent work bears witness to that. So long as they are LOUD he seems to be happy.


But he did make it clear... just after that the astronaut's daughter sends the video to her father saying exactly what (that guy) said in his final moments. I will agree Interstellar has it's fair share of narrative problems... but if someone didn't understand that part then they might as well be watching sesame street.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Seen (heard) almost 40 movies in Atmos over the last 3 years, a good chunk with other local AVS members. Due to the proximity to Hollywood, we have 14 Atmos theatre within a 40-mile radius here in Los Angeles. In my case, it's a little of the first (ears getting used to it) but mostly the third (the mixes). Out of all the Atmos movies I've seen, I could probably count on two hands how many really took advantage of Atmos' unique capabilities (panning through the arrays, overhead imaging). By comparison, I've lost count of how many movies left me scratching my head wondering why they even bothered mixing in Atmos.


So good news... AMC prime opening up an hour's drive away  (strange though, because I live in Chicago & this theater is in sort of a rural, yet upscale town)

Have you been to an AMC prime theater? & if so is the image & sound all that it's made out to be? 
I'm hoping to see a film in HDR, this theater will finish updating in July... I know "inside out" will be in HDR but that will probably be too late I'd imagine.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Have you been to an AMC prime theater? & if so is the image & sound all that it's made out to be?


Yes, our local Burbank AMC Prime was one of the first Atmos theatres, which is where I went to see the first Atmos release (Brave). It is currently in the midst of conversion to a "Dolby Cinema at the AMC Prime" (that's a mouthful), which was supposed to happen in time for 'Tomorrowland' but I don't know if it will be ready by then. 

The sound and picture are stunning, using CBT surrounds to keep nearby speakers from dominating when sitting off-center. Each of the motorized leather recliners has a sub or buttkicker built in for a little extra oomph. Worth the few extra bucks.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Yes, our local Burbank AMC Prime was one of the first Atmos theatres, which is where I went to see the first Atmos release (Brave). It is currently in the midst of conversion to a "Dolby Cinema at the AMC Prime" (that's a mouthful), which was supposed to happen in time for 'Tomorrowland' but I don't know if it will be ready by then.
> 
> The sound and picture are stunning, using CBT surrounds to keep nearby speakers from dominating when sitting off-center. Each of the motorized leather recliners has a sub or buttkicker built in for a little extra oomph. Worth the few extra bucks.


Cool! If it's as good as I think it's going to be I might need a doctor present... otherwise I might have died and gone to HTG heaven. 

I wonder if there is a list compiled of films to be released with HDR grading?


----------



## elitestevo

Just joined AVS! As this is my first post I'd just like to say I'm just starting from the ground up on a Dolby Atmos home theater. Picked up a Pioneer VSX-90 receiver, a Pioneer Elite SP-EC73 center channel speaker, and Elite SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers. I still need to complete the setup with the tower speakers and a subwoofer, but will get them once the wife gives me the green light. I'm still new to this so have a good one everyone.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I wonder if there is a list compiled of films to be released with HDR grading?


Tomorrowland is the only one I know of so far.


----------



## Roudan

sdurani said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been to an AMC prime theater? & if so is the image & sound all that it's made out to be?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, our local Burbank AMC Prime was one of the first Atmos theatres, which is where I went to see the first Atmos release (Brave). It is currently in the midst of conversion to a "Dolby Cinema at the AMC Prime" (that's a mouthful), which was supposed to happen in time for 'Tomorrowland' but I don't know if it will be ready by then.
> 
> The sound and picture are stunning, using CBT surrounds to keep nearby speakers from dominating when sitting off-center. Each of the motorized leather recliners has a sub or buttkicker built in for a little extra oomph. Worth the few extra bucks.
Click to expand...

Brave has Atmos ?

This link only shows truehd 7.1

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Brave-3D-Blu-ray/36408/

Where can I buy Atmos version? Thx


----------



## Wild Blue

chi_guy50 said:


> WHAT??? The Cubs are going to win the World Series?


Okay, now that was funny. I guess you never know. Here's the REALLY funny/interesting thing though: In Back to the Future II, Marty goes forward in time to... 2015. And what happens in his 2015? The Cubs win the World Series, beating a Florida team. Back when the movie was made, there was no Florida baseball team, but they now have two. So I know I for one am rooting hard for the Cubbies this year, to fulfill the BTF pt II prediction!!!!


----------



## Wild Blue

Roudan said:


> Brave has Atmos ?
> 
> This link only shows truehd 7.1
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Brave-3D-Blu-ray/36408/
> 
> Where can I buy Atmos version? Thx


There are many movies that were released in theaters with Atmos, but have not been produced on BD with Atmos. Apparently "Brave" is one of them--AFAIK, there is no Atmos BD release of it anywhere in the world.


----------



## kenoh89

(5.2.2 (with future upgrade to 7.2.4) - When did Pioneer say they would allow 7.2.4 on the Pioneer VSX 90? That's new to me! Is that when using an external amp?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kenoh89 said:


> (5.2.2 (with future upgrade to 7.2.4) - When did Pioneer say they would allow 7.2.4 on the Pioneer VSX 90? That's new to me! Is that when using an external amp?


How could it? It's only 5.2.2 with no pre-amp outs for a 7.2.4 configuration.


----------



## kenoh89

Dan Hitchman said:


> How could it? It's only 5.2.2 with no pre-amp outs for a 7.2.4 configuration.


Oh, that was a comment directed at (Movie78), but thanks for clarifying that. I did hear that Onkyo would update one of their mid tier models in the future to enable 7.2.2, but I forget which model?

Now that I think about, I don't know if it was Onkyo for sure....


----------



## jdsmoothie

elitestevo said:


> Just joined AVS! As this is my first post I'd just like to say I'm just starting from the ground up on a Dolby Atmos home theater. Picked up a Pioneer VSX-90 receiver, a Pioneer Elite SP-EC73 center channel speaker, and Elite SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers. I still need to complete the setup with the tower speakers and a subwoofer, but will get them once the wife gives me the green light. I'm still new to this so have a good one everyone.


If you haven't already, give us (AV Science) a call for pricing on the tower speakers and sub as we are an authorized Pioneer dealer.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I think the precise localization is more of an enhancement in commercial theatres because that same effect cannot be achieved with channel-based surround arrays (no phantom imaging between arrayed channels). However, at home, each channel is reproduced by a single speaker, so phantom imaging between speakers is routinely able to deliver precise localization (how 'stereo' normally works). Hence the focus on overhead imaging, since we were already getting the precise localization aspect of Atmos.


There's something else at work IMO. Every Atmos movie I have displays more precise localisation of sounds in the listener level plane, as well as (sometimes) overhead effects localisation to the ceiling speakers. It is astonishing on a disc like *Lucy*, to pick just one example. I have this movie in regular 5.1 (or 7.1 I can't recall which) and the sound is very good. But the Atmos presentation is in a different league - not for overhead effects as such (there aren't all that many) but for the amazing precision with which sounds are placed all over the room.

Is it because the overhead speakers are now coming into play to enable phantom imaging in a third dimension to what we had pre-Atmos? I don't know if that is the reason, but the precision is truly astonishing. For me, this is the best aspect of my Atmos discs so far. I like overhead effects of course, but the opportunities to use them are fairly rare, even in action movies, but the overall immersion and greater precision of the placement of sounds throughout the soundstage is something that can happen with any movie, most of the time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> But he did make it clear... just after that the astronaut's daughter sends the video to her father saying exactly what (that guy) said in his final moments. I will agree Interstellar has it's fair share of narrative problems... but if someone didn't understand that part then they might as well be watching sesame street.


 Is Sesame Street available in Atmos?  Fair enough. But the *Interstellar* soundtrack is poor overall IMO. It's just loud. There are so many ways it could have been better and by comparison with many other good soundtracks it comes across, to me anyway, as "typically Nolan". I get it that he isn't interested in surround sound all that much, but even so, he could still go for more subtlety. Just ripping your eardrums to pieces doesn't make a good soundtrack. In *The Dark Knight Rises*, which I saw at the cinema, people were actually putting their hands over their ears during some scenes (including me once or twice).


----------



## kbarnes701

elitestevo said:


> Just joined AVS! As this is my first post I'd just like to say I'm just starting from the ground up on a Dolby Atmos home theater. Picked up a Pioneer VSX-90 receiver, a Pioneer Elite SP-EC73 center channel speaker, and Elite SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers. I still need to complete the setup with the tower speakers and a subwoofer, but will get them once the wife gives me the green light. I'm still new to this so have a good one everyone.


Welcome to AVS and the Atmos thread.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> There's something else at work IMO. Every Atmos movie I have displays more precise localisation of sounds in the listener level plane, as well as (sometimes) overhead effects localisation to the ceiling speakers. It is astonishing on a disc like *Lucy*, to pick just one example. I have this movie in regular 5.1 (or 7.1 I can't recall which) and the sound is very good. But the Atmos presentation is in a different league - not for overhead effects as such (there aren't all that many) but for the amazing precision with which sounds are placed all over the room.
> 
> Is it because the overhead speakers are now coming into play to enable phantom imaging in a third dimension to what we had pre-Atmos? I don't know if that is the reason, but the precision is truly astonishing. For me, this is the best aspect of my Atmos discs so far. I like overhead effects of course, but the opportunities to use them are fairly rare, even in action movies, but the overall immersion and greater precision of the placement of sounds throughout the soundstage is something that can happen with any movie, most of the time.


I have recently tested this out..with the first ATMOS demo disc. and comparing ATMOS 5.2.4 and 7.2

to be hoest...the 7.2 is not that (if any) far behind the immersion as ATMOS. the amaze and leaf trailer specifically. Amaze the twinkle sounds were very immerssive and as if the sounds were overhead..and the leaf floating around the room in Leaf was again just above head level. the ONLY difference was with the rain not coming from directly overhead...but still quite convincing

so I am thinking..the encoding and mixing process is better on all atmos soundtracks...weather its downmixed to 7.1 system or not...it will sound better and damn immersive.


----------



## Wild Blue

kokishin said:


> I have downloaded the Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc files from the baidu.com website. I have put these files on my OneDrive cloud storage which can be accessed here: DADD. You will need a OneDrive account which is free in order to download the files. After signing into your OneDrive account, select the folder "Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc" by clicking on the checkbox in the top right corner of the folder (solid blue rectangle). Then click "Download" near the top of the OneDrive page. This will initiate a download of a zip file containing all folders and files. After the zip file is downloaded, extract the contents of the zip file. Then:
> 
> Using Blu-Ray disc burning software, select Blu-Ray Data Disc
> 
> Burn all 3 (two folders and one inf file) to the root of a Blu-ray disc. Depending on your Blu-Ray burning software, make certain you finalize the disc.
> 
> To play the individual files without burning to a Blu-Ray disc, navigate to the BDMV folder, open it and look for the Stream folder. There are 11 files in there with the extension .mts, you can just download this folder, copy to a DVD data disc, or to a thumb drive (formatted for large files over 4 gig) and play them back in your Blu-Ray player.
> 
> It works better if they are burned to a Blu-Ray disc though.
> 
> Thanks to @robert816 for the BD instructions.


How did I miss this post? Wow, thanks so much for doing this--this is huge for Atmos users to show off Atmos systems can do.


----------



## Movie78

kenoh89 said:


> Oh, that was a comment directed at (Movie78), but thanks for clarifying that. I did hear that Onkyo would update one of their mid tier models in the future to enable 7.2.2, but I forget which model?
> 
> Now that I think about, I don't know if it was Onkyo for sure....


VSX-90 is 5.2.2 and 7.2 only.

I am going to upgrade to a new AVR after CEDIA.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Is Sesame Street available in Atmos?  Fair enough. But the *Interstellar* soundtrack is poor overall IMO. It's just loud. There are so many ways it could have been better and by comparison with many other good soundtracks it comes across, to me anyway, as "typically Nolan". I get it that he isn't interested in surround sound all that much, but even so, he could still go for more subtlety. Just ripping your eardrums to pieces doesn't make a good soundtrack. In *The Dark Knight Rises*, which I saw at the cinema, people were actually putting their hands over their ears during some scenes (including me once or twice).


I'm not a fan of the loudness wars either. Usually that's due to lack of dynamic range/ compression? If so I can't say if Interstellar is the culprit or not... movie theater standards are all across the map as far as anything related to sound goes, maybe even for IMAX. Interstellar was painfully loud opening weekend @ the suburban 7 bridges IMAX, when I saw it the following week @ Chicago's Navy pier IMAX the sound was loud, but not as loud as the week before. One of my favorite theaters to see Atmos films @ was a suburban AMC theater, it was insanely loud when I started going there, but just over the course of the year, when I went to see age of ultron it was waaaay too quiet.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

elitestevo said:


> Just joined AVS! As this is my first post I'd just like to say I'm just starting from the ground up on a Dolby Atmos home theater. Picked up a Pioneer VSX-90 receiver, a Pioneer Elite SP-EC73 center channel speaker, and Elite SP-EBS73 bookshelf speakers. I still need to complete the setup with the tower speakers and a subwoofer, but will get them once the wife gives me the green light. I'm still new to this so have a good one everyone.


Congrats on the new upgrade... prepare for a whole new world of enjoyment! And a dent in your wallet


----------



## sdurani

Roudan said:


> Brave has Atmos ?


Dolby's recent commercial cinema technologies tend to get their initial outing on Pixar movies. The first Dolby Surround 7.1 mix was on Toy Story 3. The first Atmos mix was on Brave (the 200th Atmos mix will be on Inside Out).


> Where can I buy Atmos version?


Only at a movie theatre. Disney/Pixar/Marvel are doing lots of Atmos mixes theatrically but have yet to release any of them on Blu-ray.


----------



## Stanton

sdurani said:


> Disney/Pixar/Marvel are doing lots of Atmos mixes theatrically but have yet to release any of them on Blu-ray.


This is why I'm cautiously optimistic that the home release of Star Wars VII will have an Atmos mix next year--and maybe even be one of the first UHD Blu-Ray releases.


----------



## frankpc3

rboster said:


> bought a 5200 from another member. Added a second pair of Klipsch 650's in-ceiling speakers in the Top Middle (slightly behind front row and slightly forward to the back row). Now I have 7.1.4 set up.


Does it seem the 80 watt capability of the 650's is OK with the 140 watt rating of the 5200? I didn't see whether that is RMS, etc. Perhaps the power level to those would not be as high as the level to the floor standing speakers.

I looked at bstock.net - good pricing. I have an 8' drop ceiling. It seems those look very appropriate for my HT. That Denon looks nice too.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I have recently tested this out..with the first ATMOS demo disc. and comparing ATMOS 5.2.4 and 7.2
> 
> to be hoest...the 7.2 is not that (if any) far behind the immersion as ATMOS. the amaze and leaf trailer specifically. Amaze the twinkle sounds were very immerssive and as if the sounds were overhead..and the leaf floating around the room in Leaf was again just above head level. the ONLY difference was with the rain not coming from directly overhead...but still quite convincing
> 
> so I am thinking..the encoding and mixing process is better on all atmos soundtracks...weather its downmixed to 7.1 system or not...it will sound better and damn immersive.


Even if there isn't a huge difference in immersion, I am still finding a big difference wrt to precision of sound placement throughout the entire soundstage, on all of my Atmos discs. It may be stemming (NPI) from extra care in the mix, or it may be inherent in the technology, thus allowing the mixer more control, or it may be better phantom imaging by bringing the overheads into play (not for 'overhead effects' as such, but to aid in the placement of sounds throughout the soundstage). I don't know which, or maybe a combination of all of them - but I certainly hear it here.


----------



## rboster

frankpc3 said:


> Does it seem the 80 watt capability of the 650's is OK with the 140 watt rating of the 5200? I didn't see whether that is RMS, etc. Perhaps the power level to those would not be as high as the level to the floor standing speakers.
> 
> I looked at bstock.net - good pricing. I have an 8' drop ceiling. It seems those look very appropriate for my HT. That Denon looks nice too.


I don't push any of the speakers, plus the fact they are "atmos" designated speakers, not a lot is required from them relative to their output.

****
Bstock.net (Olathe company)

Their building sits back from Olathe's main drag on the west side of main. It's a big nondescript white 70's style building the loading dock is on the east side of the building. My sales person met me outside and loaded the speakers into my car and I was off. When I first contacted them through ebay to see if they had my model in black (they were auctioning a white pair for the same price), they said they had X in a black pair, but the model didn't match Klipsch model numbers and they wouldn't let me pick them up vs paying for the shipping charges. When I asked if they got the model # wrong and could they verify...didn't get a response back.

I googled their name and found their site. I saw they listed the model in black and available. I also found through google they sell on amazon. The only complaint they seem to encounter is inventory running out and having to cancel orders. 

When I called to confirm they had them in stock, the kid was very nice and informative and said I certainly could pick them up. He was a pleasure to deal with.

I went into all the detail above since I see you are local....rock chalk

Ron


----------



## smurraybhm

frankpc3 said:


> Does it seem the 80 watt capability of the 650's is OK with the 140 watt rating of the 5200? I didn't see whether that is RMS, etc. Perhaps the power level to those would not be as high as the level to the floor standing speakers.
> 
> I looked at bstock.net - good pricing. I have an 8' drop ceiling. It seems those look very appropriate for my HT. That Denon looks nice too.


Here are the test bench results from S&V's review of the 5200, which was very favorable review. It should be more than capable of driving the 650's easily, especially given you are rarely are maxing out all the channels at one time.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-x5200w-av-receiver-test-bench


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Even if there isn't a huge difference in immersion, I am still finding a big difference wrt to precision of sound placement throughout the entire soundstage, on all of my Atmos discs. It may be stemming (NPI) from extra care in the mix, or it may be inherent in the technology, thus allowing the mixer more control, or it may be better phantom imaging by bringing the overheads into play (not for 'overhead effects' as such, but to aid in the placement of sounds throughout the soundstage). I don't know which, or maybe a combination of all of them - but I certainly hear it here.


This what I'm saying. The atmos mixes are just better overall. Even without discrete atmos decoding.


----------



## lujan

Chris Dotur said:


> How did I miss this post? Wow, thanks so much for doing this--this is huge for Atmos users to show off Atmos systems can do.


Now we just need the same thing for the Atmos Reference disk that is somewhere out there but no one seems to have it?


----------



## Jacob305

Brian Fineberg said:


> This what I'm saying. The atmos mixes are just better overall. Even without discrete atmos decoding.


I agree with that statement as well. the gravity blu ray is pure demo materal for 7.1/atmos.

Jacob


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> Now we just need the same thing for the Atmos Reference disk that is somewhere out there but no one seems to have it?


But Chris implied here just yesterday that he has information that such a disk should be available this fall. That and/or a World Series pennant for my woe-begotten Chicago Cubs.


----------



## frankpc3

smurraybhm said:


> Here are the test bench results from S&V's review of the 5200, which was very favorable review. It should be more than capable of driving the 650's easily, especially given you are rarely are maxing out all the channels at one time.
> 
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-x5200w-av-receiver-test-bench


Thanks. I was concerned with over driving the speakers. Problem is I don't know what power levels should be directed to Atmos ceiling speakers when using a 200 watt RMS/ ch amp to drive fronts and center. I still need to purchase four ceiling speakers and an amp for them and I would like that arrangement to be reasonably compatible with my existing 7.1 HT.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> This what I'm saying. The atmos mixes are just better overall. Even without discrete atmos decoding.


That's not quite what I am saying, Brian. I am saying that the Atmos mixes, with Atmos encoding, are better than 5.1 mixes mainly due to improved precision of sound placements in the soundstage. So, for example, *Lucy*, which I have in 7.1 and Atmos, is much better in Atmos, even ignoring 'overhead effects'.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I understand what you are saying...I am telling you what MY experiences have been this past week....

IMO, a Bluray mixed with ATMOS (gravity for example as I own both) has a better imaging and precision placement of effects than one plain TrueHD. weather you have a atmos AVR or not.


----------



## smurraybhm

frankpc3 said:


> Thanks. I was concerned with over driving the speakers. Problem is I don't know what power levels should be directed to Atmos ceiling speakers when using a 200 watt RMS/ ch amp to drive fronts and center. I still need to purchase four ceiling speakers and an amp for them and I would like that arrangement to be reasonably compatible with my existing 7.1 HT.


You are over thinking it IMO, a ceiling speaker rated at 100 watts should be safe. Assuming you don't select a really hard to drive ceiling speaker you should be fine using your receiver to drive them. Actually even a hard to drive speaker will be fine since your driving the front 3 speakers with an amp using your receiver. If your not using the receiver's amps, why not just get the Marantz 7702? For ceiling speaker recommendations tell us what you are trying to match, just remember Audyssey should minimize concerns regarding timber matching assuming you use it.


----------



## frankpc3

smurraybhm said:


> You are over thinking it IMO, a ceiling speaker rated at 100 watts should be safe. Assuming you don't select a really hard to drive ceiling speaker you should be fine using your receiver to drive them. Actually even a hard to drive speaker will be fine since your driving the front 3 speakers with an amp using your receiver. If your not using the receiver's amps, why not just get the Marantz 7702? For ceiling speaker recommendations tell us what you are trying to match, just remember Audyssey should minimize concerns regarding timber matching assuming you use it.


My speakers are Dynaudio: 5.4 L&R, C1 Center, and 3.4 Surround L&R. Then a couple of B&O rears. I don't have an Atmos AVR yet. I am waiting for HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 later this summer. Amp is an ATI AT2000 (200 w/ch) driven by preamp outs of an Onkyo TX-SR707. So I am just preparing for Atmos at this time. I am looking at the Denon and Marantz, neither of which I have ever owned. I am also thinking it might be OK to just use the AVR to drive the ceiling speakers directly.


----------



## DCMlover

Any advice on a Atmos receiver? I will be doing a 1080p projector until I get a 4k eventually. 


I am planning on a 7.2.4 setup, I think that is the correct way to write it. 

the 4 Ceiling speakers will be powered by the receiver and all the others will be powered by external amps. 

I also would like to run an extra 2 channel zone plus TV in another room. With the receiver powering that and the ability to watch 2 different sources or both tv's on the same source. 

Any advice on the receiver to buy?

I have amazon gift cards, and don't mind doing refurb or used. 

I see a pioneer elite sc-85 used like new for just over $1000.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Not a surprise there, but Insurgent confirmed with Atmos : http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16799


----------



## batpig

DCMlover said:


> Any advice on a Atmos receiver? I will be doing a 1080p projector until I get a 4k eventually.
> 
> 
> I am planning on a 7.2.4 setup, I think that is the correct way to write it.
> 
> the 4 Ceiling speakers will be powered by the receiver and all the others will be powered by external amps.
> 
> I also would like to run an extra 2 channel zone plus TV in another room. With the receiver powering that and the ability to watch 2 different sources or both tv's on the same source.
> 
> Any advice on the receiver to buy?
> 
> I have amazon gift cards, and don't mind doing refurb or used.
> 
> I see a pioneer elite sc-85 used like new for just over $1000.


None of the current Pioneer models can do 11ch processing. 9 max. 

The Denon X5200 and its cousin the Marantz SR7009 can do what you want. They both have 11ch capability and an independent zone HDMI output. 

Or you can hang tight for a few more months when the next gen models with DTSX and HDCP 2.2 start shipping. Or spring for the Denon X7200WA which is now shipping with HDCP 2.2 hardware and will get DTSX as a download later this year.


----------



## DCMlover

batpig said:


> None of the current Pioneer models can do 11ch processing. 9 max.
> 
> The Denon X5200 and its cousin the Marantz SR7009 can do what you want. They both have 11ch capability and an independent zone HDMI output.
> 
> Or you can hang tight for a few more months when the next gen models with DTSX and HDCP 2.2 start shipping. Or spring for the Denon X7200WA which is now shipping with HDCP 2.2 hardware and will get DTSX as a download later this year.


That Denon x7200 is $3000! I am a cheapskate! LOL! I saw a refurbished SR7009 for $1400. I could do that. Am I reasonably future proof with that? Or just wait?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stanton said:


> This is why I'm cautiously optimistic that the home release of Star Wars VII will have an Atmos mix next year--and maybe even be one of the first UHD Blu-Ray releases.


I'm wondering about that myself... I'm really hoping Episode VII is HDR graded as well. 

The Ep VII bd release could go any way, it could be a DTS X mix... I'm not sure if Lucasfilm's previous releases could be of any indication but the other 2 trilogies bluray are DTS HD right? 

But oh man, if it's in Atmos with HDR & comes out that way on the bluray disc... I'm officially done complaining about anything ever again. (though the option for 3D would be nice)


----------



## Movie78

DCMlover said:


> That Denon x7200 is $3000! I am a cheapskate! LOL! I saw a refurbished SR7009 for $1400. I could do that. Am I reasonably future proof with that? Or just wait?


I had a chance to buy a X7200 for $1900 and i didn't do it...


----------



## batpig

DCMlover said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the current Pioneer models can do 11ch processing. 9 max.
> 
> The Denon X5200 and its cousin the Marantz SR7009 can do what you want. They both have 11ch capability and an independent zone HDMI output.
> 
> Or you can hang tight for a few more months when the next gen models with DTSX and HDCP 2.2 start shipping. Or spring for the Denon X7200WA which is now shipping with HDCP 2.2 hardware and will get DTSX as a download later this year.
> 
> 
> 
> That Denon x7200 is $3000! I am a cheapskate! LOL! I saw a refurbished SR7009 for $1400. I could do that. Am I reasonably future proof with that? Or just wait?
Click to expand...

Well it depends on your definition of future proof. None of the current AVR models (except the 7200) will support DTS:X decoding and they do not have HDCP 2.2 support with full bandwidth HDMI 2.0. 

So one option is to buy the least expensive Atmos receiver with 11ch support now and enjoy it for a few years, knowing that you will have to upgrade again when/if you go 4k. If you want your receiver to last longer then you should wait for the new models.


----------



## UKTexan

Just finished watching American Sniper, awesome movie and a great Atmos mix, IMO. 
The helicopter flyovers were good, bullets whizzing by sounded fantastic, the sandstorm towards the end of the movie where Chris is on his fourth tour after killing his nemesis sounded unreal. Yes, you could hear the storm overhead but it was much more than that, a true feeling of immersion, totally lost in the movie by that point.
Overall a great movie, performance by Bradley Cooper was exceptional, Clint Eastwood is back on form but most of all the movie demonstrates how much we owe to those who give their lives for their respective countries. Chris Kyle, what a guy!
Thoroughly recommend buying this!


----------



## Oledurt

My modest basement home theater. 7.1.4. Equipment includes. Epson 5030ub projector, Elite Screen 110 inch, Polk Audio Rti A7, Polk Audio CSi A6, Polk Audio Rti A1, Polk Audio OWM 5, Rythmik F15HP, HSU MBM 12 MK 2, Marantz AV7702, Oppo 103D, Sherbourn, and Emotiva amps. Still a work in progress, but here are some pics.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DCMlover said:


> That Denon x7200 is $3000! I am a cheapskate! LOL! I saw a refurbished SR7009 for $1400. I could do that. Am I reasonably future proof with that? Or just wait?


Wait for DTS:X compatible gear. Not too much longer.


----------



## robert816

Chris Dotur said:


> How did I miss this post? Wow, thanks so much for doing this--this is huge for Atmos users to show off Atmos systems can do.


Chris, if you do not have the Horizon Atmos demo, (it was not part of the original demo disc) you can download it from here.

Click on the Dolby Atmos jpeg image to download the file.


----------



## aaranddeeman

robert816 said:


> Chris, if you do not have the Horizon Atmos demo, (it was not part of the original demo disc) you can download it from here.
> 
> Click on the Dolby Atmos jpeg image to download the file.


Is it possible to play these demos from a USB stick connected directly to the AVR.
I downloaded it to an USB, but when I play it from PS3, there is no sound at all. Not sure if I can directly play it from AVR by inserting the USB.


----------



## batpig

aaranddeeman said:


> robert816 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, if you do not have the Horizon Atmos demo, (it was not part of the original demo disc) you can download it from here.
> 
> Click on the Dolby Atmos jpeg image to download the file.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to play these demos from a USB stick connected directly to the AVR.
> I downloaded it to an USB, but when I play it from PS3, there is no sound at all. Not sure if I can directly play it from AVR by inserting the USB.
Click to expand...

No, AVRs don't decode video directly (either from attached storage or network stream). USB and networking is for audio streaming only.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> No, AVRs don't decode video directly (either from attached storage or network stream). USB and networking is for audio streaming only.


Yeah. That's true. I missed the video part completely and was thinking of Atmos only..

Edit : Please suggest me the best way to get this demo to play. Dolby is not giving any disk. (It's either their arrogance or bad PR). PS3 does not play in Atmos when used Vudu. Tried Roku to no avail (no sound at all for Atmos content). What a frustration...


----------



## wse

Onkyo has just announced its frst two new upper mid-range home theater receivers for 2015, the TX-NR646 and TX-NR747.

What makes these two new entries into Onkyo's line-up so attention-grabbing is that they are first home theater receivers to feature *Dolby Atmos* AND *DTS:X* audio decoding capability (*NOTE:* DTS:X features will be added via *free firmware update later this year)*.

Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are both referred to as Object-based surround sound formats which utilizes technologies that place objects in 3-Dimensional space, rather have to be specifically anchored by specific channels or speakers.

THX certified!! for $999 MSRP




  http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR737&class=Receiver&source=RelatedModels
 



   

Click Image to Enlarge​ 
   
Click Image to Enlarge​ 
   
Click Image to Enlarge​ 
   
Click Image to Enlarge​ 
   
Click Image to Enlarge​ 



Previous
Next




























































*Breathtaking THX Certified Surround Sound*



THX® Certified for Reference Sound
DTS:X™ and Dolby Atmos® Support
175 W per Channel
Hi-Current Amp Design for Authentic Sound Reproduction
HDMI® 8 In / 2 Out Including 1 Front
HDMI 2.0a & HDCP 2.2 for 4K UltraHD
Built-in Bluetooth & Wi-Fi® with Pandora, Spotify, and AirPlay
DSD 5.6 MHz, FLAC 192 kHz/24-bit Hi-Res Audio Capable
384 kHz/32-bit Hi-Grade DAC
AccuEQ Room Acoustic Calibration
 










Watch the Video 

 Advanced Features    Amp and Processing Features     Connection Features ​







*
THX®-Certified Amp Quality *

THX certification guarantees the same high volume, low distortion sound you experience in a commercial theater in your listening room. The TX-NR747 meets the most demanding & rigorous performance certification: it has to pass 75 test categories, 2,000 tests, covering 14,000 data points. THX® Select2™ Plus is recommended for screen-to-seat viewing distances of 10-12 feet. 

Learn More 









*
DTS:X Compatible *

DTS:X is a next-generation object-based surround sound technology that includes height to deliver a fully-immersive listening experience. DTS:X provides listeners the ultimate in flexibility, immersion, and interactivity. Unlike channel-based audio, you will be able to personalize your audio experience. For example, you can turn up JUST the dialog within a mix. DTS:X allows you to customize to your room layout as well as control dialog and dynamic range. 

Learn More  









*
Supports Dolby Atmos® Up to 5.1.2 Channels *

With Dolby Atmos, sound comes alive from all directions, including overhead. The format combines a channel-based audio bed with object-oriented sound to place and move specific effects around the room, creating a breathtakingly realistic and captivating sonic atmosphere. 

Sound designers and artists are free to mix in a 3D space, steering effects through surround channels and adding a seamless overhead dimension with discrete height channels. 

Additionally, a new Dolby surround up-mixer allows for your current channel-based content (that has not been mixed for Dolby Atmos) to be expanded to fill the flexible speaker layouts of a Dolby Atmos system.

Learn More  









*
Ready for UltraHD *

HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 compatibility supports the latest formats and technologies planned for Hollywood content. HDMI 2.0 offers a significant increase in bandwidth (up to 18Gbps) to support new features such as [email protected]/60 (2160p), which is 4 times the clarity of 1080p/60 video resolution. Version 2.0 is backward compatible with earlier versions of the HDMI Specification. 

This Onkyo AVR is also compatible with HDMI 2.0a, which enables transmission of HDR formats, and provides enhanced picture quality by simultaneously enabling greater detail for both the dark and bright parts of an image. 









* 
Bluetooth / Wi-Fi® with Pandora, Spotify, and AirPlay *

The TX-NR747 has AirPlay, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies built in. The free Onkyo Remote app puts a range of streaming options at your fingertips, from universal hi-res audio via network-attached devices to internet streaming services to music on your smartphone and tablet. Or pair up and enjoy whatever's playing on your Bluetooth-compatible device for huge cinematic sound. 

This receiver comes loaded with Spotify, Pandora, SiriusXM Internet Radio, Slacker and TuneIn. You can select a station and search for music available on these services via the Onkyo Remote app on your phone. You'll never be short of your favorite music to enjoy. 









*

Hi-Current Amp Design for Authentic Sound Reproduction *

From the quietest dialog passages to booming action scenes, Onkyo's exclusive amplification technology dramatically enhances the audio dynamics of your movies, music and games.

This Wide Range Amplifier Technology (WRAT) is at the core of Onkyo's signature sound. The innovative amplifier design is comprised of three key elements: 
(1) a low negative feedback design for punchy, true-to-life sound, and cleaner audio across the frequency ranges; 
(2) closed groundloop circuits to reduce individual circuit noise and keep the ground potential free of distortion; and 
(3) a high instantaneous current to handle big dynamic gains. 

This allows massive power at 175 W/Ch (6 Ohms, 1 kHz, 0.9% THD, 1 Channel Driven, FTC) and 110 W/Ch (8 Ohms, 20 Hz–20 kHz, 0.08% THD, 2 Channels Driven, FTC).

 Learn more 









*
384 kHz/32-bit Hi-Grade DAC *

No matter what you're listening to, it will sound powerfully full, clean and clear. A premium-quality AK4458 digital-to-analog converter from Asahi Kasei implements unique low-distortion filtering technologies for clear sound, and unlocks the full potential of any audio format, including compressed, lossless, and hi-res audio (MP3, WMA, WMA Lossless, FLAC, WAV, OggVorbis, AAC, Apple Lossless, DSD 5.6 MHz, LPCM, and Dolby TrueHD). 

 View chip 









*
Classic Analog & Hi-Res Digital *

This receiver is engineered for hi-res analog and digital audio. You can spin your classic vinyl and hear it in all its analog glory and stream your networked hi-res digital files. Both analog and digital audio sound its warmest and clearest. The TX-NR646 supports hi-res audio playback, gapless playback, and the ability to play DSD, Double DSD, FLAC and ALAC along with other Hi-Res formats. 









*
Powered Zone 2 and Zone 2 Line-Outs *

The TX-NR747 features Powered Zone 2 and Zone 2 line-outs. This lets you assign two channels to power audio in a room equipped with speakers. An existing hi-fi system in a third room can also be connected via the line-out, enabling the use of the A/V receiver as a pre-amp and audio server. Control content in the two zones via remote app; play the same song in all zones using Whole House Mode; or enjoy a different song in each room. 

 See terminals 






http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR747&class=Receiver


----------



## wse

Did you know: DTS has a 93% market-share of the top 100 Blu-ray titles in 2014, and is expected to continue the trend into the next generation of Blu-ray.


----------



## wse

*Flexible

*

*One of the biggest benefits of DTS:X is the ability to render audio perfectly across any type of speaker layout, from hundreds of speakers down to headphones. Because DTS:X doesn't require any specific speaker layout, you can arrange your home theater system however you want.

*


----------



## robert816

What file format are you using on the USB? PS3 I believe will only read FAT or FAT32 formatted USB or external drives, which also limits files to 4 gig or less.

You may try copying the files directly to the PS3 hard drive and try playing them from there. Also you can stream the files as I do with the Horizon video since it 
is not on the Blu-Ray demo disc. I stream them from my PC through the Oppo Blu-Ray player, or you can burn them as a data file to a Blu-Ray disc, I haven't 
tried burning them to a DVD to see if that would work.

I honestly cannot give you much advice on the PS3, since I do not own one I haven't spent much time researching what they are capable of.


----------



## Wild Blue

wse said:


> Did you know: DTS has a 93% market-share of the top 100 Blu-ray titles in 2014, and is expected to continue the trend into the next generation of Blu-ray.


Dude... are you intentionally being a troll? Most of us here are 100% in favor of all the new formats coming out. Two consecutive fanboy posts like that in the dedicated Dolby Atmos thread... huh?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Chris Dotur said:


> Dude... are you intentionally being a troll? Most of us here are 100% in favor of all the new formats coming out. Two consecutive fanboy posts like that in the dedicated Dolby Atmos thread... huh?


I will admit I'm a bit butthurt regarding the 900 dollar onkyo getting DTS X while my 1600 dollar receiver doesn't :/


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BTW Atmos mix for Mad Max is pretty damn good... none of the blatant effects that into the storm had but plenty of overhead action going on & clever effects with sound... the movie is amazing as well... fantastic 3D as well.


----------



## zebidou81

kbarnes701 said:


> I think it will depend on the other speakers in the system. I moved my TM set forward after a few weeks of having them slightly behind me and they do sound better in the slightly forward position. But I have a 5.2.4 setup and my surrounds are at 110°, so with the TMs behind me they were very close, angle-wise, to the surrounds. Moving them forwards increased the angular separation. If I had more room behind me, and my surrounds were at 90° and I was also using rear surrounds, I suspect the TMs would be better behind me as they would fill in nicely between the surrounds and rear surrounds. HST, if I was running 7.2.4 I would probably be using TF+TR designations anyway.


Thanks Keith, Can i ask i am looking into my Atmos speakers that i use at the minute which are Kef 3001SE speakers, i was going to go with the speakers that you currently use the Tannoy di5dc speakers but i chose the kefs to use the uni Q tech that i use as my base speakers are kef also, i was just wondering if i was to change my speakers do you feel i would notice a difference ? i am getting the urge to do so but do not want to waste money if its not needed, the specs of the kefs are listed below if you could give me an opinion if you feel my choice was correct for atmos duties ? 

Model HTS3001SE
Design	2-way bass reflex
Drive Units 115mm (4.5in.) Uni-Q array with 19mm (0.75in.) aluminium HF
Crossover Frequencies	2.2kHz
Sensitivity (2.83V/1m)	88dB
Frequency Response (+/-3dB)	70Hz - 55kHz
Maximum Output	108dB
Input Impedance	8 Ohms
Magnetic Shielding	Yes
Internal Volume	1.8 litres
Power Handling	100W


----------



## Wild Blue

Some GREAT news and a very welcome surprise today.

Got a quite unexpected package in the mail from Dolby. Opened to find their Jan 2015 Atmos demo disc along with an enclosed letter saying "Thank you for visiting Dolby to experience Dolby Atmos during CEDIA 2014..." 

I think our feedback to Dolby may have had some effects, and it looks like they might be trying to get out the word on Atmos. (finally?) So presumably, everybody that scanned their badge with Dolby at CEDIA this year is going to get a demo disc in the mail. I'll be really interested to hear if anybody else has one show up.


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Thanks Keith, Can i ask i am looking into my Atmos speakers that i use at the minute which are Kef 3001SE speakers, i was going to go with the speakers that you currently use the Tannoy di5dc speakers but i chose the kefs to use the uni Q tech that i use as my base speakers are kef also, i was just wondering if i was to change my speakers do you feel i would notice a difference ? i am getting the urge to do so but do not want to waste money if its not needed, the specs of the kefs are listed below if you could give me an opinion if you feel my choice was correct for atmos duties ?
> 
> Model HTS3001SE
> Design	2-way bass reflex
> Drive Units 115mm (4.5in.) Uni-Q array with 19mm (0.75in.) aluminium HF
> Crossover Frequencies	2.2kHz
> Sensitivity (2.83V/1m)	88dB
> Frequency Response (+/-3dB)	70Hz - 55kHz
> Maximum Output	108dB
> Input Impedance	8 Ohms
> Magnetic Shielding	Yes
> Internal Volume	1.8 litres
> Power Handling	100W


If you already have the Kefs I would stay with them. I doubt you would hear any audible improvement from going to the Tannoys. The Kefs seem to tick all the boxes for overhead speakers IMO.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> I will admit I'm a bit butthurt regarding the 900 dollar onkyo getting DTS X while my 1600 dollar receiver doesn't :/


You mean the one that maxes out at Atmos 5.1.2 and lacks Audyssey? Take a dab of Preparation-H and move on, Aras!


----------



## zebidou81

kbarnes701 said:


> If you already have the Kefs I would stay with them. I doubt you would hear any audible improvement from going to the Tannoys. The Kefs seem to tick all the boxes for overhead speakers IMO.


Ok thanks i keep getting the urge to alter the setup but i will stick with them they seem to be doing what they should, i hope we have a Dolby Atmos calibration disc coming soon as that would reassure me no doubt that everything is fine in the setup then i could just enjoy, or maybe get a audyssey pro calibration done to get the most out of the system or buy an anti-mode 2.0 to calibrate myself


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Ok thanks i keep getting the urge to alter the setup but i will stick with them they seem to be doing what they should, i hope we have a Dolby Atmos calibration disc coming soon as that would reassure me no doubt that everything is fine in the setup then i could just enjoy, or maybe get a audyssey pro calibration done to get the most out of the system or buy an anti-mode 2.0 to calibrate myself


It sounds as if you have a bad case of Upgraditis Nervosa  What do you suspect might be 'wrong' with the setup as it stands?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You mean the one that maxes out at Atmos 5.1.2 and lacks Audyssey? Take a dab of Preparation-H and move on, Aras!


LOL. And it doesn't have preouts either, which makes it less than useful for many.


----------



## Movie78

wse said:


> Onkyo has just announced its frst two new upper mid-range home theater receivers for 2015, the TX-NR646 and TX-NR747.
> 
> What makes these two new entries into Onkyo's line-up so attention-grabbing is that they are first home theater receivers to feature *Dolby Atmos* AND *DTS:X* audio decoding capability (*NOTE:* DTS:X features will be added via *free firmware update later this year)*.
> 
> 
> Old News!!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> You mean the one that maxes out at Atmos 5.1.2 and lacks Audyssey? Take a dab of Preparation-H and move on, Aras!





kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. And it doesn't have preouts either, which makes it less than useful for many.


True, I did pay the premium for the extra channels in mind. I hadn't skimmed over the onkyo ad... I just saw the price & DTS X. Though my baby daughter moved into my house this week; Thursday night might be my last chance to watch an Atmos movie at a decent volume... next chance probably won't come for another 3 or 4 years unless if she's cool with explosions rocking the house.


----------



## smurraybhm

Movie78 said:


> Old News!!


Thanks for "quoting" that whole post - just more marketing hype/crap junking up the thread 
The delete button is your friend and ours 
American Sniper up next.
Thank God we aren't on the Auro thread though, no support from Onkyo again this year, Red Tails and Bowling Balls  for movie options. Still nothing released in the States, does anyone else hear taps playing in the background?


----------



## lujan

smurraybhm said:


> Thanks for "quoting" that whole post - just more marketing hype/crap junking up the thread
> The delete button is your friend and ours
> American Sniper up next.
> Thank God we aren't on the Auro thread though, no support from Onkyo again this year, Red Tails and Bowling Balls  for movie options. Still nothing released in the States, does anyone else hear taps playing in the background?


I was thinking the same thing? Why did this poster "Reply with Quote" when it is such a long post?


----------



## chi_guy50

Oledurt said:


> My modest basement home theater. 7.1.4. Equipment includes. Epson 5030ub projector, Elite Screen 110 inch, Polk Audio Rti A7, Polk Audio CSi A6, Polk Audio Rti A1, Polk Audio OWM 5, Rythmik F15HP, HSU MBM 12 MK 2, Marantz AV7702, Oppo 103D, Sherbourn, and Emotiva amps. Still a work in progress, but here are some pics.


That's a very nice start for what you are calling a "modest" HT. 

I hope you will share some more pictures as your "work in progress" continues.

FWIW, I did not like the silver finish on the feet of my RTiA7's (and A5's); I wound up spray-painting them black to complete the monochromatic look.

Here are the "before and after" pictures and a link to my post describing what I did.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> True, I did pay the premium for the extra channels in mind. I hadn't skimmed over the onkyo ad... I just saw the price & DTS X. Though my baby daughter moved into my house this week; Thursday night might be my last chance to watch an Atmos movie at a decent volume... next chance probably won't come for another 3 or 4 years unless if she's cool with explosions rocking the house.


When my daughters were babies, I found they soon got used to loud music late at night and then they slept right through it with no problem. So get them acclimatised!


----------



## rboster

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a very nice start for what you are calling a "modest" HT.
> 
> I hope you will share some more pictures as your "work in progress" continues.
> 
> FWIW, I did not like the silver finish on the feet of my RTiA7's (and A5's); I wound up spray-painting them black to complete the monochromatic look.
> 
> Here are the "before and after" pictures and a link to my post describing what I did.


They do look much better in black.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> When my daughters were babies, I found they soon got used to loud music late at night and then they slept right through it with no problem. So get them acclimatised!


Sounds like a job for Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup (aka tincture of morphine)!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Sounds like a job for Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup (aka tincture of morphine)!


LOL. IME, kids are very much like horses and dogs: they respond very well to training


----------



## kbarnes701

I always preferred this one:










It has the benefit of having cannabis in it as well as laudanum  AFAIK this is still on open sale in the UK.


----------



## zebidou81

kbarnes701 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok thanks i keep getting the urge to alter the setup but i will stick with them they seem to be doing what they should, i hope we have a Dolby Atmos calibration disc coming soon as that would reassure me no doubt that everything is fine in the setup then i could just enjoy, or maybe get a audyssey pro calibration done to get the most out of the system or buy an anti-mode 2.0 to calibrate myself
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds as if you have a bad case of Upgraditis Nervosa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you suspect might be 'wrong' with the setup as it stands?
Click to expand...

Ha yes i caught that a while back but cant seem to cure it.

To be honest not much is wrong i just keep thinking to myself have i got the height channels right as once i watch a movie i sometimes feel that not much is happening from the soundfield above, but then again some scenes that make use of the height speakers sound great, i have just received unbroken and gravity deluxe edition so i am going to watch both and try not to think about the setup and see how i feel after i have done so, i believe unbroken has some great sound effect from the air when the zeros are attacking, it may be a case of me getting used to dsu and Atmos, and as you know when you first hear a dsu Atmos mix it blows you away it may be becoming normal if that makes sense.


----------



## stikle

aaranddeeman said:


> Please suggest me the best way to get this demo to play.


I put mine on a Flash drive and plugged it into my Bluray player. Video & Atmos streamed just fine from there.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> When my daughters were babies, I found they soon got used to loud music late at night and then they slept right through it with no problem. So get them acclimatised!


Haha, it's not the baby that's the issue... it's the mom that keeps saying "turn it down! turn it down!" 

Though I am curious what level you guys think is safe for young children with the Denon 5200... At the loudest I usually set it at 77... lately I've been getting away with 50 to 55.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, it's not the baby that's the issue... it's the mom that keeps saying "turn it down! turn it down!"
> 
> Though I am curious what level you guys think is safe for young children with the Denon 5200... At the loudest I usually set it at 77... lately I've been getting away with 50 to 55.


i rarely listen at reference level i mostly listen at -20 but when watching a Blu-Ray i'll bump it up to -10


----------



## bargervais

I watched American Sniper last night. not really sure why people are rating these Atmos
Blu-Rays with what is coming out of the height speakers.
Atmos is more then sound coming out of those height speakers. it's more about immersion. I know we just spent $$$$ to set all these speakers up top and we want them to sing...
I went outside and sat in the park, I closed my eyes and Listened to try and hear what sounds in reality come from above. there is alot more going on all around then from above. 
IMHO American Sniper was great, to me placement of sound was very nice and immersive and heights are used when needed.


----------



## cdelena

bargervais said:


> ...
> Atmos is more then sound coming out of those height speakers. it's more about immersion. I know we just spent $$$$ to set all these speakers up top and we want them to sing...
> ...


I agree... to it is the total experience that counts, so I really don't want to be aware of where the sounds are coming from.


This discussion reminds me of my son who has had several systems and always wants to concentrate on overwhelming bass. I find it unnatural but it is his choice.


My Atmos installation has been a success for me as I feel immersed in the soundtrack (even with many tracks with DSU) without wanting to increase levels on overhead speakers.


----------



## Franin

cdelena said:


> I agree... to it is the total experience that counts, so I really don't want to be aware of where the sounds are coming from.
> 
> 
> This discussion reminds me of my son who has had several systems and always wants to concentrate on overwhelming bass. I find it unnatural but it is his choice.
> 
> 
> My Atmos installation has been a success for me as I feel immersed in the soundtrack (even with many tracks with DSU) without wanting to increase levels on overhead speakers.



Agree 


Frank


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> Ha yes i caught that a while back but cant seem to cure it.
> 
> To be honest not much is wrong i just keep thinking to myself have i got the height channels right as once i watch a movie i sometimes feel that not much is happening from the soundfield above, but then again some scenes that make use of the height speakers sound great,


Remember that not all discs will have terrific overhead effects.



zebidou81 said:


> i have just received unbroken and gravity deluxe edition so i am going to watch both and try not to think about the setup and see how i feel after i have done so, i believe unbroken has some great sound effect from the air when the zeros are attacking,


Yes - the opening scenes of Unbroken are very good. As well as the overhead effects, look out for the amazing precision of the placement of all the sounds throughout the soundstage.



zebidou81 said:


> it may be a case of me getting used to dsu and Atmos, and as you know when you first hear a dsu Atmos mix it blows you away it may be becoming normal if that makes sense.


This is also something I have found, along with others who have commented on it. I do think you get used to sounds coming from over your head quite quickly, and so the immediacy if the impression sort of 'wears off' after a while. Of course, this is how it should be really - you shouldn’t really notice effects coming from specific speakers - surrounds or overheads - just an immersion into the total sound of the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, it's not the baby that's the issue... it's the mom that keeps saying "turn it down! turn it down!"
> 
> Though I am curious what level you guys think is safe for young children with the Denon 5200... At the loudest I usually set it at 77... lately I've been getting away with 50 to 55.


Just for the avoidance of doubt, my babies weren't in the same room as the hi-fi system (that's what it was called when my daughters were babies) when Led Zeppelin were strutting their stuff at natural sound levels for a live performance


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> I will admit I'm a bit butthurt regarding the 900 dollar onkyo getting DTS X while my 1600 dollar receiver doesn't :/


That's not really a fair comparison -- those Onkyos are new models (next model cycle) whereas your Denon is a current model. Next years' models from all manufacturers will likely have DTS:X in addition to Atmos decoding, although Onkyo in general seems to be the earliest at dropping features to the low price points.


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, it's not the baby that's the issue... it's the mom that keeps saying "turn it down! turn it down!"


Now that is the truth. People always ask about waking the kids up and I always say it's not the kids I'm worried about!


----------



## wse

Aras_Volodka said:


> I will admit I'm a bit butthurt regarding the 900 dollar onkyo getting DTS X while my 1600 dollar receiver doesn't :/


That's my feeling as well Marantz SR-7009!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> That's not really a fair comparison -- those Onkyos are new models (next model cycle) whereas your Denon is a current model. Next years' models from all manufacturers will likely have DTS:X in addition to Atmos decoding, although Onkyo in general seems to be the earliest at dropping features to the low price points.


Don't they just! Onkyo have always led the way for price/features. Makes me wonder what the Audyssey licensing cost them and how much flexibility dropping Audyssey has given them. Pity the dirt cheap one is only 5.1.2 and lacks preouts - it would have been perfect for me now I am using Dirac Live/miniDSP 88A for my room EQ.


----------



## wse

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, it's not the baby that's the issue... it's the mom that keeps saying "turn it down! turn it down!" Though I am curious what level you guys think is safe for young children with the Denon 5200... At the loudest I usually set it at 77... lately I've been getting away with 50 to 55.


Remember Sensory hair cells are the mechanosensory receptors of the auditory and vestibular systems in all vertebrates and of the lateral line system of some aquatic vertebrates. 

Hair cells can be damaged and lost due to such factors as aging, ototoxic chemicals, *acoustic *trauma, infection, or genetic factors. 

Loss of these hair cells lead to deficits in hearing and balance, and in mammals, such deficits are permanent.


So my suggestions easy on the volume with the kids, they should tell you if it's loud enough raising the volume gradually it probably will not be loud enough for you


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't they just! Onkyo have always led the way for price/features. Makes me wonder what the Audyssey licensing cost them and how much flexibility dropping Audyssey has given them. Pity the dirt cheap one is only 5.1.2 and lacks preouts - it would have been perfect for me now I am using Dirac Live/miniDSP 88A for my room EQ.


Interesting so you the master in Audyssey ditched Audyssey XT 32 for Dirac Live/miniDSP 88A 

http://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-88a

But you can't do ATMOS or DTS;X with that it.s only 7 channels!


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Hair cells can be damaged and lost due to such factors as aging, ototoxic chemicals, *acoustic *trauma, infection, or genetic factors.
> 
> Loss of these hair cells lead to deficits in hearing and balance, and in mammals, such deficits are permanent.


Blimey. I've got a full house - ageing, definitely - chemicals, definitely  - acoustic trauma, definitely (thanks King Crimson and your 135dB gig decades ago) - infection, definitely (nothing that a shot of, ahem, penicillin wouldn't fix though) and genetic factors, definitely (my granddad was deaf in one ear, or in both if my grandma was around). I'm a basket case


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Interesting so you the master in Audyssey ditched Audyssey XT 32 for Dirac Live/miniDSP 88A


Yep. XT32 is still good, but it hasn’t moved forward in 5 years now. Dirac Live is simply better - SOTA room EQ.



wse said:


> http://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-88a
> 
> But you can't do ATMOS or DTS;X with that it.s only 7 channels!


Well, you can always use two.  But in my case, with a 5.2.4 system (no room here for rear surrounds currently, unfortunately) I can EQ all my listener level speakers and the front pair of my overheads. This leaves just the rearmost pair of overheads without EQ. Given that the surrounds/overheads don't really do all that much (compared with the LCR set) I am not finding any issues with just setting levels and delays manually for that pair. If I was concerned, I would use a miniDSP 2x4 and REW to EQ that pair manually, but like I say, I am not really experiencing any audible issues so for now, I am leaving it as it is. It seems wasteful to me to buy another 88A at just under a grand, just to EQ two speakers on the ceiling. If I had 7.2.4 I might think differently.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. XT32 is still good, but it hasn’t moved forward in 5 years now. Dirac Live is simply better - SOTA room EQ. Well, you can always use two.  But in my case, with a 5.2.4 system (no room here for rear surrounds currently, unfortunately) I can EQ all my listener level speakers and the front pair of my overheads. This leaves just the rearmost pair of overheads without EQ. Given that the surrounds/overheads don't really do all that much (compared with the LCR set) I am not finding any issues with just setting levels and delays manually for that pair. If I was concerned, I would use a miniDSP 2x4 and REW to EQ that pair manually, but like I say, I am not really experiencing any audible issues so for now, I am leaving it as it is. It seems wasteful to me to buy another 88A at just under a grand, just to EQ two speakers on the ceiling. If I had 7.2.4 I might think differently.


That becomes pricey! Do you think Audyssey will release a new version in 2015 at CEDIA


----------



## batpig

wse said:


> That becomes pricey! Do you think Audyssey will release a new version in 2015 at CEDIA


We're off topic for this thread but there is no indication that Audyssey has any interest in advancing their room correction technology.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> That becomes pricey! Do you think Audyssey will release a new version in 2015 at CEDIA


No. My personal view is that Audyssey is no longer interested in pursuing room EQ solutions in AVRs. Only Denon/Marantz now offer XT32 - if they decide to move on, then Audyssey as a viable REQ platform is finished. I stress this is a personal opinion, based on observation, and I have no inside information on this whatsoever. As batpig says, we are OT.


----------



## Scott Simonian

You're right.... let's get back on about DTS:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> You're right.... let's get back on about DTS:X.


LOL. Naughty boy!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> We're off topic for this thread but there is no indication that Audyssey has any interest in advancing their room correction technology.


That's unfortunate. They may out mode themselves in the industry and put the company into bankruptcy. There are number of issues they could be improving.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's unfortunate. They may out mode themselves in the industry and put the company into bankruptcy. There are number of issues they could be improving.


They have a lot of other aspects to their company besides MultEQ. I imagine these are more lucrative for them, hence their concentration there rather than REQ.


----------



## pasender91

Definitely OT, but Intel invested heavily in Audyssey in late 2014, and since then they focus their R&D on improving the audio of PC and mobile devices ...


----------



## bskultety

Chris Dotur said:


> Some GREAT news and a very welcome surprise today.
> 
> Got a quite unexpected package in the mail from Dolby. Opened to find their Jan 2015 Atmos demo disc along with an enclosed letter saying "Thank you for visiting Dolby to experience Dolby Atmos during CEDIA 2014..."
> 
> I think our feedback to Dolby may have had some effects, and it looks like they might be trying to get out the word on Atmos. (finally?) So presumably, everybody that scanned their badge with Dolby at CEDIA this year is going to get a demo disc in the mail. I'll be really interested to hear if anybody else has one show up.


It would be great if you would upload a copy of the new demo disc like kokishin did, see post #15199 .


----------



## dvdwilly3

bargervais said:


> I watched American Sniper last night. not really sure why people are rating these Atmos
> Blu-Rays with what is coming out of the height speakers.
> Atmos is more then sound coming out of those height speakers. it's more about immersion. I know we just spent $$$$ to set all these speakers up top and we want them to sing...
> I went outside and sat in the park, I closed my eyes and Listened to try and hear what sounds in reality come from above. there is alot more going on all around then from above.
> IMHO American Sniper was great, to me placement of sound was very nice and immersive and heights are used when needed.


*“American Sniper”—my wife and a close friend of ours watched it today. The Atmos mix is amazing. No, the overheads are not used zealously, nor should they have been. I find as many others here do that the most important feature of Atmos is in the discrete placement of sounds within the sound field. In one scene, a helicopter comes in from the rear over my right shoulder, passes by my right side about 1 o’clock (height-wise) and continues into the middle of the scene. Perfectly placed... 
*

*I had lowered expectations of the movie itself as a result of a lot of comments that I read about this movie. Most of them I find to be erroneous.*

*It is a movie of a man who feels that he should be a “sheepdog” and protect those who are in need of protection. It becomes a compulsion, even an obsession, that takes a heavy toll on both his psyche and that of his steadfast wife. He is conflicted in fighting a war that is outside of the context of his norms of right and wrong where women and children are brought into armed conflict.*

*It is not hero worship. It does not aggrandize being a sniper. It is not a pro-war movie. If anything, it is an anti-war movie. It also shows the toll taken on people on the other side, whatever that side may be, even down to that of his arch-enemy, whose life bears a striking resemblance in essence of his own.*

*Chris Kyle does prevail, physically, but he is certainly not whole. It is a movie that should be seen. About the closest film that I would compare it to would be “The Hurt Locker”. War is, indeed, hell...for all.
*


----------



## zebidou81

I have american sniper on pre order for the Uk it looks good and cant wait to hear the atmos mix, the story on the other hand from the adverts i have seen and from reading a little on the topic im not sure of maybe a bit overhyped just like the bravo 2 zero but i am looking forward to it.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> If anything, it is an anti-war movie.


That was my immediate reaction as well, only to be surprised by people who thought the opposite about this movie (made me wonder if we'd seen the same film).


----------



## Nalleh

*Update*

Additions to the immersive sound collection.

Atmos to the left (DTS:X in the middle) and Auro 3D to the right.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> That was my immediate reaction as well, only to be surprised by people who thought the opposite about this movie (made me wonder if we'd seen the same film).


That's just it. I think they really didn't see it and are relying on others' opinions and hearsay.


----------



## smurraybhm

Nalleh said:


> *Update*
> 
> Additions to the immersive sound collection.
> 
> Atmos to the left (DTS:X in the middle) and Auro 3D to the right.


Pull the music releases out of the Auro releases and you have what? Even the music released so far isn't exactly going to appeal to a very broad audience. Auro is DOA, no support it appears from any mainstream receiver manufacturer other than Denon again this year - maybe. Not a single movie released in the U.S. yet, nor is there any announcement of one coming up.

The same people taking shots at the Atmos releases are the same ones excited about Bowling Balls  Do the Auro fans realize that DTS:NeoX is an option on more U.S. releases then Auro? 

Meanwhile the Atmos mixes keep coming and more are being announced. Sorry, but I don't see the need to keep up with a format on the Atmos thread that isn't object based and who's only value is as an up mixer for music - maybe. A waste of $200 IMO, then there is the previous dead comment - based on the facts to-date. 

What am I going to watch today, Bowling Balls or American Sniper, tough choice


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Pull the music releases out of the Auro releases and you have what? Even the music released so far isn't exactly going to appeal to a very broad audience. Auro is DOA, no support it appears from any mainstream receiver manufacturer other than Denon again this year - maybe. Not a single movie released in the U.S. yet, nor is there any announcement of one coming up.
> 
> The same people taking shots at the Atmos releases are the same ones excited about Bowling Balls  Do the Auro fans realize that DTS:NeoX is an option on more U.S. releases then Auro?
> 
> Meanwhile the Atmos mixes keep coming and more are being announced. Sorry, but I don't see the need to keep up with a format on the Atmos thread that isn't object based and who's only value is as an up mixer for music - maybe. A waste of $200 IMO, then there is the previous dead comment - based on the facts to-date.
> 
> What am I going to watch today, Bowling Balls or American Sniper, tough choice


LOL - When I read your post I thought it must have been one I'd made myself 

*Bowling Balls* is a Belgian movie, in the Flemish language and scored 5.7 on IMDB, although admittedly only 144 people voted (perhaps giving an idea of how many have seen it?). It's directed by the well-known Director, Mark Punt.  And it has an Auro soundtrack on Bluray. Don't overlook *Red Tails* though - it might be a three-year-old movie which only scraped 5.9 on IMDB (just shy of the magic 6.0 which is usually my lower limit for consideration at all) but at least it has some action scenes and is in English! And it has an Auro soundtrack on Bluray. 

HST, to be fair to Nalleh, he did also include in his post his Atmos collection, and perhaps the contrast between the Atmos discs and the Auro discs is relevant on the Atmos thread on the basis that it shows which format is the one to adopt  Technical issues about which is the "better" format mean nothing at all if there is no content, either now or coming down the pike.

I share your view that Auro is DOA and expect it to disappear soon, or to acquire an ultra-niche status which will make SACD look mainstream. Mostly though, I expect it to disappear altogether, much like HD-DVD did in the face of competition from Bluray. I can see why those who have enthusiastically adopted Auro, and arranged their speakers to suit it, are in denial of course. I am sure I would be too.


----------



## chi_guy50

dvdwilly3 said:


> * It is not a pro-war movie. If anything, it is an anti-war movie.*





sdurani said:


> That was my immediate reaction as well, only to be surprised by people who thought the opposite about this movie (made me wonder if we'd seen the same film).


I haven't seen _American Sniper_ yet (although it is on my list), but I can understand the disparate reactions to it based on the reviews I have read. The controversial nature of two of its underlying themes (the Iraq war and American gun culture) lends itself to strong partisan views. But my understanding of what Eastwood has crafted is that it is really at bottom just a typical Hollywood western (lone good guy faces up to the bad guys) superimposed on a modern story. If you leave out the politics you can better judge whether the movie succeeds in telling this facile story well (as Fred Zinnemann did with _High Noon_).

If you still need help understanding the film, here's a web site that clears up all the confusion with an article entitled "Confused About How You’re Supposed To Feel About ‘American Sniper’? Here Are 20 Thinkpieces That Can Help You Put Things In Perspective." 

My favorite is no. 6: “Good Men Killing Bad Men For Bad Reasons For A Good Cause: Good Or Bad?” (by Prof. Olivia Mayberry) This utilitarian argument by a philosophy professor explains that it’s bad when you do bad things, but not if the bad things do more good than the bad they do, unless the good things they do are bad.


----------



## Nalleh

smurraybhm said:


> Pull the music releases out of the Auro releases and you have what? Even the music released so far isn't exactly going to appeal to a very broad audience. Auro is DOA, no support it appears from any mainstream receiver manufacturer other than Denon again this year - maybe. Not a single movie released in the U.S. yet, nor is there any announcement of one coming up.
> 
> The same people taking shots at the Atmos releases are the same ones excited about Bowling Balls  Do the Auro fans realize that DTS:NeoX is an option on more U.S. releases then Auro?
> 
> Meanwhile the Atmos mixes keep coming and more are being announced. Sorry, but I don't see the need to keep up with a format on the Atmos thread that isn't object based and who's only value is as an up mixer for music - maybe. A waste of $200 IMO, then there is the previous dead comment - based on the facts to-date.
> 
> What am I going to watch today, Bowling Balls or American Sniper, tough choice


Sure, that's one way of looking at it 

Enjoy your movie


----------



## scarabaeus

Nalleh said:


> Additions to the immersive sound collection.


How did you like Mortadelo & Filemon? I liked it a lot, thought it was hilarious.


----------



## Nalleh

scarabaeus said:


> How did you like Mortadelo & Filemon? I liked it a lot, thought it was hilarious.


Received it the other day, and have not seen it yet. But looked at a couple of scenes just to see, and it looks well made and very funny. So actually looking forward to it, and will report back 

Note: i ordered the 3D version, wich has two discs, one 3D and one 2D.
The 3D disc has a Atmos/DD+ track, while the 2D disc has the more normal Amos/True HD track.

So this is the first time i have seen that info screen:


----------



## smurraybhm

Nalleh said:


> Sure, that's one way of looking at it
> 
> Enjoy your movie


If you head over to the Auro thread and discuss Atmos or anything negative you pretty much evoke the wrath of a few die hard Auro fans. Sorry if my post was a little harsh  It's just mind boggling to have heard all the promises made last fall and then pretty much nothing - aside from Red Tails re-done and a few musical disks that IMO appeal to a very narrow crowd. Me being one of those they don't.

I spent the $200 unlike Keith, cut my loses after playing some content and comparing the two - DSU v Auromatic. In fact I like NeoX better on music than Auro or just pure mode/stereo. So a big disappointment for me, glad that others enjoy it though.

A demo disk was a nice touch, but I would rather have seen a few more movies. For me Red Tails using DSU sounds pretty darn good, can't bring myself to spend more $ on the German Auro version. So for me it's Atmos/DSU all the way. Save the upgrade fee and use it torwards the next receiver when one decides to upgrade to DTS:X.


----------



## FilmMixer

"Insurgent" announced. 

Releases 8/4.


----------



## UKTexan

wse said:


> This is s great recording in 5.1 give it a spin!
> 
> 
> 
> *Legend 30th Anniversary Edition CD + Blu-Ray Book*


Received today from Amazon and played the whole album straight away in TrueHD 5.1 + DSU. Bob never sounded so good! Great 96Khz, 24bit Blu-Ray audio. Looking forward to my work trip to Jamaica later this year. Thanks for letting me know about this version.


----------



## Nalleh

smurraybhm said:


> If you head over to the Auro thread and discuss Atmos or anything negative you pretty much evoke the wrath of a few die hard Auro fans. Sorry if my post was a little harsh  It's just mind boggling to have heard all the promises made last fall and then pretty much nothing - aside from Red Tails re-done and a few musical disks that IMO appeal to a very narrow crowd. Me being one of those they don't.
> 
> I spent the $200 unlike Keith, cut my loses after playing some content and comparing the two - DSU v Auromatic. In fact I like NeoX better on music than Auro or just pure mode/stereo. So a big disappointment for me, glad that others enjoy it though.
> 
> A demo disk was a nice touch, but I would rather have seen a few more movies. For me Red Tails using DSU sounds pretty darn good, can't bring myself to spend more $ on the German Auro version. So for me it's Atmos/DSU all the way. Save the upgrade fee and use it torwards the next receiver when one decides to upgrade to DTS:X.


Yes, yes i understand where you are coming from, and you have tried Auro, didn't like it, and moved on. Fine, no harm in that, we are all different.

I love both Atmos and Auro, they both have pros and cons, as they should, as will probably DTS:X have too.

By no means am I saying that Auro will be the winner in all this, I am just saying that I am not ready to give up on them quite yet.

And i do not regret the Auro update, or the discs bought. They have done nothing but expand on my immersive sound experience


----------



## smurraybhm

Finished watching American Sniper - great Atmos mix, but for those looking for nothing but heights, sound is only up there when it should be. Enjoyed the movie too.


----------



## gerchy

bargervais said:


> ... not really sure why people are rating these Atmos
> Blu-Rays with what is coming out of the height speakers.
> Atmos is more then sound coming out of those height speakers. it's more about immersion. I know we just spent $$$$ to set all these speakers up top and we want them to sing...


It may very well be more immersive but since the concept is designed to produce overhead sounds then something isn't right if I can't hear a helicopter passing by or a spaceship hovering in the sky. That's IMHO a bad mix because in some movies you can hear it and in some you don't.
Some sounds should be coming from above no matter the immersion.


----------



## billqs

*Using Atmos Calculator and Validator*

*Hey aaranddeeman*-

I like your excel spreadsheet for angle calculation, but could you explain exactly what you measure? I measured from MLP straight ahead to the plain where the two top fronts would be. Is that correct or should I be measuring the sides of the triangle from the MLP to the speaker. It appears my measurements up front may be off, which would explain why I have less immersion in the front row than the 2nd.

Thanks!


----------



## bargervais

Does anyone know why oblivion I being released again on May 26th???

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-Blu-ray/126706/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Does anyone know why oblivion I being released again on May 26th???
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-Blu-ray/126706/


It's weird, but it looks like it either has DTS:X or Dolby Atmos. The label is completely screwed up on the back of the cover. It has a Dolby Atmos logo, but the specs say DTS Master Audio 7.1.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's weird, but it looks like it either has DTS:X or Dolby Atmos. The label is completely screwed up on the back of the cover. It has a Dolby Atmos logo, but the specs say DTS Master Audio 7.1.


I thought it was odd the 2013 release has no Atmos on it but the 2015 release says dolby Atmos.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-Blu-ray/63492/


----------



## Movie78

Can wait!!

This movie will be perfect in ATMOS


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Movie78 said:


> Can wait!!
> 
> This movie will be perfect in ATMOS


When I was listening to the Oblivion clip at CEDIA in Atmos, to me it had very subdued immersion, which belied the action oriented sequence. Perhaps the home version will have been "pumped up" a bit. Let's hope.


----------



## UKTexan

Heading out shortly to check out my first movie at a Dolby Cinema, Tomorrowland.
The AMC in Deerbrook, just north of Houston is opening its first Dolby Cinema room. Will be interesting to see what all the fuss is about, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos with motorized, vibrating recliners, not sure what my wife will think to that!
My local Atmos theater(Santikos Palladium) is less than 5 miles away, the AMC is 49 miles from my home but worth it IMO.


----------



## Josh Z

bargervais said:


> Does anyone know why oblivion I being released again on May 26th???





Dan Hitchman said:


> It's weird, but it looks like it either has DTS:X or Dolby Atmos. The label is completely screwed up on the back of the cover. It has a Dolby Atmos logo, but the specs say DTS Master Audio 7.1.


Don't get your hopes up. Universal is reissuing a wave of Blu-rays on the 26th with UltraViolet Digital Copies. Other discs include To Kill a Mockingbird, Moonrise Kingdom, The Purge, The Nutty Professor, RIPD, and Savages. Other than the UV codes inside the case, the discs are unchanged.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> I thought it was odd the 2013 release has no Atmos on it but the 2015 release says dolby Atmos.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-Blu-ray/63492/


Strange cause the logo is there but that's it, nothing in the list of tracks... I still not think this is really confirmed...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Don't get your hopes up. Universal is reissuing a wave of Blu-rays on the 26th with UltraViolet Digital Copies. Other discs include To Kill a Mockingbird, Moonrise Kingdom, The Purge, The Nutty Professor, RIPD, and Savages. Other than the UV codes inside the case, the discs are unchanged.


Why would the back cover have Dolby Atmos... unless it's a printer screw up?


----------



## kbarnes701

This one is a confirmed Atmos Bluray... anyone seen the movie?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> This one is a confirmed Atmos Bluray... anyone seen the movie?
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/


Not yet, but it appears to be pretty schlocky so my expectations are low despite the interesting cast. See my previous post.


----------



## chi_guy50

billqs said:


> *Hey aaranddeeman*-
> 
> I like your excel spreadsheet for angle calculation, but could you explain exactly what you measure? I measured from MLP straight ahead to the plain where the two top fronts would be. Is that correct or should I be measuring the sides of the triangle from the MLP to the speaker. It appears my measurements up front may be off, which would explain why I have less immersion in the front row than the 2nd.
> 
> Thanks!


I've also wondered whether there is a preferred method for calculating the angular measurements.* I seem to recall that many months ago Sanjay made mention of using the planar coordinates*, but I've usually been measuring from MLP to speaker center-of-mass. 

(ETA: Actually, I believe this is the post I was thinking of from last October, and it turns out I was conflating the post Sanjay was responding to with his response.)

Is there a compelling case for either one over the other?


----------



## AidenL

I'm about to mark out speaker positions for my new dedicated room - but I have a sloping ceiling as its a loft / attic conversion.

Do the same conventions apply for positioning distances?

As I widen the speakers out, they will travel further downwards on the sloping part of the ceiling, its a bit of a dilemma for me, high up and closer - or lower and wider - and obviously, I need to keep separation between the lower bed of speakers, but also LR separation overhead.

Anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> This one is a confirmed Atmos Bluray... anyone seen the movie?
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/


There seem to be some titles (e.g., The Gunman, Planes: Fire & Rescue) that never got a theatrical Atmos release and weren't listed on Dolby's webpage of Atmos movies, but during the end credits clearly indicate that they were mixed in Atmos. You'd never know about these Atmos mixes unless you stuck around till the end of the end credits. Wonder how many of these unlisted Atmos mixes there are.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why would the back cover have Dolby Atmos... unless it's a printer screw up?


One can always hope, but I wouldn't read too much into that. Some Photoshop lackey in the marketing department puts the cover art together. He clearly couldn't even manage any consistency between the logos he pasted in and the audio format info in the specs box. There is very little chance that Universal has re-authored any of these discs. If this Blu-ray were getting Atmos, I think they would have issued a press release trumpeting that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oblivion in Atmos would be awesome. I'd get that in a heartbeat.

The Gunman was okay. It wasn't bad but it seemed forgettable. Not sure I'd seek it out again or buy it at all. Jasmine Trinca was cute though.


----------



## bargervais

Josh Z said:


> One can always hope, but I wouldn't read too much into that. Some Photoshop lackey in the marketing department puts the cover art together. He clearly couldn't even manage any consistency between the logos he pasted in and the audio format info in the specs box. There is very little chance that Universal has re-authored any of these discs. If this Blu-ray were getting Atmos, I think they would have issued a press release trumpeting that.


It's just odd that the 2013 release of oblivion has no Atmos printed on it and you get an UV copy 
It's just odd to me, why would they reprint the back cover on the 2015 back cover has Atmos printed on it.
Well it's four days till May 26th release date I may just have to order it to see.


----------



## wse




----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Not yet, but it appears to be pretty schlocky so my expectations are low despite the interesting cast. See my previous post.


Yeah - it's below my usual minimum IMDB threshold of 6.0 - it was the interesting cast that attracted me.


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> One can always hope, but I wouldn't read too much into that. Some Photoshop lackey in the marketing department puts the cover art together. He clearly couldn't even manage any consistency between the logos he pasted in and the audio format info in the specs box. There is very little chance that Universal has re-authored any of these discs. If this Blu-ray were getting Atmos, I think they would have issued a press release trumpeting that.


It's just utterly strange that the Bly Ray is $8 right now on Amazon but the pre order for next weeks version is $20. 

I'm trying to get confirmation.


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


>


Maybe one of those rare Blu-Ray with both DTS and Dolby on it.....well i took a chance and ordered it( i'll just have no beer tonight to pay for it) i'll let you know on Tuesday


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> Maybe one of those rare Blu-Ray with both DTS and Dolby on it.....well i took a chance and ordered it( i'll just have no beer tonight to pay for it) i'll let you know on Tuesday


Please do tell! It would be great if it had ATMOS talk about double dipping


----------



## wse

Any one going to this next week? http://theshownewport.com/


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Please do tell! It would be great if it had ATMOS talk about double dipping


Let's hope I already have the 2013 release.
I really liked this movie.


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> Let's hope I already have the 2013 release. I really liked this movie.


Me too but I will wait until the price drops! Double dipping infuriates me


----------



## aaranddeeman

billqs said:


> *Hey aaranddeeman*-
> 
> I like your excel spreadsheet for angle calculation, but could you explain exactly what you measure? I measured from MLP straight ahead to the plain where the two top fronts would be. Is that correct or should I be measuring the sides of the triangle from the MLP to the speaker. It appears my measurements up front may be off, which would explain why I have less immersion in the front row than the 2nd.
> 
> Thanks!


The measurement should be straight ahead from MLP (and not angular) parallel to wall on your left/right hand .
I will try and see if I can add some illustration in that sheet.


----------



## chi_guy50

aaranddeeman said:


> The measurement should be straight ahead from MLP (and not angular) parallel to wall on your left/right hand .
> I will try and see if I can add some illustration in that sheet.


I think the correct elevation angle measurement should be taken on a line from the MLP to the actual speaker (L/R). See also my earlier response above (as amended).

But I remain interested in hearing others' opinions.


----------



## Jive Turkey

wse said:


> Any one going to this next week? http://theshownewport.com/


I usually do, but not this year. The last few years it's been held on the weekend that constitutes the end of the month, and I have month end computer closing at work to take care of. I trained someone and let them do it last year, but found it's best I take care of it. It's a good show though.

I'll get to the California Audio Show south of San Francisco.


----------



## smurraybhm

R.I.P.D. re-release according to Blu-Ray.com has an Atmos mix as well. Without debating the movie itself if this is true then releases with Atmos mixes are really picking up. I hate double dipping as much as anyone, but it's inevitable with Atmos and DTS:X. 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/RIPD-Blu-ray/126707/


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> R.I.P.D. re-release according to Blu-Ray.com has an Atmos mix as well. Without debating the movie itself if this is true then releases with Atmos mixes are really picking up. I hate double dipping as much as anyone, but it's inevitable with Atmos and DTS:X.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/RIPD-Blu-ray/126707/


R.I.P.D. not something I would buy.


----------



## smurraybhm

Never said you or anyone else would. Just another apparent re-release with an Atmos mix. ***** when we didn't have any and now we ***** when they are more plentiful. At least it's not Bowling Balls.

Big picture all, more releases regardless of how YOU rate the movie is a good thing. I may give it a spin via Netflix if available via that source.

Now back to listening to Porcupine Tree


----------



## UKTexan

Pleased to report the theatrical Atmos mix for Tomorrowland is excellent. On many occasions the height speakers are used to great effect, steering of sound around and above the listener was fantastic.
The image at the new AMC Dolby Cinema room (Deerbrook, Humble, near Houston) in Dolby Vision was superb, even my wife noticed the difference. Colors popped, detail excellent, bright whites and very dark blacks. Even the trailer for Inside Out looked amazing, the best I have ever seen on any projection system. The screen was floor to ceiling, wall to wall, curved and angled backwards.
The Dolby Atmos setup at this theater sounded great, not too loud but just loud enough. Objects clearly moved throughout the three dimensional space. All of the drivers were lit with bright red LED's upon entering the theater, very cool looking. I counted 8 surround arrays on each side of the room, 16 overhead speakers (8 per bed), 6 rear surround speakers along the rear wall and overhead subs above the center of the room. 38 speakers I could physically see, plus whatever is behind the screen.
Each speaker location (on the walls, not ceiling) are made up of up to 12 drivers, 4 direct firing at the top, 4 direct firing but masked with a type of diffuser/tweeter array in the center and 4 more unmasked speakers at the bottom. The drivers on the rear wall were arranged in a T shape, 4 mounted horizontal and 4 more vertical, 8 per speaker location.
Great movie experience, only let down was the staff at the concession stand, they really did not want to be there.
Would definitely recommend checking out a Dolby Cinema equipped theater and also Tomorrowland, even if just for the sound effects if it is not your type of movie. 
I have attached a couple of pics of the entrance and the speaker/driver arrays.


----------



## Josh Z

smurraybhm said:


> R.I.P.D. re-release according to Blu-Ray.com has an Atmos mix as well. Without debating the movie itself if this is true then releases with Atmos mixes are really picking up. I hate double dipping as much as anyone, but it's inevitable with Atmos and DTS:X.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/RIPD-Blu-ray/126707/


The page you link to says DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1. So does the specs box on the back cover art. 


Despite the misleading logos that were undoubtedly erroneously copy/pasted onto the back cover, there is simply no way that Universal is re-authoring these discs with Atmos and not announcing it to anyone.


----------



## Kain

Kain said:


> Got some questions!
> 
> How come some movies don't have Atmos for the theatrical mix/run but have Atmos on the home Blu-ray? Is it to give the movie a "selling point" for the Blu-ray? Are these Atmos mixes as good as the mixes that originally had a Atmos mix for the theatrical mix?


Anyone? Just want to know if the theater mix did not have an Atmos track but the Blu-ray did, will the Atmos Blu-ray be as good as a movie that actually had a Atmos track in theaters?


----------



## smurraybhm

Josh Z said:


> The page you link to says DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1. So does the specs box on the back cover art.
> 
> 
> Despite the misleading logos that were undoubtedly erroneously copy/pasted onto the back cover, there is simply no way that Universal is re-authoring these discs with Atmos and not announcing it to anyone.


Josh - so why are these movies being re-released? Not arguing but it makes no sense. Someone mentioned the digital copy as a reason but these movies came with that option when they first came out. The box art is questionable, I guess we will see in a few days. Steve


----------



## Dan Hitchman

smurraybhm said:


> Josh - so why are these movies being re-released? Not arguing but it makes no sense. Someone mentioned the digital copy as a reason but these movies came with that option when they first came out. The box art is questionable, I guess we will see in a few days. Steve


They've plastered Dolby Atmos over almost every single one of these re-releases. Typical Universal...


----------



## bargervais

smurraybhm said:


> Josh - so why are these movies being re-released? Not arguing but it makes no sense. Someone mentioned the digital copy as a reason but these movies came with that option when they first came out. The box art is questionable, I guess we will see in a few days. Steve


Exactly... I ordered oblivion just to see what's up. Ill find out Tuesday.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Exactly... I ordered oblivion just to see what's up. Ill find out Tuesday.


Something tells me it _does not_ have Dolby Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Something tells me it _does not_ have Dolby Atmos.


Me too but ill find out Tuesday the speculation is killing me. Its not the first time that I have thrown away twenty dollars


----------



## Trigen

http://www.uphe.com/movies/oblivion
http://www.uphe.com/movies/ripd

The Universal BD page does not mention Atmos in the technical information.


----------



## Josh Z

smurraybhm said:


> Josh - so why are these movies being re-released? Not arguing but it makes no sense. Someone mentioned the digital copy as a reason but these movies came with that option when they first came out. The box art is questionable, I guess we will see in a few days. Steve


Studios repackage and reissue movies all the time based on whatever marketing excuse they feel like. The back cover art for the new reissues of To Kill a Mockingbird, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Nutty Professor all have the Atmos logo as well. Check them out:


http://www.dvdempire.com/1734377/to-kill-a-mockingbird-blu-ray-ultraviolet-blu-ray.html


http://www.dvdempire.com/1734356/moonrise-kingdom-blu-ray-ultraviolet-blu-ray.html


http://www.dvdempire.com/1734364/nutty-professor-the-blu-ray-ultraviolet-blu-ray.html


Unless you really think that Universal has remixed all of these movies into Atmos, someone at the studio clearly just screwed up when throwing together the package art.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Studios repackage and reissue movies all the time based on whatever marketing excuse they feel like. The back cover art for the new reissues of To Kill a Mockingbird, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Nutty Professor all have the Atmos logo as well. Check them out:
> 
> 
> http://www.dvdempire.com/1734377/to-kill-a-mockingbird-blu-ray-ultraviolet-blu-ray.html
> 
> 
> http://www.dvdempire.com/1734356/moonrise-kingdom-blu-ray-ultraviolet-blu-ray.html
> 
> 
> http://www.dvdempire.com/1734364/nutty-professor-the-blu-ray-ultraviolet-blu-ray.html
> 
> 
> Unless you really think that Universal has remixed all of these movies into Atmos, someone at the studio clearly just screwed up when throwing together the package art.



Ah... Universal... will you ever learn??


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ah... Universal... will you ever learn??


It's your opportunity to sue them if it does not have Atmos...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> It's your opportunity to sue them if it does not have Atmos...


You'll be suing Comcast... they have friends in low places.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> You'll be suing Comcast... they have friends in low places.


Comcast? What do you mean? (Sorry I may be dumb)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Comcast? What do you mean? (Sorry I may be dumb)


They own Universal and NBC... and the White House and Congress and...


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> They own Universal and NBC... and the White House and Congress and...


Ah. Okay...
Oh what they actually mean is (sound like) Atmos.... 
(I change my stand seeing congress, White House and...)


----------



## wse

UKTexan said:


> Pleased to report the theatrical Atmos mix for Tomorrowland is excellent. On many occasions the height speakers are used to great effect, steering of sound around and above the listener was fantastic.
> The image at the new AMC Dolby Cinema room (Deerbrook, Humble, near Houston) in Dolby Vision was superb, even my wife noticed the difference. Colors popped, detail excellent, bright whites and very dark blacks. Even the trailer for Inside Out looked amazing, the best I have ever seen on any projection system. The screen was floor to ceiling, wall to wall, curved and angled backwards.
> The Dolby Atmos setup at this theater sounded great, not too loud but just loud enough. Objects clearly moved throughout the three dimensional space. All of the drivers were lit with bright red LED's upon entering the theater, very cool looking. I counted 8 surround arrays on each side of the room, 16 overhead speakers (8 per bed), 6 rear surround speakers along the rear wall and overhead subs above the center of the room. 38 speakers I could physically see, plus whatever is behind the screen.
> Each speaker location (on the walls, not ceiling) are made up of up to 12 drivers, 4 direct firing at the top, 4 direct firing but masked with a type of diffuser/tweeter array in the center and 4 more unmasked speakers at the bottom. The drivers on the rear wall were arranged in a T shape, 4 mounted horizontal and 4 more vertical, 8 per speaker location.
> Great movie experience, only let down was the staff at the concession stand, they really did not want to be there.
> Would definitely recommend checking out a Dolby Cinema equipped theater and also Tomorrowland, even if just for the sound effects if it is not your type of movie.
> I have attached a couple of pics of the entrance and the speaker/driver arrays.


Cool unfortunately I don't have a Dolby Theater where I live one day hopefully at least there is an ATMOS theater with wide screen


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> Exactly... I ordered oblivion just to see what's up. Ill find out Tuesday.


We are all waiting to find out, please tell us ATMOS is a sound track and that it is good


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Cool unfortunately I don't have a Dolby Theater where I live one day hopefully at least there is an ATMOS theater with wide screen


Too bad _Tomorrowland _will probably only get an Atmos or X home video soundtrack when (and if) Disney supports Ultra HD Blu-ray.


----------



## tjenkins95

If there was actually an Atmos soundtrack then I would think that they would have listed the new track with the other audio tracks but they don't. My money is on Dan's statement: "They've plastered Dolby Atmos over almost every single one of these re-releases..."


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ah... Universal... will you ever learn??


It may not be that the movie has an Atmos mix. There has to be something on the disc that has Atmos... they proof read these Blu-Ray covers.. I can't see Universal sticking that logo on there just for the heck of it. And if it's a printing error you have yourself a collectors item... LOL.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> It may not be that the movie has an Atmos mix. There has to be something on the disc that has Atmos... they proof read these Blu-Ray covers.. I can't see Universal sticking that logo on there just for the heck of it. And if it's a printing error you have yourself a collectors item... LOL.


It's that _all_ of the Universal re-releases talked about have the Dolby Atmos logo, but spec listed as DTS Master Audio. I think it very well may be a printing error.


----------



## asarose247

ATMOS related question

This excert from Dennis Erskine , post 4 in 2003, Dedicated thread:

Requirements for multi-channel (more than 2) are different than that required for 2 channel.

In multi-channel, the entire wall behind the front speakers is treated. You want none of the back reflections to overlay the surround field or the bring the reverberent field forward (your reverberent field and surround field is created by the multi-channel processor or mix, not so much the room as is mandatory for 2-channel). Depending on speaker placement, this treatment is brought forward along the side walls. Wall treatments are floor to slightly above ear level (where exactly is also a function of front speaker heights). While one could argue the sound at their feet is of no concern, often that square footage of treatment is required to bring the room's RT60 down to the lower levels required for multi-channel playback.

WHEW!

I'm looking to hear comments or results and why or why not, now that speakers are on the ceiling, how some / none of this logic and science might/should/could be applied to ceiling panels specifically angled for mitigation of off-angle , time delayed reflective response wrt enhancing ATMOS/DSU mixing clarity in integration of the overhead sound field .
Sure, we want immersion but do we need ALL the "sound" being put out up there ?
after-all we have to have panels for 1st reflective points . . .
In keeping up with this thread, my impression is that for early adopters, not so much an issue, it was a new toy, we'll catch up with the real work a bit later, many probably already have done the smart part of that work wrt overall basic/scientifically guided treatment . 
Any constructive comments,, links, experiences, thoughts appreciated

Thanks


----------



## Josh Z

bargervais said:


> they proof read these Blu-Ray covers..


Not so much.


A few examples off the top of my head:


- Cast Away (Fox) - Cover says aspect ratio 2.35:1. Actual aspect ratio on disc 1.85:1.
- Bullitt (WB) - Cover says aspect ratio 2.40:1. Actual aspect ratio on disc 1.78:1.
- The Getaway (WB) - Cover says aspect ratio 1.85:1. Actual aspect ratio on disc 2.40:1.
- Supernova (Shout! Factory) - Cover says movie was released in 1995 (actually 2000), aspect ratio 1.85:1 (actually 2.35:1), audio in stereo (actually 5.1).


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's that _all_ of the Universal re-releases talked about have the Dolby Atmos logo, but spec listed as DTS Master Audio. I think it very well may be a printing error.


I have 99.9% confirmation the new Oblivion is NOT Atmos....

Looks like some of the back cover art was grabbed from Unbroken.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I have 99.9% confirmation the new Oblivion is NOT Atmos....
> 
> Looks like some of the back cover art was grabbed from Unbroken.


Damn. Then that means _The Nutty Professor _isn't either.


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> I have 99.9% confirmation the new Oblivion is NOT Atmos....
> 
> Looks like some of the back cover art was grabbed from Unbroken.


That's it, you just sealed the deal....I just cancelled my Oblivion order


----------



## curtishd

So I am a little confused here and just want to clear something up.
I have a 7.1 set up now and I like using all 7.1 speakers so I use my receivers DSP to use all 7.1 speakers even when it's a 5.1 original mix. Are there any receivers that can do 7.1.2 and use all the speakers at the same time if the mix calls for it and is there a way to also get all 7.1.2 speakers working at the same time if the mix is originally 5.1? 
Now what receivers can do all that and has the new HDMI 2.0 HDCP 2.2 (either averrable now or later this year)?


----------



## Stanton

curtishd said:


> So I am a little confused here and just want to clear something up.
> I have a 7.1 set up now and I like using all 7.1 speakers so I use my receivers DSP to use all 7.1 speakers even when it's a 5.1 original mix. Are there any receivers that can do 7.1.2 and use all the speakers at the same time if the mix calls for it and is there a way to also get all 7.1.2 speakers working at the same time if the mix is originally 5.1?
> Now what receivers can do all that and has the new HDMI 2.0 HDCP 2.2 (either available now or later this year)?


The short answer is we don't know yet, but will soon. What are you using now to drive your system? The long answer is probably almost ALL high-end 2015 AVRs will do what you're describing AND have HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. In fact, if the low-end Onkyo's and Yamaha's (which HAVE been announced for 2015) have full bandwidth HDCP 2.2, then the high-end stuff has to; at least that's one big question answered.


----------



## statking

Watched Unbroken last night. Great movie, great sound, however, i could not get display of my onkyo tx-nr636 to show or use my height speakers. Would only show up as true HD 5.1.0 not 5.1.2. I have bitstream (audiophile) coming out of my BR samsung player. Any ideas? 
Would like to experience it in its fullest glory. Same happens with atmos sampler from Vudu. Blue ray player is BD-c6500. Have latest software on both bd and onkyo. 
Thanks.


----------



## Csbooth

statking said:


> Watched Unbroken last night. Great movie, great sound, however, i could not get display of my onkyo tx-nr636 to show or use my height speakers. Would only show up as true HD 5.1.0 not 5.1.2. I have bitstream (audiophile) coming out of my BR samsung player. Any ideas?
> Would like to experience it in its fullest glory. Same happens with atmos sampler from Vudu. Blue ray player is BD-c6500. Have latest software on both bd and onkyo.
> Thanks.


Verify that secondary audio bitstreaming is disabled from your blu-ray player, that is the most likely culprit. Bitstreaming needs to be direct, if it's adulterated in any way, it will not process the object metadata. 

Also, of course check that you actually selected the Atmos track in the movie itself, lol you wouldn't believe how common of a mistake that one is. It's akin to when a pro builds a PC and tries to turn it on, except that it won't; so they begin to curse at everything, until finally realizing that they forgot to plug the power cord in, or toggle the PSU power switch to the on position haha.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

statking said:


> Watched Unbroken last night. Great movie, great sound, however, i could not get display of my onkyo tx-nr636 to show or use my height speakers. Would only show up as true HD 5.1.0 not 5.1.2. I have bitstream (audiophile) coming out of my BR samsung player. Any ideas?
> Would like to experience it in its fullest glory. Same happens with atmos sampler from Vudu. Blue ray player is BD-c6500. Have latest software on both bd and onkyo.
> Thanks.


What are the options with the Movie button (red) when you play the soundtrack ?


----------



## aaranddeeman

SteveTheGeek said:


> What are the options with the Movie button (red) when you play the soundtrack ?


He has Onkyo. Unless it's remote has similar buttons like Denon... (then I am wrong)


----------



## statking

Csbooth said:


> Verify that secondary audio bitstreaming is disabled from your blu-ray player, that is the most likely culprit. Bitstreaming needs to be direct, if it's adulterated in any way, it will not process the object metadata.
> 
> Also, of course check that you actually selected the Atmos track in the movie itself, lol you wouldn't believe how common of a mistake that one is. It's akin to when a pro builds a PC and tries to turn it on, except that it won't; so they begin to curse at everything, until finally realizing that they forgot to plug the power cord in, or toggle the PSU power switch to the on position haha.


Atmos track was selected and there does not seem to be secondary audio.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

aaranddeeman said:


> He has Onkyo. Unless it's remote has similar buttons like Denon... (then I am wrong)


I have an Onkyo too, the Movie/TV button is used to select the surround mode for movies.


----------



## statking

aaranddeeman said:


> He has Onkyo. Unless it's remote has similar buttons like Denon... (then I am wrong)


It does have red button and whole bunch of movie options. I selected dolby digital.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

statking said:


> It does have red button and whole bunch of movie options. I selected dolby digital.


Can you list me the different options available ?

Also if you press display on the Onkyo remote, what do you see there ?

And just to confirm, you are connected in HDMI between your Blu-ray and your Receiver ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

statking said:


> Atmos track was selected and there does not seem to be secondary audio.


He means Secondary Audio in the *player's* setup menu. Turn it off. Even turn off the dynamic range control setting if the player has it.


----------



## rsoares28

I currently have a 5.1 system with surrounds about ear level 1.5 feet to the rear of my couch. If I can't move the surrounds to the sides is there any advantage of adding two more speakers and going 7.1? The 2 extra speakers would be about 4 feet behind the couch and wall mounted. 

I already added 4 speakers for height (no atmos avr yet, waiting for dtsx)

Thanks for the advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

rsoares28 said:


> I currently have a 5.1 system with surrounds about ear level 1.5 feet to the rear of my couch. If I can't move the surrounds to the sides *is there any advantage of adding two more speakers and going 7.1?* The 2 extra speakers would be about 4 feet behind the couch and wall mounted.
> 
> I already added 4 speakers for height (no atmos avr yet, waiting for dtsx)
> 
> Thanks for the advice.


Is there any advantage? Absolutely! You will get additional coverage behind you, whether matrixed or via a native 7.1 source. My setup is somewhat similarly configured and it works fine. The placement may not be optimal, but few of us have the flexibility to approach the ideal.


----------



## rsoares28

chi_guy50 said:


> Is there any advantage? Absolutely! You will get additional coverage behind you, whether matrixed or via a native 7.1 source. My setup is somewhat similarly configured and it works fine. The placement may not be optimal, but few of us have the flexibility to approach the ideal.



Thank you very much for the reply. I was thinking having 4 speakers behind me might be redundant and I won't be able to distinguish between them

Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

rsoares28 said:


> Thank you very much for the reply. I was thinking having 4 speakers behind me might be redundant and I won't be able to distinguish between them
> 
> Thanks


Based on the parameters you gave I don't think you will have that problem, but there are ways in which you can increase the separation.

The recommended azimuth ranges for Sr and SB speakers are 90° - 110° and 135° - 150°, respectively. With your surrounds slightly behind you, you could place your SBL/R closer together if necessary to further separate them from the surrounds. Since the SB, as you described them, will be on a higher elevation plane that will also help to distinguish their location from the surrounds. You should also consider factoring your rear height pair into the equation in order to maximize the overall coverage in the rear sound stage and avoid unnecessary clustering. With a rather generous range of recommended elevation angles there should be ample opportunity to arrive at a very workable arrangement. If they are not already permanently installed, you can try experimenting to find the best placement for this pair (ideally probably as TM directly above or slightly forward of the MLP.).


----------



## rsoares28

That makes sense.. I will raise the elevation a bit of the SB, see my pics below











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fizban11

*Replacement Gear - Advice needed*

Ladies and Gents, I'm needing some advice. I'll try to be brief in my sob story, here. I'm tech savvy, not an expert, and I'm 43, so not a child - more of an enthusiast that was allowed by my wife to have a little fun with the front room over the last 11 years.

I had a 7.1 setup with a Pioneer Elite SC-27 (THX Ultra 2), Elite Blu-Ray, etc. On April 22nd, we took a direct lightning strike which took out anything connected to network and any components that were connected to the power centers, including the power centers. Long story short, we lost 90%+ of all electronics and appliances. We are to settle with insurance this coming week and should have plenty of money to do what I want (within reason, according to my fantastic wife!) It's almost like I am able to hit a reset switch. 

Obviously, I want to future-proof as much as possible, which would include HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 all the same in the signal pathways. Additionally, from what I can tell, companies are moving away from THX certification. The insurance will be paying for a Pre-Pro/Amp that is THX U2+ for the front room due to me having a THX Ultra 2 receiver before, but what I do with the money is up to us. I've had a rough time finding a current-year model AVR that is THX U2+ rated. All seem to be Select 2+. Insurance will only put me back into a 7.1 setup, so speakers for Atmos (if I go that route) will wait until I pay for extra speakers myself (read: my wife allows me.) However, I want to obtain a Pre-Pro/Amp that is also rated for Atmos for the future.

Here's my issues: 
1)This HDMI 2.0 (4K 10 Gbps 4:2:0 vs 4K 18 Gbps full 4:4:4) and HDCP 2.2 has me reeling. Even with a spreadsheet to try and sort it out, I keep confusing myself. Reading through this and other threads has moved me toward what I hope is all gear that will work together.
2) Amps - I wanted to only purchase 1, not 2 - but to have the capability to drive all channels of the Marantz (see below), I either get a single Yamaha MX-A5000 or, to keep all power ratings the same across all channels, dual Onkyo PA-MC5501's or dual Marantz MM8077's. 

The gear I have nearly settled on to replace things:
Front Room:
Samsung UN65JS9500
Marantz AV8802A controller - revision from AV8802 ships in June and will have the new HDMI 2.0 (4:4:4 18Gbps)/HDCP 2.2 on all ports from what I understand. The only drawback I can see with this unit is it will not allow bi-amping to speakers other than FL+FR and only if in a 9.1 setup (If I am reading the manual correctly. )
(I have waffled back and forth regarding the Onkyo PR-SC5530 due to only HDMI#3 being HDCP 2.2 and the published Chroma being 4:2:0) IF Onkyo announces before July 1st a PR-SC5550 or if they implement a hardware change/upgrade on the PR-SC5530, I may need to revisit. I am willing to give up THX U2+ rating if that means that all HDMI ports will be HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 (4:4:4 18Gbps.)
Blu-Ray TBD later this year for 4K pass-through and native 4K disc support
Home Theater company here made a recommendation to insurance for the B&W 800 diamond series (803 FL+FR, 805 Surr and Back L+R, HTM2 Center (Centre), DB1 Sub.)

Samsung UN55JS9000 for the bedroom
Pioneer Elite VSX-90 for the bedroom
B&W Mini Theater MDT-60D speakers set for the bedroom
Blu-ray TBD later this year.

Obviously, we lost more than these components, but I wanted to stick to the AV gear. Any suggestions, problems, hesitations, etc., please speak up. I'm genuinely trying to make sure I don't make any mistakes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fizban11 said:


> Ladies and Gents, I'm needing some advice. I'll try to be brief in my sob story, here. I'm tech savvy, not an expert, and I'm 43, so not a child - more of an enthusiast that was allowed by my wife to have a little fun with the front room over the last 11 years.
> 
> I had a 7.1 setup with a Pioneer Elite SC-27 (THX Ultra 2), Elite Blu-Ray, etc. On April 22nd, we took a direct lightning strike which took out anything connected to network and any components that were connected to the power centers, including the power centers. Long story short, we lost 90%+ of all electronics and appliances. We are to settle with insurance this coming week and should have plenty of money to do what I want (within reason, according to my fantastic wife!) It's almost like I am able to hit a reset switch.
> 
> Obviously, I want to future-proof as much as possible, which would include HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 all the same in the signal pathways. Additionally, from what I can tell, companies are moving away from THX certification. The insurance will be paying for a Pre-Pro/Amp that is THX U2+ for the front room due to me having a THX Ultra 2 receiver before, but what I do with the money is up to us. I've had a rough time finding a current-year model AVR that is THX U2+ rated. All seem to be Select 2+. Insurance will only put me back into a 7.1 setup, so speakers for Atmos (if I go that route) will wait until I pay for extra speakers myself (read: my wife allows me.) However, I want to obtain a Pre-Pro/Amp that is also rated for Atmos for the future.
> 
> Here's my issues:
> 1)This HDMI 2.0 (4K 10 Gbps 4:2:0 vs 4K 18 Gbps full 4:4:4) and HDCP 2.2 has me reeling. Even with a spreadsheet to try and sort it out, I keep confusing myself. Reading through this and other threads has moved me toward what I hope is all gear that will work together.
> 2) Amps - I wanted to only purchase 1, not 2 - but to have the capability to drive all channels of the Marantz (see below), I either get a single Yamaha MX-A5000 or, to keep all power ratings the same across all channels, dual Onkyo PA-MC5501's or dual Marantz MM8077's.
> 
> The gear I have nearly settled on to replace things:
> Front Room:
> Samsung UN65JS9500
> Marantz AV8802A controller - revision from AV8802 ships in June and will have the new HDMI 2.0 (4:4:4 18Gbps)/HDCP 2.2 on all ports from what I understand. The only drawback I can see with this unit is it will not allow bi-amping to speakers other than FL+FR and only if in a 9.1 setup (If I am reading the manual correctly. )
> (I have waffled back and forth regarding the Onkyo PR-SC5530 due to only HDMI#3 being HDCP 2.2 and the published Chroma being 4:2:0) IF Onkyo announces before July 1st a PR-SC5550 or if they implement a hardware change/upgrade on the PR-SC5530, I may need to revisit. I am willing to give up THX U2+ rating if that means that all HDMI ports will be HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 (4:4:4 18Gbps.)
> Blu-Ray TBD later this year for 4K pass-through and native 4K disc support
> Home Theater company here made a recommendation to insurance for the B&W 800 diamond series (803 FL+FR, 805 Surr and Back L+R, HTM2 Center (Centre), DB1 Sub.)
> 
> Samsung UN55JS9000 for the bedroom
> Pioneer Elite VSX-90 for the bedroom
> B&W Mini Theater MDT-60D speakers set for the bedroom
> Blu-ray TBD later this year.
> 
> Obviously, we lost more than these components, but I wanted to stick to the AV gear. Any suggestions, problems, hesitations, etc., please speak up. I'm genuinely trying to make sure I don't make any mistakes.


Sorry for your loss. I would look into adding a whole house surge protector at the main breaker. The surge "protectors" at equipment level are only a second line of defense.

I'd go with the Marantz AV8802A (I'd bet AV Science would have a competitive price on that unit). It will also have a DTS: X software upgrade coming later this year (so, you end up getting 7.1.4 Atmos and X immersive surround decoding and HDMI 2.0, 18 Gbps with HDCP 2.2). 

Do not bi-amp. It is absolutely not worth the trouble.

As for amplifiers... It's hard to recommend something without first knowing what speakers you are using.  I would, however, split up the load and get two or three "smaller" amps rather than one big bruiser, so you end up with heftier power supplies for each amp channel and more dynamic headroom, superior driver damping, better cross talk specs., etc.


----------



## fizban11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry for your loss. I would look into adding a whole house surge protector at the main breaker. The surge "protectors" at equipment level are only a second line of defense.
> 
> I'd go with the Marantz AV8802A. It will also have a DTS: X upgrade later this year (so, you end up getting 7.1.4 Atmos and X immersive surround decoding and HDMI 2.0, 18 Gbps with HDCP 2.2).
> 
> Do not bi-amp. It is absolutely not worth the trouble.
> 
> As for amplifiers... It's hard to recommend something without first knowing what speakers you are using.  I would, however, split up the load and get two or three amps rather than one big bruiser, so you end up with heftier power supplies for each amp channel.


Thanks, Dan. It physically hurts me to walk by my SC-27 that seems to be a paper-weight right now! The DTX:X upgrade is a nice reward later this year.

Splitting up to dual or triple amps - not sure what you mean by "heftier power supplies."

Whole home surge - I'll look into that first thing Tuesday after the holiday weekend. It's a great suggestion! I wonder if there is something like that for ethernet cables in the house?

Speakers: My home theater company here is working with the insurance, so it's the recommendation that they submitted of B&W 800 diamond series (see above).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fizban11 said:


> Thanks, Dan. It physically hurts me to walk by my SC-27 that seems to be a paper-weight right now! The DTX:X upgrade is a nice reward later this year.
> 
> Splitting up to dual or triple amps - not sure what you mean by "heftier power supplies."
> 
> Whole home surge - I'll look into that first thing Tuesday after the holiday weekend. It's a great suggestion! I wonder if there is something like that for ethernet cables in the house?
> 
> Speakers: My home theater company here is working with the insurance, so it's the recommendation that they submitted of B&W 800 diamond series (see above).


Sorry, didn't see the speaker bit. Lots to sift through.  

The really, really big multi-channel amps (like 11 or more) don't have enough chassis room to give you larger power supply sections for each amplifier in the box. They're overall weaker products than units with fewer channels and more room for beefier and more capable power supplies. 

I would consider putting some extra skin in the game due to the demands of those B&W speakers and highly recommend the Parasound THX Ultra2 certified Halo A31 for the front three, and two THX Ultra2 certified Halo A23's for the main layer surrounds (and add two more when you get overheads). Parasound Halo amps also come in black now, not just silver. Buttery smooth audiophile sound with power to spare for those intense movie moments.
* 
OR* 

The Anthem MCA 30 (front three) and Anthem PVA 8 (four main level surrounds and four overheads). Great bang for the buck in high quality Canadian amps.


----------



## fizban11

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry, didn't see the speaker bit. Lots to sift through.


I dropped a lot of info, sorry! As much as my wife love's me, I'm not sure I would survive spending the money on 3 Parasound amps! I'll look into the Anthem's tonight.


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sorry, didn't see the speaker bit. Lots to sift through.
> 
> The really, really big multi-channel amps (like 11 or more) don't have enough chassis room to give you larger power supply sections for each amplifier in the box. They're overall weaker products than units with fewer channels and more room for beefier and more capable power supplies.
> 
> I would consider putting some extra skin in the game due to the demands of those B&W speakers and highly recommend the Parasound THX Ultra2 certified Halo A31 for the front three, and two THX Ultra2 certified Halo A23's for the main layer surrounds (and add two more when you get overheads). Parasound Halo amps also come in black now, not just silver. Buttery smooth audiophile sound with power to spare for those intense movie moments.
> *
> OR*
> 
> The Anthem MCA 30 (front three) and Anthem PVA 8 (four main level surrounds and four overheads). Great bang for the buck in high quality Canadian amps.


Hi Dan, I am also considering to go with separates. So other than Marantz 8802, what other preamps you could recommend for 7.1.4 (atmos &DTS X)? Denon? Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Hi Dan, I am also considering to go with separates. So other than Marantz 8802, what other preamps you could recommend for 7.1.4 (atmos &DTS X)? Denon? Thanks.


The others I can think of that are out or have been announced jump up_ considerably _in price. I think the new AV8802A with newer HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 built-in is probably the best "deal" in pre-amps right now considering it will get DTS: X as well. If you can afford it, it's a good one.


----------



## jdsmoothie

fizban11 said:


> Marantz AV8802A controller - revision from *AV8802 ships in June* and will have the new HDMI 2.0 (4:4:4 18Gbps)/HDCP 2.2 on all ports from what I understand.


Correct, although you don't have to wait until June as the AV8802A is available now if located in the USA. Call us at AVScience for pricing and shipping time information if interested.  The replacement for the AV7702 (AV7703?) with HDCP 2.2, Atmos, and DTS:X should be available starting this October.


----------



## Roudan

jdsmoothie said:


> Correct, although you don't have to wait until June as the AV8802A is available now if located in the USA. Call us at AVScience for pricing and shipping time information if interested.  The replacement for the AV7702 (AV7703?) with HDCP 2.2, Atmos, and DTS:X should be available starting this October.


Hi JD, How big difference between 7702 and 8802? I know 8802 is better and it is very expensive as well. The price of 8802 is almost double of 7702, but they have same 11 channels. I am wondering if it is worth to buy 8802? Please advise! Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Hi JD, How big difference between 7702 and 8802? I know 8802 is better and it is very expensive as well. The price of 8802 is almost double of 7702, but they have same 11 channels. I am wondering if it is worth to buy 8802? Please advise! Thanks.


The 7702 will not be getting upgrades of HDMI 18 Gbps or DTS:X. As JD mentioned, its replacement will. You'll have to wait until October, however.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Finally I timber matched my heights to the rest of the system. I have JBL northridge E series bed (FL,FR=E80, C=EC25, FWL,FWR=E60, Surrounds=E10) and now replaced the 4 heights (that were JBL N24-II) with E10s.
Not that it will make a huge difference, but at least I am happy..


----------



## jdsmoothie

Dan Hitchman said:


> *The 7702 will not be getting upgrades of HDMI 18 Gbps* or DTS:X. As JD mentioned, its replacement will. You'll have to wait until October, however.


No need for an 18 Gbps upgrade, as the 2014 HDMI 2.0 D&M models (including the AV7702) can already do HDMI 2.0/18 Gbps (only the 2014 Onkyo and Sony AVRs cannot as they are only capable of 10.2 Gbps).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jdsmoothie said:


> No need for an 18 Gbps upgrade, as the 2014 HDMI 2.0 D&M models (including the AV7702) can already do HDMI 2.0/18 Gbps (only the 2014 Onkyo and Sony AVRs cannot as they are only capable of 10.2 Gbps).


But they don't have or won't have DTS:X and no HDCP 2.2. The newer 2015 models and the few updated models fix that discrepancy with 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 together.


----------



## audiofan1

How much power are most using for there ceiling or height speakers for Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audiofan1 said:


> How much power are most using for there ceiling or height speakers for Atmos?


I think it really depends on the particular make and model being utilized and how much volume they're wanting to push through the overheads (due to room volume, SPL numbers wanted, etc.).


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it really depends on the particular make and model being utilized and how much volume they're wanting to push through the overheads (due to room volume, SPL numbers wanted, etc.).



I'm running an A21 for mains and an Anthem MCA 30 for center and surrounds crossed at 80hz in a 3400 room with the occasional playback at reference volume, I'm wondering if I can get away with 50-100 watts seeing the speakers I'm planning are crossed even higher(150hz ?) and closer than the others.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Here's your first Dts:x bluray
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16835


----------



## wse

Brian Fineberg said:


> Here's your first Dts:x bluray http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16835


Cool  How is the movie


----------



## NorthSky

I have read that it's really really good. ...Much better than 'Avatar', and than 'Gravity' too.

...Equal to 'John Wick', in the "cool" factor, but still better. ...Less violence, more human. ...And not as good as 'Lucy' though; but for some it is.


----------



## helvetica bold

Does anyone own the new Kindle fire w/ Atmos? Are there any movies to stream that take advantage of Atmos or it enhances all mobile audio? 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UKTexan

helvetica bold said:


> Does anyone own the new Kindle fire w/ Atmos? Are there any movies to stream that take advantage of Atmos or it enhances all mobile audio?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I bought my wife the kindle fire HDX8.9 when it first came out. 
The only Atmos content are a few trailers. I contacted Amazon shortly after purchasing and was informed Atmos content was due in a few weeks. That did not materialize. I don't believe it has a DSU type setting, the audio sounded like regular stereo to me. The Atmos trailers were very impressive though, shame the content has not yet come to fruition.


----------



## WayneJoy

I liked Ex Machina but much preferred Gravity.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

WayneJoy said:


> I liked Ex Machina but much preferred Gravity.


It was the exact opposite for me, though I couldn't stand much of Gravity's script.


----------



## scarabaeus

*Oblivion Re-release*

Just received my copy of Oblivion (USPS holiday delivery, when did they start that?). Sad to say: It does not have Atmos.

The Blu-ray is identical to the previously released one, down to the same ID number on the inner ring.

The only differences are:
- No DVD copy
- No cardboard sleeve
- Different (and erroneous) back cover design

Let's see if Amazon accepts an open Blu-ray as a return.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

scarabaeus said:


> Just received my copy of Oblivion (USPS holiday delivery, when did they start that?). Sad to say: It does not have Atmos.
> 
> The Blu-ray is identical to the previously released one, down to the same ID number on the inner ring.
> 
> The only differences are:
> - No DVD copy
> - No cardboard sleeve
> - Different (and erroneous) back cover design
> 
> Let's see if Amazon accepts an open Blu-ray as a return.


They better. You bought it for Atmos. It doesn't have it, though it's labeled as such.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> It was the exact opposite for me, though I couldn't stand much of Gravity's script.


Same here Gravity was probably the worts movie I saw I am glad I rented it!


----------



## wse

scarabaeus said:


> Just received my copy of Oblivion (USPS holiday delivery, when did they start that?). Sad to say: It does not have Atmos.
> 
> The Blu-ray is identical to the previously released one, down to the same ID number on the inner ring.
> 
> The only differences are:
> - No DVD copy
> - No cardboard sleeve
> - Different (and erroneous) back cover design
> 
> Let's see if Amazon accepts an open Blu-ray as a return.


That sucks you should send it back!


----------



## aaranddeeman

UKTexan said:


> I bought my wife the kindle fire HDX8.9 when it first came out.
> The only Atmos content are a few trailers. I contacted Amazon shortly after purchasing and was informed Atmos content was due in a few weeks. That did not materialize. I don't believe it has a DSU type setting, the audio sounded like regular stereo to me. The Atmos trailers were very impressive though, shame the content has not yet come to fruition.


So how does this work. It comes with a contraption in a shape of hemisphere with 11 small speakers... 
Else how you will get Atmos.
(Yes, you may be able to connect it to the AVR, but then it's like any other player)


----------



## UKTexan

aaranddeeman said:


> So how does this work. It comes with a contraption in a shape of hemisphere with 11 small speakers...
> Else how you will get Atmos.
> (Yes, you may be able to connect it to the AVR, but then it's like any other player)


It's pseudo Atmos via headphones, similar in concept to Dts headphone X. Actually works quite well, but no match for a true Atmos setup of course. You do not connect it to your AVR.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> It was the exact opposite for me, though I couldn't stand much of Gravity's script.


Wasn't impressed with Gravity's script either.


----------



## Frank714

Dan Hitchman said:


> They better.  You bought it for Atmos. It doesn't have it, though it's labeled as such.


What's the story here? A more expensive re-release with the same content?  

Indeed, the back cover says "Dolby Atmos" but doesn't specify for which part. 

P.S. Over at Blu-ray.com general consent appears to be it's a misprint that should have read "Dolby Audio" only. Still, what additional extras are there compared to the previous release?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Frank714 said:


> What's the story here? A more expensive re-release with the same content?
> 
> Indeed, the back cover says "Dolby Atmos" but doesn't specify for which part.
> 
> P.S. Over at Blu-ray.com general consent appears to be it's a misprint that should have read "Dolby Audio" only. Still, what additional extras are there compared to the previous release?


It's called "Milking"...


----------



## Wild Blue

scarabaeus said:


> Just received my copy of Oblivion (USPS holiday delivery, when did they start that?). Sad to say: It does not have Atmos.
> 
> The Blu-ray is identical to the previously released one, down to the same ID number on the inner ring.
> 
> The only differences are:
> - No DVD copy
> - No cardboard sleeve
> - Different (and erroneous) back cover design
> 
> Let's see if Amazon accepts an open Blu-ray as a return.


Disappointed to hear it doesn't really have Atmos. But you're saying the final product rear cover really still says Atmos? I was assuming it was just an internet labeling goof, if it didn't turn out to have Atmos. That's totally unsat, though, if it really is labeled Atmos and doesn't have it.


----------



## scarabaeus

Chris Dotur said:


> Disappointed to hear it doesn't really have Atmos. But you're saying the final product rear cover really still says Atmos? I was assuming it was just an internet labeling goof, if it didn't turn out to have Atmos. That's totally unsat, though, if it really is labeled Atmos and doesn't have it.


The picture of the back cover on Amazon is accurate. There is an Atmos logo next to the DTS logos, but the soundtrack description in the box does not mention Atmos. It looks to be a mistake by the graphics designer, and should have been a TrueHD logo (as it was on the first release), for the isolated score track (TrueHD 96kHz).


----------



## Cinema Gary

I'm looking to go 7.1.4 I have read the various very informative threads on here and Dolby's website and other articles in relation to Dolby Atmos at home, however nowhere have I read how to work out positioning and distance just angles etc 

My room is 14 feet (long) by 8 feet (wide) as I understand it the front pair of in ceilings should be at the halfway point in the room about 7 feet.

I currently have a 7.1 set up an Anthem MRX710 amplifier, monitor audio in wall cpw gs L/C/R and 4 rx-fx surround speakers and Velodyne spl 800 ultra sub.

Our seats are about 2 1/2 feet from the back wall as the room is quite small so I guess the rear in ceilings would be positioned about 2 feet from the rear wall ?

I apologize in advance if this has been covered before hope somebody can give advice or point me in the right direction


----------



## Cinema Gary

I'm looking to go 7.1.4 I have read the various very informative threads on here and Dolby's website and other articles in relation to Dolby Atmos at home, however nowhere have I read how to work out positioning and distance just angles etc 

My room is 14 feet (long) by 8 feet (wide) as I understand it the front pair of in ceilings should be at the halfway point in the room about 7 feet.

I currently have a 7.1 set up an Anthem MRX710 amplifier, monitor audio in wall cpw gs L/C/R and 4 rx-fx surround speakers and Velodyne spl 800 ultra sub.

Our seats are about 2 1/2 feet from the back wall as the room is quite small so I guess the rear in ceilings would be positioned about 2 feet from the rear wall ?

I apologize in advance if this has been covered before hope somebody can give advice or point me in the right direction


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Here's your first Dts:x bluray
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16835


so this movie has a English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 so when i listen on my Non DTS:X receiver it will only be 5.1???

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ex-Machina-Blu-ray/128113/


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> so this movie has a English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 so when i listen on my Non DTS:X receiver it will only be 5.1???


I'm guessing the DTS:X track will have a backwards-compatible 7.1-channel core, the way Atmos tracks do. Since that mix was created solely for home video, the 5.1 track is included in case you wanted to hear the original mix done for theatrical release.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> I'm guessing the DTS:X track will have a backwards-compatible 7.1-channel core, the way Atmos tracks do. Since that mix was created solely for home video, the 5.1 track is included in case you wanted to hear the original mix done for theatrical release.


thank you that's what i thought


----------



## AidenL

I was about to buy some Definitive Technology DI 8 R for sides and rears and DI 6.5 R for Atmos overheads.

They don't have back boxes, just wondering would they be a wise choice - I know backboxes help with bass, but I guess surrounds and overheads aren't bass critical?

My other options are Monitor Audio CP CT 380 IDC and CP WT 380 IDC which do have back boxes.

Any thoughts on whats best suited? Both brands have directable tweeters.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Brian Fineberg said:


> Here's your first Dts:x bluray
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16835


That's a much better way to start out than transformers!



wse said:


> Cool  How is the movie


I liked Ex Machina, fantastic visuals, fun actors to watch, many surprises, & philosophical on some levels. The only problem with it was the same problem that I had with Interstellar... scientists that need very simple concepts explained which would be common knowledge with their fields. Like... I don't think a programmer who's specialty is AI really needs an explanation of the turing test is. In interstellar I literally scoffed when an astronaut needed to be told how a wormhole works with a drawn diagram. But aside from that... I think it's a film well worth owning. The sound for Ex Machina was very good too... and I wondered why it wasn't given an Atmos mix to begin with. 

(I'm sure the feeling I got from that is the same feeling that a computer programmer gets when watching someone is computer programming in a movie)


----------



## wse

bargervais said:


> so this movie has a English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 so when i listen on my Non DTS:X receiver it will only be 5.1???
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ex-Machina-Blu-ray/128113/


Looks like a cool movie!

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/exmachina/


----------



## Aras_Volodka

AidenL said:


> I was about to buy some Definitive Technology DI 8 R for sides and rears and DI 6.5 R for Atmos overheads.
> 
> They don't have back boxes, just wondering would they be a wise choice - I know backboxes help with bass, but I guess surrounds and overheads aren't bass critical?
> 
> My other options are Monitor Audio CP CT 380 IDC and CP WT 380 IDC which do have back boxes.
> 
> Any thoughts on whats best suited? Both brands have directable tweeters.


Not trying to start a debate about speakers & such... I'd avoid Definitive Technology if you could for floor speakers & surrounds. I think you'd get much better bang for your buck with buying used Klipsch reference series... I A/B'd in a guy's house with surrounds, and even though I had planned to get the definitive tech surrounds, I ended up leaving his house with the klipsch... the difference was far from subtle! 

My bro in law has high end def tech floor speakers which I thought sounded very puny in comparison with my Klipsch Chorus II's (which you can pick up for 700 a pair... I think his were almost 2k a pair?). Though... he ended up buying the bowers & wilkins 800 series which blew my Klipsh out of the water... but those set him back a cool 10 k.

I can't offer much advice on in ceiling speakers... he got speakers that were 800 bucks a pair. I will say in all honesty they seemed to sound much better than my Atlantic tech 44-DA's... I can try to get the model # for you... I was impressed with what I heard... but only a few clips from transformers. He has 8' ceilings.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

AidenL said:


> I was about to buy some Definitive Technology DI 8 R for sides and rears and DI 6.5 R for Atmos overheads.
> 
> They don't have back boxes, just wondering would they be a wise choice - I know backboxes help with bass, but I guess surrounds and overheads aren't bass critical?
> 
> My other options are Monitor Audio CP CT 380 IDC and CP WT 380 IDC which do have back boxes.
> 
> Any thoughts on whats best suited? Both brands have directable tweeters.


I was gonna mention, some beefy sounds do get sent to rears & sides with Atmos... it doesn't seem like it happens often but if you can budget for that I think it will pay off in the long run. (Like in the film "unbroken" I heard some big explosions coming from behind me when the flak is going off @ the start of the movie). When I was watching breaking bad recently I heard some loud gunfire coming from the back speakers... definitely full sounding. 

I used to have little 2" speakers for my sides & have noticed a huge jump up in audio quality when I got the new surrounds & floor speakers for rears.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> so this movie has a English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 so when i listen on my Non DTS:X receiver it will only be 5.1???
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ex-Machina-Blu-ray/128113/





sdurani said:


> I'm guessing the DTS:X track will have a backwards-compatible 7.1-channel core, the way Atmos tracks do. Since that mix was created solely for home video, the 5.1 track is included in case you wanted to hear the original mix done for theatrical release.


I have 7.1.4... I watched the DTS X demo disc & it definitely sounded very immersive, though some of the height stuff got goofed up in the animated short they put on the disc. 
They have a clip from a film where someone is underwater in a giant glass cage... the sound in that scene was *very* impressive... it really sounded like I was underwater in my living room... even more so than the underwater scene in Unbroken. 

Quick question... DTS 7.1 master discs... listen through the upmixer or no? I just got my copy of Dredd


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> DTS 7.1 master discs... listen through the upmixer or no?


Depends on whether you like what the upmixer does.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> That's a much better way to start out than transformers!
> 
> 
> 
> I liked Ex Machina, fantastic visuals, fun actors to watch, many surprises, & philosophical on some levels. The only problem with it was the same problem that I had with Interstellar... scientists that need very simple concepts explained which would be common knowledge with their fields. Like... I don't think a programmer who's specialty is AI really needs an explanation of the turing test is. In interstellar I literally scoffed when an astronaut needed to be told how a wormhole works with a drawn diagram. But aside from that... I think it's a film well worth owning. The sound for Ex Machina was very good too... and I wondered why it wasn't given an Atmos mix to begin with.
> 
> (I'm sure the feeling I got from that is the same feeling that a computer programmer gets when watching someone is computer programming in a movie)


The writers tend to have their characters explain things to the audience if it's anything scientific (it's not that the characters themselves are necessarily dumb). A lot probably don't know what the Turing Test is. 

However, after watching the movie, I would say that the film isn't really about AI or even robots at all, though they do take center stage. It's not hard to decipher the deeper meaning of the story as it's spelled out fairly plainly.  It's not the deepest sci-fi ever concocted, but it's a bit more thoughtful than many modern takes on the subject. It's a drama, and not an action packed Bay-splosion popcorn flick, so don't expect thrills and chills. 

I'll be getting it since it is much better than _Gravity_ and has DTS:X.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Would Gravity be improved as a movie if it was in DTS:X, Dan?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Would Gravity be improved as a movie if it was in DTS:X, Dan?


Nope. I have to have _some_ standards, Scott.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah but I thought DTS:X would fix all the issues you had with it and other movies.

DTS makes everything better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> DTS makes everything better.


_What can take a sunrise
Sprinkle it in dew
Cover it in chocolate
and a miracle or two?
DTS can
DTS can_


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Dan Hitchman said:


> _What can take a sunrise
> Sprinkle it in dew
> Cover it in chocolate
> and a miracle or two?
> DTS can
> DTS can_


We all know DTS has better bass, right  At least that's what Leonard said on "The Big Bang Theory"


----------



## zimmo

SCOTT SIMONIUM
DAN HITCHMAN
DAVE VAUGHN


THIS site is dolby atmos ,not dts-x, you like dts-x go to the site dts-x.


thank you


----------



## smurraybhm

zimmo said:


> SCOTT SIMONIUM
> DAN HITCHMAN
> DAVE VAUGHN
> 
> 
> THIS site is dolby atmos ,not dts-x, you like dts-x go to the site dts-x.
> 
> 
> thank you


Zimmo - we deviate from time-to-time, not much to discuss but the two object based formats, remember we bring up Auro here too and since both formats share a number of similarities I would disagree with your assessment that the discussion isn't relivate. You will see Atmos discussed on DTS:X thread as well, its all objective or should that be subjective. Life's short be


----------



## smurraybhm

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not trying to start a debate about speakers & such... I'd avoid Definitive Technology if you could for floor speakers & surrounds. I think you'd get much better bang for your buck with buying used Klipsch reference series... I A/B'd in a guy's house with surrounds, and even though I had planned to get the definitive tech surrounds, I ended up leaving his house with the klipsch... the difference was far from subtle!
> 
> My bro in law has high end def tech floor speakers which I thought sounded very puny in comparison with my Klipsch Chorus II's (which you can pick up for 700 a pair... I think his were almost 2k a pair?). Though... he ended up buying the bowers & wilkins 800 series which blew my Klipsh out of the water... but those set him back a cool 10 k.
> 
> I can't offer much advice on in ceiling speakers... he got speakers that were 800 bucks a pair. I will say in all honesty they seemed to sound much better than my Atlantic tech 44-DA's... I can try to get the model # for you... I was impressed with what I heard... but only a few clips from transformers. He has 8' ceilings.


And just to make it clear to the poster wondering about Def Techs I would respectfully disagree with Aras. There are a lot of great options out there, use what you like best/can afford, not what someone tells you should like. Just as Aras preferred one speaker over another, I prefer something else. There are many opinions (see speaker threads) on AVS regarding this subject as well.


----------



## stikle

Aras_Volodka said:


> listen through the upmixer or no? I just got my copy of Dredd


Dredd is specifically optimized for NEO:X (one of 3 that were), so try it in NEO:X first, then DSU...see what you think. I haven't gone back and compared yet myself.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dave Vaughn said:


> We all know DTS has better bass, right  At least that's what Leonard said on "The Big Bang Theory"



in DVD's first incarnation this was true...i.e. The haunting DTS version


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> in DVD's first incarnation this was true...i.e. The haunting DTS version


That 6.1 discrete track had insane, yet tight, structured bass. Too bad DTS doesn't fund their own remixes at Skywalker Ranch like they used to!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> Dredd is specifically optimized for NEO:X (one of 3 that were), so try it in NEO:X first, then DSU...see what you think. I haven't gone back and compared yet myself.


Ahh dang I listened to it with Upmixer... but the sound was very impressive. It's still no Atmos... but definitely very cool mixing tricks were utilized.


----------



## stikle

Brian Fineberg said:


> in DVD's first incarnation this was true...i.e. The haunting DTS version


I have that on DVD and still think it has some demo worthy audio that holds up today.


----------



## lujan

Dave Vaughn said:


> We all know DTS has better bass, right  At least that's what Leonard said on "The Big Bang Theory"


It's all about that base, no treble


----------



## Trigen

stikle said:


> Dredd is specifically optimized for NEO:X (one of 3 that were), so try it in NEO:X first, then DSU...see what you think. I haven't gone back and compared yet myself.


Four:
Dredd 3D
The Expendables 2
Step Up Revolutions
I, Frankenstein (DE version)


----------



## voodoogmr

Finally about to install an Atmos system in my den. My current Onkyo receiver (TX-SR608, under $600) was pricey for me. But when I saw a Pioneer SC-87 online with a nearly $800 discount for the holiday weekend, I couldn't pass it up.

Going to be running a 5.1.4 system to start. Not much room to play with and don't really want to install speakers in the ceiling (WAF), so just got 4 Atmos modules to add to my existing JBL speakers. 

Would it be best to run TF and TB, or do TF and TM? We only have 2 recliners against a wall, with the surrounds at ear level to the sides. I'm thinking TF/TB would be the way to go.

Anxious to hear this. Already have John Wick, and was really wanting to pick up Jupiter Ascending...until I read all the horrible reviews. Ouch.


----------



## Movie78

voodoogmr said:


> Finally about to install an Atmos system in my den. My current Onkyo receiver (TX-SR608, under $600) was pricey for me. But when I saw a Pioneer SC-87 online with a nearly $800 discount for the holiday weekend, I couldn't pass it up.
> 
> Going to be running a 5.1.4 system to start. Not much room to play with and don't really want to install speakers in the ceiling (WAF), so just got 4 Atmos modules to add to my existing JBL speakers.
> 
> Would it be best to run TF and TB, or do TF and TM? We only have 2 recliners against a wall, with the surrounds at ear level to the sides. I'm thinking TF/TB would be the way to go.
> 
> Anxious to hear this. Already have John Wick, and was really wanting to pick up Jupiter Ascending...until I read all the horrible reviews. Ouch.


You know what the saying is..

Once you go ATMOS you can go back..


----------



## witchdoctor

*What is Your Opinion of DSU?*

Given the lack of Atmos titles right now (less than 20) my decision on whether to spend $$$ on upgrading to Atmos is based on the value of the Atmos upmixer. For those of you already using it is it a subtle difference, blow you out of the water difference or is it more system dependent? I am only asking about the Atmos upmixer, not native Atmos content. Thanks


----------



## jrogers

witchdoctor said:


> Given the lack of Atmos titles right now (less than 20) my decision on whether to spend $$$ on upgrading to Atmos is based on the value of the Atmos upmixer. For those of you already using it is it a subtle difference, blow you out of the water difference or is it more system dependent? I am only asking about the Atmos upmixer, not native Atmos content. Thanks


I think it is somewhat system-dependent, but in my case I'd put it up toward a "blow you out of the water" difference. I - along with a number of others here - am re-watching (and re-listening to) a number of movies in my my existing blu-ray library just because of DSU.


----------



## cdelena

witchdoctor said:


> Given the lack of Atmos titles right now (less than 20) my decision on whether to spend $$$ on upgrading to Atmos is based on the value of the Atmos upmixer. For those of you already using it is it a subtle difference, blow you out of the water difference or is it more system dependent? I am only asking about the Atmos upmixer, not native Atmos content. Thanks


DSU is what got me to upgrade my system for Atmos. For me it was a notable difference for most of the source material we prefer. For some things it is subtle but most of the time it just adds a dimension you just would not have otherwise. It was pricey for me as getting the 7.1 speakers down to ear level took an upgrade and doing ceiling speakers in my room was a challenge but I am happy with the result and would do it again.


----------



## stikle

witchdoctor said:


> For those of you already using it is it a subtle difference, blow you out of the water difference or is it more system dependent?





jrogers said:


> in my case I'd put it up toward a "blow you out of the water" difference. I - along with a number of others here - am re-watching (and re-listening to) a number of movies in my my existing blu-ray library just because of DSU.


^This


----------



## witchdoctor

stikle said:


> ^This


Thanks everyone, that is just what I needed to know.


----------



## zeus33

Brian Fineberg said:


> in DVD's first incarnation this was true...i.e. The haunting DTS version



The difference was that the bass was boosted in the early DTS versions, correct?


----------



## batpig

voodoogmr said:


> Going to be running a 5.1.4 system to start.


Just FYI - but that's where you finish too  That Pioneer can only do 9 channels.



voodoogmr said:


> Not much room to play with and don't really want to install speakers in the ceiling (WAF), so just got 4 Atmos modules to add to my existing JBL speakers.
> 
> Would it be best to run TF and TB, or do TF and TM?


Those speaker positions aren't relevant since you are using Atmos enabled speakers -- there is a separate speaker location choice for those. Not sure exactly the nomenclature on Pioneer AVR's but you would select something like "Front Dolby + Surround Dolby" for a 5.1.4 setup with Atmos modules.


----------



## voodoogmr

batpig said:


> Just FYI - but that's where you finish too  That Pioneer can only do 9 channels.


Yeah, I'll need a new house in addition to a new AVR. Only way to have room to add more is if I placed the TV in front of our large picture window. That would make for a very unhappy wife 



batpig said:


> Those speaker positions aren't relevant since you are using Atmos enabled speakers -- there is a separate speaker location choice for those. Not sure exactly the nomenclature on Pioneer AVR's but you would select something like "Front Dolby + Surround Dolby" for a 5.1.4 setup with Atmos modules.


Ah, ok. Thanks for the info. The manual (which is a bit confusing) calls them Top Forward, Top Middle, and Top Backward, and that Dolby-enabled speakers can emulate those positions. It just doesn't specify a different physical location if it's a Dolby-enabled speaker. Fortunately, these are just going on stands, so I can move them around easily until I find the best position.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zeus33 said:


> The difference was that the bass was boosted in the early DTS versions, correct?


The Haunting, Gladiator, and a couple others, those that were DTS 6.1 Discrete on DVD, were remixed under the auspices of DTS since it was a new audio format at the time. Kind of like Dolby with Dolby Atmos Blu-ray's.


----------



## Trigen

Is there a reason Universal Pictures is shying away from Dolby Atmos as Furious 7 and Jurassic World both (big blockbusters) were released without Atmos?


----------



## WayneJoy

Universal has been a big supporter of DTS ever since 1993, maybe that has something to do with it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Not entirely atmos related, but I wanted to ask your guys' advice as I'm sure many of you know me well by now & might have an idea regarding what my setup is like. 

I'm considering relocating my 7.1.4 HT from the floor level living room down into the basement. However... there are some issues. The biggest one being that the basement has the potential to flood... several years ago I had nearly 3 foot deep water all over the basement. I don't think it will happen again due to some measures I took... but I can't eliminate the problem of seepage that comes in through some cracks... there are parts of the basement that still might get 1/4" to 1/2" of water... however, it doesn't end up in the spot where I'd place the HT. I had some issues before like a backed up sewer main & the neighbors gutters was shooting water into the space between our houses... that might not be an issue any more. Most of the things that I care about would be placed above where any flooding would occur... with the exception of the sub & floor speakers. 

I would install drainage tile if I could to ensure no more flooding occurs, but I can't afford it. 

So here are the pro's:

1. the basement is larger than my living room, it's length is twice as long, & there is room to place my surrounds a bit wider apart (currently both surrounds are only 4' from the MLP). It seems like the length might potentially go a long way in reducing standing waves possibly? (that keeps me from cranking up the sub as loud as I'd like it to be)

2. it's a basement... which might be pretty good for the sub right? I get a fair amount of rattling from upstairs. 

3. it will be less noisy for my family... so I might beable to crank the system a bit more. 

4. I can install in ceiling speakers in the basement, for several reasons I can't in the current living room. 

Cons:

1. flooded in the past/ seepage during big rainstorms. 

2. Due to the flooding, there is a lot of mold in the basement... or atleast it smells very musty. I'm prepared to clean it up because I have to anyway... but I've read that it's easier said than done. 

3. The ceiling is shorter, in my current space it's 7.5' tall... basement is about 7' tall ceilings.

4. The floor in the basement is tile floor, it might be simple to clean up but I'm wondering if I'd even have to bother/ if mildew might be trapped underneath the tile? 

If you guys have any other thoughts or have had to clean up a basement like that let me know.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Trigen said:


> Is there a reason Universal Pictures is shying away from Dolby Atmos as Furious 7 and Jurassic World both (big blockbusters) were released without Atmos?


Jurassic World _is_ getting released in Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Trigen said:


> Is there a reason Universal Pictures is shying away from Dolby Atmos as Furious 7 and *Jurassic World* both (big blockbusters) were released without Atmos?





Dan Hitchman said:


> Jurassic World _is_ getting released in Atmos.


Yes, *'Jurassic World'* in Dolby Atmos. /// ♦ http://heyevent.com/event/2bzyg2m7ixfcqa/jurassic-world-in-dolby-atmos

* *'Jurassic Park'* (Steven Spielberg - 1993) was the first home video release *dts* Laserdisc title in January 1997.

...And the first *dts:X* title to be released on Blu-ray (July 14, 2015) is my avatar (*X_Machina*).


----------



## Trigen

Dan Hitchman said:


> Jurassic World _is_ getting released in Atmos.





NorthSky said:


> Yes, *'Jurassic World'* in Dolby Atmos. /// ♦ http://heyevent.com/event/2bzyg2m7ixfcqa/jurassic-world-in-dolby-atmos
> 
> * *'Jurassic Park'* (Steven Spielberg - 1993) was the first home video release *dts* Laserdisc title in January 1997.
> 
> ...And the first *dts:X* title to be released on Blu-ray (July 14, 2015) is my avatar (*X_Machina*).


The IMDB page got updated with atmos being removed.

Also, I contacted the big two cinema chains here in Aus (that have Atmos rooms) and was informed it wasn't going to be in Atmos.

Plus looking on Facebook, the Seattle Cinerama Theatre is not playing it in Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Then it only means that it will most likely be in DTS:X ... maybe?


----------



## roxiedog13

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not entirely atmos related, but I wanted to ask your guys' advice as I'm sure many of you know me well by now & might have an idea regarding what my setup is like.
> 
> I'm considering relocating my 7.1.4 HT from the floor level living room down into the basement. However... there are some issues. The biggest one being that the basement has the potential to flood... several years ago I had nearly 3 foot deep water all over the basement. I don't think it will happen again due to some measures I took... but I can't eliminate the problem of seepage that comes in through some cracks... there are parts of the basement that still might get 1/4" to 1/2" of water... however, it doesn't end up in the spot where I'd place the HT. I had some issues before like a backed up sewer main & the neighbors gutters was shooting water into the space between our houses... that might not be an issue any more. Most of the things that I care about would be placed above where any flooding would occur... with the exception of the sub & floor speakers.
> 
> I would install drainage tile if I could to ensure no more flooding occurs, but I can't afford it.
> 
> So here are the pro's:
> 
> 1. the basement is larger than my living room, it's length is twice as long, & there is room to place my surrounds a bit wider apart (currently both surrounds are only 4' from the MLP). It seems like the length might potentially go a long way in reducing standing waves possibly? (that keeps me from cranking up the sub as loud as I'd like it to be)
> 
> 2. it's a basement... which might be pretty good for the sub right? I get a fair amount of rattling from upstairs.
> 
> 3. it will be less noisy for my family... so I might beable to crank the system a bit more.
> 
> 4. I can install in ceiling speakers in the basement, for several reasons I can't in the current living room.
> 
> Cons:
> 
> 1. flooded in the past/ seepage during big rainstorms.
> 
> 2. Due to the flooding, there is a lot of mold in the basement... or atleast it smells very musty. I'm prepared to clean it up because I have to anyway... but I've read that it's easier said than done.
> 
> 3. The ceiling is shorter, in my current space it's 7.5' tall... basement is about 7' tall ceilings.
> 
> 4. The floor in the basement is tile floor, it might be simple to clean up but I'm wondering if I'd even have to bother/ if mildew might be trapped underneath the tile?
> 
> If you guys have any other thoughts or have had to clean up a basement like that let me know.


I have my HT in my basement, it is certainly the correct place to have it in my home for sure. I too had a flood in my basement but that was 27 years ago and have never had an issue since. You need to solve the issue with the water first, if that is not done you will never feel safe . Alternatively ,there are water sensors that will trigger an alarm and relay that to your mobile phone . At least with this you would have a
heads up and can get home to remove the valuable equipment. Have all the electronics mounted high above the flood level, have all speakers on quick disconnects for quick removal. Even the screen would have to be able to unhook quickly as it too could be in the water if the ceiling height is average. 

Mold only happens with poor ventilation. I assume you have a air exchanger. Heating up a room will not remove moisture, it has to be ventilated. My basement is bone dry and pleasant, no different than any 
other room in my home. I know, I spend a lot of time there.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> I have my HT in my basement, it is certainly the correct place to have it in my home for sure. I too had a flood in my basement but that was 27 years ago and have never had an issue since. You need to solve the issue with the water first, if that is not done you will never feel safe . Alternatively ,there are water sensors that will trigger an alarm and relay that to your mobile phone . At least with this you would have a
> heads up and can get home to remove the valuable equipment. Have all the electronics mounted high above the flood level, have all speakers on quick disconnects for quick removal. Even the screen would have to be able to unhook quickly as it too could be in the water if the ceiling height is average.
> 
> Mold only happens with poor ventilation. I assume you have a air exchanger. Heating up a room will not remove moisture, it has to be ventilated. My basement is bone dry and pleasant, no different than any
> other room in my home. I know, I spend a lot of time there.


TY for the thoughts! This is a chicago bungalow home, (chicago=very flat, with houses about 6'-8' apart, which= water build up between houses during big rain storms). Last week I did clean out the gutters at my house & neighbors houses... so I'm hoping that solves that part of the issue... if so, I might not be getting seepage issues anymore. I'll wait until the next big storm to see if water still comes in. 

I actually don't know if I have an air exchanger or not... my place has central heat & A/C. I closed the vents to the basement since I never use it... might that solve the problem? When I start cleaning I might get a dehumidifier. Either case my basement is far from bone dry... haha. 

TY for the tip about the water sensor. 

I thought about one other pro... I should beable to paint the walls dark grey (not an option in my living room) should I ever decide to get a projector... but I've heard even with plasma TV's it helps to not have all white walls I take it?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

zimmo said:


> SCOTT SIMONIUM
> DAN HITCHMAN
> DAVE VAUGHN
> 
> 
> THIS site is dolby atmos ,not dts-x, you like dts-x go to the site dts-x.
> 
> 
> thank you


I'm not sure what the meaning of this post is. This site isn't about Dolby Atmos, or do you mean this thread?


----------



## FilmMixer

Trigen said:


> Is there a reason Universal Pictures is shying away from Dolby Atmos as Furious 7 and Jurassic World both (big blockbusters) were released without Atmos?


The sound crew of Fast 7 decided against it... Time and money vs benefit. 

Simple as that.

That was not a studio decision. 

I've been told the JW was being done in Atmos. If that has changed that would have NOTHING to do with DTS.


----------



## Stanton

Aras_Volodka said:


> Not entirely atmos related, but I wanted to ask your guys' advice as I'm sure many of you know me well by now & might have an idea regarding what my setup is like.
> 
> Cons:
> 
> 1. flooded in the past/ seepage during big rainstorms.
> 
> 2. Due to the flooding, there is a lot of mold in the basement... or at least it smells very musty. I'm prepared to clean it up because I have to anyway... but I've read that it's easier said than done.
> 
> 3. The ceiling is shorter, in my current space it's 7.5' tall... basement is about 7' tall ceilings.
> 
> 4. The floor in the basement is tile floor, it might be simple to clean up but I'm wondering if I'd even have to bother/ if mildew might be trapped underneath the tile?
> 
> If you guys have any other thoughts or have had to clean up a basement like that let me know.


The "cons" far out-weigh the "pros" for me. In fact, you could have stopped after #1 & #2 (and #4 won't help with audio). The truth is, you can place the Dolby height speakers on the side wall near the ceiling without moving your whole setup.


----------



## rboster

Dave Vaughn said:


> I'm not sure what the meaning of this post is. This site isn't about Dolby Atmos, or do you mean this thread?


He's talking about this thread. English is his second language. He uses google to translate his posts to english....so they may lack some of the subtle aspects of our language. I'm sure he meant no harm.


----------



## Alanlee

roxiedog13 said:


> I have my HT in my basement, it is certainly the correct place to have it in my home for sure. I too had a flood in my basement but that was 27 years ago and have never had an issue since. You need to solve the issue with the water first, if that is not done you will never feel safe . Alternatively ,there are water sensors that will trigger an alarm and relay that to your mobile phone . At least with this you would have a
> heads up and can get home to remove the valuable equipment.  Have all the electronics mounted high above the flood level, have all speakers on quick disconnects for quick removal. Even the screen would have to be able to unhook quickly as it too could be in the water if the ceiling height is average.
> 
> Mold only happens with poor ventilation. I assume you have a air exchanger. Heating up a room will not remove moisture, it has to be ventilated. My basement is bone dry and pleasant, no different than any
> other room in my home. I know, I spend a lot of time there.


 Excellent advice - In addition if you have not already, install sump pumps in your basement. In one of my previous homes, I installed tile (French drain), and three sump pumps below the level of the basement floor. I pumped the water up the basement wall and out to the side of the house. I also put a dehydrator in the basement to keep the air dry. When I installed the home theater, I put all the equipment at least four feet above the basement floor. We had two especially wet years where it seemed like the sump pumps were running full time. When it stopped raining, the dehydrator did a good job of pulling the water from the air. I did not lose any equipment, due to moisture, and the home theater in the basement made my wife very happy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zimmo said:


> SCOTT SIMONIUM
> DAN HITCHMAN
> DAVE VAUGHN
> 
> 
> THIS site is dolby atmos ,not dts-x, you like dts-x go to the site dts-x.
> 
> 
> thank you


Umm yeah, that was the joke. 

And who is Scott Simonium? New element on the periodic table? Hell yes.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stanton said:


> The "cons" far out-weigh the "pros" for me. In fact, you could have stopped after #1 & #2 (and #4 won't help with audio). The truth is, you can place the Dolby height speakers on the side wall near the ceiling without moving your whole setup.





Alanlee said:


> Excellent advice - In addition if you have not already, install sump pumps in your basement. In one of my previous homes, I installed tile (French drain), and three sump pumps below the level of the basement floor. I pumped the water up the basement wall and out to the side of the house. I also put a dehydrator in the basement to keep the air dry. When I installed the home theater, I put all the equipment at least four feet above the basement floor. We had two especially wet years where it seemed like the sump pumps were running full time. When it stopped raining, the dehydrator did a good job of pulling the water from the air. I did not lose any equipment, due to moisture, and the home theater in the basement made my wife very happy.


I do at least have multiple sump pumps that are relatively new (they are supposed to be replaced every 5 years or so?). I don't have a french drain, which seems like an alternative to drainage tile... drainage tile is like 7,000 bucks to install in a house my size though 

"We had two especially wet years where it seemed like the sump pumps were running full time."

That is one potential con I hadn't considered... the noise of the pumps themselves, & the other utilities, though at least there is a door separating the potential HT room from the utilities. Not the biggest deal for me if I can blast the sound loud enough to conceal the utilities


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stanton said:


> The "cons" far out-weigh the "pros" for me. In fact, you could have stopped after #1 & #2 (and #4 won't help with audio). The truth is, you can place the Dolby height speakers on the side wall near the ceiling without moving your whole setup.


The floor in my living room right now is wood, I'm not sure if the tile floor here would make a difference. 

More than anything... I'm wondering what you guys think about the sub in the basement, with a room double the length of my living room. I'm thinking it might allow me to boost the sub volume a bit, or could having a floor like that absorb the bass in a way that might diminish from the sub level I get in my living room? I currently only turn my sub up to 20% volume level... anything beyond that all the windows in my house begin to rattle. 

If I go through with this idea... I'd experiment by putting the sub down there & trying it out before relocating the HT of course.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> And who is Scott Simonium? New element on the periodic table? Hell yes.


Simonium, the newly discovered rare earth metal. It's up there with Unobtainium.


----------



## kbarnes701

witchdoctor said:


> Given the lack of Atmos titles right now (less than 20) my decision on whether to spend $$$ on upgrading to Atmos is based on the value of the Atmos upmixer. For those of you already using it is it a subtle difference, blow you out of the water difference or is it more system dependent? I am only asking about the Atmos upmixer, not native Atmos content. Thanks


I've been using DSU since the first day that Atmos AVRs were available to buy. I have a 5.2.4 configuration with on-ceiling overhead speakers. I would say that the experience tends more to the 'blow you out of the water' experience. It is astonishingly good, so much so that I agree with many others who have said that the money spent on Atmos AVRs would be considered well-spent even if there was never another Atmos disc released: DSU is that good. (These comments are in relation to movies only - I have no experience of the upmixer with music).


----------



## rboster

Scott Simonian said:


> Umm yeah, that was the joke.
> 
> And who is Scott Simonium? New element on the periodic table? Hell yes.





rboster said:


> He's talking about this thread. English is his second language. He uses google to translate his posts to english....so they may lack some of the subtle aspects of our language. I'm sure he meant no harm.


Scott: I don't think he meant any harm. I think some of the comments got lost in translation from French to English.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No harm done here. 

In any language, if paying attention, one would notice that the topics go OT around here ...everywhere.

Don't need to know English to see that.

But anyway... DTS!!!! Erm, I mean, Atmos, yo!


----------



## NorthSky

Next Tuesday (June 2nd) should be a good day here in this Dolby ATMOS thread: *'Jupiter Ascending'* on Blu-ray, in *3D*, and with Dolby ATMOS audio.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Next Tuesday (June 2nd) should be a good day here in this Dolby ATMOS thread: *'Jupiter Ascending'* on Blu-ray, in *3D*, and with Dolby ATMOS audio.


What AVR are you using?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Next Tuesday (June 2nd) should be a good day here in this Dolby ATMOS thread: *'Jupiter Ascending'* on Blu-ray, in *3D*, and with Dolby ATMOS audio.


Not sure I'll get this one right out of the gate, I heard it's a horrible movie.


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos | 'Jupiter Ascending'*



Movie78 said:


> What AVR are you using?


Right now, Integra DHC-80.3 pre/pro. ...It sounds terrible, real bad, I need to upgrade, ...from Audyssey MultEQ XT32 to Dirac Live. 
...And with a new pre/pro that has not only Dolby Atmos 3D sound decoder but also DTS:X ... still shopping around.

But! Other people here are going to be real happy next Tuesday. ...And that's what I was mainly saying. ...For me right now, 3D picture would do, with the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.

* I've read reviews about it; but I'll make my own review next week.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Not sure I'll get this one right out of the gate, I heard it's a horrible movie.


Oh, it is. I'm sure it will win a Golden Raspberry this year.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, it is. I'm sure it will win a Golden Raspberry this year.


Yes, but that won't stop Keith from getting it (Jupiter Ascending), I would think . He's on record for saying that he's bought some Atmos releases for the audio presentation and put the plot and cinematic qualities of the film as less of a priority.

Hey, there are guys buying a Flemish language Auro release just to have native content, so he's not alone.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> Jurassic World _is_ getting released in Atmos.


I sure hope so the Dinosaurs will be even more scary


----------



## asarose247

Definition: Simonium: a CIA/NSA/CDC secretly developed GMO food additive introduced into the food chain following the trending rise of consumerism to promote the urge to spend and consume. It reacts with almost all known substances catalytically in humans to create and intensify the urge for "more", whatever it is, as in
Give me S'mo! 
Extensive global testing has identified only 2 food items non reactive with Simonium:
They are parsnips and parsley;
NOBODY ever asks for seconds.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I want S'mo nachos!


----------



## Nalleh

scarabaeus said:


> How did you like Mortadelo & Filemon? I liked it a lot, thought it was hilarious.


Watched it the other day, and you were right: it was hilarious!! Can't remember last time I laughed as much, haha. Lost count of how many bumps Filemon got in his head, or how many teeth he lost 

Atmos demo track? Not so much  It was a nice and dynamic soundtrack, with good use of surrounds, and some helicopter sounds in the heights, but it was un-precise and un-engaging.

But a fun movie


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Right now, Integra DHC-80.3 pre/pro. ...It sounds terrible, real bad, I need to upgrade, ...from Audyssey MultEQ XT32 to Dirac Live.
> ...And with a new pre/pro that has not only Dolby Atmos 3D sound decoder but also DTS:X ... still shopping around.
> 
> But! Other people here are going to be real happy next Tuesday. ...And that's what I was mainly saying. ...For me right now, 3D picture would do, with the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> 
> * I've read reviews about it; but I'll make my own review next week.


Ok! I taught you had a ATMOS AVR


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Ok! I taught you had a ATMOS AVR


Yeah I know; I feel sad and embarrassed too.  ...I just didn't want to miss on DTS:X like a lot of other members posting in this thread too. 
But it's a thread for anyone/everyone; not just the owners of Dolby Atmos receivers...the most happy people right now...and with 'Jupiter Ascending' coming up. I guess we're all free to make our choice whenever we feel the time is right...that's the beauty to live in a free democratic society.


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Umm yeah, that was the joke.
> 
> And who is Scott Simonium? New element on the periodic table? Hell yes.


Simonium is the secret ingredient in Taco Bell's new Nacho Wrap.


Spoiler


----------



## voodoogmr

Hooked up my new Pioneer SC87 last night with just temporary 5.1.4 speaker placement. Still waiting on new speaker wire and banana plugs, so 2 of the Atmos speakers were way out of place. 

Even with just a quick manual speaker calibration, Atmos sounds incredible! And DSU really adds a lot to everything, from stereo YouTube videos to Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare on PS4. Also had to play a bit of Jurrassic Park and DSU really opened up the space. Definitely better than any other Dolby/DTS/THX surround modes I've heard. 

Man, my JBL sub has never sounded so blended and clean before either. Never knew how harsh my old receiver was. 

Yum.


----------



## dvdwilly3

FilmMixer said:


> The sound crew of Fast 7 decided against it... Time and money vs benefit.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> That was not a studio decision.
> 
> I've been told the JW was being done in Atmos. If that has changed that would have NOTHING to do with DTS.


In 2004, an SEC filing showed that Vivendi Universal owned DTS, at least in part. I cannot keep up with the subsequent mergers, sales, creation of subsidiaries, etc. that have occurred since that time.

But, if Universal Studios (NBC Universal at this point?) still has even a partial ownership in DTS, I would be astounded if Universal Studios ever mixed any of their products in Dolby Atmos.

There may be other market forces in place of which I am not aware, but that would seem to me to create a bias toward DTS for Universal Studios for any product, either commercial or home.


----------



## FilmMixer

dvdwilly3 said:


> In 2004, an SEC filing showed that Vivendi Universal owned DTS, at least in part. I cannot keep up with the subsequent mergers, sales, creation of subsidiaries, etc. that have occurred since that time.
> 
> But, if Universal Studios (NBC Universal at this point?) still has even a partial ownership in DTS, I would be astounded if Universal Studios ever mixed any of their products in Dolby Atmos.
> 
> There may be other market forces in place of which I am not aware, but that would seem to me to create a bias toward DTS for Universal Studios for any product, either commercial or home.


It never stopped them from doing films in DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS... Since 1993 there were very few exclusive releases in only DTS. 

But it doesn't matter. 

DTS sold the cinema division to Dataaat years ago. And the theatrical Datasat brand is being shut down in the near future. 

They installed an Atmos system on the large Universal Stuiods mixing stage last year. 

DTS has only recently begun rolling out their mixing tools. 

In the end I can only say that people are reading WAY too much into this process.


----------



## robert816

I too have the SC-87 and love the sound 

Which Atmos modules did you buy? If you were not aware you do not have to use Atmos branded modules, you can use a wide range of speakers as "fake Atmos" modules. I'm using KEF speakers as my Atmos modules and they really match well with my Polk speakers and perform fantastic. If you get the chance, watch "The Cave", and or "Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief", both movies do a great job of showing off what DSU can do.


----------



## Josh Z

dvdwilly3 said:


> But, if Universal Studios (NBC Universal at this point?) still has even a partial ownership in DTS, I would be astounded if Universal Studios ever mixed any of their products in Dolby Atmos.


Prepare to be astonished.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Movie78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What AVR are you using?
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, Integra DHC-80.3 pre/pro. ...It sounds terrible, real bad, I need to upgrade, ...from Audyssey MultEQ XT32 to Dirac Live.
> ...And with a new pre/pro that has not only Dolby Atmos 3D sound decoder but also DTS:X ... still shopping around.
> 
> But! Other people here are going to be real happy next Tuesday. ...And that's what I was mainly saying. ...For me right now, 3D picture would do, with the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> 
> * I've read reviews about it; but I'll make my own review next week.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob

What model are you intending to buy ? I am shopping as well so like to hear your list. I saw in maranta website the manual for av8802 has a new name of 8802A. Does it mean they are shipping A model ready? What will be difference for the model released in Fall? Thanks


----------



## voodoogmr

robert816 said:


> I too have the SC-87 and love the sound
> 
> Which Atmos modules did you buy? If you were not aware you do not have to use Atmos branded modules, you can use a wide range of speakers as "fake Atmos" modules. I'm using KEF speakers as my Atmos modules and they really match well with my Polk speakers and perform fantastic. If you get the chance, watch "The Cave", and or "Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief", both movies do a great job of showing off what DSU can do.


I bought 4 of the Onkyo SKH-410 Atmos modules. They were small, cheap, and fit perfectly on my existing surrounds. They sound a lot better than I was expecting. I plan to eventually replace all my speakers with some good quality ones, but I'm going to wait until I have a new house with a better room. That'll be several years, so these will do fine for now.

Thanks for the suggestions. I've been wanting to see The Cave. I tried Guardians of the Galaxy too and it sounded great with DSU.


----------



## dvdwilly3

FilmMixer said:


> It never stopped them from doing films in DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS... Since 1993 there were very few exclusive releases in only DTS.
> 
> But it doesn't matter.
> 
> DTS sold the cinema division to Dataaat years ago. And the theatrical Datasat brand is being shut down in the near future.
> 
> They installed an Atmos system on the large Universal Stuiods mixing stage last year.
> 
> DTS has only recently begun rolling out their mixing tools.
> 
> In the end I can only say that people are reading WAY too much into this process.


Irrespective of all of that, I will be as pleased as anyone else (except maybe Scott S. ) if Jurassic World is released on Bluray in Atmos...

I sincerely hope that you are right.

And, thanks.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Yeah I know; I feel sad and embarrassed too.  ...I just didn't want to miss on DTS:X like a lot of other members posting in this thread too.
> But it's a thread for anyone/everyone; not just the owners of Dolby Atmos receivers...the most happy people right now...and with 'Jupiter Ascending' coming up. I guess we're all free to make our choice whenever we feel the time is right...that's the beauty to live in a free democratic society.


I don't feel like that's a fair thing to say... in hindsight perhaps a lot of the early adopters look foolish but not many people saw DTS X coming. I bought my receiver in late September. I remember seeing a forum member speculate in November that DTS might have "something up their sleeve", and if I recall several forum members lauded his insight. I can find the quote (somewhere buried in this immense thread) because I responded to it as well. I'm a bit of a newcomer to the HT scene, I certainly didn't see it coming. None of the people who's advice I asked saw it coming. And even if no one hadn't... the inability to decode DTS X on an exclusively Atmos receiver doesn't = a sub par experience. The last few nights I watched a few DTS 7.1 discs (Dredd & Godzilla) through the DSU, the sound was very immersive. Perhaps DTS X through exclusively Atmos receivers might not be *ideal*, but it still sounds very immersive!


----------



## batpig

Roudan said:


> I saw in maranta website the manual for av8802 has a new name of 8802A. Does it mean they are shipping A model ready? What will be difference for the model released in Fall? Thanks


The "A" suffix indicates it's the upgraded version which ships from the factory with the HDCP 2.2 hardware upgrade onboard (i.e. you don't have to send it in for the upgrade). So if you buy the Marantz 8802A (or the AVR version Denon X7200WA) you are getting full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 compliance (i.e. as future proof as it can be right now). 

Both of these models will also get DTS:X as a firmware upgrade when it's available in the fall (or later). There will be no replacemnt in the fall for them because these "flagship" models have a 2-year product cycle.

If you don't want to spend that much cash and can wait the lower level equivalents (e.g. the Marantz replacement for the 7702) will be similar in features when the fall models are released with HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X firmware upgrade coming when it's available.


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> But, if Universal Studios (NBC Universal at this point?) still has even a partial ownership in DTS, I would be astounded if Universal Studios ever mixed any of their products in Dolby Atmos.


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/
Another universal Atmos Blu-Ray.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob
> 
> What model are you intending to buy ? I am shopping as well so like to hear your list. I saw in maranta website the manual for av8802 has a new name of 8802A. *Does it mean they are shipping A model ready? *What will be difference for the model released in Fall? Thanks


AV8802A is the new model name given to the original AV8802 released starting this past Jan that has been upgraded with the new HDCP 2.2 board as well as the new factory unit just released a few weeks ago (and shipping now) that has the HDCP 2.2 board built-in already. There is no newer model to be released in the fall as the AV8803 won't be released until Jan 2017.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Bob
> 
> *1.* What model are you intending to buy ? I am shopping as well so like to hear your list.
> I saw in marantz website the manual for av8802 has a new name of 8802A. *2.* Does it mean they are shipping A model ready?
> *3.* What will be difference for the model released in Fall? Thanks


Good morning Roudan,

Three simple questions you are asking; I'll try my best for three simple answers (question number one is more complicated for me though, and for others as well). I'll start with what is the easiest part for the AVS dealers here; they know best about the Marantz AV8802 and AV8802A differences.

*2.* Yes, the Marantz AV8802A is shipping now. 
*3.* In the Fall the 8802A will have the DTS:X sound decoder without the need for a firmware update.
And (this is where AVS audio/video dealers know best), for HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2 ...my guess is that you won't have to send it for that firmware upgrade. 

*1.* Back in June 2014, with the arrival/announcement of Dolby Atmos for the home theater (inside our AV receivers and surround pre/pros), I became active in my exploration/search on everything related to it. 
I looked @ Denon/Marantz products, Onkyo/Integra products, Yamaha products, and Pioneer Elite products. ...All with Doby Atmos surround sound decoder and processor (DSU - Dolby Surround Up-mixer). 
I knew back then that DTS would also come up with their version (history is a good indicator). ...And now DTS:X is coming up next month (June) in some Onkyo AV receivers (DTS:X ready - meaning a simple firmware update sometime in early Fall, or around there if not a bit earlier like this Summer).

We're all different when it comes to shopping for a new piece of electronics; we have our own budget, our own feature preferences, and performance criteria with solid reliability. ...Plus some people like to jump in right @ the very beginning, and others later. ...For this one I am in that second category, and I am reading with particular attention the people from the first category. 

Back in 2007, when Onkyo/Integra were the first to have Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA AV receivers (605, 705 and 805, then 875 and 905), and for the 705 and 805 to have Audyssey MultEQ XT in them and for extremely affordable prices (street), plus the build quality of the 805 in particular; that was a big wave back then. ...Now we know the reliability issues with Onkyo/Integra receivers and pre/pros. ...I am not going to repeat that same mistake today. 

So, this time around I focused my attention on Denon AV receivers, Marantz pre/pros, and Yamaha receivers as well the new pre/pro coming up eventually from them. ...I love Pioneer Elite receivers for their looks but I still prefer Yamaha for their feature's implementations. ...And of course Denon/Marantz as well because of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and the four powerful DSP chips inside.

Reliability > That is an important aspect, the most important one actually, because I don't want the Onkyo's nightmares of the past.

In the interim, came a new toy; Dirac Live...inside the Emotiva XMC-1 pre/pro (but without 3D sound decoders, and only 7.2-channel). 
...Good for the more purist people with an emphasis on quality stereo music listening, and a better Room EQ system (Dirac Live). 
Helas no Dolby Atmos and no Dolby Surround up-mixer...and no DTS:X later on. ...And no HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2 for the new UHD Blus coming up (no switching inside the XMC-1 for 4K). ...We are going to need new UHD Blu-ray players with two HDMI outputs.

And now you have Dirac Live EQ in a separate box/unit (8-channel)...for $1,000 and that you can connect to many receivers and pre/pros.
That is also part of a new trend with more sound improvement in our rooms. ...MiniDSP DDRC-88A. ...And the MiniDSP family (with Dirac Live).

Prices: Some people's budget is around $500 or less. ...Others around $1,000 or more. ...And others up to $3,000 (street).
...And of course you have the hi-end class in the neighborhood of between $5,000 and $20,000 (up to $30,000+). 

Ok, my class is versatile, meaning that my budget varies; roughly from $2,000 to $5,000 (street). 
When I started contemplating Dolby Atmos products I was looking @ the Denon 5200 receiver, then Yamaha flagship receiver, then the Marantz 7702 pre/pro, then the Denon 7200, then the Marantz 8802/8802A. ...And with any of those products you can add Dirac Live for an additional $1,000 plus the microphone (calibrated). 

I look carefully @ what all the professional audio/video reviewers buy for themselves in their own home theater rooms.
In the past Integra flagship pre/pros were big among reviewers, Marantz pre/pros too, Anthem pre/pros plus their flagship, Bryston, Classe, McIntosh, Arcam, Cary, NAD, Simaudio, Krell, Meridian, Theta Digital, etc. ...up to sky is the limit. 
But my own budget is limited, so I only read with the highest interest @ what the most ultra hi-end surround processors can do. 
I'm a sucker @ discoveries on everything audio/video technologies related, and money is not stopping anyone to further their knowledge. 

Now, real life personal situation: I am a patient person, and can wait for the new Marantz AV7703 pre/pro, or the new Yamaha pre/pro...and I can wait too for the new MiniDSP with 16-channel of Dirac Live and plug it all together. 
And there will be the Marantz 8803 pre/pro and the Denon X7300 receiver. ...Eventually, and they should be more advanced with better implementation.

Right now there are NONE DTS:X products for me, and Dolby Atmos alone won't do it. ...Just no way. 
And Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Denon/Marantz) over AccuEQ (Onkyo/Integra). ...But YPAO from Yamaha (most solid/reliable company) with an external Dirac Live room EQ is also a very nice alternative. I love Yamaha. ...And I'm not the only one.

If I would buy a receiver today I would get the Denon X7200.
If I would buy a pre/pro today, I would buy the Marantz AV8802A.
But I don't need to buy right away, I can wait a little longer, for the next generation...Marantz AV7703...Denon X7300...and Marantz AV8803. 

As for Emotiva next pre/pro, with Dolby Atmos...I don't think that I can wait that long. 

One last thing; for me it is also very important the people behind the products. ...I have some principles in my life, some values that I like to apply in relation to who is going to get my hard earned cash. ...To who has solid reliability, support, performance. 

See, it ain't so black and white after all, and each year it varies, and it's always the journey, the one where we constantly learn each and everyday. 
And tomorrow we'll start all over again. 

Roudan, you asked the right questions, I like it.


----------



## smurraybhm

Aras_Volodka said:


> I don't feel like that's a fair thing to say... in hindsight perhaps a lot of the early adopters look foolish but not many people saw DTS X coming. I bought my receiver in late September. I remember seeing a forum member speculate in November that DTS might have "something up their sleeve", and if I recall several forum members lauded his insight. I can find the quote (somewhere buried in this immense thread) because I responded to it as well. I'm a bit of a newcomer to the HT scene, I certainly didn't see it coming. None of the people who's advice I asked saw it coming. And even if no one hadn't... the inability to decode DTS X on an exclusively Atmos receiver doesn't = a sub par experience. The last few nights I watched a few DTS 7.1 discs (Dredd & Godzilla) through the DSU, the sound was very immersive. Perhaps DTS X through exclusively Atmos receivers might not be *ideal*, but it still sounds very immersive!


Aras, some wait and some don't, does that comment above really surprise you? We've discussed this a lot since this thread started, if you get hung up waiting for the next promised advancement in HT to be released you wouldn't be buying very much equipment. Then there is the hope for more channels, wides, speaker mapping, Dirac supporting more than 7 channels (my great hope for the future) - if you haven't bought in yet should you this fall or wait until some or all of the wanted features become reality. Waiting continued?

Those of us who jumped early have enjoyed some great sound for nearly a year now, never know when your ticket will be punched, so when possible I try to enjoy things now instead of waiting, especially the older I get. No doubt DTS:X is going to sound great using DSU, demo disk has proven that already. I hope DTS:X releases are plentiful, as good or better than Atmos, then once the technology matures a little the early adapter club upgrade if so inclined. Of course some of us may jump earlier.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I don't feel like that's a fair thing to say... in hindsight perhaps a lot of the early adopters look foolish but not many people saw DTS X coming. I bought my receiver in late September. I remember seeing a forum member speculate in November that DTS might have "something up their sleeve", and if I recall several forum members lauded his insight. I can find the quote (somewhere buried in this immense thread) because I responded to it as well. I'm a bit of a newcomer to the HT scene, I certainly didn't see it coming. None of the people who's advice I asked saw it coming. And even if no one hadn't... the inability to decode DTS X on an exclusively Atmos receiver doesn't = a sub par experience. The last few nights I watched a few DTS 7.1 discs (Dredd & Godzilla) through the DSU, the sound was very immersive. Perhaps DTS X through exclusively Atmos receivers might not be *ideal*, but it still sounds very immersive!


Hi Aras,

There are other posts I felt were not 100% fair to say, but life is not fair. ...The main thing is to listen to others, what they have to say and take it positively.
We all have our own unique way to express ourselves, and we try to accommodate the people living around us, with us, to the best we can. 

Me too I could have jumped on the Denon 5200 receiver, but I didn't. ...Because it's true that I am aware of this audio/video world of electronics, and the trends and what's coming. 

You are right; it wasn't fair for me to say, because even if I know that I am missing a lot (Dolby Surround up-mixer); I shouldn't feel embarrassed by this.
And I am not, ...my downfall is to let myself be influenced by others. ...And I influenced others myself in the past...with Onkyo/Integra products...and today is a different world than the one we were in yesterday. 

I might sound unfair, but I always have respect for others and their opinion. And my own expression is the reflection of others as well. 

It's been a year now (almost; next month) since Dolby Atmos' first introduction to our home theater world. ...And after a year we are now @ the new _crepuscule_ (threshold) of DTS:X own new 3D sound unbound. ...That would make the final transitional package: Dolby Atmos & DTS:X together. 

And nobody looks foolish, to the contrary; all the people with Dolby Atmos now are taking the benefits in the now (with both Dolby Atmos titles, even if few @ approximately a dozen, but also with DSU, for all their movies and music).


----------



## jdsmoothie

smurraybhm said:


> Aras, some wait and some don't, does that comment above really surprise you? We've discussed this a lot since this thread started, if you get hung up waiting for the next promised advancement in HT to be released you wouldn't be buying very much equipment. Then there is the hope for more channels, wides, speaker mapping, Dirac supporting more than 7 channels (my great hope for the future) - if you haven't bought in yet should you this fall or wait until some or all of the wanted features become reality. Waiting continued?
> 
> Those of us who jumped early have enjoyed some great sound for nearly a year now, never know when your ticket will be punched, so when possible I try to enjoy things now instead of waiting, especially the older I get. *No doubt DTS:X is going to sound great using DSU, demo disk has proven that already.* I hope DTS:X releases are plentiful, as good or better than Atmos, then once the technology matures a little the early adapter club upgrade if so inclined. Of course some of us may jump earlier.


And that's the take away ... not only have the early adopters enjoyed Atmos and DSU for upwards of 9 months now, but will continue to do so when DTS:X BDs are released as well.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Good morning Roudan,
> 
> Three simple questions you are asking; I'll try my best for three simple answers (question number one is more complicated for me though, and for others as well). I'll start with what is the easiest part for the AVS dealers here; they know best about the Marantz AV8802 and AV8802A differences.
> 
> *2.* Yes, the Marantz AV8802A is shipping now.
> *3.* In the Fall the 8802A will have the DTS:X sound decoder without the need for a firmware update.
> And (this is where AVS audio/video dealers know best), for HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2 ...my guess is that you won't have to send it for that firmware upgrade.
> 
> *1.* Back in June 2014, with the arrival/announcement of Dolby Atmos for the home theater (inside our AV receivers and surround pre/pros), I became active in my exploration/search on everything related to it.
> I looked @ Denon/Marantz products, Onkyo/Integra products, Yamaha products, and Pioneer Elite products. ...All with Doby Atmos surround sound decoder and processor (DSU - Dolby Surround Up-mixer).
> I knew back then that DTS would also come up with their version (history is a good indicator). ...And now DTS:X is coming up next month (June) in some Onkyo AV receivers (DTS:X ready - meaning a simple firmware update sometime in early Fall, or around there if not a bit earlier like this Summer).
> 
> We're all different when it comes to shopping for a new piece of electronics; we have our own budget, our own feature preferences, and performance criteria with solid reliability. ...Plus some people like to jump in right @ the very beginning, and others later. ...For this one I am in that second category, and I am reading with particular attention the people from the first category.
> 
> Back in 2007, when Onkyo/Integra were the first to have Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA AV receivers (605, 705 and 805, then 875 and 905), and for the 705 and 805 to have Audyssey MultEQ XT in them and for extremely affordable prices (street), plus the build quality of the 805 in particular; that was a big wave back then. ...Now we know the reliability issues with Onkyo/Integra receivers and pre/pros. ...I am not going to repeat that same mistake today.
> 
> So, this time around I focused my attention on Denon AV receivers, Marantz pre/pros, and Yamaha receivers as well the new pre/pro coming up eventually from them. ...I love Pioneer Elite receivers for their looks but I still prefer Yamaha for their feature's implementations. ...And of course Denon/Marantz as well because of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and the four powerful DSP chips inside.
> 
> Reliability > That is an important aspect, the most important one actually, because I don't want the Onkyo's nightmares of the past.
> 
> In the interim, came a new toy; Dirac Live...inside the Emotiva XMC-1 pre/pro (but without 3D sound decoders, and only 7.2-channel).
> ...Good for the more purist people with an emphasis on quality stereo music listening, and a better Room EQ system (Dirac Live).
> Helas no Dolby Atmos and no Dolby Surround up-mixer...and no DTS:X later on. ...And no HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2 for the new UHD Blus coming up (no switching inside the XMC-1 for 4K). ...We are going to need new UHD Blu-ray players with two HDMI outputs.
> 
> And now you have Dirac Live EQ in a separate box/unit (8-channel)...for $1,000 and that you can connect to many receivers and pre/pros.
> That is also part of a new trend with more sound improvement in our rooms. ...MiniDSP DDRC-88A. ...And the MiniDSP family (with Dirac Live).
> 
> Prices: Some people's budget is around $500 or less. ...Others around $1,000 or more. ...And others up to $3,000 (street).
> ...And of course you have the hi-end class in the neighborhood of between $5,000 and $20,000 (up to $30,000+).
> 
> Ok, my class is versatile, meaning that my budget varies; roughly from $2,000 to $5,000 (street).
> When I started contemplating Dolby Atmos products I was looking @ the Denon 5200 receiver, then Yamaha flagship receiver, then the Marantz 7702 pre/pro, then the Denon 7200, then the Marantz 8802/8802A. ...And with any of those products you can add Dirac Live for an additional $1,000 plus the microphone (calibrated).
> 
> I look carefully @ what all the professional audio/video reviewers buy for themselves in their own home theater rooms.
> In the past Integra flagship pre/pros were big among reviewers, Marantz pre/pros too, Anthem pre/pros plus their flagship, Bryston, Classe, McIntosh, Arcam, Cary, NAD, Simaudio, Krell, Meridian, Theta Digital, etc. ...up to sky is the limit.
> But my own budget is limited, so I only read with the highest interest @ what the most ultra hi-end surround processors can do.
> I'm a sucker @ discoveries on everything audio/video technologies related, and money is not stopping anyone to further their knowledge.
> 
> Now, real life personal situation: I am a patient person, and can wait for the new Marantz AV7703 pre/pro, or the new Yamaha pre/pro...and I can wait too for the new MiniDSP with 16-channel of Dirac Live and plug it all together.
> And there will be the Marantz 8803 pre/pro and the Denon X7300 receiver. ...Eventually, and they should be more advanced with better implementation.
> 
> Right now there are NONE DTS:X products for me, and Dolby Atmos alone won't do it. ...Just no way.
> And Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Denon/Marantz) over AccuEQ (Onkyo/Integra). ...But YPAO from Yamaha (most solid/reliable company) with an external Dirac Live room EQ is also a very nice alternative. I love Yamaha. ...And I'm not the only one.
> 
> If I would buy a receiver today I would get the Denon X7200.
> If I would buy a pre/pro today, I would buy the Marantz AV8802A.
> But I don't need to buy right away, I can wait a little longer, for the next generation...Marantz AV7703...Denon X7300...and Marantz AV8803.
> 
> As for Emotiva next pre/pro, with Dolby Atmos...I don't think that I can wait that long.
> 
> One last thing; for me it is also very important the people behind the products. ...I have some principles in my life, some values that I like to apply in relation to who is going to get my hard earned cash. ...To who has solid reliability, support, performance.
> 
> See, it ain't so black and white after all, and each year it varies, and it's always the journey, the one where we constantly learn each and everyday.
> And tomorrow we'll start all over again.
> 
> Roudan, you asked the right questions, I like it.


Wow, Bob, Thank You! Thanks for your thoughts on past and present experience on these different receivers. I love it. I learnt from it. Today I learnt a new thing to me, Dirac Live!


----------



## Roudan

jdsmoothie said:


> AV8802A is the new model name given to the original AV8802 released starting this past Jan that has been upgraded with the new HDCP 2.2 board as well as the new factory unit just released a few weeks ago (and shipping now) that has the HDCP 2.2 board built-in already. There is no newer model to be released in the fall as the AV8803 won't be released until Jan 2017.


Hi JD, does current 8802A have HDMI2.0a in it? Thanks.


----------



## Roudan

batpig said:


> The "A" suffix indicates it's the upgraded version which ships from the factory with the HDCP 2.2 hardware upgrade onboard (i.e. you don't have to send it in for the upgrade). So if you buy the Marantz 8802A (or the AVR version Denon X7200WA) you are getting full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 compliance (i.e. as future proof as it can be right now).
> 
> Both of these models will also get DTS:X as a firmware upgrade when it's available in the fall (or later). There will be no replacemnt in the fall for them because these "flagship" models have a 2-year product cycle.
> 
> If you don't want to spend that much cash and can wait the lower level equivalents (e.g. the Marantz replacement for the 7702) will be similar in features when the fall models are released with HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X firmware upgrade coming when it's available.


 
I like your website.

http://batpigworld.com/


----------



## SaltyPaws

How do the upward firing speaker compare to in ceiling mounted speakers? I dont want to tear up my currently fine ceiling, but would consider installing them on a remodel.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Roudan said:


> Hi JD, does current 8802A have HDMI2.0a in it? Thanks.


No, rather the X7200WA and AV8802A will both receive it later this fall as a firmware update.


----------



## lujan

smurraybhm said:


> Aras, some wait and some don't, does that comment above really surprise you? We've discussed this a lot since this thread started, if you get hung up waiting for the next promised advancement in HT to be released you wouldn't be buying very much equipment. Then there is the hope for more channels, wides, speaker mapping, Dirac supporting more than 7 channels (my great hope for the future) - if you haven't bought in yet should you this fall or wait until some or all of the wanted features become reality. Waiting continued?
> 
> Those of us who jumped early have enjoyed some great sound for nearly a year now, never know when your ticket will be punched, so when possible I try to enjoy things now instead of waiting, especially the older I get. No doubt DTS:X is going to sound great using DSU, demo disk has proven that already. I hope DTS:X releases are plentiful, as good or better than Atmos, then once the technology matures a little the early adapter club upgrade if so inclined. Of course some of us may jump earlier.


Where did you get a demo DTS:X disk?


----------



## jdsmoothie

lujan said:


> Where did you get a demo DTS:X disk?


You can buy them on eBay for $20.

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/dts-demo


----------



## HT-Eman

*Dolby Atmos Up Firing Speakers*

There are new up-firing speaker modules for dolby atmos by Andrew Jones . Model A4. Check them out here ......

http://elac.us/speakers


----------



## bargervais

HT-Eman said:


> There are new up-firing speaker modules for dolby atmos by Andrew Jones . Its a 4-inch Concentric Aramid-Fiber Add-On Speaker , model A4. Check them out here ......
> 
> http://elac.us/speakers


Is that a 5inch tweeter. In that module I think it should say .5inch tweeter. not sure???


----------



## dvdwilly3

Josh Z said:


> Prepare to be astonished.


Jeezzzz...duh! I have the movie (Unbroken) and watched it and thought that the Atmos was excellent!
Guess I should pay more attention.

In that case, Jurassic World will be in Atmos?? Yeaaaahhhh...


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> Jeezzzz...duh! I have the movie (Unbroken) and watched it and thought that the Atmos was excellent!
> Guess I should pay more attention.
> 
> In that case, Jurassic World will be in Atmos?? Yeaaaahhhh...


Let's hope I think that would be sweet Jurassic World in Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Yes, but that won't stop Keith from getting it (Jupiter Ascending), I would think . He's on record for saying that he's bought some Atmos releases for the audio presentation and put the plot and cinematic qualities of the film as less of a priority.


Almost. What I do often say is that there is often more to appreciate than just the story or plot. I can watch a thoroughly bad movie and still enjoy the score, or the editing, or the cinematography or the acting. One often will see a bad movie that exhibits excellent work in different areas. For example, take *Burlesque*. Nobody could say it is a great movie - but the singing, especially Christina Aguilera, is excellent throughout, and the sound quality does it more than justice. I am able to enjoy movies on multiple levels - I have no idea if *Jupiter Ascending* will have any meritorious qualities at all, but I would be surprised if it has none at all.


----------



## tjenkins95

SaltyPaws said:


> How do the upward firing speaker compare to in ceiling mounted speakers? I dont want to tear up my currently fine ceiling, but would consider installing them on a remodel.


 
The Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers available from Pioneer work great! I have the whole set.


----------



## sdrucker

bargervais said:


> Is that a 5inch tweeter. In that module I think it should say .5inch tweeter. not sure???


From that picture I don't believe 5". By comparison, the Atlantic Tech 44-DA have a 1" tweeter, but cross at 3.5 kHz vs. 5 kHz, although I don't think the latter matters all that much. 

On paper this sounds like a 2nd generation module version of the AJ Pioneer Elite approach to Atmos (aramid-fiber vs. paper), but we obviously don't know how these would compare to the ATs or Kefs performance-wise.


Given the pedigree, I wonder how they'll be priced - my guess is somewhere between the $499/pair of the 44-DA and $1199.99/pair along the lines of the KEF R50s.


----------



## batpig

SaltyPaws said:


> How do the upward firing speaker compare to in ceiling mounted speakers? I dont want to tear up my currently fine ceiling, but would consider installing them on a remodel.


By most accounts, the upward firing speakers can do a very convincing impersonation of real overhead speakers -- in fact, in some of the Dolby demos when they were debuting the technology, many people preferred their sound because they are naturally more diffuse (being reflected instead of direct sound). Overhead speakers, on the contrary, will be more precise.

However, despite the preferences shown by attendees at these demos, many folks who've tried them at home have had mixed results. As common sense would dictate, trying to make a "virtual speaker" by bouncing the sound is simply less stable than having a physical speaker above you. If a speaker is actually there, the sound is guaranteed to come from up there too.

So the bottom line is that a *well implemented* setup with upward firing speakers can sound really, really good with convincing overhead effects. But by nature of being a "virtual speaker" it's going to be more fragile if you can't place them well. For example, if you have a long room and sit really far back, upward firing modules at the front of the room will bounce so far in front of you that it will just sound like the sound is "smeared" upwards a bit but you won't get that sense of real overhead action. But assuming your room is sort of normal shaped, and your ceiling are fairly flat and sort of normal height, and you are willing to experiment a bit, you can definitely get it to work well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I have no idea if *Jupiter Ascending* will have any meritorious qualities at all, but I would be surprised if it has none at all.


I'm going with the "none at all" category. What a mess of a film. Luckily, I paid nothing to see it. Just time wasted.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Added illustration with color code to the calculator for clarity (and based on question received).


----------



## wse

These speakers could be interesting for ATMOS!

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-hst#.VWkiGufWSKw


----------



## wse

Here is an other one for the ceiling has any one heard these?

JBL Control® 67 P/T











http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-60-series/control-67p-t#.VWkmZefWSKw


----------



## NorthSky

Interesting designs those two above, very.


----------



## aaranddeeman

wse said:


> Here is an other one for the ceiling has any one heard these?
> 
> JBL Control® 67 P/T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-60-series/control-67p-t#.VWkmZefWSKw



Yes seen those and also these


----------



## petetherock

Atmos or not, I am afraid *Jupiter Ascending* is one for the bargain bins... really nasty plot and acting..


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm going with the "none at all" category. What a mess of a film. Luckily, I paid nothing to see it. Just time wasted.


I haven't seen it yet, so I am only speculating, but it is a rare movie that has no positive attributes at all. So when you saw this movie, you found that the cinematography, the editing, the score, the production design, the sound mixing, the foley, the art direction, the visual effects, the set designs, the costume, the makeup effects, the sound design, the CG, etc etc - none of these had any merit whatsoever? I can never remember seeing any movie which had a full house of negatives like that.

I mentioned *Burlesque* above and the positives in that movie, and of course I omitted to mention Stanley Tucci's turn as the gay second-in-command to Cher's character, and the choreography and staging of the dance routines, which were all excellent.

But in *Jupiter Ascending*, you are saying there is _nothing _at all of merit? Not a thing?


----------



## smurraybhm

Keith - Ralph had very good things to say about the audio. One of his better reviews for a Atmos mix ex Gravity. I for one plan on giving it a spin just for that reason. If people can buy Bowling Balls for Auro then what the heck. From forum members who watched it in the theatre not everyone is declaring it a POS. As we all know by now, Dan is a tough one to satisfy when it comes to movies. Guess I am not since I enjoy Michael Bay's movies 

Plus it's available in 3D for those who value that.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith - Ralph had very good things to say about the audio. One of his better reviews for a Atmos mix ex Gravity. I for one plan on giving it a spin just for that reason. If people can buy Bowling Balls for Auro then what the heck. From forum members who watched it in the theatre not everyone is declaring it a POS. As we all know by now, Dan is a tough one to satisfy when it comes to movies. Guess I am not since I enjoy Michael Bay's movies
> 
> Plus it's available in 3D for those who value that.


Thanks. Yes, it is a rare movie that has no merit whatsoever. And I am sure it will be better than *Bowling Balls*


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't seen it yet, so I am only speculating, but it is a rare movie that has no positive attributes at all. So when you saw this movie, you found that the cinematography, the editing, the score, the production design, the sound mixing, the foley, the art direction, the visual effects, the set designs, the costume, the makeup effects, the sound design, the CG, etc etc - none of these had any merit whatsoever? I can never remember seeing any movie which had a full house of negatives like that.
> 
> I mentioned *Burlesque* above and the positives in that movie, and of course I omitted to mention Stanley Tucci's turn as the gay second-in-command to Cher's character, and the choreography and staging of the dance routines, which were all excellent.
> 
> But in *Jupiter Ascending*, you are saying there is _nothing _at all of merit? Not a thing?


I'm saying the movie was put together like the W's were on drugs or something at the time. It was like an incoherent kaleidoscope of crap. There are too many laughably weak elements ("acting," "plot," "script"), so that CGI heavy shots do not and cannot make up for such a pointless movie. It's not like _Showgirls_ where at least it had a few...er... attributes worth mentioning, and purposely over the top (it was a Paul Verhoeven film after all).  So, yeah, I got nothing out of the experience.

But hey, it's your two+ hours.


----------



## lujan

Some people are just much more discriminating when it comes to movies than myself. I will probably like Jupiter Ascending as I liked The Seventh Son and a lot of people didn't. I'm just glad I didn't go as far as some others than got it outside the U.S. in order to get the 3D copy. The movies was mostly very dark so the 3D version would be even darker than the 2D version.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> Some people are just much more discriminating when it comes to movies than myself. I will probably like Jupiter Ascending as I liked The Seventh Son and a lot of people didn't. I'm just glad I didn't go as far as some others than got it outside the U.S. in order to get the 3D copy. The movies was mostly very dark so the 3D version would be even darker than the 2D version.


The Seventh Son was real bad and I watched it. If I can buy Jupiter Ascending for ten dollars I may consider it.


----------



## zebidou81

Does everybody with Dolby Atmos choose dsu over say a dts hd mix on blu ray disks ? I find myself using dsu all the time but wonder if this is best all the time ?


----------



## robert816

I can only speak for myself, but yes, I leave my AVR on DSU for everything other than Atmos. Xbox360, Xbox One, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, everything.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't seen it yet, so I am only speculating, but it is a rare movie that has no positive attributes at all. So when you saw this movie, you found that the cinematography, the editing, the score, the production design, the sound mixing, the foley, the art direction, the visual effects, the set designs, the costume, the makeup effects, the sound design, the CG, etc etc - none of these had any merit whatsoever? I can never remember seeing any movie which had a full house of negatives like that.
> 
> I mentioned *Burlesque* above and the positives in that movie, and of course I omitted to mention Stanley Tucci's turn as the gay second-in-command to Cher's character, and the choreography and staging of the dance routines, which were all excellent.
> 
> But in *Jupiter Ascending*, you are saying there is _nothing _at all of merit? Not a thing?


Jupiter Ascending was a letdown. 

Twilight meets Hunger Games with some Divergent action thrown in. 
It shows that you can't compensate for lousy acting with CGI and action. 
Sure it's busy and may yet be a solid atmos demo disc but all that doesn't make up for the lack of chemistry and lazy acting dialled in by the actors. 

Good as a rental or buy it for the sound when it goes cheap. 

It won't be the first crappy movie with the ultimate surround experience..
I loved the sound from "Gamer" (Gerard Butler), Jonah Hex and Legion... but man... even after I bought Jonah Hex for $5, I still sold it after the viewing. 

I would rather sit through Love Actually in mono on a 4" UA flight screen sitting next to corpse


----------



## bargervais

zebidou81 said:


> Does everybody with Dolby Atmos choose dsu over say a dts hd mix on blu ray disks ? I find myself using dsu all the time but wonder if this is best all the time ?


I have DSU (Dolby Surround 7.2.4) as my main listening mode for all sources. 
I'm watching Stargate as we speak with Kurt Russell it is very good in DSU I prefer it to 
It's original DTS-HD MSTR 7.1


----------



## aaranddeeman

zebidou81 said:


> Does everybody with Dolby Atmos choose dsu over say a dts hd mix on blu ray disks ? I find myself using dsu all the time but wonder if this is best all the time ?


I had decided (and tried some times) to go with the following

- Anything Dolby, use DSU
- DTS, use Neo:X

But lately it remains on DSU most of the times.


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> but man... even after I bought Jonah Hex for $5, I still sold it after the viewing.


Too much..


----------



## cdelena

zebidou81 said:


> Does everybody with Dolby Atmos choose dsu over say a dts hd mix on blu ray disks ? I find myself using dsu all the time but wonder if this is best all the time ?



Everything but music. It is especially effective on the TV shows we choose to view in the theater. We have watched a number of blu ray movies over again just to experience the sound and it has mostly improved the experience.


----------



## sdrucker

petetherock said:


> I would rather sit through Love Actually in mono on a 4" UA flight screen sitting next to corpse


Different tastes indeed! Not Atmos worthy, but I find it a cute rom-com. Hugh Grant and Keira Knightley were decent performances.


----------



## Movie78

Flight OF the Phoenix DSU was Great!!!


----------



## stikle

zebidou81 said:


> Does everybody with Dolby Atmos choose dsu over say a dts hd mix on blu ray disks?



Yes.



bargervais said:


> I have DSU (Dolby Surround 7.2.4) as my main listening mode for all sources.



^This



Movie78 said:


> Flight OF the Phoenix DSU was Great!!!



^This too.


----------



## JamesE

kbarnes701 said:


> I've been using DSU since the first day that Atmos AVRs were available to buy. I have a 5.2.4 configuration with on-ceiling overhead speakers. I would say that the experience tends more to the 'blow you out of the water' experience. It is astonishingly good, so much so that I agree with many others who have said that the money spent on Atmos AVRs would be considered well-spent even if there was never another Atmos disc released: DSU is that good. (These comments are in relation to movies only - I have no experience of the upmixer with music).


Wow, I can hardly wait!


----------



## helvetica bold

Has anyone used the DSU during gaming on the PS4 or Xbox One? I would think playing something like Battlefield 4 in 5.1.4 would be mind blowing.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Jupiter Ascending' | 3D Dolby Atmos*



Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm saying the movie was put together like the W's were on drugs or something at the time. It was like an incoherent kaleidoscope of crap. There are too many laughably weak elements ("acting," "plot," "script"), so that CGI heavy shots do not and cannot make up for such a pointless movie. It's not like _Showgirls_ where at least it had a few...er... attributes worth mentioning, and purposely over the top (it was a Paul Verhoeven film after all).  So, yeah, I got nothing out of the experience.
> 
> But hey, it's your two+ hours.


Yes Dan, but how was the *Dolby Atmos* audio soundtrack?


----------



## howard68

Battlefront is going to be releases with a Dolby Atmos track I have read 
I hope it will not just be on the pc version 
I will have to get a ps4 or xbox if it is released on the games machine


----------



## FilmMixer

howard68 said:


> Battlefront is going to be releases with a Dolby Atmos track I have read
> I hope it will not just be on the pc version
> I will have to get a ps4 or xbox if it is released on the games machine


The Xbox One doesn't support DD+ via bitstream at this time.


----------



## howard68

FilmMixer said:


> The Xbox One doesn't support DD+ via bitstream at this time.


I will keep my eye on ps4 
Or look at moving my pc to the TV room
Look forward to hearing it 

Thx


----------



## Tin_Can

zebidou81 said:


> Does everybody with Dolby Atmos choose dsu over say a dts hd mix on blu ray disks ? I find myself using dsu all the time but wonder if this is best all the time ?


I was under the impression that if you lowered the surrounds to ear level for Atmos, then you should use DSU.


----------



## helvetica bold

FilmMixer said:


> The Xbox One doesn't support DD+ via bitstream at this time.



Could the PS4 output Atmos in game? 
Sony has the exclusive marketing rights to Battlefront. That would be an advantage for Sonys machine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## howard68

Battlefront launches November 17 for Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC.
However will they all do Atmos ?


----------



## helvetica bold

howard68 said:


> Battlefront launches November 17 for Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC.
> However will they all do Atmos ?


So far Atmos has been announced for PC only.


----------



## voodoogmr

helvetica bold said:


> Has anyone used the DSU during gaming on the PS4 or Xbox One? I would think playing something like Battlefield 4 in 5.1.4 would be mind blowing.


I just finished Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare on the PS4 using DSU. It did seem to widen the sound field quite a bit. Sounded great! Also tried it with Okami and the first Onimusha on the PS2 and it really broadened the music out to fill the room. Very impressive.


----------



## csnow

I would like feedback from those who are running Atmos. I currently have a 7.2 system but I recently sold all of my speakers and migrated to JBL Pro Cinema 4722s. I also plan to use 4722's for rear surrounds instead of standard surround speakers. I will be going from 4 surrounds to 2 full range speakers for multi-channel music. My question is how well Atmos works with only two rear surrounds? I could easily add 4 JBL SCS-8's up high but I wasn't sure if this is worthwhile. Everyone seems to be running 7.2.4 or 7.1.4. Should I move forward with adding 4 high speakers in a 5.2.4 setup? Receiver is a Denon x5200w. All the JBL 4722's will be driven by dedicated Crown amps, so the Denon would only being driving the 4 ceiling speakers.

Chris


----------



## Skylinestar

Is 6(single surround back).1.4 possible for Atmos? 
(just wondering because everyone is talking about 5 or 7 floor level speakers)


----------



## batpig

Skylinestar said:


> Is 6(single surround back).1.4 possible for Atmos?
> (just wondering because everyone is talking about 5 or 7 floor level speakers)


Yes.


----------



## batpig

csnow said:


> I would like feedback from those who are running Atmos. I currently have a 7.2 system but I recently sold all of my speakers and migrated to JBL Pro Cinema 4722s. I also plan to use 4722's for rear surrounds instead of standard surround speakers. I will be going from 4 surrounds to 2 full range speakers for multi-channel music. My question is how well Atmos works with only two rear surrounds? I could easily add 4 JBL SCS-8's up high but I wasn't sure if this is worthwhile. Everyone seems to be running 7.2.4 or 7.1.4. Should I move forward with adding 4 high speakers in a 5.2.4 setup? Receiver is a Denon x5200w. All the JBL 4722's will be driven by dedicated Crown amps, so the Denon would only being driving the 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> Chris


Mo' speakers mo' better. 

Plenty of folks (like Keirh) running 5.1.4. In a way it would be even more impactful with only 5 base layer speakers -- going from 5 to 9 speakers is a lot of extra coverage.


----------



## marlon1925

*Has anyone tried Onkyo's TX-NR3030?*

planning to get Onkyo's TX-NR3030, anyone tried it? 

I've already bought Sony 55es and is planning to set up 9.2.2 using 3030.

would appreciate if you could share your ideas,inputs or share links for reviews.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## petetherock

One for DSU:

A Jap anime - Secret of Arriety. Go straight to the scene where she discovers the kitchen. The cacophony of noises of kitchen cutlery, cooking, pots and pans will demonstrate if you have the ability to image 'space' and the wonders of object based surround.

That sound will come to you from a point in space, not from a speaker, and then move around the room, coming in and out. Sweet...


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Mo' speakers mo' better.
> 
> Plenty of folks (like Keith) running 5.1.4. In a way it would be even more impactful with only 5 base layer speakers -- going from 5 to 9 speakers is a lot of extra coverage.


Concurred. To the OP's point: yes, it is definitely worthwhile to use Atmos with only 2 surround speakers. Atmos made perhaps the biggest single difference in sound in my HT ever - maybe other than when I first got my pair of Submersives. I’d love 7.2.4 but unfortunately have no room behind me for meaningful placement of rear surrounds. But in no way does this work to the detriment of my Atmos experience, with 5 'on the floor' and 4 'on the ceiling'.


----------



## dvdwilly3

csnow said:


> I would like feedback from those who are running Atmos. I currently have a 7.2 system but I recently sold all of my speakers and migrated to JBL Pro Cinema 4722s. I also plan to use 4722's for rear surrounds instead of standard surround speakers. I will be going from 4 surrounds to 2 full range speakers for multi-channel music. My question is how well Atmos works with only two rear surrounds? I could easily add 4 JBL SCS-8's up high but I wasn't sure if this is worthwhile. Everyone seems to be running 7.2.4 or 7.1.4. Should I move forward with adding 4 high speakers in a 5.2.4 setup? Receiver is a Denon x5200w. All the JBL 4722's will be driven by dedicated Crown amps, so the Denon would only being driving the 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> Chris


I am running Atmos 5.1.4 with fake Dolby-enabled speakers, that is, they are full-range speakers. I run everything in either full Atmos, if the source is, or DSU if it not.

Remember that the Dolby angle recommendations are just that, and, that you need to adjust those angles to get the proper effect. That is, if you go with their 20 degrees or so for front Atmos Dolby enabled, the effect will be at about 6 from the front speakers.

My MLP is about 12' from the fronts, and the angle on my Atmos fronts are more at 32 degrees. Works like a champ...full immersive bubble...never going back.


----------



## dvdwilly3

marlon1925 said:


> planning to get Onkyo's TX-NR3030, anyone tried it?
> 
> I've already bought Sony 55es and is planning to set up 9.2.2 using 3030.
> 
> would appreciate if you could share your ideas,inputs or share links for reviews.
> 
> Thanks a lot.


I am running the TX-NR 1030 in a 5.1.4 layout and it is superb. I would expect similar from the 3030...


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> planning to get Onkyo's TX-NR3030, anyone tried it?
> 
> I've already bought Sony 55es and is planning to set up 9.2.2 using 3030.
> 
> would appreciate if you could share your ideas,inputs or share links for reviews.
> 
> Thanks a lot.


I'm running my TX-NR1030 7.2.4 using an external amp I love it... Here is a link to a thread that you could read. 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...13-onkyo-tx-nr1030-anticipation-thread-7.html


----------



## csnow

kbarnes701 said:


> Concurred. To the OP's point: yes, it is definitely worthwhile to use Atmos with only 2 surround speakers. Atmos made perhaps the biggest single difference in sound in my HT ever - maybe other than when I first got my pair of Submersives. I’d love 7.2.4 but unfortunately have no room behind me for meaningful placement of rear surrounds. But in no way does this work to the detriment of my Atmos experience, with 5 'on the floor' and 4 'on the ceiling'.


Thanks for the feedback. Also, please accept my apologies for the immature comments in the other thread.

Chris


----------



## marlon1925

bargervais said:


> I'm running my TX-NR1030 7.2.4 using an external amp I love it... Here is a link to a thread that you could read.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...13-onkyo-tx-nr1030-anticipation-thread-7.html


Thanks a lot, which speakers are you using for the ceiling (atmos)?


----------



## marlon1925

*Best in-ceiling speakers?*

Any recommendation for a good in-ceiling speakers for my planned Onkyo 3030's atmos set up?

And hmm...I'm actually confused if I use 9.2.2 or 7.2.4. Help please


----------



## bargervais

marlon1925 said:


> Thanks a lot, which speakers are you using for the ceiling (atmos)?


I'm using MICCA M-8S FH on front wall near the ceiling /TM in ceiling speakers above MLP


----------



## petetherock

marlon1925 said:


> Any recommendation for a good in-ceiling speakers for my planned Onkyo 3030's atmos set up?
> 
> And hmm...I'm actually confused if I use 9.2.2 or 7.2.4. Help please


Try Anthony Gallos?
See my signature...


----------



## wse

csnow said:


> I would like feedback from those who are running Atmos. I currently have a 7.2 system but I recently sold all of my speakers and migrated to JBL Pro Cinema 4722s. I also plan to use 4722's for rear surrounds instead of standard surround speakers. I will be going from 4 surrounds to 2 full range speakers for multi-channel music. My question is how well Atmos works with only two rear surrounds? I could easily add 4 JBL SCS-8's up high but I wasn't sure if this is worthwhile. Everyone seems to be running 7.2.4 or 7.1.4. Should I move forward with adding 4 high speakers in a 5.2.4 setup? Receiver is a Denon x5200w. All the JBL 4722's will be driven by dedicated Crown amps, so the Denon would only being driving the 4 ceiling speakers.
> 
> Chris












Beasts  104db sensitivity!

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/screenarray-systems-2-way/4722_4722n#Specs

Why not these for the surround?

JBL 8350









http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/surround-systems/8350#.VWsZaefWSKw


----------



## csnow

wse said:


> Beasts  104db sensitivity!
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/screenarray-systems-2-way/4722_4722n#Specs
> 
> Are these the surround?
> 
> JBL 8350


They are a little large, definitely not for apartment dwellers. The crown amps are designed for these speakers so they supply 475 watts @ 8 ohm for the 15" drivers and 275 watts @ 4 ohms for the compression driver in the horn. Combine that power and the sensitivity of the speaker and you have a bomb waiting to explode. Even though they have the potential for insane SPL many regard them on par with audiophile quality even at very low volume. The N models come with a network so you can connect them directly to any receiver. Read through the 4722 thread in the speaker section. Amazing speakers for an amazing price compared to ID and brick and mortar brands. Mine are still on the truck enroute to my house but to say I am like a kid on Christmas eve waiting is an understatement. One guy has them next to his flat panel in a condo, and they really look nicer than one would assume (to me anyways). I have a man cave so WAF isn't an issue. I wouldnt suggest putting these as the main focal point in a living room competing in the Parade of Homes 

The 8350 surrounds can be used too. I went with SCS 8 because of the built in bracket and its upper x-over matches the 4722 better. Not to mention I also got a set used which saved some $$$.

Chris


----------



## zimmo

(MARLON 1925)
My ceilling speakers is Yamaha ns-ic 800 ,i have 7.4.4 and this av recever tx-nr 3030 is great.


----------



## lujan

jdsmoothie said:


> You can buy them on eBay for $20.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/bhp/dts-demo


I managed to get an Auro-3D and Atmos demo disks for free. Why would I pay for a DTS:X demo disk? I'll wait until I can find it for free.


----------



## aaranddeeman

lujan said:


> I managed to get an Auro-3D and Atmos demo disk for free. Why would I pay for a DTS:X demo disk? I'll wait until I can find it for free.


I agree. One should not be "paying" for demo material. 
It's actually the marketing fluff and should be available for free. 
Third parties selling it is copyright violation in a way and buyer is party to the crime.
I don't think Dolby or DTS or anyone is actually selling their demo disks. It's just that they are conservative in giving it away (which they should not).
Imagine if your builder sells you the brochure for $50 each when you go to buy the house..


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SaltyPaws said:


> How do the upward firing speaker compare to in ceiling mounted speakers? I dont want to tear up my currently fine ceiling, but would consider installing them on a remodel.





batpig said:


> By most accounts, the upward firing speakers can do a very convincing impersonation of real overhead speakers -- in fact, in some of the Dolby demos when they were debuting the technology, many people preferred their sound because they are naturally more diffuse (being reflected instead of direct sound). Overhead speakers, on the contrary, will be more precise.
> 
> However, despite the preferences shown by attendees at these demos, many folks who've tried them at home have had mixed results. As common sense would dictate, trying to make a "virtual speaker" by bouncing the sound is simply less stable than having a physical speaker above you. If a speaker is actually there, the sound is guaranteed to come from up there too.
> 
> So the bottom line is that a *well implemented* setup with upward firing speakers can sound really, really good with convincing overhead effects. But by nature of being a "virtual speaker" it's going to be more fragile if you can't place them well. For example, if you have a long room and sit really far back, upward firing modules at the front of the room will bounce so far in front of you that it will just sound like the sound is "smeared" upwards a bit but you won't get that sense of real overhead action. But assuming your room is sort of normal shaped, and your ceiling are fairly flat and sort of normal height, and you are willing to experiment a bit, you can definitely get it to work well.


I wanted to chime in here as well... being owner of the 44-DA modules & comparing them to my bro in law's setup. What Batpig says here is right on the money... my room isn't even that long & I needed to place the modules on speaker stands to get the overhead sound as good as it could be. 

The 44-DA's are very good (I have 4 of them in my 7.1.4) , in many cases I actually prefer the overhead sound in my HT than the actual atmos theaters I've been to. However, I went to check out my bro in law's setup & his overhead speakers (electromotion 8") sounded a lot better than what I hear @ home. I want to do a test with the dolby atmos demo disc, because I'm almost painfully familiar with it at this point. 

I'm considering selling the modules to install in ceiling speakers... circumstances have changed a bit, so I'm planning on moving my HT into the basement where I have a bit more leeway to do things like cut into the ceiling. 

With the modules I wanted to add one more thought... I feel like there is a blank space above my head where the sound kind of disappears. Have you guys with in ceiling speakers had the same problem? I feel like if Atmos had it's own Voice of god speaker it might help... but perhaps it's not needed if the in ceiling speakers can do a good job with 7.1.4.


----------



## Wrathlon

Thought I'd chime in with my experiences thus far with Dolby Atmos after upgrading from a Pioneer VSX-924k and a JBL Cinema 500 5.1 speaker set. The previous system was decent, very loud for the size/price of it and decent quality, if lacking a bit of punch.

I have since replaced it with:

Yamaha RX-V3077 Receiver (Basically, its identical to the Aventage A3040, just a different chassis)
6x Klipsch RF-52 II Floorstanding speakers as Fronts, Sides and Rears
1x Klipsch RC-52 II Center Speaker
1xKlipsch SW-110 Front Firing Sub

I've also put the old system to use, using the old Cinema 500 Surrounds as Atmos ceiling speakers and the JBL Sub140P Downfiring sub to get the most out of it. I will be replacing the ceiling speakers with some Klipsch RS-52 II speakers and the JBL Sub with a second SW-110 later in the year.

I do have a smallish room, deep enough for up to about 100" TV without screwed up seating position but anything bigger than the RF-52 IIs would be far too big and the combination of the front firing and downfiring sub provides very deep, distortion free bass that rattles everything (in a double brick house no less) but doesn't go overboard where it shouldn't. I get an extra benefit from the downfiring sub as I have a big hollow space about 2ft deep under the floorboards as the house is slightly raised up.

The Atmos demo discs sound mind shatteringly good - the one with the bird flying around overhead is so amazing even my cats swivel their heads around looking at the ceiling trying to find it. Transformers 4 sounds great and I have just acquired The Expendables 3 in Atmos as well as replaced the sound track in the 3D version of Gravity with the Atmos soundtrack (Atmos edition is 2D only - stupid, stupid decision) so looking forward to those.

The DSU is great and adds a lot of depth to non-atmos soundtracks, though cant speak for music as I tend to use the 9ch Stereo option for music playback.

I'm looking forward to upgrading the ceiling speakers/sub later in the year as although the existing ones do a good job, they are nowhere near the same level as the Klipsch speakers. Hopefully the new Quantum Dot TV's from Samsung drop in price by then too ($20k? Rightio, Samsung, good luck with that price) so I can upgrade from my old 64" D8000 series plasma to something a bit bigger and newer to really go all out.

All in all I love Atmos so much, can't wait for more content to start showing up


----------



## Movie78

Does someone have the list of all the ATMOS release in Bluray?

Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

csnow said:


> Thanks for the feedback. Also, please accept my apologies for the immature comments in the other thread.
> 
> Chris


No worries. Already forgotten.


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> Does someone have the list of all the ATMOS release in Bluray?
> 
> Thanks!


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


Thanks!


----------



## lpnaz480

Movie78 said:


> Does someone have the list of all the ATMOS release in Bluray?
> 
> Thanks!


this one is a list compiled of imports and domestic atmos releases

bluray Atmos


----------



## bargervais

Movie78 said:


> Does someone have the list of all the ATMOS release in Bluray?
> 
> Thanks!


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## Movie78

Thanks Guys!


----------



## howard68

When will we be getting more info on the new receivers from 
Yamaha ,sony ,emotiva ect 
What is the usual time line for all the company's roll out?
I want dolby atmos and dts x and 7.4 or more 
9.4 or 9.6 is what I really want 
I have wired for it and am just waiting 
I don't want to spend $25.000


----------



## Movie78

howard68 said:


> When will we be getting more info on the new receivers from
> Yamaha ,sony ,emotiva ect
> What is the usual time line for all the company's roll out?
> I want dolby atmos and dts x and 7.4 or more
> 9.4 or 9.6 is what I really want
> I have wired for it and am just waiting
> I don't want to spend $25.000


The Denon X7200 is only $3000, so you wouldn't have to spend $25000


----------



## FilmMixer

howard68 said:


> When will we be getting more info on the new receivers from
> Yamaha ,sony ,emotiva ect
> What is the usual time line for all the company's roll out?
> I want dolby atmos and dts x and 7.4 or more
> 9.4 or 9.6 is what I really want
> I have wired for it and am just waiting
> I don't want to spend $25.000


Don't know what Sony has planned

Yamaha usually announces in June for sale in July and August. 

However, I still don't know if any of the main stream manufacturers will go > 7.1.4 any time soon. 

Emotive I wouldn't bet on until well into 2016.


----------



## howard68

Thanks film mixer
I have upgraded all speakers and the wife let me put speakers in ceilings
I am now waiting for the right amp


----------



## howard68

The denon 7200 is the amp my money is on at the moment 
It has been very hard not to get it especially with the HDCP 2.2 now


----------



## wse

lujan said:


> I managed to get an Auro-3D and Atmos demo disks for free. Why would I pay for a DTS:X demo disk? I'll wait until I can find it for free.


I agree! I don't understand why DTS doesn't sell them for $5


----------



## wse

csnow said:


> .......... Read through the 4722 thread in the speaker section. Amazing speakers for an amazing price compared to ID and brick and mortar brands. .......Chris


Link please!


----------



## pasender91

howard68 said:


> The denon 7200 is the amp my money is on at the moment
> It has been very hard not to get it especially with the HDCP 2.2 now


Well, it has Atmos, DTS:X, HDMI 2, HDCP 2.2, supports 7.1.4, good build quality, good DACs, Audissey XT32, all that is quite 
If you are ok with its 3K$ budget, then maybe you should not wait anymore.
We all assume that new 2015 models will still be limited to 7.1.4, so if we are right there is not much more to wait for , else if you wait for one more year 

If you decide to wait for the new models, the only good news you can expect could be lower prices with the successors of the Denon X5200, Marantz 7009, or Yamaha 3040.


----------



## csnow

wse said:


> Link please!



4722 thread

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1925586-just-purchased-pair-jbl-4722n-speakers.html

3677 - Lowest entry level JBL Pro Cinema. AMAZING speakers considering they are less than $600 delivered.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1475860-jbl-pro-3677-speakers.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1280211-jbl-pro-3677-have-arrived.html


----------



## aaranddeeman

All my speakers (except back surrounds) are double wired (2x12AWG) when I originally made the 7.1 wiring through walls.
That came in handy and I could split the surround wiring for surround and rear height for Atmos.
I know this is technically possible and should not have issues, but just getting confirmation. As I have 4 conductors at each surround location, I will also be able to wire Surround+RH+TM (1 conductor each for each speaker and the fourth as a common).
Do you see any issue in this scheme? (Sorry this is a bit OT but was not sure where to post).


----------



## frankpc3

pasender91 said:


> If you are ok with its 3K$ budget, then maybe you should not wait anymore..


The 7200wa is not $3k if you give JDSmoothie a PM.

Mine arrives tomorrow.


----------



## roodof

do I need a 9.2 receiver to make all speakers work simultaneously or will a 7.2 do the trick? 
front right/front left
center
surround right/surround left
ceiling right/ceiling left
surround rear right/surround rear left
subwoofer


that's 10 speakers I'm hooking up,but owners manual on a 7.2 system said it would not be possible to play all at the same time!


----------



## jdsmoothie

roodof said:


> do I need a 9.2 receiver to make all speakers work simultaneously or will a 7.2 do the trick?
> front right/front left
> center
> surround right/surround left
> ceiling right/ceiling left
> surround rear right/surround rear left
> subwoofer
> 
> 
> that's 10 speakers I'm hooking up,but owners manual on a 7.2 system said it would not be possible to play all at the same time!


Depends on the model you purchase, although yes, you do need an AVR capable of processing 9CH. Generally 7CH models < $1000 cannot process more than 7CH at a time (ie. 5.1.2) so you'd have to give up the Surround rear speakers. The Denon X4100W is a 7CH model but can expand to 9CH using an external 2CH amp and then will process your 7.1.2 setup, otherwise you would need a 9CH model.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

If my ceiling is only 6' 11" do you think in ceiling speakers would work ok? Do any of you have low ceilings like that?


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> If my ceiling is only 6' 11" do you think in ceiling speakers would work ok? Do any of you have low ceilings like that?


I would try, using the furthest above angles recommended by Dolby Atmos (Guidelines).

* Top Front: 30° or @ 35-40°
* Top Rear: 150° or @ 140-145°

♦ I'm sure it would work just fine.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> I would try, using the furthest above angles recommended by Dolby Atmos (Guidelines).
> 
> * Top Front: 30° or @ 35-40°
> * Top Rear: 150° or @ 140-145°
> 
> ♦ I'm sure it would work just fine.


Cool, right now the ceiling in the current space is 7' 4", so it will be shorter in the other room, but I'll have more width and 2x length... + the ability to do in ceiling


----------



## aaranddeeman

Aras_Volodka said:


> If my ceiling is only 6' 11" do you think in ceiling speakers would work ok? Do any of you have low ceilings like that?


Yup. Just sit on the floor while watching the movies... 
(Sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## helvetica bold

I wonder if there's an ETA on "Get the latest Dolby Atmos titles released on Blu-ray Disc, *also accessible soon through streaming service providers such as Amazon Instant Video and Vudu.*"


----------



## arttu

If I have speakers installed in a normal 7.1 plus *top rear* (pair) and *front height* (pair) configuration, do receivers like Denon avr-x5200, Denon avr-x7200 etc support this and give me proper Atmos 7.1.4?

My room has places for heights already made (about 30 degrees upwards from main) and my front wall is only 9 feet away from main listening position.


----------



## aaranddeeman

arttu said:


> If I have speakers installed in a normal 7.1 plus *top rear* (pair) and *front height* (pair) gonficuration, do receivers like Denon avr-x5200, Denon avr-x7200 etc support this and give me proper Atmos 7.1.4?
> 
> My room has places for heights already made (about 30 degrees upwards from main) and my front wall is only 9 feet away from main listening position.


Yes. But you need to add one external stereo amp, because both those AVRs have only 9 internal amps. But they do process 11.1 channels.


----------



## arttu

Thanks.
Amps are not a problem because I solely use active speakers.


----------



## roxiedog13

howard68 said:


> The denon 7200 is the amp my money is on at the moment
> It has been very hard not to get it especially with the HDCP 2.2 now


I almost bought the 7200 but ended up with the 5200 instead and almost half the price. So glad I did too because I've been enjoying it fully since the fall of last year. The way I see it 2.2 and DTS:X upgrade 
means nothing for at least a year or more so I figured just as well to hang in until the 2016 models show up with these upgrades and the ability to have six in ceiling speakers . I have the six speakers in place now and the only options to have the third pair working are : 1) spend $30,000 for a high end unit( not in the budget) or 2) use a second 4200 Denon for and make a phantom channel as others have done.
I'm actually considering this as I need a second replacement receiver anyway for another room and wouldn't have to sell the unit once the 2016's are available. Hmmmmmm, wonder what the 9200X Denon will cost when it shows up next year????


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys,
I need your help again to decide to go with 7.1.4 or to go with 7.1.6.
Currently I have one pair old inceiling speakers (Sonance Sr622) w/o backer box. I was discarding that pair and purchased another 2 pairs of Tannoy Di 8 DCt on-ceiling speakers to go with 7.1.4. The angle will be around 45 degree for top fronts and 135 degree for top rear.
This morning, I am thinking if I can keep that pair of inceiling speakers as top middle to go with 7.1.6. However, that inceiling pair are not at 90 degree. Instead, they are located 3 ft before MLP.
I attach two pictures. First picture is option A with 7.1.4. The 2nd picture is Option B with 7.1.6 after rearranging TF&TR speaker location.
Although Option B has one more pair of overhead speakers and quanity is increased, I am not sure if sounding quality can be improved considering not optimal angle for top middle as well as different types of speakers ( TF&TR is of onceiling, TM is of inceiling).

Could you please advise me which option is better ( A: 7.1.4, B: 7.1.6)? 

Also I didn't find Dolby ATMOS 7.1.6 speaker layout??

Anothe question is Can Marantz 8802 handles 3 pairs of overhead speakers? It has 13 channel pre-out.
Thanks again for your help. I appreicate it.


----------



## csnow

roxiedog13 said:


> I almost bought the 7200 but ended up with the 5200 instead and almost half the price. So glad I did too because I've been enjoying it fully since the fall of last year. The way I see it 2.2 and DTS:X upgrade
> means nothing for at least a year or more so I figured just as well to hang in until the 2016 models show up with these upgrades and the ability to have six in ceiling speakers . I have the six speakers in place now and the only options to have the third pair working are : 1) spend $30,000 for a high end unit( not in the budget) or 2) use a second 4200 Denon for and make a phantom channel as others have done.
> I'm actually considering this as I need a second replacement receiver anyway for another room and wouldn't have to sell the unit once the 2016's are available. Hmmmmmm, wonder what the 9200X Denon will cost when it shows up next year????


I agree 100%. Let stuff settle down and shake out. Being an early adopter rarely wins although I own a 5200. I bought it to replace a failed receiver, otherwise I would have waited. The last early adoption I made was the wrong decision and put me on the wrong side of the fence.. Dang it, I still think HD-DVD is better 

With that said, I am looking forward to going Atmos. I forklift replaced all of my speakers and subs, so I am going to integrate Atmos with the new setup.


----------



## smurraybhm

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys,
> I need your help again to decide to go with 7.1.4 or to go with 7.1.6.
> Currently I have one pair old inceiling speakers (Sonance Sr622) w/o backer box. I was discarding that pair and purchased another 2 pairs of Tannoy Di 8 DCt on-ceiling speakers to go with 7.1.4. The angle will be around 45 degree for top fronts and 135 degree for top rear.
> This morning, I am thinking if I can keep that pair of inceiling speakers as top middle to go with 7.1.6. However, that inceiling pair are not at 90 degree. Instead, they are located 3 ft before MLP.
> I attach two pictures. First picture is option A with 7.1.4. The 2nd picture is Option B with 7.1.6 after rearranging TF&TR speaker location.
> Although Option B has one more pair of overhead speakers and quanity is increased, I am not sure if sounding quality can be improved considering not optimal angle for top middle as well as different types of speakers ( TF&TR is of onceiling, TM is of inceiling).
> 
> Could you please advise me which option is better ( A: 7.1.4, B: 7.1.6)?
> 
> Also I didn't find Dolby ATMOS 7.1.6 speaker layout??
> 
> Anothe question is Can Marantz 8802 handles 3 pairs of overhead speakers? It has 13 channel pre-out.
> Thanks again for your help. I appreicate it.




Easy answer, there is no 7.1.6 option - 6 discrete overhead speakers are not available on a unit costing less than 5 figures. Doesn't look like waiting for the new models will result in anything different this year.


----------



## Movie78

csnow said:


> I agree 100%. Let stuff settle down and shake out. Being an early adopter rarely wins although I own a 5200. I bought it to replace a failed receiver, otherwise I would have waited. The last early adoption I made was the wrong decision and put me on the wrong side of the fence.. Dang it, I still think HD-DVD is better
> 
> With that said, I am looking forward to going Atmos. I forklift replaced all of my speakers and subs, so I am going to integrate Atmos with the new setup.


Isn't the X5200 and early adopter product for Atmos?


----------



## csnow

Movie78 said:


> Isn't the X5200 and early adopter product for Atmos?


Yes, that is why I prefaced it by say the purchase was due to a failed/damaged amp. I shorted my 4520ci; otherwise, I wouldn't own it right now. I would have waited 2-3 years for product maturity and standardization. Sorry if that wasnt clear.


----------



## punksterz626

I am interested in setting my home up with Dolby Atmos, 5.1.4. It My Atmos speakers will be ceiling in-wall mounted. However, my floorplan does not permit me to install rear surrounds due to my backwall not being uniform across; and, floorstanding rear surrounds is out of the question. It will either have to be ceiling mounted or back wall mounted. 

Is it possible to do atmos without rear surround? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I have attached a drawing of my floor plan from a bird's eye view.


----------



## Josh Z

punksterz626 said:


> I am interested in setting my home up with Dolby Atmos, 5.1.4. It My Atmos speakers will be ceiling in-wall mounted. However, my floorplan does not permit me to install rear surrounds due to my backwall not being uniform across; and, floorstanding rear surrounds is out of the question. It will either have to be ceiling mounted or back wall mounted.
> 
> Is it possible to do atmos without rear surround? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I have attached a drawing of my floor plan from a bird's eye view.


Yes, it's possible to do 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 without Surround Back channels at ear level. The Surround Backs are not required.


----------



## DAK4

punksterz626 said:


> I am interested in setting my home up with Dolby Atmos, 5.1.4. It My Atmos speakers will be ceiling in-wall mounted. However, my floorplan does not permit me to install rear surrounds due to my backwall not being uniform across; and, floorstanding rear surrounds is out of the question. It will either have to be ceiling mounted or back wall mounted.
> 
> Is it possible to do atmos without rear surround? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I have attached a drawing of my floor plan from a bird's eye view.


You can still do rear surrounds if you want to, most AVR's will adjust the volume and timing for non uniform placement.


----------



## punksterz626

DAK4 said:


> You can still do rear surrounds if you want to, most AVR's will adjust the volume and timing for non uniform placement.


Ic. Cant do the right back wall due to wall made with faux brick. I guess the only place would be ceiling. Do people actually ceiling mount rear surrounds? However, looking at the atmos speaker placement chart, if i mount the rear surrounds in ceiling, its basically right next to the rear heights surround. Wouldnt that be redundant.


----------



## DAK4

punksterz626 said:


> Ic. Cant do the right back wall due to wall made with faux brick. I guess the only place would be ceiling. Do people actually ceiling mount rear surrounds? However, looking at the atmos speaker placement chart, if i mount the rear surrounds in ceiling, its basically right next to the rear heights surround. Wouldnt that be redundant.


You are correct, ceiling mounting the rear surrounds wouldn't be the best idea. You could surface mount a bookshelf speaker on the back wall but it may not look as nice as a in-wall speaker. Or as others have said 5.1.4 still works really well.


----------



## punksterz626

DAK4 said:


> You are correct, ceiling mounting the rear surrounds wouldn't be the best idea. You could surface mount a bookshelf speaker on the back wall but it may not look as nice as a in-wall speaker. Or as others have said 5.1.4 still works really well.


I might have to consider the shelf the rear surrounds. Wouldnt it be a 3.1.4 without the rear surrounds??


----------



## cdelena

I have used a number of on-wall solutions in the past if you can cleanly get wire to them... for instance...


http://www.axiomaudio.com/m3-on-wall-speaker


----------



## DAK4

punksterz626 said:


> I might have to consider the shelf the rear surrounds. Wouldnt it be a 3.1.4 without the rear surrounds??


*5*.1.4 is with "Side" surrounds and *7*.1.4 is with "Side & Rear" surrounds.


----------



## punksterz626

DAK4 said:


> *5*.1.4 is with "Side" surrounds and *7*.1.4 is with "Side & Rear" surrounds.


I see what you're saying. but im referring to a 5.1 setup where the "sides" are actually the rear surround? so it wouldnt be weird if i omit the rear two surround and just go with FRONT-CENTER-RIGHT-SUB-4 CEILING ATMOS SURROUND?


----------



## DAK4

punksterz626 said:


> I see what you're saying. but im referring to a 5.1 setup where the "sides" are actually the rear surround? so it wouldnt be weird if i omit the rear two surround and just go with FRONT-CENTER-RIGHT-SUB-4 CEILING ATMOS SURROUND?


Maybe someone else can chime in that has done or tested a 3.1.4 setup, I guess it would still be better than just the front speakers.


----------



## csnow

I don't see how a 3.1.x will work at all. The ceiling speakers will pan to nothing. It will present a broken sound stage. If you cant do any rear speakers, I would forgo Atmos completely.


----------



## pasender91

punksterz626 said:


> I see what you're saying. but im referring to a 5.1 setup where the "sides" are actually the rear surround? so it wouldnt be weird if i omit the rear two surround and just go with FRONT-CENTER-RIGHT-SUB-4 CEILING ATMOS SURROUND?


If you can't do either side or back surrounds, it is a shame, but indeed a 3.1.4 configuration should still work and provide a better result than a 3.1


----------



## batpig

punksterz626 said:


> I might have to consider the shelf the rear surrounds. Wouldnt it be a 3.1.4 without the rear surrounds??


There's some terminological confusion here that is muddying the debate. You initially posted that you wanted to do 5.1.4 but couldn't do rear surrounds. That implies that you are asking about the difference between 5.1.4 and 7.1.4.

There are SURROUNDS and BACK SURROUNDS. A 5.1 setup has SURROUNDS and you can extend this to 7.1 with BACK SURROUNDS. It sounds like you are using the generic term "rear surrounds" but are really referring to the primary surround speakers, i.e. you can't even do a 5ch base layer?


----------



## punksterz626

batpig said:


> There's some terminological confusion here that is muddying the debate. You initially posted that you wanted to do 5.1.4 but couldn't do rear surrounds. That implies that you are asking about the difference between 5.1.4 and 7.1.4.
> 
> There are SURROUNDS and BACK SURROUNDS. A 5.1 setup has SURROUNDS and you can extend this to 7.1 with BACK SURROUNDS. It sounds like you are using the generic term "rear surrounds" but are really referring to the primary surround speakers, i.e. you can't even do a 5ch base layer?


I do apologize for the confusion. Indeed you are correct on all account.


----------



## bkeeler10

^^ Will Atmos receivers even allow you to configure overhead speakers if you don't first have a pair of side surrounds? I can see how that might not even be allowed . . .


----------



## batpig

Where there's a will there's a way. I think with any surround sound setup the most important thing is to get the CORE layout -- your 5.1 setup -- done and then worry about extra speakers after that. 

I see two possible paths:

option 1 -- figure out SOME way to get surrounds on the back wall. I know you said part of it is tricky because of a faux brick finish -- can you get creative and utilized a decorative shelf or a piece of furniture (bookshelf, hutch, etc) to place the speaker on for the problematic section of wall? 

option 2 -- suspend surrounds from the ceiling. Use some sort of drop-tube mount system to have the speakers ceiling mounted (so you avoid the troublesome back wall mounting) but dropped down a few feet below ceiling height. 

In either case, since your surround speakers will by necessity be behind you, I would go with a Front Height + Top Middle configuration for the 4 overhead speakers so you space out the speakers appropriately. The area behind you will be covered by the surrounds.


----------



## batpig

bkeeler10 said:


> ^^ Will Atmos receivers even allow you to configure overhead speakers if you don't first have a pair of side surrounds? I can see how that might not even be allowed . . .


Yes they will -- on my Denon X5200W it allowed me to run a 3.1.2 setup for example.

I don't know if you can go 3.1.4 but I can monkey around with it tonight.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Can you put the side surrounds or back surrounds on stands? Atmos recommends they go at or around ear height, so speaker stands would be fine for that.

Gary


----------



## punksterz626

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Can you put the side surrounds or back surrounds on stands? Atmos recommends they go at or around ear height, so speaker stands would be fine for that.
> 
> Gary


Its possible i can put the side surround on stands; however, they will only be to the left and right wall where it ends if you look at the floor plan. Back of the couch would be the walkway.


----------



## asarose247

back wall issues?
suspend speakers from the ceiling?
some ideas
YMMV


----------



## bargervais

asarose247 said:


> back wall issues?
> suspend speakers from the ceiling?
> some ideas
> YMMV


Looks like a bachelor pad... good idea with those suspended speakers, but my wife would kill me if my theatre room got in that state. I know once the lights go down and the movie starts your transported into another world.


----------



## batpig

asarose247 said:


> back wall issues?
> suspend speakers from the ceiling?
> some ideas
> YMMV


Neat setup -- but there seems to be only minimal separation between surround back and top rear speakers. How far apart are they? Can you even hear the distinction?


----------



## asarose247

^

the surround backs are gone, replaced by my former fronts the klipsch F-3 towers about 4-5 feet behind the mlp 
also they were not monopole 
the L/R (Fusion 15's), the TF, TR and rears pretty much in a straight line wrt posted dolby layout diagrams
so there is more separation wrt to TR's
yes, picture update is needed


----------



## asarose247

ok


----------



## Aras_Volodka

punksterz626 said:


> I am interested in setting my home up with Dolby Atmos, 5.1.4. It My Atmos speakers will be ceiling in-wall mounted. However, my floorplan does not permit me to install rear surrounds due to my backwall not being uniform across; and, floorstanding rear surrounds is out of the question. It will either have to be ceiling mounted or back wall mounted.
> 
> Is it possible to do atmos without rear surround? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I have attached a drawing of my floor plan from a bird's eye view.


The 7.1.4.-i-phile in me wouldn't care about the rear wall, looks like you still have space for the speakers. If you have the room, do it! It adds soooo much to the immersion, as I've tried it both ways when my rear speakers were in the shop. Are floor speakers a no-no due to divorce factor?


----------



## asarose247

iirc your room is about 14 ft wide, like mine (14.5) 
some slant Volt 6's for surrounds, was recommendation to me by Erich ,
said they'd be plenty of sound, coverage disoersion, not so intrusive
especially since you have 1 row of seating 

( aside note, I checked out the ad that appears every now and then, for the Legacy "slim" panels 5 1/4" deep, 16 x 36 or something like that didn't check the price but the WAF factor could be a winner - .02)

and then wrt to using those for a low profile top ATMOS set, what could possibly go wrong with that?

back to the drawing board


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Does having a receiver and bd player that supports Dolby Atmos matter for a typical 5.1 setup? Also, do video games on the ps4 or xbox one already use a similar level of precision in terms of placing objects in a 3d sound space? As opposed to just discrete channels like all current formats excluding atmos and dts x and auro 3d?


----------



## NorthSky

1. No. ...Not in my opinion.
2. No. ...Not to my knowledge.
3. Best if interested with the latest 3D sound decoders is to install overhead speakers.


----------



## batpig

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Does having a receiver and bd player that supports Dolby Atmos matter for a typical 5.1 setup? Also, do video games on the ps4 or xbox one already use a similar level of precision in terms of placing objects in a 3d sound space? As opposed to just discrete channels like all current formats excluding atmos and dts x and auro 3d?


If you only have a 5.1 setup you won't really get any benefit from Atmos decoding. 

Video games are inherently object based -- how can you premix discrete channels of content when you don't know which way the character will be facing at any given moment?


----------



## punksterz626

so i was at Bestbuy testing out their atmos setup and also wanted their opinion on my situation. The guy said its not necessary for the surround; so, he proceed to turn on 3 rear ceiling, and 2 front height firing speakers. I got to say, it sounded amazing. He recommended that i do 3 rear, 2 middle and 2 front ceiling speakers.

He said, the rear speakers, if not in atmos mode, will become my surrounds as the receiver will automatically choose the correct setup for the speakers. Is this possible or correct?

thanks.


----------



## pasender91

punksterz626 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's some terminological confusion here that is muddying the debate. You initially posted that you wanted to do 5.1.4 but couldn't do rear surrounds. That implies that you are asking about the difference between 5.1.4 and 7.1.4.
> 
> There are SURROUNDS and BACK SURROUNDS. A 5.1 setup has SURROUNDS and you can extend this to 7.1 with BACK SURROUNDS. It sounds like you are using the generic term "rear surrounds" but are really referring to the primary surround speakers, i.e. you can't even do a 5ch base layer?
> 
> 
> 
> so i was at Bestbuy testing out their atmos setup and also wanted their opinion on my situation. The guy said its not necessary for the surround; so, he proceed to turn on 3 rear ceiling, and 2 front height firing speakers. I got to say, it sounded amazing. He recommended that i do 3 rear, 2 middle and 2 front ceiling speakers.
> 
> He said, the rear speakers, if not in atmos mode, will become my surrounds as the receiver will automatically choose the correct setup for the speakers. Is this possible or correct?
> 
> thanks.
Click to expand...

You keep using confusing terms 
Looking at your room plan, i don't see why you can't install surrounds on the sides of the couch, they are the most important speakers after the front 3.
And then 4 ceiling speakers for Atmos and you reach 5.1.4, the first good configuration for 3D audio nirvana 
Then 2 back surrounds are an option, even if the backwall distance is not even you can still install them and reach 7.1.4.


----------



## NorthSky

It depends...of the wife.


----------



## smurraybhm

punksterz626 said:


> so i was at Bestbuy testing out their atmos setup and also wanted their opinion on my situation. The guy said its not necessary for the surround; so, he proceed to turn on 3 rear ceiling, and 2 front height firing speakers. I got to say, it sounded amazing. He recommended that i do 3 rear, 2 middle and 2 front ceiling speakers.
> 
> He said, the rear speakers, if not in atmos mode, will become my surrounds as the receiver will automatically choose the correct setup for the speakers. Is this possible or correct?
> 
> thanks.[/quote]
> 
> Never listen to what a BB employee has to tell you about Atmos. No mainstream system automatically chooses the speakers on the fly, they have to be configured, once configured to be a certain type like rear surrounds or rear heights that is how they are designated. Atmos will place objects using those designations, other surround modes may do a better job then others of utilizing them or not. Much better asking questions from those who actually have it right here on this thread.


----------



## punksterz626

pasender91 said:


> You keep using confusing terms
> Looking at your room plan, i don't see why you can't install surrounds on the sides of the couch, they are the most important speakers after the front 3.
> And then 4 ceiling speakers for Atmos and you reach 5.1.4, the first good configuration for 3D audio nirvana
> Then 2 back surrounds are an option, even if the backwall distance is not even you can still install them and reach 7.1.4.


sorry for the confusion. I am strictly referring to a 5.1 setup that i am having trouble with. The ceiling atmos wont be a problem. The wife does not approve speaker wires if i put floor standing surrounds behind the couch. I have hardwood flooring.



NorthSky said:


> It depends...of the wife.


 Nothing goes through without her approval. I already talked her into new TV, receiver, and atmos setup. Cant push my luck any further.



smurraybhm said:


> Never listen to what a BB employee has to tell you about Atmos. No mainstream system automatically chooses the speakers on the fly, they have to be configured, once configured to be a certain type like rear surrounds or rear heights that is how they are designated. Atmos will place objects using those designations, other surround modes may do a better job then others of utilizing them or not. Much better asking questions from those who actually have it right here on this thread.


Thats exactly what i was thinking. Then i start doubting myself, since ive havent upgraded any of my equipments since 2008, that there are new equipments out there that can possiblly do that.

I think at the moment, my best bet is the back wall. i'll have to be creative with some type of bookshelf, or even some slanted speakers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

punksterz626 said:


> so i was at Bestbuy testing out their atmos setup and also wanted their opinion on my situation. The guy said its not necessary for the surround; so, he proceed to turn on 3 rear ceiling, and 2 front height firing speakers. I got to say, it sounded amazing. He recommended that i do 3 rear, 2 middle and 2 front ceiling speakers.
> 
> He said, the rear speakers, if not in atmos mode, will become my surrounds as the receiver will automatically choose the correct setup for the speakers. Is this possible or correct?
> 
> thanks.





smurraybhm said:


> Never listen to what a BB employee has to tell you about Atmos. No mainstream system automatically chooses the speakers on the fly, they have to be configured, once configured to be a certain type like rear surrounds or rear heights that is how they are designated. Atmos will place objects using those designations, other surround modes may do a better job then others of utilizing them or not. Much better asking questions from those who actually have it right here on this thread.


I'll 2nd that... If you follow the advice of fellow AVS members you will get a far better sound than what you heard at best buy I'd imagine. Not to knock BB sales associates... but as far as I know they've received no training in how to setup atmos... I actually helped the people at best buy try to figure out their receiver, as it was only playing in 5.1 (lol).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

roxiedog13 said:


> I have my HT in my basement, it is certainly the correct place to have it in my home for sure. I too had a flood in my basement but that was 27 years ago and have never had an issue since. You need to solve the issue with the water first, if that is not done you will never feel safe . Alternatively ,there are water sensors that will trigger an alarm and relay that to your mobile phone . At least with this you would have a
> heads up and can get home to remove the valuable equipment. Have all the electronics mounted high above the flood level, have all speakers on quick disconnects for quick removal. Even the screen would have to be able to unhook quickly as it too could be in the water if the ceiling height is average.
> 
> Mold only happens with poor ventilation. I assume you have a air exchanger. Heating up a room will not remove moisture, it has to be ventilated. My basement is bone dry and pleasant, no different than any
> other room in my home. I know, I spend a lot of time there.





Stanton said:


> The "cons" far out-weigh the "pros" for me. In fact, you could have stopped after #1 & #2 (and #4 won't help with audio). The truth is, you can place the Dolby height speakers on the side wall near the ceiling without moving your whole setup.


So despite the risks I think for sure I will be relocating my HT to the basement. I'm going to run a test with the sub & 2 speakers before I move everything down. 

I've been doing a massive clean up of the basement over this last week... I've eliminated most of the musty odor & I scrubbed the mold off the walls. I'm going to re-clean everything one more time & I've kept all the windows open for a few days so it's had a chance to ventilate... it's a huge difference! I also dropped a 65 year old kitchen sink on my big toe (ouch!) in the process, but things aren't looking too shabby. 

My only concern with placing the HT down there is if it floods, but most of the valuable gear will be above flood level. The outlets are located up high too so I can keep the power off the floor in the event of a disaster. The only things at risk would be the sub, floor speakers, & couch/carpeting. I plan to get the sensor so I could move things out of the way in the event that a flood might occur. 

The basement is partially finished, I'm not going to "finish" it, only optimize it for audio as I'm not too concerned with presentation at the moment. If down the road I end up staying at this location I will pay to have the foundation problems fixed. I will however be building diffusors & absorption panels... I'm planning on buying a few saws sometime this month  

I know the subject of in ceiling speakers has been discussed to death on this thread... but I may ask for some advice from those of you with in ceiling speakers @ 7' height level.


----------



## JamesE

You need to treat it for mold, not just scrap it off.


----------



## punksterz626

Which of these two setup would be a better configuration?

both are:
5.1.4
atmos ceiling mounted speakers

one configuration is floor standing surround next to the sofa.
second configuration is surround mounted in the back wall


----------



## Aras_Volodka

punksterz626 said:


> Which of these two setup would be a better configuration?
> 
> both are:
> 5.1.4
> atmos ceiling mounted speakers
> 
> one configuration is floor standing surround next to the sofa.
> second configuration is surround mounted in the back wall


If you have the space, the 2nd example. Though I'd also recommend watching Home theater geeks with Anthony Grimani (I think it's titled acoustics for immersive sound or something like that)... will help a bit with speaker placement. I followed Grimani's advice for the floor speakers & found his input helpful.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

JamesE said:


> You need to treat it for mold, not just scrap it off.


I sprayed a ton of bleach on the wall with mold, I haven't seen it grow back but I'll look into treating it.


----------



## Josh Z

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Also, do video games on the ps4 or xbox one already use a similar level of precision in terms of placing objects in a 3d sound space? As opposed to just discrete channels like all current formats excluding atmos and dts x and auro 3d?





batpig said:


> Video games are inherently object based -- how can you premix discrete channels of content when you don't know which way the character will be facing at any given moment?


With the exception that video games doe not utilize height channels like Atmos does. Their objects are confined to a 5.1 ground level.


----------



## pasender91

This is going to change very soon, some 2015 games are already annonced as Atmos-compliant, this could be very nice for gamers


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> I sprayed a ton of bleach on the wall with mold, I haven't seen it grow back but I'll look into treating it.


Honestly, if you're going to move the whole HT down there with all that equipment, and then ostensibly spend a bunch of time down there enjoying your system, I would first get a professional to come over and survey the basement and mold/dampness/flooding issues. Don't know what your background is but seems like a recipe for disaster for a DIY amateur to think everyone is peachy keen and then something bad happens (flood) or you are just sitting there breathing mold for months unknowingly. It's worth the money to have a professional take a look before committing to this path IMO.


----------



## Josh Z

punksterz626 said:


> sorry for the confusion. I am strictly referring to a 5.1 setup that i am having trouble with. The ceiling atmos wont be a problem. The wife does not approve speaker wires if i put floor standing surrounds behind the couch. I have hardwood flooring.


Where I think you're getting hung up is the idea that "Surround" speakers need to be behind your seats. That's not the case. In fact, ideally they should be to the left and right sides of your seats.

If you had a 7.1 system, the two additional channels (called "Back Surrounds") would go behind you. 

Surround (5.1) = To the sides.
Back Surround (7.1) = Behind you.

In an Atmos system, it's recommended that your base layer of 5.1 or 7.1 speakers should all be at ear level. Then you add additional height channels above. If you put your Surround speakers in the ceiling, you're going to confuse the directionality of sounds, and there won't be the necessary separation between the ground layer and the height layer.

However, prior to Atmos, it was very common for people with traditional 5.1 systems to install their Surround channels up high, sometimes in the ceiling. That allowed sounds in the back of the room to fill the space better than if you only had speakers at ear level all around.

With Atmos, you don't want to do that, because Atmos now gives you separation between low and high, in additional to front and back. 

I think you're greatly overthinking your problem. My advice is to install a simple 5.1 system. Put the Surround speakers up high if that's the best place in your room for them. Don't do Atmos at all. It isn't likely to work out for you, given what you've described in this thread.

It's natural to want the latest and greatest new hotness if you can afford it and find some way to make it work, but it isn't always necessary. You can still get great surround sound even with just 5.1.


----------



## Movie78

Some very good ATMOS information from the guys from THX.
www.youtube.com
Search : v=hx_uOquSs44


----------



## NorthSky

I am not a gamer, never was, and even never tried...so I have zero knowledge. 

* Is it different than say watching a Blu-ray movie with a Dolby TrueHD 5.1 audio soundtrack, regarding sound distribution and discrete panning? 
...Or is it done better, with more accurate sound positioning?

And, is Dolby Atmos already included with some video games?


----------



## punksterz626

Aras_Volodka said:


> If you have the space, the 2nd example. Though I'd also recommend watching Home theater geeks with Anthony Grimani (I think it's titled acoustics for immersive sound or something like that)... will help a bit with speaker placement. I followed Grimani's advice for the floor speakers & found his input helpful.



That was a very insightful video. Thank you. Now i have a better understanding on where i should be placing the speakers.


----------



## punksterz626

Josh Z said:


> Where I think you're getting hung up is the idea that "Surround" speakers need to be behind your seats. That's not the case. In fact, ideally they should be to the left and right sides of your seats.
> 
> If you had a 7.1 system, the two additional channels (called "Back Surrounds") would go behind you.
> 
> Surround (5.1) = To the sides.
> Back Surround (7.1) = Behind you.
> 
> In an Atmos system, it's recommended that your base layer of 5.1 or 7.1 speakers should all be at ear level. Then you add additional height channels above. If you put your Surround speakers in the ceiling, you're going to confuse the directionality of sounds, and there won't be the necessary separation between the ground layer and the height layer.
> 
> However, prior to Atmos, it was very common for people with traditional 5.1 systems to install their Surround channels up high, sometimes in the ceiling. That allowed sounds in the back of the room to fill the space better than if you only had speakers at ear level all around.
> 
> With Atmos, you don't want to do that, because Atmos now gives you separation between low and high, in additional to front and back.
> 
> I think you're greatly overthinking your problem. My advice is to install a simple 5.1 system. Put the Surround speakers up high if that's the best place in your room for them. Don't do Atmos at all. It isn't likely to work out for you, given what you've described in this thread.
> 
> It's natural to want the latest and greatest new hotness if you can afford it and find some way to make it work, but it isn't always necessary. You can still get great surround sound even with just 5.1.


this is where i was confuse. I was at dolby site and their standard 5.1 chart the surrounds are to the left and right of the listener. However, 5.1.2 chart the surround are now behind the listen, which is confusing me.


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> this is where i was confuse. I was at dolby site and their standard 5.1 chart the surrounds are to the left and right of the listener. However, 5.1.2 chart the surround are now behind the listen, which is confusing me.


With a 5.1 set-up, placing the surrounds along the sides but slightly rearward of the listener strikes a good compromise between the side and rear placement of a 7.1 set-up.


----------



## Josh Z

punksterz626 said:


> this is where i was confuse. I was at dolby site and their standard 5.1 chart the surrounds are to the left and right of the listener. However, 5.1.2 chart the surround are now behind the listen, which is confusing me.


Hmm, I see what you mean. I agree that seems inconsistent and confusing.

I agree with Sanjay that if you do just 5.1 without Back Surrounds, placing the Surround speakers on the sides of the room but a little rearward of the seats will help to fill the soundstage in that part of the room. If you do 7.1 with Back Surrounds, the main Surrounds should be directly left and right of you.

That applies whether you do Atmos or not.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> That applies whether you do Atmos or not.


Yup, thankfully the main 5.1 or 7.1 speaker locations are consistent across all immersive and non-immersive formats. One less thing to worry about.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

punksterz626 said:


> That was a very insightful video. Thank you. Now i have a better understanding on where i should be placing the speakers.


You're welcome! I'd also advise to test it out before installation, get a friend or something to hold the speaker near the ceiling where you think it will be placed to get a good idea of how the sound is lighting up the MLP. That's my plan anyway


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Honestly, if you're going to move the whole HT down there with all that equipment, and then ostensibly spend a bunch of time down there enjoying your system, I would first get a professional to come over and survey the basement and mold/dampness/flooding issues. Don't know what your background is but seems like a recipe for disaster for a DIY amateur to think everyone is peachy keen and then something bad happens (flood) or you are just sitting there breathing mold for months unknowingly. It's worth the money to have a professional take a look before committing to this path IMO.


Ty for the advice, I will look into it. I've been doing a lot of reading about mold & it seems like the kind that was in my basement wasn't the harmful sort. I had a bunch of boxes down there during the flood & those were what contributed mostly to the odor. The flood only happened because the backup sump pump wasn't even plugged in & the main pump failed. This house had a million problems before I moved in, so a lot of the things that made it bad have been fixed to an extent. 

Otherwise I get seepage but I might have taken care of that problem... I'm aware I'm taking on a huge risk.


----------



## jrogers

Movie78 said:


> Some very good ATMOS information from the guys from THX.
> www.youtube.com
> Search : v=hx_uOquSs44


Thanks for the link! ( Score +1 for Atmos height speakers in the middle and front , but -1 for 5.1.x  )


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> Some very good ATMOS information from the guys from THX.
> www.youtube.com
> Search : v=hx_uOquSs44


----------



## batpig

jrogers said:


> Thanks for the link! ( Score +1 for Atmos height speakers in the middle and front , but -1 for 5.1.x  )


Yes fascinating stuff. The tidbit I find really interesting is that, in their testing, they found that 7.1.4 worked best with (1) elevated surrounds and (2) TF+TM (as opposed to TF+TR) although consumers would implement that as FH+TM. They found that lowering the surrounds too much ended up with obstructions (especially other people) blocking the surrounds and therefore diminishing quality, and when surrounds are elevated (although he points out not as high as in "the old days") you get less separation between the four surround speakers and the rear overheads, so the rear overheads don't really sound distinct. Essentially pushing them up to TM fills the gap better.

I imagine a lot of this is room dependent, but it seems like in the vast majority of rooms the seating will be closer to the rear wall than the the center, meaning SB and TR can get crowded too close together. As I plan my new room I've been struggling with this same issue, and had been contemplating FH+TM instead of TF+TR anyway, and this validates my thinking.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Yes fascinating stuff. The tidbit I find really interesting is that, in their testing, they found that 7.1.4 worked best with (1) elevated surrounds and (2) TF+TM (as opposed to TF+TR) although consumers would implement that as FH+TM. They found that lowering the surrounds too much ended up with obstructions (especially other people) blocking the surrounds and therefore diminishing quality, and when surrounds are elevated (although he points out not as high as in "the old days") you get less separation between the four surround speakers and the rear overheads, so the rear overheads don't really sound distinct. Essentially pushing them up to TM fills the gap better.
> 
> I imagine a lot of this is room dependent, but it seems like in the vast majority of rooms the seating will be closer to the rear wall than the the center, meaning SB and TR can get crowded too close together. As I plan my new room I've been struggling with this same issue, and had been contemplating FH+TM instead of TF+TR anyway, and this validates my thinking.


This is interesting. 
I have adequate space behind MLP and went with FH+RH instead. My be worth an experiment to make it FH+TM and see if it brings any improvement.


----------



## wiliris

aaranddeeman said:


> This is interesting.
> I have adequate space behind MLP and went with FH+RH instead. My be worth an experiment to make it FH+TM and see if it brings any improvement.


Interesting


----------



## Movie78

Thanks for posting the video.

I taught i will get in trouble for posting a different forum video...


----------



## Oledurt

I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Yes fascinating stuff. The tidbit I find really interesting is that, in their testing, they found that 7.1.4 worked best with (1) elevated surrounds and (2) *TF+TM* (as opposed to TF+TR) although consumers would implement that as FH+TM.


Eehhmm, anyone else react to this ? TF+TM ???(and yes i heard he said it on the podcast)
That's not possible, right?


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes fascinating stuff. The tidbit I find really interesting is that, in their testing, they found that 7.1.4 worked best with (1) elevated surrounds and (2) *TF+TM* (as opposed to TF+TR) although consumers would implement that as FH+TM.
> 
> 
> 
> Eehhmm, anyone else react to this ? TF+TM ???(and yes i heard he said it on the podcast)
> That's not possible, right?
Click to expand...

It's possible just not permitted in nearly all consumer gear. Thus the last part of the quoted sentence. Who knows what professor they were using or if they actually did do FH+TM and he was more focused on the principle than the explicit speaker designation in the processor?


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> It's possible just not permitted in nearly all consumer gear. Thus the last part of the quoted sentence. *Who knows what professor they were using* or if they actually did do FH+TM and he was more focused on the principle than the explicit speaker designation in the processor?



My guess is that they were using Professor Irwin Corey.






BTW, are you moved into your new place yet?


----------



## batpig

Ha. Blame autocorrect.

Yes we moved a couple of weeks ago. The new bonus room (what my 4 y.o. daughter has dubbed "Daddy's Playroom") is in progress, currently just running a 5.1 setup with a PJ projecting on the bare wall while I plot out next moves (i.e. getting wire to the overheads). 

The kids are happy, nothing like watching Octonauts on the big screen!


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Ha. Blame autocorrect.
> 
> Yes we moved a couple of weeks ago. The new bonus room (what my 4 y.o. daughter has dubbed "Daddy's Playroom") is in progress, currently just running a 5.1 setup with a PJ projecting on the bare wall while I plot out next moves (i.e. getting wire to the overheads).
> 
> The kids are happy, nothing like watching Octonauts on the big screen!


Congratulations! I know the move was a long time in the planning and I'll bet you're happy to be settling in.

We all look forward to your HT progress reports. Unfortunately, it appears that "Daddy's Playroom" (aka "The Bat[pig] Cave"?) is still not a kids-free zone. As the French say, _plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose_!


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> Congratulations! I know the move was a long time in the planning and I'll bet you're happy to be settling in.
> 
> We all look forward to your HT progress reports. Unfortunately, it appears that "Daddy's Playroom" (aka "The Bat[pig] Cave"?) is still not a kids-free zone. As the French say, _plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose_!


LOL, our 21 month toddler currently has his crib in the far corner of our L-shaped living/dining room, and can sleep through anything short of Interstellar at 100+ db peaks. OTOH, he was early on conditioned to Daddy's home theater being part of his environment, since he used to stay up when he was an infant and only go to sleep watching Bond movies on pay cable! It works out as long as I can stop him from engaging in subwoofer volume experiments to see if I'm paying attention that both my subs are firing and not having their analog crossovers engaged accidentally.

The flipside is that we're moving this summer, and my planned HT room will likely be near to his bedroom to maximize our space, so you could say I'm training him young for a future as an AVSer. Paddington Bears upmixed by DSU or DTS:X in a high channel count environment, anyone?


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> Paddington Bears upmixed by DSU or DTS:X in a high channel count environment, anyone?


Sleeping Beauty in 7.1.4 DSU upmix glory will definitely be a feature presentation in the bat(pig) cave


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> LOL, our 21 month toddler currently has his crib in the far corner of our L-shaped living/dining room, and can sleep through anything short of Interstellar at 100+ db peaks. OTOH, he was early on conditioned to Daddy's home theater being part of his environment, since he used to stay up when he was an infant and only go to sleep watching Bond movies on pay cable! It works out as long as I can stop him from engaging in subwoofer volume experiments to see if I'm paying attention that both my subs are firing and not having their analog crossovers engaged accidentally.
> 
> The flipside is that we're moving this summer, and my planned HT room will likely be near to his bedroom to maximize our space, so you could say I'm training him young for a future as an AVSer. Paddington Bears upmixed by DSU or DTS:X in a high channel count environment, anyone?


Are you taking notes, Aras?


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Congratulations! I know the move was a long time in the planning and I'll bet you're happy to be settling in.
> 
> We all look forward to your HT progress reports. Unfortunately, it appears that "Daddy's Playroom" (aka "The Bat[pig] Cave"?) is still not a kids-free zone. As the French say, _plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose_!


Well it was never going to be an exclusively kids-free zone. What fun is a home theater if you don't get to enjoy it with the family at times right? The important part is can daddy watch non-family-friendly movies at an enjoyable volume at night when the wife/kids are asleep? The answer so far appears to be yes 

I'm actually going to be out of town up in the Sierras for the next week, plus the in-laws are visiting, so won't really be able to make much progress until mid June. My main goal after moving was to get at minimum a basic 5.1 setup up and running so I could enjoy some content from the new (used) PJ. With all the Atmos/DTS:X hubbub, it is nice to remember how enjoyable "just" a 5.1 setup can be. That said, of course, 7.1.4 is mo' better!

One nice fringe benefit of "Daddy's Playroom" is that it's a bonus room built out of the attic, and I have easy access to walk into the attic and get to the open joists behind the walls (3 of them at least). This makes wiring pretty painless since I don't have to rip up drywall. Running speaker wire to my LCR speakers was as easy as drilling a hole through the wall by the receiver, then walking through the attic to the screen wall and drilling a second hole to pop the cables back through. 

I was hoping wiring to the overhead locations would be nearly as easy but unfortunately I discovered that there is some sort of cross-brace running between the joists that is blocking my fish tape from getting all the way through. I really wanted to avoid major drywall repair so I'm ruminating on different options until I have time to attempt to run the wires in a couple of weeks. It's also going to be a PITA to get wire discretely to my left surround speaker since that's an exterior wall and I can't get behind the wall via the attic. First world problems eh?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Oledurt said:


> I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


TY for your thoughts, I'm trying to figure out which in ceiling speakers to get for somewhere between 500-1k per pair (recommendations anyone?)

I was planning on using the angled electromotion 8" speakers because I was so impressed with what I heard @ my bro in law's place (he has them angled...6 feet in front of MLP) but if pointing straight down is more effective I'll reconsider. How far are your speakers in front & in back?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Well it was never going to be an exclusively kids-free zone. What fun is a home theater if you don't get to enjoy it with the family at times right? The important part is can daddy watch non-family-friendly movies at an enjoyable volume at night when the wife/kids are asleep? The answer so far appears to be yes


Part of my rationale for moving the HT... I can only turn the 5200 up to 52 volume where it is currently... in the basement there is a lot more resistance to reach sleeping baby.


----------



## cdelena

Oledurt said:


> I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I would think this depends upon the height of the ceiling, the dispersion of the speaker, and the speaker placement.


I have relatively low ceilings and limited options on speaker size and placement so I chose in-ceiling speakers that allow some aiming towards the MLP. In some quick experiments aiming the speakers I found I liked aiming towards the listener and straight down eliminated the surround affect unless I at least aim the tweeter.


----------



## Oledurt

Aras_Volodka said:


> TY for your thoughts, I'm trying to figure out which in ceiling speakers to get for somewhere between 500-1k per pair (recommendations anyone?)
> 
> 
> 
> I was planning on using the angled electromotion 8" speakers because I was so impressed with what I heard @ my bro in law's place (he has them angled...6 feet in front of MLP) but if pointing straight down is more effective I'll reconsider. How far are your speakers in front & in back?



I am using 4 polk owm 5 speakers with omnimount brackets. They are 7 feet in front and behind the mlp. I have a dedicated room so they are placed exactly according to dolby's recommendation. 

I chose the polks because they have really good dispersion and are white so they blend into my ceiling. I tried angling, and toeing them in, but it actually made them sound bad. They are a modified mtm design speaker. The cabinet is slightly convex which angles the mid woofers slightly to the front and rear of the room which greatly improves their vertical dispersion. I have them on the ceiling perpendicular to the screen.

I can't compare my system to anyone else's because I have not heard anyone that has an atmos system in my area. (Omaha Nebraska area)

I will say this...I have created a home theater in my basement that provides me a jaw dropping cinema experience. I have not heard anything come close in any commercial theater.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't seen it yet, so I am only speculating, but it is a rare movie that has no positive attributes at all. So when you saw this movie, you found that the cinematography, the editing, the score, the production design, the sound mixing, the foley, the art direction, the visual effects, the set designs, the costume, the makeup effects, the sound design, the CG, etc etc - none of these had any merit whatsoever? I can never remember seeing any movie which had a full house of negatives like that.
> 
> But in *Jupiter Ascending*, you are saying there is _nothing _at all of merit? Not a thing?





Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm going with the "none at all" category. What a mess of a film. Luckily, I paid nothing to see it. Just time wasted.





kbarnes701 said:


> . . . it is a rare movie that has no merit whatsoever.


I'm quite sure that--as with human beings--you can find some modicum of good in almost any movie, but I for one share Dan's distaste for hacky productions.

I was reminded of the above-cited bit of discussion from last week when I recently made the poor choice of watching the substandard romcom _Friends with Kids_ sandwiched between two delightful Mike Leigh movies, _Mr. Turner_ and the wonderfully naturalistic, heartwarming _Another Year_. The contrast between exceptional filmmaking and churned-out dreck reinforced my disinclination to sit through schlock when there is so much worthwhile cinematic work out there to be enjoyed.

Not every film has to be an artistic achievement for the decades, but no degree of superior editing, for example, could compensate for--or induce me to subject myself to--an otherwise deplorable movie. (Jennifer Westfeldt, you are dead to me!)


----------



## bkeeler10

Oledurt said:


> I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I took note of this comment too, because it is contrary to the common wisdom in this thread, and somewhat contrary to common sense as well. The MLP is on-axis (or nearly so) with every other speaker in the system, so why would it be beneficial to be 30-45 degrees off-axis to the overhead speakers? And why would Dolby be so insistent that in-ceiling speakers have wider-than-average dispersion (presumably that metric was intended to ensure that the listening position get an experience similar to being on-axis with the speaker).

So it is interesting to note that you prefer they fire straight down too. I can see some benefit to this because it keeps the ceiling speakers' sound off the walls (contributing to a less-smeared sound as you say), but in a well-damped room that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Hmmm, food for thought . . . 

The other comment that I thought was interesting was that, if you have only 9 channels to work with, 7.1.2 will sound better than 5.1.4, and that a good deal of the effect is lost if you are missing surround back speakers. Again, contrary to most recommendations in this thread.

I guess when I finally get into this, there's going to be a lot of experimenting going on in my theater.


----------



## Oledurt

bkeeler10 said:


> I took note of this comment too, because it is contrary to the common wisdom in this thread, and somewhat contrary to common sense as well. The MLP is on-axis (or nearly so) with every other speaker in the system, so why would it be beneficial to be 30-45 degrees off-axis to the overhead speakers? And why would Dolby be so insistent that in-ceiling speakers have wider-than-average dispersion (presumably that metric was intended to ensure that the listening position get an experience similar to being on-axis with the speaker).
> 
> 
> 
> So it is interesting to note that you prefer they fire straight down too. I can see some benefit to this because it keeps the ceiling speakers' sound off the walls (contributing to a less-smeared sound as you say), but in a well-damped room that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Hmmm, food for thought . . .
> 
> 
> 
> The other comment that I thought was interesting was that, if you have only 9 channels to work with, 7.1.2 will sound better than 5.1.4, and that a good deal of the effect is lost if you are missing surround back speakers. Again, contrary to most recommendations in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when I finally get into this, there's going to be a lot of experimenting going on in my theater.


I hear what you are saying. Here are the things in order that made the largest difference in creating my Dolby Atmos utopia. First was getting rid of my bipole/dipole surrounds (may they rest in peace) and adding monopole surrounds. Second, was lowering my surround speakers using the formula front speaker height x 1.25. Third was messing with the speaker orientation. I think that everything is very speaker oriented. Some speakers like to be toed in more than others. You just don't know until you have them where you want them, and mess with them. 

Lastly, the ultimate test for an atmos system in my opinion is gravity. The voices come from everywhere. You will know real quick with that atmos track if your ceiling speakers sound "right"


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm quite sure that--as with human beings--you can find some modicum of good in almost any movie, but I for one share Dan's distaste for hacky productions.
> 
> I was reminded of the above-cited bit of discussion from last week when I recently made the poor choice of watching the substandard romcom _Friends with Kids_ sandwiched between two delightful Mike Leigh movies, _Mr. Turner_ and the wonderfully naturalistic, heartwarming _Another Year_. The contrast between exceptional filmmaking and churned-out dreck reinforced my disinclination to sit through schlock when there is so much worthwhile cinematic work out there to be enjoyed.
> 
> Not every film has to be an artistic achievement for the decades, but no degree of superior editing, for example, could compensate for--or induce me to subject myself to--an otherwise deplorable movie. (Jennifer Westfeldt, you are dead to me!)


I take your point(s). I am able to watch them in an 'academic' way where I can divorce the execrable script or what-have-you from the technical aspects of moviemaking, which interest me equally. But I agree, it is not for everyone, or even for many 

I have yet to see *Jupiter Ascending*, but it would be a great shame if the Wachowskis are no longer living up to their former glories, as it would seem from some of the reviews I have read. I shall also be interested to watch the performances of Mila Kunis, Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean, Tuppence Middleton and so on, all of whom have entertained me in the past. Most of all, I am looking forward to the score, by the formidable Michael Giacchino who has scored numerous excellent movies, including *Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, The Incredibles*, two *Mission Impossible *movies, *Ratatouille, Star Trek Into Darkness, Super 8, Up* and more. I would be shocked if I find nothing to enjoy in his score. As I say, it is a rare movie that has no merit at all, and I am interested in Dan's view of the score and why he believes it is worthless.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I take your point(s). I am able to watch them [otherwise unremarkable movies] in an 'academic' way where I can divorce the execrable script or what-have-you from the technical aspects of moviemaking, which interest me equally. But I agree, it is not for everyone, or even for many


On the polar opposite end of the excellence spectrum, I have been meaning for quite a while to mention my new standard for (non-native Atmos) HT audio and video envelopment: It's Ron Fricke's 2011 “nonverbal documentary” *Samsara*. I don't buy many Blu-rays, but after viewing the Netflix rental disk twice I purchased this one and plan to enjoy watching it many times over.

Both aurally and visually stunning, Samsara was filmed entirely in 70mm and then transferred via 4K digital technology to the HD (1080p) format, and both the colors and the cinematographic composition are just remarkable. This unusual film was made with no dialogue, no narration, and not even a screenplay: there is just image after vibrant image of scenes of nature and human activity collected over 5 years and in 25 countries along the theme of "Samsara" (a Sanskrit word that means “the ever-turning wheel of life”).

Besides natural sounds from the film's locations, the soundtrack consists mainly of the haunting, somewhat “new-agey” music composed for the film using an unusual assortment of instruments and techniques (by composers Michael Stearns, Lisa Gerrard and Marcello De Francisci). Although not mixed in Atmos, the immersiveness of the DTS-HD MA 7.1 + Dolby Surround playback together with the richness and beauty of the pictures (some of which will admittedly be disturbing to some viewers) make for what has been* my most impressive HT viewing experience to date--*and one which thoroughly rewards my investment in a top-of-the-line display and quality 7.1.4 speaker setup. 

As an aside, although I myself do not indulge, I can imagine that those who occasionally partake of mind-altering substances will find this film an excellent backdrop for meditative transport.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I can strongly recommend that you check it out. From the film's web page:


Neither a traditional documentary nor a travelogue, SAMSARA takes the form of a nonverbal, guided meditation. Through powerful images, the film illuminates the links between humanity and the rest of nature, showing how our life cycle mirrors the rhythm of the planet. 


https://vimeo.com/46273869


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> On the polar opposite end of the excellence spectrum, I have been meaning for quite a while to mention my new standard for (non-native Atmos) HT audio and video envelopment: It's Ron Fricke's 2011 “nonverbal documentary” *Samsara*. I don't buy many Blu-rays, but after viewing the Netflix rental disk twice I purchased this one and plan to enjoy watching it many times over.
> 
> Both aurally and visually stunning, Samsara was filmed entirely in 70mm and then transferred via 4K digital technology to the HD (1080p) format, and both the colors and the cinematographic composition are just remarkable. This unusual film was made with no dialogue, no narration, and not even a screenplay: there is just image after vibrant image of scenes of nature and human activity collected over 5 years and in 25 countries along the theme of "Samsara" (a Sanskrit word that means “the ever-turning wheel of life”).
> 
> Besides natural sounds from the film's locations, the soundtrack consists mainly of the haunting, somewhat “new-agey” music composed for the film using an unusual assortment of instruments and techniques (by composers Michael Stearns, Lisa Gerrard and Marcello De Francisci). Although not mixed in Atmos, the immersiveness of the DTS-HD MA 7.1 + Dolby Surround playback together with the richness and beauty of the pictures (some of which will admittedly be disturbing to some viewers) make for what has been* my most impressive HT viewing experience to date--*and one which thoroughly rewards my investment in a top-of-the-line display and quality 7.1.4 speaker setup.
> 
> As an aside, although I myself do not indulge, I can imagine that those who occasionally partake of mind-altering substances will find this film an excellent backdrop for meditative transport.
> 
> It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I can strongly recommend that you check it out. From the film's web page:
> 
> 
> Neither a traditional documentary nor a travelogue, SAMSARA takes the form of a nonverbal, guided meditation. Through powerful images, the film illuminates the links between humanity and the rest of nature, showing how our life cycle mirrors the rhythm of the planet.
> 
> 
> https://vimeo.com/46273869



I also have the first part, _Baraka_, on Blu-ray. Also absolutely stunning with some images that are like a punch in the stomach. It would be wonderful if they went back and did a modern 8k transfer and full restoration of the 65mm elements as this disc does have its rough spots. You can definitely tell _Samsara_ was scanned using the best machines available in comparison.

These are demo material _with_ substance. Sorry, Keith.


----------



## chicken vindaloo

*Atmos guidance*

Hi folks,
I had bought a Denon X4000 a couple of years ago that has had three digital board failures. Best Buy is giving me store credit for it. I have a 7.1 system with AIM 3 speakers in the ceiling for surround and back positions. Is this adequate for Dolby Atmos? My wife will have a cow if I tell her I'm buying more speakers right now. My TV is a 65" Panasonic ZT60 which I don't plan on replacing anytime soon, so 4K isn't a concern. If my current speaker configuration will support Atmos, I'll consider spending the extra money for a capable receiver, if not, I'm thinking of the discontinued Pioneer SC-75 or the SC-82. On that note, if I go that route, any recommendations between the two? Must get new receiver!  Thanks for your help.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chicken vindaloo said:


> Hi folks,
> I had bought a Denon X4000 a couple of years ago that has had three digital board failures. Best Buy is giving me store credit for it. I have a 7.1 system with AIM 3 speakers in the ceiling for surround and back positions. Is this adequate for Dolby Atmos? My wife will have a cow if I tell her I'm buying more speakers right now. My TV is a 65" Panasonic ZT60 which I don't plan on replacing anytime soon, so 4K isn't a concern. If my current speaker configuration will support Atmos, I'll consider spending the extra money for a capable receiver, if not, I'm thinking of the discontinued Pioneer SC-75 or the SC-82. On that note, if I go that route, any recommendations between the two? Must get new receiver!  Thanks for your help.


You need surround speakers in the main layer near your ears to create the proper 3D effect. 

Also, hold out a few more months for one with DTS:X included.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> I also have the first part, _Baraka_, on Blu-ray. Also absolutely stunning with some images that are like a punch in the stomach. It would be wonderful if they went back and did a modern 8k transfer and full restoration of the 65mm elements as this disc does have its rough spots. You can definitely tell _Samsara_ was scanned using the best machines available in comparison.
> 
> These are demo material _with_ substance. Sorry, Keith.


I watched _Baraka_ as well, but it does not impress as much as the superior _Samsara_ (the former was produced in 1992 and the latter in 2011). There was an even earlier effort in this quasi-trilogy, _Chronos_ (1985).

The _Samsara_ Blu-ray contains some background pieces about the filmmaking process that delves into the technology used--all of which exceeded my technical expertise--and it does appear that the production team went to extraordinary lengths to ensure a nonpareil video experience.

Here's the Wikipedia description of the process they employed: "The crew used three 70 mm cameras for filming; two cameras manufactured by Panavision and one specialty time-lapse camera designed by Fricke. While the scenes were captured on 65 mm negative film, they were output to Digital Cinema Package (DCP), a digital output. Magidson described the process, "We're doing a combination of what we think is the best of both technologies, the best way to image capture and then the best way to output. Once we get into the digital environment, we're able to refine the imagery, we're able to save shots that we'd have to otherwise trash really for various reasons." Where they cut their negatives for _Baraka_, the negatives for _Samsara_ were scanned then worked on digitally. The pair used the Telecine process to format the film to ProRes for the editing process and used Final Cut for editing."


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> I watched _Baraka_ as well, but it does not impress as much as the superior _Samsara_ (the former was produced in 1992 and the latter in 2011). There was an even earlier effort in this quasi-trilogy, _Chronos_ (1985).
> 
> The _Samsara_ Blu-ray contains some background pieces about the filmmaking process that delves into the technology used--all of which exceeded my technical expertise--and it does appear that the production team went to extraordinary lengths to ensure a nonpareil video experience.
> 
> Here's the Wikipedia description of the process they employed: "The crew used three 70 mm cameras for filming; two cameras manufactured by Panavision and one specialty time-lapse camera designed by Fricke. While the scenes were captured on 65 mm negative film, they were output to Digital Cinema Package (DCP), a digital output. Magidson described the process, "We're doing a combination of what we think is the best of both technologies, the best way to image capture and then the best way to output. Once we get into the digital environment, we're able to refine the imagery, we're able to save shots that we'd have to otherwise trash really for various reasons." Where they cut their negatives for _Baraka_, the negatives for _Samsara_ were scanned then worked on digitally. The pair used the Telecine process to format the film to ProRes for the editing process and used Final Cut for editing."



I like_ Baraka_ and _Samsara_ equally and to some extent the IMAX shot _Chronos _was Ron Fricke's test bed for both. They speak the same language, even if one was shot in the late 80's/early 90's. The times are different, but the story of nature and humans and their interaction and clashes with each other remains the same. 

Fantastically serene and emotionally devastating at the same time. 

Everyone should buy all three. And have a LARGE screen to view them on with a fantastic audio system.


----------



## punksterz626

how can you tell if a type of speaker has good dispersion? Are there some specs on the spec sheets?


----------



## wse

punksterz626 said:


> how can you tell if a type of speaker has good dispersion? Are there some specs on the spec sheets?


Pro speakers do unfortunately most consumer products don't 

For example 

http://www.tcgroup-japan.com/TANNOY/pro/download/Di8DC_Di8DCt.pdf

http://jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/JBL_8320.v8.pdf


----------



## cdelena

Oledurt said:


> I am using 4 polk owm 5 speakers with omnimount brackets. They are 7 feet in front and behind the mlp. I have a dedicated room so they are placed exactly according to dolby's recommendation.
> 
> I chose the polks because they have really good dispersion and are white so they blend into my ceiling. I tried angling, and toeing them in, but it actually made them sound bad. They are a modified mtm design speaker. The cabinet is slightly convex which angles the mid woofers slightly to the front and rear of the room which greatly improves their vertical dispersion. I have them on the ceiling perpendicular to the screen.
> ...



Just a quick look at those speakers appear that the cabinet curve may direct a mid at maybe 20 degrees so if I understand your mounts you are in fact aiming towards the MLP with the curve of the speakers.


----------



## Oledurt

cdelena said:


> Just a quick look at those speakers appear that the cabinet curve may direct a mid at maybe 20 degrees so if I understand your mounts you are in fact aiming towards the MLP with the curve of the speakers.



They are not aimed but you are correct regarding the cabinet. Typically straight mtm design speakers have below average vertical dispersion, but really good horizontal dispersion. With these the cabinet design, and the slightly angled mids create a much better vertical dispersion pattern which in my opinion makes these speakers exceptionally good as atmos on ceiling speakers.

To clarify, the speaker itself is pointed straight down toward the floor perpendicular to the screen, and parallel to the side walls.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Oledurt said:


> I am using 4 polk owm 5 speakers with omnimount brackets. They are 7 feet in front and behind the mlp. I have a dedicated room so they are placed exactly according to dolby's recommendation.
> 
> I chose the polks because they have really good dispersion and are white so they blend into my ceiling. I tried angling, and toeing them in, but it actually made them sound bad. They are a modified mtm design speaker. The cabinet is slightly convex which angles the mid woofers slightly to the front and rear of the room which greatly improves their vertical dispersion. I have them on the ceiling perpendicular to the screen.
> 
> I can't compare my system to anyone else's because I have not heard anyone that has an atmos system in my area. (Omaha Nebraska area)
> 
> I will say this...I have created a home theater in my basement that provides me a jaw dropping cinema experience. I have not heard anything come close in any commercial theater.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Quick question... how tall are you ceilings? Mine are only just about 7'... so I'm sure that will make a difference for placement as well. 

(My apologies to those on this thread who sat through thousands of posts of ceiling speaker placements... I was AWOL for that time period because I was dedicated to the modules.


----------



## Oledurt

Aras_Volodka said:


> Quick question... how tall are you ceilings? Mine are only just about 7'... so I'm sure that will make a difference for placement as well.
> 
> 
> 
> (My apologies to those on this thread who sat through thousands of posts of ceiling speaker placements... I was AWOL for that time period because I was dedicated to the modules.



My ceiling is 8 feet. I believe dolby states you want ceiling speakers to be your seated ear height x 2. That would be optimal. I also started with modules, but since I have a dedicated room I put speakers on the ceiling. 

The WAF is null and void in my home theater, as long as I don't burn the house down, and watch a "chick flick" with the wife every now and then I have free reign.

Just one lonely man surrounded by 11 speakers in the dark with a beer...heaven 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Oledurt said:


> My ceiling is 8 feet. I believe dolby states you want ceiling speakers to be your seated ear height x 2. That would be optimal. I also started with modules, but since I have a dedicated room I put speakers on the ceiling.
> 
> The WAF is null and void in my home theater, as long as I don't burn the house down, and watch a "chick flick" with the wife every now and then I have free reign.
> 
> Just one lonely man surrounded by 11 speakers in the dark with a beer...heaven
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Cool ty for the info. I remember some of the first impressions of Atmos for home demos people favored the modules over the ceiling speakers because some members of the audience who were sitting directly under the speaker found it distracting. I'm guessing maybe the sound was optimized or something. 

Even with my height things might not be too bad, my couch is low so I might be near that halfway point.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> On the polar opposite end of the excellence spectrum, I have been meaning for quite a while to mention my new standard for (non-native Atmos) HT audio and video envelopment: It's Ron Fricke's 2011 “nonverbal documentary” *Samsara*. I don't buy many Blu-rays, but after viewing the Netflix rental disk twice I purchased this one and plan to enjoy watching it many times over.




Thanks for that. It sounds as though it is similar to Baraka - I see you have checked that one out too. Amazing sound, sights and images from all over the world.

Ah - I see from the trailer it is from the same people who made Baraka.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I also have the first part, _Baraka_, on Blu-ray. Also absolutely stunning with some images that are like a punch in the stomach. It would be wonderful if they went back and did a modern 8k transfer and full restoration of the 65mm elements as this disc does have its rough spots. You can definitely tell _Samsara_ was scanned using the best machines available in comparison.
> 
> These are demo material _with_ substance. Sorry, Keith.


No worries. So what did you find to be of no value with the score for *Jupiter Ascending*? I've not seen it yet so have no idea, but based on Michael Giacchino's other work, I am expecting it to be good. Maybe not good enough to rescue the movie, but you commented, in reply to my remark that it is a rare film that has no merits whatsoever, that it had "none".


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for that. It sounds as though it is similar to Baraka - I see you have checked that one out too. Amazing sound, sights and images from all over the world.
> 
> Ah - I see from the trailer it is from the same people who made Baraka.


Yes, but it is an even more ambitious undertaking, with higher quality audio and video reproduction; check it out and let me know if you are not as transported by the experience as I was.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> No worries. So what did you find to be of no value with the score for *Jupiter Ascending*? I've not seen it yet so have no idea, but based on Michael Giacchino's other work, I am expecting it to be good. Maybe not good enough to rescue the movie, but you commented, in reply to my remark that it is a rare film that has no merits whatsoever, that it had "none".


Keith, I'd honestly have to watch it again to really comment on the score specifically. It didn't seem that "inspired" like a lot of movie scores these days. He's definitely no Williams or Horner (when he's not cribbing himself - his _Braveheart_ score was one of his absolute best) or Goldsmith or Bernstein or Morricone... that have or had catchy themes that stick in the mind long after. 

I was too distracted by the poor everything else to really pay attention.


----------



## Zhorik

I do not have an atmos setup, so the question might seem stupid. 

With people disconnecting the base layer speakers and just listening to the top layer, does it also play the objects starting the base and panning to the top (and vice versa) or only the information located in the top channels (eg. rain, fly over etc. which only utilize the top channels).


----------



## pasender91

hi all, 

News can be seen in other threads, but related to Atmos, as Marantz announces 2015 range of AVRs, several of them have Atmos and DTS:X:

- Slimline NR 1606 (900 USD) : 7*50W, 5.1.2
- SR 5010 (1200 USD) : 7*100W, 5.1.2
- SR 6010 (1400 USD) : 9*110W, 5.1.4
- SR 7010 (2200 USD) : 9*125W, 7.1.4

We can see that Atmos and DTS:X are being spread in the lower models ...
They should all start to be available in august.

The 7702 Preamp gets a new version mK II, with support for Atmos and DTS:X, but existing ones are not upgradable


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zhorik said:


> I do not have an atmos setup, so the question might seem stupid.
> 
> With people disconnecting the base layer speakers and just listening to the top layer, does it also play the objects starting the base and panning to the top (and vice versa) or only the information located in the top channels (eg. rain, fly over etc. which only utilize the top channels).


It depends on how the objects were panned in the first place and the positional metadata attached to them. Some will stay overhead, some will move around in the different layers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Zhorik said:


> I do not have an atmos setup, so the question might seem stupid.
> 
> With people disconnecting the base layer speakers and just listening to the top layer, does it also play the objects starting the base and panning to the top (and vice versa) or only the information located in the top channels (eg. rain, fly over etc. which only utilize the top channels).


I haven't tried that experiment but I have listened to what the height speakers are doing during atmos-y parts. I'd recommend browsing the posts the week people acquired atmos systems in their home... some people did turn on just the height channels to see what was being sent there. I don't think you hear base channel info coming into the height speakers though.


----------



## Alanlee

Dan Hitchman said:


> Keith, I'd honestly have to watch it again to really comment on the score specifically. It didn't seem that "inspired" like a lot of movie scores these days. He's definitely no Williams or Horner (when he's not cribbing himself - his _Braveheart_ score was one of his absolute best) or Goldsmith or Bernstein or Morricone... that have or had catchy themes that stick in the mind long after.
> 
> I was too distracted by the poor everything else to really pay attention.


 
I liked _Jupiter Ascending_, however the reader should be warned that I like almost every movie that I start and finish. I will give a movie ten or fifteen minutes to capture my attention. My standards are low, so if I bail out of a movie, the piece is probably very bad.

The sound on my HT was clear and varied. There was audio all around me. I don't have an Atmos system yet, so nothing up above. The dialogue was easy on my ears.

I say I liked the movie. That does not mean I would put it up there in the top 500 of my personal film experiences. In order for that to occur, the makers would have had to tone down the style of the movie.

I thought the costumes were over-the-top. I get that they were trying to depict a self indulged, debauched, decadent universe. I just think they could have done it with a little less opulence. I got the feeling that people behind the scenes were expressing their personalities instead of the personalities of the characters in the film.

And speaking of characters in the film,it seemed to me the people came out fully grown without enough development. The main character, Jupiter, falls in love with Caine in what seemed like ten minutes to me. Maybe I'm old fashion, I like it when people get to know each other a little better before I allow them to fall in love. 

I have seen a lot of action scenes in a lot of movies. I get bored quickly. I was bored by most of the action scenes in this movie. They started off fine, and they went on and on and on: too much for me.

Overall – I thought the movie was bloated and could have been more judiciously edited. I was about to write that I had a feeling this movie was the third in a trilogy, I had not seen the first two and was missing the back-story, when it occurred to me to look for the book. Oh....OK...Wikipedia says there is no book.

The movie was apparently conceived as an opera, but I guess without singing. Now it all makes sense. I love opera. Everything is clear, the over styling, the costumes, the self-indulgence, the lack of character development, the instant love affair and the bloated environment. I hope to see this story at my local opera house, with the singing soon.


----------



## batpig

Sure sounds like you liked it. Quite the ringing endorsement. 

The food and service was terrible.. but the portions were large! I liked it. Not in my top 500 restaurants though.


----------



## Alanlee

batpig said:


> Sure sounds like you liked it. Quite the ringing endorsement.
> 
> The food and service was terrible.. but the portions were large! I liked it. Not in my top 500 restaurants though.


 Exactly!







But I am disappointed in myself in that I did not recognize the operatic qualities in the piece until I read Wikipedia of all embarrassing places.


----------



## howard68

So THX has said 
Top front and Top middle is the best set up for 7.2.4 set up using real in ceiling speakers


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Keith, I'd honestly have to watch it again to really comment on the score specifically. It didn't seem that "inspired" like a lot of movie scores these days. He's definitely no Williams or Horner (when he's not cribbing himself - his _Braveheart_ score was one of his absolute best) or Goldsmith or Bernstein or Morricone... that have or had catchy themes that stick in the mind long after.
> 
> I was too distracted by the poor everything else to really pay attention.


I watched 'Jupiter Ascending' 3D on Blu last night, and I wasn't impressed overall; film itself, 3D visuals, and even the audio (core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack). ...Maybe it's better in Dolby Atmos, I just don't know. ...But what I've heard is not the best sound around.
Some of them actors talk with a very soft spoken voice, so you have to turn the volume up, and when the action starts, it is very loud and just too busy with all the sound effects and the music score all together, ...to the point of being irritating for the ears. 

The only solid thing are the big round eyes of Mila Kunis, and some grandiose soap opera decor sets, and the colorful makeups. 
The ladies look the best, but act funny, and the men even funnier. 

This is a good flick for bass addicts and video gamers, that's it. 

Sad, because I was expecting more from this $200,000 million plus film production; but I simply did not see it on my screen, did not hear it, and it certainly didn't feel it either. ...A fiasco? ...No, but a near total fallout. 

Redemption? Yes, I already mentioned it; Mila's big eyes, and her wardrobe (outfits). ...Plus the short pool scene, about 30 seconds. 
The wedding? Yeah that too, with lots of makeups, red, white, and grandiose hall. 

Overall; 3D visuals, audio, technical CGI effects, decors, dresses, sound effects, music score, storyline, script, acting, cast, cameos, camera work, first and second units, picture clarity, fluidity of movements, fluidity of script, beginning, middle, end, film real value, message, sci-fi opera genre, all that jazz:
*6.45* out of 10.

♦ Final word(s): Give it a shot.

Oh, just in case, this is my own personal opinion.


----------



## Wild Blue

Scott Simonian said:


> And who is Scott Simonium? New element on the periodic table? Hell yes.


Ehhh... that's just the new British pronunciation for your name. Like saying "Aluminium" instead of "Aluminum".


----------



## tjenkins95

I watched the 2D version of *Jupiter Ascending* last night and totally enjoyed the experience.
The cinematography and audio soundtrack in Dolby Atmos was brilliant!
I think what most people don't realize about the movie is that it is a 2-hour science-fiction space opera.
By design, the characters and costumes and sets are over the top as was the case during the Rococo period of the 18th century .
One thing that I did not know until after I watched the movie was that the music was written before the movie was filmed. 
I describe this type of movie as "a ride" - just sit down, watch the show and take the journey. 
And get up and leave when it is over.


Although after watching Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), with his super nifty mode of transportation, 
I did want to go out and take a spin on my roller blades! 

This reviewer sums up my feelings perfectly:
"In *Jupiter Ascending*—an imaginatively goofy, Rococo space opera written and directed by Andy and Lana Wachowski, the sibling duo behind *The Matrix*, the live-action *Speed Racer*, and most of *Cloud Atlas*—an Anglo-Russian housecleaner is whisked away from Chicago by a pointy-eared, half-albino dog-man, and finds herself embroiled in a convoluted conspiracy that involves intergalactic tax codes, inheritance law, pseudo-incestuous marriage, an economy that takes human capital literally, and characters with names like Titus Abrasax and Chicanery Night. It is, in other words, just a few musical numbers and a whiff of marijuana smoke short of being the Thomas Pynchon book of big-budget, effects-driven movie sci-fi."
Ignatiy Vishnevetsky 
http://www.avclub.com/review/wachowskis-go-broke-goofy-space-opera-jupiter-asce-214745


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> I watched the 2D version of *Jupiter Ascending* last night and totally enjoyed the experience.
> The cinematography and audio soundtrack in Dolby Atmos was brilliant!
> I think what most people don't realize about the movie is that it is a 2-hour science-fiction space opera.
> By design, the characters and costumes and sets are over the top as was the case during the Rococo period of the 18th century .
> One thing that I did not know until after I watched the movie was that the music was written before the movie was filmed.
> I describe this type of movie as "a ride" - just sit down, watch the show and take the journey.
> And get up and leave when it is over.


A _really bad_ space opera. As in so bad, I lost a couple of IQ points bad. _Phantom Menace _bad. And the dusky beauty Mila Kunis looked completely bored throughout. I think they were all pretty much phoning it in for an easy paycheck.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> I watched 'Jupiter Ascending' 3D on Blu last night, and I wasn't impressed overall; film itself, 3D visuals, and even the audio (core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack). ...Maybe it's better in Dolby Atmos, I just don't know. ...But what I've heard is not the best sound around.
> Some of them actors talk with a very soft spoken voice, so you have to turn the volume up, and when the action starts, it is very loud and just too busy with all the sound effects and the music score all together, ...to the point of being irritating for the ears.
> 
> The only solid thing are the big round eyes of Mila Kunis, and some grandiose soap opera decor sets, and the colorful makeups.
> The ladies look the best, but act funny, and the men even funnier.
> 
> This is a good flick for bass addicts and video gamers, that's it.
> 
> Sad, because I was expecting more from this $200,000 million plus film production; but I simply did not see it on my screen, did not hear it, and it certainly didn't feel it either. ...A fiasco? ...No, but a near total fallout.
> 
> Redemption? Yes, I already mentioned it; Mila's big eyes, and her wardrobe (outfits). ...Plus the short pool scene, about 30 seconds.
> The wedding? Yeah that too, with lots of makeups, red, white, and grandiose hall.
> 
> Overall; 3D visuals, audio, technical CGI effects, decors, dresses, sound effects, music score, storyline, script, acting, cast, cameos, camera work, first and second units, picture clarity, fluidity of movements, fluidity of script, beginning, middle, end, film real value, message, sci-fi opera genre, all that jazz:
> *6.45* out of 10.
> 
> ♦ Final word(s): Give it a shot.
> 
> Oh, just in case, this is my own personal opinion.


I might give it a rental since I have a few iTunes rental credits to see if it might be worth a purchase later when the price goes down.


----------



## pasender91

Given the noise right here on Jupiter Ascending, i decided to watch it during my last long-haul flight from Qatar to Paris....

While for sure it won't win any prices, it was not as bad as was suggested on the thread initially, it is still "watchable" 
And if the Atmos mix is well done, it could be spectacular on a few pursuit scenes ... for sure no Atmos mix on the plane, so this part i can't comment on 

OT, but Qatar Airways business class on the A380 is top notch


----------



## Oledurt

If I can get through Expendables 3 I can get through anything! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Csbooth

lujan said:


> I might give it a rental since I have a few iTunes rental credits to see if it might be worth a purchase later when the price goes down.


Speaking of iTunes rental credits; I have about 5 or so that I haven't used yet, but if I recall correctly, if you go over $4.99 they will charge you for the total amount instead of utilizing a credit. Just something to think about, but I could be wrong and it's been updated.

I do see its $4.99, but figured I would mention it if you didn't already know lol.


----------



## Alanlee

tjenkins95 said:


> I watched the 2D version of *Jupiter Ascending* last night and totally enjoyed the experience.
> The cinematography and audio soundtrack in Dolby Atmos was brilliant!
> I think what most people don't realize about the movie is that it is a 2-hour science-fiction space opera.
> By design, the characters and costumes and sets are over the top as was the case during the Rococo period of the 18th century .
> One thing that I did not know until after I watched the movie was that the music was written before the movie was filmed.
> I describe this type of movie as "a ride" - just sit down, watch the show and take the journey.
> And get up and leave when it is over.
> 
> 
> Although after watching Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), with his super nifty mode of transportation,
> I did want to go out and take a spin on my roller blades!
> 
> This reviewer sums up my feelings perfectly:
> "In *Jupiter Ascending*—an imaginatively goofy, Rococo space opera written and directed by Andy and Lana Wachowski, the sibling duo behind *The Matrix*, the live-action *Speed Racer*, and most of *Cloud Atlas*—an Anglo-Russian housecleaner is whisked away from Chicago by a pointy-eared, half-albino dog-man, and finds herself embroiled in a convoluted conspiracy that involves intergalactic tax codes, inheritance law, pseudo-incestuous marriage, an economy that takes human capital literally, and characters with names like Titus Abrasax and Chicanery Night. It is, in other words, just a few musical numbers and a whiff of marijuana smoke short of being the Thomas Pynchon book of big-budget, effects-driven movie sci-fi."
> Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
> http://www.avclub.com/review/wachowskis-go-broke-goofy-space-opera-jupiter-asce-214745


 
I would have been very happy had they taken the next step and sung the dialogue; however, that probably would have meant almost no movie attendance. In addition, if they were to follow a classic opera arc, it would be appropriate to incinerate all the main characters.


Your endorsement of the audio track is further motivation for me to jump in to Atmos.


----------



## cdelena

howard68 said:


> So THX has said
> Top front and Top middle is the best set up for 7.2.4 set up using real in ceiling speakers



Absolutely right IMO. I recently changed my configuration and could not be happier.


BTW I had my first full house last night with all seven seats full and the reviews were terrific. Comments included 'it was the best theater experience' and 'there are no longer any preferred seats, they are now all good'.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Jupiter Ascending' | 3D & Dolby Atmos*



lujan said:


> I might give it a rental since I have a few iTunes rental credits to see if it might be worth a purchase later when the price goes down.


I saw it with a friend; and she rated it half star (0.5) out of five (5) stars. ...She is one of the best movie critics. 
Me, I'm not good @ that; I'm just always way too generous...I guess because of the eye candy imagery and my 3D love affair. 
...Plus of course the great ass (I mean bass).


----------



## tjenkins95

Dan Hitchman said:


> A _really bad_ space opera. As in so bad, I lost a couple of IQ points bad. _Phantom Menace _bad. And the dusky beauty Mila Kunis looked completely bored throughout. I think they were all pretty much phoning it in for an easy paycheck.


 
I believe that is how Mila looks in all of her movies - I don't think she has changed since *That 70's Show*.


----------



## NorthSky

Oledurt said:


> If I can get through Expendables 3 I can get through anything!


Lol, if you put it like this, then I agree with you; you will love 'Jupiter Ascending'.


----------



## lujan

Csbooth said:


> Speaking of iTunes rental credits; I have about 5 or so that I haven't used yet, but if I recall correctly, if you go over $4.99 they will charge you for the total amount instead of utilizing a credit. Just something to think about, but I could be wrong and it's been updated.
> 
> I do see its $4.99, but figured I would mention it if you didn't already know lol.


Yes, I knew this because they have really stupid rules. I called to ask if they could use my gift card credit on a $.99 rental instead of using my rental credits and the said "No". This is as stupid of the rentals not counting towards $5.99 rentals but only $4.99 and lower.


----------



## smurraybhm

Dan Hitchman said:


> A _really bad_ space opera. As in so bad, I lost a couple of IQ points bad. _Phantom Menace _bad. And the dusky beauty Mila Kunis looked completely bored throughout. I think they were all pretty much phoning it in for an easy paycheck.


Dan - we all know your a tough one to satisfy on the movie front - I've lost count of the thumbs down after nearly the year this thread has been active  Maybe when you go with an object based system you can find some enjoyment with the audio of some of these brain cell killing flicks? 

I would echo the comments of a few others today, just watched it, it's not that bad, in fact the 2 hours went by quickly, always a good sign. Everyone raved about Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine, good acting by Cate but thank God it was only 98 minutes long. All that love and a box office of $18 million. It will sit on the shelf for a long time waiting to be watched again - added to my list of those Oscar movies watched once 

Video on the Jupiter blu-ray is reference quality, special effects well done, and the most important part is the audio - Atmos mix - rates right behind Gravity. If you are looking for the tops to be used frequently - here's your movie. I went with 2D, not into wearing glasses to watch a movie. A Sony projector and 100" plus screen I might feel differently.

If you have an Atmos system, at least give it a rent so you can enjoy the audio.


----------



## Csbooth

lujan said:


> Yes, I knew this because they have really stupid rules. I called to ask if they could use my gift card credit on a $.99 rental instead of using my rental credits and the said "No". This is as stupid of the rentals not counting towards $5.99 rentals but only $4.99 and lower.


That's extremely lame on their part. Maybe I'll use them one day, do you know if you have to watch them on a Phone/Tablet/PC or can I connect the aformentioned devices and stream to the big screen?


----------



## aaranddeeman

cdelena said:


> Absolutely right IMO. I recently changed my configuration and could not be happier.
> 
> 
> BTW I had my first full house last night with all seven seats full and the reviews were terrific. Comments included 'it was the best theater experience' and 'there are no longer any preferred seats, they are now all good'.


I just changed my configuration to FH+TM (from FH+RH). So far sounds good but I will have to give it some time.
The TM shows their prominence for the overhead sounds, e.g. Expendables 3, when Mel Gibson enters in his chopper, when the camera closes up on him, the hover of the chopper blades are pretty realistic..
I just need some more Atmos material. A demo disk will be ideal, but the arrogant Dolby is not buzzing..

Next stop TF+TR


----------



## lujan

Csbooth said:


> That's extremely lame on their part. Maybe I'll use them one day, do you know if you have to watch them on a Phone/Tablet/PC or can I connect the aformentioned devices and stream to the big screen?


I'm sure you can watch on a PC and connect to TV via HDMI for instance. I'm not sure if you can cast from phone/tablet using Chromecast? I watch them using an Apple TV.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

smurraybhm said:


> Dan - we all know your a tough one to satisfy on the movie front - I've lost count of the thumbs down after nearly the year this thread has been active  Maybe when you go with an object based system you can find some enjoyment with the audio of some of these brain cell killing flicks?
> 
> I would echo the comments of a few others today, just watched it, it's not that bad, in fact the 2 hours went by quickly, always a good sign. Everyone raved about Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine, good acting by Cate but thank God it was only 98 minutes long. All that love and a box office of $18 million. It will sit on the shelf for a long time waiting to be watched again - added to my list of those Oscar movies watched once
> 
> Video on the Jupiter blu-ray is reference quality, special effects well done, and the most important part is the audio - Atmos mix - rates right behind Gravity. If you are looking for the tops to be used frequently - here's your movie. I went with 2D, not into wearing glasses to watch a movie. A Sony projector and 100" plus screen I might feel differently.
> 
> If you have an Atmos system, at least give it a rent so you can enjoy the audio.


If the acting and script don't pull me in... the audio fireworks do very little for me anymore. At least not enough for a repeat viewing. I'm done buying movies just for their demo properties. Been there, done that. Too much money burned. And I didn't think the CGI animation was all that swift. A little goes a long way, and when overdone and/or heavy handed, like most Marvel flicks, it starts to feel like I'm watching a PIXAR movie or video game and not something that's supposed to be live action. There's something to be said for practical, in-camera effects.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

pasender91 said:


> Given the noise right here on Jupiter Ascending, i decided to watch it during my last long-haul flight from Qatar to Paris....
> 
> While for sure it won't win any prices, it was not as bad as was suggested on the thread initially, it is still "watchable"
> And if the Atmos mix is well done, it could be spectacular on a few pursuit scenes ... for sure no Atmos mix on the plane, so this part i can't comment on
> 
> OT, but Qatar Airways business class on the A380 is top notch


That's because your only other option was to jump out of the plane


----------



## NorthSky

Yeah, Jupiter Descending can do that to some folks.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Yeah, Jupiter *Descending* can do that to some folks.


There is sequel already?


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> There is sequel already?


It's not the right title; did I make a mistake in my orthography/spelling? 

* I think a Series was envisioned though; and it still might happen...you never know...or in Hollywood movie studios...or on TV. ...Netflix Season One?


----------



## Oledurt

Hollywood will make a sequel to anything. Even when the main character dies in the end...Donnie Darko 2


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So I just finished moving & testing out the basement HT... the sound is VERY good down there. Since there is more room the speakers have more space to breathe. I was worried the Atmos modules wouldn't sound as good down there due to the shorter ceilings (6' 11") (I remember dolby said minimum 8') 

Another AVS member recommended "secret world of arrietty" for DSU... holy cow that film sure sounds immersive for a 5.1 mix!


----------



## Frank714

Dan Hitchman said:


> I like_ Baraka_ and _Samsara_ equally and to some extent the IMAX shot _Chronos _was Ron Fricke's test bed for both. They speak the same language, even if one was shot in the late 80's/early 90's. The times are different, but the story of nature and humans and their interaction and clashes with each other remains the same.
> 
> *Fantastically serene and emotionally devastating at the same time*.
> 
> *Everyone should buy all three*. And have a LARGE screen to view them on with a fantastic audio system.


Well said and I wholeheartedly agree. All three are simply state-of-the-art in the category visual interest (BTW, is it true that the later 2012 release of _Chronos_ on Blu-ray is the best there is? I still just own the HD-DVD).

I haven't been really able to follow this thread in the past weeks (quite busy at work), so here is my take on the Dolby Atmos Blu-ray release _Attention - A Life in Extremes _I finally had the chance to watch and hear last night



I bought this title mostly for it Dolby Atmos surround sound mix, but I nevertheless found the at times rather intimate look into the world of extreme sports and the commentaries of psychologists and sports physicians very insightful and interesting.

This documentary makes good use of the Dolby Atmos potential during the wingsuit flight scenes (recorded with a belly camera) and the overall music, which conveys the deep diving experience particularly well, by using the "pressure" of sound possible with Dolby Atmos which I previously experienced with GRAVITY. In addition there are occasional effects making use of overhead speakers including air bubbles, a thunderstorm, fireworks and others.

In the start-up menu viewers can choose between the English or (Austrian) German version. The Norwegian wingsuit flyer Halvor Angvik and the French freediver Guillaume Néry speak English, the Austrian extreme cyclist Gerhard Gulewicz and the psychologists and sports physicians are accompanied by an English translator. Subtitles are French only, which, however, constitutes _a problem during the pivotal scene of Gerhard Gulewicz's "Race Across America" participation which lacks the English translator._

(I've already notified the German distributor Universum Film about the issue and will report back what they say)

Apparently recorded entirely with HD video camera at 1080i/25Hz, the program is region coded B (former PAL territories). 

Hope that helps to avoid premature purchases.

P.S. I'd rather rewatch this documentary than _Jupiter Ascending. _Unless some can confirm that there is noticable object-based Dolby Atmos audio in the bee sequence or others, I'll give this flick a wide berth.

P.P.S. The German release of _Enchanted Kingdom_ (4K and 3D shot African nature documentary) in August will not feature an English Dolby Atmos audio track, so I'll be ordering this one from Japan, too.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Dan - we all know your a tough one to satisfy on the movie front - I've lost count of the thumbs down after nearly the year this thread has been active  Maybe when you go with an object based system you can find some enjoyment with the audio of some of these brain cell killing flicks?


I imagine Dan has about 3 movies which he enjoys - his AV system must be the least-used on AVS 



smurraybhm said:


> I would echo the comments of a few others today, just watched it, it's not that bad, in fact the 2 hours went by quickly, always a good sign. Everyone raved about Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine, good acting by Cate but thank God it was only 98 minutes long. All that love and a box office of $18 million. It will sit on the shelf for a long time waiting to be watched again - added to my list of those Oscar movies watched once


I abhor Woody Allen movies. The comedies are not funny. The dramas are pretentious. The sound is execrable. It's odd for someone like me who can usually find merit of some sort in pretty much any movie. But not a Woody Allen effort.



smurraybhm said:


> Video on the Jupiter blu-ray is reference quality, special effects well done, and the most important part is the audio - Atmos mix - rates right behind Gravity. If you are looking for the tops to be used frequently - here's your movie. I went with 2D, not into wearing glasses to watch a movie. A Sony projector and 100" plus screen I might feel differently.
> 
> If you have an Atmos system, at least give it a rent so you can enjoy the audio.


+1. (On the sentiment - I haven't seen the movie yet).


----------



## petetherock

Yes, I agree "Jupiter" has awesome PQ and SQ, but unless it drops to 5 bucks during Black Friday, I can't see myself owning it.
On the other hand, we have members like Nalleh scouring the world for Atmos discs, and paying a handsome amount for them.
Instead I suggest everyone try the Japanese version of the BBC doco:









It's like the Atmos Leaf trailer on steroids. If you want tops, sides, and more, this is the disc. Forget "Jupiter", John Wick and such. Try this and be wowed.


----------



## Frank714

petetherock said:


> It's like the Atmos Leaf trailer on steroids. If you want tops, sides, and more, this is the disc. Forget "Jupiter", John Wick and such. Try this and be wowed.












Just ordered _Enchanted Kingdom_ from Amazon Japan (and it's in 3D, too ).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the acting and script don't pull me in... the audio fireworks do very little for me anymore. At least not enough for a repeat viewing. I'm done buying movies just for their demo properties. Been there, done that. Too much money burned. And I didn't think the CGI animation was all that swift. A little goes a long way, and when overdone and/or heavy handed, like most Marvel flicks, it starts to feel like I'm watching a PIXAR movie or video game and not something that's supposed to be live action. There's something to be said for practical, in-camera effects.


I 2nd that Dan, Star Wars & Mad Max will hopefully pave the way for new production standards IMO. I can already see that current blockbusters CGI looks painfully outdated vs. the episode VII trailers. And mannnn... Mad Max was bad a**! 

I always try to use the analogy of 90's action flicks with slow motion cam/people running away from exploding buildings... much in the same way 80's pop music had way too much reverb on snare drums. The cheesy special effects over the last 15 years will be tell tale sign of what era these films were made in. The CGI in the Prequels definitely dates those films... and they really aren't that old! 

But there is hope for us yet... Ex Machina & Unbroken were fantastic films & knowing that they're in DTS X or Atmos is a good sign that it's not just garbage receiving Atmos mixes. Too bad Ex machina didn't get the Atmos disc though


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frank714 said:


> Well said and I wholeheartedly agree. All three are simply state-of-the-art in the category visual interest (BTW, is it true that the later 2012 release of _Chronos_ on Blu-ray is the best there is? I still just own the HD-DVD).


I think the Image disc is the same outdated MPEG-2 encoding and transfer as the Koch release a few years before. Both have DTS Master Audio tracks. 

_Chronos, Baraka, _and_ Samsara_ would all sound phenomenal (though, they do sound great already) if Michael Stearns remixed them in 24/96 Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. His music scores lend themselves well to the 3D sonic scape.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> Yes, I agree "Jupiter" has awesome PQ and SQ, but unless it drops to 5 bucks during Black Friday, I can't see myself owning it.
> On the other hand, we have members like Nalleh scouring the world for Atmos discs, and paying a handsome amount for them.
> Instead I suggest everyone try the Japanese version of the BBC doco:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the Atmos Leaf trailer on steroids. If you want tops, sides, and more, this is the disc. Forget "Jupiter", John Wick and such. Try this and be wowed.


I'll definitely be snagging this one!


----------



## robert816

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I just finished moving & testing out the basement HT... the sound is VERY good down there. Since there is more room the speakers have more space to breathe. I was worried the Atmos modules wouldn't sound as good down there due to the shorter ceilings (6' 11") (I remember dolby said minimum 8')
> 
> Another AVS member recommended "secret world of arrietty" for DSU... holy cow that film sure sounds immersive for a 5.1 mix!


You might also try "Steamboy", another anime that also has a great 5.1 audio track that is so much more immersive with DSU. Of course
I'm speaking of the Japanese track, I do not believe I have ever listened to the English track. Unfortunately it is not available in the US on
Blu-Ray, but I believe it is on VUDU.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I imagine Dan has about 3 movies which he enjoys - his AV system must be the least-used on AVS


That's not fair! My tastes are somewhat different from Dan's, but I believe our criteria for evaluating the merits of a movie are very similar. If anything, I am even more discriminating than Dan, and yet I will watch over 100 movies a year that I would rate as enjoyable--although only a veritable handful will typically be new releases.

There are many thousands of excellent productions out there just waiting to be discovered (of which many hundreds are undoubtedly in your very own collection). For example, last night we watched _Barney's Version_ (2010) for the first time and found it very satisfying (and the soundtrack in DTS-HD MA + DSU 7.1.4 was splendid). It is the second terrific film version of a Mordecai Richler novel after _The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz_ (1974)--and there's also the hilarious romp _Fun with Dick and Jane_ (the original 1977 version with George Segal and Jane Fonda) for which Richler was one of the screenwriters. 




kbarnes701 said:


> I abhor Woody Allen movies. *The comedies are not funny.* The dramas are pretentious. The sound is execrable. It's odd for someone like me who can usually find merit of some sort in pretty much any movie. But not a Woody Allen effort.


That's also an unfair statement. I am a life-long student of the art of comedy and Woody Allen is an immensely accomplished comedian (and filmmaker IMHO). Some of his movies (e.g., _Bananas_) and books (e.g., _Without Feathers_) are among the funniest I have seen/read. You can say that you don't care for his humor (which you clearly do not), and that's perfectly understandable. But he is incontestably a comedic and filmic treasure. (My own personal favorite Allen flick is _Hannah and Her Sisters_, but YM will almost certainly V.)


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll definitely be snagging this one!


Where is the best place to buy it, and can it be had (in either 3D or 2D) for under US$50?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> Where is the best place to buy it, and can it be had (in either 3D or 2D) for under US$50?


I have no clue. I'd probably just wait for a price drop from Amazon Japan. 

Japanese imports just tend to be super expensive. You have to really want the movie or TV show badly.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That's not fair! My tastes are somewhat different from Dan's, but I believe our criteria for evaluating the merits of a movie are very similar. If anything, I am even more discriminating than Dan, and yet I will watch over 100 movies a year that I would rate as enjoyable--although only a veritable handful will typically be new releases.


Oooh - that is a substantial bite  I was just kidding with Dan that's all... 




chi_guy50 said:


> That's also an unfair statement. I am a life-long student of the art of comedy and Woody Allen is an immensely accomplished comedian (and filmmaker IMHO). Some of his movies (e.g., _Bananas_) and books (e.g., _Without Feathers_) are among the funniest I have seen/read. You can say that you don't care for his humor (which you clearly do not), and that's perfectly understandable. But he is incontestably a comedic and filmic treasure. (My own personal favorite Allen flick is _Hannah and Her Sisters_, but YM will almost certainly V.)


I loathe them all. In fact I gave up watching his movies about the time of* Mighty Aphrodite*, but I don't think I’d enjoyed one as far back as *Annie Hall*. I may have seen the odd one or two since, just to see if things had changed (they hadn't). I understand fully that people will disagree with me, and I know he has a huge following and he is a very talented auteur. But he seems to me to be neurotic and whining and is on some sort of mission to play out his own weird sex fantasies through the medium of film. Since he has made about a thousand movies (hyperbole) I guess some are bound to be OK just on the basis of random chance, but he's just not for me. I’d rather watch a Michael Bay movie - at least they are honest, unpretentious and, above all, _fun_. It's not often you hear someone say, out loud, with no shame, that they prefer Michael Bay to Woodie Allen, is it ? LOL.


----------



## Eriksdam

Frank714 said:


> Just ordered it from Amazon Japan (and it's in 3D, too ).


Nice to see this title get some mentioning - it's one of the few titles I won't regret having paid a lot of money (40€) for in a few years when every title is released in one immersive format or the other 

Erik


----------



## Frank714

Just to avoid possible confusion: _Enchanted Kingdom_ is _Nature_ (in Japan) and _Afrika-Das Magische Königreich_ (in Germany).

Here is the original BBC announcement mentioning it. In a certain manner of speaking _Walking with Dinsoaurs - The Film_ preceeded it (of course, I'm exclusively referring to the original, dialogue-free "Cretaceous Cut", available on the US and UK 3D Blu-ray )


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Oooh - that is a substantial bite  I was just kidding with Dan that's all...


I know, and I'm sure Dan is perfectly capable of defending himself. I just felt the need to stick my big nose in.



kbarnes701 said:


> I loathe them all.


Fair enough--that's a reflection of your personal taste, which no one can rightly contest.



kbarnes701 said:


> In fact I gave up watching his movies about the time of* Mighty Aphrodite*,


That one and several of his other subsequent efforts also left me cold.



kbarnes701 said:


> but I don't think I’d enjoyed one as far back as *Annie Hall*.


OMG, if you didn't even like the incomparable _Annie Hall_ then there's no hope for you.



kbarnes701 said:


> I understand fully that people will disagree with me, and I know he has a huge following and he is a very talented auteur.


OK, now you've salvaged your credibility as a cinephile.



kbarnes701 said:


> But he seems to me to be *neurotic and whining* and is on some sort of mission to play out his own weird sex fantasies through the medium of film.


YES, and if you'd grown up in or around a typical Jewish household you'd recognize that this is the very source of his humor--which may or may not make it more palatable to you. As far as sex fantasies--well, you're British so I guess those are totally foreign to you?



kbarnes701 said:


> Since he has made about a thousand movies (hyperbole) I guess some are bound to be OK just on the basis of random chance, but he's just not for me. I’d rather watch a Michael Bay movie - *at least they are honest*, unpretentious and, above all, _fun_.


OOPS, and there goes your credibility again!



kbarnes701 said:


> It's not often you hear someone say, out loud, with no shame, that they prefer Michael Bay to Woodie Allen, is it ? LOL.


No it isn't, and at the very least you could have the common decency to be ashamed about it.**


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> I also have the first part, _Baraka_, on Blu-ray. Also absolutely stunning with some images that are like a punch in the stomach. It would be wonderful if they went back and did a modern 8k transfer and full restoration of the 65mm elements as this disc does have its rough spots. You can definitely tell _Samsara_ was scanned using the best machines available in comparison.


The Baraka Blu-ray was also sourced from an 8k film scan. The process used to downsample it to 1080p introduced some minor ringing and DNR, however. I doubt it needs a new scan, rather just a new encode.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Attention - A Life in Extremes' | Dolby Atmos*



Frank714 said:


> P.S. I'd rather rewatch this documentary than _Jupiter Ascending. _Unless some can confirm that there is noticable object-based Dolby Atmos audio in the bee sequence or others, I'll give this flick a wide berth.


Speaking of them bees; I found them not so 3D @ all, I was expecting more here for 3-Dimensional bees on my screen, but they were not.
As for the sound of the bees; in Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio core...there wasn't much @ all either...they were around Mila (her majesty) and Mila was on our screen, not behind or above us. But I don't know in Dolby Atmos if some of them bees were coming from above, only owners of Dolby Atmos setups and decoders can say for sure. 
Me I just report the 3D picture, and the core DA audio..DTrueHD 7.1.

______


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> The Baraka Blu-ray was also sourced from an 8k film scan. The process used to downsample it to 1080p introduced some minor ringing and DNR, however. I doubt it needs a new scan, rather just a new encode.


There's some telecine gate weave and the color is quite muted. It's not the world's best restoration of such fantastic Todd-AO footage.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's some telecine gate weave and the color is quite muted. It's not the world's best restoration of such fantastic Todd-AO footage.


Baraka was not scanned on telecine. It was scanned one frame at a time on a specialty 8k scanner that took 3 weeks to do the whole 97 minute movie.

It's been a while since I watched the disc, but I don't recall any problems with the colors.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Samsara'* is more impressive, visually technically. ...More polished, sophisticated, clearer, sharper, detailed, more advanced quality picture wise, than *'Baraka'*.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Enchanted Kingdom' | 3D | Dolby Atmos*



petetherock said:


> Yes, I agree "Jupiter" has awesome PQ and SQ, but unless it drops to 5 bucks during Black Friday, I can't see myself owning it.
> On the other hand, we have members like Nalleh scouring the world for Atmos discs, and paying a handsome amount for them.
> Instead I suggest everyone try the Japanese version of the BBC doco:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the Atmos Leaf trailer on steroids. If you want tops, sides, and more, this is the disc. Forget "Jupiter", John Wick and such. Try this and be wowed.


______






______

Japanese version:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Baraka was not scanned on telecine. It was scanned one frame at a time on a specialty 8k scanner that took 3 weeks to do the whole 97 minute movie.
> 
> It's been a while since I watched the disc, but I don't recall any problems with the colors.


It still has wobble in a number of shots. It may be due to negative warpage or sprocket hole deformation, but it's there. They could have cleaned that up digitally during restoration, but they didn't.


----------



## Rileyrott

chi_guy50 said:


> Where is the best place to buy it, and can it be had (in either 3D or 2D) for under US$50?


I just purchased Nature 3D/2D from Amazon Japan for $37.04 + 9.08 shipping = US$46.12 total. Expensive...yes, but way cheaper than what's available on FleaBay.


----------



## chi_guy50

Rileyrott said:


> I just purchased Nature 3D/2D from Amazon Japan for $37.04 + 9.08 shipping = US$46.12 total. Expensive...yes, but way cheaper than what's available on FleaBay.


I think I might spring for it at that price.

Can you provide a link to the product page? Was it Amazon proper or a marketplace seller? What was the price in JPY? Do you know whether the sale is subject to any additional customs or import charges?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I know, and I'm sure Dan is perfectly capable of defending himself. I just felt the need to stick my big nose in.


I was unaware, until now, of the size of your proboscis. 



chi_guy50 said:


> That one and several of his other subsequent efforts also left me cold.


See - we concur. Our only differences are one of degree  You find several leave you cold, I find the majority leave me cold 



chi_guy50 said:


> OMG, if you didn't even like the incomparable _Annie Hall_ then there's no hope for you.


That was the last one that I did like. After that it was all downhill.



chi_guy50 said:


> OK, now you've salvaged your credibility as a cinephile.


Well there's no denying the talent of a man who has made, what, about 100 movies? and who has a huge international following. That much is objective fact. Subjectively, since AH, they have been less than stellar, IMO of course.



chi_guy50 said:


> YES, and if you'd grown up in or around a typical Jewish household you'd recognize that this is the very source of his humor--which may or may not make it more palatable to you.



It's interesting that you should say that because, while I am myself goy, most of my friends are Jews and I understand in toto the Jewish sense of humour and find it amazingly funny. Woody is the only Jew who can’t make me laugh much. Maybe it's the subject matter of his movies that doesn't appeal to me and it colours my entire attitude.



chi_guy50 said:


> As far as sex fantasies--well, you're British so I guess those are totally foreign to you?


Well, while you yanks are busy fantasising, us Brits are busy _doing_, I guess 



chi_guy50 said:


> OOPS, and there goes your credibility again!


You don't think Bay's movies are honest? You think they have pretensions to something other than what they are: pure entertainment and cinematic experiences taken to excess??



chi_guy50 said:


> No it isn't, and at the very least you could have the common decency to be ashamed about it.**


Hahahaha. I am nothing if not brazen.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Baraka was not scanned on telecine. It was scanned one frame at a time on a specialty 8k scanner that took 3 weeks to do the whole 97 minute movie.
> 
> It's been a while since I watched the disc, but I don't recall any problems with the colors.


I recall the colours as being stunning. And I definitely don't recall any gate weave. Maybe Dan has a different release version or something?

Bluray.com describe the PQ like this (and this is how I recall it, although like you it's been a while since I saw it):

_Baraka offers a breathtaking 1080p high definition, 2.20:1-framed transfer. Filmed in 65mm and painstakingly and lovingly restored with an 8k UltraDigital HD Process, the film represents the current zenith of Blu-ray picture quality. The depth, clarity, and color reproduction of the film is incredible. Each scene provides awe-inspiring, reference-quality imagery that effortlessly places the viewer within each frame of the film regardless of its locale on the world's surface. It's a teleportation device of sorts, a trip around the globe that costs only as much as your HDTV, Blu-ray player, and the disc, and it's worth infinitely more than that. The level of detail is absolutely remarkable, almost too-good-to-be-true for home viewing -- and before now, it was. Take, for example, one of the first shots of the film, that of a Japanese Macaque relaxing in a hotspring. Not only does the spring's water flow and wave and look as natural as can be, but it practically invites viewers to approach their screens and put a toe in to test the temperature. The creature's fur is so detailed that one can practically count each strand, and the bits of water and ice droplets scattered about its mane just might send shivers down the spine. 

The detail in every shot is exceptional, with the above simply setting the stage for what is to come. Stone-laden streets, the brick façades of buildings, an individual's hair, their garments, and facial detail all provide breathtaking clarity and true-to-life attributes. Colors are bold and true, never overblown or dull, with no artistic license but to provide the finest lifelike imagery imaginable. The depth of the film is simply astounding, and the scope is incredible. No detail is left unseen, no corner of the image is ever soft, and no color is never anything but vividly reproduced. The exterior texture of the huts as seen in chapter six -- as several people situated outside create jewelry -- reveals every crack, rough spot, and crease. Subsequent images showcase intricate clothing and jewelry featuring an array of colors, each distinct and separate, with no bleeding or smearing. These scenes merely exemplify what viewers will enjoy during the film's 97 minutes of visual bliss. There just aren't enough superlatives to discuss the visual power and prestige of this presentation. As stated before, it is the peak of home video imagery, and is another title that simply cries out for a large display. No matter the size of the screen, it will seem insignificant next to the majesty and scope of the film._


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Well there's no denying the talent of a man who has made, what, about 100 movies? and who has a huge international following. That much is objective fact.


That's a generous definition of objective.. he has directed 49 films.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I recall the colours as being stunning. And I definitely don't recall any gate weave. Maybe Dan has a different release version or something?
> 
> Bluray.com describe the PQ like this (and this is how I recall it, although like you it's been a while since I saw it):
> 
> _Baraka offers a breathtaking 1080p high definition, 2.20:1-framed transfer. Filmed in 65mm and painstakingly and lovingly restored with an 8k UltraDigital HD Process, the film represents the current zenith of Blu-ray picture quality. The depth, clarity, and color reproduction of the film is incredible. Each scene provides awe-inspiring, reference-quality imagery that effortlessly places the viewer within each frame of the film regardless of its locale on the world's surface. It's a teleportation device of sorts, a trip around the globe that costs only as much as your HDTV, Blu-ray player, and the disc, and it's worth infinitely more than that. The level of detail is absolutely remarkable, almost too-good-to-be-true for home viewing -- and before now, it was. Take, for example, one of the first shots of the film, that of a Japanese Macaque relaxing in a hotspring. Not only does the spring's water flow and wave and look as natural as can be, but it practically invites viewers to approach their screens and put a toe in to test the temperature. The creature's fur is so detailed that one can practically count each strand, and the bits of water and ice droplets scattered about its mane just might send shivers down the spine.
> 
> The detail in every shot is exceptional, with the above simply setting the stage for what is to come. Stone-laden streets, the brick façades of buildings, an individual's hair, their garments, and facial detail all provide breathtaking clarity and true-to-life attributes. Colors are bold and true, never overblown or dull, with no artistic license but to provide the finest lifelike imagery imaginable. The depth of the film is simply astounding, and the scope is incredible. No detail is left unseen, no corner of the image is ever soft, and no color is never anything but vividly reproduced. The exterior texture of the huts as seen in chapter six -- as several people situated outside create jewelry -- reveals every crack, rough spot, and crease. Subsequent images showcase intricate clothing and jewelry featuring an array of colors, each distinct and separate, with no bleeding or smearing. These scenes merely exemplify what viewers will enjoy during the film's 97 minutes of visual bliss. There just aren't enough superlatives to discuss the visual power and prestige of this presentation. As stated before, it is the peak of home video imagery, and is another title that simply cries out for a large display. No matter the size of the screen, it will seem insignificant next to the majesty and scope of the film._


And the more recent (and more ambitious) _Samsara_ is all that and much, much more. I am not a student of film history, but I would consider it a singular cinematic achievement and easily the most stunning aural and visual experience I have enjoyed to date in my HT. I can not recommend it highly enough for reasons of aesthetic appreciation, let alone the lasting impression its sensitively composed imagery conveys about the human experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> That's a generous definition of objective.. he has directed 49 films.


 I meant his talent was objectively defined, but I take your point. I’d have thought it was more (obviously!). A quick look at IMDB shows 70-odd as writer and 52 as Director, including those in production. Still a very impressive filmography of course. What I was trying to get across is that I can see that he has talent while at the same time, subjectively and personally, not liking much of his output.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> And the more recent (and more ambitious) _Samsara_ is all that and much, much more. I am not a student of film history, but I would consider it a singular cinematic achievement and easily the most stunning aural and visual experience I have enjoyed to date in my HT. I can not recommend it highly enough for reasons of aesthetic appreciation, let alone the lasting impression its sensitively composed imagery conveys about the human experience.


I shall have to order it now. Where will it all end?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I was unaware, until now, of the size of your proboscis.


Does the name Jimmy Durante say anything to you?



kbarnes701 said:


> See - we concur. Our only differences are one of degree  You find several leave you cold, I find the majority leave me cold


Hmmm, well, you're changing your story now. Previously you said that you despise all of his films ("I loathe them all."). I find your current position more understandable; even I can find that his schtick gets a bit tiresome.



kbarnes701 said:


> That was the last one that I did like. After that it was all downhill.


OK then, as long as you're willing to admit that you liked _Annie Hall_, I'll give you a pass--and call off SEAL Team Six.



kbarnes701 said:


> It's interesting that you should say that because, while I am myself goy, most of my friends are Jews and I understand in toto the Jewish sense of humour and find it amazingly funny. Woody is the only Jew who can’t make me laugh much. Maybe it's the subject matter of his movies that doesn't appeal to me and it colours my entire attitude.


FWIW, I have a number of anthologies of Jewish humor. Among them is Salcia Landmann's _Der Jüdische Witz_, a collection of jokes and anecdotes principally from 19th- and 20th-century Germany and eastern Europe. Much of it is dark, self-deprecating, highly neurotic gallows humor. This is the ground from which Woody's sensibilities sprang.



kbarnes701 said:


> You don't think Bay's movies are honest? You think they have pretensions to something other than what they are: pure entertainment and cinematic experiences taken to excess??


I do indeed think they are honest[ly dreadful]--a noisy juvenile mess. I can understand the appeal--particularly to teenage boys--but they hold no interest for me and thus I can not appreciate any entertainment value. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit my one guilty pleasure: his early directorial venture, _The Rock_ (I believe it was only his second feature film). But that was probably mainly due to the presence of Sean Connery; and at least I have the good sense to feel guilty about it.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I shall have to order it now. Where will it all end?


Ah, my work here is done! You will thank me for it, Bubbele!


----------



## Rileyrott

chi_guy50 said:


> I think I might spring for it at that price.
> 
> Can you provide a link to the product page? Was it Amazon proper or a marketplace seller? What was the price in JPY? Do you know whether the sale is subject to any additional customs or import charges?


http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B00MOD2KP4?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00

Amazon Japan (not 3rd party seller)

4486 yen + 1100 shipping = 5586 yen

Don't know about customs/import charges, but don't think there are any.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Does the name Jimmy Durante say anything to you?


If you're going to have a nose, have a _nose_. 




chi_guy50 said:


> Hmmm, well, you're changing your story now. Previously you said that you despise all of his films ("I loathe them all."). I find your current position more understandable; even I can find that his schtick gets a bit tiresome.


OK - that was a tad, maybe a smidgeon, hyperbolic I agree. I should have said "I loathe them all _in recent times._.."




chi_guy50 said:


> OK then, as long as you're willing to admit that you liked _Annie Hall_, I'll give you a pass--and call off SEAL Team Six.


 See - I enjoyed that as well, although I admit to knowing the ending even before I saw the film 



chi_guy50 said:


> FWIW, I have a number of anthologies of Jewish humor. Among them is Salcia Landmann's _Der Jüdische Witz_, a collection of jokes and anecdotes principally from 19th- and 20th-century Germany and eastern Europe. Much of it is dark, self-deprecating, highly neurotic gallows humor. This is the ground from which Woody's sensibilities sprang.


I adore Jewish humour. I especially enjoy the 'one-liner- variety: Teacher asks class "What's 5 percent?". Abraham puts up his hand: "You're right Miss - what's 5 percent!". Jewish mother in distress on beach: "Help, help, my son, the Doctor, is drowning...". Jewish lady encounters her friend pushing the stroller with her 12 month old twins in it: "Hello Mrs Goldberg, how are the twins?" "Well, Ruth, the Doctor, is fine, but David, the lawyer, he has a cold...". Etc...



chi_guy50 said:


> I do indeed think they are honest[ly dreadful]--a noisy juvenile mess. I can understand the appeal--particularly to teenage boys--but they hold no interest for me and thus I can not appreciate any entertainment value. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit my one guilty pleasure: his early directorial venture, _The Rock_ (I believe it was only his second feature film). But that was probably mainly due to the presence of Sean Connery; and at least I have the good sense to feel guilty about it.


The Rock is a fine film, despite Nic Cage, or maybe even because of him. And it has the rather lovely Carla Pestalozzi in it. Whatever happened to her? *The Rock* is her _only_ movie.


----------



## chi_guy50

Rileyrott said:


> http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B00MOD2KP4?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00
> 
> Amazon Japan (not 3rd party seller)
> 
> 4486 yen + 1100 shipping = 5586 yen
> 
> Don't know about customs/import charges, but don't think there are any.


Thanks for the info; I've ordered a copy. (N.B.: There is a generic caveat at the order page alerting to the possibility of customs charges.)


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> If you're going to have a nose, have a _nose_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK - that was a tad, maybe a smidgeon, hyperbolic I agree. I should have said "I loathe them all _in recent times._.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See - I enjoyed that as well, although I admit to knowing the ending even before I saw the film
> 
> 
> 
> I adore Jewish humour. I especially enjoy the 'one-liner- variety: Teacher asks class "What's 5 percent?". Abraham puts up his hand: "You're right Miss - what's 5 percent!". Jewish mother in distress on beach: "Help, help, my son, the Doctor, is drowning...". Jewish lady encounters her friend pushing the stroller with her 12 month old twins in it: "Hello Mrs Goldberg, how are the twins?" "Well, Ruth, the Doctor, is fine, but David, the lawyer, he has a cold...". Etc...
> 
> 
> 
> The Rock is a fine film, despite Nic Cage, or maybe even because of him. And it has the rather lovely Carla Pestalozzi in it. Whatever happened to her? *The Rock* is her _only_ movie.


I also am a goy (...I think, that is non-Jewish, right?), but appreciate the humor as well. One of my favorites while a bit longer than a one-liner is, I think, worth it.

A Catholic priest, an evangelical preacher, and a Jewish rabbi are talking about the strength of their faith. They all agreed that if they went into the wilderness, found a bear, and converted it, that it would be a true testament to their faith. They agreed to meet again in a week to discuss the results.

The Catholic priest, a bit scratched and banged up, said, "I found a bear in the woods, sprinkled it with holy water, and it was transformed into a calm animal. The archbishop is coming the next week to give him communion."

The evangelical preacher who was a bit more banged up with an arm in a cast, said, "I too found a bear in the woods, but we do not hold with sprinkling water. So, I wrestled that bear down to the creek and dunked him. He instantly transformed and began to hum a gospel."

The two looked upon the rabbi, who was in a hospital bed, in a full body cast, with IVs running into him everywhere. The rabbi spoke up and said, "I too found a bear in the woods. And, I will say that perhaps a circumcision was not the best way to start..."


----------



## Nalleh

petetherock said:


> Yes, I agree "Jupiter" has awesome PQ and SQ, but unless it drops to 5 bucks during Black Friday, I can't see myself owning it.
> On the other hand, *we have members like Nalleh scouring the world for Atmos discs*, and paying a handsome amount for them.


Sure, why not? I am very interested in these new formats, and order the ones i want to test. Not that all of them were worth it, but hey, you loose some, win some 
And they keep coming:










So 21 (+the Atmos demo files) so far, and counting (Jupiter Ascending is in the mail).




petetherock said:


> Instead I suggest everyone try the Japanese version of the BBC doco:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the Atmos Leaf trailer on steroids. If you want tops, sides, and more, this is the disc. Forget "Jupiter", John Wick and such. Try this and be wowed.


I agree! Although this is a nature documentary, not a action, it is demo material all over. Both picture and sound.


----------



## robert816

Where did you buy Journey to the West from? When I looked for it on Amazon Japan, I could only find the older, non-Atmos version


----------



## Nalleh

robert816 said:


> Where did you buy Journey to the West from? When I looked for it on Amazon Japan, I could only find the older, non-Atmos version


Amazon jp yes:


http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B00SMQ9T2E?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00


----------



## petetherock

Was that "White Storm" the Hong Kong show with the hot transvestite from Thailand? Atmos?
Do you have a link for that show?

I recall Jacky Cheung saying he had to rinse his mouth after every kissing scene


----------



## robert816

Thank you! Looks as though no English subtitles, correct?


----------



## robert816

petetherock said:


> Was that "White Storm" the Hong Kong show with the hot transvestite from Thailand? Atmos?
> Do you have a link for that show?
> 
> I recall Jacky Cheung saying he had to rinse his mouth after every kissing scene


Are you talking about this one, The White Storm? It is Atmos, but no English subtitles


----------



## petetherock

robert816 said:


> Are you talking about this one, The White Storm? It is Atmos, but no English subtitles


Yes, I wonder how much more does the Atmos treatment add?
I have the regular HKG disc, good plot, but not a big surround effects laden show.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> Amazon jp yes:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/B00SMQ9T2E?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00


English subtitles, by any chance?


----------



## desray2k

petetherock said:


> Was that "White Storm" the Hong Kong show with the hot transvestite from Thailand? Atmos?
> Do you have a link for that show?
> 
> I recall Jacky Cheung saying he had to rinse his mouth after every kissing scene


Issit Jacky or Nick Cheung? I didn't know Jacky is in that movie?


----------



## Frank714

chi_guy50 said:


> And the more recent (and more ambitious) _Samsara_ is all that and much, much more. I am not a student of film history, but I would consider it a singular cinematic achievement and easily the most stunning aural and visual experience I have enjoyed to date in my HT. I can not recommend it highly enough for reasons of aesthetic appreciation, let alone the lasting impression its sensitively composed imagery conveys about the human experience.


I agree 100%. The film starts with images I found to be so exotic that it felt they came from another planet. On the other hand, if I were to meet aliens from another planet trying to get an understanding of the ambivalent nature of our existence, _Baraka_ and _Samsara_ would be the two films I'd hand them over (and apparently the Wachowskis felt somewhat the same, as the Architect in _Matrix Reloaded_ studies scenes from _Baraka_ in his monitor room...).

And it's fantastic demo material for any home theater.


----------



## robert816

petetherock said:


> Yes, I wonder how much more does the Atmos treatment add?
> I have the regular HKG disc, good plot, but not a big surround effects laden show.


 
Like a lot of other titles that do not have much in the way of overhead effects, this is more of the same, great sounding track,
but other than the helicopter scene, and the underwater scene when the cop who was shot recaps what happened to him, it isn't
something I think I would spend more money on if I already had it.




Dan Hitchman said:


> English subtitles, by any chance?



From what I read on their site, it appears to be Japanese and Chinese language and Japanese subtitles.


----------



## petetherock

Thanks Robert

BTW, Unbroken is now 13.99. Now that's worth spending some cash on!


----------



## lujan

petetherock said:


> Thanks Robert
> 
> BTW, Unbroken is now 13.99. Now that's worth spending some cash on!


Did anyone else notice that Jupiter Ascending actually went up in price at least for the 3D version?


----------



## petetherock

lujan said:


> Did anyone else notice that Jupiter Ascending actually went up in price at least for the 3D version?


Wait.. it will come down


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> And it's fantastic demo material for any home theater.


That's exactly how I felt about _Samsara_ and the reason I recommended it here. It's a phantasmagoria of artistically composed sights and sounds and--in the absence of an immersive-audio calibration disc à la Spears & Munsil--the best source I am aware of for showing off a high-end display and 3D surround-sound system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert816 said:


> From what I read on their site, it appears to be Japanese and Chinese language and Japanese subtitles.


Crap. Maybe some other region will buy the license for the Atmos remix and be kind enough to Aussies, Brits, Yanks, etc., etc. to include quality English subtitles.


----------



## Nalleh

robert816 said:


> Thank you! Looks as though no English subtitles, correct?





Dan Hitchman said:


> English subtitles, by any chance?


Both "White storm" and "Journey to the west" have Atmos, but have only japanese and chinese language and subtitles! NO english subtitles.

I have seen "Journey to the west" the other day, and it was hilarious! From the same director that made "Kung fu hustle", which i loved, this has the same humour, only this time it is demons, monsters and demon hunters. With no subtitles it´s a little difficult to follow, but you still get what it´s all about.
It has a very good Atmos track, dynamic, precise, clear and with good panning around the room. Good heights action too, with underwater scenes, rain and thunder, wind, monsters etc. I was surprised actually at how good it was. Did not expect that 

Recommended? Yes, indeed. Both a good Atmos track, and a very funny movie. But beware of no subtitles.

(Although the whole movie is on Youtube, WITH english subtitles


----------



## Frank714

Frank714 said:


> ...Subtitles are French only, which, however, constitutes _a problem during the pivotal scene of Gerhard Gulewicz's "Race Across America" participation which lacks the English translator._
> 
> (I've already notified the German distributor Universum Film about the issue and will report back what they say)


Got the reply from the film production company: They noticed the flaw, July 17th will see a new edition that takes care of the problem. They also offered to exchange my Blu-ray.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Frank714 said:


> Got the reply from the film production company: They noticed the flaw, July 17th will see a new edition that takes care of the problem. They also offered to exchange my Blu-ray.


Cool!


----------



## Movie78

Nalleh said:


> Both "White storm" and "Journey to the west" have Atmos, but have only japanese and chinese language and subtitles! NO english subtitles.
> 
> I have seen "Journey to the west" the other day, and it was hilarious! From the same director that made "Kung fu hustle", which i loved, this has the same humour, only this time it is demons, monsters and demon hunters. With no subtitles it´s a little difficult to follow, but you still get what it´s all about.
> It has a very good Atmos track, dynamic, precise, clear and with good panning around the room. Good heights action too, with underwater scenes, rain and thunder, wind, monsters etc. I was surprised actually at how good it was. Did not expect that
> 
> Recommended? Yes, indeed. Both a good Atmos track, and a very funny movie. But beware of no subtitles.
> 
> (Although the whole movie is on Youtube, WITH english subtitles


I like Journey to the west very easy to watch movie....


----------



## aaranddeeman

lujan said:


> Did anyone else notice that Jupiter Ascending actually went up in price at least for the 3D version?


It's in the name .... Jupiter Ascending


----------



## Nalleh

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Willy-Wonka-and-the-Chocolate-Factory-Blu-ray/133573/

Say what? Willy Wonka in Atmos? What are they thinking about?


----------



## NorthSky

Lol, it's been already released in November 16, 2010. ...Bluray dot com must be confused a little.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Willy-Wonka-and-the-Chocolate-Factory-Blu-ray/133573/
> 
> Say what? Willy Wonka in Atmos? What are they thinking about?


It also says it was released in 2010


----------



## Nalleh

Yeah, maybe it's one of those with a "secret" Atmos mix


----------



## tjenkins95

Lately I have been itching to try in-ceiling speakers as a replacement for my front, up-firing Pioneer Atmos speakers. 
You can see in my signature that I have two sets of speakers - I purchased the Pioneer set knowing that I would switch back to my Klipsch set at some point.
Should I stick with Klipsch ceiling speakers?
Thanks. 

Ray


----------



## helvetica bold

Forgive me if this has been covered but is Jurassic World in Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Forgive me if this has been covered but is Jurassic World in Dolby Atmos?


Doesn't appear to be.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh boy.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

helvetica bold said:


> Forgive me if this has been covered but is Jurassic World in Dolby Atmos?


It was originally listed as such but it was removed from their list... my guess is it will be DTS X release possibly for any theaters that might support the format?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ummm....

Whew.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

tjenkins95 said:


> Lately I have been itching to try in-ceiling speakers as a replacement for my front, up-firing Pioneer Atmos speakers.
> You can see in my signature that I have two sets of speakers - I purchased the Pioneer set knowing that I would switch back to my Klipsch set at some point.
> Should I stick with Klipsch ceiling speakers?
> Thanks.
> 
> Ray


I have a very similar setup (4x chorus II's as my fronts & rears) & am looking into getting in ceiling speakers... but I'm not sure what to get.

Last night I was at my bro in law's place... I got to try out my dolby atmos disc on his setup with in ceiling speakers on the front... blew my 44-DA's out of the water... I could hear so much more going on in the heights... though only on certain material. The conductor trailer sounded identical to my setup. The Amaze bird pan sounded better on my setup because I have the rear floor speakers. The leaf trailer & unfold overhead was stunning on his setup... I heard a lot of things going on in the heights that I don't get with my modules. 

Some recommended the Tannoy's. My bro in law uses the electromotion 8"... which is angled. I was impressed but another user mentioned he preferred speakers pointed straight down after experimenting with angled & pointing straight down. The electromotions also use less dispersion... dolby recommends 90 degree dispersion but I'm not sure which models utilize 90 degree dispersion. But I did like what I heard.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

News for atmos blurays seems to have slowed down a bit... I hope we get some more announcements soon. It would be great if either Skammerens Datter, Home, Age of Adeline, or Mad Max get BD atmos mixes... hopefully some more surprises or legacy content too. I wouldn't have been opposed to Willy Wonka in Atmos!

My dream though would be to finally get some of the older Cameron flicks released with Atmos remixes, let alone bluray  What's up with that?


----------



## dschulz

Aras_Volodka said:


> It was originally listed as such but it was removed from their list... my guess is it will be DTS X release possibly for any theaters that might support the format?


Nope, Jurassic World is straight-up 7.1.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

tjenkins95 said:


> Lately I have been itching to try in-ceiling speakers as a replacement for my front, up-firing Pioneer Atmos speakers.
> You can see in my signature that I have two sets of speakers - I purchased the Pioneer set knowing that I would switch back to my Klipsch set at some point.
> Should I stick with Klipsch ceiling speakers?
> Thanks.
> 
> Ray


I should mention one other thing though; my bro in law has the Bowers & Wilkins front speakers (803's?) which might have a lot to do with how good the overall sound is. They do blow my chorus II's out of the water for sure. It seems like with Atmos if the speakers are all interacting well with eachother then object placement becomes much more clear... which I'm guessing is why 90 degree dispersion might be a desirable spec for in ceiling?


----------



## tjenkins95

Aras_Volodka said:


> I should mention one other thing though; my bro in law has the Bowers & Wilkins front speakers (803's?) which might have a lot to do with how good the overall sound is. They do blow my chorus II's out of the water for sure. It seems like with Atmos if the speakers are all interacting well with eachother then object placement becomes much more clear... which I'm guessing is why 90 degree dispersion might be a desirable spec for in ceiling?


 
I can definitely say that my set of Klipsch speakers will blow away my set of Pioneers. I have yet to try the Pioneer up-firing Atmos speakers with my Klipsch speakers. I have no complaints when watching a dedicated Atmos soundtrack with the Pioneers but on more than one occasion, while listening to a non-Atmos soundtrack played using DSU, I have stood up and walked by one of the up-firing speakers and heard plenty of sound coming out from the speaker but when I sit down, I don't hear that same sound "bouncing" off the ceiling. I don't know if a true Atmos sound object is transmitted differently then a DSU sound. Hence my curiosity to try in-ceiling speakers to find out if I am actually missing overhead sound.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

tjenkins95 said:


> I can definitely say that my set of Klipsch speakers will blow away my set of Pioneers. I have yet to try the Pioneer up-firing Atmos speakers with my Klipsch speakers. I have no complaints when watching a dedicated Atmos soundtrack with the Pioneers but on more than one occasion, while listening to a non-Atmos soundtrack played using DSU, I have stood up and walked by one of the up-firing speakers and heard plenty of sound coming out from the speaker but when I sit down, I don't hear that same sound "bouncing" off the ceiling. I don't know if a true Atmos sound object is transmitted differently then a DSU sound. Hence my curiosity to try in-ceiling speakers to find out if I am actually missing overhead sound.


Do you have the heights cranked up post calibration? I've noticed Audyssey sets the module volume too low... I usually set it 4 db higher than what's recommended, though I will say DSU some content seems to get a lot of height going on while in other films it won't. & Sometimes the wrong stuff gets sent to heights... notoriously when a loud boot stomps on the ground, that tends to get sent to heights I've noticed (haha). (near the start of Dredd in DSU he stomps his boot to the ground and I heard it coming from overhead). 

Comparing my module based setup to my bro in law's (if you have the dolby atmos demo disc) the panning effects seemed more defined with his in ceiling speakers. In the "unfold" trailer, there is a rattling sound which I can hear with my modules, but it appeared much more clearly with his in ceiling speakers. Conductor trailer sounded identical to my setup. 

I think what it comes down to is objects in particular frequency ranges might appear just as clearly with the modules, while others might not? In the conductor trailer, I've become extremely familiar with the bird flapping it's wings going from front left height to front right height... that sounds identical with modules or in ceiling speakers as far as what I've heard. Wooshing sounds like wind (maybe lower frequency?) sounded much more clear on the in ceiling.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dschulz said:


> Nope, Jurassic World is straight-up 7.1.


Hmmm that's strange... I could have sworn I saw it on the Dolby atmos film list (I check it a few times a week to see if Star Wars 7 got added to their list yet... haha) I'm pretty sure Jurrasic World was on that list a few weeks ago. Maybe some deal went sour.


----------



## zeus33

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hmmm that's strange... I could have sworn I saw it on the Dolby atmos film list (I check it a few times a week to see if Star Wars 7 got added to their list yet... haha) I'm pretty sure Jurrasic World was on that list a few weeks ago. Maybe some deal went sour.



It isn't listed on their site: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


----------



## Aras_Volodka

zeus33 said:


> It isn't listed on their site: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html


I know, I'm just saying that I think it was... anyone else remember that? I thought there was a discussion about that on this thread.


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hmmm that's strange... I could have sworn I saw it on the Dolby atmos film list (I check it a few times a week to see if Star Wars 7 got added to their list yet... haha) I'm pretty sure Jurrasic World was on that list a few weeks ago. Maybe some deal went sour.


No deal went sour, although Dolby did say on the list a while ago it was going to happen (they jumped the gun.) 

They didn't do any immersive format mixes on the film.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> No deal went sour, although Dolby did say on the list a while ago it was going to happen (they jumped the gun.)
> 
> They didn't do any immersive format mixes on the film.


Ran out of time?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Ran out of time?


No..

They just didn't do it.

Why can't that be taken at face value?


----------



## Frank714

Aras_Volodka said:


> My dream though would be to finally get some of the older Cameron flicks released with Atmos remixes, let alone bluray  What's up with that?


Since it becomes increasingly apparent that the Cameron Pace Group is among the few companies involved with 3D which acknowledges that there is no 3D beyond the human steroscopic vision range, I couldn't help but send them an email expressing my gratitude for their achievements - and abused the occasion to ask Mr. Cameron (considering that because of the Ukraine Conflict we are somewhat returning to the Cold War period) whether "now" wouldn't be a good time for the release of _The Abyss_ on Blu-ray (add to this that Cuba is no longer an issue). 

Regarding older titles I read that Dolby gave two classic titles a remix to showcase how these would benefit from Dolby Atmos: One had been _Chicago_ (available on Blu-ray in Japan), the other had been _Die Hard_.

So in both cases, I presume that asking 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment to have these two titles released would be the proper cause of action.


----------



## robert816

The Abyss with a Dolby Atmos mix would be a great combination!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> No..
> 
> They just didn't do it.
> 
> Why can't that be taken at face value?


I don't know... just count me as disappointed since it would have been a great title to utilize 3D audio. Maybe if the film is half-way good (a long shot given the state of sequels and reboots) they could spring for a remix on Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray.


----------



## zvipster

I was wondering what the cheapest receiver and what the cheapes processor/preamp that have dolby is?
(tight budget here)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zvipster said:


> I was wondering what the cheapest receiver and what the cheapes processor/preamp that have dolby is?
> (tight budget here)


I'd hold on and make sure it has DTS:X as well. That would probably be one of the upcoming 2015 Onkyo's. However, those will only have 5.1.2 processing.


----------



## zvipster

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd hold on and make sure it has DTS:X as well. That would probably be one of the upcoming 2015 Onkyo's. However, those will only have 5.1.2 processing.


Thanks.
Has the layout for DTS:X been announced? In that case I missed it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know... just count me as disappointed since it would have been a great title to utilize 3D audio. Maybe if the film is half-way good (a long shot given the state of sequels and reboots) they could spring for a remix on Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray.


I think it certainly would have been! I re-watched the original Jurrasic park with my family a while back & my stepdaughter turned around to hear where some random dinsaur roar was coming from. Although I think Jurrasic World is gonna be a bad film though... but the giant aquasaurus looks like it will be a fun scene to watch/ I bet it's going to eat the main bad guy @ the end.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zvipster said:


> Thanks.
> Has the layout for DTS:X been announced? In that case I missed it.


So far the announcement is that DTS:X (at least for now) will pretty much fall in line with Atmos configurations.


----------



## sdurani

zvipster said:


> Has the layout for DTS:X been announced?


Not yet, just that the number of speakers will be 11.1 (7.1.4 has been mentioned, don't know about 9.1.2). They also mentioned a second discrete LFE channel, though I don't know if that will ever get used.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

zvipster said:


> I was wondering what the cheapest receiver and what the cheapes processor/preamp that have dolby is?
> (tight budget here)


Denon just revealed their affordable product line with both DTS X & atmos... but keep in mind all the cheap units have limited speaker outputs... like how many floor & ceiling speakers do you plan to have going? If you just want 5.1 with 2 heights then you are good to go, but if you want 7 channel surround + 4 heights, that will cost you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> No..
> 
> They just didn't do it.
> 
> Why can't that be taken at face value?


There _has_ to be a logical explanation!!!


The black op g-men must have got to you too.


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> No..
> 
> They just didn't do it.
> 
> Why can't that be taken at face value?


Seems like a really big missed opportunity. Considering all the scenes in the trailers with pterodactyls flying overhead, not to mention that the majority of dinosaurs tower over the human characters, Atmos (or DTS:X) could have added a lot to Jurassic World.


----------



## cdelena

Scott Simonian said:


> There _has_ to be a logical explanation!!!
> 
> 
> The black op g-men must have got to you too.



It is always someone's guess on cost / benefit.


----------



## NorthSky

> There _has_ to be a logical explanation!!!
> The black op g-men must have got to you too.


Lol


----------



## bkedelen

Do the current gen processors/receivers such as the DHC-80.6 include support for Atmos via headphones?

Ever since the little one came along, we do a lot of headphone home theater, and although it was amazing, it seems like none of the major manufacturers have included Dolby Headphone in their flagship units for a couple years.

I am looking for something that will take 5ch PCM or encoded Dolby and DTS surround modes and turn them into some kind of decent surround sound experience via my cans. In my limited experience, Dolby Headphone could produce a scary good front/back and up/down experience, so I am thinking that Atmos' height element combined with Dolby's preexisting headphone mixing expertise could have extraordinary results if that kind of thing actually exists and is actually included in the current Marantz/Onkyo/Integra/Denon flagship units.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bkedelen said:


> Do the current gen processors/receivers such as the DHC-80.6 include support for Atmos via headphones?
> 
> Ever since the little one came along, we do a lot of headphone home theater, and although it was amazing, it seems like none of the major manufacturers have included Dolby Headphone in their flagship units for a couple years.
> 
> I am looking for something that will take 5ch PCM or encoded Dolby and DTS surround modes and turn them into some kind of decent surround sound experience via my cans. In my limited experience, Dolby Headphone could produce a scary good front/back and up/down experience, so I am thinking that Atmos' height element combined with Dolby's preexisting headphone mixing expertise could have extraordinary results if that kind of thing actually exists and is actually included in the current Marantz/Onkyo/Integra/Denon flagship units.


I haven't heard much about headphones, on Home theater geeks where the cutting edge is often discussed these were two mentions... in the atmos episode I think the question of Atmos headphones was brought up but I've heard nothing about it since then. 

Tyll Hertsens may be the guy to ask... I got a response from him about immersive audio headphones... though he said he hasn't been too impressed with them when I wrote him half a year ago:

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/200

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/222

Tyll Hertsens:

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/172

Or maybe this guy:

http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/173


----------



## zvipster

Aras_Volodka said:


> Denon just revealed their affordable product line with both DTS X & atmos... but keep in mind all the cheap units have limited speaker outputs... like how many floor & ceiling speakers do you plan to have going? If you just want 5.1 with 2 heights then you are good to go, but if you want 7 channel surround + 4 heights, that will cost you.


I think I'll go for 5.1.2 perhaps 5.1.4 depending if I can meet the specs for x.x.4.
What options for preamp/processor only is there? I am thinking about getting active speakers.


----------



## pasender91

zvipster said:


> I think I'll go for 5.1.2 perhaps 5.1.4 depending if I can meet the specs for x.x.4.
> What options for preamp/processor only is there? I am thinking about getting active speakers.


Try to go for x.x.4, it is really giving a better result and is still easy to setup.
The main Atmos Preamps, from less to more expensive are:
- Marantz 7702 (will support DTS:X too)
- Onkyo PR SC 5530
- Marantz 8802 (will support DTS:X too)


----------



## WayneJoy

The latest Home Theater Geeks is interesting.






The guy who masters home audio for SONY says that he mixes the movies to play 10dB lower at home than at the theater. He also says that the answer to the maximum number of simultaneous objects in a home Atmos mix is 12.


----------



## FilmMixer

WayneJoy said:


> The latest Home Theater Geeks is interesting.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f5gf6MyfoM
> 
> 
> The guy who masters home audio for SONY says that he mixes the movies to play 10dB lower at home than at the theater. He also says that the answer to the maximum number of simultaneous objects in a home Atmos mix is 12.


Just to be clear. Brian isn't a mixer, or a mastering engineer. He runs the department that creates the elements used for home video release (BR, DVD, broadcast, streaming, etc...). He has created a workflow there there was none, and is also heavily involved in SMPTE, including currently working on creating standard for immersive audio. A very busy man 

The -10db reference level isn't unique to Sony. No one masters home theater tracks referenced to 85db. Or I should say no one should be doing so. Some do 80... Some do 75.... But he has standardized 75 for Somy product. 

The max number of object for home Atmos is not 12. That is what the encoders default value is set for. The maximum is higher.

At the default, you get 7.1 channels + 12 objects ... 

For DTS:X you get 16 total objects/channels... So 7.1 + 9 (I believe the LFE is not part of the 16 channel/object max... Or 5.1 + 12... Or 16 objects only.... Or 7.1 + 3.0 for dialog objects + 6 objects. Or...... More flexible approach, but more limited in regards to object count IMO.


----------



## FilmMixer

pasender91 said:


> Try to go for x.x.4, it is really giving a better result and is still easy to setup.
> The main Atmos Preamps, from less to more expensive are:
> - Marantz 7702 (will support DTS:X too)
> - Onkyo PR SC 5530
> - Marantz 8802 (will support DTS:X too)


AFAIK only the 8802/8802A have been announced to be getting the DTS:X upgrade. Not the 7702....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> AFAIK only the 8802/8802A have been announced to be getting the DTS:X upgrade. Not the 7702....



There is a 7702 Mark II version coming this fall with HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2/Dolby Atmos/DTS: X/ and a paid Auro3D upgrade, but it is being treated as a new model and I doubt the current version will get an upgrade. Just so that everyone is aware.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Just to be clear. Brian isn't a mixer, or a mastering engineer. He runs the department that creates the elements used for home video release (BR, DVD, broadcast, streaming, etc...). He has created a workflow there there was none, and is also heavily involved in SMPTE, including currently working on creating standard for immersive audio. A very busy man
> 
> The -10db reference level isn't unique to Sony. No one masters home theater tracks referenced to 85db. Or I should say no one should be doing so. Some do 80... Some do 75.... But he has standardized 75 for Somy product.
> 
> The max number of object for home Atmos is not 12. That is what the encoders default value is set for. The maximum is higher.
> 
> At the default, you get 7.1 channels + 12 objects ...
> 
> For DTS:X you get 16 total objects/channels... So 7.1 + 9 (I believe the LFE is not part of the 16 channel/object max... Or 5.1 + 12... Or 16 objects only.... Or 7.1 + 3.0 for dialog objects + 6 objects. Or...... More flexible approach, but more limited in regards to object count IMO.


So, if home DTS:X allows for 16 total objects, how many can consumer Dolby Atmos support or is that a trade secret? 

In your professional opinion, compared to the theatrical standards for immersive mixing, is 16 objects pretty limiting in and of itself or is that a fair number of simultaneous objects for 32 rendered speaker locations? 

Always good to get your perspective, Marc.


----------



## zimmo

PLEASE for more more time THIS IS DOLBY ATMOS OFFICIEL THREAD,YOU HAVE MANY THREAD DTS-X IN THIS SITE.


THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUTCH.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zimmo said:


> PLEASE for more more time THIS IS DOLBY ATMOS OFFICIEL THREAD,YOU HAVE MANY THREAD DTS-X IN THIS SITE.
> 
> 
> THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUTCH.


There is honestly not a whole lot of news on either front, Zimmo.

These threads are moreso 'Immersive audio thread 1' and 'Immersive audio thread 2'.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, if home DTS:X allows for 16 total objects, how many can consumer Dolby Atmos support or is that a trade secret?
> 
> In your professional opinion, compared to the theatrical standards for immersive mixing, is 16 objects pretty limiting in and of itself or is that a fair number of simultaneous objects for 32 rendered speaker locations?
> 
> Always good to get your perspective, Marc.


I'm not clear on how DTS is going to encode objects. 

With Spectral Coding, you can't really look at the total object number as a limiting factor. Since two objects in the same space/zone can be coded together, I don't think there should be any issues subjectively translating an Atmos track to the home environment. 

I suspect DTS will be doing some thing similar. 

Afaik the max number of objects for TrueHD Atmos for BR is 20.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Triad Atmos Speakers*

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...veils-new-dolby-atmos-speakers-for-1500/23574


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> I'm not clear on how DTS is going to encode objects.
> 
> With Spectral Coding, you can't really look at the total object number as a limiting factor. Since two objects in the same space/zone can be coded together, I don't think there should be any issues subjectively translating an Atmos track to the home environment.
> 
> I suspect DTS will be doing some thing similar.
> 
> Afaik the max number of objects for TrueHD Atmos for BR is 20.


While we have you... do you know if any more Atmos BD's are in the works? I know you can't divulge which... but it seems like announcements are slowing down a bit.


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> While we have you... do you know if any more Atmos BD's are in the works? I know you can't divulge which... but it seems like announcements are slowing down a bit.


There is a lot of stuff in the works... I know of one title that I think will be a killer release for them. 

I don't know what DTS has planned, I do know that one of my contacts at Dolby, who is responsible for guiding the home Atmos titles through authoring, has been incredibly busy. 

If it hasn't become obvious at this point, it's fairly clear that some studios are waiting for UHD BR to launch to get them to jump on the immersive audio bandwagon. For better or worse I see that is what is happening. I know Dolby had expected more content providers to be on board at this point.... I don't think they expected 4k to gain traction as fast as it is... 

Dolby Vision HDR will also be a good technology to pair with Atmos, from both a marketing and support standpoint. As I've said in the past, IMO, Dolby let BR lossless get past them without much of a fight. They've learned from the past. They aren't sitting around idly watching this play out.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Denon new models*



Dan Hitchman said:


> There is a 7702 Mark II version coming this fall with HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2/Dolby Atmos/DTS: X/ and a paid Auro3D upgrade, but it is being treated as a new model and I doubt the current version will get an upgrade. Just so that everyone is aware.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby Vision HDR will also be a good technology to pair with Atmos, from both a marketing and support standpoint.


One of the studios holding back on Atmos releases plans on having all their new movies (and some recent ones) in HDR when they are released on UHD BD. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/fox-be-first-studio-create-796952


----------



## HT-Eman

*Marantz 2015 receiver models*


----------



## Josh Z

zimmo said:


> PLEASE for more more time THIS IS DOLBY ATMOS OFFICIEL THREAD,YOU HAVE MANY THREAD DTS-X IN THIS SITE.
> 
> 
> THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUTCH.


Chill out, Zimmo. These topics are related and it is natural for there to be some crossover in the conversation. It's not as if anybody here has suddenly started talking about sports cars or Viagra or their favorite BBQ recipes from out of the blue.


----------



## smurraybhm

Josh Z said:


> Chill out, Zimmo. These topics are related and it is natural for there to be some crossover in the conversation. It's not as if anybody here has suddenly started talking about sports cars or Viagra or their favorite BBQ recipes from out of the blue.


What is your favorite BBQ recipe? Independence Day isn't far away.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> It's not as if anybody here has suddenly started talking about sports cars or Viagra or their favorite BBQ recipes from out of the blue.



Well actually .... 

I think I do enough pizza and nacho talk for the rest of us.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Looks like receivers will be on 11 channel for a while... I was thinking dolby should have a setup that allows for a rear center channel, use the surround backs in the same way that front wides would be used... & add front wides... so like 10.1.4 or something along those lines. But I could see why Grimani thinks front wides are important... hopefully 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 would atleast become a 2,000 dollar reality in 2016.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> There is a lot of stuff in the works... I know of one title that I think will be a killer release for them.
> 
> I don't know what DTS has planned, I do know that one of my contacts at Dolby, who is responsible for guiding the home Atmos titles through authoring, has been incredibly busy.
> 
> If it hasn't become obvious at this point, it's fairly clear that some studios are waiting for UHD BR to launch to get them to jump on the immersive audio bandwagon. For better or worse I see that is what is happening. I know Dolby had expected more content providers to be on board at this point.... I don't think they expected 4k to gain traction as fast as it is...
> 
> Dolby Vision HDR will also be a good technology to pair with Atmos, from both a marketing and support standpoint. As I've said in the past, IMO, Dolby let BR lossless get past them without much of a fight. They've learned from the past. They aren't sitting around idly watching this play out.


TY for the insight... Ex Machina is supposed to be DTS X disc so it looks like DTS X for bd might get rollin' soon. 

I wasn't aware of the hold off due to UHD specs... that might be a long wait for those of us waiting for the Atmos floodgates to open. I expect it will take some time for UHD bluray to take off if the original BD rollout is of any indication. 

But if Mad Max & Star Wars get their Atmos BD's... I'll be very happy (haha).


----------



## dkfan9

So I've got a question I haven't seen answered, but I haven't pored through much of this thread (a bit overwhelming  ). If Atmos, and object oriented audio in general, is intrinsically superior to traditional channel based formats, can one listen to Atmos on a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 setup? Wouldn't there still be some benefit to object based audio, even without height speakers? after all, Dolby promotes Atmos in 2 channel in headphone format


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dkfan9 said:


> So I've got a question I haven't seen answered, but I haven't pored through much of this thread (a bit overwhelming  ). If Atmos, and object oriented audio in general, is intrinsically superior to traditional channel based formats, can one listen to Atmos on a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 setup? Wouldn't there still be some benefit to object based audio, even without height speakers? after all, Dolby promotes Atmos in 2 channel in headphone format


I think I responded to your original question (about not using in ceiling speakers?) 

Yes, it still is better than traditional 5.1 or 7.1 even if you don't have the heights... your receiver can be setup so that it accommodates your speaker layout. 

With object placement the idea is the sound isn't restricted to where the speakers are located... I often hear very clear sounds coming from places where there is no speaker. But obviously, the ceiling speakers help with that as well. 

Even with just upmixed 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, I hear some crazy stuff going on. I made a post this week regarding the secret world of arriety... I heard some insane sound placement with that film... and it's only 5.1 mix!


----------



## Dbruce13

dkfan9 said:


> So I've got a question I haven't seen answered, but I haven't pored through much of this thread (a bit overwhelming  ). If Atmos, and object oriented audio in general, is intrinsically superior to traditional channel based formats, can one listen to Atmos on a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 setup? Wouldn't there still be some benefit to object based audio, even without height speakers? after all, Dolby promotes Atmos in 2 channel in headphone format


Some benefit but the primary benefit of the Atmos coding comes from "overhead" sound addition via ceiling or upward firing speakers.


----------



## dkfan9

Aras_Volodka said:


> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I've got a question I haven't seen answered, but I haven't pored through much of this thread (a bit overwhelming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). If Atmos, and object oriented audio in general, is intrinsically superior to traditional channel based formats, can one listen to Atmos on a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 setup? Wouldn't there still be some benefit to object based audio, even without height speakers? after all, Dolby promotes Atmos in 2 channel in headphone format
> 
> 
> 
> I think I responded to your original question (about not using in ceiling speakers?)
> 
> Yes, it still is better than traditional 5.1 or 7.1 even if you don't have the heights... your receiver can be setup so that it accommodates your speaker layout.
> 
> With object placement the idea is the sound isn't restricted to where the speakers are located... I often hear very clear sounds coming from places where there is no speaker. But obviously, the ceiling speakers help with that as well.
> 
> Even with just upmixed 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, I hear some crazy stuff going on. I made a post this week regarding the secret world of arriety... I heard some insane sound placement with that film... and it's only 5.1 mix!
Click to expand...

That does help, but my question was a little different: why couldn't the object based format be used with only ear level speakers? Wouldn't one still see some of the benefits of objects vs channels, even without heights or reflecting speakers? More a theoretical question on the limits and possibilities off the format than anything.


----------



## Stanton

dkfan9 said:


> That does help, but my question was a little different: why couldn't the object based format be used with only ear level speakers? Wouldn't one still see some of the benefits of objects vs channels, even without heights or reflecting speakers? More a theoretical question on the limits and possibilities off the format than anything.


I imagine that ultimately it's all about the math: you can't project any objects above (or below) if you don't have a speaker in that plane. That's why I think even speakers place high on a side wall (instead of actually "in ceiling") will give you a much improved experience over anything we have to date (5.1/7.1). You can debate whether it's "better" or "worse" to place them forward or backward (or have 2/4/whatever), but the math says you have to have them if you are going to project objects in a higher plane.


----------



## audiofan1

I'm a few hours away from 7.1.4 with an Atmos disc that just arrived as well, can't you tell I'm excited


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> Chill out, Zimmo. These topics are related and it is natural for there to be some crossover in the conversation. It's not as if anybody here has suddenly started talking about sports cars or Viagra or their favorite BBQ recipes from out of the blue.





smurraybhm said:


> What is your favorite BBQ recipe? Independence Day isn't far away.





Scott Simonian said:


> Well actually ....
> 
> I think I do enough pizza and nacho talk for the rest of us.


Lol, pizza and cheese nachos are part of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X and Auro-3D. 

* Maybe after Christmas 2015, or New Eve 2016, we are going to see more Dolby Atmos UHD Blu-ray titles starting to be released? 
We need more BR title killers like 'Gravity' (WB), and in 3D (FOX). /... *'The Martian'*


----------



## Movie78

So if Ex Machina Blu-ray is getting release on July 14 with DTS X, will the DTS X firmware be available for the AVR with DTS X supported?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Movie78 said:


> So if Ex Machina Blu-ray is getting release on July 14 with DTS X, will the DTS X firmware be available for the AVR with DTS X supported?


Doesn't sound like it. It appears the current hardware that will upgradable will not get that firmware until fall this year.


----------



## NorthSky

dkfan9 said:


> That does help, but my question was a little different: why couldn't the object based format be used with only ear level speakers? Wouldn't one still see some of the benefits of objects vs channels, even without heights or reflecting speakers? More a theoretical question on the limits and possibilities off the format than anything.


Good question, and I believe that eventually movie sound mixers are going to improve our movie experience @ home with just five speakers plus the subwoofer LFE channel (5.1). ...With better placement in space for an even more enveloping surround sound (without overhead ceiling speakers, and without rear surround speakers). ...Yes, excellent question and the possibilities are getting better and better each day that goes by. ...The technology today is superior to the one from yesterday, when it comes to surround sound immersion with lesser speakers (DSP based objects with phantom imaging and with that sense of height and anywhere else in our smaller rooms @ home). ... *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'* ...if they can do it with this film, they can do it too with all other films...the tools today are even better than the ones they used when they did that soundtrack mix (award winning audio soundtrack by the way).


----------



## NorthSky

audiofan1 said:


> I'm a few hours away from 7.1.4 with an Atmos disc that just arrived as well, can't you tell I'm excited


*'Gravity'* ?



Movie78 said:


> So if Ex Machina Blu-ray is getting release on July 14 with DTS X, will the DTS X firmware be available for the AVR with DTS X supported?


It's going to be very close; with Onkyo, and Denon too. ...I believe.


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> Well actually ....
> 
> I think I do enough pizza and nacho talk for the rest of us.


I totally made pizza nachos a few nights ago and it was delicious!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Interesting ...


Tell me more. 

Is that pesto and mozzarella or jack and chili verde? Could either way being pizza nachos.


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> Interesting ...
> 
> 
> Tell me more.
> 
> Is that pesto and mozzarella or jack and chili verde? Could either way being pizza nachos.


Homemade sauce, mozzarella, pepperoni, pesto. Usually pineapple and black olive too, but I was out of those ingredients.

Pizza tostada:


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's wrong but .... I'm totally going to try that sometime.


----------



## bsoko2

Scott Simonian said:


> It's wrong but .... I'm totally going to try that sometime.


I'll pass on this. I already had one 4 way by-pass and don't need to do it again.


----------



## lujan

audiofan1 said:


> I'm a few hours away from 7.1.4 with an Atmos disc that just arrived as well, can't you tell I'm excited


Have fun, I know I did.


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> The -10db reference level isn't unique to Sony. No one masters home theater tracks referenced to 85db. Or I should say no one should be doing so. Some do 80... Some do 75.... But he has standardized 75 for Somy product.


Isn't a moving target problematic for the whole idea of a "reference" level? I totally understand that if we played back a movie using the theatrical mix, at theatrical reference, we'd be blown out of our sofas - so I understand the notion of bringing the level back and re-balancing. But if the reference is a moving target, then all we can do with our fader at home is move it around until we find the level that seems right. ISTM that the reference level on the stage should be left alone but then the mixers dial back the level to one appropriate for home theater. What am I missing?


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Isn't a moving target problematic for the whole idea of a "reference" level? I totally understand that if we played back a movie using the theatrical mix, at theatrical reference, we'd be blown out of our sofas - so I understand the notion of bringing the level back and re-balancing. But if the reference is a moving target, then all we can do with our fader at home is move it around until we find the level that seems right. ISTM that the reference level on the stage should be left alone but then the mixers dial back the level to one appropriate for home theater. What am I missing?


Nothing. 

But alas there is no industry standard, only generally acceted "preferences." 

We missed that boat a long time ago. 

Dialog norm was supposed to alleviate the issue. But very few measures and implement it properly.. 

So the finger can point in many directions. 

In practice, many people use what Brian has laid out as their template. But not everyone. Add to that there are some content providers who do no remastering...... It's definitely a confusing and messy topic. 

Any you can't just dial back the recorded level without changing the sol reference (and obviously the sub and surrounds are different level in the home.). Because pulling back the mix to compensate for what levels consumers listen at doesn't work. You can't get a subjective parity doing so. You must do both to get a satisfactory result.


----------



## marlon1925

*Moving to 9.1.2*

Hi sirs,

I just bought Onkyo's 3030, my current set up is 7.1 (wides) as shown in the attached pix. I'm planning to move to 9.1.2 by adding B&W 686 S2 and CCM665 (ceiling speakers).

Please help me find a diagram of correct speaker placement.

Thank you very much.


----------



## Al Sherwood

marlon1925 said:


> Hi sirs,
> 
> I just bought Onkyo's 3030, my current set up is 7.1 (wides) as shown in the attached pix. I'm planning to move to 9.1.2 by adding B&W 686 S2 and CCM665 (ceiling speakers).
> 
> Please help me find a diagram of correct speaker placement.
> 
> Thank you very much.



Does this help?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=772961&stc=1&d=1434157586


----------



## marlon1925

Al Sherwood said:


> Does this help?
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=772961&stc=1&d=1434157586


Thank you very much sir! 

Should I use surround backs instead of wides?


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> But alas there is no industry standard, only generally acceted "preferences."
> 
> We missed that boat a long time ago.
> 
> Dialog norm was supposed to alleviate the issue. But very few measures and implement it properly..


Not to mention that DTS inherently authors its tracks 4 dB louder than Dolby to foster the impression of having superior sound (among consumers who confuse _louder_ for _better_). That alone throws the concept of "reference volume" for home theater out the window. The exact same soundtrack compressed in both lossless codecs will have two different reference volumes.


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> Not to mention that DTS inherently authors its tracks 4 dB louder than Dolby to foster the impression of having superior sound (among consumers who confuse _louder_ for _better_). That alone throws the concept of "reference volume" for home theater out the window. The exact same soundtrack compressed in both lossless codecs will have two different reference volumes.


Josh. That's not accurate. 

Almost every DD or TrueHD track has a dialog norm value of -4 (the default in the decoder is -27 or -4). DTS also has dialog norm. However the default for it is -31/off. 

The encoded PCM is the same level referenced to 0dbFs. 

Dialog norm is post codec deciding attenuation.... It doesn't change the recorded level at all. Hence DTS tracks aren't authored louder. In many cases, however, they might playback louder (non thx processors.) at the same MV.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dkfan9 said:


> That does help, but my question was a little different: why couldn't the object based format be used with only ear level speakers? Wouldn't one still see some of the benefits of objects vs channels, even without heights or reflecting speakers? More a theoretical question on the limits and possibilities off the format than anything.


Dolby probably could have designed a system that worked like that, but with the height things really get moving. I still think you'd hear a big difference before in ceiling speakers are installed. I was without atmos enabled speakers for the first 3 months of having this receiver... it was a *huge* upgrade for me, though I came from a 5.1 setup prior to this... with a receiver from a 400 dollar home theater in a box from 2003 (lol). I might not be the best example... but if you are looking to hold out I couldn't blame you... waiting for the format wars to shake out might be advisable at this stage.


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> Josh. That's not accurate.
> 
> Almost every DD or TrueHD track has a dialog norm value of -4 (the default in the decoder is -27 or -4). DTS also has dialog norm. However the default for it is -31/off.
> 
> The encoded PCM is the same level referenced to 0dbFs.
> 
> Dialog norm is post codec deciding attenuation.... It doesn't change the recorded level at all. Hence DTS tracks aren't authored louder. In many cases, however, they might playback louder (non thx processors.) at the same MV.


I will concede that I used the word "authors" wrong, but it's kind of a semantic point. In _almost all_ cases, DTS plays back louder at the same master volume. Given that Dolby dominates every media format other than Blu-ray (DVD, broadcast, streaming, mobile, etc.), the louder playback volumes on DTS tracks are clearly the outlier.

From an end user perspective, if they've calibrated their receiver assuming that a master volume setting of 0 dB equals "reference level," DTS tracks will play back louder at that setting than Dolby. Which, back to my point, makes the whole notion of "reference level" in home theater irrelevant.


----------



## rboster

We watched Jurassic Park tonight in anticipation of seeing Jurassic World tomorrow. Engaging Dolby Surround with the DTS-HD 7.1 really gets me excited about future catalog titles coming out with dts:x or Dolby atmos. It was an blast watching JP with the faux atmos engaged.

Ron


----------



## NorthSky

bsoko2 said:


> I'll pass on this. I already had one 4 way by-pass and don't need to do it again.


Ouch! ...Movies are fine too with clamato juice and celery.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=772961&stc=1&d=1434157586





marlon1925 said:


> Thank you very much sir!
> 
> *Should I use surround backs instead of wides?*


The two speakers behind the couch are the "Surround Back" speakers.


----------



## FilmMixer

dkfan9 said:


> That does help, but my question was a little different: why couldn't the object based format be used with only ear level speakers? Wouldn't one still see some of the benefits of objects vs channels, even without heights or reflecting speakers? More a theoretical question on the limits and possibilities off the format than anything.


Only if the number of discrete speakers is greater than the number of delivered channels in a given encode. 

If the payload is equal or less, using objects adds nothing to the decoded presentation (outside of being able to change the level of an object, etc...).


----------



## FilmMixer

Josh Z said:


> I will concede that I used the word "authors" wrong, but it's kind of a semantic point. In _almost all_ cases, DTS plays back louder at the same master volume. Given that Dolby dominates every media format other than Blu-ray (DVD, broadcast, streaming, mobile, etc.), the louder playback volumes on DTS tracks are clearly the outlier.
> 
> From an end user perspective, if they've calibrated their receiver assuming that a master volume setting of 0 dB equals "reference level," DTS tracks will play back louder at that setting than Dolby. Which, back to my point, makes the whole notion of "reference level" in home theater irrelevant.


Agreed. 

However you implied DTS does it as a means to an end. Again.... I'm not sure hat is the case.


----------



## marlon1925

NorthSky said:


> The two speakers behind the couch are the "Surround Back" speakers.


Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't notice it....uhmm so instead of adding heights and ceiling speakers to my current set up, I'll just put up a pair of rear surrounds and ceiling speakers?


Thanks for your patience answering my queries


----------



## NorthSky

marlon1925 said:


> Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't notice it....uhmm so instead of adding heights and ceiling speakers to my current set up, I'll just put up a pair of rear surrounds and ceiling speakers?
> 
> 
> Thanks for your patience answering my queries


Yes, like in sir *Al Sherwood*'s prior posted graph. ... https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## marlon1925

NorthSky said:


> Yes, like in sir *Al Sherwood*'s prior posted graph. ... https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs



Thank you sir.


----------



## NorthSky

Bob is fine.


----------



## RichB

Josh Z said:


> Not to mention that DTS inherently authors its tracks 4 dB louder than Dolby to foster the impression of having superior sound (among consumers who confuse _louder_ for _better_). That alone throws the concept of "reference volume" for home theater out the window. The exact same soundtrack compressed in both lossless codecs will have two different reference volumes.


I have experienced greater variation in Dialog Normalization that -4 on broadcast content. 

DD+ may be fast becoming a very important encoding format since it is used for streamed content (Netflix) some of which 10 DB louder than broadcast DD.

It is not uncommon for content to require a 15 DB adjustment for a comfortable listening level between BD HD and streamed DD+. So in practice, reference level is best used to definition the capability of the play back system; No reasonable adjustment can be made for source material.

- Rich


----------



## smurraybhm

If you don't have Kingsmen on your watch list I highly recommend it. The DTS HD 7.1 mix using DSU is outstanding along with reference video. Throughly enjoyed it last night and our own Ralph Potts gave it a 96 so we agree on the score.

If your a boxing fan (or not) check out Showtime tonight and see what most of my past few weeks has been spent on. My school/employer is hosting the first world championship fight ever in our State. Sold out and broadcast worldwide, interesting watching a basketball arena transformed into a Vegas style boxing arena in a few days. Headed to work shortly, stay on topic for Zimmo


----------



## pasender91

marlon1925 said:


> Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't notice it....uhmm so instead of adding heights and ceiling speakers to my current set up, I'll just put up a pair of rear surrounds and ceiling speakers?
> Thanks for your patience answering my queries


Hi Marlon,
I have a slightly different advice.
9.1.2 will not give an optimal 3D sound immersion compared to 7.1.4, so what i would do is keep the 7 ground speakers as they are (with wides), and simply add 4 ceiling speakers to achieve 7.1.4. 
Just note that wides will be active for Atmos movies but inactive when using Dolby Surround.

If you can move you speakers around, optimally you could shift your wides to be surrounds (+- 90°) and your current surrounds (+- 120°) could be put a bit more to the rear (+- 140°).


----------



## Al Sherwood

Marlon, if you want to consider 7.1.4 


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=773489&stc=1&d=1434200418


----------



## Josh Z

My left and right Surround speakers are currently at 90-degrees of my seats. I have a much bigger gap between my front mains and the Surrounds, than I do between the Surrounds and Back Surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the imaging between front to back has a hole in it. 

Due to limitations in the room, my Top Middle heights are mounted directly above where the Surrounds currently are and cannot be moved. (My Front Heights are likewise above the front speakers.) So I can't use heights to fill that hole in the soundstage.

I have contemplated (not done yet, but contemplated) moving my ground-level Surrounds a little bit forward of my seats to more evenly space out the speakers. I think this will probably be fine on soundtracks mixed for 7.1 or Atmos, but I worry that on soundtracks mixed for 5.1 that sound effects intended to go to the back of the room will sound weird coming from slightly in front of me. For example, if a character on screen fires a gun that's supposed to ricochet behind me, won't the directionality be all wrong?

Am I over-thinking this? Does anyone have their Surround speakers set up this way?


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> Hi Marlon,
> I have a slightly different advice.
> 9.1.2 will not give an optimal 3D sound immersion compared to 7.1.4, so what i would do is keep the 7 ground speakers as they are (with wides), and simply add 4 ceiling speakers to achieve 7.1.4.
> Just note that *wides will be active for Atmos movies* but inactive when using Dolby Surround.
> 
> If you can move you speakers around, optimally you could shift your wides to be surrounds (+- 90°) and your current surrounds (+- 120°) could be put a bit more to the rear (+- 140°).


 only in 9.1.2 configuration today.


----------



## Alanlee

*What's UP?*



Al Sherwood said:


> Marlon, if you want to consider 7.1.4
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=773489&stc=1&d=1434200418


 
Al - I am an amp and a processor away from ATMOS, however I have installed a 9.1.4 speaker system. I used the diagram you included in that post to install my height speakers, then I listened to a conversation from some THX people where in they said the height speakers should be top front and top middle for best performance. I am wired for six heights; should I install top fronts? I understand that most available processors will only do 7.1.4. I also understand that I am going at the installation process backwards. What can I say; I am left-handed.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Call me "late", but just got my 3rd Atmos disk "John Wick".
Hope the atmos content will not be as disappointing as the two others (TF4, EX3)
If sounds good, I can then test my current FH+TM setup and then change to TF+TR.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Alanlee said:


> Al - I am an amp and a processor away from ATMOS, however I have installed a 9.1.4 speaker system. I used the diagram you included in that post to install my height speakers, then I listened to a conversation from some THX people where in they said the height speakers should be top front and top middle for best performance. I am wired for six heights; should I install top fronts? I understand that most available processors will only do 7.1.4. I also understand that I am going at the installation process backwards. What can I say; I am left-handed.


I think that as you have the wiring in for all height pairs you might benefit from some listening test, try TF and TR and see if this improved the overall sense of spaciousness . In the diagram I posted you can see that Dolby is trying to provide for sound both in front and behind the MLP, I am not sure why the THX people would suggest otherwise except that a lot of individuals like to have most of the sound coming from in front of them. I have yet to experiment with this, so it is best to test and go with what you like.


----------



## frankpc3

aaranddeeman said:


> Call me "late", but just got my 3rd Atmos disk "John Wick".
> Hope the atmos content will not be as disappointing as the two others (TF4, EX3)
> If sounds good, I can then test my current FH+TM setup and then change to TF+TR.


I am close to getting some Atmos speakers installed. I have no Atmos blu-rays. Let us know of your findings.


----------



## JamesE

I'm a week away from having a 9.2.4 Atmos system. I'm going to use a 7.2.4 configuration as far as the Marantz is concerned and use miniDSP's to get the middle surrounds. I like front wide speakers and don't want to lose them when using Dolby Surround.


----------



## Spanglo

Josh Z said:


> My left and right Surround speakers are currently at 90-degrees of my seats. I have a much bigger gap between my front mains and the Surrounds, than I do between the Surrounds and Back Surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the imaging between front to back has a hole in it.
> 
> Due to limitations in the room, my Top Middle heights are mounted directly above where the Surrounds currently are and cannot be moved. (My Front Heights are likewise above the front speakers.) So I can't use heights to fill that hole in the soundstage.
> 
> I have contemplated (not done yet, but contemplated) moving my ground-level Surrounds a little bit forward of my seats to more evenly space out the speakers. I think this will probably be fine on soundtracks mixed for 7.1 or Atmos, but I worry that on soundtracks mixed for 5.1 that sound effects intended to go to the back of the room will sound weird coming from slightly in front of me. For example, if a character on screen fires a gun that's supposed to ricochet behind me, won't the directionality be all wrong?
> 
> Am I over-thinking this? Does anyone have their Surround speakers set up this way?


I run my side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP. There are some older pics in my sig link. Since then I've moved my couch back a bit, and the surrounds are about 6" forward of the couch. 

I haven't noticed many sound effect issues, the majority of content plays nice. DSU is used for all content.

Ideally I would want the side surrounds mounted ear height or a few inches above. They're a little low in my case because of speaker choice and room treatments. But like I said, it's rarely been an issue, and when it is, it's subtle.


----------



## dschulz

JamesE said:


> I'm a week away from having a 9.2.4 Atmos system. I'm going to use a 7.2.4 configuration as far as the Marantz is concerned and use miniDSP's to get the middle surrounds. I like front wide speakers and don't want to lose them when using Dolby Surround.


That works, and likely will sound pretty good - but don't forget that part of what object-based mixing and playback does is pinpoint placement of sound objects. If you use a mini-DSP to turn one speaker into an array of speakers, the objects will be smeared across the room.


----------



## audiofan1

Josh Z said:


> My left and right Surround speakers are currently at 90-degrees of my seats. I have a much bigger gap between my front mains and the Surrounds, than I do between the Surrounds and Back Surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the imaging between front to back has a hole in it.
> 
> Due to limitations in the room, my Top Middle heights are mounted directly above where the Surrounds currently are and cannot be moved. (My Front Heights are likewise above the front speakers.) So I can't use heights to fill that hole in the soundstage.
> 
> I have contemplated (not done yet, but contemplated) moving my ground-level Surrounds a little bit forward of my seats to more evenly space out the speakers. I think this will probably be fine on soundtracks mixed for 7.1 or Atmos, but I worry that on soundtracks mixed for 5.1 that sound effects intended to go to the back of the room will sound weird coming from slightly in front of me. For example, if a character on screen fires a gun that's supposed to ricochet behind me, won't the directionality be all wrong?
> 
> Am I over-thinking this? Does anyone have their Surround speakers set up this way?


I came out with a 7.4.1 (TF/TR) with my di-poles ( L/R surrounds) in the same spot as the 5.1 configuration directly to the sides of the MLP and 3ft above , I wanted to try this before moving them back and down a bit and running them Bi-pole (or switching to direct radiating speakers) but after listen to the THX pod cast I was more willing to give them a try them elevated and the results where fantastic and as far as I'm concerned Di-poles have a place yet still in this new audio world of ours


----------



## aaranddeeman

frankpc3 said:


> I am close to getting some Atmos speakers installed. I have no Atmos blu-rays. Let us know of your findings.


I don't know, but may be I am looking for something that is not there. Just finished watching John Wick. Is it immersive? yes. Object placement? Hmm
Even after this movie, not very thrilled with Atmos yet. 
I have even raised the levels on the heights, but they fail to satisfy me..
May be my setup is not right or the room is a problem or even the on-ceiling speaker I am using. Not sure what it is.
I will try TF+TR as next step.


----------



## JamesE

dschulz said:


> That works, and likely will sound pretty good - but don't forget that part of what object-based mixing and playback does is pinpoint placement of sound objects. If you use a mini-DSP to turn one speaker into an array of speakers, the objects will be smeared across the room.



I realize that this is a compromise but, until the preamps (at a reasonable price point) start allowing for a 13.x.x.--more than 11 channels--setup this will work for me.


----------



## rboster

aaranddeeman said:


> I don't know, but may be I am looking for something that is not there. Just finished watching John Wick. Is it immersive? yes. Object placement? Hmm
> Even after this movie, not very thrilled with Atmos yet.
> I have even raised the levels on the heights, but they fail to satisfy me..
> May be my setup is not right or the room is a problem or even the on-ceiling speaker I am using. Not sure what it is.
> I will try TF+TR as next step.


Would you agree, we are in the infant stages of what is possible with 3d sound? Watching the Dolby atmos demos/trailers leads me to believe what's up a head will be create the immersive "feel like we are I the middle of the film" experience we are hoping for. For me "Gravity" is a little taste of what's possible.

I'm pretty excited and positive about what's a head with atmos and dts:x.


----------



## audiofan1

rboster said:


> Would you agree, we are in the infant stages of what is possible with 3d sound? Watching the Dolby atmos demos/trailers leads me to believe what's up a head will be create the immersive "feel like we are I the middle of the film" experience we are hoping for. For me "Gravity" is a little taste of what's possible.
> 
> I'm pretty excited and positive about what's a head with atmos and dts:x.


I'd say were here and the more mixers have a chance to home in on there skills using this powerful tool the results will be incredible.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rboster said:


> Would you agree, we are in the infant stages of what is possible with 3d sound? Watching the Dolby atmos demos/trailers leads me to believe what's up a head will be create the immersive "feel like we are I the middle of the film" experience we are hoping for. For me "Gravity" is a little taste of what's possible.
> 
> I'm pretty excited and positive about what's a head with atmos and dts:x.


I guess that is what it is. I need to keep my expectations low for now.
Talking of the demos, I unfortunately have none. I downloaded it to My VuDu. But PS3 fails to play it is Atmos and when I used ROKU I could not get any Audio.
Dolby is not ready to give me the official disk.
An other ideas to play these demos. Has anyone used ROKU to succesfully play those?


----------



## frankpc3

aaranddeeman said:


> I will try TF+TR as next step.


I agree. Give that a shot and let us know how great it is. If it is worse, don't post anything. 

I'm going to too much trouble and expense for this to fail.


----------



## aaranddeeman

frankpc3 said:


> I agree. Give that a shot and let us know how great it is. If it is worse, don't post anything.
> 
> I'm going to too much trouble and expense for this to fail.


I wouldn't expect miracles. But I believe I will mostly settle for that. It fills the gaps nicely.
TRs fall almost exactly in the middle between by surrounds and back surrounds.
I would have liked TFs to be bit closer to MLP, but due to no joist at the exact position, I can not mount it. It is just 10" farther though (but within the spec)
TFs go right above where by FWs are.
My TF is 53" from MLP and TR is 43". 
I have mounted them now. Have to run Audyssey and see how that goes.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

frankpc3 said:


> I agree. Give that a shot and let us know how great it is. If it is worse, don't post anything.
> 
> I'm going to too much trouble and expense for this to fail.


HA! 



aaranddeeman said:


> I wouldn't expect miracles. But I believe I will mostly settle for that. It fills the gaps nicely.
> TRs fall almost exactly in the middle between by surrounds and back surrounds.
> I would have liked TFs to be bit closer to MLP, but due to no joist at the exact position, I can not mount it. It is just 10" farther though (but within the spec)
> TFs go right above where by FWs are.
> My TF is 53" from MLP and TR is 43".
> I have mounted them now. Have to run Audyssey and see how that goes.


If your expectations are that you will hear a bird flutter by your ear... then yeah it's disappointing. But I've been very impressed with the sense of immersion... what kind of in ceiling speakers are you using? 

I do hear objects though, like in Gravity @ the first 20 min dialogue flies all over the room, I can track when it goes above/ behind or in front of me high up/ right or left, I hear sounds that appear to come from where no speaker sits. 

It's often small things that might otherwise go unnoticed. Expendables 3... there was a scene where they were contemplating their fallen comrades while looking at hanging dog tags... you can hear them cling up above the floor speaker and a bit to the right if I recall. Not like "oh my god wow!" but it's still pretty cool... it sounds like the necklaces are in the room with you, along with the rattling of the airplane. 

John Wick, right at the start of the film when he wakes up from an alarm clock or something... I recall that sounded very good... lots of weird reverb on it that made it sound very distant and high in the air. The rain @ the start sounds pretty good. It wasn't my favorite atmos mix but it's one of the films I've hated the least (lol). Unbroken intro = one of my favorite atmos moments with the flak going off all around you. 

I'm hoping to god Mad Max gets an atmos BD... because that was a fantastic mix @ the theater. Lots of big objects like trucks & motorcycles flying over head... a very trippy experience. Might give people with 8" speakers some low end overhead use


----------



## NorthSky

Yes, *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* on Blu, in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos...right on!


----------



## frankpc3

Aras_Volodka said:


> It wasn't my favorite atmos mix but it's one of the films I've hated the least (lol).


Now, that's encouraging!


----------



## aaranddeeman

Aras_Volodka said:


> HA!
> 
> 
> 
> If your expectations are that you will hear a bird flutter by your ear... then yeah it's disappointing. But I've been very impressed with the sense of immersion... *what kind of in ceiling speakers are you using*?
> 
> I do hear objects though, like in Gravity @ the first 20 min dialogue flies all over the room, I can track when it goes above/ behind or in front of me high up/ right or left, I hear sounds that appear to come from where no speaker sits.
> 
> It's often small things that might otherwise go unnoticed. Expendables 3... there was a scene where they were contemplating their fallen comrades while looking at hanging dog tags... you can hear them cling up above the floor speaker and a bit to the right if I recall. Not like "oh my god wow!" but it's still pretty cool... it sounds like the necklaces are in the room with you, along with the rattling of the airplane.
> 
> John Wick, right at the start of the film when he wakes up from an alarm clock or something... I recall that sounded very good... lots of weird reverb on it that made it sound very distant and high in the air. The rain @ the start sounds pretty good. It wasn't my favorite atmos mix but it's one of the films I've hated the least (lol). Unbroken intro = one of my favorite atmos moments with the flak going off all around you.
> 
> I'm hoping to god Mad Max gets an atmos BD... because that was a fantastic mix @ the theater. Lots of big objects like trucks & motorcycles flying over head... a very trippy experience. Might give people with 8" speakers some low end overhead use



I have JBL Northridge E series bed channels. Hence I used 4x E10s (same as my surrounds and backs) just so that I have timber match. (And as you may have noticed they are on-ceiling)
I will check out those scenes you mentioned.. Thanks..
Just finished running Audyssey on TF+TR configuration. Time to test..


----------



## rboster

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess that is what it is. I need to keep my expectations low for now.
> Talking of the demos, I unfortunately have none. I downloaded it to My VuDu. But PS3 fails to play it is Atmos and when I used ROKU I could not get any Audio.
> Dolby is not ready to give me the official disk.
> An other ideas to play these demos. Has anyone used ROKU to succesfully play those?


Do you have an oppo player? I use it and google tv to access vudu. I can verify that through my oppo player, I am able to stream atmos, since it registers as such on the denon reciever.

I keep thinking of other jumps in technology like DVD, blu ray and surround sound. After it matured you would go back to those initial releases and be underwhelmed by them in terms of picture and sound vs the latest and greatest. 

What makes this home theater experience different is professional cinema "3d sound" isn't that far along in its lifespan. I don't remember getting a home version of a new technology as fast as this vs it's professional maturation.

Ron


----------



## rboster

audiofan1 said:


> I'd say were here and the more mixers have a chance to home in on there skills using this powerful tool the results will be incredible.


I agree that we are just hearing what is initially possible and as they learn and experiment, we could be in awe of what's down the road. As I said, I believe we will come back to these initial releases and be underwhelmed (even more so  ) vs what they will release as the sound format matures.

Fingers crossed it doesn't head down the same road as 3d and not be adopted by more ppl than just the early adopters plus a small percentage (more).


Ron


----------



## rboster

We just came back from "Jurassic World" and really liked it for what it is....good popcorn flick. I kept thinking how awesome an atmos or dts:x home version would sound. Hearing JP last night using Dolby surround got me excited about the possibilities.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> If you use a mini-DSP to turn one speaker into an array of speakers, the objects will be smeared across the room.


There is an app for the miniDSP 2x4 that can extract a centre output from a pair of channels. One of those placed between the left front and left side channels can extract an output for a left wide speaker placed in between. Unlike an array, all three speakers would receive independent signals, allowing for sounds to pan through them.


----------



## Josh Z

aaranddeeman said:


> I don't know, but may be I am looking for something that is not there. Just finished watching John Wick. Is it immersive? yes. Object placement? Hmm
> Even after this movie, not very thrilled with Atmos yet.
> I have even raised the levels on the heights, but they fail to satisfy me..
> May be my setup is not right or the room is a problem or even the on-ceiling speaker I am using. Not sure what it is.
> I will try TF+TR as next step.


Disconnect all of your speakers except the heights and then play some of John Wick again. That will give you a sense of what Atmos is doing with the heights. 

If you want object placement, there's a helicopter at approximately 1:25:10 that pans front left to rear left then over to rear right.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> There is an app for the miniDSP 2x4 that can extract a centre output from a pair of channels. One of those placed between the left front and left side channels can extract an output for a left wide speaker placed in between. Unlike an array, all three speakers would receive independent signals, allowing for sounds to pan through them.


Woah. Really?

Hmm....


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> There is an app for the miniDSP 2x4 that can extract a centre output from a pair of channels. One of those placed between the left front and left side channels can extract an output for a left wide speaker placed in between. Unlike an array, all three speakers would receive independent signals, allowing for sounds to pan through them.


So can this potentially be used for Heights as well making 6 from 4?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Josh Z said:


> Disconnect all of your speakers except the heights and then play some of John Wick again. That will give you a sense of what Atmos is doing with the heights.
> 
> If you want object placement, there's a helicopter at approximately 1:25:10 that pans front left to rear left then over to rear right.


No. I do get the sounds coming out of height speakers and also get that pan you mentioned.
It's just that it's not making be "wow"...
I checked on those demos from Vudu. I could at least get the Atmos audio to come on this time, but the video from Roku (both of the ROKUs that I have) keeps shaking once the demo starts. The only way to stop that shaking is reboot the Roku.
I think Roku and Denon do not like each other for some reason.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Woah. Really?


Ten bucks for the plug in: 

http://www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/2x4-plug-ins/rear-center-channel-detail


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Ten bucks for the plug in:
> 
> http://www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/2x4-plug-ins/rear-center-channel-detail


Hmm.... very good. Veeerrryyy good.


----------



## sdurani

aaranddeeman said:


> So can this potentially be used for Heights as well making 6 from 4?


Sure, with independent delays and levels on each output, as well as an optional 31-band graphic EQ (not as good as a parametric equalizer, but still could be useful). 

http://www.minidsp.com/images/documents/Product%20Brief-Rear-Center%20channel%20plug-in.pdf


----------



## Scott Simonian

Great way to turn four height/overhead surrounds into six.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rboster said:


> We just came back from "Jurassic World" and really liked it for what it is....good popcorn flick. I kept thinking how awesome an atmos or dts:x home version would sound. Hearing JP last night using Dolby surround got me excited about the possibilities.


That's only if Universal decides to pull a Lionsgate and does a home video remix in Atmos or X.


----------



## Josh Z

aaranddeeman said:


> No. I do get the sounds coming out of height speakers and also get that pan you mentioned.
> It's just that it's not making be "wow"...


I still think you'll find it instructive to listen to just the heights on their own. Especially if you compare John Wick to something like Transformers, which hardly uses those channels.

As for the "wow" factor, I think you're expectations may just be out of line. You admit it's more immersive but say that doesn't impress you enough. Immersiveness is the whole point of Atmos. Ideally, it should create a bubble of sound around you such that you can't even tell which speakers specific sounds are coming from, because they all sound like they're in the room with you.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Josh Z said:


> I still think you'll find it instructive to listen to just the heights on their own. Especially if you compare John Wick to something like Transformers, which hardly uses those channels.
> 
> As for the "wow" factor, I think you're expectations may just be out of line. You admit it's more immersive but say that doesn't impress you enough. Immersiveness is the whole point of Atmos. Ideally, it should create a bubble of sound around you such that you can't even tell which speakers specific sounds are coming from, because they all sound like they're in the room with you.


Gotcha. Will keep that in mind..


----------



## howard68

HI to all Denon avr 7200 owners 
THX has stated that Top Front and Top Middle is best for Atmos with in-ceiling speakers 
I have looked at the Manuel and am confused on settings 
can you set this TF and TM


----------



## Scott Simonian

All current hardware is limited to non-adjacent pairs for height/overhead speakers.

The workaround is to use front height and top middle.


----------



## howard68

Scott Simonian said:


> All current hardware is limited to non-adjacent pairs for height/overhead speakers.
> 
> The workaround is to use front height and top middle.


Hi thanks 

Thx must be using a $25.ooo amp 
Back to the real world 

Could a Denon firmware update add TF and TM ? When Denon gets to DTS X upgrade


----------



## dkfan9

sdurani said:


> dschulz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you use a mini-DSP to turn one speaker into an array of speakers, the objects will be smeared across the room.
> 
> 
> 
> There is an app for the miniDSP 2x4 that can extract a centre output from a pair of channels. One of those placed between the left front and left side channels can extract an output for a left wide speaker placed in between. Unlike an array, all three speakers would receive independent signals, allowing for sounds to pan through them.
Click to expand...

So the minidsp strips the center content from both the other channels and sends it to the wide, sending the remaining content to the fronts and surrounds? Just curious the exact mechanism it uses


----------



## sdurani

dkfan9 said:


> So the minidsp strips the center content from both the other channels and sends it to the wide, sending the remaining content to the fronts and surrounds? Just curious the exact mechanism it uses


Maybe extract was the wrong word to use, since I doubt that it actively cancels the common information from the original 2 channels (logic steering). Looks to me like a simple sum and difference (L+R and L-R) circuit, but you'd have to check with miniDSP to be sure.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, nevermind. Read the .pdf a couple times and it makes no mention of doing a full 'center extract' like Prologic does. Looks like a sum. Hard to tell for sure.


----------



## howard68

I remember some talk on AVS about Atmos not working with the front wide speakers (9.2.2)
can any one inform me on this set up when using a true Dolby Atmos disc 
9.2.2 with any of the Dolby Atmos Receivers out now


----------



## sdurani

howard68 said:


> I remember some talk on AVS about Atmos not working with the front wide speakers (9.2.2)


Atmos can render to the front wide speakers. 11.2-channel receivers are configurable for a 9.2.2 layout.


----------



## pasender91

howard68 said:


> I remember some talk on AVS about Atmos not working with the front wide speakers (9.2.2)
> can any one inform me on this set up when using a true Dolby Atmos disc
> 9.2.2 with any of the Dolby Atmos Receivers out now


As already answered Atmos works on the wides, but what can be added is that Dolby Surround will NOT send any signal to wides.


----------



## howard68

pasender91 said:


> As already answered Atmos works on the wides, but what can be added is that Dolby Surround will NOT send any signal to wides.


Thanks 
I have been looking for it again 
There are now a few pages to look over to find it 
9.2.2 will work for a Atmos films
But not the dolby up mixer 

I have wired for 9.2.6 for Atmos as well as 4 extra speaker for Auro 
(Wife was not happy )
I am begining to think Auro is going to be a no statter only got Red Tails as a real film 
Been upgrading everything to delay getting the new amp 
now looking at the Avr 7200 aw as it will have DTS X


----------



## Josh Z

Josh Z said:


> My left and right Surround speakers are currently at 90-degrees of my seats. I have a much bigger gap between my front mains and the Surrounds, than I do between the Surrounds and Back Surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the imaging between front to back has a hole in it.
> 
> Due to limitations in the room, my Top Middle heights are mounted directly above where the Surrounds currently are and cannot be moved. (My Front Heights are likewise above the front speakers.) So I can't use heights to fill that hole in the soundstage.
> 
> I have contemplated (not done yet, but contemplated) moving my ground-level Surrounds a little bit forward of my seats to more evenly space out the speakers. I think this will probably be fine on soundtracks mixed for 7.1 or Atmos, but I worry that on soundtracks mixed for 5.1 that sound effects intended to go to the back of the room will sound weird coming from slightly in front of me. For example, if a character on screen fires a gun that's supposed to ricochet behind me, won't the directionality be all wrong?
> 
> Am I over-thinking this? Does anyone have their Surround speakers set up this way?


I decided to go ahead and try it. I moved the Surround speakers forward about a foot and a half forward of where they used to be and ran a new Audyssey. Have only had time for limited testing, but it seems fine so far. I'll need more time with it before I can judge whether this change will stick or not.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Added another Atmos flick to my humble collection. "American Sniper"..
Score now is 4..


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> As already answered Atmos works on the wides, but what can be added is that Dolby Surround will NOT send any signal to wides.


It's also worth noting that, AFAICR, Dolby Atmos only accesses the FW for object audio and not for channel-based content.


----------



## pasender91

That's an obvious one, as there is no channels for Front Wides


----------



## blu-dog-avs

pasender91 said:


> That's an obvious one, as there is no channels for Front Wides



I don't think it's very "obvious" - all modes can be matrixed in, and have been for years.


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> That's an obvious one, as there is no channels for Front Wides


As blu-dog notes above, other modes (e.g., Neo:X, A-DSX) have long applied matrixed sound to the FW. 

I assume that the Neural:X upmixer will operate similarly to its Neo:X predecessor in this regard, but I would be interested to learn whether DTS:X will handle FW any differently from Dolby Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

Atmos does not do matrixing, only channels and objects.
Matrixing is the territory of Dolby Surround, and Dolby decided to keep Front Wides silent, which for many is a decision that is hard to understand


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I still think you'll find it instructive to listen to just the heights on their own. Especially if you compare John Wick to something like Transformers, which hardly uses those channels.
> 
> As for the "wow" factor, I think you're expectations may just be out of line. You admit it's more immersive but say that doesn't impress you enough. Immersiveness is the whole point of Atmos. Ideally, it should create a bubble of sound around you such that you can't even tell which speakers specific sounds are coming from, because they all sound like they're in the room with you.


That is one of the most impressive things to me. Speakers just don't exist any more here - just sounds in the room. I marvel at this on almost every movie I watch. As I've said for months, Atmos is about far more than just overhead effects.


----------



## blazar

kbarnes701 said:


> Josh Z said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think you'll find it instructive to listen to just the heights on their own. Especially if you compare John Wick to something like Transformers, which hardly uses those channels.
> 
> As for the "wow" factor, I think you're expectations may just be out of line. You admit it's more immersive but say that doesn't impress you enough. Immersiveness is the whole point of Atmos. Ideally, it should create a bubble of sound around you such that you can't even tell which speakers specific sounds are coming from, because they all sound like they're in the room with you.
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the most impressive things to me. Speakers just don't exist any more here - just sounds in the room. I marvel at this on almost every movie I watch. As I've said for months, Atmos is about far more than just overhead effects.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct! I have found the exact same experience with large numbers of speakers... Even before atmos, dts neo x opened my eyes to just how immersive stuff really feels. 

5.1 is a weakly immersive imo. 

On a scale of 1-10 of immersion, 1 could be considered mono and reality would be the gold standard at 10.

2 = stereo. 
3 would be 5.1. 
3.5 would be 7.1 audio
Quad subs properly setup gets you to a score of 4.
Dts neo x at 11.1 with 4 subs got me to around a 5. Quite a big step up here for me.
5.5 would be an average atmos setup with average sound editing.
6 to 6.5 may represent atmos at its best with escalating speaker counts.

Immersion is less about "wow" and more about suspension of disbelief. To develop a world that you basically get lost in. Develop a world that you would rather be in compared to reality and that gets us to 10+ on my little immersion scale experiment. Video gamers who like to play games more than engage in "real life" are an example of this experience.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I know the topic of ceiling speaker placement has been discussed to death throughout this thread... just a very quick question: With my speaker layout, if the in ceiling speakers are in line with the FL/FR & I follow the Atmos guidelines... my in ceiling speakers are about 5' away in all directions from the MLP... does that seem consistent with how you guys have your's setup? 

I'm planning on getting the KEF's which have 90 degree dispersion... my ceilings are short though... 6'11"


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> As already answered Atmos works on the wides, but what can be added is that Dolby Surround will NOT send any signal to wides.


...Which is about 99.999999999999% of all the movies out there (Blu-ray, HD DVD, DVD, Laserdisc, VHS, Beta, Netflix, Vudu, and all that streaming movie jazz).

I hope Denon/Marantz can change that; by adding more flexibility, which is highly needed in this department, and in few others too.

Yes, a year later, after Dolby Atmos' introduction for the home market, and a couple handful of Dolby Atmos BR titles. 
And no luck with the rest by trying to use the Front Wides. ...We need 9.1.4 ... definitely. ...And access to Dolby Surround up-mixer with the Wides.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know the topic of ceiling speaker placement has been discussed to death throughout this thread... just a very quick question: With my speaker layout, if the in ceiling speakers are in line with the FL/FR & I follow the Atmos guidelines... my in ceiling speakers are about 5' away in all directions from the MLP... does that seem consistent with how you guys have your's setup?
> 
> I'm planning on getting the KEF's which have 90 degree dispersion... my ceilings are short though... 6'11"


If I would have your room, that is exactly how it would look like with those same distances. ...Five feet from the MLP, all four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers. ...It's within the range from the Atmos speakers positioning guidelines. 

* By the way, what is the next Blu-ray Dolby Atmos title?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> If I would have your room, that is exactly how it would look like with those same distances. ...Five feet from the MLP, all four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers. ...It's within the range from the Atmos speakers positioning guidelines.
> 
> * By the way, what is the next Blu-ray Dolby Atmos title?


Insurgent or gunman I think? No new announcements for quite a while.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> ...Which is about 99.999999999999% of all the movies out there (Blu-ray, HD DVD, DVD, Laserdisc, VHS, Beta, Netflix, Vudu, and all that streaming movie jazz).
> 
> I hope Denon/Marantz can change that; by adding more flexibility, which is highly needed in this department, and in few others too.
> 
> Yes, a year later, after Dolby Atmos' introduction for the home market, and a couple handful of Dolby Atmos BR titles.
> And no luck with the rest by trying to use the Front Wides. ...We need 9.1.4 ... definitely. ...And access to Dolby Surround up-mixer with the Wides.


Dolby Atmos V 2.0... I wonder if that's how they'll phrase it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Dolby Atmos V 2.0... I wonder if that's how they'll phrase it?


I doubt Dolby is going to be changing their tune when it comes to Dolby Surround and wides any time soon. 

Dolby Atmos for the home is pretty much set in stone (though the manufacturers may start implementing more of its features), so I don't think they'll be calling it v2 anything. Atmos is already scalable.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> ...Which is about 99.999999999999% of all the movies out there (Blu-ray, HD DVD, DVD, Laserdisc, VHS, Beta, Netflix, Vudu, and all that streaming movie jazz).
> 
> I hope Denon/Marantz can change that; by adding more flexibility, which is highly needed in this department, and in few others too.
> 
> Yes, a year later, after Dolby Atmos' introduction for the home market, and a couple handful of Dolby Atmos BR titles.
> And no luck with the rest by trying to use the Front Wides. ...We need 9.1.4 ... definitely. ...And access to Dolby Surround up-mixer with the Wides.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I doubt Dolby is going to be changing their tune when it comes to Dolby Surround and wides any time soon.
> 
> Dolby Atmos for the home is pretty much set in stone (though the manufacturers may start implementing more of its features), so I don't think they'll be calling it v2 anything. Atmos is already scalable.


I don't feel like anyone is missing out with the absence of front wides for the time being though (as far as DSU is concerned), I'm guessing the point of front wides would be for smooth pans between the surrounds & fronts... but I don't hear that way too often with DSU.

Just thinking about the "amaze" trailer with it's usage of the 360 degree panning bird... I don't hear the sound disappear when it pans around the front half of the room. It does get a tad faint as it wraps up back to the left surround... I can live with that for a while (lol).


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Insurgent or gunman I think? No new announcements for quite a while.


Indeed;

* 'The Gunman' : Blu-ray Atmos -> June 30th.
* 'Insurgent' : Blu-ray Atmos -> August 04. 

** As for the Wides, too bad...better to have a 7.1.4 setup with the two rear surrounds (ear level, or just slightly above). 
I don't see much purpose in a 9.1.2• setup. ...Or if someone sees one (better than Atmos 7.1.4) please share it. ...Only a dozen BR Atmos titles.

• Unless DTS:X supports the Wides, with DTS Neural:X own up-mixer.


----------



## dkfan9

For wides, if you look a couple pages back (well, a couple pages in the mobile forum at least), the minidsp 2x4 center/rear channel plug in discussed for achieving x.x.6 could provide something of a solution.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Indeed;
> 
> * 'The Gunman' : Blu-ray Atmos -> June 30th.
> * 'Insurgent' : Blu-ray Atmos -> August 04.
> 
> ** As for the Wides, too bad...better to have a 7.1.4 setup with the two rear surrounds (ear level, or just slightly above).
> I don't see much purpose in a 9.1.2 setup. ...Or if someone sees one (better than Atmos 7.1.4) please share it. ...Only a dozen BR Atmos titles.


Either way I think the 7.1.4 setup is preferable, DSU or not. I *really* like having the rear overheads. Hopefully if 13 channel AVR's become available then perhaps Dolby might upgrade the DSU software after a while... but judging by Marantz's 2015 lineup I think we are still a ways away from semi-affordable 9.1.4. 

Perhaps I might be misinterpreting the point of having front wides, but it seems like to me the point of having them would be for more accurate object placement coming from the front peripherals. If there's no objects then I think any front wide usage from the DSU would probably be subtle... but I'm not an expert... just a thought based on what I'm used to hearing from how DSU works. To my ears it just makes things sound more real, as opposed to adding panning sweeps or things of that nature. Though sometimes you do get cool panning sweeps I guess.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Indeed;
> 
> * 'The Gunman' : Blu-ray Atmos -> June 30th.
> * 'Insurgent' : Blu-ray Atmos -> August 04.
> 
> ** As for the Wides, too bad...better to have a 7.1.4 setup with the two rear surrounds (ear level, or just slightly above).
> I don't see much purpose in a 9.1.2• setup. ...Or if someone sees one (better than Atmos 7.1.4) please share it. ...Only a dozen BR Atmos titles.
> 
> • Unless DTS:X supports the Wides, with DTS Neural:X own up-mixer.


It's a real bummer for me because "unbroken" was the last release I was real excited about... so this is going to be a long summer :/ The wait will be worth it if we get Mad Max Atmos bd though  
(and crossing fingers about SW7... I will not shut up about it until I find out!) 

But relocating my HT & soon having in ceiling speakers + I'm going to be building my own diffusion... hopefully that will keep me occupied for the time being (haha). Re-watching the 4 or so Atmos flicks I own might have to do.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> I doubt Dolby is going to be changing their tune when it comes to Dolby Surround and wides any time soon. Dolby Atmos for the home is pretty much set in stone (though the manufacturers may start implementing more of its features), so I don't think they'll be calling it v2 anything. Atmos is already scalable.





Actually, I'm not sure I'm ready to consider the *Atmos* decoder "finalized" with regard to speaker configurations (and other elements) until we see details about a *unified* *Dolby AC-4|Atmos* decoder . . . which seems unlikely to appear until after the *ATSC3.0 Audio System* "recommendation" (either *Dolby AC-4* (_link_) or *MPEG-H Audio*) takes place in August 2015.



_


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Either way I think the 7.1.4 setup is preferable, DSU or not. I *really* like having the rear overheads. Hopefully if 13 channel AVR's become available then perhaps Dolby might upgrade the DSU software after a while... but judging by Marantz's 2015 lineup I think we are still a ways away from semi-affordable 9.1.4.
> 
> Perhaps I might be misinterpreting the point of having front wides, but it seems like to me the point of having them would be for more accurate object placement coming from the front peripherals. If there's no objects then I think any front wide usage from the DSU would probably be subtle... but I'm not an expert... just a thought based on what I'm used to hearing from how DSU works. To my ears it just makes things sound more real, as opposed to adding panning sweeps or things of that nature. Though sometimes you do get cool panning sweeps I guess.


No you are quite right; Dolby Atmos own Speaker Setup Guidelines have a graph with a Dolby Atmos *9.1.4* setup configuration. 
It remains to be implemented, eventually. ...Whoever comes with that one first is going to get a lot of love from around here.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> No you are quite right; Dolby Atmos own Speaker Setup Guidelines have a graph with a Dolby Atmos *9.1.4* setup configuration.
> It remains to be implemented, eventually. ...Whoever comes with that one first is going to get a lot of love from around here.


I would like to see 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 flexibility... So depends on what you have/need, you will get it..


----------



## NorthSky

There are @ least twenty-two other members in this thread wishing similar.


----------



## goldark

I'm thinking about setting up a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos system and have a couple questions. 

1) Can a conventional bookshelf speaker be used as an Atmos module? Is there anything special about a dedicated Atmos speaker or can any speaker fit this bill?

2) If so, what is the ideal angle to point towards the ceiling? Could I simply turn it in its side and have it 90 degrees pointed up or should I be tilted some way?

3) Since it's a normal bookshelf speaker, placing it on top of another speaker (like a dedicated Atmos module) would be a little awkward, both practically and aesthetically. What are my placement options? Could I put them behind the mains and angle them upwards? Maybe to the side and sightly above? In front of the mains by the main listening position? What would yield the best results?


----------



## HT-Eman

aaranddeeman said:


> I have JBL Northridge E series bed channels. Hence I used 4x E10s (same as my surrounds and backs) just so that I have timber match. (And as you may have noticed they are on-ceiling)
> I will check out those scenes you mentioned.. Thanks..
> Just finished running Audyssey on TF+TR configuration. Time to test..


So which configurations sound best in your room . The TF + TR , or TM + TF ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

goldark said:


> I'm thinking about setting up a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos system and have a couple questions.
> 
> 1) Can a conventional bookshelf speaker be used as an Atmos module? Is there anything special about a dedicated Atmos speaker or can any speaker fit this bill?
> 
> 2) If so, what is the ideal angle to point towards the ceiling? Could I simply turn it in its side and have it 90 degrees pointed up or should I be tilted some way?
> 
> 3) Since it's a normal bookshelf speaker, placing it on top of another speaker (like a dedicated Atmos module) would be a little awkward, both practically and aesthetically. What are my placement options? Could I put them behind the mains and angle them upwards? Maybe to the side and sightly above? In front of the mains by the main listening position? What would yield the best results?


If you're stuck about placing speakers directly overhead, the next best thing would be to use very high height speakers and mount them pointed down toward the MLP at the junction of the wall and ceiling. I would go the height route before I _ever_ considered the pseudo Atmos or DTS:X effect with unproven speakers.


----------



## dholmes54

OK I have a 9.2 setup now 4 surrounds 2 heights what would be a good choice for a receiver if I decide to get into Atmos PS of cource I've got 3 front channels


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dholmes54 said:


> OK I have a 9.2 setup now 4 surrounds 2 heights what would be a good choice for a receiver if I decide to get into Atmos PS of cource I've got 3 front channels


One that allows for 7.1.2, though 7.1.4 would be better if you added rear heights for front to back/back to front and 360 degree overhead panning.

And get something with DTS:X as well.


----------



## aaranddeeman

HT-Eman said:


> So which configurations sound best in your room . The TF + TR , or TM + TF ?


It's hard to tell in the absence of proper Atmos demo material.
However I am planning to leave it at TF+TR considering the coverage it is providing filling the gaps.


----------



## aaranddeeman

goldark said:


> I'm thinking about setting up a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos system and have a couple questions.
> 
> 1) Can a conventional bookshelf speaker be used as an Atmos module? Is there anything special about a dedicated Atmos speaker or can any speaker fit this bill?
> 
> 2) If so, what is the ideal angle to point towards the ceiling? Could I simply turn it in its side and have it 90 degrees pointed up or should I be tilted some way?
> 
> 3) Since it's a normal bookshelf speaker, placing it on top of another speaker (like a dedicated Atmos module) would be a little awkward, both practically and aesthetically. What are my placement options? Could I put them behind the mains and angle them upwards? Maybe to the side and sightly above? In front of the mains by the main listening position? What would yield the best results?


I have mounted bookshelf on the ceiling. It's not the box bookshelf, but a bit thinner (JBL northridge E10).
Mounting standard speakers in upfiring mode may not be such a good idea.


----------



## dholmes54

Also my 3 fronts are 4 ohm SPK can any atmos receivers handle that


----------



## gene4ht

NorthSky said:


> There are @ least twenty-two other members in this thread wishing similar.


Twenty-three


----------



## noah katz

Josh Z said:


> I have contemplated (not done yet, but contemplated) moving my ground-level Surrounds a little bit forward of my seats to more evenly space out the speakers. I think this will probably be fine on soundtracks mixed for 7.1 or Atmos, but I worry that on soundtracks mixed for 5.1 that sound effects intended to go to the back of the room will sound weird coming from slightly in front of me.


Josh, why wouldn't you use DSU to get the back surrounds?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

westmd said:


> I don't know the exact dispersion angle but found this picture explaining the Q-series. It is in German but the left picture shows the KEF Q-series whilst the right one is a normal in-ceiling speaker.
> 
> [/url]


Did you end up getting the KEF's? If so... what did you think?


----------



## westmd

Aras_Volodka said:


> Did you end up getting the KEF's? If so... what did you think?


No, in the end I bought 5 Jamo IC608LCR and 2 Jamo IC608FG fitting to my Jamo D600 main speakers. I got them directly from Jamo/Klipsch for less then I would have paid for 4 KEF's. I am extremely satisfied especially after runinng DIRAC Live through my MiniDSP88A over the channels to harmonize performance of ceiling and main soeakers.


----------



## goldark

aaranddeeman said:


> I have mounted bookshelf on the ceiling. It's not the box bookshelf, but a bit thinner (JBL northridge E10).
> Mounting standard speakers in upfiring mode may not be such a good idea.


What potential problems would I run into by doing that?


----------



## Nalleh

*Review THE WHITE STORM in Atmos.*

http://www.amazon.co.jp/レクイエム-ー最後の銃...id=1434370301&sr=8-1&keywords=The+white+storm

Well, another Japan only bluray with Atmos, and as with "the Journey to the west", this one too have only japanese language and subtitles, NO english subtitles. But i watched it anyway 

The white storm is a decent action movie about police and drugdealers and the fight between them. There are numerous action sequences with fighting, car chases and shootouts. However there are several long scenes with just dialog, and without subtitles, it is difficult to understand what is happening.

The Atmos soundtrack is SUPERB though !
Of the 20+ Atmos blurays i have seen so far, this is probably the one with most sound coming from the heights! And it is a good mix too, as Atmos should be: clear, dynamic, good pannings around the room, good use of the surrounds, and logical "switch" of the soundfield when camera angle changes. And it has exellent use of the heights, ex. in a scene where a couple of helicopters come in, howers above, and ruin a drug deal with gun fire from Gatling guns, totally awsome(better than EX3), underwater scenes, rain and thunder and gunfire. And at the end there is a shootout between the cops and bad guys in a discotheque with a big room and dance floor in the first floor and balconys around the room on the second floor(let me know if i explained this poorly).
So the cops are on the first floor, with the bad guys on the second floor balconys, and when the shooting begins, you hear the gunshots from above you, from the balconys, in all directions, VERY CLEARLY! This was totally awsome, and made me jump in my seat, and really felt like you were there, in between the shootings.

Recommended? Well, I am more divided with this one, as it had no subtitles and these long, boring dialog scenes, but the action is good and the Atmos track is bloody good, so i will leave it up to you


----------



## dholmes54

Thx everyone for answering my questions, but still wondering about 4 ohm spks using a receiver,my surrounds are 8 ohm


----------



## marlon1925

pasender91 said:


> Hi Marlon,
> I have a slightly different advice.
> 9.1.2 will not give an optimal 3D sound immersion compared to 7.1.4, so what i would do is keep the 7 ground speakers as they are (with wides), and simply add 4 ceiling speakers to achieve 7.1.4.
> Just note that wides will be active for Atmos movies but inactive when using Dolby Surround.
> 
> If you can move you speakers around, optimally you could shift your wides to be surrounds (+- 90°) and your current surrounds (+- 120°) could be put a bit more to the rear (+- 140°).


Now I'm confused


----------



## aaranddeeman

goldark said:


> What potential problems would I run into by doing that?


Looks like you have decided that you will use bookshelves in upfiring configuration.
So go ahead and try that and share your experience.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Sleeping Beauty in 7.1.4 DSU upmix glory will definitely be a feature presentation in the bat(pig) cave


That is an excellent mix... I watched that on Xmas with my stepdaughter... the orchestra sounds amazing! Very well recorded & remastered. 



chi_guy50 said:


> Are you taking notes, Aras?


Haha funny! I missed that earlier. With the new basement HT I can watch @ a pretty decent volume. Do you guys think bass traps would keep the low end from travelling up the stairs? Right now if I crank the system the upstairs windows & floor rattle like crazy (haha). 



westmd said:


> No, in the end I bought 5 Jamo IC608LCR and 2 Jamo IC608FG fitting to my Jamo D600 main speakers. I got them directly from Jamo/Klipsch for less then I would have paid for 4 KEF's. I am extremely satisfied especially after runinng DIRAC Live through my MiniDSP88A over the channels to harmonize performance of ceiling and main soeakers.


I have a full Klipsh setup aside from my sub. Are Jamo's better timbre matched to the Klipsch? 
I was checking out the Jano speakers... if I understand correctly they are angled as opposed to down-firing correct? I might still opt to go with KEF based on Oledhurt's impressions (quoted below)... though @ the same time my ceiling is 6'11' so maybe a bit of a tilt could go a long way. 
Thanks for the feedback... I'm still researching before I buy 



Oledurt said:


> I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## multit

It seems, that Taken 3 has been released in France with an engl. & french Dolby Atmos track. 
http://retro-hd.com/tests/blu-ray/2023-taken-3.html#
As always, the Amazon description at amazon.fr doesn't tell about that...


----------



## chi_guy50

multit said:


> It seems, that Taken 3 has been released in France with an engl. & french Dolby Atmos track.
> http://retro-hd.com/tests/blu-ray/2023-taken-3.html#
> As always, the Amazon description at amazon.fr doesn't tell about that...


You know the producers are aware of how tired their movie franchise has become when the tagline consists of the solemn promise "C'est ici que tout s'achève" (This is the end of the line)!

Taken4: Nursing Home Hostage ("Their Safety _Depend_®'s on One Man").


----------



## Josh Z

noah katz said:


> Josh, why wouldn't you use DSU to get the back surrounds?


I have Back Surrounds. The issue is speaker placement. I had a much larger gap between my fronts and Surrounds, than between my Surrounds and Back Surrounds. That left a hole in the soundstage in the front half of the room where sounds weren't imaging well.

I moved my Surrounds forward a foot and a half to spread the sound more evenly. I think it helped, but it's weird having Surround speakers in front of my seating position.


----------



## Josh Z

Aras_Volodka said:


> With the new basement HT I can watch @ a pretty decent volume. Do you guys think bass traps would keep the low end from travelling up the stairs? Right now if I crank the system the upstairs windows & floor rattle like crazy (haha).


It might make a very small difference, but that's not the purpose of bass traps. The only way to really prevent the low-end from traveling through your house is to decouple the walls and ceiling from the studs and joists, double the mass of the drywall, and add tons of insulation behind it.


----------



## markus767

Not sure if this has been discussed before but Brian Vessa says that Atmos for the home has a maximum of 12 objects. See this video at 46:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3f5gf6MyfoM#t=2798


----------



## Aras_Volodka

markus767 said:


> Not sure if this has been discussed before but Brian Vessa says that Atmos for the home has a maximum of 12 objects. See this video at 46:40
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3f5gf6MyfoM#t=2798


Yeah read a few pages back... Film mixer pointed out that's not the case.


----------



## markus767

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yeah read a few pages back... Film mixer pointed out that's not the case.


I found this post where he confirms 12 objects:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-a...-mastering-movie-audio-home.html#post34987345


----------



## Dan Hitchman

markus767 said:


> Not sure if this has been discussed before but Brian Vessa says that Atmos for the home has a maximum of 12 objects. See this video at 46:40
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3f5gf6MyfoM#t=2798


That's only the default home Atmos software setting. The maximum is 20 simultaneous channels/objects. I would then assume that if the original Atmos mix or a new home video remix had more than that at one time, the program would start to look for similar positional metadata in those extra objects and Spacial Coding would start to apply as a space saving measure.


----------



## markus767

Dan Hitchman said:


> The maximum is 20 simultaneous channels/objects.


Yes, 7.1 plus _12 objects_.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> The maximum is 20 simultaneous channels/objects.


7.1 + up to 20 objects.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lossless or lossy or does it make a difference?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Lossless or lossy or does it make a difference?


TrueHD is lossless, though combining objects can be considered spatially lossy. If you play back a stereo CD in mono, is that still lossless? It isn't lossy in the MP3 sense, but you have lost spatial resolution.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> TrueHD is lossless, though combining objects can be considered spatially lossy. If you play back a stereo CD in mono, is that still lossless? It isn't lossy in the MP3 sense, but you have lost spatial resolution.


I meant the objects themselves, not how they are packed. Are they considered lossless as isolated signals?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> 7.1 + up to 20 objects.


Are there any documents from Dolby freely available describing the encoder capabilities?


----------



## Kain

Since home Atmos supports less objects that commerical/theater Atmos, does this mean they have to remix some of the objects into the bed channels when re-mixing/mastering for the home?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Are they considered lossless as isolated signals?


They are no longer isolated. See my 'stereo played back as mono' example. When 2 channels of lossless audio are combined, would you consider the results still lossless or now lossy? Use that answer to label the spatial coding of objects.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Since home Atmos supports less objects that commerical/theater Atmos, does this mean they have to remix some of the objects into the bed channels when re-mixing/mastering for the home?


They use spatial coding to help fit the extra objects into the mix. The coder looks for similarities in object timing and positional instructions and then attaches them to the nearest similar object. The mix won't be as pinpoint precise as in the theater, but then you also have fewer rendered speaker locations to deal with too, so maybe it starts to all come out in the wash. 

Perhaps Dolby (and DTS) felt that when you start using so many objects whizzing around at once, you'd have a hard time keeping track of them all anyway.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Since home Atmos supports less objects that commerical/theater Atmos, does this mean they have to remix some of the objects into the bed channels when re-mixing/mastering for the home?


Yes and no. It appears that they do indeed (require?) a home version of the mix.

Dolby Atmos at home uses what they call 'spatial encoding' to combine groups of nearby objects into clusters for easier compression into a TrueHD stream. These are later unpacked by the surround sound processor at your home.

All of these objects are folded into the channels to keep them backwards compatible or else people without Atmos-aware processing would completely miss out on any object. These are in the "channels" yes but when unpacked they are in their full object form and capable of being positioned anywhere.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> They are no longer isolated. See my 'stereo played back as mono' example. When 2 channels of lossless audio are combined, would you consider the results still lossless or now lossy? Use that answer to label the spatial coding of objects.


Not talking about their spatial encoding, Sanjay but the state of the objects before they are placed in a TrueHD stream. Are these objects lossless or lossy in ... "quality"?

Is a stereo downmix of a 5.1 lossless/LPCM track no longer "lossless" when it is presented in 2ch?

We have talked about this before. The theoretical "would you rather have 10 lossless objects or 20 lossy objects?" discussion. Are these lossless or lossy objects. Pretty clear on the difference between that and their spatial state of lossy or lossless-ness.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Not talking about their spatial encoding, Sanjay but the state of the objects before they are placed in a TrueHD stream. Are these objects lossless or lossy in ... "quality"?


Lossless. I'm not aware of any lossy compression step prior to Atmos encoding.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Lossless. I'm not aware of any lossy compression step prior to Atmos encoding.


Whew! Dan Hitchman can sleep well tonight. 


Wonder though if there is an option for 'lossy' objects and if that would free resources up. Probably not but just curious.

Thanks, Sanjay.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

robert816 said:


> The Abyss with a Dolby Atmos mix would be a great combination!


Wow, what a thought. It really would be great...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Whew! Dan Hitchman can sleep well tonight.
> 
> 
> Wonder though if there is an option for 'lossy' objects and if that would free resources up. Probably not but just curious.
> 
> Thanks, Sanjay.


I think we had covered it many, many, many pages back that the audio encoding was lossless, but the spatial encoding kind of made the theatrical mix less precise since we were dealing with so much less space on a disc. Whether those with a Trinnov and a huge speaker setup could tell the home mix and the theatrical mix apart at least in terms of object panning and placement would be something to find out!


----------



## David Susilo

It's a whole lot more than merely 12 objects. At least that's what's been told to me by Dolby's Craig Eggers


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think we had covered it many, many, many pages back that the audio encoding was lossless, but the spatial encoding kind of made the theatrical mix less precise since we were dealing with so much less space on a disc. Whether those with a Trinnov and a huge speaker setup could tell the home mix and the theatrical mix apart at least in terms of object panning and placement would be something to find out!


Lol and how many, exactly, are out there that have a Trinnov and a cinema Atmos processor with the real cinema mix to even make this kind of comparison?

I'm sure it's a large number.



When I say, "large" I mean, zero.



David Susilo said:


> It's a whole lot more than merely 12 objects. At least that's what's been told to me by Dolby's Craig Eggers


In folded down clusters of "objects". You can still retain the integrity of the full cinema mix but the home process has to cluster up as many into these object groups for encoding to TrueHD. Apparently the bandwidth is not wide enough for a full blown cinema Atmos high number of objects that are 100% independent.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Whether those with a Trinnov and a huge speaker setup could tell the home mix and the theatrical mix apart at least in terms of object panning and placement would be something to find out!


Only one manufacturer makes decoders for theatrical Atmos tracks: Dolby. So even with a Trinnov, it reduces the exercise to a single variable: speaker density. Will it be possible to tell the difference between a consumer Atmos track rendered to 11 speaker locations vs rendered to 32 speaker locations? I'll guess yes. Since our ability to phantom image isn't equally good in every direction, the set-up that relies less on phantom image will result in more precise localization, smoother panning and greater imaging stability.


----------



## NorthSky

> 7.1 + up to 20 objects.


The encoder defaults to *12* objects. ... *7.1.4* = 12


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> It's a whole lot more than merely 12 objects. At least that's what's been told to me by Dolby's Craig Eggers


Potentially @ the theater (118), but not in reality @ home @ this point (only 12).

* Ten times 12 equals 120. ...120 ten times less is 12 (118 potentially, but never happened).

20, 24, 28, 32, 64, 128, no no no ... @ home: *12* as the default encoding (7.1.4). ...For Dolby Atmos, as in 'Gravity'. 

If I'm right there won't be any *object*ion. If I'm wrong, well, let see...from whoever is still reading. 

Oh just in case; it is humor, and also what I can decipher from Brian's interview by Scott.


----------



## kingwiggi

Found this article a few weeks back. I sent an email to the address and used the subject line located towards the bottom of the article and received an Dolby Atmos 2015 Demo Disc in the mail today.

http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=986

YMMV but worth a try

PM me if you have the ability to BT this disc


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Only one manufacturer makes decoders for theatrical Atmos tracks: Dolby. So even with a Trinnov, it reduces the exercise to a single variable: speaker density. Will it be possible to tell the difference between a consumer Atmos track rendered to 11 speaker locations vs rendered to 32 speaker locations? I'll guess yes. Since our ability to phantom image isn't equally good in every direction, the set-up that relies less on phantom image will result in more precise localization, smoother panning and greater imaging stability.


I'm just thinking in terms of the effects of Spatial Coding and limited simultaneous objects in the home version vs. the cinema version, which has no such limitations. That would be something to test out... even if it would be difficult to pull off.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

markus767 said:


> I found this post where he confirms 12 objects:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-a...-mastering-movie-audio-home.html#post34987345


One thing to keep in mind is that even if it was just 12 objects total... that's still a lot! I just think about when I play pc games with object based sound, if there are 12 players around me each shooting off their guns @ the same time... the sound is quite chaotic. Using something like Expendables 3 as an analogy, think about all the scenes where something similar might occur... 12 people standing around shooting their guns. What I've noticed that mixers for action flicks tend to do is toss in bursts of fire that switch between opposing speakers... I don't typically hear nor would I notice if that many guns simultaneously go off in all different directions at the same time. 

A user on here commented about the Hobbit's five armies atmos mix & noticed how the crowds of people talking were (likely) done with objects, (4 or so guys on the left saying something, then another group on the right responding). Each voice was probably a different object... I think it would be really hard to differentiate those individual voices in a mix intended for a 7.1.4 setup vs. the cinema just due to the scale of the space. I'd imagine it's more difficult to localize sounds once the room shrinks by a good 80 feet or so. 

Another analogy, think about how music is mixed... usually with lead vocals & bass on the center, drums panned left/right, with maybe a piano and guitar or something like that set @ 45 degrees. Mixes already get busy enough with that... toss in the harmonies or strings/ or whatever... it's real hard to pay attention to everything @ the same time. What I mean by that is usually there are things you focus on when listening to the song... like you just start paying attention to what the piano player is doing... but all the other "objects" are still playing... you might hear them... but are you paying attention to how each one is panned or even what that part is doing? 

I remember someone freaked out when I told them I had 100 tracks in a song I was working on... not simultaneously but different instruments & harmony groups switching on and off throughout the course of a 4 min track. But 120 Simultaneously? I think it's just there for when the opportunity arises, but honestly I think 12 is enough & I bet the majority of the time there probably aren't more than a few objects going off @ the same time anyway. I know the Transformers mix utilized gobs of objects simultaneously... but I have a feeling if those sounds weren't rendered as objects that none of us would notice a difference if 120 simultaneous was possible on our AVR's. (like if we got to A/B a 12 object mix vs. 120 object mix). The reason why is the more sounds going off @ the same time the more quiet a lot of the sounds have to be... well that's how music mixing works anyway from what I can tell.


----------



## Zhorik

The Age of Adaline atmos blu ray.



Spoiler


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that even if it was just 12 objects total... that's still a lot!


As FilmMixer stated, home Atmos can do 7.1 + 20 objects at any one time simultaneously (I would assume anything more than that would kick Spacial Coding into gear where the 21st to the maximum slots would be mapped to the closest of the 7.1 + 20 already in use). 

Brian must have misspoke.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Zhorik said:


> The Age of Adaline atmos blu ray.


Oh cool! About time for some announcements  It's sort of a chick flicky kind of film but tolerable. I saw it in an Atmos theater... there were about 4 or 5 scenes that made pretty good use out of the format. + It's got growly Harrison Ford! 



Dan Hitchman said:


> As FilmMixer stated, home Atmos can do 7.1 + 20 objects at any one time simultaneously (I would assume anything more than that would kick Spacial Coding into gear where the 21st to the maximum slots would be mapped to the closest of the 7.1 + 20 already in use).
> 
> Brian must have misspoke.


I know, I meant that in an "even if only 12 objects" sort of way. 

That was a cool interview though... I'm exited to hear about what legacy content his company worked on. We might have some more titles coming our way soon?


----------



## CinemaAndy

These are some very good off center overhead speakers for ATMOS. If you have permanent overheads, or want them this is the way to go. It allows more distance between overheads and better sound. I like the way they sound and they are aimable, so you can direct them where you want the overhead sounds to go, same as what we do in a commercial cinema, sort of. http://www.htd.com/Products/high-de...fyDclQ-ZMIEqQcsetiI2hbW8TMAOKhnTMaAoOU8P8HAQ#


----------



## kbarnes701

This is an exceptionally interesting podcast from AV Forums in the UK. The podcast consists of an hour long interview with two guys from THX, but much of the podcast focuses on Atmos.

There is a lot of well-informed comment on speaker placement for Atmos, and some interesting surprises such as THX's absolutely unequivocal view that physical speakers on the ceiling should be pointing _downwards_ and *not* aimed towards the MLP (which is how they were arranged in Dolby's own Atmos HT demo room in London when I was there). 

Well worth a listen IMO.

https://www.avpodcast.co.uk/cast/avforums_podcast_333.mp3


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> You know the producers are aware of how tired their movie franchise has become when the tagline consists of the solemn promise "C'est ici que tout s'achève" (This is the end of the line)!


LOL! Or, a more charitable translation: "It is here where everything comes together". Or even "This is where it all ends." Nuances... 

I have the first two movies in that franchise (for my sins, although I rather liked the first one) but had decided to pass on the third. Now it seems it has an Atmos track to sucker me in. Damn these marketing types!


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I have Back Surrounds. The issue is speaker placement. I had a much larger gap between my fronts and Surrounds, than between my Surrounds and Back Surrounds. That left a hole in the soundstage in the front half of the room where sounds weren't imaging well.
> 
> I moved my Surrounds forward a foot and a half to spread the sound more evenly. I think it helped, but it's weird having Surround speakers in front of my seating position.


But if you upmix to all the speakers in the system, doesn't that redress it?


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> This is an exceptionally interesting podcast from AV Forums in the UK. The podcast consists of an hour long interview with two guys from THX, but much of the podcast focuses on Atmos.
> 
> There is a lot of well-informed comment on speaker placement for Atmos, and some interesting surprises such as THX's absolutely unequivocal view that physical speakers on the ceiling should be pointing _downwards_ and *not* aimed towards the MLP (which is how they were arranged in Dolby's own Atmos HT demo room in London when I was there).
> 
> Well worth a listen IMO.
> 
> https://www.avpodcast.co.uk/cast/avforums_podcast_333.mp3


Isn't this a week or two old and was discussed already (either this or some other thread)?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Isn't this a week or two old and was discussed already (either this or some other thread)?


I wasn't aware that it had already been mentioned - I am perhaps not paying attention. Either way, it's perhaps worth mentioning again as it does contain a lot of interesting commentary.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I wasn't aware that it had already been mentioned - I am perhaps not paying attention. Either way, it's perhaps worth mentioning again as it does contain a lot of interesting commentary.


No sweat..
The podcast is really informative though..


----------



## ThePrisoner

Since listening to the AV Forums podcast I adjusted my Def Tech PM 800 ceiling mounted speakers to aim straight down. Previously they were all aimed at MLP. Still listening and believe pointing them downwards may have reduced smearing from reflections.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> No sweat..
> The podcast is really informative though..


Agreed - I have only listened to it in my car while driving, so I intend to listen to it again in more relaxed circumstances. There did seem to be a lot of useful info in it and I was intrigued as their very positive and unequivocal statement that the speakers must be aimed downwards. Also, their assertions that 7.1.4 is the way to go and that 7.1.2 beats 5.1.4 if one only has 9 channels to play with. All very interesting and from people we should be able to trust.


----------



## kbarnes701

ThePrisoner said:


> Since listening to the AV Forums podcast I adjusted my Def Tech PM 800 ceiling mounted speakers to aim straight down. Previously they were all aimed at MLP. Still listening and believe pointing them downwards may have reduced smearing from reflections.


I did the same for last night's movie! I am not sure if I am hearing any difference. If I am not, then I will leave them pointing downwards as that is how Dolby demo them in London and also taking on board the THX comments. I was rather surprised as my natural instinct is to point speakers towards the MLP. My Tannoy Dual Concentric overheads have very wide dispersion (in line with Atmos spec) so this might be relevant.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I did the same for last night's movie! I am not sure if I am hearing any difference. If I am not, then I will leave them pointing downwards as that is how Dolby demo them in London and also taking on board the THX comments. I was rather surprised as my natural instinct is to point speakers towards the MLP. My Tannoy Dual Concentric overheads have very wide dispersion (in line with Atmos spec) so this might be relevant.


You may have to adjust levels after pointing them downwards


----------



## lujan

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed - I have only listened to it in my car while driving, so I intend to listen to it again in more relaxed circumstances. There did seem to be a lot of useful info in it and I was intrigued as their very positive and unequivocal statement that the speakers must be aimed downwards. Also, their assertions that 7.1.4 is the way to go and that 7.1.2 beats 5.1.4 if one only has 9 channels to play with. All very interesting and from people we should be able to trust.


If this is the same one I listened to, they also said that you should have fixed height speakers and not the Atmos enabled type where the sound hits the ceiling and then down. Last time I said something like this, I practically got my head bitten off by forum members.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> You may have to adjust levels after pointing them downwards


Yes good point. I did check levels briefly with my SPL meter. I will also do a new calibration.


----------



## kbarnes701

lujan said:


> If this is the same one I listened to, they also said that you should have fixed height speakers and not the Atmos enabled type where the sound hits the ceiling and then down. Last time I said something like this, I practically got my head bitten off by forum members.


Yes they did  I have heard Atmos enabled speakers at Dolby in London and thought they were excellent in their small HT room with typical ceiling height. In fact, more people at the demo preferred the Atmos enabled speakers over the physical speakers. I think that from a 'purist' POV there can be no doubt that a real speaker will always beat a virtual speaker, but the results from the Atmos enabled speakers was, in my view, outstanding.


----------



## ThePrisoner

kbarnes701 said:


> I did the same for last night's movie! I am not sure if I am hearing any difference. If I am not, then I will leave them pointing downwards as that is how Dolby demo them in London and also taking on board the THX comments. I was rather surprised as my natural instinct is to point speakers towards the MLP. My Tannoy Dual Concentric overheads have very wide dispersion (in line with Atmos spec) so this might be relevant.





Nalleh said:


> You may have to adjust levels after pointing them downwards


kbarnes701, I too thought naturally to aim them at the MLP and seen other members here do the same. I'm not sure about dispersion specs of my Def Tech PM800 speakers.

I did remember to do another Audyssey calibration after, my levels only changed my 0.5db


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> But if you upmix to all the speakers in the system, doesn't that redress it?


I do upmix my content. Upmixing does not change the physical distance between my speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

ThePrisoner said:


> kbarnes701, I too thought naturally to aim them at the MLP and seen other members here do the same. I'm not sure about dispersion specs of my Def Tech PM800 speakers.
> 
> I did remember to do another Audyssey calibration after, my levels only changed my 0.5db


DefTech claims they are wide dispersion, but no data to confirm it.
I have "the same" speakers: DefTech AW5500.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I do upmix my content. Upmixing does not change the physical distance between my speakers.


 True - I was thinking of your concern about the surround field being 'pushed forward' which surely won't happen if you are upmixing to all available speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

ThePrisoner said:


> kbarnes701, I too thought naturally to aim them at the MLP and seen other members here do the same. I'm not sure about dispersion specs of my Def Tech PM800 speakers.
> 
> I did remember to do another Audyssey calibration after, my levels only changed my 0.5db


I think most are aiming them to MLP where possible. This is what Dolby say in their installation guidelines:

_*Mounting considerations
*If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position._

Mine have a wide dispersion pattern so they "may" be mounted facing downwards. Note, this is not saying they _"should"_ be. If the speakers have a less than very wide dispersion, then aim them. So I guess it depends on the speaker characteristics, and THX failed to mention that.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

CinemaAndy said:


> These are some very good off center overhead speakers for ATMOS. If you have permanent overheads, or want them this is the way to go. It allows more distance between overheads and better sound. I like the way they sound and they are aimable, so you can direct them where you want the overhead sounds to go, same as what we do in a commercial cinema, sort of. http://www.htd.com/Products/high-de...fyDclQ-ZMIEqQcsetiI2hbW8TMAOKhnTMaAoOU8P8HAQ#


Hi Andy, when you mean distance between speakers do you mean width wise? The room I have is about 11' wide. 

I have a low ceiling (6'11") & am trying to pick out which in ceiling speakers I'm going to buy. I found this testimony to be interesting: 

"* Originally Posted by Oledurt View Post
I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.*"

Because of that I was planning on going with the downfiring 90 degree dispersion KEF ci200RR-THX, (2 pairs) each placed about 5 feet from the MLP... thoughts? They are more expensive than HD-R65AIM's but I'm curious if going angled or downfiring would be better for my situation or not?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh cool! About time for some announcements  It's sort of a chick flicky kind of film but tolerable. I saw it in an Atmos theater... there were about 4 or 5 scenes that made pretty good use out of the format. + It's got growly Harrison Ford!
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I meant that in an "even if only 12 objects" sort of way.
> 
> That was a cool interview though... I'm exited to hear about what legacy content his company worked on. We might have some more titles coming our way soon?


Ah, gotcha! 

I'm going to assume, as FilmMixer seems to, that we may see these debut on UHD Blu-ray rather than regular Blu-ray as an enticement... much like HDR and WCG (since not every master will be from true 4k sources, as Hollywood is slow to adopt true 4k-to-4k workflows).


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> True - I was thinking of your concern about the surround field being 'pushed forward' which surely won't happen if you are upmixing to all available speakers.


My concern is that, with my Surround speakers now a bit forward of my seating, sound effects steered specifically toward those channels will now sound like they're coming from in front of me rather than to the sides or behind. Upmixing will spread sounds to other speakers, but effects that are hard-steered to one specific channel will still go to that speaker.

For example, a character on screen fires a gun and the bullet is supposed to ricochet in the right Surround. In a 7.1 or Atmos mix, I imagine that the ricochet would be steered to the Back Surround. But in a mix that originated as 5.1, it would be steered to the right Surround, and there's no guarantee that upmixing will matrix it to the Back Surrounds.

Of course, this is all theoretical. I've only had the speakers in the new positions for a couple days and haven't done much critical listening yet. The problem, such as it is, exists mostly in my head.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hi Andy, when you mean distance between speakers do you mean width wise? The room I have is about 11' wide.
> 
> I have a low ceiling (6'11") & am trying to pick out which in ceiling speakers I'm going to buy. I found this testimony to be interesting:
> 
> "* Originally Posted by Oledurt View Post
> I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assesment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.*"
> 
> Because of that I was planning on going with the downfiring 90 degree dispersion KEF ci200RR-THX, (2 pairs) each placed about 5 feet from the MLP... thoughts? They are more expensive than HD-R65AIM's but I'm curious if going angled or downfiring would be better for my situation or not?


I am currently experimenting with this too. I have my Tannoy Dual Concentrics (90° dispersion) aimed at the floor. The Atmos effect is very good - although I could not swear that it is significantly better then when they were aimed. Either way, they seem to work well here. So it may well be speaker and room dependent and you will need to experiment with both ways and opt for the one that gives you the most pleasing result.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> My concern is that, with my Surround speakers now a bit forward of my seating, sound effects steered specifically toward those channels will now sound like they're coming from in front of me rather than to the sides or behind. Upmixing will spread sounds to other speakers, but effects that are hard-steered to one specific channel will still go to that speaker.
> 
> For example, a character on screen fires a gun and the bullet is supposed to ricochet in the right Surround. In a 7.1 or Atmos mix, I imagine that the ricochet would be steered to the Back Surround. But in a mix that originated as 5.1, it would be steered to the right Surround, and there's no guarantee that upmixing will matrix it to the Back Surrounds.
> 
> Of course, this is all theoretical. I've only had the speakers in the new positions for a couple days and haven't done much critical listening yet. The problem, such as it is, exists mostly in my head.


Gotcha. Hmmm. IDK what to say - your comments make total sense - but I have also had sympathy in the past with the notion of placing the side surrounds at 80° in a 7.1 system, to 'close the gap' a bit between the fronts and the surrounds. Of course, I guess wides would do that nicely (but not for DSU content of course).

I am more than familiar with problems that exist solely in the head


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I am currently experimenting with this too. I have my Tannoy Dual Concentrics (90° dispersion) aimed at the floor. The Atmos effect is very good - although I could not swear that it is significantly better then when they were aimed. Either way, they seem to work well here. So it may well be speaker and room dependent and you will need to experiment with both ways and opt for the one that gives you the most pleasing result.


Cool, are those the CMS 803DC's? Thanks for the podcast link with the THX guys, it was an excellent interview.


----------



## Jack.K

NorthSky said:


> Potentially @ the theater (118), but not in reality @ home @ this point (only 12).
> 
> * Ten times 12 equals 120. ...120 ten times less is 12 (118 potentially, but never happened).
> 
> 20, 24, 28, 32, 64, 128, no no no ... @ home: *12* as the default encoding (7.1.4). ...For Dolby Atmos, as in 'Gravity'.
> 
> If I'm right there won't be any *object*ion. If I'm wrong, well, let see...from whoever is still reading.
> 
> Oh just in case; it is humor, and also what I can decipher from Brian's interview by Scott.


24


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool, are those the CMS 803DC's? Thanks for the podcast link with the THX guys, it was an excellent interview.


Di5 DC and Di6 DC.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> I wasn't aware that it had already been mentioned - I am perhaps not paying attention. Either way, it's perhaps worth mentioning again as it does contain a lot of interesting commentary.


I don't know, Keith. The speaker from THX also claims Top Front + Top Middle is the preferred x.1.4 combo, more than Top Front + Top Rear for instance. If only one could choose this setting... As we all know, no adjacent height speaker pairs can be chosen!


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I don't know, Keith. The speaker from THX also claims Top Front + Top Middle is the preferred x.1.4 combo, more than Top Front + Top Rear for instance. If only one could choose this setting... As we all know, no adjacent height speaker pairs can be chosen!


I think that what he was meaning is a speaker in the top front position (the front of the listening area) and a speaker overhead, in the middle of the listening area, rather than the specific speaker designations we are used to. From the context that was how I interpreted his words.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The speaker from THX also claims Top Front + Top Middle is the preferred x.1.4 combo, more than Top Front + Top Rear for instance.


They found that the strongest impression of sound above you comes, naturally, from speakers above you (Top Middle location). Seems they'd start with that location if using 2 heights and keep that location even when adding more heights. 

The second most effective location for height was forward of the listening position. By comparison, sounds from the Top Rear speakers often got masked by sounds from the Surround-Back speakers due to lack of angular separation (Surround-Back speakers were already elevated because they have to fire over the second row of listeners that are on risers).


> As we all know, no adjacent height speaker pairs can be chosen!


Not right now, but that could change in the future. Besides, considering the overlap between Top Front and Front Height, you could use the latter designation for the forward pair of heights.


----------



## Stanton

sdurani said:


> They found that the strongest impression of sound above you comes, naturally, from speakers above you (Top Middle location). Seems they'd start with that location if using 2 heights and keep that location even when adding more heights.
> 
> The second most effective location for height was forward of the listening position. By comparison, sounds from the Top Rear speakers often got masked by sounds from the Surround-Back speakers due to lack of angular separation (Surround-Back speakers were already elevated because they have to fire over the second row of listeners that are on risers). Not right now, but that could change in the future. Besides, considering the overlap between Top Front and Front Height, you could use the latter designation for the forward pair of heights.


Now THAT's what I understood from the podcast (I listened this morning--good stuff). I'm going to start with a 5.1.2 config when I get my AVR in the Fall (waiting for Yamaha to announce); the caveat for me is that my 2 "overheads" are not exactly "down firing", so we'll see how it sounds.


----------



## NorthSky

Jack.K said:


> *24*


Ok, here are some links; the first two from Dolby, and the last one from Wiki:

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf --> April 2015: *118 objects* can be [email protected] the theater.

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html --> Older: *128 objects* (same as above; @ the theater).

♣ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos --> Last paragraph: *Differences from commercial installations* ... *128 objects* @ the theater.
{@ home it is different; not objects.}

________

* In our AV receivers and pre/pros (regular stuff, not ultra hi-end), the maximum number of speakers supported by the manufacturers is *12* (7.1.4 or 9.1.2).
They simply don't have the processing power for multiple objects as in the theaters. I looked for precise information, and couldn't find anything that is directly related to the number of objects that are supported @ home from our normal AV receivers. We know that twelve speakers (including the LFE channel) is the maximum, and Dolby Atmos can support up to 24 floor speakers plus 10 overhead speakers (34 speakers total: 24.1.10) that can be supported by the ultra hi-end pre/pros (expensive), but for most average folks with an AV receiver or a Marantz pre/pro we are restricted to twelve (12) channels. ...And as for objects @ home from them AV receivers, I just don't know because I couldn't find the exact information. But wikipedia in that last paragraph is specific as objects are concerned @ home...but no numbers given.
...No 7.1 + 12 objects (total = 20) ... no 7.1 + 20 objects (total = 28) ... no 7.1 + 4 objects (total = 12) ...nothing...no 24 either.

The Dolby Atmos decoders in our AV receivers are restricted by the number of channels supported, by the processing power in the DSP chips, and by the number of channels supported by HDMI 2.0a version, coming up soon. 

And what is supported and what happens in real life are two totally different distinctions. 
And if we bring all the gear from the best Dolby Atmos theater in the world into our rooms, it would be crazy, with about 48 floor speakers, 20 subwoofers and 16 overhead Atmos speakers...unless our home theaters are on the rather quite larger size.
And vice versa; if we would bring our Yamaha Dolby Atmos AV receiver in a Dolby Atmos theater in Hollywood, it wouldn't have what it takes to fill the place. 

So, compromises have to be made somewhere @ home. ...But some folks (very rare) use two Dolby Atmos AV receivers to add more speakers, or get a Trinnov Altitude pre/pro or a Datasat one or a Steinway Lyngdorf one with more speakers, more amplifiers, more processing power, more more of everyting including more space in the dedicated home theater room...and more money is needed to get there too...much more. ...How many objects wit Trinnov Altitude? ...I just don't know myself, and I'm not even sure that you can call them objects. ...Literature from audio manufacturers are not always totally accurate. 

But! Professional sound mixers for the home should know; the ones mixing in Dolby Atmos for the home market, on Blu-ray discs. 
...Guys from Lionsgate studios for example, or from Paramount studios, Universal studios, ...with a Dolby Atmos mixing console for the Blu-ray home market (decoded by our home AV receivers; Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer, Marantz, Integra).

So, is it 12 objects or 20 objects that we get from a Denon AVR-X5200W AV receiver for example? 
Brian said 12 "objects" @ home (decoder default). ...Others said more, ...20 objects. 

I'll keep asking around and searching...but so far Brian is one of my best sources. ...From Scott's interview. 
He said 128 objects (@ the theater), and he's right from several sources, including Dolby Atmos and Wikipedia, but the April 2015 Dolby Atmos white paper (pdf - first link above) says 118 objects, and supported by filmmixer. 

♠ I wish _Roger Dressler_ would post back and provide us with the right answers. ...He must know some' more that we don't. 
...And not just Roger, but others too (I won't name). ...And not necessarily Dolby Atmos related. 

Anyhow, @ home 24 is not the number that I think is right, Jack.


----------



## NorthSky

> They found that the strongest impression of sound above you comes, naturally, from speakers above you (Top Middle location). Seems they'd start with that location if using 2 heights and keep that location even when adding more heights.
> 
> The second most effective location for height was forward of the listening position. By comparison, sounds from the Top Rear speakers often got masked by sounds from the Surround-Back speakers due to lack of angular separation (Surround-Back speakers were already elevated because they have to fire over the second row of listeners that are on risers). Not right now, but that could change in the future. Besides, considering the overlap between Top Front and Front Height, you could use the latter designation for the forward pair of heights.


From one row of seats. ...From two rows it can vary, depending of which row contains the MLP.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> They found that the strongest impression of sound above you comes, naturally, from speakers above you (Top Middle location). Seems they'd start with that location if using 2 heights and keep that location even when adding more heights.
> 
> The second most effective location for height was forward of the listening position. By comparison, sounds from the Top Rear speakers often got masked by sounds from the Surround-Back speakers due to lack of angular separation (Surround-Back speakers were already elevated because they have to fire over the second row of listeners that are on risers). Not right now, but that could change in the future. Besides, considering the overlap between Top Front and Front Height, you could use the latter designation for the forward pair of heights.





kbarnes701 said:


> I think that what he was meaning is a speaker in the top front position (the front of the listening area) and a speaker overhead, in the middle of the listening area, rather than the specific speaker designations we are used to. From the context that was how I interpreted his words.


I'm a bit confused, I'm actually wondering if he mixed words up because it seemed like they really quickly went into the topic of high surround placement. Just to be ultra ultra clear...the THX recommendation is to install the ceiling speakers directly overhead? I thought some people had tried that and didn't like it. 

I'm trying to recall... is there a setting in our Denon AVR's that lets you select top middle & top forward? If not, it seems like placing the speakers directly overhead might distort the mixer's intent. But I could see how rear surrounds could interfere with rear hights... though in my location I don't have a typical raised rear seating position... though I have considered raising my rear surrounds because when I sit on my couch some of that sound gets masked off (if I sink into the couch haha).


----------



## CinemaAndy

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hi Andy, when you mean distance between speakers do you mean width wise? The room I have is about 11' wide.
> 
> I have a low ceiling (6'11") & am trying to pick out which in ceiling speakers I'm going to buy. I found this testimony to be interesting:
> 
> "* Originally Posted by Oledurt View Post
> I found it interesting how they stated if you have ceiling speakers they should always be oriented straight down not angled in any way. I have been experimenting a lot with this in my system. I agree with their assessment. My own experimenting with this shows although you are more off axis with the speakers pointed at the floor, the atmos effect is stronger, as well as front to rear pans are improved. Once you toe or angle them toward the mlp you get more reflected sound and a bit more smeared sound.*"
> 
> Because of that I was planning on going with the downfiring 90 degree dispersion KEF ci200RR-THX, (2 pairs) each placed about 5 feet from the MLP... thoughts? They are more expensive than HD-R65AIM's but I'm curious if going angled or down firing would be better for my situation or not?


Yes i meant width. This is very helpful with .2 and a must for .4 setups. With a 11 foot wide room and 6'11" ceilings i think the ability of pointing, as well as spacing the overheads further away from the listening area is very important for sound quality. I always question that 90 degree straight down firing approach. It is only recommended by a small number of speaker OEM's.

From the mouth of Dolby Labs, not speaker OEM's,

Overhead sound is a vital part of the Dolby Atmos experience. There are a variety of
options for adding this capability to a room.
One solution is to install speakers overhead. Most high-power, full-frequency
conventional overhead speakers with wide dispersion characteristics will work in a
Dolby Atmos home theater.

Mounting considerations
If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately
45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to
10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For
speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements
should be angled toward the primary listening position.
Room treatment considerations for use of overhead speakers
For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least two times the
height of the listener’s ear level (this generally applies to on-ceiling speakers, which
may be installed lower than the actual ceiling height).
Sound-absorbing and sound-diffusing treatment for handling reflections from the
walls, floor, and ceiling are recommended to improve sound quality and reduce
unwanted audio reflection.

The source... http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## sdurani

Stanton said:


> the caveat for me is that my 2 "overheads" are not exactly "down firing"


Where are your 2 height speakers located in relation to the listening area? Which direction are those speakers pointing?


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Just to be ultra ultra clear...the THX recommendation is to install the ceiling speakers directly overhead?


Yes, they recommend starting with the Top Middle location and working your way out from there as you add more height speakers. This breaks with the Dolby recommendation to do a more symmetrical (Top Front + Top Rear) placement.


> I'm trying to recall... is there a setting in our Denon AVR's that lets you select top middle & top forward?


No, but the forward pair of heights can be designated Front Heights instead of Top Front.


----------



## cdelena

NorthSky said:


> ...
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html --> Older: *128 objects* (same as above; @ the theater).
> ...



I was told that Atmos is designed to support 128 objects but implementation in the foreseeable future is not expected to see near that many. 


This is apparently a spec designed to have a future but current infrastructure to mix or playback is much less robust and justification to use all may not come to be.


Expect evolution.


----------



## Alanlee

*Thx?*



Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm a bit confused, I'm actually wondering if he mixed words up because it seemed like they really quickly went into the topic of high surround placement. Just to be ultra ultra clear...the THX recommendation is to install the ceiling speakers directly overhead? I thought some people had tried that and didn't like it.
> 
> I'm trying to recall... is there a setting in our Denon AVR's that lets you select top middle & top forward? If not, it seems like placing the speakers directly overhead might distort the mixer's intent. But I could see how rear surrounds could interfere with rear hights... though in my location I don't have a typical raised rear seating position... though I have considered raising my rear surrounds because when I sit on my couch some of that sound gets masked off (if I sink into the couch haha).


 
Interesting that you mention Denon. As I look at the 7200 manual, I do not see a top middle - top front configuration. Those of you who have that device and have worked with it probably know more. Page 44 of the manual shows a top front - top rear configuration (11.1), and page 54 shows a top middle configuration ( 9.1).

In addition, the 7200 is not THX certified. More than one salesperson (Denon) has told me that THX is no longer relevant. I am sure the issue is debatable, but maybe at least as far as Denon is concerned the opinions at THX do not hold weight, or maybe the lack of THX certification is only about money.

On the other hand, the guys at THX are aware of the Dolby schematics that have been circulated, and they are probably aware of the schematics in the Denon manuals. I am not going to speculate as to why they would raise the point about putting the middle ceiling speakers directly overhead.

I am wired for six speakers. I have installed top front (L-R) - top rear (L-R). I will probably find some top middles (L-R). If the middles don't work for ATMOS, maybe I can use them for Voice of God.


I am still waiting for an affordable 9.2.6 or 7.2.6 processor, but I'm not getting any younger and the dust is collecting on my ceiling speakers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

CinemaAndy said:


> Yes i meant width. This is very helpful with .2 and a must for .4 setups. With a 11 foot wide room and 6'11" ceilings i think the ability of pointing, as well as spacing the overheads further away from the listening area is very important for sound quality. I always question that 90 degree straight down firing approach. It is only recommended by a small number of speaker OEM's.





sdurani said:


> Yes, they recommend starting with the Top Middle location and working your way out from there as you add more height speakers. This breaks with the Dolby recommendation to do a more symmetrical (Top Front + Top Rear) placement. No, but the forward pair of heights can be designated Front Heights instead of Top Front.


Well now I have no idea w-t-* to do (haha). Perhaps get the KEF's for the MLP overheads if I take THX's advice, & maybe get aimable tweeters for the front heights? One other question Andy... have you seen the Martin Logan electromotion 8" speaker? Are those much different from what you are recommending? 

Sorry Sanjay I saw that you mentioned that in the other post I just wanted to confirm.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Alanlee said:


> On the other hand, the guys at THX are aware of the Dolby schematics that have been circulated, and they are probably aware of the schematics in the Denon manuals. I am not going to speculate as to why they would raise the point about putting the middle ceiling speakers directly overhead.


That same thought crossed my mind... if this might be a marketing thing but what they said throughout the interview made a lot of sense. I've been paying close attention to industry expert suggestions (Grimani was another one who's suggestions I've considered... as I liked his recommendations for modifying how the rear surrounds should be placed). His opinion deviates from Dolby's recommendation for ceiling speaker positioning as well.


----------



## sdurani

Alanlee said:


> I am not going to speculate as to why they would raise the point about putting the middle ceiling speakers directly overhead.


No need to speculate since they gave a simple explanation: the strongest sense of sound overhead came from speakers placed overhead (Top Middle location). Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Aras_Volodka said:


> Well now I have no idea w-t-* to do (haha). Perhaps get the KEF's for the MLP overheads if I take THX's advice, & maybe get aimable tweeters for the front heights? One other question Andy... have you seen the Martin Logan electromotion 8" speaker? Are those much different from what you are recommending?
> 
> Sorry Sanjay I saw that you mentioned that in the other post I just wanted to confirm.


The only Martin logan speakers i know of for overheads is there EM-IC and EM-R. And i will say i am not a fan of wave motion tweeters. I like my horns. I don't know why THX is saying anything on ATMOS, as last i heard THX and Dolby have had no discussions. For the most part, THX is just a volume reference point that accounts for HVAC, projectors, fans, noisy wife, friends, crying babies, stilettos on hardwood floors etc, etc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

CinemaAndy said:


> I don't know why THX is saying anything on ATMOS, as last i heard THX and Dolby have had no discussions. For the most part, THX is just a volume reference point that accounts for HVAC, projectors, fans, noisy wife, friends, crying babies, stilettos on hardwood floors etc, etc.


Not surprisingly as your exposure is as a "professional" installer and not as an audio enthusiast.


----------



## NorthSky

cdelena said:


> I was told that Atmos is designed to support 128 objects but implementation in the foreseeable future is not expected to see near that many.
> This is apparently a spec designed to have a future but current infrastructure to mix or playback is much less robust and justification to use all may not come to be.
> Expect evolution.


Any Dolby Atmos theater in Vancouver? ... *'Mad Max: Fury Road'*
Expect evolution.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Not surprisingly as your exposure is as a "professional" installer and not as an audio enthusiast.


THX started in the professional cinema world and continues to do more there than the consumer side. 

http://www.thx.com/professional/cinema-certification/


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> THX started in the professional cinema world and continues to do more there than the consumer side.
> 
> http://www.thx.com/professional/cinema-certification/



Okay. Yes, I know this. Not sure why you're saying that.

Andy was making some point about them being only good for construction standards in his job and not about them trying to find ways of improving current technologies at home or in the cinema.


----------



## helvetica bold

This might become the best use of Atmos yet on Nov 17! 
So far Atmos only on PC but Im hoping for some PS4 & Xbox One love.

Battlefront on PS4


----------



## cdelena

NorthSky said:


> Any Dolby Atmos theater in Vancouver? ... *'Mad Max: Road Fury'*
> Expect evolution.


Surprisingly there is a theater here in Vancouver WA that was retrofitted to play Atmos. I have not attended yet.


----------



## NorthSky

cdelena said:


> Surprisingly there is a theater here in Vancouver WA that was retrofitted to play Atmos. I have not attended yet.


There are none here on the Island; Victoria, Nanaimo. 

* The good thing about Dolby Atmos @ home? ...If you don't live near Hollywood, or other large metropolis of the globe, ...home sweet home. 
...Next month; *Ex_Machina* ... *dts:x*


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Okay. Yes, I know this. Not sure why you're saying that.
> 
> Andy was making some point about them being only good for construction standards in his job and not about them trying to find ways of improving current technologies at home or in the cinema.


I have a bunch of VHS tapes, ...widescreen movies from FOX studios, all THX picture & sound certified. ...And my pre/pro is THX Ultra2 Plus certified as well. ...Both the audio and video (ISF) portions. 

THX is like Star Wars; solid epic dialogue. ...From a faraway galaxy.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Not sure why you're saying that.


Have you ever met an industry professional that thinks THX is just a volume reference point?


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Ok, here are some links; the first two from Dolby, and the last one from Wiki:
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf --> April 2015: *118 objects* can be [email protected] the theater.
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html --> Older: *128 objects* (same as above; @ the theater).
> 
> ♣ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos --> Last paragraph: *Differences from commercial installations* ... *128 objects* @ the theater.
> {@ home it is different; not objects.}
> 
> ________
> 
> * In our AV receivers and pre/pros (regular stuff, not ultra hi-end), the maximum number of speakers supported by the manufacturers is *12* (7.1.4 or 9.1.2).
> They simply don't have the processing power for multiple objects as in the theaters. I looked for precise information, and couldn't find anything that is directly related to the number of objects that are supported @ home from our normal AV receivers. We know that twelve speakers (including the LFE channel) is the maximum, and Dolby Atmos can support up to 24 floor speakers plus 10 overhead speakers (34 speakers total: 24.1.10) that can be supported by the ultra hi-end pre/pros (expensive), but for most average folks with an AV receiver or a Marantz pre/pro we are restricted to twelve (12) channels. ...And as for objects @ home from them AV receivers, I just don't know because I couldn't find the exact information. But wikipedia in that last paragraph is specific as objects are concerned @ home...but no numbers given.
> ...No 7.1 + 12 objects (total = 20) ... no 7.1 + 20 objects (total = 28) ... no 7.1 + 4 objects (total = 12) ...nothing...no 24 either.
> 
> The Dolby Atmos decoders in our AV receivers are restricted by the number of channels supported, by the processing power in the DSP chips, and by the number of channels supported by HDMI 2.0a version, coming up soon.
> 
> And what is supported and what happens in real life are two totally different distinctions.
> And if we bring all the gear from the best Dolby Atmos theater in the world into our rooms, it would be crazy, with about 48 floor speakers, 20 subwoofers and 16 overhead Atmos speakers...unless our home theaters are on the rather quite larger size.
> And vice versa; if we would bring our Yamaha Dolby Atmos AV receiver in a Dolby Atmos theater in Hollywood, it wouldn't have what it takes to fill the place.
> 
> So, compromises have to be made somewhere @ home. ...But some folks (very rare) use two Dolby Atmos AV receivers to add more speakers, or get a Trinnov Altitude pre/pro or a Datasat one or a Steinway Lyngdorf one with more speakers, more amplifiers, more processing power, more more of everyting including more space in the dedicated home theater room...and more money is needed to get there too...much more. ...How many objects wit Trinnov Altitude? ...I just don't know myself, and I'm not even sure that you can call them objects. ...Literature from audio manufacturers are not always totally accurate.
> 
> But! Professional sound mixers for the home should know; the ones mixing in Dolby Atmos for the home market, on Blu-ray discs.
> ...Guys from Lionsgate studios for example, or from Paramount studios, Universal studios, ...with a Dolby Atmos mixing console for the Blu-ray home market (decoded by our home AV receivers; Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer, Marantz, Integra).
> 
> So, is it 12 objects or 20 objects that we get from a Denon AVR-X5200W AV receiver for example?
> Brian said 12 "objects" @ home (decoder default). ...Others said more, ...20 objects.
> 
> I'll keep asking around and searching...but so far Brian is one of my best sources. ...From Scott's interview.
> He said 128 objects (@ the theater), and he's right from several sources, including Dolby Atmos and Wikipedia, but the April 2015 Dolby Atmos white paper (pdf - first link above) says 118 objects, and supported by filmmixer.
> 
> ♠ I wish _Roger Dressler_ would post back and provide us with the right answers. ...He must know some' more that we don't.
> ...And not just Roger, but others too (I won't name). ...And not necessarily Dolby Atmos related.
> 
> Anyhow, @ home 24 is not the number that I think is right, Jack.


The number for the theater is 118 objects. 

The first 10 inputs in the RMU are reserved for the bed inputs... 

The RMU can be fed from two MADI stream which gives you a total of 128 inputs. 10 bed. 118 objects.


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> The number for the theater is 118 objects.
> The first 10 inputs in the RMU are reserved for the bed inputs...
> The RMU can be fed from two MADI stream which gives you a total of 128 inputs. 10 bed. 118 objects.


Ok, and @ home from our receivers and Marantz pre/pros? ...Not what is supported but what the Dolby Atmos decoder is defaulting to? 
And thank you very much.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Have you ever met an industry professional that thinks THX is just a volume reference point?


Lol. Fair enough.


----------



## Alanlee

*Testing ground*



sdurani said:


> No need to speculate since they gave a simple explanation: the strongest sense of sound overhead came from speakers placed overhead (Top Middle location). Nothing more complicated than that.


 The people in this forum have the equipment to validate their findings.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

CinemaAndy said:


> "For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least two times the
> height of the listener’s ear level"
> 
> The source... http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


So if my ear level is 33" off the ground when I'm watching a movie, then the in ceiling speakers would have to be 66" above my head in order to be within the "optimal" distance for overhead? If so that's a drag... because my clearance right now is 48" above my head.


----------



## asarose247

Couldn't " at least" possibility mean : no less than 2x your seat height? 
and then there is the issue of how close they are to the walls, all that drill
Is there any mention of a "no more than" factor? IDK
My couch has short "vibration absorbent feet" (my Grainger DIY answer to providing clearance for the Clark shakers)
So my height is about 39-42" depending on slouch etc.
My tops measure out at about 92 which is a factor of around 2.1+ ,mol.


My tops are laid out in a 7 ft. square, with me at the center.
there's been changes wrt to the rear surrounds for greater separation from the tops.
the rears are now floorstander towers

I really enjoy the ATMOS/DSU immersion.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Before THX there was Dolby stereo, before that, Sensurround and before that, mono. THX has always been a reference volume to offset auditorium background noises. Yes they have moved into the whole spectrum. The majority of every booth you walk into in a D-Cinema, will have either a Datasat or Dolby audio processor, depending on how deep the pockets of the owner is, even in a THX certified Theatre. I have read nothing from THX on ATMOS. August 30, 1997, when THX was no longer classified as a "motion picture sound system" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX I don't knock THX, i like what they did, but they started coming across as a producer of all things audio, and that is when i first heard the term "Lucas till you puke us" and that did not sell with the audio guys from Klipsch, JBL or the rest in the commerical industry, and that is why THX biggest presence is now in the HT. "the audience is now deaf" one of my favorite THX sayings. The last two THX certificated theaters around me, are now AMC Prime Dolby Cinema


----------



## CinemaAndy

Aras_Volodka said:


> So if my ear level is 33" off the ground when I'm watching a movie, then the in ceiling speakers would have to be 66" above my head in order to be within the "optimal" distance for overhead? If so that's a drag... because my clearance right now is 48" above my head.


That is what Dolby has said. I know ceilings above 12 feet is really pushing it, sounds like it is coming from the ceiling in a non immersive way. Seems to me like the Audyssey that everyone likes to talk about on here, or similar software, could offset that or maybe manually lowering the volume levels to the overheads. Probably takes some experimenting, but can probably have a good outcome.


----------



## CinemaAndy

sdurani said:


> Have you ever met an industry professional that thinks THX is just a volume reference point?


You just did.


----------



## CinemaAndy

NorthSky said:


> Ok, here are some links; the first two from Dolby, and the last one from Wiki:
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf --> April 2015: *118 objects* can be [email protected] the theater.
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html --> Older: *128 objects* (same as above; @ the theater).
> 
> ♣ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos --> Last paragraph: *Differences from commercial installations* ... *128 objects* @ the theater.
> {@ home it is different; not objects.}
> 
> ________
> 
> * In our AV receivers and pre/pros (regular stuff, not ultra hi-end), the maximum number of speakers supported by the manufacturers is *12* (7.1.4 or 9.1.2).
> They simply don't have the processing power for multiple objects as in the theaters. I looked for precise information, and couldn't find anything that is directly related to the number of objects that are supported @ home from our normal AV receivers. We know that twelve speakers (including the LFE channel) is the maximum, and Dolby Atmos can support up to 24 floor speakers plus 10 overhead speakers (34 speakers total: 24.1.10) that can be supported by the ultra hi-end pre/pros (expensive), but for most average folks with an AV receiver or a Marantz pre/pro we are restricted to twelve (12) channels. ...And as for objects @ home from them AV receivers, I just don't know because I couldn't find the exact information. But wikipedia in that last paragraph is specific as objects are concerned @ home...but no numbers given.
> ...No 7.1 + 12 objects (total = 20) ... no 7.1 + 20 objects (total = 28) ... no 7.1 + 4 objects (total = 12) ...nothing...no 24 either.
> 
> The Dolby Atmos decoders in our AV receivers are restricted by the number of channels supported, by the processing power in the DSP chips, and by the number of channels supported by HDMI 2.0a version, coming up soon.
> 
> And what is supported and what happens in real life are two totally different distinctions.
> And if we bring all the gear from the best Dolby Atmos theater in the world into our rooms, it would be crazy, with about 48 floor speakers, 20 subwoofers and 16 overhead Atmos speakers...unless our home theaters are on the rather quite larger size.
> And vice versa; if we would bring our Yamaha Dolby Atmos AV receiver in a Dolby Atmos theater in Hollywood, it wouldn't have what it takes to fill the place.
> 
> So, compromises have to be made somewhere @ home. ...But some folks (very rare) use two Dolby Atmos AV receivers to add more speakers, or get a Trinnov Altitude pre/pro or a Datasat one or a Steinway Lyngdorf one with more speakers, more amplifiers, more processing power, more more of everyting including more space in the dedicated home theater room...and more money is needed to get there too...much more. ...How many objects wit Trinnov Altitude? ...I just don't know myself, and I'm not even sure that you can call them objects. ...Literature from audio manufacturers are not always totally accurate.
> 
> But! Professional sound mixers for the home should know; the ones mixing in Dolby Atmos for the home market, on Blu-ray discs.
> ...Guys from Lionsgate studios for example, or from Paramount studios, Universal studios, ...with a Dolby Atmos mixing console for the Blu-ray home market (decoded by our home AV receivers; Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer, Marantz, Integra).
> 
> So, is it 12 objects or 20 objects that we get from a Denon AVR-X5200W AV receiver for example?
> Brian said 12 "objects" @ home (decoder default). ...Others said more, ...20 objects.
> 
> I'll keep asking around and searching...but so far Brian is one of my best sources. ...From Scott's interview.
> He said 128 objects (@ the theater), and he's right from several sources, including Dolby Atmos and Wikipedia, but the April 2015 Dolby Atmos white paper (pdf - first link above) says 118 objects, and supported by filmmixer.
> 
> ♠ I wish _Roger Dressler_ would post back and provide us with the right answers. ...He must know some' more that we don't.
> ...And not just Roger, but others too (I won't name). ...And not necessarily Dolby Atmos related.
> 
> Anyhow, @ home 24 is not the number that I think is right, Jack.


The latest Dolby Lake EQ and 1/12th octave EQ resolution optimizes playback for all content types, even in acoustically challenged environments.

Dolby should have brought that to the table for the HT side, would have simplified it.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> So if my ear level is 33" off the ground when I'm watching a movie, then the in ceiling speakers would have to be 66" above my head in order to be within the "optimal" distance for overhead? If so that's a drag... because my clearance right now is 48" above my head.


Two times 33" is 66". And 66" is @ least two times the height of your ears, so 33" above your ears. But 5.5 feet is very low for a ceiling; most people wouldn't tolerate. In your own room you have 48" (4 feet) above your ears...48" plus 33" equals 81" ...which is the height of your ceiling; 6 feet and 9 inches. ...But because you said _"48 inches above your head"_, then your ceiling is 7 feet and 3 inches high (87"); by adding 6 inches above your ears to the top of your head. 

All good to go.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> The latest Dolby Lake EQ and 1/12th octave EQ resolution optimizes playback for all content types, even in acoustically challenged environments.
> 
> Dolby should have brought that to the table for the HT side, would have simplified it.


Andy sir, could you please expand on this?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm a bit confused, I'm actually wondering if he mixed words up because it seemed like they really quickly went into the topic of high surround placement. Just to be ultra ultra clear...the THX recommendation is to install the ceiling speakers directly overhead? I thought some people had tried that and didn't like it.


The THX guys were saying that the most important speakers (for Atmos) are those right above your head (ie Top Middle) and that all speakers should point downwards for the best effect. They went on to say that 4 overheads beats 2 overheads, and the other pair should be forward of the listening position, not behind it.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm trying to recall... is there a setting in our Denon AVR's that lets you select top middle & top forward? If not, it seems like placing the speakers directly overhead might distort the mixer's intent.


Once cannot choose TF and TM at the same time. But the overlap of recommended angles for FH and TF is so great that a pair can be designated as FH and still be in a 'top front' position (my own are this way). So one can have a forward pair and a pair directly overhead by using FH+TM configuration (as I do). The recommended angles for TM do include directly overhead - 60° to 100° IIRC. 90° would be directly above.



Aras_Volodka said:


> But I could see how rear surrounds could interfere with rear hights... though in my location I don't have a typical raised rear seating position... though I have considered raising my rear surrounds because when I sit on my couch some of that sound gets masked off (if I sink into the couch haha).


It is important IMO that all speakers have a clear line of sight to all listeners (if possible for all seats and definitely for the MLP). This can mean raising rear surrounds quite high if there is an elevated second row of seating (as in the THX case) and the problem then becomes that the rear surrounds end up rather too close to the rear overhead pair, if they are mounted in a RH position, to give good separation, thus resulting in it being hard to tell whether the rear surround or the rear height speakers are playing. This is what THX commented on and which brought them to the conclusion that if 4 overheads were being used, the best locations were a pair in the front and a pair directly above, with a pair behind the MLP being the least favored.


----------



## kbarnes701

Alanlee said:


> I am not going to speculate as to why they would raise the point about putting the middle ceiling speakers directly overhead.


That isn’t in any way at odds with Dolby's own recommendations. Permitted angles for TM speakers are 65° to 100°, so 90° is good, and is also directly overhead.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> So if my ear level is 33" off the ground when I'm watching a movie, then the in ceiling speakers would have to be 66" above my head in order to be within the "optimal" distance for overhead? If so that's a drag... because my clearance right now is 48" above my head.


Yes - so you would need a ceiling height of 33+66=99 or 8 feet 3 inches, which, coincidentally, is the height of most modern ceilings (at least it is in Europe).

But as you can't move the ceiling (presumably) and as you don't want to sit in the floor, it is what it is. You might not get the very best possible Atmos experience but it will still be better than no Atmos at all. As Sanjay is wont to say - don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


----------



## Frank714

*Enchanted Kingdom in Dolby Atmos review*

I’ll have to admit that I would have probably overlooked this spectacular film had it not been mixed in Dolby Atmos. Apparently a public success in Japanese theaters (titled _Nature_ there), the scarcity of reviews for _Enchanted Kingdom _made me wonder. I presume that there have been so many edutainment programs about the wildlife of Africa, that the general approach may have been “Still another wildlife program about Africa, yawn?!” (at least that was my first reaction).











Having finally watched the whole film, I’m excited to report that such suspicions are widely unwarranted. What this program features is definitely beyond your average IMAX nature documentary, apparently and positively inspired by Ron Fricke’s cinematographic accomplishments _Baraka _and _Samsara,_ and obviously in the tradition of Walt Disney’s “True-Life Adventures” but in its presentation a second or even third generation “true-life adventure”, palatable to modern audiences, visually impressive, entertaining and educating at the same time.

The origins are interesting, instead of only producing for international TV distribution, BBC EARTH made the push for the big screen, first with _Walking With Dinosaurs – The Film _(muddled by suits at 20th Century Fox who insisted on talking dinosaurs and other changes, but fortunately the dialogue-free “Cretaceous Cut” on the US and UK 3D Blu-ray preserves the filmmakers’ far superior original intention), next with _Enchanted Kingdom_.

The film transports audiences from the the streets of London to the most exotic and impressive places in Africa or near its borders: from tropical rainforests to an erupting volcano and the Serengeti, from lakes to wild rivers and waterfalls, from the depth of the oceans to the highest African mountain.

Using ingenious camera techniques, ambitious time-lapse photography (if one wouldn’t know it’s real one might suspect CGI), 3D filming in 4K resolution and Dolby Atmos surround sound, this film creates an unparalleled “being there” experience which entitles it to be henceforth considered as the proverbial “mother” of nature documentaries, IMHO. If there is one you should see during your lifetime, I’d suggest this is probably the one you wouldn’t want to miss.

*Surround Sound*

The sound design is immersive and dynamic, the Dolby Atmos mix enhances the visual 3D presentation by providing three-dimensional sound with special attention to the overhead speakers: rainforest sounds, thunderstorms and lightning, an erupting volcano, a boatride on a wild river and the close proximity to a majestic waterfall are just the most noteworthy examples that help the illusion of experiencing these things live and almost “too close for comfort”.

*Picture Quality*

Down-converted from a 4K master, the FullHD image profits visibly from the much higher native resolution. Last year I saw Sony’s entry-level UHD projector with demo footage including a giraffe’s head and neck which revealed fur textures that made me think “wow”. Even though _Enchanted Kingdom _is currently “only” available on FullHD Blu-ray, textures of animals’ furs or scales showed up in breathtaking clarity and detail. In the scene where hundreds of flamingoes congregate near a lake, I was able to almost notice each and every single bird in the distance (“wow”). Colors are natural and vivid, however the scene with the Ethiopian mountain monkeys revealed a blue glare from the distant mountains, where I couldn’t tell if that was due to a lack of UV lens filters or an intentional artistic choice.

*3D Performance*

Mostly shotwith real 3D cameras, the 3D performance is impeccable. Apparently, special attention was given to capture natural 3D effects, i.e. during a flyover of a tropical rainforest, the filmmakers made certain to capture the rising mist to be able to “penetrate” it in 3D. In post-production some footage was converted into 3D but I really couldn’t tell which.

*Additional thoughts*

Idris Elba was a good choice for narrator (following in the footsteps of James Earl Jones for _Africa: The Serengeti _and Avery Brooks for _Africa’s Elephant Kingdom _and various _Walking with Dinosaurs _programs), but sometimes it felt as if he was intruding on my visual experience (For which I’m the one to be blamed because I had switched into _Baraka_ or _Samsara_ viewing “mode” – no narrator – and his unannounced comeback reminded me that I was *not* watching a Ron Fricke film). Nevertheless I think further upcoming releases should feature an optional version without his narration.


At this point in time, the only Blu-ray featuring both Dolby Atmos* and* 3D is the one from the Japanese “Deluxe” Edition, including the 3D Blu-ray, the 2D Blu-ray (containing “The Making of”) and a third Blu-ray with bonus materials (mostly promotional materials, i.e. short interview clips, the Japanese premiere and other related items). With a running time of almost 90 minutes the approx. price of 50 $ incl. shipping could seem like a bargain compared to the combined running times and prices of two shorter IMAX 3D titles on Blu-ray (Japan is same Region Code A as the US, but the film equally played in my Oppo BDP-93 set to Code B)

Equally noteworthy are the discs’ navigational menus: The entire menu is in English, yet the item currently selected shows up in Japanese. A clever solution that enables equally Japanese and English readers to navigate with ease through the menu (Japanese version is only DolbyTrueHD 7.1)

If you don’t need the film in 3D and are only interested in Dolby Atmos you could just purchase the Japanese single 2D Blu-ray.

If you (think) you don’t need the film in Dolby Atmos but want it in 3D you could also (pre-) order the German Blu-ray edition (will probably be Region Code B).

Originally, the Universal Studios UK release on Blu-ray had been scheduled for November 24, 2014. I’m not aware of any release plans in the US, possible the film is being hold back for UHD Blu-ray release or streaming content.


----------



## petetherock

Glad you like this, as I posted, it's like the "Leaf" Trailer on mega-steroids!

I would hasten to add that IMO, this is the best Atmos BR disc in existence right now, bar none.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> There are none here on the Island; Victoria, Nanaimo.
> 
> * The good thing about Dolby Atmos @ home? ...If you don't live near Hollywood, or other large metropolis of the globe, ...home sweet home.
> ...Next month; *Ex_Machina* ... *dts:x*


There won't be any receivers that will play in DTS:X till the fall. I'll enjoy it in DSU I think we will start seeing more Blu-Rays with Atmos by then.


----------



## Frank714

petetherock said:


> Glad you like this, as I posted, it's like the "Leaf" Trailer on mega-steroids!


Absolutely, but I felt it could have expanded the spaciousness a bit further to the sides like the "audio only" samples from the January 2015 Dolby Demo Disc. Emphasis seemed to be the utilization of the overhead speakers, which nevertheless contributed to a very immersive and sometimes close to scary listening experience.



petetherock said:


> I would hasten to add that IMO, this is the best Atmos BR disc in existence right now, bar none.


Hmm...in the category "nature film" it's undoubtedly the best. I think that _Chicago_ is the best in the category "music" and _Gravity_ in the category "feature film". 

All three have different Dolby Atmos flavors, but I love each and every single one of them.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> The THX guys were saying that the most important speakers (for Atmos) are those right above your head (ie Top Middle) and that all speakers should point downwards for the best effect. They went on to say that 4 overheads beats 2 overheads, and the other pair should be forward of the listening position, not behind it.


Like most everyone here my surrounds and surround backs were way above the ear level before getting into Atmos. They haven lowered to little over ear height for Atmos compatibility.
With THXs view of using TF(FH)+TM rather than TF+TR, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to do that FH+TM and also put back the rear surrounds where they were before (closer to the ceiling). That can give an illusion of 6 heights instead of 4.
Just wondering..


----------



## chi_guy50

Frank714 said:


> I’ll have to admit that I would have probably overlooked this spectacular film had it not been mixed in Dolby Atmos. Apparently a public success in Japanese theaters (titled _Nature_ there), the scarcity of reviews for _Enchanted Kingdom _made me wonder. I presume that there have been so many edutainment programs about the wildlife of Africa, that the general approach may have been “Still another wildlife program about Africa, yawn?!” (at least that was my first reaction).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ./.


Thanks for your detailed review, Frank.

I have the 3-disk edition but haven't gotten around to watching it yet. Like you, I got it from Amazon Japan ($37.04 + $9.08 shipping) and had it in my hands in Atlanta, GA, within a scant 48 hours of having placed my order!


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - so you would need a ceiling height of 33+66=99 or 8 feet 3 inches, which, coincidentally, is the height of most modern ceilings (at least it is in Europe).
> 
> But as you can't move the ceiling (presumably) and as you don't want to sit in the floor, it is what it is. You might not get the very best possible Atmos experience but it will still be better than no Atmos at all. As Sanjay is wont to say - don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


Yeah. You can't move the ceiling. Other option is dig the floor... 
In our basements where the HT is typically located , the height is about 92" (barring some millionaire houses)


----------



## FilmMixer

CinemaAndy said:


> The latest Dolby Lake EQ and 1/12th octave EQ resolution optimizes playback for all content types, even in acoustically challenged environments.
> 
> Dolby should have brought that to the table for the HT side, would have simplified it.


Dolby Lake Processors were discontinued years ago... They promptly went thief the existing inventory of Lake processors after the initial purchase, with to subsequent manufacturing run. 

It's a product that is long dormant and has nothing to do with Home Atmos. 



It didn't have anything to do with optimizing content type.... There is an extremely limited number of content types in a commercial cinema. 

And what does that have to do with the conversation about object count ?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Like most everyone here my surrounds and surround backs were way above the ear level before getting into Atmos. They haven lowered to little over ear height for Atmos compatibility.
> With THXs view of using TF(FH)+TM rather than TF+TR, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to do that FH+TM and also put back the rear surrounds where they were before (closer to the ceiling). That can give an illusion of 6 heights instead of 4.
> Just wondering..


Personally I'd stick with Dolby recommendations, which are that the listener level speakers should be at ear level (or as close as is practical). 

If your rear surrounds are mounted very high, then sound will definitely come from above - but it is sound which is meant to come from around, not above. Not only could it possibly not tie in with on-screen action (eg a car door slamming behind you would be expected to come from listener level, not the ceiling) but also I personally dislike the idea of a sound that is panning from front to back also panning upwards at the same time - eg, a car driving from front to rear should not suddenly end up way above your head by the time it reaches the back speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Yeah. You can't move the ceiling. Other option is dig the floor...
> In our basements where the HT is typically located , the height is about 92" (barring some millionaire houses)


HT is all compromises of one sort or another. Ceiling height is something we can't really change, so we have to live with it. Better IMO to have Atmos slightly compromised than no Atmos at all. Although my ceiling is 99 inches high, which is exactly 2 times the ear height, as Dolby recommend, the actual on-ceiling speakers hang down by several inches, so theoretically I’d need a ceiling height of about 106-109 inches to achieve the 'twice the ear height' guideline. But they are just guidelines and we have to do the best we can. I comfort myself with the Dolby remark that "it's hard to make Atmos *not* work".


----------



## pottscb

NorthSky said:


> Two times 33" is 66". And 66" is @ least two times the height of your ears, so 33" above your ears. But 5.5 feet is very low for a ceiling; most people wouldn't tolerate. In your own room you have 48" (4 feet) above your ears...48" plus 33" equals 81" ...which is the height of your ceiling; 6 feet and 9 inches. ...But because you said _"48 inches above your head"_, then your ceiling is 7 feet and 3 inches high (87"); by adding 6 inches above your ears to the top of your head.
> 
> All good to go.


Plus, any receiver with a decent auto-setup would delay these channels so that the sounds arrive at your head/mic level at the correct time vs. the other channels, right? I think too much is made of the height of surround speakers anyway...there are too many different kinds of speakers (mono, di-, bi-polar) to say one way is right.


----------



## petetherock

As much as there are guidelines on the placement, distance in the ceiling, do play with what you have, direct them here and there until you get a nice sound. We all live with a compromise, so enjoy what you have in the place you own


----------



## robert816

CinemaAndy said:


> "the audience is now deaf" one of my favorite THX sayings. The last two THX certificated theaters around me, are now AMC Prime Dolby Cinema


I thought the quote "The Audience is now Deaf" was from the THUD theatre audio promo in the Tiny Toons Movie?


----------



## Stanton

sdurani said:


> Where are your 2 height speakers located in relation to the listening area? Which direction are those speakers pointing?


Just noticed this question...sure has been a lot of posts since yesterday!
My "top middle" speakers are mounted as high as possible (next to ceiling) on the side wall(s) right above MLP (within Dolby's angle specs) angled downward towards MLP. Obviously, without an Atmos AVR I haven't been able to try them out yet, but everything (5.1.2) is wired and ready for a new AVR purchase this Fall; I currently run a 5.1 system.


----------



## kbarnes701

*DSU possibility.
*
I just bought a secondhand copy of the fairly good James Mangold thriller *Identity*. Recalling that the entire movie takes place in pouring rain and an ongoing thunderstorm, I rather expect that this movie will be an excellent demo of the capabilities of DSU. The added level of immersion and envelopment should really add something to this movie. 

Good director and good cast (John Cusack, Rebecca de Mornay, Ray Liotta, Alfred Molina) and an interesting concept. Be advised not to read too much about this movie if you haven't seen it before as it will spoil the plot twist.

Here is what bluray.com say about the sound:

_Identity makes itself known on Blu-ray via a wonderful PCM 5.1 uncompressed soundtrack. The film is *heavy on atmospherics*; a *steady rain marks almost the entirety of the movie*, and whether characters are standing out in the downpour or are somewhere inside the hotel, *the sense of being in the midst of a shower is never lost on the listener*. The track also reproduces* varying sensations in relation to the rain*; *whether it's bouncing off clothing, falling into a puddle, rolling off the roof, or streaming out of the gutter in waves, each different tone is easily identifiable* through the track alone. *Booms of thunder* are occasionally heard in the background in support, again in varying stages of severity depending on location in relation to the outdoors. The rear channels are fully utilized throughout both to recreate the *enveloping rain* but also in support of other atmospherics or via the delivery of various discrete effects. Subtle bass also accompanies each clap of thunder, but it's also present in several other spots throughout as well. Heavy pounding on a door creates a tense, disturbing sensation in one scene, and an explosion in the film's third act packs a solid punch. Dialogue reproduction is strong throughout. This is an excellent and highly effective soundtrack that heightens the mood of the film considerably. _

(My bolding - sounds good huh?). I shall watch it tonight and report back.


----------



## dvdwilly3

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks for your detailed review, Frank.
> 
> I have the 3-disk edition but haven't gotten around to watching it yet. Like you, I got it from Amazon Japan ($37.04 + $9.08 shipping) and had it in my hands in Atlanta, GA, within a scant 48 hours of having placed my order!


I am looking to order the 2D Atmos version myself.
Everything goes okay until I try to put my address in. I cannot seem to find the right place to enter a U.S. Address...just Japan.
Any advice?


----------



## tjenkins95

I own a copy of "Identity" - I will also check that movie out this week with DSU.


----------



## sdurani

Stanton said:


> My "top middle" speakers are mounted as high as possible (next to ceiling) on the side wall(s) right above MLP (within Dolby's angle specs) angled downward towards MLP.


In that case, you should get excellent overhead imaging (when the soundtrack calls for it) since the soundstage for that pair of speakers is right above you. Only suggestion I would make is pointing each speaker to the person at the opposite end of the couch, to keep the nearby speaker from dominating.


----------



## Frank714

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am looking to order the 2D Atmos version myself.
> Everything goes okay until I try to put my address in. I cannot seem to find the right place to enter a U.S. Address...just Japan.
> Any advice?


Ordering from Amazon Japan (according to my experience):

Click on the English language option button
Set up a new account (mine first looked as if I could use my international account, which works for Germany, UK and the US - and now Spain )
In the address section there should an option "international" that will allow you to enter a corresponding, non-Japanese delivery address.
I was surprised about the speed of delivery. Shipments from the US or UK usually take longer to get here.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> *DSU possibility.
> *
> I just bought a secondhand copy of the fairly good James Mangold thriller *Identity*. Recalling that the entire movie takes place in pouring rain and an ongoing thunderstorm, I rather expect that this movie will be an excellent demo of the capabilities of DSU. The added level of immersion and envelopment should really add something to this movie.


Great suggestion, Keith! _Identity_ is a fabulous entry in the mystery/suspense genre and has one of the most unexpected plot twists I can remember. Please do report your impressions after watching it in DSU mode.

Another great (and IMHO even better) suspense movie starring John Cusack is _1408_--which likewise features tremendous atmospheric effects. (Come to think of it, I actually own a copy of the latter; I'll have to make a note to rewatch it in DSU mode.)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

CinemaAndy said:


> That is what Dolby has said. I know ceilings above 12 feet is really pushing it, sounds like it is coming from the ceiling in a non immersive way. Seems to me like the Audyssey that everyone likes to talk about on here, or similar software, could offset that or maybe manually lowering the volume levels to the overheads. Probably takes some experimenting, but can probably have a good outcome.





NorthSky said:


> Two times 33" is 66". And 66" is @ least two times the height of your ears, so 33" above your ears. But 5.5 feet is very low for a ceiling; most people wouldn't tolerate. In your own room you have 48" (4 feet) above your ears...48" plus 33" equals 81" ...which is the height of your ceiling; 6 feet and 9 inches. ...But because you said _"48 inches above your head"_, then your ceiling is 7 feet and 3 inches high (87"); by adding 6 inches above your ears to the top of your head.
> 
> All good to go.


Ty guys. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - so you would need a ceiling height of 33+66=99 or 8 feet 3 inches, which, coincidentally, is the height of most modern ceilings (at least it is in Europe).
> 
> But as you can't move the ceiling (presumably) and as you don't want to sit in the floor, it is what it is. You might not get the very best possible Atmos experience but it will still be better than no Atmos at all. As Sanjay is wont to say - don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


In your opinion do you think I'd be better off with the angled speakers like Andy was recommending, or still go with downward firing? Or perhaps both? I'm thinking angled speakers for the front heights & downward firing for overheads possibly. 



kbarnes701 said:


> It is important IMO that all speakers have a clear line of sight to all listeners (if possible for all seats and definitely for the MLP). This can mean raising rear surrounds quite high if there is an elevated second row of seating (as in the THX case) and the problem then becomes that the rear surrounds end up rather too close to the rear overhead pair, if they are mounted in a RH position, to give good separation, thus resulting in it being hard to tell whether the rear surround or the rear height speakers are playing. This is what THX commented on and which brought them to the conclusion that if 4 overheads were being used, the best locations were a pair in the front and a pair directly above, with a pair behind the MLP being the least favored.


One other question... if in ceiling are directly overhead... what should positioning be like? Still in line with the front L/R speakers or move them in a bit? If the speakers intended for top rear = top mid, then should top fronts be pushed further away from the MLP? All the sudden the ceiling speakers would start getting much closer together which might not be best. 

What I'm thinking about doing is mounting the top mid heights just slightly behind my head, perhaps just a foot (srry I don't know metric equivalent). I do agree with the THX guys about the idea of direct overhead placement, because in both my setup & bro in law's setup I still don't feel like I always hear sound coming from directly overhead... high up... but not up & over.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> So if my ear level is 33" off the ground when I'm watching a movie, then the in ceiling speakers would have to be 66" above my head in order to be within the "optimal" distance for overhead? If so that's a drag... because my clearance right now is 48" above my head.


No, in this case, the ceiling speakers should be no less than 66" above the floor (not your head).

Here's the operable quote from Dolby's Atmos HT installation guidelines: "For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least *two times the height of the listener’s ear level*." (The bolding is mine.) IOW, if your ears are 33" off the ground, then the overhead speakers should be at least 66" off the ground.

Note that Dolby provides this calculation specifically for on-ceiling speakers. I think they presume that any in-ceiling speakers would provide more than the minimum recommended planar separation from the listener-level speakers.



kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - so you would need a ceiling height of 33+66=99 or 8 feet 3 inches, which, coincidentally, is the height of most modern ceilings (at least it is in Europe).
> 
> But as you can't move the ceiling (presumably) and as you don't want to sit in the floor, it is what it is. You might not get the very best possible Atmos experience but it will still be better than no Atmos at all. As Sanjay is wont to say - don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


I don't know why you are making this calculation, Keith. As noted above, the formula is not 33 x 3 but rather 33 x 2. Even using Dolby's presumed typical listener ear height of 3'9" (1.2 meters), you're left with a recommended minimum ceiling speaker height of 7.5'.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Great suggestion, Keith! _Identity_ is a fabulous entry in the mystery/suspense genre and has one of the most unexpected plot twists I can remember. Please do report your impressions after watching it in DSU mode.
> 
> Another great (and IMHO even better) suspense movie starring John Cusack is _1408_--which likewise features tremendous atmospheric effects. (Come to think of it, I actually own a copy of the latter; I'll have to make a note to rewatch it in DSU mode.)


Ah yes - I have *1408* as well. Ages since I saw it. Must revisit. Thanks.


----------



## lujan

For those of you who haven't seen or rented "American Sniper". I didn't care much for the movie but the Redbox rental comes with Dolby Atmos in case anyone is interested. The sound was really good.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Here's the operable quote from Dolby's Atmos HT installation guidelines: "For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least *two times the height of the listener’s ear level*." (The bolding is mine.) IOW, if your ears are 33" off the ground, then the overhead speakers should be at least 66" off the ground.
> 
> I don't know why you are making this calculation, Keith. As noted above, the formula is not 33 x 3 but rather 33 x 2. Even using Dolby's presumed typical listener ear height of 3'9" (1.2 meters), you're left with a recommended minimum ceiling speaker height of 7.5'.


Ah... I thought, mistakenly it seems, that the recommendation was that the overheads should be two times the ear height from floor _from the ears_. IOW, I thought that the wording was "at least two times the height of ear level _from_ the listener's ear level". That is good news then for most people as they will more easily manage to remain in spec. In my own room, with an ears from floor distance of 36 inches, then all I need is a ceiling height of 6 feet. As my ceiling height is slightly over 8 feet, I am well within spec, even allowing for the distance of the speaker drivers from the actual ceiling. Good news!


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> In your opinion do you think I'd be better off with the angled speakers like Andy was recommending, or still go with downward firing? Or perhaps both? I'm thinking angled speakers for the front heights & downward firing for overheads possibly.


I would follow Dolby's guidelines. If the speakers have very wide dispersion, point them down. If the dispersion is less, angle them. It's easy to experiment if the speakers are on-ceiling designs, but hard of course if they are in-ceiling designs. 




Aras_Volodka said:


> One other question... if in ceiling are directly overhead... what should positioning be like? Still in line with the front L/R speakers or move them in a bit? If the speakers intended for top rear = top mid, then should top fronts be pushed further away from the MLP? All the sudden the ceiling speakers would start getting much closer together which might not be best.


Again I have just followed Dolby, who say that the overheads should be in line with the mains. I doubt it is all that critical and there might be circumstances where it would be better to move them in or out somewhat (eg if an architectural feature was in the way).



Aras_Volodka said:


> What I'm thinking about doing is mounting the top mid heights just slightly behind my head, perhaps just a foot (srry I don't know metric equivalent). I do agree with the THX guys about the idea of direct overhead placement, because in both my setup & bro in law's setup I still don't feel like I always hear sound coming from directly overhead... high up... but not up & over.


FWIW i found that the best result from TM was when the speakers were slightly in front of MLP - at about 80°. Again, it is easy to overthink this.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Again, it is easy to overthink this.


Haha, I promise not to break out the protractor. Thanks for answering my questions, I know I'm overthinking it... trying to cover all bases before I place my order for speakers. Probably this weekend


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> For those of you who haven't seen or rented "American Sniper". I didn't care much for the movie but the Redbox rental comes with Dolby Atmos in case anyone is interested. The sound was really good.


I have _American Sniper_ due in today from Netflix (it will be my very first native Dolby Atmos feature film a full nine months after installing my Atmos 7.1.4 system) so I will be able to judge for myself (and my expectations are not very high), but I would nonetheless be interested in hearing your evaluation. Could you expound on why it is that you didn't care much for the movie? What was your impression of the movie and, separately, of the Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> So if my ear level is 33" off the ground when I'm watching a movie, then the in ceiling speakers would have to be 66" above my head in order to be within the "optimal" distance for overhead? If so that's a drag... because my clearance right now is 48" above my head.





CinemaAndy said:


> That is what Dolby has said. I know ceilings above 12 feet is really pushing it, sounds like it is coming from the ceiling in a non immersive way. Seems to me like the Audyssey that everyone likes to talk about on here, or similar software, could offset that or maybe manually lowering the volume levels to the overheads. Probably takes some experimenting, but can probably have a good outcome.





kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - so you would need a ceiling height of 33+66=99 or 8 feet 3 inches, which, coincidentally, is the height of most modern ceilings (at least it is in Europe).
> 
> But as you can't move the ceiling (presumably) and as you don't want to sit in the floor, it is what it is. You might not get the very best possible Atmos experience but it will still be better than no Atmos at all. As Sanjay is wont to say - don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


Wait - Dolby is saying DOUBLE ear height. Not TRIPLE.

OK - I see chi_guy has also cought you math geniuses already


----------



## Jack.K

NorthSky said:


> Ok, here are some links; the first two from Dolby, and the last one from Wiki:
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf --> April 2015: *118 objects* can be [email protected] the theater.
> 
> ♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html --> Older: *128 objects* (same as above; @ the theater).
> 
> ♣ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos --> Last paragraph: *Differences from commercial installations* ... *128 objects* @ the theater.
> {@ home it is different; not objects.}
> 
> ________
> 
> * In our AV receivers and pre/pros (regular stuff, not ultra hi-end), the maximum number of speakers supported by the manufacturers is *12* (7.1.4 or 9.1.2).
> They simply don't have the processing power for multiple objects as in the theaters. I looked for precise information, and couldn't find anything that is directly related to the number of objects that are supported @ home from our normal AV receivers. We know that twelve speakers (including the LFE channel) is the maximum, and Dolby Atmos can support up to 24 floor speakers plus 10 overhead speakers (34 speakers total: 24.1.10) that can be supported by the ultra hi-end pre/pros (expensive), but for most average folks with an AV receiver or a Marantz pre/pro we are restricted to twelve (12) channels. ...And as for objects @ home from them AV receivers, I just don't know because I couldn't find the exact information. But wikipedia in that last paragraph is specific as objects are concerned @ home...but no numbers given.
> ...No 7.1 + 12 objects (total = 20) ... no 7.1 + 20 objects (total = 28) ... no 7.1 + 4 objects (total = 12) ...nothing...no 24 either.
> 
> The Dolby Atmos decoders in our AV receivers are restricted by the number of channels supported, by the processing power in the DSP chips, and by the number of channels supported by HDMI 2.0a version, coming up soon.
> 
> And what is supported and what happens in real life are two totally different distinctions.
> And if we bring all the gear from the best Dolby Atmos theater in the world into our rooms, it would be crazy, with about 48 floor speakers, 20 subwoofers and 16 overhead Atmos speakers...unless our home theaters are on the rather quite larger size.
> And vice versa; if we would bring our Yamaha Dolby Atmos AV receiver in a Dolby Atmos theater in Hollywood, it wouldn't have what it takes to fill the place.
> 
> So, compromises have to be made somewhere @ home. ...But some folks (very rare) use two Dolby Atmos AV receivers to add more speakers, or get a Trinnov Altitude pre/pro or a Datasat one or a Steinway Lyngdorf one with more speakers, more amplifiers, more processing power, more more of everyting including more space in the dedicated home theater room...and more money is needed to get there too...much more. ...How many objects wit Trinnov Altitude? ...I just don't know myself, and I'm not even sure that you can call them objects. ...Literature from audio manufacturers are not always totally accurate.
> 
> But! Professional sound mixers for the home should know; the ones mixing in Dolby Atmos for the home market, on Blu-ray discs.
> ...Guys from Lionsgate studios for example, or from Paramount studios, Universal studios, ...with a Dolby Atmos mixing console for the Blu-ray home market (decoded by our home AV receivers; Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer, Marantz, Integra).
> 
> So, is it 12 objects or 20 objects that we get from a Denon AVR-X5200W AV receiver for example?
> Brian said 12 "objects" @ home (decoder default). ...Others said more, ...20 objects.
> 
> I'll keep asking around and searching...but so far Brian is one of my best sources. ...From Scott's interview.
> He said 128 objects (@ the theater), and he's right from several sources, including Dolby Atmos and Wikipedia, but the April 2015 Dolby Atmos white paper (pdf - first link above) says 118 objects, and supported by filmmixer.
> 
> ♠ I wish _Roger Dressler_ would post back and provide us with the right answers. ...He must know some' more that we don't.
> ...And not just Roger, but others too (I won't name). ...And not necessarily Dolby Atmos related.
> 
> Anyhow, @ home 24 is not the number that I think is right, Jack.


Thanks a bunch, that brings me up to date on everything I can think of.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> No, in this case, the ceiling speakers should be no less than 66" above the floor (not your head).
> 
> Here's the operable quote from Dolby's Atmos HT installation guidelines: "For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least *two times the height of the listener’s ear level*." (The bolding is mine.) IOW, if your ears are 33" off the ground, then the overhead speakers should be at least 66" off the ground.
> 
> Note that Dolby provides this calculation specifically for on-ceiling speakers. I think they presume that any in-ceiling speakers would provide more than the minimum recommended planar separation from the listener-level speakers.
> 
> I don't know why you are making this calculation, Keith. As noted above, the formula is not 33 x 3 but rather 33 x 2. Even using Dolby's presumed typical listener ear height of 3'9" (1.2 meters), you're left with a recommended minimum ceiling speaker height of 7.5'.





batpig said:


> Wait - Dolby is saying DOUBLE ear height. Not TRIPLE.
> 
> OK - I see chi_guy has also cought you math geniuses already


TY for the clarification, the phrasing was confusing to me (I was thinking they meant that as a starting point from the ear up).


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> That isn’t in any way at odds with Dolby's own recommendations. Permitted angles for TM speakers are 65° to 100°, so 90° is good, and is also directly overhead.


Also, in the spirit of "don't overthink it", I really don't think the THX guys were strictly recommended an explict, DIRECTLY overhead (i.e. 90 degrees) position. As Keith did, I took the comments in context to be referring more generally about deploying those four speakers "above and in front" instead of "behind and in front".

So I wouldn't split hairs and go for EXACTLY overhead (90 degrees) because THX said 85 degrees or 100 degrees will kill babies and give you acid reflux. It's really much more common sense -- as Sanjay said, if you really want it to sound like sounds are coming from above you, you want speakers above you.

Remember also the context / intentions -- THX's goal for HT is to translate/reproduce the cinema mix as faithfully as possible in the home. That's why they like dipole surrounds for mimicking theater arrays, and probably why they felt speakers pointing straight down sounded better (because it probably created that diffuse sensation of "stuff up there" that you get in a big commercial theater). Any given home users doesn't have to have the same goals so doesn't need to take it as strict doctrine.


----------



## Scott Simonian

S**t. I'm going with 90 degrees to avoid that nasty acid reflux!


----------



## lujan

chi_guy50 said:


> I have _American Sniper_ due in today from Netflix (it will be my very first native Dolby Atmos feature film a full nine months after installing my Atmos 7.1.4 system) so I will be able to judge for myself (and my expectations are not very high), but I would nonetheless be interested in hearing your evaluation. Could you expound on why it is that you didn't care much for the movie? What was your impression of the movie and, separately, of the Atmos soundtrack?


I don't get into the "War" type movies so that's they reason I didn't like it. The sound of gunfire was pretty evident throughout the movie and there was a scene toward the end that you'll enjoy as it seemed to use a lot of the height speakers. I don't want to expand further to prevent any spoilers.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> S**t. I'm going with 90 degrees to avoid that nasty acid reflux!


I know you like your pizza and nachos


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> No, in this case, the ceiling speakers should be no less than 66" above the floor (not your head).
> 
> Here's the operable quote from Dolby's Atmos HT installation guidelines: "For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least *two times the height of the listener’s ear level*." (The bolding is mine.) IOW, if your ears are 33" off the ground, then the overhead speakers should be at least 66" off the ground.
> 
> Note that Dolby provides this calculation specifically for on-ceiling speakers. I think they presume that any in-ceiling speakers would provide more than the minimum recommended planar separation from the listener-level speakers.
> 
> - I don't know why you are making this calculation, Keith. As noted above, the formula is not 33 x 3 but rather 33 x 2. Even using Dolby's presumed typical listener ear height of 3'9" (1.2 meters), you're left with a recommended minimum ceiling speaker height of 7.5'.


You got it.

* 1.2 meters (3.94 feet) equals 47.25 inches => Ear level for a normal seated person (according to Dolby Atmos guidelines - ITU).
@ least two times the ear level of 47.25" is 94.5 inches. ...That's the ceiling height (almost 8 feet - just 1.5 inch short).
{Three times that is almost 12 feet high - 3 inches short ... so that's not it.}

The recommended ceiling height is between 7 (min) and 14 feet (max).
The average listener's ear height is between 30 and 42 inches. * Mine is 30-33 inches, depending on how I sit on my couch.
If my ceiling's height was say 6.5 feet high (78 inches), I would be good to go. * My actual ceiling's height is 11 feet, @ the highest spot.

THX and non-THX guys they experiment with overhead speakers; that's how we find what sounds best in our own rooms.
--> Regarding TM, TF (or FH) and TR. ...The magical recipe is in our own hands (heads): EXPERIMENTATION. 
Them THX guys they simply gave us another option that they found works best for them, in their own room. ...I tend to respect their findings.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally I'd stick with Dolby recommendations, which are that the listener level speakers should be at ear level (or as close as is practical).
> 
> If your rear surrounds are mounted very high, then sound will definitely come from above - but it is sound which is meant to come from around, not above. Not only could it possibly not tie in with on-screen action (eg a car door slamming behind you would be expected to come from listener level, not the ceiling) but also I personally dislike the idea of a sound that is panning from front to back also panning upwards at the same time - eg, a car driving from front to rear should not suddenly end up way above your head by the time it reaches the back speakers.


The Atmos "Amaze" trailer is a good test for this. When the bird flutters in a circle around the room, elevated Back Surround speakers will make it sound like the bird starts at ear level on the left, ascends above you in the back, and then swoops back down to ear level on the right. It's distracting.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> *DSU possibility.*
> I just bought a secondhand copy of the fairly good James Mangold thriller *Identity*.



Thanks Keith! Just ordered it but won't be able to check it out until next week.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Thanks Keith! Just ordered it but won't be able to check it out until next week.


It’s a good movie as well as having great DSU potential. I'll report tomorrow - I am making it the Wednesday Night Movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I have _American Sniper_ due in today from Netflix (it will be my very first native Dolby Atmos feature film a full nine months after installing my Atmos 7.1.4 system) so I will be able to judge for myself (and my expectations are not very high), but I would nonetheless be interested in hearing your evaluation. Could you expound on why it is that you didn't care much for the movie? What was your impression of the movie and, separately, of the Atmos soundtrack?


I enjoyed the movie. A bit more thoughtful than the usual genre fare. As an Atmos demo, it's not all that great. *John Wick*, *Lucy* and *Transcendence* are the three I remember as being the best. And *I, Frankenstein*, but there's as much chance of you liking that as there is of me liking* Bowling Balls*.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Frank714 said:


> Ordering from Amazon Japan (according to my experience):
> 
> Click on the English language option button
> Set up a new account (mine first looked as if I could use my international account, which works for Germany, UK and the US - and now Spain )
> In the address section there should an option "international" that will allow you to enter a corresponding, non-Japanese delivery address.
> I was surprised about the speed of delivery. Shipments from the US or UK usually take longer to get here.


Frank, I missed the "Add international address". I got it ordered and looking forward to it. Thanks a bunch.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Wait - Dolby is saying DOUBLE ear height. Not TRIPLE.
> 
> OK - I see chi_guy has also cought you math geniuses already


LOL. It's the misremembered wording that was the problem, not the math  AAMOI, the Dolby minimum recommendation seems to result in too low a ceiling height to me - for the best effect. If most people sit with an ear height of about 36 inches, that means they are saying a ceiling height of 6 feet is OK. That seems way too low to me. Whereas my math-genius method would give a ceiling height of 9 feet. Perfect!


----------



## blastermaster

> The THX guys were saying that the most important speakers (for Atmos) are those right above your head (ie Top Middle) and that all speakers should point downwards for the best effect. They went on to say that 4 overheads beats 2 overheads, and the other pair should be forward of the listening position, not behind it.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
> I'm trying to recall... is there a setting in our Denon AVR's that lets you select top middle & top forward? If not, it seems like placing the speakers directly overhead might distort the mixer's intent.
> Once cannot choose TF and TM at the same time. But the overlap of recommended angles for FH and TF is so great that a pair can be designated as FH and still be in a 'top front' position (my own are this way). So one can have a forward pair and a pair directly overhead by using FH+TM configuration (as I do). The recommended angles for TM do include directly overhead - 60° to 100° IIRC. 90° would be directly above.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
> But I could see how rear surrounds could interfere with rear hights... though in my location I don't have a typical raised rear seating position... though I have considered raising my rear surrounds because when I sit on my couch some of that sound gets masked off (if I sink into the couch haha).
> It is important IMO that all speakers have a clear line of sight to all listeners (if possible for all seats and definitely for the MLP). This can mean raising rear surrounds quite high if there is an elevated second row of seating (as in the THX case) and the problem then becomes that the rear surrounds end up rather too close to the rear overhead pair, if they are mounted in a RH position, to give good separation, thus resulting in it being hard to tell whether the rear surround or the rear height speakers are playing. This is what THX commented on and which brought them to the conclusion that if 4 overheads were being used, the best locations were a pair in the front and a pair directly above, with a pair behind the MLP being the least favored.


So despite Dolby recommending a pair of ceiling speakers in front and behind, it seems like the best is to have a pair right above (presumably spaced apart to the right and left) and a pair in front? I'm just trying to decide where I should cut drywall to install my in wall speakers because once that's done there's no turning back. As it is, my ceiling speakers are spaced a little closer than I would like, but if I move my couch back, then the rears would be just slightly behind me and my fronts would be the perfect distance in front of me. Argghhh not sure what to do!


----------



## noah katz

Josh Z said:


> My concern is that, with my Surround speakers now a bit forward of my seating, sound effects steered specifically toward those channels will now sound like they're coming from in front of me rather than to the sides or behind. Upmixing will spread sounds to other speakers, but effects that are hard-steered to one specific channel will still go to that speaker.


My (possibly flawed) understanding is that a hard surround signal in 5.1 soundtrack will be sent to the back surround by DPL IIx, and presumably DSU.

In any case, you could determine what DSU does with a 5.1 test disc.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

blastermaster said:


> So despite Dolby recommending a pair of ceiling speakers in front and behind, it seems like the best is to have a pair right above (presumably spaced apart to the right and left) and a pair in front? I'm just trying to decide where I should cut drywall to install my in wall speakers because once that's done there's no turning back. As it is, my ceiling speakers are spaced a little closer than I would like, but if I move my couch back, then the rears would be just slightly behind me and my fronts would be the perfect distance in front of me. Argghhh not sure what to do!


Keep in mind some of these ideas are for those with raised rear seats who have raised rear surrounds... I'd suspect that moving the couch back might be good enough. Do you have a 7.1.4 system?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

blastermaster said:


> So despite Dolby recommending a pair of ceiling speakers in front and behind, it seems like the best is to have a pair right above (presumably spaced apart to the right and left) and a pair in front? I'm just trying to decide where I should cut drywall to install my in wall speakers because once that's done there's no turning back. As it is, my ceiling speakers are spaced a little closer than I would like, but if I move my couch back, then the rears would be just slightly behind me and my fronts would be the perfect distance in front of me. Argghhh not sure what to do!


Also... how high is your ceiling?


----------



## cdelena

chi_guy50 said:


> I have _American Sniper_ due in today from Netflix (it will be my very first native Dolby Atmos feature film a full nine months after installing my Atmos 7.1.4 system) so I will be able to judge for myself (and my expectations are not very high), but I would nonetheless be interested in hearing your evaluation. Could you expound on why it is that you didn't care much for the movie? What was your impression of the movie and, separately, of the Atmos soundtrack?


We watched it from Redbox last night. It is a biography of a warrior and is a little tough to watch as war is not pleasant. 


I am glad we watched it but once is enough. I recommend it to those wanting to understand what soldiers went through in Iraq.


Sound track was fine but it is a war movie so you know what to expect.


----------



## lujan

blastermaster said:


> So despite Dolby recommending a pair of ceiling speakers in front and behind, it seems like the best is to have a pair right above (presumably spaced apart to the right and left) and a pair in front? I'm just trying to decide where I should cut drywall to install my in wall speakers because once that's done there's no turning back. As it is, my ceiling speakers are spaced a little closer than I would like, but if I move my couch back, then the rears would be just slightly behind me and my fronts would be the perfect distance in front of me. Argghhh not sure what to do!


I did my heights front and back because I remember reading somewhere about if a couple are placed right above you, it may be too overwhelming in some instances. I know some are now recommending right above you but not sure I agree with that.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Straight from the mouth of Dolby Labs...

"We’d love to be able to send discs to everyone, but unfortunately our agreements with the content providers who give us clips prevents us from distributing these to consumers. Selling them would be even more problematic…

Another option for content are Dolby Atmos trailers which are now available on VUDU. You can easily access them if you’ve got a Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device connected to your AVR. Most Blu-ray players with the VUDU app will work in addition to Roku devices and the new VUDU Spark stick. 

Follow these instructions and let me know how it goes! We will soon be posting these instructions on our blog for wider public distribution.

Step One: Visit VUDU on your Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device (VUDU Spark, most connected Blu-ray players, Roku’s, PlayStation 4) and ensure it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos-enabled AVR set for bitstream pass through or surround sound (setting language may vary by device). 

Step Two: Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle and download for free by selecting purchase for $0. In this bundle you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.

Step Three: Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should light up Dolby Atmos.

Keep an eye on Blu-ray releases here:  http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html"

So, in theory at least, everyone should be able to get to full-blown Atmos demos through through VUDU...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lujan said:


> I did my heights front and back because I remember reading somewhere about if a couple are placed right above you, it may be too overwhelming in some instances. I know some are now recommending right above you but not sure I agree with that.


I'm wondering if that might have been from the first impressions of dolby for home demonstrations... or from the HTG interviews with either the desinger for Pioneer speakers or Dolby reps? I've seen other industry experts like Grimani & now THX recommending alterations to Atmos speaker placement. 

I have theories as to why there are differences in opinion... ranging from perhaps the lack of content for testing @ Atmos HT's debut or perhaps the acoustical qualities of spaces utilized for testing... or maybe just improper setup for those initial demonstrations? It's a complex system with complex variables & toss in people's tastes. I'm sure recommendations will change over time as well.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> Straight from the mouth of Dolby Labs...
> 
> "We’d love to be able to send discs to everyone, but unfortunately our agreements with the content providers who give us clips prevents us from distributing these to consumers. Selling them would be even more problematic…
> 
> Another option for content are Dolby Atmos trailers which are now available on VUDU. You can easily access them if you’ve got a Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device connected to your AVR. Most Blu-ray players with the VUDU app will work in addition to Roku devices and the new VUDU Spark stick.
> 
> Follow these instructions and let me know how it goes! We will soon be posting these instructions on our blog for wider public distribution.
> 
> Step One: Visit VUDU on your Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device (VUDU Spark, most connected Blu-ray players, Roku’s, PlayStation 4) and ensure it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos-enabled AVR set for bitstream pass through or surround sound (setting language may vary by device).
> 
> Step Two: Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle and download for free by selecting purchase for $0. In this bundle you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Step Three: Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should light up Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Keep an eye on Blu-ray releases here:  http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html"
> 
> So, in theory at least, everyone should be able to get to full-blown Atmos demos through through VUDU...


For all, I can verify that this process does work...at least for my setup. I used my Sony BDP-S7200 to connect to VUDU, and followed the instructions. On my TX-NR1030, it worked like a champ!

You will get 5 of the trailers--Silent Movie; The Conductor; Amaze; Leaf; and Unfold. You buy them for $0.00.

On my setup, each of them initially started playing in Dolby Digital+ and about 2 seconds in, locked onto Dolby Atmos. And, it is the real deal.

Fair warning--before you play the Amaze trailer, turn the volume down on your system if you value your subwoofer.

Have fun!!


----------



## lujan

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm wondering if that might have been from the first impressions of dolby for home demonstrations... or from the HTG interviews with either the desinger for Pioneer speakers or Dolby reps? I've seen other industry experts like Grimani & now THX recommending alterations to Atmos speaker placement.
> 
> I have theories as to why there are differences in opinion... ranging from perhaps the lack of content for testing @ Atmos HT's debut or perhaps the acoustical qualities of spaces utilized for testing... or maybe just improper setup for those initial demonstrations? It's a complex system with complex variables & toss in people's tastes. I'm sure recommendations will change over time as well.


I agree with you that there are a lot of variables so all I can do is rely on Audyssey for the audio calibration based on my speaker placements and so far I think it's done a great job.


----------



## blastermaster

> Keep in mind some of these ideas are for those with raised rear seats who have raised rear surrounds... I'd suspect that moving the couch back might be good enough. Do you have a 7.1.4 system?


I plan on only having one row of seating. If there are extra people, then the stragglers will get the Fat Boy bean bags and sit on the ground in front of us haha! And I have a 7.1.4 system without a receiver. I'm still debating like crazy which one to get. I'm torn between the top Yamaha and Denon coming out late summer/fall. 



> Also... how high is your ceiling?


7.5 feet. 

As far as above head vs behind...has anyone tested this on Atmos material to see the difference? I will be keeping my sides and rears at ear level as it's me watching movies by myself most of the time, but the odd time that people come over I know that the people on either side of the MLP will block the side speakers to an extent. I think I'd rather have awesome sound most of the time and ok sound very rarely than just good sound most of the time and good sound rarely. Hope that makes sense...

My rears are limited and can only go back so far because of a bulkhead. I miscalculated my fronts and they can actually go a bit further forward, but if I move my seating back to make the rears just slightly back, then it's just about right. I'm wishing now I just bought on-wall speakers instead of in-walls - it would make changes much, much easier.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have theories as to why there are differences in opinion... ranging from perhaps the lack of content for testing @ Atmos HT's debut or perhaps the acoustical qualities of spaces utilized for testing... or maybe just improper setup for those initial demonstrations?


A series of test signals to verify speaker locations and imaging between speakers would be helpful. 

Grimani deviates from Dolby's recommendation to spread the heights as far apart as the L/R fronts, placing them instead closer together to emphasize overhead directionality (he does the same with the surround-back speakers, for the same reason). His approach has some merit, since the cinema version of Atmos lines up the height arrays with the LoC and RoC speakers in between the LCRs, not the L/R speakers. 

With THX, I think it has more to do with their real-world testing conditions: a second row of listeners on a riser forces the surround-back speakers to be elevated high enough to reduce the effectiveness of the top rear speakers. I doubt Dolby took that into account, since their install guide recommends surrounds at ear level. 

For folks with a single row of seating, the THX advice might not apply. If they can place the surround-back speakers close to ear level, then there might be enough separation from the top rears to result in a better behind you vs above you effect than THX was getting.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

blastermaster said:


> I plan on only having one row of seating. If there are extra people, then the stragglers will get the Fat Boy bean bags and sit on the ground in front of us haha! And I have a 7.1.4 system without a receiver. I'm still debating like crazy which one to get. I'm torn between the top Yamaha and Denon coming out late summer/fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 7.5 feet.
> 
> As far as above head vs behind...has anyone tested this on Atmos material to see the difference? I will be keeping my sides and rears at ear level as it's me watching movies by myself most of the time, but the odd time that people come over I know that the people on either side of the MLP will block the side speakers to an extent. I think I'd rather have awesome sound most of the time and ok sound very rarely than just good sound most of the time and good sound rarely. Hope that makes sense...
> 
> My rears are limited and can only go back so far because of a bulkhead. I miscalculated my fronts and they can actually go a bit further forward, but if I move my seating back to make the rears just slightly back, then it's just about right. I'm wishing now I just bought on-wall speakers instead of in-walls - it would make changes much, much easier.


I'll test above & behind when I get my overhead speakers... the only thing is that someone will have to hold the speaker up for me though (haha). Sorry if you have to make some new holes! Before I relocated my HT my front speakers were 8' away... now they are 12' away... it sounds much better to me, but the room is also a lot larger downstairs (- the height). I was asking about your ceiling height just to get a comparison for mine (6'11"). Are you diggin' your overhead sound so far?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> A series of test signals to verify speaker locations and imaging between speakers would be helpful.
> 
> Grimani deviates from Dolby's recommendation to spread the heights as far apart as the L/R fronts, placing them instead closer together to emphasize overhead directionality (he does the same with the surround-back speakers, for the same reason). His approach has some merit, since the cinema version of Atmos lines up the height arrays with the LoC and RoC speakers in between the LCRs, not the L/R speakers.
> 
> With THX, I think it has more to do with their real-world testing conditions: a second row of listeners on a riser forces the surround-back speakers to be elevated high enough to reduce the effectiveness of the top rear speakers. I doubt Dolby took that into account, since their install guide recommends surrounds at ear level.
> 
> For folks with a single row of seating, the THX advice might not apply. If they can place the surround-back speakers close to ear level, then there might be enough separation from the top rears to result in a better behind you vs above you effect than THX was getting.


@ my bro in law's place I was really impressed with the overhead panning he gets, his speakers are somewhat wide apart. The wooshing sounds in the "leaf" trailer & the start of "Amaze" really whirl around the room (he has the electromotion 8" on the front heights & the Def tech modules on the rears... I think everything was at least 12' apart). I'll have to experiment when I get my speakers here. Though I did take Grimani's advice for rear surrounds and felt it very helpful.


----------



## blastermaster

> I'll test above & behind when I get my overhead speakers... the only thing is that someone will have to hold the speaker up for me though (haha). Sorry if you have to make some new holes! Before I relocated my HT my front speakers were 8' away... now they are 12' away... it sounds much better to me, but the room is also a lot larger downstairs (- the height). I was asking about your ceiling height just to get a comparison for mine (6'11"). Are you diggin' your overhead sound so far?


Like I said, I don't have a proper receiver yet, so I haven't even tested the bloody thing lol. I'm itchin' to buy one as soon as the new 2015 models roll out. 

Piss, I don't want to cut drywall. I may just install my in-walls in their back boxes and do my testing that way before I put the damn things in the wall. Easy to make new holes in my t-bar ceiling - just means I need to get a new fiberglass panel and paint it/cut it. That's much easier than mudding drywall (hate it).


----------



## marlon1925

*7.1.4 or 9.1.2?*

should i go 7.1.4 or 9.1.2?

will this be a good choice for the ceiling speakers?

CCM663SR


----------



## David Susilo

7.1.4 hands down


----------



## aaranddeeman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Straight from the mouth of Dolby Labs...
> 
> "We’d love to be able to send discs to everyone, but unfortunately our agreements with the content providers who give us clips prevents us from distributing these to consumers. Selling them would be even more problematic…
> 
> Another option for content are Dolby Atmos trailers which are now available on VUDU. You can easily access them if you’ve got a Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device connected to your AVR. Most Blu-ray players with the VUDU app will work in addition to Roku devices and the new VUDU Spark stick.
> 
> Follow these instructions and let me know how it goes! We will soon be posting these instructions on our blog for wider public distribution.
> 
> Step One: Visit VUDU on your Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device (VUDU Spark, most connected Blu-ray players, Roku’s, PlayStation 4) and ensure it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos-enabled AVR set for bitstream pass through or surround sound (setting language may vary by device).
> 
> Step Two: Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle and download for free by selecting purchase for $0. In this bundle you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Step Three: Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should light up Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Keep an eye on Blu-ray releases here:  http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html"
> 
> So, in theory at least, everyone should be able to get to full-blown Atmos demos through through VUDU...


Yes. I got this same c%#p from them today. I don't buy it. To me it's sheer arrogance. The end user is the one who need the demo badly if you ask me.
If Dolby is not ready to hand the disks, how big is the deal for AVR manufacturers to just add one of these demo disks along with the Atmos capable AVR?
I tried Vudu, but for the known reason it does not stream Atmos on PS3 and for unknown reasons Roku and Denon does not go together. The video keeps shaking horizontally when you play and only way to stop it is to reboot the Roku and the cycle continues.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Yes. I got this same c%#p from them today. I don't buy it. To me it's sheer arrogance. The end user is the one who need the demo badly if you ask me.
> If Dolby is not ready to hand the disks, how big is the deal for AVR manufacturers to just add one of these demo disks along with the Atmos capable AVR?
> I tried Vudu, but for the known reason it does not stream Atmos on PS3 and for unknown reasons Roku and Denon does not go together. The video keeps shaking horizontally when you play and only way to stop it is to reboot the Roku and the cycle continues.


Same here. The clips we're looking for are mostly from Dolby _themselves_. They ought to make a few more excellent trailers and put those on along with the already created in-house product plus setup and calibration test check information for 5.1.2 to 24.1.10 systems... as well as a dramatic mono to stereo to 5.1/7.1 to Atmos demo clip! 

They need to get the word out!! This stance is not helping!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Would be nice if they or anyone with Atmos encoding authoring tools would make a disc with really nice demo material. The thunderstorm and helicopter demos I got to experience were very impressive.


----------



## frankpc3

Scott Simonian said:


> Would be nice if they or anyone with Atmos encoding authoring tools would make a disc with really nice demo material. The thunderstorm and helicopter demos I got to experience were very impressive.


Is Atmos encoding software expensive?

How were you able to hear the demos?


----------



## Scott Simonian

frankpc3 said:


> Is Atmos encoding software expensive?
> 
> How were you able to hear the demos?


I attended two private demos for home Atmos. One at the Dolby HQ in Burbank and another at CEDIA last September.

No idea how much the authoring hardware and software costs. Probably a lot!


----------



## robert816

There is a new listing on YesAsia for a Hong Kong release of Sammi Cheng Touch Mi World Tour Blu-Ray in Dolby Atmos. This is an All Region disc.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

frankpc3 said:


> Is Atmos encoding software expensive?
> 
> How were you able to hear the demos?


I asked Film mixer about that once because I was interested in trying out Atmos mixing (music)... I forget what it is but something about the process is prohibitively expensive... perhaps the authoring software?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> A series of test signals to verify speaker locations and imaging between speakers would be helpful.


That would be great. I've asked FilmMixer about a year ago if he could prepare a simple test file for us. At that time he didn't have the capabilities to do so. Maybe now?


----------



## marlon1925

marlon1925 said:


> should i go 7.1.4 or 9.1.2?
> 
> will this be a good choice for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> CCM663SR



anyone?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Yes. I got this same c%#p from them today. I don't buy it. To me it's sheer arrogance. The end user is the one who need the demo badly if you ask me.


You may have missed the essential point. Every piece of content is protected by Rights and Copyright. These always remain with the content creator but they can be assigned to others at the content creator's discretion. When these assignments are made, they come with conditions of use. So for example, if I am the Copyright owner of a movie, I can license Dolby to use clips from that movie on their own demo disc. But I can also apply these conditions: that the disc is distributed only to people who are bona-fide custom installers; that the general public cannot be given the disc in any circumstances; that the disc cannot be sold for profit and so on. I can attach any conditions I choose and Dolby have to accept them if they want to feature my content. With movies the situation is even more complicated because the copyright will rarely, if ever, be held by one person or organisation. There will be multiple rights ownership and, for example, the script and the score may be owned by two entirely different entities. 

So once Dolby use copyrighted or rights-managed material on their demo disc, they are bound by whatever conditions have been imposed on them. As Dolby said, they would love to give these discs freely to everyone, but they are not allowed to. Of course, their own content, for which they own the rights (their trailers) is a different matter entirely, and Dolby are indeed making this content freely available to everyone, as mentioned in their reply.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Same here. *The clips we're looking for are mostly from Dolby themselves*. They ought to make a few more excellent trailers and put those on along with the already created in-house product plus setup and calibration test check information for 5.1.2 to 24.1.10 systems... as well as a dramatic mono to stereo to 5.1/7.1 to Atmos demo clip!
> 
> They need to get the word out!! This stance is not helping!!


They *have* made these available. If you don't have Vudu, they are available for download from Demoworld. If Dolby have no objection, I would be happy to rip the trailers and post links to them here on the thread. Let me email my Dolby contact and ask if that would be permissible.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> They *have* made these available. If you don't have Vudu, they are available for download from Demoworld. If Dolby have no objection, I would be happy to rip the trailers and post links to them here on the thread. Let me email my Dolby contact and ask if that would be permissible.


Keith, if you do make that request, could you include the test tracks from the 2015 disk in your request? Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Keith, if you do make that request, could you include the test tracks from the 2015 disk in your request? Thanks.


Sure. I am not sure which test tracks you mean - I have the 2015 demo disc and it doesn't have any test tones on it. It has the trailers we are familiar with, the newest (Horizon) trailer and three sound-only demos where it switches between Atmos and 5.1. Plus some other content which is commercially protected so outside the scope of our discussion.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure. I am not sure which test tracks you mean - I have the 2015 demo disc and it doesn't have any test tones on it. It has the trailers we are familiar with, the newest (Horizon) trailer and three sound-only demos where it switches between Atmos and 5.1. Plus some other content which is commercially protected so outside the scope of our discussion.


Those 3 sound-only tracks are the ones that I had in mind... And, Horizon would be absolutely cool...

Thanks for the effort irrespective of how it goes.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Those 3 sound-only tracks are the ones that I had in mind... And, Horizon would be absolutely cool...
> 
> Thanks for the effort irrespective of how it goes.


No worries. I am emailing my guy right now.

Edit: email sent. Will inform the thread of the response.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> You may have missed the essential point. Every piece of content is protected by Rights and Copyright. These always remain with the content creator but they can be assigned to others at the content creator's discretion. When these assignments are made, they come with conditions of use. So for example, if I am the Copyright owner of a movie, I can license Dolby to use clips from that movie on their own demo disc. But I can also apply these conditions: that the disc is distributed only to people who are bona-fide custom installers; that the general public cannot be given the disc in any circumstances; that the disc cannot be sold for profit and so on. I can attach any conditions I choose and Dolby have to accept them if they want to feature my content. With movies the situation is even more complicated because the copyright will rarely, if ever, be held by one person or organisation. There will be multiple rights ownership and, for example, the script and the score may be owned by two entirely different entities.
> 
> So once Dolby use copyrighted or rights-managed material on their demo disc, they are bound by whatever conditions have been imposed on them. As Dolby said, they would love to give these discs freely to everyone, but they are not allowed to. Of course, their own content, for which they own the rights (their trailers) is a different matter entirely, and Dolby are indeed making this content freely available to everyone, as mentioned in their reply.


Agreed. 
But how few of the folks who are not in this category (of installers, integrators) are able to get it from Dolby, either by mail or when they visited the Demos or any such events.
Has Dolby taken any action on those ebay sellers who I am sure are not authorized to do so
Demo is a demo and is not entire content. That's why trailers are available for free viewing and not movies.
To me Dolby is just hiding behind that weak curtain to avoid giving away disk to consumers..


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> No worries. I am emailing my guy right now.
> 
> Edit: email sent. Will inform the thread of the response.


Thanks for doing this.

The problem I personally have is device related. I do have the 5 trailers downloaded, but my PS3 is a bottleneck. No matter where you copy them (DVD disk or USB) it for some reason does not stream Atmos. (No issue with Atmos movies on BR).
I will try and see if I copy it on to a BR if that works (Unfortunately I do not have BR burner, but I will check with my friends).


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Agreed.
> But how few of the folks who are not in this category (of installers, integrators) are able to get it from Dolby, either by mail or when they visited the Demos or any such events.
> Has Dolby taken any action on those ebay sellers who I am sure are not authorized to do so
> Demo is a demo and is not entire content. That's why trailers are available for free viewing and not movies.
> To me Dolby is just hiding behind that weak curtain to avoid giving away disk to consumers..


I don't really understand your point. Dolby have said they would be delighted to give demo discs to consumers - why wouldn’t they? But if the demo disk contains protected content then they can't. If you mean they should produce demo disks with their own content - eg their trailers - and nothing else, I can see your point. Or they could make them available for download from their site. They are already making them available via VUDU but I agree that doesn't suit everyone (including me).

I do know from personal experience that Dolby take very seriously indeed their responsibilities vis-à-vis protected content, as they should so I can sympathise with their predicament: they have demo discs which contain their own content but at the same time contain content for which they are licensed. While that is the case, they won't be able to permit discs to be given to the general public, as they have explained.

All 5 of their trailers are available for download from DemoWorld (Horizon, Amaze, Leaf, Conductor, Unfold) but so far the 'sound-only' demos are not there, so anyone can get the trailers in lossless Atmos format, via a free download. If Dolby give me permission to rip and post the 3 sound-only demos, I will, and then everyone will be able to get all of the Dolby-own demo content.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks for doing this.
> 
> The problem I personally have is device related. I do have the 5 trailers downloaded, but my PS3 is a bottleneck. No matter where you copy them (DVD disk or USB) it for some reason does not stream Atmos. (No issue with Atmos movies on BR).
> I will try and see if I copy it on to a BR if that works (Unfortunately I do not have BR burner, but I will check with my friends).


I share your frustration believe me. I have burned the downloaded trailers to Bluray with no problems, and they also play happily from USB stick via my Oppo 103.

Have you tried the lossy versions (DD+) of the trailers on your PS3 (also available at DemoWorld)? I know they won’t quite as good but there isn't much in it IME.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I share your frustration believe me. I have burned the downloaded trailers to Bluray with no problems, and they also play happily from USB stick via my Oppo 103.
> 
> Have you tried the lossy versions (DD+) of the trailers on your PS3 (also available at DemoWorld)? I know they won’t quite as good but there isn't much in it IME.


Yes. I have tried the lossy versions. But I want the "beef"..


----------



## Flash3d

Hopefully you understand me 

I have a question about the Atmos calculator from aaranddeeman, are all distances measured vertically from the MLP (as in the picture in the Excel file)? 

So the left or right distance placement of the Atmos speaker is not important/calculated? Because the left/right placement will influence the distance and angle too (measured from the MLP).

thx


----------



## frankpc3

Aras_Volodka said:


> I asked Film mixer about that once because I was interested in trying out Atmos mixing (music)... I forget what it is but something about the process is prohibitively expensive... perhaps the authoring software?


Figures... It would be fun to play with some sort of editing software that would allow you to add Atmos effects into a mix. I haven't found any Atmos authoring software at any price.


----------



## frankpc3

marlon1925 said:


> anyone?


7.1.4 --> no question for Atmos.

Looks like a good speaker. I am building my own. But don't know yet how well they will work. Fingers are crossed.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

marlon1925 said:


> anyone?


It depends what you are going for... I'd recommend listening to the home theater geeks episode with Anthony Grimani (I believe it's titled something like dolby atmos & acoustics or something like that.) Grimani is very pro 9.1.2. 

But the vast majority prefer 7.1.4. What it comes down to is... do you want ultra clear panning & expanded front sound stage? Or do you want sound coming from above in front & above in back? (hopefully within a year or two you won't have to choose between the two) I like hearing that sound coming from overhead in both directions... it makes things really cool when stuff pans across the ceiling. My vote goes to 7.1.4. 

But in testing out my setup, I've found I don't entirely agree with Grimani regarding the front wides anyway. He gave an analogy of peripheral vision for having the lack of front wides... comparing it to blindness on the peripheral (if I recall correctly). The beauty about atmos is that the sounds don't have to come from the speaker... I often hear sounds coming from what appears to be an empty wall. Atmos seems to do a good job of closing the gap on it's own


----------



## stikle

dvdwilly3 said:


> Fair warning--before you play the Amaze trailer, turn the volume down on your system if you value your subwoofer.



Unless you have SVS like us.  Mine have no problem with any of the content.



marlon1925 said:


> should i go 7.1.4 or 9.1.2?



7.1.4


----------



## dvdwilly3

stikle said:


> Unless you have SVS like us.  Mine have no problem with any of the content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.1.4


Yeah...mine either, except for running people out of the room...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

frankpc3 said:


> Figures... It would be fun to play with some sort of editing software that would allow you to add Atmos effects into a mix. I haven't found any Atmos authoring software at any price.


With DTS:X (MDA) not being quite so proprietary, it _may_ be possible in the near future to get their rendering plug-ins "cheaper" than Dolby's. Now, I don't know if they require an RMU interface type box like Atmos... as that can be spendy.


----------



## chi_guy50

Flash3d said:


> Hopefully you understand me
> 
> I have a question about the Atmos calculator from aaranddeeman, are all distances measured vertically from the MLP (as in the picture in the Excel file)?
> 
> So the left or right distance placement of the Atmos speaker is not important/calculated? Because the left/right placement will influence the distance and angle too (measured from the MLP).
> 
> thx


I can not speak for aaranddeeman, but the only strictly vertical measurement should be for the ear height and ceiling height.

I think some of us have different methods for measuring speaker distance and angle. I use a straight-line measurement from the MLP listener's ear to the respective speaker's center of mass. Since the recommended angle ranges for the top-level speaker placement are rather generous it's not too critical to be precise (but then my OCD won't brook any cutting of corners).

I hope I understood your question correctly.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Yes. I have tried the lossy versions. But I want the "beef"..


Do you have a dedicated Blu-ray player? The PS3 (both flavors) is notorious for audio bitstreaming issues due to the fact it didn't have updated HDMI chips when released to the public. The slim model didn't quite fix everything either.

Probably worth the $60 bucks for a cheap one. 

However, that doesn't explain why Dolby (and DTS for that matter) doesn't come up with calibration and speaker position check test material for consumers and installers besides a number of new and older in-house trailers, etc. on a disc for easy consumption.

They do want their immersive formats to succeed, don't they? They do want those who have installed 3D audio theaters creating buzz, don't they?


----------



## Flash3d

chi_guy50 said:


> I can not speak for aaranddeeman, but the only strictly vertical measurement should be for the ear height and ceiling height.
> 
> I think some of us have different methods for measuring speaker distance and angle. I use a straight-line measurement from the MLP listener's ear to the respective speaker's center of mass. Since the recommended angle ranges for the top-level speaker placement are rather generous it's not too critical to be precise (but then my OCD won't brook any cutting of corners).
> 
> I hope I understood your question correctly.


Lotsa OCD here (count me in ), you understood me correctly.
It's what I was meaning with my question, the ear and ceiling height are vertical measurements but the calculator then gives a distance which you measure "horizontal" from the MLP. Even though the atmos speakers are more like a diagonal and upwards from the MLP.


----------



## kingwiggi

kingwiggi said:


> Found this article a few weeks back. I sent an email to the address and used the subject line located towards the bottom of the article and received an Dolby Atmos 2015 Demo Disc in the mail today.
> 
> http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=986
> 
> YMMV but worth a try
> 
> PM me if you have the ability to BT this disc


Perhaps I should have spelt it out more clearer.

PM me if you have the ability to Torrent the disc and I will send it to you.


----------



## chi_guy50

Flash3d said:


> Lotsa OCD here (count me in ), you understood me correctly.
> It's what I was meaning with my question, the ear and ceiling height are vertical measurements but the calculator then gives a distance which you measure "horizontal" from the MLP. Even though the atmos speakers are more like a diagonal and upwards from the MLP.


Right: aaranddeeman's calculator gives you the horizontal distance to the speaker (line b in the diagram below). Think of the diagonal you refer to as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The elevation angle will be the angle at the base of the hypotenuse as illustrated below. At least, that's the way that I think of it (trigonometry has never been my strong suit). I believe some may measure to a point directly in front of the MLP on a line drawn to intersect the two top-level speakers in a pair (parallel to the front soundstage), but I prefer to deal with the specific distance and angle of each individual speaker. YMMV.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe some may measure to a point directly in front of the MLP on a line drawn to intersect the two top-level speakers in a pair (parallel to the front soundstage), but I prefer to deal with the specific distance and angle of each individual speaker. YMMV.


On the question of azimuth and its effect on elevation angles, I have always found this post by Sanjay from last October helpful:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-106.html#post28098106


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Right: aaranddeeman's calculator gives you the horizontal distance to the speaker (line b in the diagram below). Think of the diagonal you refer to as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The elevation angle will be the angle at the base of the hypotenuse as illustrated below. At least, that's the way that I think of it (trigonometry has never been my strong suit). I believe some may measure to a point directly in front of the MLP on a line drawn to intersect the two top-level speakers in a pair (parallel to the front soundstage), but I prefer to deal with the specific distance and angle of each individual speaker. YMMV.


My math is very basic. So does this mean that aarandeeman's calculator needs to be revised?


----------



## multit

I'm using always arctan(a/b) ... seemed to be correct for me.


----------



## Flash3d

chi_guy50 said:


> On the question of azimuth and its effect on elevation angles, I have always found this post by Sanjay from last October helpful:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-106.html#post28098106


I'm using the following angle laser pointer device thingy (OCD kicking in to tha max!), i put some stuff on my couch so it's on ear level and measure the angle to the speaker location. I use the angles from the dolby recommendation.


----------



## NorthSky

Why can't Dolby invest on a good Dolby Atmos Audio Test Disc on Blu-ray? ...Why?


----------



## kbarnes701

Flash3d said:


> I'm using the following angle laser pointer device thingy (OCD kicking in to tha max!), i put some stuff on my couch so it's on ear level and measure the angle to the speaker location. I use the angles from the dolby recommendation.


That looks like something I ought to own. Got a link?


----------



## Flash3d

kbarnes701 said:


> That looks like something I ought to own. Got a link?


Keith,

I just checked some sites (Ebay, Amazon) and think it's out of stock everywhere, got mine from Ebay.
Exact name is: Rolson 140Mm Aluminium Angle Finder With Laser Measurememt Ruler Tool. 

Professionals call it Raaflmrt


----------



## tjenkins95

Flash3d said:


> I'm using the following angle laser pointer device thingy (OCD kicking in to tha max!), i put some stuff on my couch so it's on ear level and measure the angle to the speaker location. I use the angles from the dolby recommendation.


 
LOL!!! I have the same protractor with laser pen. Works great!


----------



## stikle

Flash3d said:


> I'm using the following angle laser pointer device thingy (OCD kicking in to tha max!), i put some stuff on my couch so it's on ear level and measure the angle to the speaker location. I use the angles from the dolby recommendation.



That's awesome! It's totally something I should have owned as well.

I used a protracter app on my iPhone along with a Craftsman laser level...it was a total pain in the ass lol.


----------



## kbarnes701

Flash3d said:


> Keith,
> 
> I just checked some sites (Ebay, Amazon) and think it's out of stock everywhere, got mine from Ebay.
> Exact name is: Rolson 140Mm Aluminium Angle Finder With Laser Measurememt Ruler Tool.
> 
> Professionals call it Raaflmrt


 Thanks. I will go and search.


----------



## BigScreen

marlon1925 said:


> should i go 7.1.4 or 9.1.2?http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Custom_Installation/CI_Series/CCM663SR.html


When it comes time to make that choice, I will choose 7.1.4. I can't imagine how just two speakers would do the job in my room, but your room might be different.

Ideally, we shouldn't have to make such a choice, but that seems to be the way things are going to be for at least another model year. None of the 2015 model announcements have indicated that we're going to get any more than last year's performance in that regard. I would much rather have to choose between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6...

I look at the issue of wides this way: Look at what Dolby did when they released Atmos last year, and what appears to be unchanged going into year #2 . While Atmos supports wides, DSU does not. Is that because wides aren't used by a significant number of installations? Is it because it's harder for the DSU to process something to the wides? Or is it because they tested it, found that it didn't do much, and therefore saved the codespace for other things? All we can do is speculate.

I've read every message on this thread over the past year or so, and I don't recall anyone trying to isolate what sounds might be channeled to the wides in an Atmos title. Several people have done so with the height speakers, but I don't think anyone has with the wides. Given that, I'm not so sure that the content that's been released so far makes use of the wides at all, even if it could. (I'm very willing to be wrong, so I welcome a reference to the contrary)

Given that an overwhelming amount of content is non-Atmos and non-DTS:X, I think the choice is easy to make. Get the benefits of extra coverage on the ceiling for the vast majority of content that you'll be watching.



> will this be a good choice for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> CCM663SR


Since this speaker is a stereo input with a dual tweeter so that a stereo signal can be played from a single speaker, are you planning to put the inputs in parallel, or are you going to have just one overhead speaker for each pair of overheads (e.g. TF)? The info sheet for the speaker mentions that there is a " two-position stereo/surround switch to instantly make the speaker very suitable to be used as a surround channel." Does that mean that putting it in surround mode just places the tweeters in parallel?

I guess I would lean toward the CCM663 if it's less expensive (one site I found shows the 663 $150 cheaper than the 663SR). The pivoting tweeter would allow you the flexibility to try aiming it straight down and angling it toward the listening position. It seems that some posts here are indicating that a downward facing configuration is actually working better for them. I would want that flexibility myself.


----------



## Flash3d

BigScreen said:


> When it comes time to make that choice, I will choose 7.1.4. I can't imagine how just two speakers would do the job in my room, but your room might be different.
> 
> Ideally, we shouldn't have to make such a choice, but that seems to be the way things are going to be for at least another model year. None of the 2015 model announcements have indicated that we're going to get any more than last year's performance in that regard. I would much rather have to choose between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6...
> 
> I look at the issue of wides this way: Look at what Dolby did when they released Atmos last year, and what appears to be unchanged going into year #2 . While Atmos supports wides, DSU does not. Is that because wides aren't used by a significant number of installations? Is it because it's harder for the DSU to process something to the wides? Or is it because they tested it, found that it didn't do much, and therefore saved the codespace for other things? All we can do is speculate.
> 
> I've read every message on this thread over the past year or so, and I don't recall anyone trying to isolate what sounds might be channeled to the wides in an Atmos title. Several people have done so with the height speakers, but I don't think anyone has with the wides. Given that, I'm not so sure that the content that's been released so far makes use of the wides at all, even if it could. (I'm very willing to be wrong, so I welcome a reference to the contrary)
> 
> Given that an overwhelming amount of content is non-Atmos and non-DTS:X, I think the choice is easy to make. Get the benefits of extra coverage on the ceiling for the vast majority of content that you'll be watching.
> 
> 
> 
> Since this speaker is a stereo input with a dual tweeter so that a stereo signal can be played from a single speaker, are you planning to put the inputs in parallel, or are you going to have just one overhead speaker for each pair of overheads (e.g. TF)? The info sheet for the speaker mentions that there is a " two-position stereo/surround switch to instantly make the speaker very suitable to be used as a surround channel." Does that mean that putting it in surround mode just places the tweeters in parallel?
> 
> I guess I would lean toward the CCM663 if it's less expensive (one site I found shows the 663 $150 cheaper than the 663SR). The pivoting tweeter would allow you the flexibility to try aiming it straight down and angling it toward the listening position. It seems that some posts here are indicating that a downward facing configuration is actually working better for them. I would want that flexibility myself.


But what if the new DTS:X upmixer (neural?) is using the wides (and the 4 "atmos" speakers) and sounds better then the upmixer of Dolby?

That would give people the choice to use wides instead of the back surrounds. 

I think Audyssey preferred wides over back surrounds, but all probably depends on the room layout. 

I'm very interested in the new DTS upmixer and cannot wait till the first reports show up.


----------



## tjenkins95

Keith,

I just checked some sites (Ebay, Amazon) and think it's out of stock everywhere, got mine from Ebay.
Exact name is: Rolson 140Mm Aluminium Angle Finder With Laser Measurememt Ruler Tool. 

Professionals call it Raaflmrt




kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. I will go and search.


 
I purchased mine from Amazon and it has no brand name on it and it is all black. 
It is no longer listed on Amazon. However, it came from ToolUSA originally and I found their website.
It cost $25.00 on Amazon but only $12.00 from ToolUSA:


http://www.toolusa.com/laser-angle-finder-sqaure.html


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I just checked some sites (Ebay, Amazon) and think it's out of stock everywhere, got mine from Ebay.
> Exact name is: Rolson 140Mm Aluminium Angle Finder With Laser Measurememt Ruler Tool.
> 
> Professionals call it Raaflmrt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I purchased mine from Amazon and it has no brand name on it and it is all black.
> It is no longer listed on Amazon. However, it came from ToolUSA originally and I found their website.
> It cost $25.00 on Amazon but only $12.00 from ToolUSA:
> 
> 
> http://www.toolusa.com/laser-angle-finder-sqaure.html


Thanks. I can’t find anything like it in the UK. ToolUSA want almost 50 bucks to send it to the UK so it makes it a non-starter. I will see if I can get a buddy to buy ne for me and send it USPS. Thanks for the info.


----------



## abilyeu

tjenkins95 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I just checked some sites (Ebay, Amazon) and think it's out of stock everywhere, got mine from Ebay.
> Exact name is: Rolson 140Mm Aluminium Angle Finder With Laser Measurememt Ruler Tool.
> 
> Professionals call it Raaflmrt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I purchased mine from Amazon and it has no brand name on it and it is all black.
> It is no longer listed on Amazon. However, it came from ToolUSA originally and I found their website.
> It cost $25.00 on Amazon but only $12.00 from ToolUSA:
> 
> 
> http://www.toolusa.com/laser-angle-finder-sqaure.html


It's listed on Amazon (USA)

http://www.amazon.com/ToolUSA-Laser-Angle-Finder-Sqaure/dp/B00VUGBEXU


----------



## Modern Times

tjenkins95 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I just checked some sites (Ebay, Amazon) and think it's out of stock everywhere, got mine from Ebay.
> Exact name is: Rolson 140Mm Aluminium Angle Finder With Laser Measurememt Ruler Tool.
> 
> Professionals call it Raaflmrt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I purchased mine from Amazon and it has no brand name on it and it is all black.
> It is no longer listed on Amazon. However, it came from ToolUSA originally and I found their website.
> It cost $25.00 on Amazon but only $12.00 from ToolUSA:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.toolusa.com/laser-angle-finder-sqaure.html


That looks a lot like what I have (Keson Infiniter laser angle finder). I tape a thin laser pen to it to measure the angles of my front and surround speakers etc. Just point the laser pen at the center speaker from the mlp and set your angles. For my ceiling speakers I place the laser angle finder on a small level without the laser pen and put it at ear height then make sure its level it and see where the laser shines on my ceiling.


----------



## smurraybhm

I guess I don't understand the sudden obsession with speaker placement, its not like a lot of us haven't had things set up for 9 months now, THX guys are just one of many to weigh in on the topic since last summer. For me the advice Scott said early in the game remains the best, "fill in the holes." Knock yourself out with the laser pointers though, you can get something similar by purchasing a Stanley stud finder which has a leveler/angle attachment with a laser, a little more handy and after you figure out where to place the speaker you can find a stud for the mounts.


----------



## krazyscotsman

marlon1925 said:


> anyone?


I wouldn't bother with 9.1.2 at all. I have a 7.2.4 setup right now. I can here the use of all 4 Atmos speakers in titles like "Unbroken." I don't think wides would be used at all in the mix and therefore I see it as not worth the loss of 2 additional height speakers which are used. 

Can't comment on the speaker. I can tell you what I ended up using for my Atmos heights. I used 4x Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA. And they work perfectly. Are there better ceiling speakers... sure, but we are talking about dimensional sounds here... not audio or music. I wasn't willing to pay more than the deal I got from Craig at AVScience. These speakers are great especially for the price.


----------



## Modern Times

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I don't understand the sudden obsession with speaker placement, its not like a lot of us haven't had things set up for 9 months now, THX guys are just one of many to weigh in on the topic since last summer. For me the advice Scott said early in the game remains the best, "fill in the holes." Knock yourself out with the laser pointers though, you can get something similar by purchasing a Stanley stud finder which has a leveler/angle attachment with a laser, a little more handy and after you figure out where to place the speaker you can find a stud for the mounts.


Try a franklin stud sensor and you will see how bad those stanleys are. Complete junk.


----------



## smurraybhm

Modern Times said:


> Try a franklin stud sensor and you will see how bad those stanleys are. Complete junk.


It was a gift years ago and I have a few stud finders none of which are perfect - I'm old school, I just knock and listen, works every time. I do like the laser pointer and leveler on the Stanley though


----------



## batpig

krazyscotsman said:


> I can tell you what I ended up using for my Atmos heights. I used 4x Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA. And they work perfectly. Are there better ceiling speakers... sure, but we are talking about dimensional sounds here... not audio or music. I wasn't willing to pay more than the deal I got from Craig at AVScience. These speakers are great especially for the price.


I'm curious about these speakers -- I'm setting up my room in my new house and I'm concerned because my ceilings are fairly low (around 7.5ft) and I don't want the overheads to "hot spot" above the couch. 

As per this current discussion, I will have a fairly typical room with the couch closer to the back wall then the front, which means Top Rear would be pretty close to the Surround Back speakers. Given the "fill the holes" common sense idea, plus some aspects of the room, it seems likely that I will end up with a FH+TM config with the TM speakers either directly above or slightly behind the couch. Given the lowish ceilings that will place any listener othen than the one in the middle pretty darn close to the TM speaker on that side.

Because of that, I'm thinking about dual-tweeter in-ceilings which will have a more diffuse, broad sound dispersion. So, bringing it back to your comment, those AT speakers appear to be identical with the IC-6.3, except that they are fixed in a configuration that AT has judged "optimal" for object audio. The tweeters are locked (on the 6.3 they can pivot) and the OBA version is fixed in dipole mode (on the 6.3 you can do bipole/dipole/dual-stereo switching). And there is only a single speaker input because it lacks the dual voice coil / dual input option. 

So essentially it seems like you are paying more for the OBA to be a less flexible version of the standards IC-6.3 model.

Side stepping, I'm curious how others are getting along with Atmos setups in low ceiling enviroments. Are people using standard monopole in/on-ceiling speakers or broader dispersion designs? Any hot-spotting issues?


----------



## jrogers

batpig said:


> I'm curious about these speakers -- I'm setting up my room in my new house and I'm concerned because my ceilings are fairly low (around 7.5ft) and I don't want the overheads to "hot spot" above the couch.
> 
> As per this current discussion, I will have a fairly typical room with the couch closer to the back wall then the front, which means Top Rear would be pretty close to the Surround Back speakers. Given the "fill the holes" common sense idea, plus some aspects of the room, it seems likely that I will end up with a FH+TM config with the TM speakers either directly above or slightly behind the couch. Given the lowish ceilings that will place any listener othen than the one in the middle pretty darn close to the TM speaker on that side.
> 
> Because of that, I'm thinking about dual-tweeter in-ceilings which will have a more diffuse, broad sound dispersion. So, bringing it back to your comment, those AT speakers appear to be identical with the IC-6.3, except that they are fixed in a configuration that AT has judged "optimal" for object audio. The tweeters are locked (on the 6.3 they can pivot) and the OBA version is fixed in dipole mode (on the 6.3 you can do bipole/dipole/dual-stereo switching). And there is only a single speaker input because it lacks the dual voice coil / dual input option.
> 
> So essentially it seems like you are paying more for the OBA to be a less flexible version of the standards IC-6.3 model.
> 
> Side stepping, I'm curious how others are getting along with Atmos setups in low ceiling enviroments. Are people using standard monopole in/on-ceiling speakers or broader dispersion designs? Any hot-spotting issues?


My ceilings are under 8' as well, and I'm using in-ceiling GoldenEar Invisa speakers above and slightly ahead of the couch (TM), and SuperSat 3C on-ceiling speakers (FH) up front, and they are all sounding great. I have a wide, shallow theater with relatively low ceilings, and part of the reason I went with GoldenEar was their high-velocity folded ribbon tweeters have very wide "horizontal" dispersion. YMMV of course, but I'd strongly recommend giving them a listen.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> All 5 of their trailers are available for download from DemoWorld (Horizon, Amaze, Leaf, Conductor, Unfold) but so far the 'sound-only' demos are not there, so anyone can get the trailers in lossless Atmos format, via a free download. If Dolby give me permission to rip and post the 3 sound-only demos, I will, and then everyone will be able to get all of the Dolby-own demo content.


Lucy Atmos Blu-Ray has four trailers Amaze, Leaf, Conductor, Unfold


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Given the lowish ceilings that will place any listener othen than the one in the middle pretty darn close to the TM speaker on that side.


Point them at the listener on the opposite end of the couch, for some energy/time trading.


----------



## krazyscotsman

batpig said:


> I'm curious about these speakers -- I'm setting up my room in my new house and I'm concerned because my ceilings are fairly low (around 7.5ft) and I don't want the overheads to "hot spot" above the couch.
> 
> As per this current discussion, I will have a fairly typical room with the couch closer to the back wall then the front, which means Top Rear would be pretty close to the Surround Back speakers. Given the "fill the holes" common sense idea, plus some aspects of the room, it seems likely that I will end up with a FH+TM config with the TM speakers either directly above or slightly behind the couch. Given the lowish ceilings that will place any listener othen than the one in the middle pretty darn close to the TM speaker on that side.
> 
> Because of that, I'm thinking about dual-tweeter in-ceilings which will have a more diffuse, broad sound dispersion. So, bringing it back to your comment, those AT speakers appear to be identical with the IC-6.3, except that they are fixed in a configuration that AT has judged "optimal" for object audio. The tweeters are locked (on the 6.3 they can pivot) and the OBA version is fixed in dipole mode (on the 6.3 you can do bipole/dipole/dual-stereo switching). And there is only a single speaker input because it lacks the dual voice coil / dual input option.
> 
> So essentially it seems like you are paying more for the OBA to be a less flexible version of the standards IC-6.3 model.
> 
> Side stepping, I'm curious how others are getting along with Atmos setups in low ceiling enviroments. Are people using standard monopole in/on-ceiling speakers or broader dispersion designs? Any hot-spotting issues?


Actually the tweeters can pivot on the AT OBA speakers. So according to the installation. They are designed to be 45 degrees with a specific aspect (the single arm pointed to the optimum seating point). What secret sauce they have past that.. I don't know. I can tell you that when watching movies though, the dual tweeters (facting opposite directions) gives a smooth transition of sound. My ceilings are not much higher - approximately 8.5 feet. Sound dispersion seems about right, really little hotspotting in my setup which is a curved reclining couch.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Point them at the listener on the opposite end of the couch, for some energy/time trading.


Yup, energy trading is one option. But difficult to do with in-ceiling speakers because of limited aiming angle (not as much of an issue if I decide to use my KEF eggs as on-ceilings). 

I'm just curious to hear about people's actual real world experience since many people have


----------



## batpig

krazyscotsman said:


> Actually the tweeters can pivot on the AT OBA speakers. So according to the installation. They are designed to be 45 degrees with a specific aspect (the single arm pointed to the optimum seating point).


Are you sure they can "pivot" or do you mean you can physically rotate the entire speaker assembly within the round frame to aim the entire speaker? I've looked at the manual and have seen the recommendation for the 45-degree aiming with the single-post tweeter pointing at the MLP. When you look at the manual for the IC-6.3 it specifically mentions that the "tweeters in your Atlantic Technology loudspeakers are mounted in an orbital socket and can be adjusted by gently pressing on their edge", i.e. each one can move independently (not just rotating to aim the entire assembly).

I got that from this Audioholics article: http://www.audioholics.com/outdoor-speaker-reviews/atlantictechnologyic6oba

You can see (bolding is my emphasis) that it appears to be the same as the IC-6.3 but with fixed parameters that are "optimized" for immersive audio overhead use. 



> We talked with Peter Tribeman, the President and CEO of Atlantic Technology, as he described the steps they took to create the perfect in-ceiling speaker for the new 3D Immersive Surround formats.... Because Peter was very busy at CES when we spoke, I neglected to get exact specs for the IC-6-OBA speaker from him. However, the components are likely shared with the IC-6.3 meaning 6.5" woofers with a vented pole piece and dual 1" silk dome tweeters. *Unlike the IC-6.3, Peter confirmed that the IC-6-OBA tweeters are not designed to pivot, or be switched between in-phase/out-of-phase wiring, or mono/stereo mode.* Instead, to reduce hot-spotting, the tweeters are wired out of phase and fixed for a diffused sound-field, the crossover to the woofer is optimized for both high performance and low-localization, and instructions are included to orient the speaker in a way that, according to many hours of listening and testing at Atlantic Technology, produces audio that gives the illusion of height broadly across the vertical plane, rather than at a specific, pinpoint location.


----------



## Spanglo

batpig said:


> I'm curious about these speakers -- I'm setting up my room in my new house and I'm concerned because my ceilings are fairly low (around 7.5ft) and I don't want the overheads to "hot spot" above the couch.
> 
> Side stepping, I'm curious how others are getting along with Atmos setups in low ceiling enviroments. Are people using standard monopole in/on-ceiling speakers or broader dispersion designs? Any hot-spotting issues?


I have 8ft ceilings, but I mounted bookshelf speakers on wall so they're at a 7-7.5' height. No issues with hot-spotting. Let me know if you want a demo.


----------



## tjenkins95

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I don't understand the sudden obsession with speaker placement, its not like a lot of us haven't had things set up for 9 months now, THX guys are just one of many to weigh in on the topic since last summer. For me the advice Scott said early in the game remains the best, "fill in the holes." Knock yourself out with the laser pointers though, you can get something similar by purchasing a Stanley stud finder which has a leveler/angle attachment with a laser, a little more handy and after you figure out where to place the speaker you can find a stud for the mounts.


 
I don't see where there is any obsession with speaker placement. Many of the newcomers have concerns where to place their speakers. A stud finder isn't going to help you out if your speakers are all placed on stands.


----------



## batpig

Spanglo said:


> I have 8ft ceilings, but I mounted bookshelf speakers on wall so they're at a 7-7.5' height. No issues with hot-spotting. Let me know if you want a demo.


Yeah, I might want to swing by some time and check it out. And I can return the favor once I'm all set up, although I can guarantee my SW system will not match yours! 

So if you're mounting them on the wall are you referring to Front Height position? Or also Surround Height / Top Middle position? If the latter how much separation do you have between the side seating positions and the closest speakers?


----------



## smurraybhm

^. When did we get so serious and why does a newcomer looking for tips now different then one 8 months ago? A lot of those talking about speaker placement now are not new to our thread. Fill the holes and enjoy.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Flash3d said:


> Hopefully you understand me
> 
> I have a question about the Atmos calculator from aaranddeeman, are all distances measured vertically from the MLP (as in the picture in the Excel file)?
> 
> So the left or right distance placement of the Atmos speaker is not important/calculated? Because the left/right placement will influence the distance and angle too (measured from the MLP).
> 
> thx


Please look at the illustration as if you are looking from above the ceiling. The distances are as illustrated with the color code and cater only to frond and behind MLP.
There is no specific placement calculation available for left or right placement. The guideline has been that it to be in line with FL and FR. But you can place them bit inwards as most of us have done it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> My math is very basic. So does this mean that aarandeeman's calculator needs to be revised?


This is precisely the measurement is done by the calculator.


----------



## Modern Times

smurraybhm said:


> It was a gift years ago and I have a few stud finders none of which are perfect - I'm old school, I just knock and listen, works every time. I do like the laser pointer and leveler on the Stanley though


"I'm old school, I just knock and listen, works everytime." Lol... ya right.... give me a break and cut the B.S.


----------



## Spanglo

batpig said:


> Yeah, I might want to swing by some time and check it out. And I can return the favor once I'm all set up, although I can guarantee my SW system will not match yours!
> 
> So if you're mounting them on the wall are you referring to Front Height position? Or also Surround Height / Top Middle position? If the latter how much separation do you have between the side seating positions and the closest speakers?


I'm running TF+RH. 

Briefly tried TM and RH postitions when I only had 2 overheads, but went with 4 overheads rather quickly. 

The link in my sig has some pics of my room.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I now confirm that ROKU (XD or XS) do not do well when connected through Denon 7200W.
I am trying every which way to play the Atmos demos on my setup. As the PS3 refuses to stream Atmos (from Vudu), I tried ROKU with no avail.
It starts, Atmos engages, the audio works, but the moment the vide starts playing, the video keeps shaking like crazy and the only way to stop it is to reboot ROKU and the cycle continues.
I am interested to know if you have ROKU, have you been able to play the Atmos demos succesfully.
I have confirmed it works when connected directly with the same cables. So ROKU, cables and PJ are eliminated. Looks like something going on with the Denon.
I would appreciate if anyone has any inputs resolving this issue. This is my only hope to play Atmos demos other than buying a new bluray player and trashing PS3.


----------



## punksterz626

I just bought a 3d bluray for my atmos setup for 40bucks from amazon warehouse. Youll need one sooner or later



aaranddeeman said:


> I now confirm that ROKU (XD or XS) do not do well when connected through Denon 7200W.
> I am trying every which way to play the Atmos demos on my setup. As the PS3 refuses to stream Atmos (from Vudu), I tried ROKU with no avail.
> It starts, Atmos engages, the audio works, but the moment the vide starts playing, the video keeps shaking like crazy and the only way to stop it is to reboot ROKU and the cycle continues.
> I am interested to know if you have ROKU, have you been able to play the Atmos demos succesfully.
> I have confirmed it works when connected directly with the same cables. So ROKU, cables and PJ are eliminated. Looks like something going on with the Denon.
> I would appreciate if anyone has any inputs resolving this issue. This is my only hope to play Atmos demos other than buying a new bluray player and trashing PS3.


----------



## aaranddeeman

punksterz626 said:


> I just bought a 3d bluray for my atmos setup for 40bucks from amazon warehouse. Youll need one sooner or later


Not really. but for the vudu may be yes.


----------



## batpig

I also get the "shaking video" issue with my Roku (can't remember if it's XD or XS). It started with my X5200W, didn't do that with the prior X4000. It gets all shaky crazy whenever I stream anything with 5.1 audio. I just moved and shifted that Roku to a basic TV setup downstairs where I don't care about 5.1 streaming.

I have a Sony BDP that I got cheap as a consequence of the shaking, so I could have an alternate streaming option, and it works perfectly streaming the Atmos demos from Vudu or anything else.


----------



## Jive Turkey

stikle said:


> Unless you have SVS like us.  Mine have no problem with any of the content.
> 7.1.4


Right on.


----------



## Jive Turkey

smurraybhm said:


> ^. Fill the holes and enjoy.


...resisting the straight line....

Atmos related though, still the best advice I've experienced.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> I also get the "shaking video" issue with my Roku (can't remember if it's XD or XS). It started with my X5200W, didn't do that with the prior X4000. It gets all shaky crazy whenever I stream anything with 5.1 audio. I just moved and shifted that Roku to a basic TV setup downstairs where I don't care about 5.1 streaming.
> 
> I have a Sony BDP that I got cheap as a consequence of the shaking, so I could have an alternate streaming option, and it works perfectly streaming the Atmos demos from Vudu or anything else.


Thanks for confirming.
Did you open case with Denon? 
May be I will do it. Don't know the outcome, but worth a shot.


----------



## marlon1925

Ok thank you for all your inputs sirs. I've finally decided to go for 7.1.4.


Now on the placement? Any modifications you've made as compared to the one posted on atmos website?


----------



## robert816

I posted this last night, but am posting again in case it was missed, for anyone who is interested.

There is another Atmos Blu-Ray disc available from YesAsia that is a Hong kong live concert disc.

Sammi Cheng Touch Mi World Tour


----------



## marlon1925

marlon1925 said:


> should i go 7.1.4 or 9.1.2?
> 
> will this be a good choice for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> CCM663SR





krazyscotsman said:


> I wouldn't bother with 9.1.2 at all. I have a 7.2.4 setup right now. I can here the use of all 4 Atmos speakers in titles like "Unbroken." I don't think wides would be used at all in the mix and therefore I see it as not worth the loss of 2 additional height speakers which are used.
> 
> Can't comment on the speaker. I can tell you what I ended up using for my Atmos heights. I used 4x Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA. And they work perfectly. Are there better ceiling speakers... sure, but we are talking about dimensional sounds here... not audio or music. I wasn't willing to pay more than the deal I got from Craig at AVScience. These speakers are great especially for the price.


mind sharing your speaker placements sir?


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> I don't get into the "War" type movies so that's they reason I didn't like it. The sound of gunfire was pretty evident throughout the movie and there was a scene toward the end that you'll enjoy as it seemed to use a lot of the height speakers. I don't want to expand further to prevent any spoilers.


Thanks for sharing your opinion of _American Sniper_. I just watched it this evening; I'm also not a big fan of war movies unless they're done well, and I thought this one was a stinker. The screenplay was a cheesy, formulaic, jingoistic mess, and--as a retired career soldier--I found the portrayal of military life and combat, in particular, laughably unrealistic. (Compare to _The Hurt Locker_, which is also set in Iraq and truly captures the gritty, messy feel of wartime service.) Polemics aside, I would have expected better of Clint Eastwood from a strictly artistic point of view. The Atmos soundtrack was great, though, and there was plenty of action. If only I could have stopped rolling my eyes at the hokey "for God and Country" script long enough to appreciate it.

Coincidentally, shortly beforehand I had just finished watching the excellent period crime drama _We Own the Night_ (2007), and its soundtrack in Dolby TrueHD 5.1 + DSU was equally immersive IMO (check out the chase scene in the field of reeds at about the 1:40 to 1:45 mark). And of course it's a far, far better movie.


----------



## jrref

batpig said:


> I also get the "shaking video" issue with my Roku (can't remember if it's XD or XS). It started with my X5200W, didn't do that with the prior X4000. It gets all shaky crazy whenever I stream anything with 5.1 audio. I just moved and shifted that Roku to a basic TV setup downstairs where I don't care about 5.1 streaming.
> 
> I have a Sony BDP that I got cheap as a consequence of the shaking, so I could have an alternate streaming option, and it works perfectly streaming the Atmos demos from Vudu or anything else.


Same here, works perfectly with Sony Blu Ray player using Vudu streaming the Atmos demos with my 7009.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrref said:


> Same here, works perfectly with Sony Blu Ray player using Vudu streaming the Atmos demos with my 7009.


There must be some kind of video synching issue between the Denon and Roku. That "shaking" is what it can sometimes look like.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> This is precisely the measurement is done by the calculator.


So when you say xx units in front of MLP, is that number if units measured from the MLP to the speaker (sort of diagonally) or is it measured from the MLP to the front - straight out from MLP? What is confusing me is that in your diagram in the spreadsheet you show the overhead speakers in position but not how far they are apart, left to right. As the distance between them left to right will affect the angle from MLP to the speaker, I am not quite sure what is being measured. Sorry for all the questions - the calculator is a great tool but I need to know if I am using it right.

BTW, I'd suggest you add your username and link to you on AVS to the spreadsheet so people know where this great tool has come from. I have already sent it to people I know in three different countries and it would be good for them to see your credit on it.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks for sharing your opinion of _American Sniper_. I just watched it this evening; I'm also not a big fan of war movies unless they're well done, and I thought this one was a stinker. The screenplay was a cheesy, formulaic, jingoistic mess, and--as a retired career soldier--I found the portrayal of military life and combat, in particular, laughably unrealistic. (Compare to _The Hurt Locker_, which is also set in Iraq and truly captures the gritty, messy feel of wartime service.) Polemics aside, I would have expected better of Clint Eastwood from a strictly artistic point of view. The Atmos soundtrack was great, though, and there was plenty of action. If only I could have stopped rolling my eyes at the hokey "for God and Country" script long enough to appreciate it.


Interesting analysis and observations. May I add a few of my own?  

As someone from a military background but not a career soldier, I will, of course, see things from a different perspective to you, as will most of those who watch the movie. So 'realism' isn't something I particularly expect and will take entertainment over realism almost every time. Whenever I see a movie set against a background of my own career, I too find it laughably unrealistic. *Mad Men* for example, was so laughably unrealistic and over the top stereotypical of life in an ad agency (even in that era) that I had to stop watching it. I suspect that law enforcement officers, counter-intelligence agents and so on also feel the same when they see a crime movie or a spy movie. I understand, for example, that the average American cop in real life unholsters his sidearm precisely zero times in his entire career! So what they make of *Dirty Harry* or *True Crime* is anyone's guess. And I can't believe that the shenanigans that go on in the *Bourne* movies are anything approaching realistic. So while I agree with you that a movie is capable of being realistic, I am not sure how much it matters. You cite *The Hurt Locker* as an example of a movie which more realistically depicts army life, but you only know that because, well, you know it. Most of us have no idea if it is more or less realistic than, for example, *The Green Zone *(also set in Iraq and a good movie) or *War Horse*. And if we take war movies which are based on actual facts (so we are told) is *Lone Survivor *more realistic than* Act of Valor* or either of these more or less realistic than *Zero Dark Thirty* or *Argo*? I dont know, but I am not sure if I am supposed to care so long as they are entertaining.

That brings me neatly to *American Sniper* because I didn't find it all that entertaining and so it falls at the first and most important (for me) fence. I found the script to be cheesy too. As for the jingoism, I wasn't sure if that was forced or if it was how Chris Kyle really was in real life. Maybe he spoke in those clichés  I imagine some people do. BTW I agree with you that *The Hurt Locker *was a considerably better movie, handled with a much more deft touch and which dug deeper into the conflicting emotions engendered by war and life in combat conditions. But I just wasn't entertained all that much by *American Sniper*. Heck, I was entertained massively more by the not-that-good *Act of Valor*! I thought there were structural problems with Eastwood's movie and big problems with the pacing. I found the editing to be clumsy too, which surprised me as it was edited by Joel Cox who has edited most of Eastwood's movies. I wondered if there had been studio interference, although I would think that Clint was too big a Hollywood beast to allow that to happen. All of these things conspired to make me less than entertained. This is why I like Michael Bay - no matter what one's opinion of his movies, they almost invariably _entertain_ in spades. Of course, Clint is in his 85th year, so maybe we are expecting too much of him. Maybe he doesn't know when to stop - in the words of one of his most iconic characters, the aforementioned Harry Callahan, "a man should know his limitations".



chi_guy50 said:


> Coincidentally, shortly beforehand I had just finished watching the excellent period crime drama _We Own the Night_ (2007), and its soundtrack in Dolby TrueHD 5.1 + DSU was equally immersive IMO (check out the chase scene in the field of reeds at about the 1:40 to 1:45 mark). And of course it's a far, far better movie.


That is one that has slipped under my radar, something that Mr Amazon and I are about to remedy  Thanks for the heads-up.

BTW, talking of realism in movies, has there ever been a realistic movie set on a submarine? Or is it actually the case that* every* submarine descends to incredible depths, beyond their design limits, with some bolts inevitably giving way and flying off allowing a dangerous plume of water to cascade into the boat? Do the Captain and his XO *always* have a tense stand-off in front of the enlisted men? Does the Captain *always* wait until 0.19 seconds before the enemy torpedo hits before he gives the command "rudder 120 degrees starboard, engines full ahead, descend to 100 metres, do it *now* Mr [insert name of helmsman here]"? Is there *always* an enlisted man who shows bravery and intelligence of superhuman proportions just before he meets a tragic and underserved death by putting the lives of the crew before his own? I love submarine movies and have seen them all, but I do wonder at their 'realism'...


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> So when you say xx units in front of MLP, is that number if units measured from the MLP to the speaker (sort of diagonally) or is it measured from the MLP to the front - straight out from MLP? What is confusing me is that in your diagram in the spreadsheet you show the overhead speakers in position but not how far they are apart, left to right. As the distance between them left to right will affect the angle from MLP to the speaker, I am not quite sure what is being measured. Sorry for all the questions - the calculator is a great tool but I need to know if I am using it right.
> 
> BTW, I'd suggest you add your username and link to you on AVS to the spreadsheet so people know where this great tool has come from. I have already sent it to people I know in three different countries and it would be good for them to see your credit on it.


The distance measured is not diagonal. It's measured from MLP to the front (or back). 
I have not found any baseline for how far apart they should be (between left and right) and also any information of their angle from MLP to speaker. And hence I did not incorporate it.
From the schematics, discussions and information gathered so far, my assumption has been that the angles shown in those diagrams are not diagonal, but straight in front of MLP. Please do correct me if I misunderstood.
I will add some verbiage indicating the distance is straight out and not diagonal and also does not cater to horizontal spread. I thought the illustration would do that job, but looks like it does only partially depict it.

Thanks for spreading the tool. I will add the credits in the next version.


----------



## aaranddeeman

jrref said:


> Same here, works perfectly with Sony Blu Ray player using Vudu streaming the Atmos demos with my 7009.


Since I had ps3 working perfectly well, I have never looked at current BD player offerings.
What is the best bang for buck 3D Blu ray player that I can get today?
I don't want to invest too much as we'll have to upgrade again in an year or two when UHD comes out.
Any advice is appreciated.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> The distance measured is not diagonal. It's measured from MLP to the front (or back).
> I have not found any baseline for how far apart they should be (between left and right) and also any information of their angle from MLP to speaker. And hence I did not incorporate it.
> From the schematics, discussions and information gathered so far, my assumption has been that the angles shown in those diagrams are not diagonal, but straight in front of MLP. Please do correct me if I misunderstood.
> I will add some verbiage indicating the distance is straight out and not diagonal and also does not cater to horizontal spread. I thought the illustration would do that job, but looks like it does only partially depict it.
> 
> Thanks for spreading the tool. I will add the credits in the next version.


Thanks for the info. I am not sure how it should be measured TBH, but Sanjay's post, linked by Chi-guy above, makes sense to me. Sanjay asserts that the angle will differ according to the 'spread' of the speaker pair when viewed from MLP. This is correct of course but whether it is how Dolby are describing the angles is not clear to me. Are Dolby measuring 'straight out' (the aarandeeman method) or 'diagonally' (the sdurani method)? For some it won’t matter much because the range of angles is generous. For others, on the limit of a particular angle, the way it is measured could make a huge difference to correct or incorrect speaker placement.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Since I had ps3 working perfectly well, I have never looked at current BD player offerings.
> What is the best bang for buck 3D Blu ray player that I can get today?
> I don't want to invest too much as we'll have to upgrade again in an year or two when UHD comes out.
> Any advice is appreciated.


For basic playing of BD discs via HDMI, all Bluray players are equal, at least in terms of PQ and AQ, but not necessarily in terms of build quality, features, longevity etc. The lower priced Sony players seem to me to represent great value and, for Atmos purposes, they bitstream correctly even for discs with complex seamless branching (eg Total Recall 2012).


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> For basic playing of BD discs via HDMI, all Bluray players are equal, at least in terms of PQ and AQ, but not necessarily in terms of build quality, features, longevity etc. The lower priced Sony players seem to me to represent great value and, for Atmos purposes, they bitstream correctly even for discs with complex seamless branching (eg Total Recall 2012).


Ah okay. So Sony is preferred for my purpose that the pansonic/smasung etc.
Thanks for that information.
I am trying to solve two issues, occassional streaming that we are discussing and get 3D+Atmos working (that PS3 can't do) (and then I can discard PS3 for these two jobs at least if not all).


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Ah okay. So Sony is preferred for my purpose that the pansonic/smasung etc.
> Thanks for that information.
> I am trying to solve two issues, occassional streaming that we are discussing and get 3D+Atmos working (that PS3 can't do) (and then I can discard PS3 for these two jobs at least if not all).


I assume that the Sonys have all the similar apps etc on board that all of them seem to come with these days. And they have been shown (here on AVS) to be 100% fine with all current Atmos discs. And they are cheap and relatively well made and nice enough to look at. So they seem to tick all the boxes. I have an older Sony BD player here, retained as it does not have Cinavia protection in it, and it performs like a star.


----------



## Frank714

20th Century Fox Entertainment has announced its first UHD Blu-rays, unfortunately no information, yet, whether these titles will feature Dolby Atmos sound or else.


----------



## punksterz626

aaranddeeman said:


> Not really. but for the vudu may be yes.


i dont see any other way if you want bluray atmos content at the moment. I normally dont even play any bluray disc but i got it just for that. I figure for 40 bucks it was worth it until streaming options becomes more available. Anyhow, good luck. hope you get it solved.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Frank714 said:


> 20th Century Fox Entertainment has announced its first UHD Blu-rays, unfortunately no information, yet, whether these titles will feature Dolby Atmos sound or else.


Watch out, it's not UHD Blu-ray announcements, it's only UHD titles, so they could only live on download platforms for now.

They say in the article they will support the new format, but they don't confirm those titles will be available on UHD Blu-ray...


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I love submarine movies and have seen them all, but I do wonder at their 'realism'...


I also love submarines and have probably seen most of them too at some point. From a purely entertainment aspect, U-571 delivers in spades, although I suspect Das Boot has the edge over the two in realism.

Back OT: Atmos, yay!


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> I also love submarines and have probably seen most of them too at some point. From a purely entertainment aspect, U-571 delivers in spades, although I suspect Das Boot has the edge over the two in realism.
> 
> Back OT: Atmos, yay!


And* K19: The Widowmaker* of course. Plus all the others over the years, including the latest,* Black Sea*. And they all sound great in DSU too - you get a nice sense of being underwater when the action is outside the boat and inside, when the inevitable water floods into the structure through the inevitable leak caused by the inevitable submersion to impossible depths, understood to be survivable only by the Captain who knows, it seems, even better than the boat's designers and structural engineers. I've yet to find a movie that is not enhanced by DSU.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting analysis and observations. May I add a few of my own?
> 
> As someone from a military background but not a career soldier, I will, of course, see things from a different perspective to you, as will most of those who watch the movie. So 'realism' isn't something I particularly expect and will take entertainment over realism almost every time. Whenever I see a movie set against a background of my own career, I too find it laughably unrealistic. *Mad Men* for example, was so laughably unrealistic and over the top stereotypical of life in an ad agency (even in that era) that I had to stop watching it. I suspect that law enforcement officers, counter-intelligence agents and so on also feel the same when they see a crime movie or a spy movie. I understand, for example, that the average American cop in real life unholsters his sidearm precisely zero times in his entire career! So what they make of *Dirty Harry* or *True Crime* is anyone's guess. And I can't believe that the shenanigans that go on in the *Bourne* movies are anything approaching realistic. So while I agree with you that a movie is capable of being realistic, I am not sure how much it matters. You cite *The Hurt Locker* as an example of a movie which more realistically depicts army life, but you only know that because, well, you know it. Most of us have no idea if it is more or less realistic than, for example, *The Green Zone *(also set in Iraq and a good movie) or *War Horse*. And if we take war movies which are based on actual facts (so we are told) is *Lone Survivor *more realistic than* Act of Valor* or either of these more or less realistic than *Zero Dark Thirty* or *Argo*? I dont know, but I am not sure if I am supposed to care so long as they are entertaining.
> 
> That brings me neatly to *American Sniper* because I didn't find it all that entertaining and so it falls at the first and most important (for me) fence. I found the script to be cheesy too. As for the jingoism, I wasn't sure if that was forced or if it was how Chris Kyle really was in real life. Maybe he spoke in those clichés  I imagine some people do. BTW I agree with you that *The Hurt Locker *was a considerably better movie, handled with a much more deft touch and which dug deeper into the conflicting emotions engendered by war and life in combat conditions. But I just wasn't entertained all that much by *American Sniper*. Heck, I was entertained massively more by the not-that-good *Act of Valor*! I thought there were structural problems with Eastwood's movie and big problems with the pacing. I found the editing to be clumsy too, which surprised me as it was edited by Joel Cox who has edited most of Eastwood's movies. I wondered if there had been studio interference, although I would think that Clint was too big a Hollywood beast to allow that to happen. All of these things conspired to make me less than entertained. This is why I like Michael Bay - no matter what one's opinion of his movies, they almost invariably _entertain_ in spades. Of course, Clint is in his 85th year, so maybe we are expecting too much of him. Maybe he doesn't know when to stop - in the words of one of his most iconic characters, the aforementioned Harry Callahan, "a man should know his limitations".


That's a much more nuanced, incisive critique than I was able to offer, but I second your analysis of the film's shallowness. I also suspect that Eastwood's advanced years--added to his increasingly reactionary political views--have clouded his judgment (can anyone forget his embarrassingly bizarre performance at the 2012 Republican convention?).



kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, talking of realism in movies, has there ever been a realistic movie set on a submarine? Or is it actually the case that* every* submarine descends to incredible depths, beyond their design limits, with some bolts inevitably giving way and flying off allowing a dangerous plume of water to cascade into the boat? Do the Captain and his XO *always* have a tense stand-off in front of the enlisted men? Does the Captain *always* wait until 0.19 seconds before the enemy torpedo hits before he gives the command "rudder 120 degrees starboard, engines full ahead, descend to 100 metres, do it *now* Mr [insert name of helmsman here]"? Is there *always* an enlisted man who shows bravery and intelligence of superhuman proportions just before he meets a tragic and underserved death by putting the lives of the crew before his own? I love submarine movies and have seen them all, but I do wonder at their 'realism'...


I should have been clearer on what I meant in tagging the film's action unrealistic. I am usually able to suspend disbelief and accept quite a bit of artistic license in a dramatic film if the general tenor of the action feels realistic. Virtually every Hitchcock film (including my favorite, _Vertigo_) includes perfectly incredible plot elements, but the overall atmosphere or "feel" of the action is such that you can remain comfortably immersed in the suspenseful narrative. [As an aside, Hitch apparently saw this film not as a crime drama but as a (possibly autobiographical?) psychological investigation of a man's obsessive attachment to one idealized blonde woman.] 

My favorite war movie is _Platoon_, which feels completely authentic to me as a Vietnam-era vet not because the actions are necessarily true-to-life but because the general tenor is spot-on in conveying the boredom, bureaucratic buffoonery, internecine rivalries, occasional chaotic violence, and the general senselessness endured by the U.S. combat soldier in that futile conflict. By the same token, I have previously mentioned that the HBO satire _Veep_ is far more genuine (in addition to being rolling-on-the-floor hilarious) than any other political show I have seen on TV despite its obviously outlandish script because it accurately reflects the narcissism, jealousies, hypocrisies, backbiting, and chicaneries of Washington politics. I can tell you from personal experience (13 years devoted to political-military affairs at the national level) that the writers and producers (especially the savvy, erudite EP Frank Rich) have a finely-tuned ear for this world. In contrast, actual "real-life" political dramas like _West Wing_ or even _House of Cards_ are unwatchable for me because they ring phony.



kbarnes701 said:


> That is one that has slipped under my radar, something that Mr Amazon and I are about to remedy  Thanks for the heads-up.


YW. If you enjoy _We Own the Night_, be sure to check out writer/director James Gray's other films (_Little Odessa_, _The Yards_, _Two Lovers_, _The Immigrant_). I have yet to be disappointed by any of his projects.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm also not a big fan of war movies unless they're done well, and I thought this one was a stinker. The screenplay was a cheesy, formulaic, jingoistic mess, and--as a retired career soldier--I found the portrayal of military life and combat, in particular, laughably unrealistic. (Compare to _The Hurt Locker_, which is also set in Iraq and truly captures the gritty, messy feel of wartime service.) Polemics aside, I would have expected better of Clint Eastwood from a strictly artistic point of view. The Atmos soundtrack was great, though, and there was plenty of action. If only I could have stopped rolling my eyes at the hokey "for God and Country" script long enough to appreciate it.





kbarnes701 said:


> That brings me neatly to *American Sniper* because I didn't find it all that entertaining and so it falls at the first and most important (for me) fence. I found the script to be cheesy too. As for the jingoism, I wasn't sure if that was forced or if it was how Chris Kyle really was in real life. Maybe he spoke in those clichés  I imagine some people do. BTW I agree with you that *The Hurt Locker *was a considerably better movie, handled with a much more deft touch and which dug deeper into the conflicting emotions engendered by war and life in combat conditions. But I just wasn't entertained all that much by *American Sniper*. Heck, I was entertained massively more by the not-that-good *Act of Valor*! I thought there were structural problems with Eastwood's movie and big problems with the pacing. I found the editing to be clumsy too, which surprised me as it was edited by Joel Cox who has edited most of Eastwood's movies. I wondered if there had been studio interference, although I would think that Clint was too big a Hollywood beast to allow that to happen. All of these things conspired to make me less than entertained.


I'm surprised by the popularity of that film... I thought Eastwood's Iwo Jima & Flags of our fathers was a faaaaar more realistic portrayal of war, and just better films in general. And I too thought of Hurt Locker when seeing American Sniper... it was almost a verbatim knockoff stylistically (- the heavy metal ending @ hurt locker). The Sniper scene in the Hurt Locker was far more intense than anything I saw in Eastwood's film... yet Hurt Locker wasn't even a sniper film! But I do love Eastwood's other work, I just think this one was a stinker as well.


----------



## Kris Deering

stikle said:


> I also love submarines and have probably seen most of them too at some point. From a purely entertainment aspect, U-571 delivers in spades, although I suspect Das Boot has the edge over the two in realism.
> 
> Back OT: Atmos, yay!


Having spent the last 20 years riding submarines for work I can safely say that NONE of the movies I've seen about submarines sound anything like what it sounds like when you're on a submarine. But that's a good thing, or the soundtracks would be boring as hell!!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I watched Jupiter Ascending last night... something I thought I wouldn't do just because of how bad the reviews were... but yet again the Atmos bug got the best of me. So I rented it, & was actually pleasantly surprised. While some parts of the film were intolerably bad (the cliche dialogue, the CGI aliens & the costume design/ aesthetic seemed to be a rip off of 1980's Dune meets hunger games), I did like the scenery & some of the designs in other parts of the film.

All that aside, I thought the mix was really good, I'd *almost* consider buying the film if it weren't 20 dollars overpriced... though I would rent it again when I start testing out my in ceiling speakers. Otherwise I might wait until it hits the 5 dollar bin, but hopefully at that point I won't be as desperate to get my hands on Atmos content!

Lots of overhead pans of ships flying overhead, dialogue coming from overhead, Tranformers-esque object placement/ sci fi bloopy sounds.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kris Deering said:


> Having spent the last 20 years riding submarines for work I can safely say that NONE of the movies I've seen about submarines sound anything like what it sounds like when you're on a submarine. But that's a good thing, or the soundtracks would be boring as hell!!


Ha! How interesting. 

Though would you even say the same about Das boot? I'd imagine those older U boats probably were pretty noisy/ clunky.


----------



## robert816

Was the rental in Atmos?? Where did you rent from?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a much more nuanced, incisive critique than I was able to offer, but I second your analysis of the film's shallowness. I also suspect that Eastwood's advanced years--added to his increasingly reactionary political views--have clouded his judgment (can anyone forget his embarrassingly bizarre performance at the 2012 Republican convention?).


Yes indeed. I try to divorce the real-life activities and views of those whose job it is to entertain me from their work as far as possible, unless those views become inappropriately (for the subject matter) reflected in the work of course. I can cite Mel Gibson as an example and, in another sphere, Frank Sinatra. Both of those have personal lives and views whose values are not shared by me. But Sinatra is one of my favorite singers in the entire world and I admire much of Gibson's work as an actor and also as a director (*The Passion of the Christ *and *Apocalypto* both being favorite movies of mine, for different reasons). I have a friend who sees some sort of subtext in both those movies which chime, he says, with Mel's (increasingly strange) world view, but I personally don't see it. At least Clint can fall back on his advanced age as an excuse/reason 



chi_guy50 said:


> I should have been clearer on what I meant in tagging the film's action unrealistic. I am usually able to suspend disbelief and accept quite a bit of artistic license in a dramatic film if the general tenor of the action feels realistic. Virtually every Hitchcock film (including my favorite, _Vertigo_) includes perfectly incredible plot elements, but the overall atmosphere or "feel" of the action is such that you can remain comfortably immersed in the suspenseful narrative. [As an aside, Hitch apparently saw this film not as a crime drama but as a (possibly autobiographical?) psychological investigation of a man's obsessive attachment to one idealized blonde woman.]


I understand perfectly what you mean there. Those movies lead you to believe that they _could have_ been real, in those particular circumstances at that particular time, whereas some movies just can't convincingly make us believe that a set of actions and consequences could really have occurred in any imaginable world. The former enable the suspension of disbelief fairly readily, whereas the latter make us go "Whoa!". Hitch was one weird dude for sure!



chi_guy50 said:


> My favorite war movie is _Platoon_, which feels completely authentic to me as a Vietnam-era vet not because the actions are necessarily true-to-life but because the general tenor is spot-on in conveying the boredom, bureaucratic buffoonery, internecine rivalries, occasional chaotic violence, and the general senselessness endured by the U.S. combat soldier in that futile conflict.


I love that movie too. The sheer pointlessness of their situation comes across so clearly.




chi_guy50 said:


> YW. If you enjoy _We Own the Night_, be sure to check out writer/director James Gray's other films (_Little Odessa_, _The Yards_, _Two Lovers_, _The Immigrant_). I have yet to be disappointed by any of his projects.


Thanks - will do. We'd better get back on topic before we either get banned or bore everyone to death


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm surprised by the popularity of that film... I thought Eastwood's Iwo Jima & Flags of our fathers was a faaaaar more realistic portrayal of war, and just better films in general. And I too thought of Hurt Locker when seeing American Sniper... it was almost a verbatim knockoff stylistically (- the heavy metal ending @ hurt locker). The Sniper scene in the Hurt Locker was far more intense than anything I saw in Eastwood's film... yet Hurt Locker wasn't even a sniper film! But I do love Eastwood's other work, I just think this one was a stinker as well.


I agree 100% with all of the above comments. _Iwo Jima_ and _Flags of Our Fathers_ were great films (and reminiscent of Terrence Malick's glorious _The Thin Red Line_).



Kris Deering said:


> Having spent the last 20 years riding submarines for work I can safely say that NONE of the movies I've seen about submarines sound anything like what it sounds like when you're on a submarine. But that's a good thing, or the soundtracks would be boring as hell!!


And is there any more aloof, authoritarian figure than the nuclear submarine captain? They are truly a species apart! I have served alongside members of all service branches and specialties (including insufferably smug fighter jet jockeys) but nuclear submariners are unique in their insularity--a reflection, no doubt, of their vessel's operational independence.


----------



## Kris Deering

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ha! How interesting.
> 
> Though would you even say the same about Das boot? I'd imagine those older U boats probably were pretty noisy/ clunky.


Probably, that was a completely different Navy than the one I served in starting in the early 90's. The nukes are like floating office buildings, with cramped cubicles and coffins to sleep in.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

robert816 said:


> Was the rental in Atmos?? Where did you rent from?


Yes definitely... I rented it from a chain out here called "family video". I don't know if they exist everywhere... but so far every Atmos release has been @ that location


----------



## cdelena

Before we drift away from war movies the conclusion of two old vets that I have screened films for is that FURY brought the grit of war closer. I found it a very good presentation but have no first hand experience to judge realism.


(lets not miss the point that American Sniper is an actual biography, not really a mainstream war movie)


----------



## chi_guy50

cdelena said:


> Before we drift away from war movies the conclusion of two old vets that I have screened films for is that FURY brought the grit of war closer. I found it a very good presentation but have no first hand experience to judge realism.
> 
> 
> (*lets not miss the point that American Sniper is an actual biography, not really a mainstream war movie*)


Actually, you could make the case that it's just a stereotypical Hollywood western (Bad Guys against Good Guys complete with "High Noon"-like showdown) masquerading as a war movie. But in any event it's certainly more hagiography than biography.


----------



## robert816

Thank you for the info! I do have a Family Video about two miles from my home. I've never rented there before but maybe now is a good time to check them out.


I wouldn't buy Jupiter Ascending, but I'd be willing to rent, and is it just me, or does seem as though it's Cinderella in Space?


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> * Black Sea*





kbarnes701 said:


> And they all sound great in DSU too - you get a nice sense of being underwater when the action is outside the boat and inside, when the inevitable water floods into the structure through the inevitable leak caused by the inevitable submersion to impossible depths, understood to be survivable only by the Captain who knows, it seems, even better than the boat's designers and structural engineers.



It's inevitable that I'll be seeing this as well.



Kris Deering said:


> Having spent the last 20 years riding submarines for work



I've been fascinated by submarines ever since I was a young elementary student when I found the book Submarine! in the school library. I've always longed to go on one for myself.

Imagine my dismay after returning from my last business trip to Chicago when I found out that the U-505 is there and tourable. That would have been amazing!

I'd lived in Portland for 11 years when I discovered that OMSI, our local Science Museum, has The Blueback permanently moored, also available to tour. Of note, this submarine was used in The Hunt for Red October. I jumped and went on the general tour, which was cool. Now only if they would have patched up the hole in her side and cast off. 

Dream bucket list item. 

But, I digress.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Aras_Volodka said:


> because in both my setup & bro in law's setup I still don't feel like I always hear sound coming from directly overhead... high up... but not up & over.


Larger speakers worked for me


----------



## Aras_Volodka

robert816 said:


> Thank you for the info! I do have a Family Video about two miles from my home. I've never rented there before but maybe now is a good time to check them out.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't buy Jupiter Ascending, but I'd be willing to rent, and is it just me, or does seem as though it's Cinderella in Space?


I love family video... honestly I have no idea how they stay in business. They do a lot of deals where you can get 1 or 2 movies free with a rental. The selection for legacy titles is a little iffy, but generally new films are something like 3 to 4 bucks a night. 

The movie is sorta Cinderalla-ish since it has royalty/ princess stuff but at the same time it's sort of a sci fi action film. I could see the film's influences; John Carter, GOTG, Dune, Hunger games... just imagine a very bland mishmash of all of them + Disney princess stuff + the most uninspired love story ever and that = this film. If I understand correctly this was made by the guys who did the Matrix? I liked the matrix when I was 18 (mostly due to the slow cam effects)... but when I watched it recently I was pretty bored.


----------



## Patrick Murphy

Aras_Volodka said:


> If I understand correctly this was made by the guys who did the Matrix?



They both were _guys_ when the made the Matrix...not any more.


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-director-of-the-matrix-is-now-a-woman-2012-7


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I assume that the Sonys have all the similar apps etc on board that all of them seem to come with these days. And they have been shown (here on AVS) to be 100% fine with all current Atmos discs. And they are cheap and relatively well made and nice enough to look at. So they seem to tick all the boxes. I have an older Sony BD player here, retained as it does not have Cinavia protection in it, and it performs like a star.


I am looking at BDP-S5500. It's a current model, but if I can get my hands on it for the price I want, it would be great, I guess..


----------



## NorthSky

Only eleven more days, for *'The Gunman'* ...Blu-ray Dolby Atmos..._Sean Penn._


----------



## frankpc3

aaranddeeman said:


> I am looking at BDP-S5500. It's a current model, but if I can get my hands on it for the price I want, it would be great, I guess..


Do the newer Sony blu-ray players play SACD's?

I have an older Sony blu-ray player (well maybe it is just plain old). It is a BDP-S570. I have my fingers crossed that it will not have any problem sending Atmos data to the 7200WA for processing. And I don't know whether it has HDMI 1.3 or 1.4. But would that mean it could or couldn't also send 3D through the AVR for processing by the TV? The blu-ray player has served me well. It plays SACD's. And I have never had a 3D TV, a 3D blu-ray disk to test nor have I had an Atmos capable AVR and speakers to play Atmos. 

Will I be unpleasantly surprised? I would rather hold off buying a new blu-ray player until the 4k players come out.


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> Only eleven more days, for *'The Gunman'* ...Blu-ray Dolby Atmos..._Sean Penn._
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug9xufczPVE


I guess everyone is cashing in on the success of "Taken" and "John Wick"... 
Throw in an older coot, aka "retired, extremely dangerous' who has 'skills', give him a love interest, typically in the form of a woman, but sometimes a dog will suffice, and let him loose on his enemies. Add plenty of fight scenes, explosions, angst ridden expressions that suggest the protagonist is 'torn' between retiring and rescuing the above mentioned female / animal. Then add Atmos so the all too hungry for a good demo disc members of AVS will lap it up like a man who has been in the desert for a week without water. 

Nalleh? Are you at the head of the queue for this?


----------



## NorthSky

...Of course he is.


----------



## Dwihters

I followed some of the guidance that I’ve garnered from these posts, and ordered the Hong Kong version of LUCY in ATMOS from YESASIA. It arrived in two days and sounds fantastic…..and all of the DOLBY ATMOS demoes are there to boot!.......although expensive, it was worth it….I didn’t spend $20 for a non ATMOS disc……the film looks gorgeous and sounds better than7.1…..what more could one ask for?


----------



## aaranddeeman

frankpc3 said:


> Do the newer Sony blu-ray players play SACD's?
> 
> I have an older Sony blu-ray player (well maybe it is just plain old). It is a BDP-S570. I have my fingers crossed that it will not have any problem sending Atmos data to the 7200WA for processing. And I don't know whether it has HDMI 1.3 or 1.4. But would that mean it could or couldn't also send 3D through the AVR for processing by the TV? The blu-ray player has served me well. It plays SACD's. And I have never had a 3D TV, a 3D blu-ray disk to test nor have I had an Atmos capable AVR and speakers to play Atmos.
> 
> Will I be unpleasantly surprised? I would rather hold off buying a new blu-ray player until the 4k players come out.


I have no idea. Mainly because I was never a big fan of "Sony". The only Sony I bought is PS3.
My idea was also to hold until UHD. But some lacking capabilities of PS3 might force me to abandon it.


----------



## frankpc3

aaranddeeman said:


> I have no idea. Mainly because I was never a big fan of "Sony". The only Sony I bought is PS3.
> My idea was also to hold until UHD. But some lacking capabilities of PS3 might force me to abandon it.


I understand. As soon as I get these Atmos speakers in the ceiling (2 to go), I plan to start learning more about the lack of capabilities of my blu-ray player. But I do want to be able to play the Atmos movies.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ha! How interesting.
> 
> Though would you even say the same about Das boot? I'd imagine those older U boats probably were pretty noisy/ clunky.


Indeed. Modern subs are super quiet with sound dampening everywhere.

Now what would make for a good Atmos ceiling speaker experience is audio from a sub punching up through the Polar ice cap. Now there's some noise! 




chi_guy50 said:


> And is there any more aloof, authoritarian figure than the nuclear submarine captain? They are truly a species apart! I have served alongside members of all service branches and specialties (including insufferably smug fighter jet jockeys) but *nuclear submariners are unique in their insularity--a reflection, no doubt, of their vessel's operational independence*.


Yeh .. that is bound to happen when you're stuck in a small tube for up to 4 months at a time. At least we always got the best chow ... steak and lobster/King Crab legs every Sunday while fresh/frozen supplies lasted.


----------



## lorjam

That's what I get for being in the Air Force back in the day. SOS was a treat.....


----------



## dvdwilly3

lorjam said:


> That's what I get for being in the Air Force back in the day. SOS was a treat.....


 Yeah, and in the Navy at least we had two flavors...red and brown. For the former, think sloppy joes and for the latter, creamed chipped beff, but ground beef instead. The latter could be helped with salt. 

Actually, not all that bad...better than the dreaded roast beast...not only could we not figure out which cut it might have been, we could even figure out which animal it was.

Sorry...OT...back to Atmos...anything new?


----------



## chi_guy50

frankpc3 said:


> Do the newer Sony blu-ray players play SACD's?
> 
> I have an older Sony blu-ray player (well maybe it is just plain old). It is a BDP-S570. I have my fingers crossed that it will not have any problem sending Atmos data to the 7200WA for processing. And I don't know whether it has HDMI 1.3 or 1.4. But would that mean it could or couldn't also send 3D through the AVR for processing by the TV? The blu-ray player has served me well. It plays SACD's. And I have never had a 3D TV, a 3D blu-ray disk to test nor have I had an Atmos capable AVR and speakers to play Atmos.
> 
> Will I be unpleasantly surprised? I would rather hold off buying a new blu-ray player until the 4k players come out.


All the more recent Sony BDP's are capable of SACD playback. And AFAICT any BDP that can pass Dolby TrueHD should be capable of passing Dolby Atmos, so you can hold on to your S570 (which is also 3D capable) for now if you are otherwise happy with it.

OTOH, I had the S570 and replaced it last year with the slightly more recent S5100 which is faster and even more feature-rich and am very happy with my ($42 including shipping on eBay) refurb purchase. 

If you want to replace your current BDP now, I would suggest you look at the last-generation dual-core BDP-S6200, which you can pick up on Amazon or eBay for under $100 in excellent used or refurbished (or simply open-box) condition.


----------



## Ted99

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ha! How interesting.
> 
> Though would you even say the same about Das boot? I'd imagine those older U boats probably were pretty noisy/ clunky.


I went through Sub School back when we still had Diesel Boats operating, on my way to a Nuke. If the diesels were operating on the surface or on snorkel, you could hear them in the Conn. On battery submerged, just as quiet as a Nuke.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Ted99 said:


> I went through Sub School back when we still had Diesel Boats operating, on my way to a Nuke. If the diesels were operating on the surface or on snorkel, you could hear them in the Conn. On battery submerged, just as quiet as a Nuke.


I stand corrected then... though I suspect a nearby depth charge would make things less quiet?


----------



## aaranddeeman

chi_guy50 said:


> All the more recent Sony BDP's are capable of SACD playback. And AFAICT any BDP that can pass Dolby TrueHD should be capable of passing Dolby Atmos, so you can hold on to your S570 (which is also 3D capable) for now if you are otherwise happy with it.
> 
> OTOH, I had the S570 and replaced it last year with the slightly more recent S5100 which is faster and even more feature-rich and am very happy with my ($42 including shipping on eBay) refurb purchase.
> 
> If you want to replace your current BDP now, I would suggest you look at the last-generation dual-core BDP-S6200, which you can pick up on Amazon or eBay for under $100 in excellent used or refurbished (or simply open-box) condition.


I finally got rid of my PS3 (Trade-in to BestBuy for $108 GC. There is also a coupon of $75 towards the purchase of XBox1, but that will go was anyways as I am not planning to XBOX).
I will most likely pick Sony BDP-S5500...
For now Panasonic DBP-BD35 has taken the place of PS3 that is gone..


----------



## Ted99

Aras_Volodka said:


> I stand corrected then... though I suspect a nearby depth charge would make things less quiet?


Never had the misfortune. We were taught that the anti-sub weapons from the 1960's and on were so effective that if you were detected, you were dead. That's why quiet is so important.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ted99 said:


> Never had the misfortune. We were taught that the anti-sub weapons from the 1960's and on were so effective that *if you were detected, you were dead.* That's why quiet is so important.


Hmmm, the same principle generally holds true in the undercover spy game.

Speaking of which . . .



kbarnes701 said:


> And I can't believe that the shenanigans that go on in the *Bourne* movies are anything approaching realistic.


Of course these types of movies are completely unrealistic.

The best spy movies I can recall offhand in terms of authenticity (based on my own service) are the recent _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ (2011) and the great, incomparable _The Conversation_ (1974) from writer/director Francis Ford Coppola, which truly captures IMHO the painstaking minutiae and paranoia involved in counter-intelligence operations. BTW, for those of you who might be interested, a terrific read on the destructive aspects of this type of work is David Wise's insider's account _Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the CIA_. It's sad, frightening, and eye-opening reading and would make a terrific movie without any need for dramatization.


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> I have no idea. Mainly because I was never a big fan of "Sony". The only Sony I bought is PS3.
> My idea was also to hold until UHD. But some lacking capabilities of PS3 might force me to abandon it.


Not a big fan either you spend big bucks for a name, kind of like bose ...
Big money for brand names


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Of course these types of movies are completely unrealistic.
> 
> The best spy movies I can recall offhand in terms of authenticity (based on my own service) are the recent _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ (2011) and the great, incomparable _The Conversation_ (1974) from writer/director Francis Ford Coppola, which truly captures IMHO the painstaking minutiae and paranoia involved in counter-intelligence operations. BTW, for those of you who might be interested, a terrific read on the destructive aspects of this type of work is David Wise's insider's account _Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the CIA_. It's sad, frightening, and eye-opening reading and would make a terrific movie without any need for dramatization.


I found TTSP a bit tedious TBH. Probably too realistic. *The Conversation* is one of my all-time favorite movies and is a true classic. It also has had so much influence over other movies in the same genre. I watch it about once a year and never tire of it. I also love the ending. It works on so many levels too - an espionage thriller, a study in paranoia, a techno-spy procedural, even a (sort of) buddy movie.


----------



## frankpc3

chi_guy50 said:


> All the more recent Sony BDP's are capable of SACD playback. And AFAICT any BDP that can pass Dolby TrueHD should be capable of passing Dolby Atmos, so you can hold on to your S570 (which is also 3D capable) for now if you are otherwise happy with it.
> 
> OTOH, I had the S570 and replaced it last year with the slightly more recent S5100 which is faster and even more feature-rich and am very happy with my ($42 including shipping on eBay) refurb purchase.
> 
> If you want to replace your current BDP now, I would suggest you look at the last-generation dual-core BDP-S6200, which you can pick up on Amazon or eBay for under $100 in excellent used or refurbished (or simply open-box) condition.


Thank you for the great news! And also for your advice on replacement. I am happy with it, but have never tried Atmos nor 3d. I just now got all four Atmos speakers mounted in the ceiling. So perhaps I can find an Atmos movie to see what happens.

One question, you said the S5100 is "faster and more feature-rich." I suppose when you don't know what you're missing, you don't care what you're missing. Would you elaborate just a bit?

Thanks again for the good news!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Patrick Murphy said:


> They both were _guys_ when the made the Matrix...not any more.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-director-of-the-matrix-is-now-a-woman-2012-7


Interesting... I can't really judge as a best friend of mine & a friend's father both transitioned... that friend of mine became a millionaire by the age of 23 without college education! I (sort of) try to avoid politics when I can, I just wanted to say I've got nothing against it/ am supportive of their decision, but that doesn't mean I have to like the film (haha!). Though at least I got to enjoy some more Atmos at home  



jdsmoothie said:


> Indeed. Modern subs are super quiet with sound dampening everywhere.
> 
> Now what would make for a good Atmos ceiling speaker experience is audio from a sub punching up through the Polar ice cap. Now there's some noise!





Ted99 said:


> Never had the misfortune. We were taught that the anti-sub weapons from the 1960's and on were so effective that if you were detected, you were dead. That's why quiet is so important.


Are half the AVS forum members former submariners? Holy cow... very cool.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> But if the reference is a moving target, then all we can do with our fader at home is move it around until we find the level that seems right.


That's the best way. Always has been. Now if only we could do that in a cinema!


----------



## noah katz

punksterz626 said:


> I just bought a 3d bluray for my atmos setup for 40bucks from amazon warehouse. Youll need one sooner or later


Which bluray is that?


----------



## punksterz626

noah katz said:


> Which bluray is that?


Samsung BD-H5900 3D Blu-Ray Disc Player (2014 Model) via amazon warehouse deal. Usually open box items. Figure really no need to buy expensive bluray player.


----------



## NorthSky

We sure all love "submarine" movies.  ...*'K~19: The Widowmaker'* ... *'U-571'* ... *'Das Boot'* ... *'The Hunt for Red October'* ... *'Crimson Tide'* ...
...With Dolby Atmos. ...Dolby Surround (up-mixer).


----------



## sdrucker

Has anyone seen 'Inside Out', which has an theatrical Atmos mix? It's at Roosevelt Ikon by our place in Atmos. It might be worth it if we have to do a kids movie next week for our toddler.


----------



## bkeeler10

I will be seeing Inside Out in an Atmos theater on Tuesday evening and will try to remember to report back. Looking forward to it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

punksterz626 said:


> Samsung BD-H5900 3D Blu-Ray Disc Player (2014 Model) via amazon warehouse deal. Usually open box items. Figure really no need to buy expensive bluray player.


Dell.com has Sony BDP-S5500 with $50 e-Gift card.
That's a good price if only it wasn't Dell and it was no a e-Gift card with expiry of 90 days.
If some one have dome Dell items for purchase in pipe line, then this seems a good deal to me.


----------



## chi_guy50

frankpc3 said:


> Thank you for the great news! And also for your advice on replacement. I am happy with it, but have never tried Atmos nor 3d. I just now got all four Atmos speakers mounted in the ceiling. So perhaps I can find an Atmos movie to see what happens.
> 
> One question, you said the S5100 is "faster and more feature-rich." I suppose when you don't know what you're missing, you don't care what you're missing. Would you elaborate just a bit?
> 
> Thanks again for the good news!


Honestly, I can't remember which features are new on the S5100 vs. the S570; but I do remember thinking "Holy cow, this thing loads really fast!" when I first watched a BRD on it. And the dual-core units (S7200, S6500, S6200) are predictably supposed to be noticeably faster still.

Each generation usually adds some new features. The newest S5500, S6500, and top-of-the-line (2014 model) S7200 feature TRILUMINOS display technology FWIW.

Also, since apparently SACD playback is important to you, note that the S7200, S6500, and S6200 are fully (i.e., multichannel) SACD-capable. I believe the lower-end SACD-capable models (e.g,., S3500 & S5500) will only play back SACD's in stereo. I have no personal experience with these models, but that is my understanding.

So *IF* you decide you want to upgrade your S570 now, the S6200 for under $100 seems the best value to me.

But any of these models (along with a high-speed HDMI cable) will allow you to play back in native Atmos, as well as 3D video.


----------



## frankpc3

chi_guy50 said:


> Honestly, I can't remember which features are new on the S5100 vs. the S570; but I do remember thinking "Holy cow, this thing loads really fast!" when I first watched a BRD on it. And the dual-core units (S7200, S6500, S6200) are predictably supposed to be noticeably faster still.
> 
> Each generation usually adds some new features. The newest S5500, S6500, and top-of-the-line (2014 model) S7200 feature TRILUMINOS display technology FWIW.
> 
> Also, since apparently SACD playback is important to you, note that the S7200, S6500, and S6200 are fully (i.e., multichannel) SACD-capable. I believe the lower-end SACD-capable models (e.g,., S3500 & S5500) will only play back SACD's in stereo. I have no personal experience with these models, but that is my understanding.
> 
> So *IF* you decide you want to upgrade your S570 now, the S6200 for under $100 seems the best value to me.
> 
> But any of these models (along with a high-speed HDMI cable) will allow you to play back in native Atmos, as well as 3D video.


Great. I do have a few SACDs and want multichannel. So I appreciate the tip regarding sacd capability. I would like to wait for the 4K models to come out. Thanks!


----------



## chi_guy50

Roger Dressler said:


> That's the best way. Always has been. Now if only we could do that in a cinema!


It's a Roger Dressler sighting! Welcome back to the thread, Roger; you've been missed. 



Aras_Volodka said:


> Are half the AVS forum members former submariners? Holy cow... very cool.


No, it just appears that way. In fact, ever since women were allowed into the Navy under the "Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service" program, men have flocked to join the U.S. Navy so that they could ride the WAVES.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> Has anyone seen 'Inside Out', which has an theatrical Atmos mix? It's at Roosevelt Ikon by our place in Atmos. It might be worth it if we have to do a kids movie next week for our toddler.


If you know in advance when you are going to go I might take my step daughter... we could meet up if you want. It's playing @ auditorium 6 which could be a good thing or a bad thing (haha).


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> If you know in advance when you are going to go I might take my step daughter... we could meet up if you want. It's playing @ auditorium 6 which could be a good thing or a bad thing (haha).


PM Sent


----------



## WhiskeyConway

I may have missed this comment in the thread. Has anyone discussed how the positions of the ceiling speakers should probably be near the ceiling first reflection points for the front and side or rear surrounds? Or, is this purely coincidence? 

I get the THX guy's recommendation for front height, about 40*, and top middle, about 90*, when the rear surrounds are mounted above 0* behind you. It makes complete sense regarding angular separation. But, I wonder if we would essentially be overcoming the first reflection of the base 7 speakers by placing sound at those positions. Wouldn't this impact the decision of everyone's perceived "best placement"?

In other words, place the Atmos speakers near front and side surround ceiling first reflections. Just a thought, and it may be completely flawed. Like I said, maybe the suggested placement is just coincidence.


----------



## kingwiggi

Atmos Demo Disk January 2015 is up on kickass

Search for "Dolby atmos for the home.iso"

5.57GB downloadhttps://kat.cr/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-iso-t10825227.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kingwiggi said:


> Atmos Demo Disk January 2015 is up on kickass
> 
> Search for "Dolby atmos for the home.iso"
> 
> 5.57GB download


I can't download it. My malware software states it's a malicious site and blocks it. Could you post the iso (if you were successful) in a drop box?  I think the whole community would thank you profusely.


----------



## NorthSky

kingwiggi said:


> Atmos Demo Disk January 2015 is up on kickass
> Search for "Dolby atmos for the home.iso"
> 5.57GB downloadhttps://kat.cr/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-iso-t10825227.html


----------



## robert816

kingwiggi said:


> Atmos Demo Disk January 2015 is up on kickass
> 
> Search for "Dolby atmos for the home.iso"
> 
> 5.57GB downloadhttps://kat.cr/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-iso-t10825227.html


Personally I wouldn't touch it. Any site that requires you to download and install an executable before you can retrieve the file is highly suspicious.


----------



## David Susilo

Besides, it's an illegal download.


----------



## robert816

There's that too.


----------



## aaranddeeman

David Susilo said:


> Besides, it's an illegal download.


Agreed. It's illegal download. Also from a torrent is inviting trouble.
Having said that, if Dolby had simply handed over the disks to those who requested, there will be no such illegal torrents..
I am still quite pissed with Dolby.


----------



## noah katz

Oh, I thought you meant a disc



punksterz626 said:


> Samsung BD-H5900 3D Blu-Ray Disc Player (2014 Model) via amazon warehouse deal. Usually open box items. Figure really no need to buy expensive bluray player.


----------



## pletwals

WhiskeyConway said:


> I may have missed this comment in the thread. Has anyone discussed how the positions of the ceiling speakers should probably be near the ceiling first reflection points for the front and side or rear surrounds? Or, is this purely coincidence?
> 
> I get the THX guy's recommendation for front height, about 40*, and top middle, about 90*, when the rear surrounds are mounted above 0* behind you. It makes complete sense regarding angular separation. But, I wonder if we would essentially be overcoming the first reflection of the base 7 speakers by placing sound at those positions. Wouldn't this impact the decision of everyone's perceived "best placement"?
> 
> In other words, place the Atmos speakers near front and side surround ceiling first reflections. Just a thought, and it may be completely flawed. Like I said, maybe the suggested placement is just coincidence.


This "feature" had me thinking also. I think it's both logical (chosen angles) and coincidental that the Top speakers can be positioned more or less where the first reflection points are. But if you put the Top speakers in line with the Front L/R, it is not the case. 

Obviously, besides MLP, someone is always going to sit where a Top speaker is at the first ceiling reflection point. IMO, that is undesirable because a speaker is a reflective object. To my best knowledge no (current) room correction can deal with first reflections.

Maybe those who build their own Top speakers should take this into account. Various solutions are possible: curved baffle, small sized cabinet, cladding the baffle with sound absorbing material...


----------



## Roger Dressler

chi_guy50 said:


> It's a Roger Dressler sighting! Welcome back to the thread, Roger; you've been missed.


Much appreciated! I miss being here. The next Deadwood has been filling my time: Link.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Agreed. It's illegal download. Also from a torrent is inviting trouble.
> Having said that, if Dolby had simply handed over the disks to those who requested, there will be no such illegal torrents..
> I am still quite pissed with Dolby.


IDK how many times I have to explain that the disc contains copyrighted content and that Dolby will therefore be restricted by the conditions of the rights owners on how they can or cannot distribute the disc. What would you have Dolby do? Just ignore the rights owners' legal protections and issue the discs anyway, thus inviting a court action against them and, probably, no future rights-restricted content ever to be trusted to Dolby again? Jeez.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Much appreciated! I miss being here. The next Deadwood has been filling my time: Link.


Echoing Chi-guy's sentiments that it's good to see you again here. Exciting times with the new project! I will follow with interest - we will probably be building a custom-design house from scratch in about 2 years time and of course it will have a HT room. I'll follow your build thread with great interest you can bet!


----------



## chi_guy50

Roger Dressler said:


> Much appreciated! I miss being here. The next Deadwood has been filling my time: Link.


That's exciting news! Good luck, have fun, and remember: "Announcin' your plans is a good way to hear god laugh."


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK how many times I have to explain that the disc contains copyrighted content and that Dolby will therefore be restricted by the conditions of the rights owners on how they can or cannot distribute the disc. What would you have Dolby do? Just ignore the rights owners' legal protections and issue the discs anyway, thus inviting a court action against them and, probably, no future rights-restricted content ever to be trusted to Dolby again? Jeez.


Okay, okay, okay. Calm down Mr. Lawyer... 
It's was just venting, and will never stop, however many times you tell me and I understood.. 
I have already taken steps to resolve the problem myself. I traded my PS3 away. I am awaiting the Sony BDP-S5500 to arrive. That should at least make me run those Vudu trailers.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay, okay, okay. Calm down Mr. Lawyer...
> It's was just venting, and will never stop, however many times you tell me and I understood..
> I have already taken steps to resolve the problem myself. I traded my PS3 away. I am awaiting the Sony BDP-S5500 to arrive. That should at least make me run those Vudu trailers.


If people are so hard of thinking that they cannot understand, even after being told multiple times, that Dolby are not free to disseminate copyrighted material in any way they see fit, and that they are bound by restrictions imposed by those who own the rights to the content, then I guess they will never understand and will continue to make statements such as those we keep seeing: "_I blame Dolby - they are arrogant - they ought to release these discs to everyone - they don't care about customers..."_ and so on and on. At some stage people need to realise that there is a real world out there and it is regulated by the force of law. The rights of the people who create original works and content are greater than the rights of the people who consume that content. It's the way it is, the way it should be, and some members need to get over it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> If people are so hard of thinking that they cannot understand, even after being told multiple times, that Dolby are not free to disseminate copyrighted material in any way they see fit, and that they are bound by restrictions imposed by those who own the rights to the content, then I guess they will never understand and will continue to make statements such as those we keep seeing: "_I blame Dolby - they are arrogant - they ought to release these discs to everyone - they don't care about customers..."_ and so on and on. At some stage people need to realise that there is a real world out there and it is regulated by the force of law. The rights of the people who create original works and content are greater than the rights of the people who consume that content. It's the way it is, the way it should be, and some members need to get over it.


Dolby sure has an unusual (may I call it stupid) agreement with the "content creators" to restrict the "trailers" from reaching the public. Who does that? Trailers are advertizing vehicles and more it's reach, more the "content" will be picked up commercially. Else why one would produce it to begin with?
For this, yes I blame Dolby for their dumb agreement (and associated arrogance if you like).. 
Also can you confirm that those have acquired these official demo disks, none of them is just an end user. If not, then it is not consistent and just a lame excuse by Dolby.


----------



## sdurani

aaranddeeman said:


> if Dolby had simply handed over the disks to those who requested, there will be no such illegal torrents


That's your justification for theft? If she had simply handed over her purse, there will be no need to steal it.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Dolby sure has an unusual (may I call it stupid) agreement with the "content creators" to restrict the "trailers" from reaching the public. Who does that? Trailers are advertizing vehicles and more it's reach, more the "content" will be picked up commercially. Else why one would produce it to begin with?


You don't understand how it works. Dolby have no say in this. The content creators/owners make the rules. If they license you to use their content, they decide how it is used, not you. You (Dolby) either agree or you not. If not, you don't get the content. 

There is nothing in the least "unusual", let alone "stupid" about this. In addition, movie content is notoriously complex from a rights and copyright POV. There will be dozens, maybe hundreds, of rights owners involved, from those who wrote the movie script, to those who wrote the score, to all those who own any source music involved, to those who own rights to clips featured in the presentation, to those who own rights to any visual content (eg a poster on a wall) and so on and on. To get all of these different entities to agree is not easy as you may imagine. It only takes one to withhold and the entire thing is stuck. This is why some movies have never been released on Bluray even years after their release and despite huge demand. 

To negotiate the rights to use their clips, Dolby will have had to agree to the terms imposed on them by those who own the rights. If those terms dictate that the content can be used on a disc made available only to custom installers, then that is the only group who can receive the disc. These trailers no longer have any advertising value to the studios as promotional items since the movies have long since been available on Bluray and TV and theaters and so on, so the studios will probably be charging Dolby for the use of the content. If so, they would want considerably more money if the disc was to be distributed to the public than if it is restricted to a small group, eg custom installers. All this has to be weighed up and contracts agreed. It is not a trivial matter and the entire point of it is to protect the rights and incomes of the people who create the content. 

I used to write copyrighted material of my own - do you think I would be happy if I had agreed that you could use my material in, for example, a class you were teaching in college, and then I discovered that you were actually handing my content out to the general public? Do you think I might want to charge you more for the distribution to the wider audience than to a class in college?



aaranddeeman said:


> For this, yes I blame Dolby for their dumb agreement (and associated arrogance if you like)..


Of course you can. But you would be completely wrong. And there is nothing in the least "dumb" about the protection of the rights of those who create content and rely on income from it for their livelihood.



aaranddeeman said:


> Also can you confirm that those have acquired these official demo disks, none of them is just an end user. If not, then it is not consistent and just a lame excuse by Dolby.


. Nobody can control what happens to a disc after it has been released according to the contractual terms. If a CI passes the disc to his buddy, how do you expect Dolby to even know that let alone control it. The CI will have broken the agreement he made not to distribute the disc. But because laws are routinely broken is no argument not to have laws in the first place!

Anyone can rant about this all day but it is not going to change copyright law. And anyone can call Dolby 'dumb' for abiding by the law but that is hardly a sensible position to adopt IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Agreed. It's illegal download. Also from a torrent is inviting trouble.
> Having said that, if Dolby had simply handed over the disks to those who requested, there will be no such illegal torrents..
> I am still quite pissed with Dolby.


Unbelievable. I used to earn my living from writing 'content'. Are you seriously suggesting that I should just give the work away so that others wouldn't have to steal it? That content is my (intellectual) property. You too own property - how do you feel about it being given to me and my buddies, for free? If you do that, then we won't need to steal it from you. I cant believe you are being serious.


----------



## petetherock

There are some sore souls here, because they did not get the Dolby Demo disc. It's not their duty to hand it out.
But I think a nice compromise will be to include their trailers in a CD in the box of the Atmos equipped models, or at least allow a website with some password and a one time download ala itunes digital copies.
I won't lose too much sleep or work up too much angst just because I don't have a way to listen to leaves flying around or cars and such floating around my head.
Life goes on, and I look forward to the next movie, or I get my mates together and make my own clips out of the movies I own.

Cheers


----------



## kbarnes701

I was just thinking how complex this whole issue is. Suppose you wanted to distribute a clip which contained a song that had been in the Top 100 a few years ago? It's not the main feature of the clip but it is playing in the background. You have to approach the studio who released the song, for their permission. You find the studio bundled up 20,000 songs 5 years ago and sold the rights to a Japanese company, but when they sold those rights, the guys who wrote the music and the lyric got a separate deal of their own and a cut of the profits, and for this they agreed that the Japanese company could only distribute these songs in Asia and that they specifically excluded TV, radio and movie rights for a period of 9 years. The Japanese agreed to this so long as the restrictions didn't apply inside Asia and so long as any future rights also included rights to the music and lyric as a package. So you go back to the guys who wrote the music and lyric to ask what they want so you can feature the song in the content of which the clip is an extract. One of the guys has died, and the rights he owned to the lyric have passed to his estate. Originally, this was the songwriter's son, but he, seeing a chance to make a few bucks, sold the rights of all his father's songs to a French company. You approach the French company and they agree, that for a flat fee of $5,000 you can use the song lyric but they are not allowed by the terms of their own agreement to sell rights to the lyric unless rights to the music have also been agreed. And of course the lyric isn't much use without the music and the guy who wrote the music did a deal with a Japanese company, remember, and there's still 4 years to run on the restrictive deal they made. So you go back to the Japanese and tell then you have a tentative agreement on the lyric and you just need to seal a deal for the music and the demo disk will be restricted to distribution inside the continental USA, which is within the terms of their own original contract. The Japanese agree that for a fee of $9,000 you can have the rights you require. All of this has taken 18 months and cost a small fortune in professional fees but now, finally, you are all set and you can distribute your clip.

Then some guys in Europe start calling you "dumb" and arrogant because they have decided they are entitled to this demo disc just like the guys in the USA and "it makes no sense" that Americans can get this demo but the Europeans can't.

What would you do?

(Disclosure: Mrs Keith earns her living from practising Intellectual Property law).


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Unbelievable. I used to earn my living from writing 'content'. Are you seriously suggesting that I should just give the work away so that others wouldn't have to steal it? That content is my (intellectual) property. You too own property - how do you feel about it being given to me and my buddies, for free? If you do that, then we won't need to steal it from you. I cant believe you are being serious.


I just understand a very simple thing.
- Trailers are advertisements and they work for commercial uplift of original contents and hence they are always free (So Dolby's reasoning is beyond me)
- The other 5 demo clips are Dolby's own , so there should be no such "issue" (Wonder if there is any to begin with). More demos to more users is gonna help Dolby and not hurt.

Now to you lengthy blabber (Sorry) in previous couple of posts..
I already made it clear that "it was venting" and I solved the problem for myself and had closed that chapter. But some folks have taken a (self) contract of defending the world. So anyways...


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> There are some sore souls here, because they did not get the Dolby Demo disc. It's not their duty to hand it out.
> But I think a nice compromise will be to include their trailers in a CD in the box of the Atmos equipped models, or at least allow a website with some password and a one time download ala itunes digital copies.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Dolby are already freely distributing their trailers (ie content they own and control fully) via Vudu.


----------



## petetherock

I don't think vudu is something everyone can or wishes to access .. A simple download site will be much more accessible..


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> There are some sore souls here, because they did not get the Dolby Demo disc. It's not their duty to hand it out.


No one is saying it's their duty. If someone requests it they can give it to them . Let them charge the shipping fees.



petetherock said:


> But I think a nice compromise will be to include their trailers in a CD in the box of the Atmos equipped models,


Wouldn't that be ideal?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> I just understand a very simple thing.
> - Trailers are advertisements and they work for commercial uplift of original contents and hence they are always free (So Dolby's reasoning is beyond me)


They are not free. If you want to use a trailer, you have to pay for it, or strike a deal in some other way. They are not effectively advertisements months or even years after the movie has been released. If you believe trailers are "always free" try ringing Sony and asking them for a few which you can burn to disc and give away to people and see what they say.



aaranddeeman said:


> - The other 5 demo clips are Dolby's own , so there should be no such "issue" (Wonder if there is any to begin with). More demos to more users is gonna help Dolby and not hurt.


There is no issue with these - Dolby have already made them available on Vudu. But we are discussing a demo disk which also includes copyright material where the rights are not owned by Dolby. You can’t issue 'half a disk'.



aaranddeeman said:


> Now to you lengthy blabber (Sorry) in previous couple of posts..
> I already made it clear that "it was venting" and I solved the problem for myself and had closed that chapter. But some folks have taken a (self) contract of defending the world. So anyways...


And even after that lengthy blabber, you still haven’t understood the issues


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I don't think vudu is something everyone can or wishes to access .. A simple download site will be much more accessible..


I agree. But that is Dolbys decision and theirs alone. Nobody is _entitled_ to these tracks - they are purely within the gift of Dolby. The sense of entitlement to the work of others is staggering on here.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. But that is Dolbys decision and theirs alone. Nobody is _entitled_ to these tracks - they are purely within the gift of Dolby. The sense of entitlement to the work of others is staggering on here.


You are very smart in embedding words and skewing the conversation. None said they are entitled.
As Peter pointed out, as simple way of getting those demos is what is needed. Just an expectation. 
Peter also called "sore souls", but unless you have gone through the frustration of not able to play those simple demos in the intended "Atmos" format (not entirely Dolby's fault, but a disk would have definitely solved it), you guys would have hard time to understand.
Yes, there are movies, but we all know the scattered use of Atmos in them and not really a demo material (barring the first scene of unbroken).
So please stop arguing as if it is going to affect your career and start walking in the shoes of those who are trying to get the demo working every which way but failing.


----------



## tjenkins95

This weekend I watched *The White Storm*, the Hong Kong movie recently availalable from Japan on blu-ray with the Dolby ATMOS soundtrack. Highly entertaining! Great story, cinematography, and soundtrack!


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> You are very smart in embedding words and skewing the conversation. None said they are entitled.


They didn't say "I am entitled" I agree and nor did I say that they did. The _sense_ of entitlement (which is what I said) is manifest in their posts, all but demanding that Dolby release this material and if they do not they are "dumb, arrogant, stupid" and so on. Unlike those demanding the content who I guess must see themselves as "smart, humble, clever".



aaranddeeman said:


> As Peter pointed out, as simple way of getting those demos is what is needed. Just an expectation.
> Peter also called "sore souls", but unless you have gone through the frustration of not able to play those simple demos in the intended "Atmos" format (not entirely Dolby's fault, but a disk would have definitely solved it), you guys would have hard time to understand.
> Yes, there are movies, but we all know the scattered use of Atmos in them and not really a demo material (barring the first scene of unbroken).
> So please stop arguing as if it is going to affect your career and start walking in the shoes of those who are trying to get the demo working every which way but failing.


I sympathise with people who would like to have their own copies of the demo disk and/or the Dolby trailers. All of the trailers have been available at DemoWorld for some time now, so there is really no excuse at all for not having *Horizon, Leaf, Amaze, Conductor, Silent *and *Unfold*. The three 'sound only' demos are not posted there at this time. So all of Dolby's own content has been available for ages, and it is just the three sound-only demos that are not. Are people really so desperate for these three short sound-only clips that their reason seems to have flown out the window?


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> This weekend I watched *The White Storm*, the Hong Kong movie recently availalable from Japan on blu-ray with the Dolby ATMOS soundtrack. Highly entertaining! Great story, cinematography, and soundtrack!


I just got Taken 3 in Atmos from France. I can hardly say it is a great story! But it may be a great demo. I will report back after watching it.


----------



## sdurani

aaranddeeman said:


> unless you have gone through the frustration of not able to play those simple demos in the intended "Atmos" format (not entirely Dolby's fault, but a disk would have definitely solved it), you guys would have hard time to understand


I could understand defending theft if you were stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family, but justifying it due the "frustration" of not being able to play demo material in particular format? Keith is correct, the sense of first-world entitlement is remarkable.


----------



## farmersagent046

I guess this is an off topic question, but here goes: When I play the dolby atmos demo trailer on vudu, my denon avrX-5200w displays "dolby atmos". When I play my blu-ray copy of Hunger Games: Mockingjay the denon displays "dolby atmos". When I play my vudu copy of Hunger Games: Mockingjay it shows "dolby surround". The Denon does not seem to have an option for me to choose Dolby Atmos during Vudu playback, only Dolby Surround. Does Vudu not have the atmos encoding for mockingjay or do I need to change a setting? Thanks for any advice.


----------



## dkfan9

sdurani said:


> aaranddeeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if Dolby had simply handed over the disks to those who requested, there will be no such illegal torrents
> 
> 
> 
> That's your justification for theft? If she had simply handed over her purse, there will be no need to steal it.
Click to expand...

Not the same. Not saying it's not theft, but physical and intellectual property are different, and scarcity does not exist in the same form in both realms. The stealing physical goods argument will not win people over because it's got a lot of holes


----------



## sdurani

farmersagent046 said:


> Does Vudu not have the atmos encoding for mockingjay or do I need to change a setting?


Likely the former. The Atmos trailers might be the only streaming Atmos content at the moment.


----------



## sdurani

dkfan9 said:


> The stealing physical goods argument will not win people over because it's got a lot of holes


Not trying to win anyone over, just finding the justification remarkable (asthough it is the victim's fault).


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> I could understand defending theft if you were stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family, but justifying it due the "frustration" of not being able to play demo material in particular format? Keith is correct, the sense of fist-world entitlement is remarkable.


This is exactly what I meant by "Keith embedding the words and skewing the original conversation". He is the one came up with the stealing analogy and you picked it up and running with it.
I just vented (and clarified that as well), but you guys are creating a big hoopla about the whole thing. Goto my post # 26011 and see what happened after that...
Unbelievable...


----------



## HT-Eman

*Cinema Experience*

Those 3 audio files on the demo disc are m2ts. If I change them to mp3 format will I lose the dolby atmos sound objects thats embedded in the file. I wanted to use one of the Dolby Atmos audio only demo file from the disc , and play it in cinema experience for trivia and slides audio for xbmc ( KODI ).


----------



## frankpc3

Are the downloads on the URL listed below legal? If the downloads are legal, then there are Atmos examples available and I assume they could be ones also included on the Dolby Atmos demo disk. 

http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/

Not sure how anyone visiting the site would know the Demo disks, tracks, and clips aren't legally available for download. Perhaps some one with a law degree could shed light on the subject.


----------



## frankpc3

HT-Eman said:


> Those 3 audio files on the demo disc are m2ts. If I change them to mp3 format will I lose the dolby atmos sound objects thats embedded in the file. I wanted to use one of the Dolby Atmos audio only demo file from the disc , and play it in cinema experience for trivia and slides audio for xbmc ( KODI ).


I am pretty sure you can play .m2ts files in KODI. Have you tried that and it didn't work?


----------



## kbarnes701

dkfan9 said:


> Not the same. Not saying it's not theft, but physical and intellectual property are different, and scarcity does not exist in the same form in both realms. The stealing physical goods argument will not win people over because it's got a lot of holes


Property is property. It is owned by someone and that person has the right to keep it, give it away, sell it, destroy it, do whatever he wants with it.

You seem to be saying to me that because my work is words written on a page that they do not have the same value as a physical piece of property which I also own. It is OK, you seem to be suggesting, to steal one but not the other. My written words, created by me, are my property and my livelihood - how can it be OK for someone to take that content and just do what _they_ feel like doing with it? Are you saying they should be able to access my content and distribute it freely just because it is 'intellectual property' and not physical property? I assume you get paid for the work you do? Well, those whose work is creating stuff also have a right to be paid for it too.

Also, I have the sole right to decide how my work is used. And what to charge for it. It is my* property*. If I wrote some ad copy for a company and charged them $xxx for that copy to be used one time in a mail shot to 1,000 people, and then I discovered that they were using it multiple times in mail shots to 1,000,000 people, you think that is OK? That they paid for 1,000 but are getting 1,000,000? If you sold Bluray players for a living, would you expect someone to pay the same for 1,000 as for 1,000,000? Of course not. Dolby are in the same position: they have entered into an agreement with the copyright owners to use their content on a limited run of disks to be handed out to custom installers. How do you think the copyright owners would react if they discovered that Dolby was, instead, duplicating thousands more discs and handing them out to the general public?

Nobody has a *right* to have this content other than those who created it. If they decide you can’t have it, they don't owe you a reason, or anything else. It is theirs to do with whatever they want. You might think this is unfair or wrong or you might take a dislike to the person/company who says "you can't have it, sorry" but none of that is relevant. If you own a car - your property - do you feel that you should be *forced* to give it to me, or even sell it to me? If I said I wanted it and you said I can't have it, don't you think that should be the end of it? How would you feel if I then went around dissing you and calling you names because you didn’t want to give me your car, or sell me your car? Even worse, if instead of owning that car you were leasing it, you wouldn't be legally allowed to sell it to me or give it to me - but would you think I was within my rights, regardless, to demand it of you? And if you explained to me you couldn't give it to me or sell it to me even if you wanted to, and then I called you "stupid and arrogant" how'd that feel?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> You don't understand how it works. Dolby have no say in this. The content creators/owners make the rules. If they license you to use their content, they decide how it is used, not you. You (Dolby) either agree or you not. If not, you don't get the content.
> 
> There is nothing in the least "unusual", let alone "stupid" about this. In addition, movie content is notoriously complex from a rights and copyright POV. There will be dozens, maybe hundreds, of rights owners involved, from those who wrote the movie script, to those who wrote the score, to all those who own any source music involved, to those who own rights to clips featured in the presentation, to those who own rights to any visual content (eg a poster on a wall) and so on and on. To get all of these different entities to agree is not easy as you may imagine. It only takes one to withhold and the entire thing is stuck. This is why some movies have never been released on Bluray even years after their release and despite huge demand.
> 
> To negotiate the rights to use their clips, Dolby will have had to agree to the terms imposed on them by those who own the rights. If those terms dictate that the content can be used on a disc made available only to custom installers, then that is the only group who can receive the disc. These trailers no longer have any advertising value to the studios as promotional items since the movies have long since been available on Bluray and TV and theaters and so on, so the studios will probably be charging Dolby for the use of the content. If so, they would want considerably more money if the disc was to be distributed to the public than if it is restricted to a small group, eg custom installers. All this has to be weighed up and contracts agreed. It is not a trivial matter and the entire point of it is to protect the rights and incomes of the people who create the content.


As I read your description of the intricacies involved in obtaining release permissions I am reminded of the sausage-making process: most of us enjoy consuming an occasional sausage but no one wants to know everything that goes into it. 

As an aside, one historical factor that may be fanning the flames of disappointment here regarding the disc unavailability is that way back in August @Spizz posted a link to a site that had posted photos of an AVR-X5200W being unpacked which seemed to show the Dolby Atmos Reference Disc as part of the contents of the original shipping carton. In retrospect, this was probably due to the recipient's identity as a CI, but many here (including yours truly) were hoping at the time that it implied that the disc would be a standard accessory. It seemed logical (to me, at least) given the novelty of the Atmos feature, but it soon proved not to be the case.

At any rate, with streaming access to the main clips via Vudu (to which I have created an account for this sole purpose) and downloading via DemoWorld (which I have also done), I don't see much reason to gripe. Now, as for a *calibration* disc . . . ; I fear we may have to wait for someone like Spears & Munsil to take charge.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> fist-world entitlement


Either a really good martial arts movie or a terrible porno?


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> This is exactly what I meant by "Keith embedding the words and skewing the original conversation". He is the one came up with the stealing analogy and you picked it up and running with it.
> I just vented (and clarified that as well), but you guys are creating a big hoopla about the whole thing. Goto my post # 26011 and see what happened after that...
> Unbelievable...


Not creating any hoopla - just pointing things out and correcting some apparent misunderstandings about rights protection.

And using people's content without their consent isn't analogous to stealing. It IS stealing.


----------



## HT-Eman

frankpc3 said:


> I am pretty sure you can play .m2ts files in KODI. Have you tried that and it didn't work?


Yes the m2ts files play fine in Kodi , but when setting up cinema experience to play a audio file while the trivia and slides are playing , m2ts is not a option. In the settings of cinema experience it ask you to choose a path to the audio file that you would like to use for trivia and slides. I currently have elevator music mp3 file playing when the trivia is playing. I would like to use one of those audio only demo file from the 2015 demo disc. I think it would be cool to have sound objects floating around the room while i'm reading trivia before the movie starts.


----------



## kbarnes701

frankpc3 said:


> Are the downloads on the URL listed below legal? If the downloads are legal, then there are Atmos examples available and I assume they could be ones also included on the Dolby Atmos demo disk.
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/
> 
> Not sure how anyone visiting the site would know the Demo disks, tracks, and clips aren't legally available for download. Perhaps some one with a law degree could shed light on the subject.


I guess we don't know what the arrangements are between the site owner and the content owners. But the site doesn't exactly hide itself so one assumes that the content owners know of its existence and, so far, have not asked for the content to be removed. If a small site like that was faced with a cease and desist order from a giant corporation like Dolby, they'd pretty soon remove the content. So one can assume they haven't been issued with such an order and Dolby are tacitly accepting the situation. Meanwhile, I'd say that if anyone wants the Dolby trailers, they are there for the downloading.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Either a really good martial arts movie or a terrible porno?


Hahahaha. Priceless!


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Either a really good martial arts movie or a terrible porno?


I fixed the original post, though I like where you were going with it.


----------



## HT-Eman

Out of the 3 audio files on the demo disc I would like to use the "Santeria" one. It sounds like your in a rain forest . "The Encounter" one sounds like a alien space ship abduction , and the "Rain" one sounds like a thunderstorm .


----------



## Alanlee

*Just saying*



pletwals said:


> This "feature" had me thinking also. I think it's both logical (chosen angles) and coincidental that the Top speakers can be positioned more or less where the first reflection points are. But if you put the Top speakers in line with the Front L/R, it is not the case.
> 
> Obviously, besides MLP, someone is always going to sit where a Top speaker is at the first ceiling reflection point. IMO, that is undesirable because a speaker is a reflective object. To my best knowledge no (current) room correction can deal with first reflections.
> 
> Maybe those who build their own Top speakers should take this into account. Various solutions are possible: curved baffle, small sized cabinet, cladding the baffle with sound absorbing material...


There are people who frequent this thread who can discuss this issue in depth, but you may have to thump them on the forehead to get their attention. Those knowledgeable people, I am not one of them, have been talking Atmos for over a year now, and, in their defense, the basic details get kinda sorta boring to them, In addition, it is difficult to sort through this thread to find the discussions that you seek.

I suggest you bring up the issue again, and maybe someone who will not respond in geek-speak will talk to you.


----------



## frankpc3

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess we don't know what the arrangements are between the site owner and the content owners. But the site doesn't exactly hide itself so one assumes that the content owners know of its existence and, so far, have not asked for the content to be removed. If a small site like that was faced with a cease and desist order from a giant corporation like Dolby, they'd pretty soon remove the content. So one can assume they haven't been issued with such an order and Dolby are tacitly accepting the situation. Meanwhile, I'd say that if anyone wants the Dolby trailers, they are there for the downloading.


I agree. It is an odd situation. We don't know whether Dolby knows of the site. And in addition, we don't know whether they actually care whether the files are distributed in that manner if we assume they do know.


----------



## frankpc3

HT-Eman said:


> Out of the 3 audio files on the demo disc I would like to use the "Santeria" one. It sounds like your in a rain forest . "The Encounter" one sounds like a alien space ship abduction , and the "Rain" one sounds like a thunderstorm .


And I find none of those on the URL mentioned above... But it seems you are saying those three are audio only. I think the files on the site are video and audio.


----------



## frankpc3

HT-Eman said:


> Yes the m2ts files play fine in Kodi , but when setting up cinema experience to play a audio file while the trivia and slides are playing , m2ts is not a option. In the settings of cinema experience it ask you to choose a path to the audio file that you would like to use for trivia and slides. I currently have elevator music mp3 file playing when the trivia is playing. I would like to use one of those audio only demo file from the 2015 demo disc. I think it would be cool to have sound objects floating around the room while i'm reading trivia before the movie starts.


Wow... Yes. it would be neat to have Atmos playing in the background during the slide show. I am pretty sure you are indicating that all of this is occurring in Kodi. Are you suggesting that another format might allow Atmos to be played and be an option in Kodi? All the files I play in Kodi are .iso's. But all the files I play are music videos. Is .iso an option?


----------



## robert816

I believe he is referring to the three audio only files on the 2015 Dolby Atmos demo disc and to my knowledge they have not appeared on any site for download.


----------



## dvdwilly3

frankpc3 said:


> I agree. It is an odd situation. We don't know whether Dolby knows of the site. And in addition, we don't know whether they actually care whether the files are distributed in that manner if we assume they do know.


I do not think that it is that odd. You can download the demos, yes. And, you can play them...but they play back as Dolby Digital, not Dolby Atmos.

You are not getting "the real deal", i.e. Atmos, so no, they don't really care.

The best that you are getting is DSU, and I can tell you that it is close, but no cigar...


----------



## robert816

The Atmos demos I downloaded from DemoWorld play back in Atmos, not Dolby Digital or DSU.


I've played them back from a thumb drive, through DLNA using the OPPO Blu-Ray player, and burned them to a Blu-Ray disc and all have played back in Atmos.


----------



## frankpc3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I do not think that it is that odd. You can download the demos, yes. And, you can play them...but they play back as Dolby Digital, not Dolby Atmos.
> 
> You are not getting "the real deal", i.e. Atmos, so no, they don't really care.
> 
> The best that you are getting is DSU, and I can tell you that it is close, but no cigar...


Yes, they played back as Atmos on my system. My receiver indicates "Dolby Atmos" and I can hear the source of the sounds change. I saved the files to my HTPC, which is HDMI'd to my AVR.

Not sure how it could be a more real deal.


----------



## HT-Eman

robert816 said:


> I believe he is referring to the three audio only files on the 2015 Dolby Atmos demo disc and to my knowledge they have not appeared on any site for download.


Yes , I am referring to the 3 audio files from the 2015 atmos demo disc. Those 3 audio files are in m2ts format. I would like to change the format from m2ts to mp3 so cinema experience would recognize it as a audio file. But I was wondering if I change the format from m2ts to mp3 will I lose the embedded sound objects for Atmos playback .


----------



## dvdwilly3

frankpc3 said:


> Yes, they played back as Atmos on my system. My receiver indicates "Dolby Atmos" and I can hear the source of the sounds change. I saved the files to my HTPC, which is HDMI'd to my AVR.
> 
> Not sure how it could be a more real deal.


I suspect that what happened with me is that the Atmos got lost in the process.

A friend of mine downloaded the mt2s files to a thumb drive. He gave me that and I copied the files to the hard drive on my desktop. Then, I burned them to a disk.

Somewhere I must have done something wrong. They are not recognized as Atmos on my system...assuming that the original files that I received were actually Atmos to begin with.
Oh, well...


----------



## frankpc3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I suspect that what happened with me is that the Atmos got lost in the process.
> 
> A friend of mine downloaded the mt2s files to a thumb drive. He gave me that and I copied the files to the hard drive on my desktop. Then, I burned them to a disk.
> 
> Somewhere I must have done something wrong. They are not recognized as Atmos on my system...assuming that the original files that I received were actually Atmos to begin with.
> Oh, well...


There are two of each file. -- they have the same file name, but one is Atmos and one is not. I would guess you ended up with the non-Atmos versions. 

Well... I just checked again. The non-Atmos version is not an .mt2s, but the Atmos version is. 

??


----------



## batpig

I'm pretty sure the MP3 container doesn't support hi Rez multich audio.


HT-Eman said:


> robert816 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he is referring to the three audio only files on the 2015 Dolby Atmos demo disc and to my knowledge they have not appeared on any site for download.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , I am referring to the 3 audio files from the 2015 atmos demo disc. Those 3 audio files are in m2ts format. I would like to change the format from m2ts to mp3 so cinema experience would recognize it as a audio file. But I was wondering if I change the format from m2ts to mp3 will I lose the embedded sound objects for Atmos playback .
Click to expand...


----------



## frankpc3

HT-Eman said:


> I would like to change the format from m2ts to mp3 so cinema experience would recognize it as a audio file.


I'm not finding "cinema experience". Can you guide me to it?

I am sure mp3 is not going to work with Atmos. But maybe something else would.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Cinema Experience*

They way I have Cinema Experience setup is when I press play the Dolby Atmos " Unfold " m2ts file plays , then trivia slide show play with music in the background. When trivia stops the dolby atmos " Leaf " m2ts file plays , then THX " Amazing Life " plays. After that I have 3 random movie trailers play. All of the m2ts files plays fine with the encoded sound objects. I just want to replace that background music with one of the dolby atmos audio file.

( I cannot test this out now because I currently don't have a atmos capable receiver at the moment ) .


----------



## HT-Eman

frankpc3 said:


> I'm not finding "cinema experience". Can you guide me to it?
> 
> I am sure mp3 is not going to work with Atmos. But maybe something else would.


Look on youtube . This is old but a good example of what im talking about. During trivia theres music playing in the background. I want to use a dolby atmos audio file for the background .


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Not creating any hoopla - just pointing things out and correcting some apparent misunderstandings about rights protection.
> 
> And using people's content without their consent isn't analogous to stealing. It IS stealing.


You just don't leave it, do you.. 

First of of let me clear that I have not and will not support any stealing of any kind. It's you who kept on going at it with your analogies and twisting the facts.
On the post of that torrent, I had only mentioned that Dolby should have handed the disks instead.. (And the fact that People tend to find ways to get things that does not become available freely).
May be I did not clarify before, but I never care for those trailers as I can get the actual movies. (Still I believe trailer distribution helps original content, but anyways)
My main issue was those 5 Dolby owned clips.
For which, it is well known that they are available on Vudu to stream.
I believe you understand that for it to work, you need a fairly modern device that has the Vudu app and can actually stream Atmos (Even PS3 could not do it as mentioned before).
Second alternative was to download it from demo world.
Again for it to play, it needs a fairly modern device that understands .m2ts files (and again PS3 could not do it)
If Dolby is not ready to give away the demo disks, not ready to create the separate demo disk with those 5 only clips, they could have simply created an .iso image of those 5 and made available for download.
Once burned on the disk, it will play even the first gen. of BD players.
But Dolby seems to have washed their hands off. Isn't this their arrogance?
They say "You do not have to change your BD player to play Atmos", but their own demos are exactly opposite.

So, Did I just keep on cribbing against Dolby. No. I just bought a new player (even though I had no plans to touch my PS3 until UHD stabilizes).
So chapter closed for me. (May not the same for others like me)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Let's just say there are ways Dolby and DTS could be marketing their new Atmos and X formats and building a base of consumers through word of mouth, etc... but they're choosing not to for some strange reason.


----------



## sdurani

aaranddeeman said:


> He is the one came up with the stealing analogy and you picked it up and running with it.


OK, what would you call taking someone's private property without their knowledge or consent?


----------



## frankpc3

HT-Eman said:


> Look on youtube . This is old but a good example of what im talking about. During trivia theres music playing in the background. I want to use a dolby atmos audio file for the background . https://youtu.be/2AJkWNEm4aI



I'll do that. I did get C.E. installed in Kodi. Just need to figure out what to do with it.


----------



## HT-Eman

batpig said:


> I'm pretty sure the MP3 container doesn't support hi Rez multich audio.


Which format would you recommend that will support hi resolution multi channel audio ?

Well I just converted it to FLAC . Don't know if it has the objects audio because I have know way of testing it. But it does play back so I'll stick with this for now until I can verify that it works.


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> OK, what would you call taking someone's private property without their knowledge or consent?


I am done..


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> I am done..


Finally put to rest


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Let's just say there are ways Dolby and DTS could be marketing their new Atmos and X formats and building a base of consumers through word of mouth, etc... but they're choosing not to for some strange reason.


They were expecting us to do the job for them?


----------



## Marauder

How much height separation is recommended between the front/surround vs. height channels in a proper Atmos setup? My current 5.1 system (Def Tech 1000's) has the fronts and surrounds placed at the corners of my room with the couch in more or less the middle (about 9' in front of the surrounds and 11' back from the fronts). My surrounds are mounted at ceiling height however, with my fronts about 4' below the ceiling and my center a bit lower at viewer eye-level. I'm wondering about installing 2 in-ceiling speakers above the couch in order to enable Atmos, but are my current speaker positions already too high to get a good Atmos experience? The greater separation is the back-to-front distance, so adding speakers above the viewing position would probably be noticeable in that regard, but I wanted to get some thoughts on whether I should even bother or just stick to 5.1. Thoughts?


----------



## Nalleh

tjenkins95 said:


> This weekend I watched *The White Storm*, the Hong Kong movie recently availalable from Japan on blu-ray with the Dolby ATMOS soundtrack. Highly entertaining! Great story, cinematography, and soundtrack!


How about the overhead action when the helicopters started shooting with the Gatlin guns? Awsome 



kbarnes701 said:


> I just got Taken 3 in Atmos from France. I can hardly say it is a great story! But it may be a great demo. I will report back after watching it.


Really? Does it have Atmos?
Do you have a link to it?
Thanks


----------



## multit

Nalleh said:


> Really? Does it have Atmos?
> Do you have a link to it?
> Thanks


http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B00SJDKCVW/



multit said:


> It seems, that Taken 3 has been released in France with an engl. & french Dolby Atmos track.
> http://retro-hd.com/tests/blu-ray/2023-taken-3.html#
> As always, the Amazon description at amazon.fr doesn't tell about that...


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> You just don't leave it, do you..


I don't understand that. I am replying to your posts that's all. So maybe it's you who isn’t just leaving it?



aaranddeeman said:


> First of of let me clear that I have not and will not support any stealing of any kind. It's you who kept on going at it with your analogies and twisting the facts.


Glad to hear that you do not condone theft. It was an odd thing to say that if Dolby gave the stuff away there'd be no need for torrentz. That is similar to saying that the fault is Dolby's and not the thieves who use and operate the torrentz. There is an implicit condoning in there, but I accept that you do not condone theft and am pleased to hear you spell it out.



aaranddeeman said:


> On the post of that torrent, I had only mentioned that Dolby should have handed the disks instead.. (And the fact that People tend to find ways to get things that does not become available freely).


You can see though how that makes it sound as if Dolby are somehow at fault, and this somehow 'justifies' the torrentz.



aaranddeeman said:


> My main issue was those 5 Dolby owned clips.
> For which, it is well known that they are available on Vudu to stream.


And also on DemoWorld.



aaranddeeman said:


> I believe you understand that for it to work, you need a fairly modern device that has the Vudu app and can actually stream Atmos (Even PS3 could not do it as mentioned before).


Sure. Vudu is no use to me either. I have the app on my Oppo 105 but I am not a subscriber and have no wish to be. If it was the one and only way to get something I wanted, I would probably join just for that.



aaranddeeman said:


> Second alternative was to download it from demo world.
> Again for it to play, it needs a fairly modern device that understands .m2ts files (and again PS3 could not do it)


Really? I never knew that. I thought everything could play .m2ts files. Well, everything I have can. My bad.



aaranddeeman said:


> If Dolby is not ready to give away the demo disks, not ready to create the separate demo disk with those 5 only clips, they could have simply created an .iso image of those 5 and made available for download.


I agree - they could have. But they have chosen not to and that's the end of that. Maybe they are busy. Mercedes could choose to create a small, lightweight sports car with a 5 litre V8 engine and few of the 'luxuries' that most such cars have - but they don't. What should I do - go onto their forum and complain? It is their choice. If I don't like that choice, tough. What should I do - never buy a Mercedes again? I don't know - what I do know is that I am not entitled to have whatever I demand from them just because I demand it. 



aaranddeeman said:


> Once burned on the disk, it will play even the first gen. of BD players.
> But Dolby seems to have washed their hands off. Isn't this their arrogance?


It is their commercial decision. They are running a for-profit undertaking and they have decided that this demand is not one they are interested in meeting. Do you always call business decisions that you don't personally agree with "arrogance"? Are Mercedes arrogant because they don't produce the $20,000 car I have described above? Or is it just that they have a different view of their business and aren't interested in what I happen to want? It seems extraordinarily odd to me that people feel that they are entitled to have whatever they want from a company and when that company doesn't agree, it is verbally abused.



aaranddeeman said:


> They say "You do not have to change your BD player to play Atmos", but their own demos are exactly opposite.


They don't actually say that. They say that any player that conforms to the Bluray standard is good. This is what they say:

_You can play Dolby Atmos content from a Blu-ray Disc™ through an existing Blu-ray Disc player. Be sure you have a player that’s fully compliant with Blu-ray specifications.*

* You will not need to replace your Blu-ray player *as long as it fully conforms to the Blu-ray specification*. Current generation Blu-ray players, and most older players, are compatible. You should check with the Blu-ray player manufacturer if you encounter problems. _



aaranddeeman said:


> So, Did I just keep on cribbing against Dolby. No. I just bought a new player (even though I had no plans to touch my PS3 until UHD stabilizes).
> So chapter closed for me. (May not the same for others like me)


I think that is an eminently sensible solution and it is fully in line with Dolby's recommendations.

Edited to emphasise the part of Dolby's statement wrt to Blu-ray players that aarenddeman had omitted to mention.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> H
> 
> Really? Does it have Atmos?
> Do you have a link to it?
> Thanks


It does have Atmos. I got it from Amazon France.

I watched it last night. The movie is really bad. There isn't much use of overhead speakers at all. The sound is good enough but by no means the best. It is a poor demo for Atmos. If I were you, I'd save my money


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B00SJDKCVW/


And by the way, it has only French subtitles and you cannot turn them off! I had to watch the movie in English with the French subtitles on all the way through. First time I have come across a disc where the subtitles cannot be turned off completely.

There is a French language (dub) version on the disc, also in Atmos. I didn't try it but I will revisit it - it may be a better overall sound mix. Unlikely but possible. I have some Chinese discs that are like that.


----------



## Nalleh

multit said:


> http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B00SJDKCVW/


I saw your post about this earlier, but it did not seem to be confirmed.



kbarnes701 said:


> It does have Atmos. I got it from Amazon France.
> 
> I watched it last night. The movie is really bad. There isn't much use of overhead speakers at all. The sound is good enough but by no means the best. It is a poor demo for Atmos. If I were you, I'd save my money


Ok, thanks.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> And by the way, it has only French subtitles and you cannot turn them off! I had to watch the movie in English with the French subtitles on all the way through. First time I have come across a disc where the subtitles cannot be turned off completely.


Oh, didn't know that even possible... on a regular Blu-ray.
And considering your comment about the movie itself and the sound quality, it doesn't make sense to rip it on harddisk in order to get rid of the subtitles...
Good to know! ( .... I had the disk already in basket  )


----------



## kbarnes701

multit said:


> Oh, didn't know that even possible... on a regular Blu-ray.


Same here. When I tried to select OFF, it said something like "action disabled by disc". Why on earth would someone author a disc that way?



multit said:


> And considering your comment about the movie itself and the sound quality, it doesn't make sense to rip it on harddisk in order to get rid of the subtitles...
> Good to know! ( .... I had the disk already in basket  )


You have saved some money! It's not often that I come across a movie that has virtually no merit at all. Usually, even if the plot is poor or the acting less than stellar I can find _something _of value - the editing, the score, the SQ or PQ, the action choreography, the cinematography, the production design - _something_. But not on this movie. It is just universally bad. I enjoyed the first in the series - it was well-made for that type of movie. And I bought the second only because I enjoyed the first - but the second is pretty bad. But this third one - well, the tagline says it all for me: _It all ends here_ 

The source music was actually pretty interesting - I could be persuaded to buy a CD of that. But in the movie a lot of the songs are very much in the background or you only get a few seconds of them. Interesting selection though.

But the movie itself - Atmos or not - forget it. (If it was a stunning Atmos demo, it might have been worth the money, but it's actually a really weak Atmos demo).


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not often that I come across a movie that has virtually no merit at all. Usually, even if the plot is poor or the acting less than stellar I can find _something _of value - the editing, the score, the SQ or PQ, the action choreography, the cinematography, the production design - _something_. But not on this movie. It is just universally bad.


Gee, if only someone had warned you! 

At this rate of reckless spending you won't have any money left to commission that custom-built Mercedes you are entitled to.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Gee, if only someone had warned you!


Hahaha. I did take the warning on board and never intended to buy the movie. It was only when I found it was available with an Atmos track that I allowed myself to be swayed. And even that turned out to be a bad move. 



chi_guy50 said:


> At this rate of reckless spending you won't have any money left to commission that custom-built Mercedes you are entitled to.


LOL! If Mercedes don't make a lightweight, inexpensive sportscar, with a large V8 engine and minimum creature comforts, then I say they are arrogant, stupid and dumb. I want one, so it clearly makes sense for them to make it. They are just _not listening_ to us paying customers. That's how arrogant they have become. Anyone would think they wanted to _sell cars_, well, going about it the way they are is really stupid. No wonder people are turning to BMW.


----------



## zimmo

I see this morning in the site ONKYO FRANCE AND ONKYO US two mores models onkyo whit dolby atmos and dts-x onkyo tx-rz800 and onkyo tx-rz 900 .


onkyo ALWAYS FIRST.


HAVE HE GOD DAY


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Are Mercedes arrogant because they don't produce the $20,000 car I have described above? Or is it just that they have a different view of their business and aren't interested in what I happen to want? It seems extraordinarily odd to me that people feel that they are entitled to have whatever they want from a company and when that company doesn't agree, it is verbally abused.


I am speechless. Is this even an analogy. Just (trying) to prove your point you are comparing a zero cost solution to multi-million dollar one.. Amazing.. 




kbarnes701 said:


> They don't actually say that. They say that any player that conforms to the Bluray standard is good. This is what they say:
> 
> _You can play Dolby Atmos content from a Blu-ray Disc™ through an existing Blu-ray Disc player. Be sure you have a player that’s fully compliant with Blu-ray specifications.*
> 
> ** You will not need to replace your Blu-ray player* as long as it fully conforms to the Blu-ray specification. Current generation Blu-ray players, and most older players, are compatible. You should check with the Blu-ray player manufacturer if you encounter problems. _


This is even classic.
You kept on harping on the words that I did not even say (stealing) and made every twist to prove that I did.
And now you are doing exactly opposite in this case. Just see what I said (below) and then what dolby says (form your own quote)

_They say "*You do not have to change your BD player* to play Atmos", but their own demos are exactly opposite.
_


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> I am speechless. Is this even an analogy. Just (trying) to prove your point you are comparing a zero cost solution to multi-million dollar one.. Amazing..


Just showing, by exaggeration, how absurd is the position that just because a customer feels entitled to something, a business should feel obliged to offer it.



aaranddeeman said:


> This is even classic.
> You kept on harping on the words that I did not even say (stealing) and made every twist to prove that I did.


No - I just said that I was pleased you had clarified that you were _not_ condoning theft. 



aaranddeeman said:


> And now you are doing exactly opposite in this case. Just see what I said (below) and then what dolby says (form your own quote)
> 
> _They say "*You do not have to change your BD player* to play Atmos", but their own demos are exactly opposite.
> _


You do not have to change your player to play Atmos content *if your player conforms to Blu-ray specifications*. You conveniently omitted that part of Dolby's statement. 

That is not the same as saying what you said. You said _"[Dolby says] you do not have to change your BD player but their demos are the exact opposite"_ You omitted to say _"but their demos are the exact opposite *if you have a player that does not conform to the Blu-ray specification*". _ IOW, your statement was misleading due to its being incomplete. I corrected that.

EDIT: I edited my earlier post to emphasise the part of Dolby's statement you decided to ignore, just for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.


----------



## kbarnes701

zimmo said:


> onkyo ALWAYS FIRST.


They were certainly the first to adopt a room EQ system that doesn’t EQ the main speakers


----------



## cdelena

Marauder said:


> How much height separation is recommended between the front/surround vs. height channels in a proper Atmos setup? My current 5.1 system (Def Tech 1000's) has the fronts and surrounds placed at the corners of my room with the couch in more or less the middle (about 9' in front of the surrounds and 11' back from the fronts). My surrounds are mounted at ceiling height however, with my fronts about 4' below the ceiling and my center a bit lower at viewer eye-level. I'm wondering about installing 2 in-ceiling speakers above the couch in order to enable Atmos, but are my current speaker positions already too high to get a good Atmos experience? The greater separation is the back-to-front distance, so adding speakers above the viewing position would probably be noticeable in that regard, but I wanted to get some thoughts on whether I should even bother or just stick to 5.1. Thoughts?



The Dolby recommendation is to have the front and surround speakers at or slightly above ear level to fully enable the immersive sound. The Atmos surround processing counts on the positioning of both base level and overhead streams so a different geometry will alter the effect.


It was the largest change I had to make in my theater to enable Atmos (I had to replace speakers to reposition them), much more effort that the overhead speakers. In my case the result was well worth effort. The immersive effect is impressive and improved the theater experience for every seat.


As much work as it can be I still would recommend you consider it.


----------



## petetherock

It certainly impressed me to no end as to how some of the most rubbish movies have the latest sound formats..
And sorry mates, but it impresses me even more how many will chase after them just because they have the latest sound formats... 

And for other moments when we sit down to enjoy those movies with an awesome story and a solid non-Atmos soundtrack, we have DSU 

Oh, here's another off the beat reco that's pretty good with DSU: a UK movie : "Lonely Place to Die"

Plenty of suspense and use of bass, and DSU will whip up far more excitement than Taken > 2....


----------



## [email protected]

I am a newbie, Recently bought HTS 7700 5.1.2, but after experiencing the sound, I felt 5.1.4 would be much better so bought SKF 410 without realizing the fact that Zone 2 is completely different purpose..What are my options now, is there any way I can power these with external amp? I realize the fact that it needs pre out which HTR 6953 doesn't have except for Subwoofer Preout, but still I am thinking that there may be a way out to split or Clone existing heights Left and Right channels to replicate the same with any additions(External amp) assuming that replicating, cloning, copying existing channels to another copy is different from producing it from Receiver sound processing...not sure just checking..


----------



## kbarnes701

[email protected] said:


> I am a newbie, Recently bought HTS 7700 5.1.2, but after experiencing the sound, I felt 5.1.4 would be much better so bought SKF 410 without realizing the fact that Zone 2 is completely different purpose..What are my options now, is there any way I can power these with external amp? I realize the fact that it needs pre out which HTR 6953 doesn't have except for Subwoofer Preout, but still I am thinking that there may be a way out to split or Clone existing heights Left and Right channels to replicate the same with any additions(External amp) assuming that replicating, cloning, copying existing channels to another copy is different from producing it from Receiver sound processing...not sure just checking..


Unfortunately, it seems there is no way you can get the HTS 7700 to do more than an Atmos 5.2.2 setup. The unit has not been designed to accommodate 5.2.4 in any way, shape or form and even if it could use external amps, they wouldn’t help you. Atmos encoding is designed to make use of the special 'Atmos channels' in the AVR and in the 7.1 core soundtrack - you can't use any Zone channels etc to replicate it.

If you have bought the unit very recently, maybe a sympathetic retailer would let you exchange it? You need a 9 channel unit - that will enable you to do Atmos 5.2.4 or 7.2.2.


----------



## Stanton

[email protected] said:


> I am a newbie, Recently bought HTS 7700 5.1.2, but after experiencing the sound, I felt 5.1.4 would be much better so bought SKF 410 without realizing the fact that Zone 2 is completely different purpose..What are my options now, is there any way I can power these with external amp?


You bought a 5.1.2 system...so that's all you're going to get. I'm curious: do you not like the way it "sounds"? I suspect the quality of speakers (and I noticed it uses the "Atmos enabled" version) is not all that good. You sort of get what you pay for.


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> It certainly impressed me to no end as to how some of the most rubbish movies have the latest sound formats..
> And sorry mates, but it impresses me even more how many will chase after them just because they have the latest sound formats...


Everyone's entitled (oops, there's that buzzword again) to their own pursuit of happiness, but I'm with you, Pete. 

As selective as I try to be, there are still a good number of movies I wish I could "unwatch" (*cough* _American Sniper_ *cough*). 



petetherock said:


> And for other moments when we sit down to enjoy those movies with an awesome story and a solid non-Atmos soundtrack, we have DSU


There's no question that DSU has been--and will undoubtedly continue for years to be--the salient feature of Dolby's new immersive audio format for me. It works really, really well on most content. If we want to enjoy 3D audio at home, most of us are going to have rely heavily on these upmixers (DSU/Neural:X) for the indefinite future. And as Keith has stated in the past, for me DSU alone was worth the upgrade cost.



petetherock said:


> Oh, here's another off the beat reco that's pretty good with DSU: a UK movie : "Lonely Place to Die"


Thanks for that recommendation; I've placed it at the head of my Netflix queue!


----------



## zimmo

to kbarnes701
they accu eq has been doing in collaboration whit dolby labs the dolby atmos works whit high ceilling speakers and the surround speakers ,audyssey system is old now,many years pass and cinema change dolby atmos and dts-x,some cie strart now whit him self calibration system ex;yamaha and many peoples nows by news système indépendant calibration ,eventuelly audyssey need big amilioration because cinema system change.


----------



## chi_guy50

zimmo said:


> I see this morning in the site ONKYO FRANCE AND ONKYO US two mores models onkyo whit dolby atmos and dts-x onkyo tx-rz800 and onkyo tx-rz 900 .
> 
> *onkyo ALWAYS FIRST.*


It's extremely heartening to see CEM's coming out with Atmos/DTS:X-ready models up and down their lineups. But I'm scratching my head at the notion that Onkyo is "always first" based on the TX-RZ800/900 models, which seem to have an announced availability date of August 2015 whereas, for example, the Denon AVR-S710W and AVR-S910W are expected to start shipping in July.


----------



## [email protected]

kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately, it seems there is no way you can get the HTS 7700 to do more than an Atmos 5.2.2 setup. The unit has not been designed to accommodate 5.2.4 in any way, shape or form and even if it could use external amps, they wouldn’t help you. Atmos encoding is designed to make use of the special 'Atmos channels' in the AVR and in the 7.1 core soundtrack - you can't use any Zone channels etc to replicate it.
> 
> If you have bought the unit very recently, maybe a sympathetic retailer would let you exchange it? You need a 9 channel unit - that will enable you to do Atmos 5.2.4 or 7.2.2.


My assumption is Atmos encoded signal is out to Height L&R Speakers, which means it has all it need to sound the atmos enable speakers. When we are not looking to generate or channelize additional Height 2 L&R signals for Rear, but copy those which are already processed by Receiver for front..I thought their might be some amplifier that clones though sounds dumb..


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> They were certainly the first to adopt a room EQ system that doesn’t EQ the main speakers


2015 AccuEQ

AccuEQ conducts two measurements- one to set the level, distance and crossover for ALL speakers, including the subwoofer, and a second measurement to eliminate standing waves. Choose to include or bypass EQ measurement for front left and right speakers, and choose to automatically or manually set the EQ. Further, you can save your own manual EQ settings into three available presets


----------



## Kris Deering

In a surprising move Universal has just announced the Blu-ray release of Furious 7 with no Atmos or DTS:X mix. Standard DTS 7.1 only. It had a theatrical Atmos mix so I'm surprised they skipped it on Blu-ray.


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> AccuEQ conducts two measurements- one to set the level, distance and crossover for ALL speakers, including the subwoofer, and a second measurement to eliminate standing waves.


Didn't Pioneer's room correction address standing waves? Would be surprised if Onkyo incorporated parts of MCACC this quickly.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Kris Deering said:


> In a surprising move Universal has just announced the Blu-ray release of Furious 7 with no Atmos or DTS:X mix. Standard DTS 7.1 only. It had a theatrical Atmos mix so I'm surprised they skipped it on Blu-ray.


It did not feature Atmos in theater, it was a 7.1 mix, which explains the home release in this format.


----------



## RUR

sdurani said:


> Didn't Pioneer's room correction address standing waves? Would be surprised if Onkyo incorporated parts of MCACC this quickly.


It did, and apparently they did.

e.g. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ared-subwoofer-equalization-observations.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kris Deering said:


> In a surprising move Universal has just announced the Blu-ray release of Furious 7 with no Atmos or DTS:X mix. Standard DTS 7.1 only. It had a theatrical Atmos mix so I'm surprised they skipped it on Blu-ray.


It did not have an Atmos mix in theaters, Kris.


----------



## Kris Deering

Doh!!!! For some reason I thought this one was Atmos in theaters. Carry on!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Doh!!!! For some reason I thought this one was Atmos in theaters. Carry on!


They could have easily pulled a "Lionsgate" and remixed the PCM stems to DTS:X or Dolby Atmos for the near field mix (it was a hit at the theaters, for God only knows why). Or... maybe they did and it won't get released until UHD Blu-ray. 

Hmmm...


----------



## kbarnes701

zimmo said:


> to kbarnes701
> they accu eq has been doing in collaboration whit dolby labs the dolby atmos works whit high ceilling speakers and the surround speakers ,audyssey system is old now,many years pass and cinema change dolby atmos and dts-x,some cie strart now whit him self calibration system ex;yamaha and many peoples nows by news système indépendant calibration ,eventuelly audyssey need big amilioration because cinema system change.


I agree that Audyssey is overdue for an overhaul. But that doesn't meant that a system which fails to EQ the most important speakers in the system is a good idea.


----------



## Marauder

cdelena said:


> How much height separation is recommended between the front/surround vs. height channels in a proper Atmos setup? My current 5.1 system (Def Tech 1000's) has the fronts and surrounds placed at the corners of my room with the couch in more or less the middle (about 9' in front of the surrounds and 11' back from the fronts). My surrounds are mounted at ceiling height however, with my fronts about 4' below the ceiling and my center a bit lower at viewer eye-level. I'm wondering about installing 2 in-ceiling speakers above the couch in order to enable Atmos, but are my current speaker positions already too high to get a good Atmos experience? The greater separation is the back-to-front distance, so adding speakers above the viewing position would probably be noticeable in that regard, but I wanted to get some thoughts on whether I should even bother or just stick to 5.1. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> The Dolby recommendation is to have the front and surround speakers at or slightly above ear level to fully enable the immersive sound. The Atmos surround processing counts on the positioning of both base level and overhead streams so a different geometry will alter the effect.
> 
> It was the largest change I had to make in my theater to enable Atmos (I had to replace speakers to reposition them), much more effort that the overhead speakers. In my case the result was well worth effort. The immersive effect is impressive and improved the theater experience for every seat.
> 
> As much work as it can be I still would recommend you consider it.
Click to expand...

I've thought about it, but since my space is a multi-purpose family room I'll have to live with the current placement. Since I'm shopping for a new receiver now, I'm mainly trying to decide whether to spend $500-600 on an Atmos/DTS:X model that could add overhead speakers, or just get a $200-300 last-years model that will cover my 5.1 needs now. I guess I'm just trying to gauge how much improvement the former would bring...


----------



## kbarnes701

[email protected] said:


> My assumption is Atmos encoded signal is out to Height L&R Speakers, which means it has all it need to sound the atmos enable speakers. When we are not looking to generate or channelize additional Height 2 L&R signals for Rear, but copy those which are already processed by Receiver for front..I thought their might be some amplifier that clones though sounds dumb..


Atmos sends discrete signal to the four overhead speakers. If your unit does not have Atmos processing for 4 speakers, then you just can't do Atmos 5.2.4. Unfortunately, however much you try, a 7 channel unit, with 7 channel processing, is not going to be able to handle 9 channels. Sorry.


----------



## billqs

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, nevermind. Read the .pdf a couple times and it makes no mention of doing a full 'center extract' like Prologic does. Looks like a sum. Hard to tell for sure.


Scott was it you that was postulating/experimenting with multiple ProLogic 2 receivers to derive middle height channels for Atmos/Dolby Surround? Is there a problem going this route. I know Josh doubles up a couple of channels to get coverage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

billqs said:


> Scott was it you that was postulating/experimenting with multiple ProLogic 2 receivers to derive middle height channels for Atmos/Dolby Surround? Is there a problem going this route. I know Josh doubles up a couple of channels to get coverage.


Yes, that was me and the idea is sound (pun intended). I've got the two PL2 receivers but still don't own an Atmos receiver yet to try it out. Waiting for the new Yammy's to come out. Pretty soon.

I forgot exactly what Josh was doing but I don't believe there was any additional processing going on. I can't think of anybody who has tried what I plan to do. It's a fairly inexpensive addition.


----------



## cdelena

Marauder said:


> I've thought about it, but since my space is a multi-purpose family room I'll have to live with the current placement. Since I'm shopping for a new receiver now, I'm mainly trying to decide whether to spend $500-600 on an Atmos/DTS:X model that could add overhead speakers, or just get a $200-300 last-years model that will cover my 5.1 needs now. I guess I'm just trying to gauge how much improvement the former would bring...



Atmos is beginning to be offered in moderately priced receivers and I would say it is still worth it even if your environment forces speaker placement. Of course my opinion means little when it comes your budget.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I forgot exactly what Josh was doing but I don't believe there was any additional processing going on. I can't think of anybody who has tried what I plan to do. It's a fairly inexpensive addition.


Yeah, Josh is just running a split signal IIRC, no processing/matrixing going on.

Now that I'm in my new house, I've got a funky situation where the previous owner installed a pair of in-ceiling speakers in the-room-that-is-now-the-theater-room, but the speakers are oriented 90 degrees relative to the theater orientation (i.e. in a line perpendicular to the screen). So instead of a left/right pair there's a front/back pair.

The silver lining is that I popped the speakers out (old Sonance models) so I have two big holes in the ceiling to play with for wiring etc. without having to tear up any drywall. But I have this dark place deep down that feels sad about having unused speakers in the room. So I've had this crazy idea of trying to utilize the existing in-ceilings as CENTER overheads, using some PLII or other center extract method to feed a L/R mix (as opposed to front/back extract to TM) to the central speakers, to add more overhead fill. 

Side note but I drove up to Sequoia and Yosemite last week with the family, so I passed by lovely Clovis a couple of times


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Yeah, Josh is just running a split signal IIRC, no processing/matrixing going on.
> 
> Now that I'm in my new house, I've got a funky situation where the previous owner installed a pair of in-ceiling speakers in the-room-that-is-now-the-theater-room, but the speakers are oriented 90 degrees relative to the theater orientation (i.e. in a line perpendicular to the screen). So instead of a left/right pair there's a front/back pair.
> 
> The silver lining is that I popped the speakers out (old Sonance models) so I have two big holes in the ceiling to play with for wiring etc. without having to tear up any drywall. But I have this dark place deep down that feels sad about having unused speakers in the room. So I've had this crazy idea of trying to utilize the existing in-ceilings as CENTER overheads, using some PLII or other center extract method to feed a L/R mix (as opposed to front/back extract to TM) to the central speakers, to add more overhead fill.
> 
> Side note but I drove up to Sequoia and Yosemite last week with the family, so I passed by lovely Clovis a couple of times


Sweet! Did you have a good time? Next time you're in the area you should drop by. 

That's a ... great idea. I think that would be highly effective for the front pair of overheads. Not sure about the rear though. I'd say try it out! Could give some extra stability in horizontal pans and it would allow you to place the left and right a little wider out maybe. Not many around here are willing to try something like this. Would love to know how it turns out.


----------



## asarose247

@ Scott Simonian . .
Dude!

I have an extra yamaha 663 that has 6 multi channel inputs
surely there is a way to wire this up with the X5200 for what you are thinking . . .
Do you think it might be possible to set up/extract front heights and or "top mids' whilst cruising along with at least DSU?
I just installed 2 full motion TV mounts on my front wall this weekend wrt to playing around with a pair of Volt 6's, due for delivery today.

Some assembly required.

your thoughts?


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that Audyssey is overdue for an overhaul. But that doesn't meant that a system which fails to EQ the most important speakers in the system is a good idea.


According to the manual, the 2015 version of AccuEQ gives the option of eq'ing all speakers or bypassing the front L/R.


----------



## petetherock

Kris Deering said:


> In a surprising move Universal has just announced the Blu-ray release of Furious 7 with no Atmos or DTS:X mix. Standard DTS 7.1 only. It had a theatrical Atmos mix so I'm surprised they skipped it on Blu-ray.


Perhaps they will do a UHD Atmos version later on... Double dip time


----------



## Spanglo

I realized another benefit of DSU recently when I was running sweeps with REW. I was doing some full range sweeps with my mains + subs and didn't realize I had DSU enabled. So I disabled DSU, ran the sweeps in stereo, and the frequency response worsened. DSU smoothed out lows, mids, highs. I wasn't expecting that result for some reason. 

Sorry, I didn't save the graphs  Mo speakers mo better.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> According to the manual, the 2015 version of AccuEQ gives the option of eq'ing all speakers or bypassing the front L/R.


That would be a very good move IMO. It will be interesting to hear all those who defended to the death the idea of not EQing the main speakers now defending the idea of EQing them


----------



## asarose247

^ +1

As an interested citizen watching the current run-up to the 2016 elections, this "logic" sounds all too familiar . . 

Interested in what gets said on the "flip" side


----------



## chi_guy50

Marauder said:


> I've thought about it, but since my space is a multi-purpose family room I'll have to live with the current placement. Since I'm shopping for a new receiver now, I'm mainly trying to decide whether to spend $500-600 on an Atmos/DTS:X model that could add overhead speakers, or just get a $200-300 last-years model that will cover my 5.1 needs now. I guess I'm just trying to gauge how much improvement the former would bring...


As others (i.e., Stanton and batpig) have advised you in the past, you will not get an acceptable 3D audio effect with all your surround speakers on roughly the same horizontal plane--whether it be listener-level or, in your case, overhead.

Mulling over your stated expansion limitations, I would suggest that you consider mounting an additional pair of ProMonitor 1000's (assuming that is what you are using) to the left and right of the MLP at the same height as your current surrounds for a 7.1 layout. Your current surrounds would become the new surround backs and the new pair would be the surrounds. This would accomplish at least two goals: it would correct the presently highly compromised placement of the surrounds, which should be at 90° to 110° azimuth, and it would allow expansion of your 2D sound stage to discrete rears. The SL/R and SBL/R should be at ear-level, but if you say that there is nothing you can do about that at this time then you'll just have to live with it. At some point, when you are ready/able to implement an Atmos/DTS:X system, you can add floor-level speakers and redeploy the current ProMonitor 1000's (or some other replacement speaker) as the heights; the FL/R could become FH and the SL/R would become TM (and the SB could be used as RH if your AVR/SSP at that time allows three overhead pairs).

Given your budget, and depending on your time frame for expanding to Atmos/DTS:X, you could either get a plain vanilla 7.1 AVR for now (such as a refurbished Denon AVR-X2100W for $320--including free 3yr. warranty and free shipping) or pick up one of the new 2015 Atmos/DTS:X-capable models starting next month (such as the Denon AVR-S710W for ca. $480). There are many models to select from and the best choice would depend on which features are most important to you.

Either of the two models I listed would probably serve most of your needs until you can implement at least a 5.1.4 Atmos system.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

aaranddeeman said:


> _They say "*You do not have to change your BD player* to play Atmos", but their own demos are exactly opposite.
> _


When Scott interviewed the Dolby reps on Home theater geeks they said "most bluray players would should be able to handle atmos playback"... not all. I'm almost 100% sure of that but am too lazy to re-watch the interview to confirm.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> When Scott interviewed the Dolby reps on Home theater geeks they said "most bluray players would should be able to handle atmos playback"... not all. I'm almost 100% sure of that but am too lazy to re-watch the interview to confirm.


That is my recollection too. And Dolby have always qualified any statements about Blu-ray player compatibility by adding "[players] which conform to the Blu-ray specifications" or words to that effect. Seems reasonable - they can't possibly guarantee that if someone has a prehistoric player that it will work properly with Atmos - but every fully compliant player will. My 5 year old Panasonic, for example, worked perfectly with Atmos until it died some weeks ago. I replaced it with a fairly old secondhand Sony player and this too works perfectly. (It is my backup player - I have an Oppo 103 for 'normal' use).


----------



## Scott Simonian

asarose247 said:


> @ Scott Simonian . .
> Dude!
> 
> I have an extra yamaha 663 that has 6 multi channel inputs
> surely there is a way to wire this up with the X5200 for what you are thinking . . .
> Do you think it might be possible to set up/extract front heights and or "top mids' whilst cruising along with at least DSU?
> I just installed 2 full motion TV mounts on my front wall this weekend wrt to playing around with a pair of Volt 6's, due for delivery today.
> 
> Some assembly required.
> 
> your thoughts?


Wil, you'll need a pair of extra receivers to do an extra stereo pair of overheads, like I'm trying to do. You could use a single to extract a center front height/overhead though.

The multichannel inputs serve no purpose in this method. The point is to decode a stereo signal and convert it to a three channel output. All you need is an available stereo analog input which you will have.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Spanglo said:


> I realized another benefit of DSU recently when I was running sweeps with REW. I was doing some full range sweeps with my mains + subs and didn't realize I had DSU enabled. So I disabled DSU, ran the sweeps in stereo, and the frequency response worsened. DSU smoothed out lows, mids, highs. I wasn't expecting that result for some reason.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't save the graphs  Mo speakers mo better.


Probably other factors in play here and not DSU "smoothing out" the rest of your response.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Probably other factors in play here and not DSU "smoothing out" the rest of your response.


More sources of distributed bass in the room (2 vs 11).


----------



## Spanglo

I understand the distributed bass for the low frequencies, but I was surprised for the improvement in the mids and highs.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Sweet! Did you have a good time? Next time you're in the area you should drop by.


Yeah, would have been a crappy party though since I had a wife, two small children, and two in-laws in the van with me! 




> That's a ... great idea. I think that would be highly effective for the front pair of overheads. Not sure about the rear though. I'd say try it out! Could give some extra stability in horizontal pans and it would allow you to place the left and right a little wider out maybe. Not many around here are willing to try something like this. Would love to know how it turns out.


It's definitely a unique situation, having those two extra speakers in a line down the middle. It won't cost me much to try it out though so might as well. My biggest hope would be that "spreading" the overhead sound would prevent hot-spotting and make it seem more theatrical with just stuff "up there" while still maintaining directionality of pans. 

The speakers are spaced about 6ft apart along the centerline of the room, which is about 17ft deep, but since I'm trying to position the couch around 1/3 distance from back wall that puts one of the speakers basically directly overhead of the couch, maybe a wee bit forward. So you might be right that it will be more effective for the front height array (the other speaker is around 35 degree elevation relative to the seating). Now that I'm getting set up I'm going to do some measurements of my bass modes to see where the couch will actually end up relative to the room.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Yeah, would have been a crappy party though since I had a wife, two small children, and two in-laws in the van with me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely a unique situation, having those two extra speakers in a line down the middle. It won't cost me much to try it out though so might as well. My biggest hope would be that "spreading" the overhead sound would prevent hot-spotting and make it seem more theatrical with just stuff "up there" while still maintaining directionality of pans.
> 
> The speakers are spaced about 6ft apart along the centerline of the room, which is about 17ft deep, but since I'm trying to position the couch around 1/3 distance from back wall that puts one of the speakers basically directly overhead of the couch, maybe a wee bit forward. So you might be right that it will be more effective for the front height array (the other speaker is around 35 degree elevation relative to the seating). Now that I'm getting set up I'm going to do some measurements of my bass modes to see where the couch will actually end up relative to the room.



Haha! I understood. That's why I said, "next time".  Not that they aren't welcome to come too. 

I like it! Would certainly do exactly what you say. Preventing "hot spots" and strengthening stability all while preserving positional panning is all good in my book. 

Do you have an extra surround receiver laying around for this? I was looking at some new Denon's that are completely modern just 5.1 only. All you need is that and PL2 processing which everything has had for a decade now. Could go even cheaper searching out eBay or Craigslist.


Also... I'm considering applying this to the left and right front and side surround. Decoding wides with DSU, anyone? Yup.

I think I heard a few just get a little moist.


----------



## batpig

asarose247 said:


> @ Scott Simonian . .
> Dude!
> 
> I have an extra yamaha 663 that has 6 multi channel inputs
> surely there is a way to wire this up with the X5200 for what you are thinking . . .
> Do you think it might be possible to set up/extract front heights and or "top mids' whilst cruising along with at least DSU?
> I just installed 2 full motion TV mounts on my front wall this weekend wrt to playing around with a pair of Volt 6's, due for delivery today.
> 
> Some assembly required.
> 
> your thoughts?


As Scott noted the big problem with this plan is that the multich analog inputs on a receiver are generally straight "passthrough" to the amps and cannot have any processing applied. What comes in down the input pipe goes straight out to that speaker, so you can't apply PLII or whatever to extract a center output. So in practice you are really limited to a 2ch>3ch input/output scenario using a single receiver, i.e. a single RCA stereo input for stereo FR/FL channels and then apply PLII or whatever processing you desire to generate the CC output.


----------



## bargervais

zimmo said:


> I see this morning in the site ONKYO FRANCE AND ONKYO US two mores models onkyo whit dolby atmos and dts-x onkyo tx-rz800 and onkyo tx-rz 900 .
> 
> 
> onkyo ALWAYS FIRST.
> 
> 
> HAVE HE GOD DAY


Both are only able to do 7.1 and I think they are a little pricey for an Atmos / DTS:X. 7.1 receiver. I'll wait till next year thank you very much, hopefully by then there will be a lot of UHD BLU-RAYS with Atmos and or DTS:X.


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> It certainly impressed me to no end as to how some of the most rubbish movies have the latest sound formats..
> And sorry mates, but it impresses me even more how many will chase after them just because they have the latest sound formats...
> 
> And for other moments when we sit down to enjoy those movies with an awesome story and a solid non-Atmos soundtrack, we have DSU


Yeah. Looks like we are gonna be lost if there is no sound from above...


----------



## aaranddeeman

Kris Deering said:


> In a surprising move Universal has just announced the Blu-ray release of Furious 7 with no Atmos or DTS:X mix. Standard DTS 7.1 only. It had a theatrical Atmos mix so I'm surprised they skipped it on Blu-ray.


That is probably reserved for double dipping...


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> That is probably reserved for double dipping...


Yeah, sure. They'll go remix the whole soundtrack just to push a later 'double dip' video release.

Oye.


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> That is probably reserved for double dipping...


Why double dip you see one fast and furious movie you have seen them all.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Why double dip you see one fast and furious movie you have seen them all.


----------



## petetherock

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, sure. They'll go remix the whole soundtrack just to push a later 'double dip' video release.
> 
> Oye.


Didn't they do that for "Gravity"?


----------



## Scott Simonian

No, there was already an Atmos track for it before it came to video. 

They may have had to modify it for home use, I'm not totally sure but that is very different from going to a whole new immersive mix from which there was none.


----------



## billqs

batpig said:


> As Scott noted the big problem with this plan is that the multich analog inputs on a receiver are generally straight "passthrough" to the amps and cannot have any processing applied. What comes in down the input pipe goes straight out to that speaker, so you can't apply PLII or whatever to extract a center output. So in practice you are really limited to a 2ch>3ch input/output scenario using a single receiver, i.e. a single RCA stereo input for stereo FR/FL channels and then apply PLII or whatever processing you desire to generate the CC output.


Just for clarification's sake... if we're talking about creating middle height channels then we'd use 1 PLII Receiver using one Front Channel and one Rear Channel to create one Center Channel. So you would attach Top Front Left + Top Rear Left through a stereo input on one PLII Receiver to derive one Top Middle Left channel. Then attach Top Front Right + Top Rear Right running through another PLII receiver to create the Top Middle Right Channel. I think that's correct.

It's a wonderful idea, and with fairly recent receivers on Ebay regularly running under $200 you could really try this on the cheap.


----------



## Craig Mecak

billqs said:


> Just for clarification's sake... if we're talking about creating middle height channels then we'd use 1 PLII Receiver using one Front Channel and one Rear Channel to create one Center Channel. So you would attach Top Front Left + Top Rear Left through a stereo input on one PLII Receiver to derive one Top Middle Left channel. Then attach Top Front Right + Top Rear Right running through another PLII receiver to create the Top Middle Right Channel. I think that's correct.
> 
> It's a wonderful idea, and with fairly recent receivers on Ebay regularly running under $200 you could really try this on the cheap.


Yes, that's correct. You need *TWO* PLII decoders, and make sure they're operating in 3.0 output mode (not 5.1), otherwise information is being 'extracted' and possibly sent to non-existent/not connected surround speakers. It's only the centre / left / right outputs you want, to create the new 'centre' extracted channels (middle Top L/R Channels).

Craig.


----------



## batpig

Right. But I'll add that it seems silly to spend even $200 on a recent model receiver when all you require is three channels of amplification and PLII. HDMI inputs, video conversion, 7 channels etc are totally A 10 year old receiver would meet that criteria. 

I'll be trolling Craigslist for under $100 entry level models.


----------



## jleroy68

Pardon my newness and lack of experience. I am laying out for a 7.1.4 Atmos and in the process of placement of speakers. I'm going with (I think) the Onkyo add on speakers in the front, and was wondering since you can have ceiling speakers (that I don't think are Atmos enabled in any special way) instead of Atmos enabled upwards firing speakers, and as the back is not supposed to matter as much as front, why not continue to use a couple of speakers I already have wall mounted on wall about 4" below the ceiling to serve as the last 2 of the .4. Shouldn't be that much different from ceiling speakers unless I'm just plain missing something here. This would be better if our ears were "S" shaped.


----------



## billqs

I was going to add Front Heights and go with Josh's solution and copy Front Heights and Top Front ( I think he actually does this in reverse with Top Rear and Rear Height but the concept is the same) but I worried about the load on my receiver, so I bought a new amp to power the front heights. I also have an old Kenwood Amp powering my Top Rear speakers. 

It would be really easy to replace both of these with entry level receivers like you were saying and use PLII to derive Center Height Channels. Not needing any of the video bells and whistles there was a lot of really good gear produced in the last 10 years that sounded terrific. My last 4 or 5 upgrades were all forced on me by changes to video standards (except the upgrade to allow Dolby True Audio and DTS Master Audio) so I could go back and revisit some old favorites of mine. Not sure exactly when I'll be up to it on the project list however... I'm neck deep in room treatments at the moment.


----------



## billqs

Batpig- Your overhead center line speaker positions, particularly the one that will be almost right over you MLP sounds like it would be perfect for an Auro-like "Voice of God" speaker. That's one item from Auro I wish Dolby had also seen fit to create.


----------



## billqs

jleroy68 said:


> Pardon my newness and lack of experience. I am laying out for a 7.1.4 Atmos and in the process of placement of speakers. I'm going with (I think) the Onkyo add on speakers in the front, and was wondering since you can have ceiling speakers (that I don't think are Atmos enabled in any special way) instead of Atmos enabled upwards firing speakers, and as the back is not supposed to matter as much as front, why not continue to use a couple of speakers I already have wall mounted on wall about 4" below the ceiling to serve as the last 2 of the .4. Shouldn't be that much different from ceiling speakers unless I'm just plain missing something here. This would be better if our ears were "S" shaped.


If they are located on the rear wall, you could run them as Rear Heights. It's Atmos spec and everything. Just get some ear-level speakers for your regular rear surrounds. You want as much separation as possible so you can experience the height and spatial effects.


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Right. But I'll add that it seems silly to spend even $200 on a recent model receiver when all you require is three channels of amplification and PLII. HDMI inputs, video conversion, 7 channels etc are totally A 10 year old receiver would meet that criteria.
> 
> I'll be trolling Craigslist for under $100 entry level models.


Looking at this, I think $100 is even steep...
Where are these thrift stores that sell at that price.


----------



## asarose247

OK, so you only want 2 plII enabled avr's

from a pm to scott earlier while I was trying to be a bit less confused . . .

main AVR: Denon X5200
Amp: UPA 7

extra AVR"s: Yammy 663, and 775WA
Onkyo 818 and RC 160 and a 525
a much older Sony STR DE 675.

DAMN!

I use my Denon X4000 in the man cave
and an Onkyo 260 at my girls's condo

Who? ME! outta' control, no way!

as i understand it in the X5200 manual, switching to a DSX mode will engage the front heights.
9.x

switching to DSU or ATMOS, 7.1.4, no front heights.

OK this sounds good
: Just for clarification's sake... if we're talking about creating middle height channels then we'd use 1 PLII Receiver using one Front Channel and one Rear Channel to create one Center Channel. So you would attach Top Front Left + Top Rear Left through a stereo input on one PLII Receiver to derive one Top Middle Left channel. Then attach Top Front Right + Top Rear Right running through another PLII receiver to create the Top Middle Right Channel. I think that's correct.
Thank you

My line of sight separation of 4 tops, surrounds and rear surrounds all measure in the 5.5 to about 6.5 ft. range wrt the MLP
i don't think I have adequate separation for Top Middles, as moving the top rears rearward and spreading would start to locate them mol in a similar plane as the rear surrounds. Then top mids would be about a tight 5 feet from the side surrounds, which are already as low as they can be. I can move the Top fronts out toward the front of the room as my front LCR plane is 11 feet from my throne. And my recent addition of the full motion mounts on the front wall will let me put front heights.
While chasing a wild hare, : TAke a front left and a front left surround and make a front middle surround, not a front wide, same for a right side.

Then there be a way to extract a signal for front heights , front mid surrounds , top mids are possible but things would be close, while running ATMOS/DSU?
Runs ome XT32 on the usual suspects and dial the others in by SPL and select xo's
That turns into a hybred 13.x.6

I have the AVR's, other smallish speakers , (Bose "rooomates" and others > xo @ 100/120),wire, brackets

who want to help build this? remember I have a zero WAF
We can do this!

What could possibly go wrong?!?

comments ,critiques, improvements welcomed.


----------



## Csbooth

bargervais said:


> 2015 AccuEQ
> 
> AccuEQ conducts two measurements- one to set the level, distance and crossover for ALL speakers, including the subwoofer, and a second measurement to eliminate standing waves. Choose to include or bypass EQ measurement for front left and right speakers, and choose to automatically or manually set the EQ. Further, you can save your own manual EQ settings into three available presets


I mentioned this a little over a month ago; no one seemed to care lol. I am glad to see that they are EQing the entire soundstage with the option for multiple save presets and bypassing.


----------



## jleroy68

billqs said:


> If they are located on the rear wall, you could run them as Rear Heights. It's Atmos spec and everything. Just get some ear-level speakers for your regular rear surrounds. You want as much separation as possible so you can experience the height and spatial effects.


Thanks for info. They're on the side wall behind the surrounds and before the rear. Rears are up high so I think I'll lower them about 2-1/2 feet.


----------



## NorthSky

jpco said:


> According to the manual, the 2015 version of AccuEQ gives the option of eq'ing all speakers or bypassing the front L/R.


Maybe Onkyo's into something?


----------



## Marauder

chi_guy50 said:


> As others (i.e., Stanton and batpig) have advised you in the past, you will not get an acceptable 3D audio effect with all your surround speakers on roughly the same horizontal plane--whether it be listener-level or, in your case, overhead.
> 
> Mulling over your stated expansion limitations, I would suggest that you consider mounting an additional pair of ProMonitor 1000's (assuming that is what you are using) to the left and right of the MLP at the same height as your current surrounds for a 7.1 layout. Your current surrounds would become the new surround backs and the new pair would be the surrounds. This would accomplish at least two goals: it would correct the presently highly compromised placement of the surrounds, which should be at 90° to 110° azimuth, and it would allow expansion of your 2D sound stage to discrete rears. The SL/R and SBL/R should be at ear-level, but if you say that there is nothing you can do about that at this time then you'll just have to live with it. At some point, when you are ready/able to implement an Atmos/DTS:X system, you can add floor-level speakers and redeploy the current ProMonitor 1000's (or some other replacement speaker) as the heights; the FL/R could become FH and the SL/R would become TM (and the SB could be used as RH if your AVR/SSP at that time allows three overhead pairs).
> 
> Given your budget, and depending on your time frame for expanding to Atmos/DTS:X, you could either get a plain vanilla 7.1 AVR for now (such as a refurbished Denon AVR-X2100W for $320--including free 3yr. warranty and free shipping) or pick up one of the new 2015 Atmos/DTS:X-capable models starting next month (such as the Denon AVR-S710W for ca. $480). There are many models to select from and the best choice would depend on which features are most important to you.
> 
> Either of the two models I listed would probably serve most of your needs until you can implement at least a 5.1.4 Atmos system.


Cool, I appreciate all the advice here for someone just dipping my toes into getting a surround setup. It seems like the plain vanilla 5.1 or 7.1 AVR is probably the way to go at this point, since adding the overhead speakers won't really correct my sub-optimal surround speaker positioning. I don't know if you know the answer, but would DTS:X be able to overcome these positioning limitations? I've read that it is less position-dependent than Atmos. What about an advanced EQ like XT32?


----------



## billqs

Dolby Atmos and DTS X are really advanced, but cannot perform magic. If you don't have any height speakers they will compensate by sending the sound objects to your existing speakers but you can't expect them to put sound where you have nothing to produce it. The technologies _can _give phantom placement depending on your plain of speakers, but if your plain of speakers is skewed your sound reproduction will be too.


----------



## kbarnes701

billqs said:


> Dolby Atmos and DTS X are really advanced, but cannot perform magic. If you don't have any height speakers they will compensate by sending the sound objects to your existing speakers but you can't expect them to put sound where you have nothing to produce it. The technologies _can _give phantom placement depending on your plain of speakers, but if your plain of speakers is skewed your sound reproduction will be too.


Agreed - but don't forget Atmos-enabled speakers. These do a pretty convincing job of putting sound where you have nothing to reproduce it  Well, the setup I heard at Dolby Labs in London did...


----------



## chi_guy50

Marauder said:


> Cool, I appreciate all the advice here for someone just dipping my toes into getting a surround setup. It seems like the plain vanilla 5.1 or 7.1 AVR is probably the way to go at this point, since adding the overhead speakers won't really correct my sub-optimal surround speaker positioning. I don't know if you know the answer, but would DTS:X be able to overcome these positioning limitations? I've read that it is less position-dependent than Atmos. What about an advanced EQ like XT32?


My personal viewpoint (which I factored into my AVR recommendations to you) is that it isn't cost-effective in light of your limited budget to spring for the highest tier of REQ as long as your speaker layout is so highly compromised. Once you've approximated the recommended placement of speakers to the maximum extent the room will allow, then you could think about fine-tuning the results via advanced REQ and/or room treatments.


----------



## billqs

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed - but don't forget Atmos-enabled speakers. These do a pretty convincing job of putting sound where you have nothing to reproduce it  Well, the setup I heard at Dolby Labs in London did...


^^
True dat.


----------



## batpig

Marauder said:


> Cool, I appreciate all the advice here for someone just dipping my toes into getting a surround setup. It seems like the plain vanilla 5.1 or 7.1 AVR is probably the way to go at this point, since adding the overhead speakers won't really correct my sub-optimal surround speaker positioning. I don't know if you know the answer, but would DTS:X be able to overcome these positioning limitations? I've read that it is less position-dependent than Atmos. What about an advanced EQ like XT32?


I have a slightly different take. Yes, ideally you want to maintain a separation in "layers" between the main speakers and the overhead speakers to get the full immersive effect. Your front 3 speakers seem like they are pretty much at ear level (ish) so no problem there, the big issue is that your surrounds are in the two back corners of the room at ceiling height.

So, one response is to say, "forget about Atmos/DTS:X, your surrounds are too high." But my take is that you still have a big hole that can be filled above and in front of you. It's one thing this was 6 months ago and Atmos was a niche, high end feature, but in short order Atmos/DTS:X decoding will be standard just like any other Dolby/DTS format on entry level 7.1ch models. For example the soon to be released Denon X1200W will have Atmos, DTS:X decoding, HDCP 2.2 compliance for full 4K support, and excellent room correction with Audyssey MultEQ XT.

So, if you can swing it, I would think you could get a really nice improvement by nabbing one of these entry level 7.1ch (5.1.2) Atmos models and adding a pair of Def Tech PM's on the ceiling above and a bit in front of your seating position. It won't be perfect, but I'm a big advocate of mo' speakers mo' better -- even with elevated surrounds you will "close the dome of sound" overhead by adding those two extra speakers, and allow for overhead immersion and panning. 

I say this as someone who had a very similar setup -- in my old place I was running 5.1.2 and (due to room limitations) my surrounds were too far behind me and too high up according to the book. But I still felt like I got significant improvement by adding two Atmos speakers.


----------



## SoundChex

In a *Twice com* report from *CES 2015* titled "*Dueling Surround Formats Won't Sow Confusion*" (_link_):



> _More important, DTS:X “supports any speaker layout,” including Dolby Atmos speaker layouts that include height speakers, said Kirchner. Consumers won’t have to worry about cluttering up their living rooms with two separate speaker configurations and switching between them depending on the soundtrack they’re playing. DTS has “worked with manufacturers to make sure the first implementations include pre-selected [speaker] layouts which overlap with familiar layouts,” a spokesperson added. *Familiar layouts include 5.1 layouts without height speakers. “We don’t require elevation speakers,” Kirchner said. “We can render height virtually.”* It will be the manufacturer’s decision to support traditional 5.1-speaker layouts, he noted. Although there are advantages to more speakers, “flexibility adds more value to the consumer.”_


This might use technology similar to that employed by *Yamaha* to accomplish *"Virtual Presence Speaker"* processing...? However, I also recall reading subsequent press reports which suggested *DTS:X* _Virtual Height Speaker_ processing would *not* be included in the initial 2015 version of the product...?! 



_


----------



## jroyv

Seems like a good place to ask a Home Theater related Atmos question. I've been working on a theater build for the last year and have the room wired for 9.2. 7.2 with front wides.

I caught the Atmos information early enough to include 4 ceiling speakers in the design. 
But now that I'm getting closer to the end and doing a little research it doesn't look like there are any receiver options for a 9.2.4 setup???

Going through various receiver manuals it looks like I would need to drop my wides and do 7.2.4 or drop one set of ceiling speakers and do 9.2.2.

Any cost effective options for a full 9.2.4 setup?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jroyv said:


> Any cost effective options for a full 9.2.4 setup?


Wire for it. Perhaps 2016 models will allow for 9.1.4 rendering in the 13.1 upper tier "normal" models. Dolby had it listed as an option in their white paper. Don't know why they would if it's not on the drawing board.

Otherwise, don't buy a new car and instead get a Trinnov or Steinway pre-amp.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wire for it. Perhaps 2016 models will allow for 9.1.4 rendering in the 13.1 upper tier "normal" models. Dolby had it listed as an option in their white paper. Don't know why they would if it's not on the drawing board.
> 
> Otherwise, don't buy a new car and instead get a Trinnov or Steinway pre-amp.


Yikes! Or don't. 

Those are really cool pieces of gear but a new car could be more useful and practical. Or anything else bought with $20-30k. 

Wire up for 9.1.6, sit back and wait for the gear to support it and keep the funds to send your kids to college.


----------



## jrogers

Scott Simonian said:


> Yikes! Or don't.
> 
> Those are really cool pieces of gear but a new car could be more useful and practical. Or anything else bought with $20-30k.
> 
> Wire up for 9.1.6, sit back and wait for the gear to support it and keep the funds to send your kids to college.


Actually, the cost of college these days is one of the few things that makes the Trinnov or Steinway sound like a good deal


----------



## Scott Simonian

jrogers said:


> Actually, the cost of college these days is one of the few things that makes the Trinnov or Steinway sound like a good deal


Hey! Don't s**t on my point. 


That's what Jr. College was invented for anyway.


----------



## sdrucker

Question for you guys:
Is anybody here using the Crown XLS 1000 or 1500 for amping their Dolby Atmos height speakers? I've got a quartet of Atlantic Technology 44-DAs I'm planning to use as Dolby Enabled speakers (once I buy them from a certain AVS member moving to ceilings  ), to use in our condo pending a move to a place with a dedicated HT room in the future. The ATs are about 86-87 db efficiency, and are rated at up to 100 W at 6 ohms. With the Altitude I received last week having an XLR balanced path for its pre-outs (no RCA outs), I don't want to get into mixing XLR->RCA and XLR connections to avoid possible gain structure issues due to the gain differential, which is an issue for the calibration. Ideally I'd also want Class D amps for the greater efficiency and space saving. I'm happy with a NAD M27 for my floor channels, which are Class D Hypex NCore.


After some agonizing, I've tossed around the idea of getting four Outlaw monoblocks (about $1250), or getting the Wyred4Sound MMC (seven channels, about $2500), but either of those are really overkill for this kind of use and not a good use of electrical outlets (you'd need four with the Outlaws) or money given that these are height/presence speakers. Even with the vaunted Altitude, I don't think I'd ever do more than four or six height speakers for Atmos purposes, and I'd prefer to save my amp money for more floor channels or additional subs if the need arises (yes, snicker if you must given that I used the word "save" and "Altitude" in the same sentence).

I can get a pair of stereo XLS 1500s from Guitar Center or Sweetwater new for about $600, or wait for a slightly higher end XLS 1002 next month if I want some esoteric controls over leveling and limiting. Having said that, the one thing giving me pause is the lowish S/N ratio (97 db and 103 db respectively), and how well these things work in an indoor environment with maybe 6" clearance for airflow on top, and considerably more on either side given the ATs as the speakers. 


One other thing: in the XLS manuals they mention something about magnetic fields and possible resulting hum for unshielded devices (like my Oppo?). Is this still an issue for XLR connections?

Odds are I'd be fine, but somehow this seems too easy.....and even with Crowns, I'll hold off on getting something even more esoteric like the 12 channel CT8150 unless I decide that Phoenix block connectors are my cup of tea. Thoughts?


----------



## batpig

jroyv said:


> Going through various receiver manuals it looks like I would need to drop my wides and do 7.2.4 or drop one set of ceiling speakers and do 9.2.2.
> 
> Any cost effective options for a full 9.2.4 setup?


unfortunately, no, as others have said, going beyond 11ch processing is the sole province of $20K class uber-processors. Emotiva promises to break through that barrier in 1-2 years with their new 15ch processor, but, it's Emotiva, so who knows if it will come out anywhere close to on time. 

In the meantime, assuming you don't want to spend $20K, you have the following options:

Option 1: The 11ch capable Denon/Marantz models (e.g. Denon X5200, Marantz SR7009) allow you to connect a full 13ch setup (9.1.4) even though they can only run 11 channels at a time. You do need four external amp channels at minimum (to supplement the 9 internal amps to get to 13 total). Once hooked up, you can then swap between different 9/11ch surround formats based on surround mode, e.g. DTS Neo:X upmxing will do 11ch with FW+FH (i.e. 9.1.2 in Atmos-speak), whereas Atmos/DSU will use 7.1.4 and the FW will be silent.

Option 2: The Franken-processor. If you read back a few pages, you'll see some discussion of wacky ideas to externally amplify channels with another AVR, and then utilize the PLII processing in the external AVR to matrix a center channel output (turning a 2ch input into 3ch output with an in-between speaker). So, for example, you could matrix Front and Surround channels to extract a pseudo-Wide speaker in between the two. Or do the same with the height channels to end up with 6 heights instead of 4.


----------



## brahman12

*Crowns XLS series*



sdrucker said:


> Question for you guys:
> Is anybody here using the Crown XLS 1000 or 1500 for amping their Dolby Atmos height speakers? I've got a quartet of Atlantic Technology 44-DAs I'm planning to use as Dolby Enabled speakers (once I buy them from a certain AVS member moving to ceilings  ), to use in our condo pending a move to a place with a dedicated HT room in the future. The ATs are about 86-87 db efficiency, and are rated at up to 100 W at 6 ohms. With the Altitude I received last week having an XLR balanced path for its pre-outs (no RCA outs), I don't want to get into mixing XLR->RCA and XLR connections to avoid possible gain structure issues due to the gain differential, which is an issue for the calibration. Ideally I'd also want Class D amps for the greater efficiency and space saving. I'm happy with a NAD M27 for my floor channels, which are Class D Hypex NCore


I use the Crown XLS 1000 for my center channel and the 1500 for my front L/R channels. My Center is a Martin Logan Motion 50 XT and my L/R's are JBL Studio L 890's. The Crowns sound great...pretty neutral (not warm, not bright). They can play very loudly and cleanly with great power if you can drive them via proper gain through the pre-pro. With the lovely Trinnov, you should have no problem. They do have a slight hiss that you can hear from about 6-12 inches away from the speaker baffles but anything beyond that you won't hear it....no worry about overheating these babies either, thus the cooling fans never kick in unless some kind of severe overheating occurs, which has never happened to me. I have an Oppo 105D as my main source player and I personally have never experienced any hum 
issues. They are super sweet as my main duty amps, so I am fairly sure they will be more than up to the task for your heights. Best regards my friend.


----------



## audiofan1

batpig said:


> unfortunately, no, as others have said, going beyond 11ch processing is the sole province of $20K class uber-processors. Emotiva promises to break through that barrier in 1-2 years with their new 15ch processor, but, it's Emotiva, so who knows if it will come out anywhere close to on time.
> 
> In the meantime, assuming you don't want to spend $20K, you have the following options:
> 
> Option 1: The 11ch capable Denon/Marantz models (e.g. Denon X5200, Marantz SR7009) allow you to connect a full 13ch setup (9.1.4) even though they can only run 11 channels at a time. You do need four external amp channels at minimum (to supplement the 9 internal amps to get to 13 total). Once hooked up, you can then swap between different 9/11ch surround formats based on surround mode, e.g. DTS Neo:X upmxing will do 11ch with FW+FH (i.e. 9.1.2 in Atmos-speak), whereas Atmos/DSU will use 7.1.4 and the FW will be silent.
> 
> Option 2: The Franken-processor. If you read back a few pages, you'll see some discussion of wacky ideas to externally amplify channels with another AVR, and then utilize the PLII processing in the external AVR to matrix a center channel output (turning a 2ch input into 3ch output with an in-between speaker). So, for example, you could matrix Front and Surround channels to extract a pseudo-Wide speaker in between the two. Or do the same with the height channels to end up with 6 heights instead of 4.


This why I'm feeling keeping my di-poles in place directly to the sides has proven to be a very good idea and there placement up high on the sidewalls hasn't in anyway detracted from overhead effects only enhancing the immersive bubble


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrogers said:


> Actually, the cost of college these days is one of the few things that makes the Trinnov or Steinway sound like a good deal



You could get about two or three Trinnov Altitude32's for the average bachelors degree these days!!! Or one Altitude32 and a sh-t load of quality speakers and amps!


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Option 2: *The Franken-processor.* If you read back a few pages, you'll see some discussion of wacky ideas to externally amplify channels with another AVR, and then utilize the PLII processing in the external AVR to matrix a center channel output (turning a 2ch input into 3ch output with an in-between speaker). So, for example, you could matrix Front and Surround channels to extract a pseudo-Wide speaker in between the two. Or do the same with the height channels to end up with 6 heights instead of 4.


Keep in mind that nobody has testet The Franken-Processor yet, it is just theory, so nobody knows if it will work as intended.

Just saying


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Question for you guys:
> Is anybody here using the Crown XLS 1000 or 1500 for amping their Dolby Atmos height speakers? I've got a quartet of Atlantic Technology 44-DAs I'm planning to use as Dolby Enabled speakers (once I buy them from a certain AVS member moving to ceilings  ), to use in our condo pending a move to a place with a dedicated HT room in the future. The ATs are about 86-87 db efficiency, and are rated at up to 100 W at 6 ohms. With the Altitude I received last week having an XLR balanced path for its pre-outs (no RCA outs), I don't want to get into mixing XLR->RCA and XLR connections to avoid possible gain structure issues due to the gain differential, which is an issue for the calibration. Ideally I'd also want Class D amps for the greater efficiency and space saving. I'm happy with a NAD M27 for my floor channels, which are Class D Hypex NCore.
> 
> 
> After some agonizing, I've tossed around the idea of getting four Outlaw monoblocks (about $1250), or getting the Wyred4Sound MMC (seven channels, about $2500), but either of those are really overkill for this kind of use and not a good use of electrical outlets (you'd need four with the Outlaws) or money given that these are height/presence speakers. Even with the vaunted Altitude, I don't think I'd ever do more than four or six height speakers for Atmos purposes, and I'd prefer to save my amp money for more floor channels or additional subs if the need arises (yes, snicker if you must given that I used the word "save" and "Altitude" in the same sentence).
> 
> I can get a pair of stereo XLS 1500s from Guitar Center or Sweetwater new for about $600, or wait for a slightly higher end XLS 1002 next month if I want some esoteric controls over leveling and limiting. Having said that, the one thing giving me pause is the lowish S/N ratio (97 db and 103 db respectively), and how well these things work in an indoor environment with maybe 6" clearance for airflow on top, and considerably more on either side given the ATs as the speakers.
> 
> 
> One other thing: in the XLS manuals they mention something about magnetic fields and possible resulting hum for unshielded devices (like my Oppo?). Is this still an issue for XLR connections?
> 
> Odds are I'd be fine, but somehow this seems too easy.....and even with Crowns, I'll hold off on getting something even more esoteric like the 12 channel CT8150 unless I decide that Phoenix block connectors are my cup of tea. Thoughts?


Stu- when I had my XLS 1000 it was in a full rack with other amps, Oppo and Panasonic BD players, a Toshiba HD-DVD player, a Mac mini and two hard drives, an AVR and probably other stuff I've forgotten about. I never experienced any sort of hum.

The XLS1000 is a superb amp if you can accommodate its homely looks IMO. When/if we move house and I build a new HT from scratch there is a very high likelihood that all my amplification will be Crown. Amazing bang for the buck.


----------



## Movie78

Delete


----------



## jroyv

batpig said:


> Option 1: The 11ch capable Denon/Marantz models (e.g. Denon X5200, Marantz SR7009) allow you to connect a full 13ch setup (9.1.4) even though they can only run 11 channels at a time. You do need four external amp channels at minimum (to supplement the 9 internal amps to get to 13 total). Once hooked up, you can then swap between different 9/11ch surround formats based on surround mode, e.g. DTS Neo:X upmxing will do 11ch with FW+FH (i.e. 9.1.2 in Atmos-speak), whereas Atmos/DSU will use 7.1.4 and the FW will be silent.


I think I like the simplicity of option one and wait and see what comes out in the future... My ceiling speakers are positioned for the .4 atmos spec in a coffered ceiling layout that doesn't allow for any movement. 

*I know it's not ideal but could I run a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2 spec and send the signal from the two atmos ceiling channels through an amp to all 4 ceiling speakers?* 

Have to go finish building the house before I start buying the equipment for the theater but I feel better when I have a plan.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jroyv said:


> I think I like the simplicity of option one and wait and see what comes out in the future... My ceiling speakers are positioned for the .4 atmos spec in a coffered ceiling layout that doesn't allow for any movement.
> 
> *I know it's not ideal but could I run a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2 spec and send the signal from the two atmos ceiling channels through an amp to all 4 ceiling speakers?*
> 
> Have to go finish building the house before I start buying the equipment for the theater but I feel better when I have a plan.


I don't see why not as long as you wire them completely separately and only y-split the TM pre-amp outs to outboard amps. It'll be like one big stereo VOG speaker, in a way. At least it's temporary.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> One other thing: in the XLS manuals they mention something about magnetic fields and possible resulting hum for unshielded devices (like my Oppo?). Is this still an issue for XLR connections?


If I'm not mistaken the hum would result from how the electrical @ the condo was done. If you've plugged your oppo in and don't hear a hum right now I doubt you ever will. 

The last recording studio I was partnered up with was in a rural area... though from what I understand my partner had spent a good sum of money to ensure the electrical was done as well as it could have been. However, there were places where interference was very loud.... unpleasant hum's coming from open impedence devices. I had one of my instruments shielded and did absolutely nothing to solve the problem


----------



## chi_guy50

jroyv said:


> I think I like the simplicity of option one and wait and see what comes out in the future... My ceiling speakers are positioned for the .4 atmos spec in a coffered ceiling layout that doesn't allow for any movement.
> 
> *I know it's not ideal but could I run a Dolby Atmos 9.1.2 spec and send the signal from the two atmos ceiling channels through an amp to all 4 ceiling speakers?*
> 
> Have to go finish building the house before I start buying the equipment for the theater but I feel better when I have a plan.


As Dan says, it's perfectly doable, but I don't think it's a wise use of resources. Since your two pairs of heights are already spec'ed for x.x.4 Atmos, you would be sacrificing full front-to-rear pans just to add the FW, which Atmos only uses for objects and which Dolby Surround (the upmixing mode you're likely to be using more than Atmos for the immediate future until native Atmos mixes become widely available) ignores completely. 

As batpig noted, for the present your best option is to configure for dual modes Neo:X(DTS:X) 11.1 w/FW and Atmos 7.1.4. FWIW, that's what I'm running and I like Neo:X 11.1 for music, whereas Atmos/DSU 7.1.4 is my default mode for video.


----------



## sanderdvd

I just sold my good old Denon AVR-X4000 and I m going to jump onto the Dolby Atmos train. I m thinking about getting the Denon AVR-X7200WA and IF my room is capable I want to go for the maximum setup and choose a 7.1.4 setup. If a 7.1.4 setup is NOT recommended please advise me which setup the next best thing will be for my room.

So, I m from Europe, the Netherlands, so I will talk in meters and not inches, sorry guys 

The most important thing to know, and probably the hardest thing too, is that I have a sloping ceiling. At very back of the room the height is only 1,40m and at the front it is 2,80 meter. My room is 6,50x3,75m. I ve made a scetch so you guys have an idea how it looks like. My seating position is 2,75m from the back and 3,75 to the front of the room. The height at the listening position is 2,00m (from the ground to the ceiling, just to be clear ). 

Is it possible to give an advise on which Atmos speaker setup will be recommended for my room and how I would place the speakers? Right now I m running a 5.1 setup, just an ordinary as you can see.

The biggest problem I think will be the placement of the voice of god speakers because of the sloping ceiling. There is not much ''height'' left from the seating position to the back of the room so that seems like a problem to me........


----------



## Scott Simonian

@sanderdvd

You definitely could do a full 7.1.4 system in that room.

Instead of front and rear heights/overheads do a front height and top middle system.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sanderdvd said:


> I just sold my good old Denon AVR-X4000 and I m going to jump onto the Dolby Atmos train. I m thinking about getting the Denon AVR-X7200WA and IF my room is capable I want to go for the maximum setup and choose a 7.1.4 setup. If a 7.1.4 setup is NOT recommended please advise me which setup the next best thing will be for my room.
> 
> So, I m from Europe, the Netherlands, so I will talk in meters and not inches, sorry guys
> 
> The most important thing to know, and probably the hardest thing too, is that I have a sloping ceiling. At very back of the room the height is only 1,40m and at the front it is 2,80 meter. My room is 6,50x3,75m. I ve made a scetch so you guys have an idea how it looks like. My seating position is 2,75m from the back and 3,75 to the front of the room. The height at the listening position is 2,00m (from the ground to the ceiling, just to be clear ).
> 
> Is it possible to give an advise on which Atmos speaker setup will be recommended for my room and how I would place the speakers? Right now I m running a 5.1 setup, just an ordinary as you can see.
> 
> The biggest problem I think will be the placement of the voice of god speakers because of the sloping ceiling. There is not much ''height'' left from the seating position to the back of the room so that seems like a problem to me........


A bunch of us here on the forum talked about this last week in terms of direct overhead placement after an interview with THX. They gave that recommendation that direct overhead placement is better than Dolby's rear overhead placement. I'm planning on doing the same, my ceiling is exactly 2.1082 meters, which is low, but falls within Dolby's suggested height range.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

(if you calculate how high your head is when seated... multiply that x2... there's Dolby's recommended minimum ceiling height)


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> They gave that recommendation that direct overhead placement is better than Dolby's rear overhead placement.


Keep in mind that the reason cited for their recommendation was because their surround-back speakers were elevated high enough to mask some sounds from the top rear speakers. Not enough angular separation between those two pairs of speakers. Don't know if THX would have made the same recommendation IF their surround-back speakers were closer to ear level, where there would have been much more behind you vs above you distinction.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that the reason cited for their recommendation was because their surround-back speakers were elevated high enough to mask some sounds from the top rear speakers. Not enough angular separation between those two pairs of speakers. Don't know if THX would have made the same recommendation IF their surround-back speakers were closer to ear level, where there would have been much more behind you vs above you distinction.


Sanderdvd's diagram shows that if in ceiling speakers were placed according to dolby recommendations, it could be 1.75 meters/ 5'6" which seems a tad low. Perhaps Sanderdvd could try the THX recommendation or instead install rear angled speakers @ Dolby's recommendations... but according to one AVS member who experimented with both he said the sound was a bit more smeared when using tilted. I'm not sure how much of this is splitting hairs... but I'll find out next week


----------



## sanderdvd

Scott Simonian said:


> @sanderdvd
> 
> You definitely could do a full 7.1.4 system in that room.
> 
> Instead of front and rear heights/overheads do a front height and top middle system.


What you mean with this? Fronts on the same place as my main FL, C and FR speakers but only above them? And the rear heights on the line of my listering position above me?

I just found out that I have the possibility to move my seating 1meter forward (towards the screen). This way I think it is possible to do a setup with 4x overhead speakers. Is this the ideal solution or do you even then prefer a a front height and top middle system? My thought on this is that if you do a 4x overhead speaker system (as. Dolby recommends in their whitepaper) you are more located in the sound bubble at listening position.


----------



## sanderdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> (if you calculate how high your head is when seated... multiply that x2... there's Dolby's recommended minimum ceiling height)


 That should be possible for me but it depends on how fare behind the listening position the rear heights need to be placed. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## NorthSky

sanderdvd said:


> That should be possible for me but it depends on how fare behind the listening position the rear heights need to be placed. Any thoughts on this?


It could be straight above your head (THX) or it could be only a foot or two behind your head and above (Dolby Atmos). 
Check the first post of this thread for the links on Dolby Atmos Speakers Positioning Guidelines. 
It's very hard to go wrong, any which way you might try your very best @ the worst Dolby Atmos setup.


----------



## sanderdvd

Thanks for your input guys. Right now I m leaning towards a 4x overhead placement as Dolby recommends. I think they have far more experience with it to recommend that setup then someone from THX who tested for a few days with it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sanderdvd said:


> What you mean with this? Fronts on the same place as my main FL, C and FR speakers but only above them? And the rear heights on the line of my listering position above me?
> 
> I just found out that I have the possibility to move my seating 1meter forward (towards the screen). This way I think it is possible to do a setup with 4x overhead speakers. Is this the ideal solution or do you even then prefer a a front height and top middle system? My thought on this is that if you do a 4x overhead speaker system (as. Dolby recommends in their whitepaper) you are more located in the sound bubble at listening position.


The front heights would not go above your main Front L/R speakers, the front height overhead speakers would be perhaps a meter in front, in line with the front speakers if possible. 
I'd recommend listening to Home Theater Geeks, they did an interview with the Dolby Reps, & another interview with Grimani (I believe it was titled Acoustics for atmos?) & of course looking at Dolby's atmos diagrams. 

You might not have to move your seating position... actually I think it might be ideal for you to stay where it's at. I've found having the front speakers farther away does a lot for the sound/ providing contrast between fronts & surrounds.


----------



## pletwals

sanderdvd said:


> What you mean with this? Fronts on the same place as my main FL, C and FR speakers but only above them? And the rear heights on the line of my listering position above me?
> 
> I just found out that I have the possibility to move my seating 1meter forward (towards the screen). This way I think it is possible to do a setup with 4x overhead speakers. Is this the ideal solution or do you even then prefer a a front height and top middle system? My thought on this is that if you do a 4x overhead speaker system (as. Dolby recommends in their whitepaper) you are more located in the sound bubble at listening position.


If you put the Rear Surround pair high against the back wall, it's still within the old spec (even if ear height is recommended with Atmos, if there are no Rear Heights this would not apply IMO). Then there's little need for Top Rear, let alone Rear Height speakers. Certainly for enveloping purposes. Object rendering is another matter, but that would not worry me to much behind MLP. We hear much more precise in front of us.

MLP midway between front and back wall is never ideal because of possible nulls. 38% from front wall is ideal, 38% from back wall 2nd best.


----------



## HT-Eman

sanderdvd said:


> I just sold my good old Denon AVR-X4000 and I m going to jump onto the Dolby Atmos train. I m thinking about getting the Denon AVR-X7200WA and IF my room is capable I want to go for the maximum setup and choose a 7.1.4 setup. If a 7.1.4 setup is NOT recommended please advise me which setup the next best thing will be for my room.
> 
> So, I m from Europe, the Netherlands, so I will talk in meters and not inches, sorry guys
> 
> The most important thing to know, and probably the hardest thing too, is that I have a sloping ceiling. At very back of the room the height is only 1,40m and at the front it is 2,80 meter. My room is 6,50x3,75m. I ve made a scetch so you guys have an idea how it looks like. My seating position is 2,75m from the back and 3,75 to the front of the room. The height at the listening position is 2,00m (from the ground to the ceiling, just to be clear ).
> 
> Is it possible to give an advise on which Atmos speaker setup will be recommended for my room and how I would place the speakers? Right now I m running a 5.1 setup, just an ordinary as you can see.
> 
> The biggest problem I think will be the placement of the voice of god speakers because of the sloping ceiling. There is not much ''height'' left from the seating position to the back of the room so that seems like a problem to me........


I would turn my seating position around and place the L/C/R on the lower end of the ceiling slope . Acoustically speaking that slope ceiling will act like a big horn in your room .


----------



## HT-Eman

pletwals said:


> If you put the Rear Surround pair high against the back wall, it's still within the old spec (even if ear height is recommended with Atmos, if there are no Rear Heights this would not apply IMO). Then there's little need for Top Rear, let alone Rear Height speakers. Certainly for enveloping purposes. Object rendering is another matter, but that would not worry me to much behind MLP. We hear much more precise in front of us.
> 
> MLP midway between front and back wall is never ideal because of possible nulls. 38% from front wall is ideal, 38% from back wall 2nd best.


Is it 38% from the back wall , or 1/3 from the back wall ?


----------



## pletwals

HT-Eman said:


> Is it 38% from the back wall , or 1/3 from the back wall ?


Ethan Winer says 38% gives the flattest bass respons.The number comes from the Golden Ratio... It's a theoretical rule of thumb though, as rooms are unpredictable.

http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm


----------



## mecha_monkey

looking to jump in to atmos myself soon! considering 2x ceiling speakers and open to suggestions


----------



## Aras_Volodka

mecha_monkey said:


> looking to jump in to atmos myself soon! considering 2x ceiling speakers and open to suggestions


Speaker suggestions? Down firing & wide dispersion... I'm looking into getting the KEF KEF Ci200RR-THX, Tannoy has one with very similar characteristics. What's your budget?


----------



## Rieper

Can the mods make a DTS:X sticky thread just like they did for Dolby Atmos?


----------



## punksterz626

mecha_monkey said:


> looking to jump in to atmos myself soon! considering 2x ceiling speakers and open to suggestions


i just ordered some Klipsch R-CE 5800. Theyre retailed for 399 each but i got them for 200. Might want to look into that from ASD.


----------



## jprod

Greetings!
I just bought the svs ultra series for my front lcd. Initial impressions are very positive!. For my surrounds and heights I have kept my def techs. I have front heights that I use for atmos . My front heights are about 6 inches or so inside of the front left and right speakers. How critical is it that they are lined up exactly over each other ? 
Thanks


----------



## petetherock

Rieper said:


> Can the mods make a DTS:X sticky thread just like they did for Dolby Atmos?


They should, but it should be a new thread as most of the posts thus far are 'fluff'...
Just port the first few information posts over and start a new thread, then stick it..
Not much has happened since the first few info posts...


----------



## zeus33

Rieper said:


> Can the mods make a DTS:X sticky thread just like they did for Dolby Atmos?



It's not "the official" thread or a sticky, but there is a DTS:X thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...674-dts-x-surround-announced-home-market.html


----------



## batpig

We really need to transition into a joint "immersive object audio" thread where we can freely discuss Atmos and DTS:X, since they are really just two different branded versions of the same thing. I mean, does anyone really need to discuss TrueHD vs. DTS-HD or do we just care that it's lossless audio?

The future is about to be now and even entry-level models this next product cycle will feature both Atmos and DTS:X decoders. It's no longer a niche, high-end feature, but will be standard issue on your 7.1ch, $500 AVR from Best Buy or whatever. So, in other words, we are about to enter a "new normal" where you just pop in a disc and the movie plays and the end user doesn't GAF whether the soundtrack was DTS or Dolby encoded. It just plays. 

Would anyone other than the strange cult of DTS fans possibly care if a given movie is released as DTS:X or Atmos? All I care is that I get more good, object-based immersive mixes. 

When these were new technologies and people wanted to discuss technical merits, specs, etc. of the respective offerings I think it made sense to have separate threads. But now it just feels like artificial distinction, with occasional crazed gibberish posts from non-English speakers lamenting the fact that we are discussing DTS:X in an Atmos thread. We've reached a point where we are really just talking about immersive, object-based audio, and everything that is said about Atmos applies equally to DTS:X and vice versa, so why force the distinction in a general discussion thread?

And, oh yeah, Auro.... um, they can still have their own thread!


----------



## pasender91

batpig said:


> Would anyone other than the strange cult of DTS fans possibly care if a given movie is released as DTS:X or Atmos? All I care is that I get more good, object-based immersive mixes.


There is another category of people, to which i belong, that care about the future format of movies.
Like all owners of non-upgradable atmos-only AVRs, i hope that all future movies are launched using Atmos 
I had nothing against DTS:X before it was released, but since i know my AVR won't be upgradable, i selfishly and devilshly (is that a word?) hope that DTS:X will be a failure and disappear in the oblivium of forgotten formats ...  
After all, it is a format war, maybe only one will survive, who needs DTS:X as it does not bring any clear advantage vs Atmos? , so long live Atmos


----------



## NorthSky

> Would anyone other than *the strange cult of DTS fans* possibly care if a given movie is released as DTS:X or Atmos? All I care is that I get more good, object-based immersive mixes.
> And, oh yeah, Auro.... um, they can still have their own thread!


Auro-3D should also include Dolby Atmos and DTS:X 3D surround sound decoders. 

Dolby Atmos was first, and will always be the supreme ruler in that regard, of being first. DTS:X fanatics have NOTHING yet to comment on, and when they do we'll hear about it, you can rest assured of it. 

For now, Dolby Atmos with a dozen BR titles so far here in North America since its announcement just over a year ago can be proud of himself and with some Dolby Atmos demo discs easily available to all to optimize their Dolby Atmos setups. 

By the way, *'Lucy'* is only ten bucks now here in Canada.  ... *'Under the Skin'* is $35!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Auro-3D should also include Dolby Atmos and DTS:X 3D surround sound decoders.
> 
> Dolby Atmos was first, and will always be the supreme ruler in that regard, of being first. DTS:X fanatics have NOTHING yet to comment on, and when they do we'll hear about it, you can rest assured of it.
> 
> For now, Dolby Atmos with a dozen BR titles so far here in North America since its announcement just over a year ago can be proud of himself and with some Dolby Atmos demo discs easily available to all to optimize their Dolby Atmos setups.
> 
> By the way, *'Lucy'* is only ten bucks now here in Canada.  ... *'Under the Skin'* is $35!


Lucy in Atmos??? $10.00 that is a good deal


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> We really need to transition into a joint "immersive object audio" thread where we can freely discuss Atmos and DTS:X, since they are really just two different branded versions of the same thing. I mean, does anyone really need to discuss TrueHD vs. DTS-HD or do we just care that it's lossless audio?
> 
> The future is about to be now and even entry-level models this next product cycle will feature both Atmos and DTS:X decoders. It's no longer a niche, high-end feature, but will be standard issue on your 7.1ch, $500 AVR from Best Buy or whatever. So, in other words, we are about to enter a "new normal" where you just pop in a disc and the movie plays and the end user doesn't GAF whether the soundtrack was DTS or Dolby encoded. It just plays.
> 
> Would anyone other than the strange cult of DTS fans possibly care if a given movie is released as DTS:X or Atmos? All I care is that I get more good, object-based immersive mixes.
> 
> When these were new technologies and people wanted to discuss technical merits, specs, etc. of the respective offerings I think it made sense to have separate threads. But now it just feels like artificial distinction, with occasional crazed gibberish posts from non-English speakers lamenting the fact that we are discussing DTS:X in an Atmos thread. We've reached a point where we are really just talking about immersive, object-based audio, and everything that is said about Atmos applies equally to DTS:X and vice versa, so why force the distinction in a general discussion thread?
> 
> And, oh yeah, Auro.... um, they can still have their own thread!



Warp 1 ... ENGAGE! 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ion-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro.html#post35344050


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Auro-3D should also include Dolby Atmos and DTS:X 3D surround sound decoders.


Bob - are you suggesting that the discussion of Auro 3-D as it exists today belongs on this thread? If so I respectfully disagree because it is not object based sound, but a psycho acoustic decoder (thanks for that one Keith). Then there is difference in speaker placement whereas based on we know so far for the 2015 receivers that have been announced have similar recommendations for DTS:X and Atmos speaker placement. Apologies if I misunderstood your post, not the first time and not likely the last 

Given Auro today, it deserves its own thread and it is a thread that is likely to eventually disappear.


----------



## NorthSky

No, 'Lucy' is not in Atmos here in Canada, but it should be, and should also include not only the Dolby Atmos trailers but also a Dolby Atmos Speaker Optimizer Setup Test. 

Another year or two, we might have one of those, like THX used to have on DVDs before...Lionsgate studio titles and few others (FOX)...remember those, that was when THX was serious about propagating their message to the serious movie sound audiophile population; us the movie buyers of VHS movies, Laserdiscs, DVDs and HD DVDs and Blu-rays and soon UHD Blu-rays. 

There is a discontinuity in the world, from various regions and from theaters to our homes and from physical and virtual software. 
'Jurassic World' is a great example. ...And so is 'Mad Max: Fury Road', both in 3D (yes, you have to wear 3D glasses, and people do...$billions). ...The last in Dolby Atmos, the first in just regular audio, or is it also in Dolby Atmos?


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - are you suggesting that the discussion of Auro 3-D as it exists today belongs on this thread? If so I respectfully disagree because it is not object based sound, but a psycho acoustic decoder (thanks for that one Keith). Then there is difference in speaker placement whereas based on we know so far for the 2015 receivers that have been announced have similar recommendations for DTS:X and Atmos speaker placement. Apologies if I misunderstood your post, not the first time and not likely the last
> 
> Given Auro today, it deserves its own thread and it is a thread that is likely to eventually disappear.


Well, look @ Denon/Marantz...with them three audio decoders available. ...What we're going to do, ignore Auro-3D as a new 3D surround sound decoder when we talk music and movies encoded in Auro-3D, or DTS:X, or Dolby Atmos? 

Should we also ignore comparing AccuEQ with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 because AccuEQ doesn't EQ the two main fronts? ...But they will now with their new 2015 models. 

Also, Auro-3D is reconsidering...objects based algorithm. ...Anyway the means is not the end, the result is, and it is a 3D surround sound audio codec. 
And that's what we listen to @ home...all three of them. ...This is just the beginning...we have and they have (the manufacturers) time to adapt and accommodate. 

Keith; you speak of him as if he was god. He hates Auro-3d with a dedicated fervor, and won't even try it, ever. 
Me I listen to the people who experiment with all of them, in real life, in their homes. ...That is much more solid to me.

But hey, this is just my opinion, and my grownup kids and grand kids are happy, real happy, thank you very much. 

* Very hot here today; 36° Celsius, in the shade. Watch for thunderstorms and lightnings and dispersed showers tomorrow; the air is humid and electrifying. ...Any forest fires in the United States of America?


----------



## aaranddeeman

pasender91 said:


> There is another category of people, to which i belong, that care about the future format of movies.
> Like all owners of non-upgradable atmos-only AVRs, i hope that all future movies are launched using Atmos
> I had nothing against DTS:X before it was released, but since i know my AVR won't be upgradable, i selfishly and devilshly (is that a word?) hope that DTS:X will be a failure and disappear in the oblivium of forgotten formats ...
> After all, it is a format war, maybe only one will survive, who needs DTS:X as it does not bring any clear advantage vs Atmos? , so long live Atmos


And what if it goes other way around.. 
Remember? HDDVD was first, then followed Blu ray and....


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - are you suggesting that the discussion of Auro 3-D as it exists today belongs on this thread? If so I respectfully disagree because it is not object based sound, but a psycho acoustic decoder (thanks for that one Keith). Then there is difference in speaker placement whereas based on we know so far for the 2015 receivers that have been announced have similar recommendations for DTS:X and Atmos speaker placement. Apologies if I misunderstood your post, not the first time and not likely the last
> 
> Given Auro today, it deserves its own thread and it is a thread that is likely to eventually disappear.


Agreed -- while DTS:X and Atmos are basically the same thing, Auro is a totally different concept. They're all "immersive audio" in the broad sense, but Atmos and DTS:X are the OBJECT BASED audio formats which will be the future of surround sound decoding. Auro3D... um, we'll always have "Red Tails"?


----------



## NorthSky

Let's have a democratic vote, and after one thousand votes we'll abide by the majority...anything less is just cheap whiskey in the Arizona desert.


----------



## robert816

NorthSky said:


> Let's have a democratic vote, and after one thousand votes we'll abide by the majority...anything less is just cheap whiskey in the Arizona desert.


I agree, if one thousand actual Auro 3D owners vote, and the vast majority vote to join this thread, then I say let them join! 

But seriously, I would not be opposed to adding DTS:X to this thread, except you know it will generate a certain amount of fanboyism.

I can see it now,

"My immersive audio brand A is so good you can hear a fly buzzing by your ear"

"Hah!, My immersive audio brand D is so immersive you can hear three flies buzzing! and they're buzzing by both ears!!"


----------



## dholmes54

I have a 9.2 system now what atoms receiver do I need,I'm going to keep 9.2 spks for now is there anything out under 1000.00?thxs


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> I agree, if one thousand actual Auro 3D owners vote, and the vast majority vote to join this thread, then I say let them join!
> But seriously, I would not be opposed to adding DTS:X to this thread, except you know it will generate a certain amount of fanboyism.
> I can see it now,
> "My immersive audio brand A is so good you can hear a fly buzzing by your ear"
> "Hah!, My immersive audio brand D is so immersive you can hear three flies buzzing! and they're buzzing by both ears!!"


The Blu-ray movie of *'Unbroken'* in Dolby Atmos; there is a scene @ the prison camp where few prisoners are cleaning up the hothouses, 
...and some people can hear flies buzzing around in that particular scene.

I would immensely love to hear them myself. I turn the volume way up and never heard any wing flapping of no fly, none. 
I feel underprivileged to have my setup not allowing me to hear them flies buzzing around.
But @ the same time I am rejoicing with the people who have the fortunate magic opportunity to hear them for themselves in their own setups.

I now know that my life is @ an inferior hearing level. 

* This is just one example that deeply moved me when I first read it. ...And then I had to try it for myself...but no luck. 
If anyone here can make a recording of that fly, I would be totally grateful for the rest of my life.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> The Blu-ray movie of *'Unbroken'* in Dolby Atmos; there is a scene @ the prison camp where few prisoners are cleaning up the hothouses,
> ...and some people can hear flies buzzing around in that particular scene.
> 
> I would immensely love to hear them myself. I turn the volume way up and never heard any wing flapping of no fly, none.
> I feel underprivileged to have my setup not allowing me to hear them flies buzzing around.
> But @ the same time I am rejoicing with the people who have the fortunate magic opportunity to hear them for themselves in their own setups.
> 
> I now know that my life is @ an inferior hearing level.
> 
> * This is just one example that deeply moved me when I first read it. ...And then I had to try it for myself...but no luck.
> If anyone here can make a recording of that fly, I would be totally grateful for the rest of my life.



Bob, I did not hear it even with the 7.1.4 Atmos setup. IIRC, the one who heard had Yamaha AVR and majority of Denon(ians) did not hear it..
Yeah at reference or above reference is a different story (but then probably that will be the last time you will hear anything... )


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I saw "Inside out" tonight with my step daughter... while it's an excellent film I didn't find the audio too exciting, a few overhead things here & there. It was very dialogue heavy so there really wasn't as much opportunity for Atmos to shine. 

I was hoping to see it in HDR but unfortunately the theater near me that was going to install an HDR projector delayed it's unveiling until September  Which is a real shame because that film was *made* for HDR!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

aaranddeeman said:


> Bob, I did not hear it even with the 7.1.4 Atmos setup. IIRC, the one who heard had Yamaha AVR and majority of Denon(ians) did not hear it..
> Yeah at reference or above reference is a different story (but then probably that will be the last time you will hear anything... )


I heard the flies... I was listening @ 75 volume setting on my receiver. It's really not the world's biggest deal though, nothing special or immersive about them. The flies @ the end of Gravity were faaaar superior, those did go overhead if I recall


----------



## Anthony1

batpig said:


> The future is about to be now and even entry-level models this next product cycle will feature both Atmos and DTS:X decoders. It's no longer a niche, high-end feature, but will be standard issue on your 7.1ch, $500 AVR from Best Buy or whatever.


When is this actually going to happen you think ?

I'm interested in getting a $500 or less receiver, and would love to Atmos and DTS:X


Sometime in 2016 ?


----------



## SoundChex

Anthony1 said:


> When is this actually going to happen you think ?
> I'm interested in getting a $500 or less receiver, and would love to Atmos and DTS:X
> Sometime in 2016 ?



_And beyond that, _I just hope that in 2016 we will not be asking ourselves how much longer we must wait to buy a $500 AVR also equipped with the *Dolby AC-4* (_link_) and|or *MPEG-H Audio* (_link_) _object based immersive sound_ codecs!    


_


----------



## batpig

Anthony1 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> The future is about to be now and even entry-level models this next product cycle will feature both Atmos and DTS:X decoders. It's no longer a niche, high-end feature, but will be standard issue on your 7.1ch, $500 AVR from Best Buy or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> When is this actually going to happen you think ?
> 
> I'm interested in getting a $500 or less receiver, and would love to Atmos and DTS:X
> 
> 
> Sometime in 2016 ?
Click to expand...

It's happening now. No wishcasting needed. 

Exceeding 7 channels is still reserved for $1k+ msrp models but every 7.1ch Denon model (and inventory is hitting shelves now) in the current lineup has Atmos, DTS:X and HDCP 2.2. I believe it's fully trickled down for Onkyo too. 

You're going to have to wait a few months for DTS:X downloads but we are there, now.


----------



## Nalleh

I don't believe this apply to many of you but just a heads up:

The bluray *Torrente 5*, a spanish movie with Atmos: STAY AWAY!! It's the biggest piece of craap i have ever witnessed!!

I knew that going in(and probably most of you too) but i did not expect it to be THAT bad (


----------



## NorthSky

*Important questions.*



aaranddeeman said:


> Bob, I did not hear it even with the 7.1.4 Atmos setup. IIRC, the one who heard had Yamaha AVR and majority of Denon(ians) did not hear it..
> Yeah at reference or above reference is a different story (but then probably that will be the last time you will hear anything... )


Then both of us we don't have the right gear that would give us all the high resolution to hear them flies; time to switch brands I guess.
I have the Integra DHC-80.3 pre/pro, and you have the Denon AVR-X5200W AV receiver? 
I have TI Burr-Brown DACs inside my unit, 32-bits, and you have also Burr-Brown DACs inside yours?



Aras_Volodka said:


> I heard the flies... I was listening @ 75 volume setting on my receiver. It's really not the world's biggest deal though, nothing special or immersive about them. The flies @ the end of Gravity were faaaar superior, those did go overhead if I recall


And you probably have a Yamaha receiver? ...It is a big deal; I want to hear those flies too, just like I heard the ones in 'Gravity'. 

* And even the people like me who don't have an Atmos receiver or pre/pro yet we should be able to hear the flies in 'Unbroken'.
If you can hear them we should too; if we don't it's because our receivers and pre/pros are inferior sounding (not high-resolution enough), and it is simple as that. 

Are you 100% sure Aras about the flies in 'Unbroken', because if you are I am going to wait for the next Yamaha pre/pro with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.

And would it be possible for you to tell me the exact frame moment (the precise second) when you hear a fly? ...I looped that short scene and listened to it more than a dozen times and never heard the flies. 

For some people (ultra hi-end audiophiles) with some of the best audio gear and loudspeakers every little bit of improved audio resolution is as important as the next big thing in audio technology, even if it is only a fraction of one percent. 

And, you probably have also some very good hi-resolution speakers above and behind your head. ...Which ones are they if I may ask?

We should all be able to hear the flies...if we don't we are not worthy...it's just the way it is when you are a true audiophile. 
We search and aspire to the ultimate audio perfection...it is our common goal here on this [email protected] AVSForum...and anything less won't cut [email protected] least that's how I "don't hear" it myself. 

Dolby Atmos or not we all want to hear those flies from 'Unbroken' on Blu-ray. ...And it is a big deal because we might also be missing other intricate details from several other audio soundtracks, not counting other important moments of that sort in 'Unbroken'. 

Which model Yamaha Atmos receiver do you have, is it one that also has the ESS Sabre DACs inside? 
...Because if it is that could be the exact reason why people without premium ESS Sabre32 DACs cannot hear those flies, I'd bet. 

And I would like to know too if people who own the Marantz AV8802a pre/pro with the latest AKM Verita DACs can also hear those flies.

♦ Right now it is my estimation that the higher end your DACs are the better you can hear the flies in 'Unbroken'.
That is why my questions above are important right now. 

Anyone else heard those flies? ...And if yes what kind of DACs are inside your unit? ...And if not what kind of DACs are inside your receiver? ...Or pre/pro?


----------



## jdsmoothie

dholmes54 said:


> I have a 9.2 system now what atoms receiver do I need,I'm going to keep 9.2 spks for now is there anything out under 1000.00?thxs


Depends on whether you want HDCP 2.2 as the lowest cost model capable of Atmos 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 would be the 2014 - Denon X4100W (non-HDCP 2.2; although a 7CH model, can be expanded to 9CH with a 2CH amp), otherwise, 9CH Atmos models will be closer to $1500-$2000.


----------



## zebidou81

helvetica bold said:


> Could the PS4 output Atmos in game?
> Sony has the exclusive marketing rights to Battlefront. That would be an advantage for Sonys machine.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Battlefront will be Dolby Atmos on the ps4 one of the first to have Atmos


----------



## SteveTheGeek

zebidou81 said:


> Battlefront will be Dolby Atmos on the ps4 one of the first to have Atmos


Do you have an article confirming this ? Everything I read says PC only for Atmos in Battlefront....


----------



## dholmes54

jdsmoothie said:


> Depends on whether you want HDCP 2.2 as the lowest cost model capable of Atmos 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 would be the 2014 - Denon X4100W (non-HDCP 2.2; although a 7CH model, can be expanded to 9CH with a 2CH amp), otherwise, 9CH Atmos models will be closer to $1500-$2000.


Ouch! But thanks its like everything else these days in electronics don't know if its future proof or not,everything is changing to quick for this old man,I've heard Dolby atmos in a theater not a home theater and it was great


----------



## jdsmoothie

dholmes54 said:


> Ouch! But thanks its like everything else these days in electronics don't know if its future proof or not,everything is changing to quick for this old man,I've heard Dolby atmos in a theater not a home theater and it was great


The new 2015 9CH Denon/Marantz HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 (and 7CH X4200W) will be released beginning in Sep while the 9CH Yamaha 2050 should be released in July and Pioneer/Onkyo models in Oct/Nov.


----------



## dholmes54

Thxs,my old Onkyo 805 HDMI board died what a great sub 700.00 receiver it was,lot of power,I don't want atmos now but why not get a receiver that's rdy if I got to atmos,my poor Onkyo!


----------



## Csbooth

SteveTheGeek said:


> Do you have an article confirming this ? Everything I read says PC only for Atmos in Battlefront....


Correct, there has been no mention whatsoever about Atmos being supported on any versions other than PC. I do hope that they will however, as it would be a game that could thrive on it. I can just imagine running through the trenches in Hoth with numerous aircraft above lol.


----------



## dholmes54

My beloved Onkyo 805 HDMI board died,don't need atoms now but why not have a receiver with it,my poor Onkyo!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dholmes54 said:


> My beloved Onkyo 805 HDMI board died,don't need Atmos now but why not have a receiver with it,my poor Onkyo!


Shhh! You'll jinx mine! 

Just be sure to get a model with both DTS: X and Dolby Atmos... and HDMI 2.0a ports with HDCP 2.2 support for UHD media.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Aras_Volodka said:


> The flies @ the end of Gravity were faaaar superior, those did go overhead if I recall


This I agree. Even with the non-Atmos track (in DSU) they are so much effective.


----------



## dholmes54

Thxs Dan


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> And you probably have a Yamaha receiver? ...It is a big deal; I want to hear those flies too, just like I heard the ones in 'Gravity'.
> 
> * And even the people like me who don't have an Atmos receiver or pre/pro yet we should be able to hear the flies in 'Unbroken'.
> If you can hear them we should too; if we don't it's because our receivers and pre/pros are inferior sounding (not high-resolution enough), and it is simple as that.
> 
> Are you 100% sure Aras about the flies in 'Unbroken', because if you are I am going to wait for the next Yamaha pre/pro with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X.
> 
> And would it be possible for you to tell me the exact frame moment (the precise second) when you hear a fly? ...I looped that short scene and listened to it more than a dozen times and never heard the flies.
> 
> For some people (ultra hi-end audiophiles) with some of the best audio gear and loudspeakers every little bit of improved audio resolution is as important as the next big thing in audio technology, even if it is only a fraction of one percent.
> 
> And, you probably have also some very good hi-resolution speakers above and behind your head. ...Which ones are they if I may ask?
> 
> We should all be able to hear the flies...if we don't we are not worthy...it's just the way it is when you are a true audiophile.
> We search and aspire to the ultimate audio perfection...it is our common goal here on this [email protected] AVSForum...and anything less won't cut [email protected] least that's how I "don't hear" it myself.
> 
> Dolby Atmos or not we all want to hear those flies from 'Unbroken' on Blu-ray. ...And it is a big deal because we might also be missing other intricate details from several other audio soundtracks, not counting other important moments of that sort in 'Unbroken'.
> 
> Which model Yamaha Atmos receiver do you have, is it one that also has the ESS Sabre DACs inside?
> ...Because if it is that could be the exact reason why people without premium ESS Sabre32 DACs cannot hear those flies, I'd bet.
> 
> And I would like to know too if people who own the Marantz AV8802a pre/pro with the latest AKM Verita DACs can also hear those flies.
> 
> ♦ Right now it is my estimation that the higher end your DACs are the better you can hear the flies in 'Unbroken'.
> That is why my questions above are important right now.
> 
> Anyone else heard those flies? ...And if yes what kind of DACs are inside your unit? ...And if not what kind of DACs are inside your receiver? ...Or pre/pro?


I'm using the Denon X5200 with a full Klipsch array, RC 64 center, RS 62 surrounds, 4x Klisch chorus II's as my fronts & rears. I've disconnected the 44-DA's as I'm selling them to install in ceiling speakers. 

If I have time tonight I'll listen for the flies in Unbroken & let you know. Tomorrow I might have time in the morning... busy weekend! But I do remember hearing them... I went back to that scene after the discussion here about the flies & how "immersive" they were. I just said it's not a big deal because it's not a prominent thing in the mix. When I hear it, I'll take note of the exact time & location of the sound... (though it might be distorted slightly since my heights are disconnected). 

It's possible that it might not have as much to do with resolution as it has to do with Atmos's ability to place objects into an expanded sound stage. It's kind of like how (if I recall you are a musician?) you mix a song in stereo, you only have the 180 degree field to pan tracks in. When you cram all the instruments into that 180 degree field there's less space for each instrument to occupy & quite often supporting instruments become obscured a bit in a dense mix, but since Atmos expands that both horizontally & vertically, there is a lot more space for objects to breathe. (That being said though, I think that having the limitation of stereo can have it's benefits as far as music is concerned, if mixing engineers continue to regard surround mixing as a gimmick).


----------



## brahman12

Dan Hitchman said:


> Shhh! You'll jinx mine!
> 
> Just be sure to get a model with both DTS: X and Dolby Atmos... and HDMI 2.0a ports with HDCP 2.2 support for UHD media.


My Onkyo 805 is still going strong as well....8 years of fun and I have her running my second set-up now where I usually watch sports and Netflix.


----------



## zebidou81

Csbooth said:


> Correct, there has been no mention whatsoever about Atmos being supported on any versions other than PC. I do hope that they will however, as it would be a game that could thrive on it. I can just imagine running through the trenches in Hoth with numerous aircraft above lol.


Below is an article linked to this

http://blog.dolby.com/2015/05/dolby-atmos-coming-to-star-wars-battlefront/

Also a customer service call to EA confirmed it will be rolled out on PS4 in Dolby Atmos, and as you probably know xbox1 will not bitstream Dolby atmos so it prob wont be coming to xbox1 unless there is an update rolled out before hand (I HOPE MICROSOFT WOULD HURRY UP WITH THAT) otherwise i will buy the ps4 version and maybe if its on steam i may have to purchase a zotac SN970 to get Battlefront in 4k release date November Zotac SN970 4K steam machine Dolby Atmos enabled.


----------



## kbarnes701

*Atmos Trailers.
*

As you may recall I asked Dolby if they would grant permission for me to rip the trailers from the Demo Disc(s) to post for AVS members. The reply from my high-level Dolby contact is as follows:

_Hi Keith, Sorry for the delay on this. We don’t want any ripped content from the demo disc and advise against doing this as it’s a major copy infringement. As Dolby is an IP company I imagine you can understand.

Here is a work around you can share so AVS Forum members can get a Dolby Atmos demo experience sourcing free Dolby Atmos content on VUDU. Let me know if there are any questions and [Xxxxx] and I can assist.

Step One: Visit VUDU on your Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device (VUDU Spark, most connected Blu-ray players, Roku’s) and ensure it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos-enabled AVR set for bitstream pass through or surround sound (setting language may vary by device).

Step Two: Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle and download for free by selecting purchase for $0. In this bundle you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.

Step Three: Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should light up Dolby Atmos.

Key an eye on Blu-ray releases here: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

_


----------



## zebidou81

And as you probably know most pc gamers do not bother with surround sound in game they just stick a pair of headphones on, hopefully steam machines may change this bringing true pc games to your av receiver and living room


----------



## brahman12

NorthSky said:


> Are you 100% sure Aras about the flies in 'Unbroken', because if you are I am going to wait for the next Yamaha pre/pro with Dolby Atmos and DTS
> 
> ♦ Right now it is my estimation that the higher end your DACs are the better you can hear the flies in 'Unbroken'.
> That is why my questions above are important right now.


Hey Bob....I was the one who first brought up this fly scene in UNBROKEN, on the heals of a thread discussion concerning some members saying that they were not experiencing exciting object placement effects within the available movie mixes (if I recall correctly). I use a Yamaha 3040 mated with an Oppo 105D and I went with the Yamaha over other brands based on my experience with the ESS Sabre DACS within the Oppo and thought that the 9016's in the Yammy would mate well with the 9018's in the Oppo based on their similar specs (thus creating lots of listening flexibility with my other gear). I definitely hear a difference in resolution and sound steering capabilities in comparison with my previous AVR the Onkyo 805. It also is a more relaxed sound than my experience with Onkyo and Pioneer. I can not say that I can hear the fly by my left ear in that scene so clearly based only on the Yamaha.....but I can say with confidence that I can clearly hear them in that scene. I do not post on here to simply pass some time or to contradict what others may be experiencing...when I post something, for the most part, I am trying to impart some personal information or experience to other A/V enthusiasts. Thus, trying to share with others so that they may know another person's viewpoint within the A/V community. The scene in UNBROKEN I pointed out as giving me a very fun moment that I was not expecting in that the final buzz of the bugs in the scene sounded entirely inside the room way removed from the speaker baffle and right next to my left ear. That is why I posted that impression...not because I was saying it was the greatest moment in movie mixing history. I also had written about a scene in JOHN WICK that had some nice in-room object placement, which was towards the end on the docks when he goes after the boss....his vehicle clearly moves into the room, through the MLP from left to right, and roars into a spot in between my center and front right speaker. Just saying that it was cool usage of object placement...again not saying you will **** your pants with how awesome it was, LOL. Sheesh....there are plenty of other scenes, but those were the two that I used in the discussion and then this whole "flies" caper started brewing. I often like to say that our sense perceptions are very unique to each one of us. So, you more than likely will not hear, see, taste, smell, or feel EXACTLY as I would within life situations and experiences. We can really only share related experiences in which we may be able to achieve a relative understanding of what each of us is experiencing. Thus, self experience is the only true barometer for the senses....I merely shared my personal experience and invited anyone who ever comes into my hometown to my truly humble home theater, so they could give it test for themselves.


----------



## howard68

So has it been confirmed that the PS4 will do Battlefront with a Dolby Atmos output ..?
It is on my list to get a PS4 if this is true 
Have been trying to wire or move my pc to the movie room for this game when it comes out


----------



## Scott Simonian

howard68 said:


> So has it been confirmed that the PS4 will do Battlefront with a Dolby Atmos output ..?
> It is on my list to get a PS4 if this is true
> Have been trying to wire or move my pc to the movie room for this game when it comes out


It was mentioned to be in Atmos for the PC only last I heard.


----------



## NorthSky

brahman12 said:


> Hey Bob....I was the one who first brought up this fly scene in UNBROKEN, on the heals of a thread discussion concerning some members saying that they were not experiencing exciting object placement effects within the available movie mixes (if I recall correctly). I use a Yamaha 3040 mated with an Oppo 105D and I went with the Yamaha over other brands based on my experience with the ESS Sabre DACS within the Oppo and thought that the 9016's in the Yammy would mate well with the 9018's in the Oppo based on their similar specs (thus creating lots of listening flexibility with my other gear). I definitely hear a difference in resolution and sound steering capabilities in comparison with my previous AVR the Onkyo 805. It also is a more relaxed sound than my experience with Onkyo and Pioneer. I can not say that I can hear the fly by my left ear in that scene so clearly based only on the Yamaha.....but I can say with confidence that I can clearly hear them in that scene. I do not post on here to simply pass some time or to contradict what others may be experiencing...when I post something, for the most part, I am trying to impart some personal information or experience to other A/V enthusiasts. Thus, trying to share with others so that they may know another person's viewpoint within the A/V community. The scene in UNBROKEN I pointed out as giving me a very fun moment that I was not expecting in that the final buzz of the bugs in the scene sounded entirely inside the room way removed from the speaker baffle and right next to my left ear. That is why I posted that impression...not because I was saying it was the greatest moment in movie mixing history. I also had written about a scene in JOHN WICK that had some nice in-room object placement, which was towards the end on the docks when he goes after the boss....his vehicle clearly moves into the room, through the MLP from left to right, and roars into a spot in between my center and front right speaker. Just saying that it was cool usage of object placement...again not saying you will **** your pants with how awesome it was, LOL. Sheesh....there are plenty of other scenes, but those were the two that I used in the discussion and then this whole "flies" caper started brewing. I often like to say that our sense perceptions are very unique to each one of us. So, you more than likely will not hear, see, taste, smell, or feel EXACTLY as I would within life situations and experiences. We can really only share related experiences in which we may be able to achieve a relative understanding of what each of us is experiencing. Thus, self experience is the only true barometer for the senses....I merely shared my personal experience and invited anyone who ever comes into my hometown to my truly humble home theater, so they could give it test for themselves.


Hi brahman and thanks a bunch for this great reply.

So you have a Yamaha Atmos 3040 receiver with ESS Sabre32 DACs; and you probably also have high resolution speakers. 
All of that can contribute in hearing the flies from the 'Unbroken' Atmos audio on Blu. 

I would love that other members with that Blu-ray title listen carefully to see if they can hear the flies from that scene, and yes or no and which receiver or pre/pro they are using (internal DACs). 

It is small details like that which can help us to make a wise purchase tomorrow. So if some of you have been following this specific subject on that specific scene, please could you share your findings? It might not look like much but I can assure you that it does. This is an experiment, a very good one.

* The main reasons that I post in audio/video forums are; because I love riding Harley Davidson motorcycles, because I love playing guitars, because I love my family, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, because I love boating on the ocean, because I love music and films, because I love sharing with people, because I love listening to what others have to share, because I love learning about new audio/video technologies, because I love forums where people love and respect all each other. 

@ this moment the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack of 'Unbroken' (or even the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio core soundtrack) is what fascinates me; that specific scene where only very few can hear the flies, which most of us simply can't. 

* I was @ the beach this morning, but just too hot and not enough winds. 38° Celsius right now, and it is caused by the "Blob", in the Pacific ocean near Russia, I think, from the new scientific researches. I have never seen this here in my over 20 years living on the Island...it is simply hot and it has been for a very long time now. There are some extraordinary climate changes going on on our planet as I speak.


----------



## dholmes54

Dan Hitchman said:


> Shhh! You'll jinx mine!
> 
> Just be sure to get a model with both DTS: X and Dolby Atmos... and HDMI 2.0a ports with HDCP 2.2 support for UHD media.


Which brands would be reasonably priced?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dholmes54 said:


> Which brands would be reasonably priced?


Are you looking for the base minimum of 5.1.2 decoding?


----------



## Csbooth

zebidou81 said:


> Below is an article linked to this
> 
> http://blog.dolby.com/2015/05/dolby-atmos-coming-to-star-wars-battlefront/
> 
> Also a customer service call to EA confirmed it will be rolled out on PS4 in Dolby Atmos, and as you probably know xbox1 will not bitstream Dolby atmos so it prob wont be coming to xbox1 unless there is an update rolled out before hand (I HOPE MICROSOFT WOULD HURRY UP WITH THAT) otherwise i will buy the ps4 version and maybe if its on steam i may have to purchase a zotac SN970 to get Battlefront in 4k release date November Zotac SN970 4K steam machine Dolby Atmos enabled.


I would love to believe you but the article you linked (which I've actually read before lol) still makes no mention of consoles, PS4 specifically, being given Atmos support for Battlefront. 

I might just be blind but I couldn't find It on there, other than someone commenting they hope it comes to PS4 (which I'm assuming it's you?, as it mentions headphones like you do here).


----------



## dholmes54

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are you looking for the base minimum of 5.1.2 decoding?


As long as it has 7 channels of power I have a 4 k TV and not worrying ultra blu-ray when it comes out,waiting for them to get the bugs out of the new format.I want atmos and new DTS sound so if I upgrade I'll be rdy thx for your help PS I found a on yo that I can afford its the tx-nr646


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm using the Denon X5200 with a full Klipsch array, RC 64 center, RS 62 surrounds, 4x Klisch chorus II's as my fronts & rears. I've disconnected the 44-DA's as I'm selling them to install in ceiling speakers.
> 
> If I have time tonight I'll listen for the flies in Unbroken & let you know. Tomorrow I might have time in the morning... busy weekend! But I do remember hearing them... I went back to that scene after the discussion here about the flies & how "immersive" they were. I just said it's not a big deal because it's not a prominent thing in the mix. When I hear it, I'll take note of the exact time & location of the sound... (though it might be distorted slightly since my heights are disconnected).
> 
> It's possible that it might not have as much to do with resolution as it has to do with Atmos's ability to place objects into an expanded sound stage. It's kind of like how (if I recall you are a musician?) you mix a song in stereo, you only have the 180 degree field to pan tracks in. When you cram all the instruments into that 180 degree field there's less space for each instrument to occupy & quite often supporting instruments become obscured a bit in a dense mix, but since Atmos expands that both horizontally & vertically, there is a lot more space for objects to breathe. (That being said though, I think that having the limitation of stereo can have it's benefits as far as music is concerned, if mixing engineers continue to regard surround mixing as a gimmick).


Thank you thank you. 

By the way, we don't need a Dolby Atmos receiver to hear those flies, they are already encoded in the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
The question is; do we hear the flies or not? 

And if you do hear them from your Denon receiver, then you must have a great setup with proper speaker positioning, hi-res reproducers (speakers), some room treatments, good EQ, and all that jazz. 

Me, I definitely don't hear them (the flies), and I tried real hard. ...So now I am searching for the best holy grail explanation.
Because the smallest details mean the more more there and over there there is. And I'm really really curious about other people what they hear and not.

* That particular scene is very easy; only few guys are talking to each other, that's all. So there is no other sound distraction to stop us from hearing the flies or not. And we can crank the volume no problem because our speakers won't get damaged; the bulk of that scene comes from the center channel speaker, for the dialog. ...And it's normal spoken dialogue, no yelling here.


----------



## jrref

Hopefully one last question about Atmos Ceiling speakers. 
My home theater setup is limited to a 5.1.2 Atmos configuration where instead of using two front ceiling speakers because I can't install speakers in the ceiling, I have two front height speakers suspended a little in-front of the TV about a foot away from the ceiling. They are not set up like PLZ heights where they are on the front wall near the ceiling. I've tweaked this set up by angling the two front heights down towards the MLP and the sound field is very good in my opinion and sounds basically the same as comparable setups with two front ceiling speakers. Has anyone on this thread experimented with a set up like this? Any results, opinions, thoughts or suggestions with this limitation. I know the more speakers the better but my current living situation doesn't allow for anything more.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dholmes54 said:


> As long as it has 7 channels of power I have a 4 k TV and not worrying ultra blu-ray when it comes out,waiting for them to get the bugs out of the new format.I want atmos and new DTS sound so if I upgrade I'll be rdy thx for your help PS I found a on yo that I can afford its the tx-nr646



There is also the Denon AVR-X1200W at around the same price as the Onkyo, though you'll have to see which has the features you want. They're both 5.1.2 DTS:X and Dolby Atmos compatible with at least some HDMI 2.0a inputs.


----------



## dholmes54

Thx Dan I'm a old Onkyo man had there equipment since the 80s and always liked the sq, but Denon is good also,yrs ago I had the old onkyo 504 2 CH power amp & pre pro


----------



## primetimeguy

kbarnes701 said:


> *Atmos Trailers.
> *
> 
> As you may recall I asked Dolby if they would grant permission for me to rip the trailers from the Demo Disc(s) to post for AVS members. The reply from my high-level Dolby contact is as follows:
> 
> _Hi Keith, Sorry for the delay on this. We don’t want any ripped content from the demo disc and advise against doing this as it’s a major copy infringement. As Dolby is an IP company I imagine you can understand.
> 
> Here is a work around you can share so AVS Forum members can get a Dolby Atmos demo experience sourcing free Dolby Atmos content on VUDU. Let me know if there are any questions and [Xxxxx] and I can assist.
> 
> Step One: Visit VUDU on your Dolby Atmos-ready streaming device (VUDU Spark, most connected Blu-ray players, Roku’s) and ensure it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos-enabled AVR set for bitstream pass through or surround sound (setting language may vary by device).
> 
> Step Two: Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle and download for free by selecting purchase for $0. In this bundle you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Step Three: Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should light up Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Key an eye on Blu-ray releases here: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
> 
> _


I'm curious, people that have watched these trailers, do you think reference level is too loud? Do they seem to be mixed more on the hotter side which seems to be more of the current trend as compared to just a few years ago?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Thank you thank you.
> 
> By the way, we don't need a Dolby Atmos receiver to hear those flies, they are already encoded in the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> The question is; do we hear the flies or not?
> 
> And if you do hear them from your Denon receiver, then you must have a great setup with proper speaker positioning, hi-res reproducers (speakers), some room treatments, good EQ, and all that jazz.
> 
> Me, I definitely don't hear them (the flies), and I tried real hard. ...So now I am searching for the best holy grail explanation.
> Because the smallest details mean the more more there and over there there is. And I'm really really curious about other people what they hear and not.
> 
> * That particular scene is very easy; only few guys are talking to each other, that's all. So there is no other sound distraction to stop us from hearing the flies or not. And we can crank the volume no problem because our speakers won't get damaged; the bulk of that scene comes from the center channel speaker, for the dialog. ...And it's normal spoken dialogue, no yelling here.


My earlier example with the expanded sound field might be an explanation. Even if you have a 7.1 setup, Atmos has the ability to place sounds where there is no speaker, there's more room for sounds to be heard, I'm not sure how else to put it... I'll look for the fly sound again tonight & let you know what I hear. I don't have treatments actually... I put that off because I want to build my own... & I might have to move soon possibly (so I didn't want to buy saws & all that if I'd just have to haul them out in a month or two)(but that won't stop me from cutting holes in ceilings)(lol).


----------



## blastermaster

> * I was @ the beach this morning, but just too hot and not enough winds. 38° Celsius right now, and it is caused by the "Blob", in the Pacific ocean near Russia, I think, from the new scientific researches. I have never seen this here in my over 20 years living on the Island...it is simply hot and it has been for a very long time now. There are some extraordinary climate changes going on on our planet as I speak.


I hear ya, man. It was 40 degrees here in the Okanagan. It's supposed to be the hottest summer on record. Kids went for a swim in the pool at a friends' house then we watched a movie in my man cave. 

As far as Atmos is concerned, I'm glad I have had patience. Since I've got the time until the new receivers are released, I figure I'm going to learn more about calibration using REW and treating my room accordingly. As it is, it has been a crapshoot in terms of room treatment apart from the first reflection point. I'd like to see what I can do in terms of %diffusion/absorbtion to come up with something that will make my speakers sing in my theater space. 

Keep cool. Literally.


----------



## dholmes54

I just ordered the Onkyo tx-nr646 receiver the price was great and reviews where mostly positive


----------



## aaranddeeman

primetimeguy said:


> I'm curious, people that have watched these trailers, do you think reference level is too loud? Do they seem to be mixed more on the hotter side which seems to be more of the current trend as compared to just a few years ago?


Yes, they are a bit cooked. But then again that is the purpose. Advertisement..


----------



## aaranddeeman

blastermaster said:


> I hear ya, man. It was 40 degrees here in the Okanagan. It's supposed to be the hottest summer on record. Kids went for a swim in the pool at a friends' house then we watched a movie in my man cave.
> 
> As far as Atmos is concerned, I'm glad I have had patience. Since I've got the time until the new receivers are released, I figure I'm going to learn more about calibration using REW and treating my room accordingly. As it is, it has been a crapshoot in terms of room treatment apart from the first reflection point. I'd like to see what I can do in terms of %diffusion/absorbtion to come up with something that will make my speakers sing in my theater space.
> 
> Keep cool. Literally.


Please share the update when you progress on your room treatments.
What did you use to cover the first reflection points?


----------



## TennisPro02

I heard it with my Onkyo 636 and Denon 7200 WA 



Aras_Volodka said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you thank you.
> 
> By the way, we don't need a Dolby Atmos receiver to hear those flies, they are already encoded in the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack.
> The question is; do we hear the flies or not?
> 
> And if you do hear them from your Denon receiver, then you must have a great setup with proper speaker positioning, hi-res reproducers (speakers), some room treatments, good EQ, and all that jazz.
> 
> Me, I definitely don't hear them (the flies), and I tried real hard. ...So now I am searching for the best holy grail explanation.
> Because the smallest details mean the more more there and over there there is. And I'm really really curious about other people what they hear and not.
> 
> * That particular scene is very easy; only few guys are talking to each other, that's all. So there is no other sound distraction to stop us from hearing the flies or not. And we can crank the volume no problem because our speakers won't get damaged; the bulk of that scene comes from the center channel speaker, for the dialog. ...And it's normal spoken dialogue, no yelling here.
> 
> 
> 
> My earlier example with the expanded sound field might be an explanation. Even if you have a 7.1 setup, Atmos has the ability to place sounds where there is no speaker, there's more room for sounds to be heard, I'm not sure how else to put it... I'll look for the fly sound again tonight & let you know what I hear. I don't have treatments actually... I put that off because I want to build my own... & I might have to move soon possibly (so I didn't want to buy saws & all that if I'd just have to haul them out in a month or two)(but that won't stop me from cutting holes in ceilings)(lol).
Click to expand...


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> My earlier example with the expanded sound field might be an explanation. Even if you have a 7.1 setup, Atmos has the ability to place sounds where there is no speaker, there's more room for sounds to be heard, I'm not sure how else to put it... I'll look for the fly sound again tonight & let you know what I hear. I don't have treatments actually... I put that off because I want to build my own... & I might have to move soon possibly (so I didn't want to buy saws & all that if I'd just have to haul them out in a month or two)(but that won't stop me from cutting holes in ceilings)(lol).


I understand very well what you are saying Aras. 

And now I'm starting to believe that it's not because of the type of DACs in different brand of receivers but more to do with the quality (hi-res) of the speakers, the tweeter drivers, for them flies buzzing around. 
It is very possible that I need to buy new speakers all around, mine are quite old now. Klipsch perhaps, or electrostats (Maggies) or dipoles, or omnipoles Mirage, or Magico, or Wilson Audio, or KEF, or B&W with super tweeters? 



blastermaster said:


> I hear ya, man. It was 40 degrees here in the Okanagan. It's supposed to be the hottest summer on record. Kids went for a swim in the pool at a friends' house then we watched a movie in my man cave.
> 
> As far as Atmos is concerned, I'm glad I have had patience. Since I've got the time until the new receivers are released, I figure I'm going to learn more about calibration using REW and treating my room accordingly. As it is, it has been a crapshoot in terms of room treatment apart from the first reflection point. I'd like to see what I can do in terms of %diffusion/absorbtion to come up with something that will make my speakers sing in my theater space.
> 
> Keep cool. Literally.


I lived in the Okanagan for twenty years, and I know what you're saying.
* After I posted my post, couple hours later, I too hit 40° Celsius here on Vancouver Island South, in the shade. ...Not a good day for Class A amps, with tubes. And here too we are hitting records after records. 



TennisPro02 said:


> I heard it with my Onkyo 636 and Denon 7200 WA


Thank you. Do you remember the exact spot, the exact second? ...Is it too much asking to check it out again for that?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dholmes54 said:


> I just ordered the Onkyo tx-nr646 receiver the price was great and reviews where mostly positive


Cool. Let us know how it goes.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> I understand very well what you are saying Aras.
> 
> And now I'm starting to believe that it's not because of the type of DACs in different brand of receivers but more to do with the quality (hi-res) of the speakers, the tweeter drivers, for them flies buzzing around.
> It is very possible that I need to buy new speakers all around, mine are quite old now. Klipsch perhaps, or electrostats (Maggies) or dipoles, or omnipoles Mirage, or Magico, or Wilson Audio, or KEF, or B&W with super tweeters?


My main speakers (the chorus II's) are somewhat old... early 90's. Is there such thing as Hi-res speakers or are you just referring to how the speakers handle detail in sound? My bro in law has the B&W's... if you can afford them I couldn't speak more highly about those. But 10 k a pair! They did sound very good though, better than my chorus II's. Though I only paid 600 bucks per pair. Prior to that he had the Def tech towers (something like 2 or 3 k a pair?) and I thought the chorus II's were superior.


----------



## NorthSky

I just want to hear those flies, that's all.


----------



## blastermaster

> Please share the update when you progress on your room treatments.
> What did you use to cover the first reflection points?


I used two sheets of Roxul Comfortboard (2'x4'x1.5") wrapped in 4 inch baseboard molding (painted black) and covered with an espresso colored cloth that passed the "breath test". I mounted it by making some homemade French cleats out of plywood and then adding a couple of plywood pieces at the bottom so the whole thing sits away from the wall about 3/4". The cleats and plywood were placed strategically so you can only see them if you're looking really hard. 

As far as progress is concerned, wow I've got a lot of reading to do, a mic to buy and REW to install on my laptop. This is uncharted territory for me, but I think it would be good to see the before, during and after results of adding treatments including the graphs to prove the time and money actually paid off. I'm a science guy, so that's important to me.


----------



## aaranddeeman

blastermaster said:


> I used two sheets of Roxul Comfortboard (2'x4'x1.5") wrapped in 4 inch baseboard molding (painted black) and covered with an espresso colored cloth that passed the "breath test". I mounted it by making some homemade French cleats out of plywood and then adding a couple of plywood pieces at the bottom so the whole thing sits away from the wall about 3/4". The cleats and plywood were placed strategically so you can only see them if you're looking really hard.
> 
> As far as progress is concerned, wow I've got a lot of reading to do, a mic to buy and REW to install on my laptop. This is uncharted territory for me, but I think it would be good to see the before, during and after results of adding treatments including the graphs to prove the time and money actually paid off. I'm a science guy, so that's important to me.


Thanks.
So you used mirror trick or similar to find the first reflection points (because you seem to be getting into REW now).


----------



## blastermaster

> Thanks.
> So you used mirror trick or similar to find the first reflection points (because you seem to be getting into REW now).


You betcha!


----------



## NorthSky

*'Unbroken' - Dolby Atmos - Blu-ray - Flies Buzzing Scene | Chapter 13*

From the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio soundtrack (of the main Dolby Atmos encoding); you can hear the flies buzzing @ ::

♦ Front Main Left Speaker @ 
*1:22:44
1:22:46
1:22:48
1:22:52*

♦ Front Main Right Speaker @ 
*1:22:39
1:22:42
1:22:44
1:22:48*

♦ Right Side & Right Rear Surround Speakers @
*1:22:46* 

♦ Left Side & Left Rear Surround Speakers @ 
*1:22:52*

______

I had to put my ear right close to the tweeter of each speaker (two inches close) to hear the flies, and with the master volume control @ reference 0dB level. 

@ the MLP without knowing @ which exact moment (to the second), the only one I could faintly hear (fly) was the one coming from the front right speaker @ *1:22:48* ... and @ reference level and without noise in the room; fans and all. 
Last time I checked that short scene I didn't put my ear to each speaker, I simply remained sit in the main chair, and heard no flies. 
But yes they're there them flies, no doubt about it. ...And the better your speakers I'm sure it helps, and clean sound too from the receiver, and @ a reasonably loud volume level too. 

It was a good test; you should all try it the ones who have 'Unbroken' on Blu-ray. ...And then with 'Gravity' @ the end, when she surfaces from the water.

Movies and Music are fun, they put smiles in our hearts, or tears in our eyes, and makes us dance too with good humor and happiness; all good for the soul, for the spirit of man/woman/child. 
If we lose our good humor and stop dancing, we are lost.


----------



## petetherock

NorthSky said:


> From the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio soundtrack (of the main Dolby Atmos encoding); you can hear the flies buzzing @ ::
> 
> ♦ Front Main Left Speaker @
> *1:22:44
> 1:22:46
> 1:22:48
> 1:22:52*
> 
> ♦ Front Main Right Speaker @
> *1:22:39
> 1:22:42
> 1:22:44
> 1:22:48*
> 
> ♦ Right Side & Right Rear Surround Speakers @
> *1:22:46*
> 
> ♦ Left Side & Left Rear Surround Speakers @
> *1:22:52*
> 
> ______
> 
> I had to put my ear right close to the tweeter of each speaker (two inches close) to hear the flies, and with the master volume control @ reference 0dB level.
> 
> @ the MLP without knowing @ which exact moment (to the second), the only one I could faintly hear (fly) was the one coming from the front right speaker @ *1:22:48* ... and @ reference level and without noise in the room; fans and all.
> Last time I checked that short scene I didn't put my ear to each speaker, I simply remained sit in the main chair, and heard no flies.
> But yes they're there them flies, no doubt about it. ...And the better your speakers I'm sure it helps, and clean sound too from the receiver, and @ a reasonably loud volume level too.
> 
> It was a good test; you should all try it the ones who have 'Unbroken' on Blu-ray. ...And then with 'Gravity' @ the end, when she surfaces from the water.
> 
> Movies and Music are fun, they put smiles in our hearts, or tears in our eyes, and makes us dance too with good humor and happiness; all good for the soul, for the spirit of man/woman/child.
> If we lose our good humor and stop dancing, we are lost.


Thanks, I was going to ask about this actually...


----------



## dholmes54

Thx Dan it probably won't have the same kick as the 805,it had such a great amp,but for 600.00 I thought it was a good deal on the new one.


----------



## jpco

NorthSky said:


> From the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio soundtrack (of the main Dolby Atmos encoding); you can hear the flies buzzing @ ::
> 
> ♦ Front Main Left Speaker @
> *1:22:44
> 1:22:46
> 1:22:48
> 1:22:52*
> 
> ♦ Front Main Right Speaker @
> *1:22:39
> 1:22:42
> 1:22:44
> 1:22:48*
> 
> ♦ Right Side & Right Rear Surround Speakers @
> *1:22:46*
> 
> ♦ Left Side & Left Rear Surround Speakers @
> *1:22:52*
> 
> ______
> 
> I had to put my ear right close to the tweeter of each speaker (two inches close) to hear the flies, and with the master volume control @ reference 0dB level.
> 
> @ the MLP without knowing @ which exact moment (to the second), the only one I could faintly hear (fly) was the one coming from the front right speaker @ *1:22:48* ... and @ reference level and without noise in the room; fans and all.
> Last time I checked that short scene I didn't put my ear to each speaker, I simply remained sit in the main chair, and heard no flies.
> But yes they're there them flies, no doubt about it. ...And the better your speakers I'm sure it helps, and clean sound too from the receiver, and @ a reasonably loud volume level too.
> 
> It was a good test; you should all try it the ones who have 'Unbroken' on Blu-ray. ...And then with 'Gravity' @ the end, when she surfaces from the water.
> 
> Movies and Music are fun, they put smiles in our hearts, or tears in our eyes, and makes us dance too with good humor and happiness; all good for the soul, for the spirit of man/woman/child.
> If we lose our good humor and stop dancing, we are lost.


Or are the flies more discernible in Atmos? Would be interesting to learn if this could be a case where an object or height sound in the 7.1 mix is somewhat buried.


----------



## jrref

jpco said:


> Or are the flies more discernible in Atmos? Would be interesting to learn if this could be a case where an object or height sound in the 7.1 mix is somewhat buried.


After reading the posts about the "fly", i'm not saying this is the case but a lot of Atmos setups have the height speakers pretty close to right over the MLP and the levels of the heights are way too high because they want to really hear the Atmos effect. I can imagine in a set up like this that you may hear something like the fly in this movie when the director actually intended it to blend into the sound field. When I was CE Week on Thursday I listened to the Onkyo demo and the heights were way too loud and literally less than 2 feet from my head sitting in the 1st row. The sound was totally unnatural but "showed off" Atmos which is what they were trying to do, to showcase the feature. As said here in this thread, a lot of Atmos movies don't have a lot of "overhead" sound. Maybe because the movie content doesn't have a lot of overhead action but my opinion is that the 3D Atmos sound field is very natural and very good even though i'm not ducking all the time!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I just want to hear those flies, that's all.


It's like finding those kernels of corn.


----------



## NorthSky

That is an excellent point on the Dolby Atmos setups with the overheads being close to the MLP and also being prominent; it sure helps to hear those flies buzzing around, from above, with better distinction/clarity/prominence. ...Chapter 13.


----------



## helvetica bold

Csbooth said:


> I would love to believe you but the article you linked (which I've actually read before lol) still makes no mention of consoles, PS4 specifically, being given Atmos support for Battlefront.
> 
> I might just be blind but I couldn't find It on there, other than someone commenting they hope it comes to PS4 (which I'm assuming it's you?, as it mentions headphones like you do here).



Haha I left that comment on the Dolby site.
I would love for the PS4 version of Battlefront to have Atmos but Sony hasn't even announced support for their receivers. 
Sony does have the exclusive marketing rights for Battlefront so they might get Atmos on the system if DICE pushes them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
Question related to Atmos Upmixer. Can it convert formats other than dolby? Will it up-convert DTS-MA? If yes then has anyone tried it? How do you the conversion?


----------



## frankpc3

NorthSky said:


> From the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio soundtrack (of the main Dolby Atmos encoding); you can hear the flies buzzing
> 
> It was a good test; you should all try it the ones who have 'Unbroken' on Blu-ray. ...And then with 'Gravity' @ the end, when she surfaces from the water.


I haven't seen Unbroken, but should I assume the flies are supposed to be heard?

You mentioned main and surround speakers. Did they also come from the Atmos speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> Question related to Atmos Upmixer:
> 1. Can it convert formats other than dolby? 2. Will it up-convert DTS-MA? 3. If yes then has anyone tried it? 4. How do you the conversion?


1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Not me, but others yes.
4. You simply select Dolby Surround (on top of DTS-HD MA). ...Or any other audio codec; dts, dts-ex, dts-es, dts 96/24, DD, DD-ex, DD-es, DD+, DSD?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> Question related to Atmos Upmixer. Can it convert formats other than dolby? Will it up-convert DTS-MA? If yes then has anyone tried it? How do you the conversion?



Yes.

Yes. 

It's very good to excellent upmixing depending on the channel-based content and how it was mixed to begin with.


----------



## NorthSky

frankpc3 said:


> I haven't seen Unbroken, but should I assume the flies are supposed to be heard?
> 
> You mentioned main and surround speakers. Did they also come from the Atmos speakers?


You have a Denon Atmos (& dts:x) receiver, X7200WA, ..you will hear the flies...better than me who has not a Dolby Atmos receiver. 

* The flies are inside all channels, except the center channel (I did not hear any there) and the .1 LFE/Sub channel.
I bet they are in the four overhead channels too, because that's why people can hear them better. 

@ first I did not hear them (Integra DHC-80.3 pre/pro - non-Dolby Atmos SSP)...I had to put my ear close to the tweeters, on the second experiment.

Dolby Atmos is the real deal with movies. ...And DTS:X should also be. ...For multichannel music listening, Dolby Surround, and DTS Neural:X might not be the cup of tea for everyone. But with movies them two up-mixers are all the rage in the year 2015 (dts:x very soon). ...That, and Dirac Live. 

Auro-3D (and 2D) rocks with multichannel music listening, according to Auro-3D and 2D users, and also with Auro-Matic (Auro-3D's own up-mixer).


----------



## RapalloAV

NorthSky said:


> You have a Denon Atmos (& dts:x) receiver, X7200WA, ..you will hear the flies...better than me who has not a Dolby Atmos receiver.
> 
> * The flies are inside all channels, except the center channel (I did not hear any there) and the .1 LFE/Sub channel.
> I bet they are in the four overhead channels too, because that's why people can hear them better.
> 
> .



I checked it out and yes I can hear the flies faintly from the MLP. I would say the Klipsch Ultra 2 speakers I use help make this more obvious.


----------



## Orbitron

Has anyone done an A/B with Master & Commander comparing DSU on and off for the scene where we hear the overhead footsteps?
I don't have DSU so really curious in what way they sound different with DSU on.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Hi All,

I just recently purchased the Onkyo TX-NR646 which has both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X update due. 

This AVR actually had an offer on with Onkyo for free Atmos speaker modules that sit on top of your floor standing ones. Im just waiting for these to arrive (hopefully shouldn't take too long), I'm really excited to test out Dolby Atmos and see what it brings to movie watching and game playing immersion! I have never had a Atmos demo before so the only thing i know of what to expect is from reading peoples experiences which have nearly all been positive even without having to install in ceiling speakers and using these Onkyo Atmos Speakers to project and rebound the sound off the ceiling.

Anyway is this the thread where people share the Atmos movie experiences? or is there another thread where people share there thoughts on which movie had good upmix atmos audio through DSU (as theres not many native atmos movies i guess comments on DSU experiences would be more common)?



NorthSky said:


> 1. Yes.
> 2. Yes.
> 3. Not me, but others yes.
> 4. You simply select Dolby Surround (on top of DTS-HD MA). ...Or any other audio codec; dts, dts-ex, dts-es, dts 96/24, DD, DD-ex, DD-es, DD+, DSD?


Hi NorthSky,

Can you please elaborate on number 4. On my AVR do i just choose the Dolby Surround option and for example the DTS-HD MA option is selected on the bluray itself? Is that how it works? Do you don't actually see Atmos written on the AVR just Dolby? 

How about when the audio source is native Atmos? Do still just pick Dolby Surround on the AVR? or is there another mode which should be reserved for this and say Atmos on the AVR?

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Killer_Nads said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I just recently purchased the Onkyo TX-NR646 which has both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X update due.
> 
> This AVR actually had an offer on with Onkyo for free Atmos speaker modules that sit on top of your floor standing ones. Im just waiting for these to arrive (hopefully shouldn't take too long), I'm really excited to test out Dolby Atmos and see what it brings to movie watching and game playing immersion! I have never had a Atmos demo before so the only thing i know of what to expect is from reading peoples experiences which have nearly all been positive even without having to install in ceiling speakers and using these Onkyo Atmos Speakers to project and rebound the sound off the ceiling.
> 
> Anyway is this the thread where people share the Atmos movie experiences? or is there another thread where people share there thoughts on which movie had good upmix atmos audio through DSU (as theres not many native atmos movies i guess comments on DSU experiences would be more common)?
> 
> Hi NorthSky,
> 
> Can you please elaborate on number 4. On my AVR do i just choose the Dolby Surround option and for example the DTS-HD MA option is selected on the bluray itself? Is that how it works? Do you don't actually see Atmos written on the AVR just Dolby?
> 
> How about when the audio source is native Atmos? Do still just pick Dolby Surround on the AVR? or is there another mode which should be reserved for this and say Atmos on the AVR?
> 
> Thanks.


Playback a normal channel based soundtrack (always make sure your Blu-ray player's setup menu has Secondary Audio or BD Audio Mix turned off... or it may be a Pure Audio Mode that needs to be selected... and that it is set to Bitstream the audio data off the disc) and push the Movie/TV listening mode button on the Onkyo remote until you get the combo of whatever you're playing (DTS, Dolby or PCM encoded data) plus Dolby Surround on the screen. 

When the audio bitstream contains Dolby Atmos or DTS:X (later this fall with the firmware update) extension files, the receiver should automatically switch to one of those object rendering modes.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Dan Hitchman said:


> Playback a normal channel based soundtrack (always make sure your Blu-ray player's setup menu has Secondary Audio or BD Audio Mix turned off... or it may be a Pure Audio Mode that needs to be selected... and that it is set to Bitstream the audio data off the disc) and push the Movie/TV listening mode button on the Onkyo remote until you get the combo of whatever you're playing (DTS, Dolby or PCM encoded data) plus Dolby Surround on the screen.
> 
> When the audio bitstream contains Dolby Atmos or DTS:X (later this fall with the firmware update) extension files, the receiver should automatically switch to one of those object rendering modes.


Excellent thank you! 

Ill make sure to look for those settings on my Bluray player and turn them off, however if anything does default itself back to ON for example, would it be quite noticeable that DSU is not working correctly? How could someone know? Would the overhead channels not output any sound at all etc?? 

(Just being cautious here that i don't go through whole movies clumsily without noticing that the DSU wasn't functioning properly)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Killer_Nads said:


> Excellent thank you!
> 
> Ill make sure to look for those settings on my Bluray player and turn them off, however if anything does default itself back to ON for example, would it be quite noticeable that DSU is not working correctly? How could someone know? Would the overhead channels not output any sound at all etc??
> 
> (Just being cautious here that i don't go through whole movies clumsily without noticing that the DSU wasn't functioning properly)


It would either be showing a lossy soundtrack (even if you know you've selected a lossless track) or PCM audio when it should read DTS Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD. That would show that the player is converting the audio track internally, which is what you do not want.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Dan Hitchman said:


> It would either be showing a lossy soundtrack (even if you know you've selected a lossless track) or PCM audio when it should read DTS Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD. That would show that the player is converting the audio track internally, which is what you do not want.


Thanks, think i got it! 

On my onkyo avr i have a display button that cycles through audio input and output. Hence, I'm guessing that the input should display either any sort of DTS or Dolby track (i.e.. DTS-HD MA, DTS, Dolby Digital, Dolby TrueHD etc...) and the output should just say Dolby Surround.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Killer_Nads said:


> Thanks, think i got it!
> 
> On my onkyo avr i have a display button that cycles through audio input and output. Hence, I'm guessing that the input should display either any sort of DTS or Dolby track (i.e.. DTS-HD MA, DTS, Dolby Digital, Dolby TrueHD etc...) and the output should just say Dolby Surround.


Something along those lines.


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> 1. Yes.
> 2. Yes.
> 3. Not me, but others yes.
> 4. You simply select Dolby Surround (on top of DTS-HD MA). ...Or any other audio codec; dts, dts-ex, dts-es, dts 96/24, DD, DD-ex, DD-es, DD+, DSD?





Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It's very good to excellent upmixing depending on the channel-based content and how it was mixed to begin with.


Thx guys. So I think the real benefit of having DTS:X would be if a dvd has DTS:X format on it. Anything else can be handled fine with Atmos Upmixer. Now there is a possibility that DTS upmixedr might do a better job than Atmos upmixer but that we'll know only after DTS upmixer is put to work.


----------



## brahman12

My MLP is at least six feet away from any of my height speakers and I run them loud enough for them to be noticed when called upon in the mix but not loud enough to over power the rest of the sound mix. Again, I must add that we all have unique listening tastes, propensities, and abilities whenever our hearing is being engaged. I hear the fly activity in my front soundstage during the majority of that brief scene and then the scene wraps up with a singular buzz that emanates from the left side and sounds like it's right next to my left ear.... again, I must add, that it's a very quick and simple touch but I find it to be very cool, and as NorthSky has recently pointed out, sometimes even minor details like this can make your overall enjoyment of an activity that much more pleasant. I have watched the movie twice but never got up to check from exactly what speakers the sound was coming from. I believe I noted to myself that the final buzz sound that I found so interesting seemed like it came from my left surround channel and my left top rear channel, but I would have to go back and play it to be totally sure. You also can consider the gear being used, room size and room/gear interaction, and listener abilities/propensities along with other factors that can influence how impactful the mix activity is perceived.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> Thx guys. So I think the real benefit of having DTS:X would be if a dvd has DTS:X format on it. Anything else can be handled fine with Atmos Upmixer. Now there is a possibility that DTS upmixer might do a better job than Atmos upmixer but that we'll know only after DTS upmixer is put to work.



A true Dolby Atmos or DTS:X soundtrack with fully discrete object and channel based sound elements is going to be the superior presentation when processed through a receiver or pre-amp with these renderers. 

Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X upmixers will try to guesstimate via matrixed steering logic sounds that could be placed in other speakers. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes not. However, they both help to expand and enhance traditional stereo, 5.1, and 7.1 tracks. 

It may be that one or the other will do a superior rendition. We'll know soon enough.


----------



## frankpc3

NorthSky said:


> You have a Denon Atmos (& dts:x) receiver, X7200WA, ..you will hear the flies...better than me who has not a Dolby Atmos receiver.


Thanks. I'll get hold of Unbroken and listen for the effects you describe.


----------



## NorthSky

...And DVD cannot have Lossless Audio like DTS:X or Dolby Atmos ...only dts or DD ...plus few variables like ex and es ... but always Lossy (compressed). 

When you play a Blu-ray with a DTS-HD MA soundtrack, and that your receiver has only Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D surround sound decoders, you can use their up-mixers (Dolby Surround and Auro-Matic) to up-mix the DTS-HD MA soundtrack into a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 surround sound up-mixing, with overhead elevated 3D sounds.

We all can live without DTS:X and Auro-3D surround sound decoders (except me) because Dolby Surround can up-mix everything; LPCM, DD, Dolby TrueHD, dts, DTS-HD MA, DTS:X (the core audio -> DTS-HD MA), Auro-3D (the core audio), etc. 

But discrete/object audio encoding from DTS:X and discrete channel audio encoding from Auro-3D requires their own respective 3D audio decoders. 

Or you want processed (up-mixed) sound, or you want decoded (the real deal) sound from them three 3D immersing audio codecs. ...True object and channel encoding/rendition. 

But yes, Dolby Surround (new Dolby Atmos's own up-mixer) can up-mix any audio codecs into your two or four overhead Atmos speakers, or floor up-firing Atmos ones.
And that is why everybody is happy today, and tomorrow. ...But tomorrow more.


----------



## Brian Fineberg




----------



## NorthSky

Did any of you try Dolby Surround with *'Taxi Driver'* from _Martin Scorsese_ and starring _Bob?_


----------



## frankpc3

NorthSky said:


> When you play a Blu-ray with a DTS-HD MA soundntrack, and that your receiver has only Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D surround sound decoders, you can use their up-mixers (Dolby Surround and Auro-Matic) to up-mix the DTS-HD MA soundtrack into a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 surround sound up-mixing, with overhead elevated 3D sounds.


OK... I have a 7.1 ch. DTS-HD MA blu ray that does not have Atmos. What mode do I select to up-mix to 7.1.4 sound?

And does that mean the 7.1 sound will be as it was originally encoded and in addition to that, the 4 Atmos speakers will have 4 unique combinations of sound derived from the original 7 channels?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

frankpc3 said:


> OK... I have a 7.1 ch. DTS-HD MA blu ray that does not have Atmos. What mode do I select to up-mix to 7.1.4 sound?
> 
> And does that mean the 7.1 sound will be as it was originally encoded and in addition to that, the 4 Atmos speakers will have 4 unique combinations of sound derived from the original 7 channels?


Dolby Surround


----------



## NorthSky

frankpc3 said:


> OK... I have a 7.1 ch. DTS-HD MA blu ray that does not have Atmos. What mode do I select to up-mix to 7.1.4 sound?
> 
> And does that mean the 7.1 sound will be as it was originally encoded and in addition to that, the 4 Atmos speakers will have 4 unique combinations of sound derived from the original 7 channels?





SteveTheGeek said:


> Dolby Surround


 That *^*


----------



## aaranddeeman

Just watched initial few minutes of "Mummy Returns". DSU sounds intense (may be little overboard) with height channels (hyper)active..
Bit noisier, but okay..


----------



## njgl_torres

hi

question on atmos speaker ?

is the paradigm millenia 20 can be use as atmos speaker ? is this can be enable? 

thanks


----------



## GregLee

Killer_Nads said:


> Thanks, think i got it!
> 
> On my onkyo avr i have a display button that cycles through audio input and output. Hence, I'm guessing that the input should display either any sort of DTS or Dolby track (i.e.. DTS-HD MA, DTS, Dolby Digital, Dolby TrueHD etc...) and the output should just say Dolby Surround.


I'm not clear about whether I am getting Dolby Atmos (though it sounds nice). My only Atmos source so far is the Expendables 3 blu-ray, and as I play it, my Sony BDP says it's playing Dolby Atmos. It's set to output bitstream.

My AVR is the Pioneer VSX-90 5.2.2/7.2 which supposedly has Dolby Atmos. But when I'm playing the blu-ray, the AVR doesn't say "Dolby Atmos" on its front panel. It says "Dolby Surround". So am I getting Atmos processing? (I have the AVR set up to play the two TM speakers rather than the two back surround speakers, which are also connected up.)

The AVR panel display shows the channels it finds in its input signal, and the lights here say L C R LS RS XL XR LFE, but the user manual says about this display: "With Dolby Atmos content, the light will not be on when the object base signal is being decoded." Since the channel icons are lit up, that sounds like the receiver is not decoding Atmos, doesn't it?

Puzzled.


----------



## gene4ht

Killer_Nads said:


> Thanks, think i got it!
> 
> On my onkyo avr i have a display button that cycles through audio input and output. Hence, I'm guessing that the input should display either any sort of DTS or Dolby track (i.e.. DTS-HD MA, DTS, Dolby Digital, Dolby TrueHD etc...) and the output should just say Dolby Surround.


That's exactly how it works on my Onkyo TX-NR636 and will also indicate the config...i.e. 5.1.2


----------



## NorthSky

njgl_torres said:


> hi
> question on atmos speaker ?
> is the paradigm millenia 20 can be use as atmos speaker ? is this can be enable?
> thanks


You have two of those? ...Or four? ...I would certainly try them if they were around and not having any duty. 
But if you don't have them already, I think coax speakers would be better, with say a 6" woofer/driver with centered tweeter, crossed over @ 80-90Hz. 
...Better @ wide dispersion, and aiming straight down, then near the MLP...experiment with the aiming. 



GregLee said:


> I'm not clear about whether I am getting Dolby Atmos (though it sounds nice). My only Atmos source so far is the Expendables 3 blu-ray, and as I play it, my Sony BDP says it's playing Dolby Atmos. It's set to output bitstream.
> My AVR is the Pioneer VSX-90 5.2.2/7.2 which supposedly has Dolby Atmos. But when I'm playing the blu-ray, the AVR doesn't say "Dolby Atmos" on its front panel. It says "Dolby Surround". So am I getting Atmos processing? (I have the AVR set up to play the two TM speakers rather than the two back surround speakers, which are also connected up.)
> The AVR panel display shows the channels it finds in its input signal, and the lights here say L C R LS RS XL XR LFE, but the user manual says about this display: "With Dolby Atmos content, the light will not be on when the object base signal is being decoded." Since the channel icons are lit up, that sounds like the receiver is not decoding Atmos, doesn't it?
> Puzzled.


Your Pioneer receiver's front panel display should say 'Dolby Atmos' ... definitely. ...Because Dolby Surround is only the up-mixer, and you have a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray encoding, a Sony BR player set to Bitstream, and a Dolby Atmos AV receiver. 

The issue here that I can think off is this: 'The Expendables 3' is a Lionsgate studios BR release, and that studio is not playing nice with Dolby Atmos gear. 
Your Sony BR player might have an issue playing it; not the first time and it happened with several other BR players as well.
It's an issue specific to Lionsgate Dolby Atmos encodings. 

Which Sony BR model do you have?


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys

I just finished building my 7.1.4 atoms home theatre . Here are some of my experience and pictures .

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge.../2049954-my-humble-3d-audio-home-theater.html


----------



## GregLee

northsky said:


> which sony br model do you have?


bdp s790


----------



## NorthSky

GregLee said:


> bdp s790


Hi Greg,

That's a good one; with two HDMI outputs and dual-core processor (very fast loader). ...And Skype support too. 

If the HDMI Audio Out is set to Bitstream, then it should send the Dolby Atmos audio encoding from 'The Expendables 3' Blu-ray directly to your Pioneer Dolby Atmos receiver to be decoded there, and then showing "Dolby Atmos" on its front panel display.

TIP: Experiment with the Audio modes from your receiver. It should be the original audio from the Blu-ray disc...Dolby Atmos.
* Make sure that's the audio selected from the Blu-ray disc menu itself. ...Check manually, in the Audio menu of 'The Expendables 3'.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I just finished building my 7.1.4 atoms home theatre . Here are some of my experience and pictures .
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...forumsite/3207/topics/2049954?postid=35420042


Hi Roudan,

Sorry, you posted the wrong link above. 

* TEST: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Hi Greg,
> 
> That's a good one; with two HDMI outputs and dual-core processor (very fast loader). ...And Skype support too.
> 
> If the HDMI Audio Out is set to Bitstream, then it should send the Dolby Atmos audio encoding from 'The Expendables 3' Blu-ray directly to your Pioneer Dolby Atmos receiver to be decoded there, and then showing "Dolby Atmos" on its front panel display.
> 
> TIP: Experiment with the Audio modes from your receiver. It should be the original audio from the Blu-ray disc...Dolby Atmos.
> * Make sure that's the audio selected from the Blu-ray disc menu itself. ...Check manually, in the Audio menu of 'The Expendables 3'.


Also make sure "BD Audio Mix" is "Off" on the player audio settings.


----------



## rerecmixer

aaranddeeman said:


> Also make sure "BD Audio Mix" is "Off" on the player audio settings.


yes, in my experience this also needs to be "Off" to play all Auro-3D formats successfully (96kHz Auro playback didn't work when BD Audio Mix was "On" if I remember well)


----------



## njgl_torres

NorthSky said:


> You have two of those? ...Or four? ...I would certainly try them if they were around and not having any duty.
> But if you don't have them already, I think coax speakers would be better, with say a 6" woofer/driver with centered tweeter, crossed over @ 80-90Hz.
> ...Better @ wide dispersion, and aiming straight down, then near the MLP...experiment with the aiming.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Pioneer receiver's front panel display should say 'Dolby Atmos' ... definitely. ...Because Dolby Surround is only the up-mixer, and you have a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray encoding, a Sony BR player set to Bitstream, and a Dolby Atmos AV receiver.
> 
> The issue here that I can think off is this: 'The Expendables 3' is a Lionsgate studios BR release, and that studio is not playing nice with Dolby Atmos gear.
> Your Sony BR player might have an issue playing it; not the first time and it happened with several other BR players as well.
> It's an issue specific to Lionsgate Dolby Atmos encodings.
> 
> Which Sony BR model do you have?



thanks North Sky

i dont have the speaker yet, im planning to add 2 millenia 20 on my system and putting it between the wall and the ceiling where the tv is hanging.

i need to know if any regular speaker will enable the atmos?

thanks


----------



## pasender91

njgl_torres said:


> thanks North Sky
> 
> i dont have the speaker yet, im planning to add 2 millenia 20 on my system and putting it between the wall and the ceiling where the tv is hanging.
> 
> i need to know if any regular speaker will enable the atmos?
> 
> thanks


"Any" speaker will "enable" Atmos.
Those specific speakers have a frequency response of 110 Hz - 20 kHz, and used in a Front Height position (at the angle of front wall and ceiling) they will be fine.
Just try to angle them so that they aim towards the Main Listening Position.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Hi Roudan,
> 
> Sorry, you posted the wrong link above.
> 
> * TEST: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


Thanks Bob. I appreciate it. I corrected it.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge.../2049954-my-humble-3d-audio-home-theater.html


----------



## GregLee

NorthSky said:


> Hi Greg,
> 
> That's a good one; with two HDMI outputs and dual-core processor (very fast loader). ...And Skype support too.
> 
> If the HDMI Audio Out is set to Bitstream, then it should send the Dolby Atmos audio encoding from 'The Expendables 3' Blu-ray directly to your Pioneer Dolby Atmos receiver to be decoded there, and then showing "Dolby Atmos" on its front panel display.
> 
> TIP: Experiment with the Audio modes from your receiver. It should be the original audio from the Blu-ray disc...Dolby Atmos.
> * Make sure that's the audio selected from the Blu-ray disc menu itself. ...Check manually, in the Audio menu of 'The Expendables 3'.





aaranddeeman said:


> Also make sure "BD Audio Mix" is "Off" on the player audio settings.


Thank you, I finally got the VSX-90 to show that it's playing Atmos. I followed the suggestion to set "BD Audio Mix" to off (it was on). There was no apparent change -- the AVR still displayed "Dolby Surround". I started pushing the "Surr" listening mode button for the AVR. The various modes were displayed, but nothing about Atmos. I started pushing the "Auto" listening mode button for the AVR. The various settings -- Auto Surround, Direct, Pure Direct -- were displayed, but nothing about Atmos.

Then the display changed to "Dolby Atmos". Success.

So, I'm sorry for all the mostly irrelevant details here, but I don't know what worked. Now, when I change the "Auto" listening mode, after showing the setting I've changed to, the display reverts to "Dolby Atmos".


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Also *make sure "BD Audio Mix" is "Off" on the player audio settings*.





rerecmixer said:


> yes, in my experience this also needs to be "Off" to play all Auro-3D formats successfully *(96kHz Auro playback didn't work when BD Audio Mix was "On" if I remember well)*


Great info guys, of the utmost importance to play those new 3D surround sound codecs properly, thanks a bunch! ...I did not know that. 
{Your posts are now a "sticky" in my reference 3D audio files (Atmos* & Auro*): They will help future members.  }

* And I bet it'll be the same for DTS:X


----------



## NorthSky

GregLee said:


> Thank you, I finally got the VSX-90 to show that it's playing Atmos. I followed the suggestion to set "BD Audio Mix" to off (it was on). There was no apparent change -- the AVR still displayed "Dolby Surround". I started pushing the "Surr" listening mode button for the AVR. The various modes were displayed, but nothing about Atmos. I started pushing the "Auto" listening mode button for the AVR. The various settings -- Auto Surround, Direct, Pure Direct -- were displayed, but nothing about Atmos.
> Then the display changed to "Dolby Atmos". Success.
> So, I'm sorry for all the mostly irrelevant details here, but I don't know what worked.
> * Now, when I change the "Auto" listening mode, after showing the setting I've changed to, the display reverts to "Dolby Atmos".*


I am not familiar with your specific Pioneer model receiver (mine is much older), but I have/had Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, Onkyo, Integra receivers and pre/pros and you can set the listening audio modes per each input (source). ...Like for 2-channel stereo, DD, dts, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, Multich. Analog, etc. ...And with yours you can default to Dolby Surround for non-encoded Dolby Atmos movies, and Dolby Atmos should also be an automatic surround mode default. ...Each brand of receivers have their own specific way in their proceedings...in how to select the default listening audio/surround modes for various audio encoding and per each source (receiver's inputs)...from their Audio menu setup. ...Check your manual too.


----------



## GregLee

NorthSky said:


> ... And with yours you can default to Dolby Surround for non-encoded Dolby Atmos movies, and Dolby Atmos should also be an automatic surround mode default. ...Each brand of receivers have their own specific way in their proceedings...in how to select the default listening audio/surround modes for various audio encoding and per each source (receiver's inputs)...from their Audio menu setup. ...Check your manual too.


Well, what I tried to convey above is that Dolby Atmos does not seem to be a regular listening mode. Playing the Atmos blu-ray I have, the receiver says it's in Auto Surround mode (when I press the "auto" button), and it says it's in Dolby Surround mode (when I press the "surr" button), yet after verifying either of those, the AVR panel display again goes back to showing "Dolby Atmos". I can change those two settings, but there is no effect, so far as I know. There is no button on the remote that selects Dolby Atmos, except that there is an audio parameter RENDER which could be set to LEGACY instead of OBJECT to disable Atmos (which I have not tried).

So how the receiver decides to go into Atmos RENDER mode is still a mystery, to me. Perhaps continued pressing of the "auto" button is the right stimulus. Or maybe it's supposed to be automatic when an Atmos input is detected.

I haven't yet noticed a difference in the sound from before the AVR said it was rendering Atmos and now, when it says it is rendering Atmos.


----------



## HT-Eman

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I just finished building my 7.1.4 atoms home theatre . Here are some of my experience and pictures .
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge.../2049954-my-humble-3d-audio-home-theater.html


Nice room !!! This is what this thread needs , more pictures of the actual build and room .


----------



## NorthSky

GregLee said:


> Well, what I tried to convey above is that Dolby Atmos does not seem to be a regular listening mode. Playing the Atmos blu-ray I have, the receiver says it's in Auto Surround mode (when I press the "auto" button), and it says it's in Dolby Surround mode (when I press the "surr" button), yet after verifying either of those, the AVR panel display again goes back to showing "Dolby Atmos". I can change those two settings, but there is no effect, so far as I know. There is no button on the remote that selects Dolby Atmos, except that there is an audio parameter RENDER which could be set to LEGACY instead of OBJECT to disable Atmos (which I have not tried).
> So how the receiver decides to go into Atmos RENDER mode is still a mystery, to me. Perhaps continued pressing of the "auto" button is the right stimulus. *Or maybe it's supposed to be automatic when an Atmos input is detected.*
> 
> I haven't yet noticed a difference in the sound from before the AVR said it was rendering Atmos and now, when it says it is rendering Atmos.


I would tend to believe so: Automatic. ...If what's playing is 'The Expendables 3' on Blu-ray with its Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
The rest...should be best in true Dolby Atmos; when showing on the front panel display. ...Main thing is that IT IS NOW SHOWING.


----------



## MoG

*Vaulted Ceilings?*

Has anyone here installed ceiling speakers in room with vaulted ceilings? How did you figure out the proper placement? our movie room has vaulted ceilings, and the tv and seating is to the right of the center line (ie-the tv and seats are not centered in the room), so one vaulted ceiling is much closer than the other to where folks will be sitting.

I've downloaded the Atmos Speaker Placement spreadsheet and will take a look at it soon.


----------



## GregLee

MoG said:


> Has anyone here installed ceiling speakers in room with vaulted ceilings?


No, but I have an observation that might be relevant. My room is asymmetrical, with a large space behind my top left speaker, but no space behind my top right speaker (which is against a wall). Correspondingly, I hear more and "bigger" sounds coming from my left, as though the sources were placed back in that space, while the aural space at the right seems to end at the wall (just as the actual space does). Also, I use dipoles for my two top speakers (it's a 5.2.2 system).


----------



## HT-Eman

MoG said:


> Has anyone here installed ceiling speakers in room with vaulted ceilings? How did you figure out the proper placement? our movie room has vaulted ceilings, and the tv and seating is to the right of the center line (ie-the tv and seats are not centered in the room), so one vaulted ceiling is much closer than the other to where folks will be sitting.
> 
> I've downloaded the Atmos Speaker Placement spreadsheet and will take a look at it soon.


Yes , my room has vaulted ceilings starting at 8 ft going up to 11.5 feet . My front stage is on the lower end , and the rear of course is the higher part. I was currently setup for top front and top rear but i took everything down. Im currently changing speakers for atmos use. I have 4 Yamaha aw390 for atmos speakers but will exchange those for Axiom M3 in-ceiling speakers, because the rest of my listening level speakers are all axiom audio . I will be modifying my acoustic ceiling panels to place the M3 in-ceiling speakers in the panels. I will setup for Top Front and Top middle when i'm finish.


----------



## NorthSky

MoG said:


> Has anyone here installed ceiling speakers in room with vaulted ceilings? How did you figure out the proper placement? our movie room has vaulted ceilings, and the tv and seating is to the right of the center line (ie-the tv and seats are not centered in the room), so one vaulted ceiling is much closer than the other to where folks will be sitting.
> 
> I've downloaded the Atmos Speaker Placement spreadsheet and will take a look at it soon.


♦ http://www.bhphoto.com/c/product/541577-REG/Bogen_Communications_OPS1B_OPS1B_Orbit.html

This is only to show as an example; suspended speakers came in many shapes and @ various prices.









...And you can easily adjust to the perfect height with the right chain link (length).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> I just want to hear those flies, that's all.


Sorry for the delay! I definitely heard flies... just to double check we are talking about "unbroken" right?

I start hearing them @: 1:22:38 -to 1:22:54 the flies appear to be coming a bit from the front right and pans between that & front left. I currently have no height channels enabled... waiting on my ceiling speakers to come in. The sound of the flies is not subtle. In that scene I only hear dialogue, music, the flies, & the digging/shoveling of excrement.


----------



## njgl_torres

pasender91 said:


> "Any" speaker will "enable" Atmos.
> Those specific speakers have a frequency response of 110 Hz - 20 kHz, and used in a Front Height position (at the angle of front wall and ceiling) they will be fine.
> Just try to angle them so that they aim towards the Main Listening Position.


hi

thanks for the info. i appreciate it. it helps me.

thanks


----------



## dvdwilly3

njgl_torres said:


> hi
> 
> thanks for the info. i appreciate it. it helps me.
> 
> thanks


"Dolby-enabled" speakers refers specifically to a type of speaker that has been manufactured under Dolby specifications. Those specifications include filtering and often shaped baffles that are intended to achieve a head-related transfer function (HRTF).

If you use speakers for Atmos that are not Dolby-enabled, they will work just fine, and arguably better than the Dolby-enabled type.

I am using GoldenEar Supersat3s for my Top Front and Definitive Technology Procenter 1000s for Top Rear. The Top Front are mounted on top of my 8060BP towers and the Top Back are mounted on stands.

It works just fine in my 5.1.4 configuration.

Start with the Dolby suggested angles and then adjust for your main listening position.

Have fun!


----------



## njgl_torres

dvdwilly3 said:


> "Dolby-enabled" speakers refers specifically to a type of speaker that has been manufactured under Dolby specifications. Those specifications include filtering and often shaped baffles that are intended to achieve a head-related transfer function (HRTF).
> 
> If you use speakers for Atmos that are not Dolby-enabled, they will work just fine, and arguably better than the Dolby-enabled type.
> 
> I am using GoldenEar Supersat3s for my Top Front and Definitive Technology Procenter 1000s for Top Rear. The Top Front are mounted on top of my 8060BP towers and the Top Back are mounted on stands.
> 
> It works just fine in my 5.1.4 configuration.
> 
> Start with the Dolby suggested angles and then adjust for your main listening position.
> 
> Have fun!



hi

thanks, did you notice the sound difference? how does the atmos improve the SQ of your system?

which movies ? i know the expendables 3 is atmos i own it.

thanks


----------



## NorthSky

*'Unbroken' | Blu-ray | Chapter 13 | Little flies buzzing scene*



Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry for the delay! I definitely heard flies... just to double check we are talking about "unbroken" right?
> 
> I start hearing them @: 1:22:38 -to 1:22:54 the flies appear to be coming a bit *from the front right and pans between that & front left*. I currently have no height channels enabled... waiting on my ceiling speakers to come in. The sound of the flies is not subtle. In that scene I only hear dialogue, music, the flies, & the digging/shoveling of excrement.


Thx Aras; you just confirmed this: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

1. Right Front speaker: @ 1:22:38 ... yes, because when I paused my BR player I was roughly a second late @ 1:22:39
2. Left Front speaker: @ 1:22:54 ... yes, because when I paused my BR player @ 1:22: 52* the fly kept buzzing for a second or so more.

* And that one I also heard it in my Left Side and Left Rear surround speakers.


----------



## dvdwilly3

njgl_torres said:


> hi
> 
> thanks, did you notice the sound difference? how does the atmos improve the SQ of your system?
> 
> which movies ? i know the expendables 3 is atmos i own it.
> 
> thanks


I was running 5.1 and for me it was the biggest difference since 5.1. Try John Wick, Unbroken, American Sniper, 3rd Hunger Games. And, use DSU (Dolby Surround Mixer) for older movies--almost as good.

More than the overhead sound is the accuracy of placement of sound in the sound field around you.

I will never watch anything again in my home theater without some flavor of Atmos engaged.


----------



## MoG

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.bhphoto.com/c/product/541577-REG/Bogen_Communications_OPS1B_OPS1B_Orbit.html
> 
> This is only to show as an example; suspended speakers came in many shapes and @ various prices.
> 
> View attachment 805354
> 
> 
> ...And you can easily adjust to the perfect height with the right chain link (length).


Thanks for the replies!

I'll try and post a pic, but this is our main living space, so we want the surround and height speakers to be unobtrusive.

i'm concerned that the height and surround speakers on the right side of the listener will be physically much closer than the height and surround speakers on the left side...somewhat similar to HT-Eman's setup.


----------



## scarabaeus

*Game of Thrones*

Double dip alert: Game of Thrones will be re-released in Atmos! The first two seasons on November 3rd, the rest later:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/game-of-thrones-dolby-atmos-collector-sets/29528313/


----------



## HT-Eman

MoG said:


> Thanks for the replies!
> 
> I'll try and post a pic, but this is our main living space, so we want the surround and height speakers to be unobtrusive.
> 
> i'm concerned that the height and surround speakers on the right side of the listener will be physically much closer than the height and surround speakers on the left side...somewhat similar to HT-Eman's setup.


My surround speakers are just above ear level .


----------



## chi_guy50

GregLee said:


> So how the receiver decides to go into Atmos RENDER mode is still a mystery, to me. Perhaps continued pressing of the "auto" button is the right stimulus. *Or maybe it's supposed to be automatic when an Atmos input is detected.*
> 
> I haven't yet noticed a difference in the sound from before the AVR said it was rendering Atmos and now, when it says it is rendering Atmos.


The operation should indeed be automatic on any properly configured Atmos-capable processor. I cannot speak specifically regarding your Pioneer model's controls, but it should automatically play back in Atmos mode whenever it receives an Atmos-encoded signal. The three key variables here are to ensure that your external (fully Blu-ray spec compliant) device is sending the correct bitstreamed Atmos soundtrack, that you are using a high-speed HDMI connection to the AVR, and that (obviously) the AVR's speaker setup is configured for Atmos (i.e., at a minimum 5.1.2).



HT-Eman said:


> I will be modifying my acoustic ceiling panels to place the M3 in-ceiling speakers in the panels. I will setup for Top Front and Top middle when i'm finish.


That specific combination of top-level speaker positions is not possible. You can choose any two of the five positions (front height, top front, top middle, top rear, and rear height) provided they are not contiguous (adjacent) pairs. So in lieu of TF + TM, for instance, you could choose FH + TM or TF + TR.


----------



## chi_guy50

scarabaeus said:


> Double dip alert: Game of Thrones will be re-released in Atmos! The first two seasons on November 3rd, the rest later:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/game-of-thrones-dolby-atmos-collector-sets/29528313/


Thanks for that alert; that's really good news. Even though I'm not interested in this series, the fact that it's getting an Atmos re-release could be a great harbinger of things to come!


----------



## Kris Deering

scarabaeus said:


> Double dip alert: Game of Thrones will be re-released in Atmos! The first two seasons on November 3rd, the rest later:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/game-of-thrones-dolby-atmos-collector-sets/29528313/


This is nice but I almost feel like it is too late. I imagine most fans of the show already bought it. The steelbook packaging will help resale for steel collectors but if this is at a premium price I don't think it will be a big draw as a double dip. TV shows, even good ones, don't have as much rewatch value for me just because of the time considerations.


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> Did anyone else notice that Jupiter Ascending actually went up in price at least for the 3D version?


I'm glad I waited until this title was available for rent. I watched it last night and it was pretty bad. I just couldn't get into the movie, I even did some online surveys because I was so bored. I am usually a big sci-fi fanatic but this one was pretty bad despite the great visuals, CGI and audio. Don't know if this Redbox rental was in Atmos since my Denon X5200W is in the shop for repair (yes, after only 5 months or so). I couldn't believe that Eddie Redmayne went from The Theory of Everything to this. I guess it's all about remaining employed and not so much about quality for these actors?


----------



## HT-Eman

chi_guy50 said:


> The operation should indeed be automatic on any properly configured Atmos-capable processor. I cannot speak specifically regarding your Pioneer model's controls, but it should automatically play back in Atmos mode whenever it receives an Atmos-encoded signal. The three key variables here are to ensure that your external (fully Blu-ray spec compliant) device is sending the correct bitstreamed Atmos soundtrack, that you are using a high-speed HDMI connection to the AVR, and that (obviously) the AVR's speaker setup is configured for Atmos (i.e., at a minimum 5.1.2).
> 
> 
> 
> That specific combination of top-level speaker positions is not possible. You can choose any two of the five positions (front height, top front, top middle, top rear, and rear height) provided they are not contiguous (adjacent) pairs. So in lieu of TF + TM, for instance, you could choose FH + TM or TF + TR.


I completely understand the combination of top-level speakers positions. I was saying that how I will have it setup is TF + TM , but in the avr I have to assign it as FH + TM .


----------



## GregLee

chi_guy50 said:


> ..., and that (obviously) the AVR's speaker setup is configured for Atmos (i.e., at a minimum 5.1.2).


The manual for my VSX-90 says that the speaker setup has to have two speakers beyond 5.1: "Any one of top-middle, surround back, or front-wide must be selected." (p. 75 under "About Dolby Atmos")

Apparently, then, 7.1 is also possible for Atmos.


----------



## DAK4

MoG said:


> Thanks for the replies!
> 
> I'll try and post a pic, but this is our main living space, so we want the surround and height speakers to be unobtrusive.
> 
> i'm concerned that the height and surround speakers on the right side of the listener will be physically much closer than the height and surround speakers on the left side...somewhat similar to HT-Eman's setup.


Hi MoG, I have a vaulted ceiling and it is our main living space as well. I use in-ceiling speakers and they are working really well. I have some pictures linked in my signature that you can look at. I have not noticed any hot-spotting with the closer speakers. The AVR does a great job at adjusting all that.


----------



## chi_guy50

HT-Eman said:


> I completely understand the combination of top-level speakers positions. I was saying that how I will have it setup is TF + TM , but in the avr I have to assign it as FH + TM .


Understood; however, this just goes to show how easy it is to confuse what we're talking about unless we agree on what the terms mean. There has been some debate--especially early on--regarding speaker nomenclature for Atmos setups, but I think we've reached a consensus (at least in this thread) to use the FH/TF/TM/TR/RH designators for the five top-level speaker pairs defined by their placement assignments. Obviously, you can put a speaker anywhere you wish (even in an adjacent room) and designate it, for example, as TM in the AVR, but the signal being sent to it will assume that it's located within the recommended elevation range above the MLP.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you install your forward top-level speaker pair on the wall or on the ceiling, they will never be TF as long as the second pair is designated TM. In your case, the ambiguity could be eliminated by saying that you will be installing FH on- or in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## HT-Eman

DAK4 said:


> Hi MoG, I have a vaulted ceiling and it is our main living space as well. I use in-ceiling speakers and they are working really well. I have some pictures linked in my signature that you can look at. I have not noticed any hot-spotting with the closer speakers. The AVR does a great job at adjusting all that.


Nice room DAK !!!


----------



## DAK4

HT-Eman said:


> Nice room DAK !!!


Thanks HT-Eman!


----------



## SoundChex

scarabaeus said:


> Double dip alert: Game of Thrones will be re-released in Atmos! The first two seasons on November 3rd, the rest later:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/game-of-thrones-dolby-atmos-collector-sets/29528313/





Kris Deering said:


> This is nice but I almost feel like it is too late. I imagine most fans of the show already bought it. The steelbook packaging will help resale for steel collectors but if this is at a premium price I don't think it will be a big draw as a double dip. TV shows, even good ones, don't have as much rewatch value for me just because of the time considerations.




I'll be more interested to see if|how adding *Atmos* to the *GoT Season 5 BD* release in early 2016 affects MSRP and retail "sale" prices (just before *Season 6* airs on *HBO*).

The prospect of eventually buying *GoT Season 6* on *BD* with *Atmos* might be a disincentive to consumers debating whether to subscribe to *HBO* "just to watch" that season "live" with inferior sound . . . or perhaps *HBO* will "make available" *GoT Season 6* with *Atmos* before the anticipated 2017 *BD* release...?

With the exception of *Game of Thrones*, I have mostly bought TV series on *DVD* rather than on *BD*. However, had some shows I wanted been offered *with immersive audio codecs* on *BD*, I would likely have purchased the (_Premium_) *BD* release rather than the cheaper (_Base_) *DVD* product...!

The success of this initiative will surely be watched carefully as it will be an early indicator of consumer "enthusiasm" for future *OTA|CATV|mobile|IP* distribution of immersive audio content consequent to *ATSC 3.0* implementaion...?!


_


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> . . . or perhaps *HBO* will "make available" *GoT Season 6* with *Atmos* before the anticipated 2017 *BD* release...?


You mean using DD+ to stream Atmos?


----------



## chi_guy50

GregLee said:


> The manual for my VSX-90 says that the speaker setup has to have two speakers beyond 5.1: "Any one of top-middle, surround back, or front-wide must be selected." (p. 75 under "About Dolby Atmos")
> 
> Apparently, then, 7.1 is also possible for Atmos.


This is technically true, although the result will lack an essential element of Atmos--its aural multidimensionality. (Or as Dolby puts it: "A key ingredient of Dolby Atmos is the introduction of a height plane of sound above the listener.") Dolby has touted the fact that Atmos can be played back on any speaker system from headphones, soundbars, stereos, and on up. However, without height speakers of some sort (physical speakers or Dolby-enabled upfirers) you will not get the hemispherical bubble of sound that all the teeth-gnashing here over precise speaker placement guidelines has been striving to achieve.

For this reason, both here and on Dolby's web site, you will generally only find the term "Dolby Atmos speaker layout" used to refer to 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 setups (or expanded permutations using cloned pairs) as allowed by current mainstream AVR/SSP's.


----------



## Rileyrott

*RE: Jupiter Ascending*



lujan said:


> I'm glad I waited until this title was available for rent. I watched it last night and it was pretty bad. I just couldn't get into the movie, I even did some online surveys because I was so bored. I am usually a big sci-fi fanatic but this one was pretty bad despite the great visuals, CGI and audio.* Don't know if this Redbox rental was in Atmos since my Denon X5200W is in the shop for repair (yes, after only 5 months or so)*.


*FYI: I can confirm that my Netflix rental of this Blu-Ray is in Dolby Atmos. I don't know about Redbox though.*


----------



## HT-Eman

chi_guy50 said:


> Understood; however, this just goes to show how easy it is to confuse what we're talking about unless we agree on what the terms mean. There has been some debate--especially early on--regarding speaker nomenclature for Atmos setups, but I think we've reached a consensus (at least in this thread) to use the FH/TF/TM/TR/RH designators for the five top-level speaker pairs defined by their placement assignments. Obviously, you can put a speaker anywhere you wish (even in an adjacent room) and designate it, for example, as TM in the AVR, but the signal being sent to it will assume that it's located within the recommended elevation range above the MLP.
> 
> Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you install your forward top-level speaker pair on the wall or on the ceiling, they will never be TF as long as the second pair is designated TM. In your case, the ambiguity could be eliminated by saying that you will be installing FH on- or in-ceiling speakers.


I've been with this thread from the beginning and I can see how it can confuse the new guys who do not want to read the whole thread. There are a lot of members here on this thread that uses TM + TF ceiling speaker configuration , but assigned it as TM + FH in the avr. I was going by what other members have said that it sounds good this way , but I'm still putting together my room and haven't really decided on which one is best. My room is not a dedicated room and the dimensions are 15' 4" length by 15' 6" width , and my seating position is 5 feet 8 inches from the rear wall. I had it setup before as TF + TR , but the TR just seemed pretty close to the rear wall. What would you suggest ?


----------



## chi_guy50

HT-Eman said:


> Nice room DAK !!!





DAK4 said:


> Thanks HT-Eman!


http://www.blu-ray.com/community/gallery.php?member=DAK4

Holy sh&t, DAK, I am massively impressed! You must have scored 120 on the 100-point WAF scale!!!!!!!!!

That has got to be the cleanest Atmos HT living room installation on record and should be posted somewhere as a "how-to" model.

Attaboy!


----------



## chi_guy50

HT-Eman said:


> I've been with this thread from the beginning and I can see how it can confuse the new guys who do not want to read the whole thread. There are a lot of members here on this thread that uses TM + TF ceiling speaker configuration , but assigned it as TM + FH in the avr. I was going by what other members have said that it sounds good this way , but I'm still putting together my room and haven't really decided on which one is best. My room is not a dedicated room and the dimensions are 15' 4" length by 15' 6" width , and my seating position is 5 feet 8 inches from the rear wall. I had it setup before as TF + TR , but the TR just seemed pretty close to the rear wall. What would you suggest ?


I think the answer is highly dependent on the room and the listener's ears. 

I'm among those using FH + TM and it works very well for me. My FH are wall-mounted at ceiling height roughly over the FL/R mains as per DTS Neo:X guidelines, and they are therefore at less than Dolby's recommended 30° minimum elevation (at some point I hope to add at least one more top-level in-ceiling pair). I have left all of the height speaker levels as set by Audyssey and have found the results plenty immersive. With the FH angled down and in towards the MLP I frequently have the impression of a front wall of sound even when only using DSU mode (obviously the extent of the effectiveness is source-dependent).

My SB are slightly elevated (about 12" above ear height) and therefore perfectly adequate IMHO to cover the rear sound stage in combination with the side surrounds at 110°; for this reason I would not consider changing from TM to either TR or RH unless/until I can add a third height pair. I think most here have arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the rearmost top pair--but, again, the calculation is very room-dependent.


----------



## sdurani

GregLee said:


> Apparently, then, 7.1 is also possible for Atmos.


I recently re-confirmed with Dolby that without at least one pair of height speakers, you're not hearing the Atmos track but instead the backwards compatible 7.1 TrueHD track. 

That is, with a flat 7.1 speaker configuration, the Atmos decoder is not going to unpack all 4 substreams, cancel the objects from 7.1 track, recover the original channel beds, only to re-downmix everything back to 7.1 for playback. Instead, it will simply decode the first 3 substreams, playing back the 7.1 TrueHD track. 

Likewise, if you have a 5.1 set-up, only the first 2 substreams will be decoded. If you have a 2-speaker set-up, only the first substream is decoded. Irrespective of what user manuals and front panel displays might say.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

scarabaeus said:


> Double dip alert: Game of Thrones will be re-released in Atmos! The first two seasons on November 3rd, the rest later:


Too bad I just bought all seasons last February! 

The sound on game of thrones is fantastic though... -the digital orchestration. I highly recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to wait for this release & pick up the atmos version because it already sounds spectacular on the standard bluray.


----------



## DAK4

chi_guy50 said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/community/gallery.php?member=DAK4
> 
> Holy sh&t, DAK, I am massively impressed! You must have scored 120 on the 100-point WAF scale!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That has got to be the cleanest Atmos HT living room installation on record and should be posted somewhere as a "how-to" model.
> 
> Attaboy!


Well, Thanks Chi-guy! Yeah my wife does design work so it wasn't easy telling her I was thinking about a 122" screen and seven speakers in our main living area but I also like things to look clean and blend-in too so we collaborated together-ish and it turned out pretty darn good for on a budget. Then with this Atmos i had to tell her I wanted to add 4 more speakers but she trusted me kind-of. The funny part is I went backwards, I already had the speakers in the ceiling for the 7.1 setup and now I had to add the speakers at ear level and re-wire the configuration. She didn't mind speakers in the ceiling but she wasn't too sure about speakers in the wall but luckily I found some spray paint that matched our wall and the speakers blend in well. Most of the people that have come over don't notice the speakers at all until I turn it on, even then, they kind-of look around wondering where all the sound is coming from. All is peaceful in the household for now.


----------



## MoG

DAK4 said:


> Hi MoG, I have a vaulted ceiling and it is our main living space as well. I use in-ceiling speakers and they are working really well. I have some pictures linked in my signature that you can look at. I have not noticed any hot-spotting with the closer speakers. The AVR does a great job at adjusting all that.


thanks for the info! I checked out your pics and they are great. Nice setup.
our setup will be similar except our pitch is much more steep. my HT guy was/is recommending against putting speakers in the ceiling due to the pitch and being off center, but maybe i'll do it anyway... the pro is it is one of, if not the, most hidden options for the height and surround speakers.
Mo


----------



## DAK4

MoG said:


> thanks for the info! I checked out your pics and they are great. Nice setup.
> our setup will be similar except our pitch is much more steep. my HT guy was/is recommending against putting speakers in the ceiling due to the pitch and being off center, but maybe i'll do it anyway... the pro is it is one of, if not the, most hidden options for the height and surround speakers.
> Mo


Yeah, sometimes you have to find that happy medium between the "looks" and "functionality". Kind-of like a spouse?


----------



## lorjam

I bought some projector mounts with extensions to hang my overhead Atmos speakers from my vaulted ceiling. I should be able to adjust them so they are level with each other with the same floor to speaker distance. Since I am single the WAF is not an issue.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> I recently re-confirmed with Dolby that without at least one pair of height speakers, you're not hearing the Atmos track but instead the backwards compatible 7.1 TrueHD track.
> 
> That is, with a flat 7.1 speaker configuration, the Atmos decoder is not going to unpack all 4 substreams, cancel the objects from 7.1 track, recover the original channel beds, only to re-downmix everything back to 7.1 for playback. Instead, it will simply decode the first 3 substreams, playing back the 7.1 TrueHD track.
> 
> Likewise, if you have a 5.1 set-up, only the first 2 substreams will be decoded. If you have a 2-speaker set-up, only the first substream is decoded. Irrespective of what user manuals and front panel displays might say.


IAW the result is not just missing "an essential element of Atmos" as I phrased it, but rather it is indistinguishable from a mere TrueHD track? If so, how can CEM's like Pioneer (and Dolby themselves*) claim to deliver Atmos playback on less than a 5.1.2 system?

*"Dolby recommends using at least two speakers to generate overhead audio elements" (_FAQ About Dolby Atmos for the Home_ .pdf) implies using less than two overhead speakers is an option.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> IAW the result is not just missing "an essential element of Atmos" as I phrased it, but rather it is indistinguishable from a mere TrueHD track?


Right, why decode and render an Atmos track only to downmix it to 7.1 when there already is a 7.1 track available. Not like a on-the-fly downmix will sound different from the included downmix.


> If so, how can CEM's like Pioneer (and Dolby themselves*) claim to deliver Atmos playback on less than a 5.1.2 system?


At some point, Dolby Elevation soundbars will be a reality, so Atmos will likely allow for 3.1.2 or 2.0.2 configurations. But when you configure a Denon receiver for only 2 speakers total and the front panel display still says Atmos, I doubt there is a full decode and downmix going on (at least according to what Dolby told me).


> *"Dolby recommends using at least two speakers to generate overhead audio elements" (_FAQ About Dolby Atmos for the Home_ .pdf) implies using less than two overhead speakers is an option.


Of the 34 speaker locations, only the Centre and Centre Surround speakers can be added individually. All other speaker locations, including heights, are added in pairs. There is no capability of adding a single height speaker. You've seen the diagram; where would it go?


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> _FAQ About Dolby Atmos for the Home_ .pdf


That reminds me: I don't know if folks noticed but there is a relatively new version of the Atmos install guide, dated April 2015 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf 

The only addition from the previous version seems to be 2 pages at the end mentioning calibration.


----------



## tjenkins95

Kris Deering said:


> This is nice but I almost feel like it is too late. I imagine most fans of the show already bought it. The steelbook packaging will help resale for steel collectors but if this is at a premium price I don't think it will be a big draw as a double dip. TV shows, even good ones, don't have as much rewatch value for me just because of the time considerations.





The humongous fanbase for Game of Thrones is worldwide and I have no doubt that the new steelbooks with Dolby Atmos will sell.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Of the 34 speaker locations, only the Centre and Centre Surround speakers can be added individually. All other speaker locations, including heights, are added in pairs. There is no capability of adding a single height speaker. You've seen the diagram; where would it go?


I interpreted the quoted statement--together with the aforementioned touting of Atmos for soundbars and headphones, et al--as indication that some form of Atmos playback was possible without any height speakers. Your information indicates this is not (presently) the case.


----------



## NorthSky

> *I recently re-confirmed with Dolby that without at least one pair of height speakers, you're not hearing the Atmos track but instead the backwards compatible 7.1 TrueHD track.
> 
> That is, with a flat 7.1 speaker configuration, the Atmos decoder is not going to unpack all 4 substreams, cancel the objects from 7.1 track, recover the original channel beds, only to re-downmix everything back to 7.1 for playback. Instead, it will simply decode the first 3 substreams, playing back the 7.1 TrueHD track.
> 
> Likewise, if you have a 5.1 set-up, only the first 2 substreams will be decoded. If you have a 2-speaker set-up, only the first substream is decoded. Irrespective of what user manuals and front panel displays might say.*




♦ This is very important/essential info *^* ... This post above is a sticky one, and I would referenced it in the first post of this thread. IMHO


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> I interpreted the quoted statement--together with the aforementioned touting of Atmos for soundbars and headphones, et al--as indication that some form of Atmos playback was possible without any height speakers. Your information indicates this is not (presently) the case.


According to Dolby, at least one pair of heights need to be configured in the speaker set-up menu. Physically, these can be a pair of elevation speakers built into a soundbar. Yet to be determined how the decoding (and any sort of HRTF post-processing) will be handled in portable devices (phones, tablets) and/or for headphone listening.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> That reminds me: I don't know if folks noticed but there is a relatively new version of the Atmos install guide, dated April 2015
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> The only addition from the previous version seems to be 2 pages at the end mentioning calibration.


Thanks Sanjay! Food for thought about target curves for those of us that can create our own to taste for our non-sub speakers , of which there are several room EQ possibilities available.


----------



## NorthSky

lorjam said:


> I bought some projector mounts with extensions to hang my overhead Atmos speakers from my vaulted ceiling.
> I should be able to adjust them so they are level with each other with the same floor to speaker distance. Since I am single the WAF is not an issue.


That's another good option*. 

* ...To be single, free, without a WAV issue.


----------



## chi_guy50

lorjam said:


> I bought some projector mounts with extensions to hang my overhead Atmos speakers from my vaulted ceiling. I should be able to adjust them so they are level with each other with the same floor to speaker distance. * Since I am single the WAF is not an issue.*


Come on and tie the knot already. Everyone is now (finally!) free to suffer equally.


----------



## sdurani

Just as a reminder, seven (count 'em, 7) Atmos movies releasing in theatres this month. 

Magic Mike XXL (July 1) 
Terminator Genisys (July 1) 
The Gallows (July 10) 
Minions (July 10) 
Marvel's Ant Man (July 17) 
Pixels (July 24) 
Mission: Impossible - Rouge Nation (July 31) 

Minions and Pixels also in Auro 11.1 theatrically.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Just as a reminder, seven (count 'em, 7) Atmos movies releasing in theatres this month.
> 
> Magic Mike XXL (July 1)
> Terminator Genisys (July 1)
> The Gallows (July 10)
> Minions (July 10)
> Marvel's Ant Man (July 17)
> Pixels (July 24)
> Mission: Impossible - Rouge Nation (July 31)
> 
> Minions and Pixels also in Auro 11.1 theatrically.


Cool! I plan to see Terminator, the gallows (is that the first Atmos ghost/horror movie since "mama"?) *possibly* Ant Man, & probably mission impossible. I'm on the fence about Pixels, I really hate Adam Sandler... he should stay where he belongs (sports related rom-coms!). 

I just ordered Age of adeline & Ex machina blurays... even though I won't have DTS:X I'm guessing it might sound pretty good? I'll probably sit insurgent & the gunman out due to the abysmal reviews... long wait for my next Atmos BD


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> the gallows (is that the first Atmos ghost/horror movie since "mama"?)


Second since Mama (Insidious: Chapter 2 was the first). Immersive audio seems like a natural fit for horror movie soundtracks, so I'm surprised more don't take advantage of the technology. Maybe low budgets coming in the way.


> I'm on the fence about Pixels, I really hate Adam Sandler...


Doubt I'll see it, for the same reason.


> Ex machina blurays... even though I won't have DTS:X I'm guessing it might sound pretty good?


If not, there is always the theatrical 5.1 track to fall back on (kudos to Lionsgate for including both).


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Second since Mama (Insidious: Chapter 2 was the first). Immersive audio seems like a natural fit for horror movie soundtracks, so I'm surprised more don't take advantage of the technology. Maybe low budgets coming in the way. Doubt I'll see it, for the same reason. If not, there is always the theatrical 5.1 track to fall back on (kudos to Lionsgate for including both).


I'm a bit surprised that Dracula Untold didn't get an consumer Atmos release. The battle scenes and flying bats would have been a good fit. Not exactly the same level of quality, and without the sex, but a little bit like GOT with fangs .


Interestingly, according to Wiki it made more money overall than Jupiter Ascending ($215M on a budget of $70M, $182M on a budget of $179M) although DU was Universal vs. Warner Bros. Neither film made the bulk of their sales in North America. On the other hand, JA was more of an "art film" and had bigger stars. Not that they were competing against one another for an Atmos release....just pointing out that a horror film like Dracula Untold was almost certainly more of a money maker than the film that did get an Atmos BD release, given those numbers.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dolby_Atmos_films


----------



## Jive Turkey

scarabaeus said:


> Double dip alert: Game of Thrones will be re-released in Atmos! The first two seasons on November 3rd, the rest later:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/game-of-thrones-dolby-atmos-collector-sets/29528313/


Very cool. I've not seen one single episode of Game of Thrones, but I sure see a reason to do so now. Birthday in November and Christmas just after. I know what to ask for.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gallows (is that the first Atmos ghost/horror movie since "mama"?)
> 
> 
> 
> Second since Mama (Insidious: Chapter 2 was the first). Immersive audio seems like a natural fit for horror movie soundtracks, so I'm surprised more don't take advantage of the technology. Maybe low budgets coming in the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on the fence about Pixels, I really hate Adam Sandler...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doubt I'll see it, for the same reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Ex machina blurays... even though I won't have DTS:X I'm guessing it might sound pretty good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If not, there is always the theatrical 5.1 track to fall back on (kudos to Lionsgate for including both).
Click to expand...

I thought dts x automatically becomes a 7.1 mix of you don't have the decoder ? When I got the dts x demo disc it sounded very 7.1-ish to me... But maybe that was the dsu's doing ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> I thought dts x automatically becomes a 7.1 mix of you don't have the decoder ? When I got the dts x demo disc it sounded very 7.1-ish to me... But maybe that was the dsu's doing ?


You will have a choice of the DTS: X base 7.1 mix (if you can't decode the full thing yet) that was commissioned for home video by Lionsgate, or the original theatrical 5.1 mix as a separate track. This is _Ex Machina_'s Blu-ray we're talking about. Not all titles will be like this


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought dts x automatically becomes a 7.1 mix of you don't have the decoder ? When I got the dts x demo disc it sounded very 7.1-ish to me... But maybe that was the dsu's doing ?
> 
> 
> 
> You will have a choice of the DTS: X base 7.1 mix (if you can't decode the full thing yet) that was commissioned for home video by Lionsgate, or the original theatrical 5.1 mix as a separate track. This is _Ex Machina_'s Blu-ray we're talking about. Not all titles will be like this
Click to expand...

You mean not all dts x mixes for bd will give you the option of being able to retrieve the base 7.1 mix ? do you think that with an exclusively atmos receiver that the 7.1 dts base mix would be better to listen to than the original 5.1 mix ?


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> You mean not all dts x mixes for bd will give you the option of being able to retrieve the base 7.1 mix ? do you think that with an exclusively atmos receiver that the 7.1 dts base mix would be better to listen to than the original 5.1 mix ?


That particular Blu-ray title, if the info is correct, has: 
1. a DTS:X audio soundtrack (core is DTS-HD MA 7.1), 
2. a DTS-HD MA 5.1 (Lossless), 
3. a DTS 5.1 audio soundtrack (Lossy),
4. and DTS Headphone:X.

...All four of them: English.

* Click on the picture cover below:



______


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> You mean not all dts x mixes for bd will give you the option of being able to retrieve the base 7.1 mix ? do you think that with an exclusively atmos receiver that the 7.1 dts base mix would be better to listen to than the original 5.1 mix ?


No. I'm saying that _Ex Machina_ is rare because it has both an immersive home video remix and the theatrical mix on the same disc as two separate tracks. 

DTS:X lossless core tracks will still be 7.1 as Dolby Atmos' lossless core tracks are 7.1.


----------



## pletwals

sdurani said:


> That reminds me: I don't know if folks noticed but there is a relatively new version of the Atmos install guide, dated April 2015
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> The only addition from the previous version seems to be 2 pages at the end mentioning calibration.


Thank you!

I had not even noticed there is a 9.1.4 set-up in the guidelines. 

I wish there was a recommended 9.1.6 also. I presume their "typical" TF/TM/TR would be prefarable over FH/TM/RH? If indeed so, which would be the theoretically ideal elevation angle viewed from the side? 


Stick with 45/80/135°, an add-up of the 9.1.2 and 9.1.4 guidelines
Lower the TF: 35 to 40/80/135°
Perfect split: 45/90/135°

And yes, I know there are no volume AVR's that support 3 overhead pairs yet. But preparation is everything!

BTW, Sir Toole is not advocating the X-curve standard mentioned at the end of Dolby's guidelines. Here's a 2012 PowerPoint of his:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aes.org%2Ftechnical%2FdocumentDownloads.cfm%3FdocID%3D389&ei=AgCVVcicEqTMygO81ImgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGxav-524zblcgGVjFtxsdLGKs5Qw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.bGQ


----------



## howard68

I have just looked at the Dolby pdf of 9.1.4 set up
The placement of front wide are almost front side surround 
I have wired for 9.2.6 and am looking at the Denon 7200aw 
Do I jump in and enjoy now or hang on for 9.2.4?

Any one using 9.2.2 
Do you get much sound from the front wide set up ?


----------



## pletwals

howard68 said:


> I have just looked at the Dolby pdf of 9.1.4 set up
> The placement of front wide are almost front side surround
> I have wired for 9.2.6 and am looking at the Denon 7200aw
> Do I jump in and enjoy now or hang on for 9.2.4?
> 
> Any one using 9.2.2
> Do you get much sound from the front wide set up ?


The front wide will only work with Atmos material, not with upmixing (it's explaned in the Dolby guidelines, to prevent inconsistencies between fronts and surround, so it is not the AVR that is lacking or something)

I reccon with Atmos material, it's just as much use as the elevated speakers. Maybe it's more supportive of on-screen action.


----------



## howard68

It would be good to hear if anyone has any tests of this 
9.2.2 vs 7.2.4


----------



## Jerry Durham

howard68 said:


> It would be good to hear if anyone has any tests of this
> 9.2.2 vs 7.2.4


I have a yamaha 3040 with a 7.2.4 setup(really 7.3.4 i have 3 subs) and find that I like the overhead channels better than the side channels. My setup is probably closer to a 5.2.6 setup than 7.2.4 setup because I have my back rear surrounds up high too(not as high as the 4 ceiling speakers, but still about 7 feet high). I have very tall front speakers, and with this setup I have "a globe of sound."


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean not all dts x mixes for bd will give you the option of being able to retrieve the base 7.1 mix ? do you think that with an exclusively atmos receiver that the 7.1 dts base mix would be better to listen to than the original 5.1 mix ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying that _Ex Machina_ is rare because it has both an immersive home video remix and the theatrical mix on the same disc as two separate tracks.
> 
> DTS:X lossless core tracks will still be 7.1 as Dolby Atmos' lossless core tracks are 7.1.
Click to expand...

If you had the disc would your preference be to play it with lossless 5.1 or the 7.1 mix?


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> If you had the disc would your preference be to play it with lossless 5.1 or the 7.1 mix?


I'd listen to both. Curious what was changed from the theatrical mix for the home for the home video mix.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> I'd listen to both. Curious what was changed from the theatrical mix for the home for the home video mix.


I heard the 5.1 mix at the theater... though it was an Atmos theater so I'm curious if the theater itself was using it's own version of DSU? It sure sounded like it... the overhead speakers were definitely speaking. 

It did sound very good, though I find it a curious choice for DTS X's first BD. The majority of the film takes place in small interiors with mostly dialogue... though when I saw it at the theater the music was being sent overhead... and there was a helicopter & waterfall in the film which I think will work well for those with DTS X capable receivers.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm curious if the theater itself was using it's own version of DSU? It sure sounded like it... the overhead speakers were definitely speaking.


Elevated surround can give the impression of sounds above you. Would be very unusual to find surround processing being used in a commercial movie theatre.


----------



## Movie78

Did anyone watch The Gunman in ATMOS?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Elevated surround can give the impression of sounds above you. Would be very unusual to find surround processing being used in a commercial movie theatre.


Ahh that could be then; I wasn't sure what standard operating procedure for commercial theaters was regarding DSU. The surrounds at that theater are elevated pretty high so that makes sense. Speaking of which... I just installed 2 of the KEF in ceiling speakers, I'm getting the 2nd pair on monday  All the swearing was worth it... sounding very good so far.


----------



## robert816

Movie78 said:


> Did anyone watch The Gunman in ATMOS?


I did. I thought the movie wasn't bad, plot was pretty thin, but no worse than others I've seen. Cinematography was excellent, clear sharp visuals.

The sound was very good, the gun fire had lots of "pop" to it, sound placement was excellent and I had no trouble with any of the dialog.

Ralph Potts did a review last week on The Gunman, which overall was decent and I agree with his assessments. Most would probably rent this one.


----------



## Flash3d

Aras_Volodka said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elevated surround can give the impression of sounds above you. Would be very unusual to find surround processing being used in a commercial movie theatre.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh that could be then; I wasn't sure what standard operating procedure for commercial theaters was regarding DSU. The surrounds at that theater are elevated pretty high so that makes sense. Speaking of which... I just installed 2 of the KEF in ceiling speakers, I'm getting the 2nd pair on monday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the swearing was worth it... sounding very good so far.
Click to expand...

Aras, 

Which kef did you install? 
I'm thinking of getting the Kef Ci160QR. 
4x Atmos ceiling and 2x side surround and 2x back surround. 

Currently just have side surround with old mission bipoles, the Kef Ci160QR are not bipoles but wide dispersion so I have try them out first (for surround duty). 

Lcr are r500 and r200c, hence the choice of kef.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I got the ci200rr thx 4x. I currently have all klipsch reference series & vintage floor speakers. I will let you know how good they sound Monday after I run a calibration with all 4 speakers... But I was very impressed with what I heard. If I come across 50,000 bucks I'll replace all the klipsch with kef reference series (lol).


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> I got the ci200rr thx 4x. I currently have all klipsch reference series & vintage floor speakers. I will let you know how good they sound Monday after I run a calibration with all 4 speakers... But I was very impressed with what I heard. *If I come across 50,000 bucks I'll replace all the klipsch with kef reference series* (lol).


And there goes your newborn's college fund already!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

And there goes your newborn's college fund already!







[/QUOTE] too bad I'm not into Ayn rand !
Then I could buy all the stuff I want conscience free


----------



## NorthSky

:-D


----------



## dkfan9

Aras_Volodka said:


> And there goes your newborn's college fund already!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad I'm not into Ayn rand !
> Then I could buy all the stuff I want conscience free
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be liberating


----------



## UKTexan

The Age of Adaline will be released with an Atmos soundtrack.

Not my bag but at least another Blu-Ray release. 

http://m.highdefdigest.com/news/sho...sgate-details-the-age-of-adaline-bluray/24119


----------



## Aras_Volodka

UKTexan said:


> The Age of Adaline will be released with an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Not my bag but at least another Blu-Ray release.
> 
> http://m.highdefdigest.com/news/sho...sgate-details-the-age-of-adaline-bluray/24119


 it wasn't intollerably bad, I already preordered it ... And I can't stand chick flicks. There were some cool atmos moments in the theater.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So right now the fam n' I are sleeping in what appears to a haunted house. I'm sort an athiest but had a disturbing experience at the same place... But this time everyone has had independent encounters.. knocking on doors & Windows , lights with no working switches spontaneously turning on, & strange sounds. It's a real drag because there is a 40k ht in the basement that I'm enjoying becoming acquainted with. The kids are scared & I tried using rational explanations. I figured the 4th of July would spice things up a bit... But I can't since she is too scared to be alone


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> So right now the fam n' I are sleeping in what appears to a haunted house. I'm sort an athiest but had a disturbing experience at the same place... But this time everyone has had independent encounters.. knocking on doors & Windows , lights with no working switches spontaneously turning on, & strange sounds. It's a real drag because there is a 40k ht in the basement that I'm enjoying becoming acquainted with. The kids are scared & I tried using rational explanations. I figured the 4th of July would spice things up a bit... But I can't since she is too scared to be alone


Hmmm, coincidence?

Our 18-year-old granddaughter is staying with us this week, and last night we screened _1408_ for her in DD + DSU. She's a pretty jaded teen but had to admit that it was a mighty scary experience. This is the sort of film that is just begging for a masterful Atmos soundtrack!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> So right now the fam n' I are sleeping in what appears to a haunted house. I'm sort an athiest but had a disturbing experience at the same place... But this time everyone has had independent encounters.. knocking on doors & Windows , lights with no working switches spontaneously turning on, & strange sounds. It's a real drag because there is a 40k ht in the basement that I'm enjoying becoming acquainted with. The kids are scared & I tried using rational explanations. I figured the 4th of July would spice things up a bit... But I can't since she is too scared to be alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, coincidence?
> 
> Our 18-year-old granddaughter is staying with us this week, and last night we screened _1408_ for her in DD + DSU. She's a pretty jaded teen but had to admit that it was a mighty scary experience. This is the sort of film that is just begging for a masterful Atmos soundtrack!
Click to expand...

Oh man I'm kind of embarrassed, I took an ambien/ zilpodem last night and don't recall writing this (haha). We are house sitting / babysitting and were talking about all the strange things we've experienced this week. So I got a little freaked out when my step daughter said she heard someone knocking on the window for 3 seconds. My girlfriend got this weird look in her eyes and I just told the kids that it was fireworks. But when the kids walked away my girlfriend said she heard the same sound in the next room the first day we got here. The first time we babysat here I heard footsteps in the room I was sleeping in, every time I sat up to see what was there it would stop... & then continue as I layed back down. So far I haven't heard it this time... But that might be due to the ambien (hah)!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

& so far every ghost movie I've watched since getting dsu has been a million times scarier. Next week the gallows comes out it atmos I think ! I was planning on going to see terminator genesys but the reviews seem very offensive... That might be a rental if I'm desperate enough.


----------



## Flash3d

Aras_Volodka said:


> I got the ci200rr thx 4x. I currently have all klipsch reference series & vintage floor speakers. I will let you know how good they sound Monday after I run a calibration with all 4 speakers... But I was very impressed with what I heard. If I come across 50,000 bucks I'll replace all the klipsch with kef reference series (lol).


Those ci200rr are a bit above my budget :laughing:, also a bit sceptical if you hear the difference with "just" Atmos/surround duty.


----------



## cdelena

Just a comment on Atmos and DSU and a first comparison for me. 


I have a BR atmos copy of John Wick and just recorded the film from cable that was broadcast in 5.1 without atmos. What a difference! I am normally very impressed with DSU but it was clear this was an inferior presentation of this film.


I guess I will have to really pay attention... I normally don't buy many films but may change if broadcast and rentals don't carry the full track.


----------



## helvetica bold

Anyone see Magic Mike XXL in Atmos? It's playing in NYC in a newly completed Dolby Cinema (AMC 25).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Flash3d said:


> Those ci200rr are a bit above my budget :laughing:, also a bit sceptical if you hear the difference with "just" Atmos/surround duty.


I think it will depend on the future of Atmos mixing. In the THX interview they mentioned concerns that bd mixing engineers might cater to the folks with modules more by sending only the frequencies they could produce (as opposed to what a ceiling speaker is capable of). But if the engineers take full advantage then we might start getting mixes with lower frequency sounds overhead... it really was a gamble for me to decide on the RR. I'm aware it's probably over-kill, but I was sort of in the Tim Allen mode when ordering (haha). I have noticed the DSU messes up sometimes & sends low frequency sounds overhead. 

As far as costs go, I bought one pair from a dealer who let me negotiate & another pair from Ebay for less than MSRP... those might not have a warranty though. 

One of the things I tested out when I was home this week (I'm currently house sitting/ babysitting at another house) was the rain towards the start of John Wick. When I was using the modules, I had an ambient effect of the rain going slightly overheard. With the KEF's I'm hearing the rain sounding as if it's completely overhead, and I hear the "thumps" of the rain as it hits the umbrella... granted, I had the KEF's CRANKED (haha). But I didn't hear those as clearly & overhead as I did with the modules, as the THX employees pointed out you will only hear sounds from within a certain frequency range (if my paraphrasing & what they say is correct).


----------



## Flash3d

Aras_Volodka said:


> Flash3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ci200rr are a bit above my budget :laughing:, also a bit sceptical if you hear the difference with "just" Atmos/surround duty.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it will depend on the future of Atmos mixing. In the THX interview they mentioned concerns that bd mixing engineers might cater to the folks with modules more by sending only the frequencies they could produce (as opposed to what a ceiling speaker is capable of). But if the engineers take full advantage then we might start getting mixes with lower frequency sounds overhead... it really was a gamble for me to decide on the RR. I'm aware it's probably over-kill, but I was sort of in the Tim Allen mode when ordering (haha). I have noticed the DSU messes up sometimes & sends low frequency sounds overhead.
> 
> As far as costs go, I bought one pair from a dealer who let me negotiate & another pair from Ebay for less than MSRP... those might not have a warranty though.
> 
> One of the things I tested out when I was home this week (I'm currently house sitting/ babysitting at another house) was the rain towards the start of John Wick. When I was using the modules, I had an ambient effect of the rain going slightly overheard. With the KEF's I'm hearing the rain sounding as if it's completely overhead, and I hear the "thumps" of the rain as it hits the umbrella... granted, I had the KEF's CRANKED (haha). But I didn't hear those as clearly & overhead as I did with the modules, as the THX employees pointed out you will only hear sounds from within a certain frequency range (if my paraphrasing & what they say is correct).
Click to expand...

Yeah I know what you mean, it's better to be on the safe side. I found my future kef's Ci160QR already over qualified :grinning:. 

Currently saving money for them and my upgrade to the denon x7200 or x6200. 
Sometimes having no money is a good thing cause I changed my wishlist for Atmos speakers about 3 times. 

The Ci160QR is really my final choice now, or maybe I should demo those thx ones.... :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


----------



## Kain

Do you guys think 2016 should be a good year/time to jump onto the 4K/UHD + Atmos and DTS:X trend or would it be better to wait till 2017 or so?


----------



## jrref

Kain said:


> Do you guys think 2016 should be a good year/time to jump onto the 4K/UHD + Atmos and DTS:X trend or would it be better to wait till 2017 or so?


I would say fall of 2016 should be a good time because AVRs will have a more "mature" version of both Atmos and DTS:X and although the LED sets from Sony and Samsung are pretty good right now, maybe OLED will be in a better price range and a more "mature" technology by then as well. This Fall you can get AVRs with Atmos and DTS:X but it's Version 1.0. Either way, so far the AVR announcements haven't been much of a difference from the 2014 models except for the addition of DTS:X and HDCP 2.2 both of which there is no content yet. Everyone will have an opinion but based on what happened this year, i would wait at least one more year until things settle down a little.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Do you guys think 2016 should be a good year/time to jump onto the 4K/UHD + Atmos and DTS:X trend or would it be better to wait till 2017 or so?


2017 is going to be more solid, I think. ...Because UHD is not even here and they'll need some time to adjust and accommodate all of us. 
In 2016 it's the early adopters who are going to pave the way into 2017 and beyond. 

It's always like that...just look @ the latest new products right now...incomplete, missing some important features for tomorrow. 
But that's life too,...in perpetual motion...and always in search of the latest newest developments for a business future insurance.
We live in a world of consumption, big time. ...Material stuff is always updated now, very very fast, and it'll never slow down but go even faster. 
...With everything; TVs, audio gear, video processors, cars, computers, iPhones and iPads, Internet downloads, speeds, streams, monthly payments from several plans/contracts, competition too, ...brief we want the best everyday and we need money too to keep up with it. 

Some people are happy today and every single day. Others are waiting for that day all their life.


----------



## petetherock

There's alway something new worth waiting for, or enjoy life with what we have


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> 2017 is going to be more solid, I think. ...Because UHD is not even here and they'll need some time to adjust and accommodate all of us.
> In 2016 it's the early adopters who are going to pave the way into 2017 and beyond.
> 
> It's always like that...just look @ the latest new products right now...incomplete, missing some important features for tomorrow.
> But that's life too,...in perpetual motion...and always in search of the latest newest developments for a business future insurance.
> We live in a world of consumption, big time. ...Material stuff is always updated now, very very fast, and it'll never slow down but go even faster.
> ...With everything; TVs, audio gear, video processors, cars, computers, iPhones and iPads, Internet downloads, speeds, streams, monthly payments from several plans/contracts, competition too, ...brief we want the best everyday and we need money too to keep up with it.
> 
> Some people are happy today and every single day. Others are waiting for that day all their life.


Wow, you guys are thinking to wait until 2017 
I'm sure glad i took the Atmos train in 2014, i could not wait 3 years without DSU


----------



## smurraybhm

pasender91 said:


> Wow, you guys are thinking to wait until 2017
> I'm sure glad i took the Atmos train in 2014, i could not wait 3 years without DSU


About 9 months ago someone was waiting until this fall, now another year  I love it when those with no experience with a new format or formats dole out advice like they do.

I'm with you, always something new on the horizon and someone hoping to jump in at the perfect time will always be disappointed. I've gotten more enjoyment out of my HT then any year so far - including when I made the jump to DVD and my Marantz separates - one of those being a AC-3 decoder so I could enjoy 5.1.

Only thing I have an interest in besides DTS:X is Dirac. UHD Blu-Ray IMO is going to be a giant cluster bleep. Joe Consumer won't know what to do with it and then there is HDR, see JC again. I'll take a quality blu-ray on my Panny over any 4k set out there right now - this year's Shootout made that even more apprarent. Please note that statement does not include high end projectors using a 100"+ screens that aren't practical in my humble HT.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Wow, you guys are thinking to wait until 2017
> I'm sure glad i took the Atmos train in 2014, i could not wait 3 years without DSU


No, not me, I was just replying to the poster above...reread his post and my post...then don't assume anything else.  
It was only an opinion, and not my course of action. 

My own course of action is to get on the bandwagon when the time is right...roughly six months or so from now. 
Why spend money today when tomorrow we'll have more and better tools with software too and things better cooked, ready for real life performance with all the ingredients and features working properly. 
And I mean that, because the people who just spent money yesterday, are going to spend again soon, except the ones with a Marantz 8802 and a Denon 7200. If they don't they'll be simply missing some that the people buying soon won't. 
It's ok though; they enjoyed Dolby Surround for roughly the last eight months or so (for the first very early adopters), and they can take it; or on their bank account if upgrading eventually with DTS:X, or simply waiting and have fun with what they have now for a little longer.

There is no best recipe, only what you do from what you know, and what you accept or not. No one is superior to anyone, but all.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> About 9 months ago someone was waiting until this fall, now another year  I love it when those with no experience with a new format or formats dole out advice like they do.
> 
> I'm with you, always something new on the horizon and someone hoping to jump in at the perfect time will always be disappointed. I've gotten more enjoyment out of my HT then any year so far - including when I made the jump to DVD and my Marantz separates - one of those being a AC-3 decoder so I could enjoy 5.1.
> 
> Only thing I have an interest in besides DTS:X is Dirac. UHD Blu-Ray IMO is going to be a giant cluster bleep. Joe Consumer won't know what to do with it and then there is HDR, see JC again. I'll take a quality blu-ray on my Panny over any 4k set out there right now - this year's Shootout made that even more apprarent. Please note that statement does not include high end projectors using a 100"+ screens that aren't practical in my humble HT.



You are quite right Steve; your love for people without experience sharing their own opinion.

We all have our own way in life to time ourselves. ...All valid, yours, mine, them. ...Feel happy for everyone who is free.
{My own brother just told me that he'll get in too; in 2018.}


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> You are quite right Steve; your love for people without experience sharing their own opinion.
> 
> We all have our own way in life to time ourselves. ...All valid, yours, mine, them. ...Feel happy for everyone who is free.
> {My own brother just told me that he'll get in too; in 2018.}


Opinion and expertise are two different things Bob. Do we have members who are being held captive? Happy 4th from your neighbor to the south.


----------



## billqs

If you want to see a good demo worthy workout fo DSU, try out season 3 Episode 10 of Breaking Bad. The episode is called "The Fly" and revolves around the main characters trying to kill a fly loose in their lab. The fly effects were amazing with the fly at all places in my theater room- reminiscent of what people claimed was in that scene from Unbreakable (which I haven't gotten to see, yet.)

I streamed it off of Netflix and even in loss DD+ it sounded fantastic!


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Opinion and expertise are two different things Bob. Do we have members who are being held captive? Happy 4th from your neighbor to the south.


And who are these experts exactly Steve? 

Hope the fireworks were/are awesome. 

* _"Captive"?_ ...You mean 'closed caption'?


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> There's alway something new worth waiting for, or enjoy life with what we have


Like my Dad (rest in peace, I luv you Dad) used to say; _"The best is yet to come."_ 
...Just thinking about it today makes for...Oh what a day! What a lovely day!

______


----------



## Movie78

Another Dolby ATMOS Bluray Release.

The Crossing Part 1









http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3038664/

Technical Specs

Runtime: 129 min 

Sound Mix: Dolby Digital | Dolby Surround 7.1 | Dolby Atmos


----------



## desray2k

Movie78 said:


> Another Dolby ATMOS Bluray Release.
> 
> The Crossing Part 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3038664/
> 
> Technical Specs
> 
> Runtime: 129 min
> 
> Sound Mix: Dolby Digital | Dolby Surround 7.1 | Dolby Atmos


Don't waste on this release...its one of the WORST Atmos release I ever heard to date!


----------



## jpco

Kain said:


> Do you guys think 2016 should be a good year/time to jump onto the 4K/UHD + Atmos and DTS:X trend or would it be better to wait till 2017 or so?


On the AVR side, I think fall of 2015 will be good, and 2016 may be a bit more polished. To my thinking, 2017 is too long to wait for the audio side of things.


----------



## coolcat4843

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was planning on going to see terminator genesys but the reviews seem very offensive...


I'll skip seeing this one in a commercial theater. However, the Blu-ray release with a Dolby Atmos track, should be a worthwhile pickup on BF.


----------



## SoundChex

*BigPictureBigSound* *com* (_link_) reports for the _Atmos mix_ *Game of Thrones* releases: "HBO will release the _Game of Thrones _Season 1 and 2 Steelbook Collectors Sets on November 3, 2015, priced at $79.98 each."


_I'll believe I'll wait for $10 or less per season sale prices before I even consider replacing my existing BD sets!_  

_


----------



## aaranddeeman

SoundChex said:


> *BigPictureBigSound* *com* (_link_) reports for the _Atmos mix_ *Game of Thrones* releases: "HBO will release the _Game of Thrones _Season 1 and 2 Steelbook Collectors Sets on November 3, 2015, priced at $79.98 each."
> 
> 
> _I'll believe I'll wait for $10 or less per season sale prices before I even consider replacing my existing BD sets!_
> 
> _


Pretty old news my friend..


----------



## bargervais

aaranddeeman said:


> Pretty old news my friend..


I too will have to wait for other choices for the price to come down.
I think his point was they will be released at $80.00 a pop


----------



## punksterz626

Im trying to find a Dolby Atmos cinema in socal and i found amc 16 in Burbank that has Dolby Cinema. Is that the same as Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> Im trying to find a Dolby Atmos cinema in socal and i found amc 16 in Burbank that has Dolby Cinema. Is that the same as Dolby Atmos?


Dolby Cinema installations usually have Dolby Atmos sound systems.


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> Im trying to find a Dolby Atmos cinema in socal and i found amc 16 in Burbank that has Dolby Cinema. Is that the same as Dolby Atmos?


The AMC 16 has Dolby Atmos and other Dolby technologies, like Dolby 3D and Dolby Vision HDR (high dynamic range video). 

In a roughly 50-mile radius around the Los Angeles area, there are 14 theatres with Dolby Atmos. Where in SoCal are you located?


----------



## kemac

This might help, you can filter results based on Atmos.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/find-a-movie-theatre.html


----------



## punksterz626

sdurani said:


> The AMC 16 has Dolby Atmos and other Dolby technologies, like Dolby 3D and Dolby Vision HDR (high dynamic range video).
> 
> In a roughly 50-mile radius around the Los Angeles area, there are 14 theatres with Dolby Atmos. Where in SoCal are you located?


Pasadena area


----------



## punksterz626

kemac said:


> This might help, you can filter results based on Atmos.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/find-a-movie-theatre.html


i tried using that first but shows no result when i entered my zip


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> Pasadena area


OK, I'm a little south of you in Monterey Park. If you hop on the 210 and head about 10 miles east, there is a nice little Atmos theatre in Monrovia. 

http://www.kptmovies.com/Location.aspx?house=7630


----------



## punksterz626

sdurani said:


> OK, I'm a little south of you in Monterey Park. If you hop on the 210 and head about 10 miles east, there is a nice little Atmos theatre in Monrovia.
> 
> http://www.kptmovies.com/Location.aspx?house=7630


thanks for the link! That location is even better!


----------



## Scott Simonian

And I can vouch for it being a nice theater and a good Atmos room. Big screen!!


----------



## NorthSky

It has a decor friendly facade.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Flash3d said:


> Those ci200rr are a bit above my budget :laughing:, also a bit sceptical if you hear the difference with "just" Atmos/surround duty.


Ok so I got the 2nd pair of KEF ci200rr's & installed them/ ran a calibration. Audyssey set the crossover for the KEF's @ 80. I did a hybrid setup based on suggestions from Dolby, Grimani, & THX. (Grimani said to move the speakers in so they aren't in line with the front L/R speakers since that's how the mixing engineer's studio is setup, so I moved them in a foot) However, I moved them closer than Grimani suggested based on THX's advice. I can see why THX advises a closer than farther orientation as of course the further away you are from the speaker the less overhead it will sound. I think I got a pretty good balance... well I might be telling myself that since the locations are final (drywall ceiling haha). 

My room is in some serious need for treatments (I have none right now) so I ordered a ton of absorption which will come in next week, the sound is just kind of bouncing everywhere right now... so I'll be able to give a better impression when all of that is in place. 

I'm sure some of you know I was using the 44-DA modules for quite a while. There are times when listening to an Atmos mix I couldn't tell the difference. Mockingjay dropship take off was one of those moments. Areas where I've noticed a difference are the amaze trailer, the rain @ the end sounds more overhead. The unfold trailer there is a rattling sound that pans overhead @ the end between all four overhead speakers, that is more clear with the KEF's. 

In the first few minutes of Mockingjay there are a lot of scenes that take place in large industrial spaces, the alarms & such really shoot out of the ceiling, those sounded more convincing than the modules... much cleaner & overhead-ish. There are air conditioner sounds with rattling vents, those I don't recall hearing like that before.

Expendables 3 sounded identical for the most part. In the scene where the guy deactivates the bomb with his wrist display as the army is rolling in, I hear helicopters going overhead which I didn't hear on the modules... but was disappointed to find all other helicopter overhead pans later on didn't sound all that overhead-ish. Same goes for the airplane taking off overhead when the young crew joins stalone's team... that sounds identical to the modules. 

John Wick... the rain in the cemetery sounds far better with the overhead speakers.

Leaf trailer on the Atmos demo disc sounds waaaay better when the wind blows overhead... probably due to them being lower frequency. 

Conductor sounds very similar... the bird overhead is slightly more clear. 

Unbroken intro sounded somewhat better. 

I should also add that my room is very narrow (11' wide if I recall). I think having the surrounds, front L/R further apart would do a lot to open up the sound more. My bro in law has a very large basement HT, my ceiling is a foot shorter than his, but the sound he gets down there is very impressive... though I'm sure a lot of that has to do with his B&W diamonds! Especially with my speakers that have the huge horns, I need a bigger space to get a better sound perhaps. I'm going to have to move within half a year so maybe I'll be able to find a house with a nice wide basement


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I also listened to the DTS: X demo disc... that sounded fantastic through the DSU. In some cases more immersive than atmos mixes I've heard (as a point of comparison, divergent underwater clip sounds a lot better than Unbroken underwater scenes). 

The DSU messed up in the clip where the bird is jumping from walrus to walrus... I'm guessing with DTS X encoding the bird would fly overhead... I just heard the flapping of it's wings in my surrounds as the bird flew up. 

But overall the ceiling speakers got a lot of use on the DTS X clips, & some clips did sound like they were making use of object based sound. Perhaps those of us who don't get DTS X on our atmos receivers might still get a pretty cool mix... just 90% of the way as opposed to 100%. 

I've got to say though that the modules are an impressive technology, I no longer believe they were as much of a compromise as I thought... I'm almost positive that my space is/was the problem. 

Though it seems like object placement is more accurate with in ceiling speakers... that & enveloping overhead is where the in ceilings really shine.


----------



## steelers1

Aras_Volodka said:


> I also listened to the DTS: X demo disc... that sounded fantastic through the DSU. In some cases more immersive than atmos mixes I've heard (as a point of comparison, divergent underwater clip sounds a lot better than Unbroken underwater scenes).
> 
> The DSU messed up in the clip where the bird is jumping from walrus to walrus... I'm guessing with DTS X encoding the bird would fly overhead... I just heard the flapping of it's wings in my surrounds as the bird flew up.
> 
> But overall the ceiling speakers got a lot of use on the DTS X clips, & some clips did sound like they were making use of object based sound. Perhaps those of us who don't get DTS X on our atmos receivers might still get a pretty cool mix... just 90% of the way as opposed to 100%.
> 
> I've got to say though that the modules are an impressive technology, I no longer believe they were as much of a compromise as I thought... I'm almost positive that my space is/was the problem.
> 
> Though it seems like object placement is more accurate with in ceiling speakers... that & enveloping overhead is where the in ceilings really shine.


 1 am learning here but what is DSU? thanks.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

steelers1 said:


> 1 am learning here but what is DSU? thanks.


Dolby surround upmixer; it's what the atmos capable receivers use to take content mixed in formats like 5.1 or 7.1 and process it so that is gets overhead use & other adjustments that make things sound more immersive. It's very effective... but it does mess up every now & then (haha).


----------



## steelers1

Aras_Volodka said:


> Dolby surround upmixer; it's what the atmos capable receivers use to take content mixed in formats like 5.1 or 7.1 and process it so that is gets overhead use & other adjustments that make things sound more immersive. It's very effective... but it does mess up every now & then (haha).


 thanks for the information. have a nice day.


----------



## asarose247

wrt DSU, 
just caught the end of "Red State" with the "trumpet" segment near the end

rather wide panning spread front,focus to wider left/right and then to the rear
like having a wave wash over you


----------



## Flash3d

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ok so I got the 2nd pair of KEF ci200rr's & installed them/ ran a calibration. Audyssey set the crossover for the KEF's @ 80. I did a hybrid setup based on suggestions from Dolby, Grimani, & THX. (Grimani said to move the speakers in so they aren't in line with the front L/R speakers since that's how the mixing engineer's studio is setup, so I moved them in a foot) However, I moved them closer than Grimani suggested based on THX's advice. I can see why THX advises a closer than farther orientation as of course the further away you are from the speaker the less overhead it will sound. I think I got a pretty good balance... well I might be telling myself that since the locations are final (drywall ceiling haha).
> 
> My room is in some serious need for treatments (I have....


Thx for your extensive test, Cause of my ceiling layout I'm forced to have the Atmos speakers a bit more inward and it's good to read that this is working. Maybe even better then lined up with the fronts.


----------



## punksterz626

anyone in the socal area 626/714/818 can recommend an installer for the atmos speakers?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Flash3d said:


> Thx for your extensive test, Cause of my ceiling layout I'm forced to have the Atmos speakers a bit more inward and it's good to read that this is working. Maybe even better then lined up with the fronts.


I think for sure it's better than lined up with fronts. In my situation though my fronts are stuck in the front corners of the room due to the narrow dimensions of my space. 

I heard about that in this interview @ 29 min... I think it's a strong argument for that type of placement: 






The one devil's advocate argument I'd make against that is perhaps due to the dimensions of a living room vs. theater: Having the ceiling so high and having 20 or so seats wide vs. 5 seats wide... I can see why the speakers would be more centered in movie theaters. Though the dimensions of Atmos mixing rooms seems to be somewhere between the two in terms of scale. As Grimani says the Atmos mixer's setups do have the overhead speakers placed more centered when you look at pictures of their setups... & it seems like a no brainer that the closest thing to what the engineer hears would be to set it up @ home the same way they set it up (within reason). 

I think there is a slight compromise when it comes to ceiling speaker placement... do you want the sound more overhead or do you want the overhead panning to be more dramatic? I think placing the speakers farther apart width-wise will give you some dramatic panning while placing the speakers closer will make them sound more overhead. My bro in law's space is very wide, & his overhead sound is spaced very wide as well... so the "wooshes" sound very big in his space. It sounds cool... but is it accurate? The overhead is more effective where I'm at I think... I'll listen to his setup today again just to double check since I'm still house sitting for him  

But a lot of this is probably splitting hairs in spaces like mine... it still sounds pretty f***** cool either way! But I will say, if I had placed the fronts farther away from me the overhead would not have sounded as dramatic. When I made my final placement decision, (I sat with a large ruler on my lap to see how far all the speakers were from me) the ceiling speakers are all roughly 5'8" from the MLP's lap... with the ceiling height only being 6'11". 

If I extend my legs when seated... the speakers are basically shooting straight down just a little bit past my feet. I'll take some pics next week when I have all my absorption installed so that anyone interested can see how I set things up.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

punksterz626 said:


> anyone in the socal area 626/714/818 can recommend an installer for the atmos speakers?


DIY  If I can do it anyone can! It just takes a drywall knife & a lot of swearing.


----------



## Roudan

Have anyone watched Lucy in atmos version ? Also how is the movie? Thx


----------



## punksterz626

Aras_Volodka said:


> DIY  If I can do it anyone can! It just takes a drywall knife & a lot of swearing.


try DIY once wrapping my car with 3m blue metallic vinyl. Told myself, no more.


----------



## lovingdvd

*In-ceiling Atmos speakers with 8 foot room?*

How well will wide dispersion, dual concentric in-ceiling speakers work in an Atmos in-ceiling application when the ceiling height is small, say only 8 feet? Does your opinion change if you have 10 feet to work with?

I'd love to hear from those of you out there that have implemented Atmos with short ceilings like this (or from those of you who have been in such rooms). How well do you think the in-ceiling speakers work in this environment? Do you feel the results are at all compromised by having the short ceiling. Thanks!


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> The one devil's advocate argument I'd make against that is perhaps due to the dimensions of a living room vs. theater: Having the ceiling so high and having 20 or so seats wide vs. 5 seats wide... I can see why the speakers would be more centered in movie theaters. Though the dimensions of Atmos mixing rooms seems to be somewhere between the two in terms of scale. As Grimani says the Atmos mixer's setups do have the overhead speakers placed more centered when you look at pictures of their setups... & it seems like a no brainer that the closest thing to what the engineer hears would be to set it up @ home the same way they set it up (within reason).


My feeling is that the Dolby recommendation has to do with the "typical" home environment with a 50-60 inch flat screen and speakers flanking the display and/or console. Like this random image I found on google: 










If your setup is like this, then the speakers are already pretty narrow and coming up with a simple rule-of-thumb to line up the overheads with the L/R fronts is easy and should be pretty effective.

But if you are a more hardcore enthusiast with a PJ and a huge screen, you are striving more to emulate the true cinematic experience and it may make more sense to target those specs. Realistically, these are Grimani's customers, not the guy who's setup I grabbed a picture of above.

Somewhat unfortunately, like you, I went with in-ceilings for Top Middle, so I don't really have the option to experiment now that the holes in the ceiling have been chopped. In my new room I've got a PJ now and am going for a 9-10 foot wide screen for 2.35:1 content. It was pretty obvious that placing the overheads that wide wouldn't make sense -- the couch is about 10 feet wide and I didn't want the speakers at the far outer edges of the seating area -- but since I have a lowish ceiling (about 7.5ft) I didn't want them TOO close to have everything collapse / hot spot directly overhead of the middle seat. I had to work around a couple of cross braces between joists (the blue painters tape around the round holes in the photo below) which were about 8ft apart, so I decided to just go inside of them which places the ceiling speakers about 7ft apart. I think this is a nice compromise as it's a couple of feet narrower than the screen width but not quite directly overhead.

So far, I definitely get the sense of "stuff up there" but it's not DIRECTLY overhead so much, as it would be if there was a VOG speaker or something. Speaking of which, you can also see the two rectangular holes fore/aft of the ceiling fan, which were the original in-ceiling speakers from the prior owner. I'm probably going to have a go at using a second cheap PLII receiver to matrix the Top Middle signal to those two speakers for more directly overhead fill.


----------



## batpig

punksterz626 said:


> try DIY once wrapping my car with 3m blue metallic vinyl. Told myself, no more.


Chopping the holes for the speakers is really actually pretty easy (just messy as the drywall dusts rains down upon you) -- a decent drywall saw and just cut out a circle.

The hard part is running the cables to where they need to go. If you've got a tricky room it could involve chopping and patching multiple holes in drywall which is a PITA and then you have to texture / paint the patched areas to match after the fact. I hate that part.


----------



## Dwihters

Roudan, LUCY is one of the best ATMOS presentations on Blu Ray. It is huge and specific at the same time. I use it to demonstrate the technology....DSU is wonderful....but real ATMOS, done well, is glorious to hear! LUCY should have been available to the U.S. market!...The film is fantasy...you will enjoy it as long as you go with that fantasy!...as a plus, you get four ATMOS trailers......Treat yourself!


----------



## Roudan

Dwihters said:


> Roudan, LUCY is one of the best ATMOS presentations on Blu Ray. It is huge and specific at the same time. I use it to demonstrate the technology....DSU is wonderful....but real ATMOS, done well, is glorious to hear! LUCY should have been available to the U.S. market!...The film is fantasy...you will enjoy it as long as you go with that fantasy!...as a plus, you get four ATMOS trailers......Treat yourself!


Thanks Dwihters. Hearing your helpful opinion, I decide to buy one from here:

http://www.yesasia.com/us/lucy-2014...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html

Is it the same place where you purchased it from?

shipping fee is $12, so total is $45 US, quite expensive, that is why I have been hesitating form 2 weeks. Now my minds sets! Thanks.


----------



## Dwihters

Roudan said:


> Thanks Dwihters. Hearing your helpful opinion, I decide to buy one from here:
> 
> http://www.yesasia.com/us/lucy-2014...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> Is it the same place where you purchased it from?
> 
> shipping fee is $12, so total is $45 US, quite expensive, that is why I have been hesitating form 2 weeks. Now my minds sets! Thanks.


Yes....same place. Got it in two days!....You will enjoy it!


----------



## lujan

Roudan said:


> Thanks Dwihters. Hearing your helpful opinion, I decide to buy one from here:
> 
> http://www.yesasia.com/us/lucy-2014...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> Is it the same place where you purchased it from?
> 
> shipping fee is $12, so total is $45 US, quite expensive, that is why I have been hesitating form 2 weeks. Now my minds sets! Thanks.


I noticed that the site says "This item is eligible for Free International Shipping". Why didn't you get the free shipping?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one devil's advocate argument I'd make against that is perhaps due to the dimensions of a living room vs. theater: Having the ceiling so high and having 20 or so seats wide vs. 5 seats wide... I can see why the speakers would be more centered in movie theaters. Though the dimensions of Atmos mixing rooms seems to be somewhere between the two in terms of scale. As Grimani says the Atmos mixer's setups do have the overhead speakers placed more centered when you look at pictures of their setups... & it seems like a no brainer that the closest thing to what the engineer hears would be to set it up @ home the same way they set it up (within reason).
> 
> 
> 
> My feeling is that the Dolby recommendation has to do with the "typical" home environment with a 50-60 inch flat screen and speakers flanking the display and/or console.
> Somewhat unfortunately, like you, I went with in-ceilings for Top Middle, so I don't really have the option to experiment now that the holes in the ceiling have been chopped. In my new room I've got a PJ now and am going for a 9-10 foot wide screen for 2.35:1 content. It was pretty obvious that placing the overheads that wide wouldn't make sense -- the couch is about 10 feet wide and I didn't want the speakers at the far outer edges of the seating area -- but since I have a lowish ceiling (about 7.5ft) I didn't want them TOO close to have everything collapse / hot spot directly overhead of the middle seat. I had to work around a couple of cross braces between joists (the blue painters tape around the round holes in the photo below) which were about 8ft apart, so I decided to just go inside of them which places the ceiling speakers about 7ft apart. I think this is a nice compromise as it's a couple of feet narrower than the screen width but not quite directly overhead.
> 
> So far, I definitely get the sense of "stuff up there" but it's not DIRECTLY overhead so much, as it would be if there was a VOG speaker or something. Speaking of which, you can also see the two rectangular holes fore/aft of the ceiling fan, which were the original in-ceiling speakers from the prior owner. I'm probably going to have a go at using a second cheap PLII receiver to matrix the Top Middle signal to those two speakers for more directly overhead fill.
Click to expand...

Ahh good point, I know that's how I magic has his setup if I recall. I'm curious as to why Dolby didn't go with a vog speaker as well ? It seems like humans have the ability to localize sounds from directly above.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> How well will wide dispersion, dual concentric in-ceiling speakers work in an Atmos in-ceiling application when the ceiling height is small, say only 8 feet? Does your opinion change if you have 10 feet to work with?
> 
> I'd love to hear from those of you out there that have implemented Atmos with short ceilings like this (or from those of you who have been in such rooms). How well do you think the in-ceiling speakers work in this environment? Do you feel the results are at all compromised by having the short ceiling. Thanks!


8 feet is good, my ceiling is only 6'11" and the ceiling speakers sound great.


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> DIY  If I can do it anyone can! It just takes a drywall knife & a lot of swearing.





punksterz626 said:


> try DIY once wrapping my car with 3m blue metallic vinyl. Told myself, no more.





batpig said:


> Chopping the holes for the speakers is really actually pretty easy (just messy as the drywall dusts rains down upon you) -- a decent drywall saw and just cut out a circle.
> 
> The hard part is running the cables to where they need to go. If you've got a tricky room it could involve chopping and patching multiple holes in drywall which is a PITA and then you have to texture / paint the patched areas to match after the fact. I hate that part.


Aras and batpig are absolutely correct...DIY is "relatively" easy. Tool dependent, cutting ceiling holes with a drywall saw, circle cutter, or fancier tool can make the job easier, faster, and/or cleaner. I was able to cut six 9.5" holes for my 8" ceiling speakers in about 30 minutes with no mess using the tool from parts express below (far less than the cost of a decent speaker). And as batpig suggests, running/snaking the speaker wire could require additional work...room dependent. Lastly, most ceiling speakers today have built-in twist and lock type tabs that allow for simple installation and removal.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Stanley-6-1-4-in-Jab-Saw-with-Wood-Handle-15-206/100654908

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Wal-Board-Tools-8-1-2-in-AC-31-Circle-Cutter-08-001/100377278

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-Quick-Cutter-Adjustable-Hole-Saw-53731/203828012

https://www.parts-express.com/adjustable-drywall-and-ceiling-tile-hole-cutter-15-to-11--360-300


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm curious as to why Dolby didn't go with a vog speaker as well ?


Sounds from a speaker directly above you or directly behind you are heard equally in both ears. When our human hearing hears sounds equally in both ears, our automatic reflex is to think it is coming from directly in front of us. It's a psychoacoustic problem often referred to as front-to-back reversals. Simplest solution is to play back a mono VOG or surround-back channel through a pair of speakers spread away from the listener's centre line. But if you're going to do that, why have a mono signal to begin with? So no VOG for Atmos.


----------



## Roudan

lujan said:


> I noticed that the site says "This item is eligible for Free International Shipping". Why didn't you get the free shipping?


Hi lujan, free shipping is only valid for the order over $39.

http://www.yesasia.com/us/customer-support/0-0-0-hti.1576-en/question-answer.html

For express shipping (2-5 business days) , the fee is $12. Standard shipping fee is $4 with 6-14 business day.


----------



## gene4ht

lovingdvd said:


> How well will wide dispersion, dual concentric in-ceiling speakers work in an Atmos in-ceiling application when the ceiling height is small, say only 8 feet? Does your opinion change if you have 10 feet to work with?
> 
> I'd love to hear from those of you out there that have implemented Atmos with short ceilings like this (or from those of you who have been in such rooms). How well do you think the in-ceiling speakers work in this environment? Do you feel the results are at all compromised by having the short ceiling. Thanks!





Aras_Volodka said:


> 8 feet is good, my ceiling is only 6'11" and the ceiling speakers sound great.


Agree with Aras....my first row of seating is at 7'6" and my second row on a riser is only 6'8"...Atmos and DSU sound very good and extremely enveloping. 

I've read all the Dolby published material and all of the discussion in these and other threads about speaker types, recommendations, location, placement, etc, etc, and have come to the conclusion that there is no absolute correct answer to all the questions that have arisen. There are just too many variables and the key is experimentation with your equipment in your own room/environment. To that end, I installed six MICCA M-8C speakers ($40 ea) to continuously experiment with. As Atmos, Auro, and DTS:X evolve, I'll further evaluate 3D sound and speaker requirements. At some point when 3D sound matures I'll upgrade the MICCA's. Meanwhile, I'm happily enjoying home 3D sound in its infancy and don't know if anything is compromised.


----------



## bronnie23

Looking to make the jump to Atmos 7.1.4 soon. I am currently running 7.1 with 4 Clark transducers off a Servo 600 amp from a Sony DN 1030 receiver. If I go to a 9 or 11 channel receiver Denon or Onyko, will I just need one additional amp for the additional 2 channels, and do both have the inputs or outputs needed? Currently using a line-splitter since the Sony was a budget buy at the time.

Thanks for your patience with this question lol.


----------



## batpig

gene4ht said:


> lovingdvd said:
> 
> 
> 
> How well will wide dispersion, dual concentric in-ceiling speakers work in an Atmos in-ceiling application when the ceiling height is small, say only 8 feet? Does your opinion change if you have 10 feet to work with?
> 
> I'd love to hear from those of you out there that have implemented Atmos with short ceilings like this (or from those of you who have been in such rooms). How well do you think the in-ceiling speakers work in this environment? Do you feel the results are at all compromised by having the short ceiling. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 feet is good, my ceiling is only 6'11" and the ceiling speakers sound great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree with Aras....my first row of seating is at 7'6" and my second row on a riser is only 6'8"...Atmos and DSU sound very good and extremely enveloping.
> 
> I've read all the Dolby published material and all of the discussion in these and other threads about speaker types, recommendations, location, placement, etc, etc, and have come to the conclusion that there is no absolute correct answer to all the questions that have arisen. There are just too many variables and the key is experimentation with your equipment in your own room/environment. To that end, I installed six MICCA M-8C speakers ($40 ea) to continuously experiment with. As Atmos, Auro, and DTS:X evolve, I'll further evaluate 3D sound and speaker requirements. At some point when 3D sound matures I'll upgrade the MICCA's. Meanwhile, I'm happily enjoying home 3D sound in its infancy and don't know if anything is compromised.
Click to expand...

Curious, Aras and Gene -- did you guys aim your in ceilings or are they pointing straight down?

Also any directly overhead (Top Middle) or did you go Front/Rear?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to why Dolby didn't go with a vog speaker as well ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds from a speaker directly above you or directly behind you are heard equally in both ears. When our human hearing hears sounds equally in both ears, our automatic reflex is to think it is coming from directly in front of us. It's a psychoacoustic problem often referred to as front-to-back reversals. Simplest solution is to play back a mono VOG or surround-back channel through a pair of speakers spread away from the listener's centre line. But if you're going to do that, why have a mono signal to begin with? So no VOG for Atmos.
Click to expand...

I experienced this for the first time myself recently. As you know I currently have my surround back speakers placed very narrow behind me and also briefly just had a single SB. 

When I run test tones several times I have been tricked into thinking I miswired or something because the SB tone sounded like it was coming from the front wall.


----------



## batpig

bronnie23 said:


> Looking to make the jump to Atmos 7.1.4 soon. I am currently running 7.1 with 4 Clark transducers off a Servo 600 amp from a Sony DN 1030 receiver. If I go to a 9 or 11 channel receiver Denon or Onyko, will I just need one additional amp for the additional 2 channels, and do both have the inputs or outputs needed? Currently using a line-splitter since the Sony was a budget buy at the time.
> 
> Thanks for your patience with this question lol.


Every channel is independent. It requires its own amplification and connections, splitting a signal won't do the trick.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig;35600146)
Curious said:


> I didn't aim the speakers because another forum member had said that aiming distorts & muds the sound slightly. I think Dolby also recommended having the speakers aim down as well. I did top front & top rear.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Sorry batpig meant to quote your question


----------



## billqs

batpig said:


> I'm probably going to have a go at using a second cheap PLII receiver to matrix the Top Middle signal to those two speakers for more directly overhead fill.


Batpig, did you find a way to matrix 2 middle channels using only one additional PLII Receiver? I thought it would take 2 extra receivers to matrix both channels.


----------



## billqs

I'm using in ceilings and they are downward facing. Honestly, I would probably have preferred aiming them but the DC Tannoy in ceilings didn't have anything to aim. If I had gotten the 5TiDCs then I could have aimed, but I had a whole mess with people sending me incorrect speakers (ICT instead of DC) as I was buying them used and finally a terrific deal on the DC in-ceilings was too good to pass up.


----------



## gene4ht

batpig said:


> Curious, Aras and Gene -- did you guys aim your in ceilings or are they pointing straight down?
> 
> Also any directly overhead (Top Middle) or did you go Front/Rear?


All six of my in-ceilings, TF, TM, and TR are pointed straight down. With two rows of three theater seating, the TF's are 2 feet in front of my first row, TM's are centered btw my first and second row, and TR's are about 1 foot behind (room limitation) my second row...all 5 feet apart, in line with my FL and FR, and just outside of each outermost armrests. Although the tweeters are aimable, pointing them straight down rendered preferable results for me in my environment. I recall someone else in these threads expressing similar results with both aimable woofers and tweeters.

I do need to qualify that my current config is a 5.2.2 with only TM's active. My comments are relative to my MLP in the middle of the second row. It's my intent to upgrade to 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 by year's end when I'll experiment with TF and TR combinations.

I have not considered installing speakers "directly" overhead (VOG?) as it would not accommodate multiple rows of seating. Also, I was anticipating other possible speaker requirements for the evolution of 3D sound...i.e. DTS:X.

Lastly, I have not experienced/encountered the psychoacoustic problem described by sdurani. Possibly my MLP relative to the speaker locations in concert with my source material would not produce it.


----------



## bronnie23

*Amp for*



batpig said:


> Every channel is independent. It requires its own amplification and connections, splitting a signal won't do the trick.


Thank you for your help Batpig, since my last post I jumped in and bought an Onkyo TX-NR3030. I'm sure I could have waited for more 11 channel models next year, but I blame this thread and the legacy blue-ray reviewers w/Atmos and Dolby Surround raves for stoking the "gotta have it now" in me  Time to get in the south Alabama attic in July and put in some speakers!


----------



## pletwals

Roudan said:


> Have anyone watched Lucy in atmos version ? Also how is the movie? Thx


Better than that! AVS member Hugo S was present during the Atmos remix. He even wrote about this in this very thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-620.html#post31310098

A must have, I believe. I enjoyed the normal version a lot in the theatre.


----------



## jdsmoothie

gene4ht said:


> All six of my in-ceilings, TF, TM, and TR are pointed straight down. With two rows of three theater seating, the TF's are 2 feet in front of my first row, TM's are centered btw my first and second row, and TR's are about 1 foot behind (room limitation) my second row*...all 5 feet apart, in line with my FL and FR*, and just outside of each outermost armrests. Although the tweeters are aimable, pointing them straight down rendered preferable results for me in my environment. I recall someone else in these threads expressing similar results with both aimable woofers and tweeters.
> 
> I do need to qualify that my current config is a 5.2.2 with only TM's active. * My comments are relative to my MLP in the middle of the second row.* It's my intent to upgrade to 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 by year's end when I'll experiment with TF and TR combinations.
> 
> *I have not considered installing speakers "directly" overhead (VOG?) as it would not accommodate multiple rows of seating*. Also, I was anticipating other possible speaker requirements for the evolution of 3D sound...i.e. DTS:X.
> 
> Lastly, I have not experienced/encountered the psychoacoustic problem described by sdurani. Possibly my MLP relative to the speaker locations in concert with my source material would not produce it.


 

Seems a bit close for the FL/FR. Try separating them to 7-8'. Although not possible in most setups, ideally you want the FL/FR/MLP to form an equilateral triangle. The single TS/VOG speaker would go in the middle of the TM speakers.


----------



## Roudan

pletwals said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have anyone watched Lucy in atmos version ? Also how is the movie? Thx
> 
> 
> 
> Better than that! AVS member Hugo S was present during the Atmos remix. He even wrote about this in this very thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-620.html#post31310098
> 
> A must have, I believe. I enjoyed the normal version a lot in the theatre.
Click to expand...

Thanks pletwals . Glad to know it. I ordered it already.


----------



## dvdwilly3

pletwals said:


> Better than that! AVS member Hugo S was present during the Atmos remix. He even wrote about this in this very thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-620.html#post31310098
> 
> A must have, I believe. I enjoyed the normal version a lot in the theatre.


For anyone interested, I followed the link, did a Google translate, saved it in Word, and PDFed it.

I see that PDF is not supported, but .doc is supposed to be. I tried dragging and dropping the .doc file, but it shows as not loading or something.

Any help?

Failing that, send me an IM and I will send you the doc file, PDF, or both (English translation).


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> For anyone interested, I followed the link, did a Google translate, saved it in Word, and PDFed it.
> 
> I see that PDF is not supported, but .doc is supposed to be. I tried dragging and dropping the .doc file, but it shows as not loading or something.
> 
> Any help?
> 
> Failing that, send me an IM and I will send you the doc file, PDF, or both (English translation).


Never mind...the doc file appeared to have loaded anyway...

Enjoy!


----------



## sdurani

gene4ht said:


> I have not experienced/encountered the psychoacoustic problem described by sdurani. Possibly my MLP relative to the speaker locations in concert with my source material would not produce it.


Since your height speakers are not at or near your centre line, you won't experience the reversal effect.


----------



## punksterz626

is there such a thing as 1 back surround speaker?


----------



## lujan

Roudan said:


> Hi lujan, free shipping is only valid for the order over $39.
> 
> http://www.yesasia.com/us/customer-support/0-0-0-hti.1576-en/question-answer.html
> 
> For express shipping (2-5 business days) , the fee is $12. Standard shipping fee is $4 with 6-14 business day.


Oh, too bad since it's so close.


----------



## dvdwilly3

lujan said:


> Oh, too bad since it's so close.


But, if you choose regular shipping, it is only $4.


----------



## multit

Warner Germany just confirmed... Mad Max: Fury Road will be released in September with an english + german Dolby Atmos track.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> is there such a thing as 1 back surround speaker?


That would be mono. Why go back to the days of Dolby EX? That makes no sense to me.


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> is there such a thing as 1 back surround speaker?


Yes, as part of a 6.1-speaker layout.


----------



## Josh Z

Roudan said:


> Thanks Dwihters. Hearing your helpful opinion, I decide to buy one from here:
> 
> http://www.yesasia.com/us/lucy-2014...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> Is it the same place where you purchased it from?
> 
> shipping fee is $12, so total is $45 US, quite expensive, that is why I have been hesitating form 2 weeks. Now my minds sets! Thanks.


FYI, the movie is primarily in English. However, it has some scenes where characters speak foreign languages - some French, some Spanish, some Chinese, some Korean. The American (non-Atmos) Blu-ray release will automatically prompt English subtitles during those portions of dialogue. However, the Chinese (Atmos) Blu-ray will not. 

Although the Chinese Blu-ray has an English subtitle track, it's all-or-nothing. You can either leave it on for the entire movie, or manually flip the subs on and off when you need them. Unless, of course, you happen to speak those languages.

Kind of annoying. Thought you should be aware so you can prepare for it when it happens.


----------



## punksterz626

Dan Hitchman said:


> That would be mono. Why go back to the days of Dolby EX? That makes no sense to me.


reason is not everyone have the luxury of a nice flat wall in the rear.  Its either one or nothing. 




sdurani said:


> Yes, as part of a 6.1-speaker layout.


thank you. Would a bipolar speaker work better in this case?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> reason is not everyone have the luxury of a nice flat wall in the rear.  Its either one or nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you. Would a bipolar speaker work better in this case?


You may want to post a picture of the unfortunate wall in question. There may still be a way to do 7.1 with stereo rears in the main surround layer.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bronnie23 said:


> Thank you for your help Batpig, since my last post I jumped in and bought an Onkyo TX-NR3030. I'm sure I could have waited for more 11 channel models next year, but I blame this thread and the legacy blue-ray reviewers w/Atmos and Dolby Surround raves for stoking the "gotta have it now" in me  Time to get in the south Alabama attic in July and put in some speakers!


I feel your pain. I'm in Mobile, AL and will be installing two ceiling speakers for top mid this weekend. Just wanted to say GOOD LUCK! Fortunately, we have a pretty open attic, so it'll be a quick job... but I don't envy anyone having to get up in the attic with the heat we get down here!


----------



## punksterz626

Dan Hitchman said:


> You may want to post a picture of the unfortunate wall in question. There may still be a way to do 7.1 with stereo rears in the main surround layer.


i'll see if i can post some pics tonight.

few reasons

1. different depth wall
2. 1 of 2 wall is brick
3. wife does not allow any bookshelf speakers


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> reason is not everyone have the luxury of a nice flat wall in the rear.  Its either one or nothing.


Personally, I would avoid a single speaker behind me or directly overhead.


> Would a bipolar speaker work better in this case?


If you're determined to do it, then a dipolar speaker would be the least problematic, since you can aim the null at the main listening position and avoid direct sound along the centre line.


----------



## punksterz626

sdurani said:


> Personally, I would avoid a single speaker behind me or directly overhead. If you're determined to do it, then a dipolar speaker would be the least problematic, since you can aim the null at the main listening position and avoid direct sound along the centre line.


so you're suggesting that you rather not have back surround if its only 1 speaker?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> so you're suggesting that you rather not have back surround if its only 1 speaker?


If you truly are limited (and the jury is still out) to one rear speaker, it's better to stick with 5 in the main layer - 3 regular LCR speakers and 4 surrounds (as long as they're not dipole).


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> so you're suggesting that you rather not have back surround if its only 1 speaker?


Correct, I would do 5.1 or 7.1. BTW, you said you could accommodate one speaker behind you but not two. How small is your back wall?


----------



## batpig

Side note but when I briefly had a single surround back speaker in my new room as an experiment, I noticed that DSU does NOT use the single SB when upmixing 5.1 tracks. I wasn't expecting that. 

Some companies (like PSB) make surround speakers that have dual inout so they can be bipole, dipole or "dual stereo" with two channels played back by one speaker (the two faces of the speaker operate as separate channels). This could be a solution for getting a 7.1 base layer with a compromised back wall.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Side note but when I briefly had a single surround back speaker in my new room as an experiment, I noticed that DSU does NOT use the single SB when upmixing 5.1 tracks. I wasn't expecting that.


Quick FYI: of the 24 possible locations for floor speakers in consumer Atmos, only 17 of them are used by DSU. No wides, nothing between the L/C/R, no centre rear.


----------



## punksterz626

sdurani said:


> Correct, I would do 5.1 or 7.1. BTW, you said you could accommodate one speaker behind you but not two. How small is your back wall?


So i found a layout of my home. Keep in mind green wall is now a brickwall. The white block between the two walls is where im hoping to convince the wife to put the rear surround. The black line is letting you know its in line with where the main listening position is. 

Any suggestions are welcome. Installing my ceiling speakers next week.


----------



## billqs

sdurani said:


> Quick FYI: of the 24 possible locations for floor speakers in consumer Atmos, only 17 of them are used by DSU. No wides, nothing between the L/C/R, no centre rear.


I didn't notice that either when I first set up DSU. I was able to fit two so it didn't end up being a big deal.

If I were faced with either no rear surrounds or 1 speaker, I would follow batpig's advice and get a multi-use speaker that looks like a bipole-dipole, but allows for each "face" of the speaker to output a stereo channel. That and as sdurani has advised face the null toward MLP so that you get sound spread out over the back wall. It's still a severe compromise, but it would work.


----------



## gene4ht

jdsmoothie said:


> Seems a bit close for the FL/FR.


Ooops...unfortunately my wording generated some ambiguity. My FL and FR are actually 10 feet apart in width. My reference to 5 feet apart refers to the front to back distance between my TF, TM, and TR speakers.



jdsmoothie said:


> ....The single TS/VOG speaker would go in the middle of the TM speakers.


Aah...OK..Thx!


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> Since your height speakers are not at or near your centre line, you won't experience the reversal effect.


That clarifies things...thx Sanjay!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> So i found a layout of my home. Keep in mind green wall is now a brickwall. The white block between the two walls is where im hoping to convince the wife to put the rear surround. The black line is letting you know its in line with where the main listening position is.
> 
> Any suggestions are welcome. Installing my ceiling speakers next week.


I don't see why 7.1 wouldn't work, except for the darn WAF. You can get wall mounted speakers (don't have to be bookshelves) and compensate for the irregular positions with delay settings. The brick part could have discreetly painted wire molding to hide flat-_ish_ rather than rounded speaker wiring if installed well. They'd be firing toward the MLP anyway. Anyone else have a better idea??


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> Keep in mind green wall is now a brickwall. The white block between the two walls is where im hoping to convince the wife to put the rear surround. The black line is letting you know its in line with where the main listening position is.


Not sure which is going to be the back wall of your set-up: the green wall or the short wall with the railing?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Not sure which is going to be the back wall of your set-up: the green wall or the short wall with the railing?


I think it's both considering the black line cuts the wall sections in two.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it's both considering the black line cuts the wall sections in two.


OK, makes more sense now. In that case, just spread out the rear speakers as normal and take care of delay/level differences during initial calibration.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't see why 7.1 wouldn't work, except for the darn WAF. You can get wall mounted speakers (don't have to be bookshelves) and compensate for the irregular positions with delay settings. The brick part could have discretely painted wire molding to hide flat-_ish_ rather than rounded speaker wiring if installed well. They'd be firing toward the MLP anyway. Anyone else have a better idea??





sdurani said:


> OK, makes more sense now. In that case, just spread out the rear speakers as normal and take care of delay/level differences during initial calibration.


I agree with you two -- just because the wall isn't flat doesn't mean that two SB speakers won't work. That's why there are independent delay/level adjustments for each channel!


----------



## batpig

billqs said:


> Batpig, did you find a way to matrix 2 middle channels using only one additional PLII Receiver? I thought it would take 2 extra receivers to matrix both channels.


Well I'm thinking about a lazy hack approach and matrixing the same signal to BOTH speakers wired to the Center Channel output of the PLII receiver (i.e. a "dual mono" output). Since the middle speaker is basically directly overhead from the sweet spot seating position, I'm a bit concerned about hotspotting and I figure "spreading" the signal between the two speakers would make it more diffuse and sort of subtly fill in the central area of the ceiling for overhead effects. 

Whenever / if I get around to it I'll report back on my results, right now it's all theoretical


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Well I'm thinking about a lazy hack approach and matrixing the same signal to BOTH speakers wired to the Center Channel output of the PLII receiver (i.e. a "dual mono" output). Since the middle speaker is basically directly overhead from the sweet spot seating position, I'm a bit concerned about hotspotting and I figure "spreading" the signal between the two speakers would make it more diffuse and sort of subtly fill in the central area of the ceiling for overhead effects.
> 
> Whenever / if I get around to it I'll report back on my results, right now it's all theoretical


Maybe just do the front pair matrixed and leave the rear set alone until you pick up an additional PL2 receiver?


----------



## punksterz626

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't see why 7.1 wouldn't work, except for the darn WAF. You can get wall mounted speakers (don't have to be bookshelves) and compensate for the irregular positions with delay settings. The brick part could have discretely painted wire molding to hide flat-_ish_ rather than rounded speaker wiring if installed well. They'd be firing toward the MLP anyway. Anyone else have a better idea??


The back brickwall is untouchable. Wife's order. Plus a wall mounted speaker would look odd, even for me. 



sdurani said:


> Not sure which is going to be the back wall of your set-up: the green wall or the short wall with the railing?


both. My sofa and MLP is pretty much where the lower black line is, smack in the middle of both walls



Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it's both considering the black line cuts the wall sections in two.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> The back brickwall is untouchable. Wife's order. Plus a wall mounted speaker would look odd, even for me.
> 
> 
> 
> both. My sofa and MLP is pretty much where the lower black line is, smack in the middle of both walls


So, it basically comes down to _aesthetics_ over sonic considerations. There are a number of styles of thin, wall mount speakers available that would be quite stylish, but you both have to be willing to compromise. 

Maybe do some horse trading with the wife... I hang a speaker on the brick wall and you get something else you wanted in exchange. 

Home theater is important to me, so sound before looks _always_.


----------



## billqs

batpig said:


> Well I'm thinking about a lazy hack approach and matrixing the same signal to BOTH speakers wired to the Center Channel output of the PLII receiver (i.e. a "dual mono" output). Since the middle speaker is basically directly overhead from the sweet spot seating position, I'm a bit concerned about hotspotting and I figure "spreading" the signal between the two speakers would make it more diffuse and sort of subtly fill in the central area of the ceiling for overhead effects.
> 
> Whenever / if I get around to it I'll report back on my results, right now it's all theoretical


That sounds reasonable to try. I'm not sure how well the matrixed channels will handle pans even if in stereo. My own situation is a little different. I don't have any speakers directly over the seating positions of either row. Second row has plenty of immersion- front row feels like it is lacking. My plan would be to add Top Height Speakers so that there will be more full immersion in the upper area for the first row.

BTW, I'm including a mock-up of my theater room. It is 10x21x8. I'm particularly concerned about my less than optimum placement of rear surrounds. I have a door on the back wall so I had to move the Surround Rears closer to each other. Would it work better if I mounted the Rear Surrounds as far back as possible on the side walls, toed in toward the seating positions?


----------



## punksterz626

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, it basically comes down to _aesthetics_ over sonic considerations. There are a number of styles of wall mount speakers available that would be quite stylish, but you both have to be willing to compromise.
> 
> Maybe do some horse trading with the wife... I hang a speaker on the brick wall and you get something else you wanted in exchange.
> 
> *Home theater is important to me, so sound before looks always*.


I'll see what i can come up with to barter with the wife. 

@ your last statement. Most of us on this forum feel the same way


----------



## sdurani

punksterz626 said:


> The back brickwall is untouchable. Wife's order. Plus a wall mounted speaker would look odd, even for me.


In that case, I would stick with 5.1 (YMMV).


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> Home theater is important to me, so sound before looks _always_.



Me too.

Only, I _had_ the same WAF restrictions...no speakers mounted on the walls, so I had to find nice looking bookshelf speakers that would sit on tables and in bookshelves and be innocuous.

"Had" being the operative word. 3 days after she moved out pre-divorce I was drilling into the sheetrock and properly mounting 7.1. And now overheads. I could not care less since I'm watching the screen when in that room, not focusing on the speakers sticking out everywhere.

So yeah Punkster...sign the papers and be done with her. Build out your home theater like YOU want.


----------



## kingwiggi

Heres a slightly cheaper source to obtain the LUCY Atmos Blu-Ray

HMV Hong Kong

http://www.hmv.com.hk/product/bluray.asp?sku=678362

Works out at about $36.80 including shipping


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> punksterz626 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The back brickwall is untouchable. Wife's order. Plus a wall mounted speaker would look odd, even for me.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, I would stick with 5.1 (YMMV).
Click to expand...

Agreed. A wide dispersion surround (bipole, tripole etc) will still splash some sound off the back wall. Or go with side surrounds like the PSB that have dual stereo inputs so you can get a pseudo 7.1 going.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

punksterz626 said:


> is there such a thing as 1 back surround speaker?


In Atmos? Yes. It's now called "center surround"
It's mentioned on p27 of the installation guidelines from post 1 of this thread:
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

However, it's not yet supported by normally priced AVR's. It's a very unimportant speaker. Once you go beyond +/- 135° off axis, hearing position accuracy is gone. It's therefore the 24th most important speaker at ear level.


----------



## Nalleh

multit said:


> Warner Germany just confirmed... Mad Max: Fury Road will be released in September with an english + german Dolby Atmos track.


Awsome!! That should be good


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> I _had_ the same WAF restrictions...no speakers mounted on the walls, so I had to find nice looking bookshelf speakers that would sit on tables and in bookshelves and be innocuous.
> 
> "Had" being the operative word. 3 days after she moved out pre-divorce I was drilling into the sheetrock and properly mounting 7.1. And now overheads. I could not care less since I'm watching the screen when in that room, not focusing on the speakers sticking out everywhere.
> 
> So yeah Punkster...sign the papers and be done with her. Build out your home theater like YOU want.


You make it sound like a no-brainer; but where are we going to get the money for those nice, shiny new speakers after the ex's lawyer takes us to the cleaners?

OTOH, with the perfect hemisphere of sound you've created in your Seth-o-Plex bachelor pad, you make the prospect enormously enticing!


----------



## dude2006

kbarnes701 said:


> Why did they send two different sorts? If you ordered four Dual Concentrics, that is what they should have sent you. Maybe a genuine mistake. Anyway, the DCs are what you want, so return the other two for exchange.


Hello, am looking to put together a 7.2.4 system and am looking at the Di5s for the ceiling. Two questions please: 1) are you still happy with your choice, and 2) could you explain why the DCs are the right ones, was trying to figure out difference between them and the non-DC models. 


Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's therefore the 24th most important speaker at ear level.


That's a good way to put it. Must remember that in the future.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> You make it sound like a no-brainer; but where are we going to get the money for those nice, shiny new speakers after the ex's lawyer takes us to the cleaners?



Umm...second/third job?  I got extremely lucky...she just wanted out. I refinanced so she was off the house, gave her 1/5 of my company stock, and got to keep the boat; no other payoff to her was necessary. We took a couple of hours and just filled out all the paperwork ourselves. Half a day running around the courthouse and done. Many, many people are not as fortunate and get taken to the cleaners.



chi_guy50 said:


> OTOH, with the perfect hemisphere of sound you've created in your Seth-o-Plex bachelor pad, you make the prospect enormously enticing!



Thanks 

You know, here's the sad thing: Every single person that has visited and heard my theater has been blown away.

Me? I hear it every night and am used to it now. Ain't no thang. Until I'm at someone else's house. I have to really bite my tongue to stop from saying non-positive things about their setup. It made me cringe today when a coworker said he's got an awesome new (used) Panasonic AVR with "HDMI and everything" (lol) and was going to be getting a sound bar to simulate surround sound.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Agreed. A wide dispersion surround (bipole, tripole etc) will still splash some sound off the back wall. Or go with side surrounds like the PSB that have dual stereo inputs so you can get a pseudo 7.1 going.



The PSB Imagine S is the speaker you're thinking of. There's a few people on the PSB forum that have them, but they're apparently few and far between, and most have moved on to more standard bookshelf type surrounds. IIRC PSB recommended having them firing with one side toward the wall and the other toward the front if you want a "7.1" configuration.


I used to use mine in a "dual mono" role (essentially, simulating 7.1 by having two sets of binding posts to support signals for two distinct sets of opposite-firing drivers, positioned as I described above as per Paul Barton of PSB). That worked well enough if you didn't think too closely about precise sound placement. However, once I realized that even with my old Sherwood, the measured angles of the two sides were within about 10 degrees of one another (i.e. 150 and 160 degrees; the Trinnov version in the R-972 could measure azimuth electronically), I decided to save them for a rainy day as dipoles in an Atmos setting, maybe to fill in some side surround aspect in a broader 9.1.6 configuration with my Altitude once I get around to an Atmos config for good.


----------



## billqs

dude2006 said:


> Hello, am looking to put together a 7.2.4 system and am looking at the Di5s for the ceiling. Two questions please: 1) are you still happy with your choice, and 2) could you explain why the DCs are the right ones, was trying to figure out difference between them and the non-DC models.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Keith was replying to me when I went through my "ordeal" choosing Atmos speakers, but determined to buy used since I had blown so much money on the rest of the setup. 

Tannoy DC's are the real deal- an actual tweeter placed in the speaker gap of the mid-woofer which acts as a waveguide for the tweeter. There is a real crossover network and a real connection to the tweeter electrically.

ICT does not use an independent tweeter in the speaker gap complete with its own crossover and electrical connection. Instead the center upper frequency dome or cone is driven by the signal sent to the woofer. This isn't meant to sound disparaging, but it functions similarly to a "whizzer cone" which you find on inexpensive speakers that don't include a real tweeter.

Side by side, the ICT's were nowhere nearly as good sounding at the actual Dual Concentrics. There was an attenuated high frequency and as a result the sound presented lacked "presence" and too much midrange. I'd almost say its like listening to a really good AM radio signal then switching to FM. You realize there are important parts of the signal that you're just not getting.

The DC's sound as full as any other 2-way, but behave as a single point source which makes for really great off axis response and wide dispersion which you want in your Atmos height speakers.

ICT's have their place in pro-audio mainly due to their dependability- the lack of a separate tweeter and crossover means that the tweeter can't get blown by being overdriven, but IMO they do not have the goods to work in a high fidelity home theater system.


----------



## NorthSky

>


Very nice except for the couch's positioning; right in the middle of the room.


----------



## sadhi

Any opinion on klipsch aw 650 for atmos setup? I understand that tannoy di dc should be better. But can't find them in germany. So wondering if klipsch with horn would be still good substitude for tannoy?


----------



## wse

chi_guy50 said:


> You make it sound like a no-brainer; but where are we going to get the money for those nice, shiny new speakers after the ex's lawyer takes us to the cleaners?
> 
> OTOH, with the perfect hemisphere of sound you've created in your Seth-o-Plex bachelor pad, you make the prospect enormously enticing!


Sweet!

You might want to consider moving the sofa out of the middle, that's the worst location!


----------



## dude2006

billqs said:


> Keith was replying to me when I went through my "ordeal" choosing Atmos speakers, but determined to buy used since I had blown so much money on the rest of the setup.



Thanks for the very detailed explanation, makes a lot more sense now. I think I've narrowed my choices down to the Di5DC and the JBL SCS8, as I read on another thread that the latter has even better dispersion...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Curious, Aras and Gene -- did you guys aim your in ceilings or are they pointing straight down?
> 
> Also any directly overhead (Top Middle) or did you go Front/Rear?





billqs said:


> I'm using in ceilings and they are downward facing. Honestly, I would probably have preferred aiming them but the DC Tannoy in ceilings didn't have anything to aim. If I had gotten the 5TiDCs then I could have aimed, but I had a whole mess with people sending me incorrect speakers (ICT instead of DC) as I was buying them used and finally a terrific deal on the DC in-ceilings was too good to pass up.





gene4ht said:


> All six of my in-ceilings, TF, TM, and TR are pointed straight down. With two rows of three theater seating, the TF's are 2 feet in front of my first row, TM's are centered btw my first and second row, and TR's are about 1 foot behind (room limitation) my second row...all 5 feet apart, in line with my FL and FR, and just outside of each outermost armrests. Although the tweeters are aimable, pointing them straight down rendered preferable results for me in my environment. I recall someone else in these threads expressing similar results with both aimable woofers and tweeters.
> 
> I do need to qualify that my current config is a 5.2.2 with only TM's active. My comments are relative to my MLP in the middle of the second row. It's my intent to upgrade to 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 by year's end when I'll experiment with TF and TR combinations.
> 
> I have not considered installing speakers "directly" overhead (VOG?) as it would not accommodate multiple rows of seating. Also, I was anticipating other possible speaker requirements for the evolution of 3D sound...i.e. DTS:X.
> 
> Lastly, I have not experienced/encountered the psychoacoustic problem described by sdurani. Possibly my MLP relative to the speaker locations in concert with my source material would not produce it.





Flash3d said:


> Thx for your extensive test, Cause of my ceiling layout I'm forced to have the Atmos speakers a bit more inward and it's good to read that this is working. Maybe even better then lined up with the fronts.


So I did some some more listening to a lot of the same scenes on Atmos discs @ my bro in law's place. He has the angled Martin Logan 8" electromotions for front overheads, & the Def Tech modules for rears. Hands down, I prefer the downfiring KEF's. His space is a lot larger than mine, though similar ceiling height. His electromotions I think are another 1'6" further than where my speakers are placed. Any scene with direct overhead sound is superior with down firing. The scenes with overhead rain in John wick & the Amaze trailer sound a lot better with downfiring.

In some circumstances it would have been nice to A/B our HT's (it's a tough call with quick overhead pans like the wind blowing in the leaf trailer)... but unfortunately I can't just walk from one room to the other as we live 40 min drive away from eachother. @ the exact start of Amaze there is what sounds like a quick overhead pan from rear to front... I have to say it sounds more effective at his place... but it could be distorted because his rear surrounds are placed in ceiling... so it might be exaggerating that panning.


----------



## stikle

wse said:


> Sweet!
> 
> You might want to consider moving the sofa out of the middle, that's the worst location!



The worst location for...?

It's actually slightly to the left.

I'm not exactly sure how to link pics anymore after the forum upgrade. So here's a link to a pano of my Theater:


----------



## Aras_Volodka

multit said:


> Warner Germany just confirmed... Mad Max: Fury Road will be released in September with an english + german Dolby Atmos track.


If Warner releases it does that mean lionsgate is out? I'd *LOVE* to have this one in Atmos... the atmos mix @ the theater was fantastic. + it's the best action movie to come out in a very, very long time.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

wse said:


> Sweet!
> 
> You might want to consider moving the sofa out of the middle, that's the worst location!





stikle said:


> The worst location for...?
> 
> It's actually slightly to the left.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how to link pics anymore. Here's try # 2 - a pano of my Theater:


I think he meant to move the couch back a bit? Based on the atmos recommendations as seen in the diagrams?


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> wse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet!
> 
> You might want to consider moving the sofa out of the middle, that's the worst location!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stikle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst location for...?
> 
> It's actually slightly to the left.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how to link pics anymore. Here's try # 2 - a pano of my Theater:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he meant to move the couch back a bit? Based on the atmos recommendations as seen in the diagrams?
Click to expand...

He means (probably) worst location acoustically. The center of any dimension is going to be an area where all even order modes are bottoming out so its the worst place in the room for bass. Theoretically.


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious, Aras and Gene -- did you guys aim your in ceilings or are they pointing straight down?
> 
> Also any directly overhead (Top Middle) or did you go Front/Rear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billqs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using in ceilings and they are downward facing. Honestly, I would probably have preferred aiming them but the DC Tannoy in ceilings didn't have anything to aim. If I had gotten the 5TiDCs then I could have aimed, but I had a whole mess with people sending me incorrect speakers (ICT instead of DC) as I was buying them used and finally a terrific deal on the DC in-ceilings was too good to pass up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gene4ht said:
> 
> 
> 
> All six of my in-ceilings, TF, TM, and TR are pointed straight down. With two rows of three theater seating, the TF's are 2 feet in front of my first row, TM's are centered btw my first and second row, and TR's are about 1 foot behind (room limitation) my second row...all 5 feet apart, in line with my FL and FR, and just outside of each outermost armrests. Although the tweeters are aimable, pointing them straight down rendered preferable results for me in my environment. I recall someone else in these threads expressing similar results with both aimable woofers and tweeters.
> 
> I do need to qualify that my current config is a 5.2.2 with only TM's active. My comments are relative to my MLP in the middle of the second row. It's my intent to upgrade to 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 by year's end when I'll experiment with TF and TR combinations.
> 
> I have not considered installing speakers "directly" overhead (VOG?) as it would not accommodate multiple rows of seating. Also, I was anticipating other possible speaker requirements for the evolution of 3D sound...i.e. DTS:X.
> 
> Lastly, I have not experienced/encountered the psychoacoustic problem described by sdurani. Possibly my MLP relative to the speaker locations in concert with my source material would not produce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash3d said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thx for your extensive test, Cause of my ceiling layout I'm forced to have the Atmos speakers a bit more inward and it's good to read that this is working. Maybe even better then lined up with the fronts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I did some some more listening to a lot of the same scenes on Atmos discs @ my bro in law's place. He has the angled Martin Logan 8" electromotions for front overheads, & the Def Tech modules for rears. Hands down, I prefer the downfiring KEF's. His space is a lot larger than mine, though similar ceiling height. His electromotions I think are another 1'6" further than where my speakers are placed. Any scene with direct overhead sound is superior with down firing. The scenes with overhead rain in John wick & the Amaze trailer sound a lot better with downfiring.
> 
> In some circumstances it would have been nice to A/B our HT's (it's a tough call with quick overhead pans like the wind blowing in the leaf trailer)... but unfortunately I can't just walk from one room to the other as we live 40 min drive away from eachother. @ the exact start of Amaze there is what sounds like a quick overhead pan from rear to front... I have to say it sounds more effective at his place... but it could be distorted because his rear surrounds are placed in ceiling... so it might be exaggerating that panning.
Click to expand...

Wait so he has B&W Diamonds with ML in ceilings and he is using the poopy Def Tech A60 modules for top rear? I'm shocked you can even hear them, especially with rear surrounds in ceiling!

You should do a sneaky test and disable the Back Dolby speakers in the menu and see if you can even hear a difference.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> He means (probably) worst location acoustically. The center of any dimension is going to be an area where all even order modes are bottoming out so its the worst place in the room for bass. Theoretically.



I think I've experienced this...the bass seems better standing behind the couch. However, I had to move the couch forward to be able mount the overhead within the right degrees. (Side note: doing this also made my TV look bigger (obviously), so my urge to upgrade has been sated (for now)).

I was actually going to go ahead and move the couch back just for kicks and see how everything sounds when I'm not sitting "in-spec".


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Wait so he has B&W Diamonds with ML in ceilings and he is using the poopy Def Tech A60 modules for top rear? I'm shocked you can even hear them, especially with rear surrounds in ceiling!
> 
> You should do a sneaky test and disable the Back Dolby speakers in the menu and see if you can even hear a difference.


Yeah I can hear the rears going... he said he's going to replace those A60 modules. I was there when he plugged them in after acquiring the B&W's... so I could hear the difference as he started plugging everything in. 

Those B&W's really add a lot to the sound though... they blow my chorus II's away! His front sound stage is really killer. 

He just started assembling the HT last fall/winter I think... & the B&W's are a recent addition. They made the sound like a million times better, an upgrade from the def tech towers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> I think I've experienced this...the bass seems better standing behind the couch. However, I had to move the couch forward to be able mount the overhead within the right degrees. (Side note: doing this also made my TV look bigger (obviously), so my urge to upgrade has been sated (for now)).
> 
> I was actually going to go ahead and move the couch back just for kicks and see how everything sounds when I'm not sitting "in-spec".


I used to sit a lot closer to my TV & front L/R speakers... but then I moved into a different room where there was more length to spread out... I think sitting farther away from the front L/R speakers does add a lot to the sound (with my speakers at least). My setup is a little strange though... the TV is up forwards a bit in front of the L/R speakers with the center channel directly underneath it... probably not the best place but I like having the TV not too far away.


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> The worst location for...?


The worst location for smooth frequency response. Frequencies whose wavelengths are multiples of room dimensions can end up with strong peaks and nulls at specific locations in the room. 

At one-half room length, these frequencies are either peaking or nulling (see the green box in diagram below), resulting in ragged frequency response. 










By comparison, at about one-third room length, these same frequencies are around the same level (see green box in diagram below), resulting in smoother frequency response. 










You don't have to move your couch to the one-third location of room length, but consider moving it forward or rearward enough to be out of the nulls at the midpoint of room length.


----------



## stikle

Hey, thanks Sanjay! (And you other guys!) 

The diagrams make perfect sense to me. It's easy enough to test just by moving the couch little by little, and I will go forth and proceed to do so.


----------



## lovingdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> 8 feet is good, my ceiling is only 6'11" and the ceiling speakers sound great.


Thanks. Can you explain more about your set (7.1.4?), types of speakers used and speaker position relative to MLP?



gene4ht said:


> Agree with Aras....my first row of seating is at 7'6" and my second row on a riser is only 6'8"...Atmos and DSU sound very good and extremely enveloping.
> 
> I've read all the Dolby published material and all of the discussion in these and other threads about speaker types, recommendations, location, placement, etc, etc, and have come to the conclusion that there is no absolute correct answer to all the questions that have arisen. There are just too many variables and the key is experimentation with your equipment in your own room/environment. To that end, I installed six MICCA M-8C speakers ($40 ea) to continuously experiment with. As Atmos, Auro, and DTS:X evolve, I'll further evaluate 3D sound and speaker requirements. At some point when 3D sound matures I'll upgrade the MICCA's. Meanwhile, I'm happily enjoying home 3D sound in its infancy and don't know if anything is compromised.


Well said - thank you for the input.


----------



## NorthSky

Any fraction of 1/3rd, 1/5th, 1/7th, 1/9th, 1/11th, ...of your room's length is good to position your ears (MLP) from the front wall. eg.; 2/5 or 3/5 are good, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, 4/9, 5/9, ..etc. are all good. 

________

♦ Regarding *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* eventual Blu-ray release in 3D, and in 2D...for everywhere, including USA and Canada...Dolby Atmos audio. 

...And this too, perhaps from a Special Edition: http://screencrush.com/mad-max-fury-road-blu-black-white/


----------



## lovingdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I did some some more listening to a lot of the same scenes on Atmos discs @ my bro in law's place. He has the angled Martin Logan 8" electromotions for front overheads, & the Def Tech modules for rears. Hands down, I prefer the downfiring KEF's.


Which KEF's are you referring to? The Ci200RR by any chance?


----------



## lovingdvd

*Thoughts on aiming in-ceiling speakers*

What are your guys thoughts on aiming the top-front and top-rear speakers toward the MLP? I've read some things that say the speakers should be aimed AT the MLP, and others that say they should be aimed IN FRONT of the MLP.

Some of this of course will depend on how wide the dispersion of the speaker is. I'm planning on using the KEF Ci200RR for in-ceiling speakers. I thing these are about 70 degree conical. My fronts are out in front of the MLP by about 42 degrees, and the top-rears are behind me by about 60 degrees - so I think I will have to angle the rears some, at least? There is also a top-middle which is about 35 degrees behind me. Until such time when I can run 6 ceiling speakers I am planning to run with top-fronts and top-middle configured at top-rear (when only this one row of seats is in use), or top-fronts with top-rears configured as top-rears when the main row and row behind it are in use (both rows of seats are in between top-front and top-rear, with the top-middle in between both rows - MLP is first row). Thoughts?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks. Can you explain more about your set (7.1.4?), types of speakers used and speaker position relative to MLP?


Haha I should update my sig!

For my front L/R & rear surrounds I'm using 4x Klipsch chorus II's, Klipsch RC 64 II center, & the RS 62 II's for surrounds, 18" velodyne sub, & the 4x ceilings are the KEF ci200RR THX. 

I pretty much set the speakers up according to Dolby specs with some minor changes, I'll take pics next week.


----------



## blastermaster

> Thoughts on aiming in-ceiling speakers
> What are your guys thoughts on aiming the top-front and top-rear speakers toward the MLP? I've read some things that say the speakers should be aimed AT the MLP, and others that say they should be aimed IN FRONT of the MLP.
> 
> Some of this of course will depend on how wide the dispersion of the speaker is. I'm planning on using the KEF Ci200RR for in-ceiling speakers. I thing these are about 70 degree conical. My fronts are out in front of the MLP by about 42 degrees, and the top-rears are behind me by about 60 degrees - so I think I will have to angle the rears some, at least? There is also a top-middle which is about 35 degrees behind me. Until such time when I can run 6 ceiling speakers I am planning to run with top-fronts and top-middle configured at top-rear (when only this one row of seats is in use), or top-fronts with top-rears configured as top-rears when the main row and row behind it are in use (both rows of seats are in between top-front and top-rear, with the top-middle in between both rows - MLP is first row). Thoughts?


There is some wiggle room as far as placement and, outside of that, room correction will also help. As for me, I chose to go with a wide dispersion downfiring ceiling speaker - the Tannoy CMS 603DC (damn, Tannoy should pay me for all the plugs I'm giving them lol). So, no aiming at the MLP at all. The pictures on the Dolby pdf file led me to believe they should be downfiring, but they are just that - pictures to give people guidelines on how to set up their speakers. I have no idea what will work better, but hey, I've cut the holes and mounted the speakers - they ain't moving! So ignorance is bliss, I suppose. I'm sure they're going to sound great, though.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> Which KEF's are you referring to? The Ci200RR by any chance?


Yup 



lovingdvd said:


> What are your guys thoughts on aiming the top-front and top-rear speakers toward the MLP? I've read some things that say the speakers should be aimed AT the MLP, and others that say they should be aimed IN FRONT of the MLP.
> 
> Some of this of course will depend on how wide the dispersion of the speaker is. I'm planning on using the KEF Ci200RR for in-ceiling speakers. I thing these are about 70 degree conical. My fronts are out in front of the MLP by about 42 degrees, and the top-rears are behind me by about 60 degrees - so I think I will have to angle the rears some, at least? There is also a top-middle which is about 35 degrees behind me. Until such time when I can run 6 ceiling speakers I am planning to run with top-fronts and top-middle configured at top-rear (when only this one row of seats is in use), or top-fronts with top-rears configured as top-rears when the main row and row behind it are in use (both rows of seats are in between top-front and top-rear, with the top-middle in between both rows - MLP is first row). Thoughts?


I'm now convinced a significant amount of aiming is detrimental to overhead sound if that's what you're going for. Depending on how far the Ci200RR's are from you & how tall your ceiling is you probably won't have to tip them at all. Those are also slightly heavy, if you are putting them in drywall you might want to make sure they are flat & screwed in unless you have some type of bracing to keep them in place.

My ceiling is very short (6'11"), the speakers are about 5 1/2' away from my lap. I can get some exact measurements for you but I pretty much get the full effect of the speakers from where I'm seated. 

I'm very happy with them but there might be some more cost effective models... in hindsight I was reading the KEF owner's thread where a forum member stated U.S. consumers pay a lot more than Europeans? If so you might be paying premium for something like the Tannoy equivalent + the THX stamp of approval which I've read also has an impact on the price?

But I must admit the shallow side of me wanted to see those KEF's in the ceiling because they look cool. & now I might want to replace the Klipsch with KEF reference line to match the decor! (93% kidding) (though that would be pretty cool!). I do hear a lot of detail coming out of these speakers... but I've never A/B'd them to other in ceiling speakers. If you've heard the "leaf" trailer on the Atmos demo disc that's really impressive with the KEF's... that wind sounds insane when it goes over head! There is some low end going on when it swooshes over head that I didn't get with the 44-DA modules.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> A
> ♦ Regarding *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* eventual Blu-ray release in 3D, and in 2D...for everywhere, including USA and Canada...Dolby Atmos audio.
> 
> ...And this too, perhaps from a Special Edition: http://screencrush.com/mad-max-fury-road-blu-black-white/


Interesting... man I don't know if I'd want to ditch that color though... the film was soooooo gorgeous as it was! BTW had you read somewhere that the disc will for sure have Atmos & 3D in USA? Or am I misinterpreting your post? If not I'd be a very happy camper.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Interesting... man I don't know if I'd want to ditch that color though... the film was soooooo gorgeous as it was! BTW had you read somewhere that the disc will for sure have Atmos & 3D in USA? Or am I misinterpreting your post? If not I'd be a very happy camper.


Yes, all Warner Blu-ray releases for this title will be encoded with Dolby Atmos...according to Warner people. ...All across the planet, from Warner Bros studios. 

And the stylized/desaturated B&W version, George Miller wants it to be included with the orange/teal one (normal colored theatrical one). 
I sure hope we'll get it, included. ...That would be the BR movie release of the century.


----------



## kbarnes701

dude2006 said:


> Hello, am looking to put together a 7.2.4 system and am looking at the Di5s for the ceiling. Two questions please: 1) are you still happy with your choice, and 2) could you explain why the DCs are the right ones, was trying to figure out difference between them and the non-DC models.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Yes I am very happy with the Tannoys.

The Dual Concentric designs have several advantages IMO. First of all, they have a very wide dispersion pattern, which is mandated by Dolby for Atmos. They also, by nature of their design, can be mounted 'horizontally' or 'vertically' and thus makes them easy to position on the ceiling. IDK what the non-DC models spec is, but the Di5 DCs also have a very high power handling capability for their size and can play at 105dB all day long without distress, making them a good choice for home theater use (IMO). In common with other speakers of this type, the Di5 DCs come with C brackets and hardware which makes ceiling-mounting very easy and straightforward.

I forgot to mention that an advantage of dual concentric designs in general is the excellent phase coherence which results from the dual concentric design. This is a benefit if you sit fairly close to the speakers, as I do, as it means the sound is coherent right from the speaker. Designs which use a separate woofer and tweeter require some distance for the sounds emanating from the two drivers in order to become fully coherent. This may not matter of course, depending on the distance you are from the speakers but for me it was an important consideration. I actually changed my surrounds to Di6 DCs specifically for this reason.


----------



## dude2006

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes I am very happy with the Tannoys.



Thanks for the info, so I'm pretty much sold on the Tannoys (had been looking at some JBLs but decided they would look too bulky). So, just one point of clarification, it sounds like you ended up switching from the Di5DC to the Di6DC? I was leaning towards the Di5DC just because it has a smaller footprint, but was curious why you switched.


----------



## kbarnes701

dude2006 said:


> Thanks for the info, so I'm pretty much sold on the Tannoys (had been looking at some JBLs but decided they would look too bulky). So, just one point of clarification, it sounds like you ended up switching from the Di5DC to the Di6DC? I was leaning towards the Di5DC just because it has a smaller footprint, but was curious why you switched.


No - I still have the Di5 for my ceiling speakers - I am using the Di6 for my surrounds. I can recommend both. I chose the Di5 for the overheads mainly for their compact size. I have more space for the surrounds so went for the bigger speakers there. If your ceiling is higher than mine, I'd recommend the Di6 on the ceiling too. I am sure you would be happier with either, and if you are using a subwoofer, as I expect you are, both models will play nicely down to 80 or 90Hz, for crossing over to the sub(s) for the heavy lifting.


----------



## dude2006

kbarnes701 said:


> No - I still have the Di5 for my ceiling speakers - I am using the Di6 for my surrounds.



Ah ok, gotcha. I'll probably just stick with the Di5s for ceiling, then, as they sound like they are plenty good enough for Atmos application and aesthetically their smaller size would look better in my room - I have a regular height ceiling but the wife already thinks my regular 7.2 setup is excessive so might as well give in a little in this regard


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Yes, all Warner Blu-ray releases for this title will be encoded with Dolby Atmos...according to Warner people. ...All across the planet, from Warner Bros studios.
> 
> And the stylized/desaturated B&W version, George Miller wants it to be included with the orange/teal one (normal colored theatrical one).
> I sure hope we'll get it, included. ...That would be the BR movie release of the century.


Well there's your new atmos demo disc boys! Lots of low end going overhead with trucks & motorcycles flying above 

I know this sounds strange... but my favorite disc to listen to right now is mockingjay... hearing those large industrial environments makes the HT sound so huge. & the dropship take offs sound great!


----------



## chi_guy50

dude2006 said:


> Ah ok, gotcha. I'll probably just stick with the Di5s for ceiling, then, as they sound like they are plenty good enough for Atmos application and aesthetically their smaller size would look better in my room - I have a regular height ceiling but *the wife already thinks my regular 7.2 setup is excessive* so might as well give in a little in this regard


Two options:

1) Follow @stikle's advice and call a good divorce lawyer.

2) Show her a picture of @wse's setup to let her know just how much more excessive it could be!


----------



## zimmo

why you not take paradigm speakers for surround ,and ceilling speaker Yamaha ns-ic800 these are reliable speakers and whork great.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

stikle said:


> Hey, thanks Sanjay! (And you other guys!)
> 
> The diagrams make perfect sense to me. It's easy enough to test just by moving the couch little by little, and I will go forth and proceed to do so.


According to Ethan Winer, the best spot is 38% distance from front to back. Second best is 38% from back to front.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> According to Ethan Winer, the best spot is 38% distance from front to back. Second best is 38% from back to front.


 
So, if you've a 24' length room, with the display maybe three feet from the front, the best spot is about 9' away from the front wall, for about a 6' viewing distance from the display?


----------



## blastermaster

> I forgot to mention that an advantage of dual concentric designs in general is the excellent phase coherence which results from the dual concentric design. This is a benefit if you sit fairly close to the speakers, as I do, as it means the sound is coherent right from the speaker. Designs which use a separate woofer and tweeter require some distance for the sounds emanating from the two drivers in order to become fully coherent. This may not matter of course, depending on the distance you are from the speakers but for me it was an important consideration. I actually changed my surrounds to Di6 DCs specifically for this reason.


Hmm, I never even thought about that. I recently installed a pair of Tannoy IW63's as side surrounds and was worried that I would be able to localize them too much with them being directly to the sides and at ear height. Not the case and they were so much more revealing and clear than my old QS8's that were installed 2 feet above ear height and just to the rear of the MLP. I am so stoked about getting this all up and running. Waiting for the pre-pro...


----------



## aaranddeeman

Does Jupiter Ascending from Redbox rental come with Atmos sound track?


----------



## lovingdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yup
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now convinced a significant amount of aiming is detrimental to overhead sound if that's what you're going for. Depending on how far the Ci200RR's are from you & how tall your ceiling is you probably won't have to tip them at all. Those are also slightly heavy, if you are putting them in drywall you might want to make sure they are flat & screwed in unless you have some type of bracing to keep them in place.
> 
> My ceiling is very short (6'11"), the speakers are about 5 1/2' away from my lap. I can get some exact measurements for you but I pretty much get the full effect of the speakers from where I'm seated.
> 
> I'm very happy with them but there might be some more cost effective models... in hindsight I was reading the KEF owner's thread where a forum member stated U.S. consumers pay a lot more than Europeans? If so you might be paying premium for something like the Tannoy equivalent + the THX stamp of approval which I've read also has an impact on the price?
> 
> But I must admit the shallow side of me wanted to see those KEF's in the ceiling because they look cool. & now I might want to replace the Klipsch with KEF reference line to match the decor! (93% kidding) (though that would be pretty cool!). I do hear a lot of detail coming out of these speakers... but I've never A/B'd them to other in ceiling speakers. If you've heard the "leaf" trailer on the Atmos demo disc that's really impressive with the KEF's... that wind sounds insane when it goes over head! There is some low end going on when it swooshes over head that I didn't get with the 44-DA modules.


Thank you for these additional details. I particularly liked hearing about your impressions of the Ci200RR. I'm planning an all KEF Ci system: 3x Ci5160 (LCR), 6x Ci3160 wides, sides and rear surrounds, and 6x Ci200RR for top-front, top-middle, and top-rear (even though for now I'll only be able to run with 4 of those 6 ceiling speakers). I haven't found anyone really that has this setup even in the KEF forums, and I think yours is the first report I've heard from someone that owns the Ci200RR. That said I did hear this KEF setup in a dealer showroom and that's when I knew this was the right fit for me.

Glad to hear you really like the Ci200RR. And if anyone out there has the Ci5160 or Ci3160 in their Atmos setup, please let me know how you like them!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Does Jupiter Ascending from Redbox rental come with Atmos sound track?


Yes. However, your IQ will drop after having watched it. 

Lionsgate and Summit tend to be the studios that strip the lossless audio out of their rentals.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes. However, your IQ will drop after having watched it.
> 
> Lionsgate and Summit tend to be the studios that strip the lossless audio out of their rentals.


I know. Lionsgate is notorious.
However to my surprise "The Last Knights" actually has DTS-HDMA 5.1 for a change. I rented the BR w/o realizing it was Lionsgate, but it turned out to be lossless..

JA is warner so I guess even though my IQ drops, I want to here the SQ from up...


----------



## frankpc3

I rented two blu-rays: Gravity and Gravity 3D. I had read that the 3D one does not have Atmos and that the non-3D version has Atmos. Now it seems there could be two versions of the blu-ray non-3D version: One with and one without Atmos. 

Is this the case? And if so, how do you know which version has Atmos?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

frankpc3 said:


> I rented two blu-rays: Gravity and Gravity 3D. I had read that the 3D one does not have Atmos and that the non-3D version has Atmos. Now it seems there could be two versions of the blu-ray non-3D version: One with and one without Atmos.
> 
> Is this the case? And if so, how do you know which version has Atmos?


Diamond Luxe edition has Atmos... it comes in a cool flashy magnetic case too!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> Thank you for these additional details. I particularly liked hearing about your impressions of the Ci200RR. I'm planning an all KEF Ci system: 3x Ci5160 (LCR), 6x Ci3160 wides, sides and rear surrounds, and 6x Ci200RR for top-front, top-middle, and top-rear (even though for now I'll only be able to run with 4 of those 6 ceiling speakers). I haven't found anyone really that has this setup even in the KEF forums, and I think yours is the first report I've heard from someone that owns the Ci200RR. That said I did hear this KEF setup in a dealer showroom and that's when I knew this was the right fit for me.
> 
> Glad to hear you really like the Ci200RR. And if anyone out there has the Ci5160 or Ci3160 in their Atmos setup, please let me know how you like them!


No problem! Just get the reference series for your surrounds  

I'll give some further impressions in a week after I install treatments... I think that will make a big difference as well as my space is very echo-y.


----------



## frankpc3

Aras_Volodka said:


> Diamond Luxe edition has Atmos... it comes in a cool flashy magnetic case too!


darn! So I guess that means you wouldn't typically find it in a rental place.

Thanks!


----------



## lovingdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> No problem! Just get the reference series for your surrounds
> 
> I'll give some further impressions in a week after I install treatments... I think that will make a big difference as well as my space is very echo-y.


Which model exactly are you referring to the "reference series" as? I am planning to use the Ci-3160THX as the surrounds as they are very in-wall construction friendly and will match exactly (same drivers) the 5160s and match the Ci200RR too.

Great look forward to your impressions after treatments are installed - what treatments do you have planned?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

frankpc3 said:


> darn! So I guess that means you wouldn't typically find it in a rental place.
> 
> Thanks!


I don't think so, check family video if there is one in your area. They have atmos rentals & have the original boxes on the shelves so you can check out the specs.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> Which model exactly are you referring to the "reference series" as? I am planning to use the Ci-3160THX as the surrounds as they are very in-wall construction friendly and will match exactly (same drivers) the 5160s and match the Ci200RR too.
> 
> Great look forward to your impressions after treatments are installed - what treatments do you have planned?


Man if I had the money, 6x reference 5's + reference 4c & be done with it. I don't care how the room looks, but I think having 45,000 bucks worth of KEF reference would look pretty cool! I'm sure the timbre matching wouldn't be an issue


----------



## frankpc3

Aras_Volodka said:


> I don't think so, check family video if there is one in your area. They have atmos rentals & have the original boxes on the shelves so you can check out the specs.


Yes. I rented it there. But I didn't take the time to look at the box. Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> According to Ethan Winer, the best spot is 38% distance from front to back. Second best is 38% from back to front.





sdrucker said:


> So, if you've a 24' length room, with the display maybe three feet from the front, the best spot is about 9' away from the front wall, for about a 6' viewing distance from the display?


Always from the wall(s). The best acoustically balanced spot (MLP) is always calculated from the walls; the length, the width and the height (floor to ceiling).
It don't matter where your TV or speakers are, only your walls count, and where you put your couch (chair, MLP). ...And the height too. 
The rule of thirds, or fifths, 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, 13ths, 15ths, 17ths, 19ths, 21ths, ...odd fractions are the best. 

In Erwin's quote above, the best spot is 38% from the front wall for the room's length (front to back).
And the second best spot (MLP) is 38% from the back wall (back to front). 

In your case your room is 24 feet long, so 38% from your front wall is *9.12* feet. This is the best spot. ...Or 6.12 feet from your display.
...And second best is 9.12 feet from your back wall, or *14.88* feet from your front wall. ...Which is 11.88 feet from your display. 

* 2/5 = 40% (good spot too; odd fraction...fifths)
* 3/8 = 37.5% (even fraction...eights...very close to Ethan's recommendation)
* 5/13 = 38.46% (odd fraction...a little closer to 38%) 
* 8/21 = 38.09% (odd fraction...even closer)
* 11/29 = 37.93% (odd fraction...a tiny bit closer still to 38%)

Ethan is an expert, so I'll go with 11/29 from the front wall (number one), or 11/29 from the back wall (number two) ... 37.93% is close enough to 38%

And then, there is the room's width...you do the same...odd fractions...to get close to the center, but not exactly @ the center.
For example, 14/29 of the room's width. 

And last, the height; check your ears and adjust to the closest inch or fraction of an inch...always using odd fractions...your ears from the floor...or from the ceiling.

You will end up @ the perfect spot, like inside a vise grip. ...When you're there don't even move an inch. 

But seriously, it's what I just mentioned above.

And furthermore, your center channel can also be measured that way, and from the front wall, from one of the side wall, and even from the floor. 
And all your other speakers too; your two front main flankers...from the front wall, from their respective side walls, and the woofer driver(s) from the floor. And! You don't want the same distance from the front to side walls and the woofer drivers from the side wall to be equal to the distance from them to the floor. 

Even the voice coil of your subwoofer; it should not have the same distance to any wall and floor. ...They should be all different, and as all your speakers; never a multiple of each other.

Acoustics is a serious science, and with precise mathematics. ...Very true. ...Every surface in your room is to be taken into consideration as to where you sit, where your speakers and subwoofers are positioned, with precise measurements. You have options though, because of your furniture, etc.
...From best positions to second best, third, fourth, fifth, etc. 

Regarding subwoofers; usually against the longest wall(s) of your room...so that the standing waves can travel the furthest without being obstructed or bounced back by shorter walls. ...And the rule of thirds, fifths, etc., still applies. 

Floyd E. Toole has some coordinates on mutiple subwoofer's positioning for various room's shapes. ..."L" shaped for example...rectangles...square like 12' (L) x 12' (W) x12' (H) is bad, real bad. There are some ideal room's dimensions, and those too follow some good mathematical algorithms for best sound acoustics. A room of 24' x 12' x 8' is no good...all multiples of 4. 

Books and the Internet abound on best acoustics.


----------



## pletwals

sdrucker said:


> So, if you've a 24' length room, with the display maybe three feet from the front, the best spot is about 9' away from the front wall, for about a 6' viewing distance from the display?


Yeah, it's not practical in most rooms unless you have a smallish screen. I am near 38% of the back wall. Using a projection screen.

+1 What Bob says. There's good info about "best" room ratio's @SalF ord (UK) University. There are plenty of good room ratio's, depending on the total size:
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/room_sizing/?content=best

These best ratio's are independent from room size:
1: 2.16 : 2.96
1: 2.16 : 2.97
1: 2.16 : 2.98
1: 2.17 : 2.96
1: 2.17 : 2.97
1: 2.17 : 2.98
1: 2.17 : 2.99
1: 2.18 : 2.97
1: 2.18 : 2.98
1: 2.18 : 2.99
1: 2.18 : 3
1: 2.19 : 2.99
1: 2.19 : 3
1: 2.19 : 3.01
1: 2.19 : 3.02
1: 2.2 : 3.01
1: 2.2 : 3.02
1: 2.2 : 3.03
1: 2.21 : 3.02
1: 2.21 : 3.03
1: 2.22 : 3.03
1: 2.22 : 3.04


----------



## SherazNJ

Aras_Volodka said:


> 8 feet is good, my ceiling is only 6'11" and the ceiling speakers sound great.


Is the 6'11" distance from MLP to ceiling OR floor to ceiling?


----------



## Al Sherwood

erwinfrombelgium said:


> According to Ethan Winer, the best spot is 38% distance from front to back. Second best is 38% from back to front.



I would like to do some more reading on this , do you have a link to this information?




Thanks!


----------



## gammanuc

Al Sherwood said:


> I would like to do some more reading on this , do you have a link to this information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


I've had success in making improvements in my 2 channel room using his articles here... http://realtraps.com/articles.htm


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SherazNJ said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 feet is good, my ceiling is only 6'11" and the ceiling speakers sound great.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the 6'11" distance from MLP to ceiling OR floor to ceiling?
Click to expand...

Floor to ceiling unfortunately... But even at that height things are sounding good. With 8 feet you have plenty of space!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> So, if you've a 24' length room, with the display maybe three feet from the front, the best spot is about 9' away from the front wall, for about a 6' viewing distance from the display?


If the display is a 60 inch plasma, that would be about right.  BTW, Ethan does say that it would be a bit nuts to sit 38% from the front if you have a decent size screen - he says in that case, sit 38% from the back, if possible


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> I would like to do some more reading on this , do you have a link to this information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


The article by Ethan which mentions the 38% 'rule' is here: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> If the display is a 60 inch plasma, that would be about right.


 
Which means I planned wisely . 55" actually, and more like 8.75' than 9', but essentially correct. 




> BTW, Ethan does say that it would be a bit nuts to sit 38% from the front if you have a decent size screen - he says in that case, sit 38% from the back, if possible


 
I'll remember that if/when we have a projector and a 100' or more screen LOL...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> If the display is a 60 inch plasma, that would be about right.  BTW, Ethan does say that it would be a bit nuts to sit 38% from the front if you have a decent size screen - he says in that case, sit 38% from the back, if possible


I sit 6 feet from the 65". It may have something to do with me sitting up close to the canvas all day long. Though I recently moved it a little further for sound due to the center channel.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> The article by Ethan which mentions the 38% 'rule' is here: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm


Interestingly he also mentions surrounds at ear level:



> Note that the tweeters in the rear surround speakers should also be at ear height. Some people recommend placing the surround speakers high up on the side or rear walls, mimicking the setup of some commercial movie theaters. But that's a throwback to years past, when a single rear channel contained the surround information rather than separate channels as in today's 5.1 soundtracks. Back then, some movie theaters placed one or more speakers high up on the rear wall to increase ambience by including the room's natural reverb. But that was long ago, and in theaters much larger than anyone's living room.



Also it never even occured to me to consciously avoid the vertical axis midpoint, probably because neither my head nor any of my speakers are exactly half way up the vertical dimension of my room. But it's obvious of course, and something I'll keep in mind -- if I go as planned and do an AT screen with speakers placed behind, I'll make sure to keep them around 30-40% of room height.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Interestingly he also mentions surrounds at ear level:


But his explanation for why the surrounds are raised in commercial movie theatres is incorrect (i.e., has nothing to do with a mono surround channel nor taking advantage of the theatre's reverb).


> Also it never even occured to me to consciously avoid the vertical axis midpoint, probably because neither my head nor any of my speakers are exactly half way up the vertical dimension of my room.


Placing the woofer of your surround speakers exactly half way up the vertical dimension will cancel all odd-order height modes (in your particular room: 75Hz, 226Hz, 377Hz, etc).


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Al Sherwood said:


> I would like to do some more reading on this , do you have a link to this information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Besides RealTraps, there's more (older) info on Ethan's own website:
http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html#top


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly he also mentions surrounds at ear level:
> 
> 
> 
> But his explanation for why the surrounds are raised in commercial movie theatres is incorrect (i.e., has nothing to do with a mono surround channel nor taking advantage of the theatre's reverb). in an ht scenario it might be advantageous to place speakers @ ear level though wouldn't it? Providing more contrast between surrounds and heights that otherwise might mud the sound due to their close proximity?
Click to expand...


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> ...in an ht scenario it might be advantageous to place speakers @ ear level though wouldn't it? Providing more contrast between surrounds and heights that otherwise might mud the sound due to their close proximity?


That's the only reason I would lower the surround speakers: to get better separation between sounds around me vs sounds above me.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

My multifunctional homecinema install is progressing nicely (at last!). However, this week I thought about raising the front seats by 1/2 foot, which results in ear level at 3 1/2 feet. It will help for a better viewing of the screen which is centered at slightly more than 4 feet. 

If I do this, I can think about raising the coaxial surrounds to 4' instead of 3'. The speakers are 3' height and have the coaxial + 2 passive radiators. So instead of PR/PR/coax it would be PR/coax/PR. This would also better mimic the giant L+R speakers (with 24" SEOS). 

Only downside I can think of is less separation between ear level speakers and Top speakers.

Thoughts?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Quick note for fellow Canadians, the Gunman edition we have here is not edited by the same company and does not have the Atmos soundtrack... We need to order from Amazon.com or similar place if we want it...


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> That's the only reason I would lower the surround speakers: to get better separation between sounds around me vs sounds above me.



Whether or not one believes *ATSC 3.0* will be implemented "soon", the _original_ three major aspirants to provide the *ATSC 3.0 Audio System* _codec & technology_--*Dolby, DTS, * plus a consortium of *Fraunhofer, Technicolor & Qualcomm*--presumably spent *significant* effort to persuade *ATSC* to require "good" speaker locations in the requirements document for the *2.0*, *5.1*, *7.1+4*, and *22.2* *test* configurations. See attached extract from the requirements doc for details (_link_).


_


----------



## smurraybhm

erwinfrombelgium said:


> My multifunctional homecinema install is progressing nicely (at last!). However, this week I thought about raising the front seats by 1/2 foot, which results in ear level at 3 1/2 feet. It will help for a better viewing of the screen which is centered at slightly more than 4 feet.
> 
> If I do this, I can think about raising the coaxial surrounds to 4' instead of 3'. The speakers are 3' height and have the coaxial + 2 passive radiators. So instead of PR/PR/coax it would be PR/coax/PR. This would also better mimic the giant L+R speakers (with 24" SEOS).
> 
> Only downside I can think of is less separation between ear level speakers and Top speakers.
> 
> Thoughts?


What is the height of your tops or the distance between if you bump them up? By moving up the seats you've already altered the distance between speakers.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

smurraybhm said:


> What is the height of your tops or the distance between if you bump them up? By moving up the seats you've already altered the distance between speakers.


The Top speakers are still 45° up from the raised ear level. Ceiling is 260 cm (8'8"), tops are on-ceiling and 20 cm height, meaning a 240 cm height (8 feet). They are 8 feet apart. 

The tweeter+mid of the Side Surround (and the Wides) are either 1/2 foot below or 1/2 foot above the raised ear level.

Which is best?


----------



## smurraybhm

^ I would try them out where they are and see how they sound. You can always experiment and raise one of the side surrounds up to see if it makes a difference. Don't forget Atmos speaker placement is forgiving - as a bunch of us can attest to being true. Still if given the option I would opt for the greater separation if keeping them lower isn't interfering with the sound.


----------



## wmlou88

Bump


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> Quick note for fellow Canadians, the Gunman edition we have here is not edited by the same company and does not have the Atmos soundtrack... We need to order from Amazon.com or similar place if we want it...


Oh that's a real bummer! ...Now not only we have to order our 3D Disney Blu-ray movies from overseas but also get our Universal studios Dolby Atmos Blu-rays from the USA. ...I guess Dolby Atmos ain't that popular here in Canada, in the eyes of Universal studios. 

Maybe it will when UHD Blu-ray is here?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

NorthSky said:


> Oh that's a real bummer! ...Now not only we have to order our 3D Disney Blu-ray movies from overseas but also get our Universal studios Dolby Atmos Blu-rays from the USA. ...I guess Dolby Atmos ain't that popular here in Canada, in the eyes of Universal studios.
> 
> Maybe it will when UHD Blu-ray is here?


Yeah I don't think it's that bad, it seems to be a distribution right. It's not Universal distributing the movie on Blu-ray in Canada...


----------



## Lozin

I gave Elevation pictures(the ones who distributed the gunman) a hell of a blast over this. I ended up retuning the Canadian edition I bought back to Best Buy and purchasing it from Amazon.com instead and if I have to I'll purchase all my BD's from them in the future.


----------



## NorthSky

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yeah I don't think it's that bad, it seems to be a distribution right. It's not Universal distributing the movie on Blu-ray in Canada...


You _don't think it's that bad!_ 

______


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Lozin said:


> I gave Elevation pictures(the ones who distributed the gunman) a hell of a blast over this. I ended up retuning the Canadian edition I bought back to Best Buy and purchasing it from Amazon.com instead and if I have to I'll purchase all my BD's from them in the future.


Did Elevation reply to you? I'm curious!


----------



## frankpc3

Aras_Volodka said:


> I don't think so, check family video if there is one in your area. They have atmos rentals & have the original boxes on the shelves so you can check out the specs.


Checked at Family Video for Gravity with Atmos. They only had the 'standard' version.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

frankpc3 said:


> Checked at Family Video for Gravity with Atmos. They only had the 'standard' version.


You'll have to buy it. Movie may be "meh," but the audio is phenomenal... one of, if not _the_ best, Atmos demos out so far.


----------



## Lozin

SteveTheGeek said:


> Did Elevation reply to you? I'm curious!



No reply yet.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Lozin said:


> No reply yet.


How surprising, ahhh customer service those days... Let me know if they reply!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> You'll have to buy it. Movie may be "meh," but the audio is phenomenal... one of, if not _the_ best, Atmos demos out so far.


Have you seen/heard the Aymos release of Lucy? I do have Gravity and I think that the sound editing/mixing job was amazing.

I have heard others speak glowingly of the Atmos mix in Lucy, so much so that I finally ordered it.

I do not have it yet, but was curious if you might have seen it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Have you seen/heard the Aymos release of Lucy? I do have Gravity and I think that the sound editing/mixing job was amazing.
> 
> I have heard others speak glowingly of the Atmos mix in Lucy, so much so that I finally ordered it.
> 
> I do not have it yet, but was curious if you might have seen it.


Never was really interested in that Luc Besson film.


----------



## brahman12

*Mockingjay Sounds Great*



Aras_Volodka said:


> Well there's your new atmos demo disc boys! Lots of low end going overhead with trucks & motorcycles flying above
> 
> I know this sounds strange... but my favorite disc to listen to right now is mockingjay... hearing those large industrial environments makes the HT sound so huge. & the dropship take offs sound great!


Yeah that movie had a real nice and subtly sexy atmos mix. It is really underrated on our thread here and I think it is a top notch mix that has me looking forward to the next installment. 

CATCHING FIRE sounded awesome at the RPX theater when I first watched it....specifically the scene that she believes she is hearing voices of her loved ones (little sister, I think) and the birds start making sounds all over the place....in RPX Atmos that scene was awesome...I couldn't quite replicate it at home via DSU. Wish they would release that one in Atmos as well. It's even those brief moments of Atmos induced nirvana that make this hobby great.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Have you seen/heard the Aymos release of Lucy? I do have Gravity and I think that the sound editing/mixing job was amazing.
> 
> I have heard others speak glowingly of the Atmos mix in Lucy, so much so that I finally ordered it.
> 
> I do not have it yet, but was curious if you might have seen it.


I have it. It is an excellent mix. The precision of the sound placement in the soundstage is astonishing and you will notice it right from the beginning of the movie. There are a few 'overhead effects' that you will note, but it is the overall imaging precision which will linger in your memory.


----------



## brahman12

*Lucy Atmos*



kbarnes701 said:


> I have it. It is an excellent mix. The precision of the sound placement in the soundstage is astonishing and you will notice it right from the beginning of the movie. There are a few 'overhead effects' that you will note, but it is the overall imaging precision which will linger in your memory.


Hey Keith...I know you have both versions of Lucy. The DSU works nicely on the non-Atmos mix. Is the Atmos version a worthwhile investment over that one? It seems like in your previous quote you are saying that it is and others have recently posted on this flick in Atmos as well....but no one appears to give a clear description of their opinion on the differences between the two mixes (perhaps I have missed some posts that have ). Tired of double dipping on products without it really paying off....can you help out a fellow A/V brother from across the pond?


----------



## Al Sherwood

brahman12 said:


> Hey Keith...I know you have both versions of Lucy. The DSU works nicely on the non-Atmos mix. Is the Atmos version a worthwhile investment over that one? It seems like in your previous quote you are saying that it is and others have recently posted on this flick in Atmos as well....but no one appears to give a clear description of their opinion on the differences between the two mixes (perhaps I have missed some posts that have ). Tired of double dipping on products without it really paying off....can you help out a fellow A/V brother from across the pond?



I am in the same position, well almost, I have the non-Atmos version...


----------



## Jive Turkey

batpig said:


> I experienced this for the first time myself recently. As you know I currently have my surround back speakers placed very narrow behind me and also briefly just had a single SB.
> 
> When I run test tones several times I have been tricked into thinking I miswired or something because the SB tone sounded like it was coming from the front wall.


I've not been a fan of the VOG or close together tops/rears for pretty much that reason. I prefer a nice spread to top front/top rear and rear surrounds in my 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## wse

Jive Turkey said:


> I've not been a fan of the VOG or close together tops/rears for pretty much that reason. I prefer a nice spread to top front/top rear and rear surrounds in my 7.1.4 setup.


Very cool


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> I have it. It is an excellent mix. The precision of the sound placement in the soundstage is astonishing and you will notice it right from the beginning of the movie. There are a few 'overhead effects' that you will note, but it is the overall imaging precision which will linger in your memory.


Lately we discussed unbroken flies in this thread.
Lucy has also an excellent test scene.
I saw it only in the cinema, and it stunned me. 
She is in a car, stopped in the street, and then starts spying on phone calls from all the people around. You can clearly ear each conversation coming simulteanously from a different direction in 3D.

Please can you play this scene and describe the result you get in your "Keith-cave" ?


----------



## kbarnes701

brahman12 said:


> Hey Keith...I know you have both versions of Lucy. The DSU works nicely on the non-Atmos mix. Is the Atmos version a worthwhile investment over that one? It seems like in your previous quote you are saying that it is and others have recently posted on this flick in Atmos as well....but no one appears to give a clear description of their opinion on the differences between the two mixes (perhaps I have missed some posts that have ). Tired of double dipping on products without it really paying off....can you help out a fellow A/V brother from across the pond?


Sure. The Atmos version is a superior overall soundtrack. The biggest difference between it and the regular track upmixed with DSU is in the precision of the placement of all the sounds right through the soundstage. You are able to 'point at' each sound precisely - at just where it should be to match the onscreen action, or where you expect it to be if it is, for example, a musical cue. While the DSU version is good, the Atmos version is better - by comparison the DSU version will sound a little 'sloppy' and 'more vague'. I find this to be the biggest difference on every Atmos track I have (currently 14 movies). Overhead effects in *Lucy* are present but sparse IIRC but the incredible imaging more than makes up for it. I take your point about double dipping, but it is worthwhile to have at least one movie in both formats so that you can compare Atmos vs DSU (IMO) and *Lucy* is a good movie to do this with. 

Of course, I am assuming in all of the above that your system images well to begin with and that is it set up as it should be. I have a well treated dedicated room and I use Dirac Live (which in itself delivers astonishingly precise imaging) so it is not difficult for me to hear the differences between Atmos and DSU - but of course, as with all things in this game, everything is room and system and setup dependent to one extent or another.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Lately we discussed unbroken flies in this thread.
> Lucy has also an excellent test scene.
> I saw it only in the cinema, and it stunned me.
> She is in a car, stopped in the street, and then starts spying on phone calls from all the people around. You can clearly hear each conversation coming simultaneously from a different direction in 3D.
> 
> Please can you play this scene and describe the result you get in your "Keith-cave" ?


I remember that scene very well. And I remember it the way you describe it. But I will pop the disc in again next time I fire up the system just to double-check it. I'll report back. That scene is a good example of the difference between the DSU presentation and the Atmos presentation: the greater degree of precision in the placing of those sound cues.


----------



## Lesmor

@Keith
May I ask where did you get the Atmos version of Lucy and is it region free?
Like you I am UK based


----------



## Zhorik

Lesmor said:


> @Keith
> May I ask where did you get the Atmos version of Lucy and is it region free?
> Like you I am UK based


The HK version is the one that contains Atmos track and is apparently region A locked. As for purchasing, it is available from http://www.yesasia.com/global/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> @Keith
> May I ask where did you get the Atmos version of Lucy and is it region free?
> Like you I am UK based


IIRC I got it from Atmos, Japan. It is Region A. I have a multi-region BD player but if you don't you can bypass the region coding by ripping the Bluray disc with something like MakeMKV and then burning it to a BD-R disc (assuming you have a BD burner in your computer of course).

I stand corrected - a quick look at my email records shows I got it from yesasia, as mentioned above.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> IIRC I got it from Atmos, Japan. It is Region A. I have a multi-region BD player but if you don't you can bypass the region coding by ripping the Bluray disc with something like MakeMKV and then burning it to a BD-R disc (assuming you have a BD burner in your computer of course).
> 
> I stand corrected - a quick look at my email records shows I got it from yesasia, as mentioned above.


Keith, does the rip with MKV preserve the Atmos sound track?

An earlier experiment that I conducted did not. I think that it was with John Wick. Maybe I did not do it right...


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Keith, does the rip with MKV preserve the Atmos sound track?


Why not? It's just Dolby TrueHD.



dvdwilly3 said:


> An earlier experiment that I conducted did not. I think that it was with John Wick. Maybe I did not do it right...


Possibly, or maybe MakeMKV isn't the best tool - but a TrueHD track is a TrueHD track isn't it?


----------



## Lesmor

Many thanks to all respondents re-Lucy (atmos)


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Why not? It's just Dolby TrueHD.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, or maybe MakeMKV isn't the best tool - but a TrueHD track is a TrueHD track isn't it?


Unfortunately, no. 

Atmos is implemented by adding some metadata to the TrueHD standard. While the firmware in older stand-alone players usually works fine and correctly ignores it, versions of ffmpeg and its libraries which pre-dated the Atmos specification choked when they detected the new metadata. In order to bitstream an Atmos soundtrack in an HTPC, you have to use software which includes the up-to-date libraries.


----------



## Rew452

MakeMKV has worked for ATMOS for some time now. Make sure you are on the latest version.

Rew


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, no.
> 
> Atmos is implemented by adding some metadata to the TrueHD standard. While the firmware in older stand-alone players usually works fine and correctly ignores it, versions of ffmpeg and its libraries which pre-dated the Atmos specification choked when they detected the new metadata. In order to bitstream an Atmos soundtrack in an HTPC, you have to use software which includes the up-to-date libraries.


But assuming you are using the latest software for the rip, then there will be no problem?


----------



## kbarnes701

Rew452 said:


> MakeMKV has worked for ATMOS for some time now. Make sure you are on the latest version.
> 
> Rew


I thought so too - I am sure that the Atmos discs I ripped to my NAS drive were ripped with MKV. And they do indeed play with the Atmos light illuminated on the AVR 

This is the makeMKV version I am using:


----------



## Andrey Gorodnov

I've HT-E6730W from Samsung as my current HT setup, and want to use speakers for with upcoming Onkyo TX-RZ900, and maybe even atmos(5.1.2) at some point. do you think its a good idea, or shall I buy separate set of speakers and sell this HT system altogether?


----------



## dkfan9

Out of curiosity, why the rz900?


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> But assuming you are using the latest software for the rip, then there will be no problem?


The DLNA and HDMI server software has to be up to date, too.


----------



## Andrey Gorodnov

dkfan9 said:


> Out of curiosity, why the rz900?


Another option in mind is RX-2050 from Yamaha, it's just the Onkyo, tech specs aside, that I'm so far in love with.. we still have another month for it's release, and as much time to get convinced with another receiver in this range..


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> The DLNA and HDMI server software has to be up to date, too.


I don't even know what that means  I just put the BD in the drive, open MakeMKV, select the main title and hit 'rip'.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Mmm... Now I'm starting to be annoyed, just received Ex Machine from Amazon here in Canada and again, no DTS:x track.

It's distributed by Mongrel media here and it seems they removed the DTS:X track and replaced it by the french track... So they kept the 5.1 track instead of the DTS:X one for English...

Another return to Amazon and another order on Amazon.com... :|

With the limited info about audio tracks available on Amazon, this is starting to be annoying...


----------



## dude2006

kbarnes701 said:


> No - I still have the Di5 for my ceiling speakers - I am using the Di6 for my surrounds. I can recommend both. I chose the Di5 for the overheads mainly for their compact size. I have more space for the surrounds so went for the bigger speakers there. If your ceiling is higher than mine, I'd recommend the Di6 on the ceiling too. I am sure you would be happier with either, and if you are using a subwoofer, as I expect you are, both models will play nicely down to 80 or 90Hz, for crossing over to the sub(s) for the heavy lifting.


Just when I thought I had settled on the Di5s, another issue is bugging me - is the dual concentric design of the Tannoys, which I understand supposedly works better for Atmos applications, worth the lack of timbre-matching with the rest of my speakers? I should add that at this point getting Tannoys for all my other speakers isn't really an option. In other words, is it a big deal that the Di5s wouldn't be timbre-matched with my other speakers (currently, Polk LSi series).


----------



## kbarnes701

dude2006 said:


> Just when I thought I had settled on the Di5s, another issue is bugging me - is the dual concentric design of the Tannoys, which I understand supposedly works better for Atmos applications, worth the lack of timbre-matching with the rest of my speakers? I should add that at this point getting Tannoys for all my other speakers isn't really an option. In other words, is it a big deal that the Di5s wouldn't be timbre-matched with my other speakers (currently, Polk LSi series).


Timbre matching? Do you not use any form of room EQ, such as Audyssey etc? If you do, then timbre matching isn't really an issue - the EQ will ensure that the speakers conform to the same frequency response curve. If you don't, why not? 

These days, timbre matching is a sort of marketing thing - speaker manufacturers would like you to believe it is important so they can sell you their entire line of speakers.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Timbre matching? ......These days, timbre matching is a sort of marketing thing - speaker manufacturers would like you to believe it is important so they can sell you their entire line of speakers.


So I am curious as to if you have made any comparison between speakers of different brands! 

I think that timbre matching is important my Magnepan, KEF LS50, Sonus Faber and B&W don't sound the same


----------



## chi_guy50

SteveTheGeek said:


> Mmm... Now I'm starting to be annoyed, just received Ex Machine from Amazon here in Canada and again, no DTS:x track.
> 
> It's distributed by Mongrel media here and it seems they removed the DTS:X track and replaced it by the french track... So they kept the 5.1 track instead of the DTS:X one for English...
> 
> Another return to Amazon and another order on Amazon.com... :|
> 
> With the limited info about audio tracks available on Amazon, this is starting to be annoying...


I'm due to receive my _Ex Machina_ rental from Netflix tomorrow. I'll report back then on the audio mix.

(I'm hoping my Denon AVR-X5200W will automatically download the DTS:X upgrade as soon as I start the DTS:X stream. Wish me luck!)


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> So I am curious as to if you have made any comparison between speakers of different brands!


Not sure what you mean, but every day I listen to speakers of different brands - my mains are M&K and the others are Tannoy Dual Concentrics.



wse said:


> I think that timbre matching is important my Magnepan, KEF LS50, Sonus Faber and B&W don't sound the same


Clearly, vastly different types of speaker will not sound the same. For example, only an idiot would suggest a different left and right speaker. And personally I would never choose a center speaker that was not identical to my L&R speakers. But I am assuming some common sense here. We were discussing surround speakers - in particular overhead speakers. And if you recall, I specified that room EQ needs to be in use. If the room EQ is not able to bring all the speakers into conformation with the target curve, then switch to Dirac Live. Timbre matching is a great marketing idea though and I commend the speaker manufacturers for trying to perpetuate it, just as if room EQ had never been invented!


----------



## dvdwilly3

I will get the (supposedly) DTS:X version of Ex Machina tomorrow. From the review on Highdefdigest...

"Selecting the DTS:X track on non-DTS:X-capable gear defaults the mix to 7.1 English DTS-HD Master Audio. There is also a separate, discrete 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio discrete mix (for those who don't have 7.1 systems)..."

Since I am running an Atmos 5.1.4 setup, is there any point to selecting or using the 7.1 DTS-HD MA track? Or, should I simply stick with the 5.1 DTS-HD MA track?


----------



## Andrey Gorodnov

What do you think about my speakers set from other HT setup that I mentioned couple of posts age?
Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> From the review on Highdefdigest...
> 
> *"*Selecting the DTS:X track on non-DTS:X-capable gear defaults the mix to 7.1 English DTS-HD Master Audio. There is also a separate, discrete 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio discrete mix (for those who don't have 7.1 systems)...*"*


The 5.1 track is for those who want to hear the original theatrical mix, not for "those who don't have 7.1 systems" (the 7.1 track can be played back just fine on 5.1 and 2.0 speaker systems).


> Since I am running an Atmos 5.1.4 setup, is there any point to selecting or using the 7.1 DTS-HD MA track? Or, should I simply stick with the 5.1 DTS-HD MA track?


They're different mixes. The 7.1 track is a channel-based downmix of the DTS:X mix done for home video release. The 5.1 track is the original mix from the theatrical release. Pick whichever mix sounds best to you. The number of speakers in your set-up has no bearing on that.


----------



## dkfan9

kbarnes701 said:


> wse said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am curious as to if you have made any comparison between speakers of different brands!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean, but every day I listen to speakers of different brands - my mains are M&K and the others are Tannoy Dual Concentrics.
> 
> 
> 
> wse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that timbre matching is important my Magnepan, KEF LS50, Sonus Faber and B&W don't sound the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly, vastly different types of speaker will not sound the same. For example, only an idiot would suggest a different left and right speaker. And personally I would never choose a center speaker that was not identical to my L&R speakers. But I am assuming some common sense here. We were discussing surround speakers - in particular overhead speakers. And if you recall, I specified that room EQ needs to be in use. If the room EQ is not able to bring all the speakers into conformation with the target curve, then switch to Dirac Live. Timbre matching is a great marketing idea though and I commend the speaker manufacturers for trying to perpetuate it, just as if room EQ had never been invented!
Click to expand...

Which is to say, room eq is speaker eq, and not solely room eq


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Not sure what you mean...............Clearly, vastly different types of speaker will not sound the same. For example, only an idiot would suggest a different left and right speaker. And personally I would never choose a center speaker that was not identical to my L&R speakers. But I am assuming some common sense here. We were discussing surround speakers - in particular overhead speakers. And if you recall, I specified that room EQ needs to be in use. If the room EQ is not able to bring all the speakers into conformation with the target curve, then switch to Dirac Live. Timbre matching is a great marketing idea though and I commend the speaker manufacturers for trying to perpetuate it, just as if room EQ had never been invented!


Ok as long as we are talking speakers used for ATMOS and not front channels


----------



## NorthSky

Ok, no DTS:X here in Canada ... of *'Ex_Machina'* on Blu-ray from amazon.ca ,,, then it'll be probably the same from bestbuy and walmart and hmv Canada. ...Just like *'The Gunman '* with Sean Penn on Blu-ray and without Dolby Atmos. 

Well, we can always buy a BR copy from our friends south of the border (burned BD copy from MakeMKV). ...And get *'Lucy'* with Dolby Atmos from our other friends across the ocean, ...also a MakeMKV burned/ripped BR copy...yes, no, maybe, good, bad, ok? ...About the special features, can they rip them too? 
Soon there'll be enough UHD DNA for everyone to be happy equally all around the globe, and we'll all be living in a better world, with plenty of drinking water, cooler planet, less forest fires, and Hollywood making billions more @ the box office with comic books caricatures and movies made on other planets of the galaxy...sci-fi flicks from Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, Ice Planet, Saturn, and all them black holes.


----------



## Lozin

I'll be playing it safe and checking all future Atmos & DTS X releases first before purchasing, and if need be buying it from Amazon.com.


----------



## kbarnes701

dkfan9 said:


> Which is to say, room eq is speaker eq, and not solely room eq


Well that is what you are saying, but it isn’t what I was saying, or what I believe.

It makes no sense to try to separate the speaker from the room when discussing the sound which ultimately reaches our ears. 

Both have a huge part to play and the speaker cannot somehow divorce itself from the room in which it is playing. As such, the room will change the sound the speaker makes compared to if it was played with no room influence at all (outside or in an anechoic chamber). The purpose of electronic EQ is to remove the malign influences which the _room_ has on the sound. Unwanted reflections muddying the image, ringing muddying the bass and so on are undesirable artefacts introduced solely by the room. By removing or compensating for these undesirable distortions, electronic EQ allows more of the speaker itself to be heard and less of the room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> Mmm... Now I'm starting to be annoyed, just received Ex Machine from Amazon here in Canada and again, no DTS:x track.
> 
> It's distributed by Mongrel media here and it seems they removed the DTS:X track and replaced it by the french track... So they kept the 5.1 track instead of the DTS:X one for English...
> 
> Another return to Amazon and another order on Amazon.com... :|
> 
> With the limited info about audio tracks available on Amazon, this is starting to be annoying...


Blu-ray.com is better than many sites about specs.


----------



## bargervais

Got my Blu-Ray of EX machina DTS:X on mine it's there. for the life of me I'm not sure why this was chosen for DTS:X. This movie is very bizarre mostly shot inside. I was a little disappointed when I popped this into my receiver and it didn't download the DTS:X firmware for my receiver. . Ill wait till the end of next year for DTS:X thank you very much. I'm content with DSU and Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Will totally not surprise me if this movie contains about 3 seconds of overhead use or if any.  

Haha!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Will totally not surprise me if this movie contains about 3 seconds of overhead use or if any.
> 
> Haha!


I know you know this, but I feel strangely compelled to say: immersive audio is much more than 'overhead effects' and, for me at least, the much greater precision of placement of sounds throughout the soundstage is more important than the occasional overhead effect. Of course, I haven't heard DTS:X but I am assuming it won't be all that much different to Atmos in this regard (or indeed in any other regard).

Talking of Atmos, I watched Jupiter Ascending the other day. What can I say? It's not often I struggle to find at least something to enjoy in a movie... the music wasn't too bad I guess. And it was visually stunning. But other than that, what a crock! WTF has happened to Andy and Lana?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I know you know this, but I feel strangely compelled to say: immersive audio is much more than 'overhead effects' and, for me at least, the much greater precision of placement of sounds throughout the soundstage is more important than the occasional overhead effect. Of course, I haven't heard DTS:X but I am assuming it won't be all that much different to Atmos in this regard (or indeed in any other regard).
> 
> Talking of Atmos, I watched Jupiter Ascending the other day. What can I say? It's not often I struggle to find at least something to enjoy in a movie... the music wasn't too bad I guess. And it was visually stunning. But other than that, what a crock! WTF has happened to Andy and Lana?


I don't disagree. Though I do feel compelled to rewind a bit to your own observations of the first Atmos titles.  Not much overhead use in TF4 or Turtles.

Just sayin', the immersive formats heavily tout that the big new thing is real overhead speakers. Yet they are used rather timidly.

Agh! DTS:X talk in the Dolby thread. I don't know where I am!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audio-discussion-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro.html

Dat thread needs some luvin'. Sticky love.


Lol, eww.. Haha!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I know you know this, but I feel strangely compelled to say: immersive audio is much more than 'overhead effects' and, for me at least, the much greater precision of placement of sounds throughout the soundstage is more important than the occasional overhead effect.


A refinement in imaging, while always welcome, isn't as obvious as hearing sounds above you. That's why overhead effects have become understandably synonymous with immersive audio, since it is the most apparent difference over traditional surround sound. So, yeah, people dwell on overhead effects. But I can see why.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't disagree. Though I do feel compelled to rewind a bit to your own observations of the first Atmos titles.  Not much overhead use in TF4 or Turtles.


Yes, you have me bang to rights, guv'nor  But that was in the days when we were just feeling our way, and overhead speakers was a new concept and so we attached almost all the importance to them.



Scott Simonian said:


> Just sayin', the immersive formats heavily tout that the big new thing is real overhead speakers. Yet they are used rather timidly.


I do agree. I would like more over my head too - when there is 'overhead action' on screen, I'd like to hear it from over my head. But not every movie will have any real overhead content, but Atmos still brings a whole lot of aural goodness to the table.



Scott Simonian said:


> Agh! DTS:X talk in the Dolby thread. I don't know where I am!


Welcome to my world 




Scott Simonian said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audio-discussion-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro.html
> 
> Dat thread needs some luvin'. Sticky love.
> 
> 
> Lol, eww.. Haha!


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Will totally not surprise me if this movie contains about 3 seconds of overhead use or if any.
> 
> Haha!


Might be 60 seconds at least it gives us something to talk about


----------



## blastermaster

Went to Best Buy and can confirm that Ex: Machina has no DTS:X track for us Canadians. Bummer, as the Steelbook looked really, really cool. If I order from Amazon.com will I get the DTS:X version, then?


----------



## bargervais

blastermaster said:


> Went to Best Buy and can confirm that Ex: Machina has no DTS:X track for us Canadians. Bummer, as the Steelbook looked really, really cool. If I order from Amazon.com will I get the DTS:X version, then?


Mine I purchased from Amazon.com has DTS:X 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XI057M0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> A refinement in imaging, while always welcome, isn't as obvious as hearing sounds above you. That's why overhead effects have become understandably synonymous with immersive audio, since it is the most apparent difference over traditional surround sound. So, yeah, people dwell on overhead effects. But I can see why.


Indeed. But if the movie has no overhead content, then there can be no overhead sounds. The real beef is when there IS overhead content and the mix fails to reproduce it overhead. There are so many examples of this in the movies so far released on BD (Transformers 4 was the classic example), and it is a shame because of the missed opportunity. But for those movies which have little or no overhead content, I maintain that Atmos is still most worthwhile because of the amazing extra precision with which sounds are placed in the entire soundstage. I'd describe this as more than a 'refinement', but I see what you mean - in the sense that it is there already, before Atmos, but now it is 'enhanced'.


----------



## Lesmor

bargervais said:


> Mine I purchased from Amazon.com has DTS:X
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XI057M0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00


The UK version has been out for a while with no DTS:X don't know if we will ever get that option.
Amazon are pretty poor at giving soundtrack information at the best of times. 
That aside is the movie any good, seems to be conflicting opinions.


----------



## Lozin

Well I did return the gunman back to Best Buy because of no Atmos track. I just told them it was defective(in my mind it was) and got it from Amazon.com easy enough. Although I will be checking all future Atmos & DTS X releases first before I buy


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But for those movies which have little or no overhead content, I maintain that Atmos is still most worthwhile because of the amazing extra precision with which sounds are placed in the entire soundstage.


While I agree that the "extra" precision is worthwhile, I don't see it as THE differentiator between surround sound and immersive audio. I really do understand why folks lament the lack of overhead sound in immersive audio mixes, since I felt the same way when some early 7.1 mixes barely used the surround-back channels. At least put a little ambience in there. Something. Anything.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of Atmos, I watched Jupiter Ascending the other day. What can I say? It's not often I struggle to find at least something to enjoy in a movie... the music wasn't too bad I guess. And it was visually stunning. But other than that, what a crock! WTF has happened to Andy and Lana?


I gotta say, I don't much understand the love for the The Wachowskis. The original "Matrix" movie was of course a classic but IMO they haven't created anything else that's even remotely close. The second/third Matrix movies were nowhere close to the original, I can't stand "V for Vendetta", and everything else is mediocre at best. **(caveat: I haven't seen every single movie they've made)**

So rather than "WTF happened to them?" as though they were awesome for a long time and fell off a cliff, I think it's more of a "which one of these is not like the other?" situation. "The Matrix" is the aberration, like they lucked out and the formula happened to click well for one movie. The rest of their body of work is a pretty unspectacular oeuvre, and they've just been living off the gravy train of credibility they got for one awesome movie.


----------



## dkfan9

kbarnes701 said:


> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is to say, room eq is speaker eq, and not solely room eq
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is what you are saying, but it isn?t what I was saying, or what I believe.
> 
> It makes no sense to try to separate the speaker from the room when discussing the sound which ultimately reaches our ears.
> 
> Both have a huge part to play and the speaker cannot somehow divorce itself from the room in which it is playing. As such, the room will change the sound the speaker makes compared to if it was played with no room influence at all (outside or in an anechoic chamber). The purpose of electronic EQ is to remove the malign influences which the _room_ has on the sound. Unwanted reflections muddying the image, ringing muddying the bass and so on are undesirable artefacts introduced solely by the room. By removing or compensating for these undesirable distortions, electronic EQ allows more of the speaker itself to be heard and less of the room.
Click to expand...

I agree that's the ideal of RC. I was replying to your content on timbre matching being unnecessary with room EQ. Even with all room effects removed, speakers will still have different sonic signatures, unless the room EQ is equalizing not only the room but also the speakers.


----------



## batpig

I just don't think timbre matching for the overheads is that critical, room EQ or not. IIRC, Keith isn't even applying EQ to the Top Middle pair in his room and I haven't heard him complaining.

It's somewhat quixotic that people fret about timbre matching and capability for the overheads while simultanous conversations about how little content is up there are taking place. IN THEORY there could be some full range, super precisely imaged spatial effect that goes right over your head, but in practice 99% of what's up there is either ambient "fill" (music, environmental noises) or some sh!t zooming by quickly. Especially the case with DSU upmix, which is still the VAST majority of stuff we are listening to with overhead speakers.

I'm currently up to a 7.1.2 setup in my new place, and I have distinctly mismatched overheads as Top Middle (a pair of Niles DS7FX in-ceiling speakers) and I haven't noticed any issues, despite the fact that they have an obviously different timbre to the other speakers (Energy brand) in direct stereo music listening.

IMO, as long as the overhead speakers are not garbage and have sufficient performance for the SPL/freq response you require in your room, it's not worth sweating about.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The rest of their body of work is a pretty unspectacular oeuvre, and they've just been living off the gravy train of credibility they got for one awesome movie.


Agreed, and I have the same reaction when folks wonder what happened to M. Night Shyamalan, asthough he'd been making a string of good movies and suddenly fell off a cliff.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> While I agree that the "extra" precision is worthwhile, I don't see it as THE differentiator between surround sound and immersive audio. I really do understand why folks lament the lack of overhead sound in immersive audio mixes, since I felt the same way when some early 7.1 mixes barely used the surround-back channels. At least put a little ambience in there. Something. Anything.


Yes, this is why some actually prefer DSU I guess - the overheads are always active. But that extra degree of precision in sound placement is a game-changer too IMO. The difference, for example, between *Lucy* with DSU and the Atmos version is just staggering. I expect Atmos will evolve, as 7.1 did, when mixers are more familiar with it.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I gotta say, I don't much understand the love for the The Wachowskis. The original "Matrix" movie was of course a classic but IMO they haven't created anything else that's even remotely close. The second/third Matrix movies were nowhere close to the original, I can't stand "V for Vendetta", and everything else is mediocre at best. **(caveat: I haven't seen every single movie they've made)**
> 
> So rather than "WTF happened to them?" as though they were awesome for a long time and fell off a cliff, I think it's more of a "which one of these is not like the other?" situation. "The Matrix" is the aberration, like they lucked out and the formula happened to click well for one movie. The rest of their body of work is a pretty unspectacular oeuvre, and they've just been living off the gravy train of credibility they got for one awesome movie.


ISWYM but don't totally agree with it. *Bound* is a superb movie for example, and one of my favorites. And of course *The Matrix *was a total classic. I'm not as averse to the sequels as you are, but I take your point. And *V for Vendetta *is a great movie IMO too and one I have seen several times. They haven't actually made all that many movies - and I agree with you that *Cloud Atlas *and now *Jupiter* are pretty dire. 

I think the love for them stems from their creativity and willingness to explore new things and new ideas in a new way. Their movies are visually ambitious too, although they don't always pull it off. Their mix of genres in the same movie and their willingness to experiment is what, for me at least, made me expect great things from them. So far, they haven't delivered, but I am ever hopeful that one day they will just 'click' and all of their ambitions will come together again, as they did in *The Matrix*. 

If you haven't seen *Bound*, I can highly recommend it. It is un-Wachowski-like and is a great movie. It is famous for the exceptionally graphic lesbian scene between Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly, but this has distracted, IMO, from the quality of the movie as a whole.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But that extra degree of precision in sound placement is a game-changer too IMO.


Enough to change the moniker from surround sound to immersive audio? Or is "immersive" implying the addition of a third dimension (height) rather than just a more precise version of the surround sound we already have?


----------



## kbarnes701

dkfan9 said:


> I agree that's the ideal of RC. I was replying to your content on timbre matching being unnecessary with room EQ. Even with all room effects removed, speakers will still have different sonic signatures, unless the room EQ is equalizing not only the room but also the speakers.


Room EQ removes the influences of the room. This allows the individual sonic signatures of the speakers to come through. Well, good room EQ does anyway 

IMO timbre matching is a marketing term more than an acoustic one. Take two identical speakers, put them in two different places in the room, turn your head slightly while listening - and what do you have? Different 'timbres'. Room EQ won't "make all speakers sound the same" as some suggest. In my view, good room EQ enables the characteristic of the speakers to shine through (because so much distortion has been removed) and especially if one confines the room EQ to below the transition frequencies.

But do remember I was discussing so-called timbre matching for _Atmos overhead speakers_. The amount of noise these speakers make is really very small compared with the LCR set and any decent room EQ will bring them into line.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I just don't think timbre matching for the overheads is that critical, room EQ or not. IIRC, Keith isn't even applying EQ to the Top Middle pair in his room and I haven't heard him complaining.
> 
> *It's somewhat quixotic that people fret about timbre matching and capability for the overheads while simultanous conversations about how little content is up there* are taking place. IN THEORY there could be some full range, super precisely imaged spatial effect that goes right over your head, but in practice 99% of what's up there is either ambient "fill" (music, environmental noises) or some sh!t zooming by quickly. Especially the case with DSU upmix, which is still the VAST majority of stuff we are listening to with overhead speakers.
> 
> I'm currently up to a 7.1.2 setup in my new place, and I have distinctly mismatched overheads as Top Middle (a pair of Niles DS7FX in-ceiling speakers) and I haven't noticed any issues, despite the fact that they have an obviously different timbre to the other speakers (Energy brand) in direct stereo music listening.
> 
> IMO, as long as the overhead speakers are not garbage and have sufficient performance for the SPL/freq response you require in your room, it's not worth sweating about.


Very good points, especially the bit I bolded. And you are right - two of my four overheads are un-EQd. And if my experiment with my more forward seating position pays off and paves the way for rear surrounds, all 4 of my overheads will be without EQ. Unless I am unable to resist the temptation to add a second miniDSP DDRC-88A of course


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Agreed, and I have the same reaction when folks wonder what happened to M. Night Shyamalan, asthough he'd been making a string of good movies and suddenly fell off a cliff.


Haha - oh yes. He did make a couple of really good movies though, and then it was though he'd had a brain transplant or something and became a totally different person. In fact he made three good movies IMO -* The Sixth Sense, Signs and Unbreakable* are all good (with *Stuart Little* oddly coming in between). After that, it all went to sh1t.

Edit - he didn't direct *Stuart Little* did he IIRC? Just wrote the script? So he directed three in a row before it all went pear-shaped for him.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Mine I purchased from Amazon.com has DTS:X
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XI057M0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00


Me too but I won't watch it until my Denon X5200W comes back from the shop for a new HDMI board. The part gets to the shop on Thursday so hopefully I'll have it back sometime next week?


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, this is why some actually prefer DSU I guess - the overheads are always active. But that extra degree of precision in sound placement is a game-changer too IMO. The difference, for example, between *Lucy* with DSU and the Atmos version is just staggering. I expect Atmos will evolve, as 7.1 did, when mixers are more familiar with it.


I assume LUCY in DSU rocks where as the ATMOS version is disappointing!


----------



## wse

batpig said:


> ...........It's somewhat quixotic that people fret about timbre matching and capability for the overheads while simultanous conversations about how little content is up there are taking place. IN THEORY there could be some full range, super precisely imaged spatial effect that goes right over your head, but in practice 99% of what's up there is either ambient "fill" (music, environmental noises) or some sh!t zooming by quickly.
> 
> Especially the case with DSU upmix, which is still the VAST majority of stuff we are listening to with overhead speakers......


Good point actually the amount of stuff that comes through the ceiling speakers is quite dismal


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It's somewhat quixotic that people fret about timbre matching and capability for the overheads while simultanous conversations about how little content is up there are taking place.


I don't see it as a question of quantity: i.e., it isn't how much content is mixed to the overhead speakers or how often they're used, but instead what they're used for. If you're watching Gravity and George Clooney's voice pans from the front soundstage to above you, his voice shouldn't incur a timbral shift. The fact that a pan like this might happen only once during this particular movie isn't an excuse for allowing his voice to change in tone. What if it happens more often in some other movie?


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's most definitely a good idea to keep 'timbre' the same ..everywhere in the room. Though the overhead/height speakers would definitely be the lowest on the priority list for those upgrading.

Get the LCR's matched first, then the surrounds, then the overheads. If you're starting your HT room from scratch, try to get them all to be tonally similar and if possible matching in SPL/dynamic capability as well. Then you'll be totally covered in every area.

This is great discussion for that crappy 'immersive' thread.


----------



## NorthSky

I believe that in cinema theaters; Cineplex, IMAX, ...they use the same brand of speakers all around...for best timbre-matching sound effects, and cohesion. 

Do they use Audyssey room EQ, and how many mic positions...eight? ...Most likely not...probably a bunch of digital parametric EQs. 

@ home, for best Dolby Atmos performance timbre-matching speakers all around as suggested by Dolby Atmos speaker's guidelines; they most likely forgot that we have THX and Audyssey receivers to counteract that problem. ...And AccuEQ, Advanced MCACC and YPAO. ...And Dirac Live (Emotiva XMC-1). 
Now with our advanced and sophisticated room EQs a speaker positioned under the display or @ the left of it should sound pretty much similar (voiced) to one situated in the back of the room or above our head in the ceiling. 

I don't remember reading that in the Dolby Atmos papers/guidelines. ...Regarding timbre-matching speakers from different manufacturers using different drivers and materials, plus box enclosures tuned to different bass tuning port and electrical phase/coherence, via THX algorithms and sophisticated digital room EQs using digital filters from all varieties; parametric (graphic), infinite impulse response, finite impulse response, phase adaptive, time delay compensation, frequency response accurate, and all that room EQ jazz.


----------



## punksterz626

so im setting up my speakers at the moment. 5.1.4, im not sure which how to plug into the receiver for the 4 ceiling speaker. I have a denon 7200wa. Any advice?


----------



## NorthSky

Did you check the online manual for your 7200?


----------



## batpig

punksterz626 said:


> so im setting up my speakers at the moment. 5.1.4, im not sure which how to plug into the receiver for the 4 ceiling speaker. I have a denon 7200wa. Any advice?


for receiver specific questions you're better off in the owner's thread for that model, not the general Atmos discussion.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> ISWYM but don't totally agree with it. *Bound* is a superb movie for example, and one of my favorites. And of course *The Matrix *was a total classic. I'm not as averse to the sequels as you are, but I take your point. And *V for Vendetta *is a great movie IMO too and one I have seen several times. They haven't actually made all that many movies - and I agree with you that *Cloud Atlas *and now *Jupiter* are pretty dire.
> 
> I think the love for them stems from their creativity and willingness to explore new things and new ideas in a new way. Their movies are visually ambitious too, although they don't always pull it off. Their mix of genres in the same movie and their willingness to experiment is what, for me at least, made me expect great things from them. So far, they haven't delivered, but I am ever hopeful that one day they will just 'click' and all of their ambitions will come together again, as they did in *The Matrix*.
> 
> If you haven't seen *Bound*, I can highly recommend it. It is un-Wachowski-like and is a great movie. It is famous for the exceptionally graphic lesbian scene between Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly, but this has distracted, IMO, from the quality of the movie as a whole.


Well, to be fair "Bound" is one that I haven't seen, so I'll give that a shot. You had me at "graphic lesbian scene" 

I just think that if you took "The Matrix" away it would be an utterly unspectacular body of work. I really thought the sequels were bad -- they were definitely visually stunning but the story was so tortured and bordering on nonsensical it became painful to watch for me, it was clear they were in over their heads trying to actually craft a story around such a deep philosophical "meta" narrative. Other than awesome action sequences, I spent the rest of the time either bored and groaning (that stupid rave/dance sequence with the excessive slo-mos made me want to punch myself in the face) or rolling my eyes and saying WTF? whenever they tried to do the complicated dance weaving together reality and the meta-reality. 

That's the problem with "deep" movies that try to really attack heady philosophical questions... I think Christopher Nolan suffers from it to an extent with movies like "Inception" and "Interstellar", although he's a much better filmmaker than the Ws. It's a genre that makes most people go, whoah, that's deep man! My head is spinning! But upon closer scrutiny it's just kind of a strained effort, like WTF is the guy doing behind the bookcase? Really? 

It's OK though, they can't all be Stanley Kubrick


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> I don't see it as a question of quantity: i.e., it isn't how much content is mixed to the overhead speakers or how often they're used, but instead what they're used for. If you're watching Gravity and George Clooney's voice pans from the front soundstage to above you, his voice shouldn't incur a timbral shift. The fact that a pan like this might happen only once during this particular movie isn't an excuse for allowing his voice to change in tone. What if it happens more often in some other movie?


Fine, but then it comes down to the ol' "perfect being the enemy of the good". Obviously you shouldn't have an egregious mismatch, but is it really worth fretting about for that rare moment where George Clooney's voice happens to pan over your head? Such that people freak about the ills of mixing a KEF or Tannoy overhead speaker with Def Tech or Klipsch base layers? 

And BTW -- I did watch some of Gravity the other day and I didn't really notice anything terrible in my setup with timbre matching as things panned. 

As long as the speakers have sufficient quality for the application, combined with decent REQ, and IMO it's not worth sweating. Obviously, given unlimited resources and the desire/need, go for the perfect match, but I think people get too caught up with "timbre matching" as a concept with surround/overhead speakers, and I agree to a large extent it's marketing driven.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> He did make a couple of really good movies though, and then it was though he'd had a brain transplant or something and became a totally different person.


Charitable of you to call any of this other films "really good". I still think of him and the Wachowskis as one-hit wonders (Sixth Sense and Matrix, respectively).


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Charitable of you to call any of this other films "really good".


Well remember Keith is like the Jesus of film viewership, able to see something good in nearly anything, regardless of how terrible the exterior. Or was that Luke Skywalker?


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Obviously you shouldn't have an egregious mismatch, but is it really worth fretting about for that rare moment where George Clooney's voice happens to pan over your head?


Sure. Even if you can't achieve it, why wouldn't it be a worthy goal to aim for? My point was that quantity (how often you hear the mismatch) isn't an excuse to shrug off timbre matching. Pixar might be the only studio that pans dialogue. But just because that's rare, it isn't an excuse to not get your front speakers as tonally similar as possible. Same with surrounds; same with heights. The mismatch only needs to be heard once to call attention to itself.


> I did watch some of Gravity the other day and I didn't really notice anything terrible in my setup with timbre matching as things panned.


If you didn't notice it, then it isn't a problem. But not everyone will be as fortunate as you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Not noticing and not being bothered are two very different things.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Or was that Luke Skywalker?


That whiner? But yes, he did see the good in his genocidal dad.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Sure. Even if you can't achieve it, why wouldn't it be a worthy goal to aim for?


I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was not a worthy goal to aim for. As always, it's about resources, priorities, and subjective needs. But (1) I think its importance is overemphasized and (2) I think it's somewhat mythological that sticking to the same brand is always necessary to achieve that goal.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Not noticing and not being bothered are two very different things.


You're not wrong -- there are definitely imperfections I noticed that don't really bother me. With this hobby it's always about how much effort you want to expend eliminating the imperfections you notice


----------



## RapalloAV

batpig said:


> What does this have to do with Atmos? And was it necessary to post the same question in three different threads, two of which don't have anything to do with the topic?
> 
> The answer is "bass management".


Thank you Im so sorry. I will delete it.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> Got my Blu-Ray of EX machina DTS:X on mine it's there. * for the life of me I'm not sure why this was chosen for DTS:X. *This movie is very bizarre mostly shot inside. I was a little disappointed when I popped this into my receiver and it didn't download the DTS:X firmware for my receiver. . Ill wait till the end of next year for DTS:X thank you very much. I'm content with DSU and Atmos.


Really? I think it's an excellent choice and much, much better than any of the initial Atmos releases. Read on, please.



Lesmor said:


> The UK version has been out for a while with no DTS:X don't know if we will ever get that option.
> Amazon are pretty poor at giving soundtrack information at the best of times.
> That aside *is the movie any good*, seems to be conflicting opinions.


Yes, it is spectacular! Both visually and aurally impactful, _Ex Machina_ is an intelligent, suspenseful mystery wrapped in sci-fi dressing. The cinematography, sound design, and sets really draw you into the action. And the script, by novelist/screenwriter (and first-time feature director) Alex Garland, gives the principal actors (uniformly excellent, by the way) plenty of room to "get under our skin" (you'll appreciate the pun when you've watched the movie). The eerie plot forgoes most of the silly exposition and pandering comic-book fantasy typically found in sci-fi movies in favor of imaginative technology and smart character development. The pacing keeps the film, which mostly takes place inside a futuristic wilderness mansion, from seeming claustrophobic, while the suspense is aided by a haunting musical score.

Moreover, if you look at the impressively high-quality production design (and CG effects), it's really hard to believe that this movie was made on the relatively low budget of approx. US$12,000,000.

The Netflix rental came fully loaded with the English-language DTS:X soundtrack--in addition to the DTS 5.1 theatrical track and also a DTS:X Headphone track. I selected DTS:X, of course, which was unpacked into DTS-HD MA 7.1 to which I added Dolby Surround upmixing. The result was easily as stunningly immersive as anything else I've sampled to date with DSU. 

In sum, as someone who is not particularly partial to the sci-fi genre, I found the movie far more enjoyable than I had imagined I would. Highly recommended on all counts! Oh, yes, and just for Keith: There's enough pulchritudinous eye candy to keep you squirreled away in the Hobbit HT for a solid weekend; just make sure to store up plenty of moisturizer.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> But (1) I think its importance is overemphasized and (2) I think it's somewhat mythological that sticking to the same brand is always necessary to achieve that goal.


1) I don't think consistency is emphasized enough, and 2) consistent sound all around doesn't require the same brand/speaker at every location, but it does make it easier. EQ can fix frequency response to achieve tonal consistency, but can't do much for things like resolution or dynamics.


----------



## chi_guy50

dude2006 said:


> Just when I thought I had settled on the Di5s, another issue is bugging me - is the dual concentric design of the Tannoys, which I understand supposedly works better for Atmos applications, worth the lack of timbre-matching with the rest of my speakers? I should add that at this point getting Tannoys for all my other speakers isn't really an option. In other words, is it a big deal that the Di5s wouldn't be timbre-matched with my other speakers (currently, Polk LSi series).


I'm late in responding to your post, and you've since heard a panoply of views on the relative importance (or lack thereof) for timbre matching the overhead speakers.

I would say that, if it is difficult (or cost-prohibitive) to buy timbre-matched height speakers for Atmos, then you should proceed with the next best choice and not look back. But in your case (assuming that you are open to installing in-ceiling speakers), there is an easy, logical and affordable option in the Polk Audio 80-F/X-LS, which is a perfect timbre-match for your LSi's and a superb performer. At roughly the same cost (by my estimate) as the Tannoy Di5's, it's a no-brainer in my book. OTOH, if you're limited to on-ceiling rather than in-ceiling speakers, I'd say go with the Tannoys.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> ISWYM but don't totally agree with it. *Bound* is a superb movie for example, and one of my favorites. And of course *The Matrix *was a total classic. I'm not as averse to the sequels as you are, but I take your point. And *V for Vendetta *is a great movie IMO too and one I have seen several times. They haven't actually made all that many movies - and I agree with you that *Cloud Atlas *and now *Jupiter* are pretty dire.
> 
> I think the love for them stems from their creativity and willingness to explore new things and new ideas in a new way. Their movies are visually ambitious too, although they don't always pull it off. Their mix of genres in the same movie and their willingness to experiment is what, for me at least, made me expect great things from them. So far, they haven't delivered, but I am ever hopeful that one day they will just 'click' and all of their ambitions will come together again, as they did in *The Matrix*.
> 
> If you haven't seen *Bound*, I can highly recommend it. It is un-Wachowski-like and is a great movie. It is famous for the exceptionally graphic lesbian scene between Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly, but this has distracted, IMO, from the quality of the movie as a whole.


They only wrote *V for Vendetta *j, they didn't direct it. Given their recent track record, if they directed it, it would have sucked a$$.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> I'm currently up to a 7.1.2 setup in my new place, and I have distinctly mismatched overheads as Top Middle (a pair of Niles DS7FX in-ceiling speakers) and I haven't noticed any issues, despite the fact that they have an obviously different timbre to the other speakers (Energy brand) in direct stereo music listening.


And just how long are you planning to make us wait to see your build thread?  Inquiring minds and all that.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> Really? I think it's an excellent choice and much, much better than any of the initial Atmos releases. Read on, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is spectacular! Both visually and aurally impactful, _Ex Machina_ is an intelligent, suspenseful mystery wrapped in sci-fi dressing. The cinematography, sound design, and sets really draw you into the action. And the script, by novelist/screenwriter (and first-time feature director) Alex Garland, gives the principal actors (uniformly excellent, by the way) plenty of room to "get under our skin" (you'll appreciate the pun when you've watched the movie). The eerie plot forgoes most of the silly exposition and pandering comic-book fantasy typically found in sci-fi movies in favor of imaginative technology and smart character development. The pacing keeps the film, which mostly takes place inside a futuristic wilderness mansion, from seeming claustrophobic, while the suspense is aided by a haunting musical score.


I got this film today... I saw it in theaters & plan to watch it maybe tonight or tomorrow with the DSU on. Do receivers with DTS X capability have the software available yet?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> I got this film today... I saw it in theaters & plan to watch it maybe tonight or tomorrow with the DSU on. Do receivers with DTS X capability have the software available yet?


This fall. Perhaps the lucky ones with a Trinnov or some such pre-pro might get the upgrade a little sooner.


----------



## NorthSky

Which AV receivers were first with Dolby Atmos enable inside? ...Then it could be the first brand with DTS:X as well.


----------



## virtualrain

Question... about 7.1.2 vs 5.1.2...

I currently have a 7.1 speaker setup on my old Sony AVR but need a new AVR to go with my new TV for 4K and 2.2. So I'm considering the new Yamaha 1050 or 2050 with Atmos and DTS:x, but want to spend wisely. I would definitely like to try adding front presence. 

I don't seem to get much value out of my rear surrounds... I don't feel they're contributing a lot to the experience currently, so I'm thinking of repurposing them to Presence duty to make better use of them (all my speakers are decent Klipsch Reference Series with the rear surrounds being their 5" bookshelf design)

Thus, I could move my existing rear surrounds to the front to achieve a 5.1.2 setup with the more affordable Yamaha 7-channel 1050... and save money on not buying another pair of speakers. 

Or, I could go all out and buy another pair of Klipsch speakers and go with a 7.1.2 setup, along with the more pricey 9-channel 2050 AVR... but maybe this is not great value?

Any advice?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

virtualrain said:


> Question... about 7.1.2 vs 5.1.2...
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 speaker setup on my old Sony AVR but need a new AVR to go with my new TV for 4K and 2.2. So I'm considering the new Yamaha 1050 or 2050 with Atmos and DTS:x, but want to spend wisely. I would definitely like to try adding front presence.
> 
> I don't seem to get much value out of my rear surrounds... I don't feel they're contributing a lot to the experience currently, so I'm thinking of repurposing them to Presence duty to make better use of them (all my speakers are decent Klipsch Reference Series with the rear surrounds being their 5" bookshelf design)
> 
> Thus, I could move my existing rear surrounds to the front to achieve a 5.1.2 setup with the more affordable Yamaha 7-channel 1050... and save money on not buying another pair of speakers.
> 
> Or, I could go all out and buy another pair of Klipsch speakers and go with a 7.1.2 setup, along with the more pricey 9-channel 2050 AVR... but maybe this is not great value?
> 
> Any advice?


With better immersive soundtracks, you will tend to hear more aggressive side and rear surround usage. If you can do 7.1.4, for instance, that's what I would shoot for. Add a little at a time, but at least you'll gain much more overhead envelopment and greater object movement by going with four overheads rather than two.


----------



## virtualrain

Dan Hitchman said:


> With better immersive soundtracks, you will tend to hear more aggressive side and rear surround usage. If you can do 7.1.4, for instance, that's what I would shoot for. Add a little at a time, but at least you'll gain much more overhead envelopment and greater object movement by going with four overheads rather than two.


Thanks but overhead speakers are not possible... Best I could do is a pair at the front near the ceiling. The question is, do I repurpose my rear surrounds for this task or invest in a 9-channel setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

virtualrain said:


> Thanks but overhead speakers are not possible...* Best I could do is a pair at the front near the ceiling.* The question is, do I repurpose my rear surrounds for this task or invest in a 9-channel setup.


Can you not also do that at the rear of the room as well?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Which AV receivers were first with Dolby Atmos enable inside? ...Then it could be the first brand with DTS:X as well.


Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, Yamaha, & Integra?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> With better immersive soundtracks, you will tend to hear more aggressive side and rear surround usage. If you can do 7.1.4, for instance, that's what I would shoot for. Add a little at a time, but at least you'll gain much more overhead envelopment and greater object movement by going with four overheads rather than two.


I agree completely. 

I have a 7.1.4 setup... Klipsch too. For a time I was without my rear surrounds... they are Chorus II's. When listening to the Dolby Atmos demo disc, I became painfully familiar with the mixes, & have got to say the rears add a lot. 



virtualrain said:


> Thanks but overhead speakers are not possible... Best I could do is a pair at the front near the ceiling. The question is, do I repurpose my rear surrounds for this task or invest in a 9-channel setup.


Are your ceilings pitched? Modules might work well for you if that's a possible alternative. I used the modules for a while & then switched to in ceiling speakers. While the in ceilings do a better job there are many cases where I feel like the modules sound identical to what I hear with in ceiling.


----------



## virtualrain

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can you not also do that at the rear of the room as well?


My back surrounds (10' behind) are already high on the wall (7' from floor, 1' from ceiling) firing straight forward. The side surrounds are dipoles with the null at seating position at the same height. Fronts are floor standing towers 12' from couch. 

I could move the back surrounds to the front above the towers 8' from floor adjacent to ceiling or buy another matching pair of bookshelf speakers (same as rear surrounds) to mount at the front.


----------



## audiofan1

Aras_Volodka said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> I have a 7.1.4 setup... Klipsch too. For a time I was without my rear surrounds... they are Chorus II's. When listening to the Dolby Atmos demo disc, I became painfully familiar with the mixes, & have got to say the rears add a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Are your ceilings pitched? Modules might work well for you if that's a possible alternative. I used the modules for a while & then switched to in ceiling speakers. While the in ceilings do a better job there are many cases where I feel like the modules sound identical to what I hear with in ceiling.


+2 on rear surrounds and Atmos almost a necessity as they add tons to the mix


----------



## gerchy

Did anyone notice light cracking from the Atmos speakers?
It only happen twice with DSU engaged. First when watching Last Knights and one more time with a movie a can't remember right now.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> I assume LUCY in DSU rocks where as the ATMOS version is disappointing!


Other way around. *Lucy* in DSU is good. *Lucy* in Atmos is amazingly good.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I don't see it as a question of quantity: i.e., it isn't how much content is mixed to the overhead speakers or how often they're used, but instead what they're used for. If you're watching Gravity and George Clooney's voice pans from the front soundstage to above you, his voice shouldn't incur a timbral shift. The fact that a pan like this might happen only once during this particular movie isn't an excuse for allowing his voice to change in tone. What if it happens more often in some other movie?


I agree in principle. However, in real life, if someone is speaking to you from below you and to your left, and then later from above you and to your right, there is a pretty likely chance of a timbre change in real life anyway since the speaker's head will be in two entirely different locations and thus affected by the changing environment.

Heck, we even get noticeable timbre changes just by moving our own heads.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Well, to be fair "Bound" is one that I haven't seen, so I'll give that a shot. You had me at "graphic lesbian scene"


Haha. I know... 



batpig said:


> I just think that if you took "The Matrix" away it would be an utterly unspectacular body of work.


Can't disagree.



batpig said:


> I really thought the sequels were bad -- they were definitely visually stunning but the story was so tortured and bordering on nonsensical it became painful to watch for me, it was clear they were in over their heads trying to actually craft a story around such a deep philosophical "meta" narrative. Other than awesome action sequences, I spent the rest of the time either bored and groaning (that stupid rave/dance sequence with the excessive slo-mos made me want to punch myself in the face) or rolling my eyes and saying WTF? whenever they tried to do the complicated dance weaving together reality and the meta-reality.


Haha. Again, I cannot really disagree. I found much to like in the sequels, but also much to not like. The philosophy stuff has good intentions but didn’t really work and became pretentious nonsense.



batpig said:


> That's the problem with "deep" movies that try to really attack heady philosophical questions... I think Christopher Nolan suffers from it to an extent with movies like "Inception" and "Interstellar", although he's a much better filmmaker than the Ws. It's a genre that makes most people go, whoah, that's deep man! My head is spinning! But upon closer scrutiny it's just kind of a strained effort, like WTF is the guy doing behind the bookcase? Really?


IKWYM. I'm not a big Nolan fan these days anyway but I agree with your observations.



batpig said:


> It's OK though, they can't all be Stanley Kubrick


If only...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Charitable of you to call any of this other films "really good". I still think of him and the Wachowskis as one-hit wonders (Sixth Sense and Matrix, respectively).


Did you not like *Unbreakable*? I think that is a good movie. And I enjoyed *Signs* too, although it does have many flaws I agree.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Well remember Keith is like the Jesus of film viewership, able to see something good in nearly anything, regardless of how terrible the exterior. Or was that Luke Skywalker?


Hahaha. LOL!!! This is the first, and probably only, time in my entire life that I have ever been likened, even jokingly, to Jesus!


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> They only wrote *V for Vendetta *j, they didn't direct it. Given their recent track record, if they directed it, it would have sucked a$$.


Of course - it was James McTeigue who directed it wasn't it. Good catch - thanks.


----------



## Lesmor

chi_guy50 said:


> Really? I think it's an excellent choice and much, much better than any of the initial Atmos releases. Read on, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is spectacular! Both visually and aurally impactful, _Ex Machina_ is an intelligent, suspenseful mystery wrapped in sci-fi dressing. The cinematography, sound design, and sets really draw you into the action. And the script, by novelist/screenwriter (and first-time feature director) Alex Garland, gives the principal actors (uniformly excellent, by the way) plenty of room to "get under our skin" (you'll appreciate the pun when you've watched the movie). The eerie plot forgoes most of the silly exposition and pandering comic-book fantasy typically found in sci-fi movies in favor of imaginative technology and smart character development. The pacing keeps the film, which mostly takes place inside a futuristic wilderness mansion, from seeming claustrophobic, while the suspense is aided by a haunting musical score.
> 
> Moreover, if you look at the impressively high-quality production design (and CG effects), it's really hard to believe that this movie was made on the relatively low budget of approx. US$12,000,000.
> 
> The Netflix rental came fully loaded with the English-language DTS:X soundtrack--in addition to the DTS 5.1 theatrical track and also a DTS:X Headphone track. I selected DTS:X, of course, which was unpacked into DTS-HD MA 7.1 to which I added Dolby Surround upmixing. The result was easily as stunningly immersive as anything else I've sampled to date with DSU.
> 
> In sum, as someone who is not particularly partial to the sci-fi genre, I found the movie far more enjoyable than I had imagined I would. Highly recommended on all counts! Oh, yes, and just for Keith: There's enough pulchritudinous eye candy to keep you squirreled away in the Hobbit HT for a solid weekend; just make sure to store up plenty of moisturizer.


Nice review thanks
At the end of the day the quality of the movie is what counts DTS:X would be a nice to have but its not an option in the UK, might never be.

I just received "John Wick" for the Dolby Atmos track, had to go for a Dutch import as its not available in the UK till September.


----------



## tjenkins95

chi_guy50 said:


> Really? I think it's an excellent choice and much, much better than any of the initial Atmos releases. Read on, please.
> Yes, it is spectacular! Both visually and aurally impactful, _Ex Machina_ is an intelligent, suspenseful mystery wrapped in sci-fi dressing. The cinematography, sound design, and sets really draw you into the action. And the script, by novelist/screenwriter (and first-time feature director) Alex Garland, gives the principal actors (uniformly excellent, by the way) plenty of room to "get under our skin" (you'll appreciate the pun when you've watched the movie). The eerie plot forgoes most of the silly exposition and pandering comic-book fantasy typically found in sci-fi movies in favor of imaginative technology and smart character development. The pacing keeps the film, which mostly takes place inside a futuristic wilderness mansion, from seeming claustrophobic, while the suspense is aided by a haunting musical score.
> 
> Moreover, if you look at the impressively high-quality production design (and CG effects), it's really hard to believe that this movie was made on the relatively low budget of approx. US$12,000,000.
> 
> The Netflix rental came fully loaded with the English-language DTS:X soundtrack--in addition to the DTS 5.1 theatrical track and also a DTS:X Headphone track. I selected DTS:X, of course, which was unpacked into DTS-HD MA 7.1 to which I added Dolby Surround upmixing. The result was easily as stunningly immersive as anything else I've sampled to date with DSU.
> 
> In sum, as someone who is not particularly partial to the sci-fi genre, I found the movie far more enjoyable than I had imagined I would. Highly recommended on all counts! Oh, yes, and just for Keith: There's enough pulchritudinous eye candy to keep you squirreled away in the Hobbit HT for a solid weekend; just make sure to store up plenty of moisturizer.


 
Totally agree with your comments concerning _Ex Machina_! I watched it last night - excellent fim - soundtrack was amazing.


----------



## dude2006

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm late in responding to your post, and you've since heard a panoply of views on the relative importance (or lack thereof) for timbre matching the overhead speakers.
> 
> I would say that, if it is difficult (or cost-prohibitive) to buy timbre-matched height speakers for Atmos, then you should proceed with the next best choice and not look back. But in your case (assuming that you are open to installing in-ceiling speakers), there is an easy, logical and affordable option in the Polk Audio 80-F/X-LS, which is a perfect timbre-match for your LSi's and a superb performer. At roughly the same cost (by my estimate) as the Tannoy Di5's, it's a no-brainer in my book. OTOH, if you're limited to on-ceiling rather than in-ceiling speakers, I'd say go with the Tannoys.


That's good advice on the 80 F/X but it looks like I might be getting speakers to replace the LSis after all, which I've had since 2009 and which are a bit worse for wear - I jokingly brought it up with the wife yesterday and surprisingly she didn't balk (too much, hehe). So, as long as I stay under a certain amount I think I have the green light. Am considering Axiom Audio and in particular for the Atmos, was thinking of getting the "on-wall" models of the M3, basically the same price as the Tannoys and which is basically a bookshelf speaker but with a smaller footprint that is designed to be hung up with brackets (true in-ceilings in my house would be a pain to install given no attic etc.). I don't know if these on-wall M3s have "wide dispersion" like the Tannoys (probably not), but according to Atmos Dolby Guidelines that isn't as much of an issue if the speakers are angled towards the listener, which I would be able to do with these. I haven't yet decided for sure as the Tannoys do seem like they would be really good though...


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> However, in real life, if someone is speaking to you from below you and to your left, and then later from above you and to your right, there is a pretty likely chance of a timbre change in real life anyway since the speaker's head will be in two entirely different locations and thus affected by the changing environment.


Those timbral changes should be a decision by the sound mixer, not an arbitrary result of using mismatched speakers.


----------



## SoundChex

Interesting July 14, 2015, *Dolby* Press Release "*VIZIO and Sony Visual Products Adopt Dolby AC-4*" (_link_) . . . 




> *VIZIO and Sony Visual Products Adopt Dolby AC-4*
> Jul 14, 2015
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSELB), the developer of the AC-4 standard, today announced partnerships with VIZIO and Sony Visual Products to drive the adoption of Dolby® AC-4 in televisions for next-generation broadcast systems and streaming Internet content.
> 
> A powerful new audio format in the Dolby Audio™ family, Dolby AC-4 enables the most efficient delivery of premium consumer experiences to TVs and other consumer devices. Its practical, scalable, and flexible tools are built on state-of-the-art technology and Dolby's decades of proven know-how in the broadcast industry. Dolby AC-4 is available now for product development and is targeted for availability in consumer TVs starting in 2017.
> 
> Dolby will work closely with these leading companies, broadcasters, and streaming services to advance the industry's experience with next-generation audio. Together, they will bring new products and services to market, and drive consumer awareness of next-generation audio entertainment experiences delivered in Dolby AC-4.
> 
> "At VIZIO, we are committed to delivering on the full potential of IP delivery of premium entertainment, and the rapid pace of innovation Dolby AC-4 makes possible," said Matt McRae, Chief Technology Officer, VIZIO. "The opportunity to innovate with Dolby in both audio and video makes the adoption of Dolby AC-4 a compelling opportunity with extraordinary consumer value."
> 
> "We have a long history of working closely with Dolby to bring new technologies to market," said Toshi Suzuki, General Manager of Partner Strategy, Sony Visual Products. "We are pleased to continue this collaboration with the new Dolby AC-4 technology that will both bring innovative experiences to consumers and power televisions that better meet the needs of all audiences."
> 
> Dolby AC-4 provides new solutions for the current challenges broadcasters face—such as more-efficient delivery of high-quality experiences, alternate language versions, and services for hearing-impaired and visually impaired audiences—while providing a platform for new experiences from broadcast and Internet OTT services. As television evolves from 5.1-channel audio to new paradigms that include more personal and immersive experiences, the object-based audio capabilities of Dolby AC-4 will be essential to realizing this next generation of television entertainment. [. . . ]




*Dolby AC-4* decoders in TVs will likely be limited to decoding *2.0 + 1x Dialog Object* content . . . so we'll have to hope 2017 also brings AVRs with *Dolby AC-4* decoders capable of handling _*immersive*_ content (e.g., *7.1+4* ?) The good news would seem to be that an _integrated_ *Dolby Atmos|AC-4* _chipset and|or firmware_ will likely "finalize" (AVR) speaker configuration options 'for a while'...?!


I do not recall VIZIO and Sony among the companies "planning to include" *DTS:X* functionality...????? This suggests to me that (_at least some of_) the 2017 generation of smart TVs might include the capability to decode streamed *Dolby AC-4* content or streamed *DTS:X* content . . . but *not* both!


_


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> *Dolby AC-4* decoders in TVs will likely be limited to decoding *2.0 + 1x Dialog Object* content . . .


Probably end up being as ubiquitous in TVs as Dolby Digital is today.


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> *Dolby AC-4* decoders in TVs will likely be limited to decoding *2.0 + 1x Dialog Object* content . . . so we'll have to hope 2017 also brings AVRs with *Dolby AC-4* decoders capable of handling _*immersive*_ content (e.g., *7.1+4* ?) The good news would seem to be that an _integrated_ *Dolby Atmos|AC-4* _chipset and|or firmware_ will likely "finalize" (AVR) speaker configuration options 'for a while'...?!


Why do you think it would be 2.0 only? Even at first they should support a full immersive layout. 

Inside the tv, sure. It's usually just stereo but with the ARC and hdmi and a proper surround processor I'd figure that the decoder would support more than 2.0 object audio.


----------



## jjackkrash

I have:

Denon 4311
B&W 804s for Mains
B&W Center
Def Tech Towers for rear surrounds.
Seaton Submersive Sub


To get (and enjoy) Atmos, can I just buy and add 4 ceiling speakers and buy an Atmos enabled receiver to replace the 4311?

Worth it? 

I'd also consider buying an external amp, but I haven't needed one with this set up and the Submersive doing most of the heavy lifting down low.

I'd also consider adding another two towers for 7.1.4 if need be. 

My room isn't sealed or dedicated, but its a long rectangle that we use one end of that currently sounds pretty good.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

jjackkrash said:


> I have:
> 
> Denon 4311
> B&W 804s for Mains
> B&W Center
> Def Tech Towers for rear surrounds.
> Seaton Submersive Sub
> 
> 
> To get (and enjoy) Atmos, can I just buy and add 4 ceiling speakers and buy an Atmos enabled receiver to replace the 4311?
> 
> Worth it?
> 
> I'd also consider buying an external amp, but I haven't needed one with this set up and the Submersive doing most of the heavy lifting down low.
> 
> I'd also consider adding another two towers for 7.1.4 if need be.
> 
> My room isn't sealed or dedicated, but its a long rectangle that we use one end of that currently sounds pretty good.


Plan sounds good. Some 7.1.4 Atmos capable AVR's only have 9 channels of amplification which would make it a must to add at least a stereo amp.

The B&Ws is 90dB sensitive, which is average. If you listen loud and/or are sitting rather far from the front speakers, adding amplification would be beneficial. If it were me, I'd probably add a Emotiva XPA-5, used for LCR and 2 other speakers. Leaving 6 for the AVR.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Which AV receivers were first with Dolby Atmos enable inside? ...Then it could be the first brand with DTS:X as well.





Aras_Volodka said:


> Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, Yamaha, & Integra?


I believe that they were all around the same time...September 2014? 
...So my guess is that they will be all around the same time again for DTS:X ... September 2015. ...All those AVR brands above.


----------



## jjackkrash

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Plan sounds good. Some 7.1.4 Atmos capable AVR's only have 9 channels of amplification which would make it a must to add at least a stereo amp.
> 
> The B&Ws is 90dB sensitive, which is average. If you listen loud and/or are sitting rather far from the front speakers, adding amplification would be beneficial. If it were me, I'd probably add a Emotiva XPA-5, used for LCR and 2 other speakers. Leaving 6 for the AVR.


I've had my eye on an ATI/Outlaw 5 channel amp for a while now, I just didn't need it. This might be a good excuse.


----------



## stikle

jjackkrash said:


> To get (and enjoy) Atmos, can I just buy and add 4 ceiling speakers and buy an Atmos enabled receiver to replace the 4311?
> 
> Worth it?


It's worth it just for the new Dolby Surround Upmixer that comes with Atmos enabled receivers.


----------



## pasender91

I went from a 4311 to a Marantz 7009 and don't regret it, Atmos and DSU add a lot of ATMOSphere ... 
In your situation, i would add a good stereo amp to power the 804s and leave the other channels to a 7009 or a 7010 if you prefer to wait a couple of months.
You can also do that selecting Denons 5200 or 7200 ...


----------



## jjackkrash

pasender91 said:


> I went from a 4311 to a Marantz 7009 and don't regret it, Atmos and DSU add a lot of ATMOSphere ...
> In your situation, i would add a good stereo amp to power the 804s and leave the other channels to a 7009 or a 7010 if you prefer to wait a couple of months.
> You can also do that selecting Denons 5200 or 7200 ...



I'm in no hurry. I fact, I was perfectly satisfied with my system until I made the mistake of popping in here for a visit and saw there's a bunch of new stuff out that I might want.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Nit-picky question regarding Audyssey with Atmos (and this may be better posted in the Audyssey thread). With Audyssey, the mics are calibrated for grazing incidence, meaning you don't want the mic pointing at any speakers directly. With a normal 7.1 setup, that's not an issue since all of the speakers tend to be placed such that they're off-axis with the mic with it pointed directly up at the ceiling. Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has even said, "Pointing the microphone to the speakers will give completely wrong results." So has any consideration been given to Atmos ceiling speaker placement with Audyssey? I ask because when I look at the equalization that my Denon 5200 is doing, it seems to be cutting an awful lot on the high end for the speakers that are directly above my listening position, presumably because they're firing directly toward the mic capsule - not grazing incidence as the mics are calibrated for.

I ask because it seems like when I change Audyssey to Flat instead of Reference, my ceiling channels seem much more precise with overhead pans but the rest of the channels are too bright at volume... whereas with the Reference setting, my other speakers sound fantastic at decent levels, but the ceiling speakers don't seem nearly as precise (and overhead imaging suffers). Does anyone know if Audyssey takes into account that these overhead channels might need their own high-frequency compensation considering they will be more on-axis with the mic capsule? If not, is there any way during calibration to mitigate that effect so that the ceiling speakers are equalized in a more similar way compared to the other speakers? Perhaps some kind of makeshift mic screen that would allow the mic to read the frequency sweeps more indirectly? Just a thought.


----------



## NorthSky

Audyssey doesn't tell us anymore...they kind of abandoned ship a while back...without making further improvement to their algorithm/room EQ system.

We do know that the four Atmos ceiling speakers are EQued in a full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos system setup...but not much more than that.
And when using four Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers (for bouncing the sound from the ceiling)...that too is not explained explicitly.
And your question about the Flat curve versus the reference Audyssey target curve for Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers is a very good question, and I don't have the exact answer.
Someone else here might have some useful information in that regard?


----------



## jrref

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nit-picky question regarding Audyssey with Atmos (and this may be better posted in the Audyssey thread). With Audyssey, the mics are calibrated for grazing incidence, meaning you don't want the mic pointing at any speakers directly. With a normal 7.1 setup, that's not an issue since all of the speakers tend to be placed such that they're off-axis with the mic with it pointed directly up at the ceiling. Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has even said, "Pointing the microphone to the speakers will give completely wrong results." So has any consideration been given to Atmos ceiling speaker placement with Audyssey? I ask because when I look at the equalization that my Denon 5200 is doing, it seems to be cutting an awful lot on the high end for the speakers that are directly above my listening position, presumably because they're firing directly toward the mic capsule - not grazing incidence as the mics are calibrated for.
> 
> I ask because it seems like when I change Audyssey to Flat instead of Reference, my ceiling channels seem much more precise with overhead pans but the rest of the channels are too bright at volume... whereas with the Reference setting, my other speakers sound fantastic at decent levels, but the ceiling speakers don't seem nearly as precise (and overhead imaging suffers). Does anyone know if Audyssey takes into account that these overhead channels might need their own high-frequency compensation considering they will be more on-axis with the mic capsule? If not, is there any way during calibration to mitigate that effect so that the ceiling speakers are equalized in a more similar way compared to the other speakers? Perhaps some kind of makeshift mic screen that would allow the mic to read the frequency sweeps more indirectly? Just a thought.


Excellent Question!


----------



## desray2k

I have been asking this question at the Audyssey website since the launch of X5200W featuring dolby atmos... But I have NEVER ONCE receive any form of reply from Audyssey regarding this new dolby atmos format. My question is how does Audyssey MULTI EQ XT32 interacts with the new speaker layout, particularly the atmos enabled speakers as well as ceiling speakers... This is crucial since Audyssey algorithm appears to take in measurements at the horizontal plane and slightly elevated plane with the introduction of front height speakers for DTS NEO:X and Dolby PLIIz HT speakers... But how about height speakers. My biggest concern is the algorithm did not change to take in the vertical plane since there is has been NO RESPONSE from Audyssey (which by the way has been super helpful in answering most of Audyssey owners calibration problems prior to the launch of dolby atmos last year)... For the first time, Audyssey has been keeping mum and refrain from making any direct comments to the questions raised by consumers regarding this new immersive sound format and that makes me worry...

Since I can't get any answer...i comfort myself to believe that the height speakers played a "less vital" role compared to the rest of the speakers i.e. 5.1/7.1 speaker setup... So I assume it will not have much significant impact to the overall setup... Until now since another member brought it up... I thought I was been too nitpicky on this... 

Sent from my Galaxy S6 Edge using Tapatalk


----------



## desray2k

This may also explain why AFTER calibration... Some users would increase the gain of the height of dolby atmos enabled speakers or module by 4-6db higher to get a more pronounced effect... Since it tends to smooth out the response...

Sent from my Galaxy S6 Edge using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

jjackkrash said:


> I'm in no hurry. I fact, I was perfectly satisfied with my system until I made the mistake of popping in here for a visit and saw there's a bunch of new stuff out that I might want.


Yes if i stayed out of these forums I could of saved a bunch of money, the only reason I bought into Atmos was because I couldn't stay away. If I never visited this forum I would have never known, but I'm glad I did.


----------



## jjackkrash

bargervais said:


> Yes if i stayed out of these forums I could of saved a bunch of money, the only reason I bought into Atmos was because I couldn't stay away. If I never visited this forum I would have never known, but I'm glad I did.


So, Atmos is more than just hype, in your opinion? I don't think I have heard Atmos yet, theater or home. 

I'm going to see Minions tonight in the theater, so I hope to hear what all the fuss is about.


----------



## bargervais

jjackkrash said:


> So, Atmos is more than just hype, in your opinion? I don't think I have heard Atmos yet, theater or home.
> 
> I'm going to see Minions tonight in the theater, so I hope to hear what all the fuss is about.


I thought the same thing that it was just hype, and thought how good could it be. I can tell you it is very good as many of us in here can attest to it. I would recommend reading all you can in this thread. By the end of this year you'll have both Atmos and DTS:X receivers to choose from


----------



## James Ashford

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nit-picky question regarding Audyssey with Atmos (and this may be better posted in the Audyssey thread). With Audyssey, the mics are calibrated for grazing incidence, meaning you don't want the mic pointing at any speakers directly. With a normal 7.1 setup, that's not an issue since all of the speakers tend to be placed such that they're off-axis with the mic with it pointed directly up at the ceiling. Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has even said, "Pointing the microphone to the speakers will give completely wrong results." So has any consideration been given to Atmos ceiling speaker placement with Audyssey? I ask because when I look at the equalization that my Denon 5200 is doing, it seems to be cutting an awful lot on the high end for the speakers that are directly above my listening position, presumably because they're firing directly toward the mic capsule - not grazing incidence as the mics are calibrated for.
> 
> I ask because it seems like when I change Audyssey to Flat instead of Reference, my ceiling channels seem much more precise with overhead pans but the rest of the channels are too bright at volume... whereas with the Reference setting, my other speakers sound fantastic at decent levels, but the ceiling speakers don't seem nearly as precise (and overhead imaging suffers). Does anyone know if Audyssey takes into account that these overhead channels might need their own high-frequency compensation considering they will be more on-axis with the mic capsule? If not, is there any way during calibration to mitigate that effect so that the ceiling speakers are equalized in a more similar way compared to the other speakers? Perhaps some kind of makeshift mic screen that would allow the mic to read the frequency sweeps more indirectly? Just a thought.


Why don't you try with your setup mic on a stand pointing directly down instead of up. Of course you might then end up with atmos speakers which sound too 'bright', but I'd say it's worth a go


----------



## awblackmon

desray2k said:


> This may also explain why AFTER calibration... Some users would increase the gain of the height of dolby atmos enabled speakers or module by 4-6db higher to get a more pronounced effect... Since it tends to smooth out the response...
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S6 Edge using Tapatalk


I thought I might be alone in wanting to raise the level of my Atmos speakers. It just seems that I am not certain anything is happening up there while sitting watching a movie. Note to self raise levels this weekend.


----------



## aaranddeeman

This is not entirely OT, but was not sure where to ask.
If one uses an older receiver as external amp (for height pair) by connecting pre out from ATMOS AVR to one of the RCA analog inputs (like CD, TAPE, VIDEO1...) on the external (amp) AVR, what should be the audio mode on the AVR acting as external amp.
Direct/Pure Direct or Stereo?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> Really? I think it's an excellent choice and much, much better than any of the initial Atmos releases. Read on, please.
> Yes, it is spectacular! Both visually and aurally impactful, _Ex Machina_ is an intelligent, suspenseful mystery wrapped in sci-fi dressing. The cinematography, sound design, and sets really draw you into the action. And the script, by novelist/screenwriter (and first-time feature director) Alex Garland, gives the principal actors (uniformly excellent, by the way) plenty of room to "get under our skin" (you'll appreciate the pun when you've watched the movie). The eerie plot forgoes most of the silly exposition and pandering comic-book fantasy typically found in sci-fi movies in favor of imaginative technology and smart character development. The pacing keeps the film, which mostly takes place inside a futuristic wilderness mansion, from seeming claustrophobic, while the suspense is aided by a haunting musical score.


I've got to say I'm perplexed by this being DTS:X's debut film as well. I do think it's a fantastic film... gorgeous visuals & totally agree with everything you say about the quality of the film/ it being the best sci fi offering for quite some time. 

I saw it in the theater & skipped around to the parts that would sound better through DSU, I wasn't blown away by the sound. The scene with the waterfall & the more dramatic musical moments seemed to get the full effect. 
By comparison I've heard several 5.1 films that sounded far more immersive (secret world of arriety comes to mind).

DTS X demo disc has some moments that are a lot more immersive IMO. 

BTW I got my treatments in today... holy cow do those make a difference!


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> This is not entirely OT, but was not sure where to ask.
> If one uses an older receiver as external amp (for height pair) by connecting pre out from ATMOS AVR to one of the RCA analog inputs (like CD, TAPE, VIDEO1...) on the external (amp) AVR, what should be the audio mode on the AVR acting as external amp.
> Direct/Pure Direct or Stereo?


Pure Direct makes good sense to me.


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nit-picky question regarding Audyssey with Atmos (and this may be better posted in the Audyssey thread). With Audyssey, the mics are calibrated for grazing incidence, meaning you don't want the mic pointing at any speakers directly. With a normal 7.1 setup, that's not an issue since all of the speakers tend to be placed such that they're off-axis with the mic with it pointed directly up at the ceiling. Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has even said, "Pointing the microphone to the speakers will give completely wrong results." So has any consideration been given to Atmos ceiling speaker placement with Audyssey? I ask because when I look at the equalization that my Denon 5200 is doing, it seems to be cutting an awful lot on the high end for the speakers that are directly above my listening position, presumably because they're firing directly toward the mic capsule - not grazing incidence as the mics are calibrated for.
> 
> I ask because it seems like when I change Audyssey to Flat instead of Reference, my ceiling channels seem much more precise with overhead pans but the rest of the channels are too bright at volume... whereas with the Reference setting, my other speakers sound fantastic at decent levels, but the ceiling speakers don't seem nearly as precise (and overhead imaging suffers). Does anyone know if Audyssey takes into account that these overhead channels might need their own high-frequency compensation considering they will be more on-axis with the mic capsule? If not, is there any way during calibration to mitigate that effect so that the ceiling speakers are equalized in a more similar way compared to the other speakers? Perhaps some kind of makeshift mic screen that would allow the mic to read the frequency sweeps more indirectly? Just a thought.


I have to agree with this being an interesting question

I have just set up FH and RH speakers (front and rear wall) with adjustable brackets and have been playing around with the angles to fire them at the main LP,which would in turn be directly at be the tip of the Audyssey microphone.

After reading this I looked at the Dolby diagram again and it suggests heights should "point slightly downwards" so perhaps firing direct at the MLP /microphone is not such a good idea?
I'll have to think again, the front baffle of the speakers is designed with a 7.5deg slope so perhaps if they were vertical that slope might be enough.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Pure Direct makes good sense to me.


I agree.
Anything else other than direct/pure direct will add the processing flavor from that external AVR. But not sure how much polluted "stereo" could be..


----------



## aaranddeeman

Lesmor said:


> I have to agree with this being an interesting question
> 
> I have just set up FH and RH speakers (front and rear wall) with adjustable brackets and have been playing around with the angles to fire them at the main LP,which would in turn be directly at be the tip of the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> After reading this I looked at the Dolby diagram again and it suggests heights should "point slightly downwards" so perhaps firing direct at the MLP /microphone is not such a good idea?
> I'll have to think again, the front baffle of the speakers is designed with a 7.5deg slope so perhaps if they were vertical that slope might be enough.


I have my heights at angled twoards MLP approx. 20 degree.
This and the THX podcast makes me think if I should just make it fire straight down instead. 
Looks like weekend is gonna be busier..


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nit-picky question regarding Audyssey with Atmos (and this may be better posted in the Audyssey thread). With Audyssey, the mics are calibrated for grazing incidence, meaning you don't want the mic pointing at any speakers directly. With a normal 7.1 setup, that's not an issue since all of the speakers tend to be placed such that they're off-axis with the mic with it pointed directly up at the ceiling. Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has even said, "Pointing the microphone to the speakers will give completely wrong results." So has any consideration been given to Atmos ceiling speaker placement with Audyssey? I ask because when I look at the equalization that my Denon 5200 is doing, it seems to be cutting an awful lot on the high end for the speakers that are directly above my listening position, presumably because they're firing directly toward the mic capsule - not grazing incidence as the mics are calibrated for.
> 
> I ask because it seems like when I change Audyssey to Flat instead of Reference, my ceiling channels seem much more precise with overhead pans but the rest of the channels are too bright at volume... whereas with the Reference setting, my other speakers sound fantastic at decent levels, but the ceiling speakers don't seem nearly as precise (and overhead imaging suffers). Does anyone know if Audyssey takes into account that these overhead channels might need their own high-frequency compensation considering they will be more on-axis with the mic capsule? If not, is there any way during calibration to mitigate that effect so that the ceiling speakers are equalized in a more similar way compared to the other speakers? Perhaps some kind of makeshift mic screen that would allow the mic to read the frequency sweeps more indirectly? Just a thought.


I dont have an answer but I too have thought about this. It makes me wonder how valuable the calibration is for overhead speakers. Clearly, the mic points directly up to the speakers so it is on-axis for those measurements where it should be at 90°. I have toyed with getting a second miniDSP DDRC-88A to EQ the 4 overhead speakers and if I do I wonder if it would be better to have the mic 'on its side' for the measurement of those speakers - ie at 90° to them?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> BTW I got my treatments in today... holy cow do those make a difference!


Biggest bang for the buck you will ever find IMO.


----------



## gammanuc

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nit-picky question regarding Audyssey with Atmos (and this may be better posted in the Audyssey thread). With Audyssey, the mics are calibrated for grazing incidence, meaning you don't want the mic pointing at any speakers directly. With a normal 7.1 setup, that's not an issue since all of the speakers tend to be placed such that they're off-axis with the mic with it pointed directly up at the ceiling. Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has even said, "Pointing the microphone to the speakers will give completely wrong results." So has any consideration been given to Atmos ceiling speaker placement with Audyssey? I ask because when I look at the equalization that my Denon 5200 is doing, it seems to be cutting an awful lot on the high end for the speakers that are directly above my listening position, presumably because they're firing directly toward the mic capsule - not grazing incidence as the mics are calibrated for.
> 
> I ask because it seems like when I change Audyssey to Flat instead of Reference, my ceiling channels seem much more precise with overhead pans but the rest of the channels are too bright at volume... whereas with the Reference setting, my other speakers sound fantastic at decent levels, but the ceiling speakers don't seem nearly as precise (and overhead imaging suffers). Does anyone know if Audyssey takes into account that these overhead channels might need their own high-frequency compensation considering they will be more on-axis with the mic capsule? If not, is there any way during calibration to mitigate that effect so that the ceiling speakers are equalized in a more similar way compared to the other speakers? Perhaps some kind of makeshift mic screen that would allow the mic to read the frequency sweeps more indirectly? Just a thought.


Are your ceiling speakers too close to the MLP? None of the mic positions on my 5200 have my four in-ceiling speakers firing directly towards the mic.


----------



## desray2k

gammanuc said:


> Are your ceiling speakers too close to the MLP? None of the mic positions on my 5200 have my four in-ceiling speakers firing directly towards the mic.


Yes...if it is TOO CLOSE to the MLP, it will be too localized and that's not good. For ceiling speakers, the sound field should be as wide and disperse as possible...this is in direct contrast to Dolby Atmos enabled speakers/modules. I'm using the latter and I have to say that it is pretty darn close to what I heard from a pair of discrete ceiling speakers...My ceiling is around around 8.5 ft and I'm using 2 pairs of KEF R50 Atmos speaker modules. The front pair is approx. 4.8 ft and my rear pair is approx. 4.2 ft from my MLP. As much as I would like to place them within an equidistant, I need to ensure that I'm not sacrificing for the bass effect...rule of thumb is not to have the MLP right in the middle of the room due to phase cancellation.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> I dont have an answer but I too have thought about this. It makes me wonder how valuable the calibration is for overhead speakers. Clearly, the mic points directly up to the speakers so it is on-axis for those measurements where it should be at 90°. I have toyed with getting a second miniDSP DDRC-88A to EQ the 4 overhead speakers and if I do I wonder if it would be better to have the mic 'on its side' for the measurement of those speakers - ie at 90° to them?


I could be making too much of this, as I said, but it does seem like the ceiling speakers - even with the most perfect placement - would be more on-axis to the mic capsule than you'd want. If there's no compensation for that, you'll see it in the equalization. In my case, it's pretty obvious that the ceiling speaker closest to my MLP is getting a ridiculous high frequency cut that it likely wouldn't if it were closer to the off-axis angles of the rest of the speakers. Makes you wish there was a way to bypass equalization for just those speakers... though I'm tempted to rig up a bit of cloth as a screen about an inch or so above the mic capsule to see if you can mitigate it somehow.



gammanuc said:


> Are your ceiling speakers too close to the MLP? None of the mic positions on my 5200 have my four in-ceiling speakers firing directly towards the mic.


It's not necessarily "directly" towards the mic. The closer you get to the axis of the mic capsule, the more it reads the higher frequencies. The mics are calibrated for off-axis readings, so if there's not a generalized compensation for the difference between the angles the other speakers are at, you logically end up with more of a reduction in highs for the ceiling speakers. As an exercise, take a look at your Audyssey eq graphs under Check Results and see how much of a cut you're getting with your ceiling channels compared to the other channels. Again, this could be a really nitpicky thing on my part, but it's affecting things in my room with my particular placement (which is unfortunately less than ideal, so YMMV).


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



desray2k said:


> I have been asking this question at the Audyssey website since the launch of X5200W featuring dolby atmos... But I have NEVER ONCE receive any form of reply from Audyssey regarding this new dolby atmos format. My question is how does Audyssey MULTI EQ XT32 interacts with the new speaker layout, particularly the atmos enabled speakers as well as ceiling speakers... This is crucial since Audyssey algorithm appears to take in measurements at the horizontal plane and slightly elevated plane with the introduction of front height speakers for DTS NEO:X and Dolby PLIIz HT speakers... But how about height speakers. My biggest concern is the algorithm did not change to take in the vertical plane since there is has been NO RESPONSE from Audyssey (which by the way has been super helpful in answering most of Audyssey owners calibration problems prior to the launch of dolby atmos last year)... For the first time, Audyssey has been keeping mum and refrain from making any direct comments to the questions raised by consumers regarding this new immersive sound format and that makes me worry...
> 
> Since I can't get any answer...i comfort myself to believe that the height speakers played a "less vital" role compared to the rest of the speakers i.e. 5.1/7.1 speaker setup... So I assume it will not have much significant impact to the overall setup... Until now since another member brought it up... I thought I was been too nitpicky on this...
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S6 Edge using Tapatalk


Please have a look here :

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-36.html#post26053874

you'll find the answer to your question. 

Hugo


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> Please have a look here :
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-36.html#post26053874
> 
> you'll find the answer to your question.
> 
> Hugo


Good to see that Chris addressed it... but in my case, tilting the mic back means I'm then pointing it toward my rear surrounds more. I guess the ultimate answer is that there's no real way to ensure equal measurement of all the speakers in an Atmos setup. I do wish there was some form of post-Audyssey tweaking I could do to just the ceiling channels as far as bringing the high end back slightly. Regardless, it's probably not a major issue... and I'm probably just being really anal about setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I could be making too much of this, as I said, but it does seem like the ceiling speakers - even with the most perfect placement - would be more on-axis to the mic capsule than you'd want. If there's no compensation for that, you'll see it in the equalization. In my case, it's pretty obvious that the ceiling speaker closest to my MLP is getting a ridiculous high frequency cut that it likely wouldn't if it were closer to the off-axis angles of the rest of the speakers. Makes you wish there was a way to bypass equalization for just those speakers... though I'm tempted to rig up a bit of cloth as a screen about an inch or so above the mic capsule to see if you can mitigate it somehow.
> 
> 
> It's not necessarily "directly" towards the mic. The closer you get to the axis of the mic capsule, the more it reads the higher frequencies. The mics are calibrated for off-axis readings, so if there's not a generalized compensation for the difference between the angles the other speakers are at, you logically end up with more of a reduction in highs for the ceiling speakers. As an exercise, take a look at your Audyssey eq graphs under Check Results and see how much of a cut you're getting with your ceiling channels compared to the other channels. Again, this could be a really nitpicky thing on my part, but it's affecting things in my room with my particular placement (which is unfortunately less than ideal, so YMMV).


I agree with you. The mic has been designed for use at 90° and if any other angle is used, then the calibration is likely to be off. I don't think there is any current solution to this other than experimenting and seeing if one can make a difference. I can’t really see even how that is possible with Audyssey since the mic can't be moved during the sweep run. At least if I used a second miniDSP 88A I could calibrate the listener level speakers with the mic correctly oriented and then calibrate the overheads, on the second 88A, with the mic oriented more suitable for speakers above.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Good to see that Chris addressed it... but in my case, tilting the mic back means I'm then pointing it toward my rear surrounds more. I guess the ultimate answer is that there's no real way to ensure equal measurement of all the speakers in an Atmos setup. I do wish there was some form of post-Audyssey tweaking I could do to just the ceiling channels as far as bringing the high end back slightly. Regardless, it's probably not a major issue... and I'm probably just being really anal about setup.


Because, with Audyssey, the mic cannot be moved during a sweep of all the speakers, it can never be right for both sets at the same time: the listener levels and the overheads. Get it right for one, it's wrong for the over. Doing a sort of 'halfway house' is likely to spoil the calibration for ALL speakers. Audyssey's advice is clear: the mic needs to be pointed directly at the ceiling - and that works well for listener level speakers. But when the speakers are actually ON the ceiling, then the mic is pointed directly at them (more or less). I suspect the result would likely be as good as the result you'd get if you pointed the mic directly towards the listener level speakers (more or less). That is, not good at all.


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> ...so perhaps firing direct at the MLP /microphone is not such a good idea?


Are any of your other speakers firing direct at the MLP?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Are any of your other speakers firing direct at the MLP?


All of them I expect. But the issue is whether the calibration mic should 'see' the speakers firing directly at it, and as we know, it shouldn't. A 90° mic orientation is required. That's easy with the listener level speakers but not so with the overheads since the mic is already pointing at the ceiling in order to be correct for the listener level speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> All of them I expect. But the issue is whether the calibration mic should 'see' the speakers firing directly at it, and as we know, it shouldn't. A 90° mic orientation is required. That's easy with the listener level speakers but not so with the overheads since the mic is already pointing at the ceiling in order to be correct for the listener level speakers.



This is why using a single microphone for any sound measurement is never going to be an exact science. There is no perfect way to capture sound in every direction from every speaker and have this small device pick up and measure sound remotely like our ears and brain do.

This is also why I'm not a huge fan of all the REQ's (or any microphone-based audio measuring equipment) as there are more ways to get things wrong when measuring than to get them right.


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> Are any of your other speakers firing direct at the MLP?


Hi sdurani 
It is as per Keith s excellent reply
There is no question that at the moment my FH/RH are firing direct at the microphone I never even considered this could be an issue but as the brackets are adjustable easily resolved


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> There is no question that at the moment my FH/RH are firing direct at the microphone I never even considered this could be an issue but as the brackets are adjustable easily resolved


Adjusting the tilt on the bracket won't resolve the speaker's angular relationship to the microphone, it will just mean that you're measuring the speaker's off-axis response. For example: if you have a speaker directly above the mic, pointing it in a different direction still leaves the speaker directly above the mic (microphone is still pointing at the speaker), but now you're measuring the off-axis response of the speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> This is why using a single microphone for any sound measurement is never going to be an exact science. There is no perfect way to capture sound in every direction from every speaker and have this small device pick up and measure sound remotely like our ears and brain do.
> 
> This is also why I'm not a huge fan of all the REQ's (or any microphone-based audio measuring equipment) as there are more ways to get things wrong when measuring than to get them right.


Dirac Live seems to be working really, really well though. Here at least. I was truly astonished when I first listened after my first calibration.


----------



## punksterz626

here are few pics i would like to share with everyone. Just did a 4speakers in ceiling install and 2 in wall for surrounds. The surrounds are a little lower than i wanted but due to building constraint, thats the highest i can mount it. Been listening to the atmos demo on vudu. very cool.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Dirac Live seems to be working really, really well though. Here at least. I was truly astonished when I first listened after my first calibration.


That's great, Keith. 

Though that doesn't really mean much in what I have issues with microphone based measurements.

It's easy to mess stuff up. Most users are ignorant to how to effectively measure speakers in a room or other environment. We are not all seasoned acousticians with decades of experience. Yes, we can read instructions on how to do it but....

Anyway... it's easy to get things wrong when doing measurements. Just because you're happy with DIRAC doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement in your technique. You were pretty happy with the results of XT32 once too. 


Simple calibration of the microphone used in measuring can have drastic consequences on the measured data. There are a lot of variables out there when measuring. These variables skew the results.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> That's great, Keith.
> 
> Though that doesn't really mean much in what I have issues with microphone based measurements.
> 
> It's easy to mess stuff up. Most users are ignorant to how to effectively measure speakers in a room or other environment. We are not all seasoned acousticians with decades of experience. Yes, we can read instructions on how to do it but....


It isn’t that hard to place the mic for Dirac (or Audyssey). MLP for first measurement, then several more measurements around the general listening area. How hard can that be?



Scott Simonian said:


> Anyway... it's easy to get things wrong when doing measurements. Just because you're happy with DIRAC doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement in your technique. You were pretty happy with the results of XT32 once too.


Of course - at the time it was the only option available to me (I used XT32 in conjunction with Audyssey Pro). Nothing else could do a better job at an affordable price. Then miniDSP changed the game for ever when they launched the sub $1,000 DDRC-88A with Dirac Live. I jumped on it the moment it became available.It is very easy to use, contrary to what you suggest, and gives superb results. If and when a superior REQ is available I will immediately switch to that too - but for now Dirac Live is SOTA.



Scott Simonian said:


> Simple calibration of the microphone used in measuring can have drastic consequences on the measured data. There are a lot of variables out there when measuring. These variables skew the results.


I think someone would have to be determinedly hard of thinking to not be able to use Dirac Live properly, after just a brief learning period.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

DSU recommendation: Kumiko, the treasure hunter. It's a 5.1 mix, but the first half of the film takes place in Japan & has a lot of cool ambient sounds going on that get the rear surrounds going quite a bit... it sounded fantastic. It's a funny/ quirky indy comedy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn’t that hard to place the mic for Dirac (or Audyssey). MLP for first measurement, then several more measurements around the general listening area. How hard can that be?
> 
> 
> 
> It is very easy to use, contrary to what you suggest, and gives superb results.
> 
> 
> 
> I think someone would have to be determinedly hard of thinking to not be able to use Dirac Live properly, after just a brief learning period.


I don't think you're following me quite exactly. Never said using these was hard at all. I even said, "we can follow the instructions".

What I am saying is that there are way more opportunities to make a mistake while taking microphone based measurements yet we are ignorant to the effects of what we may have messed up. You're getting good results. Fantastic. So are many others. However, these 'fantastic results' are posted up on a piece of paper or a computer screen and we believe what it says as accurate. Yet, it may not actually be fully accurate.


This is just an example but for many years we bassheads would measure the response of our subwoofers and see how low we could go. Well, back a while ago there was not a lot of software that could even respond much to data below a certain frequency. Microphones were not even calibrated to these lowest frequencies. We had to use calibration files that were all over the place. Even once the community would agree on what were the correct numbers, things like manufacturing tolerances could still sway the data. But its accurate, yo. I've got the calibration file. 

I won't pretend that everyone is fully understanding what I'm on about but that doesn't stop it from being totally in the realm of reality of this situation with automatic EQ systems no matter how awesome they are. User error goes beyond simply following the easy to understand instructions.


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> Adjusting the tilt on the bracket won't resolve the speaker's angular relationship to the microphone, it will just mean that you're measuring the speaker's off-axis response. For example: if you have a speaker directly above the mic, pointing it in a different direction still leaves the speaker directly above the mic (microphone is still pointing at the speaker), but now you're measuring the off-axis response of the speaker.


Totally agree but I think my second mistake was firing them at the MLP in the first place.
In any case I can always tell Audyssey I don't have heights or pull the speaker cable to them until the calibration is complete.
We seem to be obsessed with hearing the overheads IMO any speaker that brings attention to itself isn't set up properly so you shouldn't hear the overheads only what they add to the experience.
Surely immersive audio is not about hearing the overheads but hearing a 3D bubble.
Cheers
Andy


----------



## punksterz626

I have a atmos file i want to play. What is the best way to play it? Ive tried plugging it into my bluray player but somehow its not recognizing the file. thats the only method i can think of besides burning it, which i dont have the tools to do.


----------



## bargervais

Lesmor said:


> Totally agree but I think my second mistake was firing them at the MLP in the first place.
> In any case I can always tell Audyssey I don't have heights or pull the speaker cable to them until the calibration is complete.
> We seem to be obsessed with hearing the overheads IMO any speaker that brings attention to itself isn't set up properly so you shouldn't hear the overheads only what they add to the experience.
> Surely immersive audio is not about hearing the overheads but hearing a 3D bubble.
> Cheers
> Andy


very well said. i think some would like more of a gimmicky effect after spending $$$$ on receivers speakers installation etc... It's like when 3D movies were first out everybody wanted things flying at your head. but i'm with you i want to live in that bubble of sounds.


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> I think my second mistake was firing them at the MLP in the first place.


Didn't you make this same mistake with all your other speakers as well? Are you going to resolve the problem by pointing all of them away from the MLP as well?


> In any case I can always tell Audyssey I don't have heights or pull the speaker cable to them until the calibration is complete.


Calibrate as you would listen: i.e., don't unplug speakers during calibration that will be in use during normal listening, don't move furniture out of the room during calibration that will be in place during normal listening, etc.


> We seem to be obsessed with hearing the overheads IMO any speaker that brings attention to itself isn't set up properly so you shouldn't hear the overheads only what they add to the experience.


Most speakers sound best on-axis. The mere act of pointing a typical speaker at the MLP shouldn't call attention to itself. Is this only happening with your height speakers or with every speaker in your system that is pointed at the MLP?


> Surely immersive audio is not about hearing the overheads but hearing a 3D bubble.


Sure, but sounds above you are part of that 3D bubble. You don't want speakers to call attention to their physical location, but surely you want to hear sounds overhead.


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> Didn't you make this same mistake with all your other speakers as well? Are you going to resolve the problem by pointing all of them away from the MLP as well? Calibrate as you would listen: i.e., don't unplug speakers during calibration that will be in use during normal listening, don't move furniture out of the room during calibration that will be in place during normal listening, etc. Most speakers sound best on-axis. The mere act of pointing a typical speaker at the MLP shouldn't call attention to itself. Is this only happening with your height speakers or with every speaker in your system that is pointed at the MLP? Sure, but sounds above you are part of that 3D bubble. You don't want speakers to call attention to their physical location, but surely you want to hear sounds overhead.


Mmmmm oh dear just when I thought things were going well 
And I have been enjoying my system for 20yrs and now I find its all been set up wrong.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> However, these 'fantastic results' are posted up on a piece of paper or a computer screen and we believe what it says as accurate. Yet, it may not actually be fully accurate.


Where is this absolutist mindset coming from? So the results might not be "fully" accurate, but at what point is it accurate enough to be a useful representation of what you're hearing? SPL meters aren't fully accurate, but they still come in handy. Besides, what's the alternative? Don't measure, don't EQ?


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> I have been enjoying my system for 20yrs and now I find its all been set up wrong.


Something is wrong, but it's not your system (otherwise you wouldn't have been enjoying it for 20 years). Atmos doesn't change the physics of sound reproduction. If speakers have sounded good to you for the last two decades when they were pointed towards the listening position, then there is no reason that should suddenly change with the introduction of Atmos. That's still sound coming from your height speakers, not some new waveform, not different than the sound coming from all your other speakers.


----------



## Movie78

punksterz626 said:


> here are few pics i would like to share with everyone. Just did a 4speakers in ceiling install and 2 in wall for surrounds. The surrounds are a little lower than i wanted but due to building constraint, thats the highest i can mount it. Been listening to the atmos demo on vudu. very cool.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



What kind of In Wall speakers are you using?


----------



## punksterz626

Movie78 said:


> [/SPOILER]
> 
> What kind of In Wall speakers are you using?


Klipsch R-5800 series


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Where is this absolutist mindset coming from? So the results might not be "fully" accurate, but at what point is it accurate enough to be a useful representation of what you're hearing? SPL meters aren't fully accurate, but they still come in handy. Besides, what's the alternative? Don't measure, don't EQ?


That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is you see results on your computer screen and assume they are a perfect measurement and represent 100% reality of what is actually happening.

I am saying that this is often not the case.

Also saying that it is easy to make a mistake and skew your results. Those speaker ahead at the front of the room are 90 degrees off axis with a microphone pointing straight up at the ceiling yet it doesn't occur to most end users that their ceiling speakers are at a different axis with relation to the microphone. The results are still pleasing to the user and may be just as flat (or whatever) as the other speakers. Which is correct? Doing it like we do or should we tilt the microphone in relation to the angle of attack of each speaker? Does it matter? Does a change result in different data?

These things matter and will change your measured data just like having a microphone an inch away will give different results.

So does it matter to you or not? Is it worth the time or not? Is it worth fretting about or not?

Depends on the person. 

Do you think I go through all these lengths? No. Do I understand that what I am getting at the microphone is not the full picture? Yes. Do other people know and understand this? Most likely not. Do they care? Probably not.


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> Something is wrong, but it's not your system (otherwise you wouldn't have been enjoying it for 20 years). Atmos doesn't change the physics of sound reproduction. If speakers have sounded good to you for the last two decades when they were pointed towards the listening position, then there is no reason that should suddenly change with the introduction of Atmos. That's still sound coming from your height speakers, not some new waveform, not different than the sound coming from all your other speakers.


Agreed its not the system
Things take time to bed in when you make a change and you can take Atmos out of the equation for the moment
Having come from a Onkyo 5010 which I have said time and time again using DTS Neo:X gave a very immersive sound field which is a hard act to follow

The Denon X-7200WA has changed the signature of my whole system, the most pronounced difference is in how my sub woofers are performing ( which initially seems to be for the better) and in the system dynamics.
That said the Denon appears to resolve sounds that the Onkyo didn't and that may be down to the DSU.
It took a long time to get the Onkyo to perform the way it did and it will be the same with the Denon.
Some will say all AVR's sound the same but that's just bollocks.
Also in the last 2 decades I have made many changes to get where I am now.


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> That said the Denon appears to resolve sounds that the Onkyo didn't and that may be down to the DSU.


THAT'S likely the variable that is responsible for the sudden change. The ability to resolve details that you hadn't been hearing before can call attention to itself at first. I doubt that pointing speakers towards the MLP was the culprit. If this more detailed sound seems too bright for your tastes, then try turning down the treble a bit.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Dirac Live seems to be working really, really well though. Here at least. I was truly astonished when I first listened after my first calibration.


It sounds like you have totally ditched Audyssey and DIRAC live rules


----------



## wse

Lesmor said:


> ......... Surely immersive audio is not about hearing the overheads but hearing a 3D bubble


YES that's what AURO 3D talks about now do they deliver?


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> What I'm saying is you see results on your computer screen and assume they are a *perfect* measurement and represent *100%* reality of what is actually happening.


Who here assumes such lofty absolutes when looking at measurements?


> Which is correct? Doing it like we do or should we tilt the microphone in relation to the angle of attack of each speaker? Does it matter? Does a change result in different data?


IF the results change, then use the measurement approach that yields the more useful data. For example: if pointing a mic a certain way, even a supposedly 'omnidirectional' mic, ends up hiding a peak that could be pulled down, then stop pointing the mic that way.


> Do I understand that what I am getting at the microphone is not the *full* picture? Yes. Do other people know and understand this? Most likely not.


OK, so other people might not understand this as well as you do. Welcome to the human race. As consumer electronics gets more complicated, so do the opportunities for problems. When I was a kid, pre-amps didn't crash or hang or freeze. Now they do. When bass management, time alignment and level adjustments were introduced on consumer gear, it gave us three more parameters to really screw up the sound of our systems. What's the solution? Don't use them? What's the alternative to measurements that don't give the *full* picture? Don't measure?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't think you're following me quite exactly.


Scott, I've read this post right through, twice, and you're right: I have no idea what you are telling me. Sorry, buddy  I'm happy for us to move on unless you want to try again.




Scott Simonian said:


> Never said using these was hard at all. I even said, "we can follow the instructions".
> 
> What I am saying is that there are way more opportunities to make a mistake while taking microphone based measurements yet we are ignorant to the effects of what we may have messed up. You're getting good results. Fantastic. So are many others. However, these 'fantastic results' are posted up on a piece of paper or a computer screen and we believe what it says as accurate. Yet, it may not actually be fully accurate.
> 
> 
> This is just an example but for many years we bassheads would measure the response of our subwoofers and see how low we could go. Well, back a while ago there was not a lot of software that could even respond much to data below a certain frequency. Microphones were not even calibrated to these lowest frequencies. We had to use calibration files that were all over the place. Even once the community would agree on what were the correct numbers, things like manufacturing tolerances could still sway the data. But its accurate, yo. I've got the calibration file.
> 
> I won't pretend that everyone is fully understanding what I'm on about but that doesn't stop it from being totally in the realm of reality of this situation with automatic EQ systems no matter how awesome they are. User error goes beyond simply following the easy to understand instructions.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Totally agree but I think my second mistake was firing them at the MLP in the first place.
> In any case I can always tell Audyssey I don't have heights or pull the speaker cable to them until the calibration is complete.
> We seem to be obsessed with hearing the overheads IMO any speaker that brings attention to itself isn't set up properly so you shouldn't hear the overheads only what they add to the experience.
> Surely immersive audio is not about hearing the overheads but hearing a 3D bubble.
> Cheers
> Andy


That is it, Andy. I don't want to 'hear' overheads either. Or any other speaker. What I want to hear is an immersive aural experience right there in my HT. By and large that's what I've got. I no longer 'listen' to the overhead speakers, like I did when I first installed them. I just hear their presence so to speak. If I switch to straight 5.1, I really notice the difference immediately. Same with surrounds - we don't want them constantly drawing attention to themselves unless there is a deliberate, discrete effect taking place behind us. One of the things I find truly remarkable about Atmos is the way the room fills with sound, yet it seems as if there are no speakers in the room at all. I can pinpoint individual sounds to what seems like the millimetre, but I can't pinpoint any speaker *at all*. It truly is a remarkable sonic experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Didn't you make this same mistake with all your other speakers as well? Are you going to resolve the problem by pointing all of them away from the MLP as well? Calibrate as you would listen: i.e., don't unplug speakers during calibration that will be in use during normal listening, don't move furniture out of the room during calibration that will be in place during normal listening, etc. Most speakers sound best on-axis. The mere act of pointing a typical speaker at the MLP shouldn't call attention to itself. Is this only happening with your height speakers or with every speaker in your system that is pointed at the MLP? Sure, but sounds above you are part of that 3D bubble. You don't want speakers to call attention to their physical location, but surely you want to hear sounds overhead.


Sanjay, I think you are missing his point. He is saying that the problem is that the mic orientation is entirely incorrect for speakers on the ceiling. It has nothing to do with the orientation of the speakers - just the orientation of the mic. A mic that is meant to be used 90° to the speaker is not correct when it is pointing up to the ceiling and the speakers are on the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Something is wrong, but it's not your system (otherwise you wouldn't have been enjoying it for 20 years). Atmos doesn't change the physics of sound reproduction. If speakers have sounded good to you for the last two decades when they were pointed towards the listening position, then there is no reason that should suddenly change with the introduction of Atmos. *That's still sound coming from your height speakers, *not some new waveform, not different than the sound coming from all your other speakers.


Indeed. But it supposed to hit the calibration mic at 90° to it. That isn't happening and it is screwing with the calibration of the affected speakers. You wouldn't recommend that he pointed the Audyssey mic towards the front wall would you? Well it's the same thing: it's pointing to the ceiling, which is where the speakers are.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Those speaker ahead at the front of the room are 90 degrees off axis with a microphone pointing straight up at the ceiling yet it doesn't occur to most end users that their ceiling speakers are at a different axis with relation to the microphone. The results are still pleasing to the user and may be just as flat (or whatever) as the other speakers. Which is correct? Doing it like we do or should we tilt the microphone in relation to the angle of attack of each speaker? Does it matter? Does a change result in different data?


If the mic is meant to be used at 90° to the measured speakers, for a proper result that is how it should be used. In the case of the listener level speakers, this is achieved by pointing the mic at the ceiling. But that is clearly therefore incorrect when measuring the speakers on the ceiling. It will result in an incorrect calibration of those speakers, which is the purpose of the discussion. There's no 'philosophical' issue about this: the calibration of the overhead speakers will be incorrect - that's it.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> THAT'S likely the variable that is responsible for the sudden change.* The ability to resolve details that you hadn't been hearing before* can call attention to itself at first. I doubt that pointing speakers towards the MLP was the culprit. If this more detailed sound seems too bright for your tastes, then try turning down the treble a bit.


Are we seriously saying that the Denon 7200 is more capable of resolving detail than the flagship Onkyo 5010? This would surprise me to a degree of surprise that I can't recall experiencing for a long time, if ever. 

I am not saying there is no difference between using the two units, with different EQ, in different systems, etc etc, but I would be just totally amazed if the 5010 was incapable of resolving all of the detail in the source, when compared to another reputable unit like the Denon.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> It sounds like you have totally ditched Audyssey and DIRAC live rules


Oh I knew within 5 minutes of listening to my first Dirac Live calibration that I would never go back to Audyssey.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But it supposed to hit the calibration mic at 90° to it.


So what do people with raised/lowered centre speakers and raised surrounds supposed to do?


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh I knew within 5 minutes of listening to my first Dirac Live calibration that I would never go back to Audyssey.


That good seriously! Maybe I should add one to the SSP-800 but there are no solution for ATMOS!

http://www.minidsp.com/images/documents/Product Brief-DDRC-88A.pdf

That means I need to get eight XLR cables to plug into the SSP-800 and the DDRC


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> So what do people with raised/lowered centre speakers and raised surrounds supposed to do?


Compromise I guess. I have never been in that position to any degree where it has worried me. Now you make me think about it, when I calibrate with DL, I use 4 mic positions that are quite high - higher than ever with Audyssey. This means that my LCR set is a fair bit off 90° but it hasn't worried me at all. Maybe it should, athough there is nothing I can do about it. Its nowhere near as severe as pointing the mic up at the ceiling and measuring speakers on the ceiling though.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> That good seriously! Maybe I should add one to the SSP-800 but there are no solution for ATMOS!


Yes, that good. Really. I am not alone in finding this (check the 88A thread for other viewpoints - even from people who have disliked electronic EQ in the past, conceptually).

For Atmos it is possible to use two 88As in tandem - one for the listener level speakers and one for the overheads.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Are we seriously saying that the Denon 7200 is more capable of resolving detail than the flagship Onkyo 5010? This would surprise me to a degree of surprise that I can't recall experiencing for a long time, if ever.
> 
> I am not saying there is no difference between using the two units, with different EQ, in different systems, etc etc, but I would be just totally amazed if the 5010 was incapable of resolving all of the detail in the source, when compared to another reputable unit like the Denon.


I can't speak to the 5010... but I went from the 3010 to the Denon 5200, and there was definitely more detail to the sound with the same speaker position and my usual Audyssey equalization points. I initially chalked it up to my imagination or just being a better match to my particular speakers, but I've watched the hell out of movies I'm familiar with since I got the 5200 and it's night and day. Not that I didn't love the way my 3010 sounded... but the Denon just sounds better.

So it wouldn't really surprise me if someone thought the 7200 resolved detail better than the Onkyo 5010. My 3010 had a slight harshness to highs that just isn't there with the 5200, and I'm hearing sound effects I didn't even know were there in the mix with some of my movies. But again, sometimes receivers just mesh better with particular speakers, so I don't know that I would call that a problem with the Onkyos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Scott, I've read this post right through, twice, and you're right: I have no idea what you are telling me. Sorry, buddy  I'm happy for us to move on unless you want to try again.





sdurani said:


> Who here assumes such lofty absolutes when looking at measurements? IF the results change, then use the measurement approach that yields the more useful data. For example: if pointing a mic a certain way, even a supposedly 'omnidirectional' mic, ends up hiding a peak that could be pulled down, then stop pointing the mic that way. OK, so other people might not understand this as well as you do. Welcome to the human race. As consumer electronics gets more complicated, so do the opportunities for problems. When I was a kid, pre-amps didn't crash or hang or freeze. Now they do. When bass management, time alignment and level adjustments were introduced on consumer gear, it gave us three more parameters to really screw up the sound of our systems. *What's the solution? Don't use them? What's the alternative to measurements that don't give the full picture? Don't measure?*


----------



## 3ll3d00d

kbarnes701 said:


> Its nowhere near as severe as pointing the mic up at the ceiling and measuring speakers on the ceiling though.


it could easily be adjusting the mic cal applied to account for this, not perfectly of course but still


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Are we seriously saying that the Denon 7200 is more capable of resolving detail than the flagship Onkyo 5010?


The sentence I quoted said the difference _"may be down to the DSU"_. Aside from the discussion about the mic, Andy was also expressing concern about the height speakers calling attention to themselves because they were pointed at the MLP. I thought switching to DSU might be the more likely explanation (he isn't the first to mention that DSU sounds more detailed/bright).


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that good. Really. I am not alone in finding this (check the 88A thread for other viewpoints - even from people who have disliked electronic EQ in the past, conceptually).
> 
> For Atmos it is possible to use two 88As in tandem - one for the listener level speakers and one for the overheads.


It gets rather expensive and so many boxes  My hope is that Classe will include DIRAC live in their new SSP 

Of course who know what the price will be then! I wished someone other than DATASAT and EMOTIVA would make a deal with DIRAC and use their software! I heard OPPO might?


----------



## kbarnes701

3ll3d00d said:


> it could easily be adjusting the mic cal applied to account for this, not perfectly of course but still


Good point. I hope so


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The sentence I quoted said the difference _"may be down to the DSU"_. Aside from the discussion about the mic, Andy was also expressing concern about the height speakers calling attention to themselves because they were pointed at the MLP. I thought switching to DSU might be the more likely explanation (he isn't the first to mention that DSU sounds more detailed/bright).


Ah gotcha - yes, once any form of processing comes into play, anything can happen.


----------



## NorthSky

I wouldn't worry; and just keep measuring with the mic in its normal orientation, up.


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> The sentence I quoted said the difference _"may be down to the DSU"_. Aside from the discussion about the mic, Andy was also expressing concern about the height speakers calling attention to themselves because they were pointed at the MLP. I thought switching to DSU might be the more likely explanation (he isn't the first to mention that DSU sounds more detailed/bright).





kbarnes701 said:


> That is it, Andy. I don't want to 'hear' overheads either. Or any other speaker. What I want to hear is an immersive aural experience right there in my HT. By and large that's what I've got. I no longer 'listen' to the overhead speakers, like I did when I first installed them. I just hear their presence so to speak. If I switch to straight 5.1, I really notice the difference immediately. Same with surrounds - we don't want them constantly drawing attention to themselves unless there is a deliberate, discrete effect taking place behind us. One of the things I find truly remarkable about Atmos is the way the room fills with sound, yet it seems as if there are no speakers in the room at all. I can pinpoint individual sounds to what seems like the millimetre, but I can't pinpoint any speaker *at all*. It truly is a remarkable sonic experience.


With the Onkyo 5010 the speakers just didn't exist, the dynamics were startling but the Flagship Onkyo had more total power and was 8kg heavier than the Denon
I also need to add that I used Audyssey Pro on the Onkyo

Going back to the Audyssey mike, my MLP ear position was and is lower than the main speaker tweeters and the Surrounds at that time were higher again so you could argue that the mike should be level with your speakers rather than your ears for it to graze the tip?

Finally I have just pointed my heights forward (7.5deg baffle) instead of at the MLP so far listening to the Atmos demo disc I think it gives better results.


----------



## jrref

Just remembered after looking at the Atmos "suggested" speaker layout, you shouldn't have the Ceiling speakers right over your head. If you place them correctly then the angle to the mic should be fine. I think Audyssey doesn't want the mic pointing directly at the speaker.


----------



## jrref

jrref said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Just remembered after looking at the Atmos "suggested" speaker layout, you shouldn't have the Ceiling speakers right over your head. If you place them correctly then the angle to the mic should be fine. I think Audyssey doesn't want the mic pointing directly at the speaker.[/


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jrref said:


> Just remembered after looking at the Atmos "suggested" speaker layout, you shouldn't have the Ceiling speakers right over your head. If you place them correctly then the angle to the mic should be fine. I think Audyssey doesn't want the mic pointing directly at the speaker.


Yeah, well it's a rental home... so the ceiling speakers went where they could go without permanent modifications. But as I said, the rolloff of highs is a pretty minor complaint, all things considered. My living room still sounds better than any theater here... and Alabama doesn't have Atmos yet in any theater that I can find, so I'm a trailblazer! 

But even in the ideal placement for Atmos ceiling channels, the angles to the mic will definitely be more on-axis to the capsule than the other speakers. But again... I'm being nitpicky. I'll tweak around it.


----------



## sdurani

jrref said:


> I think Audyssey doesn't want the mic pointing directly at the speaker.


Hard to reconcile that if you're using a Denon/Marantz with Auro3D configured with a Voice of God speaker directly over the main listening position.


----------



## curtishd

Because of my room set up I am only able to have 2 speakers in the ceiling for a 7.1.2 set up but I was reading and I see these Atmos speaker topers that I think go on top of the front left and right tower speakers. Has anyone done this and made a 7.1.4 set up? Is this actually one of the ways Dolby suggests?


----------



## chi_guy50

curtishd said:


> Because of my room set up I am only able to have 2 speakers in the ceiling for a 7.1.2 set up but I was reading and I see these Atmos speaker topers that I think go on top of the front left and right tower speakers. Has anyone done this and made a 7.1.4 set up? Is this actually one of the ways Dolby suggests?


Yes, you absolutely can combine one pair of ceiling speakers and a second pair of upfiring Dolby Atmos modules. I have no experience using the upfirers, but others here are using them. In principal, you should be able to get as good results from either method depending on the room's properties, quality of the speaker, and elevation/reflection angle.

Here is a chart showing all the permissible combinations of Dolby Atmos modules together with height speakers (and their position designations) from the Denon AVR-X5200W User's Manual:


----------



## Aras_Volodka

curtishd said:


> Because of my room set up I am only able to have 2 speakers in the ceiling for a 7.1.2 set up but I was reading and I see these Atmos speaker topers that I think go on top of the front left and right tower speakers. Has anyone done this and made a 7.1.4 set up? Is this actually one of the ways Dolby suggests?


My bro in law has a 7.1.4 setup with 2 in ceilings & 2 up firing modules (he has the def tech towers with attachable modules) (though he plans to replace the modules). I was actually pretty surprised when I helped him make alterations to his setup... they are very convincing. 
I used to have all modules, but went all in ceiling... after a painful amount of critical listening, I've got to say there are many times where it's hard to tell the difference. When things like wind or rain drops are overhead, they sound a lot better with in ceiling. On the dolby atmos demo disc, the amaze trailer & leaf trailer sounded better with in ceiling... the conductor trailer & unfold sounded very similar. Expendables 3 sounded very similar with the modules & in ceiling.

I think with having the front overhead in ceilings & placing them somewhat close to the MLP you'll get the overhead effect very nice while the rear modules cover the rest (if that's the setup you were thinking).


----------



## grendelrt

Couple questions on surrounds if anyone has done the below:

Has anyone who previously had their surrounds above ear height out of the atmos specs moved them down? Just looking for impressions on what kind of difference it made, mine are about 6ft up currently. 

Has anyone switched from a bipole or dipole to direct firing speaker for their atmos setup?

I am currently running 4 Klipsch RS-42 speakers as my surrounds at about 6ft up. If I am going to remount I may switch speakers at the same time.


----------



## kbarnes701

grendelrt said:


> Couple questions on surrounds if anyone has done the below:
> 
> Has anyone who previously had their surrounds above ear height out of the atmos specs moved them down? Just looking for impressions on what kind of difference it made, mine are about 6ft up currently.
> 
> Has anyone switched from a bipole or dipole to direct firing speaker for their atmos setup?
> 
> I am currently running 4 Klipsch RS-42 speakers as my surrounds at about 6ft up. If I am going to remount I may switch speakers at the same time.



Yes to both your questions. I lowered my surrounds as much as I could in order to maximise the separation between them and the overhead speakers. Dolby recommends that the surrounds be at ear height but I couldn't manage that in my room - I got as close as I could. The more separation you can get between the surrounds and the overheads, the more you will perceive a difference between sounds coming from around you and sounds coming from above you.

I switched from tripoles to direct radiating dual concentric designs. I have no regrets about any of my choices.


----------



## grendelrt

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes to both your questions. I lowered my surrounds as much as I could in order to maximise the separation between them and the overhead speakers. Dolby recommends that the surrounds be at ear height but I couldn't manage that in my room - I got as close as I could. The more separation you can get between the surrounds and the overheads, the more you will perceive a difference between sounds coming from around you and sounds coming from above you.
> 
> I switched from tripoles to direct radiating dual concentric designs. I have no regrets about any of my choices.


Awesome, did you notice any loss of environment from going to direct radiating for non atmos material? I really enjoy my surrounds now, I feel like they disperse sound great but I can still tell from what direction things are coming.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Flash3d said:


> Aras,
> 
> Which kef did you install?
> I'm thinking of getting the Kef Ci160QR.
> 4x Atmos ceiling and 2x side surround and 2x back surround.
> 
> Currently just have side surround with old mission bipoles, the Kef Ci160QR are not bipoles but wide dispersion so I have try them out first (for surround duty).
> 
> Lcr are r500 and r200c, hence the choice of kef.





lovingdvd said:


> Which KEF's are you referring to? The Ci200RR by any chance?


Ok guys I got the treatments all placed & ran a calibration. I put some photos up... man things are sounding fantastic! I took some pics so you guys could see how I set it up. In the 3rd, 4th, & 5th pics you can see where I placed the ceiling speakers. (This location is temporary & in a basement... so I'm aware it's not going to win any awards for beauty.) I'm probably going to move in a few months unfortunately... I hope to get a room that's a few feet wider & taller... then it would be ideal. 

In the last picture... just to give a frame of reference... if I sit on that section of the couch that's elongated (MLP), the front height speaker is in line with my feet & 3 feet to my left. The rear height is in the exact same proportion, a few feet in back & in line with the front. All speakers are about 5.5 feet from my head.

I don't think the THX recommendation of placing directly overhead is necessary to get the desired effect, from these speaker positions I'm getting the directional panning effects & overhead @ the same time. If 9.1.6 is an affordable thing within a few years I think it would be cool to get a pair directly overhead & space the fronts & rears a little further away. 

In the 3rd picture you can see my right surround in the closet which I know isn't ideal... that was the only way I could extend the L/R surround field unfortunately, as I think having the surrounds just a few feet away would be irritating. 

Last night my best friend came over & we watched Star Trek into darkness... I played him the dolby atmos demo disc, which he's heard before here with my 44-DA modules. He was blown away by the sound... he's honest with me so it wasn't feigned praise


----------



## blastermaster

> Has anyone who previously had their surrounds above ear height out of the atmos specs moved them down? Just looking for impressions on what kind of difference it made, mine are about 6ft up currently.
> 
> Has anyone switched from a bipole or dipole to direct firing speaker for their atmos setup?


I don't have an Atmos capable receiver yet, but in anticipation of a future AVR purchase I went from a quadpolar bipole design (located two feet above ear level and just slightly behind the MLP):

http://www.axiomaudio.com/qs8-surround-sound-speakers

To a monopole dual concentric design (Exactly at ear height and directly to the sides - the specs on their site are wrong...the manual is correct):

http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1492

The difference I notice is that the sound from the QS8's is definitely more diffuse. I figured that I would lose that room filling sound going to the monopole. Quite the contrary, it blended so well with my mains (which are also a Tannoy dual concentric design) that I found the clarity of the sound to be simply amazing. I'm not sure if it's the dual concentric design or not, but I don't notice them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. I went back and played movies that I've watched a zillion times (Daniel Craig Bond films, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc) and I'm picking up stuff that I didn't notice before. I figure it's the diffusion of the sound of the QS8's that makes some of the sounds inaudible. 

Once I get a 3D sound receiver, I'm sure the speakers will simply disappear (fingers crossed) with Atmos and DTS:X movies. 

The long and short of it is that I am so glad to be back with monopole (direct firing) speakers.


----------



## grendelrt

blastermaster said:


> I don't have an Atmos capable receiver yet, but in anticipation of a future AVR purchase I went from a quadpolar bipole design (located two feet above ear level and just slightly behind the MLP):
> 
> http://www.axiomaudio.com/qs8-surround-sound-speakers
> 
> To a monopole dual concentric design (Exactly at ear height and directly to the sides - the specs on their site are wrong...the manual is correct):
> 
> http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1492
> 
> The difference I notice is that the sound from the QS8's is definitely more diffuse. I figured that I would lose that room filling sound going to the monopole. Quite the contrary, it blended so well with my mains (which are also a Tannoy dual concentric design) that I found the clarity of the sound to be simply amazing. I'm not sure if it's the dual concentric design or not, but I don't notice them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. I went back and played movies that I've watched a zillion times (Daniel Craig Bond films, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc) and I'm picking up stuff that I didn't notice before. I figure it's the diffusion of the sound of the QS8's that makes some of the sounds inaudible.
> 
> Once I get a 3D sound receiver, I'm sure the speakers will simply disappear (fingers crossed) with Atmos and DTS:X movies.
> 
> The long and short of it is that I am so glad to be back with monopole (direct firing) speakers.


Thanks for the impressions! Sigh....I am going to have to buy 4 new surrounds and 4 ceilings haha.


----------



## Joel Rohrer

Has anyone seen or have a Atmos Setup with the rear and side surround speakers also on the ceiling?

I have a brand new house we are building with a 20 wide and 40 long room. the back half is a pool table and other stuff. I have a riser and bar so seating for 12 starting about 12 feet back from the 135 inch screen. I will have in wall LCR but due to a opening in the wall for a wet bar on the right and the stairway opening on the left and the rear wall being 20 feet back cant really do in walls for surrounds. 

So was planning to put 8 speakers in the ceiling. this is a home being built now so wiring and placement isnt an issue at all. Cost really isnt a concern for me either but just want to know if it will still sound good? I am well aware it wont be Dolby reference at all but figure a 7.2.4 Atmos setup this way would still be better than a regular 7.2 vanilla setup. 

Mostly used for movies, ps4 and Football games. will use a yamaha 3050 reciever with ex amp to get to 7.2.4 when its released and a sony 40es projector, Klipsch 5650 speakers


----------



## batpig

Aras - that looks awesome! That's a crap ton of panels!! I can only imagine how dramatic the difference was in what was clearly such an open and live space prior to installing them.

They look thick too, 4" deep? They also look pre-fabbed, I can't imagine what the dude who had to deliver your shipment was thinking....


----------



## Aras_Volodka

blastermaster said:


> Once I get a 3D sound receiver, I'm sure the speakers will simply disappear (fingers crossed) with Atmos and DTS:X movies.
> 
> The long and short of it is that I am so glad to be back with monopole (direct firing) speakers.


Even with DSU the speakers sorta disappear


----------



## batpig

Joel Rohrer said:


> Has anyone seen or have a Atmos Setup with the rear and side surround speakers also on the ceiling?
> 
> I have a brand new house we are building with a 20 wide and 40 long room. the back half is a pool table and other stuff. I have a riser and bar so seating for 12 starting about 12 feet back from the 135 inch screen. I will have in wall LCR but due to a opening in the wall for a wet bar on the right and the stairway opening on the left and the rear wall being 20 feet back cant really do in walls for surrounds.
> 
> So was planning to put 8 speakers in the ceiling. this is a home being built now so wiring and placement isnt an issue at all. Cost really isnt a concern for me either but just want to know if it will still sound good? I am well aware it wont be Dolby reference at all but figure a 7.2.4 Atmos setup this way would still be better than a regular 7.2 vanilla setup.
> 
> Mostly used for movies, ps4 and Football games. will use a yamaha 3050 reciever with ex amp to get to 7.2.4 when its released and a sony 40es projector, Klipsch 5650 speakers


It's going to be tricky to get right -- basically you'd want to spread the "surrounds" as far away as possible to increase the angular separation from the "overheads". For example, if it's five feet to the ceiling (straight up), if you can place the surround speaker 10 feet away that's about a 25 degree elevation on that speaker, a bit higher than what you'd want. The farther away the better to create that separation from the "overheads". 

Of course, you run into constraints with that plan, since the absolute distance will be limited, plus the farther the speaker is the more amp power is needed to get the required SPL at the listening position, and therefore the more capable the speaker needs to be. 

Perhaps you could mitigate things slightly by using ON ceiling (instead of IN ceiling) for surrounds, letting them drop a bit below ceiling height? For example, something like the Tannoy Di6 DC that's popular among folks in this thread -- it hangs from a C-bracket allowing you to swivel and aim it at the listeners. 

Whatever you do, it's a near certainly that "Top Rear" or "Rear Height" will be worthless as it will blur with the Surround Back speakers in/on the ceiling behind you. So maybe just do a 7.1.2 setup with a pair of Top Middle in-ceilings placed above and in front of the listeners.


----------



## kbarnes701

grendelrt said:


> Awesome, did you notice any loss of environment from going to direct radiating for non atmos material? I really enjoy my surrounds now, I feel like they disperse sound great but I can still tell from what direction things are coming.


My case, as with most I guess, is quite unique to my own room. The room is very small and, perforce, I sit close to the surrounds. This is one reason I initially chose tripoles - to disperse the sound as well as possible. The tripoles were mounted at 90° to MLP. The result was a nice, airy presentation of ambience and music but with discrete sounds (the proverbial door slam) being localisable as they should be. I felt like I was in a nice bubble of sound.

When I switched over to Atmos, I decided the surrounds needed to be relocated to 110° and the tripoles were less than ideal for this. I chose the Tannoy Di6 DC dual concentric designs for a variety of reasons. They have a very wide dispersion pattern, they have very high power handling, and they are dual concentrics, which means that the sound is phase-coherent right from the driver. This is important IMO when one sits close to the speakers as I do. And of course, at the same time I added 4 overhead speakers, creating a superlative "sphere" of sound with Atmos or DSU upmixing. The latter has more than compensated for any "loss of environment" in the room due to the change of speaker. Of course, everyone's mileage may vary, but this has been my experience here. I have no regrets about going away from the tripoles. Equally, I would have kept them if I had not decided to go down the Atmos route.


----------



## batpig

blastermaster said:


> The difference I notice is that the sound from the QS8's is definitely more diffuse. I figured that I would lose that room filling sound going to the monopole. Quite the contrary, it blended so well with my mains (which are also a Tannoy dual concentric design) that I found the clarity of the sound to be simply amazing. I'm not sure if it's the dual concentric design or not, but I don't notice them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. I went back and played movies that I've watched a zillion times (Daniel Craig Bond films, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc) and I'm picking up stuff that I didn't notice before. I figure it's the diffusion of the sound of the QS8's that makes some of the sounds inaudible.


It's also worth noting that those Tannoys appear to cost $1K apiece, so you're talking about a much higher end speaker than the Axioms 

Yours and Keith's posts have me intrigued. I'm currently using some bipole/dipole switchable type surrounds (Energy Connoisseurs) almost directly to the sides, about 2ft above ear level. They are sort of a hybrid design (almost tripole-ish) in that they have a direct-firing 2-way front face with mid-range drivers on opposite sides to create the diffusion, unlike a design like the QS8 where there are no drivers actually firing at the listener.










I already had these speakers so it was a free experiment to try them out, but now I may try some direct firing surrounds. I was concerned about "hot spotting" with the speakers jumping out and distracting me on hard surround effects, but it seems you guys don't have such issues?

My room is a bit under 16ft wide, Audyssey measured distance to surrounds from MLP is 7.5ft in either direction, which is plenty in theory for direct-firing surrounds but the listeners on either side of the couch are only 3-4 feet away. I have some spare KEF "egg" speakers which are dual concentric designs and easy to mount on the wall temporarily, so I'm going to try them out and see how it goes.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Aras - that looks awesome! That's a crap ton of panels!! I can only imagine how dramatic the difference was in what was clearly such an open and live space prior to installing them.
> 
> They look thick too, 4" deep? They also look pre-fabbed, I can't imagine what the dude who had to deliver your shipment was thinking....


TY  I got them from GEK, the insulation in the panels I think is about 2 & 1/2" to 3" thick. It was actually quite affordable for the whole set... they have deals for warehouse seconds which I took advantage of. It was like 800 bucks when all was said & done. I would have built the panels but I don't have a saw here & I didn't want to worry about moving it in 3 months (though I guess that sort of defies the logic of buying a room full of acoustic panels LOL). But they are really cheap... & for the time it would take to build them it just wouldn't be worth it for me to make so many... but I do plan to build my own diffusors & bass traps when I do get some saws. I used to refinish pianos for a living so I plan to make them look very nice with maple wood & high gloss lacquer. 

So anyway... the sound is soooooo much better... the biggest difference I've noticed is dialogue actually. The center Klipsch always left me feeling disappointed, like the vocals had no presence. Now it's got that movie theater sound... very pleasing. 

Everything is also much more clear now as well in terms of surrounds & overhead. Unfortunately the baby was asleep when we were watching Star Trek into darkness last night so I had to turn it down during action sequences... but with the DSU I heard lots of sounds coming from overhead.


----------



## batpig

I did notice the center channel looks pretty low, do you have it angled up? There is probably some floor bounce also that impacts dialogue intelligibility.

$800 for all of those panels is a great deal. Nicely done!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nice room, Aras. Plenty of big speakers and acoustic treatment.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

grendelrt said:


> Has anyone switched from a bipole or dipole to direct firing speaker for their atmos setup?


I'm running Polk FXi50s as side surrounds in bipole mode right now, but I have a pair of Polk RTi38s in the closet and I'm tempted to swap them out and recalibrate soon. Unfortunately, they're mounted damn near at the ceiling, so not remotely per Atmos specs. I could move them down a few feet, but it would involve 1) pushing them a foot further toward the front of the room so the left surround misses a window and 2) visible wire from the ceiling down to the speaker because the exterior wall is brick and we couldn't run in-wall. But I'm still tempted to try the 38s there and see what the difference is (and I could always hang an acoustic panel over the wire if I was feeling crafty). The FXi50s currently don't seem to offer any real advantage as far as a diffuse sound field now that I'm running Atmos/DSU. If I do it this weekend, I'll be sure to post my impressions.


----------



## grendelrt

kbarnes701 said:


> My case, as with most I guess, is quite unique to my own room. The room is very small and, perforce, I sit close to the surrounds. This is one reason I initially chose tripoles - to disperse the sound as well as possible. The tripoles were mounted at 90° to MLP. The result was a nice, airy presentation of ambience and music but with discrete sounds (the proverbial door slam) being localisable as they should be. I felt like I was in a nice bubble of sound.
> 
> When I switched over to Atmos, I decided the surrounds needed to be relocated to 110° and the tripoles were less than ideal for this. I chose the Tannoy Di6 DC dual concentric designs for a variety of reasons. They have a very wide dispersion pattern, they have very high power handling, and they are dual concentrics, which means that the sound is phase-coherent right from the driver. This is important IMO when one sits close to the speakers as I do. And of course, at the same time I added 4 overhead speakers, creating a superlative "sphere" of sound with Atmos or DSU upmixing. The latter has more than compensated for any "loss of environment" in the room due to the change of speaker. Of course, everyone's mileage may vary, but this has been my experience here. I have no regrets about going away from the tripoles. Equally, I would have kept them if I had not decided to go down the Atmos route.


I have a dedicated room that is 18 x 13 with limited speaker mounting positions. I do like the dispersal of my surrounds now. I am putting a second row that will be basically sitting on the back surrounds which I worry about. Good to know the DSU is helping keep the envelope similar, thanks =)



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm running Polk FXi50s as side surrounds in bipole mode right now, but I have a pair of Polk RTi38s in the closet and I'm tempted to swap them out and recalibrate soon. Unfortunately, they're mounted damn near at the ceiling, so not remotely per Atmos specs. I could move them down a few feet, but it would involve 1) pushing them a foot further toward the front of the room so the left surround misses a window and 2) visible wire from the ceiling down to the speaker because the exterior wall is brick and we couldn't run in-wall. But I'm still tempted to try the 38s there and see what the difference is (and I could always hang an acoustic panel over the wire if I was feeling crafty). The FXi50s currently don't seem to offer any real advantage as far as a diffuse sound field now that I'm running Atmos/DSU. If I do it this weekend, I'll be sure to post my impressions.


Yeah I would love to hear what you think of the change.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice room, Aras. Plenty of big speakers and acoustic treatment.


Come on, we all know what you're REALLY thinking....


----------



## cdelena

Many times room configuration is going to challenge speaker placement.


I experimented with dipole, bipole, mono speakers for surrounds (short sessions with some borrowed equipment) and found that it is more complicated with two rows of seating and limited side clearance. Went with bipole and happy with the results.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> I did notice the center channel looks pretty low, do you have it angled up? There is probably some floor bounce also that impacts dialogue intelligibility.
> 
> $800 for all of those panels is a great deal. Nicely done!


Yes, it's angled up about 15-20 degrees-ish. I would have liked to place it higher but it doesn't fit on the platform above (the TV is mounted as high as it can go which is an 1 1/2" too low for the center speaker). I'm not brave enough to find a mounting solution that would be above the TV. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Nice room, Aras. Plenty of big speakers and acoustic treatment.





batpig said:


> Come on, we all know what you're REALLY thinking....


Haha! thanks Scott!

In the first few pics you can see my sub... 18" velodyne. I was thinking about getting a 2nd subwoofer... any recommendations for one that would play nice with the velodyne? I've heard the 18" sub is "slower"? If I recall Scott you have a huge array of DIY subs?


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> My case, as with most I guess, is quite unique to my own room. The room is very small and, perforce, I sit close to the surrounds. This is one reason I initially chose tripoles - to disperse the sound as well as possible. The tripoles were mounted at 90° to MLP. The result was a nice, airy presentation of ambience and music but with discrete sounds (the proverbial door slam) being localisable as they should be. I felt like I was in a nice bubble of sound.
> 
> When I switched over to Atmos, I decided the surrounds needed to be relocated to 110° and the tripoles were less than ideal for this. I chose the Tannoy Di6 DC dual concentric designs for a variety of reasons. They have a very wide dispersion pattern, they have very high power handling, and they are dual concentrics, which means that the sound is phase-coherent right from the driver. This is important IMO when one sits close to the speakers as I do. And of course, at the same time I added 4 overhead speakers, creating a superlative "sphere" of sound with Atmos or DSU upmixing. The latter has more than compensated for any "loss of environment" in the room due to the change of speaker. Of course, everyone's mileage may vary, but this has been my experience here. I have no regrets about going away from the tripoles. Equally, I would have kept them if I had not decided to go down the Atmos route.


Well Keith looks like you have ignited everyone's interest me included in experimenting from dipole/bipole/Tri-pole to direct fire speakers.
As I already said like you my tr-pole surrounds are at 110deg but its a simple change of jumpers to go direct so I will give it a go when I get the chance.
The surround backs are also Tri-pole but I will be swapping them out for KK Q-85 direct fire.
Nothing ventured nothing gained


----------



## zeus33

Aras_Volodka said:


> TY  I got them from GEK,......



GIK Acoustics?


----------



## virtualrain

When considering front presence speakers, do any of these stand out as far superior or do they all offer a similar effect after room calibration?...

1. Specially designed Atmos speakers on top of your front's pointed up towards the ceiling (e.g. http://www.klipsch.com/rp-140sa)
2. Bookshelf speakers placed on top of your front's pointed up towards the ceiling (e.g. http://www.klipsch.com/R-15M)
3. Bookshelf speakers mounted to the wall near the ceiling firing straight back (e.g. http://www.klipsch.com/R-15M)
4. Ceiling mount speakers mounted in the ceiling between the screen and couch firing down (e.g. http://www.klipsch.com/CDT-3650-C-II)


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Come on, we all know what you're REALLY thinking....


Haha! Always could use more subwoofers. 



Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha! thanks Scott!
> 
> In the first few pics you can see my sub... 18" velodyne. I was thinking about getting a 2nd subwoofer... any recommendations for one that would play nice with the velodyne? I've heard the 18" sub is "slower"? If I recall Scott you have a huge array of DIY subs?



Don't think. Do!

"any recommendations"










"I've heard the 18" sub is "slower"?"

Nope. All lies forwarded by people who don't know what they're talking about.

"Huge array"? I wouldn't call it an "array" but I do have a lot of bass production capability.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

zeus33 said:


> GIK Acoustics?


Yes, my mistake.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Haha! Always could use more subwoofers.
> 
> Don't think. Do!


Haha... if I "Do" with all the things I thought about I'd be in severe debt 

Man that sub is insane!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha... if I "Do" with all the things I thought about I'd be in severe debt
> 
> Man that sub is insane!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson




----------



## blastermaster

> It's also worth noting that those Tannoys appear to cost $1K apiece, so you're talking about a much higher end speaker than the Axioms


This is very true. They are a way higher handling speaker, but it would be interesting to compare two similarly priced direct firing vs dipole/bipole for Atmos. 



> I already had these speakers so it was a free experiment to try them out, but now I may try some direct firing surrounds. I was concerned about "hot spotting" with the speakers jumping out and distracting me on hard surround effects, but it seems you guys don't have such issues?


As I said, the QS8's definitely disappear in the room. And, yes, there is the odd time when I can localize the sound of my sides, but nowhere near as much as I would have expected. The gain in clarity and precision I'm getting more than makes up for any localization issues, which are minimal at best. My room is 12 feet wide, so they're 6 feet from the MLP (obviously). At that distance, it's great and I did sit near the ends for a bit and it also wasn't as bad as I expected. One thing to note is that I'm not going with two rows of seating, so both my sides and rears will be at ear height (I guess just slightly above in order to be above the couch). I'm almost finished setting up my rear speakers which are currently about 2 feet above, so I will report back what it's like when the rears are also at ear height. Remember, I'm still just using...what are we calling it now...legacy Dolby surround? When Atmos and DTS:X enter the fray in my HT I'm expecting the way I have it set up now to be pretty ideal. 

Oh, and I fully intend to test out both 9.1.2 and 7.1.4. I'd imagine that if there were any hotspotting issues, having the front wides would help the sides disappear more fully. Hoping for 9.1.4 receivers to come out...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


>


I don't know if I should be allowed around anything electronic... I tried to fix one of my chorus II's and it didn't go well (haha).


----------



## HT-Eman

blastermaster said:


> This is very true. They are a way higher handling speaker, but it would be interesting to compare two similarly priced direct firing vs dipole/bipole for Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, the QS8's definitely disappear in the room. And, yes, there is the odd time when I can localize the sound of my sides, but nowhere near as much as I would have expected. The gain in clarity and precision I'm getting more than makes up for any localization issues, which are minimal at best. My room is 12 feet wide, so they're 6 feet from the MLP (obviously). At that distance, it's great and I did sit near the ends for a bit and it also wasn't as bad as I expected. One thing to note is that I'm not going with two rows of seating, so both my sides and rears will be at ear height (I guess just slightly above in order to be above the couch). I'm almost finished setting up my rear speakers which are currently about 2 feet above, so I will report back what it's like when the rears are also at ear height. Remember, I'm still just using...what are we calling it now...legacy Dolby surround? When Atmos and DTS:X enter the fray in my HT I'm expecting the way I have it set up now to be pretty ideal.
> 
> Oh, and I fully intend to test out both 9.1.2 and 7.1.4. I'd imagine that if there were any hotspotting issues, having the front wides would help the sides disappear more fully. Hoping for 9.1.4 receivers to come out...


I have qs8 also for my rear surrounds , love them but I will be trading them in for a pair of m2 on-walls. My side surrounds are m2 on-walls , m22 L/R speakers , and vp160 center channel .


----------



## blastermaster

> I have qs8 also for my rear surrounds , love them but I will be trading them in for a pair of m2 on-walls. My side surrounds are m2 on-walls , m22 L/R speakers , and vp160 center channel .


Is it possible for you to test them before you make the trade and post your opinions? Do you have an Atmos receiver? It would be cool if you could make a comparison between the QS8 and M2 as, realistically, my comparison is only somewhat valid as my new speakers are a significant jump in price and performance. I think it would be helpful to people trying to decide if they should purchase direct firing for their surrounds and/or if they should replace their current bipole/dipole speakers seeing as Dolby recommends monopoles for Atmos...


----------



## batpig

curious why you would have used the QS8's as back surrounds with the M2's on the sides -- usually when you have a pair of multipolar and a pair of monopolar surrounds you'd use the wide dispersion ones at the sides and the direct radiators in back....


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> I don't have an Atmos capable receiver yet, but in anticipation of a future AVR purchase I went from a quadpolar bipole design (located two feet above ear level and just slightly behind the MLP):
> 
> http://www.axiomaudio.com/qs8-surround-sound-speakers
> 
> To a monopole dual concentric design (Exactly at ear height and directly to the sides - the specs on their site are wrong...the manual is correct):
> 
> http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1492
> 
> The difference I notice is that the sound from the QS8's is definitely more diffuse. I figured that I would lose that room filling sound going to the monopole. Quite the contrary, it blended so well with my mains (which are also a Tannoy dual concentric design) that I found the clarity of the sound to be simply amazing. I'm not sure if it's the dual concentric design or not, but I don't notice them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. I went back and played movies that I've watched a zillion times (Daniel Craig Bond films, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc) and I'm picking up stuff that I didn't notice before. I figure it's the diffusion of the sound of the QS8's that makes some of the sounds inaudible.
> 
> Once I get a 3D sound receiver, I'm sure the speakers will simply disappear (fingers crossed) with Atmos and DTS:X movies.
> 
> The long and short of it is that I am so glad to be back with monopole (direct firing) speakers.


Those in-wall Tannoys look like a great choice. If I could accommodate in-walls, I may well have gone with those myself. Imaging and clarity seem to be the strong suit for Tannoy dual concentrics - and their high power handling suits me too. I am very happy with my Di6 DCs as surrounds - as you say, I too get a 'room'filling' surround sound from them, without them drawing unnecessary attention to themselves.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I already had these speakers so it was a free experiment to try them out, but now I may try some direct firing surrounds. I was concerned about "hot spotting" with the speakers jumping out and distracting me on hard surround effects, but it seems you guys don't have such issues?


Not here. My surround field is nicely diffuse and ambient when required, while also being nicely directional when required (ie when the mixer deliberately puts discrete content in them - eg the impressive ricochets I noticed in last night's movie (the impressive-for-a-new-director, Australian gangster movie *Son of a Gun*), so the best of both worlds really). How much this has to do with the dual concentric design I don't know. I have always been a big fan of dual concentric speakers though, having had very impressive Tannoy Westminsters aeons ago and, more recently, a variety of Kef designs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> TY  I got them from GEK, the insulation in the panels I think is about 2 & 1/2" to 3" thick. It was actually quite affordable for the whole set... they have deals for warehouse seconds which I took advantage of. It was like 800 bucks when all was said & done. I would have built the panels but I don't have a saw here & I didn't want to worry about moving it in 3 months (though I guess that sort of defies the logic of buying a room full of acoustic panels LOL). But they are really cheap... & for the time it would take to build them it just wouldn't be worth it for me to make so many... but I do plan to build my own diffusors & bass traps when I do get some saws. I used to refinish pianos for a living so I plan to make them look very nice with maple wood & high gloss lacquer.
> 
> So anyway... the sound is soooooo much better... the biggest difference I've noticed is dialogue actually. The center Klipsch always left me feeling disappointed, like the vocals had no presence. Now it's got that movie theater sound... very pleasing.
> 
> Everything is also much more clear now as well in terms of surrounds & overhead. Unfortunately the baby was asleep when we were watching Star Trek into darkness last night so I had to turn it down during action sequences... but with the DSU I heard lots of sounds coming from overhead.


Nice room, Aras! Yes, the immediately obvious difference after installing treatments is the greatly superior imaging and clarity, especially with dialogue as you note.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Well Keith looks like you have ignited everyone's interest me included in experimenting from dipole/bipole/Tri-pole to direct fire speakers.
> As I already said like you my tr-pole surrounds are at 110deg but its a simple change of jumpers to go direct so I will give it a go when I get the chance.
> The surround backs are also Tri-pole but I will be swapping them out for KK Q-85 direct fire.
> Nothing ventured nothing gained


I think direct radiating speakers are really the way to go anyway, philosophically (IYSWIM). Dipoles stem from the early days of surround sound when mixers didn’t place discrete sounds in them and they gave a nice approximation of a real cinema experience. But things have moved on and nowadays we have 5 (or 7) discrete channels and mixers deliberate place a lot of discrete sounds in the surrounds. It seems to me that direct radiators are more suited to the present day. I am not knocking anyone who prefers dipoles. The tripoles I used were a good compromise of the two distinct designs as they combined elements of both. Also, for Atmos, I think I am right in saying that Dolby recommend direct radiators all round.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> *Well Keith looks like you have ignited everyone's interest me included in experimenting from dipole/bipole/Tri-pole to direct fire speakers.*
> As I already said like you my tr-pole surrounds are at 110deg but its a simple change of jumpers to go direct so I will give it a go when I get the chance.
> The surround backs are also Tri-pole but I will be swapping them out for KK Q-85 direct fire.
> Nothing ventured nothing gained


I’d just add: that is a big responsibility  Please don't hang on my every word on this (or indeed anything else LOL) - every room and every preference is different and what works very well for me, in my circumstances and with my preferences and prejudices may not work well for everyone. And never forget that my room is used solely for movies. No music is played in there at all (other than the music in movies of course) and this may also have a bearing on matters.


----------



## HT-Eman

batpig said:


> curious why you would have used the QS8's as back surrounds with the M2's on the sides -- usually when you have a pair of multipolar and a pair of monopolar surrounds you'd use the wide dispersion ones at the sides and the direct radiators in back....


I was using a 5.1 setup before with the QS8 as side surrounds . I then bought the M2 to make 7.1 setup. I'm not in a dedicated HT and the bottom of the QS8 woofer was directly over a chaise lounge chair. I move them as rear surround and honestly it sounded better. I went through 2 Onkyo receivers ( the 818 and the 919 ) , both gave out on me with the HDMI board issues. So I currently don't have any receiver ( with or without atmos ) to test when I replace the QS8 with another pair of M2 .


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> If the mic is meant to be used at 90° to the measured speakers, for a proper result that is how it should be used. In the case of the listener level speakers, this is achieved by pointing the mic at the ceiling. But that is clearly therefore incorrect when measuring the speakers on the ceiling. It will result in an incorrect calibration of those speakers, which is the purpose of the discussion. There's no 'philosophical' issue about this: the calibration of the overhead speakers will be incorrect - that's it.


I posted about this issue after I visited a bass pro's home..
The lower ceiling, and the larger than normal ceiling speakers might give the Audyssey a different set of values to calculate, resulting in a sound which might be odd.
Boosting the levels may help, since elevating the speakers is out of the question.

Cheers


----------



## dvdwilly3

HT-Eman said:


> I was using a 5.1 setup before with the QS8 as side surrounds . I then bought the M2 to make 7.1 setup. I'm not in a dedicated HT and the bottom of the QS8 woofer was directly over a chaise lounge chair. I move them as rear surround and honestly it sounded better. I went through 2 Onkyo receivers ( the 818 and the 919 ) , both gave out on me with the HDMI board issues. So I currently don't have any receiver ( with or without atmos ) to test when I replace the QS8 with another pair of M2 .


FWIW, there are aftermarket fans, such as...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000YSONMO?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage

That can be mounted on top of the receiver case to blow air directly onto the HDMI to help cool it, and prolong its life.
Whether you go Onkyo again, or another brand (Denon and Marantz run hotter...), you should provide as much space around the receiver (top, in particular) so that the receiver stays as cool as possible. 
There are electrolytic capacitors on the HDMI (and other) boards that will dry out from the heat and die. There is no recovering unless you pull the board and replace them. That has worked for a number of people.

But, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Keep the receiver as cool as possible to begin with and you avoid the problem long term.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice room, Aras! Yes, the immediately obvious difference after installing treatments is the greatly superior imaging and clarity, especially with dialogue as you note.


Thanks Keith! 



kbarnes701 said:


> I’d just add: that is a big responsibility  Please don't hang on my every word on this (or indeed anything else LOL) - every room and every preference is different and what works very well for me, in my circumstances and with my preferences and prejudices may not work well for everyone. And never forget that my room is used solely for movies. No music is played in there at all (other than the music in movies of course) and this may also have a bearing on matters.


Hmmm... maybe I should consider switch out my bipoles? I've got the RS-62 II Surround Speaker, while they are 2 way, the sound that comes from center/front is actually somewhat direct. When I bought them from a collector out here he allowed me to compare them to his other speakers. I was mindful about Dolby's recommendation for not using bi-poles/ tri-poles when I made the purchase. Maybe get the RB-51 II instead?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks Keith!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... maybe I should consider switch out my bipoles? I've got the RS-62 II Surround Speaker, while they are 2 way, the sound that comes from center/front is actually somewhat direct. When I bought them from a collector out here he allowed me to compare them to his other speakers. I was mindful about Dolby's recommendation for not using bi-poles/ tri-poles when I made the purchase. Maybe get the RB-51 II instead?


I'd only consider changing speakers if there was something about the current speakers I didn't like - something that irritated me every time I listened. Now you have treatments installed, chances are your existing speakers are working better than they ever have anyway. Treatments are the biggest ever bang for the buck aren’t they - $800 in your case and such an improvement. And unlike anything else you can buy for the HT, treatments don't wear out, go out of date, need upgrading or updates and last pretty much for ever. Not bad for the price of an average AVR is it?

And if you make your own (like I did with about half mine) they cost almost nothing.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd only consider changing speakers if there was something about the current speakers I didn't like - something that irritated me every time I listened. Now you have treatments installed, chances are your existing speakers are working better than they ever have anyway. Treatments are the biggest ever bang for the buck aren’t they - $800 in your case and such an improvement. And unlike anything else you can buy for the HT, treatments don't wear out, go out of date, need upgrading or updates and last pretty much for ever. Not bad for the price of an average AVR is it?
> 
> And if you make your own (like I did with about half mine) they cost almost nothing.


Yes for sure! I do plan to build 3D diffusors & chunky bass traps after I move... that should be a fun project. 

I have noticed one thing regarding surrounds... in the "unfold" trailer on the atmos demo disc, if you recall there is an extreme pan from left to right about halfway through the trailer. On my bro in law's HT (he has Def tech towers that are spaced very far apart... maybe like 5 meters) on his system the pan sounds more impressive... as if your ears are being pulled from left to right (not sure how else to describe the sensation). I don't really hear that at my place. I'll do some more testing though, I haven't really had much of a chance to listen since installing the treatments. 

I noticed you guys were talking about dirac the other day... the software for that is like 800 bucks for HT calibration right?


----------



## jrref

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yes for sure! I do plan to build 3D diffusors & chunky bass traps after I move... that should be a fun project.
> 
> I have noticed one thing regarding surrounds... in the "unfold" trailer on the atmos demo disc, if you recall there is an extreme pan from left to right about halfway through the trailer. On my bro in law's HT (he has Def tech towers that are spaced very far apart... maybe like 5 meters) on his system the pan sounds more impressive... as if your ears are being pulled from left to right (not sure how else to describe the sensation). I don't really hear that at my place. I'll do some more testing though, I haven't really had much of a chance to listen since installing the treatments.
> 
> I noticed you guys were talking about dirac the other day... the software for that is like 800 bucks for HT calibration right?


I found the same. The further apart the surrounds, the more impressive the sound. I guess it has something to do with how your brain perceives the sound it's hearing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yes for sure! I do plan to build 3D diffusors & chunky bass traps after I move... that should be a fun project.


It's pretty straightforward and for someone with your skills the result will be terrific - better I suspect than the commercially available ones.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I have noticed one thing regarding surrounds... in the "unfold" trailer on the atmos demo disc, if you recall there is an extreme pan from left to right about halfway through the trailer. On my bro in law's HT (he has Def tech towers that are spaced very far apart... maybe like 5 meters) on his system the pan sounds more impressive... as if your ears are being pulled from left to right (not sure how else to describe the sensation). I don't really hear that at my place. I'll do some more testing though, I haven't really had much of a chance to listen since installing the treatments.


Could be anything really. None of us have any real idea of what anyone else is hearing in their individual circumstances. So long as yours sounds good, why worry? If his speakers are 15 feet apart, I'd say that was too much in almost all circumstances (how wide is his screen?) but if it sounds good, then it is good. My room isn't nearly that wide so there's no chance of me replicating what he is hearing anyway and so I accept that pans will never sound as good as in a bigger room, simply because they have less room (and time) to 'travel', thus making them end before they've barely begun IYSWIM. Nothing I can do about it here, so no point worrying about it.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I noticed you guys were talking about dirac the other day... the software for that is like 800 bucks for HT calibration right?


We were discussing the miniDSP DDRC-88A which is a hardware unit which sits between the prepro and the power amps and uses Dirac Live to calibrate the system. It costs about $1,000 in total. It is SOTA room EQ and the results, from everyone who has tried it, are sensationally good. A huge cut above XT32 that I used to use. Most noticeable is the improvement in the overall soundstage and image placement/precision (probably a result of the mixed-phase filters DL uses, as opposed to the minimum-phase solution that is Audyssey). There is a dedicated thread for the 88A here on AVS if you want to explore further.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

jrref said:


> I found the same. The further apart the surrounds, the more impressive the sound. I guess it has something to do with how your brain perceives the sound it's hearing.





kbarnes701 said:


> Could be anything really. None of us have any real idea of what anyone else is hearing in their individual circumstances. So long as yours sounds good, why worry? If his speakers are 15 feet apart, I'd say that was too much in almost all circumstances (how wide is his screen?) but if it sounds good, then it is good. My room isn't nearly that wide so there's no chance of me replicating what he is hearing anyway and so I accept that pans will never sound as good as in a bigger room, simply because they have less room (and time) to 'travel', thus making them end before they've barely begun IYSWIM. Nothing I can do about it here, so no point worrying about it.


He's got a 65" set, you can get a sense of scale here in the attached image. 

To give you an idea, his surrounds are placed probably another meter and a half out towards the sides of the room (I'm probably standing right next to the right surround in this pic). His speakers are the def tech towers so I'm not sure if that has more to do with it. He's got the modules on top of the Def tech's too, with angled in ceiling speakers in the front. I do think the overhead sound @ my place is better, but for his setup he's more focused on music listening... He actually got a ton of upgrades since that pic... like the giant Mcintosch monoblocks!

His front sound stage is very amazing though, they blow my Chorus II's away!

I'm hoping to find a room wider like this when I move, and hopefully with enough length for me to keep similar proportions to what I have now... I definitely noticed how dramatic the difference of having the added length that my basement has on the sound vs. my upstairs living room (2nd & 3rd images attached, the 1st of which was taken just in front & to the left of the MLP). 

Keith, you are moving soon as well right? Will the HT in your next setup be able to accommodate a 7.1.4/9.1.6 setup? I remember you saying that UK rooms tend to be smaller but you are building from scratch?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> He's got a 65" set, you can get a sense of scale here in the attached image.
> 
> To give you an idea, his surrounds are placed probably another meter and a half out towards the sides of the room (I'm probably standing right next to the right surround in this pic). His speakers are the def tech towers so I'm not sure if that has more to do with it. He's got the modules on top of the Def tech's too, with angled in ceiling speakers in the front. I do think the overhead sound @ my place is better, but for his setup he's more focused on music listening... He actually got a ton of upgrades since that pic... like the giant Mcintosch monoblocks!
> 
> His front sound stage is very amazing though, they blow my Chorus II's away!
> 
> I'm hoping to find a room wider like this when I move, and hopefully with enough length for me to keep similar proportions to what I have now... I definitely noticed how dramatic the difference of having the added length that my basement has on the sound vs. my upstairs living room (2nd & 3rd images attached, the 1st of which was taken just in front & to the left of the MLP).
> 
> Keith, you are moving soon as well right? Will the HT in your next setup be able to accommodate a 7.1.4/9.1.6 setup? I remember you saying that UK rooms tend to be smaller but you are building from scratch?


See, to me that is not a balanced setup. In the first image, the screen is just way, way too small for those speakers, set as far apart as they are. I'd want my screen to fill that space not to sit in the middle like a tiny little picture dwarfed by a huge, huge sound. If that were my setup I’d bring those speakers closer to the screen edges. There seems to me to be a disconnect between the edge of the image and the edge of the associated sound. If the mixer places a sound right at the left edge of the image, in that system it will be way over to the left, beyond the action it is representing on screen.

I am hoping to move in a couple of years time. The HT will be a purpose designed space since we will be building our home from scratch so I will be aiming for 9.4.4 or even 9.4.6 if the current AVRs at the time permit that config. 

Rooms in Europe are way smaller than in the USA. I was reading this morning of a guy whose room in the US is 20 feet by 40 feet and he seemed to consider this "normal". In Europe a room like that is more or less unknown. His room is 2 feet wider than my current living room is long! But in the new place I will be looking for a room about 18 feet by 14 or something like that. The room itself may be longer than that as I intend to have a projection room which will house the PJ and all of the hardware. It should be exciting building an entire house from the ground up, to our own exact specification, and also to build a HT the same way.

PS. Why has that guy not got a PJ?????


----------



## HT-Eman

dvdwilly3 said:


> FWIW, there are aftermarket fans, such as...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000YSONMO?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage
> 
> That can be mounted on top of the receiver case to blow air directly onto the HDMI to help cool it, and prolong its life.
> Whether you go Onkyo again, or another brand (Denon and Marantz run hotter...), you should provide as much space around the receiver (top, in particular) so that the receiver stays as cool as possible.
> There are electrolytic capacitors on the HDMI (and other) boards that will dry out from the heat and die. There is no recovering unless you pull the board and replace them. That has worked for a number of people.
> 
> But, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Keep the receiver as cool as possible to begin with and you avoid the problem long term.


Can't say that I wouldn't buy another Onkyo receiver , but they are last on my list if I did. I'm going to go back to separates, Pre/Pro , and amplifiers . This is my 3rd time doing over my HT . Each time spending around $8,000 on equipment. Was just getting ready to buy new equipment and projector but i'm also trying to buy a house by next spring if all goes well. If I get a house , I will finally build a dedicated HT room.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> See, to me that is not a balanced setup. In the first image, the screen is just way, way too small for those speakers, set as far apart as they are. I'd want my screen to fill that space not to sit in the middle like a tiny little picture dwarfed by a huge, huge sound. If that were my setup I’d bring those speakers closer to the screen edges. There seems to me to be a disconnect between the edge of the image and the edge of the associated sound. If the mixer places a sound right at the left edge of the image, in that system it will be way over to the left, beyond the action it is representing on screen.
> 
> I am hoping to move in a couple of years time. The HT will be a purpose designed space since we will be building our home from scratch so I will be aiming for 9.4.4 or even 9.4.6 if the current AVRs at the time permit that config.
> 
> Rooms in Europe are way smaller than in the USA. I was reading this morning of a guy whose room in the US is 20 feet by 40 feet and he seemed to consider this "normal". In Europe a room like that is more or less unknown. His room is 2 feet wider than my current living room is long! But in the new place I will be looking for a room about 18 feet by 14 or something like that. The room itself may be longer than that as I intend to have a projection room which will house the PJ and all of the hardware. It should be exciting building an entire house from the ground up, to our own exact specification, and also to build a HT the same way.
> 
> PS. Why has that guy not got a PJ?????


I totally agree regarding the size of the screen... though keep in mind he's not as much as a movie guy as us. He got those B&W's for music listening & the rest is for occasional film watching... He said he doesn't like how close my TV is which is 65" as well. If it was me & money was no issue, I'd keep the same scale in terms of speaker placement as his but put in a huge 120" screen. 

Haha, 20 x 40 feet is pretty large by average standards! This house I'm at is like a lower middle class home; though expensive nonetheless! 

That's gonna be awesome building your own space! Those proportions sound ideal


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I actually did try talking him into waiting for an HDR set or high end projector... but he was skeptical about how the image quality compares with his 4k sony TV (I believe his is the triluminous). And pretty much his attitude was "ehhhh I don't need it, this is good enough!" 

I wish I could feel the same way :/ (haha)


----------



## dvdwilly3

Aras_Volodka said:


> He's got a 65" set, you can get a sense of scale here in the attached image.
> 
> To give you an idea, his surrounds are placed probably another meter and a half out towards the sides of the room (I'm probably standing right next to the right surround in this pic). His speakers are the def tech towers so I'm not sure if that has more to do with it. He's got the modules on top of the Def tech's too, with angled in ceiling speakers in the front. I do think the overhead sound @ my place is better, but for his setup he's more focused on music listening... He actually got a ton of upgrades since that pic... like the giant Mcintosch monoblocks!
> 
> His front sound stage is very amazing though, they blow my Chorus II's away!
> 
> I'm hoping to find a room wider like this when I move, and hopefully with enough length for me to keep similar proportions to what I have now... I definitely noticed how dramatic the difference of having the added length that my basement has on the sound vs. my upstairs living room (2nd & 3rd images attached, the 1st of which was taken just in front & to the left of the MLP).
> 
> Keith, you are moving soon as well right? Will the HT in your next setup be able to accommodate a 7.1.4/9.1.6 setup? I remember you saying that UK rooms tend to be smaller but you are building from scratch?


Which Def Tech towers are those? 7002's?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dvdwilly3 said:


> Which Def Tech towers are those? 7002's?


No, his surrounds are the towers... BP-8060ST if I recall correctly... whichever one allows you to plug the module on top.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I totally agree regarding the size of the screen... though keep in mind he's not as much as a movie guy as us. He got those B&W's for music listening & the rest is for occasional film watching... He said he doesn't like how close my TV is which is 65" as well. If it was me & money was no issue, I'd keep the same scale in terms of speaker placement as his but put in *a huge 120" screen*.


Now you're talkin'!



Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha, 20 x 40 feet is pretty large by average standards! This house I'm at is like a lower middle class home; though expensive nonetheless!
> 
> That's gonna be awesome building your own space! Those proportions sound ideal


I am looking forward to starting with a clean sheet. I am also lucky that Roger Dressler is right now doing the same sort of thing, and documenting his progress in the Deadwood Theater thread, so I will be able to learn from his experiences as he goes along. I find the HT build threads fascinating but it would be a full time job keeping up with them so I picked Roger as a role model  He hasn't ever let me down so far...


----------



## Lesmor

Having a dedicated room is great
If I did it again I would pay particular attention to the room dimensions to make sure it was a "golden ratio"
Being from the UK I think 8 foot ceilings are too low especially with the advent of "immersive" audio

When I built my house 20 years ago specifically to get a dedicated listening room there was no internet as a resource.
At that time my interest was 2 channel music didn't even know subs existed.
Now I am 100% movies and dont listen to music at all.

My room is 20x17 going 20 feet at the front into an alcove which at the time I thought was a good idea for positioning a rack.

In hindsight how wrong could I be having a stupid alcove and a basically 20x20 dimensioned room.
That might sound like a big room but just like having a 55" TV you soon get used to it.
So I would now go bigger and give a lot more thought to ratio's if I had to do it again.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Having a dedicated room is great
> If I did it again I would pay particular attention to the room dimensions to make sure it was a "golden ratio"
> Being from the UK I think 8 foot ceilings are too low especially with the advent of "immersive" audio


The ceiling height has been occupying my mind from time to time. Ideally I would want the HT to have a higher ceiling than the typical 8 feet - maybe 10 or 11 feet, in order to facilitate the separation ideally required for Atmos. The problem is, of course, that if all of the other rooms in the house have 8 foot ceilings, then one room with an 11 foot ceiling is a problem, unless the HT is a separate (but connected) annexe to the side or rear of the house. This will complicate things, and make the build more expensive but it may be worthwhile.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Aras_Volodka said:


> No, his surrounds are the towers... BP-8060ST if I recall correctly... whichever one allows you to plug the module on top.


I am missing something...are the 8060's supposed to be in one of the pictures? The first picture?
If not, then I have misread your post. But, there are no 8060 towers in any of the 3 pictures. I have them myself and I just don't see them anywhere. The first picture is of Bowers & Wilkins 803's unless I am mistaken...but, there are no modules on them either.
I am just trying to understand what it is I am supposed to be looking at.
As I said earlier, if they are not pictured then I have simply misread the post. I thought that they were supposed to be in the first attached picture.
Are all 3 of the pictures your setup??


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am missing something...are the 8060's supposed to be in one of the pictures? The first picture?
> If not, then I have misread your post. But, there are no 8060 towers in any of the 3 pictures. I have them myself and I just don't see them anywhere. The first picture is of Bowers & Wilkins 803's unless I am mistaken...but, there are no modules on them either.
> I am just trying to understand what it is I am supposed to be looking at.
> As I said earlier, if they are not pictured then I have simply misread the post. I thought that they were supposed to be in the first attached picture.
> Are all 3 of the pictures your setup??


http://www.definitivetech.com/images/categories/landing/A60_Lifestyle_400px2.jpg

This is a picture of the Def Tech 8060 towers with the A60 modules attached (if I did this correctly...).


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> The ceiling height has been occupying my mind from time to time. Ideally I would want the HT to have a higher ceiling than the typical 8 feet - maybe 10 or 11 feet, in order to facilitate the separation ideally required for Atmos. The problem is, of course, that if all of the other rooms in the house have 8 foot ceilings, then one room with an 11 foot ceiling is a problem, unless the HT is a separate (but connected) annexe to the side or rear of the house. This will complicate things, and make the build more expensive but it may be worthwhile.


I would agree Keith but if I was building from scratch I am sure it would be achievable at the planning stage
You are fortunate that you are in the early stages, wish I knew 20yr ago what I have learned since then
Cheers
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> I would agree Keith but if I was building from scratch I am sure it would be achievable at the planning stage


I am sure I will find a satisfactory solution with careful planning. In some ways I like the idea of a totally self-contained annexe, connected to the rest of the house with a covered, enclosed walkway of some kind. It would make noise containment less of an issue for one thing. I am sure that a good architect will have plenty of ideas.



Lesmor said:


> You are fortunate that you are in the early stages, wish I knew 20yr ago what I have learned since then
> Cheers
> Andy



Oh yes - this is a huge advantage for me. If I had built a HT 10 years ago, when I knew next to nothing, I can only imagine the mess I might have made of it. But with some solid experience and understanding behind me now, I hope to avoid many of the mistakes I know I would have made. I want this to be a 'build it and forget it' job - once it is done it will be purely for enjoying, not for tinkering. This of course adds to the pressure of getting it right. I am not sure how much professional help to get with it.

We are getting a long way off topic so we should stop the discussion really. I might start a new thread at some stage - "Building a HT from scratch - what to do and what not to do". Or similar.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am missing something...are the 8060's supposed to be in one of the pictures? The first picture?
> If not, then I have misread your post. But, there are no 8060 towers in any of the 3 pictures. I have them myself and I just don't see them anywhere. The first picture is of Bowers & Wilkins 803's unless I am mistaken...but, there are no modules on them either.
> I am just trying to understand what it is I am supposed to be looking at.
> As I said earlier, if they are not pictured then I have simply misread the post. I thought that they were supposed to be in the first attached picture.
> Are all 3 of the pictures your setup??


Sorry, I should have labeled more clearly:

The 1st pic is my bro in law's setup. I don't have pics of his whole room or the Def tech speakers; I was just trying to give an impression of where his speakers are placed (pretty much the Def Tech speaker was located from where I took the photograph of his B&W speakers... in order to show how wide his L/R surrounds are... as I'm very impressed with the surround's sound) 

The other two pics are my old HT space, just to show how elongating a room / spacing speakers a bit further away does a lot to help the sound... that room was *very* cramped!


----------



## Lesmor

Didn't realise that "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)" has a Dolby Atmos mix hopefully it will be the same on Blu-ray


----------



## Orbitron

Lesmor said:


> Didn't realise that "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)" has a Dolby Atmos mix hopefully it will be the same on Blu-ray


Reminds me of the early days of HD channels on cable systems - not much at first, then the gates opened up.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry, I should have labeled more clearly:
> 
> The 1st pic is my bro in law's setup. I don't have pics of his whole room or the Def tech speakers; I was just trying to give an impression of where his speakers are placed (pretty much the Def Tech speaker was located from where I took the photograph of his B&W speakers... in order to show how wide his L/R surrounds are... as I'm very impressed with the surround's sound)
> 
> The other two pics are my old HT space, just to show how elongating a room / spacing speakers a bit further away does a lot to help the sound... that room was *very* cramped!


Aras, thanks for the elaboration. Now it makes sense. . The Def Techs throw a huge sound stage...and, if set up correctly, music/movie tracks just come out of the air with no localization to the speakers themselves.

One thing that I am taking from this discussion is that I am going to try separating my top rear speakers (reflective mode on stands) to see how that may affect the imagimg at the rear. Right now they are sitting more like 4-5' apart. I think that was Grimaldi's (or somebody's) recommendation.

I will move them out to at least mirror the fronts more like what it appears that your brother in law is doing (judging from the pics...). From your shot it looks like he may even have his outside of the line of the fronts. My fronts are about 3' off of each side wall, so theyare about 8' apart.

Do you recall if that is the placement for his rear surrounds?


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> Didn't realise that "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)" has a Dolby Atmos mix


One of 7 movies released just this month with an Atmos mix.


> hopefully it will be the same on Blu-ray


Since it is not from Disney or Fox, there is a chance that it could end up on Blu-ray.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dvdwilly3 said:


> Aras, thanks for the elaboration. Now it makes sense. . The Def Techs throw a huge sound stage...and, if set up correctly, music/movie tracks just come out of the air with no localization to the speakers themselves.
> 
> One thing that I am taking from this discussion is that I am going to try separating my top rear speakers (reflective mode on stands) to see how that may affect the imagimg at the rear. Right now they are sitting more like 4-5' apart. I think that was Grimaldi's (or somebody's) recommendation.
> 
> I will move them out to at least mirror the fronts more like what it appears that your brother in law is doing (judging from the pics...). From your shot it looks like he may even have his outside of the line of the fronts. My fronts are about 3' off of each side wall, so theyare about 8' apart.
> 
> Do you recall if that is the placement for his rear surrounds?


The place from where I was standing was to the left of the right surround. I'm not a big fan of my bro in law's rear speaker setup... he put his in ceiling. He has them in line with the front in ceiling speakers if I recall. You can see in this pic how I placed mine... I'm very happy with that layout for the rears, it sounds great!:


----------



## 2pacalypsenow

Just watched the Atmos version of gravity with the onkio Atmos speakers and all I can say I WOW


----------



## marlon1925

sirs,

presently have 7.1 set up and im planning to put up a 7.1.4 in my ht. Should I give up my wides and install rear surrounds instead?

help please!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

grendelrt said:


> Yeah I would love to hear what you think of the change.


I swapped my FXi50s out for a pair of RTi28s today because I could place them a little lower on the wall. Ran Audyssey and have been fiddling with it. While the bipoles gave the room an immense feeling, having the direct radiators on side surround duty seems to make things sound more precisely placed in the room. And it still seems like I get a good dispersed sound where the speakers don't call attention to themselves. I'm watching Knowing right now in DSU and while I'm still going to give myself time with this setup before I decide, I'm leaning toward leaving the RTi28s in place and moving the FXi50s to my closet. Didn't think I would prefer the smaller speakers over the larger bipoles, but it's meshing pretty nicely with my front height/top mid setup.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> One of 7 movies released just this month with an Atmos mix. Since it is not from Disney or Fox, there is a chance that it could end up on Blu-ray.


Sorry to go off topic but you seem to be the only one on the forum who knows this stuff... do you know if there is a way to tell which films will be released theatrically in HDR? The HDR theater in my area will open in September... & I'm hoping to see an HDR film then. Is Disney & Fox releasing all their films in HDR theaters with HDR grading? 

I didn't get to see the one I wanted in atmos this month (the gallows... no theaters in my area were playing the atmos version... & there's 7 atmos theaters near me!!!). If it doesn't get a bluray release... then I'm guessing something like 300 people worldwide got to hear the atmos mix (haha). 

Mission impossible sounds like it will be a fun one 



marlon1925 said:


> sirs,
> 
> presently have 7.1 set up and im planning to put up a 7.1.4 in my ht. Should I give up my wides and install rear surrounds instead?
> 
> help please!


YES! Then in like 4 years put the wides back for 9.1.4 or whatever. 

Having the rear surrounds adds *soooooo* much to the immersive-ness 



2pacalypsenow said:


> Just watched the Atmos version of gravity with the onkio Atmos speakers and all I can say I WOW


Just avoid "the gunman" bluray... I rented that & it's been the most boring atmos mix I've heard yet. I felt like I wasted my sunday afternoon to watch it because I was just waiting for the film to end


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry to go off topic but you seem to be the only one on the forum who knows this stuff... do you know if there is a way to tell which films will be released theatrically in HDR?


The only reason I know which movies are being released theatrically in Atmos is because Dolby maintains a list on their website. Unfortunately, no similar list for Dolby Vision, so I can't help you there.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have noticed one thing regarding surrounds... in the "unfold" trailer on the atmos demo disc, if you recall there is an extreme pan from left to right about halfway through the trailer. On my bro in law's HT (he has Def tech towers that are spaced very far apart... maybe like 5 meters) on his system the pan sounds more impressive... as if your ears are being pulled from left to right (not sure how else to describe the sensation). I don't really hear that at my place. I'll do some more testing though, I haven't really had much of a chance to listen since installing the treatments.





Aras_Volodka said:


> He's got a 65" set, you can get a sense of scale here in the attached image.
> 
> To give you an idea, his surrounds are placed probably another meter and a half out towards the sides of the room (I'm probably standing right next to the right surround in this pic.


Does your brother in law have his surrounds at about 110 degrees? Then the speaker placement you describe could be one that is (close to) equidistant from MLP. Consequently, what you are experiencing in his room may simply be the result of following the recommended, but not so often applied ('we have time delay so who cares'), equidistant placement of speakers.


----------



## Killer_Nads

2pacalypsenow said:


> Just watched the Atmos version of gravity with the onkio Atmos speakers and all I can say I WOW


Nice, I'm still waiting for my atmos upfiring onkyo speakers to arrive  they are taking rather long to come.

But glad to see your positive response with testing them. Did you also watch the Gravity with 3d and atmos or in 2d with Atmos?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> But for those movies which have little or no overhead content, I maintain that Atmos is still most worthwhile because of the amazing extra precision with which sounds are placed in the entire soundstage. I'd describe this as more than a 'refinement', but I see what you mean - in the sense that it is there already, before Atmos, but now it is 'enhanced'.


Yes. And I maintain that if your are not going beyond 7 listener-level speakers (like most of us do), you don't need an Atmos AVR/processor at home to get all of the amazing precision of a soundtrack mixed in Atmos. That is, if the standard 7.1 track has been derived from the Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes. And I maintain that if your are not going beyond 7 listener-level speakers (like most of us do), you don't need an Atmos AVR/processor at home to get all of the amazing precision of a soundtrack mixed in Atmos. That is, if the standard 7.1 track has been derived from the Atmos soundtrack.


Yes I suspect this is so. The extra care taken with the mix will benefit everyone. Of course, you will lack the amazing additional immersion which comes from having sounds emanate from above you as well as around you...


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes I suspect this is so. The extra care taken with the mix will benefit everyone. Of course, you will lack the amazing additional immersion which comes from having sounds emanate from above you as well as around you...


Like said, _if_ there are any overhead sounds in the Atmos mix. If not, you still have the DSU upmixer in your AtmosAVR/processor which apparently uses the overheads in abundance. DSU however, has little or nothing to do with Atmos object sound and can - unfortunately? - not be superimposed on an Atmos track exhibiting underwhelming overhead sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Like said, _if_ there are any overhead sounds in the Atmos mix. If not, you still have the DSU upmixer in your AtmosAVR/processor which apparently uses the overheads in abundance. DSU however, has little or nothing to do with Atmos object sound and can - unfortunately? - not be superimposed on an Atmos track exhibiting underwhelming overhead sound.


You can use DSU on an Atmos track if you wish. Just change the settings in your player so that it sends PCM for that movie. You will then get the 'core' track of the Atmos-mixed movie and can use DSU with it. I personally think this is counterproductive but it is an option for those who want to try it.


----------



## chi_guy50

marlon1925 said:


> sirs,
> 
> presently have 7.1 set up and im planning to put up a 7.1.4 in my ht. Should I give up my wides and install rear surrounds instead?
> 
> help please!


If you get an AVR that has 13 speaker connectors (e.g., Denon AVR-X5200/X6200/X7200W), you will not have to give up the wides in order to accommodate the SB. Although you are limited to max. 11-channel processing, you can then select between either Atmos 7.1.4 or 9.1.2, while retaining the ability to employ the FW when using DTS or A-DSX upmixing.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> You can use DSU on an Atmos track if you wish. Just change the settings in your player so that it sends PCM for that movie. You will then get the 'core' track of the Atmos-mixed movie and can use DSU with it. I personally think this is counterproductive but it is an option for those who want to try it.


If I understand you correctly, you are then turning off the Atmos capability of your AVR to allow DSU. That will work. But what I meant was, applying DSU while the Atmos object decoder is active. This is - to my knowledge - not possible.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> If I understand you correctly, you are then turning off the Atmos capability of your AVR to allow DSU. That will work. But what I meant was, applying DSU while the Atmos object decoder is active. This is - to my knowledge - not possible.


How would using Atmos and DSU both work at the same time? That seems an odd wish. Either you are sending discrete content to the overheads, or you are sending upmixed content to them - how can it be possible to send both at the same time? Am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> How would using Atmos and DSU both work at the same time? That seems an odd wish. Either you are sending discrete content to the overheads, or you are sending upmixed content to them - how can it be possible to send both at the same time? Am I misunderstanding you?


The 'wish' originates from the observation that a lot of home Atmos mixes hardly make any use of the overheads in order to improve the immersiveness of ambient sounds. Something that DSU seems to excel in. Combining the two would give you the possibility to hear those occasional discrete objects above you, and have maximum immersive DSU ambiance at the same time. I know it is currently not possible, but why would this be an odd wish for people that happen to like what DSU does to their movie sound in general?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> The 'wish' originates from the observation that a lot of home Atmos mixes hardly make any use of the overheads in order to improve the immersiveness of ambient sounds. Something that DSU seems to excel in. Combining the two would give you the possibility to hear those occasional discrete objects above you, and have maximum immersive DSU ambiance at the same time. I know it is currently not possible, but why would this be an odd wish for people that happen to like what DSU does to their movie sound in general?


It seems odd to expect discrete and upmixed content in the same speakers at the same time. It's like using PLIIx and having a discrete 7.1 mix on the disc. If you select the 7.1 mix you wouldn't also expect to be able to use PLIIx to upmix the 5.1 at the same time.

I expect (hope) that as mixers become more familiar with object mixing they place more sounds in the overhead speakers. Something like the way 5.1 evolved. I hope so anyway or it is a missed opportunity when there is on-screen content which more or less demands overhead speaker action.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> It seems odd to expect discrete and upmixed content in the same speakers at the same time. It's like using PLIIx and having a discrete 7.1 mix on the disc. If you select the 7.1 mix you wouldn't also expect to be able to use PLIIx to upmix the 5.1 at the same time.


I get your point.



> I expect (hope) that as mixers become more familiar with object mixing they place more sounds in the overhead speakers. Something like the way 5.1 evolved. I hope so anyway or it is a missed opportunity when there is on-screen content which more or less demands overhead speaker action.


And you got mine.


----------



## chi_guy50

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I swapped my FXi50s out for a pair of RTi28s today because I could place them a little lower on the wall. Ran Audyssey and have been fiddling with it. While the bipoles gave the room an immense feeling, having the direct radiators on side surround duty seems to make things sound more precisely placed in the room. And it still seems like I get a good dispersed sound where the speakers don't call attention to themselves. I'm watching Knowing right now in DSU and while I'm still going to give myself time with this setup before I decide, I'm leaning toward leaving the RTi28s in place and* moving the FXi50s to my closet*. Didn't think I would prefer the smaller speakers over the larger bipoles, but it's meshing pretty nicely with my front height/top mid setup.


Wow, and my wife thought I was going over the top when I wired up our master bathroom!

How are the acoustics in that closet?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, and my wife thought I was going over the top when I wired up our master bathroom!
> 
> How are the acoustics in that closet?


Pretty good! There's also a pair of RTi38s in there! 

I went through a used speaker buying spree for a while to find older Polks from the same model year as mine. Now I have RTi70 towers, a CSi40 center, 3 pairs of RTi28s, some RTi38s that someone tried to re-finish, and FXi50s (because I wanted to try bipoles due to my speaker placement limitations). I keep thinking I should pick a layout and sell the extras... but then, what if I need them for something?


----------



## chi_guy50

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Pretty good! There's also a pair of RTi38s in there!
> 
> I went through a used speaker buying spree for a while to find older Polks from the same model year as mine. Now I have RTi70 towers, a CSi40 center, 3 pairs of RTi28s, some RTi38s that someone tried to re-finish, and FXi50s (because I wanted to try bipoles due to my speaker placement limitations). I keep thinking I should pick a layout and sell the extras... but then, *what if I need them for something?*


Tell me about it! I've got two pairs of spare 80-F/X-RT's sitting in a closet awaiting Atmos 9.1.6(+).


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> Tell me about it! I've got two pairs of spare 80-F/X-RT's sitting in a closet awaiting Atmos 9.1.6(+).


I've got Aras' quartet of Atlantic Tech 44-DAs in our storage space, pending delivery of a pair of Crown XLR 1502s from Sweetwater in early August, and a pair of PSB Imagine S speakers I've held onto. All waiting for when I can do 7.1.4 if not 9.1.4 with the Altitude  .


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> I've got Aras' quartet of Atlantic Tech 44-DAs in our storage space, pending delivery of a pair of Crown XLR 1502s from Sweetwater in early August, and a pair of PSB Imagine S speakers I've held onto. All waiting for when I can do 7.1.4 if not 9.1.4 with the Altitude  .


Yeah, Atmos 1.0 has a lot of us in a holding pattern awaiting the chance to let the horses loose. However, I'll never reach your lofty "Altitude" on my more limited budget, Scott! (But mazel tov to you.)

OTOH, I'm still coming down from the rush of those Stanley Cup playoffs. Talk about multidimensional: How 'bout those 'Hawks!!!!


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> Yeah, Atmos 1.0 has a lot of us in a holding pattern awaiting the chance to let the horses loose. However, I'll never reach your lofty "Altitude" on my more limited budget, Scott! (But mazel tov to you.)



Thanks! It's Stuart, not Scott BTW. I must have accidentally taken my name off the last time I revised my signature. And thanks for the good wishes.



> OTOH, I'm still coming down from the rush of those Stanley Cup playoffs. Talk about multidimensional: How 'bout those 'Hawks!!!!



I can relate


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> Thanks! It's Stuart, not Scott BTW. I must have accidentally taken my name off the last time I revised my signature.



Oops, I knew that; sorry for the slip. 



sdrucker said:


> I can relate


Yes, I know you can; I believe this is you "relating":


----------



## Aras_Volodka

maikeldepotter said:


> Does your brother in law have his surrounds at about 110 degrees? Then the speaker placement you describe could be one that is (close to) equidistant from MLP. Consequently, what you are experiencing in his room may simply be the result of following the recommended, but not so often applied ('we have time delay so who cares'), equidistant placement of speakers.


I believe so... his speakers are slightly behind the MLP (maybe a foot or 2), angled in. All I know is that I like what I hear as far as surrounds are concerned. There are other things about his setup & like & don't like. Overall (as far as movie watching is concerned), his front L/R & surrounds sound better. My heights & rears, center, & sub sound better. 

It's nice having a 40k HT to compare to


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> Oops, I knew that; sorry for the slip.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can; I believe this is you "relating":
> (snip to help bandwidth)


Yes, that's me! Taken when I was at a conference and had to miss the clinching game. The American Marketing Association was the sponsor and is based in Chicago. I became their poster guy for transplanted enthusiasm and got Twittered  .


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> Yes, that's me! Taken when I was at a conference and had to miss the clinching game. The American Marketing Association was the sponsor and is based in Chicago. I became their poster guy for transplanted enthusiasm and got Twittered  .


You poor bastard. Thank God for TiVo!!! 

(And a sad farewell to Saad, Sharp, Oduya, et al.)


----------



## 2pacalypsenow

Killer_Nads said:


> 2pacalypsenow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched the Atmos version of gravity with the onkio Atmos speakers and all I can say I WOW
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, I'm still waiting for my atmos upfiring onkyo speakers to arrive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are taking rather long to come.
> 
> But glad to see your positive response with testing them. Did you also watch the Gravity with 3d and atmos or in 2d with Atmos?
Click to expand...

The Gravity luxe edition only comes with the 2d version I believe so no I have only watched the movie in 2d with atmos


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> You poor bastard. Thank God for TiVo!!!
> 
> (And a sad farewell to Saad, Sharp, Oduya, et al.)


 
Agreed. FWIW I did get the see the game at our reception that night, but wound up catching most of the third period at a restaurant with a group of colleagues in downtown San Diego, where my conference was. They had the game on in a private dining room and I kept peeking over our table to see what was happening. At least we all got to toast the Hawks.. 


To bring this back on topic, how did the game sound upmixed with DSU and a 7.1.4 configuration? Anyone?


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> Agreed. FWIW I did get the see the game at our reception that night, but wound up catching most of the third period at a restaurant with a group of colleagues in downtown San Diego, where my conference was. They had the game on in a private dining room and I kept peeking over our table to see what was happening. At least we all got to toast the Hawks..
> 
> 
> To bring this back on topic, *how did the game sound upmixed with DSU and a 7.1.4 configuration?* Anyone?


Fabulous! I watched most of that last game several times over (in DD 5.1 via Comcast CTV + DSU 7.1.4).

I'm not the sentimental sort--and I don't go in for a lot of patriotic hoopla--but every time I heard Jim Cornelison sing the National Anthem in that booming, stentorian tenor of his, it brought tears to my eyes and a shiver to my spine.


----------



## frankpc3

2pacalypsenow said:


> The Gravity luxe edition only comes with the 2d version I believe so no I have only watched the movie in 2d with atmos


Yes...

I don't believe Gravity with 3D and Atmos exists. But that would be a great combination though.


----------



## lovingdvd

chi_guy50 said:


> Fabulous! I watched most of that last game several times over (in DD 5.1 via Comcast CTV + DSU 7.1.4).
> 
> I'm not the sentimental sort--and I don't go in for a lot of patriotic hoopla--but every time I heard Jim Cornelison sing the National Anthem in that booming, stentorian tenor of his, it brought tears to my eyes and a shiver to my spine.


Interesting. I hadn't thought of using DSU for sports. Outside of the National Anthem, how does DSU in that setting sound? Is the crowd noise any more dynamic? Organ music, commentary etc etc - any improvements there over DD 5.1?


----------



## pasender91

Using 5.1 + DSU for champions league soccer and for Formula 1 races, and let me tell you that it works very well indeed.
For exemple onboard F1 camera going around track and in tunnel at Monaco is quite something with DSU , even if i assume actual sound capture is at best 2.0


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Update to my weekend project of swapping direct radiators out for my bipoles: I'm guessing that due to a corner mirror above our fireplace on the right side of the room, the right surround seems to get some cancellation with the direct radiators... to the extent that a re-run of Audyssey detected a phase error in that speaker until I moved the mic slightly. Also, post-equalization, the right surround just doesn't seem to have any presence whatsoever at my MLP despite being level-checked with my SPL meter and doing two runs through Audyssey with different mic positions, which is why I'm thinking it's something particular to the less-than-ideal placement in my room. Ultimately, this is just a placement issue particular to my layout, so I may be putting the bipoles back in place just so this doesn't happen. My other option would be to see if I could solve the reflection off of that mirror by getting brackets to angle my side surrounds down... since they're mounted maybe 6" away from the ceiling by necessity. (So NOT a great placement for Atmos' guidelines.)

So while I think direct radiators are probably preferable to bipoles in a by-the-book Atmos setup and I did find that they gave me more precise placement of sounds being panned around the room in Atmos, for my particular needs, the bipoles may be a necessary evil. If people think I can solve that problem by angling them down toward MLP instead, that may be worth trying.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Good. Please do try it out and experiment. Not following the documents from Dolby to a 'T' is not in any a bad way to do Atmos. We only know how well these things work by trying. Let us know how that goes.


----------



## batpig

If you're willing to try i would definitely try angling them down. You can also mount them upside down so the tweeter is closer to ear level. If possible aim them across the couch at the furthest listener (aka energy trading).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> If you're willing to try i would definitely try angling them down. You can also mount them upside down so the tweeter is closer to ear level. If possible aim them across the couch at the furthest listener (aka energy trading).


That's actually not a bad idea. I'm constricted by a window on one side, which is why my placement is so high... but with the right speaker mount, I could put it upside down and hanging in front of that window with no real issues. Will look around for some mounts to tinker with.

(I'm probably being way too obsessive about wringing the most out of my current setup. Everyone else who hears it thinks it already sounds better than the theaters here, but I'm like, "But... it could be BETTER." Heh...)


----------



## virtualrain

I currently have Klipsch RS-42 II bipole surrounds directly to the sides of the couch (above ear level).

Are those ok for surrounds in an Atmos setup? Should I move them (up/down/fwd/back) when adding my height speakers?


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> (I'm probably being way too obsessive about wringing the most out of my current setup. Everyone else who hears it thinks it already sounds better than the theaters here, but I'm like, "But... it could be BETTER." Heh...)


The only cure for this disease is to leave AVSforum forever


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> I currently have Klipsch RS-42 II bipole surrounds directly to the sides of the couch (above ear level).
> 
> Are those ok for surrounds in an Atmos setup? Should I move them (up/down/fwd/back) when adding my height speakers?


This has been discussed at length in this thread and even recently -- if you read back a few pages you will find plenty of discussion on the topic.

It's always going to be specific to your room and tastes. The Dolby recommendation is for direct-firing speakers at all locations, but many people are "violating" that recommendation due to a variety of constraints. My opinion is that, if you like the way they sound right now, they won't suddenly stop sounding good with Atmos. If your speakers are very close to the ends of the couch then the advantage of this type of non-direct-firing speaker can still be useful.

In terms of height, it depends on how high they are currently -- can you be more specific than "above ear level"? The consensus from many users who've experimented is that lowering surrounds helps to create more separation between the surround effects and overhead effects... but if the speakers are too low then obviously they will be blocked by the heads/bodies of listeners on either side of the couch. So the general rule of thumb is "place them high enough so that everyone has line of sight to the speaker". In cinemas I believe the surrounds have around 10-15 degree elevation, which corresponds to around 1.5-2 feet above ear level in a typical room. 

So basically, if your surrounds are currently up near the ceiling, then yes you will get a lot of benefit from lowering them to create separation from height speakers. If they are just a couple of feet above ear level, I'd leave them where they are.


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> This has been discussed at length in this thread and even recently -- if you read back a few pages you will find plenty of discussion on the topic.
> 
> It's always going to be specific to your room and tastes. The Dolby recommendation is for direct-firing speakers at all locations, but many people are "violating" that recommendation due to a variety of constraints. My opinion is that, if you like the way they sound right now, they won't suddenly stop sounding good with Atmos. If your speakers are very close to the ends of the couch then the advantage of this type of non-direct-firing speaker can still be useful.
> 
> In terms of height, it depends on how high they are currently -- can you be more specific than "above ear level"? The consensus from many users who've experimented is that lowering surrounds helps to create more separation between the surround effects and overhead effects... but if the speakers are too low then obviously they will be blocked by the heads/bodies of listeners on either side of the couch. So the general rule of thumb is "place them high enough so that everyone has line of sight to the speaker". In cinemas I believe the surrounds have around 10-15 degree elevation, which corresponds to around 1.5-2 feet above ear level in a typical room.
> 
> So basically, if your surrounds are currently up near the ceiling, then yes you will get a lot of benefit from lowering them to create separation from height speakers. If they are just a couple of feet above ear level, I'd leave them where they are.


Thanks... I've been following this thread for a week or so, but I'll have to go back a bit further I guess 

Anyway, thanks for your advice. My bipole surrounds are probably a bit too high, so I'll look at lowering them when I get to adding the height speakers.

That brings me to my next question, which may also be addressed earlier in this thread (so I'll have to read through it all I guess) but if there's a quick answer to this, I'd appreciate it.

What's the consensus on installing bookshelf height speakers (e.g. Klipsch RB-51 II) hanging on the front and back walls (10-12' in front/behind couch) right up against the ceiling vs actually installing overhead ceiling speakers. I'd really like to avoid having to install ceiling speakers if i can get decent overhead effects using this approach of bookshelf speakers mounted near the ceiling.


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> What's the consensus on installing bookshelf height speakers (e.g. Klipsch RB-51 II) hanging on the front and back walls (10-12' in front/behind couch) right up against the ceiling vs actually installing overhead ceiling speakers. I'd really like to avoid having to install ceiling speakers if i can get decent overhead effects using this approach of bookshelf speakers mounted near the ceiling.


It's better than nothing! And Atmos processors can certainly accommodate a FH+RH setup. However, you won't get the full senstation of sounds actually being OVER your head without speakers over your head. There will definitely be "elevation" of ambient sounds and effects but it won't be quite as dramatic as actual overheads. But then again we all have compromises to deal with.

A big question is what kind of elevation angle you can achieve? If you've got a typical 5' vertical distance from ears to ceiling, and you are 10-12' away from the speakers, wall mounting will give you at most a 20-25 degree elevation angle. That's not enough to REALLY get that overhead effect.


----------



## grendelrt

virtualrain said:


> Thanks... I've been following this thread for a week or so, but I'll have to go back a bit further I guess
> 
> Anyway, thanks for your advice. My bipole surrounds are probably a bit too high, so I'll look at lowering them when I get to adding the height speakers.
> 
> That brings me to my next question, which may also be addressed earlier in this thread (so I'll have to read through it all I guess) but if there's a quick answer to this, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> What's the consensus on installing bookshelf height speakers (e.g. Klipsch RB-51 II) hanging on the front and back walls (10-12' in front/behind couch) right up against the ceiling vs actually installing overhead ceiling speakers. I'd really like to avoid having to install ceiling speakers if i can get decent overhead effects using this approach of bookshelf speakers mounted near the ceiling.


I would look into adding some Atmos enabled speakers that fire upwards and reflect off the ceiling. Sounds like they do a pretty good job, Klipsch just added some to their site.


----------



## batpig

Definitely another possibility I should have mentioned! A very attractive option for those who don't want to have to deal with mounting speakers up high.


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Update to my weekend project of swapping direct radiators out for my bipoles: I'm guessing that due to a corner mirror above our fireplace on the right side of the room, the right surround seems to get some cancellation with the direct radiators... to the extent that a re-run of Audyssey detected a phase error in that speaker until I moved the mic slightly. Also, post-equalization, the right surround just doesn't seem to have any presence whatsoever at my MLP despite being level-checked with my SPL meter and doing two runs through Audyssey with different mic positions, which is why I'm thinking it's something particular to the less-than-ideal placement in my room. Ultimately, this is just a placement issue particular to my layout, so I may be putting the bipoles back in place just so this doesn't happen. My other option would be to see if I could solve the reflection off of that mirror by getting brackets to angle my side surrounds down... since they're mounted maybe 6" away from the ceiling by necessity. (So NOT a great placement for Atmos' guidelines.)
> 
> So while I think direct radiators are probably preferable to bipoles in a by-the-book Atmos setup and I did find that they gave me more precise placement of sounds being panned around the room in Atmos, for my particular needs, the bipoles may be a necessary evil. If people think I can solve that problem by angling them down toward MLP instead, that may be worth trying.


Interesting indeed! I still have my Bi/di-poles high direct to the sides in Di-pole mode (will try Bi) and love the effect, I was curious on the direct sound and may give it a try or not , did you try manually playing around with the delay and or crossover settings? 



Scott Simonian said:


> Good. Please do try it out and experiment. Not following the documents from Dolby to a 'T' is not in any a bad way to do Atmos. We only know how well these things work by trying. Let us know how that goes.


Yep! just like the old days same rules apply as the room will always dictate best positioning and overall sound in the end


----------



## virtualrain

grendelrt said:


> I would look into adding some Atmos enabled speakers that fire upwards and reflect off the ceiling. Sounds like they do a pretty good job, Klipsch just added some to their site.



Interesting. I've read these generally suck because it's easy to localize them even when you're way off axis since the bounce effect is horribly weak in comparison to the off-axis dispersion. Just thinking about it, it seems like a crude solution to getting sound from the ceiling. At least drivers on the wall near the ceiling are originating the sound as high up as possible. But I haven't personally heard anything. The days of HiFi showrooms are long gone.


----------



## NorthSky

...The days of flashing multicolored lighted disco floors are coming back.  ...And that slow spinning mirror ball above.


----------



## cdelena

virtualrain said:


> Interesting. I've read these generally suck because it's easy to localize them even when you're way off axis since the bounce effect is horribly weak in comparison to the off-axis dispersion. Just thinking about it, it seems like a crude solution to getting sound from the ceiling. At least drivers on the wall near the ceiling are originating the sound as high up as possible. But I haven't personally heard anything. The days of HiFi showrooms are long gone.


It probably varies depending upon the ceiling. I heard a demo in a condo that appeared to have 10ft concrete ceilings and result was terrific.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

audiofan1 said:


> Interesting indeed! I still have my Bi/di-poles high direct to the sides in Di-pole mode (will try Bi) and love the effect, I was curious on the direct sound and may give it a try or not , did you try manually playing around with the delay and or crossover settings?


Audyssey detected all of my speakers except the OWM-5s as "large", so I set the RTi28s to 80Hz (RTi70s are at 40Hz, CSi40 at 60Hz). I think their -3dB point is around 55Hz (and you can see Audyssey start boosting bass below that point if you look at the graphs in the AVR), so 80Hz seemed like a good safe crossover point to give it a nice smooth transition. The problem is that the speaker is, _I think_, cancelling itself with the reflection off of the mirror... and I don't think any change in delay will help that. My thought was that aiming it down would keep it from reflecting directly off that mirror back toward itself. And also, help separate it more from the top mids.

I guess my other option is to cover that mirror with an acoustic panel... but that would look pretty crazy. Not that it would stop me if that's what needs to happen.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Jeremy Anderson said:


> the right surround seems to get some cancellation with the direct radiators... to the extent that a re-run of Audyssey detected a phase error in that speaker until I moved the mic slightly.


So, when Audyssey flags phase error (to the correct wiring), does this mean there is some reflection happening from somewhere.
I always get phase error in my FL, but I click "ignore" every time. Looks like the glass door of my AV cabinet (midway in the right hand wall of the room) may have to blame.
Will remove the door next time I run Audyssey and see if that makes any difference..


----------



## SteveTheGeek

I imagine I missed the post, but there was two new releases confirmed on Blu-ray with Atmos : San Andreas and more importantly Mad Max:Fury Road, both in 2D and 3D!

It's definitively going the right way... If Fox and Disney would finally wake up... I hope they will do so on UHD Blu-ray...


----------



## gerchy

gerchy said:


> Did anyone notice light cracking from the Atmos speakers?
> It only happen twice with DSU engaged. First when watching Last Knights and one more time with a movie a can't remember right now.


Noone? 
It happened again!
Checked one more time at the end of the movie and the sound was OK. Next day the cracking/light interruptions were audible again. I reconnect the HDMI cable and it helped. Third day - not any more. I did a factory reset on the AVR and loaded the config file again. So far everything is OK.
I believe It only happens on the top rear speakers and when streaming via PC. 
Firmware on my SR7009 is up to date.

Here is a quick video:


----------



## witchdoctor

*Nice Article on Dolby AC4*

Here is a link to an interesting article from Dolby's CTO on Dolby AC4:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crea...id=623817286198018048&adbpl=tw&adbpr=15851618


----------



## SoundChex

witchdoctor said:


> *Nice Article on Dolby AC4*
> Here is a link to an interesting article from Dolby's CTO on Dolby AC4:
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crea...id=623817286198018048&adbpl=tw&adbpr=15851618




From a Monday July 20, 2015, *markertek* article "*Demos of ATSC 3.0 Immersive-Audio Format Offer Chance To Grow Alliances*" (_link_):


> On Wednesday [July 15, 2015(?) . . .] video-delivery–infrastructure provider Harmonic revealed that it had conducted the world’s first live, on-air ATSC demo of *Dolby AC-4*. During the trial, PBS affiliate KQED-TV San Francisco used Harmonic’s Electra X2 advanced media processor for real-time video and AC-4 audio encoding, demonstrating how the Dolby AC-4 format improves bandwidth efficiency for broadcasters to enable delivery of enhanced audio content.


_

_Any forum members in San Francisco watching|listening to those tests using "bootleg" prototypes of an ATSC 3.0 TV and a Dolby AC-4 capable AVR?_  



The "recommended" ATSC 3.0 Audio System Candidate Standard (either *Dolby AC-4* or *MPEG-H Audio*, _with a small chance of _*"both"*) is expected to be announced in fall 2015.


_


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

aaranddeeman said:


> So, when Audyssey flags phase error (to the correct wiring), does this mean there is some reflection happening from somewhere.
> I always get phase error in my FL, but I click "ignore" every time. Looks like the glass door of my AV cabinet (midway in the right hand wall of the room) may have to blame.
> Will remove the door next time I run Audyssey and see if that makes any difference..


If you get a phase error and are wired correctly, it means that something in your room is throwing off phase... whether it be speaker placement, reflections from nearby objects/walls, etc. There's no easy answer for what that might be. In my case, I have a corner fireplace with a mirror above it that seems to be at the perfect angle to reflect sound back toward the speaker in a way that essentially cancels it out... whereas when I use my bipoles, the angle of the speaker changes that interaction. I will say that glass surfaces can definitely play hell with acoustics if they're in just the right spot to catch a reflection of sound in the wrong way, so it might be worth you removing that door and seeing if you still get a phase error. 

In my case, I went back to my bipoles last night and immediately had the sound of my room back... and Audyssey did a better job of getting things right, whereas direct radiators required some post-Audyssey tinkering because the balance was off. So for my particular placement and room, the bipoles seem to be preferable. If I could do a by-the-book Atmos setup, I would probably prefer direct radiators though, because there definitely was more precision to the placement of sounds. The bipoles, however, give my room more of a theatrical sound, as if I had an array of speakers to the sides (and don't give me any phase errors). So for now, I'm sticking with that setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

SteveTheGeek said:


> I imagine I missed the post, but there was two new releases confirmed on Blu-ray with Atmos : San Andreas and more importantly Mad Max:Fury Road, both in 2D and 3D!
> 
> It's definitively going the right way... If Fox and Disney would finally wake up... I hope they will do so on UHD Blu-ray...


I hope you're right about this or I'm coming after you, SteveTheGeek. 


Yeah... Fox and Disney keep hitting the snooze button. Won't get up until 11:00am erm, I mean, UHD Blu-ray ...umm... o'clock.


----------



## batpig

Pumped about Mad Max!! I still haven't seen that in the theaters (stupid wife and kids ) but I'm hoping it becomes the new reference home Atmos mix on BD!


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Pumped about Mad Max!! I still haven't seen that in the theaters (stupid wife and kids ) but I'm hoping it becomes the new reference home Atmos mix on BD!



Waaahhh?

This was an 'event' type movie you should have seen in the cinema. Should be fun at home though. Yeah, Atmos!


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> Pumped about Mad Max!! I still haven't seen that in the theaters (stupid wife and kids ) but I'm hoping it becomes the new reference home Atmos mix on BD!



This is where you all go to a Cineplex, they go into the theatre showing the Disney film and you head into the screening of Mad Max!


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Waaahhh?
> 
> This was an 'event' type movie you should have seen in the cinema. Should be fun at home though. Yeah, Atmos!





Al Sherwood said:


> This is where you all go to a Cineplex, they go into the theatre showing the Disney film and you head into the screening of Mad Max!


Ha, well the kids are too young (almost 2 and just turned 4) and the wife hates movie theaters anyway (her bladder is undersized for the application). I've taken the older one to the movies a couple of times for daddy-daughter time but no way the wifey is going to take BOTH of them  it would be more practical to leave them at home 

We also just moved recently so I've been crazy busy between selling a house, buying another, moving, in-laws visiting for a couple of weeks, being out of town for a week, trying to set up my HT, etc. on top of the standard fare of going to work five days a week and trying to raise two small children.

It's still playing in a few theaters in San Diego so I'll try to sneak in a viewing  no Atmos though, there's only two Atmos theaters and they typically only have one screen with Atmos, so it's only a couple of the newest releases that are available in the format (currently Antman and Minions are the two options).


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Scott Simonian said:


> I hope you're right about this or I'm coming after you, SteveTheGeek.


lol ! It's in the press release : http://www.hometheaterforum.com/top...max-fury-road-3d-blu-ray-combo-blu-ray-combo/


----------



## bargervais

SteveTheGeek said:


> lol ! It's in the press release : http://www.hometheaterforum.com/top...max-fury-road-3d-blu-ray-combo-blu-ray-combo/


Can you believe we are heading into August already. Do you have news about UHD Blu-Ray with Atmos coming from Disney, it seems to be quiet.
I thought by this time I would be shopping for a new Blu-Ray player.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> Can you believe we are heading into August already. Do you have news about UHD Blu-Ray with Atmos coming from Disney, it seems to be quiet.
> I thought by this time I would be shopping for a new Blu-Ray player.


Nothing yet, I think we'll still need to be patient about this...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah... Fox and Disney keep hitting the snooze button. Won't get up until 11:00am erm, I mean, UHD Blu-ray ...umm... o'clock.


Sony is in the same boat too. They've been working on immersive mixes (as let slip in one of the Home Theater Geek webcasts), so it'll be great when we see actual UHD disc announcements.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Al Sherwood said:


> This is where you all go to a Cineplex, they go into the theatre showing the Disney film and you head into the screening of Mad Max!


Out on Bluray on September 1...yea!!!


----------



## noah katz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> ...I guess my other option is to cover that mirror with an acoustic panel...


Or put a much smaller piece of absorptive material closer to the speaker between it and the mirror.


----------



## 2pacalypsenow

frankpc3 said:


> Yes...
> 
> I don't believe Gravity with 3D and Atmos exists. But that would be a great combination though.


I would do simulated 3d but my x930c doesnt offer than option


----------



## Jive Turkey

2pacalypsenow said:


> I would do simulated 3d but my x930c doesnt offer than option


Mine does, but I 've never used it. Not interested, I guess.

I have watched some 3D movies here, but it's been quite a while. The novelty sorta wore off.


----------



## LordGandalf

Hi all,

I'm getting ready for the move to Atmos in a 7.2.4 configuration, and I'd love some feedback on speaker types for the ceiling. 

My current speaker setup is 9.2 with 2 FHs, FL, C, FR, SR, SBR, SBL, SL, and 2 SUBs). Everything is Sunfire Cinema Ribbon CRS-3s except for the side surrounds, which are Sunfire Bi-Poles (CRM-2BIP), and the subs are HSU.

I considered cheaper speakers for the ceiling (Tannoy as per KBarnes and Zombie), but I think the vast difference of timbre between ribbon speakers and silk/titanium will have a significantly negative effect on the sound field.

With Sunfire as the speaker of choice, here are my options (speaker dimensions are in parentheses):

Option One: CRS-3 (24.0” x 5.8” x 3.75"). In this case, I can move the front heights I have and buy 2 more for a 4-speaker ceiling array. Or, maybe I can leave the heights where they are, and place 2 new CRS-3s halfway between the heights and the MLP. 

Option Two: CRM-2 (8.25" x 5.5" x 6"). I would buy 2, and use them in combination with the heights (in their current location or in more Dolby-approved ceiling locations).

Option Three: CRM-2BIP (8.25" x 12.18" x 3.625"). I would buy 2, and use them in combination with the heights (in their current location or in more Dolby-approved ceiling locations).

Which would you pick and why? What other alternatives would you suggest?

I have wood beams that go left and right as you are facing the screen. Option One would be easiest for targeting the MLP because the CRS-3s come with brackets, and I could mount the speakers sideways. However, the speakers for Options Two and Three are much smaller, and I could get third-party brackets. 

Here is a link to the speakers in question: http://www.sunfire.com/products.asp

Alternatively, I could repurpose the existing bi-poles (SL and SR) for ceiling duty, and buy 2 more for the ceiling. Then, the heights (CRS-3s) could become my surrounds. That would be pretty badass to have four CRS-3s as a surround array (SL, SBL, SBR, SR) and four bi-poles as a ceiling array.

Thanks for your thoughts! The people on this forum have provided invaluable insight over the years, and they have also inspired me to pack so many speakers into a 350 SQFT room!


----------



## lovingdvd

A_D_A_M said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm getting ready for the move to Atmos in a 7.4.2 configuration, and I'd love some feedback on speaker types for the ceiling.
> 
> My current speaker setup is 9.2 with 2 FHs, FL, C, FR, SR, SBR, SBL, SL, and 2 SUBs). Everything is Sunfire Cinema Ribbon CRS-3s except for the side surrounds, which are Sunfire Bi-Poles (CRM-2BIP), and the subs are HSU.
> 
> I considered cheaper speakers for the ceiling (Tannoy as per KBarnes and Zombie), but I think the vast difference of timbre between ribbon speakers and silk/titanium will have a significantly negative effect on the sound field.
> 
> With Sunfire as the speaker of choice, here are my options (speaker dimensions are in parentheses):
> 
> Option One: CRS-3 (24.0” x 5.8” x 3.75"). In this case, I can move the front heights I have and buy 2 more for a 4-speaker ceiling array. Or, maybe I can leave the heights where they are, and place 2 new CRS-3s halfway between the heights and the MLP.
> 
> Option Two: CRM-2 (8.25" x 5.5" x 6"). I would buy 2, and use them in combination with the heights (in their current location or in more Dolby-approved ceiling locations).
> 
> Option Three: CRM-2BIP (8.25" x 12.18" x 3.625"). I would buy 2, and use them in combination with the heights (in their current location or in more Dolby-approved ceiling locations).
> 
> Which would you pick and why? What other alternatives would you suggest?
> 
> I have wood beams that go left and right as you are facing the screen. Option One would be easiest for targeting the MLP because the CRS-3s come with brackets, and I could mount the speakers sideways. However, the speakers for Options Two and Three are much smaller, and I could get third-party brackets.
> 
> Here is a link to the speakers in question: http://www.sunfire.com/products.asp
> 
> Alternatively, I could repurpose the existing bi-poles (SL and SR) for ceiling duty, and buy 2 more for the ceiling. Then, the heights (CRS-3s) could become my surrounds. That would be pretty badass to have four CRS-3s as a surround array (SL, SBL, SBR, SR) and four bi-poles as a ceiling array.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts! The people on this forum have provided invaluable insight over the years, and they have also inspired me to pack so many speakers into a 350 SQFT room!


I can't comment on the timbre match / voicing aspect of it, but you may want to take a look at the KEF Ci200RR-THX for your in-ceiling speakers. THX certified, dual concentric wide dispersion design here http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci200RR/index.html .


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Ha, well the kids are too young (almost 2 and just turned 4) and the wife hates movie theaters anyway (her bladder is undersized for the application). I've taken the older one to the movies a couple of times for daddy-daughter time but no way the wifey is going to take BOTH of them  it would be more practical to leave them at home
> 
> We also just moved recently so I've been crazy busy between selling a house, buying another, moving, in-laws visiting for a couple of weeks, being out of town for a week, trying to set up my HT, etc. on top of the standard fare of going to work five days a week and trying to raise two small children.
> 
> It's still playing in a few theaters in San Diego so I'll try to sneak in a viewing  no Atmos though, there's only two Atmos theaters and they typically only have one screen with Atmos, so it's only a couple of the newest releases that are available in the format (currently Antman and Minions are the two options).


Mad Max for sure got confirmed with 3D & dolby atmos? I saw that in the theater... FANTASTIC atmos mix! The 3D & the film itself were stellar... I can't wait. 

I'm in the same boat... moving soon & I might be HT-less for a while  

Ant man was a fun movie... though I opted to see it in IMAX 3D instead of Atmos, I'd imagine the Atmos mix would be pretty good though due to the trippy parts of the film!


----------



## pasender91

A_D_A_M said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm getting ready for the move to Atmos in a 7.4.2 configuration, and I'd love some feedback on speaker types for the ceiling.
> 
> My current speaker setup is 9.2 with 2 FHs, FL, C, FR, SR, SBR, SBL, SL, and 2 SUBs). Everything is Sunfire Cinema Ribbon CRS-3s except for the side surrounds, which are Sunfire Bi-Poles (CRM-2BIP), and the subs are HSU.
> 
> I considered cheaper speakers for the ceiling (Tannoy as per KBarnes and Zombie), but I think the vast difference of timbre between ribbon speakers and silk/titanium will have a significantly negative effect on the sound field.
> 
> With Sunfire as the speaker of choice, here are my options (speaker dimensions are in parentheses):
> 
> Option One: CRS-3 (24.0” x 5.8” x 3.75"). In this case, I can move the front heights I have and buy 2 more for a 4-speaker ceiling array. Or, maybe I can leave the heights where they are, and place 2 new CRS-3s halfway between the heights and the MLP.
> 
> Option Two: CRM-2 (8.25" x 5.5" x 6"). I would buy 2, and use them in combination with the heights (in their current location or in more Dolby-approved ceiling locations).
> 
> Option Three: CRM-2BIP (8.25" x 12.18" x 3.625"). I would buy 2, and use them in combination with the heights (in their current location or in more Dolby-approved ceiling locations).
> 
> Which would you pick and why? What other alternatives would you suggest?
> 
> I have wood beams that go left and right as you are facing the screen. Option One would be easiest for targeting the MLP because the CRS-3s come with brackets, and I could mount the speakers sideways. However, the speakers for Options Two and Three are much smaller, and I could get third-party brackets.
> 
> Here is a link to the speakers in question: http://www.sunfire.com/products.asp
> 
> Alternatively, I could repurpose the existing bi-poles (SL and SR) for ceiling duty, and buy 2 more for the ceiling. Then, the heights (CRS-3s) could become my surrounds. That would be pretty badass to have four CRS-3s as a surround array (SL, SBL, SBR, SR) and four bi-poles as a ceiling array.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts! The people on this forum have provided invaluable insight over the years, and they have also inspired me to pack so many speakers into a 350 SQFT room!


I would go with option 1, as it alllows to keep the currrent height speakers on their FH position.
As i assume it is not so easy to position those speakers on a ceiling,, why not install the 2 new CRS-3 in a RH position, meaning with a similar angle relative to MLP as your FH speakers ?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> See, to me that is not a balanced setup. In the first image, the screen is just way, way too small for those speakers, set as far apart as they are. I'd want my screen to fill that space not to sit in the middle like a tiny little picture dwarfed by a huge, huge sound. If that were my setup I’d bring those speakers closer to the screen edges. There seems to me to be a disconnect between the edge of the image and the edge of the associated sound. If the mixer places a sound right at the left edge of the image, in that system it will be way over to the left, beyond the action it is representing on screen.
> 
> I am hoping to move in a couple of years time. The HT will be a purpose designed space since we will be building our home from scratch so I will be aiming for 9.4.4 or even 9.4.6 if the current AVRs at the time permit that config.
> 
> Rooms in Europe are way smaller than in the USA. I was reading this morning of a guy whose room in the US is 20 feet by 40 feet and he seemed to consider this "normal". In Europe a room like that is more or less unknown. His room is 2 feet wider than my current living room is long! But in the new place I will be looking for a room about 18 feet by 14 or something like that. The room itself may be longer than that as I intend to have a projection room which will house the PJ and all of the hardware. It should be exciting building an entire house from the ground up, to our own exact specification, and also to build a HT the same way.
> 
> PS. Why has that guy not got a PJ?????


Wow, Keith, great news about the building plans. I am confident your space will be state of the art in all ways that matter. Don't bother wiring for 9.1.4 as 16 channel AVR's or processors will be the norm for reasonably priced high end setups like ours. 9.4.6 with separate subwoofer processing is exactly what I aim for myself, even if there are yet no processors available, bar astronomically priced ones. My room is 23 x 28 feet but includes a cooking area. 

BTW, Belgium is definitely an exception as far as typical EU room sizes go. We like 'em large! It also depends on the cost of real-estate of course, I imagine the London area is much more expensive than rural UK.

The kitchen is in, but I have to finish it further. It's a showroom kitchen that used to be pale oak with stainless steel, but I have painted the oak black:








None of the stainless will be visible from MLP. The screen is more than big enough to block the view!
Sorry for getting OT, folks. But I swear it will be an Atmos space!


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Wow, Keith, great news about the building plans. I am confident your space will be state of the art in all ways that matter. Don't bother wiring for 9.1.4 as 16 channel AVR's or processors will be the norm for reasonably priced high end setups like ours. 9.4.6 with separate subwoofer processing is exactly what I aim for myself, even if there are yet no processors available, bar astronomically priced ones. My room is 23 x 28 feet but includes a cooking area.
> 
> BTW, Belgium is definitely an exception as far as typical EU room sizes go. We like 'em large! It also depends on the cost of real-estate of course, I imagine the London area is much more expensive than rural UK.
> 
> The kitchen is in, but I have to finish it further. It's a showroom kitchen that used to be pale oak with stainless steel, but I have painted the oak black:
> 
> None of the stainless will be visible from MLP. The screen is more than big enough to block the view!
> Sorry for getting OT, folks. But I swear it will be an Atmos space!


Thanks for sharing the picture. Love your design sensibility; looking forward to updates as the space progresses!


----------



## batpig

A_D_A_M said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm getting ready for the move to Atmos in a 7.2.4 configuration, and I'd love some feedback on speaker types for the ceiling.


Like others I'm not familiar with the Sunfire speaker lineup, but since you've already got the Front Heights in place I would probably go with a pair of in-ceiling speakers from the same lineup to maintain timbral match. This is also the easiest path since you only need two new speakers, not four, and you can just supplement what you already have and extend the audio overhead.

With a current layout of 7.1 + Front Height, I would add the pair of speakers as "Top Middle" above and a bit in front of the listening position. 




pasender91 said:


> why not install the 2 new CRS-3 in a RH position, meaning with a similar angle relative to MLP as your FH speakers ?


The "why" would be that it's hard to hear sounds overhead when there are no speakers overhead. If you really want to get the OVERhead effect ideally you should add the speakers overhead.


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Mad Max for sure got confirmed with 3D & dolby atmos? I saw that in the theater... FANTASTIC atmos mix! The 3D & the film itself were stellar... I can't wait.


I don't have much interest in 3D -- I find it really annoying in movie theaters trying to hold my head in the right position where the glasses work right. I end up being annoyed and eye-strained the whole movie and spoling my immersion.




Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm in the same boat... moving soon & I might be HT-less for a while


Good luck! Thankfully I only had a few short weeks of down time. I hooked up a basic 5.1 setup as quickly as I could, and got up to 7.1.2 within a few weeks.




Aras_Volodka said:


> Ant man was a fun movie... though I opted to see it in IMAX 3D instead of Atmos, I'd imagine the Atmos mix would be pretty good though due to the trippy parts of the film!


Trippy parts eh? I'll make sure to take my medicine


----------



## ultraflexed

I saw antman in 3d really enjoyed it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The "why" would be that it's hard to hear sounds overhead when there are no speakers overhead. If you really want to get the OVERhead effect ideally you should add the speakers overhead.



Waaaiiitt...wait, wait, wait, wait.

So you're telling _me_ that the best way to hear things _above_ my head with all this surround sound stuff, is to add speakers _over_ my head? 







That's it. I'm done with this hobby.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Waaaiiitt...wait, wait, wait, wait.
> 
> So you're telling _me_ that the best way to hear things _above_ my head with all this surround sound stuff, is to add speakers _over_ my head?
> 
> That's it. I'm done with this hobby.


ATTENTION ALL AVSFORUMITES:

DIY subwoofer yard sale this weekend in Clovis. Time and place TBA.


----------



## LordGandalf

batpig said:


> Like others I'm not familiar with the Sunfire speaker lineup, but since you've already got the Front Heights in place I would probably go with a pair of in-ceiling speakers from the same lineup to maintain timbral match. This is also the easiest path since you only need two new speakers, not four, and you can just supplement what you already have and extend the audio overhead.
> 
> With a current layout of 7.1 + Front Height, I would add the pair of speakers as "Top Middle" above and a bit in front of the listening position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "why" would be that it's hard to hear sounds overhead when there are no speakers overhead. If you really want to get the OVERhead effect ideally you should add the speakers overhead.


Thank you Batpig. I am leaning in that direction because I like the "wall of sound" in the front, and I hope that both Atmos and DSU processing can work well without moving the Front Heights.

However, since Surround Left and Right are directly left and right of the MLP (and near the ceiling, where they must stay due to the architecture near SL, and the fact that both SL and SR would be super-close at ear level), the Top Front position might be better in my room (instead of Top Middle). Here is a laughably simple representation of the current layout:

FHL-SCREEN-FHR
---FL---------FR



SL----MLP-----SR


----SBL-SBR 

Dimensions: 

16ft from FHL and FHR to MLP
12ft from FL, C, FR, and Screen to MLP
7ft and 6ft respectively from Surrounds to MLP 
8ft from Surround Backs to MLP 

As it is, the 4 surrounds create a nice bubble of sound around the MLP, and placing 2 more speakers in the Top Front position will cover some of that dead space between the Front Heights and the MLP.

Ceiling characteristics:
There are wood beams that come down about 8 inches from the ceiling proper, and they go left and right relative to the MLP. These beams appear in 12-inch intervals from the screen to the back wall behind the surround backs. 

The Front Heights are mounted on their sides on one of those beams, just above the screen. These speakers (Sunfire CRS-3) are 24-inches tall, so in a sideways configuration, they provide wide coverage, and can be pointed at the MLP with their existing mounts. Getting another pair for Top Front duty, and placing them on their sides as well should do nicely. My intuition is to place them a few beams in front of the couch, in line with the Front Heights.

Thanks to all for the feedback!


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Waaaiiitt...wait, wait, wait, wait.
> 
> So you're telling _me_ that the best way to hear things _above_ my head with all this surround sound stuff, is to add speakers _over_ my head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it. I'm done with this hobby.


LOL! Fantastic


----------



## batpig

A_D_A_M said:


> Thank you Batpig. I am leaning in that direction because I like the "wall of sound" in the front, and I hope that both Atmos and DSU processing can work well without moving the Front Heights.
> 
> However, since Surround Left and Right are directly left and right of the MLP (and near the ceiling, where they must stay due to the architecture near SL, and the fact that both SL and SR would be super-close at ear level), the Top Front position might be better in my room (instead of Top Middle).


You can't actually do FH+TF because those are adjacent positions. So either way it will be FH+TM with the second pair designated "Top Middle". Note that the allowable spec for TM is up to 25 degrees in FRONT of the listening position, so you can place them above and a few feet in front and still call them "Top Middle". Plus, as discussed a few posts up, you WANT to get that sensation of stuff OVER your head to really get the immersive audio effect, so don't place them too far forward.

The elevation of your surrounds is exactly why you should NOT do a "Top Rear" or "Rear Height" position as suggested above -- adding more speakers above and behind you will just drowned out by the 4 surrounds. So your gut instinct to "fill the gap" above and in front with that extra pair of speakers is the right one, but they will have to be designated as "Top Middle" to work with your "Front Height" speakers already in place.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> I don't have much interest in 3D -- I find it really annoying in movie theaters trying to hold my head in the right position where the glasses work right. I end up being annoyed and eye-strained the whole movie and spoling my immersion.


The BD will have an Atmos mix though right?


----------



## Skylinestar

Will Auro3D surround height position (slightly aft of MLP) work as Atmos top middle?


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Wow, Keith, great news about the building plans. I am confident your space will be state of the art in all ways that matter. Don't bother wiring for 9.1.4 as 16 channel AVR's or processors will be the norm for reasonably priced high end setups like ours. 9.4.6 with separate subwoofer processing is exactly what I aim for myself, even if there are yet no processors available, bar astronomically priced ones. My room is 23 x 28 feet but includes a cooking area.


Thanks Erwin. I am very hopeful of bringing this to fruition. You are right - the best plan is to wire for everything imaginable. Wire is cheap and wire is easy to install at the same time as the build. 9.4.6 sounds like a good idea. (No pun intended). Nearer the time of our move I will start a thread here looking for ideas like yours so I can incorporate everything from the outset and, hopefully, not have to keep on chopping and changing, which has been my experience so far.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> BTW, Belgium is definitely an exception as far as typical EU room sizes go. We like 'em large! It also depends on the cost of real-estate of course, I imagine the London area is much more expensive than rural UK.


I've never been in a private home in Belgium so wasn't aware that you guys liked big rooms too. England is so small relative to the population that land is very expensive, so homes are smaller generally than many places. We are intending to move to Ireland, which has a tiny population relative to its size, and land is consequently very cheap, so there is no reason to build a small home there.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> The kitchen is in, but I have to finish it further. It's a showroom kitchen that used to be pale oak with stainless steel, but I have painted the oak black:
> 
> None of the stainless will be visible from MLP. The screen is more than big enough to block the view!
> Sorry for getting OT, folks. But I swear it will be an Atmos space!


Do you have a build thread we could follow?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I don't have much interest in 3D -- I find it really annoying in movie theaters trying to hold my head in the right position where the glasses work right. I end up being annoyed and eye-strained the whole movie and spoling my immersion.


Exactly the same here. After 20 minutes or so my eyes feel really strange and eye strain sets in. By the end of the movie I am exhausted. [/quote]




batpig said:


> Trippy parts eh? I'll make sure to take my medicine


If you get the right doc, it's the_ medicine _that makes it trippy  Or maybe that is what you meant? LOL.


----------



## pasender91

batpig said:


> The "why" would be that it's hard to hear sounds overhead when there are no speakers overhead. If you really want to get the OVERhead effect ideally you should add the speakers overhead.


Well, strictly speaking RH speakers are clearly OVER HEAD level, so they qualify as overhead 
In A_D_A_M case, as he has high surrounds i think TM is not the best, the message will be confusing in this area as you rightly pointed out. In this particuliar scenario, i believe RH (or TR) makes more sense, as those speakers would be further away from the non-optimal surrounds


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> We are intending to move to Ireland, which has a tiny population relative to its size, and land is consequently very cheap, so there is no reason to build a small home there.


How imminent is your projected move? Are you planning to sell off your extensive HT equipment and start from scratch? 

At least you should have no trouble finding the money for the new build in Ireland, since "its capital is always Dublin."


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> How imminent is your projected move? Are you planning to sell off your extensive HT equipment and start from scratch?


2017. I doubt if I will sell off much of my present hardware. The Submersives, absolutely certainly, will never be sold. The M&K S150s are unlikely to be sold unless I move to active speakers throughout, which is a possibility. Genelecs come to mind. I have always favored active speakers but it is difficult to incorporate them, even in a dedicated room, since they need long XLR cables and also need power at each speaker. But in a designed-from-scratch room they become a real option. I will probably sell off my amps - not because I have any issues with them at all but because, if I go all-active speakers, I won’t need them. Even if I stay with passive speakers, I may still decide to go for all-Pro amps, with Crowns high on the list. Bluray players and AVRs are always likely to change of course as technology advances. The big decision will be the speakers because that drives so many other things. I will need to have made my mind up before the build of the house starts of course. Alternatively, wire being relatively cheap, I can wire for every possibility and then have the flexibility to change my mind later.



chi_guy50 said:


> At least you should have no trouble finding the money for the new build in Ireland, since "its capital is always Dublin."


----------



## thestoneman

Mad Max Fury Road being released on Sept 1st. 3D + Atmos with this film is going to be sensory overload. Giggity!


----------



## punksterz626

bought and watched Gravity w/atmos last night, WOW. Finally an atmos movie worth watching. Todays menu will be Expendable 3 and TMNT, although reviews from some of you guys claim TMNT does not have a good atmos soundtrack. We'll see how that goes. Recently watched Antman in atmos, although a really good movie, the atmos soundtrack was practically non existing except from two scenes.


----------



## kbarnes701

punksterz626 said:


> Recently watched Antman in atmos, although a really good movie, the atmos soundtrack was practically non existing except from two scenes.


Do you mean there wasn't much use of the overhead speakers? What about the other Atmos benefits - did you not notice those?


----------



## punksterz626

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you mean there wasn't much use of the overhead speakers? What about the other Atmos benefits - did you not notice those?


Yes, i was referring to the overhead speakers. It just feels like a regular movie in regular standard movie theater setting. It didnt give me that immersive bubble of sound as i hope, but i think it was due to the overhead speakers. But the two scenes which i heard, it was fantastic.


----------



## kbarnes701

punksterz626 said:


> Yes, i was referring to the overhead speakers. It just feels like a regular movie in regular standard movie theater setting. It didnt give me that immersive bubble of sound as i hope, but i think it was due to the overhead speakers. But the two scenes which i heard, it was fantastic.


But you did notice the much greater precision with which sounds were placed throughout the entire soundstage?

(I haven’t seen the movie so I am assuming it has a good mix).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

thestoneman said:


> Mad Max Fury Road being released on Sept 1st. 3D + Atmos with this film is going to be sensory overload. Giggity!


Atmos is confirmed? Dolby has yet to update their site:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

Strange because that will be such a high profile release... that should steal gravity's title as best atmos reference disc !


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> 2017. I doubt if I will sell off much of my present hardware. The Submersives, absolutely certainly, will never be sold. The M&K S150s are unlikely to be sold unless I move to active speakers throughout, which is a possibility. Genelecs come to mind. I have always favored active speakers but it is difficult to incorporate them, even in a dedicated room, since they need long XLR cables and also need power at each speaker. But in a designed-from-scratch room they become a real option. I will probably sell off my amps - not because I have any issues with them at all but because, if I go all-active speakers, I won’t need them. Even if I stay with passive speakers, I may still decide to go for all-Pro amps, with Crowns high on the list. Bluray players and AVRs are always likely to change of course as technology advances. The big decision will be the speakers because that drives so many other things. I will need to have made my mind up before the build of the house starts of course. Alternatively, wire being relatively cheap, I can wire for every possibility and then have the flexibility to change my mind later.


Sounds exciting. I look forward to your updates! If you start a separate build thread please remember to give us the link.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Guys...I got _Insurgent _yesterday for review and you'll be VERY impressed with the Atmos soundtrack. One of the best yet in its use of overhead audio, especially with dialog with city wide "announcements" and when the hero is in captivity being spoken to through a speakers installed in the ceiling of her glass enclosure. Very impressive!


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave Vaughn said:


> Guys...I got _Insurgent _yesterday for review and you'll be VERY impressed with the Atmos soundtrack. One of the best yet in its use of overhead audio, especially with dialog with city wide "announcements" and when the hero is in captivity being spoken to through a speakers installed in the ceiling of her glass enclosure. Very impressive!


Yeah, but what about the movie itself? Do you agree with Manohla Dargis that it is "witless" and "devoid of aesthetic interest?"

Can you give us a précis of your upcoming review?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I don't agree with Manohla Dargis. I really liked the first movie and enjoyed this one too (although it's not quite as good as the first). Frankly, I find the story more entertaining that "The Hunger Games" movies.


----------



## blastermaster

> I don't agree with Manohla Dargis. I really liked the first movie and enjoyed this one too (although it's not quite as good as the first). Frankly, I find the story more entertaining that "The Hunger Games" movies.


I have only seen Divergent so far, but I agree with that assessment. The Hunger Games really didn't draw me in that much. The only saving grace in those movies, for me, was the eye candy of Jennifer Lawrence and the humour of Woody Harrelson. And, as it turns out, that's enough to bring me to purchase the rest of the movies. That, and the fact that I'm a sucker for collecting a set.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> We are intending to move to Ireland, which has a tiny population relative to its size, and land is consequently very cheap, so there is no reason to build a small home there.
> 
> Do you have a build thread we could follow?


Ireland? My!

I have a build thread mostly about the LCR speaker build but I deal with the rest of the room also:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1515109-seos-24a-brutal-dual-18-three-way-lcr-build.html


----------



## NorthSky

The Dolby Atmos clientele of this large thread, in vast majority, is not of the high-end type when it comes to film's real content/value; the main attraction, and it makes total sense in a Dolby Atmos thread, is the "SOUND". 

Sure, there are exceptions, ...I'm saying generally, here. 

A film like 'Gravity' for example, which is a great film in 3D, has received several accolades by most movie critics. ...And yet some people simply hate it; that's life and normal.
Then they re-released it with Dolby Atmos, and it is the best Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title so far, right before John wick. ...But no 3D this time around.

'John Wick' with Dolby Atmos...pretty good according to most people, and they all love the film too. ...While others won't even watch it (they simply cannot stand that kind of violence in our society, even in films). ...You got to respect everyone...films are a powerful tool to influence our kids and their education. ...And they help other people to concentrate and control their aggression as a medicine against real life suffering and inflicted pain. ...Well, that is part of the real world of movie magic; an excape from reality and into another one...cinema.

'The Hunger Games' (series), 'Insurgent', 'Divergent' (series), 'The Maze Runner',... all teenagers TV shows...soap operas. 
Don't feel bad about that...we all are kids inside...only our bodies and mind get older...but not our heart when it comes to emotions. 

So, different mentalities, age groups, educations, moral values...and we all have more or less different opinions about films.

'Jupiter Ascending', in 3D with Dolby Atmos; great production values, CGI effects, decors, wardrobes (costumes), acting, sound effects, ...you name it, and yet most people hate it with a vengeance, while others love it...and everywhere between love and hate, between pain and ecstasy. 

* So, how much does it truly matter if 'Insurgent' is a good flick or not, that we personally like it or not? ...As long that it has a great Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, right?
- By the way, is 'Insurgent' in 3D? ...The Blu.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Aras_Volodka said:


> Atmos is confirmed? Dolby has yet to update their site:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
> 
> Strange because that will be such a high profile release... that should steal gravity's title as best atmos reference disc !


Yes it's confirmed, it was in the press release.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> The Dolby Atmos clientele of this large thread, in vast majority, is not of the high-end type when it comes to film's real content/value; the main attraction, and it makes total sense in a Dolby Atmos thread, is the "SOUND".
> 
> Sure, there are exceptions, ...I'm saying generally, here.
> 
> A film like 'Gravity' for example, which is a great film in 3D, has received several accolades by most movie critics. ...And yet some people simply hate it; that's life and normal.
> Then they re-released it with Dolby Atmos, and it is the best Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title so far, right before John wick. ...But no 3D this time around.
> 
> 'John Wick' with Dolby Atmos...pretty good according to most people, and they all love the film too. ...While others won't even watch it (they simply cannot stand that kind of violence in our society, even in films). ...You got to respect everyone...films are a powerful tool to influence our kids and their education. ...And they help other people to concentrate and control their aggression as a medicine against real life suffering and inflicted pain. ...Well, that is part of the real world of movie magic; an excape from reality and into another one...cinema.
> 
> 'The Hunger Games' (series), 'Insurgent', 'Divergent' (series), 'The Maze Runner',... all teenagers TV shows...soap operas.
> Don't feel bad about that...we all are kids inside...only our bodies and mind get older...but not our heart when it comes to emotions.
> 
> So, different mentalities, age groups, educations, moral values...and we all have more or less different opinions about films.
> 
> 'Jupiter Ascending', in 3D with Dolby Atmos; great production values, CGI effects, decors, wardrobes (costumes), acting, sound effects, ...you name it, and yet most people hate it with a vengeance, while others love it...and everywhere between love and hate, between pain and ecstasy.
> 
> * So, how much does it truly matter if 'Insurgent' is a good flick or not, that we personally like it or not? ...As long that it has a great Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, right?
> - By the way, is 'Insurgent' in 3D? ...The Blu.


I don't think the hatred is due to 3D... I hated gravity but watch it reluctantly for the Atmos mix. I feel exactly the same way about Jupiter Ascending. 

I too have a problem with the profile of most Atmos releases (violent melodramas). It's not the violence that bothers me. It's that 12 year old mindset of the damsel in distress/ I'm a tough guy who's been slighted so now I have to kill 80 people (like seriously hollywood, where are you finding these writers?). John Wick, Gunman, & Expendables 3 all fit the bill... but at least Wick has pretty visuals. But I seriously don't understand what's up with that genre (I'm going to label them as action-roms from now on). + nothing will top True Lies.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yes it's confirmed, it was in the press release.


TY


----------



## NorthSky

*'Mad Max: Fury Road'* in 3D (with Dolby Atmos) on Blu-ray (B&W) is going to wake up all the dead from their catacombs.


----------



## thestoneman

NorthSky said:


> *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* in 3D (with Dolby Atmos) on Blu-ray (B&W) is going to wake up all the dead from their catacombs.


My neighbors are all jockeying for seats. Gonna be an event. Looking forward to this like no other movie. It's been tough staying out of the theater to see this. 5 more weeks!


----------



## Lozin

I cancelled my pre order of Mad Max FR from Amazon.ca and ordered it from the U.S. Site the moment I heard it's coming out in Atmos just in case.


----------



## NorthSky

Is *'Fast and Furious 7'* also coming up with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu? ...But this won't be in 3D right? 
This ain't no Mad Max...with all the familiar faces and Japanese racing cars and hot chicks with hot legs and _derrieres_ and front bumpers...but it should still be a blast with very fast camera work (a fraction of a sec between 5-6 scenes), all the fabricated (boosted) colors, and the loud CGI effect sounds...vroom vroom ... plus pump-it-up RAP music.


----------



## NorthSky

*Canada is not the right place for Movie Shopping - Go USA Go!*



Lozin said:


> I cancelled my pre order of Mad Max FR from Amazon.ca and ordered it from the U.S. Site the moment I heard it's coming out in Atmos just in case.


Good thinking; we should all stay away from Canadian Blu-rays, and order mainly from the States, direction South. ...Amazon.com is the ticket. 
...Except for some 3D Disney Blus, n/a in the USA & Canada.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Good thinking; we should all stay away from Canadian Blu-rays, and order mainly from the States, direction South. ...Amazon.com is the ticket.
> ...Except for some 3D Disney Blus, n/a in the USA & Canada.


Yes, I agree... stay away from Canadian BDs if you live in the US. I just had to return one recently ordered from Amazon.com through reseller where I didn't know it came from Canada but found out when the UV code didn't work. I called the studio and they told me the UV code only worked in Canada.


----------



## Waboman

Dave Vaughn said:


> I don't agree with Manohla Dargis. I really liked the first movie and enjoyed this one too (although it's not quite as good as the first). Frankly, I find the story more entertaining that "The Hunger Games" movies.


Agree. _The Hunger Games_ would be better if J-Law didn't talk. She whines way too much.


----------



## punksterz626

kbarnes701 said:


> But you did notice the much greater precision with which sounds were placed throughout the entire soundstage?
> 
> (I haven’t seen the movie so I am assuming it has a good mix).


Wasnt paying attention as far as the entire soundstage; however, one thing i notice was sound coming from dialogue sounds like the speaker was where the mouth was. In that sense, yes, it was really spot on.


----------



## timc1475

frankpc3 said:


> OK... I have a 7.1 ch. DTS-HD MA blu ray that does not have Atmos. What mode do I select to up-mix to 7.1.4 sound?
> 
> And does that mean the 7.1 sound will be as it was originally encoded and in addition to that, the 4 Atmos speakers will have 4 unique combinations of sound derived from the original 7 channels?


Hi Frank, I am thinking about a AVR upgrade but it appears full Auro 3D capable 7.1.5 (4 height 1 VOG) won't be available until 2016. Your thoughts and are you using a 2nd amp for a 7.1.5 or are you using a 5.1.4 config? 

Link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-15.html#post36005458


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Is *'Fast and Furious 7'* also coming up with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu?*NO only DTS HD MA 7.1 *...But this won't be in 3D right?
> This ain't no Mad Max...with all the familiar faces and Japanese racing cars and hot chicks with hot legs and _derrieres_ and front bumpers...but it should still be a blast with very fast camera work (a fraction of a sec between 5-6 scenes), all the fabricated (boosted) colors, and the loud CGI effect sounds...vroom vroom ... plus pump-it-up RAP music.


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Furious-7-Blu-ray/91828/


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Is *'Fast and Furious 7'* also coming up with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu? ...But this won't be in 3D right?
> This ain't no Mad Max...with all the familiar faces and Japanese racing cars and hot chicks with hot legs and _derrieres_ and front bumpers...but it should still be a blast with very fast camera work (a fraction of a sec between 5-6 scenes), all the fabricated (boosted) colors, and the loud CGI effect sounds...vroom vroom ... plus pump-it-up RAP music.


Furious 7 was not mixed in Atmos or any other immersive format so you will not see it on Blu-ray (or UHD) in Atmos.

There were certainly a few fronts I'd like to bump-er though.


----------



## Lozin

I looked in the description for Mad Max on the Canadian site and it said that Warner Home Video was the releasing studio, but there was no picture available of the back cover yet. Once there is I will look at it to see if there is an Atmos track listed. If there is I can easily switch my pre order back.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dave Vaughn said:


> Guys...I got _Insurgent _yesterday for review and you'll be VERY impressed with the Atmos soundtrack. One of the best yet in its use of overhead audio, especially with dialog with city wide "announcements" and when the hero is in captivity being spoken to through a speakers installed in the ceiling of her glass enclosure. Very impressive!


Crap... That's Lionsgate though, isn't it? 'Cause so far, their need to seamless branch the hell out of their titles has kept me from buying any of them. Already ran into that with my copy of John Wick and its 90+ branch points causing audio dropouts.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I haven't had one dropout with Lionsgate titles. What Blu-ray player and AVR are you using?


----------



## aaranddeeman

I now have Atmos 7.1.6


Thanks to Scott for the fantastic idea of using 2 AVRs in PL-II mode for height channels.
Need to do more tweaking but sounding good on a quick test of Atmos demo clips.
Yes, I know it's fake. (But then again DSU is fake too)..


----------



## batpig

aaranddeeman said:


> I now have Atmos 7.1.6
> 
> 
> Thanks to Scott for the fantastic idea of using 2 AVRs in PL-II mode for height channels.
> Need to do more tweaking but sounding good on a quick test of Atmos demo clips.
> Yes, I know it's fake. (But then again DSU is fake too)..


Neat! Please more details...

I assume you're matrixing TF+TR and extracting a "center" Top Middle channel on each side?

Are you using PLII Cinema or Music mode? If the former, pay attention and see if any sounds "collapse" to the Top Middle (as would happen when using PLII-C on a dual-mono input).


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> I now have Atmos 7.1.6
> 
> 
> Thanks to Scott for the fantastic idea of using 2 AVRs in PL-II mode for height channels.
> Need to do more tweaking but sounding good on a quick test of Atmos demo clips.
> Yes, I know it's fake. (But then again DSU is fake too)..


SWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTT!!!

Yeah, bro! Do it up! 


You're the first to document this implementation in actual use. I'll do mine as soon as these new damn Yammies come out.

We'd all love to know how this works for you. Test lots and post up. Don't forget to forward this to the immersive thread too.


Use PL2 'movie' mode for full center extraction. Maybe best for real Atmos content but test DSU, please.

Use PL2 'music' mode for a center "fill". This could be useful if you find things collapse too much into the center overhead. Could also be useful for DSU use.

Use a stereo or direct mode for a "bypass" and revert to 7.1.4 audio.

Have fun!


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Is *'Fast and Furious 7'* also coming up with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack on Blu? ...But this won't be in 3D right?
> This ain't no Mad Max...with all the familiar faces and Japanese racing cars and hot chicks with hot legs and _derrieres_ and front bumpers...but it should still be a blast with very fast camera work (a fraction of a sec between 5-6 scenes), all the fabricated (boosted) colors, and the loud CGI effect sounds...vroom vroom ... plus pump-it-up RAP music.





Movie78 said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Furious-7-Blu-ray/91828/





Scott Simonian said:


> Furious 7 was not mixed in Atmos or any other immersive format so you will not see it on Blu-ray (or UHD) in Atmos.
> 
> There were certainly a few fronts I'd like to bump-er though.


Ok, Universal Sudios...in Canada it is sometimes distributed by Elevation ('The Gunman', sans Dolby Atmos). 

Scott, it don't matter if it was in Dolby Atmos or not @ the theater; not for Lionsgate Films. ...They have their own Dolby Atmos Blu-ray facilities, and DTS:X too (only in the USA though...dts:x...in Canada this is distributed by Mongrel Films...ex_machina, sans dts:x). 

We live in a 2-Dimensional boring world...ex_machina and Fast and Furious 7 should have been in 3D. 

2016 should be a better year...I think. 

* The "cars" in F&F 7...Scott...you liked?  ...Nice bumpers too?  ...But, butt, butts ...  
...Yeah, mainly the cars, ...the real attraction, ....heee geeeezzz.

__________


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Neat! Please more details...
> 
> I assume you're matrixing TF+TR and extracting a "center" Top Middle channel on each side?
> 
> Are you using PLII Cinema or Music mode? If the former, pay attention and see if any sounds "collapse" to the Top Middle (as would happen when using PLII-C on a dual-mono input).



Yes. It's extraction of TM from TF+TR
Something like below

Height1_Left ---> CD_Left_in_of_AVR1 --- Left_Front_Speaker_Terminal_of_AVR1 ---> Top_Front_Left_Speaker
..............................................................Center_Speaker_Terminal_of_AVR1 --------> Top_Middle_Left_Speaker
Height2_Left ---> CD_Right_in_of_AVR1 --- Right_Front_Speaker_Terminal_of_AVR1---> Top_Rear_Left_Speaker



Height1_Right ---> CD_Left_in_of_AVR2 --- Left_Front_Speaker_Terminal_of_AVR2 ---> Top_Front_Right_Speaker
................................................................Center_Speaker_Terminal_of_AVR2 --------> Top_Middle_Right_Speaker
Height2_Right ---> CD_Right_in_of_AVR2 --- Right_Front_Speaker_Terminal_of_AVR2---> Top_Rear_Right_Speaker


I m still playing with the settings. More details shortly. Stay tuned.. 

And by the way, it's the brilliant idea from genius Scott, so let's call this scheme

*ScAtmos*


----------



## Scott Simonian

Should be a small handful of us with 7.1.6 ScAtmos surround sound systems by the end of the year.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Should be a small handful of us with 7.1.6 ScAtmos surround sound systems by the end of the year.


I'm working on a plan for 7.1.8.


----------



## Tin_Can

You may want to rethink the ScAtmos moniker, even though it makes me chuckle.

Scat: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scat


----------



## cdelena

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Crap... That's Lionsgate though, isn't it? 'Cause so far, their need to seamless branch the hell out of their titles has kept me from buying any of them. Already ran into that with my copy of John Wick and its 90+ branch points causing audio dropouts.


Yeah, I got rid of my bdp-083 to solve that problem. A cheap Sony handles them just fine.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Should be a small handful of us with 7.1.6 ScAtmos surround sound systems by the end of the year.


Actually everyone should do it. Costs less than the external amp that you have to have for the additional 2 channels (that makes it 7.1.4). Speaker cost is extra of course.
As this was juts and experiment, I picked the external AVRs from local craigslist. Both of them costed me $50 all together.


----------



## batpig

aaranddeeman said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should be a small handful of us with 7.1.6 ScAtmos surround sound systems by the end of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually everyone should do it. Costs less than the external amp that you have to have for the additional 2 channels (that makes it 7.1.4). Speaker cost is extra of course.
> As this was juts and experiment, I picked the external AVRs from local craigslist. Both of them costed me $50 all together.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity what AVRs did you get? 

Also you didn't answer the question of PLII Cinema vs Music modes.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dave Vaughn said:


> I haven't had one dropout with Lionsgate titles. What Blu-ray player and AVR are you using?


Oppo BDP-93 with the Denon 5200. Lionsgate uses seamless branching as a form of copy protection, so all Lionsgate titles with 7.1 tracks played on certain Blu-ray players experience dropouts every time they hit a branch. Only workaround is to decode to PCM in the player itself, which of course means you lose the Atmos track... but at least it no longer has the dropouts.


cdelena said:


> Yeah, I got rid of my bdp-083 to solve that problem. A cheap Sony handles them just fine.


Well, I can't give up my BDP-93 because I use it for SACD/DVD-A on occasion and to play files from my media server. If you don't mind me asking, what model Sony did you get that works with the Lionsgate Atmos discs? I may just add a second cheap player just so I can play those titles with the Atmos tracks intact. Shame that I would have to though. Them using that branching didn't slow down pirates one bit, but it sure makes it suck for those of us buying their discs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Tin_Can said:


> You may want to rethink the ScAtmos moniker, even though it makes me chuckle.
> 
> Scat: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scat


Oh I know. By itself it ain't a great word but the Dodge Charger/Challenger Scat Packs are anything but poop. 

But since 'Scat' is not even a root word in ScAtmos then it's not big deal. Or just call it Sc'Atmos. Whatevez. 



aaranddeeman said:


> Actually everyone should do it. Costs less than the external amp that you have to have for the additional 2 channels (that makes it 7.1.4). Speaker cost is extra of course.
> As this was juts and experiment, I picked the external AVRs from local craigslist. Both of them costed me $50 all together.


Agreed though the setup up and all that isn't for everybody. Definitely not for the faint of heart. There are enough people in here that don't even know where to put speakers for a simple Atmos system let alone making them keep track of two additional AVR's of which they will need to control separately from the host AVR.

But if you're savvy and interested, go for it. It's actually a very small investment. Let's work on it together and make sure it's worth it for those that might be on the fence about the whole thing. I'm pretty confident though that it will be worth it.


----------



## Tin_Can

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh I know. By itself it ain't a great word but the Dodge Charger/Challenger Scat Packs are anything but poop.
> 
> But since 'Scat' is not even a root word in ScAtmos then it's not big deal. Or just call it Sc'Atmos. Whatevez.


Imma call it Scott's cool Atmos trick. Or, S.C.A.T. for short.


Wait...dammit


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> But if you're savvy and interested, go for it. It's actually a very small investment. Let's work on it together and make sure it's worth it for those that might be on the fence about the whole thing. I'm pretty confident though that it will be worth it.


After Audyssey run with "Direct" setting, no more funky distance values.
With that though, I believe the levels are going to be a bit trickier once you switch to PL-II. Especially the TM will need a bit of a boost to keep up with the others.
Come on, I was enjoying my movies till now...


----------



## frankpc3

timc1475 said:


> Hi Frank, I am thinking about a AVR upgrade but it appears full Auro 3D capable 7.1.5 (4 height 1 VOG) won't be available until 2016. Your thoughts and are you using a 2nd amp for a 7.1.5 or are you using a 5.1.4 config?
> 
> Link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-15.html#post36005458


I am using 7.1.4. My Denon 7200wa works perfectly for the 4 channels of Atmos. I am using an external 3 channel amp to drive my L R & C speakers. I think I only really needed two channels, but I bought the 3 channel amp long ago. But I don't use Auro 3D. I can purchase an Auro decoder for the Denon for $200, but I have no plans to do so. But I was thinking that upgrade is available now. 

I don't know which movies have Auro. But I know several movies have Atmos. And it seems more are coming.

If I haven't answered your questions, let me know.


----------



## Zhorik

Does the Atmos for home use the top speakers as channels, similar to the theatrical version? I understand it a Dolby True-HD 7.1 mix contains all the objects with flags / metadata that indicates the avr to place the object in the x,y,z space with the object size being variable. Does anything that go into the height / top speakers (during home playback) need to be an object and is there a limit as to how long that object is engaged?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zhorik said:


> Does the Atmos for home use the top speakers as channels, similar to the theatrical version? I understand it a Dolby True-HD 7.1 mix contains all the objects with flags / metadata that indicates the avr to place the object in the x,y,z space with the object size being variable. Does anything that go into the height / top speakers (during home playback) need to be an object and is there a limit as to how long that object is engaged?


The stereo overhead beds are changed to overhead objects. Now, I don't know if they are prescribed with metadata as static objects set to two speakers or arrayed objects allowing for them to be spread out in the top locations (since you can have 10 overheads at home) if they're being used for music stems or other non moving ambiance effects. That's a decision being made at the time of conversion... or if they're doing a complete home remix from the original PCM stems as seemingly some home video divisions are doing (like Lionsgate). It's completely the mixer's call.

I don't believe there's a time limit, per se. If they're told to be in a static location, they act just like channels anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Ireland? My!


 Lovely country, lovely people, wide open spaces, beautiful countryside, good food, Guinness...



erwinfrombelgium said:


> I have a build thread mostly about the LCR speaker build but I deal with the rest of the room also:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1515109-seos-24a-brutal-dual-18-three-way-lcr-build.html


Thanks. I shall pop in and have a look.


----------



## LRS3

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oppo BDP-93 with the Denon 5200. Lionsgate uses seamless branching as a form of copy protection, so all Lionsgate titles with 7.1 tracks played on certain Blu-ray players experience dropouts every time they hit a branch. Only workaround is to decode to PCM in the player itself, which of course means you lose the Atmos track... but at least it no longer has the dropouts.
> 
> Well, I can't give up my BDP-93 because I use it for SACD/DVD-A on occasion and to play files from my media server. If you don't mind me asking, what model Sony did you get that works with the Lionsgate Atmos discs? I may just add a second cheap player just so I can play those titles with the Atmos tracks intact. Shame that I would have to though. Them using that branching didn't slow down pirates one bit, but it sure makes it suck for those of us buying their discs.


I have a BDP-93 also, but use it overwhelmingly just for audio (SACD/DVD-Audio/CD). I bought it primarily for its SACD/DVD-Audio capability. I use a Panasonic 310 (a 2011 model) generally for watching Blu-rays and DVDs. I actually like having two disc players; if there's a problem with one I still have the other for back-up (realizing that not every disc playable on one machine is playable on the other).

If you just want to stick with one player, but want to keep the BDP-93's audio capabilities, why not switch to an Oppo BDP-103? I understand it does quite well with seamless branching on Blu-rays.


----------



## cdelena

Jeremy Anderson said:


> ...
> If you don't mind me asking, what model Sony did you get that works with the Lionsgate Atmos discs? I may just add a second cheap player just so I can play those titles with the Atmos tracks intact. Shame that I would have to though. Them using that branching didn't slow down pirates one bit, but it sure makes it suck for those of us buying their discs.



I got frustrated with Oppo so it actually went to Salvation Army. I had a Sony 5100 in another room to do wifi streaming and it is now in the theater rack. It was less than $100 and does a great job... I am done with high dollar players.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oppo BDP-93 with the Denon 5200. Lionsgate uses seamless branching as a form of copy protection, so all Lionsgate titles with 7.1 tracks played on certain Blu-ray players experience dropouts every time they hit a branch. Only workaround is to decode to PCM in the player itself, which of course means you lose the Atmos track... but at least it no longer has the dropouts.
> 
> Well, I can't give up my BDP-93 because I use it for SACD/DVD-A on occasion and to play files from my media server. If you don't mind me asking, what model Sony did you get that works with the Lionsgate Atmos discs? I may just add a second cheap player just so I can play those titles with the Atmos tracks intact. Shame that I would have to though. Them using that branching didn't slow down pirates one bit, but it sure makes it suck for those of us buying their discs.


My Oppo 93 struggled with the overcomplex seamless branching which is used as a (futile) form of copy protection. The 103 has no problems. I also have a cheap old Sony player, bought secondhand which has no problems with seamless branching. It is the BDP S470.


----------



## marlon1925

*Test video for my 7.1.4 set up*

Anyone knows where to download test/calibration video for my 7.1.4 set up?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

LRS3 said:


> I have a BDP-93 also, but use it overwhelmingly just for audio (SACD/DVD-Audio/CD). I bought it primarily for its SACD/DVD-Audio capability. I use a Panasonic 310 (a 2011 model) generally for watching Blu-rays and DVDs. I actually like having two disc players; if there's a problem with one I still have the other for back-up (realizing that not every disc playable on one machine is playable on the other).
> 
> If you just want to stick with one player, but want to keep the BDP-93's audio capabilities, why not switch to an Oppo BDP-103? I understand it does quite well with seamless branching on Blu-rays.


Well, I just spent $1,100 on the Denon 5200... so I should probably calm down for now. But I guess snagging the 103 and selling my 93 isn't the worst option. Maybe in a few months. For now, I guess I'll just avoid Lionsgate titles or play them in PCM with no Atmos. I already have an Xbox One as a backup player, but it doesn't bitstream so doesn't solve the Atmos problem. Thanks to all who provided models that don't have problems with these titles.


----------



## chi_guy50

Jeremy Anderson said:


> *Well, I just spent $1,100 on the Denon 5200*... so I should probably calm down for now. But I guess snagging the 103 and selling my 93 isn't the worst option. Maybe in a few months. For now, I guess I'll just avoid Lionsgate titles or play them in PCM with no Atmos. I already have an Xbox One as a backup player, but it doesn't bitstream so doesn't solve the Atmos problem. Thanks to all who provided models that don't have problems with these titles.


I'm guessing you purchased a refurbished unit?

Otherwise, if that's what you paid for a brand new X5200 from an authorized reseller, I take my hat off to your bargain-hunting skills.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm guessing you purchased a refurbished unit?
> 
> Otherwise, if that's what you paid for a brand new X5200 from an authorized reseller, I take my hat off to your bargain-hunting skills.


It was eBay... so not an authorized reseller (but new in the box and works perfectly). I'm a daredevil! A risk-taker! I sometimes eat without washing my hands first!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It was eBay... so not an authorized reseller (but new in the box and works perfectly). I'm a daredevil! A risk-taker! I sometimes eat without washing my hands first!


I don't quite understand why you would do this when it won't be upgradeable to DTS:X or the newest HDMI chipsets.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't quite understand why you would do this when it won't be upgradeable to DTS:X or the newest HDMI chipsets.


Why not?
In two years he can jump on another such "risk" and buy a new one that has everything..
DTS:X may be near, but 4K is still far away IMHO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Why not?
> In two years he can jump on another such "risk" and buy a new one that has everything..
> DTS:X may be near, but 4K is still far away IMHO.


I guess... if you have money to burn, that is.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> I guess... if you have money to burn, that is.


I don't think he has. Look at the price he paid...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't quite understand why you would do this when it won't be upgradeable to DTS:X or the newest HDMI chipsets.




Because I have no interest in 4K until I see what the adoption rate is. I don't see it taking off given that 1) most people aren't buying discs or new players, and 2) streaming services for 4K will bump up against the ISPs' implementation of traffic caps to prevent people from cutting the cord (which they're already doing to me now). There are just too many unknowns there. As far as DTS: X goes, maybe I'll regret it later... But during that time, Atmos and DSU were a major improvement in my room for all sources I already have. And given that no theater in my state even has Atmos yet that I know of and my local theaters don't even have 7.1 yet, why wait for yet another format that may not even take off?



I get future proofing... But if you wait for every new thing, you'll never buy anything. I got a good deal, especially when I sell my old AVR. And if that other stuff takes off, I can get in on that once it's established, without the early adopter expense. ;-)


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> DSU recommendation: Kumiko, the treasure hunter. It's a 5.1 mix, but the first half of the film takes place in Japan & has a lot of cool ambient sounds going on that get the rear surrounds going quite a bit... it sounded fantastic. It's a funny/ quirky indy comedy.


We finally got around to viewing the eccentric _Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter_ tonight and enjoyed it very much. 

One small audio treat that you failed to mention really stood out to me: There's a short but intensive blizzard scene towards the end (starting at about 1:33:40) that is possibly the most realistic, immersive bit of sound design plus score that I can remember experiencing to date. Afterwards when I mentioned it to my wife, she surprised me by saying that she didn't like it because it was so realistically frightening! She stated that "it made you feel like you were there, facing impending death." That's quite a testament to the mixers, wouldn't you say?

Ačiū labai už Jūsų rekomendacijos, Aras! (Did I get that right?)


----------



## audiofan1

chi_guy50 said:


> We finally got around to viewing the eccentric _Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter_ tonight and enjoyed it very much.
> 
> One small audio treat that you failed to mention really stood out to me: There's a short but intensive blizzard scene towards the end (starting at about 1:33:40) that is possibly the most realistic, immersive bit of sound design plus score that I can remember experiencing to date. Afterwards when I mentioned it to my wife, she surprised me by saying that she didn't like it because it was so realistically frightening! She stated that "it made you feel like you were there, facing impending death." That's quite a testament to the mixers, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Ačiū labai už Jūsų rekomendacijos, Aras! (Did I get that right?)


 Just added it to my Netflix queue


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> We finally got around to viewing the eccentric _Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter_ tonight and enjoyed it very much.
> 
> One small audio treat that you failed to mention really stood out to me: There's a short but intensive blizzard scene towards the end (starting at about 1:33:40) that is possibly the most realistic, immersive bit of sound design plus score that I can remember experiencing to date. Afterwards when I mentioned it to my wife, she surprised me by saying that she didn't like it because it was so realistically frightening! She stated that "it made you feel like you were there, facing impending death." That's quite a testament to the mixers, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Ačiū labai už Jūsų rekomendacijos, Aras! (Did I get that right?)


Haha! How did you figure out I'm Lithuanian, & how did you translate it? Very good... probably better than I could do! 

I'm glad you enjoyed the recommendation! I will check out the blizzard scene again, it is a fantastic mix! 

Another recommendation: Dawn of planet of the apes, released theatrically in Atmos. I didn't think I'd like this film but I really enjoyed it actually. What I particularly liked about the mix is that it takes advantage of the rear surrounds *a lot*.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Sounds from a speaker directly above you or directly behind you are heard equally in both ears. When our human hearing hears sounds equally in both ears, our automatic reflex is to think it is coming from directly in front of us. It's a psychoacoustic problem often referred to as front-to-back reversals. Simplest solution is to play back a mono VOG or surround-back channel through a pair of speakers spread away from the listener's centre line. But if you're going to do that, why have a mono signal to begin with? So no VOG for Atmos.


Something interesting happened today... my bro in law demo'd Auro 3D for me at his place with the demo disc. His setup is for Atmos... the only exception being that he has an overhead VOG speaker. 

There were some things that really wow'd me. The demos made specifically by Auro were amazing. The demo with a truck driving through sounded very realistic, as if the truck was there. Helicopter fly over demo... very real sounding, better than helicopter flyovers I've heard on Atmos material. (Expendables 3)

Movie clips was a different story though... I wasn't at all impressed with any of the movie demo material... very strange. I'm thinking the reason for the discrepancy was perhaps the density of the mixes? In the Auro demo, the mixes are much simpler, ambient sound with 1 object driving through (truck, helicopter) so perhaps the lack of complexity is what made it sound all that much better. 

Thinking back on Expendables 3... scenes with helicopters if I recall had other stuff going on (music/ battle sounds)... so perhaps the more crowded a mix gets, the less dramatic that overhead effects are?

But I am still questioning weather or not Atmos would benefit from overhead VOG... while I trust what you say is correct, what I heard today in the Auro demo blew me away in terms of overhead sound/ the illusion of things above you. 

That being said though, Auro's overhead panning doesn't sound as cool as Atmos. I heard nothing like the leaf trailer in any of the Auro demos... it might be capable due to the accuracy of what I heard in the helicopter demo, but I heard no demonstration of that. Sometimes sounds appear over the surround speakers though which I thought was interesting. 

I'd be curious to hear how it sounds with an actual Auro setup. I'm also curious... as 3D sound continues to evolve, if Atmos would adopt a 2nd bed/ wall height layer of surrounds like Auro has? I could see that potentially providing more accurate object placement.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> Haha! How did you figure out I'm Lithuanian, & how did you translate it?


Your name gives away your Lithuanian heritage (as a linguist, etymology and anthroponymy are among my interests) and Chicago is a hotbed of Lithuanian-American culture. As for the translation, while I don't speak any Baltic languages, I do know Russian and the Lithuanian morphology and syntax are similar. 

Voilà, mystery solved!


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm also curious... as 3D sound continues to evolve, if Atmos would adopt a 2nd bed/ wall height layer of surrounds like Auro has?


I doubt it, since the cinema version doesn't have it, and the home version is based on the cinema version. But who knows what the future will bring.


----------



## westmd

chi_guy50 said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> DSU recommendation: Kumiko, the treasure hunter. It's a 5.1 mix, but the first half of the film takes place in Japan & has a lot of cool ambient sounds going on that get the rear surrounds going quite a bit... it sounded fantastic. It's a funny/ quirky indy comedy.
> 
> 
> 
> We finally got around to viewing the eccentric _Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter_ tonight and enjoyed it very much.
> 
> One small audio treat that you failed to mention really stood out to me: There's a short but intensive blizzard scene towards the end (starting at about 1:33:40) that is possibly the most realistic, immersive bit of sound design plus score that I can remember experiencing to date. Afterwards when I mentioned it to my wife, she surprised me by saying that she didn't like it because it was so realistically frightening! She stated that "it made you feel like you were there, facing impending death." That's quite a testament to the mixers, wouldn't you say?
> 
> A?i? labai u? J?s? rekomendacijos, Aras! (Did I get that right?)
Click to expand...

Is there an Atmos Blu-Ray release of Kumiko? I saw the trailer on Apple TV and it looked quite good to me!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

westmd said:


> Is there an Atmos Blu-Ray release of Kumiko? I saw the trailer on Apple TV and it looked quite good to me!


No, I just thought it sounded very good through the up mixer... 5.1 mix if I recall.


----------



## discodol

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ok guys I got the treatments all placed & ran a calibration. I put some photos up... man things are sounding fantastic! I took some pics so you guys could see how I set it up. In the 3rd, 4th, & 5th pics you can see where I placed the ceiling speakers. (This location is temporary & in a basement... so I'm aware it's not going to win any awards for beauty.) I'm probably going to move in a few months unfortunately... I hope to get a room that's a few feet wider & taller... then it would be ideal.
> 
> In the last picture... just to give a frame of reference... if I sit on that section of the couch that's elongated (MLP), the front height speaker is in line with my feet & 3 feet to my left. The rear height is in the exact same proportion, a few feet in back & in line with the front. All speakers are about 5.5 feet from my head.
> 
> I don't think the THX recommendation of placing directly overhead is necessary to get the desired effect, from these speaker positions I'm getting the directional panning effects & overhead @ the same time. If 9.1.6 is an affordable thing within a few years I think it would be cool to get a pair directly overhead & space the fronts & rears a little further away.
> 
> In the 3rd picture you can see my right surround in the closet which I know isn't ideal... that was the only way I could extend the L/R surround field unfortunately, as I think having the surrounds just a few feet away would be irritating.
> 
> Last night my best friend came over & we watched Star Trek into darkness... I played him the dolby atmos demo disc, which he's heard before here with my 44-DA modules. He was blown away by the sound... he's honest with me so it wasn't feigned praise


When you rearrange your setup try to get the Center channel just below the screen and as far forward as possible for the best dispersion of dialogue. Other than that fantastic room, when the lights go down you don't see any of the rough spots anyhow.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Aras_Volodka said:


> But I am still questioning weather or not Atmos would benefit from overhead VOG...


I think if the Atmos Top speakers are elevated enough (50-60°) then VOG would be unnecessary. The Height speakers in Auro 3D are typically not as high up as the Atmos Top speakers. Although the recommendations overlap. 

If the Atmos Top speakers are at least 50° up, the gap between L&R Top speakers is no more than 80°, hence panning from Left Surround to Left Top (Middle) to Right Top to Right Surround will be seamless and no VOG would be needed, IMO.

Maybe Dolby could trade in the Center Surround (least important ear level speaker, directly behind MLP) for the VOG, but it would certainly not be among my first 15 speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

westmd said:


> Is there an Atmos Blu-Ray release of Kumiko? I saw the trailer on Apple TV and it looked quite good to me!





Aras_Volodka said:


> No, I just thought it sounded very good through the up mixer... 5.1 mix if I recall.


The BRD I watched was in Dolby TrueHD 5.1. Applying Dolby Surround upmixing for 7.1.4, the result was very, very good.

(Or, as we _almost_ say down here in the Deep South "ausge-cotton-pickin'-zeichnet!")


----------



## westmd

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I am still questioning weather or not Atmos would benefit from overhead VOG...
> 
> 
> 
> I think if the Atmos Top speakers are elevated enough (50-60?) then VOG would be unnecessary. The Height speakers in Auro 3D are typically not as high up as the Atmos Top speakers. Although the recommendations overlap.
> 
> If the Atmos Top speakers are at least 50? up, the gap between L&R Top speakers is no more than 80?, hence panning from Left Surround to Left Top (Middle) to Right Top to Right Surround will be seamless and no VOG would be needed, IMO.
> 
> Maybe Dolby could trade in the Center Surround (least important ear level speaker, directly behind MLP) for the VOG, but it would certainly not be among my first 15 speakers.
Click to expand...

Once Atmos is available for my processor I will try a stereo VOG which will function Top Middle for Atmos!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Cool, we will be reading your assessments!


----------



## lovingdvd

westmd said:


> Once Atmos is available for my processor I will try a stereo VOG which will function Top Middle for Atmos!


Interesting. I am planning a 9.1.6 setup. With a top-middle pair, do you still think I should put in a VOG? Or can the VOG be simulated by using both the left and right top-middle combined with a little from the left and right of the top-fronts?


----------



## punksterz626

In case anyone is looking for more atmos movie.


----------



## westmd

lovingdvd said:


> westmd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once Atmos is available for my processor I will try a stereo VOG which will function Top Middle for Atmos!
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I am planning a 9.1.6 setup. With a top-middle pair, do you still think I should put in a VOG? Or can the VOG be simulated by using both the left and right top-middle combined with a little from the left and right of the top-fronts?
Click to expand...

I can't say for sure yet how it will aound but at least I will give it a try to work without a single VOG but to send the same signal on the left and right top middle speaker. I am quite confident that the result will be much less with this setup.
How do you want to get the fronts involved tecgnically, i mean how are you planning to add 'a little from the top-fronts' into the signal?
Which processor are you planning to get for a 9.1.6 setup?


----------



## westmd

punksterz626 said:


> In case anyone is looking for more atmos movie.


Is there anywhere a combined list with all Atmos Blu-Rays worldwide? Maybe even this thread could host an entry which is updated regularly?


----------



## FilmMixer

westmd said:


> Which processor are you planning to get for a 9.1.6 setup?


Isn't there only one choice for the foreseeable future (Trinnov?)


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> Is there anywhere a combined list with all Atmos Blu-Rays worldwide? Maybe even this thread could host an entry which is updated regularly?


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> Interesting. I am planning a 9.1.6 setup. With a top-middle pair, do you still think I should put in a VOG? Or can the VOG be simulated by using both the left and right top-middle combined with a little from the left and right of the top-fronts?


I'd say it's not necessary. The observation I made about the Auro 3D demo could simply have been the mix itself. 

It's going to be a loooooong time before Dolby begins making modifications to their setup... by then I'd imagine they'll have solutions that haven't been presented before. Top mids will cover the VOG's role I'd imagine... I was just speculating as to why I heard a difference in overhead precision. I'm pretty much convinced it comes down to mixing since engineers have been working with channel based systems for so long. With object based sound I'd imagine engineers will find new ways to make sounds more immersive. 

You are getting the speakers I got right? They have really wide dispersion; so they should cover that overhead range really well... especially with top mids setup!


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> I can't say for sure yet how it will aound but at least I will give it a try to work without a single VOG but to send the same signal on the left and right top middle speaker. I am quite confident that the result will be much less with this setup.
> How do you want to get the fronts involved tecgnically, i mean how are you planning to add 'a little from the top-fronts' into the signal?
> Which processor are you planning to get for a 9.1.6 setup?


West, with your Datasat pre-pro how many channel speakers it is supporting and how many speakers your own setup consists of now?

TYIA


----------



## lovingdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> ...You are getting the speakers I got right? They have really wide dispersion; so they should cover that overhead range really well... especially with top mids setup!


Which speakers are you referring to? Please remind me what speakers you have exactly and their locations...?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lovingdvd said:


> Which speakers are you referring to? Please remind me what speakers you have exactly and their locations...?


KEF Ci200rr THX, I've got them in a top front / top rear orientation, 5.5 feet from the MLP (directly)


----------



## lovingdvd

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'd say it's not necessary. The observation I made about the Auro 3D demo could simply have been the mix itself.
> 
> It's going to be a loooooong time before Dolby begins making modifications to their setup... by then I'd imagine they'll have solutions that haven't been presented before. Top mids will cover the VOG's role I'd imagine... I was just speculating as to why I heard a difference in overhead precision. I'm pretty much convinced it comes down to mixing since engineers have been working with channel based systems for so long. With object based sound I'd imagine engineers will find new ways to make sounds more immersive.
> 
> You are getting the speakers I got right? They have really wide dispersion; so they should cover that overhead range really well... especially with top mids setup!





Aras_Volodka said:


> KEF Ci200rr THX, I've got them in a top front / top rear orientation, 5.5 feet from the MLP (directly)


Awesome. Yes that's the current plan for my in-ceiling speakers. Also planning on using the Ci5160 and Ci3160 for the listening level. Oddly I can't seem to find anyone on AVS that has the 5160 and 3160 speakers in an Atmos setup (despite posts here an on AVForums looking for owners).


----------



## westmd

NorthSky said:


> westmd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure yet how it will aound but at least I will give it a try to work without a single VOG but to send the same signal on the left and right top middle speaker. I am quite confident that the result will be much less with this setup.
> How do you want to get the fronts involved tecgnically, i mean how are you planning to add 'a little from the top-fronts' into the signal?
> Which processor are you planning to get for a 9.1.6 setup?
> 
> 
> 
> West, with your Datasat pre-pro how many channel speakers it is supporting and how many speakers your own setup consists of now?
> 
> TYIA
Click to expand...

The LS10 has 13 channels and 2 subs. Of these 13 channels 11 are (currently) fixed assigned to the seven standard bed channels as well as Front Height Left, Righ and finally Side Left and Right. Then two channels can be either used as Center Height and VOG for an Auro setup or Front Side Left and Right for a DTS Neo:X setup. I do have the full 13 channels plus 2 subs Auro setup with the only exception that I do not use the center height as the Auro center height but use the same signal as the main center. As I do not have an AT screen having a center below and above the screen creates a good phantom center coming directly from the screen.
I am hoping that Datasat's Atmos implementation allows a third row of height speakers then I can go for the secen bed channels, the six heights plus a center height as a copy of the center so fourteen speakers and two subs!


----------



## NorthSky

westmd said:


> The LS10 has 13 channels and 2 subs. Of these 13 channels 11 are (currently) fixed assigned to the seven standard bed channels as well as Front Height Left, Righ and finally Side Left and Right. Then two channels can be either used as Center Height and VOG for an Auro setup or Front Side Left and Right for a DTS Neo:X setup. I do have the full 13 channels plus 2 subs Auro setup with the only exception that I do not use the center height as the Auro center height but use the same signal as the main center. As I do not have an AT screen having a center below and above the screen creates a good phantom center coming directly from the screen.
> I am hoping that Datasat's Atmos implementation allows a third row of height speakers then I can go for the secen bed channels, the six heights plus a center height as a copy of the center so fourteen speakers and two subs!


Thanks West.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'd say it's not necessary. The observation I made about the Auro 3D demo could simply have been the mix itself.
> 
> It's going to be a loooooong time before Dolby begins making modifications to their setup... by then I'd imagine they'll have solutions that haven't been presented before. Top mids will cover the VOG's role I'd imagine... I was just speculating as to why I heard a difference in overhead precision. I'm pretty much convinced it comes down to mixing since engineers have been working with channel based systems for so long. With object based sound I'd imagine engineers will find new ways to make sounds more immersive.


The difference you are hearing in 'overhead precision' between those Auro3D and Atmos demo examples, may come down to differences in recording. While the most impressive Auro3D sound examples were natively recorded (using a 3D microphone array), Dolby Atmos relies much more on the re-recording phase for showcasing its impressive 3D positioning capabilities.

What is automatically captured during native recording in Auro3D, is extremely difficult for the re-recording mixer to replicate in Atmos, namely: natural reverberation patterns. In real life, those reverberation patterns provide us human beings with important psycho-acoustical information to asses the characteristics of a given sound source, like size and position. In fact, most sounds we hear in real life are indirect.

While Atmos is champion in accurate 3D-positioning of a direct sound, Auro3D is better able to reproduce natural indirect sounds. In producing 3d-sound, the latter may be more important for our perception of precize localization and sense of realism than many of us realize.


----------



## Scott Simonian

In other words: a 3D microphone array captures a more impressive 'immersive' scene than what most have heard made by hand.

This is not a trait inherent to Auro3D as a surround sound technology but a better recording practice.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> In other words: a 3D microphone array captures a more impressive 'immersive' scene than what most have heard made by hand.
> 
> This is not a trait inherent to Auro3D as a surround sound technology but a better recording practice.


Because if you put some of those ambient field mic array tracks into fixed object locations (either in a snap-to-speaker or line array setting) you can do the exact same thing as Auro in that sense. The same would be true of DTS:X.

It would be up to the individual sound mixer to decide whether he/she wants to get that realistically elaborate. I, for one, would hope that the 3D field mic techniques catch on for immersive sound mixes.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> In other words: a 3D microphone array captures a more impressive 'immersive' scene than what most have heard made by hand.
> 
> This is not a trait inherent to Auro3D as a surround sound technology but a better recording practice.


Absolutely true. Would be interesting to hear how such a recording sounds through an Atoms configuration. However, I am not aware of any Atmos encoded native 3D recording at this point in time. Is there?


----------



## Lasalle

lovingdvd said:


> Interesting. I am planning a 9.1.6 setup. With a top-middle pair, do you still think I should put in a VOG? Or can the VOG be simulated by using both the left and right top-middle combined with a little from the left and right of the top-fronts?


The Auro 3D specification for multiple VOG's aligns nicely with the Atmos Top Middle specification: Attachment 1











If you want full Auro 3D compatibility you need to add Surround Heights. Both DTS:X and Auro 3D can utilize the SH and TM/VOG speakers. In the attached layout (#2) Atmos is 9.6 using the blue TM/VOG array, DTS:X should be able to use all the speakers (in a 16 channel processor). If you wanted to try to enhance Atmos you have 2 possibilities:


Array the the Surrounds and Surround Heights and adjust trim and delays to fill between the TM and Surrounds.
Or Array TM and SH to fill from the other direction, I suspect this may be less desirable as it may diffuse the precision of panned objects.


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> Absolutely true. Would be interesting to hear how such a recording sounds through an Atoms configuration. However, I am not aware of any Atmos encoded native 3D recording at this point in time. Is there?


I can't think of any specific applications of this technique with Atmos but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Somebody needs to get a multi-mic recording system and record some things. Anything. Then bring that multidimensional recording into a Atmos encoding suite and render these vectors as 'static' objects. Sounds easy but maybe it isn't in practice. Either it's hard to do so that's why we haven't seen heard such content or there just isn't any interest on the content creator side of the equation. I'm thinking it's the latter.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Either it's hard to do so that's why we haven't seen heard such content or there just isn't any interest on the content creator side of the equation. I'm thinking it's the latter.


Lack of interest, since movie soundtracks contain reverb/ambience/reflections created in the studio (rarely recorded in the field). Trying to create the illusion of being in a large hall doesn't require the dialogue be recording in a large hall with a soundfield microphone. And movies are selling the illusion.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Lack of interest, since movie soundtracks contain reverb/ambience/reflections created in the studio (rarely recorded in the field). Trying to create the illusion of being in a large hall doesn't require the dialogue be recording in a large hall with a soundfield microphone. And movies are selling the illusion.


For movies, sure. I get that. That's why I'm not surprised there has been lack of interest as nobody in the movie biz is capturing specific scenes like this. 

However, somebody has to eventually do music in Atmos. Dolby can make a tractor move through a field in their next demo maybe? 


It's funny. People who have heard Auro and Atmos at the shows always say they LOVED those demos. Yet when the movie segments of the demo comes up... crickets.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby can make a tractor move through a field in their next demo maybe?


Good idea, since it has been keeping the format from succeeding.


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words: a 3D microphone array captures a more impressive 'immersive' scene than what most have heard made by hand. This is not a trait inherent to Auro3D as a surround sound technology but a better recording practice.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true. Would be interesting to hear how such a recording sounds through an Atoms configuration. However, I am not aware of any Atmos encoded native 3D recording at this point in time. Is there?
Click to expand...



Extract from a June 2015 paper "*Dolby AC-4 Audio Delivery for Next-Generation Entertainment Services*" (_link_):


> "The AC-4 bitstream can carry channel-based audio, audio objects, or a combination of the two. The Dolby AC-4 decoder combines these audio elements as required to output the most appropriate signals for the consumer—for example, stereo pulse-code modulation (PCM) for speakers or headphones or stereo/5.1 PCM over HDMI®. When the decoder is feeding a device with an advanced Dolby renderer—for example, a set-top box feeding a Dolby Atmos® A/V receiver (AVR) in a home theater—the decoded audio objects can be sent to the AVR to perform sophisticated rendering optimized for the listening configuration."


_


And the paper seems to use the phrase "*7.1.4 Mix (With Height Channels)*" when referencing "channel based content".


_


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Lack of interest, since movie soundtracks contain reverb/ambience/reflections created in the studio (rarely recorded in the field). Trying to create the illusion of being in a large hall doesn't require the dialogue be recording in a large hall with a soundfield microphone. And movies are selling the illusion.


Understood. But why not enhance this illusion by positioning the studio added reverb/ambience/reflections in a way that makes it more convincing for our ears/ brains: elevated. Lack of interest too?


----------



## maikeldepotter

SoundChex said:


> Extract from a June 2015 paper "*Dolby AC-4 Audio Delivery for Next-Generation Entertainment Services*" (_link_):
> _
> 
> And the paper seems to use the phrase "*7.1.4 Mix (With Height Channels)*" when referencing "channel based content".
> 
> _


Interesting. Seems that if Auro3D is not going to survive the supposed battle with Atmos (and DTS:X) on the movie side (as some in this forum strongly believe), its channel based approach for 3D sound will continue to deliver its virtues, as part of - ironically - Dolby's broadcast format.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

This might have been asked already, if so forgive me ^^;; 

Anyone have the new ATMOS demo disc that came out? not the old August release, they have a newer one with more detail, demos, and even what looks like a test sound?

If so anyway of making an ISO and torrenting it?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm only aware of the Atmos demo disk we got at CEDIA last year which is the same one circulating in torrent form. Then there was a similar version with some movie clips that was not allowed to go public because of rights usage lawyer stuff. 

Not aware of an updated demo disk at all.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> But why not enhance this illusion by positioning the studio added reverb/ambience/reflections in a way that makes it more convincing for our ears/ brains: elevated.


Movies are not made that way. For example: when capturing dialogue, even on location, it helps to have the driest possible recording you can get, so that if/when you need to replace parts of the dialogue later, the reverb characteristics match (since location dialogue and studio dialogue will both be processed with the same reverb effect).


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Movies are not made that way. For example: when capturing dialogue, even on location, it helps to have the driest possible recording you can get, so that if/when you need to replace parts of the dialogue later, the reverb characteristics match (since location dialogue and studio dialogue will both be processed with the same reverb effect).


Yes, I understand. But I was referring to exactly this post-recording added reverb. Why not position this elevated during playback, seperated from the direct voice sound, in order to enhance the illusion?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I was referring to exactly this post-recording added reverb. Why not position this elevated during playback, seperated from the direct voice sound, in order to enhance the illusion?


With immersive formats available now, movie mixers could do this if they wanted to. Maybe some already are.


----------



## westmd

maikeldepotter said:


> SoundChex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extract from a June 2015 paper "*Dolby AC-4 Audio Delivery for Next-Generation Entertainment Services*" (_link_):
> _
> 
> And the paper seems to use the phrase "*7.1.4 Mix (With Height Channels)*" when referencing "channel based content".
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Seems that if Auro3D is not going to survive the supposed battle with Atmos (and DTS:X) on the movie side (as some in this forum strongly believe), its channel based approach for 3D sound will continue to deliver its virtues, as part of - ironically - Dolby's broadcast format.
Click to expand...

WOW! I have not been following the Atmos thread closely for some months now but habe the feeling I never left! Still the old discussion whether AURO will survive or not. No wonder the thread is that long.
I honesrly have to say that I am dissapointed by both Auro and Atmos. Not technically because the Auro upmixer sounds great and I have not got Atmos yet at home, but by the lack of original content.
Auro with a bad WWII movie as well as a none simubtitles Belgium comedy and Atmos with, in conparison to their available movies, just a few excerpts of many B-stock titles. I don't understand why such blockbuster titles such as Kingsman are not being released as such. There should have bern more then enough time to master it for Blu-Ray accordingly!
I somehow got the feeling that Blu-Ray is not the designated media for immersive sound but studios are waiting for UHD Blu-Ray to have some more selling reasons!


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, I understand. But I was referring to exactly this post-recording added reverb. Why not position this elevated during playback, seperated from the direct voice sound, in order to enhance the illusion?


If you want to hear a good example of this, try *The Gunman*. Go to the scene where Terrier and Cox are in the machine room of the public aquarium. Throughout this lengthy scene, there is excellent use of reverb in the overhead speakers to enhance the feeling of being in that room. What's more, when Terrier has one of his head trauma issues, Cox is speaking to him and, to demonstrate that Terrier is undergoing a traumatic attack, the picture goes out of focus and Cox's voice clearly comes from the overhead speakers, towards the center front. Cox speaks several words while this effect continues. The action cuts back to the non-Terrier viewpoint and the dialog collapses back to the center speaker and the action cuts back to Terrier and the dialog goes back to the overheads. It is a very effective and obvious use of the overheads. Not quite what you are describing in your post to Sanjay but a good listen nonetheless.

In the same scene the action twice cuts away to Cox's henchmen outside the aquarium and you hear the ambient reflections and reverberations of the machine room suddenly stop, and then start again when the action returns inside.

In the same movie, go to the Bullfight scene near the end. In this lengthy sequence, the action alternates between Terrier being assaulted in closed spaces underneath the stadium and crowd scenes as Annie is dragged and chased from her seat. During the crowd scenes there is considerable ambience and some voices placed in the overheads and this is dramatised when the action cuts back to Terrier's fight, which is in a closed space and the sound abruptly changes to reflect the difference between inside and outside spaces. It is a very effective use of ambient sound in the overheads creating a realistic aural environment and it adds considerably to the impact of these scenes. 

And I enjoyed the movie itself too, so this one is, for me, a winner all round.


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> WOW! I have not been following the Atmos thread closely for some months now but habe the feeling I never left! Still the old discussion whether AURO will survive or not. No wonder the thread is that long.


While the Auro thread didn’t have a single post for weeks until someone posted to wonder why 



westmd said:


> I honesrly have to say that I am dissapointed by both Auro and Atmos. Not technically because the Auro upmixer sounds great and I have not got Atmos yet at home, but by the lack of original content.


More content would of course be wonderful. But one can hardly compare Auro and Atmos in this regard, with Atmos having 15 Bluray movies already released and more announced, and Auro having two movies, one of a 3 year old film and the other in the Flemish language, with nothing in the pipeline.



westmd said:


> Auro with a bad WWII movie as well as a none simubtitles Belgium comedy and Atmos with, in conparison to their available movies, just a few excerpts of many B-stock titles. I don't understand why such blockbuster titles such as Kingsman are not being released as such. There should have bern more then enough time to master it for Blu-Ray accordingly!
> I somehow got the feeling that Blu-Ray is not the designated media for immersive sound but studios are waiting for UHD Blu-Ray to have some more selling reasons!


That (last sentence) may indeed be the truth!


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm only aware of the Atmos demo disk we got at CEDIA last year which is the same one circulating in torrent form. Then there was a similar version with some movie clips that was not allowed to go public because of rights usage lawyer stuff.
> 
> Not aware of an updated demo disk at all.


Yeah the August disc is what I currently have in ISO format from that torrent floating around, they released a slightly more upated one in Jan 2015, which looks to have a bit more content well on the audio only side of things, could be mistaken, I mean not the end of the world I Need this now, just curious if anyone did have it and uploaded it.


----------



## Spanglo

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yeah the August disc is what I currently have in ISO format from that torrent floating around, they released a slightly more upated one in Jan 2015, which looks to have a bit more content well on the audio only side of things, could be mistaken, I mean not the end of the world I Need this now, just curious if anyone did have it and uploaded it.


Nothing too exciting on the 2015 disc: http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Spanglo said:


> Nothing too exciting on the 2015 disc: http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/


Nice! Thanks. I'd get this just for the Horizon trailer.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice! Thanks. I'd get this just for the Horizon trailer.


I managed to get a copy of this disc -- the "Audio Only" clips are pretty cool, they have environmental surround fields and toggle between Atmos and 5.1 reproduction.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice! Thanks. I'd get this just for the Horizon trailer.


You know the Horizon trailer is on Demo World in m2ts format right ?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I managed to get a copy of this disc -- the "Audio Only" clips are pretty cool, they have environmental surround fields and toggle between Atmos and 5.1 reproduction.


I would be very interested in this disc. The environment sound clips at the Dolby Atmos demo I attended were very good.



SteveTheGeek said:


> You know the Horizon trailer is on Demo World in m2ts format right ?


Nooo I did not know that.


----------



## sdrucker

westmd said:


> WOW! I have not been following the Atmos thread closely for some months now but habe the feeling I never left! Still the old discussion whether AURO will survive or not. No wonder the thread is that long.
> I honesrly have to say that I am dissapointed by both Auro and Atmos. Not technically because the Auro upmixer sounds great and I have not got Atmos yet at home, but by the lack of original content.


 
As a European, who I've cast as the target market for Auro based on the direction of Datasat/Auro for hardware and Auro's emphasis in its home content on the likes of Ozark Henry and Bowling Balls, it's interesting to hear you say that, as the founder of the Auro thread. I see Auro's future in the world of streaming content, that someone like HD Tracks or that one vendor with live concerts in an archive would offer for re-mixed native content as a subscription service online. It may survive as an upmixer for music in the mainstream market, but in terms of native content the future is as a niche product for consumer audio for one vendor (D&M) and the $20K crowd. Certainly an audience outside of the US in my opinion regardless.

Relative to the hype on AVS on one hand and the expectations of Dolby on the other, I think we all are disappointed for what 2014-15 has brought thus far for Atmos. On the other hand, I'd be careful not to underrate the quality of Atmos releases - even if you don't like the "B movie" stock of the likes of Jupiter Ascending, there's Gravity and in a few months Game of Thrones for us grown-ups.  And with the holiday season coming up after CEDIA, I suspect more will trickle into the pipeline. Whether it happens in tandem with a UHD Blu-Ray launch, as a catalyst to get more studios on board, is the 64,000 dollar (as well as Euro) question.



> I somehow got the feeling that Blu-Ray is not the designated media for immersive sound but studios are waiting for UHD Blu-Ray to have some more selling reasons!


 More evidence that maximizing consumer utility isn't what drives the studios LOL...


----------



## Daniel Chaves

batpig said:


> I managed to get a copy of this disc -- the "Audio Only" clips are pretty cool, they have environmental surround fields and toggle between Atmos and 5.1 reproduction.


I too would be interested in this, if you are ever near Hollywood and have the bluray on hand, message me, I can rip the bluray and create an ISO and then setup a torrent for people.  Unless you have this ability yourself then we can talk and make arrangements ^_^


----------



## SoundChex

sdrucker said:


> Relative to the hype on AVS on one hand and the expectations Dolby on the other, I think we all are disappointed for what 2014-15 has brought thus far for Atmos. On the other hand, I'd be careful not to underrate the quality of Atmos releases - even if you don't like the "B movie" stock of the likes of Jupiter Ascending, there's Gravity and in a few months Game of Thrones for us grown-ups.  And with the holiday season coming up after CEDIA, I suspect more will trickle into the pipeline. Whether it happens in tandem with a UHD launch Blu-Ray launch, as a catalyst to get more studios on board, is the 64,000 dollar (as well as Euro) question.




I'm inclined to believe the biggest boost for immersive audio home theater will likely be in a year of two when the crawl on *Game of Thrones* broadcasts reads (something like) "*Also available online for streaming with optional 7.1.4 Dolby AC-4 Immersive Audio*".


_


----------



## Scott Simonian

Or whenever the first Superbowl with immersive/object-based audio is.


----------



## NorthSky

What's the next Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title?


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Or whenever the first Superbowl with immersive/object-based audio is.


GoDaddy.com ... the scantily-clad hot chick will float ABOVE you!


----------



## Daniel Chaves

But lets be honest here, with DTS X around the corner what future do you really think ATMOS has... they should have been licensing ATMOS with no fee for the first year or two even if that meant a loss, so that everyone would want to jump on board and release their material in ATMOS so that they would have had a stronger foothold in the market and greater product availability, with DTS already dominating the home market... I for see them possibly doing the same with object based surround sound...


----------



## lujan

Spanglo said:


> Nothing too exciting on the 2015 disc: http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/


I like the song by Enrique Iglesias a lot.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> But lets be honest here, with DTS X around the corner what future do you really think ATMOS has... they should have been licensing ATMOS with no fee for the first year or two even if that meant a loss, so that everyone would want to jump on board and release their material in ATMOS so that they would have had a stronger foothold in the market and greater product availability, with DTS already dominating the home market... I for see them possibly doing the same with object based surround sound...


Dolby has nothing to worry about. "DTS already dominating the home market"? No, DTS has most Blu-rays with DTS-HD Master Audio and ....well, that's it. Dolby Digital support is everything. Cable, Satellite, streaming, tv's, etc, etc, etc. DTS could learn a thing or two about market penetration. 

Atmos has a grand future. DTS X has been "around the corner" for a long time now. Still TBD. No products, whatsoever.


----------



## Spanglo

lujan said:


> I like the song by Enrique Iglesias a lot.


That song is great, but it was also the 2014 disc. Damn we're starved for content.


----------



## sdurani

Daniel Chaves said:


> ...with DTS already dominating the home market...


DTS only ever dominated a single format: Blu-ray. Dolby dominated the entre rest of the home market: VHS, laserdics, DVD, broadcast, cable, satellite, streaming, downloads, etc.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

I am speaking in terms of ATMOS market, yes they will be able to go digital streaming services but I have yet to see any of that content so as it stands its only the bluray market and thus why I said DTS has a strong chance of dominating that over ATMOS, listen I get it we all love ATMOS, Im just trying to be realistic... I can for see DTS out shining ATMOS in at least the bluray market.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby has nothing to worry about. "DTS already dominating the home market"? No, DTS has most Blu-rays with DTS-HD Master Audio and ....well, that's it. Dolby Digital support is everything. Cable, Satellite, streaming, tv's, etc, etc, etc. DTS could learn a thing or two about market penetration.
> 
> Atmos has a grand future. DTS X has been "around the corner" for a long time now. Still TBD. No products, whatsoever.


Not sure what that's going to make this year's CEDIA feel like....the calm after the storm or another buildup of expectations based on the next set of AVRs to hit the market with DTS:X this fall, to watch Ex Machina and the DTS:X demo disc to the point of numbness...


----------



## wse

Daniel Chaves said:


> But lets be honest here, with DTS X around the corner what future do you really think ATMOS has... they should have been licensing ATMOS with no fee for the first year or two even if that meant a loss, so that everyone would want to jump on board and release their material in ATMOS so that they would have had a stronger foothold in the market and greater product availability, with DTS already dominating the home market... I for see them possibly doing the same with object based surround sound...


2016 will be a great year hopefully with a lot more push from DTS:X as long as they have a lot of UHD BR released


----------



## wse

sdurani said:


> dts only ever dominated a single format: Blu-ray. Dolby dominated the entre rest of the home market: Vhs, laserdics, dvd, broadcast, cable, satellite, streaming, downloads, etc.


let the game begin


----------



## NorthSky

Who cares about who's dominating who; we love them all...for our own entertainment/enjoyment. ...Life is short; there is no time to waste on froot loops and mickey mouse. 

When is the next Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title? ...And which one is it, ...make it counts, where it sounds the best.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Aren't Insurgent and Mad Max Fury Road the next Atmos blu-rays coming out? I think Age Of Adeline is after that, which seems like a weird choice.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Aren't Insurgent and Mad Max Fury Road the next Atmos blu-rays coming out? I think Age Of Adeline is after that, which seems like a weird choice.


*'Mad Max: Fury Road'* is a definitive Must Own 3D Dolby Atmos B&W Blu-ray movie title. 
- 'Insurgent' ...David said it has a good Dolby Atmos soundtrack , in some particular scenes. 
- 'Age of Adeline' ...that might be Dan's taste. ...Same guy who isn't crazy about the flick 'Gravity' ....and a bunch of others from the transformers style. 
But Keith should love it...he loves them all, almost.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Aren't Insurgent and Mad Max Fury Road the next Atmos blu-rays coming out?


Yes, Insurgent next Tuesday, Mad Max and Age of Adeline in early September, San Andreas in October and the first two seasons of Game of Thrones in November.


----------



## ultraflexed

Netflicks daredevil would be a perfect choice for atmos.

Hopefully terminator Genisys has a atmos soundtrack.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Hell, Atmos is worth having just for Fury Road, in my opinion.


----------



## Joel Rohrer

Fury road will likely be the Killer app that The Matrix was to show off to my friends why I bought one of the first DVD player's and surround sound. Seems like the perfect movie for Atmos.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

maikeldepotter said:


> The difference you are hearing in 'overhead precision' between those Auro3D and Atmos demo examples, may come down to differences in recording. While the most impressive Auro3D sound examples were natively recorded (using a 3D microphone array), Dolby Atmos relies much more on the re-recording phase for showcasing its impressive 3D positioning capabilities.
> 
> What is automatically captured during native recording in Auro3D, is extremely difficult for the re-recording mixer to replicate in Atmos, namely: natural reverberation patterns. In real life, those reverberation patterns provide us human beings with important psycho-acoustical information to asses the characteristics of a given sound source, like size and position. In fact, most sounds we hear in real life are indirect.
> 
> While Atmos is champion in accurate 3D-positioning of a direct sound, Auro3D is better able to reproduce natural indirect sounds. In producing 3d-sound, the latter may be more important for our perception of precize localization and sense of realism than many of us realize.


Oh! The mic used for recording no doubt accounts for the precision I heard... they even mentioned that a special microphone was used in the Auro 3D demos.

However, I'm not in agreement that Auro 3D is better suited for the reproduction of 3D sound... as the film clips I heard were not impressive... it's was only Auro's own demos recorded with the 3D microphone that stood out. 



Scott Simonian said:


> I can't think of any specific applications of this technique with Atmos but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
> 
> Somebody needs to get a multi-mic recording system and record some things. Anything. Then bring that multidimensional recording into a Atmos encoding suite and render these vectors as 'static' objects. Sounds easy but maybe it isn't in practice. Either it's hard to do so that's why we haven't seen heard such content or there just isn't any interest on the content creator side of the equation. I'm thinking it's the latter.





sdurani said:


> Lack of interest, since movie soundtracks contain reverb/ambience/reflections created in the studio (rarely recorded in the field). Trying to create the illusion of being in a large hall doesn't require the dialogue be recording in a large hall with a soundfield microphone. And movies are selling the illusion.





sdurani said:


> Movies are not made that way. For example: when capturing dialogue, even on location, it helps to have the driest possible recording you can get, so that if/when you need to replace parts of the dialogue later, the reverb characteristics match (since location dialogue and studio dialogue will both be processed with the same reverb effect).


Very fascinating points guys!

The other issue is most sounds that are used in movies use foley samples or have sound effects added later (Kind of hard to get the transformer stomping through the set sounding accurate live). 

+ I'm sure the film crew & their equipment make sound as well, and often times even if you could have a 3D microphone array, you might not want to pick up a lot of what you are hearing on set. 

I've done a lot of recording in studios, the amount of effort that goes into recording a band in a room with very carefully placed microphones is probably nothing compared to a film set in terms of complexity. The engineer I worked with the most (who trained as an assistant under Bill Schnee, whom was interviewed in home theater geeks actually/ you've heard his recordings) would place 1 mic in the room as an "ambient" mic. Typically this microphone is turned down very low in the mix, & just as in movies, the reverb & all that is done in post production. If you've ever seen a behind the scenes clip from movies in an action scene, what you hear on set is very different from what ends up in the film. 

But I'm also aware that some of the best recordings done before multitrack recording were done with one very well paced microphone... pretty amazing when you think about it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> What's the next Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title?





Daniel Chaves said:


> But lets be honest here, with DTS X around the corner what future do you really think ATMOS has... they should have been licensing ATMOS with no fee for the first year or two even if that meant a loss, so that everyone would want to jump on board and release their material in ATMOS so that they would have had a stronger foothold in the market and greater product availability, with DTS already dominating the home market... I for see them possibly doing the same with object based surround sound...


I have a feeling the 2 formats will co-exist comfortably. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Aren't Insurgent and Mad Max Fury Road the next Atmos blu-rays coming out? I think Age Of Adeline is after that, which seems like a weird choice.


I saw Age of adeline... the mix wasn't bad. It is a chick flick though... sort of strange for atmos target audience... but the atmos effects were cleverly used in certain scenes. I think it's worth a watch if you have an atmos system... not completely brain dead like the Gunman / Expandables/ Sniper films. 



NorthSky said:


> *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* is a definitive Must Own 3D Dolby Atmos B&W Blu-ray movie title.
> - 'Insurgent' ...David said it has a good Dolby Atmos soundtrack , in some particular scenes.
> - 'Age of Adeline' ...that might be Dan's taste. ...Same guy who isn't crazy about the flick 'Gravity' ....and a bunch of others from the transformers style.
> But Keith should love it...he loves them all, almost.


I'll probably rent insurgent out of desperation... but as promised I'd stop complaining if Mad Max got an Atmos BD... since that's happening I'll stop complaing about the 10% rotten scores for 90% of atmos titles (lol). I'd be 100 % satisfied with Star Wars atmos BD... hopefully DTS X doesn't steal the spotlight!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh! The mic used for recording no doubt accounts for the precision I heard... they even mentioned that a special microphone was used in the Auro 3D demos.
> 
> However, I'm not in agreement that Auro 3D is better suited for the reproduction of 3D sound... as the film clips I heard were not impressive... it's was only Auro's own demos recorded with the 3D microphone that stood out.


So in conclusion: While the channel-based approach of Auro3D may excel in the reproduction of live recorded 3D sound, this quality does at this moment not contribute a whole lot to 3D soundtracks for movies considering the way they are currently being recorded and re-recorded/mixed.


----------



## westmd

maikeldepotter said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh! The mic used for recording no doubt accounts for the precision I heard... they even mentioned that a special microphone was used in the Auro 3D demos.
> 
> However, I'm not in agreement that Auro 3D is better suited for the reproduction of 3D sound... as the film clips I heard were not impressive... it's was only Auro's own demos recorded with the 3D microphone that stood out.
> 
> 
> 
> So in conclusion: While the channel-based approach of Auro3D may excel in the reproduction of live recorded 3D sound, this quality does at this moment not contribute a whole lot to 3D soundtracks for movies considering the way they are currently being recorded and re-recorded/mixed.
Click to expand...

The big BUT: The Auro upmixer is seen by many as superior to DSU and as moat likely only 1% (if also looking at TV content) will have native immersive sound the 200 bucks might be well invested...


----------



## westmd

Game of Thrones in Atmos sounds definitly worth it! Does anybody know if other releases (such as UK) will also featurre the Atmos tracks? The box looks the same but no mentioning of Atmos.

Another general question, is there anywhere a site where I can find a list of all Atmos Blu Ray releases worldwide?


----------



## zimmo

dolby atmos is very ahead dts ,it has the current market and for a fews years because the problem whit dts is departure to dts-x is chaotic ,explaining instead that the speakers should be all place what you wont and normaly you make couple bluray dts-x before you have receivers .the starting dts-x is lack of professionnel.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

maikeldepotter said:


> So in conclusion: While the channel-based approach of Auro3D may excel in the reproduction of live recorded 3D sound, this quality does at this moment not contribute a whole lot to 3D soundtracks for movies considering the way they are currently being recorded and re-recorded/mixed.


I think either format would be capable of reproducing live recorded 3D sound very well, we won't know until we get an example for Atmos which might never happen. 

I will give you one example of something I heard that's different between the two formats with film mixes: In films like Expendables 3/ the gunman, in the aftermath of something like a mortar shell going off... when dirt/ random junk gets blown off the ground & settles back down, the sound of everything landing really sounds very 3 dimensional with Atmos; as if it's really in the room with you. On the Auro demo disc there was an animated film sample from a movie with cavemen tossing an egg around. One of them smacked his head into a boulder & a similar dust settling sound was used in that scene, & didn't sound anywhere near as cool. (I know this is a weird thing to notice). 

In general though, I just didn't like the film sample mixes on the Auro disc, even though there was overhead stuff going on it just sounded very bland. I might like to give the comparison another go @ some point... My bro in law who demo'd it for me turned it up insanely loud so I was cringing the majority of the time.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

westmd said:


> The big BUT: The Auro upmixer is seen by many as superior to DSU and as moat likely only 1% (if also looking at TV content) will have native immersive sound the 200 bucks might be well invested...


I'm curious... if you purchase Auro 3D but end up getting another receiver a few years down the road, will you have to purchase it again? 
Or is it possible that receivers in 2017/18/etc might just start including it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Spanglo said:


> That song is great, but it was also the 2014 disc. Damn we're starved for content.


Too bad it suffers from all the issues of pop recordings nowadays, even with the immersive mix: compressed dynamics and over cooked treble.


----------



## punksterz626

In case anyone looking for a international war movie in atmos


----------



## Dan Hitchman

punksterz626 said:


> In case anyone looking for a international war movie in Atmos
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Thanks for the heads up, though I've never really been a fan of John Woo films. He lacks subtlety like Michael Bay.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm curious... if you purchase Auro 3D but end up getting another receiver a few years down the road, will you have to purchase it again?
> Or is it possible that receivers in 2017/18/etc might just start including it?


I would assume that the license is specific to the unit and not the owner; IOW you can resell the AVR and Auro will continue to operate on it, but you as the original owner do not retain the license for use in a different unit. Whether future mainstream AVR's will have Auro included at no extra cost (i.e., baked into the MSRP) is anyone's guess but I would think not based on its initial deployment and limited appeal.

On another subject, did you get a chance to give a second listen to that wind storm scene in _Kumiko_? You seem to have a sophisticated ear and I would be interested in how your impressions compare with mine. Thanks.


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the heads up, though I've never really been a fan of John Woo films. He lacks subtlety like Michael Bay.



I agree.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> In general though, I just didn't like the film sample mixes on the Auro disc, even though there was overhead stuff going on it just sounded very bland. I might like to give the comparison another go @ some point... My bro in law who demo'd it for me turned it up insanely loud so I was cringing the majority of the time.


Did you try the scene from Rise of the Guardians? I think that's the best mixed (to show off immersive audio) movie clip on the Auro disc.


----------



## lujan

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm curious... if you purchase Auro 3D but end up getting another receiver a few years down the road, will you have to purchase it again?
> Or is it possible that receivers in 2017/18/etc might just start including it?


I'm currently working that issue now. I've replaced my Denon X5200W via an exchange because I was having audio dropouts that they couldn't fix. I was told that as long as I have proof of purchase I wouldn't have to purchase it again. I'm assuming that it only applies to the same model? Don't think it would apply when getting another model receiver but not sure?

Now to look for that proof of purchase...


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm curious... if you purchase Auro 3D but end up getting another receiver a few years down the road, will you have to purchase it again?
> Or is it possible that receivers in 2017/18/etc might just start including it?


 
Knowing the industry, I'd believe that before it being transferrable between a user's AVRs.


As to "just including it" a few years from now, I think it depends on how manufacturers in the future license Auro (e.g. how many years go into the licensing agreement) and/or the tradeoff in using additional DSP resources to include it as an option or not. Not to be Mr. Negativity, since I personally would want it on my receiver if I were in that position for a relatively marginal cost to me ($200) simply to have another upmixer, but I see it being an update or possibly an included option ultimately for flagship AVRs only like the X7200W or Marantz 8802, and getting dropped or not trickling down to more mid-range products. 


Why? To keep the price point down as well as to allow the manufacturers to cram in other features of capabilities. Maybe something like how only higher-end AVRs or pre/pros have analog pre-outs. OTOH I'm not an expert on the DSPs used or their programming, so it might not quite be a guns/butter thing to have Auro aside from the marketing/pricing part of the equation.

And for the 2015 crop of new A/V toys to be released, Auro is just D&M outside of the Datasat/branded Auro/Trinnov world, isn't it?


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad it suffers from all the issues of pop recordings nowadays, even with the immersive mix: compressed dynamics and over cooked treble.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the heads up, though I've never really been a fan of John Woo films. He lacks subtlety like Michael Bay.


Your arm must be really tired from shaking your fist at so many things


----------



## batpig

lujan said:


> I'm currently working that issue now. I've replaced my Denon X5200W via an exchange because I was having audio dropouts that they couldn't fix. I was told that as long as I have proof of purchase I wouldn't have to purchase it again. I'm assuming that it only applies to the same model? Don't think it would apply when getting another model receiver but not sure?
> 
> Now to look for that proof of purchase...


That's a totally different situation -- Denon replaced your product because it was defective, so obviously you should be made whole and get something you already paid for to enhance that product.

What Aras is talking about is upgrading to some other receiver at a future date. In that case, the license is tied to the unit, you don't get to carry it forward to a totally different product.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Your arm must be really tired from shaking your fist at so many things


Too bad I took all those film history and sound mixing courses. They spoiled me. I want _good_ entertainment, not just _any _entertainment.


----------



## ellisr63

I have JBL 2360A horns for the front 3 channels, bass bins, and JBL8340A speakers for my surrounds. Would the JBL 8320 be a good speaker for Atmos ceiling speakers... or do i need to go with the JBL 8340A?


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad I took all those film history and sound mixing courses. They spoiled me.


Must be lonely way up on that ivory tower  if you shake your fist too vigorously you may lose your balance and plummet to the rabble below...


----------



## batpig

ellisr63 said:


> I have JBL 2360A horns for the front 3 channels, bass bins, and JBL8340A speakers for my surrounds. Would the JBL 8320 be a good speaker for Atmos ceiling speakers... or do i need to go with the JBL 8340A?


Sure, why not? They're basically the same speaker but with an 8" woofer instead of a 10" right?

So you end up with a crossover 20Hz higher, so what?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Must be lonely way up on that ivory tower  if you shake your fist too vigorously you may lose your balance and plummet to the rabble below...


Given what passes for, especially, summer movie entertainment these days, I think I prefer my tower.


----------



## ellisr63

batpig said:


> Sure, why not? They're basically the same speaker but with an 8" woofer instead of a 10" right?
> 
> So you end up with a crossover 20Hz higher, so what?


Thanks that will save me bucks on the Atmos channels.


----------



## FilmMixer

Daniel Chaves said:


> But lets be honest here, with DTS X around the corner what future do you really think ATMOS has... *they should have been licensing ATMOS with no fee for the first year or two *even if that meant a loss, so that everyone would want to jump on board and release their material in ATMOS _*so that they would have had a stronger foothold in the market and greater product availability,*_ with DTS already dominating the home market... I for see them possibly doing the same with object based surround sound...


Dan... I'm curious... who hasn't "jumped on board" with Atmos since it has been available? "Fee" or not... they've penetrated the market, if you look at manufacturers offering Atmos support, to almost 100%... how can you say they don't have a "strong foothold?" 

Licensing cost has zero to do with anything... the lack of titles can easily be attributed tot eh quick debut of UHD BR... once that arrives, the flood gates will open... 

Dolby also created a technology for those who cannot add ceiling speakers.... debatable by some as an acceptable solution.. but they put their money where their mouth is and will continue to sell them, even for those who want to use them to play back immersive DTS:X mixes..

And it bears repeating again... DTS and Dolby make nothing on a title when it is encoded on BR... while DTS certainly has a dominance on releases, it's only one metric of "success."

True that every BR and AVR has both decoders in this day and age... however, every TV and (almost every) set top box has a Dolby Digital decoder in it... then add Dolby's dominance in streaming at this point in time.. and DTS bowing out of ATAS 3.0..

I think DTS gas a fantastic codec, and I think MDA has a great future..

But I think your definition of "dominating the home market" is different than mine.


----------



## Waboman

Forget about your fancy teetotaler movies. They need to release the Sharknado trilogy in Atmos. Can you imagine sharks flying all around and above you? Munching away, nom, nom, nom. Then the sound of a chainsaw overhead and shark cartilage everywhere. Atmos gold, baby. Atmos gold.


----------



## batpig

ellisr63 said:


> Thanks that will save me bucks on the Atmos channels.


Good stuff -- I kind of wish I had a room big enough to make those big-ass commercial speakers viable. I love how a "compact" surround speaker is 16"x14"x9" -- why, you could fit over 60 Bose cubes in a box that size! 

Obviously they are catering to a different market, but it seems like such a great value when you have a dedicated room and can strip away the aesthetic concerns and get high performance "pro" speakers like those JBLs. For $250 a pop you can get a speaker with an 8" woofer, a big horn loaded tweeter with immense power handling and sensitivity.


----------



## batpig

Waboman said:


> Forget about your fancy teetotaler movies. They need to release the Sharknado trilogy in Atmos. Can you imagine sharks flying all around and above you? Munching away, nom, nom, nom. Then the sound of a chainsaw overhead and shark cartilage everywhere. Atmos gold, baby. Atmos gold.


But then the question is whether the shark munching will sound right if you have bipole or dipole surrounds???!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> Forget about your fancy teetotaler movies. They need to release the Sharknado trilogy in Atmos. Can you imagine sharks flying all around and above you? Munching away, nom, nom, nom. Then the sound of a chainsaw overhead and shark cartilage everywhere. Atmos gold, baby. Atmos gold.


Bad-movie Hipster is a Hipster.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> Your arm must be really tired from shaking your fist at so many things



That picture was so close-up...you were probably on his lawn too.


----------



## Waboman

batpig said:


> But then the question is whether the shark munching will sound right if you have bipole or dipole surrounds???!


Lol. We'll let FilmMixer work out the details.



Scott Simonian said:


> Bad-movie Hipster is a Hipster.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan... I'm curious... who hasn't "jumped on board" with Atmos since it has been available? "Fee" or not... they've penetrated the market, if you look at manufacturers offering Atmos support, to almost 100%... how can you say they don't have a "strong foothold?"
> 
> Licensing cost has zero to do with anything... the lack of titles can easily be attributed tot eh quick debut of UHD BR... once that arrives, the flood gates will open...
> 
> Dolby also created a technology for those who cannot add ceiling speakers.... debatable by some as an acceptable solution.. but they put their money where their mouth is and will continue to sell them, even for those who want to use them to play back immersive DTS:X mixes..
> 
> And it bears repeating again... DTS and Dolby make nothing on a title when it is encoded on BR... while DTS certainly has a dominance on releases, it's only one metric of "success."
> 
> True that every BR and AVR has both decoders in this day and age... however, every TV and (almost every) set top box has a Dolby Digital decoder in it... then add Dolby's dominance in streaming at this point in time.. and DTS bowing out of ATAS 3.0..
> 
> I think DTS gas a fantastic codec, and I think MDA has a great future..
> 
> But I think your definition of "dominating the home market" is different than mine.


Though, I'm not the same Dan, I was wondering if Dolby is hoping to gain traction in media licensing fees in a different, backhanded, "scheming lawyer" fashion. From reports about the new HEVC Advance pool, they mention Dolby as one of the members. HEVC Advance has become very controversial as their IMHO outrageously high licensing fee terms are being deemed "greedy" at best and may jeopardize quick adoption of 4k media. Even if they don't succeed, like something MPEG tried early on with MPEG-4, this could be a potential stumbling block.

I'm really surprised that Dolby would be a part of these corporate shenanigans.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Good stuff -- I kind of wish I had a room big enough to make those big-ass commercial speakers viable. I love how a "compact" surround speaker is 16"x14"x9" -- why, you could fit over 60 Bose cubes in a box that size!
> 
> Obviously they are catering to a different market, but it seems like such a great value when you have a dedicated room and can strip away the aesthetic concerns and get high performance "pro" speakers like those JBLs. For $250 a pop you can get a speaker with an 8" woofer, a big horn loaded tweeter with immense power handling and sensitivity.


One day you'll come around. One day...


----------



## NorthSky

> I was wondering if Dolby is hoping to gain traction in media licensing fees in a different, backhanded, "scheming lawyer" fashion. From reports about the new HEVC Advance pool, they mention Dolby as one of the members. HEVC Advance has become very controversial as their IMHO outrageously high licensing fee terms are being deemed "greedy" at best and may jeopardize quick adoption of 4k media. Even if they don't succeed, like something MPEG tried early on with MPEG-4, this could be a potential stumbling block.
> *I'm really surprised that Dolby would be a part of these corporate shenanigans.*


I am not; not one bit.


----------



## Spanglo

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad I took all those film history and sound mixing courses. They spoiled me. I want _good_ entertainment, not just _any _entertainment.


Agreed, and not just because I have a degree in Cinema as well. 

Sometimes we have to make the best of what we got. I have a feeling some of these atmos titles are getting praise for simply being the best of the worst. 

Out of the titles dropped thus far, only Jupiter Ascending I wouldn't watch again. Still had a good time making fun of it with my friends tho. Yes I have watched everything multiple times... even Step Up All In... and I enjoyed it!


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> Agreed, and not just because I have a degree in Cinema as well.
> 
> Sometimes we have to make the best of what we got. I have a feeling some of these atmos titles are getting praise for simply being the best of the worst.
> 
> Out of the titles dropped thus far, only Jupiter Ascending I wouldn't watch again. Still had a good time making fun of it with my friends tho. Yes I have watched everything multiple times... even Step Up All In... and I enjoyed it!


Dolby Atmos, lots of overhead activity, ultra low frequency extension, high decibel level, time warp, dimensional worm hole, 3D quantum leap, ...all of that is much more important than the film itself...for a whole bunch of AVS people. 

* I have a degree in ARTs, and studied Cinema history, and worked in the theater business (international stage for international stars), and has been a film projectionist too for a short while. ...Films are what we're made of...everything revolving around them. ...It's a way to be alive, ...a culture through times and from various visions @ different places of the world...space. 

* And 3D is more immersing than 2D.  ...When tastefully/intelligently/technically well done of course. ...And the music in films carries a lot of emotional baggage. ...It's the glue to the moving images. ...And the dialogues are the messengers...they float in harmony with the full picture, or not. 
...The movie script, the casting, the actor's directing, the acting, the locales, the minute details, decors, costumes, wardrobes, props, foley sound effects, mics/booms positioning, CGI computerized rendering, coloring, contrasting, retouching, remastering (sound/picture), the mixing, the adding, the changing, the subtracting, the framing, the film original screen aspect ratio, the cameramen, the makeup artists, the paychecks, the movie studio revenues, ...all of this contributes to the film industry...and it's big...it's a culture...our culture. ...With all the bads and the goods. 

More speakers, on the ceiling...tough sale to penetrate the masses. Atmos is like a cherry atop a sunday available only @ your local dairy queen parlor.
@ home most people forget to buy cherries @ their local grocery stores. ...Only the very few thought about it, and bought them.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> On another subject, did you get a chance to give a second listen to that wind storm scene in _Kumiko_? You seem to have a sophisticated ear and I would be interested in how your impressions compare with mine. Thanks.


I have not... I promise I'll get to that. I haven't had the chance to watch @ loud levels this week much!



sdurani said:


> Did you try the scene from Rise of the Guardians? I think that's the best mixed (to show off immersive audio) movie clip on the Auro disc.


Yes, I heard all the movie clips if I recall. I gotta watch those clips again... every time the sandman used his whip it was soooo loud! I'll ask my bro in law if I can hear it at a reasonable level when I'm there next. I do remember hearing lots of panning "wooshes" overhead as the battle was going on, but nothing like the "wooshes" of the Atmos Leaf trailer  I did get to hear a few clips before it got turned up to beyond reference level, but perhaps I should hear again as it might not be fair for me to make the assessment based on that experience. + it was an atmos speaker layout aside from the VOG, so not ideal to begin with. 



sdrucker said:


> Knowing the industry, I'd believe that before it being transferrable between a user's AVRs.
> 
> 
> As to "just including it" a few years from now, I think it depends on how manufacturers in the future license Auro (e.g. how many years go into the licensing agreement) and/or the tradeoff in using additional DSP resources to include it as an option or not. Not to be Mr. Negativity, since I personally would want it on my receiver if I were in that position for a relatively marginal cost to me ($200) simply to have another upmixer, but I see it being an update or possibly an included option ultimately for flagship AVRs only like the X7200W or Marantz 8802, and getting dropped or not trickling down to more mid-range products.
> 
> 
> Why? To keep the price point down as well as to allow the manufacturers to cram in other features of capabilities. Maybe something like how only higher-end AVRs or pre/pros have analog pre-outs. OTOH I'm not an expert on the DSPs used or their programming, so it might not quite be a guns/butter thing to have Auro aside from the marketing/pricing part of the equation.
> 
> And for the 2015 crop of new A/V toys to be released, Auro is just D&M outside of the Datasat/branded Auro/Trinnov world, isn't it?





batpig said:


> That's a totally different situation -- Denon replaced your product because it was defective, so obviously you should be made whole and get something you already paid for to enhance that product.
> 
> What Aras is talking about is upgrading to some other receiver at a future date. In that case, the license is tied to the unit, you don't get to carry it forward to a totally different product.


This is an issue I'm very ignorant of... I'm curious... what % of a receiver's cost is related to licences? I've got the Denon 5200... so I know Audyssey takes a cut, I'm guessing Dolby & DTS maybe 100 bucks each per unit, maybe less?


----------



## scarabaeus

westmd said:


> Another general question, is there anywhere a site where I can find a list of all Atmos Blu Ray releases worldwide?


This question comes up evey week, it seems. Here you go:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> This question comes up evey week, it seems. Here you go:
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


More specificity would be great; between USA and Canadian Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles/releases. ...Example: *'The Gunman'*


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> More specificity would be great; between USA and Canadian Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles/releases. ...Example: *'The Gunman'*


Not sure what you are missing. The list shows the country, unless it's US (implied). For your example, it brings up http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/ with Atmos, clearly labeled as a US release by the stars&stripes next to the title. You can search for canadian releases, but it seems nobody has bothered to provide audio codec info for those.

The list in the thread is often ahead of the "atmos" designation in the blu-ray.com database, and even includes some discs that are missing from blu-ray.com completely. See e.g. "Touch Mi", the second Atmos music release, after "Through the Never" (not counting "Ambra" as music).


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> Not sure what you are missing. The list shows the country, unless it's US (implied). For your example, it brings up http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Gunman-Blu-ray/123023/ with Atmos, clearly labeled as a US release by the stars&stripes next to the title. You can search for canadian releases, but it seems nobody has bothered to provide audio codec info for those.
> 
> The list in the thread is often ahead of the "atmos" designation in the blu-ray.com database, and even includes some discs that are missing from blu-ray.com completely. See e.g. "Touch Mi", the second Atmos music release, after "Through the Never" (not counting "Ambra" as music).


USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil...all the America, American continent, from way up North to way down South...they all have their own Blu-ray distributors, and it is never equally the same. 

The Canadian amazon site does NOT offer 'The Gunman' with Dolby Atmos.
And some Blu-ray movie distributors in Canada; Alliance Films, Mongrel Films, Elevation...they all have inferior BR releases...1080i instead of 1080p, DD instead of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, and no Dolby Atmos. 

That, would help in staying away forever from those inferior Blu-ray movie distributors...that's all I'm saying...more clarification. 
In this infernal fast & expanding global world we live in ... amazon from all world's regions ... it's useful to know what we're getting and from who.


----------



## LowellG

I still haven't pulled the plug on Atmos. When will the 2nd gen receivers be coming out. The ones that will support 9.2.4?

Thanks,


----------



## batpig

LowellG said:


> I still haven't pulled the plug on Atmos. When will the 2nd gen receivers be coming out. The ones that will support 9.2.4?
> 
> Thanks,


Nothing on the horizon. You may be waiting for a while.

Not even sure it is a safe assumption that there will be some "2nd gen" Atmos coming at any point in the near future.


----------



## Zhorik

NorthSky said:


> USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil...all the America, American continent, from way up North to way down South...they all have their own Blu-ray distributors, and it is never equally the same.
> 
> The Canadian amazon site does NOT offer 'The Gunman' with Dolby Atmos.
> And some Blu-ray movie distributors in Canada; Alliance Films, Mongrel Films, Elevation...they all have inferior BR releases...1080i instead of 1080p, DD instead of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, and no Dolby Atmos.
> 
> That, would help in staying away forever from those inferior Blu-ray movie distributors...that's all I'm saying...more clarification.
> In this infernal fast & expanding global world we live in ... amazon from all world's regions ... it's useful to know what we're getting and from who.


Unless a country code is stated next to the title in the list, it is a US release. The list is composed of SKU's and refer to John Wick release (for example) which states the Canadian version (CA) as separate.



Edit: Has anyone played Sharknado through DSU?


----------



## dkfan9

Zhorik said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil...all the America, American continent, from way up North to way down South...they all have their own Blu-ray distributors, and it is never equally the same.
> 
> The Canadian amazon site does NOT offer 'The Gunman' with Dolby Atmos.
> And some Blu-ray movie distributors in Canada; Alliance Films, Mongrel Films, Elevation...they all have inferior BR releases...1080i instead of 1080p, DD instead of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, and no Dolby Atmos.
> 
> That, would help in staying away forever from those inferior Blu-ray movie distributors...that's all I'm saying...more clarification.
> In this infernal fast & expanding global world we live in ... amazon from all world's regions ... it's useful to know what we're getting and from who.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless a country code is stated next to the title in the list, it is a US release. The list is composed of SKU's and refer to John Wick release (for example) which states the Canadian version (CA) as separate.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Has anyone played Sharknado through DSU?
Click to expand...

Sharktopus vs. Pteracuda might be pretty good too


----------



## desray2k

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm curious... if you purchase Auro 3D but end up getting another receiver a few years down the road, will you have to purchase it again?
> Or is it possible that receivers in 2017/18/etc might just start including it?


Yes... I believe so since the upgrade is tied specifically to the serial number or the Mac Address (can't confirm on this) of the AVR. 

Sent from my Venue 8 7840 using Tapatalk


----------



## virtualrain

NorthSky said:


> Dolby Atmos, lots of overhead activity, ultra low frequency extension, high decibel level, time warp, dimensional worm hole, 3D quantum leap, ...all of that is much more important than the film itself...for a whole bunch of AVS people.
> 
> * I have a degree in ARTs, and studied Cinema history, and worked in the theater business (international stage for international stars), and has been a film projectionist too for a short while. ...Films are what we're made of...everything revolving around them. ...It's a way to be alive, ...a culture through times and from various visions @ different places of the world...space.
> 
> * And 3D is more immersing than 2D.  ...When tastefully/intelligently/technically well done of course. ...And the music in films carries a lot of emotional baggage. ...It's the glue to the moving images. ...And the dialogues are the messengers...they float in harmony with the full picture, or not.
> ...The movie script, the casting, the actor's directing, the acting, the locales, the minute details, decors, costumes, wardrobes, props, foley sound effects, mics/booms positioning, CGI computerized rendering, coloring, contrasting, retouching, remastering (sound/picture), the mixing, the adding, the changing, the subtracting, the framing, the film original screen aspect ratio, the cameramen, the makeup artists, the paychecks, the movie studio revenues, ...all of this contributes to the film industry...and it's big...it's a culture...our culture. ...With all the bads and the goods.


Poetic. Awesome. A fine description of all that goes into modern story telling.



> More speakers, on the ceiling...tough sale to penetrate the masses. Atmos is like a cherry atop a sunday available only @ your local dairy queen parlor.
> @ home most people forget to buy cherries @ their local grocery stores. ...Only the very few thought about it, and bought them.


Bang on. Out of my circle of friends, not a single one has anything more than a sound bar or 2.1 setup. No one I know personally has a 5.1 setup. Most people are eating ice cream (or is it sorbet?) out of the carton.


----------



## MichLinton

wse said:


> let the game begin


Dolby Labs has bet their entire future on Dolby Atmos. The market is starting to realize that the Atmos immersive sound format is the MOST EXPENSIVE and WORST PERFORMING of all the commercial formats available. The AuroMax system is acoustically superior and much less expensive to install in movie theaters. Dolby subsidized all the initial installations for the movie theaters and mixing rooms. 

The market for immersive sound in people's homes is minuscule - most people don't even have 5.1 set up properly! 

The most recent quarterly report has confirmed that Atmos installations are stalled - no wonder, when DTS and Auro can do a better job with speakers high on the walls instead of hanging overhead!

And Dolby (DLB) shares are being massively sold off by everyone in management inside the company. There hasn't been one management "buy" the last 18 months. What does that tell you? 

Dolby cannot survive as a company by licensing their fading technology portfolio, and the new technologies are easily superseded by open-source products and other better-operating technologies like DTS-X.


----------



## NorthSky

Christmas 2014 came and went. The New Year 2015 came and went. ...Next is Christmas 2015...lets see how much white stuff we'll get, from above.


----------



## NorthSky

Zhorik said:


> 1. Unless a country code is stated next to the title in the list, it is a US release. The list is composed of SKU's and refer to John Wick release (for example) which states the Canadian version (CA) as separate.
> 
> Edit: 2. Has anyone played Sharknado through DSU?


1. Yes, I noticed that particular title; John Wick (CA).

2. No, I won't even go there...it's for the true shark aficionados.


----------



## SoundChex

virtualrain said:


> Out of my circle of friends, not a single one has anything more than a sound bar or 2.1 setup.



_But that doesn't necessarily mean all hope is lost:_ For example, *ETRI* has already been working with *NHK* _on wavefront synthesis research_ for a number of years, and with *LG* _on pre-production development_ to deliver immersive audio with a consumer version of that technology using both *top and bottom of display* soundbars (as in the image below). _And I've seen another ETRI "concept design" which added a *third* soundbar located behind the audience!_












_


----------



## rowleyphoto

So on a whim I purchased an Onkyo TX-NR636 because my HDMI port died on my old unit. I thought a 7.1 Atmos ready receiver for less than $500 was awesome but... I now believe I misread how this receiver is Atmos capable. Am I right in that it uses the surrounds/sides as the ceiling speakers thus making the unit a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver? If so, which way is the better way to run it, 7.1 or 5.1.2? When I say better, I mean overall distinguishable separation. Since there are still a limited number of Atmos Blu-ray releases, is a 7.1 setup more logical or would a 5.1.2 setup be the way to go for the long haul?

Thanks


----------



## jdsmoothie

rowleyphoto said:


> So on a whim I purchased an Onkyo TX-NR636 because my HDMI port died on my old unit. I thought a 7.1 Atmos ready receiver for less than $500 was awesome but... I now believe I misread how this receiver is Atmos capable. Am I right in that it uses the surrounds/sides as the ceiling speakers thus making the unit a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver? If so, which way is the better way to run it, 7.1 or 5.1.2? When I say better, I mean overall distinguishable separation. Since there are still a limited number of Atmos Blu-ray releases, is a 7.1 setup more logical or would a 5.1.2 setup be the way to go for the long haul?
> 
> Thanks


All 7CH AVRs that are capable of Atmos will likely use the Surround Back speaker posts for the "height" speakers in a 5.1.2 setup. Many members have posted being more impressed with what the Dolby Surround upmixer (DSU) does with non-Atmos BDs/DVDs when simulating audio to the height speakers than they are with the current limited number of actual Atmos titles.


----------



## stikle

MichLinton said:


> Dolby Labs has bet their entire future on Dolby Atmos. The market is starting to realize that the Atmos immersive sound format is the MOST EXPENSIVE and *WORST PERFORMING* of all the commercial formats available.



This made me laugh.

References please?


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> This made me laugh.


He's a professional Dolby basher (Dolby Atmos, Dolby Vision, etc). You should read his posting history, filled with gems like:


MichLinton said:


> He then went on to suggest that many of the european governments will be banning Dolby Atmos as a health and safety issue.


----------



## Tin_Can

MichLinton said:


> Dolby Labs has bet their entire future on Dolby Atmos. The market is starting to realize that the Atmos immersive sound format is the MOST EXPENSIVE and WORST PERFORMING of all the commercial formats available. The AuroMax system is acoustically superior and much less expensive to install in movie theaters. Dolby subsidized all the initial installations for the movie theaters and mixing rooms.
> 
> The market for immersive sound in people's homes is minuscule - most people don't even have 5.1 set up properly!
> 
> The most recent quarterly report has confirmed that Atmos installations are stalled - no wonder, when DTS and Auro can do a better job with speakers high on the walls instead of hanging overhead!
> 
> And Dolby (DLB) shares are being massively sold off by everyone in management inside the company. There hasn't been one management "buy" the last 18 months. What does that tell you?
> 
> Dolby cannot survive as a company by licensing their fading technology portfolio, and the new technologies are easily superseded by open-source products and other better-operating technologies like DTS-X.


For someone with 13 posts, this one is a doozy! I'm not sure why it matters anyway. Atmos and dtsx speaker layouts are compatible.


----------



## batpig

If you read his post history it's a whole bunch of doozy. There's clearly a big axe to grind....

I find people who are emotionally attached to codecs to be both baffling and highly amusing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> But lets be honest here, with DTS X around the corner what future do you really think ATMOS has... they should have been licensing ATMOS with no fee for the first year or two even if that meant a loss, so that everyone would want to jump on board and release their material in ATMOS so that they would have had a stronger foothold in the market and greater product availability, *with DTS already dominating the home market*... I for see them possibly doing the same with object based surround sound...


How does that work then? As others have said, with DVD, streamed content, downloaded content, and broadcast media, Dolby has close to 100% share. DTS has, er, Bluray. 

Not to mention that the sole reason that DTS gained dominance in the Bluray arena has now been eliminated wrt to immersive audio: lower cost of production.


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> I am speaking in terms of ATMOS market


You mean when you (incorrectly) said DTS dominates the home market, you meant in terms of immersive audio? How does that work, given that DTS currently has no hardware support and one Bluray?




Daniel Chaves said:


> yes they will be able to go digital streaming services but I have yet to see any of that content so as it stands its only the bluray market and thus why I said DTS has a strong chance of dominating that over ATMOS,


But the reason you believe that is based on a factor which ceased to exist when Atmos came along. Prior to that, DTS dominated Bluray because their authoring tools were faster and therefore cheaper to use. That advantage no longer exists, so what is the logic in saying that DTS will continue to dominate in the field of immersive audio? In everything other than Bluray, Dolby is so far ahead as to be out of sight.



Daniel Chaves said:


> listen I get it we all love ATMOS, Im just trying to be realistic... I can for see DTS out shining ATMOS in at least the bluray market.


But you are not being "realistic" unfortunately. You are making a speculative statement with no evidential support and which also fails to stand scrutiny of the facts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the heads up, though I've never really been a fan of* John Woo* films. *He lacks subtlety* like Michael Bay.


I think that is kind of the point of John Woo movies, Dan


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Given what passes for, especially, summer movie entertainment these days, I think I prefer my tower.


I bet you’d prefer Michael Bay's and John Woo's money though


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> One day you'll come around. One day...


Me too - but as batpig says, you need the room. Like him, I’d be all over those sort of speakers in a heartbeat if I had a room they'd actually fit in.


----------



## Scott Simonian

You both have the room. Nobody said they had to be size of refrigerators.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

kbarnes701 said:


> You mean when you (incorrectly) said DTS dominates the home market, you meant in terms of immersive audio? How does that work, given that DTS currently has no hardware support and one Bluray?
> 
> But the reason you believe that is based on a factor which ceased to exist when Atmos came along. Prior to that, DTS dominated Bluray because their authoring tools were faster and therefore cheaper to use. That advantage no longer exists, so what is the logic in saying that DTS will continue to dominate in the field of immersive audio? In everything other than Bluray, Dolby is so far ahead as to be out of sight.
> 
> But you are not being "realistic" unfortunately. You are making a speculative statement with no evidential support and which also fails to stand scrutiny of the facts.


Yes I was speaking in terms of physical media since ATMOS is not on any streaming services yet and even then ATMOS has barely touched the bluray market so how is DTS not relevant anymore? go grab 50 blurays of recently released content and maybe 10 of them are ATMOS and the the rest are most likely DTS, so if they have that strong of a foot hold already, I can see their DTS X offering to be just as effective since its claimed to be easier to utilize then Dolby standard and again Dolby has barely made an attempt to encourage/push their format on the home market.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yes I was speaking in terms of physical media since ATMOS is not on any streaming services yet and even then ATMOS has barely touched the bluray market so how is DTS not relevant anymore?


Because this discussion is related to immersive audio and in the discussion of immersive audio DTS is so far a no-show. No hardware, one single movie title. Meanwhile, there has been Atmos hardware available for a year now with over a dozen titles out right now for purchase and playback.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Scott Simonian said:


> Because this discussion is related to immersive audio and in the discussion of immersive audio DTS is so far a no-show. No hardware, one single movie title. Meanwhile, there has been Atmos hardware available for a year now with over a dozen titles out right now for purchase and playback.


They are already working with hollywood and at one point stated that they are aiming for 10 movie releases to the home with DTS X just shortly after the launch of their hardware that would be a significant jump on ATMOS if that was the case, since ATMOS has had pretty much a whole year and all we have seen is a handful of decent titles and a whole bunch of crap that barely uses ATMOS, shoot I get more use from their upmixer then from most of their titles... they could have dominated the market in preparation to DTS X but no instead they sat on their hands and I feel thats going to bite them in the rear.. yeah its nice they have over 300 atmos titles for theater release but when only 1 out of 30 get released to the home in ATMOS its not that re-ensuring... So hopefully with DTS X soon to be released it might make Dolby actually step up and try to get hollywood to release more atmos titles...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> You both have the room. Nobody said they had to be size of refrigerators.


I was specifically thinking of those badass JBLs that were mentioned - the surrounds are something like 16x16x10 inches. NFW will they go on my ceiling!


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yes I was speaking in terms of physical media since ATMOS is not on any streaming services yet and even then ATMOS has barely touched the bluray market so how is DTS not relevant anymore? go grab 50 blurays of recently released content and maybe 10 of them are ATMOS and the the rest are most likely DTS, so if they have that strong of a foot hold already,


Yes DTS have a strong Bluray foothold with 5.1/7.1. But you are extrapolating that to imply that the same status will continue with immersive audio. As I have pointed out, the single reason for that status quo has now disappeared, so it is illogical to assume that the status quo will remain. 

The remarks concerning DVD, streamed content, downloaded content, broadcast media, cable, satellite, VHS, where Dolby dominates totally were to counteract your previous assertion that DTS 'dominated the home market' when clearly that is not the case.



Daniel Chaves said:


> I can see their DTS X offering to be just as effective since its claimed to be easier to utilize then Dolby standard...


Who has claimed that? It was true back in the day but it is longer so. Do you have some links to those claims?



Daniel Chaves said:


> and again Dolby has barely made an attempt to encourage/push their format on the home market.


Barely made an attempt? So you don't count Atmos being in every major brand of AVR and processor as significant for the home market then? And you don't count that every major studio, bar one, is fully onboard with Atmos for home Bluray releases? You have a different understanding to mine of what a 'significant push into the home market' means.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> They are already working with hollywood and at one point stated that they are aiming for 10 movie releases to the home with DTS X just shortly after the launch of their hardware that would be a significant jump on ATMOS if that was the case, since ATMOS has had pretty much a whole year and all we have seen is a handful of decent titles and a whole bunch of crap that barely uses ATMOS, shoot I get more use from their upmixer then from most of their titles... they could have dominated the market in preparation to DTS X but no instead they sat on their hands and I feel thats going to bite them in the rear.. yeah its nice they have over 300 atmos titles for theater release but when only 1 out of 30 get released to the home in ATMOS its not that re-ensuring... So hopefully with DTS X soon to be released it might make Dolby actually step up and try to get hollywood to release more atmos titles...


Daniel...Daniel....

I don't know where you're getting all this. All your stating is promises made that are yet unfulfilled. 10 titles a year after Atmos has been in the market and that is somehow "a jump" on Atmos? Crap titles? These may not be Hallmark Channel "quality" but the majority of Atmos titles on BD currently are big budget, big BO hits. Whether you like the movies or not is irrelevant. DTS has one art house title that wasn't even originally mixed in immersive audio. Nice.

You're grasping at straws here, Daniel.

Atmos IS dominating the immersive audio market at home and in the cinema. DTS is nowhere to be seen. Promises mean nothing.



kbarnes701 said:


> I was specifically thinking of those badass JBLs that were mentioned - the surrounds are something like 16x16x10 inches. NFW will they go on my ceiling!


I don't know, man. Those are pretty compact wrt their performance. I guess something like a dual 15" cinema speaker is out of the question.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

kbarnes701 said:


> Barely made an attempt? So you don't count Atmos being in every major brand of AVR and processor as significant for the home market then? And you don't count that every major studio, bar one, is fully onboard with Atmos for home Bluray releases? You have a different understanding to mine of what a 'significant push into the home market' means.


All that means nothing when even still on average 1 out of 30 movies done in ATMOS see an ATMOS release to the home... so you can have everyone supporting ATMOS it doesnt mean a thing when there is still barely anything to watch it with... thats why I think DTS X will end up doing better because they have a history of pushing their product on home media and cutting deals with lic fees and so on to do such, so yeah maybe they wont have as much hardware support as ATMOS but it wont take long for them to gain support and if they stand by their push for media content then yeah like I said I can see them easily surpassing ATMOS if Dolby doesnt do something to encourage said every single studio that is on board to actually release their content in ATMOS. I dont care about hardware, people get way to hung up on hardware, hardware is nothing if there isnt anything to enjoy it with...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I bet you’d prefer Michael Bay's and John Woo's money though


I'd be one of those individuals who couldn't sleep at night knowing I bilked people out of their money and gave them crap in return.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> All that means nothing when even still on average 1 out of 30 movies done in ATMOS see an ATMOS release to the home... so you can have everyone supporting ATMOS it doesnt mean a thing when there is still barely anything to watch it with... thats why I think DTS X will end up doing better because they have a history of pushing their product on home media and cutting deals with lic fees and so on to do such, so yeah maybe they wont have as much hardware support as ATMOS but it wont take long for them to gain support and if they stand by their push for media content then yeah like I said I can see them easily surpassing ATMOS if Dolby doesnt do something to encourage said every single studio that is on board to actually release their content in ATMOS. I dont care about hardware, people get way to hung up on hardware, hardware is nothing if there isnt anything to enjoy it with...


As opposed to DTS that has how many titles in the cinema in DTS:X that were also released to home video?

Let me crunch the numbers....

*beep beep boop beep*


Zero.

You need the hardware to playback the software. Dolby has both covered.

Better at "pushing their product on home media ..." Wait, what?! Yeah... compared to Auro, I'd agree.



Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd be one of those individuals who couldn't sleep at night knowing I bilked people out of their money and gave them crap in return.


Somehow I think you would not.


----------



## MichLinton

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yes I was speaking in terms of physical media since ATMOS is not on any streaming services yet and even then ATMOS has barely touched the bluray market so how is DTS not relevant anymore? go grab 50 blurays of recently released content and maybe 10 of them are ATMOS and the the rest are most likely DTS, so if they have that strong of a foot hold already, I can see their DTS X offering to be just as effective since its claimed to be easier to utilize then Dolby standard and again Dolby has barely made an attempt to encourage/push their format on the home market.


All very true. DTS-X, like MPEG-H, are both designed to "figure out" where the speakers REALLY are located and produce a compatible soundfield for the space. Dolby Atmos rigidly REQUIRES the immersive speakers overhead. A tremendous negative for Atmos in the home. And it turns out in the movie theaters as well. Not only are overhead speakers acoustically poor locations for humans with ears on the side of our heads, they are also very expensive to install. One local SFO theater told a local AES meeting that the installation alone was more costly than the extra speakers and amplifiers, and required the theater to be closed for several days as two crews erected and struck scaffolding for each speaker location - some 50+.


----------



## smurraybhm

MichLinton said:


> All very true. DTS-X, like MPEG-H, are both designed to "figure out" where the speakers REALLY are located and produce a compatible soundfield for the space. Dolby Atmos rigidly REQUIRES the immersive speakers overhead. A tremendous negative for Atmos in the home. And it turns out in the movie theaters as well. Not only are overhead speakers acoustically poor locations for humans with ears on the side of our heads, they are also very expensive to install. One local SFO theater told a local AES meeting that the installation alone was more costly than the extra speakers and amplifiers, and required the theater to be closed for several days as two crews erected and struck scaffolding for each speaker location - some 50+.


I hate to feed a troll but once again you're wrong. Atmos has the same ability for speaker mapping, unfortunately for us it is the manufacturers of receivers and pre-amps that have chosen to not utilize that feature at least on products for those of us limited to the mainstream. The "figure out" is not unique to DTS:X - nice try 
again.

Unfortunately based on what we know of this year's upcoming equipment, Denon, Yamaha and others will not be allowing us to use the speaker mapping function for Atmos or DTS:X.


----------



## westmd

Daniel Chaves said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because this discussion is related to immersive audio and in the discussion of immersive audio DTS is so far a no-show. No hardware, one single movie title. Meanwhile, there has been Atmos hardware available for a year now with over a dozen titles out right now for purchase and playback.
> 
> 
> 
> They are already working with hollywood and at one point stated that they are aiming for 10 movie releases to the home with DTS X just shortly after the launch of their hardware that would be a significant jump on ATMOS if that was the case, since ATMOS has had pretty much a whole year and all we have seen is a handful of decent titles and a whole bunch of crap that barely uses ATMOS, shoot I get more use from their upmixer then from most of their titles... they could have dominated the market in preparation to DTS X but no instead they sat on their hands and I feel thats going to bite them in the rear.. yeah its nice they have over 300 atmos titles for theater release but when only 1 out of 30 get released to the home in ATMOS its not that re-ensuring... So hopefully with DTS X soon to be released it might make Dolby actually step up and try to get hollywood to release more atmos titles...
Click to expand...

So according to IMDB 'Kingsman' was only recorded in Dolby Atmos. Nevertheles the BD was in DTS HD MA. Maybe some of these to be expected DTS-X title might be theatrical Atmos (or Auro) titles?


----------



## Josh Z

Daniel Chaves said:


> thats why I think DTS X will end up doing better because they have a history of pushing their product on home media and cutting deals with lic fees and so on to do such,


You really need to drop this licensing fees argument. Do you know how much Dolby charges in licensing fees to use the Atmos codec?

$0.00

Neither Dolby nor DTS charges licensing fees to use their codecs. The competition between these companies has literally *nothing* to do with licensing fees.

DST has a history of pushing their product on home media? If by "history" you mean "Blu-ray only." Meanwhile, Dolby overwhelmingly dominates every other home media format: DVD, streaming, broadcast TV, mobile, etc. Do you think they achieved this crushing dominance by not knowing how to push their product on home media?

Dolby dropped the ball with Blu-ray. Everyone inside the company is aware of that. DTS had better authoring software that was faster and easier to use, and it took Dolby much too long to catch up with something comparable. That's a mistake the company is determined to not repeat.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't know, man. Those are pretty compact wrt their performance. I guess something like a dual 15" cinema speaker is out of the question.


Agreed. But not in a Hobbit room like mine. I’d jump on them, or similar, in a bigger room. I like Pro gear - it is such better value for money.


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> All that means nothing when even still on average 1 out of 30 movies done in ATMOS see an ATMOS release to the home...


I was refuting your erroneous statement that Dolby had made no attempt to penetrate the home market. Do you always keep on moving the goalposts when discussing something?



Daniel Chaves said:


> so you can have everyone supporting ATMOS it doesnt mean a thing when there is still barely anything to watch it with... thats why I think DTS X will end up doing better ...


So you are thinking DTS will do better because DTS are a year late to the party and have no hardware at this time and one disc? That's your reasoning?



Daniel Chaves said:


> because they have a history of pushing their product on home media and cutting deals with lic fees and so on to do such, so yeah maybe they wont have as much


I’d love to see your sources for this information because it sounds very much like you are making it up as you go along. Several members have already shown beyond doubt that DTS do NOT "_have a history of pushing their product on home media"_ - they have been successful on just one form of home media, and failed disastrously on all of the rest: VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, Streaming, Download, broadcast, satellite, TV, cable... given that the future trend is away from physical media and into streaming and download, their record looks to me support the the exact opposite of your claim. 

As for "cutting deals" and so on, please let us have the details of these deals.



Daniel Chaves said:


> hardware support as ATMOS but it wont take long for them to gain support and if they stand by their push for media content then yeah like I said I can see them easily surpassing ATMOS if Dolby doesnt do something to encourage said every single studio that is on board to actually release their content in ATMOS. I dont care about hardware, people get way to hung up on hardware, hardware is nothing if there isnt anything to enjoy it with...


But you clearly seem to believe that DTS will have more influence over the studios and be able to better persuade them to release movies in DTS:X? 

I know you keep on saying that you can "easily see DTS surpassing Atmos" but unfortunately nobody else is seeing it and you are unable or unwilling to either back up your assertions with some sort of evidence, or even to listen to the evidential reasoning of others. Just keeping on repeating your position won't somehow eventually make it right.


----------



## kbarnes701

MichLinton said:


> All very true. DTS-X, like MPEG-H, are both designed to "figure out" where the speakers REALLY are located and produce a compatible soundfield for the space. Dolby Atmos rigidly REQUIRES the immersive speakers overhead. A tremendous negative for Atmos in the home.


Unfortunately, totally incorrect. Both Atmos and DTS:X have positional rendering built right in. It is the hardware manufacturers who have not implemented it that is the reason we are not seeing it. Currently we have no more reason to believe they will implement positional rendering for DTS:X than they have for Atmos. And if they do implement it for DTS:X, then Atmos will be able to take advantage of it too. 

Not to mention Dolby's upfiring Atmos speakers. What is DTS's answer to that? Oh yes - "we'll use Dolby's idea".


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> He's a professional Dolby basher (Dolby Atmos, Dolby Vision, etc). You should read his posting history, filled with gems like:


Literally every single post he's made on this site has been Dolby bashing. What a joke. Clearly a disgruntled former employee or competitor.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

In other news I guess Age of ultron won't be an Atmos BD... so it really is true that Disney won't be doing Atmos discs until possibly UHD-BD's unveiling?


----------



## Scott Simonian

The evidence has been abundantly clear. Disney nor Fox has had ANY interest in releasing immersive audio to the Blu-ray format or any other consumer format. Actually, most studios have not bothered. Warner has been the most consistent. 

Hopefully things change when UHD Blu-ray hits the stores later this year. I've been waiting for this new format for five years, immersive audio or not.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately, totally incorrect. Both Atmos and DTS:X have positional rendering built right in. It is the hardware manufacturers who have not implemented it that is the reason we are not seeing it. Currently we have no more reason to believe they will implement positional rendering for DTS:X than they have for Atmos. And if they do implement it for DTS:X, then Atmos will be able to take advantage of it too.


The Trinnov Altitude has the speaker remapping feature, but I presume it's proprietary rather than handed out by Dolby or DTS, correct?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Trinnov has their own proprietary "re-mapping" feature but that is different from object-based immersive audio and it's ability to "render" to other locations.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott Simonian said:


> Trinnov has their own proprietary "re-mapping" feature but that is different from object-based immersive audio and it's ability to "render" to other locations.


Thank you Scott, I know the difference between audio objects (can be anywhere) and speaker locations which are set in firm positions...


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Until you are appointed the Arbiter of All Human Taste


I think you get a plaque that says that when you take a few cinema courses


----------



## batpig

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The Trinnov Altitude has the speaker remapping feature, but I presume it's proprietary rather than handed out by Dolby or DTS, correct?





Scott Simonian said:


> Trinnov has their own proprietary "re-mapping" feature but that is different from object-based immersive audio and it's ability to "render" to other locations.





erwinfrombelgium said:


> Thank you Scott, I know the difference between audio objects (can be anywhere) and speaker locations which are set in firm positions...


Also to add to this -- reps from Trinnov (Curt I think?) have confirmed here on AVS that even Trinnov has to use the standard Dolby rendering angle assumptions for home Atmos. Even though they have a 3D mic system that calculates speaker position in 3D space, the Atmos decoding/rendering happens to the default angles (they can't override the "lookup table" with measured angles) and then they layer on proprietary remapping on top as needed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Also to add to this -- reps from Trinnov (Curt I think?) have confirmed here on AVS that even Trinnov has to use the standard Dolby rendering angle assumptions for home Atmos. Even though they have a 3D mic system that calculates speaker position in 3D space, the Atmos decoding/rendering happens to the default angles (they can't override the "lookup table" with measured angles) and then they layer on proprietary remapping on top as needed.



^^^^

You got it.


----------



## MichLinton

Scott Simonian said:


> The evidence has been abundantly clear. Disney nor Fox has had ANY interest in releasing immersive audio to the Blu-ray format or any other consumer format. Actually, most studios have not bothered. Warner has been the most consistent.


I believe Disney and Fox (along with Paramount) are involved in another alternative, built around High Order Ambisonics.


----------



## MichLinton

kbarnes701 said:


> Not to mention Dolby's upfiring Atmos speakers. What is DTS's answer to that? Oh yes - "we'll use Dolby's idea".


Actually, I think reflected-sound is a Bose idea.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MichLinton said:


> I believe Disney and Fox (along with Paramount) are involved in another alternative, built around High Order Ambisonics.


For consumer use?

Are you thinking of MDA?


Right now, the only choices for object-based audio are Dolby Atmos and soon DTS:X. Auro is also available but not object based.


----------



## Molon_Labe

MichLinton said:


> I believe Disney and Fox (along with Paramount) are involved in another alternative, built around High Order Ambisonics.


If history is any indication, I will end up on the wrong side of fence. I got burned on HD DVD, and I have a Denon 5200 that is stuck in the middle of a ceiling speaker war with no upgrade potential. If I commit to Atmos, I have no doubt that DTS:X or some other variant will win. If I pick a line in the supermarket, it will be the slowest. This is a lifelong curse that I have accepted  I was going to order two more pairs of JBL SCS 8 to go Atmos, but I think I am just going to hold fast.The Denon 5200w had some features that made it worth the upgrade over my previous model, so no harm - no foul; however, I am not going to spend anymore on speakers, amps, and the time to install all of it until this shakes out. To do so would commit me to ruin and doom Atmos....lol


----------



## Scott Simonian

MichLinton said:


> Actually, I think reflected-sound is a Bose idea.


They never used this technique for distributing discrete content. That is a new thing Dolby did with their Dolby-enabled speakers.

Bose speakers like this just splashed sound in another direction that was the same as what was coming out the front baffle of the same speaker.


----------



## chi_guy50

Molon_Labe said:


> If history is any indication, I will end up on the wrong side of fence. I got burned on HD DVD, and I have a Denon 5200 that is stuck in the middle of a ceiling speaker war with no upgrade potential. If I commit to Atmos, I have no doubt that DTS:X or some other variant will win. If I pick a line in the supermarket, it will be the slowest. This is a lifelong curse that I have accepted  I was going to order two more pairs of JBL SCS 8 to go Atmos, but I think I am just going to hold fast.The Denon 5200w had some features that made it worth the upgrade over my previous model, so no harm - no foul; however, I am not going to spend anymore on speakers, amps, and the time to install all of it until this shakes out. To do so would commit me to ruin and doom Atmos....lol


On behalf of all my fellow X5200 owners, I say "Thanks a bunch, Joe Btfsplk."


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> MichLinton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Disney and Fox (along with Paramount) are involved in another alternative, built around High Order Ambisonics.
> 
> 
> 
> For consumer use? Are you thinking of MDA? Right now, the only choices for object-based audio are Dolby Atmos and soon DTS:X. Auro is also available but not object based.
Click to expand...


I read that *Technicolor|Orange Labs* contributed the *Higher-Order Ambisonics (HOA)* codec component included in the *MPEG-H Audio Standard*.

As the *MPEG-H Audio Alliance* (_link_) includes *Technicolor* (plus *Fraunhofer* and *Qualcomm*) the *MPEG-H Audio* submission to the *ATSC 3.0 Audio System* "competition" included *Higher-Order Ambisonics (HOA)* (demoed on *7.1.4* speaker playback?) as an optional technology submission beyond the "required" *channel-based* and *hybrid channel|object-based* content delivery techniques...














_


----------



## Scott Simonian

No way is either studio going to commit to that technology for US or world distribution of their home video products.


----------



## bkeeler10

Molon_Labe said:


> If I commit to Atmos, I have no doubt that DTS:X or some other variant will win.


I doubt there will be a "winner" or "loser" in this. To illustrate, who won the DTS:HDMA vs Dolby TrueHD "war?" Or the DTS vs Dolby Digital "war?" At least from the consumer's perspective, there was not a winner or loser there. As all indications suggest that manufacturers will allow both formats to reside peacefully in the same AVR, and as DTS:X can utilize an Atmos speaker layout, I think the same thing is going to play out here.

I hear you on HD DVD though. Still have a player and a handful of discs. I just don't think the "HD DVD vs Blu ray" war is analogous to DTS:X vs Dolby Atmos.


----------



## torii

without reading all these pages of info, is it possible to attach speaker firing straight up to your existing speakers to achieve atmos? also could I just splice into FL/FR and surround L/R speaker terminals to steal some juice? if not, running a second set of wires to fronts and surrounds firing up could solve the problem? no idea, just wondering.


----------



## batpig

torii said:


> without reading all these pages of info, is it possible to attach speaker firing straight up to your existing speakers to achieve atmos? also could I just splice into FL/FR and surround L/R speaker terminals to steal some juice? if not, running a second set of wires to fronts and surrounds firing up could solve the problem? no idea, just wondering.


Yes, you can use any old speaker and point it up at the ceiling to bounce sound and create a "virtual" overhead effect. That's what the "official" Dolby-enabled speakers do, with some proprietary stuff in there, that most agree isn't totally necessary. The success of your effort will depend on many variables.

You can NOT "splice" into the Front/Surround channels for this. The overhead channels are discrete content, you need an Atmos capable processor and more speaker wire to feed those extra speakers a discrete signal.


----------



## RUR

Scott Simonian said:


> Bose speakers like this just splashed sound in another direction that was the same as what was coming out the front baffle of the same speaker.


Golly, you make that sound like a problem, Scott.


----------



## tjenkins95

Very interesting article from Bill Hunt regarding the status of UHD Blu-ray : 
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/072315_1800


Things are beginning to move!


Ray


----------



## Josh Z

tjenkins95 said:


> Very interesting article from Bill Hunt regarding the status of UHD Blu-ray :
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/072315_1800
> 
> Things are beginning to move!


Here's what I got out of that article:

_- Big things are happening! UHD Blu-ray is right around the corner!_

-- When will UHD Blu-ray players be available?
_
- We don't know. You'll have to ask the manufacturers._

-- When will the first UHD Blu-ray discs be released?
_
- We don't know. You'll have to ask the studios._

-- Are any movie titles confirmed to be in the works for the launch?
_
- No idea._

-- What features will UHD Blu-ray players have?
_
- Really not sure. Could be anything, honestly._

-- Will UHD Blu-ray players be backwards compatible with regular Blu-ray or DVD?
_
- Umm... probably? We can't guarantee that. That's up to the manufacturers._

-- There are several competing standards for High Dynamic Range video. Which one(s) will UHD Blu-ray use?
_
- That hasn't been decided._

-- Is there anything at all you can tell us for certain about UHD Blu-ray?
_
- Nope._

-- But you expect this product to be available by the end of the year?
_
- Maybe!_

-- Thanks for your time.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Better than I would have put it. Thanks, Josh.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Better than I would have put it. Thanks, Josh.


And that's most ugly, Kinder Garten(ish) logo of anything (but UHD Blu Ray) I have ever seen, if you ask me.


----------



## DAK4

Scott Simonian said:


> *beep beep boop beep*
> Zero.





chi_guy50 said:


> Oh, you lucky dog! (Thomas Gray's famous line "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" comes to mind.) Like Oedipus, I'd gladly poke my eyes out if it would erase the image of that buffoon from my mind.


With you two guys who needs comedies! And as an added bonus with Chi_guy I get to learn new words also! Good Stuff.


----------



## chi_guy50

DAK4 said:


> With you two guys who needs comedies! And as an added bonus with Chi_guy I get to learn new words also! Good Stuff.


You're a man after my own heart! 

Where else but on the AVSForum can one find folks who appreciate both _*beep beep boop beep*_ AND vocabulary enrichment!


----------



## Curt_Trinnov

batpig said:


> Also to add to this -- reps from Trinnov (Curt I think?) have confirmed here on AVS that even Trinnov has to use the standard Dolby rendering angle assumptions for home Atmos. Even though they have a 3D mic system that calculates speaker position in 3D space, the Atmos decoding/rendering happens to the default angles (they can't override the "lookup table" with measured angles) and then they layer on proprietary remapping on top as needed.


Correct. For Atmos, there are 24 horizontal plane assumptions and 10 height assumptions to choose from. 

Cheers,


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> The Trinnov Altitude has the speaker remapping feature, but I presume it's proprietary rather than handed out by Dolby or DTS, correct?


Atmos has full capability for positional rendering built right in. It is up to the hardware manufacturers whether they choose to implement it or not. Trinnov chose to implement it. So far, D&M, Onkyo, Pioneer etc haven't.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Oh, you lucky dog! (Thomas Gray's famous line "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" comes to mind.) Like Oedipus, I'd gladly poke my eyes out if it would erase the image of that buffoon from my mind.


So long as you love your Momma ...



chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, that's exactly the basis of my analogy (and attempt at humor). Whether through shrewd marketing, an astute understanding of the target audience, or some other factor, they have all achieved financial success for themselves and their backers. But they will never be held up as paragons of good taste or artistic achievement. You can still like their product, but it is what it is.


Yes - it is what it is. And it is enjoyed by millions of people right across the world. For something to be enjoyable it doesn't have to be 'great art'. All it has to be is enjoyable. The denigrators of this enjoyment and of its provenance do not have an atom of the talent required to entertain millions of people, across cultural and political boundaries, time and again. When others have achieved as much I will pay more attention to what I see as constant and unnecessary sniping. (I do not include you in this category BTW).



chi_guy50 said:


> You addressed the question to Dan, but I will answer for myself: It depends on the film; sometimes I feel like he just "phoned it in." It can happen--I've seen Michael Jordan shoot air balls.


Agreed. Mostly, I dislike Allen's work but I don't feel the need to post about this several times a week to remind others.



chi_guy50 said:


> I think that's exactly where I (and perhaps Dan) part company with you. I will never, ever want to "grab a McDonald's or a Domino's pizza." I could be starving and would still say "no, thanks." Not every film I watch (and enjoy) is a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but I just can not abide what I would consider substandard filmmaking (especially when it comes to the writing). Like with the food argument, I'd rather stare at a blank wall.


That is then just a matter of personal preference. I have eaten at The Fat Duck and at El Celler de Can Roca, and at most of the recognised top restaurants in the world and I have enjoyed them immensely. Could I eat there every day? No - it is too much, too rich and would become sickly quickly. And from time to time I eat at MacDonalds and I have no problem with a Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal and a Coke. As it happens, I only like pizza with an extremely thin crust and AFAIK Domino's don't offer that so I have no personal experience of their food, but I know millions do and they come back, so they have to be doing something right. Maybe I have more catholic tastes than most - if so I find that something to be celebrated. But there is a vast difference between saying _"this is not to my taste"_ and _"this is crap and its purveyors are bilking their customers_". It is the old conflation of fact and opinion which we see so often here on AVS.



chi_guy50 said:


> Where the analogy with fast food breaks down is the sad fact that fast food is enormously injurious to society in terms of the health outcomes. A film is basically just entertainment so there is no harm done by serving up empty calories.


That is not true and not supported by facts. What may be harmful about fast food is the *overconsumption *of fast food. That is true of almost anything. Water will kill you if you drink too much of it (osmotic Hyponatremia for example) - six litres can be fatal if consumed over one afternoon. I occasionally eat fast food and I have a 'fitness/health' age about 22 years 'younger' than my chronological age according to my physician. The operative word is 'occasionally'.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Where else but on the AVSForum can one find folks who appreciate both _*beep beep boop beep*_ AND vocabulary enrichment!


Are they two different things then?


----------



## DrDon

A number of off-topic and political posts have been removed. Let's cease with the discussion of Netflix's business practices and McDonald's food and get back to the topic, please.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos has full capability for positional rendering built right in. It is up to the hardware manufacturers whether they choose to implement it or not. Trinnov chose to implement it. So far, D&M, Onkyo, Pioneer etc haven't.


DTS has always had a re-mapping feature that could have been implemented long ago for their channel-based formats. No one chose to implement it (well, maybe_ one_ company), so the odds, to me, aren't very good that this more advanced object rendering feature within DTS:X and Atmos will really go anywhere either.

There aren't a lot of choices within the extremely limited amount of speaker outputs of most A/V electronics. It's probably processor intensive and many of these manufacturers have used chips far behind even _smartphones_ in horsepower in the past. They still may think it's not high up on their "to-add" list.

Maybe someday...


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> Here's what I got out of that article:
> 
> _- Big things are happening! UHD Blu-ray is right around the corner!_
> 
> -- When will UHD Blu-ray players be available?
> _
> - We don't know. You'll have to ask the manufacturers._
> 
> -- When will the first UHD Blu-ray discs be released?
> _
> - We don't know. You'll have to ask the studios._
> 
> -- Are any movie titles confirmed to be in the works for the launch?
> _
> - No idea._
> 
> -- What features will UHD Blu-ray players have?
> _
> - Really not sure. Could be anything, honestly._
> 
> -- Will UHD Blu-ray players be backwards compatible with regular Blu-ray or DVD?
> _
> - Umm... probably? We can't guarantee that. That's up to the manufacturers._
> 
> -- There are several competing standards for High Dynamic Range video. Which one(s) will UHD Blu-ray use?
> _
> - That hasn't been decided._
> 
> -- Is there anything at all you can tell us for certain about UHD Blu-ray?
> _
> - Nope._
> 
> -- But you expect this product to be available by the end of the year?
> _
> - Maybe!_
> 
> -- Thanks for your time.


Good one


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS has always had a re-mapping feature that could have been implemented long ago for their channel-based formats. No one chose to implement it (well, maybe_ one_ company), so the odds, to me, aren't very good that this more advanced object rendering feature within DTS:X and Atmos will really go anywhere either.


I agree - I doubt we will see it implemented any time soon, if ever. Maybe it requires a lot of processing or something, which would push the price of the units higher than the market for them will bear, as you suggest below.



Dan Hitchman said:


> There aren't a lot of choices within the extremely limited amount of speaker outputs of most A/V electronics. It's probably processor intensive and many of these manufacturers have used chips far behind even _smartphones_ in horsepower in the past. They still may think it's not high up on their "to-add" list.
> 
> Maybe someday...


Yep. BTW Dan, I hope you didn’t take any offense at my rebuttal of your most recent "it's crap is what it is!" posts  I assume you know that my own responses are good natured if somewhat acerbic in tone sometimes


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree - I doubt we will see it implemented any time soon, if ever. Maybe it requires a lot of processing or something, which would push the price of the units higher than the market for them will bear, as you suggest below.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. BTW Dan, I hope you didn’t take any offense at my rebuttal of your most recent "it's crap is what it is!" posts  I assume you know that my own responses are good natured if somewhat acerbic in tone sometimes


It's kind of depressing how far behind the major consumer manufacturers are compared to the "little" A/V outfits in terms of calibration and other nifty features (and processing power compared to other tiny smart gadgets that are used day in and day out).

No problems... no problems.  If there wasn't a bit of ribbing back and forth and other side bar stuff the thread would get mighty dull. Not a lot to talk about right now. Maybe if and when UHD Blu-ray gets going. I hope, I hope.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's kind of depressing how far behind the major consumer manufacturers are compared to the "little" A/V outfits in terms of calibration and other nifty features (and processing power compared to other tiny smart gadgets that are used day in and day out).


I don't really understand much about the tech inside the box. There is very long article in the current WSR magazine with a detailed explanation of all the bits inside an AVR but reading it made my eyes glaze over. I find it as interesting as someone telling me in great detail the chemical composition of a fine meal I just ate. But yeah - given Moore's Law and all that, lets hope that AVRs get smarter and smarter and cheaper and cheaper (fat chance?).




Dan Hitchman said:


> No problems... no problems.  If there wasn't a bit of ribbing back and forth and other side bar stuff the thread would get mighty dull. Not a lot to talk about right now. Maybe if and when UHD Blu-ray gets going. I hope, I hope.


Thanks for your understanding. I expect a huge explosion of immersive audio stuff once UHD BR is with us. More titles in Atmos, some titles in DTS:X, rapid advancement of hardware etc etc. I personally am not too bothered about the higher res benefits of UHD but I am all in for the wider color gamut, better contrast etc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

DrDon said:


> A number of off-topic and political posts have been removed. Let's cease with the discussion of Netflix's business practices and McDonald's food and get back to the topic, please.


But... my commentary on the current state of Domino's Pizza ....


_Nnnnoooooooooo!!!_


----------



## dvdwilly3

For anyone considering whether and how to jump in for Atmos, the current edition (print--not online yet) of Sound and Vision has an article where Darryl Wilkinson, one of their editors at large, does a comparison of 5.1; 5.1.2; 5.1.2 enabled; 5.1.4; and 5.1.4 enabled systems using Triad speakers for all setups.

It is a very real-world, balanced, and well-written comparison that should address most people's questions re Atmos...at least for a 5.1.X configuration.


----------



## smurraybhm

dvdwilly3 said:


> For anyone considering whether and how to jump in for Atmos, the current edition (print--not online yet) of Sound and Vision has an article where Darryl Wilkinson, one of their editors at large, does a comparison of 5.1; 5.1.2; 5.1.2 enabled; 5.1.4; and 5.1.4 enabled systems using Triad speakers for all setups.
> 
> It is a very real-world, balanced, and well-written comparison that should address most people's questions re Atmos...at least for a 5.1.X configuration.


Just finished reading it and agree 100%. The other important point to make is that either way you go your speaker setup should work well with DTS:X if someone is waiting on the 2015 models. Auro is a different story, but that format is not likely to survive at least as we know it now for much longer. Only D&M offering it on a few units (not counting those 5 figure processors), no titles released in the USA, and you still have to pay $199 if you buy a D&M receiver that is capable of the upgrade.


----------



## tjenkins95

Game of Thrones Atmos Demo

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...by-atmos-on-reference-premiere-speakers/24828


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd be one of those individuals who couldn't sleep at night knowing I bilked people out of their money and gave them crap in return.


Actually Dan, Mr Bay and Mr Woo are two of the reasons why I enjoy crying babies, people talking, and all the annoyances of going to the local theatre...

I mean, if I wanted to watch 'feely', 'sensitive' shows, I can stay home and pop "On Golden Pond" or "Gandhi" into my BR or even DVD player and enjoy 'good acting'.

I go to the theatre to get some... and we are talking "Transformers", "Bad Boys" etc from Bay, "Killers", 
Face Off" etc from Woo, and woohoo, what a rush, to paraphrase Mr Travolta in "Broken Arrow" 

No doubt, those with better taste than I might consider them the bottom of the barrel when it comes to acting and plot, but IMHO, they fit my babes, bombs and booms criteria to a .. T

Park my cranium at home, and bring on the bass 

I enjoy the odd foray into subtle shows like "Love Actually" or even "Mrs Doubtfire", where there is nary a whisper from the surround channels, (don't even think about Atmos ceiling speakers - you might as well watch in mono) but the theatre is for the big box office stuff...

Pop in "Legion" or even "Jonah Hex" and enjoy the brainless drivel...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> Actually Dan, Mr Bay and Mr Woo are two of the reasons why I enjoy crying babies, people talking, and all the annoyances of going to the local theatre...
> 
> I mean, if I wanted to watch 'feely', 'sensitive' shows, I can stay home and pop "On Golden Pond" or "Gandhi" into my BR or even DVD player and enjoy 'good acting'.
> 
> I go to the theatre to get some... and we are talking "Transformers", "Bad Boys" etc from Bay, "Killers",
> Face Off" etc from Woo, and woohoo, what a rush, to paraphrase Mr Travolta in "Broken Arrow"
> 
> No doubt, those with better taste than I might consider them the bottom of the barrel when it comes to acting and plot, but IMHO, they fit my babes, bombs and booms criteria to a .. T
> 
> Park my cranium at home, and bring on the bass
> 
> I enjoy the odd foray into subtle shows like "Love Actually" or even "Mrs Doubtfire", where there is nary a whisper from the surround channels, (don't even think about Atmos ceiling speakers - you might as well watch in mono) but the theatre is for the big box office stuff...
> 
> Pop in "Legion" or even "Jonah Hex" and enjoy the brainless drivel...


I used to be able to turn off the ol' noggin' and just "go with the flow," but not any more. Stuff like Transformers and most Marvel flicks just doesn't do it for me. I'm bored out of my mind. Now, if they also had good scripts and good special effects and well crafted stunts to go along with everything else, then fine.

I'll be checking out the new MI 5 since a lot of the stunts are real, so go figure.


----------



## petetherock

Call it low brow entertainment, but if I can get the 1988 Harrison Ford, Arnie and Mel Gibson in some big actioner, throw in Simon Pegg for a funny side kick, add Jet Li and Donnie Yen to provide real kicks, and Megan Fox or Maggi Q to enliven things up, with massive doses of action, explosions, and body counts, life wouldn't be so bad..


----------



## Waboman

Yeah, if I have to sit thru romcoms and the like I'd stick an Audyssey mic in my eye. Gimme Bay, Whedon, the Jurassic World guy, and a non-lens flare Abrams and I'm in immersive happy land. BAM!


Spoiler


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> I used to be able to turn off the ol' noggin' and just "go with the flow," but not any more. Stuff like Transformers and most Marvel flicks just doesn't do it for me. I'm bored out of my mind. Now, if they also had good scripts and good special effects and well crafted stunts to go along with everything else, then fine.
> 
> I'll be checking out the new MI 5 since a lot of the stunts are real, so go figure.


Mi 5 reviewed really well, + it's atmos & produced by bad robot 

The man from U.N.C.L.E., Sicario, & Everest seems like a good reprieve from the brain-dead trend as far as Atmos flicks are concerned. 

Ant Man was worth the watch, if you have netflix Daredevil might be as well. Although I've lost whatever fascination I've had with superheroes when I was like 22 years old, so for me the story definitely has to make up for that. It's sort of cool how they are weaving the canon together so all these stories are happening simultaneously. 

I'll never be too old for Star Wars though... I noticed, in Dolby's Atmos release schedule, the time period around Ep VII's release seems suspiciously vacant


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Actually Dan, Mr Bay and Mr Woo are two of the reasons why I enjoy crying babies, people talking, and all the annoyances of going to the local theatre...
> 
> I mean, if I wanted to watch 'feely', 'sensitive' shows, I can stay home and pop "On Golden Pond" or "Gandhi" into my BR or even DVD player and enjoy 'good acting'.
> 
> I go to the theatre to get some... and we are talking "Transformers", "Bad Boys" etc from Bay, "Killers",
> Face Off" etc from Woo, and woohoo, what a rush, to paraphrase Mr Travolta in "Broken Arrow"
> 
> No doubt, those with better taste than I might consider them the bottom of the barrel when it comes to acting and plot, but IMHO, they fit my babes, bombs and booms criteria to a .. T
> 
> Park my cranium at home, and bring on the bass
> 
> I enjoy the odd foray into subtle shows like "Love Actually" or even "Mrs Doubtfire", where there is nary a whisper from the surround channels, (don't even think about Atmos ceiling speakers - you might as well watch in mono) but the theatre is for the big box office stuff...
> 
> Pop in "Legion" or even "Jonah Hex" and enjoy the brainless drivel...


I think we are twins separated at birth by a cruel twist of fate


----------



## HT-Eman

*Mi 5*

Went to see MI 5 at my local Atmos movie theater. There were 16 above speakers and 22 surround speakers ( not counting the ones behind the screen because I couldnt see them ).Notice sound from the ceiling speakers in the underwater scene , and the car chase and motorcycle chase. Pretty good movie .


----------



## Scarriere

HT-Eman said:


> Went to see MI 5 at my local Atmos movie theater. There were 16 above speakers and 22 surround speakers ( not counting the ones behind the screen because I couldnt see them ).Notice sound from the ceiling speakers in the underwater scene , and the car chase and motorcycle chase. Pretty good movie .


I'd love to check it out, but there's no Atmos theatres anywhere near where I live.
However, this will be one the titles I'll be looking forward to in a huge way when it comes out on Blu-ray!


----------



## wse

Josh Z said:


> Here's what I got out of that article:
> _- Big things are happening! UHD Blu-ray is right around the corner!_
> -- When will UHD Blu-ray players be available?_
> - We don't know. You'll have to ask the manufacturers._
> -- When will the first UHD Blu-ray discs be released?_
> - We don't know. You'll have to ask the studios._
> -- Are any movie titles confirmed to be in the works for the launch?_
> - No idea._
> -- What features will UHD Blu-ray players have?_
> - Really not sure. Could be anything, honestly._
> -- Will UHD Blu-ray players be backwards compatible with regular Blu-ray or DVD?_
> - Umm... probably? We can't guarantee that. That's up to the manufacturers._
> -- There are several competing standards for High Dynamic Range video. Which one(s) will UHD Blu-ray use?_
> - That hasn't been decided._
> -- Is there anything at all you can tell us for certain about UHD Blu-ray?_
> - Nope._
> -- But you expect this product to be available by the end of the year?_
> - Maybe!_
> -- Thanks for your time.


Thanks basically they don't know


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> Mr Bay and Mr Woo are two of the reasons why I enjoy crying babies, people talking, and all the annoyances of going to the local theatre...





kbarnes701 said:


> I think we are twins separated at birth by a cruel twist of fate


. . . And I think I must be from another planet compared to you two Earthlings.



petetherock said:


> IMHO, they fit my *babes, bombs and booms* criteria to a .. T


lol 



petetherock said:


> Park my cranium at home, and enjoy the brainless drivel...


"Park your cranium at home, and enjoy the brainless drivel" would make the perfect truth-in-advertising slogan for these flicks. You ought to pitch it to the studios and retire on the royalties!

BTW, you don't have to choose between only insipid romcoms and the "brainless drivel." Thank goodness there's a wide swath of terrifically entertaining, intelligently crafted movies of all genres between the two extremes. Even with my fastidious tastes, I could watch two or three movies a day and not run out of material.


----------



## Josh Z

How did this thread get so far off track?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> How did this thread get so far off track?


I love it when someone posts an off topic post complaining about off topic posts  It appeals to my inner sense of irony. 

But I guess it's due to lack of anything new to talk about wrt to Atmos? And nobody asking Atmos-related questions? 

Here's an Atmos-related matter that might be worth mentioning...

As most of the regulars know, I have Tannoy Di5 DC (Dual Concentric) speakers on my ceiling and I have been hugely pleased with them. They have a spec and a performance which belies their compact size. I also have Tannoy Di6 DC speakers for my left and right surrounds, and recently I acquired another pair of Di6 DCs at a bargain price off eBay, to be used in my experiment of going for rear surrounds and a 7.2.4 layout.

It may have been predictable but seeing the second pair sitting doing nothing while I make ready for the change from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4, I couldn't help but think _"what if... what if I tried a pair of Di6 DCs on the ceiling? What would the difference be?"_ After all, the Di6 DCs are much more expensive than their smaller cousins, and way bigger. But they are also remarkably similar in that they both have DC drivers, the same overall design, the same company logo stamped on them etc.

So I removed the TRM and TLM Di5 DCs and replaced them with the Di6 DCs and began a 4 week listening experiment. Before I reveal the outcome of that experiment, take a look at Tannoy's performance charts for both speakers.

Here are the charts for the Di5 DC:










And here are the charts for the Di6 DC:










As can be seen, they are remarkably similar above about 110Hz. So, with the overheads in my system crossed at 110Hz to my dual Submersive F2s, how do you feel the bigger Tannoys compared with their smaller counterparts? Was the swap worthwhile? Did I hear significant differences which merited buying yet another pair of Di6 DCs and having four on the ceiling?

I should perhaps add that all of my overhead speakers are toed to point at MLP and I routinely listen at -6dB from Reference. The room is well-treated and I use Dirac Live REQ (but not on the TMR and TML which just have levels and delays manually set at this time due to the 8 channel limitation of the miniDSP DDRC-88A which provides the Dirac Live EQ).

Answers on a postcard please, or in this thread at least. And afterwards, I'll tell you what I have done in practice.


----------



## NorthSky

*Insurgent* ... 3D Blu-ray, with Dolby Atmos audio ... next Tuesday. ...With pizza.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> *Insurgent* ... 3D Blu-ray, with Dolby Atmos audio ... next Tuesday. ...With pizza.


This will be the first Atmos and 3D that I ever see. Maybe because it's the first one?  Don't know why they didn't do "Gravity" in both Atmos and 3D?


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> I love it when someone posts an off topic post complaining about off topic posts  It appeals to my inner sense of irony. But I guess it's due to lack of anything new to talk about wrt to Atmos? And nobody asking Atmos-related questions? Here's an Atmos-related matter that might be worth mentioning... As most of the regulars know, I have Tannoy Di5 DC (Dual Concentric) speakers on my ceiling and I have been hugely pleased with them. They have a spec and a performance which belies their compact size. I also have Tannoy Di6 DC speakers for my left and right surrounds, and recently I acquired another pair of Di6 DCs at a bargain price off eBay, to be used in my experiment of going for rear surrounds and a 7.2.4 layout. It may have been predictable but seeing the second pair sitting doing nothing while I make ready for the change from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4, I couldn't help but think _"what if... what if I tried a pair of Di6 DCs on the ceiling? What would the difference be?"_ After all, the Di6 DCs are much more expensive than their smaller cousins, and way bigger. But they are also remarkably similar in that they both have DC drivers, the same overall design, the same company logo stamped on them etc. So I removed the TRM and TLM Di5 DCs and replaced them with the Di6 DCs and began a 4 week listening experiment. Before I reveal the outcome of that experiment, take a look at Tannoy's performance charts for both speakers. Here are the charts for the Di5 DC:
> 
> And here are the charts for the Di6 DC:
> 
> As can be seen, they are remarkably similar above about 110Hz. So, with the overheads in my system crossed at 110Hz to my dual Submersive F2s, how do you feel the bigger Tannoys compared with their smaller counterparts? Was the swap worthwhile? Did I hear significant differences which merited buying yet another pair of Di6 DCs and having four on the ceiling? I should perhaps add that all of my overhead speakers are toed to point at MLP and I routinely listen at -6dB from Reference. The room is well-treated and I use Dirac Live REQ (but not on the TMR and TML which just have levels and delays manually set at this time due to the 8 channel limitation of the miniDSP DDRC-88A which provides the Dirac Live EQ). Answers on a postcard please, or in this thread at least. And afterwards, I'll tell you what I have done in practice.


The sound stage was better and the sound bubble ever stronger  Please do tell was it worth it?


----------



## aaranddeeman

lujan said:


> This will be the first Atmos and 3D that I ever see. Maybe because it's the first one?  Don't know why they didn't do "Gravity" in both Atmos and 3D?


No. TF4 was the first. And I think it was also the very first Atmos (so to speak) BR.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Insurgent' | 3D*



lujan said:


> This will be the first Atmos and 3D that I ever see. Maybe because it's the first one?  Don't know why they didn't do "Gravity" in both Atmos and 3D?


From Lionsgate Films.

'Gravity' was a huge deception...to not have it in 3D with Dolby Atmos.

* 'TF4' and 'TMNT' are in 3D and with Dolby Atmos...Paramount Studios...Michael Bay's flicks. 
'Step Up All In' is also in 3D. ...And 'Jupiter Ascending'. 

Dolby Atmos sound with 3D picture they go together, IMO. ...It's just too bad that the technology today cannot support 3D UHD Blu-ray. 
And I wonder, how is it going to turn out for 3D HD sound? ...Are we going to get Dolby Atmos and DTS:X only on 2D UHD Blu-ray? 
Or/and are they going to get other 3D HD versions with also 3D sound? ...But why wait, we are already in the 3D HD Blu-ray era. 
So, 'Insurgent' is welcome in the world we live in now, without much aggravation. ...The only question is how many Blu-ray players are going to have audio dropouts? ...Because all the ones that will won't be able to play Dolby Atmos properly. ...Only few more days to find out what I expect to be another deception for many people. ...Or unless Lionsgate learned their lesson. ...I doubt it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> No. TF4 was the first. And I think it was also the *very first Atmos (so to speak) BR*.


Again, I gotta wonder if those with deep pocketbooks to do larger immersive speaker systems and use something like a Trinnov, would notice more lateral panning and superior sound placement throughout their rooms even if there wasn't much happening up top. It might even hold true for other titles that had unimpressive overhead action.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Again, I gotta wonder if those with deep pocketbooks to do larger immersive speaker systems and use something like a Trinnov, would notice more lateral panning and superior sound placement throughout their rooms even if there wasn't much happening up top. It might even hold true for other titles that had unimpressive overhead action.


But if the content is not there to begin with, no system can produce it on it's own, IMHO.


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> 'Step Up All In' is also in 3D.


Unfortunately, either Atmos (US) or 3D (UK), but not both. Just as with Gravity, no combined 3D audio and video.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> But if the content is not there to begin with, no system can produce it on it's own, IMHO.


I'm talking in the front, side, and back speaker arrays that something like a Trinnov Altitude would support for both Atmos and X. The overhead action would continue to be almost nil; you're correct there.


----------



## cdelena

Dan Hitchman said:


> Again, I gotta wonder if those with deep pocketbooks to do larger immersive speaker systems and use something like a Trinnov, would notice more lateral panning and superior sound placement throughout their rooms even if there wasn't much happening up top. It might even hold true for other titles that had unimpressive overhead action.


With some work I was able to make space in my ceiling (easier said than done as there is a room above) and pulled the 5.25 TF speakers I had and installed 8 inch units. It has made a huge difference and if I could find the space (I cannot) I would up-size all my speakers. There is content that really has an impact but seemed to get lost when the cross over was high.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> Unfortunately, either Atmos (US) or 3D (UK), but not both. Just as with Gravity, no combined 3D audio and video.


You are right, I just checked.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> So I removed the TRM and TLM Di5 DCs and replaced them with the Di6 DCs and began a 4 week listening experiment. Before I reveal the outcome of that experiment, take a look at Tannoy's performance charts for both speakers.
> 
> As can be seen, they are remarkably similar above about 110Hz. So, with the overheads in my system crossed at 110Hz to my dual Submersive F2s, how do you feel the bigger Tannoys compared with their smaller counterparts? Was the swap worthwhile? Did I hear significant differences which merited buying yet another pair of Di6 DCs and having four on the ceiling?
> 
> Answers on a postcard please, or in this thread at least. And afterwards, I'll tell you what I have done in practice.


If memory serves me right, I proposed the 6" to you when you bought the 5"... 

I think if you keep the crossover @ 110Hz, you will have noticed very little difference. But that's the point: the 6" will let you set thee crossover maybe @ 80 or 90 Hz. I'd always go for speakers which could be crossed @ 80Hz or nearby, since that's the threshold of directivity of bass tones for the vast majority of people.


----------



## aaranddeeman

cdelena said:


> With some work I was able to make space in my ceiling (easier said than done as there is a room above) and pulled the 5.25 TF speakers I had and installed 8 inch units. It has made a huge difference and if I could find the space (I cannot) I would up-size all my speakers. There is content that really has an impact but seemed to get lost when the cross over was high.


Why does the content get lost when the crossover is high (and assuming the subwoofer(s) present in the system)?
Does this mean the height content below the crossover point is not routed to sub (like it does with bed speakers)? If this is true, then this is really really bad.


----------



## dkfan9

Josh Z said:


> How did this thread get so far off track?


Complaints about the quality of Atmos movies-->debate over film quality

Anyone know how well the Dark Knight trilogy does in DSU?


----------



## dkfan9

aaranddeeman said:


> cdelena said:
> 
> 
> 
> With some work I was able to make space in my ceiling (easier said than done as there is a room above) and pulled the 5.25 TF speakers I had and installed 8 inch units. It has made a huge difference and if I could find the space (I cannot) I would up-size all my speakers. There is content that really has an impact but seemed to get lost when the cross over was high.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the content get lost when the crossover is high (and assuming the subwoofer(s) present in the system)?
> Does this mean the height content below the crossover point is not routed to sub (like it does with bed speakers)? If this is true, then this is really really bad.
Click to expand...

Maybe more gets lost and blurred in with the rest of the LF, so you don't get the sense of overhead impact, it's just generic low frequency stuff


----------



## chi_guy50

dkfan9 said:


> Complaints about the quality of Atmos movies-->debate over film quality


Thank you for that contextualization. And besides, how dry and esoteric would the topic of Atmos for the home theater be with no discussion of content?



dkfan9 said:


> Anyone know how well the Dark Knight trilogy does in DSU?


I do not, but I think I could easily count on one hand the number of posts I can recall that voiced disappointment with the performance of DSU. Dolby has done yeoman's work on this upmixer IMO to the extent that--despite our impatience with the relative trickle of decent Atmos titles on BRD--we can content ourselves in watching everything else with Dolby Surround upmixing to our immersive audio speaker layouts.

For example, a couple of nights ago we watched the modest but very entertaining thriller _Cut Bank_ in 7.1.4 (DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DSU), and the atmospherics were chillingly realistic. There was no need for helicopter fly-overs, massive explosions, or other special effects to enable us to appreciate the audio experience--just pure immersion in a taut, well written suspense film.


----------



## DAK4

chi_guy50 said:


> .fastidious





chi_guy50 said:


> contextualization, esoteric


Nice!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dkfan9 said:


> Maybe more gets lost and blurred in with the rest of the LF, so you don't get the sense of overhead impact, it's just generic low frequency stuff


Not every sub is good at reproducing upper mid bass frequencies (not even some expensive models), so certain audio elements can get lost in the shuffle when using a relatively high crossover point.

Dolby has mentioned that ideally you want overheads and surrounds that can recreate a wider frequency range when listening to immersive audio tracks.


----------



## DAK4

kbarnes701 said:


> As can be seen, they are remarkably similar above about 110Hz. So, with the overheads in my system crossed at 110Hz to my dual Submersive F2s, how do you feel the bigger Tannoys compared with their smaller counterparts? Was the swap worthwhile? Did I hear significant differences which merited buying yet another pair of Di6 DCs and having four on the ceiling?


Hmmm, I think that you wouldn't here much difference especially if one was engaged in a movie. BUT you make the statement that they are similar above where you have them crossed over, trying to throw us off track leading us to believe that they would sound similar just as I was thinking, when in fact you actually DID here a difference! So my official answer is ........ I dunno.


----------



## Contuzzi

Has anyone heard the Metallica BD in Atmos yet?


----------



## cdelena

dkfan9 said:


> Maybe more gets lost and blurred in with the rest of the LF, so you don't get the sense of overhead impact, it's just generic low frequency stuff


I am assuming that is what it is; the overhead impact is more pronounced even though I bet I was getting adequate LF from the two subs I have.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I thought I read in the Atmos mastering white paper that the ceiling channels were basically 180Hz and up. Is that not applicable for the home theater version? Or did I just read that wrong?


----------



## ultraflexed

dkfan9 said:


> Complaints about the quality of Atmos movies-->debate over film quality
> 
> Anyone know how well the Dark Knight trilogy does in DSU?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...nal-views-bluray-reviews-10.html#post36171858

We review DSU upmix blue-ray's in this thread as well as atmos


----------



## maikeldepotter

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I thought I read in the Atmos mastering white paper that the ceiling channels were basically 180Hz and up. Is that not applicable for the home theater version? Or did I just read that wrong?


Atmos ceiling bounce speakers don't go below 180 hz to reduce omnidirectional sound. Maybe that is what you have read?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not every sub is good at reproducing upper mid bass frequencies (not even some expensive models), so certain audio elements can get lost in the shuffle when using a relatively high crossover point.
> 
> Dolby has mentioned that ideally you want overheads and surrounds that can recreate a wider frequency range when listening to immersive audio tracks.


To ensure good coverage of the 100-200 Hz range when using smaller surrounds and/or overheads, you could in one multi sub system apply subs that exhibit different optimal ranges: like one that excels for deep bass (below 40 Hz), combined with one that performs better at mid and upper bass (40-200 Hz). I have not read a lot about experiences with such a solution (most of the time identical subs are recommended in multi sub systems), but it works very well in my room.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> The sound stage was better and the sound bubble ever stronger  Please do tell was it worth it?


 Let's wait a little and see if anyone else cares to have a guess as to which speakers are on my ceiling now...


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> If memory serves me right, I proposed the 6" to you when you bought the 5"...
> 
> I think if you keep the crossover @ 110Hz, you will have noticed very little difference. But that's the point: the 6" will let you set thee crossover maybe @ 80 or 90 Hz. I'd always go for speakers which could be crossed @ 80Hz or nearby, since that's the threshold of directivity of bass tones for the vast majority of people.


Good observations Erwin. And very similar to my own thinking which prompted this experiment in the first place. The Di6 DCs are huge by comparison with the little Di5 DCs and more than twice the price, so one would want to be seeing some significant benefits from choosing the DI6.

BTW, before I came to my conclusions I tried XOs of 90, 100 and 110Hz (I think 80Hz is too low even for the bigger Tannoys).


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Why does the content get lost when the crossover is high (and assuming the subwoofer(s) present in the system)?
> Does this mean the height content below the crossover point is not routed to sub (like it does with bed speakers)? If this is true, then this is really really bad.


No - all the speakers in an Atmos system are bass managed.


----------



## kbarnes701

DAK4 said:


> Hmmm, I think that you wouldn't here much difference especially if one was engaged in a movie. BUT you make the statement that they are similar above where you have them crossed over, trying to throw us off track leading us to believe that they would sound similar just as I was thinking, when in fact you actually DID here a difference! So my official answer is ........ I dunno.


Well the performance charts show a lot of essential similarity above 110Hz - and in a bass managed system with outstandingly good subs (eg the Submersives), there might be no real problem crossing what are essentially surround speakers at 110Hz .... so, what do you think? Did I end up with the Di6 or the Di5?


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I thought I read in the Atmos mastering white paper that the ceiling channels were basically 180Hz and up. Is that not applicable for the home theater version? Or did I just read that wrong?


That's related to the upfirers. Physical speakers are suggested to be 'full bandwidth'. Of course, in a bass managed system with competent subwoofers, 'full bandwidth' can mean a response of 70Hz-20kHz.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Well the performance charts show a lot of essential similarity above 110Hz - and in a bass managed system with outstandingly good subs (eg the Submersives), there might be no real problem crossing what are essentially surround speakers at 110Hz .... so, what do you think? Did I end up with the Di6 or the Di5?


Well I will jump in and guess that you went/stayed with the Di5s, not hearing double the cost benefit with the 6s especially since you've got Dirac to help with correction on the base layer.

I'm more curious to see what you thought of adding 2 more surround speakers in the Hobbit theatre. 

As for the discussion about subs and mid bass I am thinking about adding Rythmik's new F8 to my system for that very purpose. One of my SVS subs is older, so it would replace that and leave me with a PC12 Plus and the F8 for bass duty. Jim Wilson's review of the F8 as a mid bass solution was very positive and thought provoking about subs strengths/weaknesses. It's easy to get caught up on the low end and forget there's more to it. The 88A is on my radar too - Keith quit posting about how great it is over on that thread please 

Since it's slow times with Atmos until Tuesday, anyone else care to weigh in on the mid bass discussion? Of course looking forward to Keith's answers as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Well I will jump in and guess that you went/stayed with the Di5s, not hearing double the cost benefit with the 6s especially since you've got Dirac to help with correction on the base layer.


Interesting. If I told you that cost didn't come into it because I bought the 5s brand new but snapped up the 6s for an amazing price on eBay (actually cost me less than the 5s), would you feel differently?



smurraybhm said:


> I'm more curious to see what you thought of adding 2 more surround speakers in the Hobbit theatre.


Yes - me too. It might merit a thread of its own since I am sure there are a lot of people, especially outside the USA, who are working with very small rooms. It has been a long experiment, even at this stage, starting with moving the seats forward as far as possible, to create some space between MLP and the back wall. The concern I had was that I may be too close to the screen, but after several weeks of viewing this way, I have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable. From a sonic POV it is actually better since the more forward position is more mode-friendly.

The next step is to relocate the surrounds from their 110° position to 80-85° (slightly ahead of MLP) and then install the rear surrounds at something like 135°. This entails a lot of work, including burying wires into the walls (yet again) and making good and a total rewire of the rack to accommodate the additional 2ch amp and the inevitable additional DDRC-88A so that I can eventually EQ the overhead set. The current thinking is to EQ the listener level set with the 88A I have now and to just set the overheads manually for delay and level. 



smurraybhm said:


> As for the discussion about subs and mid bass I am thinking about adding Rythmik's new F8 to my system for that very purpose. One of my SVS subs is older, so it would replace that and leave me with a PC12 Plus and the F8 for bass duty. Jim Wilson's review of the F8 as a mid bass solution was very positive and thought provoking about subs strengths/weaknesses. It's easy to get caught up on the low end and forget there's more to it. The 88A is on my radar too - Keith quit posting about how great it is over on that thread please


It really is a significant step forward though, leaving Audyssey XT32 and even Pro quite a long way behind. 



smurraybhm said:


> Since it's slow times with Atmos until Tuesday, anyone else care to weigh in on the mid bass discussion? Of course looking forward to Keith's answers as well.


I will reveal what I ended up with soon...


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> From Lionsgate Films.
> 
> 'Gravity' was a huge deception...to not have it in 3D with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> * 'TF4' and 'TMNT' are in 3D and with Dolby Atmos...Paramount Studios...Michael Bay's flicks.
> 'Step Up All In' is also in 3D. ...And 'Jupiter Ascending'.
> 
> Dolby Atmos sound with 3D picture they go together, IMO. ...It's just too bad that the technology today cannot support 3D UHD Blu-ray.
> And I wonder, how is it going to turn out for 3D HD sound? ...Are we going to get Dolby Atmos and DTS:X only on 2D UHD Blu-ray?
> Or/and are they going to get other 3D HD versions with also 3D sound? ...But why wait, we are already in the 3D HD Blu-ray era.
> So, 'Insurgent' is welcome in the world we live in now, without much aggravation. ...The only question is how many Blu-ray players are going to have audio dropouts? ...Because all the ones that will won't be able to play Dolby Atmos properly. ...Only few more days to find out what I expect to be another deception for many people. ...Or unless Lionsgate learned their lesson. ...I doubt it.


Geez, I didn't realize there were so many in 3D and Atmos. I have TF4, TMNT and Step Up All In but none of them are 3D. TMNT is only the digital copy so no 3D or Atmos. I didn't like Jupiter Ascending so will never buy that one. How is the 3D in TF4, TMNT and Step Up All In? Is it worth double dipping?


----------



## ride525

*Where to mount my Atmos Speakers*

I just purchased a Denon 4100 receiver for my 5.1 system, consisting of Sierra 1 front and center, Rythmik Sub, Ascend HTM-200 surrounds. I purchased two pairs of the HTM-200 and plan to ceiling mount the for the Atmos speakers.

The room is abotu 18' x 14' with the TV and front and center speakers on one side if the 14' dimension, and the couch and chairs on the opposite side. The Top Rear speakers will be mounted about 25 degrees behind vertical of the listening position, near the back wall. 

So, the distance between the listening position and the front speaker is about 9 feet or there abouts. So, would a good position to mount the Top Front speakers be about half that distance or about 4 1/2 feet in front of the listening position?

Thanks for your help,

Jeff


----------



## Josh Z

lujan said:


> How is the 3D in TF4, TMNT and Step Up All In? Is it worth double dipping?


The 3D in TMNT is incredible. Although the movie was post-converted, it looks better than most native 3D productions. It makes a very smart use of three dimensions in the action scenes. The Atmos on that disc, unfortunately, is very lacking. Almost nothing going on in the height channels.


----------



## kbarnes701

ride525 said:


> I just purchased a Denon 4100 receiver for my 5.1 system, consisting of Sierra 1 front and center, Rythmik Sub, Ascend HTM-200 surrounds. I purchased two pairs of the HTM-200 and plan to ceiling mount the for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> The room is abotu 18' x 14' with the TV and front and center speakers on one side if the 14' dimension, and the couch and chairs on the opposite side. The Top Rear speakers will be mounted about 25 degrees behind vertical of the listening position, near the back wall.
> 
> So, the distance between the listening position and the front speaker is about 9 feet or there abouts. So, would a good position to mount the Top Front speakers be about half that distance or about 4 1/2 feet in front of the listening position?
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> 
> Jeff


Follow the angles recommended in the Dolby information and you will get a good result:


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> Well the performance charts show a lot of essential similarity above 110Hz - and in a bass managed system with outstandingly good subs (eg the Submersives), there might be no real problem crossing what are essentially surround speakers at 110Hz .... so, what do you think? Did I end up with the Di6 or the Di5?


You only live once, so you went for the Di6. I think the bass above 110 Hz will sound more effortless, even if the specs say it doesn't matter a lot.


----------



## Josh Z

I just created a thread with a question about using an old receiver as an amp to power the height channels in an Atmos system. I'm wondering if any of the experts here might be able to answer it.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...receiver-amp-marantz-sr4400.html#post36215154


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> you only live once, so you went for the di6. I think the bass above 110 hz will sound more effortless, even if the specs say it doesn't matter a lot.


... ISWYM... not sure I agree, but ISWYM. Although I do struggle with the idea that we can hear something which isn't evident on a performance graph (not specs BTW - those graphs show the actual speaker performance).


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> The 3D in TMNT is incredible. Although the movie was post-converted, it looks better than most native 3D productions. It makes a very smart use of three dimensions in the action scenes. The Atmos on that disc, unfortunately, is very lacking. Almost nothing going on in the height channels.


Thanks, sounds like I should leave well enough alone and wait for future movies in both 3D and Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> Geez, I didn't realize there were so many in 3D and Atmos. I have TF4, TMNT and Step Up All In but none of them are 3D. TMNT is only the digital copy so no 3D or Atmos. I didn't like Jupiter Ascending so will never buy that one. How is the 3D in TF4, TMNT and Step Up All In? Is it worth double dipping?


1. Transformers: Age of Extinction - 3D & Dolby Atmos
2. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) - 3D & Dolby Atmos
3. Jupiter Ascending - 3D & Dolby Atmos
4. Insurgent - 3D & Dolby Atmos

* Both 'Gravity' and 'Step Up All In' are NOT 3D & Dolby Atmos on the same BR version...unfortunately.

The 3D picture in both TF4 and TMNT is very good. ...SUAI I don't have.
- Jupiter Ascending in 3D is ok, but nothing like *The Book of Life*.

And for Dolby Atmos I don't know (no Atmos decoder yet) but according to Ralph and many others...'Gravity' (2D) is excellent, 'John Wick' (2D) is good, 'Unbroken' (2D) is good...and 'American Sniper'. 

After over a year from Dolby Atmos introduction the selection is extremely limited for Blu-ray titles encoded in Dolby Atmos, and that selection is not the best...I'd say roughly 30% of only twelve BR titles released in North America so far. ...Gravity, Unbroken, American Sniper...and John Wick.
...From the overall people's comments. 

Some folks liked 'The Gunman' and 'Jupiter Ascending' in Dolby Atmos...but not all of them. 
'The Expendables 3', 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1', few people liked...but not all. 
'TF4' and 'TMNT' ...some scenes, yes. ...In Atmos.

♦ www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## DAK4

kbarnes701 said:


> Well the performance charts show a lot of essential similarity above 110Hz - and in a bass managed system with outstandingly good subs (eg the Submersives), there might be no real problem crossing what are essentially surround speakers at 110Hz .... so, what do you think? Did I end up with the Di6 or the Di5?


Alright, I vote the Di5. I just can't believe you heard that much difference. Maybe if they were your main front speakers you would hear the difference but for surround sounds I'm just not that sure. Also it looks like the Di5's have a boost at around the 10k Hz mark over the Di6's which might come in handy for those pesky flies sounds.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> Thanks, sounds like I should leave well enough alone and wait for future movies in both 3D and Atmos.


If you have young children boys (age between 13 and 15) they might like 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' in both 3D and Dolby Atmos.
...And you might personally like Megan Fox. ...Everyone can be a winner. ...Or a loser; depending on your field of vision. 

Main thing is this: What we might love others might hate, and vice versa...c'est la vie.


----------



## dkfan9

To kbarnes' proposition: I think you went with the di6 because the 110Hz crossover is not hard and fast, and the drop off in the just below XO region is much sharper with the di5


----------



## ThePrisoner

Contuzzi said:


> Has anyone heard the Metallica BD in Atmos yet?


Metallica Through The Never sounds excellent in Atmos. Very nice ambience in the overheads that really do put you right in the middle of their stage. One of my favorite Atmos titles.
FYI, it is a region B locked release


----------



## dkfan9

chi_guy50 said:


> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complaints about the quality of Atmos movies-->debate over film quality
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that contextualization. And besides, how dry and esoteric would the topic of Atmos for the home theater be with no discussion of content?
> 
> 
> 
> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know how well the Dark Knight trilogy does in DSU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not, but I think I could easily count on one hand the number of posts I can recall that voiced disappointment with the performance of DSU. Dolby has done yeoman's work on this upmixer IMO to the extent that--despite our impatience with the relative trickle of decent Atmos titles on BRD--we can content ourselves in watching everything else with Dolby Surround upmixing to our immersive audio speaker layouts.
> 
> For example, a couple of nights ago we watched the modest but very entertaining thriller _Cut Bank_ in 7.1.4 (DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DSU), and the atmospherics were chillingly realistic. There was no need for helicopter fly-overs, massive explosions, or other special effects to enable us to appreciate the audio experience--just pure immersion in a taut, well written suspense film.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Content discussion is just as important as codec discussion since the codec it's meaningless without content.

And I'll have to check that one out. I haven't watched a good thriller movie in a while. I look forward to getting an Atmos/X receiver in the next few months and watching the hell out of my collection in DSU, even if it's only in 2.0.2 (until I get a different room with better surround possibilities or get a little more ballsy with my wish to experiment)


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Here's an Atmos-related matter that might be worth mentioning...
> 
> As most of the regulars know, I have Tannoy Di5 DC (Dual Concentric) speakers on my ceiling and I have been hugely pleased with them. They have a spec and a performance which belies their compact size. I also have Tannoy Di6 DC speakers for my left and right surrounds, and recently I acquired another pair of Di6 DCs at a bargain price off eBay, to be used in my experiment of going for rear surrounds and a 7.2.4 layout.
> 
> It may have been predictable but seeing the second pair sitting doing nothing while I make ready for the change from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4, I couldn't help but think _"what if... what if I tried a pair of Di6 DCs on the ceiling? What would the difference be?"_ After all, the Di6 DCs are much more expensive than their smaller cousins, and way bigger. But they are also remarkably similar in that they both have DC drivers, the same overall design, the same company logo stamped on them etc.
> 
> So I removed the TRM and TLM Di5 DCs and replaced them with the Di6 DCs and began a 4 week listening experiment. Before I reveal the outcome of that experiment, take a look at Tannoy's performance charts for both speakers.
> 
> Here are the charts for the Di5 DC:
> 
> And here are the charts for the Di6 DC:
> 
> As can be seen, they are remarkably similar above about 110Hz. So, with the overheads in my system crossed at 110Hz to my dual Submersive F2s, how do you feel the bigger Tannoys compared with their smaller counterparts? Was the swap worthwhile? Did I hear significant differences which merited buying yet another pair of Di6 DCs and having four on the ceiling?
> 
> I should perhaps add that all of my overhead speakers are toed to point at MLP and I routinely listen at -6dB from Reference. The room is well-treated and I use Dirac Live REQ (but not on the TMR and TML which just have levels and delays manually set at this time due to the 8 channel limitation of the miniDSP DDRC-88A which provides the Dirac Live EQ).
> 
> Answers on a postcard please, or in this thread at least. And afterwards, I'll tell you what I have done in practice.


In a relatively small room like yours, the larger cabinet of the Di6 DC speaker will cause discrete sounds to be noticeable less directive. That is why expect you to prefer the Di5 DC, especially with Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## ride525

kbarnes701 said:


> Follow the angles recommended in the Dolby information and you will get a good result:


Ah, yes "follow the angles recommended". That gives such a huge range of possibilities for the front top speaker it's crazy. (30 degrees to 55 degrees) Or about 3 feet in front of the listenting position to almost 6 feet front. 

But "following the angles recommended" which one would give the better result with the rear top speakers 25 degrees to the rear? Top speakers 3 feet in front, 4 feet in front, 5 feet in front, 5.5 feet in front? All "follow the angles recommended". The question is which would be the best suggesion in my case?

Thanks.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ride525 said:


> I just purchased a Denon 4100 receiver for my 5.1 system, consisting of Sierra 1 front and center, Rythmik Sub, Ascend HTM-200 surrounds. I purchased two pairs of the HTM-200 and plan to ceiling mount the for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> The room is abotu 18' x 14' with the TV and front and center speakers on one side if the 14' dimension, and the couch and chairs on the opposite side. The Top Rear speakers will be mounted about 25 degrees behind vertical of the listening position, near the back wall.
> 
> So, the distance between the listening position and the front speaker is about 9 feet or there abouts. So, would a good position to mount the Top Front speakers be about half that distance or about 4 1/2 feet in front of the listening position?
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> 
> Jeff


This may be a silly question, but... as the 4100 can only do 5.1.2 without an external amp, I'm confused as to how you're running side surrounds and 4 Atmos speakers. Or am I wrong here? You say where the top rear speakers will be mounted, so if you already have top rear placement, how are you also running top front?


----------



## chi_guy50

ride525 said:


> Ah, yes "follow the angles recommended". That gives such a huge range of possibilities for the front top speaker it's crazy. (30 degrees to 55 degrees) Or about 3 feet in front of the listenting position to almost 6 feet front.
> 
> But "following the angles recommended" which one would give the better result with the rear top speakers 25 degrees to the rear? Top speakers 3 feet in front, 4 feet in front, 5 feet in front, 5.5 feet in front? All "follow the angles recommended". The question is which would be the best suggesion in my case?
> 
> Thanks.


I don't believe you've mentioned your ceiling height (or the vertical distance from your ears to the ceiling when seated at the MLP), which makes it difficult to judge the relative merits of specific overhead placements since we can not compute the exact elevation angles.

However, there is a reason why Dolby's recommended angle ranges are so wide: it's been stated frequently that it is very hard to mess up the speaker positioning for Atmos. Every room--and every listener--is different. Also, some folks are only concerned with the MLP and others feel the need to accommodate several rows, which adds another wrinkle to the equation. Although it is not always practical to do so, the best hedge is to try out different speaker placements with the same high quality test material and then judge for yourself what you feel works best in your room. Bear in mind that you will want to aim for a seamless hemisphere of sound, so the relative position of the listener-level speakers could also have a bearing on how far forward or rearward you place the top-level speakers. Again, experimentation is key if you want to arrive at the best possible result. If you are not a perfectionist, just take a SWAG then sit back and enjoy the show.


----------



## ride525

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This may be a silly question, but... as the 4100 can only do 5.1.2 without an external amp, I'm confused as to how you're running side surrounds and 4 Atmos speakers. Or am I wrong here? You say where the top rear speakers will be mounted, so if you already have top rear placement, how are you also running top front?


Yes, I will be using an external amp to get 5.1.4.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ride525 said:


> Yes, I will be using an external amp for get 5.1.4.




Have you considered 7.1.2? Or is that out of the question in your room? I ask because of how much 7.1 native content there is out there. Seems like you'd get more of a benefit by doing rear surrounds at ear height and then a pair of top mids.


----------



## ride525

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Have you considered 7.1.2? Or is that out of the question in your room? I ask because of how much 7.1 native content there is out there. Seems like you'd get more of a benefit by doing rear surrounds at ear height and then a pair of top mids.


Not really considering 7.1.2.

Hard enought to fit side surrounds, which are at ear level, or just above.

1. Doing 5.1.4.
2. Top Rear speaker will be about 25 degrees rear of vertical, or about 2.5 feet behind listener.
3. Question is where to place Top Fronts?
a) 3 feet in front of listening postion?
b) 4 feet in front? (which is close to midway between listener and fronts (L,R and center).
c) 5 feet in front of listener?
d) 5 1/2 feet in front of listener?


----------



## ride525

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't believe you've mentioned your ceiling height (or the vertical distance from your ears to the ceiling when seated at the MLP), which makes it difficult to judge the relative merits of specific overhead placements since we can not compute the exact elevation angles.
> 
> However, there is a reason why Dolby's recommended angle ranges are so wide: it's been stated frequently that it is very hard to mess up the speaker positioning for Atmos. Every room--and every listener--is different.........If you are not a perfectionist, just take a SWAG then sit back and enjoy the show.



*Ceiling height is just over 8 1/2 feet, about 8 feet, 8 inches.*


----------



## maikeldepotter

ride525 said:


> Not really considering 7.1.2.
> 
> Hard enought to fit side surrounds, which are at ear level, or just above.
> 
> 1. Doing 5.1.4.
> 2. Top Rear speaker will be about 25 degrees rear of vertical, or about 2.5 feet behind listener.
> 3. Question is where to place Top Fronts?
> a) 3 feet in front of listening postion?
> b) 4 feet in front? (which is close to midway between listener and fronts (L,R and center).
> c) 5 feet in front of listener?
> d) 5 1/2 feet in front of listener?


Do you realize that 25 degrees rear of vertical (90+25=115) puts your overheads outside any of the recommended ranges? If you want overheads behind you but can't put them further back, your only option is Top Middle at 100 degrees (10 degrees rear of vertical). In that scenario I would put Front Heights at 45 degrees. BTW Some have reported their Top Middle speakers to perform better placing them just a bit in front at 80-85 degrees.


----------



## ride525

maikeldepotter said:


> Do you realize that 25 degrees rear of vertical (90+25=115) puts your overheads outside any of the recommended ranges? If you want overheads behind you but can't put them further back, your only option is Top Middle at 100 degrees (10 degrees rear of vertical). In that scenario I would put Front Heights at 45 degrees. BTW Some have reported their Top Middle speakers to perform better placing them just a bit in front at 85 degrees.


Yes, I realize that 115 degrees puts the Top Rears 10 degrees off the recommended ranges.
How about if I just lowered them just a tiny bit, and then they would be set at 125 degrees.

It seems counterintuitive to me to put the Top Rear speakers farther forward, near vertical, or even FORWARD of vertical, and in FRONT of the listener. Then BOTH of the Atmos speakers would be IN FRONT of the listener, instead of the Top Front (in front of the listener) and the Top Rear (behind the listener). Dolby seems to suggest four speakers, and suggests having two in FRONT of the listener, and two behind the listener.

I don't understand the efforts that are made trying to fit speakers to get them so the Rear speakers end up overhead in the Top Middle, when they could be made to that the Rear speakers could be as far to the rear as possible. (So what if they are 10 degrees off? Or just mount them lower, so make them 10 degrees more.) When you put the rear speakers Top Middle, they are not really that far BEHIND you, if any at all. So when you use TOP middle, don't you lose much of that REAR, "behind you sound"?

Thanks for all your thoughts


----------



## pasender91

Ride, just 3 remarks:
I tested both configs, and with DSU and Atmos, 5.1.4 > 7.1.2, so i believe you are going in the right direction.
125° is ok for the rears
For the fronts, try to position them as near as you can to 45°, but 50 or 55 are fine too.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ride525 said:


> It seems counterintuitive to me to put the Top Rear speakers farther forward, near vertical, or even FORWARD of vertical, and in FRONT of the listener. Then BOTH of the Atmos speakers would be IN FRONT of the listener, instead of the Top Front (in front of the listener) and the Top Rear (behind the listener). Dolby seems to suggest four speakers, and suggests having two in FRONT of the listener, and two behind the listener.
> 
> I don't understand the efforts that are made trying to fit speakers to get them so the Rear speakers end up overhead in the Top Middle, when they could be made to that the Rear speakers could be as far to the rear as possible. (So what if they are 10 degrees off? Or just mount them lower, so make them 10 degrees more.) When you put the rear speakers Top Middle, they are not really that far BEHIND you, if any at all. So when you use TOP middle, don't you lose much of that REAR, "behind you sound"?


I know exactly what you mean. But the reason for Dolby's recommended 'no fly zone' between 100 and 125 degrees remains a mystery to all of us. Just like the intended overhead positions the Atmos renderer in your AVR calculates with. Deep dark secrets for reasons we can only guess at.


----------



## petetherock

Can anyone point me to the exact time stamp for the buzzing scene?
Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

ride525 said:


> Ah, yes "follow the angles recommended". That gives such a huge range of possibilities for the front top speaker it's crazy. (30 degrees to 55 degrees) Or about 3 feet in front of the listenting position to almost 6 feet front.
> 
> But "following the angles recommended" which one would give the better result with the rear top speakers 25 degrees to the rear? Top speakers 3 feet in front, 4 feet in front, 5 feet in front, 5.5 feet in front? All "follow the angles recommended". The question is which would be the best suggesion in my case?
> 
> Thanks.


Dolby themselves say it is hard to get Atmos 'wrong' and the fact there is such a wide range of permissible locations plays to that I guess. If you position your speakers anywhere within the respective angular ranges, you should get a good result. Whether it will be an optimum result is difficult to say and will depend on various factors, many of which may be peculiar to your room or setup or speaker design or tastes and preferences. I think more than a few of us, me included, have moved our overhead speakers after listening for a while, while staying within the permitted ranges. My own preference is for the front pair to be more in front of me and the rear pair to be more directly over me. Sorry I can’t give a more definitive answer but I don't believe there is one. I’d also look at where your listener level speakers are located and try to arrange for a good 'distribution' of the speakers in the 3D space - IOW, try to get good separation between all speakers - but all the while staying within the specified angles.

Many of us have wished Dolby would give more information on the range of permitted angles and how they might or might not interact with the chosen speaker designations (eg Top Front, Front height etc) but none has been forthcoming. The reason for that may be that "it isn't critically important" of course - hence the wide range of potential on-spec locations. 

If you are able to fix the speakers temporarily before wiring them once and for all, then that would be my recommendation. Then try them for a while in different locations and see if one suits you more than another. This may seem like a PITA but, trust me, it is less of a PITA than what I did, which was to spend a long time concealing wires in the walls and ceiling, only to have to move my rear overhead pair forward by about 1 foot afterwards, which meant doing the wiring over again.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> In a relatively small room like yours, the larger cabinet of the Di6 DC speaker will cause discrete sounds to be noticeable less directive. That is why expect you to prefer the Di5 DC, especially with Atmos soundtracks.


OK - thanks to everyone for the replies. The point you make above is interesting and would steer me towards the smaller Di5s since good directionality is important with Atmos. However the point made earlier about the Di6s sounding 'fuller' above the XO point is also a good one and would steer me towards the larger Di6.

After about 4 weeks of listening, this is what I found:



Spoiler



I heard no audibly significant difference between the two. Or at least none that I can be definitive about. Just no real difference. I was surprised in one way, but not in another. By that I mean that we are sort of psychologically conditioned to believe that a bigger speaker will always outperform a smaller speaker, all other things being equal (eg quality of components, design etc). But OTOH we know that in a bass-managed system, there is no value inherent in the satellite speaker in the region that has been handed off to the subwoofer, especially if the subwoofers are world-class Submersives. And of course, Tannoy's own performance charts show a good similarity between the Di5 and the Di6 above the XO point anyway.

So I took down the Di6 and replaced them with the Di5. And then I listened very carefully for a few more days, using the same movies or clips that I had used before. And still no significant audible differences. And as the Di5s look much neater in my small room, I prefer them from that POV alone, so they are now staying there. The Di6 pair will now serve as my rear surrounds.

If there is a lesson in all of this, I guess it is that in a bass-managed system, with good sub(s), there is no need to spend more on overhead speakers than anyone feels comfortable with, and that so long as the chosen speaker meets Dolby's Atmos requirements and you are happy that it is a good fit with your other speakers, you will be good to go.



So there we have it. I hope someone, other than me, found this useful and it has helped bring us back on topic which will delight the Mods


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Okay, so you have not experienced any audible differences between the Di5 crossed to the subs @ 110Hz and the Di6 @ 90Hz? You checked with panning scenes, such as the Star Wars Pod-race?


----------



## chi_guy50

ride525 said:


> Ah, yes "follow the angles recommended". That gives such a huge range of possibilities for the front top speaker it's crazy. (30 degrees to 55 degrees) Or about 3 feet in front of the listenting position to almost 6 feet front.
> 
> But "following the angles recommended" which one would give the better result with the rear top speakers 25 degrees to the rear? Top speakers 3 feet in front, 4 feet in front, 5 feet in front, 5.5 feet in front? All "follow the angles recommended". The question is which would be the best suggesion in my case?
> 
> Thanks.





ride525 said:


> *Ceiling height is just over 8 1/2 feet, about 8 feet, 8 inches.*


You don't give us your ear height when seated at the MLP, but assuming it to be 36" then the distance from your ears to the ceiling is 68". Allowing, say, 6" for the underhang of the mounted HTM-200 as measured from the ceiling to the speaker's center of mass, that gives you a vertical distance of approx. 62". Based on these assumptions, here are the horizontal distances I derive (rounded off to the nearest whole inch) for the various elevation angles in your room (I like to use this handy Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator):

30° = 8'11" forward of MLP
45° = 5'2" 
55° = 3'7"
65° = 2'5"
100° = 11" rearward of MLP
125° = 3'7"
150° = 8'11"

My assumptions may be a bit off or you might want to use a slightly different method of measurement, but this should give you a feel for the various placement parameters. Again, it's said to be hard to mess this up and there's probably no real need to obsess over inches and fractions thereof (although that hasn't deterred me from doing so). I also recommend that you review carefully this helpful post from the very knowledgeable sdurani regarding some other factors that impact on the elevation angles and their relative importance before you draw up your final mounting plans. 

As Keith Barnes and I have both already suggested, your best bet is to respect the recommended range of angles and then, if feasible, to experiment with a couple of different options to see which seems to work best in your room and to your ears.


----------



## batpig

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Okay, so you have not experienced any audible differences between the Di5 crossed to the subs @ 110Hz and the Di6 @ 90Hz? You checked with panning scenes, such as the Star Wars Pod-race?


The Pod-race scene wouldn't really be relevant in hearing differences in the overheads. DSU is not matrixing deep bass up top. 

The only time you would have a chance IMO of hearing a difference in a situation like Keith's is with a powerful overhead effect in native Atmos.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Aha, I presumed the up mixer was full range. Thanks for correcting.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Some have reported their Top Middle speakers to perform better placing them just a bit in front at 80-85 degrees.


I think Keith might be one of them. Also, Dolby reps have made that same recommendation for a single pair of heights in one of Scott Wilkinson's podcasts.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I am installing the ceiling absorption elements in my future homecinema. The 3 Top speaker pairs (TF+TM+TR) will nestle in between these elements later. In order to finish the absorption, I am determining the *vertical *elevation angles (viewed from the side). According to Dolby's guidelines (pdf April 2015), the "ideal" angles are:
TF 45°
TM 80°
TR 135°

But none of their examples actually has all 3 pairs. It's x.1.2 with TM, otherwise it's x.1.4 with TF+TR. Hence with TF+TR the angles from Front speakers to Rear Surround are 45+90+45=180°. So there's a "gap" from 90° between TF+TR. One would mathematically think 60+60+60=180° would be filling the arc better, but I guess not.

If I implement Dolby's suggested angles with my 9.2.6 layout, the angles from Front to Rear are 45+35+55+45=180°. So the angle between Front and TF (45°) is bigger than the angle between the TF+TM (35°). Doesn't seem best practice to me and in contrast to their TF+TR guideline. All it does it closing that gap between TF+TR. It does noting between Front and Top.

I would suggest these angles (which, BTW, are also nicely balanced design wise):
TF 37.5°
TM 85° 
TR 135° (cannot go further to the rear than 135° anyway)
Hence the angles from Front to Rear Surround are: 37.5+47.5+50+45°
IMO this will better facilitate front to back pans. Needless to say all variations are well inside Dolby's permissible angles.

Impression of work in progress:








I needed my whole family to install the 4 largest elements...


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> One would mathematically think 60+60+60=180° would be filling the arc better, but I guess not.


That works mathematically, but is our human hearing symmetrical from front to back? If not, then symmetrical placement won't take advantage of how we hear. Plus there are other factors. If your rear speakers are elevated, then the difference between two pairs of heights vs three pairs of heights might be barely audible (if at all), if THX is to be believed.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> The Pod-race scene wouldn't really be relevant in hearing differences in the overheads. DSU is not matrixing deep bass up top.
> 
> The only time you would have a chance IMO of hearing a difference in a situation like Keith's is with a powerful overhead effect in native Atmos.


John Wick might be a better choice. It has some powerful as well as clear panning effects in the heights. There's a car chase with helicopters circling overhead at approximately 1:25:00. Thunder and rain and gunfire a few minutes later. When testing my Atmos configuration, I like to use that scene and disconnect all of my speakers except the heights.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Sanjay,

The Rear Surrounds will be at ear level. No higher that 120 cm (4'). 

I believe that we are indeed more sensible in our hearing if the source is nearer our front vision "tunnel" (which is very narrow indeed for us males, haha).


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> John Wick might be a better choice. It has some powerful as well as clear panning effects in the heights. There's a car chase with helicopters circling overhead at approximately 1:25:00. Thunder and rain and gunfire a few minutes later. When testing my Atmos configuration, I like to use that scene and disconnect all of my speakers except the heights.


Yes that's a good one. Another would be the opening scene of TF:AoE when the spaceships fly overhead from back to front. 

Any other good "powerful" overhead pans from the limited library of Atmos titles on BD??

That also reminds me -- when Aras switched from the AT Atmos modules to the KEF in ceiling speakers he commented on the biggest difference being with these types of "powerful" overhead effects. The THX guys talked about this phenomenon on the HT Geeks podcast... basically (and it's common sense) the overhead reflection is going to get worse as the frequency gets lower, so the area where the "virtual" Atmos speaker will be really challenged is with these types of bass heavy impact overhead effects. So, anyway, I also made the switch in my new place, installing a pair of in-ceiling TM speakers (currently at 7.1.2) and I have definitely noticed this as well. John Wick is full of stuff like this (not just the stuff Josh noted above but also heavy use of music in the overheads, especially the nightclub scenes) as well as that opening scene of TF4, the gusts of wind wooshing overhead in the "Leaf" demo, etc. You really can't get that feeling of power and impact overhead with the reflected speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Makes sense.

We're asking for a lot from these admittedly small drivers used for the Dolby-enabled systems. The dB drop from total distance away will rob the small driver of any "impactful" presence if it had any to begin with.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Makes sense.
> 
> We're asking for a lot from these admittedly small drivers used for the Dolby-enabled systems. The dB drop from total distance away will rob the small driver of any "impactful" presence if it had any to begin with.


Not there yet, but I'm very likely doing a .6 setup (getting an additional pair of the Atlantic Tech 44-DAs to go with the two pairs I bought from Aras) with the Altitude when we move into the new place later this month and work on the HT room for Atmos content. I'm going to eventually bite the bullet and do ceilings as a best practice at the end of the day, once I settle on a more final MLP (possibly with a PJ/screen setup) and verify that the new condo board will be OK with me putting speakers in the ceiling, but with virtual "top middles" closer to MLP to go with the front and rear pairs, it may make up part of the difference. Or it may not.

I don't have John Wick, but the Leaf clip and Transformers are in the house, so I'll test it out on the .4 before I go any further.


----------



## Contuzzi

Scott Simonian said:


> Makes sense.
> 
> We're asking for a lot from these admittedly small drivers used for the Dolby-enabled systems. The dB drop from total distance away will rob the small driver of any "impactful" presence if it had any to begin with.


What's even more of a disadvantage is that you wouldn't even actually want an upfiring speaker doing any kind of low midrange/midbass. The lower you go the more you will start to hear the speaker itself and not the reflections.


----------



## Scott Simonian

You gotta do what you gotta do and not everybody can accommodate actual speakers on their ceiling not matter what size. In your case, Stuart, you can't install actual speakers up there until you move so this is a good solution until you can. They do well enough as it is but we can't expect miracles out of these modules.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Contuzzi said:


> What's even more of a disadvantage is that you wouldn't even actually want an upfiring speaker doing any kind of low midrange/midbass. The lower you go the more you will start to hear the speaker itself and not the reflections.


And the lower in frequency you go the more it becomes less directional and the sound waves themselves don't move light a flashlight but become omni-directional and simply wrap around the speaker unable to 'beam' to the ceiling. It just radiates. This is worse at frequencies irrelevant to these modules but it does happen in the 80-300hz region for sure. Above that and that energy can and will be reflected more easily as intended.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Another Atmos disc is about to drop...

Francis Ford Coppola's version of _Dracula_.

The first Atmos title for Sony!

It also looks like it's sourced from a new 4k restoration. Let's hope the color timing was improved!

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/bram-stokers-dracula-francis-ford-coppola-bluray


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Yep, Dracula is definitely a flying object, perfect for 3D rendering!


----------



## batpig

Super cool. Let's hope this ushers in a wave of "restorations" of great, older movies with remastered soundtracks utilizing object audio.

As we've seen with John Wick the fact that these films didn't have an object mix for the cinema doesn't preclude it from being a great use of Atmos for home. In fact it may even cause the remixers to be more "aggressive" with the use of the overheads -- John Wick is widely acknowledged as being among the best Atmos mixes on BD and pumps a bunch of music and other overhead ambience nearly constantly into the overhead speakers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Yes that's a good one. Another would be the opening scene of TF:AoE when the spaceships fly overhead from back to front.
> 
> Any other good "powerful" overhead pans from the limited library of Atmos titles on BD??
> 
> That also reminds me -- when Aras switched from the AT Atmos modules to the KEF in ceiling speakers he commented on the biggest difference being with these types of "powerful" overhead effects. The THX guys talked about this phenomenon on the HT Geeks podcast... basically (and it's common sense) the overhead reflection is going to get worse as the frequency gets lower, so the area where the "virtual" Atmos speaker will be really challenged is with these types of bass heavy impact overhead effects. So, anyway, I also made the switch in my new place, installing a pair of in-ceiling TM speakers (currently at 7.1.2) and I have definitely noticed this as well. John Wick is full of stuff like this (not just the stuff Josh noted above but also heavy use of music in the overheads, especially the nightclub scenes) as well as that opening scene of TF4, the gusts of wind wooshing overhead in the "Leaf" demo, etc. You really can't get that feeling of power and impact overhead with the reflected speakers.


There's something strange about TF4 on my setup actually... I think something in my ceiling resonates with the bass frequencies used in the intro scene... so the ceiling speakers are rattling the whole way through. I got paranoid & stopped the movie (haha)... I didn't want to blow the ceiling speakers if that's what was happening. Something similar happened with the giant boat propeller that falls from the sky. I did run a calibration since then so I'll give it another shot. Every other movie sounds incredible though!

I suspect Mad Max will have some great overhead pans!


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Yep, Dracula is definitely a flying object, perfect for 3D rendering!


You owe me a keyboard Erwin (mine is covered with coffee after reading your post).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sweet news! Yes! Let's get more catalog titles "remixed" to object based sound. This is great news.

And Sony's first release too. Get it on!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Another Atmos disc is about to drop...
> 
> Francis Ford Coppola's version of _Dracula_.
> 
> The first Atmos title for Sony!
> 
> It also looks like it's sourced from a new 4k restoration. Let's hope the color timing was improved!
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/bram-stokers-dracula-francis-ford-coppola-bluray


Oh man my HT will already be dismantled by then  But I'll pick it up anyway for viewing when I finally get to setup again... interesting! This looks like the first real legacy title to have an Atmos mix right?


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> There's something strange about TF4 on my setup actually... I think something in my ceiling resonates with the bass frequencies used in the intro scene... so the ceiling speakers are rattling the whole way through. I got paranoid & stopped the movie (haha)...


Yes, Michael Bay knows how to expose the limits of your subwoofer(s) and uncover strange resonances in your room 

So far in my new house I've (thankfully) had very few complaints about noise during late night listening, an enormous change from my old place. However, the very first complaint I got? I decided to check out the clip of TF4 on the newer Atmos demo disc (turned out it was chapter 20) and good lord that is overcooked in levels relative to the other demos!! I jumped for the remote once things started pounding but it was too late, my wife appeared seconds later at the door, "what the hell was that?! it felt like an earthquake!"


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh man my HT will already be dismantled by then  But I'll pick it up anyway for viewing when I finally get to setup again... interesting! This looks like the first real legacy title to have an Atmos mix right?


Chicago was remixed to Atmos and it was mentioned a while ago that 20th Century Fox made an Atmos mix for Die Hard but that mix has yet to surface anyway. Chicago is available to buy on Blu-ray now.


----------



## chi_guy50

Molon_Labe said:


> To make this topic of speaker placement even more clear than mud, how does DTS:X factor in with placement. * I would assume the positions would be interchangeable between the formats.*


That's a very good assumption for the present in the absence of any precise placement guidance specific to DTS:X. DTS spokespersons have repeatedly asserted that their immersive audio codec will be "speaker layout agnostic" (cf. here).


----------



## ride525

batpig said:


> Yes, Michael Bay knows how to expose the limits of your subwoofer(s) and uncover strange resonances in your room
> 
> So far in my new house I've (thankfully) had very few complaints about noise during late night listening, an enormous change from my old place. However, the very first complaint I got? I decided to check out the clip of TF4 on the newer Atmos demo disc (turned out it was chapter 20) and good lord that is overcooked in levels relative to the other demos!! I jumped for the remote once things started pounding but it was too late, my wife appeared seconds later at the door, "what the hell was that?! it felt like an earthquake!"


How does one get the newer (or any) of the Atmos Demo discs?

Thanks


----------



## Molon_Labe

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a very good assumption for the present in the absence of any precise placement guidance specific to DTS:X. DTS spokespersons have repeatedly asserted that their immersive audio codec will be "speaker layout agnostic" (cf. here).


I just don't buy they agnostic approach. I guess it will be determined by the receiver and what positions it has available in the setup menu and DTS:X will use those channels where appropriate. I am not going to drill any holes until my Yamaha 3050 arrives.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> You gotta do what you gotta do and not everybody can accommodate actual speakers on their ceiling not matter what size. In your case, Stuart, you can't install actual speakers up there until you move so this is a good solution until you can. They do well enough as it is but we can't expect miracles out of these modules.


 
I always saw the upfiring speakers as a short-term solution, so yes. Having heard Dolby speakers in several settings they're better than no Atmos, but I'm sure once I settle in I'll have to decide how I can live with their shortcomings and what the tradeoffs are with positioning and room characteristics.

Very happy about Bram Stoker's Dracula getting the Atmos treatment....and you can come over to my new house, Aras  once I have your old speakers installed...which should be well in time for the October 6th release date.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdurani said:


> You owe me a keyboard Erwin (mine is covered with coffee after reading your post).


Oops!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Chicago was remixed to Atmos and it was mentioned a while ago that 20th Century Fox made an Atmos mix for Die Hard but that mix has yet to surface anyway. Chicago is available to buy on Blu-ray now.


Yeah but isn't that a dancing movie or something? Doesn't seem like my kinda thing... was it any good?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Sorry I know this isn't Atmos related but I know some of you will love this... 70mm film projection for Star Wars! Tickets go on sale possibly late September/ Early October!

http://makingstarwars.net/2015/08/star-wars-the-force-awakens-imax-presentation-details/

Though of course... if it's released in Atmos & HDR, I plan to see it @ an AMC Prime as well. Thankfully Chicago has a 70mm projector


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yeah but isn't that a dancing movie or something? Doesn't seem like my kinda thing... was it any good?


I wasn't suggesting that you'd enjoy the movie but the question was, "have there been any catalog remixes before?". There you go. At least two of them.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Yes, Michael Bay knows how to expose the limits of your subwoofer(s) and uncover strange resonances in your room
> 
> So far in my new house I've (thankfully) had very few complaints about noise during late night listening, an enormous change from my old place. However, the very first complaint I got? I decided to check out the clip of TF4 on the newer Atmos demo disc (turned out it was chapter 20) and good lord that is overcooked in levels relative to the other demos!! I jumped for the remote once things started pounding but it was too late, my wife appeared seconds later at the door, "what the hell was that?! it felt like an earthquake!"


HA!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> I wasn't suggesting that you'd enjoy the movie but the question was, "have there been any catalog remixes before?". There you go. At least two of them.


Haha... well I guess things are finally starting to move along... 3 (u.s. region) titles within a month & a half might be a new record. 

I went to see Mission impossible in Atmos last night... I could see that being a great disc release as well... just in time for X mas probably


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> I always saw the upfiring speakers as a short-term solution, so yes. Having heard Dolby speakers in several settings they're better than no Atmos, but I'm sure once I settle in I'll have to decide how I can live with their shortcomings and what the tradeoffs are with positioning and room characteristics.
> 
> Very happy about Bram Stoker's Dracula getting the Atmos treatment....and you can come over to my new house, Aras  once I have your old speakers installed...which should be well in time for the October 6th release date.


Will do... I'll at least bring the disc & perhaps some more Belgian ale (haha).


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> Will do... I'll at least bring the disc & perhaps some more Belgian ale (haha).



We've got a fridge in the den next to the HT room to be...which will be VERY convenient for that ale....


----------



## Waboman

Great to hear Coppola's _Dracula_ is getting some Atmos remastered love. I'm a fan of that movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Okay, so you have not experienced any audible differences between the Di5 crossed to the subs @ 110Hz and the Di6 @ 90Hz? You checked with panning scenes, such as the Star Wars Pod-race?


In the end I settled for a XO of 100Hz. I did check with a variety of content, but not that specific movie/scene. If there were any differences, here in this room, between the Di5 and Di6 used as overheads, then it is so small that it is imperceptible to me. The result doesn't really surprise me TBH.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> The Pod-race scene wouldn't really be relevant in hearing differences in the overheads. DSU is not matrixing deep bass up top.


Agreed.



batpig said:


> The only time you would have a chance IMO of hearing a difference in a situation like Keith's is with a powerful overhead effect in native Atmos.


And they are few and far between as we know. I did a lot of listening to the Atmos trailers and a few of my Atmos discs, using scenes where overhead impressions were the strongest. No real difference I could detect reliably. I am pleased with the outcome because the Di5s look much better aesthetically in this small room and it means I can use the Di6 for my rear surrounds, without having to buy any more speakers. And I seem to be giving up nothing whatsoever in the 'upstairs' department.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> To make this topic of speaker placement even more clear than mud, how does DTS:X factor in with placement. I would assume the positions would be interchangeable between the formats.


Good assumption.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> it was mentioned a while ago that 20th Century Fox made an Atmos mix for Die Hard but that mix has yet to surface anyway.



I wonder if it's for the Nakatomi Plaza Die Hard Collection [Blu-ray]...










_(Image stolen from Bill Hunt @ thedigitalbits.com)_

Bah...according to Blu-ray.com...



> Audio
> *Die Hard*
> English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
> English: Dolby Digital 2.0 (224 kbps)
> French: Dolby Digital 5.1
> Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1
> 
> *Die Hard 2: Die Harde*r
> English: DTS-HD HR 5.1 (48kHz, 24-bit)
> English: Dolby Digital 2.0 (224 kbps)
> French: Dolby Digital 5.1 (448 kbps)
> Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1 (448 kbps)
> 
> Die Hard with a Vengeance
> English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
> Spanish: Dolby Digital 2.0
> French: Dolby Digital 2.0
> 
> *Live Free or Die Hard*
> English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
> English: Dolby Digital 5.1
> French: Dolby Digital 5.1
> Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1
> 
> *A Good Day to Die Hard*
> English: DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 (48kHz, 24-bit)
> French: Dolby Digital 5.1 (448 kbps)
> Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1 (448 kbps)
> Decoding Die Hard
> English: Dolby Digital 2.0 (224 kbps)


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> John Wick might be a better choice. It has some powerful as well as clear panning effects in the heights. There's a car chase with helicopters circling overhead at approximately 1:25:00. Thunder and rain and gunfire a few minutes later. When testing my Atmos configuration, I like to use that scene and disconnect all of my speakers except the heights.


*John Wick* was one of the test discs I used. *Lucy* was another. And *Transcendence* which has some really effective overhead effects.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Another Atmos disc is about to drop...
> 
> Francis Ford Coppola's version of _Dracula_.
> 
> The first Atmos title for Sony!
> 
> It also looks like it's sourced from a new 4k restoration. Let's hope the color timing was improved!
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/bram-stokers-dracula-francis-ford-coppola-bluray


Oh wow. That is great news. I loved that movie - not watched it for ages. I will order it the minute it is available. Thanks Dan!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I think Keith might be one of them. Also, Dolby reps have made that same recommendation for a single pair of heights in one of Scott Wilkinson's podcasts.


Yes - at great cost of time and effort I moved my TM pair forward to about 80-85° and it was a good improvement (here). When they were slightly behind me, I never really felt that I was hearing them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh man my HT will already be dismantled by then  But I'll pick it up anyway for viewing when I finally get to setup again... interesting! This looks like the first real legacy title to have an Atmos mix right?


The Japanese version of Chicago The Musical was one of the first catalog immersive remixes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

stikle said:


> I wonder if it's for the Nakatomi Plaza Die Hard Collection [Blu-ray]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(Image stolen from Bill Hunt @ thedigitalbits.com)_


Wow. I would love to get this even though I own them all already. Nice.

I'll wait for the inevitable UHD version.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Wow. I would love to get this even though I own them all already. Nice.
> 
> I'll wait for the inevitable UHD version.


I updated my post - no Atmos.

So...I'd bet it's for the UHD version, if the Atmos mix does indeed exist.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hence my wink.


----------



## Waboman

That Nakatomi tower set is badass. And it includes the unrated version of AGDtDH.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ah s**t. Maaannnnn.... now I _have_ to get it.


Even though over such a long time I warmed up greatly to the PG-13 version. I don't like the changes in the unrated version. I want a cut that has all the McClaine "f**k's" in it but with the same screen content and lines from the PG-13 version. There were a bunch of awful alternate dialog in the unrated one. Terrible changes. Just give me some "f**k's" cuz I give a f**k.


----------



## Josh Z

stikle said:


> I wonder if it's for the Nakatomi Plaza Die Hard Collection [Blu-ray]...
> 
> Bah...according to Blu-ray.com...


Fox gave the first Die Hard a new 4k digital restoration a couple years ago that has played in selected theatrical screenings, but when it comes to Blu-ray the studio is satisfied to just recycle the old disc from 2007. 

Perhaps they're planning to pair up that 4k restoration and new Atmos mix for UHD Blu-ray? Or perhaps they're just going to sit on them forever and never do anything with them (like Warner Bros. has with A Clockwork Orange).


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> I went to see Mission impossible in Atmos last night... I could see that being a great disc release as well... *just in time for X mas probably*


Wait, was this a typo or did you intend it as a first shot in the immersive audio holiday promotion wars, Aras? 

Who win will out come December: will it be X-mas or At-mas?


----------



## BWRIGHT25

Josh Z said:


> John Wick might be a better choice. It has some powerful as well as clear panning effects in the heights. There's a car chase with helicopters circling overhead at approximately 1:25:00. Thunder and rain and gunfire a few minutes later. When testing my Atmos configuration, I like to use that scene and disconnect all of my speakers except the heights.


The opening airplane fighting scene in Unbroken was phenomenal soundwise. The movie was blah.


----------



## smurraybhm

BWRIGHT25 said:


> The opening airplane fighting scene in Unbroken was phenomenal soundwise. The movie was blah.


I enjoyed it, not the best, but definitely not a blah. So I raise your "blah" with a "like" 
Just like Atmos vs. Auro, denon vs. yamaha, its personal. By the way there are other good overhead effects besides the opening scene - like at the end when the planes fly over the guys in the water at the factory. Like all the other Atmos releases I have watched to date, with Insurgent coming tomorrow, what I enjoy more than some sound from up-top is the precision that Atmos/object based sound adds to my listening experience.


----------



## wse

When can we preorder this?

A new restored version of Coppola’s Dracula arrives on Blu-ray and Digital HD on Oct. 6. It’s the first of the Supreme Cinema Series, a new collection of “Clear Case” limited-edition discs from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. 
Coppola and his son, Roman, who was the film’s second unit/visual effects director, sat for new interviews, and Coppola penned a new introduction that is part of the 24-page book. 




















*All-New Blu-ray Bonus Features Include:*
* 4K Restoration & Dolby Atmos soundtrack (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible)*
* Reflections in Blood: Francis Ford Coppola and Bram Stoker’s Dracula
* Practical Magicians: A Collaboration Between Father and Son
* Rare 1993 Commentary with Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Coppola and Greg Cannom
* To experience Dolby Atmos at home, Dolby Atmos enabled AV receivers and additional speakers are required; however, Dolby Atmos soundtracks are fully backward compatible with traditional audio configurations and legacy home entertainment equipment
*Also Featured:*
* Deleted Scenes
* Audio Commentary & Film Introduction by Director Francis Ford Coppola
* 4 Legacy Featurettes
The acrylic “Clear Case” limited-edition collector’s packaging will only be available while supplies last.


----------



## lujan

wse said:


> When can we preorder this?
> 
> A new restored version of Coppola’s Dracula arrives on Blu-ray and Digital HD on Oct. 6. It’s the first of the Supreme Cinema Series, a new collection of “Clear Case” limited-edition discs from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.
> Coppola and his son, Roman, who was the film’s second unit/visual effects director, sat for new interviews, and Coppola penned a new introduction that is part of the 24-page book.
> 
> *All-New Blu-ray Bonus Features Include:*
> * 4K Restoration & Dolby Atmos soundtrack (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible)*
> * Reflections in Blood: Francis Ford Coppola and Bram Stoker’s Dracula
> * Practical Magicians: A Collaboration Between Father and Son
> * Rare 1993 Commentary with Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Coppola and Greg Cannom
> * To experience Dolby Atmos at home, Dolby Atmos enabled AV receivers and additional speakers are required; however, Dolby Atmos soundtracks are fully backward compatible with traditional audio configurations and legacy home entertainment equipment
> *Also Featured:*
> * Deleted Scenes
> * Audio Commentary & Film Introduction by Director Francis Ford Coppola
> * 4 Legacy Featurettes
> The acrylic “Clear Case” limited-edition collector’s packaging will only be available while supplies last.


I don't believe I've ever seen this movie, is it good?


----------



## NorthSky

> Another Atmos disc is about to drop...
> Francis Ford Coppola's version of _Dracula_.
> The first Atmos title for Sony!
> It also looks like it's sourced from a new 4k restoration. Let's hope the color timing was improved!
> http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/bram-stokers-dracula-francis-ford-coppola-bluray


Oh that's very cool.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Yep, Dracula is definitely a flying object, perfect for 3D rendering!


Very true, very true Erwin.  ...Sucking flying vampire.


----------



## Scott Simonian

lujan said:


> I don't believe I've ever seen this movie, is it good?


Pretty damn good. There haven't been many "better" Dracula movies since. This has an amazing cast and Gary Oldman of course brings his A-game.


----------



## NorthSky

*Francis Ford Coppola's 'Dracula'*



lujan said:


> I don't believe I've ever seen this movie, is it good?


It's awesome...and John Wick is in it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

But how many people does he shoot in the face?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> But how many people does he shoot in the face?


In that flick (Dracula), John Wick got the girls in hot lingerie, and Anthony Popkins got two big guns (pistols) and a good set of teeth. ...Plus lavender (sanctified water). But it's Oddman who is the nasty flying object sunnabaggun, with a thirst for hot blood. ...He's the one to watch for and protect your mojo against, @ all cost. What sez you?


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty damn good. There haven't been many "better" Dracula movies since. This has an amazing cast and Gary Oldman of course brings his A-game.


Agree. In fact, I use to have this on LD. Can't think of a better Dracula movie. Well maybe George Hamilton's _Love at First Bite_, which is due for the Atmos love.


----------



## chi_guy50

Waboman said:


> Agree. In fact, I use to have this on LD. Can't think of a better Dracula movie. Well maybe George Hamilton's _Love at First Bite_, which is due for the Atmos love.


 I'll give a nod to the late lamented Sharon Tate in Roman Polanski's spoof The Fearless Vampire Killers.

(It's hard to believe that it's been almost a half century since she was brutally murdered by the Manson Family.)


----------



## NorthSky

I just lost my appetite.


----------



## aaranddeeman

chi_guy50 said:


> I like to use this handy Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator):


or better yet the one in my signature.. (Sorry don't mean to promote it, but just thought that would be of quick help)


----------



## Zhorik

Josh Z said:


> John Wick might be a better choice. It has some powerful as well as clear panning effects in the heights. There's a car chase with helicopters circling overhead at approximately 1:25:00. Thunder and rain and gunfire a few minutes later. When testing my Atmos configuration, I like to use that scene and disconnect all of my speakers except the heights.


Does that still generate all the objects (i.e. free floating objects rendered using the top and base layer)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zhorik said:


> Does that still generate all the objects (i.e. free floating objects rendered using the top and base layer)?


The processor doesn't know he unplugged all the speakers except for the heights. He's just listening to the heights by themselves to check how much activity there is.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty damn good. There haven't been many "better" Dracula movies since. This has an amazing cast and Gary Oldman of course brings his A-game.


Oldman at his most intense and with an uber-thick Wallachian accent. Plus Winona Ryder and a great performance by Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. The script adaptation is all over the place but who cares?


----------



## NorthSky

*Apocalypse Now* would also be a good BR title to REDUX in Dolby Atmos...I think. ...But it does sound aged, like *Dracula**

* Methinks this is Sony newest strategy in trying to cash in in what's avail today. ...Like preparing the testing ground for the upcoming UHD Blu-ray ... which probably won't even fly.


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty damn good. There haven't been many "better" Dracula movies since. This has an amazing cast and Gary Oldman of course brings his A-game.


I own the Bluray version and can't agree more Oldman is simply amazing! This is good news indeed as I bought the last one due to the fact it rest high on both mine and the wife's all time favorite movies , can't wait to surprise her with this


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I enjoyed it, not the best, but definitely not a blah. So I raise your "blah" with a "like"
> Just like Atmos vs. Auro, denon vs. yamaha, its personal. By the way there are other good overhead effects besides the opening scene - like at the end when the planes fly over the guys in the water at the factory. Like all the other Atmos releases I have watched to date, with Insurgent coming tomorrow, *what I enjoy more than some sound from up-top is the precision that Atmos/object based sound adds to my listening experience.*


Absolutely. TBH, now that I have had Atmos and DSU for some months, and watched dozens of movies with both technologies, I have stopped 'listening' for overhead effects. I am now content just to be immersed in sound, with the extra precision that Atmos brings, and when there are overhead effects I enjoy them for what they are. The rest of the time I don't really 'notice' the overhead speakers, in much the same way that I don't really notice my surround speakers, unless a deliberate, discrete sound effect is placed there by the mixer. I just enjoy the extra immersion and overall more enjoyable experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I'll give a nod to the late lamented Sharon Tate in Roman Polanski's spoof The Fearless Vampire Killers.


I love that movie, also known as *Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck*  I rarely have disagreed with the late Roger Ebert's assessment of a movie, but I did for this one, and how. IIRC he gave it One Star - and seemed to have not quite grasped that it is not meant to be a serious movie. I find it has a haunting, almost mesmerising, quality that I love and all of the visual gimmicks from the era still hold up well IMO.

Here are some fabulous original posters from back in the day, when movie poster art actually was _art_.


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty damn good. There haven't been many "better" Dracula movies since. This has an amazing cast and Gary Oldman of course brings his A-game.





NorthSky said:


> It's awesome...and John Wick is in it.


Thanks, I put it on my "tracker" on blu-ray.com. The Amazon link doesn't seem to be working though?


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I love that movie, also known as *Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck*  I rarely have disagreed with the late Roger Ebert's assessment of a movie, but I did for this one, and how. IIRC he gave it One Star - and seemed to have not quite grasped that it is not meant to be a serious movie. I find it has a haunting, almost mesmerising, quality that I love and all of the visual gimmicks from the era still hold up well IMO.
> 
> Here are some fabulous original posters from back in the day, when movie poster art actually was _art_.


Thanks for sharing that delightful poster art, Keith. It sure does take me back (as a teenager I was madly in love with Sharon Tate). Coincidentally, I just replaced my defunct doorbell with a new wireless model which is set to ring the opening line from "Hey, Jude." Now I'm totally lost in nostalgia for the '60's!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks for sharing that delightful poster art, Keith. It sure does take me back (as a teenager I was madly in love with Sharon Tate).


She was very beautiful. Such tragic waste of human life. In fact, of two lives since she was pregnant at the time.



chi_guy50 said:


> Coincidentally, I just replaced my defunct doorbell with a new wireless model which is set to ring the opening line from "Hey, Jude." Now I'm totally lost in nostalgia for the '60's!


 I have a similar bell - it plays 52 different tunes. Currently it is set to the William Tell Overture, mainly because it drives my terrier into paroxysms of delight every time it rings. It is his favorite tune by far of the 52 available. I am surprised that a Beatles song has been licensed for a door bell - all of the songs on mine are in the public domain. I hope it isn't a bootleg bell  I am considering tapping the speaker on the bell so that I can send the signal to my router and then on to the HT to enjoy the tunes in gloriously upmixed Atmos sound.*

_
*That's not actually true but I am trying to mention Atmos so we are not rebuked yet again. _


----------



## pasender91

Well Keith, it would be much more interesting to have an Atmos door bell !


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> According to Dolby's guidelines (pdf April 2015), the "ideal" angles are:
> TF 45°
> TM 80°
> TR 135°


And if you were to replace the TF-TR for the FH-RH positions. What would then be the 'ideal' elevation angles for the FH and RH positions? I suppose 30 and 150 degrees (0+30+50+70+30=180)?

In such case you could subsequently skip the RH speakers, raise the rear surrounds with about 15 degrees, and probably hear no difference (0+30+50+85=165). 

In my specific case, having mains at 5 degrees elevation (perceptually, to bring the sound more on screen), I would then tilt the whole sound hemisphere with the same 5 degrees resulting in FH at 35 and TM at 85 (5+30+50+80=165).

With such a lay-out, the median spatial resolution decreases more or less linearly going from front to back, which may correspond to the difference in our ability to asses the direction/elevation of sound in front and behind us.


What do you think?


----------



## HT-Eman

What do you guys think of these aim-able tweeter in ceiling speakers from speakercraft for atmos . http://www.speakercraft.com/products/aim-series-2/aim-series-2 They said it was made for object-based surround sound . http://www.speakercraft.com/dwnld/SpeakerCraft_Datasheet_aim_series2_Rev_B_0114.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Well Keith, it would be much more interesting to have an Atmos door bell !


And with 52 tunes, it would be well ahead of Bluray releases in Atmos too


----------



## Scott Simonian

HT-Eman said:


> What do you guys think of these aim-able tweeter in ceiling speakers from speakercraft for atmos . http://www.speakercraft.com/products/aim-series-2/aim-series-2 *They said it was made for object-based surround sound *. http://www.speakercraft.com/dwnld/SpeakerCraft_Datasheet_aim_series2_Rev_B_0114.pdf


Yeah. I'm sure they would say that.


I once threw a pizza on the ceiling. Now it's good for objects and Atmos, I tell ya. 


Anyway... it's a speaker. It will work fine for Atmos or objects or whatever.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> ...it's a speaker. It will work fine for Atmos or objects or whatever.


Reminds me of when CDs first came out (before you were born), and products suddenly had the word "digital" in front (digital speakers, digital headphones, etc). Now they have to make it seem like they have special speakers that will be able to play back objects, not just channels.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a similar bell - it plays 52 different tunes. Currently it is set to the William Tell Overture, mainly because it drives my terrier into paroxysms of delight every time it rings. It is his favorite tune by far of the 52 available. I am surprised that a Beatles song has been licensed for a door bell - all of the songs on mine are in the public domain. *I hope it isn't a bootleg bell*


It's this one (also carries 52 different tunes): SadoTech Model CXRi













kbarnes701 said:


> I have a similar bell - it plays 52 different tunes. Currently it is set to the William Tell Overture, mainly because it drives my terrier into paroxysms of delight every time it rings. It is his favorite tune by far of the 52 available. I am surprised that a Beatles song has been licensed for a door bell - all of the songs on mine are in the public domain. I hope it isn't a bootleg bell  *I am considering tapping the speaker on the bell so that I can send the signal to my router and then on to the HT to enjoy the tunes in gloriously upmixed Atmos sound.**
> 
> _
> *That's not actually true but I am trying to mention Atmos so we are not rebuked yet again. _


*That's a great idea*--and not so far-fetched IMHO. I don't see why we can't envision making use of our immersive audio setups for all sorts of electronic household gizmos at some future point (imagine, instead of a *ding*, having a toaster or oven signal you via your favorite musical passage). After all, the trajectory of audio/video/computing has long veered toward synergy; as it is, there are programmable doorbells that allow the upload of MP3 files; why not take it to the next level (.m2ts) once the technology has advanced?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Reminds me of when CDs first came out (before you were born), and products suddenly had the word "digital" in front (digital speakers, digital headphones, etc). Now they have to make it seem like they have special speakers that will be able to play back objects, not just channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

My next doorbell will play the 'Amaze' Atmos trailer in full glory all throughout the house.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


>


It is 3D, but so are all the other toothpastes (just don't tell anybody).


----------



## Scott Simonian

I can't wait until general things start having 'Atmos' tacked onto them for cute-like. 

There is already an Atmos vaporizer. 

Once I've finished this Crest Pro White 3D toothpaste, I'll replace it with a tube of Colgate Atmos Pure Whitening toothpaste. Guaranteed to be expensive as s**t. But it's got objects, yo. Pure whitening objects!

When that does come out, everybody will be overthinking about where to put it.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> My next doorbell will play the 'Amaze' Atmos trailer in full glory all throughout the house.


You may have meant this tongue-in-cheek, but I would definitely spring for this capability!


----------



## Waboman

Picked up my Atmos _Insurgent_ BD at lunch, along with some Taco Bell. Sadly I won't be able to watch it until next week.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> There is already an Atmos vaporizer.


And Atmos weather app, Atmos back pack, Atmos energy (natural gas) utility, Atmos medical devices, Atmos "object-based" cloud storage (no joke), etc.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> And if you were to replace the TF-TR for the FH-RH positions. What would then be the 'ideal' elevation angles for the FH and RH positions? I suppose 30 and 150 degrees (0+30+50+70+30=180)?
> 
> In such case you could subsequently skip the RH speakers, raise the rear surrounds with about 15 degrees, and probably hear no difference (0+30+50+85=165).
> 
> In my specific case, having mains at 5 degrees elevation (perceptually, to bring the sound more on screen), I would then tilt the whole sound hemisphere with the same 5 degrees resulting in FH at 35 and TM at 85 (5+30+50+80=165).
> 
> With such a lay-out, the longitudinal spatial resolution decreases more or less linearly going from front to back, which may correspond to the difference in our ability to asses the direction/elevation of sound in front and behind us.
> 
> 
> What do you think?


Certainly possible. But it's clear when you read the Dolby Atmos Guidelines that the 3 Top pairs are more important to them than FH & RH. They consider FH & RH "additional". They also state that the Rear Surrounds are best @ "listener" height (120 cm, although in my couch, I am sitting lower).

Anyway, IMO, when you have 3 pairs of elevated speakers (with TM @ 80°), I think TF (or FH) should not be more up than 45°. About 40° seems best practice.

*Interpreting the Guidelines, I reason that from minimal Atmos 5.1.2 (with TM) you then should go to 7.1.4 (TF+TR), then to 9.1.6 (TF+TM+TR) before adding what Dolby calls the "additional" speakers, up to 24.1.10 (FH+TF+TM+TR+RH).*

BTW, to bad the Trinnov Altitude is so expensive... It could handle as many speakers as I ever wanted AND do the crossover duties for my tri-amped LCR!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> And Atmos weather app, Atmos back pack, Atmos energy (natural gas) utility, Atmos medical devices, Atmos "object-based" cloud storage (no joke), etc.



Dat image....


Made me  for a moment. Then I was like


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Dat image....


What, you've never seen a person sneeze so hard that they turned inside out? 

Anyway, seems Atmos is more common a name than I originally thought.


----------



## HT-Eman

Scott Simonian said:


> I can't wait until general things start having 'Atmos' tacked onto them for cute-like.
> 
> There is already an Atmos vaporizer.
> 
> Once I've finished this Crest Pro White 3D toothpaste, I'll replace it with a tube of Colgate Atmos Pure Whitening toothpaste. Guaranteed to be expensive as s**t. But it's got objects, yo. Pure whitening objects!
> 
> When that does come out, everybody will be overthinking about where to put it.


Hey , I was just trying to keep this thread on-topic instead of talking about old ass movies nobody cares about. Not that I want these speakers , but just giving a suggestion to others who may have not seen them. Some people are talking about movies without using atmos or dsu , door bells , food , and other things not related to the topic of this thread.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> What, you've never seen a person sneeze so hard that they turned inside out?


Well .... I don't talk about all these things. 



HT-Eman said:


> Hey , I was just trying to keep this thread on-topic instead of talking about old ass movies nobody cares about. Not that I want these speakers , but just giving a suggestion to others who may have not seen them. Some people are talking about movies without using atmos or dsu , door bells , food , and other things not related to the topic of this thread.



Take it easy, bud. It's called "a joke".


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> Hey , I was just trying to keep this thread on-topic instead of talking about old ass movies nobody cares about. Not that I want these speakers , but just giving a suggestion to others who may have not seen them. Some people are talking about movies without using atmos or dsu , door bells , food , and other things not related to the topic of this thread.


Yeah - it's not like any of the recent posters have ever contributed much Atmos-related information to this thread, or ever helped out with any serious questions is it?


----------



## HT-Eman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - it's not like any of the recent posters have ever contributed much Atmos-related information to this thread, or ever helped out with any serious questions is it?


Scott , Sanjay , yourself (kbarnes) , and many others have contributed much info to this thread . That contribution helped many with locations of speakers and different terminology regarding Atmos . We were and still are a growing community with immersive audio. Like I said in another post i've been with this thread from the beginning just like a lot of you guys here , and I can remember we were all " Atmos noobs " at one time. I just would like to continue learning about the topic of this thread , and when someone makes a post about anything atmos related it does not get turned into " a joke ".


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> Scott , Sanjay , yourself (kbarnes) , and many others have contributed much info to this thread . That contribution helped many with locations of speakers and different terminology regarding Atmos . We were and still are a growing community with immersive audio. Like I said in another post i've been with this thread from the beginning just like a lot of you guys here , and I can remember we were all " Atmos noobs " at one time. I just would like to continue learning about the topic of this thread , and when someone makes a post about anything atmos related it does not get turned into " a joke ".


Is that what you think is happening in this thread? That serious Atmos enquires are treated as jokes?


----------



## HT-Eman

Scott Simonian said:


> Well .... I don't talk about all these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it easy, bud. It's called "a joke".





kbarnes701 said:


> Is that what you think is happening in this thread? That serious Atmos enquires are treated as jokes?


The thread is fine when its " Atmos Related " . I was referring to my post being turned into a joke .


----------



## NorthSky

*'Dracula' from Francis Ford Coppola - with Gary Oldman as Dracule*



lujan said:


> Thanks, I put it on my "tracker" on blu-ray.com. The Amazon link doesn't seem to be working though?


Get the newest version though.  ...With Dolby Atmos...the flying vampire sucker.  
...Even his shadow plays tricks on you.  ...You'll see...and you'll like...I'm almost certain. 

* If well mixed in Atmos we should also hear his shadow above us and behind us even when not matching the on-screen action...very spooky indeed. 

Atmos has so much potential...sad that we are not there as we should, yet.


----------



## NorthSky

> And Atmos weather app, Atmos back pack, Atmos energy (natural gas) utility, Atmos medical devices, Atmos "object-based" cloud storage (no joke), etc.


What's that on the screen, a vagina with balls?


----------



## ultraflexed

Scott Simonian said:


> And the lower in frequency you go the more it becomes less directional and the sound waves themselves don't move light a flashlight but become omni-directional and simply wrap around the speaker unable to 'beam' to the ceiling. It just radiates. This is worse at frequencies irrelevant to these modules but it does happen in the 80-300hz region for sure. Above that and that energy can and will be reflected more easily as intended.


So what do you what db's and hz's do you recommend for best ceiling reflections for atmos: my ceiling is 8 feet, and I have the pioneer elite atmos enabled tower speakers 5.1.4 set up.

I hear the atmos/overhead speaker when activated in a scene just fine, I use the standard layout recommend by dolby but if there's a way to improve my overhead speaker reflection please tell?

Fyi: 007 skyfall, towards the end where he hides out at his old house and the helicopter circles the house looking for him is a demo for testing overhead sound


----------



## batpig

ultraflexed said:


> So what do you what db's and hz's do you recommend for best ceiling reflections for atmos: my ceiling is 8 feet, and I have the pioneer elite atmos enabled tower speakers.....thanks!


That question is somewhat incomprehensible, but the bottom line is you typically just let your receiver's auto calibration do its job. You will probably want a high crossover for the Atmos module portion of the speakers (150-200Hz).


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> *Interpreting the Guidelines, I reason that from minimal Atmos 5.1.2 (with TM) you then should go to 7.1.4 (TF+TR), then to 9.1.6 (TF+TM+TR) before adding what Dolby calls the "additional" speakers, up to 24.1.10 (FH+TF+TM+TR+RH).*


Did you by any chance check what the Trinnov manual has to say about optional / recommended / ideal positions when using 6 overheads?


----------



## sdurani

HT-Eman said:


> I was referring to my post .


I thought Scott already replied to your post about those Speakercraft speakers. Like he said, they'll be fine for an Atmos install. The pivoting drivers will be helpful for aiming towards the listening area.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> Did you by any chance check what the Trinnov manual has to say about optional or recommended positions when using 6 overheads?


I have never seen the manual. Maybe sdrucker can chime in since he has one. It's not a device you setup yourself, I believe setup and calibration are included.


----------



## NorthSky

> I thought Scott already replied to your post about those Speakercraft speakers. Like he said, they'll be fine for an Atmos install. The pivoting drivers will be helpful for aiming towards the listening area.


But the THX expert people recommend aiming them straight down. 

Anyway the key here is: EXPERIMENT. ...And lock them up (aiming direction) where they sound best in your room and from your own set of ears @ the MLP.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> What's that on the screen?


That's what happens when you live in the middle of nowhere that's all you see are V's and B's you need something to keep your mind from wondering.
You need to settle back pop in Insurgent and listen in Atmos.


----------



## blazar

bargervais said:


> NorthSky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that on the screen?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when you live in the middle of nowhere that's all you see are V's and B's you need something to keep your mind from wondering.
> You need to settle back pop in Insurgent and listen in Atmos.
Click to expand...

I didnt realize that insurgent was in atmos, just got it today...

My trinnov hasnt arrived yet, so I wonder if I should save all my atmos movies for when it arrives?


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> That's what happens when you live in the middle of nowhere that's all you see are V's and B's you need something to keep your mind from wondering.
> You need to settle back pop in Insurgent and listen in Atmos.


Lol, I live on an island of the Pacific ocean...near the tip (South) and few miles East. ...And I have no clue what the picture is exactly, and what the Dolby Atmos connection is...but it sure looks like what I described. ...Perhaps it's an internal human section viewed from a microscope...I just don't know...and it's all in Chinese when you search with google. 

* The Divergent Series are not my bag...Atmos or not. ...Same with The Hunger Games. ...And The Maze Runner. ...I'm more a X-Men man. 

Is cool man, was just honestly asking...even if the appearance did not seem to coincide. 

* Is Insurgent in 3D? ...Yes it is, but as a gimmick...an afterthought, a salable novelty more than real value...I think. 
But David did like some scenes with Atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> What's that on the screen, a vagina with balls?


Better to be heard than seen (just like ATMOS overheads): vocal cords.


----------



## lovingdvd

blazar said:


> I didnt realize that insurgent was in atmos, just got it today...
> 
> My trinnov hasnt arrived yet, so I wonder if I should save all my atmos movies for when it arrives?


Is that a trick question?  Please tell us more about your Trinnov and setup that its going into. Which model?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fun fact:

Trinnov owners love to inform you that they have or will have a Trinnov.

[/end transmission]
@sdrucker


----------



## DAK4

I just rented Insurgent for my RedBox and its NOT in Atmos. That makes me madder than a midget with a yo-yo. But actually it sounds really good and is utilizing all the speakers really well, so not a total loss.


----------



## aaranddeeman

DAK4 said:


> I just rented Insurgent for my RedBox and its NOT in Atmos. That makes me madder than a midget with a yo-yo. But actually it sounds really good and is utilizing all the speakers really well, so not a total loss.


You should have known that by now. But oh well. If it works then no complains..
Avoid renting Lions Gate and Summit from Redbox in future. They will be lossy.


----------



## DAK4

aaranddeeman said:


> You should have known that by now. But oh well. If it works then no complains..
> Avoid renting Lions Gate and Summit from Redbox in future. They will be lossy.


You are correct, I had a momentary lapse of reason. My bad.


----------



## blazar

Scott Simonian said:


> Fun fact:
> 
> Trinnov owners love to inform you that they have or will have a Trinnov.
> 
> [/end transmission]
> @sdrucker


haha yeah for sure... why else become a first adopter besides something to have a conversation about!


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Fun fact:
> 
> Trinnov owners love to inform you that they have or will have a Trinnov.
> 
> [/end transmission]
> @sdrucker


It took me a while to figure that one out, but I did.  

How about using two receivers, one with Dolby Atmos, and the other with Trinnov...Sherwood 972? 
Here's what you do... 

One day will come, we'll be all mostly dead, when Trinnov will be part of most Dolby Atmos receivers on the market...remapping objective approach. 
All the speakers will be created from any sound direction that the film director with his sound partner will have determine @ the time...and with extreme flexibility by the owner of the Trinnov Atmos decoder. ...To suit each movie listener within his own acoustical room's properties. ...And all adjustable for each movie. ...You might still be here yourself Scott. But many more AVS members won't.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Fun fact:
> 
> Trinnov owners love to inform you that they have or will have a Trinnov.
> 
> [/end transmission]
> @sdrucker


Yes, but now that I've got one, I'll be in a much better position to know how I can use it with Atmos once I actually am able to add height channels in my upcoming dedicated room. I'm really in a placeholder mode right now until we move into our bigger place at the end of this month and I can start doing this. 

In answer to Erwin's question, you do need professional assistance to use the Altitude with Atmos in my opinion, at least at first, to take proper advantage of the processor, and I'm certainly planning to do so. I'm learning to feel my way with the unit on the calibration side for a relatively simple 2D configuration at the moment, but even with Audyssey Pro and REW experience, I had the assistance of Curt to get me started based on measuring my current room. 

Having said that, in answer to what Trinnov recommends for the height channels for Atmos, the answer as I understand it is that "it depends". If you don't plan to use their remapping, the rules aren't any different for them than they are from anybody else AFAIK (e.g. as Curt mentioned about a week ago, there's the 10 possible height assumptions that follow the Dolby specs for what they represent). If you want the flexibility to switch between different layouts, such as those for Atmos and Auro, without having different configurations to follow their specs, or you want to compensate for room characteristics, that's where you want to use their remapping technology. And as you probably know, which height/horizontal plane locations or assumptions you use are extremely specific to the user's room and goals and are best addressed with professional assistance. Given my own limited experience right now, I'm not the best person to answer this further for a high channel count setting or an Atmos room at the moment.

Beyond that, I'd refer you to the Trinnov website for a general discussion of what makes the Altitude special for 3D audio:
http://www.trinnov.com/products/home-theater/altitude32/dolby-atmos-auro3d-dts-x/?lang=en_us


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> I just rented Insurgent for my RedBox and its NOT in Atmos. That makes me madder than a midget with a yo-yo. But actually it sounds really good and is utilizing all the speakers really well, so not a total loss.


Now just wait for the ones who will have it in Dolby Atmos but played from older Blu-ray players...like Oppo 95, 93 and 83 for example. 
It's a Lionsgate Films Blu-ray title; which means that the chance to get audio dropouts from them BR players and others is high. 
Let the game begin...from right now.


----------



## pletwals

http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1627398/0

There's an interesting build thread using the Trinnov and a lot of speakers in a double height living room for Atmos/Auro 3D. See link above. It's in dutch, but the pictures and drawings speak for themselves. Project not yet finished.


----------



## maikeldepotter

maikeldepotter said:


> Did you by any chance check what the Trinnov manual has to say about optional / recommended / ideal positions when using 6 overheads?


Another way of looking at this subject:

*The facts*
Below is a diagram displaying the recommended positions of the five possible overhead pairs (FH, TF, TM, TR, RH) according to a logical interpretation of Dolby's guidelines. The corresponding ideal elevation angles are respectively 30, 45, 80, 135 and 150 degrees elevation, again according to a logical interpretation of Dolby's guidelines.

*The question*
In trying to keep the best possible ATMOS sound for a one row set-up, which two pairs would you skip, leaving the others just where they are?

*The answer?*
I personally would remove the ones at 45 and 150 degrees (TF and RH). Because in this way you get a vertical spatial resolution that increases going from both back-to-front and from top-to-down, which corresponds to the way we hear. But I am sure many would not agree. Please explain why.


----------



## pletwals

sdrucker said:


> Beyond that, I'd refer you to the Trinnov website for a general discussion of what makes the Altitude special for 3D audio:
> http://www.trinnov.com/products/home-theater/altitude32/dolby-atmos-auro3d-dts-x/?lang=en_us


Exactly. With your 24-channel Altitude, you could set-up a 11.4.8 following the Atmos guidelines and the remapping feature of the Trinnov would be perfectly capable of reproducing an Auro-3D soundtrack. it would virtually create the Auro-3D positions of the speakers.

I am not the jealous type as far as material things go, but I envy you. Fantastic device, the Trinnov. Cannot imagine how complicated it must have been to engineer it!


----------



## pletwals

maikeldepotter said:


> Another way of looking at this subject:
> 
> *The facts*
> Below is a diagram displaying the recommended positions of the five possible overhead pairs (FH, TF, TM, TR, RH) according to a logical interpretation of Dolby's guidelines. The corresponding ideal elevation angles are respectively 30, 45, 80, 135 and 150 degrees elevation, again according to a logical interpretation of Dolby's guidelines.
> 
> *The question*
> In trying to keep the best possible ATMOS sound for a one row set-up, which two pairs would you skip, leaving the others just where they are?
> 
> *The answer?*
> I personally would remove the ones at 45 and 135 degrees (TF and TR). Because in this way you get a vertical spatial resolution that increases going from both back-to-front and from top-to-down, which corresponds to the way we hear. But I am sure many would not agree. Please explain why.


I will partly follow you: 
skip TF because I agree. From FH (up 30°) it's only 50° to TM
skip RH because it would otherwise be 70° between TM and RH. Skip RH and you have 55° from TM to TR and 45° from TR to Rear Surround.
So you have 30+50+55+45=180°.
Seems the best!

Only thing is, Dolby seems keen on TF+TM+TR rather than FH/RH


----------



## maikeldepotter

pletwals said:


> I will partly follow you:
> skip TF because I agree. From FH (up 30°) it's only 50° to TM
> skip RH because it would otherwise be 70° between TM and RH. Skip RH and you have 55° from TM to TR and 45° from TR to Rear Surround.
> So you have 30+50+55+45=180°.
> Seems the best!


I agree and have edited my post accordingly.



> Only thing is, Dolby seems keen on TF+TM+TR rather than FH/RH


And what could be the common sense behind that preference?


----------



## pletwals

maikeldepotter said:


> And what could be the common sense behind that preference?


FH and RH are meant to be put high against the wall, as your diagram indicates. This way, I presume the FH is enhancing the dept of the soundstage, while there will be better vertical elevation with the Top speakers. This way these could co-exist in a big system with (FH+TF+TM+TR and/or RH). Just my opinion. Same goes for TR against RH. TR = higher, RH = deeper rather than higher.

There aren't even so-called Height speakers in the theatrical guidelines of Atmos. Just Top speakers the whole way hanging from the ceiling, none high up on the front wall. 

And another thing in those theatrical guidelines contradicting the hometheater: the Top speakers are designed in line with the additional (optional) screen speakers, NOT in line with the Left & Right speaker! See diagram on p13:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professi...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf

I would let the choice between FH and TF also depend on the type of the LCR speakers. If these are compact and positioned next and below a flatscreen I'd say enhance the front stage with FH above L+R. But if the LCR (or only L+R) are very big towers, hence do not benefit from further enhancing the soundstage with additional speakers, then you should stick with TF, not FH.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pletwals said:


> FH and RH are meant to be put high against the wall, as your diagram indicates. This way, I presume the FH is enhancing the dept of the soundstage, while there will be better vertical elevation with the Top speakers. This way these could co-exist in a big system with (FH+TF+TM+TR and/or RH). Just my opinion. Same goes for TR against RH. TR = higher, RH = deeper rather than higher.


Right. But from our theoretical exercise we just found out that also in a small (one row) ATMOS set-up, this so-called 'depth' and 'height' enhancement can co-exist, at least for the most important front half of the 3D sound hemisphere. This corresponds also to the real listening experiments reported in this thread which in majority favor FH-TM over TF-TR.



> There aren't even so-called Height speakers in the theatrical guidelines of Atmos. Just Top speakers the whole way hanging from the ceiling, none high up on the front wall.


Yes. But the first Top speakers in a theater show equal (or even lower) elevation angles than the so-called height speakers at home. Their effect will thus be more or less the same.



> And another thing in those theatrical guidelines contradicting the hometheater: the Top speakers are designed in line with the additional (optional) screen speakers, NOT in line with the Left & Right speaker! See diagram on p13:
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professi...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf


That is indeed the 'other thing' that has already brought up some discussion on this forum: the ideal lateral elevation angle of the overhead speaker arrays. Following Dolby's guidelines this varies with different screen width / ceiling height ratios. A bit hard to swallow for some of us (like me). For some reason 55 degrees lateral elevation (70 degrees spread between overhead arrays) seems to me a good guess of what the object renderer may calculate with.


----------



## pletwals

maikeldepotter said:


> Right. But from our theoretical exercise we just found out that also in a small (one row) ATMOS set-up, this so-called 'depth' and 'height' enhancement can co-exist, at least for the most important front half of the 3D sound hemisphere. This corresponds also to the real listening experiments reported in this thread which in majority favor FH-TM over TF-TR.


I know. Pity one cannot select TF+TM in the current consumer devices. Would be interesting to compare.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pletwals said:


> I know. Pity one cannot select TF+TM in the current consumer devices. Would be interesting to compare.


But you cán compare FH at 30 with FH at 45 degrees (both with TM at 80 degrees). Since the sound send to either FH or TF is reported to be rather indistinguishable, this would give similar results. Do not know if anyone tried that yet.


----------



## smurraybhm

pletwals said:


> I know. Pity one cannot select TF+TM in the current consumer devices. Would be interesting to compare.


Select FH and TM and you will be hearing what TF and TM would sound like 
It's not that much different up there (not discernible) between the two speaker positions you select or can't select. Keith went through this early in the thread and I played with it when I went from 2 to 4 up top. The pity is we can't have 6 speakers or use wides with DSU, if that was doable there would be a lot of happy campers. Then there is speaker mapping.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ....... The Divergent Series are not my bag...Atmos or not. ...Same with The Hunger Games. ...And The Maze Runner. ...I'm more a X-Men man.


Same here I watched Divergent last night what a sleeper and annoying actress! Glad it was a rental

I think teen age girls love it


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Same here I watched Divergent last night what a sleeper and annoying actress! Glad it was a rental
> 
> *I think teen age girls love it*


Lots of them around here @ AVS. ;-) :-D


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> Same here I watched Divergent last night what a sleeper and annoying actress! Glad it was a rental
> 
> I think teen age girls love it


LOL I wish these actresses would learn how to run, they need to put in stunt doubles in these movies when an actress runs this awkwardly.


----------



## Waboman

wse said:


> Same here I watched Divergent last night what a sleeper and annoying actress! Glad it was a rental


Did Lionsgate cripple the rental or give it the full Atmos love?


----------



## bargervais

Waboman said:


> Did Lionsgate cripple the rental or give it the full Atmos love?


Crippled no Atmos on red box rental


----------



## Waboman

bargervais said:


> Crippled no Atmos on red box rental


That's a bummer. Was hoping they abandoned their crippling of rental discs after they released a non crippled _Ex Machina_ rental.


----------



## SoundChex

_Just when you thought you had a complete list of audio codecs for which your AVR must provide a decoder..._    


Excerpt from an August 4, 2015, article in *TVTechnology* (_link_): 


> *Dolby and Top Victory Bring Dolby AC-4 to Market
> Targets 2017 for availability in consumer TVs
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO* – Dolby Laboratories has announced a collaboration with Hong Kong-based Top Victory Investments to promote *Dolby’s AC-4 audio format standard* in its affiliate TP Vision’s TVs for next-generation broadcast systems and streaming Internet content. Dolby AC-4 is available now for product development, but *a target date of 2017 has been set for it to be available for consumer TVs.*





_


----------



## NorthSky

What I would like to know is who watched *Insurgent* on Blu-ray that they purchased and from an Oppo BR player model 95, 93, or 83? 
Did you get audio dropouts from the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack when decoded by your Dolby Atmos AV receiver or pre/pro?

* In the Oppo BR player: HDMI Audio Out ---> set to Bitstream, of course. ...The only way to get Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> _Just when you thought you had a complete list of audio codecs for which your AVR must provide a decoder..._
> 
> 
> Excerpt from an August 4, 2015, article in *TVTechnology* (_link_):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


And I doubt any consumer product (outside of a Trinnov or other high ticket pre-amp) will be firmware upgradeable to AC-4. Nope. Gotta buy a whole new receiver or processor. 

Jesus, it's getting to be as bad as computers!!!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> And I doubt any consumer product (outside of a Trinnov or other high ticket pre-amp) will be firmware upgradeable to AC-4. Nope. Gotta buy a whole new receiver or processor.
> 
> Jesus, it's getting to be as bad as computers!!!


I would say it is about time for the introduction of decoder boxes outputting high rate multi-channel PCM to your AVR/processor. Any change of such developments?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> I would say it is about time for the introduction of decoder boxes outputting high rate multi-channel PCM to your AVR/processor. Any change of such developments?


Not with the move to immersive object based audio. Too many speaker/sub output variables. Raw audio bitstreaming is easier and the processor's renderer decides how it will recreate the soundtrack based on the capabilities of the unit rather than the other way around.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not with the move to immersive object based audio. Too many speaker/sub output variables. Raw audio bitstreaming is easier and the processor's renderer decides how it will recreate the soundtrack based on the capabilities of the unit rather than the other way around.


I understand. Will only work for pure channel-based content. 

Other option would be to start introducing consumer AVRs/processors with powerfull (HTPC) computer power and upgrade flexibility. I bet there is market for any hardware supplier that would dare to go that way. Oppo maybe?


----------



## nucky

NorthSky said:


> What I would like to know is who watched *Insurgent* on Blu-ray that they purchased and from an Oppo BR player model 95, 93, or 83?
> Did you get audio dropouts from the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack when decoded by your Dolby Atmos AV receiver or pre/pro?
> 
> * In the Oppo BR player: HDMI Audio Out ---> set to Bitstream, of course. ...The only way to get Dolby Atmos.


I've got the oppo 93 and don't have any dropouts with Atmos discs.


----------



## kbarnes701

nucky said:


> I've got the oppo 93 and don't have any dropouts with Atmos discs.


Audio dropouts with the last generation of Oppo players are usually due to overly complex seamless branching on the disc and have nothing to do with Atmos which is just delivered in the TrueHD bitstream. Several discs are known to be affected (eg Total Recall 2012). Normally, the workaround is to switch the player to PCM for the problem movie, but of course this isn’t a solution for an Atmos movie since this requires the bitstream output.

Oppo have confirmed that this is a hardware problem and it cannot be resolved with a FW update unfortunately. The only solution, if it is an Atmos disc which is affected, is to replace the Oppo with a current generation model (eg 103) or buy a cheap player which doesn't exhibit the problem (eg a cheap Sony like my own BDP-S470 bought secondhand for about 50 bucks) and use that for the problem discs. 

It is unfortunate that a high quality player like the Oppo 83/93 has this issue but I guess it was designed before studios decided to use overly complex seamless branching as a form of copy protection (which, of course, doesn't actually work but still inconveniences paying customers).


----------



## wesslan1

But from I know 103 also had a lot of audioproblems with Total Recall and other trouble discs. I own one. Don't think it's all resolved or?


----------



## kbarnes701

wesslan1 said:


> But from I know 103 also had a lot of audioproblems with Total Recall and other trouble discs. I own one. Don't think it's all resolved or?


My 103 plays Total Recall 2012 and the other problem discs I had, perfectly.


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> I understand. Will only work for pure channel-based content.
> 
> Other option would be to start introducing consumer *AVRs/processors with powerfull (HTPC) computer power and upgrade flexibility*. I bet there is market for any hardware supplier that would dare to go that way. Oppo maybe?


Well, what you just described as a "dream AVR" is already existing, it is the "very cheap"  Trinnov Altitude


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Well, what you just described as a "dream AVR" is already existing, it is the "very cheap"  Trinnov Altitude


Yes. I forgot to add 'reasonably priced'...


----------



## lujan

Waboman said:


> That's a bummer. Was hoping they abandoned their crippling of rental discs after they released a non crippled _Ex Machina_ rental.


I actually enjoyed Insurgent much more than Ex Machina. I bought Ex Machina and Insurgent as blind buys and regret buying Ex Machina. It got so many good reviews but I thought it was quite boring.


----------



## digitlman

I just got an AV7702 and am adding 4 Cheap Atmos speakers into my ceiling. 

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audi...ms/inwall-inceiling-speakers/ns-iw280c_white/

with the dual tweeter design of this model are there any thoughts as to the rotation orientation for them? Will it matter which direction they are in a 4 ceiling setup?

Thanks


----------



## smurraybhm

digitlman said:


> I just got an AV7702 and am adding 4 Cheap Atmos speakers into my ceiling.
> 
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audi...ms/inwall-inceiling-speakers/ns-iw280c_white/
> 
> with the dual tweeter design of this model are there any thoughts as to the rotation orientation for them? Will it matter which direction they are in a 4 ceiling setup?
> 
> Thanks


I would aim them towards the MLP or primary listening positions. If possible try them aiming down and towards the primary listening position(s). I prefer mine aimed at the MLP, others have like them aimed straight down. If doing the later make sure those speakers have a wide dispersion pattern. Not familiar with the Yamaha's.


----------



## Scarriere

digitlman said:


> I just got an AV7702 and am adding 4 Cheap Atmos speakers into my ceiling.
> 
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audi...ms/inwall-inceiling-speakers/ns-iw280c_white/
> 
> with the dual tweeter design of this model are there any thoughts as to the rotation orientation for them? Will it matter which direction they are in a 4 ceiling setup?
> 
> Thanks


Those look pretty good!
It says is is "tilted woofer design". I'd aim the woofer towards the MLP just like smurraybhm said.



smurraybhm said:


> I would aim them towards the MLP or primary listening positions. If possible try them aiming down and towards the primary listening position(s). I prefer mine aimed at the MLP, others have like them aimed straight down. If doing the later make sure those speakers have a wide dispersion pattern. Not familiar with the Yamaha's.


----------



## digitlman

Thanks, I will aim the woofer a little towards the MLP. However my question is about the orientation of the speaker. In that the tweeters are side by side I am wondering if they should run parallel to the side walls or parallel to the front walls? Or will it even be noticeable?


----------



## Contuzzi

So what's the consensus on using front and rear HEIGHT channels (on the walls 7ft~ up above front and rear channels) angled down a bit for Atmos?


----------



## westmd

I found by chance the link for a DolbyAtmos sound studio in Vienna.

http://www.thegrandpost.com/projekte/2015_05_02_brothers_of_the_wind

Apparantly both projects they are working on with Atmos will be mastered both for cinemas as well as for BluRay in Atmos!


----------



## Movie78

digitlman said:


> I just got an AV7702 and am adding 4 Cheap Atmos speakers into my ceiling.
> 
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audi...ms/inwall-inceiling-speakers/ns-iw280c_white/
> 
> with the dual tweeter design of this model are there any thoughts as to the rotation orientation for them? Will it matter which direction they are in a 4 ceiling setup?
> 
> Thanks


That is the same speakers i am using for my Atmos


----------



## digitlman

Cool, how do you like them? I see you ran the tweeters parallel to the front wall. I will be cutting the holes out for mine tonight.


----------



## Movie78

digitlman said:


> Cool, how do you like them? I see you ran the tweeters parallel to the front wall. I will be cutting the holes out for mine tonight.


They work very good.

My AVR isn't good enough, with your system,it should provide a better performance with those speakers .


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> I've got the oppo 93 and don't have any dropouts with Atmos discs.


Do you have John Wick?

And do you have a Dolby Atmos AV receiver (or pre/pro)?


----------



## NorthSky

wesslan1 said:


> But from I know 103 also had a lot of audio problems with Total Recall and other trouble discs. I own one. Don't think it's all resolved or?





K said:


> My 103 plays Total Recall 2012 and the other problem discs I had, perfectly.


Sony recalled that BR title. 

* My Oppo 103 has audio problems with 'Total Recall' ...the first version. ...I have to select LPCM for the HDMI Audio Out. 

___________

♦ Try 'Insurgent' with an Oppo 93. ...For the Dolby Atmos audio. ...Good luck.


----------



## nucky

NorthSky said:


> Do you have John Wick?
> 
> And do you have a Dolby Atmos AV receiver (or pre/pro)?


Yes I have them all, and they all work fine. No problem with my oppo 93. It is in my signature.


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Yes I have them all, and they all work fine. No problem with my oppo 93. It is in my signature.


You must be lucky then ... https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

* I can give you several more links but that one should suffice.

And: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs --> And keep reading from that spot.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

nucky said:


> Yes I have them all, and they all work fine. No problem with my oppo 93. It is in my signature.



And you're bitstreaming? You'd be the first person with no problems with Lionsgate Atmos titles that I've seen. John Wick has pretty constant audio dropouts on my 93.


----------



## Josh Z

nucky said:


> Yes I have them all, and they all work fine. No problem with my oppo 93. It is in my signature.


And you're sure you're transmitting the full Atmos soundtrack by Bitstream, not PCM (which downconverts it to 7.1)?

The OPPO BDP-93 *does* suffer audio dropouts on Atmos titles authored with seamless branching, including Expendables 3, Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1, John Wick, and now Insurgent. 

This isn't something that varies from unit to unit. It's a hardware limitation that affects all BDP-93s across the board. It has been confirmed and acknowledged by OPPO Digital. 

The audio dropouts will go away if you switch to PCM output from the Blu-ray player, but you lose the ability to transmit Atmos.

The BDP-103, BDP-103D, BDP-105 and BDP-105D do not have this issue.


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> And you're sure you're transmitting the full Atmos soundtrack by Bitstream, not PCM (which downconverts it to 7.1)?
> The OPPO BDP-93 *does* suffer audio dropouts on Atmos titles authored with seamless branching, including Expendables 3, Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1, John Wick, and now Insurgent.
> This isn't something that varies from unit to unit. It's a hardware limitation that affects all BDP-93s across the board. It has been confirmed and acknowledged by OPPO Digital.
> The audio dropouts will go away if you switch to PCM output from the Blu-ray player, but you lose the ability to transmit Atmos.
> *The BDP-103, BDP-103D, BDP-105 and BDP-105D do not have this issue.*


If they have the latest firmware update.


----------



## scarabaeus

The BDP-93 over at High-Def Digest had the audio dropout issue, and they gave the disc 3 stars for audio because of that.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/21341/insurgent3d.html

Way to rate their outdated hardware, but not the disc.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

scarabaeus said:


> The BDP-93 over at High-Def Digest had the audio dropout issue, and they gave the disc 3 stars for audio because of that.
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/21341/insurgent3d.html
> 
> Way to rate their outdated hardware, but not the disc.




In fairness, this copy protection is affecting consumers more than pirates... So I hope they give bad reviews to every disc that doesn't play well on high-end players like the BDP-93 because of it. Lionsgate needs to stop using that nonsense. Pirates are barely slowed by it, whereas paying customers with otherwise great players are inconvenienced by not being able to bitstream those discs. I shouldn't have to get another Blu-ray player to play these discs with the Atmos tracks intact... And yet, here we are.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In fairness, this copy protection is affecting consumers more than pirates... So I hope they give bad reviews to every disc that doesn't play well on high-end players like the BDP-93 because of it. Lionsgate needs to stop using that nonsense. Pirates are barely slowed by it, whereas paying customers with otherwise great players are inconvenienced by not being able to bitstream those discs. I shouldn't have to get another Blu-ray player to play these discs with the Atmos tracks intact... And yet, here we are.


You shouldn't have to, but that's how it is. The Oppo 83/93 won't be 'fixed' to cure this problem, so you can ***** about it and not watch these movies in Atmos, or spend 50 bucks on a backup player for the occasional movie that is affected.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> You shouldn't have to, but that's how it is. The Oppo 83/93 won't be 'fixed' to cure this problem, so you can ***** about it and not watch these movies in Atmos, or spend 50 bucks on a backup player for the occasional movie that is affected.


The point remains that giving a disc a bad review as a result of using this form of useless copy protection is perfectly valid. It isn't reviewing "their outdated hardware" as scarabaeus says... It's reviewing the performance of the disc on what is a fairly common BD player (and on their HTPC, using several programs) amongst those who read those review sites. There is legitimately no reason for Lionsgate to continue authoring discs that way. The rips of them are coming out just as fast, so it is serving absolutely no purpose other than to inconvenience those who might otherwise have bought the product. I would have double the Atmos titles in my collection if it weren't for Lionsgate using that branching as a form of copy protection.

Not arguing that one can't just go get a $50 backup player... but am arguing that the practice causing me to have a THIRD Blu-ray player in my rack (after a $500 BDP-93 and $500 Xbox One) just so I can play the Atmos track on Lionsgate titles isn't actually slowing piracy at all, and a review should definitely rate accordingly if Lionsgate chooses to keep inconveniencing the end user in this way. Where's the problem with that?


----------



## nucky

Josh Z said:


> And you're sure you're transmitting the full Atmos soundtrack by Bitstream, not PCM (which downconverts it to 7.1)?
> 
> The OPPO BDP-93 *does* suffer audio dropouts on Atmos titles authored with seamless branching, including Expendables 3, Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1, John Wick, and now Insurgent.
> 
> This isn't something that varies from unit to unit. It's a hardware limitation that affects all BDP-93s across the board. It has been confirmed and acknowledged by OPPO Digital.
> 
> The audio dropouts will go away if you switch to PCM output from the Blu-ray player, but you lose the ability to transmit Atmos.
> 
> The BDP-103, BDP-103D, BDP-105 and BDP-105D do not have this issue.


Why would I use PCM, yes It is Bitstream. That is the only way to get atmos. My player is multi region if that makes a difference or not.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> The BDP-93 over at High-Def Digest had the audio dropout issue, and they gave the disc 3 stars for audio because of that.
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/21341/insurgent3d.html
> 
> Way to rate their outdated hardware, but not the disc.


Totally unfair...seems to me a way to express a vendetta...misplaced too...totally unjustified.
The Oppo 93 is @ fault here, ...Lionsgate they just try to protect their assets. ...Besides, many older BR players can correctly play the Dolby Atmos audio.


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Why would I use PCM, yes It is Bitstream. That is the only way to get amos.
> *My player is multi region if that makes a difference or not.*


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's why.


----------



## Josh Z

NorthSky said:


> If they have the latest firmware update.


It is not a firmware issue. It's a hardware issue. The BDP-103, BDP-105 and their "D" variants have never had this dropout problem.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Good to know.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> Totally unfair...seems to me a way to express a vendetta...misplaced too...totally unjustified.
> The Oppo 93 is @ fault here, ...Lionsgate they just try to protect their assets. ...Besides, many older BR players can correctly play the Dolby Atmos audio.


They also tried playing it on a HTPC using several programs, so it wasn't just the BDP-93. I get the argument that Lionsgate just try to protect their assets... but here's a question: If you put out a copy protection scheme that was IMMEDIATELY broken, protecting your content in absolutely ZERO ways - but affecting some of your legitimate customers in a negative way - would you keep using it over and over again with future titles? You can get rips of every single one of Lionsgate's Atmos titles with the audio intact before the discs even hit the stores. John Wick... Mockingjay... even Insurgent... All of them showed up in the pirate scene with their Atmos tracks intact. So pirates are essentially less inconvenienced than people who might actually buy the disc.


----------



## Josh Z

nucky said:


> Why would I use PCM, yes It is Bitstream. That is the only way to get amos. My player is multi region if that makes a difference or not.


No, the multi-region mod does not make a difference. I had that mod in my BDP-93, and it still had crazy audio dropouts on those discs (and others with seamless branching, such as Star Trek into Darkness - Compendium edition). 

No offense to you, but what you're saying is impossible. I suggest that you recheck those discs, and try to watch a whole movie through (not just selected scenes, because the dropouts are random and unrepeatable).


----------



## nucky

Josh Z said:


> It is not a firmware issue. It's a hardware issue. The BDP-103, BDP-105 and their "D" variants have never had this dropout problem.


Neither does my 93?


----------



## Josh Z

nucky said:


> Neither does my 93?


I think you'll find otherwise if you watch one of those titles mentioned again.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

nucky said:


> Why would I use PCM, yes It is Bitstream. That is the only way to get atmos. My player is multi region if that makes a difference or not.


So are you using Region 1 discs then? If so, I'm curious what multi-region hardware you're using. If not, what Region discs are they?


----------



## nucky

Josh Z said:


> I think you'll find otherwise if you watch one of those titles mentioned again.


I have watched all of the titles two to three times, I would know if they where dropouts. And they are none.


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> It is not a firmware issue. It's a hardware issue. The BDP-103, BDP-105 and their "D" variants have never had this dropout problem.


I believe that they do have audio issues, and the latest firmware update is a secured bet. ...A 100% guarantee that all your Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles from Lionsgate Films will all play correctly the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (five BR titles all together so far from that Studios). 

And I know what you mean by hardware issue from the 83, 93 and 95. ...But it's not a justifiable reason to penalize the audio quality of them Lionsgate BR titles with Atmos audio...when most older and newer BR players all play them correctly...right?
It is the Oppo 83, 93 and 95 that have a hardware issue...just like you just said yourself in your above quote...right?


----------



## Josh Z

nucky said:


> I have watched all of the titles two to three times, I would know if they where dropouts. And they are none.


I guess you have a magic BDP-93, then. Pretty lucky, that.


----------



## Josh Z

NorthSky said:


> I believe that they do have audio issues, and the latest firmware update is a secured bet. ...A 100% guarantee that all your Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles from Lionsgate Films will all play correctly the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (five BR titles all together so far from that Studios).


It's not a firmware issue, Bob. It was never a firmware issue. Firmware has nothing to do with it. Please stop saying it's somehow connected to firmware. You're just cluttering the thread and misinforming others. It is not helpful.



> And I know what you mean by hardware issue from the 83, 93 and 95. ...But it's not a justifiable reason to penalize the audio quality of them Lionsgate BR titles with Atmos audio...when most older and newer BR players all play them correctly...right?


I did not write that review. The person who did obviously feels differently than you do.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> They also tried playing it on a HTPC using several programs, so it wasn't just the BDP-93. I get the argument that Lionsgate just try to protect their assets... but here's a question: If you put out a copy protection scheme that was IMMEDIATELY broken, protecting your content in absolutely ZERO ways - but affecting some of your legitimate customers in a negative way - would you keep using it over and over again with future titles? You can get rips of every single one of Lionsgate's Atmos titles with the audio intact before the discs even hit the stores. John Wick... Mockingjay... even Insurgent... All of them showed up in the pirate scene with their Atmos tracks intact. So pirates are essentially less inconvenienced than people who might actually buy the disc.


Your point is also valid, Jeremy. And I also blame Lionsgate Films for this malpractice. ...And more, like their BR rentals with inferior lossy audio. 
...Bad bad bad Lionsgate...you deserve a good boot in the butt. ...A good spanking while crying to your mama. ...Get your act together, or stay home.


----------



## Jish9

Both the Oppo 103 and 105 have intermittent issued with Dolby True HD/ Atmos if they are being streamed and not from the original disc. I have talked with Oppo about this and they are of the mindset that as long as the disc works then not a problem. Wonder what they will say when they stop making disks?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*Which elevation is best with 6 Top speakers*

Erwin's Atmos 9.2.6 scheme

Folks, I am again tweaking the design of my hometheater. Most of the ceiling absorption baffles are ready, but in order to finish the last 6 elements, I need to decide where exactly the future 6 Atmos Top speakers wil end up. I made adjustments in the attached floor plan and drew both possible layouts. Should I go with the left side design, or the right side? Both are within spec. Right side more than left side, but left side kinda feels slightly better since it's more front oriented, the Top speakers are a bit further apart, towards the front. It also seems more balanced, more symmetrical in the hemisphere. Also considering the listener level speakers.

TR: 135-136° no discussion there, they cannot go further back.
Right side option TM & TF @ 86° & 37.5°
Left side option TM & TF @ 75° & 32°

Opinions?


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> It's not a firmware issue, Bob. It was never a firmware issue. Firmware has nothing to do with it. Please stop saying it's somehow connected to firmware. *You're just cluttering the thread and misinforming others. It is not helpful.*
> 
> I did not write that review. The person who did obviously feels differently than you do.


Josh, my memory might not be that exactly perfect here in this specific instance. I remember an AVS fellow member having an audio issue with his Oppo 103, and he wasn't on the latest firmware update...but I believe that after he did...his audio issue was resolved. ...I could do a search as I am almost certain of that, ...what I am less certain though is if it was Dolby Atmos related from one of them Lionsgate BR title with Dolby Atmos audio.

Two, why are you saying "Please stop saying..." ... this is the first time I mentioned this since a long while and I just explained now.
Take a deep breath, relax, and we're all going to live forever.  

* I don't care who write the review...you are part of that team...you are as much responsible...in my book. 
And when writing a review, any review...movie, audio gear, ...you leave your prejudices and biases home where they belong, and not on the public arena.
...Right? ...That's what separates true professional audio/BR movie writer/reviewers from amateurs with biases. ...But even some pros have biases too, and it's good to stay away from them reviews. ...Right; I'm sure you do agree.


----------



## batpig

Contuzzi said:


> So what's the consensus on using front and rear HEIGHT channels (on the walls 7ft~ up above front and rear channels) angled down a bit for Atmos?


It will sound good. But you won't get the sensation of sounds really being OVER your head as much with such a low elevation angle.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Erwin's Atmos 9.2.6 scheme
> 
> Folks, I am again tweaking the design of my hometheater. Most of the ceiling absorption baffles are ready, but in order to finish the last 6 elements, I need to decide where exactly the future 6 Atmos Top speakers wil end up. I made adjustments in the attached floor plan and drew both possible layouts. Should I go with the left side design, or the right side? Both are within spec. Right side more than left side, but left side kinda feels slightly better since it's more front oriented, the Top speakers are a bit further apart, towards the front. It also seems more balanced, more symmetrical in the hemisphere. Also considering the listener level speakers.
> 
> TR: 135-136° no discussion there, they cannot go further back.
> Right side option TM & TF @ 86° & 37.5°
> Left side option TM & TF @ 75° & 32°
> 
> Opinions?


Erwin,

1. TF = approx. 45°
2. TM = approx. 90°
3. TR = approx. 135°

As for Left Side and Right side ... in line with your two front main flankers (Main Front Left and Right Floor loudspeakers).

 ...It is flexible (approx.) ... my opinion.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I need to decide where exactly the future 6 Atmos Top speakers wil end up.


I would do them at roughly 45°, 90°, 135°. What receiver or pre-amp are you using to feed the 6 height speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

Josh Z said:


> No, the multi-region mod does not make a difference. I had that mod in my BDP-93, and it still had crazy audio dropouts on those discs (and others with seamless branching, such as Star Trek into Darkness - Compendium edition).
> 
> No offense to you, but what you're saying is impossible. I suggest that you recheck those discs, and try to watch a whole movie through (not just selected scenes, because the dropouts are random and unrepeatable).


I believe you Josh. Then the other member (*nucky*) has an audio issue that he isn't aware of just yet, I guess.


----------



## scarabaeus

Josh Z said:


> It is not a firmware issue. It's a hardware issue. The BDP-103, BDP-105 and their "D" variants have never had this dropout problem.


Well, it is a firmware issue, but not of the Oppo firmware. It's the MediaTek firmware of the decoder chip. Oppo does not have access to make changes there, and MediaTek does not care to revisit their old chips.


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> I have watched all of the titles two to three times, I would know if they where dropouts. And they are none.


Ok, I believe you too.  /// Then you and Josh are using different variables (or criteria) to describe your own experience. 
...Whether your BR discs come from the same plant or not, or that your modified 93 (multi-region) players come from the same outfit or not; 
something is definitely not fully known so far. ...And I should admit this @ this point: This is the very first time ever I came across this peculiarity, where everything is fine with Lionsgate Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles played by an Oppo BDP-93 BR player, and decoded by a Dolby Atmos receiver, when in the Oppo 93 BR player the HDMI Audio Out is set to "Bitstream" and that on the BR disc itself the audio soundtrack selected is the Dolby Atmos one, and that there isn't a single audio dropout coming out from your speakers through your Dolby Atmos AV receiver...with them all five BR titles.

Right now, I don't fully understand...what I do more understand is Josh's side of the already known audio issue.
The other side, yours *nucky*, is a miracle to me @ this point...simply a miracle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> I would do them at roughly 45°, 90°, 135°. What receiver or pre-amp are you using to feed the 6 height speakers?


Agreed.

Sanjay, I don't think Erwin has the processing for this full system but he does want to prepare for a full 9.1.6 configuration. Regardless of current decoding, I mean.


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Erwin's Atmos 9.2.6 scheme
> 
> Folks, I am again tweaking the design of my hometheater. Most of the ceiling absorption baffles are ready, but in order to finish the last 6 elements, I need to decide where exactly the future 6 Atmos Top speakers wil end up. I made adjustments in the attached floor plan and drew both possible layouts. Should I go with the left side design, or the right side? Both are within spec. Right side more than left side, but left side kinda feels slightly better since it's more front oriented, the Top speakers are a bit further apart, towards the front. It also seems more balanced, more symmetrical in the hemisphere. Also considering the listener level speakers.
> 
> TR: 135-136° no discussion there, they cannot go further back.
> Right side option TM & TF @ 86° & 37.5°
> Left side option TM & TF @ 75° & 32°
> 
> Opinions?


I would go for the left side option. Since it is closest to the 'ideal' elevation angles of 30 and 80 degrees of IMO probably the most effective combination for the front part of the sound hemisphere: TM with FH.


----------



## NorthSky

Jish9 said:


> Both the Oppo 103 and 105 have intermittent issued with Dolby True HD/ Atmos if they are being streamed and not from the original disc. I have talked with Oppo about this and they are of the mindset that as long as the disc works then not a problem. Wonder what they will say when they stop making disks?


I did not know that...yet. But I do know other audio issues though. ...With the 103, 105, 103D and 105D. 
And I also know that if you don't have the latest firmware update in those four BR model players...you will have more audio issues than you bargain for. 

And I know first hand because I do have the 103 and I also read extensively about it...and much much more. 

* Josh said to me that I am "cluttering this thread and misinforming others. It is not helpful." But Josh doesn't know EVERYTHING. 
...And me neither...I am searching for what I explained to him...it wasn't a dream...that fellow AVS member needed a firmware update on his Oppo BDP-103 BR player to resolve his audio issue. It was the right suggestion that I gave him, and other members took good advice from it. 

I used to post more, much much less now and people seems to be more happy. No problem...and happy we all want to be. 
Some days we are more humorous, other days more technical, and looking for solutions to issues. 
I always have the greatest respect for people who respect others as they respect themselves. 

Be patient Mr. Joshua Zyber...the sky is not falling yet from over your head. ...Let me find that link in regard to what we specifically discussed, and before making any personal comment that I find negative. ...In all due respect.


----------



## NorthSky

*Oppo 103-105 | Lip sync (Audio) issue with Lionsgate Dolby Atmos BR | Old firmware |*

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/32878497/
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/31698721/
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/31783633/
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/31785025/
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/31703049/
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/31708177/
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/32220513/

There is no absolute fact, but only from the people who have experienced it themselves. ...The latest firmware update, in all BR players, even from BR players like the Oppo 103-105 and 103D-105D, is always the best recommendation to be set audio/video issue-free. 

And those Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles from Lionsgate...they gave, and keep giving, a lot of audio headaches (audio dropouts, and lip sync audio issues) to a lot of people/owners of Oppo 83, 93, 95, 103, 105, 103D and 105D BR players. 

The main fault resides in miscommunication/business partnership between the movie studios, the Blu-ray movie manufacturers (Dolby Atmos from Lionsgate Films Studios), and the Blu-ray player manufacturers. ...Brief the Blu-ray association of standards for the consumers, us who are their main financial buyers/supporters of all their Blu-ray products; Dolby Atmos audio included.
And you can add HDMI handshake issues (audio/video) on top of all that.

** What is going to be like with UHD Blu-ray and the piracy paranoia rampant from the new specs of the new UHD Blu-ray association of standards for the consumers? ...And HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 latest specs making all the new necessary/required connections in order to play all of them together, shaking good UHD hand? 

I think we can blame downloading and streaming for all our issues with physical BR discs and players and HDTVs? ...Dolby Atmos audio included. 

Now with UHD Blu-ray is it going to get better or worst? ...I let you answer that question; and when the time comes you can verify your answer with that reality.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Sanjay, I don't think Erwin has the processing for this full system but he does want to prepare for a full 9.1.6 configuration. Regardless of current decoding, I mean.


Exactly, hence the word "future". I might have settled for the current Marantz 8802 if it did 9.2.4 simultaneously rather than "vulgar" 7.2.4 but since Emotiva hinted at the arrival of a 16-channel pre-pro with Dirac sometime next year, I decided to forgo Atmos until then. It's a wide space in which I invested already a year of hard work (floating heavy floor et all, Green Glue, you name it) so it deserves full scale Atmos*. Will use my current living room non-Atmos XMC-1 until it ever arrives.

Thing is, I am in the midst of making 18 broadband absorbers which are against the ceiling and I have to figure out where the 6 on-ceiling Top speakers will end up. To the exact centimeter... 12 are done, 6 largest are up. Want to make the last ones Friday night and install Saturday. I use the heaviest rock wool known to man kind: it's called Rhinnox from Rockwool and it's meant for flat roof thermal insulation. Even heavier than what Ethan Winer described to be ideal for broadband absorption. I am deeply aware that the room is about 50% of the audio experience. My front wall, ceiling and back wall are absorbent, side walls are diffusive.

*I consider 11.2.6 as good as it possibly gets for a family hometheater: a listener speaker @ each 30° without Center Surround and 6 Top speakers is all you ever need. But that's more than 16 channel and thus probably not ever possible in other than the Trinnov and the likes. Diminishing returns... 9.2.6 will do.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdurani said:


> I would do them at roughly 45°, 90°, 135°. What receiver or pre-amp are you using to feed the 6 height speakers?


Guidelines say 45/80/135° but never in the same diagram since 6 Top speakers are not discussed.
RMC-1 I hope.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> I would go for the left side option. Since it is closest to the 'ideal' elevation angles of 30 and 80 degrees of IMO probably the most effective combination for the front part of the sound hemisphere: TM with FH.


I knew you were going to say that. It's actually a very symmetrical approach (not only L/R but also Front/Rear), except MLP is slightly more to the back vs the center point of said hemisphere. You could move a feet forward, 36 cm to be exact, turn head 90° to the left or right and be in a perfect symmetrical setup again bar the center speaker. That's what I like about it. Probably a mental disorder of mine...


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The point remains that giving a disc a bad review as a result of using this form of useless copy protection is perfectly valid. It isn't reviewing "their outdated hardware" as scarabaeus says... It's reviewing the performance of the disc on what is a fairly common BD player (and on their HTPC, using several programs) amongst those who read those review sites. There is legitimately no reason for Lionsgate to continue authoring discs that way. The rips of them are coming out just as fast, so it is serving absolutely no purpose other than to inconvenience those who might otherwise have bought the product. I would have double the Atmos titles in my collection if it weren't for Lionsgate using that branching as a form of copy protection.
> 
> Not arguing that one can't just go get a $50 backup player... but am arguing that the practice causing me to have a THIRD Blu-ray player in my rack (after a $500 BDP-93 and $500 Xbox One) just so I can play the Atmos track on Lionsgate titles isn't actually slowing piracy at all, and a review should definitely rate accordingly if Lionsgate chooses to keep inconveniencing the end user in this way. Where's the problem with that?


I agree that the whole concept of using seamless branching is flawed, serves little purpose, doesn't stop criminal theft of copyright material and inconveniences genuine paying customers. I was just being pragmatic and accepting the situation, which I am powerless to change. I’d rather spend 50 bucks on a cheap backup player than forego the Atmos titles I want.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that the whole concept of using seamless branching is flawed, serves little purpose, doesn't stop criminal theft of copyright material and inconveniences genuine paying customers



There is one of those scenarios that can serve a purpose - having the choice of the theatrical version or extended version on the same disc. Seemless branching allows this.

That being said...I've never picked the theatrical version.

Also, my 5 year old Sony BDP has played every disc without fail. I've only had two issues with discs in the last few years - The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Nick Cage 2010) had an audio dropout right at the climactic battle scene. I was running a Sherwood Newcastle R-872. I contacted Sherwood support and they verified there was a bug in the DTS codec they were using and promised a firmware update. Month after month...a year...they finally just stopped responding to my update requests, so I replaced the R-872 with an Onkyo TX-NR828 nd voila' no more issue.

The other disc was Total Recall 2012 that had random dropouts all throughout. It really annoyed me as I loved that movie in the theater and wanted to watch it at home. I ended up replacing the 828 with a 929 and no more Bluray dropouts. Of course, the 929 then no longer handled the DirecTV stream and I got random 2-5 second audio dropouts THERE. ARGH!

Now with the X5200...every Bluray plays fine. There is the rare 1/2 second audio blip on DTV but I can totally live with that. I suspect these are the same blips that threw the Onkyo for a loop and the Denon just re-synchs much faster.

All this time using the same Sony BDP-S570.

Holy off-topic Batman!


----------



## Manni01

Molon_Labe said:


> Did they now? Well that put the cherry on banana split. Link to article or rumor?



http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/41511/xmr-1?page=10


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Molon_Labe said:


> Did they now? Well that put the cherry on banana split. Link to article or rumor?


And here: XMR-1 anticipated specs


----------



## NorthSky

Jish9 said:


> Both the Oppo 103 and 105 have intermittent issues with Dolby TrueHD/Atmos if they are being streamed and not from the original disc. I have talked with Oppo about this and they are of the mindset that as long as the disc works then not a problem.
> *Wonder what they will say when they stop making disks?*


Double take:

Then all our Blu-ray players will lose their disc drawers, and will be used as SD/HD/UHD music/movie streamers/downloaders/servers.


----------



## cdelena

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that the whole concept of using seamless branching is flawed, serves little purpose, doesn't stop criminal theft of copyright material and inconveniences genuine paying customers.
> ...


Kind of like the HDMI handshake (HDCP) that is another 'good idea' with questionable benefits but plenty of problems for consumers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

erwinfrombelgium said:


> And here: XMR-1 anticipated specs





> Release date: Early 2016


Hahaha! But seriously....


----------



## zeus33

erwinfrombelgium said:


> ...... but since Emotiva hinted at the arrival of a 16-channel pre-pro with Dirac sometime next year.....



With Emotiva's track record on product releases, you'll be lucky to see it by 2018.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I knew you were going to say that. It's actually a very symmetrical approach (not only L/R but also Front/Rear), except MLP is slightly more to the back vs the center point of said hemisphere. You could move a feet forward, 36 cm to be exact, turn head 90° to the left or right and be in a perfect symmetrical setup again bar the center speaker. That's what I like about it. *Probably a mental disorder of mine...*


I wouldn't say that Erwin, because then we would need to re-evaluate the entire planet. 

* I would have rails on my ceiling, circular rails...in the form/shape of a spiral.


----------



## Kris Deering

zeus33 said:


> With Emotiva's track record on product releases, you'll be lucky to see it by 2018.


I would typically agree but this viewpoint is mostly because of the trainwreck that was the XMC-1. That trainwreck mainly came down to developing the software interface (programming) that is the heart of that pre-pro and the very reason we see so many manufacturers stay away from processors in general. But the software designed for the XMC-1 wasn't designed solely for that platform and will be the design language for future processors and receivers from Emotiva and was designed to be scalable. So the bulk of the R&D and programming is already done. So the XMR platform would be more about the implementation of other channels and the associated analog design, which shouldn't be hard or time consuming in the grand scheme. So while I don't know if they'll meet their target date exactly, I wouldn't expect a big delay on this one like we saw with the XMC. Guess we'll know come CES.


----------



## NorthSky

Lol, the XMC-1 and Dolby Atmos don't exactly fit together. 

It's ok, I really don't care...just mentioning humorously that's all. Besides there's not much new on the Atmos front.

* The day that Emotiva will be releasing a pre/pro with a Dolby Atmos decoder in it, that'll be the day we can reserve it a good/solid spot here, in the official Dolby Atmos thread. ...That is if Dolby Atmos will still be around @ that time. ...I think it will...DSU as the wild card, mainly.


----------



## Kris Deering

We were talking about the XMR-1, which is touted to have support for both Atmos and DTS:X. I mentioned the XMC because of the previous track record with Emotiva. So I'd say it has a lot to do with Atmos.


----------



## Viktor Pashin

can someone help in here regarding tannoys please? http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2091338-tannoy-di-5dc-vs-5dct-atmos.html


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> We were talking about the XMR-1, which is touted to have support for both Atmos and DTS:X. I mentioned the XMC because of the previous track record with Emotiva. So I'd say it has a lot to do with Atmos.


You're right Kris...same old thing...speculation about a future Emotiva product. That's why I said I don't really care. I simply mentioned it, because we can keep going on and on and on with speculating all we want with their future pre/pro and 16 channels and all the audio decoders they want to put in it...that tune we all know it already. Right now they do have the XMC-1 with full Dirac Live, and without Dolby Atmos. ...When the new one come, the XMR-1, and who knows exactly when and with what kind of bugs, then we can deal with it. Because Kris, sincerely, all our speculations about Emotiva are so exhausting in several ways that it borders on time consuming best spent on the real Dolby Atmos products and movie mixes now. 

That's just my opinion.

♦ *Insurgent* ... how does the Dolby Atmos soundtrack sound like...people like it? ...And how's the 3D picture? ...Because 3D sound goes well with 3D picture, from my viewpoint.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

NorthSky said:


> You're right Kris...same old thing...speculation about a future Emotiva product. That's why I said I don't really care. I simply mentioned it, because we can keep going on and on and on with speculating all we want with their future pre/pro and 16 channels and all the audio decoders they want to put in it...that tune we all know it already. Right now they do have the XMC-1 with full Dirac Live, and without Dolby Atmos. ...When the new one come, the XMR-1, and who knows exactly when and with what kind of bugs, then we can deal with it. Because Kris, sincerely, all our speculations about Emotiva are so exhausting in several ways that it borders on time consuming best spent on the real Dolby Atmos products and movie mixes now.
> 
> That's just my opinion.
> 
> ♦ *Insurgent* ... how does the Dolby Atmos soundtrack sound like...people like it? ...And how's the 3D picture? ...Because 3D sound goes well with 3D picture, from my viewpoint.


3d wasn't anything special. But the Atmos mix was outstanding.


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about the XMR-1, which is touted to have support for both Atmos and DTS:X. I mentioned the XMC because of the previous track record with Emotiva. So I'd say it has a lot to do with Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right Kris...same old thing...speculation about a future Emotiva product. That's why I said I don't really care. I simply mentioned it, because we can keep going on and on and on with speculating all we want with their future pre/pro and 16 channels and all the audio decoders they want to put in it...that tune we all know it already. Right now they do have the XMC-1 with full Dirac Live, and without Dolby Atmos. ...When the new one come, the XMR-1, and who knows exactly when and with what kind of bugs, then we can deal with it. Because Kris, sincerely, all our speculations about Emotiva are so exhausting in several ways that it borders on time consuming best spent on the real Dolby Atmos products and movie mixes now.
> 
> That's just my opinion.
> 
> :diamonds: *Insurgent* ... how does the Dolby Atmos soundtrack sound like...people like it? ...And how's the 3D picture? ...Because 3D sound goes well with 3D picture, from my viewpoint.
Click to expand...

You mean the handful of mixes? Or the handful of products? The XMR is actually a more exiting Atmos prospect than anything else being talked about right now. Or we could spend our time talking about the utter lack of compelling titles in Atmos or the continual disappointment of more theatrical mixes not finding their way to Blu-ray. I would love to have more to talk about with Atmos, especially since I've invested in it at home, but eventually it's just the same two conversations over and over again. Where should I put my speakers and when are titles that are actually good gonna come out. Oh and Auro sucks.


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> 3d wasn't anything special. But the Atmos mix was outstanding.


Too bad about the 3D picture, I'm a big 3D fan. And the Dolby Atmos sound; your comment is corresponding similarly with David Vaughn.
And if others agree with you both, then I will purchase this Blu eventually when it finds the discount bin. 



Kris Deering said:


> You mean the handful of mixes? Or the handful of products? The XMR is actually a more exiting Atmos prospect than anything else being talked about right now. Or we could spend our time talking about the utter lack of compelling titles in Atmos or the continual disappointment of more theatrical mixes not finding their way to Blu-ray. I would love to have more to talk about with Atmos, especially since I've invested in it at home, but eventually it's just the same two conversations over and over again. Where should I put my speakers and when are titles that are actually good gonna come out. Oh and Auro sucks.


I'm sorry Kris, you are totally right...I agree with you. And @ only $5,000 for 16 channels of Diral Live (full version) and with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X Audio decoders (Auro-3D?) it will crash anything near that price and even above, including the Marantz 8802A (maybe?) and those expensive Datasat and Trinnov and Lexicon and Krell and Theta and McIntosh and Bryston and Anthem and Ayre Acoustics pre/pros. 

So, they expect a 2016 release for the Emotiva XMR-1 pre/pro...do you think they can meet that year, which is next year by the way? 
Because if they do then we might have few more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles, and also some DTS:X ones. ...And all in brand new shiny UHD picture. 

Sorry again...this is a fair avenue to explore in the actual circumstances we're living now in this present time...with less than stellar Dolby Atmos push.
Plus the sadness experienced from them five Lionsgate Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles by many Blu-ray player owners with a Dolby Atmos receiver or/and pre/pro. ...This one is truly bugging the mind...it's a blow to Atmos...I truly think...because I love John Wick.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

How is the gunman for ATMOS? Rented if for tonight.


----------



## FilmMixer

Kris Deering said:


> I would typically agree but this viewpoint is mostly because of the trainwreck that was the XMC-1. That trainwreck mainly came down to developing the software interface (programming) that is the heart of that pre-pro and the very reason we see so many manufacturers stay away from processors in general. But the software designed for the XMC-1 wasn't designed solely for that platform and will be the design language for future processors and receivers from Emotiva and was designed to be scalable. So the bulk of the R&D and programming is already done. So the XMR platform would be more about the implementation of other channels and the associated analog design, which shouldn't be hard or time consuming in the grand scheme. So while I don't know if they'll meet their target date exactly, I wouldn't expect a big delay on this one like we saw with the XMC. Guess we'll know come CES.


It is my understanding that the current DSP solutions (including the brand new DSP solutions going into the new AVR's) used by everyone _except_ Trinnov max out at 11 channels (even Dataset) for Atmos and DTS:X..

So unless something changes, Emo is going to have to code their own implementation...

I was incredibly fond of the XMC when I owned it... Dirac was wonderful, and it really was a "transparent" processor..

However, when I inquired about the snaps I was getting on codec changes and track skipping on DSD, I was assured they were working on a fix.. their excuse was they had lifted the mute because people were missing the beginning of program on track changes on CD/SACS's... 

Their response was a fix was imminent in the "next few weeks.." this was in March... And no fix in sight, with complete radio silence on their part...

My faith in them to get a 16 channel Atmos/DTS:X platform built from the ground up with Dirac (and to market in 2016) isn't very solid, to say the least..


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> There is one of those scenarios that can serve a purpose - having the choice of the theatrical version or extended version on the same disc. Seemless branching allows this.


The problem isn't regular seamless branching, used for the kind of purpose you mention - it is the overly complex seamless branching that some studios use as a form of copy protection.



stikle said:


> Also, my 5 year old Sony BDP has played every disc without fail.


Same here. My BDP-S470 seems to play anything I throw at it. Recently my Oppo 103 wouldn’t play The Gunman - after the trailers, it just hung when the main feature menu was about to come up. The Sony played it with no problem at all.



stikle said:


> The other disc was Total Recall 2012 that had random dropouts all throughout. It really annoyed me as I loved that movie in the theater and wanted to watch it at home. I ended up replacing the 828 with a 929 and no more Bluray dropouts. Of course, the 929 then no longer handled the DirecTV stream and I got random 2-5 second audio dropouts THERE. ARGH!


That disc is well known for the complex seamless branching issues. It will play on anything if you send PCM, but then of course you can't have Atmos. Again the Sony plays it perfectly here.


Now with the X5200...every Bluray plays fine. There is the rare 1/2 second audio blip on DTV but I can totally live with that. I suspect these are the same blips that threw the Onkyo for a loop and the Denon just re-synchs much faster.

All this time using the same Sony BDP-S570.

Holy off-topic Batman![/QUOTE]

Mine is the BDP-S470 so I assume yours is better?


----------



## kbarnes701

cdelena said:


> Kind of like the HDMI handshake (HDCP) that is another 'good idea' with questionable benefits but plenty of problems for consumers.


HDMI must surely have been the invention of Satan himself?


----------



## kbarnes701

Viktor Pashin said:


> can someone help in here regarding tannoys please? http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2091338-tannoy-di-5dc-vs-5dct-atmos.html


Do not go near the DCT. The ones you want are the Dual Concentrics. There is a reason they cost quite a bit more.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> ...but eventually it's just the same two conversations over and over again. Where should I put my speakers and when are titles that are actually good gonna come out. Oh and Auro sucks.


 It surely is. Round and round we go...


----------



## Viktor Pashin

kbarnes701 said:


> Do not go near the DCT. The ones you want are the Dual Concentrics. There is a reason they cost quite a bit more.


could you please explain the reason?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Can we please stop about the XMC-1? It's not a Atmos product and I am already sorry that I mentioned the RMC-1. And no, said RMC-1 will certainly not be ready early next year so we don't need to talk about that one either. No worries yet as there is simply nothing more than 7.1.4 for that budget right now. I will start worrying when Marantz/Onkyo/Yamaha finally add 4 more channels. I do want Dirac inside though or else I would have gotten the 7702. Not keen on another miniDSP for Dirac as LCR are already processed via miniDSP.

Anyway, regarding the far more fun decision where to put the future 6 Top speakers in between the acoustic elements I settled for this: 
* [email protected]° 
* [email protected]°
* [email protected]°
This should assure good panning in longitudinal direction, more than the 45/90/135° some folks proposed IMO. TF and TM are less than 5' apart.

While you guys were wasting time here I spent the evening cutting the wood and further preparation of the final 6 ceiling absorbers. I hope to get them up by tomorrow this time, with a little help from my misses.


----------



## smurraybhm

Brian Fineberg said:


> 3d wasn't anything special. But the Atmos mix was outstanding.


+1 and 2 ....

Just finished it up and the sound is excellent, plus I enjoyed the movie (take it easy on me Dan and our other film critics). Will definitely be watching it soon. By the way played perfectly on my Oppo 103, as have all the Atmos releases to-date. 

I knew there was a reason a few years ago I sold my 93 to upgrade. Great thing about Oppo is it only cost me $150 to do so. My 83 isn't going anywhere though, seamless branching or not


----------



## smurraybhm

Brian Fineberg said:


> How is the gunman for ATMOS? Rented if for tonight.


Thumbs up and I guess since everyone bashed the movie on this thread before it was released the movie itself wasn't bad either.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Recently my Oppo 103 wouldn’t play The Gunman - after the trailers, it just hung when the main feature menu was about to come up. The Sony played it with no problem at all.


That Oppo 103 is one smart piece of kit--I think it was actually trying to save you from yourself. 

Full disclosure: I watched _The Gunman_ earlier this week. Ugh, what a muddled mess of a movie. My Sony BDP-S5100 just left me to my folly.


----------



## LowellG

I am setting here holding out for the perfect Atmos and DTS:x receiver. However, I was thinking. A, how much has really been announced for DTS:X for home. B. Won't an Atmos receiver just map a DTS:X movie?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Viktor Pashin said:


> could you please explain the reason?


The dual concentric model uses the premium tweeter embedded inside a woofer type drivers with the necessary wide dispersal pattern. The other uses a cheaper, standard driver that doesn't sound as good.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> I am setting here holding out for the perfect Atmos and DTS:x receiver. However, I was thinking. A, how much has really been announced for DTS:X for home. B. Won't an Atmos receiver just map a DTS:X movie?


One immersive object-based format cannot translate another immersive format from within a receiver or processor. You can only upmix a standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel core (not the same thing). You need a product that can render both formats with separate internal software. And Dolby didn't come out with a couple titles until around CEDIA last year. You still have two or so months to go. One DTS:X title is already out, _Ex Machina_ from Lionsgate.

And besides, most people are of the opinion you will not see much Atmos or X content until UHD Blu-ray ramps up production.


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> One immersive object-based format cannot translate another immersive format from within a receiver or processor. You can only upmix a standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel core (not the same thing). You need a product that can render both formats with separate internal software. And Dolby didn't come out with a couple titles until around CEDIA last year. You still have two or so months to go. One DTS:X title is already out, _Ex Machina_ from Lionsgate.
> 
> And besides, most people are of the opinion you will not see much Atmos or X content until UHD Blu-ray ramps up production.


I guess that's good, I will keep waiting.


----------



## Jive Turkey

smurraybhm said:


> +1 and 2 ....
> 
> Just finished it up and the sound is excellent, plus I enjoyed the movie (take it easy on me Dan and our other film critics). Will definitely be watching it soon. By the way played perfectly on my Oppo 103, as have all the Atmos releases to-date.
> 
> I knew there was a reason a few years ago I sold my 93 to upgrade. Great thing about Oppo is it only cost me $150 to do so. My 83 isn't going anywhere though, seamless branching or not


My 83 is strictly for digital music. And it does a mighty fine job of that. I do mostly spin vinyl though.


----------



## Jim S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Contuzzi*  
_So what's the consensus on using front and rear HEIGHT channels (on the walls 7ft~ up above front and rear channels) angled down a bit for Atmos?_
It will sound good. But you won't get the sensation of sounds really being OVER your head as much with such a low elevation angle.	


How about the reverse, using TF and TR for Heights, 8 Ft ceiling? 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-916.html#


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> Or we could spend our time talking about the utter lack of compelling titles in Atmos...when are titles that are actually good gonna come out.


How are you measuring "compelling" and "good"? Of the titles released so far, many have met with commercial and/or critical success. Do you mean that you personally don't like any of the releases so far? By that metric, there might never be a good Atmos release on BD because you don't like the movie. 

An alternate way to measure the success of Atmos releases is to compare it to competing immersive audio formats on BD. By that metric, the Atmos list isn't the one I'd describe as lacking. Considering that it's been only 10 months since the first Atmos BD, and even with a couple of studios completely holding out till UDH, the list of releases is none too shabby for a format in its infancy. 

1) Age of Adeline 
2) American Sniper 
3) Expendables 3 
4) Gravity 
5) Gunman 
6) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1
7) Insurgent 
8) John Wick 
9) Jupiter Ascending 
10) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter 
11) Step Up: All In 
12) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 
13) Transformers: Age of Extinction 
14) Unbroken 
15) Mad Max: Fury Road (Sept 1) 
16) Dracula (October 6) 
17) San Andreas (October 13) 
18) Game of Thrones: Winterfell (Nov 4)
19) Game of Thrones: King's Landing (Nov 4)


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Gunman was NOT a good Atmos mix. Was ok for regular surround. Just poor use of the immersive tech


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just listen to it in Auro. It will sound brilliant.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Do not go near the DCT. The ones you want are the Dual Concentrics. There is a reason they cost quite a bit more.


http://www.tannoypro.com/#!Page=Product&Id=47.190

http://www.tcgroup-japan.com/TANNOY/pro/download/Di6DC_Di6DCt.pdf


Same driver as these


----------



## maikeldepotter

Jim S. said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Contuzzi*
> _So what's the consensus on using front and rear HEIGHT channels (on the walls 7ft~ up above front and rear channels) angled down a bit for Atmos?_
> It will sound good. But you won't get the sensation of sounds really being OVER your head as much with such a low elevation angle.
> 
> 
> How about the reverse, using TF and TR for Heights, 8 Ft ceiling?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-916.html#


It seems worth the try to compare Dolby's default TF-TR combination (at about 45 and 135 degrees) with a FH-TM combination (at about 30 and 80 degrees) to find out what sounds best to you.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Scott Simonian said:


> Just listen to it in Auro. It will sound brilliant.


lol. Uh no thanks. I'm good


----------



## dkfan9

wse said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not go near the DCT. The ones you want are the Dual Concentrics. There is a reason they cost quite a bit more.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tannoypro.com/#!Page=Product&Id=47.190
> 
> http://www.tcgroup-japan.com/TANNOY/pro/download/Di6DC_Di6DCt.pdf
> 
> 
> Same driver as these
Click to expand...

Unless I'm reading that wrong, it says the DCT is only different in having a 70v 100v hookup


----------



## blastermaster

> Unless I'm reading that wrong, it says the DCT is only different in having a 70v 100v hookup


I'm pretty sure you're right. The "T" in DCT simply stands for transformer. It's the dual concentric with an added transformer option.


----------



## smurraybhm

Brian Fineberg said:


> Gunman was NOT a good Atmos mix. Was ok for regular surround. Just poor use of the immersive tech


It had to sound great with your 88a for room correction 

While not looking to get into the merits of movie after watching Gunman a few weeks ago what I enjoyed as I have for every Atmos release to date is the precision in which the different sounds are placed. That's what I notice with Atmos vs. other formats.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> How are you measuring "compelling" and "good"? Of the titles released so far, many have met with commercial and/or critical success. Do you mean that you personally don't like any of the releases so far? By that metric, there might never be a good Atmos release on BD because you don't like the movie.
> 
> An alternate way to measure the success of Atmos releases is to compare it to competing immersive audio formats on BD. By that metric, the Atmos list isn't the one I'd describe as lacking. Considering that it's been only 10 months since the first Atmos BD, and even with a couple of studios completely holding out till UDH, the list of releases is none too shabby for a format in its infancy.
> 
> 1) Age of Adeline
> 2) American Sniper
> 3) Expendables 3
> 4) Gravity
> 5) Gunman
> 6) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1
> 7) Insurgent
> 8) John Wick
> 9) Jupiter Ascending
> 10) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter
> 11) Step Up: All In
> 12) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> 13) Transformers: Age of Extinction
> 14) Unbroken
> 15) Mad Max: Fury Road (Sept 1)
> 16) Dracula (October 6)
> 17) San Andreas (October 13)
> 18) Game of Thrones: Winterfell (Nov 4)
> 19) Game of Thrones: King's Landing (Nov 4)


I liked a few of those titles (not counting what's been announced), but compared to what has already been released on Blu-ray that doesn't have an Atmos mix but does have a theatrical mix, it is pretty sad. Even if you count the titles that have been launched on Blu-ray since Atmos premiered. 

Other than Auro no other immersive format has debuted yet. DTS:X has been announced but the hardware isn't shipping, so I don't count it. And despite the lead that Atmos has had they haven't done much with it. Hardware won't matter much when pretty soon you'll see both Atmos and DTS:X on everything and when your lead in titles is less than 20, it honestly doesn't matter. But I honestly don't care what format the audio is in, I just want to see more immersive audio. I truly hope that UHD opens the flood gates for immersive audio, but I also hope that once that gate is open the studios don't use those mixes exclusively for UHD and we start seeing more support on standard Blu-ray as well.


----------



## chi_guy50

Kris Deering said:


> Hardware won't matter much when pretty soon you'll see both Atmos and DTS:X on everything. . .


Do you really think we will see both Atmos and DTS:X on most single discs? That just doesn't sound likely to me.



Kris Deering said:


> . . . I also hope that once that gate is open the studios don't use those mixes exclusively for UHD and we start seeing more support on standard Blu-ray as well.


I think that "trickle-down" effect is a much more plausible scenario than your first assumption, but I admittedly have zero insight into the industry other than as a semi-knowledgeable consumer.


----------



## Kris Deering

chi_guy50 said:


> Do you really think we will see both Atmos and DTS:X on most single discs? That just doesn't sound likely to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that "trickle-down" effect is a much more plausible scenario than your first assumption, but I admittedly have zero insight into the industry other than as a semi-knowledgeable consumer.


I didn't say we will see both formats on software, I was referring to hardware. Starting this fall I think it will be hard to find any AVR or pre-pro that doesn't support both if it supports either. I do not think we will see multiple immersive mixes on software though.


----------



## FilmMixer

Kris Deering said:


> And despite the lead that Atmos has had_* they*_ haven't done much with it.


How do we define "they?"

Dolby or the studios?


----------



## chi_guy50

Kris Deering said:


> I didn't say we will see both formats on software, I was referring to hardware. Starting this fall I think it will be hard to find any AVR or pre-pro that doesn't support both if it supports either. I do not think we will see multiple immersive mixes on software though.



Gotcha.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> How do we define "they?"
> 
> Dolby or the studios?


It's always about Dolby. Those slackers!


----------



## Dave Vaughn

FilmMixer said:


> How do we define "they?"
> 
> Dolby or the studios?


Both.


----------



## Kris Deering

FilmMixer said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> And despite the lead that Atmos has had_* they*_ haven't done much with it.
> 
> 
> 
> How do we define "they?"
> 
> Dolby or the studios?
Click to expand...

Good point. I realize Dolby can only do so much. They've provided the tools, not much more they can do.


----------



## kingwiggi

FilmMixer said:


> It is my understanding that the current DSP solutions (including the brand new DSP solutions going into the new AVR's) used by everyone _except_ Trinnov max out at 11 channels (even Dataset) for Atmos and DTS:X..
> 
> So unless something changes, Emo is going to have to code their own implementation...
> 
> 
> My faith in them to get a 16 channel Atmos/DTS:X platform built from the ground up with Dirac (and to market in 2016) isn't very solid, to say the least..


If history repeats itself Emotiva will be building the XMR-1 using this DSP chipset so they won't actually be building from the ground up. Already supports Atmos + DTS:X (UHD) and is capable of processing 16 channels.

http://mds.com/wp-content/uploads/Datasheets/Audio/DAE89_rev1b.pdf


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> And despite the lead that Atmos has had they haven't done much with it.


Dolby can't coerce studios into releasing Atmos mixes on BD, especially on the cusp of UHD. I agree with you that the combination of ubiquitous hardware and UHD should see a jump in immersive audio releases. Still, I can't view the immersive format that is actually getting releases on Blu-ray as having an _"utter lack of compelling titles"_. I'll reserve that label for the other two formats. For all their bluster, what have they got to show on BD?


----------



## FilmMixer

kingwiggi said:


> If history repeats itself Emotive..


If history repeats itself with Emotive..........

I think that says it all right there.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That Oppo 103 is one smart piece of kit--I think it was actually trying to save you from yourself.
> 
> Full disclosure: I watched _The Gunman_ earlier this week. Ugh, what a muddled mess of a movie. My Sony BDP-S5100 just left me to my folly.


Haha. I quite enjoyed it. Not the best for sure, but not the worst either. It didn't seem especially muddled to me - fairly logical progression in fact. Good gunfights too.


----------



## kbarnes701

Viktor Pashin said:


> could you please explain the reason?


The dual Concentric is a superior design and the driver that made Tannoy famous. The DC is really two drivers merged into one. The HF unit is on the back of the LF unit so they are on the same acoustic axis, so they are a true 'point source'. This gives them terrific phase coherence right from the driver - most speakers need a few feet to achieve this, so if you sit fairly close to the speakers, as I do, the DC design is ideal. A friend of mine recently observed that you could use them as giant headphones with no problem!

A true dual concentric speaker delivers a spherical sound wave aligned on all three axes and this gives a very wide listening are both horizontally and vertically - this is especially good for Atmos where wide dispersion speakers are mandated, and also, I find, very good for surround speakers, making their placement less critical. The even response of the DC driver through the whole listening area, together with the phase coherence, gives fabulous off-axis performance too, which helps every listener get a great surround sound experience.

As you can guess, I am very impressed with my Di6 DCs and Di5 DCs on the ceiling).

By contrast, the Tannoy ICT driver is way less sophisticated and this speaker was designed with one aim in mind really: to withstand constant and continuous abuse in a Pro situation. As such it uses a wireless electromagnetic tweeter which requires no crossover. This means that the speaker cannot be 'burned out' in even the most demanding situations. I am led to believe that one of the most common causes of failure in professional applications is failure of the tweeter and crossover. The ICT design eliminates the possibility by eliminating the crossover itself. The electromagnetic tweeter has no wired connection to the LF driver - the sound is induced with HF information derived from the LF driver, which is a full range driver. I leave it to you to decide if this is 'better' than a conventional design for home use.

The bottom line IMO is that the DC design is significantly superior for use in home theaters. But if you intend to run the system flat out, for hours on end, day after day, the ICT design will reward you with no frazzled tweeters and burned out crossovers.


----------



## kbarnes701

dkfan9 said:


> Unless I'm reading that wrong, it says the DCT is only different in having a 70v 100v hookup


Yes you are reading it wrong  The Tannoy Di_x_ DC series comes in a form that has a transformer and a form that doesn't. The Tannoy with the ICT driver is a totally different design.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> I'm pretty sure you're right. The "T" in DCT simply stands for transformer. It's the dual concentric with an added transformer option.


That is true - but we were discussing the difference between the speaker with the DC driver and the speaker with the ICT driver. Two entirely different designs - the confusion seems to stem from the fact they share the same cabinet design.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> If history repeats itself with Emotive..........
> 
> I think that says it all right there.


Hahaha. Oh yes.


----------



## KitKatHT

Goatse said:


> http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/dolby-atmos-home-theater
> 
> great article on the otherside of atmos


Yes it is. I would think long and hard about the power amplification issue. If I were some years younger and wanted to mess with this, I would use the Denon X7200w, I think it is called, as a preamplifier, and the look into an external amplifier such as the Earthquake Cinenove 7, and use the Denon amplifier for the front and rear height. I would consider the warning about speaker harmonic interference; the best way would be to have the ceiling slanted up at the periphery, of side walls. Place the speakers firing downwards and directed off-axis to the corresponding front and rear speakers. I would also use very high quality speakers, capable of making full use of the sound. 

I do not know much about the new receivers, and from want I know, most, if they are rated at 130 watts per channel, well they will do that, providing there is no competing power demand. The amplifier section on most receivers is limited by the power supply and has a complementary shared power to individual output transistors As for most separate power amplifiers. the watts per channel usually is available whether you are using the full power on the other channels, this has rarely ever been true with AV receivers.

I assume the new Denon model would have the power to operate properly the four speakers. I believe I read it has a 780 watt consumption at the plug? ( show me if I am wrong on this?) Considering heat loss and the operation of all on-board devices. It seems it should have at least 100 real RMS watts to four speakers? 

I have a Denon with small outboard amplifier on my bedroom, and it is 7.1, the sound is in the average range. My big system is 5.1 and it does sound like a movie theater. that is, it does compared to the smaller one. The difference is the large room, its ideal shape and acoustic treatments, the quality and size of the speakers and the fully adequate processor and power amplifiers.

There is one more issue worth mentioning; if the front end on the Denon is all you need, why would anyone buy the Krell, Classe, Bryston processors, since they cost probably twice the new price of the Denon? Some have told me it is status, well, I do not buy the idea people buy these high dollar units for status, or the top of the line Denon receiver, compares to a Krell Evolution.

I do think the processor makes a difference, the Krell HTS, some call it HTS 2, seems more than the new Denon? I have looked at these new processors and only the units I mentioned seem to be considered by me a replacement for the HTS. The sale value of the HTS is around $1300-$1500, and the Bryston and perhaps Classe 800 series would be about $9,000 new. Cost would not be such an issue for me if I thought I would have years of health to enjoy it, such is not the case.

As the article mentioned, few are interested in the high-end HT. I will bet most on the USA, at least, are member of this forum? My kids and relatives would not care at all for this, and it would all be sold off cheap/

How much will one of these cost with added Atmos? My point, it is fun to change around gear, yet, on the other hand, to have theater quality, cost cannot be much a restricting consideration, only time and energy, and of course, how much use will you get out of it?

_*By all means have fun and if you want to set up this Atmos, do it, my ideas are only points to consider, I am not trying to wise anyone up; it is only how I see it*_


----------



## kbarnes701

KitKatHT said:


> As for most separate power amplifiers. the watts per channel usually is available whether you are using the full power on the other channels, this has rarely ever been true with AV receivers.


That is probably true, but how often do you think all seven channels are demanding/delivering maximum power all at the same time? I’d guess at 'never'.


----------



## KitKatHT

kbarnes701 said:


> That is probably true, but how often do you think all seven channels are demanding/delivering maximum power all at the same time? I’d guess at 'never'.


Perhaps never. more likely, not often, then think about all those speakers, and they are not consistently adding sound effects? I would say they do do often , and when they do, I would want all the reserve power needed available, and available at all times. I would also want high quality speakers, which usually call for more power/ Why not have the power, since anyone having such a system must want super sound. That is how I see it

You know, from reading that article and knowing so few who care at all about high-end HT, or HT at all, we are all alone in a small space


----------



## ultraflexed

Questions !!!!
When your atmos enabled reciever says 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 with amp.
What does the "with amp" mean ? and where do you get these amps from? Do you absolutely have to have an aditional amp to run the extra 2 channels? Can someone post picks or send me link? Thanks

I have the nr-tx 1030 onkyo atmos 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp.


----------



## kbarnes701

KitKatHT said:


> Perhaps never. more likely, not often, then think about all those speakers, and they are not consistently adding sound effects? I would say they do do often , and when they do, I would want all the reserve power needed available, and available at all times. I would also want high quality speakers, which usually call for more power/ Why not have the power, since anyone having such a system must want super sound. That is how I see it


I agree with all you say there, but the fact remains that it is going to be a very, very rare occasion, if ever, when all 11 (here) speakers are demanding full power all that the exact same time. So the 'all channels channel driven' figure can be misleading in the real world.

But yeah - a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un, as we used to say about our engines before the Green Loonies took over the world.



KitKatHT said:


> You know, from reading that article and knowing so few who care at all about high-end HT, or HT at all, we are all alone in a small space


Ain't that the truth!


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> blastermaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you're right. The "T" in DCT simply stands for transformer. It's the dual concentric with an added transformer option.
> 
> 
> 
> That is true - but we were discussing the difference between the speaker with the DC driver and the speaker with the ICT driver. Two entirely different designs - the confusion seems to stem from the fact they share the same cabinet design.
Click to expand...

My impression was that the "T" designation simply referred to the transformer and was available with either design. 

Speaking of which since we're roaming off topic what is the point/function of the transformer in a speaker? Is there any downside to using the "T" version (assuming it's the DC design) if say you are bargain hunting and find that on eBay?


----------



## aaranddeeman

KitKatHT said:


> You know, from reading that article and knowing so few who care at all about high-end HT, or HT at all, we are all alone in a small space


Amen..

Someone just asked me that one of the speakers from his HTIB broke and would like to replace that just one  and which one should he buy..


----------



## blastermaster

> That is true - but we were discussing the difference between the speaker with the DC driver and the speaker with the ICT driver. Two entirely different designs - the confusion seems to stem from the fact they share the same cabinet design.


Gotcha. The DC is definitely the way to go for HT. 



> Speaking of which since we're roaming off topic what is the point/function of the transformer in a speaker? Is there any downside to using the "T" version (assuming it's the DC design) if say you are bargain hunting and find that on eBay?


Function is for daisy chaining a bunch of speakers together with the same signal. No, not if you can get a great deal on it.


----------



## ultraflexed

ultraflexed said:


> Questions !!!!
> When your atmos enabled reciever says 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 with amp.
> What does the "with amp" mean ? and where do you get these amps from? Do you absolutely have to have an aditional amp to run the extra 2 channels? Can someone post picks or send me link? Thanks
> 
> I have the nr-tx 1030 onkyo atmos 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp.


Bump for help


----------



## aaranddeeman

ultraflexed said:


> Bump for help


Your Onkyo 1030 is 9 channel AVR with 11.x channel processing.
i.e. there are only 9 amplifiers. Hence with just AVR you can drive only 9 speakers (i.e 5.2.4)
When you add a stereo external amp and connect one of the remaining pre-out from 1030 to it, it should give you 7.2.4


----------



## chi_guy50

ultraflexed said:


> Questions !!!!
> When your atmos enabled reciever says 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 with amp.
> What does the "with amp" mean ? and where do you get these amps from? Do you absolutely have to have an aditional amp to run the extra 2 channels? Can someone post picks or send me link? Thanks
> 
> I have the nr-tx 1030 onkyo atmos 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp.


Your TX-NR1030 is capable of 11ch processing but only has nine internal amps; therefore as a stand-alone unit it can reproduce a maximum 9.1 or Atmos 5.1.4/7.1.2 (nine total channels plus LFE). By connecting the extra two speakers to an external amp and connecting the amp to the AVR's pre-outs, you can expand to 11.1 or Atmos 7.1.4/9.1.2. (See p. 56 of your user's manual for instructions.)

As far as amp sourcing is concerned, you can use a wide variety of power amps or even a spare stereo receiver if it can accept the RCA (analog audio) inputs from the AVR. One popular and affordable 2-channel amp often recommended is the AudioSource AMP-100, which you can usually pick up new for under $130 or used for around $90.


----------



## NWCgrad

Molon_Labe said:


> If history is any indication, I will end up on the wrong side of fence. I got burned on HD DVD, and I have a Denon 5200 that is stuck in the middle of a ceiling speaker war with no upgrade potential. If I commit to Atmos, I have no doubt that DTS:X or some other variant will win. If I pick a line in the supermarket, it will be the slowest. This is a lifelong curse that I have accepted  I was going to order two more pairs of JBL SCS 8 to go Atmos, but I think I am just going to hold fast.The Denon 5200w had some features that made it worth the upgrade over my previous model, so no harm - no foul; however, I am not going to spend anymore on speakers, amps, and the time to install all of it until this shakes out. To do so would commit me to ruin and doom Atmos....lol



I hear you, my AV7702 is not upgradable just like the 5200. I never pick the line at the grocery store, I always picked the wrong one. Whenever I have a 50/50 chance I guess wrong 95% of the time.



kbarnes701 said:


> HDMI must surely have been the invention of Satan himself?



TRUE! It has a stupid connector that tends to work loose with a long run of thick cable. The absolute worst is the continually updating encryption which requires constant firmware updates by the players. It is futile effort as the hackers break the encryption pretty rapidly anyway - and those who but bootleg discs are not obsessed with picture and sound quality anyway so the market will always be there.


----------



## NorthSky

> That is probably true, but how often do you think all seven channels are demanding/delivering maximum power all at the same time? I’d guess at 'never'.


Transformers 4, Jupiter Ascending, Interstellar, Live - Die - Repeat, The Avengers, ...


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> I'll reserve that label for the other two formats. For all their bluster, what have they got to show on BD?


I don't have any issue with DTS:X yet, they haven't even hit the ground yet hardware wise, but they already have at least one title out there. Auro really has no excuses. Will we see it come UHD time? Who knows.


----------



## KitKatHT

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with all you say there, but the fact remains that it is going to be a very, very rare occasion, if ever, when all 11 (here) speakers are demanding full power a
> ....
> to say about our engines before the Green Loonies took over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't that the truth!


I agree, 
that was one reason I picked a 150 watt, not a Krell monster. Few need that much power, or at least, not unless they have like the big Wilson MAXX3, or the more realistic, B&W 802, HTM 1? ML 533H? That might be an argument for using a big big amp? That seems to make sense of one mainly listens to music.
It does seem funny to have the ML running off a Denon
I wonder what surrounds for 11 channel would go with them, 

"Green Loonies" that is funny



aaranddeeman said:


> Amen..
> 
> Someone just asked me that one of the speakers from his HTIB broke and would like to replace that just one  and which one should he buy..


  lol, it takes all kinds, I guess?
Well at least he has some kind of HT


----------



## sdurani

kingwiggi said:


> Already supports Atmos + DTS:X (UHD) and is capable of processing 16 channels.
> 
> http://mds.com/wp-content/uploads/Datasheets/Audio/DAE89_rev1b.pdf


Wouldn't that depend on what the processing is? For example, I'm guessing that bass managing 16 channels shouldn't be a problem. But I wouldn't automatically assume that spatially rendering audio in real time to 16 simultaneous locations couldn't tax or exceed its computation limits. Despite having 16 signal paths, what if its DSP horsepower only allows for rendering to 11 or 13 speaker locations?


----------



## KitKatHT

ultraflexed said:


> Questions !!!!
> Can someone post picks or send me link? Thanks
> 
> I have the nr-tx 1030 onkyo atmos 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp.


You could buy something like this: 
*Onkyo M-5010 2-Channel Amplifier*


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> I don't have any issue with DTS:X yet, they haven't even hit the ground yet hardware wise, but they already have at least one title out there. Auro really has no excuses. Will we see it come UHD time? Who knows.


Kris, in an earlier post you mentioned something to the effect that UHD Blu-ray might open the flood gate for immersive sound from Dolby Atmos and DTS:X ... Are the Hollywood movie studios waiting also for HD Blu-rays? ...I mean if more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles hit the shelves because of UHD Blu-ray discs, is it going to be exclusive to them or are they going to release regular HD Blu-ray movies with Atmos and DTS:X audio soundtracks?

HD Blu-rays have been already here with us since 2006, why would they do such a thing? ...Waiting for Christmas 2015, or the new 2016 year for pushing immersive audio when they can practice right now? ...Because of some studios like Lionsgate? ...Or because they want us to buy another Blu-ray player to play our new UHD Blu-ray movies? 

What's going on in the mind of the movie studio executives? Why wait for a total financial bust later when they can make money right now? 

Please don't panic because I just asked seven questions in one single post...they are all related to mainly one or two basic/essential questions.
And besides, they are fair questions to convey my point across.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> Wouldn't that depend on what the processing is? For example, I'm guessing that bass managing 16 channels shouldn't be a problem. But I wouldn't automatically assume that spatially rendering audio in real time to 16 simultaneous locations couldn't tax or exceed its computation limits. Despite having 16 signal paths, what if its DSP horsepower only allows for rendering to 11 or 13 speaker locations?



The efficacy of the VBAP algorithms as implemented is likely not affected by how many speakers are available. Each simple (spacial) object is probably rendered to the three speakers forming an "Active Triangle" around the object; however, with more speakers available, there are more (smaller) three-speaker clusters 'overhead'. (And, perhaps, instead of three speakers, four or five speakers might actually be used simultaneously, for "robustness of image", to compensate for "poor placement of speakers".)


_


----------



## SoundChex

I just noticed that the *Star Wars Saga* is to be re-released on *BD* this fall (for marketing coordination with the theatrical release of *Star Wars VII*...?) I would have thought this the perfect occasion to add immersive audio to the first six movies on BD, but I've heard no rumors to that effect!


_


----------



## Kris Deering

NorthSky said:


> Kris, in an earlier post you mentioned something to the effect that UHD Blu-ray might open the flood gate for immersive sound from Dolby Atmos and DTS:X ... Are the Hollywood movie studios waiting also for HD Blu-rays? ...I mean if more Dolby Atmos Blu-ray titles hit the shelves because of UHD Blu-ray discs, is it going to be exclusive to them or are they going to release regular HD Blu-ray movies with Atmos and DTS:X audio soundtracks?
> 
> HD Blu-rays have been already here with us since 2006, why would they do such a thing? ...Waiting for Christmas 2015, or the new 2016 year for pushing immersive audio when they can practice right now? ...Because of some studios like Lionsgate? ...Or because they want us to buy another Blu-ray player to play our new UHD Blu-ray movies?
> 
> What's going on in the mind of the movie studio executives? Why wait for a total financial bust later when they can make money right now?
> 
> Please don't panic because I just asked seven questions in one single post...they are all related to mainly one or two basic/essential questions.
> And besides, they are fair questions to convey my point across.


Have no idea. The rumors suggest we will see immersive audio pushed harder with UHD Blu-ray and that some studios are waiting until this format to dive in. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen and whether HD Blu-ray will be left in the cold from studios for immersive audio also remains to be seen. Hopefully we'll know more come CEDIA in October. I expect this is where we'll hear the first real info on UHD Blu-ray and hopefully there will be some studio representation there to answer questions on immersive audio. If the BDA folks aren't there at CEDIA, I don't expect UHD Blu-ray to be around come Christmas. It is the big HT show before the holidays with CES shortly after.


----------



## NorthSky

...Then the wait could well extend into 2016.


----------



## JANNINO

I am sure this has been asked somewhere in thi thread but who can read through over 900 pages.

Can a Dolby Atmos upward firing speaker be used effectively against a cathedral ceiling? The issue is the ceiling is angled and the sound would not reflect properly to the listener but away from the listener.


----------



## cdelena

NorthSky said:


> ...
> 
> What's going on in the mind of the movie studio executives? Why wait for a total financial bust later when they can make money right now?
> ...


I would think it is like most other businesses, just a projection of cost / benefit... a matter of estimating how much more revenue is generated versus the total cost of doing immersive sound in the coming quarters.

Guessing the demand for immersive productions is relatively small yet so the cost of producing and promoting them is simply not a priority.

We saw that the demand for 7.1 sound never really overwhelmed the the 5.1 market and the size of the immersive market even in the coming year is probably a very small fraction of the 7.1 marketplace.

It would be interesting to have a feel for the marketplace (at least in percentages) for 5.1, 7.1, and immersive.

This is why my bet has been on DSU, not what is produced.


----------



## David Susilo

JANNINO said:


> I am sure this has been asked somewhere in thi thread but who can read through over 900 pages.
> 
> Can a Dolby Atmos upward firing speaker be used effectively against a cathedral ceiling? The issue is the ceiling is angled and the sound would not reflect properly to the listener but away from the listener.


No it will not work.


----------



## Ocielz

chi_guy50 said:


> Your TX-NR1030 is capable of 11ch processing but only has nine internal amps; therefore as a stand-alone unit it can reproduce a maximum 9.1 or Atmos 5.1.4/7.1.2 (nine total channels plus LFE). By connecting the extra two speakers to an external amp and connecting the amp to the AVR's pre-outs, you can expand to 11.1 or Atmos 7.1.4/9.1.2. (See p. 56 of your user's manual for instructions.)
> 
> As far as amp sourcing is concerned, you can use a wide variety of power amps or even a spare stereo receiver if it can accept the RCA (analog audio) inputs from the AVR. One popular and affordable 2-channel amp often recommended is the AudioSource AMP-100, which you can usually pick up new for under $130 or used for around $90.


I have t:e same receiver and using the Audiosource Amp for my 7.2.4 Atmos set up and it sounds damn good!!!


Also I Just watched HG:Mocking Jay part 1 in Atmos and it was Damn Good!! The first time they land on District 13 and then the Jet flies up and out of view was Amazing!! Definitely Demo material!!!


----------



## NorthSky

cdelena said:


> I would think it is like most other businesses, just a projection of cost / benefit... a matter of estimating how much more revenue is generated versus the total cost of doing immersive sound in the coming quarters.
> 
> Guessing the demand for immersive productions is relatively small yet so the cost of producing and promoting them is simply not a priority.
> 
> We saw that the demand for 7.1 sound never really overwhelmed the the 5.1 market and the size of the immersive market even in the coming year is probably a very small fraction of the 7.1 marketplace.
> 
> It would be interesting to have a feel for the marketplace (at least in percentages) for 5.1, 7.1, and immersive.
> 
> This is why my bet has been on DSU, not what is produced.


Thank you for your reply; I'm sure those are some of the reasons. ...Another one is time...it takes time to build a new 3D sound immersive platform.
Since the first Dolby Atmos announcement for the home market it's just that progress is extremely slow...with few hiccups (Lionsgate). 

It is also interesting the recent announcement from Sony, with their new "Supreme Cinema Series" Blu-rays with 4K-Remastering and with Dolby Atmos audio...starting with *Dracula* in October 6, 2015 (here in the USA), and few months before the launch of UHD Blu-ray (real 4K...some). 

It reminds me of Superbit on DVD. ...How many DVD titles all together did they release, ten, twelve? ...It don't really matter...not many anyway. 
'Dracula' was one of them...Superbit DVD. ...'The Fifth Element', ...and few more. 
Then 4K HD Blu-ray ... 'Captain Phillips', 'Total Recall', and few more. 

I peruse over occasionally in the Trinnov thread. ...Cool stuff, not much content, just like here. 

Brief, everything is slow slow slow. ...Windows 10 is faster, and so is high-speed Internet. ...Even 3D picture is faster. ...And my dog...he eats fast.


----------



## blastermaster

> Can a Dolby Atmos upward firing speaker be used effectively against a cathedral ceiling? The issue is the ceiling is angled and the sound would not reflect properly to the listener but away from the listener.


You could probably hang some panels from the ceiling to bounce the sound properly toward the listener, but then that defeats the purpose of having cathedral ceilings, doesn't it? If you do the math correctly, though, it would probably only take a few panels and may even look kinda cool hanging from the ceiling. Just a thought.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SoundChex said:


> I just noticed that the *Star Wars Saga* is to be re-released on *BD* this fall (for marketing coordination with the theatrical release of *Star Wars VII*...?) I would have thought this the perfect occasion to add immersive audio to the first six movies on BD, but I've heard no rumors to that effect!
> 
> 
> _


I'd wait for the UHD Disc version. Disney will probably release it with Atmos or X at that time.

The regular BD will probably be a repackaging, but stranger things have happened.


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> You could probably hang some panels from the ceiling to bounce the sound properly toward the listener, but then that defeats the purpose of having cathedral ceilings, doesn't it? If you do the math correctly, though, it would probably only take a few panels and may even look kinda cool hanging from the ceiling. Just a thought.


Instead of hanging large reflective panels from the cathedral ceiling I would hang four small overhead speakers...just another thought.


----------



## GregLee

Kris Deering said:


> I didn't say we will see both formats on software, I was referring to hardware. Starting this fall I think it will be hard to find any AVR or pre-pro that doesn't support both if it supports either. I do not think we will see multiple immersive mixes on software though.


There may be less immersive audio than one would wish if a system like Samsung's Vidity becomes popular. Vidity is a way to download large HDR-4k video files to a disk drive attached to the TV. But so far as I know, there is no way to pipe immersive audio from TV to AVR. (Vidity is discussed in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...6-mgo-4k-download-troubleshooting-thread.html.)


----------



## JANNINO

NorthSky said:


> Instead of hanging large reflective panels from the cathedral ceiling I would hang four small overhead speakers...just another thought.


Can you have 4 Dolby Atmos Speakers mounted high on the back wall pointed downward towards the listener 

or

two Dolby Atmos speakers mounted high on the back wall pointed downward towards the listener and two Dolby Atmos speakers pointed AT them listener, meaning not mounted high on the ceiling but at the listener alost like front speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> My impression was that the "T" designation simply referred to the transformer and was available with either design.


Yes but the point was that the rather confusingly named Di6 ICT is a totally different design to the Di6 DCT. The T in ICT doesn't stand for 'transformer'. ICT stands for* I*nductive *C*oupling *T*echnology and describes the way the tweeter is connected wirelessly with the woofer. I was concerned that people would not mix the two totally different designs up and end up buying an ICT speaker thinking they were buying a Dual Concentric speaker with a transformer. That speaker is called a Di6 DCT. The better speaker for our purpose in this thread is the Dual Concentric design. The ICT design is a great speaker for pro applications where they may be subjected to abuse, but the robustness inherent in the design also compromises the SQ.



batpig said:


> Speaking of which since we're roaming off topic what is the point/function of the transformer in a speaker? Is there any downside to using the "T" version (assuming it's the DC design) if say you are bargain hunting and find that on eBay?


The transformer is to allow 'daisy chaining' of the speakers from a single amp, for example in a shopping mall style of application. There is no downside to using a DCT speaker except it costs more than a straight DC speaker and the transformer is unlikely to be used in a domestic application. The ones you will see cheaper than the DC design on eBay etc are usually ICT designs. Caveat very much emptor because many people selling these speakers have no idea what the difference is and will happily describe an ICT design as a DC.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> Gotcha. The DC is definitely the way to go for HT.
> 
> 
> 
> Function is for daisy chaining a bunch of speakers together with the same signal. No, not if you can get a great deal on it.


Correct on both counts. See my my recent post on this - it is very important that people understand the difference between a DC, a DCT and an ICT design and I have even had discussions with retailers who have no idea that the DC and ICT are totally different speakers. Because they share a cabinet and are all Di models, they believe they are the same, often advertising the ICT spec under a heading of a Tannoy Di6 DC speaker, for example.


----------



## blastermaster

I just set up my rear speakers last night. Now all of my speakers are at ear height. I can't believe I didn't do this before. Even with my non-Atmos receiver and with legacy surround, the sound is spectacular. Yes, I'm using new, more expensive speakers, but the level of immersion is great. Having the speakers set up this way I'm getting such good clarity. The thing I can definitely see is needed now, though, is front wide speakers. I didn't notice it before because my old speakers were more diffuse and not as clear. Now I can sense the "hole" in the base layer. It's not bad, but there is room for improvement. a 9.1.4 setup is what I need. I'll wait for the right receiver that will fit that bill. I know I may be waiting a while, but I can't afford to do get an 11 channel receiver then upgrade in a year or two.


----------



## chi_guy50

blastermaster said:


> I just set up my rear speakers last night. Now all of my speakers are at ear height. I can't believe I didn't do this before. Even with my non-Atmos receiver and with legacy surround, the sound is spectacular. Yes, I'm using new, more expensive speakers, but the level of immersion is great. Having the speakers set up this way I'm getting such good clarity. The thing I can definitely see is needed now, though, is front wide speakers. I didn't notice it before because my old speakers were more diffuse and not as clear. Now I can sense the "hole" in the base layer. It's not bad, but there is room for improvement. a 9.1.4 setup is what I need. I'll wait for the right receiver that will fit that bill. I know I may be waiting a while, but I can't afford to do get an 11 channel receiver then upgrade in a year or two.


It seems you're a good candidate for induction into the BFFW (Best Friends of Front Wide) Club. This is one feature lacking in the current implementation of Atmos that has long led me to look forward to DTS:X. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that by the time I am ready to upgrade again around 2017/18-ish, there will be a similar accommodation (i.e., "forward surround") in the mainstream (if higher-end) Atmos AVR's.

BTW, I feel there are pluses and minuses to placing the rears at ear height. In my case, my room dictated elevated rears since they are sitting on a mantelpiece above the fireplace about 30" behind the MLP. The height of the rears measured to the tweeter is ca. 60", whereas the side surrounds are (by necessity) rather lower than the optimum at ca. 28". As a result of the RS being raised significantly, sounds to the rear are not just entirely unobstructed but also give a slight impression of elevation; it is my feeling that this helps to complete the hemisphere of sound in concert with my wall-mounted FH and in-ceiling TM.

Last night, in a first for me, I watched a movie in Dolby Digital 1.0 (Todd Haynes's _Safe_ (1995) in the Criterion Collection 2014 Blu-Ray edition). Since DSU was unable to upmix the 1.0 signal, I selected instead Multi-Channel Stereo, which I rarely if ever use. It played back in 9.1 with no top-level speakers active, and yet both my wife and I could have sworn that we heard sounds coming from above us. I really had to double- and triple-check the output it was so misleading. I think this is a case where the elevated rears do make a significant improvement in the audio experience. I don't relish having to leave my tops silent for movie watching, but it's nice to learn that the overall effect does not have to suffer immeasurably when such is the case.


----------



## FilmMixer

GregLee said:


> There may be less immersive audio than one would wish if a system like Samsung's Vidity becomes popular. Vidity is a way to download large HDR-4k video files to a disk drive attached to the TV. But so far as I know, there is no way to pipe immersive audio from TV to AVR. (Vidity is discussed in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...6-mgo-4k-download-troubleshooting-thread.html.)


I think this is where the Roku 4 and the upcoming Apple TV will come in.  

Dolby has publicly stated Vudu will start streaming Dolby Vision content at the end of the year through Vudu... while they have initially annoyed support in a TV (Vizio Reference series) you can bet 4k/HDR content will be available on the new Roku with DD+ audio.. and I can't imagine that stream won't be Atmos when available.. 

I think it's going to be harder for these "smaller" companies (MGo) to come up with a solution... I own the JS9500, and even with a brand new WD Cinema drive with content on it (HDR) I had an issue playing it at first... when I contacted MGo they referred me to WD to fix the issue.. 

Only after I pressed them to reauthorize my account did one of the films work.. an aside, but it leads me to believe these niche companies don't necessarily have the engineering support to handle "mass" adoption of 4k HDR... so I don't see Vidity/MGo being a large purveyor of HDR content anyways... or at least the exclusive provider of said content..

I know that Dolby would like to see DD+ over ARC adopted.. but it isn't going to come this year (2.0a...)

Regardless, I don't think any of the current gen products (4k TV's) will ever stream DD+ or AC4 back to an AVR....


----------



## peterfram

FilmMixer said:


> Regardless, I don't think any of the current gen products (4k TV's) will ever stream DD+ or AC4 back to an AVR....


I think you are right about that. On-TV apps have been crippled by ARC or optical output for years. For all the cost and hype around the smart part of smart TVs, I always end up using the apps on my Blu-Ray player or other streaming devices. 

I'm using M-Go on my JS9000 for the moment. But I expect 4K Blu-Ray players will completely negate the need to use the smart TV apps near the end of the year. Hopefully we'll have players compatible with Vidity disk drives. We can plug the drives right into the player, or the player itself will have a disk. Or maybe there will be stand alone Vidity or competing devices that can output full audio through an HDCP 2.2 receiver and output/pass through UHD to the TV.

IMO this is a given, it will happen. It's a bit silly that you can't have the best of video and audio at the same time right now. That won't last. Worst case, I'll go back to using discs again when 4K Blu-Ray players go on sale.


----------



## NorthSky

JANNINO said:


> Can you have 4 Dolby Atmos Speakers mounted high on the back wall pointed downward towards the listener
> 
> or
> 
> two Dolby Atmos speakers mounted high on the back wall pointed downward towards the listener and two Dolby Atmos speakers pointed AT them listener, meaning not mounted high on the ceiling but at the listener almost like front speakers.


Alright, say someone's home theater or living room where he is watching movies with Dolby Atmos has a high cathedral ceiling:
1. We already know that Atmos up-firing speakers won't work, unless that person installs lower flat panels to reflect the sound @ the MLP.
2. A much better solution is to install overhead speakers that you can suspend with chains and have them roughly @ a 9-foot height or so.
{Some sphere speaker enclosures are specially designed for that purpose; I gave pictures and links before...if you want I can look for them, or you can google _Suspended overhead speakers._}
3. If the two above options are not in the plan, then I would install four high speakers on the walls...two on the back wall and two on the front wall, and use them as your four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers...I believe that the AV receivers and pre/pros equipped with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X and Auro-3D audio decoders allow for that configuration...DTS:X is supposed to be extremely versatile in the speaker's positioning...you can put them anywhere.

So yes, two speakers positioned high up on the rear wall, @ the ceiling junction (where it starts to climb), and two speakers high up on the front wall, same principle. 

And, you can even put them (all Dolby Atmos overhead speakers) on the ceiling if it is a ceiling that starts to climb with an angle, @ say 9 feet or so from the floor, or even 10 feet. Do you know what I mean? 

If the ceiling is say 15 feet high, and goes straight up from the rear and front wall; then you cannot install them way on top of that ceiling...it's just too high, then on the front and rear walls higher up...say 8-9 feet would be the next option...short of suspending them from the ceiling @ a height between 8 and 10 feet say. I think 9 feet is a good bet.

This is my opinion, this is what I would do...given the circumstances and the extent of what I would be ready to do. 
- When there's a will there's a way.

The Atmos overhead speakers need to be high up, they cannot be @ floor level and directed @ the MLP.
And the up-firing Atmos modules only work with a flat ceiling...for the best effect. ...And a reflective one @ that. 

Again, this is only my opinion based on what I gathered for the last over twelve months of extensive reading here, and over there.


----------



## NorthSky

...A fourth option is high up on the side walls; two ahead and two behind, and tell the receiver that they are the two TF (Top Front) and the two TR (Top Rear) speakers. The receiver won't be confused and it would oblige and it would also work.

* And if installing only two, then high up on the side walls just slightly ahead of the MLP. ...Like a foot or so ahead of the main chair or couch, when in direct line from the floor or ceiling.


----------



## Viktor Pashin

ultraflexed said:


> What does the "with amp" mean ? and where do you get these amps from? Do you absolutely have to have an aditional amp to run the extra 2 channels? Can someone post picks or send me link?





chi_guy50 said:


> Your TX-NR1030 is capable of 11ch processing but only has nine internal amps; therefore as a stand-alone unit it can reproduce a maximum 9.1 or Atmos 5.1.4/7.1.2 (nine total channels plus LFE). By connecting the extra two speakers to an external amp and connecting the amp to the AVR's pre-outs, you can expand to 11.1 or Atmos 7.1.4/9.1.2. (See p. 56 of your user's manual for instructions.)
> 
> As far as amp sourcing is concerned, you can use a wide variety of power amps or even a spare stereo receiver if it can accept the RCA (analog audio) inputs from the AVR. One popular and affordable 2-channel amp often recommended is the AudioSource AMP-100, which you can usually pick up new for under $130 or used for around $90.


He should read the manual.. 
http://www.onkyo.com/manual/txnr1030/adv/en/048.html

It doesn't say there but Yamaha mentions minimum requirements for external power amps:
_We recommend using power amplifiers that meet the following conditions.
- With unbalanced inputs
- With volume control bypass (or without volume control circuit) - such as A-S3000
- Output power: 100W or more (6 to 8 ohms)
_


----------



## blastermaster

> BTW, I feel there are pluses and minuses to placing the rears at ear height. In my case, my room dictated elevated rears since they are sitting on a mantelpiece above the fireplace about 30" behind the MLP. The height of the rears measured to the tweeter is ca. 60", whereas the side surrounds are (by necessity) rather lower than the optimum at ca. 28". As a result of the RS being raised significantly, sounds to the rear are not just entirely unobstructed but also give a slight impression of elevation; it is my feeling that this helps to complete the hemisphere of sound in concert with my wall-mounted FH and in-ceiling TM.


My surrounds are actually set so that the bass driver hits my ear and the tweeter is ever so slightly above it. It's done so the speaker will have a clear path over the couch.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

SoundChex said:


> I just noticed that the *Star Wars Saga* is to be re-released on *BD* this fall (for marketing coordination with the theatrical release of *Star Wars VII*...?) I would have thought this the perfect occasion to add immersive audio to the first six movies on BD, but I've heard no rumors to that effect!
> 
> 
> _





Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd wait for the UHD Disc version. Disney will probably release it with Atmos or X at that time.
> 
> The regular BD will probably be a repackaging, but stranger things have happened.


+ Reliance media works did a 4k remaster of the original trilogy this year  I'm willing to bet they are waiting for UHD discs to debut before releasing the 4k collection. Though only the Original trilogy can be 4k... and HDR. The Prequels were filmed @ 1080p. 

I'd avoid that steel book collection unless you don't have any of the Star Wars films on bluray, or if you want bad artwork


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Though only the Original trilogy can be 4k... and HDR. The Prequels were filmed @ 1080p.


Correction: the two prequels *Attack of the Clones* and *Revenge of the Sith* were "filmed" in digital 2k. The Phantom Menace was filmed on film.


----------



## blastermaster

> It seems you're a good candidate for induction into the BFFW (Best Friends of Front Wide) Club. This is one feature lacking in the current implementation of Atmos that has long led me to look forward to DTS:X. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that by the time I am ready to upgrade again around 2017/18-ish, there will be a similar accommodation (i.e., "forward surround") in the mainstream (if higher-end) Atmos AVR's.


I haven't got my hands on any 11 channel Atmos receivers, but is it not possible to assign a pair of speakers as front wides instead of using them, for example, as the rear heights for a 9.1.2 setup? Not ideal, but there was a podcast I watched and the dude was pretty adamant that 9.1.2 is actually preferable to 7.1.4. Obviously 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 to me would be the gold standard for Atmos in the home, but we're not there yet in terms of receivers. I'm not holding my breath form something soon, but I am holding onto my money until something like that does come out or my current receiver decides to $h!t the bed. If that happens I'll get myself a cheap Atmos receiver and bide my time.


----------



## tommaazz

I have one question...would it be ok to use monitor audio BXFX dipole/bipole (switchable) speakers as side height speakers for dolby ATMOS (when i will upgrade receiver)? I was just thinking of getting additional pair of speakers for the future (since then i would use it with dts:neoX)...or is this a NO GO...


----------



## pletwals

blastermaster said:


> I haven't got my hands on any 11 channel Atmos receivers, but is it not possible to assign a pair of speakers as front wides instead of using them, for example, as the rear heights for a 9.1.2 setup? Not ideal, but there was a podcast I watched and the dude was pretty adamant that 9.1.2 is actually preferable to 7.1.4. Obviously 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 to me would be the gold standard for Atmos in the home, but we're not there yet in terms of receivers. I'm not holding my breath form something soon, but I am holding onto my money until something like that does come out or my current receiver decides to $h!t the bed. If that happens I'll get myself a cheap Atmos receiver and bide my time.


There is indeed something to be said about the Wides in 9.1.2 being preferable over 2 additional elevated speakers in 7.1.4. Audyssey DSX also pointed out years ago that the Wides were the most important additional speakers after 5.1. Then (Front) Height, then Rear Surround.

Trouble is that the Wides are not used in DSU and since there will always be vastly more (older) non-dedicated Atmos Soundtracks around, that's important. I also read something about an agreed MPEG-H standard mainly for streaming that would be 7.1 or 5.1 with 4 elevated speakers added. No Wides either.

So 7.1.4 will be the standard regardless if it's less preferable SQ-wise or not.

Tip: put the Side Surrounds at +/- 75-80° if you can put the Rear Surrounds @ +/- 110-120°. I know it's not the same, but it should be better as there would be only +/- 45° between Side Surrounds and the adjacent speakers (Front or Rear Surround)

After that, 9.1.4 gets my vote over 7.1.6 but then we are stepping in another territory.


----------



## Lesmor

blastermaster said:


> I haven't got my hands on any 11 channel Atmos receivers, but is it not possible to assign a pair of speakers as front wides instead of using them, for example, as the rear heights for a 9.1.2 setup? Not ideal, but there was a podcast I watched and the dude was pretty adamant that 9.1.2 is actually preferable to 7.1.4. Obviously 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 to me would be the gold standard for Atmos in the home, but we're not there yet in terms of receivers. I'm not holding my breath form something soon, but I am holding onto my money until something like that does come out or my current receiver decides to $h!t the bed. If that happens I'll get myself a cheap Atmos receiver and bide my time.


You can add me to the wide camp
I have configured my x7200 as a 9.2.2 for Atmos (the two heights are RH but i am considering installing TM in ceiling instead) this also gives me a 7.2.4 (FH/RH) when using DSU.
Auro is of no interest to me so far due to lack of content but my config should be Ok for DTS:X
Of course you need an additional 2 channel power amp to achieve this.


----------



## chi_guy50

blastermaster said:


> I haven't got my hands on any 11 channel Atmos receivers, but* is it not possible to assign a pair of speakers as front wides instead of using them, for example, as the rear heights for a 9.1.2 setup?* Not ideal, but there was a podcast I watched and the dude was pretty adamant that 9.1.2 is actually preferable to 7.1.4. Obviously 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 to me would be the gold standard for Atmos in the home, but we're not there yet in terms of receivers. I'm not holding my breath form something soon, but I am holding onto my money until something like that does come out or my current receiver decides to $h!t the bed. If that happens I'll get myself a cheap Atmos receiver and bide my time.


Yes, of course (except that Dolby seems to recommend TM as height speakers in a 9.1.2 configuration, as shown below); I realize now that I had stated my case inartfully, having left room for the conflation of two separate restrictions: the lack of FW in DSU and the current limit of 11ch processing. DTS:X will presumably operate under the same parameters as Atmos regarding recognized speaker positions and maximum channel count; but Neural:X, unlike DSU, will undoubtedly allow for addition of FW to the upmix.










The fact is, as pletwals mentions above, DSU is a far more commonly used mode than Atmos at this stage, and so the omission of FW in Dolby's upmixer seems more ubiquitous to me than it would if Atmos-encoded source material were more plentiful.


----------



## HT-Eman

blastermaster said:


> I haven't got my hands on any 11 channel Atmos receivers, but is it not possible to assign a pair of speakers as front wides instead of using them, for example, as the rear heights for a 9.1.2 setup? Not ideal, but there was a podcast I watched and the dude was pretty adamant that 9.1.2 is actually preferable to 7.1.4. Obviously 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 to me would be the gold standard for Atmos in the home, but we're not there yet in terms of receivers. I'm not holding my breath form something soon, but I am holding onto my money until something like that does come out or my current receiver decides to $h!t the bed. If that happens I'll get myself a cheap Atmos receiver and bide my time.


You've probably seen this posted in middle of this thread somewhere . Here Anthony Grimani talks about using 9.1.2 over a 7.1.4 for atmos ( he doesn't mention using it DSU ).https://youtu.be/DFbqJkjfABQ?list=PLgofrYIA8YyL5BGj8NRB1uEu-AOq-S86G With the lack of atmos titles people are using DSU more with 7.1.4 . With the way things are right now with 11 channel of amplification ( receivers under $5000 ) I would setup for TM and TF ( assigned as FH in avr , but used as TF ) with 9 listening level speakers for a 9.1.4 . That way I can switch between using 9.1.2 for atmos , and 7.1.4 for using DSU or Atmos. I would only add TR speakers when we see capable receivers under $5000 that can do 9.1.6 .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> The fact is, as pletwals mentions above, DSU is a far more commonly used mode than Atmos at this stage, and so the omission of FW in Dolby's upmixer seems more ubiquitous to me than it would if Atmos-encoded source material were more plentiful.


From my understanding from prior CEDIA conversations, Dolby dropped the wides in limited consumer gear, especially, mainly because the new front wides are closer to the MLP in terms of Dolby Atmos object usage and act like one pair of the front side surround array location in a theatrical Atmos cinema. Not quite the same as the original front wide location as we've had in the past with prior upmixers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Meh. Don't really need wides if your speakers image correctly.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Meh. Don't really need wides if your speakers image correctly.


I thought the two 9.1.4 demos at last year's CEDIA (especially the Steinway demo) were great examples of how closing the gap between front wall and side surround speakers really worked a treat.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Okay. 


Did you hear those same systems with that extra pair of side surrounds off? 

I know the answer, I just want to hear you say it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

blastermaster said:


> I haven't got my hands on any 11 channel Atmos receivers, but is it not possible to assign a pair of speakers as front wides instead of using them, for example, as the rear heights for a 9.1.2 setup? Not ideal, but there was a podcast I watched and the dude was pretty adamant that 9.1.2 is actually preferable to 7.1.4. Obviously 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 to me would be the gold standard for Atmos in the home, but we're not there yet in terms of receivers. I'm not holding my breath form something soon, but I am holding onto my money until something like that does come out or my current receiver decides to $h!t the bed. If that happens I'll get myself a cheap Atmos receiver and bide my time.


That was Grimani on Home theater geeks... I'd just wait till 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 is a thing before worrying about front wides... I think a lot is being missed with only 2 overheads.


----------



## Scott Simonian

On this subject... I don't have a "gap" that needs filled by these 'wides'. 

Protip: position your speakers correctly and get ones that are capable of having imaging.


----------



## ewentzel3

Does anyone have recommendations on 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2 setup and quality of immersion for ATMOS? 

I have been searching threads and I read about 1 person's experience at a trade show for 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4, but that is the only info I have found. I have wired my basement for 5.1.4, but as I look into receivers, there is a decent price difference for 7.1 vs 9.1 receivers. Any leads on threads or experiences/reviews is much appreciated. 

Thanks!


----------



## batpig

ewentzel3 said:


> Does anyone have recommendations on 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2 setup and quality of immersion for ATMOS?
> 
> I have been searching threads and I read about 1 person's experience at a trade show for 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4, but that is the only info I have found. I have wired my basement for 5.1.4, but as I look into receivers, there is a decent price difference for 7.1 vs 9.1 receivers. Any leads on threads or experiences/reviews is much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


Read this: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dolby-atmos-vs-dolby-atmos

Mo' speakers mo' better. If you can afford it, go 5.1.4 (or better yet 7.1.4!).


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> On this subject... I don't have a "gap" that needs filled by these 'wides'.
> 
> Protip: position your speakers correctly and get ones that are capable of having imaging.


You REALLY think that a single speaker on each side is fully sufficient to cover lateral pans and create seamless surround effects between the front speakers and the rears? Forget about "front wide" and the negative connotations with things like Audyssey DSX, you don't think there's a lot of benefit to be had by having extra speakers in the horizontal layer?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Okay.
> 
> 
> Did you hear those same systems with that extra pair of side surrounds off?
> 
> I know the answer, I just want to hear you say it.


The Trinnov and Steinway demos always had them on, but they were playing the same material from the same disc we heard countless times around the floor from 5.1.2, 5.1.4, and 7.1.4 rooms. I found the envelopment to be greater with 9.1.4. Objects did use the front wides and even music would play from the as well... probably depending on how the mix's metadata was encoded as there can be either snap-to-speaker or array spread adjustments in play.


----------



## sdurani

ewentzel3 said:


> Does anyone have recommendations on 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2 setup and quality of immersion for ATMOS?


A single pair of height speakers allows for left to right panning above you. Two pairs allow for left to right AND front to back panning above you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> You REALLY think that a single speaker on each side is fully sufficient to cover lateral pans and create seamless surround effects between the front speakers and the rears? Forget about "front wide" and the negative connotations with things like Audyssey DSX, you don't think there's a lot of benefit to be had by having extra speakers in the horizontal layer?


I never said that it wouldn't help. Never. I said, "I don't need it" or "it's not that important".

I get imaging between all my pairs of speakers. People speak of this "sonic deadzone" between only their front left and right and side left and right. I get imaging of content right where a wide speaker would be.

Guess my system is magic or something.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The Trinnov and Steinway demos always had them on, but they were playing the same material from the same disc we heard countless times around the floor from 5.1.2, 5.1.4, and 7.1.4 rooms. I found the envelopment to be greater with 9.1.4. Objects did use the front wides and even music would play from the as well... probably depending on how the mix's metadata was encoded as there can be either snap-to-speaker or array spread adjustments in play.


Try those demos with your side surrounds slightly in front of you instead of behind you and let me know how that turns out.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Guess my system is magic or something.


Other way 'round: it's normal to get imaging between a pair of adjacent speakers. I don't know what "magic or something" Grimani does to not get imaging between his front and side speakers. His insistence on wides is solving a problem of his own creation.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey! I'm in NO mood for you and your truth-y responses.





Grimani said and that means it is so. 

These side surrounds ..... they go behind me, right?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round: it's normal to get imaging between a pair of adjacent speakers.


Makes me wonder about everybody else then.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> These side surrounds ..... they go behind me, right?


Right, just far enough back to eliminate phantom imaging between them and your fronts.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's in all the manuals too. Good suggestion! I'll move mine closer to the rear surrounds when I get home from work tonight.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round: it's normal to get imaging between a pair of adjacent speakers. I don't know what "magic or something" Grimani does to not get imaging between his front and side speakers. His insistence on wides is solving a problem of his own creation.


You DON'T think it's a good thing to have an array of surround speakers along the side walls? Remember that Grimani's installs are probably all multi-row situations.

The bottom line, isn't this all about spatial resolution? Why is 7 the magic number where everything is perfect and extra speakers are "solving problems of [someone's] own creation"?


----------



## Scott Simonian

That depends of course, on many factors but imho these 'wides' are overrated and their "importance" is greatly overstated.

With a 7.1 system we get a definite stereo image up front, at the sides and in the rear. That's a basic circle, if you will. Now let's do that up top. Front, middle and rear height speakers. Are there still gaps? Now start plugging them.

@batpig Also consider this, the argument isn't so much "7 is the magic number" but more so "what product can do actually do these things". The answer is zero. So why fret about it?


----------



## Contuzzi

Leon The Professional and Fifth Element getting new Sony Atmos releases.

https://twitter.com/Dolby/status/630808348280029184

Really good flow of Atmos titles going...


----------



## batpig

The Fifth Element is AWESOME news

Leon is great but not as tailor made for Atmos...


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> You DON'T think it's a good thing to have an array of surround speakers along the side walls? Remember that Grimani's installs are probably all multi-row situations.


Arrays are useful for multi-row situations, but that means adding a second set of side speakers, not wide speakers. I have nothing against wide speakers (not like they'll have any negative effect), simply pointing out that they wouldn't be my priority after 7.1, and certainly not for the reason Grimani states (sonic black hole between the fronts and sides). What if I told you that I was adding a centre speaker specifically to fill the sonic void between my front L/R speakers? Wouldn't you wonder what I had done to eliminate phantom imaging between my front L/R speakers?


> The bottom line, isn't this all about spatial resolution? Why is 7 the magic number where everything is perfect and extra speakers are "solving problems of [someone's] own creation"?


Nothing magic nor perfect about 7 speakers. For some, it's a matter of coverage: L/C/R covers the front wall, a speaker on each of the other 3 walls provides coverage in those directions (two are used on the back wall for psychoacoustic reasons). For others, it is a point of diminishing returns: 7 speakers form a seamless enough circle that the benefit of adding wides isn't worth it.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Read this: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dolby-atmos-vs-dolby-atmos
> 
> Mo' speakers mo' better. If you can afford it, go 5.1.4 (or better yet 7.1.4!).


 
Since I'm "stuck" with Dolby enabled speakers vs. in-ceilings until I get my new HT room in order, this review is reassuring that with proper placement flexibility, those Dolby speakers can hold their own with in-ceilings, which goes along with at least some observations that some of us made after attending conference or professional demos. Although...that comment about the sense of overhead confinement WRT the hovercraft heading off toward the front of the screen in Mockingjay (page 2 of the review) using the Triad LR-H for the virtual height effects strikes me as a subtle but rather annoying limitation. From the review, it seems he was apparently using the 30 and 110 degree placements for his .4 system given that the heights are built into the monitors also serving as L/R fronts and surrounds - the last diagram on page 1 of his review.

I wish there were a similar review for standalone Dolby modules that offer more height flexibility than the built-in varieties. Or I'll have to be the guinea pig with those 44-DAs and see if adding that intermediate pair of Dolby standalone speakers makes a difference...or possibly a pair of front heights to go with the two pairs of Dolby speakers in a Top Middle/Top Rear setting to help to make that overhead "bubble" less limiting. But at that point, with the flexibility of my processor, I might as well do rear heights to go with the front if the need arises. Assuming that a sense of space limitation is what I hear, of course.....


----------



## Brian Fineberg

batpig said:


> The Fifth Element is AWESOME news
> 
> Leon is great but not as tailor made for Atmos...


Good thing is. I have NEVER owned the fifth element. Hah go ahead and laugh. 

But no double dipping for me


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> What if I told you that I was adding a centre speaker specifically to fill the sonic void between my front L/R speakers? Wouldn't you wonder what I had done to eliminate phantom imaging between my front L/R speakers?


I totally am not understanding the question. It seems like all the reasons why a center channel is a good thing would also apply to why adding a physical speaker (and not relying on phantom imaging) would be a good idea between any other pair of speakers. Greater spatial resolution, better stability with pans, more consistency for listeners not in the sweet spot... if you logically follow the line of thought that you and Scott are putting forward then it seems the center channel is one of the least important speakers 

The fact of the matter is that the largest angular gap for MOST setups is that between the FR/FL speakers and the SR/SL speakers. In a typical setup with the FR/FL at +/- 25 degrees and the surrounds to the sides and a bit behind (say 100-110 degrees) that's a gap that's much wider than that between the FR/FL and the CC, or between the SR/SL and the SBR/SBL pair. Weren't we just talking about the non-linearity with the spatial resolution of human hearing as reason to concentrate overhead coverage more in front?



> For others, it is a point of diminishing returns: 7 speakers form a seamless enough circle that the benefit of adding wides isn't worth it.


But yet it's cool to be super condescending to those who feel it IS worth it?


----------



## Waboman

Contuzzi said:


> Leon The Professional and Fifth Element getting new Sony Atmos releases.
> 
> https://twitter.com/Dolby/status/630808348280029184
> 
> Really good flow of Atmos titles going...
> 
> 
> 
> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fifth Element is AWESOME news
> 
> Leon is great but not as tailor made for Atmos...
Click to expand...

Agree. The Fifth Element in Atmos is great news. Can't wait. Bring 'em on Dolby.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It seems like all the reasons why a center channel is a good thing would also apply to why adding a physical speaker (and not relying on phantom imaging) would be a good idea between any other pair of speakers.


But a sonic black hole between the L/R speakers isn't one of those reasons. 

If you want to stabilize imaging between the fronts and sides, then add wides. If you're doing it to fill a sonic void, then I would first find out why you're not getting any imaging at that location.


> In a typical setup with the FR/FL at +/- 25 degrees and the surrounds to the sides and a bit behind (say 100-110 degrees) that's a gap that's much wider than that between the FR/FL and the CC, or between the SR/SL and the SBR/SBL pair.


Then spread your front speakers wider apart (±30) and move your surrounds more forward (±90-95). But if you're trying to create an immersive soundfield, then my next step after 5.1 still wouldn't be wides. There are bigger gaps to fill, like overhead and behind.


> But yet it's cool to be super condescending to those who feel it IS worth it?


Super condescending? A couple of jokes between Scott and me about Grimani's "sonic dead zone"? Didn't think you'd take it so personally. Apologies for offending you.


----------



## NorthSky

Contuzzi said:


> Leon The Professional and Fifth Element getting new Sony Atmos releases.
> 
> https://twitter.com/Dolby/status/630808348280029184
> 
> Really good flow of Atmos titles going...


So far those titles are the same ones that got the Superbit treatment from Sony* (with dts sound?), in the old DVD era. 

I love all _Luc Besson's_ flicks...they are highly entertaining. ...And with great music chops. 

* Sony uses five front channels in their own theaters/studios...*SDDS*.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Brian Fineberg said:


> Good thing is. I have NEVER owned the fifth element. Hah go ahead and laugh.
> 
> But no double dipping for me


Waht?!?

I ... didn't even know that was _physically_ possible. Isn't the Fifth Element every bodies first disc on dvd and blu-ray?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Contuzzi said:


> Leon The Professional and Fifth Element getting new Sony Atmos releases.
> 
> https://twitter.com/Dolby/status/630808348280029184
> 
> Really good flow of Atmos titles going...


Moar Atmos from Sony! Yeah! Get it on!


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> But yet it's cool to be super condescending to those who feel it IS worth it?


But yet it's cool to be super condescending to those who feel it ISN'T worth it?

Goes both ways around here. 

How about all the CE's that aren't making products that allow you to use them effectively? There are no products that do 9.1.4 or above. Why even worry about it? Plan for it, sure but what else is there to talk about? Most of us in here want immersive object-based audio. Give me a count of how many products deliver on this and I'll jump back on the "gotta have wides" bandwagon.



^^^^

This is all completely ignoring the fact that the reliance on "needing" wides is completely avoidable. See Sanjay's posts.


----------



## NorthSky

...Guess Sony is tired too of waiting for DTS:X?

By the way, do they have Dolby Atmos receivers?


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Beat me to it but yeah saw Dolby status about The Fifth Element getting the ATMOS treatment, cant wait ^_^


----------



## ride525

ewentzel3 said:


> Does anyone have recommendations on 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2 setup and quality of immersion for ATMOS?
> 
> I have been searching threads and I read about 1 person's experience at a trade show for 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4, but that is the only info I have found. I have wired my basement for 5.1.4, but as I look into receivers, there is a decent price difference for 7.1 vs 9.1 receivers. Any leads on threads or experiences/reviews is much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


I asked most of the folks on the spreadsheet on the first post of this thread who showed only have two Dolby Atmos speakers if they regretted only having two. All but one either have moved on to having four speakers, or do want to move on to four speakers. All those that moved on to four seemed happy of their move to four Atmos speakers. Just one of those that responded thought that two speakers was fine with him, and planned to stay with two.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> You REALLY think that a single speaker on each side is fully sufficient to cover lateral pans and create seamless surround effects between the front speakers and the rears?


Yes, yes I do. You know why? Because there isn't just one speaker used to reproduce panning effects. There is a front and a rear speaker to connect to the side wall imaging. 

There is imaging between each adjacent speaker pair. Front to side, side to back and all the way around.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> But yet it's cool to be super condescending to those who feel it ISN'T worth it?
> 
> Goes both ways around here.


Not really. When was I condescending? I'm simply arguing the counterpoint. Disagreeing isn't condescension. I don't recall ever calling it a solution to an invented problem or implying that people who feel like they have this "gap" either have crappy speakers or don't know where to put them?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, yes I do. You know why? Because there isn't just one speaker used to reproduce panning effects. There is a front and a rear speaker to connect to the side wall imaging.
> 
> *There is imaging between each adjacent speaker pair. Front to side, side to back and all the way around.*


Only from the best sound mixes (minority).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Is it condescending to point out the obvious? There is no mysticism happening in my room or Sanjay's room. I'm not cheating ... but if I knew how to "cheat" this it might be interesting. 

No, people put their speakers in spots that are not optimal and wonder why they have a gap up front or can't tell the difference between 5.1 audio and 7.1 audio. I can't even count the amount of times I hear people proclaim to the heavens that 5.1 is enough and that there was "no improvement with 7.1" suggesting to others to stick with 5.1 audio. Then I see their room and their speaker set up and it all falls into place.

Just because people don't know what they're doing around here doesn't mean I'm not allowed to tell them so. 

(note: I said "some" not "all")


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Only from the best sound mixes (minority).


That means there WILL be imaging here with a wide speaker?


----------



## ewentzel3

Thanks all for the quick responses. 5.1.4 it is!


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> But a sonic black hole between the L/R speakers isn't one of those reasons. If you want to stabilize imaging between the fronts and sides, then add wides. If you're doing it to fill a sonic void, then I would first find out why you're not getting any imaging at that location.


I think "black hole" is an exaggerated characterization. A "weak spot" is probably more accurate for those who feel like they need some extra coverage there. Do you think people who like the effect of adding speakers in between side and front locations don't want to "stabilize imaging"? 

Let's go back to the analogy of the center channel. If you are sitting in the perfect sweet spot, then you should get a fantastic phantom image of the center channel. But what happens when you sit off axis? The stability of that image collapses to the closer speaker. So now take the situation of this super imaging between FL and SL speaker. What happens to the person who is sitting in the seat 4 feet to the left of center? I would wager that phantom image is also going to collapse towards the SL speaker. Wouldn't adding a physical speaker in that "forward surround" position aid in the stability of that horizontal pan? 

It seems like, in general, it's not that controversial that having a physical speaker in a certain place is preferred to relying on phantom imaging. Yet when people bring up "wides" the guns come out. It's an "invented" problem and yet we see these same speakers used in commercial Atmos installations to aid the transition from screen to side surround arrays?



sdurani said:


> Then spread your front speakers wider apart (±30) and move your surrounds more forward (±90-95).


Not everyone has the luxury of complete freedom in speaker placement. But even if you do -- let's take those Grimani examples. These are generally "pro" type installs, with longer rooms, and all three front speakers placed behind the screen, similar to a commercial cinema layout. It seems unlikely that the FR/FL speakers will be +/-30, and assuming your seating is around 30-40% from the back wall, there is going to be this large physical gap in between the front screen wall and the surrounds to the sides. Now you add in the promise of object audio where these speakers are individually addressable for horizontal pans (which BTW it's worth pointing out are MUCH more common than overhead effects). Why is it a bad thing to want to put speakers there and complete the circle?




sdurani said:


> Super condescending? A couple of jokes between Scott and me about Grimani's "sonic dead zone"? Didn't think you'd take it so personally. Apologies for offending you.


I'm not personally offended, I don't even have wides. But it just seems like you both have this essentially derisive attitude towards people who feel that particular speaker location is beneficial to their setup. And I don't really get it.


----------



## jrogers

Scott Simonian said:


> Is it condescending to point out the obvious? There is no mysticism happening in my room or Sanjay's room. I'm not cheating ... but if I knew how to "cheat" this it might be interesting.
> 
> No, people put their speakers in spots that are not optimal and wonder why they have a gap up front or can't tell the difference between 5.1 audio and 7.1 audio. I can't even count the amount of times I hear people proclaim to the heavens that 5.1 is enough and that there was "no improvement with 7.1" suggesting to others to stick with 5.1 audio. Then I see their room and their speaker set up and it all falls into place.
> 
> Just because people don't know what they're doing around here doesn't mean I'm not allowed to tell them so.
> 
> (note: I said "some" not "all")


My favorite example of "non-optimal placement" was a neighbor who said he thought surround speakers were a total waste of money. When I finally visited his living room, I noticed he had the surround speakers sitting on top of his left and right front speakers as he didn't have a good place for them in the back of the room


----------



## dvdwilly3

Scott Simonian said:


> Waht?!?
> 
> I ... didn't even know that was _physically_ possible. Isn't the Fifth Element every bodies first disc on dvd and blu-ray?


Nope...Blade Runner...


----------



## dvdwilly3

ewentzel3 said:


> Thanks all for the quick responses. 5.1.4 it is!


I started with 5.1.2 and went to 5.1.4..

Never going back...


----------



## pasender91

Great news to have the Multipass in atmos !!!









Leon is a nice touch too


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Is it condescending to point out the obvious? There is no mysticism happening in my room or Sanjay's room. I'm not cheating ... but if I knew how to "cheat" this it might be interesting.
> 
> No, people put their speakers in spots that are not optimal and wonder why they have a gap up front or can't tell the difference between 5.1 audio and 7.1 audio. I can't even count the amount of times I hear people proclaim to the heavens that 5.1 is enough and that there was "no improvement with 7.1" suggesting to others to stick with 5.1 audio. Then I see their room and their speaker set up and it all falls into place.
> 
> Just because people don't know what they're doing around here doesn't mean I'm not allowed to tell them so.
> 
> (note: I said "some" not "all")





jrogers said:


> My favorite example of "non-optimal placement" was a neighbor who said he thought surround speakers were a total waste of money. When I finally visited his living room, I noticed he had the surround speakers sitting on top of his left and right front speakers as he didn't have a good place for them in the back of the room



I'm not going to argue that plenty of people don't know what they are doing and place their speakers in crappy spots (whether due to ignorance or physical constraints in the room). But it seems excessive to assert that incompetence is the only cause of someone thinking it's beneficial to their setup to add extra speakers to their horizontal bed. Especially in this thread where there are many people with excellent gear and very nice rooms. In the most obvious case I'm pretty sure Grimani knows what he is doing, being a professional acoustician and having done hundreds of high end theater installs. I think it's presumptuous to assert that his stance isn't one which has a decent amount of consideration behind it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I'm not personally offended, I don't even have wides. But it just seems like you both have this essentially derisive attitude towards people who feel that particular speaker location is beneficial to their setup. And I don't really get it.



Diminishing returns. That's why. It's the lowest on the list of priorities for speaker locations. The argument is "i have a gap here". Sanjay I say that you can avoid this gap with optimal positioning of a currently supported 7.1 audio system.

We both agree on an additional speaker providing more stability. This has never been disputed. But there are diminishing returns and a "wide" speaker is the last choice on list of priorities. But let's completely ignore that wides aren't even universally supported and with the arrival of new immersive formats will they disappear nearly as fast as Auro will.


----------



## blastermaster

> On this subject... I don't have a "gap" that needs filled by these 'wides'.
> 
> Protip: position your speakers correctly and get ones that are capable of having imaging.


I have my fronts dialed in for what sounds best and my speakers are very capable. The only thing I think I could do to improve it is (and it's in the planning) is to build a baffle wall or at the very least add some absorbtive material to the front wall behind the screen). I think it depends on your setup. I've gone with the Dolby specs for Atmos and so my side surrounds are at ear height and directly to the sides. I've got room to move my furniture around if need be, but I'm going with the recommended setup. That being said, I sit 13 feet from my screen so my fronts are a ways away from the MLP. It doesn't sound bad as I've said, but there is room for improvement. I think the front heights will most likely fill that gap with Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> That means there WILL be imaging here with a wide speaker?


I don't use them myself; they aren't discreet/discrete and what comes from them is a bland mix between the rears and fronts...unnatural, reverberating with unwanted echoes. ...Yamaha front presence channels are more effective...and highly adjustable to perfect taste. 

Also, I hear voices sometimes coming from the Wides, voices that should remain in the Center channel speaker. 
Did you ever experience it too? 

But with Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks, yes I would use them in a 9.1.4 system setup. ...Short of Trinnov and Datasat do you know another pre/pro or receiver with such capability...for less than say five grands?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> But with Dolby Atmos audio soundtracks, yes I would use them in a 9.1.4 system setup. ...Short of Trinnov and Datasat do you know another pre/pro or receiver with such capability...for less than say five grands?


There are none, hence my argument of their importance. 





NorthSky said:


> *Also, I hear voices sometimes*


We know.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Diminishing returns. That's why. It's the lowest on the list of priorities for speaker locations. The argument is "i have a gap here". Sanjay I say that you can avoid this gap with optimal positioning of a currently supported 7.1 audio system.
> 
> We both agree on an additional speaker providing more stability. This has never been disputed. But there are diminishing returns and a "wide" speaker is the last choice on list of priorities. But let's completely ignore that wides aren't even universally supported and with the arrival of new immersive formats will they disappear nearly as fast as Auro will.


But Dolby Atmos and DTS:X both support the Wides. ...In direct form; Atmos doesn't from its up-mixer (DSU).

* In the Dolby Atmos white papers they have a 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup. That's all what I want, ...I'm not asking for the moon.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> There are none, hence my argument of their importance.


Good point, for mere common mortals...like us. 



> We know ("I hear voices sometimes").


I don't see dead people...yet. ;-)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey... I'd like a 24.x.10 set up but just ain't in the cards, baby.


----------



## dschulz

As long as we are debating the relative merits of adding FW speakers, I'll chime in with a different opinion that I've not seen yet (just to keep things interesting). I would also love to see a 9.1.4 processor, not to add FW but to add a second row of side surrounds. ISTM that many nice home theaters with multiple rows of seating use a side surround array of two speakers for coverage, and those theaters have been sort of hosed with Atmos. I care much more about supporting multiple side surrounds (maybe choosing my positions between 75, 90 and 105 deg) than I care about adding Front Wides, which are, after all, absent in cinemas.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> As long as we are debating the relative merits of adding FW speakers, I'll chime in with a different opinion that I've not seen yet (just to keep things interesting). I would also love to see a 9.1.4 processor, not to add FW but to add a second row of side surrounds. ISTM that many nice home theaters with multiple rows of seating use a side surround array of two speakers for coverage, and those theaters have been sort of hosed with Atmos. I care much more about supporting multiple side surrounds (maybe choosing my positions between 75, 90 and 105 deg) than I care about adding Front Wides, which are, after all, absent in cinemas.


Actually, Sanjay and I bring this up quite often when the "gotta have wides" brigade comes out. 

I agree!


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Do you think people who like the effect of adding speakers in between side and front locations don't want to "stabilize imaging"?


But that's rarely, if ever, the reason given. Look at past discussions on the topic: no one says that they get plenty of imaging between the fronts & sides, and are using wides primarily to stabilize that imaging. Instead, the reason given is the same as Grimani's: gotta fill a sonic gap. Why would one of the top home theatre designers end up without imaging between adjacent speakers?


> It's an "invented" problem and yet we see these same speakers used in commercial Atmos installations to aid the transition from screen to side surround arrays?


It doesn't come at the expense of overhead imaging and coverage, the way it does for home Atmos. Filling that gap at home means you give up front to back panning overhead as well as better coverage above.


> Why is it a bad thing to want to put speakers there and complete the circle?


Who said it was a bad thing to fill that gap? In fact I specifically said _"not like they'll have any negative effect"_. I simply pointed out that, for an immersive layout, there are more important gaps to fill above and behind. You're asking about completing a circle when I'm talking about completing a dome.


----------



## bargervais

That's great news 8 new Atmos Blu-Rays coming to the U.S.A. and Canada by November.
That will bring my Atmos collection to twenty, in one year I think that's great and now that they are rereleasing older ones as well life is good, I'm still glad to be an earlier adopter


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> As long as we are debating the relative merits of adding FW speakers, I'll chime in with a different opinion that I've not seen yet (just to keep things interesting). I would also love to see a 9.1.4 processor, not to add FW but to add a second row of side surrounds. ISTM that many nice home theaters with multiple rows of seating use a side surround array of two speakers for coverage, and those theaters have been sort of hosed with Atmos. I care much more about supporting multiple side surrounds (maybe choosing my positions between 75, 90 and 105 deg) than I care about adding Front Wides, which are, after all, absent in cinemas.


Then, in that same type of vein, a better full coverage would consist of an 11.1.6 system setup.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> That's great news 8 new Atmos Blu-Rays coming to the U.S.A. and Canada by November.
> That will bring my Atmos collection to twenty, in one year I think that's great and now that they are rereleasing older ones as well life is good, I'm still glad to be an earlier adopter


And perhaps even more...keep an eye open on the upcoming news from Sony...we never know if more Atmos titles are going to be part of that first batch from their Supreme Cinema Series.... 

Maybe this is it this year around...Christmas 2015.

♥ But the biggest joy of them all is coming in only three weeks (Sept 1st): *Mad Max: Fury Road - 3D* ... with *Dolby Atmos*.
{I also want the George Miller's cut; the Black & White version.}


----------



## Daniel Chaves

As to your guys discussion about wide speakers and not and so on... I think another possible factor would be room size, a smaller room would probably see little return from those extra speakers compared to maybe a larger space with more spacing between the speakers?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I would also love to see a 9.1.4 processor, not to add FW but to add a second row of side surrounds.


Both 9.1.4 demos at CEDIA last year used a second set of sides, not wides. That's also the preferred use of 9 floor speakers for installers I've talked to. Cool part is that it is built into the format.


----------



## dschulz

NorthSky said:


> Then, in that same type of vein, a better full coverage would consist of an 11.1.6 system setup.


Of course (there is our saying here on this thread, moar speakers is moar better). But moar speakers also is moar money, for speakers, amplifiers, wiring, installation, etc.) I submit that for many commonly-sized rooms, a 9.1.4 layout as I have described (with 2 side surrounds) is the sweet spot.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Both 9.1.4 demos at CEDIA last year used a second set of sides, not wides. That's also the preferred use of 9 floor speakers for installers I've talked to. Cool part is that it is built into the format.


Which processors on the market support multiple side surrounds for Atmos? The Trinnov Altitude does. Any others?


----------



## sdurani

Not that I know of. At the moment, mainstream immersive audio receivers and pre-pros seems stuck at 11 speaker locations, without much market pressure to go beyond.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Everybody adopt ScAtmos speaker configuration and show the CE's we mean business. Umm... _their_ business to be exact. Yeah.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> Of course (there is our saying here on this thread, moar speakers is moar better). But moar speakers also is moar money, for speakers, amplifiers, wiring, installation, etc.) I submit that for many commonly-sized rooms, a 9.1.4 layout as I have described (with 2 side surrounds) is the sweet spot.


I agree with you; it makes more sense to have two sets of side surrounds...for two rows of seats. ...Four Atmos overheads are still perfect.
And screw the Front Wides! ...Or unless....


----------



## Scott Simonian

Six overheads would be perfect.

Four is passable (not that we have a choice of more) and better than zero which is what we had before.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Six overheads would be perfect.
> 
> Four is just passable and better than zero which is what we had before.


And the voice of god...what we do with it?


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> The Fifth Element is AWESOME news
> 
> Leon is great but not as tailor made for Atmos...


Yup. I am waiting in line for the Fifth..


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Everybody adopt *ScAt*mos speaker configuration...


How about picking a name that doesn't remind one of bathroom acoustics.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> And the voice of god...what we do with it?


Six overheads  that would be the voice of God


----------



## batpig

dschulz said:


> As long as we are debating the relative merits of adding FW speakers, I'll chime in with a different opinion that I've not seen yet (just to keep things interesting). I would also love to see a 9.1.4 processor, not to add FW but to add a second row of side surrounds. ISTM that many nice home theaters with multiple rows of seating use a side surround array of two speakers for coverage, and those theaters have been sort of hosed with Atmos. I care much more about supporting multiple side surrounds (maybe choosing my positions between 75, 90 and 105 deg) than I care about adding Front Wides, which are, after all, absent in cinemas.





Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, Sanjay and I bring this up quite often when the "gotta have wides" brigade comes out.
> 
> I agree!


To me it seems like we are all talking about the same thing, honestly -- I'm pretty sure anyone who likes their "front wide" speakers would be more than happy to call them "front surround" and have them be part of the surround array.

That's why I made the specific point earlier to forget the "front wide" nomenclature and its affiliation with things like Audyssey DSX.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> How about picking a name that doesn't remind one of bathroom acoustics.


I'll forward the complaint to @aaranddeeman

I had suggested Scott's Wonderful Emporium of Excellent Objects, Speakers and Old Receivers as a name but that didn't stick.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> To me it seems like we are all talking about the same thing, honestly -- I'm pretty sure anyone who likes their "front wide" speakers would be more than happy to call them "front surround" and have them be part of the surround array.
> 
> That's why I made the specific point earlier to forget the "front wide" nomenclature and its affiliation with things like Audyssey DSX.


Front surrounds as suggested by Dan works different than front wides. So there is a difference. I understand that there is confusion between the difference but ... well.... we can get into all _that_ again if you'd like.


----------



## batpig

The only difference (besides recommended angle) is a GOOD difference -- they will get surround bed info (reproduced as an array) in addition to objects. Did I miss something?


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> How about picking a name that doesn't remind one of bathroom acoustics.


Okay. *SiAmos*
and whenever it comes

*DTS:SiX*


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The only difference (besides recommended angle) is a GOOD difference -- they will get surround bed info (reproduced as an array) in addition to objects. Did I miss something?


You got it.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> And the voice of god...what we do with it?


The audio gods have spoken (or voted by lack of content and adoption rates by manufacturers) and Auro aka VOG is dead. Where's that thread by the way


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. *SiAmos*



Seeeeee Ammmooos?

Sia Amos?


----------



## aaranddeeman

smurraybhm said:


> The audio gods have spoken (or voted by lack of content and adoption rates by manufacturers) and Auro aka VOG is dead. Where's that thread by the way


in the heaven. At peace..


----------



## sdurani

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. *SiAmos*


Better (less scatty).


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> You got it.


So if people were all like, "we need Front Surrounds!" instead of "Front Wides!" would you be like, hell yah?


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> The audio gods have spoken (or voted by lack of content and adoption rates by manufacturers) and Auro aka VOG is dead. Where's that thread by the way


Cool dog Steve, yours?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey, let's get some product that can do ANY of these things and I'm on board. 

I'm against the "I'd rather have 9.1.4 before 7.1.6 system" honestly. Let the overhead systems get some action before adding more where there are more already.


But yes, I would rather have front surrounds. Those will carry channel information and _should_ work with Dolby Surround where as wides only get object data and are silent with DSU. Hmmm, I wonder which one I'd rather have....


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Cool dog Steve, yours?


Thanks Bob, yes that one of two pugs we have along with a mutt. All of them given to us. That picture sums up my feelings about Auro perfectly, and I spent $199 on the upgrade


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Seeeeee Ammmooos?
> 
> Sia Amos?


Siamese flying fox.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Thanks Bob, yes that one of two pugs we have along with a mutt. All of them given to us. That picture sums up my feelings about Auro perfectly, and I spent $199 on the upgrade


He's a peaceful looking dog...doesn't look like the biter/bitter type.


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> and whenever it comes
> 
> *DTS:SiX*



Awwww yeah, son!


----------



## Daniel Chaves

isnt the idea of DTS X to get rid of the current concept of LF, Center, RF, and so on and just have say speaker 1, 2, 3 and you place them where ever you want and the mic then logs its position and creates a surround sound field from such? wouldnt that mean you could do those different types of configurations since you are not relying on pre-determined locations? I mean I know thats how the software is suppose to work but Im sure manufactures will still designate speaker locations. If Im mistaken then alrighty.


----------



## batpig

Daniel Chaves said:


> isnt the idea of DTS X to get rid of the current concept of LF, Center, RF, and so on and just have say speaker 1, 2, 3 and you place them where ever you want and the mic then logs its position and creates a surround sound field from such? wouldnt that mean you could do those different types of configurations since you are not relying on pre-determined locations? I mean I know thats how the software is suppose to work but Im sure manufactures will still designate speaker locations. If Im mistaken then alrighty.


That's what DTS' marketing department would like you to believe 

You're still going to be tied to the standard 7ch "bed" for a long time either way...


----------



## smurraybhm

Daniel Chaves said:


> isnt the idea of DTS X to get rid of the current concept of LF, Center, RF, and so on and just have say speaker 1, 2, 3 and you place them where ever you want and the mic then logs its position and creates a surround sound field from such? wouldnt that mean you could do those different types of configurations since you are not relying on pre-determined locations? I mean I know thats how the software is suppose to work but Im sure manufactures will still designate speaker locations. If Im mistaken then alrighty.


Atmos can do this as well - speaker mapping has been discussed a lot and DTS:X likes to make it sound like only they "offer it." Unfortunately unless you invest 5 figures in a processor its not likely we will see it on what most of us can afford to purchase for a receiver. Yamaha has something similar, but has chosen so far to not let it be used on the immersive codes - whoops wrong thread, right Scott 

P.S. In the end there has to be some basic speaker guidelines IMO, as Scott said some folks put surrounds on top of their fronts. No magical software will ever correct for something like that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> isnt the idea of DTS X to get rid of the current concept of LF, Center, RF, and so on and just have say speaker 1, 2, 3 and you place them where ever you want and the mic then logs its position and creates a surround sound field from such? wouldnt that mean you could do those different types of configurations since you are not relying on pre-determined locations? I mean I know thats how the software is suppose to work but Im sure manufactures will still designate speaker locations. If Im mistaken then alrighty.


Marketing. 


EDIT: ninja'd by da batpiggy


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> So if people were all like, "we need Front Surrounds!" instead of "Front Wides!" would you be like, hell yah?


It's not a question of name but location. The alternative mentioned by Dan would locate each pair of side speakers in line with their respective row, with neither pair being at the wide speaker location. Every installer I know would prefer to use 9 floor speakers this way, since it will make for a more consistent experience from row to row.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Daniel Chaves said:


> isnt the idea of DTS X to get rid of the current concept of LF, Center, RF, and so on and just have say speaker 1, 2, 3 and you place them where ever you want and the mic then logs its position and creates a surround sound field from such?


I hope so!

I paired these with my DTS:X receiver. I should be good to go now


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yikes.


----------



## petetherock

tommaazz said:


> I have one question...would it be ok to use monitor audio BXFX dipole/bipole (switchable) speakers as side height speakers for dolby ATMOS (when i will upgrade receiver)? I was just thinking of getting additional pair of speakers for the future (since then i would use it with dts:neoX)...or is this a NO GO...


I use the silver series, and they work fine. Spreads the sound nicely..


----------



## tjenkins95

Speaking of the first blu-rays released in the US: 
June 20, 2006:

50 First Dates
The Fifth Element
Hitch
House of Flying Daggers
The Terminator
Unmderworld: Evolution
xXx

June 27, 2006:

Crash
Lord of War
The Punisher
Saw
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Ultraviolet

And I have 10 of the 13 in my collection! 
Compliments of http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php
and my DvdProfiler software!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmmm, I wonder which one I'd rather have....



Hmmm...


----------



## bargervais

Molon_Labe said:


> I hope so!
> 
> I paired these with my DTS:X receiver. I should be good to go now


Now that's ugly I'd put a bag over those things


----------



## Molon_Labe

bargervais said:


> Now that's ugly I'd put a bag over those things


That is disco ball meets DTS:X. Dont judge


----------



## bargervais

Molon_Labe said:


> That is disco ball meets DTS:X. Dont judge


Do they spin that would do it for me


----------



## Molon_Labe

bargervais said:


> Do they spin that would do it for me


By the end of the party they will


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey, let's get some product that can do ANY of these things and I'm on board.
> 
> I'm against the "I'd rather have 9.1.4 before 7.1.6 system" honestly. Let the overhead systems get some action before adding more where there are more already.
> 
> 
> But yes, I would rather have front surrounds. Those will carry channel information and _should_ work with Dolby Surround where as wides only get object data and are silent with DSU. Hmmm, I wonder which one I'd rather have....


I just reposted this Dolby diagram in this thread earlier today:










Call the postion in question front wide or front surround or LAS ("Let's Annoy Scott")--this is how I would set up my listener-level base 9 if I could. Unfortunately, I am among the benighted souls batpig mentioned who don't have a dedicated room and lack the ability to position their speakers where they would be most effective. I do the best I can (within reason) and enjoy the result. For me, the FW do help to broaden the front sound stage in Neo:X and, although they are omitted from the equation when I employ Atmos or DSU, I look forward to their addition some fine day in these modes as well.

No way I would forgo my two height pairs in favor of 9.1.2; but 9.1.4 or--even better--9.1.6 is what I would like to achieve. Admittedly, right now the FW are slighted in Atmos (and ignored completely in DSU), but I see the progression from 7 base to 9 as a logical one. And let's wait and see what DTS:X does with this speaker position before we write it off for the current immersive audio setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Here's a better diagram:











It's a messy Paint throw together but ... better layout, imo. Why the heck is the couch so far away from the screen? Agh! Move that closer and make the surround field larger in the process. Moved the rear surrounds further apart. Also moved the heights much closer inward for better separation.

Dolby's own diagram there exaggerates the need for those wides. Mine fixes that and improves everything.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Here's a better diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a messy Paint throw together but ... better layout, imo. Why the heck is the couch so far away from the screen? Agh! Move that closer and make the surround field larger in the process. Moved the rear surrounds further apart. Also moved the heights much closer inward for better separation.
> 
> Dolby's own diagram there exaggerates the need for those wides. Mine fixes that and improves everything.


But wouldn't that kill the separation between the Left and Right heights themselves.
My room width is 11ft 8in. I have mounted the heights @ 29-30inch from side wall.
But I can move them inwards if that will bring some advantage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'll be trying just this configuration soon so I'll let you know....


...which is something you're supposed to be doing, mister. What the heck? Not a peep out of you since putting up your third pair of heights.


But anyway. There will still be stereo separation and the difference between height and mains will be better which is the point of all this.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll be trying just this configuration soon so I'll let you know....
> 
> 
> ...which is something you're supposed to be doing, mister. What the heck? Not a peep out of you since putting up your third pair of heights.
> 
> 
> But anyway. There will still be stereo separation and the difference between height and mains will be better which is the point of all this.


Okay. May be it's worth a try. I will try moving them inwards (too many holes on my ceiling. Thank goodness I am not using in-ceiling speakers..  )
Oh, and on the Scat ... oops... SiAmos. I am seriously considering pairing like receivers. Not that I have heard major issues, but's it's just keep bothering me.
I am lookout for another Denon preferably the same model.. Call me OCD..


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Here's a better diagram. . .


I could live with that layout, more or less, for a dedicated HT (which I will probably never have). But for music, and in my room, I would still relish the broadened front sound stage that I currently enjoy with Neo:X 11.1.

No matter how much you may micturate on it, FW (or FS) are a worthy addition to the base layer. The only caveat being, as you justly suggest, they should not come at the expense of a second (or third) height pair.


----------



## cdelena

dschulz said:


> As long as we are debating the relative merits of adding FW speakers, I'll chime in with a different opinion that I've not seen yet (just to keep things interesting). I would also love to see a 9.1.4 processor, not to add FW but to add a second row of side surrounds. ISTM that many nice home theaters with multiple rows of seating use a side surround array of two speakers for coverage, and those theaters have been sort of hosed with Atmos. I care much more about supporting multiple side surrounds (maybe choosing my positions between 75, 90 and 105 deg) than I care about adding Front Wides, which are, after all, absent in cinemas.


I use bi-pole speakers as side surrounds as a compromise to cover two rows. 

Would think that most rooms requires compromises of one sort or another. Due limitations in my room most of my speakers are in good but not perfect positions.


----------



## blastermaster

> It's not a question of name but location. The alternative mentioned by Dan would locate each pair of side speakers in line with their respective row, with neither pair being at the wide speaker location. Every installer I know would prefer to use 9 floor speakers this way, since it will make for a more consistent experience from row to row.


What about those of us who don't need a second row of seating? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use that extra pair of speakers for front wides or front surrounds, even if that benefit is minor? 

It was mentioned that no theater has front wides, but what theater has come even close to what most of us here have in our theatres at home? I don't know if having six overheads is more important than having front wides and I suppose it doesn't really matter since the tech doesn't exist for them, but it seems to me like most people here are obsessed with min/maxing their setup, so any change that could be done to make things better, even marginally, is what I'm willing to do. At the end of the day, we are all here to make our systems look and sound as great as possible. 

For the time being, though, it looks like 7.1.4 is what we're going to have to settle with and that's fine. As I've said, perhaps the front heights will fill the bubble between my fronts and surrounds. Maybe that's why Dolby didn't include front wides?


----------



## pletwals

sdurani said:


> Then spread your front speakers wider apart (±30) and move your surrounds more forward (±90-95). But if you're trying to create an immersive soundfield, then my next step after 5.1 still wouldn't be wides. There are bigger gaps to fill, like overhead and behind..


What about 7.1 with: 
*L/R @ +/-30°
*Side Surround @ +/-75°
*Rear Surround @ +/- 120°

Exactly 45° between adjacent speakers from L/R on, bar the Rears (120°) where it's less important. The TR in 7.1.4 would also help filling behind MLP.


----------



## pletwals

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey, let's get some product that can do ANY of these things and I'm on board.
> 
> I'm against the "I'd rather have 9.1.4 before 7.1.6 system" honestly. Let the overhead systems get some action before adding more where there are more already.
> 
> 
> But yes, I would rather have front surrounds. Those will carry channel information and _should_ work with Dolby Surround where as wides only get object data and are silent with DSU. Hmmm, I wonder which one I'd rather have....


Let me get this straight: you prefer having 6 overheads (7.1.6) and beyond that, you would have Surround 1 L/R (Atmos speak in guidelines, nominally @75° from 60-90°) and not Wides (nominally @60° from 50-70°).

*Fantastic idea!!*

With:
L/R @ +/- 30°
Surround 1 (S1) @ +/- 75°
Side Surround (SS) @ +/- 105°
Rear Surround (RS) @ +/- 135°
You get 30° between Surrounds and a very reasonable 45° between Fronts and S1

Maybe even better:
L/R @ +/-30°
S1 @ +/- 65°
SS @ +/- 100°
RS @ +/- 135°
You get an even 35° from Fronts up to RS!

As you say, all speakers are used in DSU which is getting a lot more use than proper Atmos content.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I was wondering if the 7.x.4 (in current crop of AVRs) would actually be possible with wides (skip rears for wides in the 7.x bed)
If you have rear heights (or top rear) it should fill the gap (to some extent) that is created by rear surrounds.
In other words it's 5.x.4 + Wides


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I totally am not understanding the question. It seems like all the reasons why a center channel is a good thing would also apply to why adding a physical speaker (and not relying on phantom imaging) would be a good idea between any other pair of speakers. Greater spatial resolution, better stability with pans, more consistency for listeners not in the sweet spot... if you logically follow the line of thought that you and Scott are putting forward then it seems the center channel is one of the least important speakers


A center speaker is definitely NOT required for stereo. Phantom imaging will give a rock-solid central image with no problems at all. The only drawback is that the sweet spot is small. Stereo is basically a one-listener-at-a-time system. Adding the center speaker does not improve the center imaging* at all* for that one listener in the sweet spot. So the concept of phantom imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is unassailable. 

The center speaker was added when HT took off because movie watching is usually a multi-person activity and it is important that dialog is locked to the center of the screen, regardless of where the listener is sitting. It was not added because of any deficiency in phantom imaging between the L&R speakers per se.

With phantom imaging between the RF and RS and LF and LS the situation is not the same as it is across the front because everyone sitting in a line/row is in the same relative position to the 4 speakers in question. Imagine a single row cinema with the row placed such that the LF and LS is centrally positioned with regard to those speakers. Wherever you sit on the row, you are still in the center of the LF and LS speakers. This is not the case for the LCR set of course because as you move along the row, you approach either the LF or RF speaker. So the phantom image between LF and LS will be stable for everyone in the row of seats. Adding a speaker in the middle of the LF and LS would not improve the imaging.

Consequently, there is no real correlation between the center speaker between LF and RF and an additional speaker between LF and LS and RF and RS. If the speakers are set up properly, and image well, as I'd hope all AVS members would expect in their own installations, then phantom imaging will provide a solid and stable image between the LF and LS and RF and RS, with no need for an additional physical speaker filling a 'sonic hole' that shouldn't exist in the first place.


----------



## sdurani

pletwals said:


> What about 7.1 with:
> *L/R @ +/-30°
> *Side Surround @ +/-75°
> *Rear Surround @ +/- 120°


Only thing I'd change is having the rears further back, maybe 135°, to anchor sounds firmly behind the listener (rather than some side-ish, rear-ish direction).


----------



## DAK4

chi_guy50 said:


> No matter how much you may micturate on it,


Wow, I didn't see that one coming when I looked it up. Definitely don't want to do that to ceiling speakers.


----------



## stikle

Contuzzi said:


> Leon The Professional and *Fifth Element getting new Sony Atmos releases*.



Damn you triple dip!



Scott Simonian said:


> Isn't the Fifth Element every bodies first disc on dvd and blu-ray?



No.


----------



## dkfan9

kbarnes701 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally am not understanding the question. It seems like all the reasons why a center channel is a good thing would also apply to why adding a physical speaker (and not relying on phantom imaging) would be a good idea between any other pair of speakers. Greater spatial resolution, better stability with pans, more consistency for listeners not in the sweet spot... if you logically follow the line of thought that you and Scott are putting forward then it seems the center channel is one of the least important speakers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A center speaker is definitely NOT required for stereo. Phantom imaging will give a rock-solid central image with no problems at all. The only drawback is that the sweet spot is small. Stereo is basically a one-listener-at-a-time system. Adding the center speaker does not improve the center imaging* at all* for that one listener in the sweet spot. So the concept of phantom imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is unassailable.
> 
> The center speaker was added when HT took off because movie watching is usually a multi-person activity and it is important that dialog is locked to the center of the screen, regardless of where the listener is sitting. It was not added because of any deficiency in phantom imaging between the L&R speakers per se.
> 
> With phantom imaging between the RF and RS and LF and LS the situation is not the same as it is across the front because everyone sitting in a line/row is in the same relative position to the 4 speakers in question. Imagine a single row cinema with the row placed such that the LF and LS is centrally positioned with regard to those speakers. Wherever you sit on the row, you are still in the center of the LF and LS speakers. This is not the case for the LCR set of course because as you move along the row, you approach either the LF or RF speaker. So the phantom image between LF and LS will be stable for everyone in the row of seats. Adding a speaker in the middle of the LF and LS would not improve the imaging.
> 
> Consequently, there is no real correlation between the center speaker between LF and RF and an additional speaker between LF and LS and RF and RS. If the speakers are set up properly, and image well, as I'd hope all AVS members would expect in their own installations, then phantom imaging will provide a solid and stable image between the LF and LS and RF and RS, with no need for an additional physical speaker filling a 'sonic hole' that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think this depends on the room.

Correct me if my measuring methods are off, but a way I've seen to measure off axis, with mlp as on axis, is arc tangent (distance from mlp/distance to point in question) 

So in my room, if I put a speaker directly to my left (a little under 7 feet away, vs. the 11 of my mains and 10.75 of phantom center), it would create the phantom wide at 6 feet 9 inches from the mlp (6 feet 1.5 inches between the speakers). This assumes some eq to make the speakers equal in volume at mlp. If I move 3 feet to my left, I move 43 degrees off axis from the phantom wide, but only 27 degrees from my phantom center, and I move to only 4 feet away from the surround left but still about 10.75 feet from the front left.

If there is a better way to measure this, let me know, IIRC I picked up that method from an alcoholics article related to measuring a center off axis but it may have been elsewhere


----------



## fredl

Here's where I am currently at. I have my (di-pole) side surrounds with the nulls at the ear position in MLP and use TM. With the MLP near the back wall in a very narrow room it's the best I can do. If I were to sacrifice two rows I would move the couch forward but DW wants us to have more than three seats.


I have another set of on ceiling speakers I will connect in series to give the front seats some over head action.


The di-pole design of the side surrounds give a decent surround sound for those seats. Going from 5.1.2 to 7.1.2 would add very little to this room in this configuration, me thinks. I think I will go for a 5.1.4 receiver upgrade when 2015/2016 models become available.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Damn you triple dip!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.


Why is it that a silly sci-fi like _The Fifth Element_ is a must buy in every format????? The thing is the film knows what it is and plays to it brilliantly (unlike a _Jupiter Ascending_ that's laughable unintentionally) along with a totally hammy performance by Gary Oldman. 

Of course, I'll get it too unless a UHD Blu-ray version gets released around the same time.


----------



## dkfan9

Correction to the above, 10 7 would be more accurate for the phantom center


----------



## DNW

*ATMOS benefits with non-ATMOS content*

I just purchased the Denon AVR-X7200WA, and a pair of Def Tech BP-8060ST, with A60 elevation modules for my home theatre. Question: I watch mostly TV shows, such as Ray Donovan, Grey’s Anatomy, etc. I sometimes watch movies, but mostly TV. Is there a means of ‘synthesizing’ an ATMOS channel from non-ATMOS content. if not, do I gain nothing from my ATMOS equipment if ATMOS content is not specifically encoded into the program material?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

^Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU)

While watching non Atmos content hit the movie button until Dolby surround is selected. It will add DSU to whatever codec is playing. Giving you the matrixed Atmos sound your looking for


----------



## stikle

DNW said:


> Is there a means of ‘synthesizing’ an ATMOS channel from non-ATMOS content. if not, do I gain nothing from my ATMOS equipment if ATMOS content is not specifically encoded into the program material?



Yes! While watching your non-Atmos content, press the green (?) Movie button near the bottom of your remote, then select "Dolby Surround". This is the new Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU), which breathes new life into standard content. It's fabulous and you should be properly wow'd. It's kinda sorta pseudo Atmosey (except no objects).

_Edit: Damn you, Ninja Brian!_


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why is it that a silly sci-fi like _The Fifth Element_ is a must buy in every format????? The thing is the film knows what it is and plays to it brilliantly (unlike a _Jupiter Ascending_ that's laughable unintentionally) along with a totally hammy performance by Gary Oldman.
> 
> Of course, I'll get it too unless a UHD Blu-ray version gets released around the same time.


I've never owned nor seen it! Yea that's right you read correctly

I will be buying my first edition with this ATMOS release


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> I've never owned nor seen it! Yea that's right you read correctly
> 
> I will be buying my first edition with this ATMOS release


I've had the film on laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, and now possibly UHD Blu-ray or this double dip Blu-ray. What spell does Milla Jovovich and Gary Oldman have over us all?? It's certainly not Bruce Willis' performance. He seemed rather bored with the whole thing. Those two (and a completely over the top Chris Tucker) go all the way to crazy-town.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've had the film on laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, and now possibly UHD Blu-ray or this double dip Blu-ray. What spell does Milla Jovovich and Gary Oldman have over us all?? It's certainly not Bruce Willis' performance. He seemed rather bored with the whole thing. Those too (and a completely over the top Chris Tucker) go all the way to crazy-town.


I have it on almost every format too, PSP, VHS, Laser Disc, DVD, Bluray, Digital... I have almost the entire primary cast autographs just need a couple more to meet in person and get them and I have the entire Funko Pop Set on Pre-Order ^_^


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

DNW said:


> I just purchased the Denon AVR-X7200WA, and a pair of Def Tech BP-8060ST, with A60 elevation modules for my home theatre. Question: I watch mostly TV shows, such as Ray Donovan, Grey’s Anatomy, etc. I sometimes watch movies, but mostly TV. Is there a means of ‘synthesizing’ an ATMOS channel from non-ATMOS content. if not, do I gain nothing from my ATMOS equipment if ATMOS content is not specifically encoded into the program material?


Yes, just use +Dolby Surround (commonly referred to here as "DSU") with whatever sound mode you're decoding (i.e. Dolby Digital + Dolby Surround, DTS + Dolby Surround, etc.). I absolutely love what DSU does for standard 5.1 and 7.1 tracks. Some sound as good or better than the Atmos discs I have so far! Granted, Ray Donovan doesn't tend to have much in the way of surround sound, but it still sounds better with 7.1.4 DSU than it did on my previous DPL-IIx 9.1 setup.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> With phantom imaging between the RF and RS and LF and LS the situation is not the same as it is across the front because everyone sitting in a line/row is in the same relative position to the 4 speakers in question. Imagine a single row cinema with the row placed such that the LF and LS is centrally positioned with regard to those speakers. Wherever you sit on the row, you are still in the center of the LF and LS speakers. This is not the case for the LCR set of course because as you move along the row, you approach either the LF or RF speaker. So the phantom image between LF and LS will be stable for everyone in the row of seats. Adding a speaker in the middle of the LF and LS would not improve the imaging.
> 
> Consequently, there is no real correlation between the center speaker between LF and RF and an additional speaker between LF and LS and RF and RS. If the speakers are set up properly, and image well, as I'd hope all AVS members would expect in their own installations, then phantom imaging will provide a solid and stable image between the LF and LS and RF and RS, with no need for an additional physical speaker filling a 'sonic hole' that shouldn't exist in the first place.


Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly. But your scenario of a single-row theater in which the row is equidistant from the LF and LS, for example, is not common. Certainly it is not the case in your own room since you are virtually up against your back wall and your surrounds are at 90 degrees, give or take. And it would put the side surround speakers at an angle much greater than recommended (in fact, by definition, the angle would be between 150 and 157.5 degrees (if the LF/RF recommendations are followed). I must be misunderstanding.

Regardless, phantom imaging does rely on speaker-speaker separation to MLP-speaker separation ratios. You can't expect a decent phantom image from a pair of speakers separated by 12' if you're sitting 4' away from the plane between them, as would be quite possible in your scenario above (again, assuming I am understanding the scenario correctly . . .)


----------



## batpig

Yeah I've heard from someone that Keith is a non engineer 

Geometry lessons for all!


----------



## Lasalle

Scott Simonian said:


> Here's a better diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a messy Paint throw together but ... better layout, imo. Why the heck is the couch so far away from the screen? Agh! Move that closer and make the surround field larger in the process. Moved the rear surrounds further apart. Also moved the heights much closer inward for better separation.
> 
> Dolby's own diagram there exaggerates the need for those wides. Mine fixes that and improves everything.


6 overhead channels, at least for Atmos, initially may be an issue. Some of the preliminary discussion on the Datasat thread seems to indicate the Dolby Atmos upgrade card will only support 4 overhead speakers (9.x.4). The indication is its a Dolby issue not a Datasat one. A similar question has appeared on the Theta thread with no response yet. Although the Atmos HT version significantly lowers the numbers of objects supported vs the theater version, it should support more speakers than that. Trinnov is a pure software implementation and does not appear to have this limitation. I haven't seen anything about DTS having this limitation. Maybe some on this thread can shed some light on this.


----------



## Scott Simonian

One can plan for it and if you want to try something interesting, using dual external PL2 receivers to extract those center overheads.

I'm going to be doing just that.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> The indication is its a Dolby issue not a Datasat one. Trinnov is a pure software implementation and does not appear to have this limitation.


How is it possible to not have this limitation if it is a Dolby issue?


> I haven't seen anything about DTS having this limitation.


How many height speakers do you think DTS:X will support?


----------



## dschulz

Lasalle said:


> 6 overhead channels, at least for Atmos, initially may be an issue. Some of the preliminary discussion on the Datasat thread seems to indicate the Dolby Atmos upgrade card will only support 4 overhead speakers (9.x.4). The indication is its a Dolby issue not a Datasat one. I haven't seen anything about DTS having this limitation. Maybe some on this thread can shed some light on this.





sdurani said:


> How is it possible to not have this limitation if it is a Dolby issue? How many height speakers do you think DTS:X will support?


It's not a Dolby issue, it is a DSP issue. There are no DSPs currently available that support more than 11 channels of Atmos. Trinnov is able to support more than 11 channels because their box is not DSP-based. 

I won't hazard a guess as to how DTS:X will first roll out - on the one hand it is possible that the code is in some way more compact than Atmos, allowing the DSPs to support more than 11 channels with the same MIPS - on the other hand, ISTM that for architecture reasons it will be far simpler for the DSP implementations to support exactly the same channel outputs for both Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm sure both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos will support greater than 12ch outputs at some point. Just not right away. Would be cool but I don't see that happening this year or even next year.

Eventually somebody will produce a product that is DSP based (not software) that will have more output channels. Then everybody will catch up. The cycle starts all over.

I would be very happy if we could get two more output channels with choices of a full 9.1.4 system or a 7.1.6 system. Reason why I mention those is because they are the popular/logical choices to move on to. 

Even better would be four more output channels for the full 9.1.6 layout. I think everybody wants to eventually get to that point. Whether or not there is any pressure from the public or whatever, (was there pressure for immersive audio or 7.1 even?) there still needs to be the right hardware to be produced that can even do this stuff.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos will support greater than 12ch outputs at some point. Just not right away. Would be cool but I don't see that happening this year or even next year.
> 
> Eventually somebody will produce a product that is DSP based (not software) that will have more output channels. Then everybody will catch up. The cycle starts all over.


100% sure you are correct. We're just waiting for Moore's Law to catch up with the desired channel count.

I will be curious to see if we see a return to the pre/pro - with say a 9.1.6 channel setup, including enough amplifiers in the AVR becomes a challenge in terms of chassis size, cooling and power supply requirements. Separating the amplification out from the processing (and not just for the high-end products) may start to make sense again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> It's not a Dolby issue, it is a DSP issue. There are no DSPs currently available that support more than 11 channels of Atmos. Trinnov is able to support more than 11 channels because their box is not DSP-based.
> 
> I won't hazard a guess as to how DTS:X will first roll out - on the one hand it is possible that the code is in some way more compact than Atmos, allowing the DSPs to support more than 11 channels with the same MIPS - on the other hand, ISTM that for architecture reasons it will be far simpler for the DSP implementations to support exactly the same channel outputs for both Atmos and DTS:X.


I believe I remember someone at DTS at some of these audio summits (and at their press debut) was talking about how DTS:X can render up to *32 outputs*. Now, if they're still maintaining layout "agnostic" status, then it would be up to the individual manufacturer to decide how many main layer and how many overheads and subwoofer outputs and how many layouts you could choose from... or whether they would just stick with Atmos' recommendations without re-mapping.


----------



## Manni01

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos will support greater than 12ch outputs at some point. Just not right away. Would be cool but I don't see that happening this year or even next year.
> 
> Eventually somebody will produce a product that is DSP based (not software) that will have more output channels. Then everybody will catch up. The cycle starts all over.
> 
> I would be very happy if we could get two more output channels with choices of a full 9.1.4 system or a 7.1.6 system. Reason why I mention those is because they are the popular/logical choices to move on to.
> 
> Even better would be four more output channels for the full 9.1.6 layout. I think everybody wants to eventually get to that point. Whether or not there is any pressure from the public or whatever, (was there pressure for immersive audio or 7.1 even?) there still needs to be the right hardware to be produced that can even do this stuff.


 
A few users reported that a Denon representative told them that 13 processing channels were on the map for next year, I suspect / hope for the X7200A replacement. That would give us 9.1.4 (0r 7.1.6). Not that Denon representative know what they talk about, but it would make sense as the white paper for Dolby atmos home installation goes up to 9.1.4.

Not everyone necessarily want .6 or .4, depending on their room. .4 (TF/TR) can in some situations - like in my room where I have slanted ceiling compromising the heights of the front heights and rear heights more the top front / top rear.

I'm going to do some tests with Scatmos or whathever it is called now (I personally prefer AtmosS), but right now I suspect .4 with FH+TF as an array and TR+RH as an array will work better in my room than FH+TM+RH. So personally I'll probably go for 9.1.4 rather than 7.1.6, although I plan to corrupt your AtmosS and use PLII to create a phantom CH (and possibly back SH) as I have more height in the middle of the room than on the sides. That would give me a fake 9.2.10 using arrays and PLII for the CH back and front. And yes, I know about the reason why we're not using one but two back surrounds, but my room is weird so I want to try back SH and see what it gives me.

I'll report my findings.


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> How is it possible to not have this limitation if it is a Dolby issue? How many height speakers do you think DTS:X will support?


Here is the reference Post #2595 on the Datasat thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob*  
_To be fair, they replied to my email and explained that the 4 speaker overhead limit was down to a Dolby limitation..so kudos to them for that. 

I'm sure it's not far off now!_

Exactly. That is really a limiting factor. 

I think it surprised more than a few people. I thought Datasat would be supporting 16 channels for Atmos and DTS:X, and that the CBV will be supporting 24 channels/speakers for both. I don't know if Dolby is supplying the upgrade boards to Datasat (hence the reference), but some on this tread might know what the back story is and implication on >12 channel processors.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Manni01 said:


> A few users reported that a Denon representative told them that 13 processing channels were on the map for next year, I suspect / hope for the X7200A replacement. That would give us 9.1.4 (0r 7.1.6). Not that Denon representative know what they talk about, but it would make sense as the white paper for Dolby atmos home installation goes up to 9.1.4.
> 
> Not everyone necessarily want .6 or .4, depending on their room. .4 (TF/TR) can in some situations - like in my room where I have slanted ceiling compromising the heights of the front heights and rear heights more the top front / top rear.
> 
> I'm going to do some tests with Scatmos or whathever it is called now (I personally prefer AtmosS), but right now I suspect .4 with FH+TF as an array and TR+RH as an array will work better in my room than FH+TM+RH. So personally I'll probably go for 9.1.4 rather than 7.1.6, although I plan to corrupt your AtmosS and use PLII to create a phantom CH (and possibly back CH) as I have more height in the middle of the room than on the sides. That would give me a fake 9.2.10 using arrays and PLII for the CH back and front.


13ch processing would be 7.1.4 + VOG. Makes sense as that was a huge complaint (the switching back and forth for proper Atmos and proper Auro) so they will want to allow for that extra channel to keep a discrete VOG output. Methinks, anyway. 

Glad to see you try out uummm... let's call it Atmos-EX (Atmos Extended, also like DD-EX since we're using matrix processing). Would definitely be easier to do the cluster/array since there is no extra processing (or gear for the processing) but it won't add any extra vectoring/dimensionality/what-have-you and that was sort of the point of Atmos-EX, at least to me.
@batpig said he was going to try do something similar. Using the same method but to add an extra front center height. I like the idea but I'm still going to do the stereo middle overheads. Plus I don't really have a wide enough room to benefit from the center side-to-side but I will be interested in your findings!


----------



## Manni01

Scott Simonian said:


> 13ch processing would be 7.1.4 + VOG. Makes sense as that was a huge complaint (the switching back and forth for proper Atmos and proper Auro) so they will want to allow for that extra channel to keep a discrete VOG output. Methinks, anyway.
> 
> Glad to see you try out uummm... let's call it Atmos-EX (Atmos Extended, also like DD-EX since we're using matrix processing). Would definitely be easier to do the cluster/array since there is no extra processing (or gear for the processing) but it won't add any extra vectoring/dimensionality/what-have-you and that was sort of the point of Atmos-EX, at least to me.
> @batpig said he was going to try do something similar. Using the same method but to add an extra front center height. I like the idea but I'm still going to do the stereo middle overheads. Plus I don't really have a wide enough room to benefit from the center side-to-side but I will be interested in your findings!


I'm already doing the arrays, it works very well. There will be processing as I would be using PLII for CH and SBH. At the moment, I only copy C to CH to shift the sound up on my non AT screen (C below the screen).

I didn't mention Auro as this is an Atmos thread but 7.1.4 + VOG won't work in Auro as you need to add CH before you can add back surrounds. Most movies are mastered in 11.1, not 13.1, so adding back surrounds won't be native anyway, it would only work with Auromatic.

So at best, we'll get Auro 11.1, which is 5.1 + CH + FH+ SH + VOG.

The common layout in Denon models for Atmos and Auro will be using RH instead of SH, but you can still get SH if you gang SH with RH in an array, as I do in my room. That's one of the reasons why I prefer .4 to .6 in my room, it works better with Auro, although I could only use my array at the back for TR (same as SH in my room) and RH, yet use FH and TF (declared as TM) created with PLII

Lots of things to try, I hope to get my second heights AVR by the end of the week (bidding on it right now on ebay).

I like Atmos-EX, doesn't matter if you create TM or CH, what counts is you add height channels to serve your room best and go beyond 7.1.4.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> That is really a limiting factor.


IF Dolby is the limiting factor, then how is Trinnov able to go beyond that limit? After all, they license Atmos from the same Dolby Labs that all other manufacturers license Atmos from. And it's not asthough Dolby reserves a special secret version of Atmos for certain manufacturers. The explanation by Dan (dschulz) seems more likely to point to the limiting factor: DSP horsepower (or lack thereof).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

In fairness, if you say Atmos-EX out loud, it sounds more like you're joining the mile high club than anything to do with home audio.


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> IF Dolby is the limiting factor, then how is Trinnov able to go beyond that limit? After all, they license Atmos from the same Dolby Labs that all other manufacturers license Atmos from. And it's not asthough Dolby reserves a special secret version of Atmos for certain manufacturers. The explanation by Dan (dschulz) seems more likely to point to the limiting factor: DSP horsepower (or lack thereof).


My quote from post 2595 may not have been clear.
"That is really a limiting factor." was part of the post on the Datasat thread, not my comments. I included it to indicate that people (including me) were surprised to find the limitation. At first the 11 channel DSP limit didn't make sense to me as Auro 13 channel support is already on Datasat, but then I realized that is the Auromatic upmixer, Auro 3D recordings are 11.1 and the back surrounds are not used in that mode. I don't think to date either Datasat or Theta have been clear about this limitation, on their pending releases.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> "That is really a limiting factor." was part of the post on the Datasat thread, not my comments.


I wasn't attributing the comment to you, merely pointing out that it cannot be a Dolby limitation (irrespective of where that notion came from). The idea that it is a Dolby limitation is disproved by Trinnov. So the limiting factor has to be something else, which is why Dan's explanation makes more sense.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly. But your scenario of a single-row theater in which the row is equidistant from the LF and LS, for example, is not common.


That was just an example for the purposes of clarity. Regardless of the positions of the LF and LS, they will not change as the listener moves to the left and right. If you are right between them, as per my example, you will still be right between them whether you sit in seat 1 in the row or seat 5.



bkeeler10 said:


> Certainly it is not the case in your own room since you are virtually up against your back wall and your surrounds are at 90 degrees, give or take. And it would put the side surround speakers at an angle much greater than recommended (in fact, by definition, the angle would be between 150 and 157.5 degrees (if the LF/RF recommendations are followed). I must be misunderstanding.


You must be because what you just said may as well have been in Serbo-Croat for all I understood from it 

Here is one of my famous drawings!










No matter where you sit on the row you are always identically between the LF and LS, regardless of where they are. This is not the case for the LF and RF, hence the requirement for a physical center speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yeah I've heard from someone that Keith is a non engineer
> 
> Geometry lessons for all!


Hahaha. True - but even I know that if I move sideways along the row, the relationship I have with the LF and LS speakers doesn't change. I am still right between them. Anyway, I have uploaded an engineering blueprint now to make it more clear


----------



## kbarnes701

Lasalle said:


> Here is the reference Post #2595 on the Datasat thread.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Billybobjimbob*
> _To be fair, they replied to my email and explained t*hat the 4 speaker overhead limit was down to a Dolby limitation*..so kudos to them for that.
> 
> _


_

The problem is that it is NOT a limitation of Dolby Atmos which has always had the capability of 32 independent 'channels' for a home implementation, so long as the hardware manufacturer decides to offer it.  IOW it is a hardware limitation imposed by some manufacturers (all of them currently in the mainstream world)._


----------



## Lasalle

kbarnes701 said:


> The problem is that it is NOT a limitation of Dolby Atmos which has always had the capability of 32 independent 'channels' for a home implementation, _so long as the hardware manufacturer decides to offer it. _ IOW it is a hardware limitation imposed by some manufacturers (all of them currently in the mainstream world).


A DSP limit would certainly explain why DTS partnered with Trinnov for their roll out, and Dolby has done their large speaker count demo's with them as well. Although I thought I saw an interview with a Dolby exec that indicated HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects, I'm not sure how that would translate to 32 channels (although 20 is more than enough for me). I'm glad I have a year for the smoke to clear.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In fairness, if you say Atmos-EX out loud, it sounds more like you're joining the mile high club than anything to do with home audio.


Atmos Eee-Ecks

Not Atmosex.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

kbarnes701 said:


> The problem is that it is NOT a limitation of Dolby Atmos which has always had the capability of 32 independent 'channels' for a home implementation, _so long as the hardware manufacturer decides to offer it. _ IOW it is a hardware limitation imposed by some manufacturers (all of them currently in the mainstream world).


This has now been clarified Keith. It's a dsp limitation and any current dsp driven machines will have this limitation.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

Although there is a 7.1.4 limit in ok ace for dsp driven units, it's also interesting to note that it was mentioned on another thread, Dolby mid using a 7.1.4 setup. I'm not sure if that's consistent across the board.

I'd be interested in knowing what kind of setup DTS:X mixers will be utilising.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> I thought I saw an interview with a Dolby exec that indicated HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects, I'm not sure how that would translate to 32 channels


No relation between number of audio objects in the soundtrack and number of speakers used for playback. That's one of the main points of object-based audio: source material is disconnected from playback set-up.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm interested in some *Atmosex*.


----------



## batpig

Lasalle said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that it is NOT a limitation of Dolby Atmos which has always had the capability of 32 independent 'channels' for a home implementation, _so long as the hardware manufacturer decides to offer it. _ IOW it is a hardware limitation imposed by some manufacturers (all of them currently in the mainstream world).
> 
> 
> 
> A DSP limit would certainly explain why DTS partnered with Trinnov for their roll out, and Dolby has done their large speaker count demo's with them as well. Although I thought I saw an interview with a Dolby exec that indicated HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects, I'm not sure how that would translate to 32 channels (although 20 is more than enough for me). I'm glad I have a year for the smoke to clear.
Click to expand...

Well remember if you have that many speakers they will be clustered into arrays for the 9 bed channels. You don't need as many objects as you have speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> No relation between number of audio objects in the soundtrack and number of speakers used for playback. That's one of the main points of object-based audio: source material is disconnected from playback set-up.


I gotta say, this has to be my favorite thing about all this. 

Say you buy Transformers 4 (or whatever) and right now it just seems like a "plain" 7.1 soundtrack but with heights. Fast forward 5-10 years and that exact same disc is playing in 24.1.10 (we can dream) sound. So cool!


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I've heard from someone that Keith is a non engineer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geometry lessons for all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha. True - but even I know that if I move sideways along the row, the relationship I have with the LF and LS speakers doesn't change. I am still right between them. Anyway, I have uploaded an engineering blueprint now to make it more clear
Click to expand...

Ok I see what you are saying but then your argument ONLY holds for that precise geometrical arrangement. 

In a typical home layout that will not be the case. If the surrounds are to the sides then off axis listeners will be relatively closer to the surrounds. That's why you get "hot spotting" with lateral pans for the people who are off to the sides. 

Increasing the base layer resolution to 9 speakers would surely improve the stability and precision of objects zooming around you. Especially for those off axis listeners. Plus having two speakers on each side wall would allow the side surround effects to be produced as an array like in actual cinemas. 

As it stands right now with a 7ch base layer you have zero increase in horizontal resolution for home Atmos vs standard channel based 7.1 content. Which (as Sanjay has ironically pointed out) is probably why so many people are focused on the overhead content (or lack thereof) in home Atmos BDs.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> I gotta say, this has to be my favorite thing about all this. Say you buy Transformers 4 (or whatever) and right now it just seems like a "plain" 7.1 soundtrack but with heights. *Fast forward 5-10 years and that exact same disc is playing in 24.1.10 (we can dream) sound*. So cool!


Why wait to have that DATASAT is already there if you have the *green

http://www.datasatdigital.com/consumer/products/rs20i.php

https://steinwaylyngdorf.com/products/surround-processor-model-p2/specifications

*Sorry it's only 16 channels!

Oh but wait Trinnov can do it *http://www.trinnov.com/products/home-theater/altitude32/introduction-altitude32/

http://www.trinnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Altitude32-Product-Sheet.pdf

*
32 Channels


----------



## kbarnes701

Billybobjimbob said:


> This has now been clarified Keith. It's a dsp limitation and any current dsp driven machines will have this limitation.


Yes, I have known that for about a year - ever since Dolby told me so in fact 

What is of more concern is why Datasat don't know it, or that they do, in which case one wonders why they are spreading disinformation.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Ok I see what you are saying but then your argument ONLY holds for that precise geometrical arrangement.


It was just an example. It's just the same principle even if the arrangement is different. He is another engineering blueprint to make it clear 










The point is, the phantom image is stable, unlike that of the front speaker set if the listener is off axis. Hence there is no real correlation between the need for a physical speaker at the front and the alleged need for one at the side.



batpig said:


> In a typical home layout that will not be the case. If the surrounds are to the sides then off axis listeners will be relatively closer to the surrounds. That's why you get "hot spotting" with lateral pans for the people who are off to the sides.


That is a separate issue. I was addressing the argument that because a center speaker is required for stable imaging at the front, so one will be required for stable imaging at the side. IMO, it isn't required if the speakers are correctly set up and image properly.



batpig said:


> Increasing the base layer resolution to 9 speakers would surely improve the stability and precision of objects zooming around you. Especially for those off axis listeners. Plus having two speakers on each side wall would allow the side surround effects to be produced as an array like in actual cinemas.


That is as maybe - but the discussion was about the Grimani postulation that there is a 'sonic hole' which only Wides can fill. It isn’t true.



batpig said:


> As it stands right now with a 7ch base layer you have zero increase in horizontal resolution for home Atmos vs standard channel based 7.1 content. Which (as Sanjay has ironically pointed out) is probably why so many people are focused on the overhead content (or lack thereof) in home Atmos BDs.


I wouldn't say 'zero' - the greater precision with which Atmos mixes place sounds in the entire soundstage comes into it too IMO.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I have known that for about a year - ever since Dolby told me so in fact
> 
> What is of more concern is why Datasat don't know it, or that they do, in which case one wonders why they are spreading disinformation.


You could always email Datasat and query channel limitation..if they give you an unsatisfactory response, you could always reply that your secret friends at Dolby gave you the cold hard truth a year ago!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lasalle said:


> A DSP limit would certainly explain why DTS partnered with Trinnov for their roll out, and Dolby has done their large speaker count demo's with them as well. Although I thought I saw an interview with a Dolby exec that indicated HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects, I'm not sure how that would translate to 32 channels (although 20 is more than enough for me). I'm glad I have a year for the smoke to clear.


Where'd you hear that HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects? Dolby's own blog says:


> How do we translate Dolby Atmos sound from a cavernous cinema filled with sophisticated speakers to a modest living room home theater? The first thing to know is that we use all the audio objects created for the cinema experience in the home theater. Nothing is lost.


Also see what Dolby's Brett Crocker says in this article:


> “The receiver decodes object audio and related metadata, defining the objects as specific X-Y-Z coordinates and then configures the Dolby Atmos mix for optimum playback for the connected speaker layout. Data rate for a Dolby Atmos mix will vary based on the complexity of the mix itself and the number of objects that are present in the mix. New home authoring tools and encoding methods take into account the sound objects’ spatial information to efficiently encode them in Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus. This spatial coding is not a channel-based, matrix-encoding system like Dolby Pro Logic II or Dolby Pro Logic IIz; instead, our new coding technique allows all the audio objects created for the cinema to be used in the home theater.”


----------



## westmd

wse said:


> Why wait to have that DATASAT is already there if you have the *green
> 
> http://www.datasatdigital.com/consumer/products/rs20i.php
> 
> https://steinwaylyngdorf.com/products/surround-processor-model-p2/specifications
> 
> *Sorry it's only 16 channels!
> 
> Oh but wait Trinnov can do it *http://www.trinnov.com/products/home-theater/altitude32/introduction-altitude32/
> 
> http://www.trinnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Altitude32-Product-Sheet.pdf
> 
> *
> 32 Channels


Sorry but the Trinnov princuple is completetly different to their conpetitors such as Datasat! As they are remapping you don't have to follow Dolby rules for speaker locations. They they can map out an combination of speakers to their free will. So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers according to Dolby limitation and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!
Why would Datasat openeny lie to their customers? Further if its only down to DSP horsepower, as the Datasat's are getting new boards anyway for Atmos decoding, they could have stuck any DSP on there at this pricepoint. In general Dolby supports up thr 32 speaker locations but also looking in their white paper, all detailed setup descriptions are with 4 heights only!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Where'd you hear that HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects? Dolby's own blog says:
> 
> Also see what Dolby's Brett Crocker says in this article:



The objects are not lost. This is correct. However, the home version does not support as many objects as the cinema version.

What Dolby did is use "spatial encoding" to lump nearby objects together into groups and in turn lowering the amount of total objects used. These are "unpacked" by the home Atmos decoder and presented in full.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> It was just an example. It's just the same principle even if the arrangement is different. He is another engineering blueprint to make it clear


You're probably the worst phantom sketcher in the northern hemisphere...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> The objects are not lost. This is correct. However, the home version does not support as many objects as the cinema version.
> 
> What Dolby did is use "spatial encoding" to lump nearby objects together into groups and in turn lowering the amount of total objects used. These are "unpacked" by the home Atmos decoder and presented in full.


But isn't the spatial encoding more a matter of retaining backwards compatibility with existing 7.1? I assumed that to have 7.1 + Atmos objects, they essentially had to do something similar to what DTS-ES 6.1 discrete tracks did on DVD (i.e. encode the rear surround audio into the side surrounds then remove the rear surround audio from the side surrounds if a discrete rear channel was detected). Or am I just totally off-base about what they were trying to say there?

If that's not the case, how does the 7.1 bed co-exist with the object data? Or are they using DSU to handle the spatially encoded stuff and then using less discretely steered objects? So confused... Maybe I should just go watch a movie and not worry about it.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> That was just an example for the purposes of clarity. Regardless of the positions of the LF and LS, they will not change as the listener moves to the left and right. If you are right between them, as per my example, you will still be right between them whether you sit in seat 1 in the row or seat 5.


Yes, as per your example you would be right between them, as in the first drawing I have attached. The problem with that layout, of course, is that the position of the surrounds is way out of spec. That is, if your LF speaker is at 30 degrees, and you are the same distance from the LS as you are from the LF, then the LS is at 150 degrees. An improper setup, and hardly anyone would do it anyway.

A more typical setup, which is within spec, as in my second drawing, clearly shows that people in the same row will have vast differences in their distance from LF versus LS. The guy in the left-most position will be half the distance from the LS as the guy in the middle, and will therefore experience 6 dB more output from the LS. But the guy in the middle and the guy to the left are nearly the same distance from the LF.

So, the guy in the left seat will not have much of a phantom effect between LF and LS -- it will be swamped out by the content in the LS. True, the guy in the middle should get a good phantom effect (assuming the levels of the LF and LS are properly calibrated), but the guy on the left hears the LS 6 dB louder and the LF about the same as the guy in the middle.

All I'm saying is that your scenario isn't within spec, and in a typical layout the phantom effect (both for LF-RF speakers and LF-LS speakers) breaks down for the left-most listener.


----------



## Manni01

westmd said:


> Sorry but the Trinnov princuple is completetly different to their conpetitors such as Datasat! As they are remapping you don't have to follow Dolby rules for speaker locations. They they can map out an combination of speakers to their free will. So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers according to Dolby limitation and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!
> Why would Datasat openeny lie to their customers? Further if its only down to DSP horsepower, as the Datasat's are getting new boards anyway for Atmos decoding, they could have stuck any DSP on there at this pricepoint. In general Dolby supports up thr 32 speaker locations but also looking in their white paper, all detailed setup descriptions are with 4 heights only!


Yes, as I said earlier, their white paper for the home maxes at 9.1.4.

Also, if 6 heights were possible with current Atmos implementation, we should be able to do 5.1.6 with the current AVRs, and that's not allowed.

My theory - pure speculation - is that not allowing 3 pairs of heights but only two non adjacent pairs allows them to only have a front/back render, which is simpler than front/middle/back form a processing load / rendering point of view. This might be why there is no difference when designating a TF speaker as such or as FH, or designating a TM as TR or RH.

I did all these tests in my room (with a 10.2.11 layout) and the results are basically the same. If I use the same speaker pairs, I can call them whatever I want (within reason), the sound will be the same. This means that irrespective of the two pairs you choose, Atmos simply sends a front or back signal to whichever pair you select and only changes what's connected to distance/levels. At least that's what my experimentation using real FH, TF, TR and RH seems to suggest.


That's why I think we'll get 9.1.4 next year, but I'm not sure 7.1.6 will be allowed (like 5.1.6 isn't allowed today, although you could argue that's because 7.1.4 makes more sense if the room can accommodate back speakers).


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers according to Dolby limitation and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!


There is no Dolby limitation of 4 ceiling speakers, so Trinnov can render directly to all 10 height speaker locations; no need to render to 4 locations and then use remapping to scale it to the other speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But isn't the spatial encoding more a matter of retaining backwards compatibility with existing 7.1? I assumed that to have 7.1 + Atmos objects, they essentially had to do something similar to what DTS-ES 6.1 discrete tracks did on DVD (i.e. encode the rear surround audio into the side surrounds then remove the rear surround audio from the side surrounds if a discrete rear channel was detected). Or am I just totally off-base about what they were trying to say there?
> 
> If that's not the case, how does the 7.1 bed co-exist with the object data? Or are they using DSU to handle the spatially encoded stuff and then using less discretely steered objects? So confused... Maybe I should just go watch a movie and not worry about it.


No. The "spatial encoding" was developed for exactly what I just mentioned. They don't have the bandwidth to support 64-128 objects so they had to come up with a way to "cluster" them into groups to lower the amount of discrete objects and in turn save bandwidth which is not available on Blu-ray.

In the end it's all dumped into the conventional TrueHD 7.1 encode but only an 'object-aware' processor (ie: any new AVR or pre/pro with Atmos) will properly extract these objects and render out what would be your Atmos experience at home.


----------



## FilmMixer

Billybobjimbob said:


> Although there is a 7.1.4 limit in ok ace for dsp driven units, it's also interesting to note that it was mentioned on another thread, Dolby mid using a 7.1.4 setup. I'm not sure if that's consistent across the board.
> 
> I'd be interested in knowing what kind of setup DTS:X mixers will be utilising.


The only title released so far in DTS:X was mixed in the same room where many of the Atmos catalog titles have been/are being created in.. with the same 7.1.4 setup..

I can assume that most production studios will be setup with 7.1.4 going forward... it doesn't make much sense to deviate from that for OTT and home theater content creation...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Manni01 said:


> My theory - pure speculation - is that not allowing 3 pairs of heights but only two non adjacent pairs allows them to only have a front/back render, which is simpler than front/middle/back form a processing load / rendering point of view. This might be why there is no difference when designating a TF speaker as such or as FH, or designating a TM as TR or RH.


I believe this is exactly what is happening or close to it. Easy to work on a simple front/back stereo work flow.

Still, there will be content (with two pairs of overheads at the disposal) for things intended to image directly above you. In order to do that with a pair in front and a pair in the rear is the have said content come out of all (or one side) at the same time which will make the sound appear to be above you. With the center extraction method we can pull that specific information to a correct position. I think the Atmos-EX work around for six overheads will work fantastic as long as there is content to pull from. It will only get more robust with time and more releases in Atmos or DTS:X. Should be pretty interesting to say the least.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> It was just an example. It's just the same principle even if the arrangement is different.
> 
> The point is, the phantom image is stable, unlike that of the front speaker set if the listener is off axis. Hence there is no real correlation between the need for a physical speaker at the front and the alleged need for one at the side.


No no no -- your geometry is all off. See bkeeler's diagram above.













kbarnes701 said:


> I wouldn't say 'zero' - the greater precision with which Atmos mixes place sounds in the entire soundstage comes into it too IMO.


That's a benefit of the mix. You are gaining no benefit from extra spatial resolution in the horizontal plane. This is highlighted by the fact that if you play an Atmos track on an Atmos receiver without height speakers (i.e. a basic 7.1 setup) you don't even get Atmos rendering, (despite what the display of the receiver may be implying) you just get the 7.1 channel based TrueHD track. 

How much cooler would it be if on a horizontal pan the effect could pass through multiple individually addressable speakers along the side wall? That's what happens in the cinemas and is one of the biggest benefits of Atmos vs. the standard 7.1ch layout were the entire side wall is lit up as a combined array.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> The only title released so far in DTS:X was mixed in the same room where many of the Atmos catalog titles have been/are being created in.. with the same 7.1.4 setup..
> 
> I can assume that most production studios will be setup with 7.1.4 going forward... it doesn't make much sense to deviate from that for OTT and home theater content creation...


For pure translation, I agree. Though wouldn't it be a good idea to check the content using a Dolby Atmos cinema decoder and more speakers? 


Well..... I guess that would be more interesting academically, not so much productive value in this for any studio. I'm sure you would agree.


----------



## Manni01

Scott Simonian said:


> I believe this is exactly what is happening or close to it. Easy to work on a simple front/back stereo work flow.
> 
> Still, there will be content (with two pairs of overheads at the disposal) for things intended to image directly above you. In order to do that with a pair in front and a pair in the rear is the have said content come out of all (or one side) at the same time which will make the sound appear to be above you. With the center extraction method we can pull that specific information to a correct position. I think the Atmos-EX work around for six overheads will work fantastic as long as there is content to pull from. It will only get more robust with time and more releases in Atmos or DTS:X. Should be pretty interesting to say the least.


 
Yes, I was only talking about native Atmos/DSU. The appeal of Atmos-EX remains an exciting prospect, sadly I lost my bidding war on e-Bay so will have to find another candidate... Will post here as soon as I've made progress on that front 

One of the main things I want to test is if FH+TM+RH in Atmos-EX is better in my room than a simple TF+TR, as in that case their is no need / room for extracting a TM. Depending on this, and how Atmos-EX works to extract my CH / SBH, I'll decide for FH+TM+RH Atmos-EX or FH/TF (array) + TR/RH (array) + CH + SBH (Atmos-EX).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yes, please! I'd like to see pictures of your set up too.


----------



## batpig

westmd said:


> Sorry but the Trinnov princuple is completetly different to their conpetitors such as Datasat! As they are remapping you don't have to follow Dolby rules for speaker locations. They they can map out an combination of speakers to their free will. So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers according to Dolby limitation and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!





sdurani said:


> There is no Dolby limitation of 4 ceiling speakers, so Trinnov can render directly to all 10 height speaker locations; no need to render to 4 locations and then use remapping to scale it to the other speakers.


No, westmd that's just wrong. As Sanjay said, and as Curt from Trinnov has told us explicitly, Trinnov can choose any of the twenty 15-degree "pie slices" in the horizontal plane for your speaker locations for Atmos rendering, and any of the 10 in the vertical plane. They aren't tied to DSP limitations because they don't use a DSP-based architecture.




westmd said:


> Why would Datasat openeny lie to their customers? Further if its only down to DSP horsepower, as the Datasat's are getting new boards anyway for Atmos decoding, they could have stuck any DSP on there at this pricepoint. In general Dolby supports up thr 32 speaker locations but also looking in their white paper, all detailed setup descriptions are with 4 heights only!


I don't think anyone accused them of lying, but with internet forums a lot of misinformation gets spread (as you are doing right now for Trinnov based on your misunderstandings). Dan Schulz is here on this thread so hopefully he will chime in and clarify.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I assumed that to have 7.1 + Atmos objects, they essentially had to do something similar to what DTS-ES 6.1 discrete tracks did on DVD (i.e. encode the rear surround audio into the side surrounds then remove the rear surround audio from the side surrounds if a discrete rear channel was detected).


Same for home Atmos. The backwards compatible 7.1 track contains all the sound (channel beds + audio objects). There is an extension packet (separate substream) containing audio objects. During decoding these are sounds cancelled from the backwards compatible 7.1 track, resulting in the original bed channels. When played back, the objects are no longer duplicated in the 7.1 channels and only heard from their intended location. Just like the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> No, westmd that's just wrong. As Sanjay said, and as Curt from Trinnov has told us explicitly, Trinnov can choose any of the twenty 15-degree "pie slices" in the horizontal plane for your speaker locations for Atmos rendering, and any of the 10 in the vertical plane. They aren't tied to DSP limitations because they don't use a DSP-based architecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone accused them of lying, but with internet forums a lot of misinformation gets spread (as you are doing right now for Trinnov based on your misunderstandings). Dan Schulz is here on this thread so hopefully he will chime in and clarify.



I'm not Dan but from what information I understand of all this technology and the capabilities of the best Trinnov is that it works exactly as mentioned here.



> *Trinnov can choose any of the twenty 15-degree "pie slices" in the horizontal plane for your speaker locations for Atmos rendering, and any of the 10 in the vertical plane. They aren't tied to DSP limitations because they don't use a DSP-based architecture.*


----------



## sdrucker

westmd said:


> Sorry but the Trinnov princuple is completetly different to their conpetitors such as Datasat! As they are remapping you don't have to follow Dolby rules for speaker locations. They they can map out an combination of speakers to their free will. So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers according to Dolby limitation and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!


 
With respect, I think you're missing the point and propounding inaccurate information.


Trinnov IS following Dolby rules for speaker locations, and the Atmos configuration is using discrete channels (up to 32, including 10 height channels) for ALL channels independently of one another at this time (EDIT: heights are utilized in pairs, so up to five pairs of heights within the Atmos assumptions). Remapping is a separate function that you would use when a) speakers aren't in ideal physical locations; effectively you're using additional speaker locations to better simulate (through phantom imaging) the more idealized locations and/or b) you can't optimize two separate placement configurations for some reason (i.e. Atmos and Auro) and want to use remapping to allow "near-optimal" results by having the speakers in placements which facilitate such use.


Curt answered these questions on the Altitude thread in detail, even presenting a visual example with the interface of a 20.2.10 setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...1516103-trinnov-altitude-39.html#post36340882




> Why would Datasat openly lie to their customers? Further if its only down to DSP horsepower, as the Datasat's are getting new boards anyway for Atmos decoding, they could have stuck any DSP on there at this pricepoint. In general Dolby supports up thr 32 speaker locations but also looking in their white paper, all detailed setup descriptions are with 4 heights only!


 
Why only examples with .2 or .4? Because there's only one manufacturer right now that can support more than that, and it's on an island compared to everybody else working in the DSP world. For everybody else, a six, eight, or 10 height setup is either impossible or you'd have to try to use some sort of array as Scott's planning to do with an external decoder/processor to provide the array flexibility. They're just listing the most common (overwhelmingly so) configurations a layperson might find of interest using Atmos-capable AVRs or pre/pros.


You are striking on an important point: Datasat "could" have stuck any DSP on their processor that was available or could be programmed. The question is whether anybody using DSP architecture can go beyond the 11.1 channel processing (as opposed to have 16 I/O channel throughput capability). Even a five figure Datasat is still subject to the same DSP rules as D&M until they have a chip that can do otherwise. They may use DSP chips, but AFAIK they're not developing their own custom DSP chips.


----------



## kingwiggi

Lasalle said:


> A DSP limit would certainly explain why DTS partnered with Trinnov for their roll out, and Dolby has done their large speaker count demo's with them as well. Although I thought I saw an interview with a Dolby exec that indicated HT Atmos was limited to 20 objects, I'm not sure how that would translate to 32 channels (although 20 is more than enough for me). I'm glad I have a year for the smoke to clear.


A little off topic maybe but :

The Denon 7200WA uses the Shark PN# ADSP-21487 DSP chips which were originally launched in 2010. A fourth generation chip. Analog Devices are now in their sixth generation, so these are not only old but comparatively low power devices going into the current AVR's. Certainly low power by today's standards.


----------



## sdurani

kingwiggi said:


> Analog Devices are now in their sixth generation, so these are not only old but comparatively low power devices going into the current AVR's.


Doesn't stop them from decoding Atmos, Auro3D, DTS:X and applying Audyssey XT32 equalization filters to all 12 channels. Unfortunately, receivers using newer DSP chips don't seem to have expanded on those capabilities.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm not Dan but from what information I understand of all this technology and the capabilities of the best Trinnov is that it works exactly as mentioned here.


Yeah, I'm comfortable with how Trinnov works in this context based on comments from Curt et al. The question is really about how Datasat works and if even the 16-channel RS20i can actually render more than 11 Atmos locations.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Yeah, I'm comfortable with how Trinnov works in this context based on comments from Curt et al. The question is really about how Datasat works and if even the 16-channel RS20i can actually render more than 11 Atmos locations.


Would be nice even if Datasat had to enforce some restrictions on allowable speaker locations.

But just having even one product out there with 16 discrete outputs (not just 12ch + four discrete subs) for speakers would give enough kick in the pants to get more CE's to push for >12ch output.

It's going to happen, eventually.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> No. The "spatial encoding" was developed for exactly what I just mentioned. They don't have the bandwidth to support 64-128 objects so they had to come up with a way to "cluster" them into groups to lower the amount of discrete objects and in turn save bandwidth which is not available on Blu-ray.
> 
> In the end it's all dumped into the conventional TrueHD 7.1 encode but only an 'object-aware' processor (ie: any new AVR or pre/pro with Atmos) will properly extract these objects and render out what would be your Atmos experience at home.


Okay, so... related question: Is that "20 objects" he stated a hard fast rule or is that just a typical use guideline based on conserving space? For instance, could you use more objects than that with HT Atmos for a particular scene with the tradeoff of a slightly larger total file size for the audio... or is the maximum number of objects limited by the bandwidth allocated for the audio bitstream over HDMI? (This is probably more info than I need, but... I find the details interesting.)



sdurani said:


> Same for home Atmos. The backwards compatible 7.1 track contains all the sound (channel beds + audio objects). There is an extension packet (separate substream) containing audio objects. During decoding these are sounds cancelled from the backwards compatible 7.1 track, resulting in the original bed channels. When played back, the objects are no longer duplicated in the 7.1 channels and only heard from their intended location. Just like the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format.


I had assumed they were doing something like that, since you couldn't just leave any audio out for non-Atmos listeners. They're just doing it with all of the objects rather than a single channel. Thanks to both of you! Makes way more sense to me now.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Is that "20 objects" he stated a hard fast rule or is that just a typical use guideline based on conserving space?


The home Atmos encoder at studios defaults to 12 object clusters, with 20 being the max.


> I had assumed they were doing something like that, since you couldn't just leave any audio out for non-Atmos listeners.


Keep in mind that's only for the home version of Atmos, due to the requirement of backwards compatibility. In commercial cinemas, there are separate 7.1 and 5.1 tracks, so Atmos tracks don't need to have backwards compatibility built in, don't need to cluster objects coming from the same direction, don't need to cancel objects sounds from channels, etc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Okay, so... related question: Is that "20 objects" he stated a hard fast rule or is that just a typical use guideline based on conserving space? For instance, could you use more objects than that with HT Atmos for a particular scene with the tradeoff of a slightly larger total file size for the audio... or is the maximum number of objects limited by the bandwidth allocated for the audio bitstream over HDMI? (This is probably more info than I need, but... I find the details interesting.)


Personally, I don't know the *exact* number or limit but you're close. There is a definite limitation to bandwidth that is available so that is always a factor for any A/V on a standardized format. 

Someone who works with these authoring tools could enlighten us on the exact numbers for this.


On a related note: I think it is kinda crummy that this limitation couldn't be lifted or expanded for UHD Blu-ray as it will have double (or more) bandwidth of current Blu-ray technology. Or maybe it will be updated with this new video format? Of course such things if true would be 100% "hush hush" at this point but man.... that would be nice.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> The home Atmos encoder at studios defaults to 12 object clusters, with 20 being the max. Keep in mind that's only for the home version of Atmos, due to the requirement of backwards compatibility. In commercial cinemas, there are separate 7.1 and 5.1 tracks, so Atmos tracks don't need to have backwards compatibility built in, don't need to cluster objects coming from the same direction, don't need to cancel objects sounds from channels, etc.


Oh, I figured that for theatrical Atmos. Sadly, there isn't a theater with Atmos within several hours of where I live, so I'll likely only ever experience it in my home. Hell, the two theaters in my town never have the audio right (crackling speakers, 60-cycle hum from an amp, whole channels not working, audio turned down to where you can barely hear dialogue, etc.) and management doesn't seem to care (nor does Carmike's regional manager apparently - I've tried), so my living room is unfortunately the best place to watch a movie. Or fortunately, depending on your outlook, I guess. Hell, there are three movies out right now that I want to see, but I know I'll just get pissed off about the sound so I'll wait for Blu-ray.

They could afford to put in new Coke machines with like 200 flavors and replace all the seats, but God forbid they send a single audio tech who knows what he's doing to evaluate the theater. Makes me miss the days when you could report a theater to THX. (Okay, mini-rant over.)


----------



## Scott Simonian

I love those soda machines.


----------



## Waboman

You need an engineering degree to figure those soda machines out. I just want a diet Coke, man.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> On a related note: I think it is kinda crummy that this limitation couldn't be lifted or expanded for UHD Blu-ray as it will have double (or more) bandwidth of current Blu-ray technology.


While it's crummy IN THEORY how much spatial resolution do you think a home Atmos setup has in a small room with 11 (or even 15) speakers? I bet the spatial encoding is "good enough" for the home application.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> I love those soda machines.


Hey, I'm not knocking the soda machines... I love a cherry Mr. Pibb! But when the last three movies I've seen there had different audio problems, I think they need to re-align their priorities. I'm not paying those ridiculous prices to get barely passable 5.1. They have rear surround arrays, but Dolby doesn't list them as 7.1 capable, so it seems they're WAY behind the times.

I guess maybe the average movie-goer doesn't know any better and doesn't complain... whereas my home theater obsession makes me go, "That surround is crackling when there's mid-bass! It's all I can focus on now! WHAT MOVIE AM I EVEN WATCHING? I HAVE NO IDEA!"


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> While it's crummy IN THEORY how much spatial resolution do you think a home Atmos setup has in a small room with 11 (or even 15) speakers? I bet the spatial encoding is "good enough" for the home application.


I want ALL the Atmos. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Hey, I'm not knocking the soda machines... I love a cherry Mr. Pibb! But when the last three movies I've seen there had different audio problems, I think they need to re-align their priorities. I'm not paying those ridiculous prices to get barely passable 5.1. They have rear surround arrays, but Dolby doesn't list them as 7.1 capable, so it seems they're WAY behind the times.
> 
> I guess maybe the average movie-goer doesn't know any better and doesn't complain... whereas my home theater obsession makes me go, "That surround is crackling when there's mid-bass! It's all I can focus on now! WHAT MOVIE AM I EVEN WATCHING? I HAVE NO IDEA!"


Must be pretty spoiled over here. We just barely got Atmos of which it's sorta delivered half-assed but I never have the kind of issues you mention at any of my local chains. There are at least four different places I go to and I never have to put up with the technical type issues. Most of the time, it's just the _people_.


----------



## batpig

scott simonian said:


> i want all the atmos. :d


even da widezzz!!!?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> You need an engineering degree to figure those soda machines out. I just want a diet Coke, man.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> even da widezzz!!!?


Ahhh... trick question.

There are no "wides" in Atmos. 

I know... blasphemy or semantics or some s**t.  

"But it's the SAME angle!"

Still not the same thing.


----------



## dschulz

Lasalle said:


> _To be fair, they replied to my email and explained that the 4 speaker overhead limit was down to a Dolby limitation..so kudos to them for that._
> 
> I think it surprised more than a few people. I thought Datasat would be supporting 16 channels for Atmos and DTS:X, and that the CBV will be supporting 24 channels/speakers for both. I don't know if Dolby is supplying the upgrade boards to Datasat (hence the reference), but some on this tread might know what the back story is and implication on >12 channel processors.


Dolby does not manufacture boards for consumer products. They don't even manufacture the DSPs used in consumer products - they license the software, that's all.



kbarnes701 said:


> The problem is that it is NOT a limitation of Dolby Atmos which has always had the capability of 32 independent 'channels' for a home implementation, _so long as the hardware manufacturer decides to offer it. _ IOW it is a hardware limitation imposed by some manufacturers (all of them currently in the mainstream world).


This is correct, although I'd add that there are limits imposed by the hardware available to the manufacturers. See below...



kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I have known that for about a year - ever since Dolby told me so in fact
> 
> What is of more concern is why Datasat don't know it, or that they do, in which case one wonders why they are spreading disinformation.


I don't think they are spreading misinformation, as much as one email is getting somewhat misinterpreted. It would be more accurate to say that there are limits imposed by current DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos. These limits are not Dolby's fault, nor are they the fault of A/V manufacturers - and these limits will no doubt be surmounted as DSPs get faster.



batpig said:


> Dan Schulz is here on this thread so hopefully he will chime in and clarify.


I'll do my best! Please note I am no longer with Datasat, but I am a fan of what they do and can hopefully clarify things.

To the best of my knowledge, *none* of the currently available DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos offer more than 7.1.4 / 9.1.2 channels. Datasat uses Analog Devices SHARC DSPs, and the ADI implementation of Dolby's code maxes out there. Other DSP manufacturers doing this sort of thing are Texas Instruments and Cirrus Logic, but they are in the same boat. In other words, until DSPs get faster/better and the DSP manufacturers build in additional capabilities, there is no way to get a higher channel count, short of throwing out the whole box and starting over with a PC-based architecture as with the Trinnov piece.


----------



## wse

*Leon: The Professional and Fifth Element to get New Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Releases This Fall*


http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/L...-Dolby-Atmos-Blu-ray-Releases-This-Fall.shtml


----------



## HT-Eman

batpig said:


> Yeah, I'm comfortable with how Trinnov works in this context based on comments from Curt et al. The question is really about how Datasat works and if even the 16-channel RS20i can actually render more than 11 Atmos locations.


I'm wondering the same thing about the Emotiva XMR-1 !


----------



## wse

dschulz said:


> .......To the best of my knowledge, *none* of the currently available DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos offer more than 7.1.4 / 9.1.2 channels. Datasat uses Analog Devices SHARC DSPs, and the ADI implementation of Dolby's code maxes out there. Other DSP manufacturers doing this sort of thing are Texas Instruments and Cirrus Logic, but they are in the same boat. In other words, until DSPs get faster/better and the DSP manufacturers build in additional capabilities, there is no way to get a higher channel count, short of throwing out the whole box and starting over with a PC-based architecture as with the Trinnov piece.


So Trinov includes a PC in their box!  

Trinnov Altitude - USA with 3d codecs 

8 channel $23,000 

16 channel $28,000 

24 channel $33,000 

32 channel $37,000 Already then!!!! 
£24,950


----------



## Waboman

Trinnov uses the Intel i7


----------



## wse

Waboman said:


> Trinnov uses the Intel i7


I see so that's not worth $34,000!!!!!!! I thought for that price it was a least a CRAY computer remember those


----------



## kingwiggi

dschulz said:


> To the best of my knowledge, *none* of the currently available DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos offer more than 7.1.4 / 9.1.2 channels. Datasat uses Analog Devices SHARC DSPs, and the ADI implementation of Dolby's code maxes out there. Other DSP manufacturers doing this sort of thing are Texas Instruments and Cirrus Logic, but they are in the same boat. In other words, *until DSPs get faster/better and the DSP manufacturers build in additional capabilities, there is no way to get a higher channel count*, short of throwing out the whole box and starting over with a PC-based architecture as with the Trinnov piece.


These particular DSP's are pretty generic devices certainly not specific to the audio world, they are used by AVR manufacturers because of their superior floating point processing, *but there are already faster devices available*. The BOM has more to do with their choice of DSP than anything else. Why put an ARM Cortex A15 based DSP in your AVR when a Cortex A5 (TI) will do and cost a 3rd of the price.

I don't think its because the processing power isn't available its because they choose not to use newer more powerful DSP's


----------



## NorthSky

Yeah, Trinnov was much more affordable when inside the Sherwood Newcastle R-972 AV receiver ($1,800 list, $600 street @ the end of its run). 

And PC based audio pre/pros are the ones that can extract more channels. But ouch are they costly or what! 
It's ok, Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are inside the Onkyo 646 for only $599 @ amazon (less @ some places). ...Free shipping. 
And for a thou you get all that, in the 7.2.4 flavor, and more. 

And Scott is getting a brand new ****&span shiny Yamaha 3050 for about...how much Scott? ...$1,500?


----------



## dkfan9

wse said:


> Waboman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnov uses the Intel i7
> 
> 
> 
> I see so that's not worth $34,000!!!!!!! I thought for that price it was a least a CRAY computer remember those
Click to expand...

1% of the cost ( saying around 300 for an i7) is still probably more than the dsps account for in most AVRs


----------



## FilmMixer

dkfan9 said:


> 1% of the cost ( saying around 300 for an i7) is still probably more than the dsps account for in most AVRs


Not to mention the costs of programming the entire system from scratch.. then integration, etc..

Even outside of the BOM, the economies of scale having common parts across multiple SKU's, etc.. 

Having off the shelf solutions is going to work for 99.9% of what most consumers are looking for..

I imagine the market and consumer demand for >11 channels is minuscule outside this thread/AVS..

In the end.. there is no downward pressure at all for the SOC suppliers to put resources into this... not sure there ever will be in a manner that makes financial and business sense...


----------



## NorthSky

...Roughly an additional $30,000 ... more or less.


----------



## dkfan9

FilmMixer said:


> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1% of the cost ( saying around 300 for an i7) is still probably more than the dsps account for in most AVRs
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the costs of programming the entire system from scratch.. then integration, etc..
> 
> Even outside of the BOM, the economies of scale having common parts across multiple SKU's, etc..
> 
> Having off the shelf solutions is going to work for 99.9% of what most consumers are looking for..
> 
> I imagine the market and consumer demand for >11 channels is minuscule outside this thread/AVS..
> 
> In the end.. there is no downward pressure at all for the SOC suppliers to put resources into this... not sure there ever will be in a manner that makes financial and business sense...
Click to expand...

In a way, this leads me to question whether it really is Dolby's fault. Why is there no pc software out there to decode Atmos?


----------



## Manni01

dkfan9 said:


> In a way, this leads me to question whether it really is Dolby's fault. Why is there no pc software out there to decode Atmos?


 
Because there is no standard hardware to do so. Analog Audio on PC motherboards max out at 7.1 channels. You have to buy external boards costing $200 at least (more than most motherboards) to get more channels with decent DACs. Given how limited the market is, it won't happen for a while, at least until MB manufacturers agree on a standard for 8+ analog audio channels, as is the case now with HD Audio. Also until now decoding HD Audio was fairly straightforward as it's channel based. You send the PCM streams to the right channels and you're done. Decoding Atmos is much more complex, so you need a significant mark up on the hardware costs to make up for the investment in R&D / Development costs given the microscopic market (niche of a niche of a niche of a niche). That's if you have a business plan, of course.


----------



## Apgood

What about the authoring tools used to create the Atmos and dts-x tracks wouldn't they have some sort of playback functionality? 

I realise you probably can't just pop in a bluray and play it, but so long as there is a format you could convert the bluray to playback on the software then it might be an option. 
Things to consider would cost of the software and associated hardware (e.g. pro sound cards/ multiple dacs with a universal clock to keep all the audio channels and video in sync.


----------



## kbarnes701

Billybobjimbob said:


> You could always email Datasat and query channel limitation..if they give you an unsatisfactory response, you could always reply that your secret friends at Dolby gave you the cold hard truth a year ago!


What a strange reply. They are not "secret" friends at Dolby - if you care to PM me I will be happy to give you their names, job titles and locations.

The fact is, despite your handwaving, Datasat are not correct in saying that Dolby have imposed the channel limitation that Datasat say they have imposed. I heard it direct from two different, senior people at Dolby in London, on two different occasions, that the full 'home' version of Atmos, with all 32 channels, has been made available to the AVR manufacturers and it is entirely their choice whether to implement it or not. Trinnov have chosen to implement a more complete version - mainstream manufacturers have chosen to limit their products to 7.2.4 (at this time). The very fact that Trinnov have gone beyond 7.2.4 shows that Dolby have nit imposed any form of limitation. Dolby are not offering different versions of Atmos to different manufacturers!


----------



## kbarnes701

westmd said:


> Sorry but the Trinnov princuple is completetly different to their conpetitors such as Datasat! As they are remapping you don't have to follow Dolby rules for speaker locations. They they can map out an combination of speakers to their free will. So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers* according to Dolby limitation *and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!
> Why would Datasat openeny lie to their customers? Further if its only down to DSP horsepower, as the Datasat's are getting new boards anyway for Atmos decoding, they could have stuck any DSP on there at this pricepoint. In general Dolby supports up thr 32 speaker locations but also looking in their white paper, all detailed setup descriptions are with 4 heights only!


There is no limitation imposed by Dolby of the sort Datasat have described! Sheesh.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> No no no -- your geometry is all off. See bkeeler's diagram above.


Where is the phantom image in that diagram? I mean, where should it be, assuming an equal amount of signal from the LF and the LS?

And my geometry isn't all that far off - in my diagram the surrounds were at 110° (roughly) which is an approved ITU location for surrounds in 5.1.



batpig said:


> That's a benefit of the mix. You are gaining no benefit from extra spatial resolution in the horizontal plane. This is highlighted by the fact that if you play an Atmos track on an Atmos receiver without height speakers (i.e. a basic 7.1 setup) you don't even get Atmos rendering, (despite what the display of the receiver may be implying) you just get the 7.1 channel based TrueHD track.


Is that definitely correct? I didn’t know that. If so, then you are right of course - it is just a benefit of a superior mix.



batpig said:


> How much cooler would it be if on a horizontal pan the effect could pass through multiple individually addressable speakers along the side wall? That's what happens in the cinemas and is one of the biggest benefits of Atmos vs. the standard 7.1ch layout were the entire side wall is lit up as a combined array.


It happens in cinemas because they are much bigger than HTs. Do you think there would be much benefit from having, say, 6 speakers on the side wall if they are only 12 inches apart? I never really understand why people compare HTs with proper cinemas as it seems to me that almost every material factor is very different.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> I don't think they are spreading misinformation, as much as one email is getting somewhat misinterpreted. It would be more accurate to say that there are limits imposed by current DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos. These limits are not Dolby's fault, nor are they the fault of A/V manufacturers - and these limits will no doubt be surmounted as DSPs get faster.


Yes, I am attributing the misinformation incorrectly probably. As batpig just commented it is easy for misinformation to take hold on forums and become 'the law' which is why it is good that it gets corrected. But you are right - it is a good idea to attribute the misinformation properly! So, my bad.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

kbarnes701 said:


> What a strange reply. They are not "secret" friends at Dolby - if you care to PM me I will be happy to give you their names, job titles and locations.
> 
> The fact is, despite your handwaving, Datasat are not correct in saying that Dolby have imposed the channel limitation that Datasat say they have imposed. I heard it direct from two different, senior people at Dolby in London, on two different occasions, that the full 'home' version of Atmos, with all 32 channels, has been made available to the AVR manufacturers and it is entirely their choice whether to implement it or not. Trinnov have chosen to implement a more complete version - mainstream manufacturers have chosen to limit their products to 7.2.4 (at this time). The very fact that Trinnov have gone beyond 7.2.4 shows that Dolby have nit imposed any form of limitation. Dolby are not offering different versions of Atmos to different manufacturers!


The little smiley at the end of my post was there to imply a bit of tongue in cheek Keith. I don't for a moment think they are your 'secret' friends at Dolby. I appreciate the offer, but it won't be necessary to give me their names, job titles and there location (getting into the realms of invading personal privacy there!!!).

Your post is telling half the story Keith. the Trinnov is only 32 Channel capable because it's not relying on the chipset in question and is a PC in disguise- cpu processing not DSP as most processor and avrs are..it's unique in that sense.

Any manufacturer that is utilising the chipset in question, they are all limited to the 11 channel limit. There's no hand waving going on. Dolby haven't technically imposed a limit, but that chipset isn't giving beyond 11 channel capability to ANY manufacturer..so it isn't just Datasat. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

I've been exchanging some emails with John Baloff at Theta over the last few days. A really helpful and informative chap. For those processors that are of a modular build, it is quite possible that down the line they will get beyond 11 channel processing, but not with the current chipset and not at this moment in time.


----------



## robert816

Watched Mad Max Fury Road on VUDU yesterday, again DSU saves the day by providing a room full of sound. Also noticed I could actually understand the dialogue which I had problems with in the theatre. Looking forward to the Atmos Blu-Ray when it releases in September.


I have a question for the group: when a movie is played in the theatre, is the audio format auto selected (similar to home AVR) or does the projectionist have to select the audio playback format and does this also determine which audio promo clip is played?


The reason I ask is that a friend and I went to the theatre this weekend to see Fantastic Four and it was in the Cine Capri, which is the Dolby Atmos theatre near me, also the information stated it was showing in Atmos. We have tried to watch every movie we've seen for the last few years in the Atmos theatre if the movie has an Atmos soundtrack. This weekend though, when the audio promo played it was for the Dolby Surround (5.1/7.1) audio, not the Atmos audio promo we normally see. I commented on this at the time to my friend but ignored it and watched the movie. After the movie was over my friend asked me if it really was in Atmos as the soundtrack was very underwhelming and did not appear to create that immersive audio bubble we've become accustom to. To me there was no way the soundtrack we listened to was an Atmos mix, I was going to comment on this to the manager but he was busy with a large group, and unfortunately I'm not interested in seeing FF again to determine whether or not we heard the Atmos mix or not.


----------



## pletwals

batpig said:


> Yeah, I'm comfortable with how Trinnov works in this context based on comments from Curt et al. The question is really about how Datasat works and if even the 16-channel RS20i can actually render more than 11 Atmos locations.





HT-Eman said:


> I'm wondering the same thing about the Emotiva XMR-1 !


Mmm, indeed. A few years ago they said a 12-channel processor was in the make with either 11.1 or 9.3. I hope they are not making it 13.3 (9.3.4) but with only dual (independently measured & summed) sub outputs which counts as one channel.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> You are gaining no benefit from extra spatial resolution in the horizontal plane. This is highlighted by the fact that if you play an Atmos track on an Atmos receiver without height speakers (i.e. a basic 7.1 setup) you don't even get Atmos rendering, (despite what the display of the receiver may be implying) you just get the 7.1 channel based TrueHD track.


And what if you are playing Atmos tracks through an Atmos receiver in Atmos mode with a 9.1 setup including wides but without heights? No objects and silent wides?


----------



## maikeldepotter

westmd said:


> So most likely the Trinnov will decode 4 ceiling speakers according to Dolby limitation and then calculatr how to present it over the actual amount and position of ceiling speaker!


On the Trinnov Altitude thread, that is NOT the current status of understanding on how Trinnov deals with more than 4 overheads. It supposedly can actually render ATMOS objects to all 10 overhead positions simultaneously, without any form of remapping/upmixing.


----------



## Zhorik

robert816 said:


> Watched Mad Max Fury Road on VUDU yesterday, again DSU saves the day by providing a room full of sound. Also noticed I could actually understand the dialogue which I had problems with in the theatre. Looking forward to the Atmos Blu-Ray when it releases in September.
> 
> 
> I have a question for the group: when a movie is played in the theatre, is the audio format auto selected (similar to home AVR) or does the projectionist have to select the audio playback format and does this also determine which audio promo clip is played?
> 
> 
> The reason I ask is that a friend and I went to the theatre this weekend to see Fantastic Four and it was in the Cine Capri, which is the Dolby Atmos theatre near me, also the information stated it was showing in Atmos. We have tried to watch every movie we've seen for the last few years in the Atmos theatre if the movie has an Atmos soundtrack. This weekend though, when the audio promo played it was for the Dolby Surround (5.1/7.1) audio, not the Atmos audio promo we normally see. I commented on this at the time to my friend but ignored it and watched the movie. After the movie was over my friend asked me if it really was in Atmos as the soundtrack was very underwhelming and did not appear to create that immersive audio bubble we've become accustom to. To me there was no way the soundtrack we listened to was an Atmos mix, I was going to comment on this to the manager but he was busy with a large group, and unfortunately I'm not interested in seeing FF again to determine whether or not we heard the Atmos mix or not.


The necessary trailer and feature with its accompanying audio format (5.1, 7.1, Atmos) is ingested into the server from the supplied hard disk and a playlist created.

I haven't watched the movie but did you notice rocks sound from the ceiling speakers, as that is what my friend who observed it in Atmos stated?


----------



## kingwiggi

Manni01 said:


> Because there is no standard hardware to do so. Analog Audio on PC motherboards max out at 7.1 channels. You have to buy external boards costing $200 at least (more than most motherboards) to get more channels with decent DACs. Given how limited the market is, it won't happen for a while, at least until MB manufacturers agree on a standard for 8+ analog audio channels, as is the case now with HD Audio. Also until now decoding HD Audio was fairly straightforward as it's channel based. You send the PCM streams to the right channels and you're done. Decoding Atmos is much more complex, so you need a significant mark up on the hardware costs to make up for the investment in R&D / Development costs given the microscopic market (niche of a niche of a niche of a niche). That's if you have a business plan, of course.


Where is 'Creative Labs' when we need them if Atmos/DTS:x was launched in their hay-day they would have been working on producing a sub $400 sound card that could decode 3D audio.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Where is the phantom image in that diagram? I mean, where should it be, assuming an equal amount of signal from the LF and the LS?


If the levels of the speakers are calibrated (same level at the MLP) and the distances of the speakers from the MLP are set in the processor, then you've effectively placed those two speakers as if they were equidistant from the MLP. It probably wouldn't be perfect (not good enough for stereo listening, for example), but the image should appear roughly between the two speakers. The point, of course, is that the image breaks down as you get closer to one speaker or the other.

I wonder if there's a test disc that plays signals in such a way as to test how good your imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is? That would be cool.


----------



## Lasalle

dschulz said:


> Dolby does not manufacture boards for consumer products. They don't even manufacture the DSPs used in consumer products - they license the software, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> This is correct, although I'd add that there are limits imposed by the hardware available to the manufacturers. See below...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they are spreading misinformation, as much as one email is getting somewhat misinterpreted. It would be more accurate to say that there are limits imposed by current DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos. These limits are not Dolby's fault, nor are they the fault of A/V manufacturers - and these limits will no doubt be surmounted as DSPs get faster.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll do my best! Please note I am no longer with Datasat, but I am a fan of what they do and can hopefully clarify things.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, *none* of the currently available DSP implementations of Dolby Atmos offer more than 7.1.4 / 9.1.2 channels. Datasat uses Analog Devices SHARC DSPs, and the ADI implementation of Dolby's code maxes out there. Other DSP manufacturers doing this sort of thing are Texas Instruments and Cirrus Logic, but they are in the same boat. In other words, until DSPs get faster/better and the DSP manufacturers build in additional capabilities, there is no way to get a higher channel count, short of throwing out the whole box and starting over with a PC-based architecture as with the Trinnov piece.


Thank you for the explanation. It makes me wonder why Datasat and Theta aren't looking at running two chip sets in parallel. One for the base channels and LFE and one for the height/top/VOG. ADI,TI, etc already have the code implemented for the base channel chip set, and about 40% of the height code implemented. It seems more expedient for Dolby, DTS, and possibly Auro (if they wanted some Auromax capabilities) to give the DSP manufactures the rest of the height code, than to wait for the next chip generation. My understanding is that all the array setup, base management and room correlation are done discretely after the decoding.


----------



## dryeye

bkeeler10 said:


> I wonder if there's a test disc that plays signals in such a way as to test how good your imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is? That would be cool.


 I think I remember an AIX disc having some tracks that might image between speaker pairs. http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/bd/oppo_sampler_bd.html


----------



## sdurani

Billybobjimbob said:


> Dolby haven't technically imposed a limit, but that chipset isn't giving beyond 11 channel capability to ANY manufacturer..so it isn't just Datasat.


What do you mean by "that chipset"? Dolby simply supplies the code for the format decoding. The actual chipsets are made by various companies: Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic. Those chipmakers have the code for the full version of home Atmos. It is the processing power of their DSP solutions that limit how many speaker locations can be rendered to. But that has nothing to do with Dolby.


----------



## kingwiggi

dkfan9 said:


> 1% of the cost ( saying around 300 for an i7) is *still probably more than the dsps account for in most AVRs*


Yes a lot more :

The DSP chips that they use in the Denons are about $11 a piece in quantities 1000->5000.

As an example the Denon 7200 uses 4 of these but only uses two to decode 3D audio. 

The other two are for video and other audio functions.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are gaining no benefit from extra spatial resolution in the horizontal plane. This is highlighted by the fact that if you play an Atmos track on an Atmos receiver without height speakers (i.e. a basic 7.1 setup) you don't even get Atmos rendering, (despite what the display of the receiver may be implying) you just get the 7.1 channel based TrueHD track.
> 
> 
> 
> And what if you are playing Atmos tracks through an Atmos receiver in Atmos mode with a 9.1 setup including wides but without heights? No objects and silent wides?
Click to expand...

AFAIK you would get Atmos decoding and object rendering with a 9.1.0 layout. 

Somebody who has wides should turn off their overheads in the speaker config and test to verify. 

I don't really have a good way to accommodate wides.... err... "front surrounds" in my room, at least not permanently. But I might test a bit since I have TM installed so could do an in spec 9.1.2 layout.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> wides.... err... "front surrounds" in my room


No, no. You're right the first time. There are wides in home consumer audio environment but there are no front surrounds (yet).

On the flip side, there are no wides in the cinema but there are front surrounds.


----------



## robert816

Zhorik said:


> The necessary trailer and feature with its accompanying audio format (5.1, 7.1, Atmos) is ingested into the server from the supplied hard disk and a playlist created.
> 
> I haven't watched the movie but did you notice rocks sound from the ceiling speakers, as that is what my friend who observed it in Atmos stated?



No, that was the problem, there were a number of scenes that you expected something to sound like it was coming from above and we did not hear any of that. So my thinking was either a bad mix, or maybe they didn't have the system setup correctly, but the audio mix was very meh, of course the movie wasn't much better in my opinion, not bad, but just meh. I've only had one other instance of an Atmos mix not being very good and that was during the run of Pacific Rim, it was terrible, but I approached the manager and explained what I felt the issue was, he gave me a pass to come again and I did so, the next day when I watched Pacific Rim, the audio was pure awesome and I've enjoyed this theatre ever since.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Could it be that the manufactures are not giving you it all of what Dolby ATMOS has to offer because they rather sell you better and better AVRs as time goes on adding a bit more to ATMOS, basically like any other business trying to milk the consumers and well to stay in business.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Obviously.

Why give us 24ch $2,000 systems now when you can squeeze out an extra two channels every two or three years?


----------



## bkeeler10

Manni01 said:


> Because there is no standard hardware to do so. Analog Audio on PC motherboards max out at 7.1 channels. You have to buy external boards costing $200 at least (more than most motherboards) to get more channels with decent DACs. Given how limited the market is, it won't happen for a while, at least until MB manufacturers agree on a standard for 8+ analog audio channels, as is the case now with HD Audio. Also until now decoding HD Audio was fairly straightforward as it's channel based. You send the PCM streams to the right channels and you're done. Decoding Atmos is much more complex, so you need a significant mark up on the hardware costs to make up for the investment in R&D / Development costs given the microscopic market (niche of a niche of a niche of a niche). That's if you have a business plan, of course.


I personally wish JRiver would get together with Dolby and add Atmos decoding to their software. It could be an add-on to JRiver that you pay extra for if you want it. There are boxes out there for multichannel output, such as the Motu 24Ao, which retails for about $1000 I believe. Considering that, I would bet that you could have a 24 channel HTPC for less than $3k. And that would be a bargain. And then you could presumably run Dirac on all those channels . . .


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bkeeler10 said:


> I wonder if there's a test disc that plays signals in such a way as to test how good your imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is? That would be cool.



I use the phase tests on several discs for that purpose. The AIX disc that came with my Oppo has a nice 7.1 phase test that lets me see whether sound between those speakers phantom images well. In my case, when I used direct radiators as side surrounds, imaging between the mains and side surrounds was there but not great. But when I put bipoles at side surround, I got a nice phantom image that hovers in between the mains and side surrounds at my MLP... And gave me a really nice sounding front soundstage with cohesive pans to the surrounds. So for me, wides aren't necessary. I could see it being an issue at my other seating positions... But the people who sit there can suck it up! It's all about ME!


----------



## Scott Simonian

The 11.1 sound check on Dredd is useful but it only really has a "phantom image" check for the position where wide speakers would go as this test is meant for DTS Neo:X upmixer.

It does work without Neo:X and if you want you can check how well you get imaging in the position where the wides go.

Also the movie itself has an excellent 7.1 mix with imaging all over the place. Can't wait to test it out with DSU and CinemaDSP.


----------



## FilmMixer

Daniel Chaves said:


> Could it be that the manufactures are not giving you it all of what Dolby ATMOS has to offer because they rather sell you better and better AVRs as time goes on adding a bit more to ATMOS, basically like any other business trying to milk the consumers and well to stay in business.


IMO no... 

The market for > 7.1.4 is minuscule.... I just can't see any kind of downward pressure on the mainstream CEs to devote the resources to offer functionality that a sliver of their customers would ever use vs. the impact it would have in the profitability of said product/product lines. 

I do hope we will start seeing 9.1.6... But I don't think that will happen until mid 2017 at the earliest.... Just my .02


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> AFAIK you would get Atmos decoding and object rendering with a 9.1.0 layout.
> 
> Somebody who has wides should turn off their overheads in the speaker config and test to verify.
> 
> I don't really have a good way to accommodate wides.... err... "front surrounds" in my room, at least not permanently. But I might test a bit since I have TM installed so could do an in spec 9.1.2 layout.



Let me see if I got this right: If you change the receiver settings from 9.1.0 to 7.1.0, object rendition is replaced by pure channel based playback. 

Did you find a way to verify this (since you mention that the receiver can still display 'Atmos'), or is this information coming from some Dolby reference?


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> AFAIK you would get Atmos decoding and object rendering with a 9.1.0 layout.
> 
> *Somebody who has wides should turn off their overheads in the speaker config and test to verify. *
> 
> I don't really have a good way to accommodate wides.... err... "front surrounds" in my room, at least not permanently. But I might test a bit since I have TM installed so could do an in spec 9.1.2 layout.


Verified!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> What do you mean by "that chipset"? Dolby simply supplies the code for the format decoding. The actual chipsets are made by various companies: Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic. Those chipmakers have the code for the full version of home Atmos. It is the processing power of their DSP solutions that limit how many speaker locations can be rendered to. But that has nothing to do with Dolby.


Doesn't there also have to be circuit path "outputs" for each "channel" rendered from the Dolby Atmos and DTS: X software as well and then that newly decompressed PCM data is routed to other chips, including the Digital-to-Analog Converters? All the typical DSP manufacturers may still be basing their chip architecture off standard 11.1 formats of the past as the gear manufacturers may not have indicated they would like to go beyond that for now. So, even if these new quad core chips could handle more than 11.1 rendering, the pathways would have to be upgraded and increased for additional "channel" outputs. 

That's my thought anyway.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Obviously.
> 
> Why give us 24ch $2,000 systems now when you can squeeze out an extra two channels every two or three years?


Is it really that hard to believe that chipmakers don't have the processing power yet? You think they're already capable of a relatively low cost 24-channel solution but are deliberately doling it out in small chunks over the next few years?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Also the movie itself has an excellent 7.1 mix with imaging all over the place. Can't wait to test it out with DSU and CinemaDSP.



Oh, man... You're in for a treat. Dredd sounds SO GOOD with DSU. The only mix I've heard that is more enveloping with DSU is the 7.1 mix they did for Seven.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

What bums me out (sort of) is that some of these manufacturers have top end receivers and pre-amps with 13.x pre-amp outputs and channel routing depending on the mode you set them in. That platform could easily support 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 rendering... if they_ really_ wanted to go there. People could have their "wides" or front side surrounds and their four overhead speakers at the same time. If they didn't think "wides" or front side surrounds were necessary, they could have three pairs of overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> If the levels of the speakers are calibrated (same level at the MLP) and the distances of the speakers from the MLP are set in the processor, then you've effectively placed those two speakers as if they were equidistant from the MLP. It probably wouldn't be perfect (not good enough for stereo listening, for example), but the image should appear roughly between the two speakers. The point, of course, is that the image breaks down as you get closer to one speaker or the other.
> 
> I wonder if there's a test disc that plays signals in such a way as to test how good your imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is? That would be cool.


I think there is some sort of test in the audio section of the S&M disc BICBW. I find the phantom image between my surrounds and front speakers is very solid - especially since I moved my surrounds to 85° after adding rear surrounds recently. But mine is a small room and this may not be the case in a much larger room.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Doesn't there also have to be circuit path "outputs" for each "channel" rendered from the Dolby Atmos and DTS: X software as well and then that newly decompressed PCM data is routed to other chips, including the Digital-to-Analog Converters?


AFAIK, current DSP chips have 16 channel capability. If the task was bass management, they wouldn't have a problem computing 16 channels of it. But when the task is real-time spatial rendering, then you start running into the limits of computational horsepower. Once the chipmakers overcome that, then CE manufacturers will figure out a way to stuff more DACs into their boxes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Billybobjimbob said:


> The little smiley at the end of my post was there to imply a bit of tongue in cheek Keith. I don't for a moment think they are your 'secret' friends at Dolby. I appreciate the offer, but it won't be necessary to give me their names, job titles and there location (getting into the realms of invading personal privacy there!!!).
> 
> Your post is telling half the story Keith. the Trinnov is only 32 Channel capable because it's not relying on the chipset in question and is a PC in disguise- cpu processing not DSP as most processor and avrs are..it's unique in that sense.
> 
> Any manufacturer that is utilising the chipset in question, they are all limited to the 11 channel limit. There's no hand waving going on. *Dolby haven't technically imposed a limit,* but that chipset isn't giving beyond 11 channel capability to ANY manufacturer..so it isn't just Datasat. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
> 
> I've been exchanging some emails with John Baloff at Theta over the last few days. A really helpful and informative chap. For those processors that are of a modular build, it is quite possible that down the line they will get beyond 11 channel processing, but not with the current chipset and not at this moment in time.


Dolby haven't imposed a limit, period. Every manufacturer can implement a 32 speaker Atmos setup if they choose to. If the manufacturers build their gear using chipsets that don't have sufficient capacity, then that is their decision. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Dolby. But I think we have aired this enough now and should move on, if you agree


----------



## Billybobjimbob

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby haven't imposed a limit, period. Every manufacturer can implement a 32 speaker Atmos setup if they choose to. If the manufacturers build their gear using chipsets that don't have sufficient capacity, then that is their decision. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Dolby. But I think we have aired this enough now and should move on, if you agree


I agree with you entirely, especially the last bit about having aired this enough!

I hope the weathers been as nice down your neck of the woods as it has been up here in the northwest..it's sweltering!


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Is it really that hard to believe that chipmakers don't have the processing power yet? You think they're already capable of a relatively low cost 24-channel solution but are deliberately doling it out in small chunks over the next few years?


Obviously I'm just speculating but it's hard to believe that there is not ANY choices out there for processing that are not more powerful than the $10 DSP chips they use now.

Price is no option seems to afford more processing power. Who'd a thunk?



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, man... You're in for a treat. Dredd sounds SO GOOD with DSU. The only mix I've heard that is more enveloping with DSU is the 7.1 mix they did for Seven.


Thanks. I'll be trying it out soon.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Obviously I'm just speculating but it's hard to believe that there is not ANY choices out there for processing that are not more powerful than the $10 DSP chips they use now.


The alternate explanation is that all three competing DSP chipmakers are conspiring together to hold back technology. What are the odds of that happening amongst three rivals? The explanations posted by dschulz and FilmMixer make more sense to me: the processing power isn't there yet and there isn't much market pressure to go beyond 11.2.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Not conspiring, Sanjay. Cheap. Being cheap and providing only just amount of power is what is holding back these abilities we want. We know that it's the processing power. But there is no business making $100 chips. It's all about the high volume, low power cheap stuff. You know this.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby haven't imposed a limit, period. Every manufacturer can implement a 32 speaker Atmos setup if they choose to. If the manufacturers build their gear using chipsets that don't have sufficient capacity, then that is their decision.


But there are no available chipsets with sufficient capacity. It's not as though Denon, or Yamaha, or Datasat can abandon their DSP-based architecture and move to an Intel PC-style platform.



Scott Simonian said:


> Obviously I'm just speculating but it's hard to believe that there is not ANY choices out there for processing that are not more powerful than the $10 DSP chips they use now.
> 
> Price is no option seems to afford more processing power. Who'd a thunk?


Of course there are more powerful DSPs out there - but their manufacturers have not implemented Atmos on them. That sort of system-on-a-chip design work isn't cheap.

Now, if Denon rings up Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic or ADI and says "hey guys, our customers really want Atmos 9.1.6 - if you can do that for us, we'll buy 250,000 DSPs" then we're in business. My prediction is that is precisely what is going to happen. But right now, today, there is no such implementation.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Of course there are more powerful DSPs out there - but their manufacturers have not implemented Atmos on them. That sort of system-on-a-chip design work isn't cheap.
> 
> Now, if Denon rings up Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic or ADI and says "hey guys, our customers really want Atmos 9.1.6 - if you can do that for us, we'll buy 250,000 DSPs" then we're in business. My prediction is that is precisely what is going to happen. But right now, today, there is no such implementation.


BAM!!!

Exactly what I've been saying. 

Thanks, Dan.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> No, no. You're right the first time. There are wides in home consumer audio environment but there are no front surrounds (yet).


I know that, obviously  It was a tongue-in-cheek hat tip to you and Sanjay 



Scott Simonian said:


> On the flip side, there are no wides in the cinema but there are front surrounds


I was under the impression that the extra "front surround" array in an Atmos theater (blue in the diagram below) received only object info, not the surround bed? If that's accurate it makes them functionally identical to the "wide" position on a consumer AVR.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Not conspiring, Sanjay. Cheap. Being cheap and providing only just amount of power is what is holding back these abilities we want.


Three competitors are all being cheap in the same way? All holding back the same ability (higher speaker count)? All doing it at the same time? Don't you think one of them would use this timing to break out of this limitation, even if it meant adding just 2 more speaker locations, in order separate themselves from their competitors and attract more AVR manufacturers? Not saying your speculation is meritless, but my tiny brain finds it easier to go with the simpler explanations.


----------



## batpig

bkeeler10;36443266I wonder if there's a test disc that plays signals in such a way as to test how good your imaging between adjacent pairs of speakers is? That would be cool.[/QUOTE said:


> dryeye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I remember an AIX disc having some tracks that might image between speaker pairs. http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/bd/oppo_sampler_bd.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use the phase tests on several discs for that purpose. The AIX disc that came with my Oppo has a nice 7.1 phase test that lets me see whether sound between those speakers phantom images well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good stuff guys. And this is a good time to bring up my request from a ways back: *What are your favorite test scenes specifically to assess panning / timbre matching?* Not just general surround sound demo material, but specific scenes where a sound pans across multiple speakers and should maintain seamless transition and timbral consistency. Primarily interested in horizontal pans but in this age of native Atmos mixes overhead pans (or pans which utilize both) are great too.
> 
> I've got a google doc where I've stashed some examples: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DiAUMpdZdu6wXJi1eHLFhJhXjCclN5KnXFmIQu5cb1w/edit?usp=sharing
Click to expand...


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> Let me see if I got this right: If you change the receiver settings from 9.1.0 to 7.1.0, object rendition is replaced by pure channel based playback.
> 
> Did you find a way to verify this (since you mention that the receiver can still display 'Atmos'), or is this information coming from some Dolby reference?


Well we have verified (thanks chi_guy!) that Atmos will render to the wide position in a 9.1.0 layout (no heights).

But I have heard from an inside reference that, despite what the display may read, an Atmos blu-ray track will just play the 7.1 TrueHD channel based mix when played back on a 7.1 system. Even without an inside source though it seems common sense -- the 7.1 already exists as a complete entity, why go through the trouble of extracting the object metadata only to immediately fold it back down to those same 7.1 channels?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I know that, obviously  It was a tongue-in-cheek hat tip to you and Sanjay


I know. 



batpig said:


> I was under the impression that the extra "front surround" array in an Atmos theater (blue in the diagram below) received only object info, not the surround bed? If that's accurate it makes them functionally identical to the "wide" position on a consumer AVR.


Now we're moving!

You are correct. In the cinema, these additional speakers right up front on the side wall do not (afaik) receive any channel "bed" information and they are called front surrounds. At home, for Atmos, the "wides" do just this. 

_BUT!_ Here is where it gets annoyingly semantic or specific... At home, for Atmos, actual "front surrounds" will get channel bed information and have objects pan through them.

So wides don't exist in the cinema but the front surrounds act in a similar fashion as wides do, currently, with home Atmos.

Front surrounds don't exist at home (yet) but they work like extensions of the side surrounds in the Atmos cinema currently.

Oye! Confusing, huh? Gotta be on top of all this crap. 


Thinking about this, really. What would you rather have? A set of speakers that lay silent almost all the time and in turn leave a REAL gap in the sound field or use a system that will get use and fills that gap that people have in their heart, erm, I mean that gap between their fronts and sides.

I'd go with the front surrounds. No wait, I mean wides. I mean.... Ah crap. I have no idea anymore. 



sdurani said:


> Three competitors are all being cheap in the same way? All holding back the same ability (higher speaker count)? All doing it at the same time? Don't you think one of them would use this timing to break out of this limitation, even if it meant adding just 2 more speaker locations, in order separate themselves from their competitors and attract more AVR manufacturers? Not saying your speculation is meritless, but my tiny brain finds it easier to go with the simpler explanations.


Not if it's going to cost them money that they don't "need" to invest in.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> I think there is some sort of test in the audio section of the S&M disc BICBW. I find the phantom image between my surrounds and front speakers is very solid - especially since I moved my surrounds to 85° after adding rear surrounds recently. But mine is a small room and this may not be the case in a much larger room.


So how are those back surrounds treating you then? Worth the additional cost and work of getting them in?


----------



## kingwiggi

dschulz said:


> Of course there are more powerful DSPs out there - *but their manufacturers have not implemented Atmos on them. That sort of system-on-a-chip design work isn't cheap*.
> 
> Now, if Denon rings up Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic or ADI and says "hey guys, our customers really want Atmos 9.1.6 - if you can do that for us, we'll buy 250,000 DSPs" then we're in business. My prediction is that is precisely what is going to happen. But right now, today, there is no such implementation.


These DSP chips are pretty much off the shelf components, sure they have audio specific modules on the silicon but you'll probably find that exact same chip in a cars Navigation/Audio system. Yes the Atmos / DTS:X codec needs to be written for the DSP which requires initial development costs but the porting of code from one DSP to a faster DSP in the same model family is pretty straight forward. 

So yes a time will come when that phone call happens and they will only be paying $2-$3 more per chip for the extra performance. Not the $20 extra which it would cost them now for a DSP that could do the job easily.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> especially since I moved my surrounds to 85° after adding rear surrounds recently. But mine is a small room and this may not be the case in a much larger room.


Wait... I totally missed this.

When did this happen? The prodding from Sanjay worked! Hahah! Sucker... I mean, hope that you're enjoying it.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> But there are no available chipsets with sufficient capacity. It's not as though Denon, or Yamaha, or Datasat can abandon their DSP-based architecture and move to an Intel PC-style platform.
> 
> Of course there are more powerful DSPs out there - but their manufacturers have not implemented Atmos on them. That sort of system-on-a-chip design work isn't cheap.
> 
> Now, if Denon rings up Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic or ADI and says "hey guys, our customers really want Atmos 9.1.6 - if you can do that for us, we'll buy 250,000 DSPs" then we're in business. My prediction is that is precisely what is going to happen. But right now, today, there is no such implementation.



That's only going to happen when a critical mass of consumer A/V buyers develop experience with Atmos and DTS:X, realize that they want more than what a 7.1.4 setup can do for them, and the demand shows up on the radar of whatever market research the manufacturers do. Like FM, I see that as at least a two to three year time horizon at a minimum, considering that we're only just starting to get Atmos releases above and beyond a bare trickle (and I'm basing this comment on what's happening down later this fall with GAtmos). Maybe longer pending the R&D cycle with CE manufacturers. Perhaps 2019 or 2020 is a more realistic timeframe even if 3D audio takes off beyond the niche of a niche level. 


Trinnov's a special case because they've been using a PC-based architecture for their pro gear (with a specialized version of Linux to boot IIRC), as well as their standalone home audio-oriented run time boxes like the Magnitude, and taking advantage of the flexibility of software-based solutions was a natural fit for them. But they're also outside of the traditional home audio world; the Altitude is really their first venture in this vein as a multichannel pre-amp/pre-pro.


IMO if anyone's going to do it using a DSP architecture, it's going to be Denon or Yamaha. A boutique manufacturer like Emotiva or Theta's not going to have that kind of market power unless they want to absorb the R&D costs partially and/or and get into the high four figures to cover the lack of economy of scale that you get with the big boys.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Thinking about this, really. What would you rather have? A set of speakers that lay silent almost all the time and in turn leave a REAL gap in the sound field or use a system that will get use and fills that gap that people have in their heart, erm, I mean that gap between their fronts and sides.


I don't think anyone would choose the former over the latter if given the choice. Problem is we don't have that choice. 

Oh well, a lot of hand-wringing for naught since anyone this side of a Trinnov is stuck with 7.1.4 for the near future anyway.

Side note though -- as I was reading some Dolby white papers on cinema guidelines this morning thinking about the topic, I came across this snippet on "pairing" surround/overhead speakers (from this spec document). Based on what I read it seems the Josh Z plan for going to x.x.6 (leaving the Top Front discrete but pairing a two-speaker array for the rearward overheads) is theoretically legit:



> *4.1.1 Pairing of Side Surround Loudspeakers*
> Loudspeakers within the same zone and region can be paired (driven by a single signal) to jointly optimize for uniform coverage,
> power efficiency, spatial resolution, and system complexity. The signals are distributed to each loudspeaker without
> phase, level, or delay differences, and can be driven by a single amplifier channel. Some or all of the loudspeakers within a
> region can be paired in accordance with the following rules:
> • The number and location of side surround loudspeakers must conform to the normal specification, as defined in the
> previous figures.
> • Paired loudspeakers must of be the same make and model.
> • All paired loudspeakers must be located to the rear of discrete unpaired loudspeakers, that is, when pairing loudspeakers,
> start by pairing the rear-most (closest to the booth wall) region, and move forward.
> _Note: The front-most left and right side surround speakers are always in their own region and must not be paired._
> 
> *4.2.1 Pairing and Culling Top Surround Loudspeakers*
> Two loudspeakers within the same zone and region can be paired (driven by a single amplifier) or replaced by a single
> loudspeaker (culled) to jointly optimize for uniform coverage, power efficiency, spatial resolution, and system complexity.
> Culling reduces the number of top surround loudspeakers relative to the previous figures. The loudspeaker count provided
> in the figures is determined entirely by the horizontal dimensions of the auditorium. For auditoriums with relatively high
> ceilings, wider top surround spacing provides adequate coverage and was found to be subjectively acceptable.
> To pair top surround loudspeakers, follow these guidelines:
> • The loudspeakers must be in the same region and zone (for example, rear-most region on the left side surround
> zone).
> • The left and right zones must be the same, that is, both must be discrete or paired.
> • Paired loudspeakers must be of the same make and model.
> • All paired loudspeakers must be located to the rear of discrete, unpaired loudspeakers. When pairing loudspeakers,
> start by pairing the rear-most region, and then move forward.
> _Note: The front-most left and right top surround loudspeaker are always located in their own region and must not be
> paired. _


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Three competitors are all being cheap in the same way? All holding back the same ability (higher speaker count)? All doing it at the same time? Don't you think one of them would use this timing to break out of this limitation, even if it meant adding just 2 more speaker locations, in order separate themselves from their competitors and attract more AVR manufacturers? Not saying your speculation is meritless, but my tiny brain finds it easier to go with the simpler explanations.


Not that I'm saying you're not right, but collusion between companies, especially when there are only a handful in a particular field of business, is not unheard of.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> IMO if anyone's going to do it using a DSP architecture, it's going to be Denon or Yamaha. A boutique manufacturer like Emotiva or Theta's not going to have that kind of market power unless they want to absorb the R&D costs partially and/or and get into the high four figures to cover the lack of economy of scale that you get with the big boys.


Which really makes me wonder how/if Emotiva is going to do what they claim they are going to be able to do....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Which really makes me wonder how/if Emotiva is going to do what they claim they are going to be able to do....


16 outputs are installed and available for more configuration flexibility, but only 11.x of them are available at any one time?? Just like the 13.x products from Denon and the like right now. 

Hmmm...


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I don't think anyone would choose the former over the latter if given the choice. Problem is we don't have that choice.
> 
> Oh well, a lot of hand-wringing for naught since anyone this side of a Trinnov is stuck with 7.1.4 for the near future anyway.
> 
> Side note though -- as I was reading some Dolby white papers on cinema guidelines this morning thinking about the topic, I came across this snippet on "pairing" surround/overhead speakers (from this spec document). Based on what I read it seems the Josh Z plan for going to x.x.6 (leaving the Top Front discrete but pairing a two-speaker array for the rearward overheads) is theoretically legit:


Right. This is why I don't really support the whole "wides" thing with new immersive audio. Had this stuff not existed and we were still living in a world where Neo:X was the max, I'd be all about those speaker locations. It also just so happens that this is not a weak spot in my room or other rooms that have well thought out speaker positioning, seating and acoustical treatment. Never do I think, "there NEEDS to be an additional pair of speakers there." *points at wide location* I do always think there is this gigantic gap above me.

Manni is doing the same thing in his room with his front and rear pairs doubled up in a "cluster array". He says it works for him and I believe it. It would be interesting to try this out with a six channel overhead Atmos-ES system with an additional cluster right above doing the middle height position.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Which really makes me wonder how/if Emotiva is going to do what they claim they are going to be able to do....


Pretty easy to make big sweeping promises you can't fulfill.

Videogames.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> Good stuff guys. And this is a good time to bring up my request from a ways back: *What are your favorite test scenes specifically to assess panning / timbre matching?* Not just general surround sound demo material, but specific scenes where a sound pans across multiple speakers and should maintain seamless transition and timbral consistency. Primarily interested in horizontal pans but in this age of native Atmos mixes overhead pans (or pans which utilize both) are great too.


As far as Atmos goes, the around-the-room pans on the Unfold demo trailer were very useful when it came to balancing things out in my room. As much as I know Audyssey got the base SPL levels right on my Denon 5200, I think the core Audyssey tech like DynamicEQ isn't really designed to work well with those kinds of transitions, leaving the side and rear surrounds at a noticeably higher level than the front height/main area... which means those around-the-room pans tend to audibly fall off as they reach the front. A quick +1dB boost (and I know that isn't much) of my front height and top mid speakers at my usual listening level gave me a far better sound for those particular pans. I sense that the surround presence boost that DynamicEQ applies isn't optimized for an Atmos-style setup, whereas I still enjoy the equalization changes as I lower volume, so I keep DynamicEQ turned on. May try applying a 5dB offset of DynamicEQ to see if that mitigates the effect some.

As far as panning between speakers to assess timbre matching, I'm sure I'll forget some very good examples... but a recent one that impressed me was Rise Of The Guardians. Sadly, the theatrical Atmos didn't make its way to the disc, but the 7.1 on that has some great scenes of Pitch's voice panning around the room when they go to the Tooth Fairy's home base. For non-voice, I've always loved the truck scene in Toy Story 2 where it skids around the entire room. You really know when you have level/delay right with that scene.

On the DVD side, I recall Panic Room having a lot of pans around the room, although not with voices. Speaking of which, why the hell is that movie not out on Blu-ray? I would love for Fincher to do a 7.1 or Atmos mix of that flick!


----------



## kingwiggi

sdrucker said:


> IMO if anyone's going to do it using a DSP architecture, it's going to be Denon or Yamaha. *A boutique manufacturer like Emotiva or Theta's not going to have that kind of market power unless* they want to absorb the R&D costs partially and/or and get into the high four figures to cover the lack of economy of scale that you get with the big boys.


Unless they just buy in somebody else's audio module and stick it in their own equipment like they have done in the past. That almost certainly what Emotiva is doing with their XMR-1


----------



## sdrucker

kingwiggi said:


> Unless they just buy in somebody else's audio module and stick it in their own equipment like they have done in the past. That almost certainly what Emotiva is doing with their XMR-1


Hence there's almost no way they'll offer more than 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. If they're thinking of a 16 channel XMR-1, maybe they're considering 7.1.4 + support for four subs or two subs + a couple of extra channel output available for active crossover speakers. Or possibly a dedicated VOG speaker if they offer Auro (LOL) to go with a 7.1.4 setup using front and rear height speakers....


----------



## batpig

kingwiggi said:


> Unless they just buy in somebody else's audio module and stick it in their own equipment like they have done in the past. That almost certainly what Emotiva is doing with their XMR-1


But I think the big takeaway from all of this discussion is that _said audio module doesn't exist_.


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As far as Atmos goes, the around-the-room pans on the Unfold demo trailer were very useful when it came to balancing things out in my room. As much as I know Audyssey got the base SPL levels right on my Denon 5200, I think the core Audyssey tech like DynamicEQ isn't really designed to work well with those kinds of transitions, leaving the side and rear surrounds at a noticeably higher level than the front height/main area... which means those around-the-room pans tend to audibly fall off as they reach the front. A quick +1dB boost (and I know that isn't much) of my front height and top mid speakers at my usual listening level gave me a far better sound for those particular pans. I sense that the surround presence boost that DynamicEQ applies isn't optimized for an Atmos-style setup, whereas I still enjoy the equalization changes as I lower volume, so I keep DynamicEQ turned on. May try applying a 5dB offset of DynamicEQ to see if that mitigates the effect some.
> 
> As far as panning between speakers to assess timbre matching, I'm sure I'll forget some very good examples... but a recent one that impressed me was Rise Of The Guardians. Sadly, the theatrical Atmos didn't make its way to the disc, but the 7.1 on that has some great scenes of Pitch's voice panning around the room when they go to the Tooth Fairy's home base. For non-voice, I've always loved the truck scene in Toy Story 2 where it skids around the entire room. You really know when you have level/delay right with that scene.
> 
> On the DVD side, I recall Panic Room having a lot of pans around the room, although not with voices. Speaking of which, why the hell is that movie not out on Blu-ray? I would love for Fincher to do a 7.1 or Atmos mix of that flick!


Good stuff. When possible chapter markers (or better yet actual timestamps) are super helpful.... and glaringly absent from my list so far :/


----------



## Manni01

Scott Simonian said:


> Manni is doing the same thing in his room with his front and rear pairs doubled up in a "cluster array". He says it works for him and I believe it. It would be interesting to try this out with a six channel overhead Atmos-ES system with an additional cluster right above doing the middle height position.


 
Here is my current layout, which works very well. The TF+TR give really good immersion at the MLP (the whole room is designed for me, as you can see, everyone else gets whatever they get). However, FH and RH give a good cover to the other seats.


I'm trying to get another 1909 by the week-end to give Atmos-EX a try, both for a third pair of heights in the middle (getting FH+TM+RH) and to create a CH and SBH. At the moment CH is an array with C and I don't use SBH (or SB).


There is nothing high end in my setup, but the room is fully dedicated (bat loft) so the visual and audio immersion is excellent. I'll post pictures when I report on Atmos-EX if I can, there are many compromises in my room, primarily the ceiling height just above 7ft at the centre, and a slanted ceiling. kbarnes knows what it is to have to deal with small rooms, for the rest of you across the pond it will probably look like a dog kennel, possibly even smaller .


----------



## kbarnes701

Billybobjimbob said:


> I agree with you entirely, especially the last bit about having aired this enough!
> 
> I hope the weathers been as nice down your neck of the woods as it has been up here in the northwest..it's sweltering!


If I tell you that my neck of the woods is England, does that answer your question?


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> But there are no available chipsets with sufficient capacity. It's not as though Denon, or Yamaha, or Datasat can abandon their DSP-based architecture and move to an Intel PC-style platform.


Sure, but that isn't Dolby's fault is it? People were referring to a "Dolby limitation". It isn't. It's a chipset limitation.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> Good stuff. When possible chapter markers (or better yet actual timestamps) are super helpful.... and glaringly absent from my list so far :/


Well, I'm at work right now... but I'll think of some more when I'm not balancing between actually doing work and screwing around on the internet.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> So how are those back surrounds treating you then? Worth the additional cost and work of getting them in?


I intend to make a full report but have been really busy these past few days. I will get a round tuit soon though 

In brief - yes. In the _"squeezing a quart gallon into a pint pot"_ HT that I have here, I was skeptical that it would bring an improvement commensurate with the time, trouble and cost, but it has surprised me and exceeded expectations. The additional immersion is palpable and left-right pans behind me have a much greater tangibility to them. I am very happy with the move to 7.2.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Wait... I totally missed this.
> 
> When did this happen? The prodding from Sanjay worked! Hahah! Sucker... I mean, hope that you're enjoying it.


Haha. Only Mrs Keith has spent more of my money than Sanjay  But it was well worth it (and TBH I had the speakers and the amp so most of the cost was time - not counting the additional DDRC-88A I am sure to buy sooner or later so I can Dirac the 4 overheads). But very well worth it - see my post just above.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure, but that isn't Dolby's fault is it? People were referring to a "Dolby limitation". It isn't. It's a chipset limitation.


That will "limit" DTS:X implementations as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Which really makes me wonder how/if Emotiva is going to do what they claim they are going to be able to do....


What? Exceed expectations?  Oh I expect so....


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I intend to make a full report but have been really busy these past few days. I will get a round tuit soon though
> 
> In brief - yes. In the _"squeezing a quart gallon into a pint pot"_ HT that I have here, I was skeptical that it would bring an improvement commensurate with the time, trouble and cost, but it has surprised me and exceeded expectations. The additional immersion is palpable and left-right pans behind me have a much greater tangibility to them. I am very happy with the move to 7.2.4.





kbarnes701 said:


> Haha. Only Mrs Keith has spent more of my money than Sanjay  But it was well worth it (and TBH I had the speakers and the amp so most of the cost was time - not counting the additional DDRC-88A I am sure to buy sooner or later so I can Dirac the 4 overheads). But very well worth it - see my post just above.



Well hot dang! Keith has finally saw the light. 

You have a lot of movies to revisit, mister.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> If that's accurate it makes them functionally identical to the "wide" position on a consumer AVR.


Identical to wide functionality more than position. In a movie theatre, those speakers are positioned closer to where Dolby recommends the front L/R speaker be placed for home Atmos (60° spread) rather than where wides are typically placed (120° spread). 

Unlike a commercial theatre, where adding speakers between the screen and surround array doesn't take away from the number of speakers overhead, adding wides at home sacrifices front/back panning above you. And for what? Speakers that don't get upmixed content nor channel information, just wait silently for the occasional object to pan through? There are better uses for a pair of speakers and bigger gaps to fill in an immersive set-up.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> That will "limit" DTS:X implementations as well.


Yeah, if it turns out that DTS:X doesn't go past 11.2 on current chipsets, will that still be referred to as a Dolby limitation?


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> What do you mean by "that chipset"? Dolby simply supplies the code for the format decoding. The actual chipsets are made by various companies: Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic. Those chipmakers have the code for the full version of home Atmos. It is the processing power of their DSP solutions that limit how many speaker locations can be rendered to. But that has nothing to do with Dolby.


There seems to be a clear limitation of the DSP platforms. I'm not familiar with code / lifecycle management procedures for DSP software developers, but it seems unusual that Dolby would ship a code line to the chipmakers that has more complexity and resource requirements than their platforms can handle and let each independently scale it down. In the commercial software world they would fork a code line with reduced features and resource requirements (optimized for the platform constraints) and thereby have better control of QA and support.
With only three chipmakers they could possibly do one for each, but more likely (because of the overhead) they would do one fork for the DSP platforms delivering it to meet the lowest common denominator of the three on core functionality (ie channels). I'm just speculating, but this would explain why none of them is not just using a slightly faster one of their chips and picking up a couple of extra channels.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not that I'm saying you're not right, but collusion between companies, especially when there are only a handful in a particular field of business, is not unheard of.


Sure, but lack processing power makes more sense since it doesn't require competitors to collude. The explanation that needs less suspension of disbelief wins for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well hot dang! Keith has finally saw the light.
> 
> You have a lot of movies to revisit, mister.


Ain't that the truth!  I have already started....


----------



## sdrucker

> Sure, but lack processing power makes more sense since it doesn't require competitors to collude. The explanation that needs less suspension of disbelief wins for me.



Or, put another way, Occam's razor wins out: the simplest explanation is usually the most likely one compared to more complex, elaborate ones.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Yeah, if it turns out that DTS:X doesn't go past 11.2 on current chipsets, will that still be referred to as a Dolby limitation?


Of course... Because with the DTS:X codec on the same platforms you can put your speakers anywhere you want... 

Oh..... 

Wait .....


----------



## Billybobjimbob

kbarnes701 said:


> If I tell you that my neck of the woods is England, does that answer your question?


I know you're in England, I'm in Lancashire!


----------



## FilmMixer

Lasalle said:


> There seems to be a clear limitation of the DSP platforms. I'm not familiar with code / lifecycle management procedures for DSP software developers, but it seems unusual that Dolby would ship a code line to the chipmakers that has more complexity and resource requirements than their platforms can handle and let each independently scale it down. In the commercial software world they would fork a code line with reduced features and resource requirements (optimized for the platform constraints) and thereby have better control of QA and support.
> With only three chipmakers the could possibly do one for each, but more likely (because of the overhead) they would do one fork for the DSP platforms delivering it to meet the lowest common denominator of the three on core functionality (ie channels). I'm just speculating, but this would explain why none of them is not just using a slightly faster one of their chips and picking up a couple of extra channels.


And the CEs are supposed to revamp their entire core platform design to support a feature that 99% of their consumers won't use, or want to pay extra for?

It's not wholly about DSP... However that is the reality of how the codec has come to market... Again... DTS is in the same boat. 

This has nothing to do with how Dolby designed Atmos for the home or its core computational requirements.... 

Trinnov has shown that there is nothing stopping a manufacturers to do 34 channel Atmos (32 in their case...) And show at what cost it will take, present day, to get there. 

All of the big box CEs have 11 channel "limitations" in their AVRs... By design. 

In a world where Pioneer merged with Onkyo, etc... 

Bottom line is where it's at. 

Saving pennies on chips at this scale matters. 

Reducing engingeering and coding costs... Same thing. 

All part of a larger picture than one point of "there are plenty of powerful DSP chips to do the job so why don't they just do it?"


----------



## kbarnes701

Billybobjimbob said:


> I know you're in England, I'm in Lancashire!


Aha! I thought you were one of our American cousins. With a name like Billybobjimbob..... then yes, it has been glorious these past few days.


----------



## Billybobjimbob

kbarnes701 said:


> Aha! I thought you were one of our American cousins. With a name like Billybobjimbob..... then yes, it has been glorious these past few days.


Yes, the name lol sammy the squid didn't really fit in!


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> In a world where Pioneer merged with Onkyo, etc...
> 
> Bottom line is where it's at.
> 
> Saving pennies on chips at this scale matters.
> 
> Reducing emgingeering and coding costs... Same thing.
> 
> All part of a larger picture than one point of "there are plenty of powerful DSP chips to do the job so why don't they just do it?"


 Speaking of Pioneer, this whole thing reminds me of all the people that complained about why MCACC didn't stay with the times and support subwoofer EQ or multiple subwoofer management at anything like the level that Audyssey did. Bottom line is that even aside from their philosophical reasons for not doing so, given that the interest was among hard-core enthusiasts that could add other solutions anyway, the engineering/coding costs weren't justified in a cycle where they were refreshing most to all of their product line every year and doing little incremental changes that they could fit on their DSP chips.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> In a world...


Reading your post, but hearing Don Lafontaine.


----------



## pasender91

sdrucker said:


> Hence there's almost no way they'll offer more than 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. If they're thinking of a 16 channel XMR-1, maybe they're considering 7.1.4 + support for four subs or two subs + a couple of extra channel output available for active crossover speakers. Or possibly a dedicated VOG speaker if they offer Auro (LOL) to go with a 7.1.4 setup using front and rear height speakers....


I went into the DSP documentation someone shared earlier regarding the DSP that will be in the 16 channel Emotiva...
Deep in there, it says the chip supports 13.3 channels for 3D audio, as in 13 channels + 3 subwoofers.
This clearly opens the road to 9.3.4 on the XMR-1 

And maybe we could also see other AVR vendors select this DSP in their future model, let's dream


----------



## BigScreen

FilmMixer said:


> IMO no...
> 
> The market for > 7.1.4 is minuscule.... I just can't see any kind of downward pressure on the mainstream CEs to devote the resources to offer functionality that a sliver of their customers would ever use vs. the impact it would have in the profitability of said product/product lines.
> 
> I do hope we will start seeing 9.1.6... But I don't think that will happen until mid 2017 at the earliest.... Just my .02


I agree with your logic here. I think that, within the confines of our cozy forum, it's easy to forget that not very many people share our level of enthusiasm. While we get frustrated over why there aren't more Atmos releases on Blu-ray, and that DTS is taking way too long to feed us morsels of information, there are vast numbers of people that are oblivious to such things, much less have the inclination to install them in their homes.

However, the market size argument falls apart a little bit (IMHO) when we start talking about AV receivers and pre-pros that are in the $1,000+ price range. Relatively very few people are likely buying equipment at these price points. I would love to see a graph showing the market penetration of hardware by price range, as I'm guessing the sales of something on the order of the Denon 7200 is so small that it would barely register as being different from zero on any chart that would fit on a standard-sized piece of paper or PowerPoint slide.

That fact probably reinforces your point even more, and maybe it explains why the feature-set of the 7200 is so similar to that of the lower-priced units in the upper tier of Denon's line. (It's easy to slide in a better DAC and better connectors, but not so easy to implement more powerful DSP's and associated software) The differences between the Yamaha 2050 and 3050 are so slight that the only major advantage of the latter (to me) is the additional height channels. I'm willing to pay for those channels, because I don't want to do without them. I can't help but wonder if their exclusion from the 2050 was done for that reason (generally, of course, not just to get more money from me!).

However, given the small potential market at the $1,000+ range, and the relatively small subset of that market that is willing to go to $3,000+, one wonders if they couldn't push more buyers from the $1,000-$1,500 range to that upper end by providing some tangible upgrades in exchange for the jump.

I had hoped that Yamaha might do such a thing, but I knew the chances were slim. Given that Denon was hamstrung by the refresh cycle of the 7200, Yamaha could have come in with a unit over the 3050 that offered pre-outs for additional channels, or really struck a blow to the Denon 6200 by offering it in the 3050 at the $2,000 MSRP. Based on the info that I've seen on their new pre-pro, that's not looking like it will be anything substantially better than an amp-less 3050 with XLR connectors, so nothing compelling there.

I don't think we're seeing collusion on the part of the manufacturers, but rather a de facto agreement that the market just doesn't justify the investment. 

I guess the days of the "beasts" of manufacturer's lineups are long gone. Units like the Yamaha RX-Z11 and the Denon AVR-5805 were true flagships of their brands, and they had pricetags to match (~$5,000). While I would have difficulty spending $5,000 for a receiver (especially given the fast pace of technology changes lately), I would likely justify spending $3,000 (the cost of the Denon 7200) if it provided additional channel processing over the 5200/6200. I can't help but think that more than a few here would do the same.

It's unfortunate for the hobby that one must choose between spending $2,000 or $23,000 for a receiver/pre-pro, with basically nothing in between.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Well we have verified (thanks chi_guy!) that Atmos will render to the wide position in a 9.1.0 layout (no heights).
> 
> But I have heard from an inside reference that, despite what the display may read, an Atmos blu-ray track will just play the 7.1 TrueHD channel based mix when played back on a 7.1 system. Even without an inside source though it seems common sense -- the 7.1 already exists as a complete entity, why go through the trouble of extracting the object metadata only to immediately fold it back down to those same 7.1 channels?


Yes, it does make sense. It also confirms (again) that although ATMOS is much more than only adding overheads with respect to the re-recording/mixing process in the studio and playback in the theater, its current home implementation is basically just that: adding overheads (and yes, wides too).


----------



## NorthSky

Welcome Anthem AV receivers (+pre/pro) to both clubs: Dolby Atmos and DTS:X => https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Identical to wide functionality more than position. In a movie theatre, those speakers are positioned closer to where Dolby recommends the front L/R speaker be placed for home Atmos (60° spread) rather than where wides are typically placed (120° spread).
> 
> Unlike a commercial theatre, where adding speakers between the screen and surround array doesn't take away from the number of speakers overhead, adding wides at home sacrifices front/back panning above you. And for what? Speakers that don't get upmixed content nor channel information, just wait silently for the occasional object to pan through? There are better uses for a pair of speakers and bigger gaps to fill in an immersive set-up.


Then both Dolby and DTS will have to make sure that "wide" position is more like an extra front side surround that can get both object and channel bed array based content, though who knows if they'll do it that way.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then both Dolby and DTS *will have to make sure that "wide" position is more like an extra front side surround that can get both object and channel bed array based content*, though who knows if they'll do it that way.


Surely it's reasonable to hope that DTS:X will do so (all the while presupposing that Neural:X will upmix to the FW), don't you think? It still wouldn't tempt me to change from 7.1.4 to 9.1.2, but it would make the advancement to 9.1.4 more tantalizing.

FWIW, when I reconfigured my setup to 9.1.0 to test out batpig's thesis earlier this afternoon, it seemed to me that the FW was receiving a bed signal. But I'm not sure that has any significance regarding Atmos playback with heights.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then both Dolby and DTS will have to make sure that "wide" position is more like an extra front side surround that can get both object and channel bed array based content, though who knows if they'll do it that way.


Don't know about DTS:X, but Atmos really seems to want to isolate the LCR bed channels to their respective speakers (none of the speakers between the LCRs and just outside the LCRs get bed channel info). 

This doesn't apply only to home Atmos. You already know that in commercial theatres the LoC and RoC speakers as well as the speakers forward of the surround array don't get any channel info, just objects. It turns out that the most forward pair of heights (the ones just outside the screen) don't get any info from the Top Surround channels.

So there is this very deliberate ring/zone of separation around the LCR speakers. With that in mind, I don't think home Atmos will want bed channel info in the wide channels, or at least no more forward than the ±75° locations.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Don't know about DTS:X, but Atmos really seems to want to isolate the LCR bed channels to their respective speakers (none of the speakers between the LCRs and just outside the LCRs get bed channel info).
> 
> This doesn't apply only to home Atmos. You already know that in commercial theatres the LoC and RoC speakers as well as the speakers forward of the surround array don't get any channel info, just objects. It turns out that the most forward pair of heights (the ones just outside the screen) don't get any info from the Top Surround channels.
> 
> So there is this very deliberate ring/zone of separation around the LCR speakers. With that in mind, I don't think home Atmos will want bed channel info in the wide channels, or at least no more forward than the ±75° locations.


It seems like the only goal of this "ring" of speakers around the screen is to aid transition of objects panning from the screen channels to the surround/overhead channels.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It seems like the only goal of this "ring" of speakers around the screen is to aid transition of objects panning from the screen channels to the surround/overhead channels.


Aid transitions how?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Aid transitions how?


So there isn't a large jump from screen to traditional side surrounds, but smooth and precise movement tracking. And another thing... _ Gravity_, for instance, placed off screen dialog into those front side surrounds.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Aid transitions how?


Huh? It isn't self-evident what I mean?

You just finished explaining how these speakers ringing the screen ONLY get objects, not beds. So their ONLY use would be if an object pans through them, right?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> So there isn't a large jump from screen to traditional side surrounds, but smooth and precise movement tracking.


OK, that makes sense (smoother pans).


> And another thing... _ Gravity_, for instance, placed off screen dialog into those front side surrounds.


I've heard music placed in those locations as well. But those are the exceptions rather than the rule. For the average Atmos mix, most of the sound is still in the channel beds, not in objects.


----------



## Viktor Pashin

WHICH of the below options would you pick FOR ATMOS 7.2.4 

[RX-A3050 + XPA-2]
OR upcoming
[CX-A5100]?

price wise both options are same, just have to wait for the other one...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Depends on whether you'd prefer a straight up pre/pro or essentially the same thing for cheaper and with built in amps for up to nine channels.


----------



## Viktor Pashin

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on whether you'd prefer a straight up pre/pro or essentially the same thing for cheaper and with built in amps for up to nine channels.


Ideally I would like a single box vs 2, now after reading a bit I'm more confused.. the CX-5100 will still need an amp after, right? something like MX-A5000..

thanks


----------



## dkfan9

bkeeler10 said:


> Manni01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no standard hardware to do so. Analog Audio on PC motherboards max out at 7.1 channels. You have to buy external boards costing $200 at least (more than most motherboards) to get more channels with decent DACs. Given how limited the market is, it won't happen for a while, at least until MB manufacturers agree on a standard for 8+ analog audio channels, as is the case now with HD Audio. Also until now decoding HD Audio was fairly straightforward as it's channel based. You send the PCM streams to the right channels and you're done. Decoding Atmos is much more complex, so you need a significant mark up on the hardware costs to make up for the investment in R&D / Development costs given the microscopic market (niche of a niche of a niche of a niche). That's if you have a business plan, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally wish JRiver would get together with Dolby and add Atmos decoding to their software. It could be an add-on to JRiver that you pay extra for if you want it. There are boxes out there for multichannel output, such as the Motu 24Ao, which retails for about $1000 I believe. Considering that, I would bet that you could have a 24 channel HTPC for less than $3k. And that would be a bargain. And then you could presumably run Dirac on all those channels . . .
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could make a pretty good one for under 1k (not including software and a sound card). A top range i5 plus mobo would sit around 450. Ram plus storage the same if you get a lot of ram and a lot of ssd. Probably don't need anything special graphics wise if you don't care about gaming. Cooling would be the major cost increase in this case, for 24/7 use. I don't see any need for a sound card that can decode immersive formats, only one with enough outputs for the desired use.


----------



## NorthSky

Viktor Pashin said:


> WHICH of the below options would you pick FOR ATMOS 7.2.4
> 
> [RX-A3050 + XPA-2]
> OR upcoming
> [CX-A5100]?
> 
> price wise both options are same, just have to wait for the other one...


The pre/pro route..always the pre/pro when you have the choice. ...I think.

And yes, you'll need eleven power amps working in tandem with it. Yamaha will have its own matching multichannel amp. 

* You can save money too with the 3050 and an Emotiva UPA-2 stereo amp (older model worth searching for).
Curious, what are your two front main flankers? ...Front Left and Right speakers.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> The pre/pro route..always the pre/pro when you have the choice. ...I think.
> 
> And yes, you'll need eleven power amps working in tandem with it. Yamaha will have its own matching multichannel amp.
> 
> * You can save money too with the 3050 and an Emotiva UPA-2 stereo amp.
> Curious, what are your two front main flankers? ...Front Left and Right speakers.


Please forget EMOTIVA literally stinking amps and really bad customer service


----------



## wse

Viktor Pashin said:


> WHICH of the below options would you pick FOR ATMOS 7.2.4 [RX-A3050 + XPA-2]
> OR upcoming [CX-A5100]?
> 
> price wise both options are same, just have to wait for the other one...


Tough choice but forget Emotiva they smell bad and don't give a d....about customer service

http://assets2.listeningpost.co.nz/assets/CXMXA5100-NPB_113415_1.pdf

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3050_black_u/
http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3050_black_u/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Viktor Pashin said:


> Ideally I would like a single box vs 2, now after reading a bit I'm more confused.. the CX-5100 will still need an amp after, right? something like MX-A5000..
> 
> thanks


The 5100 is a pre/pro. No amplifiers what so ever. You will have to supply power for ALL channels.

The 3050 is a receiver so it has amplifiers built in. It has nine channels of power so if you want to do a full 7.1.4 system then you will still have to source two more channels of power externally.

So the choice is either: two channels of power needed or eleven channels needed. Either way, you're going to need extra gear.


----------



## NorthSky

Ok, stay with Yamaha all the way (no Emotiva): www.eastwoodhifi.com.au/yamaha aventage.htm

The link is only to show their latest/newest products. ...The pre/pro with its 11-channel matching amp, and their latest line of AV receivers...3050...2050...1050. ...All with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X audio decoders. * Forget the prices...they are Australian. 

If you go the receiver way and that you need an additional stereo amp...get an inexpensive one from A4L or Newegg or ...

Or, you can go the new Denon AV receivers way? ...Or Marantz pre/pro? ...It depends...of the money you want to spend. 
...And of the speakers you intend to drive. ...And the size of your room. ...And two subs (minimum) are better than just one. ...Just make sure they are Atmos certified.  Just kidding.


----------



## NorthSky

Test


----------



## Viktor Pashin

NorthSky said:


> Ok, stay with Yamaha all the way (no Emotiva): www.eastwoodhifi.com.au/yamaha aventage.htm


if i stay all the way with Yamaha, then my amp needs be A-S801 (less power, but same price, +1 channel and USB DAC(or S701), and with pure direct). What I want is a volume control from receiver, and at least 100-150w/channel @ 8ohms



NorthSky said:


> Curious, what are your two front main flankers? ...Front Left and Right speakers.


Will be Sierra Towers with RAAL, Center Horizon and S2s all the way, with two FV15HP, and 4 Tannoy Di 5DCs on ceiling if my dream comes true.. 











wse said:


> Please forget EMOTIVA literally stinking amps and really bad customer service


what's so stinking about them? so many good reviews, cant' really comment though..


----------



## stef2

wse said:


> Tough choice but forget Emotiva they smell bad and don't give a d....about customer service
> 
> http://assets2.listeningpost.co.nz/assets/CXMXA5100-NPB_113415_1.pdf
> 
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3050_black_u/
> http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/rx-a3050_black_u/


Well, my Emotiva amp doesn't smell anything. Though, I must agree with you about their customer service...


----------



## NorthSky

Viktor Pashin said:


> if i stay all the way with Yamaha, then my amp needs be A-S801 (less power, but same price, +1 channel and USB DAC(or S701), and with pure direct). What I want is a volume control from receiver, and at least 100-150w/channel @ 8ohms


♦ Ok, sounds like a good plan...without shortchanging yourself. 



> Will be Sierra Towers with RAAL, Center Horizon and S2s all the way, with two FV15HP, and 4 Tannoy Di 5DCs on ceiling if my dream comes true..


 









♦ Ok, those look the works...should be real easy for people with a good paying profession. 



> what's so stinking about them? so many good reviews, cant' really comment though..


♦ One, *wse* is a good guy with good taste and good humor and with very respectable opinion.
And two, he's right...basically on less than stellar customer service, and also they (Emotiva) are not always coming forthright, when asked direct questions. Usually their amps are a good value, but like anything in life you cannot always rely. ...Just go Yamaha, or Rotel amps. 

It's very hard to please everyone, and sometimes we have to make decisions that are for our best aventage...Yamaha.


----------



## Yiorgos759

I need some help to place my pair of Dolby atmos enabled speakers ( Onkyo SKH410) in my setup. I have a picture attached. The grey wall is a plaster wall and i would like to mount the atmos speakers on that. I have the kef 2005.3 speaker package. Dolby's instructions are not very clear about the distance above the main speakers etc. Any help please? Greatly appreciated. Thanks


----------



## pletwals

Viktor Pashin said:


> WHICH of the below options would you pick FOR ATMOS 7.2.4
> 
> [RX-A3050 + XPA-2]
> OR upcoming
> [CX-A5100]?
> 
> price wise both options are same, just have to wait for the other one...


As you have found out by now, the budget of both options is vastly different as you need 11 amp channels with the CX-A5100. IMO, I doubt if it's worth the extra cash over a Marantz AV 8802.

The Yamaha 11-ch amp costs more than two Emotiva XPA-7 and weighs only half as one XPA-7. Why is that? Just one spec: Storage capacitance of the Yamaha is 54,000 microfarad where the two XPA-7 combined give you 240,000. Mo' is betta! And you can power an extra zone, or go bi-active on LCR with a miniDSP 10x10 HD.



wse said:


> Please forget EMOTIVA literally stinking amps and really bad customer service


No idea of the latter as I never had any issue. But I have a infamously sharp nose (ask my loved-ones) and the Emo amps simply don't smell.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, it does make sense. It also confirms (again) that although ATMOS is much more than only adding overheads with respect to the re-recording/mixing process in the studio and playback in the theater, its current home implementation is basically just that: adding overheads (and yes, wides too).


Only when playing back on a non-Atmos system. When using an Atmos system one benefits from the much greater precision of the placement of sounds in the entire three dimensional soundstage. I find this greater precision to be at least as big a benefit (currently) as overhead effects and it can be immediately heard if one has a non-Atmos and an Atmos BD of the same movie. *Lucy* is the one I use for this demo. This phenomenon isn't a 'mix issue' - if you play back the Atmos disc in regular 7.1 you will hear the difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

wse said:


> Please forget EMOTIVA literally stinking amps and really bad customer service


Just as a counterpoint to this, while I can’t comment on Emotiva customer service beyond their sales department (which is excellent IME) since I have never needed any sort of customer service otherwise, I can definitely, definitely say that none of my 5 Emotiva amplifiers emits any sort of smell at all. 

I suspect that a small insect had chosen your Emotiva amp as its final resting place prior to cremation and, possibly, all of his friends and family had turned up for the service and been unfortunately incinerated as they crossed the heat sinks to pay their last respects. This phenomenon has been well documented and appears to be a characteristic of bugs found most commonly in Tennessee. Further enquiries should be made to the Jurat-Fuentes Laboratory at the University of Tennessee.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I'm guessing the sales of something on the order of the Denon 7200 is so small that it would barely register as being different from zero on any chart that would fit on a standard-sized piece of paper or PowerPoint slide.


In terms of units sold, I totally agree. But how about in terms of contribution to profits? I’d guess that the profit on a single 7200 is equivalent to the profit on a whole bunch of entry-level units. In fact, thinking it through, it has to be so or Denon would simply cease production of a unit whose sales barely register above zero on the chart you mention.


----------



## dkfan9

kbarnes701 said:


> maikeldepotter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does make sense. It also confirms (again) that although ATMOS is much more than only adding overheads with respect to the re-recording/mixing process in the studio and playback in the theater, its current home implementation is basically just that: adding overheads (and yes, wides too).
> 
> 
> 
> Only when playing back on a non-Atmos system. When using an Atmos system one benefits from the much greater precision of the placement of sounds in the entire three dimensional soundstage. I find this greater precision to be at least as big a benefit (currently) as overhead effects and it can be immediately heard if one has a non-Atmos and an Atmos BD of the same movie. *Lucy* is the one I use for this demo. This phenomenon isn't a 'mix issue' - if you play back the Atmos disc in regular 7.1 you will hear the difference.
Click to expand...

Sdurani posted a while back that 7.1 simply plays back the True HD. That might be wrong, I don't know


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Only when playing back on a non-Atmos system. When using an Atmos system one benefits from the much greater precision of the placement of sounds in the entire three dimensional soundstage. I find this greater precision to be at least as big a benefit (currently) as overhead effects and it can be immediately heard if one has a non-Atmos and an Atmos BD of the same movie. *Lucy* is the one I use for this demo. This phenomenon isn't a 'mix issue' - if you play back the Atmos disc in regular 7.1 you will hear the difference.


I assume that you qualify an Atmos capable processor/AVR combined with only a standard 7.1 speaker configuration as 'non-Atmos'. Fair enough. Especially since this interpretation is coherent with baptig's findings, that with such a setup playing an Atmos track with Atmos playback mode selected (indicated on the display) will yet result in playback of just the 7.1 TrueHD channel based mix.

The point I am trying to make is that if that specific Atmos track would not be using the overheads at all, the precision of the rendered sound would be exactly the same as the sound of the channel mix. In other words, If I were to play that specific Atmos track through a regular receiver (of the same audio quality), I will hear the exact same sound with equal precision.

Hence my statement that the added value that the current Atmos processors/AVRs are bringing to our homes is in in fact 100% linked to the addition of overheads. To put it more bluntly: Take the overheads out of the equation, and the added value of an Atmos capable receiver when playing an Atmos track at home reduces to zero.

That is at least my current understanding.

(apologies to the wides)


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> I assume that you qualify an Atmos capable processor/AVR combined with only a standard 7.1 speaker configuration as 'non-Atmos'. Fair enough. Especially since this interpretation is coherent with baptig's findings, that with such a setup playing an Atmos track with Atmos playback mode selected (indicated on the display) will yet result in playback of just the 7.1 TrueHD channel based mix.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that if that specific Atmos track would not be using the overheads at all, the precision of the rendered sound would be exactly the same as the sound of the channel mix. In other words, If I were to play that specific Atmos track through a regular receiver (of the same audio quality), I will hear the exact same sound with equal precision.
> 
> Hence my statement that the added value that the current Atmos processors/AVRs are bringing to our homes is in in fact 100% linked to the addition of overheads. To put it more bluntly: Take the overheads out of the equation, and the added value of an Atmos capable receiver when playing an Atmos track at home reduces to zero.
> 
> That is at least my current understanding.
> 
> (apologies to the wides)



I _think _we are on the same page. But I am not sure if your conclusion is correct or not. I hear this greater precision very clearly, and others have reported the same, but of course I do have 4 overhead speakers. Are we saying that the greater precision right through the entire soundstage, including at listener level, is a result of Atmos + the overhead speakers? Or are we saying that without overhead speakers in the setup Atmos tracks are not rendered at all, despite what the AVR front panel might say?

The former seems unlikely given the lack of sound from the overheads for long periods in most Atmos movies on BD. In which case, the latter becomes more likely. So my conclusiuon would be that you only get the benefits of Atmos (precision, overhead effects, whatever) if you have an Atmos AVR and at least two overhead speakers. This also appears to be your conclusion, so having worked through it, it seems we are on the same page!

But then again, who would expect to get the benefits of Atmos without some sort of overhead speakers - upfirers or physical? It's a bit like saying that people without surround speakers don't get the benefits of surround sound even if they have a 5.1 AVR. Well, er, yeah!


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Only when playing back on a non-Atmos system. When using an Atmos system one benefits from the much greater precision of the placement of sounds in the entire three dimensional soundstage. I find this greater precision to be at least as big a benefit (currently) as overhead effects and* it can be immediately heard if one has a non-Atmos and an Atmos BD of the same movie. Lucy is the one I use for this demo. This phenomenon isn't a 'mix issue' - if you play back the Atmos disc in regular 7.1 you will hear the difference.*


That's a very helpful tip for anyone who wants a demonstration of the audible benefits of an Atmos system. If you care to take the time, could you point out specific elements/scenes where this distinction is most prominent?

(I smell a marketing commission from Dolby.)


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I _think _we are on the same page. But I am not sure if your conclusion is correct or not. I hear this greater precision very clearly, and others have reported the same, but of course I do have 4 overhead speakers. Are we saying that the greater precision right through the entire soundstage, including at listener level, is a result of Atmos + the overhead speakers? Or are we saying that without overhead speakers in the setup Atmos tracks are not rendered at all, despite what the AVR front panel might say?
> 
> The former seems unlikely given the lack of sound from the overheads for long periods in most Atmos movies on BD. In which case, the latter becomes more likely. So my conclusiuon would be that you only get the benefits of Atmos (precision, overhead effects, whatever) if you have an Atmos AVR and at least two overhead speakers. This also appears to be your conclusion, so having worked through it, it seems we are on the same page!
> 
> But then again, who would expect to get the benefits of Atmos without some sort of overhead speakers - upfirers or physical? It's a bit like saying that people without surround speakers don't get the benefits of surround sound even if they have a 5.1 AVR. Well, er, yeah!


It would be more like saying that playing a 7.1 track through a 7.1 AVR with a 5.1 speaker setup will not sound as good as compared to a 7.1 speaker setup, even if the rear surrounds are dead silent.

So without having any overheads physically installed, you will still get better ATMOS sound from a track with no overhead sound in it, by simply fooling the AVR and telling it that you do have installed at least two of them. Interesting.

It also implies that the process of folding the objects into the 7.1 TrueHD channel based mix is deficient. I cannot think of a technical reason why it should result in less precise sounds compared to objects rendered to listeners' level speakers, especially if it is a fully automated process (of which I am not sure).


----------



## Stanton

Finally got around to checking out Gravity on my new 5.1.2 setup (Yamaha RX-A2050) and ended up in a de-bug session (with a happy ending). When volume/action started to pick-up, I started experiencing varying levels of dropouts in the audio leading up to a complete "loss of sync". Since it was new, I initially suspected the AVR, but after verifying it played everything else OK (including the output of an external LD AC-3 decoder), I turned my attention back to the Blu-Ray player. My player is actually quite old (although I still love it) and I remember reading about some players lacking the processing power to keep up with newer formats (and discs), so I pulled up the BD set-up menu and turned off everything related to processing (video+audio). I can't imagine why switching to "bitstream" would consume so much processing power (isn't that easier than re-formatting Dolby Digital/DTS?), but I think the culprit was a "PCM down-converting" switch that used to be on because my old amp couldn't handle anything > 48 kHz. In any case, the dropouts stopped, and I don't have to worry about upgrading my Blu-Ray player until UHD BD is available!


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Ok, sounds like a good plan...without shortchanging yourself.
> 
> ♦ One, *wse* is a good guy with good taste and good humor and with very respectable opinion.
> And two, he's right...basically on less than stellar customer service, and also they (Emotiva) are not always coming forthright, when asked direct questions. Usually their amps are a good value, but like anything in life you cannot always rely. ...Just go Yamaha, or Rotel amps.
> 
> It's very hard to please everyone, and sometimes we have to make decisions that are for our best aventage...Yamaha.


Much obliged 

Parasound are very good and have top notch customer service


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Just as a counterpoint to this, while I can’t comment on Emotiva customer service beyond their sales department (which is excellent IME) since I have never needed any sort of customer service otherwise, I can definitely, definitely say that none of my 5 Emotiva amplifiers emits any sort of smell at all.
> 
> I suspect that a small insect had chosen your Emotiva amp as its final resting place prior to cremation and, possibly, all of his friends and family had turned up for the service and been unfortunately incinerated as they crossed the heat sinks to pay their last respects. This phenomenon has been well documented and appears to be a characteristic of bugs found most commonly in Tennessee. Further enquiries should be made to the Jurat-Fuentes Laboratory at the University of Tennessee.


Cool link


----------



## Lasalle

FilmMixer said:


> And the CEs are supposed to revamp their entire core platform design to support a feature that 99% of their consumers won't use, or want to pay extra for?
> 
> It's not wholly about DSP... However that is the reality of how the codec has come to market... Again... DTS is in the same boat.
> 
> This has nothing to do with how Dolby designed Atmos for the home or its core computational requirements....
> 
> Trinnov has shown that there is nothing stopping a manufacturers to do 34 channel Atmos (32 in their case...) And show at what cost it will take, present day, to get there.
> 
> All of the big box CEs have 11 channel "limitations" in their AVRs... By design.
> 
> In a world where Pioneer merged with Onkyo, etc...
> 
> Bottom line is where it's at.
> 
> Saving pennies on chips at this scale matters.
> 
> Reducing engingeering and coding costs... Same thing.
> 
> All part of a larger picture than one point of "there are plenty of powerful DSP chips to do the job so why don't they just do it?"


I think your reasoning makes perfect sense for the "big box" CE companies, maybe a little less so for the high end boutique companies like Theta and Datasat who are much less price sensitive and charging premium prices because of their differentiation.

In a Feb 2014 interview with Widescreen Dave Reich, chief engineer at Theta explains that the reason they use the TI chipset is because of close working relationship with Momentum Data Systems which gives them direct access to future products from both them and TI. Given their Barco product Datasat probably has a similar relationship with ADI.

MDS's chip that is referenced for by Emotiva for use in the XMR-1 may also be the one used in the CBV.
http://mds.com/wp-content/uploads/Datasheets/Audio/DAE89_rev1b.pdf

Its a 16 channel Module that has 15channels for primary output and appears to have a lot of horsepower. If MDS had the full HT Atmos code line available and implemented on their chip they would probably work with Theta to enable an extra 4 channels. 

My "speculation" is the full Atmos HT code line that is running on Trinnov is too resource intensive to run acceptably (or maybe even fit) on the current DSP platforms. This would require Dolby to release a scaled down version for the DSP platforms, hence "forking" a code line. Managing forked code lines is a real PITA. Dolby already has to manage at least two; HT and Cinema. The only thing worse than managing a third would be to give the full HT version to the chipset providers and let them "hack it down" as they saw fit and then try to provide support. 

This is in no way a criticism of Dolby, quite to the contrary, if they are doing this, it demonstrates a responsible PLM process. It is unreasonable to expect them to support multiple forked DSP code lines. In this situation, a new version of the DSP code line that accommodated more channels would require freezing V1 with no new capabilities and limited bug fixes. V2 would be subject to all the market forces detailed in your note above and have to have the ability to be used by the broader market. 

Again this is pure speculation and in no way a criticism of Dolby, but it would explain alot of what we are starting to see.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a very helpful tip for anyone who wants a demonstration of the audible benefits of an Atmos system. If you care to take the time, could you point out specific elements/scenes where this distinction is most prominent?


More or less anywhere in that movie - right from the opening sequence. And in any of the sequences where they use graphics to show what is happening to Lucy's mind. And listen to the score - that is incredibly precise in imaging in the Atmos version. Good in bith versions but spectacular in the Atmos version. The imaging is the thing that I like most about Atmos - maybe even more than overhead whizz-bang effects.



chi_guy50 said:


> (I smell a marketing commission from Dolby.)


I wish....


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Viktor Pashin said:


> what's so stinking about them? so many good reviews, cant' really comment though..


Just a counter-point to the Emotiva stuff... A few years back, I went on a quest for quality amplification on the cheap. Bought a used 3-channel Adcom, which sounded great except a very slight hiss that you could only hear when right up on the speaker... for about a month, at which point it developed an awful hum in one channel. Over the next few months, I ended up with two used Parasound amps... both of which sounded great for maybe a few weeks (though also with a slight hiss when up close to the speaker), then they developed crackling/hum. Local amp guy couldn't figure out what was going on with any of them, so I ended up driving them an hour away to a guy who swore he could fix them. Several trips and attempts later, none of them got any better and I was basically stuck with three very well-regarded amps that didn't work, after spending a ludicrous amount of money.

So I sold them all (at a loss, and with full disclosure on the issues) and got an Emotiva XPA-3, which thus far has zero audible hiss when close to the speakers... and sounds damn near identical to the Parasounds when they were working correctly. I can't speak to their customer service, because... well, I haven't had an issue with the amp yet. The thing just works. But before the sale, they answered all my questions in their forums and were very helpful. And for the record, my XPA-3 has zero smell to it. 

Now, you could chalk that up to used vs. new, as Adcom and Parasound both make excellent amps from what I'm told. But I think I would have been happier getting the XPA-3 in the first place versus spending a couple grand trying to get "better" amps on the cheap. You can call that bad luck on my part though. So now that I've gone Atmos, I'm using the XPA-3 for my LCR and running the other 8 speakers off of the Denon 5200, and that combo's working very well for me. If I were you, I definitely wouldn't rule their products out for your Atmos setup. Chances are that you'll never have to deal with their customer service after the sale anyway.


----------



## bkeeler10

Stanton said:


> Finally got around to checking out Gravity on my new 5.1.2 setup (Yamaha RX-A2050) and ended up in a de-bug session (with a happy ending). When volume/action started to pick-up, I started experiencing varying levels of dropouts in the audio leading up to a complete "loss of sync". Since it was new, I initially suspected the AVR, but after verifying it played everything else OK (including the output of an external LD AC-3 decoder), I turned my attention back to the Blu-Ray player. My player is actually quite old (although I still love it) and I remember reading about some players lacking the processing power to keep up with newer formats (and discs), so I pulled up the BD set-up menu and turned off everything related to processing (video+audio). I can't imagine why switching to "bitstream" would consume so much processing power (isn't that easier than re-formatting Dolby Digital/DTS?), but I think the culprit was a "PCM down-converting" switch that used to be on because my old amp couldn't handle anything > 48 kHz. In any case, the dropouts stopped, and I don't have to worry about upgrading my Blu-Ray player until UHD BD is available!


You're not totally clear here - did you turn bitstream off and that cleared up the issue? If so, you were no longer getting Atmos. Atmos must be decoded at the AVR, so you must send the TrueHD bitstream from the player to the AVR.

The dropouts you describe sound like the seamless branching issue others have experienced. Since your player is older, it probably can't handle the seamless branching. Switching from bitstream to PCM in the player always resolves the audio dropout issues, and is fine for non-Atmos tracks where the result will be the same. On an Atmos track the dropouts will disappear too, but you won't be playing in Atmos anymore.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all after 2 months without an av receiver and my home cinema setup after having my house renovated i was in a position to remount my dolby atmos speakers in there newly wired positions until my other half decides that we should alter the tv location to be on another wall (arghh), my dilema is if anybody could help before i start to remove the newly installed wire to relocate, my top rear speakers will not be in line with my top front or front l/r as there is a support beam stopping me from placing optimally, the top front and front l/r will be aprox 2.9m apart but the top rear speakers will be 2m apart with the top rear left coming in by .9m because of the beam, does anybody know how this will effect the atmos sound if it will at all as i know my amp will compensate, but is there any major problem with this ?


----------



## bkeeler10

dkfan9 said:


> I'm sure you could make a pretty good one for under 1k (not including software and a sound card). A top range i5 plus mobo would sit around 450. Ram plus storage the same if you get a lot of ram and a lot of ssd. Probably don't need anything special graphics wise if you don't care about gaming. Cooling would be the major cost increase in this case, for 24/7 use. I don't see any need for a sound card that can decode immersive formats, only one with enough outputs for the desired use.


Yeah, my "less than $3k" cost was including all software (except Dirac) and all hardware. JRiver is only $50 but adding a software Atmos renderer would probably not be cheap. I was thinking a few hundred bucks, but who knows. And I don't know how much processing power would be required to render 16 or more Atmos "channels" and run Dirac on all of them. So I was thinking near top-of-the-line processing power. There's no need for a sound card that can decode Atmos -- my proposal is that the JRiver software do it and send the result out digitally to an outboard sound card/DAC such as the Motu 24Ao I mentioned.

A lot better than the Trinnov, that's for sure!


----------



## batpig

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all after 2 months without an av receiver and my home cinema setup after having my house renovated i was in a position to remount my dolby atmos speakers in there newly wired positions until my other half decides that we should alter the tv location to be on another wall (arghh), my dilema is if anybody could help before i start to remove the newly installed wire to relocate, my top rear speakers will not be in line with my top front or front l/r as there is a support beam stopping me from placing optimally, the top front and front l/r will be aprox 2.9m apart but the top rear speakers will be 2m apart with the top rear left coming in by .9m because of the beam, does anybody know how this will effect the atmos sound if it will at all as i know my amp will compensate, but is there any major problem with this ?


It will probably not be a big deal. But if it bothers you... can you mount the Top Front 2m apart to match the Top Rear? Then they would be in line with each other which is ideally how you'd want them to be as an array. Having them slightly narrower than the Front L/R isn't a big deal, that's how it is in the cinemas too.


----------



## blastermaster

I'll chime in on my experience with Emotiva. I bought an xpa-3 to power my fronts. Apart from looking fantastic, the amp has run flawlessly since I purchased it. I liked it so much I bought the xpa-2 to power my, yikes, 16 ohm ceiling speakers. Having the desire to give my speakers a lot of headroom, I wanted to purchase the 7 channel amp, but they don't ship internationally. Thus, I ended up getting the Outlaw 7700. It's still in the process of getting to me, but it also looks to be a good purchase. Customer service from both companies has been great so far.


----------



## NorthSky

For a 100% reliable Dolby Atmos setup, the amps that I think (and from experience) would best fit that matching reliability, would be Bryston. 
...Solid engineering, best warranty in the business, and best customer service...goes beyond expectation. 

I also like Rotel amps. 

Dolby Atmos pre/pro? Anthem AVM 60, Yamaha CX-A5100 or Marantz AV8802A. ...Integra DHC-80.6 is another option.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Now, you could chalk that up to used vs. new, as Adcom and Parasound both make excellent amps from what I'm told. But I think I would have been happier getting the XPA-3 in the first place versus spending a couple grand trying to get "better" amps on the cheap. You can call that bad luck on my part though. So now that I've gone Atmos, I'm using the XPA-3 for my LCR and running the other 8 speakers off of the Denon 5200, and that combo's working very well for me. If I were you, I definitely wouldn't rule their products out for your Atmos setup. Chances are that you'll never have to deal with their customer service after the sale anyway.


Agreed. I have 5 Emo amps in my system, in daily use for years and none has missed a beat. Tremendous value for money IMO.


----------



## Josh Z

I am now up and running with a 7.1.7 Atmos configuration utilizing two AVRs: a Denon X5200W and an older ProLogic II receiver (Marantz SR4400) that I picked up off Craig's List for a song.

I have 15 speakers installed. (Yes, I realize that 7+7=14. Bear with me.)










That's 7.1 speakers on the ground, 2 Front Heights, 2 Top Middles, 2 Top Rears, and 2 speakers installed directly over my seats that are ganged together into a Voice-of-God array.










The Denon X5200W drives the 7.1 on the ground and the 2 Front Heights. The stereo pre-outs for the Top Middle channels are then fed into the Marantz receiver, which uses ProLogic II to matrix a center Voice-of-God between them and 2 surround channels for the Top Rears.










This differs from Scott's configuration in that it only requires two AVRs (not three) and yet yields an extra channel for the V-o-G. 

If Scott's system has been called SCatmos, I hereby call mine *Zatmos*!


----------



## grendelrt

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I have 5 Emo amps in my system, in daily use for years and none has missed a beat. Tremendous value for money IMO.


I was about to buy a Emotiva amp for my atmos setup during their sale this year, but they are too long for my rack. May end up trying an Outlaw 5000, seems a good price vs performance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^^













I'm going with Atmos-EX for now until I can find another better sounding name that can't be made fun in immediately.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@Josh Z 

This is a rather interesting method and definitely different than what a few of us are doing using external processing or simply "arrays".

So you have a Denon 5200 essentially rendering a full 7.1.4 system with the 2nd set of heights, which you designated as middle height, powered by your extra Marantz.

This Marantz is processing a stereo input and outputting a full 5.0 (hopefully you set all to large and no subwoofer on the Marantz) configuration.

So what's happening in Josh's system is he has a full 7.1.4 system with front and middle heights although he has three discrete outputs for the middle height portion, two of which are stereo steered sounds to the far left and right and the center output is directly above the listening position but using two speakers in mono.

An interesting take but his rear heights is not containing any discrete content really. They are the PL2 output of the content that is sent to the middle heights from the Denon. That middle height pair is turned into three using a center extraction from PL2 (assuming movie mode) but the rear heights in his room are fed from the pair of surround outputs from the Marantz which got their content from the middle heights. 

Ahhhhh! Are you all still following? 

So his rear heights are not discrete but are instead outputting out-of-phase and decorrelated information from just the middle heights. 

This is ... interesting. Very interesting.

Josh, just be aware that this is a 7.1.7 *speaker* layout but you're only really adding one speaker which will have content that is actively steered. The two rear heights will probably not get any directional content but it will be mostly diffuse ambiance. Btw, I really like the idea! You could very well get directional content using PL2 movie mode but probably not as much. Compared to what my Atmos-EX method does, I very much intend to get directional content and aggressive steering but that was also the point. I could very well utilize the four extra outputs of surrounds on the dual PL2 receivers in the Atmos-EX method but ... That's just too many speakers to think about right now. Makes my head hurt. 


Congrats! Get some real pics up some time and listen to all sorts of stuff. I'd like to know how it works out and if you like it.


----------



## batpig

good work Josh Z! did you see the thing I posted earlier from the Dolby cinema guidelines about "pairing" speakers?

I'm still waiting on a ScAtmos/ZAtmos implementation to test PLII Cinema/Movie vs. Music mode. I'm really wondering if a correlated overhead "bed" effect (e.g. music or rain from above) present in all four speakers would collapse completely to the TM pair using PLII Cinema.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> So you have a Denon 5200 essentially rendering a full 7.1.4 system with the 2nd set of heights, which you designated as middle height, powered by your extra Marantz.
> 
> This Marantz is processing a stereo input and outputting a full 5.0 (hopefully you set all to large and no subwoofer on the Marantz) configuration.


Correct. The Marantz is set for 5.0 with all speakers as Large. I've turned off all processing in that receiver except for channel levels, which I measured and adjusted manually with a sound level meter. 



> So his rear heights are not discrete but are instead outputting out-of-phase and decorrelated information from just the middle heights.
> 
> This is ... interesting. Very interesting.
> 
> Josh, just be aware that this is a 7.1.7 *speaker* layout but you're only really adding one speaker which will have content that is actively steered. The two rear heights will probably not get any directional content but it will be mostly diffuse ambiance.


Not so! ProLogic II does a pretty good job of steering some directional sounds to both the VOG center and the Top Rears.

After setting everything up, I disconnected all speakers except the heights for testing purposes. I then put in my favorite scene from John Wick (~1:25:00), which has helicopters circling overhead as well as a lot of other directional activity that bleeds into the heights. For example, a car races from room front to room back at one point, and that sound is present in both the heights and ground level.

I stood halfway between the Top Middle speakers and Top Rear speakers as a I replayed the scene. The sound of the car decidedly pans from Top Front to Top Middle to Top Rear.

The helicopter also moves across the room from front-left to middle-left to middle-right. That sound panned through the VOG speakers when PLII matrixed the center between the Top Middles. TML->VOG->TMR. Reverberations from the chopper reflected in the Top Rears as well. 

I also get lots of rain sounds from the VOG a few minutes later in the scene.

That said, I will agree with you that *most* of the sound pulled to the Top Rears is ambiance. Also, even when there are directional effects to those speakers, it's hard to discern that movement when I'm seated in my listening position, simply because human hearing is very poor with sounds behind us.

Still, it works. Some directional effects do go to those matrixed channels. In general, this configuration seems to do a good job of expanding the bubble of sound around me.



> Btw, I really like the idea! You could very well get directional content using PL2 movie mode but probably not as much. Compared to what my Atmos-EX method does, I very much intend to get directional content and aggressive steering but that was also the point. I could very well utilize the four extra outputs of surrounds on the dual PL2 receivers in the Atmos-EX method but ... That's just too many speakers to think about right now. Makes my head hurt.


I'm not sure I understand exactly how your configuration works. Am I correct that you're connecting one extra AVR to Top Front Left and Top Rear Left, and matrixing a center Top Middle Left between them - and then doing likewise on the right?

If so, you should get stronger audio to the Top Rears than I do, but I wonder how well those front-to-back pans will work. 

Just as a matter of personal preference, I favor the Top Middles over the Top Rears. Those speakers are much closer to my ears, and discrete audio is more easily discerned from that direction. Even if I had another AVR handy, I'd probably still go with the configuration I have now. I like having these Top Rears to fill the soundstage out, but my priority for discrete directional effects is for the speakers nearer to me. YMMV.



> Congrats! Get some real pics up some time and listen to all sorts of stuff. I'd like to know how it works out and if you like it.


Real pics:


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> In terms of units sold, I totally agree. But how about in terms of contribution to profits? I’d guess that the profit on a single 7200 is equivalent to the profit on a whole bunch of entry-level units. In fact, thinking it through, it has to be so or Denon would simply cease production of a unit whose sales barely register above zero on the chart you mention.


Agreed. I would hope that the margins on the 7200 are much higher than on the 4200 or lower models. 

That's even more reason that providing more performance is called for in these upper-tier models.

The primary differentiating feature between the Yamaha 2050 and 3050 is the additional two pre-outs for the height channels, at a $500 premium. (Feature Comparison List) They would have had quite a package to offer had they put those pre-outs on the 2050. That would have given them the ability to add performance to the 3050 and made it more of a flagship model instead of a 2050 + 2 channels.

Likewise, they had an opportunity to do something special with the CX-A5100. But instead of adding performance, they added the multichannel inputs, removed the amps, and added some XLR connectors, and set the MSRP at an $800 premium.

Denon is more or less in the same boat. My impression is that the 4200-6200-7200 relationship is similar to Yamaha's lineup.

I get that the CX-A5100 and AVR-X7200WA are targeting a market segment that is unlike that of the 2050/3050 and 4200/6200, but all the more reason to provide a substantial kick in performance in return for the higher price and, presumably, the higher margin for those top-end units. I would posit that a "4050" with a more advanced immersive feature-set at a $3,000 price point would be attractive to those unafraid of that price point, and reward Yamaha with some additional margin points instead of scraping by on the crumbs that come from the mid-tier models, much less the entry-level models. Similarly, I would bite the bullet and go for something like the 7200 over the 6200 if it had a souped up feature-set.

I can only assume that Denon and Yamaha do not believe that there are not enough people like me to make offering such performance worthwhile. And if thatis true, that is a sad state of affairs for our hobby. We shouldn't have to look longingly at the spec sheets for $24,000+ Trinnov units, wishing for a windfall to make it possible. Instead, we're forced to cobble together franken-systems to approximate the effect. I might even try such configurations when the time comes, but it sure would be nice to have the real thing, at a price less than some new cars.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> Agreed. I would hope that the margins on the 7200 are much higher than on the 4200 or lower models.
> 
> That's even more reason that providing more performance is called for in these upper-tier models.
> 
> The primary differentiating feature between the Yamaha 2050 and 3050 is the additional two pre-outs for the height channels, at a $500 premium. (Feature Comparison List) They would have had quite a package to offer had they put those pre-outs on the 2050. That would have given them the ability to add performance to the 3050 and made it more of a flagship model instead of a 2050 + 2 channels.
> 
> Likewise, they had an opportunity to do something special with the CX-A5100. But instead of adding performance, they added the multichannel inputs, removed the amps, and added some XLR connectors, and set the MSRP at an $800 premium.
> 
> Denon is more or less in the same boat. My impression is that the 4200-6200-7200 relationship is similar to Yamaha's lineup.
> 
> I get that the CX-A5100 and AVR-X7200WA are targeting a market segment that is unlike that of the 2050/3050 and 4200/6200, but all the more reason to provide a substantial kick in performance in return for the higher price and, presumably, the higher margin for those top-end units. I would posit that a "4050" with a more advanced immersive feature-set at a $3,000 price point would be attractive to those unafraid of that price point, and reward Yamaha with some additional margin points instead of scraping by on the crumbs that come from the mid-tier models, much less the entry-level models. Similarly, I would bite the bullet and go for something like the 7200 over the 6200 if it had a souped up feature-set.
> 
> I can only assume that Denon and Yamaha do not believe that there are not enough people like me to make offering such performance worthwhile. And if thatis true, that is a sad state of affairs for our hobby. We shouldn't have to look longingly at the spec sheets for $24,000+ Trinnov units, wishing for a windfall to make it possible. Instead, we're forced to cobble together franken-systems to approximate the effect. I might even try such configurations when the time comes, but it sure would be nice to have the real thing, at a price less than some new cars.


Can't disagree with you. I have the Denon X5200. If you look at the significantly more expensive 7200, it offers very little in return for the additional cost. Like you, if the 7200 had any worthwhile benefits, that is the one I'd have bought. As things stand I am skipping this year's models altogether and waiting now for the 2016 lineup next fall, when I will get Atmos, DTS:X, 4k, HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and so on. 

I take all your points onboard, but I still have a huge ear-to-ear grin every time I power up my HT and I do marvel at what can be achieved at home, even for a relatively modest outlay. Just a few years ago, if I wanted to see a movie I had to go to a cinema. Then came the first step to heaven for a movie fanatic like me: VHS. And I haven't looked back since...


----------



## kbarnes701

grendelrt said:


> I was about to buy a Emotiva amp for my atmos setup during their sale this year, but they are too long for my rack. May end up trying an Outlaw 5000, seems a good price vs performance.


Or you could try Pro amps? The Crown drivecore series offer a huge bang for your buck.


----------



## ultraflexed

Scott Simonian said:


> @Josh Z
> 
> This is a rather interesting method and definitely different than what a few of us are doing using external processing or simply "arrays".
> 
> So you have a Denon 5200 essentially rendering a full 7.1.4 system with the 2nd set of heights, which you designated as middle height, powered by your extra Marantz.
> 
> This Marantz is processing a stereo input and outputting a full 5.0 (hopefully you set all to large and no subwoofer on the Marantz) configuration.
> 
> So what's happening in Josh's system is he has a full 7.1.4 system with front and middle heights although he has three discrete outputs for the middle height portion, two of which are stereo steered sounds to the far left and right and the center output is directly above the listening position but using two speakers in mono.
> 
> An interesting take but his rear heights is not containing any discrete content really. They are the PL2 output of the content that is sent to the middle heights from the Denon. That middle height pair is turned into three using a center extraction from PL2 (assuming movie mode) but the rear heights in his room are fed from the pair of surround outputs from the Marantz which got their content from the middle heights.
> 
> Ahhhhh! Are you all still following?
> 
> So his rear heights are not discrete but are instead outputting out-of-phase and decorrelated information from just the middle heights.
> 
> This is ... interesting. Very interesting.
> 
> Josh, just be aware that this is a 7.1.7 *speaker* layout but you're only really adding one speaker which will have content that is actively steered. The two rear heights will probably not get any directional content but it will be mostly diffuse ambiance. Btw, I really like the idea! You could very well get directional content using PL2 movie mode but probably not as much. Compared to what my Atmos-EX method does, I very much intend to get directional content and aggressive steering but that was also the point. I could very well utilize the four extra outputs of surrounds on the dual PL2 receivers in the Atmos-EX method but ... That's just too many speakers to think about right now. Makes my head hurt.
> 
> 
> Congrats! Get some real pics up some time and listen to all sorts of stuff. I'd like to know how it works out and if you like it.


How would I applie your atmos-ex method using a onkyo 1030 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp also have the pioneer elite sc-85 atmos receivers (5.1.4 ) I have both, also using 4 pioneer elite atmos enabled tower speakers and 2 onkyo atmos upfiring speakers and possibly will install ceiling speakers if 7.1.6 is achievable? How would you navigate this?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I am now up and running with a 7.1.7 Atmos configuration utilizing two AVRs: a Denon X5200W and an older ProLogic II receiver (Marantz SR4400) that I picked up off Craig's List for a song.


Josh - do you really have two seats like in the diagrams? If so, have you considered adding a third seat so that you can sit symmetrically from all speakers? I used to have two seats and added a third for just that reason. It was a worthwhile upgrade IMO.


----------



## LowellG

I still haven't pulled trigger, but I constantly go through the drill with ATMOS. Is it best to have 4 in ceiling speakers pointing straight down, or should I get speakers I can mount and aim like Def Tech PM1000s or 800s, or ever the AW5500s. I have Def Tech and looked at other on wall stuff, but I just don't want to change out my 7 other speakers to get the "best" ATMOS speakers.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> good work Josh Z! did you see the thing I posted earlier from the Dolby cinema guidelines about "pairing" speakers?


I did, but haven't had a chance to read it very closely. I was away from this thread for the better part of a week and had to speed-read through a dozen pages today. 



> I'm still waiting on a ScAtmos/ZAtmos implementation to test PLII Cinema/Movie vs. Music mode. I'm really wondering if a correlated overhead "bed" effect (e.g. music or rain from above) present in all four speakers would collapse completely to the TM pair using PLII Cinema.


This was (is) a concern of mine that I will need to keep monitoring. I'm using PLII Cinema now (it's actually called "PLII Movie" in this 2003 receiver). The climax of John Wick has a lot of rain, and it does not seem to all collapse to the center. I can hear it from both the VOG and the Top Middles to the sides of me. Whether that will be the case in other movies or other types of sound effects, I don't know.

Even if PLII Movie mode, this receiver has a setting to adjust the center spread. I haven't played with that yet. I just left it at the default. I may play with it later. Or I may switch to PLII Music to see how that's different.

Hell, this receiver also has Neo:6 and Circle Surround II if I really want to get crazy! 

One reason I went with two VOG speakers above my head rather than just one was to hedge my bets a little. If it turns out that I don't like the way the receiver matrixes a center there, I can always rewire them instead to gang VOG Left to Top Middle Left, and VOG Right to Top Middle Right. Then I'll do away with matrixing in that part of the room and just make two small arrays.

Many of my decisions for speaker layout were dictated by mistakes I made in the past. I built this room originally only expecting to have 7.1, and my main Surrounds and Surround Backs were all mounted up high. When I installed Atmos, I rewired those to be my heights and then added new speakers below them. 

The result of this is that my Top Middles (formerly main Surrounds) are spread too far to the sides of my listening position, and I had a big hole in the soundstage directly above me. Rain sounded like it was falling in a big ring around me but not actually above me, and that helicopter pan seemed to jump from one side of the room to the other. My hope is that adding a matrixed Voice-of-God will rectify problems like those.

Someone who has installed their height speakers within Dolby's guidelines may not have the same need for extra matrixed channels as I do.


----------



## kbarnes701

LowellG said:


> I still haven't pulled trigger, but I constantly go through the drill with ATMOS. Is it best to have 4 in ceiling speakers pointing straight down, or should I get speakers I can mount and aim like Def Tech PM1000s or 800s, or ever the AW5500s. I have Def Tech and looked at other on wall stuff, but I just don't want to change out my 7 other speakers to get the "best" ATMOS speakers.


There is no need to change your other 7 speakers.

On the ceiling, if your chosen speakers are very wide dispersion types they can point directly down. If they are more directional, they will be best pointed towards the listening area.


----------



## batpig

LowellG said:


> I still haven't pulled trigger, but I constantly go through the drill with ATMOS. Is it best to have 4 in ceiling speakers pointing straight down, or should I get speakers I can mount and aim like Def Tech PM1000s or 800s, or ever the AW5500s. I have Def Tech and looked at other on wall stuff, but I just don't want to change out my 7 other speakers to get the "best" ATMOS speakers.


I don't think you are going to find consensus. And a lot depends on the dispersion characteristics of the speaker. 

Dolby white paper on Atmos states that very wide dispersion speakers should be aimed down, whereas narrower dispersion speakers should be angled towards you. THX found in their testing that in ceiling speakers pointed straight down work best in the sense of making it sound like stuff "above you". But THX has an explicit goal of trying to recreate the cinema experience at home (ie more diffuse surround arrays) and some would prefer the increased precision of speakers aimed at you at the expense of the diffuse feeling of "stuff up there".


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Josh - do you really have two seats like in the diagrams? If so, have you considered adding a third seat so that you can sit symmetrically from all speakers? I used to have two seats and added a third for just that reason. It was a worthwhile upgrade IMO.


Unfortunately, the room isn't wide enough to comfortably fit a third chair. When I do my Audyssey calcs, I start with the first mic position in my seat.

I built this home theater for myself and my wife. Little did we realize at the time that we'd have two sons a couple years later! When they're old enough to watch movies, they're going to have to sit in bean bag chairs for a really long time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, the room isn't wide enough to comfortably fit a third chair.


I thought that was the case in my Hobbit room too - but I located three cinema seats which were much less wide than my original pair, enabling me to accommodate 3 seats in not much more space then the other two had occupied. The 3 new seats cost me $3,000 so it wasn't a decision made lightly, but it was well worth it IMO. Just something to consider.




Josh Z said:


> When I do my Audyssey calcs, I start with the first mic position in my seat.


I used to do that too. It works. But it is just not the same as sitting dead center and having total symmetry. For years I argued against it and said that the calibration took care of it all but I was wrong and when I finally succumbed, I realised it within 2 minutes of listening.



Josh Z said:


> I built this home theater for myself and my wife. Little did we realize at the time that we'd have two sons a couple years later! When they're old enough to watch movies, they're going to have to sit in bean bag chairs for a really long time.


Hahaha. First world problem Number 184875788.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> Correct. The Marantz is set for 5.0 with all speakers as Large. I've turned off all processing in that receiver except for channel levels, which I measured and adjusted manually with a sound level meter.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so! ProLogic II does a pretty good job of steering some directional sounds to both the VOG center and the Top Rears.
> 
> After setting everything up, I disconnected all speakers except the heights for testing purposes. I then put in my favorite scene from John Wick (~1:25:00), which has helicopters circling overhead as well as a lot of other directional activity that bleeds into the heights. For example, a car races from room front to room back at one point, and that sound is present in both the heights and ground level.
> 
> I stood halfway between the Top Middle speakers and Top Rear speakers as a I replayed the scene. The sound of the car decidedly pans from Top Front to Top Middle to Top Rear.
> 
> The helicopter also moves across the room from front-left to middle-left to middle-right. That sound panned through the VOG speakers when PLII matrixed the center between the Top Middles. TML->VOG->TMR. Reverberations from the chopper reflected in the Top Rears as well.
> 
> I also get lots of rain sounds from the VOG a few minutes later in the scene.
> 
> That said, I will agree with you that *most* of the sound pulled to the Top Rears is ambiance. Also, even when there are directional effects to those speakers, it's hard to discern that movement when I'm seated in my listening position, simply because human hearing is very poor with sounds behind us.
> 
> Still, it works. Some directional effects do go to those matrixed channels. In general, this configuration seems to do a good job of expanding the bubble of sound around me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand exactly how your configuration works. Am I correct that you're connecting one extra AVR to Top Front Left and Top Rear Left, and matrixing a center Top Middle Left between them - and then doing likewise on the right?
> 
> If so, you should get stronger audio to the Top Rears than I do, but I wonder how well those front-to-back pans will work.
> 
> Just as a matter of personal preference, I favor the Top Middles over the Top Rears. Those speakers are much closer to my ears, and discrete audio is more easily discerned from that direction. Even if I had another AVR handy, I'd probably still go with the configuration I have now. I like having these Top Rears to fill the soundstage out, but my priority for discrete directional effects is for the speakers nearer to me. YMMV.


Josh, thanks for replying and posting new pics of your room.

Just gonna run down this post as there are a bunch of things going on.

Good. Had you not set all to large you'd have a cascading bass rolloff effect and that would not be good. On the flipside, if you wanted a dedicated bass system for only your middle and rear heights, you could. 

Sweet! Glad to hear that you are getting some sweet panning effects.  Now.. I don't mean to diminish what you're doing but you are getting that pretty much by pure luck. These panning effects while pleasant may not be repeatable with other features that have content that is meant to be in the rear height plane. Just sayin'. With the Atmos-EX method I will do it will keep effects locking to where they are supposed to be. Now I can choose whether or not to use full center extraction to keep things from "collapsing" into the middle pair but that is what Music mode and Stereo bypass are good for. I doubt it will be a huge problem but we will see.

Yes, you're correct. I use one PL2 receiver per side. One does the front and rear and makes a new center. One receiver per left and right. So two are required to do this. The point of my method was to retain the original soundfield while netting a nearly true center pair which is what I really wanted. Front to back pans will absolutely be robust using this method, no doubt.

I think we can all agree that the end goal is a nice "bubble" or dome of sound. 


We should make a list of people doing these Atmos*+* systems.

Nalleh is doing one with two Atmos/Auro aware systems so he can have a correct Atmos system and a correct Auro system
Manni01 is doing an Atmos (and Auro?) system that is 7.1.4 but with two speakers per output to make a bigger sounding image in those directions
Batpig is doing an Atmos system that is 7.1.5 where he uses an extra PL2 receiver to generate a center front height
Aaranddeeman is doing a full 7.1.6 Atmos-EX system with two PL2 receivers generating two middle heights

I will be doing the same with a 7.1.6 Atmos-EX system

Did I forget anybody?


----------



## LowellG

kbarnes701 said:


> There is no need to change your other 7 speakers.
> 
> On the ceiling, if your chosen speakers are very wide dispersion types they can point directly down. If they are more directional, they will be best pointed towards the listening area.


I was looking at your setup, what do you call that layout?


----------



## zebidou81

batpig said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all after 2 months without an av receiver and my home cinema setup after having my house renovated i was in a position to remount my dolby atmos speakers in there newly wired positions until my other half decides that we should alter the tv location to be on another wall (arghh), my dilema is if anybody could help before i start to remove the newly installed wire to relocate, my top rear speakers will not be in line with my top front or front l/r as there is a support beam stopping me from placing optimally, the top front and front l/r will be aprox 2.9m apart but the top rear speakers will be 2m apart with the top rear left coming in by .9m because of the beam, does anybody know how this will effect the atmos sound if it will at all as i know my amp will compensate, but is there any major problem with this ?
> 
> 
> 
> It will probably not be a big deal. But if it bothers you... can you mount the Top Front 2m apart to match the Top Rear? Then they would be in line with each other which is ideally how you'd want them to be as an array. Having them slightly narrower than the Front L/R isn't a big deal, that's how it is in the cinemas too.
Click to expand...

I could make the top speakers all 2m apart but the seating position and support beam would mean that the right hand side top speakers would be in line with front right and the left top speakers would be .9m narrower than the front left speaker, i suppose as you say if it doesnt make a big impact either way i could.


----------



## ultraflexed

ultraflexed said:


> How would I applie your atmos-ex method using a onkyo 1030 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp also have the pioneer elite sc-85 atmos receivers (5.1.4 ) I have both, also using 4 pioneer elite atmos enabled tower speakers and 2 onkyo atmos upfiring speakers and possibly will install ceiling speakers if 7.1.6 is achievable? How would you navigate this?



Bump for help I really need it, I'm new to all this, I've just started home theater and recievers since early this year..
So all help is welcome I have everything to run the 7.1.6 atmos ex just need alittle guidance on "how too"...thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

ultraflexed said:


> How would I applie your atmos-ex method using a onkyo 1030 5.2.4/7.2.4 with amp also have the pioneer elite sc-85 atmos receivers (5.1.4 ) I have both, also using 4 pioneer elite atmos enabled tower speakers and 2 onkyo atmos upfiring speakers and possibly will install ceiling speakers if 7.1.6 is achievable? How would you navigate this?


The full 7.1.6 method that nets two new middle heights will require three receivers. One to process the full 7.1.4 system and two PL2 receivers to make the two center heights.

You can use those speakers but it sounds like you need one more receiver. The two extra receivers don't really have to be special or even modern. They just have to have PL2. I recommend PL2 over the older regular Pro Logic as there is an included music mode that might end up being helpful for times when you don't want to do a center extraction and just want some center "fill" up above.


----------



## howard68

Atmos EX ?
Hi I am confused about this and want to try it 
You can do it with only 1 extra amp ?
I was thinking doing dolby pro logic 
You would need 2 amps to pull out top middle for the left and right sides 
Making it from the mix of top front and top back left and rights


----------



## Scott Simonian

howard68 said:


> Atmos EX ?
> Hi I am confused about this and want to try it
> You can do it with only 1 extra amp ?
> I was thinking doing dolby pro logic
> You would need 2 amps to pull out top middle for the left and right sides
> Making it from the mix of top front and top back left and rights


Yep. I coined the name the other day. People didn't like ScAtmos. 

Sounds like you understand fully how it works. You can't do a 7.1.6 Atmos-EX system with only one extra Pro Logic receiver. You will need two in addition to the main receiver doing Atmos sound and all your other stuff. The two Pro Logic receivers are only there to make the two center heights and route the front and rear pairs.


----------



## NorthSky

Can you guys also 'mickeymouse' a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos setup like that?


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Scott would you consider making a separate thread on your concept with set up instructions and photos and what you have found so far, positives and negatives? It sounds intriguing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Can you guys also 'mickeymouse' a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos setup like that?


Yes and I've thought about it long and hard and don't plan to do it .... at least not any time soon.

The method works with any adjacent pair of speakers. So you could make new L/R screen channels. You can make "wides". You can make a center rear surround. Whatever you want, within reason.

First of all, it's NEVER a good idea to matrix a speaker that has already been through a matrix process. You'll just get some not-so-great artifacts and this should be avoided. So there is a limit. You can't keep matrixing pairs to make an infinite amount of "channels". 

But yes, you can do a 9.1.6 system *right now* using FOUR extra PL2 receivers. 

I own an extra pair of JBL 8330's, four of which are my main surrounds. I thought about buying two more PL2 receivers to render out a "wide" speaker using the outputs from the left front, left side and right front, right side speakers. I am not doing this because I have WAY too much going on in my room right now (just bought new pj, should be tomorrow. just bought an oppo. just bought a Yammy 3050) so I don't want pile on more right now. Just too much stuff to think about. My system is already SUPER complicated anyway.  Yikes. How-not-do-a-HT system? My room. Haha! Not for the faint of heart. No sir.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> Scott would you consider making a separate thread on your concept with set up instructions and photos and what you have found so far, positives and negatives? It sounds intriguing.



Yyyyeaaahhh.... I think about that. 

I'm not great at making threads about stuff. 

No promises but ..... maybe.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Batpig is doing an Atmos system that is 7.1.5 where he uses an extra PL2 receiver to generate a center front height


Just to be clear I'm not there yet  

It would be a 7.1.5 when complete but the "center height" would actually be a dual mono split with a front/back speaker pair. See picture below -- the room already had two old in-ceiling speakers installed in the ceiling but they were arrayed in the center of the room on the perpendicular axis from what I turned into the screen wall. Those are the rectangular holes circled in red. (Forgive the holes in the ceiling but this photo was taken mid-install of the actual TM L/R speakers, which are the circular holes). Rather than let speakers go to waste, I figured I could PLII some jazz down the middle (represented are the magical yellow lines, thank you Paint). 

Now of course I could get TWO extra PLII receivers and have them be independent "Front Center Height" and "Middle Center Height". But that's more work and I'm a bit lazy, and they are old speakers and I don't want them getting too much action... so I'm thinking of using PLII Music and doing a gentle push of some correlated content to just create that "fill" in the middle of the room. Plus then I avoid the "mono speaker right above your head" problem with VOG type arrangements. I can always update in the future with a second PLII receiver if I find it doens't work well.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yyyyeaaahhh.... I think about that.
> *I'm not great at making threads about stuff.*
> No promises but ..... maybe.


Your official thread about immersive sound...Dolby Atmos | DTS:X | Auro-3D is quite popular, and was a good idea.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I own an extra pair of JBL 8330's, four of which are my main surrounds.


Whoah, those are some big ass surround speakers. Now of course your front array is even more BIG ASS but damn, don't you have a smallish room? They stick out almost a foot from the walls right?

Since you have the extra pair have you thought about ganging two on each wall in a side surround array? Maybe one forward of the LP and one behind? You get to use all dem speakers without having to buy two more PLII receivers.


----------



## LowellG

I am currently running a Denon X4000 and was impressed with XT32 when I upgraded. For current ATMOS I can get the Denon X5200 or the Onkyo 3030 for about $20 difference. I know the Onkyo lacks the XT32, but has HDMI2.0 and HDCP2.2. I don't think either model is getting DTS:X. I know new models will be coming out soon, nothing major announced on Blu Ray titles that I know of for either, but I hear everybody likes DSU.


----------



## Waboman

I saw some discussion of the upcoming line of Yamaha's a few pages back. I haven't owned a Yammy since I had the DSP-A1000 (any old timers remember that) back in the 90's. How is their YPAO?


----------



## David Susilo

Used to be good, then evolved to very good, then devolved to unuseable.


----------



## Stanton

Waboman said:


> I saw some discussion of the upcoming line of Yamaha's a few pages back. I haven't owned a Yammy since I had the DSP-A1000 (any old timers remember that) back in the 90's. How is their YPAO?


YPAO does well now. I had a DSP-A1 (shortly after the A1000), and my RX-A2050 is every bit of the quality unit my old Yammy was.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Your official thread about immersive sound...Dolby Atmos | DTS:X | Auro-3D is quite popular, and was a good idea.


Thanks. 



batpig said:


> Whoah, those are some big ass surround speakers. Now of course your front array is even more BIG ASS but damn, don't you have a smallish room? They stick out almost a foot from the walls right?
> 
> Since you have the extra pair have you thought about ganging two on each wall in a side surround array? Maybe one forward of the LP and one behind? You get to use all dem speakers without having to buy two more PLII receivers.


No way! You're right, my room is small. I will gain nothing with an "array" and will do more harm than good. Right now I get a huge surround field where things are positioned in all sorts of places with no attention called to the surround speakers at all. @sdurani came over a few weeks ago and can attest to how well the surround system works in my room. The only thing I plan to change is to move my side surrounds a little further back closer to the listening position as I have them pretty far ahead of my seat. Maybe three feet? However, there are NO speakers to my 90 degree and we can hear things right there. It's awesome! 

Yeah, they are big and I only want to go larger. Ideally, I'd like the same speakers up front all around but this room is too small for that. One day....


A more realistic thought I had would be do buy one more PL2 receiver and render out a center rear and move my two rear surrounds even closer to further exaggerate the separation back there. No need really. With the placement, dimensions of the room and my seat I already get excellent stereo rear separation and center rear imaging. No need to complicate it just to use up speakers but if my room were wider I'd do just that.

More likely that I'd do wides but I'm not sure if I like the idea of my front left and right going through yet another AD-DA process as they go through two already (main avr and digital crossovers for active mains). I'm in the camp that thinks these things are inaudible anyway but at the current moment, that is my excuse along with just too many other things going on. Give me a few months of living with all this new gear and I might change my tune.


----------



## Scott Simonian

David Susilo said:


> Used to be good, then evolved to very good, then devolved to unuseable.



lolwut?

Explain yourself, mister!

Haha, I kid but seriously... what's the issue with YPAO _now_?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

LowellG said:


> I still haven't pulled trigger, but I constantly go through the drill with ATMOS. Is it best to have 4 in ceiling speakers pointing straight down, or should I get speakers I can mount and aim like Def Tech PM1000s or 800s, or ever the AW5500s. I have Def Tech and looked at other on wall stuff, but I just don't want to change out my 7 other speakers to get the "best" ATMOS speakers.





batpig said:


> I don't think you are going to find consensus. And a lot depends on the dispersion characteristics of the speaker.
> 
> Dolby white paper on Atmos states that very wide dispersion speakers should be aimed down, whereas narrower dispersion speakers should be angled towards you. THX found in their testing that in ceiling speakers pointed straight down work best in the sense of making it sound like stuff "above you". But THX has an explicit goal of trying to recreate the cinema experience at home (ie more diffuse surround arrays) and some would prefer the increased precision of speakers aimed at you at the expense of the diffuse feeling of "stuff up there".


This is from the Guidelines:
_We recommend using overhead speakers with wide dispersion patterns. If you use overhead speakers with narrow dispersion (less than 90 degrees by 90 degrees) or those with aimable drivers, angle the drivers slightly toward your listening position._

So they don't actually forbid pointing drivers of wide dispersion speakers to MLP. In my setup, pointing the Top speakers to the listeners is going to be the best option to have most of the people covered by the speakers, even if these will be wide dispersion types. Top Middle can just as well be pointed down though.


----------



## batpig

Waboman said:


> I saw some discussion of the upcoming line of Yamaha's a few pages back. I haven't owned a Yammy since I had the DSP-A1000 (any old timers remember that) back in the 90's. How is their YPAO?





David Susilo said:


> Used to be good, then evolved to very good, then devolved to unuseable.





Scott Simonian said:


> lolwut?
> 
> Explain yourself, mister!
> 
> Haha, I kid but seriously... what's the issue with YPAO _now_?


Did something change with YPAO recently? Am I missing something?


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Right now I get a huge surround field where things are positioned in all sorts of places with no attention called to the surround speakers at all. @sdurani came over a few weeks ago and can attest to how well the surround system works in my room.


So even in off-axis seats you don't get any "hot spotting" with the surrounds? Your room is pretty narrow right? I'm curious how that works, I can't seem to avoid some measure of hot spotting with aggressive/powerful surround effects.


----------



## NorthSky

Just add Dirac Live with the latest Yammy pre/pro (or AV receiver)...voila...perfect Atmos/DTS:X setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> So even in off-axis seats you don't get any "hot spotting" with the surrounds? Your room is pretty narrow right? I'm curious how that works, I can't seem to avoid some measure of hot spotting with aggressive/powerful surround effects.



I rarely sit off axis. I let Sanjay enjoy the center seat while he was over and I still got good surround imaging. It was just more weighted to the side I was on but I wouldn't so much as call it "hot spotting". Oddly enough, I sit heard things distinctly in positions where there was no speaker at all.


----------



## batpig

LowellG said:


> I am currently running a Denon X4000 and was impressed with XT32 when I upgraded. For current ATMOS I can get the Denon X5200 or the Onkyo 3030 for about $20 difference. I know the Onkyo lacks the XT32, but has HDMI2.0 and HDCP2.2. I don't think either model is getting DTS:X. I know new models will be coming out soon, nothing major announced on Blu Ray titles that I know of for either, but I hear everybody likes DSU.


Personally, I would wait for a newer model. You have an excellent receiver right now so you aren't in a massive rush to upgrade. Hang tight, the new models with the whole shebang are only a few months away!

Also be aware that although the Onkyo does sport HDCP2.2 they have the lesser version of HDMI2.0 that has reduced bandwidth, so it likely won't support HDR or wider color gamuts with future 4K content. ALL of last year's models are at least partially crippled in some way with respect to being fully "future proof" for 4K/UHD content. Waiting gets you the full implementation of HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2 and DTS:X support to boot. 

For the time being, you can run a 9ch setup with Front Height speakers on the X4000, and then when you upgrade you just add Top Middle speakers and you are fully immersified.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Just add Dirac Live with the latest Yammy pre/pro (or AV receiver)...voila...perfect Atmos/DTS:X setup.


Well... that's one description.

It might have very well been a perfect Atmos/DTS:X setup before. Now it's just a perfect Atmos/DTS:X system with DIRAC.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Well... that's one description.
> 
> It might have very well been a perfect Atmos/DTS:X setup before. Now it's just a perfect Atmos/DTS:X system with DIRAC.


It all depends...YPAO.


----------



## David Susilo

YPAO used to be Yamaha Parametric Acoustic Optimizer, but as more and more models changed (and/or mixed) with graphic EQ, now YPAO stands for Yamaha Professional Acoustic Optimizer. 

Furthermore, the amount of EQ tweaks that needed to be done after YPAO (especially last year's 3040) is mind boggling. If I don't tweak it to the ngh degree, my clients all claim that the Uto EQ makes the sound tin y. 

I truly have to thank Yamaha as I get lots of calibration jobs due to their not-so-good YPAO system


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> It all depends...YPAO.


Nobody is forced to use these REQ systems yet it's so hard for people not to.

How on Earth was sound good before Audyssey or DIRAC came around to save the day?  



David Susilo said:


> YPAO used to be Yamaha Parametric Acoustic Optimizer, but as more and more models changed (and/or mixed) with graphic EQ, now YPAO stands for Yamaha Professional Acoustic Optimizer.
> 
> Furthermore, the amount of EQ tweaks that needed to be done after YPAO (especially last year's 3040) is mind boggling. If I don't tweak it to the ngh degree, my clients all claim that the Uto EQ makes the sound tin y.
> 
> I truly have to thank Yamaha as I get lots of calibration jobs due to their not-so-good YPAO system


Hmm. Interesting. I'll see how it turns out if/when I try YPAO for the first time in my room. 

But hey, if it's giving you good business, David, all good right?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> So even in off-axis seats you don't get any "hot spotting" with the surrounds? Your room is pretty narrow right? I'm curious how that works, I can't seem to avoid some measure of hot spotting with aggressive/powerful surround effects.


I spent enough time sitting off-axis in Scott's room (mostly because the cup holder was on the side of the couch) to confirm that there was no hot spotting. 

Part of the reason was because his side surround speakers were elevated and forward of the listeners. So if you're sitting at either end of the couch, there isn't a speaker at ear level a couple feet away firing right into your ear canal. Plus, the angled baffle had the drivers pointing towards the listener at the other end of the couch. All these things together conspired to mitigate hot spotting. 

As Scott mentioned, when sitting off-axis, the imaging shifted slightly but there still continued to be lots of imaging between all the speakers. With the lights out, I could easily point to the locations of various sounds in the room. Rarely did those locations coincide with where the speakers were.


----------



## Waboman

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm. Interesting. I'll see how it turns out if/when I try YPAO for the first time in my room.


Thought you were getting a Trinnov? How else you going to incorporate all 108 of your speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Naww. I still live on planet Earth. No Trinnov for meez. 


Will have to suffice with _just_ 98 speakers for the time being.


----------



## scarabaeus

The DIRAC on an external DSP, that will probably not support the Dolby Enabled speakers, right? So that is just an option for ceiling speaker setups.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> I am currently running a Denon X4000 and was impressed with XT32 when I upgraded. For current ATMOS I can get the Denon X5200 or the Onkyo 3030 for about $20 difference. I know the Onkyo lacks the XT32, but has HDMI2.0 and HDCP2.2. I don't think either model is getting DTS:X. I know new models will be coming out soon, nothing major announced on Blu Ray titles that I know of for either, but I hear everybody likes DSU.


Just hold off a little while longer and get one with DTS:X. The smarter move IMHO.


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> The DIRAC on an external DSP, that will probably not support the Dolby Enabled speakers, right?


Right, the equalization will try to undo the Dolby Elevation (HRTF) curve built into the upfiring speakers.


----------



## randomguy91

I need to find a 7.1 youtube video to fully test my setup


----------



## batpig

Can Youtube even do multichannel audio?

There are a bunch of actual test discs out there that would be better than Youtube!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just hold off a little while longer and get one with DTS:X. The smarter move IMHO.


Agreed. All that gear is out now or just barely coming out. 



sdurani said:


> Right, the equalization will try to undo the Dolby Elevation (HRTF) curve built into the upfiring speakers.


I guess you'd have to "build in" that Elevation notch into the DIRAC target curve to make sure it doesn't get undone.


----------



## Tnedator

What's the story on Vudu? I know the Dolby demos are supposed to be streaming in Atmos. Is anything else? The post the other day about Mad Max indicated Vudu wasn't streaming it in Atmos.


----------



## Waboman

Vudu is streaming _Mad Max_ in DD+ 5.1


----------



## LowellG

batpig said:


> Personally, I would wait for a newer model. You have an excellent receiver right now so you aren't in a massive rush to upgrade. Hang tight, the new models with the whole shebang are only a few months away!
> 
> Also be aware that although the Onkyo does sport HDCP2.2 they have the lesser version of HDMI2.0 that has reduced bandwidth, so it likely won't support HDR or wider color gamuts with future 4K content. ALL of last year's models are at least partially crippled in some way with respect to being fully "future proof" for 4K/UHD content. Waiting gets you the full implementation of HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2 and DTS:X support to boot.
> 
> For the time being, you can run a 9ch setup with Front Height speakers on the X4000, and then when you upgrade you just add Top Middle speakers and you are fully immersified.


Wow, I wasn't even thinking about my X4000 supporting 9 channels. What if i just went ahead and installed the 4 ATMOS, could I just run the front ATMOS speakers. How much would that mess with the sound.


----------



## LowellG

batpig said:


> I don't think you are going to find consensus. And a lot depends on the dispersion characteristics of the speaker.
> 
> Dolby white paper on Atmos states that very wide dispersion speakers should be aimed down, whereas narrower dispersion speakers should be angled towards you. THX found in their testing that in ceiling speakers pointed straight down work best in the sense of making it sound like stuff "above you". But THX has an explicit goal of trying to recreate the cinema experience at home (ie more diffuse surround arrays) and some would prefer the increased precision of speakers aimed at you at the expense of the diffuse feeling of "stuff up there".


I think this is why one of the first demo's I heard a my local high end store was using Mythos Gem XLs. They gave a wide dispersion and sounded great.


----------



## batpig

LowellG said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I would wait for a newer model. You have an excellent receiver right now so you aren't in a massive rush to upgrade. Hang tight, the new models with the whole shebang are only a few months away!
> 
> Also be aware that although the Onkyo does sport HDCP2.2 they have the lesser version of HDMI2.0 that has reduced bandwidth, so it likely won't support HDR or wider color gamuts with future 4K content. ALL of last year's models are at least partially crippled in some way with respect to being fully "future proof" for 4K/UHD content. Waiting gets you the full implementation of HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2 and DTS:X support to boot.
> 
> For the time being, you can run a 9ch setup with Front Height speakers on the X4000, and then when you upgrade you just add Top Middle speakers and you are fully immersified.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I wasn't even thinking about my X4000 supporting 9 channels. What if i just went ahead and installed the 4 ATMOS, could I just run the front ATMOS speakers. How much would that mess with the sound.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm suggesting. The forward pair can be designated Front Height on the X4000 and then you can use your choice of Neo:X, DSX or PLIIz.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> The DIRAC on an external DSP, that will probably not support the Dolby Enabled speakers, right? So that is just an option for ceiling speaker setups.


Dirac will EQ only eight channels anyway...the four overhead Atmos ones you can use the receiver's or pre/pro's own EQ for that (YPAO or others).
...And manually, parametric EQ, which is better than Auto Audyssey. And only a manual EQ would do for the four overhead Atmos speakers.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> I thought that was the case in my Hobbit room too - but I located three cinema seats which were much less wide than my original pair, enabling me to accommodate 3 seats in not much more space then the other two had occupied. The 3 new seats cost me $3,000 so it wasn't a decision made lightly, but it was well worth it IMO. Just something to consider.
> 
> I used to do that too. It works. But it is just not the same as sitting dead center and having total symmetry. For years I argued against it and said that the calibration took care of it all but I was wrong and when I finally succumbed, I realised it within 2 minutes of listening.


While I'm sure that what you say is true, it's just not practical in my room, nor within my budget.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Good. Had you not set all to large you'd have a cascading bass rolloff effect and that would not be good.


Well, I should clarify one thing. I discovered that this receiver actually doesn't allow the ability to set the Surround channels (so my Top Rears) to Large. The only available options there are Small or None. I guess back in 2003 it was inconceivable that anyone would use full-range speakers in the surrounds. 

As for cascading bass rolloff, is that really an issue? My Denon receiver has already set a 100Hz crossover on all the height channels, so nothing lower than that is getting to the Marantz anyway. It's only receiving frequencies over 100Hz, and shouldn't have any need to apply a rolloff. 



> On the flipside, if you wanted a dedicated bass system for only your middle and rear heights, you could.


I actually do have an unused subwoofer and had thought about it, but then I'd have to worry about finding the right spot for it and standing waves and room modes and all that crap. I just went through a big problem with bass cancellation when I upgraded my front mains to towers and don't look forward to dealing with that sort of thing again. How much bass is really sent to the height channels anyway?



> Sweet! Glad to hear that you are getting some sweet panning effects.  Now.. I don't mean to diminish what you're doing but you are getting that pretty much by pure luck. These panning effects while pleasant may not be repeatable with other features that have content that is meant to be in the rear height plane. Just sayin'. With the Atmos-EX method I will do it will keep effects locking to where they are supposed to be. Now I can choose whether or not to use full center extraction to keep things from "collapsing" into the middle pair but that is what Music mode and Stereo bypass are good for. I doubt it will be a huge problem but we will see.


On the point about "locking effects where they are supposed to be," keep in mind that a few of us (myself included) did testing to try to determine what the Atmos receiver does differently if you use Top Rear as opposed to Top Middle, and found that there isn't any effective audible difference. There's a ton of overlap in the ranges between these positions, so the receiver seems to send the same sound cues regardless of which setting you choose. Same with Front Height vs. Top Front. 

I don't think that choosing Top Rear as your decoding position is necessarily more accurate than choosing Top Middle. And, as I said, human perception of sound directionality behind us is very poor. In my opinion, I prefer to prioritize Top Middle for the discrete decoding anchor position, and then let some ambience or the occasional directional effect bleed out to the Top Rears to fill out the soundstage. As opposed to anchoring the Top Rears and matrixing a Top Middle, which runs the possible risks of: 1) having little to no common audio that will sum between those speakers, or 2) having too much audio collapse to the middle. 

If any of my channels are going to decode _wrong_, I'd rather it be the ones way behind me where I can't really tell anyway, than the speakers closest to my ears. You are fully entitled to feel differently, of course. 



> Yes, you're correct. I use one PL2 receiver per side. One does the front and rear and makes a new center. One receiver per left and right. So two are required to do this. The point of my method was to retain the original soundfield while netting a nearly true center pair which is what I really wanted. Front to back pans will absolutely be robust using this method, no doubt.


Different ways to achieve similar goals. I look forward to hearing about your results.


----------



## LowellG

batpig said:


> That's what I'm suggesting. The forward pair can be designated Front Height on the X4000 and then you can use your choice of Neo:X, DSX or PLIIz.


Great, I have a new upgrade to pursue for my wife to roll her eyes at.


----------



## wse

David Susilo said:


> YPAO used to be Yamaha Parametric Acoustic Optimizer, but as more and more models changed (and/or mixed) with graphic EQ, now YPAO stands for Yamaha Professional Acoustic Optimizer.
> 
> Furthermore, the amount of EQ tweaks that needed to be done after YPAO (especially last year's 3040) is mind boggling. If I don't tweak it to the ngh degree, my clients all claim that the Uto EQ makes the sound tin y.
> 
> I truly have to thank Yamaha as I get lots of calibration jobs due to their not-so-good YPAO system


Yes that why I returned the 3040 and bought the Marants SR-7009 with XT32


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just hold off a little while longer and get one with DTS:X. The smarter move IMHO.


That's what I am doing I need an other AVR to replace my now defunct INTEGRA RDC-7 .

I am hoping CEDIA will have a few cool toys


----------



## batpig

Don't remember who it was but someone posted recently about wanting Def Tech overheads to match their 7.1 base setup. I just noticed that there is a pair of AW6500 for a nice price in the AVS classifieds which would be a great fit. C mount bracket like the Tannoys so easy to mount and aim any which way.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> That's what I am doing I need an other AVR to replace my now defunct INTEGRA RDC-7 .
> 
> I am hoping CEDIA will have a few cool toys


Marantz AV7703?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Dirac will EQ only eight channels anyway...the four overhead Atmos ones you can use the receiver's or pre/pro's own EQ for that (YPAO or others).
> ...And manually, parametric EQ, which is better than Auto Audyssey. And only a manual EQ would do for the four overhead Atmos speakers.


In theory that sounds like quite a good idea. Unfortunately, the main system doesn't allow you to have _just_ the heights have Room EQ while the rest are run native (which in turn you'd use the 8ch MiniDSP for). It's all or nothing.

But if things worked like this, that would be a good idea.



Josh Z said:


> Well, I should clarify one thing. I discovered that this receiver actually doesn't allow the ability to set the Surround channels (so my Top Rears) to Large. The only available options there are Small or None. I guess back in 2003 it was inconceivable that anyone would use full-range speakers in the surrounds.
> 
> As for cascading bass rolloff, is that really an issue? My Denon receiver has already set a 100Hz crossover on all the height channels, so nothing lower than that is getting to the Marantz anyway. It's only receiving frequencies over 100Hz, and shouldn't have any need to apply a rolloff.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually do have an unused subwoofer and had thought about it, but then I'd have to worry about finding the right spot for it and standing waves and nodes and all that crap. I just went through a big problem with bass cancellation when I upgraded my front mains to towers and don't look forward to dealing with that sort of thing again. How much bass is really sent to the height channels anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> On the point about "locking effects where they are supposed to be," keep in mind that a few of us (myself included) did testing to try to determine what the Atmos receiver does differently if you use Top Rear as opposed to Top Middle, and found that there isn't any effective audible difference. There's a ton of overlap in the ranges between these positions, so the receiver seems to send the same sound cues regardless of which setting you choose. Same with Front Height vs. Top Front.
> 
> I don't think that choosing Top Rear as your decoding position is necessarily more accurate than choosing Top Middle. And, as I said, human perception of sound directionality behind us is very poor. In my opinion, I prefer to prioritize Top Middle for the discrete decoding anchor position, and then let some ambience or the occasional directional effect bleed out to the Top Rears to fill out the soundstage. As opposed to anchoring the Top Rears and matrixing a Top Middle, which runs the possible risks of: 1) having little to no common audio that will sum between those speakers, or 2) having too much audio collapse to the middle.
> 
> If any of my channels are going to decode _wrong_, I'd rather it be the ones way behind me where I can't really tell anyway, than the speakers closest to my ears. You are fully entitled to feel differently, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Different ways to achieve similar goals. I look forward to hearing about your results.


Different ways, for sure. It's only with us experimenting with these methods that we find if they work or not or have any appreciable benefit. It's often mentioned "there is no pressure for these >7.1.4 products". Let's show them that there is. Definitely keep posting about your room and re-watch many movies and music and let us know how you like it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> Vudu is streaming _Mad Max_ in DD+ 5.1


Interesting. I wonder if once it has come out to home video if the Vudu stream will be upgraded to 7.1 DD+ sound.


----------



## blastermaster

> That's what I am doing I need an other AVR to replace my now defunct INTEGRA RDC-7 .
> 
> I am hoping CEDIA will have a few cool toys


Anthem MRX 1120. For the love of all things holy I hope this is out by Christmas. I just can't take it anymore!


----------



## ultraflexed

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes and I've thought about it long and hard and don't plan to do it .... at least not any time soon.
> 
> The method works with any adjacent pair of speakers. So you could make new L/R screen channels. You can make "wides". You can make a center rear surround. Whatever you want, within reason.
> 
> First of all, it's NEVER a good idea to matrix a speaker that has already been through a matrix process. You'll just get some not-so-great artifacts and this should be avoided. So there is a limit. You can't keep matrixing pairs to make an infinite amount of "channels".
> 
> But yes, you can do a 9.1.6 system *right now* using FOUR extra PL2 receivers.
> 
> I own an extra pair of JBL 8330's, four of which are my main surrounds. I thought about buying two more PL2 receivers to render out a "wide" speaker using the outputs from the left front, left side and right front, right side speakers. I am not doing this because I have WAY too much going on in my room right now (just bought new pj, should be tomorrow. just bought an oppo. just bought a Yammy 3050) so I don't want pile on more right now. Just too much stuff to think about. My system is already SUPER complicated anyway.  Yikes. How-not-do-a-HT system? My room. Haha! Not for the faint of heart. No sir.



Could you take a picture of the back your receivers so I can see how you set up the atmos ex and the connects, still alil confused


----------



## wesslan1

Maybe a dumb question but is there any difference using a Atmos track in PCM or bitstreaming if I'm not interested in the extra channels but only want the Dolby TrueHD 5.1/7.1 audio?

Been using PCM for a long time on my old 93 and now 103D for the overall best compability. No audio dropouts


----------



## kbarnes701

wesslan1 said:


> Maybe a dumb question but is there any difference using a Atmos track in PCM or bitstreaming if I'm not interested in the extra channels but only want the Dolby TrueHD 5.1/7.1 audio?
> 
> Been using PCM for a long time on my old 93 and now 103D for the overall best compability. No audio dropouts


If you are not using Atmos, it makes no difference whether you use PCM or bitstream.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Even without an inside source though it seems common sense -- the 7.1 already exists as a complete entity, why go through the trouble of extracting the object metadata only to immediately fold it back down to those same 7.1 channels?


At first glance this would indeed defeat common sense. But as we know now, there is one good and valid reason why one would like to go through that trouble: The better sound quality that object rendition offers (such as precision), and which is somehow degraded in the process of folding the objects into the 7.1 channel based mix. This apparently also happens when there is no overhead activity at all!



kbarnes701 said:


> I _think _I hear this greater precision very clearly, and others have reported the same,





> So my conclusion would be that you only get the benefits of Atmos (precision, overhead effects, whatever) if you have an Atmos AVR and at least two overhead speakers.


I cannot immediately think of any technical or marketing reason why Dolby has chosen to disable Atmos object rendering altogether in case no overhead speakers (nor wides) are installed.

Anyone?


----------



## LowellG

maikeldepotter said:


> At first glance this would indeed defeat common sense. But as we know now, there is one good and valid reason why one would like to go through that trouble: The better sound quality that object rendition offers (such as precision), and which is somehow degraded in the process of folding the objects into the 7.1 channel based mix. This apparently also happens when there is no overhead activity at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot immediately think of any technical or marketing reason why Dolby has chosen to disable Atmos object rendering altogether in case no overhead speakers (nor wides) are installed.
> 
> Anyone?



If that's what they are doing, the reason is simple. It's so they and their partners can milk us for every extra dollar for anything tagged with ATMOS.


----------



## smurraybhm

LowellG said:


> If that's what they are doing, the reason is simple. It's so they and their partners can milk us for every extra dollar for anything tagged with ATMOS.


Did I miss something? Does Dolby design/manufacture the receivers and decide how to implement its tech - see speaker/channel limits. Maybe I missed a post where Dolby didn't allow for 7.1 object based sound on enabled receivers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

LowellG said:


> If that's what they are doing, the reason is simple. It's so they and their partners can milk us for every extra dollar for anything tagged with ATMOS.


I would only have problems with paying extra dollars for an Atmos labeled AVR, if I could not enjoy any of its benefits simply because I have no overheads or wides installed.


----------



## maikeldepotter

smurraybhm said:


> Did I miss something? Does Dolby design/manufacture the receivers and decide how to implement its tech - see speaker/channel limits. Maybe I missed a post where Dolby didn't allow for 7.1 object based sound on enabled receivers.



Good question. It's either Dolby through its licensed software, or the AVR manufacturer. I assumed the first, but could be wrong in that. Either way, I would welcome an explanation of the 'why?'.


----------



## Lesmor

I stated this when Atmos was first introduced and got shot down for suggesting it

AFAIK Dolby supplies the manufacturers with the technology for a fee and gives them free reign as to how to implement it into their products.

In other words there is no standard, the manufacturer can add as little or as much of the tech as they see fit at that time, which for me suggests they have scope to hold back for future improved models as an upgrade path.

Of course its all down to manufacturing cost and profit margin.


----------



## mpivovar

Are we the only ones that care about Dolby Atmos. How does Age of Ultron Blu-Ray one of the biggest action movies of all time not have an Atmos soundtrack. I am starting to think Atmos just wont be supported and is a waste of money.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Lesmor said:


> I stated this when Atmos was first introduced and got shot down for suggesting it
> 
> AFAIK Dolby supplies the manufacturers with the technology for a fee and gives them free reign as to how to implement it into their products.
> 
> In other words there is no standard, the manufacturer can add as little or as much of the tech as they see fit at that time, which for me suggests they have scope to hold back for future improved models as an upgrade path.
> 
> Of course its all down to manufacturing cost and profit margin.


I do not see how manufacturing costs of an AVR would go down by disabling object rendering when going from a 9.1.0 or 7.1.2 to a 7.1.0 speaker setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mpivovar said:


> Are we the only ones that care about Dolby Atmos. How does Age of Ultron Blu-Ray one of the biggest action movies of all time not have an Atmos soundtrack. I am starting to think Atmos just wont be supported and is a waste of money.


UHD Blu-ray will get more immersive sound than regular Blu-ray as an incentive to upgrade, or at least that seems to be the consensus. I've been noticing this in the press lately too. The BDA spokespeople and now Sony seem to go out of their way to say we'll get HDR, WCG, and immersive audio with UHD Blu-ray. Even if you don't have a 4k set, you could get UHD Blu-ray just for the audio improvement alone.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> I do not see how manufacturing costs of an AVR would go down by disabling object rendering when going from a 9.1.0 or 7.1.2 to a 7.1.0 speaker setup.


Because they feel there is no need. If you don't have overheads or enabled speakers attached, they believe you're not interested in reproducing object audio, so why bother turning the extra decoding and rendering portions of the DSP on?

I'm just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## dkfan9

Dan Hitchman said:


> maikeldepotter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how manufacturing costs of an AVR would go down by disabling object rendering when going from a 9.1.0 or 7.1.2 to a 7.1.0 speaker setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they feel there is no need. If you don't have overheads or enabled speakers attached, they believe you're not interested in reproducing object audio, so why bother turning the extra decoding and rendering portions of the DSP on?
> 
> I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Click to expand...

That's the most disturbing reason of all


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> The better sound quality that object rendition offers (such as precision), and which is somehow degraded in the process of folding the objects into the 7.1 channel based mix.


Degraded in what way?


----------



## Yiorgos759

Yiorgos759 said:


> I need some help to place my pair of Dolby atmos enabled speakers ( Onkyo SKH410) in my setup. I have a picture attached. The grey wall is a plaster wall and i would like to mount the atmos speakers on that. I have the kef 2005.3 speaker package. Dolby's instructions are not very clear about the distance above the main speakers etc. Any help please? Greatly appreciated. Thanks


Can someone please help with this? Thanks.


----------



## dkfan9

I think the most plausible reason is that the AVR manufacturers don't think there is a noticeable difference between True HD and Atmos with channel beds still being in heavy use, and Atmos processing takes more power=more heat=more potential issues and ensuing warranty costs=higher risk/cost of turning Atmos processing on, so they leave it off sure to the low to no benefit they see in turning it on. I don't know if that's close, but it seems at least plausible, and note that the manufacturers could be wrong about the benefits of Atmos in traditional 7 channel or fewer setups.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ultraflexed said:


> Could you take a picture of the back your receivers so I can see how you set up the atmos ex and the connects, still alil confused


Would be a bit difficult to do as I have not done any of this yet. Haven't even received my first immersive capable receiver yet ... but soon!

It's easy.... ish. 


Step 1: acquire and install an Atmos receiver
Step 2: purchase/acquire (two) Pro Logic 2 capable receivers
Step 3: use stereo RCA cables to hook the preout for the left front and the left rear height speakers to any stereo input on one of those two Pro Logic 2 receivers
Step 4: repeat Step 3 with the right front and right rear height preouts to the second Pro Logic 2 receiver
Step 5: turn on all the receivers and set the surround mode on the two PL2 receivers to PL2 movie/cinema mode


That's pretty much it aside from placing the speakers, hooking them up and doing general setup for everything.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> Because they feel there is no need. If you don't have overheads or enabled speakers attached, they believe you're not interested in reproducing object audio, so why bother turning the extra decoding and rendering portions of the DSP on?
> 
> I'm just playing devil's advocate.





dkfan9 said:


> That's the most disturbing reason of all


And yet completely logical. How many people have ever bought an Atmos receiver for the express purpose of using Atmos decoding even though they have no intention of using height channels? I would be amazed if it took more than the fingers on one hand to count them.


----------



## Kris Deering

maikeldepotter said:


> Good question. It's either Dolby through its licensed software, or the AVR manufacturer. I assumed the first, but could be wrong in that. Either way, I would welcome an explanation of the 'why?'.


When I attended CEDIA last year the Dolby team said any speaker configuration beyond the base 5.1 was enough to enable Atmos. The best benefits came with adding a height layer, but they said even having rears should enable it. But I heard a lot of things at CEDIA last year that never came to fruition so take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## dschulz

On the question of whether a Dolby Atmos soundtrack should sound different when rendered out to a 7.1 playback system (when compared to the standard Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track) I am fairly confident the answer is no.

Think of it this way - there is on the mixing stage an existing object-based soundtrack. The Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack is simply that Atmos soundtrack, pre-rendered to 7.1. It doesn't matter if you do the rendering before you lay the track down to Blu Ray, or after.

I'm sure I am over-simplifying (perhaps FilmMixer can chime in), but I think this is a helpful way to think about things.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are not using Atmos, it makes no difference whether you use PCM or bitstream.


You'll lose the DialNorm metadata. Not that many people care.


----------



## Lesmor

Yiorgos759 said:


> Can someone please help with this? Thanks.


IIRC when I was considering Atmos modules it was suggested no more than half way up the wall.
If mounted on top of my surrounds this would have meant lowering the surrounds lower than I wanted so I dismissed having modules.
You apparently can also mount the modules


----------



## ride525

Yiorgos759 said:


> I need some help to place my pair of Dolby atmos enabled speakers ( Onkyo SKH410) in my setup. I have a picture attached. The grey wall is a plaster wall and i would like to mount the atmos speakers on that. I have the kef 2005.3 speaker package. Dolby's instructions are not very clear about the distance above the main speakers etc. Any help please? Greatly appreciated. Thanks





Yiorgos759 said:


> Can someone please help with this? Thanks.


No speakers, especially Dolby Enabled Modules should be higher than half the height of your wall. They should be within three feet of your front or surround speakers.
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> On the question of whether a Dolby Atmos soundtrack should sound different when rendered out to a 7.1 playback system (when compared to the standard Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track) I am fairly confident the answer is no.
> 
> Think of it this way - there is on the mixing stage an existing object-based soundtrack. The Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack is simply that Atmos soundtrack, pre-rendered to 7.1. It doesn't matter if you do the rendering before you lay the track down to Blu Ray, or after.
> 
> I'm sure I am over-simplifying (perhaps FilmMixer can chime in), but I think this is a helpful way to think about things.


That was my original reasoning too, till Keith thaught me otherwise based upon his own listening experience and that of others. Would indeed be nice to get this clarified.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Strange that nobody here refers or comments to the recent updated specifications for commercial Atmos:

Theatrical Guidelines for Atmos

About the height of the Surround speakers:
_*The rear surround loudspeakers must be positioned at a uniform height. The position should be sufficiently high to maintain good coverage across the seating area according to the directivity of the loudspeaker and be out of the reach of patrons, where possible, to prevent tampering, damage, or theft.*_

After this, the Side Surrounds should be in a straight line between the Fronts and those Rear Surrounds...

This is lower than before if I am not mistaken. More like domestic Atmos.

There's more, but I don't want to spoil all your reading!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Kris Deering said:


> When I attended CEDIA last year the Dolby team said any speaker configuration beyond the base 5.1 was enough to enable Atmos. The best benefits came with adding a height layer, but they said even having rears should enable it. But I heard a lot of things at CEDIA last year that never came to fruition so take it with a grain of salt.


At least it also points to the AVR manufacturers being the ones responsible for disabling Atmos rendering at lower speaker counts.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Josh Z said:


> And yet completely logical. How many people have ever bought an Atmos receiver for the express purpose of using Atmos decoding even though they have no intention of using height channels? I would be amazed if it took more than the fingers on one hand to count them.


True. But if Atmos is going to survive, in a couple of years it will possibly be a standard feature on any AVR, including HTIB's. A whole lot of people will then get object rendering capability, but no intention to install overheads or wides. My guess is that they will think of this disabling feature as being less logical...


----------



## TJtennispro

maikeldepotter said:


> True. But if Atmos is going to survive, in a couple of years it will possibly be a standard feature on any AVR, including HTIB's. A whole lot of people will then get object rendering capability, but no intention to install overheads or wides. My guess is that they will think of this disabling feature as being less logical...


What is everyone using for their 4 height channels? I've been playing with different setups and currently have a Denon 7200wa with basic 5.1 using FH and RH. 

I've got 4 B&W 685 S2 as FL, FR, SL, SR and Htm62 s2 CC. I'm using 686 S2 as front heights and DS3 as rear height in monopole mode. Audyseey is setting my FH to 150 hz for some reason but rest are at 80hz


----------



## maikeldepotter

dkfan9 said:


> I think the most plausible reason is that the AVR manufacturers don't think there is a noticeable difference between True HD and Atmos with channel beds still being in heavy use, and Atmos processing takes more power=more heat=more potential issues and ensuing warranty costs=higher risk/cost of turning Atmos processing on, so they leave it off sure to the low to no benefit they see in turning it on. I don't know if that's close, but it seems at least plausible, and note that the manufacturers could be wrong about the benefits of Atmos in traditional 7 channel or fewer setups.


Best plausible explanation so far IMO: minimizing warranty risks (=costs), and possibly not being aware of the possible adverse effects on the sound quality ('less precise').


----------



## audiofan1

I used DSU while still running a 5.1 setup to good effect and preferred it to the plane Jane 5.1 flavor . I for one have no worries on Atmos surviving and have even bet on its speaker layout over the competition and plan on voting with my wallet


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Degraded in what way?


Less precise according to Keith.


----------



## Josh Z

maikeldepotter said:


> True. But if Atmos is going to survive, in a couple of years it will possibly be a standard feature on any AVR, including HTIB's. A whole lot of people will then get object rendering capability, but no intention to install overheads or wides. My guess is that they will think of this disabling feature as being less logical...


Which is probably why these receivers display "Atmos" on the front panel even if defaulting to the 7.1 track in this situation. So that those people can see the word and say, "OMG this sounds a thousand times better than anything I've ever heard before!" despite listening to exactly the same thing they did before.

Don't even think of scoffing at that description, because that's exactly what will happen.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Josh Z said:


> Which is probably why these receivers display "Atmos" on the front panel even if defaulting to the 7.1 track in this situation. So that those people can see the word and say, "OMG this sounds a thousand times better than anything I've ever heard before!" despite listening to exactly the same thing they did before.
> 
> Don't even think of scoffing at that description, because that's exactly what will happen.


You probably are right, and that makes me kind of sad...

But luckily, for the few that dó notice, there is an easy work-around for those with a 7.1 setup: re-assign your (probably already elevated) rears to rear heights in the setup menu, and you still can enjoy the sound of real object rendering.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> That was my original reasoning too, till Keith thaught me otherwise based upon his own listening experience and that of others. Would indeed be nice to get this clarified.





maikeldepotter said:


> Less precise according to Keith.


Whoah whoah whoah! Let's slow down the conclusion-jumping-to machine!!

NOTHING that Keith has said indicates that the SAME mix, played back as 7.1 TrueHD vs. 7.1 "Atmos", would sound different.

Keith compared a NON ATMOS mix of "Lucy" to an ATMOS mix of "Lucy". The fact that they sounded different is NOT in ANY way evidence to support your conclusion that there is some conspiracy to prevent rendering to 7.1 layouts that "degrades" the sound quality. THEY ARE DIFFERENT MIXES.

To test this you would need to play the ATMOS MIX on a receiver WITHOUT the decoders for Dolby Atmos so it just plays back as a 7.1 TrueHD track. And then see if there is any degradation in precision. 

THIS is how crazy rumours get started on the internet and take a life of their own....


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> Dirac will EQ only eight channels anyway...the four overhead Atmos ones you can use the receiver's or pre/pro's own EQ for that (YPAO or others).
> ...And manually, parametric EQ, which is better than Auto Audyssey. And only a manual EQ would do for the four overhead Atmos speakers.


I see. But does that actually work? If you do automatic REQ on the AVR, would that not be applied to all active speakers / pre-outs, including those that go to the mini DSP? I don't think AVRs let you do REQ just for the ceiling feeds. That really only leaves manual EQ, which is a lot more involved for most people, compared to some auto REQ.


----------



## tbaucom

kbarnes701 said:


> Only when playing back on a non-Atmos system. When using an Atmos system one benefits from the much greater precision of the placement of sounds in the entire three dimensional soundstage. I find this greater precision to be at least as big a benefit (currently) as overhead effects and it can be immediately heard if one has a non-Atmos and an Atmos BD of the same movie. *Lucy* is the one I use for this demo. This phenomenon isn't a 'mix issue' - if you play back the Atmos disc in regular 7.1 you will hear the difference.


Sorry Keith did say exactly that.


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> Whoah whoah whoah! Let's slow down the conclusion-jumping-to machine!!
> 
> NOTHING that Keith has said indicates that the SAME mix, played back as 7.1 TrueHD vs. 7.1 "Atmos", would sound different.
> 
> Keith compared a NON ATMOS mix of "Lucy" to an ATMOS mix of "Lucy". The fact that they sounded different is NOT in ANY way evidence to support your conclusion that there is some conspiracy to prevent rendering to 7.1 layouts that "degrades" the sound quality. THEY ARE DIFFERENT MIXES.
> 
> To test this you would need to play the ATMOS MIX on a receiver WITHOUT the decoders for Dolby Atmos so it just plays back as a 7.1 TrueHD track. And then see if there is any degradation in precision.
> 
> THIS is how crazy rumours get started on the internet and take a life of their own....


Actually Keith did say that. I quoted him above.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> I see. But does that actually work? If you do automatic REQ on the AVR, would that not be applied to all active speakers / pre-outs, including those that go to the mini DSP? I don't think AVRs let you do REQ just for the ceiling feeds. That really only leaves manual EQ, which is a lot more involved for most people, compared to some auto REQ.


Yes, I believe you are right, and Scott mentioned it earlier. 

* The only way would be to use say the manual graphic equalizer from some AV receivers and pre/pros.
I don't think that Yamaha or Pioneer allow you to use their manual parametric EQ only for the channels of your preference? 

____________
____________

As for the discussion revolving around Dolby Atmos when not using the Atmos overhead speakers, or the up-firing ones; I just don't know exactly what happens...if the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack is more or less precise? ...Or if it's the same as a non-Dolby Atmos Blu-ray disc with the original Dolby TrueHD 7.1-channel audio. 
...Like in the example of *Lucy* and other BR titles like *Gravity* and *American Sniper* and *Unbroken* and *John Wick* ...I just don't know. 

It's true that in few years most receivers will come with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X as the main standards, and it's true too that many people won't be deploying all the speakers supported...like the overhead ones. Today many people have a receiver with Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA decoders in them, and yet they don't use all the five or seven speakers supported. ...They might use four, or three or even only two. 
And on the other hand other folks (very very few) use two or more receivers for a full 9.1.6 channel setup. ...I am not counting the Trinnov and Datasat higher end class..with even more speakers. 

It would be real cool that we can get Dolby Atmos "precision" in object rendition without the deployment of the overhead speakers and up-firing ones...say from a 5.1 or 7.1-channel setup. Sure we'll miss an important aspect, but without losing all Atmos benefits...if you are following me. 
I'm not thinking about my own personal situation I am thinking about all people's situations and predispositions according to all circumstances regarding if people can or cannot or will or will not install the overhead speakers. 

Brief, can we benefit from Dolby Atmos with just a 5.1 or 7.1-channel setup? ...DSU included and DTS:X also included with its own up-mixer...DTS Neural:X.
...Very fair question as many people that's all what they'll have in their setup.


----------



## stikle

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Strange that nobody here refers or comments to the recent updated specifications for commercial Atmos



Perhaps because this is *The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)* and commercial layouts don't apply?


----------



## Scott Simonian

A good mix and a good surround sound speaker system, set up properly and placed in a room with optimal acoustic treatment will net you a "precise" sounding surround experience.

I do not have Atmos. I do not have to watch an Atmos encoded title to hear things in very distinct and precise locations. 

All those things I listed apply but it starts with a good mix, Atmos or not.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

If you don't have speakers representing the Z axis, why would you need Atmos object placement? 5.1 and 7.1 don't have issues conveying the X and Y axes.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> A good mix and a good surround sound speaker system, set up properly and placed in a room with optimal acoustic treatment will net you a "precise" sounding surround experience.
> 
> I do not have Atmos. I don't not have to watch an Atmos encoded title to hear things in very distinct and precise locations.
> 
> All those things I listed apply but it starts with a good mix, Atmos or not.


Sure Scott, we all understand...it's just that Dolby Atmos is a quantum leap in 3D sound immersion with its object rendition/more precision thing. 
And sure too; there are some better surround audio mixes out there, and without a good surround mix, Dolby Atmos or not, the audio experience is futile/inferior/lesser enveloping than a good surround mix like in 'Gravity' for example, or in 'Master and Commander', or in 'The Patriot', or in 'War of the Worlds', or in 'Interstellar', or in 'Saving Private Ryan', or in 'Lucy', or in 'The Fifth Element', or in 'The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc', or in 'Contact', or in ...

Sound mixers now can render sound provenances more effectively, with height, with width, better imaging, more precision @ the sides and behind. 
It's a brand new concept/system all together...improving much further from the old technology of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA surround sound with that much more three-dimensional one, and with greater depth too. ..It's a new sound art, a new 3D mastering sound art.

Can you dig?


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> I do not have Atmos.


But Monday you will


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Sure Scott, we all understand...it's just that Dolby Atmos is a quantum leap in 3D sound immersion with its object rendition/more precision thing.
> And sure too; there are some better surround audio mixes out there, and without a good surround mix, Dolby Atmos or not, the audio experience is futile/inferior/lesser enveloping than a good surround mix like in 'Gravity' for example, or in 'Master and Commander', or in 'The Patriot', or in 'War of the Worlds', or in 'Interstellar', or in 'Saving Private Ryan', or ...
> 
> Sound mixers now can render sound provenances more effectively, with height, with width, better imaging, more precision @ the sides and behind.
> It's a brand new concept/system all together...improving much further from the old technology of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA surround sound with that much more three-dimensional one, and with depth too.
> 
> Can you dig?


I dig.

Just wanted to make it clear that an Atmos encode on a 7.1 system does not sound "more precise" than the same mix in "regular" 7.1 on the same 7.1 system, as some certain posters here like to imagine. 

The more precise part of Atmos is really relevant in cinema Atmos because there is a 50ft long wall with twelve speakers on it. Now an object can move through them instead of being a 50ft wide object. More precise. At home? This effect is greatly diminished in a practical sense as we do not have a huge wall that was lit up in full and now able to move from speaker to speaker. At home we have seven speakers around and any additional spacial resolution is provided by good imaging between speakers or many more speakers (which of course we can't do yet anyway). Something that is becoming more clear is not happening in a lot of peoples systems. 



smurraybhm said:


> But Monday you will


As long as I don't miss the delivery which requires a signature that I will most likely not be able to sign for while at work.  So annoyed right now. Yesterday my Oppo 103d arrived but I missed it because that needed a signature too. Hopefully it's there today. Though today I missed a Sony HW40ES delivery because it needed a signature. AAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! I'm outrageously annoyed right now. I'd have to take about four g'damn days off from work to sign for all this awesome s**t.


----------



## batpig

tbaucom said:


> Actually Keith did say that. I quoted him above.


But we are still VERY FAR away from being able to conclude that the audio quality is "degraded" somehow by letting the 7.1 decode as 7.1, vs. having it pull out the object metadata and then render it back to that same 7.1 layout. Comparing the Atmos mix with the height speakers active vs. the base 7.1 mix (i.e. letting the player decode?) isn't apples to apples.

This is a really hard thing to test because, if it's true that you just get a channel based 7.1 mix on a 7.1 speaker layout, it's really impossible to do a real A/B test because you CAN'T hear Atmos decoding on that 7.1 layout. Perhaps the best case would be to find a scene confirmed to have ZERO overhead activity and then use that as a test scene.

But again, all due respect to Keith but we've got a single anecdotal report of a non-controlled, non-blinded test that isn't really apples-to-apples. But that has spurred a runaway train of people wringing their hands in despair over the "degraded" quality of people playing Atmos discs on 7.1 speakers setups without height speakers. 

It seems totally illogical to me that the 7.1 mix could be any better or worse either way. How can it be?


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> But we are still VERY FAR away from being able to conclude that the audio quality is "degraded" somehow by letting the 7.1 decode as 7.1, vs. having it pull out the object metadata and then render it back to that same 7.1 layout. Comparing the Atmos mix with the height speakers active vs. the base 7.1 mix (i.e. letting the player decode?) isn't apples to apples.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a really hard thing to test because, if it's true that you just get a channel based 7.1 mix on a 7.1 speaker layout, it's really impossible to do a real A/B test because you CAN'T hear Atmos decoding on that 7.1 layout. Perhaps the best case would be to find a scene confirmed to have ZERO overhead activity and then use that as a test scene.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, all due respect to Keith but we've got a single anecdotal report of a non-controlled, non-blinded test that isn't really apples-to-apples. But that has spurred a runaway train of people wringing their hands in despair over the "degraded" quality of people playing Atmos discs on 7.1 speakers setups without height speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems totally illogical to me that the 7.1 mix could be any better or worse either way. How can it be?



I don't think it can. I was just quoting Keith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

tbaucom said:


> I don't think it can. I was just quoting Keith.


Fair point  I am just arguing with whomever


----------



## peterfram

TJtennispro said:


> What is everyone using for their 4 height channels? I've been playing with different setups and currently have a Denon 7200wa with basic 5.1 using FH and RH.


While I sort out plans to take over and remodel our bonus room, I have spent recent days testing some speakers and configurations in a non-optimal family room setting with my X7200WA and X4000 as a 2-channel amp in 7.1.4 with FWs (LSiM703) instead of rears (room issues), two subs. I currently have 4 cheap white Polk OWM3 speakers on the ceiling (TF and TR) 45 degrees from primary listening position, not timbre matched, not aligned perfectly with fronts, and shocked by how good things sound in this room where I break many layout rules. While precise object rendering is not there, good rendering (enough to impress the masses) is there. I sense spinning and twisting and twirling while watching Jupiter Ascending and Gravity. Audyssey set these little ceilings to 90hz. My QS8 surrounds are placed a little high and diffuse a lot. I believe fixing those surrounds would make the most improvement to object imaging. 

What I get out of this is that Atmos layout is actually fairly forgiving and offers some flexibility for the average consumer's limited or restricted home layout options. And even when not optimal in layout, the sound is fantastic. It's a delight with the FWs there compared to the 5.1 setup I had for past couple years. I wish they worked in DSU. Thus, I'm confident in planning Atmos/DTS:X considerations into my bonus room remodel layout. One thing I did notice was that my center channel speaker seemed to be more stretched in Atmos content vs my previous 5.1 X4000 driven layout. I just upgraded to a LSiM706c center speaker which matches my R/L fronts and resolved the center/dialogue issues I was sensing for a long time but seemed magnified with Atmos. 

I'm more impressed with Atmos in a challenged room setting, with cheap ceiling speakers than I expected. I think that bodes well for Atmos in the home's future.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I dig.
> 
> Just wanted to make it clear that an Atmos encode on a 7.1 system does not sound "more precise" than the same mix in "regular" 7.1 on the same 7.1 system, as some certain posters here like to imagine.
> 
> The more precise part of Atmos is really relevant in cinema Atmos because there is a 50ft long wall with twelve speakers on it. Now an object can move through them instead of being a 50ft wide object. More precise. At home? This effect is greatly diminished in a practical sense as we do not have a huge wall that was lit up in full and now able to move from speaker to speaker. At home we have seven speakers around and any additional spacial resolution is provided by good imaging between speakers or many more speakers (which of course we can't do yet anyway). Something that is becoming more clear is not happening in a lot of peoples systems.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as I don't miss the delivery which requires a signature that I will most likely not be able to sign for while at work.  So annoyed right now. Yesterday my Oppo 103d arrived but I missed it because that needed a signature too. Hopefully it's there today. Though today I missed a Sony HW40ES delivery because it needed a signature. AAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! I'm outrageously annoyed right now. I'd have to take about four g'damn days off from work to sign for all this awesome s**t.


Not only you sure are correct Scott, regarding the space from larger theater venues down to our own smaller rooms, but you sure is funny too.


----------



## chi_guy50

TJtennispro said:


> What is everyone using for their 4 height channels? I've been playing with different setups and currently have a Denon 7200wa with basic 5.1 using FH and RH.
> 
> I've got 4 B&W 685 S2 as FL, FR, SL, SR and Htm62 s2 CC. I'm using 686 S2 as front heights and DS3 as rear height in monopole mode. Audyseey is setting my FH to 150 hz for some reason but rest are at 80hz


See @kokishin's spreadsheet here (also linked to in post no. 1 of this thread) for a listing of Atmos setups submitted by fellow posters.


----------



## NorthSky

Here's a question:
Say you have a Dolby Atmos receiver, you have a 7.1.4 Atmos setup with those four overhead on-ceiling speakers, and you have 'Gravity' Diamond Luxe Edition Blu-ray. 

- You play the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, but you turn down the volume trims of those four Atmos overhead speaker channels to zero. ...No sound @ all from above.
- Now you play the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio soundtrack (core audio) .... *Any different?*


----------



## Scott Simonian

Definitely. The playback of the 7.1 track will still have all that content that was up in the overheads. The Atmos version with the heights effectively disabled will lose content.

If I watched a 7.1 mix and turned off my rear surrounds, I will miss that content. If I had a 5.1 system and watched the 7.1 track, I'd get it all.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Definitely. The playback of the 7.1 track will still have all that content that was up in the overheads. The Atmos version with the heights effectively disabled will lose content.


I would love to have confirmation from someone who has compared. ...Meaning with a Dolby Atmos receiver, and with all the other stuff I described.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> I would love to have confirmation from someone who has compared. ...Meaning with a Dolby Atmos receiver, and with all the other stuff I described.




Common sense will tell you that if you have a sound that is placed on the XYZ in Atmos such that 25% of it comes from the ceiling channels... You're going to lose that audio. The part of the sound in the bed channels that gives it directionality in the XY axes would still be there, but at a lower level than if you were just playing the 7.1 track natively.



Still not sure why we need to confirm something that seems fairly obvious. Steering in the 2-d plane (7.1 beds)wouldn't get any improvement because mixers were already able to steer sound well in that plane. Atmos basically adds the Z axis to the equation. So naturally, you would have to have the height channels to take advantage of it. Using the object data without the Z axis is no different than the way mixers already did things with stems steered between 7.1 channels.



Or am I missing something here?


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Common sense will tell you that if you have a sound that is placed on the XYZ in Atmos such that 25% of it comes from the ceiling channels... You're going to lose that audio. The part of the sound in the bed channels that gives it directionality in the XY axes would still be there, but at a lower level than if you were just playing the 7.1 track natively.
> 
> Still not sure why we need to confirm something that seems fairly obvious. Steering in the 2-d plane (7.1 beds)wouldn't get any improvement because mixers were already able to steer sound well in that plane. Atmos basically adds the Z axis to the equation. So naturally, you would have to have the height channels to take advantage of it. Using the object data without the Z axis is no different than the way mixers already did things with stems steered between 7.1 channels.
> 
> Or am I missing something here?


I understand very well...common sense. It is obvious...I shouldn't have asked the question. I just thought ....


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> I understand very well...common sense. It is obvious...I shouldn't have asked the question. I just thought ....




Stop thinking and go watch a movie! Heh...

(I'm watching Hellboy with DSU right now, actually.)


----------



## FilmMixer

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If you don't have speakers representing the Z axis, why would you need Atmos object placement? 5.1 and 7.1 don't have issues conveying the X and Y axes.


You don't. 

Unless the playback system channel count is greater than the encodes (7.1 in Atmos' case) there is absolutely no sonic benefit from having an Atmos encdoe/processor without overheads... 

There is no "grater" precision. 

It's baked into the 7.1 encode. 

But there are other reasons why I am so excited Atmos is here, regardless of that fact. 

The biggest one is that we are getting many many more 7.1 mixes... And some really good ones too... As a side benefit, and as mixers are moving more and more into this space, they are broadening their use of the side and rear surrounds, and sound designers/editors are starting to prepare more discrete elements for us to move around, if even only in the X Y plane. 

Add to that we will see a concerted move into streaming at years end via DD+. Finally. I truly thought we'd be at twice the BR titles by now and streaming 4-5 shows/series. 

It's taken longer than any one wanted.... you can put Dolvy on that list. But they don't make content. So it's not up to them. 

But now we are seeing Sony get on board, and we know that Fox and Dismey won't launch UHD without object based audio encodes. They just won't. 

I'm excited.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Less precise according to Keith.


Your entire conclusion is based on that single anecdotal data point?


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> This is a really hard thing to test because, if it's true that you just get a channel based 7.1 mix on a 7.1 speaker layout, it's really impossible to do a real A/B test because you CAN'T hear Atmos decoding on that 7.1 layout. Perhaps the best case would be to find a scene confirmed to have ZERO overhead activity and then use that as a test scene.


Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles would probably be the best test disc for that. The movie has very little height channel activity. Those speakers are dead silent except when the mixers specifically want to call attention to something happening above your head.



> But again, all due respect to Keith but we've got a single anecdotal report of a non-controlled, non-blinded test that isn't really apples-to-apples. But that has spurred a runaway train of people wringing their hands in despair over the "degraded" quality of people playing Atmos discs on 7.1 speakers setups without height speakers.
> 
> It seems totally illogical to me that the 7.1 mix could be any better or worse either way. How can it be?


I want to "Like" this post a thousand times. When did this myth start that "regular" 7.1 tracks sounded so awful and had such poor sound directionality? When has a 7.1 track ever lacked for precise sound directionality? Even countless 5.1 tracks have amazing precision in that regard. What do sound objects really bring to the ground level speakers that you somehow can't do in channels? 

If you want an Atmos mix to have a sound effect in the right rear of the room, you put the sound object in the speakers nearest that position. If you want a 7.1 mix to have a sound effect in the right rear of the room, you put the effect in the channel bed that goes to the speakers nearest that position. It ain't magic. They're just different methods of putting the sound effect in the same place. When it gets there, it doesn't matter worth a damn whether it's in an object or a channel bed.

The great advantage Atmos brings is being able to expand your soundstage into a new discrete height hemisphere we never had before. If you're not going to use height speakers, there's no logical reason why an Atmos track downmixed to 7.1 should sound any different than a native 7.1 track - for better or for worse.

Edit: I see that FilmMixer posted a pretty definitive statement to this regard while I was writing this post. He certainly knows better than anyone.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> We should make a list of people doing these Atmos*+* systems.
> 
> Nalleh is doing one with two Atmos/Auro aware systems so he can have a correct Atmos system and a correct Auro system
> Manni01 is doing an Atmos (and Auro?) system that is 7.1.4 but with two speakers per output to make a bigger sounding image in those directions
> Batpig is doing an Atmos system that is 7.1.5 where he uses an extra PL2 receiver to generate a center front height
> Aaranddeeman is doing a full 7.1.6 Atmos-EX system with two PL2 receivers generating two middle heights
> 
> I will be doing the same with a 7.1.6 Atmos-EX system
> 
> Did I forget anybody?



Thanks for putting me on the list 
However, a full Atmos and a full Auro setup without having to save and load two config files is not the full extent of my dual Atmos AVR setup. In Atmos i gain those lovely wides as a bonus, and of course 6 heights. Center height, dual side surrounds, etc, etc.

But i guess you knew that already 


BTW: i like your idea too, and i am interested to hear how it works 
And Josh Z really has a smart idea, did not think about that one, very clever


----------



## Tnedator

Watched my first Atmos movie in my theater tonight. John Wick. In general I thought it sounded very good. I can't say that I regularly noticed overhead sounds. Of course there was the rain and some effects in some of the fight scenes. 

In general, I thought it sounded very good. I will say in terms of an Atmos effect I thought was very good, was towards the end of the movie, there is thunder and lighting, and the overhead thunder was VERY realistic. 

As to Vudu and Atmos. I read somewhere where someone said the Atmos demos were no longer streaming in Atmos. I watched a couple of them, and it's really hard for me to believe those effects were from the up mixing. That said, my receiver is outside the room and I didn't think to check to see if hitting info/display would show if it was getting an Atmos signal.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yyyyeaaahhh.... I think about that.
> 
> I'm not great at making threads about stuff.
> 
> No promises but ..... maybe.


I plan to making a document with schematics to illustrate this.
Let's see when that happens.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

stikle said:


> Perhaps because this is *The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)* and commercial layouts don't apply?


I know which thread we're on. Is there a brick wall between both? (rolls his eyes in disdain)

Me, I try to receive information as multilateral as possible. The Guidelines for HT Atmos are diffuse in some cases. They have to because not everybody is a geek like most here (including myself). Switching back to the specs of the big spaces is often enlightening.

One example: my LR Fronts are at the widest possible position, because I want them next to my big 235/1 screen, not behind it. These are SEOS 24 hence allow extreme toe-in facilitating this approach, BTW. If I follow HT rules and put the Top speakers in line with these, the elevation is only 30% (viewed from MLP to front, which means even less elevation for TF and TR in their actual position ahead and behind MLP as their distance multiplies by 1.414 if they are at respective 45°/135° horizontal angle). 

But if you look at the commercial theaters, the Top speakers are actually NOT in line with LR Front, but with the optional "screen" speakers, midway between L/C and C/R. With that in mind, I moved the top speakers inwards in my design. These are now at 50° elevation (viewed MLP to screen which turns out to be about 35/40° in polar position).

The debate about pointing the Top speakers to MLP or not is another example where the commercial specs are way more clear. I will be pointing the wide dispersion Top speakers towards MLP, contrary to most here, who sometimes do not even use wide dispersion speakers and if they do, allow them to point down. My fellows are in spec with HT rules, not in spec with commercial.

As an aside: I even measured the width of a commercial screen once and the viewing distance to help decide we were okay sitting this close.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> It seems totally illogical to me that the 7.1 mix could be any better or worse either way. How can it be?


In terms of mastering, there very might well be a difference... 

When you take an Atmos mix and create a 7.1 channel based print master, you usually take the objects and make a 7.1 "render" of the individual stems (dialog, music and effects...). 

When you do this of course the resolution of movement goes down in the surrounds, but you also need to make decisions about what to do with things that were in the front surround speakers and overheads, in addition to folding the overhead arrays somewhere. 

You may or may not find that you get level build up when doing so... And make adjustments accordingly. 

Add to that there might be a 7.1 near field mix and if you try and compare one regions 7.1 to an Atmos encode of the same track they might very well be very different. 

But that has every thing to do with production and workflow, and nothing to do with playing back the same Atmos encode in 7.1 vs Atmos. 

(I understand that isn't what you were specifically addressing.. But want to expand the discussion for further insight.)


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ Could this be why many including myself prior to having Atmos, found disc that included an Atmos track subjectively better sounding mixes?


----------



## fredl

Scott Simonian said:


> I dig.
> 
> As long as I don't miss the delivery which requires a signature that I will most likely not be able to sign for while at work.  So annoyed right now. Yesterday my Oppo 103d arrived but I missed it because that needed a signature too. Hopefully it's there today. Though today I missed a Sony HW40ES delivery because it needed a signature. AAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! I'm outrageously annoyed right now. I'd have to take about four g'damn days off from work to sign for all this awesome s**t.


Ship to the workplace instead? Leave a signature waiver? You're letting logistics halt the advance of Atmos EX.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Your entire conclusion is based on that single anecdotal data point?


Well, that is not the whole story.

It began with me agreeing with baptig that it makes sense to not use object rendition when playing an Atmos disk on a 7.1 speaker lay-out, even with an Atmos capable AVR,



maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, it does make sense. It also confirms (again) that although ATMOS is much more than only adding overheads with respect to the re-recording/mixing process in the studio and playback in the theater, its current home implementation is basically just that: adding overheads (and yes, wides too).


and my subsequent statement:



maikeldepotte said:


> Hence my statement that the added value that the current Atmos processors/AVRs are bringing to our homes is in fact 100% linked to the addition of overheads. To put it more bluntly: Take the overheads out of the equation, and the added value of an Atmos capable receiver when playing an Atmos track at home reduces to zero.


Then followed some comments from Keith who seemed to have a slightly different view on things. Apart from being anecdotical, I also might have interpreted him wrongly. Anyway, In those situations, in search for clarity, it usually helps in forums like this to put out some bold statement, which I did:



maikeldepotter said:


> So without having any overheads physically installed, you will still get better ATMOS sound from a track with no overhead sound in it, by simply fooling the AVR and telling it that you do have installed at least two of them. Interesting.


And I also re-replied accordingly to baptig's earlier post:



maikeldepotter said:


> At first glance this would indeed defeat common sense. But as we know now, there is one good and valid reason why one would like to go through that trouble: The better sound quality that object rendition offers (such as precision), and which is somehow degraded in the process of folding the objects into the 7.1 channel based mix. This apparently also happens when there is no overhead activity at all!


In the meantime Filmmixer has tuned in to expand the discussion. To be continued...


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> If I follow HT rules and put the Top speakers in line with these, the elevation is only 30% (viewed from MLP to front, which means even less elevation for TF and TR in their actual position ahead and behind MLP *as their distance multiplies by 1.414 if they are at respective 45°/135° horizontal angle*).
> 
> But if you look at the commercial theaters, the Top speakers are actually NOT in line with LR Front, but with the optional "screen" speakers, midway between L/C and C/R. With that in mind, I moved the top speakers inwards in my design. *These are now at 50° elevation (viewed MLP to screen which turns out to be about 35/40° in polar position).*


You raise the point (tangentially) of elevation angles relative to the MLP, leading me to ask this question once more:

When we (and Dolby or CEM's) discuss top-level speaker elevation angles for the HT (as in the diagram below from D&M's owner manuals), are we all including azimuth in the calculations? 










I know that Sanjay has quoted Dolby's Brett Crockett as saying that elevation angles are determined by a speaker's height relative to the listener, but are we to assume that this implies allowance for azimuth? When I measure in my room I use the values of (1) the vertical distance from MLP ear-level to mounted speaker level and (2) the straight-line distance between those two points (forming the hypotenuse of a right triangle) to determine the elevation angle to that individual speaker. 

I suspect that, when we discuss angles here, some posters are measuring to a center point directly in front of the MLP, thereby omitting any allowance for azimuth in their calculations. 

So, aside from the question of its overall significance, for the sake of accuracy and clear definition of the terms of discussion, which is the proper method of calculation?


----------



## DAK4

FilmMixer said:


> In terms of mastering, there very might well be a difference...
> 
> When you take an Atmos mix and create a 7.1 channel based print master, you usually take the objects and make a 7.1 "render" of the individual stems (dialog, music and effects...).
> 
> When you do this of course the resolution of movement goes down in the surrounds, but you also need to make decisions about what to do with things that were in the front surround speakers and overheads, in addition to folding the overhead arrays somewhere.
> 
> You may or may not find that you get level build up when doing so... And make adjustments accordingly.
> 
> Add to that there might be a 7.1 near field mix and if you try and compare one regions 7.1 to an Atmos encode of the same track they might very well be very different.
> 
> But that has every thing to do with production and workflow, and nothing to do with playing back the same Atmos encode in 7.1 vs Atmos.
> 
> (I understand that isn't what you were specifically addressing.. But want to expand the discussion for further insight.)


Hi FilmMixer, can you help also explain what the process is when they remix a movie like Gravity from 7.1 to Atmos? Would they take the 7.1 mix and add height objects to it or would they remix it entirely from scratch or is it something in between? Thanks in advance for you insight.


----------



## Scott Simonian

fredl said:


> Ship to the workplace instead? Leave a signature waiver? You're letting logistics halt the advance of Atmos EX.


I didn't know they were all going to require a signature when I ordered them.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Apart from being anecdotical, I also might have interpreted him wrongly.
> 
> To be continued...


Fair enough. In the mean time, here is a question to ask yourself. If you were to fully decode (bed channels and objects) an Atmos track and play it back over a traditional 7.1 speaker layout (no heights), the rendering engine would use pre-determined locations for all 7 speakers. When the backwards compatible 7.1 downmix is created by the Atmos encoder at the studio, would you guess that the same exact pre-determined locations are being used?


----------



## Manni01

A few unrelated comments:

1) I did some preliminary tests on Atmos-EX using my heights AVR, to create a CH from FHL and FHR. I didn't like the result. Much less efficient - predictably - at lifting the dialogue up than copying C to CH, and also I felt it kind of muddled the soundstage. It could be my setup, but I'm wondering if there isn't a fundamental difference between creating a Centre from L+R and using Dolby PLII to add a speaker in between two physical speakers that Atmos uses to position objects. Could adding a physical speaker in between two exisiting speakers compromise what Atmos is trying to do not only between these two speakers, but also between these speakers and the other ones? With stereo, we're in 2D but with Atmos, all the other speakers are used to position objects. Anyway, as I didn't really like the result, that kind of closes the Atmos-EX experiment for me unless I manage to get a second cheap AVR. Others with a room which makes more of FH and RH might benefit more from using these to create a TM, but for me splitting the room in a front/back array works better. Still looking forward to hearing feedback from Scott and others.

2) There is a dealbreaker re Atmos-EX for Auro users: instead of one AVR for heights, you need three as none of the first two can handle TS/VOG. I know most people don't care about Auro, but I do so that kind put another spanner in the works, because if I could just imagine myself running three AVRs, I really can't imagine having to add a fourth one just for VOG. So I went back to my X5200 for the 9.1 ear level and the 1909 to power all my heights (CH, FH+TF, TR+RH and VOG) with analog ext. in.

3) If anyone is looking for a film to demo both the purpose of Atmos without helicopters and rockets flying around and how DSU incredibly efficient is, I recommend trying Birdman. The movie isn't for everyone (I loved it but can imagine others might not), but the soundtrack in DSU i simply amazing. From the opening credits to the last shot, the way the omnipresent jazz percussion plays, objects - voices, clocks, drums, etc - are precisely placed all around and above - including Birdman's voice coming right from above you, even without a VOG speaker as mine isn't active with Atmos/DSU, it was just an incredible audio (and visual) feast. Kudos to the mixer of this soundtrack, it's one of the best I've heard. Ever. Much better than Chicago, which is a native Atmos track - the remastered version - but was overall less impressive sonically than Birdman (except the jail tango track which was great).

4) After this auditive nirvana, I've decided to quit playing around with my setup. It works very well. I'm looking forward to getting the denon f/w update allowing to switch on-the-fly between full Atmos and full Auro, and I'll upgrade to a 9.1.4 AVR in 2016 (hoping that Denon representatives are right for once), which should also give us Auro 11.1. In my room, I don't think I need more than that, at least until more native channels are offered in mainstream AVRs.


----------



## maikeldepotter

chi_guy50 said:


> You raise the point (tangentially) of elevation angles relative to the MLP, leading me to ask this question once more:
> 
> When we (and Dolby or CEM's) discuss top-level speaker elevation angles for the HT (as in the diagram below from D&M's owner manuals), are we all including azimuth in the calculations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Sanjay has quoted Dolby's Brett Crockett as saying that elevation angles are determined by a speaker's height relative to the listener, but are we to assume that this implies allowance for azimuth? When I measure in my room I use the values of (1) the vertical distance from MLP ear-level to mounted speaker level and (2) the straight-line distance between those two points (forming the hypotenuse of a right triangle) to determine the elevation angle to that individual speaker.
> 
> I suspect that, when we discuss angles here, some posters are measuring to a center point directly in front of the MLP, thereby omitting any allowance for azimuth in their calculations.


That is exactly how the angles in the diagrams should be interpreted: as median elevation angles, irrespective of azimuth. This will depend on the applied elevation angle in combination with the lateral elevation angles (or spread between overhead arrays as determined by the distance between the mains, according to Dolby's home theater guidelines, and height of the overheads).


----------



## batpig

DAK4 said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of mastering, there very might well be a difference...
> 
> When you take an Atmos mix and create a 7.1 channel based print master, you usually take the objects and make a 7.1 "render" of the individual stems (dialog, music and effects...).
> 
> When you do this of course the resolution of movement goes down in the surrounds, but you also need to make decisions about what to do with things that were in the front surround speakers and overheads, in addition to folding the overhead arrays somewhere.
> 
> You may or may not find that you get level build up when doing so... And make adjustments accordingly.
> 
> Add to that there might be a 7.1 near field mix and if you try and compare one regions 7.1 to an Atmos encode of the same track they might very well be very different.
> 
> But that has every thing to do with production and workflow, and nothing to do with playing back the same Atmos encode in 7.1 vs Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I understand that isn't what you were specifically addressing.. But want to expand the discussion for further insight.)
> 
> 
> 
> Hi FilmMixer, can you help also explain what the process is when they remix a movie like Gravity from 7.1 to Atmos? Would they take the 7.1 mix and add height objects to it or would they remix it entirely from scratch or is it something in between? Thanks in advance for you insight.
Click to expand...

Gravity was a native Atmos mix in the theaters.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

chi_guy50 said:


> You raise the point (tangentially) of elevation angles relative to the MLP, leading me to ask this question once more:
> 
> When we (and Dolby or CEM's) discuss top-level speaker elevation angles for the HT (as in the diagram below from D&M's owner manuals), are we all including azimuth in the calculations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Sanjay has quoted Dolby's Brett Crockett as saying that elevation angles are determined by a speaker's height relative to the listener, but are we to assume that this implies allowance for azimuth? When I measure in my room I use the values of (1) the vertical distance from MLP ear-level to mounted speaker level and (2) the straight-line distance between those two points (forming the hypotenuse of a right triangle) to determine the elevation angle to that individual speaker.
> 
> I suspect that, when we discuss angles here, some posters are measuring to a center point directly in front of the MLP, thereby omitting any allowance for azimuth in their calculations.
> 
> So, aside from the question of its overall significance, for the sake of accuracy and clear definition of the terms of discussion, which is the proper method of calculation?


As Michael said: for Atmos it's the latter. Your method would be suitable if the elevated speakers were in a cirkel like the listener level speakers. However if for instance you would DIY on ceiling speakers with the drivers pointed at MLP, your method would be the correct one to determine the angle of the baffle.

It can be a substantial difference. Let's say the speakers are 5 ft ahead MLP x 5 ft to the side from axis MLP/center x 5 ft higher than MLP. In Atmos speak the elevation would be 45°. But in azimuth the distance is over 7 ft, meaning a "real" elevation of only 35°...


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> As Michael said: for Atmos it's the latter. Your method would be suitable if the elevated speakers were in a cirkel like the listener level speakers. However if for instance you would DIY on ceiling speakers with the drivers pointed at MLP, your method would be the correct one to determine the angle of the baffle.
> 
> It can be a substantial difference. Let's say the speakers are 5 ft ahead MLP x 5 ft to the side from axis MLP/center x 5 ft higher than MLP. In Atmos speak the elevation would be 45°. But in azimuth the distance is over 7 ft, meaning a "real" elevation of only 35°...


IOW--and just to be clear--for the purpose of determining whether our top-level speaker is within the recommended elevation angle range, we should be measuring from the MLP to a line drawn parallel to the front wall intersecting with the speaker location?


----------



## DAK4

batpig said:


> Gravity was a native Atmos mix in the theaters.


Well, I kind of meant the BD version. Maybe The Fifth Element or something like that is a better example.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

chi_guy50 said:


> IOW,--and just to be clear--for the purpose of determining whether our top-level speaker is within the recommend elevation angle range, we should be measuring from the MLP to a line drawn parallel to the front wall intersecting with the speaker location?


Correct!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*Oppo 103EU still best choice?*

I am trying to decide whether buying a used Oppo 103EU would be the way to go. I need a player in about 6 weeks when the HT will be ready. But the UHD players from Panasonic are also imminent, while a new 4K model Oppo will be at least another year away, I read.

OTOH, I have the Panasonic PT-AE6000 projector. No budget for a superior projector anyway... 

There's a 103EU for sale now for 60% of MSRP. Bite? It will have to be made region free though, to see all those oversees Atmos releases!


----------



## Nalleh

chi_guy50 said:


> You raise the point (tangentially) of elevation angles relative to the MLP, leading me to ask this question once more:
> 
> When we (and Dolby or CEM's) discuss top-level speaker elevation angles for the HT (as in the diagram below from D&M's owner manuals), are we all including azimuth in the calculations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Sanjay has quoted Dolby's Brett Crockett as saying that elevation angles are determined by a speaker's height relative to the listener, but are we to assume that this implies allowance for azimuth? When I measure in my room I use the values of (1) the vertical distance from MLP ear-level to mounted speaker level and (2) the straight-line distance between those two points (forming the hypotenuse of a right triangle) to determine the elevation angle to that individual speaker.
> 
> I suspect that, when we discuss angles here, some posters are measuring to a center point directly in front of the MLP, thereby omitting any allowance for azimuth in their calculations.
> 
> So, aside from the question of its overall significance, for the sake of accuracy and clear definition of the terms of discussion, which is the proper method of calculation?



Yes, been wondering the same.
The Dolby guidelines:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

On page 34 regarding placement of front height it states:

"Left front height/right front height speaker pair
The left front height and right front height speakers should be mounted on the front wall (instead of on the ceiling) in line with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference. This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers. If the left front height and right front height speakers must be mounted on the ceiling, they should be placed no more than one-eighth the distance to the middle of the room, *approximately 45 degrees vertical from the center-front reference."*



This implies measure straigh ahead from MLP, and mount them to the left and right from that point.

One would assume it applies to all height speaker placements


----------



## batpig

DAK4 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity was a native Atmos mix in the theaters.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I kind of meant the BD version. Maybe The Fifth Element or something like that is a better example.
Click to expand...

Understood. Not saying the question wasn't valid but just wanted to clarify


----------



## LowellG

OK, I have been doing some measuring for front and rear speakers for an ATMOS 7.1.4. If I go between the 45 and 55 degrees that puts the rear speakers about 3 feet off the back wall. Is that a far enough separation between the rear surrounds and the top rear. They would be right over the listening area of my second row. I can't put them at 4 feet because there are lights. That is if I want to keep them in a line straight out from the front speakers. If I moved them in slightly about 8 to 10 inches they could come up to 4 feet off the back wall.


----------



## Daffy

It has probably been discussed somewhere else in this forum but I could not find it. In an atmos setup should the surround speakers be bi-directional like the Klipsch RP-250s or direct radiating?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

All speakers in Atmos should be direct radiators.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Gravity was a native Atmos mix in the theaters.


I believe it started as a 7.1 mix and was then re-purposed for Atmos. Either way it is a damn fine example of immersive surround.


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> Hi FilmMixer, can you help also explain what the process is when they remix a movie like Gravity from 7.1 to Atmos? Would they take the 7.1 mix and add height objects to it or would they remix it entirely from scratch or is it something in between? Thanks in advance for you insight.


*'Gravity'* on Blu-ray is an excellent title to explore: The first Blu-ray version has a DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio soundtrack.
The remastered (audio) Diamond Luxe Edition has a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (monitored on a 7.1.4 setup) and the core audio is Dolby TrueHD 7.1

I listened to both versions from a non-Dolby Atmos pre/pro with all seven channels deployed (DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DPL IIx superimposed over).
They both sounded excellent...and if they sound different (most likely) it was very hard to discern because I listened to them @ different times. 

And when I get a new Atmos pre/pro I'm sure the Atmos audio track is the way to go for an even more elevated space experience. 

______

Another BR title I intend to monitor closely, in time, is *'ex_machina'*. ...With, and without overheads. ...In time.

______

Home theater @ home, from Blu-rays...not @ IMAX or other large theater venues with their array of speakers, huge screen, hundreds of people, and the theatrical sound mix. ...But @ home from our Blu-ray's audio soundtracks...to not confuse.


----------



## NorthSky

Manni01 said:


> A few unrelated comments:
> 
> 1) I did some preliminary tests on Atmos-EX using my heights AVR, to create a CH from FHL and FHR. I didn't like the result. Much less efficient - predictably - at lifting the dialogue up than copying C to CH, and also I felt it kind of muddled the soundstage. It could be my setup, but I'm wondering if there isn't a fundamental difference between creating a Centre from L+R and using Dolby PLII to add a speaker in between two physical speakers that Atmos uses to position objects. Could adding a physical speaker in between two exisiting speakers compromise what Atmos is trying to do not only between these two speakers, but also between these speakers and the other ones? With stereo, we're in 2D but with Atmos, all the other speakers are used to position objects. Anyway, as I didn't really like the result, that kind of closes the Atmos-EX experiment for me unless I manage to get a second cheap AVR. Others with a room which makes more of FH and RH might benefit more from using these to create a TM, but for me splitting the room in a front/back array works better. Still looking forward to hearing feedback from Scott and others.
> 
> 2) There is a dealbreaker re Atmos-EX for Auro users: instead of one AVR for heights, you need three as none of the first two can handle TS/VOG. I know most people don't care about Auro, but I do so that kind put another spanner in the works, because if I could just imagine myself running three AVRs, I really can't imagine having to add a fourth one just for VOG. So I went back to my X5200 for the 9.1 ear level and the 1909 to power all my heights (CH, FH+TF, TR+RH and VOG) with analog ext. in.
> 
> *3) If anyone is looking for a film to demo both the purpose of Atmos without helicopters and rockets flying around and how DSU incredibly efficient is, I recommend trying Birdman. The movie isn't for everyone (I loved it but can imagine others might not), but the soundtrack in DSU i simply amazing. From the opening credits to the last shot, the way the omnipresent jazz percussion plays, objects - voices, clocks, drums, etc - are precisely placed all around and above - including Birdman's voice coming right from above you, even without a VOG speaker as mine isn't active with Atmos/DSU, it was just an incredible audio (and visual) feast. Kudos to the mixer of this soundtrack, it's one of the best I've heard. Ever. Much better than Chicago, which is a native Atmos track - the remastered version - but was overall less impressive sonically than Birdman (except the jail tango track which was great).*
> 
> 4) After this auditive nirvana, I've decided to quit playing around with my setup. It works very well. I'm looking forward to getting the denon f/w update allowing to switch on-the-fly between full Atmos and full Auro, and I'll upgrade to a 9.1.4 AVR in 2016 (hoping that Denon representatives are right for once), which should also give us Auro 11.1. In my room, I don't think I need more than that, at least until more native channels are offered in mainstream AVRs.


*'Birdman'*s audio soundtrack on Blu is awesome, so I can easily imagine how great it must sound with Dolby Surround (DSU). ...Right on! 
And I love the flick too.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I am trying to decide whether buying a used Oppo 103EU would be the way to go. I need a player in about 6 weeks when the HT will be ready. But the UHD players from Panasonic are also imminent, while a new 4K model Oppo will be at least another year away, I read.
> 
> OTOH, I have the Panasonic PT-AE6000 projector. No budget for a superior projector anyway...
> 
> There's a 103EU for sale now for 60% of MSRP. Bite? It will have to be made region free though, to see all those oversees Atmos releases!


Sure Erwin, go for it; the Oppo 103EU. ...And 60% off is a no-brainer. ...Vary hapy with my 103. 

4K Blu-ray players can wait for now, [email protected] least wait after the first gen, because I'm sure they're going to be some bumps and quirks and issues.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I meant 60% of the original MSRP, not 60% off... Anyway, I just bought it, for a bit less even, nobody else was bidding so I got it at starting price. Otherwise I'd gotten an el cheapo player which would likely have bothered me very soon.

Thanks for the reply, Bob.


----------



## DAK4

NorthSky said:


> *'Gravity'* on Blu-ray is an excellent title to explore: The first Blu-ray version has a DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio soundtrack.
> The remastered (audio) Diamond Luxe Edition has a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (monitored on a 7.1.4 setup) and the core audio is Dolby TrueHD 7.1
> 
> I listened to both versions from a non-Dolby Atmos pre/pro with all seven channels deployed (DTS-HD MA 5.1 + DPL IIx superimposed over).
> They both sounded excellent...and if they sound different (most likely) it was very hard to discern because I listened to them @ different times.
> 
> And when I get a new Atmos pre/pro I'm sure the Atmos audio track is the way to go for an even more elevated space experience.
> 
> ______
> 
> Another BR title I intend to monitor closely, in time, is *'ex_machina'*. ...With, and without overheads. ...In time.
> 
> ______
> 
> Home theater @ home, from Blu-rays...not @ IMAX or other large theater venues with their array of speakers, huge screen, hundreds of people, and the theatrical sound mix. ...But @ home from our Blu-ray's audio soundtracks...to not confuse.


You just made me realize that they are probably mostly DTS mixes originally which probably means they have to start from scratch to go to a Dolby mix but still curious though. I wish FilmMixer would answer, does he think he can get a Saturday off from Film Mixing and Film Mixing questions? Gee Whiz.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Short question: Does an Atmos enabled AVR allow rear heights to be the sole overhead pair? (I know it is far from advisable, but just want to know if it is technically possible)


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Short question: Does an Atmos enabled AVR allow rear heights to be the sole overhead pair? (I know it is far from advisable, but just want to know if it is technically possible)


Yes, no problem


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DAK4 said:


> You just made me realize that they are probably mostly DTS mixes originally which probably means they have to start from scratch to go to a Dolby mix but still curious though. I wish FilmMixer would answer, does he think he can get a Saturday off from Film Mixing and Film Mixing questions? Gee Whiz.


There are no Dolby mixes or DTS mixes per se, the audio stems the engineers work with are *uncompressed PCM* files and the immersive mixes are designed using either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X (MDA) rendering software (usually in the form of Pro Tools plug-ins). These audio elements are tagged with instructional metadata as they are manipulated by the engineers that let the immersive renderer know where to position these objects in the x/y/z axis, etc. when reproduced in the auditorium or at home.

DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD, as examples, are lossless compression codecs for packing the PCM masters into smaller deliverable file sizes for consumer use.


----------



## DAK4

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are no Dolby mixes or DTS mixes per se, the audio stems the engineers work with are *uncompressed PCM* files and the immersive mixes are designed using either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X (MDA) rendering software (usually in the form of Pro Tools plug-ins). These audio elements are tagged with instructional metadata as they are manipulated by the engineers that let the immersive renderer know where to position these objects in the x/y/z axis, etc. when reproduced in the auditorium or at home.
> 
> DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD, as examples, are lossless compression codecs for packing the PCM masters into smaller deliverable file sizes for consumer use.


Ok cool, thanks Dan, I guess that takes me back to my first question of what do they do when remixing to an immersive mix from a 7.1 or 5.1 mix. Or did you just answer that I didn't catch it. I'm outside right now in Phoenix Az and its about 113 deg so my brain may not be working so good.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *'Birdman'*s audio soundtrack on Blu is awesome, so I can easily imagine how great it must sound with Dolby Surround (DSU). ...Right on!
> And I love the flick too.


That was the worst movie I saw in 2014 didn't buy it sorry


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DAK4 said:


> Ok cool, thanks Dan, I guess that takes me back to my first question of what do they do when remixing to an immersive mix from a 7.1 or 5.1 mix. Or did you just answer that I didn't catch it. I'm outside right now in Phoenix Az and its about 113 deg so my brain may not be working so good.


They go back to the original archival stems and pull music, dialog, and sound effects elements out that they will then place into 3D space as part of the two overhead bed channels or as individual, manipulable objects. Other appropriate elements will remain in the typical main layer bed channels.

The consumer version of Atmos, for instance, has no overhead stereo bed channels, so it's up to the re-mixing engineer to use them as static objects or position the elements differently than the theatrical mix. DTS:X may work a bit differently, but it too only has 7.1 bed channels in the consumer version.


----------



## DAK4

Dan Hitchman said:


> They go back to the original archival stems and pull music, dialog, and sound effects elements out that they will then place into 3D space as part of the two overhead bed channels or as individual, manipulable objects. Other appropriate elements will remain in the typical main layer bed channels.
> 
> The consumer version of Atmos, for instance, has no overhead stereo bed channels, so it's up to the re-mixing engineer to use them as static objects or position the elements differently than the theatrical mix. DTS:X may work a bit differently, but it too only has 7.1 bed channels in the consumer version.


Great, Thank you again Dan.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> That was the worst movie I saw in 2014 didn't buy it sorry


Our taste in movies can vary a little sometimes.


----------



## Mre_man

Hope someone can help. Recently moved into a new house and I'm wiring a 7.1.4 atmos setup. I have plenty of room for my overheads because I'm settling up in the family room that is open to the nook and kitchen area. Problem I'm running into is the fear surrounds. I'm limited to them being 3 feet behind the MLP because of a banister that separates the nook area and the sunken family room. My question is will it be a bad idea to mount top rear speakers behind the rear surrounds or should I not worry about it because audyssey will compensate for the less than practical speaker layout. Thanks for any suggestions you guys may have!!!!


----------



## NorthSky

Mre_man said:


> Hope someone can help. Recently moved into a new house and I'm wiring a 7.1.4 atmos setup. I have plenty of room for my overheads because I'm settling up in the family room that is open to the nook and kitchen area. Problem I'm running into is the fear surrounds. I'm limited to them being 3 feet behind the MLP because of a banister that separates the nook area and the sunken family room. My question is will it be a bad idea to mount top rear speakers behind the rear surrounds or should I not worry about it because audyssey will compensate for the less than practical speaker layout. Thanks for any suggestions you guys may have!!!!


In your situation I would use the TM and TF positions for my overhead speakers. ...90° and 45° respectively. ...Very approximately.


----------



## Mre_man

If I went with that configuration will I still get the immersive sound as if I had top rears? Secondly, I thought top middle configuration was only allowed by my receiver as a stand alone option. For example if I wanted to incorporate a front or rear height into my setup. My receiver is a Marantz 7009 by the way. Thanks again for your input Northsky.


----------



## NorthSky

Mre_man said:


> If I went with that configuration will I still get the immersive sound as if I had top rears? Secondly, I thought top middle configuration was only allowed by my receiver as a stand alone option. For example if I wanted to incorporate a front or rear height into my setup. My receiver is a Marantz 7009 by the way. Thanks again for your input Northsky.


Ok, I'll let the experts chime in, for further precision.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Mre_man said:


> If I went with that configuration will I still get the immersive sound as if I had top rears? Secondly, I thought top middle configuration was only allowed by my receiver as a stand alone option. For example if I wanted to incorporate a front or rear height into my setup. My receiver is a Marantz 7009 by the way. Thanks again for your input Northsky.



Adjacent elevated speakers cannot be chosen on current AVR's, that is correct. Simply set it to Front Height + TM, as many here do, without audible difference. FH can be elevated between 30-45°.

We do not hear very precise behind us. Hence the combination of Rear Surrounds, Side Surrounds and TM will cover your back just fine.


----------



## Tnedator

I was curious, so tonight I watched a scene from Mockingjay that was mentioned in the Sound and Vision article (think that's where I read it). The scene where Katnis and the film crew are dropped off by the hovercraft.

I watched first from the Kscape and got the Atmos experience of the wind wipping around and overhead, and then I watched the same scene via Vudu with the DD+. After having just heard the Atmos version, the DD+ version was flat and almost muted. 

Listening to John Wick last night, the Dolby demos and the scene from Mockingjay and last night a few Insurgent scenes, there is no question that Atmos is a huge step up in immersiveness over non 3D sound. 

There are no Atmos theaters in this area, so these past two days have been my first experiences with it.


----------



## chi_guy50

Tnedator said:


> I was curious, so tonight I watched a scene from Mockingjay that was mentioned in the Sound and Vision article (think that's where I read it). The scene where Katnis and the film crew are dropped off by the hovercraft.
> 
> I watched first from the Kscape and got the Atmos experience of the wind wipping around and overhead, and then I watched the same scene via Vudu with the DD+. After having just heard the Atmos version, the DD+ version was flat and almost muted.
> 
> Listening to John Wick last night, the Dolby demos and the scene from Mockingjay and last night a few Insurgent scenes, there is no question that Atmos is a huge step up in immersiveness over non 3D sound.
> 
> *There are no Atmos theaters in this area*, so these past two days have been my first experiences with it.


Ah, but I must disagree with you there. One of the most majestic Atmos theatres extant, renowned for its bacchanalian delights, is just steps away from you.

Congratulations on nearing the end of your year-long build journey! Please post a link when the inevitable HTOM article is published.


----------



## kbarnes701

tbaucom said:


> Actually Keith did say that. I quoted him above.


I think there is some misunderstanding going on. Either you misunderstood what I said, or what I said wasn't very well expressed by me. But batpig has it right: I am not saying what I think you think I am saying. What I was comparing were two Blu-rays of the same movie (Lucy): one had a 7.1 regular track and the other had an Atmos track. The one with the Atmos track results in much more precise imaging throughout the entire soundstage. That's all I was saying - nothing more.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> A good mix and a good surround sound speaker system, set up properly and placed in a room with optimal acoustic treatment will net you a "precise" sounding surround experience.
> 
> I do not have Atmos. I do not have to watch an Atmos encoded title to hear things in very distinct and precise locations.
> 
> All those things I listed apply but it starts with a good mix, Atmos or not.


I agree. But when you play an Atmos disc through the same good system, the precision with which sounds are placed in the soundstage is a magnitude higher than when you use a non-Atmos disc of the same movie. *Lucy* is a very good example of this.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Just wanted to make it clear that an Atmos encode on a 7.1 system does not sound "more precise" than the same mix in "regular" 7.1 on the same 7.1 system, as some certain posters here like to imagine.


That is correct. Some members have misinterpreted what I said before, but for the avoidance of doubt, the Atmos version will only yield this greater precision of imaging when using an Atmos disc and an Atmos system.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> But we are still VERY FAR away from being able to conclude that the audio quality is "degraded" somehow by letting the 7.1 decode as 7.1, vs. having it pull out the object metadata and then render it back to that same 7.1 layout. Comparing the Atmos mix with the height speakers active vs. the base 7.1 mix (i.e. letting the player decode?) isn't apples to apples.
> 
> This is a really hard thing to test because, if it's true that you just get a channel based 7.1 mix on a 7.1 speaker layout, it's really impossible to do a real A/B test because you CAN'T hear Atmos decoding on that 7.1 layout. Perhaps the best case would be to find a scene confirmed to have ZERO overhead activity and then use that as a test scene.
> 
> But again, all due respect to Keith but we've got a single anecdotal report of a non-controlled, non-blinded test that isn't really apples-to-apples. But that has spurred a runaway train of people wringing their hands in despair over the "degraded" quality of people playing Atmos discs on 7.1 speakers setups without height speakers.
> 
> It seems totally illogical to me that the 7.1 mix could be any better or worse either way. How can it be?


I agree. I hope I have clarified what I said before. If anyone has an Atmos setup, plus the regular 7.1 Blu-ray of *Lucy*, plus the Atmos Blu-ray of Lucy, just play the two movies and compare. The Atmos track will exhibit much better precision of imaging. It is very easy to hear the difference. (This assumes of course that the system is well set up to begin with etc. One of the most spectacularly successful aspects of my room is the imaging. The treatments, measuring, and the Dirac Live calibration all come together to make the imaging perhaps the most successful part of my entire system, so I am well placed to hear differences in imagining - but really, I do believe that this movie, in its two versions, demonstrates the point really well).


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> See @kokishin's spreadsheet here (also linked to in post no. 1 of this thread) for a listing of Atmos setups submitted by fellow posters.


BTW, if koksihin is reading, my setup is now 7.2.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Your entire conclusion is based on that single anecdotal data point?


Especially as I never said what he thinks I said


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, if koksihin is reading, my setup is now 7.2.4.


koksihin is missing since long long time...


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I want to "Like" this post a thousand times. When did this myth start that "regular" 7.1 tracks sounded so awful and had such poor sound directionality? When has a 7.1 track ever lacked for precise sound directionality? Even countless 5.1 tracks have amazing precision in that regard. What do sound objects really bring to the ground level speakers that you somehow can't do in channels?


It started on the Internet 

The point is this: if you have an Atmos setup, there are various ways you will benefit. One is, obviously, in the addition of overhead sounds. The other is in the more precise imaging throughout the entire soundstage and this can be demonstrated by playing the 7.1 Blu-ray of Lucy (and presumably other movies, but this is the one I used) and then playing the Atmos Blu-ray of the same movie and listening to the difference in imaging. Nobody has said, IIRC, that regular 7.1 has awful sound and poor imaging. What I am saying is that Atmos is better in this regard. If you have that movie in its two versions, give it a try. I also have *Transcendence *in both 7.1 Blu-ray and Atmos Blu-ray. I'll give that a try too.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> In terms of mastering, there very might well be a difference...
> 
> When you take an Atmos mix and create a 7.1 channel based print master, you usually take the objects and make a 7.1 "render" of the individual stems (dialog, music and effects...).
> 
> When you do this of course the resolution of movement goes down in the surrounds, but you also need to make decisions about what to do with things that were in the front surround speakers and overheads, in addition to folding the overhead arrays somewhere.
> 
> You may or may not find that you get level build up when doing so... And make adjustments accordingly.
> 
> Add to that there might be a 7.1 near field mix and if you try and compare one regions 7.1 to an Atmos encode of the same track they might very well be very different.
> 
> *But that has every thing to do with production and workflow, and nothing to do with playing back the same Atmos encode in 7.1 vs Atmos.
> *
> (I understand that isn't what you were specifically addressing.. But want to expand the discussion for further insight.)


Is this why I hear better imaging from my Atmos Blu-ray of *Lucy* than from my 7.1 Blu-ray of the same movie? The difference is there, so there has to be an explanation. I am attributing it to the Atmos mix, but if I read you correctly, you are saying that the difference could be there, but for other reasons?

One of the things often commented on is the more precise imaging of Atmos mixes, but this has usually been attributed to a better original mix. I haven't specifically compared my 7.1 Blu-rays with the same movies on my Atmos Blu-rays, other than Lucy, and from what you say there may be no point in doing so, since I have no way of knowing if any difference (in imaging) is a result of the Atmos encode or the other factors you mention. Maybe it doesn't matter why the difference exists, so long as it does?


----------



## petetherock

I must have missed a few posts, but what's Atmos-EX?

Thanks


----------



## Mre_man

K, using a top middle configuration is a good compromise but my only concern is that the majority of my movie watching is with DSU which we all know does not render to top or rear heights, which is why I was considering mounting my top rear speakers about 4 feet behind my rear surrounds which is at ear height and approximately 3 feet behind the MLP. If I could test out both configurations I would but I can't. i just don't want to have front heights or wides setup and essentially end up being decororative speakers because I have no native atmos content and DSU is my primary listening mode.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mre_man said:


> ...using a top middle configuration is a good compromise but my only concern is that the majority of my movie watching is with DSU which we all know does not render to top or rear heights...


Could you elaborate on what you mean there? Front Height and Rear Height are official Atmos nomenclature and DSU does indeed upmix to them.

The official pairings currently permitted in AVRs are:

Front Height + Rear Height
Front Height + Top Middle
Top Front + Top Rear
Front Height + Top Rear
Top Front + Rear Height
Top Middle + Rear Height

DSU will upmix to any of the above speaker combinations.


----------



## Nalleh

Mre_man said:


> K, using a top middle configuration is a good compromise but my only concern is that the majority of my movie *watching is with DSU which we all know does not render to top or rear heights*, which is why I was considering mounting my top rear speakers about 4 feet behind my rear surrounds which is at ear height and approximately 3 feet behind the MLP. If I could test out both configurations I would but I can't.


What are you talking about?? Sure it does!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I must have missed a few posts, but what's Atmos-EX?
> 
> Thanks


It's Scott's name for the Frankenlautsprecher arrangement whereby one creates additional Atmos speakers overhead by using old AVRs with PLII upmixing capability. It enables a sort of unofficial 7.2.6 arrangement.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> When you take an Atmos mix and create a 7.1 channel based print master, you usually take the objects and make a 7.1 "render" of the individual stems (dialog, music and effects...).
> 
> When you do this of course the resolution of movement goes down in the surrounds, but you also need to make decisions about what to do with things that were in the front surround speakers and overheads, in addition to folding the overhead arrays somewhere.
> 
> You may or may not find that you get level build up when doing so... And make adjustments accordingly.


Does making a 7.1 "render" of those individual stems start with a fully automated process, or does it in involve making decisions from its very first start? 

In other words: If - in theory - you would have an Atmos mix without any activity in either overheads or wides (front surrounds as you call them), would there still be a need for making some kind of decisions by a re-recording engineer during this rendering process?



> Add to that there might be a 7.1 near field mix and if you try and compare one regions 7.1 to an Atmos encode of the same track they might very well be very different.


But such a different sounding 7.1 near field mix would never end up on the same disk as the Atmos encoded one, would it?


----------



## Mre_man

You don't know how much pain and labor you guys saved me. I was misinformed thinking that I would not get actual height information rendering to those locations. I thought that it was actual atmos rendering for top speakers being sent to the height locations when using the top middle setup. Thanks again for the input gentleman.


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> I must have missed a few posts, but what's Atmos-EX?
> 
> Thanks


That's the moniker Scott has selected for his planned 7.1.6 Frankenstein setup (aka "Scatmos.") 

While Scatmos sounds indecent, I still think Atmos-EX is too redolent of automobile model trim levels or even old Dolby surround modes--not to mention the phonological hint of 3D hanky-panky (think "Atmo-S-EX"). How about "Atmos-cott" or even "Great-Atmo-Scott"?

ETA: Damn you, Keith, you beat me to the punch, right down to the Shelley reference!


----------



## urbeenjammin

Haven't gone through every post in the thread but with some of the data that I've researched,the least expensive receiver without including external amps to do a 7.1.2 decoding for both Atmos and DTS:X via firmware update is the YAMAHA RX-A2050...Is this the consensus?


----------



## petetherock

Ah... it's a marriage of the "A"s... At-ro..

Well, IMO, 7.1 is plenty in many domestic households, even in the large homes you all enjoy... the ceiling is the only place to expand, hence these new 3D formats. I know members here who will get 20 channels if they can, but I think you are in the minority outside of this hallowed forum


----------



## batpig

petetherock said:


> Ah... it's a marriage of the "A"s... At-ro..


Actually nothing to do with Auro. It's just a way of piggybacking additional PLII processing via external receivers to beat the 11ch limit. The name is an homage to Dolby-EX (extended) processing using matrixed SB content in the surround channels to extend beyond 5.1.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Fair enough. In the mean time, here is a question to ask yourself. If you were to fully decode (bed channels and objects) an Atmos track and play it back over a traditional 7.1 speaker layout (no heights), the rendering engine would use pre-determined locations for all 7 speakers. When the backwards compatible 7.1 downmix is created by the Atmos encoder at the studio, would you guess that the same exact pre-determined locations are being used?


Definitely. 

If in creating the 7.1 down mix the exact same 'rules' are applied as by the Atmos decoder in our AVRs at home, you will on a 7.1 speaker setup expect no audible difference between playing the Atmos track using object rendering, and playing the 7.1 downmix present on the same disk.

However, the post of Filmmixer suggests that the creation of the downmix involves some additional sound engineering decisions. These may obviously deviate from the way the AVR decoder translates the object sounds into in a 7.1 speaker setup.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> The point is this: if you have an Atmos setup, there are various ways you will benefit. One is, obviously, in the addition of overhead sounds. The other is in the more precise imaging throughout the entire soundstage and this can be demonstrated by playing the 7.1 Blu-ray of Lucy (and presumably other movies, but this is the one I used) and then playing the Atmos Blu-ray of the same movie and listening to the difference in imaging. Nobody has said, IIRC, that regular 7.1 has awful sound and poor imaging. What I am saying is that Atmos is better in this regard. If you have that movie in its two versions, give it a try. I also have *Transcendence *in both 7.1 Blu-ray and Atmos Blu-ray. I'll give that a try too.


Three points to consider here:

1) These discs have completely different mixes. You're not comparing apples-to-apples.

2) What you are hearing as more precise imaging at the ground level may in fact be aided by subtler sounds (such as reverb) in the heights that don't call attention to themselves but nonetheless expand the directionality of other effects. I think you would need to factor out the height channels by disconnecting those speakers in order to know whether there's really any difference to the ground-level 7.1 or not. Without having done that, I think it's misleading to insist that the Atmos track is definitely superior even without heights.

3) Placebo Effect.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Three points to consider here:
> 
> 1) These discs have completely different mixes. You're not comparing apples-to-apples.


That is part of my point - the Atmos Blu-ray version sounds notably better than the regular 7.1 version. If the mix is different, then the difference could be anything of course and not just the 'Atmos difference'. Are you sure that my two discs feature two different original mixes of the movie? If they do, then that would explain it. I think I only have one other disc encoded both ways to try it on (*Transcendence*).



Josh Z said:


> 2) What you are hearing as more precise imaging at the ground level may in fact be aided by subtler sounds (such as reverb) in the heights that don't call attention to themselves but nonetheless expand the directionality of other effects. I think you would need to factor out the height channels by disconnecting those speakers in order to know whether there's really any difference to the ground-level 7.1 or not. Without having done that, I think it's misleading to insist that the Atmos track is definitely superior even without heights.


Maybe. But why? If it is the heights that make the difference in imaging, so what? It is the difference that is important, not the reason (to me anyway). The Atmos version definitely images better than the non-Atmos version when replayed by an Atmos system of course. When replayed by a non-Atmos system I agree there is no difference.



Josh Z said:


> 3) Placebo Effect.


Possibly. But many others have reported the same findings.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe. But why? If it is the heights that make the difference in imaging, so what? It is the difference that is important, not the reason (to me anyway). The Atmos version definitely images better than the non-Atmos version when replayed by an Atmos system of course. When replayed by a non-Atmos system I agree there is no difference.


I thought the whole point of this discussion was about whether Atmos is better than regular 7.1 even without heights - because, allegedly, sound directionality was so much more precise even from the exact same speakers. 

I don't think anybody in this thread has argued that an Atmos system with heights was not superior to regular 7.1.



> Possibly. But many others have reported the same findings.


Sure, and most of them reported this before learning that they were listening to the 7.1 TrueHD downmix without the Atmos metadata engaged at all. Pure placebo power in action.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> However, the post of Filmmixer suggests that the creation of the downmix involves some additional sound engineering decisions. These may obviously deviate from the way the AVR decoder translates the object sounds into in a 7.1 speaker setup.


Those "additional sound engineering decisions" are already reflected in the 7.1 downmix on the Blu-ray. There is no other 7.1 downmix. During decoding, this 7.1 track has the audio objects electrically cancelled from the downmix in order to recover the original bed channels. If you were to re-combine these bed channels with the audio objects, you'd be back to the 7.1 downmix you started with.


----------



## Tnedator

chi_guy50 said:


> Ah, but I must disagree with you there. One of the most majestic Atmos theatres extant, renowned for its bacchanalian delights, is just steps away from you.
> 
> Congratulations on nearing the end of your year-long build journey! Please post a link when the inevitable HTOM article is published.


Thanks.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> NOTHING that Keith has said indicates that the SAME mix, played back as 7.1 TrueHD vs. 7.1 "Atmos", would sound different.
> 
> To test this you would need to play the ATMOS MIX on a receiver WITHOUT the decoders for Dolby Atmos so it just plays back as a 7.1 TrueHD track. And then see if there is any degradation in precision.


If your inside reference is to believed,



batpig said:


> despite what the display may read, an Atmos blu-ray track will just play the 7.1 TrueHD channel based mix when played back on a 7.1 system.


this can be tested much easier: 

Listen on an Atmos system (without wides) to a scene from an Atmos track that makes little or no use of your overheads, listen again with your overheads physically disconnected (just to be sure the overheads are taken out of the equation), and listen again after changing to 7.1 in the AVR setup menu. Do you hear any difference?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I thought the whole point of this discussion was about whether Atmos is better than regular 7.1 even without heights - because, allegedly, sound directionality was so much more precise even from the exact same speakers.


Sorry then - I was commenting on the differences I had observed between a movie on Blu-ray played a) in an Atmos encode and b) in a regular 7.1 encode *using an Atmos setup* (in my case 5.2.4 at the time, now 7.2.4 but I have not tried the experiment since adding the rear surrounds, although I wouldn’t expect it to make any difference to the principle). At no time have I compared the two discs in a non-Atmos setup, with or without heights. 



Josh Z said:


> I don't think anybody in this thread has argued that an Atmos system with heights was not superior to regular 7.1.


Superior in terms of more precise image placement throughout the entire soundstage?




Josh Z said:


> Sure, and most of them reported this before learning that they were listening to the 7.1 TrueHD downmix without the Atmos metadata engaged at all. Pure placebo power in action.


I think we are at cross-purposes. I am not arguing that an Atmos mix will have better imaging on a normal 7.1 system.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Those "additional sound engineering decisions" are already reflected in the 7.1 downmix on the Blu-ray. There is no other 7.1 downmix.


Yes, that is my understanding.



> During decoding, this 7.1 track has the audio objects electrically cancelled from the downmix in order to recover the original bed channels.


To recover the "original bed channels", should this electrical cancelation of audio objects not include the additional sound engineering decisions that were made to create this 7.1 downmix?



> If you were to re-combine these bed channels with the audio objects, you'd be back to the 7.1 downmix you started with.


Yes, but following my reasoning without the additional sound engineering decisions.

What am I missing here?


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> I plan to making a document with schematics to illustrate this.
> Let's see when that happens.


Okay. Here's a quick schematic for implementing Atmos-EX (aka ScAtmos ..  )


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> To recover the "original bed channels", should this electrical cancelation of audio objects not include the additional sound engineering decisions that were made to create this 7.1 downmix?


Those decisions/changes weren't made to the downmix itself, they were made to the Atmos mix in order to insure a proper downmix. There is no other Atmos mix and 7.1 downmix on the Blu-ray; they're one and the same. If you completely unpack an Atmos mix and render it to a flat 7.1 layout it will be the same as playing back the 7.1 track. Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. Here's a quick schematic for implementing Atmos-EX (aka ScAtmos ..  )


Nice  Should be easy for everyone to see how this is done now 

If it works as intended, is anybodys guess, since no one has tried it yet 😜


----------



## FilmMixer

DAK4 said:


> Hi FilmMixer, can you help also explain what the process is when they remix a movie like Gravity from 7.1 to Atmos? Would they take the 7.1 mix and add height objects to it or would they remix it entirely from scratch or is it something in between? Thanks in advance for you insight.


Others have chimed in on some details.. but here is a general explanation...

There are a few ways to do this..

1. Take the theatrical Atmos master and export as a file that is "readable" by the authoring software and make no changes.

2. Take the original Atmos print master session and make changes as desired to that.. this is a session with the 9.1 channel bed + objects.. numbering in quantity from 1-118... you can then use that to make changes to the overall level of the bed and changes to each individual object.. hands are a little more tied than the next solution, and not one that I would start from in general.

3. Take the 9.1 stems (usually split into dialog, music, six, backgrounds and foley) + object recorder sessions and make a new Atmos master for the home from them... this is analogous to what we currently do for most home theater near field mixes.. you still have control over the "food groups" (dialog, music and effects..) but can't get into individual elements (unless that sound is an object..).. this is how I would prefer to start..

4. If the show was mixed in the box (which means it was all done inside the digital audio workstation without the use of a standalone console) you can use those sessions and get into all of the individual elements that make up the mix and adjust as needed.... you can still accomplish the same thing if you've used a "traditional" console... however, there are so many things to keep track of (outboard revers, effects processors, etc) that you need to be extremely vigilant.... we playback and review off of the stems (or in Atmos stems + object re-records), and those stems, played back at unity, represent the final approved mix... 

Those are really the three ways you can go from an Atmos theatrical to home... I believe that "Gravity" was done via method #3 ...

___________________


For films not originally mixed in Atmos, you can do variants of the above, but obviously have no objects...

In this case, you probably have 5.1 or 7.1 stems split out to start with... you also might have access to all of the original mix sessions... if you only have stems, you can then steer them around into the overheads. You can also copy sections of background ambience tracks, slide them in time and make "new" expanded ambiences.. or you can spread the music, re pan the dialog, etc.. or you can get additional "sweeteners" as objects.. Remember too that you can take a channel from the stem and make it into an object to repan...

What I did for "The Heat"" (which was a 5.1 theatrical which I then turned into theatrical Atmos) was added a very small amount of sweetener tracks for the overheads and mixed them in... then for sections I didn't want to change the content, we would go back to the original units and remix tiny sections that would match into the mix stems... 

Long winded answer... for a process that can be done in various ways.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Is this why I hear better imaging from my Atmos Blu-ray of *Lucy* than from my 7.1 Blu-ray of the same movie? The difference is there, so there has to be an explanation. I am attributing it to the Atmos mix, but if I read you correctly, you are saying that the difference could be there, but for other reasons?
> 
> One of the things often commented on is the more precise imaging of Atmos mixes, but this has usually been attributed to a better original mix. I haven't specifically compared my 7.1 Blu-rays with the same movies on my Atmos Blu-rays, other than Lucy, and from what you say there may be no point in doing so, since I have no way of knowing if any difference (in imaging) is a result of the Atmos encode or the other factors you mention. Maybe it doesn't matter why the difference exists, so long as it does?


Maybe is the short answer. 

It might also be that they did a remaster for the Atmos track in China and went to town with the objects... but it really is anecdotal, and on a title by title basis almost impossible to know when the encodes come from different regions..


----------



## FilmMixer

maikeldepotter said:


> Does making a 7.1 "render" of those individual stems start with a fully automated process, or does it in involve making decisions from its very first start?
> 
> In other words: If - in theory - you would have an Atmos mix without any activity in either overheads or wides (front surrounds as you call them), would there still be a need for making some kind of decisions by a re-recording engineer during this rendering process?


When doing a down mix, in the theatrical world, of Atmos to 7.1, 5.1 and 2.0 (LtRt) if we hear something in the render we don't like, we stop and change it.. for example, I did the theatrical print masters for the 7.1 and 5.1 for "Turtles..." There is a scene where the character of April (Megan Fox) hears the turtles overhead as she approaches a building... we had the down mix renderer set to fold the overheads into the side surrounds (which is an option..) It made no sense as she walked up to the building that the voices would be coming from the side surrounds... so I re did the pan in realtime and put them in the fronts (LCR)... that's just one example of many.. so it's real time... and then you stop and fix it when it isn't working. 

Even without overhead activity, objects have a size (which spreads the sound from a single point source outward to multiple speakers (the max spread is really wide...) those might get too present or too small as they are folded into the surrounds.. 



> But such a different sounding 7.1 near field mix would never end up on the same disk as the Atmos encoded one, would it?


The answer is 99.99999% no.

But I don't know what exactly Keith is describing... to say it is "such different sounding" suggests a larger difference than I would expect.


----------



## DAK4

FilmMixer said:


> Others have chimed in on some details.. but here is a general explanation...
> 
> There are a few ways to do this..
> 
> 1. Take the theatrical Atmos master and export as a file that is "readable" by the authoring software and make no changes.
> 
> 2. Take the original Atmos print master session and make changes as desired to that.. this is a session with the 9.1answerel bed + objects.. numbering in quantity from 1-118... you can then use that to make changes to the overall level of the bed and changes to each individual object.. hands are a little more tied than the next solution, and not one that I would start from in general.
> 
> 3. Take the 9.1 stems (usually split into dialog, music, six, backgrounds and foley) + object recorder sessions and make a new Atmos master for the home from them... this is analogous to what we currently do for most home theater near field mixes.. you still have control over the "food groups" (dialog, music and effects..) but can't get into individual elements (unless that sound is an object..).. this is how I would prefer to start..
> 
> 4. If the show was mixed in the box (which means it was all done inside the digital audio workstation without the use of a standalone console) you can use those sessions and get into all of the individual elements that make up the mix and adjust as needed.... you can still accomplish the same thing if you've used a "traditional" console... however, there are so many things to keep track of (outboard revers, effects processors, etc) that you need to be extremely vigilant.... we playback and review off of the stems (or in Atmos stems + object re-records), and those stems, played back at unity, represent the final approved mix...
> 
> Those are really the three ways you can go from an Atmos theatrical to home... I believe that "Gravity" was done via method #3 ...
> 
> ___________________
> 
> 
> For films not originally mixed in Atmos, you can do variants of the above, but obviously have no objects...
> 
> In this case, you probably have 5.1 or 7.1 stems split out to start with... you also might have access to all of the original mix sessions... if you only have stems, you can then steer them around into the overheads. You can also copy sections of background ambience tracks, slide them in time and make "new" expanded ambiences.. or you can spread the music, re pan the dialog, etc.. or you can get additional "sweeteners" as objects.. Remember too that you can take a channel from the stem and make it into an object to repan...
> 
> What I did for "The Heat"" (which was a 5.1 theatrical which I then turned into theatrical Atmos) was added a very small amount of sweetener tracks for the overheads and mixed them in... then for sections I didn't want to change the content, we would go back to the original units and remix tiny sections that would match into the mix stems...
> 
> Long winded answer... for a process that can be done in various ways.


Wow, thank you for taking the time to answer that. Not a simple answer. I'm going to have to re-read that a couple of times to take it all in.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> If it works as intended, is anybodys guess, since no one has tried it yet 😜


It does work. I have it implemented.
Still testing...


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> It does work. I have it implemented.
> Still testing...


Oh really? My bad, i didn't get the memo 

Care to share any thoughts about how it works? I believe you can switch rather easy between x.x.4 vs x.x.6 by setting height AVR's to stereo vs PLII, right?


----------



## NorthSky

> I think there is some misunderstanding going on. Either you misunderstood what I said, or what I said wasn't very well expressed by me. But batpig has it right: I am not saying what I think you think I am saying. What I was comparing were two Blu-rays of the same movie (Lucy): one had a 7.1 regular track and the other had an Atmos track. The one with the Atmos track results in much more precise imaging throughout the entire soundstage. That's all I was saying - nothing more.


One has a *5.1* audio soundtrack (DTS-HD MA 5.1) and not 7.1 ... and the other has Dolby Atmos of course, with the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio.


----------



## NorthSky

> The point is this: if you have an Atmos setup, there are various ways you will benefit. One is, obviously, in the addition of overhead sounds. The other is in the more precise imaging throughout the entire soundstage and this can be demonstrated by playing the 7.1 Blu-ray of Lucy (and presumably other movies, but this is the one I used) and then playing the Atmos Blu-ray of the same movie and listening to the difference in imaging. Nobody has said, IIRC, that regular 7.1 has awful sound and poor imaging. What I am saying is that Atmos is better in this regard. If you have that movie in its two versions, give it a try. I also have *Transcendence *in both 7.1 Blu-ray and Atmos Blu-ray. I'll give that a try too.


'Transcendence' is in *5.1* (DTS-HD MA) again. ...If you have the UK version. ...And the other in Dolby Atmos of course. 
{The one from France does have an additional audio soundtrack in DTS-HD MA 7.1, and the Atmos one from Japan says that the Dolby TrueHD core audio is 5.1}

* You keep saying that you have both 'Lucy' versions, and one is in 7.1 when it actually is in 5.1


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Oh really? My bad, i didn't get the memo
> 
> Care to share any thoughts about how it works? I believe you can switch rather easy between x.x.4 vs x.x.6 by setting height AVR's to stereo vs PLII, right?


Yup. Switching is pretty easy. I need to send some time to get the A/B between the two setting and see how it sounds. Right now I am using it in 7.1.6 format (till I find adequate time to A/B it).
I have raised the level of TMs (Center) by about 3 dB (as I thought the extracted content may be a bit lower in volume). That's the only additional tweak done so far.


----------



## FilmMixer

aaranddeeman said:


> I have raised the level of TMs (Center) by about 3 dB (as I thought the extracted content may be a bit lower in volume). That's the only additional tweak done so far.


And that's absolutely correct... in a stereo track encoded for Dolby PL (a matrix LtRt sound track, which is what the decoder is expecting) the center input is reduced 3db as it's recoded into both the L and R...

Because most objects are going to present themselves as mono channels, you should be good in most situations.. you might find it gets a little hot if there is music in the overheads (and really only if it is spread front to back, not side to side..).. but it shouldn't be too noticeable.


----------



## batpig

Marc - your last few posts have been epic. It's always a treat when a literal pro takes the time to explain some of the nitty gritty nuance of what goes into this stuff 

On Atmos-EX ... What do you think of my concern about too much collapsing to TM using PLII Cinema mode for that jerry rigged 7.1.6? how much overhead content is going to be correlated mono? Or would that be rare enough that you'd go for the more discrete Cinema mode.


----------



## Kressilac

Alright, my Atmos theater is nearing completion in my basement. Speakers are all in, Denon X7200WA is ordered and the M80-C3 Vizio will be on the wall shortly after the labor day sales are out and I can see if there's a deal. So, when I get this all setup in a few weeks, I'm looking for reference material. I'll tackle the 4K aspect of reference at some point later. I'm still researching the PC parts that I need to upgrade my Media Center for a good 4K experience while still being able to run extenders. For now, what do we use for an audio reference or are we still waiting on a movie that will wow our friends and family when they sit in this "over engineered" theater room?

I've got the HT bug and it bit me bad about ten years ago. Seems I'm always on that bleeding edge. 7.1.4 speakers when no AV supports that many speakers, Atmos, 4K over HDbaseT... Hell, when I explain that I have a video distribution problem in my house to nine TVs, I get a deer in headlights look from everyone. Anyway, if I'm going to have all this cool tech, I need something to show it off. Suggestions welcome.


----------



## NorthSky

John Wick and Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition. ...Plus Mad Max coming up September 1st, on 3D Blu Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Maybe is the short answer.
> 
> It might also be that they did a remaster for the Atmos track in China and went to town with the objects... but it really is anecdotal, and on a title by title basis almost impossible to know when the encodes come from different regions..


I thought the _Lucy_ Atmos remix was created in France (someone posted a press write up on the process pages back), perhaps at the behest of the film makers. It just happened that the Hong Kong Blu-ray distributor was able to procure that remix. 

My concern is that these home remixes are being done on basic 7.1.4 setups even though the capabilities (at least for consumer _Atmos_) are 24.1.10. Are the mixers potentially dumbing these near field sessions' depth and breadth of immersion down in terms of object positioning and spacing inadvertently by not mixing on a larger home system (with multiple speaker arrays, including the front surround array) and then double checking their work on a smaller one to make sure it renders down well?


----------



## NorthSky

*Lucy*

1. Normandy, France => Original mix in Luc Besson's own studio.
2. England, UK => Dolby Atmos upmix. 
3. Hong Kong, China => Distribution center.

♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## Spanglo

NorthSky said:


> John Wick and Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition. ...Plus Mad Max coming up September 1st, on 3D Blu Atmos.


Thumbs up for Mad Max. Very nice sounding mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. Here's a quick schematic for implementing Atmos-EX (aka ScAtmos ..  )


That makes it nice and easy to follow. Maybe you should add a note to the diagram with more info on the External AVRs - how to set the volume controls, reminder to set the units to PLII upmixing etc? It would then be a standalone guide for anyone wanting to go this route.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Nice  Should be easy for everyone to see how this is done now
> 
> If it works as intended, is anybodys guess, since no one has tried it yet 😜


No reason why it wouldn’t though is there? The Left and Right Height outputs pass through untouched and the 'middle height' pair receive a matrixed 'center' channel signal based on the difference between the L&R signals, just as it works when extracting any center channel info from stereo using PLII in the 'normal' way. I think it's a really clever idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Maybe is the short answer.
> 
> It might also be that they did a remaster for the Atmos track in China and went to town with the objects... but it really is anecdotal, and on a title by title basis almost impossible to know when the encodes come from different regions..


Thanks for the input, Marc, as ever.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> That makes it nice and easy to follow. Maybe you should add a note to the diagram with more info on the External AVRs - how to set the volume controls, reminder to set the units to PLII upmixing etc? It would then be a standalone guide for anyone wanting to go this route.


Yes. That is coming shortly.


----------



## MGBPUFF

With the Atmos-ex scheme - most AVR's include room equalization these days prior to the pre-out signals. Won''t that interfere with the correct decoding of the mid channel? I have two Carver Pro-logic DPL-20 decoders that I could use for this (one needs repair). But seriously is the pre room equalization going to be a sticky problem?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> I thought the _Lucy_ Atmos remix was created in France (someone posted a press write up on the process pages back), perhaps at the behest of the film makers. It just happened that the Hong Kong Blu-ray distributor was able to procure that remix.
> 
> My concern is that these home remixes are being done on basic 7.1.4 setups even though the capabilities (at least for consumer _Atmos_) are 24.1.10. Are the mixers potentially dumbing these near field sessions' depth and breadth of immersion down in terms of object positioning and spacing inadvertently by not mixing on a larger home system (with multiple speaker arrays, including the front surround array) and then double checking their work on a smaller one to make sure it renders down well?


Lucy was originally mixed in Atmos for the cinema.. what they did with that master for the home I don't know, but this wasn't a ground up remix for BR AFAIK... 

The only thing that would be lost is if the objects were mixed into the bed... the panning resolution will scale properly.. as time goes on, and there are actually products that can do more than 7.1.4/9.1.2 I am sure we "go there..." 

No one is using surround arrays at this point for the home (including Trinnov...) so I think 7.1.4 works at this point as a reference, and it's where a majority of people who have a setup will be for a long time.. 

Don't be concerned Dan.. everything will be ok.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Wow. Interesting weekend and lots of great posts in here. Lot's of Atmos-EX talk too. 




aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. Here's a quick schematic for implementing Atmos-EX (aka ScAtmos ..  )


The ScAtmos name sure has stuck on. 

Sc'hit. 



Nalleh said:


> Oh really? My bad, i didn't get the memo
> 
> Care to share any thoughts about how it works? I believe you can switch rather easy between x.x.4 vs x.x.6 by setting height AVR's to stereo vs PLII, right?


That's one of the great features using these receivers is that they have all the built in modes to try out but yes, the regular stereo mode acts like a "bypass" for the heights to not use the middle height speakers.



aaranddeeman said:


> Yup. Switching is pretty easy. I need to send some time to get the A/B between the two setting and see how it sounds. Right now I am using it in 7.1.6 format (till I find adequate time to A/B it).
> I have raised the level of TMs (Center) by about 3 dB (as I thought the extracted content may be a bit lower in volume). That's the only additional tweak done so far.


Not surprised. A simple tweak and you're golden. 














batpig said:


> Marc - your last few posts have been epic. It's always a treat when a literal pro takes the time to explain some of the nitty gritty nuance of what goes into this stuff
> 
> On Atmos-EX ... What do you think of my concern about too much collapsing to TM using PLII Cinema mode for that jerry rigged 7.1.6? how much overhead content is going to be correlated mono? Or would that be rare enough that you'd go for the more discrete Cinema mode.


I'm not too worried. The amount of times this will happen has got to be smaller than you would think. Honestly, if all this content is coming out of all speakers equally it's probably because it was meant to image directly over your head. And guess what? With Atmos-EX ....

Well... you get the idea. 

It's gonna sound like it's above you, not around you.




aaranddeeman said:


> Yes. That is coming shortly.


Thanks, aaranddeeman. I'm no good at those block diagrams so I thank you. Suddenly the Atmos+ configs have taken up a lot of popularity this past week. I'll consider a dedicated thread to it but I will get my system up and running first.



MGBPUFF said:


> With the Atmos-ex scheme - most AVR's include room equalization these days prior to the pre-out signals. Won''t that interfere with the correct decoding of the mid channel? I have two Carver Pro-logic DPL-20 decoders that I could use for this (one needs repair). But seriously is the pre room equalization going to be a sticky problem?


Do not use the REQ in the secondary receivers (the ones doing the heights). You can use the REQ in your main Atmos/DTS:X receiver of course but it will not optimize the center heights as it will not be aware of them at all.

If you really must EQ the center heights while doing Atmos-EX, you can use some manual EQ in the secondary receivers or some other external hardware.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

FilmMixer said:


> No one is using surround arrays at this point for the home (including Trinnov...) so I think 7.1.4 works at this point as a reference, and it's where a majority of people who have a setup will be for a long time..


I'm using bipoles for side surround, which kinda' sound like an array in my room. Does that count? 

Speaking of which, a related Atmos-tweaking question for the group: In my room, I don't have much choice for side surround placement, so they are damn near to the ceiling. Maybe 6" down from it. Sadly, there's an unfortunately placed window that necessitates this placement, so it isn't ideal, especially for the Atmos-prescribed ear-level placement. The room is big enough that it still seems to work fine as far as how the side surrounds mesh with the top mids/front heights, but... I was considering maybe putting my Polk FXi50s on some sort of articulating mount so that I could angle them down about 20 degrees. This would be a similar angle to the MLP as theatrical Atmos dictates for the side surrounds (i.e. firing toward the seating at the opposite side of the room), so I was thinking it might be preferable and maybe separate their sound from the top mids a bit more. Anyone think this is worth the effort? I ask because those suckers are about 17 pounds each, so I'm not sure what mount I could trust with them. If anyone has any suggestions on that, let me know. Or if you think this is a pointless endeavor, also let me know.

It isn't that my room sounds bad by any stretch. But there are always ways to make it a little better, right?


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Marc - your last few posts have been epic. It's always a treat when a literal pro takes the time to explain some of the nitty gritty nuance of what goes into this stuff
> 
> On Atmos-EX ... What do you think of my concern about too much collapsing to TM using PLII Cinema mode for that jerry rigged 7.1.6? how much overhead content is going to be correlated mono? Or would that be rare enough that you'd go for the more discrete Cinema mode.


The thing about most of the objects is that they are going to be mono sounds for the most part, so they should travel well... 

Arrayed ambience sounds might collapse to the middle if they were in the OH bed channels... 

Static overhead ambiences will collapse a bit... 

I would be curious if you get more spread with PLII Music and some tweaks...


----------



## Josh Z

MGBPUFF said:


> With the Atmos-ex scheme - most AVR's include room equalization these days prior to the pre-out signals. Won''t that interfere with the correct decoding of the mid channel? I have two Carver Pro-logic DPL-20 decoders that I could use for this (one needs repair). But seriously is the pre room equalization going to be a sticky problem?


Speaking for what I did in my own custom "Zatmos" system (post 27917), I turned off all EQ and other processing in my second receiver and set it for Stereo output, so that the signal from the first receiver is only sent to the Top Middle speakers. After I ran Audyssey in the first receiver, I turned ProLogic II on again in the second receiver and adjusted channel levels manually with a sound level meter.

That's not going to give ideal EQ settings for the height channels. There's nothing I can do about that currently. Fortunately, I think the type of content that gets sent to those channels is fairly forgiving of imperfect EQ.


----------



## MGBPUFF

Scott Simonian said:


> Do not use the REQ in the secondary receivers (the ones doing the heights). You can use the REQ in your main Atmos/DTS:X receiver of course but it will not optimize the center heights as it will not be aware of them at all.
> 
> If you really must EQ the center heights while doing Atmos-EX, you can use some manual EQ in the secondary receivers or some other external hardware.



I would not be using the two receiver approach. I would be using my AV7702 pre pro. in which my front height and rear height speakers are REQ'd along with all the other channels. That is why I asked. Yes, I can forego REQ altogether or I can use separate REQ equipment, but the complexity would be snowballing beyond my desire to pursue.


----------



## Josh Z

FilmMixer said:


> The thing about most of the objects is that they are going to be mono sounds for the most part, so they should travel well...
> 
> Arrayed ambience sounds might collapse to the middle if they were in the OH bed channels...
> 
> Static overhead ambiences will collapse a bit...
> 
> I would be curious if you get more spread with PLII Music and some tweaks...


As someone who's actually trying this now with a PLII receiver, I'm less concerned about directional sound effects or ambience than I am about music in the heights. Some native Atmos mixes spread music to the height channels, and DSU tends to pull a lot of music overhead. I think if the extra PLII processing is going to do anything harmful or be distracting, it would be noticeable there first. Especially when upmixing from 5.1 or 7.1. The idea of processing the signal twice is worrisome to me.

Nonetheless, I'm trying it. I don't have enough hours logged to draw any conclusions yet - and most of what I've been watching lately is broadcast TV, which tends to sound muddy regardless.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> 1. Normandy, France => Original mix in Luc Besson's own studio.
> 2. England, UK => Dolby Atmos upmix.
> 3. Hong Kong, China => Distribution.


I finally broke down and ordered the Atmos mix of Lucy. After all the great comments about the sound quality of Lucy I had to order it even if it's usually more than I pay for blu-rays. I just watched it the other day and it is really a good movie, will be so much more with the Atmos mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> If you really must EQ the center heights while doing Atmos-EX, you can use some manual EQ in the secondary receivers or some other external hardware.





Josh Z said:


> Fortunately, I think the type of content that gets sent to those channels is fairly forgiving of imperfect EQ.


Talking of EQing Atmos speakers... since I moved to 7.2.4, none of my Atmos speakers is now EQd (my Dirac-miniDSP DDRC-88A being restricted to 8 channels). I can’t say I seem to notice anything amiss. I have allowed in my redesigned rack for an additional 88A but I am beginning to wonder how worthwhile an addition it would be for approximately $1,000. Part of me says that all speakers are important so they should all be EQd and another part of me says "how much better will it sound?". Anyone got any thoughts?


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of EQing Atmos speakers... since I moved to 7.2.4, none of my Atmos speakers is now EQd (my Dirac-miniDSP DDRC-88A being restricted to 8 channels). I can’t say I seem to notice anything amiss. I have allowed in my redesigned rack for an additional 88A but I am beginning to wonder how worthwhile an addition it would be for approximately $1,000. Part of me says that all speakers are important so they should all be EQd and another part of me says "how much better will it sound?". Anyone got any thoughts?



Do you have any *REW* plots of your overheads (heck, even your mains for that matter! )


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of EQing Atmos speakers... since I moved to 7.2.4, none of my Atmos speakers is now EQd (my Dirac-miniDSP DDRC-88A being restricted to 8 channels). I can’t say I seem to notice anything amiss. I have allowed in my redesigned rack for an additional 88A but I am beginning to wonder how worthwhile an addition it would be for approximately $1,000. Part of me says that all speakers are important so they should all be EQd and another part of me says "how much better will it sound?". Anyone got any thoughts?


Yes. I have thoughts.

Enjoy it until it starts to bother you and if you have $1,000 burning a hole in your pocket. Until then... just enjoy DIRAC on the eight main and most important channels.

As much as I don't really care for the REQ's I think the DIRAC box from MiniDSP is cool. Having two of them would be perfect for me as I will have 7.x.6 to DIRAC which leaves me with three outputs left over. Would it make sense that I have exactly three zones of LFE to consider?  

Perfect..... except for the $2,000 for EQ part ..... but perfect, nonetheless. 

Ewww. That DIRAC all around will cost more than the main Atmos receiver.


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I finally broke down and ordered the Atmos mix of Lucy. After all the great comments about the sound quality of Lucy I had to order it even if it's usually more than I pay for blu-rays. I just watched it the other day and it is really a good movie, will be so much more with the Atmos mix.


I love all _Luc Besson's_ flicks, ...*'Lucy'* included. ...And in all his flicks the music plays an important element...with that French humorous/sophisticated/unique touch that is particular to Luc Besson. ...He's kind of the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino type, but in France, and unique stylistically. 

That's what love of cinema impregnates us with. 

* Let us know on your own take with the Dolby Atmos audio. ...Which was up-mixed in England for this Blu-ray version and is distributed from Hong Kong.


----------



## jrcrunch

anyone have the TX-NR838?

i am just building my home theater and it has 2 rows. will 5.1.2 be enough? thank you!


here is the link of my family's home theater

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-construction/1593274-first-home-theater.html


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Do you have any *REW* plots of your overheads (heck, even your mains for that matter! )


Plenty of the mains - none of the overheads. Not even sure how it can be done with the HDMI/USB version of REW that I use. The speakers are pre-designated as L,C,R, SL, SR, RSL, RSR, Sub. I'd have to swap the leads on the amps to trick REW into thinking that my overheads were some other speakers I think, which is waaaaaay to much hassle for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

jrcrunch said:


> anyone have the TX-NR838?
> 
> i am just building my home theater and it has 2 rows. will 5.1.2 be enough? thank you!
> 
> 
> here is the link of my family's home theater
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-construction/1593274-first-home-theater.html


Not IMO. You could get away with two overheads for a single row, although it's less than ideal. But not for two rows. You need to look at 5.1.4 IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. I have thoughts.
> 
> Enjoy it until it starts to bother you and if you have $1,000 burning a hole in your pocket. Until then... just enjoy DIRAC on the eight main and most important channels.
> 
> As much as I don't really care for the REQ's I think the DIRAC box from MiniDSP is cool. Having two of them would be perfect for me as I will have 7.x.6 to DIRAC which leaves me with three outputs left over. Would it make sense that I have exactly three zones of LFE to consider?
> 
> Perfect..... except for the $2,000 for EQ part ..... but perfect, nonetheless.
> 
> Ewww. That DIRAC all around will cost more than the main Atmos receiver.


Thanks Scott. I think your first paragraph gels with my own thoughts  Dirac all round will cost more than the AVR, but the miniDSP 88As will last indefinitely and see you through numerous AVR upgrades, so overall it is a better value for money proposition. 

AIUI you can’t EQ three subs independently with the 88A (and nor would you want to). If you need to set individual levels and delays for 3 subs you'd need a mini-DSP 4x4 so you could feed a single sub output from the AVR into it, then set levels and delays, then send the signal to then 88A for EQing the all the subs as one.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ah.. Didn't think about the longtime value but you're right. 

I guess in my case I'd just DIRAC my "main" sub zone that covers everything but the subwoofer riser. Thinking about it now this would probably be ideal. There are still Behringer DCX's inline anyway. Leaves those extra channels for some extra speakers. Maybe wides, idk. 

Whew! So much processing and AD-DA conversions.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Scott. I think your first paragraph gels with my own thoughts  Dirac all round will cost more than the AVR, but the miniDSP 88As will last indefinitely and see you through numerous AVR upgrades, so overall it is a better value for money proposition.
> 
> AIUI you can’t EQ three subs independently with the 88A (and nor would you want to). If you need to set individual levels and delays for 3 subs you'd need a mini-DSP 4x4 so you could feed a single sub output from the AVR into it, then set levels and delays, then send the signal to then 88A for EQing the all the subs as one.


wouldnt the 4x4 need to go between the 88a and the subs? otherwise the calibration tones wont have the time alignment correct

this is how i have the 2x4 in my setup

avr->88a->2x4->3 subs


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah.. Didn't think about the longtime value but you're right.
> 
> I guess in my case I'd just DIRAC my "main" sub zone that covers everything but the subwoofer riser. Thinking about it now this would probably be ideal. There are still Behringer DCX's inline anyway. Leaves those extra channels for some extra speakers. Maybe wides, idk.
> 
> Whew! So much processing and AD-DA conversions.


 ADA conversions, pah!


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> wouldnt the 4x4 need to go between the 88a and the subs? otherwise the calibration tones wont have the time alignment correct
> 
> this is how i have the 2x4 in my setup
> 
> avr->88a->2x4->3 subs


Sorry - yes I am sure you are right. It's not something I need here so I was careless with my wording/thinking. Jerry's Guide (available in his sig on any thread he contributes to) has the full SP on hooking up and using the 2x4.


----------



## scarabaeus

Scott Simonian said:


> Whew! So much processing and AD-DA conversions.


Time to use I2S as an external interface.  But seriously, as a consumer technology, HDMI could be used to transport plain PCM digital audio, with up to 32 channels. Wonder when that will become an option for Pre/Pros, DSPs and Amps.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Plenty of the mains - none of the overheads. Not even sure how it can be done with the HDMI/USB version of REW that I use. The speakers are pre-designated as L,C,R, SL, SR, RSL, RSR, Sub. I'd have to swap the leads on the amps to trick REW into thinking that my overheads were some other speakers I think, which is waaaaaay to much hassle for me.


 
Hmmm...pretty sure I haven't seen any posts from you with DL showing FR's, WF's or ETC's (in REW of course)!  I thought you had gotten ASIO4ALL to work in your setup?


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Hmmm...pretty sure I haven't seen any posts from you with DL showing FR's, WF's or ETC's (in REW of course)!  I thought you had gotten ASIO4ALL to work in your setup?


Yes ASIO4ALL is working here. Lately I have been using OmniMic for my measurements as it is so much quicker to set up and use.


----------



## batpig

jrcrunch said:


> anyone have the TX-NR838?
> 
> i am just building my home theater and it has 2 rows. will 5.1.2 be enough? thank you!
> 
> 
> here is the link of my family's home theater
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-construction/1593274-first-home-theater.html


I will agree with Keith. More speakers mo better. 

I used to run 5.1.2 in my old place due to various constraints but I'm up to 7.1.2 in the new house (top middle above the couch) and will go to 7.1.4 shortly once I add a second cheap receiver to power the last two channels. I only have one row (the couch) but the extra lateral coverage just going from 5 to 7 on the base layer has been a revelation. And I can hear the "hole" above and in front of me where there aren't any speakers covering that "top front" zone. 

Two rows will be an even greater challenge to get adequate coverage with only a pair of surround speakers. Since you are building a dedicated theater you owe it to not skimp on the speaker coverage.


----------



## batpig

Also make sure to wire for 7.1.4 (at least) even if you aren't going to go there right away. Much easier to do it now during construction than have to rip up walls later. And speaker wire is cheap.


----------



## awblackmon

batpig said:


> Also make sure to wire for 7.1.4 (at least) even if you aren't going to go there right away. Much easier to do it now during construction than have to rip up walls later. And speaker wire is cheap.


Yes. Strongly agree. I had to put in wire later and it worked out ok, but in my situation I got lucky. Others may not be so.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Agreed. Speaker wire is so cheap. Might as well prepare.

I'd even say prepare for 9.1.6 but not everybody wants to do that. 7.1.4 is going to be the max for a long while.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lujan said:


> I finally broke down and ordered the Atmos mix of Lucy. After all the great comments about the sound quality of Lucy I had to order it even if it's usually more than I pay for blu-rays. I just watched it the other day and it is really a good movie, will be so much more with the Atmos mix.


I'm guessing you need a region free player to play Lucy Atmos right?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> Talking of EQing Atmos speakers... since I moved to 7.2.4, none of my Atmos speakers is now EQd (my Dirac-miniDSP DDRC-88A being restricted to 8 channels). I can’t say I seem to notice anything amiss. I have allowed in my redesigned rack for an additional 88A but I am beginning to wonder how worthwhile an addition it would be for approximately $1,000. Part of me says that all speakers are important so they should all be EQd and another part of me says "how much better will it sound?". Anyone got any thoughts?


You have stated your room is well treated. Meaning DRC is more a cherry on the cake than necessity. 

Maybe you could measure the Top speakers with REW or setup your 88A to measure and assess before you spend?


----------



## batpig

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You have stated your room is well treated. Meaning DRC is more a cherry on the cake than necessity.
> 
> Maybe you could measure the Top speakers with REW or setup your 88A to measure and assess before you spend?


I think it also helps that those Tannoys are already very accurate, linear speakers... combined that with a well treated room and a bit of boundary reinforcement from ceiling mounting and they probably naturally have a decent looking response. And considering how poor our hearing sensitivity is to stuff above us, I doubt some minor freq response aberrations will be THAT audible.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm guessing you need a region free player to play Lucy Atmos right?


It's a region A (locked) BR disc.


----------



## Contuzzi

Mad Max is pretty stunning in Atmos. Haven't watched the whole thing, but I should be able to in the next few days. Very impressive so far -- really seems to utilize the height for "gimmicks" and atmosphere. Might end up being a great show off disc.

Don't ask.


----------



## NorthSky

Where did you get the Blu-ray .... the release date is ....  

Moma/popa local video store friendly advance copy. ...Ya, we know that tune ♫


----------



## aaranddeeman

Josh Z said:


> Speaking for what I did in my own custom "Zatmos" system (post 27917), I turned off all EQ and other processing in my second receiver and set it for Stereo output, so that the signal from the first receiver is only sent to the Top Middle speakers. After I ran Audyssey in the first receiver, I turned ProLogic II on again in the second receiver and adjusted channel levels manually with a sound level meter.
> 
> That's not going to give ideal EQ settings for the height channels. There's nothing I can do about that currently. Fortunately, I think the type of content that gets sent to those channels is fairly forgiving of imperfect EQ.


Just so that Scott feels good.. In my native language (slang) the "Zat" stands for "hair down there"..


----------



## NorthSky

...Public hair.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> ...Public hair.


Come on, I wanted to avoid that word...


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm guessing you need a region free player to play Lucy Atmos right?


I bought the Lucy Atmos Blu-Ray from Hong Kong, it's region A same as here in north America no need for region free player here in the U.S. or Canada


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> I bought the Lucy Atmos Blu-Ray from Hong Kong, it's region A same as here in north America no need for region free player here in the U.S. or Canada


Yep...and the UK people do need a region-free BR player for that one.


----------



## bargervais

Contuzzi said:


> Mad Max is pretty stunning in Atmos. Haven't watched the whole thing, but I should be able to in the next few days. Very impressive so far -- really seems to utilize the height for "gimmicks" and atmosphere. Might end up being a great show off disc.
> 
> Don't ask.


I have mine on preorder ill get it on release date can't wait. Can you believe it almost September  end of another summer. Where does the time go.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

For what it's worth (since IMHO it was another _very_ disappointing outing for da Tu-minator and pretty much a failure at the boxoffice), *Terminator: Genisys* will have an Atmos soundtrack.

I'd rather the first two classics receive really, really spectacular Atmos overhauls. Grumble, grumble.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Yep...and the UK people do need a region-free BR player for that one.


What would solve everything is to make all Atmos Blu-Rays or in other words all Blu-Rays make them region free.


----------



## lujan

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm guessing you need a region free player to play Lucy Atmos right?


No, it's says it's region A.


----------



## blastermaster

> Talking of EQing Atmos speakers... since I moved to 7.2.4, none of my Atmos speakers is now EQd (my Dirac-miniDSP DDRC-88A being restricted to 8 channels). I can’t say I seem to notice anything amiss. I have allowed in my redesigned rack for an additional 88A but I am beginning to wonder how worthwhile an addition it would be for approximately $1,000. Part of me says that all speakers are important so they should all be EQd and another part of me says "how much better will it sound?". Anyone got any thoughts?


Looking at where the MiniDSP fits in the chain, could you not run Audyssey on your processor, then have MiniDSP correct over top of that to make your ceiling speakers corrected with Audyssey, and your base layer corrected with Audyssey + MiniDSP?


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> For what it's worth (since IMHO it was another _very_ disappointing outing for da Tu-minator and pretty much a failure at the boxoffice), *Terminator: Genisys* will have an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I'd rather the first two classics receive really, really spectacular Atmos overhauls. Grumble, grumble.


Yes the first two classics would be nice with an Atmos mix but you have to say things are starting to heat up on the Atmos side now we need some Atmos streaming hopefully Vudu will have something very soon.


----------



## Jacob305

Contuzzi said:


> Mad Max is pretty stunning in Atmos. Haven't watched the whole thing, but I should be able to in the next few days. Very impressive so far -- really seems to utilize the height for "gimmicks" and atmosphere. Might end up being a great show off disc.
> 
> Don't ask.


I preordered the mad max from best buy. I watched the dolby digital + version on vudu. it sounded very nice even in that.. I can image that the atmos will be really good.

Jacob


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lujan said:


> No, it's says it's region A.


Sorry I know it's been posted here before but where can you order the Atmos version from? I may as well check it out


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> For what it's worth (since IMHO it was another _very_ disappointing outing for da Tu-minator and pretty much a failure at the boxoffice), *Terminator: Genisys* will have an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I'd rather the first two classics receive really, really spectacular Atmos overhauls. Grumble, grumble.





bargervais said:


> Yes the first two classics would be nice with an Atmos mix but you have to say things are starting to heat up on the Atmos side now we need some Atmos streaming hopefully Vudu will have something very soon.


The only problem with Atmos overhauls of the first 2 terminators is that they both have midi-orchestra sound tracks... I actually watched those films recently through DSU. While the sounds themselves are amazing... the soundtrack is painfully dated. Cameron, while spending huge budgets on everything else for whatever reason passed on having a real orchestra perform the music. I forget if Avatar is midi music or not, but Titanic seemed to be the same sort of deal, except for the Celine Dion song & the Irish band/ theme using Irish instruments. Even the choir was fake midi... and that's like the worst of the worst as far as midi samples go!


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry I know it's been posted here before but where can you order the Atmos version from? I may as well check it out



Here you go
http://www.yesasia.com/us/lucy-2014...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> The only problem with Atmos overhauls of the first 2 terminators is that they both have midi-orchestra sound tracks... I actually watched those films recently through DSU. While the sounds themselves are amazing... the soundtrack is painfully dated. Cameron, while spending huge budgets on everything else for whatever reason passed on having a real orchestra perform the music. I forget if Avatar is midi music or not, but Titanic seemed to be the same sort of deal, except for the Celine Dion song & the Irish band/ theme using Irish instruments. Even the choir was fake midi... and that's like the worst of the worst as far as midi samples go!


To be fair, the electronica scores for the Terminator films were chosen due to the fact that you have... well... killer robots from the future as a major theme. And synth-based music was "in" at the time.


----------



## LowellG

aaranddeeman said:


> Come on, I wanted to avoid that word...



Hello, not quoting you on this subject, but I like your calculator. Very similar numbers to what I came up with form an online trig angle calculator. However, I have a question for your or others. What do you do for speaker placement when you have 2 rows instead of one?


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Come on, I wanted to avoid that word...


It's ok; it's the year 2015.


----------



## aaranddeeman

LowellG said:


> Hello, not quoting you on this subject, but I like your calculator. Very similar numbers to what I came up with form an online trig angle calculator. However, I have a question for your or others. What do you do for speaker placement when you have 2 rows instead of one?


MLP is still MLP. The no. of rows won't matter. IMHO..


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> For what it's worth (since IMHO it was another _very_ disappointing outing for da Tu-minator and pretty much a failure at the boxoffice),
> *Terminator: Genisys* will have an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I'd rather the first two classics receive really, really spectacular Atmos overhauls. Grumble, grumble.


I've heard bad things about that one...I don't think I want to see it...but I will because I'm just too curious. 
Besides, it's when you see bad flicks that you appreciate more the good ones...like *ex_machina* and *Her* ... and *Birdman*.


----------



## ultraflexed

Question !!! if I wanted to run a semi atmos ex and do a 5.1.6 how would hook this up with 2 receivers?


----------



## batpig

ultraflexed said:


> Question !!! if I wanted to run a semi atmos ex and do a 5.1.6 how would hook this up with 2 receivers?


If you just read back a few pages you'll find plenty of discussion and even a schematic diagram. You actually need three total receivers to pull it off. (at least the "traditional" ScAtmos config). 

That said ... if you are going to deploy 11 channels why not 7.1.4? The back surrounds are more important than an extra pair of overheads. With only 5 base layer speakers you aren't even getting the minimum horizontal coverage of the 7.1 channel bed in Atmos tracks. I would only recommend people start monkeying with that EX stuff once you have achieved a solid "core" 7.1.4 layout and want to go beyond.


----------



## asarose247

^
WRT beyond the core

Do we have any info about just how close is TOO close as regards separation for say, TM's at 90 and possibly only


----------



## Jacob305

NorthSky said:


> I've heard bad things about that one...I don't think I want to see it...but I will because I'm just too curious.
> Besides, it's when you see bad flicks that you appreciate more the good ones...like *ex_machina* and *Her* ... and *Birdman*.



I was a bit nervious about the new t5.. I will say that it was much better then 3 and 4. I know for some that is not saying much.. the secret of terminator 5 is that its more respectful to the first two films.. that sold me.. is this perfect movie.. of course not.. its the best arnold movie in ages. his performance was much better in this then t3. while it does have humor, its not bad like t3.. none of the talk to the hand crap. 

Jacob


----------



## NorthSky

Jacob305 said:


> I was a bit nervious about the new t5.. I will say that it was much better then 3 and 4. I know for some that is not saying much.. the secret of terminator 5 is that its more respectful to the first two films.. that sold me.. is this perfect movie.. of course not.. its the best arnold movie in ages. his performance was much better in this then t3. while it does have humor, its not bad like t3.. none of the talk to the hand crap.
> 
> Jacob


But in T3 the female exterminator she's super hot! ...And I like 'Salvation'...with Batman (Bale).

________


----------



## JKR1963

Jacob305 said:


> I was a bit nervious about the new t5.. I will say that it was much better then 3 and 4. I know for some that is not saying much.. the secret of terminator 5 is that its more respectful to the first two films.. that sold me.. is this perfect movie.. of course not.. its the best arnold movie in ages. his performance was much better in this then t3. while it does have humor, its not bad like t3.. none of the talk to the hand crap.
> 
> Jacob



I thought it was surprisingly excellent........very complicated......and hilarious, but it did make sense......I think..........I want to watch it in Atmos on my system......to make sure!


----------



## jrcrunch

kbarnes701 said:


> Not IMO. You could get away with two overheads for a single row, although it's less than ideal. But not for two rows. You need to look at 5.1.4 IMO.


wow need to sell my unused tx-nr838 if that is the case


----------



## peterfram

jrcrunch said:


> anyone have the TX-NR838?
> 
> i am just building my home theater and it has 2 rows. will 5.1.2 be enough? thank you!
> 
> 
> here is the link of my family's home theater
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-construction/1593274-first-home-theater.html


I've been testing multiple speaker layouts for a week while we plan a remodel. IMHO, 7.1.4 with rears is a must with Atmos. In a less than perfect room, with the side surrounds way too high at least, adding the rears made more difference than anything else. 7.1.4 with wides sounded wonderful, but I was missing a significant zone for rendering objects. 

I had rears in my dedicated theater room in the old house until 2012. At that time I didn't think mixes of the day really did much with rears. Based on my tests this past weekend, these days with Atmos and many 7.1 titles and improved 5.1 to 7.1 up-mixing (AVR-7200WA), rears are quite significant and now required for the 3D sound experience IMO. 

You might be surprised how well things can sound from at least one seat when you get a little creative. My wife says I can keep these as is until the remodel.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Marc,



FilmMixer said:


> Lucy was originally (re)mixed in Atmos for the cinema.. what they did with that master for the home I don't know, but this wasn't a ground up remix for BR AFAIK...
> 
> ...


The excellent (HT) BRD Atmos version of Lucy was mixed by Didier L. in Nov '14 in the Creative Sound Studios, Paris. 

A superb and very interesting facility, I had the privilege to visit later on in Dec '14, when I assisted to the 24fps -> 25fps transfer of both the EN & FR Atmos verssions of Lucy. 

An experience (with a small video embedded, that shouldn't be missed) that can be found here (in French) :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/

and unfortunately, at the very last moment, Didier L. had to cancel his presence.

Anyway, my own personal opinion is that Lucy will certainly be rapidly available in BRD UHD, as this is definitively a showcase Atmos (objects) mix... and hopefully Lucy's video UHD compression will match its audio Atmos mix...  

Hugo


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed. Speaker wire is so cheap. Might as well prepare.
> 
> I'd even say prepare for 9.1.6 but not everybody wants to do that. 7.1.4 is going to be the max for a long while.


I agree but even so, if I was starting from scratch I’d wire for 6 overheads, wides and anything else that looks like it might come into play one day. As we all agree - wire is cheap. Installing it after a room is built is either a PITA, expensive or, most likely, both.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You have stated your room is well treated. Meaning DRC is more a cherry on the cake than necessity.


That is certainly a factor I think.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Maybe you could measure the Top speakers with REW or setup your 88A to measure and assess before you spend?


I'm not sure I know how to measure the overheads with the HDMI/USB version of REW that I use. It 'expects' a regular 7.1 configuration and I think the only way to measure the overheads is to rewire the overhead speakers as surrounds, temporarily, to 'trick' REW into measuring them. It's currently too much hassle for me to do that. Last night I turned off all the amps except for those powering the overheads and listened to *Dredd* (a movie where DSU puts a lot of sound, relatively, into the overheads) and really, the content that was coming from those speakers didn't seem to me that it would benefit too much from being EQ'd. It's light ambient sounds and some part of the music track for the most part. My overheads are crossed at 100Hz so any heavy lifting is passed to the sub and that is EQd anyway of course. I am starting to come to the conclusion that EQing them is probably the last thing I need to spend $1,000 on.

I am also interested in how I would orient the mic if I did try to measure or EQ them. My mic uses a 90° calibration file, which means it has to point to the ceiling when measuring the listener level speakers. So where do you point it when measuring the overheads? If it points to the ceiling, then it is pointing right at the speakers. Just as we don't point the mic right at the speakers when calibrating the listener level speakers, we shouldn't do so when measuring the overheads, right? The answer to this may be "it won’t make much difference" but it seems reasonable to obsess over this just as much as obsessing over whether overhead speakers even need EQ in the first place


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I think it also helps that those Tannoys are already very accurate, linear speakers... combined that with a well treated room and a bit of boundary reinforcement from ceiling mounting and they probably naturally have a decent looking response. And considering how poor our hearing sensitivity is to stuff above us, I doubt some minor freq response aberrations will be THAT audible.


I am coming to the same conclusion


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> Looking at where the MiniDSP fits in the chain, could you not run Audyssey on your processor, then have MiniDSP correct over top of that to make your ceiling speakers corrected with Audyssey, and your base layer corrected with Audyssey + MiniDSP?


No, because you can't selectively turn Audyssey on for some speakers and off for others. This means, as you have guessed, that I would be running Audyssey's EQ to their target curve and then Dirac to its target curve. The idea of using two EQs at the same time doesn’t seem good to me. I think the problems that would cause would be greater than any problems which might be caused by having the overheads running with no EQ at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> To be fair, the electronica scores for the Terminator films were chosen due to the fact that you have... well... *killer robots from the future* as a major theme. And synth-based music was "in" at the time.


Dan - you just summarised in 5 words the quintessential characteristic of what, for me, is just certain to make a freakin' great movie   _"Does it have killer robots from the future in it? Yes? Then bring it on!" _ LOL.


----------



## Lesmor

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Marc,
> 
> 
> 
> The excellent (HT) BRD Atmos version of Lucy was mixed by Didier L. in Nov '14 in the Creative Sound Studios, Paris.
> 
> A superb and very interesting facility, I had the privilege to visit later on in Dec '14, when I assisted to the 24fps -> 25fps transfer of both the EN & FR Atmos verssions of Lucy.
> 
> An experience (with a small video embedded, that shouldn't be missed) that can be found here (in French) :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/
> 
> and unfortunately, at the very last moment, Didier L. had to cancel his presence.
> 
> Anyway, my own personal opinion is that Lucy will certainly be rapidly available in BRD UHD, as this is definitively a showcase Atmos (objects) mix... and hopefully Lucy's video UHD compression will match its audio Atmos mix...
> 
> Hugo


Thanks for the link Hugo, and to Google translate,a every interesting article which seems to confirm my thoughts that Atmos 9.2.6 would be the ideal for domestic Atmos/DTSX

Those who have a larger Home theater should really be looking at Datasat/Trinnov


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> I am also interested in how I would orient the mic if I did try to measure or EQ them. My mic uses a 90° calibration file, which means it has to point to the ceiling when measuring the listener level speakers. So where do you point it when measuring the overheads? If it points to the ceiling, then it is pointing right at the speakers. Just as we don't point the mic right at the speakers when calibrating the listener level speakers, we shouldn't do so when measuring the overheads, right? The answer to this may be "it won’t make much difference" but it seems reasonable to obsess over this just as much as obsessing over whether overhead speakers even need EQ in the first place


The 90 deg calibration file only makes a difference above 10000hz (up to about 5dB max). Try it, you'll see, you should get exactly the same graph with the 90 deg file and with the 0 deg file up to around 10000Hz). There can be a slight difference between 5000Hz and 10000Hz, but it's like less than 1dB, so not really significant. See attached file for a typical example showing the differences measuring the same speaker from the same mic position with the two files.

Therefore, given our advanced age, I can safely say that it's unlikely to make any difference . Last time I tried, I couldn't hear anything above 12,500hz and I'm not even 50.

You could nevertheless use the microphone with the 0 deg calibration file. This is what you should use when you measure the speakers pointing at them (i.e. when you want to make abstraction of the room as much as possible). So leaving the mic pointing upwards in the same position as when measuring the ear level speakers but switching the calibration file to the 0 deg one for the height speakers should give you a mostly accurate 0 degree calibration (as the mic will be pointing mostly towards the speakers, assuming we're talking TF/TR as in your setup).


Let us know how it goes!


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> The 90 deg calibration file only makes a difference above 10000hz (up to about 5dB max). Try it, you'll see, you should get exactly the same graph with the 90 deg file and with the 0 deg file up to around 10000Hz). There can be a slight difference between 5000Hz and 10000Hz, but it's like less than 1dB, so not really significant. See attached file for a typical example showing the differences measuring the same speaker from the same mic position with the two files.
> 
> Therefore, given our advanced age, I can safely say that it's unlikely to make any difference . Last time I tried, I couldn't hear anything above 12,500hz and I'm not even 50.
> 
> You could nevertheless use the microphone with the 0 deg calibration file. This is what you should use when you measure the speakers pointing at them (i.e. when you want to make abstraction of the room as much as possible). So leaving the mic pointing upwards in the same position as when measuring the ear level speakers but switching the calibration file to the 0 deg one for the height speakers should give you a mostly accurate 0 degree calibration (as the mic will be pointing mostly towards the speakers, assuming we're talking TF/TR as in your setup).
> 
> 
> Let us know how it goes!


Excellent! Great reply - thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

I've written a blog post that explains my "Zatmos" configuration in more detail:

No Such Thing As Too Many Speakers – Customizing a Dolby Atmos System


----------



## Manni01

Josh Z said:


> I've written a blog post that explains my "Zatmos" configuration in more detail:
> 
> No Such Thing As Too Many Speakers – Customizing a Dolby Atmos System


 
Wow. I'm speechless. "one solution of your own devising"?


You could have credited the forum and especially Scott Simonian for giving you 99% of that idea. Mentioning that idea in the end of the blog post as if it was something completely different isn't impressive.


Once Scott had the great idea of using 2 stereo AVRs to simulate TM from FH and RH, you having the idea of using just one to simulate a VOG from TM - or like I thought of using one to simulate CH from FHL and FHR - was at most half an idea.


At least people like Aarandeman using Scott's idea are crediting him.


Zatmos? All yours? Really? Well, you can be proud of your "invention".


If this is what journalists do these days, stealing ideas from others in a forum and presenting them as their own, it's quite sad .


----------



## Josh Z

Manni01 said:


> Wow. I'm speechless. "one solution of your own devising"?
> 
> You could have credited the forum and especially Scott Simonian for giving you 99% of that idea. Mentioning that idea in the end of the blog post as if it was something completely different isn't impressive.
> 
> Once Scott had the great idea of using 2 stereo AVRs to simulate TM from FH and RH, you having the idea of using just one to simulate a VOG from TM - or like I thought of using one to simulate CH from FHL and FHR - was at most half an idea.
> 
> At least people like Aarandeman using Scott's idea are crediting him.
> 
> Zatmos? All yours? Really? Well, you can be proud of your "invention".
> 
> If this is what journalists do these days, stealing ideas from others in a forum and presenting them as their own, it's quite sad .


Overreact much? 

I am not doing the same thing Scott is doing. Our systems are very different. I have not "stolen" anything. I was the first person to devise this configuration. And I did link to Scott's post at the end with a description of his plans as well. 

If Scott has a problem with this, he is welcome to PM me and we'll discuss privately.


----------



## Manni01

Josh Z said:


> Overreact much?
> 
> I am not doing the same thing Scott is doing. Our systems are very different. I have not "stolen" anything. I was the first person to devise this configuration. And I did link to Scott's post at the end with a description of his plans as well.
> 
> If Scott has a problem with this, he is welcome to PM me and we'll discuss privately.


Come on, yours is a variation, a different implementation of Atmos-EX. It's exactly the same idea. Scott's idea was to use Dolby PLII from an old AVR to create a new channel. Which channels you use as a source and destination are mere details. Should I call my implementation Matmos, put a trademark after it like you did after your Zatmos and claim it's a brand new idea, and that some people on the forum are doing something different? This is ridiculous.

You got it completely wrong. You should have mentioned Scott and Atmos-EX in your introduction, and then explained how you built up on his idea or rather adapted it to suit your needs.

You can still do this, and I'll be happy to delete my posts if you do.

Otherwise, I think we need to put the record straight, publicly. Yes, in my view, you stole an idea and didn't credit it as it should have been.

You're turning this into a me, me, me, which I find quite sad as it's exactly the opposite of the spririt of this forum, which is to share and learn from each others.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

It's no big deal, guys! Play nicely...


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's no big deal, guys! Play nicely...


Regardless of all that, I can't help but think that if Josh had placed his TM speakers more appropriately, he wouldn't have the 'hole in the middle' which he describes and wouldn't need to fill that hole with his _Frankenlautsprecher_ arrangement. It's no wonder he has a hole in the middle when you look at where the TM L & R speakers are placed - they are way too far apart right at the edge of the room. Not only is this out of Atmos spec, but it seems all but guaranteed to force the overhead sound to the edges of the room, giving that 'circle of rain' around him which he describes as opposed to the correct presentation which is of rain all above him (in the *John Wick *scene he references). I firmly believe that almost nobody with a normal sized room (and I count Josh's room as such) needs more than 7.2.4 if they have set up with regard to Dolby's own guidelines.

No disrespect intended, Josh, and I admire the creativity of the setup while simultaneously thinking it is a solution to a problem of your own making (which I recognise that you admit to it in your blog post).


----------



## batpig

If I execute my plan I'm going to call it "BAtmos". Should I trademark it too?


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> If I execute my plan I'm going to call it "BAtmos". Should I trademark it too?



Only if you are going to say before every showing in a low Christian Bale voice "This is BAtmos."


----------



## Josh Z

Manni01 said:


> Come on, yours is a variation, a different implementation of Atmos-EX. It's exactly the same idea. Scott's idea was to use Dolby PLII from an old AVR to create a new channel. Which channels you use as a source and destination are mere details.


Scott was not the first person in this very long thread to ponder the notion of linking up multiple A/V receivers. These were ideas that several people hashed out. His "SCatmos" or "Atmos-EX" implementation is unique to him. Mine is unique to me. I would say that yours is unique to you, except that I'm pretty sure you got the idea of pairing cloned speakers into arrays from my previous setup (documented here), but whatever. Batpig and Aaranddeeman have ideas of their own. 



> Should I call my implementation Matmos, put a trademark after it like you did after your Zatmos and claim it's a brand new idea, and that some people on the forum are doing something different? This is ridiculous.


The "TM" is a joke, which I think is pretty clear in the post.

If you wish to call your system "Matmos," go ahead and do so.



> You got it completely wrong. You should have mentioned Scott and Atmos-EX in your introduction, and then explained how you build up on his idea or rather adapted it to suit your needs.
> 
> You can still do this, and I'll be happy to delete my posts if you do.
> 
> Otherwise, I think we need to put the record straight, publicly. Yes, in my view, you stole an idea and didn't credit it as it should have been.
> 
> You're turning this into a me, me, me, which I find quite sad as it's exactly the opposite of the spririt of this forum, which is to share and learn from each others.


If Scott or anyone else feels that I've stolen credit from them, I will be happy to discuss that privately. In the meantime, I don't feel that I need to justify myself to you.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> If I execute my plan I'm going to call it "BAtmos". Should I trademark it too?


By all means...

Take lots of picture of your Batmos system. If you'd like to write up a description and summary of your results, I'd be happy to host it as a guest post on the HDD blog.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Regardless of all that, I can't help but think that if Josh had placed his TM speakers more appropriately, he wouldn't have the 'hole in the middle' which he describes and wouldn't need to fill that hole with his _Frankenlautsprecher_ arrangement. It's no wonder he has a hole in the middle when you look at where the TM L & R speakers are placed - they are way too far apart right at the edge of the room. Not only is this out of Atmos spec, but it seems all but guaranteed to force the overhead sound to the edges of the room, giving that 'circle of rain' around him which he describes as opposed to the correct presentation which is of rain all above him (in the *John Wick *scene he references). I firmly believe that almost nobody with a normal sized room (and I count Josh's room as such) needs more than 7.2.4 if they have set up with regard to Dolby's own guidelines.
> 
> No disrespect intended, Josh, and I admire the creativity of the setup while simultaneously thinking it is a solution to a problem of your own making (which I recognise that you admit to it in your blog post).


All true and fair points that I acknowledged in the article. The intent of the article was to inspire people to come up with creative solutions to problems they may face in adding Atmos to their rooms. Those may be due to irregular room size or shape, or just an inability to put the height speakers where Dolby recommends them.

I am surely not the only person who found his Atmos plans hampered by the way a prior system was wired and installed before Atmos was even a possibility.


----------



## batpig

Josh - what program did you use to create those 3D renders of your room?

Also out of curiosity what speakers are you using all around?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I did my 7.1.4 setup on the cheap... so I'm calling it Broke-Assmos. 

(I kid, but if I don't sell my Onkyo 3010 and find a replacement for my BDP-93 so I can play all of these discs, that's totally gonna be the name.)


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> Josh - what program did you use to create those 3D renders of your room?


roomsketcher.com

It's a little frustrating, in that any furnishings you put in the room must be selected from a very limited list of pre-approved products. (The only options for speakers are all Bang & Olufsen models, for example.) However, after you insert an item, you can manipulate the size and dimensions. 



> Also out of curiosity what speakers are you using all around?


I have an attachment to the Cambridge Soundworks brand. They don't even make home theater speakers anymore, but I've been able to build a collection of used speakers rather inexpensively via Craig's List.


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> The excellent (HT) BRD Atmos version of Lucy was mixed by Didier L. in Nov '14 in the Creative Sound Studios, Paris.
> A superb and very interesting facility, I had the privilege to visit later on in Dec '14, when I assisted to the 24fps -> 25fps transfer of both the EN & FR Atmos verssions of Lucy.
> An experience (with a small video embedded, that shouldn't be missed) that can be found here (in French) :
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/le-mix...assiste-a-la-conversion-24-is-a-25is-de-lucy/
> and unfortunately, at the very last moment, Didier L. had to cancel his presence.
> Anyway, my own personal opinion is that Lucy will certainly be rapidly available in BRD UHD, as this is definitively a showcase Atmos (objects) mix... and hopefully Lucy's video UHD compression will match its audio Atmos mix...
> Hugo


I have read that link with _"rapidité Française"_ : www.avcesar.com/actu/id-15598/blu-ray-lucy-une-edition-dolby-atmos-pour-2015.html

Thx again for the good link Hugo.


----------



## batpig

Interesting -- I was curious specifically about those tall, slender speakers you are using as floor level surrounds.


----------



## Manni01

Josh Z said:


> Scott was not the first person in this very long thread to ponder the notion of linking up multiple A/V receivers. These were ideas that several people hashed out. His "SCatmos" or "Atmos-EX" implementation is unique to him. Mine is unique to me. I would say that yours is unique to you, except that I'm pretty sure you got the idea of pairing cloned speakers into arrays from my previous setup (documented here), but whatever. Batpig and Aaranddeeman have ideas of their own.


Of course other people came up with ideas to link multiple AVR receivers.
I used my 1909 for my heights and used its Speakers A/B feature to create an array with the FH/TF pairs (no, I didn't get the idea from you, it's not as if arrays never existed before, and no, I don't want to call my system Matmos because using an external AVR to power heights or creating arrays is not original in any way).
Nalleh came up with the clever idea of using two Atmos AVRs to try to overcome the 7.1.4 limitation. That's much more original.
And others had many other ideas.
What's unique to Scott AFAIK is the idea to use an old PLII processor to create a channel from two others (or two channels from four others).
That's his idea. He came up with it. He described it way before you mentioned yours. Credits go to him.
Yours is simply a variation on that.
Anyway, it's not a big deal, but I'm a writer myself and I give credit where is due when I use other people's ideas in my own work. That's the difference between plagiary and research .
I guess we're all different.


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I did my 7.1.4 setup on the cheap... so I'm calling it Broke-Assmos.
> 
> (I kid, but if I don't sell my Onkyo 3010 and find a replacement for my BDP-93 so I can play all of these discs, that's totally gonna be the name.)


I'm with you buddy  After buying this new house, and with two little ones in private preschool (childcare costs are more than my mortgage!) I'm in "Broke-Asstmos" mode with my HT for some time. I'm basically scrapping around trying to get up and running as cheap as possible until I have funds to do some heavier investment.

The only significant expense was $800 for a used JVC RS20 (actually an Anthem clone of it but whatever) projector.

My front three speakes are now Triad Bronze LCR's, which I bought used off eBay for around $400 total expense. But I covered that cost by selling my prior Energy RC speakers that I had up front, so zero net cost there.

My four surrounds are currently KEF "egg" speakers from the KHT HTS2005.2 set, which I bought a while ago for under $200 off Craigslist. The two in-ceilings are a pair of Niles DS7FX that only cost me $150 for the pair off eBay. 

The only other expense I've incurred so far is $150 spent on curtain rods and some heavy light blocking / sound absorbing (I hope) curtains from Target. I really need to replace the door with a solid core door with good sealing to improve sound containment, plus I'll paint the room a darker color eventually. And of course I need to build a DIY acoustically transparent screen to really tie everything together and get the front three speakers all vertical and on the same plane. 

Oh yeah, soon I will spend 30-40 bucks on an old PLII receiver off Craigslist to get to 7.1.4 and then eventually "BAtmos"


----------



## batpig

Manni01 said:


> Anyway, it's not a big deal


Could've fooled me.....


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> All true and fair points that I acknowledged in the article. The intent of the article was to inspire people to come up with creative solutions to problems they may face in adding Atmos to their rooms. Those may be due to irregular room size or shape, or just an inability to put the height speakers where Dolby recommends them.
> 
> I am surely not the only person who found his Atmos plans hampered by the way a prior system was wired and installed before Atmos was even a possibility.


Agreed. I was really just cautioning, I guess, against people getting the idea that the Frankenlautsprecher*™* arrangement was somehow necessary for the full Atmos experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I did my 7.1.4 setup on the cheap... so I'm calling it Broke-Assmos.


I am really happy with mine, so I am calling it *Kick-Assmos*


----------



## pletwals

kbarnes701 said:


> I am really happy with mine, so I am calling it *Kick-Assmos*


I didn't know you were into S&M.


----------



## kbarnes701

pletwals said:


> I didn't know you were into S&M.


Oh absolutely. It's the best test disc there is IMO, no question.


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh absolutely. It's the best test disc there is IMO, no question.


Which brings me to a question if I may
Do you use the S&M disc to check and adjust your AVR Levels?

I am finding that post Audyssey and using my RS SPL meter and the S&M disc to check levels that my centre speaker reads way too hot, like >4-5 db 
Yet using the Denon 7200WA test tones the centre is pretty even with the rest of the speakers.

Are there any other test discs that have been mastered to accurately check levels?

Cheers
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Which brings me to a question if I may
> Do you use the S&M disc to check and adjust your AVR Levels?


I have done, but I am usually too lazy and just use the AVR test tones.



Lesmor said:


> I am finding that post Audyssey and using my RS SPL meter and the S&M disc to check levels that my centre speaker reads way too hot, like >4-5 db
> Yet using the Denon 7200WA test tones the centre is pretty even with the rest of the speakers.


Using the AVR test tones with Audyssey isn’t a good idea because the tones in the AVR bypass the Audyssey filters. So if Audyssey has turned down the SPL of your center channel by 4.5dB, it won’t show when you use the test tones. However, the S&M disc should be accurate even so. This would suggest that Audyssey has created filters which have changed the overall level of the channel. 

Lots of info in the Audyssey FAQ:

*e)3. Why is it a bad idea to use your AVR test tones and a SPL meter to check trim levels?*



Lesmor said:


> Are there any other test discs that have been mastered to accurately check levels?


I am sure there must be but the S&M disc is the only one I have used. Audyssey is usually pretty good at setting levels so I wouldn’t worry too much about it unless it sounds odd in some way.


----------



## rontalley

I come from the Pro Audio World (ProTools HD) and all of this seems so simple to me....

Why can't manufacturers just make an AVR that allows you to assign the outputs to whatever speakers you have and be able to link AVRs together? Really seems simple to me...

You can just buy 2 AVRs-(same make/model), i.e. 2050 and then assign the first 9 channels to whatever and then the next 9 channels to whatever. Why is this so hard to do?

AVR 1- Fronts, Center, Sides, Back= 7 Channels
AVR 2- Height (x6), Wides =8 Channels

Still have 3 left over...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Which brings me to a question if I may
> Do you use the S&M disc to check and adjust your AVR Levels?
> 
> I am finding that post Audyssey and using my RS SPL meter and the S&M disc to check levels that my centre speaker reads way too hot, like >4-5 db
> Yet using the Denon 7200WA test tones the centre is pretty even with the rest of the speakers.
> 
> Are there any other test discs that have been mastered to accurately check levels?
> 
> Cheers
> Andy


I use the AIX Sampler that I got from Oppo with my BDP-83. It has 7.1 test tones in PCM at the correct levels, as well as phase tests, sweeps, etc. in multiple formats. I only have the first edition of S&M, which has no audio test tones.

My thought would be that if you're seeing that big of a swing with the center channel post-Audyssey, you should go into the Audyssey "Check Results" menu and see what the rough equalization graph looks like for that channel. If you see that it's having to do excessive amounts of EQ cut in a particular frequency range, it might be worth addressing that by adjusting placement or with room treatments. It's not uncommon for a test tone disc to show a slight bit of variance from what Audyssey does depending on the shape of its particular noise tones... but that's typically an across-all-speakers variance, not for a particular channel (and can sometimes just be due to the difference between the SPL meter and the Audyssey mic, since both are +/- 2dB). I used to have a similar problem with my center channel and ultimately fixed it by raising it up slightly using Auralex Platfoam to isolate it from my equipment stand. Currently, I have a problem with my left main's level sounding off and on the Audyssey graph, it shows that it's cutting as much as 15dB in the 60-80Hz range... which is likely because it's placed in a small corner at the front of the room where a utility closet is, so the placement is boosting those frequencies for that particular speaker. I'm going to try to solve that with an Acoustimac bass trap on the wall of that corner to see if I can give Audyssey a little better initial response to work with. Garbage in/garbage out... so if you can keep Audyssey from having to do a ridiculous amount of cut/boost, you'll get a better end result.

The Check Results graph is also a handy reference for what your crossovers should be... since you can see about where Audyssey is trying to apply boost to counter the speaker's in-room rolloff compared to the spec'd -3dB point for that particular speaker and cross your speakers over above that point for the best transition.


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I use the AIX Sampler that I got from Oppo with my BDP-83. It has 7.1 test tones in PCM at the correct levels, as well as phase tests, sweeps, etc. in multiple formats. I only have the first edition of S&M, which has no audio test tones.
> 
> My thought would be that if you're seeing that big of a swing with the center channel post-Audyssey, you should go into the Audyssey "Check Results" menu and see what the rough equalization graph looks like for that channel. If you see that it's having to do excessive amounts of EQ cut in a particular frequency range, it might be worth addressing that by adjusting placement or with room treatments. It's not uncommon for a test tone disc to show a slight bit of variance from what Audyssey does depending on the shape of its particular noise tones... but that's typically an across-all-speakers variance, not for a particular channel (and can sometimes just be due to the difference between the SPL meter and the Audyssey mic, since both are +/- 2dB). I used to have a similar problem with my center channel and ultimately fixed it by raising it up slightly using Auralex Platfoam to isolate it from my equipment stand. Currently, I have a problem with my left main's level sounding off and on the Audyssey graph, it shows that it's cutting as much as 15dB in the 60-80Hz range... which is likely because it's placed in a small corner at the front of the room where a utility closet is, so the placement is boosting those frequencies for that particular speaker. I'm going to try to solve that with an Acoustimac bass trap on the wall of that corner to see if I can give Audyssey a little better initial response to work with. Garbage in/garbage out... so if you can keep Audyssey from having to do a ridiculous amount of cut/boost, you'll get a better end result.
> 
> The Check Results graph is also a handy reference for what your crossovers should be... since you can see about where Audyssey is trying to apply boost to counter the speaker's in-room rolloff compared to the spec'd -3dB point for that particular speaker and cross your speakers over above that point for the best transition.


Maybe I'm missing something but I don't seem to have any graphs using "Check Results" on my Denon X7200WA?

The only other error would be that Audyssey / Denon sets my centre speaker crossover at 60hz
It is an identical speaker to my L/R, except orientated horizontally by design
My L/R are set at 80HZ by the AVR which is the manufacturers - 3db spec


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> I am sure there must be but the S&M disc is the only one I have used. Audyssey is usually pretty good at setting levels so I wouldn’t worry too much about it unless it sounds odd in some way.


For some reason, Audyssey consistently sets my Surround Back speakers way too low - to the point of near inaudibility. That part of the Atmos "Amaze" trailer where the bird circles the room has a huge volume drop when it flies to the back. I think this is probably because I have those speakers pretty close to my seat, which means that the Audyssey microphone winds up right next to the speakers in some of the measuring positions. I always have to boost those channels manually after Audyssey is complete, using the Spears & Munsil disc and a sound level meter. They sound fine after that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> For some reason, Audyssey consistently sets my Surround Back speakers way too low - to the point of near inaudibility. That part of the Atmos "Amaze" trailer where the bird circles the room has a huge volume drop when it flies to the back. I think this is probably because I have those speakers pretty close to my seat, which means that the Audyssey microphone winds up right next to the speakers in some of the measuring positions. I always have to boost those channels manually after Audyssey is complete, using the Spears & Munsil disc and a sound level meter. They sound fine after that.


Probably some sort of measuring anomaly as you suggest. I always checked mine when I used Audyssey but they were always ±0.5dB. I didn't have rear surrounds then though - and mine are pretty close to my seat too: a given in a Hobbitarama*™* Theater


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> Interesting -- I was curious specifically about those tall, slender speakers you are using as floor level surrounds.


Those are the MC600HD model - a very short-lived product that were some of the company's last home theater speakers before exiting that market. Here's an old review:

http://www.cnet.com/products/cambridge-soundworks-newton-hd-home-theater-system/

These were marketed as "HD" speakers, the intent being that they were well-suited to being mounted directly on a wall next to a flat-panel HDTV. But they could also be attached to optional floor stands, which I use. 

They're good-sounding speakers that used to be my front mains until I upgraded to towers. At that point, I moved them to the Surround positions.

Unfortunately, because these were not sold for very long, they're quite hard to find on the used market.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but I don't seem to have any graphs using "Check Results" on my Denon X7200WA?
> 
> The only other error would be that Audyssey / Denon sets my centre speaker crossover at 60hz
> It is an identical speaker to my L/R, except orientated horizontally by design
> My L/R are set at 80HZ by the AVR which is the manufacturers - 3db spec


It's there on my X5200W, so should be there on your 7200. Go to Speakers, Audyssey, Check Results, and there should be an option to review the equalization done on every speaker but the sub. Keep in mind that these are ROUGH charts - Audyssey does a much finer adjustment than you'll see here - but should be good enough to see if you have any major issues.

If it's detecting your center at 60Hz when identical mains are detecting at 80Hz, that's a good sign that you're getting some placement-induced boost at that position. Not a deal-breaker... but if the manufacturer's spec puts it at an 80Hz electrical -3dB, set it to 80Hz rather than 60 and try checking it with S&M again to see if you get a more consistent result. You can always adjust crossovers UP post-Audyssey... Just don't adjust them down. In my room, my front three all detect as full range, and I immediately change them to 40Hz for the towers and 60Hz for my center. You'll always tend to get in-room extension below the spec'd -3dB anechoic rolloff point, but that just makes for a better transition to the sub. I wouldn't lean on Audyssey's detected -3dB point being the best crossover point to use.



Josh Z said:


> For some reason, Audyssey consistently sets my Surround Back speakers way too low - to the point of near inaudibility. That part of the Atmos "Amaze" trailer where the bird circles the room has a huge volume drop when it flies to the back. I think this is probably because I have those speakers pretty close to my seat, which means that the Audyssey microphone winds up right next to the speakers in some of the measuring positions. I always have to boost those channels manually after Audyssey is complete, using the Spears & Munsil disc and a sound level meter. They sound fine after that.


I would say your best bet is to change up your mic positions during Audyssey to avoid that. You don't have to stick strictly to the positions Audyssey dictates. Those are just the suggested mic positions for most setups. Ideally, you want to cover as much of your MLP as you can WITHOUT any mic placements that could be problematic. If one of the Audyssey-prescribed positions puts the mic capsule so that a speaker is firing directly into it, don't use that position if you can help it. Or if you absolutely have to, visualize the angles from each speaker to the mic capsule and find an angle that is a happy medium between them all. Sometimes, pointing it directly to the ceiling isn't the best option... You want the speakers to all be at a similar off-axis angle, since the mic calibration is done for grazing incidence. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Lesmor

@Jeremy Anderson
Yeah I did just that raised the centre to 80Hz and then checked levels with S&M
I'll need to look again for graphs in Audyssey "Check results" ?
Cheers
Andy
Edit: You are quite correct I found the graphs under "equalisers" which I never thought to look at so thanks for that info.
Pity it didn't show "before" graphs
Quite a few dips but as it is an "after" representation rather than a true measurement not sure what value it has.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

What you're seeing isn't an "after". It's showing you the corrections it made. So if you see dips in that curve, that means it is trying to compensate for those frequencies being too high in your room. How much of a cut are you seeing for the center and around what frequencies? Maybe snap a pic and we can see if there's a glaring issue.


----------



## Lesmor

Hope fully this snapshot will do


----------



## pasender91

As already explained this curve is the EQ applied by Audissey.
Assuming the "after" is flat, then it means the "before" is the reverse of this curve 

But analysis of Audissey EQ is a bit off track, no ??


----------



## chi_guy50

rontalley said:


> I come from the Pro Audio World (ProTools HD) and all of this seems so simple to me....
> 
> Why can't manufacturers just make an AVR that allows you to assign the outputs to whatever speakers you have and be able to link AVRs together? Really seems simple to me...
> 
> You can just buy 2 AVRs-(same make/model), i.e. 2050 and then assign the first 9 channels to whatever and then the next 9 channels to whatever. Why is this so hard to do?
> 
> AVR 1- Fronts, Center, Sides, Back= 7 Channels
> AVR 2- Height (x6), Wides =8 Channels
> 
> Still have 3 left over...


From your lips . . .


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Hope fully this snapshot will do


From that, 80Hz is obviously where you want the crossover. I imagine Audyssey set it at 60Hz because it was still reading about -3dB near 60Hz. As far as any glaring issues, 9dB around 90Hz or so probably isn't something that screams major issue. I would be curious to see how that graph compares to your mains, since you say you're using identical speakers for LCR. 

My next question would be how you have your center channel set up. Do you have it on a stand? Near a wall? At ear level? If not at ear level, do you have it angled toward ear level? Just trying to see if there's a simple fix that might minimize the need to change levels post-Audyssey.



pasender91 said:


> As already explained this curve is the EQ applied by Audissey.
> Assuming the "after" is flat, then it means the "before" is the reverse of this curve
> 
> But analysis of Audissey EQ is a bit off track, no ??


I don't see why. Audyssey may not be perfect, but the basic graph of the corrections it is making can show if there's a major room-induced or placement issue that needs to be dealt with. You should always get a better final result if you minimize the amount of equalization needed by handling the acoustics in the room itself. The less filtering needed, the better it works out. T'aint rocket scientry!


----------



## Lesmor

@Jeremy Anderson
My bad yes I should have shown the L/R set at 80 Hz
The pictures are of my projector screen, the centre speaker is below but not visible.
The room has bass traps in all corners along with acoustic panels at 1st reflection and each edge of the screen also on the back wall


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't see why. Audyssey may not be perfect, but the basic graph of the corrections it is making can show if there's a major room-induced or placement issue that needs to be dealt with. You should always get a better final result if you minimize the amount of equalization needed by handling the acoustics in the room itself. The less filtering needed, the better it works out. T'aint rocket scientry!


+1.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> @Jeremy Anderson
> My bad yes I should have shown the L/R set at 80 Hz
> The pictures are of my projector screen, the centre speaker is below but not visible.
> The room has bass traps in all corners along with acoustic panels at 1st reflection and each edge of the screen also on the back wall


That's actually a pretty solid graph for your mains. Any time you get +/- 6dB before equalization, that's a good thing. Looks like you've done the usual room treatment. So the question now is: What about your center placement is causing the boost it gets from 90Hz up? This goes back to my previous questions: Do you have it on a stand? Near a wall? At ear level? If not at ear level, do you have it angled toward ear level? 

Hell, while we're troubleshooting, maybe a pic of your center channel placement might help. Of course, this could all just be a fluke.


----------



## Spanglo

batpig said:


> Josh - what program did you use to create those 3D renders of your room?


Check out Sweet Home 3D. I tried a few other modeling programs, but this one was the easiest to learn and use. 

The link in my sig has some pics.


----------



## digitlman

Aras_Volodka said:


> The only problem with Atmos overhauls of the first 2 terminators is that they both have midi-orchestra sound tracks... I actually watched those films recently through DSU. While the sounds themselves are amazing... the soundtrack is painfully dated. Cameron, while spending huge budgets on everything else for whatever reason passed on having a real orchestra perform the music. I forget if Avatar is midi music or not, but Titanic seemed to be the same sort of deal, except for the Celine Dion song & the Irish band/ theme using Irish instruments. Even the choir was fake midi... and that's like the worst of the worst as far as midi samples go!


Are you sure about the Titanic soundtrack? I bought that CD and listened to it many times. I am pretty sure I once saw video of James Horner conducting the orchestra during the recording of music for that movie (maybe it was dvd extra, i don't remember). It is my understanding all the music is real orchestra, with only the choir being added in afterwards as fake digital.


----------



## nucky

Just watched insurgent the picture was brilliant and the Atmos sound mix was awesome. And that was with my oppo 93 still no dropouts.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

nucky said:


> Just watched insurgent the picture was brilliant and the Atmos sound mix was awesome. And that was with my oppo 93 still no dropouts.


IMHO the best use of ATMOS to date


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That's actually a pretty solid graph for your mains. Any time you get +/- 6dB before equalization, that's a good thing. Looks like you've done the usual room treatment. So the question now is: What about your center placement is causing the boost it gets from 90Hz up? This goes back to my previous questions: Do you have it on a stand? Near a wall? At ear level? If not at ear level, do you have it angled toward ear level?
> 
> Hell, while we're troubleshooting, maybe a pic of your center channel placement might help. Of course, this could all just be a fluke.


Could well just be the centre position,12" from front wall to front of speaker so will get some gain which Audyssey should compensate for but this is not evident using the S&M disc

The speaker is on a stand and I agree it possibly could benefit from tilting towards the MLP although it does measure louder with S&M

The L/C/R are in an arc so that the 3 distances are equal at the MLP


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Could well just be the centre position,12" from front wall to front of speaker so will get some gain which Audyssey should compensate for but this is not evident using the S&M disc
> 
> The speaker is on a stand and I agree it possibly could benefit from tilting towards the MLP although it does measure louder with S&M
> 
> The L/C/R are in an arc so that the 3 distances are equal at the MLP


First, that's a damn nice looking setup. I do think you may potentially benefit by pulling that center channel out a little more, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the issue. Still, it's an easy enough thing to try a quick 3-position Audyssey run with it a little further out to see what effect it has on that 90Hz and up dip, just to see if it's worth sticking with it that way. Worst case, you have to re-run Audyssey with it back in its original position.

Not sure what model speaker that is, but is it ported in the back? Wondering if what you're experiencing could be from the port firing at the wall behind it. I had that with one of my older speakers (where it got a boost as it approached the port's tune because the wall behind it was acting as a passive radiator), but pulling it off the wall some more mitigated it somewhat. I wonder if a small panel just behind the center channel would help.

Other than that, it's a mystery. And unless you've gotten that same result from several run-throughs of Audyssey, I'd say it could be something that a very careful Audyssey run with some slightly different mic positions might straighten out.


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Just watched *insurgent* the picture was brilliant and the Atmos sound mix was awesome.
> * And that was with my oppo 93 still no dropouts.*


I wonder if all other Oppo 93 owners are experiencing the same with that BR title when bitstreaming the Atmos audio and played through their Atmos receiver and pre/pro?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> I wonder if all other Oppo 93 owners are experiencing the same with that BR title when bitstreaming the Atmos audio and played through their Atmos receiver and pre/pro?




Don't know about Insurgent, but my 93 with John Wick stutters like all hell. I check the for sale section every day for a non-Darbee 103 so I can buy the Lionsgate Atmos titles. Not sure how he's not having problems, but I wish mine worked that way!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't know about Insurgent, but my 93 with John Wick stutters like all hell. I check the for sale section every day for a non-Darbee 103 so I can buy the Lionsgate Atmos titles. Not sure how he's not having problems, but I wish mine worked that way!


Pmd


----------



## LowellG

Just in case anybody cares, was looking for speakers that met Atmos specs but match mine. Here is what the Def Tech rep said. 

Our Di speakers cover a range of frequencies much broader than the required range for Atmos. Also they disperse at an angle of 45 degrees in all directions which would create a 90 degree total plain. If you go with the in celling speakers there would be no need to angle them, but the tweeter can be pivoted for slightly more detail.


----------



## Josh Z

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't know about Insurgent, but my 93 with John Wick stutters like all hell. I check the for sale section every day for a non-Darbee 103 so I can buy the Lionsgate Atmos titles. Not sure how he's not having problems, but I wish mine worked that way!


If you do eventually get an Oppo 103, be sure to use HDMI output 2 for video. Output 1 has a known issue where the QDEO processing chip adds non-defeatable DNR to the image. Output 2 bypasses QDEO and doesn't have this issue.

The 103D model dumps QDEO in favor of the superior Silicon Image VRS processor. You can safely use either HDMI output with that model.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Josh Z said:


> If you do eventually get an Oppo 103, be sure to use HDMI output 2 for video. Output 1 has a known issue where the QDEO processing chip adds non-defeatable DNR to the image. Output 2 bypasses QDEO and doesn't have this issue.
> 
> The 103D model dumps QDEO in favor of the superior Silicon Image VRS processor. You can safely use either HDMI output with that model.




Thanks for the heads up. Between the Qdeo in my projector, my Darblet, and whatever is in the Denon x5200w, I think I have video processing covered. I tend to run my sources with no enhancement. Didn't know that was an issue with the 103... But as long as it will play all the Atmos discs with no problems, I'd be fine.


----------



## Josh Z

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Between the Qdeo in my projector, my Darblet, and whatever is in the Denon x5200w, I think I have video processing covered. I tend to run my sources with no enhancement. Didn't know that was an issue with the 103... But as long as it will play all the Atmos discs with no problems, I'd be fine.


I have an Oppo 103 myself. It plays every Atmos disc without dropouts (unlike my former BDP-93, which had terrible dropouts). So long as you remember to use HDMI 2 for video, you should be good to go.

The DNR problem with HDMI 1 occurs even if you turn all DNR and processing off in the player menus. There's always some DNR present on that output no matter what. Just use HDMI 2 and you shouldn't have any problems.


----------



## NorthSky

nucky said:


> Just watched insurgent the picture was brilliant and the *Atmos sound mix* was awesome. And that was with my oppo 93 still no dropouts.





NorthSky said:


> I wonder if all other *Oppo 93* owners are experiencing the same with that BR title when bitstreaming the Atmos audio and played through their Atmos receiver and pre/pro?





Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't know about *Insurgent*, but my 93 with John Wick stutters like all hell. I check the for sale section every day for a non-Darbee 103 so I can buy the Lionsgate Atmos titles. Not sure how he's not having problems, but I wish mine worked that way!


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/21341/insurgent3d.html

The Oppo 103 (before firmware update; different audio issue): https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

- And true, the Oppo 103's HDMI 1 output has a "slight" DNR* issue that it applies and it is non-defeatable. ..."Slight"....I still use that output (1) for all my Blu-rays, and I use the HDMI 2 output for my DVDs (once or twice a year, atmost). 

* Sharpness.


----------



## asere

I have floor standing mains and two in ceiling surrounds plus two other in ceiling speakers that is between the mains and rear surrounds. If I use the 5.1.2 with the .2 as height will it work for Atmos ?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> I have floor standing mains and two in ceiling surrounds plus two other in ceiling speakers that is between the mains and rear surrounds. If I use the 5.1.2 with the .2 as height will it work for Atmos ?


Yes.


----------



## asere

Now if I play 7.1 content on a 5.1.2 set up will the front height not come on then? This would be with a non Atmos track.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

asere said:


> I have floor standing mains and two in ceiling surrounds plus two other in ceiling speakers that is between the mains and rear surrounds. If I use the 5.1.2 with the .2 as height will it work for Atmos ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The correct way to do it would be to add surrounds closer to ear level and then use the four in ceiling speakers for 5.1.4.


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Now if I play 7.1 content on a 5.1.2 set up will the front height not come on then? This would be with a non Atmos track.


Yes again; they won't come on.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Now if I play 7.1 content on a 5.1.2 set up will the front height not come on then? This would be with a non Atmos track.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The rear channels are folded into the side surrounds on 7.1 tracks played through a 5.1 system no matter what. If it's a non-immersive, "regular" soundtrack then you could engage the Dolby Surround upmixer (or DTS Neural:X upmixer if you wait for new DTS products coming this year) and it would help expand the regular soundtrack into the height or overhead speakers. Not as good as the real thing, but still a pretty decent bubble of sound.


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> First, that's a damn nice looking setup. I do think you may potentially benefit by pulling that center channel out a little more, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the issue. Still, it's an easy enough thing to try a quick 3-position Audyssey run with it a little further out to see what effect it has on that 90Hz and up dip, just to see if it's worth sticking with it that way. Worst case, you have to re-run Audyssey with it back in its original position.
> 
> Not sure what model speaker that is, but is it ported in the back? Wondering if what you're experiencing could be from the port firing at the wall behind it. I had that with one of my older speakers (where it got a boost as it approached the port's tune because the wall behind it was acting as a passive radiator), but pulling it off the wall some more mitigated it somewhat. I wonder if a small panel just behind the center channel would help.
> 
> Other than that, it's a mystery. And unless you've gotten that same result from several run-throughs of Audyssey, I'd say it could be something that a very careful Audyssey run with some slightly different mic positions might straighten out.


Thanks for all your input Jeremy it is appreciated but I feel we are getting away off thread.
I would finally say all my speakers are from the Ken Kriesel Quattro series and are not ported.

Before I got my Denon X7200WA I had a Onkyo 5010 speakers in the same position gave roughly the same results with the standard Audyssey mic until I added Audyssey Pro which set my L/R at 130Hz and Centre at 120 HZ all speakers were in the same position.
Thanks again
Andy


----------



## Lesmor

nucky said:


> Just watched insurgent the picture was brilliant and the Atmos sound mix was awesome. And that was with my oppo 93 still no dropouts.


I am sure other Oppo 93 owners get drop outs as well 
As I understand it it depends if the disc uses seamless branching which older Oppo players have difficulty with.

https://forum.slysoft.com/showthrea...D-version)-Video-good-but-only-DD-audio/page2


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> Yes again; they won't come on.


Thanks. Sorry I'm just new to heights and Atmos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## smurraybhm

Josh Z said:


> If you do eventually get an Oppo 103, be sure to use HDMI output 2 for video. Output 1 has a known issue where the QDEO processing chip adds non-defeatable DNR to the image. Output 2 bypasses QDEO and doesn't have this issue.
> 
> The 103D model dumps QDEO in favor of the superior Silicon Image VRS processor. You can safely use either HDMI output with that model.


I think your comment about superior is based what you value. Same could be said for those who use faketmos to add channels up top. Personally I like the 103 better since the QDEO is known to do a superior job upscaling streamed content - that's straight from Oppo. It provides an excellent picture when watching Netflix assuming one has a decent connection. I could care less about video processing on on things like DTV or shiny disks. Then there is the Darbee - a well calibrated display of good quality doesn't need help IMO 

I would be happy with either one, but don't dismiss the 103 so quickly Josh. By the way I enjoyed your blog post on DTS:X a few weeks ago. Steve


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I think your comment about superior is based what you value. Same could be said for those who use faketmos to add channels up top. Personally I like the 103 better since the QDEO is known to do a superior job upscaling streamed content - that's straight from Oppo. It provides an excellent picture when watching Netflix assuming one has a decent connection. I could care less about video processing on on things like DTV or shiny disks. Then there is the Darbee - a well calibrated display of good quality doesn't need help IMO
> 
> I would be happy with either one, but don't dismiss the 103 so quickly Josh. By the way I enjoyed your blog post on DTS:X a few weeks ago. Steve


I have the 103 but I also have a Darbee in the chain. My display is of excellent quality (Epson 5030 PJ) and is calibrated (Calman 5) but it still benefits from Darbee processing. Does the well-calibrated display "need help"? No, probably not. Does the image benefit from some modest Darbee processing? You bet your donkey it does!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

smurraybhm said:


> Then there is the Darbee - a well calibrated display of good quality doesn't need help IMO



We're veering off topic, but... I considered myself a purist when it came to video. My projector was calibrated about as much as one could, including HCFR with an EyeOne DisplayLT, and I like my sharpness controls to show the source as purely as possible. But out of curiosity, I bought a Darblet from someone used who said if I hated it, he would refund my money. Honestly, I wouldn't run my projector without it now. Run conservatively, it absolutely brings out the existing detail without introducing artifacts the way sharpness enhancements typically do. I don't think you'd see as much of a need for it on a flat panel, but for a projector, I can't recommend it highly enough. It was like wiping a layer of filth off the lens.



That's why I said I wanted a non-Darbee 103... Cause I already have the Darblet in my Atmos setup.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> I have the 103 but I also have a Darbee in the chain. My display is of excellent quality (Epson 5030 PJ) and is calibrated (Calman 5) but it still benefits from Darbee processing. Does the well-calibrated display "need help"? No, probably not. Does the image benefit from some modest Darbee processing? You bet your donkey it does!


Keith - I'm glad you like. So much of our hobby is subjective and I never have an opinion like you  I tried a Darbee after getting the 103 a year ago or so and to me it just made the image look less natural. I am viewing things with about 40 inches less for screen size, so if I was lucky enough to have my own hobbit (trying to avoid violating your trademark) theater with a larger screen I may agree with you. 

By the way I like your bet regarding the additional channels, buying someone a new disk will be a lot easier than having to eat a hat should you lose, I don't expect that to happen though. Steve


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith - I'm glad you like. So much of our hobby is subjective and I never have an opinion like you  I tried a Darbee after getting the 103 a year ago or so and to me it just made the image look less natural. I am viewing things with about 40 inches less for screen size, so if I was lucky enough to have my own hobbit (trying to avoid violating your trademark) theater with a larger screen I may agree with you.


Generally if people find the effect is unnatural they are using too much processing. Somewhere IRO of 30-50% is plenty IME and IMO. And only the HD Mode is of any real use - the SD and game modes are horrible. I use my Darbee with as little processing as makes a noticeable difference. IOW, I can't really tell it is there unless I disengage it.



smurraybhm said:


> By the way I like your bet regarding the additional channels, buying someone a new disk will be a lot easier than having to eat a hat should you lose, I don't expect that to happen though. Steve


Haha. I find that hat eating can be difficult and not alleviated much by ketchup either. In this instance, I already feel bad about taking Manni's money when the time comes


----------



## sdurani

First Atmos soundbar (upgradable to DTS:X). http://www.whathifi.com/news/yamaha-launches-ysp-5600-worlds-first-dolby-atmos-soundbar


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> First Atmos soundbar (upgradable to DTS:X). http://www.whathifi.com/news/yamaha-launches-ysp-5600-worlds-first-dolby-atmos-soundbar


These A/V companies are cannibalizing themselves by selling these cheaper, lesser performing sound bars rather than full systems. Physics are not on their side anyway with these immersive systems packed into a tiny space. They seem to be going for the Bose market and selling based on fuzzy logic rather than premium sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> These A/V companies are cannibalizing themselves by selling these cheaper, lesser performing sound bars rather than full systems. Physics are not on their side anyway with these immersive systems packed into a tiny space. They seem to be going for the Bose market and selling based on fuzzy logic rather than premium sound.


This is known as responding to market demand Dan. As opposed to responding to Cloud Cuckoos.


----------



## Josh Z

smurraybhm said:


> I think your comment about superior is based what you value. Same could be said for those who use faketmos to add channels up top. Personally I like the 103 better since the QDEO is known to do a superior job upscaling streamed content - that's straight from Oppo. It provides an excellent picture when watching Netflix assuming one has a decent connection. I could care less about video processing on on things like DTV or shiny disks. Then there is the Darbee - a well calibrated display of good quality doesn't need help IMO
> 
> I would be happy with either one, but don't dismiss the 103 so quickly Josh. By the way I enjoyed your blog post on DTS:X a few weeks ago. Steve


I have an Oppo 103. I like the 103 a lot, so long as I use HDMI output 2.

The QDEO chip in the 103 adds DNR to all video content. It's on all the time and cannot be turned off. That's just a fact. If you like DNR, use HDMI 1. If you don't, use HDMI 2. That's all there is to be said about it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> This is known as responding to market demand Dan. As opposed to responding to Cloud Cuckoos.


I shake my fist at you from Cloud Cuckoos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> This is known as responding to market demand Dan. As opposed to responding to Cloud Cuckoos.


I think we _all _resemble that remark here.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Atmos soundbar (upgradable to DTS:X). http://www.whathifi.com/news/yamaha-launches-ysp-5600-worlds-first-dolby-atmos-soundbar
> 
> 
> 
> These A/V companies are cannibalizing themselves by selling these cheaper, lesser performing sound bars rather than full systems. Physics are not on their side anyway with these immersive systems packed into a tiny space. They seem to be going for the Bose market and selling based on fuzzy logic rather than premium sound.
Click to expand...



More likely Yamaha is just anticipating the arrival at retail of $1,000 to $1,500 "competing" soundbar and|or HTiB products from LG and Samsung...?!

Over the last year, LG has been showing a pre-production version of "similar" technology that employs both top-and-bottom-of-display soundbars. (_Another ETRI "experimental design" included a *third* soundbar located behind the audience!_)

Both Fraunhofer and NHK have demonstrated working "soundframe" immersive audio technology which places speakers around all four sides of the display.


*ETRI-LG "SoundWindow"* advert from NAB 2015 (top-and-bottom-of-display soundbars.) _Note the "hard-to-see" display between the two soundbars!_











_


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I shake my fist at you from Cloud Cuckoos.


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shake my fist at you from Cloud Cuckoos.
Click to expand...



_"There's no crying in immersive audio baseball!"_


_


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Thanks. Sorry I'm just new to heights and Atmos.


No sweat, you are not alone.

5.1.2 is the setup for some folks (minimum Atmos setup), and if you play say a DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio from a Blu-ray (straight) you will get 5.1 channels playing. If you want the two overheads (the top front Atmos ones) to play also, just engage Dolby Surround (Dolby Atmos' Up-mixer - DSU).

* This thread is packed with all the info and various setups and recommendations/suggestions to make almost everyone happy. 
The original first post has good links. 

I'm not qualified to post in this thread, according to some, because I'm not a Dolby Atmos owner, but I am for sure very passionate/interested by it. 
I'll do my best to subdue that interest and passion and discussion and question...all that Atmos jazz. 
And folks like you and I; we both learn together.


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> No sweat, you are not alone.
> 
> 5.1.2 is the setup for some folks (minimum Atmos setup), and if you play say a DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio from a Blu-ray (straight) you will get 5.1 channels playing. If you want the two overheads (the top front Atmos ones) to play also, just engage Dolby Surround (Dolby Atmos' Up-mixer - DSU).
> 
> * This thread is packed will all the info and various setups and recommendations/suggestions to make almost everyone happy.
> The original first post has good links.
> 
> I'm not qualified to post in this thread, according to some, because I'm not a Dolby Atmos owner, but I am for sure very passionate/interested by it.
> I'll do my best to subdue that interest and passion and discussion and question...all that Atmos jazz.
> And folks like you and I; we both learn together.


Yes thank you. In my case everything is in ceiling except the mains. I won't have the full Atmos effect but oh well. My room set up makes it difficult to place surrounds at ear level.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Yes thank you. In my case everything is in ceiling except the mains. I won't have the full Atmos effect but oh well. My room set up makes it difficult to place surrounds at ear level.


If you're not able to get any meaningful separation between the 5.1 base and the height layer, there's little point in attempting to shoehorn Atmos into your room. With the speaker layout you've described, which has both the Surround and the heights on the same plane as each other in the ceiling, you would get a great deal of confusion in sound timing and directionality. 

You would be better served adding Surround Back speakers and trying to make the best 7.1 you can. IMO.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> If you're not able to get any meaningful separation between the 5.1 base and the height layer, there's little point in attempting to shoehorn Atmos into your room. With the speaker layout you've described, which has both the Surround and the heights on the same plane as each other in the ceiling, you would get a great deal of confusion in sound timing and directionality.
> 
> You would be better served adding Surround Back speakers and trying to make the best 7.1 you can. IMO.


Well I have the rear surrounds right above me in sitting area and the heights are right in front of the mains. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Well I have the rear surrounds right above me in sitting area and the heights are right in front of the mains.


Give it a go; nobody here has tried that...so no one knows...you'll be the first.


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Well I have the rear surrounds right above me in sitting area and the heights are right in front of the mains.


So that we're clear on terminology, Surrounds should be to the sides of you, while Surround Backs would go behind. As you have described your layout, the second set of speakers (the ones right above you) would be the Surrounds. Then you'd have an extra set of speakers in front of that.

Is it possible for you to move your seating forward so that you're under the front set of speakers? Make those your Surrounds and the ones behind them the Surround Backs?

I really think that if you use those front ceiling speakers as heights while your Surrounds are in the same plane, it's really going to mess with the directionality of sound objects. Will it work, inasmuch as you get sounds from all your speakers? Yes. Will it sound good? Probably not.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> So that we're clear on terminology, Surrounds should be to the sides of you, while Surround Backs would go behind. As you have described your layout, the second set of speakers (the ones right above you) would be the Surrounds. Then you'd have an extra set of speakers in front of that.
> 
> Is it possible for you to move your seating forward so that you're under the front set of speakers? Make those your Surrounds and the ones behind them the Surround Backs?
> 
> I really think that if you use those front ceiling speakers as heights while your Surrounds are in the same plane, it's really going to mess with the directionality of sound objects. Will it work, inasmuch as you get sounds from all your speakers? Yes. Will it sound good? Probably not.


I can't move the couch as the family room is open to the kitchen and the couch would end up in the middle of the family room like a coffee table. Impossible. I get what you are saying and makes sense. I don't want to waste the front height either. I'll have to experiment. Maybe while not ideal it won't be bad.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## DAlba

Is this new demo disc mentioned here: http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/klipschdolby-atmos-demo-duck-dodge-and-hide/58338 out in wild yet?


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> I can't move the couch as the family room is open to the kitchen and the couch would end up in the middle of the family room like a coffee table. Impossible. I get what you are saying and makes sense. I don't want to waste the front height either. I'll have to experiment. Maybe while not ideal it won't be bad.


If you already have an Atmos-capable receiver, I suppose it couldn't hurt to try. It'd be harder to justify spending a lot of money on a new receiver for this as an experiment, though. Unless you were planning to upgrade your receiver anyway.

Another option would be to wire each front ceiling speaker to the one behind it, and form small Surround arrays that get the same sound at the same time. That's basically what most professional cinemas do.


----------



## kingwiggi

DAlba said:


> Is this new demo disc mentioned here: http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/klipschdolby-atmos-demo-duck-dodge-and-hide/58338 out in wild yet?


No but perhaps Dolby have prepared a new Demo disc in time for a giveaway at CEDIA which happens in October.

No doubt ebay will be full of copies going for $30 - $40 soon after.


----------



## DAlba

kingwiggi said:


> No but perhaps Dolby have prepared a new Demo disc in time for a giveaway at CEDIA which happens in October.
> 
> No doubt ebay will be full of copies going for $30 - $40 soon after.


Thanks. I downloaded the 2014 disc last year and just now downloading the 2015 disc so I guess I'll wait until I can download this new disc


----------



## NorthSky

...And maybe with UHD Blu-ray Dolby will eventually have one of them Dolby Atmos demo disc, for regular public sale...with useful Dolby Atmos audio tests in it.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> If you already have an Atmos-capable receiver, I suppose it couldn't hurt to try. It'd be harder to justify spending a lot of money on a new receiver for this as an experiment, though. Unless you were planning to upgrade your receiver anyway.
> 
> Another option would be to wire each front ceiling speaker to the one behind it, and form small Surround arrays that get the same sound at the same time. That's basically what most professional cinemas do.


Basically from the avr wire the heights to the surrounds and surrounds to heights? 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Basically from the avr wire the heights to the surrounds and surrounds to heights?


If you want two speakers to receive the same signal, your options are to wire them in parallel or in series.

http://www.eminence.com/support/wiring-diagrams/

Which way you go may depend on whether you can get access to the wiring in your ceiling or not.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> If you want two speakers to receive the same signal, your options are to wire them in parallel or in series.
> 
> http://www.eminence.com/support/wiring-diagrams/
> 
> Which way you go may depend on whether you can get access to the wiring in your ceiling or not.


Yeah wiring access would be an issue. 
I will play Atmos like how it's set up an see.
On another note DTS X has speaker remapping that should help people with set ups.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> Y
> On another note DTS X has speaker remapping that should help people with set ups.


So does Atmos. (Positional rendering it's called not speaker remapping BIKWYM). But only if the AVR manufacturers support it. So far, none of the mainstream manufacturers does.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> So does Atmos. (Positional rendering it's called not speaker remapping BIKWYM). But only if the AVR manufacturers support it. So far, none of the mainstream manufacturers does.


What you are saying is when dtsx is available it won't have position rendering because an avr has to support it.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## pasender91

Yes what keith explains is correct, no AVR supports speaker remapping, neither for Atmos nor for DTS:X.

Regarding your speaker configuration, as already outlined it is really not ideal.
What i would do is assign the speakers right over head as surrounds and the ceiling front speakers as either Atmos FH or TF, depending on their angle to you.
It means you would run 5.1.2 with the least compromised sound possible...


----------



## asere

pasender91 said:


> Yes what keith explains is correct, no AVR supports speaker remapping, neither for Atmos nor for DTS:X.
> 
> Regarding your speaker configuration, as already outlined it is really not ideal.
> What i would do is assign the speakers right over head as surrounds and the ceiling front speakers as either Atmos FH or TF, depending on their angle to you.
> It means you would run 5.1.2 with the least compromised sound possible...


Then what's this dts x remapping advertisement if avr can't do it.
Yes I'm using the back surrounds, front height and mains for 5.1.2 Atmos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Yes what keith explains is correct, no AVR supports speaker remapping, neither for Atmos nor for DTS:X.
> 
> Regarding your speaker configuration, as already outlined it is really not ideal.
> What i would do is assign the speakers right over head as surrounds and the ceiling front speakers as either Atmos FH or TF, depending on their angle to you.
> It means you would run 5.1.2 with the least compromised sound possible...


I believe that's how he has already configured them...or unless as back surrounds...but yes...side surrounds is the way to go for them two right above his couch overhead speakers. ...And the two front overheads as TF Dolby Atmos speakers.


----------



## sdurani

asere said:


> Then what's this dts x remapping advertisement if avr can't do it.


DTS is describing the capabilities of the format, but that doesn't guarantee that manufacturers will implement those features. The consumer Atmos format, for example, can render to 34 speaker locations; doesn't mean any manufacturer has implemented that capability on a consumer device.


----------



## asere

sdurani said:


> DTS is describing the capabilities of the format, but that doesn't guarantee that manufacturers will implement those features. The consumer Atmos format, for example, can render to 34 speaker locations; doesn't mean any manufacturer has implemented that capability on a consumer device.


Dtx x states you don't need extra speakers. Maybe the remap will be part of the x avr update.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

asere said:


> Dtx x states you don't need extra speakers.


Don't need extra speakers to do what?


----------



## Kris Deering

DAlba said:


> Is this new demo disc mentioned here: http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/klipschdolby-atmos-demo-duck-dodge-and-hide/58338 out in wild yet?


Doesn't sound like any new demo disc. They mention Unbroken and GOT and then the Atmos demo disc for the rain falling demo, which is on the 2015 disc. I think they listened to 3 different discs in this demo. That is the way I read it.


----------



## asere

sdurani said:


> Don't need extra speakers to do what?


Dtsx makes it seem as the speaker layout is not as critical as atmos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> DTS is describing the capabilities of the format, but that doesn't guarantee that manufacturers will implement those features. The consumer Atmos format, for example, can render to 34 speaker locations; doesn't mean any manufacturer has implemented that capability on a consumer device.


Similar to dialog control. It's a feature but that doesn't mean it will be supported by all parties.


----------



## pasender91

asere said:


> Dtsx makes it seem as the speaker layout is not as critical as atmos.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Many believe that's a plain lie, and some others call it marketing.... 

2015 AVR docs start to show up => DTS:X will NOT have speaker remapping right in this generation, and this is not a surprise
There is no way a 5.1 DTS:X will sound better than 5.1.4 Atmos 
They are very similar systems, and DTS:X will actually "copy" Atmos locations in the AVRs.

To me, overall the DTS:X launch and messages have been a big deception, see how they try to induce false hopes into potential customers ?


----------



## sdurani

asere said:


> Dtsx makes it seem as the speaker layout is not as critical as atmos.


Looking through the Atmos install guide, most of the speaker locations are shown as having a 20-30 degree range (that's hardly "critical" placement).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Looking through the Atmos install guide, most of the speaker locations are shown as having a 20-30 degree range (that's hardly "critical" placement).


But I should be able to put my speakers ANYWHERE!!







BASS.


----------



## batpig

Well the marketing seems to be working. There are already enough "fans" of DTS who think that somehow their compression codecs are SO MUCH better than Dolby versions.

Funny story -- a couple of days ago I went to some dude's house to buy a cheap PLII receiver (Yamaha HTR-5550) to enable expansion to 7.1.4 and a potential "BAtmos" setup (one which I invented myself in a moment of divine inspiration while gazing out onto the depths of the Pacific Ocean, nothing to do with Scott Simonian). Turns out he had a little mini HT setup in his spare bedroom with a PJ, so we started shooting the breeze about his setup and other HT stuff. He asked if I wanted a quick demo so I was like, sure, so he put on the DVD he had in his player (Prometheus) for a minute. The point of the story is that after the demo (which BTW was sort of sad, he had a mediocre subwoofer cranked so high that it was just a constant droning thud-thud-thud that drowned out the soundtrack) he said, "and by the way that's just Dolby, not even DTS!" I just smiled and took my $35 receiver and bid him adieu.


----------



## LowellG

pasender91 said:


> Many believe that's a plain lie, and some others call it marketing....
> 
> 2015 AVR docs start to show up => DTS:X will NOT have speaker remapping right in this generation, and this is not a surprise
> There is no way a 5.1 DTS:X will sound better than 5.1.4 Atmos
> They are very similar systems, and DTS:X will actually "copy" Atmos locations in the AVRs.
> 
> To me, overall the DTS:X launch and messages have been a big deception, see how they try to induce false hopes into potential customers ?


If this is true about mapping, it makes me think I am dumb for holding out for a 2015 DTS:X receiver. I am upgrading every 2-3 years anyhow. Also, from Cedia 2015 discussions it doesn't look like I will be picking up a 4K projector soon anyhow. So I don't need some of the newer features.


----------



## Nalleh

New toy today.

I found a one month old Denon AVR-X7200W, only used a couple of ours in a stereo setup playing PS4, not even audyssey'ed, in the used ads, and got it for almost 40 percent off, compared to the price new!!
Deal of the century?

Received it today, and as could be expected: it was mint !

So got some work to do tomorrow exchanging my 5200 for this 7200.

So DTS:X ? Bring it


----------



## batpig

LowellG said:


> If this is true about mapping, it makes me think I am dumb for holding out for a 2015 DTS:X receiver. I am upgrading every 2-3 years anyhow.


Let's keep the distinction between "speaker remapping" and "object rendering". 

DTS:X will utilize object audio rendering, in theory dynamically rendering the soundtrack to whatever speakers are configured in the processor.

The issue is that DTS:X, like any other codec, is still going to be stuck using the preset templates for fixed speaker positions available in the speaker setup. It can't "remap" a speaker config that is way out of whack relative to the template. This is something that Trinnov offers.

Or in other words, the processor will assume your Front Height speaker is at a 30 or 45 degree elevation (whatever the real number is). And Atmos or DTS:X will render audio objects to that assumed location. That's rendering. But it won't actually know where your speakers are, so if the speakers you call "Front Height" aren't anywhere close to the built in assumption, it will not "remap" the audio to account for the literal physical location of the speaker.


----------



## LowellG

batpig said:


> Let's keep the distinction between "speaker remapping" and "object rendering".
> 
> DTS:X will utilize object audio rendering, in theory dynamically rendering the soundtrack to whatever speakers are configured in the processor.
> 
> The issue is that DTS:X, like any other codec, is still going to be stuck using the preset templates for fixed speaker positions available in the speaker setup. It can't "remap" a speaker config that is way out of whack relative to the template. This is something that Trinnov offers.
> 
> Or in other words, the processor will assume your Front Height speaker is at a 30 or 45 degree elevation (whatever the real number is). And Atmos or DTS:X will render audio objects to that assumed location. That's rendering. But it won't actually know where your speakers are, so if the speakers you call "Front Height" aren't anywhere close to the built in assumption, it will not "remap" the audio to account for the literal physical location of the speaker.


So DTS:X will just be running it's own version of DSU for quite a while?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> nothing to do with Scott Simonian


_Hey!_



LowellG said:


> If this is true about mapping, it makes me think I am dumb for holding out for a 2015 DTS:X receiver. I am upgrading every 2-3 years anyhow. Also, from Cedia 2015 discussions it doesn't look like I will be picking up a 4K projector soon anyhow. So I don't need some of the newer features.


Depends on your situation. Wait for 2015 DTS:X receiver? Sure, that's what I did. But I also wanted a new receiver as mine was several years old and I wanted all the latest features including HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 which is standard now. Worth getting if you need something new.



Nalleh said:


> New toy today.
> 
> I found a one month old Denon AVR-X7200X, only used a couple of ours in a stereo setup playing PS4, not even audyssey'ed, in the used ads, and got it for almost 40 percent off, compared to the price new!!
> Deal of the century?
> 
> Received it today, and as could be expected: it was mint !
> 
> So got some work to do tomorrow exchanging my 5200 for this 7200.
> 
> So DTS:X ? Bring it


Sweet!!




batpig said:


> The point of the story is that after the demo (which BTW was sort of sad, he had a mediocre subwoofer cranked so high that it was just a constant droning thud-thud-thud that drowned out the soundtrack) he said, "and by the way that's just Dolby, not even DTS!" I just smiled and took my $35 receiver and bid him adieu.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> So DTS:X will just be running it's own version of DSU for quite a while?


DTS:X will work pretty much the same way as Dolby Atmos does now using the same exact speaker layouts, unless you have a Trinnov that can give you the whole damn shebang and a lot of flexibility. 

DTS will have their own upmixer called Neural:X that will work like DSU.


----------



## ellisr63

batpig said:


> Let's keep the distinction between "speaker remapping" and "object rendering".
> 
> DTS:X will utilize object audio rendering, in theory dynamically rendering the soundtrack to whatever speakers are configured in the processor.
> 
> The issue is that DTS:X, like any other codec, is still going to be stuck using the preset templates for fixed speaker positions available in the speaker setup. It can't "remap" a speaker config that is way out of whack relative to the template. This is something that Trinnov offers.
> 
> Or in other words, the processor will assume your Front Height speaker is at a 30 or 45 degree elevation (whatever the real number is). And Atmos or DTS:X will render audio objects to that assumed location. That's rendering. But it won't actually know where your speakers are, so if the speakers you call "Front Height" aren't anywhere close to the built in assumption, it will not "remap" the audio to account for the literal physical location of the speaker.


It would be nice if someone would come out with a AVP or AVR that would allow you to input the angles of each speaker, and then calculate from there (and also direct the sounds properly to those positions).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

On another note, I'd like to know if D&M products will be the only ones to force you to use Neural:X with DTS and PCM audio and Dolby Surround with Dolby and PCM audio. I've looked through their new manuals and that's exactly what they're doing with the new upmixers: DTS for DTS stuff, Dolby for Dolby Stuff.

So, if you have a DTS 5.1 or 7.1 track of some sort, you're able to start using wide speakers with Neural:X. However, you cannot use that feature with anything encoded using Dolby products. And if you like DSU better than Neural:X, you can't if you use DTS encoded audio.


----------



## asere

What major differences is the from DTS X and Atmos?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

One is made by Dolby and the other is made by DTS.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> What major differences is the from DTS X and Atmos?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Except in some high end processor like a Trinnov... it looks like absolutely nothing. It boils down to the mixing and encoding side of things at the studios and the capabilities of each of their rendering plug-ins (consumer Dolby Atmos allows for more simultaneous objects, for instance). 

However, the big takeaway is: just like what happens on Blu-ray right now with regular DTS or Dolby encoded soundtracks, some studios may choose to use DTS: X and some may choose Dolby Atmos, so it's better to have both on board.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

digitlman said:


> Are you sure about the Titanic soundtrack? I bought that CD and listened to it many times. I am pretty sure I once saw video of James Horner conducting the orchestra during the recording of music for that movie (maybe it was dvd extra, i don't remember). It is my understanding all the music is real orchestra, with only the choir being added in afterwards as fake digital.


Never mind I think you are correct... going back & listening to it I hear it now. I do hear a lot of synthetic sounds... I think Enya did the soundtrack right? I guess it's a little unfair to categorize it as a midi fest, though T2 did make use of fake strings (at least that's what I noticed in the viaduct scene).


----------



## batpig

ellisr63 said:


> It would be nice if someone would come out with a AVP or AVR that would allow you to input the angles of each speaker, and then calculate from there (and also direct the sounds properly to those positions).


You're in luck!! It already exists. It's called a Trinnov Altitude and it will only cost around $20-30k


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Anyone use volt 6's as Atmos speakers? Looking for pictures of them installed on ceiling
I'm thinking of building 4 of them to replace he klipsch quintets currently pulling ATMOS duty


----------



## NorthSky

> Funny story -- a couple of days ago I went to some dude's house to buy a cheap PLII receiver (Yamaha HTR-5550) to enable expansion to 7.1.4 and a potential "BAtmos" setup (one which I invented myself in a moment of divine inspiration while gazing out onto the depths of the Pacific Ocean, nothing to do with Scott Simonian). Turns out he had a little mini HT setup in his spare bedroom with a PJ, so we started shooting the breeze about his setup and other HT stuff. He asked if I wanted a quick demo so I was like, sure, so he put on the DVD he had in his player (Prometheus) for a minute. The point of the story is that after the demo (which BTW was sort of sad, he had a mediocre subwoofer cranked so high that it was just a constant droning thud-thud-thud that drowned out the soundtrack) he said, *"and by the way that's just Dolby, not even DTS!"* I just smiled and took my $35 receiver and bid him adieu.


:grin: ...That's a fun story indeed...and he was right.


----------



## SeaNile

My future HT area will be approx 13x16x7.5'. From the false wall I have the seating area at about 11-13' from false wall. I have 4' from couch to rear wall. Do you think I have enough room for a 7.4 Atmos system? I could easily fit 5.2 but would love to get 7.4. Would having 4' to back wall be enough room/space to accommodate the 7.4?


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> New toy today.
> I found a one month old Denon AVR-X7200W, only used a couple of ours in a stereo setup playing PS4, not even audyssey'ed, in the used ads, and got it for almost 40 percent off, compared to the price new!!
> Deal of the century?
> Received it today, and as could be expected: it was mint !
> So got some work to do tomorrow exchanging my 5200 for this 7200.
> So DTS:X ? Bring it


You guys have some good winds in Norway...way cool.


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> What major differences is the from DTS X and Atmos?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk





Scott Simonian said:


> One is made by Dolby and the other is made by DTS.


Geeeeeeeee, this is almos scary. 

* Dolby Almos is cool, DTS:X is cooler (click on it from my sig...dts unbound).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Soooo...


Dolby = crudgy old Republican

DTS = young hip Democrat


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Soooo...
> 
> 
> Dolby = crudgy old Republican
> 
> DTS = young hip Democrat


DTS = Libertarian (alleged)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Auro3D = Ross Perot


----------



## NorthSky

SeaNile said:


> My future HT area will be approx 13x16x7.5'. From the false wall I have the seating area at about 11-13' from false wall. I have 4' from couch to rear wall. Do you think I have enough room for a 7.4 Atmos system? I could easily fit 5.2 but would love to get 7.4. Would having 4' to back wall be enough room/space to accommodate the 7.4?


Yes, that's about what I have behind my couch where my two back surround speakers are. ...The Calibration system take care of the proper delay.
And TM with TF (FH) works. 

Go for it, a 7.1.4 Atmos/DTS:X immersive sound system setup.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Soooo...
> Dolby = crudgy old Republican
> DTS = young hip Democrat
> Auro3D = Ross Perot


Where did you read that from Scott, wikipedia?


----------



## batpig

kokishin said:


> DTS = Libertarian (alleged)


What a way to make a reappearance kokishin!! UPDATE THAT DARN SPREADSHEET NOW WILL YA?!?!?


----------



## batpig

SeaNile said:


> My future HT area will be approx 13x16x7.5'. From the false wall I have the seating area at about 11-13' from false wall. I have 4' from couch to rear wall. Do you think I have enough room for a 7.4 Atmos system? I could easily fit 5.2 but would love to get 7.4. Would having 4' to back wall be enough room/space to accommodate the 7.4?


In that case I would go with a Top Middle + Front Height config. With low ceilings, and only 4' to the back wall, the Top Rear speakers would be crowding in with the Surround Back speakers and providing little separation. I can't find it right now but there was an interview with THX guys who tested a variety of Atmos configs and they noted this exact problem -- your SB speakers will probably be elevated slightly and the lack of physical separation between them and Top Rear will mitigate the impact that the TR speakers will bring to the table.

So I would go with TM speakers (above and slightly forward) and then Front Height speakers on the ceiling a few feet in from the front wall.


----------



## SeaNile

batpig said:


> In that case I would go with a Top Middle + Front Height config. With low ceilings, and only 4' to the back wall, the Top Rear speakers would be crowding in with the Surround Back speakers and providing little separation. I can't find it right now but there was an interview with THX guys who tested a variety of Atmos configs and they noted this exact problem -- your SB speakers will probably be elevated slightly and the lack of physical separation between them and Top Rear will mitigate the impact that the TR speakers will bring to the table.
> 
> So I would go with TM speakers (above and slightly forward) and then Front Height speakers on the ceiling a few feet in from the front wall.


That's what I was thinking would happen, not enough separation. Maybe I should simplify it and go with a 5.2 setup? I have plenty or room for that or even 7.2. I think 4 Atmos speakers is unrealistic for me.


----------



## batpig

SeaNile said:


> That's what I was thinking would happen, not enough separation. Maybe I should simplify it and go with a 5.2 setup? I have plenty or room for that or even 7.2. I think 4 Atmos speakers is unrealistic for me.


That's loser talk  do NOT scale all the way back to 5.1.2, please. At minimum, if you are able, you really want to complete that 7.1 base layer. So if you have to skimp you can get a 9ch processor and go 7.1.2, with a pair of Top Middle speakers above and a couple of feet in front of the LP. But just because you have a small room doesn't mean you can't go 7.1.4.


----------



## kokishin

batpig said:


> What a way to make a reappearance kokishin!! UPDATE THAT DARN SPREADSHEET NOW WILL YA?!?!?


Working on it.

Should anyone request inclusion into the spreadsheet of BAtmos™, SCAtmos™, ZAtmos™, etc, ...


Spoiler



KISSMYAtmos™


----------



## SeaNile

I have a lot of stuff to fit in this small room, going with JBL 4722 for LCR (once my JBL M2's sell), 8 18" subs (may not need all 8) and undecided on receiver and rear/surround/atmos speakers. Thinking going with the JBL SCS8 for all of those.

Do I really need to spend $3000 for a Marantz 8802? Are there more cost effective options?


----------



## ellisr63

batpig said:


> In that case I would go with a Top Middle + Front Height config. With low ceilings, and only 4' to the back wall, the Top Rear speakers would be crowding in with the Surround Back speakers and providing little separation. I can't find it right now but there was an interview with THX guys who tested a variety of Atmos configs and they noted this exact problem -- your SB speakers will probably be elevated slightly and the lack of physical separation between them and Top Rear will mitigate the impact that the TR speakers will bring to the table.
> 
> So I would go with TM speakers (above and slightly forward) and then Front Height speakers on the ceiling a few feet in from the front wall.


I am in a similar situation with my front row being 12' from the AT Screen, and 7' from the rear wall (with a 2nd row a couple of feet from the rear wall). I am running 7.2 now, and will be going Atmos when my new preamp arrives. I was planning on putting one pair on the ceiling about 2' in front of the MLP, and the other pair about 2' behind the MLP. Now you have me wondering if I should put one pair behind the AT screen and the 2nd pair either lined up with the side surrounds or a couple of foot forward. Since they will have to be mounted to the ceiling...how do I determine which is best in my situation?


----------



## batpig

SeaNile said:


> I have a lot of stuff to fit in this small room, going with JBL 4722 for LCR (once my JBL M2's sell), 8 18" subs (may not need all 8) and undecided on receiver and rear/surround/atmos speakers. Thinking going with the JBL SCS8 for all of those.
> 
> Do I really need to spend $3000 for a Marantz 8802? Are there more cost effective options?


Eight 18" subs in that room? Scott Simonian would be / is proud 

Definitely no need to spend $3k on the 8802 if you don't want to. If you NEED a pre/pro then the upcoming 7702 mkII will also have 11ch processing and those yummy Marantz HDAM analog circuits for a lot less coin. For even less you can get a receiver and use it as a hybrid pre/pro with some of the internal amps running lesser channels.


----------



## LowellG

batpig said:


> That's loser talk  do NOT scale all the way back to 5.1.2, please. At minimum, if you are able, you really want to complete that 7.1 base layer. So if you have to skimp you can get a 9ch processor and go 7.1.2, with a pair of Top Middle speakers above and a couple of feet in front of the LP. But just because you have a small room doesn't mean you can't go 7.1.4.


So what is the minimum distance between the top back and rear surrounds. I am beginning to think maybe I shouldn't go 7.1.4. My second row is only about a foot off the back wall. If I did the .4, the top back speakers would be 3-4 feet off the back wall at the 45 degree mark.


----------



## batpig

ellisr63 said:


> I am in a similar situation with my front row being 12' from the AT Screen, and 7' from the rear wall (with a 2nd row a couple of feet from the rear wall). I am running 7.2 now, and will be going Atmos when my new preamp arrives. I was planning on putting one pair on the ceiling about 2' in front of the MLP, and the other pair about 2' behind the MLP. Now you have me wondering if I should put one pair behind the AT screen and the 2nd pair either lined up with the side surrounds or a couple of foot forward. Since they will have to be mounted to the ceiling...how do I determine which is best in my situation?


Leaving aside the back row, 7' from the rear wall is far enouch that you could theoretically fit Top Rear speakers behind the MLP and still have some separation. They would basically be in between the rows and provide some overhead sensation to that back row. Given the need especially for coverage of two rows I would stick to the more traditional TF+TR layout you were considering.

That said having the top speakers only 2' forward / 2' back isn't that much angular separation. Assuming 5' up to the ceiling, 2' forward is only 20 degrees (i.e. 70 degree elevation) so not really in spec. Top Front / Top Rear should be at least 35 degrees off the direct vertical. You can fudge it a bit for the Top Rear if you are constrained somehow by that second row since we aren't as sensitive to sounds behind us, but I'd get the Top Front at least 3-4 in front of the MLP (or whever it needs to be to get in that ~45 degree elevation range).

I would NOT put the Front Height speakers BEHIND the AT screen, unless you have an enormously tall front wall. The angular elevation would be too minimal to get a height separation.


----------



## dkfan9

http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/klipschdolby-atmos-demo-duck-dodge-and-hide/58338

DD+ might soon have Atmos capabilities


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> New toy today.
> 
> I found a one month old Denon AVR-X7200W, only used a couple of ours in a stereo setup playing PS4, not even audyssey'ed, in the used ads, and got it for almost 40 percent off, compared to the price new!!
> Deal of the century?
> 
> Received it today, and as could be expected: it was mint !
> 
> So got some work to do tomorrow exchanging my 5200 for this 7200.
> 
> So DTS:X ? Bring it


So now is the time to get that 9.x.12 alive..


----------



## batpig

LowellG said:


> So what is the minimum distance between the top back and rear surrounds. I am beginning to think maybe I shouldn't go 7.1.4. My second row is only about a foot off the back wall. If I did the .4, the top back speakers would be 3-4 feet off the back wall at the 45 degree mark.


I don't think there's a rule. But see my post above -- for a two row theater I would DEFINITELY do x.x.4 so you can get overhead coverage for both rows. That rearward pair of overheads will be in front of the back row but they should still be able to function as Top Middle/Rear for the front row.


----------



## batpig

dkfan9 said:


> http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/klipschdolby-atmos-demo-duck-dodge-and-hide/58338
> 
> DD+ might soon have Atmos capabilities


It already does. The VUDU streams (Atmos demos) use DD+, and the Atmos demo discs offer an option of TrueHD or DD+ encoding.


----------



## dkfan9

Scott Simonian said:


> Auro3D = Ross Perot


Or, in today's landscape, Donald Trump


----------



## dkfan9

batpig said:


> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.twice.com/blog/open-circuit/klipschdolby-atmos-demo-duck-dodge-and-hide/58338
> 
> DD+ might soon have Atmos capabilities
> 
> 
> 
> It already does. The VUDU streams (Atmos demos) use DD+, and the Atmos demo discs offer an option of TrueHD or DD+ encoding.
Click to expand...

Ah, I forgot about the VUDU demos and didn't know that about the discs. Will be interesting to see when networks and Netflix start utilizing it


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> Generally if people find the effect is unnatural they are using too much processing. Somewhere IRO of 30-50% is plenty IME and IMO. And only the HD Mode is of any real use - the SD and game modes are horrible. I use my Darbee with as little processing as makes a noticeable difference. IOW, I can't really tell it is there unless I disengage it.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. I find that hat eating can be difficult and not alleviated much by ketchup either. In this instance, I already feel bad about taking Manni's money when the time comes



Darbee on HD 35, 118" 16:9 Carada BW screen, Sony 55ES. Wouldn't want to live without my Darbee.


----------



## asere

I threw in Mockinjay and couldn't hear sound from the heights. It was not until I noticed it was not decoding Atmos because with my avr it does not display on the screen. You have to go to the on screen menu on the tv to select the listening modes. That was annoying by the way makes me want to buy one that actually appears on the avr. 
Anyhow once placed on Atmos it sounded pretty cool. With 5.1 a siren on the movie was coming from the rear surrounds but on Atmos 5.1.2 you could hear it on the heights instead.
Other than that the sound is mixed well where it sounds like it's all blended vs discreet. I think it might depend on the movie.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## ellisr63

batpig said:


> Leaving aside the back row, 7' from the rear wall is far enouch that you could theoretically fit Top Rear speakers behind the MLP and still have some separation. They would basically be in between the rows and provide some overhead sensation to that back row. Given the need especially for coverage of two rows I would stick to the more traditional TF+TR layout you were considering.
> 
> That said having the top speakers only 2' forward / 2' back isn't that much angular separation. Assuming 5' up to the ceiling, 2' forward is only 20 degrees (i.e. 70 degree elevation) so not really in spec. Top Front / Top Rear should be at least 35 degrees off the direct vertical. You can fudge it a bit for the Top Rear if you are constrained somehow by that second row since we aren't as sensitive to sounds behind us, but I'd get the Top Front at least 3-4 in front of the MLP (or whever it needs to be to get in that ~45 degree elevation range).
> 
> I would NOT put the Front Height speakers BEHIND the AT screen, unless you have an enormously tall front wall. The angular elevation would be too minimal to get a height separation.


Thanks for the explanation. The speakers I am using for the ceiling will be JBL 8320s which are designed to give a 20 degree angle. I am having some custom made brackets made for them that will allow me to angle them or make them parallel to the ceiling. My back row is on top of my DTS-10 sub so i lose about 18" of ceiling height (about 7' height). Where as the front row is closer to 9'. Do you still recommend the same? I can go 4' in front of the MLP before i would hit the Acoustic panels on the ceiling (2' wide panels), then I have about 6' before i get to the AT screen.


----------



## kokishin

nalleh said:


> hey, kokishin where are you?
> I believe the spreadsheet needs an update!


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> What a way to make a reappearance kokishin!! UPDATE THAT DARN SPREADSHEET NOW WILL YA?!?!?





kokishin said:


> Working on it.



Sweet! I made the top 100. Where's my T-Shirt/bumper sticker/swag?

Thanks kokishin and welcome back!


----------



## Mike Lang

Complaints are coming in. Save the political posts, no matter how subtle, for another forum.


----------



## kuesl

Brian Fineberg said:


> IMHO the best use of ATMOS to date


I think "Insurgent" is okay but not comparable to "Gravity" or the first 8 Minutes of "Unbroken".


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> You guys have some good winds in Norway...way cool.


Word !!
I could not believe it when i saw the ad and the price he was asking. He was going to buy a new car, so he needed the money, fast 
"It's yours if nobody outbids you", he said! And nobody did! Even more unbelievable, LOOL.

Very happy ))



aaranddeeman said:


> So now is the time to get that 9.x.12 alive..


Yesss.. I now have 3 (three) Atmos AVR's, a EMOTIVA XPA-5 and a older Yama RX-V3067 (7channel with 7.1 multi in, PLIIx, etc), so i have some ideas, hehe.
Been inspired by all the PLIIx talk here lately, so im going to experiment a bit and see what Frankenmonster i can cook up


----------



## maikeldepotter

ellisr63 said:


> It would be nice if someone would come out with a AVP or AVR that would allow you to input the angles of each speaker, and then calculate from there (and also direct the sounds properly to those positions).





batpig said:


> You're in luck!! It already exists. It's called a Trinnov Altitude and it will only cost around $20-30k


Trinnov combines object rendering with remapping physical speaker locations to default positions programmed into Dolby's object rendering block (24 at listeners' level and 10 overheads).

This is different than being able to input speaker angles directly into the object renderer itself. Not even the Trinnov Altitude does allow just that.


----------



## fredl

peterfram said:


> I've been testing multiple speaker layouts for a week while we plan a remodel. IMHO, 7.1.4 with rears is a must with Atmos. In a less than perfect room, with the side surrounds way too high at least, adding the rears made more difference than anything else.


In our HT we have two rows with the MLP being in the back row which is back against the wall. Inspired by Peters setup I will try adding surround back speakers and see if I like it.

Our current Onkyo 636 receiver only supports 7.1 or 5.1.2 so I would have to forego using DSU on 7.1 (non atmos) discs. I suspect that I might have to replace the side surrounds which are dipoles, but I will at least try using them first to see how it sounds. I have a spare 7.1 receiver but I think if I used it in order to power the SS and SB speakers on atmos material the sound which should be elevated to the top/height speakers would be folded into the surround speakers.

I think I will hook all of this up using a speaker selector switch, like A = connect my Atmos on ceiling speaker arrays to back / height, B = connect my two surround back speakers to back / height. Does anyone know if there's an A/B switch which can take banana plug connectors?


----------



## ah_hin

Hi all, do you guys think the satellite speakers from KEF 2005.3 are good choice for surface mount ceiling atmos speakers? I am upgrading my system, and I am about to pull the trigger on the SVS ultra package with two sb-2000. Will the KEF be a good match to SVS?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> What you are saying is when dtsx is available it won't have position rendering because an avr has to support it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


That's right. Positional rendering is part of the Atmos spec and, as far as we know, part of the DTS:X spec. PR means that the AVR is able to decode the information in the Atmos or DTS:X stream and send it to the nearest speaker to which it was originally intended to go, and also to use phantom imaging from other speakers at the same time in order to precisely locate the sound to the position the mixer intended. But the AVR manufacturer needs to provide support for this in the decoding abilities of the unit and, so far in the affordable sector, nobody has. It may come later, it may not.


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> Dtx x states you don't need extra speakers. Maybe the remap will be part of the x avr update.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


You need to be careful to separate the marketing babble from the reality. DTS are trying to find points of distinction between DTS:X and Atmos and in so doing they have not always been entirely accurate with their information, or made it so vague that it can mean almost anything. 

DTS:X requires a similar speaker setup to Atmos - several at listener level and at least two overhead. But sounds will be sent to the speakers at the places they are located. If you put one speaker in the left rear corner of the room and another in the right rear corner of the room (as opposed to two in a line over your head) then the sonic result will be a mess. There is no "speaker remapping" in affordable AVRs and not likely to be in the near future. If you want speaker remapping you have one choice: a $25,000 Trinnov.

The important takeaway from this is that you need to place your speakers as close as you can to their intended locations. If you don't, you will get unpredictable, and probably poor, results.


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> Dtsx makes it seem as the speaker layout is not as critical as atmos.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The Atmos speaker layout is not critical. Dolby give a huge range of potential angles for all overhead speaker sets and you can choose two or four overhead speakers and place them (in pairs) in any of six different configurations. That is not 'critical' placement in my book. DTS have said that :X can use Atmos speaker layouts. I repeat: you cannot just put your speakers anywhere and expect the AVR to somehow 'fix' it.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Many believe that's a plain lie, and some others call it marketing....
> 
> 2015 AVR docs start to show up => DTS:X will NOT have speaker remapping right in this generation, and this is not a surprise
> There is no way a 5.1 DTS:X will sound better than 5.1.4 Atmos
> They are very similar systems, and DTS:X will actually "copy" Atmos locations in the AVRs.
> 
> To me, overall the DTS:X launch and messages have been a big deception, see how they try to induce false hopes into potential customers ?


+1.


----------



## kbarnes701

SeaNile said:


> My future HT area will be approx 13x16x7.5'. From the false wall I have the seating area at about 11-13' from false wall. I have 4' from couch to rear wall. Do you think I have enough room for a 7.4 Atmos system? I could easily fit 5.2 but would love to get 7.4. Would having 4' to back wall be enough room/space to accommodate the 7.4?


I have a smaller room than you and I am running 7.2.4 and it is superb. My rear surrounds are closer to me than yours will be but they still make a great contribution. Go for it!

Batpig makes some pertinent comments too, as ever. I am running FH+TM with the TM pair slightly in front of my listening position. I seem to get good separation between them and the rear surrounds. My rear surrounds are mounted as low as possible - just high enough so that the backs of the seats don't block them.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a smaller room than you and I am running 7.2.4 and it is superb. My rear surrounds are closer to me than yours will be but they still make a great contribution. Go for it!
> 
> Batpig makes some pertinent comments too, as ever. I am running FH+TM with the TM pair slightly in front of my listening position. I seem to get good separation between them and the rear surrounds. My rear surrounds are mounted as low as possible - just high enough so that the backs of the seats don't block them.


Glad you like your surround backs 

Agree on the FH+TM


----------



## fredl

I was perusing an old thread on using multiple side surrounds (this thread www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1488704-having-four-speakers-surround-two-row-1.html)

In that thread they mentioned a MiniDSP plug-in called rear/center channel (http://www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/2x4-plug-ins/rear-center-channel-detail). Wouldn't that be an easier way to accomplish an Atmos-EX config for 7.1.6? It would take up four inputs on a compatible MiniDSP device. You would of course need to provide amplification but there's many ways to accomplish that. I can also envision using that particular plug in to make a two channel side surround array using SS-L and SB-L, SS-R and SB-R, the output SS-LC and SS-RC would provide SS for a second row of seating. For the more adventurous people I guess you could also try using FW-L and SS-L etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Glad you like your surround backs
> 
> Agree on the FH+TM


Thanks. I put off installing rear surrounds for a long time because I thought the room was too small. But it isn't. I am now benefitting from much greater immersion at the listener level. Add in the much greater immersion thanks to DSU/Atmos at the overhead level and, well, I am immersed!


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. I put off installing rear surrounds for a long time because I thought the room was too small. But it isn't. I am now benefitting from much greater immersion at the listener level. Add in the much greater immersion thanks to DSU/Atmos at the overhead level and, well, I am immersed!


 
That's a good start Keith. Now you only need to install wides to see the rest of the light 

Come on, Sanjay told you, a door in the way isn't an excuse. You only have to bring down this house of yours, move that window and build the house back up around it.

This pathetic excuse only tells me one thing: if you let this stop you, you don't really want it .


----------



## Lesmor

SeaNile said:


> I have a lot of stuff to fit in this small room, going with JBL 4722 for LCR (once my JBL M2's sell), 8 18" subs (may not need all 8) and undecided on receiver and rear/surround/atmos speakers. Thinking going with the JBL SCS8 for all of those
> 
> Do I really need to spend $3000 for a Marantz 8802? Are there more cost effective options?


Small room 8x18" subs WTF


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> That's a good start Keith. Now you only need to install wides to see the rest of the light
> 
> Come on, Sanjay told you, a door in the way isn't an excuse. You only have to bring down this house of yours, move that window and build the house back up around it.
> 
> This pathetic excuse only tells me one thing: if you let this stop you, you don't really want it .


You’re right. Not only do I not _really_ want Wides. I don't want them _at all_.


----------



## kbarnes701

:wink::laugh:


Lesmor said:


> Small room 8x18" subs WTF


:grin::devil::eeksurprise::devil::smile:


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> You’re right. Not only do I not _really_ want Wides. I don't want them _at all_.



Very disappointing from someone whose motto is "you can never have too much woofage", but I don't lose hope. One day, you'll spread your wings out of this little box of room, and you'll leave the dark side .


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> Very disappointing from someone whose motto is "you can never have too much woofage", but I don't lose hope. One day, you'll spread your wings out of this little box of room, and you'll leave the dark side .


What do wides have to do with woofage? 

If I had a much bigger room I'd consider wides. But it would need to be a much bigger room. I find that my system phantom images very well already between the surrounds and the mains and wides wouldn’t add anything of value. Of course, this may be a metric of my small room and I readily accept that. My side surrounds now sit slightly in front of MLP, since I added the rear surrounds and so they are not too far from the L&R speakers anyway. That is why I don't want wides at all. But I still see no connection with all that and woofage.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> What do wides have to do with woofage?
> 
> If I had a much bigger room I'd consider wides. But it would need to be a much bigger room. I find that my system phantom images very well already between the surrounds and the mains and wides wouldn’t add anything of value. Of course, this may be a metric of my small room and I readily accept that. *My side surrounds now sit slightly in front of MLP, since I added the rear surrounds* and so they are not too far from the L&R speakers anyway. That is why I don't want wides at all. But I still see no connection with all that and woofage.


Did this help with side pannings/phantom imaging front to rear?


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> What do wides have to do with woofage?
> 
> If I had a much bigger room I'd consider wides. But it would need to be a much bigger room. I find that my system phantom images very well already between the surrounds and the mains and wides wouldn’t add anything of value. Of course, this may be a metric of my small room and I readily accept that. My side surrounds now sit slightly in front of MLP, since I added the rear surrounds and so they are not too far from the L&R speakers anyway. That is why I don't want wides at all. But I still see no connection with all that and woofage.


Nothing to do with woofage, except in spirit 

You don't need a bigger room. It's all about angles, so as long as all speakers can be more than about 1m from you, there is nothing stopping you from installing them.

My room is 4.45 x 4.10 m and there is a significant difference between 7.2.2 and 9.2.2. which can only be attributed to the presence of wides.

Yes you can phantom image them, but try the test setup of Expendables 2 in Neo:X and tell me where you hear the wides in your 7.1.4 setup. Are they where they should be, at around 55-60 degrees? When I do this test, I hear the wides behind me when phantoming them, and of course exactly where they should be when using physical wides.

In fact I find the wides even more beneficial in small rooms. The way they expand the front stage, making the room feel much bigger than it is, as if the walls were pushed away, is great. I have a fully dedicated room with black velvet everywhere, so the screen floats in front of me and I have no sense of the presence of the walls when watching a film. With wides, the room simply feels so much bigger.

One of the only Atmos movies that actually benefits from 9.2.2 over 7.1.4 is Chicago (the Atmos remaster). The Jail Tango track in 9.2.2 is even better than in 7.1.4, because there is little overhead effect and it's all about a wider stage, so losing the second height isn't as big a deal as in movies like Gravity, American Sniper, Hunger Games or Unbroken which use the heights all the time, and for which going to 9.2.2 is a clear step down from 7.1.4 from an immersion point of view.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> You need to be careful to separate the marketing babble from the reality. DTS are trying to find points of distinction between DTS:X and Atmos and in so doing they have not always been entirely accurate with their information, or made it so vague that it can mean almost anything.
> 
> DTS:X requires a similar speaker setup to Atmos - several at listener level and at least two overhead. But sounds will be sent to the speakers at the places they are located. If you put one speaker in the left rear corner of the room and another in the right rear corner of the room (as opposed to two in a line over your head) then the sonic result will be a mess. There is no "speaker remapping" in affordable AVRs and not likely to be in the near future. If you want speaker remapping you have one choice: a $25,000 Trinnov.
> 
> The important takeaway from this is that you need to place your speakers as close as you can to their intended locations. If you don't, you will get unpredictable, and probably poor, results.


 Thanks for clearing that up. When reading up on DTS X nowhere does it mention the avr has to be able to remap the sound or phantom like you mentioned. I think that is misleading from their end. See the link
http://listen.dts.com/pages/dts-x


----------



## SeaNile

Lesmor said:


> Small room 8x18" subs WTF


I have 8 18" subs leftover from my previous home and HT setup. That room was considerably larger measuring about 17x40x9.

I have 8 18" subs but may not "need" to use them all.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Did this help with side pannings/phantom imaging front to rear?


The panning was pretty good anyway really but yes, it can't hurt. The main benefit in this room of the addition of the rear surrounds though is the much more noticeable sense of all-round immersion. And side to side pans behind me are more defined now, as one would expect with speakers actually behind me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> Nothing to do with woofage, except in spirit
> 
> You don't need a bigger room. It's all about angles, so as long as all speakers can be more than about 1m from you, there is nothing stopping you from installing them.


While I agree with that, there is a difference between two speakers that are 4 feet apart and two that are 9 feet apart, in the sense that the latter allows the sound to 'travel' the room better. In all of the big rooms I have been in, this is something I notice readily compared with my small room - and even when all the angles are the same (mine were all ITU spec).



Manni01 said:


> My room is 4.45 x 4.10 m and there is a significant difference between 7.2.2 and 9.2.2. which can only be attributed to the presence of wides.


Well I can't argue with what you hear in your own room. 



Manni01 said:


> Yes you can phantom image them, but try the test setup of Expendables 2 in Neo:X and tell me where you hear the wides in your 7.1.4 setup. Are they where they should be, at around 55-60 degrees? When I do this test, I hear the wides behind me when phantoming them, and of course exactly where they should be when using physical wides.


Done that many times. The wides always image where physical speakers would go if I had them.



Manni01 said:


> In fact I find the wides even more beneficial in small rooms. The way they expand the front stage, making the room feel much bigger than it is, as if the walls were pushed away, is great.


Again that is readily noticeable here. The room seems as big as the scene on the screen. If it is an aircraft hangar, it feels that big. If it is a toilet, it feels that big. Always has. Even more noticeable with Atmos. I don't think one needs wides to recreate the spaciousness of a scene.



Manni01 said:


> I have a fully dedicated room with black velvet everywhere, so the screen floats in front of me and I have no sense of the presence of the walls when watching a film. With wides, the room simply feels so much bigger.


Same here, but without the wides 



Manni01 said:


> One of the only Atmos movies that actually benefits from 9.2.2 over 7.1.4 is Chicago (the Atmos remaster). The Jail Tango track in 9.2.2 is even better than in 7.1.4, because there is little overhead effect and it's all about a wider stage, so losing the second height isn't as big a deal as in movies like Gravity, American Sniper, Hunger Games or Unbroken which use the heights all the time, and for which going to 9.2.2 is a clear step down from 7.1.4 from an immersion point of view.


I have Chicago and haven’t noticed this but I will give it a spin and see what I hear. I would never want just 2 overhead speakers. No front to rear panning!


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. When reading up on DTS X nowhere does it mention the avr has to be able to remap the sound or phantom like you mentioned. I think that is misleading from their end. See the link
> http://listen.dts.com/pages/dts-x


Well they do have a bit of a reputation lately for being economical with the truth!


----------



## riverphoenix123

If you unplug all speaker cables to your Dolby Atmos amp apart from the top of the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers would you be able to just hear the height effects? Just to test them out.


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> While I agree with that, there is a difference between two speakers that are 4 feet apart and two that are 9 feet apart, in the sense that the latter allows the sound to 'travel' the room better. In all of the big rooms I have been in, this is something I notice readily compared with my small room - and even when all the angles are the same (mine were all ITU spec).


 
Sure, but there are 7ft between my front at 30 deg and my surround speakers at 100 deg. Adding wides means 4ft between front and wides and 3ft between wides and surrounds. So both the angles and the distance between the speakers are within what brings an improvement, just like adding back surrounds behind you improved your experience, despite the fact that two surrounds at 110 deg (not at 90deg) are perfectly able to image sounds panning behind you. It's simply not the same effect, as you have noticed.


Now if your front and your surround are only 3ft apart or less, then I agree that adding wides won't make any difference, but then your room is even smaller than I thought .


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> Sure, but there are 7ft between my front at 30 deg and my surround speakers at 100 deg. Adding wides means 4ft between front and wides and 3ft between wides and surrounds. So both the angles and the distance between the speakers are within what brings an improvement, just like adding back surrounds behind you improved your experience, despite the fact that two surrounds at 110 deg (not at 90deg) are perfectly able to image sounds panning behind you. It's simply not the same effect, as you have noticed.


I wasn't discussing imaging when I said the sound 'travels' the room better in a larger room. I was saying that when a sound pans around the room, the bigger the room, the better the effect of the pan. There should be no problem imaging between speakers 7 feet apart. You are conflating two different things that I said.



Manni01 said:


> Now if your front and your surround are only 3ft apart or less, then I agree that adding wides won't make any difference, but then your room is even smaller than I thought .


Now you are making up figures that I never mentioned.


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> I wasn't discussing imaging when I said the sound 'travels' the room better in a larger room. I was saying that when a sound pans around the room, the bigger the room, the better the effect of the pan. There should be no problem imaging between speakers 7 feet apart. You are conflating two different things that I said.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making up figures that I never mentioned.


Then I have no idea what you mean by sound travelling better in a larger room, so let's drop this.


The only point I was making was that as long as you have at least 6ft between speakers, then adding some in between some can be beneficial. If you adding speakers means that you end up with less than 3ft between them, then I can't see much benefit to do so.

I never said you couldn't image between speakers which are 7ft apart, or more. Of course you can. Yet, just like adding back surrounds help imaging between the surrounds, adding wides helps imaging between the front and the surrounds.

Is it less necessary than having surrounds between the back surrounds and the front? You bet.
Is it the same as having no speaker between the front and the surrounds? I don't think so.

Before you tried 7.1.4, you weren't sure it would add anything in your room because it was too small. I and others encouraged you to try, you did, and you liked it.

Before you tried Dirac, you thought that XT32 was more than enough. Then you tried Dirac and now you are a convert (you've even converted me, although I still have to find a way to try it in my room before making the jump).

Please be open minded about wides. Try them, and if you don't like what they do, then don't use them. The reason why you're not interested is simply because current AVRs don't handle them in Atmos or DTS:X with 4 heights, or in DSU at all. But they work very well in Neo:X or Atmos 9.1.2 Atmos. 

But ruling them out simply because your room is supposed to be too small doesn't make sense any more than it made sense when you were dismissing surround backs. As long as your speakers are more than 3ft away from you, and more than 3ft from each other, I believe that mo speakers it mo better as Batpig would say (up to 9.1.4, possibly 9.1.6 depending on your room). After that I agree that in most rooms with 1/2 rows we're into the realm of diminishing returns, although I wouldn't let my CH (which lifts dialogue up on my non AT screen) go, and I quite like what TS does in Auro.

In compromised rooms like mine, some speakers can also make up for the way others have to be located in less than ideal positions due to various room constraints.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> Then I have no idea what you mean by sound travelling better in a larger room, so let's drop this.


Sound travels through air at a given speed, we agree, yes? So a sound travelling 12 feet will take 3 times longer to travel than a sound travelling 4 feet. So when the RPG is launched from its starting position, the noise it makes travels the given distance. If the given distance is bigger, then you have more time to hear the sound traversing the room, that's all. So a bigger room gives a better impression of this sound crossing the room than a smaller room does. It's no big deal but it is noticeable if you compare a small room and a big room. Nothing I can do about it of course, other than to move house.



Manni01 said:


> Please be open minded about wides. Try them, and if you don't like what they do, then don't use them. The reason why you're not interested is simply because current AVRs don't handle them in Atmos or DTS:X with 4 heights, or in DSU at all. But they work very well in Neo:X or Atmos 9.1.2 Atmos.


No - the reason I am not interested in them is that they will not fit into my room. I have tried and gave up - I cannot make anything like the required angles.



Manni01 said:


> But ruling them out simply because your room is supposed to be too small doesn't make sense any more than it made sense when you were dismissing surround backs.


I am guessing that I know this room better than you do. So when I say I have tried to locate wides and cannot meet the angles, all you can do is say "oh, OK".

I have never dismissed rear surrounds and have always wanted to use them here. It took some creative thinking, moving the MLP forward to its absolute limit and an ingenious mounting solution for one of the subsequently moved side surround speakers. None of the options used in that change are available to me for the installation of wides. And, unlike with rear surrounds I am not convinced wides are necessary anyway, but that is a different issue.




Manni01 said:


> In compromised rooms like mine, some speakers can also make up for the way others have to be located in less than ideal positions due to various room constraints.


Ah - so now we may be getting to the real reason why you like the wides so much: improper placement of the other speakers, leaving you with less than ideal imaging...


----------



## Manni01

kbarnes701 said:


> Sound travels through air at a given speed, we agree, yes? So a sound travelling 12 feet will take 3 times longer to travel than a sound travelling 4 feet. So when the RPG is launched from its starting position, the noise it makes travels the given distance. If the given distance is bigger, then you have more time to hear the sound traversing the room, that's all. So a bigger room gives a better impression of this sound crossing the room than a smaller room does. It's no big deal but it is noticeable if you compare a small room and a big room. Nothing I can do about it of course, other than to move house.
> 
> 
> 
> No - the reason I am not interested in them is that they will not fit into my room. I have tried and gave up - I cannot make anything like the required angles.
> 
> 
> 
> I am guessing that I know this room better than you do. So when I say I have tried to locate wides and cannot meet the angles, all you can do is say "oh, OK".
> 
> I have never dismissed rear surrounds and have always wanted to use them here. It took some creative thinking, moving the MLP forward to its absolute limit and an ingenious mounting solution for one of the subsequently moved side surround speakers. None of the options used in that change are available to me for the installation of wides. And, unlike with rear surrounds I am not convinced wides are necessary anyway, but that is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah - so now we may be getting to the real reason why you like the wides so much: improper placement of the other speakers, leaving you with less than ideal imaging...


 
I know what stops you from mounting wides permanently in your room, and to this, I say OK. I'm talking about trying wides to see if they do make a difference or not, even in your small room. Just so that you can make up your own mind about something. But I suppose that just like you're very happy to trash Auro without having ever tried it, you're happy to trash wides without ever trying them. As long as DSU doesn't support them, you don't have a strong incentive to try them. Hopefully Neural:X will give you a better incentive when it finally lands.


And no, my front, wides, surrounds and back surrounds are absolutely with specs at 30/55/100/150 degrees. I was talking about other speakers, like CH (FH are too low due to the slanted ceiling in my loft) or SBH (RH are too low for the same reason).


----------



## Atmos74

*Layout question/advice.*

Hi All.

New to the forums as I've been searching in regards to Atmos which lead me to hear.
My local cinema in Australia had it installed recently and it's great so I took the plunge and purchased an Atmos amp for my theater room. 

I was initially going to go with toppers on my front speakers but I have a coffered ceiling so I don't think it will work and will instead opt for ceiling speakers.

My concern is due to the ceiling layout I'm not sure what the best placement would be for 2 ceiling speakers. 

If I was to post a picture on the site of the ceiling from the seating position and also an picture facing the seating with ceiling in view will you be able to advise of best layout (if possible)

Thanks,


----------



## sdurani

Atmos74 said:


> I'm not sure what the best placement would be for 2 ceiling speakers.


The strongest impression of sound above you will come from speakers above you (80-90 elevation).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lesmor said:


> Small room 8x18" subs WTF


Meh. I've got double that.

Small room is no excuse for small amount of subs or speakers. Only until you actually run out of room.


----------



## Scott Simonian

SeaNile said:


> I have a lot of stuff to fit in this small room, going with JBL 4722 for LCR (once my JBL M2's sell), 8 18" subs (may not need all 8) and undecided on receiver and rear/surround/atmos speakers. Thinking going with the JBL SCS8 for all of those.


Nice.


----------



## kbarnes701

Manni01 said:


> But I suppose that just like you're very happy to trash Auro without having ever tried it ...


Please find the posts where I have ever "trashed" the sound of Auro. Clue: there aren't any. Simple reason - I have never heard Auro. What I have said many times about Auro is that they have a collapsed business model, came to market with the wrong product at spectacularly the wrong time, have no worthwhile content and no prospect of any, have made false claims about their 'upmixer' which isn’t really an upmixer at all and have finally, as predicted, more or less died the death. So not even close, let alone a cigar.

That's three times on just one pageful of posts that you've made stuff up about what people have said - twice for me and once for Sanjay. Not a great record.



Manni01 said:


> you're happy to trash wides without ever trying them.


Do you really think I have never heard wide speakers? Really? I’ll have one more go at explaining why I cannot have wides here: I cannot get even close to the recommended angles. Not even close. There are two huge Submersives in the way. And a door. Please allow me the small indulgence of knowing the physical layout and issues of my room better than you do.



Manni01 said:


> As long as DSU doesn't support them, you don't have a strong incentive to try them. Hopefully Neural:X will give you a better incentive when it finally lands.


What??? WTF has DSU got to do with it? Or Neural:X? *I cannot put wide speakers in my room because it is impossible to meet the angles, or even get close.*


----------



## Scott Simonian

You don't need wides, Keith. Not everybody needs wides.

Pretty much the only people who do need wides are the ones that got addicted to them with Neo:X or DSX (which nobody every admits out loud that they like).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html

Some new Atmos features added to the list recently... some of them might actually be worth watching!

I kid, I kid... but man the last batch were awful except for Mission Impossible. Note Maze Runner was added... the first had a fantastic Atmos mix. 

Sicario & Everest I'm looking forwards to... especially Everest as that will be available in HDR (if the theater by me finishes upgrading in time).


----------



## RUR

kbarnes701 said:


> What I have said many times about Auro is that they have a collapsed business model, came to market with the wrong product at spectacularly the wrong time, have no worthwhile content and no prospect of any, have made false claims about their 'upmixer' which isn’t really an upmixer at all and have finally, as predicted, more or less died the death.


There's rumbling from reliable sources that Auro engineering talent are seeking employment elsewhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> You don't need wides, Keith. Not everybody needs wides.
> 
> Pretty much the only people who do need wides are the ones that got addicted to them with Neo:X or DSX (which nobody every admits out loud that they like).


I know. I have nothing against wides or anyone wanting them. TBH if I had the room I'd probably have them too - can't do any harm can they! But I certainly feel no pressing need for them.

DSX is truly horrible. I only ever used it when I had Height speakers of course but all it did was replicate the L&R speakers at a slightly lower level. Made for a huge wall of sound at the front, at the expense of the carefully crafted 'bubble' we all work so hard to achieve. Can’t speak for how it is with wides of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

RUR said:


> There's rumbling from reliable sources that Auro engineering talent are seeking employment elsewhere.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Me neither. I just question the importance of them (wides) considering their real life support of these "super ultra mega duper important" speaker location.

You know what speaker is important? A speaker between the rear surround and the side surround. You know... stability helps. I'm going to lobby now for side surround 2. Yup.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> *I cannot put wide speakers in my room because it is impossible to meet the angles, or even get close.*


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## lujan

Aras_Volodka said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/movies.html
> 
> Some new Atmos features added to the list recently... some of them might actually be worth watching!
> 
> I kid, I kid... but man the last batch were awful except for Mission Impossible. Note Maze Runner was added... the first had a fantastic Atmos mix.
> 
> Sicario & Everest I'm looking forwards to... especially Everest as that will be available in HDR (if the theater by me finishes upgrading in time).


I'm more interested in a list for Atmos in the home market than at the theater. I guess the only place for that list is still blu-ray.com, correct?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I'm more interested in a list for Atmos in the home market than at the theater. *I guess the only place for that list is still blu-ray.com, correct?*


As far as I know, yes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

lujan said:


> I'm more interested in a list for Atmos in the home market than at the theater. I guess the only place for that list is still blu-ray.com, correct?


I think most of us would agree but it's good to know when a movie has it's native theatrical mix made in Atmos. Better chances that it will be in Atmos on a home video format either now or in the future.

For example: Furious 7 and Jurassic World. These are the biggest movies of 2015 and neither of them have an Atmos mix. They are native 7.1 audio. They will be 7.1 on Blu-ray and any future home video release would require a whole new remix just to get with Atmos-times.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> I think most of us would agree but it's good to know when a movie has it's native theatrical mix made in Atmos. Better chances that it will be in Atmos on a home video format either now or in the future.
> 
> For example: Furious 7 and Jurassic World. These are the biggest movies of 2015 and neither of them have an Atmos mix. They are native 7.1 audio. They will be 7.1 on Blu-ray and any future home video release would require a whole new remix just to get with Atmos-times.


_Jurassic World_ made enough to warrant a Dolby Atmos remix. I don't know if it warrants one based off of any story quality, however. I'd rather they remixed the first film instead.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> You don't need wides, Keith. Not everybody needs wides.



I only have wides because I had them mounted for my old receiver - I ran in DSX all of the time. I saw no need to take them down when I switched the the 5200/Atmos. They're not a need, but nice to have the option of.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Jurassic World_ made enough to warrant a Dolby Atmos remix. I don't know if it warrants one based off of any story quality, however. I'd rather they remixed the first film instead.


Both movies made 1.5 *billion* dollars.


----------



## Lesmor

Scott Simonian said:


> Meh. I've got double that.
> 
> Small room is no excuse for small amount of subs or speakers. Only until you actually run out of room.


Well thats more like it


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> *I cannot put wide speakers in my room because it is impossible to meet the angles, or even get close.*



I have a similar issue with the placement of *Front Wides* in one room (_although my problems are not "red", "italicized", or "underlined"...?!_)

However, I do have the appropriate wall space to install a pair of *Height Front Wide* speakers. Regrettably this speaker location is "non standard", and the only processor I've seen that offers a *Front Left|Right Wide Height* speaker pair is the *Illusonic IAP* . . . which unfortunately requires the *Front Left|Right Wide (Middle layer)* speaker pair be installed before a *Front Left|Right Wide Height* speaker pair is allowed (_and is definitely out of my price range!_).











Perhaps *DTS:X* promised "flexible approach" to speaker placement might offer a solution?!  


_


----------



## fredl

Now that you have Settled your dispute about WHO Said what? Can we please discuss my Idea for using the minidsp plugin for Atmos-EX? See spoiler. 



Spoiler






fredl said:


> I was perusing an old thread on using multiple side surrounds (this thread www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1488704-having-four-speakers-surround-two-row-1.html)
> 
> In that thread they mentioned a MiniDSP plug-in called rear/center channel (http://www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/2x4-plug-ins/rear-center-channel-detail). Wouldn't that be an easier way to accomplish an Atmos-EX config for 7.1.6? It would take up four inputs on a compatible MiniDSP device. You would of course need to provide amplification but there's many ways to accomplish that. I can also envision using that particular plug in to make a two channel side surround array using SS-L and SB-L, SS-R and SB-R, the output SS-LC and SS-RC would provide SS for a second row of seating. For the more adventurous people I guess you could also try using FW-L and SS-L etc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

What's the question?

If the question is, "wouldn't it be easier to use the Minidsp?" then the answer is 'No'. The minidsp may do the same thing in a simple box but you still need external amplification for six channels at minimum. 

Definitely "easier" to just use some cheap receivers to do the same thing only with more options and less things to buy and hook up.


----------



## sdurani

fredl said:


> I can also envision using that particular plug in to make a two channel side surround array using SS-L and SB-L, SS-R and SB-R, the output SS-LC and SS-RC would provide SS for a second row of seating. For the more adventurous people I guess you could also try using FW-L and SS-L etc.


The plug-in doesn't really extract a centre output from the two incoming channels, just sums them together for a third output. As such, there will be a lot of leakage between outputs. By comparison, using PLII on a pair of receivers will yield a much cleaner centre extraction (and provide amplification too).


----------



## kbarnes701

SoundChex said:


> I have a similar issue with the placement of *Front Wides* in one room (_although my problems are not "red", "italicized", or "underlined"...?!_)


Yeah, that only happens when you have to say it multiple times and it's ignored every time. 



SoundChex said:


> However, I do have the appropriate wall space to install a pair of *Height Front Wide* speakers. Regrettably this speaker location is "non standard", and the only processor I've seen that offers a *Front Left|Right Wide Height* speaker pair is the *Illusonic IAP* . . . which unfortunately requires the *Front Left|Right Wide (Middle layer)* speaker pair be installed before a *Front Left|Right Wide Height* speaker pair is allowed (_and is definitely out of my price range!_).


Well we all have to make compromises of one sort or another. Doesn't mean we can't get a fabulous result.



SoundChex said:


> Perhaps *DTS:X* promised "flexible approach" to speaker placement might offer a solution?!
> 
> 
> _


Well it would if it were true  Fact is, unless there are significant changes in the hardware to allow for either positional rendering, speaker position remapping, or both, whatever DTS say or want becomes just hot air unfortunately. It's not like DTS can do anything on their own to remap speakers etc. Without hardware support it won't happen. And there seems to be no appetite for hardware support at this time, in the affordable gear anyway.


----------



## ah_hin

ah_hin said:


> Hi all, do you guys think the satellite speakers from KEF 2005.3 are good choice for surface mount ceiling atmos speakers? I am upgrading my system, and I am about to pull the trigger on the SVS ultra package with two sb-2000. Will the KEF be a good match to SVS?
> 
> Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


Just wondering... can anyone with experience comment on this? KEF is known for having wide dispersion, so I supposed they are good for using as the top speakers?

and if my seats are only about 1 foot from the back wall, should I still try to install the surrounds on the back wall, and the tops right above the seats?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## fredl

sdurani said:


> The plug-in doesn't really extract a centre output from the two incoming channels, just sums them together for a third output. As such, there will be a lot of leakage between outputs. By comparison, using PLII on a pair of receivers will yield a much cleaner centre extraction (and provide amplification too).


That's Too bad. From my reading in the other thread it should have worked. The plugin has two modes L+R and L-R (or R-L) so It looked promising. It would have taken up a LOT less space in my rack. 

Back to the drawing board!


----------



## JosephTonyStark

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a smaller room than you and I am running 7.2.4 and it is superb. My rear surrounds are closer to me than yours will be but they still make a great contribution. Go for it!
> 
> Batpig makes some pertinent comments too, as ever. I am running FH+TM with the TM pair slightly in front of my listening position. I seem to get good separation between them and the rear surrounds. My rear surrounds are mounted as low as possible - just high enough so that the backs of the seats don't block them.


Interesting setup. Are you able to run your FH+TM at the same time as an Atmos setup? I thought TM was when you only had a single pair of overhead speakers...


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> You don't need wides, Keith. Not everybody needs wides.
> 
> Pretty much the only people who do need wides are the ones that got addicted to them with Neo:Xor DSX (which nobody every admits out loud that they like).


Guilty as charged!

In my room, I hear a fuller front sound stage with Neo:X 11.1. This results in more realistic sounding playback for musical sources, replicating the impression of an orchestra in live performance spread out before me. Here, FH add to that wall of sound, whereas rearward tops would actually seem misplaced or at least superfluous IMO. Therefore, I am happy to forgo 7.1.4 for this specific application. Movie-watching is quite another proposition and Atmos/DSU will await a valiant challenger for my default sound mode whenever a video source is playing.

I remember experimenting with DSX once when I first got my AVR-3311CI four years ago--didn't like it at all then and never saw fit to try it again.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

SeaNile said:


> My future HT area will be approx 13x16x7.5'. From the false wall I have the seating area at about 11-13' from false wall. I have 4' from couch to rear wall. Do you think I have enough room for a 7.4 Atmos system? I could easily fit 5.2 but would love to get 7.4. Would having 4' to back wall be enough room/space to accommodate the 7.4?


It's perfect. Position of Rear Surrounds is uncritical. Put these in the rear corners. Guessing about +/- 120°. Put the Side Surrounds slightly ahead of MLP (+/- 75°). Maybe do FH+TM pairs (TM slightly behind you if you have 4 overheads). Keith Barnes has progressed to 7.x.4 and his couch is against the rear wall.


----------



## kbarnes701

ah_hin said:


> Just wondering... can anyone with experience comment on this? KEF is known for having wide dispersion, so I supposed they are good for using as the top speakers?


I am guessing that the Kefs are a dual concentric driver arrangement? Uni-Q or whatever they call it? With pretty good dispersion characteristics? Do Kewf publish those sorts of specification details? If they do, check the dispersion characteristics out.

If so, then they will probably make pretty reasonable Atmos overhead speakers.


----------



## kokishin

JosephTonyStark said:


> Interesting setup. Are you able to run your FH+TM at the same time as an Atmos setup? I thought TM was when you only had a single pair of overhead speakers...


FH+TM is allowed because they are not adjacent pairs.

Adjacent pairs are not allowed: i.e., FH+TF, TF+TM, TM+TR, TR+RH.


----------



## kbarnes701

JosephTonyStark said:


> Interesting setup. Are you able to run your FH+TM at the same time as an Atmos setup? I thought TM was when you only had a single pair of overhead speakers...


Yes - the FH+TM *is* my Atmos setup. There are 6 different combinations of the three pairs of speakers - FH+TM is one of them. What is prohibited is using adjacent pairs, so for example, TF+TM is a no-no.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's perfect. Position of Rear Surrounds is uncritical. Put these in the rear corners. Guessing about +/- 120°. Put the Side Surrounds slightly ahead of MLP (+/- 75°). Maybe do FH+TM pairs (TM slightly behind you if you have 4 overheads). Keith Barnes has progressed to 7.x.4 and his couch is against the rear wall.


It's about 3 feet from the back wall now, Erwin. I moved the seats as far forward as possible (in relation to the screen) so that I could create some space behind me for the rear surrounds. Other than that I agree with your comments above. My side surrounds are at about 80-85° from MLP due to room issues. I'd have put them a bit more forward if the door wasn't in the way. I am using FH+TM but in this room I found that the TM pair were slightly better when just in front of me. Since moving the seats they are more or less directly in line with my ears but the additional immersion from the rear surrounds seems to have compensated, and there is just NFW I am moving the ceiling speakers again.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - the FH+TM *is* my Atmos setup. There are 6 different combinations of the three pairs of speakers - FH+TM is one of them. What is prohibited is using adjacent pairs, so for example, TF+TM is a no-no.





kokishin said:


> FH+TM is allowed because they are not adjacent pairs.
> 
> Adjacent pairs are not allowed: i.e., FH+TF, TF+TM, TM+TR, TR+RH.


Very cool. What are you guys using as receivers\processors?


----------



## kbarnes701

JosephTonyStark said:


> Very cool. What are you guys using as receivers\processors?


Denon X5200W. Used as a processor only as all amps for all 11 channels are external.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. Positional rendering is part of the Atmos spec and, as far as we know, part of the DTS:X spec. PR means that the AVR is able to decode the information in the Atmos or DTS:X stream and send it to the nearest speaker to which it was originally intended to go, and also to use phantom imaging from other speakers at the same time i*n order to precisely locate the sound to the position the mixer intended*. But the AVR manufacturer needs to provide support for this in the decoding abilities of the unit and, so far in the affordable sector, nobody has. It may come later, it may not.


With remapping turned off, Trinnov's implementation of Dolby Atmos still allows a positional error of 7.5 degrees horizontal at listeners' pane. Would you call that precise?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sure would. Will you hear a 7.5 degree error?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> With remapping turned off, Trinnov's implementation of Dolby Atmos still allows a positional error of 7.5 degrees horizontal at listeners' pane. Would you call that precise?


I haven’t the faintest idea, sorry.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven’t the faintest idea, sorry.


No need to apologize, I haven't either, but ATSC does, given the requirements in their request for proposal for 3.0 audio system won by Dolby: 2 degrees tolerance for listener's level speakers.


----------



## kopmjj

can someone confirm this for me please on a denon x5200 or other ? when sending dolby atmos sound as lpcm and not bitstream can it still detect the sound track as atmos ? so you get an option like Multichannel IN Dolby Atmos i know the amp can do Multichannel In Dolby Surround for DSU but not sure on actual atmos tracks.

the reason i ask is because i use kodi or jriver and i like to use the dsp settings which i cant use if bit streaming.


----------



## NorthSky

kopmjj said:


> can someone confirm this for me please on a denon x5200 or other ? when sending dolby atmos sound as lpcm and not bitstream can it still detect the sound track as atmos ? so you get an option like Multichannel IN Dolby Atmos i know the amp can do Multichannel In Dolby Surround for DSU but not sure on actual atmos tracks.
> 
> the reason i ask is because i use kodi or jriver and i like to use the dsp settings which i cant use if bit streaming.


No, Dolby Atmos can only work when it is bitstreamed.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Sure would. Will you hear a 7.5 degree error?


If references to scientific reports are to be believed we all can hear it, especially in front of us. Can you hear the difference between a 45 and 60 degrees spread between your mains?


----------



## batpig

kopmjj said:


> can someone confirm this for me please on a denon x5200 or other ? when sending dolby atmos sound as lpcm and not bitstream can it still detect the sound track as atmos ? so you get an option like Multichannel IN Dolby Atmos i know the amp can do Multichannel In Dolby Surround for DSU but not sure on actual atmos tracks.
> 
> the reason i ask is because i use kodi or jriver and i like to use the dsp settings which i cant use if bit streaming.


No you have to bitstream. The Atmos metadata will be gone after its decoded by a non Atmos decoder.


----------



## RUR

maikeldepotter said:


> With remapping turned off, Trinnov's implementation of Dolby Atmos still allows a positional error of 7.5 degrees horizontal at listeners' pane. Would you call that precise?


Well thank God for remapping, then.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> If references to scientific reports are to be believed we all can hear it, especially in front of us. Can you hear the difference between a 45 and 60 degrees spread between your mains?


Were those studies done with stereo sources? Plenty of research shows that our hearing acuity drops off fast the more speakers you add. Dolby has stated their research shows that the 7.5 degree error is fine, and I'm inclined to believe them given that there will be 7-11 speakers playing. 

Your example of 45 vs 60 degrees isn't really valid because they would be assigned to different locations. If the processor (ie Trinnov) has the ability to assign the speaker to the closest 15 degree pie slice the real question is can you tell the difference between rendering to a speaker that's assumed to be at 60 degrees but actually is at 53 or 67? I'm inclined to believe that's plenty good enough in an environment with all those speakers blasting around you. Certainly not worth worrying about unless you are excessively obsessed with precision. I hope you listen with your head strapped firmly into a vice, god forbid you slouch down or lean slightly to the left during a movie and change the relative angles by 2 degrees!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

We will need to all start having 48 speakers around us now. 

Oh crap! Dolby maxes out at 24 around us.

Atmos sucks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kopmjj said:


> can someone confirm this for me please on a denon x5200 or other ? when sending dolby atmos sound as lpcm and not bitstream can it still detect the sound track as atmos ? so you get an option like Multichannel IN Dolby Atmos i know the amp can do Multichannel In Dolby Surround for DSU but not sure on actual atmos tracks.
> 
> the reason i ask is because i use kodi or jriver and i like to use the dsp settings which i cant use if bit streaming.


You don't get Dolby Atmos when converting the TrueHD encoded 7.1 channel core to PCM 7.1. The Atmos extension data has been stripped out. As others have stated, you must bitstream the raw audio data with secondary audio turned off as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> We will need to all start having 48 speakers around us now.
> 
> Oh crap! Dolby maxes out at 24 around us.
> 
> *Atmos sucks.*


It's the worst audio technology _ever!!! _


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's the worst audio technology _ever!!! _


Thankfully DTS:X will soon free us from this horrible bondage.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Thankfully DTS:X will soon free us from this horrible bondage.


It is our audio messiah. Kneel before *X*!!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Thank goodness.

DTS will be here to save the day!

Sound unbound, yo. Unbound from Dolby limitations.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## asere

Many say it's the same more or less. I can't wait myself. I expect it to be better. I have always liked DTS over DD.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Many say it's the same more or less. I can't wait myself. I expect it to be better. I have always liked DTS over DD.


To be totally frank, we all love Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA equally. ...The same with Dolby Atmos and most likely DTS:X.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Can you hear the difference between a 45 and 60 degrees spread between your mains?


Sure, especially if they are the only two speakers playing. But that's not how you'll experience it in real life. Suppose you're in a room with 11 speakers and a certain sound that was intended to image at 72 degrees instead images at 79 degrees (off by 7 degrees) due to your speaker placement. How will you know that it imaged at the wrong location? What reference will you compare it to for proper localization?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Many say it's the same more or less. I can't wait myself. I expect it to be better. I have always liked DTS over DD.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


From a purely technical standpoint, the consumer DTS:X version cannot support as many simultaneous objects as the consumer version of Dolby Atmos if the sound mixers move past Dolby's default rendering setting. Whether that translates into a noticeable difference in the quality of the near-field re-mixes sonically... well...


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Sure, especially if they are the only two speakers playing. But that's not how you'll experience it in real life. Suppose you're in a room with 11 speakers and a certain sound that was intended to image at 72 degrees instead images at 79 degrees (off by 7 degrees) due to your speaker placement. How will you know that it imaged at the wrong location? What reference will you compare it to for proper localization?


I was responding to the statement that if implemented to its max, Dolby Atmos is able to "precisely locate the sound to the position the mixer intended". My question was if in that respect one would call a possible positional error of 7.5 degrees precise.

Most of us will never know the exact "position the mixer intended", and therefore will have no reference. But if I am looking at a big screen at home, I would like to have sounds that come from the screen to closely match the positions of what I see. That would be my reference for proper localization.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

batpig said:


> Were those studies done with stereo sources? Plenty of research shows that our hearing acuity drops off fast the more speakers you add. Dolby has stated their research shows that the 7.5 degree error is fine, and I'm inclined to believe them given that there will be 7-11 speakers playing.
> 
> Your example of 45 vs 60 degrees isn't really valid because they would be assigned to different locations. If the processor (ie Trinnov) has the ability to assign the speaker to the closest 15 degree pie slice the real question is can you tell the difference between rendering to a speaker that's assumed to be at 60 degrees but actually is at 53 or 67? I'm inclined to believe that's plenty good enough in an environment with all those speakers blasting around you. Certainly not worth worrying about unless you are excessively obsessed with precision. I hope you listen with your head strapped firmly into a vice, god forbid you slouch down or lean slightly to the left during a movie and change the relative angles by 2 degrees!!


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> I expect it to be better. I have always liked DTS over DD.


What is it that you like about DTS over DD?


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Were those studies done with stereo sources? Plenty of research shows that our hearing acuity drops off fast the more speakers you add. Dolby has stated their research shows that the 7.5 degree error is fine, and I'm inclined to believe them given that there will be 7-11 speakers playing.
> 
> Your example of 45 vs 60 degrees isn't really valid because they would be assigned to different locations. If the processor (ie Trinnov) has the ability to assign the speaker to the closest 15 degree pie slice the real question is can you tell the difference between rendering to a speaker that's assumed to be at 60 degrees but actually is at 53 or 67? I'm inclined to believe that's plenty good enough in an environment with all those speakers blasting around you. Certainly not worth worrying about unless you are excessively obsessed with precision. I hope you listen with your head strapped firmly into a vice, god forbid you slouch down or lean slightly to the left during a movie and change the relative angles by 2 degrees!!



What a great idea! How could I forget the most important object of all: my head!!!

But seriously...

While I don't consider myself overly obsessive compared to the average poster in this thread, and even appreciate the occasional joke to put things in perspective, I do wonder why discussing Dolby's 7.5 degrees precision in the light of ASTM's requirement of 2 degree tolerance generates that much ridiculisation on a forum that has science in its name...


----------



## SeaNile

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a smaller room than you and I am running 7.2.4 and it is superb. My rear surrounds are closer to me than yours will be but they still make a great contribution. Go for it!
> 
> Batpig makes some pertinent comments too, as ever. I am running FH+TM with the TM pair slightly in front of my listening position. I seem to get good separation between them and the rear surrounds. My rear surrounds are mounted as low as possible - just high enough so that the backs of the seats don't block them.


Got it. What does FH+TM refer to? I got the LCR, rear surrounds and side speaker placement. But where exactly are you referring to for the 4 ceiling speakers FH+TM?


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> What is it that you like about DTS over DD?


I always thought it had more dynamics. At the same volume level going back and forth from DD and DTS I always felt it was clearer. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

SeaNile said:


> Got it. What does FH+TM refer to? I got the LCR, rear surrounds and side speaker placement. But where exactly are you referring to for the 4 ceiling speakers FH+TM?


FH stands for front height and TM for top middle.

I understand you are undecided about which AVR/SSP you will be getting, but just for reference below is a diagram published by D&M showing the recommended elevation angles for the five top-level speaker positions. If you stay within the ranges given for each respective set of speakers (i.e., 30° - 45° for FH and 65° - 100° for TM) you should get good results.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> My question was if in that respect one would call a possible positional error of 7.5 degrees precise.


Can't answer in absolutes, just relative to other notions of precision: 7.5 degrees is more precise than channel-based systems we've been using but less precise than the best our human hearing can do. Since some info about speaker location is better than what we currently have, I'll take some improvement over no improvement.


> I would like to have sounds that come from the screen to closely match the positions of what I see.


That's not dependent on the technology, but the mix. I've seen plenty of movies where a speaking character is walking across the screen but the mix doesn't have steered dialogue. More precise rendering can't change that. 

If you don't know what was intended by the mixer, what will hyper-precise rendering buy you? If I sat you in a home theatre and turned positional rendering off and on without telling you which was which, how would you know which one was more accurate? 

Might explain one of the reasons this feature isn't a high priority for manufacturers.


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> I always thought it had more dynamics. At the same volume level going back and forth from DD and DTS I always felt it was clearer.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


How odd. You do realise that DTS and DD are just two different ways of compressing the data? It is the same as using ZIP or RAR to compress a Word document. When the document is decompressed, you wouldn't expect it to be different depending on which compressor had been used, would you?

There is absolutely no difference sonically between a DTS track and a DD track.

And incidentally, when you did your comparisons "at the same volume level" you did adjust for Dialnorm presumably? DTS doesn't have Dialnorm so you could have a significant difference in loudness. Mind you, that would explain why you preferred one over the other: a difference in level of less than 1dB invariably makes the louder track the preferred one.


----------



## kbarnes701

SeaNile said:


> Got it. What does FH+TM refer to? I got the LCR, rear surrounds and side speaker placement. But where exactly are you referring to for the 4 ceiling speakers FH+TM?



Just to add to Chi's reply, this version of the diagram also shows the speakers from above.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That's not dependent on the technology, but the mix. I've seen plenty of movies where a speaking character is walking across the screen but the mix doesn't have steered dialogue. More precise rendering can't change that.


Quite. And that is the norm for most mixes anyway - the dialog stays rooted to the center channel. I assume it is because it would be very irritating if arguably the most important sound component in the movie kept swinging from side to side.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You do realise that DTS and DD are just two different ways of compressing the data? It is the same as using ZIP or RAR to compress a Word document.


Are you and asere talking about legacy compression codecs (DTS and DD) or lossless packing codecs (Master Audio and TrueHD)? The former isn't the same as using ZIP or RAR, more like MP3 vs AAC.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Are you and asere talking about legacy compression codecs (DTS and DD) or lossless packing codecs (Master Audio and TrueHD)? The former isn't the same as using ZIP or RAR, more like MP3 vs AAC.


Good point. I'm talking about DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD. Who uses the old lossy things any more?  Maybe asere is discussing the lossy things. No doubt he will chime in. Obviously lossless is lossless whichever codec it is  You’re right - I should have been more specific.


----------



## LowellG

OK, I am ordering 4 in ceiling speakers today. Def Tech DI5.5s to best match my SM65s, CS8080 and 4 PM10000. I don't have an Atmos receiver yet because I am waiting for the next gen with DTS:X and and Atmos in about 5-6 months. However, my X4000 will do 9.2 Any issues with running Y-Splitters for the 4 heights and running all 4 heights. I figure I might as well break them in.  

FYI, I have an Outlaw Audio 7125, so I have enough power 11 speakers.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> How odd. You do realise that DTS and DD are just two different ways of compressing the data? It is the same as using ZIP or RAR to compress a Word document. When the document is decompressed, you wouldn't expect it to be different depending on which compressor had been used, would you?
> 
> There is absolutely no difference sonically between a DTS track and a DD track.
> 
> And incidentally, when you did your comparisons "at the same volume level" you did adjust for Dialnorm presumably? DTS doesn't have Dialnorm so you could have a significant difference in loudness. Mind you, that would explain why you preferred one over the other: a difference in level of less than 1dB invariably makes the louder track the preferred one.


You are possibly correct with the loudness part. That's exactly what I observed.
Now on an avr note. How come some avrs out of the box sound much better than others. No eq or nothing with all channels at 0 db? By better I mean sound. Learning here.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kokishin

asere said:


> You are possibly correct with the loudness part. That's exactly what I observed.
> Now on an avr note. How come some avrs out of the box sound much better than others. No eq or nothing with all channels at 0 db? By better I mean sound. Learning here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Perhaps to make their auto REQ seem more effective? [sort of j/k]


----------



## asere

kokishin said:


> Perhaps to make their auto REQ seem more effective? [sort of j/k]


I mean without eq. Just straight out of the box.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Quite. And that is the norm for most mixes anyway - the dialog stays rooted to the center channel. I assume it is because it would be very irritating if arguably the most important sound component in the movie kept swinging from side to side.


On this note I warched Birdman last night (well at least most of it before I passed out... Will finish tonight!) and it is a terrific soundtrack. But relevant to this point it is one of the most aggressive mixes I've ever heard in how it pans dialogue (also music) around the room. A very cool soundtrack for testing this phenomenon.


----------



## kokishin

asere said:


> I mean without eq. Just straight out of the box.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I know. So when you utilize their auto REQ, they dramatically sound better (because they sounded crappy prior to running auto REQ) compared to a unit that sounded reasonably good prior to running auto REQ.

Capiche?


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> You are possibly correct with the loudness part. That's exactly what I observed.
> Now on an avr note. *How come some avrs out of the box sound much better than others*. No eq or nothing with all channels at 0 db? By better I mean sound. Learning here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


IMO they don't. The differences between modern units, sonically, is very small and maybe imperceptible. Most of the difference is in features and build quality. Of course, a cheap low-end unit might not last as long as a flagship unit from the same maker, and the flagship unit may use higher quality components which will last longer or stay in spec longer etc. But modern components are very good and while there may be differences in their specifications, all that matters is whether those differences are audible or not. One unit may have a distortion figure of 0.1 and the other have a figure of 0.01 or 0.001 - huge differences, but if the human ear can only hear distortion to the 0.1 level, then the other figures are meaningless. The EQ system is where sonic differences will come from for sure. My advice is to buy the least expensive AVR that does what you need it to do.

This brings us to the issue of power amps in the AVRs. If you need very high SPLs or have very insensitive speakers, or both, then you will need powerful amps to give you clean sound at the levels you want. The more expensive AVRs usually have higher power amps. You will definitely hear a difference from the cheap unit compared with the expensive unit if the former cannot generate the high SPLs cleanly of course. But so long as you are not driving the amp into audible distortion/clipping, then a 75 watt amp will sonically be the same as a 150 watt amp (3dB of difference). So again, my advice is to buy the amplification you need and no more. If you routinely listen at -5dB then you will need a fairly powerful amp/AVR (assuming speakers of average sensitivity) - if your normal listening level is -12dB, then the 75 watt amp will be all you need.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> On this note I warched Birdman last night (well at least most of it before I passed out... Will finish tonight!) and it is a terrific soundtrack. But relevant to this point it is one of the most aggressive mixes I've ever heard in how it pans dialogue (also music) around the room. A very cool soundtrack for testing this phenomenon.


Thx. I have the movie but not watched it yet. I will bump it up the list


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Can't answer in absolutes, just relative to other notions of precision: 7.5 degrees is more precise than channel-based systems we've been using but less precise than the best our human hearing can do. Since some info about speaker location is better than what we currently have, I'll take some improvement over no improvement. That's not dependent on the technology, but the mix. I've seen plenty of movies where a speaking character is walking across the screen but the mix doesn't have steered dialogue. More precise rendering can't change that.


True. There is nothing to prevent a mix not to include steered dialogue or other steered on-screen sounds for that matter. But I would expect mixers to exploit this possibility more and more as their experience with object based sound increases.



> If you don't know what was intended by the mixer, what will hyper-precise rendering buy you? If I sat you in a home theatre and turned positional rendering off and on without telling you which was which, how would you know which one was more accurate?


You will only be able to asses such accuracy with on-screen sounds and sounds panning from the screen to outside-of-screen, and only in case the re-recording engineer has chosen to use such steering possibilities to their full potential.



> Might explain one of the reasons this feature isn't a high priority for manufacturers.


To me it is still not clear whether the current minimum of 7.5 degrees positional tolerance of Atmos is due to the implementation by Trinnov, or if it has to do with the limitations of the Atmos-for-home technology itself. I would expect the latter as Dolby's own research has apparently shown that a 7.5 degree positional accuracy is sufficient for the purpose of Atmos.


----------



## Lesmor

batpig said:


> On this note I warched Birdman last night (well at least most of it before I passed out... Will finish tonight!) and it is a terrific soundtrack. But relevant to this point it is one of the most aggressive mixes I've ever heard in how it pans dialogue (also music) around the room. A very cool soundtrack for testing this phenomenon.


Was that in Atmos or DSU
Checked on line no reference to Atmos so just checking?


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> On this note I warched Birdman last night (well at least most of it before I passed out... Will finish tonight!) and it is a terrific soundtrack. But relevant to this point it is one of the most aggressive mixes I've ever heard in how it pans dialogue (also music) around the room. A very cool soundtrack for testing this phenomenon.


Absolutely. I was thinking about this very same movie not only for panning sounds around the room but also just for this accurate positioning of sounds (dialogue) on screen, especially noticeable at the moments when the camera is panning.

Edit: BTW This was without Atmos and without DSU.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Thx. I have the movie but not watched it yet. I will bump it up the list


I concur in batpig's assessment of the sound, and I think you will enjoy the movie as well. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea (and certainly not on a par with the typical Michael Bay explodarama); but if I know your cinephilic sensitivities, you will find it entertaining.



Lesmor said:


> Was that in Atmos or DSU
> Checked on line no reference to Atmos so just checking?


The BRD is encoded in DTS-HD MA 5.1, so no Atmos. I watched it in full DSU 7.1.4 glory.


----------



## robusto400

*Dolby Atmo ability to upscale*

I am considering a new Dolby Atmos system and setup in a 5.1.4 configuration. My biggest issue at this point is the investment without any significant available content. My question is does DA attempt to upscale and create a matrixed version from regular DD, DTS or HD signal to output to the height speakers? If so how good of a job does it do? Furthermore does BD content which has and will be encoded in Dolby Atmos also have this same mix on the discs you would rent from Netflix or Red Box? Are there currently any other significant sources of content to support this new format? 


Thanks.


----------



## GoCaboNow

Anyone implemented an ATMOS setup in a multi row home theater? 

Looking for any experiences and feedback for setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robusto400 said:


> I am considering a new Dolby Atmos system and setup in a 5.1.4 configuration. My biggest issue at this point is the investment without any significant available content. My question is does DA attempt to upscale and create a matrixed version from regular DD, DTS or HD signal to output to the height speakers? If so how good of a job does it do? Furthermore does BD content which has and will be encoded in Dolby Atmos also have this same mix on the discs you would rent from Netflix or Red Box? Are there currently any other significant sources of content to support this new format?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Most anything from Lionsgate (where the bulk of the immersive tracks are coming from right now) _will not_ contain a full retail soundtrack on their rental copies. You must buy their retail discs for the full lossless soundtrack (but the catch is that Walmart sometimes sells their rental disc versions as full retail discs as exclusive "bargain bin" stripped down discs). 

*Dolby Surround *is the upmixer that will expand regular stereo, 5.1, and 7.1 channel-based tracks into the Atmos speaker layout. On the DTS front, that would be *Neural: X*. You will need to buy a receiver or pre-amp that specifically states it will do 5.1.4 DTS: X decoding once the firmware update hits.

They do a really good job of filling out these "old fashioned" soundtracks with a more enveloping sound field by utilizing the overhead speakers.

Lists of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X titles:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=atmos

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742&highlight=dts+x


----------



## peterfram

robusto400 said:


> I am considering a new Dolby Atmos system and setup in a 5.1.4 configuration. My biggest issue at this point is the investment without any significant available content. My question is does DA attempt to upscale and create a matrixed version from regular DD, DTS or HD signal to output to the height speakers? If so how good of a job does it do? Furthermore does BD content which has and will be encoded in Dolby Atmos also have this same mix on the discs you would rent from Netflix or Red Box? Are there currently any other significant sources of content to support this new format?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


You have the option on an Atmos enabled receiver to upmix non-Atmos content to utilize the top/height speakers. It generally sounds great on content that has good audio. At times I find the ambient/background music coming from the top speakers can dominate probably a little more than it should though. Upscaled/mixed content what all this DSU chat on this thread is about. I'm using it for nearly all content now. Though for a DTS blu-ray I did watch in Neo-X or one of the other formats on the AVR-X7200WA since I thought it sounded fantastic.

I stream movies a lot. The Vudu and Amazon content uses DD+. It is technically inferior to TrueHD and even when playing the Vudu Atmos demo clips (which sound great by the way), the receiver outputs the content as DD+ Surround which uses the height/top speakers, but is not displayed as "Atmos" output on the AVR-x7200WA anyway. Blu-ray will display as Atmos output and for the time being still gives the highest quality audio output. 

I just re-read your post and realized you were talking about Blu-ray deliver from Netflix, not streaming. I don't use those services, but earlier in this thread folks mentioned that Redbox uses inferior discs that lack premium audio tracks. Blu-ray disc purchases are the main source for Atmos content. I expect the fledgeling UHD/HDR content download services (M-Go) will support Atmos eventually.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> You will only be able to asses such accuracy with on-screen sounds and sounds panning from the screen to outside-of-screen, and only in case the re-recording engineer has chosen to use such steering possibilities to their full potential.


OK, so the only way appreciate the benefits of positional rendering is IF the mixer matches sound placement to the on-screen action and then ONLY for sounds at or near the screen, with sounds around and above you have no such visual reference. Tough sell.


> To me it is still not clear whether the current minimum of 7.5 degrees positional tolerance of Atmos is due to the implementation by Trinnov, or if it has to do with the limitations of the Atmos-for-home technology itself. I would expect the latter as Dolby's own research has apparently shown that a 7.5 degree positional accuracy is sufficient for the purpose of Atmos.


That's purely Dolby. Having gone with other AVS members to the Atmos press day a year ago, Dolby made it clear that home Atmos is not carved in stone. IF there is market demand for more that 34 potential speaker locations, then they're willing to re-assess the spec.


----------



## robusto400

peterfram said:


> You have the option on an Atmos enabled receiver to upmix non-Atmos content to utilize the top/height speakers. It generally sounds great on content that has good audio. At times I find the ambient/background music coming from the top speakers can dominate probably a little more than it should though. Upscaled/mixed content what all this DSU chat on this thread is about. I'm using it for nearly all content now. Though for a DTS blu-ray I did watch in Neo-X or one of the other formats on the AVR-X7200WA since I thought it sounded fantastic.
> 
> I stream movies a lot. The Vudu and Amazon content uses DD+. It is technically inferior to TrueHD and even when playing the Vudu Atmos demo clips (which sound great by the way), the receiver outputs the content as DD+ Surround which uses the height/top speakers, but is not displayed as "Atmos" output on the AVR-x7200WA anyway. Blu-ray will display as Atmos output and for the time being still gives the highest quality audio output.
> 
> I just re-read your post and realized you were talking about Blu-ray deliver from Netflix, not streaming. I don't use those services, but earlier in this thread folks mentioned that Redbox uses inferior discs that lack premium audio tracks. Blu-ray disc purchases are the main source for Atmos content. I expect the fledgeling UHD/HDR content download services (M-Go) will support Atmos eventually.



Thanks Peter and Dan for the great info and especially about the movie streaming tips as I stream a good many as well. Since true Atmos content is hardly available without buying the BD and to keep my investment down I am wondering if I may get acceptable audio improvement just with Yamaha receivers with front height presence speakers and just let the Cinema 3D matrix the sound placement. I realize it will not be as good as Atmos but do you have any opinion on using just their presence speakers? Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I concur in batpig's assessment of the sound, and I think you will enjoy the movie as well. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea (and certainly not on a par with the typical Michael Bay explodarama); but if I know your cinephilic sensitivities, you will find it entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> The BRD is encoded in DTS-HD MA 5.1, so no Atmos. I watched it in full DSU 7.1.4 glory.


Thanks. Yes, from what I have read it is one I will enjoy, even without the Explodarama*™*


----------



## kbarnes701

robusto400 said:


> I am considering a new Dolby Atmos system and setup in a 5.1.4 configuration. My biggest issue at this point is the investment without any significant available content. My question is does DA attempt to upscale and create a matrixed version from regular DD, DTS or HD signal to output to the height speakers? If so how good of a job does it do? Furthermore does BD content which has and will be encoded in Dolby Atmos also have this same mix on the discs you would rent from Netflix or Red Box? Are there currently any other significant sources of content to support this new format?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Yes to your upmix question. Absolutely stunning to your "how good a job does it do?" question. Can't comment on Netflix or Red Box.

There are currently about 15 Atmos Blu-rays with several more in the pipeline and the pace expected to pick up even more once UHD discs are here at the end of the year.

Many of us, me included, believe that an Atmos setup is worthwhile for the DSU upmixer alone.


----------



## kbarnes701

robusto400 said:


> Thanks Peter and Dan for the great info and especially about the movie streaming tips as I stream a good many as well. Since true Atmos content is hardly available without buying the BD and to keep my investment down I am wondering if I may get acceptable audio improvement just with Yamaha receivers with front height presence speakers and just let the Cinema 3D matrix the sound placement. I realize it will not be as good as Atmos but do you have any opinion on using just their presence speakers? Thanks.


Yes - my opinion is what you just said: it will not be as good as Atmos or DSU.


----------



## robusto400

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - my opinion is what you just said: it will not be as good as Atmos or DSU.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great info again. One last question. I may not be able to afford stepping up to 9.2 channel AVR to get 5.1.4. That being the case is it really significant improvement with sticking with 7.2 and going with only two height speakers (5.1.2)? Have not been able to find out any way of adding additional height channels even with preamp out connections and adding an additional amp.


----------



## chi_guy50

robusto400 said:


> Furthermore does BD content which has and will be encoded in Dolby Atmos also have this same mix on the discs you would rent from Netflix or Red Box?





Dan Hitchman said:


> Most anything from Lionsgate (where the bulk of the immersive tracks are coming from right now) _will not_ contain a full retail soundtrack on their rental copies. You must buy their retail discs for the full lossless soundtrack (but the catch is that Walmart sometimes sells their rental disc versions as full retail discs as exclusive "bargain bin" stripped down discs). http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742&highlight=dts+x


Just to add my personal experience to what Dan says above, the large majority of BRD's I have rented from Netflix--even those from Lionsgate--have had the full lossless (i.e., Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA) soundtrack. In 2015 I have watched 72 Netflix rentals to date and can easily count on one hand the number that had been crippled (albeit almost all of them from Lionsgate). Whether that will hold true for discs with an Atmos (or DTS:X) soundtrack remains to be seen as there is as yet an insufficient track record to allow me to draw a firm conclusion.


----------



## peterfram

robusto400 said:


> Great info again. One last question. I may not be able to afford stepping up to 9.2 channel AVR to get 5.1.4. That being the case is it really significant improvement with sticking with 7.2 and going with only two height speakers (5.1.2)? Have not been able to find out any way of adding additional height channels even with preamp out connections and adding an additional amp.


I have been experimenting with Atmos and speaker placements recently. First off, the fronts and then surrounds speaker quality are the most important. If quality is what you are after, depending on what speakers you already have, you might be better off upgrading those speakers and just investing the budget in higher quality 5.1 surround. Worry about upgrading to an Atmos AVR and more speakers later. 

Adding two height/top speakers over you with a 5.1.2 setup will most likely give you a nice Atmos experience. I tested that, then immediately tested 5.1.4 with four top speakers at about 45 degrees in front and behind my main seat. Four top speakers is better, but it didn't make as significant of a front to back sound plane movement difference as I expected. I thought the two behind me might have created some "rear" sound experience. It wasn't until I figured out a somewhat ridiculous method of adding rear speakers behind that I felt like I was experiencing a fuller immersive 3D sound experience. I now think rears are really important which is exactly contrary to my opinion after having them in my dedicated theater room 4 or 5 years ago.

So yeah, based on my hack testing which is probably less meaningful than most of the opinions on this thread, I think you only need two top speakers for a good 5.1.2 Atmos experience. Four top speakers is better though. Figuring out a way to add rear speakers to give you 7.1.2 is probably going to give you more immersion than 5.1.4 based on my own testing. You would still need a 9 channel AVR to make that happen however. In my testing I have also come to the conclusion that, for the job they do, the top/height Atmos speakers don't necessarily need to be very expensive speakers.


----------



## asere

When I started this hobby I didn't know any better and had 5.1 system with all in ceiling speakers.
I then bought floor standing mains and disconnected the in ceiling mains but had to continue using the surrounds in ceiling because of the room layout there is no way otherwise. 
Flash forward with an Atmos avr I set it up as a 5.1.2 by what used to be in ceiling fronts as top heights along with the mains and surrounds of course.
Every now and then I can hear something from the heights but my issue is I don't sit close enough to the mains to hear the top heights plus with the in ceiling surrounds it masks the front heights since I don't have ear level surrounds.
Hey making the best out of it.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

GoCaboNow said:


> Anyone implemented an ATMOS setup in a multi row home theater?
> 
> Looking for any experiences and feedback for setup.


Interesting that you should ask this. I am in process of re-configuring my multi-row dedicated home theater. And, it is in part, because it is a multi-row theater.
My theater is roughly 15' long by 20' wide and the ceiling height is variable. As you are looking forward the right-hand one-third is 8' because of a soffit that carries 
electrical, vent pipes, etc. The left-hand side two-thirds is 9'.
The first row is about 13' from the screen on the front wall; the second row is about 16' from the screen. And, the 2nd row is on an 8" riser.
My setup was FR and FL, 8060ST; center, 8060HD; side surrounds, 8080SR; TF, Supersat 3s on top of 8060 towers; TR, Def Tech Procenter 1000s on stands; SVS PB-12 Plus; all driven by Onkyo TX-NR1030.
Oh, yeah, for video, a Panasonic VPL-VW50 (Pearl) projector and 92" Stewart Firehawk screen.

I have had a running problem with people in the back row not being able to hear dialog, and that is where my wife and I choose to sit. Front row, no problem. Basically, the towers and the center channel both fired directly into the front row. We have 2 rows of 3 heavily upholstered recliners. A lot of the sound simply was not getting to the back row. As Tim Gunn on Project Runway says, "Make it work!"

Sooo, after much research on center channel speakers, I replaced the 8060HD with an SVS Prime Center Channel. It is on speaker wedges that give it about a 5 degree tilt--no more dialogue issues. The front towers have been bothering me for some time. With the SVS subwoofer alone, it will pressurize the room like nobody's business. So, why do I need to have built-in subwoofers in the towers? I know--just turn down the volume knob on the towers. What's the point? So, I sold the Def Tech towers and replaced them with Goldenear Triton Sevens. And, why not make it a clean sweep...I replaced the Def Tech surrounds with PSB S5s.

This is not complete...yet. I have stands ordered for the Supersat 3s. I had cut, routered, and drilled custom ABS plates to mount the Supersats on the Def Tech towers. Well, that will not work on top of the Triton Sevens. So, the Supersats will go onto stands with Def Tech Pro90 mounts so that I can rotate on all axes.

I have run the new setup after calibrating, basically in 5.1 and 7.1 and the sound is very clean and very accuate. One thing that I did do was to keep the primary drivers matched--5 1/4 woofers to minimize timbre issues. I know that the cross-overs are all somewhat different, but it seems to work. For that matter, the timbre on the 8060SR towers and the 8060HD center were always off a bit anyway. So far, I believe that it sounds better than what I had. In part, I think that running the subwoofers on the Def Tech towers (and the center channel) just over-emphasized the bass too much for the space.

My new stands will ship Tuesday. I will re-mount the Supersat 3s and run calibration again. I expect it to be tremendous. I can tell you that there will be no dialogue issues. I did manage to get a tilt on the Triton Sevens as well. I used the carpet spikes. In the back, I screwed those 2 in about 1/2 way. The front spikes I screwed in the whole way. That gets me about 1/4" tilt at the front of the Sevens, again trying to boost the audio for the back row.

Once I get the new stands and re-calibrate, I will post my impressions of what I have...or have not...achieved.
I do expect it to be better.

However, as many on this forum will be quick to point out...YMMV. There is nothing like doing it yourself. Have fun!


----------



## dvdwilly3

I recently changed my hardware and had changed it in my biography. However, I did not change it in my signature.
When I went to my profile to try to do that, I cannot seem to click the right link to get to the point where I can change it.

Do I have to delete all of it and start over?

Thanks for any help...


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I recently changed my hardware and had changed it in my biography. However, I did not change it in my signature.
> When I went to my profile to try to do that, I cannot seem to click the right link to get to the point where I can change it.
> 
> Do I have to delete all of it and start over?
> 
> Thanks for any help...


Never mind...I figured it out...

Well, I thought that I did, but it still shows the old setup. And, that is after I logged out and logged back in.
Hmmm...


----------



## kokishin

dvdwilly3 said:


> I recently changed my hardware and had changed it in my biography. However, I did not change it in my signature.
> When I went to my profile to try to do that, I cannot seem to click the right link to get to the point where I can change it.
> 
> Do I have to delete all of it and start over?
> 
> Thanks for any help...


Click on *User CP* (top right corner next to *Log Out*). Then click on *Edit Signature* under *Settings & Options* on the left side of the page. You should be able to edit your sig just like editing a post. After editing and saving your sig, you may need to refresh your browser to see the changes.

Update: I believe the sig is limited to a max number of characters or lines. I added the word "TEST" at the bottom of my sig. It did not show up when I checked a recent post of mine. I then added "TEST" to a sentence in the middle of my sig and it showed up as expected.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> Click on *User CP* (top right corner next to *Log Out*). Then click on *Edit Signature* under *Settings & Options* on the left side of the page. You should be able to edit your sig just like editing a post. After editing and saving your sig, you may need to refresh your browser to see the changes.


kokishin, so glad that it is you.

Can you please change my info in the spreadsheet to:

Onkyo TX-NR 1030
Goldenear Triton Sevens
SVS Prime Center
PSB S5 surrounds
TF--Supersat 3s on stands
TR--Procenter 1000 on stands
SVS PB-12 Plus

Thanks...


----------



## helvetica bold

It was going to happen sooner or later. BAM, Yamaha announced the first Atmos sound bar!
$1700,  Will this thing really work?

http://hometheaterreview.com/yamaha-announces-first-dolby-atmos-soundbar/

Atmos me if old!


----------



## kokishin

dvdwilly3 said:


> kokishin, so glad that it is you.
> 
> Can you please change my info in the spreadsheet to:
> 
> Onkyo TX-NR 1030
> Goldenear Triton Sevens
> SVS Prime Center
> PSB S5 surrounds
> TF--Supersat 3s on stands
> TR--Procenter 1000 on stands
> SVS PB-12 Plus
> 
> Thanks...


I believe the spreadsheet already reflected a subset of the above. 

Regarding your TF--Supersat 3s on stands and TR--Procenter 1000 on stands, are you running these as "Fake" Dolby Atmos Enabled (up firing) speakers? That's what I had already documented. Please review your entry on the spreadsheet and let me know if I need to modify anything.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kokishin said:


> I believe the spreadsheet already reflected a subset of the above.
> 
> Regarding your TF--Supersat 3s on stands and TR--Procenter 1000 on stands, are you running these as "Fake" Dolby Atmos Enabled (up firing) speakers? That's what I had already documented. Please review your entry on the spreadsheet and let me know if I need to modify anything.


Hi Kokishin, I belive you may have missed my info that was posted when you were away. Please see the same here.

Speaker Config : Atmos 9.1.6 (Scatmos) (Wides mostly remain inactive due to 4 heights getting used almost every time)
AVR : Denon X7200W
Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
Mounted : on-Ceiling
Height Config : TF+TM+TR
Other Info : Onkyo TX-SR500 for Left height trio and Denon AVR-1603 for Right height trio


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> I believe the spreadsheet already reflected a subset of the above.
> 
> Regarding your TF--Supersat 3s on stands and TR--Procenter 1000 on stands, are you running these as "Fake" Dolby Atmos Enabled (up firing) speakers? That's what I had already documented. Please review your entry on the spreadsheet and let me know if I need to modify anything.


Nope, I am running them as Top Front and Top Rear, respectively. There is a method to my madness.

If it were a Dolby-enabled speaker, it would already have the internal filters to achieve the 5K to 12K "notch" (I know that is probably not exactly accurate, but you know what I mean).

And, I have to believe that the Onkyo if you tell it that you have connnected a Dolby-enable speaker is going to digitally impose that same "notch".

If it is desirable to have a full-range signal coming fed to a ceiling mounted speaker, then I believe that it is equally desirable to have a full-range signal fed to a speaker that is bouncing it off of the ceiling. Why would it not be? Your ear does not know whether the speaker is actually there or you are bouncing sound from there.

To me the whole argument starts to fall apart when Dolby (and others) say that you should not be able to localize the sound from the speaker. If you are pointing that speaker to a spot on the ceiling, the sound should be reflected from there. And, to be sure, if you have it cranked so high that you hear it coming directly from the speaker in front of you or behind you, you have failed.

Perhaps it is only the acoustics of my space, but I can tell you that running my fake Dolby speakers sounds better than running them as Dolby-enabled.

I would encourage anyone running Dolby-enabled to try feeding a different signal to their respective speakers and see which works better.

The analogy drawn to the HRTF model starts to fall apart even if you change the shape of someone's external ear. If the model is that fragile, then it is not going to hold up under the many other variables that exist in a home theater.

Sorry to go on with such detail, but I did not want you to simply think that I was just being pig-headed...though I have been known to do that...


----------



## kokishin

aaranddeeman said:


> Hi Kokishin, I belive you may have missed my info that was posted when you were away. Please see the same here.
> 
> Speaker Config : Atmos 9.1.6 (Scatmos) (Wides mostly remain inactive due to 4 heights getting used almost every time)
> AVR : Denon X7200W
> Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
> Mounted : on-Ceiling
> Height Config : TF+TM+TR
> Other Info : Onkyo TX-SR500 for Left height trio and Denon AVR-1603 for Right height trio


Please read: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-568.html#post36659786


----------



## kokishin

dvdwilly3 said:


> Nope, I am running them as Top Front and Top Rear, respectively. There is a method to my madness.
> 
> If it were a Dolby-enabled speaker, it would already have the internal filters to achieve the 5K to 12K "notch" (I know that is probably not exactly accurate, but you know what I mean).
> 
> And, I have to believe that the Onkyo if you tell it that you have connnected a Dolby-enable speaker is going to digitally impose that same "notch".
> 
> If it is desirable to have a full-range signal coming fed to a ceiling mounted speaker, then I believe that it is equally desirable to have a full-range signal fed to a speaker that is bouncing it off of the ceiling. Why would it not be? Your ear does not know whether the speaker is actually there or you are bouncing sound from there.
> 
> To me the whole argument starts to fall apart when Dolby (and others) say that you should not be able to localize the sound from the speaker. If you are pointing that speaker to a spot on the ceiling, the sound should be reflected from there. And, to be sure, if you have it cranked so high that you hear it coming directly from the speaker in front of you or behind you, you have failed.
> 
> Perhaps it is only the acoustics of my space, but I can tell you that running my fake Dolby speakers sounds better than running them as Dolby-enabled.
> 
> I would encourage anyone running Dolby-enabled to try feeding a different signal to their respective speakers and see which works better.
> 
> The analogy drawn to the HRTF model starts to fall apart even if you change the shape of someone's external ear. If the model is that fragile, then it is not going to hold up under the many other variables that exist in a home theater.
> 
> Sorry to go on with such detail, but I did not want you to simply think that I was just being pig-headed...though I have been known to do that...


Ok. I grandfathered you in. However, there is a limit to the Dolby Atmos system configuration wackiness I will include in the spreadsheet.


----------



## dholmes54

With my old 9.2 system I had my heights spks mounted directly above my mains,now that I have a atmos avr should I move the height spks closer to my seating area?


----------



## kbarnes701

dholmes54 said:


> With my old 9.2 system I had my heights spks mounted directly above my mains,now that I have a atmos avr should I move the height spks closer to my seating area?


Follow the angles prescribed by Dolby for all your overhead speakers. Here, again in this thread, is the relevant diagram:


----------



## Lesmor

dholmes54 said:


> With my old 9.2 system I had my heights spks mounted directly above my mains,now that I have a atmos avr should I move the height spks closer to my seating area?


If your FH are at a 30deg angle from your seat you should be OK
Mine are 20 deg and it doesn't quite give the desired effect so I will have to either move them or go for in ceiling or upfiring modules

Sorry post crossed with keiths


----------



## dholmes54

Thxs guys,my room is narrow 11.5 ft,I think I'll leave the shelves for my heights where they are and just angle the spks more downward towards the seating area


----------



## stikle

dholmes54 said:


> Thxs guys,my room is narrow 11.5 ft,I think I'll leave the shelves for my heights where they are and just angle the spks more downward towards the seating area



FYI - My room is more narrow than yours and I have great imaging. Don't let the perceived size of your room affect what you do. If you want to make a change, then make it so.

Look at Keith - he's set up in a shoebox and loves it.


----------



## asere

Would the in ceilings be considered top front or middle from where the mains are?


----------



## pasender91

asere said:


> Would the in ceilings be considered top front or middle from where the mains are?


What is important is not where are mains but where YOU are when you listen 
If the picture is taken from your MLP (Main Listening Position), then those speakers are definitely TF (Top Front)


----------



## asere

pasender91 said:


> What is important is not where are mains but where YOU are when you listen
> If the picture is taken from your MLP (Main Listening Position), then those speakers are definitely TF (Top Front)


Yes it was from main listening area but if I move the couch almost right underneath is it top front or top middle?
I noticed top front is right above the mains. My heights are not in the middle of the room but not right above the mains.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> FYI - My room is more narrow than yours and I have great imaging. Don't let the perceived size of your room affect what you do. If you want to make a change, then make it so.
> 
> Look at Keith - he's set up in a shoebox and loves it.


Too right. I can only dream of 11ft 5 ins width. Room size is no barrier to amazing sound. It just requires more effort and some creativity. One of the most spectacular features of my sound in the Hobbitarama*™* is the imaging, so if I can do it, so can anyone. A combination of careful speaker choice, careful speaker/sub placement, treatments and Dirac Live have all worked wonders here.


----------



## ellisr63

I will be running 7 channels plus the Atmos channels.. Not sure where to mount 4 ceiling speakers (JBL 8320) on the ceiling in my room.

Room Dimensions
Room width: 15' 8" (from front screen to the 2nd row seating area at which point it goes to 13' 6" wide)
Room Length: 19' 6" (from screen to rear wall)
MLP: 12' (from AT screen to MLP)
2nd row: 16' from AT screen 
Ceiling Height: 8' 5" (from front stage to MLP)
Ceiling Height 2nd row: 6' 8"

Any suggestions?


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Would the in ceilings be considered top front or middle from where the mains are?


Top Front. ...Physically "position" speaking.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

ellisr63 said:


> I will be running 7 channels plus the Atmos channels.. Not sure where to mount 4 ceiling speakers (JBL 8320) on the ceiling in my room.
> 
> Room Dimensions
> Room width: 15' 8" (from front screen to the 2nd row seating area at which point it goes to 13' 6" wide)
> Room Length: 19' 6" (from screen to rear wall)
> MLP: 12' (from AT screen to MLP)
> 2nd row: 16' from AT screen
> Ceiling Height: 8' 5" (from front stage to MLP)
> Ceiling Height 2nd row: 6' 8"
> 
> Any suggestions?


*Rear ceiling height limitation is bit of a bummer. Maybe you could do TM instead of TR and locate them in line with MLP. 
*FH about halfway between MLP and screen would give you at least 30° elevation.
*Both pairs maybe spread between MLP and sidewall (8' apart)

The JBL 8320 is bit of a strange choice as these are shaped to go on wall.


----------



## NorthSky

Like Erwin said (regarding the TR):

The top rear overheads are one foot approximately in front of that second row, when directly above the sitting ears.
The top front overheads are also about one foot in front of the first row. 

* The second row is the MLP, right?


----------



## ellisr63

NorthSky said:


> Like Erwin said (regarding the TR):
> 
> The top rear overheads are one foot approximately in front of that second row, when directly above the sitting ears.
> The top front overheads are also about one foot in front of the first row.
> 
> * The second row is the MLP, right?


We have the front row set up as the MLP currently. I could set up the 2nd row as MLP if I change the tow on the L+R horns though.


----------



## ellisr63

The side channels are mounted on the walls 5' 2" from the ground, and angled to the MLP...also the ceiling channels should they fire directly downward or should they also angle toward the MLP?


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


> We have the front row set up as the MLP currently. I could set up the 2nd row as MLP if I change the tow on the L+R horns though.


The front row as the MLP; good.

Then position the top front speakers @ a 55-60° elevation angle. ..As per Dolby Atmos recommended range (highly flexible). 
Position the top rear speakers @ a 120-125° elevation angle. I bet they would be roughly a foot or so in front of the second row, or maybe straight above*?

* Maybe not.


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


> The side channels are mounted on the walls 5' 2" from the ground, and angled to the MLP...also
> *the ceiling channels should they fire directly downward or should they also angle toward the MLP?*


I would first try straight down (directly downward)...as per THX guys recommendation.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> OK, so the only way appreciate the benefits of positional rendering is IF the mixer matches sound placement to the on-screen action and then ONLY for sounds at or near the screen, with sounds around and above you have no such visual reference. Tough sell.


It is, if you put it that way. But without positional rendering no overhead action. Makes it less tougher to sell, because we all like overhead sound



> That's purely Dolby. Having gone with other AVS members to the Atmos press day a year ago, Dolby made it clear that home Atmos is not carved in stone. IF there is market demand for more that 34 potential speaker locations, then they're willing to re-assess the spec.


Makes perfect sense to me.

The remark that made me start this discussion on precision and accuracy is that positional rendering (PR) enables an AVR...


kbarnes701 said:


> ...to precisely locate the sound to the position the mixer intended.


To prevent semantic confusion, "precisely" here actually means "accurately", while the definition of "precision" is better described by how well a sound can be perceived in terms of localization, movement and size. In other words, you can perceive a sound as being very precise, but at the same time it can be inaccurate in terms of not (exactly) being located at "the position the mixer intended". The latter of course you will hardly ever know.

The promise of Dolby's Atmos in bringing immersive sound to our homes is (in addition to enabling overhead sound) much more related to this precision than to accuracy. And that makes sense, since the increased immersive experience of precise sounds around us is hardly affected by inaccurate positioning: off-screen sounds we hear to our right, left, above or behind us could be off by 15-35 degrees and we will still enjoy the increased sense of "being there".

On- and near-screen sound steering is a different story though. That is where the additional positional accuracy dóes add to the sense of realism and immersion. This potential feature of PR is however no part of the way Atmos is currently being offered to the market (also illustrated by the absence of a center height speaker option). With UHD coming with bigger screens and displays (up to100 degrees wide, and -30/+30 degrees vertical), Dolby might want to re-assess their Atmos specs in the foreseeable future.


----------



## sox404

*Speakers*

I have a 7.1 setup in a relatively small room with seating about 11' from front speakers. The sofa is up against the back wall. Surrounds are bipoles with the rears no more than a foot behind the sofa. I'm looking to upgrade to Atmos and at first resigned myself to 7.1.2. After lurking here for quite a while, I've learned that some members with similar room limitations have had success with 7.1.4 using a FH and TM setup. Installing in-ceiling elevation speakers is going to work better for me and I'm thinking of placing the FHs about a foot in front of the screen. Looking at the Dolby speaker placement chart posted a little bit earlier, it seems it is recommended that the FHs be angled 30-45 degrees to the MLP. Is it therefore important that the FHs not have a wide dispersion (as otherwise suggested for elevation speakers)? Should the TMs be models with wide dispersion in any event? Or am I overthinking this?


----------



## stikle

I'll let some of the smarter people answer your questions. 

But I have a question of my own - Your sofa is against the back wall? Any chance you can move it forward?


----------



## sox404

stikle said:


> I'll let some of the smarter people answer your questions.
> 
> But I have a question of my own - Your sofa is against the back wall? Any chance you can move it forward?


I have 11' to work with so there's not much room. Maybe a foot or so.


----------



## batpig

sox404 said:


> I have 11' to work with so there's not much room. Maybe a foot or so.


Whatever you can do will help. Couch against the back wall is one of the worst locations for surround sound. Too bad so many people get stuck with it. Moving the couch forward will allow better separation from SB speakers, get you out of a boomy bass buildup zone, and give you more flexibility in placing overhead speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Best live shows; the musicians are never close to any wall...Metallica...right @ center stage...with the audience all around @ 360°.

Best classical concert halls...designed for best acoustics...and the musicians are not close to any walls...and those walls are curved or in shapes away of straight angles, like square walls.


----------



## dholmes54

I'm getting 2 more jBL lc2 that way I'll have3 center CH for fronts,the l820 are going to be my heights spks,and I have 4 es30 jBL for side and back channels,so maybe with my Yamaha 2050 it should sound ok.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> So does Atmos. (Positional rendering it's called not speaker remapping BIKWYM). But only if the AVR manufacturers support it. So far, none of the mainstream manufacturers does.


How about the DTS X dialog control. Is that part of the upgrade or the avr has to be capable?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> How about the DTS X dialog control. Is that part of the upgrade or the avr has to be capable?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I think that's built in decoding as part of the DTS:X suite since you can encode DTS:X tracks to either have Dialog Control and a few objects or without Dialog Control and with all possible objects available for the consumer format.

Dialog control IMHO is only good for live sporting events, not for movies.


----------



## sox404

batpig said:


> Whatever you can do will help. Couch against the back wall is one of the worst locations for surround sound. Too bad so many people get stuck with it. Moving the couch forward will allow better separation from SB speakers, get you out of a boomy bass buildup zone, and give you more flexibility in placing overhead speakers.


Yeah thanks. I had SB speakers from before I moved. I understand the placement is far from ideal but when I set up the new room, I figured why not put them on the wall instead of just going 5.1.


----------



## asere

What is the difference between watching content with heights 5.1.2 vs Atmos in the same set up? Won't it be the same?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> But without positional rendering no overhead action.


Why not? There are a pair of overhead channels that don't rely on positional rendering.


> On- and near-screen sound steering is a different story though. That is where the additional positional accuracy dóes add to the sense of realism and immersion.


But that additional accuracy is less dependent on positional rendering than how the soundtrack was mixed (e.g., if there is no steered dialogue, even the most accurate positional rendering will not help).


> With UHD coming with bigger screens and displays (up to100 degrees wide, and -30/+30 degrees vertical), Dolby might want to re-assess their Atmos specs in the foreseeable future.


I doubt people will be viewing images 100 degrees wide by 60 degrees tall. SMPTE found that more than 30-35 degrees of vertical viewing angle was fatiguing. Double that would really be a hard sell. Besides, home Atmos already provides for 7 speakers across the front.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> What is the difference between watching content with heights 5.1.2 vs Atmos in the same set up? Won't it be the same?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


In years past all we had was steered matrix logic upconversion of 5.1 and 7.1 tracks. Dolby Atmos and DTS: X have discrete audio object content controlled by metadata, so the soundtrack is much more precise than just expanded ambiance that may or may not go to the correct speakers depending on how the upmixer guesses where certain sounds should be placed.


----------



## LowellG

OK, I need some opinions. I have my speakers on order. Here is my projected layout. The JPEG cut off the front part of the map, but you can still seethe Atmos layout. The closest edge of the speakers are 54" from the MLP. Ceilings are 9'. The black surrounds are current position, the yellows are the proposed position. I am also lowering side and rear surrounds where the bottoms are currently at 30" from the ceiling and going down to bottoms at 48" from the ceiling. There rest is spelled out in the PDF.


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. May be it's worth a try. I will try moving them inwards (too many holes on my ceiling. Thank goodness I am not using in-ceiling speakers..  )
> Oh, and on the Scat ... oops... SiAmos. I am seriously considering pairing like receivers. Not that I have heard major issues, but's it's just keep bothering me.
> I am lookout for another Denon preferably the same model.. Call me OCD..


Moved the height speakers inwards this week end. They were @ 30inch from side walls before. I moved them to 43.5 inches. (It makes it little shy of 1/3 of room width. Room width being 11'8")
Did some tests using Atmos demos and seems a better separation than before. More testing to follow..
Probably I will finalize this location and start permanent wiring in the ceiling at some point..


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Why not? There are a pair of overhead channels that don't rely on positional rendering.


Now you got me lost. Which pair is that?



> But that additional accuracy is less dependent on positional rendering than how the soundtrack was mixed (e.g., if there is no steered dialogue, even the most accurate positional rendering will not help).


True.



> I doubt people will be viewing images 100 degrees wide by 60 degrees tall. SMPTE found that more than 30-35 degrees of vertical viewing angle was fatiguing. Double that would really be a hard sell.


While the occasional gamer won't mind sone 'fatiguing' immersion, applying those SMPTE findings on a 21:9 screen still can get you a FOV of 80 degrees horizontal at 34 degrees vertical. This covers about 40% of the frontal part of the sound hemisphere that runs from fronts, to side surrounds and TM overheads. That is plenty of surface to apply on-screen sound steering by the ambitious re-recording engineer.



> Besides, home Atmos already provides for 7 speakers across the front.


Yes, but those 7 potential speaker locations all are at listeners' level. For on-screen sound steering you would preferably have them distributed around the screen or display: one at every corner, a center at the bottom edge and a center at the top edge.


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> Now you got me lost. Which pair is that?


Dolby Atmos is a 9.1 channel system. There is a regular 7.1 layer and then there is a stereo pair of overhead channels. In the cinema these two overhead channels output from the entire overhead array while "objects" can move through them in to each speaker independently.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Now you got me lost. Which pair is that?


Top Surround channels.


> For on-screen sound steering you would preferably have them distributed around the screen or display: one at every corner, a center at the bottom edge and a center at the top edge.


Separation would be too little for the typical viewing distance to be worth it. Immersive formats like Atmos weren't conceived in a vacuum. IF movie mixers had made it clear to Dolby that their immersive format needed more than one screen layer, then the format would have had it.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos is a 9.1 channel system. There is a regular 7.1 layer and then there is a stereo pair of overhead channels. In the cinema these two overhead channels output from the entire overhead array while "objects" can move through them in to each speaker independently.


Yup, I remember those. And how does that translate to home Atmos?


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> yup, i remember those. And how does that translate to home atmos?


7.1.2 ?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> And how does that translate to home Atmos?


They're sent to the left and right overhead speaker arrays.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> Yup, I remember those. And how does that translate to home Atmos?


I'm going to assume the overhead stereo beds are "re-imagined" as two fixed objects with a wide array spread, so they come out of the possible five pairs of overheads.


----------



## asere

If a movie is 7.1 atmos and you're watching with 5.1.2 set up but you shuffle from Dolby digital to Dolby atmos on the avr. Will the heights turn off when on Dolby digital or remain on? 
I can't tell.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

asere said:


> If a movie is 7.1 atmos and you're watching with 5.1.2 set up but you shuffle from Dolby digital to Dolby atmos on the avr. Will the heights turn off when on Dolby digital or remain on?
> I can't tell.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Dolby Atmos will natively use any and all available speakers (up to the limit of your receiver's processing ability).

If you switch to a 5.1 track it will use 5.1 speakers. Unless you apply an upmixer (e.g. DSU) which will then add in missing speakers by extracting audio from the original soundtrack.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

whata bout if you run 5.1.4....and you put in a 7.1 movie...will the top rear speakers be used for the back surround?


----------



## asere

Is there a setting on my dvd to make sure heights turn on?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

You must bitstream. 

You must have secondary audio disabled.

Make sure and select the main Atmos audio track if it is not the default audio track (so far I think all of them have been).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

LowellG said:


> OK, I need some opinions. I have my speakers on order. Here is my projected layout. The JPEG cut off the front part of the map, but you can still seethe Atmos layout. The closest edge of the speakers are 54" from the MLP. Ceilings are 9'. The black surrounds are current position, the yellows are the proposed position. I am also lowering side and rear surrounds where the bottoms are currently at 30" from the ceiling and going down to bottoms at 48" from the ceiling. There rest is spelled out in the PDF.


I can't see part of the layout/ a lot of the labeling is missing? 

I wanted to make a quick AV joke about the dreaded "this image has been modified to fit your screen" logo that appeared when you forgot to check if you purchased the widescreen version or not.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> whata bout if you run 5.1.4....and you put in a 7.1 movie...will the top rear speakers be used for the back surround?


The main level side surrounds will get the main level rear surround information.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> whata bout if you run 5.1.4....and you put in a 7.1 movie...will the top rear speakers be used for the back surround?


The main level side surround bed channels will get the main level rear surround bed channel information.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> You must bitstream.
> 
> You must have secondary audio disabled.
> 
> Make sure and select the main Atmos audio track if it is not the default audio track (so far I think all of them have been).


DVDs don't have Dolby Atmos audio...you gotta use DSU.


----------



## asere

Scott Simonian said:


> You must bitstream.
> 
> You must have secondary audio disabled.
> 
> Make sure and select the main Atmos audio track if it is not the default audio track (so far I think all of them have been).


Yeah is on bitstream all this time. I don't know I have TMNT, Mokingjay, American Sniper and can't tell what comes out of the heights. They are front top height

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> DVDs don't have Dolby Atmos audio...you gotta use DSU.


Right....

But there isn't such thing as a dvd player (or BD) with Dolby Surround. So you can not set anything on a player for that. Enabling Dolby Surround is irrelevant to his question. He wanted to know what settings to use in the player.


----------



## Scott Simonian

asere said:


> Yeah is on bitstream all this time. I don't know I have TMNT, Mokingjay, American Sniper and can't tell what comes out of the heights. They are top height
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Even with Atmos, the heights will not get constant use. You may not be hearing as much as you expected. This is a common complaint of native Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## asere

Scott Simonian said:


> Even with Atmos, the heights will not get constant use. You may not be hearing as much as you expected. This is a common complaint of native Atmos soundtracks.


I can see what you mean. I think to be completely submerged you need at least 5.1.4
Why not so much content from the heights?
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Is there a setting on my *dvd* to make sure heights turn on?





Scott Simonian said:


> Right....
> 
> But there isn't such thing as a dvd player (or BD) with Dolby Surround. So you can not set anything on a player for that. Enabling Dolby Surround is irrelevant to his question. He wanted to know what settings to use in the player.


It's just because that's what he said in his post (quote above yours).

* There is no setting either in a Blu-ray player, just bitstream, same as in the DVD player, and use whatever audio there is on the disc, if Dolby Atmos on the Blu, or DD or dts on the DVD, and let your Atmos receiver do the rest...Atmos native for the Blu, and DSU for the DVD.


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> I can see what you mean. I think to be completely submerged you need at least 5.1.4
> *Why not so much content from the heights?*


Several reasons:

1. Not all movies call for all the scenes with overhead sounds.
2. The technology is new...the tools.
3. Takes time to master a new craft for home; immersive 3D sound.
4. Not all sound mixers have the same philosophy.
5. Not all movie directors have ...
6. Not all movies studios work equally on sound for their Blu-ray releases (Lionsgate Films).

Etc.


----------



## LowellG

Aras_Volodka said:


> I can't see part of the layout/ a lot of the labeling is missing?
> 
> I wanted to make a quick AV joke about the dreaded "this image has been modified to fit your screen" logo that appeared when you forgot to check if you purchased the widescreen version or not.


Thanks for trying to look at at. I clicked the link within the forum again and it's only missing about an actual 6-8 inches to scale or a half inch in the JPEG. I am not sure what you are seeing the side walls and back of the room is there. I didn't want to clutter up the image with more labels. I guess the only thing I could add would be the blue circles are lights. If I could just get some input on the black circles which is the proposed Atmos in ceiling proposed positions. I added some pics of the HT in case that helps.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Several reasons:
> 
> 1. Not all movies call for all the scenes with overhead sounds.
> 2. The technology is new...the tools.
> 3. Takes time to master a new craft for home; immersive 3D sound.
> 4. Not all sound mixers have the same philosophy.
> 5. Not all movie directors have ...
> 6. Not all movies studios work equally on sound for their Blu-ray releases (Lionsgate Films).
> 
> Etc.


Everyone has to remember that Atmos for the cinema is a lot different than for the home..

So I agree with #1 .. and the fact is that so many of the benefits of theatrical Atmos (5 across the front, beds vs arrays, full range surrounds) etc don't translate to the home environment..

The end result of mixing in Atmos are aggressive 7.1 mixes (in many cases).. everyone seems to forget the fact that we are now getting many more of them because of that fact...

While it's certainly true that Atmos for the home is only obvious when there is overhead sound, the other production benefits don't hurt....

And DTS:X isn't going to change that either...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Personally, if the heights WERE noticeable all the time, you haven't done very well with setup. But they're definitely active all the time with Atmos material... It's just in varying amounts as needed. I really knew I got everything to click when I heard some sounds move through the center of the room rather than just overhead with the Leaf demo. That precision is more impressive to me than something obviously being overhead.


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Personally, if the heights WERE noticeable all the time, you haven't done very well with setup. But they're definitely active all the time with Atmos material... It's just in varying amounts as needed. I really knew I got everything to click when I heard some sounds move through the center of the room rather than just overhead with the Leaf demo. That precision is more impressive to me than something obviously being overhead.


Indeed! most fail to realize its Immersive audio and not just Death from above. If the mixers put the sound there Atmos will deliver and if one doesn't have an Atmos demo disc to confirm I highly recommend *Insurgent* as it showcases Atmos stregnths in both precision and immersiveness


----------



## Defcon

Is the addition of height speakers and new matrixing algorithm in DSU going to be more noticeable than going to 7.1? I ask because stereo -> 5.1 was a huge noticeable change for most people since you are adding surround sound, even with the many matrixing solutions like DPL, Neo, Circle Surround etc, it was at least passable.

But front presence/height/DTS EX IMO didn't produce much of an impression. Is height a paradigm shift or is it just a few sounds coming from above? I hope we see a true difference in sound mixing due to an object based format, even with the same no. of speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm going to assume the overhead stereo beds are "re-imagined" as two fixed objects with a wide array spread, so they come out of the possible five pairs of overheads.


That was my thinking too. 

So with Atmos, sound can reach our installed speakers in not two, but three different ways: 

1. Channel based sound directly to channel bed speakers (7.1);

2. Object based sound by positional rendering to any of the available speakers (maximum 24+10 overheads);

And a way which apparently is neither channel bed based nor involves any positional rendering:

3. Object based sound to complete overhead arrays (2) irrespective of the position and number of installed overhead speaker pairs.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Separation would be too little for the typical viewing distance to be worth it.


True. The larger part of the consumers market for Atmos has displays that are too small to really appreciate such feature. 



> Immersive formats like Atmos weren't conceived in a vacuum. IF movie mixers had made it clear to Dolby that their immersive format needed more than one screen layer, then the format would have had it.


I am by no means questioning the market driven decisions that have been made thus far. Just exploring other/additional possibilities of object based sound formats like Atmos.

On-screen sound steering (along both horizontal and vertical axis) is one that I personally would welcome, since it IMO will enhance the sense of realism and immersion. But I guess for that to be even considered, we have to wait till typical viewing distances get around 2 times screen height....


----------



## Aras_Volodka

LowellG said:


> Thanks for trying to look at at. I clicked the link within the forum again and it's only missing about an actual 6-8 inches to scale or a half inch in the JPEG. I am not sure what you are seeing the side walls and back of the room is there. I didn't want to clutter up the image with more labels. I guess the only thing I could add would be the blue circles are lights. If I could just get some input on the black circles which is the proposed Atmos in ceiling proposed positions. I added some pics of the HT in case that helps.


Ahhh that makes sense now... the ceiling speaker placement I'd say depends on how much you care about the rear row. I'm guessing you do the majority of your film watching in the front with you & your family... perhaps the occasional party where you might have people sitting in the rear row? If that's the case, and if you're like me... I might move the front speakers a bit forward, to be above your feet if they were outstretched. I'd also move up the rear speakers, & have them all be equidistant from the MLP... in my case (with 6'11" ceilings) my speakers are 5'6" from my lap roughly... with 90 degree dispersion. But keep the width the same as in your diagram. 

If you want to accommodate the whole room then I'd say your purposed diagram is good.

One suggestion based on your photos though... perhaps lower the surrounds as that will add better contrast to what you hear in the surrounds vs. the ceiling.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

LowellG said:


> Thanks for trying to look at at. I clicked the link within the forum again and it's only missing about an actual 6-8 inches to scale or a half inch in the JPEG. I am not sure what you are seeing the side walls and back of the room is there. I didn't want to clutter up the image with more labels. I guess the only thing I could add would be the blue circles are lights. If I could just get some input on the black circles which is the proposed Atmos in ceiling proposed positions. I added some pics of the HT in case that helps.


One other suggestion if you are open minded regarding the surrounds... move your L/R surrounds forwards too... the left surround where the wolverine poster is, the other (while I know this could become an eyesore) in that angled section of the wall next to the door. But I would definitely have them be ear level as much as possible.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

audiofan1 said:


> Indeed! most fail to realize its Immersive audio and not just Death from above. If the mixers put the sound there Atmos will deliver and if one doesn't have an Atmos demo disc to confirm I highly recommend *Insurgent* as it showcases Atmos stregnths in both precision and immersiveness


I would love to find out. Unfortunately, I have to buy a new Blu-ray player to replace my BDP-93 first. Stupid Lionsgate and their stupid branching!


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would love to find out. Unfortunately, I have to buy a new Blu-ray player to replace my BDP-93 first. Stupid Lionsgate and their stupid branching!


I had to buy it as well! the Netflix rental only had 5.1 but definitely worth the buy


----------



## stikle

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would love to find out. Unfortunately, I have to buy a new Blu-ray player to replace my BDP-93 first. Stupid Lionsgate and their stupid branching!


I'm holding out for the next few months for UHD Players to become available. I was going to get an Oppo with Darbee, but...might as well be forward thinking. If I was in your shoes, I wouldn't buy something super expensive to replace it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

stikle said:


> I'm holding out for the next few months for UHD Players to become available. I was going to get an Oppo with Darbee, but...might as well be forward thinking. If I was in your shoes, I wouldn't buy something super expensive to replace it.


The caveat there is that I won't be going 4K any time soon... and the 93 held its value pretty well, so swapping up to a 103 hopefully won't be too bad. Gotta sell my Onkyo 3010 off before I pull the trigger on the 103 though. Not having much luck on that front just yet.

But the most important thing is that Mad Max Fury Road comes out next week. And hopefully won't have any stupid branching on it.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> I'm holding out for the next few months for UHD Players to become available. I was going to get an Oppo with Darbee, but...might as well be forward thinking. If I was in your shoes, I wouldn't buy something super expensive to replace it.


Not to go off topic but I still think something like on Oppo is worth it. The whole point of going UHD is to get HDR... but until TV's are announced that will be able to use all the different HDR formats, and until UHD sets have their kinks worked out I think 1080p land is still the best place to be. Based on the tv shootout it seems like it's gonna take a few years for everything to settle... if Bluray's initial roll out can be indicative of what's to come. It will probably be a long time until oppo UHD comes out anyway.


----------



## stikle

I don't quite agree with everything you said, this in particular:



Aras_Volodka said:


> The whole point of going UHD is to get HDR...



That might be a main point, but there's also the possibility of studios holding out on releasing more Atmos titles until UHD comes to fruition. That's what I'm more interested in. Plus a possible rumor of the Die Hard Series in Atmos on UHD, and most importantly, sextuple dipping on Star Wars. Again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> I don't quite agree with everything you said, this in particular:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might be a main point, but there's also the possibility of studios holding out on releasing more Atmos titles until UHD comes to fruition. That's what I'm more interested in. Plus a possible rumor of the Die Hard Series in Atmos on UHD, and most importantly, sextuple dipping on Star Wars. Again.


Yes, better color and Dolby Atmos/DTS:X are reasons to switch to be sure. As long as the studios don't overreach this time on their DRM schemes.


----------



## NorthSky

I predict that by 2021 most bugs will be ironed out. ...Well cooked and ready to rumble. ...UHD Blu-ray dead, and streaming going full steam.


----------



## grendelrt

Have they said whether a uhd blu ray can be down sampled to 1080p? Wouldn't mind starting my 4k collection now and then once I go 4k I don't have to re buy. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

grendelrt said:


> Have they said whether a uhd blu ray can be down sampled to 1080p? Wouldn't mind starting my 4k collection now and then once I go 4k I don't have to re buy.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


Play it on a 1080p TV and that's what you get. Play it on a non HDCP 2.2 compliant UHD TV and that's probably also what you get.


----------



## LowellG

Aras_Volodka said:


> One other suggestion if you are open minded regarding the surrounds... move your L/R surrounds forwards too... the left surround where the wolverine poster is, the other (while I know this could become an eyesore) in that angled section of the wall next to the door. But I would definitely have them be ear level as much as possible.


Thanks for the advice, I am definitely moving the surrounds forward and down 18", but I can go that far forward or I would have to go past the door. That would be way to far forward.


----------



## robert816

Watched Furious 7 in digital format with Dolby Digital plus, shame this movie didn't get the Atmos treatment. There are so many scenes that would have been perfect for an Atmos mix.

However, DSU rendered another stellar performance and took the current mix to another level. I'm sure the Blu-Ray audio washed through the DSU up-mixer will be even better.

The bass in this movie has some serious punch on my system, in fact it set off the alarm on my '88 Toyota Supra parked in my garage, and caused several CD's to fall off the bookshelf in the back of the room.


----------



## asere

robert816 said:


> The bass in this movie has some serious punch on my system, in fact it set off the alarm on my '88 Toyota Supra parked in my garage, and caused several CD's fall off the bookshelf in the back of the room.


Haha! Love it!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Zhorik

robert816 said:


> Watched Furious 7 in digital format with Dolby Digital plus, shame this movie didn't get the Atmos treatment. There are so many scenes that would have been perfect for an Atmos mix.
> 
> However, DSU rendered another stellar performance and took the current mix to another level. I'm sure the Blu-Ray audio washed through the DSU up-mixer will be even better.
> 
> The bass in this movie has some serious punch on my system, in fact it set off the alarm on my '88 Toyota Supra parked in my garage, and caused several CD's to fall off the bookshelf in the back of the room.


The bass is lacking in extension and boomy on the region B blu ray (it muddies up the mix during the action sequences). Unless it has a different master, I would expect the same on region A blu ray as well.

DSU works well on this movie though, especially in the whole ending sequence.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Play it on a 1080p TV and that's what you get. Play it on a non HDCP 2.2 compliant UHD TV and that's probably also what you get.


And if you happen to play an upsampled versions of the HD version you will get a 1080p movie which is up-sampled in the studio, down-sampled in your player, and up-sampled in your TV. 

So if you start buying UHD movies you'd better verify they are native. We have seen the same when the first Blu-Rays came out. If your player had a good upscaler (like in the Oppo players) the picture quality of some good DVDs could be equal or even better than that of their Blu-Ray twins.


----------



## dholmes54

LowellG said:


> Thanks for trying to look at at. I clicked the link within the forum again and it's only missing about an actual 6-8 inches to scale or a half inch in the JPEG. I am not sure what you are seeing the side walls and back of the room is there. I didn't want to clutter up the image with more labels. I guess the only thing I could add would be the blue circles are lights. If I could just get some input on the black circles which is the proposed Atmos in ceiling proposed positions. I added some pics of the HT in case that helps.


That's a great home theater!


----------



## maikeldepotter

*On-screen sound steering*



maikeldepotter said:


> True. The larger part of the consumers market for Atmos has displays that are too small to really appreciate such feature.
> 
> I am by no means questioning the market driven decisions that have been made thus far. Just exploring other/additional possibilities of object based sound formats like Atmos.
> 
> On-screen sound steering (along both horizontal and vertical axis) is one that I personally would welcome, since it IMO will enhance the sense of realism and immersion. But I guess for that to be even considered, we have to wait till typical viewing distances get around 2 times screen height....


...and not before it has found its way to the commercial theaters. Considering that currently not even IMAX Dome has an appropriate speaker lay-out for vertical on-screen sound steering, this will probably be a long, long way from now.

Thinking of which...

For big screens in the theater, the Auro3d layout with three height speakers just above the top edge of the screen comes closest to what you would need. I wonder if any Auro3D movies exists that already have used this feature for some kind of vertical on-screen sound steering.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

stikle said:


> I don't quite agree with everything you said, this in particular:
> 
> That might be a main point, but there's also the possibility of studios holding out on releasing more Atmos titles until UHD comes to fruition. That's what I'm more interested in. Plus a possible rumor of the Die Hard Series in Atmos on UHD, and most importantly, sextuple dipping on Star Wars. Again.


Point taken... however, if discs continue coming out with previous formats (blurays included with DVD's) I think it stands to reason that a UHD bd disc with atmos would also include the 1080p bd with atmos. If not... then I'm f***ed as I've planted my flag in 1080p land for at least 5 more years. But if so, I'll buy the UHD discs to build up my collection for the future & in the mean time watch the 1080p versions with Atmos. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, better color and Dolby Atmos/DTS:X are reasons to switch to be sure. As long as the studios don't overreach this time on their DRM schemes.


Ahh yes I'd forgotten about the better color part... though I'm sure HDR helps improve color detail/ intensity. 



NorthSky said:


> I predict that by 2021 most bugs will be ironed out. ...Well cooked and ready to rumble. ...UHD Blu-ray dead, and streaming going full steam.


I'm not sure how fast the internet is in Canada... but most of the U.S. can't play 4k streaming. Unless if we get some google fiber layed in most of the metropolitan areas I think it's going to be a pointless to have all media delivered through the internet... unless if we'll be forced to do so. I don't think 5 years is realistic though, you can still buy cd's & dvd's... dvd is what? 10 year old format now? 



LowellG said:


> Thanks for the advice, I am definitely moving the surrounds forward and down 18", but I can go that far forward or I would have to go past the door. That would be way to far forward.


NP! I'm sure it'll sound great... you've got your ceiling speakers picked out too?


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> [On-screen sound steering (along both horizontal and vertical axis) is one that I personally would welcome, since it IMO will enhance the sense of realism and immersion. But I guess for that to be even considered, we have to wait till typical viewing distances get around 2 times screen height] and not before it has found its way to the commercial theaters. Considering that currently not even IMAX Dome has an appropriate speaker lay-out for vertical on-screen sound steering, this will probably be a long, long way from now.
> 
> Thinking of which...
> 
> For big screens in the theater, the Auro3d layout with three height speakers just above the top edge of the screen comes closest to what you would need. I wonder if any Auro3D movies exists that already have used this feature for some kind of vertical on-screen sound steering.



Prior to its acquisition by *Dolby*, *imm sound* _hybrid channel|object based_ technology featured in a number if theatrical venues. The three on-screen speaker layers appear in both "recommended" configuration, sc. *23.1* and *14.1*.

















_


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Star Wars occupies all IMAX theaters for a month straight: 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-wars-force-awakens-set-817709?utm_source=twitter

Still no announcement regarding dolby Atmos... which I'm dying to hear. Seems strange that they are waiting this long to make an announcement about sound formats... I'm wondering if perhaps there might not be an Atmos mix? But it seems like if Atmos was made for anything, then Star Wars would be it!


----------



## FilmMixer

Aras_Volodka said:


> Star Wars occupies all IMAX theaters for a month straight:
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/star-wars-force-awakens-set-817709?utm_source=twitter
> 
> Still no announcement regarding dolby Atmos... which I'm dying to hear. Seems strange that they are waiting this long to make an announcement about sound formats... I'm wondering if perhaps there might not be an Atmos mix? But it seems like if Atmos was made for anything, then Star Wars would be it!


There will be an Atmos mix.


----------



## gene4ht

FilmMixer said:


> There will be an Atmos mix.


Excellent...can't wait!!!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

filmmixer said:


> there will be an atmos mix.


!!! 

Ty!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> There will be an Atmos mix.


But not on Blu-ray... maybe UHD Blu-ray, but there still hasn't been a whiff of anything from the studios yet and the summer's almost over. Hmmm...


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The caveat there is that I won't be going 4K any time soon... and the 93 held its value pretty well, so swapping up to a 103 hopefully won't be too bad. Gotta sell my Onkyo 3010 off before I pull the trigger on the 103 though. Not having much luck on that front just yet.


You may, like me, not want UHD yet for the video side of the HT equation. But consider that the immersive audio releases may come thick and fast on UHD discs, so there is something to be said for having a UHD player even if you don't yet want 4k video.

If I were you, I wouldn't buy another expensive player until early next year when the UHD picture will be more clear (good pun, not intended). I bought a cheap (50 bucks off ebay) Sony BD player to get around the seamless branching thing and it works brilliantly. S470 model.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm not sure how fast the internet is in Canada... but most of the U.S. can't play 4k streaming. Unless if we get some google fiber layed in most of the metropolitan areas I think it's going to be a pointless to have all media delivered through the internet... unless if we'll be forced to do so. I don't think 5 years is realistic though, you can still buy cd's & dvd's... dvd is what? 10 year old format now?


The average Canadian cannot stream or download Dolby Atmos, not even DD+ 5.1 when the average Canadian internet speed is about *1.5 Mbps*.
This is the true average...anything else they say on the internet like Canada is number 33 in world's ranking with roughly an average of 14 Mbps, or even more (up to 30 Mbps) is total baloney/pure fabrication from false statistics. Our internet speed is so low that we cannot even get proper stats.

Let's put it this way, for a realistic perspective in our world's situation: The countries who struggle the most with super highway infrastructure of the cyber space, fiber optic and internet service providers' monopoly...Canada included, are the ones who are the niche market for UHD Blu-ray physical discs. 
The other countries with true high speed internet...they all stream and download their movies. 
This is my view, a realistic view on how this world truly works. 

In some European countries they have speed of 1,000+ Mbps! Wow, that is fast for downloading anything 4K and even 8K. ...So Dolby Atmos included.
In some parts of the USA they too have download speed of 1,000 Mbps. Fiber optic is the funnel. 

And the reality is that 97.853% of the world population is happy with DVD quality (480p, or even 480i). ...And even less, for both movies, and music too.

Dolby Atmos is mainly the domain of Audio/Video forums sprinkled here and there in some cities of our small planet with 7.35 billion people living on it. 
It probably counts for less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and I ran out of zeros on my desktop's keyboard (in Canada we are limited in the number of zeros that we can use). ;-)


----------



## Molon_Labe

robert816 said:


> The bass in this movie has some serious punch on my system, in fact it set off the alarm on my '88 Toyota Supra parked in my garage.



Love those MKIII Supras. I have owned several with the last one being an 89 with a 2JZGTE swap. 


Sorry that was OT - back to Atmos


----------



## Scott Simonian

You know.... when I first bought a blu-ray player (format wars still going on) I had it hooked up to a standard def 55" rptv that only had an s-video connection.

Guess what? The Blu-rays looked better than their dvd version by quite a bit. I thought of them as a Super Super SuperBit dvd. 

And I was getting 5.1 PCM audio instead of 448k Dolby Digital. Totally worth it, imo. I see UHD-BD going the say way but I'd be getting it for immersive audio, for sure just like I did for Blu-ray (interested in the hi-def audio).


----------



## NorthSky

*'Star Wars'*



Dan Hitchman said:


> But not on Blu-ray... maybe UHD Blu-ray, but there still hasn't been a whiff of anything from the studios yet and the summer's almost over. Hmmm...


'Star Wars' saga franchise is owned by Disney movie studios, and Disney operates in strange ways sometimes when it comes to geographical Blu-ray distribution (3D for example). And of course, there is none Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title from them; zero, nada, nil. 

We all want 'Star Wars' in 3D, in IMAX screen aspect ratio, with Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X), on Blu-ray...UHD (4k) format. 
Anything less we'll go to the next theater to watch Mad Max: Fury Road 2. ...Fully loaded with all of the above...with perhaps a different screen aspect ratio.


----------



## Kris Deering

It is strange that Disney has been an absolute no show for Atmos on Blu-ray. Tomorrowland was a showcase piece for Dolby with both Atmos and Dolby Vision theatrically but alas only DTS for the Blu-ray. It is a shame these are getting downgraded for home even if the intent is to market Atmos for UHD. It leaves A LOT more users out in the cold for what will amount to the niche of the niche format. Also disappointed that Warner isn't showing Atmos support for all their theatrical mixes at home as well. No Atmos for Magic Mike or Entourage. Whether I like or want these movies myself means nothing, I was just hoping to see more consistency in theatrical Atmos = home atmos.


----------



## peterfram

NorthSky said:


> The average Canadian cannot stream or download Dolby Atmos, not even DD+ 5.1 when the average Canadian internet speed is about *1.5 Mbps*.


I agree with your points but the trend over time is positive. The potential ISP speed index is much higher than the actual index (below) because the average consumer does not want to pay for the highest speed Internet service package. And for those who do, it comes down to micro location. Either you have the access or you don't. But more do over time. We didn't have good service 3 years ago. Now we have very reliable 110/10 cable ISP service that can handle sustained 100 Mbps throughput when needed. 

My point is the trend is positive and the number of north americans with access to decent throughput is increasing over time. I'm optimistic for the future of streaming and download content.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> You know.... when I first bought a blu-ray player (format wars still going on) I had it hooked up to a standard def 55" rptv that only had an s-video connection.
> 
> Guess what? The Blu-rays looked better than their dvd version by quite a bit. I thought of them as a Super Super SuperBit dvd.
> 
> And I was getting 5.1 PCM audio instead of 448k Dolby Digital. Totally worth it, imo. I see UHD-BD going the say way but I'd be getting it for immersive audio, for sure just like I did for Blu-ray (interested in the hi-def audio).


Good point Scott regarding uncompressed multichannel PCM 5.1 audio in some of our first Blu-ray discs. ...Those were the good days of sound surround city quality. But 25 GB BR discs were not enough to store that superior audio with inferior picture...so they increased the capacity to a 50 GB BR disc (not all of them, even today), and they compressed the audio to save space. That led to better picture quality (but not all BR transfers are created equal, even today), and the compression algorithms for the audio was the "new" boy in town...which was still satisfying...but to my ears multichannel uncompressed PCM 5.1 audio still sounds best. 

Anyway, this is all past now, a!mos ten years ago; today is 3D immersive sound...with more speakers...eleven of them for a 7.1.4 system setup...without going into the ultra hi-end audio department (Datasat, Trinnov, and all that jazz). 
And of course the imagination and creativity of some folks here who use two Dolby Atmos receivers for a 9.1.6 system setup. 

The times they are a rockin'. And it's only a new beginning...DTS:X is coming up real soon along with UHD Blu-ray. ...And Mad Max: Fury Road on Blu.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> The average Canadian cannot stream or download Dolby Atmos, not even DD+ 5.1 when the average Canadian internet speed is about *1.5 Mbps*.
> This is the true average...anything else they say on the internet like Canada is number 33 in world's ranking with roughly an average of 14 Mbps, or even more (up to 30 Mbps) is total baloney/pure fabrication from false statistics. Our internet speed is so low that we cannot even get proper stats.
> 
> Let's put it this way, for a realistic perspective in our world's situation: The countries who struggle the most with super highway infrastructure of the cyber space, fiber optic and internet service providers' monopoly...Canada included, are the ones who are the niche market for UHD Blu-ray physical discs.
> The other countries with true high speed internet...they all stream and download their movies.
> This is my view, a realistic view on how this world truly works.
> 
> In some European countries they have speed of 1,000+ Mbps! Wow, that is fast for downloading anything 4K and even 8K. ...So Dolby Atmos included.
> In some parts of the USA they too have download speed of 1,000 Mbps. Fiber optic is the funnel.
> 
> And the reality is that 97.853% of the world population is happy with DVD quality (480p, or even 480i). ...And even less, for both movies, and music too.
> 
> Dolby Atmos is mainly the domain of Audio/Video forums sprinkled here and there in some cities of our small planet with 7.35 billion people living on it.
> It probably counts for less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% and I ran out of zeros on my desktop's keyboard (in Canada we are limited in the number of zeros that we can use). ;-)


Your claim was that no physical media would exist in 5 years though. But as I said, people still buy DVD's & CD's, or at least, they are available. Media will continue to be manufactured as long as a profit can be made, & it will remain in stores until it can be sold. I think 5 years is far too short to anticipate that no physical media will exist... DVD's are still being manufactured... 10 year old technology! I suppose it's possible that all the late bloomers who would have otherwise bought blurays go straight to downloadable content, but the bluray economy is thriving despite online media. It's not only the niche who purchase discs... far from it.


----------



## stikle

Kris Deering said:


> It is strange that Disney has been an absolute no show for Atmos on Blu-ray



Wouldn't a Star Wars re-re-re-re-re-re-release in Atmos be a great "Hello World!" for Disney UHD?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> You may, like me, not want UHD yet for the video side of the HT equation. But consider that the immersive audio releases may come thick and fast on UHD discs, so there is something to be said for having a UHD player even if you don't yet want 4k video.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't buy another expensive player until early next year when the UHD picture will be more clear (good pun, not intended). I bought a cheap (50 bucks off ebay) Sony BD player to get around the seamless branching thing and it works brilliantly. S470 model.


Again, my problem is that my equipment stand's at its limit. Already have the Oppo... and an Xbox One, which plays Blu-rays but won't bitstream. Not really sure I have any space for Blu-ray player number 3. So replacing the Oppo makes sense... but because I also play SACD, DVD-Audio and MKVs from my home media server, its replacement has to do all that as well, which likely means another Oppo. 

I'll see how UHD shakes out, but it's just not something I see being an immediate concern, whereas being able to play more Atmos discs IS an immediate concern for me. But I'll consider what you said. It just seems so ridiculous to have three Blu-ray players!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> It is strange that Disney has been an absolute no show for Atmos on Blu-ray. Tomorrowland was a showcase piece for Dolby with both Atmos and Dolby Vision theatrically but alas only DTS for the Blu-ray. It is a shame these are getting downgraded for home even if the intent is to market Atmos for UHD. It leaves A LOT more users out in the cold for what will amount to the niche of the niche format. Also disappointed that Warner isn't showing Atmos support for all their theatrical mixes at home as well. No Atmos for Magic Mike or Entourage. Whether I like or want these movies myself means nothing, I was just hoping to see more consistency in theatrical Atmos = home atmos.


It definitely is all about UHD. 

I would expect _Tomorrowland_ will be one of the first titles that gets Dolby Vision HDR encoding_ and _Dolby Atmos. Probably next year it'll be the new _Star Wars_ that gets the royal treatment.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Your claim was that no physical media would exist in 5 years though. But as I said, people still buy DVD's & CD's, or at least, they are available. Media will continue to be manufactured as long as a profit can be made, & it will remain in stores until it can be sold. I think 5 years is far too short to anticipate that no physical media will exist... DVD's are still being manufactured... 10 year old technology! I suppose it's possible that all the late bloomers who would have otherwise bought blurays go straight to downloadable content, but the bluray economy is thriving despite online media. It's not only the niche who purchase discs... far from it.


CDs are getting extinct closer to the minute by minute. ...The decline in sales is dramatic, to say the least. Like SACDs CDs are becoming a niche. ...Last.
And the vinyl revival is also for the niche market. ...Second best sound.
And if you want to be the cream of all niches...go Reel-to-Reel tapes. ...Best sound.

* Dolby Atmos on Blu first, then if you can stream it. ...If not try to download it, along with 4K picture...and 3D UHD in about seven-eight years from now...with 8K 2D.

...Just a guess.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kris Deering said:


> It is strange that Disney has been an absolute no show for Atmos on Blu-ray. Tomorrowland was a showcase piece for Dolby with both Atmos and Dolby Vision theatrically but alas only DTS for the Blu-ray. It is a shame these are getting downgraded for home even if the intent is to market Atmos for UHD. It leaves A LOT more users out in the cold for what will amount to the niche of the niche format. Also disappointed that Warner isn't showing Atmos support for all their theatrical mixes at home as well. No Atmos for Magic Mike or Entourage. Whether I like or want these movies myself means nothing, I was just hoping to see more consistency in theatrical Atmos = home atmos.





stikle said:


> Wouldn't a Star Wars re-re-re-re-re-re-release in Atmos be a great "Hello World!" for Disney UHD?


Yeah it's a real shame... I don't know what's up with all that. Inside out as well... no atmos mix. I saw it in the theater with Atmos but the theater's playback wasn't as effective as others in the area I've heard. Kind of strange because that theater (ICON) has the best atmos system I've heard in chicago in the premium section... but if you go to any room aside from that it's a big disappointment. So I'm very careful to look at which theater is showing it in atmos from now on.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> It definitely is all about UHD.
> 
> I would expect _Tomorrowland_ will be one of the first titles that gets Dolby Vision HDR encoding_ and _Dolby Atmos. Probably next year it'll be the new _Star Wars_ that gets the royal treatment.


*"Disneyland" "Tomorrowland'*...is that a good movie, Dan?


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, my problem is that my equipment stand's at its limit. Already have the Oppo... and an Xbox One, which plays Blu-rays but won't bitstream. Not really sure I have any space for Blu-ray player number 3. So replacing the Oppo makes sense... but because I also play SACD, DVD-Audio and MKVs from my home media server, its replacement has to do all that as well, which likely means another Oppo.
> 
> I'll see how UHD shakes out, but it's just not something I see being an immediate concern, whereas being able to play more Atmos discs IS an immediate concern for me. But I'll consider what you said. It just seems so ridiculous to have three Blu-ray players!


Points taken. The good thing about the Sony S470 is that it is just about 1 inch high! Mine sits right on top of my Oppo and you barely know it's there.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NorthSky said:


> *"Disneyland" "Tomorrowland'*...is that a good movie, Dan?


Haven't seen it yet. A lot of mixed reviews.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'd say, "don't spend money going to see Tomorrowland" but now I regret that more didn't. Supposedly a sequel to Tron:Legacy was canned because of the poor box office performance of TL. Hrmph!!


----------



## jmhilden

I posted this in the speaker forum but figure it can't hurt to ask in here as well. So here goes:

Basically due to WAF if I want to upgrade to atmos 5.1.4 I'll have to buy up firing speakers and place them on top of my front Verus grands and rear bipole/dipoles.

I have a question for anyone familiar with Aperion Verus grands they have a slope on the top and wonder if anyone knows some good atmos speakers that would fit on them?

Thanks and yes I know in ceiling or ceiling mounted would be ideal. If anyone has preferred brand suggestions feel free to throw them out as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Haven't seen it yet. A lot of mixed reviews.


I don't usually put my faith in movie critics...just look @ 'The Interview' for example.  
...'Jupiter Ascending'? ...Yeah, they saw that one comin'/descendin'. 

Anyway, if we were to be put on an island, all alone, for the rest of our life, and that we were allowed to bring only one movie; Mad Max: Fury Road. 
And that one has also Dolby Atmos audio, like 'Jupiter Ascending'. ...And both are in 3D (image). 

________

Fair Question:

*Say that on that island you can only take one of those two: A full Dolby 7.2.4 Atmos sound system (full range) with a portable BR player with a 9" integrated screen, or a 90" OLED curved UHD TV, with its own internal speakers...what would you pick?*

* Remember too; only one BR movie.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd say, "don't spend money going to see Tomorrowland" but now I regret that more didn't. Supposedly a sequel to Tron:Legacy was canned because of the poor box office performance of TL. Hrmph!!


You like Tron:Legacy? +1!! I really dig the visual and sound of it!


----------



## NorthSky

jmhilden said:


> I posted this in the speaker forum but figure it can't hurt to ask in here as well. So here goes:
> 
> Basically due to WAF if I want to upgrade to atmos 5.1.4 I'll have to buy up firing speakers and place them on top of my front Verus grands and rear bipole/dipoles.
> 
> I have a question for anyone familiar with Aperion Verus grands they have a slope on the top and wonder if anyone knows some good atmos speakers that would fit on them?
> 
> Thanks and yes I know in ceiling or ceiling mounted would be ideal. If anyone has preferred brand suggestions feel free to throw them out as well.


Can't you use some type of rubber wedge so that the Atmos up-firing speakers rest flat on them? ...And with Blu-Tack.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would expect _Tomorrowland_ will be one of the first titles that gets Dolby Vision HDR encoding_ and _Dolby Atmos. Probably next year it'll be the new _Star Wars_ that gets the royal treatment.


The movie was a box office failure, so I doubt you'll see them spend the money and time to do a home Atmos mix from the theatrical mix. Or even bother with HDR. If there's gonna be a UHD demo disc, it's not going to be one that flopped in theaters. (And don't get me wrong... I still want to see the movie!) Now, Star Wars is pretty much a given.


Aras_Volodka said:


> Yeah it's a real shame... I don't know what's up with all that. Inside out as well... no atmos mix. I saw it in the theater with Atmos but the theater's playback wasn't as effective as others in the area I've heard. Kind of strange because that theater (ICON) has the best atmos system I've heard in chicago in the premium section... but if you go to any room aside from that it's a big disappointment. So I'm very careful to look at which theater is showing it in atmos from now on.


I really wonder if there's any real investment for them to properly calibrate theaters anymore. I recently sent a complaint about my local Carmike theater's audio issues to the district manager for my region and got a response that they had sent a tech to this theater and found nothing wrong. When I saw Mad Max Fury Road there, everyone with me agreed that the right surrounds were barely there and crackling like something had blown... and when I asked the manager, he outright told me that they had been given money for new screens and Coke machines, but none to fix the audio. The two movies I saw after that on different screens each had different (and obvious) audio problems, but I guess the tech didn't hear those either. So basically, either the district manager's lying to me about sending a tech, the tech is completely freaking deaf, or the local manager's lying to the district manager. It's frustrating that the only theater in town that I know has been properly calibrated is the one in my living room. And man, do I hate being lied to. In your case, if you find one theater you know is good, patronize it. _Repeatedly_. Competition seems to be all that motivates them to improve.



kbarnes701 said:


> Points taken. The good thing about the Sony S470 is that it is just about 1 inch high! Mine sits right on top of my Oppo and you barely know it's there.


My cable box is on top of my Oppo. I'll take a look at the S470 though. Only place I can think to put it would be under the Crown amp that powers my SVS... but it's a light and small amp, so maybe that's not an issue. It's still nerve-wracking though!


----------



## jmhilden

NorthSky said:


> Can't you use some type of rubber wedge so that the Atmos up-firing speakers rest flat on them? ...And with Blu-Tack.


Might have to do something like that. Wasn't sure if anyone knew of a brand that had curvature to it. Am hoping Aperion comes out with some soon to pair up and match.

Any good brands that you would recommend?


----------



## NorthSky

jmhilden said:


> Might have to do something like that. Wasn't sure if anyone knew of a brand that had curvature to it. Am hoping Aperion comes out with some soon to pair up and match.
> 
> Any good brands that you would recommend?


Other folks here with first hand experience with those are more calibrated than I.


----------



## LowellG

dholmes54 said:


> That's a great home theater!


Thanks, I just wish the upgrade bug would go away.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Kris Deering said:


> It is strange that Disney has been an absolute no show for Atmos on Blu-ray. Tomorrowland was a showcase piece for Dolby with both Atmos and Dolby Vision theatrically but alas only DTS for the Blu-ray. It is a shame these are getting downgraded for home even if the intent is to market Atmos for UHD. It leaves A LOT more users out in the cold for what will amount to the niche of the niche format. Also disappointed that Warner isn't showing Atmos support for all their theatrical mixes at home as well. No Atmos for Magic Mike or Entourage. Whether I like or want these movies myself means nothing, I was just hoping to see more consistency in theatrical Atmos = home atmos.


Admit it Kris...you can't wait to see Magic Mike XL in your theater. You'll probably send the wife out for the night with the kids so you can spend some quality time with the guys   (Just kidding, of course!)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I really wonder if there's any real investment for them to properly calibrate theaters anymore. I recently sent a complaint about my local Carmike theater's audio issues to the district manager for my region and got a response that they had sent a tech to this theater and found nothing wrong. When I saw Mad Max Fury Road there, everyone with me agreed that the right surrounds were barely there and crackling like something had blown... and when I asked the manager, he outright told me that they had been given money for new screens and Coke machines, but none to fix the audio. The two movies I saw after that on different screens each had different (and obvious) audio problems, but I guess the tech didn't hear those either. So basically, either the district manager's lying to me about sending a tech, the tech is completely freaking deaf, or the local manager's lying to the district manager. It's frustrating that the only theater in town that I know has been properly calibrated is the one in my living room. And man, do I hate being lied to. In your case, if you find one theater you know is good, patronize it. _Repeatedly_. Competition seems to be all that motivates them to improve.


I'd volunteer to do that job just so I can hear good mixes (lol)... seriously though. 

I do go to that theater a lot... I only learned about it last December, I think I've seen 8 films there since then. Definitely if it's an Atmos flick, that's my go to destination. The RPX theater's just can't compete in this region. 

However... an AMC prime is opening up about an hour away from here... so they'll get my money any time an HDR film is released.


----------



## petetherock

stikle said:


> Wouldn't a Star Wars re-re-re-re-re-re-release in Atmos be a great "Hello World!" for Disney UHD?


Heck yeah..
I have it on VCD, LD, DVD, and now Blu Ray, so why not UHD...

Seen that Luke Skywalker's scream go from sissy to macho, seen the Hans Solo fight go from first to last and Darth's face all altered... so why not go through it in UHD and get all the versions as options on a massive 500gb disc


----------



## burnfout

Two Atmos setup questions:

I currently have a 7.1 setup (Bower & Wilkins 685 S2, and 686 S2 as sides and surrounds). 

I'm looking to switch to an atmos setup. Can I use the 686 speakers as height speakers? We have a dedicated movie room, so looks aren't a problem. I would like to keep speakers within one brand. 

Second question, for a 5.1.4 setup is there a big difference between the Denon 5200 VS 7200?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Top Surround channels.


So for home theater Atmos these channels are translated into objects that are directly sent to the left and right overhead arrays consisting of 1 to 5 speaker pairs. 

I suppose that for the 7.1 down mix those 'Top Surround channels objects' end up in the rear surrounds or a combinations of side/rear surrounds?


----------



## asere

How far away can you actually sit from the top front heights?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Kris Deering

Dave Vaughn said:


> Admit it Kris...you can't wait to see Magic Mike XL in your theater. You'll probably send the wife out for the night with the kids so you can spend some quality time with the guys   (Just kidding, of course!)


Busted, but you know us Navy guys. On a more serious note, the first film wasn't too bad (wouldn't expect it to be with Soderbergh at the helm) but I haven't heard anything good about this one. I LOVED Entourage on HBO though so I am gonna check that one out. Disappointed it doesn't feature Atmos, but then I just saw the press release for Battle of the Five Armies Extended Edition and no Atmos there either. So disappointing.


----------



## asere

Ok I had a 5.1 system with mains, two in ceiling surrounds and two in ceiling right in front of the mains (that's because I was using all in ceiling before I got floor standing mains).
Now I have an Atmos receiver. If I set it to 5.1.2 won't that be the same as 7.1? If I play a 7.1 track will sound come from the heights if I have it set up as heights?
Sorry if I asked before or similar question but I'm confused.



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Zhorik

asere said:


> Ok I had a 5.1 system with mains, two in ceiling surrounds and two in ceiling right in front of the mains (that's because I was using all in ceiling before I got floor standing mains).
> Now I have an Atmos receiver. If I set it to 5.1.2 won't that be the same as 7.1? If I play a 7.1 track will sound come from the heights if I have it set up as heights?
> Sorry if I asked before or similar question but I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Based on your description the pair of in-ceiling closest to the front floor standing speakers would function as top front. 

You wouldn't experience the full benefit of Atmos with the side surround speakers being in ceiling as well. 

The rear channels (in a 7.1 or Atmos mix) will be folded into side surround channels. If DSU is engaged on the 7.1 mix, that will put sounds in the top front speakers.


----------



## asere

Zhorik said:


> Based on your description the pair of in-ceiling closest to the front floor standing speakers would function as top front.
> 
> You wouldn't experience the full benefit of Atmos with the side surround speakers being in ceiling as well.
> 
> The rear channels (in a 7.1 or Atmos mix) will be folded into side surround channels. If DSU is engaged on the 7.1 mix, that will put sounds in the top front speakers.


Basically if I play a 7.1 non Atmos track the front heights will not be on unless y engage the DSU?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Busted, but you know us Navy guys. On a more serious note, the first film wasn't too bad (wouldn't expect it to be with Soderbergh at the helm) but I haven't heard anything good about this one. I LOVED Entourage on HBO though so I am gonna check that one out. Disappointed it doesn't feature Atmos, but then I just saw the press release for Battle of the Five Armies Extended Edition and no Atmos there either. So disappointing.


It wouldn't be a Hollywood studio unless they made you double dip for The Hobbit Trilogy (theatrical then extended then 3D) with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Zhorik

asere said:


> Basically if I play a 7.1 non Atmos track the front heights will not be on unless y engage the DSU?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Yes. The information in the rear channels will be folded down in the sides (which are in ceiling).

Unless you reassign the two in-ceiling in front of the mains as side surround and the other two in-ceilings as rear surround in the AVR (and vice versa every time), which would be worse in my opinion. 

For future, adding two or more surround speakers at ear level will allow you to re-purpose the in ceiling for heights only and also provide an accurate rendering of atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

burnfout said:


> Two Atmos setup questions:
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 setup (Bower & Wilkins 685 S2, and 686 S2 as sides and surrounds).
> 
> I'm looking to switch to an atmos setup. Can I use the 686 speakers as height speakers? We have a dedicated movie room, so looks aren't a problem. I would like to keep speakers within one brand.
> 
> Second question, for a 5.1.4 setup is there a big difference between the Denon 5200 VS 7200?


If you want a 5.1.4 setup, I would wait for the Denon 6200 and get DTS:X and updated HDMI chips as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Basically if I play a 7.1 non Atmos track the front heights will not be on unless y engage the DSU?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Correct.


----------



## asere

Zhorik said:


> Yes. The information in the rear channels will be folded down in the sides (which are in ceiling).
> 
> Unless you reassign the two in-ceiling in front of the mains as side surround and the other two in-ceilings as rear surround in the AVR (and vice versa every time), which would be worse in my opinion.
> 
> For future, adding two or more surround speakers at ear level will allow you to re-purpose the in ceiling for heights only and also provide an accurate rendering of atmos.


If I get two more surrounds for ear level. Can I place them as sides but they won't be inline with the in in ceilings. They would be about 2ft out.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

Zhorik said:


> Based on your description the pair of in-ceiling closest to the front floor standing speakers would function as top front.
> 
> You wouldn't experience the full benefit of Atmos with the side surround speakers being in ceiling as well.
> 
> The rear channels (in a 7.1 or Atmos mix) will be folded into side surround channels. If DSU is engaged on the 7.1 mix, that will put sounds in the top front speakers.


Also based on my configuration. If I set the avr for 7.1 instead it would sound the same as Atmos 5.1.2 because my front heights and surrounds are all in ceiling correct?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you want a 5.1.4 setup, I would wait for the Denon 6200 and get DTS:X and updated HDMI chips as well.


I think it's worth noting that if one could wait I would. 

The new Denon's use a different DSP platform than the 5200/7200. 

Which AIUI is why the post processing has changed at this point in time. 

When 7200/8802a get the DTS:X upgrade, the post processing might stay as it is today.


----------



## Zhorik

asere said:


> If I get two more surrounds for ear level. Can I place them as sides but they won't be inline with the in in ceilings. They would be about 2ft out.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I am unsure if you are planning to add the two speakers at ear level at the side or the rear. 

I would suggest sides and they don't have to be in line with the ceiling speakers. Doing so would allow you to have a 5.1.4 set up with the front pair of in ceilings being assigned as top height and the rear pair (I presume it is on top of the listening position or at least close to it) being top centre (or top front and top centre if AVR's allowed adjacent positions).

Adding the two speakers for rear channel would be no better than your current state as any sound panned from the front to sides to rear will move from ear level to ceiling and back to ear level.

Edit: This is assuming your AVR supports four height speakers.


----------



## stikle

Kris Deering said:


> I just saw the press release for *Battle of the Five Armies Extended Edition* and no Atmos there either. So disappointing.



Sweet! I didn't get to the theater to see it and decided to just wait for the EE and do it right the first time.

Even though it's non-Atmos, the Hobbit mixes are quite good in my opinion, and DSU will probably help out even more.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kaotikr1 said:


> It would be easier for me just to sell the sides and get the same in-walls that I have on the rear, would save me from having to patch up my back wall. I do have the 4 speakers lined up with the FL/FR as my room is just around 15x12x8, so my MLP is around 11-12' from the screen.
> 
> So to summarize..
> 
> 1. Get Denon X5200W
> 2. Get mono pole for sides and lower them down closer to ear level.
> 3. Install 4 ceiling speakers within Dolby Spec.
> 4. Profit?
> 
> I live in a small town and no place to Demo ATMOS, I feel excited about it, but lots of work on something i haven't heard.


Get the Denon 6200 instead. The 5200 will not get you DTS:X or the new HDMI protocol.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> Dolby stated at the show that they are working on a demo disc that is more consumer driven and hope to have it in the coming month. The demo they had at CEDIA was different than the disc that some people got at the show. The demo menus looked the same, but the booth demos had clips from 3 movies (Oblivion, STID, TF4) whereas the discs did not. The demos also had clips that compared standard 5.1 to Atmos. I REALLY wanted the comparison clips but the disc they gave to some only had the trailers and marketing material. One of the rooms even had a longer Red Bull F1 clip than the one on the disc. Maybe the forthcoming disc will be made available on their site or at least at CES as I'm sure they'll have demos going there.


I'm hoping they'll have them ready for CEDIA.


----------



## asere

Zhorik said:


> I am unsure if you are planning to add the two speakers at ear level at the side or the rear.
> 
> I would suggest sides and they don't have to be in line with the ceiling speakers. Doing so would allow you to have a 5.1.4 set up with the front pair of in ceilings being assigned as top height and the rear pair (I presume it is on top of the listening position or at least close to it) being top centre (or top front and top centre if AVR's allowed adjacent positions).
> 
> Adding the two speakers for rear channel would be no better than your current state as any sound panned from the front to sides to rear will move from ear level to ceiling and back to ear level.
> 
> Edit: This is assuming your AVR supports four height speakers.


Yes I would use the sides as ear level surrounds. I would use top front and top rear with the ear levels in the middle of both in ceilings.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> It wouldn't be a Hollywood studio unless they made you double dip for The Hobbit Trilogy (theatrical then extended then 3D) with Dolby Atmos.


In most cases I would agree with you but in this case this is the double dip of sorts and there is already 2D and 3D versions. And with Warner typically attaching Atmos mixes to their movies if they had an Atmos mix theatrically, I was hoping this would have one. So now 3 new releases upcoming from Warner that had theatrical mixes that are not being released on Blu-ray with Atmos.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm hoping they'll have them ready for CEDIA.


I have absolutely no doubt that Dolby and DTS will have demo discs at CEDIA.


----------



## TJtennispro

You might want Star Wars in 3D but the rest of us don't. Star Wars is not meant to be in 3D. Save that gimmick for other films. Also have you even heard Dolby Atmos @ home? 30% of the posts in this thread are made by you and that "fly" from Unbroken..... yet I assume you still don't have the proper tools. 



NorthSky said:


> 'Star Wars' saga franchise is owned by Disney movie studios, and Disney operates in strange ways sometimes when it comes to geographical Blu-ray distribution (3D for example). And of course, there is none Dolby Atmos Blu-ray title from them; zero, nada, nil.
> 
> We all want 'Star Wars' in 3D, in IMAX screen aspect ratio, with Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X), on Blu-ray...UHD (4k) format.
> Anything less we'll go to the next theater to watch Mad Max: Fury Road 2. ...Fully loaded with all of the above...with perhaps a different screen aspect ratio.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I think it's worth noting that if one could wait I would.
> 
> The new Denon's use a different DSP platform than the 5200/7200.
> 
> Which AIUI is why the post processing has changed at this point in time.
> 
> When 7200/8802a get the DTS:X upgrade, the post processing might stay as it is today.


Are you, by any chance, talking about how the newly released D&M manuals are stating DTS Neural: X won't work with Dolby encoded audio and Dolby Surround won't work with DTS encoded audio? Is that a mistake on the part of the manuals' writers or does this have to do with their new DSP platform? Any idea?


----------



## batpig

jmhilden said:


> I posted this in the speaker forum but figure it can't hurt to ask in here as well. So here goes:
> 
> Basically due to WAF if I want to upgrade to atmos 5.1.4 I'll have to buy up firing speakers and place them on top of my front Verus grands and rear bipole/dipoles.
> 
> I have a question for anyone familiar with Aperion Verus grands they have a slope on the top and wonder if anyone knows some good atmos speakers that would fit on them?
> 
> Thanks and yes I know in ceiling or ceiling mounted would be ideal. If anyone has preferred brand suggestions feel free to throw them out as well.


The Atmos enabled speakers do NOT have to literally sit on top of the other speakers. In the Dolby whitepaper for home Atmos they indicate they can be up to 3' away, although I think others have experimented and had them even further away (e.g. Aras_Volodka among others has placed them on stands well in front of their main speakers to get the reflection off the ceiling closer to the listening position). 

So as long as they are sort of close to the main level speakers, and a bit above ear level, they will be fine. This means you could for example place them on small decorative shelves on the walls nearby the Aperion speakers. 

In terms of brand I would look to the Atlantic Technology option since they are both affordable ($500/pair) and have good reviews (better than the el-cheapo 3" full range drivers in the Onkyo and Def Tech offerings). Klipsch just announced some modules at $500/pair also. If you have the megabucks the KEF modules are probably awesome but over $1k/pair.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are you, by any chance, talking about how the newly released D&M manuals are stating DTS Neural: X won't work with Dolby encoded audio and Dolby Surround won't work with DTS encoded audio? Is that a mistake on the part of the manuals' writers or does this have to do with their new DSP platform? Any idea?


It's not a mistake in the manual. Owners have confirmed that it functions as displayed in the charts in the manual (i.e. no DSU with DTS codecs). No explanation from D+M as to why, although FilmMixer probably has his sources...


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> In terms of brand I would look to the Atlantic Technology option since they are both affordable ($500/pair) and have good reviews (better than the el-cheapo 3" full range drivers in the Onkyo and Def Tech offerings). Klipsch just announced some modules at $500/pair also. If you have the megabucks the KEF modules are probably awesome but over $1k/pair.


There's also the $199 Andrew Jones coax add-on modules from Pioneer (probably his final project for them). 

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Pioneer+Speakers/SP-T22A-LR


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Ok I had a 5.1 system with mains, two in ceiling surrounds and two in ceiling right in front of the mains (that's because I was using all in ceiling before I got floor standing mains).
> Now I have an Atmos receiver. If I set it to 5.1.2 won't that be the same as 7.1? If I play a 7.1 track will sound come from the heights if I have it set up as heights?
> Sorry if I asked before or similar question but I'm confused.


Even though you have 7 speakers, you can't think of it as 7.1. What you have is 5.1 with two extra speakers in the front of the room. "7.1" requires two speakers behind your seats, which you don't have. The two speakers directly above your seats are your main Surrounds (positions 4 and 5).

If you program your receiver to call the two ceiling speakers in the front of the room "Front Height" or "Top Front," you will have a 5.1.2 system.

If you play a 7.1 (non-Atmos) soundtrack through this configuration, your receiver will first fold it down to 5.1. If you do not turn on DSU, you will only get sound from five of your speakers, and the other two ceiling speakers in the front will remain silent.

If you do turn on DSU, the upmixer will extract some audio cues and send them to the Front Heights/Top Fronts. All of your speakers will be active in a 5.1.2 format.

As your room currently is, you will never get 7.1 unless you were able to add new speakers behind your seats. If your couch is right up against the back wall of the room, I don't imagine that's possible. Not to worry, though. When the receiver folds down a 7.1 soundtrack to 5.1, it simply redirects the audio from the Surround Back channels and mixes it in with the main Surrounds, so you don't lose anything.



asere said:


> If I get two more surrounds for ear level. Can I place them as sides but they won't be inline with the in in ceilings. They would be about 2ft out.


That's not a problem. Your height speakers don't have to be in line with the ground-level speakers below them. There's no requirement for that.

Ideally, your main Surrounds should be at ear-level directly to the sides of your seat. However, you have some latitude to move them a little forward or backward if you need to. In my own room, my main Surrounds are at about 80-degrees from where I sit, just slightly ahead of my seat. It sounds fine.

IMO, your best course of action is to add two new speakers on stands that will become your main Surrounds. Then reconfigure the ceiling speakers to become either Front Height + Top Middle, or Top Front + Top Rear. (There doesn't seem to be any audible difference between those two options.) That will give you a 5.1.4 system. Most importantly, it will greatly straighten out any issues with sound directionality when your entire 5.1 base is at the same height plane and you have genuine separation between that and the proper overhead layer.

My $.02.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> It's not a mistake in the manual. Owners have confirmed that it functions as displayed in the charts in the manual (i.e. no DSU with DTS codecs). No explanation from D+M as to why, although FilmMixer probably has his sources...


A truly baffling turn of events... people need to get the word out to Denon/Marantz that this is unacceptable.


----------



## NorthSky

TJtennispro said:


> You might want Star Wars in 3D but the rest of us don't. Star Wars is not meant to be in 3D. Save that gimmick for other films. Also have you even heard Dolby Atmos @ home? 30% of the posts in this thread are made by you and that "fly" from Unbroken..... yet I assume you still don't have the proper tools.


You can discuss the post's content, and share your opinion about Star Wars and 3D. ...But what does a poster's post count have anything to do with movies and immersive sound and picture? And is it a requirement to have a Dolby Atmos product in order to post in this thread? 

1. I have never heard Dolby Atmos.
2. I don't have any clue about percentage*...it don't even cross my mind...it does to you? 
3. Some' wrong with 'Unbroken'?
4. I don't have a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X pre/pro, yet.

* EDIT: I just looked; just less than 9% (8.744%)


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> Even though you have 7 speakers, you can't think of it as 7.1. What you have is 5.1 with two extra speakers in the front of the room. "7.1" requires two speakers behind your seats, which you don't have. The two speakers directly above your seats are your main Surrounds (positions 4 and 5).
> 
> If you program your receiver to call the two ceiling speakers in the front of the room "Front Height" or "Top Front," you will have a 5.1.2 system.
> 
> If you play a 7.1 (non-Atmos) soundtrack through this configuration, your receiver will first fold it down to 5.1. If you do not turn on DSU, you will only get sound from five of your speakers, and the other two ceiling speakers in the front will remain silent.
> 
> If you do turn on DSU, the upmixer will extract some audio cues and send them to the Front Heights/Top Fronts. All of your speakers will be active in a 5.1.4 format.
> 
> As your room currently is, you will never get 7.1 unless you were able to add new speakers behind your seats. If your couch is right up against the back wall of the room, I don't imagine that's possible. Not to worry, though. When the receiver folds down a 7.1 soundtrack to 5.1, it simply redirects the audio from the Surround Back channels and mixes it in with the main Surrounds, so you don't lose anything.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a problem. Your height speakers don't have to be in line with the ground-level speakers below them. There's no requirement for that.
> 
> Ideally, your main Surrounds should be at ear-level directly to the sides of your seat. However, you have some latitude to move them a little forward or backward if you need to. In my own room, my main Surrounds are at about 80-degrees from where I sit, just slightly ahead of my seat. It sounds fine.
> 
> IMO, your best course of action is to add two new speakers on stands that will become your main Surrounds. Then reconfigure the ceiling speakers to become either Front Height + Top Middle, or Top Front + Top Rear. (There doesn't seem to be any audible difference between those two options.) That will give you a 5.1.4 system. Most importantly, it will greatly straighten out any issues with sound directionality when your entire 5.1 base is at the same height plane and you have genuine separation between that and the proper overhead layer.
> 
> My $.02.


Excellent explanation and advice! My issue too is the avrs that do 5.1.4 will break the bank. My budget would be no more than $1200.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Excellent explanation and advice! My issue too is the avrs that do 5.1.4 will break the bank. My budget would be no more than $1200.


Understandable. Next suggestion: Add two Surround speakers at ground level. Program the receiver for 5.1.2 using the Top Middle designation, but wire each of the front ceiling speakers to the one behind it so that you get duplicated audio in both the front and back of the room on the ceiling.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> A truly baffling turn of events... people need to get the word out to Denon/Marantz that this is unacceptable.


I am confident that TPTB at D+M know about the issue and am cautiously optimistic that they will rectify it at some point. AFAIK there is no technical or proprietary reason mandating the restriction in upmixer cross-pollination.

It will be interesting, though, to see whether the other CEM's run into this issue and whether it persists following the DTS:X firmware upgrade.


----------



## chi_guy50

asere said:


> Excellent explanation and advice! My issue too is the avrs that do 5.1.4 will break the bank. My budget would be no more than $1200.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


With that maximum budget I suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you PM jdsmoothie and ask for a price on the X4200, which IIRC he said would be available for shipping next week. I believe 5.1.4 is within your grasp.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> Understandable. Next suggestion: Add two Surround speakers at ground level. Program the receiver for 5.1.2 using the Top Middle designation, but wire each of the front ceiling speakers to the one behind it so that you get duplicated audio in both the front and back of the room on the ceiling.


I would have to program it to front top height since its a feet or so in front of the mains and I sit with the surrounds above me. 
I might not be able to wire the in ceilings together since its hard to get to in the attic. Also by wiring them I won't have the option to disengage DSU.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

chi_guy50 said:


> With that maximum budget I suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you PM jdsmoothie and ask for a price on the X4200, which IIRC he said would be available for shipping next week. I believe 5.1.4 is within your grasp.


Thank you but for the 5.1.4 you need an additional two channel amp if using the x4200.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Thank you but for the 5.1.4 you need an additional two channel amp if using the x4200.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Yes, and two channel amps can be had at a reasonable price.


----------



## asere

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, and two channel amps can be had at a reasonable price.


I have the Onkyo TX SR 805 with pre outs. Can I use that with the x4200?
Also how would that work?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> There's also the $199 Andrew Jones coax add-on modules from Pioneer (probably his final project for them).
> 
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Pioneer+Speakers/SP-T22A-LR


Whoah, good find Sanjay. Wasn't aware of that. Is that the same driver tech that's used in the AJ Elite Atmos modules with the integrated up-firing units?


----------



## batpig

Hmm, looking at Pio's site it appears these are more in line with the lower-end "Andrew Jones Pioneer" speaker lineup that's a budget fave. I see they've created an Atmos-enabled version of the BS22 budget bookshelfs and it looks the same as this module.

Still, nice to have another option.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Whoah, good find Sanjay. Wasn't aware of that. Is that the same driver tech that's used in the AJ Elite Atmos modules with the integrated up-firing units?


Yes, same concentric driver (4-inch woofer and ½ inch tweeter) used for the upfiring portion of his Atmos bookshelf and tower speakers. 

Those speakers also had a similar (different tweeter) front facing coaxial, described on the Pioneer website: _"The same structured surface 4-inch woofer for ass and midrange and a 1-inch soft-dome tweeter follow the same efficiency as the SP-BS22-LR speakers, while blending with the top firing concentric driver for an affordable step into an immersive surround sound landscape."_ (typo theirs, not mine) 

Same size concentric driver (4-inch woofer and ½ inch tweeter) for his upcoming Atmos module for ELAC: 

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55181e1de4b0187304f87afc/t/5564da2ae4b097b2dc007333/143


----------



## asere

batpig said:


> It's not a mistake in the manual. Owners have confirmed that it functions as displayed in the charts in the manual (i.e. no DSU with DTS codecs). No explanation from D+M as to why, although FilmMixer probably has his sources...


Does that mean that with newer avrs there is a possibility that later you will be able to play DTS codec with DSU?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> I would have to program it to front top height since its a feet or so in front of the mains and I sit with the surrounds above me.


We're talking about a scenario where you add two new speakers on stands to become your main Surrounds. In that case, you would have four speakers in your ceiling to use as heights, two in the front of the room (between your LCR mains and your seat) and two directly above you. If you wire them together into two small arrays, you should set the receiver for Top Middle. The ceiling speakers in the front of the room will be a duplicate of the ceiling speakers directly above you. The ones directly above you take priority, because they're closer to your ears and you'll hear them the most clearly.



> I might not be able to wire the in ceilings together since its hard to get to in the attic.


You can wire them together "in parallel" at the receiver end. All that entails is taking the + strands for both speakers (Top Front Left and Top Middle Left), wrapping them together, and then inserting both together into the appropriate + terminal on the receiver. Then do the same for the - strands. Repeat for Top Front Right and Top Middle Right.



> Also by wiring them I won't have the option to disengage DSU.


That really shouldn't have any impact on DSU or not. As far as the receiver knows, you have a 5.1.2 configuration. It doesn't know or care that you're cloning an extra pair of speakers off the height channels. You can turn DSU on or off as you please.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

TJtennispro said:


> You might want Star Wars in 3D but the rest of us don't. Star Wars is not meant to be in 3D. Save that gimmick for other films. Also have you even heard Dolby Atmos @ home? 30% of the posts in this thread are made by you and that "fly" from Unbroken..... yet I assume you still don't have the proper tools.


Uhhhh.... you do realize The Force Awakens is being released in 3D? 

I saw teaser 2 in IMAX 3D... f'ing incredible. Star Wars was born to be in 3D!


----------



## Kris Deering

asere said:


> Does that mean that with newer avrs there is a possibility that later you will be able to play DTS codec with DSU?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I guess I haven't been keeping track of this but my Marantz 8802A plays back DTS tracks with DSU just fine. Is there people on here that are having the opposite??


----------



## scarabaeus

Kris Deering said:


> It is strange that Disney has been an absolute no show for Atmos on Blu-ray. [....] It is a shame these are getting downgraded for home even if the intent is to market Atmos for UHD.


Even more ridiculous when you remember that UHD Blu-ray won't support 3D. If Disney really reserves Atmos for UHD, then there will never be any Disney content in 3D audio *and* 3D video on Blu-ray.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> We're talking about a scenario where you add two new speakers on stands to become your main Surrounds. In that case, you would have four speakers in your ceiling to use as heights, two in the front of the room (between your LCR mains and your seat) and two directly above you. If you wire them together into two small arrays, you should set the receiver for Top Middle. The ceiling speakers in the front of the room will be a duplicate of the ceiling speakers directly above you. The ones directly above you take priority, because they're closer to your ears and you'll hear them the most clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> You can wire them together "in parallel" at the receiver end. All that entails is taking the + strands for both speakers (Top Front Left and Top Middle Left), wrapping them together, and then inserting both together into the appropriate + terminal on the receiver. Then do the same for the - strands. Repeat for Top Front Right and Top Middle Right.
> 
> 
> 
> That really shouldn't have any impact on DSU or not. As far as the receiver knows, you have a 5.1.2 configuration. It doesn't know or care that you're cloning an extra pair of speakers off the height channels. You can turn DSU on or off as you please.


Won't the Atmos material for the front top heights be on the entire time if it's tied to the top rear surrounds? Won't it effect the sound placing material there all the time instead of when called for?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## nucky

Just finished watching mad max in Atmos, and to tell the truth. The sound effects were good but a bit too much at times. And the bass was mental.


----------



## chi_guy50

Kris Deering said:


> I guess I haven't been keeping track of this but my Marantz 8802A plays back DTS tracks with DSU just fine. Is there people on here that are having the opposite??


The new 2015 D+M models slated to receive the DTS:X upgrade do not allow it (at present), as confirmed by current owners of the released models. See the sound mode chart below for the X4200 for an illustration.

And please try to keep up; there will be a quiz on Friday!


----------



## Kris Deering

chi_guy50 said:


> The new 2015 D+M models slated to receive the DTS:X upgrade do not allow it (at present), as confirmed by current owners of the released models. See the sound mode chart below for the X4200 for an illustration.
> 
> And please try to keep up; there will be a quiz on Friday!


I have a D&M model slated to receive the DTS:X upgrade and my product does DSU just fine with DTS. So you're saying there are other models out there right now in the field that are not allowing DSU with DTS soundtracks? I see the chart above and I'm assuming that the doom and gloom scenario is post DTS:X update this may be a reality, but is this a problem for someone right now with a product that doesn't have this update??


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Won't the Atmos material for the front top heights be on the entire time if it's tied to the top rear surrounds? Won't it effect the sound placing material there all the time instead of when called for?


Again, we're talking about a scenario where you add two new speakers on stands at ear-level to become your Surrounds. All four speakers in the ceiling will only be used for height channel effects. If you turn off DSU, you'll get no height channel effects and all four ceiling speakers will be silent. If you turn it on, all four ceiling speakers will be active.

If your concern is that, with true Atmos content, sound effects meant for the top rear of the room will also appear in the top front - then, yes, that will happen. However, this is typically not problematic. Remember, most of the sound that goes to the height channels are ambient effects like wind and rain, which don't require precision placement and can be spread out across a larger area. 

Even cases where you do get discrete directional height effects (airplanes or helicopters, etc.) should be OK. If you tell the decoder that you only have two Top Middle speakers, it will take any sound effects intended for the front of the room and any intended for the back of the room and sum them together to a general "middle of the room" area. 

Yes, a 5.1.4 system with discrete Top Front and discrete Top Rear channels would be better. However, if you cannot afford a 5.1.4 receiver and expect to be limited to a 5.1.2 model, I think this is the best way to go.

Alternately, you can set it up as 5.1.2, only hook up the speakers above your couch, and just leave the two ceiling speakers in the front of the room unused.

If you can only have two discrete height channels, Top Middle is the setting to use - regardless of whether you play those channels back through two speakers or four speakers.


----------



## Josh Z

Kris Deering said:


> I have a D&M model slated to receive the DTS:X upgrade and my product does DSU just fine with DTS. So you're saying there are other models out there right now in the field that are not allowing DSU with DTS soundtracks? I see the chart above and I'm assuming that the doom and gloom scenario is post DTS:X update this may be a reality, but is this a problem for someone right now with a product that doesn't have this update??


At present, all 2014 D&M models (including those scheduled to get the DTS:X upgrade) can apply the Dolby Surround Upmixer to any codec, whether Dolby or DTS. However, the new 2015 models will only allow DSU to be used on Dolby codecs, and state in the manual that Neural:X will only be available on DTS codecs.

What will happen to your 2014 model after it gets the DTS:X update is not known yet. I would expect that it will probably fall in line with the 2015 models and Dolby Surround will no longer work with DTS codecs. 

However, at that point the receiver will also have Neural:X, so you'll still have some option to upmix DTS soundtracks. (Whether Neural:X will be as good as DSU is an open question.)

In the meantime, owners of the 2015 D&M receivers are stuck in a difficult position, because their receivers only have DSU and won't let them upmix DTS with it. Any Blu-rays they watch with DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks (which are the vast majority) cannot be upmixed at all until they get the update that gives them Neural:X.

I reached out to my contact at D&M about this, but he hasn't gotten back to me with an answer. They may not want to comment on it yet.


----------



## scarabaeus

*Disney and Atmos*

Just took some time and made a list of all the Disney/Pixar/Marvel movies with Atmos, and their Blu-ray release situation. I was generous and marked those Blu-rays as N/A for atmos, if their release date was before Transformers 4.



Code:


Title                              3D  Blu-ray release  3D on Blu-ray  Atmos on Blu-ray
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jungle Book                    yes ?                yes            no
Ant-Man                            yes ?                yes            no
Inside Out                         yes 2015-11-03       yes            no
Tomorrowland                       no  2015-10-13       N/A            no
The Avengers: Age of Ultron        yes 2015-10-02       yes            no
McFarland USA                      no  2015-06-02       N/A            no
Big Hero 6                         yes 2015-02-24       no             no
Guardians of the Galaxy            yes 2014-12-09       yes            no
Planes: Fire & Rescue              yes 2014-11-04       no             no
Maleficent                         yes 2014-11-04       yes            no
Million Dollar Arm                 no  2014-10-07       N/A            no
Captain America The Winter Soldier yes 2014-09-09       yes            N/A
Frozen                             yes 2014-03-18       no             N/A
Thor 2: The Dark World             yes 2014-02-25       yes            N/A
Planes                             yes 2013-11-19       yes            N/A
Monsters University                yes 2013-10-29       yes            N/A
Iron Man 3                         yes 2013-09-24       yes            N/A
Oz: The Great and Powerful         yes 2013-06-11       yes            N/A
Brave                              yes 2012-11-13       yes            N/A

Pretty clear pattern.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yep. We know. Same situation for 20th Century Fox. They do nearly every movie in Atmos theatrically but zero on Blu-ray.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> Again, we're talking about a scenario where you add two new speakers on stands at ear-level to become your Surrounds. All four speakers in the ceiling will only be used for height channel effects. If you turn off DSU, you'll get no height channel effects and all four ceiling speakers will be silent. If you turn it on, all four ceiling speakers will be active.
> 
> If your concern is that, with true Atmos content, sound effects meant for the top rear of the room will also appear in the top front - then, yes, that will happen. However, this is typically not problematic. Remember, most of the sound that goes to the height channels are ambient effects like wind and rain, which don't require precision placement and can be spread out across a larger area.
> 
> Even cases where you do get discrete directional height effects (airplanes or helicopters, etc.) should be OK. If you tell the decoder that you only have two Top Middle speakers, it will take any sound effects intended for the front of the room and any intended for the back of the room and sum them together to a general "middle of the room" area.
> 
> Yes, a 5.1.4 system with discrete Top Front and discrete Top Rear channels would be better. However, if you cannot afford a 5.1.4 receiver and expect to be limited to a 5.1.2 model, I think this is the best way to go.
> 
> Alternately, you can set it up as 5.1.2, only hook up the speakers above your couch, and just leave the two ceiling speakers in the front of the room unused.
> 
> If you can only have two discrete height channels, Top Middle is the setting to use - regardless of whether you play those channels back through two speakers or four speakers.


The idea of connection the in ceilings together is only if I get floor surrounds at ear level? Can it work for now connecting the in ceilings together until I get floor ear level surrounds?
What would be the point in connecting them together if typically you don't do that?
Also you mention the best configuration to choose is top middle but for me it would be top front since the heights are closer to the mains than my listening area. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## jmhilden

batpig said:


> The Atmos enabled speakers do NOT have to literally sit on top of the other speakers. In the Dolby whitepaper for home Atmos they indicate they can be up to 3' away, although I think others have experimented and had them even further away (e.g. Aras_Volodka among others has placed them on stands well in front of their main speakers to get the reflection off the ceiling closer to the listening position).
> 
> So as long as they are sort of close to the main level speakers, and a bit above ear level, they will be fine. This means you could for example place them on small decorative shelves on the walls nearby the Aperion speakers.
> 
> In terms of brand I would look to the Atlantic Technology option since they are both affordable ($500/pair) and have good reviews (better than the el-cheapo 3" full range drivers in the Onkyo and Def Tech offerings). Klipsch just announced some modules at $500/pair also. If you have the megabucks the KEF modules are probably awesome but over $1k/pair.


Thanks a bunch! I'll look into that.


----------



## kokishin

Josh Z said:


> We're talking about a scenario where you add two new speakers on stands to become your main Surrounds. In that case, you would have four speakers in your ceiling to use as heights, two in the front of the room (between your LCR mains and your seat) and two directly above you. If you wire them together into two small arrays, you should set the receiver for Top Middle. The ceiling speakers in the front of the room will be a duplicate of the ceiling speakers directly above you. The ones directly above you take priority, because they're closer to your ears and you'll hear them the most clearly.
> 
> *You can wire them together "in parallel" at the receiver end. All that entails is taking the + strands for both speakers (Top Front Left and Top Middle Left), wrapping them together, and then inserting both together into the appropriate + terminal on the receiver. Then do the same for the - strands. Repeat for Top Front Right and Top Middle Right.*
> 
> That really shouldn't have any impact on DSU or not. As far as the receiver knows, you have a 5.1.2 configuration. It doesn't know or care that you're cloning an extra pair of speakers off the height channels. You can turn DSU on or off as you please.


 @asere
Be aware that wiring speakers in parallel will reduce the impedance seen by the amps in your AVR. For example, if you wire two eight ohm (nominal) speakers in parallel, the effective impedance become four ohms (nominal). Don't even try to wire two four ohm speakers in parallel because that will create a two ohm load.


----------



## asere

kokishin said:


> @asere
> Be aware that wiring speakers in parallel will reduce the impedance seen by the amps in your AVR. For example, if you wire two eight ohm (nominal) speakers in parallel, the effective impedance become four ohms (nominal). Don't even try to wire two four ohm speakers in parallel because that will create a two ohm load.


Thanks for the info. I am new to this.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Thank you but for the 5.1.4 you need an additional two channel amp if using the x4200.





asere said:


> *I have the Onkyo TX SR 805 with pre outs. 1. Can I use that with the x4200? 2. Also how would that work?*


1. Yes.
2. Just fine...you can use five internal amps of the 805 to power the five main speakers, and use the 4200 to power the four overheads. 

* Does the 4200 have pre-outs for all the channels? ...Yes it does.


----------



## stef2

Scott Simonian said:


> Yep. We know. Same situation for 20th Century Fox. They do nearly every movie in Atmos theatrically but zero on Blu-ray.


 Being one of the Disney owners, I really like the way they do business...they know you and I will buy that special Atmos edition when it comes out!


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> 1. Yes.
> 2. Just fine...you can use five internal amps of the 805 to power the five main speakers, and use the 4200 to power the four overheads.
> 
> * Does the 4200 have pre-outs for all the channels? ...Yes it does.


The x3200 does too. The way it works with the 805 connected with the x4100 is basically if one is on bluray input the other avr has to be on the same input?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> The idea of connection the in ceilings together is only if I get floor surrounds at ear level? Can it work for now connecting the in ceilings together until I get floor ear level surrounds?
> What would be the point in connecting them together if typically you don't do that?


No, you do not want to do this if you still use two of the ceiling speakers as Surround channels. I thought we had moved past that?



asere said:


> Also you mention the best configuration to choose is top middle but for me it would be top front since the heights are closer to the mains than my listening area.


Not if you add two new Surround speakers at ear level.


----------



## Josh Z

kokishin said:


> Be aware that wiring speakers in parallel will reduce the impedance seen by the amps in your AVR. For example, if you wire two eight ohm (nominal) speakers in parallel, the effective impedance become four ohms (nominal). Don't even try to wire two four ohm speakers in parallel because that will create a two ohm load.


While true, this is not really a concern for the type of small satellite speakers that most people will use as heights, nor for the type of content sent to those speakers. I've done this myself and had zero issues.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well it may have worked for you, Josh. But not everybody will be testing those waters using the exact same speakers and amplifiers you used. 

Most stuff supports 4ohm nominal these days so doing parallel hookups should be okay as long as the respective speaker is 8ohm nominal each. If the speakers are 4ohm nominal each then I would advise against this unless you are using a pro amp that supports 2ohm loads.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> No, you do not want to do this if you still use two of the ceiling speakers as Surround channels. I thought we had moved past that?
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you add two new Surround speakers at ear level.


Yes we moved past that. I just have to budget for floor surrounds and was making sure you only meant to do the wiring for floor surrounds only. 
In the meantime I'll continue with over head Atmos only other than the mains.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> The x3200 does too. The way it works with the 805 connected with the x4100 is basically if one is on bluray input the other avr has to be on the same input?


- The 4100 is the hub center control of everything; all comes in and goes out from it. ...And it is the master volume controller. 

- The 805 is simply acting as the power amp for the channels you decide to power on with it, that is all. * You set the 805 to Pure Audio mode, and its master volume control to about half way from its entire range (*Absolute* volume level: *50*). Then you don't touch it anymore, ever.
{The 4100's pre Outs goes to the channels you want to power of the 805's analog multichannel In; select Analog audio in the 805.}
And simply connect the speaker wires to the 805's binding posts of the ones powered by it, as per the 4100's determined pre Outs.

That's what I'd do; using the 805 to power my five main speakers (FL, C, FR, SR, SL).
...And the 4100 (or 4200) for the four Atmos overheads.


----------



## bkeeler10

Josh Z said:


> While true, this is not really a concern for the type of small satellite speakers that most people will use as heights, nor for the type of content sent to those speakers. I've done this myself and had zero issues.





Scott Simonian said:


> Well it may have worked for you, Josh. But not everybody will be testing those waters using the exact same speakers and amplifiers you used.
> 
> Most stuff supports 4ohm nominal these days so doing parallel hookups should be okay as long as the respective speaker is 8ohm nominal each. If the speakers are 4ohm nominal each then I would advise against this unless you are using a pro amp that supports 2ohm loads.


Simple solution: If they are 4-ohm speakers, wire them in series instead  Then the amp will see an 8-ohm load and everyone is happy.


----------



## bkeeler10

asere said:


> I have the Onkyo TX SR 805 with pre outs. Can I use that with the x4200?
> Also how would that work?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


It's not the Onkyo's pre-outs you'll use, but the multichannel analog inputs (if it has them).

The flow would be: X4200 height pre-out -> Onkyo 805 multichannel inputs (any pair) -> Corresponding speaker output on Onkyo connects to height speakers.

You would have to make sure that the Onkyo is doing no processing to the inputs being used.

Edit: I believe also that you have to set those two volume controls to the same levels relative to each other. And if you made a change in master volume on the X4200 during a movie, you would have to make an equal change on the volume control on the 805 too. A bit of a pain really, but doable. You could probably set the Onkyo up with the appropriate trims levels on the outputs running those speakers such that its gain could read the same as the gain on the X4200, so you're not sitting there doing the math every time you want to adjust volume.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> I have the Onkyo TX SR 805 with pre outs. Can I use that with the x4200?
> Also how would that work?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


You can use the Onkyo's analog multi-channel pre-amp_ inputs_ (choose the front left and right for the cleanest signal pathway) and its internal amps to power the top rear speakers (use a pair of shielded RCA audio cables from the Top Rear pre-amp outs on the 4200). Just choose a reasonable volume level on the 805 (and don't ever change it - make sure the volume mode is set so it doesn't go back to a lower default level when you shut it off), go to the setup menu and tell it you only have the front pair of speakers in stereo mode - setting front speakers to LARGE and center, surrounds, and sub to NONE), and then set the sound mode to PURE to disable all DSP and Audyssey features. You're then just using the 805 as an amp. Adjust and calibrate everything else using the 4200.

A temporary setup until you can get a proper amplifier.


----------



## Josh Z

bkeeler10 said:


> Simple solution: If they are 4-ohm speakers, wire them in series instead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the amp will see an 8-ohm load and everyone is happy.


Not as simple if his speakers are preexisting in the ceiling and he can't get to the wiring at the speaker end.

I agree that if they are 4 ohm speakers he should not wire them in parallel. I just find that unlikely. He should check, in any case.


----------



## kopmjj

i saw something in this thread about someone configured dolby atmos to 5.1.6 or 7.1.6 something like that but cant seem to find it. is this even possible i will be buying marantz sr7009 and im guessing i may need another power amp or something? can someone point me out to that thread.


----------



## tjenkins95

Aras_Volodka said:


> Uhhhh.... you do realize The Force Awakens is being released in 3D?
> 
> I saw teaser 2 in IMAX 3D... f'ing incredible. Star Wars was born to be in 3D!


 



*Star Wars: The Force Awakens Set to Take Over IMAX Screens in North America*

Posted August 26, 2015 04:51 PM by Webmaster 

_[URL="http://www.blu-ray.com/Star-Wars-Episode-VII-The-Force-Awakens/156455/"]Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens_ will open in every single IMAX venue in North America -- and will stay there for a month. According to The Hollywood Reporter, IMAX has reserved all of its screens for J.J. Abrams' film, and is expected to open in 375 to 400 screens domestically and more than 400 internationally.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol, I hope that poster is not a real one. Looks terrible.


----------



## WayneJoy

That poster was made exclusively for D23 by the guy who made the posters for episodes I through VI


----------



## asere

How far away can you sit from front top heights?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Zhorik

asere said:


> How far away can you sit from front top heights?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The sound level can be adjusted in the AVR. Calculate the distances in your room that satisfy the angles recommended by Dolby for the height/top speakers.


----------



## asere

Zhorik said:


> The sound level can be adjusted in the AVR. Calculate the distances in your room that satisfy the angles recommended by Dolby for the height/top speakers.


Thank you. In my room in around 12ft away. Is that too far?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bkeeler10

Dan Hitchman said:


> You can use the Onkyo's analog multi-channel pre-amp_ inputs_ (choose the front left and right for the cleanest signal pathway) and its internal amps to power the top rear speakers (use a pair of shielded RCA audio cables from the Top Rear pre-amp outs on the 4200). Just choose a reasonable volume level on the 805 (and don't ever change it - make sure the volume mode is set so it doesn't go back to a lower default level when you shut it off), go to the setup menu and tell it you only have the front pair of speakers in stereo mode - setting front speakers to LARGE and center, surrounds, and sub to NONE), and then set the sound mode to PURE to disable all DSP and Audyssey features. You're then just using the 805 as an amp. Adjust and calibrate everything else using the 4200.
> 
> A temporary setup until you can get a proper amplifier.


I misspoke in my post about having to change the volume on the 805. No need for that as Dan points out.


----------



## asere

bkeeler10 said:


> I misspoke in my post about having to change the volume on the 805. No need for that as Dan points out.


No worries. Thank you guys for the advice and taking time to help.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bkeeler10

Josh Z said:


> Not as simple if his speakers are preexisting in the ceiling and he can't get to the wiring at the speaker end.
> 
> I agree that if they are 4 ohm speakers he should not wire them in parallel. I just find that unlikely. He should check, in any case.


You don't have to do the series connection at the speaker end. You can also do it at the receiver end. Just take the positive lead from speaker 1 and plug it into the positive side of the output channel. Then take the negative lead from speaker 2 and plug it into the negative side of the output channel. Then take the remaining leads (negative of speaker 1 and positive of speaker 2) and wire them together with a wire nut.

Still simple


----------



## maikeldepotter

Josh Z said:


> At present, all 2014 D&M models (including those scheduled to get the DTS:X upgrade) can apply the Dolby Surround Upmixer to any codec, whether Dolby or DTS. However, the new 2015 models will only allow DSU to be used on Dolby codecs, and state in the manual that Neural:X will only be available on DTS codecs.
> 
> What will happen to your 2014 model after it gets the DTS:X update is not known yet. I would expect that it will probably fall in line with the 2015 models and Dolby Surround will no longer work with DTS codecs.
> 
> However, at that point the receiver will also have Neural:X, so you'll still have some option to upmix DTS soundtracks. (Whether Neural:X will be as good as DSU is an open question.)
> 
> In the meantime, owners of the 2015 D&M receivers are stuck in a difficult position, because their receivers only have DSU and won't let them upmix DTS with it. Any Blu-rays they watch with DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks (which are the vast majority) cannot be upmixed at all until they get the update that gives them Neural:X.
> 
> I reached out to my contact at D&M about this, but he hasn't gotten back to me with an answer. They may not want to comment on it yet.


What about Auromatic in the 2015 models after the update?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, I hope that poster is not a real one. Looks terrible.


I agree... thank god it's not the real one


----------



## pletwals

asere said:


> Thank you. In my room in around 12ft away. Is that too far?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


You need 30° to 45° elevation from MLP ears. This means the height difference between MLP (ears) and speaker (baffle/tweeter) should be anything between 50% and 100% of the longitudonal distance. 

If your ears are at 3ft from the floor, add at least 50% of 12ft (= 6ft). 

Conclusion: if your Top Front speakers are lower than 9ft (3+6), they are too far.

Is this helpful?


----------



## burnfout

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you want a 5.1.4 setup, I would wait for the Denon 6200 and get DTS:X and updated HDMI chips as well.


Thanks I'll take a look at the 6200.


----------



## Nalleh

Another thread in the bluray section about Atmos for home being one year. Happy birthday Atmos 

So how is your collection guys?


----------



## fredl

Nalleh said:


> Another thread in the bluray section about Atmos for home being one year. Happy birthday Atmos
> 
> So how is your collection guys?


That's dedication to Atmos! 

I have twelve movies with Atmos including the two demo discs, so 10 theatrical movies.


----------



## robert816

Nalleh said:


> Another thread in the bluray section about Atmos for home being one year. Happy birthday Atmos
> 
> So how is your collection guys?


You are missing one, a concert by singer Sammi Cheng on Blu-Ray titled Touch Mi


----------



## Nalleh

robert816 said:


> You are missing one, a concert by singer Sammi Cheng on Blu-Ray titled Touch Mi


Actually i am missing a couple, but there are limits to what i will order, haha.

And just to be clear, there are some of my Atmos blurays that are simply rubbish, and will never be seen again


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> And just to be clear, there are some of my Atmos blurays that are simply rubbish, and will never be seen again


But we will see them all the time when you post that collection..


----------



## asere

pletwals said:


> You need 30° to 45° elevation from MLP ears. This means the height difference between MLP (ears) and speaker (baffle/tweeter) should be anything between 50% and 100% of the longitudonal distance.
> 
> If your ears are at 3ft from the floor, add at least 50% of 12ft (= 6ft).
> 
> Conclusion: if your Top Front speakers are lower than 9ft (3+6), they are too far.
> 
> Is this helpful?


My ceiling is about 8ft high. If I where to get a tape measure from MLP and stretch it to the top heights I sit about 10 feet away. By away I mean I don't sit with them directly above me. Is that ok or too far?
I know I sound elementary but that's how I can visualize.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## speeddeacon

I have a question about Atmos discrete overhead channels. If the configuration is x.x.2 with a Top Middle configuration, is the information discrete to Top Middle or is it matrixed from a x.x.4 configuration. In other words, does TM contain different data (codec?) or does the processor take the data from the TF and TR and present it through the TM alone?


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> But we will see them all the time when you post that collection..


Sure! If i am to "show off" my collection, it would be wrong to leave out some of them, wouldn't you agree 


BTW: i meant " never be watched again", but i figured you got that


----------



## kopmjj

speeddeacon said:


> I have a question about Atmos discrete overhead channels. If the configuration is x.x.2 with a Top Middle configuration, is the information discrete to Top Middle or is it matrixed from a x.x.4 configuration. In other words, does TM contain different data (codec?) or does the processor take the data from the TF and TR and present it through the TM alone?


i would like to know this as well, but i would also like to know how to to connect more than .4 atmos speakers, i really cant remember the member here who has done that, For example he had 4 FH connected and 4 top middle as an example, i have searched but cant fins that thread.


----------



## robert816

Nalleh said:


> Actually i am missing a couple, but there are limits to what i will order, haha.
> 
> And just to be clear, there are some of my Atmos blurays that are simply rubbish, and will never be seen again


Like say, Torrente 5 perhaps?


----------



## speeddeacon

kopmjj said:


> i would like to know this as well, but i would also like to know how to to connect more than .4 atmos speakers, i really cant remember the member here who has done that, For example he had 4 FH connected and 4 top middle as an example, i have searched but cant fins that thread.


That is ultimately what I'm trying to figure out. The fellas here can help us figure it out.


----------



## speeddeacon

kopmjj said:


> i would like to know this as well, but i would also like to know how to to connect more than .4 atmos speakers, i really cant remember the member here who has done that, For example he had 4 FH connected and 4 top middle as an example, i have searched but cant fins that thread.


Are you are talking about arrays? That can be tricky as it can alter impedence and thus load for the amp/receiver. Describe what you want to do exactly, i.e. 2 each left and right front heights and left/right top middle, etc.? There's a difference between discrete channels and speakers as I'm sure you know.


----------



## Zhorik

asere said:


> My ceiling is about 8ft high. If I where to get a tape measure from MLP and stretch it to the top heights I sit about 10 feet away. By away I mean I don't sit with them directly above me. Is that ok or too far?
> I know I sound elementary but that's how I can visualize.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


You should be fine.


----------



## kopmjj

speeddeacon said:


> Are you are talking about arrays? That can be tricky as it can alter impedence and thus load for the amp/receiver. Describe what you want to do exactly, i.e. 2 each left and right front heights and left/right top middle, etc.? There's a difference between discrete channels and speakers as I'm sure you know.



i think so, someone in this thread managed to do this, yes i would like to connect 2 each of FH left and right and 2 each top middle left and right so it will be 5.1.8.


----------



## speeddeacon

kopmjj said:


> i think so, someone in this thread managed to do this, yes i would like to connect 2 each of FH left and right and 2 each top middle left and right so it will be 5.1.8.


Ah, well then you would still only have 5.1.4. The nomenclature specifies the number of discrete channels, not the number of speakers playing them. An array takes a particular channel and spreads that channel out over a larger area potentially. For example, the L front height channel information being played over two speakers to increase the soundfield of that particular channel, which could be useful in a very large room where one speaker isn't adequate, theoretically. In a 5.1.8 configuration would have 8 surround channels all playing discrete information from each speaker. A more common array is to have center channels above and below a projection screen. Doing arrays properly, and avoiding signal cancellation, can be challenging but many report excellent results.

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## speeddeacon

asere said:


> My ceiling is about 8ft high. If I where to get a tape measure from MLP and stretch it to the top heights I sit about 10 feet away. By away I mean I don't sit with them directly above me. Is that ok or too far?
> I know I sound elementary but that's how I can visualize.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


By the way the post above yours, 28712, has an Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator that you can use to input your measurements and validate whether you are in spec.


----------



## kopmjj

speeddeacon said:


> Ah, well then you would still only have 5.1.4. The nomenclature specifies the number of discrete channels, not the number of speakers playing them. An array takes a particular channel and spreads that channel out over a larger area potentially. For example, the L front height channel information being played over two speakers to increase the soundfield of that particular channel, which could be useful in a very large room where one speaker isn't adequate, theoretically. In a 5.1.8 configuration would have 8 surround channels all playing discrete information from each speaker. A more common array is to have center channels above and below a projection screen. Doing arrays properly, and avoiding signal cancellation, can be challenging but many report excellent results.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?


thats exactly what i want to do, when i said 5.1.8 i meant spreading the existing .4 over to .8 across the room, so no new audio in the 4 new speakers but playing the same .4 sound over .8, so i feel this way it will fill the room nicely.

you metioned something called array? is that what this is called in terms of av language? what will i need to do arrays? stereo amp/power amp? or can i connect 2 speakers in one input of the avr?


----------



## pletwals

asere said:


> My ceiling is about 8ft high. If I where to get a tape measure from MLP and stretch it to the top heights I sit about 10 feet away. By away I mean I don't sit with them directly above me. Is that ok or too far?
> I know I sound elementary but that's how I can visualize.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


That's just fine.
8ft height minus ear height 3 ft = 5 ft vertical height difference
Distance 10 ft as you measure it stretched between tweeter and ears is exactly 30° up.


----------



## Nalleh

robert816 said:


> Like say, Torrente 5 perhaps?


Indeed. The following are what i would consider not worth it, for Atmos at least:

Torrente 5
On any sunday: the next chapter
Step up All in
Overheard 3
Chicago

The rest of them are rather good actually, but my "top 5" i would say:
TAOE(Reference)
Gravity
John Wick
Unbroken
Lucy
And Nature as a "Atmos demo disc on stereoids"


----------



## speeddeacon

kopmjj said:


> thats exactly what i want to do, when i said 5.1.8 i meant spreading the existing .4 over to .8 across the room, so no new audio in the 4 new speakers but playing the same .4 sound over .8, so i feel this way it will fill the room nicely.
> 
> you metioned something called array? is that what this is called in terms of av language? what will i need to do arrays? stereo amp/power amp? or can i connect 2 speakers in one input of the avr?


Arrays are two or more speakers playing the same signal as mentioned above. I'm not an engineer so I won't even try to explain it. 

As a practical matter, yes you can easily wire multiple speakers to play the same signal as you describe. The thing to rememer is that how they are wired determines how much resistance the amplifier sees that powers them. If they are wired in parallel (both speakers side by side in the circuit) then the resistance is halved. This means that two 8 ohm speakers share the current and the total resistance is now 4 ohms. If they are wired in series, then one speaker follows after the other (sequential in the circuit) and the resistance is doubled, e.g. two 8 ohm speakers add together and the resistance is now 16. Amplifiers can typically handle the increased resistance but can have trouble with low resistance designs and can run out of oomph quickly with the normal dips that occur and the dynamic nature of the soundtracks/music. 

If you are using an external amplifier that can handle low resistance loads, it doesn't matter as much, but if you are depending on the receiver then two 4 ohm it does, especially with multiple channels.

Connecting the two channels to the same amplifier output is wiring in parallel. There's a lot of info on the web about how to wire speakers.


----------



## petetherock

Nalleh said:


> Actually i am missing a couple, but there are limits to what i will order, haha.
> 
> And just to be clear, there are some of my Atmos blurays that are simply rubbish, and will never be seen again


Have you bought the new HKG show "Helios"?


----------



## Nalleh

petetherock said:


> Have you bought the new HKG show "Helios"?


Yuuup, it is on its way. Should have it in a couple of days, i think


----------



## lujan

Nalleh said:


> Indeed. The following are what i would consider not worth it, for Atmos at least:
> 
> Torrente 5
> On any sunday: the next chapter
> Step up All in
> Overheard 3
> Chicago
> 
> The rest of them are rather good actually, but my "top 5" i would say:
> TAOE(Reference)
> Gravity
> John Wick
> Unbroken
> Lucy
> And Nature as a "Atmos demo disc on stereoids"


I have to agree about "Step Up All In". What is "TAOE"?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I have to agree about "Step Up All In". What is "TAOE"?


+1


----------



## kokishin

lujan said:


> I have to agree about "Step Up All In". What is "TAOE"?


Transformers: Age of Extinction


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Another thread in the bluray section about Atmos for home being one year. Happy birthday Atmos
> 
> So how is your collection guys?


https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

Yours must be the largest one, worldwide.


----------



## NorthSky

robert816 said:


> You are missing one, a concert by singer Sammi Cheng on Blu-Ray titled Touch Mi


...And *Metallica: Through the Never*


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
> 
> Yours must be the largest one, worldwide.


That's what we like to hear 



NorthSky said:


> ...And *Metallica: Through the Never*


Do not like them! Go figure


----------



## robert816

petetherock said:


> Have you bought the new HKG show "Helios"?


I missed that one, but picked up Kung Fu Killer with Donnie Yen, lot's of Kung Fu actor cameos.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

speeddeacon said:


> I have a question about Atmos discrete overhead channels. If the configuration is x.x.2 with a Top Middle configuration, is the information discrete to Top Middle or is it matrixed from a x.x.4 configuration. In other words, does TM contain different data (codec?) or does the processor take the data from the TF and TR and present it through the TM alone?


The Atmos overhead channels in the theatrical space are made up of two things: Their own discrete top left/top right channels that covers the entire span of overhead speakers plus the object data that can move independently through those speakers. In the home, you don't have the discrete overhead channels in the TrueHD bitstream... but they mimic them as needed with objects with that audio that are placed in the overhead region. This is part of why they can't just take the Atmos soundtrack from the theater and put it on Blu-ray. They actually have to re-create that Atmos track specifically for the home and the limitations inherent therein (specifically how many discrete channels Dolby TrueHD bitstreams can contain).

So you can't think of it in terms of the information being discrete to top middle, top rear, etc. If you have top mids in a x.x.2 config and they place an object meant to be generally overhead the way the discrete overheads in the theater would be, it will come from your two overhead speakers. If you have a x.x.4 setup, it will place it there as well, just spread across all of those speakers so you get the same overhead placement (but still without there being a discrete channel in the bitstream). Then if you have other audio objects that are meant to move through that space (for instance, a plane flying from the front of the room to the back), the decoder knows how many speakers you have up there and steers the objects through those speakers accordingly (i.e. the sound pans from your mains to top front to top rear to rear surrounds). Keep in mind that the home version of Atmos as currently implemented only processes sound placement for up to 4 overhead speakers. If a future receiver had enough processing for more speakers, you would get sounds intelligently steered discretely across all of those overhead speakers, without there actually being a discrete channel in the bitstream for those particular speakers. Make sense?


----------



## Contuzzi

Nalleh said:


> The rest of them are rather good actually, but my "top 5" i would say:
> TAOE(Reference)


What about Transformers do you think shows off Atmos? What scenes in particular? I was WILDLY unimpressed with that disc.


----------



## Civik99si

*Atmos ceiling speaker placement*

I'm trying to determine whether it makes sense to implement a 7.2.4 arrangement vs. 7.2.2.


Unfortunately, I'm stuck with a couch against the back wall in a 14x20 room. The couch is pulled about 18 inches from the wall, with the MLP on that couch about another foot from the wall. I am currently using dipole speakers on the back wall 4 feet to the left and right of the mlp, about 2 feet above ear level.


If I go with four in-ceilings, tentative placement is a pair about 5 feet in front of the mlp, in line with the front speakers, and a pair about a foot behind the mlp along the back wall. The question is, would there be enough sound separation between the back in-ceilings and the rear dipoles to warrant the addition of the back in ceilings? I can lower the dipoles a foot or two to be closer to ear level if needed. The in ceilings will likely be Tannoy CMC 601 DCs or one of the Paradigm options with guided sound fields. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.


----------



## speeddeacon

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The Atmos overhead channels in the theatrical space are made up of two things: Their own discrete top left/top right channels that covers the entire span of overhead speakers plus the object data that can move independently through those speakers. In the home, you don't have the discrete overhead channels in the TrueHD bitstream... but they mimic them as needed with objects with that audio that are placed in the overhead region. This is part of why they can't just take the Atmos soundtrack from the theater and put it on Blu-ray. They actually have to re-create that Atmos track specifically for the home and the limitations inherent therein (specifically how many discrete channels Dolby TrueHD bitstreams can contain).
> 
> So you can't think of it in terms of the information being discrete to top middle, top rear, etc. If you have top mids in a x.x.2 config and they place an object meant to be generally overhead the way the discrete overheads in the theater would be, it will come from your two overhead speakers. If you have a x.x.4 setup, it will place it there as well, just spread across all of those speakers so you get the same overhead placement (but still without there being a discrete channel in the bitstream). Then if you have other audio objects that are meant to move through that space (for instance, a plane flying from the front of the room to the back), the decoder knows how many speakers you have up there and steers the objects through those speakers accordingly (i.e. the sound pans from your mains to top front to top rear to rear surrounds). Keep in mind that the home version of Atmos as currently implemented only processes sound placement for up to 4 overhead speakers. If a future receiver had enough processing for more speakers, you would get sounds intelligently steered discretely across all of those overhead speakers, without there actually being a discrete channel in the bitstream for those particular speakers. Make sense?


Yes, that explains it perfectly. Thank you very much Jeremy.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> b5sAsZyRm_k[/MEDIA][/CENTER]
> 
> *Official Dolby Atmos at home website*
> 
> *Dolby on Atmos for the home*:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf
> 
> *Installation guidelines*:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


♦ Informative reading from the links above. And the _Installation guidelines_ link (pdf) has been expanded, with more pages @ the end for more precise useful explanation.



speeddeacon said:


> I have a question about Atmos discrete overhead channels. If the configuration is x.x.2 with a Top Middle configuration, is the information discrete to Top Middle or is it matrixed from a x.x.4 configuration. In other words, does TM contain different data (codec?) or does the processor take the data from the TF and TR and present it through the TM alone?


♦ The metadata is the same, but with less "pie slices" (speakers). * Object rendition from above works best with 4 Atmos overhead speakers, but it works also fine with only two (TM). 



kopmjj said:


> i would like to know this as well, but i would also like to know how to to connect more than .4 atmos speakers, i really cant remember the member here who has done that, For example he had 4 FH connected and 4 top middle as an example, i have searched but cant fins that thread.


♦ See above, plus the links from the first quote (_Dolby on Atmos for the home_) ... page 11.

* As for adding more overhead speakers, like 6 or 8, other folks here will help you out...they use more than one Atmos receiver...with the help of @ least one more Dolby ProLogic receiver. 
And, you can also duplicate the audio signals in other pair of speakers, by connecting some of them in parallel or in series.
Here too some folks will help you out with your specific questions, and you can also visit Scott's own thread about _Official Immersive Audio | Dolby Atmos - DTS:X - Auro-3D_ ... the last few pages contain some info relating to your 'sound direction'.



speeddeacon said:


> That is ultimately what I'm trying to figure out. The fellas here can help us figure it out.


♦ They will...help out. Meanwhile I'll check for some of the best direct links...directly related to what you guys are requesting.
But I'm slow, and others are quicker. 



kopmjj said:


> i think so, someone in this thread managed to do this, yes i would like to connect 2 each of FH left and right and 2 each top middle left and right so it will be 5.1.8.


♦ Hmmm, 5.1.8 is quite ambitious...but still feasible. ...Help is on its way...be patient for few seconds/minutes. ...Hours? ...Maybe, maybe not, it depends.



speeddeacon said:


> Ah, well then you would still only have 5.1.4. The nomenclature specifies the number of discrete channels, not the number of speakers playing them. An array takes a particular channel and spreads that channel out over a larger area potentially. For example, the L front height channel information being played over two speakers to increase the soundfield of that particular channel, which could be useful in a very large room where one speaker isn't adequate, theoretically. In a 5.1.8 configuration would have 8 surround channels all playing discrete information from each speaker. A more common array is to have center channels above and below a projection screen. Doing arrays properly, and avoiding signal cancellation, can be challenging but many report excellent results.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?


♦ Mmmm, more ambition than datasat and trinnov...but everything is permissible/acceptable and 'explorable'. ...And more overhead speakers to calibrate (level and delay and bass management) and EQ too (acoustics)...tough challenge short of datasat and trinnov. 



kopmjj said:


> thats exactly what i want to do, when i said 5.1.8 i meant spreading the existing .4 over to .8 across the room, so no new audio in the 4 new speakers but playing the same .4 sound over .8, so i feel this way it will fill the room nicely.
> 
> you metioned something called array? is that what this is called in terms of av language? what will i need to do arrays? stereo amp/power amp? or can i connect 2 speakers in one input of the avr?


♦ Arrays are used a lot in cinema theaters...more "pie slices" to cover all the seated movie watchers in a much larger public room.
* Can you imagine the ones who sit @ the very end on that last row against the back wall, and the person sitting on that last seat between the back and side walls. ...And on the left side and on the right side. ...Plus all the people sitting on that last row of a large public cinema theater.
And what about the very first row...you think they get any sound from the back speakers on that back wall? 

* I'll try to locate some useful links on how to connect speakers in both Parallel and in Series.



speeddeacon said:


> Arrays are two or more speakers playing the same signal as mentioned above. I'm not an engineer so I won't even try to explain it.
> 
> As a practical matter, yes you can easily wire multiple speakers to play the same signal as you describe. The thing to rememer is that how they are wired determines how much resistance the amplifier sees that powers them. If they are wired in parallel (both speakers side by side in the circuit) then the resistance is halved. This means that two 8 ohm speakers share the current and the total resistance is now 4 ohms. If they are wired in series, then one speaker follows after the other (sequential in the circuit) and the resistance is doubled, e.g. two 8 ohm speakers add together and the resistance is now 16. Amplifiers can typically handle the increased resistance but can have trouble with low resistance designs and can run out of oomph quickly with the normal dips that occur and the dynamic nature of the soundtracks/music.
> 
> If you are using an external amplifier that can handle low resistance loads, it doesn't matter as much, but if you are depending on the receiver then two 4 ohm it does, especially with multiple channels.
> 
> Connecting the two channels to the same amplifier output is wiring in parallel. There's a lot of info on the web about how to wire speakers.


♦ Yeah, I'm working on it...give me few secs...or unless I'm too slow. 



Nalleh said:


> That's what we like to hear


♦ Just the fact sir, just the fact. 



> Do not like them! Go figure


♦ *Metallica* is not for everyone...it is not part of my daily routine. 
_Through the Never_ in 3D is fun, and it must be a blast in Dolby Atmos. 
* My favorite part; when no sound comes from that mic when he's yelling/singing? ...He simply tossed the mic stand on the floor, real pissed, and looking @ the audio engineer staff guys with menacing eyes inside his menacing face, lol. 
And that drummer guy...lol with all his grimacing and tongue sticking out of his mouth...lol.
The bass guitar player...always two inches from the floor...lol...very stylish. 

Metallica music ain't no classical music; so I don't blame you @ all for not liking them. 
Best way to describe them is very very easy...just look @ their audience, live...it says it all. 

That particular video..._Through the Never_...has good construction, is aimed @ the young generation, and it's a transportation/revolution. 
The music itself? ...I won't go there because I might fry my brain off. 

I simply mentioned it because you don't have it in your Dolby Atmos Blu-ray collection.  
...So, someone else must have a larger collection than yours...with Metallica in his. 

Oh, another funny part; @ the beginning, when the singer drove his car on the underground, with his shades on. ...That only lasts one or two seconds. 
And he made his appearance known with that cool car and a little engine noise. 
Metallica are the snobs of metal music...from what I can see, because I have few music video concerts about them. ...And I have read few too.
{I don't listen to my Metallica CDs and DVD-Audio and DVD-Videos and Blu-rays no more, but this latest BR music concert, yes, I did, few times too...just for the fun...for the show.} ...And as you can see I did invest in them, and considerably too. It's just that my heart and my wallet are not always in sync...I am weak @ times...like anyone else...we are just humans...imperfect human beings...in search of better and expanded/immersive horizons in life.

Go Classical music instead: Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Bach, ... and a music band without a piano, or an Hammond organ, or piano synthesizer, is not a complete band...I think. ...Give me Emerson, Lake and Palmer over Metallica any second of a minute. ...366 days a year.


----------



## Nalleh

Contuzzi said:


> What about Transformers do you think shows off Atmos? What scenes in particular? I was WILDLY unimpressed with that disc.


First of all, i LOVE Transformers! It's the most genious reboot in recent history, in my opinion.

Secondly, i will admit that it is not the Atmos disc with most height action.
That being said, the opening scene with spaceships coming from above behind you from both sides, and chapt 14 with the steel cables above and around you, are two scenes that stand out.

Thirdly, what REALLY stood out trough the movie for me, was the presision, dynamics, sound placement and seamless pannings around the room. It just blew my mind, and was a real AHA moment that this is a completely new way of listening to sound.

However, if you do not like these movies in the first place, you may not enjoy the sound either. Kind of like me with Chicago. Soooo not my kind of movie


----------



## Josh Z

kopmjj said:


> i saw something in this thread about someone configured dolby atmos to 5.1.6 or 7.1.6 something like that but cant seem to find it. is this even possible i will be buying marantz sr7009 and im guessing i may need another power amp or something? can someone point me out to that thread.


A number of us in this thread are currently experimenting with chaining multiple A/V receivers together to expand the number of height channels in an Atmos system. Here is one version:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/customizing-dolby-atmos-more-speakers/

This is not the only way to do it. Scott Simonian is working on a configuration with three AVRs. Other members have devised and/or implemented their own ideas.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Another thread in the bluray section about Atmos for home being one year. Happy birthday Atmos
> 
> So how is your collection guys?


Chicago (Atmos)
The Expendables 3
Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
The Gunman
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
I, Frankenstein Japanese Version (Atmos)
John Wick R1
Jupiter Ascending
Lucy
Overheard 3 R1
Taken 3
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Transcendence - Japan Atmos
Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
Unbroken


----------



## Scott Simonian

kopmjj said:


> i saw something in this thread about someone configured dolby atmos to 5.1.6 or 7.1.6 something like that but cant seem to find it. is this even possible i will be buying marantz sr7009 and im guessing i may need another power amp or something? can someone point me out to that thread.





Josh Z said:


> A number of us in this thread are currently experimenting with chaining multiple A/V receivers together to expand the number of height channels in an Atmos system. Here is one version:
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/customizing-dolby-atmos-more-speakers/
> 
> This is not the only way to do it. Scott Simonian is working on a configuration with three AVRs. Other members have devised and/or implemented their own ideas.


Yeah. I'm doing a 7.1.6 Atmos set up currently using three receivers in total. One as the main Atmos receiver doing pretty much everything and two other older ProLogic2 receiver just doing the six heights.

Here is some videos I took the other night. It's not a description of an extended Atmos system but you can see what I am doing and the three receivers. Also check out Josh's article though he has his own method and fairly different from the way I'm doing it.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-40.html#post36809010


----------



## Josh Z

maikeldepotter said:


> What about Auromatic in the 2015 models after the update?


As far as we know, third-party upmixers are unaffected. Of course, you still need to pay for Auromatic, which nobody wants to do. 

My guess is that this is some sort of pissing match between Dolby and DTS.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version (Atmos)
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Lucy
> Overheard 3 R1
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Transcendence - Japan Atmos
> Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
> Unbroken


Not to bad 
Care to share your "top 5", of those ?


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> Transformers: Age of Extinction


Kokishin, hi. I am still playing catch-up with the changes that I have made to my 5.1.4 fake Dolby setup...I promise that this is the final configuration...speakers only...

Goldenear Triton Seven FR & FL; SVS Prime Center; Goldenear Aon 2 surrounds; Goldenear Supersat 3's on stands for top Front & Top Rear, respectively. 

Now, it is where I want it sound-wise. This final setup is a result of experimentation, some more successful than others.

I intend to write this up so that others may avoid some of the mistakes that I made. Timbre-matching is real and makes an audible difference. My setup is not the same across the board, but the differences are recognized and intended.

For my room, I believe that this is as good as it can get.


----------



## kopmjj

Josh Z said:


> A number of us in this thread are currently experimenting with chaining multiple A/V receivers together to expand the number of height channels in an Atmos system. Here is one version:
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/customizing-dolby-atmos-more-speakers/
> 
> This is not the only way to do it. Scott Simonian is working on a configuration with three AVRs. Other members have devised and/or implemented their own ideas.


thanks a lot mate thats exactly what i was looking for.




Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I'm doing a 7.1.6 Atmos set up currently using three receivers in total. One as the main Atmos receiver doing pretty much everything and two other older ProLogic2 receiver just doing the six heights.
> 
> Here is some videos I took the other night. It's not a description of an extended Atmos system but you can see what I am doing and the three receivers. Also check out Josh's article though he has his own method and fairly different from the way I'm doing it.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-40.html#post36809010


thats a great set up, it will also be cheaper to do this way as i can get 2 older receiver for dirt cheap.
once i get reading on the links i will ask away some questions on your set up.

by the way is it possible to have 2 center? one at the bottom center ear height and one in the middle of my FH? how well does your system work? do you suffer any issues in terms of power or sound quality?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Not to bad
> Care to share your "top 5", of those ?


John Wick
Lucy
Transcendence
Gravity
Unbroken


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> John Wick
> Lucy
> Transcendence
> Gravity
> Unbroken


Haha, 4 out og 5 are the same, not bad 

However i agree, Transendence is right up there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kopmjj said:


> thats a great set up, it will also be cheaper to do this way as i can get 2 older receiver for dirt cheap.
> once i get reading on the links i will ask away some questions on your set up.
> 
> by the way is it possible to have 2 center? one at the bottom center ear height and one in the middle of my FH? how well does your system work? do you suffer any issues in terms of power or sound quality?


Thanks! Yes, it's a great solution for the time being because really it's a very small financial investment. A couple hundred bucks can get you at least one or both of some older PL2 receivers. The rest depends on what speakers you want to use and mounting.

Yes, you can have a front height center. Actually a couple of users are doing this. However, you can't (shouldn't) do what I am doing and then add an additional process to make a center front height. The reason being is it is not a good idea to take on a matrix process on top of a previous matrix. So if you are doing a method like I am, using two PL2 receivers to extract a pair of middle heights, the two front heights have gone through a PL2 process and while it might work you might also get some unintended artifacts. I would not recommend it also because it just starts to become overwhelming. Not for the faint of heart. Take small steps. Master the 7.1.6 setup before trying to make it a 7.1.7 system or other. That would be my advice.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> Again, we're talking about a scenario where you add two new speakers on stands at ear-level to become your Surrounds. All four speakers in the ceiling will only be used for height channel effects. If you turn off DSU, you'll get no height channel effects and all four ceiling speakers will be silent. If you turn it on, all four ceiling speakers will be active.
> 
> If your concern is that, with true Atmos content, sound effects meant for the top rear of the room will also appear in the top front - then, yes, that will happen. However, this is typically not problematic. Remember, most of the sound that goes to the height channels are ambient effects like wind and rain, which don't require precision placement and can be spread out across a larger area.
> 
> Even cases where you do get discrete directional height effects (airplanes or helicopters, etc.) should be OK. If you tell the decoder that you only have two Top Middle speakers, it will take any sound effects intended for the front of the room and any intended for the back of the room and sum them together to a general "middle of the room" area.
> 
> Yes, a 5.1.4 system with discrete Top Front and discrete Top Rear channels would be better. However, if you cannot afford a 5.1.4 receiver and expect to be limited to a 5.1.2 model, I think this is the best way to go.
> 
> Alternately, you can set it up as 5.1.2, only hook up the speakers above your couch, and just leave the two ceiling speakers in the front of the room unused.
> 
> If you can only have two discrete height channels, Top Middle is the setting to use - regardless of whether you play those channels back through two speakers or four speakers.


 Can you explain exactly how to connect all the four in ceilings together? Basically I understood to get the + front left and + back left and wire them together?
I want to try out two outdoor surrounds I have in the garage as side ear level surrounds for now. As a test.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> John Wick
> Lucy
> Transcendence
> Gravity
> Unbroken


I hear Lucy is good. I really enjoyed the movie but I'm worried about getting the overseas Atmos version. I heard that the alternate languages spoken throughout the movie are not rendered but you can get them only through a full on subtitle. I hate that.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, you can have a front height center. Actually a couple of users are doing this. However, you can't (shouldn't) do what I am doing and then add an additional process to make a center front height. The reason being is it is not a good idea to take on a matrix process on top of a previous matrix. So if you are doing a method like I am, using two PL2 receivers to extract a pair of middle heights, the two front heights have gone through a PL2 process and while it might work you might also get some unintended artifacts. I would not recommend it also because it just starts to become overwhelming. Not for the faint of heart. Take small steps. Master the 7.1.6 setup before trying to make it a 7.1.7 system or other. That would be my advice.
> 
> If you have other questions, feel free to ask.


Besides, if you use a PLII AVR to matrix a center height from the front heigths left and right, it wil not contain any dialog. Wich is the reason many want a center height in the first place


----------



## SoundChex

Josh Z said:


> My guess is that this is some sort of pissing match between Dolby and DTS.



My first thought is that DTS and|or Dolby are now (or in the future plan on) performing "source codec based" immersive upmix logic...? If true, this would have (at least) two interesting consequences,' viz: (1) (*non-lawyer disclaimer*) it seems to me there might both license and anti-trust issues with upmixing audio "known to be encoded" in the others technology|codec *regardless of whether or not the bitstream is examined before upmix is applied*, and (2) upmixing a competitor's audio without "optimization" might be implied "pessimization" . . . leading to arguments about which one of Dolby, DTS, and (e.g.) Denon is "most to blame" for "poor sound" when some BD is played!


_


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Besides, if you use a PLII AVR to matrix a center height from the front heigths left and right, it wil not contain any dialog. Wich is the reason many want a center height in the first place


Really? Ewww. Why?


Oh.... I forget that other people don't put their speakers _behind_ the screen like they are supposed to.


----------



## asere

I wonder if the Atmos and DTS X tracks will be less catered to bluray in the future and be more for UHD disks. Kinda like how DTS started to disappear on DVD's and you'd see it more on bluray.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> I hear Lucy is good. I really enjoyed the movie but I'm worried about getting the overseas Atmos version. I heard that the alternate languages spoken throughout the movie are not rendered but you can get them only through a full on subtitle. I hate that.


Don't worry about that, it is not important to what is happening in the movie, just a couple of short scenes. You will be fine 



Scott Simonian said:


> Really? Ewww. Why?
> 
> 
> Oh.... I forget that other people don't put their speakers _behind_ the screen like they are supposed to.


Exactly


----------



## NorthSky

♦ *Series Vs. Parallel Wiring*


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh.... I forget that other people don't put their speakers _behind_ the screen like they are supposed to.





Or if you have an 85" direct view display, you can just put 100+ "small" speakers around the screen periphery to get on-screen audio "in the right place" (of course, this system also creates full immersive audio for the room!) 













_


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Can you explain exactly how to connect all the four in ceilings together? Basically I understood to get the + front left and + back left and wire them together?
> I want to try out two outdoor surrounds I have in the garage as side ear level surrounds for now. As a test.


♦ See link from quote just below.



NorthSky said:


> ♦ *Series Vs. Parallel Wiring*





asere said:


> I wonder if the Atmos and DTS X tracks will be less catered to bluray in the future and be more for UHD disks. Kinda like how DTS started to disappear on DVD's and you'd see it more on bluray.


♦ Here's the new task for the new UHD Blu-ray format: To replace the old HD (1080P) Blu-ray format...very best of luck.

And if Dolby Atmos and DTS:X and Auro-3D are going to be available only on that new UHD Blu-ray format...then "this is sparta".


----------



## speeddeacon

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Informative reading from the links above. And the _Installation guidelines_ link (pdf) has been expanded, with more pages @ the end for more precise useful explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ The metadata is the same, but with less "pie slices" (speakers). * Object rendition from above works best with 4 Atmos overhead speakers, but it works also fine with only two (TM).


Wow North, that was quite the post!

The reason I asked question was in relation to a x.x.6 set up where TM is identified discretely along with TF and TR, like what Nalleh and Scott have accomplished, and whether it would be worth the effort and expense to me to add another Atmos receiver. As Jeremy pointed out, at present we are limited to x.x.4 by any single decoder. But, if two decoders were somehow able, as if through magic or ingenuity, to operate simultaneously, one was outputting TF and TR (x.x.4) and the other TM (x.x.2), would it result in 6 discrete overhead signals. If the first, because it doesn't know there is a TM channel, outputs the mix info that would be in TM, then it would be redundant and thus a waste of time/money to me. If, however, it simply omitted the signal information that would normally be sent to a TM and you could use a separate processor to add it in, then it might be worth it to me. You and Jeremy (And Scott via PM) have explained that the processor, knowing how many discrete channels are available in the setup, takes the entire pie and slices it into four rather than just pulling four slices out of a 6 piece pie. While I understand that having multiple slices of a whole pie is more desirable than fewer but larger slices, at least to the point of being discernible to the human brain as discrete, I think I'll hold off for now. 

I really would like a 9.1.6 system that would provide front height to the projection image without adding depth, then three layers of overhead depth before terminating into the rear surrounds. Being able to add both discrete front heights and discrete top middle, if possible, is tempting. I'll continue to ask questions and watch this thread, particularly @Scott and @Nalleh and their experiences.


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> Can you explain exactly how to connect all the four in ceilings together? Basically I understood to get the + front left and + back left and wire them together?


That's the way to wire them "in parallel." Others in this thread have recommended that wiring them "in series" is a smarter way to do it.

Google "wiring speakers in series" for diagrams.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> That's the way to wire them "in parallel." Others in this thread have recommended that wiring them "in series" is a smarter way to do it.
> 
> Google "wiring speakers in series" for diagrams.


What's better in series or parallel?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

SoundChex said:


> My first thought is that DTS and|or Dolby are now (or in the future plan on) performing "source codec based" immersive upmix logic...? If true, this would have (at least) two interesting consequences,' viz: (1) (*non-lawyer disclaimer*) it seems to me there might both license and anti-trust issues with upmixing audio "known to be encoded" in the others technology|codec *regardless of whether or not the bitstream is examined before upmix is applied*, and (2) upmixing a competitor's audio without "optimization" might be implied "pessimization" . . . leading to arguments about which one of Dolby, DTS, and (e.g.) Denon is "most to blame" for "poor sound" when some BD is played!


Dolby Pro Logic II has been able to upmix DTS codecs for over a decade. Likewise, DTS Neo:5, Neo:6, Neo:X, etc. processing could be applied to Dolby codecs without issue. This is a new development that the immersive decoders from each company will no longer work with the competitor's codecs.

FYI, your posts would be much easier to read if you didn't use so much *bolding*, and "scare quotes," and (parentheses), and (1) bullet points, and *other* _symbols_. Just write the words you want to say. Everything else is a distraction.


----------



## Josh Z

asere said:


> What's better in series or parallel?


I believe the post you're quoting answers that question.


----------



## asere

Josh Z said:


> I believe the post you're quoting answers that question.


Excuse my ignorance. I am new to speaker wiring like this.
If my speakers are 8ohm what's better and safer series or parallel wiring?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Personally, I find *SoundChex* post style highly informative, precise, incisive, clear, to the point, technical, and always with great links.

Just my


----------



## bkeeler10

asere said:


> Excuse my ignorance. I am new to speaker wiring like this.
> If my speakers are 8ohm what's better and safer series or parallel wiring?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Short answer: If your speakers are 8 ohm you'll probably want to wire in parallel. If they're 4 ohm you'll be safer wiring in series.

Edit: Long answer: Google it


----------



## speeddeacon

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf

On page eleven, I suppose it basically says what what I needed to know, I just didn't recognize it.

"Importantly, Dolby Atmos is not tied to any specific configuration. Whether you have a full 7.1.4, or 5.1. 2 system, or an ultimate 24.1.10 Dolby Atmos system, your receiver will get the same content and play it back in a way that takes full advantage of your specific setup."

I suppose that's kind of like the government "we will take care of you."

I don't want 24.1.10, just 9.1.6


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Excuse my ignorance. I am new to speaker wiring like this.
> If my speakers are 8ohm what's better and safer series or parallel wiring?


What are your speakers exactly...the ones you intend to wire together? 

I know that you have the Onkyo 805 receiver, and that's a good receiver than can handle 4 Ohm loads. 

* The speaker's manufacturer specs are never accurate and complete...you need some concrete measurements for that...like the ones performed in some audio reviews/mags...like from Stereophile for example.


----------



## NorthSky

speeddeacon said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf
> 
> On page eleven, I suppose it basically says what what I needed to know, I just didn't recognize it.
> 
> "Importantly, Dolby Atmos is not tied to any specific configuration. Whether you have a full 7.1.4, or 5.1. 2 system, or an ultimate 24.1.10 Dolby Atmos system, your receiver will get the same content and play it back in a way that takes full advantage of your specific setup."
> 
> I suppose that's kind of like the government "we will take care of you."


You got it.


----------



## Josh Z

bkeeler10 said:


> Short answer: If your speakers are 8 ohm you'll probably want to wire in parallel. If they're 4 ohm you'll be safer wiring in series.
> 
> Edit: Long answer: Google it


I think in-series is probably the better way to do it regardless, but in-parallel is easier. 

He should not do in-parallel if his speakers are 4 ohm.

In short: Be safe and do it in-series. It may be slightly confusing if you're trying to wire them that way at the receiver end, but it's not that hard.


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> What are your speakers exactly...the ones you intend to wire together?
> 
> I know that you have the Onkyo 805 receiver, and that's a good receiver than can handle 4Ohm loads.
> 
> * The speaker's manufacturer specs are never accurate and complete...you need some concrete measurements for that...like the ones performed in some audio reviews/mags...like from Stereophile for example.


I have the denon x1200 and Onkyo nr646. (One is going back to Best Buy)The 805 I have on hold right now.
I want to wire together the in ceiling speakers only so I can do a 5.1.4 since my avr can only do 5.1.2.
I don't want to overspend in a more expensive avr right now

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> I have the denon x1200 and Onkyo nr646. (One is going back to Best Buy)The 805 I have on hold right now.
> I want to wire together the in ceiling speakers only so I can do a 5.1.4 since my avr can only do 5.1.2.
> I don't want to overspend in a more expensive avr right now





NorthSky said:


> ♦ *Series Vs. Parallel Wiring*


Ok, you didn't say what your speakers are but that's enough info for me...wire them *in Series*.  ...And only if they are four identical ones. 

* Even better than that: I've read about your room, your speaker's positioning...and I would simply do a 5.1.2 Atmos setup in your particular situation.
Yes sir, do a *5.1.2* Dolby Atmos setup...it will sound excellent for your situation, room, and actual positioning of all elements.
And I truly/sincerely believe that.


----------



## bkeeler10

Josh Z said:


> I think in-series is probably the better way to do it regardless, but in-parallel is easier.
> 
> He should not do in-parallel if his speakers are 4 ohm.
> 
> In short: Be safe and do it in-series. It may be slightly confusing if you're trying to wire them that way at the receiver end, but it's not that hard.


Series is safest because it guarantees you won't present the amp with an impedance lower than it can handle. OTOH, wiring two 8-ohm speakers in series will result in a 16-ohm load, cutting the power the receiver can put out roughly in half. So you have half the rated power, which is now divided among two speakers, each speaker therefore getting roughly one quarter of the rated power. Yeah, it probably wouldn't be a problem for overhead speakers since the material sent to them is generally not demanding. But most receivers mid-fi and above can handle a 4-ohm load unless they're pushed hard.

If it were me with 8-ohm speakers, I would wire them in parallel. If the receiver ever shuts itself down in the middle of a chaotic scene played very loud, then I would be rewiring to series. FWIW, IMO, and all that.


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> Ok, you didn't say what your speakers are but that's enough info for me...wire them *in Series*.


I'm sorry they are 100 watts. Proficient brand

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

SoundChex said:


> My first thought is that DTS and|or Dolby are now (or in the future plan on) performing "source codec based" immersive upmix logic...? If true, this would have (at least) two interesting consequences,' viz: (1) (*non-lawyer disclaimer*) it seems to me there might both license and anti-trust issues with upmixing audio "known to be encoded" in the others technology|codec *regardless of whether or not the bitstream is examined before upmix is applied*, and (2) upmixing a competitor's audio without "optimization" might be implied "pessimization" . . . leading to arguments about which one of Dolby, DTS, and (e.g.) Denon is "most to blame" for "poor sound" when some BD is played!
> _


But you're not technically applying the upmix to anything involving the codec. You're applying it to the resulting PCM after that particular lossless codec is decoded by the receiver. It's irrelevant whether it's "a competitor's audio" because both codecs result in the same lossless audio that they started with. Even if you're talking about their lossy variants, you're still applying the upmixing to the decoded PCM. 

So my guess is... it's just something they're agreeing to do for licensing reasons, and a result of the Dolby vs. DTS skirmish. On DTS' side, it ensures that people are adopting their technology more.


----------



## lujan

Nalleh said:


> Indeed. The following are what i would consider not worth it, for Atmos at least:
> 
> Torrente 5
> On any sunday: the next chapter
> Step up All in
> Overheard 3
> Chicago
> 
> The rest of them are rather good actually, but my "top 5" i would say:
> TAOE(Reference)
> Gravity
> John Wick
> Unbroken
> Lucy
> And Nature as a "Atmos demo disc on stereoids"


Great, I have all of them on the good category except "Lucy" and that one is supposed to get to me on Monday.


----------



## speeddeacon

Josh Z said:


> It may be slightly confusing if you're trying to wire them that way at the receiver end, but it's not that hard.


For my own edification, how do you wire in series at the receiver end?


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> I'm sorry they are 100 watts. Proficient brand


Again; keep life simple, forget it about wiring two pairs of Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and use your receiver for what it was intended to: *5.1.2* 
Just position those two overhead Atmos speakers @ the ideal location...usually the Top Middle (TM) position. 

And if you still want to experiment with that "wiring" thing; your safest bet is *in Series*. But me I wouldn't; I would keep it a *5.1.2* Dolby Atmos configuration...as per my receiver's design and intended setup. 

* I am almos certain that your "Proficient" speakers, that are rated @ 100 Watts power handling, and @ 8 Ohm impedance, do dip lower than 8 Ohm @ certain frequencies of the audio spectrum. And! The two receiver models that you just mentioned before (from Denon and Onkyo) are from the budget variety (Entry Level); so they are restricted in the power transformer and microfarads capacitance and cubical inches heatsink department/section. Best to not tax those entry level receivers, IMHO. And that's why I suggested 'in Series' if you still want to do it. But my very best suggestion is to conform to your receiver's intended operation: *Dolby Atmos 5.1.2* system configuration (setup).


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> Again; keep life simple, forget it about wiring two pairs of Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and use your receiver for what it was intended to: *5.1.2*
> Just position those two overhead Atmos speakers @ the ideal location...usually the Top Middle (TM) position.
> 
> And if you still want to experiment with that "wiring" thing; your safest bet is *in Series*. But me I wouldn't; I would keep it a *5.1.2* Dolby Atmos configuration...as per my receiver's design and intended setup.
> 
> * I am almos certain that your "Proficient" speakers, that are rated @ 100 Watts power handling, and @ 8 Ohm impedance, do dip lower than 8 Ohm @ certain frequencies. And! The two receiver models that you just mentioned before (from Denon and Onkyo) are from the budget variety (Entry Level); so they are restricted in the power transformer and microfarads capacitance and cubical inches heatsink department. Best to not tax those entry level receivers, IMHO. And that's why I suggested 'in Series' if you still want to do it. But my very best suggestion is to conform to your receiver's intended operation: *Dolby Atmos 5.1.2* system configuration (setup).


I see what you are saying. I just wanted to add ear level surrounds without leaving behind the in ceiling surrounds.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kokishin

dvdwilly3 said:


> Kokishin, hi. I am still playing catch-up with the changes that I have made to my 5.1.4 fake Dolby setup...I promise that this is the final configuration...speakers only...
> 
> Goldenear Triton Seven FR & FL; SVS Prime Center; Goldenear Aon 2 surrounds; Goldenear Supersat 3's on stands for top Front & Top Rear, respectively.
> 
> Now, it is where I want it sound-wise. This final setup is a result of experimentation, some more successful than others.
> 
> I intend to write this up so that others may avoid some of the mistakes that I made. Timbre-matching is real and makes an audible difference. My setup is not the same across the board, but the differences are recognized and intended.
> 
> For my room, I believe that this is as good as it can get.


I updated the spreadsheet. Check it to make sure I understood the above. 

Were there two dvdwillys that preceded you?


----------



## NorthSky

speeddeacon said:


> For my own edification, how do you wire in series at the receiver end?


*Series*:










________

*Parallel*:










________

♦ http://geoffthegreygeek.com/how-to-wire-four-hifi-speakers/ 

♦ www.diyaudioandvideo.com/FAQ/Wiring ===> Read *How do you run speakers in series?* 
...And the section before; "How do you run speakers in parallel?"

In Series: You want to use the exact same speakers...or you'll end up with distortion (very bad).


----------



## timc1475

Nalleh said:


> Well, screw DTS:X. Got tired of waiting, so i tried something else.
> Frustrated about the 7.1.4 limit of speaker in Atmos?
> Don't want the hassle of 8min config loads to get both Atmos/Auro full setups?
> Can't afford the overly expensive Trinnov or Datasat?
> 
> Well, i found a way to get 9.1.6 native Atmos and 12.1 Auro 3D with 1 setup!
> 
> How?
> Well, as you know, i have my Denon 5200, connected to 14 speakers, and it is setup with full 10.1 Auro:
> 5.1+FH+SH+TS(VOG).
> Press the movie remote button and the 9.1.2 Atmos is selected:
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH.
> Ok, since i got over a grand for my old Onkyo 3010 receiver, i used the money to buy a second Denon, this time the little brother: 4100.
> So, connected some of the 5200's speakers and some new to get it calibrated, this has amp assign as follows:
> 
> Amp Assign: 9.1
> Height Speakers: 4 height speakers
> Height Layout: Top Middle+Rear Height
> Pre-out: Front and rear height
> 
> The two receivers are connected using a HDMI from the Zone2 HDMI out from the 5200, that send full image and sound, by the way, to one of the HDMI input on the 4100.
> 
> I do not have fronts connected to the 4100, but the 4 ceiling seakers make the new native Atmos setup a full 9.1.6 :
> 5.1+FW+SB+FH(as before from the 5200) +TM+RH(from the 4100).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5200:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4100:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Movie button again switch to the full 10.1 Auro setup from the 5200 and with a dual source speaker switch for the Surround backs between 5200/4100 , and i gain the SB from the 4100 on the Auro setup= 12.1.
> 
> But wait, there's more. The following are connected to the 4100, eq'd and separatly calibrated from the 5200' speakers.
> Side Surround B. Since the 4100 have empty surround speaker post, why not use them with a second set surround speakers placed at ca 80 degrees(surround A at 110 degrees).
> Center Height. Same here, empty center speakers posts, so connected another center speaker high on the front wall.
> 
> And remember the pesky use of sub pre-out 2 for the Top Surround in Auro 10.1 setup?
> Well, the 4100 has 2 brand new seperatly calibrated sub pre-outs available!
> 
> Actually, with a second dual source speaker switch, i can use the Atmos RH as SBH in Auro, since the SBH is ganged in SH anyway in Auro 15.1 setup.
> 
> So, one could say the following:
> 
> Atmos: 5.1+SB+S2+FW+FH+TM+RH+CH=11.1.7
> 
> Auro 3D:
> 5.1+SB+S2+FH+SH+SBH+TS+CH= 17.1
> 
> It works!! The lip sync is spot on, and espesially the 6 ceiling speakers really woke up the "spaceious" feeling, and i believe the 4100 will be staying
> 
> A couple of glitches though, but nothing major, ex. two volum buttons etc. but i can live with them.


That is inspiring Nalleh, hats off to you going where no one has gone b4 Star Trek style! Are you an installer or home enthusiast? I doubt any local installer in my area would be able to do what you have done.

I am considering the upcoming Integra 70.7 for 11ch (7.1.4) Atmos config. Ideally a 14ch AVR adding the 2 mid point surrounds & the VOG for Auro 3D would be cool but I don't see those AVR's appearing until 2016. IMO

The consumer is left quite perplexed by the industry in all of this. I do not see any logical way to utilize currently both Atmos & Auro unless one goes all out like you. This is unfortunate for the low budget and average home enthusiasts who lack in funds and knowledge. 

Nalleh can you tell me your thoughts about the upmixer of "auromatic" comparing to Atmos and the other DSU upmixers?

Because what you have done is above any professional reviewer tester it may be of benefit to make an updated post with all your pics in one post. 

I cannot imagine how much effort and time you must have put into this endeavor. The fact that you cared to share with your fellow AVS'ers is icing on the cake.



Thanks!


----------



## dvdwilly3

kokishin said:


> I updated the spreadsheet. Check it to make sure I understood the above.
> 
> Were there two dvdwillys that preceded you?


Kokishin, you got it right.
No, I am the only dvdwilly that has been on the forum.
The reason for the 3 is a long, unrelated story.
Thanks again for taking the time and energy to do the spreadsheet.


----------



## speeddeacon

NorthSky said:


> *Series*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________
> 
> *Parallel*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________
> 
> ♦ http://geoffthegreygeek.com/how-to-wire-four-hifi-speakers/
> 
> ♦ www.diyaudioandvideo.com/FAQ/Wiring ===> Read *How do you run speakers in series?*
> ...And the section before; "How do you run speakers in parallel?"
> 
> In Series: You want to use the exact same speakers...or you'll end up with distortion (very bad).


Ok, that I know, I thought he was inferring it could be done only at the receiver, like parallel, which was new to me. Thanks though.


----------



## kopmjj

NorthSky said:


> *Series*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________
> 
> *Parallel*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________
> 
> ♦ http://geoffthegreygeek.com/how-to-wire-four-hifi-speakers/
> 
> ♦ www.diyaudioandvideo.com/FAQ/Wiring ===> Read *How do you run speakers in series?*
> ...And the section before; "How do you run speakers in parallel?"
> 
> In Series: You want to use the exact same speakers...or you'll end up with distortion (very bad).


i think this may be a better option as earlier i asked a similar question, how to get 5.1.6, which will be best option for me? i will be using marantz sr7009 and my atmos speakers will be monitor audio bx1, i will position the speakers FH TF and TM. now i want to set up my amp as FH and TM but i want to connect TF with FH so i get the same sound from both. shall i do parallel or series connection in my situation?


----------



## SoundChex

Interesting news item on *TVNewsCheck*, August 28, 2015, "*ATSC Makes Breakthrough On 3.0 Standard*" (_link_):



> _*ATSC Makes Breakthrough On 3.0 Standard*
> 
> In major milestone, a key subcommittee adopts a transmission system reflecting a compromise among the major system proponents, including Samsung, LG Electronics and Sinclair Broadcast Group-backed ONE Media. It's expected to be issued as a candidate standard within the next several weeks. Audio becomes the new sticking point. [. . .] While progress has been made on the physical layer, it has stalled on the audio component. According to sources, engineers are split between two audio systems, *MPEG H* and *Dolby AC4*._


_

_I just hope they don't decide "*BOTH*"!_

The global nature of the internet already means that we can anticipate a future in which we have to decode streamed (audio) content delivered as any one of *DTS:X*, *Dolby AC-4*, and *MPEG-H Audio*, but it's hard to imagine having 'dual standard' TVs in the USA (although I seem to recall they were|are common in some parts of the world...?)


_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But you're not technically applying the upmix to anything involving the codec. You're applying it to the resulting PCM after that particular lossless codec is decoded by the receiver. It's irrelevant whether it's "a competitor's audio" because both codecs result in the same lossless audio that they started with. Even if you're talking about their lossy variants, you're still applying the upmixing to the decoded PCM.
> 
> So my guess is... it's just something they're agreeing to do for licensing reasons, and a result of the Dolby vs. DTS skirmish. On DTS' side, it ensures that people are adopting their technology more.


So, are we now saying that Yamaha, Onkyo, and others will probably have this same "no cross codec pollination" restriction once DTS's new upmixing format hits, and it isn't actually how certain chip manufacturers are coding their new DSP's?


----------



## kokishin

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, are we now saying that Yamaha, Onkyo, and others will probably have this same "no cross codec pollination" restriction once DTS's new upmixing format hits, and it isn't actually how certain chip manufacturers are coding their new DSP's?


DLB has a market cap of $3.35B. DTSI has a market cap of $467M. Dolby should just buy DTSI. I know, I know... competition is good for the consumer. But it would be nice if their upmixers allowed cross pollination. Just sayin'...


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, are we now saying that Yamaha, Onkyo, and others will probably have this same "no cross codec pollination" restriction once DTS's new upmixing format hits, and it isn't actually how certain chip manufacturers are coding their new DSP's?


In the absence of solid information that Dolby and/or DTS is somehow complicit in this snafu, I'm calling BS. 

I can understand the paranoia, but it smells of internet-borne conspiracy theory to me.


----------



## SoundChex

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But you're not technically applying the upmix to anything involving the codec. You're applying it to the resulting PCM after that particular lossless codec is decoded by the receiver. It's irrelevant whether it's "a competitor's audio" because both codecs result in the same lossless audio that they started with. Even if you're talking about their lossy variants, you're still applying the upmixing to the decoded PCM.



My recollection is that DTS-HD can be encoded in nine different 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 speaker|channel configurations, plus 'something else arcane' on a DTS-HD|Neo:X 7.1|11.1 BD. If the Neural:X implementation strategy is (1) perform a classical DTS-HD decode+optional.remap+optional.downmix to the in-place middle-layer configuration: 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 (either Configuration 1 or Configuration 5); then (2) deliver corresponding 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 LPCM audio to the Neural:X upmixer, much useful|important information contained in the original bitstream will have been lost. Neural:X would be better served by knowing implicit|explicit metadata contained on the BD (original 5.1|6.1|7.1|11.1 channel structure, downmix and volume normalization instructions, etc.) This problem can be most easily seen in the playback of a Neo:X 11.1 BD on a Neural:X 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 system--where initial conversion of the BD to LPCM for only the 'common' 5.1 configuration would completely discard height information contained in the (unexpanded) 7.1 LPCM version.


_


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> In the absence of solid information that Dolby and/or DTS is somehow complicit in this snafu, I'm calling BS.
> 
> I can understand the paranoia, but it smells of internet-borne conspiracy theory to me.


Agreed. Some people are getting a little hasty whipping out their Jump To Conclusions Mat: http://youtu.be/42WNHGr1jGI


----------



## TJtennispro

I would be extremely upset to know that the guy who is responsible for 2800 of the posts in this thread had NEVER heard Dolby Atmos but is giving advice about something he has never witnessed. 



NorthSky said:


> You can discuss the post's content, and share your opinion about Star Wars and 3D. ...But what does a poster's post count have anything to do with movies and immersive sound and picture? And is it a requirement to have a Dolby Atmos product in order to post in this thread?
> 
> 1. I have never heard Dolby Atmos.
> 2. I don't have any clue about percentage*...it don't even cross my mind...it does to you?
> 3. Some' wrong with 'Unbroken'?
> 4. I don't have a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X pre/pro, yet.
> 
> * EDIT: I just looked; just less than 9% (8.744%)


----------



## NorthSky

TJtennispro said:


> I would be extremely upset to know that the guy who is responsible for 2800 of the posts in this thread had NEVER heard Dolby Atmos but is giving advice about something he has never witnessed.


2520 ... and just snap out of it.  It ain't that bad...the best advisers in history were the prophets.


----------



## batpig

TJtennispro said:


> I would be extremely upset to know that the guy who is responsible for 2800 of the posts in this thread had NEVER heard Dolby Atmos but is giving advice about something he has never witnessed.


Savvy posters know this is why god invented the Ignore function. Just think, you chop off 10% of the thread but still retain 100% of the knowledge!


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> Savvy posters know this is why god invented the Ignore function. Just think, you chop off 10% of the thread but still retain 100% of the knowledge!


Not good form to encourage others to ignore people. ...Besides, some very good info you are depriving others by encouraging them from this stratagem.
Best is to let people decide for themselves. And do what you do best...without telling others what to do that you do less.


----------



## Skylinestar

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-format-due-march-2015-a-66.html#post36836530









This is a small Dolby room, yet the side surrounds are still high up... far from the consumer floor level surround placement.
Telling the consumer version to place the surround speaker on "floor" level (about ear height) to make the height effect more obvious just doesn't make sense.


----------



## dkfan9

SoundChex said:


> Jeremy Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not technically applying the upmix to anything involving the codec. You're applying it to the resulting PCM after that particular lossless codec is decoded by the receiver. It's irrelevant whether it's "a competitor's audio" because both codecs result in the same lossless audio that they started with. Even if you're talking about their lossy variants, you're still applying the upmixing to the decoded PCM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My recollection is that DTS-HD can be encoded in nine different 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 speaker|channel configurations, plus 'something else arcane' on a DTS-HD|Neo:X 7.1|11.1 BD. If the Neural:X implementation strategy is (1) perform a classical DTS-HD decode+optional.remap+optional.downmix to the in-place middle-layer configuration: 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 (either Configuration 1 or Configuration 5); then (2) deliver corresponding 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 LPCM audio to the Neural:X upmixer, much useful|important information contained in the original bitstream will have been lost. Neural:X would be better served by knowing implicit|explicit metadata contained on the BD (original 5.1|6.1|7.1|11.1 channel structure, downmix and volume normalization instructions, etc.) This problem can be most easily seen in the playback of a Neo:X 11.1 BD on a Neural:X 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 system--where initial conversion of the BD to LPCM for only the 'common' 5.1 configuration would completely discard height information contained in the (unexpanded) 7.1 LPCM version.
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...

Great info, thanks for that


----------



## maikeldepotter

Skylinestar said:


> This is a small Dolby room, yet the side surrounds are still high up... far from the consumer floor level surround placement.
> Telling the consumer version to place the surround speaker on "floor" level (about ear height) to make the height effect more obvious just doesn't make sense.


Theatrical guidelines say the lateral elevation of the overheads should at least be 45+(half the surrounds elevation) degrees. The home theater guidelines are more restricted, but normally will not fall out of that specification: base level speakers at ear height and overheads in line with the fronts. 

As to the why of this difference we can only guess. It could be that Dolby just wanted to make things easier to explain for the home users, or didn't want speakers to end up directly above our heads to avoid bad publicity and liability claims if they were to come down... 

(not so with Atmos enabled speakers which in the diagrams are shown to actually bounce more above our heads, in line with the center left and center right positions as in the theatrical guidelines).

PS 

While a number of posters have experienced better Atmos sound after lowering their surrounds to ear level, it seems they had not the (theatrical) minimum separation of "45 degrees minus half of the lateral elevation of the surrounds" between surrounds and overheads in the first place. 

So IMO, to get an optimal Atmos sounds at home, getting sufficient separation between base level and overhead speakers is more important than lowering surrounds to ear level. In doing so, I personally would not mind violating Dolby's recommendation to put the overheads in line with the fronts. Because that just doesn't make (enough) sense (to me).


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I hear Lucy is good. I really enjoyed the movie but I'm worried about getting the overseas Atmos version. I heard that the alternate languages spoken throughout the movie are not rendered but you can get them only through a full on subtitle. I hate that.


There is some Chinese* spoken in the movie and IIRC the forced English subtitles work for that just fine. I think this rumour got around because there is a sequence where a Chinese gang boss is talking to Lucy and there is no translation. But the reason is that Lucy is not meant to understand what is being said, so obviously neither is the audience and so there are no subs for that bit. Later there is an exchange that lasts a minute or so which is also not subbed, but the point there is that an interpreter tells Lucy what is being said, so subs are not needed. All in all there isn't more than a couple of minutes of Chinese in the entire movie, and even if there are no subs, it is obvious from context what is being said. No important plot points are missed. Don't let it put you off the movie in Atmos.

*EDIT: it might be Korean.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> DLB has a market cap of $3.35B. DTSI has a market cap of $467M. Dolby should just buy DTSI. I know, I know... competition is good for the consumer. * But it would be nice if their upmixers allowed cross pollination. *Just sayin'...


They will. This is either an unworked-out bug or a limitation of some sort IMO. They will fix it with a FW update. It seems to only affect Denon/Marantz anyway - I am told Yamaha is not affected. If that is the case, then it can't be anything to do with Dolby or DTS can it?


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> In the absence of solid information that Dolby and/or DTS is somehow complicit in this snafu, I'm calling BS.
> 
> I can understand the paranoia, but it smells of internet-borne conspiracy theory to me.


+1. If they were complicit, why wait until now? They could have prevented cross pollination easily enough in the past. But PLII has always worked with DTS sources and Neo:X with Dolby sources. Plus, if it isn’t an issue on Yamahas, then it clearly isn’t a Dolby-DTS issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

TJtennispro said:


> I would be extremely upset to know that the guy who is responsible for 2800 of the posts in this thread had NEVER heard Dolby Atmos but is giving advice about something he has never witnessed.


You mean you actually read those posts???


----------



## Skylinestar

kbarnes701 said:


> There is some Chinese spoken in the movie and IIRC the forced English subtitles work for that just fine. I think this rumour got around because there is a sequence where a Chinese gang boss is talking to Lucy and there is no translation. But the reason is that Lucy is not meant to understand what is being said, so obviously neither is the audience and so there are no subs for that bit. Later there is an exchange that lasts a minute or so which is also not subbed, but the point there is that an interpreter tells Lucy what is being said, so subs are not needed. All in all there isn't more than a couple of minutes of Chinese in the entire movie, and even if there are no subs, it is obvious from context what is being said. No important plot points are missed. Don't let it put you off the movie in Atmos.


It's Korean or Chinese?


----------



## kbarnes701

Skylinestar said:


> It's Korean or Chinese?


Er.... pass  It's one of those languages that sounds like the person speaking has something stuck in his throat and is desperately trying to clear it. Mr Jang (the gang boss) is played by a Korean actor though. But the setting is Taiwan. And the language they speak in Taiwan is Mandarin Chinese. So go figure... 

HST, what Mr Jang is saying is definitely not Mandarin. I recognise Mandarin from the Chinese movies I have in my collection. I thought it might be Cantonese Chinese which is much more gutteral and isn't a tonal language like Mandarin (or nothing like to the same extent). Let's settle for Korean unless someone who actually speaks these languages chimes in...


----------



## Zhorik

^ Korean and Taiwanese in Lucy.


----------



## bargervais

kokishin said:


> I updated the spreadsheet. Check it to make sure I understood the above.
> 
> Were there two dvdwillys that preceded you?


Little tweak to my set up replaced my 737 now it's Onkyo TX-NR 747 5.2.2 Atmos / Acoustic Audio 151B Indoor/Outdoor Speakers top middle on Ceiling Speakers


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. If they were complicit, why wait until now? They could have prevented cross pollination easily enough in the past. But PLII has always worked with DTS sources and Neo:X with Dolby sources. Plus, if it isn’t an issue on Yamahas, then it clearly isn’t a Dolby-DTS issue.


Not internet rumour or BS but confirmed in this review
No you can't use DTS with DSU on new Denons
https://www.avforums.com/review/denon-avr-x3200w-review.11826
Regards
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Not internet rumour or BS but confirmed in this review
> No you can't use DTS with DSU
> https://www.avforums.com/review/denon-avr-x3200w-review.11826
> Regards
> Andy


Yes I know. But you will be able to when they sort out whatever the problem is. A bug, or some limitation. It doesn't affect me and my 5200 of course. I can use DSU with anything. And by the time I have DTS:X, I suspect the same to apply.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes I know. But you will be able to when they sort out whatever the problem is. A bug, or some limitation. It doesn't affect me and my 5200 of course. I can use DSU with anything. And by the time I have DTS:X, I suspect the same to apply.


So if I understand correctly what the bug limits the new receivers to, is if the Blu-Ray disk has DTS:X you can't use DSU and vise versa. But say if the Blu-Ray just has a Dolby or DTS mix (not Atmos / DTS:X)your only choice would be ????? Please can some help me understand in simple English what this bug is.


----------



## multit

A special german release with Dolby Atmos is coming soon. It's about a soccer team and his way to the champions league.
I can imagine, that the atmosphere in a stadion is great for Atmos use...
http://www.amazon.de/Die-Elf-vom-Niederrhein-Champions/dp/B01356S5XO/


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. If they were complicit, why wait until now? They could have prevented cross pollination easily enough in the past. But PLII has always worked with DTS sources and Neo:X with Dolby sources. Plus, if it isn’t an issue on Yamahas, then it clearly isn’t a Dolby-DTS issue.





bargervais said:


> So if I understand correctly what the bug limits the new receivers to, is if the Blu-Ray disk has DTS:X you can't use DSU and vise versa. But say if the Blu-Ray just has a Dolby or DTS mix (not Atmos / DTS:X)your only choice would be ????? Please can some help me understand in simple English what this bug is.


Everybody is assuming it a bug with no proof to substantiate it.
I find it hard to imagine an brand new model has been released with this so called bug.
IMO its a deliberate limitation but again there is nothing to substantiate that either.
Some Yamahas might be ok because AFAIK they cant be upgraded to DTS:X
So it seems Dolby True HD = DSU
DTS MA = Neural:X
Some like myself who bought a New X-7200WA so called factory built unit (Using the old chassis) don't have this limitation.
That may or may not all change if I install the DTS:X upgrade
Andy


----------



## chi_guy50

Skylinestar said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-format-due-march-2015-a-66.html#post36836530
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a small Dolby room, yet the side surrounds are still high up... far from the consumer floor level surround placement.
> Telling the consumer version to place the surround speaker on "floor" level (about ear height) to make the height effect more obvious just doesn't make sense.


Wait, there are speakers in that room?

I never got past the eye candy in the front row.


----------



## kokishin

bargervais said:


> Little tweak to my set up replaced my 737 now it's Onkyo TX-NR 747 5.2.2 Atmos / Acoustic Audio 151B Indoor/Outdoor Speakers top middle on Ceiling Speakers


Done.


----------



## Lesmor

chi_guy50 said:


> Wait, there are speakers in that room?
> 
> I never got past the eye candy in the front row.


Didn't know you were Gay :kiss:


----------



## asere

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lesmor said:


> Everybody is assuming it a bug with no proof to substantiate it.
> I find it hard to imagine an brand new model has been released with this so called bug.
> IMO its a deliberate limitation but again there is nothing to substantiate that either.
> Some Yamahas might be ok because AFAIK they cant be upgraded to DTS:X
> So it seems Dolby True HD = DSU
> DTS MA = Neural:X
> Some like myself who bought a New X-7200WA so called factory built unit (Using the old chassis) don't have this limitation.
> That may or may not all change if I install the DTS:X upgrade
> Andy



It may be the implementation certain DSP manufacturers are taking with their new chip models. Whether or not this is a deliberate action by DTS and/or Dolby due to a pissing contest or poor chip coding we shall soon find out.

For those who can have the choice of wide speakers because of their receiver or pre-amp models and choose to use them, remember that DTS Neural:X allows for wides and Dolby Surround does not. If this is the sign of things to come, then you should be rightly PO'd and should be be complaining mightily, so that this is corrected going forward.


----------



## asere

bargervais said:


> Little tweak to my set up replaced my 737 now it's Onkyo TX-NR 747 5.2.2 Atmos / Acoustic Audio 151B Indoor/Outdoor Speakers top middle on Ceiling Speakers


How does it sound? Did you use Accueq?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Stanton

TJtennispro said:


> I would be extremely upset to know that the guy who is responsible for 2800 of the posts in this thread had NEVER heard Dolby Atmos but is giving advice about something he has never witnessed.


And that's why *NorthSky* owns the distinction of being the _only_ person I have ever put on my "ignore" list!


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> In the absence of solid information that Dolby and/or DTS is somehow complicit in this snafu, I'm calling BS.
> 
> I can understand the paranoia, but it smells of internet-borne conspiracy theory to me.





batpig said:


> Agreed. Some people are getting a little hasty whipping out their Jump To Conclusions Mat: http://youtu.be/42WNHGr1jGI





kbarnes701 said:


> +1. If they were complicit, why wait until now? They could have prevented cross pollination easily enough in the past. But PLII has always worked with DTS sources and Neo:X with Dolby sources. Plus, if it isn’t an issue on Yamahas, then it clearly isn’t a Dolby-DTS issue.


Hmmm... All Denon 5200 owners; which allows DSU to upmix DTS encodes but will *NEVER* have DTS:X. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk! 

When the 2015 Denons finally get DTS:X and DTS Neural:X (in 2016?), I expect cross pollination shouldn't be an issue. DTS Neural:X will upmix legacy DTS encodes, DSU will upmix legacy Dolby encodes, and should they allow cross pollination, so much the merrier. Oh, I forgot about Auro and will continue to do so.


----------



## bargervais

asere said:


> How does it sound? Did you use Accueq?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Not yet I am mostly out and won't be able to play with it till after labour day. I'm not expecting much from Accueq but it's supposed to be advanced LOL.


----------



## asere

bargervais said:


> Not yet I am mostly out and won't be able to play with it till after labour day. I'm not expecting much from Accueq but it's supposed to be advanced LOL.


Yeah for me eq or not it sounds great. 
You don't have to turn it up loud to hear things either.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Er.... pass  It's one of those languages that sounds like the person speaking has something stuck in his throat and is desperately trying to clear it. Mr Jang (the gang boss) is played by a Korean actor though. But the setting is Taiwan. And the language they speak in Taiwan is Mandarin Chinese. So go figure...
> 
> HST, what Mr Jang is saying is definitely not Mandarin. I recognise Mandarin from the Chinese movies I have in my collection. I thought it might be Cantonese Chinese which is much more gutteral and isn't a tonal language like Mandarin (or nothing like to the same extent). Let's settle for Korean unless someone who actually speaks these languages chimes in...


Jang speaks Korean, and the horny chap who got his ass kicked is supposed to be speaking Mandarin (Taiwanese style), but I can tell you it's pretty nasty... (lived in Taipei for while during my student exchange days  )


----------



## Scott Simonian

Skylinestar said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-format-due-march-2015-a-66.html#post36836530
> 
> 
> This is a small Dolby room, yet the side surrounds are still high up... far from the consumer floor level surround placement.
> Telling the consumer version to place the surround speaker on "floor" level (about ear height) to make the height effect more obvious just doesn't make sense.



It makes plenty of sense.

What doesn't make sense is why Dolby has their speakers configured this way at their Burbank HQ and why they continue to demo their flagship audio technology with it like this.


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> Hmmm... All Denon 5200 owners; which allows DSU to upmix DTS encodes but will *NEVER* have DTS:X. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!


Also: All Denon 5200 owners who--I guarantee you--intend to have a DTS:X-capable unit in the near future.

Also: At least two of the three (I'll leave myself out) who are extremely knowledgeable and have inside industry sources.



kokishin said:


> When the 2015 Denons finally get DTS:X and DTS Neural:X (in 2016?), I expect cross pollination shouldn't be an issue. DTS Neural:X will upmix legacy DTS encodes, DSU will upmix legacy Dolby encodes, and should they allow cross pollination, so much the merrier. Oh, I forgot about Auro and will continue to do so.


As someone who is married to my front wides and very partial to Neo:X for all of my music sources (and who was the first to raise the alarm about this upmixer cross-pollination restriction in these threads), I now restate my firm conviction that it is not a proprietary mandate and will be rectified in due course. 

As Mike Royko famously said, "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It." (That one's for you, Aras, and my other fellow Chicagoans.)


----------



## NorthSky

kbarnes701 said:


> You mean you actually read those posts???





Stanton said:


> And that's why *NorthSky* owns the distinction of being the _only_ person I have ever put on my "ignore" list!


Move on guys; we're not here to discuss your personal "Ignore list". All you do is promoting your hatred and spreading it publicly. 
Stay on topic, have fun, and respect everyone, even if you don't like them. 

That's enough now, be good. And Keith, it is tiring that you keep singing the same old negative tune. You have a great influence here, but this has to stop.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding, enjoy a great weekend.  

__________

* It is very interesting to me regarding the new Denon Dolby Atmos receivers not able to apply DSU on top of dts! ...This is very new, and mind boggling, honestly. If I would have one of those receivers right now, I wouldn't be happy @ all, not happy. ...Not after all the praise that DSU got in here from everyone. ...With movies...not music.


----------



## chi_guy50

Lesmor said:


> Didn't know you were Gay :kiss:


Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Just don't tell my current wife.)


----------



## LowellG

chi_guy50 said:


> Also: All Denon 5200 owners who--I guarantee you--intend to have a DTS:X-capable unit in the near future.
> 
> Also: At least two of the three (I'll leave myself out) who are extremely knowledgeable and have inside industry sources.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who is married to my front wides and very partial to Neo:X for all of my music sources (and who was the first to raise the alarm about this upmixer cross-pollination restriction in these threads), I now restate my firm conviction that it is not a proprietary mandate and will be rectified in due course.
> 
> As Mike Royko famously said, "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It." (That one's for you, Aras, and my other fellow Chicagoans.)



Are you saying the 5200 is getting DTS:X?


----------



## NorthSky

No; what he's saying is that he will upgrade eventually...with a new Atmos/DTS:X receiver.


----------



## asere

I wish Atmos would come out of the heights like all stereo surround. I know it only plays content when available and it was not designed to be like stereo surround however, there is not much audible content with front heights.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

asere said:


> I wish Atmos would come out of the heights like all stereo surround. I know it only plays content when available but when available and it was not designed to be like stereo surround however, there is not much audible content with front heights.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


wut?


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Everybody is assuming it a bug with no proof to substantiate it.
> I find it hard to imagine an brand new model has been released with this so called bug.
> IMO its a deliberate limitation but again there is nothing to substantiate that either.


We'll see in the fullness of time I expect.


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Hmmm... All Denon 5200 owners; which allows DSU to upmix DTS encodes but will *NEVER* have DTS:X. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!


Well yes - but we knew that when we bought it of course. My next AVR, this time next year, will have DTS:X of course. There might even be some content for it by then


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Jang speaks Korean, and the horny chap who got his ass kicked is supposed to be speaking Mandarin (Taiwanese style), but I can tell you it's pretty nasty... (lived in Taipei for while during my student exchange days  )


Thanks. That settles that then


----------



## NorthSky

> We'll see in the fullness of time I expect.


But for right now it is very disappointing for them folks with a new Dolby Atmos Denon receiver. ...And that, is a real fact, right now, in the present reality.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> But for right now it is very disappointing for them folks with a new Dolby Atmos Denon receiver. ...And that, is a real fact, right now, in the present reality.


What


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> What


Bargervais, you are a little behind on the latest; yes it's true what I just said...with those new Dolby Atmos receivers from Denon you CANNOT apply Dolby Surround (DSU) on top of DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks, zip-a-dip-dou.


----------



## Nalleh

What if you set your BD player to PCM, instead of bitstream, then you can use DSU on whatever, and Neural:X on whatever.

Right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> What if you set your BD player to PCM, instead of bitstream, then you can use DSU on whatever, and Neural:X on whatever.
> 
> Right?


Yeah, but that's not a viable fix, is it. You shouldn't have to do that.


----------



## NorthSky

Yeah, might as well buy a Dolby Atmos receiver from Yamaha...saves you the trouble.


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> What if you set your BD player to PCM, instead of bitstream, then you can use DSU on whatever, and Neural:X on whatever.
> 
> Right?


Correct (and in theory for Neural:X which does not currently exist, of course).

Failing that, however, the current crop of 2015 Denon AVR's not only can not apply DSU to multi-channel DTS signals, they lack *any DTS upmixer of any sort* pending installation of the DTS:X upgrade. So: no Neo:6, Neo:X, Neural:X, nada, bupkis.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Yeah, might as well buy a Dolby Atmos receiver from Yamaha...saves you the trouble.


Not so fast, there.

We don't know that the Yammies won't present the same issue once they are running DTS:X. Remember that the Denon X7200W(A) doesn't currently have this restriction either.

I would hope that the issue will have been resolved by that time, however. We are talking end-2015/2016 for the first fielding of DTS:X, right?


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Not so fast, there.
> 
> We don't know that the Yammies won't present the same issue once they are running DTS:X. Remember that the Denon X7200W(A) doesn't currently have this restriction either.
> 
> I would hope that the issue will have been resolved by that time, however. We are talking end-2015/2016 for the first fielding of DTS:X, right?


I'm not talking about the future, but about right now...the new Denon Atmos receivers (2nd gen). 
And I ain't talking about the past either...Denon 7200A receiver...and all the other ones from that era (which will never get DTS:X by the way). 
And I don't care about DTS:X right now today because it ain't here yet. I can still talk about...but all in "vaporware". 

So, I ain't going any faster than today's real fact.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Bargervais, you are a little behind on the latest; yes it's true what I just said...with those new Dolby Atmos receivers from Denon you CANNOT apply Dolby Surround (DSU) on top of DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks, zip-a-dip-dou.


Are you positive about this? I watch DTS HD 5.1 movies all the time & I hear stuff coming from behind me & over head.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Are you positive about this? I watch DTS HD 5.1 movies all the time & I hear stuff coming from behind me & over head.


You have a 1st gen or 2nd gen Denon Atmos receiver? ...Several members here @ AVS, who are well aware of the facts, and they mentioned it before, with expletive audio modes engaged with all the combinations possible, from Denon's 2nd gen Atmos receiver's manuals (in the dedicated audio mode page), plus the confirmation from some owners, that DSU cannot be applied in top of dts audio codecs, as opposed to the first gen of Denon Atmos receivers. 

I did not dream when I've read this here and there? 

Again, what Denon model number are you using? 

And in regard if Denon is aware of this situation, I'm sure they are. ...And as to know if they are going to rectify this in the near future, it is anyone guess @ this time. Hope is just that, hope...and the fact remains that today it is not like it was yesterday with DSU. And the reason(s) why exactly, I just don't know and Denon knows best. 

For some it is no big deal, and for others it is. It's our free choice the opinion we are deducting, today. 
The world keeps spinning around its orbit, and with it all of us.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> You have a 1st gen or 2nd gen Denon Atmos receiver? ...Several members here @ AVS, who are well aware of the facts, and they mentioned it before, with expletive audio modes engaged with all the combinations possible, from Denon's 2nd gen Atmos receiver's manuals (in the dedicated audio mode page), plus the confirmation from some owners, that DSU cannot be applied in top of dts audio codecs, as opposed to the first gen of Denon Atmos receivers.
> 
> I did not dream when I've read this here and there?
> 
> Again, what Denon model number are you using?
> 
> And in regard if Denon is aware of this situation, I'm sure they are. ...And as to know if they are going to rectify this in the near future, it is anyone guess @ this time. Hope is just that, hope...and the fact remains that today it is not like it was yesterday with DSU. And the reason(s) why exactly, I just don't know and Denon knows best.
> 
> For some it is no big deal, and for others it is. It's our free choice the opinion we are deducting, today.
> The world keeps spinning around its orbit, and with it all of us.


I have the X5200W... I'm definitely hearing 5.1 DTS HD mixes producing sounds in the rear & overhead... or is it that it's just not as effective as it could be?


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have the *X5200W*... I'm definitely hearing 5.1 DTS HD mixes producing sounds in the rear & overhead... or is it that it's just not as effective as it could be?


Aras, this is the 1st gen (your Den 5200)...I'm talking about the new batch of Denon Atmos receivers...just recently released. 

Yours, the 5200, is all good to go with DSU on top of DTS-HD MA. ...But is no way to go with DTS:X though, when it'll show up in town later on. 

* It is with the newer Denon Dolby Atmos receivers (and DTS:X upgradable) that you can no longer do what you are able to do with yours. 
...Short of setting your BR player HDMI Audio Out to PCM.

Are you still following this very recent situation?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Aras, this is the 1st gen...I'm talking about the new batch of Denon Atmos receivers...just recently released.
> 
> Yours, the 5200, is all good to go with DSU on top of DTS-HD MA. ...But is no way to go with DTS:X though, when it'll show up in town later on.
> 
> * It is with the newer Denon Dolby Atmos receivers (and DTS:X upgradable) that you can no longer do what you are able to do with yours.
> ...Short of setting your BR player HDMI Audio Out to PCM.
> 
> Are you still following this very recent situation?


Ahh I understand now, though whoever has those receivers will beable to watch DTS HD upmixed through the DTS X equivalent I'm guessing right? (Whenever DTS X goes live?)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have the X5200W... I'm definitely hearing 5.1 DTS HD mixes producing sounds in the rear & overhead... or is it that it's just not as effective as it could be?


The 5200 is not affected because it is not a new 2015 product.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ahh I understand now, though whoever has those receivers will be able to watch DTS HD upmixed through the DTS X equivalent I'm guessing right? (Whenever DTS X goes live?)


Yes of course; DTS-HD MA (and/or any other dts audio variety) will be up-mixed by the new DTS Neural:X @ will. 

And say that you have a Dolby TrueHD audio soundtrack on a Blu-ray; DSU here, and we just don't know if DTS Neural:X would work (in case somebody prefers it over DSU). And no use to revert to PCM anymore now because both Dolby and dts 3D sound are fully covered for their respective subordinate. 
Perhaps that's how Denon view things...it remains to be experienced. And that would be different than what we are used to today and since quite a while; we can apply Dolby ProLogic IIx or DPLIIz on top of any dts audio flavor and vice versa (DTS Neo:6 or Neo:X on top of any Dolby audio flavor). 

* I don't want to predict the future in this particular situation here...this is strictly the domain of Denon (& Marantz), I think. 

I do have my own thoughts though (I'll keep them for myself right now). ...I'll wait for the right moment to share them.


----------



## petetherock

I wonder if the DTS X limitation is a result of some license issue or an issue with the new quad core DSP chips?
I suspect the former..
Rather disappointing really ..
Anyway given the dearth of titles this may be just another Neo X DSP.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> I'm not talking about the future, but about right now...the new Denon Atmos receivers (2nd gen).
> And I ain't talking about the past either...Denon 7200A receiver...and all the other ones from that era (which will never get DTS:X by the way).
> And I don't care about DTS:X right now today because it ain't here yet. I can still talk about...but all in "vaporware".
> 
> So, I ain't going any faster than today's real fact.


The point I am making is that the new Yammies are presumably in the same boat as the Denon X7200 which, contrary to what you appear to be saying above, will indeed get the DTS:X upgrade. To wit: at present they do not exhibit the upmixer restrictions that the new 2015 Denon models have. These new models are designed around the upcoming DTS:X/Neural:X processing and do not have any other DTS upmixer installed, in contrast to the Yammies (AFAIK) and the X7200, which come out-of-the-box with either Neo:6 (Yamaha) or Neo:X (Denon).

Vous me suivez, mon vieux?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> I wonder if the DTS X limitation is a result of some license issue or an issue with the new quad core DSP chips?
> I suspect the former..
> Rather disappointing really ..
> Anyway given the dearth of titles this may be just another Neo X DSP.


It's not DTS: X object rendering that is affected, it's the DTS Neural:X and Dolby Surround upmixers that won't allow cross format usage of DTS or Dolby compressed audio. Already happening in new Denon/Marantz products.

Why it's happening is still under investigation.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Are you still following *this very recent situation*?


Just for the record, it's not all that recent. We've been discussing the upmixer restriction since July 14 on *The "OFFICIAL" 2015 Denon "S-series" / "X-series" AVR Owner's Thread*, inter alia. See this post and the ensuing conversations.


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> I wonder if the DTS X limitation is a result of some license issue or an issue with the new quad core DSP chips?
> I suspect the former.


Then you'd be wrong


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> The point I am making is that the new Yammies are presumably in the same boat as the Denon X7200 which, contrary to what you appear to be saying above, will indeed get the DTS:X upgrade. To wit: at present they do not exhibit the upmixer restrictions that the new 2015 Denon models have. These new models are designed around the upcoming DTS:X/Neural:X processing and do not have any other DTS upmixer installed, in contrast to the Yammies (AFAIK) and the X7200, which come out-of-the-box with either Neo:6 (Yamaha) or Neo:X (Denon).
> 
> Vous me suivez, mon vieux?


No, only "the others from that era" that won't get the DTS:X firmware upgrade...sorry that I wasn't more clear. ...I know very well that the 7200 is the only exception from the Denon's camp. 

Brief, only the Denon 7200 receiver makes sense today...all the others from the first and second gen don't.  ...That's my opinion.
That's only from Denon products, not Yamaha, not Marantz (Marantz is ok with the 8802A pre/pro...and maybe the 7702MKII pre/pro). 

Vous me suivez toujours monsieur...plus vieux que moi par cinq annees?


----------



## cdelena

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's not DTS: X object rendering that is affected, it's the DTS Neural:X and Dolby Surround upmixers that won't allow cross format usage of DTS or Dolby compressed audio. Already happening in new Denon/Marantz products.
> 
> Why it's happening is still under investigation.


I may be a simpleton but it seems to me that the decision was made to make using immersive formats easy... if the source is DTS the hardware will use DTS:X and if the source is Dolby the hardware will use DSU, and if the source is otherwise the hardware will use whatever the user has selected. How else would you do it?

The results should all be generally equivalent.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Just for the record, it's not all that recent. We've been discussing the upmixer restriction since July 14 on *The "OFFICIAL" 2015 Denon "S-series" / "X-series" AVR Owner's Thread*, inter alia. See this post and the ensuing conversations.


That's just over a month (six weeks)...that's recent enough for me...by my own set of calculation relative to time in a dimensional realistic world; Earth time.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Yes of course; DTS-HD MA (and/or any other dts audio variety) will be up-mixed by the new DTS Neural:X @ will.
> 
> And say that you have a Dolby TrueHD audio soundtrack on a Blu-ray; DSU here, and we just don't know if DTS Neural:X would work (in case somebody prefers it over DSU). And no use to revert to PCM anymore now because both Dolby and dts 3D sound are fully covered for their respective subordinate.
> Perhaps that's how Denon view things...it remains to be experienced. *And that would be different than what we are used to today and since quite a while; we can apply Dolby ProLogic IIx or DPLIIz on top of any dts audio flavor and vice versa (DTS Neo:6 or Neo:X on top of any Dolby audio flavor).*
> 
> * I don't want to predict the future in this particular situation here...this is strictly the domain of Denon (& Marantz), I think.
> 
> I do have my own thoughts though (I'll keep them for myself right now). ...I'll wait for the right moment to share them.





cdelena said:


> I may be a simpleton but it seems to me that the decision was made to make using immersive formats easy... if the source is DTS the hardware will use DTS:X and if the source is Dolby the hardware will use DSU, and if the source is otherwise the hardware will use whatever the user has selected. How else would you do it?
> 
> The results should all be generally equivalent.


Yes ok, but why now and not yesterday (read the red highlighting from the quote above yours).
* And that includes all Denon/Marantz Dolby Atmos products from the first generation (2014) because you can use Dolby Surround (DSU) with any _dts_ audio codec...DTS-HD MA and all the others...and that, is very very good, excellent.

________

Maybe it's getting too complicated for them new DSP chips in them receivers? ...Including the DSP chip programmers?
◘ Yamaha uses different DSP chips?


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> I wonder if the DTS X limitation is a result of some license issue or an issue with the new quad core DSP chips?


Why can't it be both?


----------



## petetherock

@dan 
I meant the DSP modes neural x

@Filmmaker

So the issue is hardware related ?

Chips not powerful enough ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> @dan
> I meant the DSP modes neural x
> 
> @Filmmaker
> 
> So the issue is hardware related ?
> 
> Chips not powerful enough ?


The manufacturers had no issue before for many many many years. You could apply a Dolby upmixing sound mode to decoded DTS audio (decoded back to multi-channel PCM) and vice versa. You just chose the mode that sounded best to you and it would work.

Again, nothing to do with DTS: X and Dolby Atmos object-based rendering.


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> Also: All Denon 5200 owners who--I guarantee you--intend to have a DTS:X-capable unit in the near future.
> 
> Also: At least two of the three (I'll leave myself out) who are extremely knowledgeable and have inside industry sources.
> 
> 
> 
> *As someone who is married to my front wides and very partial to Neo:X for all of my music sources (and who was the first to raise the alarm about this upmixer cross-pollination restriction in these threads), I now restate my firm conviction that it is not a proprietary mandate and will be rectified in due course. *
> 
> As Mike Royko famously said, "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It." (That one's for you, Aras, and my other fellow Chicagoans.)



I believe this poster was the first to discover (raise the alarm) that the DSU would not work with legacy DTS encodes (cross pollination restriction) on the 2015 Denon X series AVRs:


MarkMul1 said:


> I just pulled the manual up online and it does not show DSU as a possibility when inputting DTX. Hmmm
> I love the DSU. Hopefully the DTS-X up mixer comes out soon.


We can go back and forth as to whether this was a Denon Marketing or Engineering decision, a Denon faux pas, a Dolby vs DTS bufu, or whatever. I do not have _inside industry sources_, but the 4200 manual clearly documents the lack of cross pollination. It may change after DTS:X rolls out but cross pollination of the upmixers (i.e., DSU, DTS Neural:X) won't be needed by then.


----------



## ThePrisoner

NorthSky said:


> Bargervais, you are a little behind on the latest; yes it's true what I just said...with those new Dolby Atmos receivers from Denon you CANNOT apply Dolby Surround (DSU) on top of DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks, zip-a-dip-dou.


Thanks for that info, I'm a little behind as well, to busy assembling my 2-channel stereo room.


----------



## Nalleh

timc1475 said:


> That is inspiring Nalleh, hats off to you going where no one has gone b4 Star Trek style! Are you an installer or home enthusiast? I doubt any local installer in my area would be able to do what you have done.
> 
> I am considering the upcoming Integra 70.7 for 11ch (7.1.4) Atmos config. Ideally a 14ch AVR adding the 2 mid point surrounds & the VOG for Auro 3D would be cool but I don't see those AVR's appearing until 2016. IMO
> 
> The consumer is left quite perplexed by the industry in all of this. I do not see any logical way to utilize currently both Atmos & Auro unless one goes all out like you. This is unfortunate for the low budget and average home enthusiasts who lack in funds and knowledge.
> 
> Nalleh can you tell me your thoughts about the upmixer of "auromatic" comparing to Atmos and the other DSU upmixers?
> 
> Because what you have done is above any professional reviewer tester it may be of benefit to make an updated post with all your pics in one post.
> 
> I cannot imagine how much effort and time you must have put into this endeavor. The fact that you cared to share with your fellow AVS'ers is icing on the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Thanks 
No, not a installer, just a enthusiast 

I did a little "Groundwork" on my previous setup with a Onkyo 3010 AVR setup in Neo:X (wides), and used a Yama 3067 AVR to gain front and rear presence 13.1/ 9.1.4 sort of. But could never get them in sync(horrible lip sync on Onkyo's).

Denon's, on the other hand, send out lossless sound and full picture in HDMI out(untouched), so no worries there.

A little update on my setup here, Post 965 :

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...io-discussion-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-33.html

DSU and Auromatic are equally exellent on upmixing 5.1/7.1 movies. They are both very immersive and extend the sound in a big bubble around you.
And are of course a big step forward compared to older umpixers, DSX, NEO:X, PL2z etc.

That being said, NEO:X on my 5200 is MILES better than my previous Onkyo, and watching Dredd (optimized for Neo) with 5200, is the only time one of these older ones could match DSU or Auromatic. It was very impressive, actually


----------



## aaranddeeman

kokishin said:


> We can go back and forth as to whether this was a Denon Marketing or Engineering decision, a Denon faux pas, a Dolby vs DTS bufu, or whatever. I do not have _inside industry sources_, but the 4200 manual clearly documents the lack of cross pollination. It may change after DTS:X rolls out but cross pollination of the upmixers (i.e., DSU, DTS Neural:X) won't be needed by then.


Or a new firmware upgrade for the first generation AVRs will align them so that there is no cross pollination..
If not all, the update for DTS:X for the 7200W may possibly bring this change so as to align with 2015 models..


----------



## Jive Turkey

aaranddeeman said:


> Or a new firmware upgrade for the first generation AVRs will align them so that there is no cross pollination..


Now that'll piss me off royal if they downgrade my 5200 by sticking it on an update. I guess I'd better know what's inside further updates before downloading them.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> Now that'll piss me off royal if they downgrade my 5200 by sticking it on an update. I guess I'd better know what's inside further updates before downloading them.


As your 5200 will never get DTS:X or Neural:X the whole issue is not relevant to you. You will never be able to use Neural:X at all, never mind with Dolby or DTS sources. 

Once Denon have fixed the problem with 'cross pollination' of upmixers, the entire discussion on AVS will look like the waste of electrons and pixels that it truly is.


----------



## Jive Turkey

kbarnes701 said:


> As your 5200 will never get DTS:X or Neural:X the whole issue is not relevant to you. You will never be able to use Neural:X at all, never mind with Dolby or DTS sources.
> 
> Once Denon have fixed the problem with 'cross pollination' of upmixers, the entire discussion on AVS will look like the waste of electrons and pixels that it truly is.


Sure it'd be relevant to to me if a downgrade in a firmware update would not allow me to put DSU on a DTS track with my 5200. I doubt that will happen, but it came up in discussion, so I discuss.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I just saw *The Man from UNCLE *and at the very end... "Dolby Atmos"!

From what I recall a lot of scenes where this would be great at home, and all in all a good, fun movie!


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> *I believe this poster was the first to discover* (raise the alarm) that the DSU would not work with legacy DTS encodes (cross pollination restriction) on the 2015 Denon X series AVRs:


You are correct that we are indeed indebted to @MarkMul1 for having discovered the issue on his X2200 and having posted about it in that one thread. Not to quibble over semantics, but that was where he left it; it was your humble servant--being highly concerned over the development--who further investigated and first promulgated the finding here and in related threads. But no big whoop (and not that anyone's handing out prizes).












kokishin said:


> We can go back and forth as to whether this was a Denon Marketing or Engineering decision, a Denon faux pas, a Dolby vs DTS bufu, or whatever. I do not have _inside industry sources_, but the 4200 manual clearly documents the lack of cross pollination. It may change after DTS:X rolls out *but cross pollination of the upmixers (i.e., DSU, DTS Neural:X) won't be needed by then*.


I agree with all of the above with the exception of the highlighted portion. Aside from any differences in the overall effectiveness of Neural:X over DSU on various types of source material (which is unknowable at this time), remember that Neural:X will make full use of the FW while DSU leaves the FW silent. For some of us, that is an important distinction and a very valid potential reason for wanting to have the option of applying Neural:X to a Dolby Digital signal.

ETA: Keith, please excuse the waste of pixels. How can I make it up to you? (And, no, you can't have the colonies back!)


----------



## NorthSky

> As your 5200 will never get DTS:X or Neural:X the whole issue is not relevant to you. You will never be able to use Neural:X at all, never mind with Dolby or DTS sources.
> 
> *Once Denon have fixed the problem with 'cross pollination' of upmixers*, the entire discussion on AVS will look like the waste of electrons and pixels that it truly is.


What a relief...to know that there is a problem.


----------



## sdurani

Jive Turkey said:


> Sure it'd be relevant to to me if a downgrade in a firmware update would not allow me to put DSU on a DTS track with my 5200.


No such firmware update for the 5200, so it's not relevant to you.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> As your 5200 will never get DTS:X or Neural:X the whole issue is not relevant to you. You will never be able to use Neural:X at all, never mind with Dolby or DTS sources.
> 
> *Once Denon have fixed the problem with 'cross pollination' of upmixers, the entire discussion on AVS will look like the waste of electrons and pixels that it truly is. *


Keith,

Perhaps I missed a post detailing this, but are you certain that Denon will fix this issue for the 2015 X series AVRs?

BTW, I don't consider it a much of an issue after DTS Neural:X is available, but it would be a nice feature to allow cross pollination of the upmixers. I want our "humble servant" @chi_guy50 to enjoy his wides as much as possible (and to remain as humble as he can).

I hope my posts on this discussion don't overwhelm the avsforum.com servers. Otherwise, I may have to move to Canada.


----------



## Lesmor

chi_guy50 said:


> You are correct that we are indeed indebted to @MarkMul1 for having discovered the issue on his X2200 and having posted about it in that one thread. Not to quibble over semantics, but that was where he left it; it was your humble servant--being highly concerned over the development--who further investigated and first promulgated the finding here and in related threads. But no big whoop (and not that anyone's handing out prizes).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of the above with the exception of the highlighted portion. Aside from any differences in the overall effectiveness of Neural:X over DSU on various types of source material (which is unknowable at this time), remember that Neural:X will make full use of the FW while DSU leaves the FW silent. For some of us, that is an important distinction and a very valid potential reason for wanting to have the option of applying Neural:X to a Dolby Digital signal.
> 
> ETA: Keith, please excuse the waste of pixels. How can I make it up to you? (And, no, you can't have the colonies back!)


As I understand it Neural:X might give you back wide's but only with 2 heights, which you can already have with pure Atmos


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> Sure it'd be relevant to to me if a downgrade in a firmware update would not allow me to put DSU on a DTS track with my 5200. I doubt that will happen, but it came up in discussion, so I discuss.


Why would a firmware update having anything to do with DTS:X or Neural:X be applied to the 5200?


----------



## kbarnes701

kokishin said:


> Keith,
> 
> Perhaps I missed a post detailing this, *but are you certain that Denon will fix this issue for the 2015 X series AVRs?*
> 
> BTW, I don't consider it a much of an issue after DTS Neural:X is available, but it would be a nice feature to allow cross pollination of the upmixers. I want our "humble servant" @chi_guy50 to enjoy his wides as much as possible (and to remain as humble as he can).


I guess we will have to wait and see


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> ETA: Keith, please excuse the waste of pixels. How can I make it up to you? (And, no, you can't have the colonies back!)


Hahaha. How about the eastern seaboard as a goodwill gesture?


----------



## chi_guy50

kokishin said:


> I hope my posts on this discussion don't overwhelm the avsforum.com servers. Otherwise, I may have to move to Canada.


ROTFLMHAO! (Rolling on the floor laughing my humble a$$ off!)


----------



## NorthSky

> I guess we will have to wait and see


Electrons and pixels... ;-)


----------



## chi_guy50

Lesmor said:


> As I understand it Neural:X might give you back wide's but only with 2 heights, which you can already have with pure Atmos


Yes, but the discussion gets rather confusing if you start to conflate the immersive audio codecs and the upmixers.

Atmos is only an option with the (for the present) extremely limited Atmos-encoded sources, and it only utilizes the FW (for the present, at least) for objects, not for bed channel signals.

DSU does not recognize the FW at all, while Neural:X (like its predecessor, Neo:X) makes full use of FW for matrixing. Neo:X only recognizes FH among the top-level speaker positions; it does appear that this will change with Neural:X (if the X4200 Owner's Manual is accurate), but I am unaware of the parameters that might curtail its speaker selections.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Why would a firmware update having anything to do with DTS:X or Neural:X be applied to the 5200?


Oh no, you didn't!

Let's not go there!


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> Hi Kokishin, I belive you may have missed my info that was posted when you were away. Please see the same here.
> 
> Speaker Config : Atmos 9.1.6 (Scatmos) (Wides mostly remain inactive due to 4 heights getting used almost every time)
> AVR : Denon X7200W
> Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
> Mounted : on-Ceiling
> Height Config : TF+TM+TR
> Other Info : Onkyo TX-SR500 for Left height trio and Denon AVR-1603 for Right height trio


I finally found the closer model for the height AVR. Replacing Onkyo TX-SR500 with Denon 1803.

One observation though. Even though both 1603 and 1803 when SPL metered to 75dB at MLP needs +5dB for Fronts (and +2dB for Center) on the avr, after the audyssey run, the left Front and Rear get set to around +5dB whereas the right Front and Rear are -0.5 and -1.0 on the 7200W.
I thought the AVRs being equal year model they will be identical or at least close.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Okay, I think I've decided to finally enter the immersive world with the Marantz 7702 mk II this fall. 

I might end up having to do a 5.1.4 + FW configuration for the time being, so my question is to those of you with the _Gravity_ Atmos disc and Front Wide speakers... does the home mix move off-camera screen dialog to the Front Wides as was the case in the cinema mix? I.e., super-directionalized dialog.


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, I think I've decided to finally enter the immersive world with the Marantz 7702 mk II this fall.
> 
> I might end up having to do a 5.1.4 + FW configuration for the time being, so my question is to those of you with the _Gravity_ Atmos disc and Front Wide speakers... does the home mix move off-camera screen dialog to the Front Wides as was the case in the cinema mix? I.e., super-directionalized dialog.


Hi Dan, do you consider Yamaha CX 5100?


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Hahaha. How about the eastern seaboard as a goodwill gesture?


Except Florida.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> Hi Dan, did you consider the Yamaha CX 5100?


It doesn't do wide speakers and it _may_ not get DTS Neural: X upmixing either. The Marantz will definitely do both.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Except Florida.


Give him Texas. Nobody wants it... not even the Texans.


----------



## NorthSky

* Hmmm...the Marantz AV7702MKII ... I want to see it...in/n/out.


----------



## kingwiggi

This appears to be the Evaluation board that the new 2015 Denons are based on. This board supports both Atmos and DTS:X. This Eval board uses the Shark DSP-21489 chips the 2014 Denons were using the 21487 DSP's.

The second link contains some information which appears to shift the blame for the 7.1.4 limitation in the channel count for 2015 models away from the DSP manufacturers, as this evaluation board appears to support 16 analog output channels. 

http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/user-guides/EVAL-MELODY-5_UG-784.pdf
http://new.netct.in/more/2759554_8/ADSP-21489-Analog-Devices-Mixed.html

.


----------



## NorthSky

16 channels is *9.1.6* ... with the DSP chip ADSP-21489


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> Give him Texas. Nobody wants it... not even the Texans.



Gee Dan from Northern Colorado, I was born there in the NE part and lived there for 20 years. Let's give him all CO because it's really New CA. :kiss:

PS, living in TX for the last 14 years and wouldn't trade it for anywhere else.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> Gee Dan from Northern Colorado, I was born there in the NE part and lived there for 20 years. Let's give him all CO because it's really New CA. :kiss:
> 
> PS, living in TX for the last 14 years and wouldn't trade it for anywhere else.


The Colorado eastern plains region can definitely be a crappy place to live (some parts of Southwestern Colorado too as some towns are armpits due to poor economic situations). Though there are nice spots in Texas, I wouldn't want to live there either. To each his own.


----------



## kokishin

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess we will have to wait and see


As is typically the case.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Except Florida.


Damn. That's the bit I really wanted


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Give him Texas. Nobody wants it... not even the Texans.


Now they have open-carrying there, Dan, I wouldn't say that in, for example, Austin...


----------



## burnfout

Will the Denon 7200W (2014 model) also get the DTS: X firmware update, or just the 7200WA? 

The 7200W is on sale right now over here.


Thanks!


----------



## Zhorik

burnfout said:


> Will the Denon 7200W (2014 model) also get the DTS: X firmware update, or just the 7200WA?
> 
> The 7200W is on sale right now over here.
> 
> 
> Thanks!


x7200W will get DTS:X update.



Spoiler



http://usa.denon.com/us/news/news/143


----------



## Kris Deering

I spoke with a rep from D&M this weekend about the applying DSU to DTS issue. From the sounds of the conversation the limitation is in the DSP and they are currently looking at what can or can't be done. The workaround they suggested for the moment is for DTS soundtracks that you want to apply DSU to, switch the player output to PCM. But they are aware of the issue and looking at what they can do.


----------



## petetherock

It's rather odd that D&M builds an amp with new DSP chips that can't handle an impending format?
Especially since it's something that has been on their horizon since the beginning of this year or even earlier..


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> It's rather odd that D&M builds an amp with new DSP chips that can't handle an impending format?


What impending format can't the DSP chips handle?


----------



## petetherock

See Kris' post, just before mine. Cheers


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> It's rather odd that D&M builds an amp with new DSP chips that can't handle an impending format?
> Especially since it's something that has been on their horizon since the beginning of this year or even earlier..


Just because it was announced at CES 2014 that doesn't mean the code has been ready until very recently... the lack of it on any shipping product speaks to that fact.


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> See Kris' post, just before mine. Cheers


Seems it can handle the formats fine: they're either operational (Atmos) or being worked on (DTS:X). They wouldn't be working on implementing the impending DTS:X format if the DSP chip couldn't handle it. You still aren't saying which format it can't handle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Neural X just became a sound format, Sanjay.

It's been in all the papers.


----------



## ellisr63

Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't do wide speakers and it _may_ not get DTS Neural: X upmixing either. The Marantz will definitely do both.


According to Yamaha DTS-X will be a firmware update.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ellisr63 said:


> According to Yamaha DTS-X will be a firmware update.


DTS:X, yes.

DTS Neural X, maybe.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Neural X just became a sound format, Sanjay.
> 
> It's been in all the papers.


I read it on the Interwebs, so it MUST be true!


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> DTS:X, yes.
> 
> DTS Neural X, maybe.


I don't follow the Yammie news, but that sounds interesting. You mean they will update their upper-tier 2015 units (RX-A1050, RX-A2050 and RX-A3050) with DTS:X but leave them with just Neo:6 upmixing? If so, do you know whether this is for reasons of processor limitations, economy, or something else (perhaps having to do with the Yamaha DSP programs)?


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't follow the Yammie news, but that sounds interesting. You mean they will update their upper-tier 2015 units (RX-A1050, RX-A2050 and RX-A3050) with *DTS Neo:X* but leave them with just Neo:6 upmixing? If so, do you know whether this is for reasons of processor limitations, economy, or something else (perhaps having to do with the Yamaha DSP programs)?


You meant *DTS:X*

* Hope they get *DTS Neural:X* as well...this is an important part of the dts alphabet soup...if they don't I would be sad.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> You meant *DTS:X*
> 
> * Hope they get *DTS Neural:X* as well...this is an important part of the dts alphabet soup...if they don't I would be sad.


----------



## NorthSky

Well, lots of going on out there...Yamaha kept Dolby ProLogic, II, IIx with Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround...no DPLIIz.
And they don't have DTS Neo:X but they do have DTS Neo:6...as of now with their newer Atmos (DTS:X upgradable) receivers and newest pre/pro...5100. 

* There will be a future.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> You meant *DTS:X*.


I did indeed mean to write DTS:X and have since corrected my error. Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't follow the Yammie news, but that sounds interesting. You mean they will update their upper-tier 2015 units (RX-A1050, RX-A2050 and RX-A3050) with DTS:X but leave them with just Neo:6 upmixing? If so, do you know whether this is for reasons of processor limitations, economy, or something else (perhaps having to do with the Yamaha DSP programs)?


I don't really know for sure, honestly. Just going by their (Yamaha) history. It could very well have Neural X.

But it would be either of two things. Licensing or philosophy. Probably more of the latter as Yamaha does not support wides. However, we really do not know anything about Neural X and it's capabilities. I'm to believe that it will continue to support "legacy" Neo:X layouts with a 7.1+FH+FW but also support a newer style 7.1.4 immersive layout. Yamaha could support that, no problem.


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> I did indeed mean to write DTS:X and have since corrected my error. Thanks for pointing this out.


That is only one of the great advantages of not putting products on "Ignore". 
Everyone is equally important...even Yamaha Aventage line of Dolby Atmos/DTS:X products. ...And not just Denon/Marantz with Auro-3D.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ellisr63 said:


> According to Yamaha DTS-X will be a firmware update.


Neural: X is the upmixer that I was talking about. DTS: X is the object based rendering format.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> I don't follow the Yammie news, but that sounds interesting. You mean they will update their upper-tier 2015 units (RX-A1050, RX-A2050 and RX-A3050) with DTS:X but leave them with just Neo:6 upmixing? If so, do you know whether this is for reasons of processor limitations, economy, or something else (perhaps having to do with the Yamaha DSP programs)?


Well, for one thing, Yammies don't do wides. DTS Neural:X does wides. Maybe that's a reason?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS Neural:X does wides.


You don't know that. Maybe it doesn't.

But... you're probably right.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> You don't know that. Maybe it doesn't.
> 
> But... you're probably right.


In the Marantz manual it shows Front Wides as a possible speaker location for DTS Neural: X. If something changes due to the delay in getting the code out to manufacturers, perhaps the early manuals will become incorrect. Who knows... it's all up in the air now.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Alright. You win this time, HITCH-MAN!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Alright. You win this time, HITCH-MAN!


----------



## ellisr63

I just emailed Yamaha to find out if the cx-a5100 will do DTS Neural: X.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> You don't know that. Maybe it doesn't.
> 
> But... you're probably right.


If DTS Neural:X doesn't do wides, then what will make it different from DSU. That's why I think it will have wides to replace NEO X


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's from DTS. 

That's all that really matters, right? It's going to be better than Dolby cuz it's DTS.


Sarcasm aside... it would be interesting if Neural X can do things that Dolby Surround can not. Or maybe Dolby Surround can do things that DTS can't.

For example: existing. Dolby Surround exists. That's a good start, I think. The rest is irrelevant at this point.


----------



## FilmMixer

ellisr63 said:


> I just emailed Yamaha to find out if the cx-a5100 will do DTS Neural: X.


That is TBD at this point..


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> For example: existing. Dolby Surround exists. That's a good start, I think.


Yeah, that first step is a killer.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Neural: X is the upmixer that I was talking about. DTS: X is the object based rendering format.


DTS:X and DTS Neural:X go hand-n-hand, like inseparable lovebirds...just as Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround (DSU).

* Yamaha's gong to get it all...or there will be some rumbling in the arena.


----------



## ellisr63

FilmMixer said:


> That is TBD at this point..


Unless they say it is not possible without a hardware change...


----------



## FilmMixer

ellisr63 said:


> Unless they say it is not possible without a hardware change...


That's straight from Yamaha... 

However I think it would be really surprising if any DTS:X product doesn't include it...


----------



## ellisr63

FilmMixer said:


> That's straight from Yamaha...
> 
> However I think it would be really surprising if any DTS:X product doesn't include it...


I agree, and i hope you are right.


----------



## Apgood

Based on the published cx-a5100 manual I would expect Neural:X to be included for at least the pre pro as in the Glossary section it states that it is built into DTS:X which suggests it's an integral part of the DTS:X package.


----------



## ellisr63

Apgood said:


> Based on the published cx-a5100 manual I would expect Neural:X to be included for at least the pre pro as in the Glossary section it states that it is built into DTS:X which suggests it's an integral part of the DTS:X package.


Thanks, I will find out when mine arrives.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

Kris Deering said:


> I spoke with a rep from D&M this weekend about the applying DSU to DTS issue. From the sounds of the conversation the limitation is in the DSP and they are currently looking at what can or can't be done. The workaround they suggested for the moment is for DTS soundtracks that you want to apply DSU to, switch the player output to PCM. But they are aware of the issue and looking at what they can do.


Kris,

DSU didn't work with PCM soundtracks when I tried to see ho "Blackhawk Down" would sound in DSU...I only got the 5.1 PCM soundtrack (which was on the disc).


----------



## Kris Deering

Dave Vaughn said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke with a rep from D&M this weekend about the applying DSU to DTS issue. From the sounds of the conversation the limitation is in the DSP and they are currently looking at what can or can't be done. The workaround they suggested for the moment is for DTS soundtracks that you want to apply DSU to, switch the player output to PCM. But they are aware of the issue and looking at what they can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Kris,
> 
> DSU didn't work with PCM soundtracks when I tried to see ho "Blackhawk Down" would sound in DSU...I only got the 5.1 PCM soundtrack (which was on the disc).
Click to expand...

Did you see if you could change the surround mode in the audio options? I can test it tonight.


----------



## FilmMixer

Apgood said:


> Based on the published cx-a5100 manual I would expect Neural:X to be included for at least the pre pro as in the Glossary section it states that it is built into DTS:X which suggests it's an integral part of the DTS:X package.


While I would agree it should be integral to the codec, here it is, straight from Yamaha's mouth..

"I can confirm that the CX-A5100 will be getting a DTS:X update sometime before the end of the year, though there is no specific date yet. I asked about DTS Neural:X support, _*and there is no confirmation on that yet.*_ We should have more info as we get closer to the release date. Dolby PLII processing should be unaffected by the update and function much as it has on prior models."

This is a CSR that has been providing fairly good information, and obviously researched this for me..


----------



## Apgood

Ok. Good to know. While personally I don't care too much I imagine from a marketing and feature comparison perspective it wouldn't be a good feature to leave out.


----------



## NorthSky

Dave Vaughn said:


> Kris,
> DSU didn't work with PCM soundtracks when I tried to see how *"Black Hawk Down"* would sound in DSU...I only got the 5.1 PCM soundtrack (which was on the disc).





Kris Deering said:


> Did you see if you could change the surround mode in the audio options? I can test it tonight.


That is interesting; because I was under the impression that you can apply DSU on top of LPCM 5.1* uncompressed audio.
This particular BR title has also an alternate DD 5.1 soundtrack....so there is a high probability here that DSU could be applied on top of it...it has to...it's the Dolby family. 

* Or is it only when you output PCM from the HDMI Audio out in the BR player?
Perhaps you can change that setting in the BR player, between Bitstream and PCM, and see if there is any change with DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


> Thanks, I will find out when mine arrives.


Not till the actual DTS:X firmware update. But it would be unthinkable that in all Yamaha receivers, even in some of the newer entry level ones which are DTS:X ready, that DTS Neural:X wouldn't come with it...just no way. It's like Dolby Atmos without DSU...not in hundred years. 

Lol, the more channel speakers Dolby and dts add to the receivers and pre/pros for the masses (affordable), it gets more complicated to implement them both together. ...With Atmos and DTS:X (and Auro-3D too) all together. The DSP chips need more processing power, the Auto Room Correction and EQ too, all the DSP audio/cinema modes in Yamaha with all the multitude of parameter adjustments (simply mind boggling the amount of life you can spend just there), the Bass Management...tra-la-la. ...And you have the higher end multichannel DACS (8-channel) times two from ESS or AKM or Wolfson, and TI BB or Crystal (Cirrus Logic) DACs.

And maybe chips from Shark and Analog Devices and Texas Instruments aren't ready yet to handle all that extra processing power of those four overhead channels plus the special Equalization required from them. ...Hey, that's eleven channels of Dolby Atmos, or DTS:X and/or Auro-3D. And there are three up-mixers (audio processing)...DSU, DTS Neural:X and Auro-Matic 3D & 2D from those three newer audio decoders. 

And Yamaha is here with 64-bit DSP chip in its 5001 pre/pro, plus those two 8-channel DACs from ESS Sabre 32-bit. 
{Top pre/pros and receivers (RZ-11) from Yamaha in the past had up to EIGHT DSP chips...their own-made powerful chips with strict build quality.}
Yamaha is unique with their soundfield modes, quadfield and trifield for both cinema and music. ...With four presence channels...and from actual acoustically measured venues around the world and pre-programmed into their chips. ...Mucho computational processing. 

Denon/Marantz has FOUR (4) Shark DSP 32-bit DSP chips! ...Audyssey Platinum (XT32) demands high processing power. 

Yeah, it's getting more demanding from our DSP developers and architecture demand. Maybe the world is going too fast for mankind? ...We shall see...in a thousand years from today. ...When reincarnated.


----------



## howard68

So if I understand it from a few new posts the new Denon 2015 models can't play dolby DSU on DTS tracks and denon is not shore why ? 
And in one post some one has spoken to Denon and are looking into it ? 
I hope the new line can hold the DTS X program with enough memory if it is about DSP ect


----------



## jdsmoothie

howard68 said:


> So if I understand it from a few new posts the new Denon 2015 models can't play dolby DSU on DTS tracks and denon is not shore why ?
> And in one post some one has spoken to Denon and are looking into it ?
> I hope the new line can hold the DTS X program with enough memory if it is about DSP ect


As noted in the new 2015 D+M Owner's manuals, currently DSU can be used on DD and PCM audio tracks, and DTS Neural:X will be used on DTS and PCM audio tracks (once the DTS:X firmware update is installed). This issue does not currently apply to the X7200WA (at least not until the DTS:X firmware update is installed later this fall).


----------



## howard68

Who is behind the remove of Dolby DSU on dts tracks ?
Is it Dolby or Dts or as posted a few posts back, a fault in the DSU in the Denon 2015 models 
It will be good when Dts x is out and will be moot 
However 90 % of blu rays are in Dts MA and is sad you will not be able to up mix to 7.2.4
I may go for the Avr 7200 just to be able to up mix sound 
Though it would be very sad to lose the DSU in an upgrade


----------



## Lesmor

For those who paid for the Auro upgrade and when Auro eventually introduces objects, with its so called AuroMAX then hopefully the existing DSP's can handle that as well.

Said it before AVR's are expected to satisfy too many requirements.
Its time to finally clear out the legacy crap,zones,radio etc and repurpose the savings into getting back to the basic of building a one room AVR

They could still offer multi-room models but with legacy codecs for those who want it, but seems like you can't have it all in an affordable product.

Andy


----------



## jdsmoothie

howard68 said:


> Who is behind the remove of Dolby DSU on dts tracks ?
> Is it Dolby or Dts or as posted a few posts back, a fault in the DSU in the Denon 2015 models
> It will be good when Dts x is out and will be moot
> *However 90 % of blu rays are in Dts MA and is sad you will not be able to up mix to 7.2.4*
> I may go for the Avr 7200 just to be able to up mix sound
> Though it would be very sad to lose the DSU in an upgrade


If the BDP is set to PCM, then DSU can still be used on DTS MA audio with the 2015 D+M AVRs to simulate audio to the height speakers in a 7.2.4 setup.


----------



## lujan

lujan said:


> Great, I have all of them on the good category except "Lucy" and that one is supposed to get to me on Monday.


Finally got my copy of the Atmos version of Lucy and the sound was awesome. Glad I got it!


----------



## zebidou81

could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?


----------



## pletwals

zebidou81 said:


> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?


Atmos or not, ideally all speakers would be equidistant from MLP, though DRC will compensate for differences. 

The sound coming from the tweeter en mid/woofers needs distance to properly merge. At least 3 feet from Surround to the *nearest* listener.

Alternatively, coaxial design speakers are more suitable since the tweeter and the midwoofer of these are inherintly merged...


----------



## zebidou81

pletwals said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos or not, ideally all speakers would be equidistant from MLP, though DRC will compensate for differences.
> 
> The sound coming from the tweeter en mid/woofers needs distance to properly merge. At least 3 feet from Surround to the *nearest* listener.
> 
> Alternatively, coaxial design speakers are more suitable since the tweeter and the midwoofer of these are inherintly merged...
Click to expand...

ok if you are closer than 3 feet how does the proximity effecy work will you not hear certain things or will it be to loud ? also if to solve a problem i understand that l/r surrounds should be at 90degrees to listener but if i had to move the L surround to be slightly in front of listener (due to doorway) what prob would that cause ? ie i have 2 choices which would you go for 1= have L su?round slightly closer to mlp than 3 ft but at 90 degrees or 2= have L surround further away maybe 7 feet but would be about 2ft in front of mlp ? R surround would be at 90 degrees and around 5 feet away ?


----------



## Rew452

lujan said:


> Finally got my copy of the Atmos version of Lucy and the sound was awesome. Glad I got it!


Got mine last week; it's really quite good compared to the US release.


----------



## kbarnes701

zebidou81 said:


> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?


They look similar to the distances I have here and it works very well here. I use Tannoy Di6 DCs for surrounds and rear surrounds - their coaxial driver makes them phase coherent right from the driver, which is a big benefit if the speakers have to be close to the MLP.


----------



## Lesmor

zebidou81 said:


> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?


May I ask if the sofa is in the centre of the room?


----------



## dschulz

Lesmor said:


> For those who paid for the Auro upgrade and when Auro eventually introduces objects, with its so called AuroMAX then hopefully the existing DSP's can handle that as well.
> 
> Andy


I don't think we'll see AuroMax rendering on consumer products - AuroMax is a format for rendering the proposed SMPTE standardized immersive, object-based bitstream for Digital Cinema to an Auro speaker layout.


----------



## Lesmor

dschulz said:


> I don't think we'll see AuroMax rendering on consumer products - AuroMax is a format for rendering the proposed SMPTE standardized immersive, object-based bitstream for Digital Cinema to an Auro speaker layout.


Thanks for the input it will be interesting to see if objects ever come to Auro in the domestic market, and obviously good for adopters to see the format is still being supported by SMPTE


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for the input it will be interesting to see if objects ever come to Auro in the domestic market, and obviously good for adopters to see the format is still being supported by SMPTE


Auro is in trouble, it looks like, so I doubt we'll see much movement on the consumer front.


----------



## zebidou81

kbarnes701 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?
> 
> 
> 
> They look similar to the distances I have here and it works very well here. I use Tannoy Di6 DCs for surrounds and rear surrounds - their coaxial driver makes them phase coherent right from the driver, which is a big benefit if the speakers have to be close to the MLP.
Click to expand...




Lesmor said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask if the sofa is in the centre of the room?
Click to expand...

Hi i will post a diagram for you to look at (please excuse the drawing if bad)i have 2 positions i can use for my surround Left labeld P1 and P2, p1 would be oposite surround right but would be closer than 3ft, p2 would be around 2.2 ft in front of mlp but would be around 6-7 ft away, any advice would be much helpfull


----------



## zebidou81

Here is diagram of setup


----------



## zebidou81

sorry this diagram with flash on would be better


----------



## Tonyny

*Dolby Atmos vs Auro-3D*

I currently have a Denon x5200 hooked up to 2 Polk lsi15s in front with a B&W center speaker, 2 Pioneer Dolby-enabled speakers on top of the Polks and 2 B&W surrounds in the back. The B&Ws are 805 Nautilus. Also 2 Velodyne subs HSU 12 and a DD12 both in front. I'm trying to determine which would be better with this setup. Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D? I plan on adding 2 more Pioneer Atmos speakers in the rear. Any help appreciated! Thanks


----------



## tjenkins95

zebidou81 said:


> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?




Very nice setup! What brand of speakers are you using and where are the wires for the surrounds?


Ray


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> Very nice setup! What brand of speakers are you using and where are the wires for the surrounds?
> 
> 
> Ray


That looks like a stock photo.


----------



## zebidou81

i am unsure if having the surround left 2ft in frontvof mlp and surround right will have a major negative impact ? i would have it toed in to mlp, or maybe put in p1 even though it is close to mlp it is at 90 degrees would it make much of a difference either way for atmos? the other stars on diag are my .4 atmos speakers


----------



## zebidou81

tjenkins95 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice setup! What brand of speakers are you using and where are the wires for the surrounds?
> 
> 
> Ray
Click to expand...

The picture is not my setup sorry it is a stock photo just to show as an example the distance of speakers, the diagram on the otherhand is mine


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

zebidou81 said:


> i am unsure if having the surround left 2ft in frontvof mlp and surround right will have a major negative impact ? i would have it toed in to mlp, or maybe put in p1 even though it is close to mlp it is at 90 degrees would it make much of a difference either way for atmos? the other stars on diag are my .4 atmos speakers


If Rear Surrounds are present, the Side Surrounds kan be set more forward anyway. 

Take a look at the diagram on page 5 of this pdf: Multichannel Sound Systems

I'd go to +/- 75° off axis without any hesitation.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Tonyny said:


> I currently have a Denon x5200 hooked up to 2 Polk lsi15s in front with a B&W center speaker, 2 Pioneer Dolby-enabled speakers on top of the Polks and 2 B&W surrounds in the back. The B&Ws are 805 Nautilus. Also 2 Velodyne subs HSU 12 and a DD12 both in front. I'm trying to determine which would be better with this setup. Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D? I plan on adding 2 more Pioneer Atmos speakers in the rear. Any help appreciated! Thanks


Obviously, if you're using Atmos speakers instead of true heights, you're gonna want to stick with Atmos. Auro-3D doesn't allow for the reflected Atmos-style speakers as heights, though I supposed you could set them that way and see what happens. But moreover, there are Atmos titles on Blu-ray... and Auro-3D, eh... not so much. Makes it a pretty easy decision.


----------



## zebidou81

erwinfrombelgium said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am unsure if having the surround left 2ft in frontvof mlp and surround right will have a major negative impact ? i would have it toed in to mlp, or maybe put in p1 even though it is close to mlp it is at 90 degrees would it make much of a difference either way for atmos? the other stars on diag are my .4 atmos speakers
> 
> 
> 
> If Rear Surrounds are present, the Side Surrounds kan be set more forward anyway.
> 
> Take a look at the diagram on page 5 of this pdf: Multichannel Sound Systems
> 
> I'd go to +/- 75? off axis without any hesitation.
Click to expand...

Thankyou the diagram seems to show that this is ok like you say this is very helpfull to know, do you feel it is best to try to keep both the surrounds at the same angle ie both at 80degrees rather than having 1 surround at 90deg and the other at 80 deg or would this not matter much ?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I didn't have time to test the PCM to DSU last night and am headed out of town for a few days on business. Maybe someone else can test it with their 8802 (or 8802A). It was the first day I had the 8802 in for review that I popped in the disc, so it could have been a setting issue and I haven't gone back to it since.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

zebidou81 said:


> Thankyou the diagram seems to show that this is ok like you say this is very helpfull to know, do you feel it is best to try to keep both the surrounds at the same angle ie both at 80degrees rather than having 1 surround at 90deg and the other at 80 deg or would this not matter much ?


Symmetry is paramount! Both at 80°!!


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave Vaughn said:


> I didn't have time to test the PCM to DSU last night and am headed out of town for a few days on business. Maybe someone else can test it with their 8802 (or 8802A). It was the first day I had the 8802 in for review that I popped in the disc, so it could have been a setting issue and I haven't gone back to it since.


Current owners of the 2015 Denon AVR's have verified this combination (i.e., applying DSU to a DTS signal sent to the AVR as PCM).


----------



## chi_guy50

Jeremy Anderson said:


> My cable box is on top of my Oppo. I'll take a look at the S470 though. Only place I can think to put it would be under the Crown amp that powers my SVS... but it's a light and small amp, so maybe that's not an issue. It's still nerve-wracking though!


Jeremy,

In case you're still pondering acquiring a third BDP, the Sony BDP-S5200 (much newer model and higher-end than the S470) is on sale this week at newegg for just $49.99 w/free shipping (also available on Amazon from the same marketplace seller). It is refurbished but still a great bargain vs. MSRP of $140. I have the previous year's model BDP-S5100 and can recommend it highly.

How does that maxim go again? "Mo' BDP's, mo' better?"


----------



## tjenkins95

zebidou81 said:


> The picture is not my setup sorry it is a stock photo just to show as an example the distance of speakers, the diagram on the otherhand is mine




That's too bad! Much better than the diagram!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

zebidou81 said:


> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?


I like my surrounds farther away, both sides and rears. Just experiment and see what you like... & holy cow that is an impressive arsenal you've got there!


----------



## bargervais

MAD MAX so far I'm very impressed with the immersive audio. I can't say much about the movie itself. But So far Dolby Atmos is the best I have heard.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

zebidou81 said:


> could somebody have a look at the attached pic and tell me if they feel the surround speakers are to close in a Atmos setup ? my reinstalled setup will be around the same distance or slightly closer for surrounds , what are the advantages and disadvantages of surrounds closer or further away from mlp in atmos does anybody know is as close as possible better ?


I'd say move the side surrounds 3 feet farther away than they are now, and do the same thing with the rears, and possibly move the rears in a little closer together... but definitely experiment. I think having the speakers farther away will create the illusion of a larger space to some degree.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

bargervais said:


> MAD MAX so far I'm very impressed with the immersive audio. I can't say much about the movie itself. But So far Dolby Atmos is the best I have heard.


I just got that today... I'm waiting to watch it with my best friends tomorrow. I might take a sneak peak today though. 

I loved it the first time though... it's a beautifully crafted film.


----------



## bargervais

Aras_Volodka said:


> I just got that today... I'm waiting to watch it with my best friends tomorrow. I might take a sneak peak today though.
> 
> I loved it the first time though... it's a beautifully crafted film.


You may want to take a sneak peak


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chi_guy50 said:


> Jeremy,
> 
> In case you're still pondering acquiring a third BDP, the Sony BDP-S5200 (much newer model and higher-end than the S470) is on sale this week at newegg for just $49.99 w/free shipping (also available on Amazon from the same marketplace seller). It is refurbished but still a great bargain vs. MSRP of $140. I have the previous year's model BDP-S5100 and can recommend it highly.
> 
> How does that maxim go again? "Mo' BDP's, mo' better?"


Thanks for the heads up, but I let my need to minimize equipment in my rack get the better of me. Got a new Oppo BDP-103 showing up tomorrow and gonna put my 93 on sale here to mitigate the damage to my wallet (even though I haven't sold my Onkyo 3010 from my last upgrade). Some days you eat the bear... some days the bear eats you.


----------



## FilmMixer

Releasing in the next two weeks...

We Are Blood Blu Ray

99% confirmed it has an Atmos mix.


----------



## Kain

Sorry if it seems I am asking the same questions again and again, but...

Is it "acceptable" or a good idea to place the side surround speakers (while also having back surround speakers) slightly in front of the seating position if you also have front wide speakers? Some have stated that you can place the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position when you also have back surround speakers. I just want to know if this is okay if you also have front wide speakers. Placing the side surround speakers in-line with the seating position (90 degrees) might not be possible due to my room's restrictions and layout.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kain said:


> Sorry if it seems I am asking the same questions again and again, but...
> 
> Is it "acceptable" or a good idea to place the side surround speakers (while also having back surround speakers) slightly in front of the seating position if you also have front wide speakers? Some have stated that you can place the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position when you also have back surround speakers. I just want to know if this is okay if you also have front wide speakers. Placing the side surround speakers in-line with the seating position (90 degrees) might not be possible due to my room's restrictions and layout.


What about *slightly* behind? Or is the obstruction large enough that it would be drastic? 

I'd just do 4 in ceiling instead though... I guess Grimani might disagree. If you go that route it would be a non issue I think, but with a 9.1.2 system I'd think maintaining the contrast between the front sound stage & surrounds would be somewhat important... but it's really hard for me to say because I won't be interested in front wides until 9.1.6 is an affordable thing to do. + If I'm not mistaken Dolby upmixer won't send sound to the front wides... and that's like 95 percent of everything I watch (upmixer). 

Speaking of which I just watched Maze Runner with the upmixer... holy cow! I saw that in the theater in Atmos... but it sounded pretty great at home too... lots of overhead going on.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Kain said:


> Sorry if it seems I am asking the same questions again and again, but...
> 
> Is it "acceptable" or a good idea to place the side surround speakers (while also having back surround speakers) slightly in front of the seating position if you also have front wide speakers? Some have stated that you can place the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position when you also have back surround speakers. I just want to know if this is okay if you also have front wide speakers. Placing the side surround speakers in-line with the seating position (90 degrees) might not be possible due to my room's restrictions and layout.




While it may not be the optimal placement, I run my side surround 3-4 feet in front of my listening position due to limitations of the room. I also run rear surrounds but have my couch on the back wall because it's a sectional. People told me that was a bad idea... And yet, no one who has heard my system thinks it's a problem. Go with what you can do in the room. I'm actually moving my top mids forward tonight even though it will be slightly outside the prescribed angle for top mid placement... because I think it will give me better separation from the rears and fill the hole in the middle of my room. Then when I ditch the sectional, I can put seating in the right place for the speaker placement to be dead on. 



In other words, sometimes logic beats the rules. Try it!


----------



## CaptJosh

What does Atmos processing do for a 1.0, 2.0, 5.1 source? Does Atmos matrix the additional channels the way PLIIX/Z did?


----------



## Scott Simonian

There is no such thing. Atmos does not "process" anything. It is an encode/decode system.

There is an updated version of Prologic and it is named Dolby Surround. An unfortunately confusing name but it is new and will upmix 2.0 and up sources to 7.1.4 and greater...supposedly.


----------



## Kain

Aras_Volodka said:


> What about *slightly* behind? Or is the obstruction large enough that it would be drastic?
> 
> I'd just do 4 in ceiling instead though... I guess Grimani might disagree. If you go that route it would be a non issue I think, but with a 9.1.2 system I'd think maintaining the contrast between the front sound stage & surrounds would be somewhat important... but it's really hard for me to say because I won't be interested in front wides until 9.1.6 is an affordable thing to do. + If I'm not mistaken Dolby upmixer won't send sound to the front wides... and that's like 95 percent of everything I watch (upmixer).
> 
> Speaking of which I just watched Maze Runner with the upmixer... holy cow! I saw that in the theater in Atmos... but it sounded pretty great at home too... lots of overhead going on.


Slightly behind might not be possible (will have to re-check by imagining the placement of the speakers in the room) because the back surround speakers are only 3-4 feet behind the seating position. If I place the side surround speakers slight behind the seating position, they would be too close to the back surround speakers.

By the way, and in your opinion, do you think front wide speakers are worth it? Would they get much utilization in native Atmos tracks? Just toying with different configurations. There are rumors that Neural:X (DTS' version of DSU) will be able to use front wide speakers. Originally, I wanted a 7.4.4 setup with the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position (might be using the Trinnov Altitude32 or similar) but then thought about adding front wides for extra immersion. My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9 ft.

Lastly, would there be a significant difference between 4 ceiling speakers vs. 6?



Jeremy Anderson said:


> While it may not be the optimal placement, I run my side surround 3-4 feet in front of my listening position due to limitations of the room. I also run rear surrounds but have my couch on the back wall because it's a sectional. People told me that was a bad idea... And yet, no one who has heard my system thinks it's a problem. Go with what you can do in the room. I'm actually moving my top mids forward tonight even though it will be slightly outside the prescribed angle for top mid placement... because I think it will give me better separation from the rears and fill the hole in the middle of my room. Then when I ditch the sectional, I can put seating in the right place for the speaker placement to be dead on.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, sometimes logic beats the rules. Try it!


True! I'll experiment.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Lesmor said:


> Said it before AVR's are expected to satisfy too many requirements.
> Its time to finally clear out the legacy crap,zones,radio etc and repurpose the savings into getting back to the basic of building a one room AVR
> 
> 
> 
> Andy


Agreed. I threw out my Hi-Def VCR and tapes when the player crapped out. I have no use at this point for legacy connections.

My music system is seperate and and largely analog. My movie system is HDMI and breathes all digital.

Zones...I don't need no stinkin' zones.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kain said:


> Slightly behind might not be possible (will have to re-check by imagining the placement of the speakers in the room) because the back surround speakers are only 3-4 feet behind the seating position. If I place the side surround speakers slight behind the seating position, they would be too close to the back surround speakers.


Understood.

I'm guessing the rear speakers are as far back as they can go? 



Kain said:


> By the way, and in your opinion, do you think front wide speakers are worth it? Would they get much utilization in native Atmos tracks? Just toying with different configurations. There are rumors that Neural:X (DTS' version of DSU) will be able to use front wide speakers. Originally, I wanted a 7.4.4 setup with the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position (might be using the Trinnov Altitude32 or similar) but then thought about adding front wides for extra immersion. My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9 ft.
> 
> Lastly, would there be a significant difference between 4 ceiling speakers vs. 6?


I believe the front wides would see plenty of use on native atmos. This is where I heard an "in defense of wides" put best (I can't recall exactly where but they talk about front wides):






I think wides would be worth it when affordable receivers can do 15 channel (lol). But if you can afford a Trinnov I'd say it would be worth it to go 9.1.6 
In a practical sense... if you have a sound that is being panned 360 degrees, the transition from surrounds to fronts will be more defined. But I'm already pretty happy with how defined the panning is on my 7.1.4 system. If you know the Dolby Amaze trailer... the bird that pans around 360 sounds very clear on my system. When I go to commercial atmos theaters it's a joke... the sound is so washed out that I'd take my 7.1.4 system over the 15.4.12 or whatever it is that Atmos theaters have. (Though I have yet to hear the AMC prime theater that is about to open near me).

I think the difference between 4 to 6 speakers would be to avoid compromise. With 4 overheads... you have to pick between dramatic overhead panning & sound appearing as if it comes from above you. The further away the overhead speakers are, the more dramatic a pan will sound, but you lose that overhead effect. I observed this by comparing my theater to my bro in law's... he's got angled electromotions for his fronts, which help fill in that sound in front & above that, but the direct overhead sound by consequence just wasn't there. But man, the panning on his system sounds great. 

But with 6 speakers you could place a pair directly overhead, then the front pair out further than they would have been placed before & same deal with the rears. That way you could get overhead & dramatic panning (I'm guessing?) I'm actually wondering if it might make sense to have angled ceiling speakers in the front like those my bro in law has, to really build a sphere of sound?


----------



## batpig

If you can afford a Trinnov all of these rules don't apply. You aren't bound by the AVR template of standard 7.1 + wides. You could do a dual side surround array, eighr overheads and then slip in a "front surround" (wide) speaker to aid transition of objects panning off screen to the surround array. 

That processor (and budget) obviates most of the discussions on the topic. Besides all the Trinnov wizardry it removes you from the "how to deploy limited resources" discussion where adding wides means sacrificing surround back or a pair of heights. You can have your cake and eat it too. Mo speakers mo better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> If you can afford a Trinnov all of these rules don't apply. You aren't bound by the AVR template of standard 7.1 + wides. You could do a dual side surround array, eighr overheads and then slip in a "front surround" (wide) speaker to aid transition of objects panning off screen to the surround array.
> 
> That processor (and budget) obviates most of the discussions on the topic. Besides all the Trinnov wizardry it removes you from the "how to deploy limited resources" discussion where adding wides means sacrificing surround back or a pair of heights. You can have your cake and eat it too. Mo speakers mo better.


From a basic immersive object audio standpoint... 11.1 really_ ain't enough_ (there are true, tangible 3D sonic compromises here), so... for the majority of home theater lovers who care about the best surround format to come along in a looooong time, what is a good magic number that would satisfy our cravings for a jaw dropping experience that won't send us to the poor house? 

Playing devil's advocate, you know if Denon/Marantz or Yamaha or even Onkyo came out with a 22 "channel" rendering device, you'd have to pay through the nose for the privilege and the mass produced price advantage over the premium companies' products would start to slip away. However, there are, for example, 13.2 platform units out right now for $2,000-$3,000 (street might be less) that are lacking a choice of 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 (or other combos totaling 13.1) rendering only because of the limitations imposed by the DSP manufacturers and their outdated chips.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> From a basic immersive object audio standpoint... 11.1 really_ ain't enough_ (there are true, tangible 3D sonic compromises here), so... for the majority of home theater lovers who care about the best surround format to come along in a looooong time, what is a good magic number that would satisfy our cravings for a jaw dropping experience that won't send us to the poor house?


In my opinion what we need is 9.1.6 for a great Atmos experience - 7.1, plus additional side surrounds (not Front Wides, but an additional side surround to be used as an array for multi-row home theaters), and all 3 overhead pairs: TF, TM, TR.

YMMV as there are fans out there for Front Height and Front Wide, but since neither are found in cinemas, nor in native home theater formats (except for Auro-3D), but only in various up-mixers, that's my vote.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> In my opinion what we need is 9.1.6 for a great Atmos experience - 7.1, plus additional side surrounds (not Front Wides, but an additional side surround to be used as an array for multi-row home theaters), and all 3 overhead pairs: TF, TM, TR.
> 
> YMMV as there are fans out there for Front Height and Front Wide, but since neither are found in cinemas, nor in native home theater formats (except for Auro-3D), but only in various up-mixers, that's my vote.


There are Front Surrounds in the cinema that the Front Wides emulate with Dolby Atmos (same object only content as filler between the screen speakers and the traditional side arrays) and probably DTS: X, so by adding that to a side surround array you'd really want 11.1.6. I'm all for that, of course, but how much would it cost?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Aras_Volodka said:


> But with 6 speakers you could place a pair directly overhead, then the front pair out further than they would have been placed before & same deal with the rears. That way you could get overhead & dramatic panning (I'm guessing?)


I believe you can get all of that with 7.1.4 by applying a FH-TM combination and rears elevated to about 45 degrees (135 degrees in Atmos terms).


----------



## NorthSky

chi_guy50 said:


> Current owners of the 2015 Denon AVR's have verified this combination (i.e., applying DSU to a DTS signal sent to the AVR as PCM).


And what were the results...with the 2014 Denon Atmos AVR models, and with the newer 2015 ones? 



chi_guy50 said:


> ..., the Sony BDP-S5200 (much newer model and higher-end than the S470) is on sale this week at newegg for just $49.99 w/free shipping (also available on Amazon from the same marketplace seller). It is refurbished but still a great bargain vs. MSRP of $140. I have the previous year's model BDP-S5100 and can recommend it highly.


Excellent deal! I have few Sony BR players (they play SACDs too), and I like them alot, but they are older models, better than Keith's model, and I paid a little bit more for them...hundred bucks or so. I also have Panasonic, Samsung and Oppo BR players. ...The Sonys and the Oppo, I like them best, and Samsung third with better aspects than both the Sonys and Oppo, but also with some worst aspect...the analog audio. ...And the Panasonic...I won't even go there...it is totally broken...within 13 months....and paid $450 for it! 

Yeah, Sony is the way to go...good BR players and very little money needed to buy one. ...Fifty to hundred bucks...max. 



Scott Simonian said:


> There is no such thing. Atmos does not "process" anything. It is an encode/decode system.
> 
> There is an updated version of Prologic and it is *named Dolby Surround. An unfortunately confusing name* but it is new and will upmix 2.0 and up sources to 7.1.4 and greater...supposedly.


Terrible name, and confusing yes...same name as in 1982. ...So nothing new about the name; it doesn't suit the new 3D sound processing with the overheads. Whoever came up with that old name wasn't having all his 3D marbles in he same box @ the time.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> In my opinion what we need is *9.1.6* for a great Atmos experience - 7.1, plus additional side surrounds (not Front Wides, but an additional side surround to be used as an array for multi-row home theaters), and all 3 overhead pairs: TF, TM, TR.
> 
> YMMV as there are fans out there for Front Height and Front Wide, but since neither are found in cinemas, nor in native home theater formats (except for Auro-3D), but only in various up-mixers, that's my vote.


That *^* (16 channels).



Dan Hitchman said:


> There are Front Surrounds in the cinema that the Front Wides emulate with Dolby Atmos (same object only content as filler between the screen speakers and the traditional side arrays) and probably DTS: X, so by adding that to a side surround array you'd really want *11.1.6* . I'm all for that, of course, but how much would it cost?


That *^* ... even better (18 channels). 

Cost? ...Five thousand bucks. ...No amps included.


----------



## pletwals

*Quote from Dan Hitchman*_:
There are Front Surrounds in the cinema that the Front Wides emulate with Dolby Atmos (same object only content as filler between the screen speakers and the traditional side arrays) and probably DTS: X, so by adding that to a side surround array you'd really want 11.1.6. I'm all for that, of course, but how much would it cost? _

Dan,

I don't think 11.1.6 is realistic since I don't see real world priced 18-channel devices on the horizon. 

16-channel: I sure hope so. If they let us choose the listener level Surrounds setting in the same way as the elevated speakers (ie, choose between FH/TF/TM/TR/RH) I would be very happy. Choose either L/R Front Wide + L/R Surround or L/R Surround 1 + L/R Surround 2 would make sense in a 9.1.6 setup. 

To be perfectly clear:
*L/R FWide @ +/-60°
L/R Surround @ +/- 90°*

or:
*L/R Surround 1 @ +/- 75°
L/R Surround 2 @ +/- 105°*

Rear Surrounds anywhere between +/- 120-150°

As written before, the latter has the advantage of being used in full with DSU, the former has the Wides muted with DSU.


----------



## Nightlord

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are Front Surrounds in the cinema that the Front Wides emulate with Dolby Atmos (same object only content as filler between the screen speakers and the traditional side arrays) and probably DTS: X, so by adding that to a side surround array you'd really want 11.1.6. I'm all for that, of course, but how much would it cost?


I have the speakers in place for 13.1.6, but nothing to connect them to - and just lacking a few external amp channels, so where's the receiver/processor?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Speaking of which I just watched Maze Runner with the upmixer... holy cow! I saw that in the theater in Atmos... but it sounded pretty great at home too... lots of overhead going on.


I think this is one of the best movies for showcasing DSU. There are numerous standout scenes, but the best one must surely be the one where the kids are hiding in the hut while the grievers are hunting them down. There is a huge amount of overhead activity, with the characters looking up to the ceiling of the hut a lot as the creatures attempt to break in - there is overhead sound more or less constantly in this scene. Another impressive showcase for DSU in the same movie is the first time Thomas goes into the maze and encounters the grievers. All in all the sound in this movie is close to perfect - and the bass is something else too!


----------



## zebidou81

Kain said:


> Sorry if it seems I am asking the same questions again and again, but...
> 
> Is it "acceptable" or a good idea to place the side surround speakers (while also having back surround speakers) slightly in front of the seating position if you also have front wide speakers? Some have stated that you can place the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position when you also have back surround speakers. I just want to know if this is okay if you also have front wide speakers. Placing the side surround speakers in-line with the seating position (90 degrees) might not be possible due to my room's restrictions and layout.


Hi after reading your post i an in a very similar position as you with regards to surround positioning, i believe you can place the surrounds at 75 degrees ie a few feet forward if you are also using rear surrounds, i am going to install my l/r surrounds about 2 ft forward of listening position which will enable me to have them 6-7ft away from mlp, i am running atmos top rear and rear surrounds that i believe may give better seperation than having them closer. Are you installing yours slightly infront ?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Good lord Mad Max FR makes insane use of ATMOS!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Good lord Mad Max FR makes insane use of ATMOS!!


I think you have just cost me the price of an imported version Brian! Not released here in the UK until October 5th.

Edit: Just ordered from Amazon USA


----------



## zebidou81

i have attached a diagram to see if anybody can help with speaker placement in an Atmos setup, the main concern is with the rear surrounds, as can be seen in diagram the blackend section is a wall/stairway and is in the way of optimal rear speaker placement, an option is as shown with rear speakers being the boxes with the arrows in, can anybody come up with a better speaker position option ? the speakers are a little large kef q100s so idealy not to be put on a wall, or would current position still work ?


----------



## asere

I got my copy of Mad Max yesterday. Must watch this weekend hopefully.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I believe the front wides would see plenty of use on native atmos.


Atmos mixes still have about 90% of the sound in the bed channels, which aren't sent to the front wides, so those speakers would see much less use than any of the other speakers.


----------



## tbaucom

sdurani said:


> Atmos mixes still have about 90% of the sound in the bed channels, which aren't sent to the front wides, so those speakers would see much less use than any of the other speakers.


Theoretically this may be true but in practice I didn't find it to be. I had a 9.1.2 NEO:X setup for a couple of years that I originally used when I first added atmos. In my experience, the wides actually saw more action than the overheads. In the atmos movies I watched on this system(TMNT,Transformers, Expendables 3), there was very little going on overhead. The fact that the overhead speakers were bed channels was irrelevant. In the future this may change as mixers become more familiar with mixing in atmos.


----------



## DAK4

Brian Fineberg said:


> Good lord Mad Max FR makes insane use of ATMOS!!


Yes, I just watched it last night and it is insane but I was only able to pay attention to the Atmos affect for about the first 10 to 15 minutes before I was totally immersed into the movie and lost track of everything, but I guess that is the idea of this technology (to help immerse you into the movie). But I can vouch for the first 10-15 mins was fantastic with the voices coming for overhead and all around and the cars jumping overhead. Way cool stuff.


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> The fact that the overhead speakers were bed channels was irrelevant.


Overhead sounds are often objects rather than mixed into beds (e.g., Transformers didn't use the height channels).


> In the future this may change as mixers become more familiar with mixing in atmos.


If/when the ratio of channels to objects tilts more towards the latter, wides will see more use.


----------



## tbaucom

sdurani said:


> Overhead sounds are often objects rather than mixed into beds (e.g., Transformers didn't use the height channels). If/when the ratio of channels to objects tilts more towards the latter, wides will see more use.


I can tell you from experience that the movies I watched on a 9.1.2 setup had more action in the wides than the overhead speakers. I don't know if the movies used the bed channels or objects exclusively for the overheads. I do know that your claim that the overhead speakers would see more action than the wides is incorrect with the movies I listed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> In my opinion what we need is 9.1.6 for a great Atmos experience - 7.1, plus additional side surrounds (not Front Wides, but an additional side surround to be used as an array for multi-row home theaters), and all 3 overhead pairs: TF, TM, TR.
> 
> YMMV as there are fans out there for Front Height and Front Wide, but since neither are found in cinemas, nor in native home theater formats (except for Auro-3D), but only in various up-mixers, that's my vote.


----------



## DAK4

As a side note after watching Mad Max FR, I kept picturing @Scott Simonian front wall of speakers every time I saw the guitarist playing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ehhh.. pretty close.











Never thought I'd ever need to hook a gas line to my HT room, ever. I guess I need to get with the times. Immersive audio is so 2014.


----------



## zebidou81

is there anybody running a 7.1.4 or higher atmos setup that have there rear surround speakers facing each other ? i have heard that it creates a better sound to have the rear surrounds facing each other rather than toed in towards the mlp has anybody else also found this ?


----------



## DAK4

Scott Simonian said:


> Never thought I'd ever need to hook a gas line to my HT room, ever. I guess I need to get with the times. Immersive audio is so 2014.


----------



## tjenkins95

zebidou81 said:


> is there anybody running a 7.1.4 or higher atmos setup that have there rear surround speakers facing each other ? i have heard that it creates a better sound to have the rear surrounds facing each other rather than toed in towards the mlp has anybody else also found this ?


 

My rear surround sound speakers face directly forward and they sound great - see attachment.
There are many theories about speaker placements but I have not heard anything about having the rear surrounds face each other.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Good lord Mad Max FR makes insane use of ATMOS!!


Very insane i think this is the best and most Insane Blu-ray with Atmos.


----------



## asere

bargervais said:


> Very insane i think this is the best and most Insane Blu-ray with Atmos.


I hear it utilizes front heights quite a bit.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

asere said:


> I hear it utilizes front heights quite a bit.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


i watched this in my den 5.2.2 top Middle (Very Insane Atmos using 5.2.2) I'll give it a go in the living room tonight 7.2.4 FH TM


----------



## grendelrt

I had asked earlier in the thread and it was pretty overwhelmingly stated that moving surround down and using direct radiating is better. I just built my riser for my second row and watched some material with current setup, klipsch bipolars set at the side of the front row and behind the second row. It sounded pretty good with the dispersion in the back row. Just curious of those running direct radiating sides at the front row if you have listened in the back row to see how it sounded. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

grendelrt said:


> I had asked earlier in the thread and it was pretty overwhelmingly stated that moving surround down and using direct radiating is better. I just built my riser for my second row and watched some material with current setup, klipsch bipolars set at the side of the front row and behind the second row. It sounded pretty good with the dispersion in the back row. Just curious of those running direct radiating sides at the front row if you have listened in the back row to see how it sounded.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it like you are now. If it sounds "pretty good" as you say then don't worry about it.


----------



## stikle

Spoiler



Thanks for the Mad Max spoiler...I haven't yet seen it. 

And yes, I consider screenshots spoilers as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Not a spoiler. It's in the ads, it's in the trailers and even on posters.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Ehhh.. pretty close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd ever need to hook a gas line to my HT room, ever. I guess I need to get with the times. Immersive audio is so 2014.


Best post so far today, and by a large margin. 

* As for the wides versus the overheads; the proof is in the pudding (listening). Try Mad Max with the wides (DSU or not). ...Awesome audio mix...and that sandstorm...wow! ...Better strap them wides real good...to the concrete floor...with real steel chrome chains...like in King Kong movie...the one from Peter Jackson, as described by Jack Black.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Mad Max spoiler...I haven't yet seen it.
> 
> And yes, I consider screenshots spoilers as well.





Scott Simonian said:


> *Not a spoiler. It's in the ads, it's in the trailers and even on posters.*


And that, is very very true.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Not a spoiler. It's in the ads, it's in the trailers and even on posters.


...which I don't even look at. I wanted to be surprised by everything in the movie. So, is too.

Don't mind me...I'm just a grumpy SOB today. Work sucks. Been in two meetings so far that have gone way off agenda causing one of them to be an hour longer than it was supposed to be and I couldn't escape.

Wish I was at home with the kittens watching it for myself.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Thanks, Bob.

But... "Try Mad Max with the wides (DSU or not)." 

I would be _very_ interested in peoples subjective thoughts on watching anything in DSU with wides.


----------



## Scott Simonian

stikle said:


> ...which I don't even look at. I wanted to be surprised by everything in the movie. So, is too.
> 
> Don't mind me...I'm just a grumpy SOB today. Work sucks. Been in two meetings so far that have gone way off agenda causing one of them to be an hour longer than it was supposed to be and I couldn't escape.
> 
> Wish I was at home with the kittens watching it for myself.


Sorry to hear you're having a crummy day. I get those. 

Go home now and watch Mad Max with teh kittehs. You'll feel better.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks, Bob.
> 
> But... "Try Mad Max with the wides (DSU or not)."
> 
> I would be _very_ interested in peoples subjective thoughts on watching anything in DSU with wides.


Scott, there must be a way...to activate the wides with DSU. People like you and Nalleh are full of imagination when it comes to expanding the impossible.


----------



## Josh Z

stikle said:


> ...which I don't even look at. I wanted to be surprised by everything in the movie.


How do you know the movie even exists if you've never seen an ad or a poster for it?


----------



## NorthSky

Josh, did you see it yet...'Fury Road'?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> I have the speakers in place for 13.1.6, but nothing to connect them to - and just lacking a few external amp channels, so where's the receiver/processor?


Have to buy a Trinnov, mate.


----------



## BigScreen

Paramount has announced that Terminator Genisys will be released on Blu-ray on November 10, 2015 and it will contain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack (both the 2D and 3D combo packs will have Atmos).

More details:


Spoiler



The _*TERMINATOR GENISYS *_Blu-ray is presented in 1080p high definition with English Dolby Atmos* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible), French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital, Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, English SDH, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. The DVD in the combo pack is presented in widescreen enhanced for 16:9 TVs with English 5.1 Dolby Digital, French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. The combo pack includes access to a Digital HD copy of the film as well as the following: Blu-ray 


 *Feature film in high definition*
 *Bonus Content:*
 *Family Dynamics* – Casting _Terminator Genisys_ and how the actors filled some of the most iconic roles in cinematic history
 *Infiltration and Termination *– Go behind-the-scenes to San Francisco and New Orleans in a first-hand look at filming locations
 *Upgrades: VFX of Terminator Genisys* – Delve into the revolutionary visual effects behind the movie’s incredible action sequences
 
 DVD 


 *Feature film in standard definition*
 _*TERMINATOR GENISYS*_ Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack 
The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack includes all of the above, as well as a Blu-ray 3D presented in 1080p high definition with English Dolby Atmos* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible), French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital, Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, English SDH, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. 
The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack and Blu-ray Combo Pack available for purchase include a Digital HD Version of the film that can be accessed through UltraViolet™, a way to collect, access and enjoy movies. With UltraViolet, consumers can add movies to their digital collection in the cloud, and then stream or download them—reliably and securely—to a variety of devices.


Full Article: http://www.bigscreen.com/j/Terminator-Genisys-Coming-to-Blu-ray-November-10-2015/3770


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

BigScreen said:


> Paramount has announced that Terminator Genisys will be released on Blu-ray on November 10, 2015 and it will contain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack (both the 2D and 3D combo packs will have Atmos).


Wow, they have them Atmos releases coming faster now! 

We want more!


----------



## scarabaeus

Made it 10 minutes into Mad Max last night, when my better half complained about the noise. Have to continue some other time when I can crank it up, but even that sliver of the movie has been very impressive.


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> How do you know the movie even exists if you've never seen an ad or a poster for it?



My neighbor mentioned it and my girlfriend wants to see it. I don't even watch "Next week on ". That being said, I've watched the trailers for Star Wars. Inconsistency is my forte' apparently. Allegedly.


I also may have seen it on some random review site. Actually, I didn't until just now. I've used that site as a reference for years because of the video quality and audio quality sections. I appreciate the way that's done.



BigScreen said:


> Paramount has announced that Terminator Genisys will be released on Blu-ray on November 10, 2015 and it will contain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack (both the 2D and 3D combo packs will have Atmos).


I cannot wait for this. I meant to go see it in the theater, but, well, I have hard time paying to see movies somewhere else anymore. Unless it's date night, then it's a requirement on occasion.



Scott Simonian said:


> Sorry to hear you're having a crummy day. I get those.
> 
> Go home now and watch Mad Max with teh kittehs. You'll feel better.



Good idea Scott.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> Paramount has announced that Terminator Genisys will be released on Blu-ray on November 10, 2015 and it will contain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack (both the 2D and 3D combo packs will have Atmos).
> 
> More details:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The _*TERMINATOR GENISYS *_Blu-ray is presented in 1080p high definition with English Dolby Atmos* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible), French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital, Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, English SDH, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. The DVD in the combo pack is presented in widescreen enhanced for 16:9 TVs with English 5.1 Dolby Digital, French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. The combo pack includes access to a Digital HD copy of the film as well as the following: Blu-ray
> 
> 
> *Feature film in high definition*
> *Bonus Content:*
> *Family Dynamics* – Casting _Terminator Genisys_ and how the actors filled some of the most iconic roles in cinematic history
> *Infiltration and Termination *– Go behind-the-scenes to San Francisco and New Orleans in a first-hand look at filming locations
> *Upgrades: VFX of Terminator Genisys* – Delve into the revolutionary visual effects behind the movie’s incredible action sequences
> 
> DVD
> 
> 
> *Feature film in standard definition*
> _*TERMINATOR GENISYS*_ Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack
> The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack includes all of the above, as well as a Blu-ray 3D presented in 1080p high definition with English Dolby Atmos* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible), French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital, Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, English SDH, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles.
> The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack and Blu-ray Combo Pack available for purchase include a Digital HD Version of the film that can be accessed through UltraViolet™, a way to collect, access and enjoy movies. With UltraViolet, consumers can add movies to their digital collection in the cloud, and then stream or download them—reliably and securely—to a variety of devices.





erwinfrombelgium said:


> Wow, they have them Atmos releases coming faster now!
> 
> We want more!


Yes, very good, but is it a better film than 'Jupiter Ascending'?


----------



## Scott Simonian

BigScreen said:


> Paramount has announced that Terminator Genisys will be released on Blu-ray on November 10, 2015 and it will contain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack (both the 2D and 3D combo packs will have Atmos).
> 
> More details:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The _*TERMINATOR GENISYS *_Blu-ray is presented in 1080p high definition with English Dolby Atmos* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible), French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital, Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, English SDH, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. The DVD in the combo pack is presented in widescreen enhanced for 16:9 TVs with English 5.1 Dolby Digital, French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. The combo pack includes access to a Digital HD copy of the film as well as the following: Blu-ray
> 
> 
> *Feature film in high definition*
> *Bonus Content:*
> *Family Dynamics* – Casting _Terminator Genisys_ and how the actors filled some of the most iconic roles in cinematic history
> *Infiltration and Termination *– Go behind-the-scenes to San Francisco and New Orleans in a first-hand look at filming locations
> *Upgrades: VFX of Terminator Genisys* – Delve into the revolutionary visual effects behind the movie’s incredible action sequences
> 
> DVD
> 
> 
> *Feature film in standard definition*
> _*TERMINATOR GENISYS*_ Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack
> The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack includes all of the above, as well as a Blu-ray 3D presented in 1080p high definition with English Dolby Atmos* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible), French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital, Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description and English, English SDH, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles.
> The Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack and Blu-ray Combo Pack available for purchase include a Digital HD Version of the film that can be accessed through UltraViolet™, a way to collect, access and enjoy movies. With UltraViolet, consumers can add movies to their digital collection in the cloud, and then stream or download them—reliably and securely—to a variety of devices.


Good news about more Atmos titles on Blu-ray.

Too bad this movie sucked ass.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Too bad this movie sucked ass.



When you set the bar as low as I do, most every movie is mind blowing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

stikle said:


> When you set the bar as low as I do, most every movie is mind blowing.


I set the bar really low for this one and it was worse than I thought it was going to be. It was not enjoyable and even gave it a second chance by seeing it twice. It's terrible.

But ATMOS! So yeah.... there's that. Woooo.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

stikle said:


> Inconsistency is my forte' apparently. Allegedly.


I consider that a great asset... Only fools never change their mind!


----------



## BigScreen

I went into Terminator Genisys with the lowest of expectations, and I wasn't disappointed with the outcome. Even though the first two are classics in their own right, I didn't mind T3 or T4, so I guess my tolerance level for this franchise is pretty high...


----------



## LowellG

Scott Simonian said:


> I set the bar really low for this one and it was worse than I thought it was going to be. It was not enjoyable and even gave it a second chance by seeing it twice. It's terrible.
> 
> But ATMOS! So yeah.... there's that. Woooo.


I am not sure what you were expecting out of it. There are only so many ideas to float around and they are all being done over and over again. What's the last "original idea" action packed movie you watched?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Good news about more Atmos titles on Blu-ray.
> 
> Too bad this movie sucked ass.


I agree on both fronts.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I agree on both fronts.


Would you prefer TMNT instead? Terminator: Genisys wasn't great entertainment, but seen as a sendup of the franchise, and an excuse to see Emilia Clarke as eye candy, it wasn't utterly horrible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> I am not sure what you were expecting out of it. There are only so many ideas to float around and they are all being done over and over again. What's the last "original idea" action packed movie you watched?


Oh, better acting, a better Kyle Reese, a better John Connor, a semblance of a plot rather than a convoluted mishmash of poorly done, shot-for-shot homages and a Skynet backstory that was totally lame; much better SFX (how about a lot more practical effects for a change rather than physics bending cartoons??)... _a lot_ more Arnie... the guy stole the show trying to do his level best and was completely underutilized as they focused on the bland Kyle/Sarah characters instead, J.K. Simmons not given a solid role, bad/face-palm attempts at humor, Sarah Connor looked like a cute, soft little girl than somebody at peak physical conditioning ready for a war (I blame that on Emilia being on GofT as she has to look dainty and voluptuous on that show), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Would you prefer TMNT instead?


No, that one sucked even worse.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> I went into Terminator Genisys with the lowest of expectations, and I wasn't disappointed with the outcome.


Same here. Not a great movie, but it held my attention all the way through. My main complaint was the trailers giving away many of the plot twists.


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, better acting, a better Kyle Reese, a better John Connor, a semblance of a plot rather than a convoluted mishmash of poorly done, shot-for-shot homages and a Skynet backstory that was totally lame; much better SFX (how about a lot more practical effects for a change rather than physics bending cartoons??)... _a lot_ more Arnie... the guy stole the show trying to do his level best and was completely underutilized as they focused on the bland Kyle/Sarah characters instead, J.K. Simmons not given a solid role, bad attempts at humor, Sarah Connor looked like a cute, soft little girl than somebody at peak physical conditioning ready for a war (I blame that on Emilia being on GofT as she has to look dainty and voluptuous on that show), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.


I just went to be entertained. If I go and analyze every movie I will never enjoy one. I am very capable of finding fault in everything, just ask my wife. 

P.S. You won't find to many females in an actual military in peak physical conditioning. And that's with an actual war on.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Same here. Not a great movie, but it held my attention all the way through. My main complaint was the trailers giving away many of the plot twists.


One of the most spoiler-ific marketing campaigns in a long time.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> Yes, very good, but is it a better film than 'Jupiter Ascending'?


Yes Jupiter Ascending was as they say in French "Un Navet"


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> *[Terminator Genisy was not]* a great movie, but it held my attention all the way through. My main complaint was the trailers giving away many of the plot twists.


_*Don't worry. He'll be back!*_  


_


----------



## wse

LowellG said:


> I just went to be entertained. If I go and analyze every movie I will never enjoy one. I am very capable of finding fault in everything, just ask my wife.



That's what movies are for ENTERTAINMENT I check my brain out while watching a movie


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, better acting, a better Kyle Reese, a better John Connor, a semblance of a plot rather than a convoluted mishmash of poorly done, shot-for-shot homages and a Skynet backstory that was totally lame; much better SFX (how about a lot more practical effects for a change rather than physics bending cartoons??)... _a lot_ more Arnie... the guy stole the show trying to do his level best and was completely underutilized as they focused on the bland Kyle/Sarah characters instead, J.K. Simmons not given a solid role, bad/face-palm attempts at humor, Sarah Connor looked like a cute, soft little girl than somebody at peak physical conditioning ready for a war (I blame that on Emilia being on GofT as she has to look dainty and voluptuous on that show), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.


Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## Scott Simonian

LowellG said:


> I am not sure what you were expecting out of it. There are only so many ideas to float around and they are all being done over and over again. What's the last "original idea" action packed movie you watched?


I was expecting it to be good and enjoyable. 

Here's an "original" idea for a Terminator movie: how about a story not focused on John and/or Sarah Connor.

Wtf. I never said I hated it because it wasn't original. You must be thinking the same cuz it was a lazy attempt of a "sequel" and it shows.

There was no point of this movie existing other than to completely retroactively render the other movies irrelevant just so the studios had an excuse to keep making these movies. Look, I don't mind more Terminator movies. But please, make some good ones. This was terrible.


----------



## bargervais

I looking forward to Game of Thrones in Atmos. I really enjoy TV series more then 99% of movies released in the theaters these days. I just think a lot more creative juices go into creating these series. Give me House of Cards, Bosh, Ray Donovan, Bloodline, Narcos etc etc too many to name. I look forward to stream UHD with immersive audio, and it looks like that won't be to far away I'm hoping by this time next year.


----------



## SoundChex

bargervais said:


> I looking forward to Game of Thrones in Atmos. I really enjoy TV series more then 99% of movies released in the theaters these days. I just think a lot more creative juices go into creating these series. Give me House of Cards, Bosh, Ray Donovan, Bloodline, Narcos etc etc too many to name. *I look forward to stream UHD with immersive audio, and it looks like that won't be to far away I'm hoping by this time next year.*




_Unfortunately your enthusiasm may have to stay on hold for a little longer:_ Until an ATSC 3.0 TV System Audio codec+technology is "decided", I doubt most TV production companies are eager to spend time adding immersive audio using some codec which may not be the one they need for a later re-release download of the show. Slow progress only, it appears in this news item on *TVNewsCheck*, August 28, 2015, "*ATSC Makes Breakthrough On 3.0 Standard*" (_link_):



> _*ATSC Makes Breakthrough On 3.0 Standard*
> 
> In major milestone, a key subcommittee adopts a transmission system reflecting a compromise among the major system proponents, including Samsung, LG Electronics and Sinclair Broadcast Group-backed ONE Media. It's expected to be issued as a candidate standard within the next several weeks. Audio becomes the new sticking point. [. . .] While progress has been made on the physical layer, it has stalled on the audio component. According to sources, engineers are split between two audio systems, *MPEG H* and *Dolby AC4*._


_

_I just hope they don't decide "*BOTH*"!_

The global nature of the internet already means that we can anticipate a future in which we have to decode streamed (audio) content delivered as any one of *DTS:X*, *Dolby AC-4*, and *MPEG-H Audio*, but it's hard to imagine having 'dual standard' TVs in the USA (although I seem to recall they were|are common in some parts of the world...?)


_


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> I just went to be entertained. If I go and analyze every movie I will never enjoy one. I am very capable of finding fault in everything, just ask my wife.
> 
> P.S. You won't find to many females in an actual military in peak physical conditioning. And that's with an actual war on.


James Cameron got it out of Linda Hamilton. She buffed up for the role in T2. Much more realistic approach just like having Kyle Reese lean and mean in T1. The future surviving humans live on rats and any other food they can get their hands on in the real Terminator movies (1 & 2) not look like they just came out of a 24 Hour Fitness and eaten 5 pounds of protein powder every day.


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> I set the bar really low for this one and it was worse than I thought it was going to be. It was not enjoyable and even gave it a second chance by seeing it twice. It's terrible.
> 
> But ATMOS! So yeah.... there's that. Woooo.


I usually like these types of movies and was expecting more from Jupiter Ascending but really didn't like it at all. This one has to be better, right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I usually like these types of movies and was expecting more from Jupiter Ascending but really didn't like it at all. This one has to be better, right?


Not by much. Arnold's the best thing in this thing and he isn't really used to the fullest.


----------



## LowellG

Scott Simonian said:


> I was expecting it to be good and enjoyable.
> 
> Here's an "original" idea for a Terminator movie: how about a story not focused on John and/or Sarah Connor.
> 
> Wtf. I never said I hated it because it wasn't original. You must be thinking the same cuz it was a lazy attempt of a "sequel" and it shows.
> 
> There was no point of this movie existing other than to completely retroactively render the other movies irrelevant just so the studios had an excuse to keep making these movies. Look, I don't mind more Terminator movies. But please, make some good ones. This was terrible.


Good and enjoyable are subjective terms. I found it to be both. 


No need for a WTF or the word hated in replying to me. My comment did not come close to inferring either one. 


Anyway, my 4 ceiling speakers arrived and I ordered my A 3050 today so I will be checking all of them out.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not by much. Arnold's the best thing in this thing and he isn't really used to the fullest.


If Arnold is the best thing in this movie that's very sad I don't want to see one liners they rub me the wrong way.


----------



## LowellG

Dan Hitchman said:


> James Cameron got it out of Linda Hamilton. She buffed up for the role in T2. Much more realistic approach just like having Kyle Reese lean and mean in T1. The future surviving humans live on rats and any other food they can get their hands on in the real Terminator movies (1 & 2) not look like they just came out of a 24 Hour Fitness and eaten 5 pounds of protein powder every day.


Very true that she looked great. Take a look at Naked and Afraid on discovery if you want to see what realistic surviving on minimal food looks like. That's what a post apocalyptic world would be like. Not a lot of room for muscle. But for me I don't look for realism in movies like that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

LowellG said:


> Anyway, my 4 ceiling speakers arrived and I ordered my A 3050 today so I will be checking all of them out.


Sweet, enjoy!


----------



## sdurani

Hey Scott, that horror movie _'The Gallows'_ shot in your back yard (Fresno) is coming out on Blu-ray with an Atmos mix: 

http://www.theopenvein.com/the-gallows-hangs-its-head-on-blu-ray-in-october/

_"The Blu-ray disc of “The Gallows” will feature a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack remixed specifically for the home theater environment to place and move audio anywhere in the room, including overhead."_ 

Each week seems to bring a new Atmos BD announcement.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowellG said:


> Anyway, my 4 ceiling speakers arrived and I ordered my A 3050 today so I will be checking all of them out.


Fantastic! Have a Merry Atmos !


----------



## stikle

BigScreen said:


> I didn't mind T3 or T4, so I guess my tolerance level for this franchise is pretty high...



I loved T4: Salvation. I've watched it multiple times here.



LowellG said:


> What's the last "original idea" action packed movie you watched?



Hmmm....The Matrix?


----------



## batpig

I don't give two shoots about original. I just want it to be good.


----------



## urbeenjammin

Sorry for not being able to keep up with all the news and updates for this thread.Been very busy at work the last few months.
I have a question regarding being able to set up a 7.1.2 Atmos by using a 2 channel amp like AudioSource.
Which 7.2 receivers are out there that can accommodate this set up and at the same time be DTS:X upgradable?


----------



## NorthSky

batpig said:


> I don't give two shoots about original. I just want it to be good.


Try 'Mad Max: Fury Road'.


----------



## petetherock

Scott Simonian said:


> Good news about more Atmos titles on Blu-ray.
> 
> Too bad this movie sucked ass.


No worries, I will get in as a Black Friday purchase to complete my Terminator / Arnie collection 
IMO, he is still the best of the 80s beefcakes.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Yes Jupiter Ascending was as they say in French "Un Navet"


Did you see *Terminator Genisys*? 

According to most expert movie critics it is 1% more or less worst than *Jupiter Ascending*.

* "Navets" are good when smashed with mashed potatoes.


----------



## asere

Saw the opening scene of Mad Max FR the bass is out of this world. The problem is the front heights don't seem to be in use much at all in general. It's like the track on TMNT, American Sniper.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Saw the opening scene of Mad Max FR the bass is out of this world. The problem is the front heights don't seem to be in use much at all in general. It's like the track on TMNT, American Sniper.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Something must be wrong in your setup because most people are saying the Atmos mix is off the chart crazy.


----------



## asere

Dan Hitchman said:


> Something must be wrong in your setup because most people are saying the Atmos mix is off the chart crazy.


I disconnected the surrounds to make sure and the heights seldom come on.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## peterfram

asere said:


> Saw the opening scene of Mad Max FR the bass is out of this world. The problem is the front heights don't seem to be in use much at all in general. It's like the track on TMNT, American Sniper.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


While fun in an adolescent kind of way at first, I felt like the Mad Max sound was overdone to the point of annoying at times after 20 minutes. A lot coming from most speakers most of the time. Challenging to appreciate the top speakers imaging on loud and crowded mixes.

They say good entertainment always leaves you wanting "more". The Mad Max Atmos sound track failed to do that for me. It's Mad Max after all so I think they produced what they were expected to. The acting and script was easier to survive than I expected.


----------



## batpig

urbeenjammin said:


> Sorry for not being able to keep up with all the news and updates for this thread.Been very busy at work the last few months.
> I have a question regarding being able to set up a 7.1.2 Atmos by using a 2 channel amp like AudioSource.
> Which 7.2 receivers are out there that can accommodate this set up and at the same time be DTS:X upgradable?


Well you have two options for 7.1.2 with DTS:X upgradability. Get a new 9ch model and then no need for external amps. That would be something like the Marantz 7010 or Denon 6200 (or 7200 if you can't wait). I think Yamaha 2050 works too. 

Alternately you get a 7ch model that can expand to 9ch. That would be Denon 4200 or Marantz 6010.


----------



## Molon_Labe

peterfram said:


> While fun in an adolescent kind of way at first, I felt like the Mad Max sound was overdone to the point of annoying at times after 20 minutes. A lot coming from most speakers most of the time.


That is the kind of HT speaker porn that I adore! To hell with the script, plot, acting, and relevance. Give me a shallow, adulterated, excessive audio mix that is overwrought and obsessive


----------



## peterfram

Molon_Labe said:


> That is the kind of HT speaker porn that I adore! To hell with the script, plot, acting, and relevance. Give me a shallow, adulterated, excessive audio mix that is overwrought and obsessive


I hear you. Though not quite as good at it as you, part of the reason I am enjoying Atmos is it does make mediocre movies easier to engage into and throw logic, physics, and reality aside for awhile. I couldn't manage to finish Jupiter Ascending, but I did really enjoy some of those scenes and audio. 

I give a movie a thumbs up if it makes me laugh, cry, or become inspired in one form or another. The crazy guitar man in Mad Max made me laugh multiple times.


----------



## Nightlord

Dan Hitchman said:


> Have to buy a Trinnov, mate.


If someone gets rid of a zero on the pricetag, yeah...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I think this is one of the best movies for showcasing DSU. There are numerous standout scenes, but the best one must surely be the one where the kids are hiding in the hut while the grievers are hunting them down. There is a huge amount of overhead activity, with the characters looking up to the ceiling of the hut a lot as the creatures attempt to break in - there is overhead sound more or less constantly in this scene. Another impressive showcase for DSU in the same movie is the first time Thomas goes into the maze and encounters the grievers. All in all the sound in this movie is close to perfect - and the bass is something else too!


Ha... that bass! There were a few scenes that made my ceiling speakers rattle... which made me nervous because I thought perhaps they were blown or something. I found out the problem was that I didn't screw them in tightly enough, so the bass makes the speaker vibrate against the ceiling. I didn't want to go overboard with screwing the speakers in since I knew I'd be moving the HT (again), didn't want to run the risk of stripping the screws. But I'm thinking about adding a foam lining the next time around to prevent the vibration... did anyone else encounter this problem? 


So I think my top 5 DSU picks (in no order):

Maze Runner
Kumiko the treasure hunter
Dawn of planet of the apes
The secret world of Arriety (5.1 mix but sure doesn't sound like it through DSU!) 
Star Trek into darkness

I also thought Game of Thrones sounds fantastic through DSU... gives the surrounds & rear surrounds a work out. I might even re-buy the series in steelbook for Atmos if I can set an HT up again.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Hey Scott, that horror movie _'The Gallows'_ shot in your back yard (Fresno) is coming out on Blu-ray with an Atmos mix:
> 
> http://www.theopenvein.com/the-gallows-hangs-its-head-on-blu-ray-in-october/
> 
> _"The Blu-ray disc of “The Gallows” will feature a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack remixed specifically for the home theater environment to place and move audio anywhere in the room, including overhead."_
> 
> Each week seems to bring a new Atmos BD announcement.


Cool... I wanted to see this in the theater but none of the Atmos capable theaters in the area played it in Atmos


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Atmos mixes still have about 90% of the sound in the bed channels, which aren't sent to the front wides, so those speakers would see much less use than any of the other speakers.


Good to know! I wonder if that's something that will change over time?


----------



## audiofan1

Mad Max was nothing short of shut up and eat your Atmos It was the best soundmix I've ever heard I want more!


----------



## jdsmoothie

sdurani said:


> Atmos mixes still have about 90% of the sound in the bed channels, which aren't sent to the front wides, so those speakers would see much less use than any of the other speakers.





tbaucom said:


> Theoretically this may be true but in practice I didn't find it to be. I had a 9.1.2 NEO:X setup for a couple of years that I originally used when I first added atmos. In my experience, the wides actually saw more action than the overheads. In the atmos movies I watched on this system(TMNT,Transformers, Expendables 3), there was very little going on overhead. The fact that the overhead speakers were bed channels was irrelevant. In the future this may change as mixers become more familiar with mixing in atmos.





tbaucom said:


> I can tell you from experience that the movies I watched on a 9.1.2 setup had more action in the wides than the overhead speakers. I don't know if the movies used the bed channels or objects exclusively for the overheads. I do know that your claim that the overhead speakers would see more action than the wides is incorrect with the movies I listed.


I would agree as well. My Front Wides get far more action than the heights with the few Atmos movies I've listened to which is also likely why some installers recommend Front Wide plus on 2 height speakers (ie. 9.2.2) vice a 5.2.4 setup.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cool... I wanted to see this in the theater but none of the Atmos capable theaters in the area played it in Atmos


Same here. Unfortunately, low budget movies like that end up getting edged out of Atmos theatres when big studio releases are coming out at the same time. It was one of seven (count 'em, 7) theatrical Atmos releases that month. Likewise it will be one of five Atmos releases on BD in October. Crowded field.


----------



## Zhorik

^ Having watched it in cinema, I would advise against blind buying The Gallows, or if you have to at least wait for a substantial price drop.


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> Hey Scott, that horror movie _'The Gallows'_ shot in your back yard (Fresno) is coming out on Blu-ray with an Atmos mix:
> 
> http://www.theopenvein.com/the-gallows-hangs-its-head-on-blu-ray-in-october/
> 
> _"The Blu-ray disc of “The Gallows” will feature a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack remixed specifically for the home theater environment to place and move audio anywhere in the room, including overhead."_
> 
> Each week seems to bring a new Atmos BD announcement.


The trailer looks good but I'll probably do a Redbox rental first and the rental may also have an Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> The trailer looks good but I'll probably do a Redbox rental first and the rental may also have an Atmos soundtrack?


I don't think WB has ever crippled the audio on their rentals like Summit and Lionsgate.


----------



## asere

lujan said:


> The trailer looks good but I'll probably do a Redbox rental first and the rental may also have an Atmos soundtrack?


An Atmos track for rental unlikely. Most rentals don't even carry DTS Master audio.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Fineberg

audiofan1 said:


> Mad Max was nothing short of shut up and eat your Atmos It was the best soundmix I've ever heard I want more!


same here...by far best sound i have ever heard in my HT



asere said:


> An Atmos track for rental unlikely. Most rentals don't even carry DTS Master audio.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


but not 100% true...some have atmos...i know the last one (gunman) had atmos at redbox


----------



## asere

Brian Fineberg said:


> same here...by far best sound i have ever heard in my HT
> 
> 
> 
> but not 100% true...some have atmos...i know the last one (gunman) had atmos at redbox


That's good to know. When I said unlikely I meant most won't have it not all. Sorry.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Fineberg

asere said:


> That's good to know. When I said unlikely I meant most won't have it not all. Sorry.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


agreed


----------



## sdurani

Zhorik said:


> ^ Having watched it in cinema, I would advise against blind buying The Gallows, or if you have to at least wait for a substantial price drop.


That bad? Or just not worth owning (i.e., not a movie that makes for repeated viewing)?


----------



## fredl

So the national chain which has exclusive rights to Denon will have a two day sale on the Denon AVR-X4100W. I guess the US equivalent price would be $620. I would have prefered that my next AVR would have had both DTS:X and 7.1.4 capability. At the moment though the cheapest ticket for that seems to be the Marantz SR7010 which I guesstimate will have a local price of around $1500. Of course one could perhaps pick up a SR7009 on close out sale, but I think they'd be around $1100-$1200 (again local equiv.).


Regarding the lack of HDCP 2.2 for 4K I don't see it as an issue since I don't plan on upgrading the front projector for a couple of years.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Hey Scott, that horror movie _'The Gallows'_ shot in your back yard (Fresno) is coming out on Blu-ray with an Atmos mix:
> 
> http://www.theopenvein.com/the-gallows-hangs-its-head-on-blu-ray-in-october/
> 
> _"The Blu-ray disc of “The Gallows” will feature a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack remixed specifically for the home theater environment to place and move audio anywhere in the room, including overhead."_
> 
> Each week seems to bring a new Atmos BD announcement.


Sweet. More Atmos. Too bad this also looks awful. 

Damn. I'm starting to sound like Hitchman. 



batpig said:


> I don't give two shoots about original. I just want it to be good.


Correct. Mad Max was not original yet it was excellent and possibly the best movie of 2015 as of yet.


----------



## stikle

fredl said:


> So the national chain which has exclusive rights to Denon will have a two day sale on the Denon AVR-X3100W. I guess the US equivalent price would be $620. I would have prefered that my next AVR would have had both DTS:X and 7.1.4 capability. At the moment though the cheapest ticket for that seems to be the Marantz SR7010 which I guesstimate will have a local price of around $1500. Of course one could perhaps pick up a SR7009 on close out sale, but I think they'd be around $1100-$1200 (again local equiv.).
> 
> 
> Regarding the lack of HDCP 2.2 for 4K I don't see it as an issue since I don't plan on upgrading the front projector for a couple of years.



Check with @jdsmoothie for competitive pricing.


----------



## fredl

stikle said:


> Check with @jdsmoothie for competitive pricing.



Thanks. The thing is, I live in Sweden, so I don't see an import from the US as an option.


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I think my top 5 DSU picks (in no order):
> 
> Maze Runner
> Kumiko the treasure hunter
> Dawn of planet of the apes
> The secret world of Arriety (5.1 mix but sure doesn't sound like it through DSU!)
> Star Trek into darkness


Interesting to note that 3 of the 5 were theatrical Atmos mixes.

With the caveat that I've not seen a ton of Atmos movies in the theater, I've said it before but Maze Runner was definitely THE best Atmos mix (and among the top theatrical audio experiences period) I've hever heard. Not just tons of overhead activity (that was there) but the way that sound effects (even subsonic bass) swept around the room. It was stunning.

I wish I'd seen Dawn of POA in the theaters with Atmos. Also unfortunately didn't get to see Mad Max in Atmos but it was still crushingly awesome in the theater.


----------



## Kris Deering

I have almost no doubt that Maze Runner on UHD Blu-ray will feature Atmos. Nearly every initial UHD Blu-ray that Fox has announced had a theatrical Atmos mix so chances are good we'll see them feature the same on UHD Blu-ray.


----------



## scarabaeus

fredl said:


> So the national chain which has exclusive rights to Denon will have a two day sale on the Denon AVR-X3100W. I guess the US equivalent price would be $620. I would have prefered that my next AVR would have had both DTS:X and 7.1.4 capability. At the moment though the cheapest ticket for that seems to be the Marantz SR7010 which I guesstimate will have a local price of around $1500. Of course one could perhaps pick up a SR7009 on close out sale, but I think they'd be around $1100-$1200 (again local equiv.).
> 
> 
> Regarding the lack of HDCP 2.2 for 4K I don't see it as an issue since I don't plan on upgrading the front projector for a couple of years.


The 3100 does not have Atmos, AFAIK. Maybe you mean the new 3200W?


----------



## fredl

scarabaeus said:


> The 3100 does not have Atmos, AFAIK. Maybe you mean the new 3200W?



It was a typo. It's the 4100W they are selling for $620 (an approximate USD equivalent of the price in Swedish krona).


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ha... that bass! There were a few scenes that made my ceiling speakers rattle... which made me nervous because I thought perhaps they were blown or something. I found out the problem was that I didn't screw them in tightly enough, so the bass makes the speaker vibrate against the ceiling. ... *did anyone else encounter this problem?*


I had a similar scary experience. Ultimately however, I was relieved to find the speaker wiring in the ceiling to be vibrating against the ceiling drywall and/or the joists. Duct tape cured the rattling.


----------



## Zhorik

sdurani said:


> That bad? Or just not worth owning (i.e., not a movie that makes for repeated viewing)?


It is just bad. Without spoiling anything, the plot is thin, the characters are annoying (especially the jock), there is shaky cam, there isn't suspense / you don't fear for the characters being in danger and the best parts are in the trailers. It feels like a low budget college student film.


----------



## gene4ht

lujan said:


> The trailer looks good but I'll probably do a Redbox rental first and the rental may also have an Atmos soundtrack?


I almost always preview from Redbox first as well...



Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't think WB has ever crippled the audio on their rentals like Summit and Lionsgate.


Agreed...WB has been consistent in this regard in my experience.



asere said:


> An Atmos track for rental unlikely. Most rentals don't even carry DTS Master audio.


Not always...it's usually studio dependent.



Brian Fineberg said:


> ...but not 100% true...some have atmos...i know the last one (gunman) had atmos at redbox


Also Mad Max: Fury Road from Family Video has Atmos...


----------



## Stiltz

Does anyone run Atmos with vaulted ceilings?
I have a 20' wide x15' deep media room with a sectional along the back wall and am trying to decide if I move away from 11.2 and go with Atmos.
Thoughts?


----------



## stikle

fredl said:


> Thanks. The thing is, I live in Sweden, so I don't see an import from the US as an option.



Oh, whoops! I missed that key factor.  Disregard. 



Stiltz said:


> Does anyone run Atmos with vaulted ceilings?
> I have a 20' wide x15' deep media room with a sectional along the back wall and am trying to decide if I move away from 11.2 and go with Atmos.



I was running 11.2 as well and switched to Atmos 7.2.4 and it was worth every penny. 

My ceiling is sorta vaulted, not too bad though. If I recall correctly, It's about 8' on the right side and then slants up to 9.5' or so on the left side. I have on-ceiling speakers and it all performs very well. With the Audyssey XT32 room correction, the distances and levels are all balanced and you'd never know while watching a movie that the ceiling is not flat.

Oh hey...you're in Portland too. If you want to come check out my setup, that could be arranged. PM me if so.


----------



## DAK4

Stiltz said:


> Does anyone run Atmos with vaulted ceilings?
> I have a 20' wide x15' deep media room with a sectional along the back wall and am trying to decide if I move away from 11.2 and go with Atmos.
> Thoughts?


I'm not sure how much of a pitch you have in your vaulted ceilings but mine is about the same as what @stikle just posted and it's working great. The AVR's can compensate in the setup for a lot it. There are some pics linked in my signature that you can look at if you want.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> That bad? Or just not worth owning (i.e., not a movie that makes for repeated viewing)?


I'm curious about that myself... but I'll at least purchase it if it hits the bargain bin/ used for 2 bucks on Amazon. 



batpig said:


> Interesting to note that 3 of the 5 were theatrical Atmos mixes.
> 
> With the caveat that I've not seen a ton of Atmos movies in the theater, I've said it before but Maze Runner was definitely THE best Atmos mix (and among the top theatrical audio experiences period) I've hever heard. Not just tons of overhead activity (that was there) but the way that sound effects (even subsonic bass) swept around the room. It was stunning.
> 
> I wish I'd seen Dawn of POA in the theaters with Atmos. Also unfortunately didn't get to see Mad Max in Atmos but it was still crushingly awesome in the theater.


Yeah I missed POA atmos in the theater as well... that was right before I got into the HT scene here with you guys. It all happened so randomly... I was googling Bill Schnee who HTG interviewed, as a consequence I ended up listening to more of HTG, heard about Atmos... then a year and lots of money spent later (haha). 

It actually didn't occur to me that 3 of those films were done in atmos. I'm wondering if there is something to that... like if the DSU can pick out sounds that would have otherwise been sent up to the ceiling speakers? 

Into the Storm doesn't sound as good in my HT as it did in the Atmos theater though... but that's a 5.1 mix I think? 



gene4ht said:


> I had a similar scary experience. Ultimately however, I was relieved to find the speaker wiring in the ceiling to be vibrating against the ceiling drywall and/or the joists. Duct tape cured the rattling.


My problem is different I think, the vibration stopped when I pressed on the speaker, so I think it's literally the whole frame of the speaker that's vibrating. Is that dangerous I wonder? I'm not a speaker expert, & don't want to break anything as 2 of the KEF's aren't under warranty :/ (heh).


----------



## asere

Does DSU have content all the time with heights?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Does DSU have content all the time with heights?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


It's soundtrack dependent. The more aggressive the mix, the better chance all the speakers will be engaged in some sort of sonic activity.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

jdsmoothie said:


> I would agree as well. My Front Wides get far more action than the heights with the few Atmos movies I've listened to which is also likely why some installers recommend Front Wide plus on 2 height speakers (ie. 9.2.2) vice a 5.2.4 setup.


I refuse to choose between 9.2.2 and 5.2.4. I want to choose between 9.3.4 and 9.2.6 instead! 

Current design:


----------



## DAK4

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I refuse to choose between 9.2.2 and 5.2.4. I want to choose between 9.3.4 and 9.2.6 instead!
> 
> Current design:


That looks like a really beautiful design layout. But I'm curious about the bodies in the closet in the upper left corner.


----------



## batpig

DAK4 said:


> That looks like a really beautiful design layout. But I'm curious about the bodies in the closet in the upper left corner.


That was my first thought as well!! Best to crop out the dead bodies to limit liability


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

DAK4 said:


> That looks like a really beautiful design layout. But I'm curious about the bodies in the closet in the upper left corner.





batpig said:


> That was my first thought as well!! Best to crop out the dead bodies to limit liability


You guys have to much imagination. Just a sauna there...


----------



## DAK4

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You guys have to much imagination. Just a sauna there...


Okay good, I was getting a little concerned. JK And that really does look like a nice layout. If I'm seeing that correct, you can walk around the screen wall to a kitchen? That is really unique.


----------



## javanpohl

Stiltz said:


> Does anyone run Atmos with vaulted ceilings?
> I have a 20' wide x15' deep media room with a sectional along the back wall and am trying to decide if I move away from 11.2 and go with Atmos.
> Thoughts?


Yup. Here's what I did. TM and FH, at least as far as their physical placement goes. I've also contemplated hanging the speakers from the ceiling via long metal pipes but this is what I've got for now.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

DAK4 said:


> Okay good, I was getting a little concerned. JK And that really does look like a nice layout. If I'm seeing that correct, you can walk around the screen wall to a kitchen? That is really unique.


Thank you for the kind words and yes, it's a kitchen. The subs are back firing, so plenty vibes during cooking!


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> My problem is different I think, the vibration stopped when I pressed on the speaker, so I think it's literally the whole frame of the speaker that's vibrating. Is that dangerous I wonder? I'm not a speaker expert, & don't want to break anything as 2 of the KEF's aren't under warranty :/ (heh).


I'm interpreting that the vibration stopped when you pressed the speaker frame rather than the speaker cone. If that's the case, then securing the frame assembly to the ceiling more firmly should resolve the issue. If not, then I suspect that a component on the speaker assembly may be loose. And if the cone itself was damaged, I would think that sonic quality would be evidently compromised. Just some thoughts as I'm not a speaker expert either. Good luck!


----------



## Movie78

javanpohl said:


> Yup. Here's what I did. TM and FH, at least as far as their physical placement goes. I've also contemplated hanging the speakers from the ceiling via long metal pipes but this is what I've got for now.


What kind of subwoofer are those?


----------



## lujan

Brian Fineberg said:


> same here...by far best sound i have ever heard in my HT
> 
> but not 100% true...some have atmos...i know the last one (gunman) had atmos at redbox


How was the Gunman movie? I keep forgetting to give that one a rental...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

lujan said:


> How was the Gunman movie? I keep forgetting to give that one a rental...


Ok at best. And the ATMOS is the worst one out


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Brian Fineberg said:


> Ok at best. And the ATMOS is the worst one out


I gotta' play Devil's advocate here, 'cause to me, The Gunman had some of the best Atmos audio. It isn't bombastic or going to make you constantly hear sounds above you... but the elements that are steered in that movie are very subtly placed in the 3-D space, and the few moments of overhead audio make sense in the context of the movie. I think we sometimes forget that a good mix isn't necessarily supposed to call your attention to those additional speakers, but is supposed to create a convincing and realistic portrayal of the sound in that scene. On that, I think The Gunman was actually very well done. Not every movie is supposed to be over-the-top audio from every speaker at once (though I certainly appreciate those as well).

For instance, I don't think Ralph has reviewed it yet... but I think a few of you are going to be surprised by the Atmos track on The Age Of Adaline. The audio is immersive and totally fits the particular genre of that movie, and is still impressive despite the lack of constant height usage that people seem to think is the goal. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I gotta' play Devil's advocate here, 'cause to me, The Gunman had some of the best Atmos audio. It isn't bombastic or going to make you constantly hear sounds above you... but the elements that are steered in that movie are very subtly placed in the 3-D space, and the few moments of overhead audio make sense in the context of the movie. I think we sometimes forget that a good mix isn't necessarily supposed to call your attention to those additional speakers, but is supposed to create a convincing and realistic portrayal of the sound in that scene. On that, I think The Gunman was actually very well done. Not every movie is supposed to be over-the-top audio from every speaker at once (though I certainly appreciate those as well).
> 
> For instance, I don't think Ralph has reviewed it yet... but I think a few of you are going to be surprised by the Atmos track on The Age Of Adaline. The audio is immersive and totally fits the particular genre of that movie, and is still impressive despite the lack of constant height usage that people seem to think is the goal. Just my opinion though.


I understand Fully how ATMOS works and it's intentions with not only being flyovers and loud mixes. and have had ATMOS in my home going on a year now. But to me the gunman had zero effects above the bed channels. And I am not the first to make this complaint. It was almost non existAnt ATMOS mix.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> Ok at best. And the ATMOS is the worst one out


The gunman wasn't the best but I enjoyed it, not as good as John Wick though.

I'm curious how The Age Of Adaline will sound I actually liked the movie, I'll find out Tuesday.
My all time favorite so far in this year's crop of Atmos is MAD MAX, very insane...


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> The gunman wasn't the best but I enjoyed it, not as good as John Wick though.
> 
> I'm curious how The Age Of Adaline will sound I actually liked the movie, I'll find out Tuesday.
> My all time favorite so far in this year's crop of Atmos is MAD MAX, very insane...


I'll probably rent it tomorrow just to check it out as it's available at one of my Redbox locations.


----------



## asere

Well I replayed the opening scene of Mad Max and this time I could hear the whispers with the heights. Pretty neat even with my surrounds being in ceiling I was able to tell.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nalleh

Anybody see anything strange in this picture?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Your ceiling speakers aren't active. Why not?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Anybody see anything strange in this picture?


If it's a trick question, then this display is from one of your Atmos-Ex AVRs. 
Where are rest of the displays?


----------



## Scott Simonian

If they were they wouldn't say 'Atmos'.


----------



## javanpohl

Movie78 said:


> What kind of subwoofer are those?


DIY. They're boxes I built that open into the basement below. In the left one has 2 Dayton DCS450s (18") and in the right are 2 SI HT 18s. They are in the process of being replaced with 2 10.5 ft^3 17hz tuned ported boxes into which the SIs will go. Then I will probably sell all 4 of my Daytons (the other 2 have just been sitting in the basement) as I haven't been able to find an application in which they will even come close to keeping up with the SIs.


----------



## chi_guy50

bargervais said:


> The gunman wasn't the best but I enjoyed it, not as good as John Wick though.
> 
> I'm curious how The Age Of Adaline will sound I actually liked the movie, I'll find out Tuesday.
> My all time favorite so far in this year's crop of Atmos is MAD MAX, very insane...


I gotta agree with Brian on this one. _The Gunman_ didn't impress me at all as far as audio or film-making. One big yawn.

OTOH, I finally got around this afternoon to watching the one Atmos Blu-ray I actually *own* (_Nature_ aka _Enchanted Kingdom_) and it was glorious! The Atmos re-mix was done in Pinewood Studies by Ian Tapp and Andrew Caller. Holy cow, this is one immersive mix--there were sounds coming from 360° around us and going in all directions! (For those who live for earth-shaking, timber-rattling bass, check out in particular the volcano scene at 11:45 and the Victoria Falls scene at 1:00:00.) And the foley work was some of the most imaginative and entertaining I can ever remember hearing.

The Blu-ray set includes two BRD's (one in 3D and one in 2D, both with English-language Atmos soundtrack) plus a director's commentary track and a "Making of" feature. There's also a third disc with supplemental extras. I am endebted to @Frank714 for having turned me on to this film back in June. (You can find his review of it here.)


----------



## Nalleh

Brian Fineberg said:


> Your ceiling speakers aren't active. Why not?





aaranddeeman said:


> If it's a trick question, then this display is from one of your Atmos-Ex AVRs.
> Where are rest of the displays?





Scott Simonian said:


> If they were they wouldn't say 'Atmos'.


Well, ONLY a 5.1 setup and it still decodes it as native Atmos?


----------



## speeddeacon

asere said:


> lujan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trailer looks good but I'll probably do a Redbox rental first and the rental may also have an Atmos soundtrack?
> 
> 
> 
> An Atmos track for rental unlikely. Most rentals don't even carry DTS Master audio.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's news to me. How about purchasing on iTunes via AppleTV or streaming rentals from Netflix, etc? Are they limited on the Audio content?


----------



## bargervais

speeddeacon said:


> That's news to me. How about purchasing on iTunes via AppleTV or streaming rentals from Netflix, etc? Are they limited on the Audio content?


Nothing streams with an Atmos mix yet the only thing are the Dolby Atmos trailers on Vudu. Everything right now is streaming mostly in Dolby digital 5.1


----------



## speeddeacon

What about AppleTV purchases, I guess they are technically streamed so no Atmos?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SoundChex

speeddeacon said:


> That's news to me. How about purchasing on iTunes via AppleTV or streaming rentals from Netflix, etc? Are they limited on the Audio content?



My understanding is that the three competitor codecs for ATSC 3.0 System Audio, viz: Dolby AC-4, DTS:X, and MPEG-H Audio, were|are intended to to be usable in ALL of OTA|streaming|mobile audio distribution. When the 'winner' is selected "at the end of October"--either Dolby AC-4 or MPEG-H Audio or "both"--it will be the designated OTA codec+technology, and it seems likely the feature set shakeout before that decision will provide some common bases for all three to use subsequently to implement streaming architectures over iTunes, Netflix, etc...?!


_


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Well, ONLY a 5.1 setup and it still decodes it as native Atmos?


Okay. Looks like your 4100 is put to that duty. (IIRC, you now have 7200 + 5200 for Atmox-Ex)


----------



## audiofan1

chi_guy50 said:


> I gotta agree with Brian on this one. _The Gunman_ didn't impress me at all as far as audio or film-making. One big yawn.
> 
> OTOH, I finally got around this afternoon to watching the one Atmos Blu-ray I actually *own* (_Nature_ aka _Enchanted Kingdom_) and it was glorious! The Atmos re-mix was done in Pinewood Studies by Ian Tapp and Andrew Caller. Holy cow, this is one immersive mix--there were sounds coming from 360° around us and going in all directions! (For those who live for earth-shaking, timber-rattling bass, check out in particular the volcano scene at 11:45 and the Victoria Falls scene at 1:00:00.) And the foley work was some of the most imaginative and entertaining I can ever remember hearing.
> 
> The Blu-ray set includes two BRD's (one in 3D and one in 2D, both with English-language Atmos soundtrack) plus a director's commentary track and a "Making of" feature. There's also a third disc with supplemental extras. I am endebted to @Frank714 for having turned me on to this film back in June. (You can find his review of it here.)


Looking forward to this !

Thanks


----------



## speeddeacon

SoundChex said:


> My understanding is that the three competitor codecs for ATSC 3.0 System Audio, viz: Dolby AC-4, DTS:X, and MPEG-H Audio, were|are intended to to be usable in ALL of OTA|streaming|mobile audio distribution. When the 'winner' is selected "at the end of October"--either Dolby AC-4 or MPEG-H Audio or "both"--it will be the designated OTA codec+technology, and it seems likely the feature set shakeout before that decision will provide some common bases for all three to use subsequently to implement streaming architectures over iTunes, Netflix, etc...?!
> 
> 
> _



Very interesting thanks for the info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Movie78

javanpohl said:


> DIY. They're boxes I built that open into the basement below. In the left one has 2 Dayton DCS450s (18") and in the right are 2 SI HT 18s. They are in the process of being replaced with 2 10.5 ft^3 17hz tuned ported boxes into which the SIs will go. Then I will probably sell all 4 of my Daytons (the other 2 have just been sitting in the basement) as I haven't been able to find an application in which they will even come close to keeping up with the SIs.


PM me with some pictures and prices.

I am looking into building a SI 18" Subwoofer.


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay. Looks like your 4100 is put to that duty. (IIRC, you now have 7200 + 5200 for Atmox-Ex)


Actually it's the 7200 (when i tested the Kef eggs).

Didn't think it would decode Atmos with just ear level 7.1, much less 5.1.

However, i think what happened was a "glitch in the matrix", as i had my full 13.1 Atmos setup, and just disabled all the other speakers
Somehow this tricked it to show Atmos decoding.


----------



## Ralph Potts

Jeremy Anderson said:


> For instance, I don't think Ralph has reviewed it yet... but I think a few of you are going to be surprised by the Atmos track on The Age Of Adaline. The audio is immersive and totally fits the particular genre of that movie, and is still impressive despite the lack of constant height usage that people seem to think is the goal. Just my opinion though.


Greetings,

It arrives today. 

I will try and get it done over the weekend.. 

Regards,


----------



## Kris Deering

Watched Mad Max Fury Road last night. Wow. That is what an immersive mix is all about. You want to sell a format, that is what you use to show what it can do. Spectacular!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Kris Deering said:


> Watched Mad Max Fury Road last night. Wow. That is what an immersive mix is all about. You want to sell a format, that is what you use to show what it can do. Spectacular!


Exactly!


----------



## Kain

Aras_Volodka said:


> Understood.
> 
> I'm guessing the rear speakers are as far back as they can go?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the front wides would see plenty of use on native atmos. This is where I heard an "in defense of wides" put best (I can't recall exactly where but they talk about front wides):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbqJkjfABQ
> 
> I think wides would be worth it when affordable receivers can do 15 channel (lol). But if you can afford a Trinnov I'd say it would be worth it to go 9.1.6
> In a practical sense... if you have a sound that is being panned 360 degrees, the transition from surrounds to fronts will be more defined. But I'm already pretty happy with how defined the panning is on my 7.1.4 system. If you know the Dolby Amaze trailer... the bird that pans around 360 sounds very clear on my system. When I go to commercial atmos theaters it's a joke... the sound is so washed out that I'd take my 7.1.4 system over the 15.4.12 or whatever it is that Atmos theaters have. (Though I have yet to hear the AMC prime theater that is about to open near me).
> 
> I think the difference between 4 to 6 speakers would be to avoid compromise. With 4 overheads... you have to pick between dramatic overhead panning & sound appearing as if it comes from above you. The further away the overhead speakers are, the more dramatic a pan will sound, but you lose that overhead effect. I observed this by comparing my theater to my bro in law's... he's got angled electromotions for his fronts, which help fill in that sound in front & above that, but the direct overhead sound by consequence just wasn't there. But man, the panning on his system sounds great.
> 
> But with 6 speakers you could place a pair directly overhead, then the front pair out further than they would have been placed before & same deal with the rears. That way you could get overhead & dramatic panning (I'm guessing?) I'm actually wondering if it might make sense to have angled ceiling speakers in the front like those my bro in law has, to really build a sphere of sound?


Thanks. Correct, the back surround speakers are in the two rear corners of the room and only about 4-5 feet from the seating position. I'll probably have to place the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position even if I have front wide speakers. One more question: is it required that the front wide speakers have more distance between them vs. the front left/right main speakers? I won't be able to position them wider apart in the room compared to the front left/right main speakers because the front left/right main speakers will already be pretty much in the front corners of the room.

Edit: How much distance is needed between the front left/right main speakers and the front wide speakers to make them worthwhile? Would roughly 3 feet be too close? If I were to have front wide speakers, the distance from the front left/right main speakers to the front wide speakers would be roughly 3 feet. Then the distance from the front wide speakers to the side surround speakers (which would be placed slightly in front of the seating position) would be roughly 2-3 feet. Would this make the speakers too close together? Should I exclude the front wide speakers?



zebidou81 said:


> Hi after reading your post i an in a very similar position as you with regards to surround positioning, i believe you can place the surrounds at 75 degrees ie a few feet forward if you are also using rear surrounds, i am going to install my l/r surrounds about 2 ft forward of listening position which will enable me to have them 6-7ft away from mlp, i am running atmos top rear and rear surrounds that i believe may give better seperation than having them closer. Are you installing yours slightly infront ?


Most likely they will be positioned slightly in front.


----------



## asere

Is it ok to go up on the front heights volume level much more than the other speakers so you can hear more content?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Ralph Potts said:


> Greetings,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It arrives today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try and get it done over the weekend..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,




Looking forward to seeing what you think. It's a well done mix for the genre, and the storm scenes in particular are really solid. Better audio than I expected for a romantic drama!


----------



## markm75

Curious on those who had a 7.1 setup with the 4 rear speakers.. has anyone tried the switch to just 5.1.2 (removing the two rears).. is it worth it to lose those two, maybe place the two rear directly over head, mid room, slightly forward?
or, did you end up getting a new system and going 7.1.2? 

I was thinking about going with a lower end, Pioneer 1130k, which supports (only atmos, i dont think dts-x).. wondering 2 things, i think this receiver can only do the 5.1.2, hence the previous question, wasnt sure if you could add an amp to pre-amps and get 7.1.2 with this system or not.. and how critical is it to look for a receiver that does both atmos and dts-x..

My current setup is 4 rear surrounds at the ceiling level, just at the top of the wall in the rear (and fronts in the same location as well).


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> Actually it's the 7200 (when i tested the Kef eggs).
> 
> Didn't think it would decode Atmos with just ear level 7.1, much less 5.1.
> 
> However, i think what happened was a "glitch in the matrix", as i had my full 13.1 Atmos setup, and just disabled all the other speakers
> Somehow this tricked it to show Atmos decoding.


It's not a trick or a glitch. If the incoming signal is Dolby Atmos it will show that. It doesn't mean it's doing the full Atmos rendering -- we already know that with a 5.1 or 7.1 setup it's actually just playing the core TrueHD 7.1 mix without extracting the Atmos metadata.


----------



## batpig

markm75 said:


> Curious on those who had a 7.1 setup with the 4 rear speakers.. has anyone tried the switch to just 5.1.2 (removing the two rears).. is it worth it to lose those two, maybe place the two rear directly over head, mid room, slightly forward?
> or, did you end up getting a new system and going 7.1.2?
> 
> I was thinking about going with a lower end, Pioneer 1130k, which supports (only atmos, i dont think dts-x).. wondering 2 things, i think this receiver can only do the 5.1.2, hence the previous question, wasnt sure if you could add an amp to pre-amps and get 7.1.2 with this system or not.. and how critical is it to look for a receiver that does both atmos and dts-x..
> 
> My current setup is 4 rear surrounds at the ceiling level, just at the top of the wall in the rear (and fronts in the same location as well).


Respectfully, your setup is all whacked out for Atmos. Frankly it's not even optimal for "normal" 7.1 audio.

First of all, you should NOT have 4 "rear speakers" or "rear surrounds". A 7.1 setup should have a pair of SIDE surrounds (Surround L/R) and a pair of REAR surrounds (Surround Back L/R). So if all four surround channels are on the back wall you do not have a well implemented 7.1. layout.










Secondarily, it sounds like your speakers are ALL at ceiling level? If that is the case you will not gain much if any benefit from immersive audio, as the primary point is to add that 3rd dimension of sound and create vertical separation between the "base layer" speakers and the overhead/height speakers. 

Unless I'm misunderstanding your setup (pics would help or maybe a diagram) it sounds like there is no point for you to pursue immersive audio in your room unless you are willing to do some major reconfiguration of your speaker layout.


----------



## markm75

batpig said:


> Respectfully, your setup is all whacked out for Atmos. Frankly it's not even optimal for "normal" 7.1 audio.
> 
> First of all, you should NOT have 4 "rear speakers" or "rear surrounds". A 7.1 setup should have a pair of SIDE surrounds (Surround L/R) and a pair of REAR surrounds (Surround Back L/R). So if all four surround channels are on the back wall you do not have a well implemented 7.1. layout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondarily, it sounds like your speakers are ALL at ceiling level? If that is the case you will not gain much if any benefit from immersive audio, as the primary point is to add that 3rd dimension of sound and create vertical separation between the "base layer" speakers and the overhead/height speakers.
> 
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your setup (pics would help or maybe a diagram) it sounds like there is no point for you to pursue immersive audio in your room unless you are willing to do some major reconfiguration of your speaker layout.


Sorry, the way i described that was not correct.. but yes, as the diagram you showed, this is how my setup is configured.. 

Though it is true, as of now i have the speakers at the tops of the walls in each of those locations, aiming downward at the center point..

Based on that configuration, atmos wouldnt work well, placing even two more speakers into the mix on the ceiling i take it? This is what i kinda feared and makes sense.. what then is the corrective action here, to only have floor standing speakers? I guess for now that would not work in my setup, would require some big changes.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

markm75 said:


> Sorry, the way i described that was not correct.. but yes, as the diagram you showed, this is how my setup is configured..
> 
> Though it is true, as of now i have the speakers at the tops of the walls in each of those locations, aiming downward at the center point..
> 
> Based on that configuration, atmos wouldnt work well, placing even two more speakers into the mix on the ceiling i take it? This is what i kinda feared and makes sense.. what then is the corrective action here, to only have floor standing speakers? I guess for now that would not work in my setup, would require some big changes.


Read the guidelines in post 1 of this thread. Surrounds should ideally be at listener level (it says 4 feet, but I presume even lower for couch sitters) or otherwise no more than 1.25 that height. Hence no more than 5 feet.


----------



## markm75

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Read the guidelines in post 1 of this thread. Surrounds should ideally be at listener level (it says 4 feet, but I presume even lower for couch sitters) or otherwise no more than 1.25 that height. Hence no more than 5 feet.


I thought this was the case, but I was hoping to avoid having floor standing speakers when i do decide to make the switch.. makes me wonder, as even theaters are all based at the ceiling edge level aiming down, i guess atmos wont really apply there or be some variant.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

FWIW, elsewhere Dan wrote :



Dan Hitchman said:


> In the Amp Assign section of the Marantz 7702 mkII manual it shows that you can choose four overhead or height speakers (or various combinations) _and_ do a 5.1 + Front Wide floor speaker configuration.
> 
> Since that is still within the current 11.1 processing "legal limit" (7.1.4), anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether or not that means there is now more flexibility in object rendering possibilities with DTS:X and Dolby Atmos, Audyssey DSX upmixer, and the DTS Neural: X upmixer (these allow for Front Wides)? Meaning: by not having surround backs assigned, processing power is freed up to do Front Wide object rendering or channel upmixing along with four top speakers in use when two tops used to be the limit (9.1.2)?
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser.


and JD answered :



jdsmoothie said:


> This configuration is currently possible on the 2014 Atmos D+M models (to include SR7009 and AV7702) as well so no change for the 2015 models.


Now owning a 7702 in a 9.2.4 installation including Wides, in an Atmos (+DSU) context it was always used in the standard 7.2 + 4 Heights context, as this is what the user manual describes as being the only possible context when 4 Heights/Tops are in use.

But after some other exchanges with JD, I've reconfigured our 7702, by indicating in the Menu that there are no Back Surround speakers in use. (BS = "none")... 

And this is how Atmos can now be reproduced in our context (5+Wides) + 4 Heights (and sorry for this bad iPhone picture) :











Now after some tests made in Atmos with Jupiter + Gravity, I can confirm that this Atmos context with Wides + 4 Heights is really impressive, compared to the standard 7.x.4. As in the very same scene, when the Wides are in use (instead of BSs), this give a sort of expansion to the frontal scene which is really impressive.

So if you have an Atmos capable receiver and Wides speakers, I'd suggest you to make a try, it's really worthwhile. The more so if you are in a projection context with a "large" screen (we use a 2.35 format, 2.60m base screen)... 

So MERCI Dan & JD. 

Hugo

PS': JD, on the 7702, this also works with the XLR connection,
PS": Jeff, I'm totally sure that you're going to really like this Atmos possibility...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> FWIW, elsewhere Dan wrote :
> 
> 
> 
> and JD answered :
> 
> 
> 
> Now owning a 7702 in a 9.2.4 installation including Wides, in an Atmos (+DSU) context it was always used in the standard 7.2 + 4 Heights context, as this is what the user manual describes as being the only possible context when 4 Heights/Tops are in use.
> 
> But after some other exchanges with JD, I've reconfigured our 7702, by indicating in the Menu that there are no Back Surround speakers in use. (BS = "none")...
> 
> And this is how Atmos can now be reproduced in our context (5+Wides) + 4 Heights (and sorry for this bad iPhone picture) :
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now after some tests made in Atmos with Jupiter + Gravity, I can confirm that this Atmos context with Wides + 4 Heights is really impressive, compared to the standard 7.x.4. As in the very same scene, when the Wides are in use (instead of BSs), this give a sort of expansion to the frontal scene which is really impressive.
> 
> So if you have an Atmos capable receiver and Wides speakers, I'd suggest you to make a try, it's really worthwhile. The more so if you are in a projection context with a "large" screen (we use a 2.35 format, 2.60m base screen)...
> 
> So MERCI Dan & JD.
> 
> Hugo
> 
> PS': JD, on the 7702, this also works with the XLR connection,
> PS": Jeff, I'm totally sure that you're going to really like this Atmos possibility...


Do you not have to put the front wides on XLR and Height 2 on RCA jacks? Or all RCA? That's what it looks like on the 7702 mk II since the Front Wides and Height2 are labeled on the same XLR output.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The audio is immersive and totally fits the particular genre of that movie, and is still impressive despite the lack of constant height usage that people seem to think is the goal. Just my opinion though.


It might not be the goal, but the one thing we truly can appreciate with home theater Atmos is that it adds discrete content to multiple overhead speakers. The other benefits of Atmos (created during production) can be equally enjoyed with standard 7.1 playback (provided you are playing the down-mixed Atmos track).

So people who have put money and time into mounting overhead speakers and replacing their AVRs, naturally have some craving for overhead activity. Not as the goal of Atmos, but as return on their investments.


----------



## batpig

markm75 said:


> Sorry, the way i described that was not correct.. but yes, as the diagram you showed, this is how my setup is configured..
> 
> Though it is true, as of now i have the speakers at the tops of the walls in each of those locations, aiming downward at the center point..
> 
> Based on that configuration, atmos wouldnt work well, placing even two more speakers into the mix on the ceiling i take it? This is what i kinda feared and makes sense.. what then is the corrective action here, to only have floor standing speakers? I guess for now that would not work in my setup, would require some big changes.





markm75 said:


> I thought this was the case, but I was hoping to avoid having floor standing speakers when i do decide to make the switch.. makes me wonder, as even theaters are all based at the ceiling edge level aiming down, i guess atmos wont really apply there or be some variant.


Sorry but it's not accurate that theaters have surrounds (let alone front speakers!) at the wall/ceiling junction pointing down. The surround speakers in theaters are quite elevated (in order to provide coverage across a huge seating area and not "hotspot" for seats near that side) but they are nowhere near the ceiling, which is typically extremely tall in a commercial cinema. The front 3 speakers are directly behind the screen so again nowhere near ceiling height. 

Since your speakers are spread out so much around the edges of the room, theoretically you COULD place a pair of in-ceiling speakers above and slightly in front as "Top Middle" to allow audio to appear directly overhead. There are others out there who have done similar setups to allow Atmos despite having surround speakers up near the ceiling. Just be aware that (1) obviously this is a compromised deployment and (2) you really should go with a 9ch capable unit to do this as it's probably not worth giving up the back surrounds.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

markm75 said:


> I thought this was the case, but I was hoping to avoid having floor standing speakers when i do decide to make the switch.. makes me wonder, as even theaters are all based at the ceiling edge level aiming down, i guess atmos wont really apply there or be some variant.


In commercial theaters, the only way to reach all listeners is putting the Surrounds higher than listener level. 

If you would read the commercial Atmos guidelines, it also states that Surrounds should be placed "out of reach of patrons" 

Some people, eh!


----------



## batpig

Hugo S said:


> PS": Jeff, I'm totally sure that you're going to really like this Atmos possibility...


I've actually thought before this would be a good deployment (assuming you're referring to chi_guy when you say "Jeff"). 

Considering how clustered the surrounds / TM are around a small seating area:










It might be worth a shot with this alternate 7.1.4 Atmos config.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> It's not a trick or a glitch. If the incoming signal is Dolby Atmos it will show that. It doesn't mean it's doing the full Atmos rendering -- we already know that with a 5.1 or 7.1 setup it's actually just playing the core TrueHD 7.1 mix without extracting the Atmos metadata.


Makes sense, because i could not hear any difference when switching to True HD.

I could also engage DSU on this 5.1 setup with DD 5.1 incoming signal, but same there.


----------



## markm75

batpig said:


> Since your speakers are spread out so much around the edges of the room, theoretically you COULD place a pair of in-ceiling speakers above and slightly in front as "Top Middle" to allow audio to appear directly overhead. There are others out there who have done similar setups to allow Atmos despite having surround speakers up near the ceiling. Just be aware that (1) obviously this is a compromised deployment and (2) you really should go with a 9ch capable unit to do this as it's probably not worth giving up the back surrounds.


This is what i hoped to do worst case, if i dont lower the rest.. 

Yeah that forces me to go 9 channel which the price bracket seems to be $1200 and up on those models right now.. maybe in a few years the 9.1 's with atmos /dtsx will become as common and less priced as the 7.1's right now. (target range of 599-699 max for me at the moment)


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> I could also engage DSU on this 5.1 setup with DD 5.1 incoming signal, but same there.


Yeah now THAT part is a glitch. For some reason these Denons allow you to select DSU or Auro2D as surround modes even when you are playing a 5.1 signal on 5.1 speakers (i.e. nothing to upmix!). Have never gotten a straight answer as to wht that is.


----------



## Lesmor

I believe some members have tried all the 5 different positions for height speakers?
IIRC they reported that all positions produce the same content is that correct?
Thanks in advance


----------



## NorthSky

Ok,

DSU works with 5.1 content on a 5.1 setup. ...Hopefully Denon will fix that "glitch" in a future firmware update and in their newer upcoming models.
{Or maybe not as it can be viewed as an attribute.}

And you can have your Wides playing with Dolby Atmos, without the back surrounds. ...Hopefully Denon won't touch it, but ameliorate it...with more possible settings...including DSU? 

* I think DTS:X will fix and even improve upon all these issues. ;-)


----------



## rboster

sdurani said:


> That bad? Or just not worth owning (i.e., not a movie that makes for repeated viewing)?


It's both bad and not worth owning IMHO. My son and I went to an early screening at Alamo drafthouse and were highly disappointed (and bored)...even for a free movie.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

maikeldepotter said:


> It might not be the goal, but the one thing we truly can appreciate with home theater Atmos is that it adds discrete content to multiple overhead speakers. The other benefits of Atmos (created during production) can be equally enjoyed with standard 7.1 playback (provided you are playing the down-mixed Atmos track).
> 
> So people who have put money and time into mounting overhead speakers and replacing their AVRs, naturally have some craving for overhead activity. Not as the goal of Atmos, but as return on their investments.


And I certainly understand this. I also enjoy the "wow factor" of the overheads when the movie calls for it. But let's face it, some movies just don't call for it. What Atmos adds for me is precision... and that's more about placement between the bed channels and heights, not something obviously just overhead. Mixers can place those sounds pretty precisely between the heights and beds and vary the size of the object across the array of speakers. I know it's a matter of preference, but for me, I appreciate subtlety as much as I appreciate bombast. So even if a movie doesn't have those in-your-face moments of overhead flybys or rainstorms, I can still be impressed by the mix. The Gunman has some pretty nice moments in that vein, even if it only has a couple of obvious overhead moments. More specific to what you quoted, The Age Of Adaline, as a romantic drama, doesn't immediately call for obvious overhead audio... though it is a REALLY well-done Atmos mix and I think people will be impressed by it. 

So yeah, to each their own, I guess. For my tastes, the subtle benefits of Atmos are just as important as the obvious ones. I don't think you can discount a mix just because it doesn't constantly make use of those extra speakers. I would rather the mixer use it as needed for the desired mix than overuse it just because it is available to them.


----------



## pasender91

Lesmor said:


> I believe some members have tried all the 5 different positions for height speakers?
> IIRC they reported that all positions produce the same content is that correct?
> Thanks in advance


They reported they could not hear differences between adjacent locations, but still hear differences between front and rear ...
This was a little surprising to me, could be due to them not having good ears 
By design, in Atmos each location will play a specific sound, so there must be some differences 

Only way to know for sure would be to play the same scene several times on FH TF TM TR and RH, record the signal on a microphone and PC, and then analyze the wav files for differences, someone up to the challenge ????


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> Now owning a 7702 in a 9.2.4 installation including Wides, in an Atmos (+DSU) context it was always used in the standard 7.2 + 4 Heights context, as this is what the user manual describes as being the only possible context when 4 Heights/Tops are in use.
> 
> But after some other exchanges with JD, I've reconfigured our 7702, by indicating in the Menu that there are no Back Surround speakers in use. (BS = "none")...
> 
> And this is how Atmos can now be reproduced in our context (5+Wides) + 4 Heights (and sorry for this bad iPhone picture) :
> 
> Now after some tests made in Atmos with Jupiter + Gravity, I can confirm that this Atmos context with Wides + 4 Heights is really impressive, compared to the standard 7.x.4. As in the very same scene, when the Wides are in use (instead of BSs), this give a sort of expansion to the frontal scene which is really impressive.
> 
> So if you have an Atmos capable receiver and Wides speakers, I'd suggest you to make a try, it's really worthwhile. The more so if you are in a projection context with a "large" screen (we use a 2.35 format, 2.60m base screen)...
> 
> So MERCI Dan & JD.
> 
> Hugo
> 
> PS': JD, on the 7702, this also works with the XLR connection,
> *PS": Jeff, I'm totally sure that you're going to really like this Atmos possibility...*


Vachement chouette, mon vieux! Merci de m'avoir averti de la possibilité.

After the snafu we discovered today in another thread with the AVR lying through its teeth about which sounds were going where, I just had to test this out and can verify that 7.1.4 w/FW in lieu of SB is working here. Just how much better I will like it--and whether it will justify having to remember to change the speaker config before and after each Atmos playback--remains to be seen/heard.


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And I certainly understand this. I also enjoy the "wow factor" of the overheads when the movie calls for it. But let's face it, some movies just don't call for it. What Atmos adds for me is precision... and that's more about placement between the bed channels and heights, not something obviously just overhead. Mixers can place those sounds pretty precisely between the heights and beds and vary the size of the object across the array of speakers. I know it's a matter of preference, but for me, I appreciate subtlety as much as I appreciate bombast. So even if a movie doesn't have those in-your-face moments of overhead flybys or rainstorms, I can still be impressed by the mix. The Gunman has some pretty nice moments in that vein, even if it only has a couple of obvious overhead moments. More specific to what you quoted, The Age Of Adaline, as a romantic drama, doesn't immediately call for obvious overhead audio... though it is a REALLY well-done Atmos mix and I think people will be impressed by it.
> 
> So yeah, to each their own, I guess. For my tastes, the subtle benefits of Atmos are just as important as the obvious ones. I don't think you can discount a mix just because it doesn't constantly make use of those extra speakers. I would rather the mixer use it as needed for the desired mix than overuse it just because it is available to them.


Well said


----------



## chi_guy50

*Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3*



chi_guy50 said:


> Just how much better I will like it--and whether it will justify having to remember to change the speaker config before and after each Atmos playback--remains to be seen/heard.


Okay, here's my initial down-and-dirty strictly anecdotal report on the merits of Atmos 7.1.4 w/FW versus 7.1.4 w/SB:

As much as I esteem the FW (for some source material), this is quite the trade-off. I would characterize it--as you might logically expect--as gaining expansiveness at the expense of a not insignificant measure of envelopment. Here's a very concrete example from the only Atmos BRD I own, _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_:

At time stamp 1:00:00 the viewer goes over the Victoria Falls (thunderous bass, BTW) and finds himself white-water rafting on the Zambezi River. With FW the falls are spread out before you--I can (only) imagine that this is particularly effective when viewing on a wide screen. At 1:00:55 you become submerged in the river, and at 1:01:00 the gurgling of the waters pans from right to left; with SB the pan is seamless from your right ear and across the back of your head to the left. I have been thrown from a white-water raft and this playback is as close to being there without getting wet as I could possibly imagine. Omitting the SB here results in a significant loss of immersion (in this case, quite literally). The TM pick up some of the slack in my setup, but it's inadequate compensation for no longer having the sound wrap around your head as if you were the underwater camera.

That's just one impression, but it confirms the sentiment often expressed here that we would like FW as an Atmos addition rather than a substitution.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Dan,



Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you not have to put the front wides on XLR and Height 2 on RCA jacks? Or all RCA? That's what it looks like on the 7702 mk II since the Front Wides and Height2 are labeled on the same XLR output.


All this has been done with the 7702 (non Mk2) we own... now on the 13 speakers, all connections are done via XLR, except Height 2 which use RCA (+ a Samson S-convert RCA-XLR adapter), so all the amplifiers are fed via XLR.

Hopefully all this will work the same way on the 7702Mk2... but as JD seems to be quite confident... so... 

I should be having a 7702Mk2 as soon as it arrives in EU, so we'll see then... 

Hugo


----------



## Lesmor

pasender91 said:


> They reported they could not hear differences between adjacent locations, but still hear differences between front and rear ...
> This was a little surprising to me, could be due to them not having good ears
> By design, in Atmos each location will play a specific sound, so there must be some differences
> 
> Only way to know for sure would be to play the same scene several times on FH TF TM TR and RH, record the signal on a microphone and PC, and then analyze the wav files for differences, someone up to the challenge ????


I dont know if anyone would but the reason I ask, and it might not even be possible is 

I was configured for 7.2.4 (FH/RH) but as my front heights were at 20deg felt it was more like a wall of sound at the front rather than a feeling of height.

As I have said before I am a huge fan of wides so decided to forgo the FH and now set up my X7200WA as 9.1.2
In doing so I was surprised to see that AVR requested I connect my Rear Heights to the Front height speaker posts.

It then occurred to me 
I believe the Front height pre-outs are also hot when you use the FH speaker posts, could I possibly use them as well ( with a power amp) for FH or Top front positioned in ceiling speakers, i.e. 9.2.4

Yes it would duplicate the RH (FH) signal, but if as I originally asked there is no difference between height signals would that be an option?
Or am I missing something obvious (More then likely) ?
Cheers
Andy


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

chi_guy50 said:


> Okay, here's my initial down-and-dirty strictly anecdotal report on the merits of Atmos 7.1.4 w/FW versus 7.1.4 w/SB:
> 
> As much as I esteem the FW (for some source material), this is quite the trade-off. I would characterize it--as you might logically expect--as gaining expansiveness at the expense of a not insignificant measure of envelopment. Here's a very concrete example from the only Atmos BRD I own, _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_:
> 
> At time stamp 1:00:00 the viewer goes over the Victoria Falls (thunderous bass, BTW) and finds himself white-water rafting on the Zambezi River. With FW the falls are spread out before you--I can (only) imagine that this is particularly effective when viewing on a wide screen. At 1:00:55 you become submerged in the river, and at 1:01:00 the gurgling of the waters pans from right to left; with SB the pan is seamless from your right ear and across the back of your head to the left. I have been thrown from a white-water raft and this playback is as close to being there without getting wet as I could possibly imagine. Omitting the SB here results in a significant loss of immersion (in this case, quite literally). The TM pick up some of the slack in my setup, but it's inadequate compensation for no longer having the sound wrap around your head as if you were the underwater camera.
> 
> That's just one impression, but it confirms the sentiment often expressed here that we would like FW as an Atmos addition rather than a substitution.


Interesting...

Where exactly are your Side Surrounds? 90°?


----------



## batpig

There's definitely a difference between front and rear height signals. One's in front and one's in back!

If it's more important to get 9 discrete base layer speakers such that you're going to do a "fake" 9.1.4 setup with only 2 height channels split into an array, the only correct way to do it IMO is to designate them as "Top Middle" to the overhead array DEFINITELY gets the stuff that is supposed to be above you. Sending a FH signal to the (physically located at) RH speakers is not a good idea.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Agreed and it will sound better having the sound above you.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Jeff,



batpig said:


> I've actually thought before this would be a good deployment (assuming you're referring to chi_guy when you say "Jeff").
> 
> Considering how clustered the surrounds / TM are around a small seating area:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be worth a shot with this alternate 7.1.4 Atmos config.


Yes my PS" was meant for chi_guy... 

Now and to complement what I wrote above, this (5+Wides).2.4 Atmos config is really impressive by the added subjective immersion one can get. 

In my opinion (and our installation) this configuration sounds more "natural", than the standard 7.2.4, as the perceived sound image is so slightly off centered towards the screen, though a better coherence with the visual image. 

Anyway IMO it's worth (at least) a try, singularly as this is really simple to do through just a SB off switching in the Menu (once Wides are installed and equalized).

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Bonsoir Jeff,



chi_guy50 said:


> Vachement chouette, mon vieux! Merci de m'avoir averti de la possibilité.
> 
> After the snafu we discovered today in another thread with the AVR lying through its teeth about which sounds were going where, I just had to test this out and can verify that 7.1.4 w/FW in lieu of SB is working here. Just how much better I will like it--and whether it will justify having to remember to change the speaker config before and after each Atmos playback--remains to be seen/heard.


L'essayer, c'est l'adopter... 

Amicalement,

Hugo


----------



## eng-399

Take a look at this picture. I bought this bluray at a store that sells used Blu-ray Disc's and when I opened it up it says Atmos on it and when I went to setting on the disc it says the same thing. What do you guys think is this an Atmos disc that I paid 7.00$ dollars for.








The outside box doesn't say anything but the disc does.


----------



## asere

eng-399 said:


> Take a look at this picture. I bought this bluray at a store that sells used Blu-ray Disc's and when I opened it up it says Atmos on it and when I went to setting on the disc it says the same thing. What do you guys think is this an Atmos disc that I paid 7.00$ dollars for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The outside box doesn't say anything but the disc does.


Super!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, you're cool. That is an Atmos disc.


----------



## eng-399

Wow what a find maybe I'll go back then and see what else they have. Thanks for looking guys!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

eng-399 said:


> Wow what a find maybe I'll go back then and see what else they have. Thanks for looking guys!!


$7.00 for _Transformers 4_? You got taken to the wood shed.


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Where exactly are your Side Surrounds? 90°?


No (I can only dream), more like 100+°. It's the best I could do without upsetting the domestic applecart.


----------



## Lesmor

batpig said:


> There's definitely a difference between front and rear height signals. One's in front and one's in back!
> 
> If it's more important to get 9 discrete base layer speakers such that you're going to do a "fake" 9.1.4 setup with only 2 height channels split into an array, the only correct way to do it IMO is to designate them as "Top Middle" to the overhead array DEFINITELY gets the stuff that is supposed to be above you. Sending a FH signal to the (physically located at) RH speakers is not a good idea.


Thanks guys
I would agree I would never have configured FH speaker posts to RH speakers but as I said originally that was what is suggested by the AVR "set up assist".
Hence the previous question about overhead content, I imagine the AVR will sort out the FH to RH processing

My Rear Height speakers just make the requisite 50 deg angle for RH so I was happy to go along with it, they would be out with the angles for Top Middle.

Only set it up in 9.1.2 today
Sounded great with Gravity so will do some more listening and see how it goes



Cheers
Andy


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> ........... I think DTS:X will fix and even improve upon all these issues. ;-)


Will we ever see this in 2015 or will we have to wait until 2017


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> * I think DTS:X will fix and even improve upon all these issues. ;-)


Or possibly bring out a whole new list of "issues". Just cuz it took longer to get out in the field doesn't mean it will be any less buggy.


----------



## Jive Turkey

asere said:


> Is it ok to go up on the front heights volume level much more than the other speakers so you can hear more content?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I think that falls into the "it's a free country" category, and I'd bet you worked hard for the money to be where you're at.

Thus, I vote crank it whatever makes you happy.


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> Will we ever see this in 2015 or will we have to wait until 2017


♦ In 2016 for sure...same as UHD Blu. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Or possibly bring out a whole new list of "issues". Just cuz it took longer to get out in the field doesn't mean it will be any less buggy.


♦ Well, they have more time to read all the same stuff as us, and to experiment with Dolby Atmos in their own DTS:X facilities. 
So it should look and sound better. 

Have a splendid weekend both of you...and get some pizza with Max.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Already ahead of you, Bob.

Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed and it will sound better having the sound above you.


So, a 9.1.2 (TM) Dolby Atmos setup could sound better than a 7.1.4 (TF, TR) one? But what about holographic imaging from above...back and forward? 

Yeah, 9.1.4 Atmos is definitely missing...too bad because it is in the Atmos white papers for us, the masses.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That wasn't the question. The assumption was that the person was going to do 9.1.2 anyway. So if that's what they are doing put that pair of heights over your head. Or possible an array of two pairs (same content) over the MLP.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> $7.00 for _Transformers 4_? You got taken to the wood shed.


What says you Dan, with that Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack, two bucks?  ...And it's only the 2D version.


----------



## wse

Scott Simonian said:


> That wasn't the question. The assumption was that the person was going to do 9.1.2 anyway. So if that's what they are doing put that pair of heights over your head..


I think with one row of seats that the best sound!


----------



## NorthSky

scott simonian said:


> *already ahead of you*, bob.
> 
> Enjoy your weekend.


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/posts/36991250/

Edit: Like I you also probably saw it @ the theater...but true; you are in Dolby Atmos territory [email protected] your own home. 
* I'll be joining you [email protected] my own mansion. ...Still some to go...but the largest time period is behind now...the shortest stretch is just ahead...and meanwhile my Dolby Atmos Blu-ray collection is slowly expanding...with just over a dozen BR titles...sixteen I think.


----------



## stikle

eng-399 said:


> Take a look at this picture. I bought this bluray at a store that sells used Blu-ray Disc's and when I opened it up it says Atmos on it and when I went to setting on the disc it says the same thing. What do you guys think is this an Atmos disc that I paid 7.00$ dollars for.



I am missing something here...are you asking if this was an Atmos release and is real (yes)? Or if paying $7 for an Atmos disc was a good deal (depends on the title)?


----------



## eng-399

stikle said:


> I am missing something here...are you asking if this was an Atmos release and is real (yes)? Or if paying $7 for an Atmos disc was a good deal (depends on the title)?



I bought this bluray used the box didn't say anything about Atmos on it but when I opened it up the front of the disc said Atmos. I thought to my self at the time wow if this is real I just found a hell of deal that's all. these disc's are a lot more money and someone screwed up to my advantage. 7$ dollars is a great deal. I know it's on Netflix but I like having the Blu-ray Disc. I thought that Atmos blurays cost more money and since I don't look for it because I'm not setup Atmos yet. I maybe wrong but thought this would be the place to ask guys about it.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> That wasn't the question. The assumption was that the person was going to do 9.1.2 anyway. So if that's what they are doing put that pair of heights over your head. Or possible an array of two pairs (same content) over the MLP.


Han-han, no fuzzy stuff here...can't put the same stuff above. ...And I knew that they were talking 7.2.4 with the two Front Wides instead of the two Back Surrounds...Hugo. Then I simply put back them two Rear Surrounds (Floor level) and took away two overheads, leaving only two (TM). 

But 9.1.6 would be best because it would contain a lot of possibilities...even removing the front wides and put them as a second pair of side surrounds. 
And 6 above cover two or even three rows of seats. ...Four people per row = twelve people (six guys with their six gals). ...And six pizzas (medium/large). ...All dressed.


----------



## aaranddeeman

eng-399 said:


> Take a look at this picture. I bought this bluray at a store that sells used Blu-ray Disc's and when I opened it up it says Atmos on it and when I went to setting on the disc it says the same thing. What do you guys think is this an Atmos disc that I paid 7.00$ dollars for.
> The outside box doesn't say anything but the disc does.


May be I am missing something.
Why is that a surprise? TF4 is the first ever Atmos disk anyways..


Edit : Don't get too excited. There is noting Atmos about TF4. You will start doubting your setup.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> May be I am missing something.
> Why is that a surprise? TF4 is the first ever Atmos disk anyways..
> 
> Edit : Don't get too excited. There is noting Atmos about TF4. You will start doubting your setup.


He looked @ the box, cover slip, or on the Blu-ray plastic case on the rear and did not see any Atmos logo or writing. 
So he wasn't expecting it...and after opening it...inside on the disc itself it says Atmos...so he was happy. ...And $7 is a good deal, better than $20, and still better than $10. ...Atmos or not, but still Atmos. ...Not 3D though.


----------



## asere

About to watch Mad Max FR in 3D.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## smurraybhm

asere said:


> About to watch Mad Max FR in 3D.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Mad Max Fury Road is Atmos Porn - full frontage and nothing held back. Almost overwhelming at times, good workout for the subs and I didn't go lower than -18.


----------



## ultraflexed

kbarnes701 said:


> I think this is one of the best movies for showcasing DSU. There are numerous standout scenes, but the best one must surely be the one where the kids are hiding in the hut while the grievers are hunting them down. There is a huge amount of overhead activity, with the characters looking up to the ceiling of the hut a lot as the creatures attempt to break in - there is overhead sound more or less constantly in this scene. Another impressive showcase for DSU in the same movie is the first time Thomas goes into the maze and encounters the grievers. All in all the sound in this movie is close to perfect - and the bass is something else too!


Couldn't have said it better myself about maze runner, demo worthy as well, have you checked out madmax yet, we need your review for it in our atmos blue-ray thread, I wrote on it, best atmos track, raised the bar high.


----------



## petetherock

eng-399 said:


> I bought this bluray used the box didn't say anything about Atmos on it but when I opened it up the front of the disc said Atmos. I thought to my self at the time wow if this is real I just found a hell of deal that's all. these disc's are a lot more money and someone screwed up to my advantage. 7$ dollars is a great deal. I know it's on Netflix but I like having the Blu-ray Disc. I thought that Atmos blurays cost more money and since I don't look for it because I'm not setup Atmos yet. I maybe wrong but thought this would be the place to ask guys about it.


It's an Atmos equipped disc, but it's one of the earliest, and the sound editting is minimally Atmos. But it has plenty of action, so for USD 7, it's ok. Enjoy it. Cheers 
PS: over on my side of the pond, it can cost up to the equivalent of 30USD.


----------



## brahman12

*Jump on the Atmos Train*



eng-399 said:


> I bought this bluray used the box didn't say anything about Atmos on it but when I opened it up the front of the disc said Atmos. I thought to my self at the time wow if this is real I just found a hell of deal that's all. these disc's are a lot more money and someone screwed up to my advantage. 7$ dollars is a great deal. I know it's on Netflix but I like having the Blu-ray Disc. I thought that Atmos blurays cost more money and since I don't look for it because I'm not setup Atmos yet. I maybe wrong but thought this would be the place to ask guys about it.


That is a good deal....the movie gets a lot a flak on this thread, but once you got ur Atmos set up running, ur gonna enjoy this flick if you've enjoyed the other Transformer films. Every one of the Transformers franchise is a badass mix....this one is awesome as well. it sounds ridiculous (great) in Atmos and really rocks. Pump up the volume and sit in Atmos induced Nirvana. As far as overhead effects, perhaps it was not spot on in each and every moment it could have been...but it does kick in and when it does it rocks...particularly towards the end....I don't want to spoil it for anyone so I won't go into deep detail. But for 7 bucks you got a rockin' demo disc IMO.


----------



## asere

Finished watching Mad Max FR. WOW! The audio was one of the best I've ever heard. The sub was just pounding away and you get engulfed. Especially during the sand storm part.
The film itself was really good too!
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> Finished watching Mad Max FR. WOW! The audio was one of the best I've ever heard. The sub was just pounding away and you get engulfed. Especially during the sand storm part.
> The film itself was really good too!
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 I'm sure your DXD12012 had a blast strutting its stuff with this bad boy , it really was the perfect storm of a mix


----------



## maikeldepotter

chi_guy50 said:


> Okay, here's my initial down-and-dirty strictly anecdotal report on the merits of Atmos 7.1.4 w/FW versus 7.1.4 w/SB:
> 
> ......
> 
> That's just one impression, but it confirms the sentiment often expressed here that we would like FW as an Atmos addition rather than a substitution.




What about going from

*5+(rears).1.4(TF+TR)* to
*
5+(rears, 45 degrees elevated)+wides.1.2(TM)*?

How would the wins/trade-off balance turn out?


----------



## Lesmor

#29183 
So as there was no suggestion to the contrary it seems an array is possible if you use both speaker posts and the associated pre-outs (With a power amp) on an AVR?

Interesting because if you felt so inclined that might also work for a side surround array.

Of course Audyssey calibration might be the fly in the ointment.

Regards
Andy


----------



## chi_guy50

maikeldepotter said:


> What about going from
> 
> *5+(rears).1.4(TF+TR)* to
> *
> 5+(rears, 45 degrees elevated)+wides.1.2(TM)*?
> 
> How would the wins/trade-off balance turn out?


For the record, my SB are in fact elevated (at ca. 37°) and my surrounds are, by necessity, lowered.

But to answer your question, I guess we'll never know (if you believe in logic, that is):



batpig said:


> The bottom line is Height1 comes before Height2. If you only have one pair of height speakers the signal is coming out of the Height1 output. Period. It's perfectly logical if you think about it and it couldn't be any other way, there has never been a setting to tell the receiver to use Height2 output and ignore Height1.


----------



## Kain

Is there a recommended or minimum required distance from the left/right front main speakers to the left/right front wide speakers in order to make the front wide speakers worthwhile?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

chi_guy50 said:


> Okay, here's my initial down-and-dirty strictly anecdotal report on the merits of Atmos 7.1.4 w/FW versus 7.1.4 w/SB:
> 
> As much as I esteem the FW (for some source material), this is quite the trade-off. I would characterize it--as you might logically expect--as gaining expansiveness at the expense of a not insignificant measure of envelopment. Here's a very concrete example from the only Atmos BRD I own, _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_:
> 
> At time stamp 1:00:00 the viewer goes over the Victoria Falls (thunderous bass, BTW) and finds himself white-water rafting on the Zambezi River. With FW the falls are spread out before you--I can (only) imagine that this is particularly effective when viewing on a wide screen. At 1:00:55 you become submerged in the river, and at 1:01:00 the gurgling of the waters pans from right to left; with SB the pan is seamless from your right ear and across the back of your head to the left. I have been thrown from a white-water raft and this playback is as close to being there without getting wet as I could possibly imagine. Omitting the SB here results in a significant loss of immersion (in this case, quite literally). The TM pick up some of the slack in my setup, but it's inadequate compensation for no longer having the sound wrap around your head as if you were the underwater camera.
> 
> That's just one impression, but it confirms the sentiment often expressed here that we would like FW as an Atmos addition rather than a substitution.





erwinfrombelgium said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Where exactly are your Side Surrounds? 90°?





chi_guy50 said:


> For the record, my SB are in fact elevated (at ca. 37°) and my surrounds are, by necessity, lowered.


I left out you saying that your Side Surrounds ar at +/- 100° and lower (than SB). But nonetheless you say you have excellent panning with Surround Back engaged, even if these are elevated 37° (so actually in RH or TR position)... Even more interesting. You didn't say where your Top Rears are (or are you using FH+TM?) but maybe this indicates it's beneficial indeed to have 1 pair of speakers behind (besides the Side Surrounds) you and maybe we don't need more than that since we are not very good at determening where sounds behind us are exactly. As long as we're covered behind, it's fine.
this could result in this "optimal" 13.1 speaker setup:

Listener level speakers:
LCR @-30/0/+30°
LR Wide or Surround 1 @ +/-60 to 80°
LR Surround or Surround 2 @ +/- 90 to 110°

Top speakers: 4 LR (FH and TM) elevated 45 to 60°

LR Rear Surround elevated 20 to 40°


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Kain said:


> Is there a recommended or minimum required distance from the left/right front main speakers to the left/right front wide speakers in order to make the front wide speakers worthwhile?


25°


----------



## maikeldepotter

chi_guy50 said:


> For the record, my SB are in fact elevated (at ca. 37°) and my surrounds are, by necessity, lowered.
> 
> But to answer your question, I guess we'll never know (if you believe in logic, that is):


I do not understand. Why would a comparison between 7.1.4 (TF+TR) and 9.1.2 (TM) not be possible? Those are the recommended lay-outs according to the Atmos guidelines.


----------



## chi_guy50

maikeldepotter said:


> I do not understand. Why would a comparison between 7.1.4 (TF+TR) and 9.1.2 (TM) not be possible? Those are the recommended lay-outs according to the Atmos guidelines.


Well, come to think of it, I guess you can do it, but you would have to wire the speakers you want to designate as TM to the Height1 posts on the AVR, because, as batpig has delineated, that's where the sound is coming from in a 9.1.2 configuration. I readily admit that the various complex limitations and permutations involved in these calculations sometimes cause my eyes to cross and brain to grow mushy, but I think this is the crux of the issue (i.e., you can't have Height2 without a Height1). This means that, even with 13 speakers connected and calibrated, you can't switch on the fly from 7.1.4 (TF + TR) to 9.1.2 (TM) without rewiring speakers because the TM signal from the AVR will be emanating from the speakers you have attached to the Height1 posts.

I hope I got that right.


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I left out you saying that your Side Surrounds ar at +/- 100° and lower (than SB). But nonetheless you say you have excellent panning with Surround Back engaged, even if these are elevated 37° (so actually in RH or TR position)... Even more interesting. *You didn't say where your Top Rears are (or are you using FH+TM?)* but maybe this indicates it's beneficial indeed to have 1 pair of speakers behind (besides the Side Surrounds) you and maybe we don't need more than that since we are not very good at determening where sounds behind us are exactly.


Yes, I am using wall-mounted FH at 22° (toed-in and pointed down toward the MLP) and in-ceiling TM at 100°. 

I should point out that I consider myself a rank A/V dilettante and do not possess audiophile hearing acuity, but I feel I have excellent envelopment in the rear sound stage. It's the top-level coverage up front--with an elevation gap of 78° between FH and TM--where I think I might be able to make some improvements. I can't move the TM (extraneous 12" holes in the living room's textured ceiling might cause a bit of a domestic foofaraw) and the MLP can't go much further back, so there's no leeway there. I'm currently deliberating replacing the FH with two more in-ceiling speaker pairs identical to my present TM's (which I already have on hand) and running two of the pairs in an array until x.x.6 becomes an option. I'm not dissatisfied with the results I get from my current layout by any means, but I do foresee the opportunity for amelioration.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> As long as we're covered behind, it's fine.
> this could result in this "optimal" 13.1 speaker setup:
> 
> Listener level speakers:
> LCR @-30/0/+30°
> LR Wide or Surround 1 @ +/-60 to 80°
> LR Surround or Surround 2 @ +/- 90 to 110°
> 
> Top speakers: 4 LR (FH and TM) elevated 45 to 60°
> 
> LR Rear Surround elevated 20 to 40°


That looks pretty good to me on paper, although I might be tempted to tinker with those FH and TM angles (e.g., 40° & 80°).

I haven't been able to verify this yet with my very limited Atmos listening material to date, but it's always been my hope that the fact that my rear surrounds are elevated will make front-to-rear pans in a competent mix even more emphatic (e.g., an airplane takeoff moving from FL/R to FHL/R to TML/R to SBL/R).


----------



## kingwiggi

chi_guy50 said:


> Okay, here's my initial down-and-dirty strictly anecdotal report on the merits of Atmos 7.1.4 w/FW versus 7.1.4 w/SB:
> 
> As much as I esteem the FW (for some source material), this is quite the trade-off. I would characterize it--as you might logically expect--as gaining expansiveness at the expense of a not insignificant measure of envelopment. Here's a very concrete example from the only Atmos BRD I own, _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_:
> 
> At time stamp 1:00:00 the viewer goes over the Victoria Falls (thunderous bass, BTW) and finds himself white-water rafting on the Zambezi River. With FW the falls are spread out before you--I can (only) imagine that this is particularly effective when viewing on a wide screen. At 1:00:55 you become submerged in the river, and at 1:01:00 the gurgling of the waters pans from right to left; with SB the pan is seamless from your right ear and across the back of your head to the left. I have been thrown from a white-water raft and this playback is as close to being there without getting wet as I could possibly imagine. Omitting the SB here results in a significant loss of immersion (in this case, quite literally). The TM pick up some of the slack in my setup, but it's inadequate compensation for no longer having the sound wrap around your head as if you were the underwater camera.
> 
> That's just one impression, but it confirms the sentiment often expressed here that we would like FW as an Atmos addition rather than a substitution.


_Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_

There were limited screenings in a few select US cities recently so this should be heading to US blu-ray soon.

http://www.bbcwpressroom.com/press/...s-for-a-special-two-night-event-august-10-11/
http://shop.bbc.com/us/page/enchantedkingdom


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kingwiggi said:


> _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_
> 
> There were limited screenings in a few select US cities recently so this should be heading to US blu-ray soon.
> 
> http://www.bbcwpressroom.com/press/...s-for-a-special-two-night-event-august-10-11/
> http://shop.bbc.com/us/page/enchantedkingdom


Too bad it's a Fathom Event and not a high quality DCP with Dolby Atmos making the rounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

markm75 said:


> I thought this was the case, but I was hoping to avoid having floor standing speakers when i do decide to make the switch.. makes me wonder,* as even theaters are all based at the ceiling edge level aiming dow*n, i guess atmos wont really apply there or be some variant.


That is not correct. In all of the Atmos theaters I have been in, the overhead speakers run in two lines from front to back of the ceiling, offset from the center. The side surrounds are positioned high enough to prevent audience tampering but most certainly not that the 'ceiling edge'.

AS has been said, if all your speakers are up at ceiling height, you won't be able to make Atmos work.


----------



## kbarnes701

ultraflexed said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself about maze runner, demo worthy as well, have you checked out madmax yet, we need your review for it in our atmos blue-ray thread, I wrote on it, best atmos track, raised the bar high.


MMFR isn't released in the UK until October. But I have a US copy winging its way to me right now. I am excited at the prospect of listening to the Atmos track, based on all the comments.

BTW, what's the betting that The Maze Runner gets an Atmos double dip attempt when UHD reaches us?


----------



## wse

OK questions has any one tried this 15 speaker configuration using Y cables 

- 3 Front speakers L/C/R
- 4 Surround speakers at ear level: Left Surround/Left Back/Right Surround/Right Back
- 4 Surround speaker at 3 feet above the era level speakers: High Left Surround/ High Left Back/ High Right Surround/ High Right Back 
These high speakers receive the same signal that the one at ear level using Y cables 
- 4 In ceiling speakers 

- 2 or 4 subs

That should provide a great surround sound experience using ATMOS or DSU!!

I might try that, except I would need to buy 4 more KEF LS-50


----------



## maikeldepotter

wse said:


> OK questions has any one tried this 15 speaker configuration using Y cables
> 
> - 3 Front speakers L/C/R
> - 4 Surround speakers at ear level: Left Surround/Left Back/Right Surround/Right Back
> - 4 Surround speaker at 3 feet above the era level speakers: High Left Surround/ High Left Back/ High Right Surround/ High Right Back
> These high speakers receive the same signal that the one at ear level using Y cables
> - 4 In ceiling speakers
> 
> - 2 or 4 subs
> 
> That should provide a great surround sound experience using ATMOS or DSU!!
> 
> I might try that, except I would need to buy 4 more KEF LS-50



Well, I made a start.... 2 back surrounds and 4 top speakers still to be added....



maikeldepotter said:


> With height speakers on the ceiling and positioned right above mains and surrounds (MLP perspective), my lay-out is more of a hybrid between an Atmos and an Auro speaker set-up. All speakers are installed equidistant from MLP, with LCR and surrounds at ear-level and heights at about 35 degrees elevation.
> 
> I am currently not using any 3D capable AVR/processor, and the matrixing is carried out in the analog domain. The heights are used to lift the perceived sound of all 5 base level speakers from ear level (3') to 10 and 15 percent elevation for fronts (to 4') and surrounds (to 5') respectively. The fronts heights get an additional ambient extraction (Hafler matrix) from the mains, a method I am currently in the process of replicating for the surrounds.


----------



## LowellG

I am half way to Atmos now. I installed my ceiling speakers today and moved my rear surrounds down and the sides down and forward. Now I just need my 3050 which arrives Wed. 

7.4.4 now. Sounds pretty good with Neo:X and ASX


----------



## blastermaster

> I am half way to Atmos now. I installed my ceiling speakers today and moved my rear surrounds down and the sides down and forward. Now I just need my 3050 which arrives Wed.
> 
> 7.4.4 now. Sounds pretty good with Neo:X and ASX
> Like
> Lowell


Nice and congrats! This is certainly exciting times for A/V enthusiasts. I can't wait to get mine!!


----------



## asere

audiofan1 said:


> I'm sure your DXD12012 had a blast strutting its stuff with this bad boy , it really was the perfect storm of a mix


The DXD 12012 was out of CONTROL!!! 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, come to think of it, I guess you can do it, but you would have to wire the speakers you want to designate as TM to the Height1 posts on the AVR, because, as batpig has delineated, that's where the sound is coming from in a 9.1.2 configuration. I readily admit that the various complex limitations and permutations involved in these calculations sometimes cause my eyes to cross and brain to grow mushy, but I think this is the crux of the issue (i.e., you can't have Height2 without a Height1). This means that, even with 13 speakers connected and calibrated, you can't switch on the fly from 7.1.4 (TF + TR) to 9.1.2 (TM) without rewiring speakers because the TM signal from the AVR will be emanating from the speakers you have attached to the Height1 posts.
> 
> I hope I got that right.


With a speaker switch you can change the destination of the Height 1 signal (FH/TF or TM) with the turn of a knob.

When I got all my (currently planned) speakers up and running, I will probably be able to make an 'on the fly' comparison between 7.1.4 (FH+TM) and 9.1.2 (wides+TM). Since my rears will be elevated, I can't do TR.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> With a speaker switch you can change the destination of the Height 1 signal (TF or TM) with the turn of a knob.
> 
> When I got all my (currently planned) speakers up and running, I will probably be able to make an 'on the fly' comparison between 7.1.4 (TF+TM) and 9.1.2 (wides+TM). Since my rears will be elevated, I can't do TR.


1. You would need a dual source speaker switch, in that case.
2. You would loose Audyssey when switching amp assign.
3. You can't do TF+TM.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> 1. You would need a dual source speaker switch, in that case.
> 2. You would loose Audyssey when switching amp assign.
> 3. You can't do TF+TM.


1. Got it.
2. Don't need it.
3. Corrected.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> 1. Got it.
> .


Actually and old AVR with at least Zone 2(powered by said AVR's speaker posts) would make the switch height1/height2 possible from your seat by remote control.


----------



## CBdicX

Maybe asked before, can upfire (refecting) Atmos speakers Klipsch RP280FA be used with Atmos direct fire, Klipsch RP 140SA mounted to the wall near the ceiling.
The receiver Denon X7200WA can do the mixed setup, refective and direct fire for Rear Height, but what about the effect of refecting and direct fire ?


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> Maybe asked before, can upfire (refecting) Atmos speakers Klipsch RP280FA be used with Atmos direct fire, Klipsch RP 140SA mounted to the wall near the ceiling.
> The receiver Denon X7200WA can do the mixed setup, refective and direct fire for Rear Height, but what about the effect of refecting and direct fire ?


No problem, see page 12 of Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines.


----------



## surfingstephens

Upgrading soon to Atmos/DTS:X set up. Yamaha 2050. I am contemplating the following set up. I would like to set up the dolby atmose 5.1.4.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html

I already have two speakers in the ceiling in front of the couch right where they need to be. Instead of putting two more speakers in the ceiling behind the couch(which is not physically possible, coffered ceiling), I would just use two atmos speakers in the rear speaker position. Make sense? Kind of a compromise, thoughts? This room has dual use as a game room, so have to keep the wife happy.


----------



## LowellG

surfingstephens said:


> Upgrading soon to Atmos/DTS:X set up. Yamaha 2050. I am contemplating the following set up. I would like to set up the dolby atmose 5.1.4.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> I already have two speakers in the ceiling in front of the couch right where they need to be. Instead of putting two more speakers in the ceiling behind the couch(which is not physically possible, coffered ceiling), I would just use two atmos speakers in the rear speaker position. Make sense? Kind of a compromise, thoughts? This room has dual use as a game room, so have to keep the wife happy.


Are you saying use 2 Atmos enabled (reflective) speakers in the rear? If so, it would work, I just don't know how it will sound. What can't you put 2 more in ceiling. If you have them in front,what's the coffered ceiling have to do with the rear?


----------



## batpig

surfingstephens said:


> Upgrading soon to Atmos/DTS:X set up. Yamaha 2050. I am contemplating the following set up. I would like to set up the dolby atmose 5.1.4.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> I already have two speakers in the ceiling in front of the couch right where they need to be. Instead of putting two more speakers in the ceiling behind the couch(which is not physically possible, coffered ceiling), I would just use two atmos speakers in the rear speaker position. Make sense? Kind of a compromise, thoughts? This room has dual use as a game room, so have to keep the wife happy.


It should work fine. Your hearing is much less sensitive to stuff behind you than in front of you so not a bad place to make the compromise. 

Alternately if you are putting speakers in back you could do back surroinds and 7.1.2. Or get crazy and use integrated Atmos enabled bookshelf speakers back there for 7.1.4


----------



## surfingstephens

LowellG said:


> Are you saying use 2 Atmos enabled (reflective) speakers in the rear? If so, it would work, I just don't know how it will sound. What can't you put 2 more in ceiling. If you have them in front,what's the coffered ceiling have to do with the rear?


the couch sits about 2 feet off the back wall (best I could do), then the ceiling has a 3 foot slope up and inward then the elevated flat part. I suppose I could mount the second ceiling pair in the slanted part of the ceiling, but it would be difficult to do.


----------



## surfingstephens

batpig said:


> It should work fine. Your hearing is much less sensitive to stuff behind you than in front of you so not a bad place to make the compromise.
> 
> Alternately if you are putting speakers in back you could do back surroinds and 7.1.2. Or get crazy and use integrated Atmos enabled bookshelf speakers back there for 7.1.4


The thought had crossed my mind that I could start with 5.1.4 like I described and then add two more side speakers for a full set up. That has it's own problem though as I have a wall on one side that would need a flush wall mount speaker and on the other side is shelfing(no wall) kinda tough to match up speakers in that situation!


----------



## Jack Gilvey

kingwiggi said:


> _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_
> 
> There were limited screenings in a few select US cities recently so this should be heading to US blu-ray soon.
> 
> http://www.bbcwpressroom.com/press/...s-for-a-special-two-night-event-august-10-11/
> http://shop.bbc.com/us/page/enchantedkingdom


 This look like the one? Not much info there but the narrator checks out.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...rect=true&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pldnSite=1


----------



## drmancini

Hello all, I'm totally new to the forum but not new to home cinema. I have read a lot about Atmos on the web but I have still some unanswered questions that I hope you can help me with. 

I'm thinking about an Atmos home theater in my new flat but as always in a home environment, there are constraints to what and how I can design the setup:

1) The theater will be in our living room which is one fairly large rectangular space (roughly 700 square feet) and the TV/screen will be in the middle, effectively dividing the room into two halves. This will create a dedicated rectangular space for the theater that is 16 feet wide and 18 feet long. 

2) There are literally no walls in the space where one would normally put surround speakers, just massive windows or empty space. 

3) I do not want to put surround speakers on the floor, cabinets or stands due to kids constantly running around, and also for aesthetic reasons (not a big fan of 10 large black boxes in my living room). 

My conclusion is to attempt to install the four surround channels into the ceiling (something like Bowers & Wilkins CCM 7.5). Now having said that, I'm not sure I want to have 6 speakers in the ceiling. So I had this crazy idea of installing something like the invisible Amina speakers for the Atmos top channels, so only 4 surrounds would actually show as ceiling speakers.

And now you can tell me that I've lost it .

Has anyone successfully installed all surround channels into the ceiling?
Do you know if the Aminas are any good?

And most important of all ... Is Atmos worth the trouble?

Thank you,
Mike


----------



## Dan Hitchman

drmancini said:


> Hello all, I'm totally new to the forum but not new to home cinema. I have read a lot about Atmos on the web but I have still some unanswered questions that I hope you can help me with.
> 
> I'm thinking about an Atmos home theater in my new flat but as always in a home environment, there are constraints to what and how I can design the setup:
> 
> 1) The theater will be in our living room which is one fairly large rectangular space (roughly 700 square feet) and the TV/screen will be in the middle, effectively dividing the room into two halves. This will create a dedicated rectangular space for the theater that is 16 feet wide and 18 feet long.
> 
> 2) There are literally no walls in the space where one would normally put surround speakers, just massive windows or empty space.
> 
> 3) I do not want to put surround speakers on the floor, cabinets or stands due to kids constantly running around, and also for aesthetic reasons (not a big fan of 10 large black boxes in my living room).
> 
> My conclusion is to attempt to install the four surround channels into the ceiling (something like Bowers & Wilkins CCM 7.5). Now having said that, I'm not sure I want to have 6 speakers in the ceiling. So I had this crazy idea of installing something like the invisible Amina speakers for the Atmos top channels, so only 4 surrounds would actually show as ceiling speakers.
> 
> And now you can tell me that I've lost it .
> 
> Has anyone successfully installed all surround channels into the ceiling?
> Do you know if the Aminas are any good?
> 
> And most important of all ... Is Atmos worth the trouble?
> 
> Thank you,
> Mike


Mike, without having a base layer and a top layer separated by a few feet... Atmos or any immersive format will not work in your situation. Get heavy towers for each position for the mains and surrounds so they're not prone to tipping at the base layer and in-ceilings for the overhead layer or forget it.


----------



## drmancini

Thanks for your reply, Dan.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Mike, without having a base layer and a top layer separated by a few feet... Atmos or any immersive format will not work in your situation. Get heavy towers for each position for the mains and surrounds so they're not prone to tipping at the base layer and in-ceilings for the overhead layer or forget it.


I definitely want to have regular front and centre speakers, but I wanted to put all four surrounds in the ceiling ... I was hoping that by tilting the surrounds toward the listeners, which can be achieved by some in-ceiling installations, I could get away with it.

I undersand that I won't be getting a THX certification but I'm trying the best I can do with the limitations that I have.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

drmancini said:


> Thanks for your reply, Dan.
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely want to have regular front and centre speakers, but I wanted to put all four surrounds in the ceiling ... I was hoping that by tilting the surrounds toward the listeners, which can be achieved by some in-ceiling installations, I could get away with it.
> 
> I understand that I won't be getting a THX certification but I'm trying the best I can do with the limitations that I have.


Sure, but you still need to have a much larger separation between the surrounds and the overheads. It just won't work otherwise.


----------



## drmancini

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sure, but you still need to have a much larger separation between the surrounds and the overheads. It just won't work otherwise.


Ok, so my best bet is to just go for a 7.1 setup, get 4 really good in ceiling speakers for the surrounds and hope for the best? ;-)


----------



## drmancini

drmancini said:


> Ok, so my best bet is to just go for a 7.1 setup, get 4 really good in ceiling speakers for the surrounds and hope for the best? ;-)


And to be clear, by overheads you meant the dedicated 2 Atmos speakers?

Thank you


----------



## Dan Hitchman

drmancini said:


> Ok, so my best bet is to just go for a 7.1 setup, get 4 really good in ceiling speakers for the surrounds and hope for the best? ;-)


Sounds about right.  Good luck. If you decide to put your theater in a more suitable dedicated space, then you could move up to immersive surround. Perhaps get a receiver that has Atmos and DTS:X included just in case.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

drmancini said:


> And to be clear, by overheads you meant the dedicated 2 Atmos speakers?
> 
> Thank you


Yes, overheads are the height layer the other speakers are around ear level while seated. This creates an x/y/z axis for sounds to pan around the room and above you in immersive surround. The main layer side and rear surrounds would be just above ear level, so there isn't any sound blockage by the viewers' heads.


----------



## drmancini

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, overheads are the height layer the other speakers are around ear level while seated. The main layer side and rear surrounds would be just above ear level, so there isn't any sound blockage by the viewers' heads.


Thank you for your help - much appreciated. Actually a much simpler solution as I currently own a Denon 7.1 receiver so all I really need is just the four surrounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

drmancini said:


> Thanks for your reply, Dan.
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely want to have regular front and centre speakers, but I wanted to put all four surrounds in the ceiling ... I was hoping that by tilting the surrounds toward the listeners, which can be achieved by some in-ceiling installations, I could get away with it.
> 
> I undersand that I won't be getting a THX certification but I'm trying the best I can do with the limitations that I have.


As Dan says, Atmos requires some reasonable separation between the listener level (7.1) speakers and the overheads (x.x.2 or x.x.4). If the surrounds and the overheads are all up by the ceiling, Atmos isn’t going to work unfortunately. If you can't get the surrounds/rear surrounds down at somewhere near ear level for the reasons you mention, then if I were you I would forget Atmos for now and concentrate on getting the very best 7.1 you can. I have a friend who has his surrounds in the ceiling (5.1 setup) and they work quite well (with aimable tweeters). It's not as good as having the surrounds much lower down but it's still good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, as is frequently said in this thread. Also, with the surrounds in the ceiling, there is some sense of height anyway just by virtue of the fact that the speakers are way above the listener.

If you can post some pics of your room it might spark off some other ideas.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> As Dan says, Atmos requires some reasonable separation between the listener level (7.1) speakers and the overheads (x.x.2 or x.x.4). If the surrounds and the overheads are all up by the ceiling, Atmos isn’t going to work unfortunately. If you can't get the surrounds/rear surrounds down at somewhere near ear level for the reasons you mention, then if I were you I would forget Atmos for now and concentrate on getting the very best 7.1 you can. I have a friend who has his surrounds in the ceiling (5.1 setup) and they work quite well (with aimable tweeters). It's not as good as having the surrounds much lower down but it's still good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, as is frequently said in this thread. Also, with the surrounds in the ceiling, there is some sense of height anyway just by virtue of the fact that the speakers are way above the listener.
> 
> If you can post some pics of your room it might spark off some other ideas.


Good advice kbarnes. Like with me I have floor fronts but the heights are in ceiling like my surrounds. Atmos for me is not going to work either but when there is an Atmos track at least the front heights kick in even if it's not true Atmos all the way. In my case 5.1 it is for most of the time. He might as well make the best of just 7.1 like you mentioned.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

surfingstephens said:


> The thought had crossed my mind that I could start with 5.1.4 like I described and then add two more side speakers for a full set up. That has it's own problem though as *I have a wall on one side that would need a flush wall mount speaker and on the other side is shelfing*(no wall) kinda tough to match up speakers in that situation!


If by "flush wall mount" you mean in-wall speakers, then yeah that would be tough to match with a bookie.

But there are plenty of choices among the thousands of satellite speakers on the market that allow for a multitude of installation methods. One very adaptable example is the Polk Audio OWM5 (and its smaller brother, the OWM3), dubbed "The World's Most Versatile Loudspeaker" and which provides for nine different methods of installation from face-mounting to free-standing (street price ca. $200 a pair).

IDK what speakers you are presently using but you can probably find satellites to complement them that will suit your room's limitations.


----------



## Santiagochg

Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
I just received a Yamaha RX-A2050 and want to take advantage of my already installed in-ceiling speakers (4 green in the graphic attached) plus the 5 on the floor for a 5.2.4 atmos configuration.
Room is 25 x 14 ft. Height: 11 FT. Two photos attached.
Two JBL sub woofers.
Epson 5025B Projector
120" screen ( coming soon).
Questions:
Please help me choose the best seating position from the graphic ( A-B-C)

I will have for sure tons of questions once I start setting up the HT in the next days so please be patient.
BTW, I live in Colombia, South America and this has been quite an upgrade for me. I need this to work, wives around here are really something!!.

Gracias!


----------



## ultraflexed

Are you guys referring top middle as far as speaker location, or as in top middle as in dedicated channel, I don't think my onkyo 1030 has top middle, just height 1 an height 2


----------



## Dandion

Hi guys
Just want to share my Atmos 5.2.4 setup. It's not completed yet and i received the speakers and receiver just friday. 

Yamaha RX-A3050
4 four in-ceiling B&W CCM 664 with adjustable tweeter 0-30 degres
Wharfedale diamond 10.6 front, 10.3 back, 10CS center
Two SVS SB-2000

Just based on the weight and quality of the CCM664 speakers, i think i 'll be happy of the result.


----------



## bargervais

ultraflexed said:


> Are you guys referring top middle as far as speaker location, or as in top middle as in dedicated channel, I don't think my onkyo 1030 has top middle, just height 1 an height 2


Yes it has top middle


----------



## asere

I have been going back and forth with my old receiver and the new Atmos one. While I have in ceiling heights and surrounds without no ear level surrounds. I can tell the difference. 
Like with the opening scene with Mad Max when you hear the whispers and the start of the car engine that's missing without the heights but distributed to the surrounds.
While recommended to have ear level surrounds I still think it is Atmos 5.1.2 just distributed in a different way. Not the best but great enough to hear the difference.






Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## pasender91

ultraflexed said:


> Are you guys referring top middle as far as speaker location, or as in top middle as in dedicated channel, I don't think my onkyo 1030 has top middle, just height 1 an height 2


Top Middle is just 1 of the 5 possible locations. 
The amps only support 2 height speakers pairs today, hence the 2 connectors that can be assigned to any of the 5 possible positions (but not adjacent).


----------



## pasender91

Santiagochg said:


> Hello and thanks in advance for the help.
> I just received a Yamaha RX-A2050 and want to take advantage of my already installed in-ceiling speakers (4 green in the graphic attached) plus the 5 on the floor for a 5.2.4 atmos configuration.
> Room is 25 x 14 ft. Height: 11 FT. Two photos attached.
> Two JBL sub woofers.
> Epson 5025B Projector
> 120" screen ( coming soon).
> Questions:
> Please help me choose the best seating position from the graphic ( A-B-C)
> 
> I will have for sure tons of questions once I start setting up the HT in the next days so please be patient.
> BTW, I live in Colombia, South America and this has been quite an upgrade for me. I need this to work, wives around here are really something!!.
> 
> Gracias!


hola Santiago 
For me it should be position C for 2 reasons: positioned in the middle of top speakers, and better positioned near 70% of the length of the room, better for acoustics.

Out of curiosity, what model are your speakers ?


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> Top Middle is just 1 of the 5 possible locations.
> The amps only support 2 height speakers pairs today, hence *the 2 connectors that can be assigned to any of the 5 possible positions* (but not adjacent).


To be more specific, the Height1 connection can be configured for any of the five positions when only one overhead pair is used. Otherwise, when utilizing two pairs, Height1 can only be designated FH, TF, or TM and Height2 only TM, TR, or RH. A similar stipulation applies to the Dolby-enabled positions.


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> To be more specific, the Height1 connection can be configured for any of the* five positions *when only one overhead pair is used. Otherwise, when utilizing two pairs, Height1 can only be designated FH, TF, or TM and Height2 only TM, TR, or RH. A similar stipulation applies to the Dolby-enabled positions.


Of no importance whatsoever, but just out of interest, the Denon manual for the 5200 lists *six *possible pairings:



Front Height & Top Middle

Front Height & Top Rear

Front Height & Rear Height

Top Front & Top Rear (Default)

Top Front & Rear Height

Top Middle & Rear Height

[/pedant mode]

Of course, there are only five speaker positions, but they make six pairing combinations.


----------



## chi_guy50

kbarnes701 said:


> Of no importance whatsoever, but just out of interest, the Denon manual for the 5200 lists *six possible pairings*:
> 
> 
> 
> Front Height & Top Middle
> Front Height & Top Rear
> Front Height & Rear Height
> Top Front & Top Rear (Default)
> Top Front & Rear Height
> Top Middle & Rear Height
> 
> [/pedant mode]
> 
> Of course, there are only five speaker positions, but they make six pairing combinations.


There are far more than six pairing combinations--a total of 14, to be precise--when you factor in the Dolby-enabled configuration possibilities as well.

But there remain only five possible overhead position designations, of which a maximum of two non-contiguous pairs can be selected.

[/super-pedant mode]


----------



## kingwiggi

kingwiggi said:


> _Nature _aka_ Enchanted Kingdom_
> 
> There were limited screenings in a few select US cities recently so this should be heading to US blu-ray soon.
> 
> http://www.bbcwpressroom.com/press/...s-for-a-special-two-night-event-august-10-11/
> http://shop.bbc.com/us/page/enchantedkingdom





Jack Gilvey said:


> This look like the one? Not much info there but the narrator checks out.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...rect=true&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pldnSite=1



Good find, 

Ordered, Thanks.


----------



## chi_guy50

kingwiggi said:


> Good find,
> 
> Ordered, Thanks.


But note that the audio track on this release of Enchanted Kingdom is TBA. It might be in Dolby Atmos or perhaps not. Caveat emptor.

If you want to be sure to get the full Monty in Atmos (both 2D and 3D), this is the one to order.


----------



## petetherock

chi_guy50 said:


> But note that the audio track on this release of Enchanted Kingdom is TBA. It might be in Dolby Atmos or perhaps not. Caveat emptor.
> 
> If you want to be sure to get the full Monty in Atmos (both 2D and 3D), this is the one to order.


+1, go Jap to be 100% sure..
It's worth the money. Imagine those Atmos trailers, but on steroids...


----------



## Jack Gilvey

chi_guy50 said:


> But note that the audio track on this release of Enchanted Kingdom is TBA. It might be in Dolby Atmos or perhaps not. Caveat emptor.
> 
> If you want to be sure to get the full Monty in Atmos (both 2D and 3D), this is the one to order.


 Yeah, precious little info on the listing for Amazon US. What'd it run you with shipping from amazon.co.jp?


----------



## kingwiggi

chi_guy50 said:


> But note that the audio track on this release of Enchanted Kingdom is TBA. It might be in Dolby Atmos or perhaps not. Caveat emptor.
> 
> If you want to be sure to get the full Monty in Atmos (both 2D and 3D), this is the one to order.


Yes I think I was the first person to report on the Japaneese version,almost a year ago.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-297.html#post27661961


----------



## Eriksdam

petetherock said:


> +1, go Jap to be 100% sure..
> It's worth the money. Imagine those Atmos trailers, but on steroids...


It's probably the only one of the "exotic" titles I won't regret having spent money on... the only let down is the (for the BBC) somewhat dumbed down and over dramatized narration, but still a title that is not only watchable but RE-watchable 

If it's any indication of quality, the speaker manufacturer I work for bought 4 of these for demo purposes...

+1 WRT worth the money IMHO!

-Erik


----------



## Jack Gilvey

_Enough_ already, just ordered from Japan.


----------



## Contuzzi

Enchanted Kingdom (JP) has the best picture quality of any BluRay out there if you ask me. The Atmos soundtrack was pretty nice too. Definitely worth the money.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> But note that the audio track on this release of Enchanted Kingdom is TBA. It might be in Dolby Atmos or perhaps not. Caveat emptor.
> 
> If you want to be sure to get the full Monty in Atmos (both 2D and 3D), this is the one to order.


Guess what? 

This better be a great Atmos mix when I get my Marantz 7702 mk II installed and overheads wired, or I'm coming for _you_ buddy!!  

 

It's one of the most expensive < 90 minute imports I've ever ordered even after buying just the 2D version. Outside of my Dolby demo discs, this is the first Atmos title I've purchased for my collection. Still unsure if I should wait for UHD disc versions or not.

*Yes, you heard it right... I'm going to soon dwell among the official Atmos brethren. Whoo hoooo!!*


----------



## chi_guy50

Contuzzi said:


> Enchanted Kingdom (JP) has the best picture quality of any BluRay out there if you ask me. The Atmos soundtrack was pretty nice too. Definitely worth the money.


Correction: _Samsara_ has the very best PQ (and a mind-blowing soundtrack to boot, albeit not in Atmos, "just" DTS-HD MA 7.1); I have both movies and each one is superb, but _Samsara_ sets the gold standard insofar as PQ for a Blu-ray feature film IMHO.


----------



## Santiagochg

pasender91 said:


> hola Santiago
> For me it should be position C for 2 reasons: positioned in the middle of top speakers, and better positioned near 70% of the length of the room, better for acoustics.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what model are your speakers ?


Hola!
Thanks for the advice, I'll follow it for sure.
My speakers (AV123):
FL: LS-6 ( http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue41/ls6.htm)
Center: X-Voce 
Surrounds: X-Omni
In Ceiling: X-CS

Gracias,
Santiago


----------



## NorthSky

Maybe they'll remaster *Samsara* in 4K (UHD), and with Dolby Atmos?


----------



## chi_guy50

Jack Gilvey said:


> Yeah, precious little info on the listing for Amazon US. What'd it run you with shipping from amazon.co.jp?


I paid a total of $46.12 for it ($37.04 plus $9.08 shipping). That's the most I've ever spent on a blu-ray that wasn't a large set (I paid twice that much for the complete series of _Breaking Bad_, which was well worth the expense), but I do not regret it one bit.



kingwiggi said:


> Yes I think I was the first person to report on the Japaneese version,almost a year ago.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-297.html#post27661961


Kudos to you, sire. However, it took @Frank714's review posted in June of this year to induce me to part with my hard-earned coin. 



Jack Gilvey said:


> _Enough_ already, just ordered from Japan.


Congrats, you will not only enjoy the movie, it will vanquish any doubts you (or Mrs. Gilvey) ever had about installing an Atmos-capable HT setup! 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Guess what?
> 
> This better be a great Atmos mix when I get my Marantz 7702 mk II installed and overheads wired, or I'm coming for _you_ buddy!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's one of the most expensive < 90 minute imports I've ever ordered even after buying just the 2D version. Outside of my Dolby demo discs, this is the first Atmos title I've purchased for my collection. Still unsure if I should wait for UHD disc versions or not.
> 
> Yes, you heard it right... I'm going to soon dwell among the official Atmos brethren. Whoo hoooo!!


Your only regret will be that you didn't spring for the 3-disc set. But you can put that on your to-do list and give the single-disc 2D version to your most beloved scion. 

And welcome to Atmos-land. Have your passport and customs form ready, please . . .


----------



## Contuzzi

chi_guy50 said:


> Correction: _Samsara_ has the very best PQ (and a mind-blowing soundtrack to boot, albeit not in Atmos, "just" DTS-HD MA 7.1); I have both movies and each one is superb, but _Samsara_ sets the gold standard insofar as PQ for a Blu-ray feature film IMHO.


Samsara does look good, but its content is also a lot more detailed. It's hard to say which is better. Both are so far above the average "5 star video" bluray out there though.


----------



## ultraflexed

chi_guy50 said:


> To be more specific, the Height1 connection can be configured for any of the five positions when only one overhead pair is used. Otherwise, when utilizing two pairs, Height1 can only be designated FH, TF, or TM and Height2 only TM, TR, or RH. A similar stipulation applies to the Dolby-enabled positions.


Where on the set up menu for the onkyo can you set this up ? Because when I use my dobly enabled speakers I've only seen front heights 1 and rear hight 2, buy since I'm about to go in wall/in ceiling for all speaker I'm going to do top middle and rear height.


----------



## chi_guy50

NorthSky said:


> Maybe they'll remaster *Samsara* in 4K (UHD), and with Dolby Atmos?


Well, the original was already shot in 70mm, scanned at 8K, and mastered at 4K, so I guess no remastering of the video would be necessary.


----------



## NorthSky

Are you going to buy that Samsung UHD Blu-ray player?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> Your only regret will be that you didn't spring for the 3-disc set. But you can put that on your to-do list and give the single-disc 2D version to your most beloved scion.
> 
> And welcome to Atmos-land. Have your passport and customs form ready, please . . .


Thanks! The form will be ready sometime in November, hopefully.  Just gotta decide on the overheads for my Paradigm Studio setup.

And I'm not a 3D guy, so I didn't want to plunk down even more for the deluxe pack.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks! The form will be ready sometime in November, hopefully.  Just gotta decide on the overheads for my Paradigm Studio setup.


Anticipation is half the fun, so enjoy the journey! I've been planning my x.x.6 expansion for quite a while now and hope to have it in place in about two weeks (running two pairs in an array) with all top-level speakers identical and in-ceiling for a change.



Dan Hitchman said:


> And I'm not a 3D guy, so I didn't want to plunk down even more for the deluxe pack.


We're also not into 3D, but I wanted the complete set with all of the supplemental materials. As we say in German, "Wenn schon, denn schon!" (Rough translation: "If it's worth doing, it's worth over-doing.") And then there's the sarcastic corollary we used in the Army bureaucracy: "Anything worth doing is worth doing over," which might apply to your purchase.

We watched it in 3D anyway (parts of the 3D effects were well done and parts were rather hokey) and will re-watch it in 2D when we have guests to share it with.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

chi_guy50 said:


> I paid a total of $46.12 for it ($37.04 plus $9.08 shipping). That's the most I've ever spent on a blu-ray that wasn't a large set (I paid twice that much for the complete series of _Breaking Bad_, which was well worth the expense), but I do not regret it one bit.
> 
> ...
> 
> Congrats, you will not only enjoy the movie, it will vanquish any doubts you (or Mrs. Gilvey) ever had about installing an Atmos-capable HT setup!


 She's oblivious to any changes made in the HT. On the plus side, there are never any doubts to vanquish.  

I don't mind spending if there's the potential for repeated enjoyment. Usually it's LP's that drain me. BB is the only TV series I have ever considered purchasing, but we Netflix-binged on it recently enough that I think I can wait for the 4K version. Brilliance.


----------



## NorthSky

In these days and age 2D looks pretty bland; 3D is the bright future, today.  ...Time to wear shades.


----------



## Kain

I asked the following question in the following thread but haven't received a response yet. Thought I would ask here too.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...tting-within-next-2-3-years.html#post37064106

Hope this makes sense and doesn't sound too confusing:

If I want to install front wide speakers, do they have to be placed wider apart compared to the front left/right main speakers or is it okay to keep the distance between them equal to the distance between the front left/right main speakers? Secondly, if the distance from the left (and also right) front main speaker to the left (and also right) front wide speaker is roughly 4-4.5', would this be considered too close to be effective? The front left/right main speakers will be placed in the two front corners of the room thus making it impossible to place the front wide speakers wider apart compared to the front main speakers. Basically, I originally planned a 7-channel "floor speaker" layout but then considered also adding front wide speakers for a 9-channel "floor speaker" layout. However, due to my room's layout (i.e. doors, glass windows, etc.), I will have to place the back surround speakers in the two rear corners and the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position. The distance from the back surround speakers to the seating position is roughly 4-5' so placing the side surround speakers slightly behind the seating position would position them too close to the back surround speakers. So, if I want front wide speakers, they would be placed roughly 4-4.5' from the front main speakers (but the distance between the front wide speakers will be equal to the distance between the front main speakers) and roughly 3' from the side surround speakers (which will be placed slightly in front of the seating position). Would this result in the speakers being too close together or will this work fine? Am I trying to squeeze too many speakers in my smallish room (15' x 12' x 9.5')?


----------



## chi_guy50

Jack Gilvey said:


> I don't mind spending if there's the potential for repeated enjoyment. Usually it's LP's that drain me.


Ah, a fellow vinyl enthusiast! 



Jack Gilvey said:


> BB is the only TV series I have ever considered purchasing, but we Netflix-binged on it recently enough that I think I can wait for the 4K version. Brilliance.


I would probably (and with great reluctance) have to double-dip for the first time if _Breaking Bad_ were reissued with an immersive mix (4K wouldn't tempt me any more than 3D does).

The season series Blu-ray box set currently available (with a DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack) does contain a ton of supplemental material. In addition to the (almost) countless episodes with director's commentary tracks, there are numerous background pieces and even videotaped podcasts hosted by series editor Kelley Dixon with various cast and crew members. My OCD forced me to watch every minute of it all.

Best . . . television . . . production . . . EVER!


----------



## chi_guy50

Kain said:


> I asked the following question in the following thread but haven't received a response yet. Thought I would ask here too.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...tting-within-next-2-3-years.html#post37064106
> 
> Hope this makes sense and doesn't sound too confusing:
> 
> If I want to install front wide speakers, do they have to be placed wider apart compared to the front left/right main speakers or is it okay to keep the distance between them equal to the distance between the front left/right main speakers? Secondly, if the distance from the left (and also right) front main speaker to the left (and also right) front wide speaker is roughly 4-4.5', would this be considered too close to be effective? The front left/right main speakers will be placed in the two front corners of the room thus making it impossible to place the front wide speakers wider apart compared to the front main speakers. Basically, I originally planned a 7-channel "floor speaker" layout but then considered also adding front wide speakers for a 9-channel "floor speaker" layout. However, due to my room's layout (i.e. doors, glass windows, etc.), I will have to place the back surround speakers in the two rear corners and the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position. The distance from the back surround speakers to the seating position is roughly 4-5' so placing the side surround speakers slightly behind the seating position would position them too close to the back surround speakers. So, if I want front wide speakers, they would be placed roughly 4-4.5' from the front main speakers (but the distance between the front wide speakers will be equal to the distance between the front main speakers) and roughly 3' from the side surround speakers (which will be placed slightly in front of the seating position). Would this result in the speakers being too close together or will this work fine? Am I trying to squeeze too many speakers in my smallish room (15' x 12' x 9.5')?


If you're really going to spring for a Trinnov Altitude, I say cram those speakers in there. Use a shoehorn if necessary.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Kain said:


> I asked the following question in the following thread but haven't received a response yet. Thought I would ask here too.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...tting-within-next-2-3-years.html#post37064106
> 
> Hope this makes sense and doesn't sound too confusing:
> 
> If I want to install front wide speakers, do they have to be placed wider apart compared to the front left/right main speakers or is it okay to keep the distance between them equal to the distance between the front left/right main speakers? Secondly, if the distance from the left (and also right) front main speaker to the left (and also right) front wide speaker is roughly 4-4.5', would this be considered too close to be effective? The front left/right main speakers will be placed in the two front corners of the room thus making it impossible to place the front wide speakers wider apart compared to the front main speakers. Basically, I originally planned a 7-channel "floor speaker" layout but then considered also adding front wide speakers for a 9-channel "floor speaker" layout. However, due to my room's layout (i.e. doors, glass windows, etc.), I will have to place the back surround speakers in the two rear corners and the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position. The distance from the back surround speakers to the seating position is roughly 4-5' so placing the side surround speakers slightly behind the seating position would position them too close to the back surround speakers. So, if I want front wide speakers, they would be placed roughly 4-4.5' from the front main speakers (but the distance between the front wide speakers will be equal to the distance between the front main speakers) and roughly 3' from the side surround speakers (which will be placed slightly in front of the seating position). Would this result in the speakers being too close together or will this work fine? Am I trying to squeeze too many speakers in my smallish room (15' x 12' x 9.5')?



I am having a slight headache coming up from trying to figure out your intended layout...

Do you mean your L/R Wides are against the Side walls, hence equally apart as L/R Fronts? It's all about the angles, distance is irrelevant. Read the guidelines from the pdf in the first post of this thread.

It's okay to put the Side Surrounds slightly ahead of MLP, though it might reduce the need for L/R Wides (depending on the angles, I'd say 20° is about as close as you'd want)

Too many speakers? No, unless the speakers are really, really big!


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> I would probably (and with great reluctance) have to double-dip for the first time if _Breaking Bad_ were reissued with an immersive mix (4K wouldn't tempt me any more than 3D does).


I doubt we will ever see immersive. 

But I can tell you that the 4K Netflix stream is amazing.... 

And it's not really a double dip if you pay for the service.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> I asked the following question in the following thread but haven't received a response yet. Thought I would ask here too.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...tting-within-next-2-3-years.html#post37064106
> 
> Hope this makes sense and doesn't sound too confusing:
> 
> If I want to install front wide speakers, do they have to be placed wider apart compared to the front left/right main speakers or is it okay to keep the distance between them equal to the distance between the front left/right main speakers? Secondly, if the distance from the left (and also right) front main speaker to the left (and also right) front wide speaker is roughly 4-4.5', would this be considered too close to be effective? The front left/right main speakers will be placed in the two front corners of the room thus making it impossible to place the front wide speakers wider apart compared to the front main speakers. Basically, I originally planned a 7-channel "floor speaker" layout but then considered also adding front wide speakers for a 9-channel "floor speaker" layout. However, due to my room's layout (i.e. doors, glass windows, etc.), I will have to place the back surround speakers in the two rear corners and the side surround speakers slightly in front of the seating position. The distance from the back surround speakers to the seating position is roughly 4-5' so placing the side surround speakers slightly behind the seating position would position them too close to the back surround speakers. So, if I want front wide speakers, they would be placed roughly 4-4.5' from the front main speakers (but the distance between the front wide speakers will be equal to the distance between the front main speakers) and roughly 3' from the side surround speakers (which will be placed slightly in front of the seating position). Would this result in the speakers being too close together or will this work fine? Am I trying to squeeze too many speakers in my smallish room (15' x 12' x 9.5')?


As Erwin said, all those distances are fairly meaningless. It's all about ANGLES. 

And as chi_guy said, if you buy a Trinnov all the nonsense us common folk deal with are irrelevant. There is no need to worry about a "Front Wide" speaker with its limitations (objects only) as you can go outside the limited templates available to people using a normal AVR. Not just the more expanded Atmos layouts but also extra speakers to assist in remapping.

If you go Trinnov, just talk to Curt and other Trinnov pros and they can guide you better. 

It would also help tremendously if you simply posted a diagram and/or photos of the room. You know the old "worth a thousand words" thing.... your post was very difficult to follow.


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> I doubt we will ever see immersive.
> 
> But I can tell you that the 4K Netflix stream is amazing....
> 
> And it's not really a double dip if you pay for the service.


I can only dream about 4K streaming with my piddling 3Mbps DSL service.

But Google Fiber is going to start their construction phase soon here in Atlanta. I'm pushing my condo HOA to sign an Access Agreement to get us on the road to an installation. At that point I'd probably sign up for the 1Gbps service (5Mbps is guaranteed free for eight years, 1Gbps will be ca. $70 p.m.) and be ready for 4K/8K/immersive audio streaming or whatever is coming down the pike.


----------



## Kain

chi_guy50 said:


> If you're really going to spring for a Trinnov Altitude, I say cram those speakers in there. Use a shoehorn if necessary.





erwinfrombelgium said:


> I am having a slight headache coming up from trying to figure out your intended layout...
> 
> Do you mean your L/R Wides are against the Side walls, hence equally apart as L/R Fronts? It's all about the angles, distance is irrelevant. Read the guidelines from the pdf in the first post of this thread.
> 
> It's okay to put the Side Surrounds slightly ahead of MLP, though it might reduce the need for L/R Wides (depending on the angles, I'd say 20° is about as close as you'd want)
> 
> Too many speakers? No, unless the speakers are really, really big!





batpig said:


> As Erwin said, all those distances are fairly meaningless. It's all about ANGLES.
> 
> And as chi_guy said, if you buy a Trinnov all the nonsense us common folk deal with are irrelevant. There is no need to worry about a "Front Wide" speaker with its limitations (objects only) as you can go outside the limited templates available to people using a normal AVR. Not just the more expanded Atmos layouts but also extra speakers to assist in remapping.
> 
> If you go Trinnov, just talk to Curt and other Trinnov pros and they can guide you better.
> 
> It would also help tremendously if you simply posted a diagram and/or photos of the room. You know the old "worth a thousand words" thing.... your post was very difficult to follow.


Thanks for the replies.

Here is a crude/quickly done and not to scale drawing of my possible layout. Green area is the seating position. Red boxes are the floor speakers and the blue boxes are the ceiling speakers.

Edit: I didn't include the subwoofers in the drawing.


----------



## batpig

At first blush it appears that it's pretty tightly packed along the side wall in front of the seating position. With the primary side surrounds so far forward of the seating area and the front L/R mains in the front corners, the "wide" speakers are kind of jammed in there and may not provide much benefit. I'd probably first work to optimize an awesome 7ch base layer and then experiment to see if adding extra speakers brings any more benefit. 

For example, the drawing isn't to scale but let's say it's 6 feet to the sides and 3 feet forward for the side surrounds -- that puts them at approximately 63-64 degrees relative to the center line. If the fronts are around +/- 30 degrees there's not a lot of angular separation to squeeze in another pair of speakers. Even if you can push the surrounds back so they are only 2 feet in front, that puts them at around +/- 70 degrees... so again not a lot of angular separation from the fronts such that I'd want to squeeze in another speaker in there.


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> At first blush it appears that it's pretty tightly packed along the side wall in front of the seating position. With the primary side surrounds so far forward of the seating area and the front L/R mains in the front corners, the "wide" speakers are kind of jammed in there and may not provide much benefit. I'd probably first work to optimize an awesome 7ch base layer and then experiment to see if adding extra speakers brings any more benefit.
> 
> For example, the drawing isn't to scale but let's say it's 6 feet to the sides and 3 feet forward for the side surrounds -- that puts them at approximately 63-64 degrees relative to the center line. If the fronts are around +/- 30 degrees there's not a lot of angular separation to squeeze in another pair of speakers. Even if you can push the surrounds back so they are only 2 feet in front, that puts them at around +/- 70 degrees... so again not a lot of angular separation from the fronts such that I'd want to squeeze in another speaker in there.


The side surrounds actually are roughly 2 feet in front of the seating position. The front wides are roughly 4.5 feet in front. The distance from the seating position to the front wall is roughly 8 feet.


----------



## batpig

OK, I think the point still stands. 

6 feet out and 2 feet forward (side surround) puts those speakers at +/- 70 degrees. 

Compounding the issue is that your front L/R mains are pretty wide. If you are 8 ft back and they are in the corners -- give some fudge for breathing room and toe in and let's call them 5 feet to either side of the centerline -- that's a bit over +/- 30 degree spread.

So there's less than 40 degrees of angular separation between the fronts and side surrounds. I don't think you'd want to squeeze another speaker in there, personally.


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> OK, I think the point still stands.
> 
> 6 feet out and 2 feet forward (side surround) puts those speakers at +/- 70 degrees.
> 
> Compounding the issue is that your front L/R mains are pretty wide. If you are 8 ft back and they are in the corners -- give some fudge for breathing room and toe in and let's call them 5 feet to either side of the centerline -- that's a bit over +/- 30 degree spread.
> 
> So there's less than 40 degrees of angular separation between the fronts and side surrounds. I don't think you'd want to squeeze another speaker in there, personally.


What about the 6 ceiling speakers? Good or should I go for 4?

Edit: Just remembered that chi_guy50 and erwinfrombelgium quoted my original (long) post prior to the my drawing and stated that I should cram-in as many speakers as I can. While your explanation of me not having the "right" placement for the front wides makes sense, others are saying to basically stuff as many speakers as I can. Which is it?


----------



## ultraflexed

NorthSky said:


> In these days and age 2D looks pretty bland; 3D is the bright future, today.  ...Time to wear shades.


Can't wait for you to make the jump to 3d+atmos+uhdtv.
I got a spare pioneer sc-85 that's 9.2.4 atmos enabled that I bought exactly 4 months ago that I'm trying to get rid ofg, only because I got my onkyo 1030 out the shop 2 months ago and I love my onkyo better then the pioneer since my onkyo is 11.2 capable and sound tad bit better...for the last 2 months my sc-85 is just collecting dust.


----------



## chi_guy50

Kain said:


> What about the 6 ceiling speakers? Good or should I go for 4?


Most folks in these fora are of a consensus that wiring for at least three overhead pairs is a smart choice even if you are currently limited to just two pairs. My personal hope is that at some point in the not too distant future we will have relatively affordable mainstream processors that will allow something on the order of a front/middle/rear overhead pair combination with discrete immersive-audio signals sent to each pair. Five concurrent pairs are possible on the present-day boutique processors and some of this is likely to trickle down to us plebeians at some point.



Kain said:


> Edit: Just remembered that chi_guy50 and erwinfrombelgium quoted my original (long) post prior to the my drawing and stated that I should cram-in as many speakers as I can. While your explanation of me not having the "right" placement for the front wides makes sense, others are saying to basically stuff as many speakers as I can. Which is it?


Just so we're clear about one salient point: You've induced the person who coined the maxim "Mo' speakers, mo' better" to say " I don't think you'd want to squeeze another speaker in there, personally."



batpig said:


> So there's less than 40 degrees of angular separation between the fronts and side surrounds. I don't think you'd want to squeeze another speaker in there, personally.


----------



## LowellG

Just a quick update on my HT. I added 4 Def Tech DI5.5s for Atmos. My A3050 Arrives in a couple days. First impressons are good, I will keep you posted. Didn't know whether to put pics in 2 spots so if you want to see the layout, take a look at my link for new pics.


----------



## dvdwilly3

ultraflexed said:


> Where on the set up menu for the onkyo can you set this up ? Because when I use my dobly enabled speakers I've only seen front heights 1 and rear hight 2, buy since I'm about to go in wall/in ceiling for all speaker I'm going to do top middle and rear height.


Even if you are running Dolby-enabled speakers, you do not havt to designate them as Dolby-enabled in the menu.
Run them as Top Front and Top Rear. I will argue that you will get a better signal to those speakers with a fulle range to those speakers.
Try it...it does not hurt anything and you may agree...or not. As has been pointed out many times, it is all about what sounds right or correct...how about what sonds good ...to you. It is your home theater!
Experiment and have fun.


----------



## eazyz

*Help*

I am currently in the process of upgrading my HT to a 7.2.4 setup. My room dimension is 18x27 long. The way I am calculating the angles of the rear surround channels will basically have them as wide as the surrounds. 


Is this ok or should be be moving them inward even though the angle from the listening position will be incorrect?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

eazyz said:


> I am currently in the process of upgrading my HT to a 7.2.4 setup. My room dimension is 18x27 long. The way I am calculating the angles of the rear surround channels will basically have them as wide as the surrounds.
> 
> 
> Is this ok or should be be moving them inward even though the angle from the listening position will be incorrect?


Take a look at the angles here:


----------



## FilmMixer

dvdwilly3 said:


> Even if you are running Dolby-enabled speakers, you do not havt to designate them as Dolby-enabled in the menu.
> Run them as Top Front and Top Rear. I will argue that you will get a better signal to those speakers with a fulle range to those speakers.
> Try it...it does not hurt anything and you may agree...or not.


Except that without the AVR knowing you have Dolby Enabled speakers, the room correction will apply incorrect corrections.. it has nothing to do with full range or not..

And that's not what he was asking anyways.. if you re-read his post, he said he was changing from Dolby Enabled to in wall/in ceiling..


----------



## NorthSky

ultraflexed said:


> Can't wait for you to make the jump to 3d+atmos+uhdtv.
> I got a spare pioneer sc-85 that's 9.2.4 atmos enabled that I bought exactly 4 months ago that I'm trying to get rid ofg, only because I got my onkyo 1030 out the shop 2 months ago and I love my onkyo better then the pioneer since my onkyo is 11.2 capable and sound tad bit better...for the last 2 months my sc-85 is just collecting dust.


Thanks. 

- 3D picture I'm very much in.
- 3D sound...just on the threshold...a little bit longer...DTS:X
- UHD...not in 3D, just in 2D...that too is coming up, but not in front projection (expensive), but OLED has its spotlight. 

We all make the jump when we're ready...just like when we get married, have kids, have grand-kids, and ready to die. 
Watching TV is not like like climbing Everest or some other mountain. Real life in the wilderness is the best 3D sound and picture and UHD of them all.


----------



## Rieper

Anyone know if the Dolby Atmos receiver Pioneer Elite SC-91 (came out June 2015) will offer a similar firmware update for DTS:X decoding, like Denon/Onkyo are planning for later this year?

If not, then is Pioneer planning another Elite model with DTS:X anytime soon?


----------



## ultraflexed

Rieper said:


> Anyone know if the Dolby Atmos receiver Pioneer Elite SC-91 (came out June 2015) will offer a similar firmware update for DTS:X decoding, like Denon/Onkyo are planning for later this year?
> 
> If not, then is Pioneer planning another Elite model with DTS:X anytime soon?


Why Not Just go With Onkyo Instead, I Have Both And The Onkyo Atmos Sound Is Just better, Pioneer Is Solid Also Don't Get Me wrong, But The Onkyo Is tops..

Fyi: were did you get info on the onkyo's getting an update to dtx
, also heard if theirs an update we will be blocked from using DSU on dts-audio on blue-rays which would super suck, I would rather atmos and DSU to use on blue-rays and not update.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Rieper said:


> Anyone know if the Dolby Atmos receiver Pioneer Elite SC-91 (came out June 2015) will offer a similar firmware update for DTS:X decoding, like Denon/Onkyo are planning for later this year?
> 
> If not, then is Pioneer planning another Elite model with DTS:X anytime soon?


No it will not, rather only the new SC-95/97/99 models will get the DTS:X update.


----------



## rontalley

Regarding the first post, I had no idea what " AVS users Dolby Atmos installed tracker (at Google Docs, maintained by user kokishin)" was. This is very helpful information that is not emphasized or explained clearly. I've searched so many places trying to find speaker and/or AVRs that others were using and the information was hidden in plain site....Maybe put a better description of what the link is and how other users can be added to it...


Also, there are demo disc out there for those who have Atmos enabled AVRs but maybe kinda hard to find. Here is a link to some demos that people can download to test their system. They play find on my HTPC not sure about any other player.

http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/

Maybe have a link or multiple links on the first post directing noobs like me to demos or where you can buy them.


Just a couple of suggestions...


----------



## dvdwilly3

FilmMixer said:


> Except that without the AVR knowing you have Dolby Enabled speakers, the room correction will apply incorrect corrections.. it has nothing to do with full range or not..
> 
> And that's not what he was asking anyways.. if you re-read his post, he said he was changing from Dolby Enabled to in wall/in ceiling..


FilmMixer, thanks. Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand what I am dealing with. 
I went back to my home theater and re-ran the AccuEQ, first with the upfiring speakers set as Top Front and Top Rear, and then set as Dolby-Enabled Front and Dolby-Enabled Surround to see what difference it made.
Insofar as the settings recorded...configuration (x-overs); distances; and levels, absolutely none. The measurements are identical.
So what is the difference? Is the processor in the AVR adjusting the time domain? That is, applying appropriate millisecond delays??
Other?
Trying to learn something here...thanks for your patience.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> So what is the difference?


Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers contain a filter called Dolby Elevation processing that enhances the impression of height. 










IF you don't let your AVR know that you're using Atmos-enabled speakers, then the room correction will try to flatten out the squiggle in the frequency response, thereby undoing the Elevation process and making the speakers less effective at giving the impression of sound above you.


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers contain a filter called Dolby Elevation processing that enhances the impression of height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF you don't let your AVR know that you're using Atmos-enabled speakers, then the room correction will try to flatten out the squiggle in the frequency response, thereby undoing the Elevation process and making the speakers less effective at giving the impression of sound above you.


Okay...so I am using "fake" Dolby-enabled speakers, to be specific, Goldenear Technology Supsersat 3s, stands, upfiring...
Please be patient, I am trying to work my way through this.
Since, these are not real Dolby-enabled speakers, there is no passive filter or built-in circuitry that would introduce said squiggle.
(By telling the AVR that the speaker is Dolby-enabled does it just not apply EQ at all, or is it an adjusted (somehow) EQ that accommodates the squiggle?)

Since I am running non-Dolby-enabled (...how far can I hyphenate this...), then there does not need to be any accommodation for the squiggle...right?

So, since I am running non-Dolby-enabled speakers without said squiggle, then I could run them as Top Front and Top Rear without introducing any undesirable effects...

Right??

Or, not??


----------



## petetherock

My intro into Hi Def was via Planet Earth on HD DVD at a friend's home, using a 120" screen. Now that was a wow moment..

Now that Japanese version of the BBC doco Enchanted Kingdom, which I mentioned, is the other wow moment for Hi Def sound, and even the PQ is very impressive..

Forget Transformers, TMNT and the like... this disc will make you drool and give yourself a pat for lying to your wife / partner about spending XXX dollars on that Atmos system.. (plus whatever money it took to placate her for those speakers you planted in those holes in her perfectly good ceiling  )


----------



## rboster

chi_guy50 said:


> I can only dream about 4K streaming with my piddling 3Mbps DSL service.
> 
> But Google Fiber is going to start their construction phase soon here in Atlanta. I'm pushing my condo HOA to sign an Access Agreement to get us on the road to an installation. At that point I'd probably sign up for the 1Gbps service (5Mbps is guaranteed free for eight years, 1Gbps will be ca. $70 p.m.) and be ready for 4K/8K/immersive audio streaming or whatever is coming down the pike.


I can attest that google fiber rocks. Of course I'm not streaming 4k....but all the current streaming services are buffer free. I avoided streaming like the plague until we got google fiber last August. Related note, I still prefer blu ray images vs streaming or digital copies. But overall, we've been very happy

Now if they would just add AMC and IFC to their google TV offerings I would be over joyed.


----------



## petetherock

I know I posted this before, but do try "Helios", it's a Hong Kong movie, and is an impressive Atmos disc. If you feel up to it, also add "Lucy", which has an Atmos track if you buy the Hong Kong version.
For a good demo disc, also try "Secret of Arriety" and "Spirited Away" - for a good demo of DSU.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> By telling the AVR that the speaker is Dolby-enabled does it just not apply EQ at all, or is it an adjusted (somehow) EQ that accommodates the squiggle?


By telling the AVR that the speaker is Atmos-enabled, the room correction system will insert the squiggle into its target curve, so as not to flatten out the response (undo Elevation processing) in the speaker. But, since you aren't using Atmos-enabled speakers, the AVR has essentially added Elevation processing to the signal going to your upfiring speaker.


> So, since I am running non-Dolby-enabled speakers without said squiggle, then I could run them as Top Front and Top Rear without introducing any undesirable effects...


IF you're placing those speakers at the Top Front and Top Rear locations above you, then that's how they should be designated in the speaker set up menu. However, if you're using them as upfiring modules, then they should be designated as Dolby speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

rboster said:


> I can attest that google fiber rocks. Of course I'm not streaming 4k....but all the current streaming services are buffer free. I avoided streaming like the plague until we got google fiber last August. Related note, I still prefer blu ray images vs streaming or digital copies. But overall, we've been very happy
> 
> Now if they would just add AMC and IFC to their google TV offerings I would be over joyed.


Congratulations, you were apparently among their first few thousand customers. I guess you're either in the Kansas City, Provo, or Austin metro area?

I'd be interested to learn what specific factors cause you to continue to prefer Blu-ray over streaming via Google Fiber. Is there a perceptible downgrade in the video or audio quality? Have you been able to compare Atmos films via both media?

Looking forward to getting more "Fiber" in my A/V diet!


----------



## FilmMixer

rboster said:


> I can attest that google fiber rocks. Of course I'm not streaming 4k....but all the current streaming services are buffer free. I avoided streaming like the plague until we got google fiber last August. Related note, I still prefer blu ray images vs streaming or digital copies. But overall, we've been very happy


I'm new into the 4k thing, with "only" a 45meg U-Verse pipe..

I have to say that Netflix, Amazon and MGO 4k streaming is really fantastic... easily on par with BR, and on many shows decidedly better..


----------



## rboster

FilmMixer said:


> I'm new into the 4k thing, with "only" a 45meg U-Verse pipe..
> 
> I have to say that Netflix, Amazon and MGO 4k streaming is really fantastic... easily on par with BR, and on many shows decidedly better..



Thanks for the insight...much appreciated


----------



## rboster

chi_guy50 said:


> Congratulations, you were apparently among their first few thousand customers. I guess you're either in the Kansas City, Provo, or Austin metro area?
> 
> I'd be interested to learn what specific factors cause you to continue to prefer Blu-ray over streaming via Google Fiber. Is there a perceptible downgrade in the video or audio quality? Have you been able to compare Atmos films via both media?
> 
> Looking forward to getting more "Fiber" in my A/V diet!


Yes, I'm in Kansas City (first google fiber city...finally first in something). 

I can give one recent example comparing the digital copy of "Mad Max: Fury Road" from vudu was great until you see the finer detail on the blu ray. I showed my wife a scene from both and to her untrained eye, she noticed the difference.


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> By telling the AVR that the speaker is Atmos-enabled, the room correction system will insert the squiggle into its target curve, so as not to flatten out the response (undo Elevation processing) in the speaker. But, since you aren't using Atmos-enabled speakers, the AVR has essentially added Elevation processing to the signal going to your upfiring speaker. IF you're placing those speakers at the Top Front and Top Rear locations above you, then that's how they should be designated in the speaker set up menu. However, if you're using them as upfiring modules, then they should be designated as Dolby speakers.


Sanjay...if I tell the AVR that the speaker is Dolby-enabled, what is the AVR doing differently?
Bear with me...if I tell it that they are respectively, Top Front and Top Rear, then the AVE treats them as it would if they were ceiling mounted, that is, it applies whatever EQ it thinks is appropriate. Correct so far?

Then, if I tell them that the speakers ARE Dolby-enabled, then the AVR does what? 
It does not apply EQ to the Dolby-enabled (so that it does not flatten the squiggle...) 
OR it applies EQ that accounts for the squiggle?

The difference between how the AVR treats the Dolby-enabled speakers is relevant.

IF, it applies no EQ at all to Dolby-enabled speakers, then using non-Dolby-enabled speakers would not make any difference...I think.

If, on the other hand, it applies EQ that accommodates the squiggle, then applying that to non-Dolby-enabled speakers would create some kind of reverse-Dolby-enabled, if you would, EQ.

Can you tell me specifically what the AVR does when I tell it that the attached speakers are Dolby-enabled?

Do my questions make sense?


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> Then, if I tell them that the speakers ARE Dolby-enabled, then the AVR does what?
> It does not apply EQ to the Dolby-enabled (so that it does not flatten the squiggle...)
> OR it applies EQ that accounts for the squiggle?


That latter. Every room correction system equalizes to a target curve. When you tell the AVR that you are using Atmos-enabled speakers, it's room correction system inserts the Elevation squiggle into the target curve. It's like getting Dolby Elevation processing without using Atmos-enabled upfiring modules.


----------



## kokishin

rontalley said:


> Regarding the first post, I had no idea what " AVS users Dolby Atmos installed tracker (at Google Docs, maintained by user kokishin)" was. This is very helpful information that is not emphasized or explained clearly. I've searched so many places trying to find speaker and/or AVRs that others were using and the information was hidden in plain site....Maybe put a better description of what the link is and how other users can be added to it...
> 
> 
> Also, there are demo disc out there for those who have Atmos enabled AVRs but maybe kinda hard to find. Here is a link to some demos that people can download to test their system. They play find on my HTPC not sure about any other player.
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/
> 
> Maybe have a link or multiple links on the first post directing noobs like me to demos or where you can buy them.
> 
> 
> Just a couple of suggestions...




@markus767 provided that link and description since he owns the first post of this thread. Apparently you haven't read my ****ASTOUNDINGLY SIGNIFICANT POSTS**** or you would have seen it (with a better description) listed in my sig.


----------



## markus767

rontalley said:


> Regarding the first post, I had no idea what " AVS users Dolby Atmos installed tracker (at Google Docs, maintained by user kokishin)" was. This is very helpful information that is not emphasized or explained clearly. I've searched so many places trying to find speaker and/or AVRs that others were using and the information was hidden in plain site....Maybe put a better description of what the link is and how other users can be added to it...


What would be a better description? I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## kokishin

markus767 said:


> What would be a better description? I'm open to suggestions.


"avsforum Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet" (without the quotes).


----------



## markus767

Done.


----------



## kokishin

markus767 said:


> Done.


Thanks


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> That latter. Every room correction system equalizes to a target curve. When you tell the AVR that you are using Atmos-enabled speakers, it's room correction system inserts the Elevation squiggle into the target curve. It's like getting Dolby Elevation processing without using Atmos-enabled upfiring modules.


Thanks. Here is the logic problem that i have never been able to untangle...

If the AVR applies the squiggle processing to my non-Dolby-enabled speakers, then what does the AVR do to actual Dolby-enabled speakers?

Dolby-enabled speakers already have built-in passive filters to provide that squiggle, right?

If the AVR blindly applies squiggle processing to the signal when I tell it that the speaker is Dolby-enabled, then a true Dolby-enabled speaker would end up with double correction. Surely, that is not what we want...

Is the AVR smart enough to tell what the attached speaker load looks like? So that it knows to either (1) not apply squiggle processing because this is a real Dolby-enabled speaker, or (2) apply Dolby processing because it is not really a Dolby-enabled speaker?

I just thought that kind of detection and alternative processing was beyond the ability of the Dolby processing circuitry. Maybe they deserve more credit...

It makes my head hurt...


----------



## CBdicX

I will get the Klipsch PR280FA (Dolby Enabled speaker build in) and on the back i will get Klipsch PR240SA (Dolby Enabled speaker) *but i will mount the 240 to the wall near the ceiling.*
So i will let het receiver know the fronts are Dolby Enabled but what must i use for the back ?
Its a Dolby Enabled speaker but i will use it as a direct fire.


I will get my Denon X7200WA today, hope someone can help ......


----------



## stikle

dvdwilly3 said:


> squiggle processing



Sorry I don't have anything useful to say here...but this made me laugh. I want a Squiggle Processing (SPU) upgrade!


----------



## bkeeler10

dvdwilly3 said:


> Thanks. Here is the logic problem that i have never been able to untangle...
> 
> If the AVR applies the squiggle processing to my non-Dolby-enabled speakers, then what does the AVR do to actual Dolby-enabled speakers?
> 
> Dolby-enabled speakers already have built-in passive filters to provide that squiggle, right?
> 
> If the AVR blindly applies squiggle processing to the signal when I tell it that the speaker is Dolby-enabled, then a true Dolby-enabled speaker would end up with double correction. Surely, that is not what we want...


This is kind of like saying "Well, if the room correction target is flat response, but the speaker already has flat response, then we will get flat response twice over after the room correction scheme has done its thing." Remember that the EQ measures and looks at the in-room response _before_ applying filters, so it is not doing anything blindly.

The room correction system meaures the in-room response, and has a target it's trying to meet for every speaker. If the speaker's in-room response already meets the target, then the room correction system has nothing to do. If it doesn't already meet the target, it's response will be adjusted. A speaker with passive filters in it to achieve the proper response will simply require less intervention from the room EQ system than one that does not have the passive filters in it already.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> If the AVR applies the squiggle processing to my non-Dolby-enabled speakers, then what does the AVR do to actual Dolby-enabled speakers?


It makes sure the squiggle built into the Atmos-enabled speaker is not flattened out by your AVR's room correction (which typically tries to get rid of peaks & dips).


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> Sorry I don't have anything useful to say here...but this made me laugh. I want a Squiggle Processing (SPU) upgrade!


THAT's what made you laugh?

I was laughing earlier today at Pete's post below, and I had to muster all of my limited reserves of discretion to resist gibing him for it! (Now look what you've gone and made me do.)



petetherock said:


> My intro into Hi Def was via Planet Earth on HD DVD at a friend's home, using a 120" screen. Now that was a wow moment..
> 
> Now that Japanese version of the BBC doco Enchanted Kingdom, which I mentioned, is the other wow moment for Hi Def sound, and even the PQ is very impressive..
> 
> Forget Transformers, TMNT and the like... this disc will make you drool and give yourself a pat for lying to *your wife / partner* about spending XXX dollars on that Atmos system.. (plus whatever money it took to placate her for those speakers *you planted in those holes in her* perfectly good ceiling  )


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> It makes sure the squiggle built into the Atmos-enabled speaker is not flattened out by your AVR's room correction (which typically tries to get rid of peaks & dips).


Okay, one last question and then I will quit. 

Does the setting of Dolby-enabled tell the AVR that even though you are "seeing" the speaker at, say, 14 feet, you should process the sound as though it were physically at something less like 7 feet where the sound would be expected if it were a physical ceiling-mounted speaker?


----------



## rontalley

kokishin said:


> @markus767 provided that link and description since he owns the first post of this thread. Apparently you haven't read my ****ASTOUNDINGLY SIGNIFICANT POSTS**** or you would have seen it (with a better description) listed in my sig.


I also like your link to how to make an Atmos Demo Disc!!!! 



markus767 said:


> What would be a better description? I'm open to suggestions.





markus767 said:


> Done.


Wow markus767! That was awesome. I was actually nervous that someone would take my suggestion in the wrong manner. Just another example of why I love this site!


The following are Disc that offer different Dolby Atmos Demos and References. They are obtained by authorized dealers. Try Google to find an authorized dealer. The link to demo-world.eu is only for information about the disc only. The disc can not be downloaded there.

Dolby Atmos Reference Disc
http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/03/14/dolby-atmos-reference-disc/

Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc (August 2014)
http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/09/15/dolby-atmos-demonstration-disc-august-2014/

Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Jan 2015)
http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/

The next list are demos that again can only be obtained by authorized dealers. Try Google to find an authorized dealer

Amaze (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
Conductor (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
Horizon (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
Leaf (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
Silent (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
Unfold (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p

Again, these demos are hard to find because they have to be given to you by an authorized dealer. 

Maybe we will get lucky and an Authorized Dealer can authorize us to download the demos from an authorized source...since this is the Official Dolby Atmos for Home Thread...


----------



## eazyz

Dan Hitchman said:


> Take a look at the angles here:


The angles I am well aware of but the problem is because of the room length in my HT, the Rear Surrounds are wider (using 150 degrees as per Dolby's instructions) then all my other speakers in the system so I am worried this will not sound correct. I do not know how big of deal the placement of the rears are since human hearing will be harder to gauge the placement. I have attached a picture of the rear of the room to illustrate my dilemma. Notice the fridge/bar area where the RL speaker should be (spray-painted in Red and center seating position sprayed in Green). 


Any help or advice is much appreciated. Thanks


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> Does the setting of Dolby-enabled tell the AVR that even though you are "seeing" the speaker at, say, 14 feet, you should process the sound as though it were physically at something less like 7 feet where the sound would be expected if it were a physical ceiling-mounted speaker?


Good observation. Each room correction system will likely have its own method of calculating delay. One example: the CTO of Audyssey mentioned that they measure the distance to the upfiring module and calculate the path of the sound (up to the ceiling, then down to the listener) based on average ceiling height (8ft). Not perfect, but better than nothing. This calculated "distance" is used for setting up delays.


----------



## markus767

rontalley said:


> Would it be too hard to squeeze Kokishin's howto burn link and a link to various demos? Here are a few that can be downloaded and played via a USB stick or from an HTPC:


Are the offerings of demo-world.eu legal?


----------



## rontalley

markus767 said:


> Are the offerings of demo-world.eu legal?


I have no idea...Didn't even think of that. I just saw Demo and to me Demos=free... But I really don't know. Does anyone else know?


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Good observation. Each room correction system will likely have its own method of calculating delay. One example: the CTO of Audyssey mentioned that they measure the distance to the upfiring module and calculate the path of the sound (up to the ceiling, then down to the listener) based on average ceiling height (8ft). Not perfect, but better than nothing. This calculated "distance" is used for setting up delays.


Don't follow. Does Audyssey align the first sound arrival from the speaker or the arrival of the ceiling reflection? Both are easy to spot when looking at the impulse response.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> THAT's what made you laugh?



I am but a simple man and take humor where I can get it.

But that was funny too. Luckily(?) I no longer have those problems to contend with. It was the easiest solution to building up my home theater.


----------



## rontalley

markus767 said:


> Are the offerings of demo-world.eu legal?





rontalley said:


> I have no idea...Didn't even think of that. I just saw Demo and to me Demos=free... But I really don't know. Does anyone else know?












What I could gather.


----------



## rontalley

stikle said:


> I am but a simple man and take humor where I can get it.
> 
> But that was funny too. Luckily(?) I no longer have those problems to contend with. It was the easiest solution to building up my home theater.


I thought about this route but it would have cost me even more money!


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Good observation. Each room correction system will likely have its own method of calculating delay. One example: the CTO of Audyssey mentioned that they measure the distance to the upfiring module and calculate the path of the sound (up to the ceiling, then down to the listener) based on average ceiling height (8ft). Not perfect, but better than nothing. This calculated "distance" is used for setting up delays.


Actually in the new 2015 Denons there is now a parameter for ceiling height, so no longer stuck with the 8ft assumption.


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> I am but a simple man and take humor where I can get it.


Maybe I should stop referring to it as the Elevation "squiggle" (I couldn't think of a better label).


----------



## FilmMixer

rontalley said:


> I have no idea...Didn't even think of that. I just saw Demo and to me Demos=free... But I really don't know. Does anyone else know?


Not to be a killjoy... 

You are posting links to copyrighted material. 

Even if the demo discs were free, they are still protected under copyright, and not for distribution by unauthorized parties...


----------



## rontalley

FilmMixer said:


> Not to be a killjoy...
> 
> You are posting links to copyrighted material.
> 
> Even if the demo discs were free, they are still protected under copyright, and not for distribution by unauthorized parties...


Not going to pretend I know anything about this. How do you get them from an authorized party? Educate me.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> What about the 6 ceiling speakers? Good or should I go for 4?
> 
> Edit: Just remembered that chi_guy50 and erwinfrombelgium quoted my original (long) post prior to the my drawing and stated that I should cram-in as many speakers as I can. While your explanation of me not having the "right" placement for the front wides makes sense, others are saying to basically stuff as many speakers as I can. Which is it?





chi_guy50 said:


> Just so we're clear about one salient point: You've induced the person who coined the maxim "Mo' speakers, mo' better" to say " I don't think you'd want to squeeze another speaker in there, personally."


Ha! I guess you didn't read the fine print, "The maxim of 'mo' speakers mo' better' assumes that speakers can be somewhat reasonably placed within the room."

To be honest, I'm sort of shooting from the hip here. I don't have a ton of science to back up my thoughts nor have I tried something like this myself. It just strikes me as logical that cramming another speaker in between a Front at ~30+ degrees and a Surround at ~70 degrees is not going to bring much benefit, and may even be detrimental. 

Kain -- if you do go with a Trinnov then it's certainly worth trying it out for yourself to see how it goes. Worst case scenario you don't like it and scrap the idea. Of course, the Trinnov also changes the calculus of these decisions because of its unique remapping features that can do magical things with extra speakers beyond what the straightforward speaker templates may allow.

I think the bottom line is that I'm still sticking with my advice to get the "core" 7.1 base level layout as good as possible first, then worry about cramming in extra speakers. 

6 overheads seems like a fine idea though if you can swing it, and a Trinnov can actually take advantage of them (and more).


----------



## FilmMixer

rontalley said:


> Not going to pretend I know anything about this. How do you get them from an authorized party? Educate me.


For consumer, companies like Dolby and DTS hand these out at trades shows (CEDIA, CES, etc..). 

There is no other way to obtain them "in an authorized way" at this point. (eBay included.)

While it might not seem fair, it is what it is, and even though they exist on some of these download sites, their distribution is against the law. 

If you can only find it for download on some EU or overseas site, you probably have a good idea of the legality of such material. 

I know it's annoying to a lot of member that these companies don't freely offer such discs... 

That doesn't change the legality of the issue... 

Just my .02.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Actually in the new 2015 Denons there is now a parameter for ceiling height, so no longer stuck with the 8ft assumption.


Wow, the default ceiling height is 6 feet (1.80 meters)! 

D+M is assuming that the typical purchaser of their highfalutin Atmos-capable AVR is living in his mother's basement? 

Seriously, I hope this parameter setting is highlighted somewhere so that users of those Dolby-enabled speakers will know to make the appropriate adjustments for their room, especially if they have taller than normal ceilings.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, the default ceiling height is 6 feet (1.80 meters)!
> 
> D+M is assuming that the typical purchaser of their highfalutin Atmos-capable AVR is living in his mother's basement?


6 feet from the module to the ceiling, if you read the parameter description


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Actually in the new 2015 Denons there is now a parameter for ceiling height, so no longer stuck with the 8ft assumption.


Nice find; improvement from how it worked last year. I like how they put "Distance" in quotes.


----------



## rontalley

FilmMixer said:


> For consumer, companies like Dolby and DTS hand these out at trades shows (CEDIA, CES, etc..).
> 
> There is no other way to obtain them "in an authorized way" at this point. (eBay included.)
> 
> While it might not seem fair, it is what it is, and even though they exist on some of these download sites, their distribution is against the law.
> 
> If you can only find it for download on some EU or overseas site, you probably have a good idea of the legality of such material.
> 
> I know it's annoying to a lot of member that these companies don't freely offer such discs...
> 
> That doesn't change the legality of the issue...
> 
> Just my .02.


Well, that'st that. Now, I'm educated but I would have rather remained ignorant on this one. 

I will take the links down but leave the names.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Actually in the new 2015 Denons there is now a parameter for ceiling height, so no longer stuck with the 8ft assumption.


So how exactly is MultEQ using that information? Does it align direct sound or ceiling reflection?


----------



## rontalley

rontalley said:


> I also like your link to how to make an Atmos Demo Disc!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow markus767! That was awesome. I was actually nervous that someone would take my suggestion in the wrong manner. Just another example of why I love this site!
> 
> 
> The following are Disc that offer different Dolby Atmos Demos and References. They are obtained by authorized dealers. Try Google to find an authorized dealer. The link to demo-world.eu is only for information about the disc only. The disc can not be downloaded there.
> 
> Dolby Atmos Reference Disc
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/03/14/dolby-atmos-reference-disc/
> 
> Dolby Atmos Demonstration Disc (August 2014)
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/09/15/dolby-atmos-demonstration-disc-august-2014/
> 
> Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Jan 2015)
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/
> 
> The next list are demos that again can only be obtained by authorized dealers. Try Google to find an authorized dealer
> 
> Amaze (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
> Conductor (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
> Horizon (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
> Leaf (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
> Silent (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
> Unfold (Lossless) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos 1080/24p
> 
> Again, these demos are hard to find because they have to be given to you by an authorized dealer.
> 
> Maybe we will get lucky and an Authorized Dealer can authorize us to download the demos from an authorized source...since this is the Official Dolby Atmos for Home Thread...





markus767 said:


> Are the offerings of demo-world.eu legal?


How's that?


----------



## tjenkins95

I would recommend that you just delete your post entirely before it is read by a moderator.


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> I am but a simple man and take humor where I can get it.
> 
> But that was funny too. Luckily(?) I no longer have those problems to contend with. It was the easiest solution to building up my home theater.


 now it's just you and your home theater hopefully you kept the dog.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

tjenkins95 said:


> I would recommend that you just delete your post entirely before it is read by a moderator.


These days, many take free downloading for granted... It's called "sharing". Mostly sharing other people's stuff, but hey...


----------



## FilmMixer

FilmMixer said:


> Releasing in the next two weeks...
> 
> We Are Blood Blu Ray
> 
> 99% confirmed it has an Atmos mix.


So there was indeed an Atmos mix done for the theatrical release...

And it did not make it onto the Blu Ray (even though there is a Dolby Atmos Unfold logo tied to the beginning of the title, on all formats, including streaming....)

Still.... it is an _amazing_ looking title, and still sounds great (7.1 TrueHD..)


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> And it did not make it onto the Blu Ray


Maybe on UHD then.


> (even though there is a Dolby Atmos Unfold logo tied to the beginning of the title, on all formats, including streaming....)


All formats? If the BD starts with the Atmos Unfold trailer, only to not have an Atmos track, that won't be right.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Maybe on UHD then. All formats? If the BD starts with the Atmos Unfold trailer, only to not have an Atmos track, that won't be right.


In talking with those responsible, they didn't see the issue. 

Being a lower budget production, it seems as if they only made one video master which indeed has the trailer attached to the feature program.. 

Confusing? Yes it will be for some consumers.. but not the trusty faithful that have been warned here on AVS.


----------



## Scott Simonian

When I was in Kansas City at their AMC Prime, there was an 'Unfold' trailer before Furious 7.

It happens.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Confusing? Yes it will be for some consumers..


Easiest way to reduce confusion: put the damn Atmos track on the disc. I can understand some of the big studios waiting for UHD, but is Brain Farm doing the same?


----------



## FilmMixer

Scott Simonian said:


> When I was in Kansas City at their AMC Prime, there was an 'Unfold' trailer before Furious 7.
> 
> It happens.


So let's get nit picky..

That actually was a standalong Atmos trailer not attached to the feature.. and it did indeed play back in Atmos..

This film has it attached to all versions because it is "attached" to the feature program.. 

Different things...


----------



## Scott Simonian

But... it's still confusing to consumers. 

That's why I mentioned it. I heard plenty of "I just saw Furious 7 in Atmos" comments afterwards and I'm sure you have too.


----------



## wse

Don't forget that for the best ATMOS our subs need to be performing to their best 

Great articles from http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-articles-on-subwoofers-you-probably-havent-read/


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> But... it's still confusing to consumers.
> 
> That's why I mentioned it. I heard plenty of "I just saw Furious 7 in Atmos" comments afterwards and I'm sure you have too.


I first thought that Furious 7 was in 3D.


----------



## stikle

bargervais said:


> now it's just you and your home theater hopefully you kept the dog.



House, cat, boat, car. Yay me and good fortune. 



FilmMixer said:


> This film has it attached to all versions because it is "attached" to the feature program..



1] Move the mouse to the scrubber.
2] Slide the scrubber to the end of the aforementioned attached trailer.
3] Click the razor blade icon.
4] Select the Atmos trailer.
5] Delete the Atmos trailer.
6] Gaze in wonder at the new master.

Video editing of this type isn't especially difficult. Well, at least in the consumer space.


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers contain a filter called Dolby Elevation processing that enhances the impression of height.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF you don't let your AVR know that you're using Atmos-enabled speakers, then the room correction will try to flatten out the squiggle in the frequency response, thereby undoing the Elevation process and making the speakers less effective at giving the impression of sound above you.


Okay. So is the converse true.
i.e. if you have actually in/on-ceiling speakers, but you set them as Atmos enabled instead.
Would that compensate for the height?
Just curious, as this would benefit those with much lower ceiling height than normal (Aras_Vodka??)


----------



## NorthSky

If you have your speakers in or on ceiling then you don't select them as Atmos enabled/up-firing.

If your ceiling is low just use a wider angle, so they are further than a closer angle. ...Or go with Front Height and Rear Height. ...Right?


----------



## FilmMixer

Yamaha's Atmos Sound Projector

It hasn't really been talked about too much, and hopefully since IFA is happening, more articles (with more detail) will come out about this product..

When I was lucky enough to get my first "hear" or home Atmos 6 months before it launched, we were sworn to secrecy after having been given a demo of a prototype sound bar (not the Yamaha...)

It was absolutely the most convincing surround from a bar experience I have ever heard.. as a matter of fact, we were played the "Leaf" clip once and then again in succession...

My mixing partner and I kind of looked at each other after the second play through and didn't really hear any difference between it and the first (which was done with the prototype up firing speakers, which I think ended up being the Kef's..)

We asked why they played it twice and then were informed that we had just heard the sound bar...

I hope everyone has a change to check these out when they release in December...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Yamaha's Atmos Sound Projector
> 
> It hasn't really been talked about too much, and hopefully since IFA is happening, more articles (with more detail) will come out about this product..
> 
> When I was lucky enough to get my first "hear" or home Atmos 6 months before it launched, we were sworn to secrecy after having been given a demo of a prototype sound bar (not the Yamaha...)
> 
> It was absolutely the most convincing surround from a bar experience I have ever heard.. as a matter of fact, we were played the "Leaf" clip once and then again in succession...
> 
> My mixing partner and I kind of looked at each other after the second play through and didn't really hear any difference between it and the first (which was done with the prototype up firing speakers, which I think ended up being the Kef's..)
> 
> We asked why they played it twice and then were informed that we had just heard the sound bar...
> 
> I hope everyone has a change to check these out when they release in December...


No! No! You can't make me do it! You just can't! Real speakers for me. Real, I say!!!


----------



## NorthSky

I think that I can recommend it to most of my friends...who only listen to their movies from five tiny satellite speakers and a tiny sub with DD sound, or ProLogic. ...And other friends from only their small TV's speakers...a 32" TV...and the privileged ones with a larger 40" LCD 720p TV. 

* Some folks have a 65" computer monitor. ...With a 7.1 surround sound system...full blast. ...Others use their front projectors to google. ...With a 7.8.4 setup! 

Different folks with different strokes...dig it.


----------



## CBdicX

CBdicX said:


> I will get the Klipsch PR280FA (Dolby Enabled speaker build in) and on the back i will get Klipsch PR240SA (Dolby Enabled speaker) *but i will mount the 240 to the wall near the ceiling.*
> So i will let het receiver know the fronts are Dolby Enabled but what must i use for the back ?
> Its a Dolby Enabled speaker but i will use it as a direct fire.
> 
> 
> I will get my Denon X7200WA today, hope someone can help ......


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


>


Look @ the Dolby Atmos Guidelines regarding Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, and their recommended positioning, on the first post of this thread (link).
Those up-firing speakers have a special notch built-in...and they won't work optimally if you place them @ other positions in your room other than where they supposed to bounce back their sound from the ceiling; @ a certain height from the floor and @ a certain recommended distance from the front and back walls. It is very simple and very well indicated. 

Your front Atmos enabled; no problemo...follow the position guidelines.
Your rear Atmos enabled; they don't go where you want to put them. You'll lose their intended "target" sound...because they are build especially to bounce their sound, and NOT as direct radiating speakers. Sure it'll work, but way less than optimal. ...Get direct radiating speakers, and put them where Dolby Atmos recommend them. Or if you want to keep those Dolby Atmos enabled ones, follow Dolby Atmos Speaker Positioning Guidelines...on top of the back surround speakers, and aiming @ the ceiling.


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> Look @ the Dolby Atmos Guidelines regarding Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, and their recommended positioning, on the first post of this thread (link).
> Those up-firing speakers have a special notch built-in...and they won't work optimally if you place them @ other positions in your room other than where they supposed to bounce back their sound from the ceiling; @ a certain height from the floor and @ a certain recommended distance from the front and back walls. It is very simple and very well indicated.
> 
> Your front Atmos enabled; no problemo...follow the position guidelines.
> Your rear Atmos enabled; they don't go where you want to put them. You'll lose their intended "target" sound...because they are build especially to bounce their sound, and NOT as direct radiating speakers. Sure it'll work, but way less than optimal. ...Get direct radiating speakers, and put them where Dolby Atmos recommend them. Or if you want to keep those Dolby Atmos enabled ones, follow Dolby Atmos Speaker Positioning Guidelines...on top of the back surround speakers, and aiming @ the ceiling.


 
I understand you following the Dolby Guidelines, but Klipsch made these speaker so you can use them as Dolby Enabled and/or Surround speakers !
They have a mounting hole on the bottom so you can mount them on the wall and use them like a surround speaker.

Thats why i asked: must i set them as Dolby Enabled or as Rear Hight (they will in the Rear Hight possition), as Klipsch intended them to be used both ways, and i think the only brand that will let you use them 2 ways......

From a review of the RP140SA:
_*The speaker module works by sitting on-top of your existing speakers and reflecting sound off of the ceiling and down into your listening area. The speakers can also do double duty. Not only can they be used as Atmos speakers, but they can also be mounted to your wall and used as surrounds.*_


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> I understand you following the Dolby Guidelines, but Klipsch made these speaker so you can use them as Dolby Enabled or/and Surround speakers !
> They have a mounting hole on the bottom so you can mount them on the wall and use them like a surround speaker.
> 
> Thats why i asked must i set them as Dolby Enabled or as Rear Hight as Klipsch intended them to be used both ways.


And Klipsch, did they say if they are supposed to bounce their sound or directly aiming @ the MLP?
Do they have a switch somewhere? Or is it your receiver that supposed to know depending on your selection (position)?
Klipsch must know...just follow their instruction.


----------



## CBdicX

NorthSky said:


> And Klipsch, did they say if they are supposed to bounce their sound or directly aiming @ the MLP?
> Do they have a switch somewhere? Or is it your receiver that supposed to know depending on your selection (position)?
> Klipsch must know...just follow their instruction.


 
And thats the "problem", Klipsch is not giving a specific manual for this speaker, you get the RP serie manual for all RP speakers, and the 140SA is not even mentioned in the manual 
They do not have a switch so i think i must tell the receiver what to do with this speaker, set it as a Dolby Enabled or as a Rear Hight, and thats the question....


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It makes sure the squiggle built into the Atmos-enabled speaker is not flattened out by your AVR's room correction (which typically tries to get rid of peaks & dips).


Sanjay, I am not sure I am following this right. AIUI the 'squiggle' is only required for Atmos-enabled speakers or modules. It is not required for regular speakers, eg ceiling-mounted. Is that correct?

I am getting the vibe from the latest exchanges that the AVR's room EQ will take into account the 'squiggle', even in regular speakers, and not attempt to flatten it out. If that was so, then those using external REQ (eg miniDSP 88A/Dirac Live) would be getting a distorted response since their room EQ systems know nothing about what the AVR is doing.

For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that I am correct in thinking that the 'squiggle' is only applied if one has told the AVR that one is using Atmos-enabled speakers/modules? Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Not to be a killjoy...
> 
> You are posting links to copyrighted material.
> 
> Even if the demo discs were free, they are still protected under copyright, and not for distribution by unauthorized parties...


That is true, but we don't know (at least I don't know) if Dolby has assigned the copyright on the demo trailers to the public domain. I am guessing they know about the demo-world site so, as they haven't taken any action against the site owners or issued any sort of cease and desist notice, they are happy for the trailers to be there. This is all supposition on my part.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Well, that'st that. Now, I'm educated but I would have rather remained ignorant on this one.
> 
> I will take the links down but leave the names.


Unless we know for an absolute fact that Dolby hasn’t placed the trailers in the public domain, it is a grey area. Without such knowledge, it is better to err on the safe side and assume that copyright protection is in place and that any unauthorised (by Dolby) distribution of the material is illegal. 

I do know for certain that Dolby is very aware, as a company, of the need to protect the intellectual property rights of their collaborators, customers, suppliers etc and I did in fact ask my Dolby contact if it would be permissible to rip their demo disk for AVS members, and the response was a categoric NO (I believe I posted my question and Dolby's reply to this thread). It should be noted that the demo disc contains content where the copyright is vested in third parties with which Dolby have a collaborative arrangement and so this may be the main reason that Dolby took their particular stance wrt to the demo disc.

So yes, the sensible thing to do, IMO, would be to remove the links or you too could be seen to be in breach of Dolby's copyright.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> I would recommend that you just delete your post entirely before it is read by a moderator.


He's OK now. He's just posting to links which contain information, not links to the material itself.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay, I am not sure I am following this right. AIUI the 'squiggle' is only required for Atmos-enabled speakers or modules. It is not required for regular speakers, eg ceiling-mounted. Is that correct?
> 
> I am getting the vibe from the latest exchanges that the AVR's room EQ will take into account the 'squiggle', even in regular speakers, and not attempt to flatten it out. If that was so, then those using external REQ (eg miniDSP 88A/Dirac Live) would be getting a distorted response since their room EQ systems know nothing about what the AVR is doing.
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that I am correct in thinking that the 'squiggle' is only applied if one has told the AVR that one is using Atmos-enabled speakers/modules? Thanks.


Thank you!!

This is basically where I was originally trying to go with this discussion...the squiggle has already been applied by any licensed Dolby-enabled speaker via its internal circuitry...passive filter, cross-over, etc. So, the AVR should not be applying any processing to generate the squiggle. 

To me, if you tell the AVR that the attached speaker is Dolby-enabled then the AVR is not going to apply processing to generate a squiggle...why would it? The Dolby-enabled speaker already does that. What I think that the AVR does is make a correction in the time domain to account for the actual path that the sound takes. 

If you run accuEQ (I don't have Audyssey...) and change the speaker configuration settings from Top Front/Top Rear to Dolby-enabled, whatever position you set it to, the distance measurements to the height speakers measures identically. I have changed settings and run them repeatedly. Each time it reflects the same direct physical distance to the respective height speaker.

I do not believe that any AVR (that I know of...) is smart enough to sense that the attached speaker is Dolby-enabled or not. And, if the AVR could tell whether the attached speaker were Dolby-enabled or not, why would you have to tell it that in the settings?

This takes me back to my original argument--if you are using non-Dolby-enabled speakers as reflecting speakers, you should NOT be setting the AVR to Dolby-enabled, but using Top Front and Top Rear, or other combination instead. 

Or, you should set it to Dolby-enabled so that it does apply an appropriate time correction. I have listened to it set both ways a number of times. To me, the setting of Top Front/Top Rear sounds slightly "better". 

As always, YMMV...but, do whatever sounds best to you and above all else...enjoy this marvelous toy!


----------



## Nightlord

Has anyone yet opened an upfiring speaker and confirmed there is any passive components doing anything else than cutting off the low end?
(not counting ordinary crossover if it's a twoway of course)


----------



## tjenkins95

Not sure if anyone already posted this but I just read this on blu-ray.com:

http://www.areadvd.de/news/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/




Ray


----------



## dvdwilly3

Nightlord said:


> Has anyone yet opened an upfiring speaker and confirmed there is any passive components doing anything else than cutting off the low end?
> (not counting ordinary crossover if it's a twoway of course)


If you go to audioholics they have done a partial deconstruction and testing of the of the Def Tech A-60.

I am not providing a link because I do not know what the forum policy is.


----------



## tjenkins95

Last night I watched the movie *Helios* on blu-ray with Dolby Atmos soundtrack.
Good video and Atmos soundtrack - plenty of action.


----------



## cfh11

apologies if this has been discussed before but any suggestions for a cheap 5.1.4 set up?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay, I am not sure I am following this right. AIUI the 'squiggle' is only required for Atmos-enabled speakers or modules. It is not required for regular speakers, eg ceiling-mounted. Is that correct?


Correct. The only time a room correction system will insert the squiggle into its target curve is when you tell it you're using Atmos enabled speakers. Besides, what would Elevation processing do for speakers above you? Give the impression that they're....above you?


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Last night I watched the movie *Helios* on blu-ray with Dolby Atmos soundtrack.
> Good video and Atmos soundtrack - plenty of action.


Looks good and I like HK action movies. Got a link to where you bought it? Yesasia have it but they want as much for carriage to the UK as the disc costs, which makes it a bit silly.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Correct. The only time a room correction system will insert the squiggle into its target curve is when you tell it you're using Atmos enabled speakers. Besides, what would Elevation processing do for speakers above you? Give the impression that they're....above you?


 Yes, I thought so - but thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Looks good and I like HK action movies. Got a link to where you bought it? Yesasia have it but they want as much for carriage to the UK as the disc costs, which makes it a bit silly.


I would assume this has English subtitles? Now that I'll have Atmos soon, I'm starting to pay attention to the content side of things. I like Hong Kong action films too as long as they're good. Some of the acting can be a little overwrote and silly (unless they're actually going for comedy rather than the unintentionally funny route). 

Gorgeous Asian women don't hurt either.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> To me, if you tell the AVR that the attached speaker is Dolby-enabled then the AVR is not going to apply processing to generate a squiggle...why would it?


The AVR doesn't, the room correction does (to prevent those two peaks and one notch from being "corrected").


----------



## chi_guy50

tjenkins95 said:


> Not sure if anyone already posted this but I just read this on blu-ray.com:
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/
> 
> Ray







Äußerst interessant, aber auch saublöd!


----------



## ultraflexed

NorthSky said:


> If you have your speakers in or on ceiling then you don't select them as Atmos enabled/up-firing.
> 
> If your ceiling is low just use a wider angle, so they are further than a closer angle. ...Or go with Front Height and Rear Height. ...Right?


On my onkyo 1039 for some reason, you can only chose front heights and rear heights or top middle and no rear hights, for some reason, I'm going to experiment more, I'm trying to do top middle and rear heights.


----------



## ultraflexed

NorthSky said:


> If you have your speakers in or on ceiling then you don't select them as Atmos enabled/up-firing.
> 
> If your ceiling is low just use a wider angle, so they are further than a closer angle. ...Or go with Front Height and Rear Height. ...Right?


On my onkyo 1030 for some reason, you can only chose front heights and rear heights or top middle and no rear hights, for some reason, I'm going to experiment more, I'm trying to do top middle and rear heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would assume this has English subtitles? Now that I'll have Atmos soon, I'm starting to pay attention to the content side of things. I like Hong Kong action films too as long as they're good. Some of the acting can be a little overwrote and silly (unless they're actually going for comedy rather than the unintentionally funny route).
> 
> *Gorgeous Asian women don't hurt either*.


True, maybe I was hasty about the carriage charges... 

Talking of action sequences in movies, I watched* Furious 7* last night, which I know you won't like, but it isn't the movie I am going to focus on. The movie features Tony Jaa (who you recall from* Ong Bak* I am sure). Tony Jaa, as *Ong Bak* so admirably demonstrates, is one of the most accomplished martial artists ever to make a movie - yet the director of *Furious 7 *has chosen to employ that 'edit, cut, jiggle the camera a lot' technique in his fight sequences that are usually reserved to hide the lack of competence of actors thrust into martial arts roles which exceed their level of competence. Instead of allowing us to see in glorious detail the amazing choreography of the fights, all we see is a second here, a glimpse there, a second here and so on. You can see through the editing to be able to tell that these fights would be awesome if we were allowed to see them. It is such a shame and makes the inclusion of a master like Jaa pointless and one wonders why they bothered to hire him if we are not going to be allowed to see what he is so good at.

The same applies to a lesser degree of Ronda Rousey's scenes, where again we know she is more than competent in her ability to fight, but again the details are largely obscured from us. Such a shame. Other than that, *Furious 7 i*s totally amazing IMO. You'd hate it - it's just too entertaining for you


----------



## petetherock

For Tony Ja, you have to go back to his old movies. He is as potent as Jackie Chan was in his heyday..
If you are a fan of HKG kungfu flicks, check out Dragons Forever and Meals on Wheels.
See his fight scenes with Benny the Jet... no CGI there mate...


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> For Tony Ja, you have to go back to his old movies. He is as potent as Jackie Chan was in his heyday..
> If you are a fan of HKG kungfu flicks, check out Dragons Forever and Meals on Wheels.
> See his fight scenes with Benny the Jet... no CGI there mate...


+1. I am a big fan of Tony Jaa. 

I have *Dragons Forever* (on DVD not Blu-ray), but not the other one (*Wheels on Meals* I think, not Meals on Wheels ). I will check it out, thanks.


----------



## petetherock

Sorry mate, it's Wheels on Meals


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> yet the director of *Furious 7 *has chosen to employ that 'edit, cut, jiggle the camera a lot' technique in his fight sequences that are usually reserved to hide the lack of competence of actors thrust into martial arts roles which exceed their level of competence



I read something recently regarding Jackie Chan movies - he intentionally uses wide shots with no camera movements for exactly this reason. Everything is super choreographed and that's why it's so fun and real looking...because it is. I found this interesting and had never thought about it or noticed it. I may have to bust out Rumble in the Bronx for a revisit.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Sorry mate, it's Wheels on Meals
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFW92CfLMSI


Haha. Yeah, I spotted it - commented while you were typing.  (For the benefit of American members who may not have the same thing in the US, 'meals on wheels' is the name of a social service in the UK which provides hot meals to the disadvantaged or sick aged persons, bringing a hot meal daily, in a van). Not quite Jackie Chan's bag...


----------



## petetherock

Finally to end my OT bit.. Keith, try Jackie Chan's "Gorgeous"... Brad Allen probably can whip JC in real life...
(look out for the 4 kicks)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Haha. Yeah, I spotted it - commented while you were typing.  (For the benefit of American members who may not have the same thing in the US, 'meals on wheels' is the name of a social service in the UK which provides hot meals to the disadvantaged or sick aged persons, bringing a hot meal daily, in a van). Not quite Jackie Chan's bag...


We have Meals on Wheels in the U.S. as well. It could also be a new Jackie Chan movie... so don't give him any ideas!


----------



## Contuzzi

Pixels coming to BluRay with Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Contuzzi said:


> Pixels coming to BluRay with Atmos.


Won't help it one bit.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Just received my BBC Nature Blu-ray from Amazon Japan. Took only two days with standard international postage!

Damn, now I have to wait a month or so to hear it in Atmos!!  I'm becoming impatient!! _Argh!!!!_


----------



## sdurani

Anybody here speaker German? 

http://www.areadvd.de/news/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Anybody here speaker German?
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/


Google translate says it's a Paramount disc release with English Dolby Atmos (7.1 compatible). I'd assume it's a worldwide Blu release, so the U.S. version should have Dolby Atmos as well. Universal is taking over overseas distribution of future Paramount films.

Have yet to see Rogue Nation, so if it's good enough and has a great Atmos mix, I'll snag it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fun movie, so-so Atmos mix.


----------



## kokishin

sdurani said:


> Anybody here speaker German?
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/


Translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.areadvd.de%2Fnews%2Fmission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc%2F&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## sdurani

Thanx for the translations. Hopefully the Atmos mix sounds better at home than it did in theatres. Still, another high profile Atmos release on home video. 

Next month will have six Atmos BDs: Dracula, San Andreas, Gallows, Fifth Element, Pixels, Leon/Professional. 

At least the format is past the days of complaining about only 4 releases total on BD.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well, we have a lot in the pipeline _now_. This is a rather new occurrence. Hopefully this current pace sticks or improves further.

If only Auro3D was so well supported by the NA movie studios.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dan Hitchman said:


> Have yet to see Rogue Nation, so if it's good enough and has a great Atmos mix, I'll snag it.


See, now I'm totally glad I didn't see Rogue Nation in my local "we barely have working 5.1" theater. I'll blind buy this if it has Atmos, without question!


----------



## kokishin

Scott Simonian said:


> Well, we have a lot in the pipeline _now_. This is a rather new occurrence. Hopefully this current pace sticks or improves further.
> 
> If only Auro3D was so well supported by the NA movie studios.


If only I understood how Auro works. 

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kokishin said:


> If only I understood how Auro works.
> 
> Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.


The more you don't understand of it, the more enjoyable it is. 

At least, that's how I think it works. I'll have to ask around.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Fun movie, so-so Atmos mix.


I finally got to watch Mad Max Fury Road... ohhh man that was incredible. Unfortunately, I have to dismantle my HT this weekend... I might not be able to set it up again for a few years. 
But I at least got to enjoy this film... finally... a great film with a great atmos mix. But it was a good last hurrah! 

Though on the plus side the AMC Prime out here is finally open... I plan to see Everest there. That might tide me over in the mean time


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have to dismantle my HT this weekend... I might not be able to set it up again for a few years.



Wwaaaaahhhhhhtttttttt?!?!?


----------



## NorthSky

CBdicX said:


> And thats the "problem", Klipsch is not giving a specific manual for this speaker, you get the RP serie manual for all RP speakers, and the 140SA is not even mentioned in the manual
> They do not have a switch so i think i must tell the receiver what to do with this speaker, set it as a Dolby Enabled or as a Rear Hight, and thats the question....


I see now. Klipsch should be more helpful on this particular speaker's model...maybe on the Klispch forum? 

* To me it looks like an up-firing (Dolby Atmos enabled) speaker...that you would put on top of your two main front or two back surround speakers, 
and aiming @ the ceiling...with that special built-in crossover that helps in clarity when bouncing the sound from the ceiling.
And if you position them, as Klipsch said that you can, on your back wall as your rear surrounds...then I am missing some for sure.
And furthermore; if you put them high on your rear wall near the ceiling junction...then it looks to me like the Presence channel speakers from Yamaha DSP.

If for Dolby Atmos you are using the RH (Rear Height) position...the speakers should be wide direct radiation type. ...And aiming @ or near the MLP.
That is my best understanding. 

And because Klipsch doesn't give definite details on that particular model...like you I am @ lost. ...And I totally understand your questioning and wondering. It's important to know the exact specs of the speakers we purchase and with their recommended positioning. ...And even more so now with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Anybody here speaker German?
> 
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/


You really had to ask? 

Nobody seems to appreciate good Teutonic humor anymore. Ihr Schweinehunde!


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> For *Tony Jaa*, you have to go back to his old movies. He is as potent as Jackie Chan was in his heyday..
> If you are a fan of HKG kungfu flicks, check out Dragons Forever and Meals on Wheels.
> See his fight scenes with Benny the Jet... no CGI there mate...


This...










...Worth trying with DSU...maybe...and that one long shot without any cuts...on the staircase...is the ultimate *Tony Jaa* scene of endurance.


----------



## kokishin

chi_guy50 said:


> You really had to ask?
> 
> Nobody seems to appreciate good Teutonic humor anymore. Ihr Schweinehunde!


Not since _Hogan's Heroes_.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just received my BBC Nature Blu-ray from Amazon Japan. Took only two days with standard international postage!
> Damn, now I have to wait a month or so to hear it in Atmos!!  I'm becoming impatient!! _Argh!!!!_


Just wait till DTS:X shows up in town...then you're due for a real treat.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Fun movie, so-so Atmos mix.


Scott, how many times a week do you go to the theater?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Wow, October is becoming a great month for Atmos ! Three titles on the 27th only, wow !

We're now saying most (some exceptions like Magic Mike) of the Atmos theater mixes release with the exception of Fox and Disney, that's really nice !


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Wwaaaaahhhhhhtttttttt?!?!?


Yeaaaah  Long story short, for the last 5 years I've been living in a house abandoned by a relative, which I was hoping to purchase. But the house that other relative lives at was divided up in a will... so they needed their house back. I had not anticipated this turn of events... If I had known I probably wouldn't have spent 8k on home theater stuff this year (LOL)

What complicates matters is that I got laid off... I'm currently in an intense job hunt, which sucks when you're in the process of moving. It's hard to find an apartment without proof of income... especially one that can accommodate an HT! 

My plan is... move in with mother in law for a month or two, and hopefully find a job ASAP & apartment or town home where I can fit the HT... which is a difficult task. Looking at room dimensions, most apartment living rooms wouldn't fit this setup I have. I'm probably going to have to store the ceiling speakers & rear speakers... though I'll bring my TV with & use my surrounds as rear speakers if the mother in law is fine with that. 

I was also thinking... with my baby daughter it's going to be a while before I can blast the sound again anyway... so I'm not too concerned about bothering neighbors. I've been very spoiled over the last year when I got the "big" sub... the houses here are brick so sound stays in the house.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Looks good and I like HK action movies. Got a link to where you bought it? Yesasia have it but they want as much for carriage to the UK as the disc costs, which makes it a bit silly.


I bought mine from Yesasia - it was $3.50 for shipping. When it goes on sale I can always pick you up one if you want!


----------



## Eriksdam

Since we're on the topic of new movies: The first Scandinavian BD with Atmos just got released: The Danish political thriller Idealisten (the Idealist) is out in Denmark right now, with at least a European release to follow in about a month. 

The movie has gotten extremely good reviews in DK, and we Danes are hard to please 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Idealisten-Blu-ray/132394

 
http:// http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Idealisten-Blu-ray/132394/http:// http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Idealisten-Blu-ray/132394/


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Google translate says it's a Paramount disc release with English Dolby Atmos (7.1 compatible). I'd assume it's a worldwide Blu release, so the U.S. version should have Dolby Atmos as well. Universal is taking over overseas distribution of future Paramount films.
> 
> Have yet to see Rogue Nation, so if it's good enough and has a great Atmos mix, I'll snag it.


Not sure if it will pass your stringent standards but I really enjoyed this MI installment as well as the last one. Fun, well executed action flicks. IMO the last two are the best in the series since the first one. 

If it's released on BD in Atmos I will definitely buy it.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> You really had to ask?
> 
> Nobody seems to appreciate good Teutonic humor anymore. Ihr Schweinehunde!


I'm pretty sure Teutonic humor is an oxymoron


----------



## batpig

CBdicX said:


> And thats the "problem", Klipsch is not giving a specific manual for this speaker, you get the RP serie manual for all RP speakers, and the 140SA is not even mentioned in the manual
> They do not have a switch so i think i must tell the receiver what to do with this speaker, set it as a Dolby Enabled or as a Rear Hight, and thats the question....


Only set it to Dolby Enabled if you are bouncing it off the ceiling. The setting invokes some special processing (the HRTF squiggle, extra delay and two tier bass management) that you don't want if the speaker is firing directly.


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> Has anyone yet opened an upfiring speaker and confirmed there is any passive components doing anything else than cutting off the low end?
> (not counting ordinary crossover if it's a twoway of course)


Audiolics did and also measured it, the HRTF squiggle is definitely built into the speaker. I also measured the DT A60 module when I had them and my measurements were similar to AH.


----------



## Nabs17

sdurani said:


> Thanx for the translations. Hopefully the Atmos mix sounds better at home than it did in theatres. Still, another high profile Atmos release on home video.
> 
> Next month will have six Atmos BDs: Dracula, San Andreas, Gallows, Fifth Element, Pixels, Leon/Professional.
> 
> At least the format is past the days of complaining about only 4 releases total on BD.


I'm looking forward to Pixels even though it was universally panned but I didn't know it was coming out with an Atmos track. I haven't seen that announced anywhere. Good to know.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, how many times a week do you go to the theater?


Usually once a week but there hasn't been many movies I want to go see this part of the year. Last movie I saw was Hitman a week or two ago and it was not very good.

Things will pick up again soon.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yeaaaah  Long story short, for the last 5 years I've been living in a house abandoned by a relative, which I was hoping to purchase. But the house that other relative lives at was divided up in a will... so they needed their house back. I had not anticipated this turn of events... If I had known I probably wouldn't have spent 8k on home theater stuff this year (LOL)
> 
> What complicates matters is that I got laid off... I'm currently in an intense job hunt, which sucks when you're in the process of moving. It's hard to find an apartment without proof of income... especially one that can accommodate an HT!
> 
> My plan is... move in with mother in law for a month or two, and hopefully find a job ASAP & apartment or town home where I can fit the HT... which is a difficult task. Looking at room dimensions, most apartment living rooms wouldn't fit this setup I have. I'm probably going to have to store the ceiling speakers & rear speakers... though I'll bring my TV with & use my surrounds as rear speakers if the mother in law is fine with that.
> 
> I was also thinking... with my baby daughter it's going to be a while before I can blast the sound again anyway... so I'm not too concerned about bothering neighbors. I've been very spoiled over the last year when I got the "big" sub... the houses here are brick so sound stays in the house.


Aw, man. That sucks. What a seriously unfortunate turn of events. I hope you get things worked out and not only find a decent place but a new job. 

Man... we live in this bubble here at AVS that is all about A/V but sometimes you just get smacked in the face with life being a beotch. Keep your head up and good luck!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Nabs17 said:


> I'm looking forward to Pixels even though it was universally panned but I didn't know it was coming out with an Atmos track. I haven't seen that announced anywhere. Good to know.


http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=17549


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Yeaaaah  Long story short, for the last 5 years I've been living in a house abandoned by a relative, which I was hoping to purchase. But the house that other relative lives at was divided up in a will... so they needed their house back. I had not anticipated this turn of events... If I had known I probably wouldn't have spent 8k on home theater stuff this year (LOL)
> What complicates matters is that I got laid off... I'm currently in an intense job hunt, which sucks when you're in the process of moving. It's hard to find an apartment without proof of income... especially one that can accommodate an HT!
> My plan is... move in with mother in law for a month or two, and hopefully find a job ASAP & apartment or town home where I can fit the HT... which is a difficult task. Looking at room dimensions, most apartment living rooms wouldn't fit this setup I have. I'm probably going to have to store the ceiling speakers & rear speakers... though I'll bring my TV with & use my surrounds as rear speakers if the mother in law is fine with that.
> I was also thinking... with my baby daughter it's going to be a while before I can blast the sound again anyway... so I'm not too concerned about bothering neighbors. I've been very spoiled over the last year when I got the "big" sub... the houses here are brick so sound stays in the house.


Aras, I wish you the very best...I sincerely mean that.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just received my BBC Nature Blu-ray from Amazon Japan. Took only two days with standard international postage!


 Got my copy today as well. Ordered Monday (actually shipped Tuesday) and arrives from Japan Wednesday with standard shipping? Wow!


----------



## Nabs17

Brian Fineberg said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=17549


Thanks Brian...not sure how I missed that because that's one of the site I routinely check.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I finally got to watch Mad Max Fury Road... ohhh man that was incredible. Unfortunately, I have to dismantle my HT this weekend... I might not be able to set it up again for a few years.
> But I at least got to enjoy this film... finally... a great film with a great atmos mix. But it was a good last hurrah!
> 
> Though on the plus side the AMC Prime out here is finally open...*I plan to see Everest there*. That might tide me over in the mean time


Speaking of *'Everest'* ... it's in Dolby Atmos ... and in Auro-3D too.


----------



## tjenkins95

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would assume this has English subtitles? Now that I'll have Atmos soon, I'm starting to pay attention to the content side of things. I like Hong Kong action films too as long as they're good. Some of the acting can be a little overwrote and silly (unless they're actually going for comedy rather than the unintentionally funny route).
> 
> Gorgeous Asian women don't hurt either.


 
Yes, there are English subtitles for the movie.
One thing great about the Oppo player is the ability to position the subtitles so I don't have to move my head up and down! 
Unfortunately, no English subtitles for the special features which provided comments from each of the main characters and then there were a few features on how the movie was made, etc...
I thought the acting was very good - it has a cast of international actors so there is plenty to look at.


----------



## batpig

Nabs17 said:


> I'm looking forward to Pixels even though it was universally panned but I didn't know it was coming out with an Atmos track. I haven't seen that announced anywhere. Good to know.


Don't get your hopes up. I've heard that movie was a complete trainwreck.


----------



## Nabs17

batpig said:


> Don't get your hopes up. I've heard that movie was a complete trainwreck.


I understand that and heard the same things. I'm going in with that expectation but I grew up playing all those video games and I think (sonically) it should be a very good. That's what I'm hoping for. Don't need it to be great just enjoyable.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nabs17 said:


> I understand that and heard the same things. I'm going in with that expectation but I grew up playing all those video games and I think (sonically) it should be a very good. That's what I'm hoping for. Don't need it to be great just enjoyable.


Yes, I know I'm tough on movies, but this was another one of those Adam Sandler phone-in jobs. Some of the attempts at "comedy" and a couple of the main subplots with the female characters are downright crass and offensive.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jack Gilvey said:


> Got my copy today as well. Ordered Monday (actually shipped Tuesday) and arrives from Japan Wednesday with standard shipping? Wow!


Woah! Where the hell have _you_ been, Jack? 

Do you have an Atmos system up? Heh, I guess you do. I'd love to know how you've been and what kind of system you're running these days.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I see the new Mission Impossible is getting the ATMOS treatment for BR as well 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mission-Impossible-Rogue-Nation-Blu-ray/120902/


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Just wait till DTS:X shows up in town...then you're due for a real treat.


DTS:X has been very quiet  got my new Atmos/DTS:X onkyo TX-NR 747 ready to go I think I was premature AGAIN.


----------



## asere

What's going to be so special about DTS X vs Atmos. I hear they are quite the same.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> I see the new Mission Impossible is getting the ATMOS treatment for BR as well
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mission-Impossible-Rogue-Nation-Blu-ray/120902/


Great news and now it seems we have choices each month  I watched The Age of Adeline last night not much of an Atmos demo Blu-Ray especially after MAD MAX which kicked butt, The Age of Adeline movie itself was not bad, my wife and I enjoyed it.


----------



## asere

One concern of mine is that Atmos for bluray will be scarce or even stop and will be only available for UHD disks here soon when UHD is available.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> One concern of mine is that Atmos for bluray will be scarce or even stop and will be only available for UHD disks.


I'm going to assume that once Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are available on new release UHD titles that the regular Blu-ray versions will get the same audio tracks as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> What's going to be so special about DTS X vs Atmos. I hear they are quite the same.



Again, some studios may opt for DTS: X and some may opt for Dolby Atmos. If you have both, then you're covered.


----------



## asere

Dan Hitchman said:


> Again, some studios may opt for DTS: X and some may opt for Dolby Atmos. If you have both, then you're covered.


I get it. But sound wise and mix what's going to be different? 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> I'm pretty sure Teutonic humor is an *oxymoron*


Said the bat + pig! 

Ah, but you poor benighted souls will never know the exquisite, timeless comedy routines of the likes of Karl Valentin. 'Tis a pity!

Footnote: Even though I poked fun at MI:RN, I do intend to watch it in all its Atmos glory and hope to have some mindless fun in the process.


----------



## asere

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm going to assume that once Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are available on new release UHD titles that the regular Blu-ray versions will get the same audio tracks as well.


I hope so. I remember when dts dropped dvd for bluray. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> I get it. But sound wise and mix what's going to be different?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Probably no appreciable difference, though Dolby Atmos for the home allows for more simultaneous metadata infused objects.


----------



## Stanton

asere said:


> I get it. But sound wise and mix what's going to be different?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


No one knows...especially since no one has been able to hear a DTS:X audio track!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> I hope so. I remember when dts dropped dvd for bluray.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


They didn't drop DVD, the studios chose not to spend the money to encode both a DTS and Dolby Digital track for by then a bargin bin format.


----------



## bargervais

asere said:


> I get it. But sound wise and mix what's going to be different?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I don't think it will be much different just like it is now with DTS MA / Dolby TruHD. I will just have to have a receiver that can play Atmos/DTS:X


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Looking at room dimensions, most apartment living rooms wouldn't fit this setup I have.


One of the fun things to do at this forum is figure out ways to fit a home theatre in spaces never meant for home theatres. Whenever you're re-settled at your new apartment, start a thread with about the room, you'll get lots of creative advice on how to fit your set-up (or whatever parts will fit) in your new digs. Good luck on the job hunt meanwhile.


----------



## batpig

asere said:


> I get it. But sound wise and mix what's going to be different?


Sound-wise there's not much theoretical difference. You'll still have the base 7.1 channel bed and then some objects flying around (oversimplification but close enough).

It's all going to come down to the mix -- how the mixers choose to use the tools they are given. And in that sense it seems to be equally likely that an Atmos mix would be awesome or sucky as a DTS:X mix.


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just received my BBC Nature Blu-ray from Amazon Japan. Took only two days with standard international postage!
> 
> Damn, now I have to wait a month or so to hear it in Atmos!!  I'm becoming impatient!! _Argh!!!!_


Be patient you must..
Enjoy you will..
Use the Atmos Dan...


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> DTS:X has been very quiet  got my new Atmos/DTS:X onkyo TX-NR 747 ready to go I think I was premature AGAIN.


You know bargervais, with all that new 3D audio excitement, by the time DTS:X finally arrives, some members here will have already gone through four or five Dolby Atmos receivers! ...Serious; look @ some members...like you...Nalleh...and others. 
And when that first DTS:X receiver enters your room and gets installed in your audio/video rack...in the back of your room (or in the attic, basement or garage) you'll find three or six Dolby Atmos receivers gathering dust and ready to be auctioned on ePay.

:-D

* Btw, I was also a premature baby...seven months.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> You know bargervais, with all that new 3D audio excitement, by the time DTS:X finally arrives, some members here will have already gone through four or five Dolby Atmos receivers! ...Serious; look @ some members...like you...Nalleh...and others.
> And when that first DTS:X receiver enters your room and gets installed in your audio/video rack...in the back of your room (or in the attic, basement or garage) you'll find three or six Dolby Atmos receivers gathering dust and ready to be auctioned on ePay.
> 
> :-D
> 
> * Btw, I was also a premature baby...seven months.


I know what your saying, That's why I said premature AGAIN. LOL
I have to learn restraint and patience, both are very hard for me, when I have an itch for something I have to scratch till it bleeds, and I have been very bloody these days. With Atmos/DTS:X, I want a 4K TV UHD Blu-Ray player, I need some calamine lotion.


----------



## NorthSky

We sure are a funny bunch, and we come in all colors and @ different timing. 

It's a lovely life, full of versatility and various shades of brightness in the sky. ...We don't stand in the shadows covered of dust.


----------



## Waboman

Nabs17 said:


> I understand that and heard the same things. I'm going in with that expectation but I grew up playing all those video games and I think (sonically) it should be a very good. That's what I'm hoping for. Don't need it to be great just enjoyable.


Pixels is a fun movie. Especially if you're from that era. I loved seeing those video games of my misspent youth become larger than life on the big screen. Should look and sound fantastic on blu. Simonian may not like it. He's a tough Wookie cookie.


----------



## stikle

Waboman said:


> Pixels is a fun movie. Especially if you're from that era. I loved seeing those video games of my misspent youth become larger than life on the big screen. Should look and sound fantastic on blu.



That's all I'm looking for and all I need. I was 16 when Asteroids was new at the arcade. Ah memories.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> Aw, man. That sucks. What a seriously unfortunate turn of events. I hope you get things worked out and not only find a decent place but a new job.
> 
> Man... we live in this bubble here at AVS that is all about A/V but sometimes you just get smacked in the face with life being a beotch. Keep your head up and good luck!





NorthSky said:


> Aras, I wish you the very best...I sincerely mean that.





sdurani said:


> One of the fun things to do at this forum is figure out ways to fit a home theatre in spaces never meant for home theatres. Whenever you're re-settled at your new apartment, start a thread with about the room, you'll get lots of creative advice on how to fit your set-up (or whatever parts will fit) in your new digs. Good luck on the job hunt meanwhile.


Thanks guys, much appreciated! This is such a great community... I'm very grateful for the assistance you all provided me in helping me select my receiver & such. I knew next to nothing about HT's a little over a year and a half ago... not to say I'm an expert now, but I sure learned a thing or two 

I'll be fine after I move out of here... I really feel fortunate that I got to experience it while I could. Who knows... maybe I'll get lucky & find a place that will allow me to set up like I had it here. & maybe find a neighbor that would be cool with an occasional electronically generated earth quake 

& some of you probably know I'm a Star Wars nut... well, hopefully the Force Awakens will tide me over for a while. Though I hope it won't take me that long to get settled somewhere! But even if it might... I've got a 6 month old daughter & 9 year old step daughter, so I'll be busy for some time!


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> ...some of you probably know I'm a Star Wars nut...


Did not know that. Just so you know, I have a _Revenge_ of the Jedi poster.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

sdurani said:


> Did not know that. Just so you know, I have a _Revenge_ of the Jedi poster.


thats sick!

chalk me up to a star wars nut too.

kind of upset that being into star wars is becoming en vogue. oh well..

would have made the original Star wars pillow case I had in my condo the first time my wife (then dating) stayed at my condo a little easier to explain hahah


----------



## Nabs17

Waboman said:


> Pixels is a fun movie. Especially if you're from that era. I loved seeing those video games of my misspent youth become larger than life on the big screen. Should look and sound fantastic on blu. Simonian may not like it. He's a tough Wookie cookie.





stikle said:


> That's all I'm looking for and all I need. I was 16 when Asteroids was new at the arcade. Ah memories.


Exactly guys.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks guys, much appreciated! This is such a great community... I'm very grateful for the assistance you all provided me in helping me select my receiver & such. I knew next to nothing about HT's a little over a year and a half ago... not to say I'm an expert now, but I sure learned a thing or two
> 
> I'll be fine after I move out of here... I really feel fortunate that I got to experience it while I could. Who knows... maybe I'll get lucky & find a place that will allow me to set up like I had it here. & maybe find a neighbor that would be cool with an occasional electronically generated earth quake
> 
> & some of you probably know I'm a Star Wars nut... well, hopefully the Force Awakens will tide me over for a while. Though I hope it won't take me that long to get settled somewhere! But even if it might... I've got a 6 month old daughter & 9 year old step daughter, so I'll be busy for some time!


Good luck with the move!

Which Chicagoland neighborhoods are you targeting? And did you ever sell that large-scale oil painting you were working on last year?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Did not know that. Just so you know, I have a _Revenge_ of the Jedi poster.


Yeah I'm a member on Star Wars Cantina forum as well (haha).
Wooooooooooooooah those are super, super rare right? 

Waiting for a proper sequel to ROTJ has been a painful wait... those Prequels didn't help much with that!



chi_guy50 said:


> Good luck with the move!
> 
> Which Chicagoland neighborhoods are you targeting? And did you ever sell that large-scale oil painting you were working on last year?


When I relocate, I'll be moving close to wherever the job will be... so I'm willing to live wherever as long as it's not too far out in the sticks. I'm gonna be in Palos Hills for a little while which is a pretty nice area, but very condensed. I forget, you don't live here right? You are out on the East Coast-ish area?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

so just asked my good friend who is starring in a new movie (working title "father") http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4843750/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 to ask PP to mix it in ATMOS and same for the BR release hahah

lets see


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Waiting for a proper sequel to ROTJ has been a painful wait... those Prequels didn't help much with that!


Ugh, the prequels. I sometimes wonder if they were more painful for us fans than the general public because we had expectations based on the original trilogy. I've said it before: if Episode 1 had actually been the first Star Wars movie, I doubt I would have been a fan today.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

sdurani said:


> Ugh, the prequels. I sometimes wonder if they were more painful for fans than the general public because we had expectations based on the original trilogy. I've said it before: if Episode 1 had actually been the first Star Wars movie, I doubt I would have been a fan today.



what i never understood about the prequels is ...if it happens in the past (from new hope) how did everything go from so futuristic and sleek etc...to crude and industrial lol.

they digressed as a civilization?? lmao

i agree though if that were the first one...i wouldn't have been a fan either


----------



## kokishin

Brian Fineberg said:


> thats sick!
> 
> chalk me up to a star wars nut too.
> 
> kind of upset that being into star wars is becoming en vogue. oh well..
> 
> would have made the original Star wars pillow case I had in my condo the first time my wife (then dating) stayed at my condo a little easier to explain hahah


Did you show her your Jedi sword?


----------



## sdurani

Brian Fineberg said:


> what i never understood about the prequels is ...if it happens in the past (from new hope) how did everything go from so futuristic and sleek etc...to crude and industrial lol.


The same could be asked about Prometheus and the original Alien move. They went from holographic displays to CRTs thirty years later? That's the problem with making prequels decades later.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kokishin said:


> Did you show her your Jedi sword?





duh!


----------



## sdurani

kokishin said:


> Did you show her your Jedi sword?


You mean the not-so-light sabre?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

sdurani said:


> The same could be asked about Prometheus and the original Alien move. They went from holographic displays to CRTs thirty years later? That's the problem with making prequels decades later.


exactly...they should have kept the same look and feel...basically what they are doing with the new episodes


----------



## stikle

Hey...I have all three posters for Episodes 4-6, and I've still got my Star Wars pillowcase in a drawer somewhere from when I was a kid and had the full set of sheets.

I was 7 when SW hit the theater and can still remember my parents taking me to it in the old 2 screen theater (small coastal town) with mono sound.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

chi_guy50 said:


> Good luck with the move!
> 
> Which Chicagoland neighborhoods are you targeting? And did you ever sell that large-scale oil painting you were working on last year?


Oh 2nd question... I am actually still working on that painting, it might take me until May to finish! But once I finish that, I won't be doing any large scale projects like that for a while, I just want to crank out a lot of smaller works... that's like the flagship of my new series 



sdurani said:


> Ugh, the prequels. I sometimes wonder if they were more painful for us fans than the general public because we had expectations based on the original trilogy. I've said it before: if Episode 1 had actually been the first Star Wars movie, I doubt I would have been a fan today.


Yeah... it's strange, I'm listening to "the secret history of Star Wars" on audible... and I guess Lucas had already figured out a lot of the major plot points for the Prequels back when he wrote the OT. I think if he had kept on going with the schedule of shooting every 3 years or so then they would have turned out a lot better. 

I learned a few interesting things in listening to this... like I guess Lucas had asked Kasdan to work with him on the Prequels but Kasdan declined. Same with McQuarrie though I know he was sick. But I could only imagine how much better those films would have been with different writers, directors, & McQuarrie's art. I do actually worry about the artistic side of The force awakens... McQuarrie was just such a genius, like a modern day sci fi Bruegel & I don't know if anyone can compete with that. Joe Johnston isn't involved either I don't think... I believe he designed the slave I and built a lot of the cooler models... I hope they at least have someone like that on their team. Some of the designs for speeders & things like that from the Force Awakens seem a little uninspired.

However, Kasdan is involved with TFA so perhaps there is hope  Those trailers do look very very good! 

Another thing I learned was Gary Kurtz wanted to help Irvin Kerschner do the film his way (methodically, really taking time with shots) but Lucas wanted to stay within a certain budget & wanted Gary Kurtz to not do such a good job & hurry it up. Even though Lucas admits that the work was amazing, he said he would have preferred them not making it as good as it could have been so that the extra budget could have been used constructing skywalker ranch.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Brian Fineberg said:


> what i never understood about the prequels is ...if it happens in the past (from new hope) how did everything go from so futuristic and sleek etc...to crude and industrial lol.
> 
> they digressed as a civilization?? lmao
> 
> i agree though if that were the first one...i wouldn't have been a fan either


Lucas actually mentioned that in an interview waaaay back in the early 80's... when he was still planning on making the Prequels in the mid to late 80's. That was always his intended vision, he had said something like (paraphrasing) "the films will have a different look from this trilogy, more sleek & grand". But yeah I think they went over the top... the rationale I think was that everything was new/prosperous in the Prequel era, but due to the Empire the galaxy went into a state of decay. But Yeah... I'm not a fan of that new look.


----------



## sdurani

I'm just hoping TFA has some emotion, like a good Pixar movie. 7 hours of prequels, and the only time the characters show some emotion is in the last half hour. Anyway, this is the Atmos thread, so I'll drop the off-topic chatter (there's a TFA thread for that).


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Scott Simonian said:


> Woah! Where the hell have _you_ been, Jack?
> 
> Do you have an Atmos system up? Heh, I guess you do. I'd love to know how you've been and what kind of system you're running these days.


 Scott! SVS keeps me busy.  I do try and keep up with this topic, though. If nothing else I check yours and Sanjay's posts to see if I missed anything - it's a big thread. 

I wanted to upgrade from my venerable Denon AVR-4310 (among other things, wanted 3D capability for the BenQ HT1075 allowing endless viewings of "Frozen" with my daughters) but didn't want to invest in an AVR at that level yet given the state of flu[dts:]x they're in. So I grabbed a refurb Onkyo 636 a few months ago and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Have an AS-EQ1 for sub EQ so the lack of such in the Onkyo wasn't an issue. I find the jump to immersive, even the basic 5.2.2 I'm running, to be such that SQ is quite improved despite the apparent step-down in AVR pedigree. And now have my sights set on an AVR-X6200 and 7.2.4 (or 9.2.2 - will try both). 

The room is very small @ 13.5' x 10.5' x 6.8', but is a dedicated cave in the basement so can be set up to my whims. Sofa is ~60" off the back wall, L/R are at 30 degrees, surrounds are at ~110 degrees and ~110 degree elevation. Top Middles (went with bipole in-ceilings due to the low height) are a bit in front of the sofa and set-in from the side walls ~34" giving the suggested angular separation [45+(E/2)] from the Surrounds. I got one of those laser-angle-tool-thingies as well. Fun!

Chi_guy: I also ordered Samsara on your recommendation. That's one impressive film, with stunning picture and sound as well - thank you.


----------



## soyhakan

Brian Fineberg said:


> exactly...they should have kept the same look and feel...basically what they are doing with the new episodes





sdurani said:


> The same could be asked about Prometheus and the original Alien move. They went from holographic displays to CRTs thirty years later? That's the problem with making prequels decades later.


Yeah problem was making prequels decades later. But imagine in Prometheus movie they used crt's

I know a lot people hated Prometheus but i liked it. Sure it has a lot of flaws but very enjoyable. If they used crt monitors in Prometheus movie every one will scream "What! In the year 2092 they still using CRT's come on!".


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> The same could be asked about Prometheus and the original Alien move. They went from holographic displays to CRTs thirty years later? That's the problem with making prequels decades later.


At least there was no Jar Jar in Prometheus... but that stupid biologist who decided to poke that evil snake face hugger thing = the Jar Jar of that film. I liked the first half hour of the film but yeah... that is kind of inconsistent! 



stikle said:


> Hey...I have all three posters for Episodes 4-6, and I've still got my Star Wars pillowcase in a drawer somewhere from when I was a kid and had the full set of sheets.
> 
> I was 7 when SW hit the theater and can still remember my parents taking me to it in the old 2 screen theater (small coastal town) with mono sound.


I'm jealous... I was too young to have seen them in the theater, and my parents weren't Star Wars nuts. I saw them all on VHS when I was 6. I think the tapes were so worn out by the time that I finally picked up the THX VHS versions that they were clogging up the vcr.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> Pixels is a fun movie. Especially if you're from that era. I loved seeing those video games of my misspent youth become larger than life on the big screen. Should look and sound fantastic on blu. Simonian may not like it. He's a tough Wookie cookie.


Huh? I said that I liked Pixels. 



Jack Gilvey said:


> Scott! SVS keeps me busy.  I do try and keep up with this topic, though. If nothing else I check yours and Sanjay's posts to see if I missed anything - it's a big thread.
> 
> I wanted to upgrade from my venerable Denon AVR-4310 (among other things, wanted 3D capability for the BenQ HT1075 allowing endless viewings of "Frozen" with my daughters) but didn't want to invest in an AVR at that level yet given the state of flu[dts:]x they're in. So I grabbed a refurb Onkyo 636 a few months ago and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Have an AS-EQ1 for sub EQ so the lack of such in the Onkyo wasn't an issue. I find the jump to immersive, even the basic 5.2.2 I'm running, to be such that SQ is quite improved despite the apparent step-down in AVR pedigree. And now have my sights set on an AVR-X6200 and 7.2.4 (or 9.2.2 - will try both).
> 
> The room is very small @ 13.5' x 10.5' x 6.8', but is a dedicated cave in the basement so can be set up to my whims. Sofa is ~60" off the back wall, L/R are at 30 degrees, surrounds are at ~110 degrees and ~110 degree elevation. Top Middles (went with bipole in-ceilings due to the low height) are a bit in front of the sofa and set-in from the side walls ~34" giving the suggested angular separation [45+(E/2)] from the Surrounds. I got one of those laser-angle-tool-thingies as well. Fun!
> 
> Chi_guy: I also ordered Samsara on your recommendation. That's one impressive film, with stunning picture and sound as well - thank you.


Great to hear!  Yeah, the DTS:X situation is that it keeps getting delayed but so far this years products support DTS:X but they just haven't finished the code to send out yet so nobody has it but they will. Would be quite a situation if all of a sudden all these DTS:X-ready receivers were not capable for some unforeseen reason. 

That is a pretty compact room but you can definitely do Atmos and DTS:X in there. Definitely put a pair of overheads right over the listening position. If you can do only one pair, do those. If you can and do use two pairs of heights, put the second pair forward of you on the ceiling or at worst above the LCR's. Sounds like your in ceiling speakers are in just the right location too. Should sound awesome! 

Don't be a stranger, Jack. Would be great to hear what you think of this system upgrade when you pick up the Denon.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't be a stranger, Jack.


+1


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> I'm just hoping TFA has some emotion, like a good Pixar movie. 7 hours of prequels, and the only time the characters show some emotion is in the last half hour. Anyway, this is the Atmos thread, so I'll drop the off-topic chatter (there's a TFA thread for that).


Haha my bad! In all fairness though TFA is an atmos film


----------



## chi_guy50

Jack Gilvey said:


> I got one of those laser-angle-tool-thingies as well. Fun!
> 
> Chi_guy: I also ordered Samsara on your recommendation. That's one impressive film, with stunning picture and sound as well - thank you.


Glad you like it. It just blows me away thematically, visually, and aurally every time I screen it--even w/o an immersive mix.

I'm also enjoying my SB-2000! And my very own "laser-angle-tool-thingie" too.


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> Long story short...


Just catching up...sorry to hear about the change in your circumstances...wishing you good fortune moving forward!


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> Said the bat + pig!


That's a chimera not an oxymoron.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> One of the fun things to do at this forum is figure out ways to fit a home theatre in spaces never meant for home theatres. Whenever you're re-settled at your new apartment, start a thread with about the room, you'll get lots of creative advice on how to fit your set-up (or whatever parts will fit) in your new digs. Good luck on the job hunt meanwhile.


Very true. I know this better than most. I have Home Theater In A Box here - but the 'box' is actually a room. And I have achieved things in it that one would never have thought possible (mainly thanks to your help and advice on speaker and sub placement and so on). A true 7.2.4 Atmos HT, with dual Submersives, all in a room that is less than 120 square feet. If I can....


----------



## gene4ht

Jack Gilvey said:


> ...So I grabbed a refurb Onkyo 636 a few months ago and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Have an AS-EQ1 for sub EQ so the lack of such in the Onkyo wasn't an issue.* I find the jump to immersive, even the basic 5.2.2 I'm running, to be such that SQ is quite improved despite the apparent step-down in AVR pedigree.* And now have my sights set on an AVR-X6200 and 7.2.4 (or 9.2.2 - will try both).


Ditto...my exact situation and findings...was anticipating an Onkyo 1040 or 3040...but alas...looking forward to a D+M piece (6200 or 7010) as well. I would be interested in your decision as these near introduction.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Ugh, the prequels. I sometimes wonder if they were more painful for us fans than the general public because we had expectations based on the original trilogy.


Can there be any doubt that this is the case? 

I know people who weren't SW fans, some of whom maybe saw the Prequel Trilogy as their first intro into SW, and they don't have nearly the antipathy that SW fans do towards the PT. 

Absent the context of the OT and all the anticipation built up, it would just be another decent sci-fi trilogy like Hunger Games or something. They aren't horrible movies in a vacuum, just horribly disappointing given their heritage...


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Scott Simonian said:


> That is a pretty compact room but you can definitely do Atmos and DTS:X in there. Definitely put a pair of overheads right over the listening position. If you can do only one pair, do those. If you can and do use two pairs of heights, put the second pair forward of you on the ceiling or at worst above the LCR's. Sounds like your in ceiling speakers are in just the right location too. Should sound awesome!
> 
> Don't be a stranger, Jack. Would be great to hear what you think of this system upgrade when you pick up the Denon.





sdurani said:


> +1


Will do! Yeah, the overheads are just slightly forward now, ~6-7", and sound great but I plan on moving them a bit rearward (still within spec, though) once the front heights go in. I'm somewhat limited in placement by the supporting framework for the drop ceiling as well as the joists, etc. above it, but have spots planned which would put the front height at 37 degrees - above the LCR would be out-of-spec due to the ceiling height. Surrounds would then move to 90 degrees (can't really get forward of that due to a window) and rear surrounds will go in at 150 or so. 

You guys haven't seen Star Wars unless you've seen it at a drive-in like I did my first time (aunt and uncle took me). In glorious, speaker-hanging-on-car-window mono.


----------



## chi_guy50

Aras_Volodka said:


> When I relocate, I'll be moving close to wherever the job will be... so I'm willing to live wherever as long as it's not too far out in the sticks. I'm gonna be in Palos Hills for a little while which is a pretty nice area, but very condensed. I forget, you don't live here right? You are out on the East Coast-ish area?


I'm in Atlanta, so if you want to call that the East Coast-ish area . . . At least that sounds better than "Deep South." 

I was born on the Far South Side of Chicago (Marionette Manor, about 14 miles due east from Palos Hills), grew up on the North Shore (Winnetka), and have also lived in Rogers Park and on the Magnificent Mile in the shadow of the John Hancock Center. So, yeah, Chi-town is my town!



Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh 2nd question... I am actually still working on that painting, it might take me until May to finish! But once I finish that, I won't be doing any large scale projects like that for a while, I just want to crank out a lot of smaller works... that's like the flagship of my new series


Please do us a favor and remember to post a picture of the "finished" product (paintings like this are never really finished, are they?).


----------



## Jack Gilvey

chi_guy50 said:


> I'm also enjoying my SB-2000! And my very own "laser-angle-tool-thingie" too.


 Awesome.  That's the thingie! Will watch Nature this weekend with the kids.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

gene4ht said:


> Ditto...my exact situation and findings...was anticipating an Onkyo 1040 or 3040...but alas...looking forward to a D+M piece (6200 or 7010) as well. I would be interested in your decision as these near introduction.


 Been eyeing the 7010, too - seem pretty much neck and neck. I'd have considered Onkyo as well but they're not in the 7.1.4 game this go 'round.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Eriksdam said:


> Since we're on the topic of new movies: The first Scandinavian BD with Atmos just got released: The Danish political thriller Idealisten (the Idealist) is out in Denmark right now, with at least a European release to follow in about a month.
> 
> The movie has gotten extremely good reviews in DK, and we Danes are hard to please
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Idealisten-Blu-ray/132394


Sweet. We watch simply everything coming from the north... Always worth it. Even silly stuff like "Dag" was brilliant.
Most here are mono-linguistic but not me. Non-Scandinavian subtitles would be nice though.


----------



## stikle

Jack Gilvey said:


> The room is very small @ 13.5' x 10.5' x 6.8'





Scott Simonian said:


> That is a pretty compact room but you can definitely do Atmos and DTS:X in there.



It's not THAT small...it's only 2' shorter than mine and I've got 7.2.4 that (name dropping) Roger (where are you?!) said sounded really good.

Just remember Jack, and repeat after me: Size doesn't matter. 

Besides...if Keith can do it in Hobbiton, anybody can.


----------



## batpig

Jack Gilvey said:


> Top Middles (went with bipole in-ceilings due to the low height) are a bit in front of the sofa and set-in from the side walls ~34" giving the suggested angular separation [45+(E/2)] from the Surrounds.





Scott Simonian said:


> That is a pretty compact room but you can definitely do Atmos and DTS:X in there. Definitely put a pair of overheads right over the listening position. If you can do only one pair, do those. If you can and do use two pairs of heights, put the second pair forward of you on the ceiling or at worst above the LCR's. Sounds like your in ceiling speakers are in just the right location too.


I have to say -- I've got a very similar setup to Jack where I started with TM speakers, using in-ceiling bipoles above and slightly in front of the couch. A few weeks later I finally added FH speakers to complete my 7.1.4 setup. Granted, (mostly due to laziness on my part in not feeling like doing more in-ceiling wiring at the moment) my FH speakers are currently below spec in a more traditional FH position, high on the front wall above the LCR speakers. That said, I found the addition of these final two speakers to be quite subtle -- nowhere near as dramatic a presence as the TM speakers blasting directly overhead. 

So in that sense I am definitely on board with THX's findings that for the most dramatic "it's above you!" effect start with TM and then work forward (then backward) from there. Things might be different if I had a more traditional TF+TR setup where I had a grid of four speakers above me, but with TM it seems the jump from 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 isn't quite as dramatic.

I do remember (and reported here) hearing a bit of "hole" in that above-and-in-front zone before I added the FH, so perhaps they are doing more than I'm giving them credit for and my perception is that it's more subtle because it's all tied together more seamlessly now. It's hard to A/B compare the two configs though because it's not just a settings change, I have to physically re-wire the TM to the "Height1" output instead of "Height2".


----------



## Aras_Volodka

gene4ht said:


> Just catching up...sorry to hear about the change in your circumstances...wishing you good fortune moving forward!


Thanks so much! 



chi_guy50 said:


> I'm in Atlanta, so if you want to call that the East Coast-ish area . . . At least that sounds better than "Deep South."
> 
> I was born on the Far South Side of Chicago (Marionette Manor), grew up on the North Shore (Winnetka), and have also lived in Rogers Park and on the Magnificent Mile in the shadow of the John Hancock Center. So, yeah, Chi-town is my town!
> 
> Please do us a favor and remember to post a picture of the "finished" product (paintings like this are never really finished, are they?).


Very cool! Yeah I think Atlanta gets a pass as East Coast 

I will for sure post the high rez image of the painting. I use a photographer who has this insane camera that can capture details far beyond what the human eye can see @ those distances... when he's given me images in the past they are usually around 120 mb per picture! They are stunning! It's really fun to zoom in on those & see individual brush strokes... like as in strokes done by a single hair of the brush


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jack Gilvey said:


> Will do! Yeah, the overheads are just slightly forward now, ~6-7", and sound great but I plan on moving them a bit rearward (still within spec, though) once the front heights go in. I'm somewhat limited in placement by the supporting framework for the drop ceiling as well as the joists, etc. above it, but have spots planned which would put the front height at 37 degrees - above the LCR would be out-of-spec due to the ceiling height. Surrounds would then move to 90 degrees (can't really get forward of that due to a window) and rear surrounds will go in at 150 or so.
> 
> You guys haven't seen Star Wars unless you've seen it at a drive-in like I did my first time (aunt and uncle took me). In glorious, speaker-hanging-on-car-window mono.


Don't even worry about changing the position of those overheads. Just ever so slightly ahead of being perfectly 90 degrees above your head is actually a good thing. I have my middle pair of overheads (bipole like yours) just like this and it sound very distinctly 'overhead'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I have to say -- I've got a very similar setup to Jack where I started with TM speakers, using in-ceiling bipoles above and slightly in front of the couch. A few weeks later I finally added FH speakers to complete my 7.1.4 setup. Granted, (mostly due to laziness on my part in not feeling like doing more in-ceiling wiring at the moment) my FH speakers are currently below spec in a more traditional FH position, high on the front wall above the LCR speakers. That said, I found the addition of these final two speakers to be quite subtle -- nowhere near as dramatic a presence as the TM speakers blasting directly overhead.
> 
> *So in that sense I am definitely on board with THX's findings that for the most dramatic "it's above you!" effect start with TM and then work forward (then backward) from there. Things might be different if I had a more traditional TF+TR setup where I had a grid of four speakers above me, but with TM it seems the jump from 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 isn't quite as dramatic.*
> 
> I do remember (and reported here) hearing a bit of "hole" in that above-and-in-front zone before I added the FH, so perhaps they are doing more than I'm giving them credit for and my perception is that it's more subtle because it's all tied together more seamlessly now. It's hard to A/B compare the two configs though because it's not just a settings change, I have to physically re-wire the TM to the "Height1" output instead of "Height2".


Totally agree and I'm in a unique position as I have front, middle and rear heights in essentially "proper" Atmos designated positions. I played with using four overheads in a front and rear setup and it does do a good 'overhead' effect. But it really went from "yeah, not bad" to "this is overhead sound" using a middle (over the MLP) position. 

I may get different results with other types of speakers or playing with the positions a bit better but I got close. I think it would suit my room well if I were able to move my front heights further into the room but that would require work I can't and won't do so it is what it is, for now.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

stikle said:


> It's not THAT small...it's only 2' shorter than mine and I've got 7.2.4 that (name dropping) Roger (where are you?!) said sounded really good.
> 
> Just remember Jack, and repeat after me: Size doesn't matter.
> 
> Besides...if Keith can do it in Hobbiton, anybody can.


 That's my mantra.  The Seth-o-Plex rocks! 

I don't really have an issue with the room size, but the construction (cinderblock/granite under the drywall on three sides) is very unforgiving acoustically in the midbass. Anything other than dual subs at the midpoints of the side walls (per Welti) need not apply.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

batpig said:


> I have to say -- I've got a very similar setup to Jack where I started with TM speakers, using in-ceiling bipoles above and slightly in front of the couch. A few weeks later I finally added FH speakers to complete my 7.1.4 setup. Granted, (mostly due to laziness on my part in not feeling like doing more in-ceiling wiring at the moment) my FH speakers are currently below spec in a more traditional FH position, high on the front wall above the LCR speakers. That said, I found the addition of these final two speakers to be quite subtle -- nowhere near as dramatic a presence as the TM speakers blasting directly overhead.
> 
> So in that sense I am definitely on board with THX's findings that for the most dramatic "it's above you!" effect start with TM and then work forward (then backward) from there. Things might be different if I had a more traditional TF+TR setup where I had a grid of four speakers above me, but with TM it seems the jump from 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 isn't quite as dramatic.
> 
> I do remember (and reported here) hearing a bit of "hole" in that above-and-in-front zone before I added the FH, so perhaps they are doing more than I'm giving them credit for and my perception is that it's more subtle because it's all tied together more seamlessly now. It's hard to A/B compare the two configs though because it's not just a settings change, I have to physically re-wire the TM to the "Height1" output instead of "Height2".





Scott Simonian said:


> Don't even worry about changing the position of those overheads. Just ever so slightly ahead of being perfectly 90 degrees above your head is actually a good thing. I have my middle pair of overheads (bipole like yours) just like this and it sound very distinctly 'overhead'.


 Cool. TM is a given for me, and I think I'll be in good shape with the FH at 37 degrees which will be more "up high" than "up front".

I did notice something the other night wrt overhead sounds. During the scene in Gravity


Spoiler



in which Ed Harris has the team abort,


 I've been accustomed to hearing his voice from the right overhead speaker when sitting at the MLP. However, I had folks over who wanted to watch it so I sat on right the side of the sofa (I'm nice that way) directly under that speaker. During that scene, the voice was tougher to place, and seemed detached. So much so that I thought I'd left the speaker (Niles CM7FX, very cheap but fills this role nicely) in dipole mode by mistake. I replayed it a few times later and I can place the sound better if I look up at the speaker, or move to the MLP. Never had overhead speakers before - is that weird?


----------



## Eriksdam

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Sweet. We watch simply everything coming from the north... Always worth it. Even silly stuff like "Dag" was brilliant.
> Most here are mono-linguistic but not me. Non-Scandinavian subtitles would be nice though.


It'll come out in Germany in November, hopefully that will have the Danish Atmos track and German subs.

I'll be going to Denmark at the end of the month anyway (living in Germany), and will definitely be picking this one up! Will check if the DK version has English subs and keep you posted.

- Erik


----------



## Roudan

Hi Guys

Sorry I miss many posts . Can anyone tell me again where to buy Nature 3D with Atmos?thx


----------



## batpig

Jack Gilvey said:


> Cool. TM is a given for me, and I think I'll be in good shape with the FH at 37 degrees which will be more "up high" than "up front".
> 
> I did notice something the other night wrt overhead sounds. During the scene in Gravity
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> in which Ed Harris has the team abort,
> 
> 
> I've been accustomed to hearing his voice from the right overhead speaker when sitting at the MLP. However, I had folks over who wanted to watch it so I sat on right the side of the sofa (I'm nice that way) directly under that speaker. During that scene, the voice was tougher to place, and seemed detached. So much so that I thought I'd left the speaker (Niles CM7FX, very cheap but fills this role nicely) in dipole mode by mistake. I replayed it a few times later and I can place the sound better if I look up at the speaker, or move to the MLP. Never had overhead speakers before - is that weird?


Funny I've got nearly the same speakers (just the DS version which lets you tilt the whole assembly not just the tweeters). I found that I prefer bipole mode, I was originally planning on dipole mode because I was worried it would be too much direct overhead sound but it was too diffuse. 

I think what you're hearing is a localization phenomenon when a speaker is directly above or behind your brain gets confuzzled. It's the same reason why 6.1 doesn't work so well - a mono channel right behind your head can trick your brain into thinking the sound is actually in front of you. 

Side note but I found when messing around with that first scene in Gravity that sometimes the voices are spread across multiple speakers, eg Ed Harris could be simultaneously coming out of the SR and TMR speakers. Well, not him. But his voice.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Sorry I miss many posts . Can anyone tell me again where to buy Nature 3D with Atmos?thx


♦ www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/111242/


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Funny I've got nearly the same speakers (just the DS version which lets you tilt the whole assembly not just the tweeters). I found that I prefer bipole mode, I was originally planning on dipole mode because I was worried it would be too much direct overhead sound but it was too diffuse.
> 
> I think what you're hearing is a localization phenomenon when a speaker is directly above or behind your brain gets confuzzled. It's the same reason why 6.1 doesn't work so well - a mono channel right behind your head can trick your brain into thinking the sound is actually in front of you.
> 
> Side note but I found when messing around with that first scene in Gravity that sometimes the voices are spread across multiple speakers, eg Ed Harris could be simultaneously coming out of the SR and TMR speakers. Well, not him. But his voice.



Yes, this is why I think overheads directly above benefit from being slightly less than 90 but actually more like 80-85 degrees. It still sounds distinctly above you but with less chances of image reversal ala 6.1 audio. 

However, if you _don't_ want it to be so specific you can put it at 90-100 degrees (talking about a middle overhead) and that should come off as more diffuse. Some people might actually prefer this.

I noticed in the opening of Gravity the same thing. This track is UBER aggressive and really it is THE track to add to the argument of mo' speakers. Truly. In a cinema there will be dozens of speakers and this is to the benefit of Gravity it seems. Meanwhile we have voices coming out of two or three speakers at the same time trying to image in a specific location. Will be interesting to see Gravity played back on something like a full +30ch Trinnov system.

If only we knew somebody with one of those things....


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/111242/


 Thanks Bob. Very expensive. It is around $57 CAD before shipping fee.


----------



## Scott Simonian

EDIT: woops. Sorry, I see it was already mentioned.

Not sure I saw this mentioned yet in here but....

Pixels announced for release on Blu-ray in Atmos. More Sony titles rollin' out with Atmos.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=17549


----------



## Jack Gilvey

batpig said:


> Funny I've got nearly the same speakers (just the DS version which lets you tilt the whole assembly not just the tweeters). I found that I prefer bipole mode, I was originally planning on dipole mode because I was worried it would be too much direct overhead sound but it was too diffuse.
> 
> I think what you're hearing is a localization phenomenon when a speaker is directly above or behind your brain gets confuzzled. It's the same reason why 6.1 doesn't work so well - a mono channel right behind your head can trick your brain into thinking the sound is actually in front of you.
> 
> Side note but I found when messing around with that first scene in Gravity that sometimes the voices are spread across multiple speakers, eg Ed Harris could be simultaneously coming out of the SR and TMR speakers. Well, not him. But his voice.


 I think that's it, hadn't experienced that before. I originally wanted the dipole option due to the fear of too much localization, but I also prefer bipole. Why bother with more precise placement of objects just to smear 'em up?  Will opt for the aimable, monopole version for FH. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, this is why I think overheads directly above benefit from being slightly less than 90 but actually more like 80-85 degrees. It still sounds distinctly above you but with less chances of image reversal ala 6.1 audio.
> 
> However, if you _don't_ want it to be so specific you can put it at 90-100 degrees (talking about a middle overhead) and that should come off as more diffuse. Some people might actually prefer this.


 Almost seems counterintuitive, but the brain is funny.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jack Gilvey said:


> Almost seems counterintuitive, but the brain is funny.


The way we actually hear things can be very interesting.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. Very expensive. It is around $57 CAD before shipping fee.


Yes it is...expensive Roudan...just for a 3D Blu-ray documentary with Atmos. It might come to the USA in the future. And one day our Canadian dollar will be worth all the gold from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York: 33 Liberty St, New York, NY 10045, United States 
Phone: +1 212-720-6130


----------



## stikle

Jack Gilvey said:


> The Seth-o-Plex rocks!



You're just saying that because, well, SVS. 

But yes it does, TYVM!


----------



## Kressilac

So... Got my Atmos setup working tonight. I'm not sure I can go see a movie at a regular cinema now. All we have in Louisville is Imax and 4K theaters. Nothing advanced. After listening to Atmos in the home and going to an Atmos movie while I visited Dallas, (Furious 7) I'm not sure the cinema experience in Louisville is worth it anymore.

New basement project. 7.1.4 with a Denon 7200WA. I'm blown away. Can't wait to watch UHD BluRay and I'm praying the studios don't gimp the rental discs by excluding Atmos.

All that said, after connecting the Denon, wiring up the HDBaseT extenders, plugging in the EQ and amp for the subwoofer and finally binding the speakers down, am I the only one that wanted to scream like Doc Brown and shout "It Works!!!" like I just created Frankenstein? You know, that moment when you turn it on and none of the speakers blow out and you see the setup screen for the AVR on the TV... yeah that moment is when I visibly relaxed knowing that all the wires in the walls work properly and none of the speakers were DOA.


----------



## Kressilac

[snip duplicate post]


----------



## batpig

Hate to break it to you but Furious 7 wasn't mixed in Atmos, just 7.1 

But other than that awesome story and congrats!

If you really want to shout and thrust your arms in the air in triumph and exultation I recommend Mad Max Fury Road in Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Hate to break it to you but Furious 7 wasn't mixed in Atmos, just 7.1
> 
> But other than that awesome story and congrats!
> 
> If you really want to shout and thrust your arms in the air in triumph and exultation I recommend Mad Max Fury Road in Atmos.


I got my copy of* Furious 7 *this week and the soundtrack is superlative when upmixed with DSU. But the day after *Mad Max Fury Road *arrived with its full Atmos mix. OMG! 










It is the most insane movie - totally mental - with awesome PQ and SQ. Brings my total of Atmos Blu-rays to 18 with a load more to come in the next few weeks.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

kbarnes701 said:


> I got my copy of* Furious 7 *this week and the soundtrack is superlative when upmixed with DSU. But the day after *Mad Max Fury Road *arrived with its full Atmos mix. OMG!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the most insane movie - totally mental - with awesome PQ and SQ. Brings my total of Atmos Blu-rays to 18 with a load more to come in the next few weeks.


 Can't wait to watch this. Mine's been sitting here since release day! This weekend I hope.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jack Gilvey said:


> Can't wait to watch this. Mine's been sitting here since release day! This weekend I hope.


 You know when I said my jaw dropped? Well it did - literally. I sat in open-mouthed amazement at this movie. Not just the sensational SQ - the whole thing. It is utterly insane and a terrific tribute to the original IMO. I had to import it from the USA to get it earlier than the UK release is slated for, and paid through the nose for the privilege, but I don't regret it _at all_. I only watched it last night but I may give it another spin tonight!


----------



## Jack Gilvey

kbarnes701 said:


> You know when I said my jaw dropped? Well it did - literally. I sat in open-mouthed amazement at this movie. Not just the sensational SQ - the whole thing. It is utterly insane and a terrific tribute to the original IMO. I had to import it from the USA to get it earlier than the UK release is slated for, and paid through the nose for the privilege, but I don't regret it _at all_. I only watched it last night but I may give it another spin tonight!


 Yowza. I'm almost tempted to wait until I go full 7.2.4, but I can always watch it again. 😀


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> You know when I said my jaw dropped? Well it did - literally. I sat in open-mouthed amazement at this movie. Not just the sensational SQ - the whole thing. It is utterly insane and a terrific tribute to the original IMO. I had to import it from the USA to get it earlier than the UK release is slated for, and paid through the nose for the privilege, but I don't regret it _at all_. I only watched it last night but I may give it another spin tonight!


Same thing here. Not _precisely_ my type of film... but really "du TRES GRAND spectacle"...  

Now and as far as the Atmos track is concerned, we watched several parts of this film and particularily the very begining, in the standard 7.2.4 configuration and also in a 5+Wides.2.4 configuration... a VERY ineresting experience to try... and as soon as I find some time, I'll post some impressions here.

Have a nice WE,

Amicalement,

Hugo


----------



## Kressilac

batpig said:


> Hate to break it to you but Furious 7 wasn't mixed in Atmos, just 7.1
> 
> But other than that awesome story and congrats!
> 
> If you really want to shout and thrust your arms in the air in triumph and exultation I recommend Mad Max Fury Road in Atmos.


Damn theater, advertised it as an Atmos movie. Look Cinemas at the Galleria in North Dallas. Wanted to see Avengers but it was playing at an AMC that is a couple of blocks away and Look couldn't run the movie because of some inane rule by the studios. Go figure. The better movie was playing in the lesser capable cinema, so I settled with Furious 7. Great movie. It sounded awesome but now I'm back to having never seen an Atmos movie in the theater. Gotta fix that.


----------



## Zhorik

Kressilac said:


> Damn theater, advertised it as an Atmos movie. Look Cinemas at the Galleria in North Dallas. Wanted to see Avengers but it was playing at an AMC that is a couple of blocks away and Look couldn't run the movie because of some inane rule by the studios. Go figure. The better movie was playing in the lesser capable cinema, so I settled with Furious 7. Great movie. It sounded awesome but now I'm back to having never seen an Atmos movie in the theater. Gotta fix that.


More likely AMC employing borderline antitrust practice in your area, forcing studios to not provide the movie to Look cinemas.


----------



## Kain

chi_guy50 said:


> Most folks in these fora are of a consensus that wiring for at least three overhead pairs is a smart choice even if you are currently limited to just two pairs. My personal hope is that at some point in the not too distant future we will have relatively affordable mainstream processors that will allow something on the order of a front/middle/rear overhead pair combination with discrete immersive-audio signals sent to each pair. Five concurrent pairs are possible on the present-day boutique processors and some of this is likely to trickle down to us plebeians at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear about one salient point: You've induced the person who coined the maxim "Mo' speakers, mo' better" to say " I don't think you'd want to squeeze another speaker in there, personally."





batpig said:


> Ha! I guess you didn't read the fine print, "The maxim of 'mo' speakers mo' better' assumes that speakers can be somewhat reasonably placed within the room."
> 
> To be honest, I'm sort of shooting from the hip here. I don't have a ton of science to back up my thoughts nor have I tried something like this myself. It just strikes me as logical that cramming another speaker in between a Front at ~30+ degrees and a Surround at ~70 degrees is not going to bring much benefit, and may even be detrimental.
> 
> Kain -- if you do go with a Trinnov then it's certainly worth trying it out for yourself to see how it goes. Worst case scenario you don't like it and scrap the idea. Of course, the Trinnov also changes the calculus of these decisions because of its unique remapping features that can do magical things with extra speakers beyond what the straightforward speaker templates may allow.
> 
> I think the bottom line is that I'm still sticking with my advice to get the "core" 7.1 base level layout as good as possible first, then worry about cramming in extra speakers.
> 
> 6 overheads seems like a fine idea though if you can swing it, and a Trinnov can actually take advantage of them (and more).


Thanks.

Since it seems front wide speakers are out, what about front and back height speakers? Can Atmos use front and back height speakers for objects (I know Atmos cannot use them as channels)? Would they even be necessary with 6 ceiling speakers?


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> But the day after *Mad Max Fury Road *arrived with its full Atmos mix. OMG!



Oh MAN!



Jack Gilvey said:


> Can't wait to watch this. Mine's been sitting here since release day! This weekend I hope.



Mine's been sitting there since release too since my girlfriend wants to watch it. Our schedules haven't matched up yet for a movie night, so I'm waiting...and waiting and...


----------



## asere

The Age of Adeline I hear has an excellent Atmos mix. Yes I think I can sit with my wife and watch it  

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scarriere

Kressilac said:


> So... Got my Atmos setup working tonight. I'm not sure I can go see a movie at a regular cinema now. All we have in Louisville is Imax and 4K theaters. Nothing advanced. After listening to Atmos in the home and going to an Atmos movie while I visited Dallas, (Furious 7) I'm not sure the cinema experience in Louisville is worth it anymore.
> 
> New basement project. 7.1.4 with a Denon 7200WA. I'm blown away. Can't wait to watch UHD BluRay and I'm praying the studios don't gimp the rental discs by excluding Atmos.
> 
> All that said, after connecting the Denon, wiring up the HDBaseT extenders, plugging in the EQ and amp for the subwoofer and finally binding the speakers down, am I the only one that wanted to scream like Doc Brown and shout "It Works!!!" like I just created Frankenstein? You know, that moment when you turn it on and none of the speakers blow out and you see the setup screen for the AVR on the TV... yeah that moment is when I visibly relaxed knowing that all the wires in the walls work properly and none of the speakers were DOA.


You must've done some kind of "Jedi Mind Trick" or something. Your post is almost my thoughts exactly except one thing. Before Atmos, I had 7.1 and was disappointed with the sound at my local theatre when we saw Mad Max, Avengers 3 and Jurassic World. I didn't want to go to the theatre anymore and now after hearing Atmos at home two days ago, I now know that I never will.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> Get the newest version though.  ...With Dolby Atmos...the flying vampire sucker.
> ...Even his shadow plays tricks on you.  ...You'll see...and you'll like...I'm almost certain.
> 
> * If well mixed in Atmos we should also hear his shadow above us and behind us even when not matching the on-screen action...very spooky indeed.
> 
> Atmos has so much potential...sad that we are not there as we should, yet.


I'm cancelling my copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula after renting and watching it last night. It was an "ok" movie but not interested in watching it a 2nd time. The sound was good on DD+ so it ought to be great on Atmos.


----------



## scarabaeus

Eriksdam said:


> Since we're on the topic of new movies: The first Scandinavian BD with Atmos just got released: The Danish political thriller Idealisten (the Idealist) is out in Denmark right now, with at least a European release to follow in about a month.
> 
> The movie has gotten extremely good reviews in DK, and we Danes are hard to please
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Idealisten-Blu-ray/132394


Hi Erik,

Do you have the Blu-ray, and can you say a word or two about it to the maintainer of the Atmos Blu-ray list on blu-ray.com? I have been trying to get them to add this one, but they are reluctant to do so without confirmation.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=11265817#post11265817


----------



## Xeneize12

I have a question/advice on speaker placement in my media room

Here's the room:










I'm planning (for now) going 7.1.2

Should I place the speakers on the white ceiling (aligned with the front speakers as indicated by Dolby Atmos) which is about 8 feet tall or the gray wall (~7 feet)...

I'm just not sure that I'll get the right depth in the gray ceiling and on the other hand the white ceiling will probably be a bit too far.....

Thoughts/Advice?

Thanks!


----------



## sox404

Very nice looking room. My room is similar in size with seating near the back wall and a drop ceiling above the seats. I believe the conventional wisdom when doing x.x.2 is to put the height speakers directly above or very slightly forward of the MLP. These would then be configured as TM. I'm only in the initial process of setting up Atmos speakers so I can't comment yet on the sound field in my room. I'm also looking at a 7.1.4 configuration with FH in addition to TM. Some members have posted good results in a smaller room with this configuration. However, there is currently some debate as to how well FH would work for Atmos with the fronts in/on the ceiling instead of on the front wall.


----------



## kokishin

Xeneize12 said:


> I have a question/advice on speaker placement in my media room
> 
> Here's the room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm planning (for now) going 7.1.2
> 
> Should I place the speakers on the white ceiling (aligned with the front speakers as indicated by Dolby Atmos) which is about 8 feet tall or the gray wall (~7 feet)...
> 
> I'm just not sure that I'll get the right depth in the gray ceiling and on the other hand the white ceiling will probably be a bit too far.....
> 
> Thoughts/Advice?
> 
> Thanks!


Xeneize12,

What make/model speakers are those on the rear wall behind the sofa?


----------



## Xeneize12

kokishin said:


> Xeneize12,
> 
> What make/model speakers are those on the rear wall behind the sofa?


Emotiva ERD1 (not 100% sure if they were the ERD1 or another model but for sure Emotiva, I would have to check when I get back home)


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> I'm cancelling my copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula after renting and watching it last night. It was an "ok" movie but not interested in watching it a 2nd time. The sound was good on DD+ so it ought to be great on Atmos.


I am sorry.


----------



## blastermaster

Xeneize12 said:


> I have a question/advice on speaker placement in my media room
> 
> 
> 
> I'm planning (for now) going 7.1.2
> 
> Should I place the speakers on the white ceiling (aligned with the front speakers as indicated by Dolby Atmos) which is about 8 feet tall or the gray wall (~7 feet)...
> 
> I'm just not sure that I'll get the right depth in the gray ceiling and on the other hand the white ceiling will probably be a bit too far.....
> 
> Thoughts/Advice?
> 
> Thanks!


Nice looking room. If you're going for Atmos specs (as much as it would be a shame to mess with what looks so nice), I would move your surround speakers to ear height as well as moving your side surrounds forward more, then move your couch away from the wall a bit. You will notice much better sound. Hell, I would even move it forward as it is and recalibrate your setup and see if you notice a difference. At worst, you will be closer to your TV set and be more immersed. 

I know some people are saying that 7.1.6 is going to be coming in the future as well as 9.1.6, but I would bank on the usual suspects of receivers staying at 7.1.4. Because of this, I wouldn't install your .2 ceiling speakers as top middle. Rather, I would go with top fronts, then eventually move to top rears for a 7.1.4 setup. Just my 0.02. So in answer to your question, I'd install the top fronts on the grey ceiling.


----------



## ChrisR.

Sorry if this has been answered before, but is it okay to use Dipoles as side-surounds in a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos configuration?


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's okay but not usually recommended.

If you want the side surrounds to sound diffuse then it is okay. If you are expecting pinpoint precision then you should consider not using dipoles.


----------



## blastermaster

ChrisR. said:


> Sorry if this has been answered before, but is it okay to use Dipoles as side-surounds in a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos configuration?


Lots of people are doing it, but Dolby recommends direct radiating speakers (monopole). It's ok, but I think the localization of sound in a 3D space would be better using monopoles.


----------



## Xeneize12

blastermaster said:


> Nice looking room. If you're going for Atmos specs (as much as it would be a shame to mess with what looks so nice), I would move your surround speakers to ear height as well as moving your side surrounds forward more, then move your couch away from the wall a bit. You will notice much better sound. Hell, I would even move it forward as it is and recalibrate your setup and see if you notice a difference. At worst, you will be closer to your TV set and be more immersed.
> 
> I know some people are saying that 7.1.6 is going to be coming in the future as well as 9.1.6, but I would bank on the usual suspects of receivers staying at 7.1.4. Because of this, I wouldn't install your .2 ceiling speakers as top middle. Rather, I would go with top fronts, then eventually move to top rears for a 7.1.4 setup. Just my 0.02. So in answer to your question, I'd install the top fronts on the grey ceiling.


Top notch advice man... I completely agree. I have no problems moving the speakers, even though all the sheetrock is soundproof, I can still man it myself. The reason why the speakers were a bit high is because those theater seats are a bit high, but we're considering upgrading to different seating (maybe even a couch) which would resolve this issue. I just bought a Denon X4200W, so my option is either 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, I was 'almost' on the 7.1.2 but I may just go 5.1.4 if I move my speakers and consider going back to 7.1.4 when I upgrade AVR in a few years. Or go full front with your advice and do indeed a 7.1.2 with my eye on a 7.1.4 in the future without having to rearrange the surround speakers, I can even do the wiring for the 4 ceiling speakers now.

Thanks again!


----------



## ChrisR.

Problem is, the most left and right seats in my home theatre are pretty close to the speakers about one foot if somebody sits there. Thats why I'm thinking about using dipoles.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Using dipoles isn't going to help those sitting 1ft away from them.


----------



## audiofan1

ChrisR. said:


> Sorry if this has been answered before, but is it okay to use Dipoles as side-surounds in a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos configuration?


I do and they excel in this application and do deliver both precision and only further add to Atmos immersive sound bubble


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Eriksdam said:


> It'll come out in Germany in November, hopefully that will have the Danish Atmos track and German subs.
> 
> I'll be going to Denmark at the end of the month anyway (living in Germany), and will definitely be picking this one up! Will check if the DK version has English subs and keep you posted.
> 
> - Erik


Don't bother looking for the subtitles on the Danish version, I checked myself. Only the Scandinavian languages are present. Otherwise I would have bought it immediately. Patience then...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Xeneize12 said:


> I have a question/advice on speaker placement in my media room
> 
> Here's the room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm planning (for now) going 7.1.2
> 
> Should I place the speakers on the white ceiling (aligned with the front speakers as indicated by Dolby Atmos) which is about 8 feet tall or the gray wall (~7 feet)...
> 
> I'm just not sure that I'll get the right depth in the gray ceiling and on the other hand the white ceiling will probably be a bit too far.....
> 
> Thoughts/Advice?
> 
> Thanks!



For a media room, I would cover 100% of the rear wall with 4" thick absorption.


----------



## ChrisR.

Scott Simonian said:


> Using dipoles isn't going to help those sitting 1ft away from them.


Why? Can you explain? I thought this is the way to go if you're close to the speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

erwinfrombelgium said:


> For a media room, I would cover 100% of the rear wall with 4" thick absorption.


Same here.



ChrisR. said:


> Why? Can you explain? I thought this is the way to go if you're close to the speakers?


Because it's still a speaker a foot away from your head, dipole or not.

Consider placing them somewhere else if this is an issue.

Choose dipoles for their sound, not to supposedly fix this kind of thing.


----------



## blastermaster

> For a media room, I would cover 100% of the rear wall with 4" thick absorption.


I was under the idea that diffusion is best for the rear wall as it gives the impression of a much larger sound field. Absorbtion for the front wall?


----------



## chi_guy50

Kain said:


> Since it seems front wide speakers are out, what about front and back height speakers? Can Atmos use front and back height speakers for objects *(I know Atmos cannot use them as channels)*? Would they even be necessary with 6 ceiling speakers?


AFAIK, there is no discrimination in the Atmos processing regarding the type of signal that is sent to the top-level speakers, whether FH, TF, TM, TR, or RH. You can use any allowable combination of any two with the sole difference of how immersive-sounding the results will be at the MLP. If you will have the Trinnov, you could employ all five for the full Monty overhead. 

It remains to be seen how or whether DTS:X/Neural:X will privilege the FH/RH, but if nothing else those speaker positions could serve you for Auro3D/Auro-Matic should you choose to run it.

And as has already been remarked, 








speakers,








better.


----------



## Scott Simonian

blastermaster said:


> I was under the idea that diffusion is best for the rear wall as it gives the impression of a much larger sound field. Absorbtion for the front wall?


Sort of both but really you don't want energy from the front LCR's to hit the back wall and come back to the front. It muddies the soundstage.

Diffusion is good too. Just depends on what you're trying to achieve.


----------



## blastermaster

Xeneize12 said:


> Top notch advice man... I completely agree. I have no problems moving the speakers, even though all the sheetrock is soundproof, I can still man it myself. The reason why the speakers were a bit high is because those theater seats are a bit high, but we're considering upgrading to different seating (maybe even a couch) which would resolve this issue. I just bought a Denon X4200W, so my option is either 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, I was 'almost' on the 7.1.2 but I may just go 5.1.4 if I move my speakers and consider going back to 7.1.4 when I upgrade AVR in a few years. Or go full front with your advice and do indeed a 7.1.2 with my eye on a 7.1.4 in the future without having to rearrange the surround speakers, I can even do the wiring for the 4 ceiling speakers now.
> 
> Thanks again!


No problem. I would do like you said and just go ahead and wire for your ceiling surrounds now. By the sounds of others in this forum, 5.1.4 trumps 7.1.2, so just keep your rear surrounds unplugged until you are ready to jump into 7.1.4. The nice thing is that if you get all four ceiling speakers you can test out which you like better right now anyway. Cheers and best of luck with the upgrade.


----------



## batpig

blastermaster said:


> No problem. I would do like you said and just go ahead and wire for your ceiling surrounds now. By the sounds of others in this forum, 5.1.4 trumps 7.1.2, so just keep your rear surrounds unplugged until you are ready to jump into 7.1.4.


I would dispute that there's a consensus here. Having now experienced it and various other configs while tinkering with my new room, I would go 7.1.2 before 5.1.4 if you have a room that can accommodate back surrounds (ie anything other than a short room with the couch stuck against the back wall). 

To me the back surrounds add a great deal, especially with the aggressive 7.1 surround mixes in these Atmos releases. Sure in theory it's somewhat asymmetric in terms of resource allocation but there is so much action going on in the lateral plane. And not that much stuff happening overhead. 

The addition of well placed Top Middle speakers really gets you 70-80% of the way there in terms of overhead immersion. A well configured 7.1.2 with the back surrounds slightly elevated to help cover the sensation of height in the rear hemisphere is an awesome Atmos config.


----------



## wse

Xeneize12 said:


> I have a question/advice on speaker placement in my media room
> 
> Here's the room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm planning (for now) going 7.1.2
> 
> Should I place the speakers on the white ceiling (aligned with the front speakers as indicated by Dolby Atmos) which is about 8 feet tall or the gray wall (~7 feet)...
> 
> I'm just not sure that I'll get the right depth in the gray ceiling and on the other hand the white ceiling will probably be a bit too far..... Thoughts/Advice? Thanks!


Great room, my advice turn the furniture around and change the orientation of the room. I would also remove the sofa from the back wall


----------



## Eriksdam

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Don't bother looking for the subtitles on the Danish version, I checked myself. Only the Scandinavian languages are present. Otherwise I would have bought it immediately. Patience then...


So it would seem, if cdon.dk etc. are to be believed (and they probably are...). Will check anyway - my wife wants to see it too, and her Danish leaves some room for improvement 

-Erik


----------



## Eriksdam

scarabaeus said:


> Hi Erik,
> 
> Do you have the Blu-ray, and can you say a word or two about it to the maintainer of the Atmos Blu-ray list on blu-ray.com? I have been trying to get them to add this one, but they are reluctant to do so without confirmation.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=11265817#post11265817


Hi Scarabaeus

Actually, I've been trying several times to post it there, but my posts somehow never show up. Glad you had more luck. 

They are being unusually pedantic, I mean, a pressrelease, covers, advertisement from major stores (Fona, cdon... What more do they need??! 

No, I don't have the disc yet, and I won't for next two weeks, sorry! 

-Erik


----------



## Xeneize12

wse said:


> Great room, my advice turn the furniture around and change the orientation of the room. I would also remove the sofa from the back wall


I can't... the part that you can't see has only a quarter wall where the side surround speakers are placed.... I would have to completely close the room and I have a bar being built.....

I know what you mean, but I need to co-exist with my wife's desires too... this room needed to be "multi" purpose


----------



## Xeneize12

erwinfrombelgium said:


> For a media room, I would cover 100% of the rear wall with 4" thick absorption.



But it looks so ugly  And as far as I understand the dampening needs to be on the outside of the wall, right? different story if I could (and I would) put them inside.... That said, the acoustics of the room is not bad at all.


----------



## batpig

Xeneize12 said:


> I have a question/advice on speaker placement in my media room
> 
> Thoughts/Advice?
> 
> Thanks!


I took the liberty of fixing your room crudely in Windows Paint 

Couch moved forward. Surrounds repositioned and slightly lower.

(attachment added)


----------



## Xeneize12

batpig said:


> I took the liberty of fixing your room crudely in Windows Paint
> 
> Couch moved forward. Surrounds repositioned and slightly lower.
> 
> (attachment added)


That's great, thanks for doing this... so the front high speakers you would place them right above the side seats (in the middle) or wider?


----------



## batpig

Xeneize12 said:


> But it looks so ugly


It doesn't have to be. Not at all. You basically have bare, monotone walls currently. If you want to preserve the minimalist look, all you need to do is get decorative 4" panels that tone (or match) the color of the walls. We're not talking about hanging batts of pink fluffy insulation on the wall 

If you care about good sound room acoustics are essential to address, and frankly you are much less limited than most people given that this appears to be a somewhat dedicated media space and you have so much bare wall to work with. And it's relatively cheap -- for a few hundred bucks you can dramatically improve the acoustics and clarity of the system.

You probably don't have to cover the entire wall, but 3-4 large panels hanging behind the couch would be of great benefit. Hard to see the front wall but I could even see putting a panel behind each L/R main speaker (to the left right of the TV) to damp that first reflection from the front wall. 

Here are some examples of (IMO at least) attractive rooms which incorporate acoustic panels while still maintaining a clean minimalist aesthetic.... obviously not the same colors as your room but just to give you ideas:















































If you want to get artsy you can even do a custom print on acoustic panels and do a 3 panel art piece:


----------



## batpig

Xeneize12 said:


> That's great, thanks for doing this... so the front high speakers you would place them right above the side seats (in the middle) or wider?


This is assuming you go with a 7.1.2 setup. Basically shooting for a pair of Top Middle speakers directly above and maybe 10-15 degrees forward of the listening couch. 

In terms of width Dolby recommends having them in line with the Front L/R speakers. A lot of people prefer to have them a bit narrower, more like the commercial cinema layout where they are basically in-line with the midpoint between center and L/R mains... but then again in a cinema you have a huge screen. Regardless, I wouldn't want them wider than the L/R speakers. 

If you were going to do a 7.1.4 layout I'd probably shift those TM speakers to be further back and then do Front Heights on the gray part of the ceiling toed in (shooting for a 30-40 degree elevation).

I really think some of the biggest benefit could come from fixing the position of the side surrounds. Right now you have them higher than your back surrounds and pretty far back so there doesn't look to be too much angular separation from the back surrounds. If you can relocate the wall-mounted bookshelf and put the surround on the other side so it's lower and slightly forward of the couch I think you'd hear a nice increase in wrap-around cohesion for side pans.


----------



## NorthSky

Nice pics.


----------



## Xeneize12

batpig said:


> It doesn't have to be. Not at all. You basically have bare, monotone walls currently. If you want to preserve the minimalist look, all you need to do is get decorative 4" panels that tone (or match) the color of the walls. We're not talking about hanging batts of pink fluffy insulation on the wall
> 
> If you care about good sound room acoustics are essential to address, and frankly you are much less limited than most people given that this appears to be a somewhat dedicated media space and you have so much bare wall to work with. And it's relatively cheap -- for a few hundred bucks you can dramatically improve the acoustics and clarity of the system.
> 
> You probably don't have to cover the entire wall, but 3-4 large panels hanging behind the couch would be of great benefit. Hard to see the front wall but I could even see putting a panel behind each L/R main speaker (to the left right of the TV) to damp that first reflection from the front wall.
> 
> Here are some examples of (IMO at least) attractive rooms which incorporate acoustic panels while still maintaining a clean minimalist aesthetic.... obviously not the same colors as your room but just to give you ideas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get artsy you can even do a custom print on acoustic panels and do a 3 panel art piece:


Another awesome idea... the more I see what you guys suggest, the more I realise how much of a noob i am in this subject.... this has to be the best community i've seen in a long time. Thanks, I'll defo look into it and probably get some of those rectangle patches, that actually don't look bad at all.


----------



## blastermaster

You can also make custom panels that look like movie posters:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1316623-diy-custom-printed-movie-poster-acoustic-panels-cheap.html

They look great. Maybe one day I'll be motivated enough to do that. For the time being, I stuck with making my own out of a breathable cloth material to match the colour scheme of my theater.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> It doesn't have to be. Not at all. You basically have bare, monotone walls currently. If you want to preserve the minimalist look, all you need to do is get decorative 4" panels that tone (or match) the color of the walls. We're not talking about hanging batts of pink fluffy insulation on the wall
> 
> If you care about good sound room acoustics are essential to address, and frankly you are much less limited than most people given that this appears to be a somewhat dedicated media space and you have so much bare wall to work with. And it's relatively cheap -- for a few hundred bucks you can dramatically improve the acoustics and clarity of the system.
> 
> You probably don't have to cover the entire wall, but 3-4 large panels hanging behind the couch would be of great benefit. Hard to see the front wall but I could even see putting a panel behind each L/R main speaker (to the left right of the TV) to damp that first reflection from the front wall.
> 
> Here are some examples of (IMO at least) attractive rooms which incorporate acoustic panels while still maintaining a clean minimalist aesthetic.... obviously not the same colors as your room but just to give you ideas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get artsy you can even do a custom print on acoustic panels and do a 3 panel art piece:


 
Very timely, since I'm building a dedicated HT room for scratch. I have a general contractor to do the work as part of the overall remodeling we're doing in our new Chicago three bedroom condo this fall, as I don't have the space, time, or the skills to do my own DIY work sadly. After we put in a sound isolating, staggered stud double wall on sides of the room bordering other rooms of the unit, I'm turning to absorption and bass traps. Are those GiK, BP? I'd love to do some modern, abstract art that matches actual art I might have up in the space. And I really like that first picture, with the four panels on the back wall, believe it or not. Just what we'll need behind our leather sofa. That table might be a no-no, though. And are those hardwood floors?


----------



## NorthSky

Yes they are...you can put a carpet or tree on top...for better acoustics.


----------



## sdrucker

NorthSky said:


> Yes they are...you can put a carpet or tree on top...for better acoustics.


Either some big area rugs or plush wall to wall carpet would be the ticket....when we put our existing place up on the market, our realtor pushed us to do hardwood floors to replace carpeting in our living room. I almost cried when I heard how the sound changed into an echo chamber with much reduced spaciousness. A large area rug from Home Depot that fit the look in front of the sofa helped, but it hasn't been the same - even with my vaunted Trinnov. Good thing we're moving around the end of next month....where I can FINALLY break out the quartet of Dolby speakers I bought from Aras, and probably move to a couple of pairs (maybe three) of ceiling speakers on unistruts once we get the room more beat into shape and see how the height effects work out with the 3D audio codecs  . I can't wait...I know Scott can't!


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> Either some big area rugs or plush wall to wall carpet would be the ticket....when we put our existing place up on the market, our realtor pushed us to do hardwood floors to replace carpeting in our living room. I almost cried when I heard how the sound changed into an echo chamber with much reduced spaciousness. A large area rug from Home Depot that fit the look in front of the sofa helped, but it hasn't been the same - even with my vaunted Trinnov. Good thing we're moving around the end of next month....where I can FINALLY break out the quartet of Dolby speakers I bought from Aras, and probably move to a couple of pairs (maybe three) of ceiling speakers on unistruts once we get the room more beat into shape and see how the height effects work out with the 3D audio codecs  . I can't wait...I know Scott can't!


Stuart, when...you're ready to do the install and setup...ask Keith for tips.


----------



## desray2k

batpig said:


> Actually in the new 2015 Denons there is now a parameter for ceiling height, so no longer stuck with the 8ft assumption.


Hi batpig...how do I get to this option? If I go to Speaker Config setup (Manual), I can only see "set distances" in steps of 0.01m but I dun see the feature to set the distance for Dolby Atmos speakers to ceiling height.

My Atmos speaker has been set to "Small"...

*Edit: I guess its for the "newer" models...It seems that the X7200WA does not have this feature to tinker with the dolby Atmos speakers to ceiling height distance. I hoped this "new" feature can be added via a firmware update in the future...this shouldn't be too hard.*

Denon X4200W manual: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4200W/EU/EN/DRDZSYyvwvohgk.php

Denon X7200WA manual: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX7200WA/NA/EN/GFNFSYwwqdpazi.php (omiited)

Thanks.


----------



## asere

I notice with Atmos you can't necessarily pinpoint to the ceiling speaker and say/hear where it's coming from. You just get submerged.
If that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> I notice with Atmos you can't necessarily pinpoint to the ceiling speaker and say/hear where it's coming from. You just get submerged.
> If that makes sense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Indeed! its an incredible codec but will add with the Atmos demo disc on hand you can hear it do both as well . The MM Fury Road disc on the into has a very well done overhead imaging effect with a vog convergence at one point that was pretty cool and once more showed us there's much much more to come


----------



## jkasanic

sdrucker said:


> Very timely, since I'm building a dedicated HT room for scratch. I have a general contractor to do the work as part of the overall remodeling we're doing in our new Chicago three bedroom condo this fall, as I don't have the space, time, or the skills to do my own DIY work sadly. After we put in a sound isolating, staggered stud double wall on sides of the room bordering other rooms of the unit, I'm turning to absorption and bass traps. Are those GiK, BP? I'd love to do some modern, abstract art that matches actual art I might have up in the space. And I really like that first picture, with the four panels on the back wall, believe it or not. Just what we'll need behind our leather sofa. That table might be a no-no, though. And are those hardwood floors?


Stu, those panels BP posted don't appear to be as broadband as you're probably going to want in your space due to their relatively thin size. I'd suggest if you're into custom artwork (and have access to high resolution files or can create them) that you take a look at the thread @blastermaster mentioned above. You could order the custom printed material from Spoonflower, use Roxul battes from Lowe's and have your GC sport up some frames for you for a fraction of what GIK custom printed traps will cost.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> Nice looking room. If you're going for Atmos specs (as much as it would be a shame to mess with what looks so nice), I would move your surround speakers to ear height as well as moving your side surrounds forward more, then move your couch away from the wall a bit. You will notice much better sound. Hell, I would even move it forward as it is and recalibrate your setup and see if you notice a difference. At worst, you will be closer to your TV set and be more immersed.
> 
> I know some people are saying that 7.1.6 is going to be coming in the future as well as 9.1.6, but I would bank on the usual suspects of receivers staying at 7.1.4. Because of this, I wouldn't install your .2 ceiling speakers as top middle. Rather, I would go with top fronts, then eventually move to top rears for a 7.1.4 setup. Just my 0.02. So in answer to your question, I'd install the top fronts on the grey ceiling.


Agreed on all points. x.x.2 is OK but x.x.4 is significantly better according to everyone who has tried it and whose reports I have seen. One of the AV magazines did a very thorough analysis of this and came firmly to the conclusion that x.x.4 is the config to go for, confirming our own batpig's mo' speakers = mo'better maxim. I too very much doubt if we wil lsee x.x.6 anytime soon from the mainstream manufacturers. We will be using 11 channels max for a long time... and TBH it's more than enough for most rooms of typical size IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

ChrisR. said:


> Sorry if this has been answered before, but is it okay to use Dipoles as side-surounds in a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos configuration?


Think of it like this: the entire point of object-based sound is greater precision in the placement of sounds in the soundstage. The entire point of Dipoles is less precision and more diffusion of the sound. So why would one expect speakers designed for less precision (of sound placement) to be a great choice for a system designed for more precision? Will they work? Sure they will. Will they be the best you can do? I don't think so. (And Dolby recommend monopoles for a reason IMO).


----------



## kbarnes701

ChrisR. said:


> Problem is, the most left and right seats in my home theatre are pretty close to the speakers about one foot if somebody sits there. Thats why I'm thinking about using dipoles.


How often does anyone sit in those seats? Do they care especially about top quality cinema sound?

And no matter what speaker type you use, they will still be sitting 1 foot away from them.

If your surrounds are close to someone's ears (especially your own) you may care to consider dual concentric speaker designs (eg from Kef, Tannoy, Pioneer etc). DC designs are in phase right from the driver, whereas conventional 2-way or 3-way designs require a few feet of distance before the sound from each separate driver 'melds' into a coherent whole. DC designs have other advantages but this is a really useful one for those (like me) who have to have speakers closer than ideally desirable. They'll still be 1 foot away from the guys on the ends of the row, but there's nothing you can do about that and Dipoles won't help them anyway. IMO you’d be compromising the precision which Atmos brings, for no real benefit.

In my room, I am usually the only listener, or certainly the only one who GAF about SQ so I aim to optimise for my seat only. On the occasions when someone else is in the room, they are usually too blown away by the big screen, the amazing sound, the Atmos effect etc to care that a speaker is too close to their head. So optimise for the majority of the HT room's use not the minority.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It doesn't have to be. Not at all. You basically have bare, monotone walls currently. If you want to preserve the minimalist look, all you need to do is get decorative 4" panels that tone (or match) the color of the walls. We're not talking about hanging batts of pink fluffy insulation on the wall
> 
> If you care about good sound room acoustics are essential to address, and frankly you are much less limited than most people given that this appears to be a somewhat dedicated media space and you have so much bare wall to work with. And it's relatively cheap -- for a few hundred bucks you can dramatically improve the acoustics and clarity of the system.


Great post batpig. I’d second everything you say. The OP will get huge benefits from applying some acoustic treatments to what looks like an excessively live room right now. And if he follows the ideas in the images you attached, I'd say his room will look _more_ attractive, not less. 

I'd add that making one's own panels is real, real easy - even for someone with very minimal DIY skills, using common household tools - and can save an absolute fortune compared with commercially bought panels. Most of the input into making panels is labor, which is why they are so expensive if you buy them commercially.


----------



## asere

audiofan1 said:


> Indeed! its an incredible codec but will add with the Atmos demo disc on hand you can hear it do both as well . The MM Fury Road disc on the into has a very well done overhead imaging effect with a vog convergence at one point that was pretty cool and once more showed us there's much much more to come


I agree with MM Fury Road you can pinpoint and get submerged especially the beginning and with other films you only get submerged. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> I agree with MM Fury Road you can pinpoint and get submerged especially the beginning and with other films you only get submerged.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


*Gravity* (in Atmos) is also good for pinpointing.


----------



## blastermaster

kbarnes701 said:


> How often does anyone sit in those seats? Do they care especially about top quality cinema sound?
> 
> And no matter what speaker type you use, they will still be sitting 1 foot away from them.
> 
> If your surrounds are close to someone's ears (especially your own) you may care to consider dual concentric speaker designs (eg from Kef, Tannoy, Pioneer etc). DC designs are in phase right from the driver, whereas conventional 2-way or 3-way designs require a few feet of distance before the sound from each separate driver 'melds' into a coherent whole. DC designs have other advantages but this is a really useful one for those (like me) who have to have speakers closer than ideally desirable. They'll still be 1 foot away from the guys on the ends of the row, but there's nothing you can do about that and Dipoles won't help them anyway. IMO you’d be compromising the precision which Atmos brings, for no real benefit.
> 
> In my room, I am usually the only listener, or certainly the only one who GAF about SQ so I aim to optimise for my seat only. On the occasions when someone else is in the room, they are usually too blown away by the big screen, the amazing sound, the Atmos effect etc to care that a speaker is too close to their head. So optimise for the majority of the HT room's use not the minority.


^This . For people that are sitting at the extreme ends of the couch in my theater, it's not ideal. That being said, I've sat at the end and the speaker is maybe a foot and a half from my head and it's amazingly not bad and certainly not noticeable for any friends that come over. I also have the dual concentrics so maybe that helps. 90% of the time it's just me in my theater, so I'm also optimizing it for the place I always sit. The monopoles I have that replaced my bipoles are definitely a step up in price, but I believe that, given the same pricepoint, I would still choose monopoles at ear height over the diffuse sound a bipole/dipole setup gives. I obviously can't test that, though, but the increase in clarity is just astounding. Let me put it this way - yes, I can localize my current speakers a bit more than my bipoles, but at the same time I am hearing ambient sounds that weren't even present before. To me, that's better. Keith, have you found that the speakers seem less localized when listening to an Atmos track? That's what I'm thinking would be the case, but I haven't got my receiver yet. As soon as I get it, I will be all over the forums like a mad man describing my findings.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> ^This . For people that are sitting at the extreme ends of the couch in my theater, it's not ideal. That being said, I've sat at the end and the speaker is maybe a foot and a half from my head and it's amazingly not bad and certainly not noticeable for any friends that come over.


Same here when I sit in the end seats. I am always surprised by how reasonable it sounds in such a less than ideal seat. Friends could care less.



blastermaster said:


> I also have the dual concentrics so maybe that helps. 90% of the time it's just me in my theater, so I'm also optimizing it for the place I always sit.


Exactly my situation too. I can’t quite understand why people will compromise on the MLP when most of their listening is either solo or with people who don't care anyway.



blastermaster said:


> The monopoles I have that replaced my bipoles are definitely a step up in price, but I believe that, given the same pricepoint, I would still choose monopoles at ear height over the diffuse sound a bipole/dipole setup gives.


Same here. I used to have dipoles and I liked them at the time, but with object audio mixers are aiming for much more precision in where sounds are placed so it seems logical to me to use monopoles now.



blastermaster said:


> I obviously can't test that, though, but the increase in clarity is just astounding. Let me put it this way - yes, I can localize my current speakers a bit more than my bipoles, but at the same time I am hearing ambient sounds that weren't even present before. To me, that's better. *Keith, have you found that the speakers seem less localized when listening to an Atmos track? * That's what I'm thinking would be the case, but I haven't got my receiver yet. As soon as I get it, I will be all over the forums like a mad man describing my findings.


Yes - very much so. A good, properly setup system will always have the speakers 'disappearing' but with Atmos mixes the effect is even more so. All my speakers simply disappear totally and are replaced with just 'sound'. I am able to pinpoint individual sounds very, very easily, in space, but they rarely, if ever, seem to emanate from a speaker. It is quite an awesome experience to be totally surrounded by sound, and above you as well, yet without those sounds appearing to come from speakers. You are going to enjoy this!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

blastermaster said:


> I was under the idea that diffusion is best for the rear wall as it gives the impression of a much larger sound field. Absorbtion for the front wall?


Diffusion only works with a minimum of distance, 6 feet or so.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here when I sit in the end seats. I am always surprised by how reasonable it sounds in such a less than ideal seat. Friends could care less.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly my situation too. I can’t quite understand why people will compromise on the MLP when most of their listening is either solo or with people who don't care anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. I used to have dipoles and I liked them at the time, but with object audio mixers are aiming for much more precision in where sounds are placed so it seems logical to me to use monopoles now.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - very much so. A good, properly setup system will always have the speakers 'disappearing' but with Atmos mixes the effect is even more so. All my speakers simply disappear totally and are replaced with just 'sound'. I am able to pinpoint individual sounds very, very easily, in space, but they rarely, if ever, seem to emanate from a speaker. It is quite an awesome experience to be totally surrounded by sound, and above you as well, yet without those sounds appearing to come from speakers. You are going to enjoy this!


 


Great post! So true - I am the MLP! When my friends come over they are just so overwhelmed by the big screen (100") and the sound and reclining seats and happy to not be home watching their 50-inch "totally not calibrated tvs" with their Radio Shack soundbars! 
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"


----------



## sdurani

ChrisR. said:


> Problem is, the most left and right seats in my home theatre are pretty close to the speakers about one foot if somebody sits there. Thats why I'm thinking about using dipoles.


IF your choices are having one ear a foot away from a speaker firing right into the ear canal vs sitting in the acoustic null of that speaker, then I would choose the latter. Assuming those are your only two choices. 

Atmos isn't some sort of suicide pact, where you're absolutely required to have greater imaging precision even if it means being distracted throughout the entire movie. IF all the seats in your home theatre are important to you, then you should first make sure all the listeners can understand the dialogue clearly and follow what is happening in the story. 

For a narrow room, if that means using dipoles at your sides, then it is OK to choose the lesser of two evils (less distracting of two choices).


----------



## blastermaster

sdurani said:


> IF your choices are having one ear a foot away from a speaker firing right into the ear canal vs sitting in the acoustic null of that speaker, then I would choose the latter. Assuming those are your only two choices.
> 
> Atmos isn't some sort of suicide pact, where you're absolutely required to have greater imaging precision even if it means being distracted throughout the entire movie. *IF all the seats in your home theatre are important to you*, then you should first make sure all the listeners can understand the dialogue clearly and follow what is happening in the story.
> 
> For a narrow room, if that means using dipoles at your sides, then it is OK to choose the lesser of two evils (less distracting of two choices).


And that's just it...the only seat that's crucial to me is my seat.  For those who regularly have people over to watch movies and have a narrow room, perhaps dipoles are the right choice. However, it's surprising how the direct firing speakers actually aren't that bad even when sitting close to them. There are times when you can localize them, yes, but I'm not setting up my home theater for legacy surround, I'm setting it up for Atmos and the speakers apparently disappear in that scenario.


----------



## asere

I'm sure x.x.4 and more speakers is better for Atmos than x.x2. Example I have the set up from 5.1 and 2 heights and been using Atmos with the surrounds as in ceiling.
As a test I disconnected the in ceiling surrounds and connected ear level surrounds.
I could tell slightly when the front heights came on but with the exception of having the sound coming at you ear with the floor surrounds. Other than that not much different coming from the height with the all in ceiling surrounds.
It goes back to the 3d effect vs what comes out from where.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

asere said:


> I notice with Atmos you can't necessarily pinpoint to the ceiling speaker and say/hear where it's coming from. You just get submerged.
> If that makes sense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


That's why it's called "immersive audio"


----------



## robert816

Looks like Pioneer is finally going to give us the 11.1 treatment that some you Denon folks have been enjoying. 

The SC-99/97 will have the ability to output two channels (Front or Surround Back) to an external amp so that a 7.2.4 or 9.2.2 setup will be possible.

Also there is a new audio parameter I'm reading about in the SC-99 owners manual that is a Render mode that states:
Allows you to choose which signal, object base (OBJECT) or channel base (LEGACY) to decode when playing back Dolby Atmos content.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Elite+Receivers

This is probably old news by now, I ran across it earlier, I'm curious as to the render mode setting and what that entails.

Yep, old news, just found the thread, the AVS forums are on top of things as usual!


----------



## Brian B

Was about to pick the location for the Atmos speakers in my setup and thought I'd see if anyone has experience with best width between the speakers.

I plan to add 4 ceiling speakers and was looking to put them in the TF and TR locations. I had intended on putting them about 4' in front and 4' behind the MLP.

I notice most of the Dolby material recommends the spacing to be similar to front width (which in my case is 113" or 9.4'). Since I am the primary person listening this seems to be too wide...is it?

Distance to the ceiling is 71" (5.9') from my ears and speakers have the ability to angle the tweeters. Processor is the Marantz AV8802.

Suggestions? Reasoning? Crazy advice?

Thanks,
B.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> Was about to pick the location for the Atmos speakers in my setup and thought I'd see if anyone has experience with best width between the speakers.
> 
> I plan to add 4 ceiling speakers and was looking to put them in the TF and TR locations. I had intended on putting them about 4' in front and 4' behind the MLP.
> 
> I notice most of the Dolby material recommends the spacing to be similar to front width (which in my case is 113" or 9.4'). Since I am the primary person listening this seems to be too wide...is it?
> 
> Distance to the ceiling is 71" (5.9') from my ears and speakers have the ability to angle the tweeters. Processor is the Marantz AV8802.
> 
> Suggestions? Reasoning? Crazy advice?
> 
> Thanks,
> B.


Look at the link in my signature. You may have the answer there.


----------



## Brian B

aaranddeeman said:


> Look at the link in my signature. You may have the answer there.


That doesn't have any information regarding width. 4' is close to your 50" recommended distance. It turns out I have recessed lights (that I forgot about), so I couldn't do the width of the fronts anyway.

Any more feedback?

B.


----------



## zebidou81

asere said:


> Is it ok to go up on the front heights volume level much more than the other speakers so you can hear more content?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Hi yes this is ok, i ran mine +4db that worked well before changing from front heights to top front, i run my Atmos TF+TR around 4 db hotter than all other speakers which i seem to prefer that way but you are best experimenting to see what you like best.


----------



## virtualrain

Brian B said:


> Was about to pick the location for the Atmos speakers in my setup and thought I'd see if anyone has experience with best width between the speakers.
> 
> I plan to add 4 ceiling speakers and was looking to put them in the TF and TR locations. I had intended on putting them about 4' in front and 4' behind the MLP.
> 
> I notice most of the Dolby material recommends the spacing to be similar to front width (which in my case is 113" or 9.4'). Since I am the primary person listening this seems to be too wide...is it?
> 
> Distance to the ceiling is 71" (5.9') from my ears and speakers have the ability to angle the tweeters. Processor is the Marantz AV8802.
> 
> Suggestions? Reasoning? Crazy advice?
> 
> Thanks,
> B.


9' wide seems reasonable if you are 10' or more away. I followed the Dolby Placement very carefully for my 5.2.4 setup. I think my mains are about 9-10' apart, my seating is 13' from the screen, and my overheads are 4' in front of MLP and 4' behind, aligned with the mains. Surrounds are just a tad bit further back than 4' and spread slightly wider than the main spread. Sound immersion and localization is excellent. But I don't have much to compare to.


----------



## CBdicX

desray2k said:


> Hi batpig...how do I get to this option? If I go to Speaker Config setup (Manual), I can only see "set distances" in steps of 0.01m but I dun see the feature to set the distance for Dolby Atmos speakers to ceiling height.
> 
> My Atmos speaker has been set to "Small"...
> 
> *Edit: I guess its for the "newer" models...It seems that the X7200WA does not have this feature to tinker with the dolby Atmos speakers to ceiling height distance. I hoped this "new" feature can be added via a firmware update in the future...this shouldn't be too hard.*
> 
> Denon X4200W manual: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4200W/EU/EN/DRDZSYyvwvohgk.php
> 
> Denon X7200WA manual: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX7200WA/NA/EN/GFNFSYwwqdpazi.php (omiited)
> 
> Thanks.


I also started looking for this option in my X7200WA, but did not find it. 
Hope the 7200 will get an update as it is a usefull setting option for Atmos Enabled speakers i use (Klipsch RP280FA).


----------



## desray2k

CBdicX said:


> I also started looking for this option in my X7200WA, but did not find it.
> Hope the 7200 will get an update as it is a usefull setting option for Atmos Enabled speakers i use (Klipsch RP280FA).


Yes...let's hope so. 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Great post! So true - I am the MLP! When my friends come over they are just so overwhelmed by the big screen (100") and the sound and reclining seats and happy to not be home watching their 50-inch "totally not calibrated tvs" with their Radio Shack soundbars!
> "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"


A factor in the 'disappearing' of the speakers may also be Dirac Live which I am now using for room EQ. Dirac Live has been such a significant step up in REQ here and one of its great strengths is how it improves imaging. Since Atmos also seems to improve imaging, in the sense that it is easier to pinpoint and locate sounds in the soundstage, I have two things working together for me. Three really, because adding my acoustic treatments also improved imaging significantly too. For me, a coherently presented soundstage is massively important and with all three factors coming together so well, it has never sounded so good.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> And that's just it...the only seat that's crucial to me is my seat.  For those who regularly have people over to watch movies and have a narrow room, perhaps dipoles are the right choice. However, it's surprising how the direct firing speakers actually aren't that bad even when sitting close to them. There are times when you can localize them, yes, but I'm not setting up my home theater for legacy surround, I'm setting it up for Atmos and the speakers apparently disappear in that scenario.


Your first sentence nailed it. Set up for the seat that is used the most - especially if visitors don't really care about the sound all that much anyway (my experience is they almost never do - they just love the whole experience). Choosing dipoles might be a consideration if you had two HT nuts occupying the end seats 90% of the time - but you don't, so there is no point compromising the Atmos setup to cater for them IMO.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

zebidou81 said:


> Hi yes this is ok, i ran mine +4db that worked well before changing from front heights to top front, i run my Atmos TF+TR around 4 db hotter than all other speakers which i seem to prefer that way but you are best experimenting to see what you like best.


As a counterpoint, I feel the need to explain why it's a BAD idea to run your overhead speakers that much hotter than the bed channels.

With Atmos, a mixer essentially places objects using a 3-D map of the typical room/theater, using an XYZ axis for 3-D placement of audio. For instance, if you want the sound of a plane to sound like it's coming from overhead and to the left, you wouldn't place that object's position near the left top speakers... You would place it in the space between left overhead and left surround. If you're panning the sound so that it goes from overhead front left to overhead side left to overhead rear left, the object placement on the 3-D representation of the room would be done by moving the object basically in the 3-D space in the theater that it would be in that scene in the movie. For reference, this is basically what a mixer looks at for placing these sounds:








Now here's the thing: This precise placement of sounds depends on imaging between speakers that are at a set known reference level, whether in the theater or the home. So if you run your overheads +4dB hot, a sound that is meant to image from above and to the left would collapse upward. Sure, you'll hear more content from your overheads more often... but the precise placement of sounds in the 3-D space that the mixer was mixing for is essentially destroyed. You are basically taking those objects as seen on the mixer's screen that are _slightly_ above the bed channels and forcing them all upwards.

So CAN you run your overheads hot? Sure... It's your theater and if that's your preference, that's fine. SHOULD you? Not if you want to hear the mix that you're meant to hear. And there's so much more to Atmos than just "gee, the overhead speakers are active!" There's precise immersion in the scene you're watching in the movie. And if your setup is done right, that should sound like a bubble of sound, not just regular surround sound plus some constantly active overhead speakers. Always remember that the mixer can move sounds in that space up to 255 potential positions on the Z axis. By running your overheads hot, you're essentially tossing that out and making it an either/or proposition rather than the solid imaging in that space that the mixer intended. That's not to say that you can't tweak levels in your room due to the room's characteristics to obtain that solid imaging... but I'm talking maybe a half decibel here or there as needed. Running overheads at over double the level of the bed channels is _completely destructive_ to the intended mix. And if you're okay with that, that's fine. Just know that you're NOT hearing the intended mix... and are not hearing Atmos do what it was intended to do.


----------



## desray2k

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As a counterpoint, I feel the need to explain why it's a BAD idea to run your overhead speakers that much hotter than the bed channels.
> 
> With Atmos, a mixer essentially places objects using a 3-D map of the typical room/theater, using an XYZ axis for 3-D placement of audio. For instance, if you want the sound of a plane to sound like it's coming from overhead and to the left, you wouldn't place that object's position near the left top speakers... You would place it in the space between left overhead and left surround. If you're panning the sound so that it goes from overhead front left to overhead side left to overhead rear left, the object placement on the 3-D representation of the room would be done by moving the object basically in the 3-D space in the theater that it would be in that scene in the movie. For reference, this is basically what a mixer looks at for placing these sounds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's the thing: This precise placement of sounds depends on imaging between speakers that are at a set known reference level, whether in the theater or the home. So if you run your overheads +4dB hot, a sound that is meant to image from above and to the left would collapse upward. Sure, you'll hear more content from your overheads more often... but the precise placement of sounds in the 3-D space that the mixer was mixing for is essentially destroyed. You are basically taking those objects as seen on the mixer's screen that are _slightly_ above the bed channels and forcing them all upwards.
> 
> So CAN you run your overheads hot? Sure... It's your theater and if that's your preference, that's fine. SHOULD you? Not if you want to hear the mix that you're meant to hear. And there's so much more to Atmos than just "gee, the overhead speakers are active!" There's precise immersion in the scene you're watching in the movie. And if your setup is done right, that should sound like a bubble of sound, not just regular surround sound plus some constantly active overhead speakers. Always remember that the mixer can move sounds in that space up to 255 potential positions on the Z axis. By running your overheads hot, you're essentially tossing that out and making it an either/or proposition rather than the solid imaging in that space that the mixer intended. That's not to say that you can't tweak levels in your room due to the room's characteristics to obtain that solid imaging... but I'm talking maybe a half decibel here or there as needed. Running overheads at over double the level of the bed channels is _completely destructive_ to the intended mix. And if you're okay with that, that's fine. Just know that you're NOT hearing the intended mix... and are not hearing Atmos do what it was intended to do.


I agreed with your take on the ceiling speakers....but for Dolby atmos enabled speakers...that's something else. You'LLC need that extra gain to bounce the sound off the ceiling. What do u think?

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As a counterpoint, I feel the need to explain why it's a BAD idea to run your overhead speakers that much hotter than the bed channels.
> 
> With Atmos, a mixer essentially places objects using a 3-D map of the typical room/theater, using an XYZ axis for 3-D placement of audio. For instance, if you want the sound of a plane to sound like it's coming from overhead and to the left, you wouldn't place that object's position near the left top speakers... You would place it in the space between left overhead and left surround. If you're panning the sound so that it goes from overhead front left to overhead side left to overhead rear left, the object placement on the 3-D representation of the room would be done by moving the object basically in the 3-D space in the theater that it would be in that scene in the movie. For reference, this is basically what a mixer looks at for placing these sounds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's the thing: This precise placement of sounds depends on imaging between speakers that are at a set known reference level, whether in the theater or the home. So if you run your overheads +4dB hot, a sound that is meant to image from above and to the left would collapse upward. Sure, you'll hear more content from your overheads more often... but the precise placement of sounds in the 3-D space that the mixer was mixing for is essentially destroyed. You are basically taking those objects as seen on the mixer's screen that are _slightly_ above the bed channels and forcing them all upwards.
> 
> So CAN you run your overheads hot? Sure... It's your theater and if that's your preference, that's fine. SHOULD you? Not if you want to hear the mix that you're meant to hear. And there's so much more to Atmos than just "gee, the overhead speakers are active!" There's precise immersion in the scene you're watching in the movie. And if your setup is done right, that should sound like a bubble of sound, not just regular surround sound plus some constantly active overhead speakers. Always remember that the mixer can move sounds in that space up to 255 potential positions on the Z axis. By running your overheads hot, you're essentially tossing that out and making it an either/or proposition rather than the solid imaging in that space that the mixer intended. That's not to say that you can't tweak levels in your room due to the room's characteristics to obtain that solid imaging... but I'm talking maybe a half decibel here or there as needed. Running overheads at over double the level of the bed channels is _completely destructive_ to the intended mix. And if you're okay with that, that's fine. Just know that you're NOT hearing the intended mix... and are not hearing Atmos do what it was intended to do.


Just a nitpick - he isn't running the overheads at "over double the level of the bed channels". That would require a 10dB boost (to give the perception of double the loudness). I think you are conflating this with the fact that a +3dB increase in level requires double the power from the amplifier. A +3db increase (4db increase in this case) in level will be noticeable for sure, but it won't be anything like double the perceived sound level. 

Ultimately, while I agree with you in principle, it is a matter of preference. Many people boost their sub by several dB, others boost their center channel a few dB to facilitate better dialog comprehension and yet others will boost their surrounds by a few dB simply because they like to hear the surrounds working more. 

Are they getting "what the mixer intended"? Probably not. But then, is it ever possible to get what the mixer intended and indeed how would anyone know unless they had sat with the mixer, in his particular mixing room, at the time the mix was made? And even then their auditory memory would make it impossible to compare.

I wonder if this philosophical idea of reproducing "what the mixer heard" really has any merit given the impossibility of doing so and the uncertainty of having achieved it anyway. I wonder if aiming for a totally enjoyable, mind-blowing _experience_ at home isn't a more worthwhile, and more achievable, objective? If the listener is blown away, thrilled and excited by the sound experience in his HT, then that is possibly enough for almost any listener. Does it matter that he has goosed the bass and is hearing more bass than the mixer heard - so long as he is enjoying the experience to the max? Is it that important that a particular sound of a bullet traversing the theater traverses it with exactly the same trajectory that it did in the mixing suite? So long as it is ties in with the on-screen action, does it matter all that much, providing the listener finds it really thrilling and enjoyable and adding to his enjoyment of the movie as a whole?

It may sound as if I am saying "anything goes" and I most certainly am not. I have spent a considerable amount of money, and time, setting up a HT room which sounds better than most commercial cinemas I visit. Those commercial cinemas, presumably, follow all the settings religiously and aim to recreate "what the mixer heard". Well, if they do, then I don't want it. My HT sounds better thanks. My bass is tighter and deeper, my imaging is better and so on. And to the point of recreating "what the mixer heard" if I go to two different movie theaters, I hear two different movies, so there isn't even any real consistency from one commercial theater to another.

So far from "anything goes" I am a fanatic at trying to get the best possible sound I can. But I also want the most enjoyable experience I can muster here in my own HT. And if that means tweaking the surround levels or the overhead levels, so be it. But as always, in all endeavours, I would say that before one breaks the rules, one must understand the rules and why they exist, and for that I agree with most of what you said.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> That doesn't have any information regarding width. 4' is close to your 50" recommended distance. It turns out I have recessed lights (that I forgot about), so I couldn't do the width of the fronts anyway.
> 
> Any more feedback?
> 
> B.


Ah. Okay. For width there is always the confusion of aligning with your fronts or should that be inwards.
I have found that, it sounds much better when it is inwards. My ceiling speakers are mounted at little less than 1/3 room width from each side. (After experimenting two positions they were closer to the wall)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

desray2k said:


> I agreed with your take on the ceiling speakers....but for Dolby atmos enabled speakers...that's something else. You'LLC need that extra gain to bounce the sound off the ceiling. What do u think?


I would imagine that any calibration you did would account for that reflected sound as it reaches the listening position (with the Atmos notch filtering and tweaks meant to increase the illusion that it's "overhead"). But IMHO, the Atmos enabled speakers are like trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. They're a good half-measure if that's all you can do in your room, but won't quite have the precise placement that true overheads offer. I still don't know that you would go as extreme as +4dB as zebidou81 was stating though. You're still trying to get sounds to image between the bed channels and that point on the ceiling where the reflected sound is coming from.

I'll offer this for people feeling the need to tweak levels on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The LEAF demo clip from the Atmos demo disc (available for download if you poke around) is a great reference for when the balance between the beds and overheads is really spot-on. Your inclination will be to think the bed to overhead pans should be hard panning one way or the other. But if you have things right, many of those sounds move THROUGH the space in your room, not just hard overhead. Put that clip on a loop and tweak things in small increments. When you hear the precise placement of sounds moving around the room, overhead AND through the room between the beds and overheads, you'll know when you've got the Atmos sound the mixers are shooting for.

This is why Dolby really needs a publicly available disc with some kind of checks so the listener can compare where they're hearing the sound versus where it is meant to be placed in the room.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Just a nitpick - he isn't running the overheads at "over double the level of the bed channels". That would require a 10dB boost (to give the perception of double the loudness). I think you are conflating this with the fact that a +3dB increase in level requires double the power from the amplifier. A +3db increase (4db increase in this case) in level will be noticeable for sure, but it won't be anything like double the perceived sound level.


Yeah... It's early and I was typing that from bed. I even looked afterwards and thought, "Wait... I'm off on that." Pobody's nerfect! But the point remains. +4dB is a pretty significant boost from reference when you're trying to represent imaging in 3-D space between the beds and overheads.



kbarnes701 said:


> Ultimately, while I agree with you in principle, it is a matter of preference. Many people boost their sub by several dB, others boost their center channel a few dB to facilitate better dialog comprehension and yet others will boost their surrounds by a few dB simply because they like to hear the surrounds working more.


Oh, I absolutely pointed out that it's the difference between reference and preference. Most of our discussions here are. And knowing the difference is likely why most of us are here in the first place. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Are they getting "what the mixer intended"? Probably not. But then, is it ever possible to get what the mixer intended and indeed how would anyone know unless they had sat with the mixer, in his particular mixing room, at the time the mix was made? And even then their auditory memory would make it impossible to compare.


Again, the closest we can get to the ideal representation of what the mixer intended is to match the reference levels and speaker positions they're using in the mixing environment. Those are a known entity. But the overall point is that if you have two point sources of sound and intend to have 255 points of placement between them, the level of the sounds in those two sources are what gives you that perceived placement between those speakers. So if Atmos' decoder "sees" an object placed at a particular point between those speakers, it knows what level to put that sound in each speaker... and if you deviate greatly from the reference level, that imaging that Atmos is trying to do is thrown off completely. Will it sound awful? Probably not. But will that sound image from where it was intended to image? Most certainly not.



kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder if this philosophical idea of reproducing "what the mixer heard" really has any merit given the impossibility of doing so and the uncertainty of having achieved it anyway. I wonder if aiming for a totally enjoyable, mind-blowing _experience_ at home isn't a more worthwhile, and more achievable, objective? If the listener is blown away, thrilled and excited by the sound experience in his HT, then that is possibly enough for almost any listener. Does it matter that he has goosed the bass and is hearing more bass than the mixer heard - so long as he is enjoying the experience to the max? Is it that important that a particular sound of a bullet traversing the theater traverses it with exactly the same trajectory that it did in the mixing suite? So long as it is ties in with the on-screen action, does it matter all that much, providing the listener finds it really thrilling and enjoyable and adding to his enjoyment of the movie as a whole?


Oh, I agree... The goal is to get whatever the listener wants out of it. It truly is an argument of reference versus preference. That's why I said that if you think it sounds subjectively "better" to run it that way, that's perfectly okay. But particularly with the 3-D placement of sounds that Atmos strives for, a large deviation from reference will move those sounds from where they're _supposed_ to be placed in the mix.



kbarnes701 said:


> It may sound as if I am saying "anything goes" and I most certainly am not. I have spent a considerable amount of money, and time, setting up a HT room which sounds better than most commercial cinemas I visit. Those commercial cinemas, presumably, follow all the settings religiously and aim to recreate "what the mixer heard". Well, if they do, then I don't want it. My HT sounds better thanks. My bass is tighter and deeper, my imaging is better and so on. And to the point of recreating "what the mixer heard" if I go to two different movie theaters, I hear two different movies, so there isn't even any real consistency from one commercial theater to another.


Again, different rooms/theaters all have their particular peccadilloes, and none of them are "perfect". None of them can be a complete 100% analogous match to the mixing environment (nor one mixing room to another, etc.). Mine most certainly isn't strictly reference, but I've done what I can to mitigate the issues in my room as much as possible. But the entire notion of "reference" is that you have standards by which you can approximate the intended mix as closely as possible in that environment. I would say that's more important in the home theater space than the theatrical space, since you don't have as much space for the sounds to propagate.



kbarnes701 said:


> So far from "anything goes" I am a fanatic at trying to get the best possible sound I can. But I also want the most enjoyable experience I can muster here in my own HT. And if that means tweaking the surround levels or the overhead levels, so be it. But as always, in all endeavours, I would say that before one breaks the rules, one must understand the rules and why they exist, and for that I agree with most of what you said.


Heh... This is why I intentionally said that it was okay to do what you want with your theater. If you think it sounds "better" that way, then it's right for you. But I do think that people should be aware that running the overheads that much hotter can compress the placement of sounds meant to be between the beds and overheads so that they mostly sound overhead... rather than in the space between where 3-D imaging really lives. If you get too happy with it, sure you're hearing lots of sound above you and maybe that justifies your investment in Atmos... but you're kinda' missing the point that Atmos is meant to give mixers the ability to place sounds with precision on the X, Y _and_ Z axes. That sound that you're trying to force up to the ceiling may have been intended to come from the middle of the room instead.

But ultimately, it's your gear... Tweak it how you want. I just thought it was good to offer an alternate view, with the logic behind it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But IMHO, the Atmos enabled speakers are like trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. They're a good half-measure if that's all you can do in your room, but won't quite have the precise placement that true overheads offer.


I wouldn't be so harsh on the AE speakers personally. Having heard them twice in two different demos at Dolby in London, I was highly impressed by them. In fact, the majority of people present (mostly industry 'insiders' and respected AV journalists) actually _preferred_ the upfirers to physical ceiling speakers. The difference was that the upfirers gave a more _diffuse_ presentation while the ceiling speakers gave a more _precise_ presentation. I preferred the latter, but I wouldn’t say that those using upfirers are compromising all that much. Certainly I wouldn’t use the term "half measure" to describe them.

The upfirers do rely on being properly set up with an appropriate flat ceiling at least 8 feet high - maybe those you heard were badly set up or used in an inappropriate room?


----------



## desray2k

I'm sure I read somewhere that a Dolby atmos disc is in the pipeline...but nobody know foe sure when. I understand your reasoning...but reflected sound is different from discrete sound which I agreed with you that too much gains can be detrimental to the overall sound presentation. Just like too much booming can drown out the surround effects.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> I wouldn't be so harsh on the AE speakers personally. Having heard them twice in two different demos at Dolby in London, I was highly impressed by them. In fact, the majority of people present (mostly industry 'insiders' and respected AV journalists) actually _preferred_ the upfirers to physical ceiling speakers. The difference was that the upfirers gave a more _diffuse_ presentation while the ceiling speakers gave a more _precise_ presentation. I preferred the latter, but I wouldn’t say that those using upfirers are compromising all that much. Certainly I wouldn’t use the term "half measure" to describe them.
> 
> The upfirers do rely on being properly set up with an appropriate flat ceiling at least 8 feet high - maybe those you heard were badly set up or used in an inappropriate room?


Agreed with you bro...the atmos enabled speakers if well built and engineered can prove to be very convincing. I can attest to that as I am using 2 pairs of KEF R50 atmos modules for my home theater and I m enjoying it every minute. The key here is placement and angle..but more importantly u need to have a flat ceiling.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yeah... It's early and I was typing that from bed. I even looked afterwards and thought, "Wait... I'm off on that." Pobody's nerfect! But the point remains. +4dB is a pretty significant boost from reference when you're trying to represent imaging in 3-D space between the beds and overheads.


 Yes, I suspected it was a lapse of concentration  I agree, 4dB is a significant boost. It's more than I’d apply personally for sure.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, I absolutely pointed out that it's the difference between reference and preference. Most of our discussions here are. And knowing the difference is likely why most of us are here in the first place.


Again agreed.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, the closest we can get to the ideal representation of what the mixer intended is to match the reference levels and speaker positions they're using in the mixing environment. Those are a known entity.


Yes, agreed yet again. I am a strong believer in matching ITU positions for listener level speakers and Dolby recommendations for overheads, wherever possible. Same with listening levels.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> But the overall point is that if you have two point sources of sound and intend to have 255 points of placement between them, the level of the sounds in those two sources are what gives you that perceived placement between those speakers. So if Atmos' decoder "sees" an object placed at a particular point between those speakers, it knows what level to put that sound in each speaker... and if you deviate greatly from the reference level, that imaging that Atmos is trying to do is thrown off completely. Will it sound awful? Probably not. But will that sound image from where it was intended to image? Most certainly not.


Couldn’t agree more. But we have no idea what the mixer heard, and there isn't a single, standard sound for mixers anyway. All mixing rooms are different and exhibit significant differences in frequency response. So there is no single "what the mixer heard" anyway. I agree we should set up for known standards, but not that this will give us "what the mixer heard" which I think is an illusion.












Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, I agree... The goal is to get whatever the listener wants out of it. It truly is an argument of reference versus preference. That's why I said that if you think it sounds subjectively "better" to run it that way, that's perfectly okay. But particularly with the 3-D placement of sounds that Atmos strives for, a large deviation from reference will move those sounds from where they're _supposed_ to be placed in the mix.


Yes, I am sure it will. But if the resulting sound is highly enjoyable, then so what? Same with bass - many people run their bass really hot. They know it probably isn’t what the mixer intended but they just like it that way. Personally, I agree - large deviations are not a great idea IMO. But small deviations...



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, different rooms/theaters all have their particular peccadilloes, and none of them are "perfect". None of them can be a complete 100% analogous match to the mixing environment (nor one mixing room to another, etc.). Mine most certainly isn't strictly reference, but I've done what I can to mitigate the issues in my room as much as possible. But the entire notion of "reference" is that you have standards by which you can approximate the intended mix as closely as possible in that environment. I would say that's more important in the home theater space than the theatrical space, since you don't have as much space for the sounds to propagate.


Again we agree. My only point of issue really is that striving for "what the mixer heard" is an illusion. Striving to meet agreed published standards (for speaker placement, levels etc) is a different issue and one on which we violently agree.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Heh... This is why I intentionally said that it was okay to do what you want with your theater. If you think it sounds "better" that way, then it's right for you. But I do think that people should be aware that running the overheads that much hotter can compress the placement of sounds meant to be between the beds and overheads so that they mostly sound overhead... rather than in the space between where 3-D imaging really lives. If you get too happy with it, sure you're hearing lots of sound above you and maybe that justifies your investment in Atmos... but you're kinda' missing the point that Atmos is meant to give mixers the ability to place sounds with precision on the X, Y _and_ Z axes. That sound that you're trying to force up to the ceiling may have been intended to come from the middle of the room instead.


Yes- which is why I said it is important to understand the rules and the reasons behind them before breaking them. I commend your pointing out that significant level changes may well result in a detrimental sound, not an improved sound.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> But ultimately, it's your gear... Tweak it how you want. I just thought it was good to offer an alternate view, with the logic behind it.


Absolutely.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> I wouldn't be so harsh on the AE speakers personally. Having heard them twice in two different demos at Dolby in London, I was highly impressed by them. In fact, the majority of people present (mostly industry 'insiders' and respected AV journalists) actually _preferred_ the upfirers to physical ceiling speakers. The difference was that the upfirers gave a more _diffuse_ presentation while the ceiling speakers gave a more _precise_ presentation. I preferred the latter, but I wouldn’t say that those using upfirers are compromising all that much. Certainly I wouldn’t use the term "half measure" to describe them.
> 
> The upfirers do rely on being properly set up with an appropriate flat ceiling at least 8 feet high - maybe those you heard were badly set up or used in an inappropriate room?


Oh, I haven't even heard them. Hell, I haven't even heard Atmos in an actual theater, because most of the theaters near me don't even have 100% working 5.1, much less 7.1 or Atmos (hence why I have a home theater). It's just my opinion, as I stated, having spent time in my theater to KILL reflections versus the notion of wanting a sound to reflect off the ceiling in a way that mimics speakers placed there as they are in the theater (and generally, from what I know of acoustics as a home theater enthusiast on a budget). I do think it's a novel approach to the problem of people not necessarily being able to put speakers on/in their ceiling, but would still say that it isn't the ideal. Then again, whose room is? My side surrounds are way too high for proper Atmos placement and there's not much I can do about it. We all make compromises. Working around them is part of the hobby. 

But especially with Atmos-enabled speakers, I think Dolby needs a publicly available disc with references so the end user can match on-screen placements of sound in a 3-D space to what they're hearing in the room, for the purposes of tweaking to get the desired result.


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> Agreed with you bro...the atmos enabled speakers if well built and engineered can prove to be very convincing. I can attest to that as I am using 2 pairs of KEF R50 atmos modules for my home theater and I m enjoying it every minute. The key here is placement and angle..but more importantly u need to have a flat ceiling.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


Certainly the Dolby demos I attended bear this out. And one of them was using Kef upfiring modules too, so I have heard pretty much exactly what you have. I was highly impressed, as was everyone else. I can see why some people prefer the slightly more 'diffuse' presentation which I found the upfirers gave, compared with the more 'precise' presentation of the in-ceiling designs they used. In that demo, I would have been happy to have either type of Atmos speaker in my own room. I am one of the few who find it easier to install ceiling speakers than to use upfirers, so that dictated my choice. But would I think I had some sort of "half measure" solution? Definitely not.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Again we agree. My only point of issue really is that striving for "what the mixer heard" is an illusion. Striving to meet agreed published standards (for speaker placement, levels etc) is a different issue and one on which we violently agree.


Yeah, you and I are pretty much in agreement. But please note that I'm not saying "what the mixer heard". I'm specifically saying "what the mixer INTENDED". I would argue that having an object you can see placed in a 3-D space on screen is a pretty good indication of where in space the mixer wanted that sound to image from, so we have an objective reference of where that sound was meant to be placed. That's what I mean when I'm talking about recreating that in the home space. If an object has a certain XYZ placement, I personally would like to have that sound reproduced roughly in that same XYZ placement in my home, whenever possible.

Again, maybe that particular ethos of mine is why I've found that some of the more subtle Atmos mixes (like The Age Of Adaline and The Gunman) have impressed me more than the ones that strive to constantly point out that there's overhead sound. And that's _my_ preference. I want to hear sounds placed in the room about where the mixer wanted them to be placed in the room. And my previous post about using the Leaf demo to tweak until you find that sweet spot of sound moving through the room rather than just overhead illustrates that. Atmos can be so much more than just "hey, there's an overhead channel!" But it's certainly okay if others prefer a more scorched earth approach... or just think I'm talking out of my ass!


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, I haven't even heard them.


Then it may be a bit harsh to call them a "half measure" "sow's ear" solution  If you can get the chance to hear the upfirers, in a properly set up room, do so. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised at just how good they are. At the Dolby demos, I discussed the concept with several people prior to the actual demo and we all thought they wouldn't work very well and were a fairly off-the-wall idea TBH. But once we had heard them we all changed our minds. Everyone. Nobody present thought they were a poor neighbor to ceiling speakers and, as I say, over half those present (based on a show of hands) actually preferred them. 




Jeremy Anderson said:


> Hell, I haven't even heard Atmos in an actual theater, because most of the theaters near me don't even have 100% working 5.1, much less 7.1 or Atmos (hence why I have a home theater). It's just my opinion, as I stated, having spent time in my theater to KILL reflections versus the notion of wanting a sound to reflect off the ceiling in a way that mimics speakers placed there as they are in the theater (and generally, from what I know of acoustics as a home theater enthusiast on a budget).


Yes, it flies in the face of accepted wisdom, which is why they need to be heard. In the Dolby demo room designed to resemble a typical HT, they had a lot of acoustic treatments, including on the ceiling. They had removed some of the acoustic panels and replaced them with panels with a hard, reflective surface and aimed the upfirers at those. The result defies belief. Somewhere in this thread I posted pictures of the Dolby room's ceiling. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I do think it's a novel approach to the problem of people not necessarily being able to put speakers on/in their ceiling, but would still say that it isn't the ideal.


It's ideal for those who want Atmos and who can't mount physical speakers on the ceiling!  I’d say it was a stroke of genius on Dolby's part - at a stroke they removed the major objection to Atmos in the home!



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Then again, whose room is? My side surrounds are way too high for proper Atmos placement and there's not much I can do about it. We all make compromises. Working around them is part of the hobby.


Absolutely. If you know anything about my room, you know I will not disagree with you on that!



Jeremy Anderson said:


> But especially with Atmos-enabled speakers, I think Dolby needs a publicly available disc with references so the end user can match on-screen placements of sound in a 3-D space to what they're hearing the room, for the purposes of tweaking to get the desired result.


Oh yes - you, me and everyone else wishes that too. FilmMixer is talking to Dolby to try to persuade them to release such a disc. Let's hope they listen to him.


----------



## dvdwilly3

virtualrain said:


> 9' wide seems reasonable if you are 10' or more away. I followed the Dolby Placement very carefully for my 5.2.4 setup. I think my mains are about 9-10' apart, my seating is 13' from the screen, and my overheads are 4' in front of MLP and 4' behind, aligned with the mains. Surrounds are just a tad bit further back than 4' and spread slightly wider than the main spread. Sound immersion and localization is excellent. But I don't have much to compare to.


My physical speaker layout is similar to yours and seems to be ideal for my room. How large is your space?
Mine is 14.5' wide by 19.5' with a ceiling height minimum of 8'. My layout is along the length of the room. The ceiling height is 8' high (a sofit) on the 1/3 right side (facing the screen) along the length of the room, and 9' high on the 2/3 left side, again facing the screen.

I am using fake Dolby speakers. For me, the odd angles of my layout have required considerable experimentation. If I had gone in-ceiling, I would not have much ceiling left...LOL. But, the experimentation has been worth it.

As with others, with the lights down and a movie running you cannot tell where the speakers are...all you hear are the sounds. Yes!! 

Try Mad Max Fury Road...OMG!!

I forgot to mention that I do have 2' x 4' bass traps mounted in the corners between the screen wall and the respective side walls. It tightens things up considerably.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yeah, you and I are pretty much in agreement. But please note that I'm not saying "what the mixer heard". I'm specifically saying "what the mixer INTENDED". I would argue that having an object you can see placed in a 3-D space on screen is a pretty good indication of where in space the mixer wanted that sound to image from, so we have an objective reference of where that sound was meant to be placed. That's what I mean when I'm talking about recreating that in the home space. If an object has a certain XYZ placement, I personally would like to have that sound reproduced roughly in that same XYZ placement in my home, whenever possible.
> 
> Again, maybe that particular ethos of mine is why I've found that some of the more subtle Atmos mixes (like The Age Of Adaline and The Gunman) have impressed me more than the ones that strive to constantly point out that there's overhead sound. And that's _my_ preference. I want to hear sounds placed in the room about where the mixer wanted them to be placed in the room. And my previous post about using the Leaf demo to tweak until you find that sweet spot of sound moving through the room rather than just overhead illustrates that. Atmos can be so much more than just "hey, there's an overhead channel!" But it's certainly okay if others prefer a more scorched earth approach... or just think I'm talking out of my ass!


I too enjoyed the mix of* The Gunman* (more than most did from comments on AVS) and probably for the same reason. Some of the use of the overheads in that movie were spectacularly good IMO.


----------



## desray2k

Actually I preferred a more enveloping and subtle use of atmos effects instead of the into your face type of mix...we are talking about an audio bubble that envelopes you wiylthout calling too much attention of which speakers are working. Sure some of the effects are cool especially planes or helicoptors flyby and hover...but we can't seriously be relying on those effects to call it great and what atmos is all about. When critics talked about the lack of overhead sound mix when transformers AOE first came out...I was also in the same camp as the critics...now when I playback every once in a while...I begin to discover that it really ain't that bad after all...If anything, I would say it is a very well authored atmos disc. Same goes for those critics that say about the Gunman and perhaps Age of Adaline...

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh yes - you, me and everyone else wishes that too. FilmMixer is talking to Dolby to try to persuade them to release such a disc. Let's hope they listen to him.


Well, everyone wants a different feel...
I would like to have a reference too, but then some might that their investment in the Atmos ceiling speakers was wasted because they didn't come into play all the time!

I must admit that the idea that I am swimming in the sound-pool is a nice enveloping ideal..


----------



## asere

With the Age of Adeline during the scene where it was raining I was immersed with the rain. In fact I thought the sound was coming from the top heights but instead the rain was coming from the mains. The heights where silent. Another example of immersion vs being able to pinpoint.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> Actually I preferred a more enveloping and subtle use of atmos effects instead of the into your face type of mix...we are talking about an audio bubble that envelopes you wiylthout calling too much attention of which speakers are working. Sure some of the effects are cool especially planes or helicoptors flyby and hover...but we can't seriously be relying on those effects to call it great and what atmos is all about. When critics talked about the lack of overhead sound mix when transformers AOE first came out...I was also in the same camp as the critics...now when I playback every once in a while...I begin to discover that it really ain't that bad after all...If anything, I would say it is a very well authored atmos disc. Same goes for those critics that say about the Gunman and perhaps Age of Adaline...
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


Good point about the system not drawing attention to the individual speakers. I too enjoy the immersive bubble you mention. It's the same with surround speakers of course - we don't ordinarily want to be reminded we have speakers at those locations. Occasionally there will be a highly directional sound which emanates from the same place that a speaker is located, but these are few and far between in most movie soundtracks. The real enjoyment, for me, of Atmos, isn’t the helicopter flyovers etc, it is the precision with which sounds are located throughout the entire 3D soundstage and the immersion and envelopment, where speakers disappear and are replaced with sounds. In fact, these days I rarely even think about the overhead speakers, just as I rarely think about surround speakers, and just enjoy the overall effect.


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> With the Age of Adeline during the scene where it was raining I was immersed with the rain. In fact I thought the sound was coming from the top heights but instead the rain was coming from the mains. The heights where silent. Another example of immersion vs being able to pinpoint.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I don't have that disc, but it is odd if a rain scene has silent overhead speakers. If you isolate those speakers, are they silent during this scene? Seems like it would be a wasted opportunity for the mixer to not put rain sounds into the overheads.

HST, of course, rain itself is silent. It only makes a noise when it makes contact with something. Often there is something 'up there' for the rain to hit - a roof, an umbrella etc. If in the scene you mention the rain is only hitting the ground, then the sound should come from the listener level speakers. But you say you thought the sound was coming from above, which implies that the rain is impacting something above 'ear level'. In which case, the first paragraph of my post stands. Can you isolate the overhead speakers to tell us what exactly is happening? Or maybe someone else with this disc can shed some light? Thanks.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't have that disc, but it is odd if a rain scene has silent overhead speakers. If you isolate those speakers, are they silent during this scene? Seems like it would be a wasted opportunity for the mixer to not put rain sounds into the overheads.
> 
> HST, of course, rain itself is silent. It only makes a noise when it makes contact with something. Often there is something 'up there' for the rain to hit - a roof, an umbrella etc. If in the scene you mention the rain is only hitting the ground, then the sound should come from the listener level speakers. But you say you thought the sound was coming from above, which implies that the rain is impacting something above 'ear level'. In which case, the first paragraph of my post stands. Can you isolate the overhead speakers to tell us what exactly is happening? Or maybe someone else with this disc can shed some light? Thanks.


This is exactly what WVB talked about when I met with him last year at CEDIA. He mentioned why he went with height channels vs actual overhead speakers like Atmos. He said the research shows that humans are not used to things sounding like they are coming from over them but are more keen on sounds coming from reflections from objects around them like buildings and such. The angles of the height speakers in relation to the listener made more sense for this than the overhead angles of ceiling speakers. So far I've been VERY impressed with TF speakers in my Atmos setup but I was still absolutely blown away by the full Auro setup at CEDIA last year. Only problem is it was a huge room so that alone makes it a completely different acoustic environment compared to a typical home theater room.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, it flies in the face of accepted wisdom, which is why they need to be heard. In the Dolby demo room designed to resemble a typical HT, they had a lot of acoustic treatments, including on the ceiling. They had removed some of the acoustic panels and replaced them with panels with a hard, reflective surface and aimed the upfirers at those. The result defies belief. Somewhere in this thread I posted pictures of the Dolby room's ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> It's ideal for those who want Atmos and who can't mount physical speakers on the ceiling!  I’d say it was a stroke of genius on Dolby's part - at a stroke they removed the major objection to Atmos in the home!


It flies in the face of their own specs, which is the part I don't get. On one hand they are telling us we need "full range" Atmos speakers and then on the other they promote low power reflecting speakers and tell you either sound great!

Looking at the drivers and specs of the typical up firing speakers, there is no way possible they're putting reference level at the seating positions. Sound bounces, but it loses energy in the process. This is physics. So the up firing speakers should be MORE capable than ceiling mounted speakers, not LESS? No? I have yet to see an up firing Atmos speaker that I thought is capable of reference level at the seating position.

How can the experience be the same if it's simply not possible for the up firing speakers to deliver the SPL necessary for reference level listening? What am I missing here?


----------



## Brian B

aaranddeeman said:


> Ah. Okay. For width there is always the confusion of aligning with your fronts or should that be inwards.
> I have found that, it sounds much better when it is inwards. My ceiling speakers are mounted at little less than 1/3 room width from each side. (After experimenting two positions they were closer to the wall)


1/3 of the way would be 61", so about 5' apart. This is obviously a big difference from 9'. However, the recessed lights are 40" in from the wall, so it looks like I could do something ~50" which would give me about 7' apart.

It sounds like there isn't anyone big reason _not_ to place them a little closer together, so I will probably just do that.

Thanks,
Brian


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would imagine that any calibration you did would account for that reflected sound as it reaches the listening position (with the Atmos notch filtering and tweaks meant to increase the illusion that it's "overhead"). But IMHO, the Atmos enabled speakers are like trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. They're a good half-measure if that's all you can do in your room, but won't quite have the precise placement that true overheads offer. I still don't know that you would go as extreme as +4dB as zebidou81 was stating though. You're still trying to get sounds to image between the bed channels and that point on the ceiling where the reflected sound is coming from.
> 
> I'll offer this for people feeling the need to tweak levels on the Atmos-enabled speakers. The LEAF demo clip from the Atmos demo disc (available for download if you poke around) is a great reference for when the balance between the beds and overheads is really spot-on. Your inclination will be to think the bed to overhead pans should be hard panning one way or the other. But if you have things right, many of those sounds move THROUGH the space in your room, not just hard overhead. Put that clip on a loop and tweak things in small increments. When you hear the precise placement of sounds moving around the room, overhead AND through the room between the beds and overheads, you'll know when you've got the Atmos sound the mixers are shooting for.
> 
> This is why Dolby really needs a publicly available disc with some kind of checks so the listener can compare where they're hearing the sound versus where it is meant to be placed in the room.


Yep! leaf is a fine example of moving an object around and through the room , I love when its all said and done it drops precisely from above just to the bottom left of the screen


----------



## audiofan1

Brian B said:


> 1/3 of the way would be 61", so about 5' apart. This is obviously a big difference from 9'. However, the recessed lights are 40" in from the wall, so it looks like I could do something ~50" which would give me about 7' apart.
> 
> It sounds like there isn't anyone big reason _not_ to place them a little closer together, so I will probably just do that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian


My overheads are just inside of my mains as far as width goes and 7.2 feet from the mlp, I may try try them at 8ft but if I remember , Thrang over in the 8802 thread did a little experimenting with a wider width but came back in to around 7ft or so.


----------



## NorthSky

Also, 1/5th your room's width from your side wall is 36.5 inches...if you can put them @ 36.5" from each of your side walls, they'll be separated by 110 inches...9 feet and 2 inches. ...In line with your two main front L & R fronts (floor)...Dolby Atmos white paper recommendation.

Or, @ 43.5 inches from your side walls...that would be 96 inches (8 feet) separation. 

* Your lights are @ the exact best spots for your Atmos overheads, wide wise. ...In acoustics parlance...40.66 inches (1/9th times two the width of your room).

Just free suggestions.

EDIT: Another option --> 52.22 inches from each of your side walls...then they'll be separated by 78.56 inches (6.55 feet).
52.22" is 1/7th times two the width of your room...acoustically sounds.

♦ Only you can experiment in your own room, and with Atmos overhead speakers...railings like they use in Atmos and dts:x experimental rooms are the ticket. Anyway, just few numbers worth exploring.


----------



## BakeApples

I`m currently trying to decide if i should go with ceiling speakers or Atmos enabled speakers. It`s an apartment living room and the height from ceiling to floor is 2,40m.
My current setup is 5.1 and looks like this:

Kef iQ90 fronts
Kef iQ60 center
Audio Pro Black Vector surr


Ideally, I'd prefer not to have ceiling speakers but if this option gives best Atmos experience with my room conditions, i`m open to it. Because i already have Kef fronts, i would be interested in Kef:s R50 speakers if i go the Atmos enabled route.
My goal is to have 5.1.4 and i will drive the speakers with the new Pioneer SC-LX59.

Any thoughts on how to choose?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> It's ideal for those who want Atmos and who can't mount physical speakers on the ceiling!  I’d say it was a stroke of genius on Dolby's part - at a stroke they removed the major objection to Atmos in the home!


A stroke of genius marketing wise? Absolutely. Can its sound - given the right set-up en demo material - impress the most critical listener? Obviously. Is it technically up to its task for discrete sounds? Doubtful at the least. Overheard a Dolby guy talking to a colleague over a glass of beer at IBC last year saying about the up-firing speakers: 'let's be honest, it is a crap solution'.


----------



## NorthSky

BakeApples said:


> I`m currently trying to decide if i should go with ceiling speakers or Atmos enabled speakers. It`s an apartment living room and the height from ceiling to floor is 2,40m.
> My current setup is 5.1 and looks like this:
> 
> Kef iQ90 fronts
> Kef iQ60 center
> Audio Pro Black Vector surr
> 
> 
> *Ideally, I'd prefer not to have ceiling speakers* but if this option gives best Atmos experience with my room conditions, i`m open to it. Because i already have Kef fronts, i would be interested in Kef:s R50 speakers if i go the Atmos enabled route.
> My goal is to have 5.1.4 and i will drive the speakers with the new Pioneer SC-LX59.
> 
> Any thoughts on how to choose?


You just said it yourself...plus it's an apartment...I would go with four Kef Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers. ...And height is perfect @ 2.40 meters.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> It flies in the face of their own specs, which is the part I don't get. On one hand they are telling us we need "full range" Atmos speakers and then on the other they promote low power reflecting speakers and tell you either sound great!
> 
> Looking at the drivers and specs of the typical up firing speakers, there is no way possible they're putting reference level at the seating positions. Sound bounces, but it loses energy in the process. This is physics. So the up firing speakers should be MORE capable than ceiling mounted speakers, not LESS? No? I have yet to see an up firing Atmos speaker that I thought is capable of reference level at the seating position.
> 
> How can the experience be the same if it's simply not possible for the up firing speakers to deliver the SPL necessary for reference level listening? What am I missing here?


I don't know. All I know about the upfirers is what I heard at Dolby. There, the upfirers and the ceiling speakers were on a par with each other sound-wise. The sole difference was a slight diffusion effect with the upfirers and a slightly more precise effect with the physical speakers. Most there preferred the upfirers.

The "full range" thing is, IMO, a red herring. In a bass-managed system, full range means 80Hz-20kHz (or whatever XO you set) and the upfirers should be more than capable of handling 80hz up.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> A stroke of genius marketing wise? Absolutely. Can its sound - given the right set-up en demo material - impress the most critical listener? Obviously. Is it technically up to its task for discrete sounds? Doubtful at the least. And Dolby knows it. Overheard a Dolby guy talking to a colleague over a glass of beer at IBC last year saying about the up-firing speakers: 'let's be honest, it is a crap solution'.


Lol  ...a lot of people loved it...and Dolby was wise to accommodate people scared of heights!


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> A stroke of genius marketing wise? Absolutely. Can its sound - given the right set-up en demo material - impress the most critical listener? Obviously. Is it technically up to its task for discrete sounds? Doubtful at the least. And Dolby knows it. Overheard a Dolby guy talking to a colleague over a glass of beer at IBC last year saying about the up-firing speakers: 'let's be honest, it is a crap solution'.


I can only tell you what I, and about 100 AV professionals heard. My experience was reflected at every Dolby demo other than the one in NYC. Obviously everyone has a right to voice their opinion, even a "Dolby guy". Doesn’t mean it's right of course.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I can only tell you what I, and about 100 AV professionals heard. My experience was reflected at every Dolby demo other than the one in NYC. Obviously everyone has a right to voice their opinion, even a "Dolby guy". Doesn’t mean it's right of course.


Agreed. Deleted the "And Dolby knows it" remark...


----------



## Brian B

audiofan1 said:


> My overheads are just inside of my mains as far as width goes and 7.2 feet from the mlp, I may try try them at 8ft but if I remember , Thrang over in the 8802 thread did a little experimenting with a wider width but came back in to around 7ft or so.


I'll probably split the difference. I'm worried that the 5' would be too close together for optimum, but not liking the idea of speakers spaced so far apart just firing down.

B.


----------



## BakeApples

NorthSky said:


> You just said it yourself...plus it's an apartment...I would go with four Kef Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers. ...And height is perfect @ 2.40 meters.


Yeah, you`re right. The only "problem" with the up-firing speakers is that my Kef fronts are not flat on top so i will have to find a way to place them there, they look like this now:









The pic is from this review of the R50 speakers http://hdgear.highdefdigest.com/23151/kefr50dolbyatmosspeakermodule.htmlwhere the reviewer solved the problem by placing foam pads on top of the iQ90s. Not the prettiest solution imo but i`m sure there is a way to fix this somehow.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't know. All I know about the upfirers is what I heard at Dolby. There, the upfirers and the ceiling speakers were on a par with each other sound-wise. The sole difference was a slight diffusion effect with the upfirers and a slightly more precise effect with the physical speakers. Most there preferred the upfirers.
> 
> The "full range" thing is, IMO, a red herring. In a bass-managed system, full range means 80Hz-20kHz (or whatever XO you set) and the upfirers should be more than capable of handling 80hz up.


The full range thing is a herring, I agree. But not the listening distance problem. I disagree that the up firing speakers can deliver reference level in a typical room at the listening position. At least any I've seen. It has to be down in level and if not it's going to have a lot of distortion from over driving the speakers. You're talking 15 ft. and greater from the speaker to the listening positions, and that's not even taking into account the SPL reduction as a result of the reflection. That's no joke to deliver 105 dB peaks at the listening position from 80 Hz and up at a 15-20 ft. listening distance. The overhead soundfield has to be reduced in SPL with any of the Atmos speakers I've seen on the market compared to a ceiling speaker that has at least half the direct distance to the listening position. I just don't understand how this cannot be the case. Maybe you didn't hear the problem in the demos, but I can't believe it doesn't exist.

It's called Atmos, not Magic .


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I can only tell you what I, and about 100 AV professionals heard.


Same thing several of us AVS members heard when we went to the Atmos presser last August, after which I stopped referring to upfiring speakers as a 2nd choice and simply thought of them as an alternate approach.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> The full range thing is a herring, I agree. But not the listening distance problem. I disagree that the up firing speakers can deliver reference level in a typical room at the listening position. At least any I've seen. It has to be down in level and if not it's going to have a lot of distortion from over driving the speakers. You're talking 15 ft. and greater from the speaker to the listening positions, and that's not even taking into account the SPL reduction as a result of the reflection. That's no joke to deliver 105 dB peaks at the listening position from 80 Hz and up at a 15-20 ft. listening distance. The overhead soundfield has to be reduced in SPL with any of the Atmos speakers I've seen on the market compared to a ceiling speaker that has at least half the direct distance to the listening position. I just don't understand how this cannot be the case. Maybe you didn't hear the problem in the demos, but I can't believe it doesn't exist.
> 
> It's called Atmos, not Magic .


Who says that overhead speakers will be required to hit 105dB peaks? Is that part of the Atmos spec for HT use? I definitely heard no problem in the demos, and nor did anyone else, but then I never assumed that the overheads would need to hit 105dB. In fact, on all my tests where I have isolated the overhead speakers, they seem to be murmuring gently rather than hitting anything like 105dB, and this is with my usual listening levels where I do peak at 105dB.

Most people using 'audiophile' speakers can't achieve reference at usual listening distances either - the speakers are too insensitive and have too little power handling capability to do so very often. Not that that has any bearing on the issue at hand, but it does add perspective. I doubt that very many people listen at anything like reference at home.


----------



## Gooddoc

sdurani said:


> Same thing several of us AVS members heard when we went to the Atmos presser last August, after which I stopped referring to upfiring speakers as a 2nd choice and simply thought of them as an alternate approach.


When someone tells me their bookshelf speaker crossed over at 80-100 Hz with a single 6" driver does a clean 105 dB at a 15' listening distance, I don't need to hear it to know it's not true.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Same thing several of us AVS members heard when we went to the Atmos presser last August, after which I stopped referring to upfiring speakers as a 2nd choice and simply thought of them as an alternate approach.


Yes - that is how I'd describe them too. If my room was suitable for upfirers I would have definitely considered them after my experience at the demos. (Using my M&K S150s beneath the screen means that I would be unable to mount the upfiring modules anywhere close to Dolby specs.)

I think a lot of the negativity surrounding the upfirers is because the concept does sound so unlikely to work. But those of us who have heard them, properly set up in an appropriate room) know otherwise.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian B said:


> I'll probably split the difference. I'm worried that the 5' would be too close together for optimum, but not liking the idea of speakers spaced so far apart just firing down.
> 
> B.


I think this really depends on the width of the screen and thus how widely spaced the L&R speakers are. If a wide screen is used, and the L&R speakers are widely spaced, it may be better to mount the overheads 'inboard' in the way they do in commercial Atmos theaters. That is how I would do it. It's a judgement call I think, but the commercial cinema experience shows that inboard mounting is acceptable.


----------



## kbarnes701

BakeApples said:


> Yeah, you`re right. The only "problem" with the up-firing speakers is that my Kef fronts are not flat on top so i will have to find a way to place them there, they look like this now:
> 
> View attachment 938890
> 
> 
> The pic is from this review of the R50 speakers http://hdgear.highdefdigest.com/23151/kefr50dolbyatmosspeakermodule.htmlwhere the reviewer solved the problem by placing foam pads on top of the iQ90s. Not the prettiest solution imo but i`m sure there is a way to fix this somehow.


Remember that the modules don't have to be on top of the main speakers. Specs permit them to be up to 3 feet away. Check the install guidelines for more info.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> When someone tells me their bookshelf speaker crossed over at 80-100 Hz with a single 6" driver does a clean 105 dB at a 15' listening distance, I don't need to hear it to know it's not true.


Again the assumption there is that it needs to do 105dB.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Who says that overhead speakers will be required to hit 105dB peaks? Is that part of the Atmos spec for HT use? I definitely heard no problem in the demos, and nor did anyone else, but then I never assumed that the overheads would need to hit 105dB. In fact, on all my tests where I have isolated the overhead speakers, they seem to be murmuring gently rather than hitting anything like 105dB, and this is with my usual listening levels where I do peak at 105dB.
> 
> Most people using 'audiophile' speakers can't achieve reference at usual listening distances either - the speakers are too insensitive and have too little power handling capability to do so very often. Not that that has any bearing on the issue at hand, but it does add perspective. I doubt that very many people listen at anything like reference at home.


Ok, if we are redefining reference level as something other than 105 dB at the listening position, then sure, all bets are off. I have read multiple times that every speaker position in Atmos can be tasked with a full reference level signal, but if I'm wrong about that, what do I need to plan for when buying Atmos speakers? Is it just the LCR's that can do reference?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think a lot of the negativity surrounding the upfirers is because the concept does sound so unlikely to work.


Yeah, I was very skeptical until I heard the comparison. Also helped me understand why some speaker manufacturers signed up to make these. Had this approach really been some half-baked gimmick, I doubt a speaker designer like Andrew Jones would have made Atmos-enabled speakers for his Pioneer lines (and soon for ELAC). Apparently, he heard what we heard.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> In fact, on all my tests where I have isolated the overhead speakers, they seem to be murmuring gently rather than hitting anything like 105dB, and this is with my usual listening levels where I do peak at 105dB.


Ah, there is the thing. So the early content that is coming out is being "gentle" with the height speakers. For those buying these small up firing speakers I suspect there is going to be a lot of "turning the volume down" during loud scenes when some mixer comes along and puts some real content into those height speakers. This was the situation early on with 5.1 when it came out. There was nothing more than environmental sounds that required no more than cube speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Ok, if we are redefining reference level as something other than 105 dB at the listening position, then sure, all bets are off. I have read multiple times that every speaker position in Atmos can be tasked with a full reference level signal, but if I'm wrong about that, what do I need to plan for when buying Atmos speakers? Is it just the LCR's that can do reference?


I'm not saying you are wrong, or redefining reference level. Just saying that if you isolate the overhead speakers and set your MV to reference, the overhead speakers are still making very little noise by comparison. Whether that will change IDK. I did make sure that my own overhead speakers were capable of playing at 105dB all day long, just to be sure, but they certainly hardly ever get their legs stretched.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Ah, there is the thing. So the early content that is coming out is being "gentle" with the height speakers. For those buying these small up firing speakers I suspect there is going to be a lot of "turning the volume down" during loud scenes when some mixer comes along and puts some real content into those height speakers. This was the situation early on with 5.1 when it came out. There was nothing more than environmental sounds that required no more than cube speakers.


Could be. I am certainly looking forward to that day here.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I was very skeptical until I heard the comparison. Also helped me understand why some speaker manufacturers signed up to make these. Had this approach really been some half-baked gimmick, I doubt a speaker designer like Andrew Jones would have made Atmos-enabled speakers for his Pioneer lines (and soon for ELAC). Apparently, he heard what we heard.


Agreed. There are some very highly respected speaker manufacturers making Atmos upfirers or modules, and I am sure they understand what reference level is and what the demands placed on upfirers is.


----------



## Gooddoc

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I was very skeptical until I heard the comparison. Also helped me understand why some speaker manufacturers signed up to make these. Had this approach really been some half-baked gimmick, I doubt a speaker designer like Andrew Jones would have made Atmos-enabled speakers for his Pioneer lines (and soon for ELAC). Apparently, he heard what we heard.


I don't have any doubt it can sound good, but it's a compromise from a perspective of clean reference level playback, at least with the modules I've seen that are on the market currently. I would go that route if I could find something that I felt could actually reproduce the height channels at reference volume, although it seems from Keith's comments that the heights might be speced lower than 105 dB, and if that's the case then I can actually look at an up firing solution myself.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not saying you are wrong, or redefining reference level. Just saying that if you isolate the overhead speakers and set your MV to reference, the overhead speakers are still making very little noise by comparison. Whether that will change IDK. I did make sure that my own overhead speakers were capable of playing at 105dB all day long, just to be sure, but they certainly hardly ever get their legs stretched.


Well that certainly explains why the demos and content sounds ok. I need to find out if the all the Atmos channels have 105 dB potential or not. I haven't read the standard myself, I just read on these forums that they were all capable of full reference.

I'm working on setting up Atmos, so this is all of keen interest to me currently.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I think a lot of the negativity surrounding the upfirers is because the concept does sound so unlikely to work. But those of us who have heard them, properly set up in an appropriate room) know otherwise.


Always better to just experience it in live, than keep dwelling on discussing its concept. This discussion sounds so familiar to me.... Auro-something...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> Always better to just experience it in live, than keep dwelling on discussing its concept. This discussion sounds so familiar to me.... Auro-something...


Not everyone agrees with Keith & Co. about the upfiring modules. From my own listening experiences at both CEDIA and elsewhere, I would choose real overheads to "enabled" 9 times out of 10. The sound field is so much more cohesive and precise with real speakers compared to the pseudo height effect.


----------



## Kris Deering

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I was very skeptical until I heard the comparison. Also helped me understand why some speaker manufacturers signed up to make these. Had this approach really been some half-baked gimmick, I doubt a speaker designer like Andrew Jones would have made Atmos-enabled speakers for his Pioneer lines (and soon for ELAC). Apparently, he heard what we heard.


I don't know if I agree with this statement. Nothing against AJ but Pioneer wanted to get in on the Atmos speaker thing as much as any speaker manufacturer would (why wouldn't they??). It makes A LOT more sense given their market to do a AE speaker rather than a direct in-wall. And given the actual components involved, it was probably cheaper too. And to be honest, I wouldn't expect any manufacturer to make a speaker and then talk bad about it afterwards, kind of defeats the purpose. 

It also made sense for ELAC given the popularity of the AJ line for Pioneer and trying to gain a nice footing in the new company with a sensible low cost product that performs well.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not everyone agrees with Keith & Co. about the upfiring modules. From my own listening experiences at both CEDIA and elsewhere, I would choose real overheads to "enabled" 9 times out of 10. The sound field is so much more cohesive and precise with real speakers compared to the pseudo height effect.


I'm in this camp. I've been to quite a few demos with the up firing speakers and I left all of them scratching my head as to why I should be that impressed (including Pioneer's). But I also felt the same about Dolby's demo using actual in-ceiling speakers (Triad) during CEDIA last year.


----------



## tjenkins95

Gooddoc said:


> It flies in the face of their own specs, which is the part I don't get. On one hand they are telling us we need "full range" Atmos speakers and then on the other they promote low power reflecting speakers and tell you either sound great!
> 
> Looking at the drivers and specs of the typical up firing speakers, there is no way possible they're putting reference level at the seating positions. Sound bounces, but it loses energy in the process. This is physics. So the up firing speakers should be MORE capable than ceiling mounted speakers, not LESS? No? I have yet to see an up firing Atmos speaker that I thought is capable of reference level at the seating position.
> 
> How can the experience be the same if it's simply not possible for the up firing speakers to deliver the SPL necessary for reference level listening? What am I missing here?


 
I totally disagree. I have used both the Pioneer Atmos upfiring speakers and Klipsch ceiling speakers. They both do a great job.
Using the up-firing speakers, the sound is more dispersed and using overhead speakers the sound is more precise. In either situation, you can still hear the intended purpose of the mix. Also, many of the attendees at last year's CEDIA have said the same. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> 1/3 of the way would be 61", so about 5' apart. This is obviously a big difference from 9'. However, the recessed lights are 40" in from the wall, so it looks like I could do something ~50" which would give me about 7' apart.
> 
> It sounds like there isn't anyone big reason _not_ to place them a little closer together, so I will probably just do that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian


My room width is 140" wide and (currently) the separation between heights is around 60". (Not sure if this is bit too close or perfect)
My mains are around 100-110" apart.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. There are some very highly respected speaker manufacturers making Atmos upfirers or modules, and I am sure they understand what reference level is and what the demands placed on upfirers is.


 
I'm going to CEDIA - I'll be curious to see if there are more manufacturers joining this club. As you know, I've got four of the Atlantic Technology 44-DAs, and may well move to ceiling speakers next year once I get my room finalized, but I'm not 100% on that yet. Paging Paul Barton and PSB....

To Dan's point, I heard the Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers from Andrew Jones at CEDIA last year too, and was favorably impressed by them. More of an alternate mix than an "inferior" one to what I heard in the Sound Developments/Procella/Trinnov room, which was my first preference, or the Denon (where the overhead effects of Triad didn't do a lot for me). Likewise, at AXPONA I heard the Triad Bronze LR-H in action as Dolby speakers, and both the native Atmos and DSU content wasn't objectionable. As long as the overhead effects were realistically panning in the room as ambience, they didn't need to be perfectly precise, as I'd always be using the speakers with other speakers, not listening in isolation to the heights. 

Having said that, I could rationalize that when I heard the 44-DA demoed at Aras' house a few months ago, the effect could be improved by placement in a larger, wider room than he had, with taller ceilings like the 8'+ in our condo. To tell you the truth, if it wasn't for the bad press that Dolby speakers have gotten here on AVS as a "better than nothing" solution, I would be perfectly happy with Dolby speakers for my .4 or .6 effects with Trinnov - although to be fair, Curt Hoyt told me that ceilings were a best practice as well. It's only the doubt factor and the sense that the "gold standard" is ceiling speakers that makes me see the ATs as a temporary placeholder until my dedicated room is more permanent. That, and now knowing how effective they'll be with DTS:X or Neural:X (TBD). OTOH, having a pair of wides and six rather than four Dolby speakers may well make up the difference for all I know. Not that this is a solution for the mainstream, but out of curiosity I wonder if anyone's tried doing a .6 approach in some fashion with Scott's version of Atmos....using matrixing on one of the height pairs in combination with the front or rear Dolby heights...


----------



## batpig

To those concerned with reference level output from Atmos enabled speakers... I would politely suggest that you are not the target market for Atmos enabled speakers. 

Everyone needs to understand their own system goals. If you're a living room HT guy who thinks cranking it up to -15db is loud movie night action, then it's a non issue. Even if a full scale effect ever happens to get sent overhead, 70db average levels with 90db peaks is piddly stuff. Any decent speaker can do that. That's who up-firing speakers are aimed at. 

That's the thing with exponential power demands. You don't need a lot of capability until suddenly you do, it's those last 10db leading up to reference that's the hard part. If you're that guy, who demands clean reference performance from all channels and scoffs at people with puny 6.5" woofers for mains... well again I offer that you aren't the person buying Atmos enabled speakers. If for some reason you demand this performance level but don't want to mount ceiling speakers, then break out your wallet and get the high end KEF modules or one of the Triad LR-H offerings which are designed for that type of capability. 

In short I think it's a non issue. Dude who wants clean reference output with headroom to spare wouldn't want, and shouldn't want, virtual reflecting ceiling speakers. So who cares if a $500/pair of Def Tech or AT modules can't do 105db at the LP?


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Always better to just experience it in live, than keep dwelling on discussing its concept. This discussion sounds so familiar to me.... Auro-something...


Not me. I never discuss how Auro _sounds_ because I have never heard it. There is, obviously, no need to hear Auro/Auromatic to discuss how it _works_. But for some strange reason, whenever one discusses how Auromatic _works_, people immediately change the subject to how it _sounds_. I wonder why.

Of course I have heard upfiring speakers, so I feel able to discuss how those sound as well as how they work.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not everyone agrees with Keith & Co. about the upfiring modules. From my own listening experiences at both CEDIA and elsewhere, I would choose real overheads to "enabled" 9 times out of 10. The sound field is so much more cohesive and precise with real speakers compared to the pseudo height effect.


I too prefer the precision of the physical speakers. But I can also understand why many prefer the diffuseness of the upfirers. I wouldn't say "so much more cohesive". I'd say somewhat more cohesive - if by cohesive one means 'more precise'.

I suspect a lot of it is how the upfirers are set up and the ceiling construction and height etc. I have only heard upfirers at Dolby HQ, where I expect the setup to be 100% spot on, so maybe that is why the upfirers impress me so much. If people are basing their experience of them on imperfect setups, then their view will necessarily be different to mine. 

Also, I think batpig makes some exceptionally pertinent comments above.


----------



## Gooddoc

tjenkins95 said:


> I totally disagree. I have used both the Pioneer Atmos upfiring speakers and Klipsch ceiling speakers. They both do a great job.
> Using the up-firing speakers, the sound is more dispersed and using overhead speakers the sound is more precise. In either situation, you can still hear the intended purpose of the mix. Also, many of the attendees at last year's CEDIA have said the same. Your mileage may vary.


You disagree, but your answer doesn't address what my post was about. I could pick 10-15 movies easily that would "prove" that Bose 1.5" cubes are all that's necessary for surround speakers. That doesn't mean they will meet the codec standard required of surround speakers. My concern was not regarding SQ of any specific soundtrack, but one of designing a system to meet Atmos specifications, and in that case it's disingenuous to potential buyers to promote the current up firing modules as more than a compromised alternative. I have confirmed that Atmos surround standards call for calibration at 85 dB, same as all other speakers.

I'm getting the feeling that Dolby is desperate to make sure that up firing speakers are accepted, because without their acceptance Atmos survival would be difficult. And I understand that from a marketing perspective. I do agree that the up firing modules will have the output necessary for the applications others have described, which are folks that never listen at reference anyway, and also work for the current crop of Atmos mixes that could be purposefully without significant SPL in the height channels. But they're not adequate to ensure quality playback of potential future releases at anything but less than reference volumes.


----------



## NorthSky

BakeApples said:


> Yeah, you`re right. The only "problem" with the up-firing speakers is that my Kef fronts are not flat on top so i will have to find a way to place them there, they look like this now:
> 
> View attachment 938890
> 
> 
> The pic is from this review of the R50 speakers http://hdgear.highdefdigest.com/23151/kefr50dolbyatmosspeakermodule.htmlwhere the reviewer solved the problem by placing foam pads on top of the iQ90s. Not the prettiest solution imo but i`m sure there is a way to fix this somehow.


That reviewer did exactly what was required...very simple and effective. ...I suggested very similar to other folks with speakers not flat on top, in the past.
...By using some rubber wedges.


----------



## dkwong

Gooddoc said:


> But they're not adequate to ensure quality playback of potential future releases at anything but less than reference volumes.


Then don't buy them. I don't see where the problem is.


----------



## NorthSky

Gooddoc said:


> When someone tells me their bookshelf speaker crossed over at 80-100 Hz with a single 6" driver does a clean 105 dB at a 15' listening distance, I don't need to hear it to know it's not true.


Lol, ...some folks use two subs and they can hardly hit 105 decibels without some agony. :grin: ...Not the best subs around.


----------



## Gooddoc

batpig said:


> To those concerned with reference level output from Atmos enabled speakers... I would politely suggest that you are not the target market for Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> Everyone needs to understand their own system goals. If you're a living room HT guy who thinks cranking it up to -15db is loud movie night action, then it's a non issue. Even if a full scale effect ever happens to get sent overhead, 70db average levels with 90db peaks is piddly stuff. Any decent speaker can do that. That's who up-firing speakers are aimed at.
> 
> That's the thing with exponential power demands. You don't need a lot of capability until suddenly you do, it's those last 10db leading up to reference that's the hard part. If you're that guy, who demands clean reference performance from all channels and scoffs at people with puny 6.5" woofers for mains... well again I offer that you aren't the person buying Atmos enabled speakers. If for some reason you demand this performance level but don't want to mount ceiling speakers, then break out your wallet and get the high end KEF modules or one of the Triad LR-H offerings which are designed for that type of capability.
> 
> In short I think it's a non issue. Dude who wants clean reference output with headroom to spare wouldn't want, and shouldn't want, virtual reflecting ceiling speakers. So who cares if a $500/pair of Def Tech or AT modules can't do 105db at the LP?


Well said, and I agree, accept for the the fact that the Kef modules or the Triad Atmos solutions are adequate alternatives. Their specs simply don't support it. I don't believe there is an Atmos module on the market that does.

I'm only pointing this out since I read much in Dolby's literature about how the upfiring modules are the same experience as dedicated speakers and equal alternatives - without any asterick following the recommendations. After going down the road of looking into them I discovered it just doesn't add up.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> To those concerned with reference level output from Atmos enabled speakers... I would politely suggest that you are not the target market for Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> Everyone needs to understand their own system goals. If you're a living room HT guy who thinks cranking it up to -15db is loud movie night action, then it's a non issue. Even if a full scale effect ever happens to get sent overhead, 70db average levels with 90db peaks is piddly stuff. Any decent speaker can do that. That's who up-firing speakers are aimed at.
> 
> That's the thing with exponential power demands. You don't need a lot of capability until suddenly you do, it's those last 10db leading up to reference that's the hard part. If you're that guy, who demands clean reference performance from all channels and scoffs at people with puny 6.5" woofers for mains... well again I offer that you aren't the person buying Atmos enabled speakers. If for some reason you demand this performance level but don't want to mount ceiling speakers, then break out your wallet and get the high end KEF modules or one of the Triad LR-H offerings which are designed for that type of capability.
> 
> In short I think it's a non issue. Dude who wants clean reference output with headroom to spare wouldn't want, and shouldn't want, virtual reflecting ceiling speakers. So who cares if a $500/pair of Def Tech or AT modules can't do 105db at the LP?


 
Exactly - what I care about is the level of immersion at the db levels that I DO listen at with realistic volumes in my room. I'm more concerned about having speakers in the listeners' plane that widens the soundstage, or better pull out objects around the listener more than hearing rain overhead at reference LOL. If having 9.1.4 or 11.1.6 gets me there at 70-75 db, with peaks of maybe 95 db at a very rare extreme, well, I've got two or possibly four subwoofers that can handle the lower bass output anyway, and while I like a good action or sci-fi flick with buzzing lasers, that's not what I watch every night. And how often am I going to be driving these guys at 100W? 

For listening in a condo, even one with a dedicated HT room, I don't need to crank things up to reference plus and 105 to 110 db peaks. I'll leave that to Keith . Although NOT for Age of Adeline...


----------



## NorthSky

The day that Dolby Atmos is going to make a great Dolby Atmos Blu-ray test disc accessible to all, for people to set up perfectly their Dolby Atmos system setup configuration, is the day I might jump in in this new 3D surround sound immersion. It would help a lot...no doubt. ...And same with DTS:X. ...And Auro-3D. 

And a good balance, perfect level, between floor and height speakers is good philosophy for the very best imaging, from the sound mixers first, and then to our living rooms and home theater rooms. ...A solid standard to abide by in this new 3D sound generation. [email protected] least a good base to start from...and then we can go as wild as we want...low, high, or both.
In theaters it is never as good as it is @ home; first we are not always lucky to sit in the sweet spot, two the sound calibration of a public theater to the next can vary as much as when flying between first class with a bottle of champagne and the plane's cargo with the caged animals and a bowl of water.
@ home we have control, with the remote control.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't have that disc, but it is odd if a rain scene has silent overhead speakers. If you isolate those speakers, are they silent during this scene? Seems like it would be a wasted opportunity for the mixer to not put rain sounds into the overheads.
> 
> HST, of course, rain itself is silent. It only makes a noise when it makes contact with something. Often there is something 'up there' for the rain to hit - a roof, an umbrella etc. If in the scene you mention the rain is only hitting the ground, then the sound should come from the listener level speakers. But you say you thought the sound was coming from above, which implies that the rain is impacting something above 'ear level'. In which case, the first paragraph of my post stands. Can you isolate the overhead speakers to tell us what exactly is happening? Or maybe someone else with this disc can shed some light? Thanks.


I saw the rain scene again. The rain is coming only from the mains and my in ceiling surround but not front heights. I guess because my surrounds are in ceiling I hear it from there plus the mains and the combination feels like immersion. Now I don't see why the heights don't do nothing and the surrounds do. Had I had the surrounds at ear level it would come from the sides vs top. Would make more sense to get the heights involved vs surrounds.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

asere said:


> I saw the rain scene again. The rain is coming only from the mains and my in ceiling surround but not front heights. I guess because my surrounds are in ceiling I hear it from there plus the mains and the combination feels like immersion. Now I don't see why the heights don't do nothing and the surrounds do. Had I had the surrounds at ear level it would come from the sides vs top. Would make more sense to get the heights involved vs surrounds.


As I think someone said, the sound of rain comes from it hitting the ground and objects around you. The only case where you'd hear sounds above the bed channels for rain would be the same as in real life - wind, thunder, or something being over the person's head that the rain is hitting. Realistically, the sound of falling rain would have a fairly subtle presence in the overhead speakers.

Also, there are several rainy scenes in this movie. Which one in particular are we talking about?


----------



## asere

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As I think someone said, the sound of rain comes from it hitting the ground and objects around you. The only case where you'd hear sounds above the bed channels for rain would be the same as in real life - wind, thunder, or something being over the person's head that the rain is hitting. Realistically, the sound of falling rain would have a fairly subtle presence in the overhead speakers.
> 
> Also, there are several rainy scenes in this movie. Which one in particular are we talking about?


The scene were the FBI comes for her when she walks with an umbrella.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## David Susilo

Gooddoc said:


> When someone tells me their bookshelf speaker crossed over at 80-100 Hz with a single 6" driver does a clean 105 dB at a 15' listening distance, I don't need to hear it to know it's not true.


But all the upfiring Atmos have been 2-way systems (DefTech, Pioneer, KEF)


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As I think someone said, the sound of rain comes from it hitting the ground and objects around you. The only case where you'd hear sounds above the bed channels for rain would be the same as in real life - wind, thunder, or something being over the person's head that the rain is hitting. Realistically, the sound of falling rain would have a fairly subtle presence in the overhead speakers.
> 
> Also, there are several rainy scenes in this movie. Which one in particular are we talking about?


And unless you are inside a home and you can hear it hitting the roof. ...Or outside under any type of above surface...including an umbrella...and near tall buildings. 

Or the rain can hit so hard the street pavement that you can hear it resonating all around...reflecting on nearby surfaces...even from your above surroundings. ...It is all around enveloping/immersing you. 

The location, the intensity, ...have an immediate influence on sound provenance, including the rain; in the forest, on the street, in an open cornfield, @ a cemetery, outside of a church, inside, @ the racetrack, while driving, sitting on the grand stand, sailing on the ocean, with sails deployed, ...


----------



## blastermaster

tjenkins95 said:


> I totally disagree. I have used both the Pioneer Atmos upfiring speakers and Klipsch ceiling speakers. They both do a great job.
> Using the up-firing speakers, the sound is more dispersed and using overhead speakers the sound is more precise. In either situation, you can still hear the intended purpose of the mix. Also, many of the attendees at last year's CEDIA have said the same. Your mileage may vary.


I'll take precision over dispersion every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Isn't that the whole point of Atmos - precisely located audio "objects" in a 3D space? Because of this, I'd say absolutely go with full range in-ceiling speakers if at all possible. If it's not possible, I'd go with the modules, obviously, but I'd get the best damned ones I could afford. 

I'd really like to see (hear) a comparison of the two (in-ceiling vs upfiring) in the same room, same acoustical treatments, etc, leaving only the speakers themselves as the variable (equivalent price range or even allow more $$ for the upfiring since it's a new thing). This, to me, would help sway (or not) those who can install in-ceilings but maybe question whether it's worth it to do so or just save the effort and get up-firing. I'd imagine some wouldn't find it worth it, others would.


----------



## dvdwilly3

blastermaster said:


> I'll take precision over dispersion every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Isn't that the whole point of Atmos - precisely located audio "objects" in a 3D space? Because of this, I'd say absolutely go with full range in-ceiling speakers if at all possible. If it's not possible, I'd go with the modules, obviously, but I'd get the best damned ones I could afford.
> 
> I'd really like to see (hear) a comparison of the two (in-ceiling vs upfiring) in the same room, same acoustical treatments, etc, leaving only the speakers themselves as the variable (equivalent price range or even allow more $$ for the upfiring since it's a new thing). This, to me, would help sway (or not) those who can install in-ceilings but maybe question whether it's worth it to do so or just save the effort and get up-firing. I'd imagine some wouldn't find it worth it, others would.


Go here...

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dolby-atmos-vs-dolby-atmos#U17rk0uOfKiqHRVl.97

Probably as direct a comparison as you are likely to find...


----------



## blastermaster

A very good read. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Brian B

kbarnes701 said:


> I think this really depends on the width of the screen and thus how widely spaced the L&R speakers are. If a wide screen is used, and the L&R speakers are widely spaced, it may be better to mount the overheads 'inboard' in the way they do in commercial Atmos theaters. That is how I would do it. It's a judgement call I think, but the commercial cinema experience shows that inboard mounting is acceptable.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by "inboard?"

B.


----------



## Brian B

aaranddeeman said:


> My room width is 140" wide and (currently) the separation between heights is around 60". (Not sure if this is bit too close or perfect)
> My mains are around 100-110" apart.


And how did you decide on this distance?

B.


----------



## helvetica bold

New DSP. I wonder how long we have to wait to see this show up in products.
https://www.cirrus.com/en/applications/app/detail/APP2.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Brian B said:


> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "inboard?"
> 
> B.


He meant "inward" ... inside your two front screen's flankers (113 inches, or 9.4 feet). Roughly between six and nine feet, 7.5 feet being a good estimate.
Your room is 183 inches wide (15.25 feet). 

Try 7.625 feet (91.5 inches) separation between the left and right overheads. ...45.75 inches from each side wall.
♦ Or *7.0 feet* (84 inches) separation. ...49.5 inches from each side wall. 

And eight feet between the TF and TR pairs sounds pretty good. 

* No experience; just a simple calculation based on your room's width, front main speaker's distance, room's acoustics. 
...In particular the one with a ♦ (7 feet).


----------



## jpco

I want Atmos to succeed. I do not believe Atmos speakers give the precision intended with immersive object-based audio. I won't buy them, but I think it's fine that there's an option. Why not? It doesn't hurt anyone to have the option.

With my surrounds mounted about 2 feet above the listening position, rain always sounds like it's coming from above, rain and sporting event crowds. No height speakers required.


----------



## Gooddoc

David Susilo said:


> But all the upfiring Atmos have been 2-way systems (DefTech, Pioneer, KEF)




The Kef R50 is a single 5.25" driver @ 85 dB sensitive with a maximum power handling of 100W
The Pioneer is a single 4" woofer and a 1' tweeter without any specs, but doesn't matter
The DefTech is a single 3" driver with 100 watt power handling
The Triad has 4 - 2" drivers and is "Certified by Dolby Labs to meet all performance criteria for Atmos Enhanced Height speakers"

I know I'll catch flak on this thread , but that's pretty pitiful.


----------



## blastermaster

jpco said:


> I want Atmos to succeed. I do not believe Atmos speakers give the precision intended with immersive object-based audio. I won't buy them, but I think it's fine that there's an option. Why not? It doesn't hurt anyone to have the option.
> 
> With my surrounds mounted about 2 feet above the listening position, rain always sounds like it's coming from above, rain and sporting event crowds. No height speakers required.


I hate to call you out on it, but what do you base your judgement on? I haven't tried it yet, either. I may find Atmos lackluster once I get it set up in my theater, but I seriously doubt it based on the overwhelming enthusiasm on this forum for those who have taken the time and money to set their systems up just right. I'm stoked. I'll end with the obligatory "don't knock it 'til you try it" comment.


----------



## Markitron

Does anybody know of any speaker+receiver combo sets that do Atmos and DTS-X? I wanna get a new sound system but there doesn't seem to be a lot of options, I have only just start looking into it so I may have missed something. My budget is about 2000.


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> I saw the rain scene again. The rain is coming only from the mains and my in ceiling surround but not front heights. I guess because my surrounds are in ceiling I hear it from there plus the mains and the combination feels like immersion. Now I don't see why the heights don't do nothing and the surrounds do. Had I had the surrounds at ear level it would come from the sides vs top. Would make more sense to get the heights involved vs surrounds.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Last night, I set the Blu-ray player to output PCM and put in my Atmos demo disc. The PCM setting caused Atmos itself to do nothing and so I was getting a 7.1 mix. I ensured that this was being upmixed with DSU. I then isolated the overhead speakers and played the Amaze track. *I can confirm that the sound of the rain comes from the overhead speakers via DSU* It is much less 'precise' than the true Atmos mix, lower in level and the rain sound is a sort of 'mush' whereas I can hear every raindrop (it seems that way, not literally) with Atmos. With the thunder it is a similar experience although the actual thunder content in the overheads is quite low - this will be because most of the deep rumbling would come from the subwoofers normally, with only some overtones from the other speakers.

This seems to at odds with how you describe what you are hearing. Are you 100% sure you are wired correctly?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Exactly - what I care about is the level of immersion at the db levels that I DO listen at with realistic volumes in my room. I'm more concerned about having speakers in the listeners' plane that widens the soundstage, or better pull out objects around the listener more than hearing rain overhead at reference LOL. If having 9.1.4 or 11.1.6 gets me there at 70-75 db, with peaks of maybe 95 db at a very rare extreme, well, I've got two or possibly four subwoofers that can handle the lower bass output anyway, and while I like a good action or sci-fi flick with buzzing lasers, that's not what I watch every night. And how often am I going to be driving these guys at 100W?
> 
> For listening in a condo, even one with a dedicated HT room, I don't need to crank things up to reference plus and 105 to 110 db peaks. I'll leave that to Keith . Although NOT for Age of Adeline...


Yep - agreed. I can see Gooddoc's point (not sure if it is right or not since I haven't thoroughly checked the specs of any AE speakers - but I can definitely see where he is coming from). But HST, almost nobody listens at reference at home (even me unless I am doing it for a specific reason - my usual listening level is -5dB or so, depending on how loud the movie was mixed to begin with). Because I know that I want reference or close to reference, I chose on-ceiling speakers which had a specification which showed they can hit 105dB +, sustain it, and handle the power required to achieve it, without undue distortion. (Tannoy Di5DC). If I was in a condo, or required lower listening SPLs, I would have no hesitation in choosing good upfirers. None at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian B said:


> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "inboard?"
> 
> B.


Sorry - I meant inside the line of the front right and left speakers. Usual advice is to mount the overheads above the L&R speakers, on the ceiling. I am suggesting that in some circumstances it may be OK to mount them 'inboard' of those speakers. 

For the avoidance of doubt, if the L&R speakers were both 3 feet from the left and right walls, the usual advice would be to mount the overheads 3 feet from the left and right walls too, on the ceiling. I am saying that if the room is very wide (huge screen) in the above example it may be OK to mount the ceiling speakers 4 feet or 5 feet from the left and right walls, on the ceiling. Makes sense?


----------



## pasender91

Markitron said:


> Does anybody know of any speaker+receiver combo sets that do Atmos and DTS-X? I wanna get a new sound system but there doesn't seem to be a lot of options, I have only just start looking into it so I may have missed something. My budget is about 2000.


With a total of 2000, you should spend about 1/3 in the AVR, to keep enough $$ aside for the many speakers 
With such a budget and the DTS:X constraint (2015 model) you can look after:
- Onkyo 646
- Denon X1200
- Denon X2200 (a bit over budget)
- Marantz NR 1606 (a bit over budget)
As those are all entry-level AVRs, you will only be able to do 5.1.2 with them.

If it was me, i would go for one of the Denons 

For the speakers to match, there are so many options on the market that a simple suggestion is impossible ....


----------



## Markitron

pasender91 said:


> With a total of 2000, you should spend about 1/3 in the AVR, to keep enough $$ aside for the many speakers
> With such a budget and the DTS:X constraint (2015 model) you can look after:
> - Onkyo 646
> - Denon X1200
> - Denon X2200 (a bit over budget)
> - Marantz NR 1606 (a bit over budget)
> As those are all entry-level AVRs, you will only be able to do 5.1.2 with them.
> 
> If it was me, i would go for one of the Denons
> 
> For the speakers to match, there are so many options on the market that a simple suggestion is impossible ....


Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a look into these. Do you know if any of these are upgradable to a 5.1.4 setup with an external add on?

I'm not really sure how to approach the speakers, should I be looking at getting a set altogether or buying them separately? I'd like the front left and right to be floor speakers with up-firing Atmos speakers but I assume these wouldn't be part of any 5.1.2 sets.


Edit: It seems the Denon X2200 is the one for me. Now I just have to find a 5.1.2 set of speakers with 2x floor standing speakers. Hopefully I can get this for around 1200.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> And how did you decide on this distance?
> 
> B.


This is the fourth position I am at. All experimentation.


----------



## jpco

blastermaster said:


> I hate to call you out on it, but what do you base your judgement on? I haven't tried it yet, either. I may find Atmos lackluster once I get it set up in my theater, but I seriously doubt it based on the overwhelming enthusiasm on this forum for those who have taken the time and money to set their systems up just right. I'm stoked. I'll end with the obligatory "don't knock it 'til you try it" comment.






blastermaster said:


> I hate to call you out on it, but what do you base your judgement on? I haven't tried it yet, either. I may find Atmos lackluster once I get it set up in my theater, but I seriously doubt it based on the overwhelming enthusiasm on this forum for those who have taken the time and money to set their systems up just right. I'm stoked. I'll end with the obligatory "don't knock it 'til you try it" comment.



It's fine to call me on it. Immersive object-based audio has objects placed in space using imaging of base level and height level speakers. The Atmos speakers will not be as precise as ceiling speakers, and the sound will be more diffuse and objects less precisely placed. They are not bouncing sounds off the ceiling in a movie theater, and I doubt they would be even if the room setup was conducive to it. 

Everything being discussed here is subjective, and an opinion that Atmos speakers are better goes against my bias. They may be acceptable and preferable to having nothing, but the format was not designed for bouncing sounds off the ceiling. I prefer straight sound with no DSP and no upmixing, and believe that will be my immersive audio preference as well (although I will give DSU a solid chance).

Again, I have zero problem (not that it matters) with Dolby offering Atmos speakers. They're just not for me considering I can mount speakers on the ceiling.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Last night, I set the Blu-ray player to output PCM and put in my Atmos demo disc. The PCM setting caused Atmos itself to do nothing and so I was getting a 7.1 mix. I ensured that this was being upmixed with DSU. I then isolated the overhead speakers and played the Amaze track. *I can confirm that the sound of the rain comes from the overhead speakers via DSU* It is much less 'precise' than the true Atmos mix, lower in level and the rain sound is a sort of 'mush' whereas I can hear every raindrop (it seems that way, not literally) with Atmos. With the thunder it is a similar experience although the actual thunder content in the overheads is quite low - this will be because most of the deep rumbling would come from the subwoofers normally, with only some overtones from the other speakers.
> 
> This seems to at odds with how you describe what you are hearing. Are you 100% sure you are wired correctly?


It could just be a mixing choice in that particular movie. I'll pop in The Age Of Adaline tonight and give it a listen. I know what scene he's talking about. My other thought is that it's because he's listening to front heights. I'm running front heights and top mids, so I'll check that scene and see if I can tell what's going on. In my experience, the front heights seem to mostly give you the wall of sound feel in the front soundstage like DPL-IIz did, whereas the top mids seem to get more object content as far as placement in the 3-D space goes. He's also running in-ceiling surrounds if I recall correctly, which means the Atmos waters are already muddied.

I recall that scene sounding incredibly immersive though, but it would be interesting to see if it was all in the bed channels. I'm betting it's a mix of all speakers to some extent, with some fill in the overheads and create that bubble of sound. Will play it tonight and see.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Markitron said:


> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a look into these. Do you know if any of these are upgradable to a 5.1.4 setup with an external add on?
> 
> I'm not really sure how to approach the speakers, should I be looking at getting a set altogether or buying them separately? I'd like the front left and right to be floor speakers with up-firing Atmos speakers but I assume these wouldn't be part of any 5.1.2 sets.
> 
> 
> Edit: It seems the Denon X2200 is the one for me. Now I just have to find a 5.1.2 set of speakers with 2x floor standing speakers. Hopefully I can get this for around 1200.


Yeah, going to 5.1.4 would require a Denon 4200 or above.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Brian B said:


> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "inboard?"
> 
> B.





Brian B said:


> And how did you decide on this distance?
> 
> B.


 I like this very succinct explanation from Roger Dressler. In a nutshell, distance to the front stage should not determine the spread of the heights - which it would if heights are always in-line with the L/R. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-502.html#post29500970


----------



## Jack Gilvey

chi_guy50 said:


> But note that the audio track on this release of Enchanted Kingdom is TBA. It might be in Dolby Atmos or perhaps not. Caveat emptor.
> 
> If you want to be sure to get the full Monty in Atmos (both 2D and 3D), this is the one to order.


 Finally got to watch this - what a disc! Not sure if I was more impressed with the Atmos track or the PQ/cinematography - both truly reference-class. Those croc shots!


----------



## MalevolentHamster

*Anyone tried SVS's suggestion*

I considering replacing my speakers along with my ATMOS upgrade, was considering SVS 9already have their sub and love it) or RSL

SVS suggest high monted speakers for ATMOS.

I strongly suspect that SVS are promoting this because they have no up-firing or in-ceiling options, but curious of anyone has tried it:




> We believe that two (or four) small Satellite speakers wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position would easily outperform the up-firing option, and would also be easier to install and considerably more affordable than the in-ceiling option, while offering similar performance.
> 
> Additionally, the high wall-mount option (if the speakers are carefully positioned with some forethought) would be compatible with the upcoming Auro 3D surround sound format, which (similar to Atmos) features overhead sound effects.
> 
> For these reasons we suspect the high wall-mount option (while not officially endorsed by Dolby) will become the most popular, affordable and practical solution to enjoying the next generation of surround sound formats


.

(http://www.svsound.com/t/intro-to-atmos)


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> Last night, I set the Blu-ray player to output PCM and put in my Atmos demo disc. The PCM setting caused Atmos itself to do nothing and so I was getting a 7.1 mix. I ensured that this was being upmixed with DSU. I then isolated the overhead speakers and played the Amaze track. *I can confirm that the sound of the rain comes from the overhead speakers via DSU* It is much less 'precise' than the true Atmos mix, lower in level and the rain sound is a sort of 'mush' whereas I can hear every raindrop (it seems that way, not literally) with Atmos. With the thunder it is a similar experience although the actual thunder content in the overheads is quite low - this will be because most of the deep rumbling would come from the subwoofers normally, with only some overtones from the other speakers.
> 
> This seems to at odds with how you describe what you are hearing. Are you 100% sure you are wired correctly?


Yes, wired correctly. In my case I hear the rain overhead because I have the surrounds as in ceiling. However from the front stage the rain seems to be overhead. 
Maybe something can listen to the track and chime. 
Again it's the scene when the FBI is looking for Adeline.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## cmusic

Ok, I've had a dolby surround system since the mid 90s, when Pro Logic II was the latest and greatest. I currently am using a Denon AVR-3805 receiver that I bought in 1998! I have it set up in a 7.1 configuration. I don't have a dedicated theater room, I have the system in my family room where we watch TV mostly and watch movies mostly via netflix. I also have an Xbox One and a Samsung Blu-ray player in the system. 

I recently bought a Denon AVR-X4200W and a used Onkyo two channel amp. I plan on turning my 7.1 system into a 5.1.4 system. My wife never liked the side surrounds and has put tables with pictures and books in front of them. (She actually has never liked the whole surround sound system total, but it is one of my hobbies so she doesn't say much within certain limits.) We don't watch many Blu-ray movies with a 7.1 audio track, so the surrounds don't get much use. The main listening position is about 14' from the front speakers and my TV.

I plan on taking my 7.1 side surrounds and moving them behind and to the side of the main listening area in a traditional 5.1 layout. I plan on taking the rear surrounds and putting them near the ceiling in a rear height configuration above the rear surrounds. They will be on the top shelf of a book shelf that goes up to the ceiling, about 3" away from the ceiling and aimed slightly down at the listening area. All rear speakers will be about 5' behind the main listening position. I plan on putting ceiling speakers about 3' back from the front speakers. I am thinking about angled ceiling speakers that aim the speaker at a 20° angle back toward the listening area. 

Hopefully this speaker configuration will be a good compromise between an Atmos and a DTS:X setup. Anyone have any comments?


----------



## pasender91

MalevolentHamster said:


> I considering replacing my speakers along with my ATMOS upgrade, was considering SVS 9already have their sub and love it) or RSL
> 
> SVS suggest high monted speakers for ATMOS.
> 
> I strongly suspect that SVS are promoting this because they have no up-firing or in-ceiling options, but curious of anyone has tried it:
> 
> 
> .
> 
> (http://www.svsound.com/t/intro-to-atmos)


Lately there was a discussion regarding speaker types, in-ceiling (best) vs reflecting (not as good but easier to install).
The third way is this FH+RH (4 height speakers) scenario, quite similar to the auro setup 

This works well for me, i was conforted when one of the earlier messages mentioned that sounds from high up aren't so well perceived by our ears anyway, so the FH + RH looks like a very valid compromise, with high speakers, direct sound, and still easy to install.

Just make sure you can achieve the required 30° angle in order to have a good result.
In my case i have only 26° for the FH, but i still get the 3D immersion ...


----------



## MalevolentHamster

pasender91 said:


> Lately there was a discussion regarding speaker types, in-ceiling (best) vs reflecting (not as good but easier to install).
> The third way is this FH+RH (4 height speakers) scenario, quite similar to the auro setup
> 
> This works well for me, i was conforted when one of the earlier messages mentioned that sounds from high up aren't so well perceived by our ears anyway, so the FH + RH looks like a very valid compromise, with high speakers, direct sound, and still easy to install.
> 
> Just make sure you can achieve the required 30° angle in order to have a good result.
> In my case i have only 26° for the FH, but i still get the 3D immersion ...


Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

Kris Deering said:


> It also made sense for ELAC given the popularity of the AJ line for Pioneer and trying to gain a nice footing in the new company with a sensible low cost product that performs well.


The AJ line at Pioneer was already popular prior to Atmos-enabled speakers showing up and, if the reception at T.H.E. Show was any indication, his ELAC speakers are destined for similar popularity. Since Atmos-enabled speakers aren't the reason for AJ's speakers being popular, that couldn't have been his primary reason for choosing to manufacture them. Besides, he had already expressed his excitement about Atmos in a podcast with Scott Wilkinson.


----------



## stikle

Mad Max and motorcycles and explosions OH MY!

Wow. Just...wow. What an eye/eargasm. Such a fantastic spectacle. I'm going to have to rewatch again once I get my new display on the wall and tweaked.

I decided on the way to work this morning that I need a new guitar related hood ornament on my truck. 

It was worth the wait. At one point I swear there was a male voice coming from right behind my girlfriend's head.

Atmos, I love thee so.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It could just be a mixing choice in that particular movie.


It's not a movie - it is the Atmos demo disc.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'll pop in The Age Of Adaline tonight and give it a listen. I know what scene he's talking about. My other thought is that it's because he's listening to front heights. I'm running front heights and top mids, so I'll check that scene and see if I can tell what's going on. In my experience, the front heights seem to mostly give you the wall of sound feel in the front soundstage like DPL-IIz did, whereas the top mids seem to get more object content as far as placement in the 3-D space goes. He's also running in-ceiling surrounds if I recall correctly, which means the Atmos waters are already muddied.


One of us is missing the point here. AIUI, the OP is saying that the Atmos Amaze trailer when played via DSu is not giving him the sound of rain in the overhead speakers. He says they are silent. My test shows that this is not the case (as expected) so my assumption at this time is that he has a wiring issue. Objects don't come into it - he is not playing the track in Atmos but in 7.1 and upmixing it with DSU. (This is why I had to send PCM from the player).


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> Yes, wired correctly. In my case I hear the rain overhead because I have the surrounds as in ceiling. However from the front stage the rain seems to be overhead.
> Maybe something can listen to the track and chime.
> Again it's the scene when the FBI is looking for Adeline.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Where you are hearing the rain from is irrelevant. I thought you said the overhead speakers were silent? What matters is where the sound is coming from. If in the Amaze trailer, played in 7.1 via DSU, the rain is not coming from the overhead speakers, something in your setup is not working properly.



asere said:


> Again it's the scene when the FBI is looking for Adeline.


We are at cross purposes. I thought you were discussing the Atmos Amaze trailer!


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> Where you are hearing the rain from is irrelevant. I thought you said the overhead speakers were silent? What matters is where the sound is coming from. If in the Amaze trailer, played in 7.1 via DSU, the rain is not coming from the overhead speakers, something in your setup is not working properly.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at cross purposes. I thought you were discussing the Atmos Amaze trailer!


Must have been another poster with Amaze trailer. I have never mentioned Amaze only the Adeline scene.
When I said overhead was silent I meant the front heights. Remember I have the surrounds as in ceiling. 
I'm not saying it matters where the rain comes from I was simply saying the front heights don't come on ..Again with Adeline rain scene with the FBI. 
I felt immersed regardless and I was sharing what I observed that's all.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kokishin

@asere: you're running a 2015 Denon x1200 - correct? 

(BTW, I can add you to the _avsforum Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet_ if you'll check the spreadsheet linked in my sig below and provide the appropriate parameters).

I know @kbarnes701 is running a 2014 x5200. 

Just trying to keep track.


----------



## asere

kokishin said:


> @asere: you're running a 2015 Denon x1200 - correct?
> 
> (BTW, I can add you to the _avsforum Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet_ if you'll check the spreadsheet linked in my sig below and provide the appropriate parameters).
> 
> I know @kbarnes701 is running a 2014 x5200.
> 
> Just trying to keep track.


Yes the x1200 thank you!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## GuidingGod

Forgive my ignorance - is there such a thing as on-ceiling instead of in-ceiling speakers for Atmos? For e.g to use on a concrete ceiling? Or can any small speaker serve the purpose if, say, attached to a wall mount and stuck to the ceiling? Ty


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> Must have been another poster with Amaze trailer. I have never mentioned Amaze only the Adeline scene.
> When I said overhead was silent I meant the front heights. Remember I have the surrounds as in ceiling.
> I'm not saying it matters where the rain comes from I was simply saying the front heights don't come on ..Again with Adeline rain scene with the FBI.
> I felt immersed regardless and I was sharing what I observed that's all.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


No problem. I don't have Adeline so can't take it any further.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> No problem. I don't have Adeline so can't take it any further.


You should see it. Besides the audio it is a really good film IMO.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Molon_Labe

GuidingGod said:


> Forgive my ignorance - is there such a thing as on-ceiling instead of in-ceiling speakers for Atmos? For e.g to use on a concrete ceiling? Or can any small speaker serve the purpose if, say, attached to a wall mount and stuck to the ceiling? Ty


You can use any speaker for Atmos. Find speakers that are as close as possible sonically to your current speakers that have a mounting bracket.


----------



## GuidingGod

Molon_Labe said:


> You can use any speaker for Atmos. Find speakers that are as close as possible sonically to your current speakers that have a mounting bracket.


Thanks for the reply. By sonically close, do you mean by the same brand in general or within the same line of speakers by a brand? 

For e.g my front/center/rears are Dali Zensor - Should I look for something in the Zensor line or something else from Dali will be ok too?


----------



## kbarnes701

asere said:


> You should see it. Besides the audio it is a really good film IMO.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


It's the one Atmos movie I haven’t got I think. Didn't seem like my sort of movie, but maybe I should give it a go. Thanks. 

This is my current Atmos lineup:



American Sniper
Avengers: Age of Ultron (wishful thinking)
Chicago (Atmos)
The Expendables 3
Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
The Gunman
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
I, Frankenstein Japanese Version (Atmos)
Insurgent
John Wick R1
Jupiter Ascending
Lucy
Mad Max: Fury Road R1
Overheard 3 R1
Taken 3
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Transcendence - Japan Atmos
Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
Unbroken


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> It's the one Atmos movie I haven’t got I think. Didn't seem like my sort of movie, but maybe I should give it a go. Thanks.
> 
> This is my current Atmos lineup:
> 
> American Sniper
> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version (Atmos)
> Insurgent
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Lucy
> Mad Max: Fury Road R1
> Overheard 3 R1
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Transcendence - Japan Atmos
> Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
> Unbroken


Nice list and yes give it a go  

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> It's the one Atmos movie I haven’t got I think. Didn't seem like my sort of movie, but maybe I should give it a go. Thanks.
> 
> This is my current Atmos lineup:
> 
> American Sniper
> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version (Atmos)
> Insurgent
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Lucy
> Mad Max: Fury Road R1
> Overheard 3 R1
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Transcendence - Japan Atmos
> Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
> Unbroken


thats healthy...here is mine

American Sniper
The Expendables 3
Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Insurgent
John Wick 
Jupiter Ascending
Mad Max: Fury Road 
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
Unbroken

with all the pending releases being purchased  which grows by the week 

MI5
Jurrasic World
Terminator genesis
Leon the Professional
Fifth element
Dracula

gonna rent Age of Adeline tonight - redbox BETTER have ATMOS on it!


----------



## Shniks

Brian Fineberg said:


> gonna rent Age of Adeline tonight - redbox BETTER have ATMOS on it!


I don't think it will have Atmos as it's a Lionsgate release. Lionsgate doesn't allow Atmos on rentals. 


Nik
http://www.lihkin.net


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Age of Adaline'* ... that is the Blu-ray movie *Asere* was well talking about from the very beginning...to all alert readers. 

* It's a beautiful film...good storyline, well acted, and just simply heartwarming with lightning, snow, rain, FBI guys (two of them), encoded with Dolby Atmos, tra-la-la all that jazz. 

Highly recommended...and that rain too, coming from everywhere, all around, even without overheads. 
Anyway it's a great film; all your wives and girlfriends and yourselves should love it...everyone who has a beating heart inside.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> thats healthy...here is mine
> 
> 
> with all the pending releases being purchased  which grows by the week
> 
> MI5
> Jurrasic World
> Terminator genesis
> Leon the Professional
> Fifth element
> Dracula


Yes - all of those are in my pre-order list at Amazon. It's really hotting up now.


----------



## Brian B

aaranddeeman said:


> This is the fourth position I am at. All experimentation.


Can you elaborate on this? What did you try? What were the differences? Why did you end up where you're at?

B.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Brian Fineberg said:


> Jurrasic World



Not sure if meant to be on list of Atmos titles....


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Scott Simonian said:


> Not sure if meant to be on list of Atmos titles....


oops...replace that with San Andreas....not sure where I got JW from lmao


----------



## asere

Brian Fineberg said:


> oops...replace that with San Andreas....not sure where I got JW from lmao


Is San Andreas worth buying?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian B

Jack Gilvey said:


> I like this very succinct explanation from Roger Dressler. In a nutshell, distance to the front stage should not determine the spread of the heights - which it would if heights are always in-line with the L/R.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-502.html#post29500970


I've read that before and attached a more descriptive picture than the one referenced in that thread (by Roger as well). Note, the angle says "or less." I already calculated the appropriate angle at 57 degrees (which, it turns out, is quite wide). It's the "or less" part I'm interested in thus my query on those who might have experimented with narrower positions.

B.


----------



## Kain

The Gallows had an Atmos track in theaters, if I am not mistaken. Wonder if the Blu-ray will have one too.


----------



## asere

Kain said:


> The Gallows had an Atmos track in theaters, if I am not mistaken. Wonder if the Blu-ray will have one too.


Yes it will be in Atmos BD.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Brian B said:


> Can you elaborate on this? What did you try? What were the differences? Why did you end up where you're at?
> 
> B.


Brian, he his experimenting with several positions for his Atmos overheads...that is the best way he can find the sound he like the most in his own room. 
And I don't think he's done yet.

* I replied with two posts...with several suggestions regarding the separation between the left and right Atmos overhead speakers.
According to your room's dimensions: 183 inches wide, the MLP @ 5.9 feet (71") from your ceiling (ears to ceiling), your main front left and right speakers separated by 9.4 feet (113").....try an angle (from the MLP to your TF and TR overheads) of roughly 30-35° to each one of them. 
♦ I'll repeat again: I think 7 feet (84") separation from your left and right overhead speakers is a very very good place to start. ...For both overhead pairs.
-> 49.5" from each side wall. 
{Your two front main L & R speakers are right now positioned 35" from each side wall...113" separation between them...measured from the center....usually.}

I did not come up with that figure by accident, or from vast experience; I used measurements (guide; rule of thirds, etc.) that are "acoustically" sound to your own particular room's dimensions relative to your centered sitting position...MLP...in both the horizontal and vertical planes (3D). 
It's just a suggestion...and I believe it's a good one. 

My opinion doesn't count because I never experimented (yet) with Dolby Atmos overhead speakers. But I am still allowed to share my suggestion nonetheless. If you think that I shouldn't...let me know, please. 

Regards,
Bob


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It's the one Atmos movie I haven’t got I think. Didn't seem like my sort of movie, but maybe I should give it a go. Thanks.


Given the subject matter, it's not as good as it could have been with a better script writer and director. Too Plain Jane and romantic drama oriented in the Lifetime Channel Chick Flick of the Week style and even then that was kind of _blah_ given Adeline's supposed predicament. If they had brought in that she was in more danger considering some secretive government agency was after her early on in the story and wanted to experiment on her. Instead that plot device was unfortunately dropped entirely for a sappy, been-there-done-that love triangle. And she was not very good at changing locations when trying to take on a new personae every few years. Gotta move beyond Southern California, girl!  The explanatory narration (right up there with Harrison's VO in the theatrical version of _Blade Runner_ for sheer groan factor) was pretty annoying too. Uncalled for.

I give it a *B-* .


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Gallows'*



asere said:


> Yes it will be in Atmos BD.


I have a strong feeling; that 'The Gallows' won't be anywhere close to 'The Age of Adaline' ...film [email protected] least. ...Atmos wise? ...No clue.
And I think that Dan, and other film lovers too right here, might have a strong feeling too...regarding 'The Gallows' ... just a hunch. 

But I might be totally wrong too...you know how it goes with movies and people's taste....


----------



## scarabaeus

*Laser Angle Finder*

Since the laser angle finder thingy was repeatedly a topic here, I thought I'll post my find. Of course, there is now an app for that, and I came across it this weekend at the hardware store:










$15, works great, but requires a free custom "level" app instead of the built-in one in the iPhone.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> It's the one Atmos movie I haven’t got I think. Didn't seem like my sort of movie, but maybe I should give it a go. Thanks.
> 
> This is my current Atmos lineup:
> 
> 
> 
> American Sniper
> Avengers: Age of Ultron
> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version (Atmos)
> Insurgent
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Lucy
> Mad Max: Fury Road R1
> Overheard 3 R1
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Transcendence - Japan Atmos
> Transformers: Age of Extinction 3D
> Unbroken


Avengers Age of Ultron doesn't have an Atmos mix for Blu-ray, unless something is different between stateside and UK.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Gooddoc said:


> It flies in the face of their own specs, which is the part I don't get. On one hand they are telling us we need "full range" Atmos speakers and then on the other they promote low power reflecting speakers and tell you either sound great!
> 
> Looking at the drivers and specs of the typical up firing speakers, there is no way possible they're putting reference level at the seating positions. Sound bounces, but it loses energy in the process. This is physics. So the up firing speakers should be MORE capable than ceiling mounted speakers, not LESS? No? I have yet to see an up firing Atmos speaker that I thought is capable of reference level at the seating position.
> 
> How can the experience be the same if it's simply not possible for the up firing speakers to deliver the SPL necessary for reference level listening? What am I missing here?





kbarnes701 said:


> I don't know. All I know about the upfirers is what I heard at Dolby. There, the upfirers and the ceiling speakers were on a par with each other sound-wise. The sole difference was a slight diffusion effect with the upfirers and a slightly more precise effect with the physical speakers. Most there preferred the upfirers.
> 
> The "full range" thing is, IMO, a red herring. In a bass-managed system, full range means 80Hz-20kHz (or whatever XO you set) and the upfirers should be more than capable of handling 80hz up.


Actually, it's even 120 Hz with some designs. Below 120 Hz goes to the woofer of the speaker below, then from there, below 80 Hz goes to the subs...

This said, I don't fancy the idea. Nothing better than the real thing! 


BTW, I have been away a whole 27 hours, and suddenly over 100 post have been added to this thread. How many of these are yours, Keith?


----------



## NorthSky

*Nope: 'The Age of Adaline'*



> We are at cross purposes. *I thought you were discussing the Atmos Amaze trailer!*


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs
* https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

You were, he wasn't...you weren't reading properly...I guess. ;-) :-D


----------



## jpco

Dan Hitchman said:


> Given the subject matter, it's not as good as it could have been with a better script writer and director. Too Plain Jane and romantic drama oriented in the Lifetime Channel Chick Flick of the Week style and even then that was kind of _blah_ given Adeline's supposed predicament. If they had brought in that she was in more danger considering some secretive government agency was after her early on in the story and wanted to experiment on her. Instead that plot device was unfortunately dropped entirely for a sappy, been-there-done-that love triangle. And she was not very good at changing locations when trying to take on a new personae every few years. Gotta move beyond Southern California, girl!  The explanatory narration (right up there with Harrison's VO in the theatrical version of _Blade Runner_ for sheer groan factor) was pretty annoying too. Uncalled for.
> 
> I give it a *B-* .


Voiceover was the worst. Almost turned the movie into a joke.

Enjoyed it, though. A little too neatly wrapped up, but some good scenes with Harrison Ford.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Just picked up AoA from redbox

On the disc it says Dolby audio. Grrrr. Better not have excluded ATMOS!!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> I think a lot of the negativity surrounding the upfirers is because the concept does sound so unlikely to work. But those of us who have heard them, properly set up in an appropriate room) know otherwise.


a/ An appropriate HT ceiling should be treated
b/ An appropriate ceiling for up firing speakers should be reflective

Hence they cannot be compared to real speakers in the same room.
Hence I don't like the idea.


----------



## Kain

Have a question...

When you play a 7.1 non-Atmos track on a, say, 7.1.4 Atmos setup and enable DSU, will DSU leave the "base" or 7 floor channels alone and only reroute those sounds that it thinks should come from the ceiling speakers? Or will it also "play around" with the 7 floor channels?


----------



## NorthSky

*'Jurassic World'*



Scott Simonian said:


> Not sure if meant to be on list of Atmos titles....


Here in North America, *'Jurassic World' - 3D*, on Blu-ray, doesn't have a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack...just regular Lossless DTS-HD MA 7.1 main audio.


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> Is San Andreas worth buying?


It has potential for some serious "shaking" ... I think. ...And I will get the Blu myself, in 3D.  
And there is 'The Rock'; him too can seriously do some shaking around.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just picked up AoA from redbox
> 
> On the disc it says Dolby audio. Grrrr. Better not have excluded ATMOS!!


Lionsgate rentals have no lossless audio. They want you to purchase their discs for the best presentation.


----------



## NorthSky

I forgot; in *'San Andreas'* The Rock is piloting an helicopter...should be fun in Dolby Atmos sound.  ...And be ready for a lot of CGI effects too; visual and auditory.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Have a question...
> 
> When you play a 7.1 non-Atmos track on a, say, 7.1.4 Atmos setup and enable DSU, will DSU leave the "base" or 7 floor channels alone and only reroute those sounds that it thinks should come from the ceiling speakers? Or will it also "play around" with the 7 floor channels?


It just pulls certain audio cues out of the base channels and sends them up top. It's not 100% accurate, but does a fine job of expanding what was there already.


----------



## Gooddoc

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Actually, it's even 120 Hz with some designs. Below 120 Hz goes to the woofer of the speaker below, then from there, below 80 Hz goes to the subs...
> 
> This said, I don't fancy the idea. Nothing better than the real thing!


I know this is the Dolby thread and it's going to be a very forgiving audience , but I think the numbers speak for themselves. They will probably play "cleanly" to 90 dB at the LP, and I think I'm being generous. That's a movie with an average dialogue of about 70 dB. I listen to normal TV at 70 dB .

Kef R50









It may seem I'm beating a horse here, but given the current available options in the marketplace, I'm somewhat taken aback by the up firing recommendations, at least without a significant asterick next to the recommendation. I know why Dolby wants to push them, and I understand that the perfectly setup Dolby demos with cherry picked soundtracks sounded very good to many, but the current state of affairs with up firer's is dismal and I could not recommend any of the current crop unless the system is absolutely limited to what I would consider fairly low volumes for movies.

It's really just a numbers thing, I'm not against the concept in any way.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> Given the subject matter, it's not as good as it could have been with a better script writer and director. Too Plain Jane and romantic drama oriented in the Lifetime Channel Chick Flick of the Week style and even then that was kind of _blah_ given *Adeline*'s supposed predicament. If they had brought in that she was in more danger considering some secretive government agency was after her early on in the story and wanted to experiment on her. Instead that plot device was unfortunately dropped entirely for a sappy, been-there-done-that love triangle. And she was not very good at changing locations when trying to take on a new personae every few years. Gotta move beyond Southern California, girl!  The explanatory narration (right up there with Harrison's VO in the theatrical version of _Blade Runner_ for sheer groan factor) was pretty annoying too. Uncalled for.
> 
> I give it a *B-* .


It's "Adaline" Dan, not 'Adeline'. 

* I give it an *A-* meself. ...Men should love it too, not just women...I think. Hey, I'm a man!


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> *Avengers Age of Ultron doesn't have an Atmos mix for Blu-ray*, unless something is different between stateside and UK.


Touché Kris.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Given the subject matter, it's not as good as it could have been with a better script writer and director. Too Plain Jane and romantic drama oriented in the Lifetime Channel Chick Flick of the Week style and even then that was kind of _blah_ given Adeline's supposed predicament. If they had brought in that she was in more danger considering some secretive government agency was after her early on in the story and wanted to experiment on her. Instead that plot device was unfortunately dropped entirely for a sappy, been-there-done-that love triangle. And she was not very good at changing locations when trying to take on a new personae every few years. Gotta move beyond Southern California, girl!  The explanatory narration (right up there with Harrison's VO in the theatrical version of _Blade Runner_ for sheer groan factor) was pretty annoying too. Uncalled for.
> 
> I give it a *B-* .


Thanks. I have ordered it on rental. If I like it, I'll buy it later. The words "chick flick" fill me with a cold dread.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Avengers Age of Ultron doesn't have an Atmos mix for Blu-ray, unless something is different between stateside and UK.


Gee - HTF did that get in there? It wasn't in my original list, and then I went back and added it. Brain fart I guess. Thanks for the correction. I shall remove it.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Actually, it's even 120 Hz with some designs. Below 120 Hz goes to the woofer of the speaker below, then from there, below 80 Hz goes to the subs...
> 
> This said, I don't fancy the idea. Nothing better than the real thing!


I agree and ceiling speakers were my choice too. I just wanted to counter the point that upfirers were a poor relation or a bad compromise. They aren't.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> BTW, I have been away a whole 27 hours, and suddenly over 100 post have been added to this thread. How many of these are yours, Keith?


IDK - not many I think... been busy. I'm still undergoing a series of treatments/surgeries on my jaw and have to keep going to the darn hospital for CT scans and stuff. It takes me the best part of a day to do the round trip from the middle of nowhere where I live to the city, including the time for the consultation and so on. It will all be finished after an operation towards the end of October.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> a/ An appropriate HT ceiling should be treated
> b/ An appropriate ceiling for up firing speakers should be reflective
> 
> Hence they cannot be compared to real speakers in the same room.
> Hence I don't like the idea.


Not so Erwin. In the well-treated Dolby demo room in London they have treatments on the ceiling of course (as do I). They removed some of the acoustic panels and replaced them with relatively small hard reflective panels, at which they 'aimed' the upfirers. Worked brilliantly, so much so that the majority of the AV professionals assembled there actually preferred the upfirers to the physical ceiling speakers. The idea that upfirers are not 'real Atmos' is not correct. Somewhere in this thread I posted photos of the Dolby ceiling showing how they did it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Have a question...
> 
> When you play a 7.1 non-Atmos track on a, say, 7.1.4 Atmos setup and enable DSU, will DSU leave the "base" or 7 floor channels alone and only reroute those sounds that it thinks should come from the ceiling speakers? Or will it also "play around" with the 7 floor channels?


DSU is an upmixer. If you have 7 channels on the floor there is nothing to upmix to. If you have 5 on the floor then DSU will upmix to the rear surrounds, much like the other upmixers will. Of course, you can disable DSU entirely if you wish, for 7.1 or 5.1 tracks.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK - not many I think... been busy. I'm still undergoing a series of treatments/surgeries on my jaw and have to keep going to the darn hospital for CT scans and stuff. It takes me the best part of a day to do the round trip from the middle of nowhere where I live to the city, including the time for the consultation and so on. It will all be finished after an operation towards the end of October.


Sorry to hear that! I am sure they will get you fixed in the end!

I guess I am better of in that regard, as I am recovering too, today... from the marathon I ran yesterday (In Flanders Fields, in memorial of WW1, following river Ijzer, finishing in Ieper). Many body parts hurt, but in a good way!


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> Gee - HTF did that get in there? It wasn't in my original list, and then I went back and added it. Brain fart I guess. Thanks for the correction. I shall remove it.


Damn Keith, I was hoping you were right!!!! Still pretty sour that Disney isn't supporting Atmos on Blu given their overwhelming support theatrically.


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos Overhead (in or on-ceiling...treated) Speakers.*



erwinfrombelgium said:


> a/ An appropriate HT ceiling should be treated
> b/ An appropriate ceiling for up firing speakers should be reflective
> 
> Hence they cannot be compared to real speakers in the same room.
> Hence I don't like the idea.


Hi Erwin,

I espouse your philosophy...for the serious cinema aficionados.  ...With true dedicated home theater rooms. 

* Me, unfortunately, my cathedral ceiling for my movies watching is made of wood...I'll live with it...and not only that but I'll be happy too.

By the way, your Atmos/DTS:X/Auro home theater room looks splendid!  
- Are you an Auroman too? 

________

♦ American's acronym...Cinerama.


----------



## Kris Deering

asere said:


> Is San Andreas worth buying?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I was on travel and saw this at a theater simply because nothing else was playing when I wanted to go and I was bored. It was actually better than I expected and a fun night at the movies. Over the top at times, but I'm looking forward to watching it again on Blu-ray, especially in ATMOS!!


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree and ceiling speakers were my choice too. I just wanted to counter the point that upfirers were a poor relation or a bad compromise. They aren't.


It may seem I want an argument, I don't. Just a discussion 

They're a big compromise for anything but fairly low volumes in my opinion, just no way around it. Sure, with soundtracks that have rain drops as the highlight of the Atmos effects, they'll sound good. But I still say there will be many disappointed customers that buy these things and realize spirited listening, not loud, will sound bad once these mixers start exploring Atmos a bit.

The Atmos comparison linked earlier noted dialogue and music SQ distortion issues in comparison to the ceiling speakers and I suspect that they heard what I'm writing about. They will be easily overdriven.


----------



## batpig

Markitron said:


> Does anybody know of any speaker+receiver combo sets that do Atmos and DTS-X? I wanna get a new sound system but there doesn't seem to be a lot of options, I have only just start looking into it so I may have missed something. My budget is about 2000.





pasender91 said:


> With a total of 2000, you should spend about 1/3 in the AVR, to keep enough $$ aside for the many speakers
> With such a budget and the DTS:X constraint (2015 model) you can look after:
> - Onkyo 646
> - Denon X1200
> - Denon X2200 (a bit over budget)
> - Marantz NR 1606 (a bit over budget)
> As those are all entry-level AVRs, you will only be able to do 5.1.2 with them.
> 
> If it was me, i would go for one of the Denons
> 
> For the speakers to match, there are so many options on the market that a simple suggestion is impossible ....





Markitron said:


> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a look into these. Do you know if any of these are upgradable to a 5.1.4 setup with an external add on?
> 
> I'm not really sure how to approach the speakers, should I be looking at getting a set altogether or buying them separately? I'd like the front left and right to be floor speakers with up-firing Atmos speakers but I assume these wouldn't be part of any 5.1.2 sets.
> 
> 
> Edit: It seems the Denon X2200 is the one for me. Now I just have to find a 5.1.2 set of speakers with 2x floor standing speakers. Hopefully I can get this for around 1200.


Markitron -- With respect to the original question, pretty much all 2015 model year AVR's with Atmos are slated to get DTS:X as an upgrade (whenever it finally comes out). So you are safe buying any current model Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha with 7ch and Atmos support.

Other than Onkyo HTIB setups, you aren't going to find these sold as a package deal. So it's probably better to research / buy receivers and speakers separately.

If your TOTAL budget is $2,000 for everything, as pasender suggested it's going to be a tight squeeze and you'll be limited to a 5.1.2 setup at best. If you eventually want to expand to 9 channels then you either have to skimp and grab some cheap used speakers or just buy what you can now and save up for more later. 

However, you can do a full setup for $2k with Atmos-enabled speakers and 5.1.2. An inexpensive Denon/Yamaha AVR with 5.1.2 Atmos support at around $500, and then you've got two nice budget Atmos speakers options courtesy of Andrew Jones. His Pioneer line and now his new ELAC line (AFAIK not yet released for sale?).

For example with the Pioneer speakers, you can't afford the Elite line but you can get affordable Atmos-enabled speakers in their basic Andrew Jones designed line: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Pioneer+Speakers

Here's the ELAC models: http://elac.us/speakers/

If you can mount speakers high on the walls or on the ceiling you can probably get even cheaper since you don't HAVE to get "Atmos-enabled" speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Sorry to hear that! I am sure they will get you fixed in the end!


Yeah, thanks. It was supposed to to take 6 months but by the time it is all finished it will be closer to 18. Ho hum.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> I guess I am better of in that regard, as I am recovering too, today... from the marathon I ran yesterday (In Flanders Fields, in memorial of WW1, following river Ijzer, finishing in Ieper). Many body parts hurt, but in a good way!


Well done! Mrs Keith is a runner too - she has done one or two marathons but really she is a half-marathon person. She runs a half every other weekend in fact. Makes me ache just thinking about it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Damn Keith, I was hoping you were right!!!! Still pretty sour that Disney isn't supporting Atmos on Blu given their overwhelming support theatrically.


Sorry to disappoint  I bet it would be awesome as an Atmos mix in the HT. IDK where I got the idea that it was Atmos. I have crossed it out in my original post and added what I can only think of as an explanation: wishful thinking


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> Damn Keith, I was hoping you were right!!!! Still pretty sour that Disney isn't supporting Atmos on Blu given their overwhelming support theatrically.


BTW, do you think Disney are just waiting for UHD and then we'll see an explosion of Atmos content? Or is that just wishful thinking too?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

NorthSky said:


> Hi Erwin,
> 
> I espouse your philosophy...for the serious cinema aficionados.  ...With true dedicated home theater rooms.
> 
> * Me, unfortunately, my cathedral ceiling for my movies watching is made of wood...I'll live with it...and not only that but I'll be happy too.
> 
> By the way, your Atmos/DTS:X/Auro home theater room looks splendid!
> - Are you an Auroman too?
> 
> ________
> 
> ♦ American's acronym...Cinerama.


I am sure you will be good. But I also consider many "normal" living room ceiling suitable for acoustic treatment. I see many rooms with plastered, flat ceilings. Lighting in the wrong place: above the coffee table. Triple benefits are possible:

acoustic from adding panels
moving the lights above the seats, helps reading
cosy atmosphere due to covering the naked ceiling

I wished Auro would succeed as it would make me proud as a fellow Belgian, but somehow I don't see it happening...


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> It may seem I want an argument, I don't. Just a discussion


Sure, I'm on the same page. 



Gooddoc said:


> They're a big compromise for anything but fairly low volumes in my opinion, just no way around it.


I think they are what they are. They’re not meant for dyed in the wool HT guys like us. They're meant for 'normal' people who just want Atmos in their living room. Those people don't listen at reference and don't have equipment which can even approach reference, for the most part. For those guys, upfirers are brilliant.



Gooddoc said:


> Sure, with soundtracks that have rain drops as the highlight of the Atmos effects, they'll sound good. But I still say there will be many disappointed customers that buy these things and realize spirited listening, not loud, will sound bad once these mixers start exploring Atmos a bit.


If people who listen at reference, ie people who have spent serious money on dedicated rooms, are buying upfirers, I'd be amazed.



Gooddoc said:


> The Atmos comparison linked earlier noted dialogue and music SQ distortion issues in comparison to the ceiling speakers and I suspect that they heard what I'm writing about. They will be easily overdriven.


Sure. So will the vast majority of all speakers in most systems.


----------



## asere

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, do you think Disney are just waiting for UHD and then we'll see an explosion of Atmos content? Or is that just wishful thinking too?


That's my fear Disney or not. Atmos could stop on bluray and only appear on UHD. I'm nowhere near to upgrade the tv and player anytime soon.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Gooddoc said:


> I know this is the Dolby thread and it's going to be a very forgiving audience , but I think the numbers speak for themselves. They will probably play "cleanly" to 90 dB at the LP, and I think I'm being generous. That's a movie with an average dialogue of about 70 dB. I listen to normal TV at 70 dB .
> Kef R50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem I'm beating a horse here, but given the current available options in the marketplace, I'm somewhat taken aback by the up firing recommendations, at least without a significant asterick next to the recommendation. I know why Dolby wants to push them, and I understand that the perfectly setup Dolby demos with cherry picked soundtracks sounded very good to many, but the current state of affairs with up firer's is dismal and I could not recommend any of the current crop unless the system is absolutely limited to what I would consider fairly low volumes for movies.
> It's really just a numbers thing, I'm not against the concept in any way.


That's very good you brought that important point about Atmos speakers that can handle the loads (105dB) when the going gets tough. 
{Majority of folks, I think, maybe 75% here, are not playing @ THX reference master volume level, and they use receivers with "smallish" speakers.}



> Thanks. I have ordered it on rental ('The Age of Adaline'). If I like it, I'll buy it later. *The words "chick flick" fill me with a cold dread*.


Don't let your wife and two daughters read this. ;-)


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Not so Erwin. In the well-treated Dolby demo room in London they have treatments on the ceiling of course (as do I). They removed some of the acoustic panels and replaced them with relatively small hard reflective panels, at which they 'aimed' the upfirers. Worked brilliantly, so much so that the majority of the AV professionals assembled there actually preferred the upfirers to the physical ceiling speakers. The idea that upfirers are not 'real Atmos' is not correct. Somewhere in this thread I posted photos of the Dolby ceiling showing how they did it.


 
That is exactly what I did in my home theater room. I have about 30, 2' x 2' absorbtive panels in my drop ceiling. For the 4 Pioneer up-firing speakers, I replaced two panels in each respective area with reflective panels. Works great! I have also been testing with in-ceiling Klipsch speakers too! What a great hobby!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> Lionsgate rentals have no lossless audio. They want you to purchase their discs for the best presentation.


Not true. I rented the gunman and it had Atmos. As well as a bunch of others with lossless. 

Age of Adeline is unfortunately lossy


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Have a question...
> 
> When you play a 7.1 non-Atmos track on a, say, *7.1.4 Atmos setup* and enable DSU, will DSU leave the "base" or 7 floor channels alone and only reroute those sounds that it thinks should come from the ceiling speakers? Or will it also "play around" with the 7 floor channels?





KB said:


> DSU is an upmixer. If you have 7 channels on the floor there is nothing to upmix to. If you have 5 on the floor then DSU will upmix to the rear surrounds, much like the other upmixers will. Of course, you can disable DSU entirely if you wish, for 7.1 or 5.1 tracks.


He just said "say, *7.1.4* Atmos setup".


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure, I'm on the same page.
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are what they are. They’re not meant for dyed in the wool HT guys like us. They're meant for 'normal' people who just want Atmos in their living room. Those people don't listen at reference and don't have equipment which can even approach reference, for the most part. For those guys, upfirers are brilliant.
> 
> 
> 
> If people who listen at reference, ie people who have spent serious money on dedicated rooms, are buying upfirers, I'd be amazed.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. So will the vast majority of all speakers in most systems.


Agreed. I was seriously considering up firing speakers though, so it's just not "normal" people trying to determine if they should buy them. There's also "abnormal" folks(@gooddoc) looking at them too . I just didn't find anything discussing this issue though, so I brought it up 

*Dismounts dead horse*


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> Not true. I rented the gunman and it had Atmos. As well as a bunch of others with lossless.
> 
> Age of Adeline is unfortunately lossy


There are a lot more lossy than lossless rentals in regards to Lionsgate and Summit. It probably depends on whether they want to bother taking the time to make a neutered audio disc version or not along with a full retail version.


----------



## NorthSky

> BTW, do you think Disney are just waiting for UHD and then we'll see an explosion of Atmos content? Or is that just wishful thinking too?


You mean an explosion of DTS:X content? ;-)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

There are rumblings that the *Minions* movie will be released in Atmos on Blu-ray. Too bad the other Despicable Me movies aren't getting re-released with Atmos. I'd rather have them.


----------



## multit

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are rumblings that the *Minions* movie will be released in Atmos on Blu-ray. Too bad the other Despicable Me movies aren't getting re-released with Atmos. I'd rather have them.


Yes, there is a german website, who has listed the Minions Blu-ray with engl. Dolby TrueHD Atmos and german Dolby Digital Plus Atmos:
http://www.dvd-palace.de/datenbank/medien/blu-ray/minions/90931.html

Some brazilian websites also reporting Dolby Atmos for the Minions


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> That's my fear Disney or not. Atmos could stop on bluray and only appear on UHD. I'm nowhere near to upgrade the tv and player anytime soon.


Fear not...with the new UHD Blu-ray disc, the package should also include the normal 1080p (2K) Blu-ray disc...and with DTS:X audio (or Dolby Atmos).
And for the 3D Blu-ray movie lovers, like me, that same package should also include the normal 3D blu-ray (1080p) version. ...And! The DVD too with the Digital copy. 

But who knows exactly what they'll do...each movie studio in their own desire to suck more money out of us.
Anyway, right now it sucks that Disney, Fox, Columbia, ...they don't give us 3D sound with their Blu-rays (2K). ...Columbia is going to be ahead of UHD though...next month...near the end...with three Dolby Atmos titles on Blu (4K remastered - still 1080p though). 

This is so lame...Lionsgate Films don't include Atmos on their Blu-ray rentals, and the ones they sell with Dolby Atmos cannot play in all BR players!

What we got so far; few Paramount titles, some from Universal, and from Warner Bros. ...'John Wick' is from Lionsgate Films and no go for Dolby Atmos in all BR players! 

I mean...we got to see reality as it truly is. Man cannot survive from DSU alone, right? ...And to make us all wait for UHD is a harsh punishment...and all in order for them movie studios to collect more money (higher prices) with their UHD Blus...to jump-start them even more...with this 3D audio bribe gimmick.
And just forget it about 3D UHD. ...Picture.

Criterion Collection UHD and Dolby Atmos Blu-rays? Lol, UHD maybe, five years from now, but Dolby Atmos mono soundtracks...nava. 

Yup, December 2016 we might have some' goin'...maybe. I'm talkin' the real deal here...true discrete software with 3D sound. 
It's not what we would love to see...or were expecting to see...it's what the studios are ready to give us.

And last; could Dolby Atmos, please, give us a Dolby Atmos setup test Blu-ray disc? ...That would help...how come nobody thought of that in the business executive management team? ...Atmos top guns with Hollywood movie studio top guns. 

______

Next.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Anyone have an 7.x.4 SVS bookshelf (Prime or Ultra) setup? Curious what you used for in-ceiling and how well they perform.


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Not true. I rented the gunman and it had Atmos. As well as a bunch of others with lossless.
> 
> *Age of Adeline is unfortunately lossy*


Bummer! 

* Btw, "Adaline" ... not 'Adeline'. ;-)

** 'The Gunman' ... not a Universal BR title in the USA? ...Or is it in the UK?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Lionsgate rentals have no lossless audio.





Brian Fineberg said:


> Not true. I rented the gunman and it had Atmos.


Gunman isn't from Lionsgate.


----------



## NorthSky

> Gunman isn't from Lionsgate.


In the USA it is from Universal Studios. ...It has Dolby Atmos.

- Canada: Elevation (no Dolby Atmos) 
- UK: Studio Canal (yes Dolby Atmos)

The Blu-rays.


----------



## scarabaeus

Kain said:


> Have a question...
> 
> When you play a 7.1 non-Atmos track on a, say, 7.1.4 Atmos setup and enable DSU, will DSU leave the "base" or 7 floor channels alone and only reroute those sounds that it thinks should come from the ceiling speakers? Or will it also "play around" with the 7 floor channels?


Yes, the 7 listener level speaker signals will change vs. the original 7 input channels. Sounds are "moved" to the heights, that is, added to the heights and removed from the listener level. This is necessary so that the overall sound pressure remains the same.


----------



## Brian B

NorthSky said:


> Brian, he his experimenting with several positions for his Atmos overheads...that is the best way he can find the sound he like the most in his own room.
> And I don't think he's done yet.


Ok. I was hoping he'd have some info on what sounded better and why.



NorthSky said:


> * I replied with two posts...with several suggestions regarding the separation between the left and right Atmos overhead speakers.
> According to your room's dimensions: 183 inches wide, the MLP @ 5.9 feet (71") from your ceiling (ears to ceiling), your main front left and right speakers separated by 9.4 feet (113").....try an angle (from the MLP to your TF and TR overheads) of roughly 30-35° to each one of them.


Is this a left to right angle? Where did you get these numbers from?



NorthSky said:


> ♦ I'll repeat again: I think 7 feet (84") separation from your left and right overhead speakers is a very very good place to start. ...For both overhead pairs.
> -> 49.5" from each side wall.
> {Your two front main L & R speakers are right now positioned 35" from each side wall...113" separation between them...measured from the center....usually.}


There is only a start and a finish. I'm going to cut holes and then that's it. There is no room for moving them around.



NorthSky said:


> I did not come up with that figure by accident, or from vast experience; I used measurements (guide; rule of thirds, etc.) that are "acoustically" sound to your own particular room's dimensions relative to your centered sitting position...MLP...in both the horizontal and vertical planes (3D).
> It's just a suggestion...and I believe it's a good one.


So you are using 1/3,1/5,1/7 to determine "safe" places from a resonant standpoint, but how does that relate to Atmos locations? Also, then where did the 49.5" come from?

1/5 = 36.6"
1/3 = 61" 
using the room width.

If you are using some other calculator--which one?

Brian


----------



## NorthSky

Brian B said:


> Ok.  I was hoping he'd have some info on what sounded better and why.


Yes, it is still an ongoing experimentation...and I'm sure he'll get back to you.



> Is this a left to right angle? Where did you get these numbers from?


Yes it is. ...From my two main front speakers...I apply the same angles above.



> There is only a start and a finish. I'm going to cut holes and then that's it. There is no room for moving them around.


I knew that. 



> So you are using 1/3,1/5,1/7 to determine "safe" places from a resonant standpoint, but how does that relate to Atmos locations? Also, then where did the 49.5" come from?
> 
> 1/5 = 36.6"
> 1/3 = 61"
> using the room width.


Yes, using your room width (183") and fractions of 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9, 1/11 and their multiples (2x and 3x). 

If 84" separates the top left front speaker from the top right front speaker...then 49.5" is the distance respective to their side wall.
[84 + 49.5 + 49.5 = 183]



> If you are using some other calculator--which one?
> 
> Brian


I am using my laptop's own calculator.


----------



## NorthSky

I also know the distance from your ears (MLP) to your ceiling (5.9 feet or 71 inches).


----------



## pasender91

scarabaeus said:


> Yes, the 7 listener level speaker signals will change vs. the original 7 input channels. Sounds are "moved" to the heights, that is, added to the heights and removed from the listener level. This is necessary so that the overall sound pressure remains the same.


huummm, i respectfully believe you are wrong
Yes, DSU will extract some sound from the bottom to feed the height channels.
No, DSU will not remove the sounds it extracts from the bottom channel.

It is an upmixer, so it generates sounds "up there", but WITHOUT touching the low channels signals


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> huummm, i respectfully believe you are wrong
> Yes, DSU will extract some sound from the bottom to feed the height channels.
> No, DSU will not remove the sounds it extracts from the bottom channel.
> 
> It is an upmixer, so it generates sounds "up there", but WITHOUT touching the low channels signals


I've been led to believe the sounds sent to the overheads when DSU is engaged are now no longer in the bed speakers just like previous ProLogic II Cinema logic matrix formats.


----------



## NorthSky

Maybe Roger knows?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've been led to believe the sounds sent to the overheads when DSU is engaged are now no longer in the bed speakers just like previous ProLogic II Cinema logic matrix formats.


Indeed, according to the AES paper on DSU, incoming 5.1 and 7.1 signals are separated into "direct" and "diffuse" components, with direct sounds staying in the floor speakers and diffuse sounds being routed to height speakers.


----------



## Brian B

NorthSky said:


> Yes, using your room width (183") and fractions of 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9, 1/11 and their multiples (2x and 3x).
> 
> If 84" separates the top left front speaker from the top right front speaker...then 49.5" is the distance respective to their side wall.
> [84 + 49.5 + 49.5 = 183]


Ok, so you did a 1/11 and multiplied it by 3 and came up with ~ 50".

The big question is how the encoder/decoder handles the difference in placement and whether it affects the sound significantly. It seems that placing speakers far apart and shooting them down will result in poorer response, but if they need to be that distance to provide correct directional cues, then that's different.

B.


----------



## lujan

asere said:


> Is San Andreas worth buying?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I'm sure it's worth buying much more than Jupiter Ascending like I've recently read people have purchased.


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Brian, he his experimenting with several positions for his Atmos overheads...that is the best way he can find the sound he like the most in his own room.
> And I don't think he's done yet.
> 
> 
> Bob


Thanks Bob. Saved me an response.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

asere said:


> Must have been another poster with Amaze trailer. I have never mentioned Amaze only the Adeline scene.
> When I said overhead was silent I meant the front heights. Remember I have the surrounds as in ceiling.
> I'm not saying it matters where the rain comes from I was simply saying the front heights don't come on ..Again with Adeline rain scene with the FBI.
> I felt immersed regardless and I was sharing what I observed that's all.


So I just played that scene (beginning of Chapter 4) in The Age Of Adaline and climbed on a stepladder to get my ear up near my front heights and top mids. As you noted, most of the sound indeed comes from the bed channels... but there's a very (and I mean VERY) slight amount of fill in both the front heights and top mids in my setup. The surprise for me is that there seemed to be more overall from the front heights than the top mids in that scene... but the left top mid got a few more small bits of obvious sound whooshing through it than the others. It is a very subtly mixed bit of audio... but very nicely done! I think even without Atmos, that has to be a pretty nice sounding bit in 7.1.

Again, I think this goes back to what we were discussing earlier in the thread. Atmos doesn't necessarily need to be an obvious ceiling or bed proposition. Sometimes, a small amount of sound in those speakers can be enough to create that bubble of sound we talk about.


----------



## asere

Jeremy Anderson said:


> So I just played that scene (beginning of Chapter 4) in The Age Of Adaline and climbed on a stepladder to get my ear up near my front heights and top mids. As you noted, most of the sound indeed comes from the bed channels... but there's a very (and I mean VERY) slight amount of fill in both the front heights and top mids in my setup. The surprise for me is that there seemed to be more overall from the front heights than the top mids in that scene... but the left top mid got a few more small bits of obvious sound whooshing through it than the others. It is a very subtly mixed bit of audio... but very nicely done! I think even without Atmos, that has to be a pretty nice sounding bit in 7.1.
> 
> Again, I think this goes back to what we were discussing earlier in the thread. Atmos doesn't necessarily need to be an obvious ceiling or bed proposition. Sometimes, a small amount of sound in those speakers can be enough to create that bubble of sound we talk about.


Thank you for looking into it. I'm going to have to place my ear right on it. Only got close enough the last time from standing on the couch. I don't have a 5.1.2. I agree it's the bubble of sound.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> Ok. I was hoping he'd have some info on what sounded better and why.


The current position sounds better. Now I am not sure why. But it has much prominent overhead presence. When they were farther, I had a feeling of "not enough" from above.
I will most likely settle for this. Just waiting for DTS:X twist to make it final.


----------



## Brian B

aaranddeeman said:


> The current position sounds better. Now I am not sure why. But it has much prominent overhead presence. When they were farther, I had a feeling of "not enough" from above.
> I will most likely settle for this. Just waiting for DTS:X twist to make it final.


And what distances did you try and which one are you settled on?

(Gonna order the speakers tomorrow.)

B.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Kris Deering said:


> Damn Keith, I was hoping you were right!!!! Still pretty sour that Disney isn't supporting Atmos on Blu given their overwhelming support theatrically.


Can you say, double dip?


----------



## Xeneize12

batpig said:


> I took the liberty of fixing your room crudely in Windows Paint
> 
> Couch moved forward. Surrounds repositioned and slightly lower.
> 
> (attachment added)



OK, so I decided to make some fixes.....

1) I'm moving the seating area forward.... it will now be 8.5 feet from the screen
2) I'll be building additional wall length on the wall not seen here so I can move the right surround speaker to ear level
3)I'll move the back surround to head level and closer angle
4) I'll be wiring for x.x.4 Atmos

Looks like the 2 front ceiling will be directly above me with very little room to go forward.... I'll align them with my front speakers which are now separated by around 8 feet between (FR and FL), therefore I'll be basically installing the 2 speakers directly above and roughly 1-2 feet from the side seats and the ceiling back around 4 feet (back) from the front ceiling ones...

My question.... should I move the 2 front speakers to a bit forward so that they fall in the gray area of the ceiling? (I can mount them so that they fall a bit) or are they fine where I'm planning?

I'll be doing a 5.1.4 initially with the option of 7.1.4 when I upgrade the AVR.

Thanks for the help!


----------



## NorthSky

Brian B said:


> *Ok, so you did a 1/11 and multiplied it by 3 and came up with ~ 50".*
> 
> The big question is how the encoder/decoder handles the difference in placement and whether it affects the sound significantly. It seems that placing speakers far apart and shooting them down will result in poorer response, but if they need to be that distance to provide correct directional cues, then that's different.
> 
> B.


Yes; exactly *49.90"*

As for your question; I just don't know exactly...best is to experiment in your own room...but you can't because you won't on your own...instead you are searching for the perfect solution from someone else. And that, is the biggest dilemma of them all because your room is the only unique room of the universe and nobody else's room. Plus those are only your own ears and shape. 

Me, I just suggested my own calculation from your own coordinates, and from what I've been reading for over a year. 
The more suggestions and opinions that you gather all together...eventually you'll drill some holes in your ceiling.
But without your own experimentation you'll never be totally certain...and that's why other people are doing their own...just like I will be doing my own too...eventually. But the positions that I will try first won't be the absolute ones...I leave myself totally free to change them anytime I feel like it...I can afford it. 

And I will use the system I used in suggesting you in my own setup. It's not easy because not all speakers image best @ certain distance from each other and from us. And even more tough when from above...when we have no experience with this totally new 3D sound Atmos equation.
We know the THX recommendations, the Dolby recommendations, the ITU standards for surround sound setup with floor speakers, and we can use them for overhead speakers. 
They are a guide...when short of experimenting ourselves.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

FYI. Age of adaline in fact was very very good movie. 

Might have to buy it simon have it in Atmos

Very nice use of sound to enhance the story. Particularly the bass to increase tension


----------



## asere

Brian Fineberg said:


> FYI. Age of adaline in fact was very very good movie.
> 
> Might have to buy it simon have it in Atmos
> 
> Very nice use of sound to enhance the story. Particularly the bass to increase tension


Yes considering the genre the bass was impressive.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## TexasSage

I have a question re: Atmos and side-firing speakers. I keep looking for this, but can't really find an answer. I have some older Paradigm side-firing speakers. They sound just fine. The issue is that I am getting my media room set up for Atmos. Most of the reference pictures show direct fire speakers in the rear and side positions. I can change to direct fire if I need to, but if my side-firing paradigms will work well I won't need to. Any help would be appreciated as the home theater salesman doesn't seem to know.


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> FYI. *Age of adaline in fact was very very good movie*.
> 
> Might have to buy it simon have it in Atmos
> 
> Very nice use of sound to enhance the story. Particularly the bass to increase tension


Right on Brian...an excellent movie indeed. ...It grabs us and brings us into a magical ride.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TexasSage said:


> I have a question re: Atmos and side-firing speakers. I keep looking for this, but can't really find an answer. I have some older Paradigm side-firing speakers. They sound just fine. The issue is that I am getting my media room set up for Atmos. Most of the reference pictures show direct fire speakers in the rear and side positions. I can change to direct fire if I need to, but if my side-firing paradigms will work well I won't need to. Any help would be appreciated as the home theater salesman doesn't seem to know.


Paradigm wall surrounds are usually dipoles (they just switched to bipole designs in their newest speakers), so I would swap them for monopoles as they would be too diffuse.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

NorthSky said:


> Right on Brian...an excellent movie indeed. ...It grabs us and brings us into a magical ride.


Gotta love new codecs etc. I pretty much would NEVER have thought to watch this of it wasn't released in ATMOS (even though I still got jipped out of Atmos) and got to witness the glory of this film

Nice refreshing movie


----------



## Roudan

Brian Fineberg said:


> FYI. Age of adaline in fact was very very good movie.
> 
> Might have to buy it simon have it in Atmos
> 
> Very nice use of sound to enhance the story. Particularly the bass to increase tension


Thanks Brian. I was thinking to buy it but review from rotten tomatoes and Amazon is not very good. Any comment on these review? Thanks

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_age_of_adaline/


----------



## TexasSage

Dan Hitchman said:


> Paradigm wall surrounds are usually dipoles (they just switched to bipole designs in their newest speakers), so I would swap them for monopoles as they would be too diffuse.


You sir, are a kind and decent person. Do you think these would be a good alternative: 

MARTIN LOGAN (MOTION-15) SIDE FIRING SPEAKERS.

This is what the home theater store recommended.

They are also recommending the MOTION-40 for rear speakers. I am almost worried my rear speakers will be better than my old Paradigm front speakers. It seems like a lot of speaker for rears.


----------



## NorthSky

TexasSage said:


> I have a question re: Atmos and side-firing speakers. I keep looking for this, but can't really find an answer. I have some older Paradigm side-firing speakers. They sound just fine. The issue is that I am getting my media room set up for Atmos. Most of the reference pictures show direct fire speakers in the rear and side positions. I can change to direct fire if I need to, but if my side-firing paradigms will work well I won't need to. Any help would be appreciated as the home theater salesman doesn't seem to know.


*Dolby Atmos Installation Speaker Guidelines*:

♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TexasSage said:


> You sir, are a kind and decent person. Do you think these would be a good alternative:
> 
> MARTIN LOGAN (MOTION-15) SIDE FIRING SPEAKERS.
> 
> This is what the home theater store recommended.
> 
> They are also recommending the MOTION-40 for rear speakers. I am almost worried my rear speakers will be better than my old Paradigm front speakers. It seems like a lot of speaker for rears.


I'd go with the Martin Logan Motion-15's if you are pleased with that manufacturer's sound. If so, then slowly replace your old Paradigm's with the larger, matching Motions for the front. The ML's and Paradigms are cut from two very different sonic cloths. That would be one heck of a timbre mismatch. I have Paradigms, so I should know.


----------



## virtualrain

Dan Hitchman said:


> Paradigm wall surrounds are usually dipoles (they just switched to bipole designs in their newest speakers), so I would swap them for monopoles as they would be too diffuse.


I and a few others are using ceiling mounted bipoles to good effect. It seems the consensus regarding wide dispersion speakers overhead is achieved nicely with a dipole. Most bipoles provide reinforcement on-axis and good off-axis dispersion. Of course, A dipole is not recommended due to the on-axis null.

EDIT: However, I see the question is about ear-level speakers, for which it seems monopole is the design of choice.


----------



## TexasSage

NorthSky said:


> *Dolby Atmos Installation Speaker Guidelines*:
> 
> ♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thank you. I did read this, but I didn't see much about side firing speakers in the setup. The diagrams look like direct firing speakers, so I suspect side-firing is not good.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

virtualrain said:


> I and a few others are using ceiling mounted dipoles to good effect. It seems the consensus regarding wide dispersion speakers overhead is achieved nicely with a dipole. Most dipoles provide reinforcement on-axis and good off-axis dispersion. Of course, A bipole is not recommended due to the on-axis null.


We were talking about main level side surrounds, not overheads.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Brian. I was thinking to buy it but review from rotten tomatoes and Amazon is not very good. Any comment on these review? Thanks
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_age_of_adaline/


Good evening Roudan,

Ralph gave it 3.5 stars out of five --> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs ...That's roughly 70 (out of 100, for the film itself).

Me, I would give it *80* (or 4 stars out of 5). 
And I am glad to have it in my BR collection...and good future viewing opportunity with some special friends.
But it's me...with my own senses and sensibilities.  

Rotten Tomatoes, ...Amazon reviews, IMDb, ...they all got that one wrong in my opinion. That movie is refreshing, like Brian just said.

Rent it, and decide...some folks they view a movie only once and that's it...then it's a sensible choice. 
And the Dolby Atmos is from the USA, not Canada. It doesn't even exist in Canada, @ least not yet, and if when, Dolby Atmos I doubt that it'll be included.


----------



## NorthSky

TexasSage said:


> Thank you. I did read this, but I didn't see much about side firing speakers in the setup. The diagrams look like direct firing speakers, so I suspect side-firing is not good.


That's because Dolby Atmos recommend direct firing speakers all around...no dipoles no bipoles. They must know some' more than we know ourselves...after all they are the Dolby Atmos inventor. 

* When you say "side-firing" you mean dipoles right...Paradigm dipole speakers? ...Yeah then; monopoles are best...the THX era is dead...welcome to Dolby Atmos and DTS:X new 3D immersive sound based on precise object localisation into an holographic imaging sound bubble. 

Give your dipoles to your son, or friend, or brother, or sell them on eBay.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Roudan said:


> Thanks Brian. I was thinking to buy it but review from rotten tomatoes and Amazon is not very good. Any comment on these review? Thanks
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_age_of_adaline/


It's on ok movie. 

Not great, not awful. Just ok. 

In terms of Atmos, there are maybe 4 or 5 scenes with really enveloping atmospheric effects, in particular, the car tumbling scene & the new year's party. 

There's some rain, but it can't compete with John Wick rain. 

The actress is gorgeous, very easy on the eyes. It was nice to see Harrison Ford too... I was curious to see his acting chops in this film, as it's very different from other films He's done recently. I wanted to get a good impression of what to expect in the new Star Wars movie. I think His performance in Star Wars will be better, but I enjoyed his role in this film somewhat... but very subdued. I know JJ abrams really pushed Harrison to get rid of his "growly" voice that he's been growling through all his films recently.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> And what distances did you try and which one are you settled on?
> 
> (Gonna order the speakers tomorrow.)
> 
> B.


That really does not give you anything as every room is different.
You will need to experiment in your own room.


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> Of course, A bipole is not recommended due to the on-axis null.


I think you got things backwards


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> I think you got things backwards


Wow... epic fail on this thread...  (I'll edit for future reference)


----------



## batpig

TexasSage said:


> I have a question re: Atmos and side-firing speakers. I keep looking for this, but can't really find an answer. I have some older Paradigm side-firing speakers. They sound just fine. The issue is that I am getting my media room set up for Atmos. Most of the reference pictures show direct fire speakers in the rear and side positions. I can change to direct fire if I need to, but if my side-firing paradigms will work well I won't need to. Any help would be appreciated as the home theater salesman doesn't seem to know.


If they sound good now they aren't going to stop sounding good with Atmos. 

To me it's a question of budget and priorities. I'm practical. If you have the will and the budget to overhaul the whole setup with new speakers, sure don't get another dipole. But if you're on a tight budget and trying to maximize resources, I would not buy new surrounds as a first priority if you're happy with how the current ones sound.


----------



## blastermaster

Roudan said:


> Thanks Brian. I was thinking to buy it but review from rotten tomatoes and Amazon is not very good. Any comment on these review? Thanks
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_age_of_adaline/


When there's a sizeable discrepancy between the reviewers rating and audience rating, I usually go with what the audience likes. RT often will score a movie low if it's not a unique and special snowflake. If the movie is formulaic (even though it may be very entertaining) it will often get a lower score by reviewers. In this case, the audience gave it ~70%, which is on par with Ralph's score. Cheers.

FWIW, I bought it as it looks to be an entertaining film.


----------



## NorthSky

> If they sound good now they aren't going to stop sounding good with Atmos.
> 
> To me it's a question of budget and priorities. I'm practical. If you have the will and the budget to overhaul the whole setup with new speakers, sure don't get another dipole. But if you're on a tight budget and trying to maximize resources, I would not buy new surrounds as a first priority if you're happy with how the current ones sound.


I too gravitate into this thinking. ...It always depends.


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> When there's a sizeable discrepancy between the reviewers rating and audience rating, I usually go with what the audience likes. RT often will score a movie low if it's not a unique and special snowflake. If the movie is formulaic (even though it may be very entertaining) it will often get a lower score by reviewers. In this case, the audience gave it ~70%, which is on par with Ralph's score. Cheers.
> 
> FWIW, I bought it as it looks to be an entertaining film.


All Rotten Tomatoes critics: 54%

Audience: 68%

* Audience win...and by a good margin just for the sheer size of people.


----------



## dvdwilly3

@TexasSage


Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd go with the Martin Logan Motion-15's if you are pleased with that manufacturer's sound. If so, then slowly replace your old Paradigm's with the larger, matching Motions for the front. The ML's and Paradigms are cut from two very different sonic cloths. That would be one heck of a timbre mismatch. I have Paradigms, so I should know.


I recently went from dome tweeters in my system to folded ribbon tweeters. It was done in pieces--they do not always play well together--not necessarily bad, but just not right.

However, with the system now completely folded-ribbon based, it sounds wonderful. And, that is basically where it sounds like your HT guy is trying to lead you. It sounds like he is recommending a system like the Martin Logan system reviewed in Sound and Vision.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/martinlogan-motion-40-speaker-system-0#A48GTt7amolQ7OF0.97

It would think that you would find it pleasing...

My apologies...this should be directed to TexasSage instead of Dan H. But I don't know how to do that...


----------



## Brian B

NorthSky said:


> As for your question; I just don't know exactly...best is to experiment in your own room...but you can't because you won't on your own...instead you are searching for the perfect solution from someone else. And that, is the biggest dilemma of them all because your room is the only unique room of the universe and nobody else's room. Plus those are only your own ears and shape.
> .


I never said anything about a perfect solution. It seems I've offended your sensibility asking for advice on a recommendation on Atmos in an Atmos thread with ~ 30,000 responses.

The specifications aren't based on my room or anyone else's. I was soliciting advice from those who might have actual experience on the placement of the speakers and not just guesswork. If you don't have anything else to offer then I understand.



NorthSky said:


> Me, I just suggested my own calculation from your own coordinates, and from what I've been reading for over a year.
> The more suggestions and opinions that you gather all together...eventually you'll drill some holes in your ceiling.
> But without your own experimentation you'll never be totally certain...and that's why other people are doing their own...just like I will be doing my own too...eventually. But the positions that I will try first won't be the absolute ones...I leave myself totally free to change them anytime I feel like it...I can afford it. .


I wasn't looking for certainty--just a scientific approach for locating the speakers and achieving proper decoding of the overhead channels. If it doesn't exist then so be it. It seems you think I slighted you by not paying closer attention to your suggestions, but I don't think the standard acoustic models (that you've recommended) apply.

Truth be told...I'm not that particular, so if there is no obvious recommendation other than discussed, then I will wing it and be perfectly happy with the result.

Thanks for your advice,
Brian


----------



## Brian B

aaranddeeman said:


> That really does not give you anything as every room is different.
> You will need to experiment in your own room.


True, but the relationships between fixed listener and fixed speaker locations can commonly be predicted. In any case, thanks for your help.

B.


----------



## NorthSky

TexasSage said:


> You sir, are a kind and decent person. Do you think these would be a good alternative:
> 
> MARTIN LOGAN (MOTION-15) SIDE FIRING SPEAKERS.
> 
> This is what the home theater store recommended.
> 
> They are also recommending the MOTION-40 for rear speakers. I am almost worried my rear speakers will be better than my old Paradigm front speakers. It seems like a lot of speaker for rears.





dvdwilly3 said:


> I recently went from dome tweeters in my system to folded ribbon tweeters. It was done in pieces--they do not always play well together--not necessarily bad, but just not right.
> 
> However, with the system now completely folded-ribbon based, it sounds wonderful. And, that is basically where it sounds like your HT guy is trying to lead you. It sounds like he is recommending a system like the Martin Logan system reviewed in Sound and Vision.
> 
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/martinlogan-motion-40-speaker-system-0#A48GTt7amolQ7OF0.97
> 
> It would think that you would find it pleasing...
> 
> My apologies...*this should be directed to TexasSage* instead of Dan H. But I don't know how to do that...


But you have done just that by your saying right there *^*


----------



## NorthSky

Brian, it's all good; we're all searching for the best Dolby Atmos overhead speaker's positions...it's just that we also have different rooms all of us.
But the Dolby Atmos Guidelines on Home Theater setup is a very good place to harmonize everyone. 

Some professional Dolby Atmos installations for the home market, done by professional people, and showing their home theater rooms here in some forum sections, are also a good guide on where they put the Atmos overhead speakers. Even some Dolby people participated in some of those pro installations...with their guidance and recommendations.

I wasn't sensibly offended for one bit...my mistake perhaps to not have real experience. I mentioned it in my first reply. I took more time and dedication in my second reply.
...Nothing absolute, just trying to work together. No, really nothing else I want to add. 

In my second reply I simply asked if it was ok to communicate some common suggestions. In case that my non-experience was unworthy; directly and politely...that's all.
I have no scientific credentials, no experience, and no need for attention. I'm just a regular guy very much interested in this entire new Dolby Atmos love affair. 
I take interest in it, and I'm also interested in other people's setups.
My calculations have no basis other than what I briefly mentioned regarding the fraction of thirds, fifths, etc., regarding nuls and peaks on room's acoustics.
It came out of my head like that and I thought that it was still valid for sounds coming from the ceiling and hitting us down below @ the MLP. 
...And that the angles relative to the MLP could also be used as the ones we use below. I have no scientific evidence, I simply proposed it freely. 
I took in consideration your room's dimensions, and your light fixtures on the ceiling.

Thank you.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> That is exactly what I did in my home theater room. I have about 30, 2' x 2' absorbtive panels in my drop ceiling. For the 4 Pioneer up-firing speakers, I replaced two panels in each respective area with reflective panels. Works great! I have also been testing with in-ceiling Klipsch speakers too! What a great hobby!


Pretty much describes the Dolby ceiling to perfection. This is the Dolby London 'HT" demo room. The distortion is caused by the ultra-wide angle lens.










Here is a close-up of the ceiling:


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Atmos doesn't necessarily need to be an obvious ceiling or bed proposition. Sometimes, a small amount of sound in those speakers can be enough to create that bubble of sound we talk about.


Very true.


----------



## Markitron

batpig said:


> Markitron -- With respect to the original question, pretty much all 2015 model year AVR's with Atmos are slated to get DTS:X as an upgrade (whenever it finally comes out). So you are safe buying any current model Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha with 7ch and Atmos support.
> 
> Other than Onkyo HTIB setups, you aren't going to find these sold as a package deal. So it's probably better to research / buy receivers and speakers separately.
> 
> If your TOTAL budget is $2,000 for everything, as pasender suggested it's going to be a tight squeeze and you'll be limited to a 5.1.2 setup at best. If you eventually want to expand to 9 channels then you either have to skimp and grab some cheap used speakers or just buy what you can now and save up for more later.
> 
> However, you can do a full setup for $2k with Atmos-enabled speakers and 5.1.2. An inexpensive Denon/Yamaha AVR with 5.1.2 Atmos support at around $500, and then you've got two nice budget Atmos speakers options courtesy of Andrew Jones. His Pioneer line and now his new ELAC line (AFAIK not yet released for sale?).
> 
> For example with the Pioneer speakers, you can't afford the Elite line but you can get affordable Atmos-enabled speakers in their basic Andrew Jones designed line: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Pioneer+Speakers
> 
> Here's the ELAC models: http://elac.us/speakers/
> 
> If you can mount speakers high on the walls or on the ceiling you can probably get even cheaper since you don't HAVE to get "Atmos-enabled" speakers.


Many thanks for the detailed reply, so after a bit of research I think I'll go with the Denon X2200 AVC with The SPK52S speaker package with the add-on atmos upfiring speakers ( I can't ceiling-mount where I currently am).

This actually comes in at about 400 under my budget, but I can't really see a way of getting any kind of significant upgrade without going way over budget.

Actually those speakers are not showing as available on pioneers website, don't suppose anyone knows where I could get them in Europe?


----------



## maikeldepotter

It seems that proposed/recommended/required immersive speaker lay-outs for home applications are converging to moderate elevation angles (25-35 degrees) for the height speakers, allowing them to be mounted on the wall instead of the ceiling (ATCS 3.0, DTS-X, Auro3D-9.1). This development brings Atmos in a rather isolated position given its emphasis on ceiling speakers for optimal results. It might turn out to be Atmos' Achilles heel in the battle for the consumer market against DTS-X.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Brian B said:


> True, but the relationships between fixed listener and fixed speaker locations can commonly be predicted. In any case, thanks for your help.
> 
> B.


Sorry Brian, I didn't mean to be an a$$, but truly the measurements in my room may not work in yours. So experimenting is the key here.
And I have already gave you the spacing in my current positioning that sounds better than any of those before.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> It seems that proposed/recommended/required immersive speaker lay-outs for home applications are converging to moderate elevation angles (25-35 degrees) for the height speakers, allowing them to be mounted on the wall instead of the ceiling (ATCS 3.0, DTS-X, Auro3D-9.1). This development brings Atmos in a rather isolated position given its emphasis on ceiling speakers for optimal results. It might turn out to be Atmos' Achilles heel in the battle for the consumer market against DTS-X.


IMO it always comes down to content. The three you mention have zero (home) content of any significance so I can’t see how they can become any sort of defacto standard for speaker layout. OK, we do expect DTS:X to have some significant content one day, but they are miles behind Atmos.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Has anyone with an Atmos/DTS:X setup run the movie Ex Machina in both modes?

As far as I know, this is the sole DTS:X bluray out there and I am sure that there is at least one among us who has an Atmos/DTS:X AVR/separates setup.

I Would like some real-world idea of whther there is a significant difference between running the movie in DSU versus real DTS:X...

Anybody?


----------



## grendelrt

dvdwilly3 said:


> Has anyone with an Atmos/DTS:X setup run the movie Ex Machina in both modes?
> 
> As far as I know, this is the sole DTS:X bluray out there and I am sure that there is at least one among us who has an Atmos/DTS:X AVR/separates setup.
> 
> I Would like some real-world idea of whther there is a significant difference between running the movie in DSU versus real DTS:X...
> 
> Anybody?


There is no DTS X hardware out yet. That blu ray is the only thing released so far, the hardware aspect is coming as a firmware update later this year (hopefully).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

grendelrt said:


> There is no DTS X hardware out yet. That blu ray is the only thing released so far, the hardware aspect is coming as a firmware update later this year (hopefully).


Somehow it feels like it won't be until First Quarter 2016. They're probably in no great hurry as UHD Blu-ray won't drop until then anyway and that will probably have the most immersive content.


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> IMO it always comes down to content. The three you mention have zero (home) content of any significance so I can’t see how they can become any sort of defacto standard for speaker layout. OK, we do expect DTS:X to have some significant content one day, but they are miles behind Atmos.


I would agree if there was a significant amount of content on Blu-ray with Atmos but you aren't even approaching the amount of titles released EVERY WEEK on Blu-ray yet. So there is no advantage in content in terms of broad market, it is less than a fraction of a percent. This is what I alluded to before, no one has a real market lead if a mainstay format (streaming, packaged media) goes all in on a format. That kind of support will completely wipe the floor with what is out there for Atmos right now. In the end no format is safe at the moment, but Atmos does have a nice trend going for it and I hope to see it continue.


----------



## brickyardz

*How do you like Atmos so far?*

Been doing some reading here, and now I am interested in doing an Atmos set up. How do you like it so far? I am sure once more material is released it will be fantastic. Is there anything that you do not like? I will be starting from scratch, do not have receiver or speakers, is there anything that I should look out for when purchasing these? Thanks for the info. john.


----------



## grendelrt

Dan Hitchman said:


> Somehow it feels like it won't be until First Quarter 2016. They're probably in no great hurry as UHD Blu-ray won't drop until then anyway and that will probably have the most immersive content.


Yeah i have a feeling its going to slip to 1st quarter 2016, which sucks. I wanted impressions of layouts before I put up my ceiling speakers and move my other speakers. I know they say it will adapt but I would rather have real world results from other users to go by before I move everything.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I would agree if there was a significant amount of content on Blu-ray with Atmos but you aren't even approaching the amount of titles released EVERY WEEK on Blu-ray yet. So there is no advantage in content in terms of broad market, it is less than a fraction of a percent. This is what I alluded to before, no one has a real market lead if a mainstay format (streaming, packaged media) goes all in on a format. That kind of support will completely wipe the floor with what is out there for Atmos right now. In the end no format is safe at the moment, but Atmos does have a nice trend going for it and I hope to see it continue.



That would be true if there were no such things as trends, which you allude to. Auro has no trend. There have been no USA Blu-ray movie releases and none are in the pipeline as far as anyone knows. Of the two movies released in Auro elsewhere, one is for a three year old movie and the other is for a movie in an obscure European language. Atmos, OTOH, is showing a clear, rising trend for more releases as time goes on. There is no indication this will stop or reverse and the pace of new title announcements is increasing exponentially. As such, I don't think there is much doubt as to which of the three formats, Auro, DTS:X or Atmos, is the clear content winner. This might be being a little unfair to DTS:X which has one title but no means of playing it (yet). So the way I see it is that Auro is effectively out of the game now, DTS:X is an unknown quantity and Atmos is the format with more and more Blu-ray releases being announced.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> I Would like some real-world idea of whether there is a significant difference between running the movie in DSU versus real DTS:X...
> 
> Anybody?


There had better be, or DTS:X is also dead in the water  But I can't answer your direct question as I have never heard DTS:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

brickyardz said:


> Been doing some reading here, and now I am interested in doing an Atmos set up. How do you like it so far? I am sure once more material is released it will be fantastic. Is there anything that you do not like? I will be starting from scratch, do not have receiver or speakers, is there anything that I should look out for when purchasing these? Thanks for the info. john.


I suggest you skim through the thread where all the questions you raise have been discussed quite often. My personal view is that I love it. The extra immersion and extra precision with which sounds are placed throughout the soundstage in an Atmos mix is a massive step forward in home cinema audio. Dolby's upmixer, Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) does a fabulous job with legacy content and upmixes movies wonderfully to all 4 of the overhead speakers in my setup. What don't I like? Well I'd like there to be more releases in Atmos on Blu-ray. But that is hardly Dolby's fault. And the pace of releases is picking up month by month.

You need an Atmos AVR which can handle the number of speakers you want. If you want 4 overhead speakers (highly recommended) then you need an 11.1 AVR. So far, other than one Onkyo AFAIK, this means choosing a 9.1 Atmos AVR that has the ability for you to add an external 2ch amp for the last 2 channels. Eg, the Denon X5200. Your choice for speakers is the same as it was pre-Atmos, so choose whatever you would for 7.1. For overhead speakers, check out the recommendations in this thread and also the Dolby installation guidelines for home theater Atmos. Ideally you need overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern and which can handle the levels and power you need for your installation. I use Tannoy Di5 DC and am very happy with them.


----------



## Xeneize12

batpig said:


> I would dispute that there's a consensus here. Having now experienced it and various other configs while tinkering with my new room, I would go 7.1.2 before 5.1.4 if you have a room that can accommodate back surrounds (ie anything other than a short room with the couch stuck against the back wall).
> 
> To me the back surrounds add a great deal, especially with the aggressive 7.1 surround mixes in these Atmos releases. Sure in theory it's somewhat asymmetric in terms of resource allocation but there is so much action going on in the lateral plane. And not that much stuff happening overhead.
> 
> The addition of well placed Top Middle speakers really gets you 70-80% of the way there in terms of overhead immersion. A well configured 7.1.2 with the back surrounds slightly elevated to help cover the sensation of height in the rear hemisphere is an awesome Atmos config.


Thanks Batpig, I missed this comment earlier...

I can test 7.1.2 with the Denon X4200W, but when you say "Top Middle Speaker" is that in addition to the 7.1.2 or part of the x.x.2?

In other words, do you recommend I go 7.1.2 with Top Middle Speakers or Top Front Speakers?

Keep in mind that I'll be wiring for 7.1.4, and planning on Top Rear Speakers when I upgrade receivers (not going to happen anytime soon)


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> maikeldepotter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that proposed/recommended/required immersive speaker lay-outs for home applications are converging to moderate elevation angles (25-35 degrees) for the height speakers, allowing them to be mounted on the wall instead of the ceiling (ATCS 3.0, DTS-X, Auro3D-9.1). This development brings Atmos in a rather isolated position given its emphasis on ceiling speakers for optimal results. It might turn out to be Atmos' Achilles heel in the battle for the consumer market against DTS-X.
> 
> 
> 
> *IMO it always comes down to content.* The three you mention have zero (home) content of any significance so I can’t see how they can become any sort of defacto standard for speaker layout. OK, we do expect DTS:X to have some significant content one day, but they are miles behind Atmos.
Click to expand...


That's exactly correct: it does come down to content . . . and the most important thing about the already available Atmos content ("mixes") on BD is that it appears the existing rendering engine [for mass market AVRs] will work correctly with a 5.1|7.1 middle layer, plus "any" 2 or 4 elevated speaker pairs, once a speaker pair is valid (per the AVR configuration.) Specifically, VBAP math suggests it's likely the primary change needed to allow Atmos to render to the ATSC 3.0 7.1+4 speaker configuration (a variant of *ITU-R BS.2051-0* Speaker Configuration *G*) is for the appropriate Azimuth and Elevation numbers for "new" H1 and H2 speaker pairs to be available to the rendering engine. (My suspicion is that secondary changes to some "improper speaker emplacement" compensation parameters, etc., might benefit from tweaking also...?)

Presumably Dolby is already planning some kind of changes over the next year or so in order to accommodate an integrated Atmos|AC-4 rendering engine for AVRs which must play both [current and future] Atmos BDs and streamed AC-4 immersive audio content . . . within an "ATSC 3.0 compliant" multi-codec mobile|streaming environment (with delivery of similar content over OTA|CATV starting a few years later...?!)


_


----------



## Aras_Volodka

brickyardz said:


> Been doing some reading here, and now I am interested in doing an Atmos set up. How do you like it so far? I am sure once more material is released it will be fantastic. Is there anything that you do not like? I will be starting from scratch, do not have receiver or speakers, is there anything that I should look out for when purchasing these? Thanks for the info. john.


I have to dismantle my HT this week. All I have to say is that going from 7.1.4 back to 5.1 will be painful. DSU works miracles.


----------



## stikle

dvdwilly3 said:


> My apologies...this should be directed to TexasSage instead of Dan H. But I don't know how to do that...


 @dvdwilly3
Click the speaker icon to add MENTION tags, then type the username.



brickyardz said:


> Been doing some reading here, and now I am interested in doing an Atmos set up. How do you like it so far? I am sure once more material is released it will be fantastic.



Mad Max is *fabulous* in Atmos. The new Dolby Surround Upmixer included with Atmos capable receivers is awesome in it's own right for making 2-7 channel audio sound even better.

There is more than a handful of Atmos Blurays available worldwide now. It's not going away.


----------



## Kain

I just remembered I made a thread back in 2002 on the Klipsch forum about Dolby adding overhead speakers: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/17802-dolby-adds-new-sound-format-overhead-speaker/

The link in that thread is now dead but you can read more here: http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t004286.html


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> IMO it always comes down to content. The three you mention have zero (home) content of any significance so I can’t see how they can become any sort of defacto standard for speaker layout. OK, we do expect DTS:X to have some significant content one day, but they are miles behind Atmos.


Yes, but íf DTS-X were to catch up on the content part ...

I believe that the majority of all the people willing to put seven or more speakers in their living rooms to enjoy immersive sound, will be HTIB buyers. Most of them facing WAF and/or other domestic hurdles. If they can choose between ceiling mounted or wall mounted height speakers, they will probably go for the latter. 

IMO, for Atmos to succeed in this market segment will therefore depend on the availability of up-firing speakers in the lower price range: Dolby Atmos enabled speakers as part of a HTIB system.

Just my 2 cts.


----------



## sdurani

Scroll down to the audio formats: http://www.dvd-palace.de/datenbank/medien/blu-ray/minions/90931.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey! French Dolby Digital 7.1 Atmos.

Nice.

Only the French could pull that off! Well, maybe the North Koreans too.


----------



## sdurani

If the specs are to be believed, the disc has three Atmos soundtracks, one in TrueHD and the other two in DD+ (doubt it is DD, as the site says).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey, that's cool. Alternative language tracks available in DD+ Atmos would be fine by me.


----------



## NorthSky

But *Minions* is for young children...age 5 to 7.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> But *Minions* is for young children...age 5 to 7.


So...? It has heights!


----------



## multit

NorthSky said:


> But *Minions* is for young children...age 5 to 7.


I watched it with my daughter (14) as well as the predecessors and they are all good for all ages.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Those decisions/changes weren't made to the downmix itself, they were made to the Atmos mix in order to insure a proper downmix. There is no other Atmos mix and 7.1 downmix on the Blu-ray; they're one and the same. If you completely unpack an Atmos mix and render it to a flat 7.1 layout it will be the same as playing back the 7.1 track. Maybe I'm missing something?


I believe the way this works is that the object metadata do not only contain positional information, but also reciprocal 'down-mix trim pass' information to achieve the original sound pressure levels for the heights in the unfolded Atmos mix. If in absence of height speakers all sound is folded back into the listerens' level layer, the renderer uses this same 'trim pass' information to re-adjust the volume levels. In effect, you will indeed get exactly the same sound as playing the down-mixed 7.1 track. I hope this makes sense...


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, but íf DTS-X were to catch up on the content part ...
> 
> I believe that the majority of all the people willing to put seven or more speakers in their living rooms to enjoy immersive sound, will be HTIB buyers. Most of them facing WAF and/or other domestic hurdles. If they can choose between ceiling mounted or wall mounted height speakers, they will probably go for the latter.
> 
> IMO, for Atmos to succeed in this market segment will therefore depend on the availability of up-firing speakers in the lower price range: Dolby Atmos enabled speakers as part of a HTIB system.
> 
> Just my 2 cts.


I believe Dolby covers both segments:
- hardcore HC enthousisasts => 4 ceiling speakers , TF + TR
- HTIB buyers => 4 high-wall speakers => FH + RH

Regarding up-firing modules and speakers, there are already quite a few offers on the market (Onkyo, Pioneer, KEF, Klipsch, Elac), at different budget points, and more coming ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Question on positional rendering of overhead sounds*

When switching from TF+TR to TM only, does the Atmos renderer shift all of the TF+TR overhead sound to the TM position? Or could some of that sound also end up in the listeners' level front and rear speakers? Same question for FH+RH to TM only.

For example, I can imagine that when using the FH+TM combo, a sound traveling overhead all the way from the front to the back will finally end up in the rears in absence of RHs. But I don't know if it works that way.


----------



## multit

As far as I understand Atmos, all speakers are included in the rendering and an object is not necessarily an overhead object.


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> When switching from TF+TR to TM only, does the Atmos renderer shift all of the TF+TR overhead sound to the TM position? Or could some of that sound also end up in the listeners' level front and rear speakers? Same question for FH+RH to TM only. For example, I can imagine that when using the FH+TM combo, a sound traveling overhead all the way from the front to the back will finally end up in the rears in absence of RHs. But I don't know if it works that way.



As a general rule, selecting a different [Dolby Atmos] H1 speaker pair will affect the sound sent to middle layer speakers.

The mechanics of VBAP require that (except in certain "mathematically degenerate" geometries) at least three speakers are used to reproduce the audio from a dynamic object. Increased "object complexity" (bigger than a point source, diffuse sound radiation pattern, etc.) may necessitate additional speakers, plus "vendor secret sauce" is presumably added to compensate for "improper speaker placement" and poor room acoustical geometry). However using a simplified 'three speaker active triangle' object reproduction is sufficient to demonstrate what is happening:

For a *5.1.2* configuration, imagine a unit-radius hemisphere centered on the MLP, and with the 5 middle layer speakers placed at their *nominal* positions 'around the equator'. Note the *nominal* positions available for possible Top Front and Top Middle overhead speaker pairs on the surface of the hemisphere. Now imagine a single dynamic object which (fortuitously for this example) passes exactly through a line drawn from the MLP to the (optional) Right Top Front overhead speaker location (at time *T1*).

*(1) If the system is configured to use the Top Front overhead speaker pair for H1:* For a brief interval at time *T1* the audio emissions from the object can be reproduced using *only* the Right Top Front overhead speaker.

*(2) If the system is configured to use the Top Middle overhead speaker pair for H1:* At time *T1* the audio emissions from the object must now be reproduced using *three* speakers: (Middle Layer) Front Center, (Middle Layer) Front Right, and the Right Top Middle overhead speaker, as these three speakers form the triangle on the surface of the hemisphere through which a radiant from the MLP to the object passes at time *T1*.


_


----------



## sdurani

From WSJ a couple days ago:


> How Dolby Plans To Revolutionize The Sound On Your Tablet, Smartphone And TV
> 
> 
> Dolby Laboratories in the midst of a real surge of activity right now. Not content with developing the premium Dolby Cinema experience for commercial movie theaters and Dolby Vision for the new generation of 4K UHD HDR TVs, it’s also getting busy promoting a new audio system for the ‘digital age’ that it claims can deliver a premium audio experience to modern connected devices like Smartphones, tablet computers and television sets.
> 
> Called Dolby AC-4, the key idea behind Dolby’s latest audio innovation is to provide a much more efficient, flexible audio compression system. Dolby claims AC-4 can deliver compression efficiency improvements of around 50% over current broadcast-standard audio technologies, helping content deliverers to maintain high quality audio even when their delivery systems are under strain from a high quality video signal. In other words, it’s potentially perfectly suited to the burgeoning 4K UHD age.​
> In recognition of the way we now consume video across a range of devices, meanwhile, Dolby AC-4 has been designed to operate across multiple platforms, including traditional broadcast, mobile networks, plus the new hybrid broadcast/broadband approach that’s starting to gain currency in the content delivery world.​
> According to Dolby, AC-4 is “easy to implement and enables broadcasters to upgrade and adapt their operations to support next-generation experiences.” It’s designed to offer a complete end to end solution, taking in content creation, distribution, interchange and delivery to consumers, and – particularly usefully for today’s multimedia age – it’s able to carry both channel- and object-based programming. This means that as well as improving sound quality, Dolby AC-4 could be used for offering end users different audio options, such as different commentary tracks on sporting events of multiple language choices.​
> As well as its high compression efficiency, flexible usage scenarios and support for multiple languages/descriptive services, Dolby AC-4 also includes native support for such potentially useful tricks as dialogue enhancement, intelligent loudness and dynamic range control. Plus, as part of its focus on trying to be as easy – and affordable – to implement as possible, Dolby AC-4 carries built-in self-configuration and automation systems.​
> Dolby has also designed AC-4 streams to be highly scalable based on the devices different consumers are using in their homes, with the playback options even extending to Dolby Atmos if an end user’s kit can handle it.​
> Dolby AC-4 is already much more than just a laboratory experiment, too. Vizio , Sony and TP Vision (which makes Philips -branded TVs in Europe) have all signed up to incorporate Dolby AC-4 into future televisions, and the format has been standardised by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and adopted by the Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) group.​
> Matt McRae, Chief Technology Officer at Vizio, says of Dolby AC-4: “At VIZIO, we are committed to delivering on the full potential of IP delivery of premium entertainment, and the rapid pace of innovation Dolby AC-4 makes possible. The opportunity to innovate with Dolby in both audio and video makes the adoption of Dolby AC-4 a compelling opportunity with extraordinary consumer value.”​
> Dolby AC-4 has also already been used by Envivio to encode broadcasts of the 2015 UEFA Champions League Final and the 2015 French Open tennis tournament, while in the US San Francisco’s KQED-TV recently conducted successful trials of Dolby AC-4 run by video infrastructure specialist Harmonic. In addition, Axon, Dektec, Interra Systems, Linear Acoustic and ST Micro recently showcased on the Dolby booth at the 2015 IBC in Amsterdam how they’ve integrated Dolby AC-4 into their workflows.​
> Dolby AC-4 should start to find its way onto TVs and other media devices coming to market over the next few months.​


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> From WSJ a couple days ago:





> How Dolby Plans To Revolutionize The Sound On Your Tablet, Smartphone And TV


----------



## Jack Gilvey

I've noticed that Netflix never lists Atmos under "Language and Sound" for a BD. If an Atmos track is available, they list "DTS-HD Master Audio". _Fishy_...


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> From WSJ a couple days ago: >



Tragically, when the WSJ reprints with only minor editing what sounds like a Dolby press release, that does NOT make it news . . . only bad reporting! "News" would have required disclosure that many quite similar claims might equally well have appeared in corresponding articles about either DTS or the MPEG-H Audio Alliance. And an explicit statement that neither Dolby AC-4 nor the MPEG-H Audio codecs+technologies has yet been selected as the future ATSC 3.0 System audio standard would have placed the Vizio|Dolby AC-4 "technology tie-in news" in a more appropriate context.  


_


----------



## Brian Fineberg

minions is official 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/


----------



## Brian Fineberg

minions is official 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> minions is official
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/


I usually steer away from these type of movies but I may give this one a go.


----------



## chi_guy50

Jack Gilvey said:


> I've noticed that Netflix never lists Atmos under "Language and Sound" for a BD. If an Atmos track is available, they list "DTS-HD Master Audio". _Fishy_...


Not fishy, just the time-worn rule of GIGO.

I've complained several times over the past year about the less than accurate audio information on the Netflix product pages. It seems that their system relies on whatever data is supplied by the disc's distributor and the specific audio codecs are not given high priority. Sadly, I doubt anyone at Netflix is verifying the accuracy or otherwise editing these entries.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

As long as they get the lossy/lossless part right, I'll deal with it. Now that I know the secret code for Atmos.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Brian Fineberg said:


> minions is official
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/


Have you seen a PR ?

It's still based on Germany information ?

Thanks !


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> minions is official
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/





Brian Fineberg said:


> minions is official
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/


Great, my grand kids will adore it. 

______

♥ *Minions* is for all ages...just in case.  ...I will add this baby to my growing Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie collection (2K, not 4K, and in 3D). 
You know what's cool about this BR title? ...It's an animation flick, with Atmos sound...so it should be @ the top.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> There is more than a handful of Atmos Blurays available worldwide now. It's not going away.


6 new Atmos releases scheduled for one month alone!


----------



## NorthSky

Keith's happy camper.


----------



## asere

Guys for many years I have been used to only overhead all in ceiling speakers including mains as my set up was 5.1.
Later I bought floor standing mains but had no choice and keep the in ceiling surrounds.
Now with Atmos I have been listening with floor standing mains and the in ceiling surrounds but no side surrounds. 
Now having said that it sounds really good so much that when I tried an ear level side surround with Atmos it sounded of course different but I'm not sure I like the ear level side surrounds as much as having the surrounds in ceiling. Again I have been used to the overheads for sometime.
I can't really place ear level side surrounds because of my family room and having wires running all over the place.
My intent is to use 5.1.2 but with TF heights and TR and NO ear level surrounds.
With that set up the sound that is suppose to come out of the ear level surrounds will instead come out of the TR, correct?
I may have asked this perhaps in a different way but I'm questioning if I should continue with the Atmos set up even if it's not recommended or drop Atmos altogether. 
I just hate to have in ceiling speakers go to waste by going back to 5.1



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

Jack Gilvey said:


> As long as they get the lossy/lossless part right, I'll deal with it. Now that I know *the secret code for Atmos*.


Secret code? Was that meant tongue in cheek?

I very seldom purchase discs, and I maintain a Blu-ray subscription at Netflix for the sole purpose of having access to the lossless audio soundtracks on the movies I want to watch, whether DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, or Atmos. It's highly irritating to have to order a movie without any confidence that what you will be getting is the full, uncrippled commercial version. Even with known culprits such as Lionsgate, in my experience sometimes the disc is lossless (e.g., DTS-HD MA) and sometimes it's been crippled.

Netflix has been doing so many good things over the past 3-4 years (ever since Reed Hastings's self-flagellating _mea culpa _over "Qwikster"), I really wish they would fix this--either by insisting on precise disc specs from the distributor or by devoting more resources to their record-keeping services.


----------



## pasender91

asere said:


> Guys for many years I have been used to only overhead all in ceiling speakers including mains as my set up was 5.1.
> Later I bought floor standing mains but had no choice and keep the in ceiling surrounds.
> Now with Atmos I have been listening with floor standing mains and the in ceiling surrounds but no side surrounds.
> Now having said that it sounds really good so much that when I tried an ear level side surround with Atmos it sounded of course different but I'm not sure I like the ear level side surrounds as much as having the surrounds in ceiling. Again I have been used to the overheads for sometime.
> I can't really place ear level side surrounds because of my family room and having wires running all over the place.
> My intent is to use 5.1.2 but with TF heights and TR and NO ear level surrounds.
> With that set up the sound that is suppose to come out of the ear level surrounds will instead come out of the TR, correct?
> I may have asked this perhaps in a different way but I'm questioning if I should continue with the Atmos set up even if it's not recommended or drop Atmos altogether.
> I just hate to have in ceiling speakers go to waste by going back to 5.1
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


If i get you correctly, you can't have surrounds, but ok for TF+TR, so this would result in a 3.1.4 configuration, is that correct ?
I'm not sure 100% but i thought i saw in several dolby docs that 5.1.2 is the absolute minimum configuration for Atmos to engage, so can't say what will happen with only 3 speakers at ground level...

Sorry, i understand this is not so helpful, still it may help someone else bring a better response ...


----------



## asere

pasender91 said:


> If i get you correctly, you can't have surrounds, but ok for TF+TR, so this would result in a 3.1.4 configuration, is that correct ?
> I'm not sure 100% but i thought i saw in several dolby docs that 5.1.2 is the absolute minimum configuration for Atmos to engage, so can't say what will happen with only 3 speakers at ground level...
> 
> Sorry, i understand this is not so helpful, still it may help someone else bring a better response ...


It would be floor mains including the center, two front heights in ceiling and two surrounds in ceiling. Technically a 5.1.2 with the exception of not having ear level surrounds. In other words the two in ceiling surrounds would take the place of the ear level surrounds.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

I've read somewhere, here @ AVS, that *'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1'*, from Lionsgate Films, has only a DD 5.1 (Lossy) audio soundtrack when purchased @ Walmart; the less expensive version...instead of the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and Dolby Atmos soundtracks on the other version. Hmmm...better keep track of those tactics used by our stores...and not only from rentals. And I hope we won't see that kind of "low tactic" when UHD Blu-rays hit our stores and rental outlets. 

* Lionsgate Films is certainly not gaining much popularity with their rentals and with Walmart, here in North America. ...I don't want to see 'John Wick' suffering a similar fate. 
...Enough right now that not everyone can hear its Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack...because of their encoding from hell that won't work in all Blu-ray players...and when we were assured that we wouldn't need a new BR player to play them Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays. 

I mentioned it not only because I was surprised that Walmart was doing that, but also because it doesn't augur good in the advancement of 3D immersive sound.
With less and less access, like we see here from Lionsgate Films and Walmart, Dolby Atmos is not helped by this. 
...And same with Disney and some of their 3D Blu-ray titles. 

It's a "Buyer Be Aware" 3D world we now live in. ...We need to know stuff like that...so that we stay away from deceptive "transactions".


----------



## Jack Gilvey

chi_guy50 said:


> Secret code? Was that meant tongue in cheek?
> 
> I very seldom purchase discs, and I maintain a Blu-ray subscription at Netflix for the sole purpose of having access to the lossless audio soundtracks on the movies I want to watch, whether DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, or Atmos. It's highly irritating to have to order a movie without any confidence that what you will be getting is the full, uncrippled commercial version. Even with known culprits such as Lionsgate, in my experience sometimes the disc is lossless (e.g., DTS-HD MA) and sometimes it's been crippled.
> 
> Netflix has been doing so many good things over the past 3-4 years (ever since Reed Hastings's self-flagellating _mea culpa _over "Qwikster"), I really wish they would fix this--either by insisting on precise disc specs from the distributor or by devoting more resources to their record-keeping services.


 I just meant the DTS HD reference when it's really Atmos.  I maintain a NF Blu-Ray subscription for the same reasons you do. I don't re-watch many movies, so don't purchase many.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> When switching from TF+TR to TM only, does the Atmos renderer shift all of the TF+TR overhead sound to the TM position? Or could some of that sound also end up in the listeners' level front and rear speakers? Same question for FH+RH to TM only.


I would think it would be "all of the above".

If there was content in the overhead bed for cinema, it would be a "static object" sent only to the overhead speakers for the home release (assuming no tampering in remix, i.e. they leave it in the overheads). So I imagine in those cases it would stay in the overheads only.

However, if there was an object that required more dynamic rendering (i.e. something above and in front of you) then I would bet that TM vs. TF+TR would result in differences, where a base level speaker might be brought into play (or used more) to properly render the sound in conjunction with the TM whereas previously it might not have been needed with a TF speaker there.


----------



## batpig

Markitron said:


> Many thanks for the detailed reply, so after a bit of research I think I'll go with the Denon X2200 AVC with The SPK52S speaker package with the add-on atmos upfiring speakers ( I can't ceiling-mount where I currently am).
> 
> This actually comes in at about 400 under my budget, but I can't really see a way of getting any kind of significant upgrade without going way over budget.


The obvious upgrade here would be to use that $400 of budget room to get a much better subwoofer than the wimpy little 8" box that comes with that package.


----------



## lovingdvd

Brian Fineberg said:


> minions is official
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-Blu-ray/127265/


Although I don't recall that movie having a particular engaging soundtrack that Atmos would really shine on, it's nonetheless encouraging to see the releases on Atmos starting to pick up some momentum.


----------



## audiofan1

lovingdvd said:


> Although I don't recall that movie having a particular engaging soundtrack that Atmos would really shine on, it's nonetheless encouraging to see the releases on Atmos starting to pick up some momentum.



I have yet to playback a movie in which Atmos and or DSU didn't shine on


----------



## ultraflexed

How come none of the newer receivers both onkyo and pioneer only have 2 height channels, 7.2 is the most I've seen on this year's models, what's going on? I thought we would get at least 9.2/ 5.2.4 at least or 7.1.2 but all I'm seeing for 2015 is 5.1.2's ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ultraflexed said:


> How come none of the newer receivers both onkyo and pioneer only have 2 height channels, 7.2 is the most I've seen on this year's models, what's going on? I thought we would get at least 9.2/ 5.2.4 at least or 7.1.2 but all I'm seeing for 2015 is 5.1.2's ?


They seemingly skipped the 5.1.4, 7.1.2 level of rendering and went from 5.1.2 base models to the ultra premium models that render 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 (along with 5.1.4 and 7.1.2). There is no in between unless certain mid range models haven't been announced yet. 

Remember, Pioneer's consumer electronics division and Onkyo are one company now.


----------



## ultraflexed

Dan Hitchman said:


> They seemingly skipped the 5.1.4, 7.1.2 level of rendering and went from 5.1.2 base models to the ultra premium models that render 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 (along with 5.1.4 and 7.1.2). There is no in between unless certain mid range models haven't been announced yet.
> 
> Remember, Pioneer's consumer electronics division and Onkyo are one company now.


Correct but where are all the 2015 ultra premium model that go up to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 haven't seen it this year.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Cinderella 

Was incredible with dsu. Wow

If I didn't know better I would swear it was native Atmos


----------



## Franchot

ultraflexed said:


> Correct but where are all the 2015 ultra premium model that go up to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 haven't seen it this year.


???

Don't know if you consider the Yamaha Aventage 2050 or 3050 ultra premium, but they do 5.1.4 and 7.1.2.

I'm sure Denon, Onkyo, and Pioneer have similar ultra premium models that do what you're asking.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ultraflexed said:


> Correct but where are all the 2015 ultra premium model that go up to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 haven't seen it this year.


I just checked and Pioneer's top three Elite models for this year are now listed on their website (ranging from $2,500 to $1,600 MSRP) and all are capable of 7.2.4 to 5.2.2 Dolby Atmos and DTS: X. 

So, they actually have one model, the SC-95, that is one of the cheapest receivers released (and a direct price competitor of the Denon 4200 with only 5.1.4 processing) that handles 7.2.4 immersive processing. Denon/Marantz models with that capability start at $2,000 and up.


----------



## cdelena

Brian Fineberg said:


> Cinderella
> 
> Was incredible with dsu. Wow
> 
> If I didn't know better I would swear it was native Atmos


Yes, very good and if you can do fairy tales 'Into the Woods" is even better.


----------



## audiofan1

Brian Fineberg said:


> Cinderella
> 
> Was incredible with dsu. Wow
> 
> If I didn't know better I would swear it was native Atmos


r

Similar experience with Star Wars (a new hope) tonight, never in a million years would I've thought it could get any better! DSU rocks


----------



## pletwals

Dan Hitchman said:


> Remember, Pioneer's consumer electronics division and Onkyo are one company now.


Are the Pioneers clones of the Onkyos (yet)?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> The obvious upgrade here would be to use that $400 of budget room to get a much better subwoofer than the wimpy little 8" box that comes with that package.


+1. You can never have too much woofage.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Cinderella
> 
> Was incredible with dsu. Wow
> 
> If I didn't know better I would swear it was native Atmos


I've been told that if you watch the movie at night, if you're not finished before midnight the sound collapses back to mono. Is that right?


----------



## Jack Gilvey

kbarnes701 said:


> John Wick
> Lucy
> Transcendence
> Gravity
> Unbroken


 Of these I've only seen (in Atmos) Gravity and Unbroken but I think the opening air battle scene of the latter is my new reference for...everything. _Man_, that flak is so percussive and there's stuff going on everywhere. I went right back when the movie was over and watched that part again. I may have to buy it.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Question on DSU upmixer*

Does the DSU up-mixer address the overhead speakers as two top channels (left and right array), or does it send different sounds to - for example - TF and TR speakers?


----------



## DCMlover

maikeldepotter said:


> Does the DSU up-mixer address the overhead speakers as two top channels (left and right array), or does it send different sounds to - for example - TF and TR speakers?


Now that we have some of the new 2015 atmos receivers out, has anyone figured out best bang for the buck on a 4K hdcp 2.2 compatable receiver? Something that does 11.2 with 4 Ceiling speakers?


----------



## pasender91

DCMlover said:


> Now that we have some of the new 2015 atmos receivers out, has anyone figured out best bang for the buck on a 4K hdcp 2.2 compatable receiver? Something that does 11.2 with 4 Ceiling speakers?


The most "cost-efficient" 2015 "11 channels & 4K compatible" AVRs are:
- Pioneer SC 95
- Marantz 7010

Personally, i would take the Marantz for the better sound on Hifi and the better bass management options.

With a higher price tag, you have more options:
- Yamaha RXA 3050
- Denon X6200


Note that in all cases those AVRs have only 9 amps so you need an external 2-channel amp to manage 11 channels.
Hope this helps ...


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Does the DSU up-mixer address the overhead speakers as two top channels (left and right array), or does it send different sounds to - for example - TF and TR speakers?


DSU extracts decorrelated/diffuse info from each pair of floor channels (fronts, surrounds) to feed each pair of overhead speakers (TF, TR).


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> DSU extracts decorrelated/diffuse info from each pair of floor channels (fronts, surrounds) to feed each pair of overhead speakers (TF, TR).


Right. So in case you only have TM this extracted info from fronts and surrounds will be probably be combined.

BTW What about the rears, does DSU not extract this type of info from those?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> What about the rears, does DSU not extract this type of info from those?


It could, if more overhead speaker added.


----------



## DCMlover

pasender91 said:


> The most "cost-efficient" 2015 "11 channels & 4K compatible" AVRs are:
> - Pioneer SC 95
> - Marantz 7010
> 
> Personally, i would take the Marantz for the better sound on Hifi and the better bass management options.
> 
> With a higher price tag, you have more options:
> - Yamaha RXA 3050
> - Denon X6200
> 
> 
> Note that in all cases those AVRs have only 9 amps so you need an external 2-channel amp to manage 11 channels.
> Hope this helps ...





Thanks! It does help. I am not going to be using internal amps for much, maybe just the 4 ceiling speakers and an additional zone or two.


----------



## stef2

audiofan1 said:


> r
> 
> Similar experience with Star Wars (a new hope) tonight, never in a million years would I've thought it could get any better! DSU rocks


Wow! now you guys make me want to upgrade right now!


----------



## gene4ht

Jack Gilvey said:


> Of these I've only seen (in Atmos) Gravity and Unbroken but I think the opening air battle scene of the latter is my new reference for...everything. _Man_, that flak is so percussive and there's stuff going on everywhere. I went right back when the movie was over and watched that part again. I may have to buy it.


Agree that the opening scene of Unbroken is reference worthy material...

But just curious...I think I can guess what brand sub you have ...but can you share which model? Thx!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

stef2 said:


> Wow! now you guys make me want to upgrade right now!


yup all 3 of the OG trilogy are fantastic with DSU....just think of the opening flyover by the star destroyers


----------



## bargervais

stef2 said:


> Wow! now you guys make me want to upgrade right now!


You won't be disappointed, I have been an early adopter and I have never regretted it, DSU is that good.


----------



## stikle

gene4ht asking about subwoofers: said:


> I think I can guess what brand sub you have ...but can you share which model?





gene4ht in his signature: said:


> SVS: PB-2000 x 2



Hey...nice choice in subwoofer company and models. Jack agrees.


----------



## Scott Simonian

stef2 said:


> Wow! now you guys make me want to upgrade right now!


I'd certainly recommend it but only if you need a new receiver right now and are prepared to properly install height/overhead speakers for your system.

Waiting longer for the technology and product support to mature does no harm, only good. Just hearing us rave about it will do you harm.


----------



## gene4ht

stikle said:


> Hey...nice choice in subwoofer company and models. Jack agrees.


Didn't mean to go OT with this....just curious and trying to stay in good "company" with you guys!!!


----------



## Jack Gilvey

gene4ht said:


> Agree that the opening scene of Unbroken is reference worthy material...
> 
> But just curious...I think I can guess what brand sub you have ...but can you share which model? Thx!


 PM sent.


----------



## Markitron

Still can't seem to find a decent 5.1.2 speaker package for around 1000.


----------



## stikle

Well, now that I got my new 4K TV, I'm going to give Daredevil a spin. I expect more great things from Marc's endeavors!


----------



## kokishin

stikle said:


> Well, now that I got my new 4K TV, I'm going to give Daredevil a spin. I expect more great things from Marc's endeavors!


 @FilmMixer


----------



## batpig

Markitron said:


> Still can't seem to find a decent 5.1.2 speaker package for around 1000.


It can be done, but probably not as a "package" per se. And depends on your definition of "decent" of course. There just aren't many "Atmos packages" out there which by necessity limits your options if that's what you are looking for. If they HAVE TO be Atmos-enabled speakers, then your best bet is the Pioneer Andrew Jones models. At least until ELAC models are available to buy.

If you instead try to build a 5.1 setup and then add two more speakers above, you can get 'er done. 

A lot depends on how big your room is, how loud you want to play etc. If you can shop the used market you can get a lot more value.

Here's one option which doesn't involved buying used and would absolutely blow away most casual living room types:

5 x Wavecrest HLV-1 bookshelf speakers for ~$500
1 x HSU STF-2 subwoofer for ~$400 shipped
Find a pair of inexpensive in-ceilings (Polk, Yamaha, etc) for 100 bucks


----------



## Aras_Volodka

audiofan1 said:


> r
> 
> Similar experience with Star Wars (a new hope) tonight, never in a million years would I've thought it could get any better! DSU rocks


Just heard Star Wars original trilogy will be in theaters again... I wonder if they'll be using the reliance media works remaster?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Just heard Star Wars original trilogy will be in theaters again... I wonder if they'll be using the reliance media works remaster?


Only if it's the ORIGINAL original trilogy. None of this special edition crap.


----------



## stikle

The ORIGINAL original trilogy no longer exists.
-George Lucas

Whatever...let's see what Disney busts out of the archives. Failing that, I have the Despecialized Edition with 5.1 sound.



> This is a reconstruction of the 1977 theatrical version of STAR WARS. The original shots were painstakingly restored using various sources (listed below) and the film received an extensive shot by shot colour correction based on a fade free 1977 I.B. Technicolor Print.
> 
> The remastered (v2.0) version represents a significant improvement in picture quality over the earlier version.
> 
> Version v2.1 further improves upon the previous version mainly by refining the color correction but also by replacing many of the despecialized shots with higher quality ones.
> 
> Version v2.5 offers few more little tweaks to the picture and contains an unprecedented number of audio options, including lossless DTS-HD tracks for the original mixes, an isolated score, four different commentary tracks and dubbing tracks in ten different languages and dialects.


It looks and sounds amazing. I'm not so much a purist that I need to go back to 2.0 stereo sound...but it's there if I recall.


----------



## SherazNJ

I was planning to buy avr around 3 months ago for Atmos but then I was advised to wait since DTS-X might be coming soon. Still there is no sign of DTS-X and we don't know when its going to be available. I don't have any space constrain for top speakers so I won't be needing any extra feature that DTS-X might provide in terms of speaker placement (that is if it comes with such). I was only waiting thinking that DTS-X might do a better job with DTS codes. 


What do you guys think? Should I wait more or just get one Atmos receiver and be done with this wait? I'm sure many of you have used DSU on dts codes and are fine with it which is making me lean more towards getting atmos receiver.

Thanks.


----------



## Jive Turkey

SherazNJ said:


> I was planning to buy avr around 3 months ago for Atmos but then I was advised to wait since DTS-X might be coming soon. Still there is no sign of DTS-X and we don't know when its going to be available. I don't have any space constrain for top speakers so I won't be needing any extra feature that DTS-X might provide in terms of speaker placement (that is if it comes with such). I was only waiting thinking that DTS-X might do a better job with DTS codes.
> 
> 
> What do you guys think? Should I wait more or just get one Atmos receiver and be done with this wait? *I'm sure many of you have used DSU on dts codes and are fine with it which is making me lean more towards getting atmos receiver.*
> 
> Thanks.


You have to buy a 2014 model to apply DSU on top of DTS encodes right now, the 2015's don't allow that. But when the DTS:X firware upgrade is available you'll have DTS's flavor of upmixing available.


----------



## pasender91

Well, right now the 2015 models are almost ready for shipment...
3 months ago i would have replied to you without a doubt "get on with Atmos, don't wait", because my philosophy is that waiting for technology is not the best approach.
But right now ... it is more difficult.
So either:
Wait a few weeks and get a 2015 model .... if you really want DTS:X ... and if you're prepared to pay a lot more 
Take a 2014 Atmos model that will be much cheaper, for example you can expect the Marantz 7009 to be very soon half the price of the 7010 

Personally, i would go with the Atmos only model right now or in a few weeks, DTS:X is not just worth the extra cash in my mind (no technical benefit, no movies, ...)


----------



## jpco

Jive Turkey said:


> You have to buy a 2014 model to apply DSU on top of DTS encodes right now, the 2015's don't allow that. But when the DTS:X firware upgrade is available you'll have DTS's flavor of upmixing available.


But that's only for D & M models, right? Yamaha does fine with the 2015 models.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> The ORIGINAL original trilogy no longer exists.
> -George Lucas
> 
> Whatever...let's see what Disney busts out of the archives. Failing that, I have the Despecialized Edition with 5.1 sound.
> 
> 
> 
> It looks and sounds amazing. I'm not so much a purist that I need to go back to 2.0 stereo sound...but it's there if I recall.


Don't you have to have a copy of the special editions in your possession to "qualify" for the De-SE download? If that's the case, I'm not wasting money on those damn things.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Well, right now the 2015 models are almost ready for shipment...
> 3 months ago i would have replied to you without a doubt "get on with Atmos, don't wait", because my philosophy is that waiting for technology is not the best approach.
> But right now ... it is more difficult.
> So either:
> Wait a few weeks and get a 2015 model .... if you really want DTS:X ... and if you're prepared to pay a lot more
> Take a 2014 Atmos model that will be much cheaper, for example you can expect the Marantz 7009 to be very soon half the price of the 7010
> 
> Personally, i would go with the Atmos only model right now or in a few weeks, DTS:X is not just worth the extra cash in my mind (no technical benefit, *no movies,* ...)


We cannot state there will be "no movies" in the near future, especially when UHD Blu-ray may be the key to the immersive door getting unlocked. That ball is completely up in the air. It's really anyone's game to win or lose. To mix metaphors. 

Unless he can afford to buy twice in a short span of time, I would hold off a little more.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh god. I can't wait for it to be a year from now when UHD BD's will be out so we can stop speculating about it.


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't you have to have a copy of the special editions in your possession to "qualify" for the De-SE download? If that's the case, I'm not wasting money on those damn things.



Um....no. It was just...well I probably shouldn't discuss it here. The information has been presented - that's all I'm going to say.



Scott Simonian said:


> Oh god. I can't wait for it to be a year from now when UHD BD's will be out so we can stop speculating about it.



Oh God, please let it be at least a year so my savings account can recover!


----------



## Kris Deering

Just saw Everest in Atmos at the theater. Fantastic movie with a killer Atmos mix. Day one purchase for sure. Hope Universal includes the mix on Blu!


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Personally, i would go with the Atmos only model right now or in a few weeks, DTS:X is not just worth the extra cash in my mind (no technical benefit, no movies, ...)


While that is true for now, do you believe that DTS:X will never have any significant content going forward?


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> While that is true for now, do you believe that DTS:X will never have any significant content going forward?


I agreed with kbarnes, dun be so certain just yet. Remember DTS has proven time and again that movie studios preferred DTS for ease and flexibility in its authoring. There is a high chance that titles with DTS X might get populated faster than its Dolby counterparts after its release. Nothing has been cast in stone. 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## desray2k

Kris Deering said:


> Just saw Everest in Atmos at the theater. Fantastic movie with a killer Atmos mix. Day one purchase for sure. Hope Universal includes the mix on Blu!


Even without atmos mix, its a movie to experienced in IMAX for its sheer magnitude and altitude ... 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> I agreed with kbarnes, dun be so certain just yet.


I am sure there will be some DTS:X content, at some point. When, I have no idea of course  UHD Blu-ray may be the catalyst.



desray2k said:


> Remember DTS has proven time and again that movie studios preferred DTS for ease and flexibility in its authoring. There is a high chance that titles with DTS X might get populated faster than its Dolby counterparts after its release. Nothing has been cast in stone.


That isn't really true. DTS only achieved supremacy on one medium: Blu-ray. In every other media - DVD, broadcast, streaming, downloads and so on, Dolby had more or less 100% dominance. DTS only dominated in the one medium that has the smallest market penetration of the home market for physical media. This happened for the reason you give - lower cost of deliverables. It seems that Dolby is not going to drop this particular ball twice, and the cost/ease reason has now vanished anyway, so it seems unlikely that DTS will dominate the Blu-ray market going forward.

There is also the fact that movies being released theatrically with immersive soundtracks are overwhelmingly in Atmos. I am guessing that is much easier (read cheaper) to take an existing Atmos track and release it as Atmos on disc than it is to take that Atmos track and reconfigure it for a different format. IOW, it won't get done.


----------



## desray2k

We shall see when we finally get the dts x upgrades later this year. 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## Markitron

batpig said:


> It can be done, but probably not as a "package" per se. And depends on your definition of "decent" of course. There just aren't many "Atmos packages" out there which by necessity limits your options if that's what you are looking for. If they HAVE TO be Atmos-enabled speakers, then your best bet is the Pioneer Andrew Jones models. At least until ELAC models are available to buy.
> 
> If you instead try to build a 5.1 setup and then add two more speakers above, you can get 'er done.
> 
> A lot depends on how big your room is, how loud you want to play etc. If you can shop the used market you can get a lot more value.
> 
> Here's one option which doesn't involved buying used and would absolutely blow away most casual living room types:
> 
> 5 x Wavecrest HLV-1 bookshelf speakers for ~$500
> 1 x HSU STF-2 subwoofer for ~$400 shipped
> Find a pair of inexpensive in-ceilings (Polk, Yamaha, etc) for 100 bucks


Thanks again for the suggestions. So would one of those bookshelf speakers be suitable as a center speaker? I can't ceiling mount unfortunately so I'd be looking at a pair of atmos-enabled floor standing speakers, is there a pair you recommend?


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> We shall see when we finally get the dts x upgrades later this year.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


Not sure how the hardware upgrades will impact on the software deliverables, but until we get the hardware and some indication of content from DTS, it's all up in the air. I am betting that DTS:X FW upgrades won't be available until early next year now, rather than this year.


----------



## desray2k

I still linger to the hope to be before X'mas.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## kbarnes701

Markitron said:


> Thanks again for the suggestions. So would one of those bookshelf speakers be suitable as a center speaker? I can't ceiling mount unfortunately so I'd be looking at a pair of atmos-enabled floor standing speakers, is there a pair you recommend?


The Andrew Jones Pioneer speakers are highly regarded. 

Details of their Atmos speaker package are *here*.


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> I still linger to the hope to be before X'mas.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


That would definitely be good - and it makes marketing sense to get it out there in time for Xmas sales. A nice flurry of DTS:X movies on disc would make a great Xmas present. So I hope you are right.


----------



## desray2k

Or the new afforsable Elac Atmos series by Andrew Jones.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> Or the new afforsable Elac Atmos series by Andrew Jones.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


Yes indeed. They should also be excellent Atmos performers.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> Who says that overhead speakers will be required to hit 105dB peaks? Is that part of the Atmos spec for HT use? I definitely heard no problem in the demos, and nor did anyone else, but then I never assumed that the overheads would need to hit 105dB. In fact, on all my tests where I have isolated the overhead speakers, they seem to be murmuring gently rather than hitting anything like 105dB, and this is with my usual listening levels where I do peak at 105dB.
> ...


FWIW and very interestingly, the latest Atmos HT Installation Guidelines manual indicates for each speaker, a maximum SPL at the listening position of 102dB, instead of the 105dB that we were used to... 

Amclt,

Hugo


----------



## Markitron

kbarnes701 said:


> The Andrew Jones Pioneer speakers are highly regarded.
> 
> Details of their Atmos speaker package are *here*.


Yea, I'd love that set but it's a bit out of my price range unfortunately. This is the one I'm looking at (along with 2 atmos modules), but I can't seem to find anywhere to buy it in europe

http://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-SP-PK52FS-Theater-Speaker-Package/dp/B00IK8I9K2#Ask


----------



## asere

What I predict is once UHD BDP are here with time Dolby Atmos and DTS X (when available) will be solely available for UHD and DTS MASTER HD and TrueHD will be solely on bluray.
Bluray will become the DVD of yesterday.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> While that is true for now, do you believe that DTS:X will never have any significant content going forward?


I never said that, i said there is no content now, for sure DTS:X content will show up at some point.

But i always look at $$$ too to buy something that is cost-efficient.
In a few weeks you will be for example able to grab a Marantz 7009 (Atmos only) for less than 1K$ while the Marantz 7010 (Atmos+DTS:X) will be 2K$ when released.
I stand by my conclusion that it looks to me like the best option is to go with the 7009 now or in clearance in a few weeks, enjoy Atmos for a couple of years minimum, and then upgrade later on with the 1K$ that will have been saved, knowing that in the mean time the 7010 will become cheaper too 
This thinking is of course also valid for other AVR vendors, not only Marantz ...


----------



## jvkahl

*sloped ceilings*

Has anyone installed dolby atmos ceiling speakers in a sloped ceiling w/ good results? Dolby doesn't recommend it but I don't see the problem assuming the loudness can be adjusted and the direction is aimed toward the LP. In my case the low slope is at the tv end with the high over me, seems like helicopters and such would be flying just right.


----------



## asere

jvkahl said:


> Has anyone installed dolby atmos ceiling speakers in a sloped ceiling w/ good results? Dolby doesn't recommend it but I don't see the problem assuming the loudness can be adjusted and the direction is aimed toward the LP. In my case the low slope is at the tv end with the high over me, seems like helicopters and such would be flying just right.


I have partial vaulted ceiling. In my case the vault is at the tv and where I sit is flat. For me it works as the front heights are sloped and the rears are flat. 
They pretty much are aimed at the listener.
Dolby does recommend a lot of things but we have to make the best of it. Especially the ones with no dedicated room.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

jvkahl said:


> Has anyone installed dolby atmos ceiling speakers in a sloped ceiling w/ good results? Dolby doesn't recommend it but I don't see the problem assuming the loudness can be adjusted and the direction is aimed toward the LP. In my case the low slope is at the tv end with the high over me, seems like helicopters and such would be flying just right.


You shouldn't have a problem. Your Yamaha's room correction (YAPO?) should take care of that. My room slopes from about 8' on the right up to 9' on the left, and you'd never be able to tell it just from listening while watching a movie.


----------



## Movie78

What is causing the delay for DTS X release.

I have a feeling that Dolby is going to dominate this format.


----------



## kbarnes701

Markitron said:


> Yea, I'd love that set but it's a bit out of my price range unfortunately. This is the one I'm looking at (along with 2 atmos modules), but I can't seem to find anywhere to buy it in europe
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-SP-PK52FS-Theater-Speaker-Package/dp/B00IK8I9K2#Ask


Yes they are a good buy IMO and great value for money. Amazon USA will ship those to the UK, so maybe also to the rest of Europe - but of course you would have to pay carriage and VAT which would increase the cost (although if you do find a source in the EU, you will still have to pay the tax). Importing speakers is a pretty safe process as they have little in them to go wrong or to fail. Worth considering?


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour Keith,
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW and very interestingly, the latest Atmos HT Installation Guidelines manual indicates for each speaker, a maximum SPL at the listening position of 102dB, instead of the 105dB that we were used to...
> 
> Amclt,
> 
> Hugo


Thanks for that Hugo. I have downloaded the latest guidelines now - didn't know they had been updated TBH.

If anyone else wants to get them, they are *here*.


----------



## asere

I can't wait to get home and demo on VUDU the Atmos clips.
Silent, Conductor Girl, Amaze, Leaf, Unfold.
I've only seen Unfold in some movies intro and love it!
Anyone here seen them all?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I never said that, i said there is no content now, for sure DTS:X content will show up at some point.
> 
> But i always look at $$$ too to buy something that is cost-efficient.
> In a few weeks you will be for example able to grab a Marantz 7009 (Atmos only) for less than 1K$ while the Marantz 7010 (Atmos+DTS:X) will be 2K$ when released.
> I stand by my conclusion that it looks to me like the best option is to go with the 7009 now or in clearance in a few weeks, enjoy Atmos for a couple of years minimum, and then upgrade later on with the 1K$ that will have been saved, knowing that in the mean time the 7010 will become cheaper too
> This thinking is of course also valid for other AVR vendors, not only Marantz ...


I am certainly waiting until fall 2016 before swapping my Denon 5200 (unless something amazing happens and we are suddenly inundated with DTS:X content). But if I didn’t have an Atmos unit already, I'd wait for the new models which have Atmos and DTS:X rather than buy an Atmos-only unit right now. Although of course I do see the value proposition you are making which will be attractive to some for sure.


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> What is causing the delay for DTS X release.


We are told that the AVR manufacturers are still working on the DSP chip coding to allow DTS:X to function in the new 2015 units. Apparently, it has not been an easy ride.



Movie78 said:


> I have a feeling that Dolby is going to dominate this format.


I have a feeling you are correct


----------



## kokishin

pasender91 said:


> Well, right now the 2015 models are almost ready for shipment...
> 3 months ago i would have replied to you without a doubt "get on with Atmos, don't wait", because my philosophy is that waiting for technology is not the best approach.
> But right now ... it is more difficult.
> So either:
> Wait a few weeks and get a 2015 model .... if you really want DTS:X ... and if you're prepared to pay a lot more
> Take a 2014 Atmos model that will be much cheaper, for example you can expect the Marantz 7009 to be very soon half the price of the 7010
> 
> Personally, i would go with the Atmos only model right now or in a few weeks, DTS:X is not just worth the extra cash in my mind (no technical benefit, no movies, ...)


I'm waiting for DTS:X².


----------



## stikle

kokishin said:


> I'm waiting for DTS:X².



Hopefully the implementation will be better than Alien³...


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> We are told that the AVR manufacturers are still working on the DSP chip coding to allow DTS:X to function in the new 2015 units. Apparently, it has not been an easy ride.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a feeling you are correct


Wasn't DTS X announce in January at CES?
Its taking DTS X and the manufactures this long to implement this feature into their hardware.

I think it time for them to release the NDA, so we can see,hear or read some reviews from people who the beta hardware...


----------



## lujan

asere said:


> I can't wait to get home and demo on VUDU the Atmos clips.
> Silent, Conductor Girl, Amaze, Leaf, Unfold.
> I've only seen Unfold in some movies intro and love it!
> Anyone here seen them all?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Yes, I have them all on disk and on Vudu. My favorite is "Amaze". Let us know which one you like best.


----------



## asere

lujan said:


> Yes, I have them all on disk and on Vudu. My favorite is "Amaze". Let us know which one you like best.


I will thx

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> Wasn't DTS X announce in January at CES?
> Its taking DTS X and the manufactures this long to implement this feature into their hardware.
> 
> I think it time for them to release the NDA, so we can see,hear or read some reviews from people who the beta hardware...


Yes, it was announced way back. I think the announcement was premature and unrealistic and possibly a 'spoiler' attempt to get people to delay the uptake of Atmos units. Clearly there was no intent to release DTS:X any time near the announcement was made. Then we are told that the code which the manufacturers need to implement in their DSP chips has had 'problems', causing delays as the CEMs tried to overcome these problems. Given that a highly reliable source has told us that Denon have had to temporarily abandon working on another problem where Dolby tracks cannot be upmixed with DTS Neural:X and DTS tracks cannot be upmixed with DSU, and that all hands have been directed to simply getting DTS:X to work, it seems that the problems have been 'challenging' to their hardware/software integration team. Hopefully, by the end of this year, there will be some forward movement.


----------



## stikle

Amaze is my go-to Atmos demo for people, followed by Leaf, Conductor, Unfold, then Bailando.


----------



## Scott Simonian

We all know why everybody loves 'Amaze'.


----------



## asere

stikle said:


> Amaze is my go-to Atmos demo for people, followed by Leaf, Conductor, Unfold, then Bailando.


Where can I find Bailando?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Shniks

asere said:


> Where can I find Bailando?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



I replied to another post of yours - just get the Dolby Demo Disc from Ebay. The ones from Thailand are around $29 and include all the demos plus the racing, Bailando and a couple of other demos. 


Nik


----------



## stikle

asere said:


> Where can I find Bailando?





Shniks said:


> get the Dolby Demo Disc from Ebay.



Get the *FIRST* Dolby Atmos demo disc.

And if you're enterprising and have time on your hands to search, then torrent link can be found elsewhere on AVS unless it's been removed. It would be free that way (plus the cost of a Bluray disc (and a Bluray burner if you don't have one)).


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Get the *FIRST* Dolby Atmos demo disc.
> 
> And if you're enterprising and have time on your hands to search, then torrent link can be found elsewhere on AVS unless it's been removed. It would be free that way (plus the cost of a Bluray disc (and a Bluray burner if you don't have one)).


It's perhaps worth pointing out that nobody is condoning theft of Dolby's IP here... hopefully.


----------



## asere

stikle said:


> Get the *FIRST* Dolby Atmos demo disc.
> 
> And if you're enterprising and have time on your hands to search, then torrent link can be found elsewhere on AVS unless it's been removed. It would be free that way (plus the cost of a Bluray disc (and a Bluray burner if you don't have one)).


Thanks but I think I'll stick to just the VUDU demos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> It's perhaps worth pointing out that nobody is condoning theft of Dolby's IP here... hopefully.



Absolutely not.


----------



## BakeApples

Markitron said:


> Yea, I'd love that set but it's a bit out of my price range unfortunately. This is the one I'm looking at (along with 2 atmos modules), but I can't seem to find anywhere to buy it in europe
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-SP-PK52FS-Theater-Speaker-Package/dp/B00IK8I9K2#Ask


I was also looking for someone in Europe selling the new Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers but couldn't find any so i pre-ordered mine from US. 
I think the price is really good. First, i was thinking about buying Kef:s Atmos enabled speakers but then i found out about the Andrew Jones speakers from Pioneer and i can get four of them incl. shipping, taxes & duties for a price less than one of the Kef:s.

Not a tough choice


----------



## BigScreen

Movie78 said:


> What is causing the delay for DTS X release.


While there is speculation of issues implementing DTS into the DSP's, and who knows what else, what official or even verifiable information is there about deadlines being missed or other problems surrounding the release of DTS:X?

While we grow impatient because pre-announcements were made back in January, and precious little in the way of hard details were released at the announcement events in April, and the only software available so far is one movie and a demo disc, any perceived "delays" are just that, perceived.

DTS nor any of its hardware or studio partners has announced the availability of something and then recanted. In fact, with David Susilo's experience with a prototype receiver with DTS:X code enabled shows that someone has it working, and my impression from the article was that the receiver was not a PC or other specialized piece of hardware.

A year ago, the first Atmos Blu-ray title was not yet released. D+M had just released their Atmos-capable receivers, Onkyo/Integra hadn't released their firmware updates, and Yamaha didn't release their firmware until November. The only software available was the Atmos demo disc that some people had from the CEDIA show.

I don't think DTS has been cagey about what they're doing. I think they had to announce something at CES in January to let people know that they were working on something, else risk the assumption that they were a non-factor in the segment. In April, they provided some additional information, but it wasn't nearly enough to satisfy some people's curiosity (white papers, speaker layouts, their potato salad recipe). Given that there's only one Blu-ray title with a DTS:X soundtrack on it, and that the prevailing wisdom around here is that Atmos and DTS:X won't hit their stride until the release of UHD Blu-ray titles, it's a bit premature to be speculating about delays and what it means for the future of the format.



Movie78 said:


> I have a feeling that Dolby is going to dominate this format.


I think you're looking for a format war where there is none. 

The peaceful co-existence of Dolby and DTS soundtracks on Blu-ray has proven that there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser when it comes to those formats. In fact, the only "losers" will be those who have non-DTS:X capable receivers that will not be able to enjoy (fully) the DTS:X releases when they do become available. Fortunately, most here that took that plunge on 2014 Atmos-equipped models knew going into their purchase that they might be making a re-purchase should DTS:X become a factor. In that respect, it's good that DTS said what they did at CES, so that the consumers/retailers knew that their format was forthcoming.


We're starting to see more and more Atmos releases being announced for Blu-ray titles, and that's really good news and worth celebrating! Getting those immersive soundtracks out of the vaults and into our hands, no matter which format it is, bodes well for our hobby.


----------



## stikle

BigScreen said:


> In fact, the only "losers" will be those who have non-DTS:X capable receivers that will not be able to enjoy (fully) the DTS:X releases when they do become available. Fortunately, most here that took that plunge on 2014 Atmos-equipped models knew going into their purchase that they might be making a re-purchase should DTS:X become a factor.



That makes me a loser then. I didn't do due diligence and look to see what was on the horizon. So, here I am, thoroughly enjoying Atmos and DSU...and not really caring about DTS:X...yet. I'm ok with that.


----------



## multit

asere said:


> Where can I find Bailando?


To be honest - it's one of the worse examples with Dolby Atmos... not to compare with the Amaze trailer or the others.
The whole Atmos part of Bailando is very artificial. You will hear some handclaps from above and some other noise and a bit of the music.
But the more important thing... it doesn't fit really with the screen action (besides the handclaps). There is one scene, where Enrique and his friends are dancing under a bridge... and guess whats happening... just nothing. I mean that would be the perfect scene, where overhead action is natural (echo from above), but they missed it. So... I cannot find any proper reason for spending money for that particular thing.


----------



## gene4ht

BigScreen said:


> While there is speculation of issues implementing DTS into the DSP's, and who knows what else, what official or even verifiable information is there about deadlines being missed or other problems surrounding the release of DTS:X?
> 
> While we grow impatient because pre-announcements were made back in January, and precious little in the way of hard details were released at the announcement events in April, and the only software available so far is one movie and a demo disc, any perceived "delays" are just that, perceived.
> 
> DTS nor any of its hardware or studio partners has announced the availability of something and then recanted. In fact, with David Susilo's experience with a prototype receiver with DTS:X code enabled shows that someone has it working, and my impression from the article was that the receiver was not a PC or other specialized piece of hardware.
> 
> A year ago, the first Atmos Blu-ray title was not yet released. D+M had just released their Atmos-capable receivers, Onkyo/Integra hadn't released their firmware updates, and Yamaha didn't release their firmware until November. The only software available was the Atmos demo disc that some people had from the CEDIA show.
> 
> I don't think DTS has been cagey about what they're doing. I think they had to announce something at CES in January to let people know that they were working on something, else risk the assumption that they were a non-factor in the segment. In April, they provided some additional information, but it wasn't nearly enough to satisfy some people's curiosity (white papers, speaker layouts, their potato salad recipe). Given that there's only one Blu-ray title with a DTS:X soundtrack on it, and that the prevailing wisdom around here is that Atmos and DTS:X won't hit their stride until the release of UHD Blu-ray titles, it's a bit premature to be speculating about delays and what it means for the future of the format.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're looking for a format war where there is none.
> 
> The peaceful co-existence of Dolby and DTS soundtracks on Blu-ray has proven that there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser when it comes to those formats. In fact, the only "losers" will be those who have non-DTS:X capable receivers that will not be able to enjoy (fully) the DTS:X releases when they do become available. Fortunately, most here that took that plunge on 2014 Atmos-equipped models knew going into their purchase that they might be making a re-purchase should DTS:X become a factor. In that respect, it's good that DTS said what they did at CES, so that the consumers/retailers knew that their format was forthcoming.
> 
> 
> We're starting to see more and more Atmos releases being announced for Blu-ray titles, and that's really good news and worth celebrating! Getting those immersive soundtracks out of the vaults and into our hands, no matter which format it is, bodes well for our hobby.


Good to see that there's always a glass that's half full!!!


----------



## SherazNJ

Jive Turkey said:


> You have to buy a 2014 model to apply DSU on top of DTS encodes right now, the 2015's don't allow that. But when the DTS:X firware upgrade is available you'll have DTS's flavor of upmixing available.





pasender91 said:


> Well, right now the 2015 models are almost ready for shipment...
> 3 months ago i would have replied to you without a doubt "get on with Atmos, don't wait", because my philosophy is that waiting for technology is not the best approach.
> But right now ... it is more difficult.
> So either:
> Wait a few weeks and get a 2015 model .... if you really want DTS:X ... and if you're prepared to pay a lot more
> Take a 2014 Atmos model that will be much cheaper, for example you can expect the Marantz 7009 to be very soon half the price of the 7010
> 
> Personally, i would go with the Atmos only model right now or in a few weeks, DTS:X is not just worth the extra cash in my mind (no technical benefit, no movies, ...)


Thx guys. I don't think I'd wanna pay an extra 1K so that I can have DTS:X. If avr with atmos from 2014 can convert dts codes for me then I'm fine with that. For me the most important features are 
1 - Support up to 11.1
2 - 4K with 60 Hz (for games)
3 - Preouts to connect with Dirac.

I was looking the prices on AccessoriesForLess and Denon X5200W is listed for 1,200 and Ankyo TX-NR1030 for 999.00.


----------



## BigScreen

stikle said:


> That makes me a loser then. I didn't do due diligence and look to see what was on the horizon. So, here I am, thoroughly enjoying Atmos and DSU...and not really caring about DTS:X...yet. I'm ok with that.


That's why I put "losers" in quotes, as it sounds like people are quite happy with what DSU does to non-immersive soundtracks, so even though you won't be able to play DTS:X tracks natively, you'll likely be able to apply DSU and/or other DSP effects (depending on the receiver you have).

I know the sting, though. I still have my Toshiba HD-A1 HD DVD player...


----------



## stikle

BigScreen said:


> I know the sting, though. I still have my Toshiba HD-A1 HD DVD player...



Ha! I bought into that exact same one. I had it until last year when I gave it to my neighbor with all of 7 HD-DVDs I had. That was a little different for me though...I knew at the time it could have gone either way and went with HD-DVD. Oops.


----------



## rontalley

multit said:


> To be honest - it's one of the worse examples with Dolby Atmos... not to compare with the Amaze trailer or the others.
> The whole Atmos part of Bailando is very artificial. You will hear some handclaps from above and some other noise and a bit of the music.
> But the more important thing... it doesn't fit really with the screen action (besides the handclaps). There is one scene, where Enrique and his friends are dancing under a bridge... and guess whats happening... just nothing. I mean that would be the perfect scene, where overhead action is natural (echo from above), but they missed it. So... I cannot find any proper reason for spending money for that particular thing.




I disagree. It's a music mix with a video attached to it...Most music videos are not made and change the mix of the music. I think the song is wonderfully mixed with different parts of the song playing from different speakers as if you were in the middle of the performance. I don't know man but I absolutely LOVE the way the music sounds in Atmos on this song. It really has nothing to do with the video. The video just gives you something to look at. Just like the Camera demo has nothing to do with the video but the way the music blends.

Listen to Bailando with the screen off.


----------



## Scott Simonian

multit said:


> To be honest - it's one of the worse examples with Dolby Atmos... not to compare with the Amaze trailer or the others.
> The whole Atmos part of Bailando is very artificial. You will hear some handclaps from above and some other noise and a bit of the music.
> But the more important thing... it doesn't fit really with the screen action (besides the handclaps). There is one scene, where Enrique and his friends are dancing under a bridge... and guess whats happening... just nothing. I mean that would be the perfect scene, where overhead action is natural (echo from above), but they missed it. So... I cannot find any proper reason for spending money for that particular thing.


It's a pop song. It's going to sound artificial nor would there be any reason (in this case) for realistic atmospheric mixing effects like "echo under the bridge".

Bailando is a great demo.

It would have made sense for you to say this about the F1 Red Bull demo. There is NO overhead effects and it would have been perfect for the reflections from being in the tunnel to be above you.


----------



## batpig

You know, I've heard people say that about the F1 Red Bull demo clip. I used to agree when I had just up-firing front speakers. But now that I have Top Middle speakers I swear I heard stuff overhead in that demo last time I played it. I'm going to have to check again....


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'll check it out again too. Haven't really touched that clip in a while.


----------



## batpig

BTW - I may have to drive up to Clovis just to hear that thunderclap on your system.



Scott Simonian said:


> We all know why everybody loves 'Amaze'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Please do. You can even carpool with Sanjay if that helps.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> Thx guys. I don't think I'd wanna pay an extra 1K so that I can have DTS:X. If avr with atmos from 2014 can convert dts codes for me then I'm fine with that. For me the most important features are
> 1 - Support up to 11.1
> 2 - 4K with 60 Hz (for games)
> 3 - Preouts to connect with Dirac.
> 
> I was looking the prices on AccessoriesForLess and Denon X5200W is listed for 1,200 and Ankyo TX-NR1030 for 999.00.


The Pioneer Elite SC-95 has an MSRP of $1,600 and does 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround and DTS: X / Neural: X. Plus it has the latest HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 chipsets. Street price should be less. AV Science sells Pioneer. Just sayin'.


----------



## Shniks

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Pioneer Elite SC-95 has an MSRP of $1,600 and does 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround and DTS: X / Neural: X. Plus it has the latest HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 chipsets. Street price should be less. AV Science sells Pioneer. Just sayin'.


I think you meant that it can 5.1.4 (it's a 9.2 receiver). 


EDIT: Never mind. I see that it can do 7.1.4 with an external amplifier. Nice price.


Nik


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Shniks said:


> I think you meant that it can 5.1.4 (it's a 9.2 receiver).
> 
> 
> Nik


Nope. I read the manual. It will do a full 7.2.4 setup with an outboard stereo amp. Just like the more expensive Denon 6200 and above.

_"...compatible with 7.2.4ch***, 9.2.2ch***, 7.2.2ch and 5.2.4ch, configurations... ***External Amplifier Required." _


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Shniks said:


> EDIT: Never mind. I see that it can do 7.1.4 with an external amplifier. Nice price.
> 
> 
> Nik


Yeah, if I didn't need 5.1 + Front Wides + Four Overheads I might have gone for this unit instead of the Marantz 7702 mkII pre-amp.


----------



## Scott Simonian

You don't need wides.

If you can do wides then you can do a proper 7.1 system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> You don't need wides.
> 
> If you can do wides then you can do a proper 7.1 system.


Oh, you'd be surprised at how small this temporary theater room of mine will end up being. There is no room for back surrounds with proper clearance. I will also more than likely be doing Front Height and Top Middle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, you'd be surprised at how small this temporary theater room of mine will end up being. There's no room for back surrounds with proper clearance. I will also more than likely be doing Front Height and Top Middle.


Let's see it, Dan.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Let's see it, Dan.


I have to clear everything out first. Right now, it's a bloomin' mess.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No rush. Whenever you can do it. You can post a diagram if you'd prefer.


----------



## lujan

rontalley said:


> I disagree. It's a music mix with a video attached to it...Most music videos are not made and change the mix of the music. I think the song is wonderfully mixed with different parts of the song playing from different speakers as if you were in the middle of the performance. I don't know man but I absolutely LOVE the way the music sounds in Atmos on this song. It really has nothing to do with the video. The video just gives you something to look at. Just like the Camera demo has nothing to do with the video but the way the music blends.
> 
> Listen to Bailando with the screen off.





Scott Simonian said:


> It's a pop song. It's going to sound artificial nor would there be any reason (in this case) for realistic atmospheric mixing effects like "echo under the bridge".
> 
> Bailando is a great demo.
> 
> It would have made sense for you to say this about the F1 Red Bull demo. There is NO overhead effects and it would have been perfect for the reflections from being in the tunnel to be above you.


+1


----------



## asere

I just saw Amaze, Leaf and Unfold demos. Wow it really was amazing even with not having side ear level surrounds my top height and in ceiling surrounds sounded really nice. 

If they would only start mixing movie like this.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Kain

gene4ht said:


> Didn't mean to go OT with this....just curious and trying to stay in good "company" with you guys!!!


Nice theater. 

What shelf are you using for your center speaker?


----------



## Blackman

I have just purchased a Yamaha RX A2050 9.2 Ch Amp and would like to know how the mix will be for my Speaker configuration watching say Mad Max Fury Road in Atmos that is in 7.1.4 and watched on my system as 5.1.4 Setup. Now my rear surround will be sitting there doing nothing but what I would like to know is where will the rear surround be mixed back to a 5.1.4 system. I was considering of running my system as 7.1.2 but have read that 5.1.4 is better
thanks.


----------



## batpig

Blackman said:


> I have just purchased a Yamaha RX A2050 9.2 Ch Amp and would like to know how the mix will be for my Speaker configuration watching say Mad Max Fury Road in Atmos that is in 7.1.4 and watched on my system as 5.1.4 Setup. Now my rear surround will be sitting there doing nothing but what I would like to know is where will the rear surround be mixed back to a 5.1.4 system. I was considering of running my system as 7.1.2 but have read that 5.1.4 is better
> thanks.


Back surrounds are mixed down to the surround channels. 

I'd take 7.1.2 over 5.1.4 personally. Try it both ways for yourself.


----------



## SherazNJ

Jive Turkey said:


> You have to buy a 2014 model to apply DSU on top of DTS encodes right now, the 2015's don't allow that. But when the DTS:X firware upgrade is available you'll have DTS's flavor of upmixing available.





Dan Hitchman said:


> The Pioneer Elite SC-95 has an MSRP of $1,600 and does 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround and DTS: X / Neural: X. Plus it has the latest HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 chipsets. Street price should be less. AV Science sells Pioneer. Just sayin'.


Dan,
Thanks for pointing it out. This one looks perfect for me. I reached out to JD smoothie but he doesn't seem to have them in stock. Does anyone know any any dealer here or in NJ who sells pioneer? 
Thx.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> Dan,
> Thanks for pointing it out. This one looks perfect for me. I reached out to JD smoothie but he doesn't seem to have them in stock. Does anyone know any any dealer here or in NJ who sells pioneer?
> Thx.


I'm going to hazard a guess and say that it may not be available for a few more weeks. This is when some of the upper tier gear gets released. My Marantz pre-amp will probably arrive the first part of October. That's sort of a standard time frame.


----------



## SherazNJ

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess and say that it may not be available for a few more weeks. This is when some of the upper tier gear gets released. My Marantz pre-amp will probably arrive the first part of October. That's sort of a standard time frame.


Yeah I suppose. But is there any vendor here for Pioneer avrs?


----------



## Blackman

batpig said:


> Back surrounds are mixed down to the surround channels.
> 
> I'd take 7.1.2 over 5.1.4 personally. Try it both ways for yourself.


See I have installed 4 ceiling speakers in case If I wanted to use 5.1.4 but If I select to use 7.1.2 which two presence.ceiling speakers will be used on the Rx 2050, the Front Presence or the rear presence with this speaker setup


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SherazNJ said:


> Yeah I suppose. But is there any vendor here for Pioneer avrs?


I don't know if this would help in the search or not.

http://hometheaterreview.com/new-jersey/


----------



## Stanton

Blackman said:


> See I have installed 4 ceiling speakers in case If I wanted to use 5.1.4 but If I select to use 7.1.2 which two presence.ceiling speakers will be used on the Rx 2050, the Front Presence or the rear presence with this speaker setup


I assume the front presence speakers are somewhere near the front of the room, so use the rear presence speakers but *plug them into* the front presence speaker terminals (they become your TM).


----------



## gene4ht

Kain said:


> Nice theater.


Thanks!



Kain said:


> What shelf are you using for your center speaker?


Just a simple DIY effort comprised of items from Menards here in the U.S...perhaps home improvement stores in Dubai have these or something similar....good luck!

Two of these brackets...

https://www.menards.com/main/storag...igner-shelf-bracket/p-1656538.htm?cm_vc=PDPZ1

and one of these.

https://www.menards.com/main/p-2783931.htm


----------



## Blackman

Stanton said:


> I assume the front presence speakers are somewhere near the front of the room, so use the rear presence speakers but *plug them into* the front presence speaker terminals (they become your TM).


Yes correct. 
I have two equally spaced front presence/ceiling speakers in front of me approx 45 deg going up and 5 feet in front of me whilst I sit in the center of the lounge and I have two equally spaced rear presence ceiling speakers behind me about 65 deg up say about a 2 to 3 feet behind my head and up.

Now by this only two presence/front speakers will be working using a 7.1.2 setup so can you please explain why the rear presence/ceiling speakers have to be swapped in connections to the front ones. TM ?? does this mean Tweeter Mid range?.
Many thanks i'm learning


----------



## Blackman

Blackman said:


> Yes correct.
> I have two equally spaced front presence/ceiling speakers in front of me approx 45 deg going up and 5 feet in front of me whilst I sit in the center of the lounge and I have two equally spaced rear presence ceiling speakers behind me about 65 deg up say about a 2 to 3 feet behind my head and up.
> 
> Now by this only two presence/front speakers will be working using a 7.1.2 setup so can you please explain why the rear prersence/ceiling speakers have to be swapped in connections to the front ones. TM ?? Please explain
> Many thanks i'm learning


See I have all speakers connected to the rear of the 2050. When I mean all I mean the Front left and right, the center,the surrounds, the rear surrounds and the newly installed 4 ceiling speakers (plus sub). Now I have been reading that some say for my 9 channel amp to use 5.1.4 but at the same time I read that if 5.1.4 is used for Atmos the surrounds get cluttered up with what the rear surround should be getting but I have not read much on a 7.1.2 setup as your surrounds are by themselves, the rear surrounds are working (suppose not cluttering each other up)and by themselves so the only thing that is missing is what am I missing from the two not used ceiling speakers.


----------



## multit

Scott Simonian said:


> It's a pop song. It's going to sound artificial nor would there be any reason (in this case) for realistic atmospheric mixing effects like "echo under the bridge".
> Bailando is a great demo.
> It would have made sense for you to say this about the F1 Red Bull demo. There is NO overhead effects and it would have been perfect for the reflections from being in the tunnel to be above you.


In my opinion, they simply missed the chance for Bailando.... while in the F1 Demo they did it better .... not in perfection, but closer to the screen action. And the latter is that, what at least I'm looking for regarding immersive sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> While there is speculation of issues implementing DTS into the DSP's, and who knows what else, what official or even verifiable information is there about deadlines being missed or other problems surrounding the release of DTS:X?


It isn’t speculation. It is confirmed fact. Of course, it is not always possible to reveal the source for various reasons, which can then understandably, lead to suspicion that it is simply a 'rumour' or speculation.



BigScreen said:


> DTS nor any of its hardware or studio partners has announced the availability of something and then recanted.


Yes, good point. The bone of contention is, I think, that the announcement months ago was highly premature.



BigScreen said:


> We're starting to see more and more Atmos releases being announced for Blu-ray titles, and that's really good news and worth celebrating! Getting those immersive soundtracks out of the vaults and into our hands, no matter which format it is, bodes well for our hobby.


Absolutely.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I know the sting, though. I still have my Toshiba HD-A1 HD DVD player...


So do I. I also have about 100 HD-DVDs that were bought for next to nothing after Blu-ray won that particular battle. They still look and sound terrific, especially when upmixed with DSU!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> You know, I've heard people say that about the F1 Red Bull demo clip. I used to agree when I had just up-firing front speakers. But now that I have Top Middle speakers I swear I heard stuff overhead in that demo last time I played it. I'm going to have to check again....


If you isolate the overhead speakers, you'll hear that Scott was right. In that tunnel scene, crying out for reflected sound from above, there is nothing in the overhead speakers at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> BTW - I may have to drive up to Clovis just to hear that thunderclap on your system.


Having seen Scott's subwoofage, I'd have thought you would hear it without leaving San Diego...


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, you'd be surprised at how small this temporary theater room of mine will end up being. There is no room for back surrounds with proper clearance. I will also more than likely be doing Front Height and Top Middle.


I can't imagine your room will be smaller than mine, Dan, and I am running 7.2.4 with no problems at all. The addition of the rear surrounds made a big difference in 'listener level' immersiveness (with movies).


----------



## Markitron

BakeApples said:


> I was also looking for someone in Europe selling the new Pioneer Atmos enabled speakers but couldn't find any so i pre-ordered mine from US.
> I think the price is really good. First, i was thinking about buying Kef:s Atmos enabled speakers but then i found out about the Andrew Jones speakers from Pioneer and i can get four of them incl. shipping, taxes & duties for a price less than one of the Kef:s.
> 
> Not a tough choice


Can I ask where you ordered them from. The speakers I was looking at were gonna cost an extra $500 to ship to Ireland from Amazon.com.


----------



## BakeApples

Markitron said:


> Can I ask where you ordered them from. The speakers I was looking at were gonna cost an extra $500 to ship to Ireland from Amazon.com.


I ordered from B&H Photo.


----------



## pottscb

*atmos vs. dtsX*

So, has there been a consensus in which speaker configuration is most compatible with all ATMOS, DTS-X and AURO? My couch sits on the back wall so rear surrounds are of limited use. Also, is there a consensus on if dipoles are out for Atmos (I currently have Axiom QS8s which are great for 5.1).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

multit said:


> In my opinion, they simply missed the chance for Bailando.... while in the F1 Demo they did it better .... not in perfection, but closer to the screen action. And the latter is that, what at least I'm looking for regarding immersive sound.




If it were a concert video, maybe. Music videos never get mixed based on what is on the screen. Do yourself a favor and listen to a stereo version of that song for comparison. Would love to hear if that changes your opinion.


----------



## dkfan9

batpig said:


> Blackman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have just purchased a Yamaha RX A2050 9.2 Ch Amp and would like to know how the mix will be for my Speaker configuration watching say Mad Max Fury Road in Atmos that is in 7.1.4 and watched on my system as 5.1.4 Setup. Now my rear surround will be sitting there doing nothing but what I would like to know is where will the rear surround be mixed back to a 5.1.4 system. I was considering of running my system as 7.1.2 but have read that 5.1.4 is better
> thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Back surrounds are mixed down to the surround channels.
> 
> I'd take 7.1.2 over 5.1.4 personally. Try it both ways for yourself.
Click to expand...

If the back surrounds were objects, rather than channels, would this change? As in, this set of sounds is suposed to be in the spot where the back surrounds are, but one only has side surrounds and top rear (or rear height), would it be rendered by both the overhead rear and the side surrounds rather than just rolling into the side surrounds?


----------



## maikeldepotter

dkfan9 said:


> If the back surrounds were objects, rather than channels, would this change? As in, this set of sounds is suposed to be in the spot where the back surrounds are, but one only has side surrounds and top rear (or rear height), would it be rendered by both the overhead rear and the side surrounds rather than just rolling into the side surrounds?


Such an option would also be interesting for those with little room behind their couch: dividing a rear signal between one (same side) ear-level surround at 110 degrees azimuth and _both_ TMs at 100 degrees (Dolby Atmos) elevation to yield perceptual rear placement at about 135 degrees azimuth and 45 degrees elevation (MLP perspective).


----------



## Stanton

pottscb said:


> So, has there been a consensus in which speaker configuration is most compatible with all ATMOS, DTS-X and AURO? My couch sits on the back wall so rear surrounds are of limited use. Also, is there a consensus on if dipoles are out for Atmos (I currently have Axiom QS8s which are great for 5.1).


Dipoles are not so popular anymore. Doesn't mean you can't use them, but you won't get optimum object placement.


----------



## FilmMixer

It sure has been a lot less "noisy" on this thread the last couple of days...


Actually.. It's been that way in almost all of the thread I subscribe to...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just admit it, it's worse this way and you miss him so much.


----------



## ellisr63

Scott Simonian said:


> Just admit it, it's worse this way and you miss him so much.


Miss who?


----------



## Selden Ball

pottscb said:


> So, has there been a consensus in which speaker configuration is most compatible with all ATMOS, DTS-X and AURO?


A standard 5.1 or 7.1 ear-level configuration plus Front Height and Top Middle overhead speakers is the most compatible. The placement guidelines for Top Middle for Atmos overlap the placement guidelines for Auro 3D Side Height, while Front Height is directly supported by all of the formats, including the upmixers.


----------



## lovingdvd

Hi guys - I saw Everest last night in Atmos, widescreen, and 3D. What a FANTASTIC audio experience. I am quite sure this will be hands down THE Atmos demo disc. 

The swirling wind storms, ice, footsteps in the snow, background chimes when in the restaurant, helicopters, you name it was so insanely good. Hands down the best audio experience I've ever had, period. I mean it sounded like I was on the mountain right in the middle of this storm and the LFE was also amazing and perfectly balanced (heavy when intended without being over bearing). The sound was so immersive that it drew me into the movie like never before. I'm now even more motivated to begin construction on my 9.1.6 room!


----------



## audiofan1

Stanton said:


> Dipoles are not so popular anymore. Doesn't mean you can't use them, but you won't get optimum object placement.


You know this for sure? I have my Dipoles in the exact location from my previous 5.1 setup (direct to the sides and up high) and get optimum object placement and immersion with them in my current 7.2.4 configuration.


----------



## petetherock

+1 on dipoles, bipoles actually, and they can spread the sound nicely, yet give direction too...


----------



## virtualrain

+2 I'm using bipoles mounted to the ceiling facing down for overheads and really like them. They enable both object positioning and diffuse ambiance effects nicely.


----------



## lgreis

On the atmos guidelines they say that, and i quote, "Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system"... maybe speakers like the klipsch RS series with wide dispertion technology are the desirable ones, and i think they are bipoles


----------



## virtualrain

lgreis said:


> On the atmos guidelines they say that, and i quote, "Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system"... maybe speakers like the klipsch RS series with wide dispertion technology are the desirable ones, and i think they are bipoles



They are bipoles and that's what I'm using. They not only work well, but are relatively compact (depending on model) and look good with grills as they are semi-circular rather than blocks. Of course, they aren't nearly as discrete as "in"-ceiling.


----------



## lgreis

virtualrain said:


> They are bipoles and that's what I'm using. They not only work well, but are relatively compact (depending on model) and look good with grills as they are semi-circular rather than blocks. Of course, they aren't nearly as discrete as "in"-ceiling.


I am thinking of doing the same thing, have the rf7ii/rc64ii, rf62ii(surr) and rc62ii(surrback) and have a flat ceiling and the overhead speakers will be only 4.5 feet way from me, i am thinking of 4x rs42ii or 4x rs41ii, or 2xrs52ii... what do ou think will be the better and suficient choice?


----------



## virtualrain

lgreis said:


> I am thinking of doing the same thing, have the rf7ii/rc64ii, rf62ii(surr) and rc62ii(surrback) and have a flat ceiling and the overhead speakers will be only 4.5 feet way from me, i am thinking of 4x rs42ii or 4x rs41ii, or 2xrs52ii... what do ou think will be the better and suficient choice?



I'm using 4x RS42II. I'm sure the 41s would also work great. Im guessing the 52s might be a bit of overkill and too big and heavy?


----------



## lgreis

virtualrain said:


> I'm using 4x RS42II. I'm sure the 41s would also work great. Im guessing the 52s might be a bit of overkill and too big and heavy?


Thanks... do you have heard some atmos before you put your rs42? If so what was the diference and how do you desbribe the sound coming from the rs42 has being bipoles? Never heard bipoles before, but dolby say that with not so high ceilings the better apeakers are with wide dispertion... on very high ceiling monopoles will be prefereble. 
Thanks


----------



## virtualrain

lgreis said:


> Thanks... do you have heard some atmos before you put your rs42? If so what was the diference and how do you desbribe the sound coming from the rs42 has being bipoles? Never heard bipoles before, but dolby say that with not so high ceilings the better apeakers are with wide dispertion... on very high ceiling monopoles will be prefereble.
> Thanks



My only experience was at the theater where the ceiling is at least 20' overhead. When I read the specs as you had, I concluded the same thing... Bipoles FTW. I searched the Klipsch owners thread for anyone else doing this, and not surprisingly, another member had done this exact same thing months prior and was very satisfied. So I followed. So you might be the third. Have a search back through the Klipsch owners thread. There are some pics of both his and my setup.


----------



## lgreis

virtualrain said:


> My only experience was at the theater where the ceiling is at least 20' overhead. When I read the specs as you had, I concluded the same thing... Bipoles FTW. I searched the Klipsch owners thread for anyone else doing this, and not surprisingly, another member had done this exact same thing months prior and was very satisfied. So I followed. So you might be the third. Have a search back through the Klipsch owners thread. There are some pics of both his and my setup.


Thanks for the help


----------



## multit

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If it were a concert video, maybe. Music videos never get mixed based on what is on the screen. Do yourself a favor and listen to a stereo version of that song for comparison. Would love to hear if that changes your opinion.


Why should I change my opinion? I mean, Atmos is supposed to create better immersion and for the most occasions it deals along with the screen action... which I prefer ... and the good examples are available to us (Amaze, Gravity, Unbroken, Mad Max, etc.).
Of course I know how most of the music videos have been mixed, but this time it would have been a chance in order to put more "live atmosphere" in it. For my opinion this chance has been missed. It sounds like an apprentice had a 2 hour chance at the mixer and did some fading and copying of some tracks. I mean, it worked with the hand claps and some "hey's", why not do more?

The point is, I would never pay for that demo disc on ebay, just to have this music clip in addition to the already available demos. It's not worth it - period. Much better to invest in those famous Atmos movies instead !!!


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> It sure has been a lot less "noisy" on this thread the last couple of days...
> 
> 
> Actually.. It's been that way in almost all of the thread I subscribe to...


I fear it may be a temporary respite. In the past the noise has reappeared in a different guise. Let's collectively hope I am wrong.


----------



## kbarnes701

Csbooth said:


> Even knowing that members like Keith did not care for his commentary, he still referenced and tried to strike conversation with him frequently.


He did? Oh boy.


----------



## Eriksdam

pottscb said:


> So, has there been a consensus in which speaker configuration is most compatible with all ATMOS, DTS-X and AURO? My couch sits on the back wall so rear surrounds are of limited use. Also, is there a consensus on if dipoles are out for Atmos (I currently have Axiom QS8s which are great for 5.1).


Consensus? well, yes, to a certain extend.... Most here will say direct radiators are the way to go, as per the Dolby guidelines. In real life,it's a more subjective decision due to placement constraints and, more importantly, taste. My surround boxes are switchable between direct and dipole modes so it was pretty easy for me do a comparison - and I actually ended up with a combination; Dipole for my surround-back speakers, and direct for the surrounds. This worked the best for me because my surround-back speakers are relatively close to my MLP, so some diffusing simply sounded better.

Short answer? No, your Axioms are not immediately rendered useless by Atmos/DTS:X  If you can, experiment! It's all about what YOU like, not consensus ;-)
Erik


----------



## kbarnes701

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree that compassion is called for. He clearly has mental issues *(perhaps compounded by an overindulgence in certain mind-altering substances)* and therefore should not be mocked.


Gee. Is this what happens? I toke your general point


----------



## kbarnes701

Eriksdam said:


> Consensus? well, yes, to a certain extend.... Most here will say direct radiators are the way to go, as per the Dolby guidelines.


I have always put forward that view too - but today I was reading Dolby's latest Atmos for the home install guidelines and I could find no reference to that. I may have missed it but a search of the document didn't reveal it and I definitely couldn't find it among the hundreds of different references to speakers.

Do you, or does anyone, have a direct quote from the latest Dolby guidelines that supports this? I can't imagine we have collectively hallucinated it, so where is it in fact coming from?


----------



## Eriksdam

kbarnes701 said:


> I have always put forward that view too - but today I was reading Dolby's latest Atmos for the home install guidelines and I could find no reference to that. I may have missed it but a search of the document didn't reveal it and I definitely couldn't find it among the hundreds of different references to speakers.
> 
> Do you, or does anyone, have a direct quote from the latest Dolby guidelines that supports this? I can't imagine we have collectively hallucinated it, so where is it in fact coming from?


You, Sir, are actually asking me to read the manual?? The...shame...of it.....!

OK, her goes: Page 7 in the September 2014 version states (for listener level speakers): "Any speaker type that is capable of accurately representing a stereo pan is suitable to reproduce objects." Whatever that means... And continues: "Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system", again, no direct mentioning of one type or the other.

In short: Seems like another fine example of if-you-state-something-often-enough-it-will-become-fact... OK, so, maybe direct radiators will in theory fullfill those (rather vague) requirements the best, but i'd say there's some room for interpretation & creativity 

-Erik


----------



## kbarnes701

Eriksdam said:


> You, Sir, are actually asking me to read the manual?? The...shame...of it.....!


Yeah, forgive me. I know this is a big ask of anyone 




Eriksdam said:


> OK, her goes: Page 7 in the September 2014 version states (for listener level speakers): "Any speaker type that is capable of accurately representing a stereo pan is suitable to reproduce objects." Whatever that means... And continues: "Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system", again, no direct mentioning of one type or the other.
> 
> In short: Seems like another fine example of if-you-state-something-often-enough-it-will-become-fact... OK, so, maybe direct radiators will in theory fullfill those (rather vague) requirements the best, but i'd say there's some room for interpretation & creativity
> 
> -Erik


Indeed. I was surprised to find no mention of direct radiators or monopoles etc in the user guide. It seems to have become The Lore, or even The Law around these parts. But maybe there is no real basis for it and those with dipoles and bipoles should take comfort from that.

The only small area of doubt is what Dolby mean by _"Any speaker type that is capable of accurately representing a stereo pan is suitable to reproduce objects."_ Do dipoles fall into that category? Do bipoles?


----------



## Spanglo

Age of Adaline is on tonight's ticket. Maybe Avengers Age of Ultron too... didn't see it in the theater... wish it had an atmos track.

Was watching Season 3 of Hannibal last night, and continue to be impressed with the audio of that show. 

For DSU addicts this mix has a really cool sounding intro, and an excellent tech house mix for you electronic lovers: 

https://soundcloud.com/desert-hearts-records/live-desert-hearts-sabo-043

Streams in 128, download it for 320.


----------



## HT-Eman

pottscb said:


> So, has there been a consensus in which speaker configuration is most compatible with all ATMOS, DTS-X and AURO? My couch sits on the back wall so rear surrounds are of limited use. Also, is there a consensus on if dipoles are out for Atmos (I currently have Axiom QS8s which are great for 5.1).


Axiom QS8s are not dipoles , they are quad-poles ( still bi-pole though ) which all the drivers work in phase . I have the same speaker and speaker brand. Using the upgrade program to get ( currently have version 3 ) version 4 in all white. The QS8 is a excellent speaker but will be getting all monopoles for this upgrade .


----------



## Franin

San Andreas will be out this week in Australia, hopefully it's Atmos.


Frank


----------



## wse

Franin said:


> San Andreas will be out this week in Australia, hopefully it's Atmos.
> 
> 
> Frank


I sure hope so as well I will let you know if it compares to the real thing I have lived through three major quakes:

1984 M 6.3 Calaveras fault Morgan Hill Earthquake

1989	M 7.1 San Andreas fault Loma Prieta Earthquake

Most recently in 1994 the Northridge LA 6.4 shacker 

It looks like an other one will come soon!


----------



## Franin

wse said:


> I sure hope so as well I will let you know if it compares to the real thing I have lived through three major quakes:
> 
> 1984 M 6.3 Calaveras fault Morgan Hill Earthquake
> 
> 1989M 7.1 San Andreas fault Loma Prieta Earthquake
> 
> Most recently in 1994 the Northridge LA 6.4 shacker
> 
> It looks like an other one will come soon!



Nothing will ever beat a real quake. I'm fortunate not too have to have to go through any of those you have mentioned wse.


Frank


----------



## BigScreen

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn’t speculation. It is confirmed fact. Of course, it is not always possible to reveal the source for various reasons, which can then understandably, lead to suspicion that it is simply a 'rumour' or speculation.


I never saw the first mention of this, so I wasn't aware that it was confirmed by someone reliable. My apologies.


----------



## BigScreen

Eriksdam said:


> You, Sir, are actually asking me to read the manual?? The...shame...of it.....!
> 
> OK, her goes: Page 7 in the September 2014 version states (for listener level speakers): "Any speaker type that is capable of accurately representing a stereo pan is suitable to reproduce objects." Whatever that means... And continues: "Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system", again, no direct mentioning of one type or the other.
> 
> In short: Seems like another fine example of if-you-state-something-often-enough-it-will-become-fact... OK, so, maybe direct radiators will in theory fullfill those (rather vague) requirements the best, but i'd say there's some room for interpretation & creativity
> 
> -Erik


IIRC, I raised the idea that dipoles/bipoles might be ideal height speakers last Fall, but was pretty thoroughly shot down. My critics were emboldened by the fact that a Dolby rep had answered a question about it (either at the CEDIA show or in an interview or something) and said that direct radiators were preferred. Some here did report some success with using them, so I was heartened by that and hoped for the best when I finally got to that point. I have rested upon the position that different things work for different rooms and different people. Start with the guidelines and then adapt from there to arrive at a satisfactory result, which is pretty much what this hobby is all about. While I am not of the opinion that dipoles/bipoles would make great overhead speakers, it would take overwhelming evidence to get me to replace my surrounds.

The funny thing is, Dolby recommends whatever will work for effective stereo pans, but here we are more than a year after Atmos' release and no way to test such pans traveling through the height channels. Some might recall that I requested such test patterns last Fall as well, so someone could use them to test the effectiveness of pans and point-source elements. Movie clips and demo clips are great, but they aren't a replacement for some simple test patterns.

Heck, I might even be willing to commission the creation of such patterns. I've put some feelers out, but haven't received any interest so far.


----------



## pasender91

The "monopole" recommendation was done by SEVERAL Dolby reps and VPs last fall, so even if it's not written down in the installation guide it is still pretty much official to me ...

On your second point, YES the community would love to have Dolby Atmos test files, built by Dolby or by a third-party.
Just simple audio patterns with sound positioned and transitioning in space, the video part being the Atmos console display with those yellow bubbles moving around as objects translate 
Dolby, if your listening, this is a simple project to execute for people with the Atmos authoring tools, so just do it !!!


----------



## fredl

BigScreen said:


> Heck, I might even be willing to commission the creation of such patterns. I've put some feelers out, but haven't received any interest so far.


I don't know what tools are needed to make an Dolby TrueHD with Atmos track. If the tool is available for popular NLE software such as from Adobe I would bet that we could easily find someone on fiverr or guru that would crank out suitable test patterns. It is amazing the talent you can find there. Come to think of it, I will post a request.

If it's not to expensive I can foot the bill myself, otherwise (if permissable by AVS) we could perhaps pool our money.

I would like to have isolated height plan pans (both front to back, side to side), a heigh object moving around in space. Perhaps a bouncing ball that moves from the bed to height in a random pattern etc.


----------



## maikeldepotter

BigScreen said:


> The funny thing is, Dolby recommends whatever will work for effective stereo pans, but here we are more than a year after Atmos' release and no way to test such pans traveling through the height channels. Some might recall that I requested such test patterns last Fall as well, so someone could use them to test the effectiveness of pans and point-source elements. Movie clips and demo clips are great, but they aren't a replacement for some simple test patterns.
> 
> Heck, I might even be willing to commission the creation of such patterns. I've put some feelers out, but haven't received any interest so far.


After a year with nothing coming from Dolby that addresses this obvious need amongst installers and ambitious hobbyists, what other reason than that Dolby is reluctant to make such test patterns available could there be? 

As always this must be a marketing thing: They do not expect it to help their market position in any substantial way. Given that it's such a small investment though, one easily starts thinking that Dolby may even expect adverse effects. 

Did anybody ever asked Dolby about their position on this?


----------



## multit

maikeldepotter said:


> After a year with nothing coming from Dolby that addresses this obvious need amongst installers and ambitious hobbyists, what other reason than that Dolby is reluctant to make such test patterns available could there be?
> As always this must be a marketing thing: They do not expect it to help their market position in any substantial way. Given that it's such a small investment though, one easily starts thinking that Dolby may even expect adverse effects.
> Did anybody ever asked Dolby about their position on this?


I've asked them several times, but yeah, I'm just a home user enthusiast, why should Dolby care about me. Answers were in that direction, that Dolby is not keeping end user contact and I rather should check with my dealer.

But I was (and still I' am) very interested in checking my setup regarding the perfect position and angles of the height speaker.
In the meantime, my guess is, that Dolby don't want it to have a detailed check... probably because of the current implementation in consumer AVR. For example, if you switch between FH + TM and TF + TR (speaker position unchanged), I can hear no difference, but I would have expected a difference. So due to the current DSP limitations, the implementation is probably very simple and this fact might not be so public... I don't know. I mean it's the same about the use of Atmos objects. It's mostly used as a *the* key factor, but given the current Atmos movies on Blu-ray, most of the upper sounds are from the height channel. I mean, it's not, that I have no fun with Atmos movies, especially with the newer releases (e.g. Gravity, Unbroken, Mad Max), but I would like to have it even better with more options and more control.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I never saw the first mention of this, so I wasn't aware that it was confirmed by someone reliable. My apologies.


No problem at all. It was first revealed here on AVS by FilmMixer (Marc). He confirmed what I had previously heard from a reliable 'inside' source, but which I was unable to reveal publicly.So Denons will be apply to apply Neural:X to Dolby content, and DSU to DTS content, but not yet (while they resolve the coding issues in getting DTS:X itself up and working).


----------



## kbarnes701

ellisr63 said:


> I am pretty sure that AVS can ban by IP address, but I believe you can unplug your modem for a few days and then turn it back on with a new IP address..


It is the Internet Provider's IP address that they ban by, and that is fixed for the majority of people. It's a reliable way to ban users, so long as they don't know how to bypass it of course, which is quite easy


----------



## Sam Ash

multit said:


> I've asked them several times, but yeah, I'm just a home user enthusiast, why should Dolby care about me. Answers were in that direction, that Dolby is not keeping end user contact and I rather should check with my dealer.
> 
> But I was (and still I' am) very interested in checking my setup regarding the perfect position and angles of the height speaker.
> In the meantime, my guess is, that Dolby don't want it to have a detailed check... probably because of the current implementation in consumer AVR. For example, if you switch between FH + TM and TF + TR (speaker position unchanged), I can hear no difference, but I would have expected a difference. So due to the current DSP limitations, the implementation is probably very simple and this fact might not be so public... I don't know. I mean it's the same about the use of Atmos objects. It's mostly used as a *the* key factor, but given the current Atmos movies on Blu-ray, most of the upper sounds are from the height channel. I mean, it's not, that I have no fun with Atmos movies, especially with the newer releases (e.g. Gravity, Unbroken, Mad Max), but I would like to have it even better with more options and more control.


Multit, I see that you have both Atmos and Auro 3D, can you kindly highlight the differences between them in terms of the surround sound experience ?

For those with dedicated theatre rooms with pitched roofs, would it work to have four speakers suspended at the same level about 12 feet or 14 feet from the floor for Atmos ? The higher the better I suppose due to the dispersion advantage.


----------



## Sam Ash

*Suspended Ceiling Speakers for Atmos*

Decided to repost this question so that fellow members can provide input: For those with dedicated theatre rooms with pitched roofs, would it work to have four speakers suspended at the same level about 12 feet or 14 feet from the floor for an Atmos configuration ? I'd like the speakers a bit high for the dispersion advantage. Have most users with Atmos been following the Dolby guidelines accurately or is it just a general guideline ?


----------



## multit

Sam Ash said:


> Multit, I see that you have both Atmos and Auro 3D, can you kindly highlight the differences between them in terms of the surround sound experience ?
> For those with dedicated theatre rooms with pitched roofs, would it work to have four speakers suspended at the same level about 12 feet or 14 feet from the floor for Atmos ? The higher the better I suppose due to the dispersion advantage.


For Auro it's ok to have an angle of 20-30° vertical between Front and Front High speaker (looking from MLP), while for Dolby Atmos/DSU it starts with the 30° according to several documents from Dolby or Denon (45° is best). And so are my experiences and I decided to install the height speakers at the ceiling with currently about 34° difference angle. Below 30°, the Atmos/DSU performance might be influenced and the "overhead" effect is probably missing a bit. So the 12-14 feet might work for you, dependent from your MLP...
I also made the experience, that the rear heights are not that critical... so the same height will work for sure.


----------



## maikeldepotter

multit said:


> For Auro it's ok to have an angle of 20-30° vertical between Front and Front High speaker (looking from MLP),


My understanding from what WvB has said about this is that for Auro3D the optimal range for vertical separation is 25 to 35 degrees, with 30 degrees being the ideal. In addition to this: 40 degrees is the maximum elevation in absolute terms in case listeners' level speakers are a bit elevated (e.g. surrounds at 15 degrees and corresponding heights at 40 degrees yields 25 degrees vertical separation).



> And so are my experiences and I decided to install the height speakers at the ceiling with currently about 34° difference angle.


So that is indeed within the optimal range.


----------



## audiofan1

Simple way to test pans and object placement is the Atmos demo disc( if you have one )and shut off the rest of the channels its quite revealing of what each pair of speakers (sans center) is bringing to the table and how I know my side Dipoles work extremely well


----------



## maikeldepotter

audiofan1 said:


> Simple way to test pans and object placement is the Atmos demo disc( if you have one )and shut off the rest of the channels its quite revealing of what each pair of speakers (sans center) is bringing to the table and how I know my side Dipoles work extremely well


I was more thinking in terms of a well defined and unchanged (in terms of SPL and size) sound which pans with slow and constant speed in a perfect circle around MLP at respectively listeners's level, 30 degrees elevation and 60 degrees elevation.


----------



## rontalley

fredl said:


> I don't know what tools are needed to make an Dolby TrueHD with Atmos track. If the tool is available for popular NLE software such as from Adobe I would bet that we could easily find someone on fiverr or guru that would crank out suitable test patterns. It is amazing the talent you can find there. Come to think of it, I will post a request.
> 
> If it's not to expensive I can foot the bill myself, otherwise (if permissable by AVS) we could perhaps pool our money.
> 
> I would like to have isolated height plan pans (both front to back, side to side), a heigh object moving around in space. Perhaps a bouncing ball that moves from the bed to height in a random pattern etc.


I might give this a go as I have a ProTools HD setup. Found what plug-ins I need here. I am not much on graphics but I am sure I can take screenshots or something of the positions and piece them together...or someone could help with the graphics?

http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...uction-to-working-in-dolbys-immersive-fo.html


----------



## broodro0ster

I'm currently running a 5.2.2 setup, but I'm doubting to go 7.2.2.

I heard my friends 7.1 system and with 7.1 and 5.1 upscaled tracks, it sound a little more immersive than my setup.

Currently I have my surrounds at an 110° degree angle and 2.4m from the MLP. My fronts are 2.85m away from the MLP. The bubble is very good and because my room is wide, I don't have a big gap between the fronts and surrounds.
I'm actually happy and it sounds good. But if can it make it sounding better by going to a 7.2.2 system, than I'll be happy to do that.

The problem is that I only have 1m of space between the back of my seat and wall. My surround speakers are 35cm deep (KEF R300) so the tweeter will be 65cm (2 feet) away from the seat. Would this be enough?

And can you place the side surrounds at 85° (tweeter in the middle of the seat)? They would stand in front of a thick absorber if I place them at 90° (tweeter in line with the back rest of the seat)

If needed, I can make some pictures of my HT.


----------



## pasender91

rontalley said:


> I might give this a go as I have a ProTools HD setup. Found what plug-ins I need here. I am not much on graphics but I am sure I can take screenshots or something of the positions and piece them together...or someone could help with the graphics?
> 
> http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...uction-to-working-in-dolbys-immersive-fo.html


That's a grand idea .
I don't have the toolset but i have ideas for the content 

So below is my dream disc content, i'll be happy to participate to such a project but can't see other roles for me than Project Manager (that's my job) or Beta-Tester.

For the different Atmos audio tests, i would imagine the following tracks (all positions as (x,y,z)):

**** Single object
1) static positions, high up (1.0), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1) (1,-1,1) (-1,0,1) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (-1,1,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,1)
2) static positions, middle-high(0.5), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5) (0,0,0.5) (1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5) (0,1,0.5) (1,1,0.5)
3) lateral high pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,1)=>(1,-1,1)=>(-1,-1,1) (-1,0,1)=>(1,0,1)=>(-1,0,1) (-1,1,1)=>(1,1,1)=>(-1,1,1)
4) lateral middle-high (0.5) pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,0.5)=>(1,-1,0.5)=>(-1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5)=>(1,0,0.5)=>(-1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5)=>(1,1,0.5)=>(-1,1,0.5)
5) front-back high pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,1)=>(-1,1,1)=>(-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1)=>(0,1,1)=>(0,-1,1) (1,-1,1)=>(1,1,1)=>(1,-1,1)
6) front-back middle_high (0.5) pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,0.5)=>(-1,1,0.5)=>(-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5)=>(0,1,0.5)=>(0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5)=>(1,1,0.5)=>(1,-1,0.5)
7) Fly around high up (1.0): the object going around the reference in a circle
8) Fly around middle-high (0.5): the object going around the reference in a circle
9) Fly around low (0): the object going around the reference in a circle

**** Multiple objects
Same as above but combining the objects of the previous tracks as 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, and finally 7&8&9. 

All tracks would use a basic sound pattern repeating over, a 5 second sound of birds for example, or pink noise.

For video, if possible i believe the tracks should show the Dolby Atmos Monitor Application, this would show the object moving around and the signal level in standardized positions. Plan B would only be a static image explaining and showing the track content (i can help with that part).


----------



## rontalley

pasender91 said:


> That's a grand idea .
> I don't have the toolset but i have ideas for the content
> 
> So below is my dream disc content, i'll be happy to participate to such a project but can't see other roles for me than Project Manager (that's my job) or Beta-Tester.
> 
> For the different Atmos audio tests, i would imagine the following tracks (all positions as (x,y,z)):
> 
> **** Single object
> 1) static positions, high up (1.0), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1) (1,-1,1) (-1,0,1) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (-1,1,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,1)
> 2) static positions, middle-high(0.5), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5) (0,0,0.5) (1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5) (0,1,0.5) (1,1,0.5)
> 3) lateral high pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,1)=>(1,-1,1)=>(-1,-1,1) (-1,0,1)=>(1,0,1)=>(-1,0,1) (-1,1,1)=>(1,1,1)=>(-1,1,1)
> 4) lateral middle-high (0.5) pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,0.5)=>(1,-1,0.5)=>(-1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5)=>(1,0,0.5)=>(-1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5)=>(1,1,0.5)=>(-1,1,0.5)
> 5) front-back high pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,1)=>(-1,1,1)=>(-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1)=>(0,1,1)=>(0,-1,1) (1,-1,1)=>(1,1,1)=>(1,-1,1)
> 6) front-back middle_high (0.5) pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,0.5)=>(-1,1,0.5)=>(-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5)=>(0,1,0.5)=>(0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5)=>(1,1,0.5)=>(1,-1,0.5)
> 7) Fly around high up (1.0): the object going around the reference in a circle
> 8) Fly around middle-high (0.5): the object going around the reference in a circle
> 9) Fly around low (0): the object going around the reference in a circle
> 
> **** Multiple objects
> Same as above but combining the objects of the previous tracks as 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, and finally 7&8&9.
> 
> All tracks would use a basic sound pattern repeating over, a 5 second sound of birds for example, or pink noise.
> 
> For video, if possible i believe the tracks should show the Dolby Atmos Monitor Application, this would show the object moving around and the signal level in standardized positions. Plan B would only be a static image explaining and showing the track content (i can help with that part).


Will keep you posted on my progress. Hopefully the plug-in will not cost much...


----------



## dvdwilly3

rontalley said:


> Will keep you posted on my progress. Hopefully the plug-in will not cost much...


if necessary, perhaps we could crowd-fund (whatever the appropriate term is...) the cost of the plug-in.

If we all benefit, there is no reason for you to go it alone. I lack the necessary skill set to contribute in any meaningful way, but I coul throw some $$ at it (within reason...) if that would help...

At any rate, thank you for the effort...


----------



## FilmMixer

rontalley said:


> Will keep you posted on my progress. Hopefully the plug-in will not cost much...


The plug in will do nothing for you without the Atmos rendering plug in. 

Then you have to render the project... 

Which requires additional software you don't have access to.... Then you would need to author it as a TrueHD or DD+ stream, requiring software I also assume you don't have access to (Dolby Media Encoder...). 

It's not as simple as making a pro tools session and creating some meta data.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rontalley said:


> Will keep you posted on my progress. Hopefully the plug-in will not cost much...


Unfortunately, I believe the Atmos plug-in for Pro Tools _is_ expensive, then you need the two interface units and a Dolby RMU module (also very expensive) and monitoring speakers/amps. Then you have to have Dolby Atmos cinema to home converter software and a Blu-ray authoring suite. 

If you have some coins, have a Dolby approved mixing house, and want to learn to mix in 3D space, that's fine, but if not... be ready for sticker shock.

I think the DTS MDA (DTS: X) suite and hardware are less expensive since you can get them from more than one source, but still not cheap.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> The plug in will do nothing for you without the Atmos rendering plug in.
> 
> Then you have to render the project...
> 
> Which requires additional software you don't have access to.... Then you would need to author it as a TrueHD or DD+ stream, requiring software I also assume you don't have access to (Dolby Media Encoder...).
> 
> It's not as simple as making a pro tools session and creating some meta data.


Do you believe that Dolby is potentially locking Atmos technology down too tightly, so that people wanting to learn this "new fangled" way of audio mixing are left out in the cold? I would think Dolby would want Atmos tools out in as many hands as possible (including technical schools and one man band video producers), so a new breed of audio engineers can hit the ground running with immersive audio skills under their belt. More potential clients and more profits that way...


----------



## pasender91

FilmMixer said:


> The plug in will do nothing for you without the Atmos rendering plug in.
> 
> Then you have to render the project...
> 
> Which requires additional software you don't have access to.... Then you would need to author it as a TrueHD or DD+ stream, requiring software I also assume you don't have access to (Dolby Media Encoder...).
> 
> It's not as simple as making a pro tools session and creating some meta data.


There goes our dream :crying:
FilmMixer, you can't do that over one of your coffee breaks ??


----------



## DAK4

Golly Gee Wilikers Fellas, After having Atmos for almost a year now IMO unless you have your Left & Right speakers wired backwards you really aren't going to notice that the Bullets or Birds or Asteroids or Parts from an explosion are off by a few degrees as they are flying overhead. And if you are noticing something like that then the movie must not be holding your attention and you shouldn't be watching that movie anyway.  I suppose it's good to get as accurate as possible but I think there is a lot of forgiveness in this immersive sound.


----------



## BigScreen

pasender91 said:


> That's a grand idea .
> I don't have the toolset but i have ideas for the content
> 
> So below is my dream disc content, i'll be happy to participate to such a project but can't see other roles for me than Project Manager (that's my job) or Beta-Tester.
> 
> For the different Atmos audio tests, i would imagine the following tracks (all positions as (x,y,z)):
> 
> **** Single object
> 1) static positions, high up (1.0), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1) (1,-1,1) (-1,0,1) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (-1,1,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,1)
> 2) static positions, middle-high(0.5), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5) (0,0,0.5) (1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5) (0,1,0.5) (1,1,0.5)
> :


It might be the combination of 4 hrs of sleep and Monday morning, but I'm unclear about the coordinates that you're referring to.

I'm a visual person, so I'm trying to visualize a traditional rectangular room and applying your coordinates to it. Is the MLP the zero-point, with a y-value of -1 being the front of the room and 1 being the back (and an x-value of -1 the left side and 1 the right side)?

















re: patterns

Since I don't have an Atmos system, I'll rely on the first-hand experiences of those that do, but I would imagine that some static positions on the common overhead positions, as well as between them would be of value. 

For example, to test the performance/placement of the Top Front Left, placing a sound at 45° (the median angle for that position) on the left should do it. Likewise for the other median speaker positions. Additionally, I'd like to see static sounds halfway between the Front and Top Front (22.5°, a little lower than Front Height), between the Top Front and Top Rear (90°, directly overhead), and between the Top Rear and Surround Back positions. By having both static sounds at those positions and pans going from (for example) Front Left to Surround Back Left (I would assume) would be beneficial to test placement, separation, and even blending (timbre matching) of a configuration.

It's quite possible that's exactly what you're describing, and I'm being thick this Monday morning.


----------



## ellisr63

kbarnes701 said:


> It is the Internet Provider's IP address that they ban by, and that is fixed for the majority of people. It's a reliable way to ban users, so long as they don't know how to bypass it of course, which is quite easy


I called my service provider, and was told to disconnect my modem, remove the battery for 72hrs to get a new IP... I did, and I got a new one.


----------



## FilmMixer

pasender91 said:


> There goes our dream :crying:
> FilmMixer, you can't do that over one of your coffee breaks ??


Making the test tones I can do... authoring a disc/files... we're not an authoring house, so I can't help there...


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Unfortunately, I believe the Atmos plug-in for Pro Tools _is_ expensive, then you need the two interface units and a Dolby RMU module (also very expensive) and monitoring speakers/amps. Then you have to have Dolby Atmos cinema to home converter software and a Blu-ray authoring suite.
> 
> If you have some coins, have a Dolby approved mixing house, and want to learn to mix in 3D space, that's fine, but if not... be ready for sticker shock.
> 
> I think the DTS MDA (DTS: X) suite and hardware are less expensive since you can get them from more than one source, but still not cheap.


The panner plug in is free, and Dolby will set you up with the software renderer if you are working on a project that is mixing in Atmos... the audio hardware interface needs to be capable of at least 11 outputs, so an Onmi will not work... but there are plenty of 16 channel solutions available..

From all indications, Pro Tools will soon incorporate native object panning...

You don't need an RMU to do this.. that is why they created the "Local Renderer" plug in... it supports 16 outputs.

Here is a link to the Editor's Guild magazine with a good, detailed article on an alternate way to create Atmos content in a small editing room and how you can take that work to a larger, fully equipped dubbing stage....

Editor's Guild Summer 2015 Cinemontage Magazine

But as you noted, it is not available for download just by anyone... 

That doesn't change the fact, however, that it is free....

Here is a good detailed nuts and bolts mixing article... and it shows the Local Renderer plug-in in action. 

Mixing Bombay Velvet in Atmos

DTS:X works similarly... you need to obtain the tools from DTS/MDA.. no cost.

But you still need to setup a room properly (>7.1 workstation outputs, etc..)

The biggest difference in workflow is that the DTS tools allow you to directly output an MDA file from the plug-ins... not so with Atmos.

Getting that file into an authored format is the same as Dolby.. you need access to mastering/authoring software.. and then the ability to make a disc/file...


----------



## rontalley

FilmMixer said:


> The panner plug in is free, and Dolby will set you up with the software renderer if you are working on a project that is mixing in Atmos... the audio hardware interface needs to be capable of at least 11 outputs, so an Onmi will not work... but there are plenty of 16 channel solutions available..
> 
> From all indications, Pro Tools will soon incorporate native object panning...
> 
> You don't need an RMU to do this.. that is why they created the "Local Renderer" plug in... it supports 16 outputs.
> 
> Here is a link to the Editor's Guild magazine with a good, detailed article on an alternate way to create Atmos content in a small editing room and how you can take that work to a larger, fully equipped dubbing stage....
> 
> Editor's Guild Summer 2015 Cinemontage Magazine
> 
> But as you noted, it is not available for download just by anyone...
> 
> That doesn't change the fact, however, that it is free....
> 
> Here is a good detailed nuts and bolts mixing article... and it shows the Local Renderer plug-in in action.
> 
> Mixing Bombay Velvet in Atmos
> 
> DTS:X works similarly... you need to obtain the tools from DTS/MDA.. no cost.
> 
> But you still need to setup a room properly (>7.1 workstation outputs, etc..)
> 
> The biggest difference in workflow is that the DTS tools allow you to directly output an MDA file from the plug-ins... not so with Atmos.
> 
> Getting that file into an authored format is the same as Dolby.. you need access to mastering/authoring software.. and then the ability to make a disc/file...


I have a 40 i/o PTHD setup. I still mix on PT10. I have PT11 but don't use it much unless a project comes in that has the newer style plug (AAX). I'm sure that the new plugs are probably in the newer format. Not sure if my HD cards will process atmos either...Anywho will give it a go.

Now what about this rendering thingy?


----------



## AbbyDaddy

I was just looking at that same diagram in the above post. It seems that the layout works fine if you have that much room to be able to have your seating in the middle of the room. I am really looking and reading as much as I can to see what will and won't work in my living room. The most that I can put my sofa off of the back wall is 12-18 inches. The confusing part for me is where exactly to place my ceiling speakers. Would I want to have two rear height and two mid height? If I did two rear and two front height off of the diagrams out there, with the sofa distance that I have to work with, those would be two close together.

For more of a history on my system, I will be utilizing this setup:

-Onkyo TX-NR1030
-Four BIC Acoustech PL-89ii towers
-One BIC Acoustech PL-28ii center 
-Four BIC Acoustech HT-8C Ceiling speakers
-Two BIC PL-200 Subs

My living room is roughly 22 X 18 feet, and is wider than it is longer. I have the TV viewing set up within the shorter or the two measurements. Until we get a new house, this is what I have to work with, because the basement has lower ceilings and accommodates my home office. 

The goal here obviously is a 5.2.4 Atmos Setup. I keep having issues in deciding that dang ceiling speakers and pulling the trigger on where to cut. I have changed the overall speaker count and receiver twice now without even had any of it up and running. I have OCD or am not right in the head maybe. I need some advice from someone who also suffers from limited back wall distance on what I should do here. If I keep racking my brain and over thinking all of this, I may not have this up until Christmas.


----------



## sdurani

AbbyDaddy said:


> The most that I can put my sofa off of the back wall is 12-18 inches. The confusing part for me is where exactly to place my ceiling speakers. Would I want to have two rear height and two mid height?


Other way 'round: two mid height (mounted above your sofa) and two front height. Not enough space behind you to properly do rear heights in the ceiling.


> My living room is roughly 22 X 18 feet, and is wider than it is longer.


With an 18-foot room length, the furthest you can pull your sofa off the back wall is 1.5 feet?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> With an 18-foot room length, the furthest you can pull your sofa off the back wall is 1.5 feet?


My thoughts exactly. I hope you have an enormous screen because that's a really long viewing distance. 

With a 22x18 room it should be no problem to do a 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## LowellG

batpig said:


> My thoughts exactly. I hope you have an enormous screen because that's a really long viewing distance.
> 
> With a 22x18 room it should be no problem to do a 7.1.4 setup.


Is that 1 row of seating?


----------



## AbbyDaddy

sdurani said:


> With an 18-foot room length, the furthest you can pull your sofa off the back wall is 1.5 feet?



With having a 2-1/2 year old that also has to play there because if we let her in her own room, she destroys it, yes.

Do you happen to see anywhere on the web the type of setup that you mention? I planned on doing two of them roughly even with the arm rests of the sofa, in front of the faces of those seated. Would directly above be the better route? Where do you recommend the front height speakers then, the same distance off of the front wall, or more like the front third of the room? Would I also want the 4 ceiling speakers parallel to each other? This is the confusing part for me. There just aren't a lot of pics or diagrams with the way that I would have to do it. I'm pretty much a newbie in this regard, as this is my first "real" non HTIB system. I more or less want to do it once and do it right. When we do eventually get a bigger home, I plan to add the Onkyo M-5010 and two more of the PL-89ii towers, cuz I'm sick, and well, why not. LOL


----------



## sdurani

AbbyDaddy said:


> Would directly above be the better route?


It will give the strongest impression of sound above you. You can still spread the speakers the width of your couch.


> Where do you recommend the front height speakers then...?


About 45 degrees elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling and mount the speakers that same distance forward of your listening position).


> Would I also want the 4 ceiling speakers parallel to each other?


Yes.


----------



## AbbyDaddy

sdurani said:


> It will give the strongest impression of sound above you. You can still spread the speakers the width of your couch. About 45 degrees elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling and mount the speakers that same distance forward of your listening position). Yes.


Thank you! I appreciate the advice/suggestion. I am so looking forward to eventually/finally getting to hear the system and not just see all of it stacked up in my basement. I still have to run the wiring, but that became another problem, because while the front wall is easy to wire, the rear wall has a double header board, and it is very hard to maneuver to drill into that wall. I had 4 home theater guys out to my house and they want to put more holes in the wall besides where the rear speaker plates are going to go. Perhaps I should consult an actual electrician, as they may have more tricks up their sleeve. The front was super easy, and I did the pass through cable plate and power bridge for the TV myself. I contemplated attempting to use a long flex bit and go up the wall instead of down, but with no experience using one, I didn't want to make more holes in the wall by not getting it lined up right.


----------



## AbbyDaddy

To answer the above questions which I just now saw for some reason, it is a 65 inch TV at a viewing distance of about 12 feet until wall mounted. Perhaps I can move the sofa out more, just didn't want to lose too much "living" room. If I had just one more room in my house, or was able to wall off the side of my basement with the wet bar, I would just do it down there and get a projector, but too much work, ad not enough time. I'm on the road a lot. If we would have bought the house that "I" wanted 10 years ago, there was a perfect room in there with a nice natural fire place to boot, but happy wife = happy life....


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> It could, if more overhead speaker added.


I don't fully understand.

Does DSU not in any overhead combination extract uncorrelated info from main, surround, and rear pairs and sends this info to the closest pair of overheads? 

In that scenario, if TM is the only overhead pair it receives al this information; and with a TF+TR or FH+TM combination, TF/FH receives that of the mains and TM/TR that of both the surrounds and rears.

Or is it that DSU only extracts this info from the surrounds if more than one overhead pair is used, and for the rears this info only gets extracted if more than two overhead pairs are present (which is currently almost never)?

Or neither of the above? Or something in-between?


----------



## kbarnes701

ellisr63 said:


> I called my service provider, and was told to disconnect my modem, remove the battery for 72hrs to get a new IP... I did, and I got a new one.


That's good news for people who might 'need' a new IP address from time to time


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> That's good news for people who might 'need' a new IP address from time to time


Speaking of which, seems I've seen a post already in another thread...


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Speaking of which, seems I've seen a post already in another thread...


There goes the neighborhood...


----------



## asere

Does anyone know of any cheap speaker stands and speakers for surrounds. I'm in the USA.
While it's hard to place ear level surrounds in my family room I figured I can make it convertible. Bring the surrounds out for Atmos and reconnect the in ceiling surrounds for 5.1 tracks.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Does DSU not in any overhead combination extract uncorrelated info from main, surround, and rear pairs and sends this info to the closest pair of overheads?


DSU extracts the diffuse info from each pair of channels. These signals can be used individually (each height pair gets a different signal) or combined together (all 4 heights get the same signal). The AES paper points out both options that the processing is capable of, but doesn't say which one is used in actual products.


----------



## SoundChex

asere said:


> Does anyone know of any cheap speaker stands and speakers for surrounds. I'm in the USA.



_Just a thought..._
A few years back I went searching for a pair of stands to use with two Polk R15 bookshelf speakers I already owned. Instead I found it was simpler|cheaper to just purchase a pair of (matching) Polk R50 floorstanding speakers on sale at Frys...?!  


_


----------



## asere

SoundChex said:


> _Just a thought..._
> A few years back I went searching for a pair of stands to use with two Polk R15 bookshelf speakers I already owned. Instead I found it was simpler|cheaper to just purchase a pair of (matching) Polk R50 floorstanding speakers on sale at Frys...?!
> 
> 
> _


That's a thought. Personally I think stands can look tacky at times depending on the room. Especially my case being a family room open to the kitchen. I will look into the floor standing surrounds. I need to come up with plan B for the cables that's another issue the concealing part.


----------



## CBdicX

I follow the Dolby (and Auro) Guidline to the letter.....

I use my front Klipsch RP280FA as Front Height and not as Dolby Enabled, and my back Klipsch RP140SA as Rear Height and not as Dolby Enabled (and hang them on the wall !).
And guess what, i have a great Height experience in Atmos and Auro !
I put some extra volume on the Height channels (and Surround) so i get the effect out of these speakers I like.
Maybe not as the mixer "intended", but i do not know what he intended, and my livingroom is not a theater, so.........


For Auro3D i need to switch to Surround Height, but this will be soon gone with the Denon update so you can assign SH to RH for Auro 
Did also some tests (only the Height channels active) with T4 and Amaze, and all sounds fine in Atmos and Auro !
Also running with Auro instade of original Atmos gave in both T4 and Amaze a minor better Height experians.
And with DTS:X on the horizon it will be some nice experimenting !


----------



## asere

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As a counterpoint, I feel the need to explain why it's a BAD idea to run your overhead speakers that much hotter than the bed channels.
> 
> With Atmos, a mixer essentially places objects using a 3-D map of the typical room/theater, using an XYZ axis for 3-D placement of audio. For instance, if you want the sound of a plane to sound like it's coming from overhead and to the left, you wouldn't place that object's position near the left top speakers... You would place it in the space between left overhead and left surround. If you're panning the sound so that it goes from overhead front left to overhead side left to overhead rear left, the object placement on the 3-D representation of the room would be done by moving the object basically in the 3-D space in the theater that it would be in that scene in the movie. For reference, this is basically what a mixer looks at for placing these sounds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's the thing: This precise placement of sounds depends on imaging between speakers that are at a set known reference level, whether in the theater or the home. So if you run your overheads +4dB hot, a sound that is meant to image from above and to the left would collapse upward. Sure, you'll hear more content from your overheads more often... but the precise placement of sounds in the 3-D space that the mixer was mixing for is essentially destroyed. You are basically taking those objects as seen on the mixer's screen that are _slightly_ above the bed channels and forcing them all upwards.
> 
> So CAN you run your overheads hot? Sure... It's your theater and if that's your preference, that's fine. SHOULD you? Not if you want to hear the mix that you're meant to hear. And there's so much more to Atmos than just "gee, the overhead speakers are active!" There's precise immersion in the scene you're watching in the movie. And if your setup is done right, that should sound like a bubble of sound, not just regular surround sound plus some constantly active overhead speakers. Always remember that the mixer can move sounds in that space up to 255 potential positions on the Z axis. By running your overheads hot, you're essentially tossing that out and making it an either/or proposition rather than the solid imaging in that space that the mixer intended. That's not to say that you can't tweak levels in your room due to the room's characteristics to obtain that solid imaging... but I'm talking maybe a half decibel here or there as needed. Running overheads at over double the level of the bed channels is _completely destructive_ to the intended mix. And if you're okay with that, that's fine. Just know that you're NOT hearing the intended mix... and are not hearing Atmos do what it was intended to do.


Makes sense and thank you! Now for learning purpose on the pic with all the yellow dots. What are they speaker location for some or just to show how the immersion works?


----------



## asarose247

@asere and @soundCchex, wrt to towers for RS

after last years visit from @sdurani wrt tops positioning, a 7 ft. square, 45 degrees in front, behind and left/right from the mlp, all centered in the 14.5 width of the room, seems like synergistic symmetry and sounds . . immersive
because I had to get rid of ceiling height rears, that change evolved into using my then Klipsch fronts, the F-3 towers back to RS position to allow for the Fusion 15 fronts build. (TY DIYSG!)
Those klipsch measure out to having the horns at the same height, MOL, as my occasionally non slumping butt at the mlp., a possible caveat wrt to towers as rears, noticeably directional at times, good for the right mix , mostly DSU
Using XT32 at the mlp using a tight 8" cube for 8 positions gives a tremendous 1 seat immersion.

what I have discovered is that , as many can attest to wrt REW and most measurements, is that not much change in any direction will cause different accentuations in the sound field.

If i lean back, the rear sound field becomes more prominent than the front front sound stage. not good.

Because I'd like to keep the fronts, tops and rears more or less in liner in layout, not mandatory, I'm going to have to experiment with the angle , instead of straight behind me at only about 6 feet and about 6 feet apart.

Changing the levels relative to each other may also help keep action primarily in the front sound stage.

as for the pic, while possibly not the most esthetic for a speaker stand - maybe, but for being close to expediently getting 3 SEOS horns aligned, a good first try, AT and invisible with lights out.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Are those oven racks as grills?


----------



## Sam Ash

If one has a pitched or angled ceiling, would atmos be effective if all the 4 height speakers were suspended from the ceiling and carefully adjusted to be at the same level in a dedicated home theatre room ?


----------



## sdurani

Depending on the pitch/angle of the ceiling, you might not have to physically time align the speakers; could do it electronically during initial calibration.


----------



## jocedeg

audiofan1 said:


> This why I'm feeling keeping my di-poles in place directly to the sides has proven to be a very good idea and there placement up high on the sidewalls hasn't in anyway detracted from overhead effects only enhancing the immersive bubble


"Phantom" channels are not possible on the side. Only front or back phantoms "centers" are possible. The phantom can only appear between two ears.


----------



## chi_guy50

Jack Gilvey said:


> I've noticed that Netflix never lists Atmos under "Language and Sound" for a BD. If an Atmos track is available, they list "DTS-HD Master Audio". _Fishy_...


For the benefit of anyone who was harboring doubts, I can confirm today that the _Mad Max: Fury Road_ Blu-ray rental disc from Netflix has the Dolby Atmos soundtrack, despite the absurdly misleading product page listing.


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> Are those oven racks as grills?


I just checked inside my oven...to see if they were still there. 

* Creative idea.  ...But how is he baking pizza now?


----------



## audiofan1

jocedeg said:


> "Phantom" channels are not possible on the side. Only front or back phantoms "centers" are possible. The phantom can only appear between two ears.


Are you refereeing to imaging of some sort ? I'm referring to using di-poles as surround channels in a 7.2.4 setup I have mult-pole speakers I use for rear surrounds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

chi_guy50 said:


> For the benefit of anyone who was harboring doubts, I can confirm today that the _Mad Max: Fury Road_ Blu-ray rental disc from Netflix has the Dolby Atmos soundtrack, despite the absurdly misleading product page listing.


This doesn't surprise me at all. 

The Netflix "Dudes" were interviewed by a British A/V magazine recently and they didn't seem bullish on adding Atmos audio or any kind of immersive audio in their video streams... and even went so far as to admit they alter the audio of the files they receive from the studios (I've always thought they weren't as dynamic as the disc versions and it nothing to do with the fact they were lossy compressed). They didn't think anybody would really care and would rather Netflix have volume leveling and other kinds of LCM manipulation (probably even further bit starving the audio)... no wonder these streaming sites have the "quality" that they do.

And this is the future we have to look forward to?


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> T
> The Netflix "Dudes" were interviewed by a British A/V magazine recently and they didn't seem bullish on adding Atmos audio or any kind of immersive audio in their video streams... and even went so far as to admit they alter the audio of the files they receive from the studios (I've always thought they weren't as dynamic as the disc versions and it nothing to do with the fact they were lossy compressed). They didn't think anybody would really care and would rather Netflix have volume leveling and other kinds of LCM manipulation (probably even further bit starving the audio)... no wonder these streaming sites have the "quality" that they do.
> 
> And this is the future we have to look forward to?


Do you have a link to the interview? My experience has been the opposite, Netflix streaming in Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 has been quite dynamic, even more so than U.S. terrestrial broadcast. I am consistently impressed with the sound quality. And I'd be surprised if we don't see Atmos via Dolby Digital Plus on Netflix streaming soon...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> Do you have a link to the interview? My experience has been the opposite, Netflix streaming in Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 has been quite dynamic, even more so than U.S. terrestrial broadcast. I am consistently impressed with the sound quality. And I'd be surprised if we don't see Atmos via Dolby Digital Plus on Netflix streaming soon...


http://www.whathifi.com/news/what-next-netflix-we-talk-4k-hdr-and-future-streaming


----------



## NorthSky

That's the easy future of streaming Dan, with decent picture quality to fill the new TVs, and with inferior sound quality to fill those TV speakers. 

But the real videophile/audiophile future is HDR, UHD, 3D sound immersion (7.1.4 and beyond). [email protected] home on Blu-ray...UHD BR soon, with DTS:X.

My neighbor he has Netflix...it used to be compressed DD 5.1 for the audio...for most flicks...now he said it's compressed stereo...MP3 quality sound. 
The picture looks quite decent though. ...Soap opera 1080p.

Another thing; not all Netflix in the world looks the same. 
And same with Blu-rays; sound and picture can vary from country to country...depending. 

So it is very hard to generalize...some folks may have better streaming quality, and better Blu-ray quality...and then others living in another country...the full picture and sound aren't necessarily the equal.

If you want 'Lucy' in Dolby Atmos...you need to get it from across the sea.
If you want 'The Gunman' with Dolby Atmos...you need to get it from the USA. 
Etc., etc., etc. ... and other examples from DD 5.1 to DTS-HD MA 5.1 and for picture quality as well. 
If you want some Disney 3D titles on Blu-ray...across the ocean. 

But yes, Netflix is not the future sound wise. It's the future mass population wise...streaming.
The future of sound is right here, in this thread, Blu-ray Atmos. ...John Wick and gang.


----------



## blastermaster

dschulz said:


> Do you have a link to the interview? My experience has been the opposite, Netflix streaming in Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 has been quite dynamic, even more so than U.S. terrestrial broadcast. I am consistently impressed with the sound quality. And I'd be surprised if we don't see Atmos via Dolby Digital Plus on Netflix streaming soon...



Maybe Netflix sound is different here in Canada, but I can tell you that I went on a Netflix binge for a while and pretty much watched it exclusively in my home theatre. I thought it sounded fine. Then I bought a new Blu Ray movie and watched it. The sound quality difference (and picture, for that matter) was shocking, TBH. It was like someone removed the earplugs from my ears and cleaned my glasses. On my setup, the sound felt muted and dull, and the images...soft. At that point, I immediately cancelled Netflix and decided I was going to buy movies that looked very interesting to me and rent (iTunes seems the best in my neck of the woods) movies that look slightly intriguing. Since this is a thread on Atmos, I'd guess that the same would be true with Atmos on Netflix - nowhere near the quality of a Blu Ray movie. 

With the amount of time and money I've invested in my setup, I'm not settling for mediocrity. I suppose for those who watch a lot of TV shows, there may not be much better choice, but for those who watch movies exclusively...Blu Ray still trumps Netflix sound and, to a lesser degree, picture by a significant margin.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> http://www.whathifi.com/news/what-next-netflix-we-talk-4k-hdr-and-future-streaming


Thanks for the link! Interesting read. 

I didn't take the interview to mean they were compromising sound quality or audio dynamic range (rather the opposite) - but that they were normalizing levels *between* their programs, and embarking on a program to validate the sound quality of all their masters. 

Disappointed by his comments re: immersive sound though.


----------



## dschulz

blastermaster said:


> ...Blu Ray still trumps Netflix sound and, to a lesser degree, picture by a significant margin.


This was true for most of Netflix's history, but at least for me in the last year the gap has narrowed considerably. Blu Ray still beats Netflix for both picture and sound quality, but I would no longer say it's by a significant margin for well-mastered Netflix content. But I've got ~100mbs internet (and the Apple TV is hardwired to the router) which helps a lot.


----------



## Sam Ash

sdurani said:


> Depending on the pitch/angle of the ceiling, you might not have to physically time align the speakers; could do it electronically during initial calibration.


By initial calibration, do you mean with room correction systems or when doing the standard calibration for levels and distances which compensates for time alignment ?

I suppose the reason why Dolby recommends a flat ceiling is in the case where people use floor standing speakers that are designed to bounce sound off of the ceiling as opposed to applying speakers directly onto the ceiling. I have a pitched ceiling that is quite high up, I've always preferred the sound stage that is created in rooms with high ceilings. However, I have to be careful with the height of the overhead speakers because having them too high would translate to overly diffused sound and reduced localisation.


----------



## kbarnes701

jocedeg said:


> "Phantom" channels are not possible on the side. Only front or back phantoms "centers" are possible. The phantom can only appear between two ears.


Are you saying there cannot be phantom imaging between the left front and left surround speaker? If you are, you should hear my setup here, where that imaging is not only present but also rock solid. Any pair of speakers can deliver a phantom image. 

Recently I had the son of a friend come to watch a movie in my HT. He is a great movie buff and also interested in technology and sound reproduction. Naturally I gave him the best seat in the house. After a while he paused the movie to enquire how many speakers I had in the room. I told him and pointed them out. Then he pointed to the first reflection room treatment panel on the left side of the room and said "what about that one?" I explained that it wasn't some sort of big flat speaker but an acoustic panel. "You're kidding me", he said. I had to lift the panel off the wall to convince him that it was not producing sound. How's that for phantom imaging on the side?

Both of our ears hear the sounds from the side of us of course, with suitable delays and the influence of that big bony mass which sits between them. We don't just hear sounds from the left of us with our left ear and sounds to the right of us with our right ear


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Hi All

Just about to take plunge on denon X6200W and a 7.1.4 config. I have mirage omnisat towers fro fronts, mirage center and mirage bookshelves for surround and rear. (may upgrade all these later). Anyway, looking for recommendations for in-ceilings. Can anyone help me out? (ceiling is some kind of drywall, then plaster and diamond mesh - so a) pretty solid, b) quite thick, c) a PITA to cut holes in  )

Thanks

mark


----------



## rontalley

Netflix on the Roku2 is offered in DD+ and its sounds pretty damn good. The picture is also acceptable and there are no lip sync issues. Compared to BD...not as good but who has a BD library as big as Netflix?

I can watch either and be happy. Well to be honest, I started my upgrade journey specifically so I could get 5.1 from Netflix! Now I have immersive Netflix...SMH


----------



## chi_guy50

blastermaster said:


> Maybe Netflix sound is different here in Canada, but I can tell you that I went on a Netflix binge for a while and pretty much watched it exclusively in my home theatre. I thought it sounded fine. Then I bought a new Blu Ray movie and watched it. The sound quality difference (and picture, for that matter) was shocking, TBH. It was like someone removed the earplugs from my ears and cleaned my glasses. On my setup, the sound felt muted and dull, and the images...soft. At that point, I immediately cancelled Netflix and decided I was going to buy movies that looked very interesting to me and rent (iTunes seems the best in my neck of the woods) movies that look slightly intriguing. Since this is a thread on Atmos, I'd guess that the same would be true with Atmos on Netflix - nowhere near the quality of a Blu Ray movie.
> 
> With the amount of time and money I've invested in my setup, I'm not settling for mediocrity. I suppose for those who watch a lot of TV shows, there may not be much better choice, but for those who watch movies exclusively...Blu Ray still trumps Netflix sound and, to a lesser degree, picture by a significant margin.


I do not stream from Netflix and can only comment on the A/V quality of their *Blu-ray discs*. With the exception of a literal handful of discs with crippled audio (principally from one or two distributors such as Lionsgate), I have not been disappointed. And AFAIK no rental source has a deeper disc library than Netflix, which for me is the other salient factor influencing my choice.

But I do recall that @FilmMixer remarked recently that he was highly impressed with 4K streaming from Netflix. 



FilmMixer said:


> I'm new into the 4k thing, with "only" a 45meg U-Verse pipe..
> 
> I have to say that Netflix, Amazon and MGO 4k streaming is really fantastic... easily on par with BR, and on many shows decidedly better..


 Perhaps there are other individual variables in play (such as ISP, connection speed, router, or even geographic location or service region) that mitigate the resultant image and/or sound.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

My room is 22 feet long x 12 feet wide. Ceiling is 8 feet . Seating is about 12 feet from front wall.

I am going to be installing four in ceiling atmos speakers. According to Dolby, I should install TF and TR, but a lot of people seem to be using TM and TF. 

What would people who have done it/experienced it recommend?

Regards

Mark


----------



## rontalley

MalevolentHamster said:


> My room is 22 feet long x 12 feet wide. Ceiling is 8 feet . Seating is about 12 feet from front wall.
> 
> I am going to be installing four in ceiling atmos speakers. According to Dolby, I should install TF and TR, but a lot of people seem to be using TM and TF.
> 
> What would people who have done it/experienced it recommend?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mark



The only reason people are doing TM and TF is because there seating arrangements don't allow them to do TR. In your case you would do TR+TF.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

rontalley said:


> The only reason people are doing TM and TF is because there seating arrangements don't allow them to do TR. In your case you would do TR+TF.


Thanks!


----------



## tjenkins95

Quote:
Originally Posted by *rontalley*  
_The only reason people are doing TM and TF is because there seating arrangements don't allow them to do TR. In your case you would do TR+TF._
Thanks!


MalevolentHamster said:


> Thanks!


 
I don't think that statement is totally correct. I used to have TF and TR. Some people, like myself, have found that having ceiling speakers TM 
directly above the MLP and in the front of the room - ceiling speakers designated as FH - creates a better sound experience. I would test this out in your room first before making any permanent decision.


----------



## smurraybhm

dschulz said:


> Do you have a link to the interview? My experience has been the opposite, Netflix streaming in Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 has been quite dynamic, even more so than U.S. terrestrial broadcast. I am consistently impressed with the sound quality. And I'd be surprised if we don't see Atmos via Dolby Digital Plus on Netflix streaming soon...


Just to chime in, agree 100%. As said before, Daredevil (Netflix original series mixed by our own Marc aka FilmMixer) is demo material for those wanting to hear how well DSU works with a 5.1 stream.


----------



## sdurani

Sam Ash said:


> By initial calibration, do you mean with room correction systems or when doing the standard calibration for levels and distances which compensates for time alignment ?


Yes. After all, are each of your other speakers all the same distance away?


> I have to be careful with the height of the overhead speakers because having them too high would translate to overly diffused sound and reduced localisation.


Use narrower dispersion speakers and/or spread the speakers apart.


----------



## kbarnes701

MalevolentHamster said:


> My room is 22 feet long x 12 feet wide. Ceiling is 8 feet . Seating is about 12 feet from front wall.
> 
> I am going to be installing four in ceiling atmos speakers. According to Dolby, I should install TF and TR, but a lot of people seem to be using TM and TF.
> 
> What would people who have done it/experienced it recommend?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mark


Perfect for TF+TR.


----------



## Scott Simonian

jocedeg said:


> "Phantom" channels are not possible on the side. Only front or back phantoms "centers" are possible. The phantom can only appear between two ears.


I beg to differ.

It that were so then with one ear covered you could never hear a difference between something in front of you or behind you. Which isn't the case.


----------



## markus767

asere said:


> With the Age of Adeline during the scene where it was raining I was immersed with the rain. In fact I thought the sound was coming from the top heights but instead the rain was coming from the mains. The heights where silent. Another example of immersion vs being able to pinpoint.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Pinpoint imaging is crucial for a *multichannel* reproduction system that is capable of creating believeable auditory scenes that are different from the acoustics of the room in which it is installed. If rain sounds like coming from above although the sound is emanating from a speaker in the front then there's something wrong.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Pyschoacoutics + expectations = sound where you expect it to be

Things can sound like they are over your head even if there are no speakers there to reproduce this effect.


----------



## asere

Scott Simonian said:


> Pyschoacoutics + expectations = sound where you expect it to be
> 
> Things can sound like they are over your head even if there are no speakers there to reproduce this effect.


 I can see that. I watched Cinderella the other day with just 5.1 and at times it felt like over head was ON (no DSU engaged FYI).
Maybe this has to do with the perception of listening to Atmos/DSU from time to time now.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Only if it's the ORIGINAL original trilogy. None of this special edition crap.


It turned out that the post was fraudulent... AMC denied it, but the original originals will come out. 



stikle said:


> The ORIGINAL original trilogy no longer exists.
> -George Lucas


That's just a rumor, there's like a million back up copies of it... and even if there weren't, then what the heck was Reliance Media Works doing?


----------



## Viktor Pashin

How the atmos track is different than others when it comes to ripping BD? what's the software you use?


----------



## kbarnes701

Viktor Pashin said:


> How the atmos track is different than others when it comes to ripping BD? what's the software you use?


No different at all. Atmos is carried in the regular Dolby TrueHD track. Just rip it like you are doing now using whatever works for you. I use MakeMKV and it rips Atmos tracks just the same as any other TrueHD track.


----------



## wse

blastermaster said:


> Maybe Netflix sound is different here in Canada, but I can tell you that I went on a Netflix binge for a while and pretty much watched it exclusively in my home theatre. I thought it sounded fine. Then I bought a new Blu Ray movie and watched it. The sound quality difference (and picture, for that matter) was shocking, TBH. It was like someone removed the earplugs from my ears and cleaned my glasses.
> 
> On my setup, the sound felt muted and dull, and the images...soft. At that point, I immediately cancelled Netflix and decided I was going to buy movies that looked very interesting to me and rent (iTunes seems the best in my neck of the woods) movies that look slightly intriguing. Since this is a thread on Atmos, I'd guess that the same would be true with Atmos on Netflix - nowhere near the quality of a Blu Ray movie.
> 
> With the amount of time and money I've invested in my setup, I'm not settling for mediocrity. I suppose for those who watch a lot of TV shows, there may not be much better choice, but for those who watch movies exclusively...Blu Ray still trumps Netflix sound and, to a lesser degree, picture by a significant margin.


Welcome to the true high definition yes for ultimate sound and video Blu Ray is king until UHD Blu Ray arrives in Jan 2016. 

Netflix is convenient but crappy quality! It's useful when I don't want to buy or can rent Blu Ray of certain movies


----------



## wse

smurraybhm said:


> Just to chime in, agree 100%. As said before, Daredevil (Netflix original series mixed by our own Marc aka FilmMixer) is demo material for those wanting to hear how well DSU works with a 5.1 stream.


Streaming! I don't see it on Blu Ray yet


----------



## smurraybhm

wse said:


> Streaming! I don't see it on Blu Ray yet


Listen I am not a huge fan of streaming either, had a few posts back and forth with Mark H aka Mr. Streaming (comparisons he does are silly IMO), but I do have a decent internet connection and the Oppo does a good job with the video processing. That said there are some great original shows on Amazon and Netflix (don't subscribe to Hulu so someone can help if there are some shows over there - ex Mindy). Give Daredevil a shot on Netflix, you will be pleasantly surprised with the video and audio, the audio is excellent/awesome. Marc did an incredible job with the mix and using DSU to listen to it I would rate it right up there at the top with some of my blu-ray favorites - no shxx. I would also encourage you to check out Narco on Netflix, released a few weeks ago, really enjoyed the show, great visuals wherever it was filmed - Columbia or somewhere resembling it. Maybe its my DNice calibrated VT60 that is a difference maker  Have yet to see anything rival my Panny, hopefully OLED will continue to improve - black line issue and cost.

Seriously, I wouldn't trade my physical media for anything (even a Kaleidoscope), but after buying the first 2 seasons of House of Cards, not seeing enough difference with either the picture or the audio to justify the expense. Dare I say there are some movies I've watched that I feel the same about, but the audio isn't anything special - like a Woody Allen flick. Like you, I get shiny disks from Netflix as well - the 2 at a time club plus streaming. I also have about 2,000 blu-rays and 75 HD-DVDs (if they still work I'm not replacing them).


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> It that were so then with one ear covered you could never hear a difference between something in front of you or behind you. Which isn't the case.


Phantom imaging to the side doesn't work well. Better place speakers there.










Even if there's a speaker localization performance isn't very good.










(Source: Blauert, "Spatial Hearing")


----------



## Viktor Pashin

kbarnes701 said:


> No different at all. Atmos is carried in the regular Dolby TrueHD track. Just rip it like you are doing now using whatever works for you. I use MakeMKV and it rips Atmos tracks just the same as any other TrueHD track.


I'd say this is VERY, VERY disappointing as after a while, there would be no way to find out whether those rips are with Atmos or not unless named properly or so..


----------



## maikeldepotter

tjenkins95 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rontalley*
> _The only reason people are doing TM and TF is because there seating arrangements don't allow them to do TR. In your case you would do TR+TF._
> Thanks!
> 
> I don't think that statement is totally correct. I used to have TF and TR. Some people, like myself, have found that having ceiling speakers TM
> directly above the MLP and in the front of the room - ceiling speakers designated as FH - creates a better sound experience. I would test this out in your room first before making any permanent decision.


+1



maikeldepotter said:


> It seems worth the try to compare Dolby's default TF-TR combination (at about 45 and 135 degrees) with a FH-TM combination (at about 30 and 80 degrees) to find out what sounds best to you.


Anyone who also has actually compared these two options in his own room and preferred TF-TR?


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Phantom imaging to the side doesn't work well. Better place speakers there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there's a speaker localization performance isn't very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Source: Blauert, "Spatial Hearing")



Hmm. Too bad you can't come visit and listen to my system. Then you might think otherwise.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm. Too bad you can't come visit and listen to my system. Then you might think otherwise.


Oh I can come and visit  I've done numerous tests and don't see significant deviation from Blauert's data. What exactly does your system consist of, what kind of test signals did you use, how did you test and what exactly were the results?


----------



## wse

smurraybhm said:


> Listen I am not a huge fan of streaming either, had a few posts back and forth with Mark H aka Mr. Streaming (comparisons he does are silly IMO), but I do have a decent internet connection and the Oppo does a good job with the video processing. That said there are some great original shows on Amazon and Netflix (don't subscribe to Hulu so someone can help if there are some shows over there - ex Mindy).
> 
> Give Daredevil a shot on Netflix, you will be pleasantly surprised with the video and audio, the audio is excellent/awesome. Marc did an incredible job with the mix and using DSU to listen to it I would rate it right up there at the top with some of my blu-ray favorites - no shxx. I would also encourage you to check out Narco on Netflix, released a few weeks ago, really enjoyed the show, great visuals wherever it was filmed - Columbia or somewhere resembling it. Maybe its my DNice calibrated VT60 that is a difference maker  Have yet to see anything rival my Panny, hopefully OLED will continue to improve - black line issue and cost.
> 
> Seriously, I wouldn't trade my physical media for anything (even a Kaleidoscope), but after buying the first 2 seasons of House of Cards, not seeing enough difference with either the picture or the audio to justify the expense. Dare I say there are some movies I've watched that I feel the same about, but the audio isn't anything special - like a Woody Allen flick. Like you, I get shiny disks from Netflix as well - the 2 at a time club plus streaming. I also have about 2,000 blu-rays and 75 HD-DVDs (if they still work I'm not replacing them).


I will but on a ten feet wide screen Netflix really does not look good!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I got to check out Maze Runner Scorch Trials @ an AMC Prime finally... it just opened up last week. 

I was disappointed but impressed with HDR (my first time seeing HDR). The overall image is definitely brighter than all other theaters I've been to, the black levels are pretty dark & the brights are insanely bright... like things such as flashlights in a dark room almost hurt my eyes. But I kind of like that. Otherwise I wasn't blown away... but it's definitely a huge step in image fidelity. The contrast ratio was very good, it's the steps between that didn't seem as accurate as it could have been, but still very good. 

I'm not sure if the image was out of focus but I kept seeing a double image of everything on the left side of the screen? 

The sound was good & bad as well. The bass was good, but the wall behind the seats blocked what would have been the rear speakers. I think the heights sounded better in my y old HT.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Oh I can come and visit  I've done numerous tests and don't see significant deviation from Blauert's data. What exactly does your system consist of, what kind of test signals did you use, how did you test and what exactly were the results?


I sit in my main listening position and I watch all sorts of movies that are native 5.1 or 7.1 (or Atmos) and hear imaging directly to my 90 degrees where there are no speakers.

Ask @sdurani who hears the same thing when he visited.

You are certainly invited to come for a visit but I think that would probably be pretty expensive. 


Here is a video of my room and here you can see where my surrounds are and where I sit in relation to them.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Members,

I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.

I'm not looking for opinions from people reading about Atmos I'm really wanting to read what actual Atmos users think.

Terminology might not be correct but here goes.
When using the Atmos feature to (Simulate) Atmos on say a Blu-ray (Non-Atmos), regular DVD, Netflix steaming in HD or Non HD movies, Dish Network for movies in HD or Non HD ?????????????
Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.

This is a very active thread on Atmos so I'm pretty confident you guys will come back with what you really think.

What I hope will not happen is a person or persons bragging about (Simulated) Atmos just because they have spent their monies for it.
And yes guys that does happen ............

Thanks for your hopefully candid comments,
Terry


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Ask @sdurani who hears the same thing when he visited.


Yup, there was localization directly to my sides, easily audible and repeatable. I noticed that Keith, who also has his side speakers forward of his listening position, posted that he hears imaging directly to his sides as well. It can't be as stable as phantom imaging up front and behind are but, with movie sound effects being so fleeting, it's not a practical problem. 

BTW, for 5.1 set-ups, ITU has their surrounds rearward of the listening position. For a 7.1 layout, Toole prefers his surrounds forward of the listening position. Direct to the side placement doesn't get as much love as it used to.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tigerhonaker said:


> Members,
> 
> I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.
> 
> I'm not looking for opinions from people reading about Atmos I'm really wanting to read what actual Atmos users think.
> 
> Terminology might not be correct but here goes.
> When using the Atmos feature to (Simulate) Atmos on say a Blu-ray (Non-Atmos), regular DVD, Netflix steaming in HD or Non HD movies, Dish Network for movies in HD or Non HD ?????????????
> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
> I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.
> 
> This is a very active thread on Atmos so I'm pretty confident you guys will come back with what you really think.
> 
> What I hope will not happen is a person or persons bragging about (Simulated) Atmos just because they have spent their monies for it.
> And yes guys that does happen ............
> 
> Thanks for your hopefully candid comments,
> Terry



You're talking about Dolby Surround upmixer. This "simulator" of sounds.... sure.

It sounds about as "fake" as ProLogic 2x does. And by that... I mean not at all. But since you already pointed out that you don't like upmixing 5.1 to 7.1, I can't imagine you would like Dolby Surround any better. But that is your option for the time being to "process" non-Atmos content to use all the new height speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Yup, there was localization directly to my sides, easily audible and repeatable. I noticed that Keith, who also has his side speakers forward of his listening position, posted that he hears imaging directly to his sides as well. It can't be as stable as phantom imaging up front and behind are but, with movie sound effects being so fleeting, it's not a practical problem.
> 
> BTW, for 5.1 set-ups, ITU has their surrounds rearward of the listening position. For a 7.1 layout, Toole prefers his surrounds forward of the listening position. Direct to the side placement doesn't get as much love as it used to.



Whenever I can get you back over here, we can test my side surrounds in their current position and another position more closer to being to the 90 degree and see how things sound.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Scott Simonian said:


> You're talking about Dolby Surround upmixer. This "simulator" of sounds.... sure.
> 
> It sounds about as "fake" as ProLogic 2x does. And by that... I mean not at all. But since you already pointed out that you don't like upmixing 5.1 to 7.1, I can't imagine you would like Dolby Surround any better. But that is your option for the time being to "process" non-Atmos content to use all the new height speakers.


Being serious and not in anyway wishing to come across as being cute.

I think I understand your answer, maybe.

If your saying I would not like using Atmos for (Simulating) Non Atmos recorded audio because exactly why ?
Because it does sound fakey ?
Meaning if you listen to the audio as it was originally recorded it would sound as it should and if you push the Atmos button it then would not sound correct because it was not really an Atmos recorded Blu-Ray in the 1st place ?

Similar to my poor example maybe of taking a Blu-Ray or any other recorded 5.1 and (Simulating) it to 7.1.

Just to make sure everyone completely understands I'm asking you guys because you actually have the Atmos system so you should know what it sounds like.

I have a very close friend of mine and he auditioned Atmos at a very high end dealer a few weeks ago.
He was highly impressed with Atmos when it was an actual Atmos recorded Audio Blu-ray.
But as soon as that Blu-Ray was removed and a NON Atmos Blu-Ray was loaded and Atmos was engaged to him it was fakey sounding.
And in his opinion it was worse with music.
He was at that store to purchase the complete Atmos system until he heard what Atmos actually sounded like being (Simulated).

So guys I'm not on here to hurt anyone's feelings or be cute, clever or anything of a negative nature.
I'm on here to hear from actual Atmos users on the facts of listening to movies on Non Atmos Audio from any source.
And if I was not really interested I would not waste your time or mine posting my questions and concerns.

Thanks,
Terry


----------



## Daniel Chaves

My question my have been answered earlier in this thread but doing a general thread search I didnt come across it, so on my new Onkyo AVR, when setting up the ceiling channels for ATMOS, it has Top Front, Top Middle, and Top Rear, so if the home standard at most is 7.1.4, the point 4 being I assume Top Front and Top Rear, does that mean that Top Middle sorta uses the objects from both TF and TR? Im just wondering how the objects/channels are mixed for it? If I am way off that is okay, I welcome the explanation.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tigerhonaker said:


> Being serious and not in anyway wishing to come across as being cute.
> 
> I think I understand your answer, maybe.
> 
> If your saying I would not like using Atmos for (Simulating) Non Atmos recorded audio because exactly why ?
> Because it does sound fakey ?
> Meaning if you listen to the audio as it was originally recorded it would sound as it should and if you push the Atmos button it then would not sound correct because it was not really an Atmos recorded Blu-Ray in the 1st place ?
> 
> Similar to my poor example maybe of taking a Blu-Ray or any other recorded 5.1 and (Simulating) it to 7.1.
> 
> Just to make sure everyone completely understands I'm asking you guys because you actually have the Atmos system so you should know whats like.
> 
> I have a very close friend of mine and he auditioned Atmos at a very high end dealer a few weeks ago.
> He was highly impressed with Atmos when it was an actual Atmos recorded Audio Blu-ray.
> But as soon as that Blu-Ray was removed and a NON Atmos Blu-Ray was loaded and Atmos was engaged to him it was fakey sounding.
> And in his opinion it was worse with music.
> He was at that store to purchase the complete Atmos system until he heard what Atmos actually sounded like being (Simulated).
> 
> So guys I'm not on here to hurt anyone's feelings or be cute, clever or anything of a negative nature.
> I'm on here to hear from actual Atmos users on the facts of listening to movies on Non Atmos Audio from any source.
> And if I was not really interested I would not waste your time or mine posting my questions and concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> Terry



The quality of the sound post-DSU is entirely dependent on the mix of whatever you're watching. I would ignore your friends experience as it really doesn't mean much, I'm sorry to say. Some stuff sounds crazy good like real Atmos, other stuff is just ... "meh".

My feelings are not hurt but you did specify that you did not want us to just say it sounds awesome since we "have spent their monies for it." Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn't sound any different from the original mix. Hard to say but there is another thread where people post their impressions on watching movies in Dolby Surround. It's a thread dedicated to how stuff sounds when upmixed.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-official-dolby-surround-upmixing-thread.html


----------



## pasender91

Still, most people here really like how DSU sounds on their legacy 2.0 or 5.1 content.
And we don't say that because we own it !
If we didn't like it then we would put DSU OFF, but i can tell tell you i am not going to do that, as everything sounds much better with it  , not "fakey" at all ... 

For music, it's usage can be discussed (sometimes i put it on, sometimes not), but for TV or movies, its always ON.


----------



## petetherock

Mate



The term is called DSU. And the answer can be summarized in four letters. Ymmv. 
Why?
Some material have solid surround sound tracks that really work with DSU. I have posted quite a few in the past, and others that no ups calling will save. So it's a simple press of the button, and easy to try out, and you can decide if it sound better with DSU. 

For starters, try R Downey's Sherlock Holmes. Band of brothers episode two. Daredevil. 30 days of night. Alien vs Predator. 
Let us know what you think. 
And yes, I have been using Atmos, and not just talking about it 




tigerhonaker said:


> Being serious and not in anyway wishing to come across as being cute.
> 
> I think I understand your answer, maybe.
> 
> If your saying I would not like using Atmos for (Simulating) Non Atmos recorded audio because exactly why ?
> Because it does sound fakey ?
> Meaning if you listen to the audio as it was originally recorded it would sound as it should and if you push the Atmos button it then would not sound correct because it was not really an Atmos recorded Blu-Ray in the 1st place ?
> 
> Similar to my poor example maybe of taking a Blu-Ray or any other recorded 5.1 and (Simulating) it to 7.1.
> 
> Just to make sure everyone completely understands I'm asking you guys because you actually have the Atmos system so you should know what it sounds like.
> 
> I have a very close friend of mine and he auditioned Atmos at a very high end dealer a few weeks ago.
> He was highly impressed with Atmos when it was an actual Atmos recorded Audio Blu-ray.
> But as soon as that Blu-Ray was removed and a NON Atmos Blu-Ray was loaded and Atmos was engaged to him it was fakey sounding.
> And in his opinion it was worse with music.
> He was at that store to purchase the complete Atmos system until he heard what Atmos actually sounded like being (Simulated).
> 
> So guys I'm not on here to hurt anyone's feelings or be cute, clever or anything of a negative nature.
> I'm on here to hear from actual Atmos users on the facts of listening to movies on Non Atmos Audio from any source.
> And if I was not really interested I would not waste your time or mine posting my questions and concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> Terry


----------



## Elegant

tigerhonaker said:


> Members,
> 
> I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.
> 
> I'm not looking for opinions from people reading about Atmos I'm really wanting to read what actual Atmos users think.
> 
> Terminology might not be correct but here goes.
> When using the Atmos feature to (Simulate) Atmos on say a Blu-ray (Non-Atmos), regular DVD, Netflix steaming in HD or Non HD movies, Dish Network for movies in HD or Non HD ?????????????
> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
> I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.
> 
> This is a very active thread on Atmos so I'm pretty confident you guys will come back with what you really think.
> 
> What I hope will not happen is a person or persons bragging about (Simulated) Atmos just because they have spent their monies for it.
> And yes guys that does happen ............
> 
> Thanks for your hopefully candid comments,
> Terry


Hello Terry,

In answer to your question about Atmos the following is my one and only experience with it. In reading about Atmos I was excited enough to call my local sales manager to set an appointment for a demo. Because there is so little Atmos material currently available I was particularly interested in hearing how Atmos performed on non-Atmos sources, in other words "upmixing."

The A/V shop has a room called "Ultimate Home Theater" loaded with the best high-end gear: B&W speakers, Mcintosh amps, 163-inch screen, etc. The four in-ceiling speakers for Atmos are also high-end B&Ws and the room is equipped with 4 subwoofers, each powered by a Mcintosh amp. You get the idea.

I first listened to (and watched) two tracks with Atmos source material, one from "Gravity," the other from "American Sniper." I thought the demo was killer. Having watched and listened to both movies on my home system I was very positively impressed with the addition which Atmos brought to the show.

To sample what the upmixing of Atmos would do to non-Atmos source material I took with me several blu-ray discs of my own which I knew well. 

Two were music BDs, one of opera, the other Roy Orbison's "Black & White Night." Personally, when the sales manager pushed the upmix button to simulate Atmos I was disappointed. To me, the sound became somewhat "muddied" and lost some of the preciseness I loved in both BDs. 

Next was a test for movies, in this case "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." Again, the simulated, upmix of Atmos was a disappointment to me. It was better than what had happened with the music BDs but, in my mind, not an improvement and perhaps even not as good as listening in native source mode.

So, because of this demo I will wait for a LOT more Atmos source material to be available before I buy four ceiling speakers, a 4-channel amp, cables, and pay for installation. 

Bottom line: I very much liked Atmos when used with Atmos source material. I did not care for it when used to upmix non-Atmos source material.

I look forward to reading what others have to say, assuming they have heard a good demo or have actually installed Atmos in their home theater/music room.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## batpig

The vast, vast majority of people who have Atmos setups have nothing but praise for DSU with video content (TV/movies). 

Music is a more mixed bag.


----------



## smurraybhm

batpig said:


> The vast, vast majority of people who have Atmos setups have nothing but praise for DSU with video content (TV/movies).
> 
> Music is a more mixed bag.



100% right and if the question asker just read through about 50 pages of this long thread it would be easy to see it for themselves unless it's a debate about Auro involving Keith, Scott and few of us other mates - then it might be more like 75. Whoops wrong thread


----------



## petetherock

This thread is long and can be tedious for a newcomer to read up... so I didn't confront the man on whether he had read the entire thread.
That's not fair. 
IMO, somethings when a thread exceeds a certain number of posts, it may be better to close it, then link it to a second thread with the FAQs posted once more at the beginning of the new thread.

Keeps things tidy, I say..


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I sit in my main listening position and I watch all sorts of movies that are native 5.1 or 7.1 (or Atmos) and hear imaging directly to my 90 degrees where there are no speakers.


Didn't say that there would be no imaging at all. I've said it's not working nearly as good as phantom imaging between speakers at ±30° in the front (or back). Binaural localizaton cues are very strong and work reliably from person to person.

At what angles did you place all speakers in relation to the MLP? Did you try surrounds at lower locations? I don't like it when everything is only coming from up high.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Elegant said:


> Bottom line: I very much liked Atmos when used with Atmos source material. I did not care for it when used to upmix non-Atmos source material.


Bottom line: It is all a matter of acquired taste ('perception is learned'). If you don't like up-mixing, you might like what Auromatic does. Some ears (mostly European) seem to prefer it over DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

Viktor Pashin said:


> I'd say this is VERY, VERY disappointing as after a while, there would be no way to find out whether those rips are with Atmos or not unless named properly or so..


No different to having no way of knowing if the movie is 2.40:1 or 'flat' or if the soundtrack is 5.1 or 7.1 or it's lossless or lossy or if it's Dolby or DTS etc etc. Why single out Atmos? I found a real easy solution myself: I just add Atmos in brackets after the movie name - eg "John Wick (Atmos)".


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I sit in my main listening position and I watch all sorts of movies that are native 5.1 or 7.1 (or Atmos) and hear imaging directly to my 90 degrees where there are no speakers.


Same here. I even posted an anecdotal story about my pal's son who wouldn't believe there was no speaker at the side until I proved it to him (he thought there was a speaker behind an acoustic panel). I agree with Markus that there is no substitute for a physical speaker, but my experience, and your experience, clearly shows that phantom imagine to the sides is not only possible but it is also pretty darn good a lot of the time. Good enough to deceive!


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> Members,
> 
> I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.
> 
> I'm not looking for opinions from people reading about Atmos I'm really wanting to read what actual Atmos users think.
> 
> Terminology might not be correct but here goes.
> When using the Atmos feature to (Simulate) Atmos on say a Blu-ray (Non-Atmos), regular DVD, Netflix steaming in HD or Non HD movies, Dish Network for movies in HD or Non HD ?????????????
> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
> I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.
> 
> This is a very active thread on Atmos so I'm pretty confident you guys will come back with what you really think.
> 
> What I hope will not happen is a person or persons bragging about (Simulated) Atmos just because they have spent their monies for it.
> And yes guys that does happen ............
> 
> Thanks for your hopefully candid comments,
> Terry


DSU, IMO, does a very good job on legacy material. It is not, obviously, as good as native Atmos. But it is a very good upmixer. Whether you find it sounds 'fake' is a personal issue and if you do, you do. I don't find upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 sounds 'fake' but of course, that is my personal issue and YMMV.

I now routinely upmix all my legacy content to the 4 overhead speakers using DSU and I find that it adds considerably to my enjoyment of the movie and to the sense of immersion. I spent a lot of time setting up the room and the system, and I believe that it is important to do this, not just for Atmos or DSU but for any sound format. 

The only way to find out if you will like it, since upmixing will always be a matter of personal preference, is to listen to it. If you live near someone with a good Atmos system, see if you can get a demo.


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> So guys I'm not on here to hurt anyone's feelings or be cute, clever or anything of a negative nature.
> I'm on here to hear from actual Atmos users on the facts of listening to movies on Non Atmos Audio from any source.
> And if I was not really interested I would not waste your time or mine posting my questions and concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> Terry


Sure. You may or may not like it. It's a personal issue. Of course, you are not compelled to use DSU, so if you dislike it, you can enjoy Atmos movies in Atmos and your legacy content in 5.1 or 7.1.

We can't tell you if *you* will like it, only that *we* like it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Daniel Chaves said:


> My question my have been answered earlier in this thread but doing a general thread search I didnt come across it, so on my new Onkyo AVR, when setting up the ceiling channels for ATMOS, it has Top Front, Top Middle, and Top Rear, so if the home standard at most is 7.1.4, the point 4 being I assume Top Front and Top Rear, does that mean that Top Middle sorta uses the objects from both TF and TR? Im just wondering how the objects/channels are mixed for it? If I am way off that is okay, I welcome the explanation.


Nobody knows. You can use any permitted combination of the four ceiling speakers. If you have room, then TF+TR is usually a good choice. Or FH+TM if you have limited space behind MLP. What the difference is in terms of how content might or might not be redirected is unknown at this time. I experimented with FH+TM and TF+TR (without moving the speakers) and I can hear no difference. Others have reported the same. But YMMV.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody knows. You can use any permitted combination of the four ceiling speakers. If you have room, then TF+TR is usually a good choice. Or FH+TM if you have limited space behind MLP. What the difference is in terms of how content might or might not be redirected is unknown at this time. I experimented with FH+TM and TF+TR (without moving the speakers) and I can hear no difference. Others have reported the same. But YMMV.


If you get speakers with a wide dispersion pattern, the exact placement becomes less of an issue. I highly recommend speakers like the JBL SCS 8 with a 120x120 dispersion pattern. They were designed with Atmos in mind. My placement was more determined by where my ceiling joists were than anything else (you won't hang an SCS 8 with a hollow wall anchor - well not for long at least  ). I was fortunate that they ended up in TF+TR at just about the right distances.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> If you get speakers with a wide dispersion pattern, the exact placement becomes less of an issue. I highly recommend speakers like the JBL SCS 8 with a 120x120 dispersion pattern. They were designed with Atmos in mind. My placement was more determined by where my ceiling joists were than anything else (you won't hang an SCS 8 with a hollow wall anchor - well not for long at least  ). I was fortunate that they ended up in TF+TR at just about the right distances.


Nice speaker.


----------



## fredl

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm on here to hear from actual Atmos users on the facts of listening to movies on Non Atmos Audio from any source.
> And if I was not really interested I would not waste your time or mine posting my questions and concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> Terry


I only watch movies, tv-shows and play PS3 games in our dedicated theatre. I always have DSU on (for legacy material). My best friend who also has a dedicated cinema is afraid to taint the 5.1/7.1 mixes and leaves it off all the time. 

I'm very happy with our decision to upgrade to Atmos, we're even on our second Atmos-capable AVR (Denon AVR-X4100W, first one was an Onkyo TX-NR636).


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Molon_Labe said:


> If you get speakers with a wide dispersion pattern, the exact placement becomes less of an issue. I highly recommend speakers like the JBL SCS 8 with a 120x120 dispersion pattern. They were designed with Atmos in mind. My placement was more determined by where my ceiling joists were than anything else (you won't hang an SCS 8 with a hollow wall anchor - well not for long at least  ). I was fortunate that they ended up in TF+TR at just about the right distances.


Where can you purchase said speaker?


----------



## tigerhonaker

fredl said:


> I only watch movies, tv-shows and play PS3 games in our dedicated theatre. I always have DSU on (for legacy material). My best friend who also has a dedicated cinema is afraid to taint the 5.1/7.1 mixes and leaves it off all the time.
> 
> I'm very happy with our decision to upgrade to Atmos, we're even on our second Atmos-capable AVR (Denon AVR-X4100W, first one was an Onkyo TX-NR636).





> I always have DSU on (for legacy material)


What exactly in simple words does, (legacy material) mean or stand for ?

thanks ........


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> What exactly in simple words does, (legacy material) mean or stand for ?
> 
> thanks ........


Channel-based material, non immersive mixes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tigerhonaker said:


> What exactly in simple words does, (legacy material) mean or stand for ?
> 
> thanks ........


Anything that is _not_ native Atmos or eventually DTS:X audio. IE: pretty much everything.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Daniel Chaves said:


> My question my have been answered earlier in this thread but doing a general thread search I didnt come across it, so on my new Onkyo AVR, when setting up the ceiling channels for ATMOS, it has Top Front, Top Middle, and Top Rear, so if the home standard at most is 7.1.4, the point 4 being I assume Top Front and Top Rear, does that mean that Top Middle sorta uses the objects from both TF and TR? Im just wondering how the objects/channels are mixed for it? If I am way off that is okay, I welcome the explanation.


I may be completely wrong BUT...I would imagine it just plays the TR sounds sooner. At the end of the day, as far as I can see, this whole TF, TM, TR setting is just a because of a massive deficiency in AVR and RoomEQ software. IMHO. what should really happen is that the AVR should determine the distance AND angle of the speaker location. (I believe yamaha can determine angle, but don't use it for ATMOS) and then you wouldn't be anywhere near as restricted on speaker locations: the AVR would know the precise locations and the renderer could act accordingly. Because you can't set distance _and_ angle, the renderer has to assume the speakers are in the preset locations set forth by the renderer producers (Dolby, etc.). 

Getting the position accurately would require multiple mics (I assume). I'd be happy with a method of entering angles manually. Laser levels are cheap.

I'm skeptical of how well DTS:X will work because of this (unless it just says "what the heck, we'll assume an Auro/Atmos setup"). I also feel that DTS are just saying "it'll work with any speaker setup" because they are so late to market. If they said we need positions X and Y when Dolby and Auro have a good year's start, who would install it, especially if you already had Atmos/Auro; furthermore, if you had to choose which direction to go for a new purchase when there are X ATMOS/Auro titles and zero DTS:X titles, the choice would be clear. The DTS/Dolby split on BD would switch overnight. Dolby dropped the ball big time on TrueHD mastering tools, so 90% of BD's use DTS-MA. Now it's time to reverse that.

My 2c  Interested in others' thoughts


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Didn't say that there would be no imaging at all. I've said it's not working nearly as good as phantom imaging between speakers at ±30° in the front (or back). Binaural localizaton cues are very strong and work reliably from person to person.


No, you said:


markus767 said:


> Phantom imaging to the side doesn't work well. Better place speakers there.



Which sounds like "don't do" what I did. What I did is working pretty damn well and stable as far as I can notice.



> At what angles did you place all speakers in relation to the MLP? Did you try surrounds at lower locations? I don't like it when everything is only coming from up high.


Did you watch the video I linked for you? No I haven't tried lowering them further than they are now but I think about trying it sometimes. I'd rather not though. Would probably block my path around the couch to my equipment rack. They aren't very high up and don't sound overly _overhead_ all the time. They sound like .... surrounds. Some people like to put them really high up and just don't do that really.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Channel-based material, non immersive mixes.


I was honestly still not sure what exactly you mean but thanks for answering.



Scott Simonian said:


> Anything that is _not_ native Atmos or eventually DTS:X audio. IE: pretty much everything.


Scott,

I completely get it now buddy. 

Thanks guys for your replies,
Terry


----------



## sdurani

MalevolentHamster said:


> ...the AVR would know the precise locations and the renderer could act accordingly.


It would, to the extent that the location fits into one of the Atmos height speaker ranges. 

For example, if the automated calibration system detected a pair of speakers at 78 degrees elevation, the decoder wouldn't render to that precise location. Instead, the auto-cal system would let the decoder know that those speakers fall into the Top Middle range (65-100 degrees elevation) and the decoder would render to the Top Middle rendering assumption (i.e., where it assumes the Top Middle speakers are, which might or might not be where the speakers physically are). 

Still, when it comes to object-based rendering, knowing which of the 5 ranges your speakers are in is better than not knowing where they are at all.


----------



## stikle

Sam Ash said:


> If one has a pitched or angled ceiling, would atmos be effective if all the 4 height speakers were suspended from the ceiling and carefully adjusted to be at the same level in a dedicated home theatre room ?





sdurani said:


> Depending on the pitch/angle of the ceiling, you might not have to physically time align the speakers; could do it *electronically during initial calibration*.



I have a pitched ceiling with four on-ceiling mounted speakers. It sounds fabulous and you'd never know the ceiling wasn't flat while watching a movie.



tigerhonaker said:


> Members,
> 
> I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.
> 
> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.



Just to be perfectly clear: There are either Atmos encoded movies, or there are not. If they are not, then Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU that comes with Atmos enabled receivers) can be enabled to give you an "all speaker" type of experience.

And in my experience, DSU does a FABULOUS job on most of my old movies and Satellite broadcasts that are in 5.1 or less.




tigerhonaker said:


> I have a very close friend of mine and he auditioned Atmos at a very high end dealer a few weeks ago.
> He was highly impressed with Atmos when it was an actual Atmos recorded Audio Blu-ray.
> But as soon as that Blu-Ray was removed and a NON Atmos Blu-Ray was loaded and Atmos was engaged to him it was fakey sounding.
> And in his opinion it was worse with music.


Well, you know what they say about opinions...you should form your own.

And just because a dealer has high-end components in their demo room doesn't mean they are set up right for the optimal experience. Speaker placement has a lot to do with it.

My stepdad put together a mid-range system using PSB speakers and an Onkyo AVR. It sounds better than other home theaters I've heard, even a dedicated theater room.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Which sounds like "don't do" what I did. What I did is working pretty damn well and stable as far as I can notice.


If that's _good enough_ for you, that's fine. But it probably would work _better_ with speakers to the sides.



Scott Simonian said:


> Did you watch the video I linked for you?


I did watch the video but you didn't mention speaker angles.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> If that's _good enough_ for you, that's fine. But it probably would work _better_ with speakers to the sides.
> 
> 
> 
> I did watch the video but you didn't mention speaker angles.


No I didn't because I don't break out a sextant to measure this crap. Just use your eyeballs and brain. 

Sure... maybe. You could say it like that but it works well so I guess to mean that it would work even more well_er_ if I put them closer back? It would shift the image, that's all. But I'll give it a try one day.


----------



## kbarnes701

MalevolentHamster said:


> I may be completely wrong BUT...I would imagine it just plays the TR sounds sooner. At the end of the day, as far as I can see, this whole TF, TM, TR setting is just a because of a massive deficiency in AVR and RoomEQ software. IMHO. what should really happen is that the AVR should determine the distance AND angle of the speaker location. (I believe yamaha can determine angle, but don't use it for ATMOS) and then you wouldn't be anywhere near as restricted on speaker locations: the AVR would know the precise locations and the renderer could act accordingly. Because you can't set distance _and_ angle, the renderer has to assume the speakers are in the preset locations set forth by the renderer producers (Dolby, etc.).
> 
> Getting the position accurately would require multiple mics (I assume). I'd be happy with a method of entering angles manually. Laser levels are cheap.
> 
> I'm skeptical of how well DTS:X will work because of this (unless it just says "what the heck, we'll assume an Auro/Atmos setup"). I also feel that DTS are just saying "it'll work with any speaker setup" because they are so late to market. If they said we need positions X and Y when Dolby and Auro have a good year's start, who would install it, especially if you already had Atmos/Auro; furthermore, if you had to choose which direction to go for a new purchase when there are X ATMOS/Auro titles and zero DTS:X titles, the choice would be clear. The DTS/Dolby split on BD would switch overnight. Dolby dropped the ball big time on TrueHD mastering tools, so 90% of BD's use DTS-MA. Now it's time to reverse that.
> 
> My 2c  Interested in others' thoughts


My thought is: I agree. It would be fantastic if AVRs could determine the precise location of the speakers. But Dolby say it isn't all that critical, and they give a huge range of potential angles, and say it is hard to NOT get it working well, so I am guessing that inputting the precise angles, at home, makes little difference in practice. This may be why the AVR makers aren’t bothering to do it - the cost/benefit ratio doesn't work.

I believe Dolby have already reversed the DTS/Dolby thing on Blu-ray discs, going forward. DTS have lost their inherent advantage and Dolby will be supreme on Blu-ray going forward as they have been on DVD, broadcast, streaming etc.


----------



## tigerhonaker

stikle said:


> I have a pitched ceiling with four on-ceiling mounted speakers. It sounds fabulous and you'd never know the ceiling wasn't flat while watching a movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be perfectly clear: There are either Atmos encoded movies, or there are not. If they are not, then Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU that comes with Atmos enabled receivers) can be enabled to give you an "all speaker" type of experience.
> 
> And in my experience, DSU does a FABULOUS job on most of my old movies and Satellite broadcasts that are in 5.1 or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know what they say about opinions...you should form your own.
> 
> And just because a dealer has high-end components in their demo room doesn't mean they are set up right for the optimal experience. Speaker placement has a lot to do with it.
> 
> My stepdad put together a mid-range system using PSB speakers and an Onkyo AVR. It sounds better than other home theaters I've heard, even a dedicated theater room.


I'm speaking in general here on this post and not just to one person.

Well I think it goes without saying the only real way to know if me or anyone else would like the way (DSU) Dolby Surround Up-mixing sounds is to actually have it installed.
And speaking only for myself that would be a very expensive venture if it sounded for the most part like "Crap" !!!
That's why I came on this thread and ask the questions I have.
I'm not sure I'm ready to spend thousands of dollars for something that may or may not sound like an improvement to what I watch.
And your right opinions are just that opinions and I think most of us have opinions on most things.

The other question I have as well as some of my closer friends with dedicated Audio/Video set-ups is ..................
Does anyone really know if there are going to be Atmos to all BDs coming out ???
Or for that matter is Netflix going to offer those new BD with Atmos to their customers that get Home Delivery ?
In other words to make this hopefully much more of a simple question on Atmos.
Do we know if Atmos is going to be available on a Very Large Scale to us ?
I think that is the real concern because not everyone wants to have to buy every new BD that comes out to hear and enjoy the Atmos audio.

Personally unless I change my mind I'm more than likely going to wait and see if Atmos audio is going to be a Major Player or simply drift away as time marches by.
I have a 7.1 (4 Subs actually) dedicated HT system and it does rock & roll on movies as well as music.
So if in my case I spend a lot more dollars to add Atmos is going to depend on when and if I am convinced Atmos is going to really be a Major-Player.

Terry


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> Well I think it goes without saying the only real way to know if me or anyone else would like the way (DSU) Dolby Surround Up-mixing sounds is to actually have it installed.


No - you could arrange for a demo with someone who has a properly set up Atmos system. Maybe there are AVS members living near you who would oblige?



tigerhonaker said:


> I'm not sure I'm ready to spend thousands of dollars for something that may or may not sound like an improvement to what I watch.
> And your right opinions are just that opinions and I think most of us have opinions on most things.


All that anyone can do is answer your question honestly. You asked for people who are using DSU to tell you if they thought it sounded good or not. Several have offered you their thoughts. Whether you like something or not is a subjective thing - just because I like it doesn't mean you will. And vice-versa. So as I said before, we can’t tell you if *you* will like it, only if *we* do. By and large, most of us who have Atmos systems love DSU for movies.



tigerhonaker said:


> So if in my case I spend a lot more dollars to add Atmos is going to depend on when and if I am convinced Atmos is going to really be a Major-Player.


Immersive audio is the future for cinema sound. You only have to look at the accelerating pace of Atmos adoption in theaters. Will all movies be mixed in Atmos in the future? No - just as not all movies are mixed in 7.1 now. Will a good proportion? Yes I am sure. Immersive audio is pretty new and Atmos is the market leader by a mile. Soon we will see DTS:X for the home environment and maybe some content in DTS:X appearing on disc - that will make immersive audio even more likely to be with us for a long time going forward. But nobody can predict the future for you so you have to look at the known facts and make up your own mind. No other way - nobody here can make your decisions for you.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> tigerhonaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly in simple words does, (legacy material) mean or stand for ?
> 
> 
> 
> Channel-based material, non immersive mixes.
Click to expand...


I know you are trying to be helpful here . . . but I suspect this definition is likely to confuse someone just minimally familiar with either Auro3D 8.0|9.1|10.1|11.1, or Hamasaki 22.2...?!  


_


----------



## smurraybhm

SoundChex said:


> I know you are trying to be helpful here . . . but I suspect this definition is likely to confuse someone just minimally familiar with either Auro3D 8.0|9.1|10.1|11.1, or Hamasaki 22.2...?!
> 
> 
> _


I would also hope that someone interested in Atmos or one of the other 2 immersive formats would take a few minutes and do some reading on their own instead of turning to AVS to ask question after question. I am all for helping as are most of those on this forum, but at the same time firmly believe that you need to work on trying to figure things out first if the goal is to really learn/understand what the heck is going on. Object and channel are pretty basic concepts IMO. Lumping that into the various configs - to which we have debated numerous times on what should be used - is a little unfair to Dan, who was only trying to help. Guess we are shooting members for trying to help in the best way they can - by the way your post probably made things even more confusing by mentioning Hamasaki 22.2. Shame on you


----------



## dvdwilly3

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm speaking in general here on this post and not just to one person.
> 
> Well I think it goes without saying the only real way to know if me or anyone else would like the way (DSU) Dolby Surround Up-mixing sounds is to actually have it installed.
> And speaking only for myself that would be a very expensive venture if it sounded for the most part like "Crap" !!!
> That's why I came on this thread and ask the questions I have.
> I'm not sure I'm ready to spend thousands of dollars for something that may or may not sound like an improvement to what I watch.
> And your right opinions are just that opinions and I think most of us have opinions on most things.
> 
> The other question I have as well as some of my closer friends with dedicated Audio/Video set-ups is ..................
> Does anyone really know if there are going to be Atmos to all BDs coming out ???
> Or for that matter is Netflix going to offer those new BD with Atmos to their customers that get Home Delivery ?
> In other words to make this hopefully much more of a simple question on Atmos.
> Do we know if Atmos is going to be available on a Very Large Scale to us ?
> I think that is the real concern because not everyone wants to have to buy every new BD that comes out to hear and enjoy the Atmos audio.
> 
> Personally unless I change my mind I'm more than likely going to wait and see if Atmos audio is going to be a Major Player or simply drift away as time marches by.
> I have a 7.1 (4 Subs actually) dedicated HT system and it does rock & roll on movies as well as music.
> So if in my case I spend a lot more dollars to add Atmos is going to depend on when and if I am convinced Atmos is going to really be a Major-Player.
> 
> Terry


You could try it without a major commitment. Buy one of the entry level AVRs for ~$500 that will do Atmos and DTS:X and run a 5.1.2 system.

With your current speaker configuration, tilt/aim your side surrounds toward the ceiling (if you can...) and configure them as Top Middle (not Dolby Atmos enabled) and adjust the angles. I do not drink the KoolAid about the necessity for filtering to provide a HRTF function. Run the elevations using a cross-over of about 120 Hz (depending upon your side surrounds...). And, run the Audyssey or other auto-configuration program and the tweak, if necessary.

At worst you end up with a new AVR that will handle both emerging immersive formats...

I am running an Atmos 5.1.4 configuration and, for me, I will never do it any other way. The only one that you have to make happy is you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> I know you are trying to be helpful here . . . but I suspect this definition is likely to confuse someone just minimally familiar with either Auro3D 8.0|9.1|10.1|11.1, or Hamasaki 22.2...?!
> 
> 
> _


Exactly why I only mentioned Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

sdurani said:


> It would, to the extent that the location fits into one of the Atmos height speaker ranges.
> 
> For example, if the automated calibration system detected a pair of speakers at 78 degrees elevation, the decoder wouldn't render to that precise location. Instead, the auto-cal system would let the decoder know that those speakers fall into the Top Middle range (65-100 degrees elevation) and the decoder would render to the Top Middle rendering assumption (i.e., where it assumes the Top Middle speakers are, which might or might not be where the speakers physically are).
> 
> Still, when it comes to object-based rendering, knowing which of the 5 ranges your speakers are in is better than not knowing where they are at all.


I agree with your last point, but 65-100 degrees is quite a range. Hopefully within 5 years we'll have reasonable priced 20-30 channel AVR's with the ability to measure (enter) precise locations


----------



## sdurani

MalevolentHamster said:


> I agree with your last point, but 65-100 degrees is quite a range. Hopefully within 5 years we'll have reasonable priced 20-30 channel AVR's with the ability to measure (enter) precise locations


Yamaha can already measure precise speaker locations in 3D space, but the most that can be done with that information is auto-designate which of the 5 height location ranges a particular speaker falls into. That information cannot be used for rendering to the precise location of the speaker because Atmos doesn't work that way. Think of it more like multiple choice rather than fill in the blank. 

Imagine the look-up table in the Atmos decoder. Next to each speaker is an empty slot for its rendering location. But this slot isn't a blank field that can be filled in with any number (e.g., 83 degrees elevation). Instead, it is a drop-down menu that lets you choose from 34 possible location ranges. Whether automatically detected or manually measured/entered, the only choice is to pick the location range that the particular speaker falls into. 

The granularity of the spatial resolution varies in home Atmos: floor speakers are in 15-degree slices; height speakers have 15 and 25 degree ranges, with the Top Middle having a 35-degree range. Might be nice if the granularity was 10 degrees or 5 degrees, but I'm not sure how much of an audible difference it would make.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

sdurani said:


> Yamaha can already measure precise speaker locations in 3D space, but the most that can be done with that information is auto-designate which of the 5 height location ranges a particular speaker falls into. That information cannot be used for rendering to the precise location of the speaker because Atmos doesn't work that way. Think of it more like multiple choice rather than fill in the blank.
> 
> Imagine the look-up table in the Atmos decoder. Next to each speaker is an empty slot for its rendering location. But this slot isn't a blank field that can be filled in with any number (e.g., 83 degrees elevation). Instead, it is a drop-down menu that lets you choose from 34 possible location ranges. Whether automatically detected or manually measured/entered, the only choice is to pick the location range that the particular speaker falls into.
> 
> The granularity of the spatial resolution varies in home Atmos: floor speakers are in 15-degree slices; height speakers have 15 and 25 degree ranges, with the Top Middle having a 35-degree range. Might be nice if the granularity was 10 degrees or 5 degrees, but I'm not sure how much of an audible difference it would make.


I guess my point was it would be nice to be able to locate the speakers where they make sense in the room and have the renderer adapt to that, rather than forcing, frequently impractical, locations.


----------



## sdurani

MalevolentHamster said:


> I guess my point was it would be nice to be able to locate the speakers where they make sense in the room and have the renderer adapt to that, rather than forcing, frequently impractical, locations.


Agreed. I was merely explaining the real-world limitations of the format. Placing speakers where can (within reason) and rendering to those actual locations is the promise of object-based audio. Unfortunately, we're not completely there yet. Still, having even a rough idea of where your speakers are is a step up from having no idea (like our current systems).


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> No I didn't because I don't break out a sextant to measure this crap. Just use your eyeballs and brain.


I wish it would work that way...



Scott Simonian said:


> Sure... maybe. You could say it like that but it works well so I guess to mean that it would work even more well_er_ if I put them closer back? It would shift the image, that's all. But I'll give it a try one day.


If anything I would advise to install more speakers. Relying on phantom sources creates more problems than it solves.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Again... you'd think otherwise if you actually heard it in my room. I'm not breaking physics. It just ...actually works.


----------



## Waboman

Dammit, man. Stop breaking the laws of physics. 


Spoiler


----------



## kbarnes701

MalevolentHamster said:


> I agree with your last point, but 65-100 degrees is quite a range.


Maybe what we can take away from that is that it isn't actually all that critical


----------



## Spanglo

tigerhonaker said:


> And speaking only for myself that would be a very expensive venture if it sounded for the most part like "Crap" !!!


If your system sounds like crap now, then the addition of an atmos setup will make it sound like better crap 

Joking aside, the upgrade is nice. The response on this forum has been overwhelming positive, so there's a high% chance you'll love it.

Personally I went from 5.1 to 7.1.4 and the difference was dramatic to say the least. I would never ever ever go back to a tradition surround sound system... it sounds flat and lifeless in comparison to atmos or DSU material. Oh, and DSU 2ch music is just sublime.


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> If your system sounds like crap now, then the addition of an atmos setup will make it sound like better crap
> 
> Joking aside, the upgrade is nice. The response on this forum has been overwhelming positive, so there's a high% chance you'll love it.
> 
> Personally I went from 5.1 to 7.1.4 and the difference was dramatic to say the least. I would never ever ever go back to a tradition surround sound system... it sounds flat and lifeless in comparison to atmos or DSU material.


+1.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Again... you'd think otherwise if you actually heard it in my room. I'm not breaking physics. It just ...actually works.


For you and reportedly for some other guy but Blauert's data suggests it doesn't work that well for others (probably more than 2). If what you hear is good enough for you then so be it, just don't generalize.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> For you and reportedly for some other guy but Blauert's data suggests it doesn't work that well for others (probably more than 2). If what you hear is good enough for you then so be it, just don't generalize.


Stands to reason that if I took these same speakers to your house and set them up the same way they would image the same or similar.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Spanglo said:


> If your system sounds like crap now, then the addition of an atmos setup will make it sound like better crap
> 
> Joking aside, the upgrade is nice. The response on this forum has been overwhelming positive, so there's a high% chance you'll love it.
> 
> Personally I went from 5.1 to 7.1.4 and the difference was dramatic to say the least. I would never ever ever go back to a tradition surround sound system... it sounds flat and lifeless in comparison to atmos or DSU material. Oh, and DSU 2ch music is just sublime.


I appreciate your comments.
And my comments below are not directed to you just me speaking in general to everyone.

My system sounds totally awesome and that's not just my personal opinion.
I have heard that from almost everyone that has been in my HT watching and listening to a movie or music.
I did say almost above simply because some people don't offer their thoughts on things and in those limited occasions I choose not to ask them what they thought.
I've never had anyone get up and walk out of the room. LOL !!!
Mine is right now a 7.1 system with 4-subs.
I'm still thinking about the Atmos up-grade but not going to jump right into it just yet.

In reading some of the comments here it seems people get a little excited when a person ask certain questions on any given subject.
That's really a shame IMHO.
Internet sites are for people to discuss topics not just for certain people to rule the sites.
I belong to a lot of internet sites and over the years there is something I have come to understand on all of them including this one.
The in Clique that thinks they run the sites and this one as well to me ruin the openness for discussions.
I like a lot of people have a great deal of knowledge in certain areas.
So that being the case I can discuss in given topics with great confidence and be extremely knowledgeable.
What I have tried my best to do is not to talk down or belittle the people that simply don't know what i do in some areas.

If we all were experts on Atmos then why have any open discussions.
We would not need to do that as we all would already know and have all the answers on the subject.
I am one person that is not an expert at all on discussing Atmos and have no problem admitting it.
And for those on this site that simply think a guy like me asking worthless questions on Atmos is a waste of their time I have the answer for them.
Skip my post and my questions.
That's exactly what I tell members on other internet sites that jump on other members that don't have the same knowledge base they do.
If a person does not like what another member ask or wishes to discuss than simply skip their post and move on.

Actually I started reading this Thread at the 1st post and went through several pages and quickly realized I was totally lost.
I then just went to the last more recent pages and scanned them to see if I could see where the Atmos was discussed for Up-Mixing NON-Atmos produced movies etc.
I saw nothing so after days of reading still really nothing on that I could see.
What I did see for the most part was on going discussions on speaker placement.
Or maybe I should say that's what I got out of what I read as a newbie to this thread and Atmos.

So I figured what the heck just jump in and ask as best you can what you really want to know.
Surely these guys will be willing to not get all torn-up over me asking a simple few questions.
But what I actually feel like now is there are guys that feel like I did or don't like what they had to say in their personal opinions.
Fellows that's not the case at all and if any of you actually knew me you would know I'm simply trying to decide still on Atmos with my system.
I'm in no way on here to stir up emotions with other members and some of you thinking I don't like what you said.
If I don't understand what you said and simply was straight forward enough to say so don't turn that into me not liking what you said.

And honestly at 70 years old guys I have been around a very long time and I like many of you have have went through many thousands of dollars over the years changing and up-grading my H/T.
So that being said I'm not some kid on here living with mom & dad and trying to disrupt your world by asking and questioning Atmos on it's Up-Mixing feature.
And even if I knew another person that had a system with Atmos IMHO (In My Honest Opinion) it would not be my system so I still would not know if I wanted it.
I don't know even no one other person that has dedicated H/T though so that's not an option for me to hear a Demo of Atmos.

For those of you that have offered your thoughts and opinions on Atmos and it's Up-Mixing feature I appreciate your time.

For you guys that seem not to have patience with a person asking about Atmos and it's features please get back to your on going discussions.

Maybe one day you will be on an internet site where I am the expert and if so trust that my responses will not in anyway be sarcastic.
I'll spend all the time it takes to totally explain to you what your wishing to know.
I'll even talk with you on the phone if possible and meet you in person if that were possible.
I have no problem at all talking and explaining to a new person what they don't know or completely understand.

Have a nice rest of the day fellows .............


----------



## sdurani

Wow, somebody hit a nerve.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Stands to reason that if I took these same speakers to your house and set them up the same way they would image the same or similar.


I think you and Markus are at cross-purposes here. He isn't saying, AIUI, that you cannot achieve imaging between the front and rear speakers. He is just saying that a more stable image is achieved if a physical speaker is in place. I think that can't be denied. But the fact that you, me and no doubt a great number of others all get good phantom imaging in the sides of our HTs demonstrates beyond question that it is not 'impossible' (which was the OP's contention which started the whole discussion). If Markus doesn't get even reasonable phantom imaging along the sides, well maybe that's for him to figure out why.


----------



## tigerhonaker

sdurani said:


> Wow, somebody hit a nerve.


Nope just sharing what I think nothing more or less.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Acoustic Panels Ceiling Speakers*

Didn't want to cut holes in my ceiling so I retrofitted my acoustic panels with HTD in ceiling speakers . Going for a TF + TR configuration. Will take more pics as I work on my room. Haven't decide yet on if I want to cut a hole to show the speaker grill or not.


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> So I figured what the heck just jump in and ask as best you can what you really want to know.
> Surely these guys will be willing to not get all torn-up over me asking a simple few questions.
> But what I actually feel like now is there are guys that feel like I did or don't like what they had to say in their personal opinions.


Terry, you must be seeing different posts to me because I don't see any where people are getting "all torn-up" over you asking some questions. What I see is a load of people trying to answer your questions, but at the end of the day you are asking about preferences and the only thing people can give you is an opinion of whether they personally like something or they don't. I have seen several people tell you they think DSU is very good for movies, but you don't seem to find that enough, and are wanting more. What other answer can anyone give you to your question? You asked what people with actual systems thought about DSU and you have had several good replies: everyone (who has replied) thinks DSU is a very good addition to their HT. If those answers don't satisfy you, so be it - so the only way then to move forward is to get a good demo of DSU for yourself and make up your own mind. 



tigerhonaker said:


> Fellows that's not the case at all and if any of you actually knew me you would know I'm simply trying to decide still on Atmos with my system.


Sure. So how can we help you decide? You asked if Atmos was here to stay - I gave you my view (that it is) based on a brief analysis of the current situation. YMMV on that but you asked what we think. As you might expect in a dedicated thread, most of the people here are very positive about Atmos. I personally see it as the most significant development in home cinema sound since 5.1. What else do you need to know? I doubt if anyone can add much more to the DSU discussion: the long and short of that is that yes, DSU works brilliantly well with movies, with not so much consensus on using it with music. That is the majority opinion here and answers your question. But if you have other questions, just ask.



tigerhonaker said:


> I don't know even no one other person that has dedicated H/T though so that's not an option for me to hear a Demo of Atmos.


That's why I suggested you reach out to other AVS members to see if there are any close to you. I would be more than happy for you to come over to my place and spend a day listening to Atmos and DSU here, but I am about 6,000 miles away! I am sure if there are members close to you that some of them will be happy to demo their systems for you.



tigerhonaker said:


> For you guys that seem not to have patience with a person asking about Atmos and it's features please get back to your on going discussions.


Again, we are seeing different posts. I see nothing but people trying to give you the answers you seek.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tigerhonaker said:


> I appreciate your comments.
> And my comments below are not directed to you just me speaking in general to everyone.
> 
> My system sounds totally awesome and that's not just my personal opinion.
> I have heard that from almost everyone that has been in my HT watching and listening to a movie or music.
> I did say almost above simply because some people don't offer their thoughts on things and in those limited occasions I choose not to ask them what they thought.
> I've never had anyone get up and walk out of the room. LOL !!!
> Mine is right now a 7.1 system with 4-subs.
> I'm still thinking about the Atmos up-grade but not going to jump right into it just yet.
> 
> In reading some of the comments here it seems people get a little excited when a person ask certain questions on any given subject.
> That's really a shame IMHO.
> Internet sites are for people to discuss topics not just for certain people to rule the sites.
> I belong to a lot of internet sites and over the years there is something I have come to understand on all of them including this one.
> The in Clique that thinks they run the sites and this one as well to me ruin the openness for discussions.
> I like a lot of people have a great deal of knowledge in certain areas.
> So that being the case I can discuss in given topics with great confidence and be extremely knowledgeable.
> What I have tried my best to do is not to talk down or belittle the people that simply don't know what i do in some areas.
> 
> If we all were experts on Atmos then why have any open discussions.
> We would not need to do that as we all would already know and have all the answers on the subject.
> I am one person that is not an expert at all on discussing Atmos and have no problem admitting it.
> And for those on this site that simply think a guy like me asking worthless questions on Atmos is a waste of their time I have the answer for them.
> Skip my post and my questions.
> That's exactly what I tell members on other internet sites that jump on other members that don't have the same knowledge base they do.
> If a person does not like what another member ask or wishes to discuss than simply skip their post and move on.
> 
> Actually I started reading this Thread at the 1st post and went through several pages and quickly realized I was totally lost.
> I then just went to the last more recent pages and scanned them to see if I could see where the Atmos was discussed for Up-Mixing NON-Atmos produced movies etc.
> I saw nothing so after days of reading still really nothing on that I could see.
> What I did see for the most part was on going discussions on speaker placement.
> Or maybe I should say that's what I got out of what I read as a newbie to this thread and Atmos.
> 
> So I figured what the heck just jump in and ask as best you can what you really want to know.
> Surely these guys will be willing to not get all torn-up over me asking a simple few questions.
> But what I actually feel like now is there are guys that feel like I did or don't like what they had to say in their personal opinions.
> Fellows that's not the case at all and if any of you actually knew me you would know I'm simply trying to decide still on Atmos with my system.
> I'm in no way on here to stir up emotions with other members and some of you thinking I don't like what you said.
> If I don't understand what you said and simply was straight forward enough to say so don't turn that into me not liking what you said.
> 
> And honestly at 70 years old guys I have been around a very long time and I like many of you have have went through many thousands of dollars over the years changing and up-grading my H/T.
> So that being said I'm not some kid on here living with mom & dad and trying to disrupt your world by asking and questioning Atmos on it's Up-Mixing feature.
> And even if I knew another person that had a system with Atmos IMHO (In My Honest Opinion) it would not be my system so I still would not know if I wanted it.
> I don't know even no one other person that has dedicated H/T though so that's not an option for me to hear a Demo of Atmos.
> 
> For those of you that have offered your thoughts and opinions on Atmos and it's Up-Mixing feature I appreciate your time.
> 
> For you guys that seem not to have patience with a person asking about Atmos and it's features please get back to your on going discussions.
> 
> Maybe one day you will be on an internet site where I am the expert and if so trust that my responses will not in anyway be sarcastic.
> I'll spend all the time it takes to totally explain to you what your wishing to know.
> I'll even talk with you on the phone if possible and meet you in person if that were possible.
> I have no problem at all talking and explaining to a new person what they don't know or completely understand.
> 
> Have a nice rest of the day fellows .............


You came in here and asking for our opinion about DSU.


What's the problem?


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Stands to reason that if I took these same speakers to your house and set them up the same way they would image the same or similar.


Probably not and even if they did this wasn't my point. This was:


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> You came in here and asking for our opinion about DSU.


Yes that is right. To refresh our memories, Terry specifically asked:

_


tigerhonaker said:



Members,

I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.

I'm not looking for opinions from people reading about Atmos I'm really wanting to read what actual Atmos users think.

Terminology might not be correct but here goes.
When using the Atmos feature to (Simulate) Atmos on say a Blu-ray (Non-Atmos), regular DVD, Netflix steaming in HD or Non HD movies, Dish Network for movies in HD or Non HD ?????????????
*Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???*
You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.

Click to expand...

_
I think several of us gave good answers to that. We do not find it sounds 'fakey'. Nobody who has replied thinks it does. In fact, all have said they like DSU very much with movies. Asked and answered.

If Terry dislikes 5.1 upmixed to 7.1 I doubt he will like 5.1 upmixed to 5.1.4, but who knows. I don't see how we can help him any more unless he has some specific questions.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Probably not and even if they did this wasn't my point. This was:


I get it and I'm not ignoring what you're trying to say or "the point". I'm telling you that your "point" is not the whole story.

Also... why would it suddenly stop working if I brought the exact same speakers I have and set them up exactly the same way in your room... how does this stop working? Does sound work differently in Europe? I know banana plugs aren't accepted there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes that is right. To refresh our memories, Terry specifically asked:
> 
> 
> I think several of us gave good answers to that. We do not find it sounds 'fakey'. Nobody who has replied thinks it does. In fact, all have said they like DSU very much with movies. Asked and answered.
> 
> If Terry dislikes 5.1 upmixed to 7.1 I doubt he will like 5.1 upmixed to 5.1.4, but who knows. I don't see how we can help him any more unless he has some specific questions.



So really....

... nothing good could come about from our opinions at all about it.

But ask away and answer we shall!


----------



## Waboman

tigerhonaker said:


> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
> I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.


Hi Terry,

You've received a lot of answers to your questions. That shows there's a lot of members here wanting to help you. I'd pump the brakes and not come off so condescending. You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. 

Overwhelming the opinion on DSU has been positive. However, going by your above quote, you may want to stay on the sidelines and sit this one out for awhile. Just my ¢.02.


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm speaking in general here on this post and not just to one person.
> 
> Well I think it goes without saying the only real way to know if me or anyone else would like the way (DSU) Dolby Surround Up-mixing sounds is to actually have it installed.
> And speaking only for myself that would be a very expensive venture if it sounded for the most part like "Crap" !!!
> That's why I came on this thread and ask the questions I have.
> I'm not sure I'm ready to spend thousands of dollars for something that may or may not sound like an improvement to what I watch.
> And your right opinions are just that opinions and I think most of us have opinions on most things.
> 
> The other question I have as well as some of my closer friends with dedicated Audio/Video set-ups is ..................
> Does anyone really know if there are going to be Atmos to all BDs coming out ???
> Or for that matter is Netflix going to offer those new BD with Atmos to their customers that get Home Delivery ?
> In other words to make this hopefully much more of a simple question on Atmos.
> Do we know if Atmos is going to be available on a Very Large Scale to us ?
> I think that is the real concern because not everyone wants to have to buy every new BD that comes out to hear and enjoy the Atmos audio.
> 
> Personally unless I change my mind I'm more than likely going to wait and see if Atmos audio is going to be a Major Player or simply drift away as time marches by.
> I have a 7.1 (4 Subs actually) dedicated HT system and it does rock & roll on movies as well as music.
> So if in my case I spend a lot more dollars to add Atmos is going to depend on when and if I am convinced Atmos is going to really be a Major-Player.
> 
> Terry


Hi Terry, long time no see...it's Bob, the Blu-ray movie guy (tattooed tongue). 

You are still enjoying the Mustang and Integra pre/pro and life in general...including all the movies? 

Terry, did you check Mad Max: Fury Road? ...Furious 7, John Wick, ex_machina, Birdman, Lucy, Interstellar, Run All Night, ...

____________

♦ I have an opinion: I am waiting for *DTS:X* to break the sound barrier...to unbound the sound. 
And we need more Dolby Atmos software too. One day we'll all be happy with all we want...and that day could be any day now, for some it's now. 

Very nice to see you my good friend from across the border...take good care and live live to the fullest...gas pedal to the floor. 
The times they are a changin', and 3D sound immersion is part of the full UHD Blu-ray picture...nobody is going to miss that train when it'll stop @ the train station...with DTS:X on board. We still have time to buy our ticket @ the right time...for the next departure to Kathmandu...way of speech. 

By the way, according to the folks here; Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road are the best two Blu-ray titles so far with Dolby Atmos encoding...but unfortunately 'Gravity' is only the 2D version (Diamond Luxe Edition). ...Folks like John Wick too, also with Dolby Atmos encoding. 

Best cheers to you Terry, 
Bob

P.S. Please, also send my best regards to Ivan and Dan.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

kbarnes701 said:


> In a 7.1 system it is usually preferable to move the side surrounds forward of the MLP. This gives a more seamless listening experience, front-to-back. This isn’t set in stone though as the two diagrams below show. The first is the ITU recommendation and the second is Dolby's recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the ITU recommendation makes most sense, as there is no need to have the side surrounds at 90 degrees when one also has rearmost sounds coming from the rear surround speakers. YMMV.


Anyone tried the ITU for 7.1? My room is narrow and I want 3 chairs across, so this would be much more suitable, as I have them at ear height. (Will be installing ATMOS in-ceilings soon)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, that's how I have it set up. Sounds very.... immersive and enveloping.


----------



## cdelena

I have had my 7.2.4 system operational for about six months and think ATMOS/DSU is best thing I have ever done in over thirty years of home audio. I started being selective using DSU but now I use it for everything.

Everyone who hears it comments positively. Last month we had a child (maybe 7) to entertain so I tuned Comcast to an old Star Trek episode and noticed DSU was doing a great job. It was a low-def episode from the early nineties and he came to me later and said the picture (on the 110" screen) was not sharp but the 'super-duper move sound was really neat'. 

Everyone seems to like it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MalevolentHamster said:


> Anyone tried the ITU for 7.1? My room is narrow and I want 3 chairs across, so this would be much more suitable, as I have them at ear height. (Will be installing ATMOS in-ceilings soon)


My room is closer to the ITU setup than Dolby in that my couch is on the back wall.. and my side surrounds are several feet forward of that, about 1/3 of the way into the room. Against what most people here might recommend, I also have rear surrounds mounted on articulating brackets and aimed down toward the listening area. People keep telling me that's a bad idea... and yet, sounds image behind me when they should and to my sides when they should, so here I am. My top mids are actually slightly further into the room than my side surrounds are, which people also likely think is stretching the recommended angles slightly for top mid... but it sounds outstanding with my front heights in play as well. And when I get new seating that I can move away from the back wall, the placement is already perfect for me to just put the couch between the side surrounds and recalibrate.

I say grab some speaker cable and spend a day trying multiple positions for your side surrounds, and see which you like best. You'll likely find that you'll end up somewhere between Dolby and the ITU... and if that images well for you, then it's RIGHT for your room.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Ceiling Cloud Absorber Atmos Panels*

So here is how the finished acoustic panel looks with speaker installed. Going to finish the other 2 tomorrow .


----------



## Molon_Labe

^^
Very creative. Great job.


----------



## ken7258

What would be better in a 7.1.4 system. Four Def Tech A60 Atmos module speakers sitting on the 2 front and 2 rear Def. Tech tower speakers, or 4 Def Tech 800 or 1000 Pro monitors in the 4 corners of a 20X15 room angled down at the listener. 

I'm new to this Atmos sound and sorry if this type of question has been asked before.

Thank you


----------



## Spanglo

cdelena said:


> I have had my 7.2.4 system operational for about six months and think ATMOS/DSU is best thing I have ever done in over thirty years of home audio. I started being selective using DSU but now I use it for everything.
> 
> Everyone who hears it comments positively. Last month we had a child (maybe 7) to entertain so I tuned Comcast to an old Star Trek episode and noticed DSU was doing a great job. It was a low-def episode from the early nineties and he came to me later and said the picture (on the 110" screen) was not sharp but the 'super-duper move sound was really neat'.
> 
> Everyone seems to like it.


Yeah DSU is great. Been using it for everything from the get go too. And those rare times when it's not on.... very noticeable like I'm listening low quality recordings. 

I hear you on the demos. When I use to give demos with my old system people would say "Wow that was awesome!", but when I went immersive the response is now "Oh my God that was insane!", and followed closely with "your neighbors must hate you"  So the reaction went from being impressed with my old surround system to dropping jaws with the new one.


----------



## coolrda

Spanglo said:


> Yeah DSU is great. Been using it for everything from the get go too. And those rare times when it's not on.... very noticeable like I'm listening low quality recordings.
> 
> I hear you on the demos. When I use to give demos with my old system people would say "Wow that was awesome!", but when I went immersive the response is now "Oh my God that was insane!", and followed closely with "your neighbors must hate you"  So the reaction went from being impressed with my old surround system to dropping jaws with the new one.


What music/movie demos are you using?


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> Yeah DSU is great. Been using it for everything from the get go too. And those rare times when it's not on.... very noticeable like I'm listening low quality recordings.
> 
> I hear you on the demos. When I use to give demos with my old system people would say "Wow that was awesome!", but when I went immersive the response is now "Oh my God that was insane!", and followed closely with "your neighbors must hate you"  So the reaction went from being impressed with my old surround system to dropping jaws with the new one.


Very well said, très convincing, straight to the above point, effective. 



coolrda said:


> What music/movie demos are you using?


Fair question...I'm also curious.


----------



## Natrix1973

I haven't had a chance to watch all of it but the Doctor Who: Dark Water/Death In Heaven 3D release this week has a Dolby Atmos track. I had not heard anything about this having an Atmos track but judging from the first 5-10 minutes it should be a pretty good one!


----------



## Franin

NorthSky said:


> Fair question...I'm also curious.



I had a friend who recently asked me what is Atmos what does it sound like and the best disc to show them I find is the Dolby Atmos demo disc. That disc alone shows people what Atmos is capable of and it tends to blow them away when they listen to it. Definitely worth having in your collection for demoing and making sure everything is fine tuned to your liking. 



Frank


----------



## NorthSky

Franin said:


> I had a friend who recently asked me what is Atmos what does it sound like and the best disc to show them I find is the Dolby Atmos demo disc. That disc alone shows people what Atmos is capable of and it tends to blow them away when they listen to it. Definitely worth having in your collection for demoing and making sure everything is fine tuned to your liking.
> Frank


Where did you get that "Dolby Atmos demo disc" Frank?

* If someone today buys a Yamaha Dolby Atmos receiver, where can he buy that Atmos demo disc...or is it included inside his Yamaha box?


----------



## Franin

NorthSky said:


> Where did you get that "Dolby Atmos demo disc" Frank?
> 
> 
> 
> * If someone today buys a Yamaha Dolby Atmos receiver, where can he buy that Atmos demo disc...or is it included inside his Yamaha box?



I bought it on EBay. Unfortunately I wasn't the lucky ones who received one free.




Frank


----------



## Waboman

Franin said:


> I bought it on EBay. Unfortunately I wasn't the lucky ones who received one free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank


You can't buy it. It's not a retail disc. My dealer was kind enough to include a copy with my AVP.


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos Demo Disc*



Franin said:


> I bought it on EBay. Unfortunately I wasn't the lucky ones who received one free.
> 
> Frank


The ones they sell on eBay;
1) Do they have an unlimited supply? 2) How much are they going for? 3) Are they the original ones or copies made by a third party?


----------



## Franin

Waboman said:


> You can't buy it. It's not a retail disc. My dealer was kind enough to include a copy with my AVP.



Ah yes.. I bought mine on eBay the guy had a number of them on eBay. 
But your right wabo it's not a retail disc. 


Frank


----------



## Franin

NorthSky said:


> The ones they sell on eBay;
> 1) Do they have an unlimited supply? 2) How much are they going for? 3) Are they the original ones or copies made by a third party?



The guy was in Australia he had a few of them and they were original. I reckon they took them out of the boxes and instead of giving them away with the AVP they sold them separately. 


Frank


----------



## Franin

Wow I've just gone on eBay there now asking way too much. There is 4 on there but I WOULD NOT pay their price.


Frank


----------



## Spanglo

coolrda said:


> What music/movie demos are you using?


Mostly demo music.

I posted a link an electronic music mix a page or so ago, that has a nice intro that really fills the room. That all encompassing soundstage is great. Here's the link again: https://soundcloud.com/desert-hearts-records/live-desert-hearts-sabo-043

I use wide variety of music. Everything from classical to minimal techno. 

To show off the quality of the sound Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon is a good one. 

To show off DSU this one is always gets major response: https://bongripper.bandcamp.com/track/je-mappelle

Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon is a good one for multi ch folks.

I'll use a few of the Auro demos, like Tractor and Fireworks, and any of the Atmos demos.

The only atmos movie scene I've played for people is Transformers chap 20. I like that one when the ship is flying overhead, with that chunky synth sound it makes as it's sucking up metal, just really hits with impact. You can really feel that scene, very tactile.


----------



## batpig

ken7258 said:


> What would be better in a 7.1.4 system. Four Def Tech A60 Atmos module speakers sitting on the 2 front and 2 rear Def. Tech tower speakers, or 4 Def Tech 800 or 1000 Pro monitors in the 4 corners of a 20X15 room angled down at the listener.
> 
> I'm new to this Atmos sound and sorry if this type of question has been asked before.
> 
> Thank you


The A60 modules are mediocre. Definitely go with physical speakers up top if you can. 

That said I'd demo it in your room, you can always return speakers if you buy and try. It's possible the ceiling in your room isn't that high and the "four corners" approach may not give as much of an "overhead" sensation as the modules. You might have a subjective preference for the more diffuse, but more overhead, sound that the modules will bring.


----------



## batpig

Spanglo said:


> Mostly demo music.
> 
> I posted a link an electronic music mix a page or so ago, that has a nice intro that really fills the room. That all encompassing soundstage is great. Here's the link again: https://soundcloud.com/desert-hearts-records/live-desert-hearts-sabo-043
> 
> I use wide variety of music. Everything from classical to minimal techno.
> 
> To show off the quality of the sound Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon is a good one.
> 
> To show off DSU this one is always gets major response: https://bongripper.bandcamp.com/track/je-mappelle
> 
> Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon is a good one for multi ch folks.
> 
> I'll use a few of the Auro demos, like Tractor and Fireworks, and any of the Atmos demos.
> 
> The only atmos movie scene I've played for people is Transformers chap 20. I like that one when the ship is flying overhead, with that chunky synth sound it makes as it's sucking up metal, just really hits with impact. You can really feel that scene, very tactile.


Man one of these days I've gotta come over and check the system out.


----------



## coolrda

Spanglo said:


> Mostly demo music.
> 
> I posted a link an electronic music mix a page or so ago, that has a nice intro that really fills the room. That all encompassing soundstage is great. Here's the link again: https://soundcloud.com/desert-hearts-records/live-desert-hearts-sabo-043
> 
> I use wide variety of music. Everything from classical to minimal techno.
> 
> To show off the quality of the sound Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon is a good one.
> 
> To show off DSU this one is always gets major response: https://bongripper.bandcamp.com/track/je-mappelle
> 
> Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon is a good one for multi ch folks.
> 
> I'll use a few of the Auro demos, like Tractor and Fireworks, and any of the Atmos demos.
> 
> The only atmos movie scene I've played for people is Transformers chap 20. I like that one when the ship is flying overhead, with that chunky synth sound it makes as it's sucking up metal, just really hits with impact. You can really feel that scene, very tactile.


Cool, I'll start with those. Thanks.


----------



## Spanglo

batpig said:


> Man one of these days I've gotta come over and check the system out.


Yeah anytime.


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> Mostly demo music.
> I posted a link an electronic music mix a page or so ago, that has a nice intro that really fills the room. That all encompassing soundstage is great. Here's the link again:
> https://soundcloud.com/desert-hearts-records/live-desert-hearts-sabo-043
> I use wide variety of music. Everything from classical to minimal techno.
> To show off the quality of the sound Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon is a good one.
> To show off DSU this one is always gets major response: https://bongripper.bandcamp.com/track/je-mappelle
> Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon is a good one for multi ch folks.
> I'll use a few of the Auro demos, like Tractor and Fireworks, and any of the Atmos demos.
> The only atmos movie scene I've played for people is Transformers chap 20. I like that one when the ship is flying overhead, with that chunky synth sound it makes as it's sucking up metal, just really hits with impact. You can really feel that scene, very tactile.


Thx, and it's refreshing to read someone who enjoys DSU with music content.


----------



## Spanglo

NorthSky said:


> Thx, and it's refreshing to read someone who enjoys DSU with music content.


Music gets slightly more play than movies these days. I initially bought the receiver just for atmos movies, and gave no thought to how music might sound. Color me surprised.


----------



## coolrda

I know this isn't the right place for this question but I need a new BR player as well. Does PS4 pass the Atmos bitstream without issues. If not recommended will go with 103D but wouldn't mind something more versatile.


----------



## ultraflexed

tigerhonaker said:


> Members,
> 
> I would like to attempt to ask you what I think is a simple question on Atmos.
> 
> I'm not looking for opinions from people reading about Atmos I'm really wanting to read what actual Atmos users think.
> 
> Terminology might not be correct but here goes.
> When using the Atmos feature to (Simulate) Atmos on say a Blu-ray (Non-Atmos), regular DVD, Netflix steaming in HD or Non HD movies, Dish Network for movies in HD or Non HD ?????????????
> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
> I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.
> 
> This is a very active thread on Atmos so I'm pretty confident you guys will come back with what you really think.
> 
> What I hope will not happen is a person or persons bragging about (Simulated) Atmos just because they have spent their monies for it.
> And yes guys that does happen ............
> 
> Thanks for your hopefully candid comments,
> Terry



I have the pioneer elite dolby atmos enabled speakers both pioneer and onkyo 5.2.4 recievers and I can tell you that the DSU had out performed some atmos soundtrack, we have a thread that reviews blue-ray what with DSU, definitely enhances any soundtrack and the heights speakers are engaged I've watched over 100 movies on DSU..here is link

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...nal-views-bluray-reviews-13.html#post37560802


----------



## virtualrain

coolrda said:


> I know this isn't the right place for this question but I need a new BR player as well. Does PS4 pass the Atmos bitstream without issues. If not recommended will go with 103D but wouldn't mind something more versatile.



PS4 bitstreams Atmos just fine.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I get it and I'm not ignoring what you're trying to say or "the point". I'm telling you that your "point" is not the whole story.


It is probably the whole story. The plot shows that there is localization but there is a large variance from individual to individual.



Scott Simonian said:


> Also... why would it suddenly stop working if I brought the exact same speakers I have and set them up exactly the same way in your room... how does this stop working? Does sound work differently in Europe? I know banana plugs aren't accepted there.


We're going around in circles. I've never said it would stop working. You don't seem to understand the data that was presented.


----------



## Sam Ash

virtualrain said:


> PS4 bitstreams Atmos just fine.


Are most current BD players able to bitstream Atmos ?


----------



## markus767

MalevolentHamster said:


> Anyone tried the ITU for 7.1? My room is narrow and I want 3 chairs across, so this would be much more suitable, as I have them at ear height. (Will be installing ATMOS in-ceilings soon)


Having speakers around 60° can sound more spacious. Interaural cross-correlation is minimized.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

markus767 said:


> Having speakers around 60° can sound more spacious. Interaural cross-correlation is minimized.


Thanks Markus

In my last house, I added front wides and they made quite a difference (but room was 17-foot wide). This room is only 12 foot wide. Trying to decide between 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 now

Was watching HTGeeks episode 233 (https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233?autostart=false - go to 25 minute mark), Anthoy Gramini says he prefers 9.1.2 to 7.1.4. Normally it's easy to test these things but when i have buy and test in ceiling speakers vs moving around regular speakers it's a more difficult proposition to test :-(


----------



## markus767

malevolenthamster said:


> thanks markus
> 
> in my last house, i added front wides and they made quite a difference (but room was 17-foot wide). This room is only 12 foot wide. Trying to decide between 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 now


9.1.4  For spaciousness and envelopment you need speakers at specific locations. For localization accuracy you need more speakers. Most people prefer spaciousness.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> In a 7.1 system it is usually preferable to move the side surrounds forward of the MLP. This gives a more seamless listening experience, front-to-back. This isn’t set in stone though as the two diagrams below show. The first is the ITU recommendation and the second is Dolby's recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the ITU recommendation makes most sense, as there is no need to have the side surrounds at 90 degrees when one also has rearmost sounds coming from the rear surround speakers. YMMV.


Yes, pushing your surrounds forward to around 70-75 degrees as per ITU diagram seems a sensible approach in combination with rears at about 135-140 degrees. I wonder why ASTC choose otherwise with their 90 (+/-5) degrees requirement for the surrounds in a 7.1.4 lay-out (ATSC3.0).


----------



## vince217

virtualrain said:


> PS4 bitstreams Atmos just fine.


just for the record, PS3 also bitstreams Atmos no problem


----------



## MalevolentHamster

markus767 said:


> 9.1.4  For spaciousness and envelopment you need speakers at specific locations. For localization accuracy you need more speakers. Most people prefer spaciousness.


Can't afford a Trinnov :-(

All reasonably priced AVR's max out at 11 channels


----------



## MalevolentHamster

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, pushing your surrounds forward to around 70-75 degrees as per ITU diagram seems a sensible approach in combination with rears at about 135-140 degrees. I wonder why ASTC choose otherwise with their 90 (+/-5) degrees requirement for the surrounds in a 7.1.4 lay-out (ATSC3.0).


Thanks


----------



## markus767

MalevolentHamster said:


> Can't afford a Trinnov :-(
> 
> All reasonably priced AVR's max out at 11 channels


Then I'd go for spaciousness like Scott did.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, pushing your surrounds forward to around 70-75 degrees as per ITU diagram seems a sensible approach in combination with rears at about 135-140 degrees. I wonder why ASTC choose otherwise with their 90 (+/-5) degrees requirement for the surrounds in a 7.1.4 lay-out (ATSC3.0).


Probably simply for practical reasons. WAF ≠ speakers at around 60°


----------



## Movie78

Anybody tested the DOLBY ATMOS on XBOXONE?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Movie78 said:


> Anybody tested the DOLBY ATMOS on XBOXONE?


Last version I heard is that the One cannot bitstream TrueHD... So no luck for Atmos...


----------



## Movie78

SteveTheGeek said:


> Last version I heard is that the One cannot bitstream TrueHD... So no luck for Atmos...


Should have bought a PS4


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> Probably simply for practical reasons. WAF ≠ speakers at around 60°


This is a man's world, but it would be nothing without WAF.


----------



## kbarnes701

Sam Ash said:


> Are most current BD players able to bitstream Atmos ?


Yes. Any player that fully conforms to the Blu-ray spec will be fine.


----------



## kbarnes701

MalevolentHamster said:


> In my last house, I added front wides and they made quite a difference (but room was 17-foot wide). This room is only 12 foot wide. Trying to decide between 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 now


9 around you and only 2 above you. Doesn't sound like a good balance to me. With only 2 above you, you lose all the potential benefits of front-rear, rear-front and diagonal pans, for example. Depends on your priorities - mine are movies. Might be different with music.


----------



## petetherock

Waboman said:


> Hi Terry,
> 
> You've received a lot of answers to your questions. That shows there's a lot of members here wanting to help you. I'd pump the brakes and not come off so condescending. You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.
> 
> Overwhelming the opinion on DSU has been positive. However, going by your above quote, you may want to stay on the sidelines and sit this one out for awhile. Just my ¢.02.


+1..

@ Terry:

You say you aren't here to tear down DSU / Atmos or the like.
But I see posts that declare that you have a kick ass system, and you believe that it's very solid as it is. 
I see posts that don't seem to believe in the sonic benefits of Atmos / DSU. This opinion is maintained even after quite a few members have mentioned that they enjoy their experience.
I see posts that mentioned that those members who don't have Atmos should not answer your posts, is there someone you are directing this at?
I see posts that despite our clarification, and assurance, seem to indicate that you aren't convinced. 
So no worries mate, sit back, enjoy whatever you have and it's all fine.

I have a two channel system to enjoy the odd movie too when I am not in the mood for surround, and I also turned on the 7200 based Atmos system for many legacy movies, as well as Atmos ones, and I can't find too many duds. They are all fine, and as I posted, if the movie doesn't lend itself to DSU / Atmos, I can still fall back on my 7.2 system and have lots of fun.

Horses for courses, and come back to this Atmos, (yeah mate, it's an Atmos thread) if you feel like talking further about what Atmos / DSU can do for you.

What I fear, is that when you do finally jump in, no one will want to reply your questions anymore..

It is of course a free country, and feel free to ignore anything I have posted, cheers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes. Any player that fully conforms to the Blu-ray spec will be fine.


It's that "fully conforms" thing that bites you in the ass though. Most of them will play Atmos tracks... but if they use seamless branching the way Lionsgate titles have so far, quite a few players have issues with that in the form of audio dropouts with each branch (and for example, John Wick has like 90+ branches on the disc). So it's still good to verify that a player you have or are looking at doesn't have those issues.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's that "fully conforms" thing that bites you in the ass though. Most of them will play Atmos tracks... but if they use seamless branching the way Lionsgate titles have so far, quite a few players have issues with that in the form of audio dropouts with each branch (and for example, John Wick has like 90+ branches on the disc). So it's still good to verify that a player you have or are looking at doesn't have those issues.


The seamless branching issue is nothing to do with Atmos. Atmos is just TrueHD. Players that can't handle overly-complex seamless branching won't plat 5.1 soundtracks properly either.

Most modern players can handle seamless branching. My Oppo 103 can and so can my very cheap Sony BDP-S470 bought secondhand. My ancient Panasonic BD35 can also handle seamless branching with no problems. So, if your player can handle seamless branching on 7.1 and 5.1 tracks it will work just fine with Atmos tracks too. So, can it?


----------



## Romans828

Can anyone provide detail information for setting up multiple side surround speakers? I'm doing theater planning and will have two rows of seats. I am looking at putting a monopole speaker slightly behind each row (around 110 degrees). Another forum member suggested using QSC-DSP to balance the too speakers on each side.

Any thoughts, suggestions, post links or detailed information would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Movie78 said:


> Anybody tested the DOLBY ATMOS on XBOXONE?


Because the Xbox One handles Blu-ray playback in software in a multi-OS system, it can't bitstream Blu-rays. They get converted to PCM for blending with other system audio for output, so the Atmos metadata can't be passed to an AVR. So as far as Blu-ray playback goes, no dice. From what I've read of the SDK, that's not something they'd be able to offer in an update.

As far as DSU with 7.1 Xbox One games, I haven't heard much real benefit. The inherent object-oriented nature of games means you're usually looking at basic pans between channels by the game's audio engine, without any intentionally decorrelated ambient sound... meaning there doesn't tend to be much for DSU to steer to the height channels in an Atmos setup. It certainly doesn't HURT the surround from games, but there's not particularly any great benefit to be had either, at least from my experience. 

As far as the future goes for Xbox One gaming, it's possible that Atmos could be implemented in games IF they update the system for Dolby Digital Plus output. It would be a lossy solution rather than the LPCM 7.1, but you'd get the advantage of immersive audio. For that to happen, you're looking at both a system update to add DD+ output and updates to audio engines to output accordingly. On the PC side, the upcoming Star Wars: Battlefront is going to offer Atmos audio, so obviously they have an audio engine that can steer to that. Should be interesting to see if they can carry that over to consoles in the future.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> The seamless branching issue is nothing to do with Atmos. Atmos is just TrueHD. Players that can't handle overly-complex seamless branching won't plat 5.1 soundtracks properly either.
> 
> Most modern players can handle seamless branching. My Oppo 103 can and so can my very cheap Sony BDP-S470 bought secondhand. My ancient Panasonic BD35 can also handle seamless branching with no problems. So, if your player can handle seamless branching on 7.1 and 5.1 tracks it will work just fine with Atmos tracks too. So, can it?


I know this. Just clarifying that it makes sense to ask. My BDP-93 couldn't play those discs without constant dropouts unless you switch to PCM, at which point you lose the Atmos data. The "most modern players" part is what I'm advising the OP be careful of. I've since changed to the 103 and no worries... but I never imagined that I would have to once I went Atmos. So my point remains: If you have a Blu-ray player already, check to see if others have had issues with branched 7.1 titles. If you're looking at buying a new player, make sure you're buying one that will work as it should.

Please note that it isn't "overly-complex seamless branching" in general. It's specific to players with a particular chipset that can't handle both seamless branching AND 7.1 TrueHD tracks at the same time. The BDP-83 and 93 fall into that unfortunate category, and MediaTek doesn't support those chipsets anymore, so there will be no update to resolve it in the future.


----------



## speeddeacon

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's that "fully conforms" thing that bites you in the ass though. Most of them will play Atmos tracks... but if they use seamless branching the way Lionsgate titles have so far, quite a few players have issues with that in the form of audio dropouts with each branch (and for example, John Wick has like 90+ branches on the disc). So it's still good to verify that a player you have or are looking at doesn't have those issues.


Which is exactly why I made an unplanned purchase of the Sony BRP-S6500 to replace my Oppo 83SE. I would have gone with the 103 but with 4k looming, I see a different Oppo in my future but not the 103. I also wanted the Amazon Video app and that is curiously missing from the Oppo, the new AppleTV and a lot of other Blu-ray players (Oppo, Yamaha, etc.). So basically for the price of an Amazon Fire TV I got a seamless branching capable BRP with an integrated Amazon Video app (proverbial two birds). If/when I upgrade to a 4k projector I'll reevaluate what equipment I'll need for UHD Blu-ray and 4k streaming.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> The seamless branching issue is nothing to do with Atmos. Atmos is just TrueHD. Players that can't handle overly-complex seamless branching won't plat 5.1 soundtracks properly either.
> 
> Most modern players can handle seamless branching. My Oppo 103 can and so can my very cheap Sony BDP-S470 bought secondhand. My ancient Panasonic BD35 can also handle seamless branching with no problems. So, if your player can handle seamless branching on 7.1 and 5.1 tracks it will work just fine with Atmos tracks too. So, can it?



Some hardware players (e.g. Popcorn Hour) had issues with playing Atmos tracks in an mkv that required a FW update (even though non-Atmos TrueHD tracks played back perfectly). I'm guessing it was something in the metadata but who knows.


----------



## speeddeacon

MalevolentHamster said:


> Thanks Markus
> 
> In my last house, I added front wides and they made quite a difference (but room was 17-foot wide). This room is only 12 foot wide. Trying to decide between 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 now
> 
> Was watching HTGeeks episode 233 (https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233?autostart=false - go to 25 minute mark), Anthoy Gramini says he prefers 9.1.2 to 7.1.4. Normally it's easy to test these things but when i have buy and test in ceiling speakers vs moving around regular speakers it's a more difficult proposition to test :-(


I saw that too and was trying to decide the same thing. I also created a poll http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...46-preferred-atmos-channel-configuration.html and nearly 2/3 preferred the 7.1.4 setup over the other variations. I decided to install 4 in ceiling speakers anyway and then they are there and if I like 9.1.2 better I can always just disconnect one set of overheads. Now, if you knew in advance that you preferred 9.1.2, it might effect where you installed the overheads certainly. I did place my front heights a bit closer to MLP than the recommended angle, but not quite directly overhead, more like a 62 degree angle (recommended is 35-55 degree). I can easily use some floor standers for wides and alternate between the two, but like you my room is narrow so I'm going to stick with the 7.1.4 for now but plan to experiment later down the line. I really would like an 11.1.4 setup with wides and front heights so maybe when Dolby allows rec/processors to decode 11.1.4 I'll bite the bullet.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I know this. Just clarifying that it makes sense to ask. My BDP-93 couldn't play those discs without constant dropouts unless you switch to PCM, at which point you lose the Atmos data.


Yes, I had an Oppo 93 before my 103 and that couldn't play them either. Some sort of hardware issue in the Oppo so no way to fix it via FW unfortunately.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> The "most modern players" part is what I'm advising the OP be careful of. I've since changed to the 103 and no worries... but I never imagined that I would have to once I went Atmos. So my point remains: If you have a Blu-ray player already, check to see if others have had issues with branched 7.1 titles. If you're looking at buying a new player, make sure you're buying one that will work as it should.


Yes sure. That is good advice. I was only trying to establish that seamless branching issues with players is nothing to do with Atmos. Any player that can play the 'problem' discs in 5.1 or 7.1 will also play Atmos discs, as you know. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Please note that it isn't "overly-complex seamless branching" in general. It's specific to players with a particular chipset that can't handle both seamless branching AND 7.1 TrueHD tracks at the same time. The BDP-83 and 93 fall into that unfortunate category, and MediaTek doesn't support those chipsets anymore, so there will be no update to resolve it in the future.


Indeed. Most players don't have any problems


----------



## SoundChex

speeddeacon said:


> I saw that too and was trying to decide the same thing. I also created a poll http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...46-preferred-atmos-channel-configuration.html and nearly 2/3 preferred the 7.1.4 setup over the other variations. I decided to install 4 in ceiling speakers anyway and then they are there and if I like 9.1.2 better I can always just disconnect one set of overheads. Now, if you knew in advance that you preferred 9.1.2, it might effect where you installed the overheads certainly. I did place my front heights a bit closer to MLP than the recommended angle, but not quite directly overhead, more like a 62 degree angle (recommended is 35-55 degree). I can easily use some floor standers for wides and alternate between the two, but like you my room is narrow so I'm going to stick with the 7.1.4 for now but plan to experiment later down the line. I really would like an 11.1.4 setup with wides and front heights so maybe when Dolby allows rec/processors to decode 11.1.4 I'll bite the bullet.



A superficial look at the mathematics behind VBAP suggests that both the 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 configurations are (theoretically) equally capable of correct object content height reproduction (at least for “small audience” venues.) However the behavior of an x.x.2 configuration is very much more sensitive to speaker placement errors (involving *any* speaker) than an x.x.4 configuration. Implicitly careful room treatment is also more important for an x.x.2 configuration.


_


----------



## speeddeacon

SoundChex said:


> A superficial look at the mathematics behind VBAP suggests that both the 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 configurations are (theoretically) equally capable of correct object content height reproduction (at least for “small audience” venues.) However the behavior of an x.x.2 configuration is very much more sensitive to speaker placement errors (involving *any* speaker) that an x.x.4 configuration. Implicitly careful room treatment is also more important for an x.x.2 configuration.
> 
> 
> _


Thanks, that's good to know and lends credence to preferential 7.1.4 setups.


----------



## tigerhonaker

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes that is right. To refresh our memories, Terry specifically asked:
> I think several of us gave good answers to that. We do not find it sounds 'fakey'. Nobody who has replied thinks it does. In fact, all have said they like DSU very much with movies. Asked and answered.
> 
> If Terry dislikes 5.1 upmixed to 7.1 I doubt he will like 5.1 upmixed to 5.1.4, but who knows. I don't see how we can help him any more unless he has some specific questions.


Guys I did not say I did not like 5.1 up-mixed to 7.1.
I said I have IMO (In My Opinion) noticed [Some} things to me sound better in 5.1 than to up-mix them to 7.1.
It just depends on what the content is as far as which way to me it sounds better.

I'm getting the impression that maybe the same thing applies to Atmos and up-mixing.
Some things are really cool and other things I'm thinking not so much and I'm not referring to Music.

To continue I actually thought maybe there would be some members that would not be as positive on Atmos and say so.
As has been mentioned in multiple posts the large majority on AVS have positive comments on Atmos.
I was I suppose thinking as I just said looking for a mix of opinions/comments both positive and not so positive on Atmos and up-mixing.



Waboman said:


> Hi Terry,
> 
> You've received a lot of answers to your questions. That shows there's a lot of members here wanting to help you. I'd pump the brakes and not come off so condescending. You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.
> 
> Overwhelming the opinion on DSU has been positive. However, going by your above quote, you may want to stay on the sidelines and sit this one out for awhile. Just my ¢.02.


I agree with you 100% and for those that think I'm coming across to any one of you unappreciative you have my (Sincere Apology) that's not my wish at all.

And, I also agree I'm not probably going to jump right on the Atmos up-grade for my H/T.

I did have my Audio/Video dealer here at the house and ask for pricing.
But have not yet heard back from them.
Even when I do if the cost is going to be what I'm thinking I more than likely will wait on the side-line and continue to watch how Atmos proceeds. 



ultraflexed said:


> I have the pioneer elite dolby atmos enabled speakers both pioneer and onkyo 5.2.4 recievers and I can tell you that the DSU had out performed some atmos soundtrack, we have a thread that reviews blue-ray what with DSU, definitely enhances any soundtrack and the heights speakers are engaged I've watched over 100 movies on DSU..here is link
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...nal-views-bluray-reviews-13.html#post37560802


I appreciate the link and will make sure I go and check that out.

Thank-You sir !!!


----------



## batpig

vince217 said:


> just for the record, PS3 also bitstreams Atmos no problem


Although I believe both the PS3 and PS4 can't bitstream and output 3D video at the same time right?


----------



## tjenkins95

*SPL Meter*

My old Radio Shack SPL Meter just bit the dust!
I checked Amazon and there about 50 different kinds available. 
Any "brand" or type recommendations from the guru calibrators?




Ray


----------



## fredl

Did I understand it correctly that for some markets there's is a pack-in Dolby Atmos demo disc with select Yamaha AVR:s? If so, is it one of the (to the best of my knowledge) two official Dolby discs? I have four immersive demo discs at the moment, DTS X from DTS, two Atmos discs from Dolby and one from Onkyo. When I demo atmos for family, friends and potential clients I usually play some clips from the two Dolby discs. They demonstrate the benefits in the shortest time, I think.


----------



## tigerhonaker

NorthSky said:


> Hi Terry, long time no see...it's Bob, the Blu-ray movie guy (tattooed tongue).
> 
> You are still enjoying the Mustang and Integra pre/pro and life in general...including all the movies?
> 
> Terry, did you check Mad Max: Fury Road? ...Furious 7, John Wick, ex_machina, Birdman, Lucy, Interstellar, Run All Night, ...
> 
> ____________
> 
> ♦ I have an opinion: I am waiting for *DTS:X* to break the sound barrier...to unbound the sound.
> And we need more Dolby Atmos software too. One day we'll all be happy with all we want...and that day could be any day now, for some it's now.
> 
> Very nice to see you my good friend from across the border...take good care and live live to the fullest...gas pedal to the floor.
> The times they are a changin', and 3D sound immersion is part of the full UHD Blu-ray picture...nobody is going to miss that train when it'll stop @ the train station...with DTS:X on board. We still have time to buy our ticket @ the right time...for the next departure to Kathmandu...way of speech.
> 
> By the way, according to the folks here; Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road are the best two Blu-ray titles so far with Dolby Atmos encoding...but unfortunately 'Gravity' is only the 2D version (Diamond Luxe Edition). ...Folks like John Wick too, also with Dolby Atmos encoding.
> 
> Best cheers to you Terry,
> Bob
> 
> P.S. Please, also send my best regards to Ivan and Dan.


Bob,

Hello buddy and as you see I am still around.
I have Mad Max Fury Road from Netflix here right now.
Have not watched it yet.

Yes I have the Integra components and the Runco VX-11d projector.

Just got the 08 Bullitt Mustang delivered back to me a few weeks ago.
I'll not post pics of it here but I will add a link for you to check it out on Stang TV.
Excellent video covering it over the past 7-years of changes.
It is now over 1,000 H/P and very streetable still.



*http://www.stangtv.com/news/video-brenspeed-talks-about-long-term-projects-and-dream-cars/



*Terry


----------



## fredl

rontalley said:


> I might give this a go as I have a ProTools HD setup. Found what plug-ins I need here. I am not much on graphics but I am sure I can take screenshots or something of the positions and piece them together...or someone could help with the graphics?
> 
> http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...uction-to-working-in-dolbys-immersive-fo.html


How are you getting on? I have found a guy on fiverr who claims to have all the necessary tools. I just need to send him the sound I want panned. Does anyone have a suggestion to a good (CC or similar license please, I want to be able to share the finished result).


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> 9 around you and only 2 above you. Doesn't sound like a good balance to me. With only 2 above you, you lose all the potential benefits of front-rear, rear-front and diagonal pans, for example. Depends on your priorities - mine are movies. Might be different with music.


I'm starting to move away from the supposed "unbalanced" nature of a 9.1.2 system after owning Atmos. 

First of all, it's 100% movies in my system so I'm not even considering music at all in this. Another thing is what our priorities are. I want overhead sound. It really doesn't even need to be front and back. A conventional 7.1 system does front and back fine. What it doesn't do very well is overhead imaging. Do I care if I can tell it's "up high _and_ in front or back"? Sure... but I'd be okay with just things sounding like they are above me. There are plenty of sonic and onscreen cues to trick the brain well enough to convince me that something is forward or behind and combined with a 7/9.1 system and a stereo overhead.... the important stuff is covered. 

I used to agree that 9.1.2 sounds (on paper....or in theory) lopsided. Granted I just want things to sound like they're 'over my head' so maybe my priorities do not line up. I'd say my interest in >7.1.4 and my Atmos-EX system says "I want it all"  but I think I could live with a 9.1.2 system and be very happy.


----------



## gene4ht

Jeremy Anderson said:


> My room is closer to the ITU setup than Dolby in that my couch is on the back wall.. and my side surrounds are several feet forward of that, about 1/3 of the way into the room. Against what most people here might recommend, I also have rear surrounds mounted on articulating brackets and aimed down toward the listening area. People keep telling me that's a bad idea... and yet, sounds image behind me when they should and to my sides when they should, so here I am. My top mids are actually slightly further into the room than my side surrounds are, which people also likely think is stretching the recommended angles slightly for top mid... but it sounds outstanding with my front heights in play as well. And when I get new seating that I can move away from the back wall, the placement is already perfect for me to just put the couch between the side surrounds and recalibrate.
> 
> *I say grab some speaker cable and spend a day trying multiple positions for your side surrounds, and see which you like best. You'll likely find that you'll end up somewhere between Dolby and the ITU... and if that images well for you, then it's RIGHT for your room.*


Even the experts don't always agree but I agree with Jeremy Anderson 100%...as it applies to surround and Atmos installations.

IMO, many folks seeking assistance with speaker type, speaker brand, speaker location, etc. are totally confused attempting to adhere to recommended specifications. People are hung up on dispersion characteristics, speaker angles, placement, etc., etc. Analysis paralysis maybe. It's very interesting to note that those who actually have Atmos installations are all enjoying what 3D sound offers...satisfying and greater immersion for the movie experience. What's even more interesting is the majority of these installations vary from the recommended specifications. Atmos enthusiasts have installed speakers from $40 - $400 each, various dispersion types, fixed and aimable types, direct and dipole/bipole types, in low, high, and vaulted ceilings, and installed at various angles from the MLP due to room constraints. The common theme is that everyone is enjoying 3D sound to some satisfying degree. To my knowledge, no one has stated that their installation is/was unsatisfying. Because of all the variables and different acoustical environments, it's probably certain that no one speaker or installation specification fits all. To this end, I concur wholeheartedly with the OP's suggestion: "Just Do It" Get the speakers of your choice, install them based on what your room can accommodate, and *experiment*...you'll most likely enjoy the results. From there, it's fine tuning for accuracy until you get the best results for you. I did...and I'm not looking back.


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> Guys I did not say I did not like 5.1 up-mixed to 7.1.
> I said I have IMO (In My Opinion) noticed [Some} things to me sound better in 5.1 than to up-mix them to 7.1.
> It just depends on what the content is as far as which way to me it sounds better.


Sorry, Terry, but with respect that is not what you said. You said:



tigerhonaker said:


> Does the Atmos sound Fakey compared to not using it and simply going back to the actual way the audio was produced ???
> You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source.
> I find that many times the original 5.1 recorded audio sounds better than using the processor to (Simulate) 7.1 surround.


You asked if DSU sounded 'fakey' and went on to say that upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 sounded fakey ("You know similar to using your processor to (Simulate) 7.1 from a 5.1 source."). If your potential objection/worry over Atmos/DSU is that it will sound 'fakey' then I assume that you do not like 'fakey'. And if you believe that 'fakey' is "similar to" upmixing 5.1 to 71, then one can draw the conclusion that you don't like that either. It doesn't make sense that you would like one sort of 'fakey' and not another, does it?

So... if you believe that upmixing 5.1 to 7.1 sounds 'fakey' then I am sure that you will also believe that upmixing 5.1 to 5.1.4 also sounds 'fakey'. Not everyone likes upmixers. There are various different upmixers, which work in different ways, and give different results and it is a personal preference thing whether you will like the end result or not. For example, I hate Audyssey's DSX, am indifferent to DTS's Neo:X, very much like Dolby's PLIIx and PLIIz and really like Dolby's DSU. Others will give you the opposite opinions. Nobody is right or wrong - it is personal preference. 

As this is such an important issue for you, it makes sense to find some way to audition it before you spend a lot of money on an Atmos system and additional speakers. If you dislike the idea of sound coming from above you, you will dislike Atmos. If you find upmixers to be 'fakey' you will dislike DSU. Only you can decide what you like.



tigerhonaker said:


> I'm getting the impression that maybe the same thing applies to Atmos and up-mixing.
> Some things are really cool and other things I'm thinking not so much and I'm not referring to Music.


First we need to separate Atmos from DSU - they are two different things. Atmos is a proper sound format, like 5.1. Discrete sounds are sent to all the speakers in the system (potentially 11 with affordable AVRs below $20,000). DSU is an upmixer like PLII. It creates sounds from the basic channels and directs them to the overhead speakers. DSU is for legacy content only - it is a way of using the overhead speakers even on soundtracks that do not have, originally, any overhead content. 

I am not sure where you are getting the impression you mention. Everyone who has replied to you so far has been positive about DSU. They all believe, as I do, that it is very effective at creating content for the overhead speakers from 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks. But YMMV of course. It is possible that you could have an Atmos system and use it only for genuine Atmos soundtracks, and continue to listen to 5.1 in 5.1 and 7.1 in 7.1. You are not forced to use DSU if you dislike what it does. But if you do that, your overhead speakers will only make noise when you play an Atmos disc.



tigerhonaker said:


> To continue I actually thought maybe there would be some members that would not be as positive on Atmos and say so.


Almost everyone who has heard a properly set up Atmos system is enthusiastic about it. Ditto almost everyone who has heard their legacy movies upmixed with DSU. You are not getting any negative feedback because there is hardly any.



tigerhonaker said:


> I was I suppose thinking as I just said looking for a mix of opinions/comments both positive and not so positive on Atmos and up-mixing.


That is understandable but it isn't what has happened. Most people see Atmos as one of the most significant steps forward in home cinema sound for over a decade. Most significant step since discrete 5.1 sound in fact.

I can only recommend that you try to listen to a good Atmos system, with both Atmos content and legacy content upmixed via DSU. Then you will hear for yourself why most people are so positive about it. I will bow out of any further discussion on this now, as I have made all the points that I am able to make to try to help answer your questions. Of course, if you have any different questions I, and others, will, I am sure, be happy to try to answer them for you as best we are able.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm starting to move away from the supposed "unbalanced" nature of a 9.1.2 system after owning Atmos.
> 
> First of all, it's 100% movies in my system so I'm not even considering music at all in this. Another thing is what our priorities are. I want overhead sound. It really doesn't even need to be front and back. A conventional 7.1 system does front and back fine. What it doesn't do very well is overhead imaging. Do I care if I can tell it's "up high _and_ in front or back"? Sure... but I'd be okay with just things sounding like they are above me. There are plenty of sonic and onscreen cues to trick the brain well enough to convince me that something is forward or behind and combined with a 7/9.1 system and a stereo overhead.... the important stuff is covered.
> 
> I used to agree that 9.1.2 sounds (on paper....or in theory) lopsided. Granted I just want things to sound like they're 'over my head' so maybe my priorities do not line up. I'd say my interest in >7.1.4 and my Atmos-EX system says "I want it all"  but I think I could live with a 9.1.2 system and be very happy.


I think I just saw a pig fly by my window. 

Mr "7.1.6 before 9.1.4" now an advocate of 9.1.2!?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I think I just saw a pig fly by my window.
> 
> Mr "7.1.6 before 9.1.4" now an advocate of 9.1.2!?



Hey now... that's different context. I _would_ rather have a true 7.1.6 system before a 9.1.4 system, sure. But what I was saying is that I don't agree anymore that a 9.1.2 system is "lopsided" or "unbalanced" anymore after actually owning and living with Atmos playback *in my room*.

I'd hope that when the inevitable product comes out that has two more channels of processing allows a user to choose either 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 speaker layout and not _just_ 9.1.4 which is there to appease and pander to the wide lovers.


----------



## gene4ht

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm not sure I'm ready to spend thousands of dollars for something that may or may not sound like an improvement to what I watch...So if in my case I spend a lot more dollars to add Atmos is going to depend on when and if I am convinced Atmos is going to really be a Major-Player.


Not necessary to spend thousands...a modest investment of $500-$600 (Entry level Atmos AVR + 2 inexpensive ceiling speakers) will allow you to experience the merits of Atmos. If to your liking, then spend more...if not, craigslist/e-bay!


----------



## stikle

tigerhonaker said:


> I was I suppose thinking as I just said looking for a mix of opinions/comments both positive and not so positive on Atmos and up-mixing.



And when there are no negative comments in regards to either, that should tell you something. Fabulosity reigns supreme.


----------



## Elegant

*Thanks for DSU Feedback*

Hi Guys,

A few days ago I posted, in reply to Tigerhonaker, about my Atmos demo experience.

I just wanted to say "thank you" to all those who have replied to Terry's and my questions about using DSU to upmix Atmos on legacy material.

I am now kicking myself for not taking more legacy material to the demo, as that was a key ingredient of my decision to go with Atmos or not.

I really liked what I heard on the two Atmos encoded tracks (from "Gravity" and "American Sniper.") I did not care for the DSU upmix of music on the two BDs I brought (one opera, the other Roy Orbison.) I was, for lack of a better word, "indifferent" or "unimpressed" with the results of upmixing on two movie BDs.

Now, after reading all the positive comments about the experiences you guys are having in upmixing (particularly with movies) I wish I had taken with me more material and spent more time comparing upmixed sound with native sound. I definitely wish I had asked for an upmix demo on movies from DirecTV (I didn't even think about that.)

I appreciate all your responses as it is making me re-think the upmixing idea, to a point that I may ask for another demo dedicated to that use of Atmos. 

In the end I suppose it doesn't matter that much because I am going to wait awhile as I just opted to buy a second JL Audio Fathom f113 subwoofer and a Furman sound conditioner. Having two f113s will likely keep me busy and happy for the time being.

Once there are a lot more Atmos encoded BDs available and if I know that Netflix will send those in the mail then I will be ready to go for a four in-the-ceiling setup. I also need to wait for NAD to come out with their new pre/pro with Atmos or their new receiver audio module with Atmos. 

Once there is a lot of Atmos encoded material out there I won't really care all that much if I like the upmixing or not, as I am certainly convinced about Atmos material being terrific.

Thanks and cheers,
Tom


----------



## Spanglo

tjenkins95 said:


> My old Radio Shack SPL Meter just bit the dust!
> I checked Amazon and there about 50 different kinds available.
> Any "brand" or type recommendations from the guru calibrators?
> 
> 
> Ray


Use your phone with a SPL meter app.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm starting to move away from the supposed "unbalanced" nature of a 9.1.2 system after owning Atmos.
> 
> First of all, it's 100% movies in my system so I'm not even considering music at all in this. Another thing is what our priorities are. I want overhead sound. It really doesn't even need to be front and back. A conventional 7.1 system does front and back fine. What it doesn't do very well is overhead imaging. Do I care if I can tell it's "up high _and_ in front or back"? Sure... but I'd be okay with just things sounding like they are above me. There are plenty of sonic and onscreen cues to trick the brain well enough to convince me that something is forward or behind and combined with a 7/9.1 system and a stereo overhead.... the important stuff is covered.
> 
> I used to agree that 9.1.2 sounds (on paper....or in theory) lopsided. Granted I just want things to sound like they're 'over my head' so maybe my priorities do not line up. I'd say my interest in >7.1.4 and my Atmos-EX system says "I want it all"  but I think I could live with a 9.1.2 system and be very happy.


The thing I would miss with just two overheads is front-to-back, back-to-front, and diagonal panning. Especially the first two. So I would always want 4 overheads as a minimum personally.

Could I be happy with just 2 overhead? Well, it's better than none overhead for sure.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I think I just saw a pig fly by my window.
> 
> Mr "7.1.6 before 9.1.4" now an advocate of 9.1.2!?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey now... that's different context. I _would_ rather have a true 7.1.6 system before a 9.1.4 system, sure. But what I was saying is that I don't agree anymore that a 9.1.2 system is "lopsided" or "unbalanced" anymore after actually owning and living with Atmos playback *in my room*.
> 
> I'd hope that when the inevitable product comes out that has two more channels of processing allows a user to choose either 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 speaker layout and not _just_ 9.1.4 which is there to appease and pander to the wide lovers.


I am not able to assess whether 9.1.2 could give a more immersive and/or precise sound than 7.1.4. Fact is that adding more speakers will improve object placement and definition. But adding wides seems in that respect not more important than adding 2nd side surrounds or a rear center. 

In other words and IMO: if you want to to improve object playback all around MLP, you need at least 5 additional listeners' level speakers. If you can't do that because of current AVR/dsp limitations, the way to go is 7.1.4 as this is the configuration used for preparing Blu-Ray soundtracks and also conforms to the upcoming ATSC3.0 broadcast standard.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ehhh....

So yeah... we all want bajillion.infinity.10 audio, I think.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ultraflexed said:


> I have the pioneer elite dolby atmos enabled speakers both pioneer and onkyo 5.2.4 recievers and I can tell you that the DSU had out performed some atmos soundtrack, we have a thread that reviews blue-ray what with DSU, definitely enhances any soundtrack and the heights speakers are engaged I've watched over 100 movies on DSU..here is link
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...nal-views-bluray-reviews-13.html#post37560802


That's because many sound mixers are still not sure how to utilize the new immersive technology to its full potential.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sam Ash said:


> Are most current BD players able to bitstream Atmos ?


If they can handle the weird video branching that some studios use to try and thwart piracy (like Lionsgate, who has released the majority of Atmos titles), then yes. The fat PS3 cannot bitstream audio, so that's out. 

And by default, if they can bitstream Dolby TrueHD, they can handle the Atmos extension.


----------



## rontalley

fredl said:


> How are you getting on? I have found a guy on fiverr who claims to have all the necessary tools. I just need to send him the sound I want panned. Does anyone have a suggestion to a good (CC or similar license please, I want to be able to share the finished result).


Haven't done a dang thang. Had some time but lacked the motivation. It's the weekend and might give it a go. I did do a little research but other than that. Nada.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Ehhh....
> 
> So yeah... we all want doesntmatter.*infinity*.whatever audio, I think.



Let me just fix that to reflect what we all know you're thinking.


----------



## tigerhonaker

stikle said:


> And when there are no negative comments in regards to either, that should tell you something. Fabulosity reigns supreme.


There is one thing for sure in regards to this thread and the comments and opinions on Atmos.

The members that have posted like it. 

.


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos and all that Jazz ...*

Hello Terry,

Thank you for your reply and the link. 
'Mad Max' is awesome, and it is also in 3D. ...And of course it has a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack.
I have the same pre/pro as you, but I will upgrade to Atmos and DTS:X and maybe to Auro-3D in a very near future...I am still exploring my top options...this is all fun to gather the best info in preparation to our next purchases.  ...Money is all relative, fun is the main essence, and time is not important...life is. 

I will recommend that you demo some Atmos setups (I did not myself), and read from the people who did (that I do a lot). 
There is simply no doubt in my mind that Dolby Atmos is the leader of 3D sound immersion in our future...UHD Blu-ray is just about to follow...Auro-3D is already here (not strong presence right now but I hope it will improve), and DTS:X is supposed to be coming within the next four months or so.
Some of us are already exploring some of those new technologies...Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU), Auro-3D, Auro-2D, Auro-Matic, OLED UHD, ...and more are coming...UHD Blu-ray movies, UHD Blu-ray players, more UHD TVs (LCD LEDs, curved, ...and even new stuff that is so new that it has not even been mentioned in this thread already...regarding new picture screen technologies...laser...advanced LED, and HDR laser UHD front projectors that will become affordable...$5,000 or so).

Anyway we are in the Atmos official thread, and it's the real deal...without a doubt, for Movies...not so much for Music (generally)...but I'm sure it's going to improve going forward. And I'm a believer (belief as in my mind and not from personal experience) that Auro-Matic is the superior immersive sound for multichannel Music listening. As for DTS:X it's just too new right now that not many people have heard it yet in real life...just very very few and they were more prototypes than the real product. I'm sure it'll secure a solid foundation as time progress...just like Dolby Atmos.

Very glad to see you and chat like that about the "real deal" ...3D sound immersion, and UHD (4K) of course. 

Cheers and have a splendid weekend,
Bob

P.S. I love your car, I love your home theater room...get ready to drill holes in your ceiling...eventually. 


tigerhonaker said:


> Bob,
> Hello buddy and as you see I am still around.
> I have Mad Max Fury Road from Netflix here right now.
> Have not watched it yet.
> Yes I have the Integra components and the Runco VX-11d projector.
> Just got the 08 Bullitt Mustang delivered back to me a few weeks ago.
> I'll not post pics of it here but I will add a link for you to check it out on Stang TV.
> Excellent video covering it over the past 7-years of changes.
> It is now over 1,000 H/P and very streetable still.
> 
> *http://www.stangtv.com/news/video-brenspeed-talks-about-long-term-projects-and-dream-cars/
> *Terry


----------



## MalevolentHamster

speeddeacon said:


> I saw that too and was trying to decide the same thing. I also created a poll http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...46-preferred-atmos-channel-configuration.html and nearly 2/3 preferred the 7.1.4 setup over the other variations. I decided to install 4 in ceiling speakers anyway and then they are there and if I like 9.1.2 better I can always just disconnect one set of overheads. Now, if you knew in advance that you preferred 9.1.2, it might effect where you installed the overheads certainly. I did place my front heights a bit closer to MLP than the recommended angle, but not quite directly overhead, more like a 62 degree angle (recommended is 35-55 degree). I can easily use some floor standers for wides and alternate between the two, but like you my room is narrow so I'm going to stick with the 7.1.4 for now but plan to experiment later down the line. I really would like an 11.1.4 setup with wides and front heights so maybe when Dolby allows rec/processors to decode 11.1.4 I'll bite the bullet.



I'd like 11.1.6 if it's ever available. My biggest concern about trial and error with in ceiling is that it's a real pain with diamond mesh and plaster; gonna be relatively expensive too (read that it wasn't worth spending more than about $100 a speaker; now I'm reading $4-600 each). If it get a 7-inch speaker and don't like, going down to a better 6-inch one is going to be very difficult, etc.

I think I'm going to end up trying 9.1.2, and try to find a way to temporarily put speakers near the ceiling without making holes. If I really like it, I'll commit, but if I find it's not much better than 7.1.2, I'll have to try an get a feel for it with the .2 and 2 spare book shelves (gonna be hard to suspend those near the ceiling and dispersion will probably be wrong, but probably will give me an idea.)


----------



## NorthSky

M said:


> Then I'd go for spaciousness like Scott did.


...And Yamaha is all about spaciousness. 



K said:


> Yes. Any player that fully conforms to the Blu-ray spec will be fine.


Read below before saying "any" and "fine"... because even if they are supposed to read and bitstream Dolby Atmos, not all BR players do...so people should be aware of that fact...before their purchase deceptions. 
Sure, Lionsgate Films studios are no angel, but then not all BR players were created/built equally. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's that "fully conforms" thing that bites you in the ass though. Most of them will play Atmos tracks... but if they use seamless branching the way Lionsgate titles have so far, quite a few players have issues with that in the form of audio dropouts with each branch (and for example, John Wick has like 90+ branches on the disc). So it's still good to verify that a player you have or are looking at doesn't have those issues.





Jeremy Anderson said:


> I know this. Just clarifying that it makes sense to ask. My BDP-93 couldn't play those discs without constant dropouts unless you switch to PCM, at which point you lose the Atmos data. The "most modern players" part is what I'm advising the OP be careful of. I've since changed to the 103 and no worries... but I never imagined that I would have to once I went Atmos. So my point remains: If you have a Blu-ray player already, check to see if others have had issues with branched 7.1 titles. If you're looking at buying a new player, make sure you're buying one that will work as it should.
> 
> Please note that it isn't "overly-complex seamless branching" in general. It's specific to players with a particular chipset that can't handle both seamless branching AND 7.1 TrueHD tracks at the same time. The BDP-83 and 93 fall into that unfortunate category, and MediaTek doesn't support those chipsets anymore, so there will be no update to resolve it in the future.





B said:


> Although I believe both the PS3 and PS4 can't bitstream and output 3D video at the same time right?


I believe that you are right.


----------



## NorthSky

Great post Tom; I enjoyed reading it...it rings true. 

Cheers,
Bob


Elegant said:


> Hi Guys,
> A few days ago I posted, in reply to Tigerhonaker, about my Atmos demo experience.
> I just wanted to say "thank you" to all those who have replied to Terry's and my questions about using DSU to upmix Atmos on legacy material.
> I am now kicking myself for not taking more legacy material to the demo, as that was a key ingredient of my decision to go with Atmos or not.
> I really liked what I heard on the two Atmos encoded tracks (from "Gravity" and "American Sniper.") I did not care for the DSU upmix of music on the two BDs I brought (one opera, the other Roy Orbison.) I was, for lack of a better word, "indifferent" or "unimpressed" with the results of upmixing on two movie BDs.
> Now, after reading all the positive comments about the experiences you guys are having in upmixing (particularly with movies) I wish I had taken with me more material and spent more time comparing upmixed sound with native sound. I definitely wish I had asked for an upmix demo on movies from DirecTV (I didn't even think about that.)
> I appreciate all your responses as it is making me re-think the upmixing idea, to a point that I may ask for another demo dedicated to that use of Atmos.
> In the end I suppose it doesn't matter that much because I am going to wait awhile as I just opted to buy a second JL Audio Fathom f113 subwoofer and a Furman sound conditioner. Having two f113s will likely keep me busy and happy for the time being.
> Once there are a lot more Atmos encoded BDs available and if I know that Netflix will send those in the mail then I will be ready to go for a four in-the-ceiling setup. I also need to wait for NAD to come out with their new pre/pro with Atmos or their new receiver audio module with Atmos.
> Once there is a lot of Atmos encoded material out there I won't really care all that much if I like the upmixing or not, as I am certainly convinced about Atmos material being terrific.
> Thanks and cheers,
> Tom


----------



## blastermaster

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's because many sound mixers are still not sure how to utilize the new immersive technology to its full potential.



^This. I remember watching Mission: Impossible many years back on my setup and thinking how great it sounded. Fast forward and I picked up the movie for cheap, so I decided to watch it. Wow. My ears have become accustomed to movies like Mad Max, Oblivion, F&F movies, etc. Mission: Impossible seems so bland in terms of audio in relation to the newer movies. I can't wait to see what mixers will be able to do with immersive audio in the next number of years as they start to get used to how to use it better.


----------



## speeddeacon

MalevolentHamster said:


> I'd like 11.1.6 if it's ever available. My biggest concern about trial and error with in ceiling is that it's a real pain with diamond mesh and plaster; gonna be relatively expensive too (read that it wasn't worth spending more than about $100 a speaker; now I'm reading $4-600 each). If it get a 7-inch speaker and don't like, going down to a better 6-inch one is going to be very difficult, etc.
> 
> I think I'm going to end up trying 9.1.2, and try to find a way to temporarily put speakers near the ceiling without making holes. If I really like it, I'll commit, but if I find it's not much better than 7.1.2, I'll have to try an get a feel for it with the .2 and 2 spare book shelves (gonna be hard to suspend those near the ceiling and dispersion will probably be wrong, but probably will give me an idea.)



Sounds like you have a really good plan even if it may be difficult to do. The trial and error method is certainly not advisable for demoing the actual speaker when it requires cutting holes in your ceiling. Unfortunately for speakers that are designed to be mounted that way it really is hard to evaluate them before hand. I decided to go with inexpensive speakers at first anyway. If I don't like those I can always purchase more expensive ones later but I am limited to the same size or larger cut out.

You could use those two bookshelves, or a couple of stepladders if you had ones that were tall enough, and a 2 x 12 to make a makeshift scaffolding. Then if you can build makeshift enclosure and mount them to the 2 x 12 so you could demo your speakers and adjust the location to your taste. No it won't be absolutely perfect but it's better than trial and error I suppose.

Are the extra speakers going to be front Heights or Wides? I was thinking you were talking about overhead speakers so it may not apply.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> ^This. I remember watching Mission: Impossible many years back on my setup and thinking how great it sounded. Fast forward and I picked up the movie for cheap, so I decided to watch it. Wow. My ears have become accustomed to movies like Mad Max, Oblivion, F&F movies, etc. Mission: Impossible seems so bland in terms of audio in relation to the newer movies. I can't wait to see what mixers will be able to do with immersive audio in the next number of years as they start to get used to how to use it better.


The most important point in all that "3D Sound" business. ...Simply not enough time for the sound mixers to do their job efficiently.

Take some of the best soundtracks, including the music scores, like from *The LOTR trilogy, The Hobbit trilogy, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds, Tron: Legacy, Oblivion, Gravity, Interstellar, ...*they took the time and dedication in the "Sound" department. ...They are the minority.
But with the majority of films, the time for the soundtracks (budget) is simply not there. ...And they use the already recorded "sound effects" built-in from their mixing consoles...which are not always in "pitch perfect sync" (way of speech) with the onscreen motion pictures, instead of going in the field and record new realistic sounds that match the film's locations. ...And often with way over-exaggerated (read not real-life accurate), and more inline with "sound impact/big effect" than realism. ...For the mass population...mass money from the box office...screaming loud and all big bag wing zigzag splashes. 

* If a skyscraper is crashing down, a tunnel blowing up, a tank firing @ the enemy line, ...it takes time to be reproduced with accuracy from the tank model number, this particular building and tunnel...some film directors are more attuned to exact sound replications than most. 

So yes, very true; without enough time and budget our sound suffers. ...Because it takes time to practice/experiment and get the hold of it with better dexterity...and without the budget time is simply a commodity that cannot be afforded. 

My opinion.


----------



## cdelena

Elegant said:


> Hi Guys,
> ...
> I did not care for the DSU upmix of music on the two BDs I brought (one opera, the other Roy Orbison.) I was, for lack of a better word, "indifferent" or "unimpressed" with the results of upmixing on two movie BDs.
> ...


The impact of DSU on different sound tracks varies. Many are great but a number are as you say 'not impressive' but I don't think any lose from using DSU.


----------



## Waboman

blastermaster said:


> ^This. I remember watching Mission: Impossible many years back on my setup and thinking how great it sounded. Fast forward and I picked up the movie for cheap, so I decided to watch it. Wow. My ears have become accustomed to movies like Mad Max, Oblivion, F&F movies, etc. Mission: Impossible seems so bland in terms of audio in relation to the newer movies. I can't wait to see what mixers will be able to do with immersive audio in the next number of years as they start to get used to how to use it better.


It doesn't help that MI 1-3 are lossy DD.


----------



## DCMlover

Does anyone have a Onkyo PRSC5530? Wondering what the advantages/ disadvantages are?


----------



## lovingdvd

MalevolentHamster said:


> Can't afford a Trinnov :-(
> 
> All reasonably priced AVR's max out at 11 channels


I'm planning to build my room as a 9.1.6. I'm installing all speakers and 15 channels of amps. I'm anticipating that sometime in the next few years we'll get more channels from higher end CONSUMER prepros like a top end Marantz, as opposed to needing a Trinnov. This way when I upgrade my prepro I'll be ready.


----------



## fredl

MalevolentHamster said:


> I'd like 11.1.6 if it's ever available. My biggest concern about trial and error with in ceiling is that it's a real pain with diamond mesh and plaster; gonna be relatively expensive too (read that it wasn't worth spending more than about $100 a speaker; now I'm reading $4-600 each). If it get a 7-inch speaker and don't like, going down to a better 6-inch one is going to be very difficult, etc.
> 
> I think I'm going to end up trying 9.1.2, and try to find a way to temporarily put speakers near the ceiling without making holes. If I really like it, I'll commit, but if I find it's not much better than 7.1.2, I'll have to try an get a feel for it with the .2 and 2 spare book shelves (gonna be hard to suspend those near the ceiling and dispersion will probably be wrong, but probably will give me an idea.)


Depending on you ceiling height and seating layout, one thing you could try is using a portable clothes rack. Place the stands on the sides of the seat and jury rig some kind of speaker to it. KEF Eggs seems to be a good candidate for a small unobtrusive on-ceiling speaker. You could probably duct tape or use some zip ties to mount them temporarily. Personally I use OSD Audios Sphere speakers mounted on the ceiling, while I gather up courage to drill holes in my ceilings.

That way you could try both 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 before committing. Four Kef Eggs or something similar and two clothes rack shouldn't cost that much and are probably easy to resell on eBay/Craigslist.


----------



## HT-Eman

fredl said:


> Depending on you ceiling height and seating layout, one thing you could try is using a portable clothes rack. Place the stands on the sides of the seat and jury rig some kind of speaker to it. KEF Eggs seems to be a good candidate for a small unobtrusive on-ceiling speaker. You could probably duct tape or use some zip ties to mount them temporarily. Personally I use OSD Audios Sphere speakers mounted on the ceiling, while I gather up courage to drill holes in my ceilings.
> 
> That way you could try both 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 before committing. Four Kef Eggs or something similar and two clothes rack shouldn't cost that much and are probably easy to resell on eBay/Craigslist.





MalevolentHamster said:


> I'd like 11.1.6 if it's ever available. My biggest concern about trial and error with in ceiling is that it's a real pain with diamond mesh and plaster; gonna be relatively expensive too (read that it wasn't worth spending more than about $100 a speaker; now I'm reading $4-600 each). If it get a 7-inch speaker and don't like, going down to a better 6-inch one is going to be very difficult, etc.
> 
> I think I'm going to end up trying 9.1.2, and try to find a way to temporarily put speakers near the ceiling without making holes. If I really like it, I'll commit, but if I find it's not much better than 7.1.2, I'll have to try an get a feel for it with the .2 and 2 spare book shelves (gonna be hard to suspend those near the ceiling and dispersion will probably be wrong, but probably will give me an idea.)


If you look a couple of pages back I put my speakers inside some acoustic panels . Just another option for you to try.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

fredl said:


> Depending on you ceiling height and seating layout, one thing you could try is using a portable clothes rack. Place the stands on the sides of the seat and jury rig some kind of speaker to it. KEF Eggs seems to be a good candidate for a small unobtrusive on-ceiling speaker. You could probably duct tape or use some zip ties to mount them temporarily. Personally I use OSD Audios Sphere speakers mounted on the ceiling, while I gather up courage to drill holes in my ceilings.
> 
> That way you could try both 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 before committing. Four Kef Eggs or something similar and two clothes rack shouldn't cost that much and are probably easy to resell on eBay/Craigslist.




Thanks for tips Fred! Do these have the required dispersion?


----------



## MalevolentHamster

gene4ht said:


> To this end, I concur wholeheartedly with the OP's suggestion: "Just Do It" Get the speakers of your choice, install them based on what your room can accommodate, and *experiment*...you'll most likely enjoy the results. From there, it's fine tuning for accuracy until you get the best results for you. I did...and I'm not looking back.


I'm sorry, and no offense, but I think that's just complete nonsense. "just get speakers of your choice" that's exactly what we're trying to determine. 

According to your approach, I should just cut 8-inch holes in my diamond mesh and plaster ceiling, hope they're in the right place and then hope the speakers I arbitrarily picked are just right. How do I *experiment*? Cut more holes in ceiling?

What if I want to return them in exchange for a much better pair? There's close to zero chance of needing the same size hole.

We're not talking about 5.1 or 7.1 where you can just move stands around a bit.

I agree, at some point you need to pull the rigger and get on with it, but when it requires running cables in existing walls and cutting holes in existing ceilings you wanna be damn sure you've done all the research possible. I believe this is why the ATMOS threads appear to be so "meticulous".


----------



## MalevolentHamster

kbarnes701 said:


> The thing I would miss with just two overheads is front-to-back, back-to-front, and diagonal panning. Especially the first two. So I would always want 4 overheads as a minimum personally.
> 
> Could I be happy with just 2 overhead? Well, it's better than none overhead for sure.


Not sure I agree with this reasoning. Without 7.x.6, and being constrained to 11 channels, there's gonna be _some _limitation: I can equally argue that without front wides, I'm missing the pan from front to side surround as much as (if not more) than I'm missing ear level to height pan. 

Now if _every _movie was going to be in ATMOS with a lot of height activity, it may make sense to forego wides for extra heights. 

In my last house, I had 9.1 and the front wides made a massive difference. The sandstorm scene in MI:4 was incredible with the front wides (night and day compared to not using them). Also, given that 99% of movies are in 5.1 (not even 7.1)--and that 80% of the sound in a movie actually comes from the center channel--it would seem that the front wides are way more beneficial than the 2nd set of overheads,_ assuming that the AVR can render to them and that I don't have enough channels (Trinnov budget) to do wides and 4 x overheads_

Front wide benefit is relatively easy to test too (i.e. no holes to cut in ceilings)


----------



## MalevolentHamster

lovingdvd said:


> I'm planning to build my room as a 9.1.6. I'm installing all speakers and 15 channels of amps. I'm anticipating that sometime in the next few years we'll get more channels from higher end CONSUMER prepros like a top end Marantz, as opposed to needing a Trinnov. This way when I upgrade my prepro I'll be ready.


Good approach if you're building from new, but I probably hold off on the hardware investment for the future channels. 

I'd definitely wire for it, so all I have to do later is install the hardware. (I'd wire for 11.8.6) (the .8 so I can add multiple subs or move them easily


----------



## MalevolentHamster

speeddeacon said:


> Are the extra speakers going to be front Heights or Wides? I was thinking you were talking about overhead speakers so it may not apply.


if I do the 9.1.2 it will be front wides for the extra 2 and .2 overheads.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Romans828 said:


> Can anyone provide detail information for setting up multiple side surround speakers? I'm doing theater planning and will have two rows of seats. I am looking at putting a monopole speaker slightly behind each row (around 110 degrees). Another forum member suggested using QSC-DSP to balance the too speakers on each side.
> 
> Any thoughts, suggestions, post links or detailed information would be greatly appreciated.


Watch this podcast, it help clarify my thinking a lot and you can benefit from the experience (guest speaker) who has a ton of installs under his belt: https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233 - can't recommend it highly enough.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

SoundChex said:


> A superficial look at the mathematics behind VBAP suggests that both the 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 configurations are (theoretically) equally capable of correct object content height reproduction (at least for “small audience” venues.) However the behavior of an x.x.2 configuration is very much more sensitive to speaker placement errors (involving *any* speaker) than an x.x.4 configuration. Implicitly careful room treatment is also more important for an x.x.2 configuration.
> 
> 
> _


Can you elaborate or point us to some further info?


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey now... that's different context. I _would_ rather have a true 7.1.6 system before a 9.1.4 system, sure. But what I was saying is that I don't agree anymore that a 9.1.2 system is "lopsided" or "unbalanced" anymore after actually owning and living with Atmos playback *in my room*.
> 
> I'd hope that when the inevitable product comes out that has two more channels of processing allows a user to choose either 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 speaker layout and not _just_ 9.1.4 which is there to appease and pander to the wide lovers.


Just want to be clear I understand: based on your experience, you feel 9.1.2 (the way i'm leaning) is better than 7.1.4?


----------



## tjenkins95

This is a Dolby Atmos thread so I would think that using 4 height speakers trumps using 2 height speakers and 2 front wides!


----------



## HT-Eman

*Iphone Laser Pointer*

Doing TF + TR in my room with my current seating ( 1 row ) places my Top Rear speakers either on the rear wall or to close to the rear surround speakers. So I decided to use TM + TF ( assigned as FH in avr ) . I used this ryobi iphone app and laser pointer to pinpoint where to place the speakers. So as of now I have TM @ 100 degrees ( just about even with back of my seats , but my head and ears are forward ) , and the TF speakers @ 45 degrees. Does this configuration sounds about right ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HT-Eman said:


> Doing TF + TR in my room with my current seating ( 1 row ) places my Top Rear speakers either on the rear wall or to close to the rear surround speakers. So I decided to use TM + TF ( assigned as FH in avr ) . I used this ryobi iphone app and laser pointer to pinpoint where to place the speakers. So as of now I have TM @ 100 degrees ( just about even with back of my seats , but my head and ears are forward ) , and the TF speakers @ 45 degrees. Does this configuration sounds about right ?


A lot of people recommend having the Top Middle pair right above or slightly forward of the seated position.


----------



## tigerhonaker

MalevolentHamster said:


> Watch this podcast, it help clarify my thinking a lot and you can benefit from the experience (guest speaker) who has a ton of installs under his belt: https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233 - can't recommend it highly enough.


The video was very interesting.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MalevolentHamster said:


> Just want to be clear I understand: based on your experience, you feel 9.1.2 (the way i'm leaning) is better than 7.1.4?


No, that's not what I said.

I said, after using Atmos in my own HT room, I could be okay with just a two channel overhead system. That's not to say that I will or say you should.

The comment came up when a few members expressed that they feel that a 9.1.2 is "not balanced" and I feel that that's not really the reality of how we would hear a system like that. It would sound fine. Like a nice 3D bubble of surround sound. It just wouldn't have the same stability for certain kinds of overhead-only panning effects. In a movie, I find it doubtful that one would come to the conclusion that it is "unbalanced" in a real listening session.

But all rooms are not equal nor are our expectations of sound. I'm going by what I have heard in my room with a 7.1.6 system.


----------



## gene4ht

MalevolentHamster said:


> I'm sorry, and no offense, but I think that's just complete nonsense. "just get speakers of your choice" that's exactly what we're trying to determine..


No offense taken and appreciate your comments...please don't take my suggestions literally...after all this is AV "Science." What I'm intimating is, after researching here, make a decision and act on it because you won't find the "perfect" answer to your situation because each of our situations and environments are different.



MalevolentHamster said:


> According to your approach, I should just cut 8-inch holes in my diamond mesh and plaster ceiling, hope they're in the right place and then hope the speakers I arbitrarily picked are just right. How do I *experiment*? Cut more holes in ceiling?


After completing exhaustive research and the initial installation, this could still be necessary. Some here, in pursuit of improved performance, replacing speakers and doing extra dry wall work would not deter them. 



MalevolentHamster said:


> What if I want to return them in exchange for a much better pair? There's close to zero chance of needing the same size hole.


Not altogether accurate...i.e. many 8" speakers require 9 3/8" - 9 1/2" cutouts. Again, this would not deter those pursuing improvement. 



MalevolentHamster said:


> We're not talking about 5.1 or 7.1 where you can just move stands around a bit.


Agreed...no pain, no gain...many enthusiasts typically will go the extra mile. 



MalevolentHamster said:


> I agree, at some point you need to pull the rigger and get on with it, but when it requires running cables in existing walls and cutting holes in existing ceilings you wanna be damn sure you've done all the research possible. I believe this is why the ATMOS threads appear to be so "meticulous".


I don't disagree...just saying one size does not necessary fit all...you won't really know until you try...avoid analysis paralysis...so jump in...and enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

MalevolentHamster said:


> Not sure I agree with this reasoning. Without 7.x.6, and being constrained to 11 channels, there's gonna be _some _limitation: I can equally argue that without front wides, I'm missing the pan from front to side surround as much as (if not more) than I'm missing ear level to height pan.
> 
> Now if _every _movie was going to be in ATMOS with a lot of height activity, it may make sense to forego wides for extra heights.
> 
> In my last house, I had 9.1 and the front wides made a massive difference. The sandstorm scene in MI:4 was incredible with the front wides (night and day compared to not using them). Also, given that 99% of movies are in 5.1 (not even 7.1)--and that 80% of the sound in a movie actually comes from the center channel--it would seem that the front wides are way more beneficial than the 2nd set of overheads,_ assuming that the AVR can render to them and that I don't have enough channels (Trinnov budget) to do wides and 4 x overheads_
> 
> Front wide benefit is relatively easy to test too (i.e. no holes to cut in ceilings)


I am not personally a huge believer in the need for wides (me and Dolby both LOL). This may be due to the dimensions of my room of course and you may feel the need for them in your particular room. I get pretty good all round panning at the listener level from 7 speakers. But I would miss overhead front-rear-front pans if I only had 2 overhead speakers. We will all have our own priorities. 

I don't think 80% of the sound in a movie comes from the center channel. I think the center channel handles 80% of the sound, which is not the same thing. By way of explanation, if it is needed, by that I mean that if there are a theoretical '100 units' of sound, 80 of them do not come from the center channel with the other 20 being distributed to the remaining channels, but rather that out of the 100 units, 60 (say) may be spread among the other channels, but 80 will be sent to the center channel (it can total more than 100 of course because some sounds are sent to more than one channel at the same time). Maybe that is what you meant? Regardless, the center channel is the most important I agree.

As for 99% being in 5.1, well that is true, but we have DSU for those, so the overhead speakers are still important.


----------



## blastermaster

MalevolentHamster said:


> Not sure I agree with this reasoning. Without 7.x.6, and being constrained to 11 channels, there's gonna be _some _limitation: I can equally argue that without front wides, I'm missing the pan from front to side surround as much as (if not more) than I'm missing ear level to height pan.
> 
> Now if _every _movie was going to be in ATMOS with a lot of height activity, it may make sense to forego wides for extra heights.
> 
> In my last house, I had 9.1 and the front wides made a massive difference. The sandstorm scene in MI:4 was incredible with the front wides (night and day compared to not using them). Also, given that 99% of movies are in 5.1 (not even 7.1)--and that 80% of the sound in a movie actually comes from the center channel--it would seem that the front wides are way more beneficial than the 2nd set of overheads,_ assuming that the AVR can render to them and that I don't have enough channels (Trinnov budget) to do wides and 4 x overheads_
> 
> Front wide benefit is relatively easy to test too (i.e. no holes to cut in ceilings)


I was debating on going with 9.1.2, but I can't based on the layout of my room. As I continued to read (and, yes, that's all I have to base things on ATM) through multiple threads on the topic, I feel 7.1.4 is the ideal for a moderately sized room AND with only one row of seating. The way I have my front ceiling speakers set up, it seems to me like they will take the place of the front wides - they are almost exactly as far forward as front wides should be in my room. So, I don't think I'll be losing anything by not having the wides - the ceiling speakers should theoretically cover that area for sound.


----------



## NorthSky

MalevolentHamster said:


> *Watch this podcast, it help clarify my thinking a lot and you can benefit from the experience* (guest speaker) who has a ton of installs under his belt: https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233 - can't recommend it highly enough.





tigerhonaker said:


> The video was very interesting.


Sure was Terry.

________


----------



## Stoked21

Maybe some comments further back on the topic of 9.1. 

I made the jump to 5.1.4 and it sounds great. There's just something missing by not having surround backs. My TRs do a great job above and behind me but it's just not the same as a legacy 5.1 or 7.1. I will flip over to 7.1.2 sometimes and I feel immersed by surround backs. But alas I've been spoiled and miss the TR height then. 

I'm obviously awaiting a 15.2 avr to provide wides and TM both, which are already installed but not connected to my aventage 9.2. 

The thing I caution though is that a 9.1 setup to me is just a complete compromise no matter what configuration I flip in my avr. In hind sight I would never have settled on a 9.1. 

I'm sure when 13 or 15 is released I will switch between multiple speaker configs and gripe about not having 17 or 19. 

Damn rabbit.


----------



## Stoked21

blastermaster said:


> I was debating on going with 9.1.2, but I can't based on the layout of my room. As I continued to read (and, yes, that's all I have to base things on ATM) through multiple threads on the topic, I feel 7.1.4 is the ideal for a moderately sized room AND with only one row of seating.


Here's how I viewed going x.1.4 instead of x.1.2:

In 7.1 system you have 7 speakers circling you. If I draw a horizontal 180deg arc around me I encompass Sr, fr, c, fl, and sl. 180deg behind me is sl, sbl, sbr and sr. So I have 4 or 5 speakers in any 180deg sweep. Adding wides just increases that granularity by 2 more channels. 

In contrast a 180deg arc above me with tops: a x.1.2 system provides only 3 speakers (some ear level surround, some top and a front). While an x.1.4 with 2 top pairs increases channels in that arc to a quantity similar to the horizontal plane. 

If you really want to fill the entire sphere around you, then a x.1.4 is the most balanced choice and helps to eliminate localization while providing more precise staging. 

So in a nutshell I think wides would be great but I would never sacrifice the extra top pair for them.


----------



## dj7675

*Mounting rear surrounds high for top back*

I currently have a 7.1 setup and am upgrading to an atmos system in my 15'w x25'd theater room. I have ordered 2 in-ceiling speakers on their way to go 7.1.2, but would like to do 5.1.4 but can't really do any more in ceiling speakers. I can move mo rear surrounds up the back wall to the ceiling and point them at the MLP. Could I then configure these as a top back instead of rear surround to good effect? It seems the receiver (in this case Denon x6200) could make it work. Has anyone tried this? Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions.


----------



## NorthSky

Can anyone assist this fellow member: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## speeddeacon

NorthSky said:


> Can anyone assist this fellow member: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs



Might just be Tapatalk but that link isn't working for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## scarabaeus

*Die Elf vom Niederrhein*

Just sat through the latest Atmos Blu-ray from germany, and the first sports themed. Might be because I'm not much of a sports fan, but this felt rather like an hour long EPK piece, than a proper documentary.










Sound was OK, though half of it was people giving statements (on the center speaker, of course). The other half was soccer scenes of Borussia Mönchengladbach with music, both the crowd noise and the music were nicely immersive.

There was a short "making of Atmos" included, where the sound mixers dumbfoundedly stated how easy it was to mix, and some HT people stating that this is the future. That sounds like there will be more to come from Germany.

The disc, however, defaults to a Dolby Digital Stereo track, Atmos has to be selected in the setup menu. Also, while the disc is region free, both the menu and the movie are in 1080i50, so it does not load on most US players. German only, no subtitles at all.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> Can anyone assist this fellow member: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs





speeddeacon said:


> Might just be Tapatalk but that link isn't working for me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Link's working fine from here; it's from the *John Wick (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review* ... post number 224.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Wides*

Adding wides to an Atmos set-up currently involves sacrificing either rears or a pair of overheads. So what do they truly deliver?

The wides are no part of the Atmos channel bed and not involved with DSU up mixing. What they do is deliver more stability and smoother pans of objects positioned (pan-potted) between fronts and surrounds.

Obviously, this benefit of adding wides gets smaller if the angular (azimuth) distance between mains and surrounds reduces. So if in a 7.1.2 lay-out the surrounds are positioned at about 75 degrees, how noticeable is the improvement of adding wides at about 50 degrees?

Anyone who has tried this and can shed a light?


----------



## fredl

MalevolentHamster said:


> Thanks for tips Fred! Do these have the required dispersion?


According to previous posts in this thread by Nalleh, the Kef Eggs are highly suitable. Haven't tried them in this application.

For me setup, the Sphere speakers works very well since they are aimed slightly at the MLP.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Stoked21 said:


> Maybe some comments further back on the topic of 9.1.
> 
> I made the jump to 5.1.4 and it sounds great. There's just something missing by not having surround backs. My TRs do a great job above and behind me but it's just not the same as a legacy 5.1 or 7.1. I will flip over to 7.1.2 sometimes and I feel immersed by surround backs. But alas I've been spoiled and miss the TR height then.


That was exactly what the THX guys said "they wouldn't do 5.x.anything" (lack of rears is a big deficit (in their testing)


----------



## sdurani

MalevolentHamster said:


> Watch this podcast, it help clarify my thinking a lot and you can benefit from the experience (guest speaker) who has a ton of installs under his belt: https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/233 - can't recommend it highly enough.


Grimani's justification for wides is to fill what he calls a sonic black hole between the front speakers and side speakers. The podcast never explains why he gets no sound between those two pairs of speakers: i.e., how is he able to eliminate phantom imaging between adjacent speakers? Most systems I've heard have plenty of imaging between each front speaker and its respective side speaker. Grimani's reason for using wides is to fix a problem of his own creation.


----------



## batpig

Back to something from the other week... I was tinkering with my system just now and put in the Atmos demo disc. 

There was discussion of the F1 Red Bull clip and lack of overhead activity. I just confirmed my recollection -- in my setup with TM and FH speakers there is a bunch of action in the overhead TM speakers. I stood on the couch with my ear 1-2ft from the ceiling speaker above. I hear all sorts of ambient effects like drills whirring, breathing, engine whine etc. They aren't active 100% of the time but there is something happening in the TM speakers 30-40% of the time I'd say.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Back to something from the other week... I was tinkering with my system just now and put in the Atmos demo disc.
> 
> There was discussion of the F1 Red Bull clip and lack of overhead activity. I just confirmed my recollection -- in my setup with TM and FH speakers there is a bunch of action in the overhead TM speakers. I stood on the couch with my ear 1-2ft from the ceiling speaker above. I hear all sorts of ambient effects like drills whirring, breathing, engine whine etc. They aren't active 100% of the time but there is something happening in the TM speakers 30-40% of the time I'd say.


That's odd then - I recall very little in the overheads, with the other speakers switched off. Did you get any overhead content in the tunnel? That may be the only bit I recall. I'll try it again when I get chance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Interesting timing on the F1 clip. I tested it out again this weekend now with Atmos I certainly did hear stuff coming out of my heights. I didn't mute the other channels but I just put my head up towards my middle height pair. I'd say your @batpig assessment of content is spot on. Imho, it should be more aggressive than it is but there is content up there to say for sure. So we can put that to rest.


----------



## HT-Eman

batpig said:


> Back to something from the other week... I was tinkering with my system just now and put in the Atmos demo disc.
> 
> There was discussion of the F1 Red Bull clip and lack of overhead activity. I just confirmed my recollection -- in my setup with TM and FH speakers there is a bunch of action in the overhead TM speakers. I stood on the couch with my ear 1-2ft from the ceiling speaker above. I hear all sorts of ambient effects like drills whirring, breathing, engine whine etc. They aren't active 100% of the time but there is something happening in the TM speakers 30-40% of the time I'd say.


Glad to hear about that cause as i'm building my room I originally wanted to go with TF+TR but decide on TM+TF ( FH in avr of course ) . Still planning and building my room up. Will look totally different when i'm done hopefully by February 2016 .( Hopefully the Emotiva XMR-1 will be available by then )

First set of acoustic panel atmos speakers are done. Positioned as Top Middle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MalevolentHamster said:


> That was exactly what the THX guys said "they wouldn't do 5.x.anything" (lack of rears is a big deficit (in their testing)


I agree. I'd never do 5.1 ever again but I haven't had less than 6.1 since 2000 when I added an EX upgrade to my then current 5.1 system. 

Gotta have clear discrete front, middle and rear room imaging. Can't do that with 5.1, sorry.


----------



## NorthSky

> Grimani's justification for wides is to fill what he calls a sonic black hole between the front speakers and side speakers. The podcast never explains why he gets no sound between those two pairs of speakers: i.e., how is he able to eliminate phantom imaging between adjacent speakers? Most systems I've heard have plenty of imaging between each front speaker and its respective side speaker.
> *Grimani's reason for using wides is to fix a problem of his own creation.*


I disagree; they experimented extensively...not a product of his imagination ("own creation").

And it's not a "problem" when you fix an acoustic gaping hole...it's a smart and logical solution for best sound immersion. 
And remember too; his definition of room's sizes (small, medium, large)...home theater sizes. ...Ten feet by twelve or around that neighborhood is not part of the picture...so for people with rooms of that similar size a 5.1.2 Atmos setup is probably sufficient. 

And twenty feet by sixteen feet is a small room in his own definition...so a 9.1.2 Atmos setup makes a lot of sense to me.
A 9.1.4 setup would be ideal...IMO ...With Top Middle overheads for each row of seats (two rows). 
I trust more his expanded expertise than most...including the THX guys...and even them have extended expertise. 

For sure, the proof of the pudding is in one's own listening room exploration...still...physics and acoustics and science apply. 

That's my opinion.


----------



## johnnymacIII

Should rear surround speakers be aimed at the PLP for better imaging of 3D audio or should they be placed straight forward for reflections and ambience?


----------



## NorthSky

Aiming @ the MLP area.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Grimani's justification for wides is to fill what he calls a sonic black hole between the front speakers and side speakers. The podcast never explains why he gets no sound between those two pairs of speakers: i.e., how is he able to eliminate phantom imaging between adjacent speakers? Most systems I've heard have plenty of imaging between each front speaker and its respective side speaker. Grimani's reason for using wides is to fix a problem of his own creation.


So we put 4 speakers in each room corner and everything will be fine? Anybody remember quadraphonic sound? Didn't work too well...

Phantom imaging is fragile and doesn't work reliably in multiple seat configurations. Good and reliable localization unfortunately means more speakers, especially with multiple seats.


----------



## asere

Does anyone know how many more upcoming bluray movies are going to have an Atmos track other than San Andreas?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Fineberg

MI:5
Pixels
Terminator Genisys
Dracula
Leon the professional
the gallows
the fifth element
Minions


----------



## sdurani

Aside from the Atmos movie titles Brian listed, don't forget the complete first and second seasons of Game of Thrones.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> So we put 4 speakers in each room corner and everything will be fine? Anybody remember quadraphonic sound? Didn't work too well...
> 
> Phantom imaging is fragile and doesn't work reliably in multiple seat configurations. Good and reliable localization unfortunately means more speakers, especially with multiple seats.


Again..... both Sanjay and myself sat far off-axis in my room and could still hear things distinctly to our 90degree where there was no speaker. 

More speakers equals more stability. Yeah we get it, Markus. Nobody has said otherwise. That being said, how can I add more than the 7.1.6 speaker I have in my system? You can't. So what are you trying to say? Suddenly >7.1 is useless and it won't be "right" until we get 24.1.10 speakers? What are you getting at?


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> More speakers equals more stability. Yeah we get it, Markus.


Good.



Scott Simonian said:


> Nobody has said otherwise.


You made it sound like that. Maybe I'm hearing things differently than you and your buddy


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Again..... both Sanjay and myself sat far off-axis in my room and could still hear things distinctly to our 90degree where there was no speaker.


My post was about Grimani's comment regarding a "sonic black hole" between the front and side speakers of a 7.1 layout. How did this morph back to a discussion of phantom imaging directly to the sides when I was talking about a location well forward of that?


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Maybe I'm hearing things differently than you and your buddy


I think you are reading things differently, yes.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> That being said, how can I add more than the 7.1.6 speaker I have in my system?


Simply buy a new processor.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> My post was about Grimani's comment regarding a "sonic black hole" between the front and side speakers of a 7.1 layout. How did this morph back to a discussion of phantom imaging directly to the sides when I was talking about a location well forward of that?


Probably my fault. Sorry.

That being said, I don't have any of the these "sonic deadzones" that Grimani is claiming to have issues with. Maybe he should step back and re-evaluate his installation methods.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Simply buy a new processor.





Yes.... such a great idea, Markus. And what would you suggest a mere mortal purchase right now that can playback >7.1.4 audio?

Rhetorical question. Only Trinnov Altitude can and ... no.


----------



## gammanuc

sdurani said:


> Aside from the Atmos movie titles Brian listed, don't forget the complete first and second seasons of Game of Thrones.


Thanks for reminding me. I just pre-ordered both!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> My post was about Grimani's comment regarding a "sonic black hole" between the front and side speakers of a 7.1 layout. How did this morph back to a discussion of phantom imaging directly to the sides when I was talking about a location well forward of that?


Well if phantom imaging to the sides would work as great as Scott is trying to convince me then there couldn't be a sonic black hole Grimani was talking about.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Well if phantom imaging to the sides would work as great as Scott is trying to convince me then there couldn't be a sonic black hole Grimani was talking about.


There is no sonic black hole unless you create one by your own doing. You don't seem to get that.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Probably my fault. Sorry.
> 
> That being said, I don't have any of the these "sonic deadzones" that Grimani is claiming to have issues with. Maybe he should step back and re-evaluate his installation methods.


Of course, your system sounds good to you so everybody else must be wrong...


----------



## stikle

Maybe Grimani needs someone to come set up his system for him. If Scott and Sanjay didn't hear a black hole, and I'm not hearing one in my system...yeah phantom imaging must not work at all.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> There is no sonic black hole unless you create one by your own doing. You don't seem to get that.


No I don't know how to create a sonic black hole. Please enlighten me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Of course, your system sounds good to you so everybody else must be wrong...


I never said that, you don't need to be a jerk about it. Maybe _you_ are wrong and even Grimani too. 

There is no sonic deadzone in my room. It's not just me but many.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> No I don't know how to create a sonic black hole. Please enlighten me.


Don't ask me. I would like to know that too!

Forward your concerns to Anthony Grimani.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes.... such a great idea, Markus. And what would you suggest a mere mortal purchase right now that can playback >7.1.4 audio?
> 
> Rhetorical question. Only Trinnov Altitude can and ... no.


Well, not having the money is not the same as saying "how can I add more than the 7.1.6 speaker I have in my system? You can't."


----------



## blastermaster

The thing is, I was wondering if I needed front wides also. It turns out, it's not part of the Atmos configuration, so it's a moot point. If it were, though, it would definitely be interesting to test it out. Ignorance is bliss. I didn't realize how much my old speakers sucked until I got new ones. People may not realize how much better having wides could make your system sound unless it's tried. Then again, it may not add much at all. Again, for me it's pointless because of the current receivers and Atmos config, and even if there was any "hole" in that space, the front height ceiling speakers should account for that.


----------



## markus767

stikle said:


> Maybe Grimani needs someone to come set up his system for him. If Scott and Sanjay didn't hear a black hole, and I'm not hearing one in my system...yeah phantom imaging must not work at all.


Or maybe reflections in your room are simply too loud. In that case there are no holes but there's also not really good localization and clarity. You'll know the difference once you've heard it.


----------



## batpig

blastermaster said:


> The thing is, I was wondering if I needed front wides also. *It turns out, it's not part of the Atmos configuration*, so it's a moot point.


While I agree with your post, this part is not technically true. The "Front Wide" speaker position can be used with Atmos, although it will only be active with object rendering and will not play back any "bed" channel info sent to the surrounds and/or fronts.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Well, not having the money is not the same as saying "how can I add more than the 7.1.6 speaker I have in my system? You can't."


Ugh. And if you wanted to go 350kph in a car and wondered how you did it while surfing a BMW or Audi forum and someone said, "get a new car" you'd come back with the same response. "You can't" buy a new car. You could be a $1,250,000 Bugatti Veyron but that doesn't make it a good idea now does it?

I barely could afford a


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't ask me. I would like to know that too!
> 
> Forward your concerns to Anthony Grimani.


Well, you are the one that claims that Grimani would create sonic holes on purpose whereas he himself says it's simply there because speakers are missing at specific locations and I agree. So what is it one has to do in order to create such a hole?


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Well, you are the one that claims that Grimani would create sonic holes on purpose whereas he himself says it's simply there because speakers are missing at specific locations and I agree. So what is it one has to do in order to create such a hole?


I don't know. That's what some of us think it's ludicrous to make such a claim.

But...

"claims that Grimani would create sonic holes on purpose *whereas he himself says it's simply there because speakers are missing at specific locations*"

That... might be the problem.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> While I agree with your post, this part is not technically true. The "Front Wide" speaker position can be used with Atmos, although it will only be active with object rendering and will not play back any "bed" channel info sent to the surrounds and/or fronts.


Or do anything at all when using DSU.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh. And if you wanted to go 350kph in a car and wondered how you did it while surfing a BMW or Audi forum and someone said, "get a new car" you'd come back with the same response. "You can't" buy a new car. You could be a $1,250,000 Bugatti Veyron but that doesn't make it a good idea now does it?
> 
> I barely could afford a


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't know. That's what some of us think it's ludicrous to make such a claim.


And others might think that anyone that never experienced such a 'sonic hole' is lacking listening experience.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> I'm just pointing out that you might be at the center of your own universe but that's not really true for everybody else.





markus767 said:


> And others might think that anyone that never experienced such a 'sonic hole' is lacking listening experience.













Uhhh...sure, Markus.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ you guys are great


----------



## stikle

Fifth Element Preorder. Available 10/27, so this should be the new Atmos version.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Of course, your system sounds good to you so everybody else must be wrong...


Why would Scott's system/room be the wrong one and not Grimani's? You are making an _a priori _assumption.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Or maybe reflections in your room are simply too loud. In that case there are no holes but there's also not really good localization and clarity. You'll know the difference once you've heard it.


No reflection issues here - I prefer a slightly 'dead' environment. And no black hole either. And brilliant localisation and clarity. Even at the sides where there's no speakers


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> And others might think that anyone that never experienced such a 'sonic hole' is lacking listening experience.


What experience is needed to observe a sonic black hole?


----------



## Scott Simonian

blastermaster said:


> The thing is, I was wondering if I needed front wides also. It turns out, it's not part of the Atmos configuration, so it's a moot point. If it were, though, it would definitely be interesting to test it out. Ignorance is bliss. I didn't realize how much my old speakers sucked until I got new ones. People may not realize how much better having wides could make your system sound unless it's tried. Then again, it may not add much at all. Again, for me it's pointless because of the current receivers and Atmos config, and even if there was any "hole" in that space, the front height ceiling speakers should account for that.


I have tried it and I like it. I don't think there is anybody who is claiming that wides are "bad" just that they are a very low priority. The argument from many is that they have a "gap" in their system where I wide speaker will help. The counterpoint is that this "gap" can be fixed with a well thought out and better positioned layout of speakers.

The point is that most don't even have the capability to have wides at all and if you can Atmos and DSU don't make very good use of them. So a person concentrating all their resources on wides is not a very good idea, imo.


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> What experience is needed to observe a sonic black hole?


Duh! a Sonic singularity


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> What experience is needed to observe a sonic black hole?


Whatever it is it sure is LOL worthy to me. 

Some sci-fi movies might be good resources for black holes. I'm thinking Event Horizon? Yup.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I have tried it and I like it. I don't think there is anybody who is claiming that wides are "bad" just that they are a very low priority. The argument from many is that they have a "gap" in their system where I wide speaker will help. The counterpoint is that this "gap" can be fixed with a well thought out and better positioned layout of speakers.
> 
> The point is that most don't even have the capability to have wides at all and if you can Atmos and DSU don't make very good use of them. So a person concentrating all their resources on wides is not a very good idea, imo.


You do have wide speakers – your side surrounds. So was there a gap before or why did you place them like that?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Again..... both Sanjay and myself sat far off-axis in my room and could still hear things distinctly to our 90degree where there was no speaker.
> 
> More speakers equals more stability. Yeah we get it, Markus. Nobody has said otherwise. That being said, how can I add more than the 7.1.6 speaker I have in my system? You can't. So what are you trying to say? Suddenly >7.1 is useless and it won't be "right" until we get 24.1.10 speakers? What are you getting at?


Hi Scott,

I totally understand what you're saying...for most members here, including you and Sanjay, a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration is awesome. 
But if you watch the video again you'll see what Anthony Grimani is saying in relation to room's sizes...and I mentioned that in one of my prior posts.

See the thing here is: Not everyone has the same size room, and phantom imaging, working real good in yours, is not equally working well in all rooms.
Mr. Grimani, a smart man with extensive experience in 3D Surround Sound Immersion, mentioned in the video that a small room, for him, is @ least 20 feet long, and roughly 14-16 feet wide, a medium room is 26 feet long, @ least...and a large room is 40 feet long plus.
So, in those instances it all makes good acoustic sense to have Front Wide speakers, and an array of Side surround speakers, for multiple rows of seats. 
You want to cover all the room's space for best sound immersion to everyone's set of ears...just like in a movie theater...like @ your local cinema theater.

Mr. Grimani in that video, interviewed by Mr. Scott Wilkinson, said that the human ears are more attuned with the front soundstage...say @ an angle of roughly 170° (I can see both my hands easily @ that angle, even @ 180° - try it). 
And that front soundstage is the most important and roughly 75% (my own figure) of the full 3D sound immersion. ...I agree with this gentleman.

...Then the side surrounds (two sets if two rows of seats), and finally the rear surrounds, and I agree with him too in regard to have them closer together (when using only one pair) than a wider spread. 

Then the overhead speakers; again he is right as to their ideal position...more inside than what Dolby Atmos recommend. 
...And slightly forward to the MLP. * That is for the first row of seats...then you do the same for the second row...as graphically drawn in his plans.

Mr. Tony Grimani is not blowing thin air here; the guy knows what he's talking about because that's his job to experiment with the best 3D sound immersion.
He is a professional...are you? 

Sure, we don't have to agree with his level of expertise...but I, for one do agree with him...in relation to room's sizes...and not specifically YOUR room Scott. I'm sure you're real happy with a 7.10.4 setup in your own room...I would too...except I don't have the room for all those subs. ;-)
My own room is too small (19 by 16 by 11 - WxLxH) and it has other normal stuff that we all put in normal living rooms...so it is not 100% dedicated...more like 66% (roughly). But I will be experimenting in that room with a 7.3.4 setup, a 9.3.2 one, and with slightly variable speakers positioning. I will use Mr. Grimani's expertise to guide me best. 

This is just my own opinion.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> ... I don't have any of the these "sonic deadzones" that Grimani is claiming to have issues with.
> *Maybe he should step back and re-evaluate his installation methods*.


That advice/suggestion works both ways.  ...All related to *Room's Size*. ...And *Room's Acoustics*.


----------



## blastermaster

Scott Simonian said:


> I have tried it and I like it. I don't think there is anybody who is claiming that wides are "bad" just that they are a very low priority. The argument from many is that they have a "gap" in their system where I wide speaker will help. The counterpoint is that this "gap" can be fixed with a well thought out and better positioned layout of speakers.
> 
> The point is that most don't even have the capability to have wides at all and if you can Atmos and DSU don't make very good use of them. So a person concentrating all their resources on wides is not a very good idea, imo.


Agreed. That should come after 7.1.4 if one still feels like something is missing.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes.... such a great idea, Markus. And what would you suggest a mere mortal purchase right now that can playback >7.1.4 audio?
> 
> Rhetorical question. Only Trinnov Altitude can and ... no.


I thought you were using two receivers in your room Scott? ...You could probably do your own "custom" 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup?


----------



## stikle

markus767 said:


> You do have wide speakers – your side surrounds.



That statement is incorrect.

Wide speakers are not side surrounds. Or inversely, side surrounds are not wide speakers.

I think you're being argumentative just to be argumentative now.

And no, I don't have reflections nor dead spots in my room. Like Keith, I prefer my room fairly dead (much like a real movie theater), so I have applied treatments resulting in such.


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> The thing is, I was wondering if I needed *front wides also. It turns out, it's not part of the Atmos configuration, so it's a moot point*. If it were, though, it would definitely be interesting to test it out. Ignorance is bliss. I didn't realize how much my old speakers sucked until I got new ones. People may not realize how much better having wides could make your system sound unless it's tried. Then again, it may not add much at all. Again, for me it's pointless because of the current receivers and Atmos config, and even if there was any "hole" in that space, the front height ceiling speakers should account for that.


Hi, 

The Front Width channels are active* in a Dolby Atmos setup when decoding native Dolby Atmos audio...from Blu-rays, streaming, downloading. 
So they are part of Atmos, certainly. 

* If selected and set to.


----------



## NorthSky

> What experience is needed to observe a sonic black hole?


By filling that ditto "sonic black hole", and by listening @ the difference it now makes. ..Cannot be more simple than that.


----------



## markus767

stikle said:


> That statement is incorrect.
> 
> Wide speakers are not side surrounds. Or inversely, side surrounds are not wide speakers.
> 
> I think you're being argumentative just to be argumentative now.


So what defines a 'wide speaker' if not its location?? That's exactly why I've asked Scott early on at what exact angle he placed his side surrounds. He refused to answer (in a constructive way). Guess he just did what Grimani recommends and probably for the very same reasons 



stikle said:


> And no, I don't have reflections nor dead spots in my room. Like Keith, I prefer my room fairly dead (much like a real movie theater), so I have applied treatments resulting in such.


Define 'fairly' dead. Grimani is talking about an RT of 300ms. I know rooms that are even lower.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I'm not really clear on why this is being argued. Seems like if you're not getting good imaging between your mains and side surrounds, there are many things that could affect that. Quick check of it is always phase tests on a calibration disc, placed between those channels. Mine tend to image nicely between the mains and surrounds, and if I don't get a nice stable image between them, I tweak distance/delay slightly until it snaps into place with a phase test playing.

Ultimately, it's a silly argument. If you can put wides there for objects, good on ya'. If you're doing wides instead of any pair of the bed channels, your priorities are wrong though, IMHO. Personally, having gone from 2 heights to 4 and having toyed with DSX wides briefly in the past, my opinion would be that 7.1.4 > 9.1.2 any day of the week. But then, my mains are pretty widely spaced anyway so that they match the sides of my projector screen.

Aren't most sounds typically just quickly panned through that region anyway? Why are we getting so hung up on what seems to be a fairly insignificant addition, all things considered?


----------



## batpig

Because arguing about minutia on the Internet is fun


----------



## NorthSky

I think it's worth mentioning again...for members and guests who missed the video: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

Please watch it in its entirety. ...It has very intelligent information...solid 3D sound immersion/foundation.


----------



## stikle

markus767 said:


> So what defines a 'wide speaker' if not its location?? That's exactly why I've asked Scott early on at what exact angle he placed his side surrounds. He refused to answer (in a constructive way). Guess he just did what Grimani recommends and probably for the very same reasons



Well, "side surrounds" go approximately at each end of your MLP and use the "Sound Left" and "Surround Right" binding posts on your AVR.

"Wide speakers" go between the side surrounds and your Front Left/Right and use the "Wide Left" and "Wide Right" binding posts on the AVR.

Two totally different things.

I don't know what angle mine are at...but you have me curious now. And I just got one of those laser angle finder level tools that others were talking about, so I'll check it out when I get home. Originally I had the side surrounds right at the ends of the couch. When I installed overheads for Atmos, I had to move the couch forward a little in order to be as close to the Dolby spec for angle as possible. That put my side surrounds a little behind the couch.




markus767 said:


> Define 'fairly' dead. Grimani is talking about an RT of 300ms. I know rooms that are even lower.


I have no way of measuring that. But there was a dramatic difference when I put curtains up over the window and doorway, removed a framed poster, and added a bunch of sound treatments to the walls. The room is carpeted and has a big couch, so reflective surfaces are pretty much removed/tamed.

Granted, it's subjective and not at all AV Sciencey, but I no longer have audible echoes like I did before. Hence the "fairly" dead. It could probably be deaderer, but that would require equipment that I don't own to figure out.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> I thought you were using two receivers in your room Scott? ...You could probably do your own "custom" 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup?



Yeeesssss that's true but what product on the market can do >7.1.4 speakers? None.

I used a workaround to go beyond 7.1.4 audio.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> So what defines a 'wide speaker' if not its location??


The content.


----------



## markus767

stikle said:


> I don't know what angle mine are at


Speaker angle/location is crucial to perceived spaciousness, localization and auditory scene. 'Wide' is commonly defined as a speaker between 30° and 90°.



stikle said:


> I have no way of measuring that.


Well in that case it's about time to start measuring. You might base your opinion on facts that are not relevant to the discussion.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> The content.


Pardon?


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Mine tend to image nicely between the mains and surrounds, and if I don't get a nice stable image between them, I tweak distance/delay slightly until it snaps into place with a phase test playing.


The alternate solution to get imaging at that location is to add a pair of wides. Were it not for limited resources (11-speaker limit on mainstream products), there probably wouldn't be much of a discussion. But since AVRs max out at 11 speakers, there is a choice to be made about where it makes most sense to replace phantom images with actual speakers: above you or in front of you. Hence the discussion.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Pardon?





markus767 said:


> So what defines a 'wide speaker' if not its location??


The content. That's what 'defines' the difference between a "wide" and a side surround. Location is secondary to it's content.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> The alternate solution to get imaging at that location is to add a pair of wides. Were it not for limited resources (11-speaker limit on mainstream products), there probably wouldn't be much of a discussion. But since AVRs max out at 11 speakers, there is a choice to be made about where it makes most sense to replace phantom images with actual speakers: above you or in front of you. Hence the discussion.


Will be interesting to see what kind of crap we'll be complaining about once we've had our fill of 16ch 9.1.6 systems being the norm.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> The content. That's what 'defines' the difference between a "wide" and a side surround. Location is secondary to it's content.


So why did you place your surrounds at typical wide locations and not at the side where the content 'expects' them per your 'theory'?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeeesssss that's true but what product on the market can do >7.1.4 speakers? None.
> 
> I used a workaround to go beyond 7.1.4 audio.


I agree with you Scott, and most members here are in your exact same situation...so we all have to compromise somehow, and experiment some more too. 
All our rooms (on average) are smaller than a dedicated home theater room that some folks have here...say 25-30 feet long by 16-18 feet wide. 
So a 7.1.4 Atmos setup is real nice for the majority of us...completely agree with you here. And we just cross our fingers for the next level...*9.1.4* 
...In the affordable department. 

♦ One idea: If we put our two main front speakers @ an angle of say 60-70° (between the two) or so, and our two main side surrounds @ an angle of say 70-80° to each side of the MLP...then we help fill that entire front soundstage (170° or so). ...Where it counts the most. 

Then if people room's allowed to; two rear surrounds, @ an angle of roughly 165-170° each (calculated from the main center point...the center channel speaker).

And last, Top Middle overhead speakers...as indicated by Tony Grimani positioning. 
* ...That's for rooms smaller than what he's talking about in the interview by Scott.
And if we want to add two more speakers, because right now we are @ 7.1.2, we can experiment...with two more on the horizontal plane "floor speakers" or two more overhead (front or rear - I would go front). Now we have what we have been talking for over a year here, which is the common ground, a *7.1.4* Dolby Atmos setup..for rooms that can accommodate it. ...And the *9.1.2* configuration is another worthwhile experimenting Atmos setup,
in my sincere acoustical opinion. 

Man, I just luv this hobby!


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> So why did you place your surrounds at typical wide locations and not at the side where the content 'expects' them per your 'theory'?


Because I thought it would be interesting and it was. Worked very well actually.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Because I thought it would be interesting and it was. Worked very well actually.


Per your theory it shouldn't. Per Grimani (and others) it would. And it obviously did.


----------



## Scott Simonian

If you want to believe that I was doing it to fill some sort of "gap" which I wasn't. I just wanted a much much larger surround field and it worked.

What was my "theory" again? Are you actually trying to make some point or just argue? Cuz I have no idea what you're on about anymore.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> If you want to believe that I was doing it to fill some sort of "gap" which I wasn't. I just wanted a much much larger surround field and it worked.


'Larger surround field' - so there was something missing by not having a speaker at about 60°? Then you placed a speaker there even if the content wasn't mixed for that location? Would it be completely wrong to call that missing part a 'sonic hole'?



Scott Simonian said:


> What was my "theory" again? Are you actually trying to make some point or just argue? Cuz I have no idea what you're on about anymore.


You keep on replying to my posts so there must be something you would like to discuss. What your theory is? You might need to ask yourself. I don't know, that's why we're having this 'discussion'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> 'Larger surround field' - so there was something missing by not having a speaker at about 60°? Then you placed a speaker there even if the content wasn't mixed for that location? Would it be completely wrong to call that missing part a 'sonic hole'?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on replying to my posts so there must be something you would like to discuss. What your theory is? You might need to ask yourself. I don't know, that's why we're having this 'discussion'.


Yeah, you're constantly calling me out like I owe you something.

I was trying something for fun and educational interest. Seems maybe you'd learn something out of doing more of that than only studying papers and telling people what they should do based off reading such papers.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, you're constantly calling me out like I owe you something.


You're the one making claims not me. I'm just asking how you arrived at your conclusions. Buddy came by, ordered pizza, watched a movie, spaceship exploded on the right (although there is no speaker dude!), both nodded – that might be enough 'proof' for you to present it on a forum as the holy grail but I beg to differ.



Scott Simonian said:


> I was trying something for fun and educational interest. Seems maybe you'd learn something out of doing more of that than only studying papers and telling people what they should do based off reading such papers.


Those papers are actually based on listening test with real people. Contrary to what you present those studies are documented and can be reproduced. Why would I ignore that data? Only audiophiles that can hear the grass grow would.

And what makes you think that I 'only study papers'? Do you think Grimani only studies papers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol, so am I not "real people"? So when I perform a listening test it is not valid because .... why? I'll go write a paper about it, I guess. 


Anyway... I heard "pizza" and that's good enough for me. I can get on board _that_ train.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I think there is a thread about Atmos somewhere in here.

Dig deep, real peoples.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, so am I not "real people"? So when I perform a listening test it is not valid because .... why? I'll go write a paper about it, I guess.


Your listening test is probably not valid in a scientific context for multiple reasons. This website is titled AVS and the S stands for science, so please forgive me if I expect something a bit more serious than 'sounds good to me – it must be the truth'...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol well then I'll remember to put on my lab coat next time I want to add something useful to these forums.




Good lord.


----------



## gammanuc

With this talk of wides maybe it's good time to ask this question. I thought I read a discussion about this previously but I can't find it. Right now I have my system set up as 7.1.4 with the in-ceiling speakers set as TF and TR. I also have wides installed as I was using them instead of the SB for a while. My question is there configuration whereby I can easily switch back and forth between having FW and SB?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, I know you posted some youtube videos about your room not too long ago, and real cool of you by the way, ...I cannot recall exactly the angle of your two main front flankers relative to your MLP...somewhere in the vicinity of 30° on each side of your center channel speaker?

And your main [email protected] around 75° or so? 

Thanks Scott. 

________

And it's all good...Markus is an honest guy with a good head on his shoulder...he is advancing in the discussion...nothing else.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol well then I'll remember to put on my lab coat next time I want to add something useful to these forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord.


Yeah, let's scratch that 'S' and replace it with a 'F' for 'fans' or 'C' for consumers. That's just great.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, I know you posted some youtube videos about your room not too long ago, and real cool of you by the way, ...I cannot recall exactly the angle of your two main front flankers relative to your MLP...somewhere in the vicinity of 30° on each side of your center channel speaker?
> 
> And your main [email protected] around 75° or so?
> 
> Thanks Scott.


I don't know what the actual degree number is and I don't really care to measure it. It's only useful number to have for pedantic posters on the internet.  

I moved them this weekend about 1.5ft closer to the MLP. Will listen to more stuff and see how it compares to the previous position. So far, smaller surround field (compared to before) but wider front sound stage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Yeah, let's scratch that 'S' and replace it with a 'F' for 'fans' or 'C' for consumers. That's just great.


It's not official until someone on the internet posts a blog about it.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Aside from the Atmos movie titles Brian listed, don't forget the complete first and second seasons of Game of Thrones.


I have mine pre-ordered.


----------



## Nalleh

gammanuc said:


> With this talk of wides maybe it's good time to ask this question. I thought I read a discussion about this previously but I can't find it. Right now I have my system set up as 7.1.4 with the in-ceiling speakers set as TF and TR. I also have wides installed as I was using them instead of the SB for a while. My question is there configuration whereby I can easily switch back and forth between having FW and SB?


Sure, if you have a Denon or Marantz.

If both wides and sb's are connected when you run Audyssey, then just deactivate the one's you don't want in speaker setup.

Deactivate sb, and wides kick in. Activate sb, and wides go silent (in native Atmos only).


----------



## gammanuc

Nalleh said:


> Sure, if you have a Denon or Marantz.
> 
> If both wides and sb's are connected when you run Audyssey, then just deactivate the one's you don't want in speaker setup.
> 
> Deactivate sb, and wides kick in. Activate sb, and wides go silent (in native Atmos only).


Thanks, too easy! 
Yes should have mentioned I have an X5200. Time to do some comparing.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't know what the actual degree number is and I don't really care to measure it. It's only useful number to have for pedantic posters on the internet.


Oh I see.
* I thought it would be nice to know...just to give us a rough idea on your front soundstage sound covering. ...I'll try to locate those videos.  



> I moved them this weekend about 1.5ft closer to the MLP. Will listen to more stuff and see how it compares to the previous position. So far, smaller surround field (compared to before) but wider front sound stage.


Now, that's very interesting...pertinent information. Now we're talking.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Sure, if you have a Denon or Marantz.
> 
> If both wides and sb's are connected when you run Audyssey, then just deactivate the one's you don't want in speaker setup.
> 
> Deactivate sb, and wides kick in. Activate sb, and wides go silent (in native Atmos only).


Is there no easier way? No button for a quick switch on the remote, even?

My previous receiver Onkyo TXNR3007 let's you hook up 7.1+FH+FW all at once but could only decode 9.1 at the most. There was a button called surround SP or something like that that let's you instantly toggle between such a system.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Now, that's very interesting...pertinent information. Now we're talking.


Well hey, I say all sorts of interesting things here at AVS all the time. Only one person requires I wear a lab coat and goggles before it's worth his time. 

But really...


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Sure, if you have a Denon or Marantz.
> 
> If both wides and sb's are connected when you run Audyssey, then just deactivate the one's you don't want in speaker setup.
> 
> Deactivate sb, and wides kick in. Activate sb, and wides go silent (in native Atmos only).


And no re-run of Audyssey or config reload required?
If yes, that is worth a try..


----------



## bargervais

You know what's nice, with more and more Blu-Rays becoming available each month. We can now choose what we want to buy, not solely on buying because it has an Atmos mix but because we actually may enjoy the film. I looking forward to the release of UHD Blu-Ray's and Blu-Ray players with immersive sound.


----------



## Nalleh

gammanuc said:


> Thanks, too easy!
> Yes should have mentioned I have an X5200. Time to do some comparing.


You're welcome 

Happy listening 



Scott Simonian said:


> Is there no easier way? No button for a quick switch on the remote, even?
> 
> My previous receiver Onkyo TXNR3007 let's you hook up 7.1+FH+FW all at once but could only decode 9.1 at the most. There was a button called surround SP or something like that that let's you instantly toggle between such a system.


Not that I know of, but it takes less than 5 seconds, so no worries 

At least it is a lot easier than on your Yammie , LoooL .



aaranddeeman said:


> And no re-run of Audyssey or config reload required?
> If yes, that is worth a try..


Correct, if as I said they are all already Audyssey'ed 

EDIT: To activate the wides, you can instead deactivate height2= wides kick in for a genuine 9.1.2.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Not that I know of, but it takes less than 5 seconds, so no worries
> 
> At least it is a lot easier than on your Yammie , LoooL .



Hahahahah .........._hhhhheeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy!_


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos | Experiment*

Alright Scott, I located your three videos (hope you don't mind):














______

So now you have a different angle for your two main side surrounds, and 1.5 feet closer to the MLP, as I just quoted you above...post number 30395.

From your videos I'm trying to determine, again I hope you don't mind...all @ the service of Audio Science, the angles of both your two main front L and R speakers, and your two main side surrounds, all in relation to your MLP. ...It's tough just from a video...I can only guess...without any confirmed accuracy. ...And again, all in the service of Audio Science, and of course if you don't mind too much. 

The Dolby Atmos experts have their own recommendation, the THX experts have theirs, and Anthony Grimani with his own team have his.
And they all have slight variances...and it's very important about the room's size and as well the room's own acoustical properties.

We have been discussing the role of the Front Width Channels right now, and the other important aspect is the positioning of the pair or two pair of overhead Dolby Atmos speakers.
Your room Scott is a great room for experimenting, I like it a lot, and you can bring a lot of great audio science (you already do and you still do) to our own rooms of similar proportions. 

So, to be all on a similar page, let's take your room as the *Main Reference Room* for now; because it is an average dimensional room that most of us here have in their home to use as the "Movie" room. We can add the Music equation too because multichannel music, and stereo too, can harmoniously coexist in the same room with the same speaker's arrangement...no doubt about it. 

I will elaborate on this as time goes by. For right now I have some home activities that would be cool to attend to. ...I shall return...it's a great Dolby Atmos "immersive" subject. 
1) Front Width channel speakers. 2) Best Atmos overhead speakers positioning. And your room Scott is the Reference Room for this project.  We'll work on it for best optimal immersive Dolby Atmos surround sound (the "Magic Sound Bubble"). ...And that is if you don't mind, of course. 

Then when we have our reference room, yours, we can build from there and see what makes good sense to other member's rooms. 
Again, no two rooms are the same, and they certainly don't sound the same. 

I'll be back...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Thanks, Bob. I'll get back to the rest of your post later as I'm closing up shop (office) and heading out for dinner.

This other video lets you see behind the screen. Though I may have tugged around the left and right horns before putting the screen up. Honestly, I don't remember and it doesn't matter.


----------



## Spanglo

Wow Scott, that's a lot of speaker and wattage for such a small space  

I like your well thought out, brute-force approach.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks, Bob. I'll get back to the rest of your post later as I'm closing up shop (office) and heading out for dinner.
> 
> This other video lets you see behind the screen. Though I may have tugged around the left and right horns before putting the screen up. Honestly, I don't remember and it doesn't matter.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5wuJFjVgU


----------



## asere

When doing DSU do you feel it takes away from the mains and surrounds to place sound overhead?
I notice with non DSU the mains seen fuller and louder and with DSU the mains are not as full and have to turn the volume up.
Even the dialog lessens.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## smurraybhm

markus767 said:


> Or maybe reflections in your room are simply too loud. In that case there are no holes but there's also not really good localization and clarity. You'll know the difference once you've heard it.


Give me a break. We get it, you know your stuff, great contributions on the 88A thread, but in typical Marcus fashion no one else knows what the hell they are doing if Marcus disagrees. My room sounds great, any more speakers would be a waste and I don't need someone who can't hear it to tell me it's refections. Take a poll we can't all be wrong ex in your mind.


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol well then I'll remember to put on my lab coat next time I want to add something useful to these forums.
> 
> Good lord.


Don't forget the pocket protector


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Is there no easier way? No button for a quick switch on the remote, even?
> 
> My previous receiver Onkyo TXNR3007 let's you hook up 7.1+FH+FW all at once but could only decode 9.1 at the most. There was a button called surround SP or something like that that let's you instantly toggle between such a system.


The limitation is that Atmos gives the overheads priority over the wides. So with 13 speakers connected you will always get 7.1.4. There is no parameter for Atmos which allows you to say "let's do 9.1.2 now". So the only way is to disable Height2 in the speaker config so the processor doesn't know it's there. 

The speaker parameter you describe from your Onkyo does exist for upmixers like DSX or Neo:X. It's just an Atmos thing.


----------



## speeddeacon

bargervais said:


> I have mine pre-ordered.



+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## speeddeacon

smurraybhm said:


> Take a pole we can't all be wrong ex in your mind.



http://www.avsforum.com/showthread.php?t=2115746



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Correct, if as I said they are all already Audyssey'ed
> 
> EDIT: To activate the wides, you can instead deactivate height2= wides kick in for a genuine 9.1.2.


Thanks.
I have wired 13 (+2 Scatmos) speakers that include the wides and they are silent almost all the time.
So I can now try 9.1.2 or 9.1.2 (along with 7.1.4) ... 



Edit : So basically the procedure is to change amp. assign and associated speaker configuration? or there is some quicker way?


----------



## HT-Eman

Is Anthony Grimani a member on AVS ? Would like for him to log in and join the discussion .


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks.
> I have wired 13 (+2 Scatmos) speakers that include the wides and they are silent almost all the time.
> So I can now try 9.1.2 or 9.1.2 (along with 7.1.4) ...


Yuup 



aaranddeeman said:


> Edit : So basically the procedure is to change amp. assign and associated speaker configuration? or there is some quicker way?


No, no!! Do not touch amp assign! Go to speaker config and set said speaker to "none". This will make the speaker count 9 active, but since the AVR can do 11, and your wides are available, it switches them on, ending in 11 active speakers.


----------



## speeddeacon

All this banter is, well, entertaining and it really just solidifies the notion that there is no one size fits all. Scott clearly prefers multiple overheads as he has ingeniously devised a way to extract a third row of "discrete" overheads. Markus clearly prefers the additional base pair of wides. That is pretty much is what it boils down to, as I see it anyway. They are simply individual preferences, nothing more.

Northsky has pointed out that not everyone has even a small dedicated home theater as described by Mr. Grimani. To go beyond that, we all have different seating layouts, listening positions and room shapes that confound the environment even more. So what works well in one environment may not in another.

If, for the sake of discussion, we can agree to discuss the matter based on a ideal room of defined proportions, say 20 x 30, x 10, acoustically treated properly and with a single listening position, then discussions have a common foundation. I'm reminded of the Atmos press demo where they played Atmos enabled vs. in ceiling speakers. Most Impressions that I've heard or read preferred the in ceiling configuration. So here you have a bunch of people hearing the same thing in the same place with a relative consensus. That is valuable info.

Since we are limited to 11 channel single processor decoding we are stuck, for now, with a choice of 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. Some, with more disposable cash, may opt for the 8802A and 13 channels of amplification, that allows for wides and four overheads from a connection standpoint. It still won't decode more than 11 channels but at least you can easily change from one config to another without changing setup and/or speaker connections.

I have a narrow, long, irregularly shaped room with three rows of seating. My MLP is not centered on the short axis (I sit on the left of a two seat row). I don't have an optimal location for a wide on one side and my rear surrounds are pretty close to one another ( a la THX) due to an irregularly shaped back wall. Fortunately I have decent spacing for all the speakers and 9' ceilings so I get good channel separation. My wish would be for Atmos to allow 11.x.6 processing with the addition of a discrete overhead middle, front (center) heights and wides and for mainstream manufacturers to produce the capable equipment. Of course then I'd probably want an additional row of side surrounds and, well it goes on and on. 

For now at least, I'd like a receiver that provides the option of connecting separate wides and front heights for DSP, in addition to 7.1.4 Atmos that doesn't break the bank so I could choose between 11.1, 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 with a press of a button. It seems like it should be simple enough but the manufacturers stopped just shy of it. I'd even be ok if it required 4 channels of external amplification to accomplish it.

All of this is in regard to a handful of movies at this point. Sure the various manufacturers all have their versions of DSP that can make use of various speaker configs for just about any movie out there, but that's a different topic. At least I think that Atmos, and hopefully all forms of immersive audio, sound pretty darn terrific through whatever method of delivery.

I can't wait for DTS:X to arrive. It may, or may not, open another can of worms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

speeddeacon said:


> Since we are limited to 11 channel single processor decoding we are stuck, for now, with a choice of 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. Some, with more disposable cash, may opt for the 8802A and 13 channels of amplification, that allows for wides and four overheads from a connection standpoint. It still won't decode more than 11 channels but at least you can easily change from one config to another without changing setup and/or speaker connections.
> (snip)
> For now at least, I'd like a receiver that provides the option of connecting separate wides and front heights for DSP, in addition to 7.1.4 Atmos that doesn't break the bank so I could choose between 11.1, 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 with a press of a button. It seems like it should be simple enough but the manufacturers stopped just shy of it. I'd even be ok if it required 4 channels of external amplification to accomplish it.


FYI but you don't have to splurge on the 8802A and a rack full of amps to do it. Any of the 11ch capable D+M models will do what you ask with (at least) 4 additional channels of amplification to facilitate 13 connected speakers. 

You can do 7.1 base plus front height, front wide, and height2 (your choice of Top Middle, Top Rear or Rear Height).


----------



## NorthSky

HT-Eman said:


> Is Anthony Grimani a member on AVS ? Would like for him to log in and join the discussion .


He is on few videos (acoustic rooms) from Scott Wilkinson, the interviewer, but I don't think Mr. Grimani is registered as a member here @ AVSF.
He has probably his own website though, and perhaps a Facebook account (Twitter) and few blogs here and there.

I believe he was working with a THX team before...and might still.


----------



## markus767

speeddeacon said:


> All this banter is, well, entertaining and it really just solidifies the notion that there is no one size fits all. Scott clearly prefers multiple overheads as he has ingeniously devised a way to extract a third row of "discrete" overheads. Markus clearly prefers the additional base pair of wides. That is pretty much is what it boils down to, as I see it anyway. They are simply individual preferences, nothing more.


The preference for wides (i.e. more spaciousness) seems to be general – see Toole "Sound Reproduction". Guess that's why Scott moved his side surrounds forward.


----------



## pletwals

markus767 said:


> You do have wide speakers – your side surrounds. So was there a gap before or why did you place them like that?


Would speakers with a 24" SEOS count as wide speakers?


----------



## markus767

pletwals said:


> Would speakers with a 24" SEOS count as wide speakers?


? 'Wide speakers' is defined by the speaker location, not its directivity nor the content.


----------



## speeddeacon

batpig said:


> FYI but you don't have to splurge on the 8802A and a rack full of amps to do it. Any of the 11ch capable D+M models will do what you ask with (at least) 4 additional channels of amplification to facilitate 13 connected speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> You can do 7.1 base plus front height, front wide, and height2 (your choice of Top Middle, Top Rear or Rear Height).



I didn't realize you could toggle between 11.1 and 7.1.4 with a touch of a button on them. That's good to know.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pletwals

markus767 said:


> ? 'Wide speakers' is defined by the speaker location, not its directivity nor the content.


It was a joke, Markus...

I want to add this: you wrote earlier that a Width speaker is somewhere between 30° and 90°. I would reckon that's a bit "wide" . In Atmos speak, a Width speaker is ideally @ 60° with +/- 15° tolerance. Hence between 45 ° and 75°.

Surround 1 (first Surround starting from axis) in Atmos is nominally @ 75°, again with +/- 15° tolerance, hence between 60° and 90°. 

As you see, between 60° and 75° both Front Width and Surround 1 are possible...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> The content.


That is so blindingly obvious (and well worth saying) that I have started to believe that some posters are arguing for the sake of it now. In an Atmos system only objects are sent to the Wides and nothing at all is sent there with DSU. That is so not true for surrounds of course, so the spot where a speaker is placed clearly does not define it entirely. By moving the side surrounds forward one has NOT created or simulated Wides in the least.


----------



## markus767

pletwals said:


> It was a joke, Markus...


Guess a joke doesn't get better if it needs explanation.



pletwals said:


> I want to add this: you wrote earlier that a Width speaker is somewhere between 30° and 90°. I would reckon that's a bit "wide" . In Atmos speak, a Width speaker is ideally @ 60° with +/- 15° tolerance. Hence between 45 ° and 75°.
> 
> Surround 1 (first Surround starting from axis) in Atmos is nominally @ 75°, again with +/- 15° tolerance, hence between 60° and 90°.
> 
> As you see, between 60° and 75° both Front Width and Surround 1 are possible...


A lot is possible especially when looking at Dolby specs that try to please everybody


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> And what makes you think that I 'only study papers'? Do you think Grimani only studies papers?


If I am not mistaken, Grimani sells installations. As such he is a salesman as well as an engineer. Salesmen are, by their nature, biased sources and what they say should always be treated with circumspection. Who knows why he hears his 'sonic black hole' that few of us others hear? Maybe when selling an installation it makes sense to sell another pair of speakers for the 'wide' location and also sell 4 on the ceiling 'to cover all bases' and to 'give backwards compatibility' with other formats like DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX etc. Not saying he does of course - just that it makes commercial sense. And as such, it can introduce bias and the illusion of problems where none exist. Solving problems = a bigger bill at the end of the process.

So, who else, who independently of a sales operation, has pointed to this black hole that can only be filled with extra, 'wide' speakers? Toole? Olive? Anyone? Maybe we can attach more credence to their pronouncements on this discussion, if they exist.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't know what the actual degree number is and I don't really care to measure it. It's only useful number to have for pedantic posters on the internet.
> 
> I moved them this weekend about 1.5ft closer to the MLP. Will listen to more stuff and see how it compares to the previous position. So far, smaller surround field (compared to before) but wider front sound stage.


You moved your speakers?? And you didn't measure the effect? You just _listened_? Shame on you, Scott. Shame on you for coming here and telling us what you did and what you heard. People might be reading this and be inclined to do similar experiments in the quest to enjoy their HTs more. To help you, and them, I am buying a stock of white lab coats, thick glasses and very sharp, pointy pencils which I will soon be selling on the Internet. Anyone performing listening tests without this equipment can be safely ignored going forward.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Buddy came by, ordered pizza, watched a movie, spaceship exploded on the right (although there is no speaker dude!), both nodded – that might be enough 'proof' for you to present it on a forum as the holy grail but I beg to differ.


Is Scott presenting that as "proof" of anything? The way I read his posts, he's describing what happens and what he hears in his room. He's not trying to tell anyone else what to do in their own room but simply saying "this is what I did and this is what I heard". If that isn't good enough or scientific enough for you, well just ignore it. You don't have to do it the way Scott does it, and he doesn't have to do it the way you do it. 

You say the above as though there is something 'wrong' with watching a movie and hearing a spaceship explode on the right, where there is no physical speaker. So long as he hears the sound coming from where it apparently should, then that is what he, and many, want. If he doesn't feel the need for wide speakers, he doesn't. If you do, you do. BTW, I always thought you had a 5.1 system - can you remind us of your configuration and the angles you placed the speakers, and the wides, at? (I assume you do have wides. Or do you have a sonic hole?).


----------



## kbarnes701

speeddeacon said:


> I'm reminded of the Atmos press demo where they played Atmos enabled vs. in ceiling speakers. Most Impressions that I've heard or read preferred the in ceiling configuration. So here you have a bunch of people hearing the same thing in the same place with a relative consensus. That is valuable info.


Other way around. I went to two different demos at Dolby HQ in London and the Atmos upfirers were preferred, at both, by most people there (industry professionals, AV journalists etc). I think this was reflected (NPI!) at all of the demos with the exception of the one in NYC where the reverse was the case.


----------



## speeddeacon

kbarnes701 said:


> Other way around. I went to two different demos at Dolby HQ in London and the Atmos upfirers were preferred, at both, by most people there (industry professionals, AV journalists etc). I think this was reflected (NPI!) at all of the demos with the exception of the one in NYC where the reverse was the case.



There you go, still no one size fits all. The ol' direct/reflecting design rears it's head once again. Omar Bose would be proud, LOL.

Which did you prefer, by the way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Yuup
> 
> 
> 
> No, no!! Do not touch amp assign! Go to speaker config and set said speaker to "none". This will make the speaker count 9 active, but since the AVR can do 11, and your wides are available, it switches them on, ending in 11 active speakers.


Ah. Thanks.
Looks like I will most likely use the 5(+2W).1.4 due to the Scatmos. Else I have to do a bit swapping to have only FH+TM to achieve the true 9.1.2
But anyways, good information.


----------



## petetherock

This is possibly the most agitated brace of pages in this Atmos thread for a while...

Have a beer and chill ..


----------



## speeddeacon

batpig said:


> FYI but you don't have to splurge on the 8802A and a rack full of amps to do it. Any of the 11ch capable D+M models will do what you ask with (at least) 4 additional channels of amplification to facilitate 13 connected speakers.
> 
> You can do 7.1 base plus front height, front wide, and height2 (your choice of Top Middle, Top Rear or Rear Height).





speeddeacon said:


> I didn't realize you could toggle between 11.1 and 7.1.4 with a touch of a button on them. That's good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


So I looked at the Marantz site (don't know about Denon but I'm assuming they would be the same) and it appears they do not allow for toggling between 11.1 and 7.1.4, unless there is something done internally that allows the speaker terminals and the RCA pre-outs to be configured differently for a given channel. It appears you could toggle between 9.1 (and 9.1.2) and 7.1.4 but not 11.1 and 7.1.4. I can already choose between a 9.1.2 and a 7.1.4 on the Yamaha by setting 2 speaker patterns. 

At least D+M allow for front wides, which Yamaha does not, but that is the only difference I see between the two (connectivity wise). I wonder that would happen if rear presence was placed in the front wide position with the Yamaha and letting YPAO did the calibration. Would it then treat the rear presence as a front wide or would it throw the rear presence content in front of the MLP anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

speeddeacon said:


> There you go, still no one size fits all. The ol' direct/reflecting design rears it's head once again. Omar Bose would be proud, LOL.
> 
> Which did you prefer, by the way?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I marginally preferred the physical on-ceiling speakers. The difference between them is that the upfirers give a slightly more 'diffuse' effect, which is very pleasing and it is easy to see why so many liked it. The physical speakers give a more 'precise' effect. Since I personally value precision of sound placement in the soundstage very highly, it was always going to be the physical speakers for me. However, if for whatever reason I couldn’t do physical speakers, I would not hesitate to use upfirers. I don't see them as a sort of 'second best' but as a genuine alternative. TBH I’d be happy with either solution. 

It was interesting to see so many industry pros putting their hands up for the upfirers as the 'best' when the guys doing the demo played them blind in comparison with the physical speakers (with instant switching between the two via some sort of computer setup). They were all astonished that they had chosen the upfirers. I'd say that I was in a significant minority in choosing the physical speakers as my preferred route. HST, I bet they have all installed speakers on their ceiling!


----------



## chi_guy50

speeddeacon said:


> *So I looked at the Marantz site (don't know about Denon but I'm assuming they would be the same) and it appears they do not allow for toggling between 11.1 and 7.1.4*, unless there is something done internally that allows the speaker terminals and the RCA pre-outs to be configured differently for a given channel. It appears you could toggle between 9.1 (and 9.1.2) and 7.1.4 but not 11.1 and 7.1.4. I can already choose between a 9.1.2 and a 7.1.4 on the Yamaha by setting 2 speaker patterns.
> 
> At least D+M allow for front wides, which Yamaha does not, but that is the only difference I see between the two (connectivity wise). I wonder that would happen if rear presence was placed in the front wide position with the Yamaha and letting YPAO did the calibration. Would it then treat the rear presence as a front wide or would it throw the rear presence content in front of the MLP anyway.


I do this on a daily basis with my Denon AVR-X5200W. My music sources always default to Neo:X 11.1 and my video sources to DSU 7.1.4 so changing inputs will automatically change the surround mode/speaker configuration. You can even program a couple of Quick Select buttons to toggle between 11.1 (Neo:X or A-DSX) and 7.1.4 (DSU) from the same source with the press of a single button.


----------



## speeddeacon

chi_guy50 said:


> I do this on a daily basis with my Denon AVR-X5200W. My music sources always default to Neo:X 11.1 and my video sources to DSU 7.1.4 so changing inputs will automatically change the surround mode/speaker configuration. You can even program a couple of Quick Select buttons to toggle between 11.1 (Neo:X or A-DSX) and 7.1.4 (DSU) from the same source with the press of a single button.


Wow, I wish it were obvious on their websites so I could have made a more informed decision. Just to be clear though, the front height speakers used in 11.1 configuration are physically different than the overhead fronts used in Atmos 7.1.4, so you have 15 total speakers, correct? I just want to be sure we are on the same page.


----------



## chi_guy50

speeddeacon said:


> Wow, I wish it were obvious on their websites so I could have made a more informed decision. Just to be clear though, *the front height speakers used in 11.1 configuration are physically different than the overhead fronts used in Atmos 7.1.4*, so you have 15 total speakers, correct? I just want to be sure we are on the same page.


No, the key element here is to assign the front overhead pair as Front Height (FH), since this is the only overhead speaker assignment shared by Atmos/DSU, Neo:X, and A-DSX. (This will probably change once DTS:X/Neural:X is available depending on how D+M implement the new codec.)

As batpig has explained--and as you can see in the configuration detailed in my sig--you must connect and have Audyssey calibrate all 13 speakers plus SW using a minimum of four channels of external amplification (one channel for each of the 13 speakers) and then you can access the dual 11ch modes of 11.1/7.1.4 (or 9.1.2 as explained above by Nalleh).


----------



## speeddeacon

chi_guy50 said:


> No, the key element here is to assign the front overhead pair as Front Height (FH), since this is the only overhead speaker assignment shared by Atmos/DSU, Neo:X, and A-DSX. (This will probably change once DTS:X/Neural:X is available depending on how D+M implement the new codec.)
> 
> As batpig has explained--and as you can see in the configuration detailed in my sig--you must connect and have Audyssey calibrate all 13 speakers plus SW using a minimum of four channels of external amplification (one channel for each of the 13 speakers) and then you can access the dual 11ch modes of 11.1/7.1.4 (or 9.1.2 as explained above by Nalleh).


That's what I thought, we are on a different page so I didn't make myself perfectly clear I guess. The front height speakers I desire will be in the same plane as my front and center channels and will be mounted on the front wall above my projection screen. I would use this for non-Atmos DSP (until they allow enabling of 9.1.4, etc.). I would like to have 15 discrete _connections_ (any combo of speaker level and pre-out for external amp) that allows me to simply to choose 11.1 (with wides plus front heights positioned as above active) or Atmos 7.1.4 (with front and rear overheads active). Technically it should be possible, the manufacturers would just need to supply two more channel connection. It is still only 11 active channels at one time and they already do the processing, they are just two channels short on connections. 

As I said, this is my wish, but it is not available at this point, even with D+M. Since Yamaha doesn't even utilize front wide in their DSPs so I'm not missing out of not having them. As it stands, I can have front presence for 9.1.2, but it involves disconnecting one set of overhead channels and connecting the front heights and selecting Pattern 2. I decided not to do it at this time, but probably will when more than 11 channels of processing (simultaneously) is available (which will require a new receiver/pp).

Thanks for the clarification I appreciate it. Sorry to have gone down the rabbit hole for a minute.


----------



## stikle

markus767 said:


> Yeah, let's scratch that 'S' and replace it with a 'F' for 'fans' or 'C' for consumers. That's just great.



I guess I should stop posting on AVS then since I don't have more than a high school diploma. No PHD in Science here. I should probably just dig my old boom box out of the garage and go back to that also since apparently nothing I've learned and applied from AVS from other general consumers has validity.


----------



## markus767

stikle said:


> I guess I should stop posting on AVS then since I don't have more than a high school diploma. No PHD in Science here. I should probably just dig my old boom box out of the garage and go back to that also since apparently nothing I've learned and applied from AVS from other general consumers has validity.


No I should stop posting here if opinions and anecdotal evidence is valued more than proper science. This place has become ugly.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> No I should stop posting here if opinions and anecdotal evidence is valued more than proper science. This place has become ugly.


I think _you_ have decided that we think that "opinions and anecdotal evidence" are more valued than proper science.

They are one in the same and equally valuable.

Here's how things work in the real world: you get studies of theory and then .... *you apply them.*

Science comes first then the anecdotal reality.

You can't have one without the other. This is an open forum for *enthusiasts*.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I think _you_ have decided that we think that "opinions and anecdotal evidence" are more valued than proper science.


You should read through your older posts from time to time.


----------



## Scott Simonian

What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> What's that supposed to mean?


I’d let it go Scott. Markus is right about one thing which is that the thread is getting 'ugly' as he put it. You will not convince him without producing some objective proof such as measurements and he will not convince you that you are hallucinating the sounds you can distinctly hear where there are no speakers, so perhaps it is time to get back to Atmos?

All that seems to have been really said in dozens of posts is: physical speakers will image more strongly than phantoms. Nobody disputes that. Similarly, our systems can produce good phantom images where there are no physical speakers. Nobody who has heard this phenomenon disputes that (I hope). 

The only other issue is one of preference. Do you want to use 2 of your total 11 speakers (in affordable AVRs) at listener level in the wides position and thus only have 2 above you? Or do you want to have 4 above you and just 7 around you? IOW, do you favour 9.2.2 or 7.2.4? I am firmly in the latter camp since I do not feel any need for wides to improve the side imaging at the expense of fewer speakers and front-to-back pans above me. Either way one has to sacrifice something, which is the nature of choice. I prefer to sacrifice more solid side imaging in favor of better overhead imaging. Others will disagree and have their own priorities.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> What's that supposed to mean?


That means I disagree with your statement, "I think you have decided that we think that "opinions and anecdotal evidence" are more valued than proper science." I didn't have to decide anything, just read. I'm out. This 'discussion' leads nowhere.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks, Bob. I'll get back to the rest of your post later as I'm closing up shop (office) and heading out for dinner.
> 
> This other video lets you see behind the screen. Though I may have tugged around the left and right horns before putting the screen up. Honestly, I don't remember and it doesn't matter.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5wuJFjVgU


Scott,

I totally enjoyed all of your home videos Bob and you posted.

What I really liked seeing were the 4 overhead speakers positions.

Also that the room size is not some giant room in a multiple million dollar 20,000 square foot home.


----------



## smurraybhm

markus767 said:


> No I should stop posting here if opinions and anecdotal evidence is valued more than proper science. This place has become ugly.


There are a lot of folks on AVS that are as well read, intelligent and tinker/experiment with things like you, but you are unique in your apparent enjoyment of trying to belittle those who differ with you. You never replied to Keith's question regarding your setup, please share. Those of us who are participating on this thread would like to know. My favorite posters on AVS (and I know this doesn't necessary apply to you) are those that quote a bunch of articles (like Toole) about sound, but never experiment on their own to see if their results match those that they read. Working at a very large research institution, having done it during grad school, all I can say is thank God research doesn't stop after a few published papers (or one written by someone who makes a living selling av solutions - can you say bias?) and people aren't afraid to challenge what they read (despite the possibility of being ridiculed for questioning the expert) as they seek out better solutions/results.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tigerhonaker said:


> Scott,
> 
> I totally enjoyed all of your home videos Bob and you posted.
> 
> What I really liked seeing were the 4 overhead speakers positions.
> 
> Also that the room size is not some giant room in a multiple million dollar 20,000 square foot home.


Thanks! Yes, it's just a regular ol' bedroom that was not being used. So there is nothing "special" about the construction though this year I built that structure to hold up the surround speakers and acoustic panels all around. It's pretty ugly but gets the job done.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Back on the subject of Atmos... I got a hold of San Andreas early and HOLY HELL! The movie itself is what you'd expect - a mindless disaster flick with The Rock. But the subject matter makes for some killer use of ALL the speakers! This one is demo worthy in every way. 



Just don't ask yourself questions like "Why hasn't his employer called about their missing helicopter?" Or "Why would you go on a rescue call with almost no fuel left?" And certainly don't question the impossibility of putting a helicopter where he puts it in the first scene of the movie. But beyond that, turn off your brain and bask in some outstanding Atmos audio! This one is maybe the best action mix I've heard in the format thus far.


----------



## Romans828

NorthSky said:


> The Dolby Atmos experts have their own recommendation, the THX experts have theirs, and Anthony Grimani with his own team have his.
> And they all have slight variances...and it's very important about the room's size and as well the room's own acoustical properties.


.....and the Erskine guys have their recommendations. This is what makes it difficult. Even the pros/experts disagree on the basics such as monopole vs bipole/dipole etc. It really comes down to what sounds best to you personally in your room...and what you can afford. The negative of that is the fact that experimentation is *VERY *expensive with this hobby. Wives typically aren't understanding in this area as well. We are looking for expert guidance and it is all over the place. In reality, any of the mentioned experts would probably make your room sound amazing (using different techniques) if you paid for their services.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks! Yes, it's just a regular ol' bedroom that was not being used. So there is nothing "special" about the construction though this year I built that structure to hold up the surround speakers and acoustic panels all around. It's pretty ugly but gets the job done.


Scott,

Not to get the on going, never ending, arguing started again by me.
I'm just glad some of the members actually just like discussing Atmos in general and not having to scientifically prove anything.
To me it is a simple as listen and straight forward as what does the listener want to hear.
If you hear what sounds good to you then IMHO you are all set.
It makes honestly no difference really what someone else thinks or wants that person to prove.
I'll add this comment also on this subject of Atmos.
I think or hope the majority add this simply because they want the latest and greatest in audio with movies.
But ............
I have made an attempt recently to simply read what members have posted on this 30,000 plus posting thread. Wow !!!
Some members simply want to add Atmos and find out what speakers, receivers, pre-amp processors, speaker placement etc in discussions like myself.
Then it seems there are others that want to beat a few things to death and won't back off no matter what anyone else says.

I'll personally continue to read and just maybe I'll at some point pick up on the new lingo (to me that is) and at some point make my final decisions on Atmos.
I'm still reading as close as I can to try to pick up on the X thing that continues to be mentioned.
I take it that is another new audio format that is coming soon.
What I'm wondering is the X (Whatever Audio Format) something also to do with Atmos or simply a new audio format that has nothing to do with Atmos?
As you can tell from my comments I'm still very much lost on most of this but I am at least still reading and hopefully picking up on things as time passes.

Also, I'm a guy that once my decisions are made don't really then continue to come to this internet site on the same subject.
The reason being after Atmos is installed, speakers are purchased and installed, Pre-Amp with Atmos is purchased.
I'll be in my home theater watching and totally enjoying all it's Super-Cool-Features in person.
In other words I'm trying to find out what I can about Atmos etc and then make it all happen.
Once that takes place I'm not one to argue, belittle other members for their decisions on any part of their HT systems.
It's their systems and if they are happy ???
I'm Happy for them even if what they have is totally different than what I have.


----------



## batpig

More "back to Atmos"....

Over the weekend I snagged a used lot of recent Sci-Fi/Action Blu-rays off Craigslist for a pittance ($60 total for about 17 Blu-rays including gems like Avengers, the complete Dark Knight Trilogy, the two Star Trek reboots, Edge of Tomorrow, etc). This significantly beefed up my stock of big-bangin' action flick soundtracks....

Anyway, one of the discs was American Sniper. I haven't had time to watch the full movie, but I queued up a few clips based on this review of "top Atmos moments" in the movie: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...-moments-from-american-sniper-on-bluray/23049

I watched the opening sequence, the "Butcher's on the move" sequence of Chapter 8, and then a few minutes of the final battle scene where the sandstorm hits.

HOLY MOLY. Regardless of what you think of the flick, those are most definitely demo-worthy scenes! Amazing, powerful and immersive audio....


----------



## Waboman

tigerhonaker said:


> Scott,
> 
> Not to get the on going, never ending, arguing started again by me.
> I'm just glad some of the members actually just like discussing Atmos in general and not having to scientifically prove anything.
> To me it is a simple as listen and and straight forward as what does the listener want to hear.
> If you hear what sounds good to you then IMHO you are all set.
> It makes honestly no difference really what someone else thinks or wants that person to prove.
> I'll add this comment also on this subject of Atmos.
> I think or hope the majority add this simply because they want the latest and greatest in audio with movies.
> But ............
> I have made an attempt recently to simply read what members have posted on this 30,000 plus posting thread. Wow !!!
> Some members simply want to add Atmos and find out what speakers, receivers, pre-amp processors, speaker placement etc in discussions like myself.
> Then it seems there are others that want to beat a few things to death and won't back off no matter what anyone else says.
> 
> I'll personally continue to read and just maybe I'll at some point pick up on the new lingo (to me that is) and at some point make my final decisions on Atmos.
> I'm still reading as close as I can to try to pick up on the X thing that continues to be mentioned.
> I take it that is another new audio format that is coming soon.
> What I'm wondering is the X (Whatever Audio Format) something also to do with Atmos or simply a new audio format that has nothing to do with Atmos?
> As you can tell from my comments I'm still very much lost on most of this but I am at least still reading and hopefully picking up on things as time passes.
> 
> Also, I'm a guy that once my decisions are made don't really then continue to come to this internet site on the same subject.
> The reason being after Atmos is installed, speakers are purchased and installed, Pre-Amp with Atmos is purchased.
> I'll be in my home theater watching and totally enjoying all it's Super-Cool-Features in person.
> In other words I'm trying to find out what I can about Atmos etc and then make it all happen.
> Once that takes place I'm not one to argue, belittle other members for their decisions on any part of their HT systems.
> It's their systems and if they are happy ???
> I'm Happy for them even if what they have is totally different than what I have.


Hi Terry,

I agree. What looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate to real world results. Lots of gray areas. Take for example my sports teams. They looked great on paper, however in the real world they were anything but and had me reaching for the ibuprofen. Bottom line, if it sounds good to you who cares what some guy in a lab coat puts down on paper. 

The X you're referring to is DTS X. It's their version of immersive audio. As of now it's all talk because DTS hasn't released much info on it at all. 

Good luck on your immersive journey.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> More "back to Atmos"....
> 
> Over the weekend I snagged a used lot of recent Sci-Fi/Action Blu-rays off Craigslist for a pittance ($60 total for about 17 Blu-rays including gems like Avengers, the complete Dark Knight Trilogy, the two Star Trek reboots, Edge of Tomorrow, etc). This significantly beefed up my stock of big-bangin' action flick soundtracks....
> 
> Anyway, one of the discs was American Sniper. I haven't had time to watch the full movie, but I queued up a few clips based on this review of "top Atmos moments" in the movie: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...-moments-from-american-sniper-on-bluray/23049
> 
> I watched the opening sequence, the "Butcher's on the move" sequence of Chapter 8, and then a few minutes of the final battle scene where the sandstorm hits.
> 
> HOLY MOLY. Regardless of what you think of the flick, those are most definitely demo-worthy scenes! Amazing, powerful and immersive audio....



Agreed. American Sniper is one of the best Atmos mixes I've ever heard and highly underrated in this regard. It's a truly immersive experience. Lots of good scenes but pretty much any part that isn't "back at home" is amazingly three dimensional.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I marginally preferred the physical on-ceiling speakers. The difference between them is that the upfirers give a slightly more 'diffuse' effect, which is very pleasing and it is easy to see why so many liked it. The physical speakers give a more 'precise' effect. Since I personally value precision of sound placement in the soundstage very highly, it was always going to be the physical speakers for me. However, if for whatever reason I couldn’t do physical speakers, I would not hesitate to use upfirers. I don't see them as a sort of 'second best' but as a genuine alternative. TBH I’d be happy with either solution.
> 
> It was interesting to see so many industry pros putting their hands up for the upfirers as the 'best' when the guys doing the demo played them blind in comparison with the physical speakers (with instant switching between the two via some sort of computer setup). They were all astonished that they had chosen the upfirers. I'd say that I was in a significant minority in choosing the physical speakers as my preferred route. HST, I bet they have all installed speakers on their ceiling!


 
I bet you're right!


I've read this type of comment several times from you, batpig, and a few others, and this mirrors my own observations from hearing the Pioneer AJ speakers and KEF at CEDIA 2014, as well as the Triads at AXPONA this spring (along with the 44-DAs I bought from Aras_Volodka this summer). The difference between physical vs. virtual height effects are IMO more personal preference than a clear winner, IF the Dolby speakers are set up correctly and you don't have room restrictions. OTOH there's also the overwhelming spending preference for physical height speakers of Atmos users in this thread, as well as another tack, which is that bounce speakers are an artificial way of generating content that ideally should be physical (and hence aren't kosher as a best practice, any more than a completely untreated room creating "fuller bass" and benefiting from room gain would be as a guide to general listening in your HT room). As a result, I almost feel that if you have Dolby speakers, you should dismiss your preference and go with what's theoretically best as well as reflects (pun intended) the 'best practice' of other enthusiasts as a key learning as soon as it's practical for you. Clearly that's physical speakers. And that leaves DTS:X out of the picture...which I don't think ANYONE has heard with Dolby speakers in operation except at the DTS lab itself.

The interesting thing, although it's probably not generalizable to much anyone else here, is that I'm fairly sure I can do a .6 setup with three pairs of Dolby speakers with Trinnov (it supports TF, TM and TR), at least temporarily until I move to physical speakers, and may well be the only Trinnov person on AVS that's using the Dolby speakers AFAIK, even short-term. Not sure how I can measure what the differences in panning or "precision" are except from what I hear empirically....


----------



## chi_guy50

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Back on the subject of Atmos... I got a hold of San Andreas early and HOLY HELL! The movie itself is what you'd expect - a mindless disaster flick with The Rock. But the subject matter makes for some killer use of ALL the speakers! This one is demo worthy in every way.
> 
> Just don't ask yourself questions like "Why hasn't his employer called about their missing helicopter?" Or "Why would you go on a rescue call with almost no fuel left?" And certainly don't question the impossibility of putting a helicopter where he puts it in the first scene of the movie. But beyond that, turn off your brain and bask in some outstanding Atmos audio! This one is maybe the best action mix I've heard in the format thus far.


And just to demonstrate the adage that there's nothing new under the sun:


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> No I should stop posting here if opinions and anecdotal evidence is valued more than proper science. This place has become ugly.


Markus... 

Once again it seems as if every conversation you engage in becomes contentious... 

Maybe the problem lies not in those you're engaging with... They're all different people... You are the constant. 

That's not meant as a nasty comment. 

I've taken many to ask in the past for speculating and preference over reality and fact... However it usually involves things I have first hand practical knowledge of. 

The Science of AVS is most definitely my weak point. I'm not a scholar, by any means... And my knowledge of acoustics and electronics is severely lacking compared to almost everyone else here. 

So I try and add my personal experience from my 25 year career... And even though I don't always understand the whys of what I've heard, or how it always achieved, or the SCIENCE behind my art (and yes mixing is an art) I don't think that disqualifies me in the least from engaging in discourse on AVS.

Many others here tell me it adds a lot to the discussion. 

This hobby is driven by consumers, hence the term CE... Look at the front page.. No offense to Scott or the writers, but it's clearly aimed at the broader market place, with niche discussions taking place when appropriate to really get into the nitty gritty of things. 

So getting back to my original thought.... 

I don't disagree with the study you're citing in this particular discussion... 

But you're so quick to dig into your position as an absolute that it almost ALWAYS turns contentious because you continue to ignore the fact that not everyone else is striving for perfection, or to follow the conclusoons of a study, or...

Me and most of my colleagues know what you do (from an engineering or scientific standpoint) about acoustics, etc. 

That doesn't stop us from making good sounding films, or amazing music... 

If we did would it make our work better? Maybe, maybe not .... Sometimes overthinking a situation has the detrimental effect. 

Listen... I'm only chiming in because I think you bring a lot to the party. But I've said it many times in the past... 

A lot of times HOW you say what you're saying (backed up by fact and research) and then adjust (or DONT ADJUST) to the person you're trying to engage leads to you picking up your toys and leaving.... You and I have gone through this personally many many times in the past. 

We're going through the same types of discussions in this country right now... It's called a presidential race... 

Plenty of science and absolutes on both sides of any given argument... And each one is indisputably correct in their own eyes. 

Every time I engage with some one on the other side (I'm happy to admit my liberal roots... I do work in Hollywood after all..) they bring out "facts," "lack of consensus" and "science" that are contrary to my research and personal experience....

Audio and acoustics are less contentious to be sure.... But one papers findings doesn't always negate ones personal subjective findings. 

And many times in this hobby, less than ideal conditions and money are two things that inhabit the "correct" "scientifically proven" solution from being implemented. 

But you should take a step back and consider your audience, sometimes on a one by one basis. And adjust accordingly. 

Just my .02.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Waboman said:


> Hi Terry,
> 
> I agree. What looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate to real world results.  Lots of gray areas. Take for example my sports teams. They looked great on paper, however in the real world they were anything but and had me reaching for the ibuprofen. Bottom line, if it sounds good to you who cares what some guy in a lab coat puts down on paper.
> 
> The X you're referring to is DTS X. It's their version of immersive audio. As of now it's all talk because DTS hasn't released much info on it at all.
> 
> Good luck on your immersive journey.


Yes *DTS X* is what I was trying to say but could not recall the exact terminology.

No worries on my journey for Atmos it's simply a matter of me making my mind up on the right gear/components.
I don't like doing the same thing multiple times.
I'm willing to spend the necessary dollars to do it right the 1st time around.

.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> There are a lot of folks on AVS that are as well read, intelligent and tinker/experiment with things like you, but you are unique in your apparent enjoyment of trying to belittle those who differ with you. You never replied to Keith's question regarding your setup, please share. Those of us who are participating on this thread would like to know. My favorite posters on AVS (and I know this doesn't necessary apply to you) are those that quote a bunch of articles (like O'Toole) about sound, but never experiment on their own to see if their results match those that they read. Working at a very large research institution, having done it during grad school, all I can say is thank God research doesn't stop after a few published papers (or one written by someone who makes a living selling av solutions - can you say bias?) and people aren't afraid to challenge what they read (despite the possibility of being ridiculed for questioning the expert) as they seek out better solutions/results.


Good post, Steve (IMO). I'd point out two pedantic points:1) Markus doesn't see my posts unless someone quotes them back. When I reply to him it is to make a point to the entire thread, so Markus won't know I asked him what his setup was. 2) He was one of my favorite actors and top of my "I wish I'd had a night out with him" list, but wtf he knows about acoustics is anyone's guess 










OTOH, I am guessing that Floyd Toole was a cr&p actor


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I bet you're right!
> 
> 
> I've read this type of comment several times from you, batpig, and a few others, and this mirrors my own observations from hearing the Pioneer AJ speakers and KEF at CEDIA 2014, as well as the Triads at AXPONA this spring (along with the 44-DAs I bought from Aras_Volodka this summer). The difference between physical vs. virtual height effects are IMO more personal preference than a clear winner, IF the Dolby speakers are set up correctly and you don't have room restrictions. OTOH there's also the overwhelming spending preference for physical height speakers of Atmos users in this thread, as well as another tack, which is that bounce speakers are an artificial way of generating content that ideally should be physical (and hence aren't kosher as a best practice, any more than a completely untreated room creating "fuller bass" and benefiting from room gain would be as a guide to general listening in your HT room). As a result, I almost feel that if you have Dolby speakers, you should dismiss your preference and go with what's theoretically best as well as reflects (pun intended) the 'best practice' of other enthusiasts as a key learning as soon as it's practical for you. Clearly that's physical speakers. And that leaves DTS:X out of the picture...which I don't think ANYONE has heard with Dolby speakers in operation except at the DTS lab itself.


Yep. For me it was a no-brainer since I was one of the minority who preferred the greater precision of the physical speakers vs the more diffuse presentation of the upfirers. I’d say if someone can do it, and has no WAF issues, and their room is dedicated or their own domain, then go for physical speakers on the ceiling if possible. But if they can't, then try the upfirers and I am betting they will not be disappointed. As someone we know often says: don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Some Atmos is better than no Atmos.


----------



## SoundChex

chi_guy50 said:


> And just to demonstrate the adage that there's nothing new under the sun:



Keep that cartoon handy: It is but a small step from where we stand today to the "sparkly future" of 2020 and the prospect of hit broadcast|CATV shows like "*The Real Housewives of Fargo, in 4K-UHD with 7.1.4 immersive audio*"...?!  


_


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Good post, Steve (IMO). I'd point out two pedantic points:1) Markus doesn't see my posts unless someone quotes them back. When I reply to him it is to make a point to the entire thread, so Markus won't know I asked him what his setup was. 2) He was one of my favorite actors and top of my "I wish I'd had a night out with him" list, but wtf he knows about acoustics is anyone's guess
> 
> OTOH, I am guessing that Floyd Toole was a cr&p actor


Thanks for all the corrections Keith, I need to stop visiting AVS when at work, especially on the last day of our fiscal year 
Correction made, thanks for the pictures, I'm old enough to remember the actor too well.


----------



## stikle

tigerhonaker said:


> I don't like doing the same thing multiple times.
> I'm willing to spend the necessary dollars to do it right the 1st time around.



Excellent thoughts. That's something learned through experience! 

It's a mindset I forgot about briefly when I bought my Denon 5200. Did I need it? No. But all of the buzz surrounding Atmos and it being something new...I got excited and threw caution to the wind and jumped on the early adopter bandwagon. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But in hindsight, I probably would have waited a while and gotten either a DTS:X upgradeable AVR, or waited until they were available...had I known DTS:X was even on the horizon. I didn't do due diligence and even ask the question "If Dolby has a new technology out, does/will DTS also?" That simple question would have probably led me to wait so I didn't need to buy a new AVR quite so soon (within 2 years).

You'll never be able to completely future proof, but in this specific case that could have been avoided.

All that being said, I'm not kicking myself at all. Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer have been most excellent additions to my theater. Add to that the fact that there is one DTS:X movie available and still no hardware that can play it natively, and I've missed nothing. And WILL miss nothing for quite some time.

So you're obviously doing The Right Thing for you by taking your time and asking questions.


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> No I should stop posting here if opinions and anecdotal evidence is valued more than proper science. This place has become ugly.


Hi Markus,

What is your take in say a room of 20 by 16 by 10 with only one row of seat (couch) for the best immersive Dolby Atmos experience...9.1.2 or 7.1.4 ...or?
Thank you in advance sir.

P.S. I miss Roger (Dressler) ...a lot.


----------



## asere

FYI: American Ultra arrives on bluray DTS:X November 24.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Romans828 said:


> .....and the Erskine guys have their recommendations. This is what makes it difficult. Even the pros/experts disagree on the basics such as monopole vs bipole/dipole etc. It really comes down to what sounds best to you personally in your room...and what you can afford. The negative of that is the fact that experimentation is *VERY *expensive with this hobby. Wives typically aren't understanding in this area as well. We are looking for expert guidance and it is all over the place. In reality, any of the mentioned experts would probably make your room sound amazing (using different techniques) if you paid for their services.


...And Wilfried Van Baelen has his own (Auro-3D) and DTS:X has yet to come. 

But yes, I agree with you...just hire one of them several experts and trust their judgement to create immersive 3D sound (Movie & Music) in your room.
And your wife...involve her in the entire proceeding...because after all she is also one of the movie goers in your common home. 
If for some reason she is not interested (not all are) try to have your own room for you where you can experiment...and she can have hers. 
...That's what love is all about...live and let live. 

And if there is only one room for both of you...the garden of Eden is the place where apples from the tree have to be shared...happy compromises for both...equality...not adversity and not superiority control or inferiority slavery. ...A serious home theater requires care and attention...same with a serious marriage. The rules of acoustic science somehow applies proportionally decor wise...like the real professional experts designing those home theater rooms for best acoustics and sound immersion...conscientiously decorative/hiding speakers and gear wise. ...Like a professional architect designer, like a planifier, a counselor expert.

The best Dolby Atmos home theater rooms are the dedicated ones...planned from the ground up...our best guide for our regular rooms.
And look @ that video interview with Anthony Grimani...he uses a real theater as his template for designing private home theater rooms...and a good one @ that...intelligently constructed without sound gaps. ...To me it makes the most sense...I wasn't sure before...because my room is very very different than my local cinema theater. It is much smaller...but still, the basic sound elements remain....full sound coverage. 

It's a guide, a good one, ...we can all benefit from it. We can also respectfully disagree with Mr. Grimani or Mr. Van Baelen or other professional acousticians in sound immersion...it's a free world we live in, the one on sound (Audio). 
Experimentation is our very best tool in our own arsenal @ our homes...and the guides are there for us to use or not. ...Depending...bank account...room's sharing...wife...and how high the sky is truly the limit in our own imagination and life's construction.

We're in an audio/video forum where music and motion pictures are two of our strongest passions...or we simply wouldn't post in the first place and put our energy where our other hobbies reside...cars...food...horses...travels...motorcycles...mountain climbing, astrology, astronomy, economics, law and order, etc...


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Back on the subject of Atmos... I got a hold of *San Andreas* early and HOLY HELL! The movie itself is what you'd expect - a mindless disaster flick with The Rock. But the subject matter makes for some killer use of ALL the speakers! This one is demo worthy in every way.
> Just don't ask yourself questions like "Why hasn't his employer called about their missing helicopter?" Or "Why would you go on a rescue call with almost no fuel left?" And certainly don't question the impossibility of putting a helicopter where he puts it in the first scene of the movie. But beyond that, turn off your brain and bask in some outstanding Atmos audio! This one is maybe the best action mix I've heard in the format thus far.


That's very good to know...thx, you just sold me on that one...3D picture and sound immersion (Dolby Atmos), on Blu. 
And The Rock is a cool guy too...and big.


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> Scott,
> Not to get the on going, never ending, arguing started again by me.
> I'm just glad some of the members actually just like discussing Atmos in general and not having to scientifically prove anything.
> To me it is a simple as listen and straight forward as what does the listener want to hear.
> If you hear what sounds good to you then IMHO you are all set.
> It makes honestly no difference really what someone else thinks or wants that person to prove.
> I'll add this comment also on this subject of Atmos.
> I think or hope the majority add this simply because they want the latest and greatest in audio with movies.
> But ............
> I have made an attempt recently to simply read what members have posted on this 30,000 plus posting thread. Wow !!!
> Some members simply want to add Atmos and find out what speakers, receivers, pre-amp processors, speaker placement etc in discussions like myself.
> Then it seems there are others that want to beat a few things to death and won't back off no matter what anyone else says.
> I'll personally continue to read and just maybe I'll at some point pick up on the new lingo (to me that is) and at some point make my final decisions on Atmos.
> I'm still reading as close as I can to try to pick up on the X thing that continues to be mentioned.
> I take it that is another new audio format that is coming soon.
> What I'm wondering is the X (Whatever Audio Format) something also to do with Atmos or simply a new audio format that has nothing to do with Atmos?
> As you can tell from my comments I'm still very much lost on most of this but I am at least still reading and hopefully picking up on things as time passes.
> Also, I'm a guy that once my decisions are made don't really then continue to come to this internet site on the same subject.
> The reason being after Atmos is installed, speakers are purchased and installed, Pre-Amp with Atmos is purchased.
> I'll be in my home theater watching and totally enjoying all it's Super-Cool-Features in person.
> In other words I'm trying to find out what I can about Atmos etc and then make it all happen.
> Once that takes place I'm not one to argue, belittle other members for their decisions on any part of their HT systems.
> It's their systems and if they are happy ???
> I'm Happy for them even if what they have is totally different than what I have.


Great post Terry...and like you; when all Atmos set, and DTS:X...I will vanished into oblivion to enjoy the immersive 3-dimensional surround sound experience...and till then I will pursue the ultimate dream...the gathering of knowledge. ...It's a day-to-day love affair. 

* Also, I learned a lot from guys like Markus, Igor, Shred, Bob (Pariseau), and from all these other friendly guys from all over this planet...Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, China, Australia, Italia, Brazil, Finland, UK, France, Germany, South Africa, ...


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, you said earlier that you are sitting roughly 9.5 feet from your screen...and from one of your videos your main front L & R speakers look as if they are separated by roughly 8 feet or so? If this is roughly correct, then the angle @ which your MLP is from those two speakers would be approximately 22° each (as per THX recommendation)? 

And your two side surrounds...from your video, before you moved them closer (by 1.5') and expanded their angling, they look like they are roughly @ a 50-60° angle (very very forward indeed, and I would even say that they are @ the Front Width position)? Where are they [email protected] 70° or so?
{Is there another pair of side surrounds somewhere...if not, is there a "sonic hole" in that area...between your Front Width and Back Rear surrounds?
But that's exactly where that you said that the phantom imaging is excellent between those two pairs...and the separation is how many feet?
Scott, is it because the narrow room you have that you positioned your surround speakers where they are? @ 90° to the sides your side surrounds would be too close to two seated listeners? 

You have three sets of overhead speakers, correct...with the first pair (FH) above your screen...hiding. ..Then the TM and RH pairs. 
I forgot how long (length from front screen to rear wall your room is...15 feet? ...With three more feet behind your screen that would make it roughly 18 feet?
- Your room is 10.5 feet wide (or 9.5' if you count the occupied space).
- And almost 10 feet high. 

And, behind your rear wall...is there another adjacent room? ...In one of your videos I thought I saw slim openings? ....Or is your room totally closed hermetically/acoustically?

Last, do you have air conditioning in your room...with all those thirsty subwoofers and all their purveyors....multitude of power amplifiers (20,000 Watts RMS or so)? 

_______

♦ A ladybug just landed on my keyboard as I was typing this, lol.

_______

P.S. I know that earlier you said you're not into measurements...so I'm not sure if my post has any great interest to you...if not I apologize in advance. 
I'm just trying to gather some Dolby Atmos information...that's all...and without being too anal about it...but still with that scientific touch.  
- I'm a sucker for calculations, measurements, and room's acoustic properties. ...But it doesn't make me losing sleep over it...abso!utely not.

CORRECTION: Your Front L & R speakers (tweeter to tweeter) now that I re-watched your video, they look more like 6 feet separation?
Then the angle @ your MLP is very narrow...less than 22° as I mentioned above. So what is it roughly...16-18°? ...Or the total angle from both speakers being 35° calculated from your MLP?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed. American Sniper is one of the best Atmos mixes I've ever heard and highly underrated in this regard. It's a truly immersive experience. Lots of good scenes but pretty much any part that isn't "back at home" is amazingly three dimensional.


It's interesting how some say that it's a really hum drum Atmos mix and others say it's extremely effective. 

However, it seems there's a growing consensus that _Mad Max_ takes the win for most aggressive immersive mix so far and _Gravity_ the most subtly effective use of all the speakers.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

im one who says AS is so so for ATMOS

mad max takes the cake for me....followed by insurgent


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> FYI: American Ultra arrives on bluray DTS:X November 24.


Wow, that's number two Blu-ray title with such encoding. ...We need two hundred more in the next two months.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's interesting how some say that it's a really hum drum Atmos mix and others say it's extremely effective.
> 
> However, it seems there's a growing consensus that _Mad Max_ takes the win for most aggressive immersive mix so far and _Gravity_ the most subtly effective use of all the speakers.


It's good because it is extremely immersive without calling attention to itself.

Effective yet understated.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> It's good because it is extremely immersive without calling attention to itself.


For most of the movie. The first 30 seconds make it obvious you're listening to an immersive mix.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, you said earlier that you are sitting roughly 9.5 feet from your screen...and from one of your videos your main front L & R speakers look as if they are separated by roughly 8 feet or so? If this is roughly correct, then the angle @ which your MLP is from those two speakers would be approximately 22° each (as per THX recommendation)?
> 
> And your two side surrounds...from your video, before you moved them closer (by 1.5') and expanded their angling, they look like they are roughly @ a 50-60° angle (very very forward indeed, and I would even say that they are @ the Front Width position)? Where are they [email protected] 70° or so?
> {Is there another pair of side surrounds somewhere...if not, is there a "sonic hole" in that area...between your Front Width and Back Rear surrounds?
> But that's exactly where that you said that the phantom imaging is excellent between those two pairs...and the separation is how many feet?
> Scott, is it because the narrow room you have that you positioned your surround speakers where they are? @ 90° to the sides your side surrounds would be too close to two seated listeners?
> 
> You have three sets of overhead speakers, correct...with the first pair (FH) above your screen...hiding. ..Then the TM and RH pairs.
> I forgot how long (length from front screen to rear wall your room is...15 feet? ...With three more feet behind your screen that would make it roughly 18 feet?
> - Your room is 10.5 feet wide (or 9.5' if you count the occupied space).
> - And almost 10 feet high.
> 
> And, behind your rear wall...is there another adjacent room? ...In one of your videos I thought I saw slim openings? ....Or is your room totally closed hermetically/acoustically?
> 
> Last, do you have air conditioning in your room...with all those thirsty subwoofers and all their purveyors....multitude of power amplifiers (20,000 Watts RMS or so)?
> 
> _______
> 
> ♦ A ladybug just landed on my keyboard as I was typing this, lol.
> 
> _______
> 
> P.S. I know that earlier you said you're not into measurements...so I'm not sure if my post has any great interest to you...if not I apologize in advance.
> I'm just trying to gather some Dolby Atmos information...that's all...and without being too anal about it...but still with that scientific touch.
> - I'm a sucker for calculations, measurements, and room's acoustic properties. ...But it doesn't make me losing sleep over it...abso!utely not.
> 
> CORRECTION: Your Front L & R speakers (tweeter to tweeter) now that I re-watched your video, they look more like 6 feet separation?
> Then the angle @ your MLP is very narrow...less than 22° as I mentioned above. So what is it roughly...16-18°? ...Or the total angle from both speakers being 35° calculated from your MLP?



Bob, it's not that I'm "not into measurements". It's just that I don't care to break out a laser compass to measure the exact angle of all my speakers. If it's really such a big deal, I guess I can find out but I don't care enough to do it for my own sake. I think there is WAY too much thought put into the exact angle *number* but just because I don't care doesn't mean they aren't important. My philosophy is to get the basic angles covered. Left and right for front, middle and rear. Repeat for overheads. As long as I get side wall imaging, it doesn't matter if it is acoustically shifted either further in front of me or to my side or whatever. With this in mind, I get no "holes" in the surround field or overhead space. One day, I'll find out what all the numbers are but it will not be for my own interest so I'll do it whenever I feel like it. Eventually....

A quick note and probably just going to annoy some people is, whether or not my left and right are exactly at 30* is not important to me because *when I listen to them, their imaging stretches past their physical position and wraps all the way to the side surrounds.* So the sound up front fills more than just a 60* slice of space. Some people seem to require extra speakers (wides) to accomplish this. I don't.

Yes, of course there is A/C. It's a spare bedroom. Don't need it so much pretty soon but with the summer weather I use the A/C and ceiling fan. The amps do not produce as much heat as you'd think. They mostly idle because of the massively high sensitivity of most of the system. The projector puts out most of the heat.

Distance front screen to back wall is about 15-16ft. I'd have to re-measure. I honestly don't remember the exact number. There is a closest at the back of the room holding the amp rack and projection system. It's not an extra room, just a closet.

18ft sounds about right from front to back (ignoring the front room speaker/sub structure).

New side surround speaker angle is probably about 80*, sure. I could push even a little bit closer but I don't think I will. They are much more obvious sounding being closer but maybe I just need to get used to it. The surround field will just continue to get smaller if I put them further back. It's no wonder so many people complain that 7.1 "isn't much of an upgrade" from 5.1 with the kind of suggested positions/angles that are often recommended by "professionals" in either field.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> I watched the video and although it makes sense in certain situations, I don't think it is one size fit all. If you have small speakers and a large room, I could see the benefits of wides. In my case, I can assure there is no gap in sound, so I agree with Scott. The JBL Pro Cinemas throw a huge soundstage and adding wides would bring no benefit to my room. In fact, they could possibly end up smearing the sound stage. I agree with Keith; the guy in the video is a designer and a salesman. More speakers equals higher profits. Wides have been around a long time prior to Atmos and never really caught on. I have only seen a few people mention having them. If they added that much benefit, I would expect to see a lot more of them. I would be willing to try it but only if/when 9.x.4 is available. I wouldn't go with wides at the expense of rears.


Wow! You have an awesome list of gear. I'm envious.

Got pictures of your system?


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Wow! You have an awesome list of gear. I'm envious.
> 
> Got pictures of your system?


Thanks for the compliment. No pics at the moment. Sadly everything is in stacks and/or roller dollies in the various corners of the room 

Redoing the theater room right now. I hope to have it back online in a couple of weeks depending on how long it takes the carpet to come in. It is killing me to look at the JBL SCS 8's that I mounted on the ceiling last week. I have yet to hear Atmos on my system. At least all the sheet rock is back together and the painting is done.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's interesting how some say that it's a really hum drum Atmos mix and others say it's extremely effective.


With the caveat that I haven't listened to the entire movie, I can't imagine anyone listening to the three scenes I mentioned and saying it's a hum drum Atmos mix.

The firefight in Chapter 8 and the sandstorm scene at the end are just insane.


----------



## Nalleh

asere said:


> FYI: American Ultra arrives on bluray DTS:X November 24.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Really?? Any confirmation on this?


----------



## helvetica bold

Mission Impossible Rogue Nation will have an Atmos Blu-Ray release. Sorry if this was already posted. 
http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...osive-650m-Worldwide-Blockbuster#.Vgso44r3bCQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> I watched the video and although it makes sense in certain situations, I don't think it is one size fit all. If you have small speakers and a large room, I could see the benefits of wides. In my case, I can assure there is no gap in sound, so I agree with Scott. The JBL Pro Cinemas throw a huge soundstage and adding wides would bring no benefit to my room. In fact, they could possibly end up smearing the sound stage. I agree with Keith; the guy in the video is a designer and a salesman. More speakers equals higher profits. Wides have been around a long time prior to Atmos and never really caught on. I have only seen a few people mention having them. If they added that much benefit, I would expect to see a lot more of them. I would be willing to try it but only if/when 9.x.4 is available. I wouldn't go with wides at the expense of rears.


And Dolby Atmos white paper do have a *9.1.4* Atmos configuration...with the Front Width speakers. 
And that's for a room of regular size with only one regular couch. ...Just saying. ...Because Dolby Atmos do in fact uses the Wide speakers in their setup.
It's there...crystal clear as a rock under cascading water...sound wise. 

I know I know...we're limited to eleven channel speakers right now...with two optional ones in different positioning. ...With some Denon/Marantz models.
It'll come eventually...I bet it will...the full 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos sound canopy. I'll be the first one ready on my block.


----------



## NorthSky

Thx a bunch Scott. 

And I agree; your three front main speakers are a wall of immersive sound all by themselves...not that important the angle they form @ the MLP.
And the speaker's quality account for much of that immersion reality...I like your take on your side surrounds. I take very good info from you. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Bob, it's not that I'm "not into measurements". It's just that I don't care to break out a laser compass to measure the exact angle of all my speakers. If it's really such a big deal, I guess I can find out but I don't care enough to do it for my own sake. I think there is WAY too much thought put into the exact angle *number* but just because I don't care doesn't mean they aren't important. My philosophy is to get the basic angles covered. Left and right for front, middle and rear. Repeat for overheads. As long as I get side wall imaging, it doesn't matter if it is acoustically shifted either further in front of me or to my side or whatever. With this in mind, I get no "holes" in the surround field or overhead space. One day, I'll find out what all the numbers are but it will not be for my own interest so I'll do it whenever I feel like it. Eventually....
> A quick note and probably just going to annoy some people is, whether or not my left and right are exactly at 30* is not important to me because *when I listen to them, their imaging stretches past their physical position and wraps all the way to the side surrounds.* So the sound up front fills more than just a 60* slice of space. Some people seem to require extra speakers (wides) to accomplish this. I don't.
> Yes, of course there is A/C. It's a spare bedroom. Don't need it so much pretty soon but with the summer weather I use the A/C and ceiling fan. The amps do not produce as much heat as you'd think. They mostly idle because of the massively high sensitivity of most of the system. The projector puts out most of the heat.
> Distance front screen to back wall is about 15-16ft. I'd have to re-measure. I honestly don't remember the exact number. There is a closest at the back of the room holding the amp rack and projection system. It's not an extra room, just a closet.
> - 18ft sounds about right from front to back (ignoring the front room speaker/sub structure).
> New side surround speaker angle is probably about 80*, sure. I could push even a little bit closer but I don't think I will. They are much more obvious sounding being closer but maybe I just need to get used to it. The surround field will just continue to get smaller if I put them further back. It's no wonder so many people complain that 7.1 "isn't much of an upgrade" from 5.1 with the kind of suggested positions/angles that are often recommended by "professionals" in either field.


----------



## NorthSky

*'American Ultra' on Blu-ray | DTS:X audio*



Nalleh said:


> Really?? Any confirmation on this?


♦ www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=17657

♦♦ www.imdb.com/news/ni59057449/


----------



## bargervais

asere said:


> FYI: American Ultra arrives on bluray DTS:X November 24.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


American Ultra
A stoner and his girlfriend's sleepy, small-town existence is disrupted when his past comes back to haunt him in the form of a government operation set to wipe him out.
Where have I seen this movie before.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=17657
> 
> ♦♦ www.imdb.com/news/ni59057449/


Maybe by the end of November is when our DTS:X firmware will arrive.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Maybe by the end of November is when our DTS:X firmware will arrive.


January 2016...according to the latest news...non-official but believable.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> January 2016...according to the latest news...non-official but believable.


That would be fine maybe we will have three DTS:X Blu-Rays by then. I'm hoping that once we start seeing UHD Blu-Ray players and Blu-Rays on the market, I'm hoping to see a flood of Blu-Rays with Atmos and or DTS:X


----------



## NorthSky

Not only that, but soon after that DTS:X official concrete apparition (real life working and decoding the DTS:X audio encoded Blu-rays...both 2K and 4K), this Dolby Atmos thread right here will start to cool off.  /// You wanna bet?


----------



## fredl

According to connected friends there are now copies out in the wild of both San Andreas and T5. I can't wait to finally see (and hear) San Andreas in Atmos. I know it's not a movie for all, but both me and the mrs loved it when we saw it in a largish (non-atmos) cinema this summer.


----------



## deus777

NorthSky said:


> And Dolby Atmos white paper do have a *9.1.4* Atmos configuration...with the Front Width speakers.
> And that's for a room of regular size with only one regular couch. ...Just saying. ...Because Dolby Atmos do in fact uses the Wide speakers in their setup.
> It's there...crystal clear as a rock under cascading water...sound wise.
> 
> I know I know...we're limited to eleven channel speakers right now...with two optional ones in different positioning. ...With some Denon/Marantz models.
> It'll come eventually...I bet it will...the full 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos sound canopy. I'll be the first one ready on my block.


Has anyone tried to extract 9.1.4 using a second AVR? ie splitting an atmos hdmi signal into two identical avrs with different set of optional channels set in each one.


----------



## speeddeacon

deus777 said:


> Has anyone tried to extract 9.1.4 using a second AVR? ie splitting an atmos hdmi signal into two identical avrs with different set of optional channels set in each one.



I thought about doing that exact same thing but ultimately decided not to at this time. Others have done more than 11 channel Atmos using additional AVRs by using PLII to synthesize discrete additional channels, for example. 

I still think the idea would work and could go beyond just the second set of channels (wides, front heights and middle overheads for example) but ultimately I wasn't convinced that it would be worth the money and possible frustration of syncing the two receivers together. And, as some have told me, since the two separate decoders don't know the other exists, they will essentially be producing redundant info just in a different manner rather than additional unique discrete signals.

Atmos, theoretically creates the same sound field in the object channels using whatever channels it has to work with, although the efficacy of that is debatable.

I think it would work best with a D+M product that had front wide channels. I imagine the same members who helped and educated me will chime in on your question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

bargervais said:


> That would be fine maybe we will have three DTS:X Blu-Rays by then. I'm hoping that once we start seeing UHD Blu-Ray players and Blu-Rays on the market, I'm hoping to see a flood of Blu-Rays with Atmos and or DTS:X


If you ask me Atmos and DTS:X will move to UHD and eventually there will be fewer and fewer disks on bluray.
Disney being one of them waiting for UHD to include Atmos, DTS:X.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

asere said:


> If you ask me Atmos and DTS:X will move to UHD and eventually there will be fewer and fewer disks on bluray.
> Disney being one of them waiting for UHD to include Atmos, DTS:X.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I think the same thing I purchased a 4K TV and watching Netflix and Amazon Prime is surprisingly very very good. The audio is also very good in DSU. I can see that Atmos and DTS:X audio will stream along with 4K.


----------



## aaranddeeman

deus777 said:


> Has anyone tried to extract 9.1.4 using a second AVR? ie splitting an atmos hdmi signal into two identical avrs with different set of optional channels set in each one.


Search for user nalleh


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Not only that, but soon after that DTS:X official concrete apparition (real life working and decoding the DTS:X audio encoded Blu-rays...both 2K and 4K), this Dolby Atmos thread right here will start to cool off.  /// You wanna bet?


Since a number of members don't see your posts I thought I would share it. 

By the way I will take that bet not because I am pro Dolby or DTS, mention that most of us could care less which format gets a lot of titles, we just want to see them available and that its good for those of us interested in 3D sound that Atmos releases have picked up. There's no winner or loser as I see it, those of us who were early adopters have been able to enjoy a few benefits over the past year, and more importantly share what we have learned. By the time this all shakes out from a tech point (speaker mapping, # of channels, etc), it will be just about time to look at a new receiver or pre, hopefully with Dirac and a few other features valued by those on this thread. 

The reason for taking your bet - most of the immersive discussion has taken place here despite attempts to take it elsewhere. Hopefully we can put it all together with Scott's thread, Auro if it is still kicking and start a Part II with a more appropriate name. There's a lot of valuable discussion in this thread that goes way beyond one format, solid foundation to build on as things move forward - hopefully.


----------



## lujan

helvetica bold said:


> Mission Impossible Rogue Nation will have an Atmos Blu-Ray release. Sorry if this was already posted.
> http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...osive-650m-Worldwide-Blockbuster#.Vgso44r3bCQ
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm more interested in knowing whether the first 3 MI movies in the 5-pack will have uncompressed audio since they didn't on the original BD releases (at least here in the U.S.)?


----------



## speeddeacon

deus777 said:


> Has anyone tried to extract 9.1.4 using a second AVR? ie splitting an atmos hdmi signal into two identical avrs with different set of optional channels set in each one.


Go back to post 18010 of this thread. That is @Nalleh setup and he is one of the members I was referring to in my previous post. I forgot that he actually did what I was thinking (two HDMI) vs. Scott Simonian and Zach, who did the PLII technique.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's totally possible to use the same Atmos-EX PL2 center extraction method not only for a new pair of middle heights but also to generate "real" wides and also a center rear. Hell, you could even make left and right center screen channels or something between the side and rear surrounds. 

However, never cascade matrix decoders. There is a practical limit as to how many extra channels you can add doing it like this.

Personally, because I like being 'in' the surround field and have a small room, I'd go for a 8.1.6 system that extracts a center rear. Use two rear centers spread out a bit. With this you will get a hard rear center but without image reversal and at the same time you could spread out the two stereo rear surrounds all the way to the far walls (or forward into the room if you have a 2nd row) with exaggerated stereo rear image. I think that would be really cool! Cheap to do too.


----------



## Stanton

Brian Fineberg said:


> im one who says AS is so so for ATMOS
> 
> mad max takes the cake for me....followed by insurgent


I guess I'm the only one who didn't think the audio on Mad Max was _that_ great? Better than most, but not even as impressive as some *non-Atmos* mixes I've listened to lately (like the last couple of Harry Potters), and definitely not as good as John Wick or Gravity (dialog definitely not as clear).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fury Road had a really aggressive Atmos mix and at worst a very good 7.1 audio mix. The problem with Fury Road is the dynamics. There isn't much. It is loud and constantly loud. It's a fun ride but it could use some more dynamics. Thankfully it does not have much clipping going on or if it does it's not noticeable.


----------



## Stanton

Scott Simonian said:


> The problem with Fury Road is the dynamics. There isn't much. It is loud and constantly loud.


You hit the nail on the head! That's probably what "wore me out".


----------



## BigScreen

Nalleh said:


> > FYI: American Ultra arrives on bluray DTS:X November 24.
> 
> Really?? Any confirmation on this?


I can confirm that we received the press release straight from DTS and Lions Gate yesterday afternoon with that information:

http://www.bigscreen.com/j/American-Ultra-Slated-for-November-24-2015-Release-on/3818


----------



## tjenkins95

*Avengers: Age of Ultron review*

A very nice review of the 3D blu-ray version of Avengers: Age of Ultron by Michael S. Palmer.


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/20996/avengersageofultron3d.html

Also looking forward to Ralph's review. 
I will watch it this weekend in 3D!


Ray


----------



## NorthSky

Good morning Steve, and thank you for posting your honest opinion. * My "bet" was more in the humorous sense...it's all good.
And I totally agree with you; Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are like an old couple still and always was and always be in love forever.  
And yes, Dirac Live will eventually make its apparition inside our receivers and pre/pros (affordable range). 
...And with easier setup...for all the population; without all the small complexities that could deter many.


smurraybhm said:


> Since a number of members don't see your posts I thought I would share it.
> By the way I will take that bet not because I am pro Dolby or DTS, mention that most of us could care less which format gets a lot of titles, we just want to see them available and that its good for those of us interested in 3D sound that Atmos releases have picked up. There's no winner or loser as I see it, those of us who were early adopters have been able to enjoy a few benefits over the past year, and more importantly share what we have learned. By the time this all shakes out from a tech point (speaker mapping, # of channels, etc), it will be just about time to look at a new receiver or pre, hopefully with Dirac and a few other features valued by those on this thread.
> The reason for taking your bet - most of the immersive discussion has taken place here despite attempts to take it elsewhere. Hopefully we can put it all together with Scott's thread, Auro if it is still kicking and start a Part II with a more appropriate name. There's a lot of valuable discussion in this thread that goes way beyond one format, solid foundation to build on as things move forward - hopefully.


P.S. I also agree; this thread has a lot of good info (the lesser we simply walk over).


----------



## sdurani

High-Def Digest reviewed the new BD release of Dracula: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/24260/bramstokersdracula2.html


> _For this review, I'm rocking Klipsch Reference Premiere speakers powered by the Yamaha AVENTAGE RX-A1050 seven channel AVR, configured in Dolby Atmos 5.1.2. _
> 
> 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' roars onto Blu-ray as the first catalogue title to be remixed in the state of the art Dolby Atmos format. For those without Atmos gear, the track is also Dolby TrueHD 7.1 compatible. English, French, and Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital tracks have also been provided.
> 
> Unlike the video, which is a bit of a mixed bag, this Atmos track is an unquestionable upgrade right from the beginning. To be clear, it's not in the same league as 'Fury Road' or 'Gravity', but the new Atmos mix is, hands down, more immersive and involving than the previous 5.1 PCM track, and does this without sacrificing original intent. Slamming doors. Choral orchestrations. Crashing lightning. Bellows, moans, and roars. All of these things rise up above the audience. LFE levels are never monstrous, but this track plays loud and, yet, always leaves enough room for clear dialog. Hearing this track in Atmos reveals a lot of nuance both in the musical orchestration and the sound effects work, particularly in Dracula's castle and his surrounding lands.
> 
> This stunning upgrade is so dramatic that my wife, who knows the movie more than me, remarked that she had never heard it so clearly. And while I've been growing more and more fond of 5.1.2 -- it's much more effective than originally anticipated -- I'm looking forward to revisiting this title again shortly when I'm back up and running 7.1.4.
> 
> 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' in Dolby Atmos is a fantastic proof-of-concept for catalog remixing; I hope more studios follow suit.


----------



## broodro0ster

NorthSky said:


> And last, Top Middle overhead speakers...as indicated by Tony Grimani positioning.
> * ...That's for rooms smaller than what he's talking about in the interview by Scott.


Do tot have a link to that video?


----------



## tigerhonaker

stikle said:


> Excellent thoughts. That's something learned through experience!
> 
> It's a mindset I forgot about briefly when I bought my Denon 5200. Did I need it? No. But all of the buzz surrounding Atmos and it being something new...I got excited and threw caution to the wind and jumped on the early adopter bandwagon. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But in hindsight, I probably would have waited a while and gotten either a DTS:X upgradeable AVR, or waited until they were available...had I known DTS:X was even on the horizon. I didn't do due diligence and even ask the question "If Dolby has a new technology out, does/will DTS also?" That simple question would have probably led me to wait so I didn't need to buy a new AVR quite so soon (within 2 years).
> 
> You'll never be able to completely future proof, but in this specific case that could have been avoided.
> 
> All that being said, I'm not kicking myself at all. Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer have been most excellent additions to my theater. Add to that the fact that there is one DTS:X movie available and still no hardware that can play it natively, and I've missed nothing. And WILL miss nothing for quite some time.
> 
> So you're obviously doing The Right Thing for you by taking your time and asking questions.


I have been aware of Atmos for some time now but just was not really all that interested as I like my 7.1 (4-Subs) system.
It sounds great to me if I never-ever changed or added anything to it in the future.

But time has passed and I still see Atmos mentioned even more.
So I figured it's time for me to try to find out as much as I can about it in general.
I'm not one of those that has to have speakers set up at a certain angle.
As long as they are set-up to where you hear what your suppose to from the movie I'm good to go.
What I don't want to do is purchase a new pre-amp processor and then find out a few months later I should have waited.
Common sense says there will always be changes so I'm not saying one can simply purchase one processor and expect it to have all the latest changes as time passes.
What I do want to do is purchase one though that will decode the majority of the audio formats we know are either already here or will be very soon.
So me waiting and continuing to read about Atmos and the coming audio formats just makes sense to me.

I use to be the sort of guy that as soon as something new came out I just had to jump on the band-wagon.
As years have passed I learned calm down some and just maybe you might just spend more dollars on the front-end and not have to change again so soon.
So wait I will and also in my case hopefully my Audio/Video retailer will get much more informed on what speakers, where to place them, which pre-amp processor etc.

It's like I know about 4k video but I have a somewhat new Runco VX-11d projector right now.
It does 1080p and the picture with 1080p video looks totally awesome to me.
So in my case I'm not going to dump a $30K Runco and jump up and replace it with another to me expensive projector.
1080p suits me just fine .........

I mention the 4k thing as an example of something new that has come out since the 1080p.
Just like Atmos and the DTS:X audio that is coming.
I don't mind waiting for that as it reads like it will happen in the near future.
After that though and I do jump in and do the Atmos thing I'm done as far as I am concerned.
I am of the opinion one has to know when to simply say it's time to _*"Stop" !!!
*_


NorthSky said:


> Great post Terry...and like you; when all Atmos set, and DTS:X...I will vanished into oblivion to enjoy the immersive 3-dimensional surround sound experience...and till then I will pursue the ultimate dream...the gathering of knowledge. ...It's a day-to-day love affair.
> 
> * Also, I learned a lot from guys like Markus, Igor, Shred, Bob (Pariseau), and from all these other friendly guys from all over this planet...Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, China, Australia, Italia, Brazil, Finland, UK, France, Germany, South Africa, ...


Bob, I'm here buddy reading and slowly (very-slowly) picking up on this Atmos and DTS:X new audio format.

Personally unless something really changes my mind I'm going to continue to wait this one out for awhile longer.
For one thing I want to see which manufacturers come out with the new DTS:X audio in their new pre-amp processors.

I consider myself a very fortunate fellow in that I could simply stay with exactly what I already have and be very content.
Mine sounds Awesome and the picture in 1080p is totally Bad-Ass. !!!

.


----------



## Waboman

Really looking forward to the _Dracula_ BD. Big fan of that movie. Use to have the Criterion laserdisc of it. Remember the audio being fantastic. Bring on Vlad.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Waboman said:


> Really looking forward to the _Dracula_ BD. Big fan of that movie. Use to have the Criterion laserdisc of it. Remember the audio being fantastic. Bring on Vlad.


Will be picking it up and watching it as part of the October Horror Movie Month ... ummm.... thing. Officially starts for me tomorrow! Woot!


----------



## asere

Scott Simonian said:


> Will be picking it up and watching it as part of the October Horror Movie Month ... ummm.... thing. Officially starts for me tomorrow! Woot!


Dracula is a good one. I'm watching Insidious 3 and the remake of Poltergeist. Love the Halloween spirit  

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> High-Def Digest reviewed the new BD release of Dracula: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/24260/bramstokersdracula2.html


i'm also looking forward to Dracula it's the first of the Supreme Cinema Series in Atmos to be released this year (correct me if i'm wrong)  i also have the 5th Element on Pre-order


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> The reason for taking your bet - most of the immersive discussion has taken place here despite attempts to take it elsewhere. Hopefully we can put it all together with Scott's thread, Auro if it is still kicking and start a Part II with a more appropriate name. There's a lot of valuable discussion in this thread that goes way beyond one format, solid foundation to build on as things move forward - hopefully.


The big problem is that THIS thread is the one that's the sticky in the receivers forum. Until the "Official Immersive Thread" replaces the "Official Atmos Thread" as the sticky, most people will see this one and keep commenting on it.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Fury Road had a really aggressive Atmos mix and at worst a very good 7.1 audio mix. The problem with Fury Road is the dynamics. There isn't much. It is loud and constantly loud. It's a fun ride but it could use some more dynamics. Thankfully it does not have much clipping going on or if it does it's not noticeable.


I hear ya, but that's kind of the entire movie -- it basically bludgeons you continuously for two hours. So in that sense the soundtrack fits into that vibe. 

When there are those rare quiet/peaceful moments with, like, dialogue and stuff, it's almost jarring.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The big problem is that THIS thread is the one that's the sticky in the receivers forum. Until the "Official Immersive Thread" replaces the "Official Atmos Thread" as the sticky, most people will see this one and keep commenting on it.


Yeah.

I think the reason why the mods have no moved the 'Immersive' thread to be a sticky is because: A) we all keep posting in this one about everything  B) not enough people make a fuss about it being "stickied"


Let's work on that.


*MODS: please sticky the official immersive audio thread, please. thxkbai!*


----------



## batpig

Fuss fuss fuss fuss fuss!!!!!


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> i'm also looking forward to Dracula it's the first of the Supreme Cinema Series in Atmos to be released this year (correct me if i'm wrong)  i also have the 5th Element on Pre-order


You're correct: Dracula (Oct 6) is the first of the series, followed by The Fifth Element (Oct 27) and Leon: The Professional (Nov 17).


----------



## Dave Vaughn

tjenkins95 said:


> A very nice review of the 3D blu-ray version of Avengers: Age of Ultron by Michael S. Palmer.
> 
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/20996/avengersageofultron3d.html
> 
> Also looking forward to Ralph's review.
> I will watch it this weekend in 3D!
> 
> 
> Ray


He didn't listen to the same disc that I did. The bass response on this disc is horrific (although i experienced the same in the theater, especially the opening scene).


----------



## speeddeacon

bargervais said:


> i also have the 5th Element on Pre-order


Purchase link please!!


----------



## sdurani

AVS's own Ralph Potts just posted his review of Dracula:


Ralph Potts said:


> In listening to the Dolby Atmos soundtrack I was surprised at how active the mix is. The use of overhead sound objects elevates proportional correlation especially when applied during sequences involving first person perspectives (such as seen through the eyes of Dracula while in wolf form). When compared to the 7.1 channel core the Atmos mix offers a noticeable improvement by opening up the soundstage, elevating the perception of low level detail and even simulating broader dynamic range. Wojciech Kilar's music score invigorates the extended sound field as its eerie presence underscores the storyline. The film is loaded with atmospherics, off screen cues and discrete sound effects that when applied using the freedom of object based placement adds an enriching layer to the soundtrack. This is noticeable right from the opening sequence with noteworthy examples being found throughout (the first seduction of Lucy sounds great). As good as the lossless TrueHD 7.1 core sounds, the Atmos mix adds a complimentary layer that brings the listening experience up a notch.
> 
> Kudos to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment on an excellent home theater presentation. I look forward to their upcoming titles that incorporate Dolby Atmos sound.


----------



## smurraybhm

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I think the reason why the mods have no moved the 'Immersive' thread to be a sticky is because: A) we all keep posting in this one about everything  B) not enough people make a fuss about it being "stickied"
> 
> 
> Let's work on that.
> 
> 
> *MODS: please sticky the official immersive audio thread, please. thxkbai!*


But the way things stand today Atmos is the only kid on the block - sorry Auro. Need to figure out how to put them together IMO.


----------



## bargervais

speeddeacon said:


> Purchase link please!!


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6TP6?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00


----------



## speeddeacon

bargervais said:


> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6TP6?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00



Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Another Atmos BD? 

http://www.hdmoviesource.com/Doctor-Who-Dark-Water-Death-in-Heaven-3D-Blu-ray-p/9811.htm 

Should probably wait for more confirmation.


----------



## Stoked21

*ATMOS AVR--Cedia*

So CEDIA is coming up in just a few weeks. I've seen some companies are showing new Atmos speakers--upfiring and ceiling already. 

I'm betting we will see AVRs and preamp/pros that support above 11.1. Anybody heard any rumblings of such product announcements yet? No confidential info requested. But I'm really curious to see if Onkyo, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha announcing 13.1 and 15.1 Atmos and X.

I'm holding out to replace my yamaha 9.1 until I can go above 11.1. Realistically, I'm hoping 11.1 and 9.1 crash down in price and 13/15 come in at the $3000 mark or below. This seems to be the AVR pricing trend over the years.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Stoked21 said:


> So CEDIA is coming up in just a few weeks. I've seen some companies are showing new Atmos speakers--upfiring and ceiling already.
> 
> I'm betting we will see AVRs and preamp/pros that support above 11.1. Anybody heard any rumblings of such product announcements yet? No confidential info requested. But I'm really curious to see if Onkyo, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha announcing 13.1 and 15.1 Atmos and X.
> 
> I'm holding out to replace my yamaha 9.1 until I can go above 11.1. Realistically, I'm hoping 11.1 and 9.1 crash down in price and 13/15 come in at the $3000 mark or below. This seems to be the AVR pricing trend over the years.



Lol, no. You're going to see a lot of receivers that we already know about and are currently available to purchase or just about to come out.

I highly doubt you'll see much of >11.1 systems at CEDIA this year.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Fifth Element'* on Blu-ray Dolby Atmos should be the best out of those new three 4K remastered ones...with Gary Oldman. 

And I will get *Dracula*...in Dolby Atmos, on UHD Blu-ray...the real deal...not this 4K remastered one...or unless it cannot be done in true UHD Blu.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> Another Atmos BD?
> http://www.hdmoviesource.com/Doctor-Who-Dark-Water-Death-in-Heaven-3D-Blu-ray-p/9811.htm
> Should probably wait for more confirmation.


I stumbled over this Doctor Who (Atmos remix?) a few weeks ago in the format of a CineMark special (theatrical) event in advance of the just started season of Doctor Who on BBC America.


_


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> *'The Fifth Element'* on Blu-ray Dolby Atmos should be the best out of those new three 4K remastered ones...with Gary Oldman.
> 
> And I will get *Dracula*...in Dolby Atmos, on UHD Blu-ray...the real deal...not this 4K remastered one...or unless it cannot be done in true UHD Blu.





NorthSky said:


> *'The Fifth Element'* on Blu-ray Dolby Atmos should be the best out of those new three 4K remastered ones...with Gary Oldman.
> 
> And I will get *Dracula*...in Dolby Atmos, on UHD Blu-ray...the real deal...not this 4K remastered one...or unless it cannot be done in true UHD Blu.


Am I seeing double?


----------



## NorthSky

broodro0ster said:


> Do tot have a link to that video?


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> Am I seeing double?


There is a glitch somewhere...I have not yet located it...it started three-four days ago...I mentioned it to the administration...and I double checked my browser...I still have to find the solution. ...It's frustrating...to say the least...I must have deleted forty posts or so so far. 

Sorry about that...I didn't catch it right away.

P.S. I frequent and post @ various audio sites and the only place I'm having this issue now is...you guessed it. So I don't think it's my browser because yesterday I checked its status...and it's perfect.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

NorthSky said:


> There is a glitch somewhere...I have not yet located it...it started three-four days ago...I mentioned it to the administration...and I double checked my browser...I still have to find the solution. ...It's frustrating...to say the least...I must have deleted forty posts or so so far.
> 
> Sorry about that...I didn't catch it right away.


Same here Bob


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> I stumbled over this Doctor Who (Atmos remix?) a few weeks ago in the format of a CineMark special (theatrical) event in advance of the just started season of Doctor Who on BBC America.


Yeah, I remember hearing about it as one of those one-night-only Fathom Events screenings at local movie theatres. The screening was in Dolby Atmos, so I know there is an Atmos mix for this Doctor Who event. But I didn't think that mix would end up on Blu-ray (figured the BD would have the mix used for the TV broadcast).


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Same here Bob


Mike Lang (administrator), yesterday, said that he has not received any mention of that issue from anyone else but only from me, but I did encountered another member who had a double post...so I'm not the only one...but maybe the only one who MENTIONED it...and that, is all the difference.

Now Brian you just said that you too have this issue...then it's real...and it's here, @ AVSForum. TY


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Go read the last reply in the bass thread. JUST happened to digler


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> Dracula is a good one. I'm watching Insidious 3 and the remake of Poltergeist. Love the Halloween spirit
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The Poltergeist remake is an absolute waste of time. I hope you didn't buy it.


----------



## ellisr63

NorthSky said:


> Mike Lang (administrator), yesterday, said that he has not received any mention of that issue from anyone else but only from me, but I did encountered another member who had a double post...so I'm not the only one...but maybe the only one who MENTIONED it...and that, is all the difference.
> 
> Now Brian you just said that you too have this issue...then it's real...and it's here, @ AVSForum. TY


I had one yesterday too.


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, no. You're going to see a lot of receivers that we already know about and are currently available to purchase or just about to come out.
> 
> I highly doubt you'll see much of >11.1 systems at CEDIA this year.


So I'm not doubting you. But since the Dolby atmos spec released 6 months ago shows 13.1 in detail, what makes you think we won't see 13.1 product announced at Cedia? Plus with auro pushing their 13.1, I would think Dolby and dts would react. They probably don't view auro as much of a theater though honestly. 

I hope you are wrong for my sake . But I fear you also have some insight. Can you elaborate a bit?


----------



## Stoked21

* much of a threat

Not theater. Auto correct.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> So I'm not doubting you. But since the Dolby atmos spec released 6 months ago shows 13.1 in detail, what makes you think we won't see 13.1 product announced at Cedia? Plus with auro pushing their 13.1, I would think Dolby and dts would react. They probably don't view auro as much of a theater though honestly.
> 
> I hope you are wrong for my sake . But I fear you also have some insight. Can you elaborate a bit?


11.1 or 7.1.4/9.1.2 rendering is expected to be the defacto standard for the time being. The DSP chip architecture from the major developers of consumer electronics processors would have to be updated. That will take some serious push back from consumers. Otherwise, they won't budge.


----------



## asere

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Poltergeist remake is an absolute waste of time. I hope you didn't buy it.


I was going to. I'm still on the fence because I hear mixed reviews. Most likely a rental.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

asere said:


> I was going to. I'm still on the fence because I hear mixed reviews. Most likely a rental.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Get it at Redbox for $0.50 or you'll feel like you spent too much money. Don't say I didn't warn you.


----------



## asere

Dan Hitchman said:


> Get it at Redbox for $0.50 or you'll feel like you spent too much money. Don't say I didn't warn you.


I'm thinking about buying Insidious 3 instead. I hear it's good.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

My Marantz pre-pro arrived today! The next chapter in the Quest for Immersive Nirvana: get the room ready for action!


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> My Marantz pre-pro arrived today! The next chapter in the Quest for Immersive Nirvana: get the room ready for action!


Now that, I will be following with great interest...from one of my favorite movie critics.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Now that, I will be following with great interest...from one of my favorite movie critics.


 Bob, you need to catch up. My Marantz 7702mk2 will arrive soon as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Bob, you need to catch up. My Marantz 7702mk2 will arrive soon as well.


Awesome, and I know that you are going to share with all of us. 

I am hoping for the less glitches possible...good firmware updates...easy operation...and awesome sound performance with both Music and Movies.  
...And DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) application with DTS-HD MA soundtracks. 

We are @ the peripheral (threshold) of the three 3D surround sound immersion. ...Atmos, dts:X & Auro. 
...The latest and newest pre/pro (affordable) with the new AKM DACs.
...And Audyssey Platinum...of course.


----------



## coolrda

NorthSky said:


> Awesome, and I know that you are going to share with all of us.
> 
> I am hoping for the less glitches possible...good firmware updates...easy operation...and awesome sound performance with both Music and Movies.
> ...And DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) application with DTS-HD MA soundtracks.
> 
> We are @ the peripheral (threshold) of the three 3D surround sound immersion. ...Atmos, dts:X & Auro.
> ...The latest and newest pre/pro (affordable) with the new AKM DACs.
> ...And Audyssey Platinum...of course.


I'm all fired up now.


----------



## Eriksdam

I just finished watching "Idealisten" (The Idealist), the first Danish Bluray with Dolby Atmos, as you may know. Right now it's only available in Scandinavia (Scandinavian subs only, sorry Erwin & Scarabaeus), but will get international distribution as well (available from november 30th in Germany, at least).

If you absolutely, definately need guns, carchases and a nice, high body-count to make your movie evening enjoyable, please look elsewhere: The movie itself is a drama about an journalist who in the late 80ies uncovers secrets about a B-52 crash on Greenland and secrets agreements between the US and Danish goverments. While the plot as such isn't really that original, it's helped along by the fact that these are real events, solid acting and well written dialogue. Well worth a watch for those qualities alone.

Now the sound: I am happy to report that the Atmos sound is excellent! I really didn't have high expectations given the type of movie, but the surround platform is used intensively for creating acoustic backdrops and environments for the dialogue, like offices, government corridors etc., creating really excellent immersion. In the very interesting extra about the sound design of the movie, the sound designers explain that the since the journalist is a radio reporter, only "armed" with a tape recorder and, well, sound, the idea is to use sound to get us inside his mind, and this works very well indeed. The movies electronic score by Jonas Struck also deserves praise: Excellent woofer workout and very creative and active use of the surrounds. 

What sets it apart soundwise is the sum of the parts, though: The way the mix of acoustic environments, precise object placement, the integration of iconic sounds, like B-52 engines, and the score all add to the dramatic context is text book material, and makes it one of the best sounding Dolby Atmos titles available to date, IMO.

Highly recommended!



-Erik


----------



## Molon_Labe

Any gamers in this thread? Only a month and a half away from Star Wars Battlefront. This has the potential to be Atmos demo material. If they pan the tie fighters, X-wings, speeder bikes, and snow speeders to overheads this could be an Atmos workhorse. I was seven when Star Wars came out in 1977. Needless to say, I grew up as a kid playing with all the Kenner toys having galactic battles in hallways, staircases, my bedroom, and outside. This game will be the ultimate flashback, and I am hoping it will be an Atmos gem.


----------



## gammanuc

Molon_Labe said:


> Any gamers in this thread? Only a month and a half away from Star Wars Battlefront. This has the potential to be Atmos demo material. If they pan the tie fighters, X-wings, speeder bikes, and snow speeders to overheads this could be an Atmos workhorse. I was seven when Star Wars came out in 1977. Needless to say, I grew up as a kid playing with all the Kenner toys having galactic battles in hallways, staircases, my bedroom, and outside. This game will be the ultimate flashback, and I am hoping it will be an Atmos gem.


I thought I read it was in Atmos on PC only. I wish it was on consoles as well.


----------



## gammanuc

Yeah, I'm going to have to at least get a new video card for my PC. Right now I have a silent (fan less) card that won't be up to running that game.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Molon_Labe said:


> Really? Oh no....
> 
> Just checked and your right  Well, I have been planning on building a home theater/gaming PC. I guess the time has come.


PC is better anyway, you can max out the specs & get a way better presentation than on a console. The only thing I wonder... there seems to be no hardware capable of playing Atmos on a PC system... even 7.1 isn't really a thing on PC's yet & sound card manufacturers don't make it very clear. 

But whatever the case I already pre-ordered the game... just cuz I need my Star Wars fix!


----------



## doctorwizz

Aras_Volodka said:


> PC is better anyway, you can max out the specs & get a way better presentation than on a console. The only thing I wonder... there seems to be no hardware capable of playing Atmos on a PC system... even 7.1 isn't really a thing on PC's yet & sound card manufacturers don't make it very clear.
> 
> But whatever the case I already pre-ordered the game... just cuz I need my Star Wars fix!


You don't use a sound card for PC audio to get Atmos, DTS-MA 7.1 etc. You use the video card HDMI port connected to your AVR. Then you can play any multichannel format including atmos.


----------



## gammanuc

Yes, bitstream out on the video card, and the AVR handles the rest. I've been using my PC for Atmos for ever since I got a capable AVR.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## blastermaster

Aras_Volodka said:


> PC is better anyway, you can max out the specs & get a way better presentation than on a console. The only thing I wonder... there seems to be no hardware capable of playing Atmos on a PC system... even 7.1 isn't really a thing on PC's yet & sound card manufacturers don't make it very clear.
> 
> But whatever the case I already pre-ordered the game... just cuz I need my Star Wars fix!


I concur about the superiority of the PC, although Forza 6 and Bloodborne...

I also love that if you have a 2.35:1 screen you can set a resolution that will fit your screen so you actually see more of the 3D world. As far as Atmos (trying to stay on topic), I would imagine that there would be sound cards coming out that would support it. However, could you not bitstream it and have the receiver decode the information to Atmos? I've been watching mostly movies not playing games lately, but I do recall having to use optical in order to get surround sound for some stupid reason and I can't remember why.

Edit: Gammanuc beat me to it!


----------



## blastermaster

Molon, I'm suffering from speaker envy just now. Grats on your setup - it must sound amazing!


----------



## Nalleh

deus777 said:


> Has anyone tried to extract 9.1.4 using a second AVR? ie splitting an atmos hdmi signal into two identical avrs with different set of optional channels set in each one.


Yes, i have. With a Denon 7200 + a 5200.
Not only to gain Atmos 9.1.4 but rather 9.1.6, and also Auro 3D 12.1.
I am not splitting the HDMI, I use the HDMI ZONE2 OUT from the 7200 feeding the 5200.
Works like a charm


----------



## smurraybhm

Nalleh said:


> Yes, i have. With a Denon 7200 + a 5200.
> Not only to gain Atmos 9.1.4 but rather 9.1.6, and also Auro 3D 12.1.
> I am not splitting the HDMI, I use the HDMI ZONE2 OUT from the 7200 feeding the 5200.
> Works like a charm


Yea rub it in to all those wanting more channels 
Nalleh - One of our immersive pioneers, as said many times before, well done.


----------



## Nalleh

smurraybhm said:


> Yea rub it in to all those wanting more channels
> Nalleh - One of our immersive pioneers, as said many times before, well done.


Thanks 
Last couple of weeks we have been updating/renovating the living room/Home Theater, and we're almost done, so can't wait to watch movies again. Haven't even watched Mad Max FR, altough i got it weeks ago!

Will try out a 11.2.9 combo this time (actually have 2 sets of Kef 3005 5.1 kits now, ready for ceiling service 

A little preview below


----------



## DaveGR32276

Nalleh said:


> Yes, i have. With a Denon 7200 + a 5200.
> Not only to gain Atmos 9.1.4 but rather 9.1.6, and also Auro 3D 12.1.
> I am not splitting the HDMI, I use the HDMI ZONE2 OUT from the 7200 feeding the 5200.
> Works like a charm


Care to elaborate on how you have this hooked up, and what are the speaker settings? We have a Marantz 7009 and a Onkyo 805.


----------



## Molon_Labe

blastermaster said:


> Molon, I'm suffering from speaker envy just now. Grats on your setup - it must sound amazing!


Thanks  I haven't got to hear the completed system yet since the room is being redone. Previously, I had (4) 4722n in a 4.2 setup. I had a 92" DLP so I couldn't do a center. Having the four 4722's sounded phenomenal even with a phantom center. With the projector and (3) more 4722n and the (4) Atmos speakers I am anxious to hear how it sounds in a 7.2.4 setup. My hopes are high.....


----------



## smurraybhm

Nalleh said:


> Thanks
> Last couple of weeks we have been updating/renovating the living room/Home Theater, and we're almost done, so can't wait to watch movies again. Haven't even watched Mad Max FR, altough i got it weeks ago!
> 
> Will try out a 11.2.9 combo this time (actually have 2 sets of Kef 3005 5.1 kits now, ready for ceiling service
> 
> A little preview below


Picture me with a jealous look. Get ready for in your face Atmos and some solid bass. I just received a new PSA v1800 to pair with a SVS PC12+ (SVS 10" sub is going to a new home) so I plan on revisiting Mad Max - Fury Road as soon as the house is unoccupied.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Thanks
> Last couple of weeks we have been updating/renovating the living room/Home Theater, and we're almost done, so can't wait to watch movies again. Haven't even watched Mad Max FR, altough i got it weeks ago!
> 
> Will try out a 11.2.9 combo this time (actually have 2 sets of Kef 3005 5.1 kits now, ready for ceiling service
> 
> A little preview below


So are these just copied channels or more speakers that do not play concurrently? No way you get total discrete output with two HDMI receivers. Call me curious...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Molon_Labe said:


> Any gamers in this thread? Only a month and a half away from Star Wars Battlefront. This has the potential to be Atmos demo material. If they pan the tie fighters, X-wings, speeder bikes, and snow speeders to overheads this could be an Atmos workhorse. I was seven when Star Wars came out in 1977. Needless to say, I grew up as a kid playing with all the Kenner toys having galactic battles in hallways, staircases, my bedroom, and outside. This game will be the ultimate flashback, and I am hoping it will be an Atmos gem.


I'm an Xbox One gamer. Unfortunately, the current state of Atmos in gaming is up in the air. The PC version's going to have Atmos, but only with certain video cards (and EA has been kinda' unclear on which ones thus far). The console versions can't currently swing it losslessly... because you'd basically be looking at real-time output to TrueHD with the Atmos metadata for true lossless audio. At least on the Xbox One side, it's possible that they could update the console for encoding to Dolby Digital Plus and still offer the Atmos metadata... but it would take the game's audio engine supporting output to that format as well. Not sure how feasible that is on the PS4 side. Assuming their audio chipsets are reprogrammable, I would imagine they could update them for this purpose. But the question is whether such a niche technology is worth them devoting the time and resources. I'm betting we're going to see Atmos gaming limited to the PC for the foreseeable future.


----------



## bargervais

Is Disney (of the big Studios) the only hold out with no Blu-Rays with Atmos (i think Dreamworks also but that's mostly cartoon animation stuff that i'm not really interested in.)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Also Fox, big time.


----------



## asere

bargervais said:


> Is Disney (of the big Studios) the only hold out with no Blu-Rays with Atmos (i think Dreamworks also but that's mostly cartoon animation stuff that i'm not really interested in.)


If you ask me Disney is going to wait for UHD to get here to launch Atmos/DTS:X. Sparingly for bluray maybe but mainly UHD. I could be wrong but that's my take.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> Also Fox, big time.


that's right thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

To reiterate the majority view, I expect Fox and Disney will only debut immersive mixes when UHD Blu shows up. Whether than means they'll snub regular Blu-ray once these tracks are on UHD discs, that's anyone's guess.


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> Is Disney (of the big Studios) the only hold out with no Blu-Rays with Atmos (i think Dreamworks also but that's mostly cartoon animation stuff that i'm not really interested in.)


Ironically, Fox and Disney are the biggest supporters of Atmos theatrically. It is only for home video that they are holding back and waiting for UHD. Also, these days "Disney" means Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm. That's a lot of Atmos titles not being released on Blu-ray.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Ironically, Fox and Disney are the biggest supporters of Atmos theatrically. It is only for home video that they are holding back and waiting for UHD. Also, these days "Disney" means Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm. That's a lot of Atmos titles not being released on Blu-ray.


Unless I'm wrong, I would think Star Wars 7 will get a UHD Blu-ray release with Atmos track (maybe HDR??). Hopefully, 100 GB disc capable plants are ready to rock and roll by then.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Unless I'm wrong, I would think Star Wars 7 will get a UHD Blu-ray release with Atmos track (maybe HDR??). Hopefully, 100 GB disc capable plants are ready to rock and roll by then.


Yeah, Lucasfilm just joined Disney. But those other production companies have racked up a lot of Atmos mixes that aren't being released on BD. Don't know if SW7 will get Atmos or HDR on Blu-ray, even though BD is capable of handling both technologies.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Doubtful on 'regular' Blu-ray. Atmos on UHD? Sure, maybe even HDR too.

Don't expect SW 1-6 in Atmos and/or UHD Blu-ray for several years. Like usual with a new home video format.


----------



## Nalleh

DaveGR32276 said:


> Care to elaborate on how you have this hooked up, and what are the speaker settings? We have a Marantz 7009 and a Onkyo 805.


Here is how i did it:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-601.html#post30961698

And pictures:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-37.html#post31169602



smurraybhm said:


> Picture me with a jealous look. Get ready for in your face Atmos and some solid bass. I just received a new PSA v1800 to pair with a SVS PC12+ (SVS 10" sub is going to a new home) so I plan on revisiting Mad Max - Fury Road as soon as the house is unoccupied.


Yea, i got a PSA S3000i and a SVS PB12/2 and buttkickers, lool, so looking forward to it 



Scott Simonian said:


> So are these just copied channels or more speakers that do not play concurrently? No way you get total discrete output with two HDMI receivers. Call me curious...


Have you forgotten all the discussions we had about this earlier?
The two AVR's are setup with different speakers(altough a little different setup now, compared to before), one with wides and FH+TM, no SB's(7200) and the other have TF+TR, the SB's, CH and side surround 2. And i have a PIIx matrixed VOG from the TM's.

And the AVR's are linked/synced with HDMI, so both light up the good ol' DOLBY ATMOS on the displays


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Have you forgotten all the discussions we had about this earlier?


You just said you're working on a *new* 11.1.8 system. I was asking about that.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> You just said you're working on a *new* 11.1.8 system. I was asking about that.


Weell, i didn't say new, i said i would try out 11.2.9 

Explained in post above.

Will also try some acoustic panels on walls and ceiling, so exited to hear if any improvements


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Thanks
> Last couple of weeks we have been updating/renovating the living room/Home Theater, and we're almost done, so can't wait to watch movies again. Haven't even watched Mad Max FR, altough i got it weeks ago!
> 
> Will try out a 11.2.9 combo this time (actually have 2 sets of Kef 3005 5.1 kits now, ready for ceiling service
> 
> A little preview below


You my Dolby Atmos surround guru.


----------



## Movie78

Nalleh said:


> Weell, i didn't say new, i said i would try out 11.2.9
> 
> Explained in post above.
> 
> Will also try some acoustic panels on walls and ceiling, so exited to hear if any improvements


Time to post a video of your configuration.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Weell, i didn't say new, i said i would try out 11.2.9
> 
> Explained in post above.
> 
> Will also try some acoustic panels on walls and ceiling, so exited to hear if any improvements


Fair enough.


Those acoustical panels will surely improve the sound of your 9.1.2 system.


----------



## NorthSky

Dan Hitchman said:


> To reiterate the majority view, I expect *Fox & Disney* will only debut immersive mixes when UHD Blu shows up. Whether than means they'll snub regular Blu-ray once these tracks are on UHD discs, that's anyone's guess.


It's incredible that in the year 2015 two major Hollywood movie studios aren't giving their fans Dolby Atmos sound. 
And Disney is going down with 3D (*Cinderella*), and FOX is more oriented towards D-Box, which most regular members here @ AVSF aren't fond of. 

♦ *'The Walk'*, directed by Robert Zemeckis was filmed in 3D...and it gives few people "vertigo" and sickness too...like throwing up...very true. 
It's the true story of Philippe Petit who walked between the twin towers of the World Trade Center on August 7, 1974...on a steel cable. 
Can't wait for that one to hit on Blu.

______


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> Those acoustical panels will surely improve the sound of your* 9.1.2 system*.


Come on man, at least give me 9.2.4. I think i deserve that


----------



## NorthSky

Hope this guy gets the full Dolby Atmos sound that it deserves...in 3D on Blu.

______


----------



## asere

sdurani said:


> Ironically, Fox and Disney are the biggest supporters of Atmos theatrically. It is only for home video that they are holding back and waiting for UHD. Also, these days "Disney" means Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm. That's a lot of Atmos titles not being released on Blu-ray.


That's the part that's bad about early adopters. You get only a handful of Atmos discs available not to mention DTSX has only 2 now. The vast majority will be in UHD Disney or non Disney. That obligates the user to buy an UHD player and 4K tv if you don't already own one and by then the current receiver is much older and time to upgrade that too. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## scarabaeus

Eriksdam said:


> I just finished watching "Idealisten" (The Idealist), the first Danish Bluray with Dolby Atmos, as you may know. Right now it's only available in Scandinavia (Scandinavian subs only, sorry Erwin & Scarabaeus), but will get international distribution as well (available from november 30th in Germany, at least)
> 
> ....
> 
> Highly recommended!


Great, thank you for the info. It's not up on blu-ray.com yet, but here's the link for amazon.de

No info there on whether or not it has Atmos, or english, or both. Let's hope it's danish atmos with german and english subtitles.


----------



## NorthSky

All of this is just a _préambule_ of bigger things to come...UHD Blu and much more Atmos software with various re-mapping capabilities from our future hardware.

* In reply to *asere*'s post just above.


----------



## Movie78

northsky said:


> all of this is just a _préambule_ of bigger things to come...uhd blu and much more atmos software with various re-mapping capabilities from our future hardware.
> 
> * in reply to *asere*'s post just above.


*did you buy atmos/dts x receiver yet?*


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Molon_Labe said:


> Thanks for the post. I was just on New Egg piecing together a gamer PC. I didn't know that only select video cards supported Atmos over hdmi. I think I will just hold for now until all this pans out in the next year or so. I was so stoked about Atmos and Battlefront.......Sigh




I think just about any of the newer ATI or Nvidia cards are good to go with that. Just take a look at what the recommendations are for Battlefront on the PC side and you should be covered. Then again, waiting until the game is out and seeing what other people's experiences are isn't the worst option. ;-)


----------



## robert816

gammanuc said:


> Yes, bitstream out on the video card, and the AVR handles the rest. I've been using my PC for Atmos for ever since I got a capable AVR.


What application are you using to bitstream your Atmos Blu-Rays?

I normally only see PCM on the AVR unless I use Kodi or Total Media Theatre 6, then I see Dolby TrueHD or DTS MasterHD.

I'm currently using an SC-57 for the PC, been thinking of replacing it with an Atmos AVR, or moving my SC-87 to the PC and buy a new one for the home theatre.


----------



## lujan

asere said:


> That's the part that's bad about early adopters. You get only a handful of Atmos discs available not to mention DTSX has only 2 now. The vast majority will be in UHD Disney or non Disney. That obligates the user to buy an UHD player and 4K tv if you don't already own one and by then the current receiver is much older and time to upgrade that too.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I own the Denon X5200W which will apparently never get the DTS:X upgrade so it will be obsolete even though I just bought it earlier this year. The next receiver I get will not only be able to support DTS:X but Ultra HD as well.


----------



## doctorwizz

Molon_Labe said:


> Thanks for the post. I was just on New Egg piecing together a gamer PC. I didn't know that only select video cards supported Atmos over hdmi. I think I will just hold for now until all this pans out in the next year or so. I was so stoked about Atmos and Battlefront.......Sigh


Any video card with an HDMI port will support Atmos.


----------



## doctorwizz

Check this post on how to set up Kodi so you can properly upmix DTS-HD 7.1 or DTS-HD 5.1, and DTS to Dolby Surround. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-s-thread-faq-hdcp-2-2-a-62.html#post37693961


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> *did you buy atmos/dts x receiver yet?*


Yes; she's in her box, in my closet...till I'm done renovating my room theater. ...Feel better now? ;-)


----------



## NorthSky

A very good question that *asere* asked just an hour or so ago in another thread (Official Onkyo THX 805 AV receiver thread):

*For folks who have an Onkyo/Integra Dolby Atmos AV receiver and/or pre/pro with THX Ultra2 Plus (or THX Select2 Plus) certification;
can you use a THX audio mode on top of a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack? ...And can you superimpose a THX audio mode on top of Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU)?*


----------



## howard68

Hi all 
I have set up my new avr 6200 for 9.2.2 
I so far think the FW is not working well

It plays the test sounds 
However I find no sound is going on on them with atmos films 

Can someone please give me time and chapter on good FW speaker usage blu rays 

Thx


----------



## gammanuc

robert816 said:


> What application are you using to bitstream your Atmos Blu-Rays?
> 
> I normally only see PCM on the AVR unless I use Kodi or Total Media Theatre 6, then I see Dolby TrueHD or DTS MasterHD.
> 
> I'm currently using an SC-57 for the PC, been thinking of replacing it with an Atmos AVR, or moving my SC-87 to the PC and buy a new one for the home theatre.


I'm using MPC-HC. Had to change the output settled from default though.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Come on man, at least give me 9.2.4. I think i deserve that


You're right.  Good luck with those panels. I put off doing treatments for way too long. You won't regret it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Thanks for the post. I was just on New Egg piecing together a gamer PC. I didn't know that only select video cards supported Atmos over hdmi. I think I will just hold for now until all this pans out in the next year or so. I was so stoked about Atmos and Battlefront.......Sigh


Should be any videocard with bitstream capability. It doesn't have to mention Atmos support at all for it to work.



doctorwizz said:


> Any video card with an HDMI port will support Atmos.


Not necessarily true. There are some older, cheaper videocards that have HDMI but only support 2ch audio. I know my laptop is like that.

Most _should_ support it but make sure to look for bitstream output.


----------



## audiofan1

NorthSky said:


> A very good question that *asere* asked just an hour or so ago in another thread (Official Onkyo THX 805 AV receiver thread):
> 
> *For folks who have an Onkyo/Integra Dolby Atmos AV receiver and/or pre/pro with THX Ultra2 Plus (or THX Select2 Plus) certification;
> can you use a THX audio mode on top of a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack? ...And can you superimpose a THX audio mode on top of Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU)?*


I don't see why not since THX is mostly post processing. I can apply similar features on my 8802 (dialog enhancement) and not to mention Audyssey, once things hit the pcm world even a DSD signal can be post processed


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Yes; she's in her box, in my closet...till I'm done renovating my room theater. ...Feel better now? ;-)


*
Which one did you BUY*


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Yes; she's in her box, in my closet...till I'm done renovating my room theater. ...Feel better now? ;-)


Dang, Bob. Got some poor girl locked in a box inside a closet? 

Should probably keep that kind of stuff in PM.


----------



## scarabaeus

scarabaeus said:


> Let's hope it's danish atmos with german and english subtitles.


Nope: http://www.lighthouse-film.com/video/the-idealist-geheimakte-groenland/#tab5

German, DTS-HD 5.1


----------



## ahall44

Need a bit of help with a vaulted ceiling.

I am moving from 7.x to 7.x.4. My room is approx. 19 x 29 with a vaulted ceiling. The ceiling starts at 8 feet in the front andback (the 19 feet side) and peeks at 16 feet at the middle of the room. It looks like an A frame cabin ceiling. The display is on the back wall. Because the top speakers will hang from theceiling by chains I get to choose the height. The challenge is I can’t find a clear explanation about how high Ishould hang them. The Dolby documentgives angles but those will shift based on speaker height. Meaning at 45% the distance from the frontwall changes based on how high I hang the speakers. Is there any guidance available on whether Ishould pull them as close the ceiling as possible so that the face of thespeaker is 11 or more feet from the floor or should I drop them lower to thefloor which means pulling them back towards the center line a bit to maintainthe recommended angles? 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## gerchy

Eriksdam said:


> I just finished watching "Idealisten" (The Idealist). Now the sound: I am happy to report that the Atmos sound is excellent!


I second that!
Very good soundtrack! Altough this is a drama there are more (and very accurate!) Atmos effects than in most action movies. Well done!


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Dang, Bob. Got some poor girl locked in a box inside a closet?
> 
> Should probably keep that kind of stuff in PM.


He asked me an honest question, I gave him an honest answer. 

* It has all to do with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It rubs the DTS on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.


----------



## NorthSky

audiofan1 said:


> *I don't see why not since THX is mostly post processing*. I can apply similar features on my 8802 (dialog enhancement) and not to mention Audyssey, once things hit the pcm world even a DSD signal can be post processed


That was exactly my first thought. 



Movie78 said:


> *
> Which one did you BUY*


The MKII pre/pro model (Marantz 7702). ...She has it all...Dolby-Atmos, Auro-3D (extra), and in January 2016...DTS:X. ...And she's very affordable with brand new AKM DACs all around and with one of the very best Calibration & EQ systems on the market...Audyssey Platinum level caliber...XT32 fully equipped....and Pro Ready. Plus HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for true 4K (UHD) picture "transformation" of the future. 

Right now I am remodeling my main theater room...no rush...I want it to be excellent first. 

It's a lovely day, it's a beautiful life...it's all good.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> That was exactly my first thought.
> 
> 
> 
> The MKII pre/pro model (Marantz 7702). ...She has it all...Dolby-Atmos, Auro-3D (extra), and in January 2016...DTS:X. ...And she's very affordable with brand new AKM DACs all around and with one of the very best Calibration & EQ systems on the market...Audyssey Platinum level caliber...XT32 fully equipped....and Pro Ready. Plus HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for true 4K (UHD) picture "transformation" of the future.
> 
> Right now I am remodeling my main theater room...no rush...I want it to be excellent first.
> 
> It's a lovely day, it's a beautiful life...it's all good.


Head over to the immersive thread, some possible bad news on DTS:X. Great find and if true explains why we have all been wondering what's been going on with DTS:X for nearly a year now. More importantly Bob, congrads and nice choice on the Marantz - your going to like what you hear. Steve


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> It rubs the DTS on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.


No Scott, the gentleman was previously concerned that I did not own yet a Dolby Atmos receiver.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I know but I'm talking about the poor girl you have got held hostage. 

Not coming out until DTS:X firmware releases. Yes.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Head over to the immersive thread, some possible bad news on DTS:X. Great find and if true explains why we have all been wondering what's been going on with DTS:X for nearly a year now. More importantly Bob, congrads and nice choice on the Marantz - your going to like what you hear. Steve


I have been waiting for this moment all my life. Thanks Steve, I know that I will. 

* Bad news about DTS:X...I very doubt that. But I'll have a look and will follow very attentively any confirmed and solid foundation news. 

And dts is always a year or so behind dolby...it's all normal...in the stars of the sky...business strategy...a common agreement for market sharing...I believe.
I am not an expert insider...and if I was I would be under oath probably...for not divulging the undercurrent state of the affairs. 
You and I and everyone else we are all in the same boat...we read the news and we love speculating about the future. 
But for right now the best thing is that a bunch of happy people like yourself are enjoying Dolby Atmos, DSU, Auro-3D, Auro-2D and Auro-Matic. 
{Not you regarding Auro...but yes with others.}

Having a choice and more versatility is better than none @ all. ...Hope for the best...DTS:X.


----------



## scarabaeus

Didn't want to cross-post, so head over to the immersive thread to discuss:



scarabaeus said:


> Start of the surround format DTS:X has been postponed to uncertain time


----------



## doctorwizz

Scott Simonian said:


> Should be any videocard with bitstream capability. It doesn't have to mention Atmos support at all for it to work.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily true. There are some older, cheaper videocards that have HDMI but only support 2ch audio. I know my laptop is like that.
> 
> Most _should_ support it but make sure to look for bitstream output.


Have you tried doing multichannel with your laptop using WASAPI?


----------



## Scott Simonian

doctorwizz said:


> Have you tried doing multichannel with your laptop using WASAPI?


No. I don't know what that is. But honestly, I'm not trying to get any multichannel content out of my laptop. Just used it as an example.


----------



## doctorwizz

Scott Simonian said:


> No. I don't know what that is. But honestly, I'm not trying to get any multichannel content out of my laptop. Just used it as an example.


Your laptop would do multichannel with WASAPI and media players like Foobar and Kodi with an AVR.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> That was exactly my first thought.
> 
> 
> 
> The MKII pre/pro model (Marantz 7702). ...She has it all...Dolby-Atmos, Auro-3D (extra), and in January 2016...DTS:X. ...And she's very affordable with brand new AKM DACs all around and with one of the very best Calibration & EQ systems on the market...Audyssey Platinum level caliber...XT32 fully equipped....and Pro Ready. Plus HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for true 4K (UHD) picture "transformation" of the future.
> 
> Right now I am remodeling my main theater room...no rush...I want it to be excellent first.
> 
> It's a lovely day, it's a beautiful life...it's all good.


I will believe when i see it


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> I will believe when i see it


You know what...you can believe all you want. I just don't care.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> You know what...you can believe all you want. I just don't care.


I knew it!!!!


I am already on my 2nd Atmos Receiver 

Come on!!!


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I know but I'm talking about the poor girl you have got held hostage.
> 
> Not coming out until DTS:X firmware releases. Yes.


I'm in no rush man...neither is she...DTS:X won't be here for @ least another three months. 
Meanwhile I'll take care of business...my room and my sanity. 

Besides, plenty of great 3D Blu-rays coming up. ...And some with Dolby Atmos...so I'll collect them and augment my Atmos software...all excellent Scott.
Bob is a happy guy who doesn't sweat life with small details when he is still alive and enjoy the good things in life...Atmos or not.


----------



## Scott Simonian

doctorwizz said:


> Your laptop would do multichannel with WASAPI and media players like Foobar and Kodi with an AVR.


Thanks. I'll try and remember that. My laptop was a very decent gaming laptop at the time but now... mostly just good for being a laptop. I don't expect much out of it or require any MC output. Thanks anyway.


----------



## batpig

Curious about these "Atmos enabled" video games....

How exactly would this work in delivering the Atmos audio to the processor?

HDMI is, I believe, limited to 7.1 PCM transfer.... so the source device can't decode it first and deliver the rendered Atmos soundtrack on the fly as multich PCM. Plus of course, even if it could do an 11.1 PCM stream over HDMI, it would need to know the layout of your speakers.

So that means it must bitstream so the AVR can decode/render... but the Atmos bitstream is embedded in TrueHD+metadata. Does that mean these games are going to be able to, on the fly, render audio and pack it into TrueHD+metadata bitstream output to be decoded as Atmos by the processor? That seems like a crazy computational task especially considering the fact that the video game audio is *dynamic* -- it will be constantly changing depending on the orientation of your character vs. the objects in the game.


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> I knew it!!!!
> 
> *I am already on my 2nd Atmos Receiver*


Wow, good for ya, you're way ahead of most folks here. Would you like your Atmos trophy made of gold or incrusted with sapphires?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> Hi all
> I have set up my new avr 6200 for 9.2.2
> I so far think the FW is not working well
> 
> It plays the test sounds
> However I find no sound is going on on them with atmos films
> 
> Can someone please give me time and chapter on good FW speaker usage blu rays
> 
> Thx


Gravity and Mad Max are two that come to mind.


----------



## doctorwizz

batpig said:


> Curious about these "Atmos enabled" video games....
> 
> How exactly would this work in delivering the Atmos audio to the processor?
> 
> HDMI is, I believe, limited to 7.1 PCM transfer.... so the source device can't decode it first and deliver the rendered Atmos soundtrack on the fly as multich PCM. Plus of course, even if it could do an 11.1 PCM stream over HDMI, it would need to know the layout of your speakers.
> 
> So that means it must bitstream so the AVR can decode/render... but the Atmos bitstream is embedded in TrueHD+metadata. Does that mean these games are going to be able to, on the fly, render audio and pack it into TrueHD+metadata bitstream output to be decoded as Atmos by the processor? That seems like a crazy computational task especially considering the fact that the video game audio is *dynamic* -- it will be constantly changing depending on the orientation of your character vs. the objects in the game.


Doesn't have to be TrueHD. DD+ can carry Atmos like on Vudu.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Curious about these "Atmos enabled" video games....
> 
> How exactly would this work in delivering the Atmos audio to the processor?
> 
> HDMI is, I believe, limited to 7.1 PCM transfer.... so the source device can't decode it first and deliver the rendered Atmos soundtrack on the fly as multich PCM. Plus of course, even if it could do an 11.1 PCM stream over HDMI, it would need to know the layout of your speakers.
> 
> So that means it must bitstream so the AVR can decode/render... but the Atmos bitstream is embedded in TrueHD+metadata. Does that mean these games are going to be able to, on the fly, render audio and pack it into TrueHD+metadata bitstream output to be decoded as Atmos by the processor? That seems like a crazy computational task especially considering the fact that the video game audio is *dynamic* -- it will be constantly changing depending on the orientation of your character vs. the objects in the game.


Perhaps there's a feature of the Dolby Atmos decoder/renderer that we were not aware of: real-time, on the fly stream rendering. If it can read the object metadata without a problem, it'll think it's a movie soundtrack.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

doctorwizz said:


> Doesn't have to be TrueHD. DD+ can carry Atmos like on Vudu.


The main difference is that one is lossless and one is lossy. The game soundtrack would still have to be encoded and compressed on the fly no matter what.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Wow, good for ya, you're way ahead of most folks here. Would you like your Atmos trophy made of gold or incrusted with sapphires?


I think you full of it....
*Stop lying and making comment about a product you don't have.*

It is very deceiving and that is not what AVS is about.

We all come here to learn from people who has experienced and knowledgeable about device they own or have tested...


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Curious about these "Atmos enabled" video games....
> 
> How exactly would this work in delivering the Atmos audio to the processor?
> 
> HDMI is, I believe, limited to 7.1 PCM transfer.... so the source device can't decode it first and deliver the rendered Atmos soundtrack on the fly as multich PCM. Plus of course, even if it could do an 11.1 PCM stream over HDMI, it would need to know the layout of your speakers.
> 
> So that means it must bitstream so the AVR can decode/render... but the Atmos bitstream is embedded in TrueHD+metadata. Does that mean these games are going to be able to, on the fly, render audio and pack it into TrueHD+metadata bitstream output to be decoded as Atmos by the processor? That seems like a crazy computational task especially considering the fact that the video game audio is *dynamic* -- it will be constantly changing depending on the orientation of your character vs. the objects in the game.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Perhaps there's a feature of the Dolby Atmos decoder/renderer that we were not aware of: real-time, on the fly stream rendering. If it can read the object metadata without a problem, it'll think it's a movie soundtrack.



Yes. It would _have_ to be. No other way around it. Dolby Atmos only works when transmitted as a TrueHD or DD+ carrier. 

It would be required to use some form of encoder and being a videogame, obviously realtime. It's not impossible but I am surprised that this isn't talked about more or that there hasn't been any mention of hardware requirements. That being said, a decent CPU in a modern computer playing Battlefield ..ahem, I mean Star Wars would need to be pretty powerful.

As an aside, since the first Xbox, there has been realtime Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding for console videogame systems. The PS3 and PS4 have 7.1 PCM output with some games. Afaik, none of the current consoles have ANY realtime DD+, TrueHD, DTS-HD, or DTS-HD Master Audio encoding whatsoever.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> The game soundtrack would still have to be encoded and compressed on the fly no matter what.



I think that TrueHD movie is compressed to fit on the BD. A game only needs to stream uncompressed PCM base channels and pcm objects plus metadata in a TrueHD bitstream wrapper--provided the HDMI bandwidth allocated for audio is not exceeded. 

_


----------



## NorthSky

Movie78 said:


> I think you full of it....
> *Stop lying and making comment about a product you don't have.*
> 
> It is very deceiving and that is not AVS is about.
> 
> We all come here to learn from people who has experienced and knowledgeable about device they own or have tested...


Alright, if I tell you the truth that you want are you going to stop asking me questions, and instead move forward in a friendly tone? 
Because you kept asking me the same question over and over and over if I have an Atmos receiver or not. And it don't matter the answer because you don't seem to be happy either way. 

Just man-up and peace man.


----------



## Movie78

NorthSky said:


> Movie78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you full of it....
> *Stop lying and making comment about a product you don't have.*
> 
> It is very deceiving and that is not AVS is about.
> 
> We all come here to learn from people who has experienced and knowledgeable about device they own or have tested...
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, if I tell you the truth that you want are you going to stop asking me questions, and instead move forward in a friendly tone?
> Because you kept asking me the same question over and over and over if I have an Atmos receiver or not. And it don't matter the answer because you don't seem to be happy either way.
> 
> Just man-up and peace man.
Click to expand...

I want the Truth...

*''YOU CAN NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH''*


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Will also try some acoustic panels on walls and ceiling, so exited to hear if any improvements


Do you have nay treatment at all now? If not I would be eager to hear your experience.


----------



## dkfan9

This is getting weird.

Anyway, I don't see why Atmos encoding would be all that much more computationally intensive than 7.1 for a game. The gunshots or whatever sound effect has to be rendered to a location in real time no matter what, object based would seem to make out easier if anything since some of the processing can be offloaded to the receiver. For example, the game engine wants to place a sound between the front left and front surround positions. Pure channel base and the game engine has to place the sound then render it half and half to each channel, but with objects it just has to select the position, and the receiver chooses the speakers which get sent the audio.


----------



## blazar

dkfan9 said:


> This is getting weird.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see why Atmos encoding would be all that much more computationally intensive than 7.1 for a game. The gunshots or whatever sound effect has to be rendered to a location in real time no matter what, object based would seem to make out easier if anything since some of the processing can be offloaded to the receiver. For example, the game engine wants to place a sound between the front left and front surround positions. Pure channel base and the game engine has to place the sound then render it half and half to each channel, but with objects it just has to select the position, and the receiver chooses the speakers which get sent the audio.


gaming does have plenty of "on the fly" rendering or steering or whatever we should call it.

It is somewhat more computationally intense with more speakers but not to the point of requiring anything more than an iphone2 worth of processing power I'll bet.

The entire concept of "bed channels" is nonsensical at best and only necessary from the standpoint of backwards compatibility and studios not wanting to sell multiple discs.

The future of object oriented audio is that ALL sounds / instruments / voices should be separate objects. Each of these objects will be sent to the speakers needed to render that sound in 3d space. The processor must take into account exact locations of all speakers and then distribute sound accoringly to the 3d space.

All of this will come to pass eventually...


----------



## tjenkins95

Eriksdam said:


> Since we're on the topic of new movies: The first Scandinavian BD with Atmos just got released: The Danish political thriller Idealisten (the Idealist) is out in Denmark right now, with at least a European release to follow in about a month.
> 
> The movie has gotten extremely good reviews in DK, and we Danes are hard to please
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Idealisten-Blu-ray/132394


 
Do you know if they ship to the United States?


Ray


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Alright, if I tell you the truth that you want are you going to stop asking me questions, and instead move forward in a friendly tone?
> Because you kept asking me the same question over and over and over if I have an Atmos receiver or not. And it don't matter the answer because you don't seem to be happy either way.
> 
> Just man-up and peace man.


Sorry Bob but you really ask for it, all your posts are everything you need to know about immersive audio, yet you have no hands on experience. So please understand it's hard to understand your input when you've never heard it yourself in your room.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Sorry Bob but you really ask for it, all your posts are everything you need to know about immersive audio, yet you have no hands on experience. So please understand it's hard to understand your input when you've never heard it yourself in your room.


Bargervais, I understand. I am not the only one member here who doesn't have the Atmos equipment yet. 
Thank you, I appreciate that.

I still can share my readings, and ask questions...yes? 

________

Let's keep it Atmos, and have fun while learning and sharing.


----------



## Nalleh

Movie78 said:


> Time to post a video of your configuration.


I will see what i can do, but not quite done yet, so may be a week or two 



aaranddeeman said:


> Do you have nay treatment at all now? If not I would be eager to hear your experience.


Basically no, just a thick carpet on the floor and heavy curtains in the windows.

I will try to get as many panels as i can mounted, they will be DIY about 2x4 feet each and 2 inch thick covered in movie posters. Got inspiration from this awsome thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...inted-movie-poster-acoustic-panels-cheap.html

Will see how it all turns out


----------



## Movie78

bargervais said:


> Sorry Bob but you really ask for it, all your posts are everything you need to know about immersive audio, yet you have no hands on experience. So please understand it's hard to understand your input when you've never heard it yourself in your room.


*Thank you*!!!


----------



## Movie78

Does anybody have these ATMOS sample from Dolby Atmos Reference Disc

*AV Sync Test Signal (3:00) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos
General Listening 5.1.2 Test Signal (0:30) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos









General Listening 5.1.4 Test Signal (0:38) TrueHD 7.1 Atmos / DD+ 7.1 Atmos*








Thanks!


----------



## Movie78

Nalleh said:


> I will see what i can do, but not quite done yet, so may be a week or two
> 
> *Can't wait to see it*
> 
> Basically no, just a thick carpet on the floor and heavy curtains in the windows.
> 
> I will try to get as many panels as i can mounted, they will be DIY about 2x4 feet each and 2 inch thick covered in movie posters. Got inspiration from this awsome thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...inted-movie-poster-acoustic-panels-cheap.html
> 
> Will see how it all turns out


Lets get the popcorn ready

Thanks!


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> Maybe by the end of November is when our DTS:X firmware will arrive.


So I've been looking into swapping my Yamaha for an onkyo to move to 11.1 and have hdcp2.2. But I was told by onkyo they r releasing replacement for 1030 and 3030 that will have dts:x. They said there will be no fw upgrade so I'm holding off.


----------



## Eriksdam

tjenkins95 said:


> Do you know if they ship to the United States?
> 
> 
> Ray


Hi Ray,

Can't really help you much, sorry...

Your best bet right now is probably cdon.com, but I have no idea if they ship to the US. You might want to wait until a version with English subs is available anyway, unless you speak a Scandinavian language of course .

I just tried out all the English subs I could find on the interwebs, but none of them are any good .

-Erik


----------



## tigerhonaker

NorthSky said:


> That was exactly my first thought.
> 
> 
> 
> The MKII pre/pro model (Marantz 7702). ...She has it all...Dolby-Atmos, Auro-3D (extra), and in January 2016...DTS:X. ...And she's very affordable with brand new AKM DACs all around and with one of the very best Calibration & EQ systems on the market...Audyssey Platinum level caliber...XT32 fully equipped....and Pro Ready. Plus HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for true 4K (UHD) picture "transformation" of the future.
> 
> Right now I am remodeling my main theater room...no rush...I want it to be excellent first.
> 
> It's a lovely day, it's a beautiful life...it's all good.


Bob,

I did not know you already had purchased an Atmos new (Marantz 7702) unit.
Share me with why you did not go with another Integra Pre-Amp processor like the *DHC-80.
*I'm asking because that's the unit I have been considering for a replacement to my current Integra unit.
Please if at all possible keep your answer for me a layman at best.
And you already know I get quickly lost with the lingo thing.
(Full-Words) if it's possible buddy in your reply.
One of my main reasons for not pushing right now to up-grade to 7.1.4 is which pre-amp processor to go with.
And of course in my case it would make sense to go with one my Audio/Video shop handles.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> Sorry Bob but you really ask for it, all your posts are everything you need to know about immersive audio, yet you have no hands on experience. So please understand it's hard to understand your input when you've never heard it yourself in your room.


It's not a requirement to own immersive audio technology in order to post about it.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> It's not a requirement to own immersive audio technology in order to post about it.


I agree


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> So I've been looking into swapping my Yamaha for an onkyo to move to 11.1 and have hdcp2.2. But I was told by onkyo they r releasing replacement for 1030 and 3030 that will have dts:x. They said there will be no fw upgrade so I'm holding off.


 I want to be clear on what your saying, they will replace or swap out my 1030 with a new one that has Atmos/DTS:X. that would be wonderful..
or there will be a replacement coming out that replaces these units but i will have to buy the new ones.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> It's not a requirement to own immersive audio technology in order to post about it.




But as a counterpoint, I wouldn't take advice on heart surgery from a doctor who has never done one. ;-)


----------



## Stanton

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But as a counterpoint, I wouldn't take advice on heart surgery from a doctor who has never done one. ;-)


Agreed...which is why I have him on "ignore"...which cuts the post count by like 1/4


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But as a counterpoint, I wouldn't take advice on heart surgery from a doctor who has never done one. ;-)


Not really comparable but I get what you're saying.


But really... there are LOTS of us who still don't have immersive audio and plenty of people still listen to said guru members.

I only just got Atmos a month ago and people have been listening to my crap. 

I don't have to be a Ferrari owner to be an expert about one. It just helps to have some experience with them... I agree.

Bob. Let the girl go.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Not really comparable but I get what you're saying.
> 
> But really... there are LOTS of us who still don't have immersive audio and plenty of people still listen to said guru members.
> 
> I only just got Atmos a month ago and people have been listening to my crap.
> 
> I don't have to be a Ferrari owner to be an expert about one. It just helps to have some experience with them... I agree.
> 
> Bob. Let the girl go.


Hey, don't look at me... I haven't had it much longer than you, but I do have it. I'm mostly illustrating that each person should place value on what other people say based on their knowledge of the thing... so if you believe that the opinion of someone with no hands-on experience doesn't hold much weight, that's perfectly understandable. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be here... Just means you should gauge the value of what they say based on their experience, which is subjective and personal to you.

Or just ignore them. There's that.


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> Bob,
> 
> I did not know you already had purchased an Atmos new (Marantz 7702) unit.
> Share me with why you did not go with another Integra Pre-Amp processor like the *DHC-80.
> *I'm asking because that's the unit I have been considering for a replacement to my current Integra unit.
> Please if at all possible keep your answer for me a layman at best.
> And you already know I get quickly lost with the lingo thing.
> (Full-Words) if it's possible buddy in your reply.
> One of my main reasons for not pushing right now to up-grade to 7.1.4 is which pre-amp processor to go with.
> And of course in my case it would make sense to go with one my Audio/Video shop handles.


Hi Terry,

The Marantz AV7702MKII pre/pro I don't have...it was to please a displeased member...to get him off my back (in a humorous way...of course).
But it is in my top list among the Marantz 8802A and Yamaha 5100 pre/pros.

Onkyo/Integra is no more in my future...it is right now in my present as I have the same pre/pro as yours, but I am shopping/gathering the best info on the three I just mentioned...I am in no rush because in my book of native 3D sound, 20 Atmos BR tiltes and 2 DTS:X titles is not reason enough for me to rush things out. But it is for sure, @ 100%, that the next pre/pro will have @ least two new 3D surround sound decoders...if not three.

As you know Terry, Onkyo/Integra abandoned Audyssey last year and they replaced it by what in my honest opinion is an inferior EQ system...AccuEQ.
But I never tried so for some people it doesn't count...my opinion. 

I am a little familiar with your gear, your room, your love of movies, Mustangs, and I know you're one of the best men around.

♦ Here's my best shot: I think you'd be the guy that should explore the new Marantz AV8802A pre/pro ($4,000 list). 
Take your time and check its official thread...the owners there are a very nice bunch, and in vast general satisfied with their purchase.
SteveH is the most helpful guy around, and his knowledge is unprecedented...a good honest man and audio dealer. 
And the street price is less...of course. 

Then there is the less expensive Marantz AV7702MKII ($2,200 list). That one I have my eyes on because it costs less (half) and has everything (features) I want in it. BUT! I am 100% certain that the Marantz AV8802A is the better performing sound wise of the two...for people with discriminating ears and with resolving speakers. And the 8802A has better parts in it, better implementation, better many little touches that add up to its overall performance and deserved prestige. ...And the price difference for the people who selected it...is nothing for them...so it's a very wise choice for these folks. 
Let just say that the 8802A had more attention put to it...HDAM modules, higher grade DACs, implementation and selective parts and all. 

Now, a third pre/pro option (all affordable pre/pros...nothing in the $5,000 to $30,000 range here...but more in the below roughly $3,000 down to $1,500 range...street...roughly I said); is the Yamaha CX-A5100 ($2,500-3,000 MSRP). Unlike the two Marantzes above it doesn't have Audyssey Platinum (XT32) but YPAO with 64-bit architecture. And Yamaha is best @ DSP and also in reliability. 
Another interesting thing is that with its street price you can easily afford to add Dirac Live in the form of the MiniDSP DDRC-88A (8-channel state-of-the-art EQ for $999). 

In conclusion, these three bad boys above are the main talk of the town here in the general public shopping audience. ...Without going Ultra Hi-End ($10,000 and way up there). 

And Terry, the only thing to change and add in your room:
- Lower your four surrounds, near ear level...or a foot above is perfect.
- And install four Dolby Atmos (timbre-matched preferably with your speakers), wide dispersion, coaxial type perhaps overhead speakers...on-ceiling (or in-ceiling). 

That's all there is to it...extremely simple and you are in your way to Heaven 3D Sound. 

There is a lot more info, but this is basically it from my perspective. No doubt, you'll have to read some...about Dolby Surround Up-mixer (Dolby Atmos processing), Auro-3D (in the Marantz pre/pros...for an additional $199), and the DTS:X firmware update (around January 2016). 

You are an alert audio/video shopper, like me, and we both want to make sure we get the right unit for us and that we won't need to upgrade again three years or less down the road...we're in it for the long term...five years...because money doesn't grow in our backyard's trees. 

You are asking already questions...excellent...you'll get eventually to the bottom of it all to make your next upgrade the best choice possible...for you. 

Best cheers,
_Bob_


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> I want to be clear on what your saying, they will replace or swap out my 1030 with a new one that has Atmos/DTS:X. that would be wonderful..
> or there will be a replacement coming out that replaces these units but i will have to buy the new ones.


If only owners were that lucky. No, they are releasing a new model that offers DTS:X. Previous owners are just hosed and have to purchase up. No idea when that will be but guessing next year.

Kind of the same boat I'm in with no HDCP2.2 or DTS:X on my Yamaha 2040. I guess I'm not too upset with this because after having 5.1.4, I'm now drooling to have 7.1.4 and am kicking myself for going cheap on a 9.2. The lack of 2.2 and X just makes it easier for me to justify the sell/buy of the 2040/replacement.

I do have to say that while the NR3030 and 1030 and their Integra sisters were options I was seriously considering this last 2 days. The lack of X just killed them for me. I really wanted THX too, though I'm not sure it would do me much good with an Atmos or X input. But after reading the manuals on them I noticed some other intricacies. For instance, there are only 11.x pre outs instead of 13.x to be able to switch speakers without rewiring (heights/tops to wides etc). Worse yet, the trigger functions seem to be tied to zone 2 and zone 3. It seems this kills the height inputs if you want to use them to power on an external amp. Meaning more channels required on the external amp. Most AVRs I've seen like Yamaha and Marantz let the trigger functions work independently of the zones. Maybe I misunderstood 3030 manual, but I don't think so.

At this point the Marantz 7010 is the winner in my mind. Has 2.2, X, Auro, Audyssey, and 13.2 preamp outs. I figure Onkyo 9-ch amp, outlaw 7125 or Emotiva XPA-7 would go great with the Marantz 7010 and allow LCR to be fed by ext amp, bi-amp LR, and drive the 2 add'l surround speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But as a counterpoint, I wouldn't take advice on heart surgery from a doctor who has never done one. ;-)


Lol, you got a point there...but Atmos is not like "heart surgery" ...You can't really go wrong.


----------



## NorthSky

Stanton said:


> Agreed...which is why I have him on "ignore"...which cuts the post count by like 1/4


25% is not accurate...it's more closer to 8% ;-)

* And you miss some real good stuff.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Bob. Let the girl go.


I already did...with my reply to Terry's post above. And everyone's free to add up to it...that's what's cool about people's diversity. 
We all listen, we all respect each other, we all try to accommodate living together equally.


----------



## tjenkins95

Eriksdam said:


> Hi Ray,
> 
> Can't really help you much, sorry...
> 
> Your best bet right now is probably cdon.com, but I have no idea if they ship to the US. You might want to wait until a version with English subs is available anyway, unless you speak a Scandinavian language of course .
> 
> I just tried out all the English subs I could find on the interwebs, but none of them are any good .
> 
> -Erik


Thanks. I contacted cdon.com and they do not ship to the US.


----------



## Stoked21

tigerhonaker said:


> Share me with why you did not go with another Integra Pre-Amp processor like the *DHC-80.
> *I'm asking because that's the unit I have been considering for a replacement to my current Integra unit.
> Please if at all possible keep your answer for me a layman at best.


Here were the deficiencies I saw on the Onkyo/Integra line in basic terms. To each their own though, but bold is crucial.

Onkyo: 
*1. No DTS:X support on current product line. This is a killer when X disc start releasing and will be very prolific if former DTS vs Dolby disc releases are an indicator.*
2. Only 11.x ch pre out. I'd like to have the pre/pro output 13 chs so I can have the front wide speakers in place and utilize them if/when I feel like it.
3. No Auro 3D. Though I think this is irrelevant as I'm not convinced they will take hold.
4. No built-in airplay for apple devices. This only matters if you want to stream music/video through the system occasionally.
5. Wonky zoned triggers.

Integra:
1. All of the above with Onkyo
2. No wifi and I don't want to run cat5/6 cable to my receiver
3. No Bluetooth (which again only matters for streaming music)

I do like the fact that integra is HDCP2.2 compliant for 4k UHD video, let's you use HDMI over cat5/6 ethernet cable, has 4 subs and THX certification. And from an AVR perspective, I like that they have some units with 11 amp chs built in eliminating need for an external amp. My Onkyo/Integra dealer works with Monitor Audio too and he's been excellent so I would have liked to have been able to purchase through him. 

Unless you are willing to wait 6 months to a year, Integra/Onkyo just don't have a product offering that won't be deficient in some capacity or another in the very short-term. Marantz and Denon seem to have the best offering today.


----------



## tigerhonaker

NorthSky said:


> Hi Terry,
> 
> As you know Terry, Onkyo/Integra abandoned Audyssey last year and they replaced it by what in my honest opinion is an inferior EQ system...AccuEQ.
> But I never tried so for some people it doesn't count...my opinion.
> 
> I am a little familiar with your gear, your room, your love of movies, Mustangs, and I know you're one of the best men around.
> 
> ♦ Here's my best shot: I think you'd be the guy that should explore the new Marantz AV8802A pre/pro ($4,000 list).
> Take your time and check its official thread...the owners there are a very nice bunch, and in vast general satisfied with their purchase.
> SteveH is the most helpful guy around, and his knowledge is unprecedented...a good honest man and audio dealer.
> And the street price is less...of course.
> 
> You are an alert audio/video shopper, like me, and we both want to make sure we get the right unit for us and that we won't need to upgrade again three years or less down the road...we're in it for the long term...five years...because money doesn't grow in our backyard's trees.
> 
> You are asking already questions...excellent...you'll get eventually to the bottom of it all to make your next upgrade the best choice possible...for you.
> 
> Best cheers,
> _Bob_


Thanks for the down-to-earth response.
I do better with full words and not the lingo sort of thing.

As I read what you had to say and it does make sense to me.
Here is what comes to my mind.

(1) I'm willing to wait and get a pre-amp processor with all the new formats that are being discussed on this thread.
.... (I'd personally rather pay more on the front-end and do it one time)

(2) I have been paying very close attention to the (Overhead Speakers) from manufacturers.
..... If I have read correctly there are new ceiling speakers coming out as time is passing for this Atmos application.
..... I am very willing to pay for very high quality 4 ceiling speakers on the front-end.

(3) I am also willing to pay for a very high-end amp like my current Classe' amps to power those 4 up-level ceiling speakers.

So Bob and others on AVS in my case it looks like I will just simply keep reading and hopefully learning more and more on
what I just pointed out that is important to me in a new Atmos addition.
And if anyone has patience when necessary to have something right it's certainly me.
(I waited 11-months this last time with BRENSPEED to complete my now over 1,000 H/P 2008 Limited Edition Bullitt Mustang)




Stoked21 said:


> Here were the deficiencies I saw on the Onkyo/Integra line in basic terms. To each their own though, but bold is crucial.
> 
> Onkyo:
> *1. No DTS:X support on current product line. This is a killer when X disc start releasing and will be very prolific if former DTS vs Dolby disc releases are an indicator.*
> 2. Only 11.x ch pre out. I'd like to have the pre/pro output 13 chs so I can have the front wide speakers in place and utilize them if/when I feel like it.
> 3. No Auro 3D. Though I think this is irrelevant as I'm not convinced they will take hold.
> 4. No built-in airplay for apple devices. This only matters if you want to stream music/video through the system occasionally.
> 5. Wonky zoned triggers.
> 
> Integra:
> 1. All of the above with Onkyo
> 2. No wifi and I don't want to run cat5/6 cable to my receiver
> 3. No Bluetooth (which again only matters for streaming music)
> 
> I do like the fact that integra is HDCP2.2 compliant for 4k UHD video, let's you use HDMI over cat5/6 ethernet cable, has 4 subs and THX certification. And from an AVR perspective, I like that they have some units with 11 amp chs built in eliminating need for an external amp. My Onkyo/Integra dealer works with Monitor Audio too and he's been excellent so I would have liked to have been able to purchase through him.
> 
> Unless you are willing to wait 6 months to a year, Integra/Onkyo just don't have a product offering that won't be deficient in some capacity or another in the very short-term. Marantz and Denon seem to have the best offering today.


Thank-You for your information above and for the most part I think I actually understand what you have pointed out to me. 

.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Here were the deficiencies I saw on the Onkyo/Integra line in basic terms. To each their own though, but bold is crucial.
> 
> Onkyo:
> *1. No DTS:X support on current product line. This is a killer when X disc start releasing and will be very prolific if former DTS vs Dolby disc releases are an indicator.*
> 2. Only 11.x ch pre out. I'd like to have the pre/pro output 13 chs so I can have the front wide speakers in place and utilize them if/when I feel like it.
> 3. No Auro 3D. Though I think this is irrelevant as I'm not convinced they will take hold.
> 4. No built-in airplay for apple devices. This only matters if you want to stream music/video through the system occasionally.
> 5. Wonky zoned triggers.
> 
> Integra:
> 1. All of the above with Onkyo
> 2. No wifi and I don't want to run cat5/6 cable to my receiver
> 3. No Bluetooth (which again only matters for streaming music)
> 
> I do like the fact that integra is HDCP2.2 compliant for 4k UHD video, let's you use HDMI over cat5/6 ethernet cable, has 4 subs and THX certification. And from an AVR perspective, I like that they have some units with 11 amp chs built in eliminating need for an external amp. My Onkyo/Integra dealer works with Monitor Audio too and he's been excellent so I would have liked to have been able to purchase through him.
> 
> Unless you are willing to wait 6 months to a year, Integra/Onkyo just don't have a product offering that won't be deficient in some capacity or another in the very short-term. Marantz and Denon seem to have the best offering today.


You are very correct; the Integra DHC-80.6 (latest flagship pre/pro from Integra) *does not* support DTS:X and the next replacement (DHC-80.8 according to Integra rep) won't be here till 2017 or around (2018 model). 

And Terry, I don't think he would like AccuEQ much, as compared to Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (Platinum Series) of the Marantzes. ...With much better overall EQ, and where it counts the most...the subwoofers, and the two main front left and right channel speakers (where AccuEQ does nothing). 

Hey, the Marantzes have four powerful DSP chips where the Integra has only two. 
Another thing, important in my book; the new AKM DACs of the Marantzes versus the boring TI BB PCM-1795 DACs of the Integra.

* Yamaha CX-A5100 pre/pro is another option, sound performance wise with all the goodies inside...ESS Premium Sabre DACs and 64-bit DSP chips.


----------



## Stoked21

I think most short comings of the Integra/Onkyo line can be overlooked for most applications. I'm getting google fiber in a month and the DVRs are wireless access points too, so I can run a 3' cat6 from the DVR to the Integra. I never use bluetooth and I have a dedicated AppleTV plugged into my Yamaha atmos AVR now and default over to it all the time anyway. Lastly, having 13.x outputs is nice but I don't really need to switch on front wides as I'll likely use 7.1.4 all the time regardless. But when you're paying hard earned money for something, you feel like you should get what all the other manufs offer at similar price points.

But I can just not forgive the lack of dts-x. Otherwise I would potentially go with a 70.6 or 60.6.


----------



## virtualrain

Would anyone miss DTS if they just packed it in?


----------



## Jive Turkey

virtualrain said:


> Would anyone miss DTS if they just packed it in?


Nope. I tire of format wars, even if in the end a couple of folks end up coexisting.

Plus, Dolby seems to be doing a fine job as is.


----------



## dschulz

virtualrain said:


> Would anyone miss DTS if they just packed it in?


I feel ya, but I think we would; the manufacturers like competition to hold the licensing costs down, and I think we consumers benefit as well. If Dolby didn't know DTS was working on their thing, they would have less incentive to make their own codecs awesome.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> I feel ya, but I think we would; the manufacturers like competition to hold the licensing costs down, and I think we consumers benefit as well. If Dolby didn't know DTS was working on their thing, they would have less incentive to make their own codecs awesome.


We still need competition, otherwise a monopolistic company will sit on its laurels and start charging outrageous prices. This happens every time.


----------



## petetherock

Congrats on your purchase. I am looking forward to your review on this amp..


NorthSky said:


> The MKII pre/pro model (Marantz 7702). ...She has it all...Dolby-Atmos, Auro-3D (extra), and in January 2016...DTS:X. ...And she's very affordable with brand new AKM DACs all around and with one of the very best Calibration & EQ systems on the market...Audyssey Platinum level caliber...XT32 fully equipped....and Pro Ready. Plus HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 for true 4K (UHD) picture "transformation" of the future.
> 
> Right now I am remodeling my main theater room...no rush...I want it to be excellent first.
> 
> It's a lovely day, it's a beautiful life...it's all good.


----------



## speeddeacon

virtualrain said:


> Would anyone miss DTS if they just packed it in?



Hard to say since we haven't heard it yet. The same could be said for Atmos for most people (not the members of this forum of course). And, with Disney, et. al, not supporting Atmos by reportedly not releasing what they have on Blu-ray, they aren't exactly helping immersive audio (IA) gain steam. Since UHD BR is still in it's infancy, I think they are missing a lot of sales to the early IA adopters. 

People will buy the UHD BD because they want UHD, not immersive audio. I understand that historically some studios have saved the best audio for the best video but 4K will be slower to permeate than HD I think because there won't be the push by Uncle Sam for digital OTA TV which went hand in hand with HD, not to mention the much narrower quality difference between HD and 4K. Also the price of jumping into a 4K theater is pretty high, particularly with projection based video. Never before has a new format required so much new equipment. It will be very expensive to buy a new projector and maybe a new screen or a Big flat screen to appreciate the 4K, a new UHD player then a new receiver and speakers for IA. Prices will come down over time of course but it just seems wiser to phase it in to keep the consumer interested. 

Which brings me to my next point which is that sales of hard discs have declined sharply as streaming has become normative. The key to UHD and IA success may very well have nothing to do with UHD BD at all but streaming, which as we all know here, doesn't allow IA at this time. And a lot of people stream to devices that aren't capable of producing any surround sound, such as smart TVs, computers or streamers that simply connect to a TV. Those people usually don't care about IA and they are no doubt the majority.

In the meantime manufacturers, with their ability to come up with some pretty fantastic DSP modes, could easily keep the enthusiasts entertained with 3D DSP without paying the royalties game, or whatever the license for Dolby, DTS, etc is called, while keeping up sales. I mean, how many Atmos setups have been sold and how many mainstream titles are available today?

Perhaps the studios are worried about UHD not catching on due to lack of network content and prices just mentioned so they feel they have to hold out all the big guns. But they have an ace up their sleeve, they can always release IA on plain Blu-ray later to boost sales.

I say all this to opine that if I were Dolby and DTS, I'd be pressing the studios hard to get IA out in any format possible to capture as many sales as I could.

Of course I'm actually more suited to talk about heart surgery.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ellisr63

Has anyone heard of or tried this setup?
http://www.avsforum.com/goldenear-ultimate-invisa-lifestyle-atmos-system-experience/


----------



## smurraybhm

petetherock said:


> Congrats on your purchase. I am looking forward to your review on this amp..


Pete - Don't hold your breath, he lied. 
Bob - when you put up posts telling folks you bought something you didn't and of course found the experience to be harmonious - that just puts most of what you said or will say lacking credibility. I am the dumb one for hoping what others had expressed about your posts to be wrong. 

Kudos Movie78 for calling this one - should I be in your area sometime I owe you at least one beer.


----------



## Movie78

smurraybhm said:


> Pete - Don't hold your breath, he lied.
> Bob - when you put up posts telling folks you bought something you didn't and of course found the experience to be harmonious - that just puts most of what you said or will say lacking credibility. I guess I am the dumb one for hoping what others had expressed about your posts to be wrong.
> 
> Kudos Movie78 for calling this one - should I be in your area sometime I owe you at least one beer.


Thanks!

Just looking out for others and myself.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

stikle said:


> Amaze is my go-to Atmos demo for people, followed by Leaf, Conductor, Unfold, then Bailando.


 I finally got my hands on this disc and it's loads of fun - I agree that Amaze is the most awesome. I'd briefly brought my Roku 3 down to the theater to stream these on Vudu but don't remember them sounding this good. I even thoroughly enjoyed Bailando - there's something to be said for immersive video (black dress ftw, btw). 


I also rented The Gunman, purely due to the paucity of Atmos material, but found the plot and character development of "Conductor" far superior.


----------



## stikle

speeddeacon said:


> People will buy the UHD BD because they want UHD, not immersive audio.



I agree with this. The average Joe on the street knows little about immersive audio and what it can do to home theater experience. UHD TV? Well I must need a UHD BDP to get the best picture.

As a side note - three of my managers came over on lunch one day and listened to my system.

1] The first one was impresssed but the wife rules their pretty house...so he's SOL.
2] The second one was impressed but is a Bose lifer and responded to the demo by buying a new sound bar.
3] The third was blown away and had an Onkyo HTiaB within 3 weeks. He set it up by himself but couldn't figure out why it never said Atmos. I went over and enable Bitstreaming on his BDP and he was properly impressed with the new sound in his own home. He's now shown it to 5-6 family/friends that all decided they need it too. I wonder how many of those people will actually make it a reality. I must follow-up.



Jack Gilvey said:


> I also rented The Gunman, purely due to the paucity of Atmos material, but found the plot and character development of "Conductor" far superior.



Laughing so hard right now...make it stop.


----------



## petetherock

smurraybhm said:


> Pete - Don't hold your breath, he lied.
> Bob - when you put up posts telling folks you bought something you didn't and of course found the experience to be harmonious - that just puts most of what you said or will say lacking credibility. I am the dumb one for hoping what others had expressed about your posts to be wrong.
> 
> Kudos Movie78 for calling this one - should I be in your area sometime I owe you at least one beer.


Oh, ok... pity since I was hoping for more user feedback on the 7702 MK II..


----------



## scantek999

Hi guys

So i have a question. I have mounted a pair of JBL Pro One's as front Atmos speakers. They are about 1.4 meter (4,7 feet) i front of my front row, after Dolbys recomendations. I can hear atmos effects, but i kinda have the feeling that some effects get "lost" in the L+R sound picture (have JBL 3252n's as LCR). When i stand up and go directly beneath the atmos speakers, i can hear them much more clearly. They have been calibrated, and the spl is perfect.

So now my idea, or have some one tried this : Putting them more or less just above the main listening position ? Will this be a bad idea ?


thanks in advance !

/michael


----------



## desray2k

scantek999 said:


> Hi guys
> 
> So i have a question. I have mounted a pair of JBL Pro One's as front Atmos speakers. They are about 1.4 meter (4,7 feet) i front of my front row, after Dolbys recomendations. I can hear atmos effects, but i kinda have the feeling that some effects get "lost" in the L+R sound picture (have JBL 3252n's as LCR). When i stand up and go directly beneath the atmos speakers, i can hear them much more clearly. They have been calibrated, and the spl is perfect.
> 
> So now my idea, or have some one tried this : Putting them more or less just above the main listening position ? Will this be a bad idea ?
> 
> 
> thanks in advance !
> 
> /michael


The Dolby Atmos whitepapers that recommend the layout for the speakers can be used as a guideline. The ACTUAL implementation is a totally different thing altogether since NO ONE ROOM nodes is the same (i.e. dimension and shape)...your sitting position or most called it MLP is different as well, not to mention all kinds of furnishings which would act as either aid in the absorption or reflection of the sound. Best is to trial and error and your idea seems logical and worth putting it in action to find out for yourself. After all, you are the one who will be enjoying...not AVS members here. What we can help is the general concept and help with the understanding of the premise behind the working of Atmos...what works for me/us may not necessarily work for you. Always remember that when it comes to sound, it is very SUBJECTIVE. No one can give you an objective answer based on a hypothetical question. As long as common sense is put into play when fiddling with the positioning of the Atmos speakers, I think you are fine


----------



## smurraybhm

^ Best way to think about setting up a room for Atmos is the Scott Doctrine (new name) - fill in the holes. Obviously you have to keep the white paper/guidelines in mind, but as you point out a lot of us have learned via trying different speaker locations/combinations that there is flexibility in exactly where the speakers are placed/how many are needed for a given room.


----------



## Stoked21

Your problem is likely one of dispersion. A narrow sound pattern will cause this effect. I tried a similar thing with an inferior speaker early on and got an inferior result. You need 80-90 degree dispersion at a minimum. You also are asking to put them in as TM. Location is key but especially depending on what top location you have them installed as. Get s better speaker dispersion. That doesn't mean more expensive. Some of the most expensive speakers have narrow. Look for ribbon tweeters or coaxial speakers. These traditionally have wide dispersion but some traditional domes do too. Kef, Atlantic tech, tannoy, golden ear, Martin Logan and monitor are the most common recommendations for in ceilings but make book shelf as well. Also I am a big advocate of aim-able speakers for in ceiling hence the monitor recommendation. I also have used low cost Niles amiable and they are excellent. I highly recommend in ceiling or even building your own boxes for in ceilings and hanging those if u don't want to cut dry wall 

Unlike last post I disagree. Implementation on the atmos forums has been extremely consistent and sticks to the white paper recommendations. If your AVR has a top middle then fine put them overhead. If it does not, and I recommend this anyway, make them TF and stick to the 30-55 degree from mlp install location. You will likely want to run TR in the future.


----------



## Stoked21

And by last post, I meant subjective comment. If you have heard a low dispersion atmos speaker or have heard one placed outside of Dolby spec then you will know it pales in comparison. Extremely.


----------



## batpig

scantek999 said:


> Hi guys
> 
> So i have a question. I have mounted a pair of JBL Pro One's as front Atmos speakers. They are about 1.4 meter (4,7 feet) i front of my front row, after Dolbys recomendations. I can hear atmos effects, but i kinda have the feeling that some effects get "lost" in the L+R sound picture (have JBL 3252n's as LCR). When i stand up and go directly beneath the atmos speakers, i can hear them much more clearly. They have been calibrated, and the spl is perfect.
> 
> So now my idea, or have some one tried this : Putting them more or less just above the main listening position ? Will this be a bad idea ?
> 
> 
> thanks in advance !
> 
> /michael


So you are running a x.x.2 system? Only 2 overheads? Then definitely put them as Top Middle speakers located more directly above. That is actually the recommended config for that setup. 

Keep them a bit in front (maybe 2 feet instead of 5 you have now) and recalibrate then let us know how it goes.


----------



## scantek999

batpig said:


> So you are running a x.x.2 system? Only 2 overheads? Then definitely put them as Top Middle speakers located more directly above. That is actually the recommended config for that setup.
> 
> Keep them a bit in front (maybe 2 feet instead of 5 you have now) and recalibrate then let us know how it goes.


Hello

Thank you for all your comments.

Im running a 7.2.4 setup, and im not having any problems with my back Atmos speakers, they are however also directly above my backrow.

After reading your suggestions, i have decided to make a adjustable "pole" from one side of the room to the other, i have a soffit going around the cinema, where i can place it, and move it back and forward over the listening position. Then i can listen my way to the perfect position 

/michael


----------



## dkwong

Molon_Labe said:


> I am envious. I would like to get a copy.



You can get it from eBay for about $30.


----------



## dkwong

I have a question for those using Atmos enabled speakers and have it dialed in. When you use your AVR's speaker level adjustment, does the white noise from the Atmos speakers sound like they are bounced from the ceiling or directly from the speakers?


----------



## Franchot

dkwong said:


> I have a question for those using Atmos enabled speakers and have it dialed in. When you use your AVR's speaker level adjustment, does the white noise from the Atmos speakers sound like they are bounced from the ceiling or directly from the speakers?


Directly from the speakers.


----------



## HT-Eman

*DXM Atmos movie trailer*

New Dolby Atmos movie coming out in 2016. Looks pretty good from the trailer .


----------



## HT-Eman

This one looks a little " cheesy " but its another Dolby Atmos movie thats coming out .


----------



## NorthSky

Thx *^* for those two trailers above.


----------



## HT-Eman

*and another one !*

I didn't know about this one , and I don't recall anybody mentioning it in this thread but this was one of the first Dolby Atmos movies in 2013 . Is this out on bluray ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1924429/


----------



## audiofan1

HT-Eman said:


> New Dolby Atmos movie coming out in 2016. Looks pretty good from the trailer .
> 
> https://youtu.be/Je0sb9cA9wg


Thanks Looks intresting, I do detect a little *Event Horizon* but that's a good thing for me


----------



## Gooddoc

Need some advice from the Atmos crowd.

I have some placement issues with my base speakers. I've experimented with my base side surrounds and like them best anywhere from 75 - 90 deg., but due to seating and viewing obstruction issues I just can't place them there. My two available choices are:

1) mounted at the height of my mains, 42" to tweeter, at about 110 deg.
2) mounted at a height of 59" to tweeter at about 95 deg.

My ceilings are 8' and I'm hanging speakers off the ceiling so I'm concerned about separation of the base and height speakers at the higher wall mount height for the side surrounds in option 2, but I'm also trying to minimize how far I'm pushing my side surrounds back since, ignoring the ceilings, I like them better the farther forward they are. And given I'll be placing a couple of rear surrounds as well, it doesn't make as much sense to have the sides back past 90 deg.

So what's the consensus on what's most important, lower base surround height or getting the side surrounds closest to 90 deg.? Take Atmos ceilings out of the equation and there's no doubt I would raise them and push them to the 95 deg. position, but Atmos and the ceiling speakers confuses things.

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

1) How high are your ears from the floor?
2) Try the two options you just suggested above...experiment...and pick the one that sounds best to you.
3) I like option number 1.  ...with Wide fronts.


----------



## ellisr63

Where would you put the Atmos ceiling speakers if you were starting with 2 speakers, and later going to 4?

A1 is pretty much lined up to where the speakers are behind the couch.

A2 would be about 2' in front of the front row.

A3 would be about 6' in front of the front row.


I was thinking of A1 and either A2 or A3, but I am not sure which would be best. I don't want to have to drill holes in the ceiling (sealed room with in a room construction) to get the best location.

Should A1 be the location for only 2 Atmos channels?

I have 6 Acoustic Panels on the ceiling that I have accounted for with my measurements.


----------



## Gooddoc

NorthSky said:


> 1) How high are your ears from the floor?
> 2) Try the two options you just suggested above...experiment...and pick the one that sounds best to you.
> 3) I like option number 1.  ...with Wide fronts.


I have experimented . The higher more forward position sounds better but I can't evaluate the the whole base/ceiling separation issue right now because I don't have the ceilings speakers yet. My concern is with Atmos, not 5.1.

Ears are about 39".

I like option 1 with wides too since the fact they're pushed back would matter less, but that means sacrificing either the rear surrounds or a pair of ceiling speakers. Both are not great options. I need 13 simultaneous channels!!


----------



## Stoked21

ellisr63 said:


> Where would you put the Atmos ceiling speakers if you were starting with 2 speakers, and later going to 4?
> 
> A1 is pretty much lined up to where the speakers are behind the couch.
> 
> A2 would be about 2' in front of the front row.
> 
> A3 would be about 6' in front of the front row.
> 
> 
> I was thinking of A1 and either A2 or A3, but I am not sure which would be best. I don't want to have to drill holes in the ceiling (sealed room with in a room construction) to get the best location.
> 
> Should A1 be the location for only 2 Atmos channels?
> 
> I have 6 Acoustic Panels on the ceiling that I have accounted for with my measurements.


What's your distance from back row ear to screen?
What's height from back row ear to ceiling?
Do you normally use the back row if just 2 or 3 people vs the front row? I'm assuming so, hence my questions on the distances above.
From these 2 measurements you can calculate angle to MLP.

It's definitely not A3. Mine are right about the middle of 1 and 2, but that depends on space between rows.
If you just want a quick and easy answer, use A1 if your back row is primary seating. A2 will be a little too far forward in my opinion, since if you add TR they will be almost directly overhead back row. But A1 is a little too close. Again, dimensions above will help me provide a more definitive answer


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


>


Ron, 

- I would forget A3.
- A2 is pretty much dead on...I would position them right there.
- A1 --> 2 feet in front of the second row.
- The RR and LR --> closer together (3 feet separation - or one meter...40").


----------



## cdelena

ellisr63 said:


> ...
> Where would you put the Atmos ceiling speakers if you were starting with 2 speakers, and later going to 4?
> ...


I have my front Atmos speakers 3' forward of the front row (where I would start) and my rear Atmos speakers 3' behind the front row which is about 1' in front of my rear row. Fabulous sound for the front row and interesting but less great for the rear row.

I am not sure there is a great way to do home Atmos for two rows of seating, but I like other consider the back row as second class so I don't worry about it.


----------



## ellisr63

Stoked21 said:


> What's your distance from back row ear to screen?
> What's height from back row ear to ceiling?
> Do you normally use the back row if just 2 or 3 people vs the front row? I'm assuming so, hence my questions on the distances above.
> From these 2 measurements you can calculate angle to MLP.
> 
> It's definitely not A3. Mine are right about the middle of 1 and 2, but that depends on space between rows.
> If you just want a quick and easy answer, use A1 if your back row is primary seating. A2 will be a little too far forward in my opinion, since if you add TR they will be almost directly overhead back row. But A1 is a little too close. Again, dimensions above will help me provide a more definitive answer



Our back row is on top of one of our DTS-10 subs..

Back row ear to screen 17 1/2' (this could change to 15 1/2'
Back row ear to ceiling 4'
Front row ear to screen 10 1/2'
Front row ear to ceiling 5 1/2'


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked21 said:


> And by last post, I meant subjective comment. If you have heard a low dispersion atmos speaker or have heard one placed outside of Dolby spec then you will know it pales in comparison. Extremely.


Oh crap my fronts are off by 5 degrees 

Then there are a few folks on this forum - sorry I don't forum hop - who must not know good sound. I didn't say ignore them did I 

Just pointed out the guidelines are not rigid as some like to think, I believe Dolby has said that as well. I would stick with Scott's simple but effective advice - fill the gaps, watch my angles and keep the protractor/laser pointer in its case.

Those of us who jumped in early, over a year ago, have played with placement. You also have others who have come up with options that allow them to take advantage of both Auro and Atmos without moving speakers. They seem to enjoy what they hear. When I laid my speakers out a year ago I used a step ladders to try different height locations. My TM and side surrounds are actually slightly in front of the MLP. I like aimed at the MLP. You have THX providing advice that differs from my what sounds best to me - I do tinker with placement even a year out. 

If you think Dolby designed Atmos to fit only under strict guidelines then how is someone like FilmMixer impressed with a demo of Yamaha's new Atmos sound bar? In the end it's what sounds best - most of us don't have rooms that match


----------



## Stoked21

Assuming you use back row as MLP, then the speakers should be 3-7' (55 deg to 30deg spec limits respectively) in front of the row from ear position. The further away you put them, the better your chance that they will be ahead of the front row too. The trade off of this is you lose a lot of the SPL and need very wide dispersion speakers and/or aimable speakers and dual tweeters work well. The closer they are, you start to get your TR and SBs and TF all blending in a small area. But you also eliminate ceiling space to add TM in the future (or you have to convert your TF to TM and then add another pair further forward).

If you use the front row as MLP, then I would go with at least 48" in front of ear level (55 degrees which is the closest you can get and stay in spec). This moves them even closer to your fronts and further reduces coverage to back row. Again you can still use aimable to try to spread the sound further back into the back row and wide dispersion is always a necessity


----------



## ellisr63

Stoked21 said:


> Assuming you use back row as MLP, then the speakers should be 3-7' (55 deg to 30deg spec limits respectively) in front of the row from ear position. The further away you put them, the better your chance that they will be ahead of the front row too. The trade off of this is you lose a lot of the SPL and need very wide dispersion speakers and/or aimable speakers and dual tweeters work well. The closer they are, you start to get your TR and SBs and TF all blending in a small area. But you also eliminate ceiling space to add TM in the future (or you have to convert your TF to TM and then add another pair further forward).
> 
> If you use the front row as MLP, then I would go with at least 48" in front of ear level (55 degrees which is the closest you can get and stay in spec). This moves them even closer to your fronts and further reduces coverage to back row. Again you can still use aimable to try to spread the sound further back into the back row and wide dispersion is always a necessity


Thanks,
I am using JBL 8320 speakers for the ceiling, and they have the following dispersion specs:
Hor. Coverage Angle (-6 dB)	100° averaged 400 Hz to 12 kHz
Vert. Coverage Angle (-6 dB)	90° averaged 400 Hz to 12 kHz

Would that be considered wide?

I will be mounting them so they can be adjusted for angle if needed. Right now the speaker mounts are set for parallel to the ceiling.


----------



## ellisr63

Stoked21 said:


> Assuming you use back row as MLP, then the speakers should be 3-7' (55 deg to 30deg spec limits respectively) in front of the row from ear position. The further away you put them, the better your chance that they will be ahead of the front row too. The trade off of this is you lose a lot of the SPL and need very wide dispersion speakers and/or aimable speakers and dual tweeters work well. The closer they are, you start to get your TR and SBs and TF all blending in a small area. But you also eliminate ceiling space to add TM in the future (or you have to convert your TF to TM and then add another pair further forward).
> 
> If you use the front row as MLP, then I would go with at least 48" in front of ear level (55 degrees which is the closest you can get and stay in spec). This moves them even closer to your fronts and further reduces coverage to back row. Again you can still use aimable to try to spread the sound further back into the back row and wide dispersion is always a necessity



I prefer the rear (subs under the seating), and usually sit there, but my wife prefers the front row. This strange since she thought when we setup our Family Room with a projection screen that a 134" screen was more than big enough from 14', and we now have a 195" scope screen matted to a 185" scope screen in the HT.


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


> I prefer the rear (subs under the seating), and usually sit there, but* my wife prefers the front row*. This strange since she thought when we setup our Family Room with a projection screen that a 134" screen was more than big enough from 14', and we now have a 195" scope screen matted to a 185" scope screen in the HT.


Ron, tell your wife Bob says that she has the right idea.


----------



## ellisr63

NorthSky said:


> Ron, tell your wife that Bob says has the right idea.


I do like the picture size in the front row, but it is in a bass shy area of the room, and we can't move the subs (major rework, and no room).


----------



## Stoked21

smurraybhm said:


> Oh crap my fronts are off by 5 degrees



I hear you! 

I was actually referring to the previous post and not yours. 

As for angles, yes I'm an electrical engineer and a stickler for specs and numbers whom has worked for 3 of the 4 largest analog and DSP manufacturers. I analyze numbers to a fault I admit! 

My theory though is that when you are given a fairly generous range (i.e. 30-55 deg for TF), then I try to stay within. Purpose is two fold: 1) I get the experience as Dolby/DTS/Auro intended and 2) If I'm putting holes in dry wall, then I want to make darn sure I don't have to move speakers at a later time as dry wall sucks to patch. Plus it leaves additional clearance for more speakers when we have 27.9.17. 

But I also realize, like all, that satisfying 2 rows is next to impossible. Therefore I push to the min or max of the specs for different driver locations. The specs are just a starting point, but odds are that if you start within the range or at it's limits then you will be able to fine tune from there and compensate for 2 rows.


----------



## NorthSky

ellisr63 said:


> I do like the picture size in the front row, but it is in a bass shy area of the room, and we can't move the subs (major rework, and no room).


Men are the ones who are bass aficionados; women they are more relaxed with those low/loud frequencies...generally. 
... _"Honey, could you please turn it down!"_ 

Young women @ the discotheque...ok...they are younger and more "frivolous" ...in a good way of saying.


----------



## ellisr63

Stoked21 said:


> What's your distance from back row ear to screen?
> What's height from back row ear to ceiling?
> Do you normally use the back row if just 2 or 3 people vs the front row? I'm assuming so, hence my questions on the distances above.
> From these 2 measurements you can calculate angle to MLP.
> 
> It's definitely not A3. Mine are right about the middle of 1 and 2, but that depends on space between rows.
> If you just want a quick and easy answer, use A1 if your back row is primary seating. A2 will be a little too far forward in my opinion, since if you add TR they will be almost directly overhead back row. But A1 is a little too close. Again, dimensions above will help me provide a more definitive answer


Does my A1 and A2 need to be lined up front to rear...or can I move A2 closer to the side walls?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Gooddoc said:


> Need some advice from the Atmos crowd.
> 
> I have some placement issues with my base speakers. I've experimented with my base side surrounds and like them best anywhere from 75 - 90 deg., but due to seating and viewing obstruction issues I just can't place them there. My two available choices are:
> 
> 1) mounted at the height of my mains, 42" to tweeter, at about 110 deg.
> 2) mounted at a height of 59" to tweeter at about 95 deg.
> 
> My ceilings are 8' and I'm hanging speakers off the ceiling so I'm concerned about separation of the base and height speakers at the higher wall mount height for the side surrounds in option 2, but I'm also trying to minimize how far I'm pushing my side surrounds back since, ignoring the ceilings, I like them better the farther forward they are. And given I'll be placing a couple of rear surrounds as well, it doesn't make as much sense to have the sides back past 90 deg.
> 
> So what's the consensus on what's most important, lower base surround height or getting the side surrounds closest to 90 deg.? Take Atmos ceilings out of the equation and there's no doubt I would raise them and push them to the 95 deg. position, but Atmos and the ceiling speakers confuses things.
> 
> Thanks


If you have elevated surrounds you could squeeze the two overhead arrays closer together to keep the required separation. The theatrical Atmos guidelines apply the following formula for this: 'minimal lateral elevation of overheads' = 45 degrees + 0.5 x 'lateral elevation of surrounds'. There is no mentioning of a maximum, but I would personally not want my surrounds higher than 15-20 degrees.


----------



## Gooddoc

maikeldepotter said:


> If you have elevated surrounds you could squeeze the two overhead arrays closer together to keep the required separation. The theatrical Atmos guidelines apply the following formula for this: 'minimal lateral elevation of overheads' = 45 degrees + 0.5 x 'lateral elevation of surrounds'. There is no mentioning of a maximum, but I would personally not want my surrounds higher than 15-20 degrees.


Thanks, that actually helps a lot. The other general guideline for consumer applications IIRC is not more than halfway up the wall. I can pretty much meet all those guidelines so should be ok.


----------



## NorthSky

Gooddoc said:


> My two available choices (side surrounds) are:
> 1) mounted at the height of my mains, 42" to tweeter, at about 110 deg.
> 2) mounted at a height of 59" to tweeter at about 95 deg.
> 
> My ceilings are 8' (96") ...





Gooddoc said:


> Ears are about 39".





Gooddoc said:


> The other general guideline for consumer applications IIRC is not more than halfway up the wall. I can pretty much meet all those guidelines so should be ok.


1. 48" is half of 96"
2. 59" high is a little high...according to Dolby Atmos.
3. Best is option number 1 (42" high which is 3" higher than your ears...pretty much @ ear level, and 6" below 48").
4. 110° is not bad for the side surrounds...for movies (90-110° Atmos recommendation*)...and for multichannel music (135°)...a fair balance.
5. Back surrounds (rears): 165° (15° on each side of dead rear center). ...Total angle between the two rears = 30° ...from the MLP.

* And ITU standards.


----------



## Gooddoc

NorthSky said:


> 1. 48" is half of 96"
> 2. 59" high is a little high...according to Dolby Atmos.
> 3. Best is option number 1 (42" high which is 3" higher than your ears...pretty much @ ear level, and 6" below 48").
> 4. 110° is not bad for the side surrounds...for movies (90-110° Atmos recommendation*)...and for multichannel music (135°)...a fair balance.
> 5. Back surrounds (rears): 165° (15° on each side of dead rear center). ...Total angle between the two rears = 30° ...from the MLP.
> 
> * And ITU standards.


Thanks for the input. Been messing around all night figuring this stuff out. What I've ended up with is the side surrounds at about 110 deg. and at 46" to tweeter. The rear surrounds will be at about 150 deg and 46". Would be a bit better with more separation of sides and rears, but not possible.

With music the sides at that angle open up the soundstage quite a bit and really brings rear pans well behind the listening position with, for instance, Pink Floyd: DSOM. With the sides at 90 deg or less it's a bit more of an intense effect with the rear pans sweeping right across, and just slightly behind, the head. Both cool, but different.

Now that I have a plan I'm getting a bit excited. Should have all speakers by next week and then install. Been planning the whole immersive thing for a while now and can't wait to fire it up.


----------



## NorthSky

*^* All sounds and looks perfect now.

________

* Off the record: The other day I was listening to *Roger Waters - Amused to Death* on Blu-ray Audio (multichannel hi-res 5.1 audio @ 96/24) and I have a pair of tower surround speakers positioned @ 135°. That was pretty cool.  /// I also like the regular stereo CD encoded with Q-Sound...very spooky.


----------



## dschulz

NorthSky said:


> *^* All sounds and looks perfect now.
> 
> ________
> 
> * Off the record: The other day I was listening to *Roger Waters - Amused to Death* on Blu-ray Audio (multichannel hi-res 5.1 audio @ 96/24) and I have a pair of tower surround speakers positioned @ 135°. That was pretty cool.  /// I also like the regular stereo CD encoded with Q-Sound...very spooky.


I love that record. I just received the Blu-Ray as a gift, but haven't listened to it yet, but I go back to the CD often and listened to it quite recently. All of the Waters solo stuff is great.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> I love that record. I just received the Blu-Ray as a gift, but haven't listened to it yet, but I go back to the CD often and listened to it quite recently. All of the Waters solo stuff is great.


This album is the apotheosis of the Pink Floyd members solo. ...I like David Gilmour's guitar playing...but his solo albums don't have the synergy of Roger Water's state-of-mind with his virtuosity to translate his musical/philosophical/social messages. ...That's my opinion. 

And speaking of Pink Floyd band members and music and messages...I wouldn't be surprised to see a Dolby Atmos Pink Floyd release in a not too distant future...Dolby Atmos on Blu-ray Audio...cool or what. ...Strictly music...and not any music...but Pink Floyd music. 
...Amused to Death in Dolby Atmos. 

And next, remastered Tangerine Dream in Atmos BR Audio. 

Christmas is coming soon again, this year in 2015. But the spirit is already in me...and was in me six months ago...and before, and after, and always in the now.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

blastermaster said:


> The thing is, I was wondering if I needed front wides also. It turns out, it's not part of the Atmos configuration, so it's a moot point. If it were, though, it would definitely be interesting to test it out. Ignorance is bliss. I didn't realize how much my old speakers sucked until I got new ones. People may not realize how much better having wides could make your system sound unless it's tried. Then again, it may not add much at all. Again, for me it's pointless because of the current receivers and Atmos config, and even if there was any "hole" in that space, the front height ceiling speakers should account for that.


So ATMOS won't support 9.1.2? When I used it before I used the Audyssey wide setting


----------



## MalevolentHamster

From you signature link: How are you getting 13 channels with a 5200W?


----------



## MalevolentHamster

NorthSky said:


> Hi Scott,
> 
> I totally understand what you're saying...for most members here, including you and Sanjay, a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration is awesome.
> But if you watch the video again you'll see what Anthony Grimani is saying in relation to room's sizes...and I mentioned that in one of my prior posts.
> 
> See the thing here is: Not everyone has the same size room, and phantom imaging, working real good in yours, is not equally working well in all rooms.
> Mr. Grimani, a smart man with extensive experience in 3D Surround Sound Immersion, mentioned in the video that a small room, for him, is @ least 20 feet long, and roughly 14-16 feet wide, a medium room is 26 feet long, @ least...and a large room is 40 feet long plus.
> So, in those instances it all makes good acoustic sense to have Front Wide speakers, and an array of Side surround speakers, for multiple rows of seats.
> You want to cover all the room's space for best sound immersion to everyone's set of ears...just like in a movie theater...like @ your local cinema theater.
> 
> Mr. Grimani in that video, interviewed by Mr. Scott Wilkinson, said that the human ears are more attuned with the front soundstage...say @ an angle of roughly 170° (I can see both my hands easily @ that angle, even @ 180° - try it).
> And that front soundstage is the most important and roughly 75% (my own figure) of the full 3D sound immersion. ...I agree with this gentleman.
> 
> ...Then the side surrounds (two sets if two rows of seats), and finally the rear surrounds, and I agree with him too in regard to have them closer together (when using only one pair) than a wider spread.
> 
> Then the overhead speakers; again he is right as to their ideal position...more inside than what Dolby Atmos recommend.
> ...And slightly forward to the MLP. * That is for the first row of seats...then you do the same for the second row...as graphically drawn in his plans.
> 
> Mr. Tony Grimani is not blowing thin air here; the guy knows what he's talking about because that's his job to experiment with the best 3D sound immersion.
> He is a professional...are you?
> 
> Sure, we don't have to agree with his level of expertise...but I, for one do agree with him...in relation to room's sizes...and not specifically YOUR room Scott. I'm sure you're real happy with a 7.10.4 setup in your own room...I would too...except I don't have the room for all those subs. ;-)
> My own room is too small (19 by 16 by 11 - WxLxH) and it has other normal stuff that we all put in normal living rooms...so it is not 100% dedicated...more like 66% (roughly). But I will be experimenting in that room with a 7.3.4 setup, a 9.3.2 one, and with slightly variable speakers positioning. I will use Mr. Grimani's expertise to guide me best.
> 
> This is just my own opinion.


Thanks for the summation and very well put Northsky. Look forward to results of your tests


----------



## MalevolentHamster

blastermaster said:


> Agreed. That should come after 7.1.4 if one still feels like something is missing.



But some might say "what you've never had, you'll never miss"


----------



## MalevolentHamster

batpig said:


> Because arguing about minutia on the Internet is fun


i believe that was the precise reason that the internet was invented


----------



## MalevolentHamster

gammanuc said:


> With this talk of wides maybe it's good time to ask this question. I thought I read a discussion about this previously but I can't find it. Right now I have my system set up as 7.1.4 with the in-ceiling speakers set as TF and TR. I also have wides installed as I was using them instead of the SB for a while. My question is there configuration whereby I can easily switch back and forth between having FW and SB?


Depends on receiver. On new Denons, you can save entire configuration and restore, so you could have one config for each setup.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

kbarnes701 said:


> If I am not mistaken, Grimani sells installations. As such he is a salesman as well as an engineer. Salesmen are, by their nature, biased sources and what they say should always be treated with circumspection. Who knows why he hears his 'sonic black hole' that few of us others hear? Maybe when selling an installation it makes sense to sell another pair of speakers for the 'wide' location and also sell 4 on the ceiling 'to cover all bases' and to 'give backwards compatibility' with other formats like DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX etc. Not saying he does of course - just that it makes commercial sense. And as such, it can introduce bias and the illusion of problems where none exist. Solving problems = a bigger bill at the end of the process.
> 
> So, who else, who independently of a sales operation, has pointed to this black hole that can only be filled with extra, 'wide' speakers?  Toole? Olive? Anyone? Maybe we can attach more credence to their pronouncements on this discussion, if they exist.


I had 7.1. in my last house. I never felt there was a black hole or that I was missing something, but i tried the wides (as I had a spare pair of speakers) and it added a lot (IMHO). The room was 17-feet wide. 

All I was doing was experimenting and liked the result.

I think Grimani is out of most this treads price range


----------



## stikle

MalevolentHamster said:


> Thanks for the summation and very well put Northsky. *Look forward to results of your tests*



1] Don't hold your breath. He doesn't actually own any Atmos hardware and just likes to post...and post...and post. Which is why he's on more than a few ignore lists.

2] Try clicking the "Multi-Quote" button on every message you want to quote from. When you're ready to reply, click the Reply button and all of the Multi-Quoted posts will be put intoyour one reply. Just delete the parts that aren't applicable to what you want to quote, and type each response below the quote.

That way your 5 separate posts become one and reduces thread clutter.


----------



## stikle

Man AVS is acting up today.


----------



## Eriksdam

NorthSky said:


> And speaking of Pink Floyd band members and music and messages...I wouldn't be surprised to see a Dolby Atmos Pink Floyd release in a not too distant future...Dolby Atmos on Blu-ray Audio...cool or what. ...Strictly music...and not any music...but Pink Floyd music.


Well, maybe not Amused to death in Atmos, but Waters' live version of The Wall is rumoured to get an Atmos soundtrack. 

http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Waters-...65953&creativeASIN=B015RD3AHO&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Maybe christmas will be early this year 

- Erik


----------



## Aras_Volodka

MalevolentHamster said:


> I had 7.1. in my last house. I never felt there was a black hole or that I was missing something, but i tried the wides (as I had a spare pair of speakers) and it added a lot (IMHO). The room was 17-feet wide.
> 
> All I was doing was experimenting and liked the result.
> 
> I think Grimani is out of most this treads price range


I completely disagree, ever since I relocated my HT, I really miss having the rear speakers. With DSU & a 7.1 or Atmos mix they do get a lot of usage, far more than wides will have for a long time. DSU doesn't send anything to the wides anyway, right? 

Planet of the apes & Maze Runner are very fun films with the rear speakers  

My room was smaller than your dimensions though. 

I'm kinda pissed that Sicario can't be seen anywhere in Atmos... there are 3 theater chains out here (AMC, Marcus, & ICON) they are only playing the Martian (*cough* intersellar meets GOTG *cough*) in atmos. The ICON theater even has smaller screens with Atmos systems... 3 in fact. No way to squeeze Sicario into any of those I guess  

& it looks like there won't be anything for a while... Pan looks awful. Peanuts might be cool, especially if it might be an HDR graded film perhaps? 

If not then... Mockingjay (HDR, Atmos, IMAX), & then... Star Wars


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> Man AVS is acting up today.


LOL i thought that was me and my ISP acting up.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Ralph Potts review of San Andreas:



> As mentioned earlier film's like this are tailor made for entertaining home theater listening. In this case those words have never been truer especially with respect to Dolby Atmos. San Andreas is the first Atmos mix that I have reviewed that contains elements that allow full advantage of the format's promise and the result is an engrossing thrill ride. The opening sequence features a helicopter rescue precipitated by a vehicle that crashed down an embankment. This segment contains a wealth of effects beginning with the visceral, rumbling tumbling falling vehicle that literally places you within the compartment. Later as the helicopter arrives there is a nice overhead flyover followed by visual perspectives and audio cues that simulate the hovering craft from down below. While that all sounds great it's just an appetizer for what is to come later beginning with the sequence that takes place at the Hoover Dam. That sequence brings together the type of room traversing sound that combines object placement from above and ear level that only gets better as the action ramps up.
> 
> The Atmos mix makes effective use of the entire platform and manages the plethora of effects, dialogue, music and low frequency content allowing all of the recording's elements to be fully realized. This track can be thoroughly engrossing and sometimes starkly realistic. There is a sequence during the third act that takes place in a crumbling building that is filling with water. Debris and raining down from above and crashing to the floor. I swear that at one point I actually turned and looked over my shoulder fully expecting to see a chunk of my drywall on the floor behind my seat. It sounded so lifelike that being caught up in the sequence it sounded like a piece of concrete fell and landed in my theater room. The extended earthquake/disaster related sequences contain a host of swirling effects, explosions, nearfield pans, and ambience that rotate around the soundstage, shifting overhead, passing by at ear level and coming directly at the listening position. It all comes together in a resplendent blend of room energizing and well balanced sound that shows what this format is capable of.





YUM!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> Ralph Potts review of San Andreas:
> 
> YUM!!!


Looks good eh? Not available here until 13 October but one that I am really looking forward to. Also just ordered *Leon*, *Bram Stoker's Dracula* and *The Fifth Elemen*t from Amazon USA - they don't even seem to have scheduled release dates for the UK yet.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Yeah, I got San Andreas early, and it's a definite demo piece. I had it at my usual listening level and you would have thought the room was coming apart around you at times. Very well done sound!


----------



## NorthSky

Eriksdam said:


> Well, maybe not Amused to death in Atmos, but Waters' live version of The Wall is rumoured to get an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Waters-...65953&creativeASIN=B015RD3AHO&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> Maybe christmas will be early this year
> 
> - Erik


Hi Erik,

I checked your link of course, was looking for the magic "Atmos" word, couldn't read/find it...but it don't matter...still a possibility in the future, and not only for 'The Wall'.  

What a lovely day!


----------



## Kain

Just want to confirm one thing...

The ceiling speakers are NOT seen as left/right pairs, correct? Every ceiling speaker is seen as an individual speaker for objects?


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> Just want to confirm one thing...
> 
> The ceiling speakers are NOT seen as left/right pairs, correct? Every ceiling speaker is seen as an individual speaker for objects?


Correct. Every speaker is individually addressable


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Just want to confirm one thing...
> 
> The ceiling speakers are NOT seen as left/right pairs, correct? *Every ceiling speaker is seen as an individual speaker for objects?*


Correct...top front and top rear pair of L and R overhead speakers (and depending of the designation in each AV receiver or pre/pro). 
...And each individual speaker can have its own content...just like your front pair of floor speakers, your surround side pair of L & R speakers, and your surround back pair of speakers.


----------



## scarabaeus

Kain said:


> Just want to confirm one thing...
> 
> The ceiling speakers are NOT seen as left/right pairs, correct? Every ceiling speaker is seen as an individual speaker for objects?


They always come in pairs, but of course carry individual audio (lust like e.g. the front left / front right pair). You can not enable, let's say, the top front right speaker by itself in your AVR, it always comes with the top front left speaker as well.

Objects treat every speaker as an individual speaker, with a certain position in 3D space (except for the sub), not just the ceiling speakers.


----------



## kingwiggi

MalevolentHamster said:


> So ATMOS won't support 9.1.2? When I used it before I used the Audyssey wide setting


ATMOS does support 9.1.2, it is DSU that doesn't make use of your wides.

Audyssey Wide + Height mode is very effective especially if you have wides.


----------



## Eriksdam

NorthSky said:


> Hi Erik,
> 
> I checked your link of course, was looking for the magic "Atmos" word, couldn't read/find it...but it don't matter...still a possibility in the future, and not only for 'The Wall'.
> 
> What a lovely day!


It's now confirmed by Universal Germany. 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Roger-Waters-The-Wall-Blu-ray/12873/

The trailer (look for it on YouTube) looks pretty spectacular! I am definitely getting that one......


----------



## blastermaster

kingwiggi said:


> ATMOS does support 9.1.2, it is DSU that doesn't make use of your wides.
> 
> Audyssey Wide + Height mode is very effective especially if you have wides.


That was my bad. For some reason I thought it didn't support it. As much as it's going to be difficult, I'm going to keep this a read-only thread for myself until I actually get my receiver and can post something more than theory. I'm all set up with everything apart from that.


----------



## NorthSky

Eriksdam said:


> It's now confirmed by Universal Germany.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Roger-Waters-The-Wall-Blu-ray/12873/
> 
> The trailer (look for it on YouTube) looks pretty spectacular! I am definitely getting that one......


WoW! You Erik sir you just scored big on this one! ...That is totally "atmos" awesomeness @ the highest musical level. 

♦ www.digitaltrends.com/features/pink-floyds-roger-waters-on-the-wall-movie/

__________


----------



## MalevolentHamster

> I had 7.1. in my last house. I never felt there was a black hole or that I was missing something, but i tried the wides (as I had a spare pair of speakers) and it added a lot (IMHO). The room was 17-feet wide.
> 
> All I was doing was experimenting and liked the result.
> 
> I think Grimani is out of most this treads price range





Aras_Volodka said:


> I completely disagree, ever since I relocated my HT, I really miss having the rear speakers. With DSU & a 7.1 or Atmos mix they do get a lot of usage, far more than wides will have for a long time. DSU doesn't send anything to the wides anyway, right?


I'm puzzled what you're disagreeing about. I said I tried wides and I liked them and Gramini's HT's are beyond the budget of most of us? 

So either the most of the thread's subscribers have $100K budgets, or I was wrong knowing what I liked. I said nothing about sacrificing anything for front wides or even suggesting adding them. it was purely a comment on my experiments


----------



## Molon_Labe

MalevolentHamster said:


> I'm puzzled what you're disagreeing about. I said I tried wides and I liked them and Gramini's HT's are beyond the budget of most of us?
> 
> So either the most of the thread's subscribers have $100K budgets, or I was wrong knowing what I liked. I said nothing about sacrificing anything for front wides or even suggesting adding them. it was purely a comment on my experiments


You are allowed an opinion only when it is mutually accepted as a valid opinion


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Looks good eh? Not available here until 13 October but one that I am really looking forward to. Also just ordered *Leon*, *Bram Stoker's Dracula* and *The Fifth Elemen*t from Amazon USA - they don't even seem to have scheduled release dates for the UK yet.


Yes it's a great month eh! Getting Dracula tomorrow San Andreas in a week then the 5th element.


----------



## bargervais

Eriksdam said:


> It's now confirmed by Universal Germany.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Roger-Waters-The-Wall-Blu-ray/12873/
> 
> The trailer (look for it on YouTube) looks pretty spectacular! I am definitely getting that one......


This I will pre-order this one for sure.


----------



## Contuzzi

The Roger Waters Blu-Ray coming out (and in Atmos no less) is the best Atmos news yet by far. I cannot express what a treat it is to have that unbelievable concert to relive over and over.

Saw the live concert 4 different times -- a spectacle doesn't begin to describe it. I can only hope they release the Roger Waters - In The Flesh DVD on Blu-Ray and if I'm being greedy, his Dark Side of the Moon tour as well.


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> Correct. Every speaker is individually addressable





NorthSky said:


> Correct...top front and top rear pair of L and R overhead speakers (and depending of the designation in each AV receiver or pre/pro).
> ...And each individual speaker can have its own content...just like your front pair of floor speakers, your surround side pair of L & R speakers, and your surround back pair of speakers.





scarabaeus said:


> They always come in pairs, but of course carry individual audio (lust like e.g. the front left / front right pair). You can not enable, let's say, the top front right speaker by itself in your AVR, it always comes with the top front left speaker as well.
> 
> Objects treat every speaker as an individual speaker, with a certain position in 3D space (except for the sub), not just the ceiling speakers.


Thanks for the replies.

This is a question for anyone...

Anyone think Atmos would have been better if it had a height layer between the floor speakers and the ceiling speakers like Auro-3D?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

MalevolentHamster said:


> I'm puzzled what you're disagreeing about. I said I tried wides and I liked them and Gramini's HT's are beyond the budget of most of us?
> 
> So either the most of the thread's subscribers have $100K budgets, or I was wrong knowing what I liked. I said nothing about sacrificing anything for front wides or even suggesting adding them. it was purely a comment on my experiments


I must have misinterpreted your post... what I gathered was that you had a 7.1 setup, but no longer have rear speakers... I really miss my rear speakers


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> This is a question for anyone...
> 
> Anyone think Atmos would have been better if it had a height layer between the floor speakers and the ceiling speakers like Auro-3D?


I think it is better to have the speakers overhead... but I hope at some point Atmos adds height speakers to their setup down the road, it might help position objects better in 3D. But by that time perhaps speaker technology will be worked out that might not require the need for them.


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Aras_Volodka said:


> I must have misinterpreted your post... what I gathered was that you had a 7.1 setup, but no longer have rear speakers... I really miss my rear speakers


Nope. Would never give up my rears, especially with ATMOS (according to THX). Will be getting new AVR and ATMOS in next few weeks


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> Anyone think Atmos would have been better if it had a height layer between the floor speakers and the ceiling speakers like Auro-3D?


I think few people would dispute the idea that more speakers = more immersion (assuming it's all done right of course). The problem is limited resources... if you've only got 11 channels to work with, you can't exactly have a 7ch base layer, then 4 height speakers AND more overhead speakers. Even Auro3D which is fundamentally about this "3 layer" approach is hampered in consumer AVR's by this limitation as you are forced to give up Surround Backs to do all three layers (5.1 + 4 heights + VOG = 10.1 Auro3D).


----------



## NorthSky

> He doesn't actually own any Atmos hardware and just likes to post...and post...and post. Which is why he's on more than a few ignore lists


Look @ the thread's title...nowhere it says that it's only for owners who own a Dolby Atmos receiver.

Of course I like to post...I am passionate about my hobbies...something illegal with that?

When you want to ignore another member, don't talk about it, don't promote it...just do it yourself like a responsible adult...quietly. 
Let other people make their own decision for themselves...makes sense? ...I thought so too. 

Peace brother; you don't know me, you judge no one, if you would know me you wouldn't say personal negative comments like that towards another member, publicly. 

Respect everyone, even if you don't like someone...live and let live.


----------



## David Susilo

It's for ambient sound. It will sound nearly like you are there in person.


----------



## bargervais

Molon_Labe said:


> I guess I am missing something but I don't see why I would want a concert to come from the ceiling  Can someone enlighten me?


It's the whole acid experience like Lucy in the sky with diamonds. Roger Waters is a flower child.


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> I guess I am missing something but I don't see why I would want a concert to come from the ceiling  Can someone enlighten me?


I saw Pink Floyd live in Montreal back in 1975 - 'Wish You Were Here' Tour - , and in the stadium (Autostade) they had speakers very high* up @ each side of the stadium and @ the rear...there were towers of multiple large drivers. And @ one point a rocket launcher appeared from way in the rear and riding the entire stadium up to the front stage where it crashed behind...a wall. ...On a steel cable of course, and above our heads...quite high up in the air, in particular from its launch pad in the rear.

Pink Floyd music is all about sound immersion, and from all directions...and above.

* We're talking like over hundred feet high here...perhaps two hundred feet high. It sure was immersive. 
Was I on acid @ that time (20-year old)? ...You betcha.


----------



## Waboman

Eriksdam said:


> It's now confirmed by Universal Germany.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Roger-Waters-The-Wall-Blu-ray/12873/
> 
> The trailer (look for it on YouTube) looks pretty spectacular! I am definitely getting that one......


Also confirmed by IMDb and other sites. Amazon isn't the best source for current information.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3970482/


----------



## zimmo

stay whith your dolby atmos 2014,in europe and north america says the company(dts) have mutch problem whith (DTS-X,it seems that electronic avr or receiver or receptor or préamp 2016 whith the dts-x have problem whith (DSP)somes products Inside is not fonctional that why (DTS) report the firmware to april 2016.
Somes experts say rhat if it keeps the problèmes whit (DTS-X)could signified his disapear. 


ps;see french av.Cesar.com


----------



## Markitron

Are there any impressions anywhere about the Onkyo add-on Atmos modules? I can only seem to find previews and fluff pieces. I'm getting an entire new system (Denon X2200 + a DALI Zensor 5.1 package), and would like to know how they sound. I'm already a little over budget so the Kef modules are out of the question.

My initial plan was to get speakers with Atmos modules built in but the reviews for that DALI set are hard to ignore, my 5.1 system is really old/cheap so I'd imagine that will be a big upgrade by itself.


----------



## rontalley

Although not ideal, I see a market for a simple 6 or 8 channel Dolby Atmos, DTS-X and Auro 3D Processing Box (with or without Amps). Signal will come from the HDMI output of the AVR into the "Processing Box", it will extract the Height Channels and send them to the appropriate speakers, and pass the HDMI signal on to wherever it was going originally in real-time. This box will be equipped with DSU and other usable DSP algorithms.

When someone makes it, please be sure to look me up and pay me my royalties!


----------



## HT-Eman

*First TV Commercial in Atmos*

Here is a tv commercial produce by Wave Studios http://lbbonline.com/news/wave-studios-unveils-dolby-atmos-suite/ . So now tv commercials are getting the " Atmos Treatment " . Can't wait to get up and running with my system.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I guess I am missing something but I don't see why I would want a concert to come from the ceiling  Can someone enlighten me?


It's to simulate your youth when you got so stoned at most gigs that you eventually fell down and all the music was then coming from above you. It's a little-known side benefit of Auromatic.

BTW, is there any truth in the rumour that D&M have dropped Auro in the new 2015/16 models?


----------



## Stoked21

Dts x delays. Ugh

How would u like to be the dts reps walking around cedia next week. U couldn't pay me to field all those questions and deal with the irritated people.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Dts x delays. Ugh
> 
> How would u like to be the dts reps walking around cedia next week. U couldn't pay me to field all those questions and deal with the irritated people.


Yes, I'd like to be there to see how they deal with that. Now that the date has been pushed to April next year, I've kind of mentally written it off - if it comes, it comes, if it doesn't, do I care? With only one BD release so far, the only thing I'd lament if DTS:X disappeared is that there is less competition for Atmos and I am a big believer that competition always benefits the consumer. 

I doubt if DTS could have made a bigger pig's ear of this if they had tried. And with Auro effectively dead as far as movies on Blu-ray are concerned, Dolby must be scarcely able to believe their luck. (Not that luck had much to do with it IMO - their launch of Atmos was text-book perfect IMO.)


----------



## Stoked21

My issue with DTSX is I'm literally 1-2 weeks tops from replacing my 5-6 month old Yamaha 9.2 A2040. My two firm requirements, among several other considerations, are 11.2 chs and X for less than $3k. So I've really written off the Integra/Onkyo line. Now I'm questioning my strategy to eliminate them as they have some nice product that checks all the boxes with THX.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> My issue with DTSX is I'm literally 1-2 weeks tops from replacing my 5-6 month old Yamaha 9.2 A2040. My two firm requirements, among several other considerations, are 11.2 chs and X for less than $3k. So I've really written off the Integra/Onkyo line. Now I'm questioning my strategy to eliminate them as they have some nice product that checks all the boxes with THX.


Tough call - but if X does arrive next year, along with some content, then you will kick yourself if you don't have it. Not sure what you mean about the Onkyos though - they will all have X I assume. And you don't need to spend near to $3k to get 11.2 and Atmos/X/Auro (with Denon at least - don't know Onkyo pricing).


----------



## smurraybhm

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> This is a question for anyone...
> 
> Anyone think Atmos would have been better if it had a height layer between the floor speakers and the ceiling speakers like Auro-3D?


Not at all.


----------



## Movie78

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I'd like to be there to see how they deal with that. Now that the date has been pushed to April next year, I've kind of mentally written it off - if it comes, it comes, if it doesn't, do I care? With only one BD release so far, the only thing I'd lament if DTS:X disappeared is that there is less competition for Atmos and I am a big believer that competition always benefits the consumer.
> 
> I doubt if DTS could have made a bigger pig's ear of this if they had tried. And with Auro effectively dead as far as movies on Blu-ray are concerned, Dolby must be scarcely able to believe their luck. (Not that luck had much to do with it IMO - their launch of Atmos was text-book perfect IMO.)


 *April next yeaaaaaaaaar*


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Tough call - but if X does arrive next year, along with some content, then you will kick yourself if you don't have it. Not sure what you mean about the Onkyos though - they will all have X I assume. And you don't need to spend near to $3k to get 11.2 and Atmos/X/Auro (with Denon at least - don't know Onkyo pricing).


To get HDCP2.2 and DTS:X, Denon X6200 and Marantz SR7010 are $2200. Yamaha 3050 $2k no Auro (who cares), Pioneer $2000-2500, Onkyo $1700-2300 with no X. Have to add an ext amp to all except higher end Onkyo which at that point you might as well drop $1000-1500 for a bigger 5/7 multi-ch amp and bi-amp fronts. $3K is really about the cost of a 11.2 ch system, though you could go cheap on the amp and AVR and stay in the $2.5 range at MSRP.


----------



## Stoked21

So I just ran into a big concern on moving to projector from LED/LCD TV. I stream and up convert to 4k now on my LCD UHD TV. I would gladly sacrifice the superior LCD resolution and brightness for the bigger screen size and contrast of a projector.

UHD BD players are coming out late this year. Predictions are that all DTS:X and Dolby Atmos support will move exclusively away from standard BD to UHD discs. 1) people who have immersive sound field, and have spent the time and $$$, will want UHD anyway. 2) people who do not have an advanced sound setup will likely not care about UHD either and won't even know what Atmos and X formats are anyway.

So, if it's true that all 9.x/11.x encoded discs will only be on UHD, then HDCP 2.2 is a major issues. Every box in the signal chain must support 2.2 or you will get no sound or video. UHD BD to AVR-->2.2. AVR to pro/TV-->2.2. If one link in the chain is absent then you will not be able to use UHD disc and/or will not get the atmos track. Unless of course you have some blackbox hack in the signal to defeat HDCP.

With that being said, I do not want to lose my Atmos. To be sure I won't I have no choice but to buy a 4k projector, as I cannot find a non-4k that has HDCP2.2. Which of course translates to $5k JVC on the low-end up to $20k for a projector. Unless there's a lower cost 2.2 somewhere, I really feel like it's best to wait 12 months until projector costs drop to the $3k range and below (if it does).

Maybe I'm missing something on the HDCP2.2 path? (I don't believe so). 
Maybe there is a lower cost 1080p projector with 2.2? (really not a question for this forum I suppose but impacts Atmos)


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> To get HDCP2.2 and DTS:X, Denon X6200 and Marantz SR7010 are $2200. Yamaha 3050 $2k no Auro (who cares), Pioneer $2000-2500, Onkyo $1700-2300 with no X. Have to add an ext amp to all except higher end Onkyo which at that point you might as well drop $1000-1500 for a bigger 5/7 multi-ch amp and bi-amp fronts. $3K is really about the cost of a 11.2 ch system, though you could go cheap on the amp and AVR and stay in the $2.5 range at MSRP.


Denon 6200 plus Audiosource 2 ch amp for the last pair = about $2,300. Even if you used an Emotiva XPA-200 amp (more than a match for the internal AVR amps) the total would still come in at about $2,600 or so. But then, nobody ever said this was a cheap hobby


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Predictions are that all DTS:X and Dolby Atmos support will move exclusively away from standard BD to UHD discs.


What is the source for that?


----------



## asere

Stoked21 said:


> UHD BD players are coming out late this year. Predictions are that all DTS:X and Dolby Atmos support will move exclusively away from standard BD to UHD discs. 1) people who have immersive sound field, and have spent the time and $$$, will want UHD anyway. 2) people who do not have an advanced sound setup will likely not care about UHD either and won't even know what Atmos and X formats are anyway.


I agree with that too. I don't know what source you got it from but MY source thinks the same. Eventually there will be more and more Atmos and DTS:X on UHD and less and less for bluray.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Stoked21 said:


> Dts x delays. Ugh
> 
> How would u like to be the dts reps walking around cedia next week. U couldn't pay me to field all those questions and deal with the irritated people.





kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I'd like to be there to see how they deal with that. Now that the date has been pushed to April next year, I've kind of mentally written it off - if it comes, it comes, if it doesn't, do I care? With only one BD release so far, the only thing I'd lament if DTS:X disappeared is that there is less competition for Atmos and I am a big believer that competition always benefits the consumer.
> 
> I doubt if DTS could have made a bigger pig's ear of this if they had tried. And with Auro effectively dead as far as movies on Blu-ray are concerned, Dolby must be scarcely able to believe their luck. (Not that luck had much to do with it IMO - their launch of Atmos was text-book perfect IMO.)


I realized I don't feel so bad about missing CEDIA this year. 

But seriously, with UHD BD out for a bit and DTS:X 2016's CEDIA should be fun. 



Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> This is a question for anyone...
> 
> Anyone think Atmos would have been better if it had a height layer between the floor speakers and the ceiling speakers like Auro-3D?


Uhhh, no.


----------



## Stanton

Stoked21 said:


> Dts x delays. Ugh
> 
> How would u like to be the dts reps walking around cedia next week. U couldn't pay me to field all those questions and deal with the irritated people.


Kind of gives me some added incentive to go to CEDIA (I live in Dallas but write CD reviews for Audioholics). I had planned on going Friday/Saturday, but now I may be going to see my Royals play in KC. Then the question becomes: can I get away from work long enough Thursday afternoon to check it out.


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> This is a question for anyone...
> 
> Anyone think Atmos would have been better if it had a height layer between the floor speakers and the ceiling speakers like Auro-3D?





Scott Simonian said:


> Uhhh, no.


Curious as to your reasoning, Scott. Wouldn't more speakers = more better? I see the *practical* problem with implementation (channel count limitations, WAF, issues for folks with low ceilings), but wouldn't an additional height layer make rendering objects in 3D space even more precise?


----------



## Stoked21

Stanton said:


> but now I may be going to see my Royals play in KC.


I'll be at all the royals postseason home games again this year. The downside is I won't be able to have friends over to watch in the HT! I guess that's for the away games! MLB broadcast is nothing notable in atmos anyway!


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Curious as to your reasoning, Scott. Wouldn't more speakers = more better? I see the *practical* problem with implementation (channel count limitations, WAF, issues for folks with low ceilings), but wouldn't an additional height layer make rendering objects in 3D space even more precise?


Sure. That's true that more speakers equals more stability and such but I don't feel like the upper side wall imaging is a weakness in my listening to Atmos. Could be my thoughts of how it works in my own room though. My surrounds are slightly elevated from 'ear level'. I really can't comment about other cinemas and how it works there. Honestly, it's irrelevant to me as I don't live in the cinema and I'm happy with the three dimensional sound I get in a good Atmos theater. Even there I'm not thinking, "need another whole set of surrounds just a little bit higher than the regular ones". If anything most places need to lower their surrounds a bit and turn up the overheads 2-3dB. 

For me it is a practical problem and logistical. A 300-speaker system would be awesome.....an awesomely complex nightmare! I get a headache just thinking of my active 3-way mains and multi-sub system. Ugh. 

Since Atmos _doesn't_ have this layer to think about and they never will..... I can live on comfortably knowing I don't ever have to think about it.  

I wish I could have more experience with Auro. I really do. It's next to impossible to get to hear unless I make the move to buy a processor that has it and move some speakers. Not gonna happen. So far the best Auro I heard was at your booth last year at CEDIA. That was a very well put together room/system. I just wasn't keen on the demo material. Maybe I shouldn't have sat in the front row? Needed more sweet sounding movies and less tractors.


----------



## scarabaeus

Stoked21 said:


> Predictions are that all DTS:X and Dolby Atmos support will move exclusively away from standard BD to UHD discs.


I'm taking issue with that prediction. No studio has stated this, so far. Only Disney is rumored to wait for UHD for their Atmos releases, but that would probably (hopefully) mean dual format releases in HD and UHD Blu-ray, with both carrying Atmos.

This would also be very short sighted, because UHD Blu-ray does not support 3D, and therefore HD Blu-ray is the only physical medium to support 3D video and Atmos audio.


----------



## asere

scarabaeus said:


> I'm taking issue with that prediction. No studio has stated this, so far. Only Disney is rumored to wait for UHD for their Atmos releases, but that would probably (hopefully) mean dual format releases in HD and UHD Blu-ray, with both carrying Atmos.
> 
> This would also be very short sighted, because UHD Blu-ray does not support 3D, and therefore HD Blu-ray is the only physical medium to support 3D video and Atmos audio.


I'm sure UHD does not care about supporting 3D. If you think about it 3D is dying. Also if UHD is going to take over Bluray do you think consumers are going to worry about 3D when UHD will have the finer PQ over Bluray? Not to mention the Atmos and DTS:X that it will carry on most discs.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

scarabaeus said:


> Only Disney is rumored to wait for UHD for their Atmos releases, .


I can't quote a source and have heard this from several places. Is it reliable? Heck no cus nobody knows for sure. The fact that disney has taken this path shows that some studios are already trying to capitalize on additional content feature. We all know how this game is played and it drives the market and innovation (and lightens our wallets). 


DD 5.1!!! VHS? No, sorry (insert chuckle) 
 1080i and 16:9....new TV and move to DVD. DVD's will cost 3-5x the price of a VHS.
Welcome to HD; you need a new TV to support 1080p. And of course content doesn't fit on DVD so buy a BD player. And blu-ray are 2x DVD (ka-ching)
7.1 surround...Get some new speakers and a new AVR.
3D TV in your living room! Ahhhh...yeah that Blu-Ray player we sold you last year isn't going to work so buy a new one....Oh that TV isn't going to work either....Did we forget to mention that we doubled the cost of the disc again?
Dolby Atmos! (Our board of directors is going to be ecstatic about this one....new speakers, new AVR, lot's of hype with little content, studios clamoring to determine how to profit on this one)
 So HDCP 2.2, say hello to eBay cus you need to sell everything you have! Us manufacturers and studios love to "fight" copy protection by removing backwards compatibility!
 UHD 4k!!! Buy that new player for $500-1000!! Our disc are going to double in cost yet again.....And we are going to do everything possible to drive HD BD into obsolescence, forcing people to new technologies and higher profits (HW, SW, content $$$)

There's no question there will be a move to capitalize on immersive sound and higher resolution. Without it the industry wouldn't exist and innovation would be stifled. 

The one thing I know we all agree on is that HDCP 2.2 is a load of ........


----------



## rontalley

Isn't the Atmos track encoded in the Dolby True HD 7.1 Track? If your AVR can decode Atmos then the extra data is sent to the appropriate speakers but if it can't then it just encodes the 7.1 base? At least this is how I believe it works so why would they not include the Dolby True HD track on BD and only on UHD? This makes no sense.


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> Isn't the Atmos track encoded in the Dolby True HD 7.1 Track? If your AVR can decode Atmos then the extra data is sent to the appropriate speakers but if it can't then it just encodes the 7.1 base? At least this is how I believe it works so why would they not include the Dolby True HD track on BD and only on UHD? This makes no sense.


One marketing term-----"Special Edition!!"

Always has the added bonuses. Gravity is a prime example. To get Atmos you had to pay twice as much vs the std. blu-ray package. Is it really not that obvious?


----------



## crimsonblue

Does anyone know the time frame for AppleTV/Amazon video rentals to be encoded with Atmos? I realized that I wired my system to have an awesome Atmos experience, but I watch most of my movies via iTunes Store rental downloads.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Since Atmos _doesn't_ have this layer to think about and they never will..... I can live on comfortably knowing I don't ever have to think about it.
> 
> I wish I could have more experience with Auro. I really do.


Things is, it's not only Auro using the height speakers - indeed, Dolby is sort of the odd man out in this regard. Auro, DTS:X, most of the documentation around ATSC 3.0, the NHK 22.2 system - all of them have something along the lines of a 7.1 (or more) speaker system at roughly ear level, height speakers at least above the Left/Right mains and the surround speakers, and then some number of overhead speakers.


----------



## dschulz

A question for Atmos owners about DSU - is there an option to upmix 2.0 sources to only 5.1 or 7.1? Or is DSU sort of all-or-nothing (on, or off) with respect to the height/top speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

scarabaeus said:


> I'm taking issue with that prediction. No studio has stated this, so far. Only Disney is rumored to wait for UHD for their Atmos releases, but that would probably (hopefully) mean dual format releases in HD and UHD Blu-ray, with both carrying Atmos.
> 
> This would also be very short sighted, because UHD Blu-ray does not support 3D, and therefore HD Blu-ray is the only physical medium to support 3D video and Atmos audio.


I asked for the source but haven't had a response yet. Like you, I think it's just wild speculation with no basis at all in fact. Heck, studios are still releasing movies in dual format (Blu-ray/DVD) years after the superior (Blu-ray) format was settled. It would be a huge stretch to think they will abandon Blu-ray and DVD and just plump for UHD, not to even mention the 3D issue you raise. 

Also, one has to wonder what the takeup of UHD players will be. The market hasn't wildly embraced Blu-ray, with most home movie disc sales still on DVD, so expecting everyone to jump to UHD, which will no doubt be pretty costly at the beginning (remember when Blu-ray players were close on a thousand bucks?), is a recipe for commercial disaster on the part of the studios. Conclusion: they won't do it.


----------



## kriktsemaj99

dschulz said:


> A question for Atmos owners about DSU - is there an option to upmix 2.0 sources to only 5.1 or 7.1? Or is DSU sort of all-or-nothing (on, or off) with respect to the height/top speakers?



Yamaha still gives you the option of PLIIx (or PLII if you have no rear surrounds), to upmix without using the height speakers. Other brands may not.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Isn't the Atmos track encoded in the Dolby True HD 7.1 Track? If your AVR can decode Atmos then the extra data is sent to the appropriate speakers but if it can't then it just encodes the 7.1 base? At least this is how I believe it works so why would they not include the Dolby True HD track on BD and only on UHD? This makes no sense.


Yes - the Atmos metadata is carried via the TrueHD bitstream. It is decoded in Atmos-compatible AVRs and ignored in legacy units. As far as the disc is concerned it's a TrueHD track, as you say.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> One marketing term-----"Special Edition!!"
> 
> Always has the added bonuses. Gravity is a prime example. To get Atmos you had to pay twice as much vs the std. blu-ray package. Is it really not that obvious?


But you are not talking 'special edition' - you are saying that the Atmos track will be on a totally different format, with next to no hardware in consumers' hands, and deleted from the existing successful format. That isn't 'special edition' any more than a movie released on Blu-ray is a 'special edition' compared to the same movie released on DVD.

You are expecting the disc manufacturers to produce one format (UHD) with a TrueHD track with Atmos metadata and a totally separate format (Blu-ray) with a TrueHD track with no Atmos metadata. That seems unlikely to me, but if you enjoy conspiracy theories, unfounded rumors and wild speculation, then YMMV.


----------



## batpig

dschulz said:


> A question for Atmos owners about DSU - is there an option to upmix 2.0 sources to only 5.1 or 7.1? Or is DSU sort of all-or-nothing (on, or off) with respect to the height/top speakers?


No. There is only one adjustable parameter with DSU -- the "center spread" option.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> A question for Atmos owners about DSU - is there an option to upmix 2.0 sources to only 5.1 or 7.1? Or is DSU sort of all-or-nothing (on, or off) with respect to the height/top speakers?


No, DSU doesn't have separate 2D and 3D modes like Auromatic does.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> A question for Atmos owners about DSU - is there an option to upmix 2.0 sources to only 5.1 or 7.1? Or is DSU sort of all-or-nothing (on, or off) with respect to the height/top speakers?


If you only have 5.1 or 7.1 DSU will upmix to those speakers. If you have 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 then DSU will upmix to the whole lot. Why would you not want to use the ceiling speakers as much as possible is, I guess, the rationale for that. You could always reconfigure the AVR or implement some sort of physical switch to remove the overhead speakers from the equation - but why?


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> Only Disney is rumored to wait for UHD for their Atmos releases...


And Fox as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> No. There is only one adjustable parameter with DSU -- the "center spread" option.


What is the center spread option? I have never seen this anywhere in my Denon menus. Where is it batpig?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> What is the center spread option?


When upmixing 2-channel sources, sounds that would normally be extracted only to the centre speaker are instead spread to all three front speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> When upmixing 2-channel sources, sounds that would normally be extracted only to the centre speaker are instead spread to all three front speakers.


Sure - I get what batpig means, but where do I set this option is what I am not aware of. I thought I'd looked at every single menu option there is in my Denon 5200 and I have never spotted an option for enabling or altering the 'center spread'. That kinda worries me - that I have never spotted it


----------



## doctorwizz

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure - I get what batpig means, but where do I set this option is what I am not aware of. I thought I'd looked at every single menu option there is in my Denon 5200 and I have never spotted an option for enabling or altering the 'center spread'. That kinda worries me - that I have never spotted it


It's in audio, surround parameter when the input is stereo.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> You are expecting the disc manufacturers to produce one format (UHD) with a TrueHD track with Atmos metadata and a totally separate format (Blu-ray) with a TrueHD track with no Atmos metadata. That seems unlikely to me, but if you enjoy conspiracy theories, unfounded rumors and wild speculation, then YMMV.


I don't think any of us really know as it's just vaporware today. I hope I'm completely wrong and that is the case. But when I see an HD blu-ray mixed differently (Gravity blu-ray and Gravity Diamond Luxe Blu-Ray) one with Atmos data one without, that's even worse than what you are saying. If they will choose to mix it differently on the same format, why wouldn't they choose to mix differently for a "premium" UHD format vs the layman HD format? What's further concerning is studios refusing to mix Atmos at all until UHD i.e. Disney. Someone else is claiming Fox too, but I don't know. 

I also recall seeing an inadvertently released product doc of a UHD player with both 2.2 and non-2.2 HDMI outputs. As to whether that really happens or not, I hope so. 

Again, HDCP2.2 has the potential to be the butt kicker for us all in some form or another---conspiracy theory or not!


----------



## scarabaeus

sdurani said:


> And Fox as well.


They could simply be DTS fanboys.


----------



## audiofan1

sdurani said:


> No, DSU doesn't have separate 2D and 3D modes like Auromatic does.


 You could technically call "Center spread"which is a called a parameter setting in my Marantz 8802 a 2D sound mode So its not all or nothing


----------



## sdurani

audiofan1 said:


> You could technically call "Center spread"which is a called a parameter setting in my Marantz 8802 a 2D sound mode So its not all or nothing


Where did I say it was all or nothing? Besides, the centre spread parameter does not turn off height extraction, so it is not a 2D sound mode. Auromatic has the option to switch between heights and no heights (3D and 2D, respectively).


----------



## audiofan1

sdurani said:


> Where did I say it was all or nothing? Besides, the centre spread parameter does not turn off height extraction, so it is not a 2D sound mode. Auromatic has the option to switch between heights and no heights (3D and 2D, respectively).


 Sorry sdurani, the all or nothing was the comment from the OP That said, one can still use DSU as it does still work without overheads in place but you would need to go a but deeper into the menu to disable them


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> They could simply be DTS fanboys.


Fox and Disney appear to be huge Atmos fans, judging just by the number of theatrical releases. However, for home video, seems they don't think consumers will re-buy a title in 4K just for the extra pixels. Hence them sweetening the deal by saving features for UHD, like Atmos and HDR, that Blu-ray is capable of delivering. That will give consumers more incentive to re-buy titles on UHD that they already have on BD.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Things is, it's not only Auro using the height speakers - indeed, Dolby is sort of the odd man out in this regard. Auro, DTS:X, most of the documentation around ATSC 3.0, the NHK 22.2 system - all of them have something along the lines of a 7.1 (or more) speaker system at roughly ear level, height speakers at least above the Left/Right mains and the surround speakers, and then some number of overhead speakers.


They may very well be the "odd one out" at the moment but that's a good thing. They exist and have a working product. DTS:X is yet to be seen and Auro barely exists in native format for domestic use. Unless you want to watch a dozen concerts over and over. I'm a movie guy and Atmos brings it.

Hey, when DTS:X comes out and the hardware has support for 7.1 + 7 heights and six overheads... gimme a call and I'll buy one for you and I. 

Ummm.... well, maybe not but you get the spirit of what I mean! 


Right now... it's all hypothetical and irrelevant, imo. EDIT: Sorry. Not saying your question is irrelevant but moreso me worrying about extra speakers that don't exist in the Atmos layout and most likely the DTS:X layout (for some time) too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

scarabaeus said:


> They could simply be DTS fanboys.


If you saw their list of theatrical mixes in Atmos you might think otherwise.


----------



## sdurani

audiofan1 said:


> ...one can still use DSU as it does still work without overheads in place but you would need to go a but deeper into the menu to disable them


Wouldn't you have to go into the speaker set-up menu and re-configure your system as having no heights? Or is there another way to disable them?


----------



## audiofan1

sdurani said:


> Wouldn't you have to go into the speaker set-up menu and re-configure your system as having no heights? Or is there another way to disable them?


 Exactly! prior to installing my overheads I used DSU for movies as it did add a more spacious sound to my 5.1 setup, I would still need to try it with 7.1 to see it further enhances but still it can be done.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Auro, DTS:X, most of the documentation around ATSC 3.0, the NHK 22.2 system - all of them have something along the lines of a 7.1 (or more) speaker system at roughly ear level, height speakers at least above the Left/Right mains and the surround speakers, and then some number of overhead speakers.


Since the initial roll out of consumer DTS:X will be 11.2, it will be interesting to see how high up the 4 height speakers are: just above the mains & surrounds or on the ceiling OR a placement range that encompasses both (diplomatic solution).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sooo.... either: a negligible difference, compromised position or ideal position.


----------



## kbarnes701

doctorwizz said:


> It's in audio, surround parameter when the input is stereo.


Thanks. That will be why I have never seen it. Never had the input in stereo AFAIK (no music in the HT here) and with the occasional movie that is in 2.0 I have just let the upmixer do its thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I don't think any of us really know as it's just vaporware today. I hope I'm completely wrong and that is the case. But when I see an HD blu-ray mixed differently (Gravity blu-ray and Gravity Diamond Luxe Blu-Ray) one with Atmos data one without, that's even worse than what you are saying.


They weren't mixed differently. *Gravity* was always a theatrical Atmos mix but the original Blu-ray was released in 7.1. Later it was released with an Atmos Blu-ray release (which is where your 'special edition' argument holds sway. This has been quite common so far, with quite a few of my Atmos Blu-rays originally released in a regular 7.1 mix (eg *Transcendence*,* I, Frankenstein*, *Lucy*, and *Chicago* (the latter never an Atmos theatrical release of course)). Soon we will be having *Bram Stoker's Dracula*, *Leon* and *The Fifth Element *remixed in Atmos. While this may be seen by some as profiteering from the good old double dipper, I see it as fabulous and it gives me the opportunity to have some of my favorite movies released in an exciting new format. Obviously nobody is forcing me to double (or in some cases there, triple) dip. 



Stoked21 said:


> If they will choose to mix it differently on the same format, why wouldn't they choose to mix differently for a "premium" UHD format vs the layman HD format?


Well, like I say, they didn't mix it differently.



Stoked21 said:


> What's further concerning is studios refusing to mix Atmos at all until UHD i.e. Disney. Someone else is claiming Fox too, but I don't know.


Well that is their prerogative and no doubt they have a business model which is different at Disney and Fox. No way to know. But that isn't really anything to do with a wholesale move to release Atmos only on UHD going forward and I would bet you a cent to a dollar that these discs will be dual format, Blu-ray and UHD in one package, much like we often find Blu-ray and DVD in one package at the moment.



Stoked21 said:


> I also recall seeing an inadvertently released product doc of a UHD player with both 2.2 and non-2.2 HDMI outputs. As to whether that really happens or not, I hope so.


Why does that matter? HDMI 2.2 is backwards compatible for sources which don't need it.



Stoked21 said:


> Again, HDCP2.2 has the potential to be the butt kicker for us all in some form or another---conspiracy theory or not!


Well HDCP 2.2 is here now on entry level units and it isn't of any concern to most people outside these forums I guess. Given that most people watch their disc-based movies on DVD, I am guessing they are not concerned at all with 4K. Personally I will eventually buy a 4K PJ but it is way low on my priorities.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> They weren't mixed differently. *Gravity* was always a theatrical Atmos mix but the original Blu-ray was released in 7.1. Later it was released with an Atmos


Actually, Keith, the first release of *Gravity* was only in 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio.


----------



## Spanglo

Some of us even have the super rare Gravity 3D Atmos version, which will no doubt be another luxe Edition.


----------



## gpmbc

Atmos gurus, is 2 feet forward from ear level close to within spec for a top middle location or would I want it closer to directly overhead? I'm going with a front height / top middle configuration.


----------



## NorthSky

> It's to simulate your youth when you got so stoned at most gigs that you eventually fell down and all the music was then coming from above you.
> It's a little-known side benefit of Auromatic.


Lol, good sense of humor. 



> BTW, is there any truth in the rumour that D&M have dropped Auro in the new 2015/16 models?


I've never heard of that yet.

* I've just checked on the new Denon AVR-X6200W Dolby Atmos AV receiver (DTS:X and Auro-3D ready) @ my local Best Buy store: *$2,599.99*


----------



## NorthSky

*Denon AVR-X5200W Dolby Atmos AVR | 'Center Spread' On/Off | DSU*

In the Denon AVR-X5200W manual: Page 176 (*Center Spread* feature). ...For Dolby Surround (Up-mixer - DSU).

♦ www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w/listening-tests

* http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX5200W/NA/EN/WBSPSYxsrykwfr.php


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> I asked for the source but haven't had a response yet. Like you, I think it's just wild speculation with no basis at all in fact.
> 
> Conclusion: they won't do it.


Keith, as I mentioned, I cannot provide you with a credible source. Have I researched this pretty heavily? Yes. Have I spoken to people in the industry, read articles and releases? Yes. Are any of them the decision makers on strategy or the head of Fox Studios,etc? No. Has there been a precedent set for past technologies? Yes, and I support that and would do the exact same thing if I was in charge. And as a consumer, I like to be on the leading edge and put this burden on myself. Has there been a precedent for some new movies to only include Atmos on upgrade editions? Yes. Are certain studios opting to not release Atmos until UHD BD? Yep. Am I speculating based on past trends, historical precedence, studio announcements and the few facts we have? Heck yeah I am!!! And some of it is likely just rumors too. But seeing that some studios have already announced no Atmos until UHD and some studios have released at least one title as Atmos only on special addition, I think it's denial and wide-eyed speculation to conclude "they won't do it". Even if not 100% across the board, they already have.



kbarnes701 said:


> While this may be seen by some as profiteering from the good old double dipper, I see it as fabulous and it gives me the opportunity to have some of my favorite movies released in an exciting new format. Obviously nobody is forcing me to double (or in some cases there, triple) dip.
> 
> 
> Why does that matter? HDMI 2.2 is backwards compatible for sources which don't need it.


I'm all for the double dipping. Triple at this point sometimes. My wall of fav movies in thumbnail attached. I own most of these on DVD, Blu-Ray, and/or Blu-Ray 3D. If they were out on Atmos I would buy them a fourth time today with no hesitation.

HDCP2.2 is backwards compatible but not forward. My concern is only on disc content. I don't want to be stuck with an AVR or proj/tv that is non-2.2 and find out I can't get my atmos on an HD BD. I could honestly do without 4k for the most part, though it would be nice. 

So my simple point and question: Fox and Disney are only putting Atmos on UHD disc so it seems. Will this trend continue? I don't know. How would I get those titles with atmos with a non-2.2 setup? I don't unless there's a dual format package with mix on a non-UHD, or a dual-output UHD player with a non-2.2 proj/TV HDMI output. I think many people are trying to make themselves feel better that they will be okay without 2.2 without looking at some of the facts.



Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, Keith, the first release of *Gravity* was only in 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio.


My first atmos BD was Gravity 3D, or so I thought. It's mixed as 5.1. I didn't read the back of the box and low and behold I was using the DSU (still impressive but I was disappointed). So I went out the next day and bought the Luxe version.



Spanglo said:


> Some of us even have the super rare Gravity 3D Atmos version, which will no doubt be another luxe Edition.


Now I'm just jealous.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> In the Denon AVR-X5200W manual: Page 176 (*Center Spread* feature). ...For Dolby Surround (Up-mixer - DSU).
> 
> ♦ www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w/listening-tests
> 
> * http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX5200W/NA/EN/WBSPSYxsrykwfr.php


This is for 2-channel sources and DSU. Not sure what you're posting it in reference to though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, Keith, the first release of *Gravity* was only in 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio.


It still wasn't mixed differently for the Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

gpmbc said:


> Atmos gurus, is 2 feet forward from ear level close to within spec for a top middle location or would I want it closer to directly overhead? I'm going with a front height / top middle configuration.


Dolby Atmos ideal recommendation for the overhead Top Middle pair of speakers is forward of the MLP, @ *80°*
...And anywhere between 65° and 100° is acceptable (TM)...from their white papers (pfd) in Speakers Positioning for an Atmos setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Keith, as I mentioned, I cannot provide you with a credible source. Have I researched this pretty heavily? Yes. Have I spoken to people in the industry, read articles and releases? Yes. Are any of them the decision makers on strategy or the head of Fox Studios,etc? No. Has there been a precedent set for past technologies? Yes, and I support that and would do the exact same thing if I was in charge. And as a consumer, I like to be on the leading edge and put this burden on myself. Has there been a precedent for some new movies to only include Atmos on upgrade editions? Yes. Are certain studios opting to not release Atmos until UHD BD? Yep. Am I speculating based on past trends, historical precedence, studio announcements and the few facts we have? Heck yeah I am!!! And some of it is likely just rumors too. But seeing that some studios have already announced no Atmos until UHD and some studios have released at least one title as Atmos only on special addition, I think it's denial and wide-eyed speculation to conclude "they won't do it". Even if not 100% across the board, they already have.


No, they haven't. My "they won't do it" comment was, from context, clearly meant as "they will not solely release Atmos tracks on UHD".


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is for 2-channel sources and DSU. Not sure what you're posting it in reference to though.


If you go back to the prior page you'll see some people 'enquiring' about DSU adjustments, and the Center Spread feature that they never saw in their Denon's on-screen menu and manual. 

I am posting it to help people locate that feature, and in relation to DSU.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Fox and Disney are only putting Atmos on UHD disc so it seems.


There is just no evidence for that. Waiting for UHD before releasing Atmos content is not the same as making it exclusive to that format. You may be right of course, but all that it is right now is a guess with no supporting evidence that it is likely to happen AFAICS. Of course if there is some evidence that I have missed - eg one or other of those studios making a statement to that effect, or some sort of insight into pre-production UHD discs or whatever, I will happily concede. In the absence of any contrary evidence my belief is that Atmos will not be relegated exclusively to UHD. We'll have to wait and see who is right or wrong, or if neither of us is.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> If you go back to the prior page you'll see some people 'enquiring' about DSU adjustments, and the Center Spread feature that they never saw in their Denon's on-screen menu and manual.
> 
> I am posting it to help people locate that feature, and in relation to DSU.


Pssst... That's what quotes are for.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> No, they haven't. My "they won't do it" comment was, from context, clearly meant as "they will not solely release Atmos tracks on UHD".


I pray you are right and I am wrong. I just don't like the way things look right now. Until something concrete comes out, this all started as a comment that I would be very cautious of non-2.2 equip. If it pans out like you think, I get to move from my 2.2 LCD to a large, non-2.2 proj and save a LOT of money in doing so!! 

Is it sick that I would sacrifice visual quality for audio quality? HA HA


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Pssst... That's what quotes are for.


The main reason I didn't quote is that there were several members who were discussing that subject...so I made it simple that way, for everyone. 
No _"pssst"_ needed. ;-)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> The main reason I didn't quote is that there were several members who were discussing that subject...so I made it simple that way, for everyone.




Pssst... That's what multi-quote is for. Heh...


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It still wasn't mixed differently for the Blu-ray.


Well... whatever. You said it was 7.1 and you were wrong. Very wrong. I felt compelled to correct you in public.


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> I don't want to be stuck with an AVR or proj/tv that is *non-2.2* and find out I can't get my atmos on an HD BD.



This is a $200 fix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I pray you are right and I am wrong. I just don't like the way things look right now. Until something concrete comes out, this all started as a comment that I would be very cautious of non-2.2 equip. If it pans out like you think, I get to move from my 2.2 LCD to a large, non-2.2 proj and save a LOT of money in doing so!!


I hope I am right then  As I said earlier, I have no intention of moving to 4K in the foreseeable future anyway so 2.2 is largely irrelevant to me. And if and when I do move, it won't be for greater resolution as that is also irrelevant to me with my current PJ/screen size/viewing distance. But the wider color gamut and greater contrast ratios are of interest to me for sure. Of course, if I am wrong and Atmos releases are confined to UHD discs, I would have to rethink this strategy - but based on my understanding of how large businesses think, I just cannot see any circumstances in which they will throw away the majority of the potential market.



Stoked21 said:


> Is it sick that I would sacrifice visual quality for audio quality? HA HA


It depends if you believe that you are sacrificing visual quality and what your priorities are I guess. I am, currently, completely happy with the PQ I am getting and see no reason to spend more at this time. So if that is 'sacrificing visual quality for audio quality' then count me as guilty. I am always on the lookout for ways to improve audio quality, but remain happy with the visual quality at this time. This may change one day, but I can't see that day coming any time soon for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well... whatever. You said it was 7.1 and you were wrong. Very wrong. I felt compelled to correct you in public.


LOL. I was definitely wrong when I said the movie was in 7.1. But not at all wrong when I said it was not remixed, which really was the thrust of the debate. Whether it was 5.1 or 7.1 isn't all that significant in the context  But look, you have suckered me into a three line reply even though I know you were not being entirely serious with your remark. That is real power


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Pssst... That's what multi-quote is for. Heh...


Thx for the advice; I'll try my best next time. Please accept my sincere apologies.


----------



## Spanglo

Stoked21 said:


> Now I'm just jealous.


No need to be jealous... there's a thread on AVS detailing how create the version.


----------



## Stoked21

stikle said:


> This is a $200 fix.


THANK YOU! I never even searched for a converter, as I read that there was a big push to try to squash such products/solutions. Alas, my engineering smarts reading specs doesn't necessarily translate to street smarts of "just google HDMI converter you moron!" I will definitely keep this box in mind!

Could have saved us all a lot of key strokes if you would have just shared HDFury earlier!!


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> You should be fine as long as your AVR is 2.2 capable. It will talk to the UHD player at 2.2 and pass on the 1080p to the non-2.2 device on the hdmi out port.


That's correct IF you are using an HD BD in the UHD player. Players will be backwards compatible and support both disc.

If you are using a UHD disc, they will not output to a 1.4 TV/proj. The HDCP on the disc will prevent this as the 1.4 and 2.2 devices cannot hand-shake. You will not be able to down-convert to 1080p to circumvent copy protection. It will puke on you instantly and not output


----------



## asere

Aren't the first UHD players going to be around $500? 
If so not bad I paid $600 for my Oppo 103D.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

asere said:


> I'm sure UHD does not care about supporting 3D. If you think about it 3D is dying. Also if UHD is going to take over Bluray do you think consumers are going to worry about 3D when UHD will have the finer PQ over Bluray? Not to mention the Atmos and DTS:X that it will carry on most discs.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


http://www.pcworld.com/article/2989...ows-worlds-first-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player.html

Check out this $3,000 for an UHD Blu-Ray player I'm sorry but being an early adopter has it's limitations. I'm sorry but if they want me to spend that to watch a 4K Blu-Ray. No thank you besides I'll stream or download from M-Go I think hard media is dying. I enjoy 4K now through Netflix, Amazon, and M-Go the only thing missing is 3D audio (Atmos / DTS:X) once that arrives who needs an UHD Blu-Ray player.


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> THANK YOU! I never even searched for a converter, as I read that there was a big push to try to squash such products/solutions. Alas, my engineering smarts reading specs doesn't necessarily translate to street smarts of "just google HDMI converter you moron!" I will definitely keep this box in mind!


 @jdsmoothie deserves the credit for that one. I'm in the same boat as my 5200 isn't HDCP 2.2, but I'm not about to replace it. Yet. So this will be my solution when the time comes that it's needed. 



asere said:


> If so not bad I paid $600 for my Oppo 103D.



My old boss paid $750 for his first DVD player. I remember thinking at the time that he had more money than brains and I didn't see any point in a DVD player. Little did I know.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2989...ows-worlds-first-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player.html
> 
> Check out this $3,000 for an UHD Blu-Ray player I'm sorry but being an early adopter has it's limitations. I'm sorry but if they want me to spend that to watch a 4K Blu-Ray. No thank you besides I'll stream or download from M-Go I think hard media is dying. I enjoy 4K now through Netflix, Amazon, and M-Go the only thing missing is 3D audio (Atmos / DTS:X) once that arrives who needs an UHD Blu-Ray player.


That UHD BR player is for a niche market...the ultra hi-end class...people who don't compromise picture and sound quality for anything in the world. 

* I'll wait for an UHD BR player from Oppo myself. I'm more from the mid class, and I won't be compromising too much.


----------



## asere

NorthSky said:


> That UHD BR player is for a niche market...the ultra hi-end class...people who don't compromise picture and sound quality for anything in the world.
> 
> * I'll wait for an UHD BR player from Oppo myself. I'm more from the mid class, and I won't be compromising too much.


With Oppo you don't compromise anything at all. As you already know they make excellent units. Plus excellent customer service.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

*Bram Stoker's Dracula Blu-ray*
It's a great classic but in my opinion not one I would choose for an Atmos demo Blu-Ray. Mine arrived today. The Picture quality on my 4K TV is exceptional, not sure what the audio and video quality were when this first came to Blu-Ray but this one is very good. Luckily this was not a double dip so $15.00 for this Atmos Blu-Ray I like.


----------



## Sam Ash

I did ask this question on this thread and got a response but want to know if someone here has tried this or something similar and been successful with it in terms of acoustic fidelity. I am interested in an Atmos 7.2.4 configuration. However, I have a high pitched ceiling as opposed to a flat ceiling. However, I am thinking of suspending the 4 ceiling speakers so that they are all positioned at the same level. Anyone here tried this ?


----------



## Eriksdam

stikle said:


> This is a $200 fix.


Your post may just have saved me 2000€ for a new prepro! 

Looks like a brilliant piece of kit. 

- Erik


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> The 2.2 handshake is between the AVR and the UHD player. If you were trying to go between the player and the projector/display that would be true. As far as the UHD is concerned the 2.2 security chain is complete when it hands it to the AVR. The handshake does not pass to downstream devices. Your AVR will downgrade it to 1080p and hand it to the projector/display on a legacy handshake. Post me a valid source to support your claim please.


Download the spec and read it. Or just google HDCP2.2. You will see every device in the chain must be 2.2. Source to sink. Player-AVR-TV/Proj. You can read this on literally 100 websites and confirm it in the spec. Nuf said but here's a quote from Audioholics or you can even read it at Crutchfield or something.


HDCP 2.2 is all about protecting 4k content. That means if you want to stick with 1080p for the time being, you don't have to worry about HDCP 2.2. If you do want 4k content, every device in your video chain must have HDCP 2.2. This will be true in the future where content will be HDCP 2.2 encrypted. Non-2.2 encrypted content will not apply.


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> With Oppo you don't compromise anything at all. As you already know they make excellent units. Plus excellent customer service.


Yes, I agree; the exact level of compromise is impossible to determine with absolute accuracy...because one no Oppo UHD BR player yet, and two, that Panasonic UHD BR player nobody knows how good/bad it is. 

So when I said that I won't be compromising much with an Oppo UHD BR player, it meant based on the HD BR players we have today. 
The Oppos are the best, no doubt, on several aspects...but they do have tiny glitches too, and compared to another 2K BR player for less money, the other player's glitches are somewhere else than the Oppos. ...But to do with features and operation.

For straight picture & sound quality...they are pretty much all equivalent...depending of our displays and personal preferences. 

* Some high-end Blu-ray players ($5,000-10,000) have a more refined analog sound from their analog output stage; caps and selected parts and implementation, and the picture quality too (Ayre Acoustics for example)...but going with the Premium Oppo 105 ModWright tube BR player with the highest premium grade tubes plus the separate power supply, approx. $5,000) will certainly compete with the $10,000 Ayre Acoustic universal BR player.
And with an Oppo 103/D or 105/D there is certainly some compromises made in comparison to the higher level more expensive BR players, including Oppo's own (modified). 

It was more in that line that I said what I said.


----------



## Waboman

My Vlad the Impaler blu arrived today. It's pretty fancy. Can't wait to watch this tonight.:spooky:


----------



## audiofan1

Waboman said:


> My Vlad the Impaler blu arrived today. It's pretty fancy. Can't wait to watch this tonight.:spooky:


I so can't wait to get my hands on a copy looking forward to your impressions as I've heard good things regarding the audio and video


----------



## sdrucker

audiofan1 said:


> I so can't wait to get my hands on a copy looking forward to your impressions as I've heard good things regarding the audio and video


Just ordered on Amazon, to arrive on Thursday. For some reason our local BB didn't carry it.


----------



## audiofan1

sdrucker said:


> Just ordered on Amazon, to arrive on Thursday. For some reason our local BB didn't carry it.


Thanks for the heads up! Amazon it is then, till then please post your impressions vs the regular Blu or any other transfers you may have


----------



## bargervais

audiofan1 said:


> I so can't wait to get my hands on a copy looking forward to your impressions as I've heard good things regarding the audio and video


I got mine today from Amazon $15.00 I got the version without the book the Atmos is not something to write home about no wow factor INHO. where this shines in my opinion is the picture quality it's superb. I didn't double dip on this one so it was worth it for me. The Atmos is not like wow I'm going to have this as my demo, but it's OK.


----------



## sdrucker

audiofan1 said:


> Thanks for the heads up! Amazon it is then, till then please post your impressions vs the regular Blu or any other transfers you may have



I can't speak for all BB, but I'm a little surprised the one in the heart of Chicago's Magnificent Mile didn't have it. They're getting increasing lame as time goes by...but in all seriousness, if you can live without instant gratification if a disc actually is available, Amazon's the way to go. I've got the older 2007 release, so the comparison will be interesting.


----------



## audiofan1

bargervais said:


> I got mine today from Amazon $15.00 I got the version without the book the Atmos is not something to write home about no wow factor INHO. where this shines in my opinion is the picture quality it's superb. I didn't double dip on this one so it was worth it for me. The Atmos is not like wow I'm going to have this as my demo, but it OK.


Thanks! not really looking for it to compete with the demo worthy stuff but just better than the standard mix, that along with the better PQ should make this classic a must for the collection and not to mention its a favorite of the mine and the wife's


----------



## bargervais

audiofan1 said:


> Thanks! not really looking for it to compete with the demo worthy stuff but just better than the standard mix, that along with the better PQ should make this classic a must for the collection and not to mention its a favorite of the mine and the wife's


Yes this is a beautifully done Blu-Ray you don't need your Atmos seatbelt on like I did with Mad Max, with this one at the beginning of the movie I had to look at my receiver just to confirm it was and said Atmos. LOL. Like I said if you have very good display (like most of us AVS folk here have) or even a 4K tv you will like this presentation.


----------



## DAK4

Sam Ash said:


> I did ask this question on this thread and got a response but want to know if someone here has tried this or something similar and been successful with it in terms of acoustic fidelity. I am interested in an Atmos 7.2.4 configuration. However, I have a high pitched ceiling as opposed to a flat ceiling. However, I am thinking of suspending the 4 ceiling speakers so that they are all positioned at the same level. Anyone here tried this ?


I think there has been talk about doing something like that on this thread but I don't recall anyone doing yet. It seems like it should work okay, unless you have a ceiling fan or AC vent blowing on them and making them move around or something. How were you planning on suspending them?


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> If you only have 5.1 or 7.1 DSU will upmix to those speakers. If you have 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 then DSU will upmix to the whole lot. Why would you not want to use the ceiling speakers as much as possible is, I guess, the rationale for that. You could always reconfigure the AVR or implement some sort of physical switch to remove the overhead speakers from the equation - but why?


In a dedicated theater, I'd never want to do such a thing. But my home theater doubles as my living room, and on occasion I simply have the TV on, tuned to the evening news or weather or what have you. Sometimes that's 5.1, sometimes it's matrixed 2.0, so I leave PLII engaged full-time. When I upgrade to Atmos I'll want to up-mix to 5.1.4 if I'm sitting down to watch a movie, but if I just have the news on while I'm cooking (open floor plan apartment) then engaging ceiling speakers may be a bit much.

Admittedly that is a micro-specific use case. I was mostly just curious.


----------



## DAK4

dschulz said:


> In a dedicated theater, I'd never want to do such a thing. But my home theater doubles as my living room, and on occasion I simply have the TV on, tuned to the evening news or weather or what have you. Sometimes that's 5.1, sometimes it's matrixed 2.0, so I leave PLII engaged full-time. When I upgrade to Atmos I'll want to up-mix to 5.1.4 if I'm sitting down to watch a movie, but if I just have the news on while I'm cooking (open floor plan apartment) then engaging ceiling speakers may be a bit much.
> 
> Admittedly that is a micro-specific use case. I was mostly just curious.


Hi dschulz, my home theater doubles as my family room as well and I just leave DSU engaged all the time and if the news comes on then there typically isn't any sound coming from the top anyways, not really a big deal. And if there is, then all the better to me.


----------



## stikle

Sam Ash said:


> I am interested in an Atmos 7.2.4 configuration. However, I have a high pitched ceiling as opposed to a flat ceiling. However, I am thinking of suspending the 4 ceiling speakers so that they are all positioned at the same level. Anyone here tried this ?



Completely unnecessary unless you are going for aesthetics. The room correction in your AVR will take care of the volume levels and distances.


----------



## bargervais

dschulz said:


> In a dedicated theater, I'd never want to do such a thing. But my home theater doubles as my living room, and on occasion I simply have the TV on, tuned to the evening news or weather or what have you. Sometimes that's 5.1, sometimes it's matrixed 2.0, so I leave PLII engaged full-time. When I upgrade to Atmos I'll want to up-mix to 5.1.4 if I'm sitting down to watch a movie, but if I just have the news on while I'm cooking (open floor plan apartment) then engaging ceiling speakers may be a bit much.
> 
> Admittedly that is a micro-specific use case. I was mostly just curious.


I have 7.2.4 in my living room I listen exclusively in DSU. It is not too much.


----------



## batpig

Dude the news is F'n amazing with DSU upmixing. 







Jokes aside, the ceiling speakers will likely be dead silent as I doubt there will be any decorrelated info to extract.


----------



## smurraybhm

gpmbc said:


> Atmos gurus, is 2 feet forward from ear level close to within spec for a top middle location or would I want it closer to directly overhead? I'm going with a front height / top middle configuration.


You just described the exact location of my TM.


----------



## GGtheater

*Bram Stoker's Dracula*

Had to go several places to find, but it was worth it. I must respectfully disagree about this not being demo worthy as far as the sound is concerned. Mad Max was great, but given that it was produced in the age of overhead surround, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is impressive. After so many 5 star reviews, I was slightly underwhelmed. Maybe I need to watch and listen again, but I was expecting something more memorable. Granted, I did not see this in the theater, so I was going in blind. 
Maybe it is that I know almost every frame of BSDracula from long ago when it was one my beloved, get this, Criterion Laser Discs, but the effect of the created overhead sound, to me, is an awesome addition. I haven't gotten through the whole movie yet but it already stands as one of my favorite Atmos examples. The overhead flies in Renfields cell, the Storm sequence during Harker's trip to Transylvania stand out as both immersive and very realistic. I suppose it might be because I am unfamiliar with the sounds of the average action movie. I can't remember the last gun fight I was in so I guess the references escape me. They sound loud and bombastic, but I really wouldn't know if it was how it should sound. I prefer the more subtle use of Atmos to put me within the film. Dracula has that in every scene so far. Little details seem to come from everywhere and have, to this point, impressed me greatly. 
Get it, not everyone's cup of tea, but I wanted to voice an opinion for anyone who may be interested, this is a winner in my book and will provide the kind of goose bump inducing sound that doesn't have to threaten your eardrums (even though I certainly play it quite loud). Just my 2 cents. Hope this is helpful.


----------



## gene4ht

gpmbc said:


> Atmos gurus, is 2 feet forward from ear level close to within spec for a top middle location or would I want it closer to directly overhead? I'm going with a front height / top middle configuration.


My TM's are approximately 2 ft forward of my MLP as well.


----------



## Shniks

*Bram Stoker's Dracula*

I just watched Dracula with Atmos enabled and really enjoyed it. The sound seems much richer and fuller. It's definitely a worthy upgrade for those that enjoyed this movie.


Cheers,


Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net


----------



## FilmMixer

Lucky for me this is my local theater. 

But the bigger news is they've now committed to 50 theater by end of next year. A two year advance in their plan. 

Dolby is putting their money where they mouth is....

http://www.burbankleader.com/news/t...tlights-dolby-cinema-20151006,0,2603516.story


----------



## gene4ht

bargervais said:


> I have 7.2.4 in my living room I listen exclusively in DSU. It is not too much.


You have a PM...thx!


----------



## gpmbc

smurraybhm said:


> You just described the exact location of my TM.


Great, I planned to install tomorrow. How far apart are your top middle speakers from each other?


----------



## gpmbc

gene4ht said:


> My TM's are approximately 2 ft forward of my MLP as well.


Thx


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Lucky for me this is my local theater.
> 
> But the bigger news is they've now committed to 50 theater by end of next year. A two year advance in their plan.
> 
> Dolby is putting their money where they mouth is....
> 
> http://www.burbankleader.com/news/t...tlights-dolby-cinema-20151006,0,2603516.story



Lol! One day later...


----------



## Scott Simonian

gpmbc said:


> Great, I planned to install tomorrow. How far apart are your top middle speakers from each other?


Depends on the dimensions and scale of your room and speakers in it.

Look at your side surrounds from the MLP and imagine at least a 45 degree angle (or wider!) from it and above. Anywhere in that zone would be a great place for your overhead speakers.

In a sort of 'audible description' you have a sort of "slider". Imagine. On one end of this "slider" you have stereo separation and at the end other end of the slider you have overhead sensation. Move the overheads further apart and closer to the side walls for more stereo separation and closer together up above on the ceiling for more overhead sensation. The more over in each respective direction do you move this "slider" for either a compromise of each or more priority to one or the other.. Make sense?

Good luck!


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> The 2.2 handshake is between the AVR and the UHD player. If you were trying to go between the player and the projector/display that would be true. As far as the UHD is concerned the 2.2 security chain is complete when it hands it to the AVR. The handshake does not pass to downstream devices. Your AVR will downgrade it to 1080p and hand it to the projector/display on a legacy handshake. Post me a valid source to support your claim please.


Your understanding is my understanding too. My upgrade path is likely to be the AVR first (because I will want to upgrade primarily for DTS:X and the new player will have 2.2 anyway). Then I would add the UHD player so that I could start buying UHD discs in readiness for the last part of the upgrade which would be replacing my PJ with a UHD-capable unit. But in the meantime, I would be able to watch everything in 1080p via my current PJ. For me this is a perfect upgrade path. For those who want the benefits of superior PQ right from the get-go, not so much.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> *Bram Stoker's Dracula Blu-ray*
> It's a great classic but in my opinion not one I would choose for an Atmos demo Blu-Ray. Mine arrived today. The Picture quality on my 4K TV is exceptional, not sure what the audio and video quality were when this first came to Blu-Ray but this one is very good. Luckily this was not a double dip so $15.00 for this Atmos Blu-Ray I like.


From the review posted *here*...

"...this Atmos track is an unquestionable upgrade right from the beginning. To be clear, it's not in the same league as 'Fury Road' or 'Gravity', but the new Atmos mix is, hands down, more immersive and involving than the previous 5.1 PCM track, and does this without sacrificing original intent. Slamming doors. Choral orchestrations. Crashing lightning. Bellows, moans, and roars. All of these things rise up above the audience. LFE levels are never monstrous, but this track plays loud and, yet, always leaves enough room for clear dialog. Hearing this track in Atmos reveals a lot of nuance both in the musical orchestration and the sound effects work, particularly in Dracula's castle and his surrounding lands. 

This stunning upgrade is so dramatic that my wife, who knows the movie more than me, remarked that she had never heard it so clearly. And while I've been growing more and more fond of 5.1.2 -- it's much more effective than originally anticipated -- I'm looking forward to revisiting this title again shortly when I'm back up and running 7.1.4. 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' in Dolby Atmos is a fantastic proof-of-concept for catalog remixing; I hope more studios follow suit."


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Download the spec and read it. Or just google HDCP2.2. You will see every device in the chain must be 2.2. Source to sink. Player-AVR-TV/Proj. You can read this on literally 100 websites and confirm it in the spec. Nuf said but here's a quote from Audioholics or you can even read it at Crutchfield or something.
> 
> 
> HDCP 2.2 is all about protecting 4k content. That means if you want to stick with 1080p for the time being, you don't have to worry about HDCP 2.2. *If you do want 4k content,* every device in your video chain must have HDCP 2.2. This will be true in the future where content will be HDCP 2.2 encrypted. Non-2.2 encrypted content will not apply.


The important words there are "if you want 4K". Molon is talking about downconverting to 1080p in the AVR _after_ the 2.2 handshake has been done.


----------



## kbarnes701

Waboman said:


> My Vlad the Impaler blu arrived today. It's pretty fancy. Can't wait to watch this tonight.:spooky:


Did you really want the extra bits and pieces? If so, great. But if not, members should be aware that the identical disc is available in regular packaging at a much cheaper price.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> In a dedicated theater, I'd never want to do such a thing. But my home theater doubles as my living room, and on occasion I simply have the TV on, tuned to the evening news or weather or what have you. Sometimes that's 5.1, sometimes it's matrixed 2.0, so I leave PLII engaged full-time. When I upgrade to Atmos I'll want to up-mix to 5.1.4 if I'm sitting down to watch a movie, but if I just have the news on while I'm cooking (open floor plan apartment) then engaging ceiling speakers may be a bit much.
> 
> Admittedly that is a micro-specific use case. I was mostly just curious.


Got it! All understood and agreed.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Your understanding is my understanding too. My upgrade path is likely to be the AVR first (because I will want to upgrade primarily for DTS:X and the new player will have 2.2 anyway). Then I would add the UHD player so that I could start buying UHD discs in readiness for the last part of the upgrade which would be replacing my PJ with a UHD-capable unit. But in the meantime, I would be able to watch everything in 1080p via my current PJ. For me this is a perfect upgrade path. For those who want the benefits of superior PQ right from the get-go, not so much.


That is my path as well. I just bought the CX-A5100, so I am good on the AVR. My projector is also new even though it isn't 4k or 2.2 I will wait 3-4 years for 4k projectors to come down in price. I am more concerned with Atmos/DTS:X vs 4k video content. At 120" 1080p is more than adequate for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> That is my path as well. I just bought the CX-A5100, so I am good on the AVR. My projector is also new even though it isn't 4k or 2.2 I will wait 3-4 years for 4k projectors to come down in price. I am more concerned with Atmos/DTS:X vs 4k video content. At 120" 1080p is more than adequate for me.


You and I have identical priorities it seems. 1080p is also more than good enough for me in this room. I will buy a 4K PJ once they are down to the sort of price I paid for my current unit. Sound has always been a priority for me over picture anyway.


----------



## smurraybhm

gpmbc said:


> Great, I planned to install tomorrow. How far apart are your top middle speakers from each other?


Scott's post gave you what you should need. I lined up my TM with my fronts which are lined up with my back surrounds - 8 or 9 feet. My room isn't huge so adjustments are required to get things aligned to the point that all of the speakers do their job, staying close or within the Dolby recommendations, my side surrounds are also a little forward of the MLP too. Remember Scott's simple rule about filling in the holes. You're going to really like what you hear, more content coming out as well. Dracula is waiting to be opened sometime this week, easy buy at $15 and I've never seen the movie.


----------



## asere

I bought Dracula on Superbit years ago and still haven't opened it. I'm planning on getting the bluray one for $15 as I don't care for the extras. It was a great movie back in 1992 when I was 19. Haven't seen it since. A re watch is in the works for this month considering Halloween is coming up 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> From the review posted *here*...
> 
> "...this Atmos track is an unquestionable upgrade right from the beginning. To be clear, it's not in the same league as 'Fury Road' or 'Gravity', but the new Atmos mix is, hands down, more immersive and involving than the previous 5.1 PCM track, and does this without sacrificing original intent. Slamming doors. Choral orchestrations. Crashing lightning. Bellows, moans, and roars. All of these things rise up above the audience. LFE levels are never monstrous, but this track plays loud and, yet, always leaves enough room for clear dialog. Hearing this track in Atmos reveals a lot of nuance both in the musical orchestration and the sound effects work, particularly in Dracula's castle and his surrounding lands.
> 
> This stunning upgrade is so dramatic that my wife, who knows the movie more than me, remarked that she had never heard it so clearly. And while I've been growing more and more fond of 5.1.2 -- it's much more effective than originally anticipated -- I'm looking forward to revisiting this title again shortly when I'm back up and running 7.1.4. 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' in Dolby Atmos is a fantastic proof-of-concept for catalog remixing; I hope more studios follow suit."


 
Like several others, I watched Dracula last night and the video and audio was excellent! They did a great job producing this updated version!


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Did you really want the extra bits and pieces? If so, great. But if not, members should be aware that the identical disc is available in regular packaging at a much cheaper price.


Yes that's the one I purchased the one without all the fluff. I took a few minutes this morning I watched it out in the living room 7.2.4 and yes I must agree with you this Atmos mix I quite excellent. Not sure what was amiss last night, I was actually watching it on my new 4K TV in the den, and was astounded with the picture quality from this Blu-Ray. So this morning I watched it with my focus on the Atmos track. I heard things I missed last night. This Atmos Blu-Ray is excellent in 5.2.2 and even better in my living room 7.2.4.
Looking forward to next week when San Andreas arrives


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Yes that's the one I purchased the one without all the fluff. I took a few minutes this morning I watched it out in the living room 7.2.4 and yes I must agree with you this Atmos mix I quite excellent. Not sure what was amiss last night, I was actually watching it on my new 4K TV in the den, and was astounded with the picture quality from this Blu-Ray. So this morning I watched it with my focus on the Atmos track. I heard things I missed last night. This Atmos Blu-Ray is excellent in 5.2.2 and even better in my living room 7.2.4.
> Looking forward to next week when San Andreas arrives


*Bram Stoker's Dracula *is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I am really looking forward to getting this disc. I think the movie is a genuine Coppola masterpiece, and all done 'in camera' without CGI. It's also one of Oldman's best performances too. My disc is having to come from the USA so it will be a little while before it arrives, followed by *Leon* and *The Fifth Element* soon after. 

Also very much looking forward to *San Andreas* in a week's time.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> *Bram Stoker's Dracula *is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I am really looking forward to getting this disc. I think the movie is a genuine Coppola masterpiece, and all done 'in camera' without CGI. It's also one of Oldman's best performances too. My disc is having to come from the USA so it will be a little while before it arrives, followed by *Leon* and *The Fifth Element* soon after.
> 
> Also very much looking forward to *San Andreas* in a week's time.


Mine as well very well done. Both Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves look like babies and Anthony Hopkins which i think he's ageless, to me he always looks the same. This film was from 1992 man how time fly's. 
Yes I'm looking forward to San Andreas next week.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> *Bram Stoker's Dracula *is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I am really looking forward to getting this disc. I think the movie is a genuine Coppola masterpiece, and all done 'in camera' without CGI. It's also one of Oldman's best performances too. My disc is having to come from the USA so it will be a little while before it arrives, followed by *Leon* and *The Fifth Element* soon after.
> 
> Also very much looking forward to *San Andreas* in a week's time.


I only got to watch about 20 minutes of Dracula last night, but it was pretty nice. Someone nearby had music cranked up for a while, so I decided to wait until my house was more quiet so I could really appreciate it. (And I left my glasses at my office like an idiot... and though my vision's not awful, it just wasn't ideal.)

Mostly wanted to say that San Andreas is a mind-blower for the format. I got it early and it's easily my go-to disc for showing off Atmos now. Unlike Mad Max Fury Road, which is understandably all bombast, San Andreas has a nice variety of sound. From the opening scene, you've got some impressive audio to look forward to. And the dam scene has sound that moves through the room in ways no other track has done in my room. I really can't wait until more people hear it, because it's absolutely fantastic. (And hey, the movie was pretty enjoyable too!)


----------



## dkwong

asere said:


> I bought Dracula on Superbit years ago and still haven't opened it. I'm planning on getting the bluray one for $15 as I don't care for the extras. It was a great movie back in 1992 when I was 19. Haven't seen it since. A re watch is in the works for this month considering Halloween is coming up
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



Hey we're the same age!


----------



## Waboman

kbarnes701 said:


> Did you really want the extra bits and pieces? If so, great. But if not, members should be aware that the identical disc is available in regular packaging at a much cheaper price.


To be honest, this packaging is actually a PITA. With that said, I'm a big fan of this movie and watched it last night. This is the best it's looked and sounded. 

"We've all become God's madmen, all of us."
-Van Helsing


----------



## engte100

batpig said:


> Back to something from the other week... I was tinkering with my system just now and put in the Atmos demo disc.
> 
> 
> 
> There was discussion of the F1 Red Bull clip and lack of overhead activity. I just confirmed my recollection -- in my setup with TM and FH speakers there is a bunch of action in the overhead TM speakers. I stood on the couch with my ear 1-2ft from the ceiling speaker above. I hear all sorts of ambient effects like drills whirring, breathing, engine whine etc. They aren't active 100% of the time but there is something happening in the TM speakers 30-40% of the time I'd say.



Hello all you pros out there. I am a newbie to the forum, and wanted to find out how to get the Atmos demo disc. I'm also looking to buy four Atmos-enabled speakers, plus ugrade to the 7.1.4 setup with a 11 channel/11 amps AVR. Whatever advice to get me kick-started down the path of Home Theater rightiousness will be taken to heart.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pwong888

What type of speaker wire is good for the atmos ceiling speaker, 12awg or 14awg?


----------



## stikle

I'm not a pro, just an enthusiast, but...



engte100 said:


> wanted to find out how to get the Atmos demo disc.



You can't, legally. It's not available for sale due to copyrighted material.




engte100 said:


> plus ugrade to the 7.1.4 setup with a 11 channel/11 amps AVR.



Current AVRs "only" have a max of 9 internal amps, so you'll have to add a secondary stereo amp like the popular Audiosource AMP-100 in order to run 7.2.4.


----------



## audiofan1

pwong888 said:


> What type of speaker wire is good for the atmos ceiling, 12awg or 14awg?


I went 14awg


----------



## kbarnes701

Waboman said:


> To be honest, this packaging is actually a PITA. With that said, I'm a big fan of this movie and watched it last night. This is the best it's looked and sounded.
> 
> "We've all become God's madmen, all of us."
> -Van Helsing


I am not a massive fan of weird packaging. It looks nice in the store but it's often a PITA on the shelf at home. The Atmos Blu-ray of Chicago for example is the same height as a DVD, so won't even fit my shelf. And as for Steelbooks... wtf!


----------



## kbarnes701

engte100 said:


> Hello all you pros out there. I am a newbie to the forum, and wanted to find out how to get the Atmos demo disc. I'm also looking to buy four Atmos-enabled speakers, plus ugrade to the 7.1.4 setup with a 11 channel/11 amps AVR. Whatever advice to get me kick-started down the path of Home Theater rightiousness will be taken to heart.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The Atmos demo disk is not publicly available. Can’t give any advice on speakers, setup etc without a lot more info about your room, your requirements, your budget, etc etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

dkwong said:


> Hey we're the same age!


Yeah - it'd be kind of unusual if you were the only person born on that day in the entire world  I'm betting that there are quite a few people the same age as you


----------



## kbarnes701

pwong888 said:


> What type of speaker wire is good for the atmos ceiling, 12awg or 14awg?


How long is the run from AVR/Amp to the speakers?


----------



## pwong888

kbarnes701 said:


> How long is the run from AVR/Amp to the speakers?


I guess around 40 feet to each speaker.


----------



## dkwong

engte100 said:


> Hello all you pros out there. I am a newbie to the forum, and wanted to find out how to get the Atmos demo disc.


Got mine from eBay.


----------



## kbarnes701

pwong888 said:


> I guess around 40 feet to each speaker.


Assuming your speakers are 8 ohm, 14 AWG will be more than enough. You could get away with 16 AWG for that length. If the speakers are 4 ohm, I'd suggest you use the 14 AWG. 

I’d avoid 12 AWG for 40 feet runs to 8 ohm speakers as it isn't necessary, costs more and is far more difficult to work with. 14 AWG is a good all-round choice in your circumstances. 

And, obviously, choose just plain old 100% copper wire on a drum - avoid anything 'exotic' as though your life depended on it. Be careful you don't end up with copper-clad aluminum - some stores sell that as 'copper wire'. Look for 100% copper in the description.


----------



## engte100

kbarnes701 said:


> The Atmos demo disk is not publicly available. Can’t give any advice on speakers, setup etc without a lot more info about your room, your requirements, your budget, etc etc.



Thanks for the repy! My living room is about 16'x13', with the Hdtv facing the long side. Right now I'm 2.0 in my setup, but looking to jump into the Home Theater experience with Dolby Atmos speakers. So I need 4 of the Atmos-enabled monitors, plus a sub-woofer and a center speaker. I currently have some JBL L112's that date back to 1980, and I need to repair the speaker foam for both. I don't want to put a limit on my budget; my wife will do that for me . I have a Pioneer Kuro PRO-111FD for the monitor. My current AVR is a Pionner VSX-1015, and my Blue-Ray is an Oppo BDP-103. I run all the cables through an APC H15 power conditioner. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

pwong888 said:


> What type of speaker wire is good for the atmos ceiling speaker, 12awg or 14awg?


To add to Keith's reply, there is nothing special about Atmos speakers vs. other speakers in terms of speaker. It's simply a question of distance vs. impedance. This table is a popular resource: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm#wiretable

12awg is generally overkill in most setups. 

The only extra consideration you need is that, if you will be running the wire in the walls/ceiling, you want to get CL2-rated wire which has an extra jacket on the cable rated for the task.


----------



## kbarnes701

engte100 said:


> Thanks for the repy! My living room is about 16'x13', with the Hdtv facing the long side. Right now I'm 2.0 in my setup, but looking to jump into the Home Theater experience with Dolby Atmos speakers. So I need 4 of the Atmos-enabled monitors, plus a sub-woofer and a center speaker. I currently have some JBL L112's that date back to 1980, and I need to repair the speaker foam for both. I don't want to put a limit on my budget; my wife will do that for me . I have a Pioneer Kuro PRO-111FD for the monitor. My current AVR is a Pionner VSX-1015, and my Blue-Ray is an Oppo BDP-103. I run all the cables through an APC H15 power conditioner.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


In addition to the Atmos-enabled speakers you can also buy Atmos-enabled modules which sit on top of (or close by) existing speakers, but I am guessing you want to update those old JBLs?

You didn't mention which AVR you are thinking of. If you want a 5.1.4 system then this will cost you less than a 7.1.4 system but you will sacrifice rear surrounds (if you use them). Also, to use 7.1.4 you would need an external 2ch amplifier as well as the AVR since all the mainstream AVRs are limited to 9 internal amps maximum.

I am assuming you are using 5.1 at the moment (just a guess based on your room size and the fact that it is also a living room with WAF etc to think about).

If so I’d look at one of the new Atmos Denon AVRs that does 9 channels internally. You can pair this with a set of Andrew Jones Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers, which have been extremely well reviewed, look good and are not too big. I would look at subwoofers from SVS or Hsu. 

That should give you some food for thought while you are waiting for others to chime in.


----------



## pwong888

kbarnes701 said:


> Assuming your speakers are 8 ohm, 14 AWG will be more than enough. You could get away with 16 AWG for that length. If the speakers are 4 ohm, I'd suggest you use the 14 AWG.
> 
> I’d avoid 12 AWG for 40 feet runs to 8 ohm speakers as it isn't necessary, costs more and is far more difficult to work with. 14 AWG is a good all-round choice in your circumstances.
> 
> And, obviously, choose just plain old 100% copper wire on a drum - avoid anything 'exotic' as though your life depended on it. Be careful you don't end up with copper-clad aluminum - some stores sell that as 'copper wire'. Look for 100% copper in the description.


Thanks, I will go for the 14awg.


----------



## engte100

kbarnes701 said:


> In addition to the Atmos-enabled speakers you can also buy Atmos-enabled modules which sit on top of (or close by) existing speakers, but I am guessing you want to update those old JBLs?
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't mention which AVR you are thinking of. If you want a 5.1.4 system then this will cost you less than a 7.1.4 system but you will sacrifice rear surrounds (if you use them). Also, to use 7.1.4 you would need an external 2ch amplifier as well as the AVR since all the mainstream AVRs are limited to 9 internal amps maximum.
> 
> 
> 
> I am assuming you are using 5.1 at the moment (just a guess based on your room size and the fact that it is also a living room with WAF etc to think about).
> 
> 
> 
> If so I’d look at one of the new Atmos Denon AVRs that does 9 channels internally. You can pair this with a set of Andrew Jones Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers, which have been extremely well reviewed, look good and are not too big. I would look at subwoofers from SVS or Hsu.
> 
> 
> 
> That should give you some food for thought while you are waiting for others to chime in.



I'm actually interested in a 11- channel/11-amp AVR, as I want a 7.1.4 system. Yes, I will probably upgrade the JBLs to current models, and I did read the review on the Pioneer Atmos-enabled monitors.


----------



## Stoked21

engte100 said:


> I'm actually interested in a 11- channel/11-amp AVR, as I want a 7.1.4 system. Yes, I will probably upgrade the JBLs to current models, and I did read the review on the Pioneer Atmos-enabled monitors.


There is only one 11 ch-11amp AVR on the market and that's the Onkyo 3030 and the Integra version of it. I would stay away from it, personal choice, as they do no have DTS:X. If the standard actually get released anytime soon :roll eyes: then you will regret not having it.

What Keith and everyone else are trying to tell you is that you will likely get a 9.x (.2, .4 sub depending on manuf) AVR and you have to add an external 2 ch amplifier and feed it from the pre-out on the AVR. Be careful as not all 9.2 labeled AVR will process 11-ch simultaneously. Normally only the more expensive ones do: Marantz 7010, Denon X6200 and X7200, Yamaha 3050. I would start with those 4 which will range from $2000-4000. Pioneer Elite has some too but they are new and I'm not sure which models actually have an 11-ch processor with 9ch internal amp.


----------



## grendelrt

Stoked21 said:


> There is only one 11 ch-11amp AVR on the market and that's the Onkyo 3030 and the Integra version of it. I would stay away from it, personal choice, as they do no have DTS:X. If the standard actually get released anytime soon :roll eyes: then you will regret not having it.
> 
> What Keith and everyone else are trying to tell you is that you will likely get a 9.x (.2, .4 sub depending on manuf) AVR and you have to add an external 2 ch amplifier and feed it from the pre-out on the AVR. Be careful as not all 9.2 labeled AVR will process 11-ch simultaneously. Normally only the more expensive ones do: Marantz 7010, Denon X6200 and X7200, Yamaha 3050. I would start with those 4 which will range from $2000-4000. Pioneer Elite has some too but they are new and I'm not sure which models actually have an 11-ch processor with 9ch internal amp.


Anthem mrx 1120 is 11ch/11amp releases in Nov, should be fully shown at cedia. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

grendelrt said:


> Anthem mrx 1120 is 11ch/11amp releases in Nov, should be fully shown at cedia.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


Released in November, so it's not on the market then? 

Joking aside, thanks for the input. I'm sourcing a new 11.x AVR myself right now and plan on buying in 1-2 weeks. I'm down to Marantz 7010 or the new Denon 6200. I hit Anthems website and didn't see this one, so I'll have to keep an eye open for it. I'm guessing it will be an insane $3-5K or so vs the $1900 Mtz and Den models though($1900 is price shopped through authorized dealers).


----------



## cdelena

Stoked21 said:


> There is only one 11 ch-11amp AVR on the market and that's the Onkyo 3030 and the Integra version of it. I would stay away from it, personal choice, as they do no have DTS:X. If the standard actually get released anytime soon :roll eyes: then you will regret not having it.
> ...


Or like me you can see the 3030 is a inexpensive quality one box solution that has HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2, wifi, bt, and sounds good. I have had mine installed for six months and am very happy with it. ...and no one has DTS:X right now.


----------



## gerchy

tjenkins95 said:


> Last night I watched the movie *Helios* on blu-ray with Dolby Atmos soundtrack.
> Good video and Atmos soundtrack - plenty of action.


I agree. Very good atmosphere. 
Most engineers should learn here how height effect should be done.
Helicopter scenes are really cool. Much better than in Genisys.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have not seen these mentioned here anywhere, but they look worthwhile.

http://elac.us/speakers/

They are already listed on Amazon, and they look like they should be an exceptional value.
They are designed by Andrew Jones, but made in China. I think Elac may be a German company.

At any rate, B6 for $280 for a pair of fronts, B5 for a pair of surrounds $230, and C5 center for $180, A4 modules to sit on top of the B6, $230,
and you are up and running 5.1.2 (assuming that you already have a sub...) for $920.
Add their S10 subwoofer ($250) and you are at $1170 for a complete set of speakers.

Ty Pendlebury reviewed the B6 and B5 on c|net and thought that they were pretty good.
http://www.cnet.com/videos/elac-debut-b6-speakers-sound-spectacular/

Maybe this will help someone looking to jump off/in...
Atmos forever!


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have not seen these mentioned here anywhere, but they look worthwhile.
> 
> http://elac.us/speakers/


Couple of threads about those speakers, in case people want more info: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...ican-design-facility-headed-andrew-jones.html 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2146610-elac-debut-delivery.html 

The VP of the company participates in both threads.


----------



## grendelrt

Stoked21 said:


> Released in November, so it's not on the market then?
> 
> Joking aside, thanks for the input. I'm sourcing a new 11.x AVR myself right now and plan on buying in 1-2 weeks. I'm down to Marantz 7010 or the new Denon 6200. I hit Anthems website and didn't see this one, so I'll have to keep an eye open for it. I'm guessing it will be an insane $3-5K or so vs the $1900 Mtz and Den models though($1900 is price shopped through authorized dealers).


Yeah I figured I would throw it out there since its so close, I doubt anything new will get announced but I would definitely wait until after CEDIA at this point. I am considering the same receivers as well, I was 100% going MRX 720 since i have an external amp, but that's out the window now that I know you cant reconfigure the amps to power the ceiling speakers.


----------



## Jive Turkey

pwong888 said:


> Thanks, I will go for the 14awg.


I'd recommend the 12 AWG from Monoprice.com . Not expensive, and a very good product.

I don't believe it's rated for in-wall or ceiling, but check the website to be sure.


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked21 said:


> Released in November, so it's not on the market then?
> 
> Joking aside, thanks for the input. I'm sourcing a new 11.x AVR myself right now and plan on buying in 1-2 weeks. I'm down to Marantz 7010 or the new Denon 6200. I hit Anthems website and didn't see this one, so I'll have to keep an eye open for it. I'm guessing it will be an insane $3-5K or so vs the $1900 Mtz and Den models though($1900 is price shopped through authorized dealers).


Be sure to call JD and get quotes from him - his contact info is on the first page of the Denon threads - you'll be surprised at how good his pricing is plus great resource for help on setup etc.


----------



## petetherock

pwong888 said:


> What type of speaker wire is good for the atmos ceiling speaker, 12awg or 14awg?


I used QED Micro (16AWG) in my home, and 12 AWG in wall certified Monoprice cable for my mum's HT system..


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> I'd recommend the 12 AWG from Monoprice.com . Not expensive, and a very good product.
> 
> I don't believe it's rated for in-wall or ceiling, but check the website to be sure.


Just to avoid any doubt: If the wire is to be run in a wall or ceiling it is important to ensure it is fire-rated for in-wall use, for two reasons:

1. If you are unfortunate enough to have a fire in your home, the last thing you want is flammable cabling transporting the fire right through the property causing much more potential damage to your home.

2. If your insurance company spots that the fire was transported through your home by non-approved cabling (and they will), they will likely turn down all or part of your claim.


----------



## Markitron

Trying to decide between a Denon X2200 and an Onkyo NR646 receiver. Their feature sets are very similar and they are the same price so it seems a difficult choice. Don't suppose anyone would have any input?


----------



## pasender91

Markitron said:


> Trying to decide between a Denon X2200 and an Onkyo NR646 receiver. Their feature sets are very similar and they are the same price so it seems a difficult choice. Don't suppose anyone would have any input?


The Denon is slightly more powerful and has a better autocalibration system (Audissey XT vs Accu EQ) than the Onkyo, so if it was me i would go for the Denon ...


----------



## asere

Markitron said:


> Trying to decide between a Denon X2200 and an Onkyo NR646 receiver. Their feature sets are very similar and they are the same price so it seems a difficult choice. Don't suppose anyone would have any input?


 I had the step down x1200 model and the NR646. To me the Onkyo is more dynamic and was a lot beefier than the Denon. Now the NR646 does not have Audyssey and instead it carries Onkyo's proprietary AccuEQ which to me does nothing. The Denon has Audyssey and that's a plus.
With Denon you need a separate amp to use Zone 2 if you happen to use all the speakers for the main zone with Onkyo there is no need for a separate amp for Zone 2.
Denon X models have a 3 year warranty and Onkyo only 2 years. If I could do it all over again I would choose the Denon primarily for the Audyssey.


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> The Denon is slightly more powerful and has a better autocalibration system (Audissey XT vs Accu EQ) than the Onkyo, so if it was me i would go for the Denon ...


+1. I’d take Audyssey XT over AccuEQ too, all other things being equal.


----------



## Markitron

pasender91 said:


> The Denon is slightly more powerful and has a better autocalibration system (Audissey XT vs Accu EQ) than the Onkyo, so if it was me i would go for the Denon ...





asere said:


> I had the step down x1200 model and the NR646. To me the Onkyo is more dynamic and was a lot beefier than the Denon. Now the NR646 does not have Audyssey and instead it carries Onkyo's proprietary AccuEQ which to me does nothing. The Denon has Audyssey and that's a plus.
> With Denon you need a separate amp to use Zone 2 if you happen to use all the speakers for the main zone with Onkyo there is no need for a separate amp for Zone 2.
> Denon X models have a 3 year warranty and Onkyo only 2 years. If I could do it all over again I would choose the Denon primarily for the Audyssey.





kbarnes701 said:


> +1. I’d take Audyssey XT over AccuEQ too, all other things being equal.


Thanks for the responses guys, I think I'll go for the Denon. The auto-calibration feature is important for me so that swings it. It seems like it has a better interface & remote as well which is nice.


----------



## kbarnes701

Markitron said:


> Thanks for the responses guys, I think I'll go for the Denon. The auto-calibration feature is important for me so that swings it. It seems like it has a better interface & remote as well which is nice.


I switched from being a long-term Onkyo user to Denon when Onkyo dropped Audyssey and I have never regretted it. Enjoy.


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> I switched from being a long-term Onkyo user to Denon when Onkyo dropped Audyssey and I have never regretted it. Enjoy.


Same here...

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> I switched from being a long-term Onkyo user to Denon when Onkyo dropped Audyssey and I have never regretted it. Enjoy.




Same for me.


----------



## asere

Markitron said:


> Thanks for the responses guys, I think I'll go for the Denon. The auto-calibration feature is important for me so that swings it. It seems like it has a better interface & remote as well which is nice.


Also with Denon you can actually see that's playing on the avr like Atmos for example. The 646 you need the remote to bring it up on the tv. The 646 indicates that Atmos is playing with a blue light or like I mentioned on the tv if you bring it up. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Markitron

asere said:


> Also with Denon you can actually see that's playing on the avr like Atmos for example. The 646 you need the remote to bring it up on the tv. The 646 indicates that Atmos is playing with a blue light or like I mentioned on the tv if you bring it up.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


My god, that would drive me absolutely insane. After the spending the money to upgrade to an Atmos/DTS-X system, I need to be constantly reminded


----------



## asere

Markitron said:


> My god, that would drive me absolutely insane. After the spending the money to upgrade to an Atmos/DTS-X system, I need to be constantly reminded


Yes not just Atmos for any other format. The 646 will only display the input on the avr.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## zimmo

hey yeah,I enjoy every days of my onkyo tx-nr3030 whit 11 CHANELS  and whith the ACCU EQ is very good ,my system whit calibrate to professionnel people last one year and he call my yesterday ,he said to me after one year ,your system is the best


----------



## Markitron

asere said:


> Yes not just Atmos for any other format. The 646 will only display the input on the avr.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Honestly, that would be enough to put me off it by itself. Is there a particular reason for this? It seems like a huge oversight, is it just this particular AVR or is it all Onkyo's?


----------



## asere

Markitron said:


> Honestly, that would be enough to put me off it by itself. Is there a particular reason for this? It seems like a huge oversight, is it just this particular AVR or is it all Onkyo's?


Some, like my older 805 doesn't do that. I think some for the 2015 models as well.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Movie78

gerchy said:


> I agree. Very good atmosphere.
> Most engineers should learn here how height effect should be done.
> Helicopter scenes are really cool. Much better than in Genisys.


Some of these HK films has better sound than hollywood movies, i am not surprise that Helios ATMOS sound great.

I might have to order that movie...


----------



## brickyardz

You can add Arcam to the list of receivers that do Dolby Atmos with the AVR 850. No pricing info yet, they will be showing this at Cedia 2015 this weekend. 
Arcam Class G amplification, Dolby Atmos, Dirac Live room correction and a whole lot more audio/video goodness. What a combination! The brand-new AVR850 will be previewed at CEDIA USA 2015 this coming weekend. Coming to the UK soon. Price and delivery TBC - AND we've bought back the volume control!


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Your understanding is my understanding too. My upgrade path is likely to be the AVR first (because I will want to upgrade primarily for DTS:X and the new player will have 2.2 anyway). Then I would add the UHD player so that I could start buying UHD discs in readiness for the last part of the upgrade which would be replacing my PJ with a UHD-capable unit. But in the meantime, I would be able to watch everything in 1080p via my current PJ. For me this is a perfect upgrade path. For those who want the benefits of superior PQ right from the get-go, not so much.


Keith and Molon_Labe. Just be careful.

Topic strayed far from our original friendly debate about* whether* atmos would only be on UHD disc and therefore require HDCP 2.2 equipment. I don't want this thread to stray too far from Atmos, but it is applicable as non-2.2 Atmos AVRs could become problematic, as well as how we get our Atmos content.

Please keep in mind I'm an elec eng who has worked for analog IC, DSP, and MCU companies for 20 years. Software and anything on a PCB is my expertise. I'm not making stuff up and while not an HDCP SW encryption developer, I'm in my wheelhouse. I'm going to try to keep this very very simple without diving too much into acronyms and protocols. I could go on for days on this topic. Also remember that UHD, HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 are and can be mutually exclusive for the present time.

Any disc player or streaming device is an HDCP 2.2 transmitter (Roku and Amazon fire stick are reported to be going to 2.2 for 4k content and it's already on their new devices). A receiver is anything sinking the signal. _Don't confuse receiver with AVR. _ HDCP communicates via an IC comm protocol called I2C and transmits 128 bit keys in the 2.2 encryption schema. It is bidirectional which is critical. The AVR is NOT the traditional sink source as someone here said. It is typically going to be a repeater. As such, I2C uses a master-slave topology and the AVR (repeater) will take the ID of and exchange keys with all receivers (TV or proj) downstream of it. This data is passed back upstream to the transmitter. There are WDT (watchdog timers or heartbeats if you will) on the I2C bus that will keep you from monkeying with cables after the fact. Yes the AVR will be decoding the encrypted 2.2 signal. It will process audio, maybe add processing to video, re-encrypt the signal to 2.2 and send it downstream to all other *compliant* devices.

What's important here to note, is that you are not going to be taking 2.2 content from the transmitter, sending it to the AVR and having the AVR convert to 1080p for your monitor just to appease 2.2 protection. The goal of the repeater (AVR) is to preserve the encryption/protection schema on ALL outputs. All 4k content will all be in 2.2 in the very near future. You cannot think of your AVR as an HDCP 2.2 copy protection hack. If that were the case I could just output 2.2 content directly to recording devices, albeit in non 4k resolution (via RCA to my old VCR ). It defeats the purpose and let's pirates continue to bootleg. 

If one device in the link is not 2.2, then no you will not be transmitting 4k content, which we all know.
You will not be down-converting a 4k program to 1080p to make the 2.2 protocol happy. 
With that being said, 4k UHD disc or anything that is 2.2 whether 4k or not, will collect a lot of dust if your entire path is not compliant. 

If you are running non-2.2 content, then it doesn't matter what is or isn't compliant in the signal chain. All 2.2 devices can speak 1.4 also. But it's Chinese vs english; they are not backwards compatible in the slightest. 2.2 devices are just bilingual. 

If I could buy a 1080 pj that is 2.2 compliant, then fine that would work. The AVR or proj/tv would just dumb down the video to 1080p from 4k. The transmitter doesn't care what is done to the data signal as long as the over riding I2C HDCP 2.2 encryption protocol stays intact and the chain is compliant.

Keep in mind that HDMI 1.4 with HDCP 1.x only supports very low data rate and only 8 chs of lossy audio. HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 and 4k are mutually exclusive. Today I can watch Amazon 4k content on my 2.2 TV via the app and use the HDMI arc to push back DD to my non-2.2 AVR. However, it is likely that to some extent Atmos, 2.2, and 4k could stay or become conjoined twins or triplets. New audio and video formats and "immersive" audio *COULD* start to be seen on 2.2 content only. This is due to 18Gbps data rate, ability to add countless audio channels that are lossless, etc.

So in a nutshell if you are buying any new equip for Atmos....BUY 2.2!!! Just don't look elsewhere. Someone posted the HDFury converter which could be helpful as well. You could also throw optical outs and bypass your non-2.2 AVR for the HDMI cabling. And just to be clear and not have Keith jump me again  We do not know how our Atmos content will be delivered next year. But I would be cautious so those numerous nice speakers and receivers don't go to waste.


----------



## cdelena

Markitron said:


> Honestly, that would be enough to put me off it by itself. Is there a particular reason for this? It seems like a huge oversight, is it just this particular AVR or is it all Onkyo's?


Onkyo does not do a great job on their display. At first I was a little frustrated with that and then decided not to worry about it as I have now specified to use Dolby Surround on all sources so it plays either ATMOS or DSU which is what I want. 

My equipment is in another room so I really look at the panels only when I am tinkering with the system and my goal is to enjoy using it, spending as little time as possible tweaking the system.


----------



## desray2k

cdelena said:


> Onkyo does not do a great job on their display. At first I was a little frustrated with that and then decided not to worry about it as I have now specified to use Dolby Surround on all sources so it plays either ATMOS or DSU which is what I want.
> 
> My equipment is in another room so I really look at the panels only when I am tinkering with the system and my goal is to enjoy using it, spending as little time as possible tweaking the system.


+1. The key is to enjoy it...

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## dkwong

Markitron said:


> My god, that would drive me absolutely insane. After the spending the money to upgrade to an Atmos/DTS-X system, I need to be constantly reminded



The Onkyo doesn't use the main display for this but it does have individual lights for this purpose. There are separate lights for DD, TrueHD, DTS, Atmos, etc. So if you know where to look you'll still have that information. 

Other benefits of the Onkyo over the Denon:

- Better iOS app. The app for the Denon was less intuitive to use and had more lag. 
- Can use DSU for all DTS sources. 
- This is a personal opinion but I think the Onkyo sounds better. 

This was my experience after using an Onkyo 646 and a Denon 910 back to back.


----------



## asere

I see the NR646 was made in Malaysia and x1200w in China. 
Is China the worse of the two or is it practically the same?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

dkwong said:


> The Onkyo doesn't use the main display for this but it does have individual lights for this purpose. There are separate lights for DD, TrueHD, DTS, Atmos, etc. So if you know where to look you'll still have that information.
> 
> Other benefits of the Onkyo over the Denon:
> 
> - Better iOS app. The app for the Denon was less intuitive to use and had more lag.
> - Can use DSU for all DTS sources.
> - This is a personal opinion but I think the Onkyo sounds better.
> 
> This was my experience after using an Onkyo 646 and a Denon 910 back to back.


I agree. The Onkyo 646 sounds better. At least better than the x1200. More dynamic and a very, very clear dialog. My issue was only it had no audyssey.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## dkwong

asere said:


> I agree. The Onkyo 646 sounds better. At least better than the x1200. More dynamic and a very, very clear dialog. My issue was only it had no audyssey.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



I guess I don't understand this decision. Audyssey is supposed to make the receiver sound better through equalization. But if it doesn't actually sound better then what good is it?


----------



## petetherock

asere said:


> I see the NR646 was made in Malaysia and x1200w in China.
> Is China the worse of the two or is it practically the same?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I won't lose too much sleep over the country of origin, these big companies will have their QC in place.
Device failure is more likely to be due to Onkyo's design than QC.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Molon_Labe said:


> It depends on the person, room, and speakers. I hated what Audyssey did to my speakers and turned it off. I am hoping Dirac Live will be much better when I get my room finished.


Dirac is WAY better than audyssey...and you can tweak it to your likings


----------



## asere

dkwong said:


> I guess I don't understand this decision. Audyssey is supposed to make the receiver sound better through equalization. But if it doesn't actually sound better then what good is it?


I think Onkyo has the edge over the Denon when it comes to the current on their amps. Denon is not bad but the entry level models lack the punch IMO compared to Onkyo. Room correction aside it's all about preference and how one receiver sounds with your speaker. Audyssey is really helpful because it corrects the peaks that accueq can't do and therefore you get a flatter FR. 
Some care for one room correction over others and some just don't care and do it all manually.
Will accueq make it sounds better yes and no. Will audyssey make it sounds better yes and no. 
It's all preference. That's why I chose the audyssey one and really for that matter even though Onkyo was more powerful. This is just my opinion. Others can feel different and that's ok too.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## dkwong

dkwong said:


> The Onkyo doesn't use the main display for this but it does have individual lights for this purpose. There are separate lights for DD, TrueHD, DTS, Atmos, etc. So if you know where to look you'll still have that information.
> 
> Other benefits of the Onkyo over the Denon:
> 
> - Better iOS app. The app for the Denon was less intuitive to use and had more lag.
> - Can use DSU for all DTS sources.
> - This is a personal opinion but I think the Onkyo sounds better.
> 
> This was my experience after using an Onkyo 646 and a Denon 910 back to back.



Another one I just thought of:

- The Onkyo runs much cooler. I had them both in a closed cabinet (yes I know that's not recommended) and the Onkyo was just warm to the touch after hours of playtime while the Denon would get super hot after just a few minutes.


----------



## asere

Brian Fineberg said:


> Dirac is WAY better than audyssey...and you can tweak it to your likings


I hear a lot of talk on Direc. What is the device you get to Eq?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

Those Arcam units are gorgeous. Still seems to be a big proliferation of 7.1 AVR and prepro being released. I just couldn't bring myself to go from 9 to 7, especially when I'm trying to regain my SB and go 9 to 11. Pre outs are only 7.1 on Arcam so it's not processing anything more than that. That's too bad as aesthetically it's awesome. Would be curious to hear one.

As for Audyssey vs YPAO vs Dirac vs AccuEQ. It really is a preference thing. I feel confident in saying that because I'm guessing nobody in this thread actually leaves the settings exactly how they were auto calibrated. I'm willing to bet everyone has modified it to some extent. I have my .4 turned up about 1-1.5db, have substantially changed subs Q and db and most importantly dropped my surrounds by about 1db.

On the Onkyo front to beat a dead horse :roll eyes: 
HDMI output are scaled down 2.0a versions. They are only 4:2:0 and 10.2Gbps as opposed to full spec 2.0a on the Marantz and Denon using 4:4:4 18Gbps. I'm not sure on the atmos enabled Pioneers and Yamahas.

Did you guys notice that Marantz has just announced NR1506 and 1606 (5.1 and 7.1 respectively) slim-line AVR? I suppose you could run 5.1.2 on the NR1606 though. I just spoke to my Marantz dealer about the fairly new SR7010 and was told there would be no new 9.x or 11.x product this year. But I wonder if they are going to have an NR1706 and 1806 for 9 and 11 channel. I would rather go with the larger amps than is on slim-lines so I suppose it doesn't really matter.


----------



## dkwong

Molon_Labe said:


> It depends on the person, room, and speakers. I hated what Audyssey did to my speakers and turned it off. I am hoping Dirac Live will be much better when I get my room finished.



You're absolutely right. This does depend on individual conditions and others might prefer Audyssey instead. This question was actually directed at OP who stated that he preferred AccuEQ. I should have phrased it better.


----------



## Stoked21

Question for Marantz 7010 and Denon 7200/6200 (if there is anyone yet) users...

Do either of these display Dobly Atmos on the LCD? I'm certain Denon does. I'd be curious if it only says it on the internal screen on the Marantz or if it says it on the circular external LCD as well? It looks like the Denon flip down door recesses into the unit? But the Marantz flip down door sticks out like a wing similar to my Yamaha? I know that's picky, but if only certain info is displayed on the Marantz circular LCD, I would probably want it left open all the time and the thing jutting out would be annoying. My rack is behind the right shoulder of seating area and is difficult to see unless display is large. Obviously "info" buttons on remote will pull up an OSD so I know it's picky but it's nice to know what DSU or decoding is taking place without having to fumble with the remote in the dark.

I like my Marantz/Denon dealer--New relationship with him though. But talk about subjective, he told me that Marantz models would sound "more musical" than the Denon. Spec wise, the Mtz 7010 and X6200 are nearly identical, with the Denon having a more powerful amp block. I'm just having a hard time deciding one way vs the other. Also what makes the X7200 $800 better than the X6200 other than a little wattage boost? That's a big difference. Any advice or recommendations from actual owners would be appreciated.


Derek


----------



## Stoked21

dkwong said:


> Another one I just thought of:
> 
> - The Onkyo runs much cooler. I had them both in a closed cabinet (yes I know that's not recommended) and the Onkyo was just warm to the touch after hours of playtime while the Denon would get super hot after just a few minutes.


This statement is interesting. Look at power consumption numbers (P=VI since not all manuf list amperage and instead list unit power consumption wattage). Yamaha [email protected] full power ~4A. Marantz [email protected] ~6A. Denon [email protected] or 140W runs about ~5-6.5A. Onkyo [email protected] drives unit consumption to 9.6A.

The Onkyo unit theoretically could be driving outputs harder, but it really states that the amplifiers are significantly less efficient: Since similar amplifier wattage with other manufs consumes 1.5-2.5x less power. On paper Onkyo will run hotter without question; that power loss has to go somewhere and that means it is being radiated as heat. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


----------



## Molon_Labe

dkwong said:


> Another one I just thought of:
> 
> - The Onkyo runs much cooler. I had them both in a closed cabinet (yes I know that's not recommended) and the Onkyo was just warm to the touch after hours of playtime while the Denon would get super hot after just a few minutes.


My Denon 5200 got warmer than any of my other previous Denons. I wouldn't call it hot, but I did notice a slight increase. After researching it, it appears that the hdmi boards are what get hot. Onkyo is still dealing with their previous models getting very hot due to the hdmi board and extended the warranty to cover those issues. I assume they spent considerable amount of time in this area and changed the design significantly to avoid the debacle they were previously in, which is why it runs cooler. Just a thought.



Stoked21 said:


> As for Audyssey vs YPAO vs Dirac vs AccuEQ. It really is a preference thing. I feel confident in saying that because I'm guessing nobody in this thread actually leaves the settings exactly how they were auto calibrated. I'm willing to bet everyone has modified it to some extent. I have my .4 turned up about 1-1.5db, have substantially changed subs Q and db and most importantly dropped my surrounds by about 1db


I think Dirac may be more than just preference. I researched it extensively prior to purchase and every review, including professional reviews, seem to prefer Dirac on a wide margin. Dirac is being used by some very high end corporate clients, so I think they are definitely onto something. There is a good Home Theater Geek podcast on Dirac. I encourage people to check it out.


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> On the Onkyo front to beat a dead horse :roll eyes:
> HDMI output are scaled down 2.0a versions. They are only 4:2:0 and 10.2Gbps as opposed to full spec 2.0a on the Marantz and Denon using 4:4:4 18Gbps.


This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have a source? According to Onkyo's product literature:

"The latest HDMI specs and HDCP 2.2 compatibility support the formats and technologies planned for Hollywood content. The newest HDMI offers a significant increase in bandwidth (up to 18Gbps) to support new features such as [email protected]/60 (2160p), which is 4 times the clarity of 1080p/60 video resolution.

This Onkyo AVR has the latest HDMI version, which enables transmission of HDR formats, and provides enhanced picture quality by simultaneously enabling greater detail for both the dark and bright parts of an image."

And from http://www.twice.com/news/receivers/onkyo-avrs-combine-atmos-dtsx-hdmi-20a/57128:

"The AVRs are also the company’s first with HDMI/HDCP2.2 inputs and outputs that support full-bandwidth 18Gbps HDMI instead of 10.2Gbps HDMI. The change enables the AVRs to pass through 4K video at 60fps with 4:4:4 color sampling, a step up from 4:2:0 color sampling."


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> This statement is interesting. Look at power consumption numbers (P=VI since not all manuf list amperage and instead list unit power consumption wattage). Yamaha [email protected] full power ~4A. Marantz [email protected] ~6A. Denon [email protected] or 140W runs about ~5-6.5A. Onkyo [email protected] drives unit consumption to 9.6A.
> 
> The Onkyo unit theoretically could be driving outputs harder, but it really states that the amplifiers are significantly less efficient: Since similar amplifier wattage with other manufs consumes 1.5-2.5x less power. On paper Onkyo will run hotter without question; that power loss has to go somewhere and that means it is being radiated as heat. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


I guess that's the difference between theory and application and is one of the perils of making purchasing choices based only on specs. 

I've had the same experience with a Denon 900, so this isn't an isolated incident or a faulty unit.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Keith and Molon_Labe. Just be careful.
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell if you are buying any new equip for Atmos....BUY 2.2!!! Just don't look elsewhere. Someone posted the HDFury converter which could be helpful as well. You could also throw optical outs and bypass your non-2.2 AVR for the HDMI cabling. And just to be clear and not have Keith jump me again  We do not know how our Atmos content will be delivered next year. But I would be cautious so those numerous nice speakers and receivers don't go to waste.


Thanks for all that. Am I right in thinking that no matter what, *this gizmo* will sort us out for just 200 bucks?


----------



## cdelena

Molon_Labe said:


> It depends on the person, room, and speakers. I hated what Audyssey did to my speakers and turned it off. I am hoping Dirac Live will be much better when I get my room finished.


I agree. I found that Audyssey did a great job in my family room which is 'busy' with numerous reflections, obstacles, mixed materials, and odd open areas. 

But in my theater which has extensive sound treatment that makes it generally 'dead' acoustically (you can actually hear the silence when you walk into the room) the Audyssey process was not good to my ears. 

This is not a feature I would go out of my way to obtain for all environments.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> Keith and Molon_Labe. Just be careful.
> 
> Topic strayed far from our original friendly debate about* whether* atmos would only be on UHD disc and therefore require HDCP 2.2 equipment. I don't want this thread to stray too far from Atmos, but it is applicable as non-2.2 Atmos AVRs could become problematic, as well as how we get our Atmos content.
> 
> Please keep in mind I'm an elec eng who has worked for analog IC, DSP, and MCU companies for 20 years. Software and anything on a PCB is my expertise. I'm not making stuff up and while not an HDCP SW encryption developer, I'm in my wheelhouse. I'm going to try to keep this very very simple without diving too much into acronyms and protocols. I could go on for days on this topic. Also remember that UHD, HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 are and can be mutually exclusive for the present time.
> 
> Any disc player or streaming device is an HDCP 2.2 transmitter (Roku and Amazon fire stick are reported to be going to 2.2 for 4k content and it's already on their new devices). A receiver is anything sinking the signal. _Don't confuse receiver with AVR. _ HDCP communicates via an IC comm protocol called I2C and transmits 128 bit keys in the 2.2 encryption schema. It is bidirectional which is critical. The AVR is NOT the traditional sink source as someone here said. It is typically going to be a repeater. As such, I2C uses a master-slave topology and the AVR (repeater) will take the ID of and exchange keys with all receivers (TV or proj) downstream of it. This data is passed back upstream to the transmitter. There are WDT (watchdog timers or heartbeats if you will) on the I2C bus that will keep you from monkeying with cables after the fact. Yes the AVR will be decoding the encrypted 2.2 signal. It will process audio, maybe add processing to video, re-encrypt the signal to 2.2 and send it downstream to all other *compliant* devices.
> 
> What's important here to note, is that you are not going to be taking 2.2 content from the transmitter, sending it to the AVR and having the AVR convert to 1080p for your monitor just to appease 2.2 protection. The goal of the repeater (AVR) is to preserve the encryption/protection schema on ALL outputs. All 4k content will all be in 2.2 in the very near future. You cannot think of your AVR as an HDCP 2.2 copy protection hack. If that were the case I could just output 2.2 content directly to recording devices, albeit in non 4k resolution (via RCA to my old VCR ). It defeats the purpose and let's pirates continue to bootleg.
> 
> If one device in the link is not 2.2, then no you will not be transmitting 4k content, which we all know.
> You will not be down-converting a 4k program to 1080p to make the 2.2 protocol happy.
> With that being said, 4k UHD disc or anything that is 2.2 whether 4k or not, will collect a lot of dust if your entire path is not compliant.
> 
> If you are running non-2.2 content, then it doesn't matter what is or isn't compliant in the signal chain. All 2.2 devices can speak 1.4 also. But it's Chinese vs english; they are not backwards compatible in the slightest. 2.2 devices are just bilingual.
> 
> If I could buy a 1080 pj that is 2.2 compliant, then fine that would work. The AVR or proj/tv would just dumb down the video to 1080p from 4k. The transmitter doesn't care what is done to the data signal as long as the over riding I2C HDCP 2.2 encryption protocol stays intact and the chain is compliant.
> 
> Keep in mind that HDMI 1.4 with HDCP 1.x only supports very low data rate and only 8 chs of lossy audio. HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 and 4k are mutually exclusive. Today I can watch Amazon 4k content on my 2.2 TV via the app and use the HDMI arc to push back DD to my non-2.2 AVR. However, it is likely that to some extent Atmos, 2.2, and 4k could stay or become conjoined twins or triplets. New audio and video formats and "immersive" audio *COULD* start to be seen on 2.2 content only. This is due to 18Gbps data rate, ability to add countless audio channels that are lossless, etc.
> 
> So in a nutshell if you are buying any new equip for Atmos....BUY 2.2!!! Just don't look elsewhere. Someone posted the HDFury converter which could be helpful as well. You could also throw optical outs and bypass your non-2.2 AVR for the HDMI cabling. And just to be clear and not have Keith jump me again  We do not know how our Atmos content will be delivered next year. But I would be cautious so those numerous nice speakers and receivers don't go to waste.


Thanks for the detailed explanation. HDCP 2.2 just sucks and makes me want to pirate content that I normally would't just to "get even" for making our lives overly difficult.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation. HDCP 2.2 just sucks and makes me want to pirate content that I normally would't just to "get even" for making our lives overly difficult.


hehehe. Why not!



kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for all that. Am I right in thinking that no matter what, *this gizmo* will sort us out for just 200 bucks?


I'll reserve my comment on the HDFury...I haven't used it. It's not even released yet. I've read a lot of sources over the last 6 months saying they were trying to stop companies from making defeating the encryption illegal. I don't put too much faith in this statement as how can they stop business in a free market. Especially in a private consumer home theater where MPA violations are not occurring....Until it's being sold and tested, I don't know if it will help. I kind of liken this to the whole FCC switching from analog OTA to digital and mandating converter boxes. It took years to do, so the jury is out on 2.2 to 1.4 translation. The difference is digital to analog was necessary to maintain national broadcasts and emergency warnings. 1.4 to 2.2 is just for us insane hobbyist who have too much time and money to push the leading edge.


----------



## SherazNJ

I'm about to receive my atmos speakers. I'm going with 7.2.4 configuration. I still have to decide which avr to purchase (may be Denon 6200). A few questions
1 - I use Dirac as room correction. Therefore Audyssey or any other RC is of no use to me. The main features I need in avr is Atmos/Dts X/preouts/individual speakers cross-over (Front/Center/Surround). I also have external amp driving all my 7 speakers currently. Would Denon 6200 be an overkill in my case? I wouldn't mind saving some money if there is a cheaper alternative available with all the above features I need.
2 - If I purchase new 2015 avrs (like Denon 6200), would they allow to use DSU on DTS tracks? This is important since DTS X is not available yet.
3 - Side walls in my HT are 12 feet apart and after having three seats in the middle, there is enough space left to walk from side to sit. According to the specs, the best place for surround in 7.1.4 is to have them at 90 degrees at ear level. Has anyone noticed any difference in 7.1.4 when surrounds are at ear level vs 4 feet higher pointing to MLP?
3 - One if my concern is with room correction with rear speakers when they are moved to ear level. The mic won't have direct range to rear speakers since they are at ear level. Therefore, any room correction system will only be working with reflected sound instead of direct for rear speakers. How do you handle this situation?


thx.


----------



## dkwong

SherazNJ said:


> 2 - If I purchase new 2015 avrs (like Denon 6200), would they allow to use DSU on DTS tracks? This is important since DTS X is not available yet.



At this point, only the 7200 in the Denon lineup supports DSU for DTS tracks. You'll have to look at Yamaha or Onkyo (or Pioneer?) for that feature.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Am I right in thinking that no matter what, *this gizmo* will sort us out for just 200 bucks?



According to @jdsmoothie yes. He's who posted the link to the product when I lamented about my 5200.

Reference post


----------



## Stoked21

dkwong said:


> This is the first I've heard of this. Do you have a source? According to Onkyo's product literature:


Geez, everyone always wants sources like I make stuff up! 
Page 22 of their own basic manual. Passthrough of 4:2:0. That means it's only 10.2Gbps. Not true HDMI2.0a. It's false marketing and only half the color. I just googled it as I read an article about Onkyo cheating the specs a while back and couldn't find the original source. Interestingly enough, there are tons of comments on AVS about it. Plus I found this in a press release from Onkyo directly:

"The chipset we use allows for HDMI 2.0, HDCP-2.2 copyright protection and Color Space 4:2:0,” stated Brian Sandifer, product manager for Onkyo & Integra. “We choose this chipset because all three of these actually exist and are now needed in the consumer Ultra HD space, and this is the only chipset that will support all three, which is currently available in the marketplace. “So when HDCP-2.2 content is streamed through our AVR, it will result in both picture and sound; assuming of course that the display device is HDCP-2.2 compliant,” Sandifer continued. “Color Space 4:4:4 can eventually exist in the consumer space, but there is no content in existence to support it. If and when it ever does materialize (ie:‘Deep Color’ for Blu-ray was in the spec but has never materialized) you will still, of course, need to be HDCP-2.2 compliant for the content to pass in full resolution, and you will have the option to turn off the 4:4:4 colorspace if devices down the line cannot support it (unlike HDCP 2.2, which you cannot turn off). Some other products are touting color space 4:4:4 capable. But, without being HDCP-2.2 compliant and with no content to support it, it is a bit of a moot point.” Sandifer added that it’s a bit too early to discuss the specifics of next-generation AV receivers.

If you look into other manufs spec, they very openly and honestly will state 4:4:4 with their HDMI spec. If it doesn't explicitly call that out....It's because it is not.


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> Geez, everyone always wants sources like I make stuff up!
> Page 22 of their own basic manual. Passthrough of 4:2:0. That means it's only 10.2Gbps. Not true HDMI2.0a. It's false marketing and only half the color. I just googled it as I read an article about Onkyo cheating the specs a while back and couldn't find the original source. Interestingly enough, there are tons of comments on AVS about it. Plus I found this in a press release from Onkyo directly:
> 
> "The chipset we use allows for HDMI 2.0, HDCP-2.2 copyright protection and Color Space 4:2:0,” stated Brian Sandifer, product manager for Onkyo & Integra. “We choose this chipset because all three of these actually exist and are now needed in the consumer Ultra HD space, and this is the only chipset that will support all three, which is currently available in the marketplace. “So when HDCP-2.2 content is streamed through our AVR, it will result in both picture and sound; assuming of course that the display device is HDCP-2.2 compliant,” Sandifer continued. “Color Space 4:4:4 can eventually exist in the consumer space, but there is no content in existence to support it. If and when it ever does materialize (ie:‘Deep Color’ for Blu-ray was in the spec but has never materialized) you will still, of course, need to be HDCP-2.2 compliant for the content to pass in full resolution, and you will have the option to turn off the 4:4:4 colorspace if devices down the line cannot support it (unlike HDCP 2.2, which you cannot turn off). Some other products are touting color space 4:4:4 capable. But, without being HDCP-2.2 compliant and with no content to support it, it is a bit of a moot point.” Sandifer added that it’s a bit too early to discuss the specifics of next-generation AV receivers.
> 
> If you look into other manufs spec, they very openly and honestly will state 4:4:4 with their HDMI spec. If it doesn't explicitly call that out....It's because it is not.


I don't know which manual you're looking at, but this is what it says on page 22 (emphasis is mine):



> ● HDMI
> Input IN1 (BD/DVD, HDCP2.2), IN2 (CBL/SAT, HDCP2.2), IN3 (STRM BOX, HDCP2.2), IN4 (PC), IN5 (GAME), IN6, IN7, AUX INPUT HDMI (front)
> Output
> OUT MAIN (ARC), OUT SUB
> Video Resolution
> *4K 60 Hz (RGB/YCbCr4:4:4/YCbCr4:2:2, 24 bit)*
> Audio Format
> Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Digital, DTS:X, DTS-HD Master Audio, DTS-HD High Resolution Audio, DTS 96/24, DTS- ES, DTS, DTS Express, DSD, Multichannel PCM (up to 8ch)
> Supported
> 3D, Audio Return Channel, Deep Color, x.v.ColorTM, LipSync, CEC, 4K, Extended Colorimetry (sYCC601, Adobe RGB, Adobe YCC601), Content Type, 3D Dual View, 21:9 Aspect Ratio Video Format


Perhaps you're referring to their 2014 models instead of the 2015 models?


----------



## Stoked21

Stoked21 said:


> Geez, everyone always wants sources like I make stuff up!
> Page 22 of their own basic manual. Passthrough of 4:2:0. That means it's only 10.2Gbps.


Just to be clear I'm quoting myself here. I'm referring to the 1030 and 3030 only. I don't know about other AVRs in the onkyo or integra product line. If you read the manuals you can determine that yourself. Again, if it doesn't explicitly say 4:4:4 then it's not.

I just have to disqualify Onkyo from my atmos rework due to this, DTS:X, only 11 ch pre-out, and high power draw. The DTS:X and color space in 4k could be big deal killers if you expect to support either technology in the near term and don't want to have to replace your AVR. I'm replacing my first atmos at less than 6 months in and I sure don't want to have to replace it a third time anytime soon.

Which is a shame with Onkyo, because I'd like to have the XLR front outputs and the THX and 11 internal amps. They have some neat "nice to have" things going for them but are lagging significantly in other areas which are potentially mandatory for the new A/V specs. 

Unfortunately by the time they release their new products I will have moved on.


----------



## Selden Ball

Stoked21 said:


> Just to be clear I'm quoting myself here. I'm referring to the 1030 and 3030 only. I don't know about other AVRs in the onkyo or integra product line.


Those are their 2014 models, not their 2015 models.


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> Unfortunately by the time they release their new products I will have moved on.


Their "new" products with (promised) DTS:X and full HDMI 2.0a support have been out for months.


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> Which is a shame with Onkyo, because I'd like to have the XLR front outputs and the THX and 11 internal amps. They have some neat "nice to have" things going for them but are lagging significantly in other areas which are potentially mandatory for the new A/V specs.
> 
> Unfortunately by the time they release their new products I will have moved on.


Totally agree...historically, Onkyo typically leads with features...I'm in pretty much the same boat and was anticipating a 10*40* and 30*40*...but alas. I suspect the QC issues and Pioneer integration diverted their focus (business plan & product development) for 2015.


----------



## SherazNJ

dkwong said:


> At this point, only the 7200 in the Denon lineup supports DSU for DTS tracks. You'll have to look at Yamaha or Onkyo (or Pioneer?) for that feature.


I waited and waited and kept on thinking to buy avr when DTS:X is available but this wait seems like endless. I think DTS again changed the date to make dts:x available to Feb next year? Who know if they'll extend again. I would have been ok with them delaying but then putting this constrain is a BIG deal breaker. If you can't provide a feature, don't take one away.



Molon_Labe said:


> Since you have external amps already and Dirac, what about the Yamaha CX-A5100. You get the higher quality DACs, DSP modes that include speaker channels i.e more DSU type options for legacy content, Atmos, DTS:X, and XLR outputs.


A quick gogle on Yamaha CX-A5100 gives price around 2500. Idea was to reduce the price not increase ;-) based on the fact that I won't be needing much from avr/preamp besides dts:x/dsu and preouts.


----------



## bargervais

I bought onkyo receivers mainly because of all the nay sayers, I love a challenge and love to prove everyone wrong. I have never had any issues, I keep them well ventilated, I also use a smart eco power strips when I turn my tv off everything goes off then a minute later the power is cut off so it's not in a powered stand by mode but it's actually off...


----------



## HT-Eman

*more atmos speakers*

XTZ immersive audio speakers ...... http://www.xtzsound.com/product/cinema-s2-atmosphere


----------



## NorthSky

brickyardz said:


> You can add Arcam to the list of receivers that do Dolby Atmos with the AVR 850. No pricing info yet, they will be showing this at Cedia 2015 this weekend.
> Arcam Class G amplification, Dolby Atmos, Dirac Live room correction and a whole lot more audio/video goodness. What a combination! The brand-new AVR850 will be previewed at CEDIA USA 2015 this coming weekend. Coming to the UK soon. Price and delivery TBC - AND we've bought back the volume control!


Wow, Arcam with Atmos!  ...And with Dirac Live too!! 

* This won't be cheap. ...Still a very good sign of better things to come.


----------



## Stoked21

dkwong said:


> I guess that's the difference between theory and application and is one of the perils of making purchasing choices based only on specs.
> 
> I've had the same experience with a Denon 900, so this isn't an isolated incident or a faulty unit.


Well actually physics is physics. Not theory and practice. The lack of efficiency is there on the 1030 and 3030 regardless. Maybe it convects it away well but it's wasting a lot of power and if more efficient would have twice the wattage. An emotive all 7 channel driven at 200W only uses a bit more power than that. It's a poorly inefficient design from onkyo. But that doesn't mean it sounds bad. I'm not saying it's a bad model and I was seriously considering it.


----------



## asere

How about Rotel, McIntosh, Nad? Atmos for them or not? Don't hear much about them in general anywhere. Could it be the expense$$$$$?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

asere said:


> How about Rotel, McIntosh, Nad? Atmos for them or not? Don't hear much about them in general anywhere. Could it be the expense$$$$$?


Give them another year or two...I'd say.


----------



## Waboman

The McIntosh MX160 is their new object based processor.


----------



## DAK4

Stoked21 said:


> This statement is interesting. Look at power consumption numbers (P=VI since not all manuf list amperage and instead list unit power consumption wattage). Yamaha [email protected] full power ~4A. Marantz [email protected] ~6A. Denon [email protected] or 140W runs about ~5-6.5A. Onkyo [email protected] drives unit consumption to 9.6A.
> 
> The Onkyo unit theoretically could be driving outputs harder, but it really states that the amplifiers are significantly less efficient: Since similar amplifier wattage with other manufs consumes 1.5-2.5x less power. On paper Onkyo will run hotter without question; that power loss has to go somewhere and that means it is being radiated as heat. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


I think you might be looking at it wrong, I think the 9.6A allows the Onkyo to drive all 9ch closer to the rated 135W at the same time if required (120v x 9.6A = 1152watts total then divide 1152watts by 9ch = 128watts per channel) The other receivers might be able to hit 2ch at their rated watts but not all 9. It doesn't use the 9.6A all the time, only if needed. I think.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Thx deep note eclipse*

Has anybody listen to , or no where to get a copy of the THX Eclipse in the dolby atmos version ?


----------



## Stoked21

DAK4 said:


> I think you might be looking at it wrong, I think the 9.6A allows the Onkyo to drive all 9ch closer to the rated 135W at the same time if required (120v x 9.6A = 1152watts total then divide 1152watts by 9ch = 128watts per channel) The other receivers might be able to hit 2ch at their rated watts but not all 9. It doesn't use the 9.6A all the time, only if needed. I think.


Good point. Wouldn't be as high as u claim with leakage currents, inefficiency loss of 10-20% depending on topology and hdmi boards and processor boards pulling another 50-100ma. But it does shed light on avrs like the 150w 2ch driven Yamaha a3050 drawing a max of 4.1A. Says amps r really closer to 40-50W all chs driven. Hadn't thought it through that far.


----------



## ellisr63

Stoked21 said:


> Good point. Wouldn't be as high as u claim with leakage currents, inefficiency loss of 10-20% depending on topology and hdmi boards and processor boards pulling another 50-100ma. But it does shed light on avrs like the 150w 2ch driven Yamaha a3050 drawing a max of 4.1A. Says amps r really closer to 40-50W all chs driven. Hadn't thought it through that far.


What about the efficiency of the amps...doesn't that also come into play?


----------



## brickyardz

asere said:


> How about Rotel, McIntosh, Nad? Atmos for them or not? Don't hear much about them in general anywhere. Could it be the expense$$$$$?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


CEDIA 2015 starts on the 14th and ends the 17th, I am sure we will see much more Atmos info from other manufacturers.


----------



## DAK4

Stoked21 said:


> Good point. Wouldn't be as high as u claim with leakage currents, inefficiency loss of 10-20% depending on topology and hdmi boards and processor boards pulling another 50-100ma. But it does shed light on avrs like the 150w 2ch driven Yamaha a3050 drawing a max of 4.1A. Says amps r really closer to 40-50W all chs driven. Hadn't thought it through that far.





ellisr63 said:


> What about the efficiency of the amps...doesn't that also come into play?


I agree with you guys, and in the end having more amps available may not be such a bad thing.


----------



## HT-Eman

*New dolby atmos avr with dirac live*

Audio Control new receivers AVR-7 and AVR-9 with all the bells and whistles. Will be at Cedia 2015 . 

http://www.audiocontrol.com/news/

and pics ...... http://www.audiocontrol.com/press/


----------



## ramdrive

I have my Atmos receiver coming tomorrow with a set on Onkyo upfiring speakers, does anyone know if these work OK if your ceiling has decorative beams?


----------



## scarabaeus

ramdrive said:


> I have my Atmos receiver coming tomorrow with a set on Onkyo upfiring speakers, does anyone know if these work OK if your ceiling has decorative beams?


Yes, that's fine. The sound is dispersed enough by the time it reaches the ceiling so that the beams don't matter.


----------



## wse

If any one is interested, they might be tough to hang from the ceiling 

Bowers and Wilkins 800 Diamond & 802 Diamond - B&W 802D2


----------



## KennyLSU

Last minute question on speaker position for On-Ceiling Atmos intended speakers. Using some bookshelves mounted to the ceiling for 5.1.2 Atmos and I still cannot decide on a position. Looking at the Dolby Setup Guide, they should be at or slightly in front of the MLP and in line with the Front L/R speakers. Would you not get a better overhead experience with the speakers directly above the MLP or MLP's? Is this too much in one spot and that's why it says in-line with the fronts? 

If I go in-line with the fronts, I have the option of wall mounting them and aiming them at the MLP. Would this be another option?

I've seen multiple types of setups for a 5.1.2 and I'm not sure where to begin testing. I guess I should just get someone to hold them in multiple positions and see what works best. Just looking for a good place to start. Thanks.


----------



## batpig

KennyLSU said:


> Last minute question on speaker position for On-Ceiling Atmos intended speakers. Using some bookshelves mounted to the ceiling for 5.1.2 Atmos and I still cannot decide on a position. Looking at the Dolby Setup Guide, they should be at or slightly in front of the MLP and in line with the Front L/R speakers. Would you not get a better overhead experience with the speakers directly above the MLP or MLP's? Is this too much in one spot and that's why it says in-line with the fronts?
> 
> If I go in-line with the fronts, I have the option of wall mounting them and aiming them at the MLP. Would this be another option?
> 
> I've seen multiple types of setups for a 5.1.2 and I'm not sure where to begin testing. I guess I should just get someone to hold them in multiple positions and see what works best. Just looking for a good place to start. Thanks.


Many people "violate" the guideline of placing the heights in line with the fronts and prefer to have them narrower. Especially if your surrounds are slightly elevated this creates more angular separation, and also more closely mimics the theatrical layout where the overhead arrays are aligned with a point in between the front L/R and the center channel.

If your front speakers are so wide that they are close to the side walls, I would DEFINITELY place the overhead speakers more narrowly. I don't think you will get a good "overhead" senstation with only two height speakers placed that wide. 

I should shoot for mounting them in at least 2ft from the side walls, and a bit in front of the MLP (not directly overhead, maybe 10-20 degrees in front). That will give you a good overhead sensation as well as a nice transition from front wall to overhead.


----------



## desray2k

Agreed...the fronts should not be too wide apart. It should be proportional to your viewing distance...this is especially so if you are using atmos enabled speakers...the recommended distance between the two front speakers should be within 7 to 8 ft.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## SherazNJ

Can anyone please tell me if Yamaha 3050 can upconvert dts tract to DSU? Also if does allow setting cross-over independently for Front, Center and Surround?


----------



## wse

desray2k said:


> Agreed...the fronts should not be too wide apart. It should be proportional to your viewing distance...this is especially so if you are using atmos enabled speakers...the recommended distance between the two front speakers should be within 7 to 8 ft.


By who?

Mine are 9 feet apart in front of my 10 feet screen


----------



## jpco

SherazNJ said:


> Can anyone please tell me if Yamaha 3050 can upconvert dts tract to DSU? Also if does allow setting cross-over independently for Front, Center and Surround?



Yes and yes


----------



## desray2k

wse said:


> By who?
> 
> Mine are 9 feet apart in front of my 10 feet screen


The keyword is proportional to your MLP...if you got a bigger viewing area...of course you can go wider 

Usually the "optimal" or "ideal" distance apart for the 2 main front speakers should be between 20 - 30 degrees off centre...toe'ing the speakers would also help to ensure the sound energy been directed towards the listener and minimize first reflection points as well.


----------



## Turboo2u

Just picked up a Dolby Atmos receiver, read many posts in this thread, and I'm still terribly confused.
I'm now running a 7.1 setup with rear surrounds and front wides. Can I just add any small bookshelf
speaker, firing up towards the ceiling and perched on my large front tower speakers, to get started
here with Atmos? If not, what's the minimum I need to get started? Thanx.


----------



## Turboo2u

Just picked up a Dolby Atmos receiver, read many posts in this thread, and I'm still terribly confused.
I'm now running a 7.1 setup with rear surrounds and front wides. Can I just add any small bookshelf
speaker, firing up towards the ceiling and perched on my large front tower speakers, to get started
here with Atmos? If not, what's the minimum I need to get started? Thanx.


----------



## bargervais

What is going on with all these double posts


----------



## tjenkins95

Turboo2u said:


> Just picked up a Dolby Atmos receiver, read many posts in this thread, and I'm still terribly confused.
> I'm now running a 7.1 setup with rear surrounds and front wides. Can I just add any small bookshelf
> speaker, firing up towards the ceiling and perched on my large front tower speakers, to get started
> here with Atmos? If not, what's the minimum I need to get started? Thanx.


 


IMHO, you need to purchase a pair of Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers. They are designed specifically to bounce the sound off the ceiling.
Several manufactures sell Atmos-enabled speakers: Klipsch, Atlantic Technology, Pioneer, Elac, Onkyo, etc...
Pointing small bookshelf speakers at the ceiling is not going to give you the same effect.


----------



## ramdrive

Just setup my new Denon X4200W with the Onkyo Atmos enabled speakers and it seems to want to set the crossover at 200hz dopes that sound right?


----------



## Zhorik

ramdrive said:


> Just setup my new Denon X4200W with the Onkyo Atmos enabled speakers and it seems to want to set the crossover at 200hz dopes that sound right?


Yes for Atmos enabled speakers the crossover is high (180hz) in order to avoid the low frequency sound coming directly from the speaker.


----------



## Turboo2u

bargervais said:


> What is going on with all these double posts


I'm sure I only posted once so I'm not sure what happened.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Turboo2u said:


> Just picked up a Dolby Atmos receiver, read many posts in this thread, and I'm still terribly confused.
> I'm now running a 7.1 setup with rear surrounds and front wides. Can I just add any small bookshelf
> speaker, firing up towards the ceiling and perched on my large front tower speakers, to get started
> here with Atmos? If not, what's the minimum I need to get started? Thanx.


If I were starting where you are with it, I would give these a shot...Andrew Jones designed...for $229 per pair...

http://www.amazon.com/Debut-Concent...e=UTF8&qid=1444500670&sr=8-1&keywords=elac+a4

Watch his video...


----------



## wse

Can you use these as L/R/C


----------



## dkwong

dvdwilly3 said:


> If I were starting where you are with it, I would give these a shot...Andrew Jones designed...for $229 per pair...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Debut-Concent...e=UTF8&qid=1444500670&sr=8-1&keywords=elac+a4
> 
> Watch his video...



Do you think these will be significantly better than the Onkyos? I have the Onkyos and am not impressed.


----------



## himey

tjenkins95 said:


> IMHO, you need to purchase a pair of Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers. They are designed specifically to bounce the sound off the ceiling.
> Several manufactures sell Atmos-enabled speakers: Klipsch, Atlantic Technology, Pioneer, Elac, Onkyo, etc...
> Pointing small bookshelf speakers at the ceiling is not going to give you the same effect.


What does Atmos enabled speakers do that a non Atmos speaker doesn't do, other than the angle of the speaker/drivers.

Sent from my E2281 using Tapatalk


----------



## ramdrive

Zhorik said:


> Yes for Atmos enabled speakers the crossover is high (180hz) in order to avoid the low frequency sound coming directly from the speaker.


Thanks for the reply!


----------



## Selden Ball

himey said:


> What does Atmos enabled speakers do that a non Atmos speaker doesn't do, other than the angle of the speaker/drivers.
> 
> Sent from my E2281 using Tapatalk


A non-technical description is available in
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf

Technical details are available in patent WO 2014107714 A1 which is available at http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014107714A1?cl=en


Briefly, Atmos-enabled speakers have a built-in audio frequency filter (HRTF) which modifies the sound so it has the frequency characteristics of a sound that's coming from overhead rather than that of a sound that you hear at the level of your ears. It helps enhance the "overhead-ness" of the sound that's reflected from the ceiling. They also have built-in baffles which limit the amount of sound that you can hear coming directly from them. Even so, Dolby recommends both that they be mounted somewhat above ear-height and that they be at least three feet away from the closest listener in order to minimize the amount of directly-radiated sound that you hear from them.


----------



## KennyLSU

desray2k said:


> Agreed...the fronts should not be too wide apart. It should be proportional to your viewing distance...this is especially so if you are using atmos enabled speakers...the recommended distance between the two front speakers should be within 7 to 8 ft.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


Well I got everything put up and running. Haven't been able to run the setup with audyssey, but they are working. I put them 26" from the wall on the ceiling, firing on an angle toward the MLP. They are probably more like 9 feet from the LCR speakers. I set my Amp Assign to 5.1 with Top Middle and popped in Transformers, but when I look at the displayed output, it is not showing Atmos. Not sure what is going on. I will post this in the Denon S series AVR thread and see if anyone has an idea. Going to try running Audyssey and see if that helps. 

When I began the setup, it said a couple of speakers weren't configured right (guessing polarity?), but I switched it and still popped up. Not sure what is going on there either. Going to play around with it and see what happens.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dkwong said:


> Do you think these will be significantly better than the Onkyos? I have the Onkyos and am not impressed.


I have no doubt. Since you already have something, you are not pressed for time...unless you need to return the Onkyos.

I had the Def Tech A60's and was not that impressed with those either...

You might wait until someone reviews them. As I understand, they will not be available until October 19, anyway.


----------



## himey

Selden Ball said:


> A non-technical description is available in
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
> 
> Technical details are available in patent WO 2014107714 A1 which is available at http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014107714A1?cl=en
> 
> 
> Briefly, Atmos-enabled speakers have a built-in audio frequency filter (HRTF) which modifies the sound so it has the frequency characteristics of a sound that's coming from overhead rather than that of a sound that you hear at the level of your ears. It helps enhance the "overhead-ness" of the sound that's reflected from the ceiling. They also have built-in baffles which limit the amount of sound that you can hear coming directly from them. Even so, Dolby recommends both that they be mounted somewhat above ear-height and that they be at least three feet away from the closest listener in order to minimize the amount of directly-radiated sound that you hear from them.


Isn't there a setting in processor to adapt to a non Atmos speaker?

Sent from my E2281 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

himey said:


> Isn't there a setting in processor to adapt to a non Atmos speaker?
> 
> Sent from my E2281 using Tapatalk


Yes and no....

Room EQ software has to know not to undo the hardware EQ curve built into the Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. As a result, if you have an AVR with Audyssey (for example) and you've run its calibration procedure, the resulting EQ curve for the Dolby-enabled speaker channels supposedly includes some form of Dolby's HRTF curve. How effective it is, I don't know: I have actual overhead speakers.

Note that it'll only be active when Audyssey is turned on.


----------



## Stoked21

Read on a diff thread that marantz sr7010 and av7702mk2 as well as denon x6200 cannot use dsu on dts source. Any truth to that? I know Yamaha can. 

Anybody have these avr or prepro and tried?


----------



## himey

Selden Ball said:


> Yes and no....
> 
> Room EQ software has to know not to undo the hardware EQ curve built into the Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. As a result, if you have an AVR with Audyssey (for example) and you've run its calibration procedure, the resulting EQ curve for the Dolby-enabled speaker channels supposedly includes some form of Dolby's HRTF curve. How effective it is, I don't know: I have actual overhead speakers.
> 
> Note that it'll only be active when Audyssey is turned on.


Thanks...Most atmos speakers look cheap. Not sure how I feel about Audyssey...Ceiling speaks looks like the way to go...

Sent from my E2281 using Tapatalk


----------



## dkfan9

DAK4 said:


> Stoked21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is interesting. Look at power consumption numbers (P=VI since not all manuf list amperage and instead list unit power consumption wattage). Yamaha [email protected] full power ~4A. Marantz [email protected] ~6A. Denon [email protected] or 140W runs about ~5-6.5A. Onkyo [email protected] drives unit consumption to 9.6A.
> 
> The Onkyo unit theoretically could be driving outputs harder, but it really states that the amplifiers are significantly less efficient: Since similar amplifier wattage with other manufs consumes 1.5-2.5x less power. On paper Onkyo will run hotter without question; that power loss has to go somewhere and that means it is being radiated as heat. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you might be looking at it wrong, I think the 9.6A allows the Onkyo to drive all 9ch closer to the rated 135W at the same time if required (120v x 9.6A = 1152watts total then divide 1152watts by 9ch = 128watts per channel) The other receivers might be able to hit 2ch at their rated watts but not all 9. It doesn't use the 9.6A all the time, only if needed. I think.
Click to expand...

Very good point


----------



## FilmMixer

Stoked21 said:


> Read on a diff thread that marantz sr7010 and av7702mk2 as well as denon x6200 cannot use dsu on dts source. Any truth to that? I know Yamaha can.
> 
> Anybody have these avr or prepro and tried?


At this point that is indeed the case. 

In addition, the Yamahas kept the legacy Pro Logic decoders... Unique in the business. 

In addition, their new Pre Pro (CX-A5100) allows DSP room simulation on top of object based codecs. Also unique in the business. 

Only thing the Yamaha doesn't offer that Denon and Marantz do is Auro decoding.


----------



## desray2k

ramdrive said:


> Just setup my new Denon X4200W with the Onkyo Atmos enabled speakers and it seems to want to set the crossover at 200hz dopes that sound right?


Nothing wrong with the suggested crossover points if you are using it as atmos enabled speakers.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## desray2k

dkwong said:


> Do you think these will be significantly better than the Onkyos? I have the Onkyos and am not impressed.


Sadly you are right to feel that way...the Onkyo SKH410 atmos enabled speakers was the worst performing speakers among the rest. You shouldn't have bought it. If you can return it and exchange for a better one, better do so asap.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## desray2k

KennyLSU said:


> Well I got everything put up and running. Haven't been able to run the setup with audyssey, but they are working. I put them 26" from the wall on the ceiling, firing on an angle toward the MLP. They are probably more like 9 feet from the LCR speakers. I set my Amp Assign to 5.1 with Top Middle and popped in Transformers, but when I look at the displayed output, it is not showing Atmos. Not sure what is going on. I will post this in the Denon S series AVR thread and see if anyone has an idea. Going to try running Audyssey and see if that helps.


Did u set the secondary audio output in the bluray player to off?

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## desray2k

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have no doubt. Since you already have something, you are not pressed for time...unless you need to return the Onkyos.
> 
> I had the Def Tech A60's and was not that impressed with those either...
> 
> You might wait until someone reviews them. As I understand, they will not be available until October 19, anyway.


Yes...I can once again attest to that. The Def Tech A60 and the Onkyo SKH410 should be avoided at all cost! The 2 models came out in the same period when Atmos was first introduced last year. 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## dkwong

desray2k said:


> Sadly you are right to feel that way...the Onkyo SKH410 atmos enabled speakers was the worst performing speakers among the rest. You shouldn't have bought it. If you can return it and exchange for a better one, better do so asap.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2



Unfortunately it's too late to return them. Is there a site with relative reviews of different Atmos speakers?


----------



## KennyLSU

I will have to try this. Trying to play it through a PS3 and Xbox One.


----------



## desray2k

dkwong said:


> Unfortunately it's too late to return them. Is there a site with relative reviews of different Atmos speakers?


I am currently using KEF R50 Atmos modules and did not look back ever since...

Here's a small review on the R50 in this forum: http://www.xtremeplace.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=195395.msg1049717#msg1049717

I have yet to try my hands on the rest...but Def Tech A60s and the pathetic attempt by Onkyo (SKH-410) are a "no-no". Avoid at all cost imo.

So far, the better ones which I have read (from members here)...KEF, Andrew Jones Pioneer series, Atlantic Tech 44-DA and the latest offering from Elac (again designed Andrew Jones) and the Klipsch series. Any of this brands will definitely inspire certain level of confidence since most of them have been "tested" and "reviewed"...


----------



## Zhorik

1615 Gabrieli in Venice Blu Ray

Format: 1 hybrid SACD +1 Pure Audio Blu-ray disc including Dolby Atmos technology




Spoiler



http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gabrieli-Ve...96207&sr=8-2&keywords=1615+Gabrieli+in+Venice

https://harmoniamundiuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/classical-oct-30-wp.pdf


----------



## dkwong

desray2k said:


> I am currently using KEF R50 Atmos modules and did not look back ever since...



Thanks but $1200 is way out of my budget.  I'll take a look at those other sets.


----------



## desray2k

dkwong said:


> Thanks but $1200 is way out of my budget.  I'll take a look at those other sets.


Yes pls do. Just want to make a point that NOT atmos speakers are made the same. 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

KennyLSU said:


> I will have to try this. Trying to play it through a PS3 and Xbox One.


Xbox One can't bitstream Blu-rays, so no Atmos from Blu-ray on it. PS3 can be set to bitstream, so make sure you're doing that.


----------



## rmilyard

Looking at maybe replacing my Pioneer SC-1522-K AVR. I have it running a 9.1 setup right now with 2 Front Height speakers. All except my FRONT/CENTER/SUB are ceiling mounted that point to listener seat. This room I had to ceiling out speaker due to room shape.

I am thinking about getting a newer Atmos AVR but have some questions.

First could I just keep this setup and add 2 to 4 overhead speakers or should I pull down the FRONT HEIGHT speakers?

Next I could wall mount the right and left surrounds but the left would be MUCH farther from listener that the left. This is reason I thought ceiling mounting them would be best. The rears I could bring down to walls but about be about 3-4 feet above ear.

Any input would be great since haven't gotten new AVR yet.

FYI Speaker I have:

FRONTS: DT BP7002's
CENTER DT C/L/R 2002
SUB: Klipsh SW115
FRONT HEIGHTS: DT ProMonitor 100's
SURROUNDS: DT ProMonitor 100's
REARS: DT BP2X

I have 4 Polk TL1's not using that could use for overhead.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rmilyard said:


> Looking at maybe replacing my Pioneer SC-1522-K AVR. I have it running a 9.1 setup right now with 2 Front Height speakers. All except my FRONT/CENTER/SUB are ceiling mounted that point to listener seat. This room I had to ceiling out speaker due to room shape.
> 
> I am thinking about getting a newer Atmos AVR but have some questions.
> 
> First could I just keep this setup and add 2 to 4 overhead speakers or should I pull down the FRONT HEIGHT speakers?
> 
> Next I could wall mount the right and left surrounds but the left would be MUCH farther from listener that the left. This is reason I thought ceiling mounting them would be best. The rears I could bring down to walls but about be about 3-4 feet above ear.
> 
> Any input would be great since haven't gotten new AVR yet.
> 
> FYI Speaker I have:
> 
> FRONTS: DT BP7002's
> CENTER DT C/L/R 2002
> SUB: Klipsh SW115
> FRONT HEIGHTS: DT ProMonitor 100's
> SURROUNDS: DT ProMonitor 100's
> REARS: DT BP2X
> 
> I have 4 Polk TL1's not using that could use for overhead.


If you cannot lower the surround speakers closer to ear level then the Atmos effect will be very slight. You need separation between the heights and the main layer fronts and surrounds. 

Without knowing about your room, there's no way to determine if front heights or overheads would work best, at least for the front speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

rmilyard said:


> Looking at maybe replacing my Pioneer SC-1522-K AVR. I have it running a 9.1 setup right now with 2 Front Height speakers. All except my FRONT/CENTER/SUB are ceiling mounted that point to listener seat. This room I had to ceiling out speaker due to room shape.
> 
> I am thinking about getting a newer Atmos AVR but have some questions.
> 
> First could I just keep this setup and add 2 to 4 overhead speakers or should I pull down the FRONT HEIGHT speakers?


To get the best 3D sound experience, you need to have a substantial difference in height between the speakers providing the traditional 7.1 surround sound audio and the new overhead audio channels. In other words, some of your existing ceiling speakers probably can be used for overhead channels (e.g. Front Height and Rear Height), but you need to consider how you can put speakers at ear-level or somewhat higher in order to provide the lower soundfield. Putting some of the speakers on stands instead of on the walls might be an option, for example.


----------



## rmilyard

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you cannot lower the surround speakers closer to ear level then the Atmos effect will be very slight. You need separation between the heights and the main layer fronts and surrounds.
> 
> Without knowing about your room, there's no way to determine if front heights or overheads would work best, at least for the front speakers.


If I place my surrounds on the wall the distance from RIGHT and LEFT to listener is very different. It also place the surrounds way outside of the FRONTS. This room is much wider than our projection screen.


----------



## rmilyard

Selden Ball said:


> To get the best 3D sound experience, you need to have a substantial difference in height between the speakers providing the traditional 7.1 surround sound audio and the new overhead audio channels. In other words, some of your existing ceiling speakers probably can be used for overhead channels (e.g. Front Height and Rear Height), but you need to consider how you can put speakers at ear-level or somewhat higher in order to provide the lower soundfield. Putting some of the speakers on stands instead of on the walls might be an option, for example.


Speakers on stands for surrounds wouldn't work. I had thought about this. However if did this they would be just sitting in the middle of the room.


----------



## MarkMul1

I have a question about how to set up a 4 Atmos speaker system using a Denon. 6200 to be exact.

I know there are 3 choices to tell the AVR.

Front 
Top Middle
Top Rear

I am just trying to find out what exactly does the designation between top middle and top rear do? I'm actually using Klipsch Dolby Enabled speakers so its, front, surround or rear but i think would be the same as tops.

What does the steering / processing do different between the 2? If i played the exact same clip in a movie and listed as middle and then went back and set as rear, what would the difference be. If it steers the sound different to the middle because its more of a middle sound, what would it do if i were set up as rear? If it does the same, why have 3 choices and if so why do other AVR brands not have 3 choices like the Yamaha I'm using at the moment. And if it does steer different sounds, seems like we would need 3 sets of Atmos speakers? Lord knows we need to buy more stuff.

Please no answers like.....Top Middle Rear. I've got that in other forums. And no guesses please. I really am trying to understand it.

Thanks


----------



## Csbooth

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Xbox One can't bitstream Blu-rays, so no Atmos from Blu-ray on it. PS3 can be set to bitstream, so make sure you're doing that.


I need to add that for some reason playing the Atmos clips on the PS3 Vudu app are annoying to get working (if at all?). I ended up just doing it from my PS4 by changing audio from LPCM to Bitstream Dolby and it takes like 2-3 seconds and kicks in. You can definitely tell the difference on Amaze. 

Lastly, if you have a 2015 model that can't use DSU on DTS and a PS3 then you can select the option to convert to LPCM in the settings and it works a treat. The PS4 cannot (IT CAN DO IT AS WELL, IT'S IN THE SETTINGS IN THE MENU WHILE THE DISC IS PLAYING, WHICH IS ACTUALLY EASIER THAN THE PS3 AS YOU CAN DO IT ON THE FLY) do it yet as far as I could tell (I plan on checking during the actual movie and it's settings, I think it might) and I'm not sure about the 360. In any case I've watched several DTS movies (converted to LPCM multi-channel) using DSU on my SR7010 this way.

It's definitely annoying to have to do this, but at least it's an option.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

MarkMul1 said:


> I have a question about how to set up a 4 Atmos speaker system using a Denon. 6200 to be exact.
> 
> I know there are 3 choices to tell the AVR.
> 
> Front
> Top Middle
> Top Rear
> 
> I am just trying to find out what exactly does the designation between top middle and top rear do? I'm actually using Klipsch Dolby Enabled speakers so its, front, surround or rear but i think would be the same as tops.
> 
> What does the steering / processing do different between the 2? If i played the exact same clip in a movie and listed as middle and then went back and set as rear, what would the difference be. If it steers the sound different to the middle because its more of a middle sound, what would it do if i were set up as rear? If it does the same, why have 3 choices and if so why do other AVR brands not have 3 choices like the Yamaha I'm using at the moment. And if it does steer different sounds, seems like we would need 3 sets of Atmos speakers? Lord knows we need to buy more stuff.
> 
> Please no answers like.....Top Middle Rear. I've got that in other forums. And no guesses please. I really am trying to understand it.
> 
> Thanks


No one knows exactly. It's all guesses. 

A few have tried the two different setups and played only ceiling speakers and couldn't tell the difference between top middle it top rear

I would assume it only has to do with delay and very minimal at that. I wouldn't sweat it too much


----------



## Stoked21

rmilyard said:


> Speakers on stands for surrounds wouldn't work. I had thought about this. However if did this they would be just sitting in the middle of the room.


Yeah. No one ever said location speakers was going to be easy. I happen to have my front wide right standing in the middle of the room. I actually have it hooked up as surround right breaking the rule on placement, but providing side surround for 2 rows by doing this. The right side of my theater is completely open so there's not even a wall to use for mounting. And as you've noted, putting them on the ceiling will ruining my height effect. It's really the only option.

There are some very nice more "decorative" stands---that's man speak for metal that is painted/powder coated with some neat streamline to them. They are very heavy and harder to knock over. I went with a gaudy retro theater motive of red velvets and gold and tacky carpet. Reminiscent of the theater in which I saw Star Wars in 1980 when I was 6. So a red velvet and brass stanchion worked great to "Guard" the speaker on the stand......

My winded point being try to use a stand and try to find someway to incorporate that stand into your room.....Sonically it's your best option from the limited info I've seen.


----------



## rmilyard

rmilyard said:


> Speakers on stands for surrounds wouldn't work. I had thought about this. However if did this they would be just sitting in the middle of the room.


Sorry pictures are bad but wanted to take something fast to give little better idea what facing.


----------



## Stoked21

Brian Fineberg said:


> No one knows exactly. It's all guesses.
> 
> A few have tried the two different setups and played only ceiling speakers and couldn't tell the difference between top middle it top rear
> 
> I would assume it only has to do with delay and very minimal at that. I wouldn't sweat it too much


I've messed with just the tops as well (TF and TR only on my setup). I do have TMs installed but can't use them.
I know he said no "guesses". But here's a pretty good theory.

I believe that there is some channel blending taking place. TF gets a little bit of LR. TR gets a little bit of surround backs and TM gets a little bit of side surrounds. Additionally there is absolutely added delay. This all just makes for a more rounded and full sound. 

As to the DSP algorithm...yes I've been a DSP designer/developer, but I've not been involved in the development of Atmos processing. It's really anyone's guess as to what algorithm and transforms they're running. Honestly, it doesn't really matter. But I do agree that it's interesting to hear just TF and TR and sound nearly identical. I liken it to looking at just a corner of a large Van Gogh painting: Listening to just one top pair without the rest of the channels for context.


----------



## Sam Ash

This is a question for those who have dedicated theatre rooms with tiered seating or two rows of seats; where the second row is directly behind the first row and is elevated higher by way of a raised platform. Is it better to incorporate 2 pairs of side surrounds, such that each row has its own pair of side surrounds ? or is it better to have a single dipole / tripole speaker in-between the 2 rows ? I would seem to think that the former would give a better result ?

When incorporating 2 pairs, the second pair would be higher up on the side walls than the first to compensate for the fact that the second row seats are higher. Has anyone been successful with 2 pairs of side surrounds where exactly the same sound is replicated from the second pair ? From what I understand, having 2 pairs of side surround speakers can suffer from the comb filtering effect unless they are de-corelated.

On the other hand, Atmos allows front wide speakers. Would this be better to incorporate than another set of side surrounds ? Larger installations do have an array of side speakers so having multiple side speakers is not a new concept.


----------



## SherazNJ

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you cannot lower the surround speakers closer to ear level then the Atmos effect will be very slight. You need separation between the heights and the main layer fronts and surrounds.





Selden Ball said:


> To get the best 3D sound experience, you need to have a substantial difference in height between the speakers providing the traditional 7.1 surround sound audio and the new overhead audio channels. In other words, some of your existing ceiling speakers probably can be used for overhead channels (e.g. Front Height and Rear Height), but you need to consider how you can put speakers at ear-level or somewhat higher in order to provide the lower soundfield. Putting some of the speakers on stands instead of on the walls might be an option, for example.


In my case, I can bring my surround to MLP level but instead of having a 90 degree angle to MLP, they would have to be placed 130 degrees. Would that still work? If I place the surrounds at 90 degrees (sides of MLP), it leaves very little space to talk to the seats as it takes space b/w the left most seat and the wall. 

Your opinion is greatly appreciated.


----------



## MarkMul1

Brian Fineberg said:


> No one knows exactly. It's all guesses.
> 
> A few have tried the two different setups and played only ceiling speakers and couldn't tell the difference between top middle it top rear
> 
> I would assume it only has to do with delay and very minimal at that. I wouldn't sweat it too much


Thanks everyone/

Sorry about the no guesses part. I could of worded that a little differently. Maybe like: Please do not be adamant about your theory,just say its a theory.

I thought it may not be clear yet and it sounds that way. I am completely fulfilled now.....Ha Ha

Thanks a bunch


----------



## cdelena

Sam Ash said:


> This is a question for those who have dedicated theatre rooms with tiered seating or two rows of seats; where the second row is directly behind the first row and is elevated higher by way of a raised platform.
> ...


I use bipolar surrounds to cover both rows. It is compromise that works well. 

It seems to me that 7.1 for two rows in a home theater often requires some experimentation with less than ideal placement but frankly the results can be very good.


----------



## rboster

MarkMul1 said:


> Thanks everyone/
> 
> Sorry about the no guesses part. I could of worded that a little differently. Maybe like: Please do not be adamant about your theory,just say its a theory.
> 
> I thought it may not be clear yet and it sounds that way. I am completely fulfilled now.....Ha Ha
> 
> Thanks a bunch


I know you are not trying to be curt, but even the "don't be adamant about your theory" as an instruction for ppl trying to be helpful, IMO comes off has someone who is not appreciative of members taking the time out of their day to type an answer to your question. Just ask and if the answer doesn't fall within your narrow structure just say thanks and move on. 

If you were paying for a consultation you can make demands on the person providing the service.


----------



## rmilyard

rmilyard said:


> Sorry pictures are bad but wanted to take something fast to give little better idea what facing.


So some thoughts I had for 7.2.4 setup:

Use FRONT HEIGHTS I have now.
Turn the SURROUNDS RIGHT/LEFT so pointing straight down. They are in front of listener. Can't really get them behind.
Move my Bipolar (BP2X) to SURROUND RIGHT/LEFT and wall mount them. Then could get them little lower on wall. 
Put pair of ProMonitor 100's where REARS where. 

I am not sure how this would all sound. Also what would be a good receiver for this setup. Would having my SURROUNDS that far outside of my FRONTS be an issue?


----------



## dkfan9

What would be the difference to mlp distance wise for left and right surround?


----------



## rmilyard

dkfan9 said:


> What would be the difference to mlp distance wise for left and right surround?


The left would about about 6-7 feet outside of the front left looks like.


----------



## gammanuc

rmilyard said:


> So some thoughts I had for 7.2.4 setup:
> 
> Use FRONT HEIGHTS I have now.
> Turn the SURROUNDS RIGHT/LEFT so pointing straight down. They are in front of listener. Can't really get them behind.
> Move my Bipolar (BP2X) to SURROUND RIGHT/LEFT and wall mount them. Then could get them little lower on wall.
> Put pair of ProMonitor 100's where REARS where.
> 
> I am not sure how this would all sound. Also what would be a good receiver for this setup. Would having my SURROUNDS that far outside of my FRONTS be an issue?


Your room layout is similar to mine. Here's what I would try first...
1. Drop the rear surrounds to just above for seat back height. 
2. Move the couch out as much as feasible from the back wall. 
3. Mount the 100's on the sides just forward of the MLP. 
4. Move the rear ceiling speakers back so they are behind the MLP if that's not already the case. You should also move them in line with the front height and front speakers. 

So you end up with 7.1.4 with Top front and Top rear setup. If find you are not happy with the bipole speakers as rears then it's easy to swap them out. Everything else can stay the same.


----------



## Kain

If I have a 7.1.6 setup using an Altitude32, will DSU be able to use all 6 ceiling speakers?


----------



## rmilyard

gammanuc said:


> Your room layout is similar to mine. Here's what I would try first...
> 1. Drop the rear surrounds to just above for seat back height.
> 2. Move the couch out as much as feasible from the back wall.
> 3. Mount the 100's on the sides just forward of the MLP.
> 4. Move the rear ceiling speakers back so they are behind the MLP if that's not already the case. You should also move them in line with the front height and front speakers.
> 
> So you end up with 7.1.4 with Top front and Top rear setup. If find you are not happy with the bipole speakers as rears then it's easy to swap them out. Everything else can stay the same.


MLP? New term to me. I am pretty new to this.


----------



## dvdwilly3

For Onkyo owners setting up Atmos...


I have continued to fool with settings of my Onkyo TX-NR 1030, and speaker placements to try to ensure that I am getting the optimum sound from my investment. And, I continue to ponder why it is that Onkyo has a Speaker Setting for Dolby Enabled (Front) and Dolby Enabled (Rear).


So, I went back to run calibration and look at the settings. My front left speaker is approximately 13.7 feet from my MLP. My subwoofer sits behind it. As I ran and re-ran the configuration, I noticed that the Onkyo was setting the subwoofer distance once at 9.4 feet and another at 11.2 feet.


Now, my subwoofer is obviously farther away than my front left speaker...if you went to the rear ports of the sub, probably about 3 feet. Why the rear ports? I will get to that in a minute.


As those with later generation Onkyos already know, the calibration mike has been changed to a hockey puck style with the opening in the top surface. I had been mounting the mike on top of a tripod that sits on my MLP seat. But, I had been mounting it flat—that is with the opening pointing to the ceiling.


So, on a hunch, I tried mounting the mike on the tripod vertically oriented...that is, the puck was standing on its edge with the opening facing forward. And, re-ran the calibration one more time.
And, now the subwoofer shows as being at 16.9 feet, which is almost spot on. The sub body is ~28” deep and sits about 8” behind the front left speaker. So, 3’ added to 13.7’ is 16.7’.


I suspect that the AccuEQ might have been setting the sub level lower to compensate for its finding that the sub was closer than it physically was. I have not gone back and looked at the previous level settings to verify, but I know that the system sound was not obviously “off”, so that is what I think.


But, now the settings agree with what I can physically verify in the room, so I feel that I have eliminated a discrepancy in the system. Can I hear the difference? I don’t know yet, and I do not know if I will be able to, but I am happier about the whole thing.


I will take up the subject of Top Front and Top Rear versus Dolby Enabled (Front) and Dolby Enabled (Surround) in another post.


I just thought that the discovery of the correct positioning of the calibration mike might be of value to someone else who had made the same mistake that I had.


Atmos remains the best thing that I have ever done to my home theater!


----------



## Kain

rmilyard said:


> MLP? New term to me. I am pretty new to this.


Main Listening Position.


----------



## pwong888

I'm going to install 4 ceiling speaker for atmos, but the offical pictures make me confuse on the angle of the top front and and the top rear, the range is between 35 degree to 55 degree, so what is the best angle to install thr top front and the top rear to have the best atmos effect?


----------



## batpig

pwong888 said:


> I'm going to install 4 ceiling speaker for atmos, but the offical pictures make me confuse on the angle of the top front and and the top rear, the range is between 35 degree to 55 degree, so what is the best angle to install thr top front and the top rear to have the best atmos effect?


+/- 45 degrees -- basically the middle of the range for TF+TR. Don't need to sweat it with a protractor or anything. Just take the distance from your ears to the ceiling and then go forward/backward by about the same amount. 

The wide range is an indication that exact precision isn't necessary.


----------



## rmilyard

gammanuc said:


> Your room layout is similar to mine. Here's what I would try first...
> 1. Drop the rear surrounds to just above for seat back height.
> 2. Move the couch out as much as feasible from the back wall.
> 3. Mount the 100's on the sides just forward of the MLP.
> 4. Move the rear ceiling speakers back so they are behind the MLP if that's not already the case. You should also move them in line with the front height and front speakers.
> 
> So you end up with 7.1.4 with Top front and Top rear setup. If find you are not happy with the bipole speakers as rears then it's easy to swap them out. Everything else can stay the same.


So think this might be better than I have now? The Front Heights pointing to MLP should be fine? Not to far forward? Where surrounds are now just point them straight down? Then do the rest suggested?

Also think the Denon AVR-X5200WA be a good choice? Then get small AMP for the extra 2 channels? Of anything else suggested?


----------



## NorthSky

pwong888 said:


> I'm going to install 4 ceiling speaker for atmos, but the official pictures make me confuse on the angle of the top front and and the top rear, the range is between 35 degree to 55 degree, so what is the best angle to install the top front and the top rear to have the best atmos effect?


Well, according to those Dolby Atmos pdf white papers...overhead speakers recommendation:

- TF: 45°
- TR: 135°


----------



## kingwiggi

MarkMul1 said:


> I have a question about how to set up a 4 Atmos speaker system using a Denon. 6200 to be exact.
> 
> I know there are 3 choices to tell the AVR.
> 
> Front
> Top Middle
> Top Rear
> 
> I am just trying to find out what exactly does the designation between top middle and top rear do? I'm actually using Klipsch Dolby Enabled speakers so its, front, surround or rear but i think would be the same as tops.
> 
> What does the steering / processing do different between the 2? If i played the exact same clip in a movie and listed as middle and then went back and set as rear, what would the difference be. If it steers the sound different to the middle because its more of a middle sound, what would it do if i were set up as rear? If it does the same, why have 3 choices and if so why do other AVR brands not have 3 choices like the Yamaha I'm using at the moment. And if it does steer different sounds, seems like we would need 3 sets of Atmos speakers? Lord knows we need to buy more stuff.
> 
> Please no answers like.....Top Middle Rear. I've got that in other forums. And no guesses please. I really am trying to understand it.
> 
> Thanks



What we don't know is how the algorithm works or how its weighted, however we were told by Dolby in the early days that even if you only have 2 ceiling speakers you would still get all of the objects so some summing of the rows/objects is taking place in every installation where the full 10 height speakers are not installed.

A simplified way of looking at it is. 

If you only have speakers at TM, then that consists of a sum of all objects from FH + TF + TM + TR + RH

If you are running FH + TM then FH = sum of (FH + TF + TM) and TM = sum of (TM + TR + RH) 
Each row would be weighted differently.

That is my understanding of how the sounds are steered also why you hear very little difference between rows. Also remember that objects are referenced by XYZ co-ordinates so if you have ceiling speakers at TM then objects can still appear in front of you and appear to come from overhead even though no speakers are actually there. They would just appear weaker than if you actually had speakers there.


----------



## Spanglo

Finally ran into a serious atmos problem tonight... I have 4 new movies sitting in front of me and I can't decide which one to watch.  Wish I had this problem sooner TBH, but I'm glad the releases are trickling in fast enough that I can complain about it. 

Not sure the total movies avail, but I think it's close to 50 now.

Probably going with Dracula tonight if you need to know.


----------



## Spanglo

Finally ran into a serious atmos problem tonight... I have 4 new movies sitting in front of me and I can't decide which one to watch.  Wish I had this problem sooner TBH, but I'm glad the releases are trickling in fast enough that I can complain about it. 

Not sure the total movies avail, but I think it's close to 50 now.

Probably going with Dracula tonight if you need to know.


----------



## dkfan9

rmilyard said:


> dkfan9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the difference to mlp distance wise for left and right surround?
> 
> 
> 
> The left would about about 6-7 feet outside of the front left looks like.
Click to expand...

That's fine. How far from the center seat would the left surround be, and how far from that seat would the right surround be?


----------



## broodro0ster

NorthSky said:


> *Dolby Atmos ideal recommendation* for the overhead Top Middle pair of speakers is forward of the MLP, @ *80°*
> ...And anywhere between 65° and 100° is acceptable (TM)...from their white papers (pfd) in Speakers Positioning for an Atmos setup.


Do you have a link to those Dolby Atmos ideal recommendation angles?


----------



## kbarnes701

broodro0ster said:


> Do you have a link to those Dolby Atmos ideal recommendation angles?


Dolby do not specify a specific angle for any overhead speakers, only a range. Be guided by the Dolby installation manual not someone who doesn't even have Atmos.


----------



## Selden Ball

SherazNJ said:


> In my case, I can bring my surround to MLP level but instead of having a 90 degree angle to MLP, they would have to be placed 130 degrees. Would that still work? If I place the surrounds at 90 degrees (sides of MLP), it leaves very little space to talk to the seats as it takes space b/w the left most seat and the wall.
> 
> Your opinion is greatly appreciated.


Where you have to put them is where you have to put them 

Having the front speakers in the best positions is important for movies because you can directly correlate the directions their sounds are coming from with the images on the screen. Their placement also is important to get the best soundstage for music. That's not the case for the surround-sound speakers, since there are no visual cues to tell you precisely where the sounds are supposed to be coming from. While you might not be hearing sounds coming from exactly the directions intended by the person who mixed the soundtrack, they'll still provide an enjoyable experience.


----------



## KennyLSU

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Xbox One can't bitstream Blu-rays, so no Atmos from Blu-ray on it. PS3 can be set to bitstream, so make sure you're doing that.


Got it working on my PS3. I wonder why the Xbox One cannot do this? There is a bitstream option in the Audio settings.


----------



## Movie78

KennyLSU said:


> Got it working on my PS3. I wonder why the Xbox One cannot do this? There is a bitstream option in the Audio settings.


Because the OBOXONE bitstream is a FAKE bitstream.


----------



## SherazNJ

jpco said:


> Yes and yes
> View attachment 985793


Thx.


----------



## SherazNJ

Selden Ball said:


> Where you have to put them is where you have to put them
> 
> Having the front speakers in the best positions is important for movies because you can directly correlate the directions their sounds are coming from with the images on the screen. Their placement also is important to get the best soundstage for music. That's not the case for the surround-sound speakers, since there are no visual cues to tell you precisely where the sounds are supposed to be coming from. While you might not be hearing sounds coming from exactly the directions intended by the person who mixed the soundtrack, they'll still provide an enjoyable experience.


Thx Selden. My concern was with the fact that in 7.1.4, we have 4 extra speakers on top. These four extra speakers plus rear speaker and then surround speakers. Logically thinking, having all the speakers away from each other will provide more 3D sound. In that case, having surround at 90 seems to be the best place. But you are right. If we can't do it then might as well move to what ever we can. 

One point seems to be clear with 7.1.4 setup is to have a good separation b/w high speakers and all other 7 speakers. Do we have any generalization of how many feet is considered a good distance b/w speakers on floor vs speakers on ceiling (4/5/6/7 feet....)?


----------



## smurraybhm

I know there has been a lot of discussion about double dipping and Atmos - or DTS:X whenever it comes to market. If Dracula is an example of what double dipping will bring us regarding picture and sound then I won't mind spending $15 for the dip. I watched it yesterday, sound was much improved and mixed accordingly (heights used when they should be). 

As I watched the movie I couldn't help but think that one of our toughest film critics on this site (Dan) would approve of this Atmos release 
Steve


----------



## HD1ART

*Mix of Atmos Dolby Enable Speakers and Celling Speakers*



dvdwilly3 said:


> For Onkyo owners setting up Atmos...
> 
> 
> I have continued to fool with settings of my Onkyo TX-NR 1030, and speaker placements to try to ensure that I am getting the optimum sound from my investment. And, I continue to ponder why it is that Onkyo has a Speaker Setting for Dolby Enabled (Front) and Dolby Enabled (Rear).
> 
> 
> So, I went back to run calibration and look at the settings. My front left speaker is approximately 13.7 feet from my MLP. My subwoofer sits behind it. As I ran and re-ran the configuration, I noticed that the Onkyo was setting the subwoofer distance once at 9.4 feet and another at 11.2 feet.
> 
> 
> Now, my subwoofer is obviously farther away than my front left speaker...if you went to the rear ports of the sub, probably about 3 feet. Why the rear ports? I will get to that in a minute.
> 
> 
> As those with later generation Onkyos already know, the calibration mike has been changed to a hockey puck style with the opening in the top surface. I had been mounting the mike on top of a tripod that sits on my MLP seat. But, I had been mounting it flat—that is with the opening pointing to the ceiling.
> 
> 
> So, on a hunch, I tried mounting the mike on the tripod vertically oriented...that is, the puck was standing on its edge with the opening facing forward. And, re-ran the calibration one more time.
> And, now the subwoofer shows as being at 16.9 feet, which is almost spot on. The sub body is ~28” deep and sits about 8” behind the front left speaker. So, 3’ added to 13.7’ is 16.7’.
> 
> 
> I suspect that the AccuEQ might have been setting the sub level lower to compensate for its finding that the sub was closer than it physically was. I have not gone back and looked at the previous level settings to verify, but I know that the system sound was not obviously “off”, so that is what I think.
> 
> 
> But, now the settings agree with what I can physically verify in the room, so I feel that I have eliminated a discrepancy in the system. Can I hear the difference? I don’t know yet, and I do not know if I will be able to, but I am happier about the whole thing.
> 
> 
> I will take up the subject of Top Front and Top Rear versus Dolby Enabled (Front) and Dolby Enabled (Surround) in another post.
> 
> 
> I just thought that the discovery of the correct positioning of the calibration mike might be of value to someone else who had made the same mistake that I had.
> 
> 
> Atmos remains the best thing that I have ever done to my home theater!



This is my first post to this forum so I hope I am doing this right!!


The Post I am responding to is interested because I also have a Onkyo TX-NR 1030. I have posted on the Onkyo Forum my issue about not being able to mix Dolby Enabled Speakers and Celling speakers. ie having TF or TM with Dolby Enabled Back, or any Dolby Enabled speaker for that fact. I am wondering if in your future post if you would address the mix? According to the Dolby Atmos speaker guide this is a valid configuration but Onkyo it seems does not agree.


----------



## smurraybhm

SherazNJ said:


> Thx Selden. My concern was with the fact that in 7.1.4, we have 4 extra speakers on top. These four extra speakers plus rear speaker and then surround speakers. Logically thinking, having all the speakers away from each other will provide more 3D sound. In that case, having surround at 90 seems to be the best place. But you are right. If we can't do it then might as well move to what ever we can.
> 
> One point seems to be clear with 7.1.4 setup is to have a good separation b/w high speakers and all other 7 speakers. Do we have any generalization of how many feet is considered a good distance b/w speakers on floor vs speakers on ceiling (4/5/6/7 feet....)?


I believe I have seen 4' quoted. Remember the minimum ceiling height per Dolby is 8' - so if you have your speakers on stands - 30" for example - then ignoring the distance created by any angles from bottom to top you have about 5.5 feet of separation. IMO distance between base and height layer is room dependent. Besides angles from the MLP, I would focus on minimizing gaps with the placement of speakers - that is one reason we have folks wanting 6 or more up top or wides added to the mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

smurraybhm said:


> I know there has been a lot of discussion about double dipping and Atmos - or DTS:X whenever it comes to market. If Dracula is an example of what double dipping will bring us regarding picture and sound then I won't mind spending $15 for the dip. I watched it yesterday, sound was much improved and mixed accordingly (heights used when they should be).
> 
> As I watched the movie I couldn't help but think that one of our toughest film critics on this site (Dan) would approve of this Atmos release
> Steve


While not a classic like Apocalypse Now or the The Godfather 1&2 in terms of Coppola's body of work, I will be getting Dracula fairly soon. It's Keanu Reeves that really spoils it, however.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Bought and watched this (first time ever. Never seen it before)

Very cool movie. And great sound for the era
(Why don't I remember sound and effects being so crappy in '93. Man we have come a long way)


----------



## Markitron

Are there any other affordable pair of Atmos modules other that the Onkyo's? The KEF pair are a little out of my price range, I'm getting a Dali Zensor 5.1 set next month and would like to add Atmos to them. Would have liked to get a speaker set with Atmos modules built-in, but the review on the DALI set were too hard to ignore.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

KennyLSU said:


> Got it working on my PS3. I wonder why the Xbox One cannot do this? There is a bitstream option in the Audio settings.


The "bitstream" option on Xbox One is for games only, for support of the lossy codecs which the console can convert to in realtime. Blu-rays on the Xbox One are always internally converted to PCM, so your only lossless option for output is PCM. Unfortunately, it seems to be an architectural issue because Blu-ray/DVD is all done in software on one side of the hypervisor and that audio is then blended in with audio from both sides of the hypervisor (gameOS and appOS), system audio, etc.


----------



## rmilyard

Is there any place to download a Dolby ATMOS demo blu ray or something? I am looking to install and would like a demo disc to test out with.


----------



## FilmMixer

rmilyard said:


> Is there any place to download a Dolby ATMOS demo blu ray or something? I am looking to install and would like a demo disc to test out with.


Not legally, no. 

You can stream all of the Dolby produced Atmos demos on Vudu if you have a capable streamer with HDMI... Most current Blu Ray players with Vudu will work.


----------



## KennyLSU

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The "bitstream" option on Xbox One is for games only, for support of the lossy codecs which the console can convert to in realtime. Blu-rays on the Xbox One are always internally converted to PCM, so your only lossless option for output is PCM. Unfortunately, it seems to be an architectural issue because Blu-ray/DVD is all done in software on one side of the hypervisor and that audio is then blended in with audio from both sides of the hypervisor (gameOS and appOS), system audio, etc.


Jerks. Not that I would have thought about this when deciding between that and a PS4. Just glad my PS3 will do it. Had it not, I have a couple Blu-Ray players lying around doing nothing. 

Any idea when we may get some streaming options from Netflix? Daredevil Season 2 in Atmos would be pretty sweet.


----------



## dvdwilly3

HD1ART said:


> This is my first post to this forum so I hope I am doing this right!!
> 
> 
> The Post I am responding to is interested because I also have a Onkyo TX-NR 1030. I have posted on the Onkyo Forum my issue about not being able to mix Dolby Enabled Speakers and Celling speakers. ie having TF or TM with Dolby Enabled Back, or any Dolby Enabled speaker for that fact. I am wondering if in your future post if you would address the mix? According to the Dolby Atmos speaker guide this is a valid configuration but Onkyo it seems does not agree.


Keep in mind that Dolby is addressing ALL possible configurations. That does not mean that all AVR manufacturers will necessarily enable all of those.

Onkyo (and others) only enable select combinations. Even if you are using Dolby-enabled speakers,you can still run them as regular speakers. For instance, you could run your mix of in-ceiling as Top Front and Top Rear.

Experiment--you should be able to find a mix that works for you.

What speakers are you using in ceiling and where? What Dolby-enabled speakers are you using and where?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KennyLSU said:


> Jerks. Not that I would have thought about this when deciding between that and a PS4. Just glad my PS3 will do it. Had it not, I have a couple Blu-Ray players lying around doing nothing.
> 
> Any idea when we may get some streaming options from Netflix? Daredevil Season 2 in Atmos would be pretty sweet.


In a British A/V magazine Netflix was featured and they had no plans to stream 7.1 or Dolby Atmos any time soon as no one is interested in advanced audio by their estimation. They also mess with the audio tracks given to them by the studios anyway (normalization, extra layer of compression, etc.).

NF, Amazon, and Hulu are the Wal-Mart's of streaming services: only good enough to keep the average viewer happy.


----------



## Stoked21

So I pulled the trigger on external amps for my atmos setup. I had to buy at least 2 chs for surround backs but went ahead and bought 16chs. I don't want this to get into a discussion of AVR internal amps being as good as ext power amps for most needs and speakers. Just trying to focus on atmos avr/prepro options.

I'm still torn between Denon X6200 and Marantz SR7010 AVRs...Or Marantz 7702mkII prepro. For all intents and purposes these three are identical spec wise since we are ignoring the integrated amps. I can pickup any of them for the same price at less than two grand. The 7702 does have XLR output option, though again I don't think this is necessary as my longest run will be several feet within a 19" rack. If I have XLR outputs from prepro vs AVR then I'll obviously just use them. Let's not taint the atmos thread with xlr vs rca either! 

The thing that gets me is that when comparing features on current atmos prepros vs AVR models, within any given line, you really can't discern any difference at the same price point. If the 7702mii doesn't have onboard amps, I would think it should be less than the 7010 avr. Smaller power supplies, smaller PCBs, no heatsinks, etc should equate to cheaper. Are there DSP or feature differences that anyone is aware of? What makes them more expensive other than low-cost XLR connectors? 

In an Atmos HT, why would someone NOT choose to use the AVR model over the prepro (given that amps are all right next to AVR)? It seems like you are getting more for your money with the AVR version even if you are not using the onboard amps. Thus increase resell options in the future.

Thoughts?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Here is a question that I have yet to get a good answer on...


Dolby-enabled speakers contain a passive filter that provides an HRTF-like filter for the incoming signal. If you ran a signal from your AVR to the speaker using, say, Top Front, then the speaker itself would apply the filter to the signal to provide the HRTF-like filter to provide a frequency response as an elevated sound. That is why they paid the big bucks to Dolby to be able to put the stamp on the speaker.



My question, if you tell your AVR that you have a Dolby-enabled speaker, then what is the AVR doing? 



It should not apply active DSP to the outgoing signal. The HRTF-like filtering is taking place at the speaker. 



I believe that someone had suggested that telling the AVR that it is Dolby-enabled makes the AVR measure the actual signal path instead of direct physical distance to the speaker as measured along the floor. I have run the calibration both ways repeatedly, and the distance measurements for the elevation speakers always show the same physical distance measured along the floor. That is, it measures the same whether I tell the AVR that it is Top Front or Dolby-enabled Front.


So, what is it that the AVR does differently when you tell it that your speaker is Dolby-enabled Front as opposed to, say, Top Front?


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> My question, if you tell your AVR that you have a Dolby-enabled speaker, then what is the AVR doing?


The AVR is inserting the same HRTF filter in its room correction's target curve so that the filter in the speaker is not equalized away.


----------



## NorthSky

broodro0ster said:


> Do you have a link to those Dolby Atmos ideal recommendation angles?


Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines: 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Selden Ball

Stoked21 said:


> The thing that gets me is that when comparing features on current atmos prepros vs AVR models, within any given line, you really can't discern any difference at the same price point. If the 7702mii doesn't have onboard amps, I would think it should be less than the 7010 avr. Smaller power supplies, smaller PCBs, no heatsinks, etc should equate to cheaper. Are there DSP or feature differences that anyone is aware of?


Denon models include a few audio simulation (reverb) DSP options (e.g. Rock Arena, Jazz Club, etc). Marantz has none of them. The Marantz SR7009 had an upmix option that the AV7702 didn't. I haven't gone through the 7010 and 7702Mk II manuals in enough detail to see if the same is still true.


> What makes them more expensive other than low-cost XLR connectors?


 Primarily manufacturing volume. Far more receivers are made than pre/pros, so there are some economies of scale. Another reason is marketing. For example, in the European market, the Marantz SR7009 was less expensive than the approximately equivalent Denon 5200 although they had identical prices in the US market. (Again, I haven't looked in detail at the pricing of their 2015 models.)



> In an Atmos HT, why would someone NOT choose to use the AVR model over the prepro (given that amps are all right next to AVR)? It seems like you are getting more for your money with the AVR version even if you are not using the onboard amps. Thus increase resell options in the future.


Some people have reported that the audio produced by last year's pre/pro models is slightly better than that produced by the equivalent receivers, with somewhat lower noise floor and slightly better linearity (i.e. less distortion). (In particular, see posts by AVS member SteveH.) I don't think any equivalent comparisons have been done for the 2015 models yet since they're only just now starting to be available.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I know there has been a lot of discussion about double dipping and Atmos - or DTS:X whenever it comes to market. If Dracula is an example of what double dipping will bring us regarding picture and sound then I won't mind spending $15 for the dip. I watched it yesterday, sound was much improved and mixed accordingly (heights used when they should be).
> 
> As I watched the movie I couldn't help but think that one of our toughest film critics on this site (Dan) would approve of this Atmos release
> Steve


Thx Steve for that. My copy of Dracula is on its way - but my Atmos treat for tonight just landed: *San Andreas*. Looking forward to this one. Takes my Atmos collection to 20 discs now IIRC, with three more coming in the next week or three. They have really started to come good on expectations now.


----------



## Stoked21

I'm always weary of DSP simulation modes. "Vienna Music Hall", "Coffee House", "Madison Square Garden Rock Concert, main concourse, southwest men's bathroom, Urinal #5 " etc. Does anyone actually use these? Seems like stuff they should just remove from product lines, especially when you using EQ optimization to "tune" to your room and with the complexities of Atmos. Why muddy it all up with the extra processing. I bet most of us just set for straight or DSU processing and turn off the simulation junk.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> While not a classic like Apocalypse Now or the The Godfather 1&2 in terms of Coppola's body of work, I will be getting Dracula fairly soon. It's Keanu Reeves that really spoils it, however.


Nonetheless it is a classic cinematic work in so many different ways. And it has an outstanding performance by Gary Oldman. One of the last movies to feature spectacularly good visual effects before CGI took over. Everyone who loves cinema should own this movie IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> In an Atmos HT, why would someone NOT choose to use the AVR model over the prepro (given that amps are all right next to AVR)? It seems like you are getting more for your money with the AVR version even if you are not using the onboard amps. Thus increase resell options in the future.
> 
> Thoughts?


If the AVR and the processor cost the same, I'd probably choose the processor. If the latter cost more than the AVR, I'd choose the AVR and use it in 'prepro' mode. I see no real downside to using an AVR with external amps. My current unit is a Denon 5200 AVR and the one before that was a flagship Onkyo processor (chosen for a specific reason: Audyssey Pro). The 5200 is way better value IMO and you get 9 'free' amps which might be useful one day. Or you could externally amp the floor level speakers and internally amp the overheads etc.

I believe that there is now a D&M AVR at the same price as the processor equivalent. If that is the case, I'd probably choose the processor as I say. But I, personally, wouldn’t pay more for a processor. I don't believe that these days there is any added value from a processor - might have been good arguments for splitting high level amp signals from low level preamp signals once upon a time but with modern design and components I believe that difference has vanished.


----------



## HD1ART

dvdwilly3 said:


> Keep in mind that Dolby is addressing ALL possible configurations. That does not mean that all AVR manufacturers will necessarily enable all of those.
> 
> Onkyo (and others) only enable select combinations. Even if you are using Dolby-enabled speakers,you can still run them as regular speakers. For instance, you could run your mix of in-ceiling as Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> Experiment--you should be able to find a mix that works for you.
> 
> What speakers are you using in ceiling and where? What Dolby-enabled speakers are you using and where?


On the ceiling I have Klipsh 8 inch speakers(don't remember model) half way and in line between the front speakers and the MLP. The Dolby-enabled speakers are the Onkyo SKH-410  on a stand on the back wall in line with the front speakers a little inside of the rear surrounds which are on the back wall also. Both sets are about 6 feet from MLP. 

I have been experimenting and having fun doing it. Atmos is fun as is the 1030 only wish it was just a bit more flexible!!!!!!


----------



## Jack Gilvey

The wife and I popped over to Times Square Saturday night to catch The Martian at the new Prime theater in the AMC Empire 25. Atmos, Full Dolby Vision/HDR projection, tactile transducer in each seat - wow!


----------



## Flash3d

*Finally*

I took the plunge and decided to upgrade my Denon X4000 to a X6200 and go the Atmos route.
In my dedicated HT room I decided to go for custom installation speakers to reduce the footprint (depth) of the speaker enclosure. I want to make enclosures and put them on the wall and on the ceiling. 

8 total, 4 surrounds and 4 Atmos ceiling. 
I have the following questions/brainwaves:

I narrowed my choice down to two models of KEF (my LCR is the KEF R series): 
CI130QR
http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci130QR/index.html#filter=186
or
CI160QR:
http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom/custom_installed_speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci160QR/index.html#filter=186

Does size matters? With the CI130QR I could make an enclosure small enough to follow the guidelines of KEF (minimal 15 liter enclosure), so my depth is still reasonable small (about 15 cm/6 inch). With the CI160QR I have to make an enclosure of 22 liters.
But does this all matter if I'm going to use a crossover of 80Hz? Or will this crossover not be realistic with a "too small" enclosure? And will my audyssey measurement (yes, I know the crossover is decided by the receiver and not audyssey ) even reach the 80Hz (because of the too small enclosure). 

And secondly: Related to the size again, will there be a perceived difference in sound between the two sizes when using a crossover of 80hz? Both KEF's are using the same tweeter so only the mid/low is different. 

So basically I have the choice of a perfect sized enclosure with the 13cm or an undersized enclosure with the 16cm. Both with a crossover of (hopefully) 80Hz. 

Maybe this belongs in the DIY forum but I feel more at home here (long time lurker of this thread).


----------



## KennyLSU

My only experience since getting everything set-up has been Transformers AoE and I really enjoyed the experience. I still need to play with the angles of the speakers to see if they are in the best position, but so far so good. Waiting to get Gravity and San Andreas in the mail to really stretch its legs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

KennyLSU said:


> My only experience since getting everything set-up has been Transformers AoE and I really enjoyed the experience. I still need to play with the angles of the speakers to see if they are in the best position, but so far so good. Waiting to get Gravity and San Andreas in the mail to really stretch its legs.


Once you hear these other two films, unless you actually are one of the few who enjoyed T4, you'll never use it as a demo again.


----------



## Csbooth

KennyLSU said:


> Jerks. Not that I would have thought about this when deciding between that and a PS4. Just glad my PS3 will do it. Had it not, I have a couple Blu-Ray players lying around doing nothing.
> 
> Any idea when we may get some streaming options from Netflix? Daredevil Season 2 in Atmos would be pretty sweet.


Just curious, how did you get it to work on PS3? 

I was able to make the Atmos label pop in on ps4 but not 3 lol. I tried a few different things but nothing.

Of course I still couldn't figure out how to make HBO go app process surround sound on either the 3 or 4, and haven't found any titles on Vudu or Netflix that have 7.1, so maybe I'm just blind lol.


----------



## rmilyard

So I just ordered a Denon AVR-X6200W. Going to try setup 7.2.4. 

Suggestions on 2 channel AMP?


----------



## KennyLSU

Csbooth said:


> Just curious, how did you get it to work on PS3?
> 
> I was able to make the Atmos label pop in on ps4 but not 3 lol. I tried a few different things but nothing.
> 
> Of course I still couldn't figure out how to make HBO go app process surround sound on either the 3 or 4, and haven't found any titles on Vudu or Netflix that have 7.1, so maybe I'm just blind lol.


Couple things you have to do. On the Homescreen, go to Audio Settings and make sure Audio Multi-Output is set to Off. In the Audio Output Settings, select HDMI and then Automatic. Then, when the movie begins playing, press Triangle, go to A/V settings and Set Audio Output Format to Bitstream. 


Found this that helped with getting Dolby Bitstream through PS3. Did this and selected Atmos in the Disc menu and voila. This may work on teh PS4 as well. 

http://developer.dolby.com/News/Enabling_Dolby_Bitstream_Pass-Through_on_Playstation.aspx


----------



## Csbooth

KennyLSU said:


> Couple things you have to do. On the Homescreen, go to Audio Settings and make sure Audio Multi-Output is set to Off. In the Audio Output Settings, select HDMI and then Automatic. Then, when the movie begins playing, press Triangle, go to A/V settings and Set Audio Output Format to Bitstream.
> 
> 
> Found this that helped with getting Dolby Bitstream through PS3. Did this and selected Atmos in the Disc menu and voila. This may work on teh PS4 as well.
> 
> http://developer.dolby.com/News/Enabling_Dolby_Bitstream_Pass-Through_on_Playstation.aspx


Is that for the Vudu app? I can do Atmos on discs and all, and even make Atmos work on PS4 Vudu app, just not PS3 Vudu app. 

Regarding the 7.1 on either Netflix or Vudu, I just don't have a clue where to find any as I only see 7.1 on the tags for the Atmos clips and nothing for Netflix (may not even support 7.1?) then there's HBO app on PS3/4 and I'm hearing from some that they don't even support 5.1 at all on those apps for whatever reasons. I just push 2.1 PCM and upmix from there. 5.1pcm/bitstreaming Dd yields no activity at all from anything other than the front l/r.


----------



## dschulz

Csbooth said:


> Just curious, how did you get it to work on PS3?
> 
> I was able to make the Atmos label pop in on ps4 but not 3 lol. I tried a few different things but nothing.


If you have a 1st gen PS3 (the PS3 "fat") then it won't work, as the first models output PCM over HDMI - they don't have the ability to bitstream. That came in with the PS3 Slim and SuperSlim models.


----------



## Csbooth

dschulz said:


> If you have a 1st gen PS3 (the PS3 "fat") then it won't work, as the first models output PCM over HDMI - they don't have the ability to bitstream. That came in with the PS3 Slim and SuperSlim models.


It's a slim, so no idea why it wouldn't work. I even went into audio settings and disabled everything but dd,dd+ and truehd lol. It works fine on the PS4 by changing general audio settings to bitstream dd. After a couple seconds it'll click to Atmos and the difference is definitely perceivable for the better.


----------



## dvdwilly3

HD1ART said:


> On the ceiling I have Klipsh 8 inch speakers(don't remember model) half way and in line between the front speakers and the MLP. The Dolby-enabled speakers are the Onkyo SKH-410  on a stand on the back wall in line with the front speakers a little inside of the rear surrounds which are on the back wall also. Both sets are about 6 feet from MLP.
> 
> I have been experimenting and having fun doing it. Atmos is fun as is the 1030 only wish it was just a bit more flexible!!!!!!


Well, the Onkyo is what it is...which for me is just fine.

If I were you, I would try running Top Front and Top Rear. I think that your ideal for the front would be Top Middle given the location, but obviously, the Onkyo will not let you have any back speaker if you do that.

Try the fronts on Top Front and lower the volume. In this case, you are substituting a lesser volume for a greater distance, but it should pretty much work.

What Atmos disks do you have to test on?

And, I would consider replacing the Onkyo speakers with these...not the B6 that is reviewed, but the A4, Dolby-enabled in the same line (Elac).

http://www.cnet.com/products/elac-debut-b6/

They are new, but the few reviews that are out are impressive...


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> Thx Steve for that. My copy of Dracula is on its way - but my Atmos treat for tonight just landed: *San Andreas*. Looking forward to this one. Takes my Atmos collection to 20 discs now IIRC, with three more coming in the next week or three. They have really started to come good on expectations now.


20 discs I thought there were only a few movies to date? But after searching it looks like there are few more 

 San Andreas  Warner Bros. Oct 13, 2015 

 Mad Max: Fury Road  Warner Bros. Sep 01, 2015 

 Minions  Universal Studios Dec 08, 2015 

 Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation  Paramount Pictures Dec 15, 2015 

 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1  Lionsgate Films Mar 06, 2015 

 Pixels 3D  Sony Pictures Oct 27, 2015 

 John Wick  Lionsgate Films Feb 03, 2015 

 Terminator: Genisys  Paramount Pictures Nov 10, 2015 

 Insurgent (The Divergent Series) Lionsgate Films Aug 04, 2015 

 American Sniper  Warner Bros. May 19, 2015 

The Age of Adaline  Lionsgate Films Sep 08, 2015 

 The Gallows  Warner Bros. Oct 13, 2015 

 Unbroken  Universal Studios Mar 24, 2015 

 Transformers: Age of Extinction  Paramount Pictures Sep 30, 2014 

 Bram Stoker's Dracula  Sony Pictures Oct 06, 2015 

 The Gunman  Universal Studios Jun 30, 2015 

 Jupiter Ascending 3D  Warner Bros. Jun 02, 2015 

 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles  Paramount Pictures Dec 16, 2014 

 The Expendables 3 (Unrated Edition) Lionsgate Films Nov 25, 2014


----------



## sdurani

More possible titles. 



http://www.dvd-palace.de/datenbank/medien/blu-ray/codename-uncle/91585.html 

Since 'Man From UNCLE' is from Warner Bros, it's likely to get an Atmos track on BD in the US. 


http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-n...y-disc-in-deutsch-dolby-atmos-von-studiocanal 

'We Are Your Friends' got a theatrical Atmos release and the German BD has an Atmos track (link above) but, since it's from Fox, don't hold your breath for an Atmos BD here in the States. 


https://harmoniamundiuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/classical-oct-30-wp.pdf 

See page 4 of the above linked list of new releases. And fast forward to the last 10 seconds of the video below.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> More possible titles.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dvd-palace.de/datenbank/medien/blu-ray/codename-uncle/91585.html
> 
> Since 'Man From UNCLE' is from Warner Bros, it's likely to get an Atmos track on BD in the US.
> 
> 
> http://www.bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-n...y-disc-in-deutsch-dolby-atmos-von-studiocanal
> 
> 'We Are Your Friends' got a theatrical Atmos release and the German BD has an Atmos track (link above) but, since it's from Fox, don't hold your breath for an Atmos BD here in the States.
> 
> 
> https://harmoniamundiuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/classical-oct-30-wp.pdf
> 
> See page 4 of the above linked list of new releases. And fast forward to the last 10 seconds of the video below.
> 
> https://youtu.be/DP8zh3-4qrU


I was discussing the use of Dolby Atmos with Norway's 2L label when they dropped it from their immersive Pure Audio Blu-ray releases. They kept the Auro3D tracks saying that Dolby Atmos object encoding wasn't working for their 9.1 live recording sessions. It looks like Harmonia Mundi solved the issue. I'm going to assume they used static object locations like channels. 

Perhaps 2L could re-evaluate the situation with Dolby Atmos since Auro3D doesn't seem to be gaining any ground. 2L makes some extremely high quality audiophile recordings.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It looks like Harmonia Mundi solved the issue. I'm going to assume they used static object locations like channels.


That would be my guess as well, making it not much of an "issue" to begin with.


> Perhaps 2L could re-evaluate the situation with Dolby Atmos since Auro3D doesn't seem to be gaining any ground. 2L makes some extremely high quality audiophile recordings.


They should consider it. At some point, even the highest end pre-pros will have Atmos. Not sure I can be as confident of Auro.


----------



## lujan

KennyLSU said:


> My only experience since getting everything set-up has been Transformers AoE and I really enjoyed the experience. I still need to play with the angles of the speakers to see if they are in the best position, but so far so good. Waiting to get Gravity and San Andreas in the mail to really stretch its legs.


I recently purchased the Atmos + 3D version (TAOE) and the 3D is also excellent. Very unlike the recent Avengers Age of Ultron which I thought was very bad both 3D and the movie itself.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Thx Steve for that. My copy of Dracula is on its way - but my Atmos treat for tonight just landed: *San Andreas*. Looking forward to this one. Takes my Atmos collection to 20 discs now IIRC, with three more coming in the next week or three. They have really started to come good on expectations now.


Ill be getting mine tomorrow the 13th October, that will bring my count to 18.


----------



## ewentzel3

Need in ceiling speaker placement recommendation. I am doing 5.1.4 and have a ceiling duct that runs in line with my right front speaker location to the back of the room. That means I need to bring the right ceiling speakers closer to the center of the room (left) or push it out toward the side wall 16" (right). Is it better to bring ceiling speakers closer or further away from the center line of the TV? I am going to assume that I will treat both sides equally and move the left to the same distance from the centerline of the TV. 

Here is another caveat. I will most likely have a sectional couch to the right side of the room... where these right in ceiling speakers will be above a listening position. This is not a dedicated theater room. That being said, I was thinking the in ceilings should be as wide as possible. or better to have them closer to MLP which would move them from directly above the right side listener and more toward the center of the room. 

Thoughts? any help would be appreciated. I can always provide a drawing if anyone is willing to help but cant visualize what I'm talking about.


----------



## batpig

ewentzel3 said:


> Need in ceiling speaker placement recommendation. I am doing 5.1.4 and have a ceiling duct that runs in line with my right front speaker location to the back of the room. That means I need to bring the right ceiling speakers closer to the center of the room (left) or push it out toward the side wall 16" (right). Is it better to bring ceiling speakers closer or further away from the center line of the TV? I am going to assume that I will treat both sides equally and move the left to the same distance from the centerline of the TV.
> 
> Here is another caveat. I will most likely have a sectional couch to the right side of the room... where these right in ceiling speakers will be above a listening position. This is not a dedicated theater room. That being said, I was thinking the in ceilings should be as wide as possible. or better to have them closer to MLP which would move them from directly above the right side listener and more toward the center of the room.
> 
> Thoughts? any help would be appreciated. I can always provide a drawing if anyone is willing to help but cant visualize what I'm talking about.


Pictures/drawing will always help but definitely go narrower NOT wider with the overhead arrays. In the cinema they are narrower than the front L/R main channels and moving them even wider will reduce the angular separation between the surrounds and the overheads.


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> Pictures/drawing will always help but definitely go narrower NOT wider with the overhead arrays. In the cinema they are narrower than the front L/R main channels and moving them even wider will reduce the angular separation between the surrounds and the overheads.


batpig has a great point. My tops are all roughly the same width as my fronts. But for wiring purposes and the ability to be able to access my front-to-back central cable fishing hole through a joist, it was my best option. However I used drivers that could be aimed and have no problems. Actually it's great for pointing the sound towards a more central location. You can still clearly hear sounds coming from between the drivers. My recommendation for all has been if you have tricky installs in the ceiling (ducts, joists, etc), non-standard layouts per dolby white paper (2 rows), or have to place them in less than ideal spec locations----then use aimable tweeters at the very least. You really can compensate for some of these scenarios.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Csbooth said:


> Is that for the Vudu app? I can do Atmos on discs and all, and even make Atmos work on PS4 Vudu app, just not PS3 Vudu app.


Vudu->PS3->Atmos does not work. So you are not alone..


----------



## NorthSky

wse said:


> 20 discs I thought there were only a few movies to date? But after searching it looks like there are few more
> San Andreas  Warner Bros. Oct 13, 2015
> Mad Max: Fury Road  Warner Bros. Sep 01, 2015
> Minions  Universal Studios Dec 08, 2015
> Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation  Paramount Pictures Dec 15, 2015
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1  Lionsgate Films Mar 06, 2015
> Pixels 3D  Sony Pictures Oct 27, 2015
> John Wick  Lionsgate Films Feb 03, 2015
> Terminator: Genisys  Paramount Pictures Nov 10, 2015
> Insurgent (The Divergent Series) Lionsgate Films Aug 04, 2015
> American Sniper  Warner Bros. May 19, 2015
> The Age of Adaline  Lionsgate Films Sep 08, 2015
> The Gallows  Warner Bros. Oct 13, 2015
> Unbroken  Universal Studios Mar 24, 2015
> Transformers: Age of Extinction  Paramount Pictures Sep 30, 2014
> Bram Stoker's Dracula  Sony Pictures Oct 06, 2015
> The Gunman  Universal Studios Jun 30, 2015
> Jupiter Ascending 3D  Warner Bros. Jun 02, 2015
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles  Paramount Pictures Dec 16, 2014
> The Expendables 3 (Unrated Edition) Lionsgate Films Nov 25, 2014


♦ http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## HT-Eman

wse said:


> 20 discs I thought there were only a few movies to date? But after searching it looks like there are few more
> 
> San Andreas  Warner Bros. Oct 13, 2015
> 
> Mad Max: Fury Road  Warner Bros. Sep 01, 2015
> 
> Minions  Universal Studios Dec 08, 2015
> 
> Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation  Paramount Pictures Dec 15, 2015
> 
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1  Lionsgate Films Mar 06, 2015
> 
> Pixels 3D  Sony Pictures Oct 27, 2015
> 
> John Wick  Lionsgate Films Feb 03, 2015
> 
> Terminator: Genisys  Paramount Pictures Nov 10, 2015
> 
> Insurgent (The Divergent Series) Lionsgate Films Aug 04, 2015
> 
> American Sniper  Warner Bros. May 19, 2015
> 
> The Age of Adaline  Lionsgate Films Sep 08, 2015
> 
> The Gallows  Warner Bros. Oct 13, 2015
> 
> Unbroken  Universal Studios Mar 24, 2015
> 
> Transformers: Age of Extinction  Paramount Pictures Sep 30, 2014
> 
> Bram Stoker's Dracula  Sony Pictures Oct 06, 2015
> 
> The Gunman  Universal Studios Jun 30, 2015
> 
> Jupiter Ascending 3D  Warner Bros. Jun 02, 2015
> 
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles  Paramount Pictures Dec 16, 2014
> 
> The Expendables 3 (Unrated Edition) Lionsgate Films Nov 25, 2014


Wheres Lucy with Dolby Atmos ?


----------



## FilmMixer

HT-Eman said:


> Wheres Lucy with Dolby Atmos ?


Not available in the US... that is a domestic release list


----------



## tigerhonaker

Subscribed ..........
For some UN-Known reason I no longer get the E-Mail notices for this one thread.
Hopefully maybe this post will get them coming again.

Very strange !!!

Terry


----------



## NorthSky

HT-Eman said:


> Wheres Lucy with Dolby Atmos ?


♦ http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132

Click on any BR title and you'll find their origin. 
* 'Lucy' in Dolby Atmos is from Hong Kong.


----------



## Csbooth

aaranddeeman said:


> Vudu->PS3->Atmos does not work. So you are not alone..


Ah ok, I probably misunderstood Kenny regarding getting Atmos to work on PS3 being about the Vudu demos lol. So, are you able to find/get any "7.1" titles to work with PS3/4 on Vudu and Netflix (if Netflix even does 7.1)?

Speaking of multichannel audio, I think it's very odd how the HBO GO app on both PS3/4 don't seem to process surround sound period. It's really lazy that neither Sony nor HBO have collaborated on fixing it.


----------



## Markitron

Apologies for quoting myself, but does anyone have any input on this?



Markitron said:


> Are there any other affordable pair of Atmos modules other that the Onkyo's? The KEF pair are a little out of my price range, I'm getting a Dali Zensor 5.1 set next month and would like to add Atmos to them. Would have liked to get a speaker set with Atmos modules built-in, but the review on the DALI set were too hard to ignore.


----------



## Selden Ball

Markitron said:


> Apologies for quoting myself, but does anyone have any input on this?


Atlantic Technology's Atmos-enabled modules have gotten reasonable reviews and aren't too outrageous in price.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Markitron said:


> Apologies for quoting myself, but does anyone have any input on this?


If I were you, I would try the A4 series in the Elac line, $229 pr, Amazon, shipping Oct. 19.

I think that they may still be clearing customs.

The Andrew Jones designed bookshelves in that line are getting stellar reviews...

http://www.cnet.com/products/elac-debut-b6/


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> Wheres Lucy with Dolby Atmos ?


*Chicago* was also missing from the list. As is *Gravity*. And *Overheard*. And* Taken 3*. And* I, Frankenstein*. And *Transcendence*. And the forthcoming *Leon* and *The Fifth Element*. Some of those are not US releases of course but I have them all anyway. (EDIT: of those released to date, obviously).

It's not exactly a flood now, but IMO a satisfying number of new Atmos releases are now finding their way onto Blu-ray, with the pace picking up.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Ill be getting mine tomorrow the 13th October, that will bring my count to 18.


Watched *San Andreas *last night. Holy Moly!


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Not available in the US... that is a domestic release list


*Leon* and* The Fifth Elemen*t will be released in the USA though, so if *Bram Stoker's Dracula* is good for the list, then so should they be  And, of course, *Gravity* was definitely a US release!


----------



## Markitron

Selden Ball said:


> Atlantic Technology's Atmos-enabled modules have gotten reasonable reviews and aren't too outrageous in price.





dvdwilly3 said:


> If I were you, I would try the A4 series in the Elac line, $229 pr, Amazon, shipping Oct. 19.
> 
> I think that they may still be clearing customs.
> 
> The Andrew Jones designed bookshelves in that line are getting stellar reviews...
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/products/elac-debut-b6/


Thanks, I'll have a look into these. Pity about the Onkyo ones, they are the only atmos modules that are readily available to me right now.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Not available in the US... that is a domestic release list


And just to keep everyone up to date, here is the domestic (US) release list as it currently stands: 

*Currently Available*
1) Transformers: Age of Extinction (Paramount) 
2) Step Up All In (Lionsgate) 
3) Expendables 3 (Lionsgate) 
4) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Paramount) 
5) John Wick (Lionsgate) 
6) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter (Red Bull Media) 
7) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1 (Lionsgate) 
8) Unbroken (Universal) 
9) Gravity (Warner Bros) 
10) American Sniper (Warner Bros) 
11) Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros) 
12) The Gunman (Universal) 
13) Insurgent (Lionsgate) 
14) Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros) 
15) Age of Adeline (Lionsgate) 
16) Dracula (Sony) 
17) San Andreas (Warner Bros) 
18) The Gallows (Warner Bros) 

*Coming Soon*
19) Fifth Element (Sony) [Oct 27]
20) Pixels (Sony) [Oct27] 
21) Leon: The Professional (Sony) [Oct 27] 

22) Game of Thrones: Winterfell (HBO) [Nov 3]
23) Game of Thrones: King's Landing (HBO) [Nov 3] 
24) Terminator Genisys (Paramount) [Nov 10]
25) Man From U.N.C.L.E. (Warner Bros) [Nov 17] 

26) Roger Waters The Wall (Universal) [Dec 1]
27) Minions (Universal) [Dec 8]
28) Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (Paramount) [Dec 15]


----------



## asere

sdurani said:


> And just to keep everyone up to date, here is the domestic (US) release list as it currently stands:
> 
> *Currently Available*
> 1) Transformers: Age of Extinction (Paramount)
> 2) Step Up All In (Lionsgate)
> 3) Expendables 3 (Lionsgate)
> 4) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Paramount)
> 5) John Wick (Lionsgate)
> 6) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter (Red Bull Media)
> 7) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1 (Lionsgate)
> 8) Unbroken (Universal)
> 9) Gravity (Warner Bros)
> 10) American Sniper (Warner Bros)
> 11) Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros)
> 12) The Gunman (Universal)
> 13) Insurgent (Lionsgate)
> 14) Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros)
> 15) Age of Adeline (Lionsgate)
> 16) Dracula (Sony)
> 17) San Andreas (Warner Bros)
> 18) The Gallows (Warner Bros)
> 
> *Coming Soon*
> 19) Fifth Element (Sony) [Oct 27]
> 20) Pixels (Sony) [Oct27]
> 
> 21) Game of Thrones: Winterfell (HBO) [Nov 3]
> 22) Game of Thrones: King's Landing (HBO) [Nov 3]
> 23) Terminator Genisys (Paramount) [Nov 10]
> 24) Leon: The Professional (Sony) [Nov 17]
> 25) Man From U.N.C.L.E. (Warner Bros) [Nov 17]
> 
> 26) Roger Waters The Wall (Universal) [Dec 1]
> 27) Minions (Universal) [Dec 8]
> 28) Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (Paramount) [Dec 15]


Nice list thanks. I hear The Gallows is a horrible film. Anyone seen it to give an opinion?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It's not exactly a flood now, but IMO a satisfying number of new Atmos releases are now finding their way onto Blu-ray, with the pace picking up.


Yup, 5 titles this month, 5 titles next month. Should pick up when UHD gets here.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

asere said:


> Nice list thanks. I hear The Gallows is a horrible film. Anyone seen it to give an opinion?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


It is...almost unwatchable.


----------



## scarabaeus

sdurani said:


> 19) Fifth Element (Sony) [Oct 27]
> 24) Leon: The Professional (Sony) [Nov 17]


Leon is Oct. 27th as well, at least according to my Amazon pre-order. Not sure where this Nov 17th comes from. Maybe because the 2009 release was on Nov 17th, and Amzon is showing all of them in a list.


----------



## asere

Dave Vaughn said:


> It is...almost unwatchable.


Wow! I think I'll even skip the rental. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

rmilyard said:


> So I just ordered a Denon AVR-X6200W. Going to try setup 7.2.4.
> 
> Suggestions on 2 channel AMP?



The Audiosource AMP-100 is one of the most popular 2 channel amps people use for this purpose.


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> And just to keep everyone up to date, here is the domestic (US) release list as it currently stands:
> 
> *Currently Available*
> 1) Transformers: Age of Extinction (Paramount) *Got it*
> 2) Step Up All In (Lionsgate) *Got it*
> 3) Expendables 3 (Lionsgate) *Only have digital version so not Atmos*
> 4) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Paramount) *Only have digital version so not Atmos*
> 5) John Wick (Lionsgate) *Got it*
> 6) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter (Red Bull Media) *Never have seen it*
> 7) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1 (Lionsgate) *Got it*
> 8) Unbroken (Universal) *Got it*
> 9) Gravity (Warner Bros) *Got it*
> 10) American Sniper (Warner Bros) *Didn't like it enough to buy it*
> 11) Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros) *Didn't like it enough to buy it*
> 12) The Gunman (Universal) *Didn't like it enought to buy it*
> 13) Insurgent (Lionsgate) *Got it*
> 14) Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros) *Don't like any Mad Max movies*
> 15) Age of Adeline (Lionsgate) *Didn't like it enough to buy it*
> 16) Dracula (Sony) *Didn't like it enough to buy it*
> 17) San Andreas (Warner Bros) *Never have seen it*
> 18) The Gallows (Warner Bros) *Never have seen it*
> 
> [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]


Expendables 3
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
On Any Sunday: Next Chapter
Age of Adeline
San Andreas
The Gallows

Is the Atmos audio on the movies above good enough for a purchase on BD? I would guess that since Age of Adeline is a love story that the Atmos wouldn't be great?


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> Leon is Oct. 27th as well, at least according to my Amazon pre-order.


Thanx, I'll edit my post.


----------



## sdurani

lujan said:


> Expendables 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> On Any Sunday: Next Chapter
> Age of Adeline
> San Andreas
> The Gallows
> 
> Is the Atmos audio on the movies above good enough for a purchase on BD? I would guess that since Age of Adeline is a love story that the Atmos wouldn't be great?


While the newness of Atmos won't wear off for some time, there are enough titles that you no longer have to buy an Atmos BD just for Atmos. 

If you happen to like motorcycle documentaries, then get On Any Sunday (excellent editing, story just keeps moving). If you like love stories, then get Adeline (has a nice sci-fi twist in the premise). If you like disaster movies (I grew up watching Earthquake, Towering Inferno, etc), then get San Andreas (as cheesy as my faves from the '70's). If you like to inflict pain on yourself, get TMNT or Gallows. 

There are enough Atmos BDs at this point that you can get movies you like rather than buy them solely for Atmos.


----------



## rmilyard

Here is a little picture I drew out looking for suggestions and help setting up 7.1.4


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> While the newness of Atmos won't wear off for some time, there are enough titles that you no longer have to buy an Atmos BD just for Atmos.
> 
> If you happen to like motorcycle documentaries, then get On Any Sunday (excellent editing, story just keeps moving). If you like love stories, then get Adeline (has a nice sci-fi twist in the premise). If you like disaster movies (I grew up watching Earthquake, Towering Inferno, etc), then get San Andreas (as cheesy as my faves from the '70's). If you like to inflict pain on yourself, get TMNT or Gallows.
> 
> There are enough Atmos BDs at this point that you can get movies you like rather than buy them solely for Atmos.


Funny - "If you like to inflict pain on yourself, ...". 

I think of all the ones you mentioned I would like San Andreas. I will pick that one up soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

lujan said:


> Funny - "If you like to inflict pain on yourself, ...".
> 
> I think of all the ones you mentioned I would like San Andreas. I will pick that one up soon.


I watched *San Andreas *last night. The sound is superlative. 

The movie itself is more or less standard disaster movie fare, much like *2012*, *The Day After Tomorrow* etc. Apparently, it is a requirement now of all disaster movies that the lead male and female have to be divorced or separated and then rediscover their former true love in the face of overwhelming adversity, and this movie plays to that beat. (The *Taken* franchise, while not exactly disaster movies - more like disastrous movies other than the first one - follows the same meme, as do the* Die Hard* movies of course). 

One thing that pleased me was the performance of Dwayne Johnson who is much better as an actor than many might have expected. His performance, given the material he had to work with, was nicely nuanced. Overall it is a really good watch and the ~2 hours passed really quickly. The sound and the effects are SOTA.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

I reviewed it for the magazine and concur. I thought the family elements to the story were well done and believable and the film itself was quite entertaining. The Atmos track is to die for though...maybe the best one yet.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> I reviewed it for the magazine and concur. I thought the family elements to the story were well done and believable and the film itself was quite entertaining. The Atmos track is to die for though...maybe the best one yet.


Absolutely. C'mon Dave, don't be shy - let's have a link to your review!


----------



## Jack Gilvey

You guys make it tough to wait for Netflix to have it available.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jack Gilvey said:


> You guys make it tough to wait for Netflix to have it available.


If you want to hear a brilliant Atmos track, get it now. If you are primarily interested in a really good movie, I'd wait for Netflix.

Although I listened, and was thoroughly amazed, in Atmos 7.2.4, I would imagine that this is a really good demo track even with a 7.1 system. But as I was watching the movie, totally immersed in the chaotic action around and above me, I did think _"I was missing a lot when I had sound only around me and not above me as well"_. The movie makes really good use of Atmos and really points up how much immersive sound brings to that kind of movie experience.

As I said above, the two hours passed really quickly (always a good sign IMO) and I was surprised when the movie came to an end so soon. I could happily have taken another 40 minutes, Bay-style. But it is extremely derivative, as, I guess, this kind of movie always is.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Ordered. I'm so easy.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jack Gilvey said:


> Ordered. I'm so easy.


 Dave and I will be expecting our usual commission checks in the mail then.... LOL.... I am sure you will find it worth the money...


----------



## stikle

Jack Gilvey said:


> I'm so easy.



Send me another PB-2000, only this time, you pay for it.

Ah...not so easy you are.


----------



## bargervais

Dave Vaughn said:


> It is...almost unwatchable.


That's what I've heard, I was going to get it for the Atmos mix, but there is a limit. Thank goodness we have choices now and we don't have to buy every Atmos Blu-Ray that comes along.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

That would make for a lopsided front stage, Seth, I couldn't do that to you.

Keith - I picked up the 3D version - only $8 more for the extra disc. May lend itself well to it.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> Expendables 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> On Any Sunday: Next Chapter
> Age of Adeline
> San Andreas
> The Gallows
> 
> Is the Atmos audio on the movies above good enough for a purchase on BD? I would guess that since Age of Adeline is a love story that the Atmos wouldn't be great?


Just because it's a love story doesn't mean it will have a bad Atmos mix. I actually enjoyed the movie and IMHO the Atmos wasn't that bad.


----------



## stikle

Jack Gilvey said:


> That would make for a lopsided front stage, Seth, I couldn't do that to you.



Ahhh....not true Sir Jack...I already have duals up front. I was going to stick the third one in a back corner.

But you're right, it would be off then. Best send me two so the rear stage is balanced as well.


----------



## Jack Gilvey




----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> Absolutely. C'mon Dave, don't be shy - let's have a link to your review!


It will be in the print magazine...no link to provide!


----------



## Movie78

Jack Gilvey said:


> Ordered. I'm so easy.


*I'm so easy*LOOOL


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> It will be in the print magazine...no link to provide!


Ah so. Mine hasn't arrived yet. I look forward to reading it then, as always.


----------



## lujan

Jack Gilvey said:


> Ordered. I'm so easy.





Movie78 said:


> *I'm so easy*LOOOL


Me too as I'm going over to BB after work to get it. 

Good thing I have some Reward Certificates worth $20.00 so it'll end up costing me $8.00 and some change with tax.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Funny you mention that, I remembered I have to stop at BB later anyway so I cancelled my Amazon order and will pick it up there. Same price and I have to pay tax either way.


----------



## HT-Eman

*AudioControl Concert AVR 9*

Here is a pdf brochure of that avr from AudioControl .

http://www.audiocontrol.com/downloads/home/current/concert-avr-7-9/concert-avr-7-9-literature.pdf


----------



## ktoolsie

So, I have two rows of seating in a dedicated movie-room. We've kind of migrated to the back-row as that where we put the love-seat (motorized recliners of course). so, I've been setting up my 7.1 surround optimized for that back row position. Only problem is, that the separation from that back row to the back wall is probably only 2ft, at a reclined position. That makes it impossible to put top-rears at the Dolby Atmos recommended 45 deg angle. Would an on-the-wall speaker in the corner of the wall and ceiling be an acceptable solution (see attached image for an example of what I'm contemplating).

Many thanks.


----------



## Stoked21

Sorry guys but I saw San Andreas at the theater non-atmos......There are very few movies that I almost walk out of, this being one and the other being Jupiter Ascending. 4 or 5 couples walked out of the theater part way through Jupiter...I was laughing uncontrolalbly. Can't say I've seen that in a long time. I would only give San Andreas another watch SIMPLY to hear the Atmos mix in my system, but I would probably wince to have to see that story,acting, and dialogue one more time. Painful.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to use my HT for some time. My new Monitor Audio LCR shipped a week late and are not due until tomorrow. Finally be rid of those horribly, false spec'd DefTech studio monitors up front. I also bought 8 Crown XLS1500 amps and have to completely reinstall my rack with new rails and expanded wall space. They should hopefully all be here before the weekend too. So will be a busy weekend building everything in and likely another few weekends of custom carpentry to pretty it all up. I may order my new AVR or prepro before week's end. Still split between Marantz AVR SR7010, Marantz prepro AV7702mk2 and Denon AVR x6200. Would have liked to have sold my Yamaha A2040 before then, but not a lot of interest even at $1000 and only 5 months old. 

Next step is to install IWs for surround backs, replace a poorly on-the-cheap chosen rear sub, find some new surround and front wides (potentially MA again). After that I'm ditching my brand-new 65" LG UHD LCD for a projector and 100" and may choose to put in some more expensive TF,TM and TR.

This is version 3.0 of my HT this weekend, quickly followed by 4.0 and 5.0. Lot of swaps and switches from project start 6 months ago! Nothing has even had a chance to get broken in. But my Atmos experience is going to be insane.


----------



## rboster

Stoked21 said:


> Sorry guys but I saw San Andreas at the theater non-atmos......There are very few movies that I almost walk out of, this being one and the other being Jupiter Ascending. 4 or 5 couples walked out of the theater part way through Jupiter...I was laughing uncontrolalbly. Can't say I've seen that in a long time. I would only give San Andreas another watch SIMPLY to hear the Atmos mix in my system, but I would probably wince to have to see that story,acting, and dialogue one more time. Painful.
> 
> Unfortunately, I won't be able to use my HT for some time. My new Monitor Audio LCR shipped a week late and are not due until tomorrow. Finally be rid of those horribly, false spec'd DefTech studio monitors up front. I also bought 8 Crown XLS1500 amps and have to completely reinstall my rack with new rails and expanded wall space. They should hopefully all be here before the weekend too. So will be a busy weekend building everything in and likely another few weekends of custom carpentry to pretty it all up. I may order my new AVR or prepro before week's end. Still split between Marantz AVR SR7010, Marantz prepro AV7702mk2 and Denon AVR x6200. Would have liked to have sold my Yamaha A2040 before then, but not a lot of interest even at $1000 and only 5 months old.
> 
> Next step is to install IWs for surround backs, replace a poorly on-the-cheap chosen rear sub, find some new surround and front wides (potentially MA again). After that I'm ditching my brand-new 65" LG UHD LCD for a projector and 100" and may choose to put in some more expensive TF,TM and TR.
> 
> This is version 3.0 of my HT this weekend, quickly followed by 4.0 and 5.0. Lot of swaps and switches from project start 6 months ago! Nothing has even had a chance to get broken in. But my Atmos experience is going to be insane.




I would highly recommend going larger on the screen....most go too small their first time and wish they had gone larger. Obviously, projector performance, throw ratio, size of the screen wall and seating distance all come into play...but go as large as reasonable.

BTW, also live in KC. What part of town? I'm near Brookside.

Ron

Go Royals.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Although I listened, and was thoroughly amazed, in Atmos 7.2.4, I would imagine that this is a really good demo track even with a 7.1 system.


It sounds more cluttered on a 7.1 layout. Separating out some of those sounds to the heights makes a noticeable difference on this particular soundtrack. Like listening to a stereo downmix of a very busy surround mix. Yeah, you can hear it all, but it sounds cluttered. Sounds better when some of that stuff is moved away from the soundstage and into to the surround field. Same with San Andreas.


----------



## sdurani

ktoolsie said:


> That makes it impossible to put top-rears at the Dolby Atmos recommended 45 deg angle.


Then use the Top Middle location above you. Can you mount speakers on the ceiling right above (or slightly forward) of your love seat?


----------



## batpig

ktoolsie said:


> So, I have two rows of seating in a dedicated movie-room. We've kind of migrated to the back-row as that where we put the love-seat (motorized recliners of course). so, I've been setting up my 7.1 surround optimized for that back row position. Only problem is, that the separation from that back row to the back wall is probably only 2ft, at a reclined position. That makes it impossible to put top-rears at the Dolby Atmos recommended 45 deg angle. Would an on-the-wall speaker in the corner of the wall and ceiling be an acceptable solution (see attached image for an example of what I'm contemplating).
> 
> Many thanks.


Go with a Top Middle (plus Front Height if you want to go to 7.1.4) in between the two rows. It will be above so provide that "overhead" sensation for both rows, slightly ahead of back row and slight behind front row. Use a bipole or other wide dispersion speaker if you are concerned with coverage for both rows.


----------



## batpig

Since San Andreas is Warner I'm assuming the redbox rental will have the TrueHD/Atmos track? That at least makes it viable as a rental if you don't want to risk the purchase on a clunker. 

Is anyone besides Lionsgate crippling Atmos in redbox rentals?


----------



## stikle

Dave Vaughn said:


> It will be in the print magazine...



What is this "print magazine" thing you refer to? Which forum is that under?


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah so. Mine hasn't arrived yet. I look forward to reading it then, as always.


Sadly with print it won't show up until probably December. I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version...it's the best Demo disc available for Atmos


----------



## Dave Vaughn

stikle said:


> What is this "print magazine" thing you refer to? Which forum is that under?


Sound & Vision Magazine...see my signature


----------



## bkeeler10

HT-Eman said:


> Here is a pdf brochure of that avr from AudioControl .
> 
> http://www.audiocontrol.com/downloads/home/current/concert-avr-7-9/concert-avr-7-9-literature.pdf


These pieces look very cool. I'm just not looking forward to hearing their prices. The predecessor to the AVR-7 (AVR-6) was about $4k, and it was only 7.1 and didn't have Dirac . . .


----------



## NorthSky

rmilyard said:


> Here is a little picture I drew out looking for suggestions and help setting up 7.1.4
> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


If this was my room, and that I couldn't move the couch from the back wall, here's what I would do:
First be aware that it is only a free suggestion and that I have no experience with Dolby Atmos whatsoever, so you are free too to totally disregard my suggestion.

1. Your side surrounds have to become the Wides...if not then they have to be slightly ahead of the MLP...roughly @ 75°. ...And more inside your room.
2. Your rear surrounds; I would put them near the back wall/celling junction...and experiment with them or as back surrounds or as Top Rear Atmos sp.
3. Your front Atmos speakers; I would put them slightly closer together and @ about 80° angle ahead of the MLP and designated as the Top Middle.

Also, I would experiment with those Top Middle speakers, and try as Top [email protected] about 45° angle.
You could also experiment with Top Middle and Front Height. 

* The thing I found the toughest is your couch, right against the back wall. ...And if you cannot put it forward towards your room's center, then I would experiment with the speakers positioning for best sound immersion in your room. 

I looked carefully @ your room's plan...and it's not that easy...and the why it requires experimenting more in that situation.
The people who can help are the ones like you with their couch (MLP) against the back wall, and who experimented with various speaker's positioning.
Me I simply offer suggestions on where you can start "experimenting". 

Again, I have no experience...I'm just using what I believe is "sound". 

https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It sounds more cluttered on a 7.1 layout. Separating out some of those sounds to the heights makes a noticeable difference on this particular soundtrack. Like listening to a stereo downmix of a very busy surround mix. Yeah, you can hear it all, but it sounds cluttered. Sounds better when some of that stuff is moved away from the soundstage and into to the surround field. Same with San Andreas.


That makes sense. There was a hell of a lot going on in some of those scenes, but it all played out beautifully here, with exceptional image placement precision. This and Mad Max are my current 'balls out' favorite tracks right now.


----------



## hirevn

sdurani said:


> And just to keep everyone up to date, here is the domestic (US) release list as it currently stands:
> 
> *Currently Available*
> 1) Transformers: Age of Extinction (Paramount)
> 2) Step Up All In (Lionsgate)
> 3) Expendables 3 (Lionsgate)
> 4) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Paramount)
> 5) John Wick (Lionsgate)
> 6) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter (Red Bull Media)
> 7) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1 (Lionsgate)
> 8) Unbroken (Universal)
> 9) Gravity (Warner Bros)
> 10) American Sniper (Warner Bros)
> 11) Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros)
> 12) The Gunman (Universal)
> 13) Insurgent (Lionsgate)
> 14) Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros)
> 15) Age of Adeline (Lionsgate)
> 16) Dracula (Sony)
> 17) San Andreas (Warner Bros)
> 18) The Gallows (Warner Bros)
> 
> *Coming Soon*
> 19) Fifth Element (Sony) [Oct 27]
> 20) Pixels (Sony) [Oct27]
> 21) Leon: The Professional (Sony) [Oct 27]
> 
> 22) Game of Thrones: Winterfell (HBO) [Nov 3]
> 23) Game of Thrones: King's Landing (HBO) [Nov 3]
> 24) Terminator Genisys (Paramount) [Nov 10]
> 25) Man From U.N.C.L.E. (Warner Bros) [Nov 17]
> 
> 26) Roger Waters The Wall (Universal) [Dec 1]
> 27) Minions (Universal) [Dec 8]
> 28) Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (Paramount) [Dec 15]


Thanks for this list, i have been searching for something like this.

I only own Mad Max right now that i used to test the new system and would like to purchase a couple more. Other than MM and San Andreas, anyone have a suggestion on one worth getting for the Atmos testing?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> Sadly with print it won't show up until probably December. I'll give you the Cliff's Notes version...it's the best Demo disc available for Atmos


Ah yes of course. And my copy of the current issue was actually in my mailbox. Nice review of the Sunfire sub - it's only because I trust your reviews that I can believe that such a small sub can create such a big impact, although I do note your comments about 'hearing' the bass rather than 'feeling' the bass. I won't be trading in my dual Submersives, but for anyone for whom WAF is ungetaroundable, this little sub seems like a winner.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> This and Mad Max are my current 'balls out' favorite tracks right now.


They're also a good indicator of how Atmos mixes are starting to take more advantage of the format's capabilities as time goes by. The height imaging in both those soundtracks is a far cry from early titles like Transformers or TMNT.


----------



## kbarnes701

hirevn said:


> Thanks for this list, i have been searching for something like this.


Have you seen this page? Worth bookmarking and checking back periodically.


----------



## FilmMixer

bkeeler10 said:


> These pieces look very cool. I'm just not looking forward to hearing their prices. The predecessor to the AVR-7 (AVR-6) was about $4k, and it was only 7.1 and didn't have Dirac . . .


The prices are 4200 and 6200 MSRP for the new AVRs.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> They're also a good indicator of how Atmos mixes are starting to take more advantage of the format's capabilities as time goes by. The height imaging in both those soundtracks is a far cry from early titles like Transformers or TMNT.


Indeed. As the mixers gain familiarity with their new creative tool I expect this trend to continue too. Bodes well for the future.


----------



## sdurani

hirevn said:


> Other than MM and San Andreas, anyone have a suggestion on one worth getting for the Atmos testing?


That's easy: Gravity. Until recently, it was the mix that made the most use of Atmos' unique capabilities. Also try John Wick.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you seen this page? Worth bookmarking and checking back periodically.


Yes have it book marked it's my second favorite site. AVS, Blu-Ray review, and Amazon.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah yes of course. And my copy of the current issue was actually in my mailbox. Nice review of the Sunfire sub - it's only because I trust your reviews that I can believe that such a small sub can create such a big impact, although I do note your comments about 'hearing' the bass rather than 'feeling' the bass. I won't be trading in my dual Submersives, but for anyone for whom WAF is ungetaroundable, this little sub seems like a winner.



It is, but you can get just as much bang for the buck for a lot cheaper from the Internet direct companies (like SVS, for example). If that sub was $999 it would have been a Top Pick.


----------



## bargervais

Does anyone know if the Man from Uncle will have an Atmos mix for a U.S.A./ Canada release.


----------



## bkeeler10

FilmMixer said:


> The prices are 4200 and 6200 MSRP for the new AVRs.


Really? Wow, I was expecting a much bigger price increase over the predecessors. Surprisingly, the AVR-7 is a very reasonable price to pay to get 7.1.4 with all channels processed by Dirac. The only other reasonable way is to use two of Minidsp's 8 channel boxes ($1k each) and a roughly $2k AVR. Which is more complicated, requires more boxes and interconnects in the rack, requires additional A/D - D/A conversion (probably not really a significant issue I grant), and is not that much less expensive. Hmmm . . .


----------



## bargervais

San Andreas who writes these movies. 
But I do love these unbelievable, save you in the Nick of time, disaster flicks. The saving grace is the Atmos audio, which keeps or kept my attention. 
Its worth a go if not for the Atmos mix at least you can have a good laugh at the unbelievable realism.


----------



## bargervais

Sorry double post


----------



## Stoked21

That AVR-7 at $4k is really appealing....power consumption numbers are pretty high based on w/ch. So I'm betting this thing can actually drive some speakers too.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> That AVR-7 at $4k is really appealing....power consumption numbers are pretty high based on w/ch. So I'm betting this thing can actually drive some speakers too.


I never received confirmation if Dirac was the full version or the lite version. Until they confirm, it is too early to say if it is a great deal or not. If it is the full version, I think it will be a hit.


----------



## bargervais

Molon_Labe said:


> I never received confirmation if Dirac was the full version or the lite version. Until they confirm, it is too early to say if it is a great deal or not. If it is the full version, I think it will be a hit.


Sorry for off topic but I love your avatar


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> That AVR-7 at $4k is really appealing....power consumption numbers are pretty high based on w/ch. So I'm betting this thing can actually drive some speakers too.


I would like to know if you can use those extra amps for the main speakers and assign internal amps to the height speakers. Or if you are forced to use 4ch of external amps for the heights. 

If you can do it then you could pair it with a beefy 5ch amp from emotiva for the core 5 channels and have a pretty rocking setup for $5k with Dirac on 11 channels.


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> I would like to know if you can use those extra amps for the main speakers and assign internal amps to the height speakers. Or if you are forced to use 4ch of external amps for the heights.
> 
> If you can do it then you could pair it with a beefy 5ch amp from emotiva for the core 5 channels and have a pretty rocking setup for $5k with Dirac on 11 channels.


That would be ideal and really awesome. It would be a nice "feature" if most manufs let you select channels for internal amps through the menu. It's decoding them after all and spitting them out through rca pre-outs. You would think it would be simple enough to assign that through the setup.


----------



## tjenkins95

hirevn said:


> Thanks for this list, i have been searching for something like this.
> 
> I only own Mad Max right now that i used to test the new system and would like to purchase a couple more. Other than MM and San Andreas, anyone have a suggestion on one worth getting for the Atmos testing?


 
Use this link:


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


This forum is updated as soon as someone spots a new Atmos blu-ray!


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> That would be ideal and really awesome. It would be a nice "feature" if most manufs let you select channels for internal amps through the menu. It's decoding them after all and spitting them out through rca pre-outs. You would think it would be simple enough to assign that through the setup.


Denon/Marantz models all allow this to some degree. The 11ch models can do what I describe.


----------



## rmilyard

NorthSky said:


> If this was my room, and that I couldn't move the couch from the back wall, here's what I would do:
> First be aware that it is only a free suggestion and that I have no experience with Dolby Atmos whatsoever, so you are free too to totally disregard my suggestion.
> 
> 1. Your side surrounds have to become the Wides...if not then they have to be slightly ahead of the MLP...roughly @ 75°. ...And more inside your room.
> 2. Your rear surrounds; I would put them near the back wall/celling junction...and experiment with them or as back surrounds or as Top Rear Atmos sp.
> 3. Your front Atmos speakers; I would put them slightly closer together and @ about 80° angle ahead of the MLP and designated as the Top Middle.
> 
> Also, I would experiment with those Top Middle speakers, and try as Top [email protected] about 45° angle.
> You could also experiment with Top Middle and Front Height.
> 
> * The thing I found the toughest is your couch, right against the back wall. ...And if you cannot put it forward towards your room's center, then I would experiment with the speakers positioning for best sound immersion in your room.
> 
> I looked carefully @ your room's plan...and it's not that easy...and the why it requires experimenting more in that situation.
> The people who can help are the ones like you with their couch (MLP) against the back wall, and who experimented with various speaker's positioning.
> Me I simply offer suggestions on where you can start "experimenting".
> 
> Again, I have no experience...I'm just using what I believe is "sound".
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


Thanks for the input. Waiting for the Denon AVR-X6200W to come before I can really do anything. Couch wish we could move it. It ends up blocking the front door entrance to the house so it is stuck where it is. House was a spec house so didn't have any input how was made. Hard part is putting speakers up to test without drilling holes. Trying not to make ceiling Swiss cheese. lol


----------



## rmilyard

FilmMixer said:


> Not legally, no.
> 
> You can stream all of the Dolby produced Atmos demos on Vudu if you have a capable streamer with HDMI... Most current Blu Ray players with Vudu will work.


One would like a 2k AVR could come with a demo/test blu ray. Really would be helpful when setup to test sound.


----------



## FilmMixer

rmilyard said:


> One would like a 2k AVR could come with a demo/test blu ray. Really would be helpful when setup to test sound.


I don't think that's ever been the case (and I've owned a LOT of 2k + AVR's...)

What would it provide in terms of help that the Atmos demos won't, or the AVR's internal test tones?


----------



## NorthSky

rmilyard said:


> Thanks for the input. Waiting for the Denon AVR-X6200W to come before I can really do anything. Couch wish we could move it. It ends up blocking the front door entrance to the house so it is stuck where it is. House was a spec house so didn't have any input how was made. Hard part is putting speakers up to test without drilling holes. Trying not to make ceiling Swiss cheese. lol


You can use high posts that you can easily move around...or by making them yourself or by borrowing four PC high monitor stands...like the ones they use on live Jazz or Blues music shows. ...Those are height adjustable...and up to eight feet. ...Check your local music store for pro musicians. 
You'll have to find a way to rest the speakers you intend to use on top of those stands...but better there than a bunch of holes in your ceiling.

That's only one solution for experimentation without drilling holes in your ceiling. ...Then when you find the positions where they sound best to you (good immersive covering @ the MLP, and with the help of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 - Denon 6200), drill those holes...couple per speaker (on-ceiling type with brackets). 

I know, it's not easy, and you would love to know the best positioning for your four surrounds and your four Atmos overheads in your own room with the furniture (L shaped couch, and against your back&side wall).

* If a member here has the experience and experimented with the various options, in a room very similar to yours...he's the one who can direct you better than I. Best of luck.


----------



## ktoolsie

batpig said:


> Go with a Top Middle (plus Front Height if you want to go to 7.1.4) in between the two rows. It will be above so provide that "overhead" sensation for both rows, slightly ahead of back row and slight behind front row. Use a bipole or other wide dispersion speaker if you are concerned with coverage for both rows.


Thanks Batpig & Sanjay. I'm in the process of exploring my options in case I want to go full 7.1.4. It might just be simpler to go 7.1.2, given my ceiling is drywall.


----------



## bkeeler10

Molon_Labe said:


> Stoked21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That AVR-7 at $4k is really appealing....power consumption numbers are pretty high based on w/ch. So I'm betting this thing can actually drive some speakers too.
> 
> 
> 
> I never received confirmation if Dirac was the full version or the lite version. Until they confirm, it is too early to say if it is a great deal or not. If it is the full version, I think it will be a hit.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This AVR is a great deal if it has the full version of Dirac and if you insist on having Dirac. Otherwise, not so much. Audio Control has a great reputation and pedigree for fantastic sound, but without the room correction distinction, I'm not sure it's really significantly superior in sound quality to the $2-3k Japanese brands.


----------



## bkeeler10

batpig said:


> Stoked21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That AVR-7 at $4k is really appealing....power consumption numbers are pretty high based on w/ch. So I'm betting this thing can actually drive some speakers too.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know if you can use those extra amps for the main speakers and assign internal amps to the height speakers. Or if you are forced to use 4ch of external amps for the heights.
> 
> If you can do it then you could pair it with a beefy 5ch amp from emotiva for the core 5 channels and have a pretty rocking setup for $5k with Dirac on 11 channels.
Click to expand...

The Denons do this as you say, but othere do not. For example, the recently announced Anthem MRX720 has 11.1 preout and 7 channels of on board amplification, but all four overheads must be powered by external amplification. No amp assignment possible. I would not be surprised if the Audio Control is the same way.

Not a deal breaker for me personally. I would just buy a seven-channel amp instead of a five-channel one and use it for the three front and the four overhead.

In any event, the Anthem and Audio Control units are top of the list for me, because of their respective room correction algorithms. The Anthem should come in at the mid $2k range, which is a lot less than the Audio Control. Anthem's ARC is supposed to be really good too, so that's probably where I'll end up to start. Another $1500+ is quite the premium for Dirac, but if you insist on having it, pretty good deal IMO.


----------



## Stoked21

I'm looking in the $2k range for Marantz or Denon....Maybe I'll have to look at Anthem. If I wouldn't have just dumped $1600 on amps, maybe the Audio Control would have been an option. Still interesting, but not really in the cards for me. Will have to research the Anthem some.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> I would like to know if you can use those extra amps for the main speakers and assign internal amps to the height speakers. Or if you are forced to use 4ch of external amps for the heights.
> 
> If you can do it then you could pair it with a beefy 5ch amp from emotiva for the core 5 channels and have a pretty rocking setup for $5k with Dirac on 11 channels.


 
Remind me to add it to the list of questions I'll ask at the AudioControl booth later this week  . I don't have a horse in this, but if this product is remotely what we think it might be, I'd love to see it succeed as an alternative to other AVR manufacturers using DSP architecture. D&M and Pioneer, at the least, could use the competition...at least for those of you not waiting on Emotiva to join the Atmos bandwagon...


----------



## rmilyard

FilmMixer said:


> I don't think that's ever been the case (and I've owned a LOT of 2k + AVR's...)
> 
> What would it provide in terms of help that the Atmos demos won't, or the AVR's internal test tones?


Saw there was a Atmos Demo Blu Ray I think Jan 2015. Just thought could get that free but guess I was wrong.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> I would like to know if you can use those extra amps for the main speakers and assign internal amps to the height speakers. Or if you are forced to use 4ch of external amps for the heights.
> 
> If you can do it then you could pair it with a beefy 5ch amp from emotiva for the core 5 channels and have a pretty rocking setup for $5k with Dirac on 11 channels.


If you look closely at the back panel, the two outside terminals are assignable to Zone 2, Height 1 or Surround Back... so I would assume maybe you can also assign one of the other sets to Height 2....

We will see..


----------



## SteveTheGeek

bargervais said:


> Does anyone know if the Man from Uncle will have an Atmos mix for a U.S.A./ Canada release.


According to Amazon it will : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZS21J6E


----------



## ArieS1204

batpig said:


> Is anyone besides Lionsgate crippling Atmos in redbox rentals?


Summit Entertainment does that too.

Edit: I just realized you said Atmos. I don't know about Atmos but they have done it in the past for any Lossless audio tracks so I expect them to do it in the future as well if they ever go the Atmos road...


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Yes have it book marked it's my second favorite site. AVS, Blu-Ray review, and Amazon.


Three of the sites I too frequent very often. I find bluray.com sound/picture reviews to be very reliable.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> It is, but you can get just as much bang for the buck for a lot cheaper from the Internet direct companies (like SVS, for example). If that sub was $999 it would have been a Top Pick.


Very honest of you to say so (I find your reviews to be very honest too, which is not always the case with some magazines I read). I agree that the Sunfire is hugely expensive and wouldn't ever be my own first choice, but would the SVS (and presumably Hsu) subs you mention give the same performance in such a small box? I was thinking that maybe some would pay the premium for great performance from a small form factor which seems to be the Sunfire's USP.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Really? Wow, I was expecting a much bigger price increase over the predecessors. Surprisingly, the AVR-7 is a very reasonable price to pay to get 7.1.4 with all channels processed by Dirac. The only other reasonable way is to use two of Minidsp's 8 channel boxes ($1k each) and a roughly $2k AVR. Which is more complicated, requires more boxes and interconnects in the rack, requires additional A/D - D/A conversion (probably not really a significant issue I grant), and is not that much less expensive. Hmmm . . .


If one already has a miniDSP DDRC-88A though, and the attendant amps etc, then adding a second 88A is a cost-effective way to get up to 16 channels of Dirac goodness. This would also allow for any potential future Atmos developments such as support for 9.1.6, whereas if one bought the AudioControl AVR then it would mean totally replacing it. It is also not clear to me if Dirac can be applied to all 11 channels of which the AudioControl unit is capable. I have not read anywhere where this is confirmed. Anyone know?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> That AVR-7 at $4k is really appealing....power consumption numbers are pretty high based on w/ch. So I'm betting this thing can actually drive some speakers too.


It is surely only really appealing if it can apply Dirac to all 11 channels? If it can only apply Dirac to 7 channels, then one could just as easily opt for a much cheaper AVR and, with external amplification, a mini-DSP DDRC-88A, or without external amplification, the nanoAVR DL. Other than its Dirac capabilities I am struggling to see how the AudioControl beats a Denon (for example). Of course, Dirac Live is a really big deal - but there are ways to get DL without buying this AVR, and for less money. The real killer feature would be if the AudioControl unit can apply Dirac to all 11 channels. Can it?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Remind me to add it to the list of questions I'll ask at the AudioControl booth later this week  . I don't have a horse in this, but if this product is remotely what we think it might be, I'd love to see it succeed as an alternative to other AVR manufacturers using DSP architecture. D&M and Pioneer, at the least, could use the competition...at least for those of you not waiting on Emotiva to join the Atmos bandwagon...


Stu - my question is: does it have Dirac capability on all 11 channels. Thanks.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

you guys werent kidding about San Andreas and its unreal ATMOS mix


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> you guys werent kidding about San Andreas and its unreal ATMOS mix


Did you, like me, duck several times during the movie as large pieces of buildings, bridges, mountainsides etc came at you from above?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> Did you, like me, duck several times during the movie as large pieces of buildings, bridges, mountainsides etc came at you from above?


NO, haha but I had my buddy over (which I usually always watch alone or with the wife...) and just was in jaw dropped awe lol

cant wait to re-play this sucker


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> NO, haha but I had my buddy over (which I usually always watch alone or with the wife...) and just was in jaw dropped awe lol
> 
> cant wait to re-play this sucker


Yes, it is an awesome experience. *Gravity* perhaps is the most elegant use of Atmos we have had so far, but *San Andreas* and *Mad Max Fury Road* are by far the most physically impressive. 

Last night I chose a random movie and it happened to be *Jurassic Park, The Lost World*. The sound in this movie is very good and in the many standout set pieces, such as the truck dropping over the cliff, the use of all of the speakers in the standard 7.1 mix is outstandingly good. But when this movie is upmixed with DSU, it takes on an entirely new life and is just so much more immersive, which in turn means that the viewer is just so much more involved with what is going on on-screen. When the huge prehistoric beasts snarl and growl from above, the sense of their sheer physical size is enhanced enormously when the sound of their bellowing is also coming from above. Great example of DSU working well.


----------



## desray2k

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, it is an awesome experience. *Gravity* perhaps is the most elegant use of Atmos we have had so far, but *San Andreas* and *Mad Max Fury Road* are by far the most physically impressive.
> 
> Last night I chose a random movie and it happened to be *Jurassic Park, The Lost World*. The sound in this movie is very good and in the many standout set pieces, such as the truck dropping over the cliff, the use of all of the speakers in the standard 7.1 mix is outstandingly good. But when this movie is upmixed with DSU, it takes on an entirely new life and is just so much more immersive, which in turn means that the viewer is just so much more involved with what is going on on-screen. When the huge prehistoric beasts snarl and growl from above, the sense of their sheer physical size is enhanced enormously when the sound of their bellowing is also coming from above. Great example of DSU working well.


Not just Jurassic Park The Lost World...in fact the entire Jurassic Park trilogy gave an impressive performance using DSU! try Jurassic Park!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I have to get JP 2 and 3 on BR...love that trilogy...and looking froward to JW 

another great DSU movie is the animated Escape from planet earth...my son LOVES it and the many overhead flyovers is amazing


----------



## kbarnes701

desray2k said:


> Not just Jurassic Park The Lost World...in fact the entire Jurassic Park trilogy gave an impressive performance using DSU! try Jurassic Park!


I can believe it. I haven’t watched the first movie (don't have the third) since I got DSU IIRC, so I ought to add that great classic to my list of movies to see soon. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Stu - my question is: does it have Dirac capability on all 11 channels. Thanks.


Would be a huge and surprising oversight if it didn't equalize all channels. The more likely cost-cutting measure IMO would be Dirac Lite on all channels, not Dirac full on only seven channels.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Three of the sites I too frequent very often. I find bluray.com sound/picture reviews to be very reliable.


Agreed Keith, my only gripe with bluray.com (which is literally the first website I check in the morning) is that their reviewers have yet to upgrade to Atmos. San Andreas review was another example where we got a very positive comments about audio quality, but the disclaimer regarding Atmos. I'm grateful that we have Ralph Potts' reviews available on AVS and for the investment he made to upgrade to Atmos earlier this year. I also like the way Ralph will throw in the occasional comment about DSU on/off when reviewing non-Atmos mixed movies. 

If someone from bluray.com reads this site/thread, get with the times and have a reviewer join the immersive club - please. Steve


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Agreed Keith, my only gripe with bluray.com (which is literally the first website I check in the morning) is that their reviewers have yet to upgrade to Atmos. San Andreas review was another example where we got a very positive comments about audio quality, but the disclaimer regarding Atmos. I'm grateful that we have Ralph Potts' reviews available on AVS and for the investment he made to upgrade to Atmos earlier this year. I also like the way Ralph will throw in the occasional comment about DSU on/off when reviewing non-Atmos mixed movies.
> 
> If someone from bluray.com reads this site/thread, get with the times and have a reviewer join the immersive club - please. Steve


Absolutely.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Would be a huge and surprising oversight if it didn't equalize all channels. The more likely cost-cutting measure IMO would be Dirac Lite on all channels, not Dirac full on only seven channels.


I agree that it would be an oversight to omit Dirac processing on all channels if all channels were internal. However, it is not clear to me at this time if the externally amped channels are EQd with Dirac. I see no good reason why they should not be, but I'd like confirmation that they are. If they are, then this unit is quite attractive to those seeking a simple solution with one box for the AVR functions, Dirac and 7 channels of good amplification internally.

Also, you raise a good point as to whether the version of Dirac is the full monty, or a lite version.

@sdrucker - Stu, perhaps you could seek clarification on that too when you visit them at CEDIA? Thanks.


----------



## dmarcink

smurraybhm said:


> Agreed Keith, my only gripe with bluray.com (which is literally the first website I check in the morning) is that their reviewers have yet to upgrade to Atmos. San Andreas review was another example where we got a very positive comments about audio quality, but the disclaimer regarding Atmos. I'm grateful that we have Ralph Potts' reviews available on AVS and for the investment he made to upgrade to Atmos earlier this year. I also like the way Ralph will throw in the occasional comment about DSU on/off when reviewing non-Atmos mixed movies.
> 
> If someone from bluray.com reads this site/thread, get with the times and have a reviewer join the immersive club - please. Steve


Before I read this I was looking around on Blu-ray.com to see if I could leave a comment about an Atmos upgrade for their reviewers. Its about time, overdue in fact.

San Andreas is still wrapped. I cannot wait.
Marantz AV8802A
Parasound Halo's


----------



## Stoked21

Non-traditional movie to watch. Independent film "Love and Mercy"....Beach Boys were before my time, but interesting story. While not the jaw dropping audio in a typical action movie, the film in DSU was interesting. During the hallucinations you think you might be losing your mind too, as people are talking above you throughout the movie. Great test to hear psychotic delusions coming from your tops with DSU. The musical aspect adds another element that provides you with staging around the room.

I'll probably check out San Andreas in atmos just to use as a demo/setup disc. Though I have to say that I'm betting the new Terminator and Jurassic World will be insane. My kids say that Pixels was absolutely hilarious. I did see Inside Out at the theater (I thought it was suppose to receive Atmos mix?) and it was funny as all hell---especially for adults with the innuendos and gender roles. Waiting on all of these.


----------



## lujan

desray2k said:


> Not just Jurassic Park The Lost World...in fact the entire Jurassic Park trilogy gave an impressive performance using DSU! try Jurassic Park!


I agree, when I watched the trilogy a month or two ago with DSU I was very impressed. San Andreas was awesome with the Atmos mix. Sorry to be a little off topic but I liked San Andreas 10 times as much as Age of Ultron (not Atmos but another recent release) and thought the price was well worth it.


----------



## Stoked21

I'm glad I waited on buying my new AVR or prepro over the last few weeks. If some of the Arcam and Anthem releases are really in the sub $3k range, and potentially Emotiva (though I doubt they're priced that low), that just give me more choices vs the D&M. I'm glad I went with the ext amps as it just provides me with so much more flexibility in my pro/avr choices.

Hopefully I don't have to wait too much longer for them to actually publish docs and pricing and start shipping. I'm assuming this weekend with CEDIA will be the jumping off point. 

Holiday season is always the big BD movie release push for Xmas shopping. So much is coming out that I really don't want to be without my HT for too long waiting for new 11.x choice. Alternatively, I really don't want to use my existing AVR to watch everything in 5.2.4 just to watch again in 7.2.4 shortly after. After I've seen a movie in the theater and then once again at home, it's difficult for me to watch a third time in such a short time span. Unless of course it's an amazing movie.


----------



## Stoked21

double post


----------



## FilmMixer

bkeeler10 said:


> Would be a huge and surprising oversight if it didn't equalize all channels. The more likely cost-cutting measure IMO would be Dirac Lite on all channels, not Dirac full on only seven channels.


Isn't Dirac "Lite," as implemented on the XMC-1, feature "lite" and not processing "lite?"

i.e. no target curve, range or curtain editing? 

I think the moniker "lite" denotes a hobbled correction calculation.....

That being said, from reading their site, it appears as if thee is nothing "special" about the implementation in these AVRs....


----------



## DigitalAV

rhbblb1 said:


> In my Atmos setup, I have 4 Atlantic Technology IC-8.3 in ceiling speakers. These speakers appear identical to the IC-6-OBA except the midrange driver is a bit larger. The tweeters can be aimed. AT recommended that they be set in the dipole position and one tweeter aimed toward the MLP and the other tweeter aimed in the opposite direction. The did point out that they are dipoles only from 2K up. The speaker should be oriented so the "arrow" on the speaker be aimed towards the MLP. I have been listening to this setup for about 2 months. I am extremely satisfied with the results. I have never noticed any of the speakers calling attention to themselves. Imaging is spot on. I heard all of the Atmos demos at CEDIA and none were superior to what I have been living with.


Have you by chance tried your IC-8.3 Atmos speakers all in bipole mode? Curious how that might change the overall effect.


----------



## stikle

rmilyard said:


> Saw there was a Atmos Demo Blu Ray I think Jan 2015. Just thought could get that free but guess I was wrong.



Nope, not legally.


----------



## kingwiggi

FilmMixer said:


> Isn't Dirac "Lite," as implemented on the XMC-1, feature "lite" and not processing "lite?"
> 
> i.e. no target curve, range or curtain editing?
> 
> I think the moniker "lite" denotes a hobbled correction calculation.....
> 
> That being said, from reading their site, it appears as if thee is nothing "special" about the implementation in these AVRs....



Correct

Lite means that your just stuck with Emotiva's house curve.


----------



## Stoked21

BTW, I forgot to mention that when seeing Inside Out at the theater there was an animated musical short before the movie in typical Disney fashion.
It's called "Lava" and is on Vudu for $1.99. 

I dare anyone to say it's not one of the absolute best DSU demos you can find. At 7 minutes long it'll run your ceiling through the ringer and challenge the musicality of your system at the same time.

A folklore Hawaiian song sung in the style of israel kamakawiwo-ole (Somewhere over the Rainbow) with ukulele. You will hear birds flying over, underwater effects, water bubbles, whales, fissures cracking, explosions, ocean waves, wind, rain, harmonies, on and on and on from overhead. Extremely dynamic and excellent music (and in my opinion a really cool love story/song). 

It's a shame that it's only DD+. As brilliant as it is, I couldn't imagine if it was actually mixed in Atmos....

Trust me....spend the $1.99!!!!


----------



## FilmMixer

Stoked21 said:


> BTW, I forgot to mention that when seeing Inside Out at the theater there was an animated musical short before the movie in typical Disney fashion.
> It's called "Lava" and is on Vudu for $1.99.
> 
> I dare anyone to say it's not one of the absolute best DSU demos you can find. At 7 minutes long it'll run your ceiling through the ringer and challenge the musicality of your system at the same time.
> 
> A folklore Hawaiian song sung in the style of israel kamakawiwo-ole (Somewhere over the Rainbow) with ukulele. You will hear birds flying over, underwater effects, water bubbles, whales, fissures cracking, explosions, ocean waves, wind, rain, harmonies, on and on and on from overhead. Extremely dynamic and excellent music (and in my opinion a really cool love story/song).
> 
> It's a shame that it's only DD+. As brilliant as it is, I couldn't imagine if it was actually mixed in Atmos....
> 
> Trust me....spend the $1.99!!!!


Just a note.. It actually was mixed theatrically in Atmos.... 

And as a commentary... DD+ is damn good.... At 640, you really shouldn't notice a difference between it and lossless... In a blind, I doubt many could


----------



## Stoked21

I always joke that here in KC there are only 4 theaters with limited Atmos screens: 2 AMCs one of which is pretty far away, a Cinetopia that's a good drive through town and my house. HAHA. I'm sure there are many others in KC with Atmos, but nobody that I know. Having said that, I didn't see the short in Atmos so that's news to me. I take it you approve/agree with my statement on the short? I'm curious to hear other's feedback (and thoroughly expect ooohhhs and ahhhs)


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> BTW, I forgot to mention that when seeing Inside Out at the theater there was an animated musical short before the movie in typical Disney fashion.
> It's called "Lava" and is on Vudu for $1.99.
> 
> I dare anyone to say it's not one of the absolute best DSU demos you can find. At 7 minutes long it'll run your ceiling through the ringer and challenge the musicality of your system at the same time.
> 
> A folklore Hawaiian song sung in the style of israel kamakawiwo-ole (Somewhere over the Rainbow) with ukulele. You will hear birds flying over, underwater effects, water bubbles, whales, fissures cracking, explosions, ocean waves, wind, rain, harmonies, on and on and on from overhead. Extremely dynamic and excellent music (and in my opinion a really cool love story/song).
> 
> It's a shame that it's only DD+. As brilliant as it is, I couldn't imagine if it was actually mixed in Atmos....
> 
> Trust me....spend the $1.99!!!!


i just did cheers.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

kbarnes701 said:


> Very honest of you to say so (I find your reviews to be very honest too, which is not always the case with some magazines I read). I agree that the Sunfire is hugely expensive and wouldn't ever be my own first choice, but would the SVS (and presumably Hsu) subs you mention give the same performance in such a small box? I was thinking that maybe some would pay the premium for great performance from a small form factor which seems to be the Sunfire's USP.


Yes...but by getting a slightly larger enclosure (SVS, for example), you get just as much performance for 1/3 the cost (or so). A few years back I reviewed a Sunfire Atmos sub....a tiny little box that really packed some punch down to about 30Hz....Their sales push was for the high WAF because you could hide this thing just about anywhere (I want to say it was an 8" cube or so), but where you can hide an 8" cube you may be able to put a 12" cube there as well, you know what I mean?


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Stu - my question is: does it have Dirac capability on all 11 channels. Thanks.


 
I'm hoping to get answers to all of these by Friday AM - not sure I'll have time to get to AudioControl's booth before the Epson event for AVSers when I get to Dallas Thursday afternoon.


----------



## nissanz33

sorry still catching up on this thread, but are REDBOX blu-rays different from blu-rays bought from a retail store, such as amazon or best-buy?
Do they not get "mixed" with ATMOS?


TIA


----------



## Dave Vaughn

nissanz33 said:


> sorry still catching up on this thread, but are REDBOX blu-rays different from blu-rays bought from a retail store, such as amazon or best-buy?
> Do they not get "mixed" with ATMOS?
> 
> 
> TIA


Depends on the studio.


----------



## bkeeler10

kingwiggi said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Dirac "Lite," as implemented on the XMC-1, feature "lite" and not processing "lite?"
> 
> i.e. no target curve, range or curtain editing?
> 
> I think the moniker "lite" denotes a hobbled correction calculation.....
> 
> That being said, from reading their site, it appears as if thee is nothing "special" about the implementation in these AVRs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> Lite means that your just stuck with Emotiva's house curve.
Click to expand...

Stuck with Dirac's house curve, I think you meant.


----------



## asere

The Man from U.N.C.L.E arrives on November 17th on bluray.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Fineberg

asere said:


> The Man from U.N.C.L.E arrives on November 17th on bluray.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


With ATMOS?


----------



## asere

Brian Fineberg said:


> With ATMOS?


Yes with Atmos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I'm hoping to get answers to all of these by Friday AM - not sure I'll have time to get to AudioControl's booth before the Epson event for AVSers when I get to Dallas Thursday afternoon.


Thanks Stu. Whatever you discover will be well received I am sure.


----------



## KennyLSU

In general do non Atmos movies sound much better when upmixed through DSU? Still haven't had a chance to try this out but plan on it this week. 

Also, is it bad to increase the sound from the height speakers? I believe Audyssey set them at 12 ft and -2.0db on my AVR-S910W. The distance is pretty spot on to the MLP, if not a little high. If I increase this to -1.0 or even 0, will it increase the effect any? Still trying to understand the process of Audyssey, but does the distance and level coincide? If I change the level, do I need to adjust the distance as well?


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Isn't Dirac "Lite," as implemented on the XMC-1, feature "lite" and not processing "lite?"
> 
> i.e. no target curve, range or curtain editing?
> 
> I think the moniker "lite" denotes a hobbled correction calculation.....
> 
> That being said, from reading their site, it appears as if thee is nothing "special" about the implementation in these AVRs....


In the Emo XMC-1 it's feature lite not processing lite. AFAIK the only difference is that when you pay the extra 99 bucks, you get to save additional curves, edit the target curve etc.

I’d imagine the AudioControl units would have a full DL implementation as they are aimed at the CI market.


----------



## kbarnes701

dave vaughn said:


> yes...but by getting a slightly larger enclosure (svs, for example), you get just as much performance for 1/3 the cost (or so). A few years back i reviewed a sunfire atmos sub....a tiny little box that really packed some punch down to about 30hz....their sales push was for the high waf because you could hide this thing just about anywhere (i want to say it was an 8" cube or so), but where you can hide an 8" cube you may be able to put a 12" cube there as well, you know what i mean?


 ikwym


----------



## kbarnes701

KennyLSU said:


> In general do non Atmos movies sound much better when upmixed through DSU? Still haven't had a chance to try this out but plan on it this week.


Yes - almost every movie I have played vias DSU (hundreds) has sounded much more immersive and often much more involving and exciting when upmixed via DSU. Many of us have said that the Atmos AVR is worth the money for DSU alone.



KennyLSU said:


> Also, is it bad to increase the sound from the height speakers? I believe Audyssey set them at 12 ft and -2.0db on my AVR-S910W. The distance is pretty spot on to the MLP, if not a little high. If I increase this to -1.0 or even 0, will it increase the effect any? Still trying to understand the process of Audyssey, but does the distance and level coincide? If I change the level, do I need to adjust the distance as well?


OT for this thread. Take it to the Official Audyssey Thread and I, and probably several others, will answer you fully. Meanwhile you might want to look at the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my sig, which answers your questions I think.

*e)1. Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?*

*e)2. Is it OK to change the distance settings Audyssey sets?*


----------



## KennyLSU

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - almost every movie I have played vias DSU (hundreds) has sounded much more immersive and often much more involving and exciting when upmixed via DSU. Many of us have said that the Atmos AVR is worth the money for DSU alone.
> 
> 
> 
> OT for this thread. Take it to the Official Audyssey Thread and I, and probably several others, will answer you fully. Meanwhile you might want to look at the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my sig, which answers your questions I think.
> 
> *e)1. Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?*
> 
> *e)2. Is it OK to change the distance settings Audyssey sets?*


Thanks. I will check the FAQ before asking.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

KennyLSU said:


> In general do non Atmos movies sound much better when upmixed through DSU? Still haven't had a chance to try this out but plan on it this week.
> 
> Also, is it bad to increase the sound from the height speakers? I believe Audyssey set them at 12 ft and -2.0db on my AVR-S910W. The distance is pretty spot on to the MLP, if not a little high. If I increase this to -1.0 or even 0, will it increase the effect any? Still trying to understand the process of Audyssey, but does the distance and level coincide? If I change the level, do I need to adjust the distance as well?


Yes, DSU is a nice enhancement for non-Atmos material. I never turn it off. 

As for speaker levels, in my experience a slight alteration to Audyssey's detected distances for the heights can potentially make the soundfield "snap" into place. Measure the actual distance for heights and put a good Atmos demo on a loop, then tweak height distance slightly. You'll know it when you find the right setting. For me, the Leaf demo clip from the Atmos demo disc is the best for this, as when you get thing right, some sounds will move THROUGH the room rather than just seem above you or in the bed channels.

As for changing levels, keep in mind that Atmos isn't just about the heights as a channel, but as a supplement to position sound in 3-D space, which is dependent upon all channels being at the same calibrated level. So yes, you can choose to turn the heights up... But doing so will make sounds that are supposed to image between the heights and beds collapse to the height plane. Essentially, it's like taking the 256 positions from bed to height (1 being bed level and 256 being height level) and compressing it so height level ends up being 200-256, if that makes any sense.

Edited to add: The 256 number is just an example. I don't know how many positions the Atmos mixing plugin has on the XYZ planes or the precision of the placement (i.e. whether that number extends to decimal points in that 3-D space). But it's kinda' like when you calibrate a television's black and white level. You know digital 16 is black and digital 235 is white... but if you choose to turn contrast up beyond the calibrated level for white, you're clipping whites and altering the picture from its intended representation. The same goes for sound in Atmos. It's a reference vs. preference argument, but if you're trying to get a similar sound in your home to what the mixer intended, sticking to the reference calibration is the best way to ensure that... even if you just subjectively want more presence from your height channels. You're totally free to do it, but you're not hearing what you were meant to hear. Just know that if the mixer had intended there to be more sound up there, he would have placed it there in the mix.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> ikwym


In particular, if you go with the SVS sealed vs ported. The SB-1000 is exceptional for its size.


----------



## dvdwilly3

FWIW, there seems to be something going on with the forum software (or something??).

The past several times when I have posted, I got the following error message.

"The following errors occurred with your submission: 

This forum requires that you wait 10 seconds between posts. Please try again in 7 seconds."
But, I was only posting a single post. It seems to be a glitch to me...


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes, DSU is a nice enhancement for non-Atmos material. I never turn it off.
> 
> 
> 
> As for speaker levels, in my experience a slight alteration to Audyssey's detected distances for the heights can potentially make the soundfield "snap" into place. Measure the actual distance for heights and put a good Atmos demo on a loop, then tweak height distance slightly. You'll know it when you find the right setting. For me, the Leaf demo clip from the Atmos demo disc is the best for this, as when you get thing right, some sounds will move THROUGH the room rather than just seem above you or in the bed channels.


This is excellent input Jeremy. I found I had to turn my tops up about 1-1.5db vs calibration. However, as you mention they are more top heavy now, though not localizable. Once I get all my equip swapped and recalibrate, I'll try running with whatever optimization I end up with and not being so aggressive on the tops....


----------



## FilmMixer

dvdwilly3 said:


> FWIW, there seems to be something going on with the forum software (or something??).
> 
> The past several times when I have posted, I got the following error message.
> 
> "The following errors occurred with your submission:
> 
> This forum requires that you wait 10 seconds between posts. Please try again in 7 seconds."
> But, I was only posting a single post. It seems to be a glitch to me...


Common issue on mobile defies with the Enhanced Mobile View.


----------



## batpig

nissanz33 said:


> sorry still catching up on this thread, but are REDBOX blu-rays different from blu-rays bought from a retail store, such as amazon or best-buy?
> Do they not get "mixed" with ATMOS?


Bottom line is that it depends on the studio -- Lionsgate is famous for "crippling" their Redbox rentals with lossy audio (not the full lossless track) which is a darn shame because they have among the most Atmos titles released to date. Thankfully the other studio with a bunch of Atmos releases (Warner) doesn't do this.

You can refer to the list Sanjay posted a few days ago (below). Basically, as far as I know, any of the Lionsgate stuff below will NOT have Atmos with Redbox but the other titles (if available) should.



sdurani said:


> And just to keep everyone up to date, here is the domestic (US) release list as it currently stands:
> 
> *Currently Available*
> 1) Transformers: Age of Extinction (Paramount)
> 2) Step Up All In (Lionsgate)
> 3) Expendables 3 (Lionsgate)
> 4) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Paramount)
> 5) John Wick (Lionsgate)
> 6) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter (Red Bull Media)
> 7) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1 (Lionsgate)
> 8) Unbroken (Universal)
> 9) Gravity (Warner Bros)
> 10) American Sniper (Warner Bros)
> 11) Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros)
> 12) The Gunman (Universal)
> 13) Insurgent (Lionsgate)
> 14) Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros)
> 15) Age of Adeline (Lionsgate)
> 16) Dracula (Sony)
> 17) San Andreas (Warner Bros)
> 18) The Gallows (Warner Bros)
> 
> *Coming Soon*
> 19) Fifth Element (Sony) [Oct 27]
> 20) Pixels (Sony) [Oct27]
> 21) Leon: The Professional (Sony) [Oct 27]
> 
> 22) Game of Thrones: Winterfell (HBO) [Nov 3]
> 23) Game of Thrones: King's Landing (HBO) [Nov 3]
> 24) Terminator Genisys (Paramount) [Nov 10]
> 25) Man From U.N.C.L.E. (Warner Bros) [Nov 17]
> 
> 26) Roger Waters The Wall (Universal) [Dec 1]
> 27) Minions (Universal) [Dec 8]
> 28) Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (Paramount) [Dec 15]


----------



## KennyLSU

I'd be wary of the Gravity Redbox version. I can only find an Atmos track on the Diamond Luxe edition which came out after the original release. I doubt Redbox switched out the release in their kiosks. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Selden Ball

dvdwilly3 said:


> FWIW, there seems to be something going on with the forum software (or something??).
> 
> The past several times when I have posted, I got the following error message.
> 
> "The following errors occurred with your submission:
> 
> This forum requires that you wait 10 seconds between posts. Please try again in 7 seconds."
> But, I was only posting a single post. It seems to be a glitch to me...





FilmMixer said:


> Common issue on mobile defies with the Enhanced Mobile View.


I've gotten that message when posting from desktop Firefox. I suspect it's the same bug in the forum software which causes the double posts, but with slightly different timing. It'd be really nice if they could fix it.


----------



## rhbblb1

DigitalAV said:


> Have you by chance tried your IC-8.3 Atmos speakers all in bipole mode? Curious how that might change the overall effect.


No. I talked to the speaker designer and he insisted I use it in dipole mode. It is a bit of a big deal to remove all the speakers to access the switch to change the mode from dipole to bipole.


----------



## batpig

rhbblb1 said:


> No. I talked to the speaker designer and he insisted I use it in dipole mode. It is a bit of a big deal to remove all the speakers to access the switch to change the mode from dipole to bipole.


Are you serious, you have to remove the speakers to access the switch? It's not on the front face behind the grill?


----------



## rhbblb1

batpig said:


> Are you serious, you have to remove the speakers to access the switch? It's not on the front face behind the grill?


Yup. I'm serious.


----------



## batpig

Ouch, that's rough. I really wanted the AT's but I'm scrapping on budget after just buying a home so I went with a pair of Niles instead since I got the pair on eBay for under $150 (less than half the cost of the AT 6.3's let alone the 8.3's). They are a similar bipole/dipole dual tweeter design but the diffuse/direct switch is accessible on the front baffle under a magnetic grill, so it's a snap to change for testing. 

I settled on bipole personally, I felt dipole was too mushy and diffuse, but it's a different design than the AT and I understand their logic given the way the tweeters fire in different directions along the same access...


----------



## ALtlOff

KennyLSU said:


> In general do non Atmos movies sound much better when upmixed through DSU? Still haven't had a chance to try this out but plan on it this week.


I just got my Atmos receiver up and running last week and DSU constantly surprises me with not only how good it is overall, but how accurate it can be with just standard 5.1 content, was watching Need for Speed the other night off DirecTV, at the 1:47 mark there's a helicopter pass that runs from bottom right to top left, DSU placed the sound dead on with my front height configuration.




KennyLSU said:


> Also, is it bad to increase the sound from the height speakers? I believe Audyssey set them at 12 ft and -2.0db on my AVR-S910W. The distance is pretty spot on to the MLP, if not a little high. If I increase this to -1.0 or even 0, will it increase the effect any? Still trying to understand the process of Audyssey, but does the distance and level coincide? If I change the level, do I need to adjust the distance as well?


IMO, it's not bad to change the settings as long as you like it, just make sure you save the original ones first so you can go back if you want. I always prefer my heights and surrounds a little hot/louder. If you want to change them, just do the levels, that has to do with volume, distances have to do with the timing of the sound placement.


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> With ATMOS?


From what I read on the blu-ray.com forum - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
the German copy of the film has been confirmed as having ATMOS.
I don't believe that anyone has confirmed yet that the U.S. version will have ATMOS.


Ray


----------



## Chesebro

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes, DSU is a nice enhancement for non-Atmos material. I never turn it off.
> 
> As for speaker levels, in my experience a slight alteration to Audyssey's detected distances for the heights can potentially make the soundfield "snap" into place. Measure the actual distance for heights and put a good Atmos demo on a loop, then tweak height distance slightly. You'll know it when you find the right setting. For me, the Leaf demo clip from the Atmos demo disc is the best for this, as when you get thing right, some sounds will move THROUGH the room rather than just seem above you or in the bed channels.
> 
> As for changing levels, keep in mind that Atmos isn't just about the heights as a channel, but as a supplement to position sound in 3-D space, which is dependent upon all channels being at the same calibrated level. So yes, you can choose to turn the heights up... But doing so will make sounds that are supposed to image between the heights and beds collapse to the height plane. Essentially, it's like taking the 256 positions from bed to height (1 being bed level and 256 being height level) and compressing it so height level ends up being 200-256, if that makes any sense.
> 
> Edited to add: The 256 number is just an example. I don't know how many positions the Atmos mixing plugin has on the XYZ planes or the precision of the placement (i.e. whether that number extends to decimal points in that 3-D space). But it's kinda' like when you calibrate a television's black and white level. You know digital 16 is black and digital 235 is white... but if you choose to turn contrast up beyond the calibrated level for white, you're clipping whites and altering the picture from its intended representation. The same goes for sound in Atmos. It's a reference vs. preference argument, but if you're trying to get a similar sound in your home to what the mixer intended, sticking to the reference calibration is the best way to ensure that... even if you just subjectively want more presence from your height channels. You're totally free to do it, but you're not hearing what you were meant to hear. Just know that if the mixer had intended there to be more sound up there, he would have placed it there in the mix.


I have a marantz 7009 how do i turn on DSU or is it automatic


----------



## Chesebro

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes, DSU is a nice enhancement for non-Atmos material. I never turn it off.
> 
> As for speaker levels, in my experience a slight alteration to Audyssey's detected distances for the heights can potentially make the soundfield "snap" into place. Measure the actual distance for heights and put a good Atmos demo on a loop, then tweak height distance slightly. You'll know it when you find the right setting. For me, the Leaf demo clip from the Atmos demo disc is the best for this, as when you get thing right, some sounds will move THROUGH the room rather than just seem above you or in the bed channels.
> 
> As for changing levels, keep in mind that Atmos isn't just about the heights as a channel, but as a supplement to position sound in 3-D space, which is dependent upon all channels being at the same calibrated level. So yes, you can choose to turn the heights up... But doing so will make sounds that are supposed to image between the heights and beds collapse to the height plane. Essentially, it's like taking the 256 positions from bed to height (1 being bed level and 256 being height level) and compressing it so height level ends up being 200-256, if that makes any sense.
> 
> Edited to add: The 256 number is just an example. I don't know how many positions the Atmos mixing plugin has on the XYZ planes or the precision of the placement (i.e. whether that number extends to decimal points in that 3-D space). But it's kinda' like when you calibrate a television's black and white level. You know digital 16 is black and digital 235 is white... but if you choose to turn contrast up beyond the calibrated level for white, you're clipping whites and altering the picture from its intended representation. The same goes for sound in Atmos. It's a reference vs. preference argument, but if you're trying to get a similar sound in your home to what the mixer intended, sticking to the reference calibration is the best way to ensure that... even if you just subjectively want more presence from your height channels. You're totally free to do it, but you're not hearing what you were meant to hear. Just know that if the mixer had intended there to be more sound up there, he would have placed it there in the mix.


I have a marantz 7009 how do i turn on DSU or is it automatic


----------



## FilmMixer

Chesebro said:


> I have a marantz 7009 how do i turn on DSU or is it automatic


Push the green button on the remote... 

It will scrol through the decoder options....


----------



## ALtlOff

Chesebro said:


> I have a marantz 7009 how do i turn on DSU or is it automatic


I believe it's the same as most, should just be Dolby Surround, it will automatically switch between the upmixer and true Atmos depending on the signal/data it is receiving from the source.


----------



## pdasterly

speaker placement for rear surrounds, should they face outward toward tv slightly above ear-level or point inward towards listening position at ear-level. I have my couch up against the wall.


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> From what I read on the blu-ray.com forum - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> the German copy of the film has been confirmed as having ATMOS.
> I don't believe that anyone has confirmed yet that the U.S. version will have ATMOS.
> 
> 
> Ray


Look at the back cover of Man from Uncle and read it, it says Canada and U.S. Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Jive Turkey

I think it's time we stand up and give a nice round of applause to Dolby Labs, and the studios that are supporting Atmos, for the job they've done to date.


----------



## NorthSky

...To Warner Bros Studios in particular...Gravity, Mad Max & San Andreas. ............................................................................. And John Wick (LG).

And boo to Disney and FOX studios.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> Look at the back cover of Man from Uncle and read it, it says Canada and U.S. Dolby Atmos.



Thanks! I totally missed that.


----------



## DigitalAV

rhbblb1 said:


> No. I talked to the speaker designer and he insisted I use it in dipole mode. It is a bit of a big deal to remove all the speakers to access the switch to change the mode from dipole to bipole.


Gotcha. Can you tilt the tweeters/baffles, or just rotate? I assume the IC-6 OBA is basically the same with smaller woofer and fixed on dipole mode.


----------



## rhbblb1

DigitalAV said:


> Gotcha. Can you tilt the tweeters/baffles, or just rotate? I assume the IC-6 OBA is basically the same with smaller woofer and fixed on dipole mode.


The tweeters can be tilted. It appears that the IC-6 OBA is similar. The name change may simply be for marketing purposes.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> In particular, if you go with the SVS sealed vs ported. The SB-1000 is exceptional for its size.


Agreed. I had dual SVS subs before the Submersives. They are excellent subs and terrific value for money.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Are you serious, you have to remove the speakers to access the switch? It's not on the front face behind the grill?


The truly excellent Emotiva ERD-1 bipoles have the same design. The switch is in a recess in back of the speaker. Easy enough to remove them though as they are fixed to the wall with a sort of French cleat arrangement. Just lift them off.


----------



## broodro0ster

Is there already a test bluray out so you can check the volume levels of the overhead speakers?

After calibrating with Audyssey, I always use the Spears Munsil bluray to check the volumes with the Audyssey filters applied, but that doesn't work for the atmos speakers.
And if you use the volume test from the AVR, Audyssey filters aren't applied so you're not meassuring correctly.


----------



## helvetica bold

Sony is coming out with a new Atmos and DTSX receiver next year. 
It ain't cheap!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

2800$ isnt that pricey....means ~2000.00 street price...


----------



## petetherock

helvetica bold said:


> Sony is coming out with a new Atmos and DTSX receiver next year.
> It ain't cheap!
> http://youtu.be/JSSoC9Tqg2I


I can't open the video, and your title refer to the STR ZA 3000es.
There's a S&V review of the STR ZA 3000es, and there was no mention of Atmos? Is this the same model? 
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/sony-str-za3000es-av-receiver-review#Z2bsECjTlzmpUE5F.97


----------



## sdurani

helvetica bold said:


> Sony is coming out with a new Atmos and DTSX receiver next year.


Explains why Sony suddenly started releasing Atmos Blu-rays.


----------



## sdurani

broodro0ster said:


> Is there already a test bluray out so you can check the volume levels of the overhead speakers?


Not for sale to the public. The new Dolby demo disc being used at CEDIA has speaker identification test tones for five layouts: 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.*6*. (not a typo) 

Hopefully something similar can/will be added to Atmos Blu-rays (like the THX Optimizer feature on some DVDs).


----------



## helvetica bold

petetherock said:


> I can't open the video, and your title refer to the STR ZA 3000es.
> There's a S&V review of the STR ZA 3000es, and there was no mention of Atmos? Is this the same model?
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/sony-str-za3000es-av-receiver-review#Z2bsECjTlzmpUE5F.97


It looks like the same model but the video refers to the 2016 model.
I wonder if Atmos and DTSX will be included in their mid range receivers next year. Regardless Sony the new 2016 ES model is future proofed.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> Not for sale to the public. The new Dolby demo disc being used at CEDIA has speaker identification test tones for five layouts: 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.*6*. (not a typo)
> 
> Hopefully something similar can/will be added to Atmos Blu-rays (like the THX Optimizer feature on some DVDs).


Another reason I am glad I decided not to upgrade my Denon 5200 right now. I am certain receivers will support 9.1.6 in the near future. Maybe not with onboard amps, but with preouts for those channels. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## tjenkins95

petetherock said:


> I can't open the video, and your title refer to the STR ZA 3000es.
> There's a S&V review of the STR ZA 3000es, and there was no mention of Atmos? Is this the same model?
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/sony-str-za3000es-av-receiver-review#Z2bsECjTlzmpUE5F.97



*The reviewer in the video called it the STR-ZA5000ES which does support Dolby Atmos and DTS-X. *


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> The truly excellent Emotiva ERD-1 bipoles have the same design. The switch is in a recess in back of the speaker. Easy enough to remove them though as they are fixed to the wall with a sort of French cleat arrangement. Just lift them off.


Not so easy though with an in ceiling speaker.


----------



## batpig

rhbblb1 said:


> The tweeters can be tilted. It appears that the IC-6 OBA is similar. The name change may simply be for marketing purposes.


From what I can tell the 6OBA is identical to the 6.3 but fixed in dipole mode and with single inputs (the 8.3 and 6.3 have two inputs for dual stereo applications).

How do the tweeters tilt? Does the "bridge" assembly rotate and angle? I assume they can't tilt independently.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Not so easy though with an in ceiling speaker.


 True indeed. But then I wouldn't use a bipole in the ceiling, personally.


----------



## Stoked21

I got jumped on this thread a while back when I even suggested a near term 15.1 option. I was trying to justify ditching my 9.1 in order to get back my rear surrounds with a new 11.1. Given that TM is very common and surround wides are in dolby spec already, the writing has been on the wall that 9.1.6 is coming. The question on everyone's mind is WHEN????? I guess with all the manufs releasing brand new DTS:X capable (tongue in cheek) and HDCP 2.2 product, I'm betting at least a year and ready for next holiday season.

As some of you know I just jumped into 16 chs of ext amps specifically to be able to support this when it comes around. It pains me as I'm about to make a call today to buy Marantz AV7702mk2. Alas I could wait, but 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 is kind of grating after a while. Constant compromise between missing backs and falling in love with the 2 top pairs. I don't want to change yet again in another year, but that's the way it works!!! I already have my HT setup with speakers and amps to support 9.1.6 plus FH and RH for 19 chs plus subs. All I need is a processor that lets me utilize them (uhhhh...within my budget is kind of key here! )


----------



## Stoked21

double


----------



## BigScreen

tjenkins95 said:


> From what I read on the blu-ray.com forum - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> the German copy of the film has been confirmed as having ATMOS.
> I don't believe that anyone has confirmed yet that the U.S. version will have ATMOS.


Home Theater Forum has the press release, which confirms the Atmos soundtrack:


> The Blu-ray disc of “*The Man from U.N.C.L.E.*” will feature a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack remixed specifically for the home theater environment to place and move audio anywhere in the room, including overhead.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Stoked21 said:


> I got jumped on this thread a while back when I even suggested a near term 15.1 option. I was trying to justify ditching my 9.1 in order to get back my rear surrounds with a new 11.1. Given that TM is very common and surround wides are in dolby spec already, the writing has been on the wall that 9.1.6 is coming. The question on everyone's mind is WHEN????? I guess with all the manufs releasing brand new DTS:X capable (tongue in cheek) and HDCP 2.2 product, I'm betting at least a year and ready for next holiday season.
> 
> As some of you know I just jumped into 16 chs of ext amps specifically to be able to support this when it comes around. It pains me as I'm about to make a call today to buy Marantz AV7702mk2. Alas I could wait, but 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 is kind of grating after a while. Constant compromise between missing backs and falling in love with the 2 top pairs. I don't want to change yet again in another year, but that's the way it works!!! I already have my HT setup with speakers and amps to support 9.1.6 plus FH and RH for 19 chs plus subs. All I need is a processor that lets me utilize them (uhhhh...within my budget is kind of key here! )


Keep the hunt alive, 15.1 or bust!!!!


----------



## sdurani

tjenkins95 said:


> *The reviewer in the video called it the STR-ZA5000ES which does support Dolby Atmos and DTS-X. *


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...vr-dolby-atmos-cedia-2015-a.html#post38091041


----------



## FilmMixer

Molon_Labe said:


> Another reason I am glad I decided not to upgrade my Denon 5200 right now. I am certain receivers will support 9.1.6 in the near future.


If you consider the near future > 2 or 3 years... Then yes. Maybe..........


----------



## Stoked21

Al Sherwood said:


> Keep the hunt alive, 15.1 or bust!!!!


Not giving up on 15.1. But just ordered the 7702mk2 30 minutes ago. I'm sure I'll be changing again in 6-12 months. But will keep me happy until then! Pricing on them is very attractive considering what I paid for my yamaha 9 ch atmos AVR 6 months ago.


----------



## JamesE

FilmMixer said:


> If you consider the near future > 2 or 3 years... Then yes. Maybe..........



I would love to see 14 channels or more. I'm afraid this is going to be the same thing as 5.1. Someone has decided that 11.x is enough and that is what we are going to get for a long time.


----------



## stef2

sdurani said:


> Not for sale to the public. The new Dolby demo disc being used at CEDIA has speaker identification test tones for five layouts: 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.*6*. (not a typo)
> 
> Hopefully something similar can/will be added to Atmos Blu-rays (like the THX Optimizer feature on some DVDs).


Good...making me hope for more than 11 channels...whthin the next 12-24 months.


----------



## stef2

Stoked21 said:


> I got jumped on this thread a while back when I even suggested a near term 15.1 option. I was trying to justify ditching my 9.1 in order to get back my rear surrounds with a new 11.1. Given that TM is very common and surround wides are in dolby spec already, the writing has been on the wall that 9.1.6 is coming. The question on everyone's mind is WHEN????? I guess with all the manufs releasing brand new DTS:X capable (tongue in cheek) and HDCP 2.2 product, I'm betting at least a year and ready for next holiday season.
> 
> As some of you know I just jumped into 16 chs of ext amps specifically to be able to support this when it comes around. It pains me as I'm about to make a call today to buy Marantz AV7702mk2. Alas I could wait, but 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 is kind of grating after a while. Constant compromise between missing backs and falling in love with the 2 top pairs. I don't want to change yet again in another year, but that's the way it works!!! I already have my HT setup with speakers and amps to support 9.1.6 plus FH and RH for 19 chs plus subs. All I need is a processor that lets me utilize them (uhhhh...within my budget is kind of key here! )


I too am ready for 9.1.4 (or 9.1.6). I am ready to wait. I wont buy any of those 11 channels amps though.


----------



## Al Sherwood

FilmMixer said:


> If you consider the near future > 2 or 3 years... Then yes. Maybe..........


If the format exists for the commercial theatre, then why such a long wait for home? This part doesn't make much sense to me... I know that the spacing at home may be tight enough that the separation between adjacent pairs would be less discernible, but we have paid for other 'similar' advancements, why should this be any different?


----------



## dkwong

Al Sherwood said:


> If the format exists for the commercial theatre, then why such a long wait for home? This part doesn't make much sense to me... I know that the spacing at home may be tight enough that the separation between adjacent pairs would be less discernible, but we have paid for other 'similar' advancements, why should this be any different?



My guess is that it comes down to supply and demand. Somebody has to put in the time and money to R&D such a product and the payoff for that would likely be negative since the market for 15 channels is incredibly small. I'd love to see a graph of # of consumers against # of speakers. I would be willing to wager that the long tail starts at 5 and 15 would be minuscule.


----------



## sdurani

Al Sherwood said:


> If the format exists for the commercial theatre, then why such a long wait for home?


Because mainstream consumer Atmos products currently don't have the DSP horsepower to do real-time rendering to more than about 11 speaker locations. That might change in time, but there isn't much market pressure to do so (manufacturers aren't getting complaints saying _"my wife says 11 speakers just aren't enough in our living room"_).


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Because mainstream consumer Atmos products currently don't have the DSP horsepower to do real-time rendering to more than about 11 speaker locations. That might change in time, but there isn't much market pressure to do so (manufacturers aren't getting complaints saying _"my wife says 11 speakers just aren't enough in our living room"_).


Just to be clear as I've heard this numerous times. I've worked directly for 2 of the largest DSP manufacturers and have worked as indirect consultant for 2 more. The DSPs have more than enough speed to process more than 11 chs. It's a question of the algorithm optimization and furthermore the designers actually trying to expand beyond 11 chs. Even if the processors were not capable of it, and they are and yes there is a limit, then multiple DSPs can be and have been used. This would drive up the price of the CM work with more uBGA packaging, could potentially increase PCB layers which is big, and thus increase price to consumer.  Even with Moore's law, the speed and lithography of the die will double every 18 months. Theoretically speaking, if we were constrained to 11 chs today we could be at 22 chs by next Xmas. 

In all honesty the manufacturers of AV equipment just don't want to spend the time and the money to buy faster DSPs, put in the effort to develop yet another sw library and a more complex schematic/PCB layout. Additionally, no one is going to do this until Dolby or DTS start flooding them with spec requirements for all the additional channels. Lastly, the manufs know that we will all buy 11 chs now and 13 chs this time next year and 15 chs next summer. It doesn't benefit them to release everything all at once as they eliminate the repeat sales.


----------



## sdurani

Stoked21 said:


> The DSPs have more than enough speed to process more than 11 chs.


Not the ones being used in mainstream AVRs. Someone had posted a link a few weeks ago to a spec sheet from board-maker Momentum Data Systems which said that while the TI chips currently being used were capable of 16 channels, rendering for Atmos topped out at 13 locations and for DTS:X at 11 locations.


----------



## Stoked21

Again, that's based on the MDS design (whom I know nothing about). That does not indicate IC performance. It could be in their SW optimization, their decision to sacrifice certain processing capabilities in favor of something else, etc etc. The DSPs are more than capable. Plus MDS, or anyone else, has no incentive to design much beyond 11 as a slim minority even use 11 today. There are processors running complex communication systems and keeping airliners in the sky that are running significantly more complex algorithms. These require much faster processing than a 20kHz signal and are not forgiving when it comes to latency. It's just a question of what the market will bear from a cost pov and what volume will be in demand. I haven't looked to see what TI DSP is on the MDS board, but I can almost promise you that there is a rev that is faster with more memory.


----------



## sdurani

Stoked21 said:


> There are processors running complex communication systems and keeping airliners in the sky that are running significantly more complex algorithms.


Are those the same ones in current AVRs?


----------



## ellisr63

I wish that they would include a Dolby Atmos Demo disc with the purchase of a Atmos AVR/AVP.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Are those the same ones in current AVRs?


They can be. Semiconductor manufacturers sell lines within lines of processors. Open market and they are not custom designed for an application for the most part. I even developed a word recognition program using vorbis in a sub $1.00 16-bit MCU once!! Even if there was a limitation and the manufs wanted to run dual or triple DSPs then how many chs would you have?

I think we're veering off topic for the thread but in a nutshell. Yes there are DSPs that can handle more channels and yes they cost more. Manufs don't choose the top end DSP and in commercial products they typically choose the bottom end that fits the minimum requirements for cost reasons. If you want to dive into DSP specs I'm more than happy to, but let's move it to PM. Just suffice it to say that the DSP is not the limitation. It's the selection of the DSP and the implementation and marketing/spec requirement.


----------



## Al Sherwood

dkwong said:


> My guess is that it comes down to supply and demand. Somebody has to put in the time and money to R&D such a product and the payoff for that would likely be negative since the market for 15 channels is incredibly small. I'd love to see a graph of # of consumers against # of speakers. I would be willing to wager that the long tail starts at 5 and 15 would be minuscule.





sdurani said:


> Because mainstream consumer Atmos products currently don't have the DSP horsepower to do real-time rendering to more than about 11 speaker locations. That might change in time, but there isn't much market pressure to do so (manufacturers aren't getting complaints saying _"my wife says 11 speakers just aren't enough in our living room"_).





Stoked21 said:


> Just to be clear as I've heard this numerous times. I've worked directly for 2 of the largest DSP manufacturers and have worked as indirect consultant for 2 more. The DSPs have more than enough speed to process more than 11 chs. It's a question of the algorithm optimization and furthermore the designers actually trying to expand beyond 11 chs. Even if the processors were not capable of it, and they are and yes there is a limit, then multiple DSPs can be and have been used. This would drive up the price of the CM work with more uBGA packaging, could potentially increase PCB layers which is big, and thus increase price to consumer. Even with Moore's law, the speed and lithography of the die will double every 18 months. Theoretically speaking, if we were constrained to 11 chs today we could be at 22 chs by next Xmas.
> 
> In all honesty the manufacturers of AV equipment just don't want to spend the time and the money to buy faster DSPs, put in the effort to develop yet another sw library and a more complex schematic/PCB layout. Additionally, no one is going to do this until Dolby or DTS start flooding them with spec requirements for all the additional channels. Lastly, the manufs know that we will all buy 11 chs now and 13 chs this time next year and 15 chs next summer. It doesn't benefit them to release everything all at once as they eliminate the repeat sales.





sdurani said:


> Not the ones being used in mainstream AVRs. Someone had posted a link a few weeks ago to a spec sheet from board-maker Momentum Data Systems which said that while the TI chips currently being used were capable of 16 channels, rendering for Atmos topped out at 13 locations and for DTS:X at 11 locations.





Stoked21 said:


> Again, that's based on the MDS design (whom I know nothing about). That does not indicate IC performance. It could be in their SW optimization, their decision to sacrifice certain processing capabilities in favor of something else, etc etc. The DSPs are more than capable. Plus MDS, or anyone else, has no incentive to design much beyond 11 as a slim minority even use 11 today. There are processors running complex communication systems and keeping airliners in the sky that are running significantly more complex algorithms. These require much faster processing than a 20kHz signal and are not forgiving when it comes to latency. It's just a question of what the market will bear from a cost pov and what volume will be in demand. I haven't looked to see what TI DSP is on the MDS board, but I can almost promise you that there is a rev that is faster with more memory.





sdurani said:


> Are those the same ones in current AVRs?


*Great replies!*

As for a system with more that 11 or 13 channels, I suppose that we would have to go to the Ultra-HI-end gear where all of the channels are handled by what is essentially a powerful PC... I was just holding out hope for 9.1.6 from a mainstream company like Denon, Onkyo or Yamaha.


----------



## Stoked21

I guess I'm insane (doing the same thing over and over yet still expecting a different result).
Today it paid off!

I'm a big Vudu user vs Amazon. Not sure why I just am as it's probably habit. Maybe because they offered "SD, HD, HDX" options at 1080p instead of 720p.

I always go into the "more info" tabs on new releases to see what the audio is labeled as. On Vudu it ALWAYS says DD+ 5.1 no matter what title you view in new releases. So hit San Andreas for the 15th or 20th time today and just checked. Today its the first title I've ever seen that "UHD" as an option. Description reads "UHD up to 4k, Dolby Atmos 7.1". Atmos is only listed on the UHD format. 

What's big about this is that I detest that movie and wouldn't want to spend $15-20 for the BD. It looks like I can rent it for $4.99. For some reason it only shows SD HD HDX in own/rent choices and no UHD. I'm curious when it comes to HDCP2.2 as now the proverbial can opens. Will I be able to use my non-4K BD player Vudu app to stream 4k or down-converted video through my non 2.2 AVR and still maintain atmos audio? Or will it dump me down to the 1080p with DD+ 5.1. I've posted a lot on this thread about 2.2, being intimate with the spec, and won't rehash it. On BD this could be a big problem that could potentially limit Atmos content to only fully 2.2 compliant signal chains (if the standard BD doesn't have Atmos...and that's an if depending on what the studios do). But with streaming, I wonder if the providers will just drop down video and leave audio in-tact. My system is down for a bit so I cannot test. Additionally, while it states that UHD is available, it's not listed in the rent/own options.

Signs of change for us immersive geeks.....


----------



## tigerhonaker

Stoked21 said:


> I guess I'm insane (doing the same thing over and over yet still expecting a different result).
> Today it paid off!
> 
> I'm a big Vudu user vs Amazon. Not sure why I just am as it's probably habit. Maybe because they offered "SD, HD, HDX" options at 1080p instead of 720p.
> 
> I always go into the "more info" tabs on new releases to see what the audio is labeled as. On Vudu it ALWAYS says DD+ 5.1 no matter what title you view in new releases. So hit San Andreas for the 15th or 20th time today and just checked. Today its the first title I've ever seen that "UHD" as an option. Description reads "UHD up to 4k, Dolby Atmos 7.1".
> 
> Signs of change for us immersive geeks.....


Interesting as I also do VUDU as well as Netflix streaming.


----------



## sdurani

Stoked21 said:


> They can be.


Rather than guess, which ones are being used in used in mainstream AVRs that also keeping airliners in the sky? This way we'll know whether they're really running out of processing power or whether this is just a ploy by the industry to make you upgrade later.


----------



## Stoked21

Even though I can't watch it, I went ahead and rented San Andreas on Vudu as an experiment for $5. Had to pick the HDX version which was the highest available, despite the info stating there is a UHD. Wishful thinking, I was wondering if maybe HDX would allow UHD selection once purchased. Nope. My AVR isn't hooked up so I couldn't verify if it was DD+ or Atmos. Seeing as the info stated Atmos was only with UHD, I'm assuming it was probably coming through as DD+. I know my TV was one of the first LG to be 2.2 compliant despite not being listed in the specs (LG confirmed this). So either LG lied and Vudu app didn't offer me UHD because it thinks I'm not 2.2 or Vudu is just prepping for UHD launch and the content isn't there yet. No other devices were connected to break the 2.2 chain and internet speed wasn't an issue.


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> Even though I can't watch it, I went ahead and rented San Andreas on Vudu as an experiment for $5. Had to pick the HDX version which was the highest available, despite the info stating there is a UHD. Wishful thinking, I was wondering if maybe HDX would allow UHD selection once purchased. Nope. My AVR isn't hooked up so I couldn't verify if it was DD+ or Atmos. Seeing as the info stated Atmos was only with UHD, I'm assuming it was probably coming through as DD+. I know my TV was one of the first LG to be 2.2 compliant despite not being listed in the specs (LG confirmed this). So either LG lied and Vudu app didn't offer me UHD because it thinks I'm not 2.2 or Vudu is just prepping for UHD launch and the content isn't there yet. No other devices were connected to break the 2.2 chain and internet speed wasn't an issue.


According to Dolby's web site (as of September 30, 2015), Netflix and Amazon Instant Video offer "some movies" in Dolby Atmos, but couldn't find any examples of such movies.


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> Just suffice it to say that the DSP is not the limitation. It's the selection of the DSP and the implementation and marketing/spec requirement.


I think everyone is saying basically the same thing. There are obviously DSP chips in the world fast enough to process more than 11 channels of Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. The question is has one of these more powerful DSP's been programmed by a Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic or Analog Devices to do the specific job that's needed (decode/render >11 channels of Dolby/DTS encoded object audio).

The issue is that the mfgrs buy these DSP's as off-the-shelf products... Onkyo, D+M, Yamaha are not building the SW from the ground up like Trinnov. And the "ready-to-buy" menu options do not, at this point in time, include a DSP chip with Atmos/DTS:X rendering capability and the appropriate horsepower to exceed ~11 channels of real time rendering.

So, I'm sure you are essentially correct it's more accurate to call it a marketing/implementation issue than a DSP horsepower issue. But you have to understand that for someone who is not a DSP programmer, who doesn't see the nuanced differences that are self-evident to you with your background, explaining on an AVS thread that the "DSP horsepower" is the limitation is just a shorthand or lay explanation of essentially what you are saying with more detail. 

The key point IMO is making it clear that it's not some conspiracy where the AVR mfgrs have the capability ready to rock and are just too lazy or unwilling to expose that capability. Fundamentally, it will require the AVR mfgrs to decide that there's enough market demand for >11 channels and then they go to the DSP chipmakers (TI, CL, ADI) and ask for them to deliver a DSP that meets the new spec they are requesting. 

So when Sanjay says, "mainstream consumer Atmos products currently don't have the DSP horsepower to do real-time rendering to more than about 11 speaker locations", that is actually the truth. And it's not mutually exclusive with your point that the real limitation is marketing/implementation related.


----------



## marjen

So I am looking to set up a atoms system early next year and trying to get my ahead around what I need out of a receiver. I currently have a 7.1 setup. If i get a couple of the atmos speaker add ons, what do they hook up to? Front LR speaker? Or do they need an amp? If an amp do you need to get a 9.1 amp to power 7.1 plus atmos? I am a little confused on that arrangement. Thanks.


----------



## nitro28

marjen said:


> So I am looking to set up a atoms system early next year and trying to get my ahead around what I need out of a receiver. I currently have a 7.1 setup. If i get a couple of the atmos speaker add ons, what do they hook up to? Front LR speaker? Or do they need an amp? If an amp do you need to get a 9.1 amp to power 7.1 plus atmos? I am a little confused on that arrangement. Thanks.


You will need an Atmos capable receiver. If you are going to do 7.1.2 you would need 9 channels of amplification which some receivers have built in. If you are doing 7.1.4 you will need another external amp.


----------



## batpig

marjen said:


> So I am looking to set up a atoms system early next year and trying to get my ahead around what I need out of a receiver. I currently have a 7.1 setup. If i get a couple of the atmos speaker add ons, what do they hook up to? Front LR speaker? Or do they need an amp? If an amp do you need to get a 9.1 amp to power 7.1 plus atmos? I am a little confused on that arrangement. Thanks.


The Atmos speakers are separate channels... so adding two Atmos speakers to a 7.1 setup means you need 9 channels of processing power, and 9 channels of amplification.


----------



## marjen

Thats what i though. Damn my pioneer SC-1522 has 9.1 but is pre atmos. Wish they could just firmware upgrade it


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> Interesting as I also do VUDU as well as Netflix streaming.


Hi Terry, did you see the recent movie *'San Andreas'* with The Rock?


----------



## tigerhonaker

NorthSky said:


> Hi Terry, did you see the recent movie *'San Andreas'* with The Rock?


Bob,

Nope have not seen that yet.
Since you mentioned it I take it I should.
*Availability:*
*Blu-ray:
**Releases 11/3/2015

* I just added it to my Netflix Blu-ray list so I'll get it once it's released.

.


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> I think everyone is saying basically the same thing. There are obviously DSP chips in the world fast enough to process more than 11 channels of Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. *Yes. * The question is has one of these more powerful DSP's been programmed by a Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic or Analog Devices to do the specific job that's needed (decode/render >11 channels of Dolby/DTS encoded object audio). *Potentially, but not completely debugged and heavily dependent on the specs that Dolby engineers provide*
> 
> The issue is that the mfgrs buy these DSP's as off-the-shelf products... Onkyo, D+M, Yamaha are not building the SW from the ground up like Trinnov. And the "ready-to-buy" menu options do not, at this point in time, include a DSP chip with Atmos/DTS:X rendering capability and the appropriate horsepower to exceed ~11 channels of real time rendering.*Correct and agree*
> 
> So, I'm sure you are essentially correct it's more accurate to call it a marketing/implementation issue than a DSP horsepower issue. But you have to understand that for someone who is not a DSP programmer, who doesn't see the nuanced differences that are self-evident to you with your background, explaining on an AVS thread that the "DSP horsepower" is the limitation is just a shorthand or lay explanation of essentially what you are saying with more detail. *I do agree partially, except that it's the code that simply doesn't have the efficiency and a target device that is more consumer friendly "priced" to achieve the AVR manufs target BOM cost. Additionally, AVR manufs (who don't use COTS SW) don't want to throw in additional channels that are not spec'd from Dolby labs. *
> 
> The key point IMO is making it clear that it's not some conspiracy where the AVR mfgrs have the capability ready to rock and are just too lazy or unwilling to expose that capability. *Nope not conspiracy theory, agree and never should be called that. *Fundamentally, it will require the AVR mfgrs to decide that there's enough market demand for >11 channels and then they go to the DSP chipmakers (TI, CL, ADI) and ask for them to deliver a DSP that meets the new spec they are requesting. *Absolutely, and there's the crux. This could take some time even though the technology to support it exist.*
> 
> So when Sanjay says, "mainstream consumer Atmos products currently don't have the DSP horsepower to do real-time rendering to more than about 11 speaker locations", that is actually the truth. And it's not mutually exclusive with your point that the real limitation is marketing/implementation related.



Thanks for mediating!! 
In line above obviously.

Spending almost 20 years in the semiconductor industry as analog, DSP, and MCU specialists and then being told to spill confidential info and that because I won't share I'm wrong. Or that I'm guessing. Lol. Good thing my skin is thick!

Additionally, I see your point and I can't argue with most of what you say and never intended to imply some of what is being disputed. There's a licensing charge when the firmware is "sold" preprogrammed into the DSP flash. While it does help to recoup some of the R&D cost (man hours), it's not what the fabs make their profit on. Code is written in a modular fashion. I've worked on some 5.1 firmware before and literally could call a few routines and add a couple of library files for additional channels, as long as the speed, IO and memory were sufficient. However you can also change target devices with new library files and recompile on larger devices in the same family. Is it just click and go? No but with smaller systems it can be that easy. You normally have to optimize and slim down code to make it more speed and memory efficient and "real-time". The big issue here is "What should it sound like?". You can't make a X.X if you don't have the specs for how the source should be decoded and processed.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Indy audio labs with dts:x*

Sorry for the double dipping between here and the immersive audio thread but this does have dolby atmos so here it goes. Interesting article about Indy audio labs ACT4 with dolby atmos and supposedly will come with DTS:X already installed . ( No firmware update to get it ) .

http://www.twice.com/news/audio/ced...ons-grow-indy-audio-labs-triad-speakers/59014

https://app.box.com/s/xaqocixirlu98ytmatw7


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> Bob,
> 
> Nope have not seen that yet.
> Since you mentioned it I take it I should.
> *Availability:*
> *Blu-ray:
> **Releases 11/3/2015
> 
> * I just added it to my Netflix Blu-ray list so I'll get it once it's released.
> 
> .


That's the date for the Blu-ray rental from Netflix? 

I don't Netflix, never did in my life...I bought the Blu-ray on October 13. ...I just like to encourage my local Hollywood movie studios.  

On a different note; You are going to like what it does in your room...the ceiling might fall apart and the floor might split in two. 
It's two love stories for the price of one. ...In unusual circumstances. ...So in a sense it's a good deal...as long that your brain remains outside your home theater's door. 

* It's nice to see you here like that Terry. ...We have some in common...among them our passion for movies...all kind. 

Btw, 'San Andreas' has a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack...but only later on that I would be able to fully experience it. For now the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround audio is still a blast. And you'd swear that some of the "noises" come from above....it's almost spooky.


----------



## Wild Blue

I'm not able to attend CEDIA this year. If anyone is able to pick up an extra new Dolby Atmos demo disc, I would be most appreciative. (likewise, if DTS and/or THX have discs as well. I'm a sucker for demo discs)


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Chris Dotur said:


> I'm not able to attend CEDIA this year. If anyone is able to pick up an extra new Dolby Atmos demo disc, I would be most appreciative. (likewise, if DTS and/or THX have discs as well. I'm a sucker for demo discs)


Same here. I will be glad to pay


----------



## tigerhonaker

NorthSky said:


> That's the date for the Blu-ray rental from Netflix?
> 
> I don't Netflix, never did in my life...I bought the Blu-ray on October 13. ...I just like to encourage my local Hollywood movie studios.
> 
> On a different note; You are going to like what it does in your room...the ceiling might fall apart and the floor might split in two.
> It's two love stories for the price of one. ...In unusual circumstances. ...So in a sense it's a good deal...as long that your brain remains outside your home theater's door.
> 
> * It's nice to see you here like that Terry. ...We have some in common...among them our passion for movies...all kind.
> 
> Btw, 'San Andreas' has a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack...but only later on that I would be able to fully experience it. For now the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround audio is still a blast. And you'd swear that some of the "noises" come from above....it's almost spooky.


Bob,

I'm looking forward to seeing & hearing it. 

.


----------



## dschulz

Interesting news on the Atmos content pipeline front: Comcast adding Atmos to their XFinity set-top boxes:

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/your-home-theatre-system-is-about-to-get-even-better


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Wth. Pixels is in atmos ONLY for 2d. The 3D version is only 5.1 Dts-ma 

Bs right here


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Wth. Pixels is in atmos ONLY for 2d. The 3D version is only 5.1 Dts-ma
> 
> Bs right here


You are right Brian, I've just read the review over @ Blur.com

It's like 'Gravity' but this time around it's in the same @ once 3D BR package without another re-release. 

I totally agree with you; this is a very poor choice because 3D sound goes hand in hand with 3D picture.

* www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pixels-3D-Blu-ray/137008/#Review

This 3D BR title is from Sony Pictures.


----------



## Kris Deering

Dolby didn't have discs to hand out at show. Limited press for the show but they are doing a big run soon. No DTS or THX discs.


----------



## petetherock

Space issues ?
So they can't fit both 3D video and sound onto a single disc?


----------



## dkwong

Kris Deering said:


> Dolby didn't have discs to hand out at show. Limited press for the show but they are doing a big run soon. No DTS or THX discs.



Will these discs be available to the general public?


----------



## Kris Deering

dkwong said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby didn't have discs to hand out at show. Limited press for the show but they are doing a big run soon. No DTS or THX discs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will these discs be available to the general public?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I'll ask today though.


----------



## kingwiggi

A screenshot of the new DOLBY ATMOS demo disc.

Most notable thing here are the Atmos Test tones that we have all been waiting for.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

I want one!


----------



## Al Sherwood

kingwiggi said:


> A screenshot of the new DOLBY ATMOS demo disc.
> 
> Most notable thing here are the Atmos Test tones that we have all been waiting for.


Did you see that, did you see that!?

*"Test Tones 9.1.6" * Now all we need is that AVR!


----------



## Movie78

Can some upload the Test Tones?:crying:


----------



## rmilyard

Al Sherwood said:


> Did you see that, did you see that!?
> 
> *"Test Tones 9.1.6" * Now all we need is that AVR!


How can we get our hands on that disc?


----------



## Tamas

I too would like to be on a list for a copy of that disc.


----------



## Lesmor

Al Sherwood said:


> Did you see that, did you see that!?
> 
> *"Test Tones 9.1.6" * Now all we need is that AVR!




Always something to complain about, but as I am running 9.1.2 where are the 9.1.2 test tones?

But Hey what's different from using the existing AVR test tones?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dolby Atmos disk with test tones?

Where do I sign up?

Oh, please, please, please!


----------



## Al Sherwood

Lesmor said:


> Always something to complain about, but as I am running 9.1.2 where are the test tones?
> 
> But Hey what's different from the existing AVR test tones?


*No not a complaint at all! *

I have the space and the desire to run 9.1.6, Atmos supports up to 10 overhead channels, I am simply looking for the incremental addition of the currently support 4 channels from mainstream AVR's...


----------



## Lesmor

Al Sherwood said:


> *No not a complaint at all! *
> 
> I have the space and the desire to run 9.1.6, Atmos supports up to 10 overhead channels, I am simply looking for the incremental addition of the currently support 4 channels from mainstream AVR's...


Just to be clear of any confusion, I was the one complaining, no inference to anyone else is intended.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Lesmor said:


> Just to be clear of any confusion, I was the one complaining, no inference to anyone else is intended.


Oh! my bad then!


----------



## kingwiggi

The feeling from the show floor so far is don't hold your breath for 9.1.6 to come along anytime soon. Speaking to one of the Denon guys they don't see the market as being quite there in terms of higher end units being sold or ready yet for that many speakers. Expect 9.1.4 for higher end models in 2016 and incremental improvements thereafter.


----------



## kingwiggi

rmilyard said:


> How can we get our hands on that disc?


Not available at CEDIA from what I can tell.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Molon_Labe said:


> Boo


Agreed! 



kingwiggi said:


> The feeling from the show floor so far is don't hold your breath for 9.1.6 to come along anytime soon. Speaking to one of the Denon guys they don't see the market as being quite there in terms of higher end units being sold or ready yet for that many speakers. Expect 9.1.4 for higher end models in 2016 and incremental improvements thereafter.


I hope that the marketing types convince the been counters to go for 9.1.6 in their AVR to differentiate it from the other competitors!


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Did you see that, did you see that!?
> 
> *"Test Tones 9.1.6" * Now all we need is that AVR!


9.1.2 and 9.1.4 are missing.


----------



## Jay144

ellisr63 said:


> I wish that they would include a Dolby Atmos Demo disc with the purchase of a Atmos AVR/AVP.


Agreed, at least until content is more mainstream. I found the August 2014 ATMOS demo disc on eBay, but it wasn't cheap.

Jay


----------



## dkwong

Jay144 said:


> Agreed, at least until content is more mainstream. I found the August 2014 ATMOS demo disc on eBay, but it wasn't cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Jay



I got mine from eBay for $30. Has it gone up?


----------



## lujan

dkwong said:


> I got mine from eBay for $30. Has it gone up?


The one I could find on eBay is not the new one with the test tones.


----------



## lovingdvd

kingwiggi said:


> The feeling from the show floor so far is don't hold your breath for 9.1.6 to come along anytime soon. Speaking to one of the Denon guys they don't see the market as being quite there in terms of higher end units being sold or ready yet for that many speakers. Expect 9.1.4 for higher end models in 2016 and incremental improvements thereafter.


I had the same conversation. He said next year for 13 channels and more channels than that that don't hold your breath. Made it sound like who would want that. I for one would. Currently only Datasat and Trinnov can do that and both are very pricy.


----------



## dkwong

lujan said:


> The one I could find on eBay is not the new one with the test tones.



Of course it's not the one with test tones. That one just came out. We were talking about the August 2014 one.


----------



## dkwong

lovingdvd said:


> I had the same conversation. He said next year for 13 channels and more channels than that that don't hold your breath. Made it sound like who would want that. I for one would. Currently only Datasat and Trinnov can do that and both are very pricy.



That's the price to pay to be in the 0.01%.


----------



## jacovn

Perhaps they can do 13 channels on the current hardware base ?
It has 2x 8 channel volume control and 15 physical outputs already.

Is there a sort of block diagram out there what function all the dsp's have and the path the audio stream follows ?


----------



## jacovn

Double post...


----------



## bargervais

kingwiggi said:


> The feeling from the show floor so far is don't hold your breath for 9.1.6 to come along anytime soon. Speaking to one of the Denon guys they don't see the market as being quite there in terms of higher end units being sold or ready yet for that many speakers. Expect 9.1.4 for higher end models in 2016 and incremental improvements thereafter.


Like the ALTITUDE32 it can do all this.


----------



## Stoked21

jacovn said:


> Perhaps they can do 13 channels on the current hardware base ?
> It has 2x 8 channel volume control and 15 physical outputs already.
> 
> Is there a sort of block diagram out there what function all the dsp's have and the path the audio stream follows ?


Not going to happen and not possible.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I doubt Dolby would create a test pattern on their disc if they forecasted .01%. Granted, it will be a niche market but anyone buying a Marantz 8802 is already in a niche market. I give it two years before Denon/Marantz has it available in their upper tier products. I doubt we will see any receivers with amps supporting that many channels due to space/heat/power but it will be available via pre outs. Most people who adopt Atmos and put 4 speakers on the ceiling would do 6 in a heartbeat.


I already put my extra 2 up when I did the first 4 for the total of 6! 
Might as well fish everything at once!!


----------



## jacovn

Stoked21 said:


> Not going to happen and not possible.


Could you explain why ?

I assume one dsp does the decoding of the incoming audio/bitstream. Last One does the audissey.
I always thought they have some kind of field programmable chip as glue in between the dsp's to route traffic from dsp to dsp.

Obvious it is now 12 channels wide path to do 7.1.4.
14 channels for 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 seems not to far away  perhaps the dsp audissey runs on has no more cycles for additional channels or some kind alike issue elewhere ?

Duh.. I now see that a 8802 has max 13 physical outputs.. Simple count of the analogue output cards on a googled image..


----------



## Stoked21

jacovn said:


> Could you explain why ?
> 
> I assume one dsp does the decoding of the incoming audio/bitstream. Last One does the audissey.
> I always thought they have some kind of field programmable chip as glue in between the dsp's to route traffic from dsp to dsp.
> 
> Obvious it is now 12 channels wide path to do 7.1.4.
> 14 channels for 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 seems not to far away  perhaps the dsp audissey runs on has no more cycles for additional channels or some kind alike issue elewhere ?


When u r coding the software u normally work with the superset of the device family for emulation. Once everything is built compiled and optimized u scale down to the lowest in the family that u can use with regards to IO and memory. Cost reduction for the bom. Especially true with consumer product. So if there's an fpga or if running i2c or some serial com between the 2 it's irrelevant as the dsp itself likely wouldn't have sufficient resources if it's a smaller subset in the device family. More importantly, even if the device does have the resources and they used the largest target device (highly unlikely), then the pcb is Extremely likely not routed with the necessary traces and the unused io are pulled low to ground. This is true of the d&m board or whoever as well as the processing board. Believe it or not pcbs r not cheap when u r talking high layer.


----------



## CBdicX

So what's the deal with Atmos Enabled speakers exact ?

I did a (Audyssey) setup with Dolby Enabled font speakers (Klipsch PR280FA) and did a setup with the same speaker setup as Front Height.
Absolute no differents at all !
Also switching between Dolby speaker and Height speaker gives no differents.
Thought as this is a official DE speaker, the Dolby setting would give a different "sound" then the Front Height choice, but no, nothing.


----------



## HT-Eman

This movie was made with dolby atmos , but the bluray movie came out with DTS-HD 5.1 . Did anybodyget a chance to see and hear this movie ? 

https://vimeo.com/114133022

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Monsters-Dark-Continent-Blu-ray/129352/


----------



## scarabaeus

Yes, immersive demo discs were very scarce on CEDIA. There were 6 or 7 DTS:X demos up and running (most with the Indy Audio acurus processor), they had the new DTS demo disc. The guys at Klipsch were willing to give me one, but they had only received 3 themself from DTS. Others had just the one they were demoing. Atmos demos were countless, and most had one copy of the new reference disc, but none were available otherwise. There are supposedly more coming in the near future.

Denon/Marantz had a demo with a DTS:X firmware, and the guy called it "not even beta, rather just a test version", which was nonetheless approved by DTS for the demo. He went on to promise the firmware update for the "premium" model(s) in January, and, due to staggered QA at D+M, the remaining models following through June or July 2016. At the end, we all got the Atmos 2014 reference disc and the DTS 2015 demo disc from CES in January, they had not received any quantities of the new ones either.

Sony also demo'd DTS:X on their new STR-ZA5000ES (and the new VPL-VW5000ES laser projector, wow!), but he did not mention the state of the firmware. I suppose it will be ready when it ships next year.

JBL had a Trinnov in a 13.4.11 config, with Atmos, DTS:X and Auro, but I did not have time to sit in on that.

Indy/Acurus, Klipsch, and Monitor Audio had the acurus on hand for DTS:X, and Pro Audio supposedly had a Trinnov running, but I did not get to that.

And then sooo many Atmos demos everywhere, in all flavors.

By the way, I talked to Audio Control, and both AVRs have full Dirac on all channels.


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> I already put my extra 2 up when I did the first 4 for the total of 6!
> Might as well fish everything at once!!


Ditto...I did the same...cut six holes, fished six wires, and installed six speakers...my thoughts exactly!


----------



## desray2k

CBdicX said:


> So what's the deal with Atmos Enabled speakers exact ?
> 
> I did a (Audyssey) setup with Dolby Enabled font speakers (Klipsch PR280FA) and did a setup with the same speaker setup as Front Height.
> Absolute no differents at all !
> Also switching between Dolby speaker and Height speaker gives no differents.
> Thought as this is a official DE speaker, the Dolby setting would give a different "sound" then the Front Height choice, but no, nothing.


I suspect that for the longest time that there is no difference whether you choose height or DE speakers since the frequency filtering to get that HRTF happens in the speakers (someone pls correct me if I'm wrong here)...to me, the selection of DE or height channels in the Amp assign feature seems to help with speaker identification with the color coding for ease of speaker wiring. The only difference if any is perhaps for those non DE speakers where manually doing crossover is necessary to make filtering omnidirectional LFE to the subwoofer and higher fq to pass through.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## desray2k

scarabaeus said:


> Yes, immersive demo discs were very scarce on CEDIA. There were 6 or 7 DTS:X demos up and running (most with the Indy Audio acurus processor), they had the new DTS demo disc. The guys at Klipsch were willing to give me one, but they had only received 3 themself from DTS. Others had just the one they were demoing. Atmos demos were countless, and most had one copy of the new reference disc, but none were available otherwise. There are supposedly more coming in the near future.
> 
> Denon/Marantz had a demo with a DTS:X firmware, and the guy called it "not even beta, rather just a test version", which was nonetheless approved by DTS for the demo. He went on to promise the firmware update for the "premium" model(s) in January, and, due to staggered QA at D+M, the remaining models following through June or July 2016. At the end, we all got the Atmos 2014 reference disc and the DTS 2015 demo disc from CES in January, they had not received any quantities of the new ones either.
> 
> Sony also demo'd DTS:X on their new STR-ZA5000ES (and the new VPL-VW5000ES laser projector, wow!), but he did not mention the state of the firmware. I suppose it will be ready when it ships next year.
> 
> JBL had a Trinnov in a 13.4.11 config, with Atmos, DTS:X and Auro, but I did not have time to sit in on that.
> 
> Indy/Acurus, Klipsch, and Monitor Audio had the acurus on hand for DTS:X, and Pro Audio supposedly had a Trinnov running, but I did not get to that.
> 
> And then sooo many Atmos demos everywhere, in all flavors.
> 
> By the way, I talked to Audio Control, and both AVRs have full Dirac on all channels.


Thanks for the update...I guess its going to take a long time for DTS X to hit the mainstream AVRs. Fortunately Dolby is stepping up with Atmos and i hope more titles due to release next year will have atmos becoming a de facto mix. DTS on the other hand will have a lot be catching up to do. Unless they can prove that DTS X is more refined and better than its Atmos counterpart else no consumer would want to be double dipped into getting another flavor of the SAME MOVIE again for the sake of DTS X sound mix. 

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## NorthSky

Nice little report, thanks. 


scarabaeus said:


> Yes, immersive demo discs were very scarce on CEDIA. There were 6 or 7 DTS:X demos up and running (most with the Indy Audio acurus processor), they had the new DTS demo disc. The guys at Klipsch were willing to give me one, but they had only received 3 themself from DTS. Others had just the one they were demoing. Atmos demos were countless, and most had one copy of the new reference disc, but none were available otherwise. There are supposedly more coming in the near future.
> - Denon/Marantz had a demo with a DTS:X firmware, and the guy called it "not even beta, rather just a test version", which was nonetheless approved by DTS for the demo. He went on to promise the firmware update for the "premium" model(s) in January, and, due to staggered QA at D+M, the remaining models following through June or July 2016. At the end, we all got the Atmos 2014 reference disc and the DTS 2015 demo disc from CES in January, they had not received any quantities of the new ones either.
> - Sony also demo'd DTS:X on their new STR-ZA5000ES (and the new VPL-VW5000ES laser projector, wow!), but he did not mention the state of the firmware. I suppose it will be ready when it ships next year.
> - JBL had a Trinnov in a 13.4.11 config, with Atmos, DTS:X and Auro, but I did not have time to sit in on that.
> - Indy/Acurus, Klipsch, and Monitor Audio had the acurus on hand for DTS:X, and Pro Audio supposedly had a Trinnov running, but I did not get to that.
> - And then sooo many Atmos demos everywhere, in all flavors.
> - By the way, I talked to Audio Control, and both AVRs have full Dirac on all channels.


----------



## Jay144

Once DTS:X becomes mainstream, I doubt many movies will be re-released with the new format. Instead, going forward movies will have either or maybe both formats and the consumer can choose which ever one he prefers, just like it is today with Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio. I believe DTS is proportionally the predominant immersive format right now, and I expect they will be well motivated to "catch up" if Atmos succeeds in the marketplace.


----------



## stef2

I won't hold my breath for 9.1.6

I am already holding my breath for 9.1.4 though...


----------



## Molon_Labe

It is looking like DTS:X is gradually turning into DOA:X I think Dolby has this generation in the bag.


----------



## kingwiggi

scarabaeus said:


> The guys at Klipsch were willing to give me one, but they had only received 3 themself from DTS.


Suddenly your now everyone's best friend.


----------



## lovingdvd

scarabaeus said:


> Yes, immersive demo discs were very scarce on CEDIA. There were 6 or 7 DTS:X demos up and running (most with the Indy Audio acurus processor), they had the new DTS demo disc. The guys at Klipsch were willing to give me one, but they had only received 3 themself from DTS. Others had just the one they were demoing. Atmos demos were countless, and most had one copy of the new reference disc, but none were available otherwise. There are supposedly more coming in the near future.


Awesome - glad you liked the show! Was the DTS:X disc you got from Klipsch different than the DTS:X disc handed out at the Marantz demo? If so, how are they different?



> JBL had a Trinnov in a 13.4.11 config, with Atmos, DTS:X and Auro, but I did not have time to sit in on that.[/qyote]
> 
> Yes the JBL room sounded really good. A little too bright for my tastes, but lots of power that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indy/Acurus, Klipsch, and Monitor Audio had the acurus on hand for DTS:X, and Pro Audio supposedly had a Trinnov running, but I did not get to that.
> 
> 
> 
> The ProAudio room was one of my favorites of the show. With two 21" subs up front and dual 10"s in the rear corners along with 15" woofers as part of the LCR, well let's just say the visceral response was amazing. My shirt felt like it was fluttering during heavy bass seems, yet at the same time the bass was not over bearing or muddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then sooo many Atmos demos everywhere, in all flavors.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Even Comcast was showing a clip from Everest playing off of pre-production software on their X1 STB. I was glad to see that, because among other things maybe it will mean an Atmos release of this movie - which was the best Atmos I've heard in commercial theaters yet. In case anyone missed it, Comcast announced that in the coming (few?) months the X1 will support passing through Atmos. I don't know how long it'll be before any Atmos enabled movies are playing on Comcast, but this is a sign of good traction for the format indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I talked to Audio Control, and both AVRs have full Dirac on all channels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never heard of them. They have Dirac as part of their AVR. Excellent!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## scarabaeus

scarabaeus said:


> ... were willing to give me one, but ...





lovingdvd said:


> Awesome - glad you liked the show! Was the DTS:X disc you got from Klipsch different than the DTS:X disc handed out at the Marantz demo? If so, how are they different?


The "but" was supposed to indicate that they did not give me one. 8-( They had none to spare. And, yes, the disc is different. There's some japanese or korean monster movie where a guy battles a rat monster in a mine (looked like a made-for-TV movie), and, as others have mentioned, a clip of some guys playing music and making the sound visible by various means (water hose attached to subwoofer, sand on metal plate on speaker voice coil, oil over speakers, etc.)


----------



## petetherock

Molon_Labe said:


> It is looking like DTS:X is gradually turning into DOA:X I think Dolby has this generation in the bag.


No mate... that's absolutely not true!

It's DBA:

Dead Before Arrival...


----------



## desray2k

petetherock said:


> No mate... that's absolutely not true!
> 
> It's DBA:
> 
> Dead Before Arrival...


So true...

Sent from my Galaxy Tab S2


----------



## zimmo

so be patient before the receiver have 9.2.6,why, because dts has the tecnical problem ,the décoder to dts to give to fabric cie give analog divices and texas instrument is non functionel intégration of DTS-X algorithm whitin the varius platforms (DSP).this BUG correction are in court and availability firmware maby april 2016.


----------



## Stanton

Molon_Labe said:


> All of my demo disc have come from eBay. The new one will show up there...eventually.


And when I get _my_ new Atmos disk (I was at CEDIA) I will put _my_ old Atmos disk on eBay. As you can see from the screen shot of the menu, this year's demo disk has a *lot* more than last year's (but the test tones are the "icing on the cake").


----------



## Stanton

kingwiggi said:


> The feeling from the show floor so far is don't hold your breath for 9.1.6 to come along anytime soon. Speaking to one of the Denon guys they don't see the market as being quite there in terms of higher end units being sold or ready yet for that many speakers. Expect 9.1.4 for higher end models in 2016 and incremental improvements thereafter.


True that. Basically, if you don't want a base sound bed beyond 5.x.x, then you might as well jump in now (I did since I only wanted 5.x.2). Most (high end) AVRs support up to 5.2.4 channels right now, and since next year won't see much beyond x.x.4 for the overheads, waiting won't buy you much.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Stoked21 said:


> So I pulled the trigger on external amps for my atmos setup. I had to buy at least 2 chs for surround backs but went ahead and bought 16chs. I don't want this to get into a discussion of AVR internal amps being as good as ext power amps for most needs and speakers. Just trying to focus on atmos avr/prepro options.
> 
> I'm still torn between Denon X6200 and Marantz SR7010 AVRs...Or Marantz 7702mkII prepro.
> 
> The thing that gets me is that when comparing features on current atmos prepros vs AVR models, within any given line, you really can't discern any difference at the same price point. If the 7702mii doesn't have onboard amps, I would think it should be less than the 7010 avr. Smaller power supplies, smaller PCBs, no heatsinks, etc should equate to cheaper. Are there DSP or feature differences that anyone is aware of? What makes them more expensive other than low-cost XLR connectors?
> 
> Thoughts?


Maybe I am late to respond by a few days, but I couldn't resist to answer anyway. 

Here it goes: marketing wise, a smart company always asks the price that the fool is prepared to pay. A pre-pro is supposed to sound better hence the higher price...

Why would you care about a few bucks anyway? You already overspent by getting 16 amps where you'd only had to buy 2!

Join the club: I have 21 amps, though only 5 were new in the form of the XPR-5. So I am just teasing you here. BTW, for me it's pre-pro or nothing. I am that crazy...

Recording+room+speakers is at least 90% of what you hear. Maybe 99%.


----------



## Nightlord

Went to a local HT-convention today and there didn't seem to be anyone demo:ing that wasn't running Trinnov even if they had other AVRs on the shelf. The experience of the standard demos / standard movies were quite varying and so were different seats in the same room when I took the demo twice. A setup with JBL and ceiling speakers firing straight down was the only one working good enough to claim any real step in sound quality, so speaker quality and placement do seem imperative here... Perhaps even more so than the processor, but it's a pity no one ran a normal avr somewhere for that comparison.


----------



## SherazNJ

To give a better idea of what I"ll be facing, I thought i'd be better if I post the pics. I have no issue with ceiling speakers in terms of space but I can't say the same for surround. Reading up on how to best implement Atmos, one part that is emphasized is the space b/w high speakers from 7.1. Therefore having surround high mounted isn't an option. 

Issue is that if I bring surround speakers at 90 degrees, it leaves very little space in b/w the speaker and the seat to walk through (pics showing it). 
















If I move speakers to 130 degrees, it leaves enough space to walk through but then it won't be providing a very good surround sound. 


















Since most of the movies have more surround than high effect, does it make sense to compromise surround by moving them to 130 degrees? 

Or can someone come up with a better idea for surround? Here are the pics showing the issue.


----------



## SherazNJ

To give a better idea of what I"ll be facing, I thought i'd be better if I post the pics. I have no issue with ceiling speakers in terms of space but I can't say the same for surround. Reading up on how to best implement Atmos, one part that is emphasized is the space b/w high speakers from 7.1. Therefore having surround high mounted isn't an option. 

Issue is that if I bring surround speakers at 90 degrees, it leaves very little space in b/w the speaker and the seat to walk through (pics showing it). 
















If I move speakers to 130 degrees, it leaves enough space to walk through but then it won't be providing a very good surround sound. 


















Since most of the movies have more surround than high effect, does it make sense to compromise surround by moving them to 130 degrees? 

Or can someone come up with a better idea for surround? Here are the pics showing the issue.


----------



## Nightlord

erwinfrombelgium said:


> A pre-pro is supposed to sound better hence the higher price...


No, a pre-pro should be cheaper as they don't have to stick a number of power amps and a beefier powersupply in the same box.


----------



## virtualrain

Nightlord said:


> No, a pre-pro should be cheaper as they don't have to stick a number of power amps and a beefier powersupply in the same box.



Exactly. However Pre-pros are not price based on cost of goods. They are priced based on the target market's capacity and willingness to pay. It's smart marketing.


----------



## Nightlord

virtualrain said:


> Exactly. However Pre-pros are not price based on cost of goods. They are priced based on the target market's capacity and willingness to pay. It's smart marketing.


I would say that they're making assumptions regarding the market, I think they are gravely underestimating the sales they'd have on logically priced prepros and multichannel power amps.


----------



## dkwong

Nightlord said:


> I would say that they're making assumptions regarding the market, I think they are gravely underestimating the sales they'd have on logically priced prepros and multichannel power amps.


If you think so, then you should start your own AV company.


----------



## virtualrain

Nightlord said:


> I would say that they're making assumptions regarding the market, I think they are gravely underestimating the sales they'd have on logically priced prepros and multichannel power amps.



I doubt it. They're not dumb. They likely know their market segments, demographics, market share, competitive pressures, marketing costs, cost of goods, and margins better than anyone (including me and you) and their current strategy likely maximizes profits. 

Besides, since when did separate audio components ever cost less than integrated "all-in-one" products... Not since the first cave man invented the drum using a stick on someone's skull


----------



## stikle

SherazNJ said:


> *Since most of the movies have more surround than high effect*, does it make sense to compromise surround by moving them to 130 degrees?



Sorry I don't have a suggestion for you about your speaker placement, but I do have a comment to consider/keep in mind:

What you said is true...natively.

A fairly large portion of the people on this forum that have Atmos installed also leave the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) engaged all of the time for non-Atmos content. With DSU, suddenly there are more overhead effects than ever before. 

It's amazing really. I just re-watched Speed on DVD last night. The upconverted standard def video looked pretty crappy on a 4K screen - there's no help for that. The audio sounded pretty terrific for a movie this old.

So what I'm saying here is that you are doing the right thing by exploring, asking questions here, and trying to do the right thing to maximize your investment from the get-go.


----------



## Tamas

@SherazNJ,

Have you thought about installing inwall speakers as your surround speakers?


----------



## Nabs17

To piggyback a bit on the question Shiraz asked, how much space are people putting between the surround (base) layer and the overhead speakers? I read the white paper and it says overheads should be mounted at least 2 times the seated listeners ear height but I don't see anything with regards to separation between base layer and overheads. Are most folks following any guidelines?

I ask this question because my room is narrow (12') and if I put the surrounds too low, then they are too close to the edge seats and it doesn't sound as good. I have 10' high ceilings and where my surrounds are now I can have 2' between surrounds and overheads. Is that enough?

Thanks,


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

erwinfrombelgium said:


> marketing wise, a smart company always asks the price that the fool is prepared to pay. A pre-pro is supposed to sound better hence the higher price...





Nightlord said:


> No, a pre-pro should be cheaper as they don't have to stick a number of power amps and a beefier powersupply in the same box.


You can only quote me if you don't leave out the essential part... Didn't you know a pre-pro has all sorts of magical parts on board which make it sound at least 200% as good as the AVR?


----------



## tjenkins95

SherazNJ said:


> To give a better idea of what I"ll be facing, I thought i'd be better if I post the pics. I have no issue with ceiling speakers in terms of space but I can't say the same for surround. Reading up on how to best implement Atmos, one part that is emphasized is the space b/w high speakers from 7.1. Therefore having surround high mounted isn't an option.
> 
> Issue is that if I bring surround speakers at 90 degrees, it leaves very little space in b/w the speaker and the seat to walk through (pics showing it).
> If I move speakers to 130 degrees, it leaves enough space to walk through but then it won't be providing a very good surround sound.
> 
> Since most of the movies have more surround than high effect, does it make sense to compromise surround by moving them to 130 degrees?
> 
> Or can someone come up with a better idea for surround? Here are the pics showing the issue.


 
I have the same limits due to the width of my room and my surround speakers have been placed in similar postions as yours and they work fine. 
It still sounds to me like the sound is coming from the left and the right!


----------



## tjenkins95

Nabs17 said:


> To piggyback a bit on the question Shiraz asked, how much space are people putting between the surround (base) layer and the overhead speakers? I read the white paper and it says overheads should be mounted at least 2 times the seated listeners ear height but I don't see anything with regards to separation between base layer and overheads. Are most folks following any guidelines?
> 
> I ask this question because my room is narrow (12') and if I put the surrounds too low, then they are too close to the edge seats and it doesn't sound as good. I have 10' high ceilings and where my surrounds are now I can have 2' between surrounds and overheads. Is that enough?
> 
> Thanks,


 
It is my opinion that the surrounds (the base level) need to be a good distance below the ceiling speakers. The recommendation is to place the surrounds as close to ear level as possible. You want a decent separation between the height speakers and the surrounds to get the 3D effect.


----------



## lovingdvd

Stanton said:


> And when I get _my_ new Atmos disk (I was at CEDIA) I will put _my_ old Atmos disk on eBay. As you can see from the screen shot of the menu, this year's demo disk has a *lot* more than last year's (but the test tones are the "icing on the cake").


I was at CEDIA. What was the trick to getting the latest/new Atmos disk? The only one I saw available was the one given out in the Denon/Marantz demo, labeled as January 2015. That's the older one?


----------



## lovingdvd

At CEDIA, Atmos demos were everywhere - including dedicated sound rooms/booths all the way down to small listening areas set up inside booth areas that were not enclosed. Even Comcast had a small room running pre-production firmware demonstrating how their X1 STB will support Atmos in the coming months. It seems Atmos has all the momentum. DTS:X was demonstrated in only two rooms that I saw - JBL and Denon/Marantz - and in those cases they were also demonstrating Atmos. I thought both formats sounded fantastic. Couldn't really say if there was any advantage to one over the other. I'm not sure if DTS ever came out with a specification for their layout besides saying that Atmos speaker layouts would work, but at any rate the DTS demos were done with Atmos speaker configurations.


----------



## Stanton

lovingdvd said:


> I was at CEDIA. What was the trick to getting the latest/new Atmos disk? The only one I saw available was the one given out in the Denon/Marantz demo, labeled as January 2015. That's the older one?


A bit of luck: I saw someone standing outside the "by appointment only" door in the Dolby booth, and asked him about the disk (told him I wanted the "test tones"). He went in the door, came back out, asked for my biz card, went back in, and finally came back out and said "it will be mailed to you". Fingers crossed!


----------



## SherazNJ

Tamas said:


> @SherazNJ,
> 
> Have you thought about installing inwall speakers as your surround speakers?


Yes I did. Unfortunately there is only 3" of space in b/w the sheetrock and the wall behind it. My speaker is 10" wide. This will make the speaker hang 6" out and this still won't be enough space to talk through. Unless you are referring to getting surround speakers that fit inside the wall?


----------



## Stoked21

SherazNJ said:


> Yes I did. Unfortunately there is only 3" of space in b/w the sheetrock and the wall behind it. My speaker is 10" wide. This will make the speaker hang 6" out and this still won't be enough space to talk through. Unless you are referring to getting surround speakers that fit inside the wall?


Common studs are 3.5" wide (which translates to 3.5" deep when framed). So inwalls are always right about that size or less to fit flush. I'm debating using them for my surround rears for similar reason to leave walking room and recess a bit from back row. Not sure how you get 10" wide or are you talking deep?


----------



## lovingdvd

Stanton said:


> A bit of luck: I saw someone standing outside the "by appointment only" door in the Dolby booth, and asked him about the disk (told him I wanted the "test tones"). He went in the door, came back out, asked for my biz card, went back in, and finally came back out and said "it will be mailed to you". Fingers crossed!


Yup same here. I was hoping it was not a blow off.  Please PM me when you get yours and I'll do the same.

I assume you hit all the main Atmos/DTS:X demo rooms? What did you think was best? And did you get an impression of whether Atmos or DTS:X sounded better?


----------



## Stoked21

As painful as the movie is, I picked up San Andreas and scene audited the earthquake. The Atmos was really good and the bass kicked. I thought the dialogue tracks seemed a bit off? Clipped sounding or something. Then again I didn't watch much and will save it for late when really really bored or trying to avoid house work.

Also picked up Ex Machina. Still surprises me it's DTS:X. My yamaha was using DSU from DTS Master which was nice. Will have to watch that one again later too. 

I don't watch much 3D but always buy them vs 2D as in the future I then have the option. Disappointed as heck that Pixels is going to strip the Atmos from the 3D.


----------



## SherazNJ

tjenkins95 said:


> It is my opinion that the surrounds (the base level) need to be a good distance below the ceiling speakers. The recommendation is to place the surrounds as close to ear level as possible. You want a decent separation between the height speakers and the surrounds to get the 3D effect.


Thx. But if someone has a 12' wide room with three seats, your L/R seats are only a couple of feet away from surround. Wouldn't this make it uncomfortable for those sitting on side seats to have these speakers firing straight into their ears? May be they should be placed not a straight 90 degrees but a little further ahead or behind. Like behind enough that they are facing the back of seat?


----------



## Stoked21

SherazNJ said:


> Thx. But if someone has a 12' wide room with three seats, your L/R seats are only a couple of feet away from surround. Wouldn't this make it uncomfortable for those sitting on side seats to have these speakers firing straight into their ears? May be they should be placed not a straight 90 degrees but a little further ahead or behind. Like behind enough that they are facing the back of seat?


For surrounds I break Dolby spec and run them as wides to cover 2 rows. Toed in towards middle back seat mlp. Works great as surrounds for all 6 seats that way. I will be adding another pair of regular surrounds and using those soon with 11.2 and 13.2 outs to be able to switch configs. But to directly answer ur question---multiple position calibration. I run all 6 seats with ypao and soon audyssey. Avr will set levels accordingly. Will it be louder in those end seats? Well sure but no different than any other lr pair. But with calibration mine don't blare in the ear in those seats. The opposite surround is just weaker. But we r talking about a non mlp seat anyone and there's no perfect way to balance 100% with sacrificing some other position.


----------



## dormie1360

Nabs17 said:


> To piggyback a bit on the question Shiraz asked, how much space are people putting between the surround (base) layer and the overhead speakers? I read the white paper and it says overheads should be mounted at least 2 times the seated listeners ear height but I don't see anything with regards to separation between base layer and overheads. Are most folks following any guidelines?
> 
> I ask this question because my room is narrow (12') and if I put the surrounds too low, then they are too close to the edge seats and it doesn't sound as good. I have 10' high ceilings and where my surrounds are now I can have 2' between surrounds and overheads. Is that enough?
> 
> Thanks,



Your concerns are valid. Your room is narrow. How far away is the end seat from the wall and do you care what the end seats sound like? The idea of height separation is great in theory, but IMO you do not want to significantly sacrifice surround speaker performance to get there. You don't want the surrounds hot spotting. You really lose the whole idea of an ambient sound field if you can localize the speaker. A ten foot ceiling is a real plus for Atmos. If you can, I would experiment with your surround speaker height. I have a feeling, in your case, your best sound field will be with the surrounds higher than slightly above your head.

My ceiling is a little higher than yours. I have my atmos speakers 11 feet from the floor, with surrounds tweeters at 7 feet. I have a very nice 3D sound field. Just some food for thought.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I keep meaning to add this to the forum and keep forgetting. But, I finally remembered. This applies specifically to my Onkyo TX-NR1030. It probably applies equally to the other Onkyo Atmos enabled AVRs.

I kept putting in bluray disks and having to use the Movie button on the lower left side of the remote to cycle through the DTS- flavors to get to Dolby Surround to invoke DSU.

I finally realized that I could go to Listening Presets and go down to the DTS section, and select the audio output there.
Now, the AVR default setting is DTS- to Dolby Surround, regardless of which flavor of DTS it encounters.

So, now I don't worry about it, I just throw in the disk and it outputs from the AVR as Dolby Surround.

The only thing that I could remember seeing in the forum is people telling those who asked to cycle through outputs with the Movie button.
You don't have to do that.


----------



## SherazNJ

Stoked21 said:


> Common studs are 3.5" wide (which translates to 3.5" deep when framed). So inwalls are always right about that size or less to fit flush. I'm debating using them for my surround rears for similar reason to leave walking room and recess a bit from back row. Not sure how you get 10" wide or are you talking deep?


Sorry, I meant to say depth. My speakers are 10" deep. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Jay144

dvdwilly3 said:


> I keep meaning to add this to the forum and keep forgetting. But, I finally remembered. This applies specifically to my Onkyo TX-NR1030. It probably applies equally to the other Onkyo Atmos enabled AVRs.
> 
> I kept putting in bluray disks and having to use the Movie button on the lower left side of the remote to cycle through the DTS- flavors to get to Dolby Surround to invoke DSU.
> 
> I finally realized that I could go to Listening Presets and go down to the DTS section, and select the audio output there.
> Now, the AVR default setting is DTS- to Dolby Surround, regardless of which flavor of DTS it encounters.
> 
> So, now I don't worry about it, I just throw in the disk and it outputs from the AVR as Dolby Surround.
> 
> The only thing that I could remember seeing in the forum is people telling those who asked to cycle through outputs with the Movie button.
> You don't have to do that.


Good tip, thank you; saves some clicking and everyone gets to the fun parts more quickly.


----------



## dkwong

dvdwilly3 said:


> I keep meaning to add this to the forum and keep forgetting. But, I finally remembered. This applies specifically to my Onkyo TX-NR1030. It probably applies equally to the other Onkyo Atmos enabled AVRs.
> 
> I kept putting in bluray disks and having to use the Movie button on the lower left side of the remote to cycle through the DTS- flavors to get to Dolby Surround to invoke DSU.
> 
> I finally realized that I could go to Listening Presets and go down to the DTS section, and select the audio output there.
> Now, the AVR default setting is DTS- to Dolby Surround, regardless of which flavor of DTS it encounters.
> 
> So, now I don't worry about it, I just throw in the disk and it outputs from the AVR as Dolby Surround.
> 
> The only thing that I could remember seeing in the forum is people telling those who asked to cycle through outputs with the Movie button.
> You don't have to do that.



I have it set to something like "last setting" on my 646, which happens to be the default and it just stays in DSU mode all the time.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dkwong said:


> I have it set to something like "last setting" on my 646, which happens to be the default and it just stays in DSU mode all the time.


The only hitch is that if you leave it in "Last Valid" and for some reason decide to watch something using DTSxxx, then the next time that the receiver encounters DTS again, it will play in DTS, and not DSU.


----------



## Nightlord

dkwong said:


> If you think so, then you should start your own AV company.


If you can finance it, why not?


----------



## Nightlord

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You can only quote me if you don't leave out the essential part... Didn't you know a pre-pro has all sorts of magical parts on board which make it sound at least 200% as good as the AVR?


Well, I bought the service manuals for Integra and Onkyo to find out what parts were different between them to motivate the price difference (didn't find anything) and the one I got was a combined one that applied to the pre-pro just as well as the receiver... so at least there I know what was changed... and I would not call balanced outputs "magical".


----------



## Tamas

@SherazNJ,

I have a 12 foot wide room with two rows of seating.

I ran interesting the same issue as you regarding surround speaker placement and speaker depth and room intrusion.

I decided to go with inwall bipole speakers from def tech. They are slightly behind the front row and just above ear height. 

They work well in that position.

Although I keep toying with the idea of moving them to 90 degree position instead of 110. But I was limited to placement by the studs behind the wall.


----------



## tjenkins95

SherazNJ said:


> Thx. But if someone has a 12' wide room with three seats, your L/R seats are only a couple of feet away from surround. Wouldn't this make it uncomfortable for those sitting on side seats to have these speakers firing straight into their ears? May be they should be placed not a straight 90 degrees but a little further ahead or behind. Like behind enough that they are facing the back of seat?


 
Quote: Originally Posted by *tjenkins95*  
_It is my opinion that the surrounds (the base level) need to be a good distance below the ceiling speakers. The recommendation is to place the surrounds as close to ear level as possible. You want a decent separation between the height speakers and the surrounds to get the 3D effect._


Sorry, that was only referring to the vertical distances. In my previous post I was referring to the second photo where you moved your sourrounds to 130 degrees. My side surrounds cannot be at 90 degrees either because I have a 3-seater couch which takes up most of the width of the room. I placed my surrounds behind about 130 degrees and I still get the effect of right and left.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Sony is coming out with a new Atmos and DTSX receiver next year.
> It ain't cheap!
> http://youtu.be/JSSoC9Tqg2I


The Sony demo booth was a disappointment. Sure, they had a huge screen, but the image quality was not as impressive as other competitors' demos and they spent more time with the picture mode where you can see FOUR highly compressed DISH channels at once!! Whoo hoo!  Their ES speakers sounded pretty crappy as well. Could not handle the volume output they were cranking them at. Sony just doesn't seem to get how to do a proper demo.


----------



## lovingdvd

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Sony demo booth was a disappointment. Sure, they had a huge screen, but the image quality was not as impressive as other competitors' demos and they spent more time with the picture mode where you can see FOUR highly compressed DISH channels at once!! Whoo hoo!  Their ES speakers sounded pretty crappy as well. Could not handle the volume output they were cranking them at. Sony just doesn't seem to get how to do a proper demo.


I didn't focus on the sound, but I entirely agree about the video side of things. As I remarked elsewhere I was underwhelmved. On a separate note, it seems to me like they don't have a space for an 1100ES machine in the market anymore. The VW665 seems to be positioned for the high end of the affordable home market with the 5000 as the flagship piece for the top end of the home market. The only thing the 5000 really seemed to have over other "lower end" projectors was the brightness. And yes I agree the 4 way split screen looked quite messy with choppy scrolling tickers etc.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

kbarnes701 said:


> If you want to hear a brilliant Atmos track, get it now. If you are primarily interested in a really good movie, I'd wait for Netflix.
> 
> Although I listened, and was thoroughly amazed, in Atmos 7.2.4, I would imagine that this is a really good demo track even with a 7.1 system. But as I was watching the movie, totally immersed in the chaotic action around and above me, I did think _"I was missing a lot when I had sound only around me and not above me as well"_. The movie makes really good use of Atmos and really points up how much immersive sound brings to that kind of movie experience.
> 
> As I said above, the two hours passed really quickly (always a good sign IMO) and I was surprised when the movie came to an end so soon. I could happily have taken another 40 minutes, Bay-style. But it is extremely derivative, as, I guess, this kind of movie always is.


 This one (San Andreas) was a real blast to watch, non-stop immersion and slam - loads of fun. It helps to think of it as a ride, as opposed to a film. It's an awesome ride. Will watch again!


----------



## EM3

Quick question that may impact which AVR I may get.

My living room ceiling has ceiling tile and is not drywall so can I use upfiring speaker modules for Atmos sound or will these not work in my living room since I have a tile ceiling?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

EM3 said:


> Quick question that may impact which AVR I may get.
> 
> My living room ceiling has ceiling tile and is not drywall so can I use upfiring speaker modules for Atmos sound or will these not work in my living room since I have a tile ceiling?


Usually, people need to replace some of the tiles within the ceiling reflection points with something like foam core or other non absorptive material. Personally, I would rather have height speakers up near the ceiling and pointed toward the MLP than enabled speakers any day... if you cannot have ceiling speakers.


----------



## Stanton

Dan Hitchman said:


> Personally, I would rather have height speakers up near the ceiling and pointed toward the MLP than enabled speakers any day... if you cannot have ceiling speakers.


This is what I do (5.0.2), and I'm very happy with the results!


----------



## Stanton

lovingdvd said:


> I assume you hit all the main Atmos/DTS:X demo rooms? What did you think was best? And did you get an impression of whether Atmos or DTS:X sounded better?


To be honest, I thought all the demos (Atmos/X/Auro) were OK, but the fact is, only Dolby Atmos has both widely supported hardware and readily available software, so right now it isn't much of a contest. My AVR is "DTS:X" ready but Yamaha doesn't yet support Auro (confirmed by the Auro guys) and I'm not losing any sleep over it!


----------



## DS-21

brickyardz said:


> You can add Arcam to the list of receivers that do Dolby Atmos with the AVR 850. No pricing info yet, they will be showing this at Cedia 2015 this weekend.
> Arcam Class G amplification, Dolby Atmos, Dirac Live room correction and a whole lot more audio/video goodness. What a combination! The brand-new AVR850 will be previewed at CEDIA USA 2015 this coming weekend. Coming to the UK soon. Price and delivery TBC - AND we've bought back the volume control!


Nice to see Arcam taking sound quality seriously instead of peddling overpriced commodity product. The cheaper one is officially on my 2016 shortlist with Anthem 720 and Yamaha pre pro.


----------



## batpig

Nabs17 said:


> To piggyback a bit on the question Shiraz asked, how much space are people putting between the surround (base) layer and the overhead speakers? I read the white paper and it says overheads should be mounted at least 2 times the seated listeners ear height but I don't see anything with regards to separation between base layer and overheads. Are most folks following any guidelines?
> 
> I ask this question because my room is narrow (12') and if I put the surrounds too low, then they are too close to the edge seats and it doesn't sound as good. I have 10' high ceilings and where my surrounds are now I can have 2' between surrounds and overheads. Is that enough?
> 
> Thanks,


With this kind of speaker position question you really need to think in terms of ANGLES and not distance. 

Cinema Atmos specifies around 45 degrees of separation (technically it's minimum E/2 + 45 where "E" is the surround elevation). So if your surrounds are 20 degrees up then the overhead arrays should be at least 55 degrees (20/2 = 10 + 45 = 55).


----------



## batpig

EM3 said:


> Quick question that may impact which AVR I may get.
> 
> My living room ceiling has ceiling tile and is not drywall so can I use upfiring speaker modules for Atmos sound or will these not work in my living room since I have a tile ceiling?


Up firing speakers need a flat reflective surface to work properly. Are your ceiling tiles reflective or absorbant? 

Some early Dolby demos with up firing speakers used drop ceilings with absorbant tiles but replaced them with reflective panels at the bounce points for the up firing speakers.


----------



## EM3

batpig said:


> Up firing speakers need a flat reflective surface to work properly. Are your ceiling tiles reflective or absorbant?
> 
> Some early Dolby demos with up firing speakers used drop ceilings with absorbant tiles but replaced them with reflective panels at the bounce points for the up firing speakers.


They are arsorbant. So oh well. The tiles interlock so replacing a potion isn't possible.


----------



## broodro0ster

Lesmor said:


> Always something to complain about, but as I am running 9.1.2 where are the 9.1.2 test tones?
> 
> But Hey what's different from using the existing AVR test tones?


The AVR test tones aren't processed by Audyssey.
If you want to meassure speakers volumes, you should always do it with a test bluray or with REW so that the room correction filters are applied to the test tone.


----------



## Johannes Lund

Hi Guys. I've been lurking around the forums for quite a while and learned a lot. I've now taken the plunge to Atmos, and are really satisifed with what I've heard so far. But here is my problem. I have no problem getting Atmos from my blye-rays. But I also want to have some of the Doby Atmos test tracks to show. I've downloaded some Atmos demo tracks from demo-world, but I can only get them to play PCM 2 channel. I downloaded some other tracks like a 7.1 channel test, and that works fine. I have a Yamaha rx-a2050 and a new Philips bdp 2110 blu-ray player. Not the biggest problem, but it would be cool to be able to show the demo tracks..


----------



## Lesmor

broodro0ster said:


> The AVR test tones aren't processed by Audyssey.
> If you want to meassure speakers volumes, you should always do it with a test bluray or with REW so that the room correction filters are applied to the test tone.


Hi broodro0ster
Thanks for the reply
Makes sense now,I should have realised as I always use the Spears & Munsil disc to check levels for that very reason


----------



## broodro0ster

Lesmor said:


> Makes sense now,I should have realised as I always use the Spears & Munsil disc to check levels for that very reason


Yap, that's how I also do it.
And at the moment I find my that my Atmos speakers are drawing to much attention to them so I'm guessing they are setup too loud. But there is no way to verify this...


----------



## Kris Deering

broodro0ster said:


> Yap, that's how I also do it.
> And at the moment I find my that my Atmos speakers are drawing to much attention to them so I'm guessing they are setup too loud. But there is no way to verify this...


I would set the base speaker levels with a test disc like Spears and Munsil (make sure you have Dolby Surround OFF). Then when you're done with that, use the internal test tones to check the levels of the Atmos speakers in relation to the the levels you measure from the base layer speakers. 

I have the new Dolby Atmos demo disc with the test tones for Atmos, but I'm not that impressed with the tones. They are full bandwidth but they have a lot of random noise that throws the meter off a bit. Better than nothing, but I still prefer the method I mentioned above.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jay144 said:


> Once DTS:X becomes mainstream, I doubt many movies will be re-released with the new format. Instead, going forward movies will have either or maybe both formats and the consumer can choose which ever one he prefers, just like it is today with Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio. I believe DTS is proportionally the predominant immersive format right now, and I expect they will be well motivated to "catch up" if Atmos succeeds in the marketplace.


How many discs today have both True HD and Master Audio on the same disc? Virtually none. So there is the same chance you'll get a choice of Atmos or DTS:X.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> How many discs today have both True HD and Master Audio on the same disc? Virtually none. So there is the same chance you'll get a choice of Atmos or DTS:X.


That' as rare as hen's teeth in N America, but Hong Kong discs often give both options on their discs. The sound engineering on BR discs from HKG made in the past 5-10 years is simply astounding..


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> That' as rare as hen's teeth in N America, but Hong Kong discs often give both options on their discs. The sound engineering on BR discs from HKG made in the past 5-10 years is simply astounding..


Yes, I am a big fan of HK movies and they usually have terrific soundtracks. They can be a bit 'unnatural' sometimes (eg with foley) but they are almost always exciting. Rock on!


----------



## dkwong

Johannes Lund said:


> Hi Guys. I've been lurking around the forums for quite a while and learned a lot. I've now taken the plunge to Atmos, and are really satisifed with what I've heard so far. But here is my problem. I have no problem getting Atmos from my blye-rays. But I also want to have some of the Doby Atmos test tracks to show. I've downloaded some Atmos demo tracks from demo-world, but I can only get them to play PCM 2 channel. I downloaded some other tracks like a 7.1 channel test, and that works fine. I have a Yamaha rx-a2050 and a new Philips bdp 2110 blu-ray player. Not the biggest problem, but it would be cool to be able to show the demo tracks..



Check eBay for an Atmos demo disc. I got my 2014 demo disc there for $30.


----------



## dvdwilly3

For those who are chasing after a Dolby Atmos demo disk...the Hong Kong version of Lucy available at YesAsia.com contains:


Amaze trailer
Leaf trailer
Conductor trailer, and
Unfold trailer
As far as I am concerned, those are the best Atmos demos anyway.


Even if you are not a fan of Scarlett Johannson (really?!) or Luc Besson (I am...), the cost of the disk, around $32 plus shipping is certainly better than the $60+ or so that the 2014 Dolby Atmos disk is going for on eBay.


And, as has been previously noted, the quality of the Atmos sound editing is really very well done...



Just saying...


----------



## lujan

dvdwilly3 said:


> For those who are chasing after a Dolby Atmos demo disk...the Hong Kong version of Lucy available at YesAsia.com contains:
> 
> 
> Amaze trailer
> Leaf trailer
> Conductor trailer, and
> Unfold trailer
> As far as I am concerned, those are the best Atmos demos anyway.
> ...


Also, if you have a Vudu account you can get those trailers for free.


----------



## Johannes Lund

Thanks guys. I am a big Luc Besson fan, an enjoyed Lucy. So to know that it's available with Atmos and the demo tracks is awesome. I live in Europe, can I play HongKong blue-rays in a region B player? I think it's to tempting to have it anyway, so I just have to order it to see anyway..


----------



## batpig

Kris Deering said:


> I would set the base speaker levels with a test disc like Spears and Munsil (make sure you have Dolby Surround OFF). Then when you're done with that, use the internal test tones to check the levels of the Atmos speakers in relation to the the levels you measure from the base layer speakers.
> 
> I have the new Dolby Atmos demo disc with the test tones for Atmos, but I'm not that impressed with the tones. They are full bandwidth but they have a lot of random noise that throws the meter off a bit. Better than nothing, but I still prefer the method I mentioned above.


To me the interest in the test tones isn't about checking levels -- rather I'm more interested in confirming the processing is doing what it should. 

For example Scott Simonian has a copy and he discovered that when his Yamaha 3050 was set to "heights" vs "ceiling" the channel tone bled into other height speakers. This messed up the PLII extraction he is doing to create a 7.1.6 with Top Middle. So he switched the destination to ceiling and now it works correctly. 

Similarly I would want to see what happens when the sound needs to be rendered to a different layout than how the tones are encoded. For example using the 9.1.6 tones on a 5.1.4 layout you could empirically test what happens when a signal is sent to a "channel" that isn't present in your speaker layout -- e.g. does a "Top Rear" signal collapse to Top Middle in a 7.1.2 layout or does it get split between Top Middle and Surr Back?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Johannes Lund said:


> Thanks guys. I am a big Luc Besson fan, an enjoyed Lucy. So to know that it's available with Atmos and the demo tracks is awesome. I live in Europe, can I play HongKong blue-rays in a region B player? I think it's to tempting to have it anyway, so I just have to order it to see anyway..


I am sorry to say that I think that this is a Region A disk.
There are a number of multi-region players on Amazon.
Can you get Amazon?


----------



## wse

lujan said:


> Also, if you have a Vudu account you can get those trailers for free.


Where on VUDU?


----------



## rboster

wse said:


> Where on VUDU?


Pretty simple

1) log onto vudu
2) Scroll to search engine
3) Type in Atmos
4) Click on Dolby Atmos digital bundle


----------



## lujan

wse said:


> Where on VUDU?


Just do a search for "Dolby Atmos".


----------



## dkwong

lujan said:


> Also, if you have a Vudu account you can get those trailers for free.



I didn't have a good experience with these. I used a Roku Stick and the Atmos signal wouldn't kick in until several seconds into the clips. I would also lose the Atmos signal if I rewinded or forwarded so it was hard to test a particular part of the clip.


----------



## marjen

Do any sources such as blu Ray players decode atmos? I have a couple year old avr, pioneer sc-1522. It has 9 amps but does not have atmos. I currently use a PS3 and believe it decodes the soundtracks and sends pcm to the receiver. Do any blu ray players decode atmos? This is probably a really dumb question


----------



## SteveTheGeek

marjen said:


> Do any sources such as blu Ray players decode atmos? I have a couple year old avr, pioneer sc-1522. It has 9 amps but does not have atmos. I currently use a PS3 and believe it decodes the soundtracks and sends pcm to the receiver. Do any blu ray players decode atmos? This is probably a really dumb question


No, you need the decoder in the AVR.


----------



## petetherock

Johannes Lund said:


> Thanks guys. I am a big Luc Besson fan, an enjoyed Lucy. So to know that it's available with Atmos and the demo tracks is awesome. I live in Europe, can I play HongKong blue-rays in a region B player? I think it's to tempting to have it anyway, so I just have to order it to see anyway..


HKG belongs to region A, so you will need a region free player - such as the Oppo, which is available in many places with a modification.

Do note that you can obtain a lot of discs that originate in China, not HKG, and they appear region free, but there are questions on their authenticity.. cheers


----------



## DAlba

Has anyone uploaded an image file of the new Atmos demo disc from CEDIA?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DAlba said:


> Has anyone uploaded an image file of the new Atmos demo disc from CEDIA?


Unless someone got a hold of the full booth demo disc... it ain't worth it. Be happy if you can find the 2014 disc.


----------



## newfmp3

With all the talk of San Andreas lately I wanted to ask someone to check something for me. I loved the movie. Sounded great. But I'm starting to wonder if my Atmos ceilings are working correctly and as I read other reviews that are so positive of the Atmos, I'm really starting to wonder.


I watched a good chunk of the movie tonight with everything but the ceilings turned off. I have Top Front and Top Rear. Denon X4100, with seperate amps. I do NOT hear anything from the ceilings speakers until exactly the 16 min mark (actually 15:58). And that is only a squeak of a swinging light. Then again at 16:40 with some creaking beams. Now I'm not listing everthing I heard, but honestly it was very disappointing for me the entire movie, and the last few movies I've watched I felt the same way. Sure I'd hear some debris falling every now and then, some creaking of beams, and the famous water scene with Alexandria (who is hot as @#[email protected]$) about to drown I hear bubbles. But really the ceilings aren't doing much at all in this movie?


Can someone confirm what they actually hear on theirs? I thought that the first scene, where the girl is in the car on the cliff, and heli is above her, this just begged for helicopter sounds in the ceiling speakers.....but I got nothing at all. Like I said, not until 16mins in when the hoover damn starts to quake.


So either I got something going on with my setup, which I double checked everthing again tonight, calibrated etc. Or these movies just are not using the ceiling speakers enough at all.


I have a 5.1.4 setup. Well, techically, 5.2.4.


----------



## Jay144

dvdwilly3 said:


> For those who are chasing after a Dolby Atmos demo disk...the Hong Kong version of Lucy available at YesAsia.com contains:
> 
> 
> Amaze trailer
> Leaf trailer
> Conductor trailer, and
> Unfold trailer
> As far as I am concerned, those are the best Atmos demos anyway.
> ...


Those are all good demos, but the Enrique Iglesias music video Bailando is also very well done. And fun to watch. Plus there are some fine looking women in it, or so I am told. If the Hong Kong version of Lucy does not have that song, then I recommend trying to find the entire August 2014 demo disc.


----------



## dkwong

Jay144 said:


> Those are all good demos, but the Enrique Iglesias music video Bailando is also very well done. And fun to watch. Plus there are some fine looking women in it, or so I am told. If the Hong Kong version of Lucy does not have that song, then I recommend trying to find the entire August 2014 demo disc.



Yeah I could watch this music video a hundred times.


----------



## NorthSky

________


----------



## himey

newfmp3 said:


> With all the talk of San Andreas lately I wanted to ask someone to check something for me. I loved the movie. Sounded great. But I'm starting to wonder if my Atmos ceilings are working correctly and as I read other reviews that are so positive of the Atmos, I'm really starting to wonder.
> 
> 
> I watched a good chunk of the movie tonight with everything but the ceilings turned off. I have Top Front and Top Rear. Denon X4100, with seperate amps. I do NOT hear anything from the ceilings speakers until exactly the 16 min mark (actually 15:58). And that is only a squeak of a swinging light. Then again at 16:40 with some creaking beams. Now I'm not listing everthing I heard, but honestly it was very disappointing for me the entire movie, and the last few movies I've watched I felt the same way. Sure I'd hear some debris falling every now and then, some creaking of beams, and the famous water scene with Alexandria (who is hot as @#[email protected]$) about to drown I hear bubbles. But really the ceilings aren't doing much at all in this movie?
> 
> 
> Can someone confirm what they actually hear on theirs? I thought that the first scene, where the girl is in the car on the cliff, and heli is above her, this just begged for helicopter sounds in the ceiling speakers.....but I got nothing at all. Like I said, not until 16mins in when the hoover damn starts to quake.
> 
> 
> So either I got something going on with my setup, which I double checked everthing again tonight, calibrated etc. Or these movies just are not using the ceiling speakers enough at all.
> 
> 
> I have a 5.1.4 setup. Well, techically, 5.2.4.



I believe there was a post in this thread noting that this reciever doesn't put as much info in the "tops" as some of the others. One of the Atmos test clips was used for the comparison because at the time there wasn't many movies released. Not much, if any discussion about it since.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

himey said:


> I believe there was a post in this thread noting that this reciever doesn't put as much info in the "tops" as some of the others. One of the Atmos test clips was used for the comparison because at the time there wasn't many movies released. Not much, if any discussion about it since.


what?! this is the first I have heard about this....

anyone else confirm or deny this?


----------



## newfmp3

himey said:


> I believe there was a post in this thread noting that this reciever doesn't put as much info in the "tops" as some of the others. One of the Atmos test clips was used for the comparison because at the time there wasn't many movies released. Not much, if any discussion about it since.



Huh? Never heard tell of this ever.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> what?! this is the first I have heard about this....
> 
> anyone else confirm or deny this?


I have no recollection of this either. I suspect that it isn't so.


----------



## asere

himey said:


> I believe there was a post in this thread noting that this reciever doesn't put as much info in the "tops" as some of the others. One of the Atmos test clips was used for the comparison because at the time there wasn't many movies released. Not much, if any discussion about it since.


 Which receiver is this?


----------



## newfmp3

asere said:


> Which receiver is this?


Denon X4100. As I have said, I have never seen any mention of this anywhere so it seems odd. It either decodes ATMOS or it doesn't. No in the middle, no it "sorta" does Atmos. Can you imagine if ANY receiver out there claimed to decode DTS or DD and droppped any of the soundtrack? It would be a class action law suit.


----------



## Stoked21

newfmp3 said:


> Denon X4100. As I have said, I have never seen any mention of this anywhere so it seems odd. It either decodes ATMOS or it doesn't. No in the middle, no it "sorta" does Atmos. Can you imagine if ANY receiver out there claimed to decode DTS or DD and droppped any of the soundtrack? It would be a class action law suit.


Well, I doubt enough steam and momentum for a law suit, but yes very bad publicity and false advertising. 

I can tell you that on my Yamaha, San Andreas plays a lot through TF and TR. I've not tried to listen to it this way, but in the process of working on my trigger outputs to my Panamax 5400, all of my amps are powered off. The TF and TR speakers are connected directly to Yamaha AVR so I've inadvertently heard a lot of the movie with just those speakers.----edit: the scenes playing were the big earthquake scenes around chapter 4 or so. So I haven't confirmed this with the whole movie.


----------



## jpco

newfmp3 said:


> With all the talk of San Andreas lately I wanted to ask someone to check something for me. I loved the movie. Sounded great. But I'm starting to wonder if my Atmos ceilings are working correctly and as I read other reviews that are so positive of the Atmos, I'm really starting to wonder.
> 
> 
> I watched a good chunk of the movie tonight with everything but the ceilings turned off. I have Top Front and Top Rear. Denon X4100, with seperate amps. I do NOT hear anything from the ceilings speakers until exactly the 16 min mark (actually 15:58). And that is only a squeak of a swinging light. Then again at 16:40 with some creaking beams. Now I'm not listing everthing I heard, but honestly it was very disappointing for me the entire movie, and the last few movies I've watched I felt the same way. Sure I'd hear some debris falling every now and then, some creaking of beams, and the famous water scene with Alexandria (who is hot as @#[email protected]$) about to drown I hear bubbles. But really the ceilings aren't doing much at all in this movie?
> 
> 
> Can someone confirm what they actually hear on theirs? I thought that the first scene, where the girl is in the car on the cliff, and heli is above her, this just begged for helicopter sounds in the ceiling speakers.....but I got nothing at all. Like I said, not until 16mins in when the hoover damn starts to quake.
> 
> 
> So either I got something going on with my setup, which I double checked everthing again tonight, calibrated etc. Or these movies just are not using the ceiling speakers enough at all.
> 
> 
> I have a 5.1.4 setup. Well, techically, 5.2.4.


Thanks for your post. I just put in the disc and there are no overhead sounds during the car crash. All I heard were the light shaking and a two other minor interior sounds during the Hoover Dam scene.

When I watched the movie the first time, I though maybe there was something wrong with my setup because I wasn't getting the perception of overhead sound that I expected in these intense scenes of destruction that clearly had overwhelming sound that should have been overhead. It turns out there was nothing there in the mix. 

5.1.4 with a Yamaha RX-A3050. It's not your AVR.


----------



## newfmp3

The problem with San Andeas is that there are two versions. Or at least I'm told. One is 3D with no Atmos. If you got that one then you arr just hearing the DSU with no atmos and there will be a lot of sound coming from the tops just like any non atmos movie. But I have the Atmos version, the receiver says ATMOS when being played.


Those of you with the Atmos version, just watch the first 5mins (helicopter rescue) with just your ceilings on. Do you hear ANYTHING from them?


----------



## virtualrain

jpco said:


> Thanks for your post. I just put in the disc and there are no overhead sounds during the car crash. All I heard were the light shaking and a two other minor interior sounds during the Hoover Dam scene.
> 
> 
> 
> When I watched the movie the first time, I though maybe there was something wrong with my setup because I wasn't getting the perception of overhead sound that I expected in these intense scenes of destruction that clearly had overwhelming sound that should have been overhead. It turns out there was nothing there in the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1.4 with a Yamaha RX-A3050. It's not your AVR.



Strange. Aren't there some folks here who claimed this is one of the best Atmos sound tracks?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

newfmp3 said:


> The problem with San Andeas is that there are two versions. Or at least I'm told. One is 3D with no Atmos. If you got that one then you arr just hearing the DSU with no atmos and there will be a lot of sound coming from the tops just like any non atmos movie. But I have the Atmos version, the receiver says ATMOS when being played.
> 
> 
> Those of you with the Atmos version, just watch the first 5mins (helicopter rescue) with just your ceilings on. Do you hear ANYTHING from them?


innaccurate...there are not 2 versions....your thinking of Pixels 3d i think


----------



## jpco

virtualrain said:


> Strange. Aren't there some folks here who claimed this is one of the best Atmos sound tracks?


Strange, indeed. I bought it because reviews were saying it's arguably the best Atmos soundtrack to date. It's an excellent soundtrack. Just not sure how much of that has to do with Atmos.

They keep telling us that Atmos is more than heights, but if a car is flipping over going down a cliff and glass is breaking and objects are flying all around, I think it might be an opportunity to use some of that height dimension. And when I say silent on the height layer, I mean dead silent.


----------



## lujan

dkwong said:


> I didn't have a good experience with these. I used a Roku Stick and the Atmos signal wouldn't kick in until several seconds into the clips. I would also lose the Atmos signal if I rewinded or forwarded so it was hard to test a particular part of the clip.


Yes, I have noticed the Atmos delay when first starting the clips. They are short so I haven't rewinded or fast forwarded them.


----------



## newfmp3

well if studios don't start using the ceilings more, the format might as well just die. Isn't that why we bought these expensive atmos receivers and ceiling speakers to begin with? What I hear in San Andreas is a joke, certainly not worth 1000's of dollars and you want to talk about missed opportunity? No movie yet has had a better reason to use the ceiling speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

newfmp3 said:


> well if studios don't start using the ceilings more, the format might as well just die. Isn't that why we bought these expensive atmos receivers and ceiling speakers to begin with? What I hear in San Andreas is a joke, certainly not worth 1000's of dollars and you want to talk about missed opportunity? No movie yet has had a better reason to use the ceiling speakers.


Interesting. I watched this movie last week and I was very impressed with the sound and didn't notice any particular lack of use of the overhead speakers here. I haven't isolated the overheads at this time, but will do so to see if I am hearing the same as you. It is certainly the case that many Atmos mixes make less use of the overhead speakers than one might expect, but this is down to the mixer and has nothing to do with Atmos itself. As mixers become more familiar with Atmos maybe we can expect more use of the overhead speakers.

Also, Atmos is about much more than overhead speakers. The entire soundstage is enhanced by Atmos and it brings much greater precision to the placement of sounds all around you as well as above you. And in some ways, turning off all the listener level speakers can give a false impression: sometimes a very 'small' sound from the overheads will work in conjunction with a 'bigger' sound from the listener level speakers to enhance the impression of sound coming from overhead.

Certainly I was blown away by *San Andreas*'s soundtrack here. For the record, I am running 7.2.4 with physical overhead speakers, using a Denon X5200.

This is what respected AVS reviewer @Ralph Potts had to say about the sound on this disc:

_As mentioned earlier film's like this are tailor made for entertaining home theater listening. In this case those words have never been truer especially with respect to Dolby Atmos. San Andreas is the first Atmos mix that I have reviewed that contains elements that allow full advantage of the format's promise and the result is an engrossing thrill ride. The opening sequence features a helicopter rescue precipitated by a vehicle that crashed down an embankment. This segment contains a wealth of effects beginning with the visceral, rumbling tumbling falling vehicle that literally places you within the compartment. Later as the helicopter arrives there is a nice overhead flyover followed by visual perspectives and audio cues that simulate the hovering craft from down below. While that all sounds great it's just an appetizer for what is to come later beginning with the sequence that takes place at the Hoover Dam. That sequence brings together the type of room traversing sound that combines object placement from above and ear level that only gets better as the action ramps up.

The Atmos mix makes effective use of the entire platform and manages the plethora of effects, dialogue, music and low frequency content allowing all of the recording's elements to be fully realized. This track can be thoroughly engrossing and sometimes starkly realistic. There is a sequence during the third act that takes place in a crumbling building that is filling with water. Debris and raining down from above and crashing to the floor. I swear that at one point I actually turned and looked over my shoulder fully expecting to see a chunk of my drywall on the floor behind my seat. It sounded so lifelike that being caught up in the sequence it sounded like a piece of concrete fell and landed in my theater room. The extended earthquake/disaster related sequences contain a host of swirling effects, explosions, nearfield pans, and ambience that rotate around the soundstage, shifting overhead, passing by at ear level and coming directly at the listening position. It all comes together in a resplendent blend of room energizing and well balanced sound that shows what this format is capable of. 

Kudos to the sound designers at Warner Brothers Home Entertainment as they consistently provide thrilling soundtracks that make for some of the best home theater experiences. This is no exception and stands right alongside my other favorite Dolby Atmos sound mix (which just happens to be from Warner Brothers HE), Mad Max: Fury Road. _

The full review is *here*.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

listen to a beatles stereo album....but do so with one of the L or R turned off...youd be surprised in one of them how little comes out of that speaker....yet it sounds great and full with both playing

transfer this same thought process to atmos...and voila...incredible sound


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. I watched this movie last week and I was very impressed with the sound and didn't notice any particular lack of use of the overhead speakers here. I haven't isolated the overheads at this time, but will do so to see if I am hearing the same as you. It is certainly the case that many Atmos mixes make less use of the overhead speakers than one might expect, but this is down to the mixer and has nothing to do with Atmos itself. As mixers become more familiar with Atmos maybe we can expect more use of the overhead speakers.
> 
> Also, Atmos is about much more than overhead speakers. The entire soundstage is enhanced by Atmos and it brings much greater precision to the placement of sounds all around you as well as above you. And in some ways, turning off all the listener level speakers can give a false impression: sometimes a very 'small' sound from the overheads will work in conjunction with a 'bigger' sound from the listener level speakers to enhance the impression of sound coming from overhead.


From what I gathered at the various CEDIA Expo booths that were utilizing more than the standard 7.1.4 configuration, these soundtracks can really come alive. The problem is that mere mortals are stuck with products that are actually quite inadequate to the task of really showcasing immersive audio. 

And yes, at the Denon/Marantz booth they did mention that they are trying to squeeze at least another two outputs for 2016 higher end products using the same DSP's the 2015 models have installed (no word on a 9.1.4 firmware update for current high end 2015 models... very doubtful IMHO as they probably want you to upgrade yearly). 

The new Acurus processor _may_ also get 9.1.4 as an upgrade since its current architecture can support it. Of course, at around $10,000... it better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HT-Eman said:


> I believe AVS member Nickbuol has both disc. Dolby Atmos bluray demo and the DTS 2015 demo disc vol 19 .


Did Nickbuol mention if the Denon demo disc he has includes the Star Wars game clip as well as Unbroken, and a few other movie and music clips? This is the booth disc worth snagging.


----------



## HT-Eman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Did Nickbuol mention if the Denon demo disc he has includes the Star Wars game clip as well as Unbroken, and a few other movie and music clips? This is the booth disc worth snagging.


Just deleted my post because I searched for vol 19 DTS demo disc and its the old one from earlier this year. Maybe its different ..... idk . I mentioned it because he posted it in another thread with pics so maybe someone can ask him. He had pics of both the atmos and dts demo disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I gathered at the various CEDIA Expo booths that were utilizing more than the standard 7.1.4 configuration, these soundtracks can really come alive. The problem is that mere mortals are stuck with products that are actually quite inadequate to the task of really showcasing immersive audio.


Well I am a mere mortal and my Denon X5200 does a super job of immersive audio here. I detect no difference between my own setup and the 'home theater' setup I heard twice at Dolby in London. Of course, the experience was better in the main Dolby theater, but since it cost millions of dollars, this is what I would expect 



Dan Hitchman said:


> And yes, at the Denon/Marantz booth they did mention that they are trying to squeeze at least another two outputs for 2016 higher end products using the same DSP's the 2015 models have installed (no word on a 9.1.4 firmware update for current high end 2015 models... very doubtful IMHO as they probably want you to upgrade yearly).


Six overheads would definitely suit those with large rooms or multiple rows. Not much benefit to me though with a small room and a single row. I am happy with 4 overheads and doubt if adding more would improve the experience in any significant way. Good to know Denon are considering this though.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The new Acurus processor _may_ also get 9.1.4 as an upgrade since its current architecture can support it. Of course, at around $10,000... it better.


Indeed. Although that is small change to the Trinnov crowd of course


----------



## Kris Deering

The new Dolby Atmos demo disc has Unbroken and the Star Wars Battleground clip. It has a variety of new movie clips including Mad Max, John Wick and Insurgent as well. Some new videos and two new Atmos trailers (one with the baseball thru the window and the other is an animated one that is probably the most aggressive I've heard yet with overhead channels). They got rid of the trailer with all the triangles. There is also an assortment of test tones. I got the full disc at CEDIA from Dolby and they said they had made a VERY limited run for the show to give to booths for demos and only had a couple left after that. They said they were going to have a mass pressing in two weeks. Hopefully these will be made more accessible to the public when the mass run is done. I will follow up with Dolby and see if they intend to make it available to the public.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kris Deering said:


> I will follow up with Dolby and see if they intend to make it available to the public.


They better.  Dolby (and DTS) need to understand that there must be avenues for A/V enthusiasts to demo what immersive audio has to offer to their friends and family. Otherwise, Hollywood will probably drop it like they did 3D. Why make the extra effort for so few customers even if the technology is so superior?


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> The new Dolby Atmos demo disc has Unbroken and the Star Wars Battleground clip. It has a variety of new movie clips including Mad Max, John Wick and Insurgent as well. Some new videos and two new Atmos trailers (one with the baseball thru the window and the other is an animated one that is probably the most aggressive I've heard yet with overhead channels). They got rid of the trailer with all the triangles. There is also an assortment of test tones. I got the full disc at CEDIA from Dolby and they said they had made a VERY limited run for the show to give to booths for demos and only had a couple left after that. They said they were going to have a mass pressing in two weeks. Hopefully these will be made more accessible to the public when the mass run is done. I will follow up with Dolby and see if they intend to make it available to the public.


I am sure you would earn the undying gratitude of many AVS members, Kris, if you could get Dolby to make this disc commercially available to the public. I foresee all the usual problems with copyright and IT issues though, given the large amount of commercial product featured on the discs. I doubt Dolby will have negotiated rights for widescale distribution. Of course I hope I am wrong on that but, as you know, licensing, IP and rights issues in Hollywood are a living nightmare (although this sort of thing does provide a wonderful livelihood for IP attorneys, my wife included ) If the latter is true, then perhaps Dolby would release a 'Lite' version of the disc with their own material and the test tones?? The test tones are what people really want I feel.


----------



## HT-Eman

Kris Deering said:


> The new Dolby Atmos demo disc has Unbroken and the Star Wars Battleground clip. It has a variety of new movie clips including Mad Max, John Wick and Insurgent as well. Some new videos and two new Atmos trailers (one with the baseball thru the window and the other is an animated one that is probably the most aggressive I've heard yet with overhead channels). They got rid of the trailer with all the triangles. There is also an assortment of test tones. I got the full disc at CEDIA from Dolby and they said they had made a VERY limited run for the show to give to booths for demos and only had a couple left after that. They said they were going to have a mass pressing in two weeks. Hopefully these will be made more accessible to the public when the mass run is done. I will follow up with Dolby and see if they intend to make it available to the public.


Thanks Kris ! Looking forward to those new trailers to add to my cinema vision app on Kodi .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Well I am a mere mortal and my Denon X5200 does a super job of immersive audio here. I detect no difference between my own setup and the 'home theater' setup I heard twice at Dolby in London. Of course, the experience was better in the main Dolby theater, but since it cost millions of dollars, this is what I would expect
> 
> Six overheads would definitely suit those with large rooms or multiple rows. Not much benefit to me though with a small room and a single row. I am happy with 4 overheads and doubt if adding more would improve the experience in any significant way. Good to know Denon are considering this though.


The JBL Synthesis booth was not utilizing the entire capability of home DTS: X or Dolby Atmos, but this demo conclusively showed that mo' speakers = mo' better.  It was amazing hearing the difference between the standard 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 configurations at most of the booths and having the same tracks rendered with more lateral surrounds and overheads in the JBL booth. _Unbroken_'s opening scene, for instance, was breathtaking and the track really opened up and was far more enveloping than 7.1.4 by a wide margin.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> They better.  Dolby (and DTS) need to understand that there must be avenues for A/V enthusiasts to demo what immersive audio has to offer to their friends and family.


The problem for Dolby will be the IP rights of the content makers, as ever. Licensing for, say, 1000 discs aimed at the industry only is a very different matter to licensing for many more discs for widescale commercial distribution. It seems to be fairly obvious that Dolby would love to distribute these discs, or even to sell them, to the general public as it is so in their interests to do so. Sadly, unless they restrict content to their own IP, they will face an uphill battle in all likelihood. And it isn’t always just about the money - the time investment to negotiate complex IT rights matters can be very significant too.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Otherwise, Hollywood will probably drop it like they did 3D. Why make the extra effort for so few customers even if the technology is so superior?


What extra effort? Isn't one of the points of immersive object-based audio like Atmos that it is actually_ less_ effort for the production teams? And since the investment in hardware has now been made at the studios, it would be rather odd to not use it and go back to channel-based mixing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The JBL Synthesis booth was not utilizing the entire capability of home DTS: X or Dolby Atmos, but this demo conclusively showed that mo' speakers = mo' better.  It was amazing hearing the difference between the standard 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 configurations at most of the booths and having the same tracks rendered with more lateral surrounds and overheads in the JBL booth. _Unbroken_'s opening scene, for instance, was breathtaking and the track really opened up and was far more enveloping than 7.1.4 by a wide margin.


And in my local Atmos theater, it is probably even better than the JBL booth. Wouldn’t one expect a setup that costs tens of times more to be superior?

Now try to squeeze half a dozen more speakers into a room like mine! (If you know how to do it, I will go ahead with it!)


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I am sure you would earn the undying gratitude of many AVS members, Kris, if you could get Dolby to make this disc commercially available to the public. I foresee all the usual problems with copyright and IT issues though, given the large amount of commercial product featured on the discs. I doubt Dolby will have negotiated rights for widescale distribution. Of course I hope I am wrong on that but, as you know, licensing, IP and rights issues in Hollywood are a living nightmare (although this sort of thing does provide a wonderful livelihood for IP attorneys, my wife included ) If the latter is true, then perhaps Dolby would release a 'Lite' version of the disc with their own material and the test tones?? The test tones are what people really want I feel.


I agree. Ultimately it probably comes down to the fact that Dolby can't charge for the disc as it is intended for demonstration purposes only, BUT they also have to pay to make the disc which isn't trivial. What I would love to see is something like this included in the box with AVRs or SSPs that feature Atmos as a promotional thing. I remember when DTS finally made it into receivers in the late nineties. I bought a Kenwood AVR that was one of the first to have DTS decoding and included was a DTS demo disc that was only music (no video clips) and I LOVED it. It drove me to want to find as much multi-channel music as possible to own, of which there was VERY little (no DVD-A or SACD at the time, only a handful of DTS music titles).


----------



## Brian Fineberg

3d was dropped by Hollywood?? news to me


2015 3D RELEASE CALENDAR

DATE	DISTRIBUTOR(S)	TITLE
Oct 23, 2015	Paramount	Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension
Nov 6, 2015	Fox	The Peanuts Movie
Nov 20, 2015	Lionsgate	The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
Nov 25, 2015	Disney	The Good Dinosaur
Dec 11, 2015	Warner Bros.	In the Heart of the Sea
Dec 18, 2015	Disney	Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Dec 25, 2015	Warner Bros.	Point Break (2015)
Real3d_mid_banner
2016 3D RELEASE CALENDAR

DATE	DISTRIBUTOR(S)	TITLE
Jan 29, 2016	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	Kung Fu Panda 3
Jan 29, 2016	Disney	The Finest Hours
Mar 4, 2016	Disney	Zootopia
Apr 15, 2016	Disney	The Jungle Book (2016)
Apr 29, 2016	Disney / IMAX	A Beautiful Planet
Apr 29, 2016	Focus / Gramercy	Ratchet & Clank
May 6, 2016	Disney	Captain America: Civil War
May 20, 2016	Sony / Columbia	The Angry Birds Movie
May 27, 2016	Disney	Alice Through the Looking Glass
Jun 10, 2016	Universal	Warcraft
Jun 17, 2016	Disney	Finding Dory
Jun 24, 2016	Fox	Independence Day Resurgence
Jul 1, 2016	Warner Bros.	Tarzan (2016)
Jul 8, 2016	Universal	The Secret Life of Pets
Jul 22, 2016	Fox	Ice Age: Collision Course
Jul 22, 2016	Warner Bros.	King Arthur (2016)
Aug 5, 2016	Warner Bros.	Suicide Squad
Aug 12, 2016	Disney	Pete's Dragon (2016)
Aug 12, 2016	Universal	Spectral
Aug 19, 2016	Focus	Kubo and the Two Strings
Sep 23, 2016	Warner Bros.	Storks
Nov 4, 2016	Disney	Doctor Strange
Nov 4, 2016	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	Trolls
Nov 11, 2016	Sony / TriStar	Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk
Nov 18, 2016	Warner Bros.	Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them
Nov 23, 2016	Disney	Moana
Nov 23, 2016	Universal	The Great Wall
Dec 16, 2016	Disney	Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Real3d_mid_banner
2017 3D RELEASE CALENDAR

DATE	DISTRIBUTOR(S)	TITLE
Jan 13, 2017	Warner Bros.	Geostorm
Feb 10, 2017	Warner Bros.	The LEGO Batman Movie
Mar 10, 2017	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	Boss Baby
Mar 10, 2017	Warner Bros.	Kong: Skull Island
Mar 17, 2017	Disney	Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Mar 31, 2017	Sony / Columbia	Get Smurfy
Mar 31, 2017	Disney / DreamWorks	Ghost in the Shell (2017)
Apr 7, 2017	Fox	Ferdinand
May 5, 2017	Disney	Guardians of the Galaxy 2
May 26, 2017	Disney	Star Wars: Episode VIII
Jun 16, 2017	Disney	Cars 3
Jul 7, 2017	Disney	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Jul 28, 2017	Sony / Columbia	Untitled Spider-Man 2017 Film
Sep 22, 2017	Warner Bros.	The LEGO Ninjago Movie
Oct 6, 2017	Warner Bros.	Jungle Book: Origins
Nov 3, 2017	Disney	Thor: Ragnarok
Nov 22, 2017	Disney	Coco
Dec 22, 2017	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	The Croods 2
2018 3D RELEASE CALENDAR

DATE	DISTRIBUTOR(S)	TITLE
Feb 9, 2018	Warner Bros.	Untitled Warner Animation Group 2018 Project
Feb 16, 2018	Disney	Black Panther
Feb 16, 2018	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	Larrikins
Mar 9, 2018	Disney	Gigantic (2018)
Mar 23, 2018	Fox	Anubis
May 4, 2018	Disney	Avengers: Infinity War Part I
May 18, 2018	Warner Bros.	The LEGO Movie Sequel
May 25, 2018	Disney	Untitled Han Solo Star Wars Anthology Film
Jun 15, 2018	Disney	Toy Story 4
Jun 29, 2018	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	How to Train Your Dragon 3
Jul 6, 2018	Disney	Ant-Man and the Wasp
Nov 21, 2018	Disney	Untitled Disney Animation Film 1
Real3d_mid_banner
2019 3D RELEASE CALENDAR

DATE	DISTRIBUTOR(S)	TITLE
Mar 8, 2019	Disney	Captain Marvel
May 3, 2019	Disney	Avengers: Infinity War Part II
Jun 21, 2019	Disney	The Incredibles 2
Jul 12, 2019	Disney	Inhumans


----------



## Kris Deering

Dan Hitchman said:


> The JBL Synthesis booth was not utilizing the entire capability of home DTS: X or Dolby Atmos, but this demo conclusively showed that mo' speakers = mo' better.  It was amazing hearing the difference between the standard 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 configurations at most of the booths and having the same tracks rendered with more lateral surrounds and overheads in the JBL booth. _Unbroken_'s opening scene, for instance, was breathtaking and the track really opened up and was far more enveloping than 7.1.4 by a wide margin.


Their demo was quite good, as was Wisdom's right next to it. I was relieved when I got home and tried all the same demos at home to find that I still find my system preferable to all of them. I love coming home and finding out I don't need to upgrade anything on the audio side of the house.  Though I will admit, I am excited about the prospect of reviewing Audio Control's new SSP with Atmos and Dirac Live. Hope to have that for review around Christmas!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> What extra effort? Isn't one of the points of immersive object-based audio like Atmos that it is actually_ less_ effort for the production teams? And since the investment in hardware has now been made at the studios, it would be rather odd to not use it and go back to channel-based mixing.


I'm still hearing that they can't just directly port the audio from the cinema over to the consumer version like it was no fuss, no muss, adjust the EQ for near-field reproduction, and call it a day. There is still time needed to overhaul the mix for the home and then make separate optimized mixes for 5.1 or 7.1 for other media. 

If was mostly an automated conversion process with excellent results, then I could see it being the standard track for most releases going forward.


----------



## HT-Eman

Kris Deering said:


> Their demo was quite good, as was Wisdom's right next to it. I was relieved when I got home and tried all the same demos at home to find that I still find my system preferable to all of them. I love coming home and finding out I don't need to upgrade anything on the audio side of the house.  Though I will admit, I am excited about the prospect of reviewing Audio Control's new SSP with Atmos and Dirac Live. Hope to have that for review around Christmas!


Its a toss up for me between the audiocontrol avr 9 and the emotiva xmr-1 . I'm going to hold out until February 2016 . Hopefully we will get more info on the emotiva xmr-1 because thats the one I really want and my room should be finish by Feb. So that review on audiocontrol will also help with a decision . Which one will you be reviewing Kris, the Avr 7 or the Avr 9 ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> 3d was dropped by Hollywood?? news to me
> 
> 
> 2015 3D RELEASE CALENDAR
> 
> DATE DISTRIBUTOR(S) TITLE
> Oct 23, 2015 Paramount Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension
> Nov 6, 2015 Fox The Peanuts Movie
> Nov 20, 2015 Lionsgate The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
> Nov 25, 2015 Disney The Good Dinosaur
> Dec 11, 2015 Warner Bros. In the Heart of the Sea
> Dec 18, 2015 Disney Star Wars: The Force Awakens
> Dec 25, 2015 Warner Bros. Point Break (2015)
> Real3d_mid_banner
> 2016 3D RELEASE CALENDAR
> 
> DATE DISTRIBUTOR(S) TITLE
> Jan 29, 2016 Fox / DreamWorks Animation Kung Fu Panda 3
> Jan 29, 2016 Disney The Finest Hours
> Mar 4, 2016 Disney Zootopia
> Apr 15, 2016 Disney The Jungle Book (2016)
> Apr 29, 2016 Disney / IMAX A Beautiful Planet
> Apr 29, 2016 Focus / Gramercy Ratchet & Clank
> May 6, 2016 Disney Captain America: Civil War
> May 20, 2016 Sony / Columbia The Angry Birds Movie
> May 27, 2016 Disney Alice Through the Looking Glass
> Jun 10, 2016 Universal Warcraft
> Jun 17, 2016 Disney Finding Dory
> Jun 24, 2016 Fox Independence Day Resurgence
> Jul 1, 2016 Warner Bros. Tarzan (2016)
> Jul 8, 2016 Universal The Secret Life of Pets
> Jul 22, 2016 Fox Ice Age: Collision Course
> Jul 22, 2016 Warner Bros. King Arthur (2016)
> Aug 5, 2016 Warner Bros. Suicide Squad
> Aug 12, 2016 Disney Pete's Dragon (2016)
> Aug 12, 2016 Universal Spectral
> Aug 19, 2016 Focus Kubo and the Two Strings
> Sep 23, 2016 Warner Bros. Storks
> Nov 4, 2016 Disney Doctor Strange
> Nov 4, 2016 Fox / DreamWorks Animation Trolls
> Nov 11, 2016 Sony / TriStar Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk
> Nov 18, 2016 Warner Bros. Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them
> Nov 23, 2016 Disney Moana
> Nov 23, 2016 Universal The Great Wall
> Dec 16, 2016 Disney Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
> Real3d_mid_banner
> 2017 3D RELEASE CALENDAR
> 
> DATE DISTRIBUTOR(S) TITLE
> Jan 13, 2017 Warner Bros. Geostorm
> Feb 10, 2017 Warner Bros. The LEGO Batman Movie
> Mar 10, 2017 Fox / DreamWorks Animation Boss Baby
> Mar 10, 2017 Warner Bros. Kong: Skull Island
> Mar 17, 2017 Disney Beauty and the Beast (2017)
> Mar 31, 2017 Sony / Columbia Get Smurfy
> Mar 31, 2017 Disney / DreamWorks Ghost in the Shell (2017)
> Apr 7, 2017 Fox Ferdinand
> May 5, 2017 Disney Guardians of the Galaxy 2
> May 26, 2017 Disney Star Wars: Episode VIII
> Jun 16, 2017 Disney Cars 3
> Jul 7, 2017 Disney Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
> Jul 28, 2017 Sony / Columbia Untitled Spider-Man 2017 Film
> Sep 22, 2017 Warner Bros. The LEGO Ninjago Movie
> Oct 6, 2017 Warner Bros. Jungle Book: Origins
> Nov 3, 2017 Disney Thor: Ragnarok
> Nov 22, 2017 Disney Coco
> Dec 22, 2017 Fox / DreamWorks Animation The Croods 2
> 2018 3D RELEASE CALENDAR
> 
> DATE DISTRIBUTOR(S) TITLE
> Feb 9, 2018 Warner Bros. Untitled Warner Animation Group 2018 Project
> Feb 16, 2018 Disney Black Panther
> Feb 16, 2018 Fox / DreamWorks Animation Larrikins
> Mar 9, 2018 Disney Gigantic (2018)
> Mar 23, 2018 Fox Anubis
> May 4, 2018 Disney Avengers: Infinity War Part I
> May 18, 2018 Warner Bros. The LEGO Movie Sequel
> May 25, 2018 Disney Untitled Han Solo Star Wars Anthology Film
> Jun 15, 2018 Disney Toy Story 4
> Jun 29, 2018 Fox / DreamWorks Animation How to Train Your Dragon 3
> Jul 6, 2018 Disney Ant-Man and the Wasp
> Nov 21, 2018 Disney Untitled Disney Animation Film 1
> Real3d_mid_banner
> 2019 3D RELEASE CALENDAR
> 
> DATE DISTRIBUTOR(S) TITLE
> Mar 8, 2019 Disney Captain Marvel
> May 3, 2019 Disney Avengers: Infinity War Part II
> Jun 21, 2019 Disney The Incredibles 2
> Jul 12, 2019 Disney Inhumans


The home market for 3D media is drying up, especially in the U.S. That's a fact. One of the big reasons manufacturers, like at CEDIA, were making a push to their clients for everything else like extended color, dynamic range, brightness, black level, service calls via internet control, etc. BUT nary a mention of 3D.


----------



## Kris Deering

HT-Eman said:


> Its a toss up for me between the audiocontrol avr 9 and the emotiva xmr-1 . I'm going to hold out until February 2016 . Hopefully we will get more info on the emotiva xmr-1 because thats the one I really want and my room should be finish by Feb. So that review on audiocontrol will also help with a decision . Which one will you be reviewing Kris, the Avr 7 or the Avr 9 ?


Neither, the Maestro M9 processor. I generally stick to SSPs, I rarely review AVRs. I am sure we'll have someone review one of the AVRs though. I am excited by the prospects of the XMR-1 as well, especially if they can truly deliver 16 channels (I want to use all 6 of my ceiling speakers) and Dirac Unison.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm still hearing that they can't just directly port the audio from the cinema over to the consumer version like it was no fuss, no muss, adjust the EQ for near-field reproduction, and call it a day. * There is still time needed to overhaul the mix for the home and then make separate optimized mixes for 5.1 or 7.1 for other media. *
> 
> If was mostly an automated conversion process with excellent results, then I could see it being the standard track for most releases going forward.


Well yes - same with a channel based mix. My point was that an object-based mix is less effort than a channel-based mix. There is still some effort of course


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> 3d was dropped by Hollywood?? news to me.


Dan is king of wishful thinking


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> The home market for 3D media is drying up, especially in the U.S. That's a fact. One of the big reasons manufacturers, like at CEDIA, were making a push to their clients for everything else like extended color, dynamic range, brightness, black level, service calls via internet control, etc. BUT nary a mention of 3D.


well...you didnt mention that...you said Hollywood has dropped 3d.

there still are 633 US blu-rays in 3d either released or scheduled to be released...if the movie was in 3d in the theater it almost is guaranteed to be released in bluray 3d

and lets be honest...physical media itself is drying up...so that is no indication of which direction Hollywood is going


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> And in my local Atmos theater, it is probably even better than the JBL booth. Wouldn’t one expect a setup that costs tens of times more to be superior?


Not necessarily. The more intimate setting really put you in the middle of the tracks in a way a cavernous auditorium could not (at least in my cinema Atmos experience). The subtleties of object panning and static placement in the mixes were much more apparent, even overhead. 

I have to wonder if these 7.1.4 and smaller rendering blocks aren't keeping some of the overhead object information in the main layer speakers rather than just blobbing them altogether in two or four speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> well...you didnt mention that...you said Hollywood has dropped 3d.
> 
> there still are 633 US blu-rays in 3d either released or scheduled to be released...if the movie was in 3d in the theater it almost is guaranteed to be released in bluray 3d
> 
> and lets be honest...physical media itself is drying up...so that is no indication of which direction Hollywood is going


Now you’re letting facts get in the way of Dan's prejudices


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not necessarily. The more intimate setting really put you in the middle of the tracks in a way a cavernous auditorium could not (at least in my cinema Atmos experience). The subtleties in the mixes were much more apparent, even overhead.


Try a different Atmos theater 



Dan Hitchman said:


> I have to wonder if these 7.1.4 and smaller rendering blocks aren't keeping some of the overhead object information in the main layer speakers rather than just blobbing them altogether in two or four speakers.


And your evidence on which that wondering is based is what?


----------



## tigerhonaker

newfmp3 said:


> well if studios don't start using the ceilings more, the format might as well just die. Isn't that why we bought these expensive atmos receivers and ceiling speakers to begin with? What I hear in San Andreas is a joke, certainly not worth 1000's of dollars and you want to talk about missed opportunity? No movie yet has had a better reason to use the ceiling speakers.


Thanks for your comments on Atmos as that's exactly why I'm "WAITING" !!!

I'll add this also to the above .........

It seems there is so much new technology revolving around the Atmos thing it just makes sense to "Wait" until things calm down.

I'm not one of the people that wishes to buy/purchase a Pre-Amp processor and then a few months later find out it is already out-dated.


.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Brian Fineberg said:


> well...you didnt mention that...you said Hollywood has dropped 3d.
> 
> there still are 633 US blu-rays in 3d either released or scheduled to be released...if the movie was in 3d in the theater it almost is guaranteed to be released in bluray 3d
> 
> and lets be honest...physical media itself is drying up...so that is no indication of which direction Hollywood is going


Not necessarily in the theater but the signals are out that Hollywood and the manufacturers are seeing the writing on the wall and are moving towards other enticements. If 3D was as popular to consumers as it once was, they would happily be espousing that feature left and right. They are not anymore.


----------



## ahmedreda

I am about to upgrade my room to Atmos. I bought 4 Volt10-LX kits from DIY sound group. My ceiling is 8 foot high and the top of my screen is ~3" from the ceiling so any on ceiling speaker installation would block the picture.

My options are
1. Install them in-ceiling using the ceiling as a baffle. They would be flush and pointing downwards. 
2. Build boxes for them and somehow install the boxes in the ceiling cavity and lower one end of the box them just enough to point the driver towards the listening area.

Which option do you recommend? Is it better to have the speakers facing the listening position to warrant the extra effort?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> And your evidence on which that wondering is based is what?


Listening.  

There were booths with 5.1.2, 5.1.4, and 7.1.4 then there were booths like Wisdom and JBL that played the same demo material with more speakers. 

For example, you've been poo pooing Auro for as long as I remember and you don't have a heck of a lot of listening experience to back things up. Have you traveled to CEDIA? CES? Multiple venues to experience different layouts with different speakers, with Atmos, X, and Auro, etc.

That hasn't stopped your own opinions from being voiced over and over and over. Why should I have to?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not necessarily in the theater but the signals are out that Hollywood and the manufacturers are seeing the writing on the wall and are moving towards other enticements. If 3D was as popular to consumers as it once was, they would happily be espousing that feature left and right. They are not anymore.


can you please point me to evidence of these "signals" I would like to read more about it...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

ahmedreda said:


> I am about to upgrade my room to Atmos. I bought 4 Volt10-LX kits from DIY sound group. My ceiling is 8 foot high and the top of my screen is ~3" from the ceiling so any on ceiling speaker installation would block the picture.
> 
> My options are
> 1. Install them in-ceiling using the ceiling as a baffle. They would be flush and pointing downwards.
> 2. Build boxes for them and somehow install the boxes in the ceiling cavity and lower one end of the box them just enough to point the driver towards the listening area.
> 
> Which option do you recommend? Is it better to have the speakers facing the listening position to warrant the extra effort?


I just ordered volt 6's for the same thing...and ordered the slanted flat pack (they offer one for the 10's as well) I plan on slanting them towards the mlp to not be extremely off axis. but from what I have read...ceiling mounting them without a backer box will yield just as good result...I would have gone this way..but the cavity between all my joists are filled with pipes etc


----------



## wkearney99

Dan Hitchman said:


> If 3D was as popular to consumers as it once was, they would happily be espousing that feature left and right. They are not anymore.


Was 3D ever all that popular for home viewing? I've had plenty of gear that's supported it over the years and not once was the viewing experience enhanced as a result. Now, better speakers and audio tracks; those have definitely made positive impressions. Plenty of folks praise the audio quality, but nobody's ever raved about having been able to see it with 3D. Far from it, more often there's complaints it wasn't worth the trouble (glasses, picture quality, etc). While I'd certainly back seeing 'the numbers', it doesn't take much sense to understand why 3D ain't where it's at.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

wkearney99 said:


> Was 3D ever all that popular for home viewing? I've had plenty of gear that's supported it over the years and not once was the viewing experience enhanced as a result. Now, better speakers and audio tracks; those have definitely made positive impressions. Plenty of folks praise the audio quality, but nobody's ever raved about having been able to see it with 3D. Far from it, more often there's complaints it wasn't worth the trouble (glasses, picture quality, etc). While I'd certainly back seeing 'the numbers', it doesn't take much sense to understand why 3D ain't where it's at.


i never used to either...in my living room HT witha 65" screen i could take it or leave it

it wasnt until I built a dedicated HT with 10' wide scope screen that i truly fell in love with all things 3d...do i getmad if a movie ISNT in 3d ...no...but its a great bonus when it is


----------



## newfmp3

Brian Fineberg said:


> listen to a beatles stereo album....but do so with one of the L or R turned off...youd be surprised in one of them how little comes out of that speaker....yet it sounds great and full with both playing
> 
> transfer this same thought process to atmos...and voila...incredible sound


 
The beatles never sounded good to me, but that's another story.


But, I get your point. The killer is, while I was watching the movie the first time, it was the lack of Atmos type surround effects that made me question if all the speakers were indeed on and working. So while the movie did sound good, it did not sound any better then any other 5.1/7.1 movie without Atmos with expection of the very rare squeak and creak from a ceiling speaker.


Again, for the first full 16mins there is NOTHING coming from my ceilings. NOTHING. There's a lot happening in that movie the first 16mins. Then there's just two or three sounds in th next 40 seconds, and NOTHING again until the rock rescues his ex wife from the roof of the building she was on. And in that scene it was a few sounds of flames circling around and that was it, some concrete falling. No helicopter noises, no nuttin. Then the next spot was the scene under wather with the rock rescueing his daughter, and you can hear water. 


But when I read the review here, quoted just a few posts above, it makes it sound like I was missing so much more - and all I remember was how rare it was too hear anything Atmos related - which started my OMFG what's wrong with my system....must check this, must check that, re-cal etc etc.


Now I know Dolby would like us to all believe there's more going on with Atmos then what the height speakers are doing, and technically sure...yup, it is. But without the ceilings being used....I'm sorry but it doesn't really sound any different then 5.1/7.1 to "me". The darn things are there....start freak'n using them.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Listening.


You ears can give you an insight into rendering blocks in different AVRs? That is truly remarkable. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> For example, you've been poo pooing Auro for as long as I remember and you don't have a heck of a lot of listening experience to back things up.


I have never, not even once, made a single comment on how Auro sounds. So, given that listening requires sound, your remark above seems to be entirely irrelevant to anything.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Have you traveled to CEDIA? CES? Multiple venues to experience different layouts with different speakers, with Atmos, X, and Auro, etc.


I’d assume it would be pretty obvious that I'm not going to travel 5,000 miles to attend CEDIA. And even if I lived next door to it, I wouldn't go there to listen to a single demo of anything at all because it is largely futile. Poorly designed rooms, for the most part, badly set up, lacking acoustic treatments etc etc are not how I want to listen to anything thanks. It might be of passing interest to take a listen but not for any sort of serious evaluation of anything. Of course, I have listened to properly set up Atmos at Dolby's HQ in London. And at very well set up demo facilities in the UK dealer network. And at two or three SOTA movie theaters. 

But how is this relevant to anything, other than a weak attempt at deflection? I asked you what your evidence was for the remark you made about the inner workings of Atmos in different AVRs. Your answer tells me you have none, which is good enough for me. Dan, you made a remark which you cannot in any way substantiate and you were called out on it. My advice: when in a hole, stop digging 



Dan Hitchman said:


> That hasn't stopped your own opinions from being voiced over and over and over. Why should I have to?


Unfortunately, you are in the red herring business here but it won’t work. Find a single example of where I have given an opinion of how Auro sounds - just one - which would be needed for your comment about lack of 'listening experience' to have any meaning. You say I have voiced these opinions over and over and over, so it shouldn’t be hard to find one or two to quote back to me.

Nice try at deflection, Dan, but this isn't my first rodeo, buddy


----------



## stikle

tigerhonaker said:


> It seems there is *so much new technology revolving around the Atmos thing* it just makes sense to "Wait" until things calm down.



There is? Like what?


----------



## kbarnes701

newfmp3 said:


> Now I know Dolby would like us to all believe there's more going on with Atmos then what the height speakers are doing, and technically sure...yup, it is. But without the ceilings being used....I'm sorry but it doesn't really sound any different then 5.1/7.1 to "me". The darn things are there....start freak'n using them.


Do you care to share details of your setup and system with us? If you are not hearing any difference between Atmos and 5.1/7.1 it suggests something is wrong somewhere.

Do you have a copy of *Mad Max Fury Road*?


----------



## DAlba

Dan Hitchman said:


> Unless someone got a hold of the full booth demo disc... it ain't worth it. Be happy if you can find the 2014 disc.


Yep thats what I am looking for. I am interested in the multiple movie clips. I've already have full rips of the 2014 and Jan 2015 disc that I play on my Dune media player.


----------



## TVAddikt

I am in the midst of placing inceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos. Background info I have a Denon X5200w. I currently have a 7.1 setup. I am planning a 7.1.4. I have 4 in-ceiling speakers for atmos placement. I purchased a crown xls1000 amp the drive 2 of the atmos speakers. 

Please confirm the following steps I am doing to ensure proper speaker placement.

1. I aligned the atmos speakers with the front speakers and rear surrounds. (just confirming I am doing the correct.

2. I am placing the top front speakers 98.5 inches from the MLP. If my calculations are correct that gives me a angle of 31 degrees. Which falls within the atmos specs.

3. I am placing the top rear speakers 69 inches from the MLP. I am calculating an angle of 139 degrees which I believe falls within the atmos spec.

I used the spread sheet within this thread to calculate angles. Any concerns?

Thanks in advance for any help you are providing.
Bill


----------



## sdurani

TVAddikt said:


> I am placing the top front speakers 98.5 inches from the MLP. If my calculations are correct that gives me a angle of 31 degrees. Which falls within the atmos specs.


It barely falls within the Atmos spec, so you'd be better off getting your top front speakers higher up, like 45 degrees elevation, it order to get a better impression of sounds above you.


----------



## Stoked21

newfmp3 said:


> have Top Front and Top Rear. Denon X4100, with seperate amps. I do NOT hear anything from the ceilings speakers until exactly the 16 min mark (actually 15:58). And that is only a squeak of a swinging light. Then again at 16:40 with some creaking beams.
> 
> .


 @newfmp3

So I went down to the HT and popped in the 2D BD. Ran it from start to about 6:00 mark. not a peep out of the TF/TRs. FF to 16:00 mark. Light swinging, dust and debris falling at about that point. Sounds like they really start being utilized from there on. I didn't listen to the whole thing to that point or even beyond, but yeah you're right. I know that from chapter 4 on approximately, the tops see a lot more action, as referenced in my previous comment. So you are not crazy, it's not your system, it's the disc mix. 

Maybe this is by choice (obviously I suppose). Ever listen to a song and all of a sudden in one of the choruses a choir comes in or a symphony or the drums or an electric guitar kick in? Heightens the emotions at that particular part of a song and amps up the energy in a climatic sense. Maybe that was their intention to kick in Atmos later? Not trying to defend their decision to do so....but clearly it was omitted for a reason.


----------



## pasender91

stikle said:


> There is? Like what?


He's right there is going to be Atmos everywhere quite soon:
- Atmos in the Cinema (here since 2012)
- Atmos in the Home Theater (around for a year now)
- Atmos in the soundbars (Yamaha released one lately, i heard it during a show, it is not as good as an Atmos HT, but it adds a sense of depth)
- Atmos on streaming over the net (Netflix and others, coming soon)
- Atmos on Cable and Satellite (Comcast and many others in 2016)
- Atmos in video games (coming in 2016)
- Atmos in mobile phones and tablets (i am questioning the usefulness of this one ) 

That's quite a big list and a big ecosystem.


----------



## Stoked21

TVAddikt said:


> 2. I am placing the top front speakers 98.5 inches from the MLP. If my calculations are correct that gives me a angle of 31 degrees. Which falls within the atmos specs.
> 
> 3. I am placing the top rear speakers 69 inches from the MLP. I am calculating an angle of 139 degrees which I believe falls within the atmos spec.
> 
> Bill


Bill, I'm assuming your ceilings are higher than 8'? 9'+ in front of MLP seems far away, but that may be because you have taller ceilings. 40" is typical ear position from floor. So subtract that from your ceiling height to calculate angle. arctan (height/distance).

I know some wouldn't recommend going out to the far end of the spec of 30 degrees. I did specifically for 2 rows and had a professional dolby atmos installer in my HT recommend I do the same thing. All rooms are different so it depends on your room and listening preferences/habits. I will agree that running them out to 30 degrees or so does significantly weaken the field from them, but this can be corrected by using "aimable" speakers and/or increasing the db in your level settings. While putting them more forward-end of the spec does helps the 2 row cause, it does more or less compromise the MLP to get a better "all seat overall" sound.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Ultimately it probably comes down to the fact that Dolby can't charge for the disc as it is intended for demonstration purposes only, BUT they also have to pay to make the disc which isn't trivial. What I would love to see is something like this included in the box with AVRs or SSPs that feature Atmos as a promotional thing. I remember when DTS finally made it into receivers in the late nineties. I bought a Kenwood AVR that was one of the first to have DTS decoding and included was a DTS demo disc that was only music (no video clips) and I LOVED it. It drove me to want to find as much multi-channel music as possible to own, of which there was VERY little (no DVD-A or SACD at the time, only a handful of DTS music titles).


That *^* is the very best solution...and it's good for the Atmos product manufacturers that they invest one or two dollars per unit when they can sell more of them. ...Everyone wins...with smiles on their faces.


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> Neither, the Maestro M9 processor. I generally stick to SSPs, I rarely review AVRs. I am sure we'll have someone review one of the AVRs though.
> I am excited by the prospects of the XMR-1 as well, especially if they can truly deliver 16 channels (I want to use all 6 of my ceiling speakers) and Dirac Unison.


Ambitious.


----------



## TVAddikt

Stoked21 said:


> Bill, I'm assuming your ceilings are higher than 8'? 9'+ in front of MLP seems far away, but that may be because you have taller ceilings. 40" is typical ear position from floor. So subtract that from your ceiling height to calculate angle. arctan (height/distance).
> 
> I know some wouldn't recommend going out to the far end of the spec of 30 degrees. I did specifically for 2 rows and had a professional dolby atmos installer in my HT recommend I do the same thing. All rooms are different so it depends on your room and listening preferences/habits. I will agree that running them out to 30 degrees or so does significantly weaken the field from them, but this can be corrected by using "aimable" speakers and/or increasing the db in your level settings. While putting them more forward-end of the spec does helps the 2 row cause, it does more or less compromise the MLP to get a better "all seat overall" sound.





> It barely falls within the Atmos spec, so you'd be better off getting your top front speakers higher up, like 45 degrees elevation, it order to get a better impression of sounds above you.


Thanks so much for responding.

1. yes my ceiling are 8'. I went that far due to seating. I don't have a typical theater type arrangement. In order to help I purchased an angled in-ceiling speaker to aim at the MLP. The rears are non aimable in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you have a copy of *Mad Max Fury Road*?


For his sake, I hope not! What a piece of crap!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> For his sake, I hope not! What a piece of crap!!


Thank you for your insightful and considered review. @Ralph Pottshas no need to worry 

While you are here, care to elaborate on your assertion in the_ DOA Immersive Formats_ thread that Atmos is a "single person system"?


----------



## NorthSky

What I truly hope...with the eminent new world of UHD Blu-ray...is that when you purchase a title...that it also comes with its 3D* version (on a separate 1080p BR disc) and also with a Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack (or DTS:X) on that 3D disc version. ...And the 2D BR disc version (UHD)...also with a (((3D))) audio soundtrack (Atmos, dts:X or Auro-3D), of course.
And! ...That the price remains reasonable...for us common mortals who love the best of the best and far away from the inferior/mediocre streaming/downloading movie world. 

* The next three Star Wars and next three Avatar movies. ...UHD physical BR, and (((3D))) with Atmos (or dts:x). ...For thirty bucks.


----------



## TVAddikt

I have a question in regards to the amp I bought to power 2 of the atmos speakers. I am hoping it is ok to post this question here. Disclaimer: I have never integrated an external amp into my setup before. On that note, here is what I plan:

1. Install the Atmos speakers. 
2. Connect 2 of the Atmos speakers to my receiver and then connect the other 2 to the crown amp.
3. I use an rca wire to feed the crown amp from the denon.

Here is where I start to wonder.

1. What should I set the volume level to on the Crown Amp?
2. Does it matter which pair of Atmos speakers I run through the crown amp?

Once I am to this point I will rerun Audessey.

Thanks for listening.
Bill


----------



## NorthSky

1. Half way.
2. No (but do check in your manual what they recommend...each manufacturer is different...depending on their implementation).


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Thank you for your insightful and considered review. @Ralph Pottshas no need to worry
> 
> While you are here, care to elaborate on your assertion in the_ DOA Immersive Formats_ thread that Atmos is a "single person system"?


It was a moderated review. An emotional one would have the director thrown off a a well known rock in Australia. 

Sure. It sounds quite different when not sitting in the centered sweetspot.
Where dialog came from in Gravity was a big tell on this. In one seat I had some dialog straight above me, which in sweetspot was to the side. Thus, only the person in the perfect center position will get to hear what was intended.


----------



## Stoked21

TVAddikt said:


> 1. What should I set the volume level to on the Crown Amp?
> 2. Does it matter which pair of Atmos speakers I run through the crown amp?
> 
> Bill


Bill,
@NorthSky isn't exactly correct. There is a thread not posting the link but search "questions pro amps" Lots of info on the XLS series. In a nutshell. I would suggest turning it up all the way or to 12 o'clock. More hiss at max but it's not a level or volume knob as north sky thinks it is. I run 8 of the XLS1500 and I leave them all set to max. With RCA or very high sensitivity speakers (100 db+), you will get a more hiss. 90db and/or using XLR and it's not a concern.

As for #2 , @NorthSky is wrong here unfortunately. D&M and all other manufs piggyback certain outputs together. I believe with Denon, like Marantz, that height2 and front surround wides are on the same internal amp block. They do have separate RCA preouts though. Therefore, I would specifically run height 2 preouts to the XLS. That way you have the option of hooking up an extra pair of speakers to the front wide speaker posts and use the internal amps. Mind you, it will NOT process the 13 chs at once. But you would be able to switch between speaker configs and use front wides instead of height 2. 

If you ignore this and choose to run height 1 to XLS, then you will only be able to support *EITHER* height 2 *OR* front wides. You would physically have to switch the speaker cables.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> It was a moderated review. An emotional one would have the director thrown off a a well known rock in Australia.


Others may hold different views of course. Ralph is a reviewer whose reviews I, and many others, respect greatly, and this was his conclusion:

_"Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth installment in the Mad Max film franchise and is an excellent addition that compliments the series. It comes to Blu-ray in this 3D Blu-ray Combo pack from Warner Brothers Home Entertainment featuring reference quality high definition video, skin tingling lossless surround sound, an entertaining and complimentary 3D rendering and a decent supplemental package that looks behind the scenes at the production. Home theater enthusiasts that are set up for Dolby Atmos are going to revel in this terrific mix that literally places you in the middle of the action. Mad Max: Fury Road is popcorn entertainment at its finest and this Blu-ray offering is a must have plain and simple. "_



Nightlord said:


> Sure. It sounds quite different when not sitting in the centered sweetspot.
> Where dialog came from in Gravity was a big tell on this. In one seat I had some dialog straight above me, which in sweetspot was to the side. Thus, only the person in the perfect center position will get to hear what was intended.


So a system designed for, and excelling in, large commercial cinemas with maybe 1,000 seats or more, is, in your view _"a single person system"_? I suspect that Dolby, the movie industry and the many people enjoying the many Atmos movies in the hundreds of Atmos theaters around the world will hold a rather different view to yours. 

Still, even if you were even approaching being right, it's a huge step forward over the DOA Immersive Format which currently has, remind me, pretty much zero exclusive movie content


----------



## audiofan1

pasender91 said:


> He's right there is going to be Atmos everywhere quite soon:
> - Atmos in the Cinema (here since 2012)
> - Atmos in the Home Theater (around for a year now)
> - Atmos in the soundbars (Yamaha released one lately, i heard it during a show, it is not as good as an Atmos HT, but it adds a sense of depth)
> - Atmos on streaming over the net (Netflix and others, coming soon)
> - Atmos on Cable and Satellite (Comcast and many others in 2016)
> - Atmos in video games (coming in 2016)
> - Atmos in mobile phones and tablets (i am questioning the usefulness of this one )
> 
> That's quite a big list and a big ecosystem.


 No doubt about it Dolby has been on there *A *game and light years ahead


----------



## stikle

pasender91 said:


> He's right there is going to be Atmos everywhere quite soon:
> - Atmos in the Cinema (here since 2012)
> - Atmos in the Home Theater (around for a year now)
> - Atmos in the soundbars (Yamaha released one lately, i heard it during a show, it is not as good as an Atmos HT, but it adds a sense of depth)
> - Atmos on streaming over the net (Netflix and others, coming soon)
> - Atmos on Cable and Satellite (Comcast and many others in 2016)
> - Atmos in video games (coming in 2016)
> - Atmos in mobile phones and tablets (i am questioning the usefulness of this one )
> 
> That's quite a big list and a big ecosystem.



Yes, but he's been discussing an Atmos receiver (to buy or not to buy) for some time now. Atmos in receivers is here and solid. So I'm still curious what exactly he's waiting for to "settle down".


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> It sounds quite different when not sitting in the centered sweetspot.


How is that different from every other system?


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> How is that different from every other system?


I agree completely with you both!! @sdurani is dead on. Every theater or room is like that. Even in a 5.1 system, if you sit to the left or right, then sounds are more prominently focused from/on that side. Benefit with Atmos is, if done correctly, the height element is present even if the left/right pan is weaker. No different than 2.1 or 5.1 or 7.1 positioning.

But @Nightlord is right too. 
The secret is.....have your own damn theater! I KNOW what seat is the MLP and no one else really knows there's a difference....guess who's butt ends up in the MLP every showtime! 

Still others sit in the HT and ooh and awe and have never heard anything like it; completely oblivious to what they're missing.


----------



## NorthSky

Thanks for your feedback, in particular for number two. ...It also depends on each person's own setup...and about the volume...and about if it's a 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 Atmos configuration. ...So your feedback is well appreciated. 


Stoked21 said:


> Bill,
> @NorthSky isn't exactly correct. There is a thread not posting the link but search "questions pro amps" Lots of info on the XLS series. In a nutshell. I would suggest turning it up all the way or to 12 o'clock. More hiss at max but it's not a level or volume knob as north sky thinks it is. I run 8 of the XLS1500 and I leave them all set to max. With RCA or very high sensitivity speakers (100 db+), you will get a more hiss. 90db and/or using XLR and it's not a concern.
> As for #2 , @NorthSky is wrong here unfortunately. D&M and all other manufs piggyback certain outputs together. I believe with Denon, like Marantz, that height2 and front surround wides are on the same internal amp block. They do have separate RCA preouts though. Therefore, I would specifically run height 2 preouts to the XLS. That way you have the option of hooking up an extra pair of speakers to the front wide speaker posts and use the internal amps. Mind you, it will NOT process the 13 chs at once. But you would be able to switch between speaker configs and use front wides instead of height 2.
> If you ignore this and choose to run height 1 to XLS, then you will only be able to support *EITHER* height 2 *OR* front wides. You would physically have to switch the speaker cables.


----------



## ahmedreda

Thank you.. I think I am mount them flush with the ceiling. They should have a good response up to 8khz with a 90 degree dispersion. Are you going to eq. yours at all? I am thinking about using 2 minidsp 2x4s to eq mine..



Brian Fineberg said:


> I just ordered volt 6's for the same thing...and ordered the slanted flat pack (they offer one for the 10's as well) I plan on slanting them towards the mlp to not be extremely off axis. but from what I have read...ceiling mounting them without a backer box will yield just as good result...I would have gone this way..but the cavity between all my joists are filled with pipes etc


----------



## coolrda

I've been to several Atmos demo and my local Atmos theater has 16 overhead speakers and there's no difference in sound with my simple .4 Atmos setup. With attention given to proper setup and calibration mine images perfectly.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> So a system designed for, and excelling in, large commercial cinemas with maybe 1,000 seats or more, is, in your view _"a single person system"_? I suspect that Dolby, the movie industry and the many people enjoying the many Atmos movies in the hundreds of Atmos theaters around the world will hold a rather different view to yours.


Well, if you have a room of those dimensions... Thus getting small angular differences between speakers equalling short differences in the time dimension as well, them it's another ballgame. I am, of course talking about [email protected] and the size of rooms we normally have unless we're some Hollywood star living in Beverly Hills or so...

But if your home theater caters to 1000 people, then I can excuse you, mine on the other hand has five seats.


----------



## Spanglo

stikle said:


> Yes, but he's been discussing an Atmos receiver (to buy or not to buy) for some time now. Atmos in receivers is here and solid. So I'm still curious what exactly he's waiting for to "settle down".


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> How is that different from every other system?


Well.... If you look at Auro... First of all they do discuss a more even sound across seats in their commercial material... And if you look at the 'up' dimension... The VoG... That's not so hard to achieve so that all seats will hear it as up (I've tested that with my own channel generation using four ceiling speakers playing the same mono signal) if you just get the radiation patterns and time difference in order.

For side channels, since they are using the same layout as the lower channel, you just need the same trick as for the previous generation to get all seats to have a similar experience. (multiple speakers and controlled radiation patterns).

Time delays you offcenter you can never avoid, of course, but how you get the experience of direction you can... And the balance in sound level. If you get hotspotting of the speaker closest to you, then there's something wrong... And Atmos unfortunately invites hotspotting due to it's explicit design for direct radiating speakers (or the virtual equivalent by way of ceiling bouncing).

( None of the formats are optimal, though. We could have done much better with less channels if the format had been chosen in another way and coded with wavefronts in mind. Which makes me more than a little curious about Barco's extension of Auro...)


----------



## cmusic

I currently have a 7.1 system with a new Denon AVR-X4200W receiver and I am going to add two ceiling speakers and an extra two channel amp to make a 7.1.2 system. I only have one row of seating. 

My question is does the Atmos processing for the overhead speakers send different overhead front and rear sounds to the speakers if you have a 4 or more overhead speakers? When the sound is moving front to rear do the overhead channels play the same sounds or do they play separate sounds depending on where the sound it supposed to be in a 3D space, ala a doppler effect (shift)? 

In my system I can drop down to a 5.1 system and redirect my rear surrounds as rear overheads to make a 5.1.4 system but I would rather do a 7.1.2 system. From what I have read about Atmos, the channels are not totally discrete or independent of each other, that Atmos mixes the sounds to which speaker needs to play them at a given time. If this is the case then a sound moving from the front of the room to the rear might play through the front mains, to the side surrounds and overhead(s), and then onto the rear surrounds. Changes to the tonal aspects with relation to the doppler effect would be included in the audio track (done during Atmos editing when mastering the Blu Ray audio track). If this is correct then for only one row of seating one pair of overhead speakers might be enough to produce a 3D immersion effect.


----------



## Nightlord

Stoked21 said:


> But @Nightlord is right too.
> The secret is.....have your own damn theater! I KNOW what seat is the MLP and no one else really knows there's a difference....guess who's butt ends up in the MLP every showtime!
> 
> Still others sit in the HT and ooh and awe and have never heard anything like it; completely oblivious to what they're missing.


I have my own theater, but I would not optimize it for one seat (more than for stereo music). 

I very rarely use MLP, I tend to use the seat closest to the control room so I won't disturb anyone going back to raise the volume or fill up my scotch or so.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Well, if you have a room of those dimensions... Thus getting small angular differences between speakers equalling short differences in the time dimension as well, them it's another ballgame. I am, of course talking about [email protected] and the size of rooms we normally have unless we're some Hollywood star living in Beverly Hills or so...
> 
> But if your home theater caters to 1000 people, then I can excuse you, mine on the other hand has five seats.


Maybe your setup is off.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> And if you look at the 'up' dimension... The VoG... That's not so hard to achieve so that all seats will hear it as up...


But it will just be a mono channel blanketing the audience evenly, sacrificing possibility of sounds being moved/panned. Complete coverage is the opposite of directional sound. You can't do both simultaneously. Only one seat can hear L/C/R directionality as intended, and that's the person sitting directly in front of the centre speaker, with the left & right spread symmetrically. This problem isn't specific to Atmos.


> For side channels, since they are using the same layout as the lower channel, you just need the same trick as for the previous generation to get all seats to have a similar experience. (multiple speakers and controlled radiation patterns).


Atmos can do arrayed side channels as well. The only difference is that it has the option to pan sounds through the arrays, which Auro can't.


> Atmos unfortunately invites hotspotting due to it's explicit design for direct radiating speakers (or the virtual equivalent by way of ceiling bouncing).


Does Auro or DTS:X not recommend direct radiating speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Well.... If you look at Auro... First of all they do discuss a more even sound across seats in their commercial material... And if you look at the 'up' dimension... The VoG... That's not so hard to achieve so that all seats will hear it as up (I've tested that with my own channel generation using four ceiling speakers playing the same mono signal) if you just get the radiation patterns and time difference in order.
> 
> For side channels, since they are using the same layout as the lower channel, you just need the same trick as for the previous generation to get all seats to have a similar experience. (multiple speakers and controlled radiation patterns).
> 
> Time delays you offcenter you can never avoid, of course, but how you get the experience of direction you can... And the balance in sound level. If you get hotspotting of the speaker closest to you, then there's something wrong... And Atmos unfortunately invites hotspotting due to it's explicit design for direct radiating speakers (or the virtual equivalent by way of ceiling bouncing).
> 
> ( None of the formats are optimal, though. We could have done much better with less channels if the format had been chosen in another way and coded with wavefronts in mind. Which makes me more than a little curious about Barco's extension of Auro...)


Isn’t it academic for a format with virtually no content?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe your setup is off.


Oh, you mean that NOT having hotspotting sounds is a problem? That's a new one.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Oh, you mean that NOT having hotspotting sounds is a problem? That's a new one.


I mean that if you find that Atmos is a "single person solution" something is probably wrong somewhere. If by "single person solution" you mean that there is only one seat in a home theater that has 'perfect' sound, well that has always been true, and true for every type of format there is, so I can't really see why you single out Atmos for mention.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> But it will just be a mono channel blanketing the audience evenly, sacrificing possibility of sounds being moved/panned. Complete coverage is the opposite of directional sound. You can't do both simultaneously. Only one seat can hear L/C/R directionality as intended, and that's the person sitting directly in front of the centre speaker, with the left & right spread symmetrically. This problem isn't specific to Atmos. Atmos can do arrayed side channels as well. The only difference is that it has the option to pan sounds through the arrays, which Auro can't. Does Auro or DTS:X not recommend direct radiating speakers?


No, it is not opposites. You can give more than one seat the same direction of the sound even if it's coming from different speakers. If you have the time difference properly in an array, you can choose with speaker you regard as the origin of the sound even if you have several. Precedense effect.

Panning through an array does not yield the same experience at different seats, sorry. You'd have to multiply the array in some way to achieve that (which I haven't given any thoughts about, I've mostly been thinking of how to properly place 16 speakers for 4 ceiling channels to have equal effect at all seats).

Auro will work just fine with arrays. DTS:X I know too little of as they've been very vague thus far.


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. I watched this movie last week and I was very impressed with the sound and didn't notice any particular lack of use of the overhead speakers here. I haven't isolated the overheads at this time, but will do so to see if I am hearing the same as you. It is certainly the case that many Atmos mixes make less use of the overhead speakers than one might expect, but this is down to the mixer and has nothing to do with Atmos itself. As mixers become more familiar with Atmos maybe we can expect more use of the overhead speakers.
> 
> Also, Atmos is about much more than overhead speakers. The entire soundstage is enhanced by Atmos and it brings much greater precision to the placement of sounds all around you as well as above you. And in some ways, turning off all the listener level speakers can give a false impression: sometimes a very 'small' sound from the overheads will work in conjunction with a 'bigger' sound from the listener level speakers to enhance the impression of sound coming from overhead.
> 
> Certainly I was blown away by *San Andreas*'s soundtrack here. For the record, I am running 7.2.4 with physical overhead speakers, using a Denon X5200.
> 
> This is what respected AVS reviewer @Ralph Potts had to say about the sound on this disc:
> 
> _As mentioned earlier film's like this are tailor made for entertaining home theater listening. In this case those words have never been truer especially with respect to Dolby Atmos. San Andreas is the first Atmos mix that I have reviewed that contains elements that allow full advantage of the format's promise and the result is an engrossing thrill ride. The opening sequence features a helicopter rescue precipitated by a vehicle that crashed down an embankment. This segment contains a wealth of effects beginning with the visceral, rumbling tumbling falling vehicle that literally places you within the compartment. Later as the helicopter arrives there is a nice overhead flyover followed by visual perspectives and audio cues that simulate the hovering craft from down below. While that all sounds great it's just an appetizer for what is to come later beginning with the sequence that takes place at the Hoover Dam. That sequence brings together the type of room traversing sound that combines object placement from above and ear level that only gets better as the action ramps up.
> 
> The Atmos mix makes effective use of the entire platform and manages the plethora of effects, dialogue, music and low frequency content allowing all of the recording's elements to be fully realized. This track can be thoroughly engrossing and sometimes starkly realistic. There is a sequence during the third act that takes place in a crumbling building that is filling with water. Debris and raining down from above and crashing to the floor. I swear that at one point I actually turned and looked over my shoulder fully expecting to see a chunk of my drywall on the floor behind my seat. It sounded so lifelike that being caught up in the sequence it sounded like a piece of concrete fell and landed in my theater room. The extended earthquake/disaster related sequences contain a host of swirling effects, explosions, nearfield pans, and ambience that rotate around the soundstage, shifting overhead, passing by at ear level and coming directly at the listening position. It all comes together in a resplendent blend of room energizing and well balanced sound that shows what this format is capable of.
> 
> Kudos to the sound designers at Warner Brothers Home Entertainment as they consistently provide thrilling soundtracks that make for some of the best home theater experiences. This is no exception and stands right alongside my other favorite Dolby Atmos sound mix (which just happens to be from Warner Brothers HE), Mad Max: Fury Road. _
> 
> The full review is *here*.



Not sure I get the point of this reply. No one said it doesn't sound good, just that there is no use of heights when it seems there could be to great effect. Has nothing to do with our systems or Ralph's review. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I mean that if you find that Atmos is a "single person solution" something is probably wrong somewhere. If by "single person solution" you mean that there is only one seat in a home theater that has 'perfect' sound, well that has always been true, and true for every type of format there is, so I can't really see why you single out Atmos for mention.


Well, the 'problem' is of course that I'm more picky.

No, it's not particularly true for traditional 5.1/7.1 systems done properly. A system with ceiling speakers is much more difficult to get correct in a normal room (8' ceiling height, less for back seats). 

(Having those with distinct different channels is definitely more difficult than going for 'up' as the only cue and using the side channels to give what side cue is needed for the placement.)

Visualize a room with all the speakers in your mind and then imagine moving around in your different seats. The speakers where the angular difference change most is to most difficult. Side surrounds are managable with arrays... Back surrounds are the most difficult part of a 7.1, which has been mitigated by very little use in the soundtracks fortunately (and unfortunately moviewise).

If I would go for Auro, then I would do a small (2) array for back speakers to, so I would have 10 surrounds in total rather than 8 as I have today. And then two layers, so 20. And they aren't cheap, so there's definitely some financial resistance to trying it.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Not sure I get the point of this reply. No one said it doesn't sound good, just that there is no use of heights when it seems there could be to great effect. Has nothing to do with our systems or Ralph's review.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ralph's review comments positively on the use of overhead effects.

_"Debris and raining down *from above* and *crashing to the floor*. 

"The extended earthquake/disaster related sequences contain a host of swirling effects, explosions, nearfield pans, and ambience that rotate around the soundstage, *shifting overhead,* passing by at ear level and coming directly at the listening position. It all comes together in a resplendent blend of room energizing and *well balanced sound that shows what this format* is capable of*. *IE Atmos

"Kudos to the sound designers at Warner Brothers Home Entertainment as they consistently provide thrilling soundtracks that make for some of the best home theater experiences.* This is no exception and stands right alongside my other favorite Dolby Atmos sound mix* (which just happens to be from Warner Brothers HE), Mad Max: Fury Road. "
_

I can fully understand people wanting more from the overhead speakers. Remember when color TV was introduced? (Possibly not unless you are of similar age to me). People turned the color way up. "If I'm paying for a color TV I want plenty of color" seemed to be the mantra. When stereo was introduced (you need to be even older to remember that) there was a phase of going for hideous 'ping pong' effects designed to show that there were TWO speakers in the system. I think all these things need time to settle and for the people who create the content to become familiar with the possibilities. The new Atmos movies coming along on Blu-ray are using the overheads better than the early movies (eg the fourth Transformers movie, Turtles etc) so it's a promising trend.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> No, it is not opposites.


Sure it is. If you have a sound coming from one corner of the auditorium, every seat will hear it differently (intensity, direction, etc).


> Panning through an array does not yield the same experience at different seats, sorry.


Panning in general, even through the L/C/R speakers, does not yield the same experience at different seats. Should movie mixes not pan sounds, out of concern that a sound in the left speaker will be heard differently in every seat in the room? 

Also, you're putting a lot of emphasis on surround and height info, when the vast majority of the sound (and storytelling) is up front, coming from speakers that are not arrayed for even coverage.


> Auro will work just fine with arrays.


So will Atmos. But that didn't answer my question: does Auro not recommend direct radiating speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

Fact of the matter is time and SPL db are different no matter what. 

Are you proposing we go back to mono or run dipole speakers everywhere? Large arrays may work well in commercial applications, but very few are going to do that in a HT. Even the early adopters like us are just now running 11.2 over the last months/a year let alone massive arrays. And at the end of the day, SPLs are going to be different in every seat from every driver. 

I was on board with you in partial agreement with that fact, but a level of realistic implementation has to enter your equation here somewhere. To say that Atmos is inadequate is insane...especially when comparing to X and Auro that for all intents and purposes don't even exist.

Buy a camelback and fill it with scotch....then you can sit in the MLP and not have to get up and bother anyone while keeping your remotes handy!


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> Ralph's review comments positively on the use of overhead effects.
> 
> _"Debris and raining down *from above* and *crashing to the floor*.
> 
> "The extended earthquake/disaster related sequences contain a host of swirling effects, explosions, nearfield pans, and ambience that rotate around the soundstage, *shifting overhead,* passing by at ear level and coming directly at the listening position. It all comes together in a resplendent blend of room energizing and *well balanced sound that shows what this format* is capable of*. *IE Atmos
> 
> "Kudos to the sound designers at Warner Brothers Home Entertainment as they consistently provide thrilling soundtracks that make for some of the best home theater experiences.* This is no exception and stands right alongside my other favorite Dolby Atmos sound mix* (which just happens to be from Warner Brothers HE), Mad Max: Fury Road. "
> _
> 
> I can fully understand people wanting more from the overhead speakers. Remember when color TV was introduced? (Possibly not unless you are of similar age to me). People turned the color way up. "If I'm paying for a color TV I want plenty of color" seemed to be the mantra. When stereo was introduced (you need to be even older to remember that) there was a phase of going for hideous 'ping pong' effects designed to show that there were TWO speakers in the system. I think all these things need time to settle and for the people who create the content to become familiar with the possibilities. The new Atmos movies coming along on Blu-ray are using the overheads better than the early movies (eg the fourth Transformers movie, Turtles etc) so it's a promising trend.


I understand, but the point was that the OP asking about this thought his setup was wrong because nothing came out of the overheads during the car crash/rescue. He received feedback that the 4100 was mentioned as not putting sounds out to the heights as well as it could. I checked by playing the height layer in isolation. There is dead silence in the heights when there clearly could not be.

At the start of the movie, I felt immersed in an excellent soundtrack, but also thought there might be something wrong with my height processing. It turns out that there was no sound there at all. That's it.

It's not that I want more height if it's not appropriate, but the entire Hoover Dam sequence, with towers breaking apart and debris falling all over had exactly no overhead action at all. It's just the way it is, but I was sitting there trying to feel the Atmos and be amazed, and I wasn't during that scene. Turns out there was no reason to be other than the fact that it has an excellent base layer soundtrack.

I do want better immersive mixes. I'm not interested in bad movies for good sound, but I made an exception on this one because it was reviewed as being one of the best Atmos mixes available. It was good, but it could have been more.


----------



## stikle

Nightlord said:


> I tend to use the seat closest to the control room so I won't disturb anyone *going back to raise the volume* or fill up my scotch or so.



How about an RF remote so you don't need to get up to change anything?

As for the scotch...isn't that the job of children? "Get up and go refill my drink - I'm watching this movie and it's my house."


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> I understand, but the point was that the OP asking about this thought his setup was wrong because nothing came out of the overheads during the car crash/rescue. He received feedback that the 4100 was mentioned as not putting sounds out to the heights as well as it could. I checked by playing the height layer in isolation. There is dead silence in the heights when there clearly could not be.


Yes, sure - there is nothing wrong. It is what it is.



jpco said:


> At the start of the movie, I felt immersed in an excellent soundtrack, but also thought there might be something wrong with my height processing. It turns out that there was no sound there at all. That's it.


I too was surprised at the total lack of overhead activity during the opening car crash/rescue scene. There was plenty of opportunity with the chopper and so on. For example, on several occasions we saw Dwayne Johnson's character in big close-up in the chopper and consequently the engine and rotors would be above his head off the top of the screen. Perfect opportunity for the engine/rotor noise to come from the overheads. Lots of similar opportunities missed there. 



jpco said:


> It's not that I want more height if it's not appropriate, but the entire Hoover Dam sequence, with towers breaking apart and debris falling all over had exactly no overhead action at all. It's just the way it is, but I was sitting there trying to feel the Atmos and be amazed, and I wasn't during that scene. Turns out there was no reason to be other than the fact that it has an excellent base layer soundtrack.


IKWYM. But there is plenty of overhead activity during the movie, but it isn't by any means continuous (even when the opportunity presents itself). I too wonder why the mixers don't do more. Maybe our own resident @FilmMixer might chime in if he sees the Mention. 



jpco said:


> I do want better immersive mixes. I'm not interested in bad movies for good sound, but I made an exception on this one because it was reviewed as being one of the best Atmos mixes available. It was good, but it could have been more.


Can’t disagree with you, although overall it was a terrific soundtrack - one of the best in my entire collection I believe.


----------



## DAK4

Is anyone else going to watching Back To The Future II (Oct 21, 2015) with DSU tonight besides me?


----------



## bargervais

DAK4 said:


> Is anyone else going to watching Back To The Future II (Oct 21, 2015) with DSU tonight besides me?


No sorry baseball for me with DSU of course.


----------



## DAK4

bargervais said:


> No sorry baseball for me with DSU of course.


But but this is the special date! You have to watch it! JK enjoy the baseball in DSU.


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> IKWYM. But there is plenty of overhead activity during the movie, but it isn't by any means continuous (even when the opportunity presents itself). I too wonder why the mixers don't do more. Maybe our own resident @FilmMixer might chime in if he sees the Mention.


As I was watching debris break from overhead structures and fall to the ground with no action from the overheads, I was wondering how much that decision was made by the fact that the mixer has probably done this kind of content successfully in 5.1 or 7.1, so that's what was done. That and the fact that the predominant sounds are when the debris smashes on the ground, which would not be something to go into overheads. It's the absolute silence up there that surprises me.

I guess what I really hope for is the use of heights to increase the vertical scale of the ambient soundfield. For example, when they're running off the dam right before it gives out and then it gives out and massive amounts of water and cars and concrete crash down, the size of the sound could be huge, without actually providing discrete 3D sounds. In my mind, that would have made the spectacle of the scene far more impressive.

I guess we'll see what the future holds. I look forward to innovation and more immersion in immersive audio mixes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wkearney99 said:


> Was 3D ever all that popular for home viewing? I've had plenty of gear that's supported it over the years and not once was the viewing experience enhanced as a result. Now, better speakers and audio tracks; those have definitely made positive impressions. Plenty of folks praise the audio quality, but nobody's ever raved about having been able to see it with 3D. Far from it, *more often there's complaints it wasn't worth the trouble* (glasses, picture quality, etc). While I'd certainly back seeing 'the numbers', it doesn't take much sense to understand why 3D ain't where it's at.


I think you found the answer as to why 3D was not the big seller at home as the studios and manufacturers would have liked, and why they have moved on to "greener pastures" - HDR, wide-color gamut, immersive audio, high frame rate, etc. etc.


----------



## petetherock

I was never a fan of 3D, but the fact that they packaged the 2D disc and DVD inside was nice. I could lend my discs out to my mates and we can all watch the movie once it is released 

I think I have not used the 3D function of my TV for more than 2 years..


----------



## jpco

I have been running 5.1.4. After listening to much of _San Andreas_ with only the height speakers engaged, I've switched to 7.1.2. Reason being that use of heights is surprisingly sparse (but not ineffective) throughout the movie, which means the rear heights are silent most of the time. What I did find is that the rear surrounds in the 7-channel base are extremely active all the time and contribute to the 3D sense of space.

I will be upgrading to 7.1.4 in the next few weeks, and I expect this to be ideal. Until then, I'm finding the rear surrounds to be more valuable overall than rear height level speakers with this movie and with the Dolby trailers on Vudu.


----------



## batpig

Agreed -- if I had to sacrifice two speakers I'd definitely lose a pair of heights before going down from 7 to 5 channels in the base layer. 7.1 with a will placed Top Middle pair gets you 90%+ of the way there IMO. 7.1.4 has been an enjoyable, but incremental, improvement for me.

There is just so much more going on in the horizontal plane. The heights get the sexy pub but these immersive mixes are getting so much more aggressive about using the full 7.1ch base layer. If you only have a 5ch base layer you aren't even getting enough spatial resolution in the horizontal plane to reproduce the 7ch bed.


----------



## himey

Could someone with a reciever or processor other than a Dennon (or Marantz), confirm that no overhead information is present in the first 16 minutes of San Andreas?


Was it the leaf falling in the Atmos demo clip that couldn't be heard on the Dennon recievers but could be heard on at least one of the others. My mind is fuzzy, but i'm not insane I will go back and find the quotes when I get the chance if someone can't help clear this up for me here...There was some sound not detected on the Dennon that was heard through another, just trying to sort this out so I can put my mind at ease because i'm looking at possibly purchasing the Dennon once it hits a certain price point as the new models are released. TIA


----------



## maikeldepotter

jpco said:


> I have been running 5.1.4. After listening to much of _San Andreas_ with only the height speakers engaged, I've switched to 7.1.2. Reason being that use of heights is surprisingly sparse (but not ineffective) throughout the movie, which means the rear heights are silent most of the time. What I did find is that the rear surrounds in the 7-channel base are extremely active all the time and contribute to the 3D sense of space.
> 
> I will be upgrading to 7.1.4 in the next few weeks, and I expect this to be ideal. Until then, I'm finding the rear surrounds to be more valuable overall than rear height level speakers with this movie and with the Dolby trailers on Vudu.


Atmos re-recording mixing studios use elevated surrounds and rears. At the same time the Atmos mixing tool assumes zero elevation. This is to prevent the objects panned through the main (ear level) speakers from being spread upward. This might also be one of reasons why rear heights at home get so little action, and the rears so much...


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Agreed -- if I had to sacrifice two speakers I'd definitely lose a pair of heights before going down from 7 to 5 channels in the base layer. 7.1 with a will placed Top Middle pair gets you 90%+ of the way there IMO. 7.1.4 has been an enjoyable, but incremental, improvement for me.
> 
> There is just so much more going on in the horizontal plane. The heights get the sexy pub but these immersive mixes are getting so much more aggressive about using the full 7.1ch base layer. If you only have a 5ch base layer you aren't even getting enough spatial resolution in the horizontal plane to reproduce the 7ch bed.


Interesting. Would you likewise choose 9.1.2 over 7.1.4 if wides were to become part of the channel bed?


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think you found the answer as to why 3D was not the big seller at home as the studios and manufacturers would have liked, and why they have moved on to "greener pastures" - HDR, wide-color gamut, immersive audio, high frame rate, etc. etc.


You mean the stuff that really matters


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Sure it is. If you have a sound coming from one corner of the auditorium, every seat will hear it differently (intensity, direction, etc).


Right, that's the problem I'm talking about! You should not have a sound coming from one corner of the auditorium, you should have the same sound coming from multiple location so that all seat experience it as coming from the same angle. That's why you need arrays.



sdurani said:


> Panning in general, even through the L/C/R speakers, does not yield the same experience at different seats. Should movie mixes not pan sounds, out of concern that a sound in the left speaker will be heard differently in every seat in the room?
> 
> Also, you're putting a lot of emphasis on surround and height info, when the vast majority of the sound (and storytelling) is up front, coming from speakers that are not arrayed for even coverage. So will Atmos. But that didn't answer my question: does Auro not recommend direct radiating speakers.


Front speakers are further away, so the difference in degrees are less, so the inherent problem is fixed. Center speaker is supposed to be locked to center screen position, so that one is never an issue. Front right and front left you can get very similar sound from using well chosen radiation patterns, toe-in and TIT. If you feel this to be problematic, then I would recommend changing speakers.

Well, if I would not put emphasis on surrounds and heights, then I would not need neither Atmos nor Auro nor DTS:X as stereo would do just fine for the front contents.

I have not seen that Auro explicitly states single speakers over arrays, no. Typically their diagrams show fields for surrounds with arrays, also multiple ceiling speakers for VoG:









(BTW, if it confuses you - I'm not referring to the speaker principle with direct radiating, I'm referring to a single speaker. )


----------



## Nightlord

stikle said:


> As for the scotch...isn't that the job of children? "Get up and go refill my drink - I'm watching this movie and it's my house."


It's 2015, not 1815.


----------



## Zhorik

During those scenes of low overhead usage in San Andreas, how many objects were being used? How would one go about finding that instantaneous information in any Atmos mix?


----------



## jpco

himey said:


> Could someone with a reciever or processor other than a Dennon (or Marantz), confirm that no overhead information is present in the first 16 minutes of San Andreas?
> 
> 
> Was it the leaf falling in the Atmos demo clip that couldn't be heard on the Dennon recievers but could be heard on at least one of the others. My mind is fuzzy, but i'm not insane I will go back and find the quotes when I get the chance if someone can't help clear this up for me here...There was some sound not detected on the Dennon that was heard through another, just trying to sort this out so I can put my mind at ease because i'm looking at possibly purchasing the Dennon once it hits a certain price point as the new models are released. TIA



I have a Yamaha. I didn't check the whole 16 minutes continuously, but no overhead information during the car crash or helicopter scenes at the start of the movie. Also no overhead during any exterior shots at the Hoover Dam earthquake scene. It's not a Denon/Marantz problem.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> I guess what I really hope for is the use of heights to increase the vertical scale of the ambient soundfield. For example, when they're running off the dam right before it gives out and then it gives out and massive amounts of water and cars and concrete crash down, the size of the sound could be huge, without actually providing discrete 3D sounds. In my mind, that would have made the spectacle of the scene far more impressive.


I found the sound WAS huge here - TBH I can’t imagine iot being huger really. Even without Atmos, there is a psychoacoustic perception of sound above us, to some extent, when the on-screen visuals appear to warrant it and I don't think it takes a lot of extra, discrete sound up there to make a significant difference. But yeah, I hear what you are saying and it is odd that the overheads are just 100% silent for such prolonged periods of time. By comparison, of course, DSU has sound up there pretty much all the time - the exact opposite. But that is a different thing and the two can't really be compared.



jpco said:


> I guess we'll see what the future holds. I look forward to innovation and more immersion in immersive audio mixes.


Same here. When 5.1 and 7.1 came along the side and rear speakers weren't used to their best effect immediately IIRC, so it does take time for mixers to assimilate these new opportunities I think.


----------



## bargervais

himey said:


> Could someone with a reciever or processor other than a Dennon (or Marantz), confirm that no overhead information is present in the first 16 minutes of San Andreas?
> 
> 
> Was it the leaf falling in the Atmos demo clip that couldn't be heard on the Dennon recievers but could be heard on at least one of the others. My mind is fuzzy, but i'm not insane I will go back and find the quotes when I get the chance if someone can't help clear this up for me here...There was some sound not detected on the Dennon that was heard through another, just trying to sort this out so I can put my mind at ease because i'm looking at possibly purchasing the Dennon once it hits a certain price point as the new models are released. TIA


I Think your talking about the flies buzzing around your ear in Unbroken when they were cleaning the latrine.


----------



## bargervais

It's been talked about ad nauseam how the height speakers are not being used to our liking. Atmos is not about height but it's about immersion and I found San Andreas very immersive.


----------



## lujan

petetherock said:


> I was never a fan of 3D, but the fact that they packaged the 2D disc and DVD inside was nice. I could lend my discs out to my mates and we can all watch the movie once it is released
> 
> I think I have not used the 3D function of my TV for more than 2 years..


Not me, I love 3D and I have over 50 titles in 3D. Not all of them are good such as the latest Avengers movie but my next UHD TV is going to have to have 3D capability.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> Not me, I love 3D and I have over 50 titles in 3D. Not all of them are good such as the latest Avengers movie but my next UHD TV is going to have to have 3D capability.


I too have many 3D Blu-Rays, when I buy a Blu-Ray I try to get the multi disk pack with the 3D in it, as it's only about five dollars more. But for the Atmos Blu-Rays I have only been buying the 2D versions, because some of those Blu-Rays I wouldn't have even bought but I did because of the Atmos mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> It's been talked about ad nauseam how the height speakers are not being used to our liking. Atmos is not about height but it's about immersion and I found San Andreas very immersive.


I agree that there is too much emphasis on the use of height speakers, but it does seem odd that when there are perfect opportunities in the on-screen action that they are not used. For example, the helicopter rescue scene in this movie (at the beginning) seems to cry out for some overhead activity but there is none at all. The sound is still amazingly involving, I agree, but I’d like to have heard those engines and rotors beating right above me as I looked at Dwayne Johnson talking into the mic on his headset. That is what I would have heard if I had been in the seat next to him in the chopper isn’t it? Seems odd not to take advantage of it in the mix now that we have dedicated speakers above our heads. I wonder if @FilmMixer is around to comment?


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that there is too much emphasis on the use of height speakers, but it does seem odd that when there are perfect opportunities in the on-screen action that they are not used. For example, the helicopter rescue scene in this movie (at the beginning) seems to cry out for some overhead activity but there is none at all. The sound is still amazingly involving, I agree, but I’d like to have heard those engines and rotors beating right above me as I looked at Dwayne Johnson talking into the mic on his headset. That is what I would have heard if I had been in the seat next to him in the chopper isn’t it? Seems odd not to take advantage of it in the mix now that we have dedicated speakers above our heads. I wonder if @FilmMixer is around to comment?


If I was in the seat next to him, I think I would have heard my heart beat drumming in my ears, my teeth chattering, and the trickling of urine down my leg.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> If I was in the seat next to him, I think I would have heard my heart beat drumming in my ears, my teeth chattering, and the trickling of urine down my leg.


Hahaha. Well yes, there is that  I found some of that when watching the movie (I will leave it to your imagination to decide which bits are relevant ) - the whole scene was incredibly involving and the sound was a major contributor to that.

It is similar to when I saw *Gravity* for the first time at the big Atmos theater at Dolby HQ in London - when the debris started to fly and was hitting all around the astronauts, my pulse rate increased significantly and I started to perspire a little, it was so realistic. I wear a FitBit all the time so I can see my heartrate at any moment in time, and to see it rise like that is quite startling. I didn't check it during the scene in *San Andreas* that we are discussing, but if I had I bet I would have seen it go from my normal resting rate of something like 60 bpm to 90 bpm or more. Wow!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bargervais said:


> It's been talked about ad nauseam how the height speakers are not being used to our liking. Atmos is not about height but it's about immersion and I found San Andreas very immersive.


In my opinion, it seems like people are still in the mindset of the heights as a channel rather than as an integral part of the 3-D array used to place audio objects in 3-D space. We forget that if the mixer only wants the sound SLIGHTLY overhead, that sound would still be primarily in the bed channels, with the amount of sound in the heights dictated by where in 3-D space that object was placed. Isolating the heights in that case would give you maybe 10% of the sound, with the other 90% spread between the bed layer speakers depending on where the object is placed.

For me, it's a matter of using the heights to improve the precision of placement in the space. I understand if people have issues with a particular mixer's choices as far as what sounds to place where, but I would imagine that Atmos mixers are more focused on placement and movement of sounds in the entire space rather than just "hey, let's put stuff in that top set of speakers". I've said it here before... There's a lot of room on that Z axis. Not every sound is gonna stand out as just in the heights the way people want. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In my opinion, it seems like people are still in the mindset of the heights as a channel rather than as an integral part of the 3-D array used to place audio objects in 3-D space. We forget that if the mixer only wants the sound SLIGHTLY overhead, that sound would still be primarily in the bed channels, with the amount of sound in the heights dictated by where in 3-D space that object was placed. Isolating the heights in that case would give you maybe 10% of the sound, with the other 90% spread between the bed layer speakers depending on where the object is placed.


I agree - but when there is nothing whatsoever coming from the height speakers, that won’t apply. At the beginning of *San Andreas*, there is nothing -- zip, nada, niente, zero, zilch -- coming from the height speakers even though the on-screen actions seems to positively _demand_ it. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> For me, it's a matter of using the heights to improve the precision of placement in the space. I understand if people have issues with a particular mixer's choices as far as what sounds to place where, but I would imagine that Atmos mixers are more focused on placement and movement of sounds in the entire space rather than just "hey, let's put stuff in that top set of speakers". I've said it here before... There's a lot of room on that Z axis. Not every sound is gonna stand out as just in the heights the way people want. But hey, that's just me.


There is a difference between subtle use of the height speakers, which is what you are describing I think (and with which I agree) and no use whatsoever of the heights.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree that there is too much emphasis on the use of height speakers, but it does seem odd that when there are perfect opportunities in the on-screen action that they are not used. For example, the helicopter rescue scene in this movie (at the beginning) seems to cry out for some overhead activity but there is none at all. The sound is still amazingly involving, I agree, but I’d like to have heard those engines and rotors beating right above me as I looked at Dwayne Johnson talking into the mic on his headset. That is what I would have heard if I had been in the seat next to him in the chopper isn’t it? Seems odd not to take advantage of it in the mix now that we have dedicated speakers above our heads. I wonder if @FilmMixer is around to comment?


Great, that others feel the same. I already made a similar comment in the San Andreas review thread, but got only a few responses. I was already thinking, my Yamaha might be the root cause... but it seems a general problem. Question is, if that behaviour was the intention of the mixer or was it just too less money in order to create more screen-like-overhead action at all.


----------



## batpig

Zhorik said:


> During those scenes of low overhead usage in San Andreas, how many objects were being used? How would one go about finding that instantaneous information in any Atmos mix?


Perhaps by making fiends with the person who was responsible for remixing the Blu-Ray soundtrack, cozying up with them perhaps with a few stiff drinks, and then convincing them to reveal that info.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Seems odd not to take advantage of it in the mix now that we have dedicated speakers above our heads. I wonder if @FilmMixer is around to comment?


I doubt he will -- Marc seems (understandably so) loathe to say anything potentially negative about his colleagues in a public forum. And of course he's not prone to the consumer enthusiast spasms of angst when sh!t ain't exactly how we expect. 

This all feels like a repeat of the discussion around Transformers AoE. Ahhhh the good old days


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I doubt he will -- Marc seems (understandably so) loathe to say anything potentially negative about his colleagues in a public forum. And of course he's not prone to the consumer enthusiast spasms of angst when sh!t ain't exactly how we expect.


I wasn't expecting him to comment specifically on that mix but perhaps to shed some light on the decision-making process the mixer goes through. I'd have thought, maybe naively, that in a scene with all sorts of great opportunities for use of the overhead speakers - eg choppers flying all over the place, girls trapped in cars on cliff ledges, with her rescuer shouting from above her, interior shots of chopper pilots talking as rotors whirr above their heads, etc etc - there would be a desire to use the overhead speakers to tie in with on-screen action. But it seems to be not the case, so what exactly do they decide when they decide where to place the sounds in the mix and how do they come to their conclusions? I am sure this would help us all understand better.



batpig said:


> This all feels like a repeat of the discussion around Transformers AoE. Ahhhh the good old days


Haha. It was all very different when I was a boy....  *San Andreas* is still one of the most exciting, most involving, most immersive soundtracks I have ever heard.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> You should not have a sound coming from one corner of the auditorium, you should have the same sound coming from multiple location so that all seat experience it as coming from the same angle.


OK, so this isn't just about playback but your preference on how movies should be mixed. Fortunately, movie mixers want the kind of precise directionality that arrays cannot deliver, so the industry is moving past the limitations of surround arrays.


> Front speakers are further away, so the difference in degrees are less, so the inherent problem is fixed.


No, they're not far enough away to give everyone the impression that they're sitting in front of the centre speaker and experiencing a symmetrical soundstage. The problem isn't "fixed" for listeners who find themselves in front of the left or right speaker.


> Center speaker is supposed to be locked to center screen position, so that one is never an issue.


But every seat experiences it differently and you don't end up with what you describe as "all seat experience it as coming from the same angle". The front soundstage is far more critical to the storytelling than the surrounds, so the concern for consistency (same angle) should be directed much more to the front speakers than surrounds. 

Unless the industry is not concerned about all seats experiencing the sound as coming from the same angle.


----------



## bargervais

Do you think Maybe that's because we are in the minority with an Atmos, set up with either 5.1.2 or 7.1.4.. I think that most mixes are mixed for the masses 5.1 or 7.1 and a little height thrown in for us Atmos enthusiast. But i must say that Blu-Ray's with an Atmos Mix are very aggressive, that will feed the Masses with 7.1 and keep us 7.2.4 people happy.


----------



## fredl

Inspired by trailblazers in this thread I've tried getting around the limitations of our dedicated home theater. As some of you might remember, our MLP is in the back row near the rear wall. Me and the wife experimented with a 7.1.2 setup. In order to accomplish this, we moved the back row couch out 10" or so from the wall. We also hooked up direct radiating surround back and surround side speakers (identical to our on ceiling speakers). We placed the SS speakers at 70 degrees and the SB at 110 degrees. Top middle speakers is directly overhead.

The difference from 5.1.2 with our dipole surround speakers at 90 degrees was huge. It was very immersive, but I think it might be a bit too immersive.  Of course we tried the first 15 minutes of Unbroken and the 30 first minutes of Mad Max as demo material.

It would be interesting to try Jamo S 360 as SS and SB speakers (or Mirage Nanosat).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree - but when there is nothing whatsoever coming from the height speakers, that won’t apply. At the beginning of *San Andreas*, there is nothing -- zip, nada, niente, zero, zilch -- coming from the height speakers even though the on-screen actions seems to positively _demand_ it.


Yes, but that's really the option of the mixer. Just as they seek a balance so that attention isn't drawn away from the screen, they likely don't want you looking up at the ceiling when something's happening up there either. Maybe people here who are looking more for the obvious gimmickry of the height channels would have mixed things differently, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all mixers should. For me, a great Atmos mix doesn't necessarily have to have constant height channel use to use the format well (which I think we discussed regarding The Age Of Adaline earlier in the thread).



kbarnes701 said:


> There is a difference between subtle use of the height speakers, which is what you are describing I think (and with which I agree) and no use whatsoever of the heights.


My point was more that the mixer isn't necessarily thinking about "use of the height speakers" the way people keep characterizing. The use of objects frees him from that. He's taking objects and placing and moving them in 3-D space on the ProTools plugin we've all seen pictures of here, with additional control over the size and level of the object (meaning the processor has data to judge the level of the sound in each representative channel so that the object images accordingly in 3-D space). It's a simplification to say that the mixer didn't put things in the heights (which is channel-based thinking)... when he's actually putting things in 3-D space, and the processor uses the heights and other channels to steer those objects where they're supposed to be in the space. The home mixes differ from Atmos theatrical in that the theatrical format has discrete channels for the height layer as well, whereas the home mix has to represent that height layer as objects placed at max on the Z-axis (which would be primarily for ambient sounds).

I'm not saying that if I were in charge of the mix, I wouldn't have used the heights a bit differently. I'm just saying that the way most people are thinking about it is old thinking, as opposed to what the object-based approach brings to the table. For instance, say I want a sound to go from ear level left rear to overhead front right... In the object screen, I would basically just move that object diagonally up from the left rear base level area to the front right top-screen region of the 3-D space. But then, let's compare how that gets conveyed at home. In my case, I have 7.1.4, front heights and top mids. So in my room, the path of that sound would start with it in the left rear surround... maybe with some left surround involvement, but no height layer at all. Then at about half-way through the path in question (center of 3-D space), the sound would then potentially be represented by all of the bed channels to some extent, with some top mid involvement so that it images center of room, half-way between beds and heights. Then at the end of the path, because I have front heights, it's primarily just placed in the front right height channel, with some spillover to other channels depending on the defined size of the audio object. Now let's consider a 7.1.4 setup with front/rear heights instead of top mid. At the middle point of this path, you'd have involvement from all 4 height channels so that the imaging occurs in the center of the room (whereas in my setup, top mid is in that location and can represent the brunt of the height portion of the placement). The end of the path would be the same, with the sound being primarily in front right height. Now consider a 7.1.2 setup with top mids. The start of the path is the same - left rear, maybe with left surround. The mid-point of the object's path is the same as my original front height/top mid configuration, with the top mids getting involved to partially raise the perception of the sound mid-way between the beds and heights. The end-point of the path, however, would involve the top mids more than my original example, since the processor would then have to represent what it sees as "front right top of screen" using the right main in conjunction with top mid and right surround to image the sound where it should be in 3-D space.

Now where it gets tricky is when you take everything I just said and turn off everything but your height channels so you can gauge their use as a "channel". In each configuration, you're going to hear completely different amounts of audio from the height channels... because the steering requirements of each configuration are completely different. If this were merely a discrete channel mixed in the old way (i.e. placement defined by manually placing sounds between defined channels in varying levels), then configuration would be irrelevant... because the channel would be whatever the channel was in the bitstream. But in the immediate case, isolating everything but the heights really tells you very little about what in the mix is meant to image above the bed-channel layer. A sound may be middle of the room up high and involve the top mids a lot... or front right top-of-screen and only use the top mids to raise the perception of the sound that is primarily conveyed from the right main. 

I've prattled on for a bit here, but I hope I clarified what I mean when I say that we can no longer think of this in the way that we think about discrete channel-based mixing. As a mixer, I could move multiple objects around the room at various heights with precision and you still wouldn't hear much if you isolated your height channels... because that's just not the whole story of how this kind of mixing works.


----------



## bargervais

^^^^^^
Jeremy Anderson  Thank you I love your thinking you made it very clear in my minds eye.


----------



## bargervais

Sorry another double post.


----------



## bkeeler10

To add to the discussion about what some consider a lack of overhead speaker usage: It is my understanding that the process for mixing in Atmos is quite different from that of traditional channel-based mixes. To wit, the mixer uses some sort of 3D visual tool to tell the Atmos encoder where he wants a sound placed in space. And then it is up to the Atmos renderer to decide which speaker(s) to use to achieve the intended effect. If there is not more sound in the overheads, perhaps it is because it would be distracting rather than immersive.

I visualize a mixer sitting there and playing around with a sound effect on his mixing tools, trying to achieve the sound he's looking for. It probably often takes a few tries before he's satisfied with the sound he's hearing. And I would bet he's not checking to see which speakers are being used, and may not be consciously aware of which speakers in his mixing room are speaking and at what relative levels. Again, what he cares about is achieving the right sound for the scene. Once he gets it, it hardly matters to him how the encoder and renderer make it happen. Just encode and move on to the next scene.

Maybe I'm totally off-base here. Just a thought to consider.

Edit: Another way of saying this is that perhaps you should blame the "lack" of information in the overheads on the Atmos encoder and renderer, rather than on the mixer


----------



## tigerhonaker

bkeeler10 said:


> To add to the discussion about what some consider a lack of overhead speaker usage: It is my understanding that the process for mixing in Atmos is quite different from that of traditional channel-based mixes. To wit, the mixer uses some sort of 3D visual tool to tell the Atmos encoder where he wants a sound placed in space. And then it is up to the Atmos renderer to decide which speaker(s) to use to achieve the intended effect. If there is not more sound in the overheads, perhaps it is because it would be distracting rather than immersive.
> 
> I visualize a mixer sitting there and playing around with a sound effect on his mixing tools, trying to achieve the sound he's looking for. It probably often takes a few tries before he's satisfied with the sound he's hearing. And I would bet he's not checking to see which speakers are being used, and may not be consciously aware of which speakers in his mixing room are speaking and at what relative levels. Again, what he cares about is achieving the right sound for the scene. Once he gets it, it hardly matters to him how the encoder and renderer make it happen. Just encode and move on to the next scene.
> 
> Maybe I'm totally off-base here. Just a thought to consider.
> 
> Edit: Another way of saying this is that perhaps you should blame the "lack" of information in the overheads on the Atmos encoder and renderer, rather than on the mixer


That does make sense from the professional side of the tech doing the mixing I think.

But then we have the consumer that's spending their dollars and they want to hear those ceiling speakers being more active in certain scenes.

Actually I find this pretty darn interesting once you posted your comments as once again I think you are right on top of things with the Tech doing the Mixing !!!


----------



## DAK4

Okay, I've come to the conclusion after watching many many non-Atmos movies with DSU that Dolby has somehow secretly added a special soundtrack for every movie in existence and stuck it into the DSP chips or downloads it from the Internet as you watch it (I'M KIDDING OF COURSE). But it does truly amaze me every time. From Dragons flying overhead in LOTR or flying Little Blue Fairy thingys and flying Keys in Harry Potter movies to the DeLorean flying around in Back To The Future II, DSU always seems to get it right somehow. I guess it's mostly mathematics but that's some pretty incredible Dolby math going on.


----------



## rmilyard

Alright guys I got my new Denon AVR-X6200W and all my speakers. I have them all wired. So now just trying to get best sound and settings using them.


Speakers:


L/R Front: BP7002's
Center: C/L/R 2002
Surrounds: ProCinema 100's
Reads: BP2X
Front Height: ProCinema 100's
Top Middle: ProCinema 100's
SUB: Klipsh SW-115


I have a AudioSource 100 AMP running the Top Middles. Only options I found were those or fronts.


My Fronts are just using speaker wire not the LFE inputs. (can change if think should)


I am new to Denon so some of the AVR options I am not sure about. I ran Audyssey. All speakers are SMALL except the fronts are LARGE. I have crossovers set each set: Fronts Full band, Center=60Hz and all others set to 80Hz. Thomas at DT said that would be best.


So I have a question about my BP7002 towers. My new Denon AVR under bass. I have Subwoofer Mode. Can be LFE or LFE+Main. Which should I be using?


Also in there is LPF for LFE. It's at 120 Hz. 


Just trying to get best sound and learn these new settings.


We did watch San Andreas last night in ATMOS. Sounds pretty good. The bass shakers in the couches I add were nice. Movie not that good but sound was nice. We could hear glass falling from above us. Nice effects.


----------



## Kris Deering

I watched When Marnie Was There last night and felt the same way. This is a pretty subtle surround mix but there were a few key sequences that made spectacular use of the overhead channels for discrete sounds that sounded like they should be there. Some impressive rainfall as well in a short storm sequence. Honestly, it sounded better for overhead activity (despite the infrequent moments) than most of the discrete Atmos mixes I've heard.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bkeeler10 said:


> To add to the discussion about what some consider a lack of overhead speaker usage: It is my understanding that the process for mixing in Atmos is quite different from that of traditional channel-based mixes. To wit, the mixer uses some sort of 3D visual tool to tell the Atmos encoder where he wants a sound placed in space. And then it is up to the Atmos renderer to decide which speaker(s) to use to achieve the intended effect. If there is not more sound in the overheads, perhaps it is because it would be distracting rather than immersive.
> 
> I visualize a mixer sitting there and playing around with a sound effect on his mixing tools, trying to achieve the sound he's looking for. It probably often takes a few tries before he's satisfied with the sound he's hearing. And I would bet he's not checking to see which speakers are being used, and may not be consciously aware of which speakers in his mixing room are speaking and at what relative levels. Again, what he cares about is achieving the right sound for the scene. Once he gets it, it hardly matters to him how the encoder and renderer make it happen. Just encode and move on to the next scene.
> 
> Maybe I'm totally off-base here. Just a thought to consider.
> 
> Edit: Another way of saying this is that perhaps you should blame the "lack" of information in the overheads on the Atmos encoder and renderer, rather than on the mixer


This is pretty much what I was saying in my lengthy post. The mixer isn't worried about the channels with object-based mixing... He's placing things where he wants them to image in 3-D space. Isolating your height channels doesn't tell you anything about the intended mix, as much as it tells you how the Atmos renderer is interpreting the object placement data and conveying it using ALL of the speakers available to the renderer based on their defined locations. "How much is in the heights?" isn't even a consideration to the guy doing an Atmos mix.


----------



## bkeeler10

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is pretty much what I was saying in my lengthy post.


Yeah, we must have been typing at the same time, but you beat me to posting . Your post was indeed along a similar thought as mine.


----------



## jpco

In the underground garage scene, small amounts of debris fall from the ceiling with no overhead sound at all. Next, a bit more falls, and there is an overhead object sound. Finally, massive debris falls and punches a hole in the ground through which the car drives and then crashes, underground. That final sequence has zero overhead sound. 

I'm not looking for gimmicks. An underground garage is one of the places where 3D sound makes natural sense. The mixer is not using the 3D space in the helicopter scene or the garage scene. 

In contrast, the scene in the restaurant where the wife character was having lunch when the quake hit is full of consistent height objects throughout the scene. 

When it's used so inconsistently, it comes across as being a bit of a gimmick and not integral to the overall sound mix of the movie. 

That being said, the mix on this movie is immersive and excellent, so please don't feel the need to defend it. I'm just interested in learning how (and a little bit of why) it's working at this time.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

rmilyard said:


> Alright guys I got my new Denon AVR-X6200W and all my speakers. I have them all wired. So now just trying to get best sound and settings using them.
> 
> Speakers:
> L/R Front: BP7002's
> Center: C/L/R 2002
> Surrounds: ProCinema 100's
> Reads: BP2X
> Front Height: ProCinema 100's
> Top Middle: ProCinema 100's
> SUB: Klipsh SW-115
> 
> I have a AudioSource 100 AMP running the Top Middles. Only options I found were those or fronts.
> My Fronts are just using speaker wire not the LFE inputs. (can change if think should)
> I am new to Denon so some of the AVR options I am not sure about. I ran Audyssey. All speakers are SMALL except the fronts are LARGE. I have crossovers set each set: Fronts Full band, Center=60Hz and all others set to 80Hz. Thomas at DT said that would be best.
> So I have a question about my BP7002 towers. My new Denon AVR under bass. I have Subwoofer Mode. Can be LFE or LFE+Main. Which should I be using?
> Also in there is LPF for LFE. It's at 120 Hz.
> Just trying to get best sound and learn these new settings.
> We did watch San Andreas last night in ATMOS. Sounds pretty good. The bass shakers in the couches I add were nice. Movie not that good but sound was nice. We could hear glass falling from above us. Nice effects.


Keep in mind that when you run the fronts as large, you're typically redirecting bass from the other channels to the mains based on the crossover points you've set. You can lean on both the subwoofer and the mains with the LFE+Main setting... but otherwise, your sub would ONLY be handling LFE, not managed bass. But as it is, there's certainly nothing wrong with the way you have it set up now, if your mains can handle that redirected bass.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Keep in mind that when you run the fronts as large, you're typically redirecting bass from the other channels to the mains based on the crossover points you've set. You can lean on both the subwoofer and the mains with the LFE+Main setting... but otherwise, your sub would ONLY be handling LFE, not managed bass. But as it is, there's certainly nothing wrong with the way you have it set up now, if your mains can handle that redirected bass.


As long as the sub is set to YES, the bass below the crossovers of those speakers set to SMALL is redirected to the sub, not the Front mains.


----------



## jdsmoothie

rmilyard said:


> I am new to Denon so some of the AVR options I am not sure about. I ran Audyssey. All speakers are SMALL *except the fronts are LARGE. * I have crossovers set each set: Fronts Full band, Center=60Hz and all others set to 80Hz. Thomas at DT said that would be best.
> 
> 
> So I have a question about my BP7002 towers. My new Denon AVR under bass. I have Subwoofer Mode. *Can be LFE or LFE+Main. Which should I be using?
> *
> 
> Also in there is *LPF for LFE. It's at 120 Hz. *
> 
> 
> Just trying to get best sound and learn these new settings.
> 
> 
> We did watch San Andreas last night in ATMOS. Sounds pretty good. The bass shakers in the couches I add were nice. Movie not that good but sound was nice. We could hear glass falling from above us. Nice effects.


You're better served posting AVR related questions in the 2015 Denon Owner's thread linked below ....

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ner-s-thread-faq-hdcp-2-2-a.html#post34728793


1. The sub is going to be able to handle the lower frequencies likely better than your FL/FR speakers, so try setting the FL/FR to SMALL/60Hz. Doing so will also provide more headroom for the AVR as well.
2. Leave the sub set at the factory default of "LFE." The LFE+MAIN setting only applies when the FL/FR are set to LARGE so does not apply when set to SMALL.
3. Generally best when left at the factory default of 120Hz to allow the full range (20Hz - 120Hz) LFE signal to pass to the sub, although you can certainly try it lower (eg. 80Hz) to see if you prefer a lower setting.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jdsmoothie said:


> As long as the sub is set to YES, the bass below the crossovers of those speakers set to SMALL is redirected to the sub, not the Front mains.




Even when the mains are set to large? Didn't seem to work that way on my old Onkyo. But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Heh...


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Keep in mind that when you run the fronts as large, you're typically redirecting bass from the other channels to the mains based on the crossover points you've set. You can lean on both the subwoofer and the mains with the LFE+Main setting... but otherwise, your sub would ONLY be handling LFE, not managed bass. But as it is, there's certainly nothing wrong with the way you have it set up now, if your mains can handle that redirected bass.


That's not accurate, he has a separate SW present so bass managment will go the SW as always. What you are describing (bass management to the front mains) would ONLY happen if the SW is set to "none".


----------



## batpig

fredl said:


> Inspired by trailblazers in this thread I've tried getting around the limitations of our dedicated home theater. As some of you might remember, our MLP is in the back row near the rear wall. Me and the wife experimented with a 7.1.2 setup. In order to accomplish this, we moved the back row couch out 10" or so from the wall. We also hooked up direct radiating surround back and surround side speakers (identical to our on ceiling speakers). We placed the SS speakers at 70 degrees and the SB at 110 degrees. Top middle speakers is directly overhead.
> 
> The difference from 5.1.2 with our dipole surround speakers at 90 degrees was huge. It was very immersive, but I think it might be a bit too immersive.  Of course we tried the first 15 minutes of Unbroken and the 30 first minutes of Mad Max as demo material.
> 
> It would be interesting to try Jamo S 360 as SS and SB speakers (or Mirage Nanosat).


SB at 110 degrees still leaves a big gap in front of you. You might want to try moving them back so they are more like 130-150 degrees which is the typical placement... and also maybe bring the surrounds closer to 80 degrees to keep that balanced. 

If you have freedom to relocate the TM you could also try scooting them a bit forward so they are more like ~75 degrees elevation vs directly overhead. I have my TM in ceilings almost directly overhead and I find sometimes that the overhead sound is a wee bit overbearing when heavy action is pounding down from above (perhaps that's what you are saying with "a bit too immersive").


----------



## fredl

batpig said:


> SB at 110 degrees still leaves a big gap in front of you. You might want to try moving them back so they are more like 130-150 degrees which is the typical placement... and also maybe bring the surrounds closer to 80 degrees to keep that balanced.
> 
> If you have freedom to relocate the TM you could also try scooting them a bit forward so they are more like ~75 degrees elevation vs directly overhead. I have my TM in ceilings almost directly overhead and I find sometimes that the overhead sound is a wee bit overbearing when heavy action is pounding down from above (perhaps that's what you are saying with "a bit too immersive").



More than 110 degrees is impossible. Too immersive is only regarding the bed-channels.


----------



## batpig

Well all right then, rock on


----------



## rmilyard

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Keep in mind that when you run the fronts as large, you're typically redirecting bass from the other channels to the mains based on the crossover points you've set. You can lean on both the subwoofer and the mains with the LFE+Main setting... but otherwise, your sub would ONLY be handling LFE, not managed bass. But as it is, there's certainly nothing wrong with the way you have it set up now, if your mains can handle that redirected bass.




Specs on the mains is 
15 Hz - 30 kHz


----------



## dkfan9

Jeremy Anderson said:


> bkeeler10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add to the discussion about what some consider a lack of overhead speaker usage: It is my understanding that the process for mixing in Atmos is quite different from that of traditional channel-based mixes. To wit, the mixer uses some sort of 3D visual tool to tell the Atmos encoder where he wants a sound placed in space. And then it is up to the Atmos renderer to decide which speaker(s) to use to achieve the intended effect. If there is not more sound in the overheads, perhaps it is because it would be distracting rather than immersive.
> 
> I visualize a mixer sitting there and playing around with a sound effect on his mixing tools, trying to achieve the sound he's looking for. It probably often takes a few tries before he's satisfied with the sound he's hearing. And I would bet he's not checking to see which speakers are being used, and may not be consciously aware of which speakers in his mixing room are speaking and at what relative levels. Again, what he cares about is achieving the right sound for the scene. Once he gets it, it hardly matters to him how the encoder and renderer make it happen. Just encode and move on to the next scene.
> 
> Maybe I'm totally off-base here. Just a thought to consider.
> 
> Edit: Another way of saying this is that perhaps you should blame the "lack" of information in the overheads on the Atmos encoder and renderer, rather than on the mixer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much what I was saying in my lengthy post. The mixer isn't worried about the channels with object-based mixing... He's placing things where he wants them to image in 3-D space. Isolating your height channels doesn't tell you anything about the intended mix, as much as it tells you how the Atmos renderer is interpreting the object placement data and conveying it using ALL of the speakers available to the renderer based on their defined locations. "How much is in the heights?" isn't even a consideration to the guy doing an Atmos mix.
Click to expand...

Which makes the elevation and angles of the mixer's setup especially important, correct? So, if some mixers are using elevated surrounds in a format which recommends ear level surrounds, their mixes may fall short for consumers following spec.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes, but that's really the option of the mixer. Just as they seek a balance so that attention isn't drawn away from the screen, they likely don't want you looking up at the ceiling when something's happening up there either. Maybe people here who are looking more for the obvious gimmickry of the height channels would have mixed things differently, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all mixers should. For me, a great Atmos mix doesn't necessarily have to have constant height channel use to use the format well (which I think we discussed regarding The Age Of Adaline earlier in the thread).


Well I agree with you. But leaving the overhead speakers out of the mix entirely (in the scenes we are discussing) isn't a question of 'balance' as such. It's just total omission as opposed to total immersion 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> My point was more that the mixer isn't necessarily thinking about "use of the height speakers" the way people keep characterizing. The use of objects frees him from that. He's taking objects and placing and moving them in 3-D space on the ProTools plugin we've all seen pictures of here, with additional control over the size and level of the object (meaning the processor has data to judge the level of the sound in each representative channel so that the object images accordingly in 3-D space).


But if the height speakers are not being engaged at all, then there IS no '3D' space to move the sound objects around in. All the mixer can do is move them around at the listener level. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the mixer can't argue that he is using 3D space if he totally leaves out the overhead plane.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's a simplification to say that the mixer didn't put things in the heights (which is channel-based thinking)... when he's actually putting things in 3-D space,


Except he isn't. He is using the listener level only if he has zero in the overheads.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> and the processor uses the heights and other channels to steer those objects where they're supposed to be in the space.


The processor can't steer objects using the heights if there is total silence in the heights.




Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm not saying that if I were in charge of the mix, I wouldn't have used the heights a bit differently. I'm just saying that the way most people are thinking about it is old thinking, as opposed to what the object-based approach brings to the table. For instance, say I want a sound to go from ear level left rear to overhead front right... In the object screen, I would basically just move that object diagonally up from the left rear base level area to the front right top-screen region of the 3-D space. But then, let's compare how that gets conveyed at home. In my case, I have 7.1.4, front heights and top mids. So in my room, the path of that sound would start with it in the left rear surround... maybe with some left surround involvement, but no height layer at all. Then at about half-way through the path in question (center of 3-D space), the sound would then potentially be represented by all of the bed channels to some extent, with some top mid involvement so that it images center of room, half-way between beds and heights. Then at the end of the path, because I have front heights, it's primarily just placed in the front right height channel,


But the point is, there is nothing in the height speakers (in the scenes under discussion) so there is no question of what you describe actually happening.




Jeremy Anderson said:


> with some spillover to other channels depending on the defined size of the audio object. Now let's consider a 7.1.4 setup with front/rear heights instead of top mid. At the middle point of this path, you'd have involvement from all 4 height channels


Again, I think you are missing my point. There is no involvement of the height channels whatsoever in the scenes we are discussing. What you describe is correct, but in the movie we are discussing this isn't what is happening. For the first 16 minutes the height speakers have zero engagement, even though the on-screen actions seems to be screaming for their use.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Now where it gets tricky is when you take everything I just said and turn off everything but your height channels so you can gauge their use as a "channel". In each configuration, you're going to hear completely different amounts of audio from the height channels... because the steering requirements of each configuration are completely different. If this were merely a discrete channel mixed in the old way (i.e. placement defined by manually placing sounds between defined channels in varying levels), then configuration would be irrelevant... because the channel would be whatever the channel was in the bitstream. But in the immediate case, isolating everything but the heights really tells you very little about what in the mix is meant to image above the bed-channel layer. A sound may be middle of the room up high and involve the top mids a lot... or front right top-of-screen and only use the top mids to raise the perception of the sound that is primarily conveyed from the right main.


Yes I agree. But if the height speakers are totally silent, then no matter how the mix is made, they are still totally silent and so there can be no steering between them and any of the base speakers.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I've prattled on for a bit here, but I hope I clarified what I mean when I say that we can no longer think of this in the way that we think about discrete channel-based mixing. As a mixer, I could move multiple objects around the room at various heights with precision and you still wouldn't hear much if you isolated your height channels... because that's just not the whole story of how this kind of mixing works.


It isn’t a question of not "hearing much". There is nothing to hear. Zip. I agree that the use of the heights can, and perhaps should be, subtle. But subtle is not the same as absent.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> ^^^^^^
> Jeremy Anderson  Thank you I love your thinking you made it very clear in my minds eye.


Yes, what he says is true, if the height speakers are involved in the mix. In the first 16 minutes of San Andreas, you would hear the exact same sound if you physically removed your height speakers from the ceiling and put them in the garage.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> To add to the discussion about what some consider a lack of overhead speaker usage: It is my understanding that the process for mixing in Atmos is quite different from that of traditional channel-based mixes. To wit, the mixer uses some sort of 3D visual tool to tell the Atmos encoder where he wants a sound placed in space. And then it is up to the Atmos renderer to decide which speaker(s) to use to achieve the intended effect. If there is not more sound in the overheads, perhaps it is because it would be distracting rather than immersive.


If the scene in question has a helicopter hovering above a character who is about to be rescued by it, and the position of the helicopter is off screen, up above it, would you not expect that some of the sound of the helicopter is placed into the overhead speakers? I would. How would that be distracting? Surely it would add to the realism of the scene?


----------



## batpig

rmilyard said:


> Specs on the mains is
> 15 Hz - 30 kHz


Yes but those are Definitive Technology specs, so the "15hz" bass low end is pure fiction. 

You can certianly leave them as "full band" if you want.... with the built-in woofer they certainly have enough low end to do a decent job as a "full range" speaker. However this isn't what I would recommend -- I would certainly, at minimum, cross them over as small/40Hz so the lowest octave goes to the subwoofer. Surely the 15" woofer in the powered sub with the big enclosure is going to do a better job with the ultra-low frequencies.


----------



## pasender91

rmilyard said:


> Specs on the mains is
> 15 Hz - 30 kHz


JDSmoothie likely overlooked the fact that your speakers each have an integrated 12" active subwoofer 
So you're in the 1% of the population that should set their mains to large, good for you 
But the bass of the "small" speakers will still go to the subwoofer in addition to the LFE signal, all is well at the end


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is pretty much what I was saying in my lengthy post. The mixer isn't worried about the channels with object-based mixing... He's placing things where he wants them to image in 3-D space. Isolating your height channels doesn't tell you anything about the intended mix, as much as it tells you how the Atmos renderer is interpreting the object placement data and conveying it using ALL of the speakers available to the renderer based on their defined locations. "How much is in the heights?" isn't even a consideration to the guy doing an Atmos mix.


Then the question is this: in the scene I just described, wtf doesn't the mixer believe that a perfect use of the overhead speakers would be the noise of the helicopter hovering above the person about to be rescued by it? If that isn't an opportunity to use the overhead speakers to match the on-screen action, then nothing will ever be and Atmos might as well be forgotten about. How can it be right to have a plane fly over us and the sound of it come from the overheads but not for a helicopter to have sound coming from there in a different scene? Does that make any sense at all?

Of course the mixer doesn't care which speakers are conveying his creative intention. My question is about that very creative intention, not the technicalities of how to make it work.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> In the underground garage scene, small amounts of debris fall from the ceiling with no overhead sound at all. Next, a bit more falls, and there is an overhead object sound. Finally, massive debris falls and punches a hole in the ground through which the car drives and then crashes, underground. That final sequence has zero overhead sound.
> 
> I'm not looking for gimmicks. An underground garage is one of the places where 3D sound makes natural sense. The mixer is not using the 3D space in the helicopter scene or the garage scene.
> 
> In contrast, the scene in the restaurant where the wife character was having lunch when the quake hit is full of consistent height objects throughout the scene.
> 
> When it's used so inconsistently, it comes across as being a bit of a gimmick and not integral to the overall sound mix of the movie.
> 
> That being said, the mix on this movie is immersive and excellent, so please don't feel the need to defend it. I'm just interested in learning how (and a little bit of why) it's working at this time.


Agreed entirely. Inconsistency is puzzling.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Even when the mains are set to large? Didn't seem to work that way on my old Onkyo. But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Heh...


Onkyo/Integra doesn't have LFE+MAIN (that's proprietary of Denon/Marantz); Onkyo has "Double Bass". ...Ouch!


----------



## NorthSky

*Atmos overheads ... | 'San Andreas'*



jpco said:


> I have a Yamaha. I didn't check the whole 16 minutes continuously, but no overhead information during the car crash or helicopter scenes at the start of the movie. Also no overhead during any exterior shots at the Hoover Dam earthquake scene. It's not a Denon/Marantz problem.


It's a sound mixer issue/decision.  ...Or simply put; a great missed opportunity.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes, but that's really the option of the mixer. Just as they seek a balance so that attention isn't drawn away from the screen, they likely don't want you looking up at the ceiling when something's happening up there either. Maybe people here who are looking more for the obvious gimmickry of the height channels would have mixed things differently, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all mixers should. For me, a great Atmos mix doesn't necessarily have to have constant height channel use to use the format well (which I think we discussed regarding The Age Of Adaline earlier in the thread).
> 
> 
> My point was more that the mixer isn't necessarily thinking about "use of the height speakers" the way people keep characterizing. The use of objects frees him from that. He's taking objects and placing and moving them in 3-D space on the ProTools plugin we've all seen pictures of here, with additional control over the size and level of the object (meaning the processor has data to judge the level of the sound in each representative channel so that the object images accordingly in 3-D space). It's a simplification to say that the mixer didn't put things in the heights (which is channel-based thinking)... when he's actually putting things in 3-D space, and the processor uses the heights and other channels to steer those objects where they're supposed to be in the space. The home mixes differ from Atmos theatrical in that the theatrical format has discrete channels for the height layer as well, whereas the home mix has to represent that height layer as objects placed at max on the Z-axis (which would be primarily for ambient sounds).
> 
> I'm not saying that if I were in charge of the mix, I wouldn't have used the heights a bit differently. I'm just saying that the way most people are thinking about it is old thinking, as opposed to what the object-based approach brings to the table. For instance, say I want a sound to go from ear level left rear to overhead front right... In the object screen, I would basically just move that object diagonally up from the left rear base level area to the front right top-screen region of the 3-D space. But then, let's compare how that gets conveyed at home. In my case, I have 7.1.4, front heights and top mids. So in my room, the path of that sound would start with it in the left rear surround... maybe with some left surround involvement, but no height layer at all. Then at about half-way through the path in question (center of 3-D space), the sound would then potentially be represented by all of the bed channels to some extent, with some top mid involvement so that it images center of room, half-way between beds and heights. Then at the end of the path, because I have front heights, it's primarily just placed in the front right height channel, with some spillover to other channels depending on the defined size of the audio object. Now let's consider a 7.1.4 setup with front/rear heights instead of top mid. At the middle point of this path, you'd have involvement from all 4 height channels so that the imaging occurs in the center of the room (whereas in my setup, top mid is in that location and can represent the brunt of the height portion of the placement). The end of the path would be the same, with the sound being primarily in front right height. Now consider a 7.1.2 setup with top mids. The start of the path is the same - left rear, maybe with left surround. The mid-point of the object's path is the same as my original front height/top mid configuration, with the top mids getting involved to partially raise the perception of the sound mid-way between the beds and heights. The end-point of the path, however, would involve the top mids more than my original example, since the processor would then have to represent what it sees as "front right top of screen" using the right main in conjunction with top mid and right surround to image the sound where it should be in 3-D space.
> 
> Now where it gets tricky is when you take everything I just said and turn off everything but your height channels so you can gauge their use as a "channel". In each configuration, you're going to hear completely different amounts of audio from the height channels... because the steering requirements of each configuration are completely different. If this were merely a discrete channel mixed in the old way (i.e. placement defined by manually placing sounds between defined channels in varying levels), then configuration would be irrelevant... because the channel would be whatever the channel was in the bitstream. But in the immediate case, isolating everything but the heights really tells you very little about what in the mix is meant to image above the bed-channel layer. A sound may be middle of the room up high and involve the top mids a lot... or front right top-of-screen and only use the top mids to raise the perception of the sound that is primarily conveyed from the right main.
> 
> I've prattled on for a bit here, but I hope I clarified what I mean when I say that we can no longer think of this in the way that we think about discrete channel-based mixing. As a mixer, I could move multiple objects around the room at various heights with precision and you still wouldn't hear much if you isolated your height channels... because that's just not the whole story of how this kind of mixing works.


Great post...you would make a fantastic Dolby Atmos sound mixer in Hollywood.  ...I am recommending you...Warner Bros. sounds like a good movie studio to work for, to me.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> OK, so this isn't just about playback but your preference on how movies should be mixed. Fortunately, movie mixers want the kind of precise directionality that arrays cannot deliver, so the industry is moving past the limitations of surround arrays.


What's so hard to understand? The are not getting any precision when all listeners experience it differently. 

A well set up array does not give less accuracy, it gives more. Distance = time delays must be closely calculated to all seats of course and within the span. No company would ever dare to spec such a thing to normal customers, but I do hope we're past being that here?



> No, they're not far enough away to give everyone the impression that they're sitting in front of the centre speaker and experiencing a symmetrical soundstage. The problem isn't "fixed" for listeners who find themselves in front of the left or right speaker. But every seat experiences it differently and you don't end up with what you describe as "all seat experience it as coming from the same angle". The front soundstage is far more critical to the storytelling than the surrounds, so the concern for consistency (same angle) should be directed much more to the front speakers than surrounds.


No, quite the opposite! You have to realize that on and off screen sounds have different demands. I have been discussing off-screen sounds, not on-screen. On-screen sounds have to be localized to the position they are, which will be different from seat to seat. What you cannot allow from front speakers is hotspotting from the closest, and that you can handle with proper TIT.



> Unless the industry is not concerned about all seats experiencing the sound as coming from the same angle.


Industry isn't concerned at all, they are concerned about sales. You and me are the ones who need to concern ourselves... And possibly by showing the way could nudge industry somewhat in the right direction if they are listening.


----------



## NorthSky

rmilyard said:


> Specs on the mains is
> 15 Hz - 30 kHz


Does it also specify the plus/minus dB range...like +/-2dB for example. 

* True 15Hz reproduction in a loudspeaker is generally from the ultra hi-end (very expensive). ...Are those fitting that criteria?

By the way, my subs are rated to 17Hz...(nothing else provided...no minus 3dB for example), but in actual reality the're only good to 45Hz. ...By 40Hz they're down roughly 10dB. ...They are Definitive Technology subwoofers...with 15" drivers. I can provide the bench test if you want. ...But those are not really accurate as they don't take the room as the bass extension into consideration. 

♦ Just a suggestion...It would be nice to have Dolby Atmos certified subwoofers (like THX certification but better), that would comprise three classes:
1. Certified down to 10Hz
2. Cert. down to 15Hz
3. And cert. down to 20Hz

With a +/- 2B point measured @ two meters (in-room response) for a given dynamic range capability/specification...say 110dB.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dkfan9 said:


> Which makes the elevation and angles of the mixer's setup especially important, correct? So, if some mixers are using elevated surrounds in a format which recommends ear level surrounds, their mixes may fall short for consumers following spec.


Not some, but practically all ATMOS movie soundtracks are re-recorded using elevated surrounds, as they are optimized for the typical cinema speaker lay-out. During the preparation of the near-field home mix, object positioning is not changed to account for lower surrounds.


----------



## launche

In a few interviews with sound mixers I recall many saying they are selecting certain scenes to make the best use of new Atmos related capabilities. So I think that's it, they are simply picking certain scenes for which to focus on, panning, fly-overs and other overhead sound effects etc... I just don't think they are yet at a point through experience, time management etc...that they are going through the whole movie frame by frame or scene by scene to maximize the use of Atmos rendering.

The mixes will get better and more consistent in time as seems to already be occurring.

Interestingly, DSU seems to have it's particular algorithm or what have you and applies pseudo-Atmos rendering much more liberally. So it would be interesting if someone could compare the JW or any other movie's Blu-ray Atmos disc with the DVD 5.1 disc using DSU and see what the differences are.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> If the scene in question has a helicopter hovering above a character who is about to be rescued by it, and the position of the helicopter is off screen, up above it, would you not expect that some of the sound of the helicopter is placed into the overhead speakers? I would. How would that be distracting? Surely it would add to the realism of the scene?


I'm not disagreeing with you that one might expect helicopter sounds to come from above if the scene called for it... but keep in mind that mixers aren't necessarily mixing based on either the character's or viewer's POV in the particular scene. Doing that would play hell with things as you cut between perspectives or change scenes. The mixer is providing an overall sound for the scene itself. Again, you and I are forever destined to simultaneously agree and disagree, and that seems to be the case here. I wouldn't have made the same choices if it were me... but I also wouldn't have gone crazy with it like some people might have liked. Still, that's ultimately a decision the film's mixer makes given the focus and intent of the scene in question.



kbarnes701 said:


> Then the question is this: in the scene I just described, wtf doesn't the mixer believe that a perfect use of the overhead speakers would be the noise of the helicopter hovering above the person about to be rescued by it? If that isn't an opportunity to use the overhead speakers to match the on-screen action, then nothing will ever be and Atmos might as well be forgotten about. How can it be right to have a plane fly over us and the sound of it come from the overheads but not for a helicopter to have sound coming from there in a different scene? Does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Of course the mixer doesn't care which speakers are conveying his creative intention. My question is about that very creative intention, not the technicalities of how to make it work.


First, my lengthy rant was more about how people are viewing the issue than about the issue itself. Second, yes... maybe you could consider it a missed opportunity for using Atmos in the way some people want it to be used. Of course, it could also have been an intentional artistic choice, wherein you don't make much use of immersive audio until the action escalates. Wouldn't be the first time a mixer kept it laid back until the movie called for the audio to kick into overdrive. Or it could just be that the mixer decided to use the objects solely for the purpose of conveying ambient sounds rather than directional action objects. But ultimately, it's a creative decision made by the person doing the mix. It's not a failing of the technology if the mixer doesn't choose to use the overhead speakers as much as you'd like... Atmos is just a new palette that these artists can use to paint their desired soundscapes. And I think they did a HELL of a job with this one, without it being gimmicky.



NorthSky said:


> Great post...you would make a fantastic Dolby Atmos sound mixer in Hollywood.  ...I am recommending you...Warner Bros. sounds like a good movie studio to work for, to me.


And man, if I had more knowledge of the actual process, I would jump on that in a heartbeat. I love this stuff! But my mixing expertise is limited to doing house sound for bars and small venues for a bit in my college years.


----------



## bargervais

launche said:


> In a few interviews with sound mixers I recall many saying they are selecting certain scenes to make the best use of new Atmos related capabilities. So I think that's it, they are simply picking certain scenes for which to focus on, panning, fly-overs and other overhead sound effects etc... I just don't think they are yet at a point through experience, time management etc...that they are going through the whole movie frame by frame or scene by scene to maximize the use of Atmos rendering.
> 
> The mixes will get better and more consistent in time as seems to already be occurring.
> 
> Interestingly, DSU seems to have it's particular algorithm or what have you and applies pseudo-Atmos rendering much more liberally. So it would be interesting if someone could compare the JW or any other movie's Blu-ray Atmos disc with the DVD 5.1 disc using DSU and see what the differences are.


that's hard to do unless you have two different setups in the same room running the same content and toggle back and forth. because my Memory is not what it use to be.


----------



## Gates

Hi guys, getting ready to install my ceiling speakers and I need advice. Here's a crude paint drawing of the way my room is shaped. As you can see the back of the room isn't really conventional. The red part in the front are ventilation ducts. I saw the drawing on the Dolby site and it shows to put the speakers pretty much in line with the fronts and back, but with those ducts. At the back those are 2 rows of seats. The door is in that angle..what would you guys do ?


----------



## Gates

These are the speakers I'm putting in by the way


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> The are not getting any precision when all listeners experience it differently.


Soundtracks are not going to be mixed with even coverage in mind. The moment a technology showed up (Atmos) that could place sounds with precise localization, movie mixers took advantage of it. And that means more things like a sound in a corner.


> On-screen sounds have to be localized to the position they are, which will be different from seat to seat.


Off screen sounds are starting to be treated the same way, now that there is technology (Atmos, DTS:X) to accomplish that. Mixers wanted objects to have size so that they could light up one or two speakers in an array. The industry is not going to go backwards and eschew that capability in order to give everyone in the audience the same perspective.


> Industry isn't concerned at all, they are concerned about sales.


Sales come from advancing the state of the art, which is what object-based mixing/rendering is doing. The goal has never been to give every listener in the room the same perspective. That's your goal, not the industry's. Instead, they will create a sonic environment; what you hear (your perspective) will be based on where you are seated. There's no pretense that all listeners will get the same perspective.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

launche said:


> In a few interviews with sound mixers I recall many saying they are selecting certain scenes to make the best use of new Atmos related capabilities. So I think that's it, they are simply picking certain scenes for which to focus on, panning, fly-overs and other overhead sound effects etc... I just don't think they are yet at a point through experience, time management etc...that they are going through the whole movie frame by frame or scene by scene to maximize the use of Atmos rendering.
> 
> The mixes will get better and more consistent in time as seems to already be occurring.


To me, this falls into the "just because you have a thing doesn't mean you should use a thing" area. Yeah, mixers are having to adapt to this different mindset as far as how they're mixing, which will evolve over time as they wrap their heads around it. I could understand if they're still primarily mixing in the channel-based way they're accustomed to and using Atmos objects conservatively. But I could also understand them making a conscious artistic decision not to use it in ways that would divert your attention away from where the desired focus is. Not every mix is going to be as aggressive as demo clips intended to show the tech off, nor should you want it to be if you're a fan of the art. The mix should always be in the service of the movie.



launche said:


> Interestingly, DSU seems to have it's particular algorithm or what have you and applies pseudo-Atmos rendering much more liberally. So it would be interesting if someone could compare the JW or any other movie's Blu-ray Atmos disc with the DVD 5.1 disc using DSU and see what the differences are.


There's an interesting discussion to be had there, I think. I think DSU's use of heights is pretty much akin to how DPL-IIz utilized its height channels - i.e. a better placement of generalized ambient sounds in the home space. In the pre-Atmos theatrical space, sounds mixed for general ambience can resolve generally overhead because of the size of the room (and intentional use of placement and phase, if you're feeling crazy). In a smaller space like the home, the problem in the past that I think DPL-IIz was the first to try to supplement was that you typically don't have room for those generalized ambient sounds in the mix to resolve the way they would in a larger theatrical space. DPL-IIz helped by adding an elevated front channel to assist the previously elevated surrounds in recreating that ambience in the smaller space, which worked pretty well. DSU improves upon that in that it 1) has actual ceiling-placed channels to further assist with generalized ambience, 2) has the surrounds closer to ear level - relying less on elevated placement to mimic theatrical ambience and generalization, and 3) seems to assist with between-speaker placement of sounds (at least in my experience). I recall that we had a pretty good grasp of what DPL-IIz was doing because of how much info was released about it... but it would be interesting to know more about what DSU is actually doing and how its steering is implemented. However it works, it does an excellent job... but man, I wish I knew more about how it worked and what it is doing to the existing mix!


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> The goal has never been to give every listener in the room the same perspective. That's your goal, not the industry's. Instead, they will create a sonic environment; what you hear (your perspective) will be based on where you are seated. There's no pretense that all listeners will get the same perspective.


Yes? That does not prevent me from discussing which of the systems is most appropriate to achieve my goal, and arguing that that goal ought to be everybody's.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> If the scene in question has a helicopter hovering above a character who is about to be rescued by it, and the position of the helicopter is off screen, up above it, would you not expect that some of the sound of the helicopter is placed into the overhead speakers? I would. How would that be distracting? Surely it would add to the realism of the scene?


Intuitively, yes, I would expect some sound out of the overheads in a scene like that. I can only assume one of two things wrt this scene (which, in the interest of disclosure, I haven't, um, seen yet). First, the mixer tried lots of things and the most realistic-sounding solution ended up not involving overheads at all. Which I admit is hard to believe. Second, the mixer only tried one or two things and called it good enough, when it could have been better with further experimentation. Who knows really.

As you mentioned before, it would be interesting to get FilmMixer's take on whether our intuition is perhaps flawed (not in this specific example of course, but regarding mixing to give the illusion of sound overhead).


----------



## NorthSky

DSU...this is all great to read all the glory and merits with movies...but it doesn't seem ripe @ the moment with multichannel music listening...for people who care. 

And me too I believe that the Dolby Atmos (and dts:x) sound mixers are going to get better with time @ their craft. 
And also that our audio products will get more perfected in adding features that are essential for optimal 3D immersive sound performance, including 9.1.4 with its variations (7.1.6).


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> That does not prevent me from discussing which of the systems is most appropriate to achieve my goal, and arguing that that goal ought to be everybody's.


Discuss/argue all you want. That's the very purpose of forums. The main thing I took issue with was the claim that Atmos is a one person experience. It isn't, any more that every other format. 

Philosophically, I tilt more in your direction (willing to give up a little in the sweet spot for significant improvements in other seats) than with those that tune their entire system/room for a single seat. But that's just my preference, not something I argue that everybody ought to do.


----------



## DAK4

NorthSky said:


> DSU...this is all great to read all the glory and merits with movies...but it doesn't seem ripe @ the moment with multichannel music listening...for people who care.


I wasn't sure at first either but I'm actually really starting to dig DSU with music (when I have time to sit and listen to some). It really creates a unique environment, not like a hall or concert venue but something open and airy with intelligently chosen pieces of sounds from the music coming from different places in the room. It's actually really fun. It's most noticeable on Electronic type music but Symphony type music works too. Of course a couple of beers also help the experience.


----------



## Stoked21

DAK4 said:


> I wasn't sure at first either but I'm actually really starting to dig DSU with music (when I have time to sit and listen to some). It really creates a unique environment, not like a hall or concert venue but something open and airy with intelligently chosen pieces of sounds from the music coming from different places in the room. It's actually really fun. It's most noticeable on Electronic type music but Symphony type music works too. Of course a couple of beers also help the experience.


I don't use Ht for music. Though I'm sure we will have parties down there in the lounge and bar and will have music playing. 

I do use music in there for setup and eval. I've found music with dsu is extremely enjoyable. With acoustic music and harmonies they really pop out and come alive in certain places. The immersive surround is an obvious plus.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> ...it would be interesting to know more about what DSU is actually doing and how its steering is implemented.


http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17615


> This paper describes a new spatial audio algorithm that creates a channel-based three-dimensional sound scene from two or more input channels. The algorithm was designed to decode matrix encoded programs (Lt/Rt). It is also an effective stereo upmixer; the signal relationships that guide the decoding algorithm (e.g. cross correlation) also provide appropriate cues to the intended spatial scene for standard, unencoded programs – we decode the artist’s intent.
> 
> Input channel configurations with more than two channels are decomposed into channel pairs which are then processed independently. Improvements relative to existing surround decoding systems include improved selectivity and separation due to multi-band processing; increased listener envelopment through independent processing for direct and diffuse signal components and user adjustable decorrelation; and support for an arbitrary number of output channels at user specified locations including elevation.
> 
> The system described has been recently deployed in consumer and professional products for home, mobile, and cinema applications. In this paper we give a detailed description of the signal processing, and provide results from a subjective listening test which indicates significant improvement relative to legacy systems.
> 
> Authors: Vinton, Mark; McGrath, David; Robinson, Charles; Brown, Phillip
> Affiliation: Dolby Laboratories, Inc., USA


----------



## DAK4

Stoked21 said:


> I don't use Ht for music. Though I'm sure we will have parties down there in the lounge and bar and will have music playing.
> 
> I do use music in there for setup and eval. I've found music with dsu is extremely enjoyable. With acoustic music and harmonies they really pop out and come alive in certain places. The immersive surround is an obvious plus.


Yeah, for parties I tend to use All Channel mode to get equal sound all around the room but I think DSU is good for sitting in the general area of the sweet spot and enjoying the music.


----------



## Rolls-Royce

DAK4 said:


> I wasn't sure at first either but I'm actually really starting to dig DSU with music (when I have time to sit and listen to some). It really creates a unique environment, not like a hall or concert venue but something open and airy with intelligently chosen pieces of sounds from the music coming from different places in the room. It's actually really fun. It's most noticeable on Electronic type music but Symphony type music works too. Of course a couple of beers also help the experience.


I agree. My take, with orchestral/symphony music at least, is that DSU moves your virtual listening position from halfway between the cheap seats and front row (where the orchestra, depending on the recording, is more or less at ear level), to near the front row, where the instruments are at and above ear level.

Not to take this too far OT, but I remember when Yamaha announced their first DSPs that had settings reproducing famous musical venues. Those reviews were what got me interested in surround sound. I never saw or heard one of those Yamaha units, but imagine what they could have been with multiple base surround and height speakers as are becoming popular today!


----------



## DAK4

Rolls-Royce said:


> I agree. My take, with orchestral/symphony music at least, is that DSU moves your virtual listening position from halfway between the cheap seats and front row (where the orchestra, depending on the recording, is more or less at ear level), to near the front row, where the instruments are at and above ear level.
> 
> Not to take this too far OT, but I remember when Yamaha announced their first DSPs that had settings reproducing famous musical venues. Those reviews were what got me interested in surround sound. I never saw or heard one of those Yamaha units, but imagine what they could have been with multiple base surround and height speakers as are becoming popular today!


Yamaha still has a lot of those type of settings and I've heard them and are they are good but DSU does something unique to the music that is different than hall-type effects.  And I'll have to listen for that effect you are talking about too, sounds good.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Discuss/argue all you want. That's the very purpose of forums. The main thing I took issue with was the claim that Atmos is a one person experience. It isn't, any more that every other format.
> 
> Philosophically, I tilt more in your direction (willing to give up a little in the sweet spot for significant improvements in other seats) than with those that tune their entire system/room for a single seat. But that's just my preference, not something I argue that everybody ought to do.


I would be very curious to know how many of us have a actual dedicated home theater, that would need an array of speakers above the audience, so everyone in the room can enjoy. Are we talking about a set up for 7 to 20 people? I could see the need for a speaker array above if that's the case. I'm lucky if there are two of us enjoying Atmos, maybe 4 people so I can enjoy 7.2.4 with no problem.


----------



## Rolls-Royce

DAK4 said:


> Yamaha still has a lot of those type of settings and I've heard them and are they are good but DSU does something unique to the music that is different than hall-type effects.  And I'll have to listen for that effect you are talking about too, sounds good.


DSU also really seems to call up the sub artillery. Music has a better bass foundation than it did before, although that may be entirely due to Audyssey XT32 (I have a Denon 4100W).


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> I wasn't sure at first either but I'm actually really starting to dig DSU with music (when I have time to sit and listen to some). It really creates a unique environment, not like a hall or concert venue but something open and airy with intelligently chosen pieces of sounds from the music coming from different places in the room. It's actually really fun. It's most noticeable on Electronic type music but Symphony type music works too. Of course a couple of beers also help the experience.


That sounds like a fair validation...but is it truly good enough...or could it be much better. ...Like by offering few very useful settings...a la ProLogicIIx Music listening audio mode.


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> I would be very curious to know how many of us have a actual dedicated home theater, that would need an array of speakers above the audience, so everyone in the room can enjoy. Are we talking about a set up for 7 to 20 people?


Arrays can start becoming useful when you have multiple rows of seating. Even small, 2-row home theatres sometimes have separate pairs of side surrounds for each row.


----------



## DAK4

NorthSky said:


> That sounds like a fair validation...but is it truly good enough...or could it be much better. ...Like by offering few very useful settings...a la ProLogicIIx Music listening audio mode.


Maybe.


----------



## rontalley

I can't get into music with DSU but I really like the 9 channel DSP setting of the Yamaha 3050. DSU is for media that was intended for surround so music which is intended for stereo playback just doesn't sound right to me. But, it might just be the way my fronts are positioned...because of my space. They are more or less 42 degrees which is outside of the specifications for a proper setup but movies still sound good with them being that far apart.

Anyway, for music, I have another dedicated setup which sounds freaking awesome!


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> That sounds like a fair validation...but is it truly good enough...or could it be much better. ...Like by offering few very useful settings...a la ProLogicIIx Music listening audio mode.


Well ... guess what ... it does 
There is a setting in DSU called center spread.
Center spread OFF (default) = PL IIx Cinema = most signal collapsed on the center, Left & Right (L&R) only used for stereo effects, as well as surrounds and tops.
Center spread ON = PL IIx Music = does not touch the L&R signals, only adds mono signal into center and stereo effects into surrounds and tops.

So, for music, center spread ON allows to keep the music untouched on L&R while enhancing stereo with other speakers, it is the mode that i use all the time. Some friends didn't know of this setting (well hidden in the menu), now that they know it they turn it on too 
On the Marantz 7009, while playing 2.0 signal, you got to press "Setup", go into the "Audio" settings, and then you can turn it on.


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> Well ... guess what ... it does
> *There is a setting in DSU called center spread.
> Center spread OFF (default) = PL IIx Cinema = most signal collapsed on the center, Left & Right (L&R) only used for stereo effects, as well as surrounds and tops.
> Center spread ON = PL IIx Music = does not touch the L&R signals, only adds mono signal into center and stereo effects into surrounds and tops.
> 
> So, for music, center spread ON allows to keep the music untouched on L&R while enhancing stereo with other speakers, it is the mode that i use all the time. Some friends didn't know of this setting (well hidden in the menu), now that they know it they turn it on too
> On the Marantz 7009, while playing 2.0 signal, you got to press "Setup", go into the "Audio" settings, and then you can turn it on.*


Excellent that you remind us all of that...because most people don't know about that little hidden feature of DSU. 
People who love listening to multichannel Music should engage it...turn it ON. 
...And back to OFF with Movies watching. 

* What I find real cool from Yamaha...is that they decided to retain Dolby Pro LogicIIx. ...That would have been nice too from Denon/Marantz. 
Who knows...perhaps in a future generation...

But thx...people should explore with that feature you just mentioned..._Center Spread._


----------



## DAK4

pasender91 said:


> Well ... guess what ... it does
> There is a setting in DSU called center spread.
> Center spread OFF (default) = PL IIx Cinema = most signal collapsed on the center, Left & Right (L&R) only used for stereo effects, as well as surrounds and tops.
> Center spread ON = PL IIx Music = does not touch the L&R signals, only adds mono signal into center and stereo effects into surrounds and tops.
> 
> So, for music, center spread ON allows to keep the music untouched on L&R while enhancing stereo with other speakers, it is the mode that i use all the time. Some friends didn't know of this setting (well hidden in the menu), now that they know it they turn it on too
> On the Marantz 7009, while playing 2.0 signal, you got to press "Setup", go into the "Audio" settings, and then you can turn it on.


Cool. I learn something new everyday. I'll have to go check that out. Thanks.


----------



## Gates

So I didn't wait for advice since people are arguing lol...almost done and these are a lot bigger than I thought...will be painting the covers black this weekend...





Flash brought out a whole bunch of specs that aren't actually there....


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17615


Thanks for finding this! Just bought the article and am reading it now. Pretty interesting stuff, and answers some of my questions about how it is deriving the height channel info. Had no clue that a x.1.4 setup can actually have ambient sound from the mains in the top front/front height and distinctly have ambient sound from the surrounds in the top mid/top rear! I had assumed that they were handling the 4 heights in stereo pairs for that! Now that I see how they're basically applying their 2-channel algorithm to varying speaker pairs and summing the results, it makes a lot more sense why DSU sounds the way it does (and possibly why it seems to aid directionality of ambient sounds, if I'm reading it correctly).

This is definitely a different approach than DPL-IIz/x. Or at least a novel evolution. Thanks! It actually kinda' helps me understand how they're using spatial encoding with the Atmos objects as well.


----------



## NorthSky

Cool *^* ...the post above the one above.


----------



## Gates

NorthSky said:


> Cool *^* ...the post above the one above.


Thanks Bob!


----------



## NorthSky

Gates said:


> Thanks Bob!


Your pics just look cool man, and you said it right too; _not waiting for advice or arguing just went straight ahead...above._


----------



## Gates

NorthSky said:


> Your pics just look cool man, and you said it right too; _not waiting for advice or arguing just went straight ahead...above._


It's because earlier in the day I asked for advice but no one answered, so I made up my own mind lol. Now as soon as my Anthem PVA-4 can get here, I'll rock the house! My dealer was nice enough to give me one of these...


----------



## FilmMixer

Vudu is now streaming Atmos titles...

http://www.watchvudu.com/uhd/

Only catch is, at this point, the only streaming box supporting it is the Roku 4k.. 

Need to go set mine up, and will confirm titles ASAP


----------



## FilmMixer

Vudu is now streaming Atmos titles...

http://www.watchvudu.com/uhd/

Only catch is, at this point, the only streaming box supporting it is the Roku 4k.. 

Need to go set mine up, and will confirm titles ASAP


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Gates said:


> It's because earlier in the day I asked for advice but no one answered, so I made up my own mind lol. Now as soon as my Anthem PVA-4 can get here, I'll rock the house! My dealer was nice enough to give me one of these...


If it's not the CEDIA 2015 booth demo disc, then it wasn't really kindness per se. The disc you probably received (like all of us regular Joe's at CEDIA this year) is really, really skimpy and here I thought the 2014 disc Dolby was handing out to their booth goers (like after the AVS meet) was anorexic compared to what the _manufacturers_ were using as demo discs.

It used to be that a demo disc given to customers and potential customers rocked it with a bunch of great movie and music clips... not any more. Nope. F--kin' Hollywood lawyers made even showing you a little clip a damn copyright nightmare.

Luckily, the kind people at Auro were good enough to send me one of their demo discs and it has a lot more content. Too bad I'm not going to shell out $200 extra for the Auro3D license just to play the demo disc and one 2L Pure Audio Blu-ray disc I imported a while back, especially if they actually do release AuroMAX with IOSONO object enhancement to consumers. That would be $200 down the toilet since Auro3D, in its present form, is obsolete.

I know we've all taken pot shots of one kind or another because they probably don't have a chance in Hades to compete with Dolby and DTS, but their product really isn't garbage, as I can attest from the really good demos I heard last week.


----------



## batpig

Way to piss on the guy's Cheerios, Dan...


----------



## NorthSky

Gates said:


> It's because earlier in the day I asked for advice but no one answered, so I made up my own mind lol. Now as soon as my Anthem PVA-4 can get here, I'll rock the house! My dealer was nice enough to give me one of these...


I missed your post earlier in the day because I was @ that other site, ...but you can be sure that if I would have read you and if I could have helped you I would...and even if I don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver (pre/pro) yet.

Looks like you managed pretty well on your own.


----------



## ultraflexed

launche said:


> In a few interviews with sound mixers I recall many saying they are selecting certain scenes to make the best use of new Atmos related capabilities. So I think that's it, they are simply picking certain scenes for which to focus on, panning, fly-overs and other overhead sound effects etc... I just don't think they are yet at a point through experience, time management etc...that they are going through the whole movie frame by frame or scene by scene to maximize the use of Atmos rendering.
> 
> The mixes will get better and more consistent in time as seems to already be occurring.
> 
> Interestingly, DSU seems to have it's particular algorithm or what have you and applies pseudo-Atmos rendering much more liberally. So it would be interesting if someone could compare the JW or any other movie's Blu-ray Atmos disc with the DVD 5.1 disc using DSU and see what the differences are.


Well funny you asked, I ordered the vudu version week better the atmos version blue-ray was released...I have the atmos blue-ray version as well as the vudu version that streams digital dolby and DSU soundtrack KILLS the atmos as far as height speaker use.


----------



## himey

bargervais said:


> I Think your talking about the flies buzzing around your ear in Unbroken when they were cleaning the latrine.


 
Thanks. Made it much easier to find with the search. Not sure what to make of it however...discussion started somewhere around *post #26196* of 31649.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Discuss/argue all you want. That's the very purpose of forums. The main thing I took issue with was the claim that Atmos is a one person experience. It isn't, any more that every other format.
> 
> Philosophically, I tilt more in your direction (willing to give up a little in the sweet spot for significant improvements in other seats) than with those that tune their entire system/room for a single seat. But that's just my preference, not something I argue that everybody ought to do.


Well, that's where we disagree... as I rank the system after the possibility to use the systems "my way"... and in that aspect Atmos is less managable than Auro would be - or that previous 5.1/6.1/7.1 have been. Logically also Atmos has the odd inverse function towards having the similar experience in multiple seats - the more speakers you add, the less possible it is to do. 6.1.2 might be the best choice for that. While for a single seat - the more the merrier.

Well, someone has to be the champion for the guests and other family members....


----------



## Gates

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's not the CEDIA 2015 booth demo disc, then it wasn't really kindness per se. The disc you probably received (like all of us regular Joe's at CEDIA this year) is really, really skimpy and here I thought the 2014 disc Dolby was handing out to their booth goers (like after the AVS meet) was anorexic compared to what the _manufacturers_ were using as demo discs.
> 
> It used to be that a demo disc given to customers and potential customers rocked it with a bunch of great movie and music clips... not any more. Nope. F--kin' Hollywood lawyers made even showing you a little clip a damn copyright nightmare.
> 
> Luckily, the kind people at Auro were good enough to send me one of their demo discs and it has a lot more content. Too bad I'm not going to shell out $200 extra for the Auro3D license just to play the demo disc and one 2L Pure Audio Blu-ray disc I imported a while back, especially if they actually do release AuroMAX with IOSONO object enhancement to consumers. That would be $200 down the toilet since Auro3D, in its present form, is obsolete.
> 
> I know we've all taken pot shots of one kind or another because they probably don't have a chance in Hades to compete with Dolby and DTS, but their product really isn't garbage, as I can attest from the really good demos I heard last week.





batpig said:


> Way to piss on the guy's Cheerios, Dan...



LOL it's all good. I've read even on these very forums that this disc is in demand, not that that matters to me. All that matters is that I have something to demo to people without having to pop in a full movie and skip through it. Apparently he's getting the new CEDIA disc as well and will give me a copy, but from what I read, it seems like some of the only differences is the test tones ? I'm not too fussed about those so they aren't important to me. 



NorthSky said:


> I missed your post earlier in the day because I was @ that other site, ...but you can be sure that if I would have read you and if I could have helped you I would...and even if I don't have a Dolby Atmos receiver (pre/pro) yet.
> 
> Looks like you managed pretty well on your own.


Thanks again Bob! I'm certain you would of helped.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Nightlord said:


> Well, that's where we disagree... as I rank the system after the possibility to use the systems "my way"... and in that aspect Atmos is less managable than Auro would be - or that previous 5.1/6.1/7.1 have been. Logically also Atmos has the odd inverse function towards having the similar experience in multiple seats - the more speakers you add, the less possible it is to do. 6.1.2 might be the best choice for that. While for a single seat - the more the merrier.
> 
> Well, someone has to be the champion for the guests and other family members....


Maybe I am misunderstanding something here...if I am following correctly (entirely possible I am not...) Nightlord feels that eveyone in the home theater should have the same audio experience, the same as the MLP. If I have misunderstood, then disregard eveything else that follows.

IF on the other thing that is what he is esposusing, I could not disagree more. If everyone in the home theater is experiencing the same audio experience, then something is wrong. Similar, yes; same, no.

Forget movies--consider if you were in a jazz nightclub, an acoustic performance...and a 3 piece group was playing on stage; from the audience's perspective a piano on the left; drums center; and a standup bass on the right. You are sitting at the left side of the house and I am sitting on the right side of the house.

Do we hear the same show? Sure! Do we enjoy the show (assuming that you like jazz...)? Sure! Did we hear the exact same thing? No--what we each hear is dictated by the acoustics of the instruments, the acoustics of the space, and myraid other factors--physics does not cease to function because we want it to.

So, why would you expect one person sitting on one side of your theater to hear exactly what the person in the MLP and the other side of the teater would hear?
That is simply not realistic...

As I said at the beginning, if I have misunderstood this somewhere, then none of my argument applies...


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Well, that's where we disagree... as I rank the system after the possibility to use the systems "my way"... and in that aspect Atmos is less managable than Auro would be - or that previous 5.1/6.1/7.1 have been.


That doesn't make sense, since Atmos can do anything Auro can (e.g., use static objects to mimic channels), but Auro can't do the reverse (sprout objects when needed). Lack of this option doesn't make Auro more manageable than Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

I really feel like most of this discussion on immersive has been a moot point lately. I understand the goal here is for open discussion and debate.
But this really boils down to one fact of reality in theaters. 

I went and saw Bridge of Spies yesterday at a dine in AMC theater. I'm not sure what the format was, but if I had to guess I'd say DD+ maybe even only 5.1. Movie is all dialogue, no real action and surround is more or less absent with the storyline.

Did I sit in the front row? The back row? Off to the right or left aisle? Nope, I chose to sit as close to center as possible, but why? The movie really doesn't have anything to offer in regards to surround experience other than subtle ambience. The fact of the matter is that in any theater, regardless of the Dolby format, visual and auditory experience is the best in that center location. Why would we expect our HT to be any different? As a matter of fact, in the smaller venue, most would expect it to be more prone to hot spotting and off-axis seating. That's the equivalent of sitting in the worst location in a large commercial theater just scaled down to room size. 

To suggest that Dolby Atmos is more prone to this vs any other immersive format is insane. Does Atmos include more speakers and maybe emphasize this more than previous surround formats? Well sure, but no different than Auro or X. I'm going to experience sub-par audio whether 5.1, 7.1, or Atmos or Auro vs what the studio intended when sitting off center. But the immersive experience is still far greater than previous surround formats. It really comes down to this. Would you rather sit in the MLP and watch a movie in 2.1 or even 5.1? Or would you rather sit off MLP and listen to 7.2.4? Which is the most enjoyable experience? I know which one I would choose.


Footnote....my prediction: Auro is never going to gain any traction in the BD market. I won't spend the $199 for the upgrade.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Had no clue that a x.1.4 setup can actually have ambient sound from the mains in the top front/front height and distinctly have ambient sound from the surrounds in the top mid/top rear!


Yes, even with fuzzy ambient sounds in the heights, there can be some sense of directionality/movement by having different sounds in front of you, above you, behind you. Keeps DSU from giving the impression of a mono-ish blob/cloud overhead. 

The extraction method is different from PLIIz. Rather than look for out of phase (decorrelated) content, DSU looks for directional sounds. Once it slices the "direct" sound out of the original channel, whatever is left over is considered "diffuse" sound (and steered to the heights). 

In the blurb I quoted, they mention the user being able to adjust the ratio of direct to diffuse sound but I haven't seen that implemented on any consumer gear so far.


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> That doesn't make sense, since Atmos can do anything Auro can (e.g., use static objects to mimic channels), but Auro can't do the reverse (sprout objects when needed). Lack of this option doesn't make Auro more manageable than Atmos.



Is there a good example of Atmos using static objects to mimic channels? I'd like to hear the effect.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Way to piss on the guy's Cheerios, Dan...


I'm only tamping down his expectations.  

I too was very disappointed in the 2015 disc we got vs. the awesome demo disc all the booths received. Like night and day different.


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> Is there a good example of Atmos using static objects to mimic channels? I'd like to hear the effect.


The only person who would know that (what was encoded as an object vs what was encoded as a channel) is the mixer himself. The "effect" sounds no different than those sounds in a channel.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Yes, even with fuzzy ambient sounds in the heights, there can be some sense of directionality/movement by having different sounds in front of you, above you, behind you. Keeps DSU from giving the impression of a mono-ish blob/cloud overhead.
> 
> The extraction method is different from PLIIz. Rather than look for out of phase (decorrelated) content, DSU looks for directional sounds. Once it slices the "direct" sound out of the original channel, whatever is left over is considered "diffuse" sound (and steered to the heights).
> 
> In the blurb I quoted, they mention the user being able to adjust the ratio of direct to diffuse sound but I haven't seen that implemented on any consumer gear so far.


I've wondered why of all the material I've tried, video games in 7.1 don't seem to use DSU as much as movies/TV do. The way DSU extracts the diffuse sound actually explains some of that, since audio engines for games tend to use direct sound more than anything diffuse across multiple channels. There are rare occasions where it helps (like the weather sounds in Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition), but for the most part, games don't seem to get much help from DSU. Totally makes sense given this paper.

I do wish we had the control over the amount of diffuse sound that they mention. Seems like that would go a long way toward fixing some people's complaints with using it for music (though I quite like it for music).


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> The only person who would know that (what was encoded as an object vs what was encoded as a channel) is the mixer himself. The "effect" sounds no different than those sounds in a channel.



I guess I don't understand. What I've heard so far in limited listening, objects sound like objects, discrete and precise snippets of sound. 

I've seen it stated many times that Atmos objects can be encoded as a channel. When I hear that, I think of an object that sounds like a channel, with more ambient, broader, and maybe more diffuse sounds. Are there examples of that, or am I misunderstanding the terminology?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpco said:


> Is there a good example of Atmos using static objects to mimic channels? I'd like to hear the effect.


Some of the music demo material used around CEDIA had classical audiophile 24/96 tracks that don't normally have panned objects ping ponging about like a studio pop mix. The only way to lock in the live mic'd hall ambiances without them becoming an incoherent mess would be to use static objects. That would apply to DTS: X as well as Dolby Atmos. Standard Auro3D only has channels anyway.

By the way, music of any genre sounded fantastic with immersive mixing!!


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> What I've heard so far in limited listening, objects sound like objects, discrete and precise snippets of sound.


What does an object sound like? If you hear a discrete and price sound between your L/R speakers, did you just hear an object or did you hear a sound mixed equally in the L/R channels?


----------



## jpco

Dan Hitchman said:


> Some of the music demo material used around CEDIA had classical audiophile 24/96 tracks that don't normally have panned objects ping ponging about like a studio pop mix. The only way to lock in the live mic'd hall ambiances without them becoming an incoherent mess would be to use static objects. That would apply to DTS: X as well as Dolby Atmos. Standard Auro3D only has channels anyway.
> 
> By the way, music of any genre sounded fantastic with immersive mixing!!



Cool. This interests me quite a bit. Were these encoded in Atmos or DTS:X? Could you tell if they were on track for release at some point?


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> What does an object sound like? If you hear a discrete and price sound between your L/R speakers, did you just hear an object or did you hear a sound mixed equally in the L/R channels?



Let me try to ask another way. When discussing an object-based system vs. a channel-based system, a standard reply is that an object can be encoded as a static channel but a channel-based system cannot produce an object. 

Specifically, in a 7.1.4 Atmos mix, is there an example of unpacked objects that are rendered statically for a scene/section of content as one or all of the .4 channels in the height layer? Or am I misunderstanding why it's a benefit that an object can be a channel?

It seems that Dan heard some music encoded that way at CEDIA, but I'm not sure if it was object-based in that demo.


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> Specifically, in a 7.1.4 Atmos mix, is there an example of unpacked objects that are rendered statically for a scene/section of content as one or all of the .4 channels in the height layer?


Like I said, the only person that would know whether a particular sound was mixed as an object or put into channels would be the mixer.


> Or am I misunderstanding why it's a benefit that an object can be a channel?


An object is simply a sound that is given a x,y,z location in 3D space rather than being mixed into one or more channels. It doesn't have to be small or precise or moving; it can be stationary, large and diffuse/ambient. The advantage is that it can be rendered to the intended location during playback rather than just be routed to a speaker the way channels are.


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> Like I said, the only person that would know whether a particular sound was mixed as an object or put into channels would be the mixer. An object is simply a sound that is given a x,y,z location in 3D space rather than being mixed into one or more channels. It doesn't have to be small or precise or moving; it can be stationary, large and diffuse/ambient. The advantage is that it can be rendered to the intended location during playback rather than just be routed to a speaker the way channels are.



That makes more sense now. So when an object is mimicking a channel, it won't become a one-to-one channel output. It will be rendered in space using available speakers and can contain all that a channel possibly could. Is that correct?


----------



## Mr. Integration

My understand of this whole debate is that "object based" has been around for a long time. This has just been expanded into an additional channel. Since Dolby is not using discrete channels it seems disingenuous to call it .4 it really should be 7.1.1 plus how ever many speakers you have added. 

In regards to the question a new Auro object based system I have it on good authority this will be add on to the existing Auro systems. The height channels are far more impressive than the top layer be it VOG or Atmos. I will say that for sure Dolby is the 800 lb gorilla and will most likely win the consumer battle. That has been done by them many times with inferior technology. Auro will probably always be a niche product for people who have little or no restrictions on speaker placement. I cannot see how an argument of objects are better than discrete channels can be made; but I am open to listen.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpco said:


> Cool. This interests me quite a bit. Were these encoded in Atmos or DTS:X? Could you tell if they were on track for release at some point?


Some material was Atmos encoded, some DTS: X, some in Auro3D. 

One of the Harmonia Mundi Pure Audio Blu-ray's that will be getting released in October had an Atmos encoding. Part of one track was playing at CEDIA and was stellar. The use of overheads for added hall immersion really expanded the performance beyond anything I had heard before from 5.1 surround classical mixes.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B015S22PAW?keywords=king%27s%20college&qid=1445619319&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

There are a few 2L label Pure Audio Blu-ray's available from Norway with Auro3D channel-based immersive tracks and they sounded great in the Auro booth.

I'm not sure if the bulk of the music videos and music tracks used as booth demos to showcase Dolby, DTS's, and Auro's technologies were specifically recorded just to play around with immersive mixing techniques for purely demonstrational purposes or if they will be apart of actual album releases. No one seemed to know for certain.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpco said:


> That makes more sense now. So when an object is mimicking a channel, it won't become a one-to-one channel output. It will be rendered in space using available speakers and can contain all that a channel possibly could. Is that correct?


An object can be one singular sound, or in the case of a static object, multiple sounds can emanate from it as well if need be as it would mimic a 3D channel placed somewhere along the x/y/z axis with metadata instructions for the renderer. One speaker can be "snapped-to" if you happen to have a physical speaker placed in the room that corresponds to the location given by the metadata, or multiple speakers can play that audio. It depends on the engineers' choices.


----------



## KingMota1

DAK4 said:


> I wasn't sure at first either but I'm actually really starting to dig DSU with music (when I have time to sit and listen to some). It really creates a unique environment, not like a hall or concert venue but something open and airy with intelligently chosen pieces of sounds from the music coming from different places in the room. It's actually really fun. It's most noticeable on Electronic type music but Symphony type music works too. Of course a couple of beers also help the experience. /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


I know purists may not like this, but I listen to a lot of multichannel music using Vevo on my Yamaha 2040 and I prefer DSU over any other option including all the Yamaha DSP's. The bass is strong and I like having the main vocals coming from the center channel. I do have a nice Paradigm Pretige 55C center speaker so I might have a different opinion if I had great L/R towers and a weak center. I'm not sure how much music is routed to my overheads in my 5.1.4 but it sounds the best to my ears. DSU is not good for 2 channel music in my experience and I have preferred the 9 channel stereo for that.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mr. Integration said:


> My understand of this whole debate is that "object based" has been around for a long time. This has just been expanded into an additional channel. Since Dolby is not using discrete channels it seems disingenuous to call it .4 it really should be 7.1.1 plus how ever many speakers you have added.


That's not how Dolby Atmos nor DTS: X work... nor even AuroMAX. There are multiple objects that can be rendered to multiple speakers. Atmos and X for the home have a 7.1 channel bed and objects that can be rendered to 34 and 32 speaker locations.

We don't know if and when AuroMAX will show up and exactly what capabilities it will have for home use.


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> So when an object is mimicking a channel, it won't become a one-to-one channel output. It will be rendered in space using available speakers and can contain all that a channel possibly could. Is that correct?


If the object is assigned a location where there is a speaker, then it could be a one-to-one output (that object will play from that speaker, just like its respective channel would). However, if the object is given a location where there is no speaker, then the renderer will grab nearby speakers to create a phantom image at the intended location. Either way, you hear the sound where it was intended to image.


----------



## Mr. Integration

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's not how Dolby Atmos nor DTS: X work... nor even AuroMAX. There are multiple objects that can be rendered to multiple speakers. Atmos and X for the home have a 7.1 channel bed and objects that can be rendered to 34 and 32 speaker locations.
> 
> We don't know if and when AuroMAX will show up and exactly what capabilities it will have for home use.


Yes but the object or objects will be sent all of the speakers correct? If they are independently controlled than it would be channel based. 

I have seen in great detail how Auro works. They add a second and/or third layer to the mix. When they show a plane flyover with the top layer removed it is still really good. When they leave the top and lose the height layer the difference is dramatic. Auro has much more restrictive "rules" of how speakers must be placed. This is a double edge sword as it insures that the experience will always be good but it limits the deployment.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mr. Integration said:


> Yes but the object or objects will be sent all of the speakers correct? If they are independently controlled than it would be channel based.
> 
> I have seen in great detail how Auro works. They add a second and/or third layer to the mix. When they show a plane flyover with the top layer removed it is still really good. When they leave the top and lose the height layer the difference is dramatic. Auro has much more restrictive "rules" of how speakers must be placed. This is a double edge sword as it insures that the experience will always be good but it limits the deployment.


AuroMAX is different than Auro3D due to the addition of IOSONO encoded objects along with a channel bed. 

The objects can be panned wherever the mixer deems it appropriate within a given set of x/y/z panning coordinates. One speaker or multiple speakers can reproduce a specific object depending on the metadata included. They can be panned or placed as static sounds within a room. There could be only one object along with the bed at any one time in a scene or multiple objects along with the bed channels.

A designation of 7.1.4, for instance, only explains the capabilities of a particular renderer in a particular piece of A/V hardware, not the limitation of the immersive soundtrack itself. Again, Atmos can render to 34 places, DTS: X to supposedly 32. AuroMAX with IOSONO is still a bit fuzzy until Auro can explain the home version in greater detail. Auro tends to be a moving target as they chase manufacturers and Hollywood studios for their approval.


----------



## Mr. Integration

Dan Hitchman said:


> AuroMAX is different than Auro3D due to the addition of IOSONO encoded objects along with a channel bed.
> 
> The objects can be panned wherever the mixer deems it appropriate within a given set of x/y/z panning coordinates. One speaker or multiple speakers can reproduce a specific object depending on the metadata included. They can be panned or placed as static sounds within a room. There could be only one object along with the bed at any one time in a scene or multiple objects along with the bed channels.
> 
> A designation of 7.1.4, for instance, only explains the capabilities of a particular renderer in a particular piece of A/V hardware, not the limitation of the immersive soundtrack itself. Again, Atmos can render to 34 places, DTS: X to supposedly 32. AuroMAX with IOSONO is still a bit fuzzy until Auro can explain the home version in greater detail. Auro tends to be a moving target as they chase manufacturers and Hollywood studios for their approval.


So how will DTSX differ from Atmos and will we have still yet a third option for software manufactures to consider?


----------



## DAK4

KingMota1 said:


> I know purists may not like this, but I listen to a lot of multichannel music using Veevo on my Yamaha 2040 and I prefer DSU over any other option including all the Yamaha DSP's. The bass is strong and I like having the main vocals coming from the center channel. I do have a nice Paradigm Pretige 55C center speaker so I might have a different opinion if I had great L/R towers and a weak center. I'm not sure how much music is routed to my overheads in my 5.1.4 but it sounds the best to my ears. DSU is not good for 2 channel music in my experience and I have preferred the 9 channel stereo for that.


That's cool. I was actually talking about 2 channel music myself. I don't have any multi-channel music (that know of) to test out, but I will have to try that someday. I'm surprised you use All Channel Stereo for 2 ch music if you're just sitting listening to the music, that doesn't really give you a front stage type of feel with all the sound coming out of all the speakers equally. I do use All Channel Stereo as ambiance sound throughout the day as I'm just walking around or if People are over hanging out chit-chatting.


----------



## sdurani

Mr. Integration said:


> My understand of this whole debate is that "object based" has been around for a long time.


About 3 years, starting in 2012, with the release of the Pixar movie _'Brave'_.


----------



## asarose247

.02

the current Honda (?), car commercial has an intro that in DSU mode is a dazzling dynamic dome of sound, not quite a dolby demo of movement but there are hints of it.

love this stuff . . .


----------



## Mr. Integration

Technically speaking object based began with stereo instead of mono. The engineers could place instruments in either speaker or both.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mr. Integration said:


> So how will DTSX differ from Atmos and will we have still yet a third option for software manufactures to consider?


DTS states that their DTS:X object format can have whatever layout the studio and/or mixers and theater chain owners wish to use. A little disingenuous since that would lead to unending frustration between how the mixers chose to create their immersive soundtrack in a particular speaker layout vs. the layout at any particular auditorium. I would suspect that DTS has a recommended layout that they adhere to when assisting theater owners or studios in installing DTS: X specific sound systems and/or dubbing stages. 

Now, for the home it gets even trickier. Most consumer products have a very limited amount of choices and limited amount of speaker outputs to pick from. It may be that when DTS: X rendering finally drops for the home in 2016 there may only be two rendering choices for most consumers: Use the traditionally prescribed Atmos speaker configuration or use height speakers up on the wall in a yet to be determined position. 

At CEDIA, Denon/Marantz_ did not_ know for sure what DTS has in mind and will know more when DTS: X coding for the home is completed. We do know that it will have to stay within the 11.1 limitations of current hardware. They will have at least a PDF instruction manual addendum to their DTS: X capable gear once the firmware is ready for each model. They stated DTS has dropped a number of code revisions to various manufacturers within the last few months. It's leading to confusion and some sleepless nights for their engineers.

Again, I'm leaving high-end processors like the Trinnov Altitude or Acurus or Steinway out of the discussion. Most people cannot afford something that fancy.


----------



## sdurani

Mr. Integration said:


> Technically speaking object based began with stereo instead of mono. The engineers could place instruments in either speaker or both.


Those were channels, not objects. Each sound was being mixed into one or both channels, not assigned a x,y,z coordinate in 3D space. During playback, each channel went to its respective speaker, there was no rendering to locations in the listening room.


----------



## SoundChex

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's not how Dolby Atmos nor DTS: X work... nor even AuroMAX. There are multiple objects that can be rendered to multiple speakers. Atmos and X for the home have a 7.1 channel bed and objects that can be rendered to 34 and 32 speaker locations. We don't know if and when AuroMAX will show up and exactly what capabilities it will have for home use.




If we 'move beyond *BD*' to include upcoming *broadcast|streaming|mobile* audio codecs, an *MPEG-H Audio* soundtrack can contain a combination of *channel-based*, *object-based* and *scene-based* content, the latter component encoded as *Higher-Order Ambisonics* (*HOA*) (*link*).












Edit: Post updated to include "intriguing" HOA image!?  


_


----------



## drmancini

*New B&W CCM Cinema 7 speakers*

I recently stumbled on the CCM Cinema 7 speakers from B&W. The website claims that they are designed to replace front (left/right) and centre speakers, where typical speaker layout is not possible.

So my question is if having these three beauties in the front, four more (or something else in the ceiling) as surround, and then two in ceiling speakers as "top" channels could create an entirely in-ceiling Atmos setup that actually works...

I know this probably sounds insane, but I'd like your opinions as these speakers are quite new and I haven't found a single review online.

Thanks


----------



## blazar

San andreas is a fun action movie but the atmos effect was not that great overall. There are numerous instances where you feel like there should be a LOT more sound but there is isn't.

What a wasted opportunity...

They are stuck in the building post-tsunami and there is water literally everywhere and dripping from everything. Almost no water effects were heard.

The helicopter scenes just didnt feel visceral and immersive enough.

Mad max is still the most impressive along with gravity (too boring to watch repeatedly).

We need interstellar on atmos...


----------



## wse

Has any one used this?

http://www.artnovion.com/impulso-app


----------



## Stoked21

drmancini said:


> I recently stumbled on the CCM Cinema 7 speakers from B&W. The website claims that they are designed to replace front (left/right) and centre speakers, where typical speaker layout is not possible.
> 
> So my question is if having these three beauties in the front, four more (or something else in the ceiling) as surround, and then two in ceiling speakers as "top" channels could create an entirely in-ceiling Atmos setup that actually works...
> 
> I know this probably sounds insane, but I'd like your opinions as these speakers are quite new and I haven't found a single review online.
> 
> Thanks


There was a review on AVS of an all in-ceiling Atmos installation using Golden Ear (link below). I would NEVER choose to do it, as I have floor space to bring my speakers down to the appropriate specs (i.e. ear level). I'm a firm believer in keeping the separation of base and height layer. As more speakers are added in time, an all in-ceiling installation will become more and more degraded and add complexity to installation. 

Disclaimer: I've never heard an all IC installation or a high-end, properly tuned "Atmos Enabled" setup. In my mind, I just know they would be significantly inferior to a discrete, well laid-out config. I would view them as being just a few steps away from using an Atmos soundbar. Sound would be cool for entry level but the reflections and SQ would just suffer vs a true Atmos dedicated install.

http://www.avsforum.com/goldenear-ultimate-invisa-lifestyle-atmos-system-experience/


----------



## Stoked21

wse said:


> Has any one used this?
> 
> http://www.artnovion.com/impulso-app


I haven't used it. But I did use to design some phones and other handheld audio devices and have worked on the audio input designs. I can tell you that the mics that are utilized (like everything else in the phone), is the cheapest lowest-cost one that fits the spec. The mics that are used are always narrow FR as they are just intended primarily for voice band. Typically you will see the FR are only 100hz to several K. Maybe 100-5000khz or 100-10khz depending on model. Obviously they suffer the most at the ends of the audio spectrum.

I just wouldn't see any use for an app to analyze audio when the device itself is not capable of covering full range.


----------



## cdelena

drmancini said:


> I recently stumbled on the CCM Cinema 7 speakers from B&W. The website claims that they are designed to replace front (left/right) and centre speakers, where typical speaker layout is not possible.
> 
> So my question is if having these three beauties in the front, four more (or something else in the ceiling) as surround, and then two in ceiling speakers as "top" channels could create an entirely in-ceiling Atmos setup that actually works...
> 
> I know this probably sounds insane, but I'd like your opinions as these speakers are quite new and I haven't found a single review online.
> 
> Thanks


I would guess you could do something like the GE demos... but I would hesitate to go that way if you have other options... Read this...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...ar-ceiling-dolby-atmos-demo-cedia-2015-a.html


----------



## drmancini

cdelena said:


> I would guess you could do something like the GE demos... but I would hesitate to go that way if you have other options... Read this...
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...ar-ceiling-dolby-atmos-demo-cedia-2015-a.html





Stoked21 said:


> There was a review on AVS of an all in-ceiling Atmos installation using Golden Ear (link below). I would NEVER choose to do it, as I have floor space to bring my speakers down to the appropriate specs (i.e. ear level). I'm a firm believer in keeping the separation of base and height layer. As more speakers are added in time, an all in-ceiling installation will become more and more degraded and add complexity to installation.
> 
> Disclaimer: I've never heard an all IC installation or a high-end, properly tuned "Atmos Enabled" setup. In my mind, I just know they would be significantly inferior to a discrete, well laid-out config. I would view them as being just a few steps away from using an Atmos soundbar. Sound would be cool for entry level but the reflections and SQ would just suffer vs a true Atmos dedicated install.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/goldenear-ultimate-invisa-lifestyle-atmos-system-experience/


OK, thaks for the inputs. I was originally counting on having the front three speakers at ear-level. My problem are the surround speakers as I have to use in-ceiling installations in the room that I have. So maybe the direction I'm going is to use a typical 3.1 setup for the front, four of these directional in-ceiling speakers as surrounds and something (two normal in-ceiling speakers) to complete the Atmos setup.

I'm currently torn between the abovementioned option or just a 7.1 setup with surround speakers in the ceiling.


----------



## Stoked21

drmancini said:


> OK, thaks for the inputs. I was originally counting on having the front three speakers at ear-level. My problem are the surround speakers as I have to use in-ceiling installations in the room that I have. So maybe the direction I'm going is to use a typical 3.1 setup for the front, four of these directional in-ceiling speakers as surrounds and something (two normal in-ceiling speakers) to complete the Atmos setup.
> 
> I'm currently torn between the abovementioned option or just a 7.1 setup with surround speakers in the ceiling.


Use in walls for your surround at ear level. Don't put surrounds up high near your atmos speakers. 
Either that or scrap atmos all together and go 7.1. I would get a great 7.1 system put in before a sub-par Atmos install. Not sure where your fundamental layout issues are, but that gives a few options. 

Everyone makes it sound like the surrounds are issues. I've not seen a room yet where they can't be on stands in the room. I'm begining to think people are just avoiding stands for surrounds to keep the wife happy in a multi-purpose room. Just unplug them and move them when not in use. Super quick and easy.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Brian Fineberg said:


> well...you didnt mention that...you said Hollywood has dropped 3d.
> 
> there still are 633 US blu-rays in 3d either released or scheduled to be released...if the movie was in 3d in the theater it almost is guaranteed to be released in bluray 3d
> 
> and lets be honest...physical media itself is drying up...so that is no indication of which direction Hollywood is going


Some seem to have very short term outlooks in regards to 3D trends... TFA just pretty much smashed the ticket sales records. You want to get an IMAX 3D ticket for Star Wars that first week? Good luck finding seats that don't suck. I guess my question to manufacturers is... do they not like making money? There's obviously a lot of interest in 3D out there. 

If the UHD spec will eventually accommodate 3D I think it will do well... especially if glasses free 3D is worked out/ holographic becomes a thing.


----------



## TVAddikt

Stoked21 said:


> Bill, I'm assuming your ceilings are higher than 8'? 9'+ in front of MLP seems far away, but that may be because you have taller ceilings. 40" is typical ear position from floor. So subtract that from your ceiling height to calculate angle. arctan (height/distance).
> 
> I know some wouldn't recommend going out to the far end of the spec of 30 degrees. I did specifically for 2 rows and had a professional dolby atmos installer in my HT recommend I do the same thing. All rooms are different so it depends on your room and listening preferences/habits. I will agree that running them out to 30 degrees or so does significantly weaken the field from them, but this can be corrected by using "aimable" speakers and/or increasing the db in your level settings. While putting them more forward-end of the spec does helps the 2 row cause, it does more or less compromise the MLP to get a better "all seat overall" sound.


So I am wondering a little about the speaker placement (since 31 degrees does not sound to be very optimal)

. I could possibly move the front height 12 inches toward the MLP. That places the speakers within 12 inches of being directly overhead of the first row.

1. Do you think that it would be worth/would matter to move the speakers 12inches toward the MLP.
2. I am using the following speakers to deal with the distance from the MLP R65AIM
3. I could move the speakers even closer but the speakers would then be wither directly overhead of the row 1 or behind.

Like I said my seating is different than most theaters due to it not being setup as a dedicated theater. So I am making due with what I got.

I look forward to your suggestions.
Bill


----------



## Molon_Labe

Well, I got my theater operational late this week and finally got to experience Atmos for the first time this evening. I was expecting a decent presentation, but was still a bit hesitant that it would be more hype than substance. After popping in the Atmos demo, I just sat there with the following expression.....



All I can say is WOW - Off the charts amazing!


----------



## KingMota1

DAK4 said:


> That's cool. I was actually talking about 2 channel music myself. I don't have any multi-channel music (that know of) to test out, but I will have to try that someday. I'm surprised you use All Channel Stereo for 2 ch music if you're just sitting listening to the music, that doesn't really give you a front stage type of feel with all the sound coming out of all the speakers equally. I do use All Channel Stereo as ambiance sound throughout the day as I'm just walking around or if People are over hanging out chit-chatting. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif



I should have clarified that I don't have much of a music collection and bought my system strictly for movies. Was only listening to music to test my speakers. I discovered music at age of 58 (amazingly) first on youtube but wanted multichannel and found Vevo. I now sit in the HT and discover and enjoy music 8 to 10 hours per week. Veevo is fun because once you listen to something you like it will can automatically play something of a similar genre and I have found many artists I like that I would never have chosen on my own. It is music videos so it tickles all the senses.


----------



## DAK4

KingMota1 said:


> I should have clarified that I don't have much of a music collection and bought my system strictly for movies. Was only listening to music to test my speakers. I discovered music at age of 58 (amazingly) first on youtube but wanted multichannel and found Veevo. I now sit in the HT and discover and enjoy music 8 to 10 hours per week. Veevo is fun because once you listen to something you like it will can automatically play something of a similar genre and I have found many artists I like that I would never have chosen on my own. It is music videos so it tickles all the senses.


Nice! I've never heard of Veevo (or if I had I forgot about it  ) I'm going to check that out. I just use Pandora for the most part.


----------



## KingMota1

DAK4 said:


> Nice! I've never heard of Veevo (or if I had I forgot about it  ) I'm going to check that out. I just use Pandora for the most part.


Sorry but it is spelled Vevo. I use my roku 3. Really best for recent music. Most songs from before 2012 doesn't have good multichannel sounds.


----------



## Kris Deering

Aras_Volodka said:


> Brian Fineberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> well...you didnt mention that...you said Hollywood has dropped 3d.
> 
> there still are 633 US blu-rays in 3d either released or scheduled to be released...if the movie was in 3d in the theater it almost is guaranteed to be released in bluray 3d
> 
> and lets be honest...physical media itself is drying up...so that is no indication of which direction Hollywood is going
> 
> 
> 
> Some seem to have very short term outlooks in regards to 3D trends... TFA just pretty much smashed the ticket sales records. You want to get an IMAX 3D ticket for Star Wars that first week? Good luck finding seats that don't suck. I guess my question to manufacturers is... do they not like making money? There's obviously a lot of interest in 3D out there.
> 
> If the UHD spec will eventually accommodate 3D I think it will do well... especially if glasses free 3D is worked out/ holographic becomes a thing.
Click to expand...

What does TFA's ticket sales have to do 3D? Consumers don't have a choice to see the movie in 2D IMAX, so it isn't s fair representation of demand. In Seattle the premiere theater is the Cinerama, which is a single screen premium theater. They decided not to even show it in 3D because the overwhelming trend for their mixed showings always results in overwhelming support and sales for 2D showings over the 3D ones. And this is a theater that charges the same regardless and uses a dual laser projector setup for 3D to ensure the same brightness in 3D as 2D. If IMAX did dual showings, how many would prefer 2D over 3D? I know I would. I also find it telling that the 3D IMAX theater in Seattle, which is recently upgraded to dual 4K laser projectors and the new IMAX audio system still had weekend tickets available yesterday but the Cinerama (which seats more) sold out for the weekend and first few days after that within the first day, despite being 2D only. Demand is hard to gauge when the only way to watch something in a premium theater is 3D because the consumer isn't given a choice.


----------



## makrelov

sdurani said:


> The industry is not going to go backwards and eschew that capability in order to give everyone in the audience the same perspective. Sales come from advancing the state of the art, which is what object-based mixing/rendering is doing. The goal has never been to give every listener in the room the same perspective. That's your goal, not the industry's. Instead, they will create a sonic environment; what you hear (your perspective) will be based on where you are seated. There's no pretense that all listeners will get the same perspective.


And that is how I also see the things. Not everyone in the movie room should hear the spatial sound/s, located at identical place comparing to sitting possition. 
For example - People who are sitting in the front rows should hear the sound above them at specific moment, but people who are sitting at the back rows should here that same sound above and in front of them (originating above the heads of front viewers). Right as it is supposed to be with Atmos. Object based, spatial placed sound - like in reality. That is the whole beauty of *Atmos* - everyone should hear the sound originating based on everyone's sitting possition - the guys in the corner would have to hear different placement of sounds than the guys in the middle of the room than the guys in the oposite corner.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It used to be that a demo disc given to customers and potential customers rocked it with a bunch of great movie and music clips... not any more. Nope. F--kin' Hollywood lawyers made even showing you a little clip a damn copyright nightmare.


If you mean that the 'Hollywood lawyers' are ensuring that people get paid for their creative efforts, then you are right. If you think that people getting paid for their work is a 'nightmare', then I am guessing you often say to your employer _"don't bother paying me this week, it's fine...."_.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mr. Integration said:


> My understand of this whole debate is that "object based" has been around for a long time. This has just been expanded into an additional channel. Since Dolby is not using discrete channels it seems disingenuous to call it .4 it really should be 7.1.1 plus how ever many speakers you have added.


If you rephrase that to say pretty much the exact opposite of what it currently says, you will be getting there.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mr. Integration said:


> Technically speaking object based began with stereo instead of mono. The engineers could place instruments in either speaker or both.


????? The old-time Stereo you reference uses channels not objects. Google 'object-based sound formats' and follow some of the links.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But I could also understand them making a conscious artistic decision not to use it in ways that would divert your attention away from where the desired focus is.


Indeed. But when the scene in question is a dramatic helicopter rescue of a young woman trapped inside a wrecked car hanging off the edge of a cliff, and the action is focusing on the young woman in the car as she screams in terror, and as her sole chance of salvation is the chopper which is hovering precariously above her, do you not think that the scene would be considerably more involving if the audience, too, heard that chopper right up above the young woman, just as she would in real life? How is that diverting attention away from where the desired focus is? It is surely enhancing the desired focus in a realistic, convincing and thrilling way, thus making involvement in the action greater not lesser? I think, whatever the rationalisation of how mixers use or don't use Atmos, this was a trick they missed. And it interests me as to how they could do that.


----------



## Mr. Integration

kbarnes701 said:


> If you rephrase that to say pretty much the exact opposite of what it currently says, you will be getting there.


Let me rephrase this way. As to my reading of the Atmos definition

" But if you’re later able to splurge and create a home theater with anywhere up to 24 ear-level speakers and 10 overheads"

This means you essentially have two layers. Ear level and overhead. I have not seen where the overheads are clearly defined as in 5.1 It is possible they are dumbing it down for the consumer but in refeence to being discrete information I see this from Dolby

"And you don’t have to place your speakers in rigidly defined positions. If your room is an unusual shape, you can put your speakers where they make sense. A Dolby Atmos system will figure out the optimal way to use them"

It would seem to me that this system is designed to maximize deployments at the expense of performance. If they had utilized channel based in addition to the object base the tightening of tolerances would have decreased the number of potential deployments but increased the over all performance of the system. 

We are in the process of finishing our demo room which will be both Atmos and Auro 3D I will be curious as to what happens with the blind comparisons.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Yes? That does not prevent me from discussing which of the systems is most appropriate to achieve my goal, and arguing that that goal ought to be everybody's.


You mean we should all adopt _your_ goals? Really? You have decided what _my_ goals should be, in _my_ theater? How extraordinary.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Intuitively, yes, I would expect some sound out of the overheads in a scene like that. I can only assume one of two things wrt this scene (which, in the interest of disclosure, I haven't, um, seen yet). First, the mixer tried lots of things and the most realistic-sounding solution ended up not involving overheads at all. Which I admit is hard to believe. Second, the mixer only tried one or two things and called it good enough, when it could have been better with further experimentation. Who knows really.
> 
> As you mentioned before, it would be interesting to [email protected] FilmMixer;'s take on whether our intuition is perhaps flawed (not in this specific example of course, but regarding mixing to give the illusion of sound overhead).


Yep. Sadly, on this occasion, Marc seems to be absent from the thread, or choosing not to comment.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mr. Integration said:


> Let me rephrase this way. As to my reading of the Atmos definition
> 
> " But if you’re later able to splurge and create a home theater with anywhere up to 24 ear-level speakers and 10 overheads"
> 
> This means you essentially have two layers. Ear level and overhead. I have not seen where the overheads are clearly defined as in 5.1 It is possible they are dumbing it down for the consumer but in refeence to being discrete information I see this from Dolby
> 
> "And you don’t have to place your speakers in rigidly defined positions. If your room is an unusual shape, you can put your speakers where they make sense. A Dolby Atmos system will figure out the optimal way to use them"
> 
> It would seem to me that this system is designed to maximize deployments at the expense of performance. If they had utilized channel based in addition to the object base the tightening of tolerances would have decreased the number of potential deployments but increased the over all performance of the system.
> 
> We are in the process of finishing our demo room which will be both Atmos and Auro 3D I will be curious as to what happens with the blind comparisons.


Sorry, and no disrespect intended, but the things you say reveal a lack of understanding of what object-based audio, and Atmos in particular, is. For example:

"If they had utilized channel based in addition to the object base the tightening of tolerances would have decreased the number of potential deployments but increased the over all performance of the system."

As I said earlier, google will produce many good results for the search 'object-based sound formats'.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. Sadly, on this occasion, Marc seems to be absent from the thread, or choosing not to comment.


No. I'm here. 

I'm not sure what I can say except unless you're on the stage when they make decisions, have discussions and try different options, it's hard to comment on why something is or isn't there. 

As I have stated before, for better or worse, Atmos in a cinema greatly benefits from objects by having speakers that extend almost to the screen, which doesn't really translate as well into a home system with only a 7.1 base layout. 

So hypothetically, when taking about San Andreas, the helicopter might have a really amazing spread into the room which wraps around the audience and nicely stays out of the way of similarly spread music. 

While going into the over heads might seem an obvious choice in a 7.1.4 setup, artistically how they did it for the cinema might not have been deemed appropriate or neccesary. 

I find one of the great benefits of home Atmos the increase in 7.1, and usually in an aggressive manner. While I certainly can understand the want of more wiz bang (or subtle) overhead usage, I don't find it diappointing when it isn't constantly present on a track. 

Just my .02.


----------



## Dave Vaughn

FilmMixer said:


> No. I'm here.
> 
> I'm not sure what I can say except unless you're on the stage when they make decisions, have discussions and try different options, it's hard to comment on why something is or isn't there.
> 
> As I have stated before, for better or worse, Atmos in a cinema greatly benefits from objects by having speakers that extend almost to the screen, which doesn't really translate as well into a home system with only a 7.1 base layout.
> 
> So hypothetically, when taking about San Andreas, the helicopter might have a really amazing spread into the room which wraps around the audience and nicely stays out of the way of similarly spread music.
> 
> While going into the over heads might seem an obvious choice in a 7.1.4 setup, artistically how they did it for the cinema might not have been deemed appropriate or neccesary.
> 
> I find one of the great benefits of home Atmos the increase in 7.1, and usually in an aggressive manner. While I certainly can understand the want of more wiz bang (or subtle) overhead usage, I don't find it diappointing when it isn't constantly present on a track.
> 
> Just my .02.


Well said Marc. I found San Andreas to be an outstanding mix and it gave the effect of the sound coming from above (whether it was or not, I didn't test by unplugging all of my speakers except for the overheads). This isn't how we're supposed to listen/watch the movie, so I don't do it. Granted, my surround speakers are mounted higher up than "spec" due to room constraints, but the movie definitely had the affect of putting me into the scene, which is all we can ask for.


----------



## Mr. Integration

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry, and no disrespect intended, but the things you say reveal a lack of understanding of what object-based audio, and Atmos in particular, is. For example:
> 
> "If they had utilized channel based in addition to the object base the tightening of tolerances would have decreased the number of potential deployments but increased the over all performance of the system."
> 
> As I said earlier, google will produce many good results for the search 'object-based sound formats'.


No offense taken. I have watched Dolby do this for the last 30 years. They are primarily a marketing company.They will most likely be the de facto standard as they were in noise reduction and the first generation of 5.1(AC3) while they had clearly inferior technology they had a far superior marketing machine.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> If you mean that the 'Hollywood lawyers' are ensuring that people get paid for their creative efforts, then you are right. If you think that people getting paid for their work is a 'nightmare', then I am guessing you often say to your employer _"don't bother paying me this week, it's fine...."_.


Things like this can go overboard, and it has. Big time. They're little snippets for demo purposes, not full segments or an entire movie. Just like copyright laws... they were never meant to be used in perpetuity, but they are abused terribly. 

Laws can start for good reasons and then get out of hand, especially when every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants a cut.


----------



## audiofan1

Dave Vaughn said:


> Well said Marc. I found San Andreas to be an outstanding mix and it gave the effect of the sound coming from above (whether it was or not, I didn't test by unplugging all of my speakers except for the overheads). This isn't how we're supposed to listen/watch the movie, so I don't do it. Granted, my surround speakers are mounted higher up than "spec" due to room constraints, but the movie definitely had the affect of putting me into the scene, which is all we can ask for.


Yep! I agree completely Dave & Marc, I found the San Andres mix superb in every way the pans and use of the entire platform was incredible with more than a few notable moments and the level of immersion was high. I have no qualms about placing up there with Maxx & Insurgent for an Atmos mix


----------



## sdurani

Mr. Integration said:


> I have not seen where the overheads are clearly defined as in 5.1


Except 5.1 isn't clearly defined, since the placement of the front speakers (±22-30°) and surrounds (±90-110°) is expressed in ranges, not clearly defined locations. Atmos continues this by expressing height speaker locations in ranges as well.


> If they had utilized channel based in addition to the object base the tightening of tolerances would have decreased the number of potential deployments but increased the over all performance of the system.


The inflexibility you just described is one of the main reasons the industry is moving from channel-only system to object-oriented rendering. BTW, Atmos (commercial and consumer) is "channel based in addition to the object base" (i.e., a hybrid system). Sounds can be mixed into channels (L/C/R, 2 sides, 2 rears, 2 tops, LFE) as well as given x,y,z coordinates in 3D space.


----------



## rmilyard

So question for all you running ATMOS at home. If had friends coming over for a movie what is the one movie you would play to them? They haven't heard anything in ATMOS before so be fun to see what they think.


----------



## Stoked21

rmilyard said:


> So question for all you running ATMOS at home. If had friends coming over for a movie what is the one movie you would play to them? They haven't heard anything in ATMOS before so be fun to see what they think.


Gravity. Without question.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> You mean we should all adopt _your_ goals? Really? You have decided what _my_ goals should be, in _my_ theater? How extraordinary.


Yes. No one else seems to care so someone will have to step up. :

People don't seem to mind if they are getting told by Dolby or Dts... Who have financial gains in it. I won't make a cent from my advices on the contrary...


----------



## blackjack616

What would be better in a room thats 14'x14'.... 5.1.2; 5.1.4; 7.1.2; thank you


----------



## Nightlord

blackjack616 said:


> What would be better in a room thats 14'x14'.... 5.1.2; 5.1.4; 7.1.2; thank you


Sorry for not answering your question, but....
Making the room 14'x13' would probably be more important than choosing the surround format.


----------



## rmilyard

Stoked21 said:


> Gravity. Without question.


So I have the 3D version. When play it my Denon shows as Audyssey DSX. Guessing a newer version out in ATMOS?


----------



## blackjack616

Nightlord said:


> Sorry for not answering your question, but....
> Making the room 14'x13' would probably be more important than choosing the surround format.


thats not going to happen... I currently have a 5.1 system.... its more of HT room / rec room: I have to work with the given space available.... its not a dedicated HT room; its a general basement setting 

the actual room is bigger.. but the distance between to the 2 rear speaker is right about 14'... the room is 14' but distance from the tv is more l like 12'
If its not going to improve much i'll stick with a 5.1 system which i currently have


----------



## Stoked21

rmilyard said:


> So I have the 3D version. When play it my Denon shows as Audyssey DSX. Guessing a newer version out in ATMOS?


I have 3D also. 

The atmos version is 2d and is the diamond luxe special edition. The zero g micro gravity aspect of the movie just really emphasizes the 360 plus immersive effect.


----------



## Stoked21

blackjack616 said:


> thats not going to happen... I currently have a 5.1 system.... its more of HT room / rec room: I have to work with the given space available.... its not a dedicated HT room; its a general basement setting
> 
> the actual room is bigger.. but the distance between to the 2 rear speaker is right about 14'... the room is 14' but distance from the tv is more l like 12'
> If its not going to improve much i'll stick with a 5.1 system which i currently have


Honestly I don't see the room size being much of a factor. 14sq is more than big enough for 7.1.4. My room is L shaped and I use one end of the L as the theater and the other portions are lounge and bar. That third of the level is approximately 16x16. What speaker config u use is really more a question of obstacles in room, on ceiling, etc. i.e. "Where can u place speakers. "


----------



## Kris Deering

rmilyard said:


> So question for all you running ATMOS at home. If had friends coming over for a movie what is the one movie you would play to them? They haven't heard anything in ATMOS before so be fun to see what they think.


Gravity is a good suggestion if you have the version with the Atmos track but for full bore Atmos I would go with Mad Max Fury Road.


----------



## Nightlord

blackjack616 said:


> thats not going to happen... I currently have a 5.1 system.... its more of HT room / rec room: I have to work with the given space available.... its not a dedicated HT room; its a general basement setting
> 
> the actual room is bigger.. but the distance between to the 2 rear speaker is right about 14'... the room is 14' but distance from the tv is more l like 12'
> If its not going to improve much i'll stick with a 5.1 system which i currently have


If the room IS of non-square size, then consider my post withdrawn.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> No. I'm here.


Hi Marc - thanks for responding here. 



FilmMixer said:


> I'm not sure what I can say except unless you're on the stage when they make decisions, have discussions and try different options, it's hard to comment on why something is or isn't there.
> 
> As I have stated before, for better or worse, Atmos in a cinema greatly benefits from objects by having speakers that extend almost to the screen, which doesn't really translate as well into a home system with only a 7.1 base layout.


I did wonder about the differences between seeing this movie in the cinema and at home. I haven’t seen it in the cinema so can't comment, but I take your general point. Equally, I am sure you also take the point of those members who feel disappointed sometimes that their overhead speakers can seem redundant, especially when a scene seems to cry out for their use.



FilmMixer said:


> So hypothetically, when taking about San Andreas, the helicopter might have a really amazing spread into the room which wraps around the audience and nicely stays out of the way of similarly spread music.


There is no doubt at all in my mind that this is one helluva soundtrack. One of the very best in my collection for sure. I'm not normally one who wants constant activity in my overhead speakers and I appreciate _all_ of the benefits which Atmos brings to our HTs - but in this particular instance it did seem to me to be an opportunity wasted. I would not expect you to comment publicly on the work of your industry colleagues, for obvious reasons of professionalism, so thanks for your general observations which are always welcome. It is really great to have the word from the "inside" and it does give us home enthusiasts a different perspective when things are explained from the POV of the mixer.



FilmMixer said:


> While going into the over heads might seem an obvious choice in a 7.1.4 setup, artistically how they did it for the cinema might not have been deemed appropriate or neccesary.


Yes, this is something which is perhaps not considered enough: that there is bound to be a difference between the artistic decisions made for a large commercial cinema and a home theater. For example, and correct me of course if I am on the wrong track here, it may have been inappropriate in a commercial theater with dozens of rows to place that helicopter right above the audience, whereas in a much smaller HT environment, this may work much better. With the on-screen visual being of the young woman being rescued, it may have jarred in the larger room to have the helicopter sounds right above the audience. The intimacy of the scene would be greater in the small domestic space and so it seems logical to put the chopper noise just up above the young woman's face as she screams in terror. In the big commercial cinema it may have seemed somewhat odd. 

When the near field mix is done, is this something which could be considered, or is it simply too much work involved?



FilmMixer said:


> I find one of the great benefits of home Atmos the increase in 7.1, and usually in an aggressive manner. While I certainly can understand the want of more wiz bang (or subtle) overhead usage, I don't find it diappointing when it isn't constantly present on a track.
> 
> Just my .02.


I agree totally about the superiority of the 7.1 mix with Atmos. This is also where I feel a very big benefit and especially so after finally moving to a 7.2.4 system after my initial 5.2.4 which I had from the very beginning of my Atmos venture.

Thanks again.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Vaughn said:


> Well said Marc. I found San Andreas to be an outstanding mix and it gave the effect of the sound coming from above (whether it was or not, I didn't test by unplugging all of my speakers except for the overheads). This isn't how we're supposed to listen/watch the movie, so I don't do it. Granted, my surround speakers are mounted higher up than "spec" due to room constraints, but the movie definitely had the affect of putting me into the scene, which is all we can ask for.


Absolutely agreed. One of the best sound experiences in my entire collection. TBH if there was never a better mix than *San Andreas* or* Mad Max: Fury Road*, I wouldn't be complaining.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Things like this can go overboard, and it has. Big time. They're little snippets for demo purposes, not full segments or an entire movie. Just like copyright laws... they were never meant to be used in perpetuity, but they are abused terribly.
> 
> Laws can start for good reasons and then get out of hand, especially when every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants a cut.


You're entitled to your opinion Dan of course. If you were dependent financially on the reliance of protected rights over your work, as I was for many years, you would perhaps see this differently. If someone was using even just a "little snippet" of my work for their own ends (to sell or promote something) then I would expect to be financially compensated. No compensation, no use work. Seems reasonable to me.

But you seem to believe that Tom, Dick and Harry shouldn’t be paid for the work they created, so there's not much more to say.


----------



## kbarnes701

rmilyard said:


> So question for all you running ATMOS at home. If had friends coming over for a movie what is the one movie you would play to them? They haven't heard anything in ATMOS before so be fun to see what they think.


*Gravity*. *San Andreas*. *Mad Max: Fury Road*. *Gravity* is the most 'obvious' use of Atmos. The other two are just phenomenal experiences in sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Yes. No one else seems to care so someone will have to step up. :
> 
> People don't seem to mind if they are getting told by Dolby or Dts... Who have financial gains in it. I won't make a cent from my advices on the contrary...


But do you not see that your goals might not be my goals? For example, your goal is to have excellent sound at every seat, even when this compromises the best sound at one seat. That is a fine goal I agree - providing that you usually have more than one person watching the movie. My goal is the opposite: I want the best sound at the MLP seat and acceptably good sound at the other seats, mainly because 90% of the time I am watching a movie on my own. So if I followed your goal objective, I would end up with inferior sound 90% of the time (since it is impossible to have 100% sound at every seat).


----------



## Stoked21

Nightlord said:


> If the room IS of non-square size, then consider my post withdrawn.


Not sure what your concern about square rooms is. I'm assuming you're thinking of standing waves and reflections?
That exists whether it's 2.1, 5.1 or 7.1 or atmos.
@rmilyard I personally would ignore that comment. There are many people with square rooms running atmos. But just as you would with ANY x.x system, you will potentially have acoustical issues based on placements and layout. I have a corner that is in desperate need of a trap at occasional times. Does that diminish my Atmos experience? Nope! It could be better I'm sure, but the world is crashing down and around me when I'm in my theater.


----------



## cdelena

kbarnes701 said:


> If you mean that the 'Hollywood lawyers' are ensuring that people get paid for their creative efforts, then you are right. If you think that people getting paid for their work is a 'nightmare', then I am guessing you often say to your employer _"don't bother paying me this week, it's fine...."_.


I would guess the distaste is for residuals that drive up the price of 'creative' work. Of course the people that designed and built the bridge don't get payment every time a car passes over it, etc, etc. but that is how the world works. And instead of just a payment for the work it must cover licensing, copyrights, copy protection schemes, lawyers, law suits, etc. etc.


----------



## smurraybhm

cdelena said:


> I would guess the distaste is for residuals that drive up the price of 'creative' work. Of course the people that designed and built the bridge don't get payment every time a car passes over it, etc, etc. but that is how the world works. And instead of just a payment for the work it must cover licensing, copyrights, copy protection schemes, lawyers, law suits, etc. etc.


Not a good example. You can bet your xxx that if someone copied their design, specs, etc. that they would be getting paid. The physical bridge is not their property, unlike the artist who came up with the song (one good example) and sold a specific use to a record company who is in turn collecting fees based on said contract from those using it. 

I find it hard to believe all the smart people who frequent this thread don't understand the need for Dick, Don, and whoever else to be paid for their work which is trademarked or copyrighted. I guess we should be complaining about Denon having to pay DTS, Dolby and Auro licensing fees too


----------



## NorthSky

This is an interesting discussion regarding Hollywood movie rights versus all the pirate movie sites out there...because movies are reaching higher and higher rewards @ the box office (many films are now making over $1 billion and more...Star Wars 7 will pass the $2 billion mark, I'm pretty sure), and google, youtube, and other sites are under pressure to not share copyright movie material...even in a free expression liberty country. ...Hey, right now as we speak large Hollywood amount of lawyers are cracking down on some large illegal sharing movie sites. 

The contrast between the poor who cannot view movies in their own countries because the theaters are sparse, too far, or too expensive, and where the Blu-rays don't get there or are simply way too expensive, and the rich (we know who they are and we all love them equally as the poor) who can afford the best and largest hurdles of lawyers, is simply very very wide indeed. 

Netflix is good, because it's cheap. ...The world simply need more like that for competition and with more and better and newer choices. Because after all everyone loves movies but not everyone can afford to buy Blu-rays @ $30 to $50 a pop. ...And in many world's places they don't even get there...what you got is illegal Chinese DVD cam copies. 

As for 3D, it's more dimensional than 2D...just like Dolby Atmos versus Dolby TrueHD. 

All this...is just my opinion. ...For all it's worth...and not.


----------



## Molon_Labe

NorthSky said:


> This is an interesting discussion regarding Hollywood movie rights versus all the pirate movie sites out there...because movies are reaching higher and higher rewards @ the box office (many films are now making over $1 billion and more...Star Wars 7 will pass the $2 billion mark, I'm pretty sure), and google, youtube, and other sites are under pressure to not share copyright movie material...even in a free expression liberty country. ...Hey, right now as we speak large Hollywood amount of lawyers are cracking down on some large illegal sharing movie sites.
> 
> The contrast between the poor who cannot view movies in their own countries because the theaters are sparse, too far, or too expensive, and where the Blu-rays don't get there or are simply way too expensive, and the rich (we know who they are and we all love them equally as the poor) who can afford the best and largest hurdles of lawyers, is simply very very wide indeed.
> 
> Netflix is good, because it's cheap. ...The world simply need more like that for competition and with more and better and newer choices. Because after all everyone loves movies but not everyone can afford to buy Blu-rays @ $30 to $50 a pop. ...And in many world's places they don't even get there...what you got is illegal Chinese DVD cam copies.
> 
> As for 3D, it's more dimensional than 2D...just like Dolby Atmos versus Dolby TrueHD.
> 
> All this...is just my opinion. ...For all it's worth...and not.


So stealing is now ok because there are poor people who can't watch movies? Just curious, but how poor are they if they have a device to watch the pirated film on? The truly poor wouldn't have a cell phone, laptop, pc, or tablet to view the stolen movie. I doubt they would have internet service to provide the means to download the movie.

Star Wars is bad because it will make too much money. So Socialism has now made it to the silver screen.


----------



## wse

kbarnes701 said:


> *Gravity*. *San Andreas*. *Mad Max: Fury Road*. *Gravity* is the most 'obvious' use of Atmos. The other two are just phenomenal experiences in sound.


*Gravity*, I really disliked that movie Sandro B moaning!!!!! OMG

George Cluny did all he could but could not save it


----------



## bargervais

wse said:


> *Gravity*, I really disliked that movie Sandro B moaning!!!!! OMG
> 
> George Cluny did all he could but could not save it


I too agree Sandra was a little over the top. One thing to consider is the likes and dislikes of the type of movies they enjoy. We here at AVS will watch a lousy movie just to hear the Atmos mix I like Dracula, Mad Max, Insurgent, unbroken,


----------



## FilmMixer

I'm happy to break this news...

Add two more titles to the Atmos list. 

"Man of Steel" and "Edge of Tomorrow" (easily one of the best sounding films of 2014 IMO and a really good Atmos mix...)

AVAILABLE TODAY!!!!

STREAMING ON VUDU IN DOLBY DIGITSL PLUS

Two big caveats, however....

Only available on Vudu on the Roku 4 box... 

And you must have a 4K set to buy these titles...

I almost must say the Roku 4 is flaky at best. Needs much more time to work out the kinks. 

But I can confirm Atmos on these two films (also in Dolby Vision....)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Kris Deering said:


> What does TFA's ticket sales have to do 3D? Consumers don't have a choice to see the movie in 2D IMAX, so it isn't s fair representation of demand. In Seattle the premiere theater is the Cinerama, which is a single screen premium theater. They decided not to even show it in 3D because the overwhelming trend for their mixed showings always results in overwhelming support and sales for 2D showings over the 3D ones. And this is a theater that charges the same regardless and uses a dual laser projector setup for 3D to ensure the same brightness in 3D as 2D. If IMAX did dual showings, how many would prefer 2D over 3D? I know I would. I also find it telling that the 3D IMAX theater in Seattle, which is recently upgraded to dual 4K laser projectors and the new IMAX audio system still had weekend tickets available yesterday but the Cinerama (which seats more) sold out for the weekend and first few days after that within the first day, despite being 2D only. Demand is hard to gauge when the only way to watch something in a premium theater is 3D because the consumer isn't given a choice.


ALL shows sold out... 2D or 3D. If they hated 3D that much they wouldn't have bought 3D tickets... pretty simple.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I'm happy to break this news...
> 
> Add two more titles to the Atmos list.
> 
> "Man of Steel" and "Edge of Tomorrow" (easily one of the best sounding films of 2014 IMO and a really good Atmos mix...)
> 
> AVAILABLE TODAY!!!!
> 
> STREAMING ON VUDU IN DOLBY DIGITSL PLUS
> 
> Two big caveats, however....
> 
> Only available on Vudu on the Roku 4 box...
> 
> And you must have a 4K set to buy these titles...
> 
> I almost must say the Roku 4 is flaky at best. Needs much more time to work out the kinks.
> 
> But I can confirm Atmos on these two films (also in Dolby Vision....)


Cool, but I think I'll wait for_ Edge of Tomorrow _on UHD Blu-ray. _Man of Steel_ can get flushed for all I care.


----------



## Kris Deering

Aras_Volodka said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does TFA's ticket sales have to do 3D? Consumers don't have a choice to see the movie in 2D IMAX, so it isn't s fair representation of demand. In Seattle the premiere theater is the Cinerama, which is a single screen premium theater. They decided not to even show it in 3D because the overwhelming trend for their mixed showings always results in overwhelming support and sales for 2D showings over the 3D ones. And this is a theater that charges the same regardless and uses a dual laser projector setup for 3D to ensure the same brightness in 3D as 2D. If IMAX did dual showings, how many would prefer 2D over 3D? I know I would. I also find it telling that the 3D IMAX theater in Seattle, which is recently upgraded to dual 4K laser projectors and the new IMAX audio system still had weekend tickets available yesterday but the Cinerama (which seats more) sold out for the weekend and first few days after that within the first day, despite being 2D only. Demand is hard to gauge when the only way to watch something in a premium theater is 3D because the consumer isn't given a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL shows sold out... 2D or 3D. If they hated 3D that much they wouldn't have bought 3D tickets... pretty simple.
Click to expand...

It isn't that simple. With IMAX there is no choice of 2D shows or 3D shows but people want the massive screen experience. So they either suck it up and do 3D or they settle for a smaller theater. There is no easy choice. If there was one IMAX showing it in 2D and one in 3D that would be a more interesting comparison for attendance. But saying 3D is successful simply because there is no other option is not a fair gauge of consumer interest.


----------



## Stoked21

FilmMixer said:


> I'm happy to break this news...
> 
> Add two more titles to the Atmos list.
> 
> "Man of Steel" and "Edge of Tomorrow" (easily one of the best sounding films of 2014 IMO and a really good Atmos mix...)
> 
> AVAILABLE TODAY!!!!
> 
> STREAMING ON VUDU IN DOLBY DIGITSL PLUS
> 
> Two big caveats, however....
> 
> Only available on Vudu on the Roku 4 box...
> 
> And you must have a 4K set to buy these titles...
> 
> I almost must say the Roku 4 is flaky at best. Needs much more time to work out the kinks.
> 
> But I can confirm Atmos on these two films (also in Dolby Vision....)



My premonitions I ranted about a few weeks ago r slowly coming true. We r seeing the first wave of atmos releases being streamed.....requiring hdcp 2.2. Not available with 1080p format. So u have to use dsu on DD+. This is why I'm glad I went 2.2 on everything. Makes the upcoming purchase of a jvc 2.2 pj even more attractive. Either that or an hd fury. Curious if anyone has tried hd fury with streaming of atmos on non 2.2 chain?


----------



## NorthSky

> So stealing is now ok because there are poor people who can't watch movies? Just curious, but how poor are they if they have a device to watch the pirated film on? The truly poor wouldn't have a cell phone, laptop, pc, or tablet to view the stolen movie. I doubt they would have internet service to provide the means to download the movie.
> 
> Star Wars is bad because it will make too much money. So Socialism has now made it to the silver screen.


Did I say stealing was good...no no no...I said Dolby Atmos was the way to go. ...And Netflix was cheap. 
I think you were simply assuming, you read what wasn't in the post.

We're adults here...with a job...with a good income...and we can afford all the 3D Blu-ray Atmos there are.


----------



## helvetica bold

Amazon Instant video was supposed to offer Atmos content but i don't see anything except for a few demo clips.
Geez what happened to the Atmos capable Amazon Fire HDX? Its been a year since that came out and we still have nothing.


----------



## Gooddoc

Finally got the ceiling and side surrounds mounted, wired, and amp hooked up. That was A LOT of work. Took me a solid two days. Aside from the nuts around here, I just don't see many people going through that. Upfirers will be popular I think.

Haven't really listened to anything but some Palladia, but I have to say the upmixer did a nice job of just adding a touch of space to the presentation. Very subtle, but best that way so as not to draw attention.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Stoked21 said:


> My premonitions I ranted about a few weeks ago r slowly coming true. We r seeing the first wave of atmos releases being streamed.....requiring hdcp 2.2. Not available with 1080p format. So u have to use dsu on DD+. This is why I'm glad I went 2.2 on everything. Makes the upcoming purchase of a jvc 2.2 pj even more attractive. Either that or an hd fury. Curious if anyone has tried hd fury with streaming of atmos on non 2.2 chain?


I am sure that someone posted this somewhere, but I forget. What happens is your equipment is NOT 2.2 certified?

Does it downgrade to 1080p...or just refuse to path any signal at all?

Similar question re audio--will Atmos pass thru or get blocked?

I would hope that they do not kill the proverbial golden goose...


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> And you must have a 4K set to buy these titles...


So HDCP 2.2 or 4k display or both?



FilmMixer said:


> I almost must say the Roku 4 is flaky at best. Needs much more time to work out the kinks.


What kinks?


----------



## lujan

helvetica bold said:


> Amazon Instant video was supposed to offer Atmos content but i don't see anything except for a few demo clips.
> Geez what happened to the Atmos capable Amazon Fire HDX? Its been a year since that came out and we still have nothing.


What are the demo clips so that I can try them out?


----------



## Nightlord

Stoked21 said:


> Not sure what your concern about square rooms is. I'm assuming you're thinking of standing waves and reflections?
> That exists whether it's 2.1, 5.1 or 7.1 or atmos.


I never said anything contrary to that. But you don't want to listen to anything in a square room, so if you have one... That has to be fixed before even contemplating what sould system you want. 

Now it wasn't the case, so I withdrew my comment. But if it had been a true square room, shrinking it in one dimension would help a lot, and the shrunken space could have been put to good use too. (Spaces for speakers, bass trap etc)


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> But you don't want to listen to anything in a square room, so if you have one... That has to be fixed before even contemplating what sould system you want.


Nonsense. Stop looking at room simulations. Start measuring real rooms. A square room is in no way more of a problem than a rectangular room. Location of source and listener and acoustical properties of boundaries are dominating factors.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Nonsense. Stop looking at room simulations. Start measuring real rooms. A square room is in no way more of a problem than a rectangular room. Location of source and listener and acoustical properties of boundaries are dominating factors.


What is a room simulation? Never seen one.

I stay with physics, thank you. But visualizing the interaction of fundamental resonances will clearly tell you why equal distances, equal resonance frequencies are a very bad thing (unless you go to the measures of taming them, then you possibly could turn it to a benefit as it will be one less frequency to tame). But taming those frequencies requires space in any case...


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> What is a room simulation? Never seen one.


Open up REW, click "Room Sim".



Nightlord said:


> I stay with physics, thank you. But visualizing the interaction of fundamental resonances will clearly tell you why equal distances, equal resonance frequencies are a very bad thing (unless you go to the measures of taming them, then you possibly could turn it to a benefit as it will be one less frequency to tame). But taming those frequencies requires space in any case...


Oh now suddenly you do pretend to know what a room simulation is  Anyway, you don't seem to have much experience with real rooms otherwise you wouldn't make the claims you made.
By the way, there are pretty effective ways to tame low frequency modal ringing that require not much space – equalization, active absorption or plate/limp mass absorbers come to mind.
And again, whether modes have a detrimental effect largely depends where source (speaker) and receiver (listener) is located.
Knowing physics is fundamental to understanding acoustics. Measuring is fundamental to understanding the sound field in real rooms. If you do both you will find that claims like "square rooms are generally bad" are nonsense and therefore not helpful in improving sound reproduction.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Not sure what your concern about square rooms is. I'm assuming you're thinking of standing waves and reflections?
> That exists whether it's 2.1, 5.1 or 7.1 or atmos.
> 
> @rmilyard I personally would ignore that comment. There are many people with square rooms running atmos. But just as you would with ANY x.x system, you will potentially have acoustical issues based on placements and layout. I have a corner that is in desperate need of a trap at occasional times. Does that diminish my Atmos experience? Nope! It could be better I'm sure, but the world is crashing down and around me when I'm in my theater.


Agreed. My room is square and the sound here is really good. It is harder to get good sound in a square room but it is by no means impossible. Careful placement of speakers and subs, acoustic treatments and Dirac Live all contribute to overcoming the inherent difficulties of a square room IME. If I was designing a room from scratch, would I choose rectangular? You bet. But we have to work with what we have, as in all areas of life.


----------



## kbarnes701

cdelena said:


> I would guess the distaste is for residuals that drive up the price of 'creative' work. Of course the people that designed and built the bridge don't get payment every time a car passes over it, etc, etc. but that is how the world works. And instead of just a payment for the work it must cover licensing, copyrights, copy protection schemes, lawyers, law suits, etc. etc.


Your analogy is not a good one. If a bridge is built by private enterprise then it is entirely possible for the builders/designers to be paid by the amount of traffic which passes over it. This would be called a toll bridge. If the bridge is built from public funds, then everyone who passes over it does pay for it constantly through taxation. Movies are privately funded endeavors and as such those who create them have the right to be paid for their work. If this "drives up the price" to an unacceptable level then people have a simple choice: do not pay to see the movie. It isn’t compulsory. 

But it isn't really open for discussion since the contracts between the creators of the work and the distributors, end-users, middlemen etc is laid out clearly in advance and it is what it is. I used to charge clients royalties on how many times they printed my advertising copy. If they used it for just, say, 100,000 impressions, they would pay $x. If they used it for 1,000,000 impressions they would pay $Y. And if they used it for more than that then they would pay an agreed price per 1000 impressions going forward. This was all agreed in advance and was fair to both sides. If my work was extremely successful, the client would want to use it again and again (some clients used the same work for 10 years or more) and as they made more money, so did I. If my work was not successful, the client had limited downside exposure and paid less for the work than if it had been a single price open-ended deal. You can imagine therefore if I discovered that the client had made 2,000,000 impressions but only paid for 1,000,000 that I would be pretty pissed, and would take steps to prevent the work being used again until payment had been made.

It is just the same in almost all fields of creative endeavor. Movies, literature, computer software, artwork, music etc. The fees which you think might 'drive up the price' don't seem to have harmed any of those businesses or priced many consumers out of the market. If artists are not fairly recompensed for their work, they will stop doing it. And then no more movies, no more music etc. Bad deal for everyone.

I say to those who object to paying for the content they consume - do you regularly work for free for your employer? Notice Dan didn't respond to that question when I asked it of him. My guess is the he doesn't. But he clearly believes others should.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Not a good example. You can bet your xxx that if someone copied their design, specs, etc. that they would be getting paid. The physical bridge is not their property, unlike the artist who came up with the song (one good example) and sold a specific use to a record company who is in turn collecting fees based on said contract from those using it.
> 
> I find it hard to believe all the smart people who frequent this thread don't understand the need for Dick, Don, and whoever else to be paid for their work which is trademarked or copyrighted. I guess we should be complaining about Denon having to pay DTS, Dolby and Auro licensing fees too


You have hit the nail squarely on the head Steve.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Open up REW, click "Room Sim".


Is that available for iPad?



> Oh now you suddenly pretend you do know what a room simulation is  Anyway, you don't seem to have much experience with real rooms otherwise you wouldn't make the claims you made.
> By the way, there are pretty effective ways to tame low frequency modal ringing that require not much space – equalization, active absorption or plate absorbers come to mind.


No, that's just thinking. Simulation is something a machine does for you. 

Band aids that all should be avoided as long as possible.



> And again, whether modes have a detrimental effect largely depends where source (speaker) and receiver (listener) is located.


ListenerS. It's supposed to sound good for everyone in the room, not just one sweetspot. 



> Knowing physics is fundamental in understanding acoustics. Measuring is fundamental in understanding real rooms. If you do both you will find that claims like "square rooms are generally bad" are nonsense and therefore not helpful in improving sound reproduction.


Glad you at least try to appreciate physics.

Of course it's a simplification. If the different walls exhibit different behaviour it starts getting less valid. But one should be able to assume as a starting point that a room has been built with the same type walls unless the construction company was tripping. In this case, all the data availale was size, so of course the rest of the analysis has to be based on assumptions. When you are on location, or by other means, and have all the facts, the solutions may have to change. 

But no acoustician in the world would answer the question "what kind of geometry for a room would you like to start off with?" with "a square one".


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> So stealing is now ok because there are poor people who can't watch movies? Just curious, but how poor are they if they have a device to watch the pirated film on? The truly poor wouldn't have a cell phone, laptop, pc, or tablet to view the stolen movie. I doubt they would have internet service to provide the means to download the movie.
> 
> Star Wars is bad because it will make too much money. So Socialism has now made it to the silver screen.


Again, a very relevant point. Poverty is not a license to steal. While one might excuse stealing if one is too poor to buy food, this does not apply to stealing luxury goods, which is what we are discussing. It's pretty simple: if you can’t afford to go see a movie, don't go see a movie. Like I can't afford a Gulfstream V. So I don't have one. I don't use the fact that I can't afford one as justification for stealing one. Sheesh.

And what is the betting that the majority of pirated movies are watched in first world countries? They are not stolen by the extreme poor - they are stolen by people who want something but don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Remember when this thread was about Atmos and not about copyright or childish bickering about acoustic theory? Pepperidge Farm remembers...


----------



## Stoked21

Nightlord said:


> I never said anything contrary to that. But you don't want to listen to anything in a square room, so if you have one... That has to be fixed before even contemplating what sould system you want.
> 
> Now it wasn't the case, so I withdrew my comment. But if it had been a true square room, shrinking it in one dimension would help a lot, and the shrunken space could have been put to good use too. (Spaces for speakers, bass trap etc)


When driving my car it's impossible to get rid of all ambient noise such as road noise and engine noise. I propose we all tear out our car stereos and throw them away. Let's lobby congress to ban them. Further more the cabin is shaped all wrong and the sound is different to those in the front or back. Until they solve that stereos should not be aloud in cars? 

Extreme example but come on man. Let's be real. Who cares about square rooms. Fix it if and only if time money and desire to do so are a compelling factors.


----------



## Stoked21

Nightlord said:


> What is a room simulation? Never seen one.
> 
> I stay with physics, thank you. But visualizing the interaction of fundamental resonances will clearly tell you why equal distances, equal resonance frequencies are a very bad thing (unless you go to the measures of taming them, then you possibly could turn it to a benefit as it will be one less frequency to tame). But taming those frequencies requires space in any case...


I would love to see your room. I bet all parallel surfaces have been eliminated with a trapezoidal structure. Perfect sound insulation and absorption on every surface with countless arrays everywhere. Leading to exact and identical sound reproduction at every single seat location.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Remember when this thread was about Atmos and not about copyright or childish bickering about acoustic theory? Pepperidge Farm remembers...


I always love the irony of an off-topic post complaining about an off-topic post


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> I'm happy to break this news...
> 
> Add two more titles to the Atmos list.
> 
> "Man of Steel" and "Edge of Tomorrow" (easily one of the best sounding films of 2014 IMO and a really good Atmos mix...)
> 
> AVAILABLE TODAY!!!!
> 
> STREAMING ON VUDU IN DOLBY DIGITSL PLUS
> 
> Two big caveats, however....
> 
> Only available on Vudu on the Roku 4 box...
> 
> And you must have a 4K set to buy these titles...
> 
> I almost must say the Roku 4 is flaky at best. Needs much more time to work out the kinks.
> 
> But I can confirm Atmos on these two films (also in Dolby Vision....)


Thanks for letting us know. Are your saying that its flaky, because it doesn't play nicely or that it needs a firmware update as the unit is buggy?


----------



## Stoked21

Nightlord said:


> Is that available for iPad?
> 
> 
> Glad you at least try to appreciate physics.
> 
> .


You're stuck with only an iPad? That's what most physicists choose to use. Ask Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse. 

FYI I use to teach physics at a renowned University here in the US. 
One of the tenets of physics is to "measure"


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Is that available for iPad?


Try an internet search...



Nightlord said:


> No, that's just thinking. Simulation is something a machine does for you.
> 
> Band aids that all should be avoided as long as possible.


Well then you did a simulation using only your brain. It lead to wrong conclusions ("square rooms are bad").



Nightlord said:


> ListenerS. It's supposed to sound good for everyone in the room, not just one sweetspot.


Unfortunately that's not how common recording and reproduction techniques work. They are all first and foremost single seat solutions.



Nightlord said:


> Glad you at least try to appreciate physics.


I don't just try.



Nightlord said:


> Of course it's a simplification. If the different walls exhibit different behaviour it starts getting less valid. But one should be able to assume as a starting point that a room has been built with the same type walls unless the construction company was tripping. In this case, all the data availale was size, so of course the rest of the analysis has to be based on assumptions. When you are on location, or by other means, and have all the facts, the solutions may have to change.
> 
> But no acoustician in the world would answer the question "what kind of geometry for a room would you like to start off with?" with "a square one".


The question itself is naive. You can have a rectangular room that rings like a bell and you can have a square one that sounds fantastic.

You made the claim that _not_ having a square room would be fundamental to sound reproduction. This is nonsense.


----------



## Nightlord

Stoked21 said:


> I would love to see your room. I bet all parallel surfaces have been eliminated with a trapezoidal structure. Perfect sound insulation and absorption on every surface with countless arrays everywhere. Leading to exact and identical sound reproduction at every single seat location.


No, I was contemplating doing that but calculations told me that I needed at least 8" difference from front to back to have any noticable function from non-parallel surfaces and I did not have that to spare after giving up just as much for the sound proofing (room-in-a-room build), so I went with even more diffusors instead. It's not perfect, but probably as good per buck as it can be, given then I did all the construction work myself as well. Only help I had was acoustics consultancy from my speaker manufacturer plus that I had parts of the insulation and glulam beams delivered. Everything else I have done and brought home with my own car.

Pictures of the build is available in my 'The Larch' thread. I'm not done yet, my planned opening is still (as it always has been) 2017-06-06, as I don't expect avrs and projectors to be cost efficient until then.... ( Honestly, I don't think they will get to that point in time based on what I'm currently seeing, but they might up their pace in the next gen...)

But if you're planning a visit to southern Sweden, let me know and I'll clear the calendar so you can have a peek.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Try an internet search...


Might do that. Will mark it in my calendar around 2020.



> Well then you did a simulation using only your brain. It lead to wrong conclusions ("square rooms are bad").


No, it's not wrong. For the thinking you of course use fully reflectional wall, as we don't know more.



markus767 said:


> Unfortunately that's not how common recording and reproduction techniques work. They are all first and foremost single seat solutions.


Not my problem. They can do better, I'm waiting for that. 



markus767 said:


> The question itself is naive. You can have a rectangular room that rings like a bell and you can have a square one that sounds fantastic.


Not with infinitely hard walls in both cases. If you allow all other factors than size to differ, sure, but that's not a reasonable comparison to make. I can make any room as a tent with the least absorbent fabric available and place in a field with miles to closest reflection point, and the shape would be meaningless to discuss.
If we can't stick to the same base for a discussion, it's also meaningless.

In any case we should stop, because we're in the wrong thread. It's my mistake when trying to help someone that it took off the wrong way, so I'll take responsibility for that,


----------



## Nightlord

Stoked21 said:


> You're stuck with only an iPad? That's what most physicists choose to use. Ask Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse.


You should have told me earlier, it wasn't that long ago that Hwaking was here (Sweden). 

Yes, that's what I use. Rest of the family occupies the stationary most the time and I would not want anything heavier with me when I sit and listen to music. (And at work, the IT department would mind if I installed whatever I like on my machine...)


----------



## bargervais

Nightlord said:


> You should have told me earlier, it wasn't that long ago that Hwaking was here (Sweden).
> 
> Yes, that's what I use. Rest of the family occupies the stationary most the time and I would not want anything heavier with me when I sit and listen to music. (And at work, the IT department would mind if I installed whatever I like on my machine...)


What I'm confused,


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Might do that. Will mark it in my calendar around 2020.


If you value physics as much as you try to make me believe then you would've gone through all of this a long time ago.



Nightlord said:


> No, it's not wrong. For the thinking you of course use fully reflectional wall, as we don't know more.


You base your opinion on a case that doesn't exist in the real world. Nobody wants to convert a perfectly square room that is perfectly sealed and has perfectly rigid walls to a listening space. To make your case work you would furthermore need to put all sources and the listener into room corners. Does that picture sound like a realistic scenario to you?



Nightlord said:


> Not my problem. They can do better, I'm waiting for that.


Problem is you make recommendations based on something that doesn't exist. We have to work with what is there and how recordings are made.



Nightlord said:


> Not with infinitely hard walls in both cases. If you allow all other factors than size to differ, sure, but that's not a reasonable comparison to make. I can make any room as a tent with the least absorbent fabric available and place in a field with miles to closest reflection point, and the shape would be meaningless to discuss.
> If we can't stick to the same base for a discussion, it's also meaningless.


A listening room with infinitely rigid walls is as unrealistic as putting a Dolby Atmos setup in a tent. The real world is something else. If you value physics as much as you try to make me believe then you would've verified your assumptions with measurements.



Nightlord said:


> In any case we should stop, because we're in the wrong thread. It's my mistake when trying to help someone that it took off the wrong way, so I'll take responsibility for that,


The problem is that you don't help people by making wrong claims.


----------



## petetherock

*Helios - BR review*
Just watched this, and I have mixed thoughts about this show.. but it's a fabulous Atmos demo disc..

http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2015/10/helios-blu-ray-review.html


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> So HDCP 2.2 or 4k display or both?
> 
> What kinks?


Both. 

Handshake issues (sometimes no pictures without a reboot, etc,)... lockups, etc... 

Seems like it just needs to more time to cook...


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> Both.
> 
> Handshake issues (sometimes no pictures without a reboot, etc,)... lockups, etc...
> 
> Seems like it just needs to more time to cook...


Thank you I was about to pull the trigger on one of these, now it looks like I'll wait a bit I've got M-Go with HDR with no Atmos yet.


----------



## Stoked21

To bring this back on thread to some extent.

There are a lot of noobs out there that are looking for advice on Atmos implementation. Telling them "No" because they don't have an acoustician or a room of a certain size/shape or an unlimited budget or a custom built room or can't deliver the exact same sound to every seat.....just isn't helpful. 

That being said, someone starting with no equipment whatsoever from the ground-up could easily put together an entry level 5.1.2 Atmos system for less than $3K new (minus TV). Say $200x7 for speakers, $200 for sub, and $1000 for an AVR. If buying used they could do it for even less and probably spend less than $2K. We've all seen surround setups with wires ran across the carpet or stapled/taped on walls. One could choose this method, even if most of us would not choose to do that, hang speakers from the ceiling and still put together an Atmos system that could be very sonically impressive. 

I learned through trial and error and by spending $$$ in a very short time frame of 6 months (without knowing what I was doing or researching the topic) before I resorted to AVS for additional input. I probably dropped $4k on audio for an entry level 5.1.4 setup 6 months ago, used it for a few weeks (it sounded great but I lusted for more and better) and have since sold most of it off. I now have a more expensive mid-level system, but still budget to many, of about $15k and growing daily. Many have the desire and surplus income to spend $100k+ but it's not necessary and most people won't be able to afford to do so. Will those Atmos implementations sound better than someone who has a $2K system and a square room? Likely but not necessarily. The $2K system will still sound better than someone's who is non-existent as it's not going to be finished until June 2017.

Is measurement necessary for an Atmos system? No, but it can be a nice, very low-cost method of optimizing sub placement and analyzing sonic problems. I personally haven't done so but do confess my mic is in the mail. I also haven't added any acoustic panels/absorbers/traps or such and potentially won't. All of this being said, I've had numerous people who heard my budget Atmos setup and were blown away with what I put together in such a short time frame on such a small budget (in a more or less square room ). In a week or so when I'm back up and running my new setup, I expect it to be even more impressive.

So in conclusion to those looking for Atmos advise, don't be discouraged by square rooms, or your lack of a budget for acoustically treating the entire room, or the high $ systems you see here on the forum. Just buy what you like and can afford, research some optimal speaker placements and most importantly ENJOY!!!


----------



## tjenkins95

petetherock said:


> *Helios - BR review*
> Just watched this, and I have mixed thoughts about this show.. but it's a fabulous Atmos demo disc..
> 
> http://peteswrite.blogspot.sg/2015/10/helios-blu-ray-review.html


 
I purchased this blu-ray and watched it when it came out in August - great Dolby Atmos soundtrack.
I enjoyed the movie very much - great twists and turns like you mentioned!

Ray


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Both.
> 
> Handshake issues (sometimes no pictures without a reboot, etc,)... lockups, etc...
> 
> Seems like it just needs to more time to cook...


Thanks Mark. Sounds like HDMI issues that used to be a huge problem in the past are back again at full throttle.
Looks like Apple's more conservative approach with the upcoming Apple TV 4 is warranted. Does anybody know whether Apple will deliver Atmos via DD+?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Thanks Mark. Sounds like HDMI issues that used to be a huge problem in the past are back again at full throttle.
> Looks like Apple's more conservative approach with the upcoming Apple TV 4 is warranted. Does anybody know whether Apple will deliver Atmos via DD+?


My Dieectv 4K box worked flawlessly after setup with one tv power cycle, so it seems as if some companies can get it right... But I agree that this is going to be a bumpy ride for the near future for these type of products... Hopefully UHD players will be more robust. 

The new Apple TV supports 7.1 Dolby Digital Plys, so, yes, it will indeed be able to pass Atmos if provided.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> My Dieectv 4K box worked flawlessly after setup with one tv power cycle, so it seems as if some companies can get it right... But I agree that this is going to be a bumpy ride for the near future for these type of products... Hopefully UHD players will be more robust.
> 
> The new Apple TV supports 7.1 Dolby Digital Plys, so, yes, it will indeed be able to pass Atmos if provided.


There also seems to be a handshake glitch with the Roku 4 and 10 bit panels like the Samsung 8500 and higher models. It won't allow you to choose a 10 bit output in the setup menu even though when these TV's are hit with 10 bit encoded video off a USB stick these Samsung's can play said 10 bit content and act accordingly.

I've also heard mixed reports that the Roku 4 is not fully supportive of passing HDR content. Am I reading you right that it can?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> There also seems to be a handshake glitch with the Roku 4 and 10 bit panels like the Samsung 8500 and higher models. It won't allow you to choose a 10 bit output in the setup menu even though when these TV's are hit with 10 bit encoded video off a USB stick these Samsung's can play said 10 bit content and act accordingly.
> 
> I've also heard mixed reports that the Roku 4 is not fully supportive of passing HDR content. Am I reading you right that it can?


Dan. Indeed my box locked up when I tried to enable 4K 10bit in the menu.... But I haven't tried media playback yet. 

At this time Vudu only has Dolby Vision titles.. The Roku/Vudu App knows you don't have a Dolby Vision set because they Dolby Vision logo is greyed out on my set, whereas the Atmos logo is not... 

I actually own one UHD HDR title on MGo.. It plays, but alas it does not put the set into HDR more, so either the Roku or the app doesn't support HDR-10 at this time. 

I need to try the HDR test patterns from a USB stick to see what happens.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan. Indeed my box locked up when I tried to enable 4K 10bit in the menu.... But I haven't tried media playback yet.
> 
> At this time Vudu only has Dolby Vision titles.. The Roku/Vudu App knows you don't have a Dolby Vision set because they Dolby Vision logo is greyed out on my set, whereas the Atmos logo is not...
> 
> I actually own one UHD HDR title on MGo.. It plays, but alas it does not put the set into HDR more, so either the Roku or the app doesn't support HDR-10 at this time.
> 
> I need to try the HDR test patterns from a USB stick to see what happens.


I don't know if the USB port will work on the Roku, but playing 10 bit content from the USB of the Samsung _directly_, 10 bit video is accepted and played back correctly. Looks damn good too. Compatible handshaking doesn't seem to be occurring with the Roku 4 yet.

Since I would rather buy discs, I think I'll wait for the Roku 5 and let the bugs get ironed out.  Maybe by then they'll support lossless audio as well.


----------



## wse

Stoked21 said:


> To bring this back on thread to some extent......So in conclusion to those looking for Atmos advise, don't be discouraged by square rooms, or your lack of a budget for acoustically treating the entire room, or the high $ systems you see here on the forum. Just buy what you like and can afford, research some optimal speaker placements and most importantly ENJOY!!!


Yes I agree to each their own


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> The problem is that you don't help people by making wrong claims.


They are not wrong. You need to teach the basics before going into detail, thus the extremes must be understood first. Then when you go into details, people will have a more solid foundation to stand on.

And the other thing you said... I don't learn any physics from whether or not I can put a piece of software on an iPad. I have plenty of physics in my M.Sc. thank you.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> They are not wrong. You need to teach the basics before going into detail, thus the extremes must be understood first. Then when you go into details, people will have a more solid foundation to stand on.


But you didn't teach any basics. You didn't even mention that your claim is only correct under certain conditions that are virtually never found in real rooms.

You made the claim that not having a square room would be fundamental to sound reproduction. This is nonsense.



Nightlord said:


> And the other thing you said... I don't learn any physics from whether or not I can put a piece of software on an iPad. I have plenty of physics in my M.Sc. thank you.


Huh? You've asked if REW is available for iPad. I suggested an internet search.


----------



## pasender91

nightlord, markus, can you stop the ot now please ????


----------



## Stoked21

Nightlord said:


> And the other thing you said... I don't learn any physics from whether or not I can put a piece of software on an iPad. I have plenty of physics in my M.Sc. thank you.


Looked back through your theater thread. I have to say, it's a nice theater. I really do mean it. Nice work. HOWEVER....Not many would go to those efforts. I skimmed it like a picture book . Here's what I saw you were doing wrong:

First thoughts were, where are all the 18" subwoofers??? Not a theater without at least 2 of them. 
Good luck adding top speakers for Atmos and wiring those in that tank of a room!!!! Saw you were working on them. 
Wondering why it's taking from 2012-mid 2017 (over 5 years?) to finish this thing? A lot of your stuff is going to be obsolete before you even get it up and running.
Wondering why you are so focused on Auro. You likely will never get any movie content encoded in that. You need to look at Atmos layouts. You're wasting your time on Auro.

Plus, your first few post in the thread specifically show and discuss acoustic measurements you had taken.......I thought you were against measuring?


----------



## Stoked21

So just stopped by my favorite store in the world----Walmart. 

Looked at Jurassic World disc 2D and 3D. Made associate take them out of the theft box so I could look at audio contents.
They both said DTS-HD 7.1. I thought many were talking about this being Atmos? Am I dreaming?


----------



## Stoked21

Double post


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> So just stopped by my favorite store in the world----Walmart.
> 
> Looked at Jurassic World disc 2D and 3D. Made associate take them out of the theft box so I could look at audio contents.
> They both said DTS-HD 7.1. I thought many were talking about this being Atmos? Am I dreaming?


Nope. It never received an immersive track for its theatrical run (the sound designers were out of time, perhaps?). However, it made enough bank you'd think the filmmakers could do a remix.


----------



## Steven James 2

Hey everyone im new to the thread, and i was wondering if anyone has had problems with their atmos enabled receiver not decoding atmos on movies that have the atmos track? Ive purchased several atmos enabled movies and the newest transformers, and teenage mutant ninja turtles both decode as dolby digital not dolby atmos. Anyone else have any issues like this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steven James 2 said:


> Hey everyone im new to the thread, and i was wondering if anyone has had problems with their atmos enabled receiver not decoding atmos on movies that have the atmos track? Ive purchased several atmos enabled movies and the newest transformers, and teenage mutant ninja turtles both decode as dolby digital not dolby atmos. Anyone else have any issues like this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You probably have to go into your player's settings and* turn off *Secondary Audio or BD Audio Mix and also make sure *bitstream* is selected.


----------



## Steven James 2

Dan Hitchman said:


> You probably have to go into your player's settings and* turn off *Secondary Audio or BD Audio Mix and also make sure *bitstream* is selected.



Thanks for the suggestion!

Ill have to double check my settings, i guess i should have mentioned these are the only 2 of the 6 or so atmos movies i have. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

Steven James 2 said:


> Thanks for the suggestion!
> 
> Ill have to double check my settings, i guess i should have mentioned these are the only 2 of the 6 or so atmos movies i have.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've also read that some BD players have issues with Lionsgate releases. John Wick for one. I have about 10 Atmos movies and all but John Wick play and show Atmos on AVR. John Wick shows TrueHD. Several others I own are Lionsgate but I've heard some other people have issues too.


----------



## Steven James 2

Stoked21 said:


> I've also read that some BD players have issues with Lionsgate releases. John Wick for one. I have about 10 Atmos movies and all but John Wick play and show Atmos on AVR. John Wick shows TrueHD. Several others I own are Lionsgate but I've heard some other people have issues too.



Thats good to know!! My BD player is only about a year old but it only has to last me til the new 4k players release next year! I too have john wick but havent watched it yet. Ill have to check it out tonight!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

Steven James 2 said:


> Thats good to know!! My BD player is only about a year old but it only has to last me til the new 4k players release next year! I too have john wick but havent watched it yet. Ill have to check it out tonight!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have a Panasonic DMP-BDT220 Integrated Wi-Fi 3D Blu-ray DVD Player that I bought in 2012 set up as bitstream with the secondary audio off.. I haven't ever had an issue playing Atmos ever.


----------



## Steven James 2

bargervais said:


> I have a Panasonic DMP-BDT220 Integrated Wi-Fi 3D Blu-ray DVD Player that I bought in 2012 set up as bitstream with the secondary audio off.. I haven't ever had an issue playing Atmos ever.



I have the Panasonic BDT360, i have only had an issue playing the two mentioned titles. However i will have to check my settings and see what i can find. Off hand im thinking i have it set to bitstream but secondary audio may be on and also someone mentioned the downmix setting which i have mine on as well. Do you know if yours is turned on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> I have a Panasonic DMP-BDT220 Integrated Wi-Fi 3D Blu-ray DVD Player that I bought in 2012 set up as bitstream with the secondary audio off.. I haven't ever had an issue playing Atmos ever.


I have the BDT210...Model before your's. Too funny. Anyway, it won't play Wick in Atmos


----------



## bargervais

Steven James 2 said:


> I have the Panasonic BDT360, i have only had an issue playing the two mentioned titles. However i will have to check my settings and see what i can find. Off hand im thinking i have it set to bitstream but secondary audio may be on and also someone mentioned the downmix setting which i have mine on as well. Do you know if yours is turned on?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Downmix I have two options stereo and Surround encoded. I kept mine on Stereo.
Dolby D/Dolby D +/Dolby TrueHD. = Bitstream
DTS/DTS-HD = Bitstream
BD-Video Secondary Audio = off
HDMI Audio Output = on
Like I said this is how mine is set up no issue 

Sorry forgot to mention PCM = off


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> I have the BDT210...Model before your's. Too funny. Anyway, it won't play Wick in Atmos


Sorry to hear that my John Wick played fine.


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> Sorry to hear that my John Wick played fine.


Been holding on to that thing for nearly 4 years so no big loss. I'll be jumping to a UHD maybe anyway, depending on if I go with JVC PJ instead of 1080p Sony. So no big loss. The 210 has lasted me longer than most of equipment and I haven't had any compelling reason to buy one. If I had the issue on more Atmos titles I would purchase a new one in a second.

HG MJ1, Insurgent, Sniper, Gravity, Transformer, Adaline, MM FR, San Andreas and yes Step up (for the wife!!)...All work flawlessly in Atmos and many of those are Lionsgate or Summit Lionsgate.....


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> Been holding on to that thing for nearly 4 years so no big loss. I'll be jumping to a UHD maybe anyway, depending on if I go with JVC PJ instead of 1080p Sony. So no big loss. The 210 has lasted me longer than most of equipment and I haven't had any compelling reason to buy one. If I had the issue on more Atmos titles I would purchase a new one in a second.
> 
> HG MJ1, Insurgent, Sniper, Gravity, Transformer, Adaline, MM FR, San Andreas and yes Step up (for the wife!!)...All work flawlessly in Atmos and many of those are Lionsgate or Summit Lionsgate.....


I'm holding on to mine as well, I'll get an UHD Blu-Ray player when they come out and when there is more content, if it's like Atmos it might be as early as the end of 2016 or early 2017. I got the age of Adeline saying it was for the wife but I actually liked it. Step up all in I have but can't stand the movie LOL


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> I'm holding on to mine as well, I'll get an UHD Blu-Ray player when they come out and when there is more content, if it's like Atmos it might be as early as the end of 2016 or early 2017. I got the age of Adeline saying it was for the wife but I actually liked it. Step up all in I have but can't stand the movie LOL


I actually thought Adeline was a good movie...Not much for immersive but wasn't really expecting that. As for Step Up, I surfed the internet the whole movie. It was a great way to get my wife into the theater for the first time. I will say, occasionally I looked up due to the subwoofer test aspect. It kicked pretty hard at times. And then I saw scantly clad women.....It's not all that bad I guess! Story and acting are crap as anyone could expect.


----------



## bargervais

I want to ask if any one is interested, I have been watching Bloodline on Netflix in UHD, the picture is assume and the sound in DSU is very immersive. 

Another one is Daredevil amazing in DSU with a UHD picture.
I can't wait till we start seeing Atmos as part of streaming audio.


----------



## bargervais

sorry double post again.


----------



## Steven James 2

Stoked21 said:


> I actually thought Adeline was a good movie...Not much for immersive but wasn't really expecting that. As for Step Up, I surfed the internet the whole movie. It was a great way to get my wife into the theater for the first time. I will say, occasionally I looked up due to the subwoofer test aspect. It kicked pretty hard at times. And then I saw scantly clad women.....It's not all that bad I guess! Story and acting are crap as anyone could expect.



Im glad you guys said something about adeline! Was wondering how the movie was! Step up i think i will pass on l, but i did just purchase the gallows. Has anyone here seen it? From reviews im not sure ill love the film content, but should sound pretty good id say!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

Steven James 2 said:


> Im glad you guys said something about adeline! Was wondering how the movie was! Step up i think i will pass on l, but i did just purchase the gallows. Has anyone here seen it? From reviews im not sure ill love the film content, but should sound pretty good id say!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I actually liked Adeline the Atmos mix was fine but not demo material IMHO. Don't know about The Gallows I read so many bad reviews so I passed on that one, the nice thing about Blu-Rays with an Atmos mix we can start to be choosy. I'm looking forward to season one and two of Game of Thrones.


----------



## Stoked21

Steven James 2 said:


> Im glad you guys said something about adeline! Was wondering how the movie was! Step up i think i will pass on l, but i did just purchase the gallows. Has anyone here seen it? From reviews im not sure ill love the film content, but should sound pretty good id say!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Saw gallows in the theater (I see 3-4 movies a week in the theater). Gallows was HORRIBLE. I haven't heard it in Atmos. I'm not sure I could sit through that movie again to just hear Atmos. Maybe I will since my sons haven't seen it but it'll be while surfing on my phone. If the Atmos mix is any good, LMK.


----------



## bargervais

Tuesday I will have the Fifth Element, the professional, and Pixels, then the following week GAME OF THRONES seasons one and two.


----------



## Stoked21

Tuesday is atmos pixels for me as well ....plus my upgrade from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 with marantz 7702mk2. Followed by my new jtr 18" sub at the end of the week. Will be insane!


----------



## audiofan1

Stoked21 said:


> Tuesday is atmos pixels for me as well ....plus my upgrade from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 with marantz 7702mk2. Followed by my new jtr 18" sub at the end of the week. Will be insane!


 Sounds like fun


----------



## Steven James 2

bargervais said:


> Downmix I have two options stereo and Surround encoded. I kept mine on Stereo.
> Dolby D/Dolby D +/Dolby TrueHD. = Bitstream
> DTS/DTS-HD = Bitstream
> BD-Video Secondary Audio = off
> HDMI Audio Output = on
> Like I said this is how mine is set up no issue
> 
> Sorry forgot to mention PCM = off



Awesome news! I followed the setup you have and now everything plays in atmos just fine! Oh by the way it was secondary audio that was causing the issue. Mine was on and its now off! Thank you so much for the help everyone!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ultraflexed

rmilyard said:


> So question for all you running ATMOS at home. If had friends coming over for a movie what is the one movie you would play to them? They haven't heard anything in ATMOS before so be fun to see what they think.


San adreas 3d ( the rock.....nuff said)
Mad Maxx 3d (killer movie)
Transformers 4 (teens and fans of cartoon)
Expendables 3 (for 35 and up)..lol
John wick ( all males)
Age of adaline ( all females)


----------



## multit

If my guests would be all male and I would get it managed to excuse my wife and daughter from the house, I would definitely go for the new Mad Max. It's not only a massive attack to the subs, but also a well balanced Atmos mix with quiet permanent overhead action as well.
The others except San Andreas would be a bit old already and San Andreas itself is not known for balanced and extended overhead action - so the guests might ask: "why did you installed 4 speakers at the ceiling?", because the heli action is mostly played by the front and surround speakers.


----------



## Nightlord

Sorry about the other OT... hope this one is ok to answer, though.



Stoked21 said:


> First thoughts were, where are all the 18" subwoofers??? Not a theater without at least 2 of them.


Too high distortion and I don't believe there's very many 18" subwoofer designed with acoustic suspension cabinets in mind. Also people tend to need copious amounts of amplification to drive those and that would not fit my choice of amplifiers... Or I would have to spend a lot of money on, say an O&G RS2000 amp and I'm not prepared to do that. 

Anyway, I have more capability from my subwoofers than I can use and with outstanding quality, so no 18"ers needed at all.



Stoked21 said:


> Good luck adding top speakers for Atmos and wiring those in that tank of a room!!!! Saw you were working on them.


Thanks. Wiring is not a problem, as I don't mind running cable visible or in extrernal trays.



Stoked21 said:


> Wondering why it's taking from 2012-mid 2017 (over 5 years?) to finish this thing? A lot of your stuff is going to be obsolete before you even get it up and running.


Well, first of all - I'm doing all the work myself, I didn't bring a crew in to do the walls like I have seen in a lot of build threads here.

2012 was a wasted year, as the finished room turned out not to have sufficient soundproofing
2013/2014 I re-did the room in two parts as I (correctly) assumed I would not have had time to get it back to winter insulation in time if I had torn the entire room down at once.
2015 I haven't really done anything much apart from upgrading the screen; I've put time and effort into the garden after it having been a bit neglected for three years.

It is running, even if it's not in completed state. Projector was never meant to be more than a temporary solution anyway, so I didn't spend a lot on it. Same with the BD-player.
The power amps will never go obsolete and as long as I'm only running 7.1 - that AVR has a very good preamp part, so it will match most anything doing that (I am not running any room correction in it).



Stoked21 said:


> Wondering why you are so focused on Auro. You likely will never get any movie content encoded in that. You need to look at Atmos layouts. You're wasting your time on Auro.


Well, that still remains to be seen, of course. They don't look set to die just yet, given they just bought StormAudio the other week and the combinatory work going into the Barco system. Possibly the current Auro generation won't see much media - they may be focusing on the nest generation. Note, that is just guesswork. In any case, it's not Auro itself that interests me, it's what can be done with the speaker layout. _I won't be able to implement it myself_ - I cannot afford the extra $20k the speakers would cost me, nor do I want to lower my current surrounds. So my interest is purely academic at this point.

Trying to fix Atmos will cost me some more speakers as well, but not as costly as it doesn't involve three front highs. But I'll need to write some software to figure out the speaker placements... Four ceiling speakers I could manage with a folding rule, pen&paper and some patience, sixteen would be too much to do like that. I am a bit worried that it may turn out that there isn't a layout that fits the localization dominance window (2-5milliseconds/2-5 feet), but I will find out in time. I don't think the current AVRs are mature enough to go for, so I have time. 



> Plus, your first few post in the thread specifically show and discuss acoustic measurements you had taken.......I thought you were against measuring?


I'm not against measuring, but there's quite a bit of measuring going on where people draw wrong conclusions from it. I've mostly been measuring relative noice levels while rebuilding the soundproofing, btw. Stopped doing that once the signal dropped into the ambient noice levels.

( If this is still too OT, then please bring those questions over to my build thread. )


----------



## cholmes1

Has anyone ever bought or heard about the company New Audio & Video?

http://www.newaudiovideo.com/

They have some insane discounts on speakers and I am *HIGHLY* skeptical on whether or not this group is legit. As an example, I was looking at AT IC-6's for my ATMOS setup and they have them at what is essentially half price of every other retailer.

Hopefully I am wrong and they really are offering an amazing deal, but as the saying goes "if it is too good to be true..."

Thanks,
C.H.


----------



## kbarnes701

cholmes1 said:


> Has anyone ever bought or heard about the company New Audio & Video?
> 
> http://www.newaudiovideo.com/
> 
> They have some insane discounts on speakers and I am *HIGHLY* skeptical on whether or not this group is legit. As an example, I was looking at AT IC-6's for my ATMOS setup and they have them at what is essentially half price of every other retailer.
> 
> Hopefully I am wrong and they really are offering an amazing deal, but as the saying goes "if it is too good to be true..."
> 
> Thanks,
> C.H.


They look legit and say they have been in business since 1998. In the UK if we pay by credit card then we are protected against being scammed and if we are ripped off (goods never appear or they are not as advertised etc) then the credit card company has to reimburse us. Is this the same in the USA? If so and you pay with a credit card then you have the protection you need. 

However, look at *this post* which states that the company is selling counterfeit products. 

Also, look at *this page* on Ripoff Report. 

And *this* too. 

I’d avoid them personally and buy from an authorised dealership which will stand by you if you have any problems.


----------



## cholmes1

kbarnes701 said:


> They look legit and say they have been in business since 1998. In the UK if we pay by credit card then we are protected against being scammed and if we are ripped off (goods never appear or they are not as advertised etc) then the credit card company has to reimburse us. Is this the same in the USA? If so and you pay with a credit card then you have the protection you need.
> 
> However, look at *this post* which states that the company is selling counterfeit products.
> 
> Also, look at *this page* on Ripoff Report.
> 
> And *this* too.
> 
> I’d avoid them personally and buy from an authorised dealership which will stand by you if you have any problems.


Thank you for the quick response. It appears my original fears were accurate, unfortunately it looks like I will have to wait for a legitimate AT retailers sale.


----------



## kbarnes701

cholmes1 said:


> Thank you for the quick response. It appears my original fears were accurate, unfortunately it looks like I will have to wait for a legitimate AT retailers sale.


You’re welcome. In the past I have taken some gambles with deals that look too good to be true. Sometimes they have paid off, other times not. With that experience in mind, I would never recommend anyone taking the risk if significant money is involved. As you said earlier, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Better to buy from a legitimate, authorised source, get the full protection of the maker's warranty, and have a reliable dealer to stand by you when/if things go wrong, as they do with even the most genuine equipment sometimes. 

What I have done here in the UK is find a couple of reliable, trustworthy dealers who are offering good prices and stuck with them. By buying repeatedly from them they now give me even better prices and I know that if a problem occurs, they will bend over backwards to fix it for me (and have done on some occasions). 

An obvious such source in the US would be AV Science (the company which used to own this forum site) - by all reports they are customer-focused, have great prices, great service and great support.


----------



## KennyLSU

ultraflexed said:


> San adreas 3d ( the rock.....nuff said)
> Mad Maxx 3d (killer movie)
> Transformers 4 (teens and fans of cartoon)
> Expendables 3 (for 35 and up)..lol
> John wick ( all males)
> Age of adaline ( all females)


I would throw in Gravity for a men/women combo. Great use of the height channels and the opening scene is a great demo of the technology. It will be the first movie I grab when I demo it to friends.


----------



## virtualrain

ultraflexed said:


> San adreas 3d ( the rock.....nuff said)
> 
> Mad Maxx 3d (killer movie)
> 
> Transformers 4 (teens and fans of cartoon)
> 
> Expendables 3 (for 35 and up)..lol
> 
> John wick ( all males)
> 
> Age of adaline ( all females)



I never see Insurgent mentioned in these kind of lists. Some great overhead action at times in that movie and the actors are easy on the eyes for both genders.


----------



## Molon_Labe

If you are just demoing to friends, I think the Atmos demo disc is the best demonstration of the technology.


----------



## rmilyard

Molon_Labe said:


> If you are just demoing to friends, I think the Atmos demo disc is the best demonstration of the technology.


Would like to get ahold of one.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bargervais said:


> Tuesday I will have the Fifth Element, the professional, and Pixels, then the following week GAME OF THRONES seasons one and two.


I took the day off for Halo 5 (Yes, I'm 42... but don't judge.), so I had T5E, Leon: The Professional and Pixels shipped to my home for tomorrow. Gonna be a whole day of Atmos flicks and Halo 5 in glorious DSU with 7.1.4 for me!


----------



## Xeneize12

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Back on the subject of Atmos... I got a hold of San Andreas early and HOLY HELL! The movie itself is what you'd expect - a mindless disaster flick with The Rock. But the subject matter makes for some killer use of ALL the speakers! This one is demo worthy in every way.
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't ask yourself questions like "Why hasn't his employer called about their missing helicopter?" Or "Why would you go on a rescue call with almost no fuel left?" And certainly don't question the impossibility of putting a helicopter where he puts it in the first scene of the movie. But beyond that, turn off your brain and bask in some outstanding Atmos audio! This one is maybe the best action mix I've heard in the format thus far.


The whole west coast is literally crumbling down and you expect an employer to make a call for a missing helicopter?? ... c'mon!

Atmos implementation is amazing in San Andreas, but I'd still pick Mad Max and Gravity over San Andreas for pure Atmos enjoyment (not to mention much better movies)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Xeneize12 said:


> The whole west coast is literally crumbling down and you expect an employer to make a call for a missing helicopter?? ... c'mon!



When it's a rescue chopper for the fire department, YES! But despite that, it was a blast in Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

I'm really curious to see how the Besson movies Leon and the 5th element have been remixed with Atmos 
If remixers have done a good job, then it has also some Mega-demo potential, as the soundtrack of the 5th element already rocks in 5.1


----------



## Nabs17

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I took the day off for Halo 5 (Yes, I'm 42... but don't judge.), so I had T5E, Leon: The Professional and Pixels shipped to my home for tomorrow. Gonna be a whole day of Atmos flicks and Halo 5 in glorious DSU with 7.1.4 for me!


Won't judge but will be interested in what Halo 5 sounds like in DSU. In fact have you (or anyone) played games in DSU before. I do game from time-to-time and I will be picking up Halo 5 tomorrow as well.


And I'm older than you.


----------



## Gates

After a long wait and installing my Paradigm E80-R's last week, I finally received my Anthem PVA-4, so I'll be able to hear ATMOS at home for the first time with my 8802a!!!! Unfortunately I'm at work for a few hours still


----------



## dkwong

Nabs17 said:


> Won't judge but will be interested in what Halo 5 sounds like in DSU. In fact have you (or anyone) played games in DSU before. I do game from time-to-time and I will be picking up Halo 5 tomorrow as well.
> 
> 
> And I'm older than you.



Tomb Raider Definitive Edition is incredible in DSU.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Nabs17 said:


> Won't judge but will be interested in what Halo 5 sounds like in DSU. In fact have you (or anyone) played games in DSU before. I do game from time-to-time and I will be picking up Halo 5 tomorrow as well.
> 
> 
> And I'm older than you.


I play everything in DSU on my Xbox One. The problem is that most game audio tends to be very directional, meaning multi-channel ambient sounds aren't used as much as in movies. So in my experience, I haven't heard many games that had a significant improvement from DSU. The exceptions are Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition (which has a lot of environment/storm sound) and I played some Halo 4 last night and was impressed by what DSU did for it. If 343 Industries does the sound in the same way with Halo 5, DSU ought to work nicely with it.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I took the day off for Halo 5 (Yes, I'm 42... but don't judge.), so I had T5E, Leon: The Professional and Pixels shipped to my home for tomorrow. Gonna be a whole day of Atmos flicks and Halo 5 in glorious DSU with 7.1.4 for me!


Your not alone, I am 45 and will be picking it up. I won't be taking a sick day for Halo but you can bet your britches that I will be taking off on November 17th when Star Wars Battlefront launches. That will be a day that eats at least 12 hours off my projector lamp.


----------



## KennyLSU

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I play everything in DSU on my Xbox One. The problem is that most game audio tends to be very directional, meaning multi-channel ambient sounds aren't used as much as in movies. So in my experience, I haven't heard many games that had a significant improvement from DSU. The exceptions are Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition (which has a lot of environment/storm sound) and I played some Halo 4 last night and was impressed by what DSU did for it. If 343 Industries does the sound in the same way with Halo 5, DSU ought to work nicely with it.


Have you tried Batman: Arkham Knight? I was thinking about re-playing this with DSU on my new receiver to see if there is any difference in sound.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

KennyLSU said:


> Have you tried Batman: Arkham Knight? I was thinking about re-playing this with DSU on my new receiver to see if there is any difference in sound.


I have it, but I don't think I've played it since I got my Atmos system set up. Too many great games coming out! But I'll eventually get around to jumping back into it. I think I was about 42% complete when I got sidetracked by other games.


----------



## dominica

I was wondering if any one has tried wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position in there Atmos setup instead of up-firing speakers? At this moment I don't think I would be able to put in-ceiling speakers in my setup. I have the upgrade bug, but in-ceiling is a no go at the moment .

If you had any luck what kind of angle did you use? or is it even worth it?

Thanks


----------



## Spanglo

dominica said:


> I was wondering if any one has tried wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position in there Atmos setup instead of up-firing speakers? At this moment I don't think I would be able to put in-ceiling speakers in my setup. I have the upgrade bug, but in-ceiling is a no go at the moment .
> 
> If you had any luck what kind of angle did you use? or is it even worth it?
> 
> Thanks


I mounted on wall at ceiling, and Definitely worth it. The link in my sig has some pics.


----------



## jrogers

dominica said:


> I was wondering if any one has tried wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position in there Atmos setup instead of up-firing speakers? At this moment I don't think I would be able to put in-ceiling speakers in my setup. I have the upgrade bug, but in-ceiling is a no go at the moment .
> 
> If you had any luck what kind of angle did you use? or is it even worth it?
> 
> Thanks


I have front-heights mounted on-wall at ceiling and pointed at MLP, and they sound great, but I can't contrast to up-firing.


----------



## batpig

dominica said:


> I was wondering if any one has tried wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position in there Atmos setup instead of up-firing speakers? At this moment I don't think I would be able to put in-ceiling speakers in my setup. I have the upgrade bug, but in-ceiling is a no go at the moment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If you had any luck what kind of angle did you use? or is it even worth it?
> 
> Thanks


This will work fine -- just designate as Front Height + Rear Height. You won't get the dull "over your head" effect but it's a "legal" Atmos setup.


----------



## javanpohl

Any reviews lurking around on the 5th Element Atmos version? Comes out tomorrow. I'm used to reviews hitting at least a week in advance but so far I've seen zippo. I've been eagerly awaiting this one and I'd like to know if I need to taper my expectations. I'm thinking the part where Leeloo steps outside for the first time could be uh-mazing.


----------



## Lesmor

dominica said:


> I was wondering if any one has tried wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position in there Atmos setup instead of up-firing speakers? At this moment I don't think I would be able to put in-ceiling speakers in my setup. I have the upgrade bug, but in-ceiling is a no go at the moment .
> 
> If you had any luck what kind of angle did you use? or is it even worth it?
> 
> Thanks


IMHO it has to depend if the angle from the MLP falls within the Dolby spec
Contrary to the other replies I have front Heights touching the ceiling but the angle from MPL is 22deg and I don't get any feeling of overhead sound.
I swapped them to rear Height position which just falls within the required angle and again no feeling of overhead.
I intend to install Top middle in due course


----------



## Stoked21

dominica said:


> I was wondering if any one has tried wall-mounted near the ceiling and angled downward at the listening position in there Atmos setup instead of up-firing speakers? At this moment I don't think I would be able to put in-ceiling speakers in my setup. I have the upgrade bug, but in-ceiling is a no go at the moment .
> 
> If you had any luck what kind of angle did you use? or is it even worth it?
> 
> Thanks


Been there done that. I ran RH instead of adding a pair of ICs for TR. I had a pair of left over surrounds in the ceiling that were located close enough to dolby spec to use as TF. So I never tried FH.

I used this setup for about a week or so and found I had the RH cranked to about +5-6 db vs what YPAO said they should be. I never found them to feel immersive. They just weren't there and could barely be heard. Maybe I should say they just did not add to the sound. It had nothing to do with me expecting them to be screaming and localizable. 

I immediately ordered 4 new, low-cost ICs and used them ($100 each). The old RH on the wall, right against the ceiling, are still just hanging there as decoration. The difference by going to ICs can't even be put into words. I originally thought Atmos was just kind of neat and not used very prolifically in most mixes. When I put in the ICs, it was astounding. Things were moving THROUGH the room, high and low, front to back.

Now mind you, it could be that my speaker choice was less than ideal. They could just be too close to my back row/MLP. They could be poor dispersion and not aimed or mounted ideally.....You get the point. 

I'm not saying you can't get good results this way. I'm sure people have. But it did sound RADICALLY different after I abandoned that approach. And get this, I use ICs that are aimable, pointed at the MLP, and they are right above the old RH speakers.....Less than 12" close.


----------



## Lesmor

Spanglo said:


> I mounted on wall at ceiling, and Definitely worth it. The link in my sig has some pics.


Are you not using TF + RH ?


----------



## dominica

Thanks everyone for heading me in the right direction on wall mounted front/rear height speakers options. I did not want to have to cut through some of the beams/moving molding to run the wire. We did new construction on that area last year (the wife would kill me)


Thanks again everyone for the fast response and even having pictures (Spanglo) to get a better view how how it could be done.


----------



## Spanglo

Lesmor said:


> Are you not using TF + RH ?


Yes, TF + RH.


----------



## bargervais

Let me ask this when I get both seasons of Game of Thrones next week, does that boost my Atmos Blu-Ray count by 10 as there are 5 Atmos Blu-Rays in each season.


----------



## bargervais

Sorry another double post.
I thought they fixed the double post that's been happening, I have been careful not to click twice or spazzzz out when posting.


----------



## Steven James 2

Stoked21 said:


> Saw gallows in the theater (I see 3-4 movies a week in the theater). Gallows was HORRIBLE. I haven't heard it in Atmos. I'm not sure I could sit through that movie again to just hear Atmos. Maybe I will since my sons haven't seen it but it'll be while surfing on my phone. If the Atmos mix is any good, LMK.



Well i shoulda listened to ya! Not only was it a very bad movie, the atmos soundtrack was horrible as well... Well 19 dollars down the drain i guess... Smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aaranddeeman

For less than $15 (plus shipping may be), the following is a biggest bollywood blockbuster (in ATMOS ofcourse)


http://www.amazon.in/Bahubali-Hindi...=UTF8&qid=1445923792&sr=1-2&keywords=bahubali

Not sure if amazon India will ship it outside or will have to wait till amazon.com makes it available.


----------



## Zhorik

aaranddeeman said:


> For less than $15 (plus shipping may be), the following is a biggest bollywood blockbuster (in ATMOS ofcourse)
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.in/Bahubali-Hindi...=UTF8&qid=1445923792&sr=1-2&keywords=bahubali
> 
> Not sure if amazon India will ship it outside or will have to wait till amazon.com makes it available.


Its available on Amazon US through third party:

http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...9O8I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1


----------



## Doncartman

Hi everyone,

Been reading AVS for years, let me first do a small presentation. I've always found it to be the best out there for Home Entertainment. My profile is quite tech, in the sense that i follow the news, and get myself equipped quite often but really more over good deals. My latest acquisition was a 4K LG TV set (LG55UB850V) to enjoy 4K enjoy, among other -yet limited- content. 

Last week i got myself the DENON AVR-X2200W -found it on Amazon.it @575€!- to finalize my setup. Mainly because i've got a SHIELD Android TV that requires HDCP 2.2 for Netflix 4K content. And because i'll be early-adopting an UHD BluRray player as soon as it's out -and affordable-. And again, it was 575€!

Anyway, i'm now looking for bookshelf reflective ATMOS speakers as an option and i must say i've got the impression that there are none on the market.

I'm currently running a set of 5.1 Boston Accoustics Soundware XS White (mainly for WAF) and i've got a few options:

- Look for new regular bookshelves and pair them with the Onkyo SKH-410 sitting on top. Not ideal, and quite ugly. This would be around 200€. ANd i would not be able to recycle my two front speakers as my amp is 5.1.2 only in ATMOS.
- Look for new bookshelves but this time, with ATMOS reflective additional speaker on top. Can't find any pair anywhere...
- Complete ATMOS 5.1 sets, WAF compliant. Have seen kits around 799€, quite expensive. No clue about their quality either.

What would you do? Thanks much for reading that long post :/


----------



## Lesmor

aaranddeeman said:


> For less than $15 (plus shipping may be), the following is a biggest bollywood blockbuster (in ATMOS ofcourse)
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.in/Bahubali-Hindi...=UTF8&qid=1445923792&sr=1-2&keywords=bahubali
> 
> Not sure if amazon India will ship it outside or will have to wait till amazon.com makes it available.


For those who might be interested here is an article about how this movie was mixed for Atmos.
Gives a bit of insight of the process and how heights are used sparingly.
http://film-mixing.com/2015/08/05/behind-the-dolby-atmos-mix-of-baahubali/

Hope some of you enjoy the read
Andy


----------



## gene4ht

Doncartman said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Been reading AVS for years, let me first do a small presentation. I've always found it to be the best out there for Home Entertainment. My profile is quite tech, in the sense that i follow the news, and get myself equipped quite often but really more over good deals. My latest acquisition was a 4K LG TV set (LG55UB850V) to enjoy 4K enjoy, among other -yet limited- content.
> 
> Last week i got myself the DENON AVR-X2200W -found it on Amazon.it @575€!- to finalize my setup. Mainly because i've got a SHIELD Android TV that requires HDCP 2.2 for Netflix 4K content. And because i'll be early-adopting an UHD BluRray player as soon as it's out -and affordable-. And again, it was 575€!
> 
> Anyway, i'm now looking for bookshelf reflective ATMOS speakers as an option and i must say i've got the impression that there are none on the market.
> 
> I'm currently running a set of 5.1 Boston Accoustics Soundware XS White (mainly for WAF) and i've got a few options:
> 
> - Look for new regular bookshelves and pair them with the Onkyo SKH-410 sitting on top. Not ideal, and quite ugly. This would be around 200€. ANd i would not be able to recycle my two front speakers as my amp is 5.1.2 only in ATMOS.
> - Look for new bookshelves but this time, with ATMOS reflective additional speaker on top. Can't find any pair anywhere...
> - Complete ATMOS 5.1 sets, WAF compliant. Have seen kits around 799€, quite expensive. No clue about their quality either.
> 
> What would you do? Thanks much for reading that long post :/


I'm not sure where you're located and if these are even available to you. However, these are the first Dolby Enabled bookshelves I'm aware of. And because Atmos for HT is still really in its infancy, no doubt more are sure to follow.

http://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-SP-EBS73-Atmos-enabled-Bookshelf-Speakers/dp/B00MQEE4M8


----------



## aaranddeeman

Zhorik said:


> Its available on Amazon US through third party:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...9O8I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1


Ah. good to know. 
I grabbed mine from a local store while I visit my family here in India.


----------



## Doncartman

gene4ht said:


> I'm not sure where you're located and if these are even available to you. However, these are the first Dolby Enabled bookshelves I'm aware of. And because Atmos for HT is still really in its infancy, no doubt more are sure to follow.
> 
> -----------
> Thanks much for the answer. I am in France and yes, i had seen these already. Was really thinking that more existed. Insanely priced to me at the moment. I just thought i would go ahead and run Dobly Surround for the moment, and buy a few ATMOS BRs, but i'm afraid not a that price
> 
> Cheapest solution to me, in France, would be Elthax Shine 4 White + Onkyo SKH-410 on top. Any idea about the Elthax quality?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Lesmor said:


> For those who might be interested here is an article about how this movie was mixed for Atmos.
> Gives a bit of insight of the process and how heights are used sparingly.
> http://film-mixing.com/2015/08/05/behind-the-dolby-atmos-mix-of-baahubali/
> 
> Hope some of you enjoy the read
> Andy


That's very good detailed info.
Thanks.


----------



## petetherock

Zhorik said:


> Its available on Amazon US through third party:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...9O8I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1


Does this version come with Atmos?


----------



## pasender91

Doncartman said:


> gene4ht said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where you're located and if these are even available to you. However, these are the first Dolby Enabled bookshelves I'm aware of. And because Atmos for HT is still really in its infancy, no doubt more are sure to follow.
> 
> -----------
> Thanks much for the answer. I am in France and yes, i had seen these already. Was really thinking that more existed. Insanely priced to me at the moment. I just thought i would go ahead and run Dobly Surround for the moment, and buy a few ATMOS BRs, but i'm afraid not a that price
> 
> Cheapest solution to me, in France, would be Elthax Shine 4 White + Onkyo SKH-410 on top. Any idea about the Elthax quality?
> 
> 
> 
> Bonjour,
> 
> Eltax has a good quality/price ratio , but the Onkyo Atmos modules are really disgusting , that's the general opinion.
> I don't know if it works for you, but you would be much better off in terms of overall results with a pair of satellites high on the front wall, positioned as FH, rather than the reflective modules.
> 
> For example, you could install a pair of Shine 2 (smaller and lighter model) as FH, attached at the top of the front wall
Click to expand...


----------



## Doncartman

pasender91 said:


> Doncartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonjour,
> 
> Eltax has a good quality/price ratio , but the Onkyo Atmos modules are really disgusting , that's the general opinion.
> I don't know if it works for you, but you would be much better off in terms of overall results with a pair of satellites high on the front wall, positioned as FH, rather than the reflective modules.
> 
> For example, you could install a pair of Shine 2 (smaller and lighter model) as FH, attached at the top of the front wall
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Pasender,
> 
> Well i had not thought about that really. I would assume the result would be worse, as it would just 'send audio from high up' and not 'give the impression of overhead'.
> 
> But this is just looking at a simple drawing where i would draw projection lines from the speakers... In my mind, reflecting the sound on the ceiling would give the best result, in terms of positionning.
> 
> Wrong then?
> 
> Also i've got an issue with that solution: THe cables to go to high on the front wall. My wife will just kill me :/ (not skilled enough to get the cables inside of the wall i'm afraid).
> 
> You got a .4 so i'm assuming you have your modules up high in each corner correct?
Click to expand...


----------



## Doncartman

pasender91 said:


> Doncartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonjour,
> 
> Eltax has a good quality/price ratio , but the Onkyo Atmos modules are really disgusting , that's the general opinion.
> I don't know if it works for you, but you would be much better off in terms of overall results with a pair of satellites high on the front wall, positioned as FH, rather than the reflective modules.
> 
> For example, you could install a pair of Shine 2 (smaller and lighter model) as FH, attached at the top of the front wall
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Pasender,
> 
> Well i had not thought about that really. I would assume the result would be worse, as it would just 'send audio from high up' and not 'give the impression of overhead'.
> 
> But this is just looking at a simple drawing where i would draw projection lines from the speakers... In my mind, reflecting the sound on the ceiling would give the best result, in terms of positionning.
> 
> Wrong then?
> 
> Also i've got an issue with that solution: THe cables to go to high on the front wall. My wife will just kill me :/ (not skilled enough to get the cables inside of the wall i'm afraid).
> 
> You got a .4 so i'm assuming you have your modules up high in each corner correct?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesmor

Doncartman said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Pasender,
> 
> Well i had not thought about that really. I would assume the result would be worse, as it would just 'send audio from high up' and not 'give the impression of overhead'.
> 
> But this is just looking at a simple drawing where i would draw projection lines from the speakers... In my mind, reflecting the sound on the ceiling would give the best result, in terms of positionning.
> 
> Wrong then?
> 
> Also i've got an issue with that solution: THe cables to go to high on the front wall. My wife will just kill me :/ (not skilled enough to get the cables inside of the wall i'm afraid).
> 
> You got a .4 so i'm assuming you have your modules up high in each corner correct?
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated elsewhere unless the angle of the Front heights from the MLP fall within spec
> in my experience it will give no sense of overhead sound, and I'll go as far as to say objects as well.
> I have quite a few good Atmos discs which to be honest have been disappointing and I can only put that down to using Front Heights.
> I have run front height using DTS Neo:X for a number of year with great satisfaction, but for Atmos its absolutely useless but my Height angle (20deg) fall well below the spec required.
> So IMHO its either in ceiling or upfiring if you want to experience Atmos as intended.
Click to expand...


----------



## Doncartman

Lesmor said:


> Doncartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated elsewhere unless the angle of the Front heights from the MLP fall within spec
> in my experience it will give no sense of overhead sound, and I'll go as far as to say objects as well.
> I have quite a few good Atmos discs which to be honest have been disappointing and I can only put that down to using Front Heights.
> I have run front height using DTS Neo:X for a number of year with great satisfaction, but for Atmos its absolutely useless but my Height angle (20deg) fall well below the spec required.
> So IMHO its either in ceiling or upfiring if you want to experience Atmos as intended.
> 
> 
> 
> That would join what i thought, indeed. I'm now seeing these being available already and with great reviews: Pioneer SP-T22A-LR
Click to expand...


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> Doncartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated elsewhere unless the angle of the Front heights from the MLP fall within spec
> in my experience it will give no sense of overhead sound, and I'll go as far as to say objects as well.
> I have quite a few good Atmos discs which to be honest have been disappointing and I can only put that down to using Front Heights.
> I have run front height using DTS Neo:X for a number of year with great satisfaction, but for Atmos its absolutely useless but my Height angle (20deg) fall well below the spec required.
> So IMHO its either in ceiling or upfiring if you want to experience Atmos as intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I would take that analysis a bit further, as being someone who has tried rear heights. I thought it sounded good in a 5.2.4. But it made me miss my rear surrounds. I felt like the RH were essentially trying to accomplish the replacement of rear surrounds and add some elevation. I liked it but it also felt like it lacked the rear surround effect to a certain degree (by being accustomed to hearing 5.1). I'm sure this opinion would be diminished in a 7.2.4 system.
> 
> Once you've heard ICs for TF and TR though, you realize what you are missing by using FH and RH in Atmos. I hate to discourage anyone from using RH/FH or DAE speakers. IMO I think I would feel like using those solutions is more of a neat novelty than a complete game changer with ICs. If you don't ever listen to a good IC system though, you will never know what you are missing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Doncartman

Stoked21 said:


> Lesmor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I would take that analysis a bit further, as being someone who has tried rear heights. I thought it sounded good in a 5.2.4. But it made me miss my rear surrounds. I felt like the RH were essentially trying to accomplish the replacement of rear surrounds and add some elevation. I liked it but it also felt like it lacked the rear surround effect to a certain degree (by being accustomed to hearing 5.1). I'm sure this opinion would be diminished in a 7.2.4 system.
> 
> Once you've heard ICs for TF and TR though, you realize what you are missing by using FH and RH in Atmos. I hate to discourage anyone from using RH/FH or DAE speakers. IMO I think I would feel like using those solutions is more of a neat novelty than a complete game changer with ICs. If you don't ever listen to a good IC system though, you will never know what you are missing.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, i can relate despite having never listened to either IC or 7.1. I totally understand what you mean when you say you are missing your Surrounds. Good thing for me is i've never used nor ambitionned to get 7.1, because of WAF and room. This is in my living room where we spend a considerable amount of time. I want a much of a discreet and elegant solution as possible. Hence the initial choice for Boston satellites and 5.1 only. It all remains quite elegant. I don't want anything fancy/expensive, just the proper entry level ATMOS experience. Looking at the feedback, it would be:
> 
> 1. IC
> 2. Upfiring
> 3.Up front, up back
> 
> As IC is a no go for me, i'm think, heck, Upfiring is the good solution to go for. Still taking feedback and welcome discutions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesmor

Doncartman said:


> Stoked21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, i can relate despite having never listened to either IC or 7.1. I totally understand what you mean when you say you are missing your Surrounds. Good thing for me is i've never used nor ambitionned to get 7.1, because of WAF and room. This is in my living room where we spend a considerable amount of time. I want a much of a discreet and elegant solution as possible. Hence the initial choice for Boston satellites and 5.1 only. It all remains quite elegant. I don't want anything fancy/expensive, just the proper entry level ATMOS experience. Looking at the feedback, it would be:
> 
> 1. IC
> 2. Upfiring
> 3.Up front, up back
> 
> As IC is a no go for me, i'm think, heck, Upfiring is the good solution to go for. Still taking feedback and welcome discutions.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say in your situation definitely up firing.
> Logically for sound that should be above you then IC and Dolby enabled is *the* only option/choice
> Using FH / RH you are doomed to fail to achieve the required effect, why compromise your $ and time investment.
> Cheers
> Andy
> 
> Don't know why the quoted posts are all buggered up.
Click to expand...


----------



## pasender91

For sure IC (TF, TM, TR) is positioned as #1 
But i don't agree on putting FH+RH as #3 in all cases, it all depends on angles, Lesmor had bad results but his angle is only 20°, where the minimum should be 30°.

If you have a smaller room, then you can achieve 30° angle or more from walls and get a better result than reflecting modules.
In a typical european room (2.5m ceiling), and MLP at about 2/3 of the length, this is the case if the room is less than 6m in length.
This is my case as i have 5m, so front are FH at about 30° and rears are on the back wall but designated as TR, based on their angle.
And the result is very good.
Also take into account that installation of wall speakers is easier than ceiling 

So in conclusion, and based on a 2.5m (8.2 ft) ceiling:
IF length below 6m (20 ft):
1 => IC (TF, TM, TR)
2 => Height (FH, RH or TR)
3 => Reflective Atmos modules

IF length above 6m (20 ft):
1 => IC (TF, TM, TR)
2 => Reflective Atmos modules


----------



## dholmes54

I think I've asked this already,but why couldn't you use small spks as up firing atmos moduals instead of buying some,the add on moduals go on top of your mains correct? It might look a little strange but it should work.Any thoughts on this?


----------



## bargervais

dholmes54 said:


> I think I've asked this already,but why couldn't you use small spks as up firing atmos moduals instead of buying some,the add on moduals go on top of your mains correct? It might look a little strange but it should work.Any thoughts on this?


I think batpig was using foe Atmos Enabled Speakers at one point you may want to PM him.


----------



## robert816

dholmes54 said:


> I think I've asked this already,but why couldn't you use small spks as up firing atmos moduals instead of buying some,the add on moduals go on top of your mains correct? It might look a little strange but it should work.Any thoughts on this?


I use KEF Egg's as fake Atmos speakers on top of my Polk Monitors reflecting sound off the ceiling, they work very well for this type of sound.


----------



## Lesmor

dholmes54 said:


> I think I've asked this already,but why couldn't you use small spks as up firing atmos moduals instead of buying some,the add on moduals go on top of your mains correct? It might look a little strange but it should work.Any thoughts on this?


You could use small spks but
Because of the design
Dolby Enabled speakers are licensed and have a patent pending filter built in.


----------



## Stoked21

dholmes54 said:


> I think I've asked this already,but why couldn't you use small spks as up firing atmos moduals instead of buying some,the add on moduals go on top of your mains correct? It might look a little strange but it should work.Any thoughts on this?


I don't mean to be crass here. You can try to save money and end up with a bad result that you are not happy with. Or you can do it right the first time. Trust me as I've been there and done that.

Go with something intended for the purpose whether IC or DAE. ICs are really low cost compared to good DAE. You could probably get someone to install low-cost ICs and fish the wire for a similar price of buying good DAE. And then it's simple to swap out ICs to higher cost models if/when you ever have the desire.

Fact of the matter is that if you don't move the DAE to the PERFECT location potentially putting them in a less than aesthetic location, potentially moving around furniture (MLP), and dealing with ceiling obstructions and finishes, and acoustic analysis with sound treatment potentially, on and on and on ....they very likely won't work well for you. I personally think that DAE are more difficult to place than IC as you have to run a lot of trial-error, repositioning, and changing things to get the right reflection points.


----------



## dholmes54

OK thxs everyone,I may try it,I also have Polk tower spks and 2 monitor 10 small spks to use on top of the towers,its worth a try!


----------



## Doncartman

pasender91 said:


> For sure IC (TF, TM, TR) is positioned as #1
> But i don't agree on putting FH+RH as #3 in all cases, it all depends on angles, Lesmor had bad results but his angle is only 20°, where the minimum should be 30°.
> 
> If you have a smaller room, then you can achieve 30° angle or more from walls and get a better result than reflecting modules.
> In a typical european room (2.5m ceiling), and MLP at about 2/3 of the length, this is the case if the room is less than 6m in length.
> This is my case as i have 5m, so front are FH at about 30° and rears are on the back wall but designated as TR, based on their angle.
> And the result is very good.
> Also take into account that installation of wall speakers is easier than ceiling
> 
> So in conclusion, and based on a 2.5m (8.2 ft) ceiling:
> IF length below 6m (20 ft):
> 1 => IC (TF, TM, TR)
> 2 => Height (FH, RH or TR)
> 3 => Reflective Atmos modules
> 
> IF length above 6m (20 ft):
> 1 => IC (TF, TM, TR)
> 2 => Reflective Atmos modules


Thanks. Indeed, have i got 2.5m height. As for the angle, you mean that the speakers should look at the listening position with an angle of 30° when fixed at the wall, correct?

The actual distance between the speakers and the MLP is two meters so... First case. 

I would just go ahead and look for cheap satellites in that case, that would be WAF compliant...


----------



## Stanton

dholmes54 said:


> OK thxs everyone,I may try it,I also have Polk tower spks and 2 monitor 10 small spks to use on top of the towers,its worth a try!


Polk Monitor 10's are_ not _*small* speakers 
Now if you want to try point some Monitor 4's towards the ceiling, it might be worth a try. Otherwise mount them high on the wall (like I did)


----------



## dholmes54

Thxs Stanton,I've got some sm demon spks that might work,I wanted to use the same brand but the denons are 5in wide by 7in tall and are desent spks


----------



## bargervais

Zhorik said:


> Its available on Amazon US through third party:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...9O8I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1


that one doesn't appear to be Atmos look at the picture on the front and back cover i don't see Atmos on This one I maybe wrong but>>>. DTS HD Master Audio.

http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...TF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1&tag=viglink20246-20


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> that one doesn't appear to be Atmos look at the picture on the front and back cover i don't see Atmos on This one I maybe wrong but>>>. DTS HD Master Audio.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...TF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1&tag=viglink20246-20


Looks like you might have to import it from India after all.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Doncartman said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Pasender,
> 
> Well i had not thought about that really. I would assume the result would be worse, as it would just 'send audio from high up' and not 'give the impression of overhead'.
> 
> But this is just looking at a simple drawing where i would draw projection lines from the speakers... In my mind, reflecting the sound on the ceiling would give the best result, in terms of positionning.
> 
> Wrong then?
> 
> Also i've got an issue with that solution: THe cables to go to high on the front wall. My wife will just kill me :/ (not skilled enough to get the cables inside of the wall i'm afraid).
> 
> You got a .4 so i'm assuming you have your modules up high in each corner correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Re wires on the wall...I don't know whether your wife mife might be more tolerant of this or not...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Wiremold-CMK5...e=UTF8&qid=1445967181&sr=8-1&keywords=raceway
> 
> but, it gives a neater appearance than simply having the bare wires dangling. I have used the along a baseboard and there they simply look like finish trim.
> 
> Also, look for the Elac speakers on Amazon...also a Jones design, but much less. These include A4 upfiring modules which might work for you.
Click to expand...


----------



## dvdwilly3

dholmes54 said:


> I think I've asked this already,but why couldn't you use small spks as up firing atmos moduals instead of buying some,the add on moduals go on top of your mains correct? It might look a little strange but it should work.Any thoughts on this?


I use Goldenear Technology Supersat 3s mounted on speaker stands sitting beside the front right and left speakers and at the rear of my HT in a 5.1.4 configuration.

They work like a champ...


----------



## pasender91

Doncartman said:


> Thanks. Indeed, have i got 2.5m height. As for the angle, you mean that the speakers should look at the listening position with an angle of 30° when fixed at the wall, correct?
> 
> The actual distance between the speakers and the MLP is two meters so... First case.
> 
> I would just go ahead and look for cheap satellites in that case, that would be WAF compliant...


Yes, this angle is the vertical angle from speaker to your ears.
In your case:
X = 2
Z = 2.5 -1 = 1.5 (assuming speakers as high as possible + assuming normal sofa, your ears about 1m off the ground)
Your FH angle would be Arctan (Z/X) => 37°, so well within Atmos specs 

As for the actual cheap satellite you could use, the Boston XS does not sell anymore, but you can find it easily in used condition.
You can get a full 2.1 second hand kit for less than 100€, in which case a second sub comes in for free !!


----------



## kbarnes701

Doncartman said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Been reading AVS for years, let me first do a small presentation. I've always found it to be the best out there for Home Entertainment. My profile is quite tech, in the sense that i follow the news, and get myself equipped quite often but really more over good deals. My latest acquisition was a 4K LG TV set (LG55UB850V) to enjoy 4K enjoy, among other -yet limited- content.
> 
> Last week i got myself the DENON AVR-X2200W -found it on Amazon.it @575€!- to finalize my setup. Mainly because i've got a SHIELD Android TV that requires HDCP 2.2 for Netflix 4K content. And because i'll be early-adopting an UHD BluRray player as soon as it's out -and affordable-. And again, it was 575€!
> 
> Anyway, i'm now looking for bookshelf reflective ATMOS speakers as an option and i must say i've got the impression that there are none on the market.
> 
> I'm currently running a set of 5.1 Boston Accoustics Soundware XS White (mainly for WAF) and i've got a few options:
> 
> - Look for new regular bookshelves and pair them with the Onkyo SKH-410 sitting on top. Not ideal, and quite ugly. This would be around 200€. ANd i would not be able to recycle my two front speakers as my amp is 5.1.2 only in ATMOS.
> - Look for new bookshelves but this time, with ATMOS reflective additional speaker on top. Can't find any pair anywhere...
> - Complete ATMOS 5.1 sets, WAF compliant. Have seen kits around 799€, quite expensive. No clue about their quality either.
> 
> What would you do? Thanks much for reading that long post :/


The Onkyo modules are not highly regarded by the cognoscenti here. Have you considered the Andrew Jones Pioneer bookshelves with inbuilt Atmos modules? They are fairly compact (WAF) and very highly thought of.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I personally think that DAE are more difficult to place than IC as you have to run a lot of trial-error, repositioning, and changing things to get the right reflection points.


I second that. I was initially attracted to Atmos upfiring modules to use with my existing speakers but in the end it was actually easier to install on-ceiling speakers and fish the wire. Once it's done, it's done - my old Grandaddy had a saying: do it once, do it right.


----------



## Doncartman

kbarnes701 said:


> The Onkyo modules are not highly regarded by the cognoscenti here. Have you considered the Andrew Jones Pioneer bookshelves with inbuilt Atmos modules? They are fairly compact (WAF) and very highly thought of.


Thanks, yes i have considered them. Way too expensive :/


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> For those who might be interested here is an article about how this movie was mixed for Atmos.
> Gives a bit of insight of the process and how heights are used sparingly.
> http://film-mixing.com/2015/08/05/behind-the-dolby-atmos-mix-of-baahubali/
> 
> Hope some of you enjoy the read
> Andy


Excellent link - thanks Andy.

A couple of quotes from the article:

_We decided to mix the film in native Dolby Atmos. There is no other format that allows true immersive sound and so much resolution in panning and positioning that it brings the audience to be a part of the story. To elaborate, when you’re in the sea or in the forest, and you hear the waves or insects, you feel like you’re in that space. It suddenly becomes very real. The goal was to extend the film off the screen and into the theatre and make the audience part of the experience. We didn’t want the audience to sit back and watch the movie. We wanted them to experience Bahubali.
_


_Its not the overheads, but the resolution and the amazing down mix that defines the format._

The article gives a very good insight into the creativity and effort that mixers put in so that can enjoy our movies to the full. 700 hours to complete this one movie! (In 4 versions).

I recommend this article to anyone with more than a passing interest in how movie sound is created.


----------



## kbarnes701

Doncartman said:


> Thanks, yes i have considered them. Way too expensive :/


He has also designed some Elac models which are, I believe, less costly. Worth a look?


----------



## MarkMul1

dholmes54 said:


> OK thxs everyone,I may try it,I also have Polk tower spks and 2 monitor 10 small spks to use on top of the towers,its worth a try!


I did it with some Tannoy satellite speakers and it worked very well. The concentric design helped. It was an interesting smattering of goodies i used to make it point at the correct angle. Sitting on a roll of duck tape with a memory stick and tape wrapped around popsicle sticks actually worked. Was not as ugly as one would think.....Ha 
I recently went with Klipsch towers with the Atmos built in the top.........much more better looking but sounds about the same.
Hope this helps


----------



## Eriksdam

bargervais said:


> that one doesn't appear to be Atmos look at the picture on the front and back cover i don't see Atmos on This one I maybe wrong but>>>. DTS HD Master Audio.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...TF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1&tag=viglink20246-20


.....Or you can try Ebay: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?pub=5574868606&campid=5336448800&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F%26_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp2054900.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XBahubali%2520bluray.TRS0%26_nkw%3DBahubali%2520bluray

Anyway, the back-covers on Amazon.in and Ebay are exactly the same (DTS-HD, Dolby Digital). If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, I'm ordering this from Amazon.com as soon as Game of Thrones and a few other titles are available, I'll let you know then...


-Erik


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent link - thanks Andy.


+1 


Confirms what you've been saying all along about Atmos (more than just the addition of heights).


----------



## Doncartman

kbarnes701 said:


> He has also designed some Elac models which are, I believe, less costly. Worth a look?


Yeah but only modules or bookshelf, not bookshelf including the module on top (for reflection). But thanks, ignored these!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> +1
> 
> 
> Confirms what you've been saying all along about Atmos (more than just the addition of heights).


Yep - the comment about more resolution in panning and positioning really resonated with me as that is just how I hear it at home. Of course, I do love overhead effects, but they are by no means the be-all and end-all of Atmos.


----------



## Doncartman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Doncartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re wires on the wall...I don't know whether your wife mife might be more tolerant of this or not...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Wiremold-CMK5...e=UTF8&qid=1445967181&sr=8-1&keywords=raceway
> 
> but, it gives a neater appearance than simply having the bare wires dangling. I have used the along a baseboard and there they simply look like finish trim.
> 
> Also, look for the Elac speakers on Amazon...also a Jones design, but much less. These include A4 upfiring modules which might work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep we've considered these as well. Depends on the decision i'll take about upfiring or front heigh.
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

Doncartman said:


> Yeah but only modules or bookshelf, not bookshelf including the module on top (for reflection). But thanks, ignored these!


OK. Then I have to give up! Others with their fingers more firmly on the pulse may give you some good ideas. I hope so - you will find Atmos is very much worth it.


----------



## kbarnes701

The *Baahubali* movie looks pretty good from the reviews etc. Amazon India won't ship to the UK. Anyone know where this can be bought with the Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## Doncartman

kbarnes701 said:


> OK. Then I have to give up! Others with their fingers more firmly on the pulse may give you some good ideas. I hope so - you will find Atmos is very much worth it.


Appreciate the concern still  I had forgotten about that light apply on the ceiling for the reflection! so i might just end up sticking satellites to the front high positions.


----------



## Zhorik

petetherock said:


> Does this version come with Atmos?





kbarnes701 said:


> The *Baahubali* movie looks pretty good from the reviews etc. Amazon India won't ship to the UK. Anyone know where this can be bought with the Atmos soundtrack?





bargervais said:


> that one doesn't appear to be Atmos look at the picture on the front and back cover i don't see Atmos on This one I maybe wrong but>>>. DTS HD Master Audio.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Begi...TF8&qid=1445931771&sr=8-1&tag=viglink20246-20


The back cover has DTS-HD MA print for Hindi language release and not corrected by the manufacturer, even though the disc has Atmos.


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent link - thanks Andy.
> 
> A couple of quotes from the article:
> 
> _We decided to mix the film in native Dolby Atmos. There is no other format that allows true immersive sound and so much resolution in panning and positioning that it brings the audience to be a part of the story. To elaborate, when you’re in the sea or in the forest, and you hear the waves or insects, you feel like you’re in that space. It suddenly becomes very real. The goal was to extend the film off the screen and into the theatre and make the audience part of the experience. We didn’t want the audience to sit back and watch the movie. We wanted them to experience Bahubali.
> _
> 
> 
> _Its not the overheads, but the resolution and the amazing down mix that defines the format._
> 
> The article gives a very good insight into the creativity and effort that mixers put in so that can enjoy our movies to the full. 700 hours to complete this one movie! (In 4 versions).
> 
> I recommend this article to anyone with more than a passing interest in how movie sound is created.


Glad you liked it Keith,thought you would appreciate the content
Edit: In the hope of not causing offence to anyone but there is a huge Indian community in the UK so a word in the right ear and someone might be able to take a copy back from India
Regards
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

Zhorik said:


> The back cover has DTS-HD MA print for Hindi language release and not corrected by the manufacturer, even though the disc has Atmos.


For clarity, are you saying that the Amazon USA disc is Atmos?


----------



## bargervais

Eriksdam said:


> .....Or you can try Ebay: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?pub=5574868606&campid=5336448800&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F%26_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp2054900.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XBahubali%2520bluray.TRS0%26_nkw%3DBahubali%2520bluray
> 
> Anyway, the back-covers on Amazon.in and Ebay are exactly the same (DTS-HD, Dolby Digital). If you don't mind waiting a few weeks, I'm ordering this from Amazon.com as soon as Game of Thrones and a few other titles are available, I'll let you know then...
> 
> 
> -Erik


I saw that too, but the one on Blu-Ray Review has Atmos Printed on the front. and the one on amazon has nothing, But i wouldn't order it as i don't speak Hindi that just me personally.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Baahubali-The-Beginning-Blu-ray/139917/

I'm getting both The fifth Element and Léon: The Professional Blu-rays. Now fully remastered in 4K, and with Atmos audio. I can't wait to see how this TV displays them, last Month i got Bram Stoker's Dracula Blu-ray remastered and with Dolby Atmos which I really enjoyed and thought the PQ was Great as well.

And next Week I can't Wait for Game of Thrones.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I saw that too, but the one on Blu-Ray Review has Atmos Printed on the front. and the one on amazon has nothing, But i wouldn't order it as i don't speak Hindi that just me personally.
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Baahubali-The-Beginning-Blu-ray/139917/


Well I don't speak Hindi either but it does come with English subtitles.



bargervais said:


> I'm getting both The fifth Element and Léon: The Professional Blu-rays. Now fully remastered in 4K, and with Atmos audio. I can't wait to see how this TV displays them, last Month i got Bram Stoker's Dracula Blu-ray remastered and with Dolby Atmos which I really enjoyed and thought the PQ was Great as well.


My copies of *The Fifth Element* and *Leon The Professional *have been posted from the USA. Should be here next week. Very much looking forward to both of them.



bargervais said:


> And next Week I can't Wait for Game of Thrones.


I don't normally do these extra-long multi-episode, multi-season TV series things - but just out of curiosity, which series is in Atmos?


----------



## Zhorik

kbarnes701 said:


> For clarity, are you saying that the Amazon USA disc is Atmos?


Yes, the Hindi version on Amazon has Atmos.

Link for Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1445973321&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Well I don't speak Hindi either but it does come with English subtitles.
> 
> 
> My copies of *The Fifth Element* and *Leon The Professional *have been posted from the USA. Should be here next week. Very much looking forward to both of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't normally do these extra-long multi-episode, multi-season TV series things - but just out of curiosity, which series is in Atmos?


I actually Enjoy Multi Episode TV series because there are a lot out there now that are very good, and then Having it with Atmos, that's the icing on the cake. 

Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2 5 Blu-Rays in each.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-First-Season-Blu-ray/136824/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Second-Season-Blu-ray/136825/


----------



## bargervais

Zhorik said:


> Yes, the Hindi version on Amazon has Atmos.
> 
> Link for Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1445973321&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray


thanks for confirming that.


----------



## stikle

Ralph reviewed The Fifth Element.

Atmos rating: 92/100.


----------



## smurraybhm

stikle said:


> Ralph reviewed The Fifth Element.
> 
> Atmos rating: 92/100.


Just think where we were exactly 13 months ago with the release of Transformers, followed by a trickle of releases for the rest of the year. Looking forward to GOT, but since I own both Season 1 & 2 already I am holding off on the Atmos versions until the Holidays in hope that we see some deals.

Keith, highly recommend GOT despite your dislike of series - if the mix is halfway decent it is going to be demo material. HBO has done a great job with the show as well as the video/audio quality of the blu-rays.


----------



## Charles R

I agree ceiling speakers are the way to go. In my case I wasn't willing to at this point in time and decided to try out wall speakers since I could "install" four without running any wire. I'll save that for a total redo or new location. My heights are mounts right at 7.5' and I didn't point them downwards to keep as much separation from the floor speakers as possible.

Of course I can't compare them to another type of installation however I find them rather entertaining. Overall they do lift the sound nicely which creates more of a surround experience. And with Atmos tracks they can make themselves known. I liken them more to rear surrounds than surrounds. When you turn them off you miss them... when they are on they blend in.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I actually Enjoy Multi Episode TV series because there are a lot out there now that are very good, and then Having it with Atmos, that's the icing on the cake.


For me the problem is the time investment. To watch 10 episodes at close on 1 hour each, times 5 series, is just tooooooo much for me. That would be 50 hours watching essentially one thing - or 25 movies!




bargervais said:


> Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2 5 Blu-Rays in each.
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-First-Season-Blu-ray/136824/
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Second-Season-Blu-ray/136825/


Thanks. That is a shedload of Atmos goodness for sure!


----------



## kbarnes701

Zhorik said:


> Yes, the Hindi version on Amazon has Atmos.
> 
> Link for Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1445973321&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray


Many thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Just think where we were exactly 13 months ago with the release of Transformers, followed by a trickle of releases for the rest of the year. Looking forward to GOT, but since I own both Season 1 & 2 already I am holding off on the Atmos versions until the Holidays in hope that we see some deals.
> 
> Keith, highly recommend GOT despite your dislike of series - if the mix is halfway decent it is going to be demo material. HBO has done a great job with the show as well as the video/audio quality of the blu-rays.


Yeah, I did see a few of Series 1. Very well made indeed. But as I just said above, the time investment is too much for me.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, I did see a few of Series 1. Very well made indeed. But as I just said above, the time investment is too much for me.


It boils down to ten episodes per season each episode is about an hour so that's only ten hours of Atmos Sound for each season. That's only 20 hours total for both seasons, we will see next week how well these turned out.


----------



## petetherock

Zhorik said:


> Yes, the Hindi version on Amazon has Atmos.
> 
> Link for Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1445973321&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray


So the Amazon usa version doesn't have Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't normally do these extra-long multi-episode, multi-season TV series things - but just out of curiosity, which series is in Atmos?


Though, it is only a clip from one episode, the Dolby Atmos booth demo disc had Game of Thrones as part of its collection of snippets.

It was one of those, oh, so that was in Atmos... _really??_ action clips, sort of like Transformers 4. There wasn't much to distinguish it as an immersive track like Gravity or Mad Max or the beginning of Unbroken or even the Star Wars game. I don't know how much time and effort went into remixing each and every episode, but from what I did experience, it didn't floor me.


----------



## aaranddeeman

petetherock said:


> Does this version come with Atmos?


Yes. It does. I think they messed up (or not sure) when printing the covers. But when you get it, it will have a sticker pasted on it that says "Dolby ATMOS" available. See the image from another site below.

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/ProdImages/images/9193733.jpg


----------



## aaranddeeman

Zhorik said:


> The back cover has DTS-HD MA print for Hindi language release and not corrected by the manufacturer, even though the disc has Atmos.


Yes. I don't have a way to actually check the track until I go back home. But there is only one release of this Bluray (for Hindi) and it does come with an "ATMOS" sticker on top.
The back cover has no mention of it.

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/ProdImages/images/9193733.jpg

Following site may ship it outside India

http://www.rhythmhouse.in/Detail.aspx?productListing=125115


----------



## Zhorik

petetherock said:


> So the Amazon usa version doesn't have Atmos?


The Amazon US and UK version linked previously (and below) have the Atmos track.

Amazon US: http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Hind...keywords=bahubali blu ray&tag=viglink20246-20

Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1446001850&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray

AFAIK the Hindi version comes only in Atmos (and DD) and not in any other codec.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Though, it is only a clip from one episode, the Dolby Atmos booth demo disc had Game of Thrones as part of its collection of snippets.
> 
> It was one of those, oh, so that was in Atmos... _really??_ action clips, sort of like Transformers 4. There wasn't much to distinguish it as an immersive track like Gravity or Mad Max or the beginning of Unbroken or even the Star Wars game. I don't know how much time and effort went into remixing each and every episode, but from what I did experience, it didn't floor me.


Hopefully it won't be a hundred dollar disappointment. The good thing in my favor is it's not a double dip for me, I was going to get them anyway so I waited hoping to get the best of both worlds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> Hopefully it won't be a hundred dollar disappointment. The good thing in my favor is it's not a double dip for me, I was going to get them anyway so I waited hoping to get the best of both worlds.


I'm really debating this myself as I'm sure it will show up on UHD Blu-ray as well being as it's such a popular series.


----------



## petetherock

I love Fifth Element, and since I already own it, I will grit my teeth and skip this Atmos version, and await the Atmos version in 4k!

4k and Milla Jovovich are a fine combination


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> 4k and Milla Jovovich are a fine combination


Truer words have never been spoken.


----------



## Stoked21

So just got my 7702mk2 up and running after being delivered today. First time running Audyssey. I was very surprised that the calibration actually delivered a pretty close Atmos level setup right away. 

I found that YPAO on my old 5.2.4 Yamaha needed some major tweaking; a few db down on surrounds, several db down on rears, a little tweak on center and couple db cut on sub1/2. Atmos speakers with YPAO were pretty far off in my opinion and the TRs had to be increased a bit and the TFs radically increased. I ended up with amazing Atmos sound. I ran YPAO numerous times and while it was consistent, it never got the optimal sound without user tweaks. I got the Atmos sounding amazing, but only with countless long sessions of modifications.

With Audyssey, the bass output was severely crippled and needed raised several db. The TFs needed raised about 1 db and the TRs needed dropped about 1 db. But relatively speaking, it sounded great right away. Atmos speakers were really the necessary tweaks. I don't consider 1db that far out personally, so I was very happy with Audyssey and very impressed vs YPAO.

It might be my imagination, but I've listened to chapter 1 of Gravity numerous times with both setups. I swear locations of some of the audio have changed? I even noticed on some of the Atmos demos that there are either additional effects or repositioned effects? All of this by going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4. It just sounded pretty different and I only expected a minor change.

The upgrade did confirm my previous posts that losing the surround backs was a huge, personal disappointment to me with 5.2.4. And my love of the immersive nature of the 4 tops wouldn't allow me run 7.2.2. I know 7.2.4 isn't in everyone's Atmos budget, but with the few hours I've spent with it, I'm glad I made the upgrade. I'd highly recommend that anyone looking to jump up to anything less, strongly consider 11chs. Additionally Audyssey thus far has proven very superior to YPAO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Has anyone picked up the Dolby Atmos _Doctor Who: Dark Water/Death In Heaven _disc? Any opinions?


----------



## petetherock

If anyone is a Riddick Fan ( I am!) , and is looking for a little DSU action, try the latest Riddick, just when the rain begins, and the serpent like creatures start to crawl onto the ceiling, the effect is almost as big a revelation as the first time I heard Masters & Commanders, when I first marveled at the footsteps on the deck..

It's not just the rain, I mean DSU and Atmos is more than just raindrops, the footsteps had direction, steering, and an enveloping soundfield. Impressive.


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> If anyone is a Riddick Fan ( I am!) , and is looking for a little DSU action, try the latest Riddick, just when the rain begins, and the serpent like creatures start to crawl onto the ceiling, the effect is almost as big a revelation as the first time I heard Masters & Commanders, when I first marveled at the footsteps on the deck..
> 
> It's not just the rain, I mean DSU and Atmos is more than just raindrops, the footsteps had direction, steering, and an enveloping soundfield. Impressive.


I'm very proud of that track.. glad DSU made it more interesting


----------



## audiofan1

petetherock said:


> If anyone is a Riddick Fan ( I am!) , and is looking for a little DSU action, try the latest Riddick, just when the rain begins, and the serpent like creatures start to crawl onto the ceiling, the effect is almost as big a revelation as the first time I heard Masters & Commanders, when I first marveled at the footsteps on the deck..
> 
> It's not just the rain, I mean DSU and Atmos is more than just raindrops, the footsteps had direction, steering, and an enveloping soundfield. Impressive.


Good to hear as it's a well done mix! I'll have to give it a spin.


----------



## Shniks

kbarnes701 said:


> The *Baahubali* movie looks pretty good from the reviews etc. Amazon India won't ship to the UK. Anyone know where this can be bought with the Atmos soundtrack?


You can buy it from Bhavani DVD http://www.bhavanidvd.com/product_info.php?products_id=8893

The Atmos soundtrack is on the Hindi version (there is a red sticker on the front cover with the Dolby Atmos text). I received mine a couple of days ago and it sounds just great.


----------



## Lesmor

Shniks said:


> You can buy it from Bhavani DVD http://www.bhavanidvd.com/product_info.php?products_id=8893
> 
> The Atmos soundtrack is on the Hindi version (there is a red sticker on the front cover with the Dolby Atmos text). I received mine a couple of days ago and it sounds just great.


Looks like you can get it from Amazon UK which is good news
Thanks go to Zoric for the info
Regards
Andy


----------



## petetherock

FilmMixer said:


> I'm very proud of that track.. glad DSU made it more interesting


Good job there!


----------



## jpco

Stoked21 said:


> It might be my imagination, but I've listened to chapter 1 of Gravity numerous times with both setups. I swear locations of some of the audio have changed? I even noticed on some of the Atmos demos that there are either additional effects or repositioned effects? All of this by going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4. It just sounded pretty different and I only expected a minor change.
> 
> The upgrade did confirm my previous posts that losing the surround backs was a huge, personal disappointment to me with 5.2.4. And my love of the immersive nature of the 4 tops wouldn't allow me run 7.2.2. I know 7.2.4 isn't in everyone's Atmos budget, but with the few hours I've spent with it, I'm glad I made the upgrade. I'd highly recommend that anyone looking to jump up to anything less, strongly consider 11chs. Additionally Audyssey thus far has proven very superior to YPAO.


I was running 5.1.4 for awhile and switched to 7.1.2 and found the overall improvement to be significant with Atmos tracks. Since Atmos tracks have a 7 channel bed, I surmise that we are losing a lot of the positional information when rear surrounds are absent. While it's appealing to have the extra overhead speakers for some height "wow" at times, I recommend starting with 7.1.2 if 9 channels are possible.

Working on plans to run wires to move to 7.1.4, but for now I'll stick with 7.1.2 over 5.1.4.


----------



## tjenkins95

petetherock said:


> I love Fifth Element, and since I already own it, I will grit my teeth and skip this Atmos version, and await the Atmos version in 4k!
> 
> 4k and Milla Jovovich are a fine combination


 
This new Fifth Element blu-ray version is remastered in 4K.


----------



## petetherock

Nah..
It's still 1080p.. But the price drop does make it tempting..


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> I was running 5.1.4 for awhile and switched to 7.1.2 and found the overall improvement to be significant with Atmos tracks. Since Atmos tracks have a 7 channel bed, I surmise that we are losing a lot of the positional information when rear surrounds are absent. While it's appealing to have the extra overhead speakers for some height "wow" at times, I recommend starting with 7.1.2 if 9 channels are possible.
> 
> Working on plans to run wires to move to 7.1.4, but for now I'll stick with 7.1.2 over 5.1.4.


I agree on the directional cues point. However, and maybe I'm just reading into your wording , Atmos wasn't "wow" in my 5.2.4 dialed in setup. It was an entirely new way to BE in a movie. There was a dome of sounds and objects placed all around the room and through the room. From floor to ceiling and in places where there wasn't even a speaker, such as mid-air in front of you. That's why I couldn't switch 5.2.4 to 7.2.2. I tried in many times with the push of a remote button. I was just spoiled by a dome of sound vs a ring of sound with essentially a VOG. 5.2.4 was amazing and 7.2.2 was like "eh, oh well there's a little bit up top". But missing those rears sucked as my brain has been programmed to EXPECT the speakers to be there.

Oh well, I'm 7.2.4 now and can be 9.2.6 and then some without even having to wire anything or buy anything other than a new prepro (whenever they exist).....So I'm as happy as can be. I was just pretty stunned by how reactivating that back speaker pair changed everything.


----------



## jpco

Stoked21 said:


> I agree on the directional cues point. However, and maybe I'm just reading into your wording , Atmos wasn't "wow" in my 5.2.4 dialed in setup. It was an entirely new way to BE in a movie. There was a dome of sounds and objects placed all around the room and through the room. From floor to ceiling and in places where there wasn't even a speaker, such as mid-air in front of you. That's why I couldn't switch 5.2.4 to 7.2.2. I tried in many times with the push of a remote button. I was just spoiled by a dome of sound vs a ring of sound with essentially a VOG. 5.2.4 was amazing and 7.2.2 was like "eh, oh well there's a little bit up top". But missing those rears sucked as my brain has been programmed to EXPECT the speakers to be there.
> 
> Oh well, I'm 7.2.4 now and can be 9.2.6 and then some without even having to wire anything or buy anything other than a new prepro (whenever they exist).....So I'm as happy as can be. I was just pretty stunned by how reactivating that back speaker pair changed everything.


Maybe "wow" wasn't the best choice of words. I've run 5.1.4 and I've run 7.1.2. For DSU on 5.1 content, 5.1.4 is my preferred option. For Atmos content, I prefer 7.1.2 over 5.1.4. I didn't start out that way, but after being underwhelmed (based on reviews) with _San Andreas_, I tried watching in 7.1.2, and found it to be a significant improvement. 

I believe that the complete 7-channel bed is important to the mix, far more important than the rear surrounds were in most 7.1 mixes of the past. That's all. Ultimately, 7.1.4 is the ideal based on current implementations.

Where did you get that object-in-mid-air-in-front-of-you effect? I haven't quite perceived that yet.


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> Where did you get that object-in-mid-air-in-front-of-you effect? I haven't quite perceived that yet.


Leaf demo is best for this. You will hear wind move through the room and leafs rustle in the room in front of you. You damn near expect to feel the wind blowing across your face and through your hair. Gravity is another great one. Scene where Sandra is swimming out of the water. You will hear the bugs flying from behind you to to in front and beside you. But they're not "up on the ceiling" but more in the room. My three dogs literally look around the room and chase and bite at them like there's a fly in the room. It's pretty damn funny.

I actually think that's the best test for Atmos...Put a dog in the room and see if he either looks at the speakers or if he snaps at empty air trying to bite a bug. LOL. That's how I knew I had it right with the canine's superior hearing.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jpco said:


> Where did you get that object-in-mid-air-in-front-of-you effect? I haven't quite perceived that yet.


Related to this, I feel that I should reiterate something I talked about earlier in this thread that may get lost in the shuffle and that really helped me out. When I run Audyssey on my 7.1.4 setup, it handles the equalization really well... but distances almost always need a bit of tweaking, especially for the above-bed channels. And you wouldn't immediately KNOW it needed it because it still sounded great. But I put the Atmos Leaf demo on a loop and tweaked height distances slightly... and then the sound just _snapped into place_. That's really the only way I can describe it. Rather than sounds moving around the periphery of that Atmos dome of sound, suddenly things sounded like they were moving through the space. The Leaf demo in particular has parts where the wind and leaf move around the room, through it, overhead... and once you get the right distances for the heights, it just comes to life. In my room, it's likely because of the angles to my Audyssey mic and how everything lines up... and setting the distances just 0.2 feet more than Audyssey detects for the heights somehow locks the imaging in place between the beds and heights so that I get that 3-D effect.

So give it a try and see what you think. It doesn't seem like it would make a massive difference, but that minor change makes a HUGE difference in my room, and not just for the imaging at the MLP. I really wish we had some between-channel tones to use to tweak this the way we use phase tests to tweak distances on the bed channels until they image well, but the Leaf demo is a pretty good reference... and you WILL know when you've got it right, because it's not a subtle change in sound. I would encourage everyone running Atmos to try this, making minor tweaks to the distances and then listening to see how it affects the overall sound. It may not do much for you... but then again, it may be a "holy s#!t" moment like it was for me.


----------



## Charles R

jpco said:


> I haven't quite perceived that yet.


My (very unpopular ) take is once you get x number of speakers at best the experience becomes "different" as to how you arrange them in the room (within reason). And in virtually every case the sound track mix will drive which arrangement is "superior" to your preference. Which might just not the next persons...


----------



## petetherock

To get that out of speaker effect, one must also play with the different levels of the speakers.
Just pressing the 'auto-EQ' button or the Audyssey function won't give you the best results.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

petetherock said:


> To get that out of speaker effect, one must also play with the different levels of the speakers.
> Just pressing the 'auto-EQ' button or the Audyssey function won't give you the best results.


I'd say you should always spot check with a SPL meter, but there are no reference discs (yet) for us to check height channel balance based on known reference levels. I would say that if you just go raising the levels of speakers based on your preference, you're altering the mix you were intended to hear... especially since Atmos in the home depends on the balance between heights and beds for proper imaging in the 3-D space. However, tweaking the delays for the channels is done to ensure that they're all correct for your space. Once you get that right, you shouldn't have to change levels unless you're just looking for everything to sound higher up in the mix... which is fine if that's what you like, but not ideal if you're looking to hear where in 3-D space the mixer is placing the objects that depend on the height channels.


----------



## Gates

jpco said:


> Maybe "wow" wasn't the best choice of words. I've run 5.1.4 and I've run 7.1.2. For DSU on 5.1 content, 5.1.4 is my preferred option. For Atmos content, I prefer 7.1.2 over 5.1.4. I didn't start out that way, but after being underwhelmed (based on reviews) with _San Andreas_, I tried watching in 7.1.2, and found it to be a significant improvement.
> 
> I believe that the complete 7-channel bed is important to the mix, far more important than the rear surrounds were in most 7.1 mixes of the past. That's all. Ultimately, 7.1.4 is the ideal based on current implementations.
> 
> Where did you get that object-in-mid-air-in-front-of-you effect? I haven't quite perceived that yet.


San Andreas was the first movie I watched on my new ATMOS system and was quite underwhelmed by the effects. Didn't find the track particularly that great (ceiling activity). The Fifth Element was the second movie I watched and I was blown away. WOW!!!!


----------



## Civik99si

Atmos speaker placement friends: which of these options do you like the best? 

MLP is a couch 2 feet from back wall. That unfortunate fact can't change. Current setup is 7.2.4. 

1. Keep the bipolar speakers as rears that are placed 4 on either side of MLP on back wall. (Currently 1.5 feet above ear level).

2. Swap out the bipolars for in wall rears. (Is there sufficient space or would sound be too localized?)

3. Go to 5.2.4 and remove the bipolars. My side surrounds, which are placed 90 degrees, 6 feet either side of MLP, and 3 feet from back wall, would then handle all surround content. 

All 3 options involve some degree of compromise. Just looking for thought on what might be best for Atmos content. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would encourage everyone running Atmos to try this, making minor tweaks to the distances and then listening to see how it affects the overall sound. It may not do much for you... but then again, it may be a "holy s#!t" moment like it was for me.


Jeremy,

I've always taken a slightly diff approach. More ways then one to skin a cat. I've found that if you do a 6+ calibration with YPAO or Audyssey, the distances are pretty damn accurate. I've always tweaked the levels a bit. With YPAO I had to kick up TR and TF several db. With Audyssey, I kicked down the TR about 1.5db and TF are up about 1db. Obviously those numbers are specific to my room and won't work for everyone. I'm not sure what else the algorithm is accomplishing, but I believe this would provide the same effect as adjusting distance. By kicking up the level, I'm essentially saying the speaker is farther away. Vice versa when I lower the level, I'm saying the speaker is closer/distance is less. I hear you on the delay, but the distances are correct. As for modifying the mix, I also agree. But if you do change the levels just 0.5-1db, you will find the objects moving through the room. And it will stay consistent no matter what source you are watching. Multiple Atmos demos, multiple BD.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> Jeremy,
> 
> I've always taken a slightly diff approach. More ways then one to skin a cat. I've found that if you do a 6+ calibration with YPAO or Audyssey, the distances are pretty damn accurate. I've always tweaked the levels a bit. With YPAO I had to kick up TR and TF several db. With Audyssey, I kicked down the TR about 1.5db and TF are up about 1db. Obviously those numbers are specific to my room and won't work for everyone. I'm not sure what else the algorithm is accomplishing, but I believe this would provide the same effect as adjusting distance. By kicking up the level, I'm essentially saying the speaker is farther away. Vice versa when I lower the level, I'm saying the speaker is closer/distance is less. I hear you on the delay, but the distances are correct. As for modifying the mix, I also agree. But if you do change the levels just 0.5-1db, you will find the objects moving through the room. And it will stay consistent no matter what source you are watching. Multiple Atmos demos, multiple BD.


Actually, distance/delay and level are quite different, and raising the level of one channel does NOT fix distance differences (though proper calibrated level IS affected by the distance to the MLP). Getting the distance/delay right is related to the imaging between the channels, as you want the signals from any two channels to arrive at the seats at roughly the same time for between-channel imaging to be precise. That isn't something you can fix with level, because it's a matter of the arrival time of the sound, not the level. Again, this is a matter of PHASE, not level.

To understand what I'm talking about... If you have a calibration disc with phase tests, those tones tend to alternate between in-phase and out-of-phase. The in-phase sounds should image precisely between the two speakers that the tones are coming from IF your distances are set right. So say you're hearing the sound from the left main and center... The speakers can be at the exact same metered level at your MLP, but still not sound like they are in phase, meaning the between-channel image can sound more diffuse because it's not arriving simultaneously at your seats. Similarly, if the imaging pulls toward one speaker or the other, THAT would denote a difference in level rather than the distance/delay setting being off. Try playing a phase test and changing the distance of one of the two speakers that are playing while the tones are going and you'll hear what I'm talking about. Changing level doesn't have that same effect, because it doesn't change the arrival time of the sound from each speaker.

Just as phase tests can help you check whether your bed channels are all in phase for between-channel imaging, the Leaf demo is useful for checking that the height layer channels are in phase with the bed channels. If they're not, the phase difference can make sounds between the beds and heights sound more diffuse than they're meant to. And while Audyssey and other methods do a fair job of detecting the arrival time of the sound at your MLP, room acoustics can throw that off as well. Checking phase is no small tweak. The detected distance may be accurate and may match the physically measured distance... and still not be the best setting for the channel if the room's acoustics alter phase in any way on the sound's path to your MLP. Keep in mind that we're talking MINOR adjustments here. You wouldn't want to change a speaker's detected distance significantly, but a few inches can actually make a big difference in sounds appearing to image in the space between those speakers. It's even more necessary, IMHO, to check this with Atmos because you're not only depending on the phase between adjacent bed channels, you're also greatly dependent upon the phase between the heights and beds. If the phase between those two layers is off, you'll still get bed-layer sound and overhead sound, but anything in between will sound diffuse and lack precision... which kinda' defeats the purpose of Atmos. Bear in mind that when mixers are placing sounds in the Atmos home/theater space, they can do so anywhere on the Z-axis... which is represented in your room by your AVR's renderer placing that sound between multiple speakers at varying levels so that it images in the intended spot in 3-D space. If you're running any channels hot, you're altering the placement of sound.


----------



## timc1475

jpco said:


> Maybe "wow" wasn't the best choice of words. I've run 5.1.4 and I've run 7.1.2. For DSU on 5.1 content, 5.1.4 is my preferred option. For Atmos content, I prefer 7.1.2 over 5.1.4. I didn't start out that way, but after being underwhelmed (based on reviews) with _San Andreas_, I tried watching in 7.1.2, and found it to be a significant improvement.
> 
> I believe that the complete 7-channel bed is important to the mix, far more important than the rear surrounds were in most 7.1 mixes of the past. That's all. Ultimately, 7.1.4 is the ideal based on current implementations.
> 
> Where did you get that object-in-mid-air-in-front-of-you effect? I haven't quite perceived that yet.


Yup 7.1.4 is the optimum IMO. Trouble is there are only 2 or 3 current AVR's that can do the full 11ch self pwr & processing. Sure one could "get by" with a 2 box count and go that route but I hear too many stories of buzzing and other sound issues. 

I think whenever the new Integra 70.7 arrives with full 11ch pwr & 384 dacs and all the other creature features (except Auro 3D) AFAIK will be a sound choice. The current 70.6 lacks some of the newest features that are implemented on the lower 50.7. So hey may as well wait...


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Actually, distance/delay and level are quite different, and raising the level of one channel does NOT fix distance differences (though proper calibrated level IS affected by the distance to the MLP). Getting the distance/delay right is related to the imaging between the channels, as you want the signals from any two channels to arrive at the seats at roughly the same time for between-channel imaging to be precise. That isn't something you can fix with level, because it's a matter of the arrival time of the sound, not the level. Again, this is a matter of PHASE, not level.
> 
> To understand what I'm talking about... If you have a calibration disc with phase tests, those tones tend to alternate between in-phase and out-of-phase. The in-phase sounds should image precisely between the two speakers that the tones are coming from IF your distances are set right. So say you're hearing the sound from the left main and center... The speakers can be at the exact same metered level at your MLP, but still not sound like they are in phase, meaning the between-channel image can sound more diffuse because it's not arriving simultaneously at your seats. Similarly, if the imaging pulls toward one speaker or the other, THAT would denote a difference in level rather than the distance/delay setting being off. Try playing a phase test and changing the distance of one of the two speakers that are playing while the tones are going and you'll hear what I'm talking about. Changing level doesn't have that same effect, because it doesn't change the arrival time of the sound from each speaker.


Thanks Jeremy
Finding the discussions of different tweaks and ceiling configurations very interesting as I am also underwhelmed with the sense of 3D audio positioning.
Granted I am only using Front Heights but with a sub optimum 22 deg angle.
I really should get the finger out and install TM in ceiling which might improve the FH performance.
Also please find attached an excellent article supplementing the above post.
credit for which goes to Audioguy,Mark Seaton and Craig John.

Cheers
Andy


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy

I can't disagree with anything u said and I understand it all as well. 

But I also consider the fact that a multi position calibration is going to average a lot of the room characteristics for multiple seating positions. If u just did a 1 seat calibration then I could see how distances would be inaccurate from limited data. Actually this is easy to confirm if u just do a 1 position measurement. But the spl and level settings and eq for that 1 position would be pretty accurate for just an mlp. 

But The algorithms are also trying to compromise for all of the seats in multi position. Hence the levels are not fine tuned for just the mlp but trying to beat accommodate seats throughout the room. This does not result in the best levels at mlp. 

Best of both worlds. Let the calibration measure distances and delays from multiple positions for more distance accuracy and for setting eq for ur room environment. Then fine tune the levels (just s bit mind u. 0.5db, 1.0 db) to dial in the everything for mlp optimization. Will location change? A little yes. But not necessarily anymore or any less than with a "keep everyone in the Ht happy with mediocre sound" approach which results from just using the multi position measurement levels it spits out.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Thanks Jeremy
> Finding the discussions of different tweaks and ceiling configurations very interesting as I am also underwhelmed with the sense of 3D audio positioning.
> Granted I am only using Front Heights but with a sub optimum 22 deg angle.
> I really should get the finger out and install TM in ceiling which might improve the FH performance.
> Also please find attached an excellent article supplementing the above post.
> credit for which goes to Audioguy,Mark Seaton and Craig John.
> 
> Cheers
> Andy


I'll give it a read. FYI I ran front heights at first because I ran DPL-IIz Height before upgrading to Atmos. FH works pretty well (and is definitely better than DPL-IIz), but adding the top mids definitely steps it up. The biggest advantage to front heights that I've found is how it makes the front soundstage sound larger, whether with DSU or with Atmos tracks that have some of the score extended above the listener, which is especially nice for those of us running projector screens. But FH + TM in my room, with a 7.1 bed, gives me outstanding placement in 3-D space that I wouldn't have believed possible. Get those top mids up, man!

Another thing I've found, on a related note, is that Audyssey's distances to my speakers seem spot-on if you measure from the MLP to the woofer/mid in the speaker... whereas measuring to the tweeter and using that value gives a better result. For the bed channels, this isn't much of a difference (because they're both on a fairly similar plane to the Audyssey mic) so it's really nit-picking to an extreme, but for my heights, the mid-ranges are slightly closer. Not sure if that's why bumping the distance for the heights up slightly gives me a better result for phase or not, but... it's worth considering if you're looking to tweak. Get out the ole' tape measure and measure from where the most directional sound is coming and try using those numbers.

Not a knock on Audyssey, but I really wish we knew more about whether it has been tailored at all for the specific needs of Atmos setups. For instance, the angle of the mic capsule to any overhead speakers seems like it would cut highs more than it should, since it's essentially firing into the mic capsule instead of grazing it, as the mic is calibrated for. Not sure how much a difference that makes, but it seems like a question worth asking.


----------



## bargervais

Gates said:


> San Andreas was the first movie I watched on my new ATMOS system and was quite underwhelmed by the effects. Didn't find the track particularly that great (ceiling activity). The Fifth Element was the second movie I watched and I was blown away. WOW!!!!


I watched The Fifth Element and was very impressed with it. I will watch it a second time for Atmos, as I was more fixated on the PQ. 
I also watched Pixels  I think if I was ten years old I might have liked it, but I have to say it, I can not take too much of Adam Richard Sandler. I Kick myself for Buying this one, I'll have to file it in with TMNT, Step up All in, and Jupiter Ascending.


----------



## Spanglo

Stoked21 said:


> Jeremy
> 
> I can't disagree with anything u said and I understand it all as well.
> 
> But I also consider the fact that a multi position calibration is going to average a lot of the room characteristics for multiple seating positions. If u just did a 1 seat calibration then I could see how distances would be inaccurate from limited data. Actually this is easy to confirm if u just do a 1 position measurement. But the spl and level settings and eq for that 1 position would be pretty accurate for just an mlp.


This. Tight mic positions for the MLP only produced great 3D results at that position. When I used mic positions covering the whole couch the 3D impact was slightly degraded, although the frequency response was better for each seat. Since I'm the only one that cares about those sorts of things, I optimized for the MLP only. 

Also cats are a good judge of demos too. Mine stared intently at the overhead speakers during a couple of that atmos demos, and literally jumped out of the seat for the auro tractor demo!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> Jeremy
> 
> I can't disagree with anything u said and I understand it all as well.
> 
> But I also consider the fact that a multi position calibration is going to average a lot of the room characteristics for multiple seating positions. If u just did a 1 seat calibration then I could see how distances would be inaccurate from limited data. Actually this is easy to confirm if u just do a 1 position measurement. But the spl and level settings and eq for that 1 position would be pretty accurate for just an mlp.
> 
> But The algorithms are also trying to compromise for all of the seats in multi position. Hence the levels are not fine tuned for just the mlp but trying to beat accommodate seats throughout the room. This does not result in the best levels at mlp.
> 
> Best of both worlds. Let the calibration measure distances and delays from multiple positions for more distance accuracy and for setting eq for ur room environment. Then fine tune the levels (just s bit mind u. 0.5db, 1.0 db) to dial in the everything for mlp optimization. Will location change? A little yes. But not necessarily anymore or any less than with a "keep everyone in the Ht happy with mediocre sound" approach which results from just using the multi position measurement levels it spits out.


Actually, the distances with Audyssey are determined solely from the first mic position - only the equalization is based on the multiple mic position data. From my understanding, final level is then adjusted based on the overall equalization and what levels for each channel _should theoretically_ read post-equalization based on the initial mic position's reading. It isn't averaging level for all positions. The problem is that if any particular channel has frequency issues beyond say 8dB of boost/cut, that final level may not sound like it meshes with the other channels. That's why it's nice to see a generalized graph of what Audyssey reads in the room for each channel - so you can see any obvious problems with a particular speaker and address it in-room. For instance, because my left main is unavoidably near a corner, it gets an awful 16dB peak near 50Hz that Audyssey's trying to work around. And while Audyssey does well with it, in my mind, I'm thinking some quick room treatment in that corner would lessen that issue and give Audyssey a better starting point to work with. Garbage in/ garbage out, as they say.

As for phase, you inherently can't have perfect phase at every seat, so anything other than the MLP would be a compromise. But getting phase dead on at the MLP inherently makes it less susceptible to major shifts across multiple positions so long as they're reasonably within the dispersion pattern of each individual speaker. Having speakers out of phase in the MLP, however, pretty much ensures that the results for the other seating positions will be even worse. And that's just on the horizontal plane of the bed channel... Imagine then what happens when instead of stereo imaging (dependent on the phase between two speakers), you're trying to image sound between 3+ speakers, making the phase between each of those speakers important to imaging. Worse, if a mixer places an object that's meant to image in the center of the room half-way up the Z-axis, you would essentially have some audio from every channel in the room, at varying levels determined by the Atmos renderer based on the known speaker positions. So the phase relation between the bed channels and heights would have a fairly significant effect.

Of course, all of this wall of text is basically my way of saying "Shut your hole and try what I said for yourself!"  The worst thing that could happen is you have to set things back where you had them... whereas the best is that you're now hearing the sounds the way Atmos mixers want you to.


----------



## SherazNJ

I finally pulled the trigger on Yamaha 3050. I should be getting it in a couple of days. I also got my atmos speakers delivered at home already. The ceiling speakers are 8x10x5 (Width, Height, Depth). Can someone please recommend a good mount I can use to mount these speakers on ceiling and also angle them in any direction? Most likely I"ll be angling them 45 degrees to MLP.

thanks.


----------



## Stoked21

Spanglo said:


> This. Tight mic positions for the MLP only produced great 3D results at that position. When I used mic positions covering the whole couch the 3D impact was slightly degraded, although the frequency response was better for each seat. Since I'm the only one that cares about those sorts of things, I optimized for the MLP only.
> 
> Also cats are a good judge of demos too. Mine stared intently at the overhead speakers during a couple of that atmos demos, and literally jumped out of the seat for the auro tractor demo!


My dogs don't stare at the speakers. They track a non existent insect through the room and look for it and bite at things that aren't there. If they're looking at the speaker then the speaker is likely too hot. It does become very subjective at some point. I.e. WHERE did the mixer intend for the object to be positioned precisely? And worse yet where does that equate to within in our rooms, which r all different. 

like I said, ypao put atmos speakers way too low. U didn't even know they were there. But audyssey made my TRs so hot (1.5db too high) that everything atmos related was on the ceiling directly behind me. It caused rear surrounds to be degraded as well. By lowering those I've now seen my TFs were really close and maybe only 0.5db lower than they should be. Change resulted in perfect TF to TR blend with spatial separation between all bed channels. nothing being localizable, but being clearly defined in a 3D space. U would swear my TMs r on at times and u would swear I had center speakers between each of my top pairs. Very seldom do u hear something coming directly from one atmos speaker or even from that high up. 

I'd suggest u start with lowering the most prominent of ur 2 pairs by 0.5db and listen again. If need by go 0.5db down more on that pair OR raise the opposing pair 0.5db. U will find a balance without noticieable position shifts and without overwhelming bed surrounds. That's when things r in the room instead of on the ceiling. This is assuming u had a nice quiet, accurate starting measurement.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Spanglo said:


> This. Tight mic positions for the MLP only produced great 3D results at that position. When I used mic positions covering the whole couch the 3D impact was slightly degraded, although the frequency response was better for each seat. Since I'm the only one that cares about those sorts of things, I optimized for the MLP only.
> 
> Also cats are a good judge of demos too. Mine stared intently at the overhead speakers during a couple of that atmos demos, and literally jumped out of the seat for the auro tractor demo!


As I said, distance/delay with Audyssey is based on the initial mic position, not the additional positions in any way. So what I'm advocating is tweaking for best-case _phase_ between speakers at the MLP, which also gives you the best possible case for your other seats. I'm not advocating doing the other mic positions at just the MLP, optimizing for a single listening position, etc.... nor is this advice on tweaking distance necessarily limited to people using Audyssey. The distance/delay settings for each channel directly affect their phase relations to any adjacent speakers that might be required to produce the same sound for between-channel imaging.

And perhaps it's a specific and esoteric tweak that does absolutely nothing for you... but it costs you nothing to try other than a few minutes of playing the Leaf demo on a loop and tweaking the distance of your height channels a bit. If it doesn't improve imaging between the beds and heights for you, then change it back to whatever Audyssey read as the distances. If it does, however... you're welcome.


----------



## Spanglo

I haven't noticed any hot spotting, and I don't think my system needs any tweaking - it sounds great. However, I haven't tried any of adjustments you guys have mentioned, so that's something worth exploring if there's improvement to be found. Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

Civik99si said:


> *Atmos speaker placement friends: which of these options do you like the best?
> 
> MLP is a couch 2 feet from back wall. That unfortunate fact can't change. Current setup is 7.2.4.
> 
> 1. Keep the bipolar speakers as rears that are placed 4 on either side of MLP on back wall. (Currently 1.5 feet above ear level).
> 
> 2. Swap out the bipolars for in wall rears. (Is there sufficient space or would sound be too localized?)
> 
> 3. Go to 5.2.4 and remove the bipolars. My side surrounds, which are placed 90 degrees, 6 feet either side of MLP, and 3 feet from back wall, would then handle all surround content.
> 
> All 3 options involve some degree of compromise. Just looking for thought on what might be best for Atmos content. Thanks in advance!*


Can someone help this gentleman above? 

Me I cannot, I don't own a Dolby Atmos receiver. ...Sure I have some good ideas, but ideas without being an owner is not good enough...for some.
But! Civik, if you ask me directly for my opinion (of what I believe is best)...I would gladly share it with you.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Civik99si said:


> Atmos speaker placement friends: which of these options do you like the best?
> 
> MLP is a couch 2 feet from back wall. That unfortunate fact can't change. Current setup is 7.2.4.
> 
> 1. Keep the bipolar speakers as rears that are placed 4 on either side of MLP on back wall. (Currently 1.5 feet above ear level).
> 
> 2. Swap out the bipolars for in wall rears. (Is there sufficient space or would sound be too localized?)
> 
> 3. Go to 5.2.4 and remove the bipolars. My side surrounds, which are placed 90 degrees, 6 feet either side of MLP, and 3 feet from back wall, would then handle all surround content.
> 
> All 3 options involve some degree of compromise. Just looking for thought on what might be best for Atmos content. Thanks in advance!


My first question would be whether you think the rear wall speakers work well for rear surround. If they do, Atmos doesn't change that. You'll have people tell you that rear surround is wasted with the MLP that close to the wall... but if it works, it works. My couch is ON the back wall, but I still use rear channels on articulating brackets, carefully aimed toward the MLP. Probably shouldn't work, but totally does. 

So the bigger question here would be: What about your system as-is do you find lacking that's making you question it?


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Of course, all of this wall of text is basically my way of saying "Shut your hole and try what I said for yourself!"  The worst thing that could happen is you have to set things back where you had them... whereas the best is that you're now hearing the sounds the way Atmos mixers want you to.



HA HA. No, I hear you Jeremy! 

I will definitely try it especially as I get use to my new Marantz Atmos prepro. Who knows, maybe it will result in something even better. Though what I have is pretty damn good. It's not something I've tried and it can't hurt so why not experiment. If I can learn something here or be proven wrong and it improves my setup, then PLEASE prove me wrong! It's all in the betterment of our Atmos HT!

I think we agree on the fact that NO optimization is perfect. We could debate all day whether it is room, implementation, preference, algorithm and/or all of the above. Bed channels seem to be down right amazing with Audyssey. YPAO will run your surrounds so hot that you can barely hear your mains. As good as I thought YPAO was, it's pretty crappy compared to Audyssye. I think we can all also agree that the Atmos speakers seem to be where the biggest discrepencies or issues lie. Hence the reason this thread exists in the first place.

We really have to subscribe to one theory or another here though. You either believe that the SPL measurements within the optimization engine are off (mic dependent) or you believe that the time/phase measurement is off (DSP and algorithm dependent). This means you either need to adjust level or you need to adjust distance to account for phase respectively. We also agree these are not mutually exclusive.

I happen to know that the mics that are provided cost all of about $1.25 to make ($0.25 being the transducer itself), are variable gain, and set with 5-10% tolerance caps and resistors. Consistency on the SPL measurements of the mics, especially from one to the other, will be all over the place. Response will even change based on the temperature in the room. It's just an electrical engineering fact.

However, even a cheap mic will pickup the "test ping" and the DSP will process phase and timing, more or less independent of the particular SPL and mic quality. It can calculate this data with a cheap mic or an extremely expensive mic---very binary--simply when it sees a spike and then uses PWM detection. I can do this with a $0.25 8-bit mcu with 6 IO pins and 20 lines of code. In other words, it's really easy. It doesn't care about frequency or amplitude of that spike when it comes to timing; that's why you have to be quiet even though you are not making a noise that is the EXACT frequency of the ping---it's not looking for frequency, just the input spike and starting a internal timer based on an internal RC oscillator input. SPL on the other hand is based on the quality of the transducer. I tend to believe SPL is the primary issue with the optimization engines for Atmos adjustments and therefore I tweak level a bit. Also if you recall, most all optimizers on atmos AVRs run the level test on all speakers first. Then they run the phase/timing test which takes longer.

Ironically, you can confirm my statements above. Use a laser level and you will see that the measurements it comes up with are DEAD ON within fractions of an inch. But if you use your SPL meter you will see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any given pair of speakers will differ by at least 0.5db of what the optimization sets the level output (use the test tones--quick, cheap and easy). This supports my distrust on levels and affirms my trust of the distance measurements. 

It also makes me wonder why you push on phase and timing so much and then say adjust distance? You are actually inducing the phase shifts, which can alter position as well, by adjusting the distance in the configuration. And though I don't know how they run their algorithm internally, this is going to adversely affect levels as well; it really seems like opening a can of worms. Furthermore, If you adjust distance, then you are saying it's the DSP optimization that you don't trust at all. Then why even use it?

Increasing the distance of that "quiet" speaker in the settings menu, while leaving it in it's physically closer real-world proximity, would theoretically cause the output level to be boosted to compensate. But it would also cause the delay to be decreased and hence sound would arrive at my ear sooner and out of phase.

My solution of tweaking levels can cause an object to be located not exactly where it's intended and make an object cold or hotter if you go overboard with the db change....But making it louder is not going to induce some huge phase/delay shift like adjusting the distance would.

Anyway, I'll try it because you have me curious. But with my MSEE and physics background, I'm not buying into it initially.


----------



## Civik99si

Jeremy Anderson said:


> My first question would be whether you think the rear wall speakers work well for rear surround. If they do, Atmos doesn't change that. You'll have people tell you that rear surround is wasted with the MLP that close to the wall... but if it works, it works. My couch is ON the back wall, but I still use rear channels on articulating brackets, carefully aimed toward the MLP. Probably shouldn't work, but totally does.
> 
> So the bigger question here would be: What about your system as-is do you find lacking that's making you question it?


The main issue is that the bipolars are firing to the right and left of the MLP from a couple feet behind, and the direct firing surrounds are doing the same about 3-4 feet in front of the wall. This makes it somewhat difficult to differentiate the sides and rears at times. OTOH, in wall rears would eliminate that issue but likely create hot spotting due to being only 2 feet behind couch.


----------



## Stoked21

Atmos speaker placement friends: which of these options do you like the best? 

MLP is a couch 2 feet from back wall. That unfortunate fact can't change. Current setup is 7.2.4. 

1. Keep the bipolar speakers as rears that are placed 4 on either side of MLP on back wall. (Currently 1.5 feet above ear level).

2. Swap out the bipolars for in wall rears. (Is there sufficient space or would sound be too localized?)

3. Go to 5.2.4 and remove the bipolars. My side surrounds, which are placed 90 degrees, 6 feet either side of MLP, and 3 feet from back wall, would then handle all surround content. 

All 3 options involve some degree of compromise. Just looking for thought on what might be best for Atmos content. Thanks in advance!
@Civik99si

I think you are saying you have 2 bipolar for Atmos in RH configuration and 2 bipolar for rear surround?

1) I wouldn't use bipolar in an Atmos setup...Dolby spec actually urges you not to. I would lower your rears though to ear level to provide separation. This is a pretty big deal. Bigger than even the proximity of the rear speakers IMO.
2) I don't see a problem with IWs for rear surround. I'm debating doing that myself. My back speakers are only a little over 2', maybe 30", from my head when seated in MLP. And they sound great. IWs are not going to sound as good as a sealed cabinet and could introduce some wall noise and vibration, but use some cheap insulation or retrofit backer box kit. Set the xover to 80Hz. Not a lot comes out of the rear surrounds most of the time, so I think IWs are absolutely fine. Also consider something like the Monitor Audio IWs. They have aimable tweeters and can help direct sound to the sweet spot.
3) I wouldn't go to 5.2.4. I just finally migrated from 5.2.4 YESTERDAY to 7.2.4 I've been disappointed in 7.2.2 and 5.2.4 since I first started 6 months ago. Sounds awesome, but not good enough for me.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> We really have to subscribe to one theory or another here though. You either believe that the SPL measurements within the optimization engine are off (mic dependent) or you believe that the time/phase measurement is off (DSP and algorithm dependent). This means you either need to adjust level or you need to adjust distance to account for phase respectively. We also agree these are not mutually exclusive.


Well, we really don't have to subscribe just to one or the other. Both things can be issues given the particular room, and I'm not suggesting this as a fix-all in all cases by any stretch. We could also toss in the fact that your initial mic position could have uniquely been in a null that affected things... or that mic position doesn't account for binaural hearing and the space between our ears... etc. I'm not trying to get hung up on the minutiae here, just offering a suggestion based on my experience, with a method for people to adjust it that provides an instant way for them to assess it. Most of the time when I see people talk about not having good sidewall imaging, I think, "Well, neither did I until I used phase tests to snap imaging into place between the mains and surrounds." Most people don't even bother checking it... but I would bet that the majority of people who try it like the results, and it applies on the vertical plane just as it does on the horizontal.



Stoked21 said:


> Ironically, you can confirm my statements above. Use a laser level and you will see that the measurements it comes up with are DEAD ON within fractions of an inch. But if you use your SPL meter you will see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any given pair of speakers will differ by at least 0.5db of what the optimization sets the level output (use the test tones--quick, cheap and easy). This supports my distrust on levels and affirms my trust of the distance measurements.


Oh, I have all the tools o' the trade handy. Hell, you can move your SPL meter an inch to one side and get a variance in level. I'm not saying that level tweaking isn't something you should do, within reason. I wouldn't use the internal test tones for level post-Audyssey though, since the internal tones aren't passed through equalization and will still be thrown off by peaks/nulls that Audyssey has dealt with. Hence why using a calibration disc at known standards is important for assessing equalized levels. And also why it's a shame we don't have that sorta' thing for Atmos yet.



Stoked21 said:


> It also makes me wonder why you push on phase and timing so much and then say adjust distance? You are actually inducing the phase shifts, which can alter position as well, by adjusting the distance in the configuration. And though I don't know how they run their algorithm internally, this is going to adversely affect levels as well; it really seems like opening a can of worms. Furthermore, If you adjust distance, then you are saying it's the DSP optimization that you don't trust at all. Then why even use it?


Because small changes in delay times for the channels can essentially act as a variable phase control, within reason. And given the issues with mics, the acoustic distance it reads just isn't always the best setting for what your ears actually hear as between-channel imaging. Sometimes, a small change can make a difference. As I said... put on a phase test and change distance of one of the two speakers to see how your perception of the phantom image between them changes. The same theory applies to sounds placed between the heights and beds, and it'll be fairly obvious if a change in distance makes things snap into place.



Stoked21 said:


> Increasing the distance of that "quiet" speaker in the settings menu, while leaving it in it's physically closer real-world proximity, would theoretically cause the output level to be boosted to compensate. But it would also cause the delay to be decreased and hence sound would arrive at my ear sooner and out of phase.


We're addressing two different things, you and I. Yes, perhaps an increase in level is necessitated in your room. But I'm not talking about the perceived level of any individual channel... I'm talking about the perceived imaging between any two channels based on their phase relationship to each other in the room.



Stoked21 said:


> My solution of tweaking levels can cause an object to be located not exactly where it's intended and make an object cold or hotter if you go overboard with the db change....But making it louder is not going to induce some huge phase/delay shift like adjusting the distance would.


That's kinda' my point. Changing level of one channel can make objects located in that particular channel sound louder than objects mixed between channels, where the reductions in levels have already been made during mixing (or in the case of Atmos, by the object renderer) so that the sound remains at a constant level as cross-channel pans occur. My suggestion to check distances to ensure solid imaging between speakers is addressing something completely different than a change in level - it's to make sure that sounds placed between speakers are properly imaging between speakers because those two speakers are in phase.



Stoked21 said:


> Anyway, I'll try it because you have me curious. But with my MSEE and physics background, I'm not buying into it initially.


And if it doesn't work for you, you've lost nothing but a few minutes. Or you'll thank me when you hear what I'm talking about.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Baahubali*



Zhorik said:


> The Amazon US and UK version linked previously (and below) have the Atmos track.
> 
> Amazon US: http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Hind...keywords=bahubali blu ray&tag=viglink20246-20
> 
> Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1446001850&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray
> 
> AFAIK the Hindi version comes only in Atmos (and DD) and not in any other codec.


Just finish watching Baahubali without atmos ( no receiver/pre pro yet ), and the movie is pretty good. Fighting scenes are more " 300 " style with one big " lord of the rings " battle. There are 3 major musical bollywood style scenes with singing and dancing , just like our typical Disney movies with singing . The first half of the movie focuses on Shiva who is the son of Baahubali . The second half of the movie focuses on Baahubali and his brother who is in competition to see who will become king. Video colors are amazing in this movie . Two that points out is the blue butterflies that swirl around a woman , and the underwater scenes with the neon tetras. Also during scenes with CGI animals , there was a cgi stamp on the lower corner . I'm thinking that this is to let the audience know that no harm was really done to the animals. Ok , I won't spoil no more of the movie. Lets just say that the action kicks in when he reaches the top of the mountain. As far as atmos go I've read reviews stating that the above atmos effects are subtle , just as that article talks about of the producers who made this movie.


----------



## sdurani

Civik99si said:


> This makes it somewhat difficult to differentiate the sides and rears at times.


With the back wall only a couple feet behind, I would do a proper 5.1 layout rather than trying to shoe-horn a 7.1 set-up where there is not enough space for the rear speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

Civik99si said:


> The main issue is that the bipolars are firing to the right and left of the MLP from a couple feet behind, and the direct firing surrounds are doing the same about 3-4 feet in front of the wall. This makes it somewhat difficult to differentiate the sides and rears at times. OTOH, in wall rears would eliminate that issue but likely create hot spotting due to being only 2 feet behind couch.


Hotspotting is a lot less prevalent today than people think IMO. That's what our optimizers are for. I'm not sure what AVR you are using, but when you calibrate, the mic will see that the rears are real close and will attenuate them. Audyssey sets mine to about -10db or so!!! They don't hot spot at all and they're right behind my head. I also think your "differentiation" comment is likely related to the use of bipoles more than anything else (assuming you've ran AccuEQ, YPAO, Audyssey, etc).


----------



## Civik99si

@Civik99si

I think you are saying you have 2 bipolar for Atmos in RH configuration and 2 bipolar for rear surround?

No, the bipoles are mounted on back wall and are on rear duty. The side surrounds are bookshelves.


----------



## Stoked21

Civik99si said:


> @Civik99si
> 
> I think you are saying you have 2 bipolar for Atmos in RH configuration and 2 bipolar for rear surround?
> 
> No, the bipoles are mounted on back wall and are on rear duty. The side surrounds are bookshelves.


Get rid of the bipoles. Lower the new ones.


----------



## Stoked21

In-line responses



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, I have all the tools o' the trade handy. Hell, you can move your SPL meter an inch to one side and get a variance in level. I'm not saying that level tweaking isn't something you should do, within reason. I wouldn't use the internal test tones for level post-Audyssey though, since the internal tones aren't passed through equalization and will still be thrown off by peaks/nulls that Audyssey has dealt with. Hence why using a calibration disc at known standards is important for assessing equalized levels. And also why it's a shame we don't have that sorta' thing for Atmos yet.
> 
> *Excellent point on test tones vs. calibration disc. Do you just run 11 ch stereo of sorts? I haven't seen an 11.1 test disc but assume killing some chs and putting in such a mode would make a 5.1 test disc useable. I admit I've been 100% qualitative with my Atmos speakers setup, as I've been waiting weeks for a UMIK-1. I'm assuming with my SPL and/or UMIK-1 and REW I'll be able to quantitatively test phase? *
> 
> 
> We're addressing two different things, you and I. Yes, perhaps an increase in level is necessitated in your room. But I'm not talking about the perceived level of any individual channel... I'm talking about the perceived imaging between any two channels based on their phase relationship to each other in the room.
> 
> * We are addressing 2 different things. But I'm calling it (hearing it) as a level issue and not an imaging issue. All of our setups and situations are different. That's for sure!!!*
> 
> That's kinda' my point. Changing level of one channel can make objects located in that particular channel sound louder than objects mixed between channels, where the reductions in levels have already been made during mixing (or in the case of Atmos, by the object renderer) so that the sound remains at a constant level as cross-channel pans occur. My suggestion to check distances to ensure solid imaging between speakers is addressing something completely different than a change in level - it's to make sure that sounds placed between speakers are properly imaging between speakers because those two speakers are in phase.
> 
> *My imaging between the speaker pairs is superb. My setup challenges have always been getting the TF to TR balance and the top to bed balance. *
> 
> And if it doesn't work for you, you've lost nothing but a few minutes. Or you'll thank me when you hear what I'm talking about.
> 
> *If I can change it from my current 9.5 to an 11....You will get a huge thank you!*


----------



## Civik99si

Stoked21 said:


> Hotspotting is a lot less prevalent today than people think IMO. That's what our optimizers are for. I'm not sure what AVR you are using, but when you calibrate, the mic will see that the rears are real close and will attenuate them. Audyssey sets mine to about -10db or so!!! They don't hot spot at all and they're right behind my head. I also think your "differentiation" comment is likely related to the use of bipoles more than anything else (assuming you've ran AccuEQ, YPAO, Audyssey, etc).


Thanks Stoked. My inclination was to swap in in walls for rears. But when I asked my dealer about in wall pricing, he suggested I just keep the bipoles. I've never had a dealer dissuade a sale like that. Seemed to lend some credence to my concern about hot spotting. That's why I inquired with you guys. My processor is a Yamaha CX-A5100.


----------



## Stoked21

Civik99si said:


> Thanks Stoked. My inclination was to swap in in walls for rears. But when I asked my dealer about in wall pricing, he suggested I just keep the bipoles. I've never had a dealer dissuade a sale like that. Seemed to lend some credence to my concern about hot spotting. That's why I inquired with you guys. My processor is a Yamaha CX-A5100.


Dolby recommends all direct-radiating speakers. Even for rears. I use cheap as hell DT Promonitor 1000s for my surrounds and rears. Narrow dispersion from what I can hear from them. Mounted less than ideally on back wall mounts and the woofers are even starting to dip down a little bit behind my rear row now that I have a riser. They are set in closer together than the distance between my front mains which means they are even closer to my ears. I just started using them full time yesterday and only used them previously when I ran 7.2.2 occasionally vs 5.2.4. They're not hot at all. I'm debating IWs because getting them 12" further away, by mounting IW, seemed like a win win to me.

To be clear though, I haven't tried IWs for surround rears but am strongly leaning that way. They wouldn't be out of spec and they wouldn't propose any more challenges than what I have already! And the IWs would have to sound better and work better in Atmos than bipolar would.


----------



## Stoked21

I find this funny actually. There's always seemed to be a stigma around in-walls and in-ceilings. I believe this is due to the fact that they are less controlled by not being in an enclosure (despite back box options), they are shallower with smaller drivers and magnets and coils etc (despite less of a need for deeper drives with subs nowadays), they're more involved to install than placing a floor stander or bookshelf on stand (but most rooms can't accommodate tower speakers everywhere anyway), and they are assumed to sound worse as they are more prevalent to interact with the wall/ceiling material (backerbox and xover to sub). I mean I understand staying away from them for LCR, but for surrounds.....

Now that Atmos is around, nobody has any qualms whatsoever about placing architectural speakers in their ceilings!! Yet many people will advise you not to put IWs in for surround rears...It's really a contradictory, hypocritical line of thinking.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Civik99si said:


> No, the bipoles are mounted on back wall and are on rear duty. The side surrounds are bookshelves.


Not for nothin'... but have you tried swapping the bookshelves and the bipoles? I'm running bipole side surrounds and bookshelf rears, and that's working pretty well for me... with no issues differentiating between them. Naturally, my bookshelves on the rear wall are on brackets that let me angle them in. Just a thought. There's nothing inherently wrong with bipoles on the side, even with Atmos, since they basically mimic an array. 

Now, dipoles on the other hand... Different story entirely. I wouldn't use dipoles with Atmos at all.


----------



## Augmont

*Speaker Wiring Decision - New Family Room - Future Atmos*

I have a new family addition that will start in less than 1 month.

To start, I'll have a 7.1 and will remain for at least 2-3 years. In a 20' x 20' (i know its not ideal). Is the choice for either a 7.2.4 or 9.2.2 a personal choice or one dependent on size?

Trying to see where to run extra wire for future expansion.

The ceiling will be a barn-style vaulted. 9' (gray area) in middle to squeeze a 120" screen and slopes to 8' on the sides.

thanks.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Just Asking !*



Stoked21 said:


> Get rid of the bipoles. Lower the new ones.


I would like you guys opinion on somethings i've been reading, and noticing on placement of the rear speakers. I myself have my surround speakers placed according to what Dolby says in the white paper article. What I want to know is that i've heard some of the " professionals " such as Grimani and Cineramax talk about speaker placement and how high they place them in dedicated HT. It seems that the front sound stage and wides are all ear level. Then the side surrounds are just above ear level when seated , which is about chest level when standing. But for the rears they place them about ear level when standing. If I was to draw a side elevation diagram the speakers would form a line that slopes up starting from the front speakers to the rear. What do you guys think about this ? Is this more for theaters with more than one row with a riser ? Do you think thats enough seperation from the rear surrounds and lets say a Top Rear , or Rear height atmos location ? For me it wouldn't be a problem because my standing ear height is 5'4" and my ceiling 10' tall.


----------



## Civik99si

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not for nothin'... but have you tried swapping the bookshelves and the bipoles? I'm running bipole side surrounds and bookshelf rears, and that's working pretty well for me... with no issues differentiating between them. Naturally, my bookshelves on the rear wall are on brackets that let me angle them in. Just a thought. There's nothing inherently wrong with bipoles on the side, even with Atmos, since they basically mimic an array.
> 
> Now, dipoles on the other hand... Different story entirely. I wouldn't use dipoles with Atmos at all.


Good thought. But the bookshelves are on stands and are shorter than the back of the couch. There isn't room for them behind the couch anyways. 

The rears are Paradigm ADP-590s. I've seen them referred to as both bipoles and dipole but I think they are actually dipoles.


----------



## Stoked21

Augmont said:


> I have a new family addition that will start in less than 1 month.
> 
> To start, I'll have a 7.1 and will remain for at least 2-3 years. In a 20' x 20' (i know its not ideal). Is the choice for either a 7.2.4 or 9.2.2 a personal choice or one dependent on size?
> 
> Trying to see where to run extra wire for future expansion.
> 
> The ceiling will be a barn-style vaulted. 9' (gray area) in middle to squeeze a 120" screen and slopes to 8' on the sides.
> 
> thanks.


It always irritates me (what doesn't? ) when people try to push people away from an immersive deployment based on room size and shape. Yes there are limitations but they have to be pretty small rooms to eliminate 7.2.4 possibilities. Or maybe the smaller room requires a couch that's more centered in the room and eliminates a 2 row HT possibility. My room is 17' deep. It's open on one side so I can't give a width but I'd say the utilized HT width is 17' if I were to draw a line on the carpet. I have 9.2.6 setup in there already with 2 rows. 

Don't sweat a 7.2.4 deployment in a 20x20. Instead start questioning HOW you would mount the Atmos ICs. That's what you should be considering. The 1' vault is very minimal so I'd be pretty confident it could be done even if you have to hang boxes from the ceiling and slightly eliminate head room.


----------



## Stoked21

HT-Eman said:


> I would like you guys opinion on somethings i've been reading, and noticing on placement of the rear speakers. I myself have my surround speakers placed according to what Dolby says in the white paper article. What I want to know is that i've heard some of the " professionals " such as Grimani and Cineramax talk about speaker placement and how high they place them in dedicated HT. It seems that the front sound stage and wides are all ear level. Then the side surrounds are just above ear level when seated , which is about chest level when standing. But for the rears they place them about ear level when standing. If I was to draw a side elevation diagram the speakers would form a line that slopes up starting from the front speakers to the rear. What do you guys think about this ? Is this more for theaters with more than one row with a riser ? Do you think thats enough seperation from the rear surrounds and lets say a Top Rear , or Rear height atmos location ? For me it would be a problem because my standing ear height is 5'4" and my ceiling 10' tall.


With my riser I actually do the inverse. My rears and fronts are right about ear level of the back row with riser. My surrounds are only on 30" stands so they are a little below ear level. Just yesterday we were commenting that it's a better setup to have surrounds a bit lower. I was debating taller stands but by having them just a bit lower it helps to add separation to the ICs and I can hear sound effects like bubbles stream from even lower in the field to the ceiling. That's just my initial observation. There are no adverse staging issues with it and it sounds great, even if they are about 6" too low.


----------



## sdurani

Augmont said:


> Is the choice for either a 7.2.4 or 9.2.2 a personal choice or one dependent on size?


Personal preference. BTW, looking at your diagram, I would move the side speaker slightly forward to the edge of the window and move the rear speakers to the back corners of the room.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> *Excellent point on test tones vs. calibration disc. Do you just run 11 ch stereo of sorts? I haven't seen an 11.1 test disc but assume killing some chs and putting in such a mode would make a 5.1 test disc useable. I admit I've been 100% qualitative with my Atmos speakers setup, as I've been waiting weeks for a UMIK-1. I'm assuming with my SPL and/or UMIK-1 and REW I'll be able to quantitatively test phase? *


The lack of a test disc beyond 7.1 is the problem. I check Audyssey's levels using the AIX disc's 7.1 tones, with any processing that might alter surround presence (like DynamicEQ) turned off and the AVR set to a native 7.1 format rather than Dolby Surround. That means I'm still getting the post-equalized result of just the channel itself, without any chance of variation caused by other processing. The problem is that there's no way to check anything other than the bed channels this way.. so I spot check the bed and then compare using the internal test tones and tweak slightly if needed. The AIX disc also has paired phase tests (L+C, C+R, R+RS, RS+RRS, RRS+LRS, LRS+LS, LS+L) so that you can do the phase tests I'm talking about. Keep in mind that this is merely to illustrate that this same issue that can cause variations at the bed level also applies to imaging between the bed and height channels... which we have no way to test objectively unless someone authored a disc with objects placed very specifically for each of the bed/height speaker pairings. Unfortunately, that means we're left with a little trial and error when it comes to tweaking distance of the heights as I'm suggesting, hence my suggestion of putting the Leaf demo clip on a loop - since we know it has several pans that move through the room in various directions. Trust your ears on this one... If you're not hearing those "move through the room" moments from your rig now, you'll absolutely know it when you find the right distance settings for your heights and things snap into place. Try changing all of your height channels simultaneously +0.2 feet at a time (basically decreasing the delay applied to the entire height layer), then run the clip. If you're not hearing an improvement within about +0.4 feet, I'd say maybe this tweak won't help you much. You could also try it at -0.2 feet and then -0.4 feet to see which works better. Also, CLOSE YOUR EYES and just listen to the Leaf clip. Don't let what's on the screen distract you. When you find the setting that makes it sound like a few of the pans moved through the room between the beds and heights, you'll know it. And when you watch an Atmos flick after that, you may be pleasantly surprised by the difference.

*


Stoked21 said:



We are addressing 2 different things. But I'm calling it (hearing it) as a level issue and not an imaging issue. All of our setups and situations are different. That's for sure!!!

Click to expand...

*Keep in mind that my post was specifically to address people who are hearing things either bed-level or overhead, but not moving through the 3-D space between them. If you have a phase issue between a height channel and its adjacent bed-level channel, no amount of altering level is going to make it image better in between those two speakers because the phase issue is still there, diffusing the imaging between them. I had the same issue using Audyssey's detected distances, even after several calibration runs... but when I took my ages-old logic for tweaking distance that I've used since my first 5.1 setup and applied it to the vertical axis, it became VERY obvious when objects placed between the beds and heights snapped into place in the spaces between speakers. 

*


Stoked21 said:



My imaging between the speaker pairs is superb. My setup challenges have always been getting the TF to TR balance and the top to bed balance.

Click to expand...

*Yet another problem with not having a more comprehensive calibration disc. To do that, you would need test tones that used objects placed in every dictated height channel position for home Atmos. With channel-based discs, it's easy... You just pan the sound between the two channels, essentially placing it -3dB in each channel so it images at the same level as it would if it were in one channel or the other. But with object-based like Atmos, I don't know how easy it would be to isolate the sound to just a channel pair the way phase tests do on a 7.1 calibration disc. That's why it's trial and error to tweak this, but worth trying. In your case, I would say that TF to TR balance will likely be more a matter of level (though I'm actually running my front heights +0.4ft from what Audyssey detected and my top mids at +0.2ft, which meshes better with music that is raised above bed level as the new version of The Fifth Element has)... whereas bed to height will likely see more improvement with tweaking distance, IF that's the issue in your room (and it may well not be... but you'll know pretty quickly).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Civik99si said:


> Good thought. But the bookshelves are on stands and are shorter than the back of the couch. There isn't room for them behind the couch anyways.
> 
> The rears are Paradigm ADP-590s. I've seen them referred to as both bipoles and dipole but I think they are actually dipoles.


Oh, god... Just looked those up and I DEFINITELY wouldn't use them as rear surrounds. Not sure if they're bipoles or dipoles (though their "reveberant soundfield" in the specs implies dipoles to me), but the dispersion pattern of that enclosure just seems all kinda' wrong for rear surround duty, especially if your seating is close to the back wall. And if they're dipoles, then the placement of the nulls will play hell with things if they're behind you, especially across multiple seats. Side surrounds in a 5.1 setup, sure... but not much else. I think you'd definitely do better with in-walls.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not sure if they're bipoles or dipoles (though their "reveberant soundfield" in the specs implies dipoles to me)...


The ADP in their name stands for Adaptive Di-Pole. They're dipolar above 300Hz but bipole below that (so the bass doesn't cancel).


----------



## Civik99si

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, god... Just looked those up and I DEFINITELY wouldn't use them as rear surrounds. Not sure if they're bipoles or dipoles (though their "reveberant soundfield" in the specs implies dipoles to me), but the dispersion pattern of that enclosure just seems all kinda' wrong for rear surround duty, especially if your seating is close to the back wall. And if they're dipoles, then the placement of the nulls will play hell with things if they're behind you, especially across multiple seats. Side surrounds in a 5.1 setup, sure... but not much else. I think you'd definitely do better with in-walls.



Here's a picture of the couch with rears and sides. Would you put the in walls in line with the ADP-590s, just about a foot lower?


----------



## Rolls-Royce

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not for nothin'... but have you tried swapping the bookshelves and the bipoles? I'm running bipole side surrounds and bookshelf rears, and that's working pretty well for me... with no issues differentiating between them. Naturally, my bookshelves on the rear wall are on brackets that let me angle them in. Just a thought. There's nothing inherently wrong with bipoles on the side, even with Atmos, since they basically mimic an array.
> 
> Now, dipoles on the other hand... Different story entirely. I wouldn't use dipoles with Atmos at all.


That's essentially my setup. Bookshelf rears and bipole surrounds.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> The ADP in their name stands for Adaptive Di-Pole. They're dipolar above 300Hz but bipole below that (so the bass doesn't cancel).


Well, that answers that. In which case, would you agree that using those as rear surrounds in an Atmos setup probably wouldn't be the best idea?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Civik99si said:


> Here's a picture of the couch with rears and sides. Would you put the in walls in line with the ADP-590s, just about a foot lower?


I think that would work. I would definitely get in-walls that let you articulate the tweeters so you can angle them slightly in. People will likely tell you that in-walls on your rear wall should technically be wider apart to hit the Dolby-dictated angles, but given where your side surrounds are, I think your current location would be better as far as differentiating between sides and rears (and for imaging of sounds between the two on either side).


----------



## Blackman

Stoked21 said:


> 3) I wouldn't go to 5.2.4. I just finally migrated from 5.2.4 YESTERDAY to 7.2.4 I've been disappointed in 7.2.2 and 5.2.4 since I first started 6 months ago. Sounds awesome, but not good enough for me.


And this is the Reason why I sold my Yamaha RX-A2050 considering I watched only one movie and plenty of testing with 11 Speakers using Demo disc 2014 and 2015 and purchased the Yamaha RX-A3050. See a Salesman told me I could run 11 channels from the 2050. WRONG!!.


----------



## Augmont

Stoked21 said:


> It always irritates me (what doesn't? ) when people try to push people away from an immersive deployment based on room size and shape. Yes there are limitations but they have to be pretty small rooms to eliminate 7.2.4 possibilities. Or maybe the smaller room requires a couch that's more centered in the room and eliminates a 2 row HT possibility. My room is 17' deep. It's open on one side so I can't give a width but I'd say the utilized HT width is 17' if I were to draw a line on the carpet. I have 9.2.6 setup in there already with 2 rows.
> 
> Don't sweat a 7.2.4 deployment in a 20x20. Instead start questioning HOW you would mount the Atmos ICs. That's what you should be considering. The 1' vault is very minimal so I'd be pretty confident it could be done even if you have to hang boxes from the ceiling and slightly eliminate head room.


should I dare say something that will irritate you even more  I was going to use in-ceiling speakers like KLH IC-6S.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> Personal preference. BTW, looking at your diagram, I would move the side speaker slightly forward to the edge of the window and move the rear speakers to the back corners of the room.


Thanks Sanjay......


----------



## Stoked21

Augmont said:


> should I dare say something that will irritate you even more  I was going to use in-ceiling speakers like KLH IC-6S.


Lol. Not sure why that would irritate me though. Look at my signature. I use very similar speakers. Low cost at $100 each. Advantage to them is directed sound allowing woofer and tweeter to be aimed. They work great and dispersion is wide. 

I dare say I may have one of the lowest cost atmos speaker setups. $2400 total not counting subs. I was only at about $1700 until I swapped my lcr a couple weeks ago. Painful spl if need be, decent bass and excellent imaging. I'm cheap over here!!!


----------



## toofast68

So I am just starting to consider Atmos, I've stayed away due to what I thought were room limitations (basically I just finished my HT, and I could not /would not rip out walls to rewire.

HOWEVER, I think I figured out how to do it.

Before I go start digging deep, what is your input on using Mirage Nanosat Omni Polar for the Atmos speakers.

http://www.miragespeakers.com/surround-speakers/?sku=NANOSAT-BS

I could mount then upside down, and in effect it would be very much like in ceiling down firing speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> I find this funny actually. There's always seemed to be a stigma around in-walls and in-ceilings. I believe this is due to the fact that they are less controlled by not being in an enclosure (despite back box options), they are shallower with smaller drivers and magnets and coils etc (despite less of a need for deeper drives with subs nowadays), they're more involved to install than placing a floor stander or bookshelf on stand (but most rooms can't accommodate tower speakers everywhere anyway), and they are assumed to sound worse as they are more prevalent to interact with the wall/ceiling material (backerbox and xover to sub). I mean I understand staying away from them for LCR, but for surrounds.....
> 
> Now that Atmos is around, nobody has any qualms whatsoever about placing architectural speakers in their ceilings!! Yet many people will advise you not to put IWs in for surround rears...It's really a contradictory, hypocritical line of thinking.


Interesting read.....most ultra hi-end (private) dedicated home theater rooms have all their speakers in walls, columns, behind a transparent screen, and inside the ceiling. ...All invisible.

In public theaters, all the surrounds are right there, attached boxes to (on) the walls (sides and rear). ...Clearly visible...and above our heads too, on the ceiling.

You see no speakers, no subwoofers in professionally acoustically designed home theater rooms (invisibility), and yet in public venues they are (very visible)...except for the three front sound stage trio...and the subs. 
In living rooms...all variations exist...but in vast general all speakers and subwoofers are clearly visible...like in my living room for example. I have total freedom to position them anytime I want anywhere I want. In pro rooms that freedom is very restricted. ...Every time new stuff comes up (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro, Barco, Trinnov, ...with 11, 13, 15, 27, 39 ... speakers and 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 subwoofers...) the chainsaw is required...and the electric drill, and acoustical material, and tra-la-la...$25,000 to $250,000 later. 

There are no absolute but only one...acoustically sound and properly designed "room" (ours) and well positioning of all speakers around, and each time that a new sound codec is invented or that new technological advancements in sound properties are discovered...inside digital chips and inside speaker's drivers technical advancements...crossovers, cones, coils, materials, magnets, dispersion, propagation, tra-la-la all...that absolute constantly switch around up and down, sideways, above front and rear and sides. What is today will be different again tomorrow, just as it was when we were living in the THX era (Laserdisc and VHS and Beta). DVD brought some new changes, then HD DVD and Blu-ray, now Atmos, Auro, and very soon DTS with an X and UHD Blu-ray and 9.1.4 and Trinnov Altitude (JBL Synthesis SDP-75 3D), Barco, Steinway Lyngdorf, Datasat, IOSONO, ...

And without mentioning the new movie sound mix encoding/recordings...the latest Atmos...and the up-coming Blu-ray UHD and the latest multichannel high resolution music recordings with Auro and Atmos. ...No matter if on Blu-ray Video, Blu-ray Audio, hi-res multichannel internet downloads from various sources. 

We adapt with what we have (room), with what we listen and watch (genre and mediums), and our bank accounts plus the level of our daring in sound exploration (immersive audio passion).


----------



## Augmont

Stoked21 said:


> Lol. Not sure why that would irritate me though. Look at my signature. I use very similar speakers. Low cost at $100 each. Advantage to them is directed sound allowing woofer and tweeter to be aimed. They work great and dispersion is wide.
> 
> I dare say I may have one of the lowest cost atmos speaker setups. $2400 total not counting subs. I was only at about $1700 until I swapped my lcr a couple weeks ago. Painful spl if need be, decent bass and excellent imaging. I'm cheap over here!!!


I prefer the term "selective spender" as oppose to cheap since i wear the same jacket as you. 

I'm a DIY guy with a DIY 15" Rythmik sub and DIY L/C/R 1099 kit from the DIY Sound Group and plan to build surrounds from them as well. Just don't tell the Mrs......my plan is to ask for forgiveness than permission.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In which case, would you agree that using those as rear surrounds in an Atmos setup probably wouldn't be the best idea?


I wouldn't use them for rears, but then my back wall isn't two feet away, with surrounds close enough to be distracting. When surrounds are that close, it might help to have speakers with a null (quiet zone) in their dispersion pattern that can be aimed towards the listening area. Of course that means you give up the greater imaging precision that is one of the benefits of Atmos. That close to the back wall, I would stick with a good 5.1 set-up rather than a poor 7.1 layout.


----------



## SridharPuram

*need clarification*

If AVR manfacturer specifies that particular AVR model supports or upgradable with Dolby Atmos, does that mean that Atmos engine includes Dolby surround Up mixer (which up mixes legacy audio like mono/stereo to atmos) even if it is not mentioned ?.


----------



## pasender91

SridharPuram said:


> If AVR manfacturer specifies that particular AVR model supports or upgradable with Dolby Atmos, does that mean that Atmos engine includes Dolby surround Up mixer (which up mixes legacy audio like mono/stereo to atmos) even if it is not mentioned ?.


Yes, Dolby Surround is a part of Atmos and is ALWAYS included if the AVR is Atmos compliant


----------



## kbarnes701

Zhorik said:


> The Amazon US and UK version linked previously (and below) have the Atmos track.
> 
> Amazon US: http://www.amazon.com/Bahubali-Hind...keywords=bahubali blu ray&tag=viglink20246-20
> 
> Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bahubali-Hi...d=1446001850&sr=8-1&keywords=bahubali+blu+ray
> 
> AFAIK the Hindi version comes only in Atmos (and DD) and not in any other codec.


Mine arrived today. Although it says DTS-HD MA on the back of the disc case, on the slip there is an ATMOS sticker.


----------



## petetherock

Thanks to all our discovery efforts, the disc has gone up to USD 27..

I don't think I am in the class of members that goes rabid over anything with an Atmos sticker on it. I will sit this one out..


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Actually, distance/delay and level are quite different, and raising the level of one channel does NOT fix distance differences (though proper calibrated level IS affected by the distance to the MLP). Getting the distance/delay right is related to the imaging between the channels, as you want the signals from any two channels to arrive at the seats at roughly the same time for between-channel imaging to be precise. That isn't something you can fix with level, because it's a matter of the arrival time of the sound, not the level. Again, this is a matter of PHASE, not level.


Yes, agreed. I believe it is more important to get all the distances right, for proper 3D imaging, than it is to get the levels right, although obviously one should aim to get both of them right. But it only takes a small change of delay to futz with the imaging IME.


----------



## Gates

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Oh, god... Just looked those up and I DEFINITELY wouldn't use them as rear surrounds. Not sure if they're bipoles or dipoles (though their "reveberant soundfield" in the specs implies dipoles to me), but the dispersion pattern of that enclosure just seems all kinda' wrong for rear surround duty, especially if your seating is close to the back wall. And if they're dipoles, then the placement of the nulls will play hell with things if they're behind you, especially across multiple seats. Side surrounds in a 5.1 setup, sure... but not much else. I think you'd definitely do better with in-walls.


I have ADP-590's on the side and I don't have any sound issues that I can see (hear). I have 2 rows so even if I had monopoles, I wouldn't exactly know here to put them. My second row couch is also very close to both side walls.


----------



## toofast68

toofast68 said:


> So I am just starting to consider Atmos, I've stayed away due to what I thought were room limitations (basically I just finished my HT, and I could not /would not rip out walls to rewire.
> 
> HOWEVER, I think I figured out how to do it.
> 
> Before I go start digging deep, what is your input on using Mirage Nanosat Omni Polar for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> http://www.miragespeakers.com/surround-speakers/?sku=NANOSAT-BS
> 
> I could mount then upside down, and in effect it would be very much like in ceiling down firing speakers.


Guess I am bumping myself in case this got lost 

Would love the experts to give me your $.02


----------



## petetherock

petetherock said:


> If anyone is a Riddick Fan ( I am!) , and is looking for a little DSU action, try the latest Riddick, just when the rain begins, and the serpent like creatures start to crawl onto the ceiling, the effect is almost as big a revelation as the first time I heard Masters & Commanders, when I first marveled at the footsteps on the deck..
> 
> It's not just the rain, I mean DSU and Atmos is more than just raindrops, the footsteps had direction, steering, and an enveloping soundfield. Impressive.


My proclivities lie towards good surround steering, much more than just bangs, booms and bombs, hence I am always on the lookout for effective use of the various surround channels on offer.

As posted before, Masters & Commanders was a real revelation, even on DVD. The next will be Sherlock Holmes I, where Sherlock and Watson meet Mark Strong in the abattoir, and you hear Mark's voice floating from speaker to speaker, very eerie and DSU definitely increased the mood a significant amount.

After that mood scene, comes Secret of Arriety, when she stumbles into the large kitchen. This scene is the ULTIMATE test of space. Pots clank, taps drip, kettles boil over, all seemingly coming from points in space and not from speaker positions. I will buy the person who mixed that a pint!

And there is Band of Brothers - episode 2: the bullets whizzing as Lt Winters assaults the 105mm guns. Trace that grenade that threatens to blow up Joe Troy. Sheer genius in sound effects again.

Then we go East to watch or listen to "Sparrow" : a light-hearted thieves' caper that envelops you in the sounds of the streets of Hong Kong. Close your eyes and be whisked away to Kowloon, and you can almost smell the food, the sound coming from all around you. 
Follow that up with "Eye In The Sky", another Hong Kong thriller, and again feel yourself being immersed in the streets of the island.

Finally, put in Daredevil, when the young hero awakes after losing his sight in the accident, and hear the sounds of the hospital ward all around, extending then to the streets outside.. Amazing stuff.

Enough DSU material for a very long weekend away from work


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> It boils down to ten episodes per season each episode is about an hour so that's only ten hours of Atmos Sound for each season. That's only 20 hours total for both seasons, we will see next week how well these turned out.


Sure, but 20 hours is 10 movies. 10 movies that are not all related to the same plot and characters. Because my viewing time is finitely limited, I'd rather watch 10 different movies than 20 episodes of GOT (or any TV series). It's just me and my own personal preferences - I am not saying that GOT and some of the other TV series are not good, because I know they are.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Gates said:


> I have ADP-590's on the side and I don't have any sound issues that I can see (hear). I have 2 rows so even if I had monopoles, I wouldn't exactly know here to put them. My second row couch is also very close to both side walls.


His particular use was on the REAR wall though. I could see the advantage of dipoles for multiple rows of seats on the side wall, though you'd have phase differences between adjacent sets of speakers that might affect placement of objects. By that, I mean if the in-phase side of the dipole is pointing toward the back of the room, you'll get great cross-channel imaging between surround and rear surround, but the surround to mains image would likely be out of phase (so diffuse instead of precise)... which would also affect sounds placed such that they rely on mains/surrounds/heights. Hence why Dolby says not to use dipoles in an Atmos setup.

If you don't hear a problem, then there's no problem.


----------



## Gates

Jeremy Anderson said:


> His particular use was on the REAR wall though. I could see the advantage of dipoles for multiple rows of seats on the side wall, though you'd have phase differences between adjacent sets of speakers that might affect placement of objects. By that, I mean if the in-phase side of the dipole is pointing toward the back of the room, you'll get great cross-channel imaging between surround and rear surround, but the surround to mains image would likely be out of phase (so diffuse instead of precise)... which would also affect sounds placed such that they rely on mains/surrounds/heights. Hence why Dolby says not to use dipoles in an Atmos setup.
> 
> If you don't hear a problem, then there's no problem.


In all fairness, I've never heard what monopoles sound like on the sides and I am curious about that. Here are a couple of pictures to show you what I mean with my room....


----------



## Gates




----------



## Gates




----------



## Gates

and here's a wider shot...I just don't know where I'd put monopoles unless I get rid of the long couch in the back...


----------



## dkwong

SridharPuram said:


> If AVR manfacturer specifies that particular AVR model supports or upgradable with Dolby Atmos, does that mean that Atmos engine includes Dolby surround Up mixer (which up mixes legacy audio like mono/stereo to atmos) even if it is not mentioned ?.



It does but keep in mind that not all AVRs work the same way with DSU. None of Denon's AVRs (except the 7200) can upmix DTS sources with DSU. So you'll need a Bluray player that can decode all the DTS formats and output PCM for these AVRs. This may or may not get fixed in a future firmware update.


----------



## Stoked21

Gates said:


> In all fairness, I've never heard what monopoles sound like on the sides and I am curious about that. Here are a couple of pictures to show you what I mean with my room....


I'm not sure which scares me more....The helmet-less Vader or the land-line phone! 

Anakin is pretty cool hanging out behind back row.


----------



## stikle

toofast68 said:


> Before I go start digging deep, what is your input on using Mirage Nanosat Omni Polar for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> http://www.miragespeakers.com/surround-speakers/?sku=NANOSAT-BS
> 
> I could mount then upside down, and in effect it would be very much like in ceiling down firing speakers.



They will work very well. Here's their big brother, the Omnisat:










I'm running all Omnisats for surrounds and overheads and they sound fabulous.

Click the pano below for a bigger version. The room looks a bit distorted due to the pano, but I assure you, it IS rectangular.  The other two overheads are directly over where I was taking the picture, but they are there too.


----------



## Gates

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not sure which scares me more....The helmet-less Vader or the land-line phone!
> 
> Anakin is pretty cool hanging out behind back row.


LOL...to me it's the land-line. I need to rectify that soon.


----------



## bargervais

dkwong said:


> It does but keep in mind that not all AVRs work the same way with DSU. None of Denon's AVRs (except the 7200) can upmix DTS sources with DSU. So you'll need a Bluray player that can decode all the DTS formats and output PCM for these AVRs. This may or may not get fixed in a future firmware update.


I didn't know 2014 Denon AVRs had this problem That would suck, as most legacy Blu-Rays have DTS. I thought it was the new ones for 2015 AVRs but i guess you learn something new every day.


----------



## stikle

dkwong said:


> It does but keep in mind that not all AVRs work the same way with DSU. *None of Denon's AVRs (except the 7200) can upmix DTS sources with DSU*.



This is 100% incorrect.

From the 2014 5200W manual:



And owner's manual aside, I have personally watched DTS-HD movies with DSU engaged. The front panel says DTS-HD + DSU.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

stikle said:


> This is 100% incorrect.
> 
> And owner's manual aside, I have personally watched DTS-HD movies with DSU engaged. The front panel says DTS-HD + DSU.


Well, it isn't "100%" incorrect. The 2015 models actually DON'T let you use DSU with DTS-HD MA. The 2014 models like the 5200 do (and thank God, 'cause I use it for everything).


----------



## stikle

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, it isn't "100%" incorrect. The 2015 models actually DON'T let you use DSU with DTS-HD MA. The 2014 models like the 5200 do (and thank God, 'cause I use it for everything).



Well, I was categorically refuting his categorical statement. He specifically said the 7200, which is a 2014 model.

But yes, you are correct. And thankfully so.


----------



## petetherock

Yes, and the 2015 D&M models have also lost DTS-music for stereo sources


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

stikle said:


> Well, I was categorically refuting his categorical statement. He specifically said the 7200, which is a 2014 model.
> 
> But yes, you are correct. And thankfully so.


The 7200, if I recall correctly, may still have the issue because it's the only 2014 model that's getting the DTS:X upgrade (and HDCP 2.2 for UHD). And no one's sure if it's a bug or if it will be corrected.


----------



## dkwong

bargervais said:


> I didn't know 2014 Denon AVRs had this problem That would suck, as most legacy Blu-Rays have DTS. I thought it was the new ones for 2015 AVRs but i guess you learn something new every day.



Sorry my comment was about the 2015 models. The 2014 models may work.


----------



## toofast68

stikle said:


> They will work very well. Here's their big brother, the Omnisat:
> 
> I'm running all Omnisats for surrounds and overheads and they sound fabulous.


Awesome, that is what I hoped, someone running this and feeling that they work. Now I just gotta figure out now to make this work with my room, I will load a image later on this weekend, but thanks for keeping my faith burning on my mad idea!!


----------



## bargervais

dkwong said:


> Sorry my comment was about the 2015 models. The 2014 models may work.


there you go again (The 2014 models may work).


----------



## markus767

Gates said:


>


How man Wookiees had to die for these chairs? Sorry couldn't resist


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> How man Wookiees had to die for these chairs? Sorry couldn't resist


But, but, there's no hair on those chairs! lol...I actually want to change the seating in my room though. They don't look the greatest, but I do fall asleep in them quite often since they are so comfortable lol...all reclineable as well.


----------



## Gates

So judging by the pics I put up, would you guys dump the side surrounds and go for monopoles ? And where would I put them in those 2 rows ?


----------



## markus767

Gates said:


> But, but, there's no hair on those chairs! lol...I actually want to change the seating in my room though. They don't look the greatest, but I do fall asleep in them quite often since they are so comfortable lol...all reclineable as well.


Wookiee leather??! You're a really bad person


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> Wookiee leather??! You're a really bad person


LOL...my girlfriend likes it when I'm bad


----------



## Stoked21

@Jeremy Anderson

So for s***s and giggles, I ran Audyssey on 7702mk2 again today before experimenting with distances. I created an issue as I dropped my proamp gains from max to 12 o'clock to get rid of the hiss. So the calibration maxed out 7/12 channels to +12db due to the crushed gain. Far from ideal as I'm sure it would have set some higher if that wasn't the prepro max. Additionally, I compounded this by actually READING the instructions and keeping all 8 measurements within 2' of each other. With YPAO you run them on all 6 seats at ear position, which is what I had done with Audyssey the first time Tuesday.

Anyway, I did notice that the distances were anywhere from no change up to 0.1-0.3' different than when I ran them the first time. Average was about .1 or .2. This could be due to a variety of factors while changing many things in one evaluation. My point I guess is that I'm seeing approximately 1-3.5" of distance discrepancy. This does lead credence to your statement that a 0.1-0.2' distance change could radically improve the imaging. I still stand by my statement and knowledge that levels are not set perfectly with optimization programs. I know you haven't disagreed with that statement, though you support the distance change first and foremost. Anyway, I will concede that distance change CAN be helpful (I haven't tried it yet). 

I am admitting you are right (while not admitting that I am wrong though! ) LOL Just from that test alone, I can see that both level and distance could necessity a minor change of a fraction of a foot and/or a half db or so to get the best Atmos field.


----------



## markus767

Gates said:


> So judging by the pics I put up, would you guys dump the side surrounds and go for monopoles ? And where would I put them in those 2 rows ?


First I would try to have a chair at the location all channel-based mixes are made for which in your case is between the front 2 seats. Then experiment with the side surrounds at 90° or even smaller angles. I would also position them closer to ear height.


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> First I would try to have a chair at the location all channel-based mixes are made for which in your case is between the front 2 seats. Then experiment with the side surrounds at 90° or even smaller angles. I would also position them closer to ear height.


I did all my Audissey measurements in the middle between those chairs. I cannot just put one single chair in that spot. Unless you meant for testing purposes. Secondly what you don't see is that on the right side of the picture (the Iron Man side), that speaker is pretty much at it's end of the wall. There's a door there. If you look closely you can see the door / wall a little.


----------



## markus767

All I can say is a) channel-based audio is made in and for a specific sweet spot and b) don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> All I can say is a) channel-based audio is made in and for a specific sweet spot and b) don't shoot the messenger.


No shooting necessary


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> @Jeremy Anderson
> 
> So for s***s and giggles, I ran Audyssey on 7702mk2 again today before experimenting with distances. I created an issue as I dropped my proamp gains from max to 12 o'clock to get rid of the hiss. So the calibration maxed out 7/12 channels to +12db due to the crushed gain. Far from ideal as I'm sure it would have set some higher if that wasn't the prepro max. Additionally, I compounded this by actually READING the instructions and keeping all 8 measurements within 2' of each other. With YPAO you run them on all 6 seats at ear position, which is what I had done with Audyssey the first time Tuesday.
> 
> Anyway, I did notice that the distances were anywhere from no change up to 0.1-0.3' different than when I ran them the first time. Average was about .1 or .2. This could be due to a variety of factors while changing many things in one evaluation. My point I guess is that I'm seeing approximately 1-3.5" of distance discrepancy. This does lead credence to your statement that a 0.1-0.2' distance change could radically improve the imaging. I still stand by my statement and knowledge that levels are not set perfectly with optimization programs. I know you haven't disagreed with that statement, though you support the distance change first and foremost. Anyway, I will concede that distance change CAN be helpful (I haven't tried it yet).
> 
> I am admitting you are right (while not admitting that I am wrong though! ) LOL Just from that test alone, I can see that both level and distance could necessity a minor change of a fraction of a foot and/or a half db or so to get the best Atmos field.


Yeah, I never said that levels are perfect with algorithms like Audyssey. It's always worth a spot check and tweaking, even if you give Audyssey the best possible data to work with. But levels of individual channels and resolving phase between multiple channels are two different issues, with two different approaches toward tweaking for the best results.

Something you also have to consider about the distance, however, is that acoustic distances to a single mic - while a great way to measure what Audyssey is measuring - can't necessarily mesh with the acoustic distances to those two mics attached to your melon at your MLP.  As I explained before, at the bed level, it's so minor a concern as to be irrelevant in most rooms... but the angles to the height channels exacerbate the problem, so tweaking a bit can help. Looking forward to hearing whether it helps the sound in your room when you try it.


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yeah, I never said that levels are perfect with algorithms like Audyssey. It's always worth a spot check and tweaking, even if you give Audyssey the best possible data to work with. But levels of individual channels and resolving phase between multiple channels are two different issues, with two different approaches toward tweaking for the best results.
> .


Jeremy

So to analyze this further. I ran audyssey 2 more times comparing to my setup earlier today. So three sets of calibration to compare with very similar mic placement on all 3 though not exact. I noticed that the distances for most bed speakers stayed similar with that 0.1-0.3' variance. Sub would vary by as much as 0.6'. Atmos speakers varied by about 0.2'. 

Levels for beds varied by as much as 1-1.5db between pairs. Atmos speaker levels changed by as much as 4db between top rights and top lefts speakers (front vs rear comparison) from one measurement to the next!!! 4 db!! I'm being swayed back towards believing very accurate distance measurements and piss poor level sets for atmos speakers.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Stoked21 said:


> Jeremy
> 
> So to analyze this further. I ran audyssey 2 more times comparing to my setup earlier today. So three sets of calibration to compare with very similar mic placement on all 3 though not exact. I noticed that the distances for most bed speakers stayed similar with that 0.1-0.3' variance. Sub would vary by as much as 0.6'. Atmos speakers varied by about 0.2'.
> 
> Levels for beds varied by as much as 1-1.5db between pairs. Atmos speaker levels changed by as much as 4db between top rights and top lefts speakers (front vs rear comparison) from one measurement to the next!!! 4 db!! I'm being swayed back towards believing very accurate distance measurements and piss poor level sets for atmos speakers.


When I was playing with AcceEQ (yeah, yeah, not Audyssey...), I found a significant difference in the sub measurements, in particular, from the same mike location depending upon orientation of the mike itself.

Onkyo has the flatish disc type of mike instead the towerish configuration like Denon and others. If I mount the mike flat, that is horizontal, I could not get an accurate distance measurement to the sub.
However, when I mounted the mike in a vertical orientation with the opening facing the front of the room, the sub distance was spot on.

I do not see anyone addressing the orientation of the calibration mike. It does make a difference...FWIW and, of course, YMMV...


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> When I was playing with AcceEQ (yeah, yeah, not Audyssey...), I found a significant difference in the sub measurements, in particular, from the same mike location depending upon orientation of the mike itself.
> 
> Onkyo has the flatish disc type of mike instead the towerish configuration like Denon and others. If I mount the mike flat, that is horizontal, I could not get an accurate distance measurement to the sub.
> However, when I mounted the mike in a vertical orientation with the opening facing the front of the room, the sub distance was spot on.
> 
> I do not see anyone addressing the orientation of the calibration mike. It does make a difference...FWIW and, of course, YMMV...


very interesting i always screwed mine onto a camera tri-pod never really had a problem with measurements i never tried having mine facing anything but the ceiling, have i been doing it wrong.


----------



## bargervais

Gates said:


> But, but, there's no hair on those chairs! lol...I actually want to change the seating in my room though. They don't look the greatest, but I do fall asleep in them quite often since they are so comfortable lol...all reclineable as well.


who sees the chairs as long as they are comfortable when you watching a movie in the dark who cares, now if that phone should ring  that's another story.


----------



## NorthSky

Speaking of AccuEQ and Dolby Atmos...Onkyo has a new Dolby Atmos (DTS:X) receiver...the TX-RZ900...check its beautiful front facade, silver feet, and nice looking internals: 

♦ www.areadvd.de/tests/test-onkyo-7-2-kanal-av-netzwerk-receiver-tx-rz900/

For a new Dolby Atmos AV receiver it's my favorite design so far...just simply beautiful. ...And its internals too. ...Simplicity all around...I like, very.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Speaking of AccuEQ and Dolby Atmos...Onkyo has a new Dolby Atmos (DTS:X) receiver...the TX-RZ900...check its beautiful front facade, silver feet, and nice looking internals:
> 
> ♦ www.areadvd.de/tests/test-onkyo-7-2-kanal-av-netzwerk-receiver-tx-rz900/
> 
> For a new Dolby Atmos AV receiver it's my favorite design so far...just simply beautiful. ...And its internals too.


yes i agree very nice looking but 7.2 i'll wait till next year when they update the 1030


----------



## Shniks

Just received my copy of the ATMOS version of Game of Thrones, Season 1 and 2. I had ordered it from Amazon UK (it's only $30 to the US with shipping) and was surprised to receive it within 4 days. Gonna be a fun weekend. 



Cheers,


Nikhil


----------



## CapnSpaulding

dvdwilly3 said:


> When I was playing with AcceEQ (yeah, yeah, not Audyssey...), I found a significant difference in the sub measurements, in particular, from the same mike location depending upon orientation of the mike itself.
> 
> Onkyo has the flatish disc type of mike instead the towerish configuration like Denon and others. If I mount the mike flat, that is horizontal, I could not get an accurate distance measurement to the sub.
> However, when I mounted the mike in a vertical orientation with the opening facing the front of the room, the sub distance was spot on.
> 
> I do not see anyone addressing the orientation of the calibration mike. It does make a difference...FWIW and, of course, YMMV...


My receiver is a Sony, so I don't know if this helps at all, but my manual specifically states that the disc shaped microphone must be set flat to read how they intended it. Might be different for other receiver brands, not sure.


----------



## batpig

There is no doubt that the mic is supposed to be pointed to the ceiling. The issue is probably the puck shape mic that Onkyo is using. Audyssey uses the tower shape specifically because it avoids issues due to reflections off the flat surface of the puck being so near to the mic capsule. However I don't know why that would screw up the sub diatance since those reflections would be only at higher freqs. Most everything I've seen and read is that mic orientation is irrelevant for low freqs.


----------



## jprod

I currently have front heights above my floor standing speakers in a 16ft wide , 20 foot length and 8 foot high drop ceiling. I placed rear ceiling speakers also at about 130 degrees per dolby atmos recommendations. I am sitting about 11 feet back, so my front heights are at about 20-25 degree elevation ( less than ideal). Should I move my top rears to top middle or keep as is? 
btw i am running 7.2.4 
Thanks


----------



## batpig

jprod said:


> I currently have front heights above my floor standing speakers in a 16ft wide , 20 foot length and 8 foot high drop ceiling. I placed rear ceiling speakers also at about 130 degrees per dolby atmos recommendations. I am sitting about 11 feet back, so my front heights are at about 20-25 degree elevation ( less than ideal). Should I move my top rears to top middle or keep as is?
> btw i am running 7.2.4
> Thanks


With the FH at such a low elevation you are really losing the overhead effect. So if you can't move the FH, definitely experiment with TM instead of TR to get some direct overhead coverage.


----------



## cdelena

batpig said:


> There is no doubt that the mic is supposed to be pointed to the ceiling. The issue is probably the puck shape mic that Onkyo is using. Audyssey uses the tower shape specifically because it avoids issues due to reflections off the flat surface of the puck being so near to the mic capsule. However I don't know why that would screw up the sub diatance since those reflections would be only at higher freqs. Most everything I've seen and read is that mic orientation is irrelevant for low freqs.


Maybe the room. My Onkyo 3030 with the flat mic is dead on for all speakers including both subs.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> yes i agree very nice looking but 7.2 i'll wait till next year when the update the 1030


It's a very smart choice...for many people seven internal amps inside a receiver is plenty...I think. It doesn't have to include all the required eleven channel amps like Anthem new flagship receiver and Onkyo's own (from the other series) for the full Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 configuration. A 5.1.2 Atmos channel setup is ideal for smaller rooms. ...No need for extravaganza here. ...This is a hi-end sound receiver. 

And with time they are going to improve AccuEQ. ...Another thing that I like in that new TX-RZ900 receiver is the new AKM DAC.

* By keeping the receiver quite simple, with a max of seven power amps, a main toroidal transformer, that receiver should offer a sound that is firm/solid and with plenty of power for your main seven channels (the floor ones @ ear level) or five plus two overheads. ...And that one review there confirmed it.


----------



## jprod

batpig said:


> jprod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I currently have front heights above my floor standing speakers in a 16ft wide , 20 foot length and 8 foot high drop ceiling. I placed rear ceiling speakers also at about 130 degrees per dolby atmos recommendations. I am sitting about 11 feet back, so my front heights are at about 20-25 degree elevation ( less than ideal). Should I move my top rears to top middle or keep as is?
> btw i am running 7.2.4
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> With the FH at such a low elevation you are really losing the overhead effect. So if you can't move the FH, definitely experiment with TM instead of TR to get some direct overhead coverage.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The front heights are mini bookshelves from def tech. If I move them
and suspend them from a low ceiling I am wondering if it would look bad and be distracting. Putting them on the side wall but closer to the MLP is not Atmos approved. 
Any other ideas re front height other than ditching them for in ceiling speakers ?


----------



## pasender91

NorthSky said:


> It's a very smart choice...you add a four-channel amp to power your four overhead Atmos speakers. ...Seven internal amps inside a receiver is plenty...I think. So in a way it's like a pre/pro receiver combo. It doesn't have to include all the required eleven channel amps like Anthem new flagship receiver and Onkyo's own (from the other series) for the full Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 configuration. Start with 5.1.2 ... then 7.1.2 ... and finally 7.1.4 ... or jump directly to 7.1.4 by adding two stereo amps, or a five-channel one to power those four Atmos overheads. No need for extravaganza here...modest amps with 50 watts per channel will do just fine for those new Atmos speakers above our head. ...And inexpensive ones @ that.
> 
> And with time they are going to improve AccuEQ. ...Another thing that I like in that new TX-RZ900 receiver are the new AKM DACs.
> 
> * By keeping the receiver quite simple, with a max of seven power amps, a main toroidal transformer, that receiver should offer a sound that is firm/solid and with plenty of power for your main bed channels (the floor ones @ ear level). ...And that one review there confirmed it.


No, sorry to say you're wrong.
Yes the RZ900 looks pretty, yes it has a better-than-average powwer supply, finish and amplification , but yes it is also limited to 7.2 
Not only in amplifier, but in the Atmos decoding too, so the Preout is only 7.2. No way to go past that. This is Why Bargervais commented that it is better to wait until the refresh of OnKyo 11 channel AVRs.
So, as a conclusion, this RZ900 is nice for people that want a good quality 5.1.2, but not a valid option for people that want more channels


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> No, sorry to say you're wrong.
> Yes the RZ900 looks pretty, yes it has a better-than-average powwer supply, finish and amplification , but yes it is also limited to 7.2
> Not only in amplifier, but in the Atmos decoding too, so the Preout is only 7.2. No way to go past that. This is Why Bargervais commented that it is better to wait until the refresh of OnKyo 11 channel AVRs.
> So, as a conclusion, this RZ900 is nice for people that want a good quality 5.1.2, but not a valid option for people that want more channels


Oh you cannot expand more than 5.1.2? I did not look @ its pre-outs. Then it's only for people who want a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 5.1.2 setup. 
Thanks for that.


----------



## Civik99si

Gates said:


> So judging by the pics I put up, would you guys dump the side surrounds and go for monopoles ? And where would I put them in those 2 rows ?


Gates, I'm swapping my rear adp-590s for an in wall with wide dispersion and pivoting mid/highs. I'll let you know how it goes.


----------



## bargervais

cdelena said:


> Maybe the room. My Onkyo 3030 with the flat mic is dead on for all speakers including both subs.


Mine is dead on as well with my 1030


----------



## dvdwilly3

bargervais said:


> Mine is dead on as well with my 1030


FWIW, my room is roughly 15' wide x 20' long. The ceiling looking toward the font of the room is 8' on the right 1/3 and 9' on the left 2/3. That is because of a sofit along the right side (again, facing the screen). Not quite sure what kind of mischief that might work with the sub output.

Additionally, there are two rows of seats. My MLP is in the second row...which is on an 8" riser.

I do not know enough about acoustics to offer an explanation for what I have observed, only that I have observed it with repeated measurements. It arose out of my frustration with AccuEQ consistently being off on the distance to the sub.

Does AccuEQ EQ the sub...LFE...? Or, not? I am not home at the moment so I cannot go downstairs and look...or I would. I think that there was a difference in the level, but not more than 1 or 1.5 dB. And, I forget which way it went. I will check it again when I get home.


----------



## dvdwilly3

bargervais said:


> Mine is dead on as well with my 1030


FWIW, my room is roughly 15' wide x 20' long. The ceiling looking toward the font of the room is 8' on the right 1/3 and 9' on the left 2/3. That is because of a sofit along the right side (again, facing the screen). Not quite sure what kind of mischief that might work with the sub output.

Additionally, there are two rows of seats. My MLP is in the second row...which is on an 8" riser.

And, I often forget to mention, I have 2' x 4' bass traps in the corners of the front wall...

I do not know enough about acoustics to offer an explanation for what I have observed, only that I have observed it with repeated measurements. It arose out of my frustration with AccuEQ consistently being off on the distance to the sub.

Does AccuEQ EQ the sub...LFE...? Or, not? I am not home at the moment so I cannot go downstairs and look...or I would. I think that there was a difference in the level, but not more than 1 or 1.5 dB. And, I forget which way it went. I will check it again when I get home.


----------



## toofast68

Ok....here we go 

Below is my existing layout and about the only place I think I can get 4 overhead ATMOS Speakers...plus pictures to represent the drawing.

The brown overlay is the lower section of the ceiling, with the tray in the center and then the ceiling cloud in the tray. I would be able to mount the 4 speakers on or near the ceiling, aiming down.

I don't have rear surrounds as you can see how close the second row is to the back wall, so I could never quite figure out how to make rear surrounds work with ATMOS. 

The ATMOS back will be a few inched off the back wall, but it is really my only option and I can't get into the ceiling (bad planning on my part) 

Based on all my reading I am thinking I am better off having 4 overhead and 2 surrounds vs. 4 surrounds and 2 overheads, no way (that I think) could I include all, plus no AVR will do that anyways. 










Then some supporting pictures to help visualize the drawing.


----------



## zimmo

just onkyo tx-nr3030 we have 11 true and discret chanels ,all other receiver ,marantz ,denon,yamha and pioneer have just max 9 chanels to 2014 and 2015 ,we need amplifier in 2 chanels for make 11 chanels.


----------



## Stoked21

zimmo said:


> just onkyo tx-nr3030 we have 11 true and discret chanels ,all other receiver ,marantz ,denon,yamha and pioneer have just max 9 chanels to 2014 and 2015 ,we need amplifier in 2 chanels for make 11 chanels.


The 11 internal amps seems like a good deal with Onkyo/Integra...BUT when you don't get DTS:X, can't get Auro (pretty moot point in my opinion but still), only have 11 preouts instead of 13 (not counting the subs), triggers are only useable with zones, no built in airplay, no longer has audyssey, and _only 4:2:0 10.2Gbps (half of the full spec) on the HDMI outputs.._. then the built-in 11 chs are just not worth. The HDMI weakness and lack of DTS:X are *HUUGGEEE* gaps in their product line. I know they'll fix this eventually with new product introductions, but I wouldn't buy one of their AVR/prepros unless I was really content with not supporting 4k to it's full spec or didn't expect to ever buy DTS:X discs. Otherwise you will be buying a new AVR very soon.

They do have THX (which is a great marketing badge to show off and brag to your friends) and they do have 4 sub outputs which is really cool. 

For $200 you can add the missing 2ch amp to any other AVR and have 7.2.4 while eliminating all the other Onkyo deficiencies listed above.


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> The 11 internal amps seems like a good deal with Onkyo/Integra...BUT when you don't get DTS:X, can't get Auro (pretty moot point in my opinion but still), only have 11 preouts instead of 13 (not counting the subs), triggers are only useable with zones, no built in airplay, no longer has audyssey, and _only 4:2:0 10.2Gbps (half of the full spec) on the HDMI outputs.._. then the built-in 11 chs are just not worth. The HDMI weakness and lack of DTS:X are *HUUGGEEE* gaps in their product line. I know they'll fix this eventually with new product introductions, but I wouldn't buy one of their AVR/prepros unless I was really content with not supporting 4k to it's full spec or didn't expect to ever buy DTS:X discs. Otherwise you will be buying a new AVR very soon.
> 
> They do have THX (which is a great marketing badge to show off and brag to your friends) and they do have 4 sub outputs which is really cool.
> 
> For $200 you can add the missing 2ch amp to any other AVR and have 7.2.4 while eliminating all the other Onkyo deficiencies listed above.


Wow how do you really feel.


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> Wow how do you really feel.


I know! 

I really wanted the Integra with 11 chs and 4 subs and THX!!!! REALLY wanted it. I just couldn't bring myself to buy it 2 weeks ago without DTS:X and without full HDMI 2.0. I was even evaluating the prepro versions...I just couldn't bring myself to do it even though I loved them. I even researched some workarounds for the trigger issues and called them directly to ask WHEN they would support full 2.0a and DTS:X.....All to no avail.


----------



## NorthSky

As for AccuEQ; it doesn't EQ the two front mains, and for the subwoofer it also reads as it doesn't EQ it either. ...In my book of acoustic immersive sound...it doesn't ring right.

We need an Onkyo tech guy here to tell us about the sub. ...Or Markus can measure it for sure. 

But what the fellow just above described...that too is not that good. Without DTS:X and UHD 4K picture it just doesn't compute fully. 

Sure, they sound marvelous, and for many that's all it matters...all the eleven power amps included inside and for a price hard to beat. 
Is there more in a Dolby Atmos receiver than that? 

* The way I see things, Denon/Marantz are putting themselves ahead of the pack...from the usual suspects...Denon/Marantz, Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer, Yamhaha and Sony. 
Yamaha is a wild card. ...And Anthem might be the overall winner. ...Arcam and Audio Control and NAD and Rotel...we'll have to see and hear when they're ready. 

The fact that only Denon/Marantz (their top models) offer Auro-3D is big in my book. They want to give their customers all options available.
And the fact that they are also the only one with Audyssey soup; that too is another winning strike. 

But that's only me, and my own vision into the Atmosphere.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> As for AccuEQ; it doesn't EQ the two front mains, and for the subwoofer it also reads as it doesn't EQ it either. ...In my book of acoustic immersive sound...it doesn't ring right.


That changed.. it now has the capability to eq the mains (or not.. user selectable.)

Don't know about the subs.


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> When I was playing with AcceEQ (yeah, yeah, not Audyssey...), I found a significant difference in the sub measurements, in particular, from the same mike location depending upon orientation of the mike itself.
> 
> Onkyo has the flatish disc type of mike instead the towerish configuration like Denon and others. If I mount the mike flat, that is horizontal, I could not get an accurate distance measurement to the sub.
> However, when I mounted the mike in a vertical orientation with the opening facing the front of the room, the sub distance was spot on.
> 
> I do not see anyone addressing the orientation of the calibration mike. It does make a difference...FWIW and, of course, YMMV...


With mike oriented straight up, distance measurements with my 636 (AccuEQ) are accurate and mirror the measurements with my 809 (Audyssey). My room size (20x32x7.5) is slightly larger and my MLP is also in the middle of my second row. Perhaps it's worth seeing if there is an issue with the mike. If Onkyo support is unable to send you one, I would be glad to send you mine for testing purposes. The only possible issue would be, if like Audyssey, the mike is specific to an AVR model or software version?


----------



## Gates

Civik99si said:


> Gates, I'm swapping my rear adp-590s for an in wall with wide dispersion and pivoting mid/highs. I'll let you know how it goes.


Oh cool! Yes please, let me know!


----------



## NorthSky

FilmMixer said:


> That changed.. it now has the capability to eq the mains (or not.. user selectable.)
> 
> Don't know about the subs.


_Monsieur Fishman,_ you sold your 8802A and you're back with the 5100?

* I am going to ask you a small favor too...for best moving forward; please could you address me as Mister Bob from now on. 
...Till we know each other better with accentuated respect...what do you think sir...sounds reasonable enough to you?


----------



## SherazNJ

Can someone please recommend a good ceiling mount. My speaker weights 9 pounds and has a dimension of 8x10x5 (Width, Height, Depth). I should me getting my Yamaha 3050 by Saturday. Can't wait to hook up the speakers to hear Atmos the first time. 
I'm attaching the picture of speaker that shows the back of it.
Thx a bunch.


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> The 11 internal amps seems like a good deal with Onkyo/Integra...BUT when you don't get DTS:X, can't get Auro (pretty moot point in my opinion but still), only have 11 preouts instead of 13 (not counting the subs), triggers are only useable with zones, no built in airplay, no longer has audyssey, and _only 4:2:0 10.2Gbps (half of the full spec) on the HDMI outputs.._. then the built-in 11 chs are just not worth. The HDMI weakness and lack of DTS:X are *HUUGGEEE* gaps in their product line. I know they'll fix this eventually with new product introductions, but I wouldn't buy one of their AVR/prepros unless I was really content with not supporting 4k to it's full spec or didn't expect to ever buy DTS:X discs. Otherwise you will be buying a new AVR very soon.
> 
> They do have THX (which is a great marketing badge to show off and brag to your friends) and they do have 4 sub outputs which is really cool.
> 
> For $200 you can add the missing 2ch amp to any other AVR and have 7.2.4 while eliminating all the other Onkyo deficiencies listed above.


I'm going through this exact same thought process/dilemma!!!



bargervais said:


> Wow how do you really feel.


LOL!!



Stoked21 said:


> I know!
> 
> I really wanted the Integra with 11 chs and 4 subs and THX!!!! REALLY wanted it. I just couldn't bring myself to buy it 2 weeks ago without DTS:X and without full HDMI 2.0. I was even evaluating the prepro versions...*I just couldn't bring myself to do it even though I loved them.* I even researched some workarounds for the trigger issues and called them directly to ask WHEN they would support full 2.0a and DTS:X.....All to no avail.


Exactly!!! I was extremely disappointed Onkyo did not replace the 1030/3030/PrePro with 2015 models. But I'm guessing attention and resources have been focused on a new business model as a result of the Pioneer merger/acquisition. Here's hoping there will be a 1040/3040 coming.



NorthSky said:


> But what the fellow just above described...that too is not that good. Without DTS:X and UHD 4K picture it just doesn't compute fully.


A show stopper for many... 



NorthSky said:


> Sure, *they sound marvelous, and for many that's all it matters*...all the eleven power amps included inside and for a price hard to beat. Is there more in a Dolby Atmos receiver than that?


In spite of the shortcomings, I'm still undecided if this is true for me.



NorthSky said:


> * The way I see things, Denon/Marantz are putting themselves ahead of the pack...
> 
> And the fact that they are also the only one with Audyssey soup; that too is another winning strike
> 
> But that's only me, and my own vision into the Atmosphere.


Agreed!!! And IMO, D&M will benefit tremendously going forward throughout next year.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Can someone please recommend a good ceiling mount. My speaker weights 9 pounds and has a dimension of 8x10x5 (Width, Height, Depth). I should me getting my Yamaha 3050 by Saturday. Can't wait to hook up the speakers to hear Atmos the first time.
> I'm attaching the picture of speaker that shows the back of it.
> Thx a bunch.


♦ https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs

________


----------



## pasender91

FilmMixer said:


> That changed.. it now has the capability to eq the mains (or not.. user selectable.)
> 
> Don't know about the subs.


AccuEQ 2015 EQ the fronts AND the sub.
BTW, this is also a huge way for Onkyo to admit that their AccuEQ 2014 was a piece of crap 
AND this AccuEQ 2015 still has major flaws, apparently users report that their fronts are always cut at 200 Hz 
Everyone do what they want, but for me i'm sure this is enough to steer me away from Onkyo, there are enough good alternatives on the market like Denon Marantz Yamaha Pioneer ...


----------



## zimmo

pasender 91,


look your signatur this is the scrap stoff,you never try and you speak for nothing better you return in the France .


----------



## pasender91

zimmo said:


> pasender 91,
> 
> 
> look your signatur this is the scrap stoff,you never try and you speak for nothing better you return in the France .



oh oh , looks like i hit a sensitive nerve on an Onkyo fanboy.
Just few simple comments that may fuel the fire :
1) Scrap stoff (or maybe stuff), like what ? the 7009, the panasonic PJ, the 7 channels Lexicon amp maybe ??  or the acclaimed Monitor Audio Gold ???? 
2) Who said i never tried ? how do you know my life ???, i owned Onkyo in the past as stereo amp, was happy with it. Listened several times to Onkyo AVRs, didn't like the sound so much, + the HDMI issues in the past, + the autocalibration issues now, so i tried and my conclusion is NO, i won't get one. 
3) I speak for nothing ? please point anything wrong in my post, and then we can see who speaks for nothing. *Everything i mentioned is true*, maybe this is why you feel hurt and you don't actually reply to the content of my message ??
4) return in the France ? No need i'm already there , i don't know where you're posting from yourself, obviously not from the US as hinted by your numerous English grammar errors, but this is not the issue, the internet is worldwide and open. So come down and discuss the facts if you dare to !!!

Anyway, i'm not going to let anyone insult me like you do without responding to it, sorry everyone else for the OT rant


----------



## Stoked21

@pasender91

I'll take those golds in a heartbeat!!!
Mine r just their little bronze brothers. I have 15" kilpsch reference sub too. And am obviously now a marantz user as of this week. So our systems have some similarities. 

I think he's missing the point that onkyo has some nice features for atmos products. They've traditionally always been a leader and will be again with their next releases. But their R&D has fallen behind and they are currently not delivering features that are required to semi future proof ones investment. If people don't care about ever going to true 4K or don't care to ever decode dts:x audio then the current onkyo line will work fabulously. I just can't see how anyone would buy one in the last few weeks now that all the other manufs have released product supporting these much needed features. 3-6 months ago the 3030 was an excellent choices. So was my non hdcp 2.2 Yamaha 2040. But the field has changed and onkyo is the laggard. 

I personally moved from Yamaha to marantz to specifically get 7.2.4. I did not want to buy a third avr inside of 12 months. so I made damn sure my second one purchased in 7 months supported full uhd and dts:x.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I've owned nothing but Onkyo receivers since I started my home theater obsession... until they ditched Audyssey. Still have a pristine TX-NR3010 sitting in my dining room, collecting dust, actually. But to go Atmos, I got the Denon 5200 and was stunned by how much better I like the sound with my speakers... And that they managed to keep all the features I wanted at the same price point that Onkyo couldn't. So as much as I still think Onkyo has good products, as a former fan of theirs, it's disappointing to see how out of touch they have become with the needs of enthusiasts.


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I've owned nothing but Onkyo receivers since I started my home theater obsession... until they ditched Audyssey. Still have a pristine TX-NR3010 sitting in my dining room, collecting dust, actually. But to go Atmos, I got the Denon 5200 and was stunned by how much better I like the sound with my speakers... And that they managed to keep all the features I wanted at the same price point that Onkyo couldn't. So as much as I still think Onkyo has good products, as a former fan of theirs, it's disappointing to see how out of touch they have become with the needs of enthusiasts.


Here's the irony with Onkyo/Integra. They are late to the game with many of these features right now and their product line is essentially obsolete today. Pioneer, Yamaha and D&M just released their new lines in the last few weeks. 

But with that delay, Onkyo's new line will likely have features that surpass the other vendor's current models. I could see them releasing a 7.2.4 (or potentially even 9.2.4 if they don't release new line until mid next year) with internal amps, THX, DTS:X, HDMI over ethernet, 4 sub preouts, etc. They'll likely be first on the market with some new bell/whistle that makes us all slobber due to the extra time they have to develop and refine. But in the mean time, they're losing market share and customers.

At that point we will all be saying...."Man, I want that new Onkyo!!!" Such is this hobby!


----------



## zimmo

PASENDER91 AND OTHER 


I smile when you talk to me marrantz and denon ,go to professionnel center and tried a receiver of the same force between denon and marrantz and onkyo tx-nr3030 play music and film onkyo beat they other reciver for shure why I did.


FOR ACCUEQ everyone know s that to calibration system for to be perfect ,you doing finish whit a sound level meter to be sure that everithing is ok for micro is very important to put on tripod same line to your head.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> At that point we will all be saying...."Man, I want that new Onkyo!!!" Such is this hobby!



Not me. Now that I've heard how warm the Denon sounds compared to the clinical sound of every Onkyo I've had, there's no going back for me. I know it's just how they match with my particular speakers, but there you go...


----------



## Doncartman

Not sure this is news to you guys, but i've found that page http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/home-theater-products.html and was able thanks to this to inquire about two more products.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Pioneer+Speakers/SP-BS22A-LR
http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/dolby-atmos/ir-bronze-lr-h/

This is for a 5.1.2 that i'm considering (currently on 5.1). The Pioneers look OK and the Triad as well but there is no pricing for the latter ones.

The Pioneers have a 4.5 stars rating... Might go for these after i'm done reading some reviews.


----------



## batpig

Doncartman said:


> Not sure this is news to you guys, but i've found that page http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/home-theater-products.html and was able thanks to this to inquiere about two more products.
> 
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Pioneer+Speakers/SP-BS22A-LR
> http://www.triadspeakers.com/products/dolby-atmos/ir-bronze-lr-h/
> 
> This is for a 5.1.2 that i'm considering (currently on 5.1). The Pioneers look OK and the Triad as well but there is no pricing for the latter ones.
> 
> The Pioneers have a 4.5 stars rating... Might go for these after i'm done reading some reviews.


The Triads are significantly more expensive than the entry level AJ Pioneers. I believe the Bronze LR-H are $800 apiece in the USA. So it's a totally different price point (but also performance).


----------



## Doncartman

batpig said:


> The Triads are significantly more expensive than the entry level AJ Pioneers. I believe the Bronze LR-H are $800 apiece in the USA. So it's a totally different price point (but also performance).


I was guessing, that's usually the case when there's no pricing  Can't find the Pioneers to buy anywhere in Europe and Amazon says 200$ for the shipment. \o/


----------



## batpig

SherazNJ said:


> Can someone please recommend a good ceiling mount. My speaker weights 9 pounds and has a dimension of 8x10x5 (Width, Height, Depth). I should me getting my Yamaha 3050 by Saturday. Can't wait to hook up the speakers to hear Atmos the first time.
> I'm attaching the picture of speaker that shows the back of it.
> Thx a bunch.


It's hard to recommend a specific mount without knowing the exact speaker. Not just the dimensions. Do the instructions for the speaker specify a specific mounting hardware thread? Looking at the photo I'm not even sure there is a thread for a mount, which would mean you'd need one of the "clamp" style mounts that grip the speaker from the sides/bottom. Maybe contact the manufacturer and see what they recommend?


----------



## batpig

Doncartman said:


> I was guessing, that's usually the case when there's no pricing  Can't find the Pioneers to buy anywhere in Europe and Amazon says 200$ for the shipment. \o/


It seems the EU options for Atmos-enabled speakers are severely limited vs. the selection over here. If your budget is limited, you might want to consider other options as you are paying a premium for the "Atmos enabled" stamp of approval. For example, is there any way to mount a pair of small satellites high on the front wall (or even a few feet forward on the ceiling)?


----------



## Doncartman

batpig said:


> It seems the EU options for Atmos-enabled speakers are severely limited vs. the selection over here. If your budget is limited, you might want to consider other options as you are paying a premium for the "Atmos enabled" stamp of approval. For example, is there any way to mount a pair of small satellites high on the front wall (or even a few feet forward on the ceiling)?


So yeah, indeed, could i, but i was left thinking reflective speakers provide a better impression. I've got a set of 5 Boston Soundware XS and could buy an additional pair of two used from somewhere, and that'd cost me not much. But not sure about the result vs good reflective ones. My living room being really short (wall to main listening position is like 2m) i can definitely get the 'recommended angle' of 30 ish%.

But not to mention that without cutting holes is the wall it looks really bad with wires hanging down :/ yeah, one of these pieces to hide cables could do it, but that's really looking as bad really.


----------



## KennyLSU

SherazNJ said:


> Can someone please recommend a good ceiling mount. My speaker weights 9 pounds and has a dimension of 8x10x5 (Width, Height, Depth). I should me getting my Yamaha 3050 by Saturday. Can't wait to hook up the speakers to hear Atmos the first time.
> I'm attaching the picture of speaker that shows the back of it.
> Thx a bunch.


I used a piece of wood and attached it to the speaker mount of my bookshelves and then attached the wood block to these.

http://www.frys.com/product/6213110?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


----------



## Gates

So I was thinking of selling my ADP-590's I'm using for side surrounds and replacing them with Prestige 15B, but I have a question. How far at each side of the couch do they have to be ? I have no more than about 2 feet on each side. Is that good enough ?


----------



## dvdwilly3

FilmMixer said:


> That changed.. it now has the capability to eq the mains (or not.. user selectable.)
> 
> Don't know about the subs.


Was that a firmware upgrade/change?
I did not remember seeing a place to select EQ fronts or not in the Setup menu...


----------



## sdurani

The upcoming Kino Classics release of the 1961 movie The Mask will include a bonus short film: 

ONE NIGHT IN HELL (3-D Animated Short): From internationally award-winning animation studio and production company Unanico Group, and visionary rock musician Brian May, a 3D phenomenon of 1860s Paris is unleashed on the 21st century. ONE NIGHT IN HELL is a devilish and spectacular animation short that tells the story of one skeleton s journey into a stereoscopic Hell. The film features exclusive new music from Brian May & the Czech National Symphony Orchestra and *has a Dolby Atmos track*.

http://amzn.com/B014LHPGU6


----------



## dvdwilly3

gene4ht said:


> With mike oriented straight up, distance measurements with my 636 (AccuEQ) are accurate and mirror the measurements with my 809 (Audyssey). My room size (20x32x7.5) is slightly larger and my MLP is also in the middle of my second row. Perhaps it's worth seeing if there is an issue with the mike. If Onkyo support is unable to send you one, I would be glad to send you mine for testing purposes. The only possible issue would be, if like Audyssey, the mike is specific to an AVR model or software version?


I tried a PM, but it didn't work. Thanks for the offer. We are on travel at the moment. When I get back I will rereun it all again, and then I may take you up on your kind offer.


----------



## FilmMixer

dvdwilly3 said:


> Was that a firmware upgrade/change?
> I did not remember seeing a place to select EQ fronts or not in the Setup menu...


I meant to say it has changed on the 2015 models....


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> I tried a PM, but it didn't work. Thanks for the offer. We are on travel at the moment. When I get back I will rereun it all again, and then I may take you up on your kind offer.


Just got your PM...you're welcome...just PM if you would like to borrow the mike.


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> @pasender91
> 
> I'll take those golds in a heartbeat!!!
> Mine r just their little bronze brothers. I have 15" kilpsch reference sub too. And am obviously now a marantz user as of this week. So our systems have some similarities.
> 
> I think he's missing the point that onkyo has some nice features for atmos products. They've traditionally always been a leader and will be again with their next releases. But their R&D has fallen behind and they are currently not delivering features that are required to semi future proof ones investment. If people don't care about ever going to true 4K or don't care to ever decode dts:x audio then the current onkyo line will work fabulously. I just can't see how anyone would buy one in the last few weeks now that all the other manufs have released product supporting these much needed features. 3-6 months ago the 3030 was an excellent choices. So was my non hdcp 2.2 Yamaha 2040. But the field has changed and onkyo is the laggard.
> 
> I personally moved from Yamaha to marantz to specifically get 7.2.4. I did not want to buy a third avr inside of 12 months. so I made damn sure my second one purchased in 7 months supported full uhd and dts:x.



I think this depends on each person's needs. I can only accommodate a 5.1.2 setup so the Onkyos are a better choice for me.


----------



## ultraflexed

Onkyo nr-tx 1030 receiver is 7.2.4 capable and hdcp 2.2 port for 4k so I have no ideal what the guy is talking about, I have the sony 4k media player hooked up to my onkyo, I've been watching "True 4k" for almost a year ? Since onkyo I've had since Nov of last year had the hdcp 2.3 port 4k capable...this receiver is still better then current model's out now.


----------



## SherazNJ

batpig said:


> It's hard to recommend a specific mount without knowing the exact speaker. Not just the dimensions. Do the instructions for the speaker specify a specific mounting hardware thread? Looking at the photo I'm not even sure there is a thread for a mount, which would mean you'd need one of the "clamp" style mounts that grip the speaker from the sides/bottom. Maybe contact the manufacturer and see what they recommend?


That's exactly what my concern is. The reason I took the picture of speaker back is to show that it has nothing behind it. I did contact the manufacturer and I was told that it was left black so that I can go with whatever I please. Unfortunately, its adding more complexity if anything when there is nothing behind the speaker to grip on. I might have to find/buy a Key Hole and then attach to speaker and then use the mount with it.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Can someone please recommend a good ceiling mount. My speaker weights 9 pounds and has a dimension of 8x10x5 (Width, Height, Depth). I should me getting my Yamaha 3050 by Saturday. Can't wait to hook up the speakers to hear Atmos the first time.
> I'm attaching the picture of speaker that shows the back of it.
> Thx a bunch.


♦ http://www.standsandmounts.com/peer...binetmountedrotatingspeakermounts-spk811.aspx

* Click on the small graph, to see the mounting plate for the speaker's rear...and measure if it would fit your speaker's back. I believe it would. 
And some plates are open near their center...so that you can screw them right over your speaker's binding posts and still have access to them.
...They are made especially to allow for that.


----------



## SherazNJ

KennyLSU said:


> I used a piece of wood and attached it to the speaker mount of my bookshelves and then attached the wood block to these.
> 
> http://www.frys.com/product/6213110?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


Thx. Unfortunately, my speaker has no mount behind it :-(.


----------



## Stoked21

ultraflexed said:


> Onkyo nr-tx 1030 receiver is 7.2.4 capable and hdcp 2.2 port for 4k so I have no ideal what the guy is talking about, I have the sony 4k media player hooked up to my onkyo, I've been watching "True 4k" for almost a year ? Since onkyo I've had since Nov of last year had the hdcp 2.3 port 4k capable...this receiver is still better then current model's out now.


Pasted directly from the 1030 manual (I seriously considered this model and the 3030 as well as prepro very seriously): 

*Video Resolution
Pass through: 4K 60Hz (YCbCr 4:2:0) Upscaling: 4K 30Hz*

While you will be running 4K, you need to start asking yourself....Why HDMI 2.0 vs 2.0a???? Why am I losing more than half my color space? Everyone else upscales at 60 hz why only 30hz with Onkyo? Everyone else is 4:4:4 UHD HDR color space. Onkyo is NOT; they are 4:2:0. Furthermore, call them or just google it....they can only run 10.2 vs 18Gbps of the maximum 2.0a spec.....Onkyo provides half color and half speed of everyone on the market. 

Can you run 4k? Well sure. Is it anywhere near 4K HDR quality or does it have the latest full-speed HDMI 2.0a spec? Absolutely not.

Most people just THINK they have full 4K UHD HDR spec with these false-marketed, misleading labels. They're not knowledgable enough to read the specs. It's really unfair marketing by Onkyo and they are deceiving customers.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> That's exactly what my concern is. The reason I took the picture of speaker back is to show that it has nothing behind it. I did contact the manufacturer and I was told that it was left black so that I can go with whatever I please. Unfortunately, its adding more complexity if anything when there is nothing behind the speaker to grip on. I might have to find/buy a Key Hole and then attach to speaker and then use the mount with it.


Google: *Ceiling mount speaker brackets*...and there are several models. You just pick one that you screw a steel plate to the back of your speaker. 
That plate is the hooking device that will attach to the other part you screw on your ceiling. ...Very simple...and all of them are adjustable...firing straight downward, or any angle you wish...and very inexpensive...about $20/pair. Your speakers are light @ about less than 10 pounds...and all those ceiling speaker mounts they can accommodate up to 20 pounds very easily. ...And others up to 50+ pounds. 

It's the best for your particular speakers...the type of mounts where you screw a small steel plate in the back of your speaker...two or four screws. 
I screw my speakers to speaker stands, with four screws underneath...my speakers cost less than $400/pair...so they don't have a luxurious real exotic wood from Madagascar or Arabia. They are black piano mirror finish, very inexpensive, and besides I don't see their under side and neither their back. 

You can do a prefessional job by inserting gold plated metal inserts/threads that will accept screws of any diameter you wish for...you know...the type you have under some speakers to attach spikes or rubber feet. 

Your speakers are inexpensive, just select the right screws (small and short) and screw them directly to your speaker back's wood surface...above the speaker's binding posts...that's where the small steel plate goes.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Thx. Unfortunately, my speaker has no mount behind it :-(.


You simply screw one on: a mounting plate.

♦ http://www.standsandmounts.com/peer...binetmountedrotatingspeakermounts-spk811.aspx

* Click on the small graph, to see the mounting plate for the speaker's rear...and measure if it would fit your speaker's back. I believe it would. 
And some plates are open near their center...so that you can screw them right over your speaker's binding posts and still have access to them.
...They are made especially to allow for that.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Pasted directly from the 1030 manual (I seriously considered this model and the 3030 as well as prepro very seriously):
> *Video Resolution
> Pass through: 4K 60Hz (YCbCr 4:2:0) Upscaling: 4K 30Hz*
> While you will be running 4K, you need to start asking yourself....Why HDMI 2.0 vs 2.0a???? Why am I losing more than half my color space? Everyone else upscales at 60 hz why only 30hz with Onkyo? Everyone else is 4:4:4 UHD HDR color space. Onkyo is NOT; they are 4:2:0. Furthermore, call them or just google it....they can only run 10.2 vs 18Gbps of the maximum 2.0a spec.....Onkyo provides half color and half speed of everyone on the market.
> Can you run 4k? Well sure. Is it anywhere near 4K HDR quality or does it have the latest full-speed HDMI 2.0a spec? Absolutely not.
> Most people just THINK they have full 4K UHD HDR spec with these false-marketed, misleading labels. They're not knowledgable enough to read the specs. It's really unfair marketing by Onkyo and they are deceiving customers.


Yamaha is best...I think.


----------



## ultraflexed

Stoked21 said:


> Pasted directly from the 1030 manual (I seriously considered this model and the 3030 as well as prepro very seriously):
> 
> *Video Resolution
> Pass through: 4K 60Hz (YCbCr 4:2:0) Upscaling: 4K 30Hz*
> 
> While you will be running 4K, you need to start asking yourself....Why HDMI 2.0 vs 2q1 aquarium 1 q.0a???? Why am I losing more than half my color space? Everyone else upscales at 60 hz why only 30hz with Onkyo? Everyone else is 4:4:4 UHD HDR color space. Onkyo is NOT; they are 4:2:0. Furthermore, call them or just google it....they can only run 10.2 vs 18Gbps of the maximum 2.0a spec.....Onkyo provides half color and half speed of everyone on the market.
> 
> Can you run 4k? Well sure. Is it anywhere near 4K HDR quality or does it have the latest full-speed HDMI 2.0a spec? Absolutely not.
> 
> Most people just THINK they have full 4K UHD HDR spec with these false-marketed, misleading labels. They're not knowledgable enough to read the specs. It's really unfair marketing by Onkyo and they are deceiving customers.



Question? If your uhd tv has hdr 444 capable then is it important that the av is or not? Almost like having a av that upscale up to 4k when your tv is already 4k, how much of a difference does it make?


----------



## Xeneize12

Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> Pasted directly from the 1030 manual (I seriously considered this model and the 3030 as well as prepro very seriously):
> 
> *Video Resolution
> Pass through: 4K 60Hz (YCbCr 4:2:0) Upscaling: 4K 30Hz*
> 
> While you will be running 4K, you need to start asking yourself....Why HDMI 2.0 vs 2.0a???? Why am I losing more than half my color space? Everyone else upscales at 60 hz why only 30hz with Onkyo? Everyone else is 4:4:4 UHD HDR color space. Onkyo is NOT; they are 4:2:0. Furthermore, call them or just google it....they can only run 10.2 vs 18Gbps of the maximum 2.0a spec.....Onkyo provides half color and half speed of everyone on the market.
> 
> Can you run 4k? Well sure. Is it anywhere near 4K HDR quality or does it have the latest full-speed HDMI 2.0a spec? Absolutely not.
> 
> Most people just THINK they have full 4K UHD HDR spec with these false-marketed, misleading labels. They're not knowledgable enough to read the specs. It's really unfair marketing by Onkyo and they are deceiving customers.


You seem to be pretty hung up on the 1030, which is a 2014 model. Many people don't need more than 7 channels and for them, the 2015 models will work perfectly fine. There is no HDMI/HDCP restriction at all.


----------



## stikle

Xeneize12 said:


> Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?



I would add John Wick.


----------



## batpig

Xeneize12 said:


> Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?


John Wick. 

Also I don't have it yet but most who've heard it say that Unbroken is worth owning if only for the aerial battle scene which is the first part of the movie.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Pixels is outstanding for atmos

And even better for bass


----------



## Stoked21

dkwong said:


> You seem to be pretty hung up on the 1030, which is a 2014 model. Many people don't need more than 7 channels and for them, the 2015 models will work perfectly fine. There is no HDMI/HDCP restriction at all.


I hear you man. The individual had referenced his 1030, not that I was hung up on that one just replying to his 1030 statement. As this centers around Atmos, the 7 chs new models are 5.2.2 capable. But many of us are looking at 9 and 11 ch, so 1030/3030 draw a lot of attraction. Especially the 3030 with 11 amps.


----------



## Stoked21

ultraflexed said:


> Question? If your uhd tv has hdr 444 capable then is it important that the av is or not? Almost like having a av that upscale up to 4k when your tv is already 4k, how much of a difference does it make?


That's sort of like passing PCM signal from your BD player to your AVR and not understanding why you don't get Atmos audio (as you do when setting you player to bitstream output). Or passing a mono signal to your AVR and expecting true DD surround sound. Or drinking through a straw attached to a firehouse. etc etc. I think you get the point.


----------



## rontalley

Xeneize12 said:


> Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?


Even if not Atmos, there are plenty of titles that rock using DSU! Fury being one of them, Avatar=AWESOME SAUCE and so so many more! The big battle in Zion in the Matrix Revolutions is just ridiculous! How it knows what sounds to put overhead is simply mind blowing.

Will be watching John Wick tonight! These are exciting times.


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> Even if not Atmos, there are plenty of titles that rock using DSU! Fury being one of them, Avatar=AWESOME SAUCE and so so many more! The big battle in Zion in the Matrix Revolutions is just ridiculous! How it knows what sounds to put overhead is simply mind blowing.
> 
> Will be watching John Wick tonight! These are exciting times.


Just got Pixels last night and have yet to see. I normally see nearly every movie in the theater before it even goes to BD. This will be one of the rare exceptions. 

I've been waiting to find time to throw in Matrix trilogy, I am Legend, Avatar and the real Star Wars trilogy all with DSU. They should be great I imagine!!


----------



## Spanglo

Aside from Gravity, I don't recall a title that has really stood out, and I don't think Gravity really stood out that much. 

The action movies are all similar to me... high impact, guaranteed to get your blood pumping, which is good. But I don't think the bar has been raised since Transformers. That movie had as much impact as the recent ones. 

Pixels has average atmos sound IMO, but keep in mind that an average atmos mix sounds better to me than very good standard mix, so that's not a knock against the movie's sound. 

Not sure if I could come up with a list of must haves, because all except one or two of the 25+ titles I've watched were confirmation that atmos was a smart upgrade.


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> Google: *Ceiling mount speaker brackets*...and there are several models. You just pick one that you screw a steel plate to the back of your speaker.
> That plate is the hooking device that will attach to the other part you screw on your ceiling. ...Very simple...and all of them are adjustable...firing straight downward, or any angle you wish...and very inexpensive...about $20/pair. Your speakers are light @ about less than 10 pounds...and all those ceiling speaker mounts they can accommodate up to 20 pounds very easily. ...And others up to 50+ pounds.
> 
> It's the best for your particular speakers...the type of mounts where you screw a small steel plate in the back of your speaker...two or four screws.
> I screw my speakers to speaker stands, with four screws underneath...my speakers cost less than $400/pair...so they don't have a luxurious real exotic wood from Madagascar or Arabia. They are black piano mirror finish, very inexpensive, and besides I don't see their under side and neither their back.
> 
> You can do a prefessional job by inserting gold plated metal inserts/threads that will accept screws of any diameter you wish for...you know...the type you have under some speakers to attach spikes or rubber feet.
> 
> Your speakers are inexpensive, just select the right screws (small and short) and screw them directly to your speaker back's wood surface...above the speaker's binding posts...that's where the small steel plate goes.


Thx NorthSky. I don't know what defines an inexpensive speaker but I bought 4 of these for 1000.00. So 250 for each speaker. Still think they are cheap?


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> You simply screw one on: a mounting plate.
> 
> ♦ http://www.standsandmounts.com/peer...binetmountedrotatingspeakermounts-spk811.aspx
> 
> * Click on the small graph, to see the mounting plate for the speaker's rear...and measure if it would fit your speaker's back. I believe it would.
> And some plates are open near their center...so that you can screw them right over your speaker's binding posts and still have access to them.
> ...They are made especially to allow for that.


Yep. The plate will fit the back just fine. Since you gave the idea of using a plate mount, I came across this one. Its a bit more expensive but its all steel made.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001I755RC?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=A3G3K1SJ50O70E
Click on third image on left side to see the packing that shows the plate included with the mount.
What do you think?


----------



## SherazNJ

NorthSky said:


> Yamaha is best...I think.


You mean Yamaha 3050 (The one I'm getting  )?


----------



## SherazNJ

rontalley said:


> Even if not Atmos, there are plenty of titles that rock using DSU! Fury being one of them, Avatar=AWESOME SAUCE and so so many more! The big battle in Zion in the Matrix Revolutions is just ridiculous! How it knows what sounds to put overhead is simply mind blowing.
> 
> Will be watching John Wick tonight! These are exciting times.


Here is an idea: Why not keep the list of "Movies to Watch" list on the first page (with a link to post in first post of this thread)? This information should be available by just going to the first page IMHO.


----------



## NorthSky

> John Wick.
> 
> Also I don't have it yet but most who've heard it say that *Unbroken* is worth owning if only for the aerial battle scene which is the first part of the movie.


...And the flies.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Thx NorthSky. I don't know what defines an inexpensive speaker but I bought 4 of these for 1000.00. So 250 for each speaker. Still think they are cheap?


That's not cheap for Dolby Atmos speakers (four of them).

Two pairs of those brackets would do for you ($40 total): http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-PC-Pack-H...ling-Wall-Mount-Brackets-33-lbs-/252125388296

Or check @ amazon...for free shipping.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Yep. The plate will fit the back just fine. Since you gave the idea of using a plate mount, I came across this one. Its a bit more expensive but its all steel made.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001I755RC?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=A3G3K1SJ50O70E
> Click on third image on left side to see the packing that shows the plate included with the mount.
> What do you think?


That would do just fine...the mounting plate is very small and only two screws secured it to the back of your speaker...less holes in your speaker (good).
And they would hold speakers up to 12 pounds (yours are less than 10 pounds). Plus you can swivel them in all directions and exactly where you want them...straight down...as recommended by the THX guys. Or! Experiment and aim them near the MLP. That's the beauty...you can aim anywhere and find the best aiming angle.

Me, those are the type I'm going to purchase for myself...except that they'll have an extended steel rod additionally (adjustable height down to 36")...for my high ceiling. My ceiling is 11 feet high in the middle and sloping down to 8 feet on each front and rear walls. 

♦ http://www.ebay.ca/itm/2-PC-Pack-He...2125388296?clk_rvr_id=921025628095&rmvSB=true


----------



## virtualrain

Xeneize12 said:


> Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?


IMHO, I think Insurgent is one of the better Atmos sound tracks I've heard. However the opening sequence of Mad Max pretty much has it all... the whole movie is a cacophony of ludicrous proportions.  And for similar reasons, I love Transformers AoE... Not a lot of overhead use but a great sound track. San Andreas was a disappointment for overhead use but I actually enjoyed the movie as a package more than most. Gravity seems like more of a surround channel demo than an Atmos demo to me. The best Atmos Disk though is probably the Dolby Demo discs... Amaze, Leaf, and Bailando are great showcases for immersive audio.


----------



## Stoked21

virtualrain said:


> IMHO, I think Insurgent is one of the better Atmos sound tracks I've heard. However the opening sequence of Mad Max pretty much has it all... the whole movie is a cacophony of ludicrous proportions.  And for similar reasons, I love Transformers AoE... Not a lot of overhead use but a great sound track. San Andreas was a disappointment for overhead use but I actually enjoyed the movie as a package more than most. Gravity seems like more of a surround channel demo than an Atmos demo to me. The best Atmos Disk though is probably the Dolby Demo discs... Amaze, Leaf, and Bailando are great showcases for immersive audio.


Something's wrong with ur setup if u don't hear gravity as the most extreme atmos demo. It uses the tops non stop. Agree with mad max and San Andreas comments. Insurgent had some great atmos scenes.


----------



## Csbooth

ultraflexed said:


> Question? If your uhd tv has hdr 444 capable then is it important that the av is or not? Almost like having a av that upscale up to 4k when your tv is already 4k, how much of a difference does it make?


The AVR would have to be able to PASSTHROUGH the HDR metadata and the DCI-P3 color space as well in addition to the UHD resolution. 

Theoretically (and actually as I have seen the speed required) with the ports limited to 10.2gbps, the 2014 Onkyos would fail to deliver the full gamut that UHDBD offers (this is mainly because HDCP 2.2 eats through the bandwidth). You would get UHD resolution but no extra candy (while I am a proponent of UHD and that it does indeed offer tangible benefit to the viewing pleasure, especially at the right distance, it's the aforementioned HDR/WCG that is what this generation is really about).

You would essentially need the BDP to offer two HDMI ports, one for the display and the other for the AVR, and from the limited information I have right now, there isn't any upcoming UHDBDP that will offer more than one port. So it's best to get a 2015 model AVR from each mfr's lines.

Hope that helped clear up any confusion you might have experienced!


----------



## virtualrain

Stoked21 said:


> Something's wrong with ur setup if u don't hear gravity as the most extreme atmos demo. It uses the tops non stop. Agree with mad max and San Andreas comments. Insurgent had some great atmos scenes.


Hmm... I'll have to take another listen. I recall a lot of sounds coming from behind me... not above.


----------



## Stoked21

virtualrain said:


> Hmm... I'll have to take another listen. I recall a lot of sounds coming from behind me... not above.


In particular listen to last chapter. Re entry. Parachutes opening above u moving throughout room, bugs flying through the room water bubbling up through room, debris screaming past above and through room. Frogs swimming through room. Water boiling and sizzling up through ceiling. Opening scene is extremely heavy top use as well. It's the heaviest and most suitable use of atmos I've heard.


----------



## petetherock

Best demo worthy Atmos disc?
- BBC's Nature (Japanese version).

It's like the "Leaf" demo on steroids .... enough said..

Even if it costs your left nut to get it, run out and buy it


----------



## NorthSky

petetherock said:


> Best demo worthy Atmos disc?
> - BBC's Nature (Japanese version).
> 
> It's like the "Leaf" demo on steroids .... enough said..
> 
> Even if it costs your left nut to get it, run out and buy it


This guy? --> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/111242/

__________

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/
* On November 10, 2015 ... there will be a released version in the USA...no Audio spec yet (see just above link).


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> I hear you man. The individual had referenced his 1030, not that I was hung up on that one just replying to his 1030 statement. As this centers around Atmos, the 7 chs new models are 5.2.2 capable. But many of us are looking at 9 and 11 ch, so 1030/3030 draw a lot of attraction. Especially the 3030 with 11 amps.


Ah, my apologies. I didn't read back far enough to the OP. I'm really curious what distribution of people have > 7 channels and am thinking of running an informal poll here on AVS. Do you know of a similar poll that has been run in the past?


----------



## dormie1360

Xeneize12 said:


> Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?


Personally, I really liked what they did with the new version of The Fifth Element that just came out.

Comments


----------



## davehale

@sdurani - and others with 7.1

Interesting. You are saying that the rear surrounds should be at the extreme most corners on the rear walls? I ask because I have a pair of JBL L56 within 2 feet of the center line of the rear wall. My ears are about 1 feet from those speakers, but you do advocate extreme width and cornered? Presumably toed in at the MLP? I do have Denon Audyssey and could try that but do others use this rear and cornered position or much closer together? These are 2 way box speakers - nothing more. I will be moving to 7.1.4 next year but do want my base layer primed and correct first. 
Thanks for any thought on the matter.


----------



## Stoked21

Finished pixels. Typical Atmos mix. Not a lot going on up top except ambient support. Until the last 15 mins or so. Not great but not bad. I'd place the atmos in the solid middle of previous releases. 

I'm really of the conclusion that short of over using tops, just for the sake of atmos, most movies take the more sensible path of using it as supplemental stage enhancement. Don't get me wrong Cus that's great. But sometimes we just want to hear over the top usage just to relish in our investments and setups. I think movies with spaceships and planes r going to be the ones that really showcase the technology.


----------



## petetherock

@NorthSky 
That's right Bob

Lucy off yesasia.com is also pretty impressive.


----------



## Blackman

virtualrain said:


> Hmm... I'll have to take another listen. I recall a lot of sounds coming from behind me... not above.



Humm Remember what I said when I tested the 2050 using speaker config 5.2.4 vrs 7.2.2 (PS I already had the 11 speakers installed by me as I thought the 2050 could do 11 channels WRONG!!!!). I said that 5.2.4 had more action in the 4 ceiling speakers but 7.2.2 sounded better in the surround (the Bird flapping around the room including the two rear surrounds) but 7.2.2 lacked immersion above me (mixed to the right rear). Now I have the 3050 using 7.2.4 and I'm getting both worlds of what the best that 5.2.4 and 7.2.2 could offer when I had the 2050. The 3050 suits my room. Now its time to investigate the use of Acoustic panels and how effective that can be plastered all around my walls.


----------



## Blackman

Xeneize12 said:


> Aside from Gravity, Mad Max, San Andreas, is there any MUST have Atmos BD?


For me the 2015 Atmos demo disc is the best example what Atmos mixing should be like so lets hope that future new movies become the same as wat the Demo disc sounds like. Terrific!!


----------



## olsen12

Can i mix up atmos speaker set up? Two front up firing and 2 in ceiling?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


----------



## davehale

Just so you guys know - I am taking note of your joy and elation of your movies watched and placing them on a newly created spreadsheet, minus those that you didn't like. The Fifth Element and Dracula are my first two on the list


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Finished pixels. Typical Atmos mix. Not a lot going on up top except ambient support. Until the last 15 mins or so. Not great but not bad. I'd place the atmos in the solid middle of previous releases.
> 
> I'm really of the conclusion that short of over using tops, just for the sake of atmos, most movies take the more sensible path of using it as supplemental stage enhancement. Don't get me wrong Cus that's great. But sometimes we just want to hear over the top usage just to relish in our investments and setups. I think movies with spaceships and planes r going to be the ones that really showcase the technology.


But...did you like the film...*Pixels* ? ...Like how many more times do you expect revisiting it in the future? 



petetherock said:


> @northsky
> That's right Bob
> 
> Lucy off yessir.com is also pretty impressive.


Yeah Peter, I was pretty sure that it was the BR title you were referring to...*Enchanted Kingdom 3D* ... Nature. ...Dolby Atmos.

And I love *Lucy*, immensely. When all set and ready to go (DTS:X 9.1.4) I'll be ordering a copy of 'Lucy' on Blu, and in DTS:X.  
If not avail by that time...no sweat...I'll go for the Dolby Atmos version. ...And *ex_machina* will get some playing/playback/payback time.


----------



## audiofan1

Charles R said:


> I agree ceiling speakers are the way to go. In my case I wasn't willing to at this point in time and decided to try out wall speakers since I could "install" four without running any wire. I'll save that for a total redo or new location. My heights are mounts right at 7.5' and I didn't point them downwards to keep as much separation from the floor speakers as possible.
> 
> Of course I can't compare them to another type of installation however I find them rather entertaining. Overall they do lift the sound nicely which creates more of a surround experience. And with Atmos tracks they can make themselves known. I liken them more to rear surrounds than surrounds. When you turn them off you miss them... when they are on they blend in.


 Nice ! I plan on adding a pair of those Bostons to the rear of the room, do they handle well at or around reference volume? how much power on them?

Thanks


----------



## Lesmor

Blackman said:


> the Bird flapping around the room including the two rear surrounds


A question about the bird ?
I am finding it doesn't go around the room, rather it goes from the left surround around the back of the couch to right surround and then back again.
It doesn't "show" in my L/C/R & FH
It somehow doesn't sound right to me,what do other 7200 users experience with this clip ?


----------



## JamesE

Is Lucy in Atmos subtitled in English? I hope not. Do you have a link where I can get it from the US.


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> A question about the bird ?
> I am finding it doesn't go around the room, rather it goes from the left surround around the back of the couch to right surround and then back again.
> It doesn't "show" in my L/C/R & FH
> It somehow doesn't sound right to me,what do other 7200 users experience with this clip ?


Not the model of ur avr. It's ur speaker setup. Calculate all ur speaker angles and place in Dolby spec and locate them precisely. Run audyssey more thoroughly and check speaker polarities. 

With my Yamaha and marantz: in amaze the bird circles the room. In leaf demo the leaf seed pod falls down into the room and circles the room completely too. It's make/model independent. It's an atmos source. 

I suspect most people's atmos setups, such as with near ceiling mounted bookshelves, sound far from ideal and they just have no clue what it's suppose to sound like. They just ohh and awe Cus there's some sound up top and don't realize it's nowhere near how it's suppose to sound (with the speakers being invisible and sounds imaging IN the room). Nearly all of my sounds image where there are no speakers whatsoever. 

But for u to have issues with ur Bed channels, lcr, that makes me wonder if something crucial is amiss.


----------



## HD1ART

olsen12 said:


> Can i mix up atmos speaker set up? Two front up firing and 2 in ceiling?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


In my Onkyo TX-NR1030 you cannot  I have been waiting for quite a while for Onkyo to say if they are going to address this. Mixing Dolby Atmos Effect speakers and Ceiling speakers is a valid Atmos configuration but not supported by. Onkyo.


----------



## Stoked21

olsen12 said:


> Can i mix up atmos speaker set up? Two front up firing and 2 in ceiling?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


Yamaha supports this for sure. I'm not positive with D&m. But I tend to side with last poster that they may not support it.


----------



## scharleb

*Assistance needed in positioning my in-ceiling*

My MLP is 18 feet from the front stage. I'm planning on adding 4 in-ceiling. Where should I have my top front located?? I'll be doing a 7.2.4. How about the top backs?
Surrounds are on the side at ear heights. Rear surround are ceiling mounted 5ft pointing towards MLP. I have a Denon x5200 and an Emo 5.

Any input is really appreciated.

SC


----------



## Lesmor

Stoked21 said:


> Not the model of ur avr. It's ur speaker setup. Calculate all ur speaker angles and place in Dolby spec and locate them precisely. Run audyssey more thoroughly and check speaker polarities.
> 
> With my Yamaha and marantz: in amaze the bird circles the room. In leaf demo the leaf seed pod falls down into the room and circles the room completely too. It's make/model independent. It's an atmos source.
> 
> I suspect most people's atmos setups, such as with near ceiling mounted bookshelves, sound far from ideal and they just have no clue what it's suppose to sound like. They just ohh and awe Cus there's some sound up top and don't realize it's nowhere near how it's suppose to sound (with the speakers being invisible and sounds imaging IN the room). Nearly all of my sounds image where there are no speakers whatsoever.
> 
> But for u to have issues with ur Bed channels, lcr, that makes me wonder if something crucial is amiss.


Now after that reply I am really keen to get this addressed.
My speakers are positioned to within an inch of there life, other then I am using FH at a compromised angle of 21 deg.
System has had at least 6 or more Aydssey calibrations.
This is my hobby on my mind 24/7 so I am anal with trying to get things spot on.
I will attach a couple of photos
Would appreciate feedback of whats wrong with the bed speakers?


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> Now after that reply I am really keen to get this addressed.
> My speakers are positioned to within an inch of there life, other then I am using FH at a compromised angle of 21 deg.
> System has had at least 6 or more Aydssey calibrations.
> This is my hobby on my mind 24/7 so I am anal with trying to get things spot on.
> I will attach a couple of photos
> Would appreciate feedback of whats wrong with the bed speakers?


So I am NOT a pj screen expert or acoustician. I'm also new to Audyssey. I'm fishing here for ideas. 

I could see how missing an Atmos speaker would be easy to not hear and understand that it's wrong. But your fronts are so obvious. Does stereo music image between them? FYI, the FH really don't have anything to do with the bird circling IME. It stays around the 7 bed channels. I'm sure there's some ambient wing flap up there, but he stays pretty rooted around the bed. 



I'm really certain Audyssey checks speaker polarity. If I were you I would double check it anyway.
Hard to tell from pictures, but your screen looks like it likely covers a lot of the vertical dispersion of the center. Raise your screen and try it. I doubt this affects L&R image though. Many speakers have 30-80degrees of vert dispersion.
Make sure your system is in Dolby Atmos surround mode (or DSU). Again this shouldn't affect L&R but worth checking.
Check info on AVR to see what input and output audio is. Should tell you or show you speaker pic of input chs and output chs.
Run test tones and see if you can hear them: use your ear to see if similar volume or an SPL meter better yet.
Re-run Audyssey
I personally disable all dynamic volumes and similar things to get true, as intended by the mixer, sound.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Now after that reply I am really keen to get this addressed.
> My speakers are positioned to within an inch of there life, other then I am using FH at a compromised angle of 21 deg.
> System has had at least 6 or more Aydssey calibrations.
> This is my hobby on my mind 24/7 so I am anal with trying to get things spot on.
> I will attach a couple of photos
> Would appreciate feedback of whats wrong with the bed speakers?


Honestly, I wonder if it's just that you don't have top mids to help render that sound in the room. For me, the bird flying around the front is more in my front height/top mid (images about half-way up my screen in the front), so it sounds like it's moving around the front soundstage slightly overhead (whereas for Stoked21, it apparently stays in the bed channels). So I wonder if it's a combination of you having the FH at a compromised angle and not having TM to help elevate that sound above the beds. Did you try futzing with the FH distances as I outlined earlier in the thread?

Also, if you're using DynamicEQ, it will fall off in level across the front soundstage a bit depending on how far down from reference you are. You can mitigate this somewhat by using the DEQ offset in audio settings. Or just turning it up to reference level, where DEQ stops doing anything.

I'm gonna crank my gear up in a sec and double-check whether that sound is in the beds or elevated above them.


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Honestly, I wonder if it's just that you don't have top mids to help render that sound in the room. For me, the bird flying around the front is more in my front height/top mid (images about half-way up my screen in the front), so it sounds like it's moving around the front soundstage slightly overhead (whereas for Stoked21, it apparently stays in the bed channels). So I wonder if it's a combination of you having the FH at a compromised angle and not having TM to help elevate that sound above the beds. Did you try futzing with the FH distances as I outlined earlier in the thread?
> 
> Also, if you're using DynamicEQ, it will fall off in level across the front soundstage a bit depending on how far down from reference you are. You can mitigate this somewhat by using the DEQ offset in audio settings. Or just turning it up to reference level, where DEQ stops doing anything.
> 
> I'm gonna crank my gear up in a sec and double-check whether that sound is in the beds or elevated above them.


I have ran TM and there seems to be zero from the bird in those. When I ran 5.2.4, the bird is very disjointed as there's no rears. It sounds like he kind of fades from SL to SR whether using TM or TR. It's no secret I have my TR turned down about 1-1.5db from calibration, which could contribute to him seeming more bed level in the rear. But in the front, unmodified with any audyssey calibration, he always stays more or less bed level. My center is above the screen, so he does elevate a bit up front, but I think that's due to the center placement. 

If one were to elevate the bird (by increasing TR and TF a bit) as Jeremy's is, you will notice when watching movies that most sounds on other clips and movies come from the ceiling instead of from within the room. The rain would be on the ceiling as would thunder and fly over effects....I know it's room dependent and not saying Jeremy's is wrong. But after watching these clips probably 1000 times each literally and running at least 6 different setups, I'm pretty darn certain the bird should be closer to bed level. 

In conductor, you will notice the bird flies from SL up through the room to SR....Maybe that's the bird Jeremy is thinking of?


----------



## NM20

I have just noted Enchanted Kingdom has been released in the UK and the USA version is due in the middle of November. Does anyone know if these have the Atmos tracks?


----------



## sdurani

davehale said:


> @sdurani - and others with 7.1
> 
> You are saying that the rear surrounds should be at the extreme most corners on the rear walls?


In a 7.1 set-up, the rears should be spread between 60 to 90 degrees apart (my personal preference is closer to 60 degrees).


----------



## Lesmor

Stoked21 said:


> So I am NOT a pj screen expert or acoustician. I'm also new to Audyssey. I'm fishing here for ideas.
> 
> I could see how missing an Atmos speaker would be easy to not hear and understand that it's wrong. But your fronts are so obvious. Does stereo music image between them? FYI, the FH really don't have anything to do with the bird circling IME. It stays around the 7 bed channels. I'm sure there's some ambient wing flap up there, but he stays pretty rooted around the bed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really certain Audyssey checks speaker polarity. If I were you I would double check it anyway.
> Hard to tell from pictures, but your screen looks like it likely covers a lot of the vertical dispersion of the center. Raise your screen and try it. I doubt this affects L&R image though. Many speakers have 30-80degrees of vert dispersion.
> Make sure your system is in Dolby Atmos surround mode (or DSU). Again this shouldn't affect L&R but worth checking.
> Check info on AVR to see what input and output audio is. Should tell you or show you speaker pic of input chs and output chs.
> Run test tones and see if you can hear them: use your ear to see if similar volume or an SPL meter better yet.
> Re-run Audyssey
> I personally disable all dynamic volumes and similar things to get true, as intended by the mixer, sound.


Thanks for the reply

*Could you explain what's so obvious about about the fronts.*

I don't listen to and have no interest in music nowadays.
Moving screen up ain't happening,its fixed.

Perhaps you missed the "anal" part of my post, and the 6x + Audyssey calibration.
I ain't a newbie I've had this dedicated room for 20yrs, but always willing to learn.

Do you think I would be listening to a Atmos system without it being in Atmos?

Also levels are always checked with an SPL meter, and speaker polarity is not the issue.

My room is not perfect, that stupid alcove bugs the life out of me along with the FH being 21deg.

Once I decide on the In ceiling speakers that will eventually be addressed.

Obviously something is amiss as in my system "The Bird "flies in the rear half of the room.
Perhaps ceiling speakers will sort that out.


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for the reply
> 
> *Could you explain what's so obvious about about the fronts.*
> 
> Obviously something is amiss as in my system "The Bird "flies in the rear half of the room.
> Perhaps ceiling speakers will sort that out.


When I stated "obvious" about the fronts I meant it's obvious something was wrong with the sound if you don't hear the bird in them. I was not referring to the speakers, position, your room or whatever. Nor was I saying that anything was done incorrectly.  Just trying to help you here and tell you that you absolutely should hear the bird fly seamlessly in a complete circle.

As for the screen, I couldn't tell from pics but I thought it pulled down. I wasn't implying to MOVE it but temporarily move it to see HOW it affects sound if at all. Experimenting is all I can suggest.

Not insulting your intelligence on polarity and meters and the likes. Again, just trying to help you with your setup. You've been in this for a while, so experiment with what you can and will and troubleshoot. Something is amiss.


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Honestly, I wonder if it's just that you don't have top mids to help render that sound in the room. For me, the bird flying around the front is more in my front height/top mid (images about half-way up my screen in the front), so it sounds like it's moving around the front soundstage slightly overhead (whereas for Stoked21, it apparently stays in the bed channels). So I wonder if it's a combination of you having the FH at a compromised angle and not having TM to help elevate that sound above the beds. Did you try futzing with the FH distances as I outlined earlier in the thread?
> 
> Also, if you're using DynamicEQ, it will fall off in level across the front soundstage a bit depending on how far down from reference you are. You can mitigate this somewhat by using the DEQ offset in audio settings. Or just turning it up to reference level, where DEQ stops doing anything.
> 
> I'm gonna crank my gear up in a sec and double-check whether that sound is in the beds or elevated above them.


I agree the system is compromised with the Front Heights
I don't use Dynamic EQ its always off.
What was interesting is I did yet another Audyssey calibration last night, then played the Atmos demo disc and Wow it sounded fantastic, best yet, then I noticed for some unknown reason the disc was playing in standard Dolby True HD
All the tracks sounded better in Dolby True HD than Atmos, far more dynamic but god knows why

Edit: will adjust FH distances tonight
Always listen at -10 MVC


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for the reply
> 
> *
> 
> Do you think I would be listening to a Atmos system without it being in Atmos?
> 
> Also levels are always checked with an SPL meter, and speaker polarity is not the issue.
> 
> My room is not perfect, that stupid alcove bugs the life out of me along with the FH being 21deg.
> 
> *


*

I'm telling you, it's not the FH unless Audyssey is wrong. I can hear the bird clear as day and loudly in my FL and FR. Both Yamaha and Marantz. I can disconnect my TF and TR and hear him just as well as with TF and TR.

Atmos/DSU: I made this mistake and was using TV ARC initially for the demo clips. Little did I know the TV vudu app was only putting out 5.1 while my BD player Vudu app ran it at true Atmos. Took me a week before I even realized that was happening. Stupid little things that I ASSUMED and never checked thinking things should just work. We all overlook things occasionally. 

I would still run a CD or audio source and see how your fronts are imaging. Your problem has me very perplexed.*


----------



## Lesmor

Stoked21 said:


> When I stated "obvious" about the fronts I meant it's obvious something was wrong with the sound if you don't hear the bird in them. I was not referring to the speakers, position, your room or whatever.


Thanks
Didn't mean to sound ungrateful, I'm certainly not but after your description of the sound effect something ain't right.

Also see my reply to Jeremy post last nights Audyssey cal,and thanks again for the feedback


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> I have ran TM and there seems to be zero from the bird in those. When I ran 5.2.4, the bird is very disjointed as there's no rears. It sounds like he kind of fades from SL to SR whether using TM or TR. It's no secret I have my TR turned down about 1-1.5db from calibration, which could contribute to him seeming more bed level in the rear. But in the front, unmodified with any audyssey calibration, he always stays more or less bed level. My center is above the screen, so he does elevate a bit up front, but I think that's due to the center placement.
> 
> If one were to elevate the bird (by increasing TR and TF a bit) as Jeremy's is, you will notice when watching movies that most sounds on other clips and movies come from the ceiling instead of from within the room. The rain would be on the ceiling as would thunder and fly over effects....I know it's room dependent and not saying Jeremy's is wrong. But after watching these clips probably 1000 times each literally and running at least 6 different setups, I'm pretty darn certain the bird should be closer to bed level.
> 
> In conductor, you will notice the bird flies from SL up through the room to SR....Maybe that's the bird Jeremy is thinking of?


I don't run any of my channels hot, especially the heights. The levels being the same is crucial to vertical imaging, as we've discussed previously. Doing a little server maintenance right now, but I'll run those clips in a bit and report back.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> I'm telling you, it's not the FH unless Audyssey is wrong. I can hear the bird clear as day and loudly in my FL and FR. Both Yamaha and Marantz. I can disconnect my TF and TR and hear him just as well as with TF and TR.


Keep in mind that a FH placement would get more of a sound elevated above the front beds than a TF placement by its nature and prescribed angle. With TF, you'd get it mostly from the beds but with some TF so it phantom images above the beds (which, AHEM, won't work if your TF and mains aren't in phase due to you not tweaking distances like I've told you before - why haven't you tried that yet?). 

Not saying you're wrong about where the object is in this just yet. Just saying that your observation may be due to your height level not truly being in phase as it should. Not gonna beat that dead horse again though.


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Keep in mind that a FH placement would get more of a sound elevated above the front beds than a TF placement by its nature and prescribed angle. With TF, you'd get it mostly from the beds but with some TF so it phantom images above the beds (which, AHEM, won't work if your TF and mains aren't in phase due to you not tweaking distances like I've told you before - why haven't you tried that yet?).
> 
> Not saying you're wrong about where the object is in this just yet. Just saying that your observation may be due to your height level not truly being in phase as it should. Not gonna beat that dead horse again though.


Hey Jeremy,

Yeah I tried the distance change. It honestly didn't make a difference as I could perceive with my ears. +/-.2 didn't really do anything. I didn't push it any further than that but tried probably 15 iterations of it. Since Audyssey seems to vary with measurements by 0.2', it makes sense that it may need adjusted by that amount one way or the other. I used a set of 4 measurements to average the distance and just couldn't get it to affect anything.

Point on FH vs TF is very good one. Prepro could be trying to place things higher up in a FH/RH config vs a TF/TR config. I image beautifully between my Front and TF and between my rears and TR, so I would think it would try to place object between them in a TF/TR config. But it doesn't It keeps it more or less right on bed level, maybe a hint elevated.


----------



## Stoked21

I tell you one things that's cool about using proamps for problems with Atmos....I can just kill the gain on all chs except the one's I'm diagnosing...Makes it so damn easy to hear what's on each and every channel!! I can literally run test tones on all 11 chs, kill every channel but 2 and hear how they image together. Makes Atmos setups SOOOO much easier!


----------



## batpig

On the Amaze demo the bird has always imaged in the bed for me. And it clearly circles the room 360 degrees without disappearing from the front speakers. 

At this point I have a 7.1.4 setup with TM & FH with FH currently at a low angle (which I will fix eventually). 

That bird in Amaze is a great test IMO for surround level balance and timbre matching. You can turn DEQ on and off and adjust RLO and really hear what it's doing.


----------



## batpig

scharleb said:


> My MLP is 18 feet from the front stage. I'm planning on adding 4 in-ceiling. Where should I have my top front located?? I'll be doing a 7.2.4. How about the top backs?
> Surrounds are on the side at ear heights. Rear surround are ceiling mounted 5ft pointing towards MLP. I have a Denon x5200 and an Emo 5.
> 
> Any input is really appreciated.
> 
> SC


IMO - if you have back surround in ceiling 5ft back, those are now your Top Rear speakers and you should add a pair of SB speakers at ear height behind you. 

If you can't do that, and those speakers must remain as SB, then your best bet for Atmos is to do a Top Middle + Front Height layout. Adding height speakers behind you will just get drowned out by the Surr Backs, so might as well focus on that gap above and in front of you.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Okay, yeah... The bird in the Amaze clip does stay pretty much in the beds. I may have been thinking of the Conductor clip earlier.


----------



## lujan

dormie1360 said:


> Personally, I really liked what they did with the new version of The Fifth Element that just came out.
> 
> Comments


So did I. I watched it last night and it was like watching the movie for the first time. I like the movie but really can't stand Chris Tucker's character.


----------



## virtualrain

The bird in Amaze does not sound like it's in the bed for me. And I'd be very surprised if that's how Dolby intended it to sound. It's a bird! 

I have a 5.2.4 setup exactly to Dolby's white paper placement specs. And the bird is clearly going from top front left to surround left to surround right to top front right with what I think is some pull upwards from the top rear as it goes behind. My setup gives the illusion of it being over head the entire time... This from non-savvy listeners who have heard the clip.


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> The bird in Amaze does not sound like it's in the bed for me. And I'd be very surprised if that's how Dolby intended it to sound. It's a bird!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 5.2.4 setup exactly to Dolby's white paper placement specs. And the bird is clearly going from top front left to surround left to surround right to top front right with what I think is some pull upwards from the top rear as it goes behind. My setup gives the illusion of it being over head the entire time... This from non-savvy listeners who have heard the clip.


Perhaps we are seeing some differences in rendering process based on different speaker layouts? Do you have elevated surrounds?


----------



## tjenkins95

JamesE said:


> Is Lucy in Atmos subtitled in English? I hope not. Do you have a link where I can get it from the US.


 
Here is a link to the BD Atmos thread.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


The Lucy ATMOS sound track is in English. You can get it from Yes Asia - they ship to the US.
Here is the link to the US website:

http://www.yesasia.com/us/en/home.html


You might also be able to find it on ebay.
I use YesAsia all of the time. 
They provide very good service and I have never had any problems with them.

Ray


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> Perhaps we are seeing some differences in rendering process based on different speaker layouts? Do you have elevated surrounds?



My surrounds are at ear level slightly behind and off to the sides of the couch. About 110-deg. As I said, exactly according to Dolbys 5.1.4 setup guidelines.

I recall member  @Blackman did a very extensive A-B test of 7.1.2 vs 5.1.4 with the Amaze trailer and if I recall correctly, the bird rendered somewhat differently in these two setups... The former had the bird in the bed more while the latter used the overheads more. There was an extensive discussion on this in the 2050/3050 owners forum. We were all at a bit of a loss to explain the differences because, in theory, the bird should be an object n 3D space... rendered equally well by both speaker configurations, but that didn't seem to be the case in reality.

Ps. It would be great to hear @Blackmans take on the Amaze trailer now as I think he recently upgraded to 7.1.4.


----------



## tjenkins95

NM20 said:


> I have just noted Enchanted Kingdom has been released in the UK and the USA version is due in the middle of November. Does anyone know if these have the Atmos tracks?


 
In typical fashion, Amazon US and UK don't provide any statistics on the audio track so there is no way of telling at this point if it contains an Atmos soundtrack. 
You can check for any ATMOS updates on http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


Ray


----------



## batpig

So does it sound like the bird travels in a sort of tilted plane from the surrounds (at ear level) to the TF (above and in front)? It seems weird to me that a 360 degree pan would jump from the bed level to the overhead level. 

I'm going to have to experiment with this and differnt speaker config settings and go stick my ear up to the speakers to hear what is happening. But in my 7.1.4 setup that bird sounds like it pans directly around me.


----------



## virtualrain

Lesmor said:


> A question about the bird ?
> I am finding it doesn't go around the room, rather it goes from the left surround around the back of the couch to right surround and then back again.
> It doesn't "show" in my L/C/R & FH
> It somehow doesn't sound right to me,what do other 7200 users experience with this clip ?



This is consistent with what @Blackman had reported with 7.1.2 EDIT: But having just listened to it again, it sounds to me like the bird starts and ends in the front channels.

In looking at your photos, I only saw a couple of speakers higher up on the front wall? Is that all you have? I'm no expert on immersive audio, but I don't think a pair of speakers mounted high on the front wall qualifies as Atmos. So I wouldn't expect much from Atmos test clips or sound tracks without actual over head or up firing speakers.


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> So does it sound like the bird travels in a sort of tilted plane from the surrounds (at ear level) to the TF (above and in front)? It seems weird to me that a 360 degree pan would jump from the bed level to the overhead level.
> 
> I'm going to have to experiment with this and differnt speaker config settings and go stick my ear up to the speakers to hear what is happening. But in my 7.1.4 setup that bird sounds like it pans directly around me.



It sounds to me like it pans around... over head. However, how much of that is psychoacoustic vs actual sound steering? I'm going to put ears to speakers as well.


----------



## scharleb

batpig said:


> IMO - if you have back surround in ceiling 5ft back, those are now your Top Rear speakers and you should add a pair of SB speakers at ear height behind you.
> 
> If you can't do that, and those speakers must remain as SB, then your best bet for Atmos is to do a Top Middle + Front Height layout. Adding height speakers behind you will just get drowned out by the Surr Backs, so might as well focus on that gap above and in front of you.


Thanks..I'll try the top middle setup.

SC


----------



## Stoked21

virtualrain said:


> My surrounds are at ear level slightly behind and off to the sides of the couch. About 110-deg. As I said, exactly according to Dolbys 5.1.4 setup guidelines.
> 
> I recall member @Blackman did a very extensive A-B test of 7.1.2 vs 5.1.4 with the Amaze trailer and if I recall correctly, the bird rendered somewhat differently in these two setups... The former had the bird in the bed more while the latter used the overheads more. There was an extensive discussion on this in the 2050/3050 owners forum. We were all at a bit of a loss to explain the differences because, in theory, the bird should be an object n 3D space... rendered equally well by both speaker configurations, but that didn't seem to be the case in reality.
> 
> Ps. It would be great to hear @Blackmans take on the Amaze trailer now as I think he recently upgraded to 7.1.4.


 I haven't seen that analysis. Over the last 2 months with the same receiver I thoroughly did the same though. I agree 100% that 5.1.4 does pan it around a bit more awkwardly as batpig asked. But in 7.1.2 it is clearly in the bed. 

I thought it odd initially that it was in the bed. I can just turn 7 of my level chs off instantly leaving just the top. I can tell u from this it IS in the bed. Level settings don't affect this to the point of non existent and just extremely limited ambient wing flap. It's very clearly intended to be in the bed by Dolby. I can eliminate all variables and say that with 100% certainty. This also gets back to my previous posts that people run their tops too hot. They expect everything to be up there and they destroy the bed in trying to do so. 

Unless of course maybe birds r only allowed to fly above our heads and not around s room. Bird traffic controllers? Minimum flight plan altitudes??? Lol

If u crank ur tops up so hot that the bird flies above u, EVERYTHING will be on the ceiling instead of in and through the room.


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> So does it sound like the bird travels in a sort of tilted plane from the surrounds (at ear level) to the TF (above and in front)? It seems weird to me that a 360 degree pan would jump from the bed level to the overhead level.
> 
> I'm going to have to experiment with this and differnt speaker config settings and go stick my ear up to the speakers to hear what is happening. But in my 7.1.4 setup that bird sounds like it pans directly around me.





Stoked21 said:


> I haven't seen that analysis. Over the last 2 months with the same receiver I thoroughly did the same though. I agree 100% that 5.1.4 does pan it around a bit more awkwardly as batpig asked. But in 7.1.2 it is clearly in the bed.
> 
> I thought it odd initially that it was in the bed. I can just turn 7 of my level chs off instantly leaving just the top. I can tell u from this it IS in the bed. Level settings don't affect this to the point of non existent and just extremely limited ambient wing flap. It's very clearly intended to be in the bed by Dolby. I can eliminate all variables and say that with 100% certainty. This also gets back to my previous posts that people run their tops too hot. They expect everything to be up there and they destroy the bed in trying to do so.
> 
> Unless of course maybe birds r only allowed to fly above our heads and not around s room. Bird traffic controllers? Minimum flight plan altitudes??? Lol
> 
> If u crank ur tops up so hot that the bird flies above u, EVERYTHING will be on the ceiling instead of in and through the room.


I just did ear to speakers on that clip with my 5.2.4 setup and there is bird flapping sound from top front left, then the right surround then the left surround then the front channels. It did not appear to put anything in the top rear nor in the top front right. (Strange way to mix it if if you ask me). And when sitting and simply listening from MLP, it does sound like it collapses to the bed as it goes behind, but I do get a sense of height at the beginning and end of the flight.


----------



## NM20

tjenkins95 said:


> In typical fashion, Amazon US and UK don't provide any statistics on the audio track so there is no way of telling at this point if it contains an Atmos soundtrack.
> You can check for any ATMOS updates on http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> 
> Ray


Thanks. I thought someone may have stumbled on some definitive info as I can't find any. I hope it is in Atmos as it would be a pain to have to spend extra to import from Japan.


----------



## Lesmor

virtualrain said:


> This is consistent with what @Blackman had reported with 7.1.2 EDIT: But having just listened to it again, it sounds to me like the bird starts and ends in the front channels.
> 
> In looking at your photos, I only saw a couple of speakers higher up on the front wall? Is that all you have? I'm no expert on immersive audio, but I don't think a pair of speakers mounted high on the front wall qualifies as Atmos. So I wouldn't expect much from Atmos test clips or sound tracks without actual over head or up firing speakers.


I am running 9.2.2 the room is dark in the photos but you should be able to zoom in and see what's there.
I only have Front Heights which is what you see in the photos, and which I used for Neo:X they work out at 21deg, unfortunately is out of Dolby spec.
I certainly don't hear "the Bird" starting at the front even though I use wide's but definitely its in the beds just not through the L/C/R 
Anyway its interesting how people have different views on what they hear, and even inconsistency depending on speaker configuration. 
Thanks to all those who took the time to reply,appreciated.


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> I am running 9.2.2 the room is dark in the photos but you should be able to zoom in and see what's there.
> I only have Front Heights which what you see in the photos, which I used for Neo:X they work out at 21deg which unfortunately is out of Dolby spec.
> I certainly don't hear "the Bird" starting at the front even though I use wide's but definitely its in the beds just not through the L/C/R
> Anyway its interesting how people have different views on what they hear, and even inconsistency depending on speaker configuration.
> Thanks to all those who took the time to reply,appreciated.


 @Lesmore. Their is a bit of debate on how high the bird flies. Lol. 
That will be dependent on what config they r running to a very minor extent. And whether they have appropriately set their atmos levels. 

The thing u should take away is it will start in the left side of the room around surround and will finish there too. AFTER clearly passing through lcr. That much we have all agreed upon independently of config and whether they have set levels correctly. U still need to figure out why it's not through ur lcr. 

Thanks for starting the squabble!!


----------



## Stoked21

It would be really cool if we had a YouTube video showing sound locations as they were intended to run real time with the atmos clips. Settles things like the bird and allows people to tweak settings to place objects where they were mixed. 

I tend to just use common sense. On conductor the girl should swing through the room. On amaze the bugs should be IN the room almost overhead. The thunder in amaze is centered but should be overhead not behind u. These things r easily remedied with the slightest tweak of tf and tr levels as audyssey blows my TRs so hot things start to seem more focused behind me instead of spread between front and rear tops.


----------



## audiofan1

Stoked21 said:


> @Lesmore. Their is a bit of debate on how high the bird flies. Lol.
> That will be dependent on what config they r running to a very minor extent. And whether they have appropriately set their atmos levels.
> 
> The thing u should take away is it will start in the left side of the room around surround and will finish there too. AFTER clearly passing through lcr. That much we have all agreed upon independently of config and whether they have set levels correctly. U still need to figure out why it's not through ur lcr.
> 
> Thanks for starting the squabble!!


 Yep!


----------



## virtualrain

Lesmor said:


> I am running 9.2.2 the room is dark in the photos but you should be able to zoom in and see what's there.
> I only have Front Heights which is what you see in the photos, and which I used for Neo:X they work out at 21deg, unfortunately is out of Dolby spec.
> I certainly don't hear "the Bird" starting at the front even though I use wide's but definitely its in the beds just not through the L/C/R
> Anyway its interesting how people have different views on what they hear, and even inconsistency depending on speaker configuration.
> Thanks to all those who took the time to reply,appreciated.



I have to admit that sitting listening to it, I get a sense of height that doesn't appear to be justified by what's coming out if the various speakers. I wonder if this is because my brain wants to hear it that way?

However, it sounds like something is seriously amiss with your rendering as there is definite sound of flapping from the front at times.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have not seen anyone describe it in these terms and I have not played with bed vs heights, but as I am facing the screen, the bird takes off from between left front and left rear, going immediately to about 10 o'clock on my left, moving to my left behind me (fades slightly directly behind me as it would with something physically directly behind you...), continues on my right about 2 o'clock on that side to front right and back home to front left.

Yeah, I know it is a runon sentence, but that is what I hear...


----------



## kbarnes701

JamesE said:


> Is Lucy in Atmos subtitled in English? I hope not. Do you have a link where I can get it from the US.


You can turn the subtitles off on this disc and just have the English language sound track.


----------



## kbarnes701

olsen12 said:


> Can i mix up atmos speaker set up? Two front up firing and 2 in ceiling?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


Yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Now after that reply I am really keen to get this addressed.
> My speakers are positioned to within an inch of there life, other then I am using FH at a compromised angle of 21 deg.
> System has had at least 6 or more Aydssey calibrations.
> This is my hobby on my mind 24/7 so I am anal with trying to get things spot on.
> I will attach a couple of photos
> Would appreciate feedback of whats wrong with the bed speakers?


Looking at the pics, I'd say you won’t get much of the real Atmos effect with that pair of speakers mounted as heights. It will be more like PLIIz I'd think (I had my height speakers in that same position when I did PLIIz and Neo:X). Is there no way you can move those speakers to a TM position? Or move them to TF position and add a TR pair behind the couch?


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Looking at the pics, I'd say you won’t get much of the real Atmos effect with that pair of speakers mounted as heights. It will be more like PLIIz I'd think (I had my height speakers in that same position when I did PLIIz and Neo:X). Is there no way you can move those speakers to a TM position? Or move them to TF position and add a TR pair behind the couch?


Hi Keith that seems to be the case with my F H
Next plan is to install TM and either keep the F H or move them to R H 
I hate going up the attic due to 8" of Glass wool which even wearing PPE irritates my skin.
PPE exacerbates the task as well with over heating and steaming glasses balancing on joists, poor lighting.
Anyway I need to make some backer boxes to protect the speakers due to the dust etc. and get some installed at some point.


----------



## MarkMul1

Not sure if anyone posted yet or not but the redbox Pixels is Atmos. 

I was surprised. It was about as good as the 80's were. Ha

I enjoyed it. 

FYI if you decide to rent it.


----------



## wse

How about this any one tried those for ATMOS?

*Infinity RS152 Reference Series 2-Way 5-1/4" Dual Tweeter Surround Speakers *


----------



## tjenkins95

virtualrain said:


> I just did ear to speakers on that clip with my 5.2.4 setup and there is bird flapping sound from top front left, then the right surround then the left surround then the front channels. It did not appear to put anything in the top rear nor in the top front right. (Strange way to mix it if if you ask me). And when sitting and simply listening from MLP, it does sound like it collapses to the bed as it goes behind, but I do get a sense of height at the beginning and end of the flight.


When I listen to the Amaze trailer, the bird starts flapping its wings behind me in the back, left corner, then flys across the back wall to the back, right corner, continues down the right wall to the front right speaker, flies across the screen on the front wall to the front left speaker, and returns back down the left wall to the back corner where it started!


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> When I listen to the Amaze trailer, the bird starts flapping its wings behind me in the back, left corner, then flys across the back wall to the back, right corner, continues down the right wall to the front right speaker, flies across the screen on the front wall to the front left speaker, and returns back down the left wall to the back corner where it started!


That's exactly what it should do. It's starting in the left surround. 

I happen to run my surrounds very unconventionally as surround wides. I know, don't jump me on that one! I do this because it then allows them to act as surrounds for front rows and pseudo front wides for rear row. Bed imaging will be a little off in my system due to this, but it helps out the front row so immensely and works really well in the back row where the MLP is as well. Additionally it keeps the TRs, SBs, and Surrounds from all being crammed together in the back of the HT and running all together with little separation. It's just my preference until I hook up my front wides soon, now that I can support them. Though I'll likely primarily run 7.2.4 instead of 9.2.2, I now have the option with new prepro.

For this reason, the bird starts to my left/left-front and circles around. If I moved the speaker it would do exactly what you said.


----------



## Lesmor

tjenkins95 said:


> When I listen to the Amaze trailer, the bird starts flapping its wings behind me in the back, left corner, then flys across the back wall to the back, right corner, continues down the right wall to the front right speaker, flies across the screen on the front wall to the front left speaker, and returns back down the left wall to the back corner where it started!


Interesting because that's how it starts out with me, but rather than going R/C/L it retraces up the right Hand side along the back of the couch to where it started.
obviously it should circle the room.
I'm going to persevere because if this is rendering/projecting wrong,(Which it obviously is) then so is every other Atmos disc I own.
Maybe the F/L/R is projecting into the room too far forward giving a false impression.
My front L/C/R pan very well by the way, far beyond the left and right sound stage.


----------



## pasender91

I just played Amaze several times:
- it starts back left
- then accross the back with a sense of height
- then going to front right, high as well
- then going across front, BUT VOLUME QUITE LOW
- then back to the starting point

So i get the 360° effect and the height as well, but with lower volume when bird is in front, do you guys also get this effect ??


----------



## Lesmor

Well you guys will be getting bored of this subject so I am going to let it rest. 
I am going to get to the back of it one way or the other, I will play the clip with power amp off so no L/C/R or wide's and see where the Bird stops., should be the right surround.
Either that or I'm going to shoot the bugger.
Thanks for your time and especially patience.
Cheers
Andy


----------



## Jive Turkey

dormie1360 said:


> Personally, I really liked what they did with the new version of The Fifth Element that just came out.
> 
> Comments


Wished I could have got a copy without all the video dropouts. I bought one at the Target in one city that had dropouts, returned it to a Target in another city and the second one had dropouts in pretty much the same spots as the first. My other bluray copy of The Fifth Element has no problems, nor do a few other blurays I have that I tried to make sure it wasn't me. Of course I reset the HDMI handshake a couple of ways before returning both copies. I haven't had this issue since the Total Recall bluray.

Must be that damned seamless branching thing rearing it's ugly head again. Too bad, the Atmos track sounded pretty nice for the first few chapters. But the picture quality didn't look as good as the last released Bluray version, in my opinion. More washed out on the latest, and not neccessarily any more sharper.


----------



## Anthony1

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll just post this here:


It's been a number of months since I was thinking about a receiver. If I did end up getting a new one, I would want Atmos and 7.1 plus the 4 ceiling speakers, so it would need to be an 11 channel receiver. 


Is there anything out there for $999.99 or less, or are they all well above that ? Last time I checked on this, I think the cheapest 11 channel amp was still like $1699.99 or something like that. I can't really justify spending more than a grand, so I guess I'll just have to sit on the sidelines.


----------



## jpco

pasender91 said:


> I just played Amaze several times:
> 
> - it starts back left
> 
> - then accross the back with a sense of height
> 
> - then going to front right, high as well
> 
> - then going across front, BUT VOLUME QUITE LOW
> 
> - then back to the starting point
> 
> 
> 
> So i get the 360° effect and the height as well, but with lower volume when bird is in front, do you guys also get this effect ??



This exactly how it is for me. It fades toward the front. 

Although it's 360°, it's isn't a circle. It sounds a little flattened out to me, extending to the surrounds but not as far toward the fronts or backs. 

I think we all perceive and describe sound very differently.


----------



## Charles R

I'll join the bird party. For me...

LS - shoots out | LRS - RRS - almost as loud | RS - lands as loud | RF - (C?) - LF - drops in volume to the point it appears almost in front of you

Even with my surrounds almost at my side it appears to fly in a circle largely behind me.


----------



## Zhorik

pasender91 said:


> I just played Amaze several times:
> - it starts back left
> - then accross the back with a sense of height
> - then going to front right, high as well
> - then going across front, BUT VOLUME QUITE LOW
> - then back to the starting point
> 
> So i get the 360° effect and the height as well, but with lower volume when bird is in front, do you guys also get this effect ??


Do you (and others suspecting anomaly with Atmos rendering) observe the same when played back in 7.1 (without the height/top speakers). 

Having listened to the Amaze trailer on a 7.1 set up, the bird does go all around without any decrease in volume (starts and ends in left side surround going anti-clockwise).


----------



## dormie1360

Jive Turkey said:


> Wished I could have got a copy without all the video dropouts. I bought one at the Target in one city that had dropouts, returned it to a Target in another city and the second one had dropouts in pretty much the same spots as the first. My other bluray copy of The Fifth Element has no problems, nor do a few other blurays I have that I tried to make sure it wasn't me. Of course I reset the HDMI handshake a couple of ways before returning both copies. I haven't had this issue since the Total Recall bluray.
> 
> Must be that damned seamless branching thing rearing it's ugly head again. Too bad, the Atmos track sounded pretty nice for the first few chapters. But the picture quality didn't look as good as the last released Bluray version, in my opinion. More washed out on the latest, and not neccessarily any more sharper.


No dropouts here. It's too bad you had problems, I really liked what they did with the sound. As far as PQ, it's been forever since I watched the earlier version. Can't say I had a problem with new version's PQ however.


----------



## Charles R

Zhorik said:


> Having listened to the Amaze trailer on a 7.1 set up, the bird does go all around without any decrease in volume (starts and ends in left side surround going anti-clockwise).


Having listened to it numerous times (from my listening position) I stood next to each speaker and when I was next to the RF I could hear the bird louder from the rear speakers than the RF...


----------



## batpig

Anthony1 said:


> I don't want to start a new thread so I'll just post this here:
> 
> 
> It's been a number of months since I was thinking about a receiver. If I did end up getting a new one, I would want Atmos and 7.1 plus the 4 ceiling speakers, so it would need to be an 11 channel receiver.
> 
> 
> Is there anything out there for $999.99 or less, or are they all well above that ? Last time I checked on this, I think the cheapest 11 channel amp was still like $1699.99 or something like that. I can't really justify spending more than a grand, so I guess I'll just have to sit on the sidelines.


The only wat to get full 11ch support for $1k is basically to buy used, someone (like me) who is selling their model from last year (Denon 5200 for me). Which basically means you won't get DTS:X or HDCP 2.2 for now. 

Honestly at that price point even among new models it's hard to get 9 channels. The Marantz 6010, Denon 4200, Yamaha 2050 are the top current 9ch options with HDCP 2.2 and DTSX upgradability and they retail for over $1k. 

So bottom line, either bide your time for now or jump in with a used/refurb from last year and worry about DTS:X later.


----------



## ultraflexed

batpig said:


> The only wat to get full 11ch support for $1k is basically to buy used, someone (like me) who is selling their model from last year (Denon 5200 for me). Which basically means you won't get DTS:X or HDCP 2.2 for now.
> 
> Honestly at that price point even among new models it's hard to get 9 channels. The Marantz 6010, Denon 4200, Yamaha 2050 are the top current 9ch options with HDCP 2.2 and DTSX upgradability and they retail for over $1k.
> 
> So bottom line, either bide your time for now or jump in with a used/refurb from last year and worry about DTS:X later.


Good news, onkyo nr-tx 1030 which is 5.2.4.....7.2.4 with amp
Can be found for 1100 at some sites new, cheaper used.


----------



## Steven James 2

So guys i realize this is hardly a decent setup for any home theater but its all i could do with the limited space i have. I have purchased a pair of in ceiling speakers and need some input on placement. I know i wont get the correct atmos effect but close for now is all i can have i guess. Should the in ceiling speakers go more towards my fronts or more over the seating area?


----------



## dkwong

For a .2 Atmos setup, Dolby recommends placing the ceiling speakers close to the listening position.


----------



## virtualrain

I found the post from @Blackman from the 2050/3050 owners thread where he tested both 5.x.4 and 7.x.2 with the bird flapping around the room. I give this account the most credibility simply based on the number of listeners involved 




Blackman said:


> *Yamaha RX A2050 Test using Speaker Config 5.2.4 and 7.2.2... Which one is better ? (Testing with Dolby Atmos blu ray Demo disc with "AMAZE"
> 
> *Well what a successful testing day we had testing both speaker setup being 5.2.4 and 7.2.2*.
> 
> *Now just to fill you all in I have 11 speakers not 9 and all are fully installed and connected the the Yammy 2050 so to change speaker combination all I have to do is enter the Yammy 2050 menu and change Pattern from 1 (7.2.2) to pattern 2 (5.2.4) or from pattern 2 back to 1.
> In this test we had not 4 but five people and the objectivity of the test was to hear the direction and the amount of speakers that had the flapping wings activity from that bird flapping its wings.
> Now all 4 + myself being five agreed that the birds flapping wings went in a clockwise direction that means sitting on the center of the lounge, looking at the ceiling upwards the bird started flapping and going in a clock wise direction of speakers:::
> 
> *5.2.4 setup*:: the bird Flapped its wing starting from the front left ceiling speaker (it was very faint, very very faint) and then it went to the left surround (A lot stronger) then to the right Surround (A lot stronger but the same as the left surround) then to the front right ceiling ( very, very faint) then finished at the center speaker.
> As all this was going on there was plenty of other sounds from other birds tweeting from the front ceiling speakers and both rear ceiling speakers had plenty of thunderstorms coming from the two* + *plus other sounds* that were missing in the 7.2.2 test.
> 
> 7.2.2 setup:: **t*he bird Flapped its wing starting from the front left ceiling speaker (it was very faint, very very faint) and then it went to the left surround (A lot stronger)then to the left* rear* surround quickly, then to the *right *rear surroundhad a longer pause here then it went to the right surround then to the right front ceiling speaker (very very faintbut I was under it with a 4 foot ladder) and finished strongly on the center channel*.
> 
> *Now after this we redid the test on bothspeaker setups but this time I told everyone to YELL OUT YEP!!!!!! when they heard the flapping wings and we had to do this in two stages as 5 people were not enough to cover at least 7 speakers (with plenty of chairs to stand on) but this test proved that ALTHOUGH I MADE MY CEILING SPEAKERS 2 db HOTTER I could not barely hear them on both speaker setups (the wings bit)
> Now in the 7.2.2 test we all heard the wings flapping strongly the same as the 5.2.4 test starting from the left surround to the left rear surround to the right rear surround then it paused a little then to the right surround followed to the center channel so by this test you can hear which one gave the best surround around the lounge room for those flapping wings.
> BUT !!!!!!!! The big but!! although 7.2.2 had the better surround it lacked or better still lacked some noises that were missing that 5.2.4 had and it lacked the THUNDER STORMS that raged from both rear ceiling speakers and others noises because the 7.2.2 set up does not have working rear ceiling speakers and those noises are mixed elsewhere due to the 2050's software shutting those two rear speakers down
> *Conclusion* 7.2.2 gave the better surround and this was proven by all, 5.2.4 had extra (your in the movie) when you were sitting under the 4 ceiling speakers but missed out on the true feeling of the real surround of L surr, L rear Surr, R rear surr, and right surround. so I can just imagine what the Yammy RX 3050 with all 11 speakers all working and mixing these two combo's together.
> Might have to ring the brother in Law and ask him does he want a cheaper RX A2050 also I cannot understand after this test that some have a 3050 and are using only 5.2.4. for God sake save your money and purchase those two extra speakers.


----------



## pasender91

Zhorik said:


> Do you (and others suspecting anomaly with Atmos rendering) observe the same when played back in 7.1 (without the height/top speakers).
> 
> Having listened to the Amaze trailer on a 7.1 set up, the bird does go all around without any decrease in volume (starts and ends in left side surround going anti-clockwise).


As suggested i did the bird test again, but this time in 7.1 True HD without Atmos.
I have the same 360° sensation, the same lowering of volume when the bird is in front, but guess what .... i clearly lose the height effect, when the bird is in the back it flies much lower


----------



## Zhorik

pasender91 said:


> As suggested i did the bird test again, but this time in 7.1 True HD without Atmos.
> I have the same 360° sensation, the same lowering of volume when the bird is in front, but guess what .... i clearly lose the height effect, when the bird is in the back it flies much lower


Yeah, based on yours and CharlesR's observation, I might need to check speaker levels for base and height layer.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Just a quick note

I recently built volt 6 coaxial speakers from DIY sound. To replace my ceiling speakers I have had for atmos since last September. They were the klipsch quintets

I was only able to get the top front two installed last night. But WOW. Literally a night a day difference with clarity and expanded Imersiveness. The ability to have a much more capable speaker is HUGE. I thought I was getting by fine by my makeshift setup.

So lesson is yes the overhead speakers should be of good quality. 

Highly recommend the volt series. I got all 4 speakers for 650$ after all said and done. And they even sound good enough to be mains. No kidding

B


----------



## tjenkins95

Brian Fineberg said:


> Just a quick note
> 
> I recently built volt 6 coaxial speakers from DIY sound. To replace my ceiling speakers I have had for atmos since last September. They were the klipsch quintets
> 
> I was only able to get the top front two installed last night. But WOW. Literally a night a day difference with clarity and expanded Imersiveness. The ability to have a much more capable speaker is HUGE. I thought I was getting by fine by my makeshift setup.
> 
> So lesson is yes the overhead speakers should be of good quality.
> 
> Highly recommend the volt series. I got all 4 speakers for 650$ after all said and done. And they even sound good enough to be mains. No kidding
> 
> B


 
Nice to hear. A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine installed 4 of the Klipsch CDT-3650 speakers into my ceiling and I also noticed a big difference when using good quality speakers!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

tjenkins95 said:


> Nice to hear. A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine installed 4 of the Klipsch CDT-3650 speakers into my ceiling and I also noticed a big difference when using good quality speakers!


Awesome

I am pleased as I was a bit nervous the money would be wasted. But I'm glad I can hear the difference (which again isn't only a subtle difference). I can't wait until after tonight I he the other two up


----------



## davehale

I also only have 7.1 and the bird Atmos demo does fly very quickly from LS to RS leaving quite a sound hole from my rear surrounds, then quickly back over to the LS. If I had TR ceiling speakers then I would hope the bird would sound more above me and better filled in. Found that if I turn the front L/C/R speakers up or down then the bird makes more of a larger circle or shorter circle depending on front volume. If I had TF ceiling speakers I would hope then that the effect would be more of a larger higher circle overall. It seems now I will have to demo a real Atmos room with this Amaze effect to see what it is supposed to be doing. Too much money to spend if everyone is hearing things differently. Glad for this discussion as it is now a test case for me. But I would need to know what Dolby intended as I had to drastically alter Audyssey sound volumes by ear in my L/C/R/LS/RS which was a good thing as now my music from these speakers sound much more imaged and clearer revisiting some 2L music using Bitstream from my Oppo. IOW setting volumes by ear to get the better bird effect gave me a better overall impression from my room. Sorry if all the above sounds crazy but making the circle bigger (volume adjustments) made my overall system sound much better.


----------



## Spanglo

A big +1 for The Fifth Element. Nonstop atmos goodness. Finally a movie that utilizes overheads for the majority of the movie instead of used sparingly like most releases. 

Wasn't expecting too much after Dracula, but The Fifth Element was on fire from the opening to closing credits. The shootout scenes were a bit hot, but other than that great job on the remaster.


----------



## Spanglo

A big +1 for The Fifth Element. Nonstop atmos goodness. Finally a movie that utilizes overheads for the majority of the movie instead of used sparingly like most releases. 

Wasn't expecting too much after Dracula, but The Fifth Element was on fire from the opening to closing credits. The shootout scenes were a bit hot, but other than that great job on the remaster.


----------



## dkwong

I'm currently using a pair of the Onkyo Atmos Enabled speakers for my .2 setup and am considering swapping them for ceiling speakers. My house doesn't have an attic though so I can't do inceiling and will have to mount them. Can anyone recommend a good pair of white, ceiling mountable speakers that I can use here that is reasonably priced (~$200).


----------



## dkwong

You guys think these will work for ceiling speakers and will sound better than the Onkyos? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0018...SY165_QL70&dpPl=1&dpID=314WY+JLfPL&ref=plSrch


----------



## Ted99

Anthony1 said:


> I don't want to start a new thread so I'll just post this here:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything out there for $999.99 or less, or are they all well above that ? Last time I checked on this, I think the cheapest 11 channel amp was still like $1699.99 or something like that. I can't really justify spending more than a grand, so I guess I'll just have to sit on the sidelines.



No


----------



## Spanglo

dkwong said:


> You guys think these will work for ceiling speakers and will sound better than the Onkyos? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0018...SY165_QL70&dpPl=1&dpID=314WY+JLfPL&ref=plSrch


I doubt those speakers would be suitable for a computer setup let alone for HT. I'd suggest something that could output a decent amount of SPL cleanly.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Klipsch-KHO-7-White-All-Weather-Indoor-Outdoor-Loudspeaker-Pair-SS-2-Way-Bracket-/401014779585?hash=item5d5e57eec1:m:mGw00ACTbYWCtZ5NJb492qA

I'm using the bookshelf version of that speaker, the KSB 1.1, and it outputs nicely to near reference levels.


----------



## dkwong

Those look pretty good but also look huge. I was hoping for something a little more discreet since they will be hanging from the ceiling.


----------



## Selden Ball

dkwong said:


> Those look pretty good but also look huge. I was hoping for something a little more discreet since they will be hanging from the ceiling.


Although some people consider them overpriced, Definitive Technology's ProMonitor range of speakers ( 800, 1000) is available in white or black and can be hung from the wall or ceiling if you get the optional ProMount 80 or 90.


----------



## Gurba

dkwong said:


> I'm currently using a pair of the Onkyo Atmos Enabled speakers for my .2 setup and am considering swapping them for ceiling speakers. My house doesn't have an attic though so I can't do inceiling and will have to mount them. Can anyone recommend a good pair of white, ceiling mountable speakers that I can use here that is reasonably priced (~$200).



I use these and so does several Norwegian HT owners. They can be easliy mounted with keyholes. Send them an email an inquire.


http://www.surround.no/hoyttaler/ve...aler-hvit-eik.html?nosto=nosto-page-category1


----------



## dvdwilly3

I really should quit reading this forum. I have 5.1.4, and have been perfectly happy...

God help me...now I am thinking about how to do 7.1.4....

I am thinking Onkyo M5010 (or older ? 282) power amp running off of the TX-NR1030 pre outs. Several questions...

Would I best use the Surrounds pre outs (Rear Surround pre outs?) and leave the rest of my set up alone--FL, C, FR, RS, LS, TF and TR?

Also, best way to handle secondary amp. There is no switched outlet on the 1030 that I can (not at home...looking at diagram...). I don't see any way for a 12 v trigger. I am thinking separate power strip that I can manually turn on and off.

We are on vacation...wouldn't it be great if we could turn this obsession on and off...like say an AVR?


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> I really should quit reading this forum. I have 5.1.4, and have been perfectly happy...
> 
> God help me...now I am thinking about how to do 7.1.4....
> 
> I am thinking Onkyo M5010 (or older ? 282) power amp running off of the TX-NR1030 pre outs. Several questions...
> 
> Would I best use the Surrounds pre outs (Rear Surround pre outs?) and leave the rest of my set up alone--FL, C, FR, RS, LS, TF and TR?
> 
> Also, best way to handle secondary amp. There is no switched outlet on the 1030 that I can (not at home...looking at diagram...). I don't see any way for a 12 v trigger. I am thinking separate power strip that I can manually turn on and off.
> 
> We are on vacation...wouldn't it be great if we could turn this obsession on and off...like say an AVR?


I use these smart power strips works like a charm when I shut my TV off everything shuts down. I love it it shuts my amp off and when I turn the TV on the amp turns on just like it would with a 12 volt trigger. 
http://www.amazon.com/Bits-Limited-..._UL160_SR137,160_&refRID=0Q6KBF8DPAXXCDTXDT2H


----------



## Nightlord

Brian Fineberg said:


> Awesome
> 
> I am pleased as I was a bit nervous the money would be wasted. But I'm glad I can hear the difference (which again isn't only a subtle difference). I can't wait until after tonight I he the other two up


Quality speakers (expensive or less so) with matching sonic character are needed everywhere. Surrounds and ceiling speakers just as well. It's often sadly neglected in favor of subs, projectors and screen material.

Next stop is quality amplification with enough power....(although those Volts looked like efficient designs, which reduces the wattage needed, big bonus)


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Nightlord said:


> Quality speakers (expensive or less so) with matching sonic character are needed everywhere. Surrounds and ceiling speakers just as well. It's often sadly neglected in favor of subs, projectors and screen material.
> 
> Next stop is quality amplification with enough power....(although those Volts looked like efficient designs, which reduces the wattage needed, big bonus)


I have emotiva xpa-5 running he ceiling speakers. So in good on amplification. But I whole heartedly agree. The reason I skimped on ceiling speakers at first was cause I had them lying around. So ones able to get into atmos very very cheaply last year. But now it's down correctly


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I have emotiva xpa-5 running he ceiling speakers. So in good on amplification. But I whole heartedly agree. The reason I skimped on ceiling speakers at first was cause I had them lying around. So ones able to get into atmos very very cheaply last year. But now it's down correctly


There is nothing 'magic' about Atmos that requires us to throw away all that we have learned in the past. It has always made sense to match speakers where possible and to use quality speakers throughout a system, whether 5.1, 7.1 or 11.1. It's no different with Atmos. Just as if one had used a crappy pair of speakers for surround duty one might be disappointed with the result, so it is for Atmos too.

HST, there is no point in buying speakers that are way over-specced for the task in hand. In a bass-managed system this means we don't need speakers that go below about 80Hz and this means they can be good quality but also needn't cost the earth. It isn’t all that hard to make a good quality speaker that only handles frequencies above 80Hz.

Not directing this at you, Brian, just using your post as a convenient jumping-off point


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> There is nothing 'magic' about Atmos that requires us to throw away all that we have learned in the past. It has always made sense to match speakers where possible and to use quality speakers throughout a system, whether 5.1, 7.1 or 11.1. It's no different with Atmos. Just as if one had used a crappy pair of speakers for surround duty one might be disappointed with the result, so it is for Atmos too.
> 
> HST, there is no point in buying speakers that are way over-specced for the task in hand. In a bass-managed system this means we don't need speakers that go below about 80Hz and this means they can be good quality but also needn't cost the earth. It isn’t all that hard to make a good quality speaker that only handles frequencies above 80Hz.
> 
> Not directing this at you, Brian, just using your post as a convenient jumping-off point


I know Keith  no worries

And fully agree. This finally going to capable speakers has upped the enjoyment that much. 

What made me do it was everyone raving about the latest movies in atmos. San Andreas mad max and pixel were the biggest ones where I was a bit underwhelmed. While atmos did make everything sound more full I was never overly wow'd but still happy 

Now with capable speakers. Just the short demos were night and day from what I had. Proverbs galore....heard things I never had, like a veil lifted lol etc. 

I'm am now excited to revisit al the great atmos tracks. And all the legacy movies with dsu . Mad I waited this long. Cause like you said I shorted myself thinking "I don't need great speakers for the ceiling" because of the little content in them. But no one should kid themselves. It DOES make a difference. Don't make the same mistake I did. 

And the volt's are so cost effective. It's silly to not go with quality from the get go


----------



## Stoked21

Selden Ball said:


> Although some people consider them overpriced, Definitive Technology's ProMonitor range of speakers ( 800, 1000) is available in white or black and can be hung from the wall or ceiling if you get the optional ProMount 80 or 90.


I have these for surrounds, surround backs, and RH. They're not bad and can handle some power and sound decent compared to a lot of other DT stuff I've heard and owned. But at $200/each, yeah I would have bought something else. I will tell you, do NOT buy their mounts. I have 4 of them. 2 broken out of box and they can NOT support the Promonitor 1000s at all.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Nightlord said:


> Quality speakers (expensive or less so) with matching sonic character are needed everywhere. Surrounds and ceiling speakers just as well. It's often sadly neglected in favor of subs, projectors and screen material.
> 
> Next stop is quality amplification with enough power....(although those Volts looked like efficient designs, which reduces the wattage needed, big bonus)


Having matching speakers all the way around on the seven bed channels was the best upgrade I ever did for my theater. The newer soundtracks put a lot of content into the surround speakers. They aren't for just ambient sounds anymore. You don't realize this until you upgrade but I would argue that the surrounds are getting the same dynamics that you would expect from the front L/R speakers. The sound is seamless and the Atmos demos are just jaw dropping. The SCS 8 ceiling speakers are from the Pro Cinema line and sound great but if my wife would let me strap four 4722's to the ceiling I would


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Molon_Labe said:


> Having matching speakers all the way around on the seven bed channels was the best upgrade I ever did for my theater. The newer soundtracks put a lot of content into the surround speakers. They aren't for just ambient sounds anymore. You don't realize this until you upgrade but I would argue that the surrounds are getting the same dynamics that you would expect from the front L/R speakers. The sound is seamless and the Atmos demos are just jaw dropping. The SCS 8 ceiling speakers are from the Pro Cinema line and sound great but if my wife would let me strap four 4722's to the ceiling I would


I'm using RBH Impression bipolar's as Front and Rear Heights in my temporary, tiny theater setup with Paradigm Studios all around for the bed speakers (HSU VTF-3 is the sub) and it really sounds fantastic. The room is still a mess since I was tearing everything apart deducing the source of a ground loop (found it, but now I have to find a way to filter the Ethernet cables to my Roku and Marantz pre-pro). 

The layout is 7.1.4, but with Front Wides and no back surrounds. The Front Wides are _very_ active on the Atmos tracks I've demoed so far, and I do agree with others using the FW's that in many instances they get a better workout than the overheads.


----------



## Movie78

Which demo has the Flapping Birds?


----------



## jpco

Movie78 said:


> Which demo has the Flapping Birds?



Amaze


----------



## davehale

For those who are at my level (7.1 and not yet Atmos) and still wondering, I listened to the YouTube Dolby Amaze and did find holes in my rear speakers in my 7.1 system which is not yet Atmos. Then I went to Vudu on my Oppo 103D, searched for Dolby and there were 4 free demos waiting. The Amaze 7.1 did in fact fill in my 2 rear surrounds that I could not hear during the YouTube demo - awesome. The "Conductor" was very good also just wish these demos were another 15 seconds or so.


----------



## labman1

I am going to jump in about up firing speakers. I can not use IC's due to a lathe and plaster ceiling. I run a 7.2 Von Schweikert Audio system with 2 PSA XS15se's. I will have the 7702 MKll this week. (Sold the 7702) What up firing speakers to use with Von Schweikert speaker? Looking at the Andrew Jones new Elac add ons or the AT's. Anyone know of a nice quality up firing add on? I don't think the Klipsch would work being a horn. I am using Cinenova Grande 5 channel and Marantz MA 500 monoblocks for the 4 add ons.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

@dkwong
Try Anthony Gallo micros.. White and discrete.


----------



## BigScreen

Brian Fineberg said:


> This finally going to capable speakers has upped the enjoyment that much.
> 
> What made me do it was everyone raving about the latest movies in atmos. San Andreas mad max and pixel were the biggest ones where I was a bit underwhelmed. While atmos did make everything sound more full I was never overly wow'd but still happy
> 
> Now with capable speakers. Just the short demos were night and day from what I had. Proverbs galore....heard things I never had, like a veil lifted lol etc.
> 
> I'm am now excited to revisit al the great atmos tracks. And all the legacy movies with dsu . Mad I waited this long. Cause like you said I shorted myself thinking "I don't need great speakers for the ceiling" because of the little content in them. But no one should kid themselves. It DOES make a difference. Don't make the same mistake I did.
> 
> And the volt's are so cost effective. It's silly to not go with quality from the get go


The Volt 6 is a much different speaker in many ways; which aspect(s) do you think were the biggest factor(s)? Your previous speakers were rated for just 110 Hz on the bottom end vs. 65 Hz for the Volt 6. The larger tweeter/driver could be a factor, as could the larger midrange driver (not to mention the architectural difference of the drivers). Then you have the physical size of the cabinet.

I'm glad to hear that you saw a marked improvement with the upgrade, but I think I would have been astonished if you hadn't! 

Posts such as yours are dangerous, as it probably has people trying to figure out if they can manage those cabinets on their ceilings...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

BigScreen said:


> The Volt 6 is a much different speaker in many ways; which aspect(s) do you think were the biggest factor(s)? Your previous speakers were rated for just 110 Hz on the bottom end vs. 65 Hz for the Volt 6. The larger tweeter/driver could be a factor, as could the larger midrange driver (not to mention the architectural difference of the drivers). Then you have the physical size of the cabinet.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that you saw a marked improvement with the upgrade, but I think I would have been astonished if you hadn't!
> 
> Posts such as yours are dangerous, as it probably has people trying to figure out if they can manage those cabinets on their ceilings...


I would also attribute it (in addition to what you mentioned) the dispersion pattern as well. Being a concentric it has a large dispersion pattern.


----------



## Steven James 2

BigScreen said:


> The Volt 6 is a much different speaker in many ways; which aspect(s) do you think were the biggest factor(s)? Your previous speakers were rated for just 110 Hz on the bottom end vs. 65 Hz for the Volt 6. The larger tweeter/driver could be a factor, as could the larger midrange driver (not to mention the architectural difference of the drivers). Then you have the physical size of the cabinet.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that you saw a marked improvement with the upgrade, but I think I would have been astonished if you hadn't!
> 
> Posts such as yours are dangerous, as it probably has people trying to figure out if they can manage those cabinets on their ceilings...



I have never heard of volt speakers. I did find their website and it looks like you build the speakers? How is the sound quality on them vs say polk audio ( what i have now)?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Steven James 2 said:


> I have never heard of volt speakers. I did find their website and it looks like you build the speakers? How is the sound quality on them vs say polk audio ( what i have now)?


I would say the sound quality will beat your Polks but that is purely a guess 

Yes you build them yourself. Diysoundgroup.com

These speakers and xovers are very highly regarded. And they do in fact sound amazing. 

I have yet to read a review on them that didn't favor them. 

They are popular in mating with Jtr's as surrounds.


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am thinking about how to do 7.1.4....I am thinking Onkyo M5010 (or older ? 282) power amp running off of the TX-NR1030 pre outs. Several questions...Would I best use the Surrounds pre outs (Rear Surround pre outs?) and leave the rest of my set up alone--FL, C, FR, RS, LS, TF and TR?


 @bargervais @stikle @randyk47 

I am contemplating this same configuration. For those of you who have 7.1.4 systems with 9 amps, what pre-outs did you send to the external amp...and why did you decide on these? And for those with Onkyo's M5010, are you happy with its performance or would you recommend a different amp?


----------



## batpig

dkwong said:


> Those look pretty good but also look huge. I was hoping for something a little more discreet since they will be hanging from the ceiling.


Chi_guy seems to be on hiatus but on his behalf I will mention the Polk OWM5, which is a very versatile speaker in terms of mounting options and sound quality for the minimal visual profile. I don't use them myself but I would recommend them to others for this type of application. Certainly better than some microsat with a 3" woofer.


----------



## dkwong

batpig said:


> Chi_guy seems to be on hiatus but on his behalf I will mention the Polk OWM5, which is a very versatile speaker in terms of mounting options and sound quality for the minimal visual profile. I don't use them myself but I would recommend them to others for this type of application. Certainly better than some microsat with a 3" woofer.



Do you mean the OWM3? The 5 is pretty large too.


----------



## batpig

davehale said:


> I also only have 7.1 and the bird Atmos demo does fly very quickly from LS to RS leaving quite a sound hole from my rear surrounds, then quickly back over to the LS. If I had TR ceiling speakers then I would hope the bird would sound more above me and better filled in. Found that if I turn the front L/C/R speakers up or down then the bird makes more of a larger circle or shorter circle depending on front volume. If I had TF ceiling speakers I would hope then that the effect would be more of a larger higher circle overall. It seems now I will have to demo a real Atmos room with this Amaze effect to see what it is supposed to be doing. Too much money to spend if everyone is hearing things differently. Glad for this discussion as it is now a test case for me. But I would need to know what Dolby intended as I had to drastically alter Audyssey sound volumes by ear in my L/C/R/LS/RS which was a good thing as now my music from these speakers sound much more imaged and clearer revisiting some 2L music using Bitstream from my Oppo. IOW setting volumes by ear to get the better bird effect gave me a better overall impression from my room. Sorry if all the above sounds crazy but making the circle bigger (volume adjustments) made my overall system sound much better.


This is getting crazy. I feel like we need a spreadsheet to track this across brands/models and setups. It would be an interesting test case to see if the rendering is consistent across models. 

I may go upstairs and play with this myself after the WS game ends, but people who have a full 7.1.4 setup should test this with different height speaker designations in the processor. No need to physically move speakers but just to see which speakers make noise. 

I feel like we're on the verge of finding some interesting distinctions in terms of rendering vs different height layouts. 

Again in my room -- 7.1.4 with Denon X5200 and FH+TM setup -- the bird is firmly anchored in the bed. Last night I went and stood ear to speakers and it clearly sweeps through all 7 bed speakers (starting and finishing in left surround) and does NOT disappear from the LCR. TM gets basically nothing and FH gets a wee bit of flapping (probably elevating the path slightly). 

It occurs to me that without RH or TH you have no way to "elevate" a sound in the rear hemisphere. As per the 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 tests posted above, you're going to hear a collapse to the bed level on anything behind you. My SB are elevated a couple of feet above ear level though so it works out. 

Although now this all makes me wonder if I'd be better off with a more traditional TF+ TR 7.1.4 layout... maybe adhering as closely as possible to the way it was mixed is going to get you to the intended effect more consistently. But then sacrifice that directly overhead sensation... Hmmm when does 9.1.6 arrive?


----------



## batpig

dkwong said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chi_guy seems to be on hiatus but on his behalf I will mention the Polk OWM5, which is a very versatile speaker in terms of mounting options and sound quality for the minimal visual profile. I don't use them myself but I would recommend them to others for this type of application. Certainly better than some microsat with a 3" woofer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the OWM3? The 5 is pretty large too.
Click to expand...

Well yeah but the point is that you may be able to get a larger -- and higher performance -- speaker than you otherwise could due to the flush design and mounting versatility. If all you can fit is the OWM3 then so be it but I'm pointing out that the OWM speakers are sort of unique in this sense. Hoping to help you eke out some more peefoemance given your constraints. Maybe a photo or two of your setup/room would help?


----------



## gene4ht

batpig said:


> I may go upstairs and play with this myself after the WS game ends...


It's probably safe to go upstairs now B12 7-2 KC...


----------



## NODES

batpig said:


> Well yeah but the point is that you may be able to get a larger -- and higher performance -- speaker than you otherwise could due to the flush design and mounting versatility. If all you can fit is the OWM3 then so be it but I'm pointing out that the OWM speakers are sort of unique in this sense. Hoping to help you eke out some more peefoemance given your constraints. Maybe a photo or two of your setup/room would help?



I use 2 sets(OWM3) for my front and middle top mounted ceilings speakers. I am running a 5.2.4 config


----------



## dkwong

NODES said:


> I use 2 sets(OWM3) for my front and middle top mounted ceilings speakers. I am running a 5.2.4 config



How do you like them as ceiling speakers? Do you have them facing directly down from the ceiling or at an angle?


----------



## NODES

dkwong said:


> How do you like them as ceiling speakers? Do you have them facing directly down from the ceiling or at an angle?



They work great to my ears in Atmos config, I have them facing right down. I was thinking of angling them a bit, but have not done it yet to test it out. They are dirt cheap on amazon open box sales.


----------



## dkwong

NODES said:


> They work great to my ears in Atmos config, I have them facing right down. I was thinking of angling them a bit, but have not done it yet to test it out. They are dirt cheap on amazon open box sales.



Which mounting kit did you use?


----------



## NODES

dkwong said:


> Which mounting kit did you use?


bolt into the back of the unit where you can connect mounting brackets into.


----------



## dkwong

NODES said:


> bolt into the back of the unit where you can connect mounting brackets into.


Yeah, I'm curious which mounting bracket you used. Did you use an Omnimount?


----------



## NODES

dkwong said:


> Yeah, I'm curious which mounting bracket you used. Did you use an Omnimount?



...........Bolt
----------|--------- ceiling
........\ ---------- / rubber grommets
.............SPK


Basically a long bolt goes through the ceiling into the speaker and between the speaker and the ceiling there are 4 rubber grommets to give it space and prevent vibrations if any.


----------



## Lesmor

batpig said:


> This is getting crazy. I feel like we need a spreadsheet to track this across brands/models and setups.


To add to my previous posts on " The Bird" using a Denon 7200WA
9.2.2 (Front heights)

I carried out a test with my power amp switched off so L/C/R and L/R wide's were not used (silent)

So it first appears in the (110 deg) Left Surround, then the Rear left and Rear right speakers (150 deg) and then the Right Surround (110 deg) but what "Amazed" me was it also imaged strongly where the Right wide speaker is located at 60 deg even though that speaker was disabled.

Then it disappeared, a hole as expected, before finishing back at the Left Surround (110 deg)
So in my mind there is no question the bird finishes on the Left surround speaker the position of which is determined by system layout.

It wasn't heard in the Front Heights which were still active they were rendering insects buzzing at the left corner along with other ambient sounds.

Switched the power amp back on, re-ran the test and The Bird first appears faintly in the Left wide speaker (60deg) this time it was not a Phantom image.

The rest is the same,it is now obvious that it flies from the Right side of the room along the front L/C/R but I don't hear it anywhere near those speakers, as my impression is still that it retraces along the back.
So my L/C/R's appear to be projecting the image so far forward that it is seems to be right across the couch.

That unfortunately doesn't quite match the phantom image I clearly hear at 60 deg in the first test.

I don't have in ceiling speakers but I am pretty certain the bird flies in the bed channels as it didn't appear in my Front Height not to say it wouldn't be audible to some extent in a TF TR system
which might render the whole clip differently.

So IMO there will never be consistency because of different speaker configurations and physical speaker positions.
If my Right surround was at 90deg that phantom image would be heard strongly at the Front Right speaker.
same applies if I moved the Left surround to 90 deg bringing things closer to the Front Left speaker.
There a lot to be said for speaker mapping.

As I cant position at 90 deg I might connect my wide's as surrounds just to see what difference that makes.

One things is for sure,we are all hearing our movie's differently.


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> I know Keith  no worries
> 
> And fully agree. This finally going to capable speakers has upped the enjoyment that much.
> 
> What made me do it was everyone raving about the latest movies in atmos. San Andreas mad max and pixel were the biggest ones where I was a bit underwhelmed. While atmos did make everything sound more full I was never overly wow'd but still happy
> 
> Now with capable speakers. Just the short demos were night and day from what I had. Proverbs galore....heard things I never had, like a veil lifted lol etc.
> 
> I'm am now excited to revisit al the great atmos tracks. And all the legacy movies with dsu . Mad I waited this long. Cause like you said I shorted myself thinking "I don't need great speakers for the ceiling" because of the little content in them. But no one should kid themselves. It DOES make a difference. Don't make the same mistake I did.
> 
> And the volt's are so cost effective. It's silly to not go with quality from the get go


Agreed. And this is likely to become even more important as mixers start to put more content in the overhead speakers. HST, there is no point in going overboard either - when I experimentally swapped my Tannoy Di5 DCs for the much bigger Tannoy Di6 DCs as my overheads, I heard no difference at all. I guess this is because above 100Hz (where I cross the Di5s) the performance of both models is very similar. Dropping the XO to 80Hz for the Di6s also made no discernible difference. Nonetheless I would probably have left the Di6s up there but for the fact that in this small room they looked a bit 'top heavy' and, aesthetically, the Di5s look much nicer here.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Having matching speakers all the way around on the seven bed channels was the best upgrade I ever did for my theater. The newer soundtracks put a lot of content into the surround speakers. They aren't for just ambient sounds anymore. You don't realize this until you upgrade but I would argue that the surrounds are getting the same dynamics that you would expect from the front L/R speakers. The sound is seamless and the Atmos demos are just jaw dropping. The SCS 8 ceiling speakers are from the Pro Cinema line and sound great but if my wife would let me strap four 4722's to the ceiling I would


Agreed. The surrounds are taking on much more of the heavy lifting in Atmos tracks. No need for them to be identical to the mains (although no harm either) as the vast majority of the sound will always come from the LCR set, but certainly they need to be of good quality.


----------



## HD1ART

*Dolby Atmos configuration clearification/question*

Hoping someone can help clear something up for me. My question is:
for a X.X.4 configuration would X.X.FH-TM = X.X.4? I have Ceiling speakers for TM. I am playing around with FH speakers from my old TX-NR 1009 which I replaces with a 1030. I also have a set of Atmos speakers to run in the back. I am trying to figure out what is the best configuration to give me a true X.X.4 configuration.


----------



## rontalley

HD1ART said:


> Hoping someone can help clear something up for me. My question is:
> for a X.X.4 configuration would X.X.FH-TM = X.X.4? I have Ceiling speakers for TM. I am playing around with FH speakers from my old TX-NR 1009 which I replaces with a 1030. I also have a set of Atmos speakers to run in the back. I am trying to figure out what is the best configuration to give me a true X.X.4 configuration.


Yes. 4 Height, Ceiling or Dolby Enabled speakers in any configuration is considered presence speakers in a X.X.4 configuration. Now you will experience varying results based on which configuration.


----------



## rontalley

Wanted to drop in and again share that the Micca M-8C 8-Inch 2-Way In-Ceiling In-Wall Speaker with Pivoting 1-Inch Silk Dome Tweeter have provided very good results for me and are relatively inexpensive compared to other offerings. For $40/speaker, I highly recommend them.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Yes. 4 Height, Ceiling or Dolby Enabled speakers in any configuration is considered presence speakers in a X.X.4 configuration. Now you will experience varying results based on which configuration. I do not think that Atmos recognizes wides which are also considered presence speakers.


Atmos does use wides. It's DSU which doesn’t.


----------



## randyk47

gene4ht said:


> @bargervais @stikle @randyk47
> 
> I am contemplating this same configuration. For those of you who have 7.1.4 systems with 9 amps, what pre-outs did send to the external amp...and why did you decide on these? And for those with Onkyo's M5010, are you happy with its performance or would you recommend a different amp?


I'm running a Denon X5200W and use the Height 1 pre-out to my M5010 to run the TR speakers. It's been a year and quite frankly I don't remember exactly why I decided to hook it up that way other than maybe recommendations here and from my AV store. I'm using four Definitive ProMonitor800s for my ATMOS speakers and in my relatively small "theater" (12'x14') they work well. I have no regrets or second thoughts about the M5010. Since day 1 it's been an install and forget piece of equipment and has never given me a moment of trouble. I got it on sale from my AV store but even then it wasn't the cheapest and by far not the most expensive amp I could have gotten. Since I was in a fairly major overhaul of my equipment (i.e., new flat screen, receiver, all speakers and subwoofer) I'd pressed Mrs K's good graces enough.


----------



## petetherock

Got another one for the DSU fans:

The disaster movie 2012 has solid surround even without Atmos but add DSU and you are into another plane altogether. 

Forget Transformers.. If you want a scene of stuff going up and down try the scene in India where the Chweitol goes down to the bowels of the earth. Sounds go up as the lift goes down. 

Then move onto the twisters and the LA earthquake.. San Andreas you have a competitor!


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos does use wides. It's DSU which doesn’t.


Oh, thanks!

Wonder why Atmos uses wides but DSU doesn't?


----------



## jprod

I need some help/advice for my set up.
I have a 16x20x8 dedicated ht room. I used to have def techs exclusively, but i now have SVS ultra for the front L,C,R and in wall def techs for side and back. I currently have the pro monitor 1000 from def tech as heights and the in ceiling def tech 6.5r for top rear.
My front height speakers are at a 22 degree angle, so I am planning to add another pair of in ceiling 6.5r and removing the pro monitor 1000 from their current front height location
My questions are

1. I have about 5 feet (60 inches ) from my ears to ceiling. I currently have top rear 60 inches back on the ceiling from the MLP. I am assuming that top front should be equidistant ( 6o inches ) also ?

2. Should I then use the pro monitor 1000 bookshelves as wides or is it a problem since my fronts are svs and the wides will be def tech?

3. If I use the wides, should I then assign my front as front heights in order to take advantage off dsx and neo X?

4. The in ceiling speakers have tweeters that can be aimed. For atmos do i aim them to the mlp or have them fire down?

5. What happens to the front wides during atmos playback? I currently am using a marantz 7702

Thanks


----------



## gene4ht

rontalley said:


> Wanted to drop in and again share that the Micca M-8C 8-Inch 2-Way In-Ceiling In-Wall Speaker with Pivoting 1-Inch Silk Dome Tweeter have provided very good results for me and are relatively inexpensive compared to other offerings. For $40/speaker, I highly recommend them.


I too have these MICCA's installed....actually six (TF, TM, & TR) so I can continue to experiment going forward. I currently have the TM's active as I only have 5.2.2 capability but will shortly upgrade to 7.2.4. As rontalley suggests, the MICCA's performs its Atmos duties without issue in my environment.


----------



## Lesmor

jprod said:


> I need some help/advice for my set up.
> I have a 16x20x8 dedicated ht room. I used to have def techs exclusively, but i now have SVS ultra for the front L,C,R and in wall def techs for side and back. I currently have the pro monitor 1000 from def tech as heights and the in ceiling def tech 6.5r for top rear.
> My front height speakers are at a 22 degree angle, so I am planning to add another pair of in ceiling 6.5r and removing the pro monitor 1000 from their current front height location
> My questions are
> 
> 1. I have about 5 feet (60 inches ) from my ears to ceiling. I currently have top rear 60 inches back on the ceiling from the MLP. I am assuming that top front should be equidistant ( 6o inches ) also ?
> 
> 2. Should I then use the pro monitor 1000 bookshelves as wides or is it a problem since my fronts are svs and the wides will be def tech?
> 
> 3. If I use the wides, should I then assign my front as front heights in order to take advantage off dsx and neo X?
> 
> 4. The in ceiling speakers have tweeters that can be aimed. For atmos do i aim them to the mlp or have them fire down?
> 
> 5. What happens to the front wides during atmos playback? I currently am using a marantz 7702
> 
> Thanks


Unsure about the Marantz but
If you are running 7.1.4 Atmos then add then wide's you loose a pair of heights so its 9.1.2
My Denon has 13 pre-outs so for DSU can run 7.1.4 or Atmos 9.1.2
Neo:X Height and wide = 9.1.2
So always 11.1 channels max


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lesmor said:


> Unsure about the Marantz but
> If you are running 7.1.4 add then wide's you loose a pair of heights so its 9.1.2
> My Denon has 13 pre-outs so for DSU can run 7.1.4 or Atmos 9.1.2
> Neo:X Height and wide = 9.1.2


With the Marantz, if it's like my revised Mark II, you can get wides with either a 9.1.2 or 7.1.4 setup. The latter configuration can be accomplished by turning the back surrounds off and switching on the Front Wides. You then regain four overheads. 

That's why I hope 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 becomes a standard feature soon (Denon/Marantz was considering that for next year). You won't have to choose wides or backs, you could have both. Front Wides are utilized, in my listening experience, quite a bit. More so than the overheads in some Atmos movies. Wire for those updates in mind just in case.


----------



## gene4ht

randyk47 said:


> I'm running a Denon X5200W and use the Height 1 pre-out to my M5010 to run the TR speakers. It's been a year and quite frankly I don't remember exactly why I decided to hook it up that way other than maybe recommendations here and from my AV store. I'm using four Definitive ProMonitor800s for my ATMOS speakers and in my relatively small "theater" (12'x14') they work well. I have no regrets or second thoughts about the M5010. Since day 1 it's been an install and forget piece of equipment and has never given me a moment of trouble. I got it on sale from my AV store but even then it wasn't the cheapest and by far not the most expensive amp I could have gotten. Since I was in a fairly major overhaul of my equipment (i.e., new flat screen, receiver, all speakers and subwoofer) I'd pressed Mrs K's good graces enough.


Appreciate your feedback and good to know the 5200 and 5010 are issue free. I'm currently considering the Denon X6200W and the M5010. Although the Audiosource Amp-100 appears to be an inexpensive and popular amp, several reports here indicate shortcomings or not "playing well" with some AVR's. The Emotiva Mini-X A-100 appears to be another option as well.


----------



## Xeneize12

gene4ht said:


> Appreciate your feedback and good to know the 5200 and 5010 are issue free. I'm currently considering the Denon X6200W and the M5010. Although the Audiosource Amp-100 appears to be an inexpensive and popular amp, several reports here indicate shortcomings or not "playing well" with some AVR's. The Emotiva Mini-X A-100 appears to be another option as well.


I had issues with the Audiosource 100 and the 6200. My Emotiva Mini is arriving tomorrow. You're doing the right thing


----------



## Movie78

Audiosource amp100 is a terrible amp,bought one and return it, using a old AVR for meantime.


----------



## gene4ht

Xeneize12 said:


> I had issues with the Audiosource 100 and the 6200. My Emotiva Mini is arriving tomorrow. You're doing the right thing


Great...will wait for your impressions on the Emo!



Movie78 said:


> Audiosource amp100 is a terrible amp,bought one and return it, using a old AVR for meantime.


That's what many seem to be saying...wonder why JD and others continue to mention/recommend it???


----------



## Lesmor

Dan Hitchman said:


> With the Marantz, if it's like my revised Mark II, you can get wides with either a 9.1.2 or 7.1.4 setup. The latter configuration can be accomplished by turning the back surrounds off and switching on the Front Wides. You then regain four overheads.
> 
> That's why I hope 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 becomes a standard feature soon (Denon/Marantz was considering that for next year). You won't have to choose wides or backs, you could have both. Front Wides are utilized, in my listening experience, quite a bit. More so than the overheads in some Atmos movies. Wire for those updates in mind just in case.


In my 20x17ft room I don't really see the need for x.x.6
I am wired for FH (compromised 21deg angle) and RH but I don't feel that gives the correct effect.
I also personally think TM is for those who only want to install 2 in ceiling speakers (although that should also work with either FH or RH if they are at the correct angle ) 

I am therefore frozen as to what to do for the best, afraid to install TM because I then don't see the point of FH except for Neo:X soon to be DTS:X moving my FH to RH would at least utilise the speakers.

Feeling that optimum configuration is TF and TR 
You have to call an end to running cables cutting holes all over the place in hope of a better Atmos experience.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

just for reference....my new VOLT6's veiling mounted....45 degrees in front of MLP and 120 degrees behind

setup as TF and TR




sorry for the terrible cell pics...very hard to get pics in the darkened room


----------



## dvdwilly3

Brian Fineberg said:


> just for reference....my new VOLT6's veiling mounted....45 degrees in front of MLP and 120 degrees behind
> 
> setup as TF and TR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry for the terrible cell pics...very hard to get pics in the darkened room


Why not use the camera flash? Or, does that just wash everything out?


----------



## Xeneize12

Lesmor said:


> In my 20x17ft room I don't really see the need for x.x.6
> I am wired for FH (compromised 21deg angle) and RH but I don't feel that gives the correct effect.
> I also personally think TM is for those who only want to install 2 in ceiling speakers (although that should also work with either FH or RH if they are at the correct angle )
> 
> I am therefore frozen as to what to do for the best, afraid to install TM because I then don't see the point of FH except for Neo:X soon to be DTS:X
> 
> Feeling that optimum configuration is TF and TR
> You have to call an end to running cables cutting holes all over the place in hope of a better Atmos experience.


I have wired my MR for 8 Atmos-speaker setup but currently using two... the idea on my pre-wiring was to plan for the future... so I pre-wired Fronts, 2 mids, 1 rear... I'm playing with my 2 Middle in-ceiling as a front and rear and they are absolutely amazing.. (I was originally going to only do 7.2.2)

Here's a pic of the current setup (mind you, i'm still patching, paining, working the lights etc, so don't judge  )










Anyways.... as is and with not-to-spec angles, using that setup as Front/Rear makes it amazing to say the least. I think Atmos is a game changer... I could never go back to traditional 7.1


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> Audiosource amp100 is a terrible amp,bought one and return it, using a old AVR for meantime.


Just AAMOI what was it about the Audiosource amp which brought you to this conclusion?


----------



## Amzie Williams

When I listen to Amaze on my Denon 7200wa with a 5.2.4 setup of FH & TM the bird starts in the FL then travels to SL and ends in FL. It's a full 360 degree circle that sounds like it's mostly in the bed layer but I never hear a gap so it must go to the heights as well


----------



## Brian Fineberg

dvdwilly3 said:


> Why not use the camera flash? Or, does that just wash everything out?


the second pic uses the flash...makes the room look like sh!t haha

but lets you get an idea of how i set everything up


----------



## stikle

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am thinking Onkyo M5010 (or older ? 282) power amp running off of the TX-NR1030 pre outs.
> 
> Also, best way to handle secondary amp. There is no switched outlet on the 1030 that I can (not at home...looking at diagram...). I don't see any way for a 12 v trigger.



If your NR1030 is like the NR929 that I just sold, there is no Zone 1 12v trigger. That, plus no more Audyssey and a DirecTV audio dropout issue is what let me away from Onkyo finally.

The M5010 is a perfectly fine choice for one set of overheads. I still run it today with my Denon. It's $110 more than the Audiosource AMP-100 that is a very popular alternative. I went with the M5010 at the time because the industrial look perfectly matched the NR929's face.

As far as your trigger issue, this is worked around using a Logitech Harmony remote and the Zone 2 trigger. Read my comments here on how to do it.



gene4ht said:


> For those of you who have 7.1.4 systems with 9 amps, what pre-outs did you send to the external amp...and why did you decide on these? And for those with Onkyo's M5010, are you happy with its performance or would you recommend a different amp?



I used the Wide preouts for the M5010 when I had the NR929 running Audyssey DSX. That changed when I went to Atmos, but don't recall which overheads they're driving now. I can look easily enough when I get home.

Additionally, the M5010 is a perfectly fine stereo amp that keeps up just fine with my Denon X5200W. You will never approach the rated output of your amplification, so don't focus on the M5010 only being 75w. The 5200 has almost double the amplification, but you would never hear it aurally that there's a difference.


----------



## Movie78

gene4ht said:


> Great...will wait for your impressions on the Emo!
> 
> 
> 
> That's what many seem to be saying...wonder why JD and others continue to mention/recommend it???


Because JD doesn't use Audiosource AMP100, he is just suggesting.
I have a feeling that people are just recommending stuff with no actual test or use of the device.


----------



## Xeneize12

Movie78 said:


> Because JD doesn't use Audiosource AMP100, he is just suggesting.
> I have a feeling that people are just recommending stuff with no actual test or use of the device.


Is that a knock on JD??


----------



## Movie78

Xeneize12 said:


> Is that a knock on JD??


oh No!!
Just stating the facts.


----------



## rontalley

Xeneize12 said:


> I have wired my MR for 8 Atmos-speaker setup but currently using two... the idea on my pre-wiring was to plan for the future... so I pre-wired Fronts, 2 mids, 1 rear... I'm playing with my 2 Middle in-ceiling as a front and rear and they are absolutely amazing.. (I was originally going to only do 7.2.2)
> 
> Here's a pic of the current setup (mind you, i'm still patching, paining, working the lights etc, so don't judge  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways.... as is and with not-to-spec angles, using that setup as Front/Rear makes it amazing to say the least. I think Atmos is a game changer... I could never go back to traditional 7.1


Hey X, I remember you were gearing up for .2. You went crazy in there!  My tops are about 6 feet from front to back and although I get some separation, I think that they need to be at least 8 feet apart. I am going to try to aim the tweeters towards the MLP to see if that makes any difference. How much separation do you get from front to back or are you only playing 2 at a time?

I love your MR setup! Enjoy.


----------



## Xeneize12

Movie78 said:


> oh No!!
> Just stating the facts.


Nice, you have factual information! to something you claim to "have a feeling" ... Note I'm just giving you a hard time 

Anyhow... I did test the Audiosource-100 and had all kinds of issues, I posted them very clearly... I ordered the Emotiva that people I have come to trust in this site (Batpig/JD recommended, not sure who) but haven't received it yet..... As soon as I do, I'll be sure to provide my experience.

The Audiosource is working now... but it';s highly unstable with noise... maybe I have a bad unit, however there are at least two other people who had the same issue.... I have a feeling it's a unique issue between Audiosource and Denon.... who knows.


----------



## Xeneize12

rontalley said:


> Hey X, I remember you were gearing up for .2. You went crazy in there!  My tops are about 6 feet from front to back and although I get some separation, I think that they need to be at least 8 feet apart. I am going to try to aim the tweeters towards the MLP to see if that makes any difference. How much separation do you get from front to back or are you only playing 2 at a time?
> 
> I love your MR setup! Enjoy.



There's about 4 feet (on top of my head) from front to back, however the angles are somewhat different due to the height of the ceiling.

That said, they are intended to be Top Middle (for an unlikely 2nd row and to be flexible enough with my couch depth... planning on changing the theater seats also).... I'll be installing rear heights and front heights in the near future.

Bottom line... I'm experimenting with my Atmos, nothing is set in stone aside from my 7.2.2 (TM), the additional height speakers/location is very much up in the air. However, as they are right now, they sound amazing.


----------



## jprod

Dan Hitchman said:


> With the Marantz, if it's like my revised Mark II, you can get wides with either a 9.1.2 or 7.1.4 setup. The latter configuration can be accomplished by turning the back surrounds off and switching on the Front Wides. You then regain four overheads.
> 
> That's why I hope 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 becomes a standard feature soon (Denon/Marantz was considering that for next year). You won't have to choose wides or backs, you could have both. Front Wides are utilized, in my listening experience, quite a bit. More so than the overheads in some Atmos movies. Wire for those updates in mind just in case.


Can you switch on the back surrounds on the fly or does one have to rerun audyssey every time and "turn on" the surround backs ?


----------



## gene4ht

stikle said:


> Additionally, the M5010 is a perfectly fine stereo amp that keeps up just fine with my Denon X5200W. You will never approach the rated output of your amplification, so don't focus on the M5010 only being 75w. The 5200 has almost double the amplification, but you would never hear it aurally that there's a difference.


Thanks Seth! I have no concern with the power rating. But since the M5010 is on my short list with a 6200, I'm just looking for confirmation that they "play nice" together.

BTW: Just out of curiosity, if you do get a chance to look at which pre-out you're currently sending to the 5010, I would appreciate it...thx again!


----------



## gene4ht

Movie78 said:


> Because JD doesn't use Audiosource AMP100, he is just suggesting.
> I have a feeling that people are just recommending stuff with no actual test or use of the device.


Yep...understand...that happens sometimes


----------



## petetherock

Why buy an almost $3000 AVR, then use it with the cheapest amp possible? Because all amps should the amp? Then to discover that this isn't true and end up spending more to get a proper power amp that does?
An Emotiva will be the bare minimum IMO..


----------



## petetherock

Why buy an almost $3000 AVR, then use it with the cheapest amp possible? Because all amps should the amp? Then to discover that this isn't true and end up spending more to get a proper power amp that does?
An Emotiva will be the bare minimum IMO..


----------



## drwho099

*Opinions for reasonable surround locations in this room?*

I'm trying to decide whether I have any "reasonable" locations available for the side surrounds in an Atmos upgrade. Currently I have a 7.1 setup, and like many have (dipole) side surrounds relatively high on the side walls as shown in the photo. Only a single row of seating (the couch) exists. The right side is most problematic if I need to move the location to be ear-level per the recommendations, given the equipment closet. For top speakers, I can get 4 mounted in the ceiling about 18" above the existing surrounds. Surround backs are currently in-ceiling; I would re-purpose those as TR and add TF, as well as new ear-level surround backs in the back of the room.

Options I can think of:

1a) in-wall to right of closet, slightly above ear-level. Perhaps best for sound, I don't think this scenario is really viable given the studs there.
1b) location as 1a, but on-wall speakers. Rather undesirable for aesthetics, as well as inconvenient/awkward for room entrance which is on that side.
2a) in-wall to the left of closet. Would put surrounds rather close to the front mains I'm afraid, but may still fall within angle guidelines from the Dolby Atmos recommendations.
2b) location as 2a, but on-wall speakers. Would be preferred for aesthetics, but I may still run into constraints due to stud locations.
3) Move the surrounds a few inches down, possibly use a speaker I could angle-downwards. (Not clear a few inches will make any meaningful difference here though.)
4) Leave as-is, with possible exception of swapping the dipole for a a monopole. (aside: Anyone have experience re-wiring the Paradigm dipoles to become monopole?) 

Any feedback on the options, or other ideas, would be appreciated.


----------



## Flash3d

Getting a X6200 tomorrow and planning on running a 7.2.4 setup with tm and fh with an external amp. Because of my ht dimensions (5wx5dx2.3h mtr) and following the atmos guidelines, my fh pair (ceiling diy cabinets with kef ci160qr) is in front of my lcr. Would this pose an issue? 

The kef's ci160qr sound amazing BTW and complete my r series of lcr. Using a pair now as side surround in an undersized enclosure (according to kef guidelines) and my Denon x4000 crossed them at 60hz. Using a 80hz wide crossover so still have some headroom. 

Connected the ci160qr as full range lr (direct mode on the denon) and they blew me away, off course the low is not as rich as my r500's but for surround and atmos duty they are more then perfect. Will post some pics when all installed.


----------



## audiofan1

drwho099 said:


> I'm trying to decide whether I have any "reasonable" locations available for the side surrounds in an Atmos upgrade. Currently I have a 7.1 setup, and like many have (dipole) side surrounds relatively high on the side walls as shown in the photo. Only a single row of seating (the couch) exists. The right side is most problematic if I need to move the location to be ear-level per the recommendations, given the equipment closet. For top speakers, I can get 4 mounted in the ceiling about 18" above the existing surrounds. Surround backs are currently in-ceiling; I would re-purpose those as TR and add TF, as well as new ear-level surround backs in the back of the room.
> 
> Options I can think of:
> 
> 1a) in-wall to right of closet, slightly above ear-level. Perhaps best for sound, I don't think this scenario is really viable given the studs there.
> 1b) location as 1a, but on-wall speakers. Rather undesirable for aesthetics, as well as inconvenient/awkward for room entrance which is on that side.
> 2a) in-wall to the left of closet. Would put surrounds rather close to the front mains I'm afraid, but may still fall within angle guidelines from the Dolby Atmos recommendations.
> 2b) location as 2a, but on-wall speakers. Would be preferred for aesthetics, but I may still run into constraints due to stud locations.
> 3) Move the surrounds a few inches down, possibly use a speaker I could angle-downwards. (Not clear a few inches will make any meaningful difference here though.)
> 4) Leave as-is, with possible exception of swapping the dipole for a a monopole. (aside: Anyone have experience re-wiring the Paradigm dipoles to become monopole?)
> 
> Any feedback on the options, or other ideas, would be appreciated.


 Wow! that looks exactly like my setup and if I want to move my di-poles (big if as they sound great there with 7.2.4) its the same options as you! I would favor behind but only if your surround back channels are far enough away (assuming your doing 7.1.4,if not disregard) if they sit towards the back corner the forward option may be better but i would strongly suggest leaving them there and trying it out.

I'll be keeping an eye out on your solution and if it sounds better in the locations chosen I just may have to revisit my thinking on the matter


----------



## batpig

Xeneize12 said:


> I have wired my MR for 8 Atmos-speaker setup but currently using two... the idea on my pre-wiring was to plan for the future... so I pre-wired Fronts, 2 mids, 1 rear... I'm playing with my 2 Middle in-ceiling as a front and rear and they are absolutely amazing.. (I was originally going to only do 7.2.2)
> 
> Here's a pic of the current setup (mind you, i'm still patching, paining, working the lights etc, so don't judge  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways.... as is and with not-to-spec angles, using that setup as Front/Rear makes it amazing to say the least. I think Atmos is a game changer... I could never go back to traditional 7.1


Wow, I remember your room now! Are those acoustic panels stacked up behind the couch? Looks like you took all of our suggestions and repositioned some speakers and moved the couch forward a bit? And moved the side surrounds slightly forward? Hope you're happy with our advice!


----------



## Xeneize12

batpig said:


> Wow, I remember your room now! Are those acoustic panels stacked up behind the couch? Looks like you took all of our suggestions and repositioned some speakers and moved the couch forward a bit? And moved the side surrounds slightly forward? Hope you're happy with our advice!


I did indeed...I actually added that whole wall with the French door so that I could move the surround speakers to above ear level...

I bought the acoustic panels and moved the seats forward so that the sound stage would shine, and oh boy! What a difference... I'll be wrapping it up this week and will post a before and after. You helped a ton and o thank you for that  the difference is so compelling that even my wife says its night and day .


----------



## tjenkins95

Movie78 said:


> oh No!!
> Just stating the facts.


 
I own the Audiosource AMP100 and there is nothing wrong with mine.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

tjenkins95 said:


> I own the Audiosource AMP100 and there is nothing wrong with mine.


Same thing here...


----------



## HT-Eman

*A list of my atmos movies*

Here's some of the atmos movies I have . Still don't have a avr/pre-pro yet . Waiting until February to make a decision .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jprod said:


> Can you switch on the back surrounds on the fly or does one have to rerun audyssey every time and "turn on" the surround backs ?


I think it's only during the initial setup that you can choose backs or wides with 7.1.4. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me believe you can change on the fly.


----------



## jprod

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it's only during the initial setup that you can choose backs or wides with 7.1.4. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me believe you can change on the fly.


Thanks. I was afraid of that. I may ditch the wides for now until there is a .6 configuration


----------



## Nalleh

jprod said:


> Can you switch on the back surrounds on the fly or does one have to rerun audyssey every time and "turn on" the surround backs ?


If you had all 13 speakers connected when you run Aydyssey, then yes you can switch on the fly. Well, sort of. You go to speaker config and set surround back(or height2) to "none", then wides will activate.

Then you have Atmos with wides and no SB's.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Xeneize12 said:


> Nice, you have factual information! to something you claim to "have a feeling" ... Note I'm just giving you a hard time
> 
> Anyhow... I did test the Audiosource-100 and had all kinds of issues, I posted them very clearly... I ordered the Emotiva that people I have come to trust in this site (Batpig/JD recommended, not sure who) but haven't received it yet..... As soon as I do, I'll be sure to provide my experience.
> 
> The Audiosource is working now... but it';s highly unstable with noise... maybe I have a bad unit, however there are at least two other people who had the same issue.... I have a feeling it's a unique issue between Audiosource and Denon.... who knows.


I ran into an issue as well... I had it set to the mode where it only turns on when the speakers are supposed to be in use... sometimes it takes them a bit to kick in. 

If I recall there were times where it failed to power up at all... but it's hard for me to recall/ if I had made a mistake that would prevent the AMP 100 from powering on.


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Why buy an almost $3000 AVR, then use it with the cheapest amp possible? Because all amps should the ampsound the same? Then to discover that this isn't true and end up spending more to get a proper power amp that does?
> An Emotiva will be the bare minimum IMO..


IFYP.

The Emo will be more than enough. It isn’t true that all amps sound the same of course. You can easily verify this by taking a $2 amp from a cheap transistor radio and comparing it with the amps in a modern AVR. But what is true is that all modern SS amps of good quality (eg amps in modern AVRs from major brands)) when working within their design parameters and not broken or clipping etc, do sound so similar to each other that they cannot be reliably differentiated in blind ABX tests. Amplifiers are simple beasts and their design was perfected decades ago and all the major parameters of their performance exhibit characteristics which are well below the human ear's capacity to resolve them. If one thinks about it, it is pretty obvious - an amplifier should pass the signal through entirely unchanged, other than in amplitude, and modern SS units do this with ease. If the amplifier has a 'sound' of its own then it is adding distortion to the signal so if you have an amp which does indeed 'sound' different to another one, then one of them is not very good or broken. It is true that some of the so-called 'audiophile' brands costing many $$$ may deliberately induce a 'house sound' but then one needs to ask why one would want to buy and amp which deliberately distorted the signal? Amplifiers should amplify - they are not tone controls.

Of course, if one uses an underpowered amp for the task and pushes it into clipping then it will sound different (distorted) to one which has more power and which is not therefore pushed into clipping. But we ought to be able to assume, on AVS, that members have chosen the power of their amps wisely, to match the requirements of their systems in term of being able to output clean sound to the SPL required in the chosen room. 

Much better to buy a solid, reliable amp at a sensible price and then spend money on things which actually do make an audible difference, eg speakers, subs, acoustic treatments, SOTA room EQ like Dirac Live etc.

Of course, there are other reasons to spend a lot of $$$ on amps besides sound quality. More expensive amps _might_ have higher quality components with a longer life expectancy etc and their industrial design may be more pleasing and so on and pride of ownership or bragging rights may be higher. But nowadays, more or less any amp from a major brand will last for a very long time and fulfil its purpose, which is to pass the input signal to the output unchanged other than in amplitude.

This isn't the thread to enter into a discussion of this (there are many threads on AVS which explore these issues) so I won't be commenting again - I just wanted to put out a counterpoint to your own post to give balance.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> It occurs to me that without RH or TH you have no way to "elevate" a sound in the rear hemisphere. As per the 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 tests posted above, you're going to hear a collapse to the bed level on anything behind you. My SB are elevated a couple of feet above ear level though so it works out.
> 
> Although now this all makes me wonder if I'd be better off with a more traditional TF+ TR 7.1.4 layout... maybe adhering as closely as possible to the way it was mixed is going to get you to the intended effect more consistently. But then sacrifice that directly overhead sensation... Hmmm when does 9.1.6 arrive?


With a FH+TM combo, what about putting your rears at TR position?


----------



## toofast68

*Confirming Atmos Speaker Placement*

Ok, so I am really trying to do this as "perfect" as I can, and I think I finally get it.

Working toward a 7.4.4 (7 will be wides vs. rear surrounds)

Assume we all agree that this Dolby Picture is accurate, (if not please help me find the right angles)

If my rear height speaker is 6' behind the MLP (see diagram below) via a horizontal line - should the front height speaker be the SAME ANGLE, this putting it 6' in front of the MLP....Or do the angles just have to be within the angle specs shown below and the front and rear do not have to match. Or if you can match the "angles" then all the better, but you have moment between the 30-55 degree for front and then reverse for the back.

My issue is that due to my slightly abnormal setup, my back wall top is the ONLY place I can put my top Atmos speakers, unless I am willing to do major construction, and for Atmos 1.0 I am not....hopefully this is not a massive compromise.

Hopefully this all makes sense...and thanks in advance !


----------



## petetherock

I had to dig hard to find out what IFYP means


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I had to dig hard to find out what IFYP means


 Sorry mate. I do tend to use a lot of these acronym things IYKWIM. I assume the dreaded auto-correct futzed your post for you. The neatest CIA I know of is the one for PCMCIA. *P*eople *C*an't *M*emorise *C*omputer *I*ndustry *A*cronymns.  Another one I like is TWAIN - *T*hing *W*ithout *A*n* I*nteresting *N*ame. That one is even true!

Edit: should we share IFYP to save others having to dig so deep?


----------



## petetherock

I feel your pain?
The first time a young lady in my office sent a message saying TTYL, I thought she was swearing at me... ah the generation gap..


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry mate. I do tend to use a lot of these acronym things IYKWIM. I assume the dreaded auto-correct futzed your post for you. The neatest CIA I know of is the one for PCMCIA. *P*eople *C*an't *M*emorise *C*omputer *I*ndustry *A*cronymns.  Another one I like is TWAIN - *T*hing *W*ithout *A*n* I*nteresting *N*ame. That one is even true!
> 
> Edit: should we share IFYP to save others having to dig so deep?


Well, you didn't feel his pain.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Well, you didn't feel his pain.


No but I fixed his post


----------



## kbarnes701

*Léon The Professional *arrived this morning (no sign of *The Fifth Element* yet though). Last night I watched *Terminator: Genysis* which I enjoyed more than the reviews had led me to expect I would. Some really weird anomalies, but that's typical for anything which involved time travel. And I have _*Baahubali*_ sitting here on my desk. That means the last 4 Blu-rays I have bought have all been Atmos.

Complete tally so far is 23 movies:

American Sniper
Baahubali: The Beginning
Bram Stoker's Dracula - remastered in 4K R1
Chicago (Atmos)
The Expendables 3
Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
The Gunman
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
I, Frankenstein Japanese Version
Insurgent
John Wick R1
Jupiter Ascending
Léon The Professional (Remastered)
Lucy
Mad Max: Fury Road R1
Overheard 3 R1
San Andreas
Taken 3
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Terminator Genisys 
Transcendence - Japan 
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Unbroken


----------



## petetherock

No BBC's Nature (Japanese version)?
Seriously mate, it's a whole lot better, and far more educational than TF4...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> *Léon The Professional *arrived this morning (no sign of *The Fifth Element* yet though). Last night I watched *Terminator: Genysis* which I enjoyed more than the reviews had led me to expect I would. Some really weird anomalies, but that's typical for anything which involved time travel. And I have _*Baahubali*_ sitting here on my desk. That means the last 4 Blu-rays I have bought have all been Atmos.
> 
> Complete tally so far is 23 movies:
> 
> American Sniper
> Baahubali: The Beginning
> Bram Stoker's Dracula - remastered in 4K R1
> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version
> Insurgent
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Léon The Professional (Remastered)
> Lucy
> Mad Max: Fury Road R1
> Overheard 3 R1
> San Andreas
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Terminator Genisys
> Transcendence - Japan
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Unbroken



my collection is at 16...all domestic


----------



## kbarnes701

Brian Fineberg said:


> my collection is at 16...all domestic


Yeah a fair number of mine have been imports, including imported from the USA. Now that there seems to be a fairly steady stream of Atmos Blu-rays I will soon start to be more discriminatory and start buying them because I want the movie rather than just for the sound. HST, most of my little collection has been an enjoyable watch for me. The only one I really dislike is Jupiter. Couldn't get to the end of that one. Taken 3 and TMNT are both meh but I even enjoyed watching those in a way. When I get to 30 movies I will stop giving them a separate 'Atmos' space on the shelves and put them in their proper alphabetical position I guess


----------



## thomasfxlt

Can anyone on this thread confirm that they've "streamed" something in Dolby Atmos? Please cite specifics; commercial service, platform, etc.. I will try the Atmos demo played from the VUDU app on my M series Vizio. Supposedly Comcast will offer it by 2016 on their X1 platform. I'm mostly curious right now for an example of it working at all.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> *Léon The Professional *arrived this morning (no sign of *The Fifth Element* yet though). Last night I watched *Terminator: Genysis* which I enjoyed more than the reviews had led me to expect I would. Some really weird anomalies, but that's typical for anything which involved time travel. And I have _*Baahubali*_ sitting here on my desk. That means the last 4 Blu-rays I have bought have all been Atmos.
> 
> Complete tally so far is 23 movies:
> 
> American Sniper
> Baahubali: The Beginning
> Bram Stoker's Dracula - remastered in 4K R1
> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version
> Insurgent
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Léon The Professional (Remastered)
> Lucy
> Mad Max: Fury Road R1
> Overheard 3 R1
> San Andreas
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Terminator Genisys
> Transcendence - Japan
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Unbroken


No Pixels? That movie is awesome if you were a product of the 80s'. Why kind of retro nerd are you? Where is the de-friend button


----------



## Stoked21

thomasfxlt said:


> Can anyone on this thread confirm that they've "streamed" something in Dolby Atmos? Please cite specifics; commercial service, platform, etc.. I will try the Atmos demo played from the VUDU app on my M series Vizio. Supposedly Comcast will offer it by 2016 on their X1 platform. I'm mostly curious right now for an example of it working at all.


I think you are going to find the streaming of Atmos pretty sparse right now. Yes, just about all of us can stream the Atmos demos on Vudu which is pretty much agnostic in regards to equipment.

The big thing is that Vudu and other streaming service providers are now offering some Atmos titles. BUT...they are tied to 4k content thus requiring all equipment to be HDCP 2.2 compliant. I have an entire 2.2 compliant chain and could theoretically stream these (except for my BD player). But only Roku is offering the Vudu 4k/Atmos streaming and I don't own Roku 4. 

I COULD stream Atmos on my 4k TV with Vudu app, but as mentioned Vudu is only supporting this on Roku today. My BD Player is not 2.2 compliant and Vudu app does not support streaming of 4k from it either.

In a nutshell, we are really just a few months out, less than a year, from being able to stream our Atmos titles (assuming you are 100% 2.2 compliant).


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> No Pixels? That movie is awesome if you were a product of the 80s'. Why kind of retro nerd are you? Where is the de-friend button


Haha. I did see a trailer for it the last time I went to my local Atmos theater. I may get it when it reaches the bargain bins, which surely won't be long?


----------



## petetherock

+1
Pixels: will get it on Black Friday if it goes down to $8. Or I will wait for it to drop after the initial high price.
Likewise, I am hoping to pick up Terminator Gen and Gunman on the cheap.


----------



## Molon_Labe

It was a regular price purchase for me. My other mid-life crisis outside of the corvette and home theater is retro arcade games. I just love buying and restoring them, and I am definitely stuck in the 80s'. This movie was a fun, silly pleasure for me. One of my favorites of the year. Don't judge


----------



## Kris Deering

I don't know if I could pick up Pixels, even if it was in the bargain bin. I used to like Sandler about 10-15 years ago, but now I just can't really stand his comedy. Nothing about this movie's trailer intrigued me, despite a director I typically enjoy. I have a stack of movies on my shelf I haven't gotten to yet, including some with Atmos soundtracks, my time is getting too precious for watching bad movies simply because they have some new sound format.


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah a fair number of mine have been imports, including imported from the USA. Now that there seems to be a fairly steady stream of Atmos Blu-rays I will soon start to be more discriminatory and start buying them because I want the movie rather than just for the sound. HST, most of my little collection has been an enjoyable watch for me. The only one I really dislike is Jupiter. Couldn't get to the end of that one. Taken 3 and TMNT are both meh but I even enjoyed watching those in a way. When I get to 30 movies I will stop giving them a separate 'Atmos' space on the shelves and put them in their proper alphabetical position I guess


Let me know what you think of _Baahubali: The Beginning_ after you watch it.
For some reason, I have not been able to get through _San Andreas_.
I watched the first 45 minutes and had to stop. A couple days later I continued where I left off and made it another 30 minutes.
Hope to finish it this weekend. I am a BIG fan of The Rock but just not liking this movie.


----------



## sdurani

thomasfxlt said:


> Can anyone on this thread confirm that they've "streamed" something in Dolby Atmos?


I think AVS member FilmMixer tried Man of Steel and Edge of Tomorrow in Atmos via VUDU streaming.


----------



## Stoked21

So just to update you guys on Atmos AVR/prepro status.

Yeah, yeah, I'm an Onkyo hater (I only hate the lack of crucial features on the current product line, not an Onkyo hater in general!)
But I'm also a very realistic person when it comes to calling out deficiencies on ALL products. Probably even more so with the ones I own, as I'm very critical of where I spend my money and how it then functions per my expectations.

I've owned 5 Yamahas, 3 HK (inherited), and now 1 Marantz all within the last few years. I believe I even owned a Pioneer or two way back when, but can't recall. 2 of these have been atmos, 2 have been 7.1 and the rest 5.1. Yamaha has a very warm, sweet tone to me. I love the way the amps sound. HKs seemed very sterile to me and not very dynamic. With Marantz, it's tough to say as it's a prepro unit and the sound could be colored by the preamp as well as the separate external amps. I did run my Yamaha 2040 to the same external amps and had a very comparable sound to the internal amps. So I tend to think that the sound coloration I'm hearing from Marantz is more likely to be the prepro itself than my external amps.

It just seems like it's missing that warmth I'm use to the Yamaha's exuding. It sounds great, don't get me wrong. It's just not soothing and at times can seem to be a little bright. It does still sound wonderful and I haven't adjusted tone or EQ but thought I would just add that comment.

But the big deal here is that it appears as if MANY people are experiencing problems with the brand new models (HDMI boards). Applicable to 6010, 7010, and the 7702mk2 which I own. My unit is already being sent back for a replacement. The HDMI tends to cut out to a black screen every few minutes for a second or so when running on HDMI input 1. It seems to have now migrated to other inputs as well and is only experienced with the cable STB. Yes we can question the STB, but I've ran 2 different ones, multiple different long and short HDMI cables, and 2 different TVs. Additionally, the unit won't put out the OSD to the monitor when running audio sources. This just exemplifies the likelihood of a bad HDMI board. It should be giving you a GUI when you are running Tuner or Bluetooth etc and even shows it in the manuals. Countless other people seem to be having network issues as well. It also seems the common answer on the new Marantz line, when problems are encountered, is to "factory reset" and "network reset" NUMEROUS times. Thus erasing all of your settings, audyssey included (yes you can reload them after saving to your PC). 

I've owned numerous AVRs. I've NEVER had to perform resets on them to get them to function correctly and have never had one bad out of the box. I guess I'm concerned about Marantz quality with the brand-new releases. I'm not sure a lot of testing was done prior to shipping these things......There you go Onkyo guys!!! EAT IT UP!!!  I expect a lot of grief on this admission!!!

Anyway, most of the manufacturers use the same HDMI boards. So I would be curious if the new Atmos lines from Pioneer or Yamaha XX50 line have been demonstrating similar problems. Or even the sister company Denon's. 

Probably best to limit the feedback to Atmos AVR/prepros that have HDCP 2.2, as these will likely all share similar if not the same HDMI boards.....

I guess I would just say, buyer beware at this point. It's really more of an inconvenience as they are getting replaced or repaired, but a pain in the *** none the less.


----------



## Kris Deering

Really? I comment on how the trailer for a comedy doesn't do anything for me and neither does the lead stars track record and you're going to infer that it questions my ability to do technical reviews? I don't review movies, I review hardware. And if you don't think that any MOVIE reviewer doesn't go into a movie with some kind of presupposition you're kidding yourself.

I generally have a good idea what to expect with most hardware I get in for review. I'm more than happy to report in said review if it met or exceeded my expectations or if it didn't. 

Also, professional movie reviewers have already informed me that the movie is bad. Rotten Tomatoes rates it at 17%, or should I not take that into account before I pluck my money down for my entertainment?


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> +1
> Pixels: will get it on Black Friday if it goes down to $8. Or I will wait for it to drop after the initial high price.
> Likewise, I am hoping to pick up Terminator Gen and Gunman on the cheap.


Like I said before, I enjoyed *Terminator Genysis*. It's not a great movie by any means and it pales to nothing compared with the original, but it's fun and the action scenes are well made. I also liked *The Gunma*n despite the poor reviews. They both have pretty good soundtracks.


----------



## labman1

Stoked21 said:


> So just to update you guys on Atmos AVR/prepro status.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I'm an Onkyo hater (I only hate the lack of crucial features on the current product line, not an Onkyo hater in general!)
> But I'm also a very realistic person when it comes to calling out deficiencies on ALL products. Probably even more so with the ones I own, as I'm very critical of where I spend my money and how it then functions per my expectations.
> 
> I've owned 5 Yamahas, 3 HK (inherited), and now 1 Marantz all within the last few years. I believe I even owned a Pioneer or two way back when, but can't recall. 2 of these have been atmos, 2 have been 7.1 and the rest 5.1. Yamaha has a very warm, sweet tone to me. I love the way the amps sound. HKs seemed very sterile to me and not very dynamic. With Marantz, it's tough to say as it's a prepro unit and the sound could be colored by the preamp as well as the separate external amps. I did run my Yamaha 2040 to the same external amps and had a very comparable sound to the internal amps. So I tend to think that the sound coloration I'm hearing from Marantz is more likely to be the prepro itself than my external amps.
> 
> It just seems like it's missing that warmth I'm use to the Yamaha's exuding. It sounds great, don't get me wrong. It's just not soothing and at times can seem to be a little bright. It does still sound wonderful and I haven't adjusted tone or EQ but thought I would just add that comment.
> 
> But the big deal here is that it appears as if MANY people are experiencing problems with the brand new models (HDMI boards). Applicable to 6010, 7010, and the 7702mk2 which I own. My unit is already being sent back for a replacement. The HDMI tends to cut out to a black screen every few minutes for a second or so when running on HDMI input 1. It seems to have now migrated to other inputs as well and is only experienced with the cable STB. Yes we can question the STB, but I've ran 2 different ones, multiple different long and short HDMI cables, and 2 different TVs. Additionally, the unit won't put out the OSD to the monitor when running audio sources. This just exemplifies the likelihood of a bad HDMI board. It should be giving you a GUI when you are running Tuner or Bluetooth etc and even shows it in the manuals. Countless other people seem to be having network issues as well. It also seems the common answer on the new Marantz line, when problems are encountered, is to "factory reset" and "network reset" NUMEROUS times. Thus erasing all of your settings, audyssey included (yes you can reload them after saving to your PC).
> 
> I've owned numerous AVRs. I've NEVER had to perform resets on them to get them to function correctly and have never had one bad out of the box. I guess I'm concerned about Marantz quality with the brand-new releases. I'm not sure a lot of testing was done prior to shipping these things......There you go Onkyo guys!!! EAT IT UP!!!  I expect a lot of grief on this admission!!!
> 
> Anyway, most of the manufacturers use the same HDMI boards. So I would be curious if the new Atmos lines from Pioneer or Yamaha XX50 line have been demonstrating similar problems. Or even the sister company Denon's.
> 
> Probably best to limit the feedback to Atmos AVR/prepros that have HDCP 2.2, as these will likely all share similar if not the same HDMI boards.....
> 
> I guess I would just say, buyer beware at this point. It's really more of an inconvenience as they are getting replaced or repaired, but a pain in the *** none the less.


Wow, I hate to hear this. My 8801 was great out of the box the same for the 7702. No problem with either one, sold both for the 7702Mkll and it arrives Thursday. Crossing my fingers after this post.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Let me know what you think of _Baahubali: The Beginning_ after you watch it.


Will do. I am quite looking forward to this one. However it has taken a back seat tonight to *Léon* which arrived this morning. One of my favorite movies.



tjenkins95 said:


> For some reason, I have not been able to get through _San Andreas_.
> I watched the first 45 minutes and had to stop. A couple days later I continued where I left off and made it another 30 minutes.
> Hope to finish it this weekend. I am a BIG fan of The Rock but just not liking this movie.


I enjoyed it. It's totally formulaic but very well done IMO for what it is.


----------



## Kris Deering

Molon_Labe said:


> Lets just say there is a HUGE difference between the public posting styles of guys like Ralph Potts and other product reviewers and yourself. Comments about your precious time being wasted come off as insulting and condescending as if other's time was wasted by watching it or our time is less valuable. I could care less if you liked the movie or the lead actor. Nuff said, back to Atmos.


If that is the way you see it, fine. I am not insulting anyone here or saying your time isn't valuable. I just commented that MY time isn't going to get wasted on this film. Sorry for having an opinion on an open forum or pointing out that the reasons I came to this conclusion was the trailer, the actors track record with these types of films, and professional reviews. Enjoy.


----------



## bargervais

Brian Fineberg said:


> my collection is at 16...all domestic


my collection is 20 as of yeterday adding game of thrones season 1 and 2 shall i add 10 more LOL because there are ten Blu-Rays  so I either have 22 or 30 however you want to look at it.
I Had checked my order and had a notification yesterday that my two seasons of Game of Thrones would arrive by 8PM today Nov. 3rd, I was all happy then this morning i received an e-mail they are delayed  till Dec. 18th WTF... went to Best Buy there they were i picked them up  then cancelled my order with Amazon. 
So to make a long story short I now have GOT I hope to start enjoying them tonight.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Haha. I did see a trailer for it the last time I went to my local Atmos theater. I may get it when it reaches the bargain bins, which surely won't be long?


Pixels, As far as a movie goes i didn't care for it, for one i'm not an Adam Sandler fan. I bought it for Atmos not because of the movie, and filed it with TMNT and Spy Kids in my under 13 year old catagory.
I'm glad that more Atmos Blu-Rays are now becoming more prevalent so I'll be more choosy now.


----------



## tsaiduk

is there a significant difference between 5.1.2 vs 7.1.2/7.1.4?

apologies, im new to this stuff.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tsaiduk said:


> is there a significant difference between 5.1.2 vs 7.1.2/7.1.4?
> 
> apologies, im new to this stuff.


Certainly!

Though it depends on a proper setup of each respective layout, of course.


----------



## Lesmor

tsaiduk said:


> is there a significant difference between 5.1.2 vs 7.1.2/7.1.4?
> 
> apologies, im new to this stuff.


I believe the consensus is in favour of 7.1.4 to fully appreciate Atmos
also Atmos discs are mastered with a 7.1 channel/bed.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> IFYP.
> 
> The Emo will be more than enough. It isn’t true that all amps sound the same of course. You can easily verify this by taking a $2 amp from a cheap transistor radio and comparing it with the amps in a modern AVR. But what is true is that all modern SS amps of good quality (eg amps in modern AVRs from major brands)) when working within their design parameters and not broken or clipping etc, do sound so similar to each other that they cannot be reliably differentiated in blind ABX tests. Amplifiers are simple beasts and their design was perfected decades ago and all the major parameters of their performance exhibit characteristics which are well below the human ear's capacity to resolve them. If one thinks about it, it is pretty obvious - an amplifier should pass the signal through entirely unchanged, other than in amplitude, and modern SS units do this with ease. If the amplifier has a 'sound' of its own then it is adding distortion to the signal so if you have an amp which does indeed 'sound' different to another one, then one of them is not very good or broken. It is true that some of the so-called 'audiophile' brands costing many $$$ may deliberately induce a 'house sound' but then one needs to ask why one would want to buy and amp which deliberately distorted the signal? Amplifiers should amplify - they are not tone controls.
> 
> Of course, if one uses an underpowered amp for the task and pushes it into clipping then it will sound different (distorted) to one which has more power and which is not therefore pushed into clipping. But we ought to be able to assume, on AVS, that members have chosen the power of their amps wisely, to match the requirements of their systems in term of being able to output clean sound to the SPL required in the chosen room.
> 
> Much better to buy a solid, reliable amp at a sensible price and then spend money on things which actually do make an audible difference, eg speakers, subs, acoustic treatments, SOTA room EQ like Dirac Live etc.
> 
> Of course, there are other reasons to spend a lot of $$$ on amps besides sound quality. More expensive amps _might_ have higher quality components with a longer life expectancy etc and their industrial design may be more pleasing and so on and pride of ownership or bragging rights may be higher. But nowadays, more or less any amp from a major brand will last for a very long time and fulfil its purpose, which is to pass the input signal to the output unchanged other than in amplitude.
> 
> This isn't the thread to enter into a discussion of this (there are many threads on AVS which explore these issues) so I won't be commenting again - I just wanted to put out a counterpoint to your own post to give balance.


If you stop and think about it, in any relatively mature technology this has to happen. Given that the designers and manufacturers have the same goals, the designs of all of them have to converge, and become more alike than different.

Then, they differentiate themselves in other ways...features, warranties, etc. I think that works to the common good as long as the end goal is appropriately defined.


----------



## sdurani

tsaiduk said:


> is there a significant difference between 5.1.2 vs 7.1.2/7.1.4?


The main difference is 5 speakers around you vs 7 speakers around you. IF you can hear the difference between sounds at your sides vs sounds behind you, then go for a 7.x.x speaker layout (assuming your seating away from the back wall).


----------



## kbarnes701

tsaiduk said:


> is there a significant difference between 5.1.2 vs 7.1.2/7.1.4?
> 
> apologies, im new to this stuff.


There is IMO. I think that for the full-on effect you really do need 4 ceiling speakers (or 4 upfirers if you go that route). If you are limited to 9 channels, then you have a choice of 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. The jury is out on which is best with some opting for 4 on the ceiling and others saying that 7 on the floor and 2 on the ceiling is the way to go. I guess personal preference and the room itself figure in that. If possible, I'd shoot for the holy grail of 7.1.4. I ran 5.1.4 for a while and was pleased with it, but since going to 7.1.4 I realise that this is really the way to go. A big part of Atmos is nothing to do with the overhead speakers - it is the much greater precision, immersion and involvement which comes from the listener level speakers and Atmos seems to have optimised itself for 7 floor level speakers. 

I realise this answer may have caused even more confusion in your mind, so let me summarise it this way:

If you possibly can, go for 7.1.4.

If you can't, then go for 7.1.2 and use the two ceiling speakers more or less over your head in the Top Middle position.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> A big part of Atmos is nothing to do with the overhead speakers - it is the much greater precision, immersion and involvement which comes from the listener level speakers



In the cinema world, yes. 

For us at home using consumer Atmos.... actually it _is_ all about those overheads and nothing more. 7.1 sound was not improved by Atmos technology alone. However, a fantastic side effect of the tools included with Dolby Atmos for the cinema is even better 7.1 mixes and overall more aggressive use of the surround field in these newer mixes.

But right now, at home... Atmos does nothing to improve precision. We have the same 7.1 layer with four channels of truly discrete height channels. Good stuff.


----------



## tsaiduk

Scott Simonian said:


> Certainly!
> 
> Though it depends on a proper setup of each respective layout, of course.





Lesmor said:


> I believe the consensus is in favour of 7.1.4 to fully appreciate Atmos
> also Atmos discs are mastered with a 7.1 channel/bed.





sdurani said:


> The main difference is 5 speakers around you vs 7 speakers around you. IF you can hear the difference between sounds at your sides vs sounds behind you, then go for a 7.x.x speaker layout (assuming your seating away from the back wall).


thanks guys. so assuming the seating is at the back of the wall, go with a 5.1.2?


----------



## RMK!

rmilyard said:


> So question for all you running ATMOS at home. If had friends coming over for a movie what is the one movie you would play to them? They haven't heard anything in ATMOS before so be fun to see what they think.


First, use the Dolby ATMOS demo disk as it demonstrates ATMOS better than any movie. My go to full movie for ATMOS is John Wick as it is a movie I can happily repeat watch. Mad Max Fury Road would be 2nd and then the opening chapter of Unbroken (bombing run). Gravity is very good perhaps even the best as an ATMOS title but having seen it 3 times, I'm pretty much done. 

ATMOS can almost make even a bad movie tolerable ... almost. 

Bottom line, much better to watch a good movie with a good upmixer (DSU) than a bad movie in ATMOS.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tsaiduk said:


> thanks guys. so assuming the seating is at the back of the wall, go with a 5.1.2?


Most likely, yes. But if your side walls can accommodate some side surrounds slightly ahead of your listening position... go for the full 7.1 layout.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Stoked21 said:


> So just to update you guys on Atmos AVR/prepro status.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I'm an Onkyo hater (I only hate the lack of crucial features on the current product line, not an Onkyo hater in general!)
> But I'm also a very realistic person when it comes to calling out deficiencies on ALL products. Probably even more so with the ones I own, as I'm very critical of where I spend my money and how it then functions per my expectations.
> 
> I've owned 5 Yamahas, 3 HK (inherited), and now 1 Marantz all within the last few years. I believe I even owned a Pioneer or two way back when, but can't recall. 2 of these have been atmos, 2 have been 7.1 and the rest 5.1. Yamaha has a very warm, sweet tone to me. I love the way the amps sound. HKs seemed very sterile to me and not very dynamic. With Marantz, it's tough to say as it's a prepro unit and the sound could be colored by the preamp as well as the separate external amps. I did run my Yamaha 2040 to the same external amps and had a very comparable sound to the internal amps. So I tend to think that the sound coloration I'm hearing from Marantz is more likely to be the prepro itself than my external amps.
> 
> It just seems like it's missing that warmth I'm use to the Yamaha's exuding. It sounds great, don't get me wrong. It's just not soothing and at times can seem to be a little bright. It does still sound wonderful and I haven't adjusted tone or EQ but thought I would just add that comment.
> 
> But the big deal here is that it appears as if MANY people are experiencing problems with the brand new models (HDMI boards). Applicable to 6010, 7010, and the 7702mk2 which I own. My unit is already being sent back for a replacement. The HDMI tends to cut out to a black screen every few minutes for a second or so when running on HDMI input 1. It seems to have now migrated to other inputs as well and is only experienced with the cable STB. Yes we can question the STB, but I've ran 2 different ones, multiple different long and short HDMI cables, and 2 different TVs. Additionally, the unit won't put out the OSD to the monitor when running audio sources. This just exemplifies the likelihood of a bad HDMI board. It should be giving you a GUI when you are running Tuner or Bluetooth etc and even shows it in the manuals. Countless other people seem to be having network issues as well. It also seems the common answer on the new Marantz line, when problems are encountered, is to "factory reset" and "network reset" NUMEROUS times. Thus erasing all of your settings, audyssey included (yes you can reload them after saving to your PC).
> 
> I've owned numerous AVRs. I've NEVER had to perform resets on them to get them to function correctly and have never had one bad out of the box. I guess I'm concerned about Marantz quality with the brand-new releases. I'm not sure a lot of testing was done prior to shipping these things......There you go Onkyo guys!!! EAT IT UP!!!  I expect a lot of grief on this admission!!!
> 
> Anyway, most of the manufacturers use the same HDMI boards. So I would be curious if the new Atmos lines from Pioneer or Yamaha XX50 line have been demonstrating similar problems. Or even the sister company Denon's.
> 
> Probably best to limit the feedback to Atmos AVR/prepros that have HDCP 2.2, as these will likely all share similar if not the same HDMI boards.....
> 
> I guess I would just say, buyer beware at this point. It's really more of an inconvenience as they are getting replaced or repaired, but a pain in the *** none the less.


FWIW, before purchasing my current TX-NR1030, I had researched it quite a bit. Over the past few years, Onkyos seemed to suffer HDMI board failures.

In most cases, it appeared to be a case of the electrolytic capacitors drying out and failing because of the heat.

I bought two 5 1/4" PC fans which run (was "rub") constantly on top of the AVR...and, I left lots of circulation room for air around the AVR.

It may not prevent HDMI failure, but at least I have not added to the problem by shoespooning it into a cabinet.

An ounce of prevention and all that...


----------



## sdurani

tsaiduk said:


> so assuming the seating is at the back of the wall, go with a 5.1.2?


Yes, since there is no space behind you for the rear speakers. Better to do a proper 5.1 layout that try to shoe-horn a poor 7.1 where it doesn't fit.


----------



## tsaiduk

kbarnes701 said:


> There is IMO. I think that for the full-on effect you really do need 4 ceiling speakers (or 4 upfirers if you go that route). If you are limited to 9 channels, then you have a choice of 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. The jury is out on which is best with some opting for 4 on the ceiling and others saying that 7 on the floor and 2 on the ceiling is the way to go. I guess personal preference and the room itself figure in that. If possible, I'd shoot for the holy grail of 7.1.4. I ran 5.1.4 for a while and was pleased with it, but since going to 7.1.4 I realise that this is really the way to go. A big part of Atmos is nothing to do with the overhead speakers - it is the much greater precision, immersion and involvement which comes from the listener level speakers and Atmos seems to have optimised itself for 7 floor level speakers.
> 
> I realise this answer may have caused even more confusion in your mind, so let me summarise it this way:
> 
> If you possibly can, go for 7.1.4.
> 
> If you can't, then go for 7.1.2 and use the two ceiling speakers more or less over your head in the Top Middle position.


i was already confused from the get go. so i can just purchase regular ceiling speakers? or would they have to be "atmos" specified. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Most likely, yes. But if your side walls can accommodate some side surrounds slightly ahead of your listening position... go for the full 7.1 layout.


can you exemplify on this, scott?


----------



## tsaiduk

sdurani said:


> Yes, since there is no space behind you for the rear speakers. Better to do a proper 5.1 layout that try to shoe-horn a poor 7.1 where it doesn't fit.


would this be an example of what scott suggested?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> In the cinema world, yes.
> 
> For us at home using consumer Atmos.... actually it _is_ all about those overheads and nothing more. 7.1 sound was not improved by Atmos technology alone. However, a fantastic side effect of the tools included with Dolby Atmos for the cinema is even better 7.1 mixes and overall more aggressive use of the surround field in these newer mixes.


Yeah, that's what I said, Scott. The greater precision with which sounds are placed in the entire 3D soundstage is as important as the overhead effects 



Scott Simonian said:


> But right now, at home... Atmos does nothing to improve precision. We have the same 7.1 layer with four channels of truly discrete height channels. Good stuff.


That isn't what I hear here. If I take a movie that I have in regular 5.1/7.1 and compare it with the Atmos version, I do indeed hear considerable improvements in sonic placement.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tsaiduk said:


> can you exemplify on this, scott?


I have no idea what the layout of your room is.

But... some people sit at the back wall but still have room at the side walls for side speakers. Most just don't bother trying to put side surrounds there because they assume the surrounds shouldn't ever be forward of you. With 7.1, this is okay. With 5.1 audio, not so much. 

It is possible to do a decent 7.1 system when sitting at the back wall.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, that's what I said, Scott. The greater precision with which sounds are placed in the entire 3D soundstage is as important as the overhead effects
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I hear here. If I take a movie that I have in regular 5.1/7.1 and compare it with the Atmos version, I do indeed hear considerable improvements in sonic placement.


You're comparing two different movies/mixes, Keith. That's not applicable and totally irrelevant. 

I specified exactly why these Atmos mixes sound better, the content creators have the tools and incentive to create even better mixes.

Watch a movie that is in Atmos in 'conventional' 7.1 audio and the precision is the same at home.


----------



## sdurani

tsaiduk said:


> would this be an example of what scott suggested?


Sounds intended to come from your sides will instead come from in front of you and sounds intended to come from behind you will instead come from your sides. If you're determined to do 7 speakers, then you can try what Scott suggested to see if you like the effect. If you end up not linking it, then you can re-designate the speakers forward of you as wides and re-designate the speakers at your sides as surrounds, which would give you an alternate 7.1 layout (5.1 + wides).


----------



## scarabaeus

So, my GoT Season 1 is out for delivery, but Amazon just wrote me about Season 2 that I can expect it around December 18th, and it shows "out of stock" on the site.

Anyone has theirs on the way, and they just ran out of copies, or did they botch the pressing? I Pre-ordered mine in August, so they should have had enough time to manufacture a sufficient amount.

Also, dug around on Vudu for Atmos / UHD titles:


San Andreas
Man of Steel
Edge of Tomorrow
Jupiter Ascending
Into the Storm
"Man of Steel", "Edge of Tomorrow" and "Into the Storm" are not available on Blu-ray in Atmos. Only checked the 2 minute previews, of those "Into the Storm" had the most impressive Atmos mix.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Scott Simonian said:


> You're comparing two different movies/mixes, Keith. That's not applicable and totally irrelevant.
> 
> I specified exactly why these Atmos mixes sound better, the content creators have the tools and incentive to create even better mixes.
> 
> Watch a movie that is in Atmos in 'conventional' 7.1 audio and the precision is the same at home.


But, all other things being equal (which, of course, they are not...) given the same room (home theater), wouldn't a 7.1 layout yield "better" precision than a 5.1 layout in that same room?

I have a real reason for asking as I am considering going from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 in my HT. If there is not a detectable difference, I may not bother. My room is 14.5 wide x 19.5 long. I have two rows of seats--the back row is about 14' from the 92" Stewart screen at the front of the room.


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> "Man of Steel", "Edge of Tomorrow" and "Into the Storm" are not available on Blu-ray in Atmos.


Smart of them to pick some titles not on BD.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Sounds intended to come from your sides will instead come from in front of you and sounds intended to come from behind you will instead come from your sides.


You say this as if the side sounds would be coming from directly in front of you instead of just slightly more ahead and to the side than perfectly to the side. You'll still hear an effect to your side, just not 90 degrees to your side.

Anyone with a well laid out 7.1 system that also has a back row will have sound that will sound this way in the back row. It will still sound much more enveloping than if that same room layout had only a 5.1 system.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Scott Simonian said:


> You say this as if the side sounds would be coming from directly in front of you instead of just slightly more ahead and to the side than perfectly to the side.
> 
> Anyone with a well laid out 7.1 system that also has a back row will have sound that will sound this way in the back row. It will still sound much more enveloping than if that same room layout had only a 5.1 system.


This answers the question that I just posted.

Thanks...


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Smart of them to pick some titles not on BD.


More like:


----------



## HT-Eman

kbarnes701 said:


> *Léon The Professional *arrived this morning (no sign of *The Fifth Element* yet though). Last night I watched *Terminator: Genysis* which I enjoyed more than the reviews had led me to expect I would. Some really weird anomalies, but that's typical for anything which involved time travel. And I have _*Baahubali*_ sitting here on my desk. That means the last 4 Blu-rays I have bought have all been Atmos.
> 
> Complete tally so far is 23 movies:
> 
> American Sniper
> Baahubali: The Beginning
> Bram Stoker's Dracula - remastered in 4K R1
> Chicago (Atmos)
> The Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> The Gunman
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> I, Frankenstein Japanese Version
> Insurgent
> John Wick R1
> Jupiter Ascending
> Léon The Professional (Remastered)
> Lucy
> Mad Max: Fury Road R1
> Overheard 3 R1
> San Andreas
> Taken 3
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> Terminator Genisys
> Transcendence - Japan
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Unbroken


I'm at 23 atmos also . Still want to add Transcendence , lucy , and I Frankenstein to the collection . I have a Chinese one called Helios that I got from here http://www.ebay.com/itm/Helios-2015...titles-Dolby-Atmos-Jacky-Cheung-/281788685147 and I like the Baahubali movie as well. I just can't comment on the atmos effects because I have no avr. But that still doesn't stop me from adding on my collection of atmos titles.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> You say this as if the side sounds would be coming from directly in front of you instead of just slightly more ahead and to the side than perfectly to the side.


I didn't use the word "directly", nor did I pass judgment on the effect (merely described it).


> Anyone with a well laid out 7.1 system that also has a back row will have sound that will sound this way in the back row.


Anyone with a well laid out 7.1 will still have the rear speakers _behind_ the back row, not at the sides. Can't do that when the seating is at the back wall.


> It will still sound much more enveloping than if that same room layout had only a 5.1 system.


Which is why I suggested an alternative 7.1 layout.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Anyone with a well laid out 7.1 will still have the rear speakers _behind_ the back row, not at the sides. Can't do that when the seating is at the back wall.


This is true. Though we don't know if he has the option of moving his seats even just one foot from the back wall. That would help.

Pictures would help.


----------



## bkeeler10

petetherock said:


> I had to dig hard to find out what IFYP means





kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry mate. I do tend to use a lot of these acronym things IYKWIM. I assume the dreaded auto-correct futzed your post for you. The neatest CIA I know of is the one for PCMCIA. *P*eople *C*an't *M*emorise *C*omputer *I*ndustry *A*cronymns.  Another one I like is TWAIN - *T*hing *W*ithout *A*n* I*nteresting *N*ame. That one is even true!
> 
> Edit: should we share IFYP to save others having to dig so deep?


I think I figured out IFYP, only after rereading the post. But, Keith, I'm embarrassed to admit how long it took me to figure out what HST means. It was just yesterday or today actually


----------



## KennyLSU

RMK! said:


> First, use the Dolby ATMOS demo disk as it demonstrates ATMOS better than any movie. My go to full movie for ATMOS is John Wick as it is a movie I can happily repeat watch. Mad Max Fury Road would be 2nd and then the opening chapter of Unbroken (bombing run). Gravity is very good perhaps even the best as an ATMOS title but having seen it 3 times, I'm pretty much done.
> 
> ATMOS can almost make even a bad movie tolerable ... almost.
> 
> Bottom line, much better to watch a good movie with a good upmixer (DSU) than a bad movie in ATMOS.


How are people using the demo discs if they do not have access to a physical disc? Are you downloading a torrent file? How are you playing the torrent? Through Kodi?


----------



## kbarnes701

tsaiduk said:


> i was already confused from the get go. so i can just purchase regular ceiling speakers? or would they have to be "atmos" specified.


Regular ceiling speakers are fine. But try to choose speakers with a wide dispersion pattern, which is what Dolby recommend. I use Tannoy Di5DCs and am very pleased with them.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I have no idea what the layout of your room is.
> 
> But... some people sit at the back wall but still have room at the side walls for side speakers. Most just don't bother trying to put side surrounds there because they assume the surrounds shouldn't ever be forward of you. With 7.1, this is okay. With 5.1 audio, not so much.
> 
> It is possible to do a decent 7.1 system when sitting at the back wall.





Scott Simonian said:


> You're comparing two different movies/mixes, Keith. That's not applicable and totally irrelevant.
> 
> I specified exactly why these Atmos mixes sound better, the content creators have the tools and incentive to create even better mixes.
> 
> Watch a movie that is in Atmos in 'conventional' 7.1 audio and the precision is the same at home.


Well of course it is. I am talking of two different mixes. The Atmos mix exhibits much greater precision of sound placement in the 3D soundstage. It is Atmos which makes the difference. Thus, Atmos is not solely about overhead effects. It is also about greater sonic precision at ear level.


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> I'm at 23 atmos also . Still want to add Transcendence , lucy , and I Frankenstein to the collection . I have a Chinese one called Helios that I got from here http://www.ebay.com/itm/Helios-2015...titles-Dolby-Atmos-Jacky-Cheung-/281788685147 and I like the Baahubali movie as well. I just can't comment on the atmos effects because I have no avr. But that still doesn't stop me from adding on my collection of atmos titles.


No AVR but collecting Atmos titles anyway! Kudos!! 

I'll check out Helios. I generally enjoy good Chinese and HK movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> I think I figured out IFYP, only after rereading the post. But, Keith, I'm embarrassed to admit how long it took me to figure out what HST means. It was just yesterday or today actually


 ISTR that there is an online resource for this someplace BICBW. HST, I can't be bothered to look  FWIW, I still come across some that I struggle with IYKWIM. IIRC though, they are mostly from my daughters. TBH it can be quite good fun figuring them out sometimes. Of course YMMV.


----------



## stikle

gene4ht said:


> Thanks Seth! I have no concern with the power rating. But since the M5010 is on my short list with a 6200, I'm just looking for confirmation that they "play nice" together.
> 
> BTW: Just out of curiosity, if you do get a chance to look at which pre-out you're currently sending to the 5010, I would appreciate it...thx again!



Looks like I'm using the TR pre-outs for the M5010. I should have written it down, but pretty sure that's correct.


----------



## RMK!

KennyLSU said:


> How are people using the demo discs if they do not have access to a physical disc? Are you downloading a torrent file? How are you playing the torrent? Through Kodi?



No idea as I have the physical disk. I have seen it listed on Vudu for streaming but I've never actually checked it out.


----------



## gene4ht

stikle said:


> Looks like I'm using the TR pre-outs for the M5010. I should have written it down, but pretty sure that's correct.


Thanks...I'll likely do the same!


----------



## gene4ht

KennyLSU said:


> How are people using the demo discs if they do not have access to a physical disc? Are you downloading a torrent file? How are you playing the torrent? Through Kodi?


Downloaded the torrent and burned it to disc...


----------



## bargervais

scarabaeus said:


> So, my GoT Season 1 is out for delivery, but Amazon just wrote me about Season 2 that I can expect it around December 18th, and it shows "out of stock" on the site.
> 
> Anyone has theirs on the way, and they just ran out of copies, or did they botch the pressing? I Pre-ordered mine in August, so they should have had enough time to manufacture a sufficient amount.
> 
> Also, dug around on Vudu for Atmos / UHD titles:
> 
> 
> San Andreas
> Man of Steel
> Edge of Tomorrow
> Jupiter Ascending
> Into the Storm
> "Man of Steel", "Edge of Tomorrow" and "Into the Storm" are not available on Blu-ray in Atmos. Only checked the 2 minute previews, of those "Into the Storm" had the most impressive Atmos mix.


I had both as on there way early this morning, then around 10:AM i got an E-mail saying they will be delayed till Dec.18th 
I went to Best Buy they had them i bought them there and came back and cancelled my Amazon orders. I now have both seasons in my hand for the same price as on Amazon $39.95 each.


----------



## virtualrain

I have a 5.2.4 setup with placement according to Dolby specs with my surrounds at about 110-degrees behind and off to the sides of the MLP and so have four speakers behind and five in front as well as four overhead and five at ear level offering a great bubble of sound... and I couldn't be happier. The surround sound is much more fulfilling than I ever experienced with my old 7.1 setup. But as kbarnes701 says, much of that might actually be due to the improved sound tracks that an Atmos mix seems to provide. 

Some day I may go to 7.2.4 by I'm in no rush.

My advice to anyone limited to 9 channels is to go 5.x.4 but ensure your surrounds are a bit behind the MLP, not just 90-deg to the sides... I'm fairly certain that would not provide a satisfactory immersive experience.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> ISTR that there is an online resource for this someplace BICBW. HST, I can't be bothered to look  FWIW, I still come across some that I struggle with IYKWIM. IIRC though, they are mostly from my daughters. TBH it can be quite good fun figuring them out sometimes. Of course YMMV.


ICSI WAWTA


----------



## rontalley

KennyLSU said:


> How are people using the demo discs if they do not have access to a physical disc? Are you downloading a torrent file? How are you playing the torrent? Through Kodi?


Shhhh... Don't tell anyone I told you this but the Demo Disc are very, super, uber, terribly hard to come by and must be "given" to you by an "authorized" dealer... however, some other people have found that watching a trailer on youtube is no different than watching the demo disc on youtube...

Saying all that, youtube does not offer atmos but you might find luck playing the .m2ts files that "others" have reported to be found at demo-world.

Try googling amaze lossless demo...

Disclaimer, if you do happen to find these files then be sure to realize that unless you have been authorized to demo these atmos tracks on your atmos enabled AVR then these demos were not meant to be played without prior authorization and you will go to jail because surely these demos were not meant to be shared publicly.


----------



## rontalley

virtualrain said:


> I have a *5*.2.*4* setup with placement according to Dolby specs with my surrounds at about 110-degrees behind and off to the sides of the MLP and so have *four speakers behind* and *five in front* as well as *four overhead* and five at ear level offering a great bubble of sound... and I couldn't be happier. The surround sound is much more fulfilling than I ever experienced with my old 7.1 setup. But as kbarnes701 says, much of that might actually be due to the improved sound tracks that an Atmos mix seems to provide.
> 
> Some day I may go to *7*.2.*4* by I'm in no rush.
> 
> My advice to anyone limited to 9 channels is to go 5.x.4 but ensure your surrounds are a bit behind the MLP, not just 90-deg to the sides... I'm fairly certain that would not provide a satisfactory immersive experience.


4+5+4=13

Oh, you are counting your surrounds and top rear as 4 speakers behind the mlp and top front and l/c/r as 5 speakers forward of mlp! Was confusing at first.

Read like you had ss,rs,wides,l/c/r and 4 ceilings.


----------



## Stoked21

virtualrain said:


> I have a 5.2.4 setup with placement according to Dolby specs with my surrounds at about 110-degrees behind and off to the sides of the MLP and so have four speakers behind and five in front as well as four overhead and five at ear level offering a great bubble of sound... and I couldn't be happier. The surround sound is much more fulfilling than I ever experienced with my old 7.1 setup. But as kbarnes701 says, much of that might actually be due to the improved sound tracks that an Atmos mix seems to provide.
> 
> Some day I may go to 7.2.4 by I'm in no rush.
> 
> My advice to anyone limited to 9 channels is to go 5.x.4 but ensure your surrounds are a bit behind the MLP, not just 90-deg to the sides... I'm fairly certain that would not provide a satisfactory immersive experience.


Wrong wrong wrong wrong......

I agree with the 5.2.4 over 7.2.2. It is a preference and some will disagree. I just feel that the tops are incomplete without TF and TR both. I do feel the bed suffers in a 5.2.4 unless you have your surrounds further back than 90 degrees at about 110 or so. But I'm on 7.2.4 now, so it doesn't really matter to me.

HOWEVER, you will find more and more people are running their surrounds in FRONT of them, not just at 90 degrees. I personally run mine at 55!!!! Almost dead center between my front mains and surround backs. I know this will result in the imaging not being as intended by the mix. The immersive experience is actually far better that way when your seating is closer to the back wall. Once we can run 9.2.4, then my current surrounds will simple be connected as wides.

I bet if you actually tried it, you would agree. Most people are just too afraid to try it and want to bad mouth it because it's outside of dolby spec. Oh well, your loss!


----------



## rontalley

Stoked21 said:


> Wrong wrong wrong wrong......
> 
> I agree with the 5.2.4 over 7.2.2. It is a preference and some will disagree. I just feel that the tops are incomplete without TF and TR both. I do feel the bed suffers in a 5.2.4 unless you have your surrounds further back than 90 degrees at about 110 or so. But I'm on 7.2.4 now, so it doesn't really matter to me.
> 
> HOWEVER, you will find more and more people are running their surrounds in FRONT of them, not just at 90 degrees. I personally run mine at 55!!!! Almost dead center between my front mains and surround backs. I know this will result in the imaging not being as intended by the mix. The immersive experience is actually far better that way when your seating is closer to the back wall. Once we can run 9.2.4, then my current surrounds will simple be connected as wides.
> 
> I bet if you actually tried it, you would agree. Most people are just too afraid to try it and want to bad mouth it because it's outside of dolby spec. Oh well, your loss!


When you say run the surrounds in front, is that only in a 7.x.x configuration? Seems odd to run the surround in front if there are no rears...

There is definitely a hole between surrounds and fronts but that is what wides are intended for. Because of my layout, my fronts are spread out further than normal but it actually works out because that hole is somewhat filled. 

I think we need 7-9 speaker bed, 4 height, and 4-6 ceilings. AWould love for sound to travel up the wall as well as come from overhead.

What would be cool is to have an AVR that can talk to an 8 channel Atmos extender! Configure the extender to say what speakers it will feed and then send that pre out to an amp while the AVR plays the bed and sends the atmos stuff to the extenders! Easy Button!


----------



## scarabaeus

bargervais said:


> I had both as on there way early this morning, then around 10:AM i got an E-mail saying they will be delayed till Dec.18th
> I went to Best Buy they had them i bought them there and came back and cancelled my Amazon orders. I now have both seasons in my hand for the same price as on Amazon $39.95 each.


Yep, both of them are now "out of stock" at Amazon. Season 1 says "2 to 3 weeks", and season 2 is at "we'll let you now". Seems to be more popular than anticipated by them.


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> When you say run the surrounds in front, is that only in a 7.x.x configuration? Seems odd to run the surround in front if there are no rears...
> 
> !


Yes I'm speaking about 7.2.4 in particular. It benefits from using the surrounds in a surround wide position. Immensely. With 2 rows, its basically a necessity IMO. Would I run my surrounds in the traditional, as specified, position if I could simultaneously run surround wides? Well of course. But 9.2.4 or greater doesn't exist today in consumer market. 

The idea of a prepro extender box is intriguing. If you could pass through the HDMI signal to this box and actively select additional channels for "simulation". The problem is that the algorithm for the DSP doesn't exist today for that many channels. And when it does, it will either be expensive as hell and/or those channels will be supported by the new AVR releases from all the manufs anyway. The only benefit I could see today is that we could process wides and TM and it would extend our 7.2.4 to 9.2.6. It wouldn't be possible to do anything more than that. I guess it will be interesting to see what Dolby does after 15 channels. Will they next incorporate RH and FH to bring us to 19 channels? Who knows.

I know there are some individuals who've ran multiple AVRs to accomplish this. I actually messed with it for a day and managed to turn my 9.2 system into an 11.4 system. There was a delay on the second AVR and I never tried to fine tune it. But you also have to keep in mind that this, like with an "extender" box, wouldn't sound quite correct. Some of the audio that is processed and sent to various channels is based on it's knowledge of what speakers are or are not present. Therefore you would end up with certain objects/images being duplicated and potentially being significantly more prominent than intended by the studio. Would it sound cool? Sure, but you will end up with a complete mess of imaging and object duplication....


----------



## bargervais

scarabaeus said:


> Yep, both of them are now "out of stock" at Amazon. Season 1 says "2 to 3 weeks", and season 2 is at "we'll let you now". Seems to be more popular than anticipated by them.


And I pre-ordered GOT season 1 and 2 back in August so there is no reason for them not to anticipate the needs of the many.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Well of course it is. I am talking of two different mixes. The Atmos mix exhibits much greater precision of sound placement in the 3D soundstage. It is Atmos which makes the difference. Thus, Atmos is not solely about overhead effects. It is also about greater sonic precision at ear level.


At the home, Atmos is not what is improving this "precision" though, Keith. You're hearing a better mix. These better mixes are a side effect of better content creation. These mixes could have existed in 7.1 audio and sounded just as precise.

Playback any Atmos movie in 7.1 and it will sound just as "precise"... just lacking overhead action.


You seemed convinced that it's the actual Atmos technology that is making it sound "better" in this way. It's not.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> Why do people change the second octet? There are 7 bed channels, 1 sub channel, and 4 overhead channels. Even if one has 6 subs, it is still one LFE channel to six devices, so it is still 7.1.4. Just curious......


Oy...... here we go with the "x.SUBWOOFERS.x" nomenclature discussion again.... strap in..... 

(BTW - the answer to "Why?" is "because people like to show off how many subs they have"... I always say 7.1.4 personally)


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> At the home, Atmos is not what is improving this "precision" though, Keith. You're hearing a better mix. These better mixes are a side effect of better content creation. These mixes could have existed in 7.1 audio and sounded just as precise.
> 
> Playback any Atmos movie in 7.1 and it will sound just as "precise"... just lacking overhead action.
> 
> 
> You seemed convinced that it's the actual Atmos technology that is making it sound "better" in this way. It's not.


(Leaving aside any impact of elevated objects) I too don't understand how 7 speakers producing 7 channels of sound can sound any more "precise" whether they are traditional channels or object audio. (Plus I would bet the vast majority of the content is still "bed" stuff which IS channel based)

For home Atmos you gain NOTHING in terms of resolution on the horizontal plane vs. traditional 7.1 ... I don't think these benefits will truly be realized until we are able to add additional channels to get to 9+ listener level speakers for 9.1.4+ and can start experiencing increased resolution vs. the 7.1 standard.

(Cue Dan Hitchman to lecture us about the benefits of "pan through arrays" at the >11ch CEDIA demos)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Why do people change the second octet? There are 7 bed channels, 1 sub channel, and 4 overhead channels. Even if one has 6 subs, it is still one LFE channel to six devices, so it is still 7.1.4. Just curious......


There are two acceptable ways of using this.

One describes the encoding itself. Like a disc has a 5.1 track or a 7.1 audio track. It's not a 7.2 track because you have two subwoofers. It's still a 7.1 audio encoding. It would be okay to call a brand new Atmos Blu-ray a 7.1.4 "mix" but really ....technically it's a 24.1.10 "mix". 

Objects, yo. Out of this world! 


The other describes the system itself. If you had a full Neo:X system a few years ago, you'd see it described as a 11.1 system because there are four new speakers added to a conventional 7.1 system. Hence the 11.1 designation. I don't remember but I think Dolby coined the new description for counting lower layer and height layer with the x.x.x scheme. First number is the bottom layer, the next is how many subwoofers you have and the last is how many height speakers you have.

I own a 7.1 system with six overheads so it's a 7.1.6 system. I guess I could list the amount of subs I have but I'm not sure how I should count them. I guess it would be a 7.7.6 system or maybe 7.14.6.. idk. 7.1.6 is fine with me. I've got enough subs to not worry about listing them all. 


Sooo..... do whatever. I don't think anyone cares anymore.  Enjoy your 7.2.4 system or 7.1.4 system or whatever.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> (Leaving aside any impact of elevated objects) I too don't understand how 7 speakers producing 7 channels of sound can sound any more "precise" whether they are traditional channels or object audio. (Plus I would bet the vast majority of the content is still "bed" stuff which IS channel based)
> 
> For home Atmos you gain NOTHING in terms of resolution on the horizontal plane vs. traditional 7.1 ... I don't think these benefits will truly be realized until we are able to add additional channels to get to 9+ listener level speakers for 9.1.4+ and can start experiencing increased resolution vs. the 7.1 standard.
> 
> (Cue Dan Hitchman to lecture us about the benefits of "pan through arrays" at the >11ch CEDIA demos)


Not patient enough for Dan's thoughts but we know. We know. 

Yes, you are correct. There is no additional "precision" because there is no additional vectors utilized nor additional granularity of positioning really being a thought. You have a side stereo pair and a rear stereo pair. Just like regular 7.1 audio. 


Now when you get a Trinnov (or whatever) and have 20 surround speakers.... then preach on about how extra "precise" all dem Atmos movies are.


----------



## bargervais

Just got home and popped in the first disk of GOT season one, it starts off with the Atmos unfold demo. Then it asks if I want to watch all episodes I chose just episode one for now. When it started I thought something was a miss it was only playing in 5.1, I thought for sure the Atmos tract would play by default, but no I had to choose it. I immediately noticed the difference, it is great. I will not comment on weather or not the ceiling speakers are in great use as I'm done with climbing on chairs and ladders wondering if it's a great use of Atmos from above or not. I think it has a great immersive sound and that's all that's important to me.


----------



## thomasfxlt

virtualrain said:


> I have a 5.2.4 setup with placement according to Dolby specs with my surrounds at about 110-degrees behind and off to the sides of the MLP and so have four speakers behind and five in front as well as four overhead and five at ear level offering a great bubble of sound... and I couldn't be happier. The surround sound is much more fulfilling than I ever experienced with my old 7.1 setup. But as kbarnes701 says, much of that might actually be due to the improved sound tracks that an Atmos mix seems to provide.
> 
> Some day I may go to 7.2.4 by I'm in no rush.
> 
> My advice to anyone limited to 9 channels is to go 5.x.4 but ensure your surrounds are a bit behind the MLP, not just 90-deg to the sides... I'm fairly certain that would not provide a satisfactory immersive experience.



This exactly what I did. In fact I used my older Monitor Audio Silverfx surrounds that have speakers on either side of the box at about 45deg. These do a great job of filling the back. I did a 5.1.4 setup with Tf and Tb. It sounds great.


----------



## Charles R

Molon_Labe said:


> Even if one has 6 subs, it is still one LFE channel to six devices, so it is still 7.1.4. Just curious......


To a large degree I think it represents a better understanding of their configuration which can used as a basis for their (posted) experiences. We all know there is one LFE channel but we don't know how many subs someone is referencing unless it's noted. I can only speak for myself but I do weigh posts about x based on their y... in both directions. As an example someone with six subs stating I need two would carry a lot less weight than someone with one (or two).


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> Why do people change the second octet?


To describe their speaker layout. The X.x nomenclature war originally meant to describe the number of discrete channels in a soundtrack: e.g., 6.1 vs 5.1 EX (discrete surround-back channel vs matrix extracted surround-back channel, respectively). Since then, that nomenclature has been increasingly used to describe a speaker layout. Which is understandable, since it is a quick and convenient description. 

But that means the number has to be read in context. If you tell me that you have a 7.2 set-up, I shouldn't assume that all your sources include 7 discrete full range channels and 2 discrete LFE channels. It should be clear from the context that you're talking about a speaker layout, not source channels.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> To describe their speaker layout. The X.x nomenclature war originally meant to describe the number of discrete channels in a soundtrack: e.g., 6.1 vs 5.1 EX (discrete surround-back channel vs matrix extracted surround-back channel, respectively). Since then, that nomenclature has been increasingly used to describe a speaker layout. Which is understandable, since it is a quick and convenient description.
> 
> But that means the number has to be read in context. If you tell me that you have a 7.2 set-up, I shouldn't assume that all your sources include 7 discrete full range channels and 2 discrete LFE channels. It should be clear from the context that you're talking about a speaker layout, not source channels.


Yep, I use it to interpret and express what an individual's speaker layout is. I have 2 subs, hence me always referencing .2.

More so though, I typically reference it as a system's capabilities with regards to the HW. x.4.x---oh, you have Onkyo. x.2.x, any of the others. Or if I tell someone to check out a particular AVR, I'll call it a .2 so they know it has a certain number of sub preouts. 

It's really just easier for a lot of reasons. Why not...


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> Lets just say there is a HUGE difference between the public posting styles of guys like Ralph Potts and other product reviewers and yourself. Comments about your precious time being wasted come off as insulting and condescending as if other's time was wasted by watching it or our time is less valuable. I could care less if you liked the movie or the lead actor. Nuff said, back to Atmos.


Professional audio/video reviewers/writers are also human people like us, who are also professionals in our own mastering craft. 

* With roughly two dozen Blu-ray movies encoded with Dolby Atmos, all pro reviewers can afford investing in them to give us their take.  
...With all their honest likes and dislikes (flicks); we can take it. 

Some movies I wouldn't take the time to watch myself; I don't need to enumerate them, they are the exact same that you too wouldn't even consider watching.


----------



## pasender91

What happens as well is that this second octet is aways .1 as there is only one LFE, so it is really a waste of 2 characters to write .1 everytime 
So i am also in the camp that prefers using these useless characters .1 for something useful in the description, the count of subwoofers


----------



## NorthSky

Kris Deering said:


> If that is the way you see it, fine. I am not insulting anyone here or saying your time isn't valuable. I just commented that MY time isn't going to get wasted on this film. Sorry for having an opinion on an open forum or pointing out that the reasons I came to this conclusion was the trailer, the actors track record with these types of films, and professional reviews. Enjoy.


Kris, do you have kids (young teenager boys) that might enjoy *'Pixels'* in 3D (& Dolby Atmos) in your household?


----------



## NorthSky

tsaiduk said:


> so assuming the seating is at the back of the wall, go with a 5.1.2?


Yes.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Most likely, yes. But if your side walls can accommodate some side surrounds slightly ahead of your listening position... go for the full 7.1 layout.


7.1.2 ... yes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> 7.1.2 ... yes.


Of course.

First things first though. He asked if there was a worthy improvement going from 5.1 to 7.1 in an Atmos system.


----------



## bargervais

Kris Deering said:


> I don't know if I could pick up Pixels, even if it was in the bargain bin. I used to like Sandler about 10-15 years ago, but now I just can't really stand his comedy. Nothing about this movie's trailer intrigued me, despite a director I typically enjoy. I have a stack of movies on my shelf I haven't gotten to yet, including some with Atmos soundtracks, my time is getting too precious for watching bad movies simply because they have some new sound format.


Thank you I thought I was the only one. There are only a couple movies with him in that I actually liked, but anyway this one was not one of them.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> Personal preference. BTW, looking at your diagram, I would move the side speaker slightly forward to the edge of the window and move the rear speakers to the back corners of the room.



Just wanted to see if the ceiling speakers placement (TF & TB) are in the right vicinity or if more or less spacing is needed. The widows are 4' (w) x 5' (l) and centered on the 20' wall.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Yep, I use it to interpret and express what an individual's speaker layout is. I have 2 subs, hence me always referencing .2.
> 
> More so though, I typically reference it as a system's capabilities with regards to the HW. x.4.x---oh, you have Onkyo. x.2.x, any of the others. Or if I tell someone to check out a particular AVR, I'll call it a .2 so they know it has a certain number of sub preouts.
> 
> It's really just easier for a lot of reasons. Why not...


And here's a good point why specifically describing one's system setup is better:

If someone says that he has a Dolby Atmos 7.2.4 setup, and the other guy says that he has a 7.1.4 Dobly Atmos setup; which guy has the better setup?

The first one, simply because we all know the advantages of having two subs versus only one. ...Better overall bass balance covering a wider area. 
And if that other guy has a 7.16.4 Dolby Atmos setup? Well obviously he's way ahead over anyone else in the overall bass impact department, and with today's Hollywood films on Blu, that's a huge attribute. ...If he can blend all those sixteen subs with the rest of his Atom speaker's arsenal of course.

I wonder...how challenging is it to properly balance 16 subs in one's small room with everything else; level wise and frequency wise and delay wise and phase wise and harmony wise and timbre match wise and overall blend wise?

* The receiver used in all those examples have ONLY ONE SUB PRE/OUT. It is simply connected to a "Y" cable connector with one male jack @ one end and sixteen female jacks @ the other end. ...All summed/souped up. All the subs can also be interconnected from their own input and output jacks in the back. ...Like they all have a _Sub Output_ for connecting to another sub.


----------



## NorthSky

tsaiduk said:


> *is there a significant difference between 5.1.2 vs 7.1.2/7.1.4?*





tsaiduk said:


> *so assuming the seating is at the back of the wall, go with a 5.1.2?*





Scott Simonian said:


> Of course.
> First things first though. He asked if there was a worthy improvement going from 5.1 to 7.1 in an Atmos system.


Yes, exactly (above your quote).


----------



## NorthSky

Augmont said:


> Just wanted to see if the ceiling speakers placement (TF & TB) are in the right vicinity or if more or less spacing is needed. The widows are 4' (w) x 5' (l) and centered on the 20' wall.











Not bad...but if you can, try to experiment. I do like your setup, with the seating arrangement. ...And it is smart to include six Atmos overheads...because it's coming (9.1.4 with the 7.1.6 variable). ...Within the next 22 months...my guess.

♦ Just a quick guideline (page 26): http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

TF & TR are the correct terms. You typed TB and should be behind the MLP (TR).
And the TF is too far up front. 

Where they are in your graph (closest locations) are TM (above the MLP, and instead of TB) and FH (instead of TF).


----------



## sdurani

Augmont said:


> Just wanted to see if the ceiling speakers placement (TF & TB) are in the right vicinity or if more or less spacing is needed.


IF the couch is the main listening position, then I would wire for 3 pairs of height speakers at the following elevations: 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees. Current AVRs will support up to 2 pairs, but no harm planning for the future.


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> Kris Deering said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I could pick up Pixels, even if it was in the bargain bin. I used to like Sandler about 10-15 years ago, but now I just can't really stand his comedy. Nothing about this movie's trailer intrigued me, despite a director I typically enjoy. I have a stack of movies on my shelf I haven't gotten to yet, including some with Atmos soundtracks, my time is getting too precious for watching bad movies simply because they have some new sound format.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you I thought I was the only one. There are only a couple movies with him in that I actually liked, but anyway this one was not one of them.
Click to expand...

Considering it got horrible reviews all around -- whether fan votes at imdb or rotten tomatoes or critics scoring via metastore -- pretty sure you're not the only one.


----------



## DAK4

In regards to the discussion that @sdurani, @Scott Simonian, @batpig, and @kbarnes701 are having about the precision of an Atmos mix in the bed channels, I'm inclined to agree with kbarnes701. Maybe @FilmMixer has already described this and I didn't understand it, (i know I'm over simplifying this) but wouldn't moving an object (with an assigned sound and volume) around in a 3D environment and then having it mathematically calculated to the exact Volume and exact Timing to each Bed Speaker/s be more precise than the Mixer estimating what Speaker and estimating at what Time and estimating at what Volume to place the sound? Or is that not how it is done?


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> In regards to the discussion that @sdurani, @Scott Simonian, @batpig, and @kbarnes701 are having about the precision of an Atmos mix in the bed channels, I'm inclined to agree with kbarnes701. Maybe @FilmMixer has already described this and I didn't understand it, (i know I'm over simplifying this) but wouldn't moving an object (with an assigned sound and volume) around in a 3D environment and then having it mathematically calculated to the exact Volume and exact Timing to each Bed Speaker/s be more precise than the Mixer estimating what Speaker and estimating at what Time and estimating at what Volume to place the sound? Or is that not how it is done?


♦ http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...nearfield-mixes-for-dolby-atmos-blurays/19537


----------



## Augmont

NorthSky said:


> View attachment 1037393
> 
> 
> Not bad...but if you can, try to experiment. I do like your setup, with the seating arrangement. ...And it is smart to include six Atmos overheads...because it's coming (9.1.4 with the 7.1.6 variable). ...Within the next 22 months...my guess.
> 
> ♦ Just a quick guideline (page 26): http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



sorry....the yellow circles are canned lights not speakers. the TF and TR are the only ceiling speakers. The good thing is i can run all the wire now so all those speakers aren't an issue. My atmos migration won't occur for about another 18 months or so but i want to run all the wire now.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> IF the couch is the main listening position, then I would wire for 3 pairs of height speakers at the following elevations: 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees. Current AVRs will support up to 2 pairs, but no harm planning for the future.


Sanjay, did you have the Sherwood R-972? I have it. Curious if you migrated to Atmos and which AVR do you have right now.


----------



## DAK4

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...nearfield-mixes-for-dolby-atmos-blurays/19537


So after reading that, this quote "_the 5.1 or 7.1 channel bed that includes dialog, music, and sound effects PLUS hundreds of individual sound objects_" seems to indicate that there are objects used to create some sounds in the bed channel which to me it would help create more precise sounds in the bed channel than if you didn't use any sound objects. It's getting late and maybe I'm reading it wrong.


----------



## NorthSky

Augmont said:


> sorry....the yellow circles are canned lights not speakers. the TF and TR are the only ceiling speakers. The good thing is i can run all the wire now so all those speakers aren't an issue. My atmos migration won't occur for about another 18 months or so but i want to run all the wire now.


Then instead of _"not bad"_, now it becomes "pretty good" with TM (@ 80°) and FH (@ 40°) approximately.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1037393

♦ If you run speaker wires for Dolby Atmos overheads, in addition to the four mentioned just above, run wires for an extra pair, to make six total;
and that pair would go @ 110° behind the MLP (TR), very near your back wall (@ 115° you are on your back wall, and @ 120° behind it).
- To have TR Atmos speakers @ 125-135° you need quite a bit of space behind the MLP (if a ceiling's height of approx. 8 feet).

♦♦ But better than 7.1.6 go for 9.1.4 (with floor front Wides). /// That, is the ultimate. IMO
- Overhead Atmos speakers (your three options):
1. TF & TR (Best - @ the MLP)
2. TM & FH 
3. TF & RH


----------



## NorthSky

DAK4 said:


> So after reading that, this quote "_the 5.1 or 7.1 channel bed that includes dialog, music, and sound effects PLUS hundreds of individual sound objects_" seems to indicate that there are objects used to create some sounds in the bed channel which to me it would help create more precise sounds in the bed channel than if you didn't use any sound objects. It's getting late and maybe I'm reading it wrong.


♦ http://hometheaterhifi.com/technica...s-and-auro-3d-the-technology-and-the-reality/

♦♦ http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/


----------



## Spanglo

Mission Impossible - Rouge Nation was unimpressive. Aside from the loud orchestra music, the atmosness was used sparingly.


----------



## NiklasK

I´m in the planning stage of upgrading to Atmos. I will likely start of with a 5.4.2 setup and perhaps inthe future go for 5.4.4 if I like it.

However...... Is there anybody who have kept the surrounds at a "higher" level than recommended (ear level) and still found Atmos to be working good? When I lowered my surrounds I found them to be a bit too "in my ear". At the moment they have been mounted in the corner of wall/ceiling at appr 2,10m (7 feet).

/Niklas


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> At the home, Atmos is not what is improving this "precision" though, Keith. You're hearing a better mix. These better mixes are a side effect of better content creation. These mixes could have existed in 7.1 audio and sounded just as precise.
> 
> Playback any Atmos movie in 7.1 and it will sound just as "precise"... just lacking overhead action.
> 
> 
> You seemed convinced that it's the actual Atmos technology that is making it sound "better" in this way. It's not.












When they say '*Atmos* makes sound move all around you, including overhead' what do they mean?

So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_


----------



## ahmedreda

I am getting very close to installing my ceiling speakers and was wondering what are the chances of supporting 6 overhead speakers in the newer Denon / Marantz receivers over the next few years? Do you guys think it is just a matter of time? 
i can go ahead and install 2 top middles while I am at it.


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmedreda said:


> I am getting very close to installing my ceiling speakers and was wondering what are the chances of supporting 6 overhead speakers in the newer Denon / Marantz receivers over the next few years? Do you guys think it is just a matter of time?
> i can go ahead and install 2 top middles while I am at it.


At least install the wiring. Then, if you ever need an extra pair of speakers, it won’t be all that difficult. If you install the physical speakers now, it could be some time before they are ever needed, if ever.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> At the home, Atmos is not what is improving this "precision" though, Keith. You're hearing a better mix. These better mixes are a side effect of better content creation. These mixes could have existed in 7.1 audio and sounded just as precise.
> 
> Playback any Atmos movie in 7.1 and it will sound just as "precise"... just lacking overhead action.


I had not gone down that train of though myself, but that's of course a very good point - and a salespoint for Atmos-discs even for us that do not (yet) have it. Thanks!


----------



## man's

labman1 said:


> Wow, I hate to hear this. My 8801 was great out of the box the same for the 7702. No problem with either one, sold both for the 7702Mkll and it arrives Thursday. Crossing my fingers after this post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


Hi labman,

I'm also thinking of upgrade my 8801 to 7702mk11 for atmos,from your experience is there any significant improvement in sq?


----------



## multit

Everest is going to have an Atmos track on Blu-ray... confirmed for Germany: 
http://www.areadvd.de/news/everest-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/
This time even in german... (based on DD+), but I will most probably stick with the English track (based on TrueHD).
A release in US might be even earlier!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

kbarnes701 said:


> When they say '*Atmos* makes sound move all around you, including overhead' what do they mean?
> 
> So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_





Molon_Labe said:


> I think Keith @kbarnes701 is correct. It is my understanding that Atmos is a completely different work flow from a sound production perspective. This workflow and process change results in a superior mix even in a 5.1 or 7.1 vs a non-authored Atmos title. That is why Atmos isn't a flash in the pan. It is not just a sound format but a workflow/process change at the production level. Atmos is here to stay. A movie done in Atmos will have better use of the available bed channels than a non Atmos authored movie. That is why movies over the last two to three years have great 7.1 and 5.1 mixes. The list of Atmos authored movies is huge for which most have bombastic side and rear channel effects even though they were never released to the public as Atmos.


I already had this same argument with Scott in the bass thread. he insists it has nothing to do with ATMOS I still disagree with his stance...but your not going to convince him...

I just think its too big a coincidence the mixes are MUCH better on atmos titles than non atmos 5.1 and 7.1 mixes in general


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_


Of course he is not. 

However.... 

When played on a system with an equal number (or less than) of channels than the payload (i.e. 7.1) there is no increase in precision when not using overheads with Atmos encoded tracks.... And adding overheads ONLY adds overheads, it doesn't change anything in terms of panning resolution vs.7.1 playback.. However, and obviously, moving sounds out of the floor into the overheads will increase the level of spaciousness and sense of travel. 

There is no increase in panning resolution mixing in Atmos vs 7.1 or 5.1... Only the addition of object size and a Z axis...

During fold down the "resolution" of panning is maintained. 

So the issue is that you lump production advances in with the available delivery of said mixes into the home via Atmos. Two different things.

"Atmos" mixes might sound better because they are better mixes.... The delivery isn't the cause of that increase in subjective "resolution..." 

Make sense?

Of course the situation changes when you use 9.1.2 or greater than 7.1... 

In the end it's a granular nit pick.... 

Happy to have new tools to expand our artistic desires.


----------



## markus767

Molon_Labe said:


> I think Keith @kbarnes701 is correct. It is my understanding that Atmos is a completely different work flow from a sound production perspective.


No it's not. And that's exactly why "beds" exist in Atmos.
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professi...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf


----------



## Johnny14o

Question.

Looking to "step up" to Atmos soon (hopefully Santa will think I am a good boy and bring me a new receiver...), but want to make sure that the upgrade is setup properly.

Challenges are I have a standard 8' ceiling (height limitation) and a 12" riser for the seating position. 

Can Atmos be achieved via wall (side) mounted speakers? If so Mono-pole, Di-Pole or Bi-Pole speakers?

If not (wall mount), can ceiling mount work WELL with my height restriction? Or should I consider the "upward-firing" method?










Thanks for your help in advance!


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Of course he is not.
> 
> However....
> 
> When played on a system with an equal number (or less than) of channels than the payload (i.e. 7.1) there is no increase in precision when not using overheads with Atmos encoded tracks.... And adding overheads ONLY adds overheads, it doesn't change anything in terms of panning resolution vs.7.1 playback.. However, and obviously, moving sounds out of the floor into the overheads will increase the level of spaciousness and sense of travel.
> 
> There is no increase in panning resolution mixing in Atmos vs 7.1 or 5.1... Only the addition of object size and a Z axis...
> 
> During fold down the "resolution" of panning is maintained.
> 
> So the issue is that you lump production advances in with the available delivery of said mixes into the home via Atmos. Two different things.
> 
> "Atmos" mixes might sound better because they are better mixes.... The delivery isn't the cause of that increase in subjective "resolution..."
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> Of course the situation changes when you use 9.1.2 or greater than 7.1...
> 
> In the end it's a granular nit pick....
> 
> Happy to have new tools to expand our artistic desires.


Thanks Marc. I was hoping you would chime in. Yes, your explanation makes sense. The most important takeaway from this discussion then is, if I understand you correctly, that we are getting better mixes in our HTs than ever before since Atmos came along, even if Atmos itself isn’t entirely responsible. So the additional 'precision' which I am hearing is an indirect result of Atmos, rather than a direct result, but a result nevertheless. And it also benefits those who don't even have an Atmos system at this time, which is the icing on the cake.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> At the home, Atmos is not what is improving this "precision" though, Keith. You're hearing a better mix. These better mixes are a side effect of better content creation. These mixes could have existed in 7.1 audio and sounded just as precise.
> 
> Playback any Atmos movie in 7.1 and it will sound just as "precise"... just lacking overhead action.





batpig said:


> (Leaving aside any impact of elevated objects) I too don't understand how 7 speakers producing 7 channels of sound can sound any more "precise" whether they are traditional channels or object audio. (Plus I would bet the vast majority of the content is still "bed" stuff which IS channel based)
> 
> For home Atmos you gain NOTHING in terms of resolution on the horizontal plane vs. traditional 7.1 ... I don't think these benefits will truly be realized until we are able to add additional channels to get to 9+ listener level speakers for 9.1.4+ and can start experiencing increased resolution vs. the 7.1 standard.





Molon_Labe said:


> I think Keith @kbarnes701 is correct. It is my understanding that Atmos is a completely different work flow from a sound production perspective. This workflow and process change results in a superior mix even in a 5.1 or 7.1 vs a non-authored Atmos title. That is why Atmos isn't a flash in the pan. It is not just a sound format but a workflow/process change at the production level. Atmos is here to stay. A movie done in Atmos will have better use of the available bed channels than a non Atmos authored movie. That is why movies over the last two to three years have great 7.1 and 5.1 mixes. The list of Atmos authored movies is huge for which most have bombastic side and rear channel effects even though they were never released to the public as Atmos.



I think Marc's intervention has laid this one to rest now.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_


Following this discussion, I believe no one is questioning the indisputable fact that on the production side object based technology like Atmos has given mixers superior mix ability, like allowing more precision in sound.

The confusion seems to center around the playback at our home. Given a 7.1 base layer (no wides), playing a 7.1 Dolby TrueHD down mix of an Atmos soundtrack on a non-Atmos AVR, will sound exactly the same as playing the Atmos track on an Atmos enabled AVR with disabled overheads.

In conclusion: To enjoy superior precision at home just play 7.1 soundtracks that have been mixed using object based technology. If in addition you want to enjoy overhead effects, buy an Atmos enabled AVR and install ceiling speakers.


----------



## JohannFreytag

JohannFreytag said:


> Thank you! I live in Argentina and will be travelling to the States next week, so thought it was a good opportunity to upgrade, as receivers here are only sold by direct importers at very expensive prices. And unsure if I will return this year. But I will take your advice and hold off for now. Regarding the speakers, do you think they would work for Atmos or would I have to buy a new pair?


Hello everybody! It has been 9 months and I am returning to the US this Friday, so seriously thinking of now replacing my Denon AVR1713 with either the Denon AVX2200W or Marantz NR1606. I do love the slim shape and smaller heighth of the Marantz and read about this warmer sound, I admit my Denon does sound a bit bright when streaming music and it is set to DTS NEO or Dolby Pro Logic II. I use the 1713 with what I presume are pretty low level tower speakers (Sony SS-MF500H) so maybe they are bright and help with that. What really scares me off the Marantz are those 50 watts against the 95w of the 2200W. Mine hs 80watts and it's most of the times at 60db for "respectable" volume, so I don't know how badly it can influence to get a receiver that has almost half the watts.

Any advice between these two babies would be more than welcome! I would have to buy today or tomorrow for on time delivery.

I am probably going to get of Onkyo Atmos speakers to take advantage of Atmos and DTS X, no money for other better ones for now!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Molon_Labe said:


> Thanks @markus767. That is a good read. So the 5.1 and 7.1 are stems that are used to make the Atmos mix. The bed channels are already present before the Atmos process begins. Am I understanding this correctly now?


On the playback side on an Atmos enabled system, yes. On the production side it is more or less the other way around.

Edit: See Markus' reply below for the beter answer. With 'the other way around' I was referring to the process where objects are folded down into the channel bed in the production phase, and during playback are extracted from the bed for subsequent positional rendering. (Hope I got this right...)


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> On the playback side on an Atmos enabled system, yes. On the production side it is more or less the other way around.


Stems desribe just a group of audio tracks. They can be mono or multichannel.

Atmos mixes are traditional channel-based mixes with some additional audio objects. The production work flow for creating a Atmos bed and a traditional 5.1/7.1 mix is the same. That's how Dolby got the format adopted so fast.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> IF the couch is the main listening position, then I would wire for 3 pairs of height speakers at the following elevations: 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees. Current AVRs will support up to 2 pairs, but no harm planning for the future.


So would this be a 7.2.6 setup? Also, the room has 9' coffer ceiling (darker shade) and slopes to 8' to the side walls. Seems like the ceiling speakers would need to be on the flat part and not the slope. the coffer width is only 10'. 

Sanjay, did you have the Sherwood R-972? I have it. Curious of your migration to Atmos and which AVR and set up do you have right now and how the Atmos experince differ from the Trinnov 3D mapping either good or bad.


----------



## labman1

man's said:


> Hi labman,
> 
> I'm also thinking of upgrade my 8801 to 7702mk11 for atmos,from your experience is there any significant improvement in sq?


I thought there was with the 7702 more clarity and dialog was much better. The MKll arrives tomorrow, I will let you know once I get it hooked up. IMO the 7702 was an upgrade from the 8801.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_


Like asking why early 5.1 mixes limited the surround channels to mostly ambience or why early 7.1 mixes used the surround-back channels so sparingly. Those configuration are capable of very aggressive surround sound, as heard in later mixes. So did the mixers just decide to wait a few years for no reason then suddenly they went _"hey, we can put directional information in the surround channels"_ or "_we can use the surround-back channels as much as we use the surrounds"_?


----------



## Sam Ash

Stoked21 said:


> Yes I'm speaking about 7.2.4 in particular. It benefits from using the surrounds in a surround wide position. Immensely. With 2 rows, its basically a necessity IMO. Would I run my surrounds in the traditional, as specified, position if I could simultaneously run surround wides? Well of course. But 9.2.4 or greater doesn't exist today in consumer market.
> 
> The idea of a prepro extender box is intriguing. If you could pass through the HDMI signal to this box and actively select additional channels for "simulation". The problem is that the algorithm for the DSP doesn't exist today for that many channels. And when it does, it will either be expensive as hell and/or those channels will be supported by the new AVR releases from all the manufs anyway. The only benefit I could see today is that we could process wides and TM and it would extend our 7.2.4 to 9.2.6. It wouldn't be possible to do anything more than that. I guess it will be interesting to see what Dolby does after 15 channels. Will they next incorporate RH and FH to bring us to 19 channels? Who knows.
> 
> I know there are some individuals who've ran multiple AVRs to accomplish this. I actually messed with it for a day and managed to turn my 9.2 system into an 11.4 system. There was a delay on the second AVR and I never tried to fine tune it. But you also have to keep in mind that this, like with an "extender" box, wouldn't sound quite correct. Some of the audio that is processed and sent to various channels is based on it's knowledge of what speakers are or are not present. Therefore you would end up with certain objects/images being duplicated and potentially being significantly more prominent than intended by the studio. Would it sound cool? Sure, but you will end up with a complete mess of imaging and object duplication....


Stoked, you seem to have a reasonable amount of experience with Atmos. I have a few questions in regards to 7.2.4. Here goes:-

1. Are the placements of the fronts and surrounds the same as the typical 7.1 orientation suggested by Dolby ? Side surrounds are placed at 90 degrees to the head and elevated about 12 to 18 inches to avoid direct exposure. Rear surrounds are placed a little higher than the side surrounds to create that nice sound stage.

2. For the 4 ceiling speakers, did you follow the Atmos guideline ? and, did you use direct radiators ?

3. What is the experiential difference between 7.1 and 7.2.4 using non-Atmos and Atmos content ?

4. Is non-atoms content up-mixed to Atmos ?

5. Have you experienced the difference between 7.2.4 and 7.4.4 ? If you have please describe it in detail.

Now, there is something you mentioned that caught my attention. A lot of people have expressed bliss when the side surround speakers are placed at 70 or 80 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees. However, if one had only one set of side surrounds and 2 rows of seats, what is the optimum position for the sides to ensure that both rows benefit equally ? I suppose bipoles or tripoles would help in this situation but would it be better to position the sides in between the 2 rows ? and at what height considering that the 2nd row is slightly elevated ?


----------



## sdurani

Augmont said:


> So would this be a 7.2.6 setup?


Yes. Initially you'd be using 4 heights despite wiring for 6.


> Sanjay, did you have the Sherwood R-972?


No.


> Curious of your migration to Atmos and which AVR and set up do you have right now and how the Atmos experince differ from the Trinnov 3D mapping either good or bad.


Never compared Trinnov speaker re-mapping to Atmos.


----------



## DAK4

sdurani said:


> Like asking why early 5.1 mixes limited the surround channels to mostly ambience or why early 7.1 mixes used the surround-back channels so sparingly. Those configuration are capable of very aggressive surround sound, as heard in later mixes. So did the mixers just decide to wait a few years for no reason then suddenly they went _"hey, we can put directional information in the surround channels"_ or "_we can use the surround-back channels as much as we use the surrounds"_?


Ding Dang it, wouldn't a mix by a computer with Dolby Atmos mixing software be more precise at panning objects around a room than a mix by a human trying to estimate it? Even the bed layer? What am I missing?


----------



## Stoked21

Just picked up GoT 1&2 at Target. They have $10 off if you buy both.
Going to try to get through half of the first season today. I'm without subs right now, so that stinks. Mix is really thin even after setting my fronts to large to keep from xover. Only made it through the opening sequence in episode 1, but it seems to have more of an ambience feel to the atmos mix; which is what I really expected for the most part. I'm sure when the later seasons come out (more war, dragons flying, fire, arrows, etc) that the Atmos mix will really jump out. I do say that it sounds great so far even if my system if extremely bass light right now.

It's actually great timing because I've had the books for several months and just started reading them several days ago. I am just now finishing up the first one, so it's nice to have the additional story detail and go back and watch them for a second time. I normally would never do this with a TV show, but the books and a higher level of familiarity has driven me to actually WANT to watch them again.


----------



## lujan

Stoked21 said:


> Just picked up GoT 1&2 at Target. They have $10 off if you buy both.
> Going to try to get through half of the first season today. I'm without subs right now, so that stinks. Mix is really thin even after setting my fronts to large to keep from xover. Only made it through the opening sequence in episode 1, but it seems to have more of an ambience feel to the atmos mix; which is what I really expected for the most part. I'm sure when the later seasons come out (more war, dragons flying, fire, arrows, etc) that the Atmos mix will really jump out. I do say that it sounds great so far even if my system if extremely bass light right now.
> 
> It's actually great timing because I've had the books for several months and just started reading them several days ago. I am just now finishing up the first one, so it's nice to have the additional story detail and go back and watch them for a second time. I normally would never do this with a TV show, but the books and a higher level of familiarity has driven me to actually WANT to watch them again.


I wish that people wouldn't use acronyms for words that are not common. I have no idea what GoT is?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Game of Thrones


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Like asking why early 5.1 mixes limited the surround channels to mostly ambience or why early 7.1 mixes used the surround-back channels so sparingly. Those configuration are capable of very aggressive surround sound, as heard in later mixes. So did the mixers just decide to wait a few years for no reason then suddenly they went _"hey, we can put directional information in the surround channels"_ or "_we can use the surround-back channels as much as we use the surrounds"_?


Makes sense. Evolution then...


----------



## Stoked21

Sam Ash said:


> Stoked, you seem to have a reasonable amount of experience with Atmos. I have a few questions in regards to 7.2.4. Here goes:-
> 
> 1. Are the placements of the fronts and surrounds the same as the typical 7.1 orientation suggested by Dolby ? Side surrounds are placed at 90 degrees to the head and elevated about 12 to 18 inches to avoid direct exposure. Rear surrounds are placed a little higher than the side surrounds to create that nice sound stage.
> 
> 2. For the 4 ceiling speakers, did you follow the Atmos guideline ? and, did you use direct radiators ?
> 
> 3. What is the experiential difference between 7.1 and 7.2.4 using non-Atmos and Atmos content ?
> 
> 4. Is non-atoms content up-mixed to Atmos ?
> 
> 5. Have you experienced the difference between 7.2.4 and 7.4.4 ? If you have please describe it in detail.
> 
> Now, there is something you mentioned that caught my attention. A lot of people have expressed bliss when the side surround speakers are placed at 70 or 80 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees. However, if one had only one set of side surrounds and 2 rows of seats, what is the optimum position for the sides to ensure that both rows benefit equally ? I suppose bipoles or tripoles would help in this situation but would it be better to position the sides in between the 2 rows ? and at what height considering that the 2nd row is slightly elevated ?


First things first, there are people here who have been dabbling with Atmos for longer than I and are therefore more knowledgeable. I've experimented a lot and have gone through multiple iterations of Atmos in the last 6 months since I started this journey. So I do think I'm experienced, but I'm sure others can add knowledgeable input as well.

1) start by reading the Dolby Atmos white paper. It does show surrounds and surround backs as ear level. You need the separation from the atmos speakers. Recommendation for surrounds is 90-110 degrees so beside or a little behind you. Until front wides are supported in a 9.1.4 config, I do chose to run mine further forward. 70-80 is probably great vs my radical 50 degrees. Again, I think it's better for 2 rows as well even if it compromises staging for the rear row. It's spot on for the front row though. One row is always going to suffer staging issues.

2) Absolutely use the dolby spec. I followed it to the letter. I did run my TFs as far away as possible at 30.9 degrees (30-55 specs) and my TRs as close as possible at 120 degrees (125-150 spec). This is all relative to my back row MLP. It allowed me to keep my TFs in FRONT of both rows and my TRs behind both rows. All while staying relatively close to within spec from either row for every top speaker. I'm at 78 degrees for TF for front row and 153.7 degrees for TR for front row. It's really a balancing act to cover everything. Aimable speakers helped me change the relative angles and push them into full spec. I used bipole configuration for TFs so that they have a tweeter aimed at each row center. But monopole for TR (of the same brand).

3) The difference between 7.1 and 7.1.4 is massive. I can't put words to it. It's enveloping. A bubble of sound. Immersive. Amazing......Doesn't matter whether native atmos or not. The AVR DSU will upmix everything to 7.1.4.

4) Yes non atmos is unmixed via DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer). So it utilizes all speakers and tries to simulate an Atmos mix.....The new Marantz line currently doesn't allow DTS to use DSU which stinks. Yamaha does. I'm hearing Marantz/Denon may release a patch next year to eliminate this. 

5) You mention 7.2.4 and 7.4.4...I only have/had 2 subs. I think you mean 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4? 1 pair of tops vs 2 pairs of tops? I personally wasn't a big fan of 7.1.2 and opted to run 5.1.4 with my previous Yamaha 9 channel. It felt more immersive to me with the .4 up top. But yes, not having rears was a huge gap unless you ran your surrounds as specified slightly behind you. That's why I upgraded to 7.1.4 so I could keep my surrounds further forward for both rows and use my surround rears full-time. I would never go back to 9 channels. 11 is the only way to go IMO. I think many will agree.

6) Surrounds....You have to put them beside one row. That's really all you can do. Pick your poison. I chose to keep them at my front row even though MLP is in back row. These will be my surround wides full-time once I have 13 chs+. Call it lazy or future-proofed. I personally wouldn't use bipoles or dipoles for any surrounds as I think one would want to replace them once they have surrounds and surround wides. I also don't mind monopole for surround back. I just use monopole everywhere possible with the exception of my TFs as mentioned above.


----------



## fjerina

I am going to upgrade my system with Dolby Atmos (getting a new A/V receiver with Dolby Amos capability) and need to buy two add-on speakers that would reflect the sound off my ceiling. Any recommendations of some good ones without breaking the bank. I was thinking of putting them atop two tall cabinets next to my front tower speakers in which the speakers (at their base) would be 16" from the ceiling. Is that doable? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> When they say '*Atmos* makes sound move all around you, including overhead' what do they mean?
> 
> So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_


Actually... yes. In a way, that is exactly it. 

I never said good mixes didn't exist before but you seem hell bent convinced that somehow at home the (really channel based) 7.1 layer of Atmos is more precise sounding because of the Atmos decoding itself and not the mixers doing a damn good job on the sound stage when this stuff is being created.

But...



FilmMixer said:


> Of course he is not.
> 
> However....
> 
> When played on a system with an equal number (or less than) of channels than the payload (i.e. 7.1) there is no increase in precision when not using overheads with Atmos encoded tracks.... And adding overheads ONLY adds overheads, it doesn't change anything in terms of panning resolution vs.7.1 playback.. However, and obviously, moving sounds out of the floor into the overheads will increase the level of spaciousness and sense of travel.
> 
> There is no increase in panning resolution mixing in Atmos vs 7.1 or 5.1... Only the addition of object size and a Z axis...


^^^^

This.


----------



## sdurani

DAK4 said:


> ...wouldn't moving an object (with an assigned sound and volume) around in a 3D environment and then having it mathematically calculated to the exact Volume and exact Timing to each Bed Speaker/s be more precise than the Mixer estimating what Speaker and estimating at what Time and estimating at what Volume to place the sound? Or is that not how it is done?


For some time now mixers had been using a joystick or mouse to move sounds around in channel-based mixes rather than manually adjust level and timing of channels (a computer does that part). That's how Auro pans sounds around for their channel-based mixes (Auro-max was originally the name of an object panning tool that was provided to Auro by DTS using their MDA technology). 

What's changed is that those sounds being panned around can now be assigned x,y,z locations in 3D space rather than being mixed into channels. This allows an object-based soundtrack to scale/render to any speaker layout, which couldn't be done if those same sounds were in channels.


----------



## tsaiduk

soo if i were to get the marantz nr1606 7.2, the best i could go would be 5.2.2, if i went the atmos route?

down the road, is there a way to add or combine another receiver to reach 7.2.4


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Marc. I was hoping you would chime in. Yes, your explanation makes sense. The most important takeaway from this discussion then is, if I understand you correctly, that we are getting better mixes in our HTs than ever before since Atmos came along, even if Atmos itself isn’t entirely responsible. So the additional 'precision' which I am hearing is an indirect result of Atmos, rather than a direct result, but a result nevertheless. And it also benefits those who don't even have an Atmos system at this time, which is the icing on the cake.





kbarnes701 said:


> I think Marc's intervention has laid this one to rest now.


Hmm, right. Yes. It took Marc to say what I've been saying for you to get it. 

Thank goodness Marc was here to save the day. 

Thanks Marc!


----------



## DAK4

sdurani said:


> For some time now mixers had been using a joystick or mouse to move sounds around in channel-based mixes rather than manually adjust level and timing of channels (a computer does that part). That's how Auro pans sounds around for their channel-based mixes (Auro-max was originally the name of an object panning tool that was provided to Auro by DTS using their MDA technology).
> 
> What's changed is that those sounds being panned around can now be assigned x,y,z locations in 3D space rather than being mixed into channels. This allows an object-based soundtrack to scale/render to any speaker layout, which couldn't be done if those same sounds were in channels.


Okay, thank you for that explanation, I was unaware of the joystick and mouse, that helps my head and you can probably disregard my other question above.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually... yes. In a way, that is exactly it.
> 
> I never said good mixes didn't exist before but you seem hell bent convinced that somehow at home the (really channel based) 7.1 layer of Atmos is more precise sounding because of the Atmos decoding itself and not the mixers doing a damn good job on the sound stage when this stuff is being created.


TBH I am not sure that that is what I said. If an Atmos mix delivers a superior presentation and superior placement of sounds throughout the soundstage, and those characteristics are noted on soundtracks mixed in Atmos, then it is somewhat moot as to whether it is the soundtrack itself which is better or whether it is the delivery system which has enabled it. _The end result is that Atmos soundtracks have noticeably superior imaging._ Which is what I think I said.  I can't be bothered to look back through the thread, but my recollection is that you jumped on me and came to the conclusion that I ascribed the noticeably superior imaging to the fact that the track was mixed in Atmos rather than the fact that it was an Atmos track. The difference between those two propositions in minuscule in reality.

EDIT: I did look back after all and this is how it went:



kbarnes701 said:


> A big part of Atmos is nothing to do with the overhead speakers - it is the much greater precision, immersion and involvement which comes from the listener level speakers and Atmos seems to have optimised itself for 7 floor level speakers.


"A big part of Atmos" is all I said. The rather clumsy phrase "Atmos seems to have optimised itself for 7 floor level speakers..." may be what you picked up on and perhaps it would have been better if I had simply said "Atmos seems to work best with 7 floor level speakers..."



Scott Simonian said:


> 7.1 sound was not improved by Atmos technology alone.


You then interpreted that as my saying that it was baked into Atmos technology, although I never mentioned technology at all, just commenting on 'a big part of Atmos" which is a more general statement.



kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, that's what I said, Scott. The greater precision with which sounds are placed in the entire 3D soundstage is as important as the overhead effects


And I then reiterated what I had said - a big part of Atmos is the greater precision with which sounds are placed in the entire 3D soundstage being as important, IMO, as the overhead effects. Precisely why there is this greater precision isn't really all that important. The fact that it exists is what matters, and it only exists on the Blu-rays we own which have the word 'Atmos' on the cover. I defer, of course, to Marc and yourself as to the reason this is so: the superiority of the original mix (while pointing out that these superior mixes are confined to Atmos Blu-rays).

But enough said, like I mentioned, following Marc's eloquent post, there really isn't any point in banging on about it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Keith, several of us (not just me "jumping on you") have tangled with your statements that Dolby Atmos at home is much superior to 7.1 _because_ of the "enhanced positioning" of the technology. You've brought it up many times before over the past year. Ask anybody in this thread. You have conflated the excellent surround sound exclusively to Atmos, itself. You have said that "even watching in 7.1 was not as good" - paraphrasing here but you have been quite vocal about how awesome Atmos is. I don't disagree. 

But what you are hearing is not because of the Denon or Marantz Atmos decoding. You're hearing an excellent mix.

If you watch the exact same movie but without the Atmos decoding, the imaging will be exactly the same and as "precise" ... just lacking overhead action.

If you want to now backpedal and now start claiming that you meant this whole time over the past year that it's because these mixes started as Atmos and that's why they sound great ... well, I'm not going to stop you.

But yes, of course. Now that Marc stated the same, let's not continue to bash your previous inaccurate comments of said topic.


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
I got my Yamaha 3050, my 4 ceiling speakers and all the stuff. Now its time to mount the speaker. Besides what dolby has on its site, is there any guide/document here that I can follow to calculate where the ceiling speakers should be mounted? I'm trying to make sure that once they are mounted, I won't have to bother with changing their position.

Thx.


----------



## KennyLSU

rontalley said:


> Shhhh... Don't tell anyone I told you this but the Demo Disc are very, super, uber, terribly hard to come by and must be "given" to you by an "authorized" dealer... however, some other people have found that watching a trailer on youtube is no different than watching the demo disc on youtube...
> 
> Saying all that, youtube does not offer atmos but you might find luck playing the .m2ts files that "others" have reported to be found at demo-world.
> 
> Try googling amaze lossless demo...
> 
> Disclaimer, if you do happen to find these files then be sure to realize that unless you have been authorized to demo these atmos tracks on your atmos enabled AVR then these demos were not meant to be played without prior authorization and you will go to jail because surely these demos were not meant to be shared publicly.


Thanks for the insite. I have a "copy" of a demo disc and will try to play the .m2ts files from my PC. I just have to figure out how to get bitstream from my PC.


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
I got my Yamaha 3050, my 4 ceiling speakers and all the stuff. Now its time to mount the speaker. Besides what dolby has on its site, is there any guide/document here that I can follow to calculate where the ceiling speakers should be mounted? I'm trying to make sure that once they are mounted, I won't have to bother with changing their position.

Thx.


----------



## Carrick

I have a pitched ceiling question too. Left side is 8 feet and rises up to 10 feet on the right side (like one half of a vaulted ceiling) and room is 12' wide and 15' deep. Can I hang the ceiling speakers from a mast to achieve 7.1.4?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, several of us (not just me "jumping on you") have tangled with your statements that Dolby Atmos at home is much superior to 7.1 _because_ of the "enhanced positioning" of the technology. You've brought it up many times before over the past year.


Indeed - and the reason I bring it up is that our Atmos Blu-rays do exhibit significantly superior sound in the floor level channels and definitely superior image placement. You can argue till the cows come home as to the root cause of this phenomenon but the fact remains that it is the case.

Atmos is definitely about much more than simply 'overhead effects' and anyone who has an Atmos system, properly setup, will testify to this.



Scott Simonian said:


> But what you are hearing is not because of the Denon or Marantz Atmos decoding. You're hearing an excellent mix.


Do I care? So long as my Atmos Blu-rays and my Atmos system sound so much better than my old 5.1/7.1 discs, do I care why? It is splitting hairs to say it is because of this or that when what matters is the sound. The very fact that this superiority of sound and imaging is found on the discs we own which have 'Atmos' printed on them is all that matters.



Scott Simonian said:


> If you watch the exact same movie but without the Atmos decoding, the imaging will be exactly the same and as "precise" ... just lacking overhead action.


I do not _think_ that is true. I have *Lucy* here in plain 7.1 and in its Asian Atmos version. Although I haven’t compared them back to back, I am fairly sure that the sound and the imaging in the Atmos version is superior to that in the legacy version. Now you may well say that that is only because when they mixed it for Atmos they took more care but it is what it is. I am fairly sure the same holds true for *Chicago* which, of course, was not an Atmos mix originally. I would need to play them back to back to be sure and I will do that when I get the time.



Scott Simonian said:


> If you want to now backpedal and now start claiming that you meant this whole time over the past year that it's because these mixes started as Atmos and that's why they sound great ... well, I'm not going to stop you.


I am not backpedalling at all - I already confirmed, in my reply to Marc, that his comments made perfect sense to me.



Scott Simonian said:


> But yes, of course. Now that Marc stated the same, let's not continue to bash your previous inaccurate comments of said topic.


It is not inaccurate in the least to state that these Atmos Blu-rays exhibit significantly superior sound in the floor level channels and therefore that Atmos is about much more than just 'overhead effects'. The discussion concerns the why not the how.

I guess this debate sort of parallels that of the alleged superiority, or not, of SACD music discs. Of course we all know that hi-rez sampling is just audiophile nonsense with differences, if they exist at all over standard-rez being well beyond what humans can hear, but yet the SACDs sound superior much of the time. Of course the reason is that the _masters_ themselves are different and much greater care has been taken in production over the SACD discs. So the superior sound is there, but it is nothing to do with hi-rez sampling. At the end of the day, the SACD enthusiast might care less why his music sounds better - he is just happy that it does.


----------



## Doncartman

So today i've had a buddy ask a Pioneer rep and SP-BS22A-LR are not sold in France. I just wanted to give a heads up that it might sell soon, without date, to the non-US people. Bear with me ^^

And, yeah, these are the ones i want for my 5.1.2 setup (ceiling... dropped the idea unfortunately, complicated with a rented appartment).

THe rest is crap i heard (Onkyo's top firing) and Front Height vs Top Firing.


----------



## Stoked21

Carrick said:


> I have a pitched ceiling question too. Left side is 8 feet and rises up to 10 feet on the right side (like one half of a vaulted ceiling) and room is 12' wide and 15' deep. Can I hang the ceiling speakers from a mast to achieve 7.1.4?


People will likely disagree, but don't worry about it! 

Don't sweat the vaulted ceiling. The simple fact of the matter is mount them at dolby spec for angles to MLP. People get bent out of shape about 1 speaker or pair being higher or lower than the other pair. If they present the same angle to the listener, then you are fine. The optimization on your particular brand of AVR will measure that the distance to the right side is further than the left side. It will increase the level, to compensate for SPL difference, and it will increase the measured distance to compensate for phase/timing. If it were radically low or extremely different in height it would be a problem. 2' is insignificant IMO, especially from 8-10'. 

Would a perfectly flat 10' ceiling be ideal? Sure. But that's not real world for most of our rooms. My TRs are 12" lower than my TFs but my TFs are much further away from the MLP. The level differences are about 4-5db higher on the fronts to compensate and most images still "appear" to be directly between them.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Do I care? So long as my Atmos Blu-rays and my Atmos system sound so much better than my old 5.1/7.1 discs, do I care why? It is splitting hairs to say it is because of this or that when what matters is the sound. The very fact that this superiority of sound and imaging is found on the discs we own which have 'Atmos' printed on them is all that matters.


You should care about understanding the difference between there being one mix and another mix and maybe not comparing them as if they were one in the same.



kbarnes701 said:


> I do not _think_ that is true. I have *Lucy* here in plain 7.1 and in its Asian Atmos version. Although I haven’t compared them back to back, I am fairly sure that the sound and the imaging in the Atmos version is superior to that in the legacy version. Now you may well say that that is only because when they mixed it for Atmos they took more care but it is what it is. I am fairly sure the same holds true for *Chicago* which, of course, was not an Atmos mix originally. I would need to play them back to back to be sure and I will do that when I get the time.


Doing again, comparing one mix to another mix


Keith, watch the Atmos version in Atmos then watch the Atmos version again but not decoding in Atmos.

Note that it will sound identically as "precise" yet lacking overhead action.



At home, in 7.1.4 audio, Atmos is no more precise than it's 7.1 cousin. As the hardware exists, right now, at home, Atmos IS all about adding heights. Until it is capable of letting the end user have twenty speakers (or whatever) Atmos is just about adding heights. There is no hardware short of a Trinnov Altitude that will take advantage of Atmos enhancing positioning and rendering beyond 7.1 audio.


Atmos as a whole has netted more excellent mixes, yes. But that is not what you have been claiming for the past year. You have been claiming that the Atmos decoding itself is responsible for the excellent precision of sound. You can't compare one mix from another and call it a day. Watch the same Atmos mix in conventional 7.1 audio. Sounds the same, sans overheads.


----------



## Doncartman

So today i've had a buddy ask a Pioneer rep and SP-BS22A-LR are not sold in France. I just wanted to give a heads up that it might sell soon, without date, to the non-US people. Bear with me ^^

And, yeah, these are the ones i want for my 5.1.2 setup (ceiling... dropped the idea unfortunately, complicated with a rented appartment).

THe rest is crap i heard (Onkyo's top firing) and Front Height vs Top Firing.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So long as my Atmos Blu-rays and my Atmos system sound so much better than my old 5.1/7.1 discs, do I care why?


Because you're crediting Atmos for the "much better" sound when it could simply have been the result of how movie mixes have been evolving.


> It is not inaccurate in the least to state that these Atmos Blu-rays exhibit significantly superior sound in the floor level channels and therefore that Atmos is about much more than just 'overhead effects'.


When a home set-up contains the same number of floor speakers (7) as there are bed channels (7), playing back the Atmos track will not be significantly superior (if at all) compared to playing back a 7.1 downmix of that same track. Location and precision of sound will be the same.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Because you're crediting Atmos for the "much better" sound when it could simply have been the result of how movie mixes have been evolving. When a home set-up contains the same number of floor speakers (7) as there are bed channels (7), playing back the Atmos track will not be significantly superior (if at all) compared to playing back a 7.1 downmix of that same track. Location and precision of sound will be the same.


Right.

Basically what Keith has been saying is like: "Wow! My Jaws Blu-ray sounds much more precise in 7.1 than the old dvd does in 5.1 audio. Must be because it's in DTS Master Audio."


Lolwut?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, watch the Atmos version in Atmos then watch the Atmos version again but not decoding in Atmos.
> 
> Note that it will sound identically as "precise" yet lacking overhead action.


Of course it will. I've never doubted that. The point is to compare it with a disc of the same movie which does NOT have an Atmos sticker on it.


----------



## batpig

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> I got my Yamaha 3050, my 4 ceiling speakers and all the stuff. Now its time to mount the speaker. Besides what dolby has on its site, is there any guide/document here that I can follow to calculate where the ceiling speakers should be mounted? I'm trying to make sure that once they are mounted, I won't have to bother with changing their position.
> 
> Thx.


If you are going to adhere to the Top Front + Top Rear "ideal" Atmos layout, it's really quite simple as the best angles are +/- 45 degrees, which makes the trigonometry lickety split easy since the two legs of the right triangle are identical in length. 

So just measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, and go forward/back by that exact same distance. No guides/documents needed


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Because you're crediting Atmos for the "much better" sound when it could simply have been the result of how movie mixes have been evolving.


Yes, I see your point. But my point is, these superior sounding discs all have Atmos printed on them. So the Atmos discs DO have the "much better" sound, regardless of the reason why. (Although I agree that the reason why is important from a techie POV of course).


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course it will. I've never doubted that. The point is to compare it with a disc of the same movie which does NOT have an Atmos sticker on it.


So you think it's a great idea to compare two different mixes and conflate any difference to the encoding technology itself? Cuz that's what you've been doing.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Right.
> 
> Basically what Keith has been saying is like: "Wow! My Jaws Blu-ray sounds much more precise in 7.1 than the old dvd does in 5.1 audio. Must be because it's in DTS Master Audio."
> 
> 
> Lolwut?


It isn’t anything like saying that in fact, but we will have to agree to disagree on this. All I know is that my Atmos Blu-rays have imaging that is much more precise in the entire soundstage than my non-Atmos Blu-rays. Hence, the Atmos discs have superior imaging


----------



## Scott Simonian

They have nice mixes, yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> So you think it's a great idea to compare two different mixes and conflate any difference to the encoding technology itself? Cuz that's what you've been doing.


And you've waited for a year to comment on this?


----------



## NorthSky

*I see the light above ... (Dolby Atmos and all)*



lujan said:


> I wish that people wouldn't use acronyms for words that are not common. I have no idea what GoT is?


I'm 100% with you...acronyms are for cults, sects, for private clubs.
In a public audio/video forum I too have not the slightest idea of what _"GoT"_ is, and it is frustrating. 

* Professional filmmakers, cinematographers, directors, actors/actresses, script writers, sound effects mixers, music composers, film crew people, etc., they come here and they read acronyms like _AAoU_ ('Avengers: Age of Ultron') or _TAoA_ ('The Age of Adaline') and as soon as they see that they run far far away from here...as if we were showing them the outside door. They want no part of any private clubs where they speak different languages that are only understandable between the private cult members among their own themselves. 

...In my honest and and well calculated/intelligent opinion.  

And if I fail myself, and get into that trap; can someone please direct me towards the right communication system? ...Thank you. 
{Acronyms...that sounds snobbish to me. ;-) }


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> And you've waited for a year to comment on this?


I and several others have watched in horror for the past year of you continually posting these inaccuracies, yes. You have been confronted about this by myself and others before. This is not new. But welcome to Earth in the year 2015. You're going to like the future present.


----------



## SherazNJ

batpig said:


> If you are going to adhere to the Top Front + Top Rear "ideal" Atmos layout, it's really quite simple as the best angles are +/- 45 degrees, which makes the trigonometry lickety split easy since the two legs of the right triangle are identical in length.
> 
> So just measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, and go forward/back by that exact same distance. No guides/documents needed


What if my ceilings are not very high? Say the distance from MLP to the ceiling is 4 feet. This means that I should be placing all 4 speakers 4 feet away from MLP at 45 degree angle in each direction (45,135,225,315 degrees). Wouldn't that make the speakers too close and reduce the dispersion of sound?

Also, should the speakers be angled straight to MLP once they are mounted? My speakers are supposed to have a good dispersion.
Thx


----------



## NorthSky

*Read this ... (Dolby Atmos: better/higher understanding)*

♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professi...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The point is to compare it with a disc of the same movie which does NOT have an Atmos sticker on it.


No, the point is to compare the *same mix*, which is easy to do since all Atmos tracks contain a 7.1-channel downmix. The idea is to find out whether Atmos itself is responsible for the more precise localization.


kbarnes701 said:


> But my point is, these superior sounding discs all have Atmos printed on them. So the Atmos discs DO have the "much better" sound, regardless of the reason *why*.


How can you suddenly disregard the reason *why*, when you just said:


kbarnes701 said:


> The discussion concerns the *why* not the how.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> (Cue Dan Hitchman to lecture us about the benefits of "pan through arrays" at the >11ch CEDIA demos)





Scott Simonian said:


> Not patient enough for Dan's thoughts but we know. We know.



Hey...where IS Dan? 



Carrick said:


> I have a pitched ceiling question too. Left side is 8 feet and rises up to 10 feet on the right side (like one half of a vaulted ceiling) and room is 12' wide and 15' deep. Can I hang the ceiling speakers from a mast to achieve 7.1.4?



The answer is as Stoked has replied:



Stoked21 said:


> Don't sweat the vaulted ceiling. The simple fact of the matter is mount them at dolby spec for angles to MLP. People get bent out of shape about 1 speaker or pair being higher or lower than the other pair. If they present the same angle to the listener, then you are fine. *The optimization on your particular brand of AVR will measure that the distance to the right side is further than the left side. It will increase the level, to compensate for SPL difference, and it will increase the measured distance to compensate for phase/timing. If it were radically low or extremely different in height it would be a problem. 2' is insignificant IMO, especially from 8-10'.*



I have a vaulted ceiling with the right side being the low side. After audio calibration, in the dark, I can neither A] tell that the speakers are at different heights nor B] care. It you look upwards, it may seem a little odd visually that they're not at the same height, but to me that's ok - I didn't mount them to _look_ at. 

The sound is tremendously immersive.


----------



## NorthSky

> For some time now mixers had been using a joystick or mouse to move sounds around in channel-based mixes rather than manually adjust level and timing of channels (a computer does that part). That's how Auro pans sounds around for their channel-based mixes (Auro-max was originally the name of an object panning tool that was provided to Auro by DTS using their MDA technology).
> 
> *What's changed is that those sounds being panned around can now be assigned x,y,z locations in 3D space rather than being mixed into channels. This allows an object-based soundtrack to scale/render to any speaker layout, which couldn't be done if those same sounds were in channels.*


What is *x,y,z locations in 3D space*; horizontal, vertical and diagonal/tangential planes? 

...Or like a 3D cube viewed in perspective with its three type of lines:
1) __
2) |
3) /

...Depth, distance (like closer or distant object); they couldn't create that before the birth of Dolby Atmos?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I and several others have watched in horror for the past year of you continually posting these inaccuracies, yes. You have been confronted about this by myself and others before. This is not new. But welcome to Earth in the year 2015. You're going to like the future present.


Most odd. It isn’t inaccurate of course to say that the Atmos discs exhibit significantly superior imaging in the floor level speakers. The discussion is about the reason, not the fact.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No, the point is to compare the *same mix*, which is easy to do since all Atmos tracks contain a 7.1-channel downmix. The idea is to find out whether Atmos itself is responsible for the more precise localization.


Yes, as I said, I see your point. I am not even sure if I have ever actually considered *why* the Atmos Blu-rays sound so much better than their non-Atmos counterparts. Scott insists I have maintained that it is due to the technology and not the mix, and he may be right (that this is what I have maintained). If he is right, then I have been assuming that the technology is responsible when we now know, beyond doubt, thanks to Marc, that it is the mix. I still don't think it matters all that much to most of us - what matters is that the Atmos Blu-rays exhibit the superior sound, not just in overhead effects, but throughout the entire soundstage. IOW, Atmos is about much more than just overhead effects, which is what I have always maintained for sure.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I'm 100% with you...acronyms are for cults, sects, for private clubs.
> In a public audio/video forum I too have not the slightest idea of what _"GoT"_ is, and it is frustrating.
> 
> * Professional filmmakers, cinematographers, directors, actors/actresses, script writers, sound effects mixers, music composers, film crew people, etc., they come here and they read acronyms like _AAoU_ ('Avengers: Age of Ultron') or _TAoA_ ('The Age of Adaline') and as soon as they see that they run far far away from here...as if we were showing them the outside door. They want no part of any private clubs where they speak different languages that are only understandable between the private cult members among their own themselves.
> 
> ...In my honest and and well calculated/intelligent opinion.
> 
> And if I fail myself, and got into that trap; can someone please direct me towards the right communication system? ...Thank you.
> {Acronyms...that sounds snobbish to me. ;-) }


 _"GoT"_ is Game Of Thrones


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> I would wire for 3 pairs of height speakers at the following elevations: 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees.


Time to dust off my 10th grade geometry book to figure out distances at those angles


----------



## sdurani

Augmont said:


> Time to dust off my 10th grade geometry book to figure out distances at those angles


Measure from your ears to the ceiling. That same distance forward and rearward of your listening position = 45 degrees.


----------



## NorthSky

tsaiduk said:


> 1) soo if i were to get the marantz nr1606 7.2, the best i could go would be 5.2.2, if i went the atmos route?
> 2) down the road, is there a way to add or combine another receiver to reach 7.2.4


1) Yes.
2) Best would be to get one now that can do 7.2.4 ...Because! The only way (normal way) to get 7.2.4 in the future (with the Marantz NR1606 Dolby Atmos "slim series" receiver), is to buy another one equipped for Atmos 7.2.4 ...That wouldn't be future-proofing, and economic if you were to get the Marantz 1606. You'll be wasting money over time. That's my honest opinion. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, several of us (not just me "jumping on you") have tangled with your statements that Dolby Atmos at home is much superior to 7.1 _because_ of the "enhanced positioning" of the technology. You've brought it up many times before over the past year. Ask anybody in this thread. You have conflated the excellent surround sound exclusively to Atmos, itself. You have said that "even watching in 7.1 was not as good" - paraphrasing here but you have been quite vocal about how awesome Atmos is. I don't disagree.
> But what you are hearing is not because of the Denon or Marantz Atmos decoding. You're hearing an excellent mix.
> If you watch the exact same movie but without the Atmos decoding, the imaging will be exactly the same and as "precise" ... just lacking overhead action.
> If you want to now backpedal and now start claiming that you meant this whole time over the past year that it's because these mixes started as Atmos and that's why they sound great ... well, I'm not going to stop you.
> But yes, of course. Now that Marc stated the same, let's not continue to bash your previous inaccurate comments of said topic.


Amen and for evermore... 

* Nobody likes to be ignored, no one. ;-)


----------



## sdurani

Add another BD to the list: Everest (both 2D & 3D versions) will have Atmos. 

http://www.areadvd.de/news/everest-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/ 

Note that a couple of the foreign language dubs (French, German) will have Atmos tracks as well (lossy DD+).


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> I got my Yamaha 3050, my 4 ceiling speakers and all the stuff. Now its time to mount the speaker. Besides what dolby has on its site, is there any guide/document here that I can follow to calculate where the ceiling speakers should be mounted? I'm trying to make sure that once they are mounted, I won't have to bother with changing their position.
> Thx.


♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ==> Page 22


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Scott insists I have maintained that it is due to the technology and not the mix, and he may be right (that this is what I have maintained). If he is right, then I have been assuming that the technology is responsible when we now know, beyond doubt, thanks to Marc, that it is the mix.


You yourself gave an apt analogy with SACD, where careful remastering (not one-bit audio at megahertz sampling rates) was responsible for the better sound compared to their CD counterparts.


----------



## NorthSky

Carrick said:


> I have a pitched ceiling question too. Left side is 8 feet and rises up to 10 feet on the right side (like one half of a vaulted ceiling) and room is 12' wide and 15' deep. *Can I hang the ceiling speakers from a mast to achieve 7.1.4?*


For sure you can.. 



Scott Simonian said:


> You should care about understanding *the difference between there being one mix and another mix and maybe not comparing them as if they were one in the same*.


That's the main important element here; *different audio mixes*.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> Measure from your ears to the ceiling. That same distance forward and rearward of your listening position = 45 degrees.



good thing my ears aren't like kbarnes' avatar . I believe i used 39" when i built my SEOS speakers to position the waveguide but I will need to double check.


----------



## NorthSky

> Yes, as I said, I see your point. I am not even sure if I have ever actually considered *why* the Atmos Blu-rays sound so much better than their non-Atmos counterparts. Scott insists I have maintained that it is due to the technology and not the mix, and he may be right (that this is what I have maintained). If he is right, then I have been assuming that the technology is responsible when we now know, beyond doubt, thanks to Marc, that it is the mix. I still don't think it matters all that much to most of us - what matters is that the Atmos Blu-rays exhibit the superior sound, not just in overhead effects, but throughout the entire soundstage. IOW, Atmos is about much more than just overhead effects, which is what I have always maintained for sure.


Pro Tools, it's all about pro tools man.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> _"GoT"_ is Game Of Thrones


Yeah, I *got* it now.  ...I'm not into that stuff anyway, and I'm neither into acronyms. I'm not the only one.


----------



## tjenkins95

batpig said:


> If you are going to adhere to the Top Front + Top Rear "ideal" Atmos layout, it's really quite simple as the best angles are +/- 45 degrees, which makes the trigonometry lickety split easy since the two legs of the right triangle are identical in length.
> 
> So just measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, and go forward/back by that exact same distance. No guides/documents needed


 
I am confused now. I thought people were saying that Top Front (aka Front Height) and Top Middle was the "ideal" layout and sounded better than TF+TR? Thanks.


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> I am confused now. I thought people were saying that Top Front (aka Front Height) and Top Middle was the "ideal" layout and sounded better than TF+TR? Thanks.


Nope, TF with TR is best. They can image between them to create the phantom TM effect.

FYI, TF and FH are not the same. TF is in ceiling while FH is more wall mounted up next to ceiling aimed at MLP.


----------



## batpig

tjenkins95 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to adhere to the Top Front + Top Rear "ideal" Atmos layout, it's really quite simple as the best angles are +/- 45 degrees, which makes the trigonometry lickety split easy since the two legs of the right triangle are identical in length.
> 
> So just measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling, and go forward/back by that exact same distance. No guides/documents needed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am confused now. I thought people were saying that Top Front (aka Front Height) and Top Middle was the "ideal" layout and sounded better than TF+TR? Thanks.
Click to expand...

That's what THX guys said was their preference based on the improved sense of direct overhead immersion. 

Dolby has always said the ideal is TF+TR and that's how they are setting it up in control rooms for remixing for home. 

In theory the rendering should yield a similar result either way but in the ample recent discussion of the Amaze demo it appears there are differences in how they render. Probably due to the insufficiently granular resolution afforded by only 11 speakers. So if you want to hew as closely as possible to how it was mixed then 7.1.4 with TF+TR is it.


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> FYI, TF and FH are not the same. TF is in ceiling while FH is more wall mounted up next to ceiling aimed at MLP.


The issue is that you aren't allowed to do TM+TF in consumer Atmos processors so you must select TM+FH. So folks who want to do it that way have to go with that selection (thus the parenthetical). 

While they are not equivalent the wall vs ceiling thing is a red herring in Atmos world. It's really about the rendering angle and Atmos specifies enough range that they overlap so TM+FH becomes a viable choice for those who can't or don't do TR.


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> I am confused now. I thought people were saying that Top Front (aka Front Height) and Top Middle was the "ideal" layout and sounded better than TF+TR? Thanks.


Just to expand a little more, if speakers cannot be added in ceiling for various positions, then some people choose to run FH+TM or TM+RH or FH+TR etc. If you can run TF+TR and get the imaging between them, it's the best of all worlds. The DSP will process differently based on what you provide as your speaker config. My personal opinion is that if you have the speakers IC, then that's better than just having a speaker up high pointed at you. Or reflecting that sound off the ceiling. The goal is to provide overhead affect and IMO speakers that are ACTUALLY overhead accomplish this best. I've experimented with a small set of DAE up front, using RH+TM and never got great results from any of them. Going TF+TR was truly outstanding.


----------



## Movie78

Looking for I Frankenstein to add to my ATMOS version.
Anybody know where i can i get it in the US


----------



## SherazNJ

Stoked21 said:


> Just to expand a little more, if speakers cannot be added in ceiling for various positions, then some people choose to run FH+TM or TM+RH or FH+TR etc. If you can run TF+TR and get the imaging between them, it's the best of all worlds. The DSP will process differently based on what you provide as your speaker config. My personal opinion is that if you have the speakers IC, then that's better than just having a speaker up high pointed at you. Or reflecting that sound off the ceiling. The goal is to provide overhead affect and IMO speakers that are ACTUALLY overhead accomplish this best. I've experimented with a small set of DAE up front, using RH+TM and never got great results from any of them. Going TF+TR was truly outstanding.


Do you have your TF and TR pointing to MLP or straight down? As @batpig mentioned, measure MLP to ceiling distance and use the same distance for FT and TR. My only concern is if it will be too close to MLP and will provide enough dispersion since my ceiling is only 4 feet above MLP?


----------



## FilmMixer

Movie78 said:


> Looking for I Frankenstein to add to my ATMOS version.
> Anybody know where i can i get it in the US


Import it from Amazon Japan....


----------



## batpig

SherazNJ said:


> Do you have your TF and TR pointing to MLP or straight down? As @batpig mentioned, measure MLP to ceiling distance and use the same distance for FT and TR. My only concern is if it will be too close to MLP and will provide enough dispersion since my ceiling is only 4 feet above MLP?


45 degrees is 45 degrees whether it's 4 feet up and over or 10 feet up and over. The question is whether your speaker has that kind of dispersion -- if not, then you should angle it to aim more towards MLP.


----------



## Stoked21

SherazNJ said:


> Do you have your TF and TR pointing to MLP or straight down? As @batpig mentioned, measure MLP to ceiling distance and use the same distance for FT and TR. My only concern is if it will be too close to MLP and will provide enough dispersion since my ceiling is only 4 feet above MLP?


If ceiling to ear is 4', then that means your TF should be at 4' away from ear position to hit 45deg. And TR would be 4' back to hit 135deg. That's an 8' spread between TF and TR....so no, you have plenty of separation. 

I have just about 9' between mine and it's fine. But keep in mind you can absolutely play with the angles. 45 and 135 are not necessary. They're just the middle of the range. Dolby didn't do anything special to come up with these numbers--they just picked the center between 0 and 90 (directly in front to direct above) and between 90 and 180 (directly above to directly behind)!! All they did was fill the gaps to come up with the recommended location. 

You can run TF further or closer and same with TR. Play with it by 15 degrees or so on either side of 45/135 and see what works best for your room/seating locations as well as any construction/installation obstacles. Also keep in mind, the more separation you keep, the easier to add TM in the future and the better to cover 2 rows.


----------



## pasender91

JohannFreytag said:


> Hello everybody! It has been 9 months and I am returning to the US this Friday, so seriously thinking of now replacing my Denon AVR1713 with either the Denon AVX2200W or Marantz NR1606. I do love the slim shape and smaller heighth of the Marantz and read about this warmer sound, I admit my Denon does sound a bit bright when streaming music and it is set to DTS NEO or Dolby Pro Logic II. I use the 1713 with what I presume are pretty low level tower speakers (Sony SS-MF500H) so maybe they are bright and help with that. What really scares me off the Marantz are those 50 watts against the 95w of the 2200W. Mine hs 80watts and it's most of the times at 60db for "respectable" volume, so I don't know how badly it can influence to get a receiver that has almost half the watts.
> 
> Any advice between these two babies would be more than welcome! I would have to buy today or tomorrow for on time delivery.
> 
> I am probably going to get of Onkyo Atmos speakers to take advantage of Atmos and DTS X, no money for other better ones for now!


The only advantage of the Marantz is it's smaller size.
But if you have enough space to host the Denon, it should be better on all accounts, it is more powerful, has more features, has audissey MultEQ XT (better autocalibration), ...


----------



## SherazNJ

batpig said:


> 45 degrees is 45 degrees whether it's 4 feet up and over or 10 feet up and over. The question is whether your speaker has that kind of dispersion -- if not, then you should angle it to aim more towards MLP.


Sorry. May be I didn't express my concern clearly. My concern is not 45 degrees but the distance at which speaker is mounted at 45 degrees. The less the distance is from MLP to ceiling, the closer the speaker will get if we use this distance. Why using MLP to ceiling distance is a good factor to determine how far the speaker should be mounted at 45 degrees angle?


----------



## Stoked21

SherazNJ said:


> Sorry. May be I didn't express my concern clearly. My concern is not 45 degrees but the distance at which speaker is mounted at 45 degrees. The less the distance is from MLP to ceiling, the closer the speaker will get if we use this distance. Why using MLP to ceiling distance is a good factor to determine how far the speaker should be mounted at 45 degrees angle?


I'm not sure u r quite following batpig and I. 

Measure from ur seated ear level directly up to ceiling. From that point on ceiling directly above u, measure the same distance along ceiling out in front of u and mark that point with tape or something. That point will be 45 degrees from ur mlp. The median of the Dolby spec. That is ur TF location. Repeat but behind u and that is the 135 degree Tr position. 

Obviously space left and right equidistant of approx ur front spacing to get left and right locations for both pairs.


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not sure u r quite following batpig and I.
> 
> Measure from ur seated ear level directly up to ceiling. From that point on ceiling directly above u, measure the same distance along ceiling out in front of u and mark that point with tape or something. That point will be 45 degrees from ur mlp. The median of the Dolby spec. That is ur TF location. Repeat but behind u and that is the 135 degree Tr position.
> 
> Obviously space left and right equidistant of approx ur front spacing to get left and right locations for both pairs.


Just doing some quick math here.....

if you go 4 feet up and 4 feet forward, that point is approximately 5.66 feet away from your ears. Now let's say you space the speakers 6 feet apart (3 feet to either side of that point), the speakers will end up 6.4 feet away at their final resting place. That's far enough IMO to not have to worry too much about the speaker being too close to you. Especially since you will be somewhat off axis. 

So in reality if you are thinking about the elevation not from the side view (as per the Atmos spec) but from the perspective of the MLP, it's really more like ~39 degree elevation because of the extra distance. 

If you're really concerned you can try placing them a bit farther away but then you start to lose the "over your head" effect as the elevation creeps towards 30 degrees....


----------



## tsaiduk

NorthSky said:


> 1) Yes.
> 2) Best would be to get one now that can do 7.2.4 ...Because! The only way (normal way) to get 7.2.4 in the future (with the Marantz NR1606 Dolby Atmos "slim series" receiver), is to buy another one equipped for Atmos 7.2.4 ...That wouldn't be future-proofing, and economic if you were to get the Marantz 1606. You'll be wasting money over time. That's my honest opinion.
> [/SIZE]


well, in your honest opinion, what are other routes that i can do that won't break the bank too bad.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> Measure from your ears to the ceiling. That same distance forward and rearward of your listening position = 45 degrees.


The left side is the screen. My MLP is 39" (h) and 6'-8" from the back wall.

Does this look right now?


----------



## NorthSky

tsaiduk said:


> well, in your honest opinion, what are other routes that i can do that won't break the bank too bad.


A receiver that has both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X and up to 7.1.4 ... in your price range: None. 
In your price range, right now, you are limited to 5.1.2

Very easy options in your particular situation:
1. Jump in the bandwagon now and be limited to 5.1.2 (inexpensive, but restricted too).
2. Wait till DTS:X is really here with us (next year...2016), and wait for affordable models with the requisite pre/outs for the full 7.1.4 setup. 
{On sale, some of them will be nearer the $ one thousand threshold...they will...from A4L and other similar places.} 

Right now what you want is roughly two grands ($1,500 on sale). All the supported 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos/DTS:X AV receivers are the flagship ones, and they cost more and they won't even have DTS:X (fully running) for another three months minimum.

It's your money, it's your choice...the cards are on the table...but the deck is missing some. 

That's the way it goes sometimes with our hobby...everyone has different prerogatives/objectives, and bank accounts. 
Nothing is ever complete, nothing is ever immortal. Live life now for a better tomorrow. Aim high, and go broke, or wait next year. 

____________

The way I see it: This is the world for the first adopters, some of them they're going to upgrade again to get DTS:X
And one thing I don't like; the manufacturers are hiding if their products support 7.1.4 or less...not all of them are forthcoming on their websites.

The cheapest receiver that only supports 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 (not 7.1.4 here, for that it's more more money) with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X
is the Denon AVR-X4200W receiver on sale for *$1,100*


----------



## fjerina

I am going to upgrade my system with Dolby Atmos (getting a new A/V receiver with Dolby Amos capability) and need to buy two add-on speakers that would reflect the sound off my ceiling. Any recommendations of some good ones without breaking the bank. I was thinking of putting them atop two tall cabinets next to my front tower speakers in which the speakers (at their base) would be 16" from the ceiling. Is that doable? Thanks in advance.


----------



## tjenkins95

Stoked21 said:


> Just to expand a little more, if speakers cannot be added in ceiling for various positions, then some people choose to run FH+TM or TM+RH or FH+TR etc. If you can run TF+TR and get the imaging between them, it's the best of all worlds. The DSP will process differently based on what you provide as your speaker config. My personal opinion is that if you have the speakers IC, then that's better than just having a speaker up high pointed at you. Or reflecting that sound off the ceiling. The goal is to provide overhead affect and IMO speakers that are ACTUALLY overhead accomplish this best. I've experimented with a small set of DAE up front, using RH+TM and never got great results from any of them. Going TF+TR was truly outstanding.





Thanks but as Batpig pointed out, I am using 4 in-ceiling speakers but you need to tell the receiver that you are using FH+TM.


----------



## batpig

fjerina said:


> I am going to upgrade my system with Dolby Atmos (getting a new A/V receiver with Dolby Amos capability) and need to buy two add-on speakers that would reflect the sound off my ceiling. Any recommendations of some good ones without breaking the bank. I was thinking of putting them atop two tall cabinets next to my front tower speakers in which the speakers (at their base) would be 16" from the ceiling. Is that doable? Thanks in advance.


Up-firing modules only 16" from the ceiling will not work. The reflection will not have enough room to bounce anywhere close to the listening position. Dolby recommends that they should be just above ear height. 

Can you not sit them on top of the tower speakers as designed?


----------



## JohannFreytag

pasender91 said:


> The only advantage of the Marantz is it's smaller size.
> But if you have enough space to host the Denon, it should be better on all accounts, it is more powerful, has more features, has audissey MultEQ XT (better autocalibration), ...


Thank you pasender91, it's a tough call, I would appreciate getting more spare room with the Marantz but am able to fit the Denon. I was just reading about XT, thanks for pointing that one out! What other features do you find on the Denon absent on the Marantz?


----------



## tjenkins95

batpig said:


> That's what THX guys said was their preference based on the improved sense of direct overhead immersion.
> 
> Dolby has always said the ideal is TF+TR and that's how they are setting it up in control rooms for remixing for home.
> 
> In theory the rendering should yield a similar result either way but in the ample recent discussion of the Amaze demo it appears there are differences in how they render. Probably due to the insufficiently granular resolution afforded by only 11 speakers. So if you want to hew as closely as possible to how it was mixed then 7.1.4 with TF+TR is it.


 
Thanks for the information. Fortunately I have a drop ceiling and the panels are 2' x 2'. I installed each speaker into a panel so it will just be a matter of swapping 2 panels in the back with the "2 panels w/speakers". I originally had 4 of the Pioneer up-firing speakers setup as TF and TR. When I put in the ceiling speakers a few weeks ago I thought people were saying TF/TM was the best way to go. Anyway, I'll give it a shot. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## Carrick

Stoked21 said:


> People will likely disagree, but don't worry about it!


Thanks for answering, I just learned something new.


----------



## sdurani

Augmont said:


> The left side is the screen. My MLP is 39" (h) and 6'-8" from the back wall.
> 
> Does this look right now?


I can't figure out what your diagram is showing. How far are your ears from the ceiling? 

On your diagram, can you indicate where your front L/R speakers are? Can you then draw two parallel lines, starting at your front L/R speakers and stretching all the way to the back wall?


----------



## tsaiduk

to whomever pmed me, i don't meet the prerequisites to reply, thank you though



NorthSky said:


> A receiver that has both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X and up to 7.1.4 ... in your price range: None.
> In your price range, right now, you are limited to 5.1.2
> 
> Very easy options in your particular situation:
> 1. Jump in the bandwagon now and be limited to 5.1.2 (inexpensive, but restricted too).
> 2. Wait till DTS:X is really here with us (next year...2016), and wait for affordable models with the requisite pre/outs for the full 7.1.4 setup.
> {On sale, some of them will be nearer the $ one thousand threshold...they will...from A4L and other similar places.}
> 
> Right now what you want is roughly two grands ($1,500 on sale). All the supported 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos/DTS:X AV receivers are the flagship ones, and they cost more and they won't even have DTS:X (fully running) for another three months minimum.
> 
> It's your money, it's your choice...the cards are on the table...but the deck is missing some.
> 
> That's the way it goes sometimes with our hobby...everyone has different prerogatives/objectives, and bank accounts.
> Nothing is ever complete, nothing is ever immortal. Live life now for a better tomorrow. Aim high, and go broke, or wait next year.
> 
> ____________
> 
> The way I see it: This is the world for the first adopters, some of them they're going to upgrade again to get DTS:X
> And one thing I don't like; the manufacturers are hiding if their products support 7.1.4 or less...not all of them are forthcoming on their websites.
> 
> The cheapest receiver that only supports 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 (not 7.1.4 here, for that it's more more money) with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X
> is the Denon AVR-X4200W receiver on sale for *$1,100*


can you explain "pre/outs"

and when you mean the receivers with that won't work for another 3 months, i'm assuming they will get a firmware update?
ok this might be a dumb question, but im looking at a marantz sr 7010 its a 9.2ch, how would i make this a 7.2.4? and says it needs an external amp 9.1.2?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

tsaiduk said:


> to whomever pmed me, i don't meet the prerequisites to reply, thank you though
> 
> 
> 
> can you explain "pre/outs"
> 
> and when you mean the receivers with that won't work for another 3 months, i'm assuming they will get a firmware update?
> ok this might be a dumb question, but im looking at a marantz sr 7010 its a 9.2ch, how would i make this a 7.2.4? and says it needs an external amp 9.1.2?


If it's a 9.2 avr it can only do 9 channel of decoding. 5.2.4 or 7.2.2. 

You would need a 11.2 avr to decode 11 total channels for 7.2.4 or 9.2.2


It's what I have right now. A x4100 setup as 5.2.4

Pre outs are connections where the avr sends a signal to an outboard amp to do the amplification as opposed to onboard amps


----------



## Apgood

Brian Fineberg said:


> I already had this same argument with Scott in the bass thread. he insists it has nothing to do with ATMOS I still disagree with his stance...but your not going to convince him...
> 
> I just think its too big a coincidence the mixes are MUCH better on atmos titles than non atmos 5.1 and 7.1 mixes in general


It may just be that the mixing tool developed for Atmos is better and allows greater precision. This results in benefits for not just Atmos but also when the soundtrack is decided to a TrueHD 7.1 layout. I says this because I don't have an Atmos capable AV receiver and I find titles with an Atmos track seem to have a more enveloping sound evelope when played back in 7.1 on my system.

This isn't to say it wasn't possible with the old Dolby mixing tool, but may be just more difficult and as such not done as often due to the time involved to tweak things to get the same sort of precision. 

Guess someone like @FilmMixer would know best.

Edit: Clearly I should have read ahead before replying since Filmmixer already had it well covered.


----------



## markus767

Augmont said:


> The left side is the screen. My MLP is 39" (h) and 6'-8" from the back wall.
> 
> Does this look right now?


Yes that looks right.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You yourself gave an apt analogy with SACD, where careful remastering (not one-bit audio at megahertz sampling rates) was responsible for the better sound compared to their CD counterparts.


Indeed. I do get it. And Marc was very clear in his own description, as expected.

But look what Ralph says in his review of *The Fifth Element *(possibly the best movie today in its overall use of Atmos - those overheads are really worked!).

Ralph points out the "not subtle" differences between the original version and the Atmos remix:

_"During the scene where Zorg speaks to Mr. Shadow on the telephone I compared the Atmos and standard soundtracks. The Atmos mix sounds amazing, placing his growling voice in a floating three dimensional acoustic space while keeping Zorg’s responses out in front. The difference between the two wasn’t subtle in this case as the standard version kept Mr. Shadow’s voice more in the rear soundstage._"

This is a clear comment on the superior imaging of the Atmos mix and it backs up my oft-made remark that Atmos is about much more than just overhead effects. Since the Atmos discs clearly do have superior imaging at the listener level, I'm not sure if it matters all that much why they do, other than for the sake of intellectual rigor of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Nope, TF with TR is best. They can image between them to create the phantom TM effect.
> 
> FYI, TF and FH are not the same. TF is in ceiling while FH is more wall mounted up next to ceiling aimed at MLP.


TF can be placed on the ceiling though, so long as the angles are respected.


----------



## pasender91

tsaiduk said:


> to whomever pmed me, i don't meet the prerequisites to reply, thank you though
> 
> 
> 
> can you explain "pre/outs"
> 
> and when you mean the receivers with that won't work for another 3 months, i'm assuming they will get a firmware update?
> ok this might be a dumb question, but im looking at a marantz sr 7010 its a 9.2ch, how would i make this a 7.2.4? and says it needs an external amp 9.1.2?


To clarify, the 7010 is processing 11 channels (so 7.1.4 for example) but has only 9 amplifiers, so if you want to do 7.1.4 you need to connect a 2-channel amplifier using the Pre-out connector. And yes the DTS:X support willl come with a future firmware update.

Another way you can proceed with is to "screw" DTS:X (not here, no content), and go with Atmos only.
Then you can get a Marantz 7009 which is on sale now, so you can get 3D sound immersion and Atmos content, with 7.1.4 capability and under 1000 $


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> Another way you can proceed with is to "screw" DTS:X (not here, no content), and go with Atmos only.
> Then you can get a Marantz 7009 which is on sale now, so you can get 3D sound immersion and Atmos content, with 7.1.4 capability and under 1000 $


Not a bad idea. And he would also get DSU on DTS tracks, which the newer D&M units cannot (currently) do. I am fortunate to have several DTS:X clips from various movies and I can confirm that DSU does a truly wonderful job with them. So, until there is some real DTS:X content out there, there seems to be no big loss in sticking with an Atmos-only unit for now, upmixing any occasional DTS:X release with DSU and waiting to see how it all pans out.


----------



## dannybee

Got Minions on bluray and it states on the back cover that it's in dolby true hd 7.1 but after putting on it's actually in dolby atmos to my surprise.


----------



## Stoked21

pasender91 said:


> To clarify, the 7010 is processing 11 channels (so 7.1.4 for example) but has only 9 amplifiers, so if you want to do 7.1.4 you need to connect a 2-channel amplifier using the Pre-out connector. And yes the DTS:X support willl come with a future firmware update.
> 
> Another way you can proceed with is to "screw" DTS:X (not here, no content), and go with Atmos only.
> Then you can get a Marantz 7009 which is on sale now, so you can get 3D sound immersion and Atmos content, with 7.1.4 capability and under 1000 $


That's a Helluva price on 7009. Didn't know they dropped that low. 
I think we all want to say screw dts:x. We've waited long enough and really don't care anymore as the atmos titles are pretty prolific now. I will disagree that dts:x material isn't here though. I did but Ex Machina so that IF my unit ever gets upgraded I have one disc to test with! Lol. 

Don't want to start hdcp 2.2 war again, but those without already cannot stream atmos content from vudu, Netflix etc as I warned a few months ago. This is problematic with the 7009. Curious if anyone has bought the $200 hd fury and tried? 7009 with this box would be great price to almost equal the 7010 capabilities.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> TF can be placed on the ceiling though, so long as the angles are respected.


Good catch. Sorry. Instead of saying in ceiling I should have said ceiling mounted for TF and TR. whether IN or ON.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Not a bad idea. And he would also get DSU on DTS tracks, which the newer D&M units cannot (currently) do. I am fortunate to have several DTS:X clips from various movies and I can confirm that DSU does a truly wonderful job with them. So, until there is some real DTS:X content out there, there seems to be no big loss in sticking with an Atmos-only unit for now, upmixing any occasional DTS:X release with DSU and waiting to see how it all pans out.


I'm not a guy who watches previous released movies over and over. I may see a good movie twice and do have a smaller collection of titles that are favs. I will say that the new D&M units not using DSU on dts disc is more than a little frustrating. I just recently thought it would be cool to watch Avatar, Matrix and some others with DSU and was cursing at the DTS labels on the back of numerous disc cases. (Yes I was cursing at an inanimate object, so what ). 

That better get FW fix or I will indeed be regretting the move to new Marantz. If u r someone who watches lots of old movies or has s big collection, this would be a deal killer.


----------



## petetherock

Stoked21 said:


> That's a Helluva price on 7009. Didn't know they dropped that low.
> I think we all want to say screw dts:x. We've waited long enough and really don't care anymore as the atmos titles are pretty prolific now. I will disagree that dts:x material isn't here though. I did but Ex Machina so that IF my unit ever gets upgraded I have one disc to test with! Lol.
> 
> Don't want to start hdcp 2.2 war again, but those without already cannot stream atmos content from vudu, Netflix etc as I warned a few months ago. This is problematic with the 7009. Curious if anyone has bought the $200 hd fury and tried? 7009 with this box would be great price to almost equal the 7010 capabilities.


So has it been shown that having a dual HDMI output to bypass this won't work?


----------



## Stoked21

Atmos brain rumblings while watching GoT yesterday. 
At risk of sparking the bird debate again. 

I think our brains are trained all wrong as to where to expect sounds to come from. Everyone expected the bird to flap above them as if a bird would never fly at ear level. Fotm is that if a bird was flying above ear level we would likely not hear it. We expect bird chirps and songs to be above us as well. As if birds don't roost in trees and bushes closer to ear level. We expect bugs to make noises above us while most bugs cannot rub their legs together while jumping or flying (exception being flying bugs buzzing above us). But biggest of all, we expect rain to come from above us. Rain drops don't make an appreciable sound falling through the air! We hear the rain hitting the ground and bed level objects. 

It's really a new paradigm in cinematic sound and our expectations are wrong. I too expect a lot of these objects to be above when it makes no sense. Maybe I'm just being too literal here. Maybe we shouldn't expect accurate true to life sound placement. and placing these objects above us is just to add to the immersive effect. But more commonly I find these sounds are placed correctly at bed level and then we r all complaining and wondering why they weren't more top layer focused. Obvious exceptions like helos in San Andreas.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

most of the rain you hear from above is it hitting trees 30-40 feet up in the air


----------



## Stoked21

Brian Fineberg said:


> most of the rain you hear from above is it hitting trees 30-40 feet up in the air


I live in Kansas. Not a lot of trees!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Stoked21 said:


> I live in Kansas. Not a lot of trees!


and there you have it 

but in the amaze trailer....you are in the forest...so the sound of rain SHOULD be above


----------



## Stoked21

Brian Fineberg said:


> and there you have it
> 
> but in the amaze trailer....you are in the forest...so the sound of rain SHOULD be above


Agreed. And in my Ht it most definitely is in the room and has height. 

GoT got me wondering on this because they are in plains/fields a lot with rain and it's not coming from the top. Other little nuances and I wanted to yell "I spent all this money on the amps and speakers and prepro and these discs. Use my tops!" Realistically it probably didn't make s lot of sense to do so. I noticed the disc was really more focused on echoes coming from top layer. Maybe there is something to be said about 5 year old content receiving atmos several years later as opposed to being mixed that way in the first place. I found myself grumbling that they weren't used enough. BUT after a time I realized that the subtlety was really great. It just placed u in a bubble without having the tops be obtuse and drawing attention to them.

I also notice they like to mix music in the top layer which is a great effect.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

ONLY argument to the "5 year old content" being remixed is...The fifth element...its one of the best examples of use of atmos..


----------



## MarkMul1

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not a guy who watches previous released movies over and over. I may see a good movie twice and do have a smaller collection of titles that are favs. I will say that the new D&M units not using DSU on dts disc is more than a little frustrating. I just recently thought it would be cool to watch Avatar, Matrix and some others with DSU and was cursing at the DTS labels on the back of numerous disc cases. (Yes I was cursing at an inanimate object, so what ).
> 
> That better get FW fix or I will indeed be regretting the move to new Marantz. If u r someone who watches lots of old movies or has s big collection, this would be a deal killer.


Curious,

Does not changing your players output to PCM let you watch DTS movies with Dolby Surround? I ask because my understanding is it would sound the same. I want to make sure i understand that if there is a difference what it is.

Thanks


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks but as Batpig pointed out, I am using 4 in-ceiling speakers but you need to tell the receiver that you are using FH+TM.


Not necessarily so. I don't recall ur room details. U could likely do TF and TR as long as ur seating isn't pushed up against back wall. I have a little less than 3' from my ear to the back wall and TR work beautifully. Since u state u r doing 4 ICs, I'm not sure why u wouldn't be config as TF/tr


----------



## Stoked21

MarkMul1 said:


> Curious,
> 
> Does not changing your players output to PCM let you watch DTS movies with Dolby Surround? I ask because my understanding is it would sound the same. I want to make sure i understand that if there is a difference what it is.
> 
> Thanks


I haven't messed with bitstream back to pcm. 
The issue is if one wants to play dts discs using Dolby surround upmix to utilize all 11 speakers. Essentially Atmos up conversion for non Atmos discs (pseudo Atmos). The new d&m will not allow this due to a bug.


----------



## Lesmor

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not a guy who watches previous released movies over and over. I may see a good movie twice and do have a smaller collection of titles that are favs. I will say that the new D&M units not using DSU on dts disc is more than a little frustrating. I just recently thought it would be cool to watch Avatar, Matrix and some others with DSU and was cursing at the DTS labels on the back of numerous disc cases. (Yes I was cursing at an inanimate object, so what ).
> 
> That better get FW fix or I will indeed be regretting the move to new Marantz. If u r someone who watches lots of old movies or has s big collection, this would be a deal killer.


Isn't there a work around with none DTS and DSU issue
You just need to select the Blu-ray player to PCM for DSU to work untile a firmware fix
Edit: cross post


----------



## Stoked21

Lesmor said:


> Isn't there a work around with none DTS and DSU issue
> You just need to take the Blu-ray player out of bitstream for DSU to work


Hmm. Maybe like @MarkMul1 mentioned too. I've only had the new marantz for less than a week. My Yamaha didn't have issue with dts with dsu so I haven't tried that. I'll give it a shot today and maybe I just learned something! Regardless, d&m needs to fix that. Pain to switch player settings back and forth and potentially forget to check it the next time u run an Atmos disc. I'm not the only person annoyed by the bug for sure. Numerous people have commented on various threads.


----------



## tjenkins95

Stoked21 said:


> Not necessarily so. I don't recall ur room details. U could likely do TF and TR as long as ur seating isn't pushed up against back wall. I have a little less than 3' from my ear to the back wall and TR work beautifully. Since u state u r doing 4 ICs, I'm not sure why u wouldn't be config as TF/tr


I think you are missing the point. Currently, I am using in-ceiling speakers placed in the TF and TM positions. The Denon AVR does not let you specify TF/TM - it is not a valid configuration. So to get around this you can specify FH/TM on the AVR. 
As to your last statement, I did use TF/TR when I had the Pioneer up-firing speakers and when I switched to in-ceiling I changed to TM because a few people had mentioned that they preferred that. I will switch to TF/TR and see how that sounds.


----------



## MarkMul1

Stoked21 said:


> Hmm. Maybe like @MarkMul1 mentioned too. I've only had the new marantz for less than a week. My Yamaha didn't have issue with dts with dsu so I haven't tried that. I'll give it a shot today and maybe I just learned something! Regardless, d&m needs to fix that. Pain to switch player settings back and forth and potentially forget to check it the next time u run an Atmos disc. I'm not the only person annoyed by the bug for sure. Numerous people have commented on various threads.



I've recently had Pioneer and Yamaha and they still run DSU with DTS. I don't think its a bug with Denon, my opinion is they are doing what DTS has asked and not allow it. Just my thought. Setting player to PCM does not effect playing an Atmos track. There is no switching back and forth. Set it and forget it. Only bummer is it says Multi In + DSU.

Not even close to a reason i would go back to one of the other brands. 


FYI


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not a guy who watches previous released movies over and over. I may see a good movie twice and do have a smaller collection of titles that are favs. I will say that the new D&M units not using DSU on dts disc is more than a little frustrating. I just recently thought it would be cool to watch Avatar, Matrix and some others with DSU and was cursing at the DTS labels on the back of numerous disc cases. (Yes I was cursing at an inanimate object, so what ).
> 
> That better get FW fix or I will indeed be regretting the move to new Marantz. If u r someone who watches lots of old movies or has s big collection, this would be a deal killer.


It seems fairly certain that D&M intend to fix this issue, but of course the question is 'when?'. If it remains unfixed by the time the next gen models are released in fall 2016, I guess there is a fear it may never be fixed as the current models become outdated. Personally, I think it will be fixed sooner than that.

I would certainly not want to forego DSU on all my DTS-encoded titles (ie most of them).


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> I think you are missing the point. Currently, I am using in-ceiling speakers placed in the TF and TM positions. The AVR does not let you specify TF/TM - it is not a valid configuration. So to get around this you can specify FH/TM on the AVR.
> As to your last statement, I did use TF/TR when I had the Pioneer up-firing speakers and when I switched to in-ceiling I changed to TM because a few people had mentioned that they preferred that. I will switch to TF/TR and see how that sounds.


I am more than familiar with the valid configurations. I was just perplexed as to why you were targeting FH/TM for a new installation.  Probably getting you confused with several other trying to determine where to place their speakers and which config. If your's are already placed then that makes total sense.

So back to your installation..........Have you calculated your current IC placement angles? Typically TM locations are almost directly overhead whereas TR are further behind you. Just caution about switching between FH/TM and TF/TR. If they are really mounted in a TM location, then you are best off staying with FH/TM.


----------



## kbarnes701

MarkMul1 said:


> I've recently had Pioneer and Yamaha and they still run DSU with DTS. I don't think its a bug with Denon, my opinion is they are doing what DTS has asked and not allow it.


That isn't so according to various 'inside' sources I am in contact with. D&M say they will fix this issue but they are giving it lower priority to getting DTS:X up and running, which is taking longer than anyone anticipated. Once they have finished the work on DTS:X they say they will fix the issue of DSU not working with DTS tracks and v-v.




MarkMul1 said:


> Just my thought. *Setting player to PCM does not effect playing an Atmos track. *There is no switching back and forth. Set it and forget it. Only bummer is it says Multi In + DSU.
> 
> Not even close to a reason i would go back to one of the other brands.
> 
> 
> FYI


You can’t decode Atmos via PCM. The metadata is carried in the TrueHD bitstream, so a bitstream output is mandatory for Atmos.


----------



## Lesmor

Stoked21 said:


> Hmm. Maybe like @MarkMul1 mentioned too. I've only had the new marantz for less than a week. My Yamaha didn't have issue with dts with dsu so I haven't tried that. I'll give it a shot today and maybe I just learned something! Regardless, d&m needs to fix that. Pain to switch player settings back and forth and potentially forget to check it the next time u run an Atmos disc. I'm not the only person annoyed by the bug for sure. Numerous people have commented on various threads.


Its looks like a intentional decision by D&M as my factory built 7200WA doesn't have this problem so I agree its a pain in the ass for those who do.
Of course it could have been forced on them by Dolby or DTS who knows?
Edit: **** another crossed post
That said AFAIK D&M has never made an official announcement on this
Also if a "bug" why is the manual explicit in saying DTS -DSU is not an option


----------



## tjenkins95

Stoked21 said:


> I am more than familiar with the valid configurations. I was just perplexed as to why you were targeting FH/TM for a new installation.  Probably getting you confused with several other trying to determine where to place their speakers and which config. If your's are already placed then that makes total sense.
> 
> So back to your installation..........Have you calculated your current IC placement angles? Typically TM locations are almost directly overhead whereas TR are further behind you. Just caution about switching between FH/TM and TF/TR. If they are really mounted in a TM location, then you are best off staying with FH/TM.


 
Thanks but I have had a home theater for 15 years and have been using Atmos since day one so my setup is in good hands.
And as far as your last statement, again you are missing the whole point of the issue.


----------



## Stoked21

MarkMul1 said:


> I've recently had Pioneer and Yamaha and they still run DSU with DTS. I don't think its a bug with Denon, my opinion is they are doing what DTS has asked and not allow it. Just my thought. Setting player to PCM does not effect playing an Atmos track. There is no switching back and forth. Set it and forget it. Only bummer is it says Multi In + DSU.
> 
> Not even close to a reason i would go back to one of the other brands.
> 
> 
> FYI


Yeah but if you set player to PCM, the BD player will decode the DD/DD+/DTS and send multi-ch to the AVR. With DTS disc, the DSU would then be used and all 11 chs would be active. So that does make sense and I hadn't tried that. Sounds like a great work around.

But with an Atmos disc, the AVR would be receiving the decoded signal (mutli-ch) from the player. It would ONLY be using DSU to render Atmos and would not realize that it was native Atmos. In bitstream, the AVR sees the original and decodes it from native Atmos.

Maybe I'm not entirely understanding it and maybe we could debate whether using PCM+DSU for native Atmos vs using bitstream for native Atmos is essentially the same. I would think you would want to switch back to bitstream for native Atmos for superior SQ.

The PCM for DTS is a great idea though.


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks but I have had a home theater for 15 years and have been using Atmos since day one so my setup is in good hands.
> And as far as your last statement, again you are missing the whole point of the issue.


Ok...Chill out man. Wasn't questioning your knowledge and was trying to help. I seem to recall you were the one confused as to which format was best and had asked the initial question.

Sorry for trying to help.


----------



## MarkMul1

kbarnes701 said:


> That isn't so according to various 'inside' sources I am in contact with. D&M say they will fix this issue but they are giving it lower priority to getting DTS:X up and running, which is taking longer than anyone anticipated. Once they have finished the work on DTS:X they say they will fix the issue of DSU not working with DTS tracks and v-v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t decode Atmos via PCM. The metadata is carried in the TrueHD bitstream, so a bitstream output is mandatory for Atmos.


Glad to hear it may just be a bug. I figured it wasn't after multiple new product releases. Also since the manual is clear on it I figured it was not a bug. Usually do not document your bugs in your manual. Glad to hear it.

Sorry,

What i meant and was not clear on is I set my player to PCM for DTS and leave it alone for Dolby. You can set it differently for each Flavor. Guess maybe all players don't have that option.


----------



## Stoked21

MarkMul1 said:


> Glad to hear it may just be a bug. I figured it wasn't after multiple new product releases. Also since the manual is clear on it I figured it was not a bug. Usually do not document your bugs in your manual. Glad to hear it.
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> What i meant and was not clear on is I set my player to PCM for DTS and leave it alone for Dolby. You can set it differently for each Flavor. Guess maybe all players don't have that option.


You know what, I seem to recall my player has a discrete DTS and a Dolby setting for PCM/bitstream as well. I've always just left them both set to bitstream. That's a great point and I'll have to go check the menu on it. If so, I could just flip the DTS over to PCM.


----------



## tjenkins95

Stoked21 said:


> Ok...Chill out man. Wasn't questioning your knowledge and was trying to help. I seem to recall you were the one confused as to which format was best and had asked the initial question.
> 
> Sorry for trying to help.


 
Thanks - I am very chill. Batpig straightened everything out a couple of posts ago and I am following his suggestion. 
I didn't realize that you missed his post and my reply.


----------



## fjerina

batpig said:


> Up-firing modules only 16" from the ceiling will not work. The reflection will not have enough room to bounce anywhere close to the listening position. Dolby recommends that they should be just above ear height.
> 
> Can you not sit them on top of the tower speakers as designed?


Yes, I can do that. I would have to go with a smaller Onkyo speaker instead of the larger Pioneer one so it would not over lap the top of the tower speaker. But I still could with a little overlap (who care for looks, I am looking for the better sound).

Thanks for the input. I though the position and angle of sound would be possibly a problem.


----------



## Augmont

sdurani said:


> I can't figure out what your diagram is showing. How far are your ears from the ceiling?
> 
> On your diagram, can you indicate where your front L/R speakers are? Can you then draw two parallel lines, starting at your front L/R speakers and stretching all the way to the back wall?


sorry...that was a side view with 9' ceilings. At the MLP, it will be 5'-8" to the ceiling (i.e. straight up on the diagram). the L/R are to the left of the diagram and the height of the waveguide is 40" which is the height of the MLP.


----------



## sdurani

Augmont said:


> At the MLP, it will be 5'-8" to the ceiling (i.e. straight up on the diagram).


The height speaker locations look fine. If you have pointable ceiling speakers, consider aiming them towards the listening area.


----------



## metalsaber

Considering movies that were never developed with Atmos in mind (5th Element), how much extra work does it take to convert an audio track to Dolby Atmos?

The reason i ask is there were people questioning about why doesn't X title come with Atmos and the answer seems to be "it never had it to begin with." While that's true, neither did 5th Element and guess what? they added it. So why not go this route with all movies, unless it adds significantly more time/cost.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Ralph points out the "not subtle" differences between the original version and the Atmos remix:
> 
> _"The difference between the two wasn’t subtle in this case as the standard version kept Mr. Shadow’s voice more in the rear soundstage._"


So Atmos is responsible for not hearing Mr. Shadow's voice in the rear soundstage? Having his voice elsewhere wouldn't have been possible prior to Atmos?


----------



## dkwong

NODES said:


> ...........Bolt
> ----------|--------- ceiling
> ........\ ---------- / rubber grommets
> .............SPK
> 
> 
> Basically a long bolt goes through the ceiling into the speaker and between the speaker and the ceiling there are 4 rubber grommets to give it space and prevent vibrations if any.



That's pretty much what I want but I don't have an attic, so no access to the other side of the ceiling to secure that bolt.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Is it just me or are the choices for Dolby Atmos receivers somewhat limited today? Especially in configuring additional Atmos speakers to fit in with your existing 5.1 or 7.1 system? 

Besides DTS X (which will be available in future firmware releases) - I'm having a hard time justifying any move to Dolby Atmos based on my current configuration (7.1) and need for an additional amplifier when moving to any X.X.4 setup. 

Example: I was looking at the Pioneer SC-95 and even though I can use my Emotiva XPA-3 amplifier for the front, center and right speakers by turning off the F, C & R AVR amp, I cannot go to a 7.1.4 setup without an additional amplifier - - which makes absolutely no sense to me. Especially if you are not using the AVR integrated amplifier for the front, center and right channels!

I'm not sure if 7.1.2 is worth an upgrade. (I would have to use the Pioneer (Andrew Jones) upfiring speakers and that would be my best solution.) 

Maybe the best thing to do is to wait until next year to see if any manufacturer has the sense to provide more flexibility in going to any X.X.4 or greater setting.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Indeed. I do get it. And Marc was very clear in his own description, as expected.
> 
> But look what Ralph says in his review of *The Fifth Element *(possibly the best movie today in its overall use of Atmos - those overheads are really worked!).
> 
> Ralph points out the "not subtle" differences between the original version and the Atmos remix:
> 
> _"During the scene where Zorg speaks to Mr. Shadow on the telephone I compared the Atmos and standard soundtracks. The Atmos mix sounds amazing, placing his growling voice in a floating three dimensional acoustic space while keeping Zorg’s responses out in front. The difference between the two wasn’t subtle in this case as the standard version kept Mr. Shadow’s voice more in the rear soundstage._"
> 
> This is a clear comment on the superior imaging of the Atmos mix and it backs up my oft-made remark that Atmos is about much more than just overhead effects. Since the Atmos discs clearly do have superior imaging at the listener level, I'm not sure if it matters all that much why they do, other than for the sake of intellectual rigor of course.


IIRC somebody said many posts ago that the Atmos mix found on the disk is NOT thr same Atmos mix that was heard in the theater, but a re-mix for HT.

So, if you play the bluray and select 7.1 vs Atmos (IIRC you can do that on some disks,,,), then is the 7.1 mix on the disk separate and perhaps different from the Atmos mix on the disk? 

If you select 7.1 instead of Atmos (again, assuming that you can select...) then, the AVR does not simply extract the 7.1 core from the Atmos mix, but is playing a separate, perhaps slightly different 7.1 mix?

Just trying to reconcile the widely differing views on the topic...I am not at home at the moment so I cannot go to my HT and try what I just suggested.


----------



## petetherock

It's a bit of a pain, but the workaround.. works..
Set the player to decode and send out a LCP signal, which allows you to apply DSU for all DTS tracks.
Sounds pretty decent.



Stoked21 said:


> Yeah but if you set player to PCM, the BD player will decode the DD/DD+/DTS and send multi-ch to the AVR. With DTS disc, the DSU would then be used and all 11 chs would be active. So that does make sense and I hadn't tried that. Sounds like a great work around.
> 
> But with an Atmos disc, the AVR would be receiving the decoded signal (mutli-ch) from the player. It would ONLY be using DSU to render Atmos and would not realize that it was native Atmos. In bitstream, the AVR sees the original and decodes it from native Atmos.
> 
> Maybe I'm not entirely understanding it and maybe we could debate whether using PCM+DSU for native Atmos vs using bitstream for native Atmos is essentially the same. I would think you would want to switch back to bitstream for native Atmos for superior SQ.
> 
> The PCM for DTS is a great idea though.


----------



## gene4ht

dkwong said:


> That's pretty much what I want but I don't have an attic, so no access to the other side of the ceiling to secure that bolt.


Would a toggle bolt or something like this work for you?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> So Atmos is responsible for not hearing Mr. Shadow's voice in the rear soundstage? Having his voice elsewhere wouldn't have been possible prior to Atmos?


That isn’t what I said. What I said was Ralph clearly is pointing to greater precision of sound placement in the Atmos mix. Precision that wasn't in the 'standard' misc on the old disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Is it just me or are the choices for Dolby Atmos receivers somewhat limited today? Especially in configuring additional Atmos speakers to fit in with your existing 5.1 or 7.1 system?
> 
> Besides DTS X (which will be available in future firmware releases) - I'm having a hard time justifying any move to Dolby Atmos based on my current configuration (7.1) and need for an additional amplifier when moving to any X.X.4 setup.
> 
> Example: I was looking at the Pioneer SC-95 and even though I can use my Emotiva XPA-3 amplifier for the front, center and right speakers by turning off the F, C & R AVR amp, I cannot go to a 7.1.4 setup without an additional amplifier - - which makes absolutely no sense to me. Especially if you are not using the AVR integrated amplifier for the front, center and right channels!
> 
> I'm not sure if 7.1.2 is worth an upgrade. (I would have to use the Pioneer (Andrew Jones) upfiring speakers and that would be my best solution.)
> 
> Maybe the best thing to do is to wait until next year to see if any manufacturer has the sense to provide more flexibility in going to any X.X.4 or greater setting.


Well the Pioneer is odd in that case. Try a Denon or Marantz. My 5200 for example allows you to use any channels with any combination of internal and external amps. In your case, you would use the XPA-3 for LCR and then use the 9 internal amps in any way you wish. I agree that if that is how Pioneer have done it, it is restrictive.


----------



## kbarnes701

MarkMul1 said:


> What i meant and was not clear on is I set my player to PCM for DTS and leave it alone for Dolby. You can set it differently for each Flavor. Guess maybe all players don't have that option.


Sure, but you will still have to set it to bitstream if you want to play an Atmos track and benefit from the Atmos goodness.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> You know what, I seem to recall my player has a discrete DTS and a Dolby setting for PCM/bitstream as well. I've always just left them both set to bitstream. That's a great point and I'll have to go check the menu on it. If so, I could just flip the DTS over to PCM.


If you want Atmos then you have to bitstream it. But for your legacy DTS discs, if you set the Blu-ray player to output PCM then you can use DSU. That will keep you going on all your content until Denon fix the problem.


----------



## kingwiggi

fjerina said:


> I am going to upgrade my system with Dolby Atmos (getting a new A/V receiver with Dolby Amos capability) and need to buy two add-on speakers that would reflect the sound off my ceiling. Any recommendations of some good ones without breaking the bank. I was thinking of putting them atop two tall cabinets next to my front tower speakers in which the speakers (at their base) would be 16" from the ceiling. Is that doable? Thanks in advance.





batpig said:


> Up-firing modules only 16" from the ceiling will not work. The reflection will not have enough room to bounce anywhere close to the listening position. Dolby recommends that they should be just above ear height.
> 
> Can you not sit them on top of the tower speakers as designed?


At CEDIA this year there were a few speaker manufacturers who had upfiring modules designed to be placed on your wall or in-wall. Speakercraft had a demo which had the ceiling panel about 12-18 inches from the driver.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> What I said was Ralph clearly is pointing to greater precision of sound placement in the Atmos mix.


What does Atmos have to do with the greater precision? If a certain sound imaged at a precise location between a pair of speakers, could that same precision not be reproduced with a channel-based version of the same mix? In real-world terms, if a 7.1 version of the new Fifth Element mix was used for foreign releases, would the sound placement not be as precise as the Atmos track (minus the height effect)?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Precision that wasn't in the 'standard' misc on the old disc.


That's because...

...new mix.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure, but you will still have to set it to bitstream if you want to play an Atmos track and benefit from the Atmos goodness.


Read again!
He says he can set it seperatly for a DTS AND DOLBY incoming signal. So even if he sets it to PCM on a DTS signal, it can still be bitstreaming a Dolby signal.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> At CEDIA this year there were a few speaker manufacturers who had upfiring modules designed to be placed on your wall or in-wall. The demo they were showing had the ceiling panel about 12-18 inches from the driver.
> 
> Speakercraft is one that comes to mind.


Dolby say that the upfirers can be placed as much as 3 feet from their 'companion' speaker, giving some placement flexibility, if putting them on top of an existing speaker is a problem.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> What does Atmos have to do with the greater precision? If a certain sound imaged at a precise location between a pair of speakers, could that same precision not be reproduced with a channel-based version of the same mix? In real-world terms, if a 7.1 version of the new Fifth Element mix was used for foreign releases, would the sound placement not be as precise as the Atmos track (minus the height effect)?


It could be but it wasn't. We had to wait for Atmos mixes to get this greater precision in our HTs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> That's because...
> 
> ...new mix.


Yes - an Atmos mix. Without Atmos, we wouldn’t have the new mix and we wouldn't have the greater precision.

It's all very well saying "oh they could have done this years ago". Fact is, they didn't. Until Atmos came along.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Read again!
> He says he can set it seperatly for a DTS AND DOLBY incoming signal. So even if he sets it to PCM on a DTS signal, it can still be bitstreaming a Dolby signal.


Ah - I have never seen a Blu-ray player that can do that. Which player does he have?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes - an Atmos mix. Without Atmos, we wouldn’t have the new mix and we wouldn't have the greater precision.
> 
> It's all very well saying "oh they could have done this years ago". Fact is, they didn't. Until Atmos came along.


It's not the Atmos giving this "greater precision", Keith. Had it been a whole new 7.1 remix, the results would be the same sans overhead effects.


Round and round we go.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> We had to wait for Atmos mixes to get this greater precision in our HTs.


So the greater precision wouldn't have been possible without Atmos?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> It's not the Atmos giving this "greater precision", Keith. Had it been a whole new 7.1 remix, the results would be the same sans overhead effects.
> 
> 
> Round and round we go.


_"Had it been....", "if they had...", "they could have done this before..."_ blah blah blah. The fact is, they didn't. Then, when Atmos came along, they did.

Try as hard as you like to make out that it is nothing to do with Atmos, and theorise all day long about what could have been done - but the fact remains, we did not have these superior mixes with astonishingly precise image placement until we had Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> So the greater precision wouldn't have been possible without Atmos?


It isn’t what I said. You are trying to construct a _'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'_ argument and it is not what I am saying. The greater precision did not happen until we had Atmos. There is no causality implied in that simple statement of fact.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> _"Had it been....", "if they had...", "they could have done this before..."_ blah blah blah. The fact is, they didn't. Then, when Atmos came along, they did.
> 
> Try as hard as you like to make out that it is nothing to do with Atmos, and theorise all day long about what could have been done - but the fact remains, we did not have these superior mixes with astonishingly precise image placement until we had Atmos.


I don't have to try hard at all. I understand that these improvements are not created by the Atmos technology, itself. Besides overhead effects, Atmos has nothing to do with differences from a 20yr old mix and a new one.


I think you need to revisit many excellent 7.1 mixes and discover that this lateral "precision" has existed before Atmos came along. Atmos is awesome but it didn't improve lateral positioning whatsoever. It added true discrete height effects and speaker locations.

But please... do go on.


----------



## dkwong

gene4ht said:


> Would a toggle bolt or something like this work for you?



That's a great idea! It's actually called a hanger bolt. I picked up a pair and will try it out.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The greater precision did not happen until we had Atmos. There is no causality implied in that simple statement of fact.


But causality _is_ the discussion, as you yourself stated:


kbarnes701 said:


> The discussion concerns the *why* not the how.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't have to try hard at all. I understand that these improvements are not created by the Atmos technology, itself.


So do I. I agreed this directly after Marc posted. But you have kept it going for pages ever since, for some reason.




Scott Simonian said:


> Besides overhead effects, Atmos has nothing to do with differences from a 20yr old mix and a new one.


It does have one thing to do with it: until Atmos we did not get these superior mixes with astonishingly good image placement.



Scott Simonian said:


> I think you need to revisit many excellent 7.1 mixes and discover that this lateral "precision" has existed before Atmos came along. Atmos is awesome but it didn't improve lateral positioning whatsoever. It added true discrete height effects and speaker locations.


So when Ralph comments on the superiority of the Atmos mix of *The Fifth Element* over the 'standard' mix, he is wrong? Of course, they are two different mixes. The old mix was inferior to the new Atmos mix. It's a fact, Scott and nothing you say will alter that.



Scott Simonian said:


> But please... do go on.


I will until you get it


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah - I have never seen a Blu-ray player that can do that. Which player does he have?


Don't know.
But it would solve that problem 



BTW: i watched Terminator Genisys last night, and it instantly made it to my top 5 Atmos list! Awsome sound and loved the movie too 

And that was my first viewing in the "redone" and freshly calibrated HT listening in 9.2.10 Franken-Atmos


----------



## Cndctrdj

I've got a 5.1 surround setup. I am getting an atmos enabled reciever. Is it more important to get side surrounds (mine are behind) or atmos speakers first?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> But causality _is_ the discussion, as you yourself stated:


I rather think the discussion has moved on since then. There is no causality implied in this statement: the Atmos mixes are exhibiting superior sound, especially with regard to image placement. You are insisting, wrongly, that there is causality implied there. Nowhere in that statement of fact can it be construed that one is saying that the superior sound exists _because_ of Atmos. It is simply _after_ Atmos. 

Before we had Atmos we did not have these superior mixes. Marc explained it pages ago and I fully agreed with him at that time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Don't know.
> But it would solve that problem


It would* if *such a player existed. I don't know of one and neither do you. Maybe the OP can enlighten us.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> So do I. I agreed this directly after Marc posted. But you have kept it going for pages ever since, for some reason.


Because you keep repeating that all these improvements are because of Atmos and not because it's a new mix. In the same sentence you'll say "if not for Atmos, we wouldn't get these new mixes. So it's because of Atmos..."


Uhhh.... sure.





kbarnes701 said:


> It does have one thing to do with it: until Atmos we did not get these superior mixes with astonishingly good image placement.


Lol, like that.



kbarnes701 said:


> So when Ralph comments on the superiority of the Atmos mix of *The Fifth Element* over the 'standard' mix, he is wrong? Of course, they are two different mixes. The old mix was inferior to the new Atmos mix. It's a fact, Scott and nothing you say will alter that.


Ralph is not posting about constantly that it's because of the Atmos technology itself, like you are.




kbarnes701 said:


> I will until you get it


Until _you_ get it, Keith.




I guess this is going to continue until Marc comes in and says the same thing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I rather think the discussion has moved on since then. There is no causality implied in this statement: the Atmos mixes are exhibiting superior sound, especially with regard to image placement. You are insisting, wrongly, that there is causality implied there. Nowhere in that statement of fact can it be construed that one is saying that the superior sound exists _because_ of Atmos. It is simply _after_ Atmos.
> 
> Before we had Atmos we did not have these superior mixes. Marc explained it pages ago and I fully agreed with him at that time.


Who is is claiming otherwise? 

It's been stated over and over and over again that because of Atmos (in the cinema) that we are getting better mixes.

Again... you need to revisit some of the best 7.1 mixes.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> It would* if *such a player existed. I don't know of one and *neither do you*. Maybe the OP can enlighten us.


i did not say that


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Because you keep repeating that all these improvements are because of Atmos and not because it's a new mix. In the same sentence you'll say "if not for Atmos, we wouldn't get these new mixes. So it's because of Atmos..."


Totally incorrect. Since Marc's post I have not once said that. You keep saying I said it but that doesn’t mean I did. Let me repeat what I said: There is no doubt that since the advent of Atmos Blu-rays we are hearing superior sound, especially wrt to image placement. Which part of that statement is incorrect? (Clue, there is not even a hint of causality in it).




Scott Simonian said:


> Ralph is not posting about constantly that it's because of the Atmos technology itself, like you are.


And neither am I, except in your imagination.




Scott Simonian said:


> Until _you_ get it, Keith.


I got it, as I explained in my reply to Marc, several dozen posts ago, but you seem unable to understand that for some reason.




Scott Simonian said:


> I guess this is going to continue until Marc comes in and says the same thing.


I already agreed with Marc the first time he said it. Go back and read my reply to him.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Who is is claiming otherwise?


You are the one who keeps insisting I am saying something I am not saying.



Scott Simonian said:


> It's been stated over and over and over again that because of Atmos (in the cinema) that we are getting better mixes.



Indeed. I agree. Before we had Atmos we did not have these astonishing mixes, with much greater precision of image placement etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> i did not say that


You said "Don't know". I took this to mean that you didn't know. I apologise if you meant you did know. So please, tell me - which Blu-ray player has this feature (of allowing DTS and Dolby to be bitstreamed separately)?



Nalleh said:


> Don't know.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> And neither am I, except in your imagination.





kbarnes701 said:


> You are the one who keeps insisting I am saying something I am not saying.



Ah, yes. I get it now. I'm supposed to ignore the full year of posting from you about how because of Atmos things are more "precise sounding" because they are Atmos. Now that Marc set things straight, we'll just forget that you ever said such things.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Your room looks MUCH better now @Nalleh


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> BTW: i watched Terminator Genisys last night, and it instantly made it to my top 5 Atmos list! Awsome sound and loved the movie too


I enjoyed it too, despite the generally poor reviews. I think that very often with sequels to iconic movies, people find it hard to accept anything that doesn't accord with the original. The new movie is a new movie and I just judge it as such. Sound was good too wasn't it! Did you notice how precise the image placement was in the entire 3D soundstage? LOL. (Don't answer that!)



Nalleh said:


> And that was my first viewing in the "redone" and freshly calibrated HT listening in 9.2.10 Franken-Atmos


Just out if interest, why didn’t you paint the ceiling in a dark color too? And did you experiment with aiming the ceiling speakers towards MLP? I have tried mine aimed and also pointing straight down and can't make up my mind if one is better than the other or not. (My speakers have very good dispersion so maybe it doesn't really matter).


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah, yes. I get it now. I'm supposed to ignore the full year of posting from you about how because of Atmos things are more "precise sounding" because they are Atmos. Now that Marc set things straight, we'll just forget that you ever said such things.


Do you not understand the concept of 'moving on' or 'changing your mind in the light of new information"? I am astonished that you saw all these comments, for a whole year, and said nothing until yesterday. 

The fact remains, and it seems to irk you, that until we had the Atmos mixes, we did not have this additional solidity of image placement. It's a fact, Scott. compare the movies that have been remixed in Atmos, like *Chicago* and* The Fifth Element* and *Léon the Professional. *


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> It would* if *such a player existed. I don't know of one and neither do you. Maybe the OP can enlighten us.


Hey Keith,
@MarkMul1 was the one that recommended setting BD player to PCM (and I refuted as I knew that would kill my native Atmos by changing from bitstream). I also didn't want to have to remember to set it back and forth from PCM to bitstream every time I changed from Atmos to DTS discs. 

His follow-up got me thinking as he too, it seems, has a player that allows DTS and Dolby to be set independently. I'm running the old original Panasonic 3D (the one that came with the free copy of 3D avatar about 2 years before released to the public for resale). I think it's a BDP-210----yes I will buy a new one eventually but for now it does everything required until UHD players exists. I've had no reason to upgrade. And yes I chose that one specifically for the free disc!  I could have sold the disc on eBay for $300 for over a year but I just loved the movie and the 3D is the best I've ever seen. I couldn't bring myself to part with it even for the $.

This player allows for the independent settings. I seemed to recall that I thought it did and after reading the post, so I went down to experiment. Sure enough, I set the DTS decoding to PCM and set DD to bitstream. I have NOT tried a DTS disc yet, but the menu options are very clearly set differently now. My Atmos is still verified to be working correctly as I polish off season 1 of GoT.

I'll give DTS a try but I'm pretty confident it's going to work. If so, it will be a great workaround for the 7702mk2 until the problem is fixed or until everything starts migrating to DTS:X anyway (guess I should say IF!)


----------



## cholmes1

Hate to disturb the debate of "chicken vs. egg" (most entertaining) but in looking at the Dolby recommendations and then completed home theaters I see very few individuals actually following the specs. My primary question revolves around the location and angle of the front L/R in relation to the MLP and the front and rear heights.

Are the Dolby recommendations that flexible, meaning could I have my fronts spaced wider or narrower and facing directly front as opposed to 30° listed for a 5.1.4 setup? Also would this flexibility allow for height channels to be placed out wider or narrower than the front L/R channels?

I am trying to understand this from an acoustics perspective before I begin cutting holes. As my room currently exists there are can lights in the exact locations where ATMOS advises placement. Normally I would remove them, but they are electrically chained in such a way that it is not possible. What is possible is placing the speakers nearly directly over the MLP or at the appropriate distance, and either wider and closer to the side walls or narrower and more close to the center channel. 

My concern is that by placing the OBA speakers closer to the wall it would create a reflection point/corner that would negatively impact the effect quality. By going narrow I am concerned about hotspotting and limiting the scope of the effect.

Below is my current plan, but again I would like to move the fronts in towards the screen edges and have flexibility with the height placements. 











Any thoughts from experience would be greatly appreciated.

Best,
C.H.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> You said "Don't know". I took this to mean that you didn't know. I apologise if you meant you did know. So please, tell me - which Blu-ray player has this feature (of allowing DTS and Dolby to be bitstreamed separately)?


I answered to your question about what player he had, witch i don't know.

I seem to recall such a feature on Sony players but not sure...



Scott Simonian said:


> Your room looks MUCH better now @Nalleh


Thanks, i agree. Sounds better too 



kbarnes701 said:


> I enjoyed it too, despite the generally poor reviews. I think that very often with sequels to iconic movies, people find it hard to accept anything that doesn't accord with the original. The new movie is a new movie and I just judge it as such. Sound was good too wasn't it! Did you notice how precise the image placement was in the entire 3D soundstage? LOL. (Don't answer that!)


I agree totally!
I don't care one bit what other people say: i like movies for me! I am so tired of people complaining about "bad acting", "horrible script", "bad story" and so on.
I love TAOE, Jupiter Ascending, Avengers, Star Wars (all of them) etc...
And i loved Genisys! Arnold is the king!!!!



kbarnes701 said:


> Just out if interest, why didn’t you paint the ceiling in a dark color too? And did you experiment with aiming the ceiling speakers towards MLP? I have tried mine aimed and also pointing straight down and can't make up my mind if one is better than the other or not. (My speakers have very good dispersion so maybe it doesn't really matter).


Because it is a living room, not a dedicated HT. It would just be too dark. I already changed to smaller windows, and darker walls, and the room got much darker by those changes.
But i did paint the ceiling in a matte white, so it reflects much less now. All in all, a big improvement from before.

I did test a little, and as others have claimed, feel they seperate sounds better when aimed down. However front heigth and top rear are aimed slightly. I am so impressed with the sound of those KEF eggs, they rock!!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You are insisting, wrongly, that there is causality implied there.


Only because you kept crediting the greater imaging precision to Atmos. If you're changing your mind and moving on, then so will I.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The fact remains, and it seems to irk you, that until we had the Atmos mixes, we did not have this additional solidity of image placement.


We did. That's the point Marc and Scott have been making. Examples off the top of my head are Tron: Legacy, Transformers 3, Act of Valor and MI:4, all of which have remarkable imaging precision. So Atmos didn't bring "additional" precision; that capability was always there, as demonstrated by those pre-Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't have to try hard at all. I understand that these improvements are not created by the Atmos technology, itself. Besides overhead effects, Atmos has nothing to do with differences from a 20yr old mix and a new one.
> 
> I think you need to *revisit many excellent 7.1 mixes (& 5.1) and discover that this lateral "precision" has existed before Atmos came along*. Atmos is awesome but it didn't improve lateral positioning whatsoever. It added true discrete height effects and speaker locations.
> 
> But please... do go on.


- *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'* (only 5.1 - DTS-HD MA). 
- *'Black Hawk Down'* (LPCM 5.1).
- *'Super 8'* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1).

* And I can enumerate hundreds more. ...Including *'Gravity'* (first 3D version in DTS-HD MA 5.1), and *'Interstellar'* (DTS-HD MA 5.1).


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I enjoyed it too, despite the generally poor reviews. I think that very often with sequels to iconic movies, people find it hard to accept anything that doesn't accord with the original. The new movie is a new movie and I just judge it as such. Sound was good too wasn't it! Did you notice how precise the image placement was in the entire 3D soundstage? LOL. (Don't answer that!).


I'm looking forward to Terminator Genisys as well I wasn't going to get it as Dan put a big thumbs down on it. Glad to hear these reports, looking forward for my copy coming November 10th.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I enjoyed it too, despite the generally poor reviews.


Don't know if I would watch it again, but I did enjoy seeing it during its theatrical release. Amusingly, I was sitting next to Scott Simonian, who kept shaking his head at some of the lazy screenwriting (let's change things for the sake of changing things). His eyerolls were almost audible.


----------



## sdurani

cholmes1 said:


> By going narrow I am concerned about hotspotting and limiting the scope of the effect.


Of your choices, I would go narrow and aim the overhead speakers at the listener farthest away, for a bit of time-energy trading. The listener closest to the speaker will be hearing it off-axis, the listener farthest away will be on-axis to the speaker. Should lessen hotspotting noticeably.


----------



## NorthSky

tsaiduk said:


> *1.* can you explain "pre/outs"
> 
> *2.* and when you mean the receivers with that won't work for another 3 months, i'm assuming they will get a firmware update?
> ok this might be a dumb question, but im looking at a marantz sr 7010 its a 9.2ch, how would i make this a 7.2.4? and says it needs an external amp 9.1.2?





Brian Fineberg said:


> If it's a 9.2 avr it can only do 9 channel of decoding. 5.2.4 or 7.2.2.
> 
> You would need a 11.2 avr to decode 11 total channels for 7.2.4 or 9.2.2
> 
> It's what I have right now. A x4100 setup as 5.2.4
> 
> Pre outs are connections where the avr sends a signal to an outboard amp to do the amplification as opposed to onboard amps


 @tsaiduk , Brian just above sait it well. 

1. If a receiver has only 7 or 9 power amps inside, you'll need an additional 4 or 2 more amps for the full Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 configuration.
So that receiver needs to have the requisite preouts on the rear panel in order to add two or four more amps. Usually such full equipped receivers will have 13 RCA preout jacks on their rear panel (11 mains, plus 2 subs). 
Brief, the receiver needs to be an 11.1-channel (or 11.2) receiver; it needs to support the twelve channels total in a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 setup. 
{Onkyo has receivers with eleven internal amps inside, plus two Subwoofer preouts.}

2. DTS:X has been delayed; from what has been said we won't see it till next year...January @ the very earliest, and ONLY from some top gun receivers and pre/pros (with a firmware update/upgrade). And! Other products won't get it till mid-year 2016 (Summer 2016). And! Nothing is even clear because it is all words right now without any solid foundation. 
- DTS:X will come eventually, and for some folks faster than others, and the rough estimate of that time lapse varies from say two+ to eight months. 
Two months would be almost a miracle, and eight months for the majority is still just an estimate...it could take another year (12 months) till DTS:X is finally here in full swing all across the board.

The Marantz SR7010 AV receiver has 9 internal amps (9.2 channel receiver), but it supports an 11.2-channel setup because it has the additional preouts for the two channels missing, and the two Sub preouts of course...for a full blown 11.2-channel system setup (Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 configuration) => http://ca.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=AVReceivers&ProductId=SR7010

* Methinks it's very good for Dolby Atmos right now. ...It sure is as a matter of fact.


----------



## cholmes1

sdurani said:


> Of your choices, I would go narrow and aim the overhead speakers at the listener farthest away, for a bit of time-energy trading. The listener closest to the speaker will be hearing it off-axis, the listener farthest away will be on-axis to the speaker. Should lessen hotspotting noticeably.


That is a good idea. The main issue there is that I am planning on purchasing AT IC-6 OBA which cannot be aimed. Do you think a speaker with an aimed tweeter would be a requirement in this situation?


----------



## NorthSky

dannybee said:


> Got Minions on bluray and it states on the back cover that it's in dolby true hd 7.1 but after putting on it's actually in dolby atmos to my surprise.


The US version too (both 2D & 3D): http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Minions-3D-Blu-ray/135932/ --> Comin' up December 8th.


----------



## Steven James 2

So is there any content on streaming devices such as apple tv or roku that actually stream in atmos? Oh and does anyone use the roku 4? How is the 4k content on it?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Hey Keith,
> 
> @MarkMul1 was the one that recommended setting BD player to PCM (and I refuted as I knew that would kill my native Atmos by changing from bitstream). I also didn't want to have to remember to set it back and forth from PCM to bitstream every time I changed from Atmos to DTS discs.
> 
> His follow-up got me thinking as he too, it seems, has a player that allows DTS and Dolby to be set independently. I'm running the old original Panasonic 3D (the one that came with the free copy of 3D avatar about 2 years before released to the public for resale). I think it's a BDP-210----yes I will buy a new one eventually but for now it does everything required until UHD players exists. I've had no reason to upgrade. And yes I chose that one specifically for the free disc!  I could have sold the disc on eBay for $300 for over a year but I just loved the movie and the 3D is the best I've ever seen. I couldn't bring myself to part with it even for the $.
> 
> This player allows for the independent settings. I seemed to recall that I thought it did and after reading the post, so I went down to experiment. Sure enough, I set the DTS decoding to PCM and set DD to bitstream. I have NOT tried a DTS disc yet, but the menu options are very clearly set differently now. My Atmos is still verified to be working correctly as I polish off season 1 of GoT.
> 
> I'll give DTS a try but I'm pretty confident it's going to work. If so, it will be a great workaround for the 7702mk2 until the problem is fixed or until everything starts migrating to DTS:X anyway (guess I should say IF!)


Excellent. My Oppo 103 doesn't offer such a facility unfortunately.


----------



## sdurani

cholmes1 said:


> Do you think a speaker with an aimed tweeter would be a requirement in this situation?


IF you want to avoid listeners being distracted by the speaker closest to them. 

EDIT: I just noticed that those AT speakers are dipole, so they should project a bit of a null directly below them (where the nearest listener is). So you should be fine with those.


----------



## memmo

Going to be picking up a new pre/pro (mainly for DSD support surprisingly), but am wondering if there is any merit to considering a couple Atmos enabled speakers to sit on-top of my L+R behind my screen for a 7.2.2 setup. Room is 14ft x 22ft x 7.5ft. Any thoughts?


----------



## NorthSky

pasender91 said:


> To clarify, the 7010 is processing 11 channels (so 7.1.4 for example) but has only 9 amplifiers, so if you want to do 7.1.4 you need to connect a 2-channel amplifier using the Pre-out connector. And yes the DTS:X support willl come with a future firmware update.
> 
> *Another way you can proceed with is to "screw" DTS:X (not here, no content), and go with Atmos only.
> Then you can get a Marantz 7009 which is on sale now, so you can get 3D sound immersion and Atmos content, with 7.1.4 capability and under 1000 $*


It is very tempting...the older model has much more attraction too because it has DSU working in it...with all the dts soup flavors. 
And you also get Auro-3D (for $199 extra).  

Keep the 7009 for three-five years, then buy another one @ discount for $500-900 that has EVERYTHING in it...UHD 4K and DTS:X audio decoder (9.1.4). 
That's a very smart way to proceed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> I agree totally!
> I don't care one bit what other people say: i like movies for me! I am so tired of people complaining about "bad acting", "horrible script", "bad story" and so on.
> I love TAOE, Jupiter Ascending, Avengers, Star Wars (all of them) etc...
> And i loved Genisys! Arnold is the king!!!!


 We are on the same page, more or less. 




Nalleh said:


> Because it is a living room, not a dedicated HT. It would just be too dark. I already changed to smaller windows, and darker walls, and the room got much darker by those changes.


Ah right. Sorry, I ass-u-med from the dark walls that it was a dedicated room. Makes sense now.



Nalleh said:


> But i did paint the ceiling in a matte white, so it reflects much less now. All in all, a big improvement from before.


I used to have a white ceiling too but eventually painted it very dark gray, like the rest of the room (it's a dedicated room) and it did make a difference. The less light the PJ can bounce around the better the perceived contrast. For some reason WAF was against a black room but happy with a dark grey room. Go figure. 



Nalleh said:


> I did test a little, and as others have claimed, feel they seperate sounds better when aimed down. However front heigth and top rear are aimed slightly. I am so impressed with the sound of those KEF eggs, they rock!!


Thanks. I will try my speakers pointing down again for a while. I am very keen on Kef speakers - had several pairs over the years and always been happy with them. I started my HT journey with 5 Kef eggs in fact, several years ago.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah - I have never seen a Blu-ray player that can do that. Which player does he have?



Can't speak for his specific BluRay player but I've seen some players as well as most media streamers that allow you to select bitstream/passthrough or decode for the various audio codecs by codec (i.e. not a global setting).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Only because you kept crediting the greater imaging precision to Atmos. If you're changing your mind and moving on, then so will I.


I thought I made it clear when I responded to Marc's post that I had changed my view? Obviously not as clear as I thought. I am totally, 100%, unequivocally, irrefutably, indubitably convinced that it is not the Atmos _technology_ which accounts for the better perceived imaging, but the fact that the mixes are now made with greater care or whatever. But the fact remains that before we had Atmos, we did not have these superior mixes on Blu-ray  So Atmos is still responsible but in a different way. Which is, I think, what I have been saying for pages now.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> Well the Pioneer is odd in that case. Try a Denon or Marantz. My 5200 for example allows you to use any channels with any combination of internal and external amps. In your case, you would use the XPA-3 for LCR and then use the 9 internal amps in any way you wish. I agree that if that is how Pioneer have done it, it is restrictive.


Much thanks for your post. You're right - - lots of other choices out there. I'm a fan of the Pioneer Elite Series and have been well served by their SC-65, but their SC-95 looks more and more like a half-baked solution. 

I looked at the back panel of the Denon X5200W (Amazon) and it has every configuration you would need, including the ability to use external amplifiers with the pre-outs in a number of combinations.

Do all Atmos speakers need to be on the ceiling? I know you can use upfiring speakers (Andrew Jones) but I was wondering if four speakers high in the front and back could work for Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> We did. That's the point Marc and Scott have been making. Examples off the top of my head are Tron: Legacy, Transformers 3, Act of Valor and MI:4, all of which have remarkable imaging precision. So Atmos didn't bring "additional" precision; that capability was always there, as demonstrated by those pre-Atmos soundtracks.


That is true and those movies, which are in my collection, indeed bear witness to it. I was really comparing, or thinking of, movies which have existed in both Atmos mixes and standard mixes - eg *The Fifth Element*, where the imaging on the Atmos mix is superior to the imaging on the standard mix, IMO (and Ralph's).

Of course, we don't know, and have no way of knowing, if the movies you cite were remixed as Atmos, if they would have even better sound than they already do.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I'm looking forward to Terminator Genisys as well I wasn't going to get it as Dan put a big thumbs down on it. Glad to hear these reports, looking forward for my copy coming November 10th.


Gee, if you didn’t buy any movie that Dan hadn't given a big thumbs-down on, you'd have a collection of about 5 movies


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So Atmos is still responsible but in a different way.


Please don't become the Atmos version of Van Baelen. The format doesn't need it.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Don't know if I would watch it again, but I did enjoy seeing it during its theatrical release. Amusingly, I was sitting next to Scott Simonian, who kept shaking his head at some of the lazy screenwriting (let's change things for the sake of changing things). His eyerolls were almost audible.


Hahaha. Yes it has many flaws, but overall I found it enjoyable. Not one to watch over and over I agree. I too raised a few eyebrows (well I only have two eyebrows, so let me rephrase...) I too raised my eyebrows a few times at some of the plot twists and some of the things they did with some of the main characters.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Can't speak for his specific BluRay player but I've seen some players as well as most media streamers that allow you to select bitstream/passthrough or decode for the various audio codecs by codec (i.e. not a global setting).


Yes, so I now see. Great workaround for the Denon upmixer issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Much thanks for your post. You're right - - lots of other choices out there. I'm a fan of the Pioneer Elite Series and have been well served by their SC-65, but their SC-95 looks more and more like a half-baked solution.
> 
> I looked at the back panel of the Denon X5200W (Amazon) and it has every configuration you would need, including the ability to use external amplifiers with the pre-outs in a number of combinations.
> 
> Do all Atmos speakers need to be on the ceiling? I know you can use upfiring speakers (Andrew Jones) but I was wondering if four speakers high in the front and back could work for Atmos.


I would stick with the published Atmos guidelines for angles and you will be good to go. You could use FH + RH if you wished, but the best impression of sound coming from above your head is always going to be from speakers above your head.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Please don't become the Atmos version of Van Baelen. The format doesn't need it.


Hahaha. I am mortally wounded....


----------



## tsaiduk

NorthSky said:


> @tsaiduk , Brian just above sait it well.
> 
> 1. If a receiver has only 7 or 9 power amps inside, you'll need an additional 4 or 2 more amps for the full Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 configuration.
> So that receiver needs to have the requisite preouts on the rear panel in order to add two or four more amps. Usually such full equipped receivers will have 13 RCA preout jacks on their rear panel (11 mains, plus 2 subs).
> Brief, the receiver needs to be an 11.1-channel (or 11.2) receiver; it needs to support the twelve channels total in a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 setup.
> {Onkyo has receivers with eleven internal amps inside, plus two Subwoofer preouts.}
> 
> 2. DTS:X has been delayed; from what has been said we won't see it till next year...January @ the very earliest, and ONLY from some top gun receivers and pre/pros (with a firmware update/upgrade). And! Other products won't get it till mid-year 2016 (Summer 2016). And! Nothing is even clear because it is all words right now without any solid foundation.
> - DTS:X will come eventually, and for some folks faster than others, and the rough estimate of that time lapse varies from say two+ to eight months.
> Two months would be almost a miracle, and eight months for the majority is still just an estimate...it could take another year (12 months) till DTS:X is finally here in full swing all across the board.
> 
> The Marantz SR7010 AV receiver has 9 internal amps (9.2 channel receiver), but it supports an 11.2-channel setup because it has the additional preouts for the two channels missing, and the two Sub preouts of course...for a full blown 11.2-channel system setup (Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 configuration) => http://ca.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=AVReceivers&ProductId=SR7010
> 
> * Methinks it's very good for Dolby Atmos right now. ...It sure is as a matter of fact.


looks like ill be holding off on the nr1606 and saving for the sr7010.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> - *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'* (only 5.1 - DTS-HD MA).
> - *'Black Hawk Down'* (LPCM 5.1).
> - *'Super 8'* (Dolby TrueHD 7.1).
> 
> * And I can enumerate hundreds more. ...Including *'Gravity'* (first 3D version in DTS-HD MA 5.1), and *'Interstellar'* (DTS-HD MA 5.1).


Bob, Super 8 is a horrible 7.1 mix. I don't remember Black Hawk Down being particularly special but it's been a while since I've sat down in the theater room to watch it. Master and Commander is okay too. 

Interstellar was also poor.

Gravity (5.1 version) was not bad.

You listed some decent movies but some not so great surround mixes. 



sdurani said:


> Don't know if I would watch it again, but I did enjoy seeing it during its theatrical release. Amusingly, I was sitting next to Scott Simonian, who kept shaking his head at some of the lazy screenwriting (let's change things for the sake of changing things). His eyerolls were almost audible.


Lol, sorry. It was awful! Even gave it a second chance by going again. Terrible. I will reluctantly purchase it for the sound only. Hrmph!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> IF you want to avoid listeners being distracted by the speaker closest to them.
> 
> EDIT: I just noticed that those AT speakers are dipole, so they should project a bit of a null directly below them (where the nearest listener is). So you should be fine with those.


They are not dipole but you're right that there will be a frequency-dependent interference dip. How can this be desirable?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, so I now see. Great workaround for the Denon upmixer issue.


I remember my first HD-DVD player allowed me to output both TrueHD and DD+ audio bitstreams as 1.5mbps DTS audio. I haven't seen a feature like that since.


----------



## stikle

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm having a hard time justifying any move to Dolby Atmos based on my current configuration (7.1) and need for an additional amplifier when moving to any X.X.4 setup.



It is worth every penny for the added DSU capabilities alone, not to mention Atmos content.



bargervais said:


> I'm looking forward to Terminator Genisys as well I wasn't going to get it as Dan put a big thumbs down on it. Glad to hear these reports, looking forward for my copy coming November 10th.



I had mine on my Amazon wishlist. I went to add to my cart the other day to preorder it and "Somebody may have bought this for you recently."

Oh reeeeeeeallly...?


----------



## bargervais

I just got DOCTOR WHO DARK WATER / DEATH IN HEAVEN it has an Atmos mix, I'll give it a go I'm not a big Dr.Who fan at all but for ten dollars I thought I'd increase my Atmos Blu-Ray count by one more. Bring my count to 25 Atmos Blu-Rays I think things are moving along quite well in the Blu-Ray Atmos arena.
Dr. Who Blu-Ray has a horrible picture quality but the sound is quite good.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bargervais said:


> I just got DOCTOR WHO DARK WATER / DEATH IN HEAVEN it has an Atmos mix, I'll give it a go I'm not a big Dr.Who fan at all but for ten dollars I thought I'd increase my Atmos Blu-Ray by one more. Bring my count to 25 Atmos Blu-Rays I think things are moving along quite well in the Blu-Ray Atmos arena.


How many domestic Auro3D *movie* titles are there, btw?

I think zero. I'd say they're doing quite well as well.





*snicker*

Lol, sorry.


----------



## bargervais

Scott Simonian said:


> How many domestic Auro3D *movie* titles are there, btw?
> 
> I think zero. I'd say they're doing quite well as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *snicker*
> 
> Lol, sorry.


Zero I believe LOL


----------



## NorthSky

Scott said:


> At the home, Atmos is not what is improving this "precision" though, Keith. You're hearing a better mix. These better mixes are a side effect of better content creation. These mixes could have existed in 7.1 audio and sounded just as precise.
> Playback any Atmos movie in 7.1 and it will sound just as "precise"... just lacking overhead action.
> You seemed convinced that it's the actual Atmos technology that is making it sound "better" in this way. It's not.





Keith said:


> When they say '*Atmos* makes sound move all around you, including overhead' what do they mean?
> So what you are saying is that the mixers could always have achieved this superior precision but they just decided to wait until Atmos came along, and then they went_ "hey - we can now start using that superior mix ability we have always had but decided not to use until now!"_





Marc said:


> *Of course he is not.
> However....
> When played on a system with an equal number (or less than) of channels than the payload (i.e. 7.1) there is no increase in precision when not using overheads with Atmos encoded tracks.... And adding overheads ONLY adds overheads, it doesn't change anything in terms of panning resolution vs.7.1 playback.. However, and obviously, moving sounds out of the floor into the overheads will increase the level of spaciousness and sense of travel.
> There is no increase in panning resolution mixing in Atmos vs 7.1 or 5.1... Only the addition of object size and a Z axis...
> During fold down the "resolution" of panning is maintained.
> So the issue is that you lump production advances in with the available delivery of said mixes into the home via Atmos. Two different things.
> "Atmos" mixes might sound better because they are better mixes.... The delivery isn't the cause of that increase in subjective "resolution..."
> Make sense?
> Of course the situation changes when you use 9.1.2 or greater than 7.1...
> In the end it's a granular nit pick....
> Happy to have new tools to expand our artistic desires.*





Scott said:


> Hmm, right. Yes. It took Marc to say what I've been saying for you to get it.
> Thank goodness Marc was here to save the day.





Keith said:


> I rather think the discussion has moved on since then. There is no causality implied in this statement: the Atmos mixes are exhibiting superior sound, especially with regard to image placement. You are insisting, wrongly, that there is causality implied there. Nowhere in that statement of fact can it be construed that one is saying that the superior sound exists _because_ of Atmos. It is simply _after_ Atmos.
> Before we had Atmos we did not have these superior mixes. Marc explained it pages ago (in the quote above, in magenta color) and I fully agreed with him at that time.





Keith said:


> Totally incorrect. Since Marc's post I have not once said that. You keep saying I said it but that doesn’t mean I did. Let me repeat what I said: There is no doubt that since the advent of Atmos Blu-rays we are hearing superior sound, especially wrt to image placement. Which part of that statement is incorrect? (Clue, there is not even a hint of causality in it).
> - And neither am I, except in your imagination.
> - I got it, as I explained in my reply to Marc, several dozen posts ago, but you seem unable to understand that for some reason.
> - I already agreed with Marc the first time he said it. Go back and read my reply to him. (in blue color, quote below)





Keith said:


> Thanks Marc. I was hoping you would chime in. Yes, your explanation makes sense. The most important takeaway from this discussion then is, if I understand you correctly, that we are getting better mixes in our HTs than ever before since Atmos came along, even if Atmos itself isn’t entirely responsible. So the additional 'precision' which I am hearing is an indirect result of Atmos, rather than a direct result, but a result nevertheless. And it also benefits those who don't even have an Atmos system at this time, which is the icing on the cake.





Keith said:


> I thought I made it clear when I responded to Marc's post that I had changed my view? Obviously not as clear as I thought. I am totally, 100%, unequivocally, irrefutably, indubitably convinced that it is not the Atmos _technology_ which accounts for the better perceived imaging, but the fact that the mixes are now made with greater care or whatever. But the fact remains that before we had Atmos, we did not have these superior mixes on Blu-ray  So Atmos is still responsible but in a different way. Which is, I think, what I have been saying for pages now.


I think all is very clear. ...Amusing too...about all that Dolby Atmos stuff.


----------



## bargervais

stikle said:


> It is worth every penny for the added DSU capabilities alone, not to mention Atmos content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had mine on my Amazon wishlist. I went to add to my cart the other day to preorder it and "Somebody may have bought this for you recently."
> 
> Oh reeeeeeeallly...?


Merry Christmas but it wasn't me. Cheers


----------



## Kris Deering

kbarnes701 said:


> I thought I made it clear when I responded to Marc's post that I had changed my view? Obviously not as clear as I thought. I am totally, 100%, unequivocally, irrefutably, indubitably convinced that it is not the Atmos _technology_ which accounts for the better perceived imaging, but the fact that the mixes are now made with greater care or whatever. But the fact remains that before we had Atmos, we did not have these superior mixes on Blu-ray  So Atmos is still responsible but in a different way. Which is, I think, what I have been saying for pages now.


I honestly don't care about the back and forth with the Atmos responsible thing but I do have an issue with the "we did not have these superior mixes on Blu-ray" bit. There are TONS of fantastic Blu-ray mixes on Blu-ray that were here long before Atmos. There are quite a few that I find better than any of the native Atmos mixes as well. Are you saying that the Atmos mixes we have on Blu-ray right now are better than any non-Atmos mixes available on the market today?? If so, 

Edit: should have read back a page and seen that Sanjay already addressed this issue (and mentioned titles I would have brought up as well). I even would go so far as to say we had some pretty effective overhead activity that is nearly as convincing as a lot of what I've heard from Atmos (Master and Commander, Drive, Godzilla).


----------



## cholmes1

markus767 said:


> They are not dipole but you're right that there will be a frequency-dependent interference dip. How can this be desirable?


The idea behind the AT IC-6 OBA is to create the broadest sound field possible to avoid 'hot spots.'

If you look to my original posting ( http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1086.html#post38684201 ) I am concerned about placement given that I have can lights that cannot be moved.

I am also curious if my front L/R could be moved out of the Dolby angle and still be effective in ATMOS.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## markus767

cholmes1 said:


> The idea behind the AT IC-6 OBA is to create the broadest sound field possible to avoid 'hot spots.'


Unfortunately that tweeter configuration does create lobes ("hot spots") instead of removing them. I've posted some graphs showing that a while back. Not sure it was in this thread.



cholmes1 said:


> I am also curious if my front L/R could be moved out of the Dolby angle and still be effective in ATMOS.


Why would you want them outside ±30°?


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Bob, Super 8 is a horrible 7.1 mix. I don't remember Black Hawk Down being particularly special but it's been a while since I've sat down in the theater room to watch it. Master and Commander is okay too.
> Interstellar was also poor.
> Gravity (5.1 version) was not bad.
> You listed some decent movies but some not so great surround mixes.


- I agree; *'Super 8'* was a "horrible" Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio mix...except for train versus pickup truck collision. ...And the great charismatic young actress. 
- You are right again; *'Black Hawk Down'* audio mix (LPCM 5.1) was nothing "special". I just liked the music score myself, and the helicopter blades hovering and cutting the air above. Plus all the war artillery (bullets flying by...all that jazz).
- *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'* (DTS-HD MA only 5.1); another "ok" audio mix...with accurate cannons shots in the guts, and the upper deck activity heard from down below in the ship's "war" deck. The music score was also "ok" (awesomely ok). 
- You're right; *'Interstellar'* (DTS-HD MA only 5.1) was "poor", with a 'voluntary' indistinct dialog and very 'soft/unconvincing' wormhole ride...tra-la-la. ...Through the black hole of infinity and beyond...*'Toy Story'* trilogy.
- *'Gravity'* (3D & DTS-HD MA only 5.1)) wasn't bad; I agree again. The flying debris are "silent" in space, the voices inside the spacesuits are normal, and the music score was nothing to write home to your grandmother about. All in all, not bad (not bad @ all). 
...And not even close to *'The Lord of the Rings'* trilogy.

The movies I listed are "decent" nothing more nothing less, and without great surround mixes...very true. ...My *'Oblivion'* opinion in *'The Book of Eli'*.
...And if I was Sir Ridley, *'Gladiator'*, *'Prometheus'*, ...I would redo their scores with Atmos.
And I might also "rearrange *'Tron Legacy'* music score and special sound effects, just to be on the safer side of *'The Incredibles'* (PIXAR). 
And Steven's *'War of the Worlds'* and *'Saving Private Ryan'* ... them too I would remix in Atmos. 

♦ We live in very exciting times, with 3D picture, with 3D sound immersion (Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D | DTS:X is a no go for another while), and with the eminent apparition of UHD Blu-ray. ..*.'The Fifth Element'* and *'Lucy'* should look real "swell".

*'Mad Max: Fury Road'* is/was the only exception. ...As for *'Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance'* ... well, that drummer guy sure got into my brain following all the mayhem of that "Batman" superhero "Beetlejuice" guy..._Michael Keaton._ ...And speaking of *'Batman - The Dark Knight'* trilogy from Chris...the music ♪ scores...not bad @ all. 

I like _Hans Zimmer_ and _Lisa Gerrard._ ... *'Elysium'*


----------



## cholmes1

markus767 said:


> Unfortunately that tweeter configuration does create lobes ("hot spots") instead of removing them. I've posted some graphs showing that a while back. Not sure it was in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you want them outside ±30°?


It was my understanding from various sources that if the front speakers were placed along the same plane (all perpendicular to the rear wall) as opposed to being 'pointed' at the MLP it would create a more natural sound stage. That said, Dolby and other sound mixes state that aiming at the MLP is desirable. I am just trying to understand why?

Also, if you can find your posting on the IC-6 that would be very helpful as it is currently my prime ceiling speaker of interest. So is it your belief that non-object based speakers are superior for ATMOS? If yes, what leads you to that conclusion and what recommendation would you have based on my room setup?

Best,
C.H.


----------



## NorthSky

And why not:

♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...immersion-2025-experience-3.html#post38641753

♦ ♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...immersion-2025-experience-3.html#post38646801

________

@Scott Simonian - Scott, could you please give me five to ten Blu-ray titles with Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (or 7.1) and/or DTS-HD MA 5.1 (or 7.1) and/or LPCM 5.1 surround sound that are "spectacular" audio mixes to you with all the precision of sounds surrounding you in your favorite listening chair of your home theater room ... all that jazz?  ...THX Scott.


----------



## markus767

cholmes1 said:


> It was my understanding from various sources that if the front speakers were placed along the same plane (all perpendicular to the rear wall) as opposed to being 'pointed' at the MLP it would create a more natural sound stage. That said, Dolby and other sound mixes state that aiming at the MLP is desirable. I am just trying to understand why?


Most speakers are designed to be flat on their 0° axis (some are designed for off-axis listening though) so this is the axis you want to point to the central listening position. This is true for ALL of your speakers, not just the front mains.



cholmes1 said:


> Also, if you can find your posting on the IC-6 that would be very helpful as it is currently my prime ceiling speaker of interest.


Here's an example how such interference can look like for two 1" tweeters 2 inches apart:










This is a much better design:
http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/6-8-in-wall/CW180R-In-Wall-Speaker



cholmes1 said:


> So is it your belief that non-object based speakers are superior for ATMOS? If yes, what leads you to that conclusion and what recommendation would you have based on my room setup?
> 
> Best,
> C.H.


Not sure what a "non-object based speaker" is. There are just different speaker designs.
Don't know the specifics of your room.


----------



## Stoked21

NorthSky said:


> -
> - 'Gravity' (3D & DTS-HD MA only 5.1)) wasn't bad; I agree again. The flying debris are "silent" in space, the voices inside the spacesuits are normal, and the music score was nothing to write home @ your grandmother about. All in all, not bad (not bad @ all).


Must confess I watched it in DSU from DD+ upmix the first time as I didn't realize that all Gravity BD didn't have Atmos track. Watched again with Atmos disc and I can't pinpoint that one was necessarily better than the other (DSU vs native Atmos). Haven't watched entirely in 5.1 short of at the theater itself and experiments in HT.

To each their own though. I place Gravity as one of the better movies made in the last 10 years. I think the score is incredible. Especially the last scene. When the choir comes in it is so elevated and immersive as the singing echoes and then expands through the top speakers. It's really breathtaking in Atmos vs 5.1. Perfection is actually how I would describe it as a musician. Furthermore, we can pick all sorts of stuff apart in every movie----"flying debris is silent in space"---well actually not true, the metal itself would be vibrating especially in the upper atmosphere where most of the atmos flybys take place. There's still oxygen/nitrogen in the upper atmosphere to propagate sound. Not to mention the propagation of expelled gasses themselves. Is it Star Wars explosions and fireballs in space? No. But it's not exact either and realism is always typical forgone for cinematic experience is most all movies. 

I've watched about 10-15 Atmos mixes. I can tell you right now, the number one test of one's Atmos setup is Gravity. If I put it on anyone's system, I can tell exactly how well setup and in-spec it is. It's the benchmark of Atmos setup and evaluation IMO. Again, to each their own, but it's my current reference standard.


----------



## Stoked21

cholmes1 said:


> So is it your belief that non-object based speakers are superior for ATMOS? If yes, what leads you to that conclusion and what recommendation would you have based on my room setup?
> 
> Best,
> C.H.


"Object Based" speaker is marketing. The speaker is the speaker. It still only has a +/- going into it out of the same amp and preamp. I personally wouldn't use the dipole for tops. I think it's a horrible idea. I say that and I'm using bipole for my TFs to cover 2 rows. Go with an aimable speaker or a coaxial with EXTREMELY wide dispersion (over 90 degrees, nothing less). My rule of thumb is that if dispersion spec isn't provided by manuf, then don't use it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> @Scott Simonian - Scott, could you please give me five to ten Blu-ray titles with Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (or 7.1) and/or DTS-HD MA 5.1 (or 7.1) and/or LPCM 5.1 surround sound that are "spectacular" audio mixes to you with all the precision of sounds surrounding you in your favorite listening chair of your home theater room ... all that jazz?  ...THX Scott.


Hmmm.... I don't know about five to ten but here are few right off the top of my head.


Tron:Legacy
Dredd
Transformers 3
Oblivion
Edge of Tomorrow
Gravity (in 7.1)


There are several more but that's a quick list. I'll add more later.


----------



## Stoked21

So quick update on GoT atmos release. I know many of you are not GoT fans (I highly recommend becoming one! ). I personally think Peter Dinklage is one of the best damn actors around and his character in GoT is freaking hilarious. The story is really quite addictive and entertaining. I've NEVER seen a movie or TV show that is 99.9% like the book. I mean even the character lines are verbatim out of the text. Only the most insignifcant minor things are different (like where a character stands or kneels etc). The screen writers had an easy job on this one which is a testament to how great the novel is. Anyway.....

I tried to hold all my comments until finishing the first season.  In a nutshell, I found myself hitting info on the remote constantly. I hate that with every disc I have to set it to "atmos" instead of 5.1. _But, I was pushing the button repeatedly wondering why my tops were not working??? _Birds would fly by (and there are a s*** ton of birds in GoT) but hardly never overhead. Arrows would be shot, but never overhead. Rain would fall but never had any elevation. Leaves would blow....ditto. You get the point. My tops were working just fine and everything was kosher with my system.

What I took away from it was they essentially did a great job of mixing the score into the top speakers and that was about it. There are tons of large halls in the series with all the castles and dungeons; the echo and reverberation was outstanding with the tops. Lots of torches and you would hear the flames licking towards the top with a very subdued elevation, but never enough. An occasional non-locatable bird or a very insignificant wind gust that you had to listen for to even realize the tops were being used. I even cranked my tops up to hear WHERE IS THE ATMOS???

All in all, it was a better experience in Atmos vs my typical TV sound bar I use for normal TV watching in the living room. It did bring the slightest bit of elevation to an experienced ear and felt immersive. But I think an Atmos layman would probably not even notice it. Unless you really want to start/catchup on GoT, want to watch it all again or are a super-fan then go for it. It's worth the purchase. Otherwise, save the $80 and don't succumb to the Atmos label. No better way to do it than in Atmos in the HT. I'm a fan (not a super-fan) and wanted to see it all again after reading the books or I never would have purchased it. Now the discs will collect a lot of dust as they are definitely not demo material.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Must confess I watched it in DSU from DD+ upmix the first time as I didn't realize that all Gravity BD didn't have Atmos track. Watched again with Atmos disc and I can't pinpoint that one was necessarily better than the other (DSU vs native Atmos). Haven't watched entirely in 5.1 short of at the theater itself and experiments in HT.
> 
> To each their own though. I place Gravity as one of the better movies made in the last 10 years. I think the score is incredible. Especially the last scene. When the choir comes in it is so elevated and immersive as the singing echoes and then expands through the top speakers. It's really breathtaking in Atmos vs 5.1. Perfection is actually how I would describe it as a musician. Furthermore, we can pick all sorts of stuff apart in every movie----"flying debris is silent in space"---well actually not true, the metal itself would be vibrating especially in the upper atmosphere where most of the atmos flybys take place. There's still oxygen/nitrogen in the upper atmosphere to propagate sound. Not to mention the propagation of expelled gasses themselves. Is it Star Wars explosions and fireballs in space? No. But it's not exact either and realism is always typical forgone for cinematic experience is most all movies.
> 
> I've watched about 10-15 Atmos mixes. I can tell you right now, the number one test of one's Atmos setup is Gravity. If I put it on anyone's system, I can tell exactly how well setup and in-spec it is. It's the benchmark of Atmos setup and evaluation IMO. Again, to each their own, but it's my current reference standard.


I was replying to Scott in a verisimilitude; to agree with his own perception but opposite in a humorous way, accommodating his own style. 

I respect everyone's own opinion, and me I love 'Gravity' audio soundtrack, immensely, even in just 5.1 surround from DTS-HD MA (I also have the 2D only Dolby Atmos version with the "silent" version included). I still have to experience it in Atmos glory though...saving my pennies for that next DTS:X pre/pro. 

All the films I mentioned in my above post (in magenta color); I love them all, not only for their excellent music scores, but overall, in their totality.
{My posting style was simply to not oppose any contradictory mind; and I like Scott...a lot.} 

♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1088.html#post38690273


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmmm.... I don't know about five to ten but here are few right off the top of my head.
> 
> - *Tron:Legacy* (((3D)))
> - Dredd (((3D)))
> - Transformers 3 (((3D)))
> - *Oblivion*
> - Edge of Tomorrow Live Free - Die Hard - Repeat All | (((3D)))
> - *Gravity* (((3D))) (in 7.1 - Diamond Luxe Edition: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 core audio)
> 
> There are several more but that's a quick list. I'll add more later.


Well, not bad you and I...50/50 (in red are the BR titles that I mentioned and liked, overall, not just the audio).
♠ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1088.html#post38690273

And (((3D))) Blu means I like (own too) them also in 3D (5 out of 6).  ...Only 'Oblivion' is in 2D, but what's great about this BR title is that it has a separate "Audio" only track (music score). And that, is a great feature that I wish more film's directors would offer on Blu-ray. 

And from those above six titles, only 'Gravity' was redone with Dolby Atmos, but with a HUGE caveat, missing the 3D imagery. 
So, Warrner Bros Studios: "Chapeau" for the Audio effort, and "Bou" for only 2D. ...Instead of scoring 100/100 you only scored 50/100.


----------



## Lesmor

cholmes1 said:


> That is a good idea. The main issue there is that I am planning on purchasing AT IC-6 OBA which cannot be aimed. Do you think a speaker with an aimed tweeter would be a requirement in this situation?


These speakers are on my short list they have wide dispersion and the tweeter island has to be orientated properly and aimed at the MLP


----------



## MarkMul1

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah - I have never seen a Blu-ray player that can do that. Which player does he have?



Sorry

Have family in town and had to go to the beach. Part of living in Florida. Ha

I have a 2 or 3 year old Panasonic player. Was on the high end of their line when I bought it. And it does allow for different settings and I do not ever go in and switch settings and I do watch DTS with DSU and also pure Atmos. 

FYI


----------



## Steven James 2

Does anyone use a roku 4? Is there actual streaming content in atmos? Im partially interested in a roku over apple tv due to 4k.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Would be interesting if DSU does a better job on the originals vs the Atmos release. That would be true irony.


Getting rid of your crowns after talking me into them??? 
Got the gain and buzz all sorted out. Fabulous addition and happy as can be. Just took a few weeks and many calibrations and addition of sequencer/triggers to get everything perfect! Thanks

Funny u should say that about dsu. After finishing the GoT season I threw in a dts hd disc to tryout the pcm workaround for 7702mk2(which worked for those interested btw). Low and behold the dsu was playing "inside out" disc like it was trying to blow me away with tops. Voices in the middle of the room. Wind and heartbeats above me. I chuckled after thinking GoT was so trivial and minimal with true Atmos


----------



## Stoked21

Steven James 2 said:


> Does anyone use a roku 4? Is there actual streaming content in atmos? Im partially interested in a roku over apple tv due to 4k.


There is with the Vudu app. It's the only way to get Atmos content from them is to buy the UHD release (excluding demos). Your entire chain will need to be hdcp 2.2 (avr and tv). Obviously roku 4 is 2.2. I don't own the 4 but done friends have confirmed the above. I'm waiting for vudu to support 4K/Atmos with my TV app. 

I believe Netflix and Apple r releasing Atmos content soon too. Very Likely only with 4K again. All the providers r bundling the premium audio with the premium video making 2.2 even more mandatory.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> No, I am still using two of them for my ceiling speakers. Went Outlaw for my 4722s to reduce rack space/simplicity since I dropped down to one rack vs two on my previous setup.


Giving u a hard time! They worked out great. Everything I needed for half the cost too!


----------



## smurraybhm

Nalleh said:


> BTW: i watched Terminator Genisys last night, and it instantly made it to my top 5 Atmos list! Awsome sound and loved the movie too
> 
> And that was my first viewing in the "redone" and freshly calibrated HT listening in 9.2.10 Franken-Atmos


Just remember that Atmos had nothing to do with the awesome sound 

By the way Fifth Element is outstanding - comparing it to my older version is eye opening, or should that be ear. To be fair the picture looks great as well.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Looking for a few disk suggestions for a test session that I intend to run next week.

I intend to strip my system back to 5.1 and the 7.1 to see how much of an impact that it will make in my HT. It is roughly 15' wide x 20' long with 2 rows of seats, the 2nd set on an 8" riser. The 2nd set of seats is about 3' from the rear wall.

Following that comparison, I will either continue on my merry way with 5.1.4 or jump off the deep end for 7.1.4 with a secondary amp and still another set of speakers.

I want to compare 5.1 directly to 7.1. Logic would indicate to me that a physical speaker on the side and a physical speaker in the rear would yield a more discrete placement of the sound rather than a matrixing of sound into either location.

So, I am thinking disks with a 7.1 track that would have side sounds as well as rear sounds in particular...

My Atmos will be .4 one way or the other...


----------



## dvdwilly3

Duplicate post...


----------



## gerchy

Baahubali has an impressive audio mix!

The room was really filled up with sounds all over the place. In many scenes I was pretty sure that height speakers were playing most of the time so I kept standing up to the front heights. Nothing special! They were silent or playing at low volumes (except for obvious effects). Not sure if the rears provided so much activity but I have never heard so rich, clean and full atmosphere. It felt like all my speakers have been somehow elevated but yet the effects were placed correctly. 

I must try the non-atmos mode and see what happens there.


----------



## markus767

Lesmor said:


> These speakers are on my short list they have wide dispersion and the tweeter island has to be orientated properly and aimed at the MLP


No, such a tweeter configuration doesn't have "wide dispersion" but huge response holes off axis because the tweeters are too far apart. Please see post 32617.

Even worse, per http://www.audioholics.com/outdoor-speaker-reviews/atlantictechnologyic6oba the tweeters are "wired out of phase" which will lead to a horrible response similar to this:


----------



## virtualrain

I watched The Expendables 3 in Atmos last night. Great mix, good use of overheads, etc, but I really enjoyed the movie.... Good action and decent story with some comedy. But maybe I'm just still a fan of all those action heros from my youth.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Kris Deering said:


> I even would go so far as to say we had some pretty effective overhead activity that is nearly as convincing as a lot of what I've heard from Atmos (Master and Commander, Drive, Godzilla).


Yes, but that was before we had to lower all our surrounds to ear level. LOL

This thing is getting hilarious, we'd better get back to discussing where to drill those holes in our ceilings. LOL

* LOL meaning 'laughing out loud", for those not too familiar with these types of acronyms (like I was not so long ago).


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, but that was before we had to lower all our surrounds to ear level. LOL
> 
> This thing is getting hilarious, we'd better get back to discussing where to drill those holes in our ceilings. LOL


All my surrounds have been @ or less than few inches above ear level for many many years (twenty plus), and *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'*; the scene where you hear the footsteps and some activity above on the upper deck and that you are inside the guts of the sailing ship, is simply uncanny, truly heightened by sounds above the ceiling. If sound mixers can do that, then it opens our ears @ what can truly be done in all the films, and without Dolby Atmos, I think. But Dolby Atmos gives the sound mixers a new incentive, and without wasting time (money). ...A new Pro Tools. 

What do you think of films on Blu-ray like *'The Patriot'* (LPCM 5.1 | Mel Gibson) and *'We Were Soldiers'* (DTS-ES 6.1 | 1509kbps)?


----------



## Lesmor

markus767 said:


> No, such a tweeter configuration doesn't have "wide dispersion" but huge response holes off axis because the tweeters are too far apart. Please see post 32617.


Hi Marcus
Much obliged for the reply
Being that the tweeters are wired out of phase they are now off my short list as I wouldn't be happy,also wasn't to keen on duel tweeters.
So its back to the drawing board short list is now KEF Ci200RR THX or maybe Goldenear Invisia 650
Thanks again
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I remember my first HD-DVD player allowed me to output both TrueHD and DD+ audio bitstreams as 1.5mbps DTS audio. I haven't seen a feature like that since.


Interesting. It's a very hand workaround for those suffering the D&M upmixer cross-pollination issue.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kris Deering said:


> I honestly don't care about the back and forth with the Atmos responsible thing but I do have an issue with the "we did not have these superior mixes on Blu-ray" bit. There are TONS of fantastic Blu-ray mixes on Blu-ray that were here long before Atmos. There are quite a few that I find better than any of the native Atmos mixes as well. Are you saying that the Atmos mixes we have on Blu-ray right now are better than any non-Atmos mixes available on the market today?? If so,


Of course there are superlative mixes from the past. But so far, _every_ Atmos mix I have on Blu-ray (23 titles) is outstanding IIRC. And of course the real issue is the comparison between the same movie with one mix in Atmos and the other not in Atmos.



Kris Deering said:


> Edit: should have read back a page and seen that Sanjay already addressed this issue (and mentioned titles I would have brought up as well). I even would go so far as to say we had some pretty effective overhead activity that is nearly as convincing as a lot of what I've heard from Atmos (Master and Commander, Drive, Godzilla).


That is true, but it was restricted to one or two scenes, and was a psychoacoustic effect as much as anything. A good Atmos mix has far more capability of generating overhead activity. Just listen to the remix of *The Fifth Element*. By comparison with that the others you mention fall very flat.


----------



## kbarnes701

MarkMul1 said:


> Sorry
> 
> Have family in town and had to go to the beach. Part of living in Florida. Ha


You know how to hurt.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Just remember that Atmos had nothing to do with the awesome sound
> 
> By the way Fifth Element is outstanding - comparing it to my older version is eye opening, or should that be ear. To be fair the picture looks great as well.


Best use of overheads in any of the Atmos movies I own. Ironic that it should be on a remix of a movie 18 years old.


----------



## markus767

Lesmor said:


> Hi Marcus
> Much obliged for the reply
> Being that the tweeters are wired out of phase they are now off my short list as I wouldn't be happy,also wasn't to keen on duel tweeters.
> So its back to the drawing board short list is now KEF Ci200RR THX or maybe Goldenear Invisia 650
> Thanks again
> Andy


Good decision. Get something that can be angled towards the main listening position.

I don't know why manufacturers come up with these totally useless designs for speakers that "don't draw attention to them". This is exactly the opposite of what we want in a multichannel system. The content decides if a sound draws attention to it, not the speaker. A speaker needs to be localizable. If it's not then no mix can sound as intended.


----------



## Zhorik

NorthSky said:


> -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I agree; *'Super 8'* was a "horrible" Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio mix...except for train versus pickup truck collision. ...And the great charismatic young actress.
> - You are right again; *'Black Hawk Down'* audio mix (LPCM 5.1) was nothing "special". I just liked the music score myself, and the helicopter blades hovering and cutting the air above. Plus all the war artillery (bullets flying by...all that jazz).
> - *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'* (DTS-HD MA only 5.1); another "ok" audio mix...with accurate cannons shots in the guts, and the upper deck activity heard from down below in the ship's "war" deck. The music score was also "ok" (awesomely ok).
> - You're right; *'Interstellar'* (DTS-HD MA only 5.1) was "poor", with a 'voluntary' indistinct dialog and very 'soft/unconvincing' wormhole ride...tra-la-la. ...Through the black hole of infinity and beyond...*'Toy Story'* trilogy.
> - *'Gravity'* (3D & DTS-HD MA only 5.1)) wasn't bad; I agree again. The flying debris are "silent" in space, the voices inside the spacesuits are normal, and the music score was nothing to write home to your grandmother about. All in all, not bad (not bad @ all).
> ...And not even close to *'The Lord of the Rings'* trilogy.
> 
> The movies I listed are "decent" nothing more nothing less, and without great surround mixes...very true. ...My *'Oblivion'* opinion in *'The Book of Eli'*.
> ...And if I was Sir Ridley, *'Gladiator'*, *'Prometheus'*, ...I would redo their scores with Atmos.
> And I might also "rearrange *'Tron Legacy'* music score and special sound effects, just to be on the safer side of *'The Incredibles'* (PIXAR).
> And Steven's *'War of the Worlds'* and *'Saving Private Ryan'* ... them too I would remix in Atmos.
> 
> ♦ We live in very exciting times, with 3D picture, with 3D sound immersion (Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D | DTS:X is a no go for another while), and with the eminent apparition of UHD Blu-ray. ..*.'The Fifth Element'* and *'Lucy'* should look real "swell".
> 
> *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* is/was the only exception. ...As for *'Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance'* ... well, that drummer guy sure got into my brain following all the mayhem of that "Batman" superhero "Beetlejuice" guy..._Michael Keaton._ ...And speaking of *'Batman - The Dark Knight'* trilogy from Chris...the music ♪ scores...not bad @ all.
> 
> I like _Hans Zimmer_ and _Lisa Gerrard._ ... *'Elysium'*


Not questioning your taste in film sound, but, Super 8, Interstellar, Black Hawk Down, Master and Commander, Gravity and other films listed above as having "not great sound mixes" were nominated for CAS and Academy awards in that category. 

With the last paragraph, I have no idea what you are trying to say.


Edit: Not sure if any one of you has tried, but if you have, how different is the Atmos mix of the Sony Supreme releases compared to the old releases of these films + DSU?


----------



## thomasfxlt

I actually streamed a UHD Atmos title last night with the new Roku 4 using the VUDU app; Live, Die, Repeat. It looked great and sounded better. The Roku is glitchy though. Support was contacted and they are already replacing the unit. Good for them!

Signal chain is Roku 4, UHD/Atmos, HDMI in to Pioneer Elite SC-95, HDMI out to Vizio M80C3.


----------



## Stoked21

markus767 said:


> Good decision. Get something that can be angled towards the main listening position.
> 
> I don't know why manufacturers come up with these totally useless designs for speakers that "don't draw attention to them". This is exactly the opposite of what we want in a multichannel system. The content decides if a sound draws attention to it, not the speaker. A speaker needs to be localizable. If it's not then no mix can sound as intended.


Couldnt agree more. I've been championing localizable speakers and aimable Atmos speakers for some time. And have not liked the dipole configs being pushed such as AT. Your front speakers are only localizable when intended to be so otherwise the sounds image between or past the speakers. Atmos speakers should be no different. Being able to tweak the focus of a speakers dispersion also allows for corrections on mounting locations and acoustics. Better safe than sorry and having to cut another hole in the ceiling.


----------



## markus767

thomasfxlt said:


> I actually streamed a UHD Atmos title last night with the new Roku 4 using the VUDU app; Live, Die, Repeat. It looked great and sounded better. The Roku is glitchy though. Support was contacted and they are already replacing the unit. Good for them!
> 
> Signal chain is Roku 4, UHD/Atmos, HDMI in to Pioneer Elite SC-95, HDMI out to Vizio M80C3.


Not sure how this relates to my post but thanks for the info. One question though, can you stream VUDU UHD with Atmos to a TV/projector HDMI


----------



## thomasfxlt

markus767 said:


> Not sure how this relates to my post but thanks for the info. One question though, can you stream VUDU UHD with Atmos to a TV/projector HDMI


----------



## Stoked21

markus767 said:


> Not sure how this relates to my post but thanks for the info. One question though, can you stream VUDU UHD with Atmos to a TV/projector HDMI


----------



## thomasfxlt

Stoked21 said:


> I've spoken to people with Roku 4 who say no. They receive error messages on the screen. I don't have the exact words in the message but it included HDMI/hdcp in the verbiage.
> 
> Furthermore I spoke to a friend who has 4K TV but his avr is not 2.2 and he received same message.


Yes, the signal chain has to be HDCP 2.2 all the way through.


----------



## markus767

Stoked21 said:


> I've spoken to people with Roku 4 who say no. They receive error messages on the screen. I don't have the exact words in the message but it included HDMI/hdcp in the verbiage.


Sad enough they charge a premium for "VUDU UHD" with Atmos, you even can't get Atmos at all when your screen isn't 4k/HDCP 2.2? Stupid.


----------



## thomasfxlt

markus767 said:


> Sad enough they charge a premium for "VUDU UHD" with Atmos, you even can't get Atmos at all when your screen isn't 4k/HDCP 2.2? Stupid.


I totally agree with that considering Bluray is 1080p. The rental rates are ridiculous but the purchase price is reasonable relative to a Bluray disk I suppose.


----------



## Stoked21

markus767 said:


> Sad enough they charge a premium for "VUDU UHD" with Atmos, you even can't get Atmos at all when your screen isn't 4k/HDCP 2.2? Stupid.


That's why in the last month I've replaced my non 2.2, 6 month old Yamaha with a Marantz. Also why I couldn't bring myself to replace my new 2.2 lcd with a Sony or Epson pj that was non 2.2 and instead spent more for the new jvc models that were. I didn't do any of it for 4K, though nice to have. I just wanted to make sure I kept receiving my Atmos content. 

The first half of my posts here, two months ago, have proven true. Atmos junkies are going to be hosed for streaming content without 2.2. In a few months I think we r going to see the second part proven true as well. Atmos discs are going to be UHD only from certain studios and therefore require 2.2 as well. 

Not a soul has chimed in as to whether hd fury has resolved this fof them. $200 would be a cheap solution, though it's no longer a concern to me. I'd be curious how successful anyone has been with it.


----------



## thomasfxlt

Stoked21 said:


> That's why in the last month I've replaced my non 2.2, 6 month old Yamaha with a Marantz. Also why I couldn't bring myself to replace my new 2.2 lcd with a Sony or Epson pj that was non 2.2 and instead spent more for the new jvc models that were. I didn't do any of it for 4K, though nice to have. I just wanted to make sure I kept receiving my Atmos content.
> 
> The first half of my posts here, two months ago, have proven true. Atmos junkies are going to be hosed for streaming content without 2.2. In a few months I think we r going to see the second part proven true as well. Atmos discs are going to be UHD only from certain studios and therefore require 2.2 as well.
> 
> Not a soul has chimed in as to whether hd fury has resolved this fof them. $200 would be a cheap solution, though it's no longer a concern to me. I'd be curious how successful anyone has been with it.


I just upgraded all of my stuff. 1st HT investment in a long time. I made sure everything was HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 (with 2.0a firmware coming). The only thing I chose to ignore was HDR. I put a 5.1.4 Atmos config in my family room and it's worth every penny.


----------



## Stoked21

thomasfxlt said:


> I just upgraded all of my stuff. 1st HT investment in a long time. I made sure everything was HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 (with 2.0a firmware coming). The only thing I chose to ignore was HDR. I put a 5.1.4 Atmos config in my family room and it's worth every penny.


Ditto. Unfortunately mine was all within 6 months of initial Ht investment! I lost about $400 on the resale of my first Atmos avr (but jumped from 9 to 11 so worth it!). And I paid a premium of $900 to get 4K 2.2 compliant pj to upgrade from my brand new 65" 4K lcd. $1300 to "guard" my Atmos addiction. Although I'm gaining a lot of additional perks in the process. In comparison, $200 hd fury would have saved me $1000!!!! It's really worth an evaluation from those who don't want to replace their avr and tv/pj.


----------



## thomasfxlt

Stoked21 said:


> Ditto. Unfortunately mine was all within 6 months of initial Ht investment! I lost about $400 on the resale of my first Atmos avr (but jumped from 9 to 11 so worth it!). And I paid a premium of $900 to get 4K 2.2 compliant pj to upgrade from my brand new 65" 4K lcd. $1300 to "guard" my Atmos addiction. Although I'm gaining a lot of additional perks in the process. In comparison, $200 hd fury would have saved me $1000!!!! It's really worth an evaluation from those who don't want to replace their avr and tv/pj.


Good advice on the Fury.


----------



## Ricoflashback

****


Molon_Labe said:


> I wouldn't suggest the up-firing speakers. If your gonna go Atmos, go all in. I had to open up my ceiling to run the wires. Was it worth it? Yes, every ounce of sheet rock dust and insulation I ingested was well worth the payoff. The Denon 5200 is a great receiver if your after just Atmos and don't need 4k display support. I still own the 5200 I had prior to my Marantz.


 *****

Much thanks. I'm looking at the Boston Acoustics SoundWare XS Satellite speakers that I can mount high on my ceiling or on the beams that are across my man cave (one inch from the top of the ceiling) and having them angled and pointing down to the listening area. It just isn't feasible in an older home like mine to tear out the sheet rock (popcorn) ceiling as I have many beams and a lot of insulation to deal with. With Atmos effects, I'm not as concerned with matching the timbre qualities as my main sound stage (L/C/R & side & back surrounds are all Paradigm.) 

Current Setup: 7.1 configuration with Paradigm Studio 60's, V.2, as my main Left & Right speakers with the beastly Paradigm CC-690, V.5 as my center channel. Lastly - I have Paradigm ADP-590, V.5 dipoles as side surrounds and Millenia One speakers as rear back surrounds that are mounted behind the listening area (closer to the ceiling.) I have a Velodyne 810 sub that works well and I crank it up when mama isn't home. :>) 

For what it's worth - - I do not get much out of my rear surrounds (IMHO) and that could be because they are mounted too high or the studio mix. I use Dipoles for the side surrounds because a direct firing speaker wasn't cutting it in such a small environment. 

I could possibly use the Boston Acoustic XS Satellites (2) as rear back surrounds but much lower (just above ear level,) mounted with angle brackets to the side. The back surrounds (Millenia One) could be switched over to Dolby Atmos, as a direct firing speaker is optimal for Atmos. It would not be ceiling mounted but still pretty close. They are aimed at the listening position, angled in. 

My ceilings are low - 7', 5" and the seating area is close to the back. A lot of my choices are determined by the size limitations of the room (see pics below.)

The Red "X" designates the suggested positioning of the Boston Acoustics XS Satellite speakers as the Dolby Atmos addition (front) while using my Paradigm Millenia One speakers as the back Dolby Atmos speakers and using the other pair of Boston Acoustics XS Satellites as my rear back channels but much lower and angled toward the listening position.

Thoughts on the Dolby Atmos surround setup and speaker positioning?


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> All my surrounds have been @ or less than few inches above ear level for many many years (twenty plus), and *'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'*; the scene where you hear the footsteps and some activity above on the upper deck and that you are inside the guts of the sailing ship, is simply uncanny, truly heightened by sounds above the ceiling. If sound mixers can do that, then it open our ears @ what can truly be done in all the films, and without Dolby Atmos, I think. But Dolby Atmos gives the sound mixers a new incentive, and without wasting time (money). ...A new Pro Tools.
> 
> What do you think of films on Blu-ray like *'The Patriot'* (LPCM 5.1 | Mel Gibson) and *'We Were Soldiers'* (DTS-ES 6.1 | 1509kbps)?


I remember most vividly that spectacular effect in the described M&C scene when I was watching the movie the very first time at home, not having read or heard about it, so completely unbiased. I believe you are absolutely right about not needing overheads nor substantially elevated surrounds to be able to create perceptual overhead sounds. I guess this is achieved by applying sophisticated HRTF filters of some kind.

But the other side of the story is that a lot of sounds in 5.1 and 7.1 mixes which are intended to be heard at a slightly elevated level (15-20 degrees elevation) do not get such special treatment, since the re-recording engineer has its surround speakers already at that elevation at his dub stage. These sounds (flapping birds, wind, helicopters to name a few) tend to remain at (perceptual) ear level in a typical home Atmos set-up, which of course makes applying the DSU much more appealing.

Don't you find it a bit hilarious that after the conclusion that you do not need an Atmos AVR to enjoy greater precision of sound, it is now suggested that the one remaining unique feature of home Atmos 7.1.4 - which is adding overhead sound - is not so unique either?

I mean, a lot of us are destroying our family room ceilings for this. I will be doing soon, no doubt about it, and I am happy my wife isn't reading all of this.....!


----------



## Molon_Labe

Ricoflashback said:


> Thoughts on the Dolby Atmos surround setup and speaker positioning?


Not sure if it is blasphemy but you could easily mount two speakers on that cross beam and hide the wiring fairly easily. Same for the rear just angle the speaker so it is firing forward from the back wall. You will need top bring your surrounds down but your room looks like it could support bookshelf stands and speakers without any issue. I would put the side surrounds in front of that doorway and angle them back toward the MLP. That will give you more separation between the rear speakers. I think you can do a lot with that space. Are those popcorn ceilings? If so, I would definitely go with mounting on the wood because it is hard to match popcorn correctly if you do repair without redoing the whole ceiling. Digging the retro vibe of the room. When was it built?


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Not sure if it is blasphemy but you could easily mount two speakers on that cross beam and hide the wiring fairly easily. Same for the rear just angle the speaker so it is firing forward from the back wall. You will need top bring your surrounds down but your room looks like it could support bookshelf stands and speakers without any issue. I would put the side surrounds in front of that doorway and angle them back toward the MLP. That will give you more separation between the rear speakers. I think you can do a lot with that space. Are those popcorn ceilings? If so, I would definitely go with mounting on the wood because it is hard to match popcorn correctly if you do repair without redoing the whole ceiling. Digging the retro vibe of the room. When was it built?


Ahhhhh...My favorite! Popcorn ceilings!!! 
I have a 10 year old house in a nice new neighborhood. The builder spent money on state of the art everything back then: large TVs all custom built-in, speakers and subs in nearly every room, equipment rack and closet etc. And then I think he ran out of money and said----"No knock down ceiling please. Just do the pain in the ass, lower cost popcorn". 

Hey I'm not judging, I just hate that crap and I've ALWAYS had it in every room in every house I've owned (or rented). So, I can tell you that repair to it is a lot easier than you think. I've had to do so MANY times!! I think most people are just afraid to work with it cus it does look like it would be hard to repair.

For about $6 at lowes you can actually get a half gallon tub of popcorn repair. It's a little runny but premixed. You just use a small spackle knife and glob it on. Glob it on--nothing special here. It's popcorn so it's suppose to be rough looking and it's impossible to screw it up. Tons easier to repair than smooth drywall or knock-down texture. No sanding required and typically only one coat required. Color can be an issue. It's white and even me being color-blind, it's not the same white as my ceiling. But NO ONE has ever noticed my 2 small 4"x6" spots I cut and patched. I'll try to touch up the paint some day maybe but it's not so bad. 

I hear your pain on insulation, ducting etc. But you need to keep in mind your joist direction. You likely only have to cut 6 holes to mount your top speakers if you went with ICs. Four holes for the speakers themselves and two holes in the wall right up against the ceiling corner. $10 fish tape and/or a $40 fish pole and you're done. You only have to repair 2 small access holes on the wall (12"x12" or so). The only concern you have is 1) which direction do your joists run? and 2) how far away are the speakers from source, as you may have blocking between those joists requiring 2 access holes in ceiling on the left and right side of the room.


It's so much easier to do than people think if they just spend the $50 for the fish tape and pole. I mounted my 4 in about 2 hours with repair to walls


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> **** *****
> 
> Much thanks. I'm looking at the Boston Acoustics SoundWare XS Satellite speakers that I can mount high on my ceiling or on the beams that are across my man cave (one inch from the top of the ceiling) and having them angled and pointing down to the listening area. It just isn't feasible in an older home like mine to tear out the sheet rock (popcorn) ceiling as I have many beams and a lot of insulation to deal with. With Atmos effects, I'm not as concerned with matching the timbre qualities as my main sound stage (L/C/R & side & back surrounds are all Paradigm.)



Further more...Looking at your room. I'm pretty certain the wall the TV is by is an outside wall? Your ducting runs from TV to the door behind you if I look at your ceiling. Your HVAC has to be back behind that door somewhere too, I'm guessing. So your joists are in your favor here. They more than likely run from TV to back door as well. Following the ducting is EXCELLENT for routing speaker wires. Many times no holes are required whatsoever. I could be wrong on your house layout and ducting. But I've done these a couple times and have remodeled homes for fun.....


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Not sure if it is blasphemy but you could easily mount two speakers on that cross beam and hide the wiring fairly easily. Same for the rear just angle the speaker so it is firing forward from the back wall. You will need top bring your surrounds down but your room looks like it could support bookshelf stands and speakers without any issue. I would put the side surrounds in front of that doorway and angle them back toward the MLP. That will give you more separation between the rear speakers. I think you can do a lot with that space. Are those popcorn ceilings? If so, I would definitely go with mounting on the wood because it is hard to match popcorn correctly if you do repair without redoing the whole ceiling. Digging the retro vibe of the room. When was it built?


I like the idea. Without a doubt, I'm going to mount the front Dolby Atmos speakers on the beam, angled properly, with the ability to hide the wiring on the inside on the beam (back side) while running the wires to the speakers on the front side. 

The rear surround back speakers are a little more problematical. Namely, and it's difficult to see from the picture - - there really isn't any room for bookshelf stands. It's a tight fit even to walk around the seating area to the room itself as well as access to mama's office on the right. 

As for the side surrounds - - can't do. If you notice, there is faux (fake) window on the left side (as you are seated, looking forward) that won't permit moving the dipole's inward. That's o.k. - - the dipoles do a great job of dispersion and do not have a localized sound - - which was annoying before when I had direct firing speakers for my side surrounds in a 7.1 configuration. An interesting side note - - when I had our carpet installed, the installer said can we bring the carpet through the window? Ah, I don't think so. He opened it up and then saw it was fake!

I'm going to convert the Paradigm Millenia One's to the back Dolby Atmos back speakers and move the rear surrounds (Boston Acoustics) even down further and mount them in the corner, angled in toward the listening area. That way, we'll still be able to walk around the room without hitting anything. 

Lastly - - yes, an older house with a popcorn ceiling that was built in 1970. It's an older neighborhood on the outskirts of Denver (Aurora) that was built with wide streets when gas was cheap. 

The original owner modeled the basement after a famous watering hole here in Denver called "The Bull & Bush" that is still around and was founded in 1971. When I was single, my friends referred to my man cave as "The Bull & Bushless."


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Or they were polite and didn't mention it
> 
> I always notice repairs but I do a lot of home improvements so I am kinda OCD on that kinda stuff. Being a EE, I am surprised it doesnt drive you insane. My wife is an ME and anything not symmetrical, perfectly aligned, or matching drives her bonkers. Then she drives me insane hearing about it...."you need to fix or do something to xyz...I can't deal with looking at that"


It drives me insane! No doubt I'm extreme OCD. But since my HT started 6 months ago and there's no end in sight, I've been doing well and not sweating these smaller things. Someday they'll make the list---after the PJ, after the screen, after some new in-walls, after 2 new sub locations, after the bar quartz tops, ugh.....Dry wall and wood dust won't even have time to settle in the next 12 months if I had to guess.

I have a good buddy who's a contractor from Australia. His best line to me about home remodeling "If anyone ever gets close enough to notice that and they have the balls to say something, then kick them the **** out of your house. Bob's your uncle."


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Lastly - - yes, an older house with a popcorn ceiling that was built in 1970. It's an older neighborhood on the outskirts of Denver (Aurora) that was built with wide streets when gas was cheap.


Too funny, I was going to mention the room reminded me of something from a Colorado rockies cabin....


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Lastly - - yes, an older house with a popcorn ceiling that was built in 1970. It's an older neighborhood on the outskirts of Denver (Aurora) that was built with wide streets when gas was cheap.


Ignore everything I said. I wouldn't touch that ceiling. 1970? One word....Asbestos.
Go with wires behind the beams and mount to the beams.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Ignore everything I said. I wouldn't touch that ceiling. 1970? One word....Asbestos.
> Go with wires behind the beams and mount to the beams.


Thanks again. No asbestos that we know of since we drilled through the ceiling for the projector screen mount. Very good point, though, to be aware of older construction and potential hazards. Just like the HGTV series when they go through the remodel on an original budget and they say to the owner, "Houston, we have a problem..."


----------



## Molon_Labe

@Ricoflashback - Being in Colorado, just eat more brownies. Eventually sounds will come from the ceiling


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks again. No asbestos that we know of since we drilled through the ceiling for the projector screen mount. Very good point, though, to be aware of older construction and potential hazards. Just like the HGTV series when they go through the remodel on an original budget and they say to the owner, "Houston, we have a problem..."


Drilled through it already without testing? Hmm.

Hey forum, I predict some equipment to be had on the cheap from an upcoming estate sale of a member's HT. Sadly Rico passed from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during his stunning theater remodel and Atmos inclusion. 

Sorry, just playing but couldn't help myself! HA HA It's probably fine but yeah, always better safe than sorry. I still give my wife a hard time. When we sold her 1970s house I replaced the sink faucets in the older vanities. I had all sorts of fiber type stuff and dust falling from under the tiled tops into my face without even thinking about the common occurrence of asbestos in the US until AFTER the fact. I'll just blame her for my death but unfortunately she'll still get the life insurance and a nice HT to boot.


----------



## toofast68

Quick help - hopefully.

I am building an Atmos system using the Denon AVR-X6200W as the foundation.

I will have a 7.4.4 setup, with Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, Right Wide, Top Height Left, Top Height Right, Left Surround, Right Surround, Rear Left Height, Rear Right Height.

Whew....

I have 4 subs (yes not the best subs in the world, but for now decent) I am nearly flat (old setup) down to 20hz, nothing much below but oh well for now.

The 4 subs are basically in the 4 corners of the room(or close enough)

NOW to the $1,000 question.

All my speakers are and can cross at 80hz, but my 4 Atmos ones (because of what I have) will cross at 110hz. I would have spend another $1,000 to replace with something that can cross at 80hz. I know I can try it, but once I install the 110hz crossers, switching will make a giant mess.

I really am hoping I am not compromising much since I have subs really close to the rear heights....

Let the party begin....please give me your thoughts.


----------



## multit

Regarding The Fifth Element...


kbarnes701 said:


> Best use of overheads in any of the Atmos movies I own. Ironic that it should be on a remix of a movie 18 years old.


Keith, I'm glad you like that... because... 

... just as an additional information for you, even when you probably don't like this... the permanent engagement of the overhead speakers in The Fifth Element is very similar mixed, like Auro-Matic is working in general. When you switch off the lower speakers, it's almost everything still on the highs. 

In the respective Auro-Thread you always said, this method is not proper or you even denied it to call that an upmixer.
You see, your Auro-Matic aversion is only feeded from the theoretical informations and some pre biased attitudes... unfortunately never from practical experiences. Again, I'm glad, you made now a similar experience, even without notice.

By the way - this Atmos-Mix is even more better, than watching it with Auro-Matic (as far as I remember the last time, I did it), but you get the idea. 
And you can at least compare it with DSU engagement only... and learn and understand, why someone is excited about Auro-Matic. 

So, back to the movie in general...
The Fifth element was always one of my Top10 movies and now I got it back with a "golden cover"... I got goosebumps already in the first minutes (within the grave building). The Atmos mix is extraordinary and also the picture made huge improvements. It's so much fun to watch it and sometimes you forget, that the movie is already that old. For me, it's the best Atmos disc so far and Mad Max is now dethroned, even when the bass engagement is still better, but considering the overall performance.

The Fifth Element - 10/10 Atmos points!


----------



## dholmes54

I would like to have the Fifth Element in atmos but can't buy it for the 3rd time.My atmos SPK setup according to some is not a real atmos,I have 4 surround spks sides & back,and heights spks not above my mains but more forward about 6 ft from my seating area,I think it sounds good.If I used ceiling spks they would be too close to my side surrounds,opinions welcomed.


----------



## Stoked21

@toofast68

Obviously, you know that 80hz is preferred. But you do not need to spend $1000 on speakers to achieve that. It can be done for $400 or less. Whatever you do, I'd try to stick to a hole size of about 8.0-8.25" or less. I say this as I've found there is a lot of commonality across all manufs with this housing diameter. If the hole is cut to about 8-8.25" then no rework is required. It seems to be a very common size. I've seen a lot of 6" drivers that still spec 8" holes. I've also seen 8" drivers that use 8.25" holes and 7" drivers (like mine) that use 8.25" holes. It just allows them to be swapped easily in the future without the worry of repair to "shrink" the hole and only a little force to fit 8.25" diameter.

Before this week, I would have said that the 110hz wouldn't have bothered me. All of my speakers are crossed at 80hz. I sold one of my cheap subs a few weeks ago and one of my subs had a defective amp (sent back for either repair or replace). I purchased a new one and have been waiting on it for 3 weeks now with no delivery yet. So that being said, I still wanted to watch GoT in Atmos the last 2 days. So I kicked my front speakers over to "large" to eliminate xover. I figured it was a convenient time to listen to my system sans woofage as well, so I ran all of the Atmos demos. I was SHOCKED how much bass I heard coming from the top speakers. Stunned. Depending on the image/object I heard more bass coming from the ceiling than I did from my larger fronts.

So is 80 vs 110 going to be a huge difference? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd rather have the lower response than not.


----------



## toofast68

Stoked21 said:


> @toofast68
> 
> So is 80 vs 110 going to be a huge difference? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd rather have the lower response than not.


Crude...

Problem is a bit more complicated than hole size - meaning I can't really ceiling mount without ripping out my soffits (built theater RIGHT before Atmos existed) so all my soffits are bass traps with heavy wool and there is no fishing wire without tearing out.

So I am using wide dispersion satellite speakers that will hang at the top of the back wall, with the ability to aim at MLP. I would have to find some other "smallish" speakers that I could mount ON WALL that still have wide dispersion characteristics, and thus that is what is hard to find (or at least I think it is)


----------



## markus767

Stoked21 said:


> That's why in the last month I've replaced my non 2.2, 6 month old Yamaha with a Marantz. Also why I couldn't bring myself to replace my new 2.2 lcd with a Sony or Epson pj that was non 2.2 and instead spent more for the new jvc models that were. I didn't do any of it for 4K, though nice to have. I just wanted to make sure I kept receiving my Atmos content.
> 
> The first half of my posts here, two months ago, have proven true. Atmos junkies are going to be hosed for streaming content without 2.2. In a few months I think we r going to see the second part proven true as well. Atmos discs are going to be UHD only from certain studios and therefore require 2.2 as well.
> 
> Not a soul has chimed in as to whether hd fury has resolved this fof them. $200 would be a cheap solution, though it's no longer a concern to me. I'd be curious how successful anyone has been with it.


My hope is that the new Apple TV 4 will stream DD+ with Atmos although the device itself is "only" HDMI 1.4.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Hey forum, I predict some equipment to be had on the cheap from an upcoming estate sale of a member's HT. Sadly Rico passed from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during his stunning theater remodel and Atmos inclusion. "

Yes - but NOT until he cashed in on the "Mesothelioma" commercials and bagged a cool $500K settlement which enabled him to expand his home theater as well as pay for his cryogenic tube nestled in the Rocky Mountains. Rico eagerly looks forward to Dolby Year 2100 and the complete, "in the box" 200 speaker setup that comes fully pre-installed on a feather air, sound proof ceiling composite structure (10 pounds) that installs in ten minutes.....

All seriousness aside, we did see regular insulation in the mechanical room so I doubt they used anything else between the basement and first floor. I have had a little tickle (cough) ever since we installed my projection screen a couple years ago. It'll go away soon....


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> @Ricoflashback - Being in Colorado, just eat more brownies. Eventually sounds will come from the ceiling


Ah, yes, there's a new shop located right by me across the street from McDonalds. 

Step 1 - Visit the shop, obtain brownies & other delights. Eat brownie on way to McDonalds across the street.

Step 2 - Visit McDonalds, pickup Redbox Bluray movie and chicken nuggets for the "munchie" kick in.

Step 3 - Safely home with entire round trip time of 10 minutes. Load movie. Listen to Dolby Atmos 7.1.10 even though I only have a 7.1.4 configuration. 

Just kidding. Anything I did like this was way, way back in college and ONLY for research purposes. I never exhaled.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Ah, yes, there's a new shop located right by me across the street from McDonalds.
> 
> Step 1 - Visit the shop, obtain brownies & other delights. Eat brownie on way to McDonalds across the street.
> 
> Step 2 - Visit McDonalds, pickup Redbox Bluray movie and chicken nuggets for the "munchie" kick in.
> 
> Step 3 - Safely home with entire round trip time of 10 minutes. Load movie. Listen to Dolby Atmos 7.1.10 even though I only have a 7.1.4 configuration.
> 
> Just kidding. Anything I did like this was way, way back in college and ONLY for research purposes. I never exhaled.



LMAO. You won't even need to wear the annoying 3D glasses to see the 3D!!!


----------



## stikle

Kris Deering said:


> I honestly don't care about the back and forth with the Atmos responsible thing



I don't either really, it's getting a little old and circular at this point...but I happen to disagree with Keith this time (along with most everybody else that has chimed in).



Kris Deering said:


> I do have an issue with the "we did not have these superior mixes on Blu-ray" bit. There are TONS of fantastic Blu-ray mixes on Blu-ray that were here long before Atmos. There are quite a few that I find better than any of the native Atmos mixes as well. Are you saying that the Atmos mixes we have on Blu-ray right now are better than any non-Atmos mixes available on the market today?? If so,



One word: Fury.

It doesn't have an Atmos mix, but sounds phenomenal in my opinion.


----------



## Scott Simonian

multit said:


> Regarding The Fifth Element...
> 
> 
> Keith, I'm glad you like that... because...


Awwwww snap, son!  



stikle said:


> One word: Fury.
> 
> It doesn't have an Atmos mix, but sounds phenomenal in my opinion.


 @FilmMixer

He did the mix for Fury and it is excellent!


----------



## bargervais

Ricoflashback said:


> I like the idea. Without a doubt, I'm going to mount the front Dolby Atmos speakers on the beam, angled properly, with the ability to hide the wiring on the inside on the beam (back side) while running the wires to the speakers on the front side.
> 
> The rear surround back speakers are a little more problematical. Namely, and it's difficult to see from the picture - - there really isn't any room for bookshelf stands. It's a tight fit even to walk around the seating area to the room itself as well as access to mama's office on the right.
> 
> As for the side surrounds - - can't do. If you notice, there is faux (fake) window on the left side (as you are seated, looking forward) that won't permit moving the dipole's inward. That's o.k. - - the dipoles do a great job of dispersion and do not have a localized sound - - which was annoying before when I had direct firing speakers for my side surrounds in a 7.1 configuration. An interesting side note - - when I had our carpet installed, the installer said can we bring the carpet through the window? Ah, I don't think so. He opened it up and then saw it was fake!
> 
> I'm going to convert the Paradigm Millenia One's to the back Dolby Atmos back speakers and move the rear surrounds (Boston Acoustics) even down further and mount them in the corner, angled in toward the listening area. That way, we'll still be able to walk around the room without hitting anything.
> 
> Lastly - - yes, an older house with a popcorn ceiling that was built in 1970. It's an older neighborhood on the outskirts of Denver (Aurora) that was built with wide streets when gas was cheap.
> 
> The original owner modeled the basement after a famous watering hole here in Denver called "The Bull & Bush" that is still around and was founded in 1971. When I was single, my friends referred to my man cave as "The Bull & Bushless."


I love beer and I love that look.


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> ...the permanent engagement of the overhead speakers in The Fifth Element is very similar mixed, like Auro-Matic is working in general.


The new Atmos mix copies the main channels to the heights and adds reverb, like Auro-Matic works?


----------



## Gurba

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah - I have never seen a Blu-ray player that can do that. Which player does he have?



Something like this?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> The new Atmos mix copies the main channels to the heights and adds reverb, like Auro-Matic works?


Wouldn't be surprised if they were lazy DSU "Atmos" mixes.


----------



## Gurba

If people would stop bickering and making useless petty remarks the forum would be 1/3 of what it is and much more enjoyable to read...


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if they were lazy DSU "Atmos" mixes.


Isn't that how all Atmos movies are mixed?


----------



## BigScreen

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm looking at the Boston Acoustics SoundWare XS Satellite speakers that I can mount high on my ceiling or on the beams that are across my man cave (one inch from the top of the ceiling) and having them angled and pointing down to the listening area.


Have you considered the (non XS) SoundWare models? They're just a little larger, but their low-end goes to 90 Hz instead of 150 Hz, and 3/4" tweeter is at least a little better than the 1/2" that the XS model has.

Data sheets: SoundWare XS - SoundWare

I'm still in the research/on-the-fence phase, so I haven't gone down this path myself yet, but I have been looking at various options for on-ceiling speakers, and the SoundWare units definitely seem that they would be unobtrusive. I am concerned that they won't have what it takes, but based on the experiences of others, it would seem that a 90 Hz low end limit is working well enough.

Staying in the Boston Acoustics line, another alternative is the Bravo 20. It's larger (14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"), but that increased size gets you an 80 Hz bottom end, plus a 1" VR tweeter, which is probably going to make more of a difference than that extra 10 Hz of extension. I really like the sound of Boston Acoustics speakers, so these are at the top of my list for overhead speakers.
14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"
14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"


----------



## Scott Simonian

Gurba said:


> If people would stop bickering and making useless petty remarks the forum world would be 1/3 of what it is and much more enjoyable to read...



Well, in the meantime....


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Isn't that how all Atmos movies are mixed?


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> The new Atmos mix copies the main channels to the heights and adds reverb, like Auro-Matic works?


Didn't you tried "The Fifth Element" yet? Then you should do it soon. You will be surprised 
I don't know, how exactly they did it, but the listening result is very similar... you can trust me on that!
Music score and most of the sounds from below is also in the height speakers and in addition, the mix accentuate of course some spectacular sounds, like objects in native Atmos mixes. The latter is of course not possible with Auro-Matic and I said already, that the new Atmos mix is even better. But you get the idea!

The more interesting thing I stated was just, that Keith obviously liked this general elevated and athmospheric listening experience. And in other threads he was always eager to pretend, that he don't like such things. So, as I said, I'm glad


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Drilled through it already without testing? Hmm.
> 
> Hey forum, I predict some equipment to be had on the cheap from an upcoming estate sale of a member's HT. Sadly Rico passed from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during his stunning theater remodel and Atmos inclusion.
> 
> Sorry, just playing but couldn't help myself! HA HA


Yeah, my old grandaddy died of asbestosis. Took them two weeks to cremate him


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Well, in the meantime....


...you continue to be part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> Didn't you tried "The Fifth Element" yet?


Yes, and the heights weren't copies of the main channels with reverb added. There were momentary sounds effects occasionally in the heights that weren't duplicating content in the floor channels.


> The more interesting thing I stated was just, that Keith obviously liked this general elevated and athmospheric listening experience.


I haven't seen him express any dislike for active height channels IF that's what the filmmakers intended.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> ...you continue to be part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.


Right back at ya, buddy.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, my old grandaddy died of asbestosis. Took them two weeks to cremate him


 now that's bad. LOL


----------



## Scott Simonian

Scott Simonian said:


> Well, in the meantime....





markus767 said:


> ...you continue to be part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.





Gurba said:


> If people would stop bickering *and making useless petty remarks* the forum would be 1/3 of what it is and much more enjoyable to read...




Haha. Nice. 

Nice and ironic.


----------



## markus767

markus767 said:


> ...you continue to be part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.





Scott Simonian said:


> Haha. Nice.
> 
> Nice and ironic.


Q.E.D.

I'm out.


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> Yes, and the heights weren't copies of the main channels with reverb added. There were momentary sounds effects occasionally in the heights that weren't duplicating content in the floor channels


Interesting... and you verified that with switching off the main chanels, right?
So "Momentary sounds" and "occasionally" comes into your mind, when you are able to follow up on quite the whole music score and other sounds except center... really interesting!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yes, and the heights weren't copies of the main channels with reverb added. There were momentary sounds effects occasionally in the heights that weren't duplicating content in the floor channels.


Indeed. Just for giggles, today while I was doing something else, I played the whole movie with all the listener level channels switched off. There is considerable overhead activity in this mix. To describe it as "copies of the main channels with reverb added" suggests the listener has something amiss with his setup. There is considerable 'discrete' overhead activity - I was hearing all manner of such sounds. Of course, there is also plenty of ambient activity - the paramount example of which is perhaps the 'Diva' scene, where the overtones of her voice soar to the ceiling. But it is not a copy at any time - what one hears from the overheads is not the same content one hears from the mains. It is more like an 'accent' to the sound in the mains, nicely replicating the sense of a large auditorium. There are many such examples throughout the movie.



sdurani said:


> I haven't seen him express any dislike for active height channels IF that's what the filmmakers intended.


Of course I haven't. Why anyone would suggest otherwise is bizarre.


----------



## audiofan1

BigScreen said:


> Have you considered the (non XS) SoundWare models? They're just a little larger, but their low-end goes to 90 Hz instead of 150 Hz, and 3/4" tweeter is at least a little better than the 1/2" that the XS model has.
> 
> Data sheets: SoundWare XS - SoundWare
> 
> I'm still in the research/on-the-fence phase, so I haven't gone down this path myself yet, but I have been looking at various options for on-ceiling speakers, and the SoundWare units definitely seem that they would be unobtrusive. I am concerned that they won't have what it takes, but based on the experiences of others, it would seem that a 90 Hz low end limit is working well enough.
> 
> Staying in the Boston Acoustics line, another alternative is the Bravo 20. It's larger (14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"), but that increased size gets you an 80 Hz bottom end, plus a 1" VR tweeter, which is probably going to make more of a difference than that extra 10 Hz of extension. I really like the sound of Boston Acoustics speakers, so these are at the top of my list for overhead speakers.
> 14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"
> 14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"


 I'm using 4 Soundware's (nonXS) and after calibration there set at 90hz, there incredibly flexible coaxial design and work well aimed straight down. Also I occasionally do full reference volume and they sing right along with the rest of the setup


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> Interesting... and you verified that with switching off the main chanels, right?


Right.


> So "Momentary sounds" and "occasionally" comes into your mind...


When trying to spot specific sound effects in the heights that were clearly different from what was in the floor speakers which, as you yourself said, is not possible with Auro-Matic (despite you likening this track to an Auro-Matic upmix).


----------



## multit

Applause, Applause!


----------



## Ricoflashback

BigScreen said:


> Have you considered the (non XS) SoundWare models? They're just a little larger, but their low-end goes to 90 Hz instead of 150 Hz, and 3/4" tweeter is at least a little better than the 1/2" that the XS model has.
> 
> Data sheets: SoundWare XS - SoundWare
> 
> I'm still in the research/on-the-fence phase, so I haven't gone down this path myself yet, but I have been looking at various options for on-ceiling speakers, and the SoundWare units definitely seem that they would be unobtrusive. I am concerned that they won't have what it takes, but based on the experiences of others, it would seem that a 90 Hz low end limit is working well enough.
> 
> Staying in the Boston Acoustics line, another alternative is the Bravo 20. It's larger (14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"), but that increased size gets you an 80 Hz bottom end, plus a 1" VR tweeter, which is probably going to make more of a difference than that extra 10 Hz of extension. I really like the sound of Boston Acoustics speakers, so these are at the top of my list for overhead speakers.
> 14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"
> 14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4"


***************************
I think they are the same speaker only the 5.1 includes five versus one speaker and a subwoofer. The specs below are from Amazon. 

The Bravo 20 is too large and can't be angled (positioned) as well as Soundware XS's. I do not think that the overhead Dolby Atmos effects will have a lot of heavy bass. I believe most of that will be routed to the sub to begin with. 

They look like a real cost effect solution that is very friendly, installation wise, if you cannot have in ceiling speakers. 

*Product Description*

Color:*Black* 

Boston Acoustic SoundWare XS Ultra-Compact Satellite Speakers. Add this SoundWare Satellite Speaker to your SoundWare XS 5.1 system. For 6.1 and 7.1 home theater surround systems. * Dimensions: 4.27" L x 4.45" W x 3.7" H * Weight: 0.8 lbs.


----------



## audiofan1

Ricoflashback said:


> ***************************
> I think they are the same speaker only the 5.1 includes five versus one speaker and a subwoofer. The specs below are from Amazon.
> 
> The Bravo 20 is too large and can't be angled (positioned) as well as Soundware XS's. I do not think that the overhead Dolby Atmos effects will have a lot of heavy bass. I believe most of that will be routed to the sub to begin with.
> 
> They look like a real cost effect solution that is very friendly, installation wise, if you cannot have in ceiling speakers.
> 
> *Product Description*
> 
> Color:*Black*
> 
> Boston Acoustic SoundWare XS Ultra-Compact Satellite Speakers. Add this SoundWare Satellite Speaker to your SoundWare XS 5.1 system. For 6.1 and 7.1 home theater surround systems. * Dimensions: 4.27" L x 4.45" W x 3.7" H * Weight: 0.8 lbs.


The* non XS* Soundware model has a 4.5 inch driver and a .75 inch tweeter and both can be aimed straight down or any direction, only caveat don't run over 14awg wire to them.


----------



## Ricoflashback

audiofan1 said:


> The* non XS* Soundware model has a 4.5 inch driver and a .75 inch tweeter and both can be aimed straight down or any direction, only caveat don't run over 14awg wire to them.


Is this the speaker you are talking about? Otherwise, I can't find it on Boston Acoustic's website. 

It also looks like it's made for the outside, as well, and does not have the range of the smaller XS speaker.


----------



## audiofan1

Ricoflashback said:


> Is this the speaker you are talking about? Otherwise, I can't find it on Boston Acoustic's website.
> 
> It also looks like it's made for the outside, as well, and does not have the range of the smaller XS speaker.


 That's it! its an indoor/outdoor design and has better range (down to 90hz vs 150hz of XS model) that the smaller XS model its also more efficient with 87db sensitivity so it will be easier to drive.


----------



## Spanglo

toofast68 said:


> Quick help - hopefully.
> 
> I am building an Atmos system using the Denon AVR-X6200W as the foundation.
> 
> I will have a 7.4.4 setup, with Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, Right Wide, Top Height Left, Top Height Right, Left Surround, Right Surround, Rear Left Height, Rear Right Height.
> 
> Whew....
> 
> I have 4 subs (yes not the best subs in the world, but for now decent) I am nearly flat (old setup) down to 20hz, nothing much below but oh well for now.
> 
> The 4 subs are basically in the 4 corners of the room(or close enough)
> 
> NOW to the $1,000 question.
> 
> All my speakers are and can cross at 80hz, but my 4 Atmos ones (because of what I have) will cross at 110hz. I would have spend another $1,000 to replace with something that can cross at 80hz. I know I can try it, but once I install the 110hz crossers, switching will make a giant mess.
> 
> I really am hoping I am not compromising much since I have subs really close to the rear heights....
> 
> Let the party begin....please give me your thoughts.


How important is your back row of seating? I ask because I suggest losing the back row, re-purposing your wide speakers as rear surrounds, and run TF+TR.

TR speakers could go high up on the wall where your surrounds are now. Surrounds move to 90 degrees at ear level. You would have an ideal setup and be able to take advantage of these great 7.1 mixes.


----------



## rx3

Please help me position my front heights. Should I position them as in the left or right templates I have placed on the ceiling. My rears are slightly behind me as in the pictures. I know my vaulted ceiling isn't ideal for Atmos, but it's what I have to work with. Thanks!


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> The Bravo 20 is too large and can't be angled (positioned) as well as Soundware XS's. I do not think that the overhead Dolby Atmos effects will have a lot of heavy bass. I believe most of that will be routed to the sub to begin with.


That is really not the case -- while obviously bass management allows you route bass to the subs, don't assume that there's not going to be powerful overhead effects with native Atmos mixes.

The cost difference and size different between the wee Soundware XS (with a 2.5" woofer and 0.5" tweeter) and the larger Soundware (non-XS, with 4.5" woofer and 0.75" tweeter) is pretty minimal, but I guarantee you that there will be a significant sonic difference between the bitty speaker that probably struggles to go below 150Hz and the large speaker which can actually handle a ~100Hz crossover.


----------



## batpig

rx3 said:


> Please help me position my front heights. Should I position them as in the left or right templates I have placed on the ceiling. My rears are slightly behind me as in the pictures. I know my vaulted ceiling isn't ideal for Atmos, but it's what I have to work with. Thanks!


It's very difficult to see what's going on in your photos as you are just staring up at the ceiling with no context.

However, the guidelines are pretty clear -- for FH/TF, place them such that they are elevated in the 30-45 degree range. Whatever that may be for your room.


----------



## SherazNJ

Do we have a list of movies from Netflix available in Atmos format?


----------



## Stoked21

I never recalled Bram Stoker, 5Element, or Leon the professional being all that great. Then again, I was finishing up my MS degree so maybe I just never paid attention to them (or could afford to go see them!!) (or was busy doing other things in college )

Anyway, after all the hoopla, especially 5E, I went ahead and bought all 3 and they just arrived. I'll save them for next week when I have my subs back up. I have to say the cases are pretty darn cool vs the typical blue/plastic case. However I already had 2 of the plexi covers fall out of the binding upon opening. Oh well, I bought them for the content anyway. Hope they truly are that great in Atmos or I'm sending someone a bill! 

Looks like that only brings my collection to about 15 so I'm definitely behind. Not sure I really want any of the others though. If it's not stunning Atmos or a stunning movie, then I really don't want to buy it. I think that applies to the majority of all of the releases. Hopefully Vudu and the likes get their streaming for non-Roku owners so I can enjoy via rental instead of $30/pop.


----------



## thomasfxlt

SherazNJ said:


> Do we have a list of movies from Netflix available in Atmos format?


Someone can correct me but I don't believe there are any.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thomasfxlt said:


> Someone can correct me but I don't believe there are any.


If he's talking streaming, then no one hold their breath for Atmos or 7.1 soundtracks any time soon.


----------



## toofast68

Spanglo said:


> How important is your back row of seating? I ask because I suggest losing the back row, re-purposing your wide speakers as rear surrounds, and run TF+TR.
> 
> TR speakers could go high up on the wall where your surrounds are now. Surrounds move to 90 degrees at ear level. You would have an ideal setup and be able to take advantage of these great 7.1 mixes.



Well we do use it every weekend, but that is not the issue, the issue is my space....I had to compromise, (Happy Wife, Happy Life) and as you can see I have an open walled dedicated theater. I have no means of moving the surround 90% to MLP...you can see in this picture.

Does that change anything on what I might do with my Atmos setup ?


----------



## thomasfxlt

Dan Hitchman said:


> If he's talking streaming, then no one hold their breath for Atmos or 7.1 soundtracks any time soon.


That's my belief as well. Vudu appears to be the only streaming service that's even toying with it. For some reason, it appears to be tied to 4k releases only in spite of it's 1080p Bluray origin. Time will tell. I did try the Vudu version of Live, Die, Repeat last night and it looked good and sounded better. The Roku almost melted, but that's being fixed.


----------



## NorthSky

Zhorik said:


> Not questioning your taste in film sound, but, *Super 8, Interstellar, Black Hawk Down, Master and Commander, Gravity* and other films listed above as having "not great sound mixes" were nominated for CAS and Academy awards in that category.


That post was a direct reply to Scott's post, in a humorous exaggerated kind of way. All the films mentioned are good films, with good sound, very.
I have already explained that in a prior reply to another poster who also didn't see the "humor" in my replying post to Scott.
=> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1088.html#post38692081

I was a bit 'sarcastic', which is not usually my main style. But with Scott in that particular circumstance from his post's content, I obliged slightly. 
And I did not use any emoticons. ...But yes, all those films mentioned have good audio, to me. 



> With the last paragraph, I have no idea what you are trying to say.


- 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is the exception because it is in Dolby Atmos audio; the Blu-ray. 
- 'Birdman' is a cool flick with an exceptionally well recorded audio soundtrack; high caliber quality sound, the drummer, the music score...top-notch. 
{'Gravity' has two different versions; one in 3D without Atmos, and the other in 2D with Atmos...but counts as good audio without Atmos.} 

I mentioned the films that are some of the best sound wise and overall wise, including the ones mentioned in that last paragraph. 
That's my opinion, my choice, and my way of saying it. 

* And I'm glad that you agree with me on my choices...from some of the titles that you just mentioned in your above quote.
{Again I was a little sarcastic, in good form and in direct reply to Scott's comments on some of those excellent films.}

Not everyone likes the same films, and sound and picture and storyline and acting. That's the magic of cinema...you can like, hate, laugh, cry, go through the full gamut of emotional immersion and without flinching and sweating one single drop of tear of joy or sadness.

• If we take some individual posts without the full context of the discussion, it is hard to have the full picture. I concede that, and that's why it's important to follow the entire discussion, or we can lose the sense of the communication, of the true content's meaning. It happens with everyone of us, myself included. 
We are not machines.


----------



## Stoked21

thomasfxlt said:


> That's my belief as well. Vudu appears to be the only streaming service that's even toying with it. For some reason, it appears to be tied to 4k releases only in spite of it's 1080p Bluray origin. Time will tell. I did try the Vudu version of Live, Die, Repeat last night and it looked good and sounded better. The Roku almost melted, but that's being fixed.


Please tell me more....almost melted? Clearly a funny exaggeration, but overheating? Literally smoking? I've been tinkering with the idea to get my 4k atmos earlier. Otherwise I won't have it until I get a UHD player with vudu app. I think my TV only puts out DD--not DD+ or True with ARC. I hacked it to get it from only stereo PCM to bitstream but I think it still has sw limitations. Once I switch to my pj in December, I'll be stuck with 1080p only BD player Vudu app until the UHD players hit the market. I don't want to buy a Roku 4 if it's not functional


----------



## Spanglo

toofast68 said:


> Well we do use it every weekend, but that is not the issue, the issue is my space....I had to compromise, (Happy Wife, Happy Life) and as you can see I have an open walled dedicated theater. I have no means of moving the surround 90% to MLP...you can see in this picture.
> 
> Does that change anything on what I might do with my Atmos setup ?


Every HT is exercise in compromise - welcome to club 

You could easily put that surround speaker on floor stand at 90 degrees. Whether you can sell that idea to the Mrs is another story.

Beautiful looking bar!


----------



## thomasfxlt

Stoked21 said:


> Please tell me more....almost melted? Clearly a funny exaggeration, but overheating? Literally smoking? I've been tinkering with the idea to get my 4k atmos earlier. Otherwise I won't have it until I get a UHD player with vudu app. I think my TV only puts out DD--not DD+ or True with ARC. I hacked it to get it from only stereo PCM to bitstream but I think it still has sw limitations. Once I switch to my pj in December, I'll be stuck with 1080p only BD player Vudu app until the UHD players hit the market. I don't want to buy a Roku 4 if it's not functional


I'll start by saying that I notified Roku early this am about the issues I had last night and they immediately processed an RMA. I'll have a new one by Monday. Grateful for their prompt support! While playing Live, Die, Repeat in 4k last night, the unit ran very warm with a loud fan on most of the time. The unit played very well for about 40 minutes then began to pause and stutter. I have very fast internet service with a hard-wired connections to the router. It wasn't the line. I rebooted numerous times and it would work for a few minutes then stutter again. Then the unit started to exhibit digital noise on the screen.. similar to a failing video card. Add it all up and the unit was clearly running hot. Roku's prompt reaction appears to indicate them pulling some defective early run units back asap. Stuff happens. I'd wait a few weeks and let the early units filter through unless your happy to do what I did and deal with an RMA.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thomasfxlt said:


> That's my belief as well. Vudu appears to be the only streaming service that's even toying with it. For some reason, it appears to be tied to 4k releases only in spite of it's 1080p Bluray origin. Time will tell. I did try the Vudu version of Live, Die, Repeat last night and it looked good and sounded better. The Roku almost melted, but that's being fixed.


There are other alternative internet services that have disc quality video and audio streaming and download-to-purchase 1080p and 10 bit 2160p files, but they are pricey. Very, very pricey. And I'm not even talking services for the well heeled crowd that can download commercial cinema grade files for their at-home Barco projectors and screening rooms. Whew! We're talking Ferrari pricing then, but the image quality is out of this world.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thomasfxlt said:


> I'll start by saying that I notified Roku early this am about the issues I had last night and they immediately processed an RMA. I'll have a new one by Monday. Grateful for their prompt support! While playing Live, Die, Repeat in 4k last night, the unit ran very warm with a loud fan on most of the time. The unit played very well for about 40 minutes then began to pause and stutter. I have very fast internet service with a hard-wired connections to the router. It wasn't the line. I rebooted numerous times and it would work for a few minutes then stutter again. Then the unit started to exhibit digital noise on the screen.. similar to a failing video card. Add it all up and the unit was clearly running hot. Roku's prompt reaction appears to indicate them pulling some defective early run units back asap. Stuff happens. I'd wait a few weeks and let the early units filter through unless your happy to do what I did and deal with an RMA.


There seems to be a fundamental design flaw with these new Roku's. They're too small without adequate cooling features for the higher speed processors being used. You may end up with a similar issue again.


----------



## Stoked21

toofast68 said:


> Well we do use it every weekend, but that is not the issue, the issue is my space....I had to compromise, (Happy Wife, Happy Life) and as you can see I have an open walled dedicated theater. I have no means of moving the surround 90% to MLP...you can see in this picture.
> 
> Does that change anything on what I might do with my Atmos setup ?


It's really hard to tell from the pics. My honest assessment would be lower the surrounds to ear level....and LEAVE THEM THERE! I and many others are running are surrounds much further forward and breaking dolby spec. And it sounds amazing! Many are using 70-80 and I'm extreme at nearly 50 degrees to the back row (but that's in spec at about 95 degrees to the front row).

Looking at your pic, I would _guess_ you are maybe 80 degrees or so to the back row and probably IN SPEC for the front row! All speakers cannot be in spec for two rows. It's basically impossible unless people are sitting on top of each other or you have a massive room. But in that case you probably have more than 2 rows and so they're still not in spec for all rows.

You can still do 5.1.4 and mount the TR and TF so that they are in spec for the front row. In the back row your TR would be more like TM spec. In 5.1.4 you will find that some of the rear surround tends to play through the TR so it works out well. Alternatively you could run 7.1.2 and put in walls for your rear surrounds. 

Personally I would run in-walls for rears and try to gain 1-3' of space between the back wall and back row. Then I'd go all in with 7.1.4, even with 1' between wall and row. But bottom line, I'd just lower your surrounds and keep them there.


----------



## SherazNJ

thomasfxlt said:


> Someone can correct me but I don't believe there are any.





Dan Hitchman said:


> If he's talking streaming, then no one hold their breath for Atmos or 7.1 soundtracks any time soon.


Not streaming. Dvd from netflix. They have Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle and its in Atmos. When I ordered last time, under option for audio, they had Dolby Atmos listed as well. 

That's what made me ask if others have noticed more.


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> I never recalled Bram Stoker, 5Element, or Leon the professional being all that great. Then again, I was finishing up my MS degree so maybe I just never paid attention to them (or could afford to go see them!!) (or was busy doing other things in college
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Anyway, after all the hoopla, especially 5E, I went ahead and bought all 3 and they just arrived. I'll save them for next week when I have my subs back up. I have to say the cases are pretty darn cool vs the typical blue/plastic case. However I already had 2 of the plexi covers fall out of the binding upon opening. Oh well, I bought them for the content anyway. Hope they truly are that great in Atmos or I'm sending someone a bill!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like that only brings my collection to about 15 so I'm definitely behind. Not sure I really want any of the others though. If it's not stunning Atmos or a stunning movie, then I really don't want to buy it. I think that applies to the majority of all of the releases. Hopefully Vudu and the likes get their streaming for non-Roku owners so I can enjoy via rental instead of $30/pop.


Did you not realize you can buy those discs for half the price without the fancy packaging?


----------



## toofast68

Stoked21 said:


> Personally I would run in-walls for rears and try to gain 1-3' of space between the back wall and back row. Then I'd go all in with 7.1.4, even with 1' between wall and row. But bottom line, I'd just lower your surrounds and keep them there.


I would love to do this, but then I would have an issue with the traffic flow to the other rooms :-( 

The front chairs would stick out a ton and I would be super close to the screen then - man this is not easy.

But I will certainly lower the surrounds and then let the atmos fun begin....still not clear if my 110hZ crosses for the Atmos speakers I have are ok, but I guess I just gotta try and then figure out if I want to rip out soffits at some point.


----------



## thomasfxlt

Dan Hitchman said:


> There seems to be a fundamental design flaw with these new Roku's. They're too small without adequate cooling features for the higher speed processors being used. You may end up with a similar issue again.


We'll see what the new one brings. It arrives Monday. I think they've isolated an issue otherwise they might have simply recommended returning/exchanging it. There's defective units in the wild and they want to ship good stock. That's my theory.


----------



## BigScreen

Ricoflashback said:


> ***************************
> I think they are the same speaker only the 5.1 includes five versus one speaker and a subwoofer. The specs below are from Amazon.
> 
> The Bravo 20 is too large and can't be angled (positioned) as well as Soundware XS's. I do not think that the overhead Dolby Atmos effects will have a lot of heavy bass. I believe most of that will be routed to the sub to begin with.
> 
> They look like a real cost effect solution that is very friendly, installation wise, if you cannot have in ceiling speakers.
> 
> *Product Description*
> 
> Color:*Black*
> 
> Boston Acoustic SoundWare XS Ultra-Compact Satellite Speakers. Add this SoundWare Satellite Speaker to your SoundWare XS 5.1 system. For 6.1 and 7.1 home theater surround systems. * Dimensions: 4.27" L x 4.45" W x 3.7" H * Weight: 0.8 lbs.


No, the SoundWare and SoundWare XS are two different models of satellite speaker. The woofer box is additional and optional, and is the part that attempts to produce sounds between 40-150 Hz.

Best to go straight to the manufacturer instead of Amazon. I linked to the PDF datasheets, but here are the web pages for each speaker:


SoundWare
SoundWare XS
Bravo 20
The XS is the smallest at 4-5/16 x 4-1/2 x 3-3/4", with a 2-1/2" "woofer" and a 1/2" tweeter. That woofer can only get down to 150 Hz, which is too high in my opinion. Low voices (James Earl Jones) can get lower than 150 Hz, and you'd lose those voices to the sub in a bass managed system (requiring your sub to produce sounds above where a sub should be asked to go). This speaker strikes me as a repurposed computer multimedia speaker (think Boston Acoustics BA635), not something up to the task of a home theater. I could be wrong, but the specs don't inspire confidence for me. At $80 each, they're only $10 less than the non-XS models, so I would only consider them if space constraints were such that these were the only possible choice.



The SoundWare (non XS) is just a little bigger at 6-1/6 x 6-1/6 x 6-1/2", with a 4-1/2" "woofer" and a 3/4" tweeter. The 90 Hz low end gets much closer to the ideal 80 Hz cutoff that many use, but Keith has been using speakers with 90 Hz lower limits with no issues, and when he tried larger speakers with lower ranges, he didn't notice any significant differences. (Granted, his Tannoy Di5's are a different class of speaker and I am not equating the overall performance of the SoundWare and the Di5). I really like the positioning flexibility of the SoundWare, and at $99 retail (less for refurbs through accessories4less if you can find them), they're very attractive options!



The Bravo 20 is longer (14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4") and can go down to 80 Hz. That VR tweeter is something that holds appeal to me, as it's a nice match to the other Boston Acoustics speakers in my system. It's not a cute little cube and the placement angles aren't as flexible, but it seems as though quite a few people are aiming their speakers straight downwards instead of at the listener (even when they can aim them), so that may not be as big a factor as it would initially seem to be. Its retail price ($199) is the highest, which adds up when you are putting four of them on the ceiling. They can be had for much less on eBay (used) and accessories4less.com (refurb).


If the Bravo 20 is too big/inflexible, I would go with the non-XS SoundWare over the SoundWare XS with no question.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Don't you find it a bit hilarious that after the conclusion that you do not need an Atmos AVR to enjoy greater precision of sound, it is now suggested that the one remaining unique feature of home Atmos 7.1.4 - which is adding overhead sound - is not so unique either?
> 
> I mean, a lot of us are destroying our family room ceilings for this. I will be doing soon, no doubt about it, and I am happy my wife isn't reading all of this.....!


1. Getting a new Dolby Atmos receiver is good for audio/video electronic business, and it's also good for speaker's manufacturers.
It is part of the economic cycle of disposable financial income and it promotes "sound immersion" evolution. 
Hollywood film industry makes so much money that they keep re-investing where it counts...sound and picture...all part of higher level of entertainment.

2. Us @ home we're all different...the people who love watching movies and in what kind of environment and setup. 
We're all free more or less of what we can achieve or not. There are no limits, only our own restrictive ways to improvise. 
And! We all accommodate each other as best we can; not everyone has the same definition of what home is. 
We don't have all the same high paying jobs that give us more freedom and expansion in our hobbies. 
The more money we have the more freedom with our partner for life in having a dedicated living room for tea with guests, a dedicated hi-fi stereo music listening room, a family room with games and toys for the young ones, and a dedicated home theater room with ten overhead Dolby Atmos speakers (full range, from JBL). ...More rooms inside the mansion where we both live means no restriction when it comes to a fully equipped Dolby Atmos home theater room.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> What do you think of films on Blu-ray like *'The Patriot'* (LPCM 5.1 | Mel Gibson) and *'We Were Soldiers'* (DTS-ES 6.1 | 1509kbps)?


Yesterday I asked that question, but no one has replied yet.


----------



## Scott Simonian

We Were Soliders is a good one. Great surround and excellent bass.


----------



## NorthSky

stikle said:


> Fury
> It doesn't have an Atmos mix, but sounds phenomenal in my opinion.


I agree; it's a good sound mix and without Dolby Atmos. Plus I like the film.


----------



## Xeneize12

My 7.2.4 Atmos Media room is nearly done (90% complete)

Huge thanks to Batpig and JD and everyone that helped

Here's the "before", note that the surround was completly NOT ideal due to the fact that I didn't have a full wall for Right Surround, so I had to settle for a quasi 7.1











Added a full wall with a very nice solid wood/glass door (as best as I could with soundproofing it, as you all know, it's a war of compromises with our wives at times.... we do what we can) Here's the entrance to the Media Room:










Added acoustic panels, and re-arranged all my speakers:














































Now, noticed that I said 90% finished? Still working on Atmos... really waiting for more maturity/feedback/speakers to decide what to do for my Front and Rear, weather to go In Ceiling heights, Front Height/Rear Heights or Atmos enabled for front.... pre-wired for all these scenarios and went with a well placed TM and an additional set of speakers that are really TM for a second row but currently using it as TR..... they sound amazing!! can't imagine this sounding that much better.... but need to wait for a final Atmos config.










My gear:

- Sony 65X950B TV
- Denon 6500W
- Sony DB-6500
- TIVO Premiere/ FIOS
- PS4 / Xbox One / Roku 4
- Sony Media Player 
- Emotiva mini -100 Amp 










Recently changed my Klipsch RS-64 for the Ascend CMT-340 (L/C/R) with stands... and man, what a difference!!

For surround I'm using the Emotiva ERD-1 and my Subs are the Martin Logan Abyss and / SB-2000

My project for next year is to transform this pic below into an amazing bar/lounge area: (need to save for that)











Once again thanks for all the help!! this community is simply the best!


----------



## Charles R

BigScreen said:


> The Bravo 20 is longer (14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4") and can go down to 80 Hz. That VR tweeter is something that holds appeal to me, as it's a nice match to the other Boston Acoustics speakers in my system.


I purchased four (height speakers) since my other speakers are (older) Boston Acoustics. They are nicely built and can be angle mounted to some degree and are designed to be mounted vertically or horizontally. Overall they appear to timbre match the other speakers very well. Such as when I do a EQ they don't stand out at all. Audyssey crosses the fronts at 120Hz and the rears at 150Hz.

I do think they are "over priced" and would have gone elsewhere except for the timbre matching aspect... I posted images of them in this post.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Much improved @Xeneize12 

I bet your system sounds WAY better now.


----------



## engte100

NorthSky said:


> ...and a dedicated home theater room with ten overhead Dolby Atmos speakers (full range, from JBL). ...



Speaking of in-ceiling speakers, has anyone bought the D108s from Origin Acoustics? Very pricey at $1600 per speaker...getting what you pay for?!

They got a good review in Sound & Vision's Dec issue.



HT: Display: Pioneer Kuro Pro-111FD
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1015TX
Blu-Ray: Oppo BDP-103
Speakers: pair of JBL L112s
Power Conditioner: APC H15
Future HT: 7.2.4 system w/ Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro


----------



## rx3

rx3 said:


> Please help me position my front heights. Should I position them as in the left or right templates I have placed on the ceiling. My rears are slightly behind me as in the pictures. I know my vaulted ceiling isn't ideal for Atmos, but it's what I have to work with. Thanks!





batpig said:


> It's very difficult to see what's going on in your photos as you are just staring up at the ceiling with no context.
> 
> However, the guidelines are pretty clear -- for FH/TF, place them such that they are elevated in the 30-45 degree range. Whatever that may be for your room.



Yeah, I figured pictures weren't the best way. What's the best way to measure that angle? Or do most people just eyeball it?


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> If he's talking streaming, then no one hold their breath for Atmos or 7.1 soundtracks any time soon.


from Netflix ???


----------



## bargervais

engte100 said:


> Speaking of in-ceiling speakers, has anyone bought the D108s from Origin Acoustics? Very pricey at $1600 per speaker...getting what you pay for?!
> 
> They got a good review in Sound & Vision's Dec issue.
> 
> 
> 
> HT: Display: Pioneer Kuro Pro-111FD
> AVR: Pioneer VSX-1015TX
> Blu-Ray: Oppo BDP-103
> Speakers: pair of JBL L112s
> Power Conditioner: APC H15
> Future HT: 7.2.4 system w/ Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro


Looks way too much for my blood or budget, I would also think that's a bit of overkill for ceiling speakers, to be used for Atmos height speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

SherazNJ said:


> Do we have a list of movies from Netflix available in Atmos format?





thomasfxlt said:


> Someone can correct me but I don't believe there are any.





Dan Hitchman said:


> If he's talking streaming, then no one hold their breath for Atmos or 7.1 soundtracks any time soon.


Can you guys use DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) with Netflix flicks that have DD 5.1 audio? ...Or do they need to be in DD+ 5.1 (Dolby Digital Plus)?


----------



## tsaiduk

so if one were getting an amp (marantz sr7010) that requires a 2 channel amp for more channels? is there anything to look for specifically?


----------



## SherazNJ

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not sure u r quite following batpig and I.
> 
> Measure from ur seated ear level directly up to ceiling. From that point on ceiling directly above u, measure the same distance along ceiling out in front of u and mark that point with tape or something. That point will be 45 degrees from ur mlp. The median of the Dolby spec. That is ur TF location. Repeat but behind u and that is the 135 degree Tr position.
> 
> Obviously space left and right equidistant of approx ur front spacing to get left and right locations for both pairs.





batpig said:


> Just doing some quick math here.....
> 
> if you go 4 feet up and 4 feet forward, that point is approximately 5.66 feet away from your ears. Now let's say you space the speakers 6 feet apart (3 feet to either side of that point), the speakers will end up 6.4 feet away at their final resting place. That's far enough IMO to not have to worry too much about the speaker being too close to you. Especially since you will be somewhat off axis.
> 
> So in reality if you are thinking about the elevation not from the side view (as per the Atmos spec) but from the perspective of the MLP, it's really more like ~39 degree elevation because of the extra distance.
> 
> If you're really concerned you can try placing them a bit farther away but then you start to lose the "over your head" effect as the elevation creeps towards 30 degrees....


Thx for the explanation guys. I finally marked front/rear points at 45 degrees and then spread the speakers 3 feet apart from that point. then I installed one speaker on ceiling and called the day off. Later when I started watching movie, I realized that the mounted speaker was getting a little bit in projector way (ouch). So how I"ll have to move around 4 feet wide instead of 3 feet but that should do it. 

I'll post the pics when I'm done. Also I'm able to place my surrund at ear height but at 100 degrees instead 90. I don't think its that big of a deal though.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Can you guys use DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) with Netflix flicks that have DD 5.1 audio? ...Or do they need to be in DD+ 5.1 (Dolby Digital Plus)?


Seriously?





Lol. Yes, Bob. You can DSU anything from 2.0 and up to 7.1 audio. Does not have to be DD+. Regular Dolby Digital works.

The DD+ requirement is for Atmos transmission.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> from Netflix ???


From Netflix. They don't believe it's worth bothering, even though they could just send out the same audio track given to them by the studios. Instead, they've admitted in the past to altering the tracks and re-encoding just as they further compress the video files. That tinkering would destroy the Atmos encoding.


----------



## NorthSky

> There are other alternative internet services that have disc quality video and audio streaming and download-to-purchase 1080p and 10 bit 2160p files, but they are pricey. Very, very pricey. And I'm not even talking services for the well heeled crowd that can download commercial cinema grade files for their at-home Barco projectors and screening rooms.
> *Whew! We're talking Ferrari pricing then, but the image quality is out of this world.*


Any links?


----------



## stikle

Ever since watching The Fifth Element last week, every time I click the Multi-Quote button, I hear "Multi-Pass" in my head...



rx3 said:


> I know my vaulted ceiling isn't ideal for Atmos, but it's what I have to work with.



Vaulted ceilings are just fine for Atmos. Mine is a testament.



toofast68 said:


> I have no means of moving the surround 90% to MLP...





Stoked21 said:


> My honest assessment would be lower the surrounds to ear level....and LEAVE THEM THERE!





toofast68 said:


> *But I will certainly lower the surrounds* and then let the atmos fun begin....*still not clear if my 110hZ crosses for the Atmos speakers I have are ok*.



First of all, Yay for someone else running Mirage speakers!

Secondly, there is no reason to lower your Mirage surrounds if they are about 6'. They are a wide dispersion speaker and specifically designed to be mounted upside down (as you have yours) if above 6', and right side up if below 6' (like sitting on a table). Upside down like that, the sound radiates outwards and downwards towards your MLP. From my personal experience and opinion, they sound much better upside down.

Thirdly, try crossing them over at 80hz. That's where I have all of mine.

Click the Pano below for a bigger version.


----------



## stikle

rx3 said:


> What's the best way to measure that angle? Or do most people just eyeball it?



I used a laser pointer and a protractor app on my iPhone.


Of course then someone posted about this Laser Angle Finder after I was done. That would have been SO much faster and easier and totally worth the $12.


----------



## Ricoflashback

BigScreen said:


> No, the SoundWare and SoundWare XS are two different models of satellite speaker. The woofer box is additional and optional, and is the part that attempts to produce sounds between 40-150 Hz.
> 
> Best to go straight to the manufacturer instead of Amazon. I linked to the PDF datasheets, but here are the web pages for each speaker:
> 
> 
> SoundWare
> SoundWare XS
> Bravo 20
> The XS is the smallest at 4-5/16 x 4-1/2 x 3-3/4", with a 2-1/2" "woofer" and a 1/2" tweeter. That woofer can only get down to 150 Hz, which is too high in my opinion. Low voices (James Earl Jones) can get lower than 150 Hz, and you'd lose those voices to the sub in a bass managed system (requiring your sub to produce sounds above where a sub should be asked to go). This speaker strikes me as a repurposed computer multimedia speaker (think Boston Acoustics BA635), not something up to the task of a home theater. I could be wrong, but the specs don't inspire confidence for me. At $80 each, they're only $10 less than the non-XS models, so I would only consider them if space constraints were such that these were the only possible choice.
> 
> 
> 
> The SoundWare (non XS) is just a little bigger at 6-1/6 x 6-1/6 x 6-1/2", with a 4-1/2" "woofer" and a 3/4" tweeter. The 90 Hz low end gets much closer to the ideal 80 Hz cutoff that many use, but Keith has been using speakers with 90 Hz lower limits with no issues, and when he tried larger speakers with lower ranges, he didn't notice any significant differences. (Granted, his Tannoy Di5's are a different class of speaker and I am not equating the overall performance of the SoundWare and the Di5). I really like the positioning flexibility of the SoundWare, and at $99 retail (less for refurbs through accessories4less if you can find them), they're very attractive options!
> 
> 
> 
> The Bravo 20 is longer (14-1/4 x 6-1/2 x 5-1/4") and can go down to 80 Hz. That VR tweeter is something that holds appeal to me, as it's a nice match to the other Boston Acoustics speakers in my system. It's not a cute little cube and the placement angles aren't as flexible, but it seems as though quite a few people are aiming their speakers straight downwards instead of at the listener (even when they can aim them), so that may not be as big a factor as it would initially seem to be. Its retail price ($199) is the highest, which adds up when you are putting four of them on the ceiling. They can be had for much less on eBay (used) and accessories4less.com (refurb).
> 
> 
> If the Bravo 20 is too big/inflexible, I would go with the non-XS SoundWare over the SoundWare XS with no question.


**********************
Very nice and a better solution to the cute cubes. My thoughts are to look at four and use them as follows: 

Option 1 - Convert Paradigm Millenia One's currently being used as my rear surround back speakers to Dolby Atmos rear back (height) speakers and incorporate the Bravo 20's as my rear surround back (lowered and perfectly mounted in each corner - - ear height) as well as using the Bravo 20's as my front (front middle or front height?) speakers. This would split up the Dolby Atmos speakers but also provide a much better Dolby rear back surround sound that is at ear level as opposed to high up where the Millenia One speakers are right now.

Option 2 - Same as above for the front middle or front height Dolby Atmos speakers but keep Millennia One's as rear back surround and mount the Bravo 20's on the back wall, facing down, as my Dolby Atmos height speakers. This would keep the additional .4 Dolby Atmos speakers the same make/model but I still would have the issue with my rear back surrounds Millenia One's. 

Your thoughts, counselor? (Visa payment in the mail....)


----------



## toofast68

stikle said:


> First of all, Yay for someone else running Mirage speakers!
> 
> Secondly, there is no reason to lower your Mirage surrounds if they are about 6'. They are a wide dispersion speaker and specifically designed to be mounted upside down (as you have yours) if above 6', and right side up if below 6' (like sitting on a table). Upside down like that, the sound radiates outwards and downwards towards your MLP. From my personal experience and opinion, they sound much better upside down.
> 
> Thirdly, try crossing them over at 80hz. That's where I have all of mine.
> 
> Click the Pano below for a bigger version.


WOW Thanks for your post...should have realized I don't need to lower them...guess you get lucky some time.

So I have the larger Omnisats for my Surrounds, but they are too large to hang down from my soffits, so I was going to use the Nanosats for the Atmos speakers, they will cross at 110hz

Hopefully they will work, my wife will have a fit if I want to tear apart the room again to do something else.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> From Netflix. They don't believe it's worth bothering, even though they could just send out the same audio track given to them by the studios. Instead, they've admitted in the past to altering the tracks and re-encoding just as they further compress the video files. That tinkering would destroy the Atmos encoding.


I wonder if they're keeping the audio dumbed down as a bandwidth thing, I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Seriously?
> Lol. Yes, Bob. You can DSU anything from 2.0 and up to 7.1 audio. Does not have to be DD+. Regular Dolby Digital works.
> The DD+ requirement is for Atmos transmission.


My question was my suggestion.  ...The very simple solution to all Netflix streamers. With DSU nobody has to wait for Dolby Atmos to be offered from anyone. And when we'll have DTS Neural:X the same principle will apply...we won't need no one; they can do whatever they want to do or not with DTS:X encoded Blu-rays...we simply don't need them to get their act together, we'll all be rolling anyway, just like all DSU people are already rolling, plus with two dozen Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray movie titles (North America, and *'Lucy'* from Hong Kong).

DSU is the door to freedom for all Netflix streamers. 

♥ By the way, *'Leon the Professional'* and *'The Fifth Element'* and *'Bram Stoker's Dracula'* restored in 4K on Blu-ray with the core Dolby TrueHD 7.1 surround audio; they sound phenomenally awesome! ...The two _Luc Besson's_ films more particularly.


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> I agree; it's a good sound mix and without Dolby Atmos. Plus I like the film.


Major bump - - excellent soundtrack (Fury). I was able to crank it up and the sub sounds with the tanks were incredible. 

Which just goes to show how much of an art it is to properly mix soundtracks and if it's done well, it is an exceptional listening experience. Pretty soon you are absorbed with the story and the mix makes it come alive.


----------



## rx3

stikle said:


> I used a laser pointer and a protractor app on my iPhone.
> 
> 
> Of course then someone posted about this Laser Angle Finder after I was done. That would have been SO much faster and easier and totally worth the $12.


That's exactly what I need. Thx!


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> My question was my suggestion.  ...The very simple solution to all Netflix streamers.


All great, Bob but it's not a solution for people who use Netflix *and want Atmos or true 7.1 audio.*


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> I wonder if they're keeping the audio dumbed down as a bandwidth thing, I'm just thinking out loud.


They also dumb the audio down to "normalize" and compress the levels and/or dynamics of the soundtracks for lesser sound systems. There's a reason Netflix is considered the McDonald's of streaming services.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> They also dumb the audio down to "normalize" and compress the levels and/or dynamics of the soundtracks for lesser sound systems. There's a reason Netflix is considered the McDonald's of streaming services.


I also would never use NF for any critical movie watching or expect a Blu-ray quality experience from them. 

Blu-ray disc or bust. Streaming is for stuff to have on in the background, not the main event.

But... that's me.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> All great, Bob but it's not a solution for people who use Netflix *and want Atmos or true 7.1 audio.*


I know that, and only watch Blu-rays myself. If I'm interested in a good documentary (I never watch TV, I have no cable or satellite or all that stuff), I check on youtube from my PC. And the sound is secondary. 

I was curious about what is offered in quality streaming and downloading with high definition picture (2K, 4K and 3D), and with high resolution multichannel sound (D THD 5.1 and DTS-HD MA 5.1 - or 7.1 - or Atmos 7.1.4) and where, from who and how much? 

Dan mentioned "Ferrari" prices...any links? 

Listen, I buy Blu-rays @ $40 a pop (many of them), so give me that quality picture and sound somewhere else for a bit cheaper and I'm totally in.
You know such places...here in Canada, my own home country? 

Some of you guys pay $200+ every month for hi-speed internet and movie streaming and downloading. How many movies a month do you watch and with what kind of audio quality? ...And picture quality too, and 3D. Or do you prefer to go to IMAX 3D theater 30 times a month every month? 

How can you spend less and get more picture and sound quality? What is the very best way to fully benefit from movies @ both the theaters and @ home? ...With top quality sound and picture. 

S'plain that to me real good please.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> They also dumb the audio down to "normalize" and compress the levels and/or dynamics of the soundtracks for lesser sound systems. There's a reason Netflix is considered the McDonald's of streaming services.


Are you sure? Cuz the Netflix originals (Sense8, Daredevil) have *crazy* levels of dynamic range. It could be they treat their originals different/better than their licensed content, although I've never had reason to complaint on other stuff either. Blu Ray is obviously superior, but on my fast hard-line connection using an Apple TV through my Denon AVR, Netflix 5.1 typically kicks ass.


----------



## NorthSky

Netflix is for moderate people (big mac attack urge), not for videophiles and audiophiles. What do you get for seven bucks a month, what do you get?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> Are you sure? Cuz the Netflix originals (Sense8, Daredevil) have *crazy* levels of dynamic range. It could be they treat their originals different/better than their licensed content, although I've never had reason to complaint on other stuff either. Blu Ray is obviously superior, but on my fast hard-line connection using an Apple TV through my Denon AVR, Netflix 5.1 typically kicks ass.


_They've_ said they normalize the audio. And I've watched movies that didn't sound as good as a DVD or as impactful and that's pretty lossy to begin with. 

From a What Hi-Fi? article about Netflix and the future (this was part of the sound section):

_We’re making sure that they’re level-normalised – today they’re not, they tend to be up and down by 3-6dB from normal. We want to make sure that when you play any piece of content you don’t need to juggle the volume to get it comfortable.

_About Atmos (bolding is mine):

_I don’t see Atmos being a huge mover in the next year or two. Relatively few people bother with the home theatre set up. Some large percentage of people use the speakers in the television and that’s it. *Delivering even 5.1 is an overkill.* For those who don’t, it’s likely a bundled speaker bar that sits underneath the television pretending to be 5.1. _
_I’m not sure that justifies delivering Atmos too. For Atmos to be meaningful people have to invest in a receiver, a cluster of speakers in the walls and the ceiling, and some pretty sophisticated set up of the apparatus to make sure it works well – that seems to be relatively niche for the audience I’m pursuing. Doing Atmos is actually technically very straightforward – I’m just not sure it’s very compelling at this point._


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm sure they'll change their tune as soon as the Super Bowl is aired in Dolby Atmos. That or when ever their competitors start offering it.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> _They've_ said they normalize the audio. And I've watched movies that didn't sound as good as a DVD or as impactful and that's pretty lossy to begin with.


Normalize doesn't necessarily equal compression though. 

I believe you that you've heard some streaming that was inferior to DVD, but I think it's content dependent (and obviously also dependent on your connection speeds). I've seen and heard some stuff of incredibly high quality on Netflix Streaming (and on Amazon Instant Video as well, using my PS3 as the source device).


----------



## bargervais

dschulz said:


> Normalize doesn't necessarily equal compression though.
> 
> I believe you that you've heard some streaming that was inferior to DVD, but I think it's content dependent (and obviously also dependent on your connection speeds). I've seen and heard some stuff of incredibly high quality on Netflix Streaming (and an Amazon Instant Video as well, using my PS3 as the source device).


I kind of question the whole thing because I just bought a JS 8500 4K TV and I'm not sure if it's me, but the sound quality and Picture Quality is much more superior then on any app I've used for streaming Netflix before on other televisions, from a TV app the streaming on this tv is not Blu-Ray quality but a whole lot better then DVD. I'M amazed how good DSU sounds on this new tv's app.


----------



## audiofan1

NorthSky said:


> Netflix is for moderate people (big mac attack urge), not for videophiles and audiophiles. What do you get for seven bucks a month, what do you get?


 I'm an Audio & Videophile and absolutely love Netflix for both my Blurays and nightly streaming! for the price? its the best bang for your buck for entertainment period


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure they'll change their tune as soon as the Super Bowl is aired in Dolby Atmos. That or when ever their competitors start offering it.



It's hard to guess how popular immersive audio might be for sports broadcasts--although I suspect it will be a great draw in sports bars...?! However, even viewers watching with just the TV's stereo speakers might find 'favorite team' selection for commentator and|or venue crowd audio an engaging [interactive] option . . . with subsequent experimentation of [full] at-home immersive audio as one possible consequence.


_


----------



## batpig

It wouldn't suprise me if they treat their original content with much more affection than the other stuff. Daredevil sounds awesome for sure. 

I don't really have a problem with Netflix for casual movie viewing and on-demand stuff. I'm not looking for a reference SQ/PQ experience with everthing I watch.


----------



## batpig

Xeneize12 said:


> My 7.2.4 Atmos Media room is nearly done (90% complete)
> 
> Huge thanks to Batpig and JD and everyone that helped


It looks amazing, congrats. Moving the couch forward and rearranging the speakers I'm sure has yielded big benefits, and I'm glad I was able to get you to embrace the idea that acoustical treatments didn't have to make the room uglier  you did a great job and it really looks clean and classy, and I'm sure sounds way better than before.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> _They've_ said they normalize the audio. And I've watched movies that didn't sound as good as a DVD or as impactful and that's pretty lossy to begin with.
> 
> From a What Hi-Fi? article about Netflix and the future (this was part of the sound section):
> 
> _We’re making sure that they’re level-normalised – today they’re not, they tend to be up and down by 3-6dB from normal. We want to make sure that when you play any piece of content you don’t need to juggle the volume to get it comfortable.
> _


Just to clarify about Netflix..

They don't "normalize" the audio..

They put into place (right as we were starting "Daredevil" btw..) standards for delivery.. 

So they have an overall loudness target, average dialog level and maximum peak level you must adhere to, within a defined range....

If you don't meet it, they send it back to be put into compliance..

The reasoning is they want the consumer to have a reasonably consistent experience with their original programming...

This is no different than most every broadcast provider, be it network, HBO, etc..

As far as the standard goes, Netflix's requirements are very liberal, much more so than most cable networks... the big 5 networks are fairly moderate in comparison to FX, USA, AMC, etc...

When talking about normalization in audio production, it usually refers to finding the peak level, and the gaining up the entire program (without any kind of dynamic compression) to match a higher peak level... i.e. if the peak on a program is -8dbFS, you might normalize it to -1dbFS, which would entail gaining up the entire content 7 db....


----------



## NorthSky

audiofan1 said:


> I'm an Audio & Videophile and absolutely love Netflix for both my Blurays and nightly streaming! for the price? its the best bang for your buck for entertainment period


Now I'm in the mood for a big mac, with extra cheese, and french fries.  ...With vinegar on my fries. 

* Youtube is free. How's that for a bang.


----------



## cholmes1

markus767 said:


> Most speakers are designed to be flat on their 0° axis (some are designed for off-axis listening though) so this is the axis you want to point to the central listening position. This is true for ALL of your speakers, not just the front mains.
> 
> This is a much better design:
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/6-8-in-wall/CW180R-In-Wall-Speaker
> 
> Not sure what a "non-object based speaker" is. There are just different speaker designs.
> Don't know the specifics of your room.


Excellent insight on the 0° so I will keep my current setup with all pointed at the MLP and I appreciate the link. Unfortunately it looks like those speakers are fairly limited by retailers (can only see one) and the price per at $599 cad is beyond what I am willing to spend. That being said, I am curious if you are aware of speakers with similar features around a $200 usd price point.

In looking further into the OBA arguments it looks like their pitch is towards rooms that have very low ceilings (


----------



## audiofan1

NorthSky said:


> Now I'm in the mood for a big mac, with extra cheese, and french fries.  ...With vinegar on my fries.
> 
> * Youtube is free. How's that for a bang.


 I'll keep my Netflix meets my high standards and it shines with DSU! and um! no buck (free Youtube) no bang:kiss:


----------



## markus767

cholmes1 said:


> Excellent insight on the 0° so I will keep my current setup with all pointed at the MLP and I appreciate the link. Unfortunately it looks like those speakers are fairly limited by retailers (can only see one) and the price per at $599 cad is beyond what I am willing to spend. That being said, I am curious if you are aware of speakers with similar features around a $200 usd price point.


I would buy a couple of 8"/1" and 6.5"/1" models and measure them. Manufacturers don't provide much useful information.



cholmes1 said:


> In looking further into the OBA arguments it looks like their pitch is towards rooms that have very low ceilings (


----------



## multit

Regarding The Fifth Element sounds for me often like Auro-Matic in general...



kbarnes701 said:


> Indeed. Just for giggles, today while I was doing something else, I played the whole movie with all the listener level channels switched off. There is considerable overhead activity in this mix. To describe it as "copies of the main channels with reverb added" suggests the listener has something amiss with his setup...





sdurani said:


> Yes, and the heights weren't copies of the main channels with reverb added. There were momentary sounds effects occasionally in the heights that weren't duplicating content in the floor channels...


To be honest guys, I don't care at all, what you think about that and what amount of time do you spent in advance (while doing something else of course) in order to be prepared about possible claims. And I also don't care how you judge my setup - I never made a secret out of it, everybod can see and judge for theirself.

And I never described the sound of The Fifth Element as "copies of the main channels with reverb added" - that is only you using it as a kind of "copy and paste" stock resonding to particular postings.

I just described my listening experiences and that it reminds me very soon on similar experiences with Auro-Matic - that's it. And I didn't need watching the whole movie with switched off main channels in order to proof that, because
*I know, how Auro-Matic sounds and you don't!*

So please, be my guest and try to discredit me, like you both did sometimes in the past.
I had already my fun, watching you barking out of an immediate Anti-Auro reflex.

And still, we are sharing something in common - "The Fifth Element" in the new Atmos version is our current favorite 
And mine it's not, because it sounds often like Auro-Matic, it's just that overall atmospheric immersion, I got while watching it.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> The SoundWare (non XS) is just a little bigger at 6-1/6 x 6-1/6 x 6-1/2", with a 4-1/2" "woofer" and a 3/4" tweeter. The 90 Hz low end gets much closer to the ideal 80 Hz cutoff that many use, but Keith has been using speakers with 90 Hz lower limits with no issues, and when he tried larger speakers with lower ranges, he didn't notice any significant differences. (Granted, his Tannoy Di5's are a different class of speaker and I am not equating the overall performance of the SoundWare and the Di5).


That is right. My Di5s spec at 90Hz and the Di6 spec at 75Hz. I'd had a persistent brain-scratch and wondered what the difference would be if I replaced the neat Di5s with the much bigger Di6 (on the ceiling) so I experimented. Bear in mind I was crossing the Di5s at 110Hz. I figured that since I was happy with that XO there would be no appreciable difference, sonically, between the two speakers, but I wanted to prove it to myself. It wasn't all that difficult to swap the Di5s for the Di6 so I gave it a go, and spent about a week evaluating the difference, if any. 

True to form, I could hear no difference. I note from my notes made at the time that I tried, briefly, setting a XO of 90Hz with the Di6 and still heard no difference. So, since the Di5s look much better in my small room and dominate the ceiling much less than the Di5s, I switched back to the Di5s and the 110Hz XO and have been happy ever after. 

This result may vary for different rooms and conditions of course, but I would say that a good, wide-dispersion speaker, that has the power handling characteristics needed for the application (etc) and that can reach down to 90Hz, is suitable for Atmos ceiling use, when used with an appropriate XO and a good set of subs (mine are Submersives). Of course, there is no harm in using a much bigger speaker, which can dig much deeper, but it will cost more, be bigger, possibly more difficult to mount, and may yield very little, or no, sonic advantage in a good bass-managed system. Just my experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

Xeneize12 said:


> My 7.2.4 Atmos Media room is nearly done (90% complete)
> 
> Once again thanks for all the help!! this community is simply the best!


Beautiful job!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I also would never use NF for any critical movie watching or expect a Blu-ray quality experience from them.
> 
> Blu-ray disc or bust. Streaming is for stuff to have on in the background, not the main event.
> 
> But... that's me.


It's me too. You only have to compare the bitrates to see that the so-called HD streaming services will deliver a pretty inferior result to a disc. The streaming I have seen at friends' houses are as compressed as hell.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> _I don’t see Atmos being a huge mover in the next year or two. Relatively few people bother with the home theatre set up. Some large percentage of people use the speakers in the television and that’s it. *Delivering even 5.1 is an overkill.* For those who don’t, it’s likely a bundled speaker bar that sits underneath the television pretending to be 5.1. _
> _I’m not sure that justifies delivering Atmos too. For Atmos to be meaningful people have to invest in a receiver, a cluster of speakers in the walls and the ceiling, and some pretty sophisticated set up of the apparatus to make sure it works well – that seems to be relatively niche for the audience I’m pursuing. Doing Atmos is actually technically very straightforward – I’m just not sure it’s very compelling at this point._


I think this sort of misses the point, Dan. Atmos is aimed, in the home, at the enthusiast market, which is by definition always going to a small subset of the population at large. Its success will be defined by how well it penetrates that particular target market, not by how well it achieves widespread acceptance into the general community. It's the same with any product aimed at a niche market - Porsche or Ferrari, $5,000 Savile Row suits, 31 year old Laphroaig or 36 year old Ardbeg and so on. They are not for 'most' people, and to judge them by their acceptance in the general marketplace is to misunderstand their purpose.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> Normalize doesn't necessarily equal compression though.
> 
> I believe you that you've heard some streaming that was inferior to DVD, but I think it's content dependent (and obviously also dependent on your connection speeds). I've seen and heard some stuff of incredibly high quality on Netflix Streaming (and on Amazon Instant Video as well, using my PS3 as the source device).


Good quality maybe, but it can't compare with disc. The reason of course is bitrate. Streaming services, even the so-called HD ones, can't compete with Blu-ray, let alone the just-around-the-corner UHD discs. UHD will use mostly double-layer 66Gb discs (though 100Gb triple layer are part of the spec) and they will be able to deliver up to *108Mbs *of data. Compare that with Netflix's 4K Ultra HD streaming service where streams are delivered at about *16Mbps*. That represents about 14Gb of data for an average length movie. So, no comparison. And this is without even considering the benefits of HDR and WCG. And this is why streaming services deliver compressed, blocky, pretty horrible picture quality compared with disc. I think it will be a very long time before streaming services catch up with the PQ and SQ we can currently get from disc, and this assumes that the disc technology will stand still.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I kind of question the whole thing because I just bought a JS 8500 4K TV and I'm not sure if it's me, but the sound quality and Picture Quality is much more superior then on any app I've used for streaming Netflix before on other televisions, from a TV app the streaming on this tv is* not Blu-Ray quality *but a whole lot better then DVD. I'M amazed how good DSU sounds on this new tv's app.


And likely never will be. Streaming is OK for the masses who care less about PQ and SQ. But it's not even a serious contender IMO for those of us who have invested many $$$ in high quality HTs. Saying it is better than DVD is like saying a Big Mac is better than cow-sh1t.


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> I'm an Audio & Videophile and absolutely love Netflix for both my Blurays and nightly streaming! for the price? its the best bang for your buck for entertainment period


Doesn’t the terrible compression evident on even the highest quality streaming service bother you? Compared with a Blu-ray I mean?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It wouldn't suprise me if they treat their original content with much more affection than the other stuff. Daredevil sounds awesome for sure.
> 
> I don't really have a problem with Netflix for casual movie viewing and on-demand stuff. I'm not looking for a reference SQ/PQ experience with everthing I watch.


That is it. Streaming is good for some TV shows and so on, and when viewed on a small screen (say anything less than 50 inches) it can look acceptable. Both streaming and discs have their place, but the former is way, way off delivering even Blu-ray quality right now, and as I just showed in my reply to dschulz, it is impossibly behind UHD.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It looks amazing, congrats. Moving the couch forward and rearranging the speakers I'm sure has yielded big benefits, and I'm glad I was able to get you to embrace the idea that acoustical treatments didn't have to make the room uglier  you did a great job and it really looks clean and classy, and I'm sure sounds way better than before.


He's made a beautiful looking room which, I imagine, also sounds pretty darn good. It shows that the two objectives are not mutually exclusive by any means. Anyone with WAF issues would do well IMO to show their other half those pictures. Kudos to you too for pointing him in the right direction.


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Now I'm in the mood for a big mac, with extra cheese, and french fries.  ...With vinegar on my fries.
> 
> * Youtube is free. How's that for a bang.


I'll do vinegar on my fries (not McDonald's) all day long. No big Mac for me though thank you very much.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> And likely never will be. Streaming is OK for the masses who care less about PQ and SQ. But it's not even a serious contender IMO for those of us who have invested many $$$ in high quality HTs. Saying it is better than DVD is like saying a Big Mac is better than cow-sh1t.


While watching Daredevil for an example streaming from Netflix the SQ is very good and very accurate delivering 5.1, and as I listen to it using DSU, the sound is very very good. By the way I'm not into cow-sh1t or big Macs. 
All I was saying was that my new 4K Samsung JS tv's app for Netflix streaming for both SQ and PQ are excellent, I wasn't comparing it to Blu-Ray, all I was saying was some tv streaming apps deliver better results then others. Am I the only one that sees it this way.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> That is it. Streaming is good for some TV shows and so on, and when viewed on a small screen (say anything less than 50 inches) it can look acceptable. Both streaming and discs have their place, but the former is way, way off delivering even Blu-ray quality right now, and as I just showed in my reply to dschulz, it is impossibly behind UHD.


That is what I thought about streaming until I upgraded to a Roku 4 for my man cave a couple of weeks ago. Mind you, I'm only talking about 1080p and not 4K. And I have an extremely fast Internet connection that averages around 50 Mbps via Wi-Fi (180 Mbps via Ethernet - downstream), so my situation might be different than other folks. 

For the first time, I was able to stream a movie to my 100" projection screen and not have the picture degradation I had before. I mean, it was very close to Bluray quality. On my 65" LCD/LED TV, you can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray Disc and my stream from Amazon Prime. It's that razor sharp and this is coming from someone who is a stickler for visual acuity. 

The soundtrack from DD+ is also better than DD - IMHO. 

As far as Dolby Atmos goes - I believe this will be easier to deliver than broadcast TV providing 4K content and for sure HDR. With DSU, there is the potential to engage your Dolby Atmos setup and enjoy a new listening experience. 

Yes, a Blu-ray Disc and the newer UHD content will always provide the best picture and sound. But streaming is here to stay and will continue to grow in popularity due to its convenience. 

Lastly - I assure you that Dolby Atmos is targeted to main stream users and not a niche product. The AVR receivers coming out are competitively priced and we all know at the end of the day that it is about sales of product and always will be. 

If you want to define a true niche product, look no further than an OLED TV that cannot compete against a LCD/LED TV, price wise, and may never do so.


----------



## bargervais

Ricoflashback said:


> That is what I thought about streaming until I upgraded to a Roku 4 for my man cave a couple of weeks ago. Mind you, I'm only talking about 1080p and not 4K. And I have an extremely fast Internet connection that averages around 50 Mbps via Wi-Fi (180 Mbps via Ethernet - downstream), so my situation might be different than other folks.
> 
> For the first time, I was able to stream a movie to my 100" projection screen and not have the picture degradation I had before. I mean, it was very close to Bluray quality. On my 65" LCD/LED TV, you can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray Disc and my stream from Amazon Prime. It's that razor sharp and this is coming from someone who is a stickler for visual acuity.
> 
> The soundtrack from DD+ is also better than DD - IMHO.
> 
> As far as Dolby Atmos goes - I believe this will be easier to deliver than broadcast TV providing 4K content and for sure HDR. With DSU, there is the potential to engage your Dolby Atmos setup and enjoy a new listening experience.
> 
> Yes, a Blu-ray Disc and the newer UHD content will always provide the best picture and sound. But streaming is here to stay and will continue to grow in popularity due to its convenience.
> 
> Lastly - I assure you that Dolby Atmos is targeted to main stream users and not a niche product. The AVR receivers coming out are competitively priced and we all know at the end of the day that it is about sales of product and always will be.
> 
> If you want to define a true niche product, look no further than an OLED TV that cannot compete against a LCD/LED TV, price wise, and may never do so.


Totally agree I believe streaming is coming to us whether we like to believe it or not. Blu-Ray will eventually be replaced with steaming, as internet speeds increase. I would much rather spend the extra money on internet speed then filling my shelves with Blu-Ray disks.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> While watching Daredevil for an example streaming from Netflix the SQ is very good and very accurate delivering 5.1, and as I listen to it using DSU, the sound is very very good. By the way I'm not into cow-sh1t or big Macs.
> All I was saying was that my new 4K Samsung JS tv's app for Netflix streaming for both SQ and PQ are excellent, I wasn't comparing it to Blu-Ray, all I was saying was some tv streaming apps deliver better results then others. Am I the only one that sees it this way.


I agree with you. It is pretty good. But not as good as disc. Some people (not you) tell me that streaming is "the future" and maybe it is, for those who don't care too much about the very best quality. I wasn't disagreeing with you - just moving the conversation on a bit.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with you. It is pretty good. But not as good as disc. Some people (not you) tell me that streaming is "the future" and maybe it is, for those who don't care too much about the very best quality. I wasn't disagreeing with you - just moving the conversation on a bit.


Thank you but I do believe that steaming will replace Blu-Rays eventually might not be as soon as I would like, and it's going to take awhile but I can see it. Yes we can move on


----------



## Ricoflashback

bargervais said:


> I'll do vinegar on my fries (not McDonald's) all day long. No big Mac for me though thank you very much.


Speaking of fries, the best I ever had was many, many moons ago when I was teenager and we'd cross over the Windsor Tunnel to a town called Ludington, Ontario (Canada) where they had this little restaurant with a bloke who served hot fries in an aluminum type bag where he added salt & vinegar and shook the bag before handing it over to us. 

I could eat my weight of those puppies. Glad that remotes for TV's weren't around then as it got quite messy eating them. My HT tie in....


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> That is what I thought about streaming until I upgraded to a Roku 4 for my man cave a couple of weeks ago. Mind you, I'm only talking about 1080p and not 4K. And I have an extremely fast Internet connection that averages around 50 Mbps via Wi-Fi (180 Mbps via Ethernet - downstream), so my situation might be different than other folks.


The sole issue is bitrate. If the streaming service can achieve the bitrates we see off HD discs, then that is fine. So long as people have the bandwidth to accommodate it and so long as the content provider offers it, and doesn't downgrade and compress it at times of high demand etc. I personally have seen a lot of different streaming devices (I even own a few) but none approaches disc quality here. I have 30 meg broadband, which ought to be enough, so I am guessing that the content providers are compressing the hell out of it in order to deliver it economically and practically. I am not against streaming - in fact I like it for TV shows etc where I am not fussed about quality and Amazon Prime HD works very well on our living room TV. I hardly watch TV though and I just cannot stream movies to the HT with satisfactory quality.



Ricoflashback said:


> For the first time, I was able to stream a movie to my 100" projection screen and not have the picture degradation I had before. I mean, it was very close to Bluray quality. On my 65" LCD/LED TV, you can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray Disc and my stream from Amazon Prime. It's that razor sharp and this is coming from someone who is a stickler for visual acuity.


But it isn’t as good as Blu-ray. For me, that kills it. I want the best I can get and it would annoy me and spoil my enjoyment the moment there was a dark scene and I could see all those compression artefacts. On a 65 inch TV and comparing Prime and Blu-ray I tend to agree with you. It's only in the HT I have issues with it.



Ricoflashback said:


> The soundtrack from DD+ is also better than DD - IMHO.


Yep, one would expect so. Again, higher bitrate rules.



Ricoflashback said:


> Yes, a Blu-ray Disc and the newer UHD content will always provide the best picture and sound. But streaming is here to stay and will continue to grow in popularity due to its convenience.


Yes, sadly you are right. Joe Sixpack always favors convenience over quality.



Ricoflashback said:


> Lastly - I assure you that Dolby Atmos is targeted to main stream users and not a niche product. The AVR receivers coming out are competitively priced and we all know at the end of the day that it is about sales of product and always will be.


Sure - but how many will use the features in the AVR? How many buy an AVR and don't use Audyssey etc? Or don't use the surround speakers? Or use a soundbar? Etc. 5.1 is a tiny niche of the whole market. 7.1 is even tinier. 11.1 is vanishingly small. It will always be a niche market, but that doesn’t matter. Numerous brands enjoy massive success in very small niche markets. Eg Ferrari.



Ricoflashback said:


> If you want to define a true niche product, look no further than an OLED TV that cannot compete against a LCD/LED TV, price wise, and may never do so.


OLED is the future for screens though and will eventually, when prices drop, become a mass market product. Only price currently holds it back. But regardless of price, people will not routinely festoon their living rooms with umpteen speakers. You can give them the speakers for free and they still won't do it. That's the difference between Atmos and OLED. Atmos is primarily for people with dedicated rooms (despite the amazingly good upfirers which I believe are held back by a misguided notion in people's minds that they "can’t possibly work"). And how many people have dedicated rooms? Even here on AVS they are in a distinct minority so one can imagine the penetration into the wider demographic!


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Totally agree I believe streaming is coming to us whether we like to believe it or not. Blu-Ray will eventually be replaced with steaming, as internet speeds increase. I would much rather spend the extra money on internet speed then filling my shelves with Blu-Ray disks.


I am not so sure. Look at some of the drawbacks I can think of just off the top of my head:


I am at the mercy and whim of the content providers. Will my movie always be available to me?
I cannot share a streamed movie.
I cannot give it away to my friend.
I cannot sell it if I no longer want it.
I am at the mercy of my broadband. If it goes down or slows down I may not be able to use my HT.
The quality is not, and probably never will be, as good as Blu-ray.
The quality probably never will approach that of UHD with bitrates 10 times higher than streaming.
I have no physical product and some of us like physical product for our money.
Many people in rural areas have BB speeds of 1 or 2 meg. It could be years before they get high speed BB. Maybe never.

There are probably others I have forgotten. I think streaming will certainly suffice for the average Joe. But there will always be a demand for quality from enthusiasts and where there is a demand, there will usually be someone with a supply.


----------



## Stoked21

I hate NF. Used 3 times since they came out and cancelled in the first week all 3 times. I am a big vudu user. 9/10 times I'm watching in my living room with a sound bar on 42" lcd from 10' away in a room with 15 large windows. 
I go so far as to save the money and buy the SD rentals too! But I probably stream 5-10 movies a week. Streamed movies r normally background to me. With the quantity I watch they r normally horrible flicks. I work on other things and peek up periodically. 

When I stream vudu in the Ht on the 65" 4K, in the dark, 14' to mlp I buy the hdx versions. The pq is outstanding. No it's not bd quality but from 14' to mlp on a 65", u would be hard pressed to tell the diff. My downstream Internet is about 100-200 Mbps jumping to 1gbps. 

Streaming is going to be primary delivery method. Not saying disc will disappear entirely but they will become a niche market. All streaming providers will always compress and try to maximize infrastructure. The goat for the server farms is immense. So much so that many service providers are in the red. Look at carriers actions and net neutrality issues. I deal with policy and charging functions and throttling for cable and mobile carriers. We write and enforce the functions in all networks to throttle you if u r a streaming customer !! We step on and degrade ur bandwidth for doing so. That way everyone gets s little drink out of the straw as opposed to one person gobbling up most of it. Streaming companies know this and are in s constant fight with the service providers to maintain CEx. Customer speeds and the backhaul will improve allowing for greater quality....but video and audio standard will increase again and tax the network even more. It's a perpetual tug of war. 

For big releases I'll stay bd. For typical junk watching I'll stay streaming. I do miss the days on my Xbox 360 where I'd start an actual movie download to hdd, wait several hours and watch without being streamed, buffered and unnecessarily overly compressed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> When I stream vudu in the Ht on the 65" 4K, in the dark, 14' to mlp I buy the hdx versions. The pq is outstanding. No it's not bd quality but from 14' to mlp on a 65", u would be hard pressed to tell the diff. My downstream Internet is about 100-200 Mbps jumping to 1gbps.


14 feet to a 6 inch screen? Wow. I would sit about 4 feet from a screen that size I think 



Stoked21 said:


> Streaming is going to be primary delivery method. Not saying disc will disappear entirely but they will become a niche market. All streaming providers will always compress and try to maximize infrastructure. The goat for the server farms is immense. So much so that many service providers are in the red. Look at carriers actions and net neutrality issues. I deal with policy and charging functions and throttling for cable and mobile carriers. We write and enforce the functions in all networks to throttle you if u r a streaming customer !! We step on and degrade ur bandwidth for doing so. That way everyone gets s little drink out of the straw as opposed to one person gobbling up most of it. Streaming companies know this and are in s constant fight with the service providers to maintain CEx. Customer speeds and the backhaul will improve allowing for greater quality....but video and audio standard will increase again and tax the network even more. It's a perpetual tug of war.


I think that (insider and professional) view really sums it up perfectly.


----------



## jvkahl

Can you tell me if the Bluray movies ie: The new fifth element play in an older bluray player and if the movie will play in 1080p while still putting out atmos sound?


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Doesn’t the terrible compression evident on even the highest quality streaming service bother you? Compared with a Blu-ray I mean?


Keith - Netflix's original programming is excellent ex very few exceptions. Using my Oppo as my source with shows like Sense 8 or Daredevil the picture and sound are equal or better than a good DTV feed. It is also a cheap alternative to gaining access to a lot of content - like old TV shows - that I wouldn't see any value in purchasing. I buzzed through Sense 8 in a few days and am still amazed at how great the picture looked. The places they shot the series offered plenty of excellent source material - like Iceland. Surprisingly few issues with blocking, etc. Good timing I guess with my ISP and Netflix. The Oppo also does a good job on the processing side.

Daredevil offers the best sound mix I have ever heard with a "TV show," using DSU puts it up there with some of the better blu-rays I've watched/listened to using DSU. I've said many times that Marc did an excellent job with its mix, I would put it up against Fury its that good. Sorry if I just insulted you Marc.

Don't get me wrong, the blu is superior in most cases, but there are also some mediocre blu-rays in the sound/video department which I try to avoid buying unless it's a old classic that's a must for the collection. 

As for Fifth Element and Auromatic being similar to Atmos. Since Multit told a number of you that you couldn't compare them since you had never had Auro in your home, I must step in and say BS. The Atmos mix is MUCH better than using Auromatic. Really enjoyed going through the steps to load and then re-load my Audyssey files for both this morning. My wife enjoyed the early morning booms. Thanks Multit 

So I would say don't knock Netflix until you have a chance to check it out for yourself under the right conditions. Where have you heard that before 

Again referring to specific programming, not comparing across the board. We know the physical media wins that easily. Cheers. Steve aka Average Joe (dodgeball anyone?)


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> 14 feet to a 6 inch screen? Wow. I would sit about 4 feet from a screen that size I think
> 
> 
> 
> I think that (insider and professional) view really sums it up perfectly.


I can't name the companies I work with. But I can tell u we have "lists" of the top 10%. If they stream a lot.....we crush u like the bugs u are. I'm one of the bugs too lol. The cost to deliver 1 MB of data is typically more than the average rate the customer pays. To keep the mobile and cable companies profitable, it HAS to be done. We would have no providers without doing so. 

We call most content delivery companies OTT (over the top). This is Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, vudu etc. anybody who delivers high volume content and taxes the providers network. But many also charge and make a profit. But they r making profit hands over fist while running on MY network!!! And I'm the one that has to put in more and more servers to support my customers increased usage as a service provider. But I can't charge u more even though u r using more bandwidth with these OTT services. As such the service providers r struggling to make pennies while the OTT content delivery companies ride ALL networks for free. It's a big problem. 

So customers are identified and they are throttled. We've seen some yahoos literally streaming over 300 movies a month. We had to do the math and say he literally never slept and streamed 24x7. 

There are also negotiations between service providers and OTT content providers taking place. For instance like this: an OTT content provider goes to a service provider. They say they want their customers to have a guaranteed data speed of X on the network and have preferential priorities of sorts. The service provider says okay, but we want a fee of $x per subscriber or $x per movie since u r riding on my network. Agreements r made...costs to us go up (Cus Content provider isn't going to just swallow that). Service provider then can pay to put in extra servers to support and is incentivized to do so. We see this charge as a gold package option from our OTT content provider to pay more for a guaranteed level of service/pq


----------



## Zhorik

jvkahl said:


> Can you tell me if the Bluray movies ie: The new fifth element play in an older bluray player and if the movie will play in 1080p while still putting out atmos sound?


Yes. The film is still 2k resolution.


----------



## engte100

smurraybhm said:


> Keith - Netflix's original programming is excellent ex very few exceptions. Using my Oppo as my source with shows like Sense 8 or Daredevil the picture and sound are equal or better than a good DTV feed...



I'm getting the feeling that I should be streaming Netflix via the Oppo BDP-103, as opposed to what my current practice is: to stream via the 3rd gen. Apple TV. Someone tell me if I'm correct on this, please...
Thanks...enjoy reading what the pros are saying.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I think this sort of misses the point, Dan. Atmos is aimed, in the home, at the enthusiast market, which is by definition always going to a small subset of the population at large. Its success will be defined by how well it penetrates that particular target market, not by how well it achieves widespread acceptance into the general community. It's the same with any product aimed at a niche market - Porsche or Ferrari, $5,000 Savile Row suits, 31 year old Laphroaig or 36 year old Ardbeg and so on. They are not for 'most' people, and to judge them by their acceptance in the general marketplace is to misunderstand their purpose.


That was a quote from a Netflix executive in an article.


----------



## kbarnes701

jvkahl said:


> Can you tell me if the Bluray movies ie: The new fifth element play in an older bluray player and if the movie will play in 1080p while still putting out atmos sound?


Yes, all Atmos tracks are backwards compatible - the old player just sees a TrueHD bitstream. Yes the movie plays in 1080p while outputting Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> As for Fifth Element and Auromatic being similar to Atmos. Since Multit told a number of you that you couldn't compare them since you had never had Auro in your home, I must step in and say BS. The Atmos mix is MUCH better than using Auromatic. Really enjoyed going through the steps to load and then re-load my Audyssey files for both this morning. My wife enjoyed the early morning booms. Thanks Multit


 I didn’t see those posts. But yeah. Atmos will be nothing like Auromatic for the fairly obvious reason that Atmos has discrete sounds in the overhead speakers. Sheesh. I don't need to hear something to know how it works!



smurraybhm said:


> So I would say don't knock Netflix until you have a chance to check it out for yourself under the right conditions. Where have you heard that before


I'm not knocking Netflix - just saying it isn't as good as a disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I can't name the companies I work with. But I can tell u we have "lists" of the top 10%. If they stream a lot.....we crush u like the bugs u are. I'm one of the bugs too lol. The cost to deliver 1 MB of data is typically more than the average rate the customer pays. To keep the mobile and cable companies profitable, it HAS to be done. We would have no providers without doing so.
> 
> We call most content delivery companies OTT (over the top). This is Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, vudu etc. anybody who delivers high volume content and taxes the providers network. But many also charge and make a profit. But they r making profit hands over fist while running on MY network!!! And I'm the one that has to put in more and more servers to support my customers increased usage as a service provider. But I can't charge u more even though u r using more bandwidth with these OTT services. As such the service providers r struggling to make pennies while the OTT content delivery companies ride ALL networks for free. It's a big problem.
> 
> So customers are identified and they are throttled. We've seen some yahoos literally streaming over 300 movies a month. We had to do the math and say he literally never slept and streamed 24x7.
> 
> There are also negotiations between service providers and OTT content providers taking place. For instance like this: an OTT content provider goes to a service provider. They say they want their customers to have a guaranteed data speed of X on the network and have preferential priorities of sorts. The service provider says okay, but we want a fee of $x per subscriber or $x per movie since u r riding on my network. Agreements r made...costs to us go up (Cus Content provider isn't going to just swallow that). Service provider then can pay to put in extra servers to support and is incentivized to do so. We see this charge as a gold package option from our OTT content provider to pay more for a guaranteed level of service/pq


Interesting insights. Thanks. I can understand the logic and POV while also being amazed in open-eyed wonderment


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> That was a quote from a Netflix executive in an article.


Oh sure. Sorry, did you think I thought they were your words? My bad.


----------



## jvkahl

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, all Atmos tracks are backwards compatible - the old player just sees a TrueHD bitstream. Yes the movie plays in 1080p while outputting Atmos.



Thanks... anxious to get set up and try atmos


----------



## bargervais

jvkahl said:


> Can you tell me if the Bluray movies ie: The new fifth element play in an older bluray player and if the movie will play in 1080p while still putting out atmos sound?


On an older Blu-Ray player??? how old are you talking about. If it's able to play DolbyTru-HD you should be just fine


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> ...you verified that with switching off the main chanels, right?





multit said:


> I didn't need watching the whole movie with switched off main channels...


Why the double standard?


----------



## dkwong

gene4ht said:


> Would a toggle bolt or something like this work for you?



Worked like a charm!


----------



## bargervais

dkwong said:


> Worked like a charm!


How... do you screw that toggle bolt into the ceiling then spin the speaker till snug??? Then how do you wire it.


----------



## dkwong

bargervais said:


> How... do you screw that toggle bolt into the ceiling then spin the speaker till snug??? Then how do you wire it.



It's a hanger bolt, but yes, that's how I got it mounted. There's about a half inch gap from the ceiling and I used some rubber feet to help secure it and to prevent vibration. For wiring, I used some 16 gauge Sewell ghost speaker wire. You can see it to the right of the speaker. I'm thinking of painting over it to match the ceiling color.


----------



## bargervais

dkwong said:


> It's a hanger bolt, but yes, that's how I got it mounted. There's about a half inch gap from the ceiling and I used some rubber feet to help secure it and to prevent vibration. For wiring, I used some 16 gauge Sewell ghost speaker wire. You can see it to the right of the speaker. I'm thinking of painting over it to match the ceiling color.


What speaker is that


----------



## dkwong

bargervais said:


> What speaker is that



Polk OWM3.


----------



## kbarnes701

jvkahl said:


> Thanks... anxious to get set up and try atmos


You won’t regret it. IMO it's the best thing that's happened to home audio sound since discrete 5.1.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "I can't name the companies I work with. But I can tell u we have "lists" of the top 10%. If they stream a lot.....we crush u like the bugs u are"

Where's the Congressional Committee on this? Forget Benghazi or any other of the lame investigations in Congress (either party). Let's address what is real and today!


----------



## gene4ht

dkwong said:


> Worked like a charm!


Great...looking good! Please also post your Atmos impressions.


----------



## bargervais

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "I can't name the companies I work with. But I can tell u we have "lists" of the top 10%. If they stream a lot.....we crush u like the bugs u are"
> 
> Where's the Congressional Committee on this? Forget Benghazi or any other of the lame investigations in Congress (either party). Let's address what is real and today!


I hope that's an urban legend I stream a lot and have never experienced throttling, mind you I think there are lots of internet subscriptions out there that hardly use the internet, and think they out weigh us heavy users. There is more to life then just sitting around and streaming.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> Good quality maybe, but it can't compare with disc. The reason of course is bitrate... and this is why streaming services deliver compressed, blocky, pretty horrible picture quality compared with disc. I think it will be a very long time before streaming services catch up with the PQ and SQ we can currently get from disc, and this assumes that the disc technology will stand still.





kbarnes701 said:


> Doesn’t the terrible compression evident on even the highest quality streaming service bother you? Compared with a Blu-ray I mean?


I completely agree that Blu Ray is superior to streaming, and if I have the option I'll take it. But my experience here is that the quality delta is now pretty small. I do not experience evident terrible compression, horrible picture quality, blockiness, etc. Netflix streaming content looks as good as ATSC broadcast, which makes sense: lower bitrate than OTA TV, but with better video compression algorithms. 

My evolution has been this: at the beginning of the streaming era, I refused to use it. It looked awful, like watching YouTube blown up to my TV. A couple of years ago it improved to a point at which I would use it to catch up on old TV shows, but not to watch movies. Then it got good enough to watch movies, but I strongly preferred Blu Ray. Nowadays I still prefer Blu Ray, but if one is unavailable I will happily watch the stream, even for my bi-weekly MovieNites with multiple guests.

It is possible that the US implementation of Netflix streaming is simply providing higher-quality streams than what you are getting in the UK. Also possible that since I am streaming to a 60" Panasonic plasma rather than a projector you are seeing compression artifacts on the big screen that I'm not seeing on the smaller TV. Maybe a combination of the two?



engte100 said:


> I'm getting the feeling that I should be streaming Netflix via the Oppo BDP-103, as opposed to what my current practice is: to stream via the 3rd gen. Apple TV. Someone tell me if I'm correct on this, please...
> Thanks...enjoy reading what the pros are saying.


I am also streaming through a 3rd gen Apple TV, and it looks and sounds great.


----------



## BigScreen

Ricoflashback said:


> **********************
> Very nice and a better solution to the cute cubes. My thoughts are to look at four and use them as follows:
> 
> Option 1 - Convert Paradigm Millenia One's currently being used as my rear surround back speakers to Dolby Atmos rear back (height) speakers and incorporate the Bravo 20's as my rear surround back (lowered and perfectly mounted in each corner - - ear height) as well as using the Bravo 20's as my front (front middle or front height?) speakers. This would split up the Dolby Atmos speakers but also provide a much better Dolby rear back surround sound that is at ear level as opposed to high up where the Millenia One speakers are right now.
> 
> Option 2 - Same as above for the front middle or front height Dolby Atmos speakers but keep Millennia One's as rear back surround and mount the Bravo 20's on the back wall, facing down, as my Dolby Atmos height speakers. This would keep the additional .4 Dolby Atmos speakers the same make/model but I still would have the issue with my rear back surrounds Millenia One's.
> 
> Your thoughts, counselor? (Visa payment in the mail....)


The performance specs of the Millenia One and Bravo 20 are similar, so from that standpoint, I think you could use either successfully. It may come down to a physical practicality of which speaker works best in your room in a particular position.

My first thought is that I would keep the Millenia Ones in the bed with the other Paradigm speakers, and the Bravo 20s on the ceiling, and not mix and match them, but others have found that equalization (Audyssey/YPAO) minimizes tonality/timbre differences between speakers.

As far as placement of height speakers in relation to bed speakers, I can't speak with any first-hand knowledge beyond what can be gleaned from the recommendations. I'll leave that to those that have experimented themselves. I can say that I originally planned to go with in-ceiling speakers, but quickly determined from the experiences of others that choosing an ideal location and cutting the holes without being able to experiment and fine tune those positions was not something I am willing to do. Perhaps after getting a system installed and configured and living with it for some time, I'll go that route to minimize the visual impact that height speakers are likely going to have in the room.


----------



## gene4ht

bargervais said:


> *How... do you screw that toggle bolt into the ceiling* then spin the speaker till snug??? Then how do you wire it.


Special tool or a couple of hex nuts/wing nuts jammed together at the end of the bolt...


----------



## bargervais

gene4ht said:


> Special tool or a couple of hex nuts/wing nuts jammed together at the end of the bolt...


I understand how to get the hanging bolt screwed into the ceiling and getting the speaker screwed onto that bolt. My biggest query was attaching the wires to the speaker do you need tiny hands to get behind that speaker once it's up there. I would have to see the speaker.


----------



## Ricoflashback

I decided that when I move to Dolby Atmos, I'll incorporate four Boston Acoustic Bravo 20's. That way, I will keep all my Paradigm speakers for the initial 7.1 layout and use four Bravo 20's as my Dolby Atmos speakers. 

On second analysis, my rear back surrounds are fine - - I listened to a great multi-channel SACD this morning and the issue is not my back surrounds - - it's the lack of material in movies (mix) that effectively uses them. Which makes DSU even that more important for non native Dolby Atmos material.

I believe (see diagram) that my front Dolby Atmos speakers should be set to "Front Middle?" or "Front Height?" This might be AVR specific (I'm looking at the Denon 5200W since I will not have a 4K TV in the man cave for at least three to five years.)

I'll incorporate my Emotiva XPA-3 for the front L/C/R channels via pre-outs. The Bravo 20's have excellent mounting options that will enable me to hide the wires while snugly fitting in the top corner of each area - - the ceiling/beam for the front and the ceiling/back wall for the rear height Atmos speakers. 

Now - - the search goes on to find the best price on the Bravo 20's and a Dolby Atmos receiver. Here's hoping that Black Friday will provide a lot of good sales. 

Thanks to everyone who provided input on my Dolby Atmos adventure. It is sincerely appreciated.  

Best,
Rico

P.S. - the shining little eyeballs in the photo as you look out the middle of the rear picture (2) is our cat, Lilly. I didn't know she was there until I took the picture!


----------



## Ricoflashback

BigScreen said:


> The performance specs of the Millenia One and Bravo 20 are similar, so from that standpoint, I think you could use either successfully. It may come down to a physical practicality of which speaker works best in your room in a particular position.
> 
> My first thought is that I would keep the Millenia Ones in the bed with the other Paradigm speakers, and the Bravo 20s on the ceiling, and not mix and match them, but others have found that equalization (Audyssey/YPAO) minimizes tonality/timbre differences between speakers.
> 
> As far as placement of height speakers in relation to bed speakers, I can't speak with any first-hand knowledge beyond what can be gleaned from the recommendations. I'll leave that to those that have experimented themselves. I can say that I originally planned to go with in-ceiling speakers, but quickly determined from the experiences of others that choosing an ideal location and cutting the holes without being able to experiment and fine tune those positions was not something I am willing to do. Perhaps after getting a system installed and configured and living with it for some time, I'll go that route to minimize the visual impact that height speakers are likely going to have in the room.


Many thanks for your suggestions and recommendation on the Bravo 20's. I believe they will provide a better experience than the cute cubes and much more sound. Even though they are more expensive, the mounting options and shape make it perfect for my smaller man cave and 90 degree ceiling installation. They'll tuck right in up high and using all four (same speaker make/model) should blend in well with my Paradigm setup. 

One thing I've really learned about this process - - you have to know your room limitations. (Clint Eastwood? ) If I was starting from scratch and building a whole new theater - - you could really optimize it any way you want. But with existing houses and the spaces we are using - - the whole goal is to get the best sound you can without breaking the bank or making mama upset. 

I think I now have a plan to do that successfully! 

Thx again,
Rico


----------



## gene4ht

bargervais said:


> I understand how to get the hanging bolt screwed into the ceiling and getting the speaker screwed onto that bolt. My biggest query was attaching the wires to the speaker do you need tiny hands to get behind that speaker once it's up there. *I would have to see the speaker*.


Yep...agreed! But tiny hands would do it too!


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> It is possible that the US implementation of Netflix streaming is simply providing higher-quality streams than what you are getting in the UK. Also possible that since I am streaming to a 60" Panasonic plasma rather than a projector you are seeing compression artifacts on the big screen that I'm not seeing on the smaller TV. Maybe a combination of the two?


Possibly. I know that UK and US Netflix seem to be different in various ways so it is entirely possible. But I think the main issue is the screen size. I am reasonably happy to stream to our living room TV. It is only on the much bigger HT screen that I notice compression artefacts. They are especially noticeable in dark scenes and show up as ugly blobs and blotches and blockiness. Once I have seen them it spoils my enjoyment as I am then constantly looking out for them in other scenes instead of just sitting back and enjoying the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> I understand how to get the hanging bolt screwed into the ceiling and getting the speaker screwed onto that bolt. My biggest query was attaching the wires to the speaker do you need tiny hands to get behind that speaker once it's up there. I would have to see the speaker.


Why not wire the speaker first and then attach it to the ceiling bolts? You may need a helper to help with this, unless you are from the planet Zreb and have four arms of course


----------



## bargervais

gene4ht said:


> Yep...agreed! But tiny hands would do it too!


Well I just ordered a pair of these speakers, wish me luck. Now I have to find someone with tiny hands.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Why not wire the speaker first and then attach it to the ceiling bolts? You may need a helper to help with this, unless you are from the planet Zreb and have four arms of course


Thank you I never thought of that, then drill a hole in the ceiling and fish the wire through the hole into the attic. That's why I come here, it's to learn.


----------



## dkwong

bargervais said:


> I understand how to get the hanging bolt screwed into the ceiling and getting the speaker screwed onto that bolt. My biggest query was attaching the wires to the speaker do you need tiny hands to get behind that speaker once it's up there. I would have to see the speaker.



The Polks have binding posts that are very easy to get to. The ceiling doesn't block them at all.


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> I hope that's an urban legend I stream a lot and have never experienced throttling, mind you I think there are lots of internet subscriptions out there that hardly use the internet, and think they out weigh us heavy users. There is more to life then just sitting around and streaming.


Dismiss as urban legend if you want. In the meantime I'll keep doing my job and collecting a pay check for it! 

Truth be told net neutrality requires that all users/content must receive equal consideration. In Europe and Asia that is NOT the case. I can tell you that many ISPs/CSPs do optimize and throttle video even further than what you see from the content provider themselves. I can also tell you that when it comes to sizing capacity of servers, they don't look at it as "oh well this guy uses very little bw and this guy uses a lot...so it's a wash". They look at it as this subgroup of users is impacting our HW/SW capacity by $Xmillion per year; share holders, CFOs, etc then take action and reduce network load. They don't care that you are offsetting with someone else with minimal usage. They care about dollars (cents actually) and many times they look to let the higher bw users leave and go become a customer somewhere else.


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> Doesn’t the terrible compression evident on even the highest quality streaming service bother you? Compared with a Blu-ray I mean?


No streaming service of any kind touches Bluray


----------



## dkwong

gene4ht said:


> Great...looking good! Please also post your Atmos impressions.



Initial impressions are very positive. I've only had a chance to test out the Atmos demo disc and some movies with DSU but they are much better than the Onkyo DAE speakers I had before. I can tell that the sounds come from overhead whereas the with the Onkyos came more from in-front. Bouncing off the ceiling really didn't work with my room.


----------



## FilmMixer

audiofan1 said:


> No streaming service of any kind touches Bluray


In my room, Vudu and Netflix at 1080 are pretty darn close..

And at 4k it's no contest whatsoever....


----------



## bargervais

dkwong said:


> The Polks have binding posts that are very easy to get to. The ceiling doesn't block them at all.


Thank you for posting that picture now I can see that I can use my banana plugs. Thank goodness I live in the U.S. and we can buy banana plugs. I think in Europe people try sticking them in electrical outlets.
I should be putting these speakers up Tuesday.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Thank you I never thought of that, then drill a hole in the ceiling and fish the wire through the hole into the attic. That's why I come here, it's to learn.


What I generally do is wire through the ceiling in the usual way, and bring four or five feet of wire out the hole and into the room. Then attach the wire to the speaker terminals. Then offer the speaker up to the pre-installed mountings of whatever type you are using and at the same time push the 'spare' wire into the ceiling cavity. That way, if you ever need to remove the speaker you have plenty of slack in the wire which makes it easier and if you ever need to relocate the speaker a bit, you have enough wire to do it. Bear in mind that if you install wire into the ceiling cavity it needs to be fire rated insulation, strictly speaking.


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> No streaming service of any kind touches Bluray


Well quite. This is all I have been saying really. I am not in any way against streaming and it is very useful in various circumstances. But my experience with it has been that, on a large projected image, it falls well short of Blu-ray quality and when UHD is here, it won't even stand a chance of competing.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Thank you for posting that picture now I can see that I can use my banana plugs. Thank goodness I live in the U.S. and we can buy banana plugs. I think in Europe people try sticking them in electrical outlets.
> I should be putting these speakers up Tuesday.


We can buy them here but Nanny says we shouldn’t use them so they fill the little holes in the AVR speaker terminals with little plastic plugs. You then remove the plugs and use your banana plugs in the usual way. Sometimes, we want to strangle Nanny


----------



## bargervais

FilmMixer said:


> In my room, Vudu and Netflix at 1080 are pretty darn close..
> 
> And at 4k it's no contest whatsoever....


Thank you I thought I was the only one that was enjoying this kind of picture and sound quality.


----------



## NorthSky

Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Vudu, ...all that streaming jazz; do they give you Dolby Atmos like on Blu? 

It's streaming Dolby Atmos audio that I'm interested here in this thread. If I want picture quality; it's coming up this Christmas...UHD Blu. 

* Here's a good one; *'Pixels'* on Blu-ray (USA version), 2D/3D package: Only the 2D version contains the Dolby Atmos audio, not the 3D version! 
What a real 3D bummer! Check this out: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-format-due-march-2015-a-80.html#post38738769


----------



## Brian Fineberg

NorthSky said:


> Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Vudu, ...all that streaming jazz; do they give you Dolby Atmos like on Blu?
> 
> It's streaming Dolby Atmos audio that I'm interested here in this thread. If I want picture quality; it's coming up this Christmas...UHD Blu.
> 
> * Here's a good one; *'Pixels'* on Blu-ray (USA version), 2D/3D package: Only the 2D version contains the Dolby Atmos audio, not the 3D version!
> What a real 3D bummer! Check this out: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-format-due-march-2015-a-80.html#post38738769


Why in everyone of your posts must you mention "upcoming UHD" and "Dts:x" it has no bearing on the conversation in any of the threads you post it in?


----------



## Kain

If my room is 15' in depth and my seating position is roughly at 75% of that 15' (i.e. 3-4 feet in front of the back wall), how should I place my TF, TM, and TR speakers? I'm referring to an Altitude32 for this configuration. If I recall correctly, if you are using just TF and TR speakers, they _shouldn't_ be placed right at the front and right at the rear of the room, correct? According to Dolby's recommendations, TF should be placed somewhat in front of the seating position (but not all the way in the front of the room) while the TR should be placed behind the seating position. But what if I want to incorporate a TM pair?

Edit: If I want to setup a TF, TM, and TR configuration, would I move the TF to the front of the room, the TM right in the middle of the room, and the TR and the back of the room?


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Vudu, ...all that streaming jazz; do they give you Dolby Atmos like on Blu?
> 
> It's streaming Dolby Atmos audio that I'm interested here in this thread. If I want picture quality; it's coming up this Christmas...UHD Blu.
> 
> * Here's a good one; *'Pixels'* on Blu-ray (USA version), 2D/3D package: Only the 2D version contains the Dolby Atmos audio, not the 3D version!
> What a real 3D bummer! Check this out: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-format-due-march-2015-a-80.html#post38738769


Bob Vudu does stream with Atmos right now, right now for me only the Atmos demos stream with Atmos. Not sure if you know this but the new 4K Roku4 has title's with the ability to stream with Atmos. So you can see it's coming.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> If my room is 15' in depth and my seating position is roughly at 75% of that 15' (i.e. 3-4 feet in front of the back wall), how should I place my TF, TM, and TR speakers? I'm referring to an Altitude32 for this configuration. If I recall correctly, if you are using just TF and TR speakers, they _shouldn't_ be placed right at the front and right at the rear of the room, correct? According to Dolby's recommendations, TF should be placed somewhat in front of the seating position (but not all the way in the front of the room) while the TR should be placed behind the seating position. But what if I want to incorporate a TM pair?


Have you looked at Dolby's home installation PDF, available on their website? It is a mine of useful information. The brief answer to your question is to just place your speakers within the recommended Dolby range of angles (from MLP) and you will be good to go. If you have a choice when you have studied the range of permitted angles, go for the middle of the range.

To get you started here is a diagram showing the permitted ranges:


----------



## Charles R

Ricoflashback said:


> Now - - the search goes on to find the best price on the Bravo 20's and a Dolby Atmos receiver. Here's hoping that Black Friday will provide a lot of good sales.


I tried to find the Bravos cheaper but gave up. Only saw open box, refurbs, or "shady" dealers for less than the going price. I ended up using Crutchfield and they do 60-day price match (only) themselves. Although I called about a Marantz receiver I purchased as Best Buy had it for less and in lieu of returning it they gave me a "customer adjustment" for the difference.

One of the speakers' removable grill didn't fit "tight" and they were nice enough to cross ship a replacement (entire kit). Great company if price isn't a determining factor...


----------



## NorthSky

Brian Fineberg said:


> Why in everyone of your posts must you mention "upcoming UHD" and "Dts:x" it has no bearing on the conversation in any of the threads you post it in?


I am truly sorry Brian, I was totally off topic. I'll try my best next. Dolby Atmos it is...no more Netflix, no more UHD, no more dts, no more 'Pixels' with Auro-3D, no more 3D, no more anything else than just Dolby Atmos ('Pixels' 2D - USA version), and Atmos streaming is also ok. 
Should I delete my post Brian? 



bargervais said:


> Bob Vudu does stream with Atmos right now, right now for me only the Atmos demos stream with Atmos. Not sure if you know this but the new 4K Roku4 has title's with the ability to stream with Atmos. So you can see it's coming.


That's good; that I like. What I like less though is this: Vudu is NOT available in Canada. ...But I rejoice with you guys who can stream in your country Dolby Atmos from Vudu.  

* I don't know much @ all about Roku and the various iterations...4K. But I sure am interested about everything Dolby Atmos availability.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> If my room is 15' in depth and my seating position is roughly at 75% of that 15' (i.e. 3-4 feet in front of the back wall), how should I place my TF, TM, and TR speakers? I'm referring to an Altitude32 for this configuration. If I recall correctly, if you are using just TF and TR speakers, they _shouldn't_ be placed right at the front and right at the rear of the room, correct? According to Dolby's recommendations, TF should be placed somewhat in front of the seating position (but not all the way in the front of the room) while the TR should be placed behind the seating position. But what if I want to incorporate a TM pair?
> 
> Edit: If I want to setup a TF, TM, and TR configuration, would I move the TF to the front of the room, the TM right in the middle of the room, and the TR and the back of the room?


How high is the ceiling? And how far from ears to ceiling? It's really all about the angles and we are missing one dimension  

Any chance you could scoot forward a bit so you are closer to 1/3 up front back wall? The 1/4 point isn't great for bass. And you'd gain a bit more wiggle room to get TR speakers 35+ degrees behind you without being against the back wall.


----------



## gene4ht

bargervais said:


> Well I just ordered a pair of these speakers, wish me luck. Now I have to find someone with tiny hands.


Good luck with the Polks! Are you replacing existing Atmos speakers or using these elsewhere? Also PM'ing you on a OT subject.


----------



## audiofan1

FilmMixer said:


> In my room, Vudu and Netflix at 1080 are pretty darn close..
> 
> And at 4k it's no contest whatsoever....


I'm referring to the audio codecs as well and as a complete whole! My Netflix PQ is top notch and you won't find me complaining as my Internet speeds are off the charts and they just boosted them again


----------



## AZTV

This has been a very helpful thread. Thanks all.


----------



## multit

smurraybhm said:


> As for Fifth Element and Auromatic being similar to Atmos. Since Multit told a number of you that you couldn't compare them since you had never had Auro in your home, I must step in and say BS. The Atmos mix is MUCH better than using Auromatic. Really enjoyed going through the steps to load and then re-load my Audyssey files for both this morning


Did you read my *whole* first posting about that? Didn't I told about, where the Atmos mix is better?
I just said, that the general impression reminds me on how Auro-Matic is working.
So you would consider the new "The Fifth Element" as much different sounding at all (comparing Atmos and Auro-Matic), yes?
And it could be not compared at all, yes?
Good, then... I can live with that.

By the way, I have a good friend, who is blind (unfortunately). Beginning of this year I helped him hooking up the Atmos/Auro extension in his home theater (with a screen for his wife and friends of course). He also has ceiling speakers and we tried as well to have a mixed setup, which is working well for both 3D formats. I didn't know, that he ordered the disc as well and yesterday he called me and we talked also about the The Fifth Element. Before I even could start telling from my impressions, he told me, that the first thing after starting the movie he was checking the correct setting... he suspects, that still the Auro-Matic was active. So far about impressions...
I'm sometimes very impressed, what he is able to distinguish amongst a sound mix.


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> Why the double standard?


Ah, the diversion tactic is starting now... ok, then... I have one stupid question as well:

11-04-2015, 05:20 AM


multit said:


> Everest is going to have an Atmos track on Blu-ray... confirmed for Germany:
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/everest-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/
> This time even in german... (based on DD+), but I will most probably stick with the English track (based on TrueHD).
> A release in US might be even earlier!


11-04-2015, 01:47 PM


sdurani said:


> Add another BD to the list: Everest (both 2D & 3D versions) will have Atmos.
> http://www.areadvd.de/news/everest-mit-dolby-atmos-mix-auf-blu-ray-disc/
> Note that a couple of the foreign language dubs (French, German) will have Atmos tracks as well (lossy DD+).


Why the double standard?


----------



## bargervais

gene4ht said:


> Good luck with the Polks! Are you replacing existing Atmos speakers or using these elsewhere? Also PM'ing you on a OT subject.


Yes I'll be replacing my cheap Acoustic Audio 151B Indoor/Outdoor Speakers top middle on Ceiling Speakers.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you looked at Dolby's home installation PDF, available on their website? It is a mine of useful information. The brief answer to your question is to just place your speakers within the recommended Dolby range of angles (from MLP) and you will be good to go. If you have a choice when you have studied the range of permitted angles, go for the middle of the range.
> 
> To get you started here is a diagram showing the permitted ranges:





batpig said:


> How high is the ceiling? And how far from ears to ceiling? It's really all about the angles and we are missing one dimension
> 
> Any chance you could scoot forward a bit so you are closer to 1/3 up front back wall? The 1/4 point isn't great for bass. And you'd gain a bit more wiggle room to get TR speakers 35+ degrees behind you without being against the back wall.


Thanks for the replies.

The ceiling is about 9-9.5' high and I'll be seated at a "normal" or "common" seating height which I am guessing will make my ears roughly 3.5-4' off the floor when seated.

I could move the seating position a bit forward but I always thought sitting right in the middle of the room was the worst place for bass (response). Am I wrong? The room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9 ft.


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> Ah, the diversion tactic is starting now.


Not diversionary to find out why you asked me if I listened with the mains turned off but then say that you don't need to. Why do you have different rules for you and me when it comes to confirming the height information in Fifth Element?


> I have one stupid question as well:


Not stupid, but maybe you don't understand the term 'double standard' (if I end up posting the same information you did, that's not a double standard).


----------



## multit

sdurani said:


> Not diversionary to find out why you asked me if I listened with the mains turned off but then say that you don't need to. Why do you have different rules for you and me when it comes to confirming the height information in Fifth Element? Not stupid, but maybe you don't understand the term 'double standard' (if I end up posting the same information you did, that's not a double standard).


Sanjay, do you understand the term "I don't need to watch the whole movie without main speakers like Keith did it (in advance of course, just for the case "
And please pay your attention only at the underlined words! Why would I need to listen to the whole movie to express my thoughts? On the contrary, I already told in the first posting about that: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1090.html#post38706137 --> _"When you switch off the lower speakers, it's almost everything still on the highs."_
How could I make such a statement, if I didn't do that?

And for the record, as a non native speaker I'm allowed to make some mistakes in my wording ... I'm sure you got the point, what I wanted to say. 
I just wanted to use the very same words like you, even when it was not a 100% hit.
But thanks for the correction anyway!


----------



## sdurani

multit said:


> And please pay your attention only at the underlined words!


Only? You never underlined them before, so I read all the words, hence my question.


----------



## bguzman

I come to the threads to learn not read endless replies about splitting hairs over what some body wrote. Please take your squabbles elsewhere.


----------



## Gurba

bguzman said:


> I come to the threads to learn not read endless replies about splitting hairs over what some body wrote. Please take your squabbles elsewhere.


This seems to be the favorite pass time for many in here...


----------



## fjerina

I am looking at the Dolby Atmos add-on speakers and torn between the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR and the Definitive Technology A60 add-ons. Any recommendations?


----------



## kbarnes701

bguzman said:


> I come to the threads to learn not read endless replies about splitting hairs over what some body wrote. Please take your squabbles elsewhere.





Gurba said:


> This seems to be the favorite pass time for many in here...





tigerhonaker said:


> I wondered when or if someone was going to actually come right out and say what you just did.
> 
> Thank-You !!!
> 
> AMEN ...
> 
> Terry


The correct procedure if you object to a post is to use the triangle in the bottom corner to report it to a Moderator who will then decide if the post contravenes the forum rules. Self-appointed moderators, or 'thread police' as they are sometimes called usually get short shrift in most forums.

In this case though, you seem to me to be off-beam. The discussion is relevant to Atmos and is discussing the Atmos content in a remixed movie (The Fifth Element). One poster is asserting that all of the content in the beds is being reproduced in the overheads (like Auromatic does it) and the other is saying this is not the case. I have also posted that it is not the case, having listened to the whole movie (admittedly while reading a book) with the main amps turned off and heard discrete sounds in the overheads, little fragments of sound and so on. Definitely and absolutely nothing like Auromatic's copying of the base channels into the overheads in their entirety. So, correcting someone who is wrong is a valid part of forum activity.

In this case, the 'squabble' you seem to be referring to is a legitimate question exploring an assertion that the main amps did/did not need to be turned off. Again, seeking clarification of a post is also a legitimate forum activity. 

Another option for you if you dislike reading some posters' posts is to use the excellent AVS 'ignore' feature. All you have to do is click the username of the poster underneath his avatar and select 'ignore poster'. I have found this to be an invaluable tool on AVS.


----------



## tigerhonaker

bguzman said:


> I come to the threads to learn not read endless replies about splitting hairs over what some body wrote. Please take your squabbles elsewhere.


I wondered when or if someone was going to actually come right out and say what you just did.

Thank-You !!!

AMEN ...

Terry


----------



## kbarnes701

fjerina said:


> I am looking at the Dolby Atmos add-on speakers and torn between the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR and the Definitive Technology A60 add-ons. Any recommendations?


No contest IMO. The Pioneers are designed by the world-famous and respected speaker designer, Andrew Jones. And the others are DefTechs.


----------



## bguzman

fjerina said:


> I am looking at the Dolby Atmos add-on speakers and torn between the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR and the Definitive Technology A60 add-ons. Any recommendations?


What speakers are you using now? Do you have flat or vaulted ceilings?


----------



## virtualrain

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you looked at Dolby's home installation PDF, available on their website? It is a mine of useful information. The brief answer to your question is to just place your speakers within the recommended Dolby range of angles (from MLP) and you will be good to go. If you have a choice when you have studied the range of permitted angles, go for the middle of the range.
> 
> 
> 
> To get you started here is a diagram showing the permitted ranges:



We've been back and forth on this previously in the Yamaha owners thread... Without any agreement if I recall. 

I believe the illustration you're quoting is from D/M and not Dolby. The Dolby specs for overheads are a bit different - no allowance for "heights". So while AVR manufacturers might allow the use of "heights" in an Atmos setup, I'm guessing they aren't where Dolby expects overhead speakers to be (unless your room is so small that "heights" fall within the angles of TF and TR). 

I can understand why people might repurpose heights for Atmos or be forced to use those positions because of circumstances outside their control, but isn't this D/M diagram a bit misleading to new people? 

I think people should be studying this...

http://www.dolby.com/in/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html

EDIT...

I just noticed that the angles in the D/M illustration for heights still fall within the Dolby specs... So I guess there's nothing wrong with that illustration as long as people pay attention to the angle info and don't just assume that any height speaker location will do. 

Although I still question whether mounting speakers high on the front and rear walls as per typical "heights" would meet Dolby's specs even if the angles are within limits just due to the orientation?


----------



## thomasfxlt

I followed the Dolby guidelines for a 5.1.4 (ceiling mount for the .4). I'm using the Pioneer SC-95 configured per the manual recommendation and it's sounds amazing. Personally, I think the key is too get a wide dispersion ceiling speaker, especially with lower ceilings and to stay within the Dolby mounting position guidelines. No disappointment in my setup.


----------



## Stoked21

virtualrain said:


> We've been back and forth on this previously in the Yamaha owners thread... Without any agreement if I recall.
> 
> I believe the illustration you're quoting is from D/M and not Dolby. The Dolby specs for overheads are a bit different - no allowance for "heights". So while AVR manufacturers might allow the use of "heights" in an Atmos setup, I'm guessing they aren't where Dolby expects overhead speakers to be (unless your room is so small that "heights" fall within the angles of TF and TR).


As someone who has tried heights within Dolby spec. I can tell u that it does NOT sound remotely the same to true Dolby Atmos in or on ceiling installations. I'm sure someone can obtain a decent elevation effect. But it will never be the same IMO. 

Don't quote me on this, but I think the DM diagram also tries to compromise for Auro and X installation as well. Those specs do allow for height speakers I believe. Since most DM models support all 3 technologies, I think they're trying to allow for a middle ground installation.


----------



## Gurba

kbarnes701 said:


> The correct procedure if you object to a post is to use the triangle in the bottom corner to report it to a Moderator who will then decide if the post contravenes the forum rules. Self-appointed moderators, or 'thread police' as they are sometimes called usually get short shrift in most forums.
> 
> In this case though, you seem to me to be off-beam. The discussion is relevant to Atmos and is discussing the Atmos content in a remixed movie (The Fifth Element). One poster is asserting that all of the content in the beds is being reproduced in the overheads (like Auromatic does it) and the other is saying this is not the case. I have also posted that it is not the case, having listened to the whole movie (admittedly while reading a book) with the main amps turned off and heard discrete sounds in the overheads, little fragments of sound and so on. Definitely and absolutely nothing like Auromatic's copying of the base channels into the overheads in their entirety. So, correcting someone who is wrong is a valid part of forum activity.
> 
> In this case, the 'squabble' you seem to be referring to is a legitimate question exploring an assertion that the main amps did/did not need to be turned off. Again, seeking clarification of a post is also a legitimate forum activity.
> 
> Another option for you if you dislike reading some posters' posts is to use the excellent AVS 'ignore' feature. All you have to do is click the username of the poster underneath his avatar and select 'ignore poster'. I have found this to be an invaluable tool on AVS.


I didn't refer to legitimate discussions about atmos. It's alle bickering in between. I'm fairly new in the forum so I notice this kind of talk all the time. I guess you "oldtimers" are so used to it you can't see it.


----------



## kbarnes701

virtualrain said:


> We've been back and forth on this previously in the Yamaha owners thread... Without any agreement if I recall.
> 
> I believe the illustration you're quoting is from D/M and not Dolby. The Dolby specs for overheads are a bit different - no allowance for "heights". So while AVR manufacturers might allow the use of "heights" in an Atmos setup, I'm guessing they aren't where Dolby expects overhead speakers to be (unless your room is so small that "heights" fall within the angles of TF and TR).
> 
> I can understand why people might repurpose heights for Atmos or be forced to use those positions because of circumstances outside their control, but isn't this D/M diagram a bit misleading to new people?
> 
> I think people should be studying this...
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/in/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
> 
> EDIT...
> 
> I just noticed that the angles in the D/M illustration for heights still fall within the Dolby specs... So I guess there's nothing wrong with that illustration as long as people pay attention to the angle info and don't just assume that any height speaker location will do.
> 
> Although I still question whether mounting speakers high on the front and rear walls as per typical "heights" would meet Dolby's specs even if the angles are within limits just due to the orientation?
> 
> View attachment 1046041


Heights are allowed for in the Dolby spec.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> As someone who has tried heights within Dolby spec. I can tell u that it does NOT sound remotely the same to true Dolby Atmos in or on ceiling installations. I'm sure someone can obtain a decent elevation effect. But it will never be the same IMO.
> 
> Don't quote me on this, but I think the DM diagram also tries to compromise for Auro and X installation as well. Those specs do allow for height speakers I believe. Since most DM models support all 3 technologies, I think they're trying to allow for a middle ground installation.


The D&M angles specified in that diagram fully accord with those specified by Dolby in their installation guidelines. Front and Rear Heights are also included in the Dolby spec, with the proviso that if they are mounted on the ceiling (and still within specified angular range) they should be no more than (IIRC) 18 inches in from the front or rear wall.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gurba said:


> I didn't refer to legitimate discussions about atmos. It's alle bickering in between. I'm fairly new in the forum so I notice this kind of talk all the time. I guess you "oldtimers" are so used to it you can't see it.


Could be. Although I do have a lot of people on my Ignore list. It's the easiest way to deal with people who perpetually annoy you IMO.


----------



## batpig

fjerina said:


> I am looking at the Dolby Atmos add-on speakers and torn between the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR and the Definitive Technology A60 add-ons. Any recommendations?


The A60s are garbage. Anything but them. If you just want a cheap module with a 3" full range driver save money and get the Onkyos. 

For that money the Atlantic Tech ones are much better, or get the Pios or the (soon available?) ELAC modules also from
Andrew Jones.


----------



## multit

kbarnes701 said:


> In this case though, you seem to me to be off-beam. The discussion is relevant to Atmos and is discussing the Atmos content in a remixed movie (The Fifth Element). One poster is asserting that all of the content in the beds is being reproduced in the overheads (like Auromatic does it) and the other is saying this is not the case. I have also posted that it is not the case, having listened to the whole movie (admittedly while reading a book) with the main amps turned off and heard discrete sounds in the overheads, little fragments of sound and so on. Definitely and absolutely nothing like Auromatic's copying of the base channels into the overheads in their entirety. So, correcting someone who is wrong is a valid part of forum activity.


OK, unfortunately you missed the opportunity to take this all with humour. There was enough "room" after my initial posting!!!

But instead you are playing foul with a convinient method not needing to respond directly, but with tiny and mostly wrong requotes. I never made such statements, you are just trying to quote. Here is my initial:



multit said:


> Regarding The Fifth Element...
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kbarnes701*
> _Best use of overheads in any of the Atmos movies I own. Ironic that it should be on a remix of a movie 18 years old._
> 
> 
> Keith, I'm glad you like that... because...
> 
> ... just as an additional information for you, even when you probably don't like this... the permanent engagement of the overhead speakers in The Fifth Element is very similar mixed, like Auro-Matic is working in general. When you switch off the lower speakers, it's almost everything still on the highs.
> 
> In the respective Auro-Thread you always said, this method is not proper or you even denied it to call that an upmixer.
> You see, your Auro-Matic aversion is only feeded from the theoretical informations and some pre biased attitudes... unfortunately never from practical experiences. Again, I'm glad, you made now a similar experience, even without notice.
> 
> By the way - this Atmos-Mix is even more better, than watching it with Auro-Matic (as far as I remember the last time, I did it), but you get the idea.
> And you can at least compare it with DSU engagement only... and learn and understand, why someone is excited about Auro-Matic.
> 
> So, back to the movie in general...
> The Fifth element was always one of my Top10 movies and now I got it back with a "golden cover"... I got goosebumps already in the first minutes (within the grave building). The Atmos mix is extraordinary and also the picture made huge improvements. It's so much fun to watch it and sometimes you forget, that the movie is already that old. For me, it's the best Atmos disc so far and Mad Max is now dethroned, even when the bass engagement is still better, but considering the overall performance.
> 
> The Fifth Element - 10/10 Atmos points!


I even offered "this Atmos mix is even more better, than Auro-Matic", but still, it was not enough, right?

And like in the newest review described:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/27527/thefifthelement4kremasterdolbyatmos.html
_"In Atmos, the music may just be the most pervasive element to move up into the hight channels. I've long been a fan of Eric Serra's hypnotic, melodic, and pulsing score, but in Atmos it takes over the whole room, drawing viewers into Besson's detailed world and the emotions of every characters."_

It's the first Atmos movie I know, where this remarkable high level of upmixed music score is in the highs and this fact is very well comparable to the impression, you got, when you switch on Auro-Matic in a movie with a similar very present music score. Not more, not less.

As I said, there was the opportunity...


----------



## Lesmor

Don't know why it is ( well of course I know) that I just always end up un-subscribing to this thread
Oh well here we go again


----------



## Charles R

bguzman said:


> I come to the threads to learn not read endless replies about splitting hairs over what some body wrote.


They offer the ignore feature for a reason.  In this thread I already have two... at times they may have a decent take or two but it's not worth digging through their endless posts to find them.


----------



## virtualrain

Charles R said:


> They offer the ignore feature for a reason.  In this thread I already have two... at times they may have a decent take or two but it's not worth digging through their endless posts to find them.



LOL... Never mind those on your ignore list, at the best of times this thread is largely a string of endless posts of little value, yet it's oddly addicting.


----------



## Gurba

I'm out. This thread has 3-4 new pages every time I drop by and I just can't be bothered to go through all the nonsense to read the few meaningful posts. I know I won't be missed but I will miss the good posts. Fortunately there are other forums that has far less bovine droppings in them.


----------



## Movie78

I think the forum has become what speaker should I buy.


----------



## mfranke

*Additional amp*

Folks,
I have the Onkyo 1030. I'm adding wide speakers for the analog stereo. It clearly requires an additional amp. Any recommendations on something that won't break the bank. Using B&W speakers 284's

Looking for decent sound not to blow the roof off.
Thanks
Mark Franke


----------



## gene4ht

mfranke said:


> Folks,
> I have the Onkyo 1030. I'm adding wide speakers for the analog stereo. It clearly requires an additional amp. Any recommendations on something that *won't break the bank*. Using B&W speakers 284's
> 
> Looking for *decent sound* not to blow the roof off.
> Thanks
> Mark Franke


These seem to be the ones repeatedly coming up in these threads...

AudioSource Amp-100
http://www.amazon.com/AudioSource-A...447034866&sr=1-1&keywords=audiosource+amp-100

Emotiva mini-X a-100
https://emotiva.com/products/amplifiers/mini-x-100

Onkyo M-5010
http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-M-5010-...8&qid=1447035136&sr=8-1&keywords=onkyo+m-5010


----------



## Molon_Labe

mfranke said:


> Folks,
> I have the Onkyo 1030. I'm adding wide speakers for the analog stereo. It clearly requires an additional amp. Any recommendations on something that won't break the bank. Using B&W speakers 284's
> 
> Looking for decent sound not to blow the roof off.
> Thanks
> Mark Franke


I am using Crown XLS amps for my Atmos speakers. Great price and they have the capability to blow the roof off if needed.


----------



## sdurani

virtualrain said:


> I can understand why people might repurpose heights for Atmos or be forced to use those positions because of circumstances outside their control, but isn't this D/M diagram a bit misleading to new people?


It's only misleading for those willing to be mislead. If I believe that a pair of speakers mounted high on the front wall above my mains will give the impression of sound overhead, then I deserve the results I get. If I claim that my single pair of heights was within the Dolby spec, then my cleverness has tricked only me. 

The recommendations in the Atmos install guide cannot be approached without at least a little common sense. Want to have the impression of sound overhead? Place a pair of speakers (or two pairs) overhead. Nothing more complicated than that. 

Speakers at my sides won't sound like they're in front of me. Speakers high up in front of me won't sound like they're right above me. That's common sense, not something unique to Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I am using Crown XLS amps for my Atmos speakers. Great price and they have the capability to blow the roof off if needed.


I second that. Molon and kbarnes both helped me with amps. I was between emo, crown xls and outlaw. These guys know their stuff and they were right about crown. Fit my specs and was only half of the budget I had laid aside. I think many have a stigma about using pro amps. I didn't care Cus they were light, run very cool and will blow all my speakers before I could even push them -10db below clipping. 

In particular keeping it on Atmos topic 
You would be hard pressed to need more power than one of these could provide for each pair of Atmos speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Speakers at my sides won't sound like they're in front of me. Speakers high up in front of me won't sound like they're right above me. That's common sense, not something unique to Atmos.


Thanks Sanjay! Couldn't have said it better. I agree 100%. I've tried it and found it inferior. If it was one's only option, I'd probably have kept them that way and lived with lesser sq. . But I knew speakers on the ceiling were going to be better. So I put the effort in to make it happen for best SQ and Atmos immersion. 

(See people. We don't have to argue about everything on this thread! Ha ha )


----------



## mfranke

My two ceiling speakers make all the difference in depth. Thanks for the advice on the additional amps.
The stuff is so fun to play with
Mark Franke


----------



## Ricoflashback

I'm trying to lower my rear back surrounds (Paradigm Millenia One's) but my man cave make's it difficult to re-position them where they need to be. Due to the tight space and desire to get my rear back surrounds closer to ear level, I am looking at "cornered" speakers that tuck neatly into each corner and can be brought down to ear level. And for Atmos, I can use the same type speaker for Top Front and Rear Height speakers - - positioned on the ceiling, angled toward the listening area. 

I am looking at cornered speakers and the Boston Acoustics "Bravo 20" was suggested. I just ran across some other speakers (nicer design and they look beefier) from Cornered Audio - C3 & C4. They are a Danish company. http://cornered.dk/consumer/ A company called Linq is the reseller in the U.S.

Does anybody have any experience with these speakers?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Cornered Audio C4 Speaker for rear surround back and up high for Dolby Atmos:


----------



## Ricoflashback

Movie78 said:


> I think the forum has become what speaker should I buy.


What should the forum be? Isn't the choice of Dolby Atmos speakers critical to getting the sound right? 

I enjoy reading the posts from all forum members who have had experience with Dolby Atmos and the challenges they face to get the best sound as well they type of equipment, speakers, location that maximizes the listening experience. 

At least to me - - I read every post and am not bored with the comments as they help me make better decisions on how my Dolby Atmos will be deployed.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Thanks Sanjay! Couldn't have said it better. I agree 100%. I've tried it and found it inferior. If it was one's only option, I'd probably have kept them that way and lived with lesser sq. . But I knew speakers on the ceiling were going to be better. So I put the effort in to make it happen for best SQ and Atmos immersion.
> 
> (See people. We don't have to argue about everything on this thread! Ha ha )


Question: If ceiling mounted speakers are NOT an option, can you still get that Atmos sound with a different type speaker (i.e. - cornered speaker up top?)

Example: From what I can see, the only speaker in Atmos that is directly above you is the Top Middle Speaker. For my man cave, I could use a Top Middle Speaker and a Top Front Speaker as well as Front Height and Rear Height design. 

I'd probably choose either the Top Middle or Top Front and then look at Front Height & Front Rear (primarily due to the design of my smaller man cave). 

I really believe that the right speaker and location is critical to achieving the maximum Dolby Atmos experience. And, finding the right Dolby Atmos receiver that has the speaker designations you are looking for. From what I see on the market today - - the speaker assignments or "labeling" can be somewhat confusing.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Ricoflashback said:


> Question: If ceiling mounted speakers are NOT an option, can you still get that Atmos sound with a different type speaker (i.e. - cornered speaker up top?)
> 
> Example: From what I can see, the only speaker in Atmos that is directly above you is the Top Middle Speaker. For my man cave, I could use a Top Middle Speaker and a Top Front Speaker as well as Front Height and Rear Height design.
> 
> I'd probably choose either the Top Middle or Top Front and then look at Front Height & Front Rear (primarily due to the design of my smaller man cave).
> 
> I really believe that the right speaker and location is critical to achieving the maximum Dolby Atmos experience. And, finding the right Dolby Atmos receiver that has the speaker designations you are looking for. From what I see on the market today - - the speaker assignments or "labeling" can be somewhat confusing.


Take a look at the JBL SCS 8. These are used as surround and Atmos speakers in a lot of theaters, venues, and JBL demos. They have a 120x120 dispersion pattern and come with mounts. Street price is around $349 each shipped. This would allow wall mounting and to your ceiling beam. It will also give you a seamless rear/ceiling match. I have thoroughly enjoyed mine.


----------



## fjerina

bguzman said:


> What speakers are you using now? Do you have flat or vaulted ceilings?


I have an 8 foot flat ceiling with Definitive Technology towers (older BP2002 model) which stand a little over 3.5 feet. Either of these two add-on speakers would sit well on the tower speakers. I hear the Onkyo add-on speakers are an option also.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Take a look at the JBL SCS 8. These are used as surround and Atmos speakers in a lot of theaters, venues, and JBL demos. They have a 120x120 dispersion pattern and come with mounts. Street price is around $349 each shipped. This would allow wall mounting and to your ceiling beam. It will also give you a seamless rear/ceiling match. I have thoroughly enjoyed mine.


Thanks. While they might sound great, they sure are "fugly" looking. 

Plus - - I have a 7', 5" ceiling and I couldn't mount them without being in the way of my projection screen & LCD/LED as they would extend 14.2 inches from the ceiling if I read the specs right. 

Aesthetically speaking, I'm trying to find a solution that also looks good and provides optimal performance. Thanks again for your response.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Coming from a man with popcorn ceilings.....
> 
> Good thing I didn't recommend my 4722s. They make the SCS 8 look like a Mercedes


Touche, although I didn't have any choice on the popcorn ceiling. It was a "feature" of an older house when I bought it. 

I could try to scrap it away with all the asbestos....


----------



## Brian Fineberg

have you thought about DIY?

the volt6's make phenomenal ceiling speakers..at about 160$ each...cant beat them


----------



## Stoked21

I'm surprised more people are not looking at or mentioning the JBL Control 60 line. Especially if ceilings are vaulted or very high. Hanging pendant speakers could be a great option. Especially with the dispersion on these things


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> If ceiling mounted speakers are NOT an option...


Then the only options left are to wall mount them as high up as possible or use the upfiring approach. Not optimal, but some sense of height is better than no sense of height.


> I'd probably choose either the Top Middle or Top Front and then look at Front Height & Front Rear (primarily due to the design of my smaller man cave).


I'd start with the Top Middle locations to get the strongest sense of height and then bridge the gap between them and the front speakers with a pair of Front Heights.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I think many have a stigma about using pro amps.


That's the old audiofoolery coming out  The stigma would make more sense applied to _amateur_ equipment really (if there has to be a stigma). Pro gear is properly specced, so you know exactly what you are going to get, and is designed to take plenty of punishment. And it costs less, because there is no 'audiophile tax' added to the price.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Coming from a man with popcorn ceilings.....
> 
> Good thing I didn't recommend my 4722s. They make the SCS 8 look like a Mercedes


I guess it depends if someone wants a speaker to look good or to sound good. I know which I prefer


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Cornered Audio C4 Speaker for rear surround back and up high for Dolby Atmos:


They don't look so different from known quantities like the Boston Acoustics ones, Def Tech ProMonitor, etc that it seems worth the effort of importing them. You can mount any of those "flat panel" speaker designs in a corner if you want to. 

I would also consider some of the popular coaxial designs with good mounting options like Tannoy Di DC models and KEF eggs. They are really flexible and easy to mount and aim and have even and wide conical dispersion due to the true concentric driver array. 

FYI - this weekend I dropped my 4 surrounds in height -- side surrounds to 4' and back surrounds to 4.5' -- and it sounds much better. I tested some strong lateral pans (eg the bird flying 360 degrees in the Amaze demo) and the cohesion is much improved. And that was only dropping them about 1ft each from their former position. So if your surrounds are currently pretty high up I think you'll notice quite a dramatic difference.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess it depends if someone wants a speaker to look good or to sound good. I know which I prefer


O.K. - call me the Fernando Llamas of speakers - - "You look mahvelous...."

In this case, it's better to look good than sound good. (Although I believe there is a compromise, here.)


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Molon_Labe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from a man with popcorn ceilings.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I didn't recommend my 4722s. They make the SCS 8 look like a Mercedes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends if someone wants a speaker to look good or to sound good. I know which I prefer
Click to expand...

To be fair those JBLs are huge speakers intended for large commercial venues. In a smaller or non dedicated space you can understand why someone wouldn't want a 12" black cube dangling off the ceiling. Especially if you have low ceilings. 

As someone who went with the smaller
di5 for Atmos speakers I would think you'd agree that speakers don't have to be huge to capably serve this function.


----------



## smurraybhm

multit said:


> Did you read my *whole* first posting about that? Didn't I told about, where the Atmos mix is better?
> I just said, that the general impression reminds me on how Auro-Matic is working.
> So you would consider the new "The Fifth Element" as much different sounding at all (comparing Atmos and Auro-Matic), yes?
> And it could be not compared at all, yes?
> Good, then... I can live with that.


You left this off my quote 
Auro-Matic based on my experience is just copying and adding reverb, trust me I've spent time doing my homework (my wife thinks I gotten even crazier), just not filling up the threads too much (hopefully) with comments since this seems to start lengthy debates between members. In the end if someone likes Auro, DSX or DSU then that's all that matters IMO. Hope you are still enjoying your 5100, on my short list for the future unless something reasonable with Dirac reviews well (DTS-X/Atmos included of course).


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> They don't look so different from known quantities like the Boston Acoustics ones, Def Tech ProMonitor, etc that it seems worth the effort of importing them. You can mount any of those "flat panel" speaker designs in a corner if you want to.
> 
> I would also consider some of the popular coaxial designs with good mounting options like Tannoy Di DC models and KEF eggs. They are really flexible and easy to mount and aim and have even and wide conical dispersion due to the true concentric driver array.
> 
> FYI - this weekend I dropped my 4 surrounds in height -- side surrounds to 4' and back surrounds to 4.5' -- and it sounds much better. I tested some strong lateral pans (eg the bird flying 360 degrees in the Amaze demo) and the cohesion is much improved. And that was only dropping them about 1ft each from their former position. So if your surrounds are currently pretty high up I think you'll notice quite a dramatic difference.


Much thanks for the suggestions. I believe dropping my rear back surrounds will greatly enhance my enjoyment of current 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks. My side surrounds are up top (7', 5" ceiling) and are Dipoles - Paradigm ADP 590's. They really work well at dispersing sound and since I'm so close on the left side to this area and even to the right - and I mean a couple feet away from the right chair listening position. The Dipoles do a great job of filling my theater with sound. I tried direct firing speakers as side surrounds at it was too much of a ping pong effect - - again, due to the small size of my man cave HT. 

It's the rear back surrounds that are mounted up higher at 68" (bottom of Paradigm Millenia One's) and directly behind the listening position. The new Cornered Audio C4's will be on the sides, flush to the wall, with the bottom of the speaker at 45" height and the very top at 51.5". They will angle in toward the listening position. 

The real benefit of the Cornered Audio surrounds is that they mount flush to the wall with no brackets. The speaker grill opens up and there are holes where you can drill via the back of the speaker to affix to the wall/ceiling. The wires also connect via the front and make for a very clean look.

I really believe that this will make a huge difference in the sound experience and from all my reading on the AVS Forums - - folks that have lowered their rear back surrounds have had great results. Plus - - this sets the stage for a more effective Dolby Atmos layout.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> It's only misleading for those willing to be mislead. If I believe that a pair of speakers mounted high on the front wall above my mains will give the impression of sound overhead, then I deserve the results I get. If I claim that my single pair of heights was within the Dolby spec, then my cleverness has tricked only me.
> 
> The recommendations in the Atmos install guide cannot be approached without at least a little common sense. Want to have the impression of sound overhead? Place a pair of speakers (or two pairs) overhead. Nothing more complicated than that.
> 
> Speakers at my sides won't sound like they're in front of me. Speakers high up in front of me won't sound like they're right above me. That's common sense, not something unique to Atmos.


Common sense? In _this_ thread?!?


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> I guess my point is if you walk into a room and see any speakers hanging from the ceiling, then the size of the speaker is kinda irrelevant at that point within reason i.e. strapping a tower to the ceiling.


Respectfully, I disagree. There is a substantial difference between something like a KEF egg, Def Tech ProMonitor, Tannoy Di5, etc. versus those JBL's which are as big as some people's subwoofers. A 12" cube dangling off a burly C-bracket would go beyond "within reason" for most people who don't have dedicated rooms. Whereas a lot of smaller speakers can be made to work somewhat discreetly.

Obviously, none of these options are as stealth as in-ceiling speakers, but the big "win" is moving people up from worthless mini-sats like Bose cubes or the 2.5" woofer Boston cube thingies. A smaller satellite can still perform well enough for the task in a non-reference type of HT with an 80-100Hz xover without looking egregious like thos JBL's. Especially in smaller room and/or with low ceilings where losing a foot of elevation can make a real impact in terms of distance/angle.

I think it's OK to accept that other people may have different priorities and aesthetic sensibilities and may not need the reference level large venue performance that those JBL's provide.

And believe my I'm not dismissing those JBL's, if I had a big room I'd happy go with them.


----------



## alfa1

kbarnes701 said:


> No contest IMO. The Pioneers are designed by the world-famous and respected speaker designer, Andrew Jones. And the others are DefTechs.





batpig said:


> The A60s are garbage. Anything but them. If you just want a cheap module with a 3" full range driver save money and get the Onkyos.
> 
> For that money the Atlantic Tech ones are much better, or get the Pios or the (soon available?) ELAC modules also from
> Andrew Jones.


As someone who has a modest (by this board's standards) def tech atmos setup with A60's sitting on my front 8060 ST's, with an 8 foot reflective ceiling, I have to respectfully disagree - it sounds terrific, with convincing height effects and excellent immersion. I would also point out that Mark Henninger recently said he preferred the Def Tech 8060 atmos upfiring system to the Pioneer Andrew Jones atmos system at CEDIA, and Sound and Vision recently gave a very favorable review to the Def Tech 8060 upfiring atmos system.

I can only guess that the stark differences in opinion over the A60's must somehow be related to setup/room/ceiling configurations. Both the Andrew Jones Pioneer and A60 demos I heard in Magnolia rooms were terrible, with no overhead effects being discernable, probably due to 12 foot ceilings covered in absorbing tiles. As I think Keith noted before, upfiring setups can be much more finicky and difficult to get right than in ceiling, but unfortunately in or on ceiling speakers were nixed by my boss (Wife!!).


----------



## Xeneize12

gene4ht said:


> Great...will wait for your impressions on the Emo!
> 
> 
> 
> That's what many seem to be saying...wonder why JD and others continue to mention/recommend it???


Happy to report that after using the Emotiva mini-100 for a good week (or close) all my issues have gone away.....Can't say the Emotiva is a better amp than the Audiosource, because I lack the knowledge of comparing these two feature by feature.... however what I can say is that with my Denon 6200W I have had no issues at all from the minute I connected these two and that the Emo actually looks so much better (not that that's a determining factor)... it's also half the width.

Having said that... the AudioSource was working fine on "manual"


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> Respectfully, I disagree. There is a substantial difference between something like a KEF egg, Def Tech ProMonitor, Tannoy Di5, etc. versus those JBL's which are as big as some people's subwoofers. A 12" cube dangling off a burly C-bracket would go beyond "within reason" for most people who don't have dedicated rooms. Whereas a lot of smaller speakers can be made to work somewhat discreetly.
> 
> Obviously, none of these options are as stealth as in-ceiling speakers, but the big "win" is moving people up from worthless mini-sats like Bose cubes or the 2.5" woofer Boston cube thingies. A smaller satellite can still perform well enough for the task in a non-reference type of HT with an 80-100Hz xover without looking egregious like thos JBL's. Especially in smaller room and/or with low ceilings where losing a foot of elevation can make a real impact in terms of distance/angle.
> 
> I think it's OK to accept that other people may have different priorities and aesthetic sensibilities and may not need the reference level large venue performance that those JBL's provide.
> 
> And believe my I'm not dismissing those JBL's, if I had a big room I'd happy go with them.


Yes, we will have to disagree but I mean that in a friendly way. I know it can be difficult to judge posts on forums, but I am not taking offense at all. I have a dedicated room, but I do get WAF....trust me  I get what your saying, but to go through the trouble of running wire, drilling holes, and opening up the ceiling only to run a neutered speaker due to aesthetics just seems like a waste of time to me, but I guess it is better than no Atmos at all. Any speaker with a 4.5 " driver will always sound like a 4.5" driver. It will not play at any authority at the 80hz x-over. The di5 is rated at 90hz but I doubt it will do much at that level. I don't see where anything less than a 8" woofer will satisfy the Dolby Atmos specs which are the same for all speakers, including bed channels. Being object oriented, means the ceiling speakers are fair game just like any other speaker in your system. If you are going to embrace object oriented sounds then build a system that can faithfully reproduce what the sound engineer intended you to hear. I can't imagine a 4.5" driver realistically delivering the crack of thunder that would originate above you or helicopter wash as it hoovers overhead. Surround speakers get a lot more grunt than people realize. I never realized how much I was missing until I went with full sized surrounds. The difference was not minimal, it was huge and was probably the biggest wow factor in my upgrade path to date. The Atmos demo disc has some umph on the ceiling channels. I havent seen a movie that is on par but the Atmos disc definitely displays what the ceiling channel is capable of. The space ships flying by is a great example on the disc.

They don't look too "egregious". Your just being ugly to me now


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> O.K. - call me the Fernando Llamas of speakers - - "You look mahvelous...."
> 
> In this case, it's *better to look good than sound good.* (Although I believe there is a compromise, here.)


 Careful - you may find your AVS license is revoked


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "I have had no issues at all from the minute I connected these two and that the Emo actually *looks so much better* (not that that's a determining factor)... it's also half the width."

Who says pretty and good looking can't be functional, as well?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> To be fair those JBLs are huge speakers intended for large commercial venues. In a smaller or non dedicated space you can understand why someone wouldn't want a 12" black cube dangling off the ceiling. Especially if you have low ceilings.
> 
> As someone who went with the smaller
> di5 for Atmos speakers I would think you'd agree that speakers don't have to be huge to capably serve this function.


Yes, I do not disconcur. I would love those JBLs though I must admit. But I have a special affinity with JBL - always have had, ever since I had a pair of their speakers some years back.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> can't imagine a 4.5" driver realistically delivering the crack of thunder that would originate above you or helicopter wash as it hoovers overhead.


It doesn’t have to does it? That is why we have bass-managed systems. All that the 4.5" driver is being asked to do is handle frequencies about 100Hz (or whatever XO you use) and it should be more than capable of that.


----------



## Ricoflashback

"The di5 is rated at 90hz but I doubt it will do much at that level. I don't see where *anything less than a 8" woofer* will satisfy the Dolby Atmos specs which are the same for all speakers, including bed channels."

Ah, an eight inch woofer on my ceiling? Mama would love that.... It's hard enough to crank up the sub let alone shake the rafters (her floor) above my man cave in the basement. 

Woof-woof. Size matters but a man has to know his limitations. Or at least his wife's/girlfriend's limitations - when it comes to home theater, that is.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "I have had no issues at all from the minute I connected these two and that the Emo actually *looks so much better* (not that that's a determining factor)... it's also half the width."
> 
> Who says pretty and good looking can't be functional, as well?


They certainly can. But, specially with speakers, making them aesthetically pleasing adds a huge amount to the cost, and nothing at all to the sound. I have seen expensively veneered speakers where the cabinet costs more than the sum of the drivers and crossover. Of course, in a living room environment, the appearance is very important. But in a dedicated room, where 95% of the time the lights are out and the room is (should be) painted black or a very dark color, aesthetics matter far less. And if you have an AT screen, not at all. My own inclination is to concentrate most on the sound and less on the appearance but even I wouldn't really want my HT speakers in my living room


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> "The di5 is rated at 90hz but I doubt it will do much at that level.


One of the beauties of Pro gear is you don't have to guess since proper specs are published by the manufacturer. The response of the Di5 is -3dB at 90Hz. So when used in a bass manages system and crossed over at 100Hz, they will be just fine. In fact, when I temporarily substituted them for the Di6, which is -3dB at 75Hz, I could hear no difference at all, causing me to go back to the neater (and cheaper) Di5.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I do not disconcur. I would love those JBLs though I must admit. But I have a special affinity with JBL - always have had, ever since I had a pair of their speakers some years back.


That settles it. Dump those store bought toys you call speakers and join us on the Dark Side.











Contrary to popular belief... we do not have cookies and if we did, they might have weed in them. But we do have proper cinema level sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> That settles it. Dump those store bought toys you call speakers and join us on the Dark Side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to popular belief... we do not have cookies and if we did, they might have weed in them. But we do have proper cinema level sound.


 

 Well I use speakers that are found in the Skywalker ranch and numerous other professional rooms, and they can all achieve Reference without any problem, but yeah, I have nothing against Pro speakers what-so-ever. If/when we move house and I do a new room, I would probably use these across the front:

http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1489

And these as surrounds:

http://tannoy.com/residential/#!products_1488

Or maybe something from JBL.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Or maybe something from JBL.


Mmm, yes. I think JBL *Pro*.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I guess I would come back playing devil's advocate so to speak and ask why not run 4.5" all the way around then?


Mostly because they would probably lack the power handing capability needed to reach Reference level. If they could, and the system had capable subwoofers, there's no reason to believe they would be lacking.

I don't quite follow where you say they would 'sound different' - if the speaker is only required to handle frequencies above 80-100Hz, then that is all it has to do. Any other frequency capability in the speaker is not relevant if the speaker is not even playing those frequencies. And since most of the difficulty (and cost) involved in making a speaker is making it play low frequencies at an acceptable level, if the speaker is not asked to play those frequencies, then there is zero point in having it capable of so doing. THX built an entire business on this 

So.. if your hypothetical 4.5" speaker is very good above 80-100Hz (depending on where you cross - I always cross to my Submersives at 100Hz) then it is a very good speaker (for our purpose) by definition.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Mmm, yes. I think JBL *Pro*.


Natch  You and I, Scott, are much more alike than different I believe. (I even love pizza )


----------



## gene4ht

Xeneize12 said:


> Happy to report that after using the Emotiva mini-100 for a good week (or close) all my issues have gone away.....Can't say the Emotiva is a better amp than the Audiosource, because I lack the knowledge of comparing these two feature by feature.... however what I can say is that with my Denon 6200W I have had no issues at all from the minute I connected these two and that the Emo actually looks so much better (not that that's a determining factor)... it's also half the width.
> 
> Having said that... the AudioSource was working fine on "manual"


Appreciate your reporting back! Good to know that the Emo appears to to be a bit more user friendly with the 6200. Just curious but what mode do you have it in...Auto? And agree that it's a nice looking piece...although my preference would have been for a full 17" width and less depth. Thanks again!


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Mostly because they would probably lack the power handing capability needed to reach Reference level. If they could, and the system had capable subwoofers, there's no reason to believe they would be lacking.
> 
> I don't quite follow where you say they would 'sound different' - if the speaker is only required to handle frequencies above 80-100Hz, then that is all it has to do. Any other frequency capability in the speaker is not relevant if the speaker is not even playing those frequencies. And since most of the difficulty (and cost) involved in making a speaker is making it play low frequencies at an acceptable level, if the speaker is not asked to play those frequencies, then there is zero point in having it capable of so doing. THX built an entire business on this
> 
> So.. if your hypothetical 4.5" speaker is very good above 80-100Hz (depending on where you cross - I always cross to my Submersives at 100Hz) then it is a very good speaker (for our purpose) by definition.


Ehhh... There is more to a speakers performance than what a manufacture lists as their 'frequency response'. Just cuz a small bookshelf with a single 8" driver says it can do 30hz but then says it's max ouptut is 115dB ... yeah, well.... I'm sorry but no. You can't beat physics. There is a reason why a lot of people (who crave cinema sound) eventually make it to a dual 15" midbass type of system. There is no compression and tons of headroom. Those cute lil Tannoy's are fine speakers and probably are enough for most people but not all people are most people and you certainly will not be able to fill a cinema with a 4.5" wide bandwidth speaker.

I'm just going to let you enjoy your moment with these Tannoy's of yours and let it go cuz this is about to turn into one of those things... 



kbarnes701 said:


> Natch  You and I, Scott, are much more alike than different I believe. (I even love pizza )



...or eventually you'll make it to this side of the pond and I'll show you what a small HT room can really sound like.  

In the meantime.... that slice is mine!


----------



## audiofan1

^^^LOL! Best one yet Scott


----------



## Xeneize12

gene4ht said:


> Appreciate your reporting back! Good to know that the Emo appears to to be a bit more user friendly with the 6200. Just curious but what mode do you have it in...Auto? And agree that it's a nice looking piece...although my preference would have been for a full 17" width and less depth. Thanks again!


I'm running it on manual (or On mode, can't remember the actual label, but definitely not auto)

I will say, if AudioSource fits your space needs, by all means, get one... i had all kinds of issues on Auto but none really on manual... 
I understand the Audiosource went up in price as well, so there isn't a big difference in price now ($60 I think)


----------



## Kain

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> The ceiling is about 9-9.5' high and I'll be seated at a "normal" or "common" seating height which I am guessing will make my ears roughly 3.5-4' off the floor when seated.
> 
> I could move the seating position a bit forward but I always thought sitting right in the middle of the room was the worst place for bass (response). Am I wrong? The room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9 ft.


Anyone able to comment on this? Isn't having the seating position right in the middle of the room "problematic" for bass (i.e. sitting in a null)?


----------



## Scott Simonian

audiofan1 said:


> ^^^LOL! Best one yet Scott


Thanks. It was a long shot but I was betting on the word drop of 'pizza' at some point. Darth and I love pizza. Maybe _too_ much! 



Kain said:


> Anyone able to comment on this? Isn't having the seating position right in the middle of the room "problematic" for bass (i.e. sitting in a null)?


Depends on the position of the speaker/sub in question. The middle of the room is problematic if you have all your subs in the corners and none at the midpoint of the walls.


----------



## Kain

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks. It was a long shot but I was betting on the word drop of 'pizza' at some point. Darth and I love pizza. Maybe _too_ much!
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the position of the speaker/sub in question. The middle of the room is problematic if you have all your subs in the corners and none at the midpoint of the walls.


What if I have 4 subwoofers where two are located at 1/4th of the two side walls (one on each parallel side wall) and the other two at 3/4th of the same two side walls (again one on each parallel side wall)? Not exactly midpoint but not in the corners either.


----------



## airtimehocutt

in my dedicated theater room I have 2- 15" full range acoustic research towers as my L/R front speakers , set to large on mcaac (pioneer 1021) center channel (KEB) is recessed into 8' ceiling angled toward listening area, with polk rti-4 as rear surrounds with 2-15" DIY subs directly behind listen area tuned to 15htz. shooting straight up. I can tell u that no 4.5" front speakers gonna give me the same mid bass hit and lower bass as those 2- front 15 towers are. done tried it, sound went from full and rich to thin sounding. even with those 2- DIY subs workin hard I lost a noticeable amount of bass and mid bass during movies. not knocking the 4.5" speakers but size does matter


----------



## gene4ht

Xeneize12 said:


> I'm running it on manual (or On mode, can't remember the actual label, but definitely not auto)
> 
> I will say, if AudioSource fits your space needs, by all means, get one... i had all kinds of issues on Auto but none really on manual...
> I understand the Audiosource went up in price as well, so there isn't a big difference in price now ($60 I think)


At this point, I have not decided on which AVR I will be upgrading to for an Atmos 7.2.4 setup. Therefore, I was interested in how well the 6200 would play with various amps. As you indicated, the AudioSource 100 is now priced at $159 from Amazon and the Emotiva Mini is on sale for $149. Cheers!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> What if I have 4 subwoofers where two are located at 1/4th of the two side walls (one on each parallel side wall) and the other two at 3/4th of the same two side walls (again one on each parallel side wall)? Not exactly midpoint but not in the corners either.


Then the peaks and dips in response will be in other spots of the room and coincide the modes you are exciting or not exciting.


----------



## Nalleh

First Norwegian bluray with Dolby Atmos: Bølgen.

http://cdon.no/film/bølgen_(blu-ray)-29820192


----------



## audiofan1

airtimehocutt said:


> in my dedicated theater room I have 2- 15" full range acoustic research towers as my L/R front speakers , set to large on mcaac (pioneer 1021) center channel (KEB) is recessed into 8' ceiling angled toward listening area, with polk rti-4 as rear surrounds with 2-15" DIY subs directly behind listen area tuned to 15htz. shooting straight up. I can tell u that no 4.5" front speakers gonna give me the same mid bass hit and lower bass as those 2- front 15 towers are. done tried it, sound went from full and rich to thin sounding. even with those 2- DIY subs workin hard I lost a noticeable amount of bass and mid bass during movies. not knocking the 4.5" speakers but size does matter


 My litte for the moment 4.5 inch Boston Soundwares are holding it down as the mighty KK Duo stack is sublime at handling the bass with them crossed over at 90hz and @ reference volume with the hard hitting moves of late I detect to sign of strain or clipping! The subs are the BIG part of the equation,keep in mind those little speaker are only 7.2 ft away! When i do go for ceiling speakers once DTS X arrives it will no larger than a 6" driver as its just not necessary!Why, I'm not after the sound of a theater as my home setup has just about always sounded better due to a better fidelity to the sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ehhh... There is more to a speakers performance than what a manufacture lists as their 'frequency response'. Just cuz a small bookshelf with a single 8" driver says it can do 30hz but then says it's max ouptut is 115dB ... yeah, well.... I'm sorry but no. You can't beat physics. There is a reason why a lot of people (who crave cinema sound) eventually make it to a dual 15" midbass type of system. There is no compression and tons of headroom. Those cute lil Tannoy's are fine speakers and probably are enough for most people but not all people are most people and you certainly will not be able to fill a cinema with a 4.5" wide bandwidth speaker.


I do not disagree, but physics is physics, as you say, and if a speaker is not required to play below 80-100Hz due to bass management, then its capabilities below those frequencies are 100% irrelevant. I agree with you about manufacturers's specs in general, but Pro speakers do have reliable specs, including the Tannoys.



Scott Simonian said:


> I'm just going to let you enjoy your moment with these Tannoy's of yours and let it go cuz this is about to turn into one of those things...


They are just fine for the purpose I am using them for. It isn't hard to make a good speaker if all it has to do is >100Hz.



Scott Simonian said:


> ...or eventually you'll make it to this side of the pond and I'll show you what a small HT room can really sound like.


I would welcome the opportunity. I have toyed with a visit to LA next year, just to catch up with all my AV buddies. I think I could have a truly great week or so just visiting with all you guys who have become cyber-friends. I also have very fond memories of my time when I lived in LA (well, I worked in LA and lived in Pasadena BYKWIM) and it would be good to visit again.



Scott Simonian said:


> In the meantime.... that slice is mine!


Not if I see it first it ain't


----------



## zimmo

what do you think of the high ceilling speaker earthquake,these are good is that ,they are people who have tried them.maybe I change my Yamaha for ecs-8.0 or ss-80w.


----------



## Xeneize12

gene4ht said:


> At this point, I have not decided on which AVR I will be upgrading to for an Atmos 7.2.4 setup. Therefore, I was interested in how well the 6200 would play with various amps. As you indicated, the AudioSource 100 is now priced at $159 from Amazon and the Emotiva Mini is on sale for $149. Cheers!


Wow!, that's a great price for the Emo... it's still $219 on Amazon.... nit at $149 is a no-brainer....


----------



## Kain

Scott Simonian said:


> Then the peaks and dips in response will be in other spots of the room and coincide the modes you are exciting or not exciting.


Could you re-state/explain that in layman's terms? 

I know what peaks and dips are but what do you mean by modes I am exciting or not exciting?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I do not disagree, but physics is physics, as you say, and* if a speaker is not required to play below 80-100Hz due to bass management, then its capabilities below those frequencies are 100% irrelevant. *


Incorrect.

Just because it doesn't have to play below a frequency of your choosing does not make it good at reproducing 'y' content at 'x' level just because it doesn't have to work much below 'z' frequency. That's not how it works. What you are correct about is in general speakers and amps don't have to work so hard when you lighten their load.

So you almost understand what I'm going on about. 



kbarnes701 said:


> They are just fine for the purpose I am using them for.


This is true but 100% irrelevant to what Molon_Labe said and to which I agreed.



kbarnes701 said:


> It isn't hard to make a good speaker if all it has to do is >100Hz.


You'd be surprised. 




kbarnes701 said:


> I would welcome the opportunity. I have toyed with a visit to LA next year, just to catch up with all my AV buddies. I think I could have a truly great week or so just visiting with all you guys who have become cyber-friends. I also have very fond memories of my time when I lived in LA (well, I worked in LA and lived in Pasadena BYKWIM) and it would be good to visit again.


That would be awesome! I enjoy the LA area and it seems these days most of my friends live there. Maybe one day I'll move out there. 

Let me know when the day come that you do come out here. 




kbarnes701 said:


> Not if I see it first it ain't


Are you challenging me?


----------



## airtimehocutt

I am waiting for the atmos prices to drop a little more before I buy, but is there a big difference in a 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 system in a medium sized theater room with 8' ceiling? they have a reasonably priced 5.1.2 system out now but 5.1.4 is still pretty expensive


----------



## NorthSky

*Good humor is part of life.*



Scott Simonian said:


> In the meantime.... that slice is mine!


I'm reading all the "slices" in this 'Official Dolby Atmos' thread...and I'm staying on the sideline now...until this, just above! :grin:


----------



## Molon_Labe

audiofan1 said:


> My litte for the moment 4.5 inch Boston Soundwares are holding it down as the mighty KK Duo stack is sublime at handling the bass with them crossed over at 90hz and @ reference volume with the hard hitting moves of late I detect to sign of strain or clipping! The subs are the BIG part of the equation,keep in mind those little speaker are only 7.2 ft away! When i do go for ceiling speakers once DTS X arrives it will no larger than a 6" driver as its just not necessary!Why, I'm not after the sound of a theater as my home setup has just about always sounded better due to a better fidelity to the sound.


If you think Pro Cinema speakers lack fidelity, I can assure you they don't. Pop into the JBL Pro Cinema, QSC, JTR, etc threads. They may look like junky PA speakers with no grills and ugly cabinets, but they are far from it. The clarity, dynamics of these high efficiency speaker lines has to be heard to be appreciated. They play as refined at whisper volumes as they do at levels you don't want to be in the room with.

As far as subs being an integral part, you are definitely right. However, I don't think many would argue that I am lacking in the sub department with (2) 4000w/24" beasts, and I still would never be without a high efficiency speaker with anything less than a 12" driver. Until you hear it first hand, it really can't be described. Anyone in the San Antonio area or visiting is welcome to come by for an audition.


----------



## batpig

airtimehocutt said:


> I am waiting for the atmos prices to drop a little more before I buy, but is there a big difference in a 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 system in a medium sized theater room with 8' ceiling? they have a reasonably priced 5.1.2 system out now but 5.1.4 is still pretty expensive


Yes there is a big difference. The more speakers you have the better immersive audio works, and 7 is still not near the point of incremental returns on additional speakers. 

That said, budget is budget so if you can only do 5.1.2 now then get the cheapest 7ch Atmos model that gives you what you need and upgrade when you can. Or, alternately do as much as you can to get a great 7.1 system and then add overhead speakers later when you can afford to upgrade the processor.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> I have toyed with a visit to LA next year, just to catch up with all my AV buddies. I think I could have a truly great week or so just visiting with all you guys who have become cyber-friends.


Come on out, the water's fine!



Scott Simonian said:


> That would be awesome! I enjoy the LA area and it seems these days most of my friends live there. Maybe one day I'll move out there.


Do it. Join the dark side.


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> Yes there is a big difference. The more speakers you have the better immersive audio works, and 7 is still not near the point of incremental returns on additional speakers.


Amen, 9.1.6 is where its at. I really think the 2 additional ceiling channels will help a lot with those who have more than one row of seating. I used to not really see the sense in wides, but I would definitely drop two more onto the floor if given the chance.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Just because it doesn't have to play below a frequency of your choosing does not make it good at reproducing 'y' content at 'x' level just because it doesn't have to work much below 'z' frequency. That's not how it works. What you are correct about is in general speakers and amps don't have to work so hard when you lighten their load.


Eh? If it isn’t playing some frequencies at all then they have to be irrlevant. I agree it doesn't make a good speaker (if that is what you meant) and I think I said so. But if the speaker is good above 80-100hz, and it is not even playing frequencies below 80-100Hz, and you have good subs, then its ability wrt to frequencies below 80-100Hz is clearly irrelevant.



Scott Simonian said:


> You'd be surprised.


OK - I should have said, it *shouldn’t* be hard.... 



Scott Simonian said:


> That would be awesome! I enjoy the LA area and it seems these days most of my friends live there. Maybe one day I'll move out there.
> 
> Let me know when the day come that you do come out here.


Sure will. I am relying on you to take me to the best pizza places 



Scott Simonian said:


> Are you challenging me?


 NFW. Only a fool would challenge the undisputed champion of the world when it comes to pizza


----------



## dschulz

On the subject of bass managing the ceiling speakers - I wonder if there *is* something to be gained by lowering the crossover points on the ceiling speakers, if they are large enough to dig a little deeper. I know that in principle we all agree that below around 80Hz sound becomes nondirectional, which is why bass management is so universally loved. But is that still the case with overhead sounds? I'm thinking here of everyone's favorite demo, a helicopter hovering directly overhead. Would that demo be as effective with smaller speakers handing off bass duties to subwoofers at floor level, or might the experience be enhanced with larger ceiling speakers crossed over at say 60Hz instead of 80 - 120, so that the deep thrum of the rotor blades really is coming from overhead? It would be interesting to experiment with this.


----------



## kbarnes701

airtimehocutt said:


> I am waiting for the atmos prices to drop a little more before I buy, but is there a big difference in a 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 system in a medium sized theater room with 8' ceiling?


IMO, yes. Go for the four overheads.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> If you think Pro Cinema speakers lack fidelity, I can assure you they don't. Pop into the JBL Pro Cinema, QSC, JTR, etc threads. They may look like junky PA speakers with no grills and ugly cabinets, but they are far from it. The clarity, dynamics of these high efficiency speaker lines has to be heard to be appreciated. They play as refined at whisper volumes as they do at levels you don't want to be in the room with.
> 
> As far as subs being an integral part, you are definitely right. However, I don't think many would argue that I am lacking in the sub department with (2) 4000w/24" beasts, and I still would never be without a high efficiency speaker with anything less than a 12" driver. Until you hear it first hand, it really can't be described. Anyone in the San Antonio area or visiting is welcome to come by for an audition.


Never said they lacked fidelity just contrasting between the sound characteristics of Home cinema vs a commercial venue. I'm not trying to replicate that sound as its not my cup of tea and yeah I'm fully aware of that sub system you have


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> Come on out, the water's fine!


I don't doubt it! I've often been told that LA is a love-it or hate-it place, but certainly in my time there (about 3 years) I loved it.


----------



## Stoked21

dschulz said:


> On the subject of bass managing the ceiling speakers - I wonder if there *is* something to be gained by lowering the crossover points on the ceiling speakers, if they are large enough to dig a little deeper. I know that in principle we all agree that below around 80Hz sound becomes nondirectional, which is why bass management is so universally loved. But is that still the case with overhead sounds? I'm thinking here of everyone's favorite demo, a helicopter hovering directly overhead. Would that demo be as effective with smaller speakers handing off bass duties to subwoofers at floor level, or might the experience be enhanced with larger ceiling speakers crossed over at say 60Hz instead of 80 - 120, so that the deep thrum of the rotor blades really is coming from overhead? It would be interesting to experiment with this.


I've mentioned it before. I'm waiting on my new JTR sub to show up today. I sold one of my current "on-the-cheap" subs a few weeks ago and sent my Klipsch 15" reference back last week for an odd squeal/hum. So late last week and this weekend, I set my fronts to large and ran the Atmos demos and some DSU content as well. The ceiling speakers had a lot more low end than I thought they normally carried. I think my dual subs were previously masking the amount of bass coming from the ceiling (I'm crossed at 80hz). My ICs are all 7" drivers. There's a lot more low-end coming from the ceiling than most people think. Kill your subs and you will hear what I mean.


----------



## kingwiggi

dschulz said:


> On the subject of bass managing the ceiling speakers - I wonder if there *is* something to be gained by lowering the crossover points on the ceiling speakers, if they are large enough to dig a little deeper. I know that in principle we all agree that below around 80Hz sound becomes nondirectional, which is why bass management is so universally loved. But is that still the case with overhead sounds? I'm thinking here of everyone's favorite demo, a helicopter hovering directly overhead. Would that demo be as effective with smaller speakers handing off bass duties to subwoofers at floor level, or might the experience be enhanced with *larger ceiling speakers crossed over at say 60Hz instead of 80 *- 120, so that the deep thrum of the rotor blades really is coming from overhead? It would be interesting to experiment with this.


This was certainly D&M's suggestion during their demo at CEDIA. They were also suggesting a min of an 8" ceiling speaker for it to be really effective. IMO they were also running their ceiling speakers 2 - 3db hot for a little bit of extra punch.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Do it. Join the dark side.


I wish! Hopefully one day ....



kbarnes701 said:


> Eh? If it isn’t playing some frequencies at all then they have to be irrlevant. I agree it doesn't make a good speaker (if that is what you meant) and I think I said so. But if the speaker is good above 80-100hz, and it is not even playing frequencies below 80-100Hz, and you have good subs, then its ability wrt to frequencies below 80-100Hz is clearly irrelevant.


What I am saying is that just because a small speaker is high passed over said frequency does not make it equal (or even close) to that of the kind of speaker I'm interested in.

An 8" Tannoy will not be "just as capable" as the JBL Pro with dual 15" midbasses with 4" coils designed to operate @ rated power for 24hrs straight without flinching just because they are both crossed at 80". Not even close. Not in the ballpark. Not even near the ballpark. The ballpark has gone home and the other stuff has drifted off to Wonderland. 

Not ... gunna .... happen.

You can't beat physics and a crossover at 80hz isn't going to beat the physics. An 8" driver is still an 8" driver.


***I'm not sure what this has to do with Atmos anymore. Is this thread even really about Atmos anymore or just a place where a bunch of us like to hang out? I'm sure there is a 'NO LOITERING' sign posted around here somewhere.***








kbarnes701 said:


> Sure will. I am relying on you to take me to the best pizza places
> 
> 
> 
> NFW. Only a fool would challenge the undisputed champion of the world when it comes to pizza


I know a few places here and there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> On the subject of bass managing the ceiling speakers - I wonder if there *is* something to be gained by lowering the crossover points on the ceiling speakers, if they are large enough to dig a little deeper. I know that in principle we all agree that below around 80Hz sound becomes nondirectional, which is why bass management is so universally loved. But is that still the case with overhead sounds? I'm thinking here of everyone's favorite demo, a helicopter hovering directly overhead. Would that demo be as effective with smaller speakers handing off bass duties to subwoofers at floor level, or might the experience be enhanced with larger ceiling speakers crossed over at say 60Hz instead of 80 - 120, so that the deep thrum of the rotor blades really is coming from overhead? It would be interesting to experiment with this.


It's all a matter of balancing the overall 'tone' of the speaker in question and your interest in the total response in room at the listening position.

Do you give up some linear frequency response for a fuller sound from the respective speaker? That's up for you as the end user to decide. Many have will host their opinions but only yours is the important one. Try it out!

That being said, there is nothing special about the height speaker aside from their location. If you can fit large speakers, go for it! No need to arbitrarily dumb them down if you can get away with something more... robust. Granted it's not always the most practical location in domestic installations. Which is most of us.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm not sure what this has to do with Atmos anymore.


Discussing how low in frequency height speakers need to go in a bass managed system.


----------



## audiofan1

kingwiggi said:


> This was certainly D&M's suggestion during their demo at CEDIA. They were also suggesting a min of an 8" ceiling speaker for it to be really effective. IMO they were also running their ceiling speakers 2 - 3db hot for a little bit of extra punch.


 Why run them hot as it will only serve to kill the rest of the soundstage (which is now immersive) if the center channel is to hot it can kill the frontstage and this applies as well to the surrounds being hot. I've always found any channel to hot will always collapse something somewhere else


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Discussing how low in frequency height speakers need to go in a bass managed system.


The same as any other speaker in the system.


Odd how the nearly 100% unused space of a normal ceiling goes at such a premium yet the floorspace and walls have little hard time getting such "large" speakers.


I never realized how many people spend their time staring at their ceiling.

Hmph. The things you learn on AVS.


----------



## batpig

audiofan1 said:


> kingwiggi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was certainly D&M's suggestion during their demo at CEDIA. They were also suggesting a min of an 8" ceiling speaker for it to be really effective. IMO they were also running their ceiling speakers 2 - 3db hot for a little bit of extra punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Why run them hot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as it will only serve to kill the rest of the soundstage (which is now immersive) if the center channel is to hot it can kill the frontstage and this applies as well to the surrounds being hot. I've always found any channel to hot will always collapse something somewhere else
Click to expand...

Probably for the sake of the demo to make the overhead effect more dramatic.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> The same as any other speaker in the system.


That's been my line since this whole home Atmos thing started. Anyway, you asked what the particular discussion had to do with Atmos...


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> That's been my line since this whole home Atmos thing started. Anyway, you asked what the particular discussion had to do with Atmos...


I was half-joking but thanks anyway. 

Yup. But remember... speakers on the ceiling are special. Umm... apparently. 

They are not subject to the same physics as "regular" speakers. No sir.


----------



## Kain

Scott Simonian said:


> Then the peaks and dips in response will be in other spots of the room and coincide the modes you are exciting or not exciting.





Kain said:


> Could you re-state/explain that in layman's terms?
> 
> I know what peaks and dips are but what do you mean by modes I am exciting or not exciting?


I did some quick reading and it seems room modes are pretty much unavoidable? They are based on the dimensions of your room, correct? Can you treat them or at least "decrease their effect" by using acoustical treatments?

Secondly, you stated that the peaks and dips will be in the other spots of the room (instead of at the seating position) based on my subwoofer and seating position layout. I guess this is actually favorable, correct?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Amen, 9.1.6 is where its at. I really think the 2 additional ceiling channels will help a lot with those who have more than one row of seating. I used to not really see the sense in wides, but I would definitely drop two more onto the floor if given the chance.


Two more 4722's, I hope. 

I'll tell you from personal experience that I don't believe the benefit for x.x.6 is for those with multiple rows but more so for those sitting far off axis to the side of the MLP. There is no question that that sound is above you when the speakers are ... above you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> I did some quick reading and it seems room modes are pretty much unavoidable? They are based on the dimensions of your room, correct? Can you treat them or at least "decrease their effect" by using acoustical treatments?
> 
> Secondly, you stated that the peaks and dips will be in the other spots of the room (instead of at the seating position) based on my subwoofer and seating position layout. I guess this is actually favorable, correct?



Yes. I told you that you can control which ones are excited or not based off the position of the speakers and/or subwoofers.

There is a room height mode, along with ones for length and width. You can control how bad the peaks and nulls will be around the room by a well thought out positioning of said subwoofers. Fairly is easy in principle, practicality on these positions depends on the layout of your room.


----------



## Sewerboy

Hello,

Just wondering if Atmos is really that much better than 7.1?

Thanks


----------



## Sewerboy

Hello,

Just wondering if Atmos is really that much better than 7.1?

Thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

No. Just a gimmick.


Obviously, you're going to get a biased answer in this thread. Especially from people who own Atmos. 


Yes. Yes, it is very awesome and better than 7.1 can ever be.


----------



## Stoked21

Sewerboy said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just wondering if Atmos is really that much better than 7.1?
> 
> Thanks


Replied to your PM on XLS....I think Atmos is a game changer. Not a cheap hobby and not a matter of simply throwing speakers around haphazardly. But if you do some homework...The results are insane.


----------



## NorthSky

*Question about DSU and DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1 & 7.1 High Resolution (Lossless) Audio*

Question for the people with Dolby Atmos first generation AV Receivers and Pre/Pros (SSPs), and who don't have "pollination" issues from the second batch of Denon/Marantz Dolby Atmos products:
{That includes Yamaha, Onkyo/Integra, Pioneer, Anthem, etc. Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros from the first and second generation.}

*Did some of you watch both LOTR and The Hobbit trilogies (theatrical, or extended editions) on Blu-ray, using Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU), and if yes how was it?*

And thank you for your cooperation. - Robocop ;-)


----------



## Ricoflashback

I find this Dolby Atmos thread fascinating, interesting, engaging, mind challenging, opinion changing, learning, differentiating and somewhat titillating.

Well, maybe not titillating. Still, for most of the folks who post on this thread...."I wanna party with you, Cowboy!"


----------



## bargervais

sewerboy said:


> hello,
> 
> just wondering if atmos is really that much better than 7.1?
> 
> Thanks


*omg* Is that a real question.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Sewerboy said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just wondering if Atmos is really that much better than 7.1?
> 
> Thanks


I didn't have high expectations but thought I would do it while my ceiling was opened for installing a projector. It far surpassed what I "expected" My friend came in town from Florida, and I overheard him on the phone to his wife. He said, "That system is insane. I never thought it could sound like being outside while sitting inside." I took that as one of the best compliments Dolby Atmos could be given.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Yes, the bed channels will always be 4722's going forward.


But the "wide" speaker is _not_ a *bed* channel. 


There is no such thing as "wide" speakers in a cinematic mix. Up until immersive audio formats it was 5.1 or 7.1 audio. Then Auro came along with a traditional 5.1 bottom "layer" and a 4-5ch "upper" layer and then the VOG. Then Atmos came out with well... many speakers. But.... inside an Atmos mix is two things. Channels and objects. In the cinema the "bed" channels go up to 9.1 with a traditional 7.1 circle with the two full ceiling arrays played back in stereo. There is no "wide" speaker. The wide speaker only exists as an output from post processing in the consumer world from either DTS Neo:X or Audyssey's DSX algorithm. A bed channel is a real channel in the way we would think of them. They are not "bed" channels because they are apart of the lower layer of speakers.


I understand what you're saying though. You'd prefer to have the full sized speaker along with the rest on the floor. I get it and agree. But... if you were to follow your own words then the wides could be the lil things you're hanging from the ceiling. Or following your own words you should have had 4722's up top because in the cinema the whole left and right array is played back in full in stereo cuz (in the cinema) those are two new "bed" channels. So you're wrong either way. 

Soo.... it's on you now to load up your ceiling with 4722's. I don't expect to hear from you again until you do. Get to work on it. 





jk of course. I expect to hear from you soon but I do fully expect to see 4722's on your ceiling. Soon. :serious:




Molon_Labe said:


> So are you saying that you would go two rows but 3 wide? I never thought about that being a possibility. But then again 2x3 and 3x2 are kinda the same way to get to six.


No. What I was saying (since I run a 7.1.6 system) is that the benefit really shows when you're sitting off axis and to the side. Sitting at the MLP you can get very decent overhead imaging with four heights. It's a stronger overhead effect no matter what when you actually have a speaker above you. But... for those that have to sit off to the side, there is no denying that something is above you when you have that middle pair over head.


----------



## gene4ht

Sewerboy said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just wondering if Atmos is really that much better than 7.1?
> 
> Thanks


IMO and in short, Atmos is a game changer...and 3D sound is here to stay. It's currently being embraced by serious audio/videophiles and early adopters but I'm betting (and it appears manufacturers and many studios) it will be mainstream in time.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> @Scott Simonian - Gotcha on the Atmos, I am slow
> 
> Your right, bed channels was a poor word choice. I was wrongly using bed to describe a speaker at ground level.


Hey, no worries. I knew what you meant. 


I assume most people are in here to learn and not _just_ to argue/bicker back and forth with each other.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Channels and objects. In the cinema the "bed" channels go up to 9.1 with a traditional 7.1 circle with the two full ceiling arrays played back in stereo. There is no "wide" speaker. The wide speaker only exists as an output from post processing in the consumer world from either DTS Neo:X or Audyssey's DSX algorithm. A bed channel is a real channel in the way we would think of them. They are not "bed" channels because they are apart of the lower layer of speakers.


Except, you know, for those speakers that sit in between the surround bed channels and the screen channels which ONLY receive objects, not bed content, in order to better transition lateral pans from the screen channels to the side surround channels..... just like how a "wide" speaker would operate in the home environment


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey, no worries. I knew what you meant.
> 
> 
> I assume most people are in here to learn and not _just_ to argue/bicker back and forth with each other.


I have a learned a ton from the AVS crowd. It has also cost me thousands of dollars  I need to delete my account and add this URL to my web filtering software. Every time I start reading something I always end up spending more money


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Except, you know, for those speakers that sit in between the surround bed channels and the screen channels which ONLY receive objects, not bed content, in order to better transition lateral pans from the screen channels to the side surround channels..... just like how a "wide" speaker would operate in the home environment



DEEZ are not wide speakers, friendo. 

We don't need to have this discussion again. Study up. Wides are not the same as those front surrounds. Wides are derived from post processing. Front surrounds are exactly as you describe. Unfortunately the terminology took hold on the consumer end of "wides" so Dolby and DTS are using this position and calling them wides. They are not the same, just a similar position and an unfortunate renaming. 

Yeah, yeah. Call them wides, call them front surrounds. "They do the same" Lol but not really. 

*Wides do not exist in ANY format.*

Those front surrounds do NOT contain bed channel information. Ever.

At home, with Dolby Atmos, they operate one and the same. 

"But ... but... the position is exactly the same as wide speakers. So they are wide speakers!"

Sorry, son but they aren't.


Again, study up. There is no such thing as a wide speaker in ANY mix. Ever.



*** Hey! Nice 18,000th post.  ***


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> No. What I was saying (since I run a 7.1.6 system) is that the benefit really shows when you're sitting off axis and to the side. Sitting at the MLP you can get very decent overhead imaging with four heights. It's a stronger overhead effect no matter what when you actually have a speaker above you. But... for those that have to sit off to the side, there is no denying that something is above you when you have that middle pair over head.


This is the reason I installed six in-ceilings...to accommodate my 2 rows of seating...and in anticipation of soon acquiring the right AVR or pre-pro.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Wides are derived from post processing.


NOT with object based audio in the home. They would receive objects, not bed content. Just like the cinema speakers.

You can continue to stick to your semantic distinction of "wides vs front surrounds" to make yourself feel better..... son. But they doin' the exact same thing in this context.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gene4ht said:


> This is the reason I installed six in-ceilings...to accommodate my 2 rows of seating...and in anticipation of soon acquiring the right AVR or pre-pro.


Good thinking. 



batpig said:


> NOT with object based audio in the home. They would receive objects, not bed content. Just like the cinema speakers.
> 
> You can continue to stick to your semantic distinction of "wides vs front surrounds" to make yourself feel better..... son. But they doin' the exact same thing in this context.


No they aren't, son. 

Wides exist only from post processing from Neo:X (doing common center extraction) and Audyssey's DSX using more so early reflection generation of sorts. These "channels" are not real nor exist in the source content. They are derived.

The "wides" your thinking about are extensions of the surround arrays. They fill a gap along the walls of a cinema to connect the screen to the surrounds. They never play channel content. Ever. There is not one single audio format with a native "wide" channel. These speakers only play objects from an immersive mix (Atmos). These speaker positions in the cinema are not called wides because they are not wides.

They operate exactly the same at home (Atmos environment) but instead of calling them front surrounds they stuck with the wide designation cuz it's the same spot Neo:X's and DSX's speakers sat. Dolby and DTS would prefer to make it easy on you. 


You call it semantics, I call it knowing the f**k what I'm talking about.  

They are not the same, they do not operate the same. That's why I get to say on a public forum that they are not the same. Because they are not. Get it?


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> I was wrongly using bed to describe a speaker at ground level.


To describe the lower layer, Dolby uses the term "floor speakers" (irrespective of where they are physically mounted).


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> They are not the same, they do not operate the same. That's why I get to say on a public forum that they are not the same. Because they are not. Get it?


No, I don't get it. 

IN WHAT WAY DO THEY NOT OPERATE THE SAME???? 



Scott Simonian said:


> *They operate exactly the same at home* (Atmos environment) but instead of calling them front surrounds they stuck with the wide designation


So which is it, the DO operate exactly the same or they do not? Because you said both? (also, NEWS FLASH but calling them by a different name is NOT an operational difference)

If you can actually elucidate a distinction BESIDES the name of the speaker, I'm all ears.

Your description: "They fill a gap along the walls of a cinema to connect the screen to the surrounds. They never play channel content. Ever.... These speakers only play objects from an immersive mix (Atmos).

That description describes BOTH situations. 

Sits in between the surround bed and the screen channels? CHECK
Only plays objects, never channels? CHECK

Sounds like they are functionally identical. 

Educate me daddy. What am I missing?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Batpig, you can't even follow your own nonesense.


At home, wides as they exist are not real in the source. They are derived. Neo:X and DSX. These are wides.


At home with Atmos, these "wides" are not the same as the wides I just mentioned one sentence above this one. The one you're reading now.

At home with Atmos these are exactly the same as front surrounds in cinema Atmos. In this description, they are the same.

Understand?

In no instance has there ever been "wides" in a mix. There have been objects positioned at x,y,z coordinates to fall into the zone of the front surrounds.


So when some of you get your panties in a wad when I say this stuff, maybe you should understand that there is a difference. Because there is a difference. You seem stuck on the naming of wides from DTS and Audyssey (and now Dolby for Atmos at home) but these do not operate the same as wides do from both DTS Neo:X and DSX.

I understand the difference. You do not. Once you do, this will make more sense. I'm sure Sanjay or Dan or Marc will say something about the same and it will make sense to you, Batpig.  

I hope the rest of you can follow this well enough.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> *At home with Atmos these are exactly the same as front surrounds in cinema Atmos. In this description, they are the same.*
> 
> Understand?


Yes, I understand that you just told me I'm 100% correct. Thanks. 

I'm following my own nonsense perfectly well, thank you very much. I only hope you can follow your nonsense in claiming there's a functional/operational difference while conceding simultaneously that they are operationally identical.



> You seem stuck on the naming of wides from DTS and Audyssey


No, YOU ARE. That's why you seem to think there's a difference despite them being functionally identical. I could give two sh*ts about what you name them.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No, that's not what I said.


Ugh. 

Carry on, everybody. I've done this grand prix too many times.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> No, that's not what I said.


It is what you said. Because I quoted you, those were your words.



> I understand the difference. You do not. Once you do, this will make more sense.


You still have failed to describe an operational difference in how they behave with native Atmos content. I'm ready for when you do.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dude. Settle down and re-read my posts above. I described it in detail in more than one post.

Take your time and come back later.


----------



## batpig

I've read all of your posts multiple times and despite your condescension, I understand it all perfectly. I don't need to re-read it, because you seem to be saying I'm wrong while simultaneously agreeing multiple times with the exact point I'm making.

THESE ARE ALL YOUR WORDS:

"Those front surrounds do NOT contain bed channel information. Ever. *At home, with Dolby Atmos, they operate one and the same*."

"They fill a gap along the walls of a cinema to connect the screen to the surrounds. They never play channel content. Ever.... These speakers only play objects from an immersive mix (Atmos)... *They operate exactly the same at home (Atmos environment)* but instead of calling them front surrounds they stuck with the wide designation."

"*At home with Atmos these are exactly the same as front surrounds in cinema Atmos. In this description, they are the same.*"

All of the above quotes are EXACTLY the point I was making, in your own words.


----------



## Molon_Labe

So how far is Clovis from San Diego? I wanna put you two in the ring together.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> So how far is Clovis from San Diego? I wanna put you two in the ring together.


Oh man it's a drive. Like 6-7 hours. But we're both pretty short so it would be funny to watch


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I've read all of your posts multiple times and despite your condescension, I understand it all perfectly. I don't need to re-read it, because you seem to be saying I'm wrong while simultaneously agreeing multiple times with the exact point I'm making.
> 
> THESE ARE ALL YOUR WORDS:
> 
> "Those front surrounds do NOT contain bed channel information. Ever. *At home, with Dolby Atmos, they operate one and the same*."
> 
> "They fill a gap along the walls of a cinema to connect the screen to the surrounds. They never play channel content. Ever.... These speakers only play objects from an immersive mix (Atmos)... *They operate exactly the same at home (Atmos environment)* but instead of calling them front surrounds they stuck with the wide designation."
> 
> "*At home with Atmos these are exactly the same as front surrounds in cinema Atmos. In this description, they are the same.*"
> 
> All of the above quotes are EXACTLY the point I was making, in your own words.


Yes, at home with Atmos the "wides" operate the same as front surrounds. Yet they do not call them wides in the cinema. They do call them wides at home.

But... the "wides" from Atmos are NOT the same as real wides derived from post processing from Neo:X and DSX.

You seem stuck on the whole "Scott doesn't believe in wides" nonesense when in reality I take issue with all you guys on here who simply don't understand the difference between the derived wides and the object pan-through speakers at home that just so happen to sit in the same spot as these wides.


The simple fact is in *NO INSTANCE EVER DO WIDES EXIST IN THE CONTENT CREATION PROCESS. THERE IS NO SUCH MIX ON EARTH WITH WIDES.*

That is an aside that seems to exist along with y'all not knowing the difference between wides and front surrounds. Lol 


And dude... I'm not being condescending, I'm being playful. 



Molon_Labe said:


> So how far is Clovis from San Diego? I wanna put you two in the ring together.





batpig said:


> Oh man it's a drive. Like 6-7 hours. But we're both pretty short so it would be funny to watch


Yeah about that long. I've never done that drive but it would take a while. I'd do it though! Go make fun of enjoy his HT room. 

I heard CEDIA is going to be in San Diego in a year or two. If not soon then... then.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> I am thinking those big Sumo wrestling suits are in order.


No. Pizza-kini's.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> You seem stuck on the whole "Scott doesn't believe in wides" nonesense when in reality I take issue with all you guys on here who simply don't understand the difference between the derived wides and the object pan-through speakers at home that just so happen to sit in the same spot as these wides.
> 
> The simple fact is in *NO INSTANCE EVER DO WIDES EXIST IN THE CONTENT CREATION PROCESS. THERE IS NO SUCH MIX ON EARTH WITH WIDES.*


No, you are the one who is stuck, because all those words in the quote above are NOT what I am talking about. You are stuck having an argument with something I'm not saying. Obviously I understand the difference between derived "wide" speakers from Neo:X/DSX upmixing and the pan-through "front surround" speakers used object based audio rendering. And I never said that wides exist in the content creation process. Again, that is your stuckage (stuckitude?), not mine. I'm understanding 100% of this.

Slowly now..... I am ONLY talking about the way these speakers operate with Atmos playback.... I am ONLY talking about the way these speakers operate with Atmos playback.... 

And we both agree that they are OPERATIONALLY IDENTICAL in this context. Right?

Perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of arguing with what you think I'm saying it would be less painful for you?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of arguing with what you think I'm saying it would be less painful for you?


Sigh.

Except this is how you decided to chime in about this and confuse yourself and others in the process.




Scott Simonian said:


> Channels and objects. In the cinema the "bed" channels go up to 9.1 with a traditional 7.1 circle with the two full ceiling arrays played back in stereo. There is no "wide" speaker. The wide speaker only exists as an output from post processing in the consumer world from either DTS Neo:X or Audyssey's DSX algorithm. A bed channel is a real channel in the way we would think of them. They are not "bed" channels because they are apart of the lower layer of speakers.





batpig said:


> Except, you know, for those speakers that sit in between the surround bed channels and the screen channels which ONLY receive objects, not bed content, in order to better transition lateral pans from the screen channels to the side surround channels..... just like how a "wide" speaker would operate in the home environment


----------



## batpig

Trust me, I am utterly, completely unconfused here. 

Well except about how you can't seem to understand what I'm saying.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That your are correct about. I don't understand what you're on about anymore.

But I do understand the subject 100% and very confident in my posts above.


----------



## dschulz

This is definitely a semantic argument, but maybe the way I look at it will help clarify things (or possibly I'll just muddy the waters even more, in which case apologies in advance!)

Definitely pre-Atmos if someone said "wides" I assumed they were referring to the Neo:X / DSX style wide speakers, which were mounted to the left and right of the L/R mains (often toed in a bit, and often placed slightly forward of the L/R mains, but conceptually part of the front soundstage, not part of the surrounds). These only received DSP-processed content, extrapolated from the mix, and as such never interested me.

The "front side surrounds" in a theatrical Atmos implementation are in a different category entirely, because they are mounted on the side walls, not at all in the same plane as the screen channels or even close to it. 

The home theater version of Atmos uses "wides" as nomenclature because AVRs had been using that term for so long, and of course the home theater placement is closer to the Neo:X / DSX paradigm than a cinema auditorium. 

As an aside, I am still disappointed that the only processor that supports true additional side surrounds for Atmos is the Trinnov. I dearly wish that one of the mainstream products would give us 2 pairs of side surrounds instead of just 1 (which would be an array for the channel beds and of course independently targeted for object rendering) for home theaters with multiple rows of seating.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> Is there a "wide" speaker that will cover/close the gap that exists between the L/R speakers and the side surrounds?


With Atmos, yes. Which is my entire point.


----------



## dschulz

Molon_Labe said:


> Is there a "wide" speaker that will cover/close the gap that exists between the L/R speakers and the side surrounds?


Yes, that would be the L/R Wides that are found in most medium to high end AVRs that support DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, Dolby Atmos and in the future DTS:X. Atmos uses them for object rendering (they are not part of any of the channel beds).

It's just that for my whole movie-watching career I never noticed any "holes" in the front of any movie theaters or home theaters that lacked front side surrounds or wides, so that is a low priority for me.

But for home theaters with multiple rows of seating, we've lost the ability to have a 2 (or even 3) speaker array for the side surrounds, which is a real shame.


----------



## dormie1360

Bears are losing again.


----------



## Molon_Labe

dschulz said:


> Yes, that would be the L/R Wides that are found in most medium to high end AVRs that support DTS Neo:X, Audyssey DSX, Dolby Atmos and in the future DTS:X. Atmos uses them for object rendering (they are not part of any of the channel beds).
> 
> It's just that for my whole movie-watching career I never noticed any "holes" in the front of any movie theaters or home theaters that lacked front side surrounds or wides, so that is a low priority for me.
> 
> But for home theaters with multiple rows of seating, we've lost the ability to have a 2 (or even 3) speaker array for the side surrounds, which is a real shame.


My room is fairly long and the Atmos demo where the bird flaps around the room could benefit from a speaker in between the 14' of my front stage and the side surrounds. Not that it is "lacking" but I could see where it could be improved.


----------



## JamesE

Sewerboy said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just wondering if Atmos is really that much better than 7.1?
> 
> Thanks





Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Yes, it is very awesome and better than 7.1 can ever be.




Hopefully, I never have to go back.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> My room is fairly long and the Atmos demo where the bird flaps around the room could benefit from a speaker in between the 14' of my front stage and the side surrounds. Not that it is "lacking" but I could see where it could be improved.


Try moving your side surrounds a foot or two forward.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Thanks, Dan, for chiming in on this.

While it may seem "semantic" for some people, I made it clear that there is a BIG distinction from derived "wides" via Neo:X/DSX and object only supported "wides" using Atmos. I also attempted to straighten the record that there is no real wide content in mixes nor a real life speaker channel for wides. This is true and you would back me up on that statement because it is true. Atmos allows for x,y,z coordinated objects to move through speakers in positions where there are no channels. This can not be disputed.



dschulz said:


> It's just that for my whole movie-watching career I never noticed any "holes" in the front of any movie theaters or home theaters that lacked front side surrounds or wides, so that is a low priority for me.


Same. I don't understand what people are doing to create this sonic deadzone or gap between front LCR's and surrounds. An enveloping and immersive surround field has always been of upmost importance to me when setting up my own HT system. I think more people need to use common sense instead of blindly following "suggested" layouts from ... whoever in whatever manual.



dschulz said:


> But for home theaters with multiple rows of seating, we've lost the ability to have a 2 (or even 3) speaker array for the side surrounds, which is a real shame.


Lost? When was this ever a standard feature? No conventional surround processors or receivers have support for multiple "discrete" surrounds aside from the usual left/right side/rears. In more elaborate systems with two, three rows it was an external processor doing the delay/level stuff for these extra rows.

You may be talking about a specific model that I am unfamiliar with or the Trinnov and it's handling of what's part of the "array" or not in Atmos decoding. If so then I know what you mean but as the end user you can allways make these speakers identical to the speaker intended to be part of an "array" and adjust accordingly. Maybe it's not that straightforward with the Trinnov or Datasat or whatever gear you're talking about.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Lost? When was this ever a standard feature? No conventional surround processors or receivers have support for multiple "discrete" surrounds aside from the usual left/right side/rears. In more elaborate systems with two, three rows it was an external processor doing the delay/level stuff for these extra rows.


Well, it wasn't a standard feature, but it was easily accomplished, because the surround arrays didn't need to be discrete. If you were minding your impedances you could drive more than one speaker off the same amplifier, or if you wanted to be precise about things then something simple like a mini-DSP could be used for time alignment. But now with Atmos, if you pulled these tricks you'd disrupt the object rendering, as the processor is expecting a point source rather than an array.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I see. You're right about that.

In fact, I was discussing with Sanjay not long ago that I lost interest in the whole "array" feature of Atmos to allow for an array and still allow object pan-throughs.

In the cinema, sure. At home, I lost interest. I think most of us will never have multiple rows of seating. So who cares?  I'm not building my system to impress dozens of people and try to achieve a sound that is identical in each and every seat. Friends come over and expect that? They can pay for part of the system. I think for most of us, it's _our_ system. Get it as close as possible but I won't compromise it all so some dude in the back row *of my theater* can get the same immersion as the guy in the center front seat does. I'm sure they will still enjoy the sound nonetheless. 

Aside from some A/V G2G when are there so many critical listeners all in one room? Probably never.

One thing is for sure, there will always be a prime seat that is better than the rest.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> In the cinema, sure. At home, I lost interest. I think most of us will never have multiple rows of seating. So who cares?


Well, I am coming at this from an admittedly odd angle. My own home theater (apartment based) is a lowly 5.1, with only 2 really great spots for both viewing angle and optimized sound. But, back when I was with Datasat (and before that DTS) we often got inquiries from end users, dealers and installers asking for advice or best practices. Especially with Datasat, a lot of our customers were spending fair coin on their theaters, and multiple rows were more common than not. So I'm interested in the theoretical answers here, and I think Dolby (or the DSP implementations) sort of broke the upper-middle to high-end installations when they focused on wides rather than the Surround 2 or Surround 3 positions that Atmos provides.

As an aside I do host a bi-weekly MovieNite that typically draws 6-8 people, so the home theater in my head that I will build one day will need 2 rows.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> I see. You're right about that.
> 
> In fact, I was discussing with Sanjay not long ago that I lost interest in the whole "array" feature of Atmos to allow for an array and still allow object pan-throughs.
> 
> In the cinema, sure. At home, I lost interest. I think most of us will never have multiple rows of seating. So who cares?  I'm not building my system to impress dozens of people and try to achieve a sound that is identical in each and every seat.


I care and I do aim for as equally good as possible for all seats. 

One good reason for wanting good sound also in back row seats is if the viewing distance is such that DVDs really are of too low resolution to watch up front.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Sorry this isn't Atmos related but I know someone here will have the right answer. 

I'm going to See Star Wars TFA @ a 3D IMAX, it won't be 70mm projection (unfortunately the closest one is 300 miles away). 

The theater I'm going to used to be listed as 70mm capable on the IMAX vs. Lie-MAX page (7 bridges theater, woodridge, IL)

The question is... since it's digital... will I see a cropped image vs. what would appear on a 70mm presentation? Or can digital display the 70mm format if the screen allows? 

I'm really hoping I won't be seeing a cropped image :/

Side note:
I finally relocated my HT for real (3rd time I moved it this year!) It's not an ideal situation because I'm in an apartment complex with my baby, but I'm planning on re-installing the ceiling speakers to get 7.1.4 again 

I forget, where is that list that shows all Atmos releases? I want to catch up a bit since the last one I saw was Mad Max.


----------



## batpig

Dude, welcome back


----------



## batpig

dschulz said:


> This is definitely a semantic argument, but maybe the way I look at it will help clarify things (or possibly I'll just muddy the waters even more, in which case apologies in advance!)


You're right on point, and in line with what I'm trying to say.

To put it another way....

Pre-Atmos, the "Front Wide" speaker was exactly as Scott described -- a pure contrivance of the home theater world that could only play derived content, and had zero relation to what was going on in commerical cinema. 

With Atmos, the "Front Wide" speaker carries forward that same nomenclature in the home (likely for convenience as you presume) but now, for the first time, it performs a function that is directly analogous to something that is happening in commerical Atmos cinemas. 

So, my point being that when you strip away the semantics, it no longer seems 100% true that there are no "wides" in commercial cinema. 

Of course there aren't any in the Neo:X/DSX sense. But if you just focus on function, you can use "object only" speakers in between the front screen channels and the surround speakers, in BOTH home and cinema Atmos. So, let's flip it around and say that instead of there being "wides" in commercial cinema, there are now "front surrounds" in consumer home theater, only they snuck 'em in under a false label. That should satisfy all parties 

I honestly don't really care that much about wides per se but I do look forward to being able to expand beyond 7 floor level channels. As has been much discussed, we are still missing any resolution gains in horizontal panning that the cinema gets with object audio. So ironically this "unlocking" of the much maligned "wides" to perform a real function 
comparable to that of the commerical cinema is actually quite valuable for the home enthusiast itching to break through this barrier. It's basically the only ticket on the horizon to get you beyond 7 speaker resolution in the base layer. 

I fully concur that it would be even better if they let you do a dual side surround array with bed content + object pan through for both speakers, but I'll take what I can get


----------



## dschulz

Aras_Volodka said:


> The theater I'm going to used to be listed as 70mm capable on the IMAX vs. Lie-MAX page (7 bridges theater, woodridge, IL)
> 
> The question is... since it's digital... will I see a cropped image vs. what would appear on a 70mm presentation? Or can digital display the 70mm format if the screen allows?


I'm not sure we know enough yet about the IMAX DCP formatting to answer this. Old-school IMAX screens (think museums, science centers, National Parks) had a 4:3 aspect ratio. Most multiplexes with IMAX screens are 1.85:1 or so. The only filmmaker who really utilized that 4:3 aspect ratio for mainstream Hollywood movies was Nolan, who filmed some sequences in 15/70 IMAX at that full 4:3 aspect ratio and then preserved that footage for 15/70 film projection - and even then only those sequences were 4:3, the rest of the movies were letterboxed within the 4:3 screen.

I understand with Force Awakens there was one major set piece shot with IMAX film cameras, so possibly JJ Abrams is intending to use the full IMAX frame for that sequence. On the other hand, unlike Nolan with his full analog film workflow, I am sure that Force Awakens will have a digital intermediate, so somewhere along the way all the footage might get conformed to whatever the final aspect ratio is going to be (2.35 for conventional cinemas and possibly something else for IMAX theaters).


----------



## WayneJoy

Digital IMAX is 1.9:1. 15/70 IMAX was 1.4:1.


----------



## Zhorik

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry this isn't Atmos related but I know someone here will have the right answer.
> 
> I'm going to See Star Wars TFA @ a 3D IMAX, it won't be 70mm projection (unfortunately the closest one is 300 miles away).
> 
> The theater I'm going to used to be listed as 70mm capable on the IMAX vs. Lie-MAX page (7 bridges theater, woodridge, IL)
> 
> The question is... since it's digital... will I see a cropped image vs. what would appear on a 70mm presentation? Or can digital display the 70mm format if the screen allows?
> 
> I'm really hoping I won't be seeing a cropped image :/
> 
> Side note:
> I finally relocated my HT for real (3rd time I moved it this year!) It's not an ideal situation because I'm in an apartment complex with my baby, but I'm planning on re-installing the ceiling speakers to get 7.1.4 again
> 
> I forget, where is that list that shows all Atmos releases? I want to catch up a bit since the last one I saw was Mad Max.


Imax digital should be 1.90AR.

Link to Atmos blu ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1


----------



## multit

smurraybhm said:


> You left this off my quote
> Auro-Matic based on my experience is just copying and adding reverb, trust me I've spent time doing my homework (my wife thinks I gotten even crazier), just not filling up the threads too much (hopefully) with comments since this seems to start lengthy debates between members. In the end if someone likes Auro, DSX or DSU then that's all that matters IMO. Hope you are still enjoying your 5100, on my short list for the future unless something reasonable with Dirac reviews well (DTS-X/Atmos included of course).


Yes, let's keep that topic behind us, there is absolutely no chance to discuss that somehow relaxed, as far as I can see... personal bias on all parties is too strong 

I really like my 5100 due to the fact, that I'm able to do finetuning in many areas. YPAO is not as effective as Audissey, especially for the Subs, but in my environment it works well with respective room treatment and an Antimode for the Subs. The measurement of angles and heights is very precise, which gives me also a good feeling about correct Atmos engagement regarding the Heights. Although, there is no chance to check that in detail unless we get some testfiles with room coordinates.

If there is no revolutionary development in the near future and if I get my full DTS:X update on my 5100'er, I'm confident to be happy with it a very long time.


----------



## NorthSky

Zhorik said:


> Imax digital should be 1.90AR.
> 
> Link to Atmos blu ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1


...


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> What I am saying is that just because a small speaker is high passed over said frequency does not make it equal (or even close) to that of the kind of speaker I'm interested in.


That is a different issue. The speakers you are interested in aren't relevant to a discussion about the frequencies a speaker plays above its set XO point. And no matter what speaker you are interested in, if it is playing the frequencies above 80-100Hz properly (let's say a flat response at a given SPL for the sake of argument) then it will be exactly the same as any other speaker playing the same frequencies properly. The size of a speaker (which is what we started out discussing) is only relevant (for the purposes of this discussion) below 80hz, not above it.

AFAICT what you seem to be saying is that if you had a huge separate speaker but it was solely for playing frequencies above, say, 8kHz and I had a very small separate speaker doing the same thing, yours would somehow be superior.




Scott Simonian said:


> An 8" Tannoy will not be "just as capable" as the JBL Pro with dual 15" midbasses with 4" coils designed to operate @ rated power for 24hrs straight without flinching just because they are both crossed at 80". Not even close. Not in the ballpark. Not even near the ballpark. The ballpark has gone home and the other stuff has drifted off to Wonderland.


Explain why then instead of just asserting it. If both speakers are only playing frequencies above 80Hz, what is the difference above 80Hz in both speakers that makes one better than the other (assuming obviously that they are both good speakers and able to play those frequencies properly (as defined above)?




Scott Simonian said:


> You can't beat physics and a crossover at 80hz isn't going to beat the physics. An 8" driver is still an 8" driver.


Yes indeed. And explain why you need a driver bigger than 8 inches to play frequencies above 80-1--Hz.



Scott Simonian said:


> ***I'm not sure what this has to do with Atmos anymore. Is this thread even really about Atmos anymore or just a place where a bunch of us like to hang out? I'm sure there is a 'NO LOITERING' sign posted around here somewhere.***


Hahaha. Kinda. It has become a bit like the Audyssey thread was in the old days - wandered off track all the time when there wasn't much relevant action, but as soon as someone asked an on-topic question it was answered instantly and ferociously. Atmos has become a sort of 'settled science' now so there isn't all that much to discuss, other than the basic questions which come up again and again (eg speaker type and placement).


----------



## Lesmor

Scott Simonian said:


> Good thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, son.
> 
> Wides exist only from post processing from Neo:X (doing common center extraction) and Audyssey's DSX using more so early reflection generation of sorts. These "channels" are not real nor exist in the source content. They are derived.
> 
> The "wides" your thinking about are extensions of the surround arrays. They fill a gap along the walls of a cinema to connect the screen to the surrounds. They never play channel content. Ever. There is not one single audio format with a native "wide" channel. These speakers only play objects from an immersive mix (Atmos). These speaker positions in the cinema are not called wides because they are not wides.
> 
> They operate exactly the same at home (Atmos environment) but instead of calling them front surrounds they stuck with the wide designation cuz it's the same spot Neo:X's and DSX's speakers sat. Dolby and DTS would prefer to make it easy on you.
> 
> 
> You call it semantics, I call it knowing the f**k what I'm talking about.
> 
> They are not the same, they do not operate the same. That's why I get to say on a public forum that they are not the same. Because they are not. Get it?


Sorry you dont know what the f**k you are talking about batpig is correct.
Sorry son they are the same
Whether you like it or not
So much so that if you have 9.1.4 with wides (which is what they are called for Atmos whether you like it or not) the AVR will sacrifice two overheads (not up for discussion because that's what happens end of ) in preference for using the wide's for objects.
If it wasn't a valid option Dolby wouldn't allow it seeing as it originally came from DTS:Neo X
Best position for heights is Top middle in this instance.
Using DSU wide's are disabled in preference to 4 Heights
That my friend is the way it is, it may not be the way you want
Edit: Wide's are also used in some mixing studios


----------



## kbarnes701

*Scott*, you and *batpig* are discussing two different things. He is discussing the wides speakers which sit between the mains and the surrounds in the context of Atmos, and you are discussing them in the context of derived sound a la DSX etc. That is why you are both going around in circles.

It's like you are both discussing flat food which comes on a 10 inch plate but you are discussing pizza and he is discussing apple pie.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> My room is fairly long and the Atmos demo where the bird flaps around the room could benefit from a speaker in between the 14' of my front stage and the side surrounds. Not that it is "lacking" but I could see where it could be improved.


Have you tried moving your side surrounds forwards? (I am assuming you have rear surrounds also).

Something like this, where you position your side surrounds more like halfway between the mains and the rear surrounds:


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I think most of us will never have multiple rows of seating. So who cares?  I'm not building my system to impress dozens of people and try to achieve a sound that is identical in each and every seat. Friends come over and expect that? They can pay for part of the system. I think for most of us, it's _our_ system. Get it as close as possible but I won't compromise it all so some dude in the back row *of my theater* can get the same immersion as the guy in the center front seat does. I'm sure they will still enjoy the sound nonetheless.


I agree totally with you on this. And to further the discussion, this is also a reason why I am unconvinced that a single row/single person home theater needs more than 7.1.4 to give a totally solid immersive experience. Sure, cinemas have dozens of speakers, and for the reasons you observe: to cater for a large audience in multiple rows. And some enthusiasts may have home theaters that have three or four rows of 6 seats each, and they may well require 9.1.6 or more. But for the situation you describe, which is typical of most of us I believe, 7.1.4 will cover it nicely. Just my opinion and I know others will disagree, but if/when they do, please focus on the conditions I (and you) describe above.



Scott Simonian said:


> Friends come over and expect that? They can pay for part of the system.


LOL! Very well said!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> One thing is for sure, there will always be a prime seat that is better than the rest.


Even in commercial theaters. Because when I go to the movies I always choose the first showing of the day, I tend to get the whole theater more or less to myself (sometimes I have been the one and only customer and then it is like the world's most amazing HT! ). I always choose the center seat in the row where the side surround speakers are not toed at all - they point directly at me. This is the sweet spot and nobody else in the whole darn place will hear better sound than me.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> I'm not sure we know enough yet about the IMAX DCP formatting to answer this. Old-school IMAX screens (think museums, science centers, National Parks) had a 4:3 aspect ratio. Most multiplexes with IMAX screens are 1.85:1 or so. The only filmmaker who really utilized that 4:3 aspect ratio for mainstream Hollywood movies was Nolan, who filmed some sequences in 15/70 IMAX at that full 4:3 aspect ratio and then preserved that footage for 15/70 film projection - and even then only those sequences were 4:3, the rest of the movies were letterboxed within the 4:3 screen.
> 
> I understand with Force Awakens there was one major set piece shot with IMAX film cameras, so possibly JJ Abrams is intending to use the full IMAX frame for that sequence. On the other hand, unlike Nolan with his full analog film workflow, I am sure that Force Awakens will have a digital intermediate, so somewhere along the way all the footage might get conformed to whatever the final aspect ratio is going to be (2.35 for conventional cinemas and possibly something else for IMAX theaters).


Whatever they do in the cinema I hope they release the Blu-ray with a single AR. I find it immensely annoying in movies like The Dark Knight when the AR changes to 1.85:1 and the top and bottom of the image disappears into my masks. And for people with CIH screens it must be even more irritating. With all the seamless branching capabilities it would be nice if they let us choose how we want to see the movie at home, and although I normally abhor any AR change away from the director's intent, this is one exception I'd be happy to make.


----------



## Ricoflashback

With the goal being to move my rear back surrounds down in height (current setup is Paradigm Millenia One's - mounted directly behind the seating area at 68" from the bottom of the speakers) - I purchased Cornered Audio's C4 speakers from LineQ. The new height will be 44" at the bottom of the speaker and 60" at the top. 

Since space is tight and it is a smaller HT room, I really needed corner speakers. The Cornered Audio line is manufactured by a Danish company. There are no brackets as the speaker attaches to the wall via holes pre-drilled into the back of the speaker (front cover comes off) and the wires enter unobtrusively through the bottom of the speaker and are channeled to the proper terminals. My other consideration was Boston Acoustics Bravo 20 - - but these speakers look to be a better choice, quality wise, as well as an easier and clean corner mount. 

While this is not an 8" woofer, it is a 4" woofer with a passive radiator - 4", which should provide more bass than my Millenia One's did. 1" silk dome tweeter and while I would have loved to match everything to Paradigm - - it just isn't feasible based on my space limitations. The frequency response is listed as 64Hz to 25Khz. My crossovers are set at 80Hz via my Pioneer SC65 AVR.

We'll see how they work out and if it's a noticeable improvement, they will be an excellent choice for my 4 or 6 Dolby Atmos speakers. I do not know if anyone else has run across this problem (limited space for rear back surrounds) but it looks like a good solution.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I will give that a try.


Others have reported good success using this method. The aim is to 'fill the gap' as far as you can. My own side surrounds are at about 80°. I would prefer them slightly forward of that but there is a door in the way.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dolby Atmos questions - 

1. From everything I've read, there are very few Dolby Atmos soundtracks available right now. And if you rent movies, probably even less. I know this will change for the better, but I do not purchase Bluray discs anymore. So, my main means of obtaining a pure Dolby Atmos mix is via streaming or a rented Bluray movie via Redbox. I know this limits my choices, but with all the discounts, it averages out to be around $1.00 per Bluray rental. 

2. What is the future of Dolby Atmos soundtracks being available via streaming services like Amazon Prime? How much bandwidth is required to deliver a Dolby Atmos stream to a consumer? How long before broadcast TV will stream in Dolby Atmos? 

3. I get the Dolby Atmos object technology. It is very promising and if setup right, will envelop the listener in sounds all around you with the ability to move objects as they would sound in real life as opposed to discrete "channel" coding.

4. I have side surrounds (Paradigm ADP-590 Dipoles) in my current 7.1 setup. They sound great and help with localization issues with my room (versus a direct firing speaker) and a 7.1 mix done properly sounds fantastic. If there are few Dolby Atmos mixes available, does DSU really "cut it," sound wise? I know I will lose my side surrounds with a DSU mix as everything will be routed to the Atmos height speakers.

5. Lastly - - Dolby Atmos AVR wise, it appears that there could be a significant leap next year in physical channel capability as well as functionality & lower pricing. So I am trying to time my AVR purchase in line with more Dolby Atmos content and/or improvements in DSU. Is this assumption correct?


----------



## fjerina

Does anyone out there have the add-on speakers ELAC Debut A4 (by Andrew Jones)? I am currently interested in these to put atop my 3.5 tower speakers (I have 8 foot flat ceilings). Do you like them? Or if anyone knows anything about these I would appreciate the input. The price is right at $230 the pair. The spec sheet on them is below.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...374/rev2.F.r7_A4_ELAC_Single+Sheet_090815.pdf


----------



## fjerina

Does anyone out there have the add-on speakers ELAC Debut A4 (by Andrew Jones)? I am currently interested in these to put atop my 3.5 tower speakers (I have 8 foot flat ceilings). Do you like them? Or if anyone knows anything about these I would appreciate the input. The price is right at $230 the pair. The spec sheet on them is below.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...374/rev2.F.r7_A4_ELAC_Single+Sheet_090815.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Dolby Atmos questions -
> 
> 1. From everything I've read, there are very few Dolby Atmos soundtracks available right now. And if you rent movies, probably even less. I know this will change for the better, but I do not purchase Bluray discs anymore. So, my main means of obtaining a pure Dolby Atmos mix is via streaming or a rented Bluray movie via Redbox. I know this limits my choices, but with all the discounts, it averages out to be around $1.00 per Bluray rental.
> 
> 2. What is the future of Dolby Atmos soundtracks being available via streaming services like Amazon Prime? How much bandwidth is required to deliver a Dolby Atmos stream to a consumer? How long before broadcast TV will stream in Dolby Atmos?


Who knows? As more titles are released it's possible. Bandwidth isn’t really an issue as Dolby always designed Atmos for streaming anyway. It is carried by a DD+ stream IIRC.



Ricoflashback said:


> 4. I have side surrounds (Paradigm ADP-590 Dipoles) in my current 7.1 setup. They sound great and help with localization issues with my room (versus a direct firing speaker) and a 7.1 mix done properly sounds fantastic. If there are few Dolby Atmos mixes available, does DSU really "cut it," sound wise? I know I will lose my side surrounds with a DSU mix as everything will be routed to the Atmos height speakers.


DSU is very good indeed. Most people who have commented say they would have been happy to pay the price for the AVR upgrade just for DSU. I know what they mean.



Ricoflashback said:


> 5. Lastly - - Dolby Atmos AVR wise, it appears that there could be a significant leap next year in physical channel capability as well as functionality & lower pricing. So I am trying to time my AVR purchase in line with more Dolby Atmos content and/or improvements in DSU. Is this assumption correct?


Not IMO. We are going to be with 7.1.4 (11 channels) for a long time in the affordable AVR arena. If you want to spend IRO of $20,000 you have options for a greater speaker count.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Dolby Atmos questions -
> 
> 1. From everything I've read, there are very few Dolby Atmos soundtracks available right now. And if you rent movies, probably even less. I know this will change for the better, but I do not purchase Bluray discs anymore. So, my main means of obtaining a pure Dolby Atmos mix is via streaming or a rented Bluray movie via Redbox. I know this limits my choices, but with all the discounts, it averages out to be around $1.00 per Bluray rental.
> 
> 2. What is the future of Dolby Atmos soundtracks being available via streaming services like Amazon Prime? How much bandwidth is required to deliver a Dolby Atmos stream to a consumer? How long before broadcast TV will stream in Dolby Atmos?
> 
> 3. I get the Dolby Atmos object technology. It is very promising and if setup right, will envelop the listener in sounds all around you with the ability to move objects as they would sound in real life as opposed to discrete "channel" coding.
> 
> 4. I have side surrounds (Paradigm ADP-590 Dipoles) in my current 7.1 setup. They sound great and help with localization issues with my room (versus a direct firing speaker) and a 7.1 mix done properly sounds fantastic. If there are few Dolby Atmos mixes available, does DSU really "cut it," sound wise? I know I will lose my side surrounds with a DSU mix as everything will be routed to the Atmos height speakers.
> 
> 5. Lastly - - Dolby Atmos AVR wise, it appears that there could be a significant leap next year in physical channel capability as well as functionality & lower pricing. So I am trying to time my AVR purchase in line with more Dolby Atmos content and/or improvements in DSU. Is this assumption correct?


Rick, Xfinity and a variety of other cable companies have announced Atmos will be coming. I would GUESS 1 year out. Vudu already streams Atmos flicks---your TV/pj, streaming device, and AVR will need to explicitly be HDCP 2.2. Or you need to buy a converter for $200 and HOPE that it really works and does the copy protection conversion from 1.4 to 2.2. Buying discs seems to be the best answer for now unless you have a Roku 4.

I wouldn't hold breath for more channels any time soon. I was thinking that we would see them this year. Then come to find out, Yamaha Denon and Marantz all released brand new models this fall. But they all focused on HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X. Not on more channels. That's why I gave up for now and just bought Marantz AV7702mk2 and will reevaluate if I buy yet another one this time next year. I don't think you are going to see more than the current 11 chs for about 1 year. Then only jumping to 13 (through TMs or Wides), but of course without the internal amps if I had to guess. 

Losing side surrounds? No. If you are planning on 5.1.4, you lose back surrounds. With 7.1.4, you don't lose anything. Atmos is not a novelty. It's really cool. I use to listen to music in Atmos as well and it sounded great IMO. Looks like the new 7702mk2 won't use DSU on digital music (bluetooth, airplay) as well as won't DSU for DTS:X. So the brand-new D&M models definitely have issues today IMO. I guess the previous models don't have this issue. It all worked great on the Yamahas too.


----------



## Stoked21

So about a month ago I went to 7.1.4 with 7702mk2. A wall of proamps. Changed my tiny little bookshelf LCR for floorstanders (still lower cost but much more SPL and FR). Got rid of 1 low-end $400 polk sub. Returned the highest-end model from Klipsch. And just installed the new JTR Cap 1400 last night.

I thought I had pretty good bass in my Atmos setup with a 2 sub setup, even if lesser quality subs. But my Atmos experience has COMPLETELY changed since last night. Feeling the cold breeze from the port on your face, your hair blowing in the wind, pounding in your chest, the chairs feeling like they are going to shake apart while the riser was vibrating like an earthquake.......Honestly, a high-end sub like this has done more than 4 speakers in the ceiling has ever done in regards to immersion! You FEEL the movie.

I'm not being a nay sayer about Atmos! I still love it. But I didn't know what I was missing. Go with decent middle of the road ceiling speakers and save the extra money for a monster sub or two like this one!


Side note: I haven't optimized everything with so many changes in the last few weeks. When sitting in the front row for the first time in a while, I noticed that the Atmos effect was extremely weak. Curious since the top speakers haven't changed, other than Audyssey effects of course (which I know can be huge). I use to have an amazing Atmos effect at every seat. Now it's really pretty limited to the back row. I think for once I am going to focus just on the MLP Atmos as I go through a migration to PJ.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: Rick, Xfinity and a variety of other cable companies have announced Atmos will be coming. I would GUESS 1 year out. Vudu already streams Atmos flicks---your TV/pj, streaming device, and AVR will need to explicitly be HDCP 2.2. Or you need to buy a converter for $200 and HOPE that it really works and does the copy protection conversion from 1.4 to 2.2. Buying discs seems to be the best answer for now unless you have a Roku 4.

Much thanks. (And thanks to kBarnes701, as well)

I have Xfinity with very fast Internet speeds, so I'm assuming the upgrade will be to the box, itself. I also stream via the Roku 4 (1080P TV, no current Dolby Atmos setup). The Roku 4 with it's DD+ audio sounds fantastic. And at least for me, the speed is excellent and the PQ is stunning. 

It looks like four channels are the maximum for Dolby Atmos, AVR wise, but I do know that the prices are dropping. The technology will get better. I hope that Pioneer comes out with a better solution than their current offerings like the half baked SC-95 that doesn't allow for maximum use of their channels with a separate amplifier. 

Lastly - - I thought that you lose the side surrounds on a Dolby Atmos DSU mix with everything being directed to the height channels. Is this correct or incorrect? 

From what I read, this is the benefit of DTS:X - "Where DTS:X potentially differs from Atmos is that DTS promises that content creators can "mix once" for both the cinema and the home. Atmos still requires a separate mix for home releases, which potentially adds to the end cost for consumers." Since I will be streaming for Dolby Atmos content, it will probably be a year out or so before Xfinity will upgrade my STB.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: Rick, Xfinity and a variety of other cable companies have announced Atmos will be coming. I would GUESS 1 year out. Vudu already streams Atmos flicks---your TV/pj, streaming device, and AVR will need to explicitly be HDCP 2.2. Or you need to buy a converter for $200 and HOPE that it really works and does the copy protection conversion from 1.4 to 2.2. Buying discs seems to be the best answer for now unless you have a Roku 4.
> 
> Much thanks. (And thanks to kBarnes701, as well)
> 
> I have Xfinity with very fast Internet speeds, so I'm assuming the upgrade will be to the box, itself. I also stream via the Roku 4 (1080P TV, no current Dolby Atmos setup). The Roku 4 with it's DD+ audio sounds fantastic. And at least for me, the speed is excellent and the PQ is stunning.
> 
> It looks like four channels are the maximum for Dolby Atmos, AVR wise, but I do know that the prices are dropping. The technology will get better. I hope that Pioneer comes out with a better solution than their current offerings like the half baked SC-95 that doesn't allow for maximum use of their channels with a separate amplifier.
> 
> Lastly - - I thought that you lose the side surrounds on a Dolby Atmos DSU mix with everything being directed to the height channels. Is this correct or incorrect?
> 
> From what I read, this is the benefit of DTS:X - "Where DTS:X potentially differs from Atmos is that DTS promises that content creators can "mix once" for both the cinema and the home. Atmos still requires a separate mix for home releases, which potentially adds to the end cost for consumers." Since I will be streaming for Dolby Atmos content, it will probably be a year out or so before Xfinity will upgrade my STB.


I doubt it's a STB upgrade. It's just carried over the DD+ or D-THD. They will likely just make the content available. You don't lose side surrounds with 5.2.4. You lose surround backs. I suppose you could try to set it up so you lose side surrounds but default 5.2.4 is no rears. 

You can also chase the rabbit and wait like many do...By the time prices are down on 11 ch, you will see 13 ch is out at insane prices....wait for that price to drop....and then 15 ch is the preferred....on and on endless cycle chasing the rabbit. Do or don't do is my feeling.


----------



## markus767

Guys,

Anybody got a DD+ Atmos test file?


----------



## Charles R

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not being a nay sayer about Atmos! I still love it. But I didn't know what I was missing. Go with decent middle of the road ceiling speakers and save the extra money for a monster sub or two like this one!


I liken Atmos to adding rear surrounds. They help the immersive environment but it's not like 5.1 can't be/isn't great in and of itself. Now a true subwoofer experience is room changing and can't be missed.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> My speaker cables are too short but I at least got them close. It does sound better. Here is how I have them now, previously they were almost inline with the front row with no toe in. I also threw in a picture of the *"egregious"* SCS 8s in case anyone wanted to see what they actually looked like installed. The room isn't finished yet so don't knock the bare wires, lack of speaker material under the screen, and the room treatments aren't hung yet  The camera also does weird stuff with the lighting and makes the room look wonky with relation to the dimensions. It is actually a very dark charcoal color and those side surrounds are only 6 ft away from the seat but they look like its across the room. The room was focused on function over aesthetics - obviously its kinda ugly but it looks like all the others when the lights go out



Ekes. My God - - on your last pic, it looks like aliens have attacked your room (up top to the left and right). Are you o.k.? 

Or are those two standard TV's for folks who want to sit on the floor?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> I have been assimilated by the borg.
> 
> Are you talking about the subs? Yeah I guess they do look kinda like old CRT TVs


All in good fun. I bet the sound is F-A-N-T-A-S-T-IC !!! I'm excited about the future of Dolby Atmos. If the bandwidth requirements are far less than 4K video - - then this is an improvement that most folks can make to their HT setup. 

The audio part of a movie is what really draws you into the picture. Soundtracks like "Fury" with the tanks rumbling and bullets flying around you. Pass the popcorn, please....


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not being a nay sayer about Atmos! I still love it. But I didn't know what I was missing. Go with decent middle of the road ceiling speakers and save the extra money for a monster sub or two like this one!


I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Atmos is some sort of cure-all for a poor system


----------



## thebland

*SPEAKER QUESTION:*

I'm going to add FRONT WIDES to my theater. My LCRs use AMT drivers and my sides and heights use very similar sounding RIBBONS.

My manufacturer makes a both types of these high frequency drivers in a similarly sized cabinet. AMTs are far more costly. Better to match the AMTs up front in my LCRs or the sides / Heights with ribbons? Or am I splitting hairs??

I ask as these Front Wides will be in a column at the front of my room on the same side walls as the sides except angled towards the main listening position. (see image below)

Thanks!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Come visit for beer and brisket. I bet before you leave you will have an Atmos receiver and speakers loaded in your online checkout cart.


No doubt! That's why I'm fixing my rear back surround issues first and setting the stage for Dolby Atmos upgrade. 

I've entered every "Win A Free Dolby Atmos Receiver" contest I can. Between that and my weekly lotto ticket - - it will happen sooner than later!


----------



## multit

Regarding the new Bram Stoker's Dracula release in Dolby Atmos, there is a good summary of the best Atmos scenes.
Since the movie is quite old already, the danger due to spoilers is probably low, but ... don't read it if you're a first timer.
http://www.residentialsystems.com/blogentry/1074

That's my next Atmos flick I need to watch after that great experience with The Fifth Element.
Also Leon, the Professional is on the watchlist. Good to have most of the autumn work in the garden already done = more time in the home theater.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Explain why then instead of just asserting it. If both speakers are only playing frequencies above 80Hz, what is the difference above 80Hz in both speakers that makes one better than the other (assuming obviously that they are both good speakers and able to play those frequencies properly (as defined above)?


Sensitivity. Directivity.

By your logic a 2" driver that can play above 80hz is the same as the 8" driver.




kbarnes701 said:


> Yes indeed. And explain why you need a driver bigger than 8 inches to play frequencies above 80-1--Hz.


SPL. Headroom. 





Lesmor said:


> Sorry you dont know what the f**k you are talking about batpig is correct.
> Sorry son they are the same
> Whether you like it or not
> So much so that if you have 9.1.4 with wides (which is what they are called for Atmos whether you like it or not) the AVR will sacrifice two overheads (not up for discussion because that's what happens end of ) in preference for using the wide's for objects.
> If it wasn't a valid option Dolby wouldn't allow it seeing as it originally came from DTS:Neo X
> Best position for heights is Top middle in this instance.
> Using DSU wide's are disabled in preference to 4 Heights
> That my friend is the way it is, it may not be the way you want
> Edit: Wide's are also used in some mixing studios



There is no wide channel, son.

They are either derived (not native) or an in-between "front surround" in cinema which receives ZERO bed channel content, ever. That speaker was named "wide" for home Atmos to not confuse people who already have "wides" from the Neo:X days.

What mixing studios use wides? Why is it that wides are disabled in DSU? You really think it's to "favor" heights? I can imagine all those mixes out there with a native wide channel getting dropped. People must be pissed about that!


----------



## kingwiggi

markus767 said:


> Guys,
> 
> Anybody got a DD+ Atmos test file?


There are a few DD+ test files on the demoworld site


----------



## markus767

Scott, get over it. "Front surrounds" are now also called "wides". The important part is to know how speaker locations are used. Most people here do. You're again derailing this thread. Quite frustrating to watch.


----------



## markus767

kingwiggi said:


> There are a few DD+ test files on the demoworld site


Unfortunately they are all TrueHD not DD+


----------



## Lesmor

Scott Simonian said:


> What mixing studios use wides?


Dolby's Burbank Lab use a 9.1.4 configuration,where all the current Atmos Blu-rays have been re-recorded mostly in 7.1.4
They also use two subs one for mains bass management and LFE, and one for the surrounds.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Scott, get over it. "Front surrounds" are now also called "wides". The important part is to know how speaker locations are used. Most people here do. You're again derailing this thread. Quite frustrating to watch.


Thanks Markus bot NOT ONCE have I disputed the wide *speaker*. I have said, over and over and over and over again and put very clearly that *there is no such thing as a wide channel*.

I can talk about it if I want. It is relevant to the topic of Atmos. You don't like it, then put me on ignore.



Lesmor said:


> Dolby's Burbank Lab use a 9.1.4 configuration,where all the current Atmos Blu-rays have been re-recorded
> They also use two subs one for mains bass management and LFE, and one for the surrounds.



That's not a wide *channel*. It's a wide *speaker*.

Call it semantics, I call correct description of what it is.


----------



## dormie1360

thebland said:


> *SPEAKER QUESTION:*
> 
> Better to match the AMTs up front in my LCRs or the sides / Heights with ribbons? Or am I splitting hairs??


Sides, and yes.....especially given your theater's DSP capabilities.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Sensitivity. Directivity.


What does that have to do with the size? If you mounted a tweeter in a 40 litre enclosure, would it sound different to one conventionally mounted?



Scott Simonian said:


> By your logic a 2" driver that can play above 80hz is the same as the 8" driver.


Where did I say that? The discussion was about whether a speaker which performed well above 80-100Hz, in a bass-managed system with good subs, was as sufficient for overhead use as a much bigger speaker. _Reductio ad absurdum _is a well-known debating tactic, but it doesn't advance the discussion much.



Scott Simonian said:


> SPL. Headroom.


If the smaller bass-managed speaker can reach the desired SPL cleanly, what would be the advantages of greater headroom? When you drive under a bridge do you care if you have 3 feet of headroom or 30 feet?  For example, my (small) Tannoy Di5DC has a peak SPL of 112dB and an average SPL of 106dB capability. Given that I will never exceed the 105dB required for movie Reference, and that my speaker can handle at least that as an _average_ SPL, what is the headroom or SPL advantage you speak of?


----------



## Lesmor

cant seem to find the ignore option?


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> From everything I've read, there are very few Dolby Atmos soundtracks available right now.


Depends on your definition of "very few": 

1) Transformers: Age of Extinction 
2) Step Up All In 
3) Expendables 3 
4) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 
5) John Wick 
6) On Any Sunday: Next Chapter 
7) Hunger Games: Monkingjay, Pt1 
8) Unbroken 
9) Gravity 
10) American Sniper 
11) Jupiter Ascending 
12) The Gunman 
13) Insurgent 
14) Mad Max: Fury Road 
15) Age of Adeline 
16) Dr. Who: Dark Water/Death in Heaven 
17) Bram Stoker's Dracula 
18) San Andreas 
19) The Gallows 
20) Pixels 
21) Fifth Element 
22) Leon: The Professional 
23) Game of Thrones: Winterfell 
24) Game of Thrones: King's Landing 
25) Terminator Genisys 
26) Man From U.N.C.L.E. [Nov 17] 
27) Roger Waters: The Wall [Dec 1]
28) Minions [Dec 8]
29) Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation [Dec 15] 
30) Everest


> How much bandwidth is required to deliver a Dolby Atmos stream to a consumer?


Starts at 384kbps.


> I know I will lose my side surrounds with a DSU mix as everything will be routed to the Atmos height speakers.


Side surrounds are active with DSU, even when 4 heights are being used.


> Dolby Atmos AVR wise, it appears that there could be a significant leap next year in physical channel capability as well as functionality & lower pricing.


At CEDIA a few weeks ago, Denon/Marantz reps were saying that an additional two channels might show up by end of next year. Don't know if you consider that a "significant leap" in channel count.


Ricoflashback said:


> I hope that Pioneer comes out with a better solution than their current offerings like the half baked SC-95 that doesn't allow for maximum use of their channels with a separate amplifier.


Remains to be seen whether the Pioneer brand will be around after this year.


> From what I read, this is the benefit of DTS:X - "Atmos still requires a separate mix for home releases, which potentially adds to the end cost for consumers."


No longer required.


----------



## Charles R

Ricoflashback said:


> From everything I've read, there are very few Dolby Atmos soundtracks available right now.


I think you can make a (winning) case DSU is more important than Atmos itself...

_When audio enthusiast Jim Rogers installed a Dolby Atmos® home theater in his basement last year, he expected it would sound great when he played movies mixed in Dolby Atmos. What’s surprised him is how good content that’s not mixed in Dolby Atmos sounds._

_Right away, Rogers says, “It made the space seem so expansive. I watched Blade Runner,” a movie that isn’t mixed in Dolby Atmos, “and thought it sounded so much better with the Dolby surround upmixer, so I went looking for more movies to play on the system, even if they weren’t mixed in Dolby Atmos. The sound wasn’t ‘over the top.’ It helped with the whole experience._

http://blog.dolby.com/2015/07/what-surprised-one-home-theater-buff-about-dolby-atmos/


----------



## Ricoflashback

Sanjay - much thanks. 

RE: Side surrounds are active with DSU, even when 4 heights are being used. *Comment - I did not know this as a "DSU" thread mentioned that the sides weren't active with DSU. Matrixed sound as before? 

RE: Lots of Dolby Atmos content. *Comment - since I do not purchase Bluray discs, my only source is rental (RedBox Bluray - sorry, I'm a cheapie) and whatever I can stream via free Amazon Prime (again, Senor Cheapie who spends his money on a fast Internet connection & cable channels. And upgrading his speakers!)

RE: Bandwidth for Dolby Atmos. *Comment - very encouraging. Much faster delivery than 4K video content. (Broadcast capability wise.)

KBarnes701 - I went to school with _Reductio ad absurdum. _Crazy guy who was always was cracking jokes. Lost track of him after he got caught dropping a boat load of fizzies in the team swimming pool.


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> Dolby's Burbank Lab use a 9.1.4 configuration,where all the current Atmos Blu-rays have been re-recorded mostly in 7.1.4


They use a second pair of sides for guests/clients sitting behind the mixer, so their 9.1.4 doesn't use wides.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> I did not know this as a "DSU" thread mentioned that the sides weren't active with DSU. Matrixed sound as before?


Yes, DSU is matrix surround processing (the term "surround processing" seems to have been replaced by "upmixing" in the immersive audio era). DSU sounds different from PLIIx, so in that specific context it's not the same _"as before"_. The only speakers that don't get sound from DSU are the ones that don't get bed channel information (any speakers between the L/C/R, any speakers between the fronts and sides).


> I do not purchase Bluray discs, my only source is rental (RedBox Bluray - sorry, I'm a cheapie) and whatever I can stream via free Amazon Prime...


Understood, I was just addressing your comment about _"very few Dolby Atmos soundtracks available right now"_. Of course, if they're on delivery media you don't use (BD or UHD), then the number of soundtracks available does you no good.


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> They use a second pair of sides for guests/clients sitting behind the mixer, so their 9.1.4 doesn't use wides.


?
Baahubali was mixed with a 9.1 bed 
where the extra two speakers were positioned was not stated


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm going to See Star Wars TFA @ a 3D IMAX, it won't be 70mm projection (unfortunately the closest one is 300 miles away).


347 miles, in my case. Interstellar was shown in over 40 film-based IMAX screens (3 local to me in the L.A. area). By comparison, Star Wars is being shown in only 11 film-based IMAX screens (my nearest one is in San Jose, and it's one of those dome-style IMAX screens - blech). That's a 75% drop in number of theatres.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dschulz said:


> I'm not sure we know enough yet about the IMAX DCP formatting to answer this. Old-school IMAX screens (think museums, science centers, National Parks) had a 4:3 aspect ratio. Most multiplexes with IMAX screens are 1.85:1 or so. The only filmmaker who really utilized that 4:3 aspect ratio for mainstream Hollywood movies was Nolan, who filmed some sequences in 15/70 IMAX at that full 4:3 aspect ratio and then preserved that footage for 15/70 film projection - and even then only those sequences were 4:3, the rest of the movies were letterboxed within the 4:3 screen.
> 
> I understand with Force Awakens there was one major set piece shot with IMAX film cameras, so possibly JJ Abrams is intending to use the full IMAX frame for that sequence. On the other hand, unlike Nolan with his full analog film workflow, I am sure that Force Awakens will have a digital intermediate, so somewhere along the way all the footage might get conformed to whatever the final aspect ratio is going to be (2.35 for conventional cinemas and possibly something else for IMAX theaters).





WayneJoy said:


> Digital IMAX is 1.9:1. 15/70 IMAX was 1.4:1.





Zhorik said:


> Imax digital should be 1.90AR.
> 
> Link to Atmos blu ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1


Ty guys... though I'm still confused (sorry even though I've had aspect ratio's explained to me my brain just doesn't get it). 

Does that mean TFA will be cropped for 70mm scenes? 

And TY for the list... I forgot about some of the new upcoming titles!


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> They use a second pair of sides for guests/clients sitting behind the mixer, so their 9.1.4 doesn't use wides.


So where exactly are the speakers located and how is the renderer set up?


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> cant seem to find the ignore option?


Go to your control panel (top right of every page and select Edit Ignore List. Add the usernames of the members whose posts you no longer wish to see. Remember to click 'save' to save them.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> What does that have to do with the size? If you mounted a tweeter in a 40 litre enclosure, would it sound different to one conventionally mounted?
> 
> *A larger driver will be more sensitive by nature of displacing more air. The enclosure does not increase sensitivity above Fb.*
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that? The discussion was about whether a speaker which performed well above 80-100Hz, in a bass-managed system with good subs, was as sufficient for overhead use as a much bigger speaker. _Reductio ad absurdum _is a well-known debating tactic, but it doesn't advance the discussion much.
> 
> *You didn't say that. I'm just trying to follow your illlogic. You keep making some point that because you're happy with a sized speaker and it "plays fine" that there are no appreciable benefits of a larger, more capable system. Good luck running those Tannoy's in a large 1,000 seat cinema. That's the difference, Keith/*
> 
> 
> 
> If the smaller bass-managed speaker can reach the desired SPL cleanly, what would be the advantages of greater headroom? When you drive under a bridge do you care if you have 3 feet of headroom or 30 feet?  For example, my (small) Tannoy Di5DC has a peak SPL of 112dB and an average SPL of 106dB capability. Given that I will never exceed the 105dB required for movie Reference, and that my speaker can handle at least that as an _average_ SPL, what is the headroom or SPL advantage you speak of?


It would be a great benefit for the larger vehicle traversing under the bridge. You are happy with the performance of your speakers. Nobody is disputing that. You are making it as if everybody should be happy with the performance you get. Some people want more than what you have, Keith. Some people want/need more than a peak of 112dB @ 1m which is not that much, really. That's actually pretty typical and unimpressive for those who like 'war volume' capability.

Just because it's enough for you doesn't mean it's enough for everybody.

This is speaker 101 stuff.



Lesmor said:


> cant seem to find the ignore option?


Click on the name of the member. There is a tab that says 'user lists'. Inside there are three options: add to friends, add to contacts and add to ignore list.

Enjoy.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nightlord said:


> One good reason for wanting good sound also in back row seats is if the viewing distance is such that DVDs really are of too low resolution to watch up front.


Good point. With my one-row setup I watch DVDs on a 50" plasma TV which is hidden behind a 100" motorized projection screen.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lesmor said:


> ?
> Baahubali was mixed with a 9.1 bed
> where the extra two speakers were positioned was not stated


Atmos has a 9.1 channel bed. You wanna guess which of those two are wides? None, is the answer.

7.1 + stereo heights = 9.1 channel bed for Atmos.


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> Guys,
> 
> Anybody got a DD+ Atmos test file?


Markus -- if you can get one of the Atmos demo discs on blu ray they have an option to toggle between THD and DD+ output.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> It would be a great benefit for the larger vehicle traversing under the bridge. You are happy with the performance of your speakers. Nobody is disputing that. You are making it as if everybody should be happy with the performance you get. Some people want more than what you have, Keith. Some people want/need more than a peak of 112dB @ 1m which is not that much, really. That's actually pretty typical and unimpressive for those who like 'war volume' capability.


You are right that I 'only' want movie reference SPL. I didn’t realise you were meaning people who want crazy loud levels or I wouldn't have engaged in the discussion. My bad for not getting the discussion parameters agreed at the outset.



Scott Simonian said:


> Just because it's enough for you doesn't mean it's enough for everybody.
> 
> This is speaker 101 stuff.


Assuming movie reference level is the upper SPL limit we are discussing, how does your argument still stand up to examination? How does the small Tannoy Di5DC speaker, capable of average SPLs of 106dB, get beaten in terms of headroom or SPL by a bigger speaker? I mean, in speaker 101 land?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> You are right that I 'only' want movie reference SPL. I didn’t realise you were meaning people who want crazy loud levels or I wouldn't have engaged in the discussion. My bad for not getting the discussion parameters agreed at the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming movie reference level is the upper SPL limit we are discussing, how does your argument still stand up to examination? How does the small Tannoy Di5DC speaker, capable of average SPLs of 106dB, get beaten in terms of headroom or SPL by a bigger speaker? I mean, in speaker 101 land?


In a bigger room than yours and/or one where someone listens above reference level.

Keith, I don't know how you missed the "parameters agreed at the outset" when it was me and another member with huge JBL Pro speakers with dual 15's and you wondering why they would need it if bass managed.

Bass management does not stop physics. A single 8" driver can only produce so much output and dual 15's will trump it in output capability. Just because you "get enough" above 80hz with yours doesn't mean another person will. They want more output than a single 8" driver can produce. Bass managing it does not increase it's capability. A larger driver with more surface area and throw does. More drivers with more surface area and throw does.


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> Baahubali was mixed with a 9.1 bed
> where the extra two speakers were positioned was not stated


Let's not confuse number of bed channels (7.1 + 2 heights) in the Atmos format with number of speakers in the mix room. Baahubali was mixed using all 9.1 channel beds and 110 (out of a possible 118) objects.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Let's not confuse number of bed channels (7.1 + 2 heights) in the Atmos format with number of speakers in the mix room.


No! Let's do that, please and make me out to be the a-hole in the process. 

Thanks.


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Go to your control panel (top right of every page and select Edit Ignore List. Add the usernames of the members whose posts you no longer wish to see. Remember to click 'save' to save them.


Thanks Keith I'm obliged


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> In a bigger room than yours and/or one where someone listens above reference level.


You missed the part where I said "assuming movie reference is the upper SPL limit we are discussing" so this is a non-answer.



Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, I don't know how you missed the "parameters agreed at the outset" when it was me and another member with huge JBL Pro speakers with dual 15's and you wondering why they would need it if bass managed.


I am sure I have never wondered if a system needed bass management as I am 100% pro bass management in a HT system. Stop changing the subject and give me this "physics" you keep on mentioning.



Scott Simonian said:


> Bass management does not stop physics.


Pretty obviously not.



Scott Simonian said:


> A single 8" driver can only produce so much output and dual 15's will trump it in output capability.


Again you are not answering what I asked. If the single 8 inch driver achieves the required 105dB SPL cleanly, what advantage does the bigger driver bring, above the crossover frequency? You keep saying the same thing but without answering the question. How is 50 feet of headroom above the bridge less beneficial than 200 feet?



Scott Simonian said:


> Just because you "get enough" above 80hz with yours doesn't mean another person will.


Not relevant. The question is, again, can you describe the benefits of a bigger speaker if a smaller speaker can do the same as the bigger speaker, in terms of headroom and SPL (which were the two reasons you gave when I asked it before but since refused to elaborate on why you think headroom and SPL is important once you have the headroom and SPL required.



Scott Simonian said:


> They want more output than a single 8" driver can produce. Bass managing it does not increase it's capability. A larger driver with more surface area and throw does. More drivers with more surface area and throw does.


Yes, that is all obvious but it isn't what we are talking about. Please answer the questions.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Less distortion, more headroom.

That's the difference. The obvious one.

Is the next post going to be about how your speakers are doing this with little to no distortion? The next answer from me is the larger one has less.

Your system might be more fatiguing to listen to at reference level for extended periods compared to the larger, more capable system. I'm sure you'll state that this isn't the case. 


It's all relative, obviously. Do I need fourteen 18's if I only want to play bass -10dB. Nope. Is there a benefit from a single sub at these levels? Yes, less distortion and more headroom for peak to be produced cleanly. If your Tannoy can only max out at 112dB peak at 1m then it's probably going to be struggling quite a bit at reference level at the seat which is further away than 1m.


----------



## Nightlord

maikeldepotter said:


> Good point. With my one-row setup I watch DVDs on a 50" plasma TV which is hidden behind a 100" motorized projection screen.


Thanks. 

Depends on the environment how well that works, but if I did that in my cinema, it would interfere too much with the acoustic treatment of the room (which needs dampening behind the center).


----------



## batpig

Keith - with respect to the speaker discussion, I would imagine there are a few factors which would provide theoretical benefit even if you weren't exceeding reference levels.

While the little Tannoys may be rated to 90Hz F3, I think it's a fair question of how well that 4.5" woofer can perform in the 80-200Hz range when the SPL gets to near reference levels. Yes, the SPL rating is high enough to accommodate that volume on paper, but what's happening to the driver in that bass range when it's pushing a 100dB+ peak? Is it actually staying linear, not compressing, not distorting? It seems likely that it is, whereas an 8" driver would be less so, and a 12" or 15" driver even less so. 

Plus of course we all know that a crossover is not a "brick wall", the HPF on the satellite channels is a 2nd order 12dB/octave affair so even with a 100Hz crossover frequency it's still going to be asked to put out significant output in the 60-100Hz range. A larger driver will hold up better here and I bet it would be audible if you compared the difference with big bass transients around the xover. 

There has to be a point where the smaller driver just runs out of steam in that mid bass region whereas the larger driver will handle that range more effortlessly, allowing you to play cleaner, louder.

Now, obviously, as Scott says you have to know your context. For someone like me who has a smallish room and probably won't exceed -10dB below reference, the difference between an 8" driver and a 15" driver in a satellite channel is likely moot. Shoot, I don't have a single woofer in my system (outside the subs) which is 8" or larger. You also have a small room of course and your only small woofers are in the overheads where it seems unlikely to matter much.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Let's not confuse number of bed channels (7.1 + 2 heights) in the Atmos format with number of speakers in the mix room. Baahubali was mixed using all 9.1 channel beds and 110 (out of a possible 118) objects.


Good info. But how much of that survives on a BD, is my question. Will the AVR have ANY information att all about those 110? Could I theoretically remove object 109 is my AVRs renderer were that managable.... Or will those 110 objects just be mixed down for use together with 9 beds? 

The day in the future when I have a FULL Atmos setup with speakers for all possible locations, will I need new media AGAIN to put it through it's paces?


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> Good info. But how much of that survives on a BD, is my question. Will the AVR have ANY information att all about those 110? Could I theoretically remove object 109 is my AVRs renderer were that managable.... Or will those 110 objects just be mixed down for use together with 9 beds?
> 
> The day in the future when I have a FULL Atmos setup with speakers for all possible locations, will I need new media AGAIN to put it through it's paces?


For the home there are much fewer objects than the 100+ in cinema. The Atmos encoding for home uses a process called "spatial coding" to group objects which have similar directionality into fewer clusters. I believe Filmmixer has said that the default for home Atmos is 12 objects but there is a maximum of 18 (or 20?)... can't rememember the exact number offhand but it's around there.

With the significantly lower spatial resolution in the home (with only up to 34 speaker locations max, and most people using 11) that clustering is sufficient to deliver the experience so no objects are "lost".

EDIT: also, of course, for clarity remember that in the home there are only 7 beds, not 9 (no stereo height beds) so any height bed information becomes objects in the home Atmos track.


----------



## Ted99

Speaker dispersion seems to be a very important consideration for overheads, particularly if they can't be "aimed". I have always thought that the "tweeter" tended to be the limiting driver in wider dispersion, as contrasted to 3" and up cone speakers--am I wrong? In any event, the most common types of tweeters seem to be the 1" silk dome, or some type of more rigid material dome; Horn-types, as in Klipsch; and ribbon or electrostatics. How do these rank in dispersion angle? Running down dispersion angles from the mfg websites for Polk and Klipsch, for instance, has not been successful. Can one generalize on these physical types?


----------



## markrubin

thread cleanup

my goodness...will you guys knock it off and move on please?

thanks

if I missed any, PM me please


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> For the home there are much fewer objects than the 100+ in cinema. The Atmos encoding for home uses a process called "spatial coding" to group objects which have similar directionality into fewer clusters. I believe Filmmixer has said that the default for home Atmos is 12 objects but there is a maximum of 18 (or 20?)... can't rememember the exact number offhand but it's around there.
> 
> With the significantly lower spatial resolution in the home (with only up to 34 speaker locations max, and most people using 11) that clustering is sufficient to deliver the experience so no objects are "lost".
> 
> EDIT: also, of course, for clarity remember that in the home there are only 7 beds, not 9 (no stereo height beds) so any height bed information becomes objects in the home Atmos track.


I think it needs different branding for home.


----------



## Stoked21

Ted99 said:


> Speaker dispersion seems to be a very important consideration for overheads, particularly if they can't be "aimed". I have always thought that the "tweeter" tended to be the limiting driver in wider dispersion, as contrasted to 3" and up cone speakers--am I wrong? In any event, the most common types of tweeters seem to be the 1" silk dome, or some type of more rigid material dome; Horn-types, as in Klipsch; and ribbon or electrostatics. How do these rank in dispersion angle? Running down dispersion angles from the mfg websites for Polk and Klipsch, for instance, has not been successful. Can one generalize on these physical types?


I hear you on finding the spec. My answer would be that it really varies. I searched endlessly. I do see that most coaxial designs tend to run in the 80 up to 120. Some of the lower end choices, if spec'd, seem to fall as low as 60 degrees. With ribbons I've seen the range of 60-80 degrees.

Something to think about. If you are running speakers at the furthest spec by Dolby (30 degrees--which is helpful for 2 rows but can affect imaging). You need 120 degree dispersion to hit the back row (120 degrees on axis means 60 degrees to each "side"). If you are at 45 degrees mounting, recommended mid-range dolby spec, then a 90 degree dispersion speaker works fine. 

However, if you can move your tweeter by 15degrees or even 30, then you essentially change the axis by that amount. You can then mount an Atmos top speaker at the furthest 30 degree point to MLP and you only need 90 degree dispersion. Some speakers will aim/tilt 30 degrees, like mine. That meant I only needed 60 degrees of dispersion and it could still be mounted at the furthest 30 degree point to MLP. At that point, I decided dispersion wasn't as big of an issue to me if I could just aim them.


----------



## rontalley

OK so...now I need clarification for the slew of new information that I have learned or...

Atmos for home does *"Not"* have conventional wides?...The wides area actually object channels?

So there is no 9.x.x configurations outside of the super expensive PC based Pre/Pros?

DSU does not process wides?

Atmos does have a conventional height bed but just not for the home?

Those who have heights (not ceiling) are all object?

How many channels can dolby handle for:
Conventional Bed?
Conventional Height Bed?

All the limitations for home Atmos is based on processing power or simplicity?


----------



## Nightlord

rontalley said:


> All the limitations for home Atmos is based on processing power or simplicity?


I think it's a media limitation rather. They can't get hold of more data bandwidth on the discs. Had they been able to get more bandwidth for sound, they'd done it differently.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> OK so...now I need clarification for the slew of new information that I have learned or...
> 
> Atmos for home does *"Not"* have conventional wides?...The wides area actually object channels?


In the cinema, there are extra "front surround" speakers in between the side surround array and the screen channels which will render object ONLY. No bed content.

In the home Atmos, the location called "front wide" will serve the exact same function -- objects, no beds (and for Scott's sake understand they are not "channels" but rather speaker output locations).




rontalley said:


> So there is no 9.x.x configurations outside of the super expensive PC based Pre/Pros?


Not exactly, some 11ch models (definitely D+M, not sure about others, definitely NOT with Yamaha) which support Front Wide will let you run a 9.1.2 setup which means only 2 overheads. 

Rumor has it that in the somewhat near future they might expand to 13 channels and let you do 9.1.4 (7.1 + wides + 4 heights).




rontalley said:


> DSU does not process wides?


Correct.




rontalley said:


> Atmos does have a conventional height bed but just not for the home? Those who have heights (not ceiling) are all object?


Correct, in the cinema there are 9 beds (7.1 at floor level and 2 overhead beds). However, home delivery maxes out at 7.1 channels with the current TrueHD / HDMI implementation, so the height beds are carried forward as static objects (doesn't make a difference in the end result).

"Ceiling" vs. "height" is irrelevant here. They are all part of the Atmos overhead arrays.




rontalley said:


> All the limitations for home Atmos is based on processing power or simplicity?


Probably a little of both. Less processing power, simplicity, also not as much need given you have a smaller room with many fewer speakers so you won't really benefit from the additional spatial resolution.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith - with respect to the speaker discussion, I would imagine there are a few factors which would provide theoretical benefit even if you weren't exceeding reference levels.


Could be. Scott has mentioned SPL and headroom, both of which I have refuted and neither of which he has explained.



batpig said:


> While the little Tannoys may be rated to 90Hz F3, I think it's a fair question of how well that 4.5" woofer can perform in the 80-200Hz range when the SPL gets to near reference levels. Yes, the SPL rating is high enough to accommodate that volume on paper, but what's happening to the driver in that bass range when it's pushing a 100dB+ peak? Is it actually staying linear, not compressing, not distorting? It seems likely that it is, whereas an 8" driver would be less so, and a 12" or 15" driver even less so.


batpig, these are not DefTechs. They are professional speakers and as such their specifications can be trusted entirely.



batpig said:


> Plus of course we all know that a crossover is not a "brick wall", the HPF on the satellite channels is a 2nd order 12dB/octave affair so even with a 100Hz crossover frequency it's still going to be asked to put out significant output in the 60-100Hz range. A larger driver will hold up better here and I bet it would be audible if you compared the difference with big bass transients around the xover.


Well I did try it and there was no audible difference. Remember I tried the Di6 vs the Di5. These are essentially 'surround' speakers and if you isolate them you can clearly hear that they are not really being asked to work very hard.



batpig said:


> There has to be a point where the smaller driver just runs out of steam in that mid bass region whereas the larger driver will handle that range more effortlessly, allowing you to play cleaner, louder.


Yes, maybe. But not in a surround application.



batpig said:


> Now, obviously, as Scott says you have to know your context. For someone like me who has a smallish room and probably won't exceed -10dB below reference, the difference between an 8" driver and a 15" driver in a satellite channel is likely moot. Shoot, I don't have a single woofer in my system (outside the subs) which is 8" or larger. You also have a small room of course and your only small woofers are in the overheads where it seems unlikely to matter much.


Indeed, and that was my point. Scott seems to be discussing people who want to play at 112dB all day long. WTF _are_ these people???


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Markus -- if you can get one of the Atmos demo discs on blu ray they have an option to toggle between THD and DD+ output.


I know but I'm looking for a test file (not on an authored disc) that is not copyright protected.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> batpig, these are not DefTechs. They are professional speakers and as such their specifications can be trusted entirely.


Sure, but do those specifications indicate exactly how much compression/distortion the driver will have at the lower end of its passband as it approaches extremely high SPL? Just because a speaker is flat from 90Hz-20kHz when measured at 85dB doesn't mean it will still be flat at 105dB. You see this all the time with subwoofer measurements, where a subwoofer rated at 20Hz F3 will be flat until a certain level is reached at which point compression kicks in and the higher frequences (30Hz+) keep getting louder but the


----------



## Spanglo

Stoked21 said:


> I thought I had pretty good bass in my Atmos setup with a 2 sub setup, even if lesser quality subs. But my Atmos experience has COMPLETELY changed since last night. Feeling the cold breeze from the port on your face, your hair blowing in the wind, pounding in your chest, the chairs feeling like they are going to shake apart while the riser was vibrating like an earthquake.......Honestly, a high-end sub like this has done more than 4 speakers in the ceiling has ever done in regards to immersion! You FEEL the movie.


Nice addition. When I hear people argue that the center channel is the most important speaker in the system I beg to differ. 

Now imagine your system if all your speakers match the quality of that sub...  Audio nirvana is not too far away.


----------



## Ricoflashback

markrubin said:


> thread cleanup
> 
> my goodness...will you guys knock it off and move on please?
> 
> thanks
> 
> if I missed any, PM me please


Hey Mark,

I wondered when you'd be dropping over to this thread. Hope all is well. 

I thought you were still working out Directv issues?  For what its worth - - I was a very happy Directv customer until they totally blew me off as a customer. (Exactly what Comcast did to me ten years ago before I switched to Directv!)

It turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I went with a special from Comcast to 180 mb down (Ethernet - 50 mb Wi-Fi) & 20 mb up, from CenturyLink & Directv bundled, 20 mb down and 5 mb up. Pretty significant. I'm not sure how Directv is handling Atmos delivery. I kept the dish on my roof - - who knows if I'll have to go through this all again.

All in all, a very good thread that gets engaging sometimes. Folks that know a lot more than I do.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> The day in the future when I have a FULL Atmos setup with speakers for all possible locations, will I need new media AGAIN to put it through it's paces?


No, home Atmos soundtracks will natively scale/map to your full speaker layout.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> No, home Atmos soundtracks will natively scale/map to your full speaker layout.


How can they, when you ditch information by grouping them? How do you unfold those few grouped objects back to 110 individuals?

If that IS possible, then they should tell us how they have achieved it.


----------



## Kain

Slightly off-topic but if you are running XLR cables under your carpet, will people stepping and/or walking on them cause them any harm/damage?


----------



## NorthSky

Charles R said:


> http://blog.dolby.com/2015/07/what-surprised-one-home-theater-buff-about-dolby-atmos/


Thx for that link Mr. Charles; I enjoyed reading it. 

________

♦ http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## markrubin

Ricoflashback said:


> Hey Mark,
> 
> I wondered when you'd be dropping over to this thread. Hope all is well.
> 
> I thought you were still working out Directv issues?  For what its worth - - I was a very happy Directv customer until they totally blew me off as a customer. (Exactly what Comcast did to me ten years ago before I switched to Directv!)
> 
> It turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I went with a special from Comcast to 180 mb down (Ethernet - 50 mb Wi-Fi) & 20 mb up, from CenturyLink & Directv bundled, 20 mb down and 5 mb up. Pretty significant. I'm not sure how Directv is handling Atmos delivery. I kept the dish on my roof - - who knows if I'll have to go through this all again.
> 
> All in all, a very good thread that gets engaging sometimes. Folks that know a lot more than I do.


Hi

off topic...but allow me to answer the question

I recently got the Comcast X1 DVR, and their new modem: I think it is the best DVR I have tested...DirecTV take note

still have DirecTV too, they used to be the best, and I used to rant against Comcast...

and to keep it on topic, Comcast has announced a new custom integrator X1: rack mount with Dolby Atmos and an API for third party integration (IP control): I put my name in as a beta tester...

http://www.electronichouse.com/daily/home-theater/comcast-adds-ip-control-and-dolby-atmos-to-the-x1/

how times have changed


----------



## batpig

Nightlord said:


> How can they, when you ditch information by grouping them? How do you unfold those few grouped objects back to 110 individuals?
> 
> If that IS possible, then they should tell us how they have achieved it.


Seems you are confusing a lower object count with the output speaker count. Whether there are 15 objects or 75, they can still render to however many outputs you have available. So you lose some spatial resolution for the individual objects but nothing stopping the cluster of objects from rendering to 8 or 10 height speakers instead of 4. 

It's still lower spatial resolution than what you'd get in a commercial theater, but also a lot fewer speakers. Even if you were running 15 base layer speakers and 8 overheads, that's still far lower than the speaker count in a cinema. So if three plans fly over your head will you really hear the difference between them being individual objects vs a single clustered object? Maybe, I don't really lose sleep worrying about it.

For the beds it's irrelevant, as they will play back on whatever speakers are assigned to that array (e.g. up to 3 on each side for the side surround channels).


----------



## NorthSky

*Dolby Atmos "Front Width" Surround Speakers (Surround Wide)*



thebland said:


> *SPEAKER QUESTION:*
> I'm going to add FRONT WIDES to my theater. My LCRs use AMT drivers and my sides and heights use very similar sounding RIBBONS.
> My manufacturer makes a both types of these high frequency drivers in a similarly sized cabinet. AMTs are far more costly. Better to match the AMTs up front in my LCRs or the sides / Heights with ribbons? Or am I splitting hairs??
> I ask as these Front Wides will be in a column at the front of my room on the same side walls as the sides except angled towards the main listening position. (see image below)
> Thanks!





Molon_Labe said:


> *I would match them to the sides/heights*
> since they are closest distance wise to the heights vs the front L/C/R.


Hi Jeff, my opinion; what Molon_Labe said above (magenta).  ...It matches all your other surround and height speakers; makes good logical sense/sound.

Have a splendid week,
_Bob_


----------



## thebland

thebland said:


> *SPEAKER QUESTION:*
> 
> I'm going to add FRONT WIDES to my theater. My LCRs use AMT drivers and my sides and heights use very similar sounding RIBBONS.
> 
> My manufacturer makes a both types of these high frequency drivers in a similarly sized cabinet. AMTs are far more costly. Better to match the AMTs up front in my LCRs or the sides / Heights with ribbons? Or am I splitting hairs??
> 
> I ask as these Front Wides will be in a column at the front of my room on the same side walls as the sides except angled towards the main listening position. (see image below)
> 
> Thanks!





Molon_Labe said:


> I would match them to the sides/heights since they are closest distance wise to the heights vs the front L/C/R. By the way your ceiling speakers are too big and are egregious like mine





NorthSky said:


> Hi Jeff, my opinion; what Molon_Labe said above (magenta).  ...It matches all your other surround and height speakers; makes good logical sense/sound.
> 
> Have a splendid week,
> _Bob_


Thanks for the responses! (and saving me some $$)


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> How can they, when you ditch information by grouping them? How do you unfold those few grouped objects back to 110 individuals?


They're not unfolded, just mapped to however many speakers you have. Think of speakers as pixels on a dome. The more speakers you have, the fewer gaps in the dome. The fewer gaps, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field (especially for listeners sitting outside the sweet spot). A 5.1.2 layout creates a dome with only 7 rendering locations. A 24.1.10 layout creates a dome of 34 rendering locations. The same soundtrack can be mapped to both.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> Seems you are confusing a lower object count with the output speaker count. Whether there are 15 objects or 75, they can still render to however many outputs you have available. So you lose some spatial resolution for the individual objects but nothing stopping the cluster of objects from rendering to 8 or 10 height speakers instead of 4.
> 
> It's still lower spatial resolution than what you'd get in a commercial theater, but also a lot fewer speakers. Even if you were running 15 base layer speakers and 8 overheads, that's still far lower than the speaker count in a cinema. So if three plans fly over your head will you really hear the difference between them being individual objects vs a single clustered object? Maybe, I don't really lose sleep worrying about it.


No, I'm not confusing anything. I'm wondering if a blind A/B listening in the mixing studio between the Atmos master and the BluRay encoded track will be (easily) possible to tell apart. I have a feeling they will be very different in how you can localize things.

My current speaker count is 13.6.6 though only used 11.6.6 at the most for 7.1 thus far. 22.X.10 would not be totally impossible to obtain in time.. (Although there would be acoustical drawbacks probably stopping it earlier than that)

Atmos doesn't support more than 10 overheads for cinema, surely... No matter the physical amount of speakers used. And I would say that is a matter of output capability more than anything, a small space needs more speakers than a large one for localization purposes, actually... (Or non-localization, whatever is the fashion)


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Atmos doesn't support more than 10 overheads for cinema, surely...


10 overheads is the limit for home Atmos, not the cinema version.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> They're not unfolded, just mapped to however many speakers you have. Think of speakers as pixels on a dome. The more speakers you have, the fewer gaps in the dome. The fewer gaps, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field (especially for listeners sitting outside the sweet spot). A 5.1.2 layout creates a dome with only 7 rendering locations. A 24.1.10 layout creates a dome of 34 rendering locations. The same soundtrack can be mapped to both.


I don't read that to mean you're describing an object based system. You're in my point of view describing transcoding a multichannel system over a set of speakers. The big idea with Atmos was to, beside the beds, give individual sounds a position and a size. We're not getting that quite apparently. We're getting a higher number of channels where possibly some of them have varying positionability. Although changing their positions would give the AVRs a harder task of doing the phantom imaging, so quite possibly they won't be moving at all, but rather placed in top channel positions and some midway positions for ease of transcoding/phantom imaging (most likely also yielding the lowest DSP demands).


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> 10 overheads is the limit for home Atmos, not the cinema version.


Where can I find a Dolby whitepaper describing the cinema version then, please?


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> I don't read that to mean you're describing an object based system. You're in my point of view describing transcoding a multichannel system over a set of speakers. The big idea with Atmos was to, beside the beds, give individual sounds a position and a size. We're not getting that quite apparently.


That's exactly what we're getting. Without being object-based, the soundtrack couldn't natively map to layouts from 5.1.2 to 24.1.10 speakers.


Nightlord said:


> Where can I find a Dolby whitepaper describing the cinema version then, please?


At the Dolby website: 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/cinema/dolby-atmos.html


----------



## NorthSky

*My opinion, only a simple opinion by a nobody.*



Spanglo said:


> Nice addition. *When I hear people argue that the center channel is the most important speaker in the system I beg to differ.*
> Now imagine your system if all your speakers match the quality of that sub...  Audio nirvana is not too far away.


The Center Channel IS indeed the most important channel in a 3D surround sound setup; be it a Phantom one or a real Full Range one with Bass Management applied (80Hz x-over). The bass from that center channel (explosions, tornadoes, buildings collapsing, earthquakes, gunshots, tremors, etc.) goes to the subwoofer(s), but it is still part of that full range center channel where most of the onscreen action is taking place, including the main actors from the story talking to each other. Without that channel there is no dialog (unless phantom recreated by the sum of the Left and Right front channel...a la Dolby Pro Logic steering), and there is no more the main actions like explosions and fires and the full impact/intensity of it all right in the middle, front center where we are looking, where the center screen is, where in real life it is the source of where our eyes are directed to. 

This is my opinion. And after the center channel (full range) the front left and right channels would be next (full range) for the music score, sound effects panning across the front sound stage, ...and then the side surrounds would be next after the FL & FR channels, in order of importance. ...Full range side surrounds.

The .1 LFE only subwoofer channel is next. 

So, for a "full" normal Dolby Atmost setup (9.1.4), in order of importance:
- Number 1 = Center channel (front floor middle)
- Number 2 = FL & FR channels (front floor flankers)
- Number 3 = SL & SR surround channels (floor sides)
- Number 4 = LFE channel (floor, and above)
- Number 5 = Front Width L & R surround channels (floor wides)
- Number 6 = Front Top L & R surround channels (front ceiling overheads)
- Number 7 = SBL & SBR surround channels (floor rears)
- Number 8 = Rear Top L & R surround channels (rear ceiling overheads)

Again, this is only my own personal opinion; and NOT the bible's eight commandments. Anyone here is free to switch the order, and the fifth one (in red) is up for debate @ the discretion of the audio/acoustician experts/scientists. 
I am simply sharing my own opinion, and no swords or daggers are going to cut that grain of salt from the Sahara desert. 
You'll need a microscopic laser/razor blade for that.


----------



## dschulz

Aras_Volodka said:


> T
> Does that mean TFA will be cropped for 70mm scenes?


Assuming that it's true that one or more scenes will be utilizing the full-frame 70mm aspect ratio, then yes, those scenes will be cropped in every theater that doesn't have a full-sized IMAX screen (the IMAX 70mm locations + the handful of screens with the new IMAX laser projectors).

Most of the movie was shot on anamorphic 35mm though, so I am certain that the compositions will be correct on all of the "regular" theaters out there showing it in 'Scope 2.35 D-Cinema.


----------



## Spanglo

NorthSky said:


> The Center Channel IS indeed the most important channel in a 3D surround sound setup; be it a Phantom one or a real Full Range one with Bass Management applied (80Hz x-over).


Center channel... yes, very very important. Importance of center speaker is debatable (in another thread).


----------



## Ricoflashback

markrubin said:


> Hi
> 
> off topic...but allow me to answer the question
> 
> I recently got the Comcast X1 DVR, and their new modem: I think it is the best DVR I have tested...DirecTV take note
> 
> still have DirecTV too, they used to be the best, and I used to rant against Comcast...
> 
> and to keep it on topic, Comcast has announced a new custom integrator X1: rack mount with Dolby Atmos and an API for third party integration (IP control): I put my name in as a beta tester...
> 
> http://www.electronichouse.com/daily/home-theater/comcast-adds-ip-control-and-dolby-atmos-to-the-x1/
> 
> how times have changed


Mark - actually very on topic and very relevant to Dolby Atmos - - namely content, sources and availability. 

Before any technology can be considered "mainstream" - - it needs to pass a critical threshold on availability at a price the consumer can afford. In case of Dolby Atmos - - the ability to deliver the Atmos audio via broadcast TV will be the tipping point. 

Up to now -- Dolby Atmos has been considered a "niche" product embraced by only HT enthusiasts. O.K. - if you've made the leap from stereo to 5.1, what is the next logical step? When you hear your friends Dolby Atmos system with the four overhead speakers and the 8" thumping woofers on your ceiling (and your wife screaming at you from upstairs) - - you'll know you've arrived.

Like 4K (UHD) & HDR - - all these technological advancements will only flourish when the content becomes easily available and at the right price. Then, batten down the hatches because increased volume and interest means lower prices and better choices for consumers. And maybe I'll get my Dolby Atmos setup sooner!


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Slightly off-topic but if you are running XLR cables under your carpet, will people stepping and/or walking on them cause them any harm/damage?


In recording studios or live music concerts (on front stage and running from the mixing/sound console) they put duck tape on top (I used to work there).
I don't see any problem with quality XLR cables with good/strong covering jacket. And the carpet is another protector.


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> The Center Channel IS indeed the most important channel in a 3D surround sound setup; be it a Phantom one or a real Full Range one with Bass Management applied (80Hz x-over). The bass from that center channel (explosions, tornadoes, buildings collapsing, earthquakes, gunshots, tremors, etc.) goes to the subwoofer(s), but it is still part of that full range center channel where most of the onscreen action is taking place, including the main actors from the story talking to each other. Without that channel there is no dialog (unless phantom recreated by the sum of the Left and Right front channel...a la Dolby Pro Logic steering), and there is no more the main actions like explosions and fires and the full impact/intensity of it all right in the middle, front center where we are looking, where the center screen is, where in real life it is the source of where our eyes are directed to.
> 
> This is my opinion. And after the center channel (full range) the front left and right channels would be next (full range) for the music score, sound effects panning across the front sound stage, ...and then the side surrounds would be next after the FL & FR channels, in order of importance. ...Full range side surrounds.
> 
> The .1 LFE only subwoofer channel is next.
> 
> So, for a "full" normal Dolby Atmost setup (9.1.4), in order of importance:
> - Number 1 = Center channel (front floor middle)
> - Number 2 = FL & FR channels (front floor flankers)
> - Number 3 = SL & SR surround channels (floor sides)
> - Number 4 = LFE channel (floor, and above)
> - Number 5 = Front Width L & R surround channels (floor wides)
> - Number 6 = Front Top L & R surround channels (front ceiling overheads)
> - Number 7 = SBL & SBR surround channels (floor rears)
> - Number 8 = Rear Top L & R surround channels (rear ceiling overheads)
> 
> Again, this is only my own personal opinion; and NOT the bible's eight commandments. Anyone here is free to switch the order, and the fifth one (in red) is up for debate @ the discretion of the audio/acoustician experts/scientists.
> I am simply sharing my own opinion, and no swords or daggers are going to cut that grain of salt from the Sahara desert.
> You'll need a microscopic laser/razor blade for that.


I take it the ceiling overheads are the Dolby Atmos speakers? I'm a quick study.


----------



## tjenkins95

Someone was recently looking for Nature/Enchanted Kingdom 3D and did not want to purchase the Japanese blu-ray.
It was just released today in the United States.

Enchanted Kingdom 3D (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/)


----------



## NorthSky

Spanglo said:


> Center channel... yes, very very important. Importance of center speaker is debatable (in another thread).


Say you have a full 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup; disable the center ch speaker, and watch a Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movie like that...say 'Mad Max: Fury Road'.
Now enable it back, and disable the subwoofer (LFE channel), or multiple subwoofers; set all your speakers to Full range, and watch that same flick again. 

Sure, you can create a Phantom center image for the critical central dialog. ...Or have a real one and the LFE channel redirected to your full range speakers. 
This is all very good to experiment with and to give you a good idea of what's more important in a Dolby Atmos setup.


----------



## NorthSky

Ricoflashback said:


> I take it the ceiling overheads are the Dolby Atmos speakers? I'm a quick study.


...Or the DTS:X overhead speakers; obviously.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

NorthSky said:


> ...Or the DTS:X overhead speakers; obviously.


You forgot to mention UHD


----------



## Stoked21

I seem to recall someone had said 5E done in Atmos was like Auro-matic? That tops were just music?

Whoever made that comparison either has the worlds worst Atmos setup or has been smoking crack. I just watched the first 30 minutes and the tops were insane with objects moving around. Definitely heavy use. Probably the heaviest I've ever heard. Imaging between the 4 speakers is superb with objects flying above and through the room. Video does not look 20 years old. Beautifully done. 

Not even close to Auro-matic. Crazy, uneducated, poor setup comment to say that. .


----------



## audiofan1

markrubin said:


> Hi
> 
> off topic...but allow me to answer the question
> 
> I recently got the Comcast X1 DVR, and their new modem: I think it is the best DVR I have tested...DirecTV take note
> 
> still have DirecTV too, they used to be the best, and I used to rant against Comcast...
> 
> and to keep it on topic, Comcast has announced a new custom integrator X1: rack mount with Dolby Atmos and an API for third party integration (IP control): I put my name in as a beta tester...
> 
> http://www.electronichouse.com/daily/home-theater/comcast-adds-ip-control-and-dolby-atmos-to-the-x1/
> 
> how times have changed


 Off topic! yeah its a great platform


----------



## BigScreen

tjenkins95 said:


> Someone was recently looking for Nature/Enchanted Kingdom 3D and did not want to purchase the Japanese blu-ray.
> It was just released today in the United States.
> 
> Enchanted Kingdom 3D (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/)


I just picked up a copy from Target for $16.99 after verifying that it did mention Atmos in the sound format.


----------



## batpig

BigScreen said:


> I just picked up a copy from Target for $16.99 after verifying that it did mention Atmos in the sound format.


AWESOME. Stoked about this getting the USA release in Atmos!


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> Someone was recently looking for Nature/Enchanted Kingdom 3D and did not want to purchase the Japanese blu-ray.
> It was just released today in the United States.
> 
> Enchanted Kingdom 3D (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/)


Ordered it from Amazon and low and behold it's already back ordered.  went to my local best buy not there I'll keep looking. But I may have to wait for a restock on Amazon. Next stop Target.


----------



## aaranddeeman

BigScreen said:


> I just picked up a copy from Target for $16.99 after verifying that it did mention Atmos in the sound format.


Thanks for confirming.


----------



## bass addict

OK guys, I've been holding off upgrading to Atmos for the past year as I've been waiting to see how everything shook out (and my current setup sounds pretty dang amazing) but I can't wait any longer. I'm getting ready to order some Volt 6's/10's but placement is still bugging me. 

How much separation is recommended between the tops and side surround. I have a fairly narrow room at 10' 6" wide with a 2 tiered sofit. Mounting Volt 10's flush, but on a slight angle, towards the LP in the upper sofit tier would provide the cleanest install but they'd only be separated from the sides by about 18" on the vertical plane (the sides would obviously be mounted a hair bit lower which would increase the overall distance). The other option is to mount Volt 6's in a cabinet to the ceiling inside the tiered sofit; it would look a little more bulky, but would increase separation from the side surrounds by another 10" or so on the vertical plane. I'm thinking that little distance isn't going to be critical but inside the tier would be directly overhead. 

I can upload some pics if it would help. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Molon_Labe

bass addict said:


> OK guys, I've been holding off upgrading to Atmos for the past year as I've been waiting to see how everything shook out (and my current setup sounds pretty dang amazing) but I can't wait any longer. I'm getting ready to order some Volt 6's/10's but placement is still bugging me.
> 
> How much separation is recommended between the tops and side surround. I have a fairly narrow room at 10' 6" wide with a 2 tiered sofit. Mounting Volt 10's flush, but on a slight angle, towards the LP in the upper sofit tier would provide the cleanest install but they'd only be separated from the sides by about 18" on the vertical plane (the sides would obviously be mounted a hair bit lower which would increase the overall distance). The other option is to mount Volt 6's in a cabinet to the ceiling inside the tiered sofit; it would look a little more bulky, but would increase separation from the side surrounds by another 10" or so on the vertical plane. I'm thinking that little distance isn't going to be critical but inside the tier would be directly overhead.
> 
> I can upload some pics if it would help.
> 
> Thoughts?


Your ceiling speakers should be inline with your L/R front channels. I assume with at 10' wide room your L/R are pretty close to the corners. Your ceilings speakers will be on the same axis. I don't think 18" is enough separation between your surrounds and ceiling. The surrounds should be at ear level while seated while the ceiling speaker should well be....on the ceiling. I would expect there to be 4' minimum between the two in an average room. I think you need to drop your surrounds because it sounds like you have them mounted fairly high on the wall.


----------



## NorthSky

Today I got this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...785-terminator-genisys-3d-blu-ray-review.html


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Terminator Genesis is a reference atmos title. No doubt!


----------



## rontalley

Brian Fineberg said:


> Terminator Genesis is a reference atmos title. No doubt!


Watched it 3 times so far. Wow! Unfreakingreal!


----------



## bass addict

Molon_Labe said:


> Your ceiling speakers should be inline with your L/R front channels. I assume with at 10' wide room your L/R are pretty close to the corners. Your ceilings speakers will be on the same axis. I don't think 18" is enough separation between your surrounds and ceiling. The surrounds should be at ear level while seated while the ceiling speaker should well be....on the ceiling. I would expect there to be 4' minimum between the two in an average room. I think you need to drop your surrounds because it sounds like you have them mounted fairly high on the wall.





> I assume with at 10' wide room your L/R are pretty close to the corners


Correct. I have corner traps so they aren't right at the corners but pretty close and angled a bit as they are SEOS speakers. 



> I don't think 18" is enough separation between your surrounds and ceiling. The surrounds should be at ear level while seated while the ceiling speaker should well be....on the ceiling.


I figured my description would be confusing. I was talking about the horizontal plane in regards to separation. The actual distance on where the speaker is now and where the ceiling speaker would be if mounted in the inside ceiling tier is 2' (narrower than I think would be ideal). The problem I have with the side surrounds is; based on how narrow the room is and the fact the entrance is at the back of the theater (meaning you have walk right by the surround to get to the front tow) I currently have them mounted up higher in the air so they are out of the way. The Volts were going to be in angled cabinets around the same height. 

It's tough getting a good pic in there but here is an idea of the layout. 

The first shot is looking down the side wall. The black sofit is 18" wide, which then jogs up about 7" into the blue tier, which is about 10" wide or so. This then jogs up about 4" into the ceiling. As you can tell from this pic; the surrounds are mounted a ways of the side of the wall to keep them out of the way. 









The second shot is the front stage obviously with main placement. They are roughly 1' from the side wall. The only changes here are acoustic treatments mounted to the ceiling. 









Third shot maybe gives you a better idea of the sofit design. 

*








So a quick recap. 

The blue tiered part is more inline with the front speakers but much closer to the side surround closing separation a bit. I can move the side surround down a little bit and probably get 3' total separation. Aesthetics would be much better here as I could either flushmount a Volt 10 in an IB setup, or flush mount most of the cab of a Volt 6 (depth of blue tier is 3.5" and volt 6 cab is about 4.5" deep). 

The ceiling itself is inside the mains a bit but would provide a little more side separation, albeit at the expense of aesthetics. I'd prefer not to cut into the ceiling and lose the little bit of sound isolation I currently have now, so a cab would have to mounted directly against it. 
*


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Atmos has a 9.1 channel bed. You wanna guess which of those two are wides? None, is the answer.
> 
> 7.1 + stereo heights = 9.1 channel bed for Atmos.


Though, I am finding that a great amount of music and effects are positioned in the front wide (or front surround, as it were) speakers (they are not remaining dormant just waiting for the odd object to pan-through like the overheads, but rather fully active), as I am using those in my temp setup. 

The mixers may be using them to expand the score's front sound-stage beyond the screen wall, which was one reason for the addition of front surrounds in the cinema version. It does make things sound BIGGER along the front, so they are IMHO an _important ingredient_ for both Atmos and DTS: X (remember, DTS: X was demoed at CEDIA), it's just that we currently have to dump two overheads or two back surrounds to get them right now... we are having to compromise. 

I think 9.1.6 would be a great_ base _immersive system for the majority of "normal" people from what I heard at CEDIA. Now, it's up to the manufacturers to see it that way.


----------



## dkwong

I


tjenkins95 said:


> Someone was recently looking for Nature/Enchanted Kingdom 3D and did not want to purchase the Japanese blu-ray.
> It was just released today in the United States.
> 
> Enchanted Kingdom 3D (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/)



Is there a lot of action on the ceiling speakers with this title?


----------



## petetherock

dkwong said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a lot of action on the ceiling speakers with this title?


If there was anymore action, you will be changing into your safari outfit and carrying that shotgun..
Forget Terminator and all those action movies.. this is the ultimate Atmos demo.

Remember Atmos is not about booms, bombs and such..

(caveat, my copy is the Japanese version, but I am assuming this USA version should be just as good).


----------



## rx3

I downloaded the "Dolby Atmos Demo Jan 2015.iso" and burned the image onto a bluray. It doesn't play on my XboxOne saying it's an unsupported format. Has anyone got this iso to work? Did I burn it right as an image?


----------



## peterfram

bass addict said:


> ....I currently have them mounted up higher in the air so they are out of the way. ...


Those look like Axiom QS8 surrounds? I have the same speakers for my surrounds with Atmos 7.1.4. In case it helps, mine are mounted even closer to the ceiling than yours. Sound is fantastic and I sense objects moving around and behind me quite well in full 360 horizontal plane, especially with the Atmos demo clips. 

However I suspect I'm losing some object separation sense with objects moving overhead towards the right or left due to two factors. 1) Obviously surrounds placed well above ear level, and 2) the QS8 speakers are basically dual bipoles with all 4 drivers firing in phase in 4 different directions. Atmos should benefit from a more standard direct surround speaker if I understand correctly. With all these speakers in my Atmos setup (including rears) I don't think bipole/4 drivers add anything in this equation but I can see why they hide some of the object isolation in 3D sound. In a future remodel I may sadly replace my beloved QS8s with more direct firing surrounds that should work better with Atmos. I'm in no hurry to do this because my sound is quite nice even though not perfect for 3D. Not enough content to worry about it yet.


----------



## nateo200

Anyone know why there isn't any discrete 7.1 height movies? I know The Expandables 2 was 11.1 Neo:X encoded but both Dolby and DTS allow you to encode a DTS-HD or TrueHD stream in a variety of 7.1 formats and they all can be properly downmixed to 5.1 and stereo. I know the point is probably a tad off topic and moot with Dolby Atmos but Dolby Media Encoder SE and DTS Master Audio Suite encoder have had the options since '09...was it simply because studios only cared about 7.1 rear (if that really) or no AVR could process true Discrete 7.1 outside of the traditional 7.1 rear arrangement? I know my AVR does Dolby Pro Logic IIz height but it won't accept some discrete 7.1 height even if its bitstreamed, it simply gets mixed down to 5.1. 

I posted some screenshots below from Dolby Media Encoder SE. Even Media info recognizes 7.1 height TrueHD, same deal with DTS-HD.



rx3 said:


> I downloaded the "Dolby Atmos Demo Jan 2015.iso" and burned the image onto a bluray. It doesn't play on my XboxOne saying it's an unsupported format. Has anyone got this iso to work? Did I burn it right as an image?


Microsoft doesn't allow burned BD discs to play on the Xbox One, they did it to "curb copyright infringement"...In order to demo it you'd have to have a real pressed BD ROM disc. Really pisses me off since I like the simplicity of using my Xbox One as a BD player. That and the lack of HD audio bitstreaming (I know I know it decodes to LPCM 7.1 but I like my pretty DTS-HD and TrueHD lights, plus my AVR won't do any Pro Logic stuff on HD Audio :/). Anyways, I kept my old Blu-ray player to test the disc, I have three blu-ray players and I simply burned the Atmos demo disc straight to a BD-R 25GB disc (Sony Accucore) and it worked like a charm. Just took the BDMV and Certificate folder and copied that onto the disc and its worked in a variety of players and boy does it sound impressive! I only have a 5.1 set up but tomorrow I'll be playing with Dolby Pro Logic IIz with height channels and see how it sounds, wish I had a better AVR to test it out but even on 5.1 it sounded super impressive.


----------



## richmagnus

Scott Simonian said:


> You say this as if the side sounds would be coming from directly in front of you instead of just slightly more ahead and to the side than perfectly to the side. You'll still hear an effect to your side, just not 90 degrees to your side.
> 
> Anyone with a well laid out 7.1 system that also has a back row will have sound that will sound this way in the back row. It will still sound much more enveloping than if that same room layout had only a 5.1 system.



Agreed. 7.1 with the sides slightly forward of the MLP, especially Tripoles can sound wonderful and often preferable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nightlord said:


> I think it needs different branding for home.


AtmosMini? :wink:


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I seem to recall someone had said 5E done in Atmos was like Auro-matic? That tops were just music?
> 
> Whoever made that comparison either has the worlds worst Atmos setup or has been smoking crack. I just watched the first 30 minutes and the tops were insane with objects moving around. Definitely heavy use. Probably the heaviest I've ever heard. Imaging between the 4 speakers is superb with objects flying above and through the room. Video does not look 20 years old. Beautifully done.
> 
> Not even close to Auro-matic. Crazy, uneducated, poor setup comment to say that. .


Yep. World's worst Atmos setup or smoking crack is how I’d describe it too if someone thinks that on *The Fifth Element* Atmos version all that is happening is that the sounds from the floor level speakers are being copied into the overhead speakers. It takes about 5 minutes of listening to know this is not so. And if one isolates the overheads it is even more obviously not so. 

Maybe it's some sort of wishful thinking - that Atmos is as bad as Auromatic in the way it works!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Atmos doesn't support more than 10 overheads for cinema, surely...


32 in the cinema. 10 at home


----------



## multit

Stoked21 said:


> I seem to recall someone had said 5E done in Atmos was like Auro-matic? That tops were just music?
> Whoever made that comparison either has the worlds worst Atmos setup or has been smoking crack. I just watched the first 30 minutes and the tops were insane with objects moving around. Definitely heavy use. Probably the heaviest I've ever heard. Imaging between the 4 speakers is superb with objects flying above and through the room. Video does not look 20 years old. Beautifully done. Not even close to Auro-matic. Crazy, uneducated, poor setup comment to say that. .


Unfortunately, it seems, you never read my initial posting, because then you would never claim, that I said anything about "That tops were just music?"
Later I wrote, that The Fifth Element is the first of the Atmos releases with a full music score in the heights, but this doesn't exclude other sounds!
Also I never said anything, that there were no objects on the tops or that the height speakers have anything but heavy use...

On the contrary - my conclusion was, that this Atmos release is much better than Auro-Matic and finally I gave The Fifth Element a 10/10 rating.
How this is corresponding with your quoted claims?

It was just the general impression, I got, while watching the first minutes of the movie, because of that new mixing approach!


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> 32 in the cinema. 10 at home


I read the papers on Dolbys page after the link before... and I still haven't found a place clearly stating that... on the contrary on of the papes were showing 5 ceiling zones with speaker arrays of same contents... with Left/Right added to it still makes 10. I'm still searching, though. Let me know if you stumble on a definitive text on it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I read the papers on Dolbys page after the link before... and I still haven't found a place clearly stating that... on the contrary on of the papes were showing 5 ceiling zones with speaker arrays of same contents... with Left/Right added to it still makes 10. I'm still searching, though. Let me know if you stumble on a definitive text on it.


I can do better than that. I have counted the ceiling speakers in two different Atmos theaters


----------



## Skylinestar

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think 9.1.6 would be a great_ base _immersive system for the majority of "normal" people from what I heard at CEDIA. Now, it's up to the manufacturers to see it that way.


Unfortunately, most manufacturers think soundbar is the immersive system for the majority of "normal" people. AVSforummers belong to the "abnormal" group.


----------



## fjerina

tjenkins95 said:


> Someone was recently looking for Nature/Enchanted Kingdom 3D and did not want to purchase the Japanese blu-ray.
> It was just released today in the United States.
> 
> Enchanted Kingdom 3D (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/)


Does anyone know if this was filmed in 3D or not? Some movies are shot with one camera perspective then converted to 3D, like Jurassic World.


----------



## Stoked21

multit said:


> Unfortunately, it seems, you never read my initial posting, because .....!


Ah. He identifies himself. 
You are correct on this statement. I never read anything other than the first couple words of your first post. Then I moved on. 

Atmos 5E was great. What really surprises me is here's a 20 year old movie that is superbly mixed. Then you watch GoT season 1&2. The self proclaimed "First television series broadcast in Atmos". And there's next to nothing overhead. We also watched Max last night, the war dog movie. Im continually impressed with DSU. It makes ten times more use of tops than GoT in Atmos.


----------



## multit

Stoked21 said:


> Ah. He identifies himself.
> You are correct on this statement. I never read anything other than the first couple words of your first post. Then I moved on.
> Atmos 5E was great. What really surprises me is here's a 20 year old movie that is superbly mixed. Then you watch GoT season 1&2. The self proclaimed "First television series broadcast in Atmos". And there's next to nothing overhead. We also watched Max last night, the war dog movie. Im continually impressed with DSU. It makes ten times more use of tops than GoT in Atmos


Well, I don't need to hide 
Yes, 5th element is really great and it's my new no.1 of all available Atmos titles and I watched them quite all since the first came out.
Now we have a wide variety of height speaker engagement from very low (e.g. Transformers IV) to very high and to be honest, I like it, if it's high.
And sticking with both examples, the difference between 7.1 and 7.1.4 listening mode is so remarkable with the Fifth Element while you have to take much effort in order to find any sounds from above in Transformers, so I would consider the heights as very important in order to create this new immersion effect. For Transformers I would not need the heights, but at least it's one of the better 7.1 mixes.

So you are saying, you are disappointed with Atmos in GoT? Because I have this on my "to buy" list, I extra skipped the regular series in order to wait. Now it seems, I should wait for some other reviews before hitting the "order" button.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I can do better than that. I have counted the ceiling speakers in two different Atmos theaters


Did you also verify whether or not some or all of those ceiling speakers were paired (as in: two adjacent speakers receiving the exact same information) as this possibility is part of the Dolby Atmos Specifications.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I can do better than that. I have counted the ceiling speakers in two different Atmos theaters


Which does not mean anything at all. The Dolby paper talks about routing speakers in zones and how many speakers they recommend per zone based on distance. So it's quite likely that several of the speakers you counted will be playing the same signal - not different. Interestingly enough, the diagrams showed 5 zones... adding Left/Right into that makes 10....


----------



## tjenkins95

fjerina said:


> Does anyone know if this was filmed in 3D or not? Some movies are shot with one camera perspective then converted to 3D, like Jurassic World.


 
Yes, it was filmed in 3D.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nightlord said:


> Which does not mean anything at all. The Dolby paper talks about routing speakers in zones and how many speakers they recommend per zone based on distance. So it's quite likely that several of the speakers you counted will be playing the same signal - not different. Interestingly enough, the diagrams showed 5 zones... adding Left/Right into that makes 10....


What you call 'zones' is in the Dolby Atmos Specifications document referred to as 'regions'. They specify a minimum of 4 for the side surrounds but no maximum is mentioned. The table on page 5 displays 7 regions. The overheads pairs should equal the side surround pairs. So with L/R this makes at least 14 discrete overhead channels.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


----------



## Nightlord

maikeldepotter said:


> What you call 'zones' is in the Dolby Atmos Specifications document referred to as 'regions'. They specify a minimum of 4 for the side surrounds but no maximum is mentioned. The table on page 5 displays 7 regions. The overheads pairs should equal the side surround pairs. So with L/R this makes at least 14 discrete overhead channels.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


It's not just me to use zones. In the documentation they write: 



> *4 Surround Zones and Regions*
> B-chain requirements (including the number and distribution of surround loudspeakers and amplifier channels) are specified
> in terms of zones and regions within the cinema. There are five zones: left side, right side, rear, left top, and right top.
> The side and top zones are divided into regions, such that each region contains a pair of left and right side surround loudspeakers,
> except for the front-most (closest to the screen) region(s).


I don't mind calling it region if you prefer than. I rather discuss the real part rather than word definitions, though.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nightlord said:


> It's not just me to call it like that. In the documentation they write:


Exactly. Like 'left top' and 'right top' are zones, which can be divided into regions (minimal 4, maximum ?, but at least 7) which may contain paired speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Which does not mean anything at all. The Dolby paper talks about routing speakers in zones and how many speakers they recommend per zone based on distance. So it's quite likely that several of the speakers you counted will be playing the same signal - not different. Interestingly enough, the diagrams showed 5 zones... adding Left/Right into that makes 10....


I'm not sure any more what it is you're asking... sorry. The point of Atmos is that the speakers are individually addressable. They are nothing like the old surround "arrays".


----------



## bguzman

fjerina said:


> I have an 8 foot flat ceiling with Definitive Technology towers (older BP2002 model) which stand a little over 3.5 feet. Either of these two add-on speakers would sit well on the tower speakers. I hear the Onkyo add-on speakers are an option also.


The Onkyos are pretty highly rated as compared to the Def Techs and cheaper too! Sounds like a winning combo. I would pick some up at a place that will let you return them and give them a whirl. Good luck.


----------



## sdurani

nateo200 said:


> Anyone know why there isn't any discrete 7.1 height movies?


Because no such thing exists for movie sound (7.1 has either been 5 fronts + 2 surrounds or 3 fronts + 4 surrounds).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Though, I am finding that a great amount of music and effects are positioned in the front wide (or front surround, as it were) speakers (they are not remaining dormant just waiting for the odd object to pan-through like the overheads, but rather fully active), as I am using those in my temp setup.
> 
> The mixers may be using them to expand the score's front sound-stage beyond the screen wall, which was one reason for the addition of front surrounds in the cinema version. It does make things sound BIGGER along the front, so they are IMHO an _important ingredient_ for both Atmos and DTS: X (remember, DTS: X was demoed at CEDIA), it's just that we currently have to dump two overheads or two back surrounds to get them right now... we are having to compromise.
> 
> I think 9.1.6 would be a great_ base _immersive system for the majority of "normal" people from what I heard at CEDIA. Now, it's up to the manufacturers to see it that way.


That's excellent, Dan.

Though this is not a new thing. I get imaging where there should be a wide speaker but there isn't one from many movies and music, Atmos or not. Yes, I agree 9.1.6 would be the way to go but it's gonna be a while. I don't agree that most "normal" people would prefer it. Maybe guys like you and I but not "normal" people.


----------



## bkeeler10

Molon_Labe said:


> Put me in the abnormal bunch


+1


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not sure any more what it is you're asking... sorry. The point of Atmos is that the speakers are individually addressable. They are nothing like the old surround "arrays".


That has always been my understanding as well. Although a set of speakers might be grouped as an array, dictated by the mix, each speaker in an Atmos system is discrete in the sense that it can be singled out and addressed independent of all others. AFAIK.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not sure any more what it is you're asking... sorry. The point of Atmos is that the speakers are individually addressable. They are nothing like the old surround "arrays".


Read the Dolby Atmos papers, they DO allow/suggest such things. I didn't know that this morning, but after getting pointed to the cinema specs, I know more and can tell a little more and ask a little less. 
I'm still wondering if there are papers that tell/hint at more than these have done, given what people claim. (But I guess the papers I'd like to read aren't avaliable without signing a non-disclosure agreement.....)


----------



## dkwong

rx3 said:


> I downloaded the "Dolby Atmos Demo Jan 2015.iso" and burned the image onto a bluray. It doesn't play on my XboxOne saying it's an unsupported format. Has anyone got this iso to work? Did I burn it right as an image?



This won't work with the real disc either. The Xbox One doesn't pass Atmos data to the receiver.

http://forums.xbox.com/xbox_support/xbox_one_support/f/4269/t/1985885.aspx


----------



## bass addict

peterfram said:


> Those look like Axiom QS8 surrounds? I have the same speakers for my surrounds with Atmos 7.1.4. In case it helps, mine are mounted even closer to the ceiling than yours. Sound is fantastic and I sense objects moving around and behind me quite well in full 360 horizontal plane, especially with the Atmos demo clips.
> 
> However I suspect I'm losing some object separation sense with objects moving overhead towards the right or left due to two factors. 1) Obviously surrounds placed well above ear level, and 2) the QS8 speakers are basically dual bipoles with all 4 drivers firing in phase in 4 different directions. Atmos should benefit from a more standard direct surround speaker if I understand correctly. With all these speakers in my Atmos setup (including rears) I don't think bipole/4 drivers add anything in this equation but I can see why they hide some of the object isolation in 3D sound. In a future remodel I may sadly replace my beloved QS8s with more direct firing surrounds that should work better with Atmos. I'm in no hurry to do this because my sound is quite nice even though not perfect for 3D. Not enough content to worry about it yet.


I concur. Even after replacing all of my Axioms with a DIY SEOS setup; I couldn't bring myself to get rid of the QS8's. They are just that good. Very enveloping without drawing any attention to themselves. I called them the "pre atmos" speakers lol. 

I initially wanted to leave them, but also felt the object isolation would suffer. I definitely think a direct firing driver would lend itself much better as a surround in an Atmos setup. 

All you guys running Atmos; how much separation do you have between your tops and surrounds?


----------



## rx3

dkwong said:


> This won't work with the real disc either. The Xbox One doesn't pass Atmos data to the receiver.
> 
> http://forums.xbox.com/xbox_support/xbox_one_support/f/4269/t/1985885.aspx





nateo200 said:


> Anyone know why there isn't any discrete 7.1 height movies? I know The Expandables 2 was 11.1 Neo:X encoded but both Dolby and DTS allow you to encode a DTS-HD or TrueHD stream in a variety of 7.1 formats and they all can be properly downmixed to 5.1 and stereo. I know the point is probably a tad off topic and moot with Dolby Atmos but Dolby Media Encoder SE and DTS Master Audio Suite encoder have had the options since '09...was it simply because studios only cared about 7.1 rear (if that really) or no AVR could process true Discrete 7.1 outside of the traditional 7.1 rear arrangement? I know my AVR does Dolby Pro Logic IIz height but it won't accept some discrete 7.1 height even if its bitstreamed, it simply gets mixed down to 5.1.
> 
> I posted some screenshots below from Dolby Media Encoder SE. Even Media info recognizes 7.1 height TrueHD, same deal with DTS-HD.
> 
> 
> Microsoft doesn't allow burned BD discs to play on the Xbox One, they did it to "curb copyright infringement"...In order to demo it you'd have to have a real pressed BD ROM disc. Really pisses me off since I like the simplicity of using my Xbox One as a BD player. That and the lack of HD audio bitstreaming (I know I know it decodes to LPCM 7.1 but I like my pretty DTS-HD and TrueHD lights, plus my AVR won't do any Pro Logic stuff on HD Audio :/). Anyways, I kept my old Blu-ray player to test the disc, I have three blu-ray players and I simply burned the Atmos demo disc straight to a BD-R 25GB disc (Sony Accucore) and it worked like a charm. Just took the BDMV and Certificate folder and copied that onto the disc and its worked in a variety of players and boy does it sound impressive! I only have a 5.1 set up but tomorrow I'll be playing with Dolby Pro Logic IIz with height channels and see how it sounds, wish I had a better AVR to test it out but even on 5.1 it sounded super impressive.



Thanks. More and more reasons to get rid of XboxOne and get a true bluray player...sigh


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Read the Dolby Atmos papers, they DO allow/suggest such things.


If by such things you mean arrays, well of course. The whole point is that each speaker is individually addressable, so if the mixer wants to put the same content in the lot, he can and if he wants to treat each speaker separately, he can.


----------



## dschulz

bkeeler10 said:


> That has always been my understanding as well. Although a set of speakers might be grouped as an array, dictated by the mix, each speaker in an Atmos system is discrete in the sense that it can be singled out and addressed independent of all others. AFAIK.


This is true, but we should be careful not to imply that Atmos is just a 64 channel system. Each individual speaker can be addressed independently *by the renderer* but not by the mixer on the dubbing stage. Object placement in the mix is done by adjusting size, duration, placement and movement in XYZ space, not speaker by speaker.

The 9.1 bed channels are of course directly addressable by the mixer.

In other words, the mixer says "place this sound towards the ceiling, 4/5 of the way back into the auditorium" not "place this sound in the 2nd ceiling speaker from the back." One of the points of object-based mixing is to make sure the mix plays back correctly in a theater with a number of speakers different from that of the dubbing stage.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> If by such things you mean arrays, well of course. The whole point is that each speaker is individually addressable, so if the mixer wants to put the same content in the lot, he can and if he wants to treat each speaker separately, he can.


Keith, you really do need to read the white paper on this, you're not operating with all the required info. It is NOT necessarily the case that every single speaker is individually addressible, the Atmos cinema specs allow for speakers to be "paired" within the regions.

For example check out this whitepaper: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf

On page 6 they discuss pairing of side surrounds. On page 7 they discuss pairing of top surrounds. Here's a quote on the top surrounds, the only speakers that are REQUIRED to be uniquely addressable are the front-most speakers in the array. The other speakers could theoretically be paired. So if you look up and see two arrays of 7 speakers, it doesn't mean there are 14 inividually addressable speakers, it could (theoretically) be only 8, with the front-most top surrounds and then three pairs going towards the back.



> 4.2.1 Pairing and Culling Top Surround Loudspeakers
> Two loudspeakers within the same zone and region can be paired (driven by a single amplifier) or replaced by a single
> loudspeaker (culled) to jointly optimize for uniform coverage, power efficiency, spatial resolution, and system complexity.
> 
> To pair top surround loudspeakers, follow these guidelines:
> • The loudspeakers must be in the same region and zone (for example, rear-most region on the left side surround
> zone).
> • The left and right zones must be the same, that is, both must be discrete or paired.
> • Paired loudspeakers must be of the same make and model.
> • All paired loudspeakers must be located to the rear of discrete, unpaired loudspeakers. When pairing loudspeakers,
> start by pairing the rear-most region, and then move forward.
> 
> *Note: The front-most left and right top surround loudspeaker are always located in their own region and must not be
> paired.*


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Read the Dolby Atmos papers, they DO allow/suggest such things.


Each speaker (or pair) still has to be individually addressable, since Atmos allows objects to pan through the arrays (which is different than sending the same signal to multiple speakers).


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It is NOT necessarily the case that every single speaker is individually addressible, the Atmos cinema specs allow for speakers to be "paired" within the regions.


As long as we're keeping it clear that the above is for the Atmos cinema spec, NOT the home Atmos spec. With both being discussed simultaneously, I'm not sure which one Keith was referring to.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Batpig tends to mix up things from Atmos cinema and home often.


----------



## bkeeler10

dschulz said:


> This is true, but we should be careful not to imply that Atmos is just a 64 channel system. Each individual speaker can be addressed independently *by the renderer* but not by the mixer on the dubbing stage. Object placement in the mix is done by adjusting size, duration, placement and movement in XYZ space, not speaker by speaker.
> 
> The 9.1 bed channels are of course directly addressable by the mixer.
> 
> In other words, the mixer says "place this sound towards the ceiling, 4/5 of the way back into the auditorium" not "place this sound in the 2nd ceiling speaker from the back." One of the points of object-based mixing is to make sure the mix plays back correctly in a theater with a number of speakers different from that of the dubbing stage.


This is a good point - only bed channels have information specifically for them. All speakers not connected to bed channels are discrete, but the mixer has control over what goes where only indirectly by informing the encoder where he wants sounds placed; the renderer decides, based on speaker count and location, which speakers get what information in order to present the mixer's intent. Is that right?


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> This is true, but we should be careful not to imply that Atmos is just a 64 channel system. Each individual speaker can be addressed independently *by the renderer* but not by the mixer on the dubbing stage. Object placement in the mix is done by adjusting size, duration, placement and movement in XYZ space, not speaker by speaker.
> 
> The 9.1 bed channels are of course directly addressable by the mixer.
> 
> In other words, the mixer says "place this sound towards the ceiling, 4/5 of the way back into the auditorium" not "place this sound in the 2nd ceiling speaker from the back." One of the points of object-based mixing is to make sure the mix plays back correctly in a theater with a number of speakers different from that of the dubbing stage.





batpig said:


> Keith, you really do need to read the white paper on this, you're not operating with all the required info. It is NOT necessarily the case that every single speaker is individually addressible, the Atmos cinema specs allow for speakers to be "paired" within the regions.


Two things seem to be getting conflated here. Each speaker can be individually addressed by the renderer, but not by the mixer. I didn't say that each speaker has to be individually addressable, just that they can be.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Batpig tends to mix up things from Atmos cinema and home often.


----------



## dschulz

bkeeler10 said:


> This is a good point - only bed channels have information specifically for them. All speakers not connected to bed channels are discrete, but the mixer has control over what goes where only indirectly by informing the encoder where he wants sounds placed; the renderer decides, based on speaker count and location, which speakers get what information in order to present the mixer's intent. Is that right?


That is correct, except as was pointed out above I got one thing wrong, which is the cinema Atmos specification does in some cases now permit "paired" speakers. My understanding is this was a revision to the original Atmos spec, in part due to research that indicated that with tall ceiling "pairing" could be done without affecting performance and in part due to an attempt to control the sometimes extravagant costs of an Atmos installation.


----------



## Nightlord

Yes, to understand what has been done to the home cinema Atmos one has to fully understand the difference vs. cinema. That is what started that line of discussion. 

Sorry if it confuses, perhaps it would be better off in a separate thread.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Each speaker (or pair) still has to be individually addressable, since Atmos allows objects to pan through the arrays (which is different than sending the same signal to multiple speakers).


No, Dolby are referring to a pair of speakers driven off the same (mono) amplifier.

Note: it's referring to Dolbys Cinema-Atmos papers, not "[email protected]".


----------



## NorthSky

Skylinestar said:


> Unfortunately, most manufacturers think *soundbar* is the immersive system for the majority of "normal" people.
> AVSforummers belong to the "abnormal" group.







*______________________*


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Yes, to understand what has been done to the home cinema Atmos one has to fully understand the difference vs. cinema.


No, home Atmos is a separate spec, which can be fully understood without knowing anything about the cinema spec.


> Sorry if it confuses, perhaps it would be better off in a separate thread.


If you discussed it in the theatrical Atmos thread, wouldn't that cut into your campaign to disparage home Atmos for not being theatrical Atmos?


Nightlord said:


> No, Dolby are referring to a pair of speakers driven off the same (mono) amplifier.


That's why I said each speaker or pair has to be addressable.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> *I agree 9.1.6 would be the way to go but it's gonna be a while. I don't agree that most "normal" people would prefer it.
> Maybe guys like you and I but not "normal" people.*


We might see Dolby Atmos *9.1.4* next year (2016).
And we might see Dolby Atmos *9.1.6* the year after (2017-18). ...For "normal" people, like all the ones from this thread...and beyond.


----------



## stikle

dormie1360 said:


> Bears are losing again.



Know how to keep bears out of your front yard? Put a goal post in it.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott said:


> ****** tends to mix up things from Atmos cinema and home often.


Don't we all do occasionally?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> We might see Dolby Atmos *9.1.4* next year (2016).
> And we might see Dolby Atmos *9.1.6* the year after (2017-18). ...For "normal" people, like all the ones from this thread...and beyond.


Might....Maybe...



NorthSky said:


> Don't we all do occasionally?


No, not all.


----------



## bass addict

For my room; the ideal setup would be 9.1.4. Even though there hasn't been any discreet height channel info; I really love my height channels run through my A5000. Just a wall of sound with no holes.


----------



## bargervais

petetherock said:


> If there was anymore action, you will be changing into your safari outfit and carrying that shotgun..
> Forget Terminator and all those action movies.. this is the ultimate Atmos demo.
> 
> Remember Atmos is not about booms, bombs and such..
> 
> (caveat, my copy is the Japanese version, but I am assuming this USA version should be just as good).


Yes forget Terminator, mind you how good it is for Atmos... I got my copy of Enchanted Kingdom I must agree, this one is now my Atmos demo disk, thank god for the BBC the video and Atmos audio is top notch. Not sure but I think this U.S. release is the same as the Japanese one. I have always enjoyed these planet earth Blu-Rays. The U.S. version was Seventeen dollars a bargain for a new release.


----------



## petetherock

Try in a room with a low noise level..or listen to it on a quiet night.. There's no need to play it loud. It can be used to demo Idris' voice and test your centre speaker, or demo those ceiling speakers. Then use it to showcase your tv or projector....

You want insect sounds? Check 
Leaves flying? Check
Rain? Check

Rivers rumbling ? Check

Only gripe it's not Sir Attenborough and it costs $50 for my version...


----------



## bargervais

petetherock said:


> Try in a room with a low noise level..or listen to it on a quiet night.. There's no need to play it loud. It can be used to demo Idris' voice and test your centre speaker, or demo those ceiling speakers. Then use it to showcase your tv or projector....
> 
> You want insect sounds? Check
> Leaves flying? Check
> Rain? Check
> 
> Rivers rumbling ? Check
> 
> Only gripe it's not Sir Attenborough and it costs $50 for my version...


Check, check check and check again


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> As long as we're keeping it clear that the above is for the Atmos cinema spec, NOT the home Atmos spec. With both being discussed simultaneously, I'm not sure which one Keith was referring to.


It seemed pretty clear to me we were discussing the cinema spec based on the context leading up...



kbarnes701 said:


> 32 in the cinema. 10 at home





Nightlord said:


> I read the papers on Dolbys page after the link before... and I still haven't found a place clearly stating that... on the contrary on of the papes were showing 5 ceiling zones with speaker arrays of same contents... with Left/Right added to it still makes 10. I'm still searching, though. Let me know if you stumble on a definitive text on it.





kbarnes701 said:


> I can do better than that. I have counted the ceiling speakers in two different Atmos theaters





maikeldepotter said:


> Did you also verify whether or not some or all of those ceiling speakers were paired (as in: two adjacent speakers receiving the exact same information) as this possibility is part of the Dolby Atmos Specifications.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Two things seem to be getting conflated here. Each speaker can be individually addressed by the renderer, but not by the mixer. I didn't say that each speaker has to be individually addressable, just that they can be.


I'm not conflating anything, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the cinema Atmos spec allows for PAIRED speakers in the surround arrays that are actually NOT individually addressable. They are addressed as a pair (i.e. a single output from the renderer produced by the pair of speakers).


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> I agree 9.1.6 would be the way to go but it's gonna be a while. I don't agree that most "normal" people would prefer it. Maybe guys like you and I but not "normal" people.





NorthSky said:


> We might see Dolby Atmos *9.1.4* next year (2016).
> And we might see Dolby Atmos *9.1.6* the year after (2017-18). ...For "normal" people, like all the ones from this thread...and beyond.


Count me in with the "new normal," and in time...attrition will take care of the "old normal."...hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## gene4ht

tjenkins95 said:


> Someone was recently looking for Nature/Enchanted Kingdom 3D and did not want to purchase the Japanese blu-ray. It was just released today in the United States.
> 
> Enchanted Kingdom 3D (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/)





bargervais said:


> Ordered it from Amazon and low and behold it's already back ordered.  went to my local best buy not there I'll keep looking. But I may have to wait for a restock on Amazon. Next stop Target.


I pre-ordered from Amazon early last week with a delivery date of yesterday (Tues) only to receive an email saying there is a shipment delay and will be delivered Friday. Where did you finally pick up a copy?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> That's excellent, Dan.
> 
> Though this is not a new thing. I get imaging where there should be a wide speaker but there isn't one from many movies and music, Atmos or not. Yes, I agree 9.1.6 would be the way to go but it's gonna be a while. I don't agree that most "normal" people would prefer it. Maybe guys like you and I but not "normal" people.


Hence the air quotes around normal.  Compared to the Trinnov or Steinway crowd, we are _definitely_ normal immersive audio folk. 

With the aggressive nature of the Front Surround content that I've experience so far, I don't think phantom imaging would truly be a substitute for the real thing to physically recreate what the engineers were going for. I'll have to suck it up and snag _Gravity _Diamond Luxe on Black Friday as that utilizes the FW's for off-screen dialog placement, not just for music and sound F/X. 

You should have come to CEDIA this year, Scott, as it had much better examples of Atmos and now X content. The JBL Synthesis booth, for instance, was excellent this time around. And you would have drooled over the new Barco laser projector: the best image quality I've ever seen!


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> No, home Atmos is a separate spec, which can be fully understood without knowing anything about the cinema spec. If you discussed it in the theatrical Atmos thread, wouldn't that cut into your campaign to disparage home Atmos for not being theatrical Atmos?


*sigh* I don't have one. 

I'm interested in the MEDIA CONTENTS of Atmos. From how the movie is mixed in Atmos to what is left on a BluRay and how they compare (and thus what could be done with the data, say if you would like to postprocess objects yourself).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I'm not conflating anything, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the cinema Atmos spec allows for PAIRED speakers in the surround arrays that are actually NOT individually addressable. They are addressed as a pair (i.e. a single output from the renderer produced by the pair of speakers).


Yes but they don't _have_ to be addressed as a pair - they can be individually addressed. The original point I was making to Nightlord was that there are 32 speakers on the ceiling (max) in an Atmos cinema not 10, which, IIRC, was his assertion.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> I'm interested in the MEDIA CONTENTS of Atmos. From how the movie is mixed in Atmos


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...oring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf


----------



## bargervais

gene4ht said:


> I pre-ordered from Amazon early last week with a delivery date of yesterday (Tues) only to receive an email saying there is a shipment delay and will be delivered Friday. Where did you finally pick up a copy?


I got mine at best buy, the funny thing is at first I couldn't find it, I looked in the new release section it wasn't there, then I looked through their 3D section again it wasn't there. They had it in their B section I guess B for BBC.. Anyway I got it for seventeen dollars, it's now my favorite Atmos Blu-Ray for an Atmos demo session for friends and family. Plus who wouldn't love this beautifully presented video with sound all around.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> I got mine at best buy, the funny thing is at first I couldn't find it, I looked in the new release section it wasn't there, then I looked through their 3D section again it wasn't there. They had it in their B section I guess B for BBC.. Anyway I got it for seventeen dollars, it's now my favorite Atmos Blu-Ray for an Atmos demo session for friends and family. Plus who wouldn't love this beautifully presented video with sound all around.


 
I also purchased mine from Best Buy. In the morning I ordered it on their website and picked it up at lunch time. One of the members on the bluray.com forum mentioned that the video on the Japanese version has a much higher bitrate than the US version. I watched it last night and it looks great to me!


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...oring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf


Thanks, will print and read. (That does specifically say cinema... is there another one for authoring for home-atmos? )


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> I also purchased mine from Best Buy. In the morning I ordered it on their website and picked it up at lunch time. One of the members on the bluray.com forum mentioned that the video on the Japanese version has a much higher bitrate than the US version. I watched it last night and it looks great to me!


Enchanted Kingdom codec is different on Japanese version verses the U.S. version.
The Japanese version has Codec: MPEG-4 AVC (33.07 Mbps) The U.S. version Codec: MPEG-4 MVC (19.97 Mbps)
But I thought the video presentation was excellent. Atoms is excellent also.


----------



## Stoked21

I'm in no rush, so I preordered the Enchanted Kingdom from Amazon. I have about 10 Atmos movies to watch still plus nearly all of season 2 GoT.
With all the reviews, this sounds like this might be an awesome demo to show to people and use as setup/evaluation.

We all know that the holiday season is the big push for BD releases. What Atmos titles is everyone else waiting for? My short list (not sure if all of these will be Atmos for US releases though):

Ant Man
Fantastic Four
Maze Runner Scorch
Minions
MI


----------



## mcascio

I didn't notice any reference to Atmos on this US listing from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Enchanted-Kin...p/B013JBJ6MO/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8

Wanted to double check before ordering if anyone can confirm.

Is it only the Japanese version that contains Atmos?

Thanks.


----------



## tjenkins95

bargervais said:


> Enchanted Kingdom codec is different on Japanese version verses the U.S. version.
> The Japanese version has Codec: MPEG-4 AVC (33.07 Mbps) The U.S. version Codec: MPEG-4 MVC (19.97 Mbps)
> But I thought the video presentation was excellent. Atoms is excellent also.



Where did you find the codecs for the two versions?
Thanks.


----------



## dkwong

Stoked21 said:


> Fantastic Four



This movie is so bad.


----------



## Stoked21

dkwong said:


> This movie is so bad.



Oh it's horrible! I almost walked out of the theater. But I was thinking....if it was in Atmos, the top channels would have to be crazy on it. I'd give it a second run in my HT just to hear it. Personally I wasn't a fan of the new MI either. I gave up on those after the first one. But, I'm a fool for all the new Atmos discs and still grab them all when released. Once a majority of BD discs start to feature Atmos or X, I'll be much more selective. So for now, F4 is still on my list.....

It is truly horrible.....No action until the last 10 minutes of the movie....And WONDERFUL acting. LOL


----------



## bargervais

tjenkins95 said:


> Where did you find the codecs for the two versions?
> Thanks.



http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-Blu-ray/111241/

Video
Codec: MPEG-4 AVC (33.07 Mbps)
Resolution: 1080p
Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-Blu-ray/138167/ 

Video
Codec: MPEG-4 MVC (19.97 Mbps)
Resolution: 1080p
Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> I'm in no rush, so I preordered the Enchanted Kingdom from Amazon. I have about 10 Atmos movies to watch still plus nearly all of season 2 GoT.
> With all the reviews, this sounds like this might be an awesome demo to show to people and use as setup/evaluation.
> 
> We all know that the holiday season is the big push for BD releases. What Atmos titles is everyone else waiting for? My short list (not sure if all of these will be Atmos for US releases though):
> 
> Ant Man
> Fantastic Four
> Maze Runner Scorch
> Minions
> MI


You'll enjoy it by the way it looks like Game of Thrones seasons 3 and 4 will be released with Atmos in two months.i know its not in time for Christmas but It's coming none the less.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> 347 miles, in my case. Interstellar was shown in over 40 film-based IMAX screens (3 local to me in the L.A. area). By comparison, Star Wars is being shown in only 11 film-based IMAX screens (my nearest one is in San Jose, and it's one of those dome-style IMAX screens - blech). That's a 75% drop in number of theatres.


Such a drag... I wish they could have just charged an extra fee for adding the 70mm projector, I woulda payed at least an extra 10 bucks to see it that way... seems like a dumb move on the theater chain's part if that was their decision.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hence the air quotes around normal.  Compared to the Trinnov or Steinway crowd, we are _definitely_ normal immersive audio folk.
> 
> With the aggressive nature of the Front Surround content that I've experience so far, I don't think phantom imaging would truly be a substitute for the real thing to physically recreate what the engineers were going for. I'll have to suck it up and snag _Gravity _Diamond Luxe on Black Friday as that utilizes the FW's for off-screen dialog placement, not just for music and sound F/X.
> 
> You should have come to CEDIA this year, Scott, as it had much better examples of Atmos and now X content. The JBL Synthesis booth, for instance, was excellent this time around. And you would have drooled over the new Barco laser projector: the best image quality I've ever seen!


Thanks, Dan. I would have liked to go but it wasn't in the cards for this year. Too many expenses this year. Couldn't swing the hotel/flight combo for this year. I don't feel too bad about missing this year. Not much going on from DTS and at this point now owning Atmos, I don't need to the 'demo experience' anymore. I've got it at home and it's wonderfully immersive and holographic at times. Wasn't at all impressive with the sound of the Synthesis room last time. Was disappointed in it but the gear was sure drool worthy. I can see how that JBL sound can make an impression. Just like my JBL Pro avatar.   I get to experience that any time I want. 


Still curious of your "aggressive nature of front surround content" when all those demos were 7.1.4 with an extra set of side surrounds.  Yes, the surrounds can be aggressive. Just slide them ahead of your MLP from now on.  Pretty much everybody that is doing this now is enjoying the results. 

But anyway... hopefully I'll catch the next CEDIA.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stoked21 said:


> I'm in no rush, so I preordered the Enchanted Kingdom from Amazon. I have about 10 Atmos movies to watch still plus nearly all of season 2 GoT.
> With all the reviews, this sounds like this might be an awesome demo to show to people and use as setup/evaluation.
> 
> We all know that the holiday season is the big push for BD releases. What Atmos titles is everyone else waiting for? My short list (not sure if all of these will be Atmos for US releases though):
> 
> Ant Man
> Fantastic Four
> Maze Runner Scorch
> Minions
> MI


Ant Man = Disney right? No for that probably. Same for Fantastic 4. 

The last Maze Runner was released in 7.1 BD if that release is of any indication. 

I think Minions was supposed to be atmos right? 
Same thing with MI, before X mas too I believe. Good atmos mix too!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ant Man = Disney right? No for that probably. Same for Fantastic 4.
> 
> The last Maze Runner was released in 7.1 BD if that release is of any indication.
> 
> I think Minions was supposed to be atmos right?
> Same thing with MI, before X mas too I believe. Good atmos mix too!


Maze Runner Scorch Trials is already confirmed at 7.1 DTS-HD MA. No Atmos, as this is a Fox release.

Minions and MI are confirmed as Atmos releases.


----------



## batpig

mcascio said:


> I didn't notice any reference to Atmos on this US listing from Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/Enchanted-Kin...p/B013JBJ6MO/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8
> 
> Wanted to double check before ordering if anyone can confirm.
> 
> Is it only the Japanese version that contains Atmos?
> 
> Thanks.


Several people have already confirmed that this USA release does have Atmos. Someone posted a photo of the back of the case which does show the Atmos logo.


----------



## fjerina

Anyone out there have experience with the ELAC Debut A4 add-on speakers. Would you recommend them?


----------



## rx3

Guys, I just found out you can get FREE Atmos Demo streams from Vudu. You have to sign up with Vudu, but you can bypass any payment information by choosing "do this later". Here's the info Dolby sent me:


If you are a home theater enthusiast, you can now find Dolby Atmos trailers on Vudu®. You can easily access them from a Dolby Atmos ready streaming device connected to your AVR. Most Blu-ray™ players with the Vudu app will work, in addition to the PlayStation®4 console, Roku® devices, and the new Vudu Spark™ stick.





*Step One:* Visit Vudu on your Dolby Atmos ready streaming device, and ensure that it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos enabled AVR, set for bitstream pass-through or surround sound (the setting language may vary by device).





*Step Two:* Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle, and get it for free by selecting “Purchase for $0.” In this bundle, you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.





*Step Three:* Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should indicate “Dolby Atmos.”





Keep an eye on Dolby Atmos Blu-ray releases on Dolby.com:


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html





Please refer to the following additional resources on Dolby Atmos for the home at your convenience:





Dolby blog posts about Dolby Atmos for home theater:


http://blog.dolby.com/category/home-theater/





The Dolby Atmos technology page on Dolby.com:


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos.html





The Dolby.com speaker setup guide and downloadable resources:


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html





Thank you for your interest in Dolby Atmos for the home.


----------



## lujan

dkwong said:


> This movie is so bad.


While I have to agree that it was worse than the previous Fantastic Four movies I still think it was much better than Jupiter Ascending.


----------



## dkwong

lujan said:


> While I have to agree that it was worse than the previous Fantastic Four movies I still think it was much better than Jupiter Ascending.


I would disagree with you here. I think F4 is much worse than JA.


----------



## batpig

I feel like there's enough Atmos material out now (with plenty more to come especially once the UHD floodgates open) that people shouldn't buy horrible movies they didn't like just to hear some sound on the ceiling.


----------



## MarkMul1

Got the Enchanted Kingdom at Target today. Popped in for a few seconds and it certainly is playing in Atmos. 
Shall be a jungle in my living room later tonight.
Fun Fun


----------



## Spanglo

batpig said:


> I feel like there's enough Atmos material out now (with plenty more to come especially once the UHD floodgates open) that people shouldn't buy horrible movies they didn't like just to hear some sound on the ceiling.


So glad I can actually enjoy (reluctantly) mediocre movies, cuz 90% of the atmos releases are in that category. Thank the heavens I don't have D. Hitchman's taste in movies or I'd would have watched only 2 atmos movies thus far.


----------



## gene4ht

gene4ht said:


> I pre-ordered from Amazon early last week with a delivery date of yesterday (Tues) only to receive an email saying there is a shipment delay and will be delivered Friday. Where did you finally pick up a copy?


As of today (Thurs)...still no notification of shipment....cancelled order late this A.M.



bargervais said:


> I got mine at best buy, the funny thing is at first I couldn't find it, I looked in the new release section it wasn't there, then I looked through their 3D section again it wasn't there. They had it in their B section I guess B for BBC.. Anyway I got it for seventeen dollars, it's now my favorite Atmos Blu-Ray for an Atmos demo session for friends and family. Plus who wouldn't love this beautifully presented video with sound all around.


After cancelling the Amazon order, I ordered on-line from Best Buy...and was notified soon after that it was out of stock...even though it showed "available" when I initially ordered it. Could it be that BB's order entry and inventory systems don't talk to each other real time?



tjenkins95 said:


> I also purchased mine from Best Buy. In the morning I ordered it on their website and picked it up at lunch time. One of the members on the bluray.com forum mentioned that the video on the Japanese version has a much higher bitrate than the US version. I watched it last night and it looks great to me!


I then reordered on-line from a different Best Buy and picked it up this afternoon. From all your reports, I have a treat waiting for me this weekend....when time permits for a family viewing.


----------



## MarkMul1

I'm 3/4 thru the Enchanted Kindom right now and I can say it is an excellent use of Atmos. I keep finding myself not even watching the screen but keyed in on the sound. The video is awesome, just keep mentally getting side tracked. 

On the bonus side, I have not yet been lectured to about Global Cooling / warming / change yet. Thought for sure it was going to be a propaganda film. I'm still not finished yet. 

The waves in the ocean segment is pretty cool.


----------



## Steven James 2

Hey everyone! Just got 2 new 12" subs and im wondering what people found for best placement? Front/rear or left/right? Any input is appreciated!! Thanks!!


----------



## batpig

Steven James 2 said:


> Hey everyone! Just got 2 new 12" subs and im wondering what people found for best placement? Front/rear or left/right? Any input is appreciated!! Thanks!!


While an interesting question, this really has nothing to do with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Steven James 2

batpig said:


> While an interesting question, this really has nothing to do with Dolby Atmos.


I know its not dolby atmos specific i just thought input from people with atmos setups might be able to provide a good start for me since im building my first atmos setup.... Guess i was wrong.


----------



## MarkMul1

Finished Enchanted Kindom. 

Never got hit with propaganda. 

Non Stop hour and half Atmos demo. Wow

Did not see that comin. Usually don't like surprises but certainly will take them like this all day long.


----------



## Stoked21

Leon the Professional. 
Only has minimal Atmos use. I think it was really nice at times during the explosions. Honestly, they probably could not have used the tops anymore without it sounding odd or out of place. It was a nice minimalistic approach that was fitting for the story and scenarios. I think this is how most non-science-fiction movies will need to utilize Atmos. 

Stoker Dracula. 
Only about half way through the movie so far. I can't believe how much the tops are utilized. The storm scenes are quite insane. Lots of creepy moaning and wails throughout the room are elevated and emanate from nowhere. Gasps howls groans and moans are everywhere. Several severe thunderstorms have blown through my room. Music constantly makes a slow escalating crescendo from bed channels to a whole room immersive bubble. It's an amazing new soundscape. 

All in all I've been thoroughly impressed with 5E and Dracula. Sony is doing one hell of a job with Atmos. Thank you Sony!!!!


----------



## gene4ht

Steven James 2 said:


> Hey everyone! Just got 2 new 12" subs and im wondering what people found for best placement? Front/rear or left/right? Any input is appreciated!! Thanks!!





batpig said:


> While an interesting question, this really has nothing to do with Dolby Atmos.


Your question is better served and should be asked in the subwoofer thread. This being said, there is no one correct place to position subwoofers. It's dependent on a number of factors...primary is your room. Post your question in the sub thread and you'll receive the proper information and assistance you're looking for...first of which will be the "sub crawl."


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> Leon the Professional.
> Only has minimal Atmos use. I think it was really nice at times during the explosions. Honestly, they probably could not have used the tops anymore without it sounding odd or out of place. It was a nice minimalistic approach that was fitting for the story and scenarios. I think this is how most non-science-fiction movies will need to utilize Atmos.
> 
> Stoker Dracula.
> Only about half way through the movie so far. I can't believe how much the tops are utilized. The storm scenes are quite insane. Lots of creepy moaning and wails throughout the room are elevated and emanate from nowhere. Gasps howls groans and moans are everywhere. Several severe thunderstorms have blown through my room. Music constantly makes a slow escalating crescendo from bed channels to a whole room immersive bubble. It's an amazing new soundscape.
> 
> All in all I've been thoroughly impressed with 5E and Dracula. Sony is doing one hell of a job with Atmos. Thank you Sony!!!!


Leon the Professional is an awesome, classic movie, but I frankly thought it was a really odd choice for an Atmos remix as the surround mix isn't really that involving. As you say, it's somewhat of a spare, minimalist movie. Now, a remaster is fine, and maybe the Atmos part of it is just par for the course with Sony's remastering, but I don't think I'm going to buy this one just for the Atmos mix.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

You can add Pan to the list of Atmos movies ! Maybe it will compete with Jupiter Ascending as worst Atmos movie ?

I dare to say I actually liked Jupiter Ascending, I'm sooooo easy !


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> Gasps howls groans and moans are everywhere


You sure you not watching something else and just don't want us to judge you?


----------



## dkwong

SteveTheGeek said:


> You can add Pan to the list of Atmos movies ! Maybe it will compete with Jupiter Ascending as worst Atmos movie ?
> 
> I dare to say I actually liked Jupiter Ascending, I'm sooooo easy !



Also a horrible movie. Ugh.


----------



## sdurani

SteveTheGeek said:


> You can add Pan to the list of Atmos movies !


That brings it up to 4 titles so far in December (Roger Waters: The Wall, Minions, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Pan).


----------



## Carrick

Steven James 2 said:


> I know its not dolby atmos specific i just thought input from people with atmos setups might be able to provide a good start for me since im building my first atmos setup.... Guess i was wrong.


Depends on the shape of the room, but all else being equal - front and back.


----------



## petetherock

MarkMul1 said:


> Finished Enchanted Kindom.
> 
> Never got hit with propaganda.
> 
> Non Stop hour and half Atmos demo. Wow
> 
> Did not see that comin. Usually don't like surprises but certainly will take them like this all day long.


Told ya... 
Now put in back in again for another spin..
I watched Mad Max yesterday, and sure it was a boom fest, basically a car chase on steroids done in a Book of Eli / Waterworld way, but Enchanted Kingdom is hands down better!
Max - little Atmos action IMO... crows buzzing etc...

Plus it's environmental message is so subtle that you won't find it a drag - ie just by looking at the scenery you want to do something to preserve it...


----------



## Stoked21

petetherock said:


> Told ya...
> Plus it's environmental message is so subtle that you won't find it a drag - ie just by looking at the scenery you want to do something to preserve it...


Something Like chop down trees to make more speaker enclosures....


----------



## Stoked21

So I had an epiphany after running my system with no subs last week and hearing how much LF comes from Atmos tops. Had it again today when I heard so much elevated mid bass coming from above during Dracula. I know some of you have built custom angled boxes for KEF or JBL or other speakers. I think doublewing did as well and they looked great. 

I'm starting to think a 7" driver is border line large enough. I'm not convinced a sub 6" driver is ideal for tops. Sure it will work and sound great. But the quest for better.....

Expensive option. But has anyone tried JTR slant S8 or s8 lp? They look supreme at $1800/pair. I bet they sound beautiful with the dynamic power, large coaxial driver and ultra flat linear response.....


----------



## smurraybhm

MarkMul1 said:


> Got the Enchanted Kingdom at Target today. Popped in for a few seconds and it certainly is playing in Atmos.
> Shall be a jungle in my living room later tonight.
> Fun Fun


Picked it up at BB this afternoon. Just finished it and it is a great disk in the video and audio departments. Sorry not a 3D fan, but I know we have some on this thread like Bob so it's good to see a solid option for them in that department. I suspect the 3D isn't bad either give all the scenes I suspect take advantage of the pop out or added depth.

Definitely a great Atmos demo as others have said. Steve


----------



## SherazNJ

petetherock said:


> Told ya...
> Now put in back in again for another spin..
> I watched Mad Max yesterday, and sure it was a boom fest, basically a car chase on steroids done in a Book of Eli / Waterworld way, but Enchanted Kingdom is hands down better!
> Max - little Atmos action IMO... crows buzzing etc...
> 
> Plus it's environmental message is so subtle that you won't find it a drag - ie just by looking at the scenery you want to do something to preserve it...


Is there a link to buy Enchanted Kingdom online with Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks, Dan. I would have liked to go but it wasn't in the cards for this year. Too many expenses this year. Couldn't swing the hotel/flight combo for this year. I don't feel too bad about missing this year. Not much going on from DTS and at this point now owning Atmos, I don't need to the 'demo experience' anymore. I've got it at home and it's wonderfully immersive and holographic at times. Wasn't at all impressive with the sound of the Synthesis room last time. Was disappointed in it but the gear was sure drool worthy. I can see how that JBL sound can make an impression. Just like my JBL Pro avatar.   I get to experience that any time I want.
> 
> 
> Still curious of your "aggressive nature of front surround content" when all those demos were 7.1.4 with an extra set of side surrounds.  Yes, the surrounds can be aggressive. Just slide them ahead of your MLP from now on.  Pretty much everybody that is doing this now is enjoying the results.
> 
> But anyway... hopefully I'll catch the next CEDIA.


I'm not just talking about CEDIA demos (and JBL didn't just have 7.1.4 - and they were using Blu-ray content, not cheating with cinema material this time - it was a real treat and not at all disappointing like last year. _Unbroken_, for instance, was a fantastic demo since there were a lot more overheads, sides, and rears. The three-dimensional positioning of the sound effects was just as good as _Gravity_... at least in the opening sequence; so much better than 7.1.4 from the other venues - you could immediately tell the difference). I have Front Surrounds at home with my Marantz and Atmos mixes still utilize these positions quite extensively, even though they're object rendered positions without bed channel data. I'm actually not surprised since these are an augmentation of the screen speaker plane, and most mixers still put the bulk of the audio in the frontal sound stage.


----------



## SherazNJ

So I finally finished installing ceiling speakers. Installed them at 45 degrees angle from MLP and then 4 feet wide. Currently I have them all pointing towards MLP. They are not exactly pointing to MLP but more like sides of it and to the top of seat back. Is this correct setting? Should they be angled further away from MLP? Also since they are pointing high enough to point to sofa top, I wonder if they should be pointed more downward? When I was watching one of ATMOS demo, they showed ceiling speaker firing straight down while mine are pointing high enough towards couch top.

Thx.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1054057&thumb=1


----------



## petetherock

SherazNJ said:


> Is there a link to buy Enchanted Kingdom online with Dolby Atmos?


Amazon USA sells it, or you can buy from Amazon Japan for the higher bit rate..


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> So I had an epiphany after running my system with no subs last week and hearing how much LF comes from Atmos tops. Had it again today when I heard so much elevated mid bass coming from above during Dracula. I know some of you have built custom angled boxes for KEF or JBL or other speakers. I think doublewing did as well and they looked great.
> 
> I'm starting to think a 7" driver is border line large enough. I'm not convinced a sub 6" driver is ideal for tops. Sure it will work and sound great. But the quest for better.....
> 
> Expensive option. But has anyone tried JTR slant S8 or s8 lp? They look supreme at $1800/pair. I bet they sound beautiful with the dynamic power, large coaxial driver and ultra flat linear response.....


But when you turn the sub back on, that bass is reproduced by the sub, so......???


----------



## MarkMul1

SherazNJ said:


> Is there a link to buy Enchanted Kingdom online with Dolby Atmos?


Amazon was 1-2 week back order. I walked into my Target and grabbed it off the shelf and canceled my Amazon order when i got home. FYI


----------



## fjerina

I assume ANY Enchanted Kingdom BlueRay 3D version comes with Dolby Atmos no matter where you buy it, right???


----------



## bguzman

SherazNJ said:


> Is there a link to buy Enchanted Kingdom online with Dolby Atmos?


I ordered mine online from Best Buy. Then picked it up that day.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/enchanted-kingdom-blu-ray-3d-3-d/4579909.p?id=3444468&skuId=4579909


----------



## SherazNJ

MarkMul1 said:


> Amazon was 1-2 week back order. I walked into my Target and grabbed it off the shelf and canceled my Amazon order when i got home. FYI





fjerina said:


> I assume ANY Enchanted Kingdom BlueRay 3D version comes with Dolby Atmos no matter where you buy it, right???





bguzman said:


> I ordered mine online from Best Buy. Then picked it up that day.
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/enchanted-kingdom-blu-ray-3d-3-d/4579909.p?id=3444468&skuId=4579909


Ok so as long as its a 3D versin, we are good to go as it will be ATMOS version. Cool.Thx


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> Thanks, will print and read. (That does specifically say cinema... is there another one for authoring for home-atmos? )


You'll probably have to contact Dolby yourself.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not just talking about CEDIA demos (and JBL didn't just have 7.1.4 - and they were using Blu-ray content, not cheating with cinema material this time - it was a real treat and not at all disappointing like last year. _Unbroken_, for instance, was a fantastic demo since there were a lot more overheads, sides, and rears. The three-dimensional positioning of the sound effects was just as good as _Gravity_... at least in the opening sequence; so much better than 7.1.4 from the other venues - you could immediately tell the difference). I have Front Surrounds at home with my Marantz and Atmos mixes still utilize these positions quite extensively, even though they're object rendered positions without bed channel data. I'm actually not surprised since these are an augmentation of the screen speaker plane, and most mixers still put the bulk of the audio in the frontal sound stage.


That's cool, man.

We can only hope that it will not be too many years from now when we can have a full 9.1.6 setup at home. I'll definitely add wides front surrounds when that day comes. 

Right now I am totally satisfied with my hobbled 7.1.6 system. It just sounds immersive and holographic. No complaints. Just always the desire for more.


----------



## stikle

Not specifically Atmos related, but since UHD-BD has been discussed here as one potential reason for certain studios not releasing Atmos content...



Scott Wilkinson said:


> *Sony Ultra HD Blu-ray Titles: The First Six*
> 
> Ultra HD Blu-ray is finally going to be available to consumers early next year, and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment will be at the forefront of that development with six titles announced this week. *The Amazing Spider-Man 2*, *Hancock*, *Salt*, *Chappie*, *Pineapple Express*, and *The Smurfs 2* will be followed by other movies and TV shows, including new and catalog titles restored from the original elements.



Oh thank God I'll be finally able to get Smurfs 2 in UHD HDR.


----------



## KennyLSU

stikle said:


> Not specifically Atmos related, but since UHD-BD has been discussed here as one potential reason for certain studios not releasing Atmos content...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh thank God I'll be finally able to get Smurfs 2 in UHD HDR.


And relive the abominations that were The Amazing Spider Man 2 and Hancock.

Do they really think Pineapple Express is a movie that people will want to buy again just to see it in 4K?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Absolutely.


----------



## metalsaber

And will these early releases have the same poor transfers that some blu-ray titles experienced early on. 

I'm certainly not going to jump on those titles even if they have atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

metalsaber said:


> And will these early releases have the same poor transfers that some blu-ray titles experienced early on.
> 
> I'm certainly not going to jump on those titles even if they have atmos.


It's inevitable with any brand new home video format for the earliest releases to not hold as well as ones that come out 4-5 years later when the compression technology and authoring tools have had time to mature.

There will always be good and bad video releases. Even well after a format is well established. It would be quite naive to expect perfection.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> It's inevitable with any brand new home video format for the earliest releases to not hold as well as ones that come out 4-5 years later when the compression technology and authoring tools have had time to mature.
> 
> There will always be good and bad video releases. Even well after a format is well established. It would be quite naive to expect perfection.


Some films, on VHS and laserdisc , never even saw the light on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray yet. ...Just to name one of my favorites: *'The Keep'* (1983) directed by _Michael Mann_, and with Tangerine Dream music score. ...From Paramount Studios. 
That would be nice on Blu-ray UHD and with Dolby Atmos. ...Tangerine Dream ♫


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> But when you turn the sub back on, that bass is reproduced by the sub, so......???


Kieth I really do like the fact that crossovers seem to come up short with only ceiling speakers and seems to be weakness for AtmosIt seems no pre/pro's can get bass redirection right these days:kiss:


----------



## Carrick

How many titles are available with Atmos? The Dolby site only lists about 15 that I would consider, is there a site that mentions upcoming releases? Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

Carrick said:


> How many titles are available with Atmos? The Dolby site only lists about 15 that I would consider, is there a site that mentions upcoming releases? Thanks


- *24* on Dolby's site (North America): http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

- And on Blu-ray.com (few more because of the other worldwide BR titles): http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=9699579 
=> Roughly *50* total, including *'Lucy'*


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> Kieth I really do like the fact that crossovers seem to come up short with only ceiling speakers and seems to be weakness for AtmosIt seems no pre/pro's can get bass redirection right these days:kiss:


S'right. Bass management only really works with the front L&R, the center, the surrounds and the rear surrounds. With ceiling speakers... NFW!


----------



## kbarnes701

Carrick said:


> How many titles are available with Atmos? The Dolby site only lists about 15 that I would consider, is there a site that mentions upcoming releases? Thanks


On disc you mean? I have about 25. *This site *tracks the Atmos Blu-rays.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> On disc you mean? I have about 25. *This site *tracks the Atmos Blu-rays.


With these in the pic below received the last weeks, i now have 40  And more on the way.


----------



## bargervais

Nalleh said:


> With these in the pic below received the last weeks, i now have 40  And more on the way.


I'm only up to 26 Atmos Blu-Rays all domestic purchased in the U.S. except Lucy that I bought from Hong Kong.


----------



## marcuslaw

I'm listening to 1615 Gabrieli in Venice in Atmos right now. I feel completely immersed in this beautiful choir music as though I was sitting in the Basilica. The notes from the horns are reverberating off my ceiling and all the way around me. Amazing.


----------



## Carrick

40 movies is a good start and I read there is also a Atmos up conversion available for regular blu ray titles. Spoke with JD and getting ready to purchase extra speakers to make 7.2.4 a reality (in a virtual sort of way). The PJ won't be here for another 4-6 weeks so it gives me time to start wiring - YAY!!


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> S'right. Bass management only really works with the front L&R, the center, the surrounds and the rear surrounds. With ceiling speakers... NFW!


Who would of thought that there would be this many Atmos Blu-Rays. Looking back to last year I think we had Transformers and we started complaining that there were so few. Now look at us choosing to buy an Atmos Blu-Ray because we like it and not just because it has an Atmos mix


----------



## Jive Turkey

*Special Shoutout*

Thanks to JD and Mike for helping solve my posting issues today. I'm sure they both had better things to do.


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> S'right. Bass management only really works with the front L&R, the center, the surrounds and the rear surrounds. With ceiling speakers... NFW!



My understanding of how VBAP works is that the listener infers the direction of a [dynamic] object--from the MLP--based on the relative SPL strength of the object's audio emissions delivered by [probably] three speakers that "encircle" an imaginary line from the MLP which extends through the object's current position. The *object specific content* delivered through each of the three speakers presumably shares a common XO--otherwise one speaker alone delivering dominant mid-bass would tend to influence the perceived position of the object 'inappropriately'...?!


_


----------



## audiofan1

SoundChex said:


> My understanding of how VBAP works is that the listener infers the direction of a [dynamic] object--from the MLP--based on the relative SPL strength of the object's audio emissions delivered by [probably] three speakers that "encircle" an imaginary line from the MLP which extends through the object's current position. The *object specific content* delivered through each of the three speakers presumably shares a common XO--otherwise one speaker alone delivering dominant mid-bass would tend to influence the perceived position of the object 'inappropriately'...?!
> 
> 
> _


 ehh!!


----------



## scarabaeus

markus767 said:


> Anybody got a DD+ Atmos test file?


The french language track on the U.S. release of "American Sniper" is DD+ Atmos.


----------



## markus767

scarabaeus said:


> The french language track on the U.S. release of "American Sniper" is DD+ Atmos.


Thanks but I'm not looking for a disc but a FILE I could DOWNLOAD.


----------



## promike

*Atmos demo clips*

Just completed my 7.2.4 setup. Still tweaking, etc.
Played the demo files from VUDU through a Roku 4 and they were not bad. Downloaded them from the demo site to my media server and played them through the Oppo and wow! The clarity, definition and detail were outstanding. Gave a whole new meaning to immersive. Have yet to play an Atmos encoded bluray (plan on it tonight). Also, want to try streaming an Atmos encode bluray that was copied to the media server to see how that sounds.
I am officially hooked. I have been streaming non Atmos encoded shows and movies and they sounded pretty cool, but these demos really opened my ears. How do you ever go back?


----------



## promike

markus767 said:


> Thanks but I'm not looking for a disc but a FILE I could DOWNLOAD.


Try here: http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


----------



## Gooddoc

marcuslaw said:


> I'm listening to 1615 Gabrieli in Venice in Atmos right now. I feel completely immersed in this beautiful choir music as though I was sitting in the Basilica. The notes from the horns are reverberating off my ceiling and all the way around me. Amazing.


Just ordered. Tough to find!


----------



## Molon_Labe

audiofan1 said:


> Kieth I really do like the fact that crossovers seem to come up short with only ceiling speakers and seems to be weakness for AtmosIt seems no pre/pro's can get bass redirection right these days:kiss:


Its not just about ceiling speakers nor is it just about reproducing a specific frequency range and bass management. Movies are better served with speakers that have greater dynamic capabilities - all speakers, ceiling speakers included. High efficiency speakers with larger drives are more dynamic - period. Eyes can be rolled all day but the typical "home theater" or audiophile speakers


----------



## markus767

promike said:


> Try here: http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1102.html#post38810425


----------



## Selden Ball

promike said:


> Try here: http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/





markus767 said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1102.html#post38810425


Yup 

They have Atmos trailers and DD+ trailers, but no DD+ Atmos trailers.


----------



## markus767

Selden Ball said:


> Yup
> 
> They have Atmos trailers and DD+ trailers, but no DD+ Atmos trailers.


One would think Dolby would post such test files on their website but there's nothing. Maybe they don't know there are consumers out there that actually have equipment with their technology built into it?


----------



## Selden Ball

markus767 said:


> One would think Dolby would post such test files on their website but there's nothing. Maybe they don't know there are consumers out there that actually have equipment with their technology built into it?


You'd think. There is hope that they might make their most recent demo disc (the one with speaker test tracks) available to the public, but that's all it is: hope.

Another hope is that the companies providing A/V calibration discs (Avia, Spears & Munsil, etc) might add Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D test tracks to their offerings

*sigh*


----------



## Ricoflashback

Setting the stage for Dolby Atmos, speaker placement, height speakers and bass needed:

I thought I'd share my new setup based on what I've learned in this thread as well as working around the limitations of my HT man cave. Here's hoping that other folks can benefit from my experience in setting up their Dolby Atmos layout. While I am still debating on buying an Atmos AVR on Black Friday (or waiting to see if new/better products are available for the model year 2016) - the addition of Front Height speakers to my existing system (7.1 to 9.1) has "wetted my beak" for the full Atmos treatment. (Hint - movie line - what movie?) 

*LESSONS LEARNED
*
1. Go big on height speakers with as much bass capability as you can. Whether this is a ceiling setup or even corner setup (see pics) - - this will make a huge difference in the soundstage. Thanks to this forum, I abandoned any thought of smaller, satellite speakers to be used as ceiling surrounds. I can now see why having a speaker that produces as much bass as possible really makes a difference on the sound immersion. And my experience is only 9.1 with Front Heights and will be even better with Dolby Atmos. Net/net - - smaller "cubes" or satellite speakers just can't give you the same impact as a larger speaker. Granted - I do not have an 8" woofer in my setup (due to room limitations) but I do have a 4" woofer with a 4" passive radiator (does that equal 8"?) with specs from 64 Hz to 25 KHz. I have my front height speakers set to "Large" and the bass punches right through.

2. You have options - - I was able to incorporate Cornered Audio's C4 speaker (Danish made - available via LineQ in the states) for my front heights. They will also be purchased for my middle and hopefully someday, back height Dolby Atmos surrounds (7.1.6 setup). They sound fantastic and a lot more bass than I ever hoped for since ceiling speakers were out of the question due to the age of my house and basement man cave limitations. They have multiple installation options without an external mount. You can hide the wires and they can be positioned vertically or horizontally. I will use the C4's again (on the beam in front of the MLP) and for back, height Atmos surrounds if we ever get to 7.1.6. 

3. Move your back, rear surrounds down if at all possible. This might not be an issue for folks who already have them at the right level, but it's made a huge performance difference for me. It took some work and might not be as aesthetically pleasing, but the sound is much better.

4. The listening "Triangle" and speaker placement. All rooms have limitations. For me, getting the right speakers and having them on the right plane (if that makes any sense) has really improved the sound imaging. From everything I read, front height speakers should be at 45 degrees outside of your main left and right speakers. They are supposed to be mounted facing down to the listening area. For me, a corner mount made better sense due to my low ceilings. It's worked out great - - so do not be afraid to experiment.

Now my biggest dilemma - - when to upgrade to Dolby Atmos. I'm getting a severe "itch" that will need to be scratched. I'm trying to temper this the fact that I will not be buying any Dolby Atmos discs (or player) in the near future and will have to count on DSU for Atmos enhancement. I do not stream outside of free Amazon Prime movies. I've entered a couple Dolby Atmos receiver contests (a little better odds than Lotto) and I will anxiously await Black Friday to see what's available. I've been looking at Denon and Marantz. I'm not sure if I should be looking at other choices but am ready to make the leap soon.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ Love the room


----------



## jedimastergrant

Commercial Atmos Question. I could not find a commercial Atmos thread. Please direct me there if it exists. 

What happens in a commercial Atmos Theater when a non Atmos movie is played?

For example I watched Spectre a few days ago in an AMC Prime theater that has Atmos. Since Spectre is not in Atmos it was obviously not being played natively in Atmos. 

Is there a DSU equivalent for the commercial side? Can any movie be unmixed in real time? I know the capabilities of Atmos on the commercial side are far greater than the home theater counterpart in regards to processing sounds and sending them to the appropriate speaker. I asked the dude manning the AMC Prime guest services booth and he was beyond clueless with zero knowledge.


----------



## jprod

Maybe I'm over thinking this but I am confused about the 45 degree angle for top front speakers. What's the reference distance on the horizontal plane ?


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Its not just about ceiling speakers nor is it just about reproducing a specific frequency range and bass management. Movies are better served with speakers that have greater dynamic capabilities - all speakers, ceiling speakers included. High efficiency speakers with larger drives are more dynamic - period. Eyes can be rolled all day but the typical "home theater" or audiophile speakers


----------



## Stoked21

Just finished up Enchanted Kingdom. Got it at that hell hole called Wal-Mart as my Target store didn't stock it.

Guess I'll be the naysayer. For the first 30 minutes I thought the Atmos was mediocre. It was good and elevated, but I was expecting to be blown away. At the ocean scene it got pretty cool but nothing spectacular. 

At the 1:00 mark, Victoria falls came into the show. That was *outstanding*. It was immediately followed by *phenomenal *crocodile scenes and thunderstorms on the plains. The storms were probably the best I've ever heard. This last 30 minutes was wonderful Atmos material.

All in all though, I kind of felt like the majority of the movie was elevated sound and nicely done. But there were no extreme top uses such as with 5E or Gravity. I personally wouldn't use it as a demo disc as the best parts are spread out through 30 minutes of the movie. Plus, instead of running 10 minutes of combined clips, I would feel like I would need to sit someone down and say "Here now watch an hour long atmos demo and you'll understand what it is". I'd rather stick to the 10 minutes of Gravity re-entry scene and the 1 minute demos. 

It was some beautiful visuals and excellent audio, so don't get me wrong. It would score in the top 5 or so of my 20 discs. But I wouldn't call it #1 .


----------



## Shniks

Stoked21 said:


> Just finished up Enchanted Kingdom. Got it at that hell hole called Wal-Mart as my Target store didn't stock it.
> 
> Guess I'll be the naysayer. For the first 30 minutes I thought the Atmos was mediocre. It was good and elevated, but I was expecting to be blown away. At the ocean scene it got pretty cool but nothing spectacular.
> 
> At the 1:00 mark, Victoria falls came into the show. That was *outstanding*. It was immediately followed by *phenomenal *crocodile scenes and thunderstorms on the plains. The storms were probably the best I've ever heard. This last 30 minutes was wonderful Atmos material.
> 
> All in all though, I kind of felt like the majority of the movie was elevated sound and nicely done. But there were no extreme top uses such as with 5E or Gravity. I personally wouldn't use it as a demo disc as the best parts are spread out through 30 minutes of the movie. Plus, instead of running 10 minutes of combined clips, I would feel like I would need to sit someone down and say "Here now watch an hour long atmos demo and you'll understand what it is". I'd rather stick to the 10 minutes of Gravity re-entry scene and the 1 minute demos.
> 
> It was some beautiful visuals and excellent audio, so don't get me wrong. It would score in the top 5 or so of my 20 discs. But I wouldn't call it #1 .



I agree with your assessment. I really thought I would be blown away reading all the reviews about this disc. It was nice, but nothing like Transformers 4, Gravity, Terminator Genisys etc. The Victoria Falls scene was awesome, but apart from that it was a nice disc, but I would not use this for an Atmos demo. 



Cheers,


Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net


----------



## Stoked21

audiofan1 said:


> No is disputing a 15" driver and a horn loaded tweeter and a 104 db sensitivity won't have greater dynamic ease than anything beneath it , that's pretty much a given. Eye's are rolled over the total disregard of crossover's having no effect on the transition of those lower frequencies to the speaker that will handle them, in this case, the ability of the sub to produce the slam comes into play along with the other speakers in question and when combined the effect can be called dynamic ease or headroom feel free to name your term. You selected your new setup to give the sound you where looking for and it seems you've achieved your goal and are happy but guess what! so have I and many other's with "typical Home theater or Audiophile speakers"
> 
> Enjoy


Hmmmm...I've ran everything from 4" up to 7" drivers in the ceiling. As molon_labe implies, and we all agree, the headroom is significantly impacted by the driver size. I've been finding lately that even 7" drivers in the ceiling barely cut it (only occasionally though). Even when they are crossed at 80hz a loud spaceship flyover or thunderstorm can make the bottom end seem thin. Anything less than a 6" driver in the ceiling isn't doing Atmos much justice. Can or will something in the smaller range sound great? Hell yeah! Audyssey and such help lessen the problem. Still we all are forced to purchase and design within our budget and within our room limitations.

Personally, I'm starting to think 8" is a sweet spot for ceiling speakers. I noticed a major difference when going from a 4.5" to a 6" to a 7". All were crossed at 80hz and capable of it according to the manufacturers even if physics calls into question some of the 80hz F3 spec on the tiny drivers. I imagine a jump to 8" up top would be insane during intense action, thunderstorms, etc. I personally am considering JBL or JTR to accomplish this, though it likely will be some time from now. My 7" cheapos are doing rather well and I have bigger fish to fry before ditching them.

I highly doubt we could really accommodate anything bigger up top. But I no longer would say that it's unnecessary or overkill with each and every new Atmos title I watch. I'm sure some people would or do have 10,12,15" up there!!!


----------



## Gooddoc

Molon_Labe said:


> Where did you find it?
> 
> I got Enchanted Kingdom at Target last night. Going to watch it today.


http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=9982121


----------



## audiofan1

Stoked21 said:


> Hmmmm...I've ran everything from 4" up to 7" drivers in the ceiling. As molon_labe implies, and we all agree, the headroom is significantly impacted by the driver size. I've been finding lately that even 7" drivers in the ceiling barely cut it (only occasionally though). Even when they are crossed at 80hz a loud spaceship flyover or thunderstorm can make the bottom end seem thin. Anything less than a 6" driver in the ceiling isn't doing Atmos much justice. Can or will something in the smaller range sound great? Hell yeah! Audyssey and such help lessen the problem. Still we all are forced to purchase and design within our budget and within our room limitations.
> 
> Personally, I'm starting to think 8" is a sweet spot for ceiling speakers. I noticed a major difference when going from a 4.5" to a 6" to a 7". All were crossed at 80hz and capable of it according to the manufacturers even if physics calls into question some of the 80hz F3 spec on the tiny drivers. I imagine a jump to 8" up top would be insane during intense action, thunderstorms, etc. I personally am considering JBL or JTR to accomplish this, though it likely will be some time from now. My 7" cheapos are doing rather well and I have bigger fish to fry before ditching them.
> 
> I highly doubt we could really accommodate anything bigger up top. But I no longer would say that it's unnecessary or overkill with each and every new Atmos title I watch. I'm sure some people would or do have 10,12,15" up there!!!


 It may come down to placement and the dispersion characteristics of the speakers in question more than sheer driver size! He was I believe he maybe referring to all speakers as well and not just over heads. My little Boston 4.5 are indeed temporary as they are there till DTSX and final placement is decided for the in ceilings with matching tweeters I have planned are installed. As it stands! they are superb in there application and when the ship on the Atmos demo disc fly's over head its scale and size are recognized are properly conved by those little speakers . As a side note my mains and center channel use 2-5 inch midrange drivers along with 5-6 (*6 *5.5 for each main in 6ft ported inclosures flat down to 30hz) woofers and have not failed to impress!


----------



## Ricoflashback

audiofan1 said:


> ^^^ Love the room


Much thanks! The bar comes in handy and the design is like a English pub with the dark beams. I find this Atmos thread very engaging. I believe with a little bit of work, everyone can increase the enjoyment of their home theater audio environment by learning from other members on this forum who have shared their experiences with Dolby Atmos, speaker selection, location and equipment used. 

To me, improving the sound of your theater room is a wise investment that will enable you to enjoy movies, sports and music for years to come. I can't wait to finish my Atmos project and look forward to adding "Top Middle" speakers and eventually Rear Height speakers now that I know what works best for my room and how to place them thanks to the AVS members who have contributed to this thread


----------



## bargervais

Shniks said:


> I agree with your assessment. I really thought I would be blown away reading all the reviews about this disc. It was nice, but nothing like Transformers 4, Gravity, Terminator Genisys etc. The Victoria Falls scene was awesome, but apart from that it was a nice disc, but I would not use this for an Atmos demo.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Nikhil
> http://www.lihkin.net


I'm sorry you didn't feel it was Atmos demo worthy. It's like your comparing the apocalypse to the sounds and visual beauty of nature. I personally felt it to be very immersive. I couldn't compare this to Terminator Genisys. Terminator is not for everyone of my friends and family to demo an Atmos Blu-Ray, but Enchanted Kingdom that would appeal to most, and an Atmos demo, how could you ask for a better demo. Don't get me wrong Mad Max, and Terminator are very good demo worthy, but some of my friends and family couldn't get past the visuals of these movies to even notice or care about Atmos. I want to give them something more likeable and this whole Blu-Ray is like Dolbys amaze.


----------



## sdurani

jedimastergrant said:


> What happens in a commercial Atmos Theater when a non Atmos movie is played?


5.1 and 7.1 movies play back as they would in non-Atmos theatres.


----------



## Csbooth

I agree with the most recent Enchanted Kingdom statements. It was an exceptionally beautiful presentation of the African Kingdom and I did quite enjoy the scenes that Atmos did shine with (not just heights but the immersion factor in general) but I can't see myself rewatching it.

Speaking of not seeing myself rewatching it; is there somewhere I should post my desire to sell it (roughly 50% off +shipping) or if someone wants, feel free to PM me. I figure that way both me and the buyer would get a good deal in essentially splitting the difference. If this doesn't belong then of course let me know and I will delete


----------



## Stoked21

audiofan1 said:


> It may come down to placement and the dispersion characteristics of the speakers in question more than sheer driver size! He was I believe he maybe referring to all speakers as well and not just over heads. My little Boston 4.5 are indeed temporary as they are there till DTSX and final placement is decided for the in ceilings with matching tweeters I have planned are installed. As it stands! they are superb in there application and when the ship on the Atmos demo disc fly's over head its scale and size are recognized are properly conved by those little speakers . As a side note my mains and center channel use 2-5 inch midrange drivers along with 5-6 (*6 *5.5 for each main in 6ft ported inclosures flat down to 30hz) woofers and have not failed to impress!


I kept it focused on thread as this is Atmos, so just followed up with a comment on overheads.....Obviously dispersion and placement come into question. Both are next to perfection in my setup and it's taken my months to get them as such via tons of trial-and-error. Quality of my drivers could definitely be of question. That I cannot argue. I've tried DT, RBH, Niles, AT, and On. All obviously cheap drivers. Could a high-end 5-6" impress the hell out of me? Well sure potentially. But even more so, I'm betting that if I can make a 7" driver struggle at times, even if very infrequent, it probably comes down to room size and how hard it's being driven....Hence overhead and dynamics come into play. To each our own, but whenever I replace, it will definitely be a high-end 8" and nothing else.


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> I'm sorry you didn't feel it was Atmos demo worthy. It's like your comparing the apocalypse to the sounds and visual beauty of nature. I personally felt it to be very immersive. I couldn't compare this to Terminator Genisys. Terminator is not for everyone of my friends and family to demo an Atmos Blu-Ray, but Enchanted Kingdom that would appeal to most, and an Atmos demo, how could you ask for a better demo. Don't get me wrong Mad Max, and Terminator are very good demo worthy, but some of my friends and family couldn't get past the visuals of these movies to even notice or care about Atmos. I want to give them something more likeable and this whole Blu-Ray is like Dolbys amaze.


Gotcha. It is great. Cannot disagree with that. It is probably one of the top 5 and beautifully done. Content comment above is extremely applicable to many people as well. Plus, many people can't stomach the crazy bass in MMFR, Terminator, etc. That's why the short demos are a great catch-all. They demonstrate bed and tops/objects and raw power without requiring a significant investment of time on the demo. 

Maybe I was just hyped on it thinking it was going to be the best and so it failed to meet my expectations. I did laugh during the croc and waterfall scene as they were tremendous. I also think we all use to ohh and ahh over most Atmos releases. As they are more prolific, we tend to see more dissent and are all becoming picky. 
That's a good thing!


----------



## Shniks

bargervais said:


> I'm sorry you didn't feel it was Atmos demo worthy. It's like your comparing the apocalypse to the sounds and visual beauty of nature. I personally felt it to be very immersive. I couldn't compare this to Terminator Genisys. Terminator is not for everyone of my friends and family to demo an Atmos Blu-Ray, but Enchanted Kingdom that would appeal to most, and an Atmos demo, how could you ask for a better demo. Don't get me wrong Mad Max, and Terminator are very good demo worthy, but some of my friends and family couldn't get past the visuals of these movies to even notice or care about Atmos. I want to give them something more likeable and this whole Blu-Ray is like Dolbys amaze.


Hi there - Please don't get me wrong. My comment was not pertaining to the content of the movie, which was good (although Planet Earth is way better). I was merely commenting on the actual Atmos track of this title. Based solely on the audio, the immersion was just not as good as some of the other Atmos titles. As a movie, it's very good.


Cheers,


Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net


----------



## jaychatbonneau

Okay, I have a crazy question. How well will Atmos-encoded movies sound with using the DTS NEO X speaker configuration? Not that my room is quite small and my ceilings are 9 feet hight so the angle on the heights won't be too far off from Dolby's recommendation for Atmos's heights.


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> . Maybe I was just hyped on it thinking it was going to be the best and so it failed to meet my expectations. I did laugh during the croc and waterfall scene as they were tremendous. I also think we all use to ohh and ahh over most Atmos releases. As they are more prolific, we tend to see more dissent and are all becoming picky.
> That's a good thing!


Good nature documentary...visual eye candy...among the better Atmos executions...but agree that with the introduction of more titles, we're becoming more discerning...and yes, it's definitely a good thing!


----------



## jedimastergrant

sdurani said:


> 5.1 and 7.1 movies play back as they would in non-Atmos theatres.


Ok. So no DSU equivalent. Only side surrounds playing. No use of ceiling speakers. Good old channel based encoding. Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## bargervais

Shniks said:


> Hi there - Please don't get me wrong. My comment was not pertaining to the content of the movie, which was good (although Planet Earth is way better). I was merely commenting on the actual Atmos track of this title. Based solely on the audio, the immersion was just not as good as some of the other Atmos titles. As a movie, it's very good.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Nikhil
> http://www.lihkin.net



I didn't get you wrong I can agree with most of what you said. I just think Enchanted Kingdom just has great curb appeal. Personally I love the apocalypse Atmos type Blu-Rays of Terminator, Mad Max, GOT, etc.. that has incredible bass and immersive sound, but most people I know have a hard time with movies like that, that all there is are aliens, bombs exploding and gun fire 24/7. That's were Enchanted Kingdom comes into play for me.


----------



## jaychatbonneau

NorthSky said:


> The Center Channel IS indeed the most important channel in a 3D surround sound setup; be it a Phantom one or a real Full Range one with Bass Management applied (80Hz x-over). The bass from that center channel (explosions, tornadoes, buildings collapsing, earthquakes, gunshots, tremors, etc.) goes to the subwoofer(s), but it is still part of that full range center channel where most of the onscreen action is taking place, including the main actors from the story talking to each other. Without that channel there is no dialog (unless phantom recreated by the sum of the Left and Right front channel...a la Dolby Pro Logic steering), and there is no more the main actions like explosions and fires and the full impact/intensity of it all right in the middle, front center where we are looking, where the center screen is, where in real life it is the source of where our eyes are directed to.
> 
> This is my opinion. And after the center channel (full range) the front left and right channels would be next (full range) for the music score, sound effects panning across the front sound stage, ...and then the side surrounds would be next after the FL & FR channels, in order of importance. ...Full range side surrounds.
> 
> The .1 LFE only subwoofer channel is next.
> 
> So, for a "full" normal Dolby Atmost setup (9.1.4), in order of importance:
> - Number 1 = Center channel (front floor middle)
> - Number 2 = FL & FR channels (front floor flankers)
> - Number 3 = SL & SR surround channels (floor sides)
> - Number 4 = LFE channel (floor, and above)
> - Number 5 = Front Width L & R surround channels (floor wides)
> - Number 6 = Front Top L & R surround channels (front ceiling overheads)
> - Number 7 = SBL & SBR surround channels (floor rears)
> - Number 8 = Rear Top L & R surround channels (rear ceiling overheads)
> 
> Again, this is only my own personal opinion; and NOT the bible's eight commandments. Anyone here is free to switch the order, and the fifth one (in red) is up for debate @ the discretion of the audio/acoustician experts/scientists.
> I am simply sharing my own opinion, and no swords or daggers are going to cut that grain of salt from the Sahara desert.
> You'll need a microscopic laser/razor blade for that.



Robert, do you think I could get good results mounting Number 6 and Number 8 high on their respective walls and close to the ceiling instead of doing exactly what Dolby recommends. FYI my room is 11'8" deep, 12" wide, and has 9" ceilings, so I think if I keep the heights close to the ceiling I can get close to angles recommended by Dolby. What do you think, folks?


----------



## NorthSky

jaychatbonneau said:


> Robert, do you think I could get good results mounting Number 6 and Number 8 high on their respective walls and close to the ceiling instead of doing exactly what Dolby recommends. FYI my room is 11'8" deep, 12" wide, and has 9" ceilings, so I think if I keep the heights close to the ceiling I can get close to angles recommended by Dolby. What do you think, folks?


I have no physical experience (no Dolby Atmos pre/pro yet). Theory; that I have. 

But here's my opinion anyway: In your room, try TM (Top Middle) and FH (Front Height). That would be my first experimentation.
And do experiment also with what you just suggested (improvise some high speaker's stands, with 2x4 by 8' and a base and top plate, and a ladder). 

* Which brand of Dolby Atmos receiver do you have? ...Or intend to get?

♦ http://i.imgur.com/ch0Gx5f.jpg

________
________

Bonus (for larger rooms, but still a good guide for smaller rooms; just get that front wall one third of the way closer to the MLP-couch):

♠ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=558625&stc=1&d=1424531051

________

And the ultimate:

♥ http://i1374.photobucket.com/albums/ag414/mblair104/PreliminaryLayout2_zpsd3b7c537.jpg


----------



## Molon_Labe

audiofan1 said:


> As it stands! they are superb in there application and when the ship on the Atmos demo disc fly's over head its scale and size are recognized are properly conved by those little speakers


I bet my spaceship sounds bigger than yours  I am just teasing :kiss:

I am sure you system sounds fantastic. Maybe one day we can kick back and have a beer together.

Chris


----------



## sdurani

jedimastergrant said:


> So no DSU equivalent.


Correct. As a rule, commercial movie theatres have never used surround processing (what we now call upmixing).


> Only side surrounds playing.


All surrounds playing, whether it's a 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack.


----------



## catonic

jedimastergrant said:


> Commercial Atmos Question. I could not find a commercial Atmos thread. Please direct me there if it exists.
> 
> What happens in a commercial Atmos Theater when a non Atmos movie is played?
> 
> For example I watched Spectre a few days ago in an AMC Prime theater that has Atmos. Since Spectre is not in Atmos it was obviously not being played natively in Atmos.
> 
> Is there a DSU equivalent for the commercial side? Can any movie be unmixed in real time? I know the capabilities of Atmos on the commercial side are far greater than the home theater counterpart in regards to processing sounds and sending them to the appropriate speaker. I asked the dude manning the AMC Prime guest services booth and he was beyond clueless with zero knowledge.


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/185-d...aters/1407030-dolby-atmos-theatre-system.html


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> I highly doubt we could really accommodate anything bigger up top. But I no longer would say that it's unnecessary or overkill with each and every new Atmos title I watch. I'm sure some people would or do have 10,12,15" up there!!!


Four 10's for me thank you.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> I bet my spaceship sounds bigger than yours  I am just teasing :kiss:
> 
> I am sure you system sounds fantastic. Maybe one day we can kick back and have a beer together.
> 
> Chris


 It better that's a true "Go big or go home " setup you've got there! and would love to hear it and have some good beer


----------



## audiofan1

bass addict said:


> Four 10's for me thank you.


 My replacement in ceilings will be these killer 8's










And no bigger


----------



## Carrick

Stoked21 said:


> Hmmmm...I've ran everything from 4" up to 7" drivers in the ceiling.... I'm starting to think 8" is a sweet spot for ceiling speakers. I noticed a major difference when going from a 4.5" to a 6" to a 7". All were crossed at 80hz and capable of it according to the manufacturers even if physics calls into question some of the 80hz F3 spec


This is great recon, can anyone recommend 8" drivers, possibly coaxials, so I can DIY 4 ceiling enclosures? I have a weird ceiling so this is gonna be a mission.




Csbooth said:


> I agree with the most recent Enchanted Kingdom statements.... but I can't see myself rewatching it.


Thanks for saving me some coin, though I may rent it some time. Decades ago I visited some tourist traps in North Africa + Pyramids, but never been to the Congo.


----------



## bass addict

Volt 8. Done.


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> I've ran everything from 4" up to 7" drivers in the ceiling. Personally, I'm starting to think 8" is a sweet spot for ceiling speakers. I noticed a major difference when going from a 4.5" to a 6" to a 7". I imagine a jump to 8" up top would be insane during intense action, thunderstorms, etc. I'm sure some people would or do have 10,12,15" up there!!!


I installed six 8 inchers from the onset for several reasons: (1) wanted more output, (2) better coverage for two rows of seating, and (3) 8's didn't cost much more than 6's. The 8" MICCA's are performing very well. I expect to replace these when and if performance improvement and costs are commensurate.



bass addict said:


> Four 10's for me thank you.


Not out of the question for me.


----------



## Molon_Labe

bass addict said:


> Four 10's for me thank you.


Thats it. I am selling the SCS 8 and going with the SCS12. I am feeling inferior now


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> Volt 8. Done.


I've heard volt 8s as surrounds before. I'd second the recommendation as a non owner. They sounded great and never got weak in the knees, even in a more active surround placement.


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> Four 10's for me thank you.


There you have it. 4-10s. I knew if I questioned it then someone would chime in! Nice. Wish I was close enough to give that a test listen. Ive never heard anything larger than 8s for Atmos.


----------



## bass addict

Lol. Needed something to keep up with my TD15s.


----------



## robert816

Nalleh said:


> With these in the pic below received the last weeks, i now have 40  And more on the way.


Holy Smokes! is that a live action PATLabor with Atmos?


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> Lol. Needed something to keep up with my TD15s.


What 10s? I've been tinkering with the idea of spending a couple hundred to build a pair using volt 8 or 10s. I'm trying to find their dispersion spec and haven't come across it. Cheap way for me to evaluate yet one more driver.


----------



## Carrick

Anything more than 8" would look silly in my tiny 12' wide room, now I'm wishing I had a bigger room.


----------



## Nalleh

robert816 said:


> Holy Smokes! is that a live action PATLabor with Atmos?


Yes, this one:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Next-Generation-Patlabor-Shuto-Kessen-Blu-ray/139726/


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dolby Atmos and DTS-X Questions:

1. They are both object oriented as opposed to channel driven but DTS-X touts itself as open source (free) and configurable to any speaker layout you have. Will they both be able to co-exist? Will the setup be DTS-X based or Dolby Atmos based? I know DTS-X is not available right now but I'm wondering if new AVR's (2016) will have DTS-X and how that will be implemented.

2. Dolby Atmos "Height" speakers. From my understanding, AVR's only have the option for x.x.4 right now. That being said, what is the preference for setup? 

Front Height, Top Middle? Front Height, Back Height (possible?) I'm sure this is dependent on the AVR but the nomenclature gets a little confusing. I was looking at the Denon X5200W and the back panel layout. I currently have a 9.1 setup with a Front Height Speakers. What would be the best configuration for Dolby Atmos with the Denon X5200W (for those that have this receiver or any other receivers you might suggest.) I also have an Emotiva XPA-3 amplifier that powers the L/C/R speakers. 

3. DSU - for those folks who have Dolby Atmos right now, does DSU do anything with broadcast TV? (Usually in 5.1 but an audio engineer commented to me that many mixes are just Dolby Surround encoded to 5.1 (not fully five discrete channels). Does DSU really need Dolby Digital 5.1 or better yet, Dolby True HD to provide more sound immersion? 

How does football sound with DSU? It would be great to have crowd noise all around you and up top to make you feel like you are part of the game.


----------



## Ricoflashback

audiofan1 said:


> My replacement in ceilings will be these killer 8's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no bigger


I'm thinking of retrofitting my basement man cave to incorporate four 18" subwoofers as my ceiling speakers.

Will this provide enough bass?


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm thinking of retrofitting my basement man cave to incorporate four 18" subwoofers as my ceiling speakers.
> 
> Will this provide enough bass?


They're probably too small for Atmos top speakers. Look at 21s or 24s. If you could array them that would be even better.


----------



## Carrick

Stoked21 said:


> They're probably too small for Atmos top speakers. Look at 21s or 24s. If you could array them that would be even better.


Go for broke and get the Clarion 30" subs... that should do it


----------



## Carrick

*Best Denon 4200w Atmos speaker placement 3.1.4 or 5.1.2 ?*

Not sure where to post this but need some input. I want to get the Denon 4200 but I have never seen or heard an Atmos display. My room is 12w x 15d and missing 2 walls in an open floor plan. The back of the sofa will be 5' from my imaginary back wall (actually there is no wall since it's adjacent to the foyer area). See pic



Will I miss anything significant from the rear speakers if I choose 3.1.4?

If the forum thinks 5.1.2 is a better idea, then I will have to fabricate some telescoping or folding speaker mounts for the right rear speaker to avoid collision when running out the front door.

Thanks


----------



## Aras_Volodka

jedimastergrant said:


> Commercial Atmos Question. I could not find a commercial Atmos thread. Please direct me there if it exists.
> 
> What happens in a commercial Atmos Theater when a non Atmos movie is played?
> 
> For example I watched Spectre a few days ago in an AMC Prime theater that has Atmos. Since Spectre is not in Atmos it was obviously not being played natively in Atmos.
> 
> Is there a DSU equivalent for the commercial side? Can any movie be unmixed in real time? I know the capabilities of Atmos on the commercial side are far greater than the home theater counterpart in regards to processing sounds and sending them to the appropriate speaker. I asked the dude manning the AMC Prime guest services booth and he was beyond clueless with zero knowledge.


I asked the same question on this forum a while back & was told they play it back in it's intended format (was Spectre 5.1?). If that's the case it would be played back in 5.1

However, @ the couple of Atmos theaters I've been to it sure sounds like they upmix to me. I saw Spectre @ the prime as well... it definitely sounded like sounds were coming from up above. It's really hard to tell though since the surrounds are high up as well. 

I remember seeing Ex Machina @ the ICON theater's Atmos room, @ the waterfall scene it really sounded like the water was coming from up above. 

As for Spectre...How about that opening title sequence? The black levels & that giant fireball at the end of the sequence made me feel like the theater went up in flames for a second there!


----------



## Ted99

@Ricoflashback. I was in much the same situation as you. I have a full 7.x.6 speaker layout installed, yet I was unable to pull the trigger on a 3-D audio receiver because the price to get a minimal 7.x.4 was in the range of $1800 and I'm sure the next 2 years will bring 7.x.8 (where the front wides are effects speakers rather than bed speakers). I just bought a Denon X3200W on one of the Fry's one-day promo code sales (3 different sales so far). The cost was easy to eat for 2 years. It's 5.1.2 capability is good enough to allow use of DSU, and since most movies I watch are streaming at 5.1, a minimal DSU is more than adequate. I figure that by the time "regular people" AVR's with 7.2.8 capability are available, there will be a lot of Atmos/DTS 4K Bluray discs available and mayby even available from Netflix mailers. Also, there may be streaming 3-D audio available. Meanwhile, I'm not just waiting for the next big thing.


----------



## gbaby

*Not so sure about ATMOS*

Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


----------



## Carrick

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system.......ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


Thanks for your assessment, since I only use the AVR for movies.


----------



## Stoked21

Ted99 said:


> @Ricoflashback. I was in much the same situation as you. I have a full 7.x.6 speaker layout installed, yet I was unable to pull the trigger on a 3-D audio receiver because the price to get a minimal 7.x.4 was in the range of $1800 and I'm sure the next 2 years will bring 7.x.8 (where the front wides are effects speakers rather than bed speakers). I just bought a Denon X3200W on one of the Fry's one-day promo code sales (3 different sales so far). The cost was easy to eat for 2 years. It's 5.1.2 capability is good enough to allow use of DSU, and since most movies I watch are streaming at 5.1, a minimal DSU is more than adequate. I figure that by the time "regular people" AVR's with 7.2.8 capability are available, there will be a lot of Atmos/DTS 4K Bluray discs available and mayby even available from Netflix mailers. Also, there may be streaming 3-D audio available. Meanwhile, I'm not just waiting for the next big thing.


Hey Ted and Rick,

Obviously we all have to live within our budgets. For many or most, 7.1.4 just isn't possible for various reasons. The catch-22 is what you eluded to. A lot of people are waiting to go to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 after price drops. They constantly say they'll just wait 2 years until prices come down. The catch is that by the time things are affordable 1) you've wasted 2 years without being able to enjoy atmos/immersive and 2) by then 7.1.8, or whatever next iteration is, is already out. You will constantly be purchasing way behind current technologies with the best immersive experience.

We all wish we could have more and the best. But for me, I chose to live with lesser speakers and be able to support 7.2.4 now. I can slowly upgrade from low-cost drivers over the course of years and still have full Atmos immersive enjoyment right now.


----------



## audiofan1

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


As someone who has there surround channels mounted high and felt the same before a going to a 7.1.4 setup from 5.1, its not even on the same level when it comes to the placement of objects bed channels are now just as they have been always bed channels! I'm not sure why you still feel that these 5.1 or 7.1 processor's from any manufacture and regardless of cost can even begin to match the placement of discrete objects is beyond me but hey! what ever floats your boat man! This is the new SOTA and my mediocre 8802 is a dream of a pre/pro (2/ch included) and has me scrambling for what to watch next in Atmos or DSU!

Gimmick for you? cool! For me its the best thing that's happened to home cinema experience in 20yrs


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


Yeah, strictly movies here too. It's almost like you dropped in to stir the pot and cause arguments. Fact of the matter is that either you don't watch movies, the dealer you were at had a horrible setup (which I'd bet on from the sounds of it), or you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe a combo of all three likely. The fact that a dealer was running 5.2.4, a lesser system for sales purposes, infers something stinks there.

I can't argue with hi-fi music junkies not liking Atmos. I use to run extremely high-end systems for music only and laughed at 5.1 surround sound when it first came out. My staging was insanely great and costly and it abhorred me to think of additional speakers destroying that stage. I'm sure many people will not see the value of Atmos for music. I personally have thrown on music for testing and played with the DSU. I enjoyed choirs and strings being lifted and elevated in a well setup Atmos system. It's not overly processed and very subtilely uses the heights. Basically it sounds like 2.1 with much more depth and phenomenal elevation. But it's not for everyone.

To infer it's a gimmick for movies is demonstrative of poor setup and misunderstanding (or deafness) of the total immersion that's taking place. That's directly comparable to saying that 5.1 for movies is a gimmick and 2.1 is just fine.

We can agree to disagree on music with Atmos. But with movies....it's really ignorant and misinformed to say "gimmicky".


----------



## Ted99

Stoked21 said:


> Hey Ted and Rick,
> 
> Obviously we all have to live within our budgets. For many or most, 7.1.4 just isn't possible for various reasons. The catch-22 is what you eluded to. A lot of people are waiting to go to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 after price drops. They constantly say they'll just wait 2 years until prices come down. The catch is that by the time things are affordable 1) you've wasted 2 years without being able to enjoy atmos/immersive and 2) by then 7.1.8, or whatever next iteration is, is already out. You will constantly be purchasing way behind current technologies with the best immersive experience.
> 
> We all wish we could have more and the best. But for me, I chose to live with lesser speakers and be able to support 7.2.4 now. I can slowly upgrade from low-cost drivers over the course of years and still have full Atmos immersive enjoyment right now.


Exactly. Since I have what I consider to be good enough speakers for my small mancave (used to have M-L electrostats for main, Paradigm for surrounds in my large HT), I've decided to go low on the minimal capability Receiver to get DSU on streaming 5.1 and upgrade when the source material is more available. To hell with waiting for the "best"!


----------



## batpig

Carrick said:


> Not sure where to post this but need some input. I want to get the Denon 4200 but I have never seen or heard an Atmos display. My room is 12w x 15d and missing 2 walls in an open floor plan. The back of the sofa will be 5' from my imaginary back wall (actually there is no wall since it's adjacent to the foyer area). See pic
> 
> 
> 
> Will I miss anything significant from the rear speakers if I choose 3.1.4?
> 
> If the forum thinks 5.1.2 is a better idea, then I will have to fabricate some telescoping or folding speaker mounts for the right rear speaker to avoid collision when running out the front door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


It's going to be tricky to implement an Atmos setup with two missing walls. Can you post some more photos and maybe a diagram so we can see what you're dealing with?


----------



## batpig

Ted99 said:


> I'm sure the next 2 years will bring 7.x.8 (where the front wides are effects speakers rather than bed speakers).


That is 9.1.6 not 7.1.8. Wides (front surround) are floor level speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

Ted99 said:


> Exactly. Since I have what I consider to be good enough speakers for my small mancave (used to have M-L electrostats for main, Paradigm for surrounds in my large HT), I've decided to go low on the minimal capability Receiver to get DSU on streaming 5.1 and upgrade when the source material is more available. To hell with waiting for the "best"!


The way I see it, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. I might as well enjoy what I can today! So I agree with the 5.1.2 approach you took. Do something today vs waiting for the holy grail tomorrow. 

It's always easy enough to just drop in a new AVR and use your existing speakers to move to something more. Literally only takes a few minutes to swap the cables and you're done. I always recommend buying and putting in/up your 4 tops now. You will want them to match. It stinks to pay hard earned money for 2 speakers you are not using, but it will reduce your cost in the future to move to 5.1.4 and also insures you can still get matching speakers. Most of us run .6 now for cabling and/or speakers so we can easily accomplish 7.1.6 simply when available. If you're pulling/fishing cable, do it all now.


----------



## Carrick

batpig said:


> It's going to be tricky to implement an Atmos setup with two missing walls. Can you post some more photos and maybe a diagram so we can see what you're dealing with?


More photos will expose the ugliness of prepping for a new PJ and running/fishing cabling. But thanks for your response, I surmised that it would not be good. Just in general I was looking to see which would have priority. 

Now thinking about installing an MLV sound curtain in place of the walls, just wish I knew what I was doing.


----------



## bguzman

Carrick said:


> Not sure where to post this but need some input. I want to get the Denon 4200 but I have never seen or heard an Atmos display. My room is 12w x 15d and missing 2 walls in an open floor plan. The back of the sofa will be 5' from my imaginary back wall (actually there is no wall since it's adjacent to the foyer area). See pic
> 
> 
> 
> Will I miss anything significant from the rear speakers if I choose 3.1.4?
> 
> If the forum thinks 5.1.2 is a better idea, then I will have to fabricate some telescoping or folding speaker mounts for the right rear speaker to avoid collision when running out the front door.
> 
> Thanks


Are you able to put your surround speakers on stands?


----------



## Gooddoc

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


Sounds like they had crappy mismatched height speakers that were of different timbre from the base level and perhaps the system was poorly calibrated so the customer "can hear the heights". Similar to video displays put in torch mode to gain attention. I've never heard any actual distinct sound from my height channels with music, and as has been mentioned, properly calibrated the heights only lift the soundstage. I have to get in a chair and put my ears to the height channels to even be sure anything is coming out of them. It's a very cool and subtle effect.

Now I'll give you that some content puts too much into the base level surrounds. But on the flip side, some songs have just the right amount of subtle content in the surrounds that makes the soundstage just wrap along the sides of the room a bit more.

For movies I agree that timbre matched surrounds and heights to the mains is not as important, but for music I think it makes a big difference. I think you heard a low end Atmos implementation at a high end store.


----------



## wse

audiofan1 said:


> ....Gimmick for you? cool! For me its the best thing that's happened to home cinema experience in 20yrs


I agree


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


It doesn't sound like you heard a well designed system. Dolby Atmos and DTS: X can sound superb for both movies and music with quality immersive mixing techniques.


----------



## wse

Gooddoc said:


> ......For movies, I agree that timbre matched surrounds and heights to the mains is not as important, but for music I think it makes a big difference....


I concur


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> It's almost like you dropped in to stir the pot and cause arguments.
> 
> We can agree to disagree on music with Atmos. But with movies....it's really ignorant and misinformed to say "gimmicky".


Actually, I drove two (2) hours for this ATMOS demo to hear what the fuss was about. I am too mature to post here just to cause an argument. I am just posting my subjective findings. Do not allow my difference in opinion to be interpreted as trying to cause an argument. Lets keep our egos out of our opinions.


----------



## gbaby

Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't sound like you heard a well designed system. Dolby Atmos and DTS: X can sound superb for both movies and music with quality immersive mixing techniques.


I thought about that, but later decided the setup was fine. What made it gimmicky to me was hearing a back ground vocal from the ceiling which I thought was weird. I heard the object based special effects from the ceiling, but I was not impressed. I was more impressed with the "quality" of sound I heard from the Classe processor more than the quantity of sound I heard from the ATMOS processor. This is just my opinion.


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> I thought about that, but later decided the setup was fine. What made it gimmicky to me was hearing a back ground vocal from the ceiling which I thought was weird. I heard the object based special effects from the ceiling, but I was not impressed. I was more impressed with the "quality" of sound I heard from the Classe processor more than the quantity of sound I heard from the ATMOS processor. This is just my opinion.


I think you likely just confirmed what several of us have suggested. The system wasn't properly setup. When I hear anyone say sounds were coming "from the ceiling", that means they were set too hot and/or the timing and phase are out. Sounds coming directly from the ceiling are the tell-tell sign someone didn't know what they were doing. Only at rare instances will sound appear to come directly from the ceiling (helicopter fly over, etc). Even then, it normally sounds like a helicopter flew over at normal flight level, not "from the ceiling" IMO. 95% of the time, objects are elevated and sound like they are coming from "within the room". It's very common to hear movie soundtracks where the voices image right in front of my face or directly above my head, etc. This is most evident with bugs and wind. You will hear them flying throughout the room or wind blowing through the room. Set things up wrong and those effects sound like they are coming from the ceiling.

It's too bad you drove that far to hear a bad demo. I'd suggest you find someone on AVS in your area, who knows what they're doing, and go visit their HT. I'm 100% confident your opinion will change.


----------



## Gooddoc

gbaby said:


> Actually, I drove two (2) hours for this ATMOS demo to hear what the fuss was about. I am too mature to post here just to cause an argument. I am just posting my subjective findings. Do not allow my difference in opinion to be interpreted as trying to cause an argument. Lets keep our egos out of our opinions.


Didn't read to me like you were doing anything but reporting your subjective impressions. Regardless of whether you ultimately decide you want anything to do with Atmos, from your comments I can say with confidence your demo was poorly setup. Do with that what you will.

Also, the difference between the Classe and the Atmos "high end" processor certainly had nothing to do with the processors, but the setup.

The difference between reasonably designed processors for multichannel sound reproduction is miniscule compared to setup and the speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

Gooddoc said:


> Also, the difference between the Classe and the Atmos "high end" processor certainly had nothing to do with the processors, but the setup.
> 
> The difference between reasonably designed processors for multichannel sound reproduction is miniscule compared to setup and the speakers.


I have no doubt, that the Classe and an Atmos AVR or prepro are subjectively going to have different appeal to hifi music enthusiasts. I use to run Counterpoint and Levinson, so I've been there and I get it. 

It's apples to oranges though. But it's also pennies to dollars in regards to price! If someone is running the same speakers in the same room with music only and Classe, they're going to like it more than the Japanese AV choices. Key differentiator in that statement being "V"----video. If I saw someone's "hifi" music listening room and they had an Onkyo AVR with multi-thousand $, top of line stereo speakers, I would probably chuckle inside. Likewise if I walked into a dedicated HT and they had a Classe preamp running only 2.1 for movies, I'd chuckle too. I really don't get how anyone could draw a comparison there. 

What's interesting is that the comment is made without detail of WHAT the setup actually was. That's shady and suspect....D, M, Onk, Pioneer, Yamaha, Anthem? Speakers in ceiling or DAE? The rest of the system and the source? Lot of omissions there....


----------



## Carrick

bguzman said:


> Are you able to put your surround speakers on stands?


I could but don't trust my untrained dogs, I've seen their artwork too many times.

I can rig a ceiling mounted bracket, but I've gotta come up with something in the next month to contain the effects and don't really want walls that keep me from seeing what's playing from the foyer/kitchen/dining and family rooms.

Has anyone installed plexi-glass or acrylic walls? or can someone direct me to the right section? Thanks


----------



## Ricoflashback

All great comments on Dolby Atmos challenges. Regarding audio playback - isn't there a way with the new Atmos AVR's to just play plain old stereo (2 channel) for legacy CD's and 5.1 for SACD's?

Or is Atmos DSU your only option? 

I do believe that object based sountracks will provide the biggest bang for your buck, enjoyment wise. 

Now - as whether to buy now or later - I understand both sides of the conversation. For me - I'd be happy with 7.1.4 right now if I could buy for around $1,200 or less. The Denon X5200W seems to fit the bill but I'm unsure as to the best connections on how to incorporate height channels. And I'mwondering about DTS:X and how this changes the game. 

For me, Dolby Atmos/DTS:X is not a matter of if but when.


----------



## Gooddoc

Stoked21 said:


> I have no doubt, that the Classe and an Atmos AVR or prepro are subjectively going to have different appeal to hifi music enthusiasts. I use to run Counterpoint and Levinson, so I've been there and I get it.
> 
> It's apples to oranges though. But it's also pennies to dollars in regards to price! If someone is running the same speakers in the same room with music only and Classe, they're going to like it more than the Japanese AV choices. Key differentiator in that statement being "V"----video. If I saw someone's "hifi" music listening room and they had an Onkyo AVR with multi-thousand $, top of line stereo speakers, I would probably chuckle inside. Likewise if I walked into a dedicated HT and they had a Classe preamp running only 2.1 for movies, I'd chuckle too. I really don't get how anyone could draw a comparison there.
> 
> What's interesting is that the comment is made without detail of WHAT the setup actually was. That's shady and suspect....D, M, Onk, Pioneer, Yamaha, Anthem? Speakers in ceiling or DAE? The rest of the system and the source? Lot of omissions there....


I'd replace "subjective" with "sighted". I'm not convinced there would be any difference between prepros if blinded.


----------



## dormie1360

gbaby said:


> For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts..........


I'm a movie addict. I made sure I looked up the definition of "gimmick" before I replied. To categorizes ATMOS as a gimmick I'm guessing two things. One, you may not have a complete understanding of the technology involved, and two, you have never experienced the technology implemented correctly. I will admit getting the most out of ATMOS in consumer HT's and showrooms can be difficult, but if you've heard it done correctly, I think you might change your opinion. 

Also, speaking for my theater, the importance of the processor was below, speakers, amps, DSP, and WAY below the importance of the design and calibration of the room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> All great comments on Dolby Atmos challenges. Regarding audio playback - isn't there a way with the new Atmos AVR's to just play plain old stereo (2 channel) for legacy CD's and 5.1 for SACD's?
> 
> Or is Atmos DSU your only option?
> 
> I do believe that object based sountracks will provide the biggest bang for your buck, enjoyment wise.
> 
> Now - as whether to buy now or later - I understand both sides of the conversation. For me - I'd be happy with 7.1.4 right now if I could buy for around $1,200 or less. The Denon X5200W seems to fit the bill but I'm unsure as to the best connections on how to incorporate height channels. And I'mwondering about DTS:X and how this changes the game.
> 
> For me, Dolby Atmos/DTS:X is not a matter of if but when.


You do not have to engage an upmixing feature at all. You can play stereo as stereo or 5.1 as 5.1 or 7.1 as 7.1. Dolby Surround and soon DTS Neural: X (and Audyssey's own upmixer) are optional expansion add-on's to a basic music or movie track.


----------



## lego1

A question for you guys:

I am in the process to upgrading to an Atmos system. My theater room is pretty small in an upstairs loft. My sectional is against the rear wall therefore I cannot accommodate top rear speakers. I have some Tannoy CMS 501 DC speakers that I will install in the top main position. 

I have Tannoy Di5dc front heights installed as high as I could up on the front wall. I sit about 9 feet away from them. My ceiling is 8 feet tall. 

Will it be better to have front heights and top main running during Atmos or only the top mains. If I have the front heights, will sounds that are meant for the top main go to them instead? Obviously the top main will actually be in the ceiling so I would rather have height sounds go to them. 

Also, in this scenario, would it be better to install the top mains at 90 degrees or a bit forward at 80 degrees? 

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lego1 said:


> A question for you guys:
> 
> I am in the process to upgrading to an Atmos system. My theater room is pretty small in an upstairs loft. My sectional is against the rear wall therefore I cannot accommodate top rear speakers. I have some Tannoy CMS 501 DC speakers that I will install in the top main position.
> 
> I have Tannoy Di5dc front heights installed as high as I could up on the front wall. I sit about 9 feet away from them. My ceiling is 8 feet tall.
> 
> Will it be better to have front heights and top main running during Atmos or only the top mains. If I have the front heights, will sounds that are meant for the top main go to them instead? Obviously the top main will actually be in the ceiling so I would rather have height sounds go to them.
> 
> Also, in this scenario, would it be better to install the top mains at 90 degrees or a bit forward at 80 degrees?
> 
> Thanks!


I would go Front Height as high up towards the ceiling as possible and pretty much aimed at the seating, and Top Middle with the TM's just slightly in front of your seating location. Though, it's always best to try and get the seats away from the wall a few feet for better sound reproduction as a general rule.


----------



## lego1

Thanks Dan! If this room wasn't so tiny I definitely would. We tend to have movie nights with several people over so we have a large sectional against the wall. The sides of the sectional stick out so there's really no way to move it forward without hitting the left and right speakers. 

The front heights are already almost touching the ceiling but regretfully that puts them at a 28 degree angle from my ears not within the atmos spec. I will try it the way you say. Thanks again.


----------



## pasender91

FH at 28° should still work, you're not so far from the official 30° limit 
but with this FH in place and taking care of the top front, i would maybe setup the ceiling speakers either as TM (Top Middle) and slighly back (100°) or even better as TR (Top Rear) at 135° or close to it.
This is to ensure you get the best possible coverage up there


----------



## virtualrain

gbaby said:


> I thought about that, but later decided the setup was fine. What made it gimmicky to me was hearing a back ground vocal from the ceiling which I thought was weird. I heard the object based special effects from the ceiling, but I was not impressed. I was more impressed with the "quality" of sound I heard from the Classe processor more than the quantity of sound I heard from the ATMOS processor. This is just my opinion.



Was the demo you're referring to the Bailando music video? It's the only music track I know of re-mixed for Atmos. If so, that's a fun mix but by no means an accurate reproduction of the song or a live performance of it. I wouldn't base your opinion of Atmos rendering on that particular track. And if it wasn't Bailando, what music track was it? I'd like to track it down. 



Stoked21 said:


> I think you likely just confirmed what several of us have suggested. The system wasn't properly setup. When I hear anyone say sounds were coming "from the ceiling", that means they were set too hot and/or the timing and phase are out. Sounds coming directly from the ceiling are the tell-tell sign someone didn't know what they were doing. Only at rare instances will sound appear to come directly from the ceiling (helicopter fly over, etc). Even then, it normally sounds like a helicopter flew over at normal flight level, not "from the ceiling" IMO. 95% of the time, objects are elevated and sound like they are coming from "within the room". It's very common to hear movie soundtracks where the voices image right in front of my face or directly above my head, etc. This is most evident with bugs and wind. You will hear them flying throughout the room or wind blowing through the room. Set things up wrong and those effects sound like they are coming from the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you drove that far to hear a bad demo. I'd suggest you find someone on AVS in your area, who knows what they're doing, and go visit their HT. I'm 100% confident your opinion will change.



I'm not sure why you guys are coming down so hard on this guy... Do you know what he heard? There's only one Atmos music track I'm aware of, and that's the Bailando music video on the Dolby Demo Disc. As I said above, that track is a fun mix, but not a good one for assessing Atmos. Anyone wanting a good demo of Atmos on a music track is not going to come away pleased with Bailando, especially any kind of audiophile since that mix is whimsical and has no basis in reality. So it could very well be that the system was perfectly fine, but the demo track selected was horrible, leading to what sounds like an accurate assessment.


----------



## pasender91

Well, he never said it was Bailando he was referring to when talking about the music he listened to ... 
More likely, he listened to other music with Dolby Surround engaged.
The result in this context is a mixed bag, some people like it, some other do not ...

For pure stereo listening, the fact that a system has Atmos or not is irrelevant towards the quality of the result that is achieved, it is possible to have a poor or good setup from a non-atmos or an atmos setup, it is more about room acoustics and speaker quality....


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Would you agree a speaker rated down to 30hz can reproduce 80hz with far greater ease than a speaker rated down to only 80hz.


Which would you think would better handle frequencies below 80hz? My dual Seaton Submersives with 6,000 watts of amplification driving 4 x 15 inch drivers, or a tower speaker rated to 30Hz?


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> No is disputing a 15" driver and a horn loaded tweeter and a 104 db sensitivity won't have greater dynamic ease than anything beneath it , that's pretty much a given. Eye's are rolled over the total disregard of crossover's having no effect on the transition of those lower frequencies to the speaker that will handle them, in this case, the ability of the sub to produce the slam comes into play along with the other speakers in question and when combined the effect can be called dynamic ease or headroom feel free to name your term. You selected your new setup to give the sound you where looking for and it seems you've achieved your goal and are happy but guess what! so have I and many other's with "typical Home theater or Audiophile speakers"
> 
> Enjoy


The whole basis of THX speakers and the invention of the subwoofer which led to the creation of THX is that speakers which are capable down to an 80Hz crossover (note, not down to 80Hz) when combined with a capable subwoofer, will reproduce the entire frequency range perfectly well and, usually, much better than a speaker which is rated to, say, 30Hz (note, rated) on its own or with a less capable subwoofer. Thus the notion that one needs speakers extending to significantly below 80hz, in a bass-managed system, is, IMO, misguided.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> You'd think. There is hope that they might make their most recent demo disc (the one with speaker test tracks) available to the public, but that's all it is: hope.


As I have said a few times, it is almost certainly an IP issue wrt to the commercial content on the demo disc. Of course, Dolby could possible publish a disc with just their own content on it (the trailers) but these are readily downloadable from the Internet, so what would be the point?


----------



## jpco

Test tones would be the point.


----------



## Xeneize12

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


I respect you opinion... but for me, going 7.2.4 with in-ceiling speakers had a very similar impact to that when I went from 2.1 to 5.1....

3D may be gimmick ... Atmos is certainly a game changer.... IMHO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shniks said:


> I agree with your assessment. I really thought I would be blown away reading all the reviews about this disc. It was nice, but nothing like Transformers 4, Gravity, Terminator Genisys etc. The Victoria Falls scene was awesome, but apart from that it was a nice disc, but I would not use this for an Atmos demo.


Last night I watched *Baahulbali*. This is a very entertaining, if at times somewhat cheesey, Indian adventure story. It is beautifully photographed and has some outstanding action scenes, culminating in the final battle which occupies 20-25 minutes towards the end of the movie. The score is outstanding IMO and beautifully matched to the on-screen scenes which it accompanies. And, being Bollywood, there are several terrific songs, one of which (at about the 1hr 53m point if my memory serves, BICBW) knocks the _Bailando _song on the Dolby demo disk, IMO, into a cocked hat for its use of Atmos). There are beautiful women, strong heros and baddies, great action scenes and an 'interesting' story, so what's not to like?

But the thing which will blow you away is the use of Atmos. The overheads are used extensively and to good effect. If you like the genre, it is a very good example of how Atmos can raise the level (literally) of a soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Hmmmm...I've ran everything from 4" up to 7" drivers in the ceiling. As molon_labe implies, and we all agree, the headroom is significantly impacted by the driver size. I've been finding lately that even 7" drivers in the ceiling barely cut it (only occasionally though). Even when they are crossed at 80hz a loud spaceship flyover or thunderstorm can make the bottom end seem thin. Anything less than a 6" driver in the ceiling isn't doing Atmos much justice. Can or will something in the smaller range sound great? Hell yeah! Audyssey and such help lessen the problem. Still we all are forced to purchase and design within our budget and within our room limitations.
> 
> Personally, I'm starting to think 8" is a sweet spot for ceiling speakers. I noticed a major difference when going from a 4.5" to a 6" to a 7". All were crossed at 80hz and capable of it according to the manufacturers even if physics calls into question some of the 80hz F3 spec on the tiny drivers. I imagine a jump to 8" up top would be insane during intense action, thunderstorms, etc. I personally am considering JBL or JTR to accomplish this, though it likely will be some time from now. My 7" cheapos are doing rather well and I have bigger fish to fry before ditching them.
> 
> I highly doubt we could really accommodate anything bigger up top. But I no longer would say that it's unnecessary or overkill with each and every new Atmos title I watch. I'm sure some people would or do have 10,12,15" up there!!!


What woofage do you have?


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system.


So "high end" that he didn't go for 7.2.4 then? 



gbaby said:


> Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear.


Well you can't in fact. So I am guessing you heard a poor setup.



gbaby said:


> In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor.


You sure have swallowed the "high end" Koolaid. Electronics hardly matter at all these days. The route to good sound lies in the room, the speakers, the subs and the placement of them in the room. Putting your "high end" processor into a system will make very little, if any, audible difference. Of course, it will make a very big difference in one way: to the bank balance of the "high end" dealer 



gbaby said:


> For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.


Given that Atmos was designed as a system for the playback of movies, I can’t really understand your criticism of it. It is like criticising your toaster because it makes poor ice cream.

Atmos is only a "gimmick" if you also believe that 5.1 and 7.1 were "gimmicks". But sure, it is not for you, and on that we can agree.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> What woofage do you have?


I need more coffee. As soon as I read your post, the song "Who let dogs out..woof.. woof...woof" popped into my head. If someone could only explain why these things happpen.....


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Didn't read to me like you were doing anything but reporting your subjective impressions. Regardless of whether you ultimately decide you want anything to do with Atmos, from your comments I can say with confidence your demo was poorly setup. Do with that what you will.
> 
> *Also, the difference between the Classe and the Atmos "high end" processor certainly had nothing to do with the processors, but the setup.*
> 
> *The difference between reasonably designed processors for multichannel sound reproduction is miniscule compared to setup and the speakers.*


Amen to that. But then, how would these "high end" dealers stay in business if there weren't people who actually believed that one processor over another makes such a difference?  _"Allow me to sell you a $20,000 amplifier, sir, for you will surely hear such a difference no matter what your room is like...." _


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> What woofage do you have?


Maybe a little off topic......I'm sure it'll come back around to Atmos though!

For now a single JTR Cap1400 18". Have been through 4 subs in the last 6 months including this one. Just sent back a Klipsch Reference Series 15" for a bad amp (hum/ringing that wasn't a ground loop). Kind of a good thing as I'm hoping to receive a refund since I already installed it's replacement!  Took me a while to find one I really liked and wanted to keep. The Cap is a winner. I'll likely add 1 or 2 more of these. Back of room and behind MLP for NF. Quite frankly, one of them shakes things off the walls and behaves like NF even from 14 feet away. The 16hz extension is insane. I'm not bass light by any means. Even with the Klipsch 15" and a Polk 12" I had "okay" bass. Though I didn't realize how mediocre it really was until the JTR.

I still think larger drivers IC or OC will better serve the purpose of Atmos. During the 2 weeks with no subs (sold Polk, sent back Klipsch, waiting on JTR), I heard a lot of mid-bass from the ceiling. I'd rather have a higher sensitivity, higher power handling, linear F3, 8-10" driver vs something smaller. Regardless of how many 18" subs are in the room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> I'd replace "subjective" with "sighted". I'm not convinced there would be any difference between prepros if blinded.


Agreed, assuming the processing and DSP etc was turned off. Obviously things specifically designed to alter the sound, like DSP or REQ or tone controls etc, will, well, alter the sound. BYAKT


----------



## kbarnes701

virtualrain said:


> Was the demo you're referring to the Bailando music video? It's the only music track I know of re-mixed for Atmos. If so, that's a fun mix but by no means an accurate reproduction of the song or a live performance of it. I wouldn't base your opinion of Atmos rendering on that particular track. And if it wasn't Bailando, what music track was it? I'd like to track it down.


See my comments on the music in *Baahalbali* above. One of the songs in particular blows _Bailando_ away.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Test tones would be the point.


Agreed there. A disc with test tones on it should be included with the AVR IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> First, great choice in subs! Those are tasty!!!!
> 
> 
> I have two 24" Deep Sea Sound subs @ 4000 watts each. I don't run any of my speakers at full range. My JBLs are not handling down to 30hz, they are crossed in the receiver at 80hz. Why do you have Seaton's and all that power? Any sub that can produce down to 20hz will meet the THX spec right? It is because the Seaton has larger, better drivers and more power. It can produce its frequency range better than a smaller sub. This is the same principle. Mid bass content extends up to 200hz. Does the 80 to 200 range not matter? Larger, high-efficiency speakers will produce this more dynamically than smaller less efficient speakers. Here is a THX certified system. Will this system sound as good as your system? Oh course not. Why? It has smaller, inferior drivers across the entire freq range from subs to the tweets.


A poor speaker is a poor speaker. A poor sub is a poor sub. The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate bass-management, used with high quality speakers and subs. You have changed the discussion from one we were having (whether in a bass-managed system one needs surround speakers capable of digging quite deep) into one we weren't having (whether crap speakers and subs sound like crap).


----------



## rontalley

Molon_Labe said:


> If people thought I was insane before, I am sure to be committed now. I am trying to close a deal on four
> JBL AM6215/64 since they match my 4722s components perfectly. They also have a u-bracket so they were "designed" for ceiling mounting....lol. What is cool is the horn is rotatable for vert/horz mounting.
> 
> The more I listen to Atmos tracks I can detect a slight timbre shift when the sound pans from top to bottom. I have become spoiled by immersive sound, and I want as close to matching as possible. Overkill yes, but for the price I am getting these for it is hard to say no and its just a slight cost upgrade to what I can get for my SCS 8's. I just hope the deal goes through.




Hey, if you can, why not?!

I get the timbre shift thingy. Especially obvious in Gravity. I watched it before I ran YPAO and properly calibrated my setup. Was not smooth at all and to be honest, it was outright distracting. Now, even with different ceiling speakers, eq'ing the the speakers made a HUGE difference in timbre shift. Although, I can tell if I really listen hard that my Fronts, Surrounds, Center and Ceiling Speakers are not timbre matched, they are close enough that its no longer a distraction.

Said all that to say that, for someone like you, NOT having them matched will get you committed faster!


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> No, I saying that driver size matters in the 80 to 200 range. Your saying it doesnt and that it is irrelevant if you have proper bass management. It does and always will matter - its physics. I am not saying a system sounds bad that is comprised of smaller drivers, but it will not have the same dynamics of a system with larger high-efficiency drivers. I was giving an example of a THX certified system that follows the bass management guidelines to the exact spec to get the cool THX logo. The only time driver size becomes irrelevant is when it comes to the high end frequencies where material composition and design becomes more important than size i.e. Be, Ti, ribbon, soft-dome, etc.
> 
> Until you demo a high-efficiency speaker in your room, you cannot make a non-biased statement. You are simply defending your system, which I am sure sounds fantastic! I don't mean any of my statements to be personal in nature. I am not saying mine is better than yours or anyone elses system. I am not saying JBL is the best. I am saying that speakers like QSC, JTR, Reaction Audio, JBL etc that use larger drivers that are >95db sensitive perform and sound better with movie and game soundtracks. I have been on both sides of the track and have heard the difference first hand in my room. There is a HUGE difference. I don't know what more I can say.
> 
> We can just agree to disagree and focus back on Atmos. I hope your not sour at me M8


My dog is demanding his walk so I will reply properly later. Just to say that of course I am not sour at you. I am having a good discussion here and I do take on board some of your points. Not defending my own setup at all - I am always prepared to discover a better way where/if one exists. But I have personally experimented with much larger speakers for the ceiling and there was no audible difference, kinda what I expected, because it doesn't take a huge driver to properly reproduce frequencies above 100Hz.

Woof, bark, woof, woof, growl.... *growl? * He's getting serious. Back later


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> I get the timbre shift thingy. Especially obvious in Gravity. I watched it before I ran YPAO and properly calibrated my setup. Was not smooth at all and to be honest, it was outright distracting. Now, even with different ceiling speakers, eq'ing the the speakers made a HUGE difference in timbre shift. Although, I can tell if I really listen hard that my Fronts, Surrounds, Center and Ceiling Speakers are not timbre matched, they are close enough that its no longer a distraction.
> 
> Said all that to say that, for someone like you, NOT having them matched will get you committed faster!


Timbre shift in Gravity is horrible. My surrounds are DT, tops Niles and LCR Monitor Audio. The DT and Niles are not as bad of a mismatch; it's actually pretty good. But when things jump from front to the surround/tops the shift is extremely distracting. I can't say I've noticed it that much on any other movie, but I'm probably less sensitive or attuned to it than some of your ears. It's actually pretty seldom that a character in a movie travels 360 while talking, which is when it's most noticeable in Gravity. This is one of the primary reasons I'm in the process of slowly switching every speaker to the same manuf.

It is funny how this thread has progressed and we all have become more picky and more attuned to Atmos. Several months ago everyone was saying "oh the size of the Atmos speaker isn't really relevant". Also saying "oh timbre match isn't really a concern and your tops don't need to match everything else." Now the more movies we hear and the more experienced we become, the more we are touting larger drivers and timbre matching. 

> or = 8" and timbre matched. That's my new line on Atmos. Nothing less.


----------



## rontalley

Molon_Labe said:


> Lets hope this changes. The Atmos demo really shows what the technology is capable of. I hope movies shift from just ambiance type sounds to true content in all channels. I was really disappointed in San Andreas. The helicopter overhead during the rescue could have been off the charts with the helicopter wash. I thought they missed a golden opportunity.


I was just saying this!! I was like WTH! Are you serious come on mixers! That scene should have had you in Atmos Heaven!


----------



## Gates

When I heard ATMOS at my dealer's, I wasn't too impressed, but I had ordered my equipment before even hearing it because I'm always wanting to be up to the minute. Turns out that when I set it up at my house, it was the best thing I've done in the past 20 years when it comes to HT. It's absolutely incredible. 

Last week I sold my ADP-590's and I asked the guy who purchased them if he heard ATMOS yet. He replied "no, it sounds like a gimmick like 3D". So I made him listen to my ATMOS demo disc and I kept hearing him go WOAH!!! A couple of days later I started getting e-mails from him asking about my equipment and such cause he wants to upgrade, and this is from a guy that told me he's been into HT for a long time. He had never heard anything quite like it.


----------



## rontalley

Gates said:


> When I heard ATMOS at my dealer's, I wasn't too impressed, but I had ordered my equipment before even hearing it because I'm always wanting to be up to the minute. Turns out that when I set it up at my house, it was the best thing I've done in the past 20 years when it comes to HT. It's absolutely incredible.
> 
> Last week I sold my ADP-590's and I asked the guy who purchased them if he heard ATMOS yet. He replied "no, it sounds like a gimmick like 3D". So I made him listen to my ATMOS demo disc and I kept hearing him go WOAH!!! A couple of days later I started getting e-mails from him asking about my equipment and such cause he wants to upgrade, and this is from a guy that told me he's been into HT for a long time. He had never heard anything quite like it.


Atmos is truly special and DSU is mind blowing! I just can't wrap my head around how the algorithms know what to put overhead. I watch Black Hawk Down the other night and it is a totally different movie. Amazing this technology is!


----------



## Steve Goff

kbarnes701 said:


> The whole basis of THX speakers and the invention of the subwoofer which led to the creation of THX is that speakers which are capable down to an 80Hz crossover (note, not down to 80Hz) when combined with a capable subwoofer, will reproduce the entire frequency range perfectly well and, usually, much better than a speaker which is rated to, say, 30Hz (note, rated) on its own or with a less capable subwoofer. Thus the notion that one needs speakers extending to significantly below 80hz, in a bass-managed system, is, IMO, misguided.



Unfortunately this is not necessarily the case since the distortion of the smaller driver will very likely be higher. You still want to cross over at 80 Hz to your subwoofer, but the distortion of the larger driver in the main channel above 80 Hz will usually be less than the distortion of the smaller driver. On the other hand, a properly designed main speaker with a 6-inch woofer should suffice in most situations.


----------



## Gates

rontalley said:


> Atmos is truly special and DSU is mind blowing! I just can't wrap my head around how the algorithms know what to put overhead. I watch Black Hawk Down the other night and it is a totally different movie. Amazing this technology is!


I know! I was just telling some of my coworkers this exact same thing the other day.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Last night I watched *Baahulbali*. This is a very entertaining, if at times somewhat cheesey, Indian adventure story. It is beautifully photographed and has some outstanding action scenes, culminating in the final battle which occupies 20-25 minutes towards the end of the movie. The score is outstanding IMO and beautifully matched to the on-screen scenes which it accompanies. And, being Bollywood, there are several terrific songs, one of which (at about the 1hr 53m point if my memory serves, BICBW) knocks the _Bailando _song on the Dolby demo disk, IMO, into a cocked hat for its use of Atmos). There are beautiful women, strong heros and baddies, great action scenes and an 'interesting' story, so what's not to like?
> 
> But the thing which will blow you away is the use of Atmos. The overheads are used extensively and to good effect. If you like the genre, it is a very good example of how Atmos can raise the level (literally) of a soundtrack.


 is there any English spoken or is it's all Hindi: Dolby Atmos?? is that correct?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> A poor speaker is a poor speaker. A poor sub is a poor sub. The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate bass-management, used with high quality speakers and subs. You have changed the discussion from one we were having (whether in a bass-managed system one needs surround speakers capable of digging quite deep) into one we weren't having (whether crap speakers and subs sound like crap).














Molon_Labe said:


> No, I saying that driver size matters in the 80 to 200 range. Your saying it doesnt and that it is irrelevant if you have proper bass management. It does and always will matter - its physics. I am not saying a system sounds bad that is comprised of smaller drivers, but it will not have the same dynamics of a system with larger high-efficiency drivers. I was giving an example of a THX certified system that follows the bass management guidelines to the exact spec to get the cool THX logo. The only time driver size becomes irrelevant is when it comes to the high end frequencies where material composition and design becomes more important than size i.e. Be, Ti, ribbon, soft-dome, etc.
> 
> Until you demo a high-efficiency speaker in your room, you cannot make a non-biased statement. You are simply defending your system, which I am sure sounds fantastic! I don't mean any of my statements to be personal in nature. I am not saying mine is better than yours or anyone elses system. I am not saying JBL is the best. I am saying that speakers like QSC, JTR, Reaction Audio, JBL etc that use larger drivers that are >95db sensitive perform and sound better with movie and game soundtracks. I have been on both sides of the track and have heard the difference first hand in my room. There is a HUGE difference. I don't know what more I can say.
> 
> We can just agree to disagree and focus back on Atmos. I hope your not sour at me M8



C'mon guys. I'm growing tired of this back and forth of mildly on topic discussion. Anymore and I'll have to report you and have your posts deleted.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> is there any English spoken or is it's all Hindi: Dolby Atmos?? is that correct?


 It's all in Hindi. You will just have to get over your aversion to subtitles  In fact, the translations for the several songs are really cheesy, so you needn't bother looking at them while the songs are in progress (no need to understand the lyric, it is all obvious from context for each song). And did I mention scantily clad and really beautiful young women?  IMO the disc is worth the money just for the half dozen songs - it's the first time I have heard music mixed for Atmos (I don't count _Bailando_ as I hate everything about it (well, not the beautiful young women, obviously) and it was a very enjoyable experience. But I did like the movie too.

One amusing thing about the movie is that they show a big notice at the beginning saying no animals were harmed during the making of the movie and it's all CGI. Not content with that, every time an animal is in a dangerous position during the movie, they put a little CGI flag on the bottom left corner of the screen. Just so, like, you know that the 5,000 bull Baahubali is wrestling to the ground single-handed isn't real 

Of course, hundreds of humans have their heads and limbs and extremities hacked off amidst tons of blood and gore - but they are real, no CGI warning for that. Just the bull and the horses.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> Unfortunately this is not necessarily the case since the distortion of the smaller driver will very likely be higher.


Sometimes it will be an issue for sure. The solution to that is to get better speakers. Not bigger - better.



Steve Goff said:


> You still want to cross over at 80 Hz to your subwoofer, but the distortion of the larger driver in the main channel above 80 Hz will usually be less than the distortion of the smaller driver.


Maybe. I assume you mean distortion that is audible? If it isn't audible it doesn't exist AFAIAC. Again, choose speakers which don't have audible distortion would be my suggestion there.



Steve Goff said:


> On the other hand, a properly designed main speaker with a 6-inch woofer should suffice in most situations.


Indeed. And of course, these are surrounds - they are not working very hard at all. If you switch off the floor level speakers and listen to what the overheads are actually doing, even in DSU which works them harder than Atmos mostly, they ain't doing much.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> C'mon guys. I'm growing tired of this back and forth of mildly on topic discussion. Anymore and I'll have to report you and have your posts deleted.


haha. The pent-up bitterness there is all but palpable, Scott. Not that I blame you.


----------



## gbaby

I have read the posts on my ATMOS experience. The processor was an Integra DHC-80.6 and the speakers were all M&K. I felt the set up was fine, its just I left with the impression that a mid grade processor with ATMOS simply cannot sonically compete with a high end processor like a Classe that does not have ATMOS. That immersion factor of ATMOS is already easily heard on the Classe with the sound just being much more refined, cleaner and defined.


----------



## bargervais

gbaby said:


> I have read the posts on my ATMOS experience. The processor was an Integra DHC-80.6 and the speakers were all M&K. I felt the set up was fine, its just I left with the impression that a mid grade processor with ATMOS simply cannot sonically compete with a high end processor like a Classe that does not have ATMOS. That immersion factor of ATMOS is already easily heard on the Classe with the sound just being much more refined, cleaner and defined.


well there you go. i think your conclusion/Impression was already made up. how can this gimmicky Atmos compare. 
you can't come to a conclusion by sampling one set up


----------



## Nightlord

rontalley said:


> Atmos is truly special and DSU is mind blowing! I just can't wrap my head around how the algorithms know what to put overhead. I watch Black Hawk Down the other night and it is a totally different movie. Amazing this technology is!


Did you ever try putting speakers where Atmos has them now and just moving surround channel information there? 

I have... I have even tried extraction of common or inverse information from side surrounds to put up to... And no matter what... Getting some extra speakers up there do make a quite noticable difference. 

So, don't give ALL the credit to the new format - you could have had a bit part of the same experience already before...

Not saying there isn't any gains in the new formats, but we have to be realistic too or we'll delude ourselves where it's not applicable.


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> I have read the posts on my ATMOS experience. The processor was an Integra DHC-80.6 and the speakers were all M&K. I felt the set up was fine, its just I left with the impression that a mid grade processor with ATMOS simply cannot sonically compete with a high end processor like a Classe that does not have ATMOS. That immersion factor of ATMOS is already easily heard on the Classe with the sound just being much more refined, cleaner and defined.


Well @gbaby you have to look at this in one of several ways. 
1) You have a bunch of Atmos experienced people telling you that you are missing something. This isn't to justify our investments. It's to change the level of immersion and elevation. We wouldn't be investing in it if it was not a *dramatically* perceived movie altering experience. It's not mass hysteria.
2) Numerous people are telling you the setup you heard was inferior. The mass consensus alone should tell you that not everyone has to be wrong so that only you can be right. You have stated a couple of things that lead to a bad demo conclusion. (Sounds "coming from the ceiling" for example). Plus, if your ears can hear such a minute, subjective sonic quality difference between a "mid-range AVR" and a Classe model....then you should be able to hear the enormous difference between 5.1 and Atmos even with your head shoved in a metal bucket. It's that dramatic. My dogs literally can hear the difference and chase at phantom bugs flying throughout the room (and they have significantly better hearing than humans---Atmos fools them!). It's really not subjective in the slightest and is a night and day difference _when done correctly._ I could come over to your place and move your L and R speakers by several inches and it would completely destroy your 2ch sound stage. Why can't you accept that an Atmos setup is just as finicky and requires a thought out installation?
3) The only way a sound will come from above you....is if the speaker is ABOVE you or reflected. Sound stage elevation to a certain degree is surely possible with 2 ch. I've heard this with Martin Logan CLS2z. Objects coming from above you and all around you are a completely different matter. The level of granularity of elevation, which Atmos provides, is just not physically possible in a 2 channel system.
4) You can listen to 2 ch music only and forget about Atmos. If you're not a movie/HT enthusiasts, then yeah Atmos doesn't have to be your cup of tea. We can all agree to disagree on whether it's great for music all day long. That is 100% preference and entirely subjective. Atmos doesn't have to be for everyone.
5) Several people who have GORGEOUS high-end HT setups have come over to my little low-cost HT. They all walked in saying they have heard Atmos before and were only mildly intrigued. They weren't running out to jump on the Atmos band wagon. But after leaving my HT, they all wanted to jump in and invest and upgrade immediately---Because the immersion is off the charts. And these people have dedicated HTs that are some of the nicest found here on AVS. 

So you choose to learn from all of this and accept that the whole world isn't wrong just to prove your love for Classe. You can reasonably come to the conclusion that you have never heard Atmos, if you're open-minded and can accept that one demo at one improperly setup location does not demonstrate the technology. Or you can choose to be obstinate to solely defend your stance. Personally, if so many people were telling me how much I was missing then I would be running out to find a proper demo to experience it myself and learn.


----------



## gbaby

bargervais said:


> ....
> you can't come to a conclusion by sampling one set up


Perhaps.


----------



## rontalley

Nightlord said:


> Did you ever try putting speakers where Atmos has them now and just moving surround channel information there?
> 
> I have... I have even tried extraction of common or inverse information from side surrounds to put up to... And no matter what... Getting some extra speakers up there do make a quite noticable difference.
> 
> So, don't give ALL the credit to the new format - you could have had a bit part of the same experience already before...
> 
> Not saying there isn't any gains in the new formats, but we have to be realistic too or we'll delude ourselves where it's not applicable.


Have I ever put my surrounds and rears over my head...Hmmm...nope. I guess it would be interesting but seems kinda weird...No action on sides or in the back of you but all overhead and F/C/R. 

I can definitely tell you that what is being played overhead in DSU is different than whats coming out of my sides and surrounds. I know this because for 4 days straight, I played the same 8 clips over and over and over and over and over on a loop with different speakers plugged in and others not and so on. I really wanted to see if the overheads were actually playing different sound or they were just reproducing what was coming out of the surrounds and rears.

Saying all that, I didn't think once to set my system up for a regular 7.1 and switch the banana plugs so that TF was Surround and TR were Rears...I will do this just so when someone else ask me the same question, I would have an answer not based on speculation but on my own personal experience.

Given that, IMHO, DSU has upped the bar just as 5.1 did to 2.1, It would be very interesting to see that all we had to do was put our surrounds and rears in the ceilings and we would have had 3D audio long time ago as you have eluded to.

Question, since it is confirmed that height presence channels have made a huge impact on audio (home), how would you rate a 7.1.4 system over a 7.1 system with the surround and rears overhead on a scale from 1 to 10?


----------



## Charles R

Scott Simonian said:


> C'mon guys. I'm growing tired of this back and forth of mildly on topic discussion.


I just wish those on my ignore list would use Multi-Quote.


----------



## NorthSky

gbaby said:


> Yesterday, I heard ATMOS for the first time at a high end audio/video dealer. It was a 5.2.4 system. I listened to both the ATMOS demo, which contained exerts of movies and music. I subsequently listened to a 5.1 setup with a high end processor. The executive summary is that Kal Rubinson's comment about music with ATMOS having an inappropriate ambiance was simply too kind. It was bazaar and outright gimmicky. Also, I was not impressed with the sound effects from the height channels as you can get a similar or equally satisfying effect with your rear channels elevated over the seating area in the rear. In addition, it was the quality of the signal from the high end system that trumped the signal from the height channels. The lesson I learned is that the sound one gets from a 5.1 or 7.1 system from a high end processor is a better purchase than a ATMOS sound from a mediocre processor. For me ATMOS is another gimmick for movie addicts and has no benefits for music. It is something I can live without.  You can too. Invest in good electronics not gimmicks.





audiofan1 said:


> As someone who has there surround channels mounted high and felt the same before a going to a 7.1.4 setup from 5.1, its not even on the same level when it comes to the placement of objects bed channels are now just as they have been always bed channels! I'm not sure why you still feel that these 5.1 or 7.1 processor's from any manufacture and regardless of cost can even begin to match the placement of discrete objects is beyond me but hey! what ever floats your boat man! This is the new SOTA and my mediocre 8802 is a dream of a pre/pro (2/ch included) and has me scrambling for what to watch next in Atmos or DSU!
> 
> Gimmick for you? cool! For me its the best thing that's happened to home cinema experience in 20yrs





Stoked21 said:


> Yeah, strictly movies here too. It's almost like you dropped in to stir the pot and cause arguments. Fact of the matter is that either you don't watch movies, the dealer you were at had a horrible setup (which I'd bet on from the sounds of it), or you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe a combo of all three likely. The fact that a dealer was running 5.2.4, a lesser system for sales purposes, infers something stinks there.
> 
> I can't argue with hi-fi music junkies not liking Atmos. I use to run extremely high-end systems for music only and laughed at 5.1 surround sound when it first came out. My staging was insanely great and costly and it abhorred me to think of additional speakers destroying that stage. I'm sure many people will not see the value of Atmos for music. I personally have thrown on music for testing and played with the DSU. I enjoyed choirs and strings being lifted and elevated in a well setup Atmos system. It's not overly processed and very subtilely uses the heights. Basically it sounds like 2.1 with much more depth and phenomenal elevation. But it's not for everyone.
> 
> To infer it's a gimmick for movies is demonstrative of poor setup and misunderstanding (or deafness) of the total immersion that's taking place. That's directly comparable to saying that 5.1 for movies is a gimmick and 2.1 is just fine.
> 
> We can agree to disagree on music with Atmos. But with movies....it's really ignorant and misinformed to say "gimmicky".





Gooddoc said:


> Sounds like they had crappy mismatched height speakers that were of different timbre from the base level and perhaps the system was poorly calibrated so the customer "can hear the heights". Similar to video displays put in torch mode to gain attention. I've never heard any actual distinct sound from my height channels with music, and as has been mentioned, properly calibrated the heights only lift the soundstage. I have to get in a chair and put my ears to the height channels to even be sure anything is coming out of them. It's a very cool and subtle effect.
> 
> Now I'll give you that some content puts too much into the base level surrounds. But on the flip side, some songs have just the right amount of subtle content in the surrounds that makes the soundstage just wrap along the sides of the room a bit more.
> 
> For movies I agree that timbre matched surrounds and heights to the mains is not as important, but for music I think it makes a big difference. I think you heard a low end Atmos implementation at a high end store.





Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't sound like you heard a well designed system. Dolby Atmos and DTS: X can sound superb for both movies and music with quality immersive mixing techniques.





Stoked21 said:


> I have no doubt, that the Classe and an Atmos AVR or prepro are subjectively going to have different appeal to hifi music enthusiasts. I use to run Counterpoint and Levinson, so I've been there and I get it.
> 
> It's apples to oranges though. But it's also pennies to dollars in regards to price! If someone is running the same speakers in the same room with music only and Classe, they're going to like it more than the Japanese AV choices. Key differentiator in that statement being "V"----video. If I saw someone's "hifi" music listening room and they had an Onkyo AVR with multi-thousand $, top of line stereo speakers, I would probably chuckle inside. Likewise if I walked into a dedicated HT and they had a Classe preamp running only 2.1 for movies, I'd chuckle too. I really don't get how anyone could draw a comparison there.
> 
> What's interesting is that the comment is made without detail of WHAT the setup actually was. That's shady and suspect....D, M, Onk, Pioneer, Yamaha, Anthem? Speakers in ceiling or DAE? The rest of the system and the source? Lot of omissions there....





virtualrain said:


> Was the demo you're referring to the Bailando music video? It's the only music track I know of re-mixed for Atmos. If so, that's a fun mix but by no means an accurate reproduction of the song or a live performance of it. I wouldn't base your opinion of Atmos rendering on that particular track. And if it wasn't Bailando, what music track was it? I'd like to track it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you guys are coming down so hard on this guy... Do you know what he heard? There's only one Atmos music track I'm aware of, and that's the Bailando music video on the Dolby Demo Disc. As I said above, that track is a fun mix, but not a good one for assessing Atmos. Anyone wanting a good demo of Atmos on a music track is not going to come away pleased with Bailando, especially any kind of audiophile since that mix is whimsical and has no basis in reality. So it could very well be that the system was perfectly fine, but the demo track selected was horrible, leading to what sounds like an accurate assessment.





pasender91 said:


> Well, he never said it was Bailando he was referring to when talking about the music he listened to ...
> More likely, he listened to other music with Dolby Surround engaged.
> The result in this context is a mixed bag, some people like it, some other do not ...
> 
> For pure stereo listening, the fact that a system has Atmos or not is irrelevant towards the quality of the result that is achieved, it is possible to have a poor or good setup from a non-atmos or an atmos setup, it is more about room acoustics and speaker quality....





Xeneize12 said:


> I respect you opinion... but for me, going 7.2.4 with in-ceiling speakers had a very similar impact to that when I went from 2.1 to 5.1....
> 
> 3D may be gimmick ... Atmos is certainly a game changer.... IMHO.





kbarnes701 said:


> So "high end" that he didn't go for 7.2.4 then?
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can't in fact. So I am guessing you heard a poor setup.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have swallowed the "high end" Koolaid. Electronics hardly matter at all these days. The route to good sound lies in the room, the speakers, the subs and the placement of them in the room. Putting your "high end" processor into a system will make very little, if any, audible difference. Of course, it will make a very big difference in one way: to the bank balance of the "high end" dealer
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Atmos was designed as a system for the playback of movies, I can’t really understand your criticism of it. It is like criticising your toaster because it makes poor ice cream.
> 
> Atmos is only a "gimmick" if you also believe that 5.1 and 7.1 were "gimmicks". But sure, it is not for you, and on that we can agree.





Molon_Labe said:


> The local audio/video high-end dealer here in San Antonio has a demo room. Atmos sounded anemic. I wouldn't base your final assumption on one demo. I am not surprised or alarmed you were not WOWed, but just because they are a boutique shop doesn't mean they have a proper setup. I am glad I went forward even though the only demo I heard was meh....
> 
> It is not a gimmick by far.





Gates said:


> When I heard ATMOS at my dealer's, I wasn't too impressed, but I had ordered my equipment before even hearing it because I'm always wanting to be up to the minute. Turns out that when I set it up at my house, it was the best thing I've done in the past 20 years when it comes to HT. It's absolutely incredible.
> 
> Last week I sold my ADP-590's and I asked the guy who purchased them if he heard ATMOS yet. He replied "no, it sounds like a gimmick like 3D". So I made him listen to my ATMOS demo disc and I kept hearing him go WOAH!!! A couple of days later I started getting e-mails from him asking about my equipment and such cause he wants to upgrade, and this is from a guy that told me he's been into HT for a long time. He had never heard anything quite like it.





rontalley said:


> Atmos is truly special and DSU is mind blowing! I just can't wrap my head around how the algorithms know what to put overhead. I watch Black Hawk Down the other night and it is a totally different movie. Amazing this technology is!





Gates said:


> I know! I was just telling some of my coworkers this exact same thing the other day.





gbaby said:


> I have read the posts on my ATMOS experience. The processor was an Integra DHC-80.6 and the speakers were all M&K. I felt the set up was fine, its just I left with the impression that a mid grade processor with ATMOS simply cannot sonically compete with a high end processor like a Classe that does not have ATMOS. That immersion factor of ATMOS is already easily heard on the Classe with the sound just being much more refined, cleaner and defined.





bargervais said:


> well there you go. i think your conclusion/Impression was already made up. how can this gimmicky Atmos compare.
> you can't come to a conclusion by sampling one set up





Stoked21 said:


> Well @gbaby you have to look at this in one of several ways.
> 1) You have a bunch of Atmos experienced people telling you that you are missing something. This isn't to justify our investments. It's to change the level of immersion and elevation. We wouldn't be investing in it if it was not a *dramatically* perceived movie altering experience. It's not mass hysteria.
> 2) Numerous people are telling you the setup you heard was inferior. The mass consensus alone should tell you that not everyone has to be wrong so that only you can be right. You have stated a couple of things that lead to a bad demo conclusion. (Sounds "coming from the ceiling" for example). Plus, if your ears can hear such a minute, subjective sonic quality difference between a "mid-range AVR" and a Classe model....then you should be able to hear the enormous difference between 5.1 and Atmos even with your head shoved in a metal bucket. It's that dramatic. My dogs literally can hear the difference and chase at phantom bugs flying throughout the room (and they have significantly better hearing than humans---Atmos fools them!). It's really not subjective in the slightest and is a night and day difference _when done correctly._ I could come over to your place and move your L and R speakers by several inches and it would completely destroy your 2ch sound stage. Why can't you accept that an Atmos setup is just as finicky and requires a thought out installation?
> 3) The only way a sound will come from above you....is if the speaker is ABOVE you or reflected. Sound stage elevation to a certain degree is surely possible with 2 ch. I've heard this with Martin Logan CLS2z. Objects coming from above you and all around you are a completely different matter. The level of granularity of elevation, which Atmos provides, is just not physically possible in a 2 channel system.
> 4) You can listen to 2 ch music only and forget about Atmos. If you're not a movie/HT enthusiasts, then yeah Atmos doesn't have to be your cup of tea. We can all agree to disagree on whether it's great for music all day long. That is 100% preference and entirely subjective. Atmos doesn't have to be for everyone.
> 5) Several people who have GORGEOUS high-end HT setups have come over to my little low-cost HT. They all walked in saying they have heard Atmos before and were only mildly intrigued. They weren't running out to jump on the Atmos band wagon. But after leaving my HT, they all wanted to jump in and invest and upgrade immediately---Because the immersion is off the charts. And these people have dedicated HTs that are some of the nicest found here on AVS.
> 
> So you choose to learn from all of this and accept that the whole world isn't wrong just to prove your love for Classe. You can reasonably come to the conclusion that you have never heard Atmos, if you're open-minded and can accept that one demo at one improperly setup location does not demonstrate the technology. Or you can choose to be obstinate to solely defend your stance. Personally, if so many people were telling me how much I was missing then I would be running out to find a proper demo to experience it myself and learn.





gbaby said:


> Perhaps.





Charles R said:


> I just wish those on my ignore list would use Multi-Quote.


♦ 




______

♠ ...In particular the first fifteen seconds. ;-)


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> Well [MENTION=7514014]............
> 
> So you choose to learn from all of this and accept that the whole world isn't wrong just to prove your love for Classe. You can reasonably come to the conclusion that you have never heard Atmos, if you're open-minded and can accept that one demo at one improperly setup location does not demonstrate the technology. Or you can choose to be obstinate to solely defend your stance. Personally, if so many people were telling me how much I was missing then I would be running out to find a proper demo to experience it myself and learn.


Actually, I am a Bryston SP3 man. But, while in the store, I could not resist the temptation to compare the Atmos/Integra set up to the Classe/legacy surround setup. I could hear what Atmos offered in the Integra, its just that the superior signal from the Classe outweighed the benefits of the extra ceiling speakers from the Integra. Regardless, I think this would be an interesting subject for an audio magazine to write on, i.e., a comparison of the sound from a mid range Atmos processor vs. that of the sound from a legacy surround high end processor.


----------



## BigScreen

Molon_Labe said:


> I have two 24" Deep Sea Sound subs @ 4000 watts each. I don't run any of my speakers at full range. My JBLs are not handling down to 30hz, they are crossed in the receiver at 80hz. Why do you have Seaton's and all that power? Any sub that can produce down to 20hz will meet the THX spec right? It is because the Seaton has larger, better drivers and more power. It can produce its frequency range better than a smaller sub. This is the same principle. Mid bass content extends up to 200hz. Does the 80 to 200 range not matter? Larger, high-efficiency speakers will produce this more dynamically than smaller less efficient speakers. Here is a THX certified system. Will this system sound as good as your system? Oh course not. Why? It has smaller, inferior drivers across the entire freq range from subs to the tweets.
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I've resisted getting pulled into this argument because I outgrew "my is bigger than your " arguments many years ago. However, I disagree with some of the points that you've made, and in the interest of productive discussion, I'm willing to step into the fray...

I would imagine that you used the above example of the Logitech THX-certified computer speakers in the photo above as an absurd example to make your point, but you opened the door. The speaker system is likely the Logitech Z906, which is intended and designed to be used on a computer, not in a home theater. It is certified per the THX multimedia system specification, which is not the same as the three THX certifications that actually apply to home theater applications.

I haven't heard these speakers, and I would imagine that you haven't either, so all we have to go on is the specifications. My guess is that this is a pretty nice speaker system... for a computer environment, where the listener is probably within 2-3 feet of every speaker. No one here would likely support using this speaker system in anything bigger than a small dorm room for watching movies.

Since we're on the topic of THX certification, let's follow that path. While some may feel that THX is no longer relevant, and a common argument amongst its detractors are the that shiny logo just adds to the cost, and "high end" products can be better and don't have the logo, the fact remains that the certifications were designed to meet minimum standards. Those standards were used to define a level of performance, which began as one certification and grew into the Ultra (the original spec) and Select (intended for smaller rooms) levels, which now appear to have spawned a third (THX I/S Plus Systems) for smaller rooms yet. While people can take issue with the THX approach to speaker design (dipolar surrounds, front speakers with limited vertical dispersion, etc.), I've not ever seen a qualified criticism of the hard specifications that THX uses for performance standards.

One of the most highly regarded home theater speakers for watching movies is the M&K S100B and its generational siblings:








Three tweeters and two 5.25" drivers. Rated at 77 Hz - 20 KHz ± 2 dB. Their S-5000 was used by Dolby Labs to design Dolby Digital (same size drivers I believe, rated at 72 Hz - 20 KHz ± 2 dB). The company followed with the S-150THX and from that design, the Ultra2-certified MK Sound S-300, which is rated at 60 Hz – 22 kHz ±3dB.

Through all these years, the size of the drivers hasn't changed. These speakers are designed to be used in conjunction with subwoofers that are appropriate for the application. They aren't trying to reach to 30 Hz, and the subs aren't designed to reach to 200 Hz. Why would you want that (in either end of the spectrum)? Let the drivers specialize at what they do best and don't make them perform at too wide a frequency range. As long as the crossovers are handled properly, there isn't a problem with such an approach.

I found several references to what is required by THX Ultra2 certification. Here is a portion of a 2003 interview of Rick Dean, Director of Technical Business Development at THX Digital Works:


> THX Ultra2 is a 7.1-speaker extension of the original Ultra spec. It’s designed to work well with multi-channel music and movie presentations--and soon, video games--playing up to reference levels in rooms of 3,000 cubic feet or larger. Each certification requires components to produce high volume levels and disperse sound in specific ways with low levels of distortion.


Reference level is defined on the THX web site:


> *What is Reference Level? *Manufacturing receivers and speakers that can achieve THX Reference Level is no simple task. It requires a tremendous amount of power to drive an audio system effortlessly without clipping or distorting. To ensure the audio products can reach this peak performance, THX developed a set of standards as part of its THX Ultra2, THX Select2 and I/S Plus certifications.
> 
> Experience Studio Clarity: THX Certified Receivers reproduce studio Reference Level, 85dB SPL with 20dB of headroom.
> Reference Level for your Room: THX Ultra2 Plus, THX Select2 Plus and THX I/S Plus certification categories deliver Reference Level performance in your specific room size.
> Distortion-free Playback: THX Certified Receivers and speakers are designed to recreate Reference Level with minimal distortion.


So, all of this begs the question: If all the speakers in your system can achieve reference levels with minimal distortion across the entire frequency range ("THX Certified Subwoofers must extend to 20Hz (-6dB) to handle the very highest bass levels with ease"), why does it matter what size the driver in any particular speaker is?

If the difference between a 5.25" driver and an 8" or 10" driver in an overhead speaker is so incredibly stunning, it must surely be able to be measured, no? As long as each driver is not distorting, and there is a proper subwoofer and crossover to handle the transition between that speaker and the subwoofer, the end result should be the same (performance-wise). I welcome the chance to review such data if it is available.

There's something to be said for "bigger is better" and some might say that size matters in certain situations, but there comes a point when enough is enough, and anything more is just for show. If large drivers makes one feel better about their system, more power to them. But, *in a properly configured and tuned system*, I do not agree that larger drivers in floor or overhead speakers will make a difference.


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> Actually, I am a Bryston SP3 man. But, while in the store, I could not resist the temptation to compare the Atmos/Integra set up to the Classe/legacy surround setup. I could hear what Atmos offered in the Integra, its just that the superior signal from the Classe outweighed the benefits of the extra ceiling speakers from the Integra. Regardless, I think this would be an interesting subject for an audio magazine to write on, i.e., a comparison of the sound from a mid range Atmos processor vs. that of the sound from a legacy surround high end processor.


I think you are missing the point. They are not comparable. That's like comparing a truck to a sedan. They serve different purposes imo. One's for moving "stuff" one for moving people. Or maybe a better example would be comparing a full range speaker to a stand alone sub. 

You're trying to compare an Atmos AV unit (primarily intended for HT use though it can play music obviously) to a 2ch preamp (primarily intended for music only). 

My personal preference on music only 2ch preamps is vacuum tube. Give me a unit without a 12AT7 in it for 2ch music and I'll laugh at it. But that's preference and subjective. But that's also a radical sound difference that anyone can hear. Comparing 2 discrete fet based units is really splitting hairs and subjective as well but on a much less obvious/audible level.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> No, I saying that driver size matters in the 80 to 200 range. Your saying it doesnt and that it is irrelevant if you have proper bass management. It does and always will matter - its physics. I am not saying a system sounds bad that is comprised of smaller drivers, but it will not have the same dynamics of a system with larger high-efficiency drivers. I was giving an example of a THX certified system that follows the bass management guidelines to the exact spec to get the cool THX logo. The only time driver size becomes irrelevant is when it comes to the high end frequencies where material composition and design becomes more important than size i.e. Be, Ti, ribbon, soft-dome, etc.
> 
> Until you demo a high-efficiency speaker in your room, you cannot make a non-biased statement. You are simply defending your system, which I am sure sounds fantastic! I don't mean any of my statements to be personal in nature. I am not saying mine is better than yours or anyone elses system. I am not saying JBL is the best. *I am saying that speakers like QSC, JTR, Reaction Audio, JBL etc that use larger drivers that are >95db sensitive perform and sound better with movie and game soundtracks. * I have been on both sides of the track and have heard the difference first hand in my room. There is a HUGE difference. I don't know what more I can say.
> 
> We can just agree to disagree and focus back on Atmos. I hope your not sour at me M8


You see now there's the rub! "Perform and sound better " is highly subjective even regarding performance due to application and purpose. I should go on the record as saying I'm not a fan of Horn Loaded speakers even though I've heard some that are not as bad as times past but due respect the fact that they indeed do excel in efficiency and sheer output. If one is trying to replicate that Cinema sound and home they can certainly be a great choice but I'm after Fidelity for movies and music and no I'm not saying that the speakers you listed above are not capable of fidelity just not the sound characteristics all may be looking for


----------



## Molon_Labe

@BigScreen the horse is dead. Everyone enjoy whatever speakers you have. No need to discuss it further in the Atmos thread. There are plenty of threads on people who have migrated to high-efficiency speakers vs traditional.



audiofan1 said:


> You see now there's the rub! "Perform and sound better " is highly subjective even regarding performance due to application and purpose. I should go on the record as saying I'm not a fan of Horn Loaded speakers even though I've heard some that are not as bad as times past but due respect the fact that they indeed do excel in efficiency and sheer output. If one is trying to replicate that Cinema sound and home they can certainly be a great choice but I'm after Fidelity for movies and music and no I'm not saying that the speakers you listed above are not capable of fidelity just not the sound characteristics all may be looking for


I agree that sound is subjective. Yeah, the JBL M2 (horn) is definitely known for it's poor fidelity industry wide  Most horns people have heard are the entry level Klipsch, which can be a harsh and fatiguing speaker to a lot of people. That stereotype is widely held and was my actual thoughts for many years after owning Klipsch RFs. It was my biggest fear when I bought the 4722s without being able to hear and demo them.

Last post for me on the topic, we can discuss in other threads. I want to avoid making any more folk's ignore lists.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> @BigScreen the horse is dead. Everyone enjoy whatever speakers you have. No need to discuss it further in the Atmos thread. There are plenty of threads on people who have migrated to high-efficiency speakers vs traditional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that sound is subjective. Yeah, the JBL M2 (horn) is definitely known for it's poor fidelity industry wide  Most horns people have heard are the entry level Klipsch, which can be a harsh and fatiguing speaker to a lot of people. That stereotype is widely held and was my actual thoughts for many years after owning Klipsch RFs. It was my biggest fear when I bought the 4722s without being able to hear and demo them.
> 
> Last post for me on the topic, we can discuss in other threads. I want to avoid making any more folk's ignore lists.


 Indeed back to Atmos


----------



## Stoked21

audiofan1 said:


> You see now there's the rub! "Perform and sound better " is highly subjective even regarding performance due to application and purpose. I should go on the record as saying I'm not a fan of Horn Loaded speakers even though I've heard some that are not as bad as times past but due respect the fact that they indeed do excel in efficiency and sheer output. If one is trying to replicate that Cinema sound and home they can certainly be a great choice but I'm after Fidelity for movies and music and no I'm not saying that the speakers you listed above are not capable of fidelity just not the sound characteristics all may be looking for


Agree with everything you said on horn speakers. I've come around on them in the last couple of weeks after hearing some local HTs that use them. World of difference compared to what I remember hearing in the 90s.

Curiously enough on driver sizes, there is a major law of diminishing returns. I actually wrote my thesis on driver sizes and types. Focused on electrostats. Mind you this was all in the early years of surround sound in the mid 90s. 

I've always been an advocate of nothing bigger than a 10". Strictly because I thought they had more umph. I'm a hard rock guy so never got into the deep rap bass. Come to find out when I studied the mass, inertia, momentum and transient responses of various types and sizes of drivers, a sweet spot was found in the 8-10" range (It was more specific like 8.75" max or something, 20 years ago so I don't recall). The larger the driver got, the "sloppier" it got. After all objects in rest want to stay at rest and in motion want to stay in motion. Transients are much worse on larger drivers as the continue oscillating with momentum and getting them to start moving in the first place is problematic as well. They truly do distort sound at some point the larger they get. So I was never a fan of 12" drivers. The near zero mass of electrostats virtually eliminates this but also produced all sorts of inefficiencies. However, in the HT world we are seeing much lower frequencies than in the early 90s. This makes it unavoidable not to have large woofers for movie enjoyment. So my thesis is probably 20 years out of date! 
It's a trade off no matter what. There is no perfect driver and everyone just enjoy what you have or want. 

To bring it back to Atmos though, I still think most of you would be surprised by the amount of LF going through the ceiling. You really should unplug your subs and listen sometime. Case and point is Dracula, 5E and HG. I know it's hard to intentionally watch a movie with your subs powered off but you will learn something from it. I had a lot of bass emanating from my ICs. Can a 6" handle it? Well, I didn't measure the freq from my 7" drivers so maybe. But I can say definitively that my 4.5 to 6 to 7" jumps have made substantial improvements in my Atmos sound field.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I've resisted getting pulled into this argument because I outgrew "my is bigger than your " arguments many years ago. However, I disagree with some of the points that you've made, and in the interest of productive discussion, I'm willing to step into the fray...
> 
> I would imagine that you used the above example of the Logitech THX-certified computer speakers in the photo above as an absurd example to make your point, but you opened the door. The speaker system is likely the Logitech Z906, which is intended and designed to be used on a computer, not in a home theater. It is certified per the THX multimedia system specification, which is not the same as the three THX certifications that actually apply to home theater applications.
> 
> I haven't heard these speakers, and I would imagine that you haven't either, so all we have to go on is the specifications. My guess is that this is a pretty nice speaker system... for a computer environment, where the listener is probably within 2-3 feet of every speaker. No one here would likely support using this speaker system in anything bigger than a small dorm room for watching movies.
> 
> Since we're on the topic of THX certification, let's follow that path. While some may feel that THX is no longer relevant, and a common argument amongst its detractors are the that shiny logo just adds to the cost, and "high end" products can be better and don't have the logo, the fact remains that the certifications were designed to meet minimum standards. Those standards were used to define a level of performance, which began as one certification and grew into the Ultra (the original spec) and Select (intended for smaller rooms) levels, which now appear to have spawned a third (THX I/S Plus Systems) for smaller rooms yet. While people can take issue with the THX approach to speaker design (dipolar surrounds, front speakers with limited vertical dispersion, etc.), I've not ever seen a qualified criticism of the hard specifications that THX uses for performance standards.
> 
> One of the most highly regarded home theater speakers for watching movies is the M&K S100B and its generational siblings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three tweeters and two 5.25" drivers. Rated at 77 Hz - 20 KHz ± 2 dB. Their S-5000 was used by Dolby Labs to design Dolby Digital (same size drivers I believe, rated at 72 Hz - 20 KHz ± 2 dB). The company followed with the S-150THX and from that design, the Ultra2-certified MK Sound S-300, which is rated at 60 Hz – 22 kHz ±3dB.
> 
> Through all these years, the size of the drivers hasn't changed. These speakers are designed to be used in conjunction with subwoofers that are appropriate for the application. They aren't trying to reach to 30 Hz, and the subs aren't designed to reach to 200 Hz. Why would you want that (in either end of the spectrum)? Let the drivers specialize at what they do best and don't make them perform at too wide a frequency range. As long as the crossovers are handled properly, there isn't a problem with such an approach.
> 
> I found several references to what is required by THX Ultra2 certification. Here is a portion of a 2003 interview of Rick Dean, Director of Technical Business Development at THX Digital Works:
> 
> Reference level is defined on the THX web site:
> 
> 
> So, all of this begs the question: If all the speakers in your system can achieve reference levels with minimal distortion across the entire frequency range ("THX Certified Subwoofers must extend to 20Hz (-6dB) to handle the very highest bass levels with ease"), why does it matter what size the driver in any particular speaker is?
> 
> If the difference between a 5.25" driver and an 8" or 10" driver in an overhead speaker is so incredibly stunning, it must surely be able to be measured, no? As long as each driver is not distorting, and there is a proper subwoofer and crossover to handle the transition between that speaker and the subwoofer, the end result should be the same (performance-wise). I welcome the chance to review such data if it is available.
> 
> There's something to be said for "bigger is better" and some might say that size matters in certain situations, but there comes a point when enough is enough, and anything more is just for show. If large drivers makes one feel better about their system, more power to them. But, *in a properly configured and tuned system*, I do not agree that larger drivers in floor or overhead speakers will make a difference.


Thanks for that. You saved me a reply to Molon and also expressed the points better than I would have done. Needless to say, it's +1 to the lot, from me


----------



## richmagnus

BigScreen said:


> I've resisted getting pulled into this argument because I outgrew "my is bigger than your " arguments many years ago. However, I disagree with some of the points that you've made, and in the interest of productive discussion, I'm willing to step into the fray...
> 
> I would imagine that you used the above example of the Logitech THX-certified computer speakers in the photo above as an absurd example to make your point, but you opened the door. The speaker system is likely the Logitech Z906, which is intended and designed to be used on a computer, not in a home theater. It is certified per the THX multimedia system specification, which is not the same as the three THX certifications that actually apply to home theater applications.
> 
> I haven't heard these speakers, and I would imagine that you haven't either, so all we have to go on is the specifications. My guess is that this is a pretty nice speaker system... for a computer environment, where the listener is probably within 2-3 feet of every speaker. No one here would likely support using this speaker system in anything bigger than a small dorm room for watching movies.
> 
> Since we're on the topic of THX certification, let's follow that path. While some may feel that THX is no longer relevant, and a common argument amongst its detractors are the that shiny logo just adds to the cost, and "high end" products can be better and don't have the logo, the fact remains that the certifications were designed to meet minimum standards. Those standards were used to define a level of performance, which began as one certification and grew into the Ultra (the original spec) and Select (intended for smaller rooms) levels, which now appear to have spawned a third (THX I/S Plus Systems) for smaller rooms yet. While people can take issue with the THX approach to speaker design (dipolar surrounds, front speakers with limited vertical dispersion, etc.), I've not ever seen a qualified criticism of the hard specifications that THX uses for performance standards.
> 
> One of the most highly regarded home theater speakers for watching movies is the M&K S100B and its generational siblings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three tweeters and two 5.25" drivers. Rated at 77 Hz - 20 KHz ± 2 dB. Their S-5000 was used by Dolby Labs to design Dolby Digital (same size drivers I believe, rated at 72 Hz - 20 KHz ± 2 dB). The company followed with the S-150THX and from that design, the Ultra2-certified MK Sound S-300, which is rated at 60 Hz – 22 kHz ±3dB.
> 
> Through all these years, the size of the drivers hasn't changed. These speakers are designed to be used in conjunction with subwoofers that are appropriate for the application. They aren't trying to reach to 30 Hz, and the subs aren't designed to reach to 200 Hz. Why would you want that (in either end of the spectrum)? Let the drivers specialize at what they do best and don't make them perform at too wide a frequency range. As long as the crossovers are handled properly, there isn't a problem with such an approach.
> 
> I found several references to what is required by THX Ultra2 certification. Here is a portion of a 2003 interview of Rick Dean, Director of Technical Business Development at THX Digital Works:
> 
> Reference level is defined on the THX web site:
> 
> 
> So, all of this begs the question: If all the speakers in your system can achieve reference levels with minimal distortion across the entire frequency range ("THX Certified Subwoofers must extend to 20Hz (-6dB) to handle the very highest bass levels with ease"), why does it matter what size the driver in any particular speaker is?
> 
> If the difference between a 5.25" driver and an 8" or 10" driver in an overhead speaker is so incredibly stunning, it must surely be able to be measured, no? As long as each driver is not distorting, and there is a proper subwoofer and crossover to handle the transition between that speaker and the subwoofer, the end result should be the same (performance-wise). I welcome the chance to review such data if it is available.
> 
> There's something to be said for "bigger is better" and some might say that size matters in certain situations, but there comes a point when enough is enough, and anything more is just for show. If large drivers makes one feel better about their system, more power to them. But, *in a properly configured and tuned system*, I do not agree that larger drivers in floor or overhead speakers will make a difference.



The MK 300 system is used by THX as their reference system. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> The MK 300 system is used by THX as their reference system.


And by my dealer buddy in his demo room. They are awesomely awesome. But I think I prefer the active M&K designs.


----------



## richmagnus

kbarnes701 said:


> And by my dealer buddy in his demo room. They are awesomely awesome. But I think I prefer the active M&K designs.



I like the actives but prefer the 300's. 
The 300 actives will be unreal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Genelec pro active monitors should also be excellent all around with Dolby Atomas 7.2.4 (9.1.4).


----------



## Scott Simonian

The old MK's were the s*** in the 90's for HT use. Still won't hold a candle to a proper cinema class JBL Pro system. 

Apples and oranges.


Carry on.


----------



## richmagnus

Scott Simonian said:


> The old MK's were the s*** in the 90's for HT use. Still won't hold a candle to a proper cinema class JBL Pro system.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> Carry on.



The new 300's are in a different league compared to the original 150's


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm sure it's a new speaker but it's still a small conventional speaker with little drivers and dome tweeters. It will never live up to the capability of a proper cinema sized JBL Pro type system. Ever.


----------



## tbaucom

I have a quick question. Since atmos use multiple speakers to place sounds in a specific location in a room, do you think it is best that all speakers us the same crossover? Audyssey measures all of my speakers at 80hz or full range other than the ceiling speakers. My top front are measured at 90hz and top rear at 100hz. Would it be best to have a 80hz crossover on the lower level and different settings for tops or perhaps use a global 90hz crossover?

I know you are not supposed to lower the crossover from what audyssey sets but it is my understanding that the avr sets the crossover to the next highest crossover from the measured -3db point. That means my top rear actual -3 db point is somewhere between 90 and 100 hz. I have tried them at 90hz and I can tell no difference between that and 100hz.

Thanks


----------



## richmagnus

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure it's a new speaker but it's still a small conventional speaker with little drivers and dome tweeters. It will never live up to the capability of a proper cinema sized JBL Pro type system. Ever.



No they won't play as loud as a JBL pro system ,but they will have better detail and accuracy,unless you want to replicate a commercial cinema. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

tbaucom said:


> I have a quick question. Since atmos use multiple speakers to place sounds in a specific location in a room, do you think it is best that all speakers us the same crossover? *Audyssey (your receiver/pre-pro actually) measures all of my speakers at 80hz or full range other than the ceiling speakers. My top front are measured at 90hz and top rear at 100hz.*
> Would it be best to have a 80hz crossover on the lower level and different settings for tops or perhaps use a global 90hz crossover?
> 
> I know you are not supposed to lower the crossover from what audyssey sets but it is my understanding that the avr sets the crossover to the next highest crossover from the measured -3db point. That means my top rear actual -3 db point is somewhere between 90 and 100 hz. I have tried them at 90hz and I can tell no difference between that and 100hz.
> 
> Thanks


The way your receiver set all your speaker's crossovers is perfect. ...Leave them all there; it's excellent.
* Full range (the ones set like that) = 80Hz (manually set them @ that frequency point). 
All the others set @ 80Hz, 90Hz and 100Hz are perfect.

P/S: (In red, from your quote, is my own addition)


----------



## richmagnus

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure it's a new speaker but it's still a small conventional speaker with little drivers and dome tweeters. It will never live up to the capability of a proper cinema sized JBL Pro type system. Ever.



But as you say apples and oranges which is what it's all about.


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> I think you are missing the point. They are not comparable. That's like comparing a truck to a sedan. They serve different purposes imo. One's for moving "stuff" one for moving people. Or maybe a better example would be comparing a full range speaker to a stand alone sub.
> 
> You're trying to compare an Atmos AV unit (primarily intended for HT use though it can play music obviously) to a 2ch preamp (primarily intended for music only).
> 
> My personal preference on music only 2ch preamps is vacuum tube. Give me a unit without a 12AT7 in it for 2ch music and I'll laugh at it. But that's preference and subjective. But that's also a radical sound difference that anyone can hear. Comparing 2 discrete fet based units is really splitting hairs and subjective as well but on a much less obvious/audible level.


I am not missing the point as I know they are not comparable. If anything, we are misunderstanding each other. My purpose in wanting to demo Atmos was to determine if it is so good, that I need to start planning on incorporating it in my system for the future. However, from what I've heard, I can just stay the course and enjoy my SP3.  From my unscientific test, I have concluded that those hi end processors do distinguish themselves sonically over mid range Atmos processors. It would be nice if a magazine would write on this subject. If the magazine, "Stereophile Guide To Home Theater" was still in business, it would get done as they use to even compare products within the same price range and write about their sonic traits. They would also compare expensive products against less expensive products to determine their worth or value, whichever was appropriate. Reviews nowadays are somewhat homogenized.  Please do not take my comments offensively as I am only writing as a consumer who loves home theater and music, but likes to be practical and pragmatic when I spend money on it.  You see, I'm glad I never purchased that "El Cassette when it came out years ago.  By the way I agree one hundred percent on you 2 channel analysis. And, the reason I purchased the SP3 is so it will serve a dual role, music and home theater.


----------



## Scott Simonian

richmagnus said:


> No they won't play as loud as a JBL pro system m,but they will have better detail and accuracy,unless you want to replicate a commercial cinema.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You might be surprised.


----------



## Ricoflashback

There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's just you and me (and Dolby Atmos) and we just disagree......


----------



## Gooddoc

Molon_Labe said:


> I agree that sound is subjective. Yeah, the JBL M2 (horn) is definitely known for it's poor fidelity industry wide


Heeeyyyy, slow the roll man....haha!


----------



## NorthSky

All is good; as long that we all respect each other. ...The poor, and the rich. ...With great powers and financial freedom comes great responsibilities.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> The old MK's were the s*** in the 90's for HT use. Still won't hold a candle to a proper cinema class JBL Pro system.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> Carry on.


I'm surprised you can remember the 90s. But just as a FYI, it's 2015.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure it's a new speaker but it's still a small conventional speaker with little drivers and dome tweeters. It will never live up to the capability of a proper cinema sized JBL Pro type system. Ever.


Don't they have horns? Yeuch. Still, they do go loud if that's the main objective.


----------



## kbarnes701

richmagnus said:


> No they won't play as loud as a JBL pro system ,but they will have better detail and accuracy,unless you want to replicate a commercial cinema.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think sitting pretty close to horns is going to give a really horrid sound personally. They're OK for what they were designed for of course - going really loud in large spaces. But up close... yeuch.


----------



## SoundChex

tbaucom said:


> I have a quick question. Since atmos use multiple speakers to place sounds in a specific location in a room, do you think it is best that all speakers us the same crossover? Audyssey measures all of my speakers at 80hz or full range other than the ceiling speakers. My top front are measured at 90hz and top rear at 100hz. Would it be best to have a 80hz crossover on the lower level and different settings for tops or perhaps use a global 90hz crossover? I know you are not supposed to lower the crossover from what audyssey sets but it is my understanding that the avr sets the crossover to the next highest crossover from the measured -3db point. That means my top rear actual -3 db point is somewhere between 90 and 100 hz. I have tried them at 90hz and I can tell no difference between that and 100hz. Thanks



My understanding of how VBAP works is that the listener infers the direction of a [dynamic] object--from the MLP--based on the relative SPL strength of the object's audio emissions delivered by [probably] three speakers that "encircle" an imaginary line from the MLP which extends through the object's current position. The *object specific content* delivered through each of the three speakers presumably shares a common XO--otherwise one speaker alone delivering dominant mid-bass would tend to influence the perceived position of the object 'inappropriately'...?!

This suggests to me that the object rendering engine should use one single *object content XO* for all *dynamic* objects--above the highest measured|selected XO among all _Middle_ and _Top Layer_ speakers--as the specific speakers that will be used to render any one dynamic object are presumably unknown in advance. In contrast, the subset of speakers involved in the rendering of a *static* object might be determinable on first use, so that an *object content XO* specific to that one static object could be computed. _In any event, take care how you modify the XOs Audyssey has determined for your speakers! _


_


----------



## bguzman

gbaby said:


> Actually, I am a Bryston SP3 man. But, while in the store, I could not resist the temptation to compare the Atmos/Integra set up to the Classe/legacy surround setup. I could hear what Atmos offered in the Integra, its just that the superior signal from the Classe outweighed the benefits of the extra ceiling speakers from the Integra. Regardless, I think this would be an interesting subject for an audio magazine to write on, i.e., a comparison of the sound from a mid range Atmos processor vs. that of the sound from a legacy surround high end processor.


gbaby,
Like what you feel like liking and don't be intimidated by all the know it alls around here. Remember, there are no absolutes in life only death.


----------



## Carrick

I have a left to right slant ceiling, what Atmos height speakers should I be looking to buy? 

Ceiling, bookshelf or surround speakers for above MLP?

If I get in ceiling speakers, can the Denon 4200w DSP compensate for the L/R 6-8" difference in height?

Thanks


----------



## audiofan1

bguzman said:


> gbaby,
> Like what you feel like liking and don't be intimidated by all the know it alls around here. Remember, there are no absolutes in life only death.


There's just simply no denying object based audio and is not about like or dislike,quite simply because its not a "gimmick" but actual discrete sounds placed within a 3d environment done by a very sophisticated algorithm! And were not know it all's, just a few guys pioneering the SoTA in home cinema and learning a lot on the way


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't they have horns? Yeuch. Still, they do go loud if that's the main objective.





kbarnes701 said:


> I think sitting pretty close to horns is going to give a really horrid sound personally. They're OK for what they were designed for of course - going really loud in large spaces. But up close... yeuch.



Ah, yes. The sounds of pure ignorance. You can tell when someone hasn't experienced or just doesn't know that horns can sound good and even better than that usual store brand stuff that's hocked off as "hi-fi".


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm surprised you can remember the 90s. But just as a FYI, it's 2015.


I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.


----------



## carp

kbarnes701 said:


> I think sitting pretty close to horns is going to give a really horrid sound personally. They're OK for what they were designed for of course - going really loud in large spaces. But up close... yeuch.


Oh Keith..... I really wish you could come over sometime and listen to some 2 channel music. 

As for yeuch up close... you can walk right up to the speaker and put your ear right next to the compression driver and it's as sweet a sound as can be.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah, yes. The sounds of pure ignorance. You can tell when someone hasn't experienced or just doesn't know that horns can sound good and even better than that usual store brand stuff that's hocked off as "hi-fi".


They're great for what they were designed for: going very loud in very big spaces. No argument from me there.


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> Oh Keith..... I really wish you could come over sometime and listen to some 2 channel music.
> 
> As for yeuch up close... you can walk right up to the speaker and put your ear right next to the compression driver and it's as sweet a sound as can be.


Not like the horns I've heard then. But I am happy to take your word for it. (And Scott's).


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.


I mean, what was the point of referencing a speaker from the 90s when it is 2015 now?


----------



## audiofan1

I haven't heard a set of horns in a while and I take it from what you guys are saying is its less of the cupped hand sound and better dispersion?


----------



## Stoked21

carp said:


> Oh Keith..... I really wish you could come over sometime and listen to some 2 channel music.
> 
> As for yeuch up close... you can walk right up to the speaker and put your ear right next to the compression driver and it's as sweet a sound as can be.


Keith, I normally agree with you on a fair number of topics (though not 100% )

I've always DESPISED horns. I think back to 1990s Klipsch like someone else said. I vowed to never buy a horn or listen to one again unless I was forced at gun point.

I've heard carp's JTR coax comp horns (though not with music). I've also heard another local guys JTR compression horns. I was warned going into it that we are not talking about the typical "yeuch" horns of the past (or the cheap ones we are expecting to hear). So I walked in prepared to hate them regardless of how they sounded. 

We are talking about completely different things here. They sound absolutely amazing. So much so that I'm looking into switching to them....I wish we could have gotten around to some music but I already took up a lot of his time. I have no doubt they would sound just as awesome. 

Get out there a bit buddy and try to find someone near you with a great hi-end pair. You will be surprised.


----------



## Scott Simonian

carp said:


> Oh Keith..... I really wish you could come over sometime and listen to some 2 channel music.
> 
> As for yeuch up close... you can walk right up to the speaker and put your ear right next to the compression driver and it's as sweet a sound as can be.


Seriously.



kbarnes701 said:


> They're great for what they were designed for: going very loud in very big spaces. No argument from me there.


Nope. All aboard the NOPE train. Keith has first class tickets.

"They" are quite capable of being great at everything. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Not like the horns I've heard then. But I am happy to take your word for it. (And Scott's).


That explains... everything.



kbarnes701 said:


> I mean, what was the point of referencing a speaker from the 90s when it is 2015 now?


I don't even think you know what you're on about anymore. 

And that's okay because the rest of us have a hard enough time keeping up with your usual brand of nonsense.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Gooddoc said:


> Heeeyyyy, slow the roll man....haha!


My comment was intended as being the most sarcastic of the year. The amount of disinformation about horns is just well....sad.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Disinformation goes hand in hand around these parts.


----------



## Steve Goff

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't they have horns? Yeuch. Still, they do go loud if that's the main objective.



Your Tannoys and any properly designed concentric speakers have horns loading the tweeter. They (and Kef especially) just know how to do it well. Moreover, many high-end speakers have tweeter waveguides, which are shallow, well-designed horns.


----------



## gbaby

bguzman said:


> gbaby,
> Like what you feel like liking and don't be intimidated by all the know it alls around here. Remember, there are no absolutes in life only death.


Thanks for your sentiments. For whatever reason, I have never been the kind of person who believes in monkey see monkey do.  I have to make my own decision. I have been in audio too long and I kind of understand the marketing and trade puffing. I was a pioneer of SACD, and it took years for me to understand that the sound is only going to be as good as its recording. I am so independent in my thinking that I was the only person in the barbershop that stated O.J. did it, and I was basing that solely on his actions. I try to use common sense.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> My comment was intended as being the most sarcastic of the year. The amount of disinformation about horns is just well....sad.





Scott Simonian said:


> Disinformation goes hand in hand around these parts.


Keep in mind you guys feel the same way about "Audiophle/traditional speakers" when its really only a matter of preference

Now back to the mudslinging or something else


----------



## Molon_Labe

richmagnus said:


> No they won't play as loud as a JBL pro system ,but they will have better detail and accuracy,unless you want to replicate a commercial cinema.


Proof positive you have never heard any of the speakers being discussed. You seem to think pro cinema is the same as a PA speaker....wrong.



Scott Simonian said:


> Disinformation goes hand in hand around these parts.


+10

Anyone who says horns are only for filling large venues with loud volumes has not listened to any well designed compression drivers and horns. I would love to see the faces of the AVS elitist in some blind listening tests when the curtain drops and they picked an ugly black speaker with no grills. Maybe they should drop into some GTG threads where high-efficiency speakers wiped the floor with the competition on music and movies.


----------



## Stoked21

@gbaby

Regardless of @bguzman misguided comment, people here are not trying to bully you or bad mouth your equipment and choices. No one has said anything derogatory. On the contrary most of us have agreed that DSU for music is 100% preference. What we are trying to do is educate you on Atmos and help you with our obtained knowledge (especially as it pertains to movies). No one is professing to be a "know it all" or an absolute expert in all things Atmos. What people are trying to tell you is that you didn't hear Atmos correctly due to setup. If you want to make your own decision, everyone is encouraging you to make it based on facts and multiple listens as opposed to on just one shotty demo. You'll do yourself an injustice otherwise and make a sweeping judgement on a technology that likely will blow your mind if you give it a fair listen. Even on a modestly designed system.


----------



## audiofan1

gbaby said:


> Thanks for your sentiments. For whatever reason, I have never been the kind of person who believes in monkey see monkey do.  I have to make my own decision. I have been in audio too long and I kind of understand the marketing and trade puffing. I was a pioneer of SACD, and it took years for me to understand that the sound is only going to be as good as its recording. I am so independent in my thinking that I was the only person in the barbershop that stated O.J. did it, and I was basing that solely on his actions. I try to use common sense.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Proof positive you have never heard any of the speakers being discussed. You seem to think pro cinema is the same as a PA speaker....wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> +10
> 
> Anyone who says horns are only for filling large venues with loud volumes has not listened to any well designed compression drivers and horns. I would love to see the faces of the AVS elitist in some blind listening tests when the curtain drops and they picked an ugly black speaker with no grills. Maybe they should drop into some GTG threads where high-efficiency speakers wiped the floor with the competition on music and movies.


 Still maintaining the mine is better than yours and its a competition my last crank it up was back in 86 And elitist ! really! Do you guys really feel where snobs looking down on horns or just can't deal with the fact there just not for everyone


----------



## NorthSky

gbaby said:


> I am not missing the point as I know they are not comparable. If anything, we are misunderstanding each other. My purpose in wanting to demo Atmos was to determine if it is so good, that I need to start planning on incorporating it in my system for the future. However, from what I've heard, I can just stay the course and enjoy my SP3.  From my unscientific test, I have concluded that those hi end processors do distinguish themselves sonically over mid range Atmos processors. It would be nice if a magazine would write on this subject. If the magazine, "Stereophile Guide To Home Theater" was still in business, it would get done as they use to even compare products within the same price range and write about their sonic traits. They would also compare expensive products against less expensive products to determine their worth or value, whichever was appropriate. Reviews nowadays are somewhat homogenized.  Please do not take my comments offensively as I am only writing as a consumer who loves home theater and music, but likes to be practical and pragmatic when I spend money on it.  You see, I'm glad I never purchased that "El Cassette when it came out years ago.  By the way I agree one hundred percent on you 2 channel analysis. And, the reason I purchased the SP3 is so it will serve a dual role, music and home theater.









Scott Simonian said:


> Ah yes, the sounds of pure ignorance. You can tell when someone hasn't experienced or just doesn't know that horns can sound good and even better than that usual store brand stuff that's hocked off as hi-fi.


That's from *'Boogie Nights'* - outrageously funny flick based on the porn industry during the disco years, in Los Angeles.


----------



## Molon_Labe

audiofan1 said:


> Still maintaining the mine is better than yours and its a competition my last crank it up was back in 86 And elitist ! really! Do you guys really feel where snobs looking down on horns or just can't deal with the fact there just not for everyone


I said horns and high-efficiency speakers. Did I say my speakers or JBL 4722 specifically? Do tell what high-efficiency speakers you have heard in a home theater in the last couple of years? Reaction Audio, Power Sound Audio, JTR, JBL Pro Cinema, Klipsch Pro Cinema, JBL M2? The reality is that most of the comments here are based on ignorance and misinformation. Ignorant as in not knowing or not having heard in person, not dumb so please don't anyone take offense. Go back and read my posts. I have been touting high-efficiency speakers. Not the ones I own or my brand specifically. Go drop into any of the owner threads of the brands listed above and do some reading. Testimony after testimony. GTG after GTG with these brands whipping up on the competition.


----------



## BigScreen

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm sure it's a new speaker but it's still a small conventional speaker with little drivers and dome tweeters. It will never live up to the capability of a proper cinema sized JBL Pro type system. Ever.


I'm open minded, so I'm curious, because I'm willing to believe that I might learn something if I take the time to understand the perspectives and opinions of others. 

So, your position is that JBL Pro type speakers that are properly tuned to play reference level from 20 Hz to 20 kHz at reference level in a 2,000 - 3,000 cubic foot room will be more capable than another system comprised of speakers which have smaller drivers in the floor and overhead speakers but are still properly tuned to play reference level from 20 Hz to 20 kHz?

I've not been a big fan of horn speakers, but mainly because I did some extensive listening back in the 90's with many speaker brands, and the Klipsch were my least favorite of the bunch (also the only horn speakers of the bunch). Since that time, I've (perhaps unfairly) equated that undesirable sonic quality with horns.

By the way, what's the retail price of the JBL's? I'm seeing about $1,600 for one JBL 4722, is that about right? If so, I guess you're out of the realm of reality for this enthusiast. That said, the MK Sound S300's reportedly go for $3,500 each, so as long as I'm in this fantasy world where spending $20,000 on speakers...

I'd like to better understand where you're coming from. Is it the character of the sound coming from the compression driver/tweeter that you like vs. that of a dome tweeter?



richmagnus said:


> The new 300's are in a different league compared to the original 150's


From this review by Dave Vaughn in June 2014, it definitely appears that the 300's are shooting much higher than the S-150's that came before it (which were $1,500 / pair). Those speakers were no slouch, as another writer for Sound & Vision wrote in a review of that system in 1997.

However, it would seem that it's a matter of taking a system that is perhaps a 9.5/10 and taking it to 9.7/10. For some, that increase is more than worth any expense. For others, not so much. Is it possible that we're discussing miniscule advantages, and not "night and day" differences?



Stoked21 said:


> I've always DESPISED horns. I think back to 1990s Klipsch like someone else said. I vowed to never buy a horn or listen to one again unless I was forced at gun point.
> 
> I've heard carp's JTR coax comp horns (though not with music). I've also heard another local guys JTR compression horns. I was warned going into it that we are not talking about the typical "yeuch" horns of the past (or the cheap ones we are expecting to hear). So I walked in prepared to hate them regardless of how they sounded.
> 
> We are talking about completely different things here. They sound absolutely amazing. So much so that I'm looking into switching to them....I wish we could have gotten around to some music but I already took up a lot of his time. I have no doubt they would sound just as awesome.
> 
> Get out there a bit buddy and try to find someone near you with a great hi-end pair. You will be surprised.





Molon_Labe said:


> @BigScreen the horse is dead. Everyone enjoy whatever speakers you have. No need to discuss it further in the Atmos thread. There are plenty of threads on people who have migrated to high-efficiency speakers vs traditional.
> 
> I agree that sound is subjective. Yeah, the JBL M2 (horn) is definitely known for it's poor fidelity industry wide  Most horns people have heard are the entry level Klipsch, which can be a harsh and fatiguing speaker to a lot of people. That stereotype is widely held and was my actual thoughts for many years after owning Klipsch RFs. It was my biggest fear when I bought the 4722s without being able to hear and demo them.
> 
> Last post for me on the topic, we can discuss in other threads. I want to avoid making any more folk's ignore lists.


So, now it seems that we've moved from the size of midrange drivers to the type of tweeters. So it's not the size of the midrange anymore?

I guess I'm stuck on the idea that as long as the system as a whole can reproduce the entire frequency range (near-)flat at reference levels without distortion, how they go about doing it is largely a matter of choice by the manufacturer and a preference on the characteristic of the high range (tweeter/horn) that is most pleasing to the buyer.

I'm fine with the fact that some people prefer horns and some prefer traditional domes, but preference is different than measurable performance, and that's what got this conversation started in the first place. I would welcome the chance to audition these fine horn-based speakers that you guys are happy with. Maybe it would make me a believer, too. 

Perhaps this makes me guilty of pummeling a deceased equine, but the purposes of people here trying to determine whether they have to put an 8" speaker in/on their ceiling or suffer the consequences of unsatisfactory results are served by drawing a distinction between preference and performance.

For myself, I'll be quite happy if I can have a speaker that reaches down to 80 Hz (-3dB) and has a tweeter that matches well with my floor level speakers.


----------



## Molon_Labe

BigScreen said:


> I'm open minded, so I'm curious, because I'm willing to believe that I might learn something if I take the time to understand the perspectives and opinions of others.
> 
> So, your position is that JBL Pro type speakers that are properly tuned to play reference level from 20 Hz to 20 kHz at reference level in a 2,000 - 3,000 cubic foot room will be more capable than another system comprised of speakers which have smaller drivers in the floor and overhead speakers but are still properly tuned to play reference level from 20 Hz to 20 kHz?
> 
> I've not been a big fan of horn speakers, but mainly because I did some extensive listening back in the 90's with many speaker brands, and the Klipsch were my least favorite of the bunch (also the only horn speakers of the bunch). Since that time, I've (perhaps unfairly) equated that undesirable sonic quality with horns.
> 
> By the way, what's the retail price of the JBL's? I'm seeing about $1,600 for one JBL 4722, is that about right? If so, I guess you're out of the realm of reality for this enthusiast. That said, the MK Sound S300's reportedly go for $3,500 each, so as long as I'm in this fantasy world where spending $20,000 on speakers...
> 
> I'd like to better understand where you're coming from. Is it the character of the sound coming from the compression driver/tweeter that you like vs. that of a dome tweeter?
> 
> 
> 
> From this review by Dave Vaughn in June 2014, it definitely appears that the 300's are shooting much higher than the S-150's that came before it (which were $1,500 / pair). Those speakers were no slouch, as another writer for Sound & Vision wrote in a review of that system in 1997.
> 
> However, it would seem that it's a matter of taking a system that is perhaps a 9.5/10 and taking it to 9.7/10. For some, that increase is more than worth any expense. For others, not so much. Is it possible that we're discussing miniscule advantages, and not "night and day" differences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now it seems that we've moved from the size of midrange drivers to the type of tweeters. So it's not the size of the midrange anymore?
> 
> I guess I'm stuck on the idea that as long as the system as a whole can reproduce the entire frequency range (near-)flat at reference levels without distortion, how they go about doing it is largely a matter of choice by the manufacturer and a preference on the characteristic of the high range (tweeter/horn) that is most pleasing to the buyer.
> 
> I'm fine with the fact that some people prefer horns and some prefer traditional domes, but preference is different than measurable performance, and that's what got this conversation started in the first place. I would welcome the chance to audition these fine horn-based speakers that you guys are happy with. Maybe it would make me a believer, too.
> 
> Perhaps this makes me guilty of pummeling a deceased equine, but the purposes of people here trying to determine whether they have to put an 8" speaker in/on their ceiling or suffer the consequences of unsatisfactory results are served by drawing a distinction between preference and performance.
> 
> For myself, I'll be quite happy if I can have a speaker that reaches down to 80 Hz (-3dB) and has a tweeter that matches well with my floor level speakers.


The conversation has actually come back to where it started. From the beginning, I have been referring to high-efficiency speakers when I posted the recommendation for the SCS 8 as Atmos speakers. A comment was made that the SCS were big and too ugly for most rooms. Fair enough - they are  The driver size kinda spun off from that initial discussion with some other posters, but it was my intention to keep it within the realm of the high-efficiency line of speakers. However, I did a poor job keeping that focus through the posts as it went more toward driver size. All of the high-efficiency speakers are compression driver/horn format and come in 8" and up. The JTR slanted 8, Reaction Audio CX-8, JBL SCS 8, PSA MT-110, etc. are the "types" of Atmos speakers I was arguing for - albeit very poorly obviously.

As far as performance in a typical room, I think that high-e speakers will perform better than the typical smaller woofer/tweeter sub 90db sensitivity speaker. Almost all of the high-e brands will have woofers that are 10" to 15" for bed channels, so we can maintain the larger driver argument is still valid. The are a lot of people who have made the switch to these brands and all of the comments are the same. The difference, especially with movies, is huge. They are equally impressive with music, but my room is for movies, concerts, and gaming with no 2 channel stuff.

The JBL 4722 can be had for $1150 each delivered. I chose them because of the rave reviews that they received from some very trusted members/friends here on AVS in the 4722 dedicated thread. I also wanted to have an AT screen setup which is what the 4722 is designed for. I liked them so much I went with 7 of them. Not for power output but because I wanted a perfect sonic match all around. I never listen above reference so their power output was never a consideration. It was all about the fidelity and dynamics. I totally get these speakers are huge and ugly. Very few can accommodate them. That is why I never was touting the 4722 specifically.

I owned a complete set of Klipsch and grew to hate them due to their fatigue and harshness. Trust me, I understand the linking of "horns" with Klipsch. I was fearful I would hate the JBLs but everyone assured me they were not the same - they were 100% correct. Klipsch is a love hate relationship. There is typically no middle ground on them, especially the RF line which is what most people have heard. I am not a fan but others love them. Sound will always be subjective.

Hope I answered some of your questions.

Chris


----------



## bguzman

audiofan1 said:


> There's just simply no denying object based audio and is not about like or dislike,quite simply because its not a "gimmick" but actual discrete sounds placed within a 3d environment done by a very sophisticated algorithm! And were not know it all's, just a few guys pioneering the SoTA in home cinema and learning a lot on the way





Stoked21 said:


> Regardless of @bguzman misguided comment, people here are not trying to bully you or bad mouth your equipment and choices. No one has said anything derogatory. On the contrary most of us have agreed that DSU for music is 100% preference. What we are trying to do is educate you on Atmos and help you with our obtained knowledge (especially as it pertains to movies). No one is professing to be a "know it all" or an absolute expert in all things Atmos. What people are trying to tell you is that you didn't hear Atmos correctly due to setup. If you want to make your own decision, everyone is encouraging you to make it based on facts and multiple listens as opposed to on just one shotty demo. You'll do yourself an injustice otherwise and make a sweeping judgement on a technology that likely will blow your mind if you give it a fair listen. Even on a modestly designed system.


I never said anything about bullying and I'm sorry if I offended any of the fine members of this forum. I just feel that gbaby is free to like what he likes. He states that he has been into audio for many years. I think he knows enough to know what he likes as he stated. I have an Atmos setup and I think it is the best my HT has sounded so I am not an Atmos foe. To each his own, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## mikela

*High efficiency loudspeakers*

Tom Danley's explanation of why high dynamic capability is important: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1189404-danley-dts-10-super-spud-diy-kit-8.html#post17409024


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> I think sitting pretty close to horns is going to give a really horrid sound personally. They're OK for what they were designed for of course - going really loud in large spaces. But up close... yeuch.





kbarnes701 said:


> They're great for what they were designed for: going very loud in very big spaces. No argument from me there.





audiofan1 said:


> I haven't heard a set of horns in a while and I take it from what you guys are saying is its less of the cupped hand sound and better dispersion?


I've been sitting this one out, but tough to do that when it's clear many have an uninformed view of horn speakers. 
If we want to discuss accuracy and fidelity, then how can I not discuss the M2? 








If these measurements were simply on axis, few speakers on the planet would compare to the M2, but these measurements are of the _entire 60 deg horizontal and 20 deg vertical listening window_ AND these are at a 1/20 resolution, not some BS 1/3 smoothing that makes any measurement look good.
They are considered by many well respected industry professionals to be the most neutral and transparent speaker ever made in the professional studio monitor marketplace.
They have big drivers. A 15" in driver and a 3" compression driver mounted to a big horn.
I'll be more than happy to look at comparable measurements that show a more accurate speaker, but I think I'll be waiting some time for that. There is no distance to the horn that these don't sound amazing. My only point is to demonstrate that not only can horns be good, they happen to represented in a world class studio monitor that is arguably one of the finest speakers on the planet.


Molon_Labe said:


> My comment was intended as being the most sarcastic of the year..


Yes, I know. So was mine


----------



## audiofan1

Gooddoc said:


> I've been sitting this one out, but tough to do that when it's clear many have an uninformed view of horn speakers.
> If we want to discuss accuracy and fidelity, then how can I not discuss the M2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these measurements were simply on axis, few speakers on the planet would compare to the M2, but these measurements are of the _entire 60 deg horizontal and 20 deg vertical listening window_ AND these are at a 1/20 resolution, not some BS 1/3 smoothing that makes any measurement look good.
> They are considered by many well respected industry professionals to be the most neutral and transparent speaker ever made in the professional studio monitor marketplace.
> They have big drivers. A 15" in driver and a 3" compression driver mounted to a big horn.
> I'll be more than happy to look at comparable measurements that show a more accurate speaker, but I think I'll be waiting some time for that. There is no distance to the horn that these don't sound amazing. My only point is to demonstrate that not only can horns be good, they happen to represented in a world class studio monitor that is arguably one of the finest speakers on the planet.
> 
> Yes, I know. So was mine


 Those are indeed nice


----------



## lovingdvd

Gooddoc said:


> I've been sitting this one out, but tough to do that when it's clear many have an uninformed view of horn speakers.
> If we want to discuss accuracy and fidelity, then how can I not discuss the M2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these measurements were simply on axis, few speakers on the planet would compare to the M2, but these measurements are of the _entire 60 deg horizontal and 20 deg vertical listening window_ AND these are at a 1/20 resolution, not some BS 1/3 smoothing that makes any measurement look good.
> They are considered by many well respected industry professionals to be the most neutral and transparent speaker ever made in the professional studio monitor marketplace.
> They have big drivers. A 15" in driver and a 3" compression driver mounted to a big horn.
> I'll be more than happy to look at comparable measurements that show a more accurate speaker, but I think I'll be waiting some time for that. There is no distance to the horn that these don't sound amazing. My only point is to demonstrate that not only can horns be good, they happen to represented in a world class studio monitor that is arguably one of the finest speakers on the planet.
> 
> Yes, I know. So was mine


What does JBL recommend as the matching surround and IN-ceiling Atmos speakers to go with the M2?

When you say that is the entire 60 degree horizontal, as you saying that it measures *that flat* form -30 to +30 degrees. I need very wide dispersion in-ceiling speakers for both horizontal and vertical planes due to my 7.5' ceiling height. They have anything for that?


----------



## NorthSky

*Jbl m2*



Gooddoc said:


>


♦ Hey, those are the same as in your avatar! 

________








________


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> What does JBL recommend as the matching surround and IN-ceiling Atmos speakers to go with the M2?
> 
> When you say that is the entire 60 degree horizontal, as you saying that it measures *that flat* form -30 to +30 degrees. I need very wide dispersion in-ceiling speakers for both horizontal and vertical planes due to my 7.5' ceiling height. They have anything for that?


JBL Synthesis has a series of slim line array speakers that probably could be used mounted to the ceiling or their SCS coaxial cinema surrounds as used in their CEDIA demo. I don't know if they have any recommended in-ceiling or in-wall speakers per se.


----------



## Waboman

I see we had some rabble rousing in here today. After closer inspection it was just regular rousing with DSU applied. Carry on.


----------



## richmagnus

Molon_Labe said:


> Proof positive you have never heard any of the speakers being discussed. You seem to think pro cinema is the same as a PA speaker....wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +10
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who says horns are only for filling large venues with loud volumes has not listened to any well designed compression drivers and horns. I would love to see the faces of the AVS elitist in some blind listening tests when the curtain drops and they picked an ugly black speaker with no grills. Maybe they should drop into some GTG threads where high-efficiency speakers wiped the floor with the competition on music and movies.



I've heard JBL synthesis several times, I've also heard several JBL pro cinema systems. never said JBL were a PA system. Very good in fact. 

My comment was regarding my personal preference. 

Have you heard a properly set up MK 300 system? 
In fact a Steinway system would be my personal choice hands down. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markus767

BigScreen said:


> There's something to be said for "bigger is better" and some might say that size matters in certain situations, but there comes a point when enough is enough, and anything more is just for show. If large drivers makes one feel better about their system, more power to them. But, *in a properly configured and tuned system*, I do not agree that larger drivers in floor or overhead speakers will make a difference.


There are two reasons why one would want to use a large driver:
1. Higher SPL
2. Higher directivity

The "right" choice depends on SPL requirements and desired directivity in a specific room and all rooms are different.

A 8" driver will get you to 105dB SPL at 80Hz in 1m distance, a 5" won't.
Directivity should be as high as possible to avoid illuminating the room too much. If there are several seats that should be equally illuminated then a wide dispersion design is desirable. At the same time you need to go to great lengths in order to absorb all that extra energy spilled out into the room.

Most consumers don't know how their speakers perform because manufacturers don't supply much useful data, e.g. high resolution polar plots or distortion/compression measurements.


----------



## Nightlord

markus767 said:


> Most consumers don't know how their speakers perform because manufacturers don't supply much useful data, e.g. high resolution polar plots or distortion/compression measurements.


Agree totally. Although "most" is too modest, I think you could easily count those who do.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nightlord said:


> Did you ever try putting speakers where Atmos has them now and just moving surround channel information there?
> 
> I have... I have even tried extraction of common or inverse information from side surrounds to put up to... And no matter what... Getting some extra speakers up there do make a quite noticable difference.
> 
> So, don't give ALL the credit to the new format - you could have had a bit part of the same experience already before...
> 
> Not saying there isn't any gains in the new formats, but we have to be realistic too or we'll delude ourselves where it's not applicable.





rontalley said:


> Have I ever put my surrounds and rears over my head...Hmmm...nope. I guess it would be interesting but seems kinda weird...No action on sides or in the back of you but all overhead and F/C/R.
> 
> I can definitely tell you that what is being played overhead in DSU is different than whats coming out of my sides and surrounds. I know this because for 4 days straight, I played the same 8 clips over and over and over and over and over on a loop with different speakers plugged in and others not and so on. I really wanted to see if the overheads were actually playing different sound or they were just reproducing what was coming out of the surrounds and rears.
> 
> Saying all that, I didn't think once to set my system up for a regular 7.1 and switch the banana plugs so that TF was Surround and TR were Rears...I will do this just so when someone else ask me the same question, I would have an answer not based on speculation but on my own personal experience.
> 
> Given that, IMHO, DSU has upped the bar just as 5.1 did to 2.1, It would be very interesting to see that all we had to do was put our surrounds and rears in the ceilings and we would have had 3D audio long time ago as you have eluded to.
> 
> Question, since it is confirmed that height presence channels have made a huge impact on audio (home), how would you rate a 7.1.4 system over a 7.1 system with the surround and rears overhead on a scale from 1 to 10?


I believe reference is made to an experiment where you would put some surround info up (inverted or not) while at the same time leaving the ear-level surrounds active as well.

The past 12 months (still in my pre-Atmos phase) I am doing a similar thing with my LCR channels (lifting and adding L/R out-of-phase info to the front heights) and the effect on the sound is impressive.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Keith, I normally agree with you on a fair number of topics (though not 100% )
> 
> I've always DESPISED horns. I think back to 1990s Klipsch like someone else said. I vowed to never buy a horn or listen to one again unless I was forced at gun point.
> 
> I've heard carp's JTR coax comp horns (though not with music). I've also heard another local guys JTR compression horns. I was warned going into it that we are not talking about the typical "yeuch" horns of the past (or the cheap ones we are expecting to hear). So I walked in prepared to hate them regardless of how they sounded.
> 
> We are talking about completely different things here. They sound absolutely amazing. So much so that I'm looking into switching to them....I wish we could have gotten around to some music but I already took up a lot of his time. I have no doubt they would sound just as awesome.
> 
> Get out there a bit buddy and try to find someone near you with a great hi-end pair. You will be surprised.


OK, thanks. I have to admit it's been a while, although more recent than Scott's "90s", since I listened to any horns and they may well have progressed. What I recall hearing was lumpy frequency response and searing treble. Maybe the ones I heard were atypical? Or maybe just old designs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't even think you know what you're on about anymore.


It was you, not me, who referenced the 90s when talking about speaker design. I am guessing you must believe there has been no advance in speaker design or technology in the last two decades. Are your speakers 90's designs and you're just trying to defend them? There's no need to defend them - if you like them that is all that matters.


----------



## kbarnes701

Steve Goff said:


> Your Tannoys and any properly designed concentric speakers have horns loading the tweeter. They (and Kef especially) just know how to do it well. Moreover, many high-end speakers have tweeter waveguides, which are shallow, well-designed horns.


Sure, but we are not discussing the Tannoy, Kef etc dual concentric designs, but 'proper' horns. It does appear, from the comments made by a few credible members, that my understanding of horns is outdated (or that I have heard poor examples) and I will revise my view accordingly. HST, with modern room EQ (eg Dirac Live) the searing treble and problematically unsmooth FR that I have heard with horns ought to be able to be tamed nowadays anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Anyone who says horns are only for filling large venues with loud volumes has not listened to any well designed compression drivers and horns. I would love to see the faces of the AVS elitist in some blind listening tests when the curtain drops and they picked an ugly black speaker with no grills. Maybe they should drop into some GTG threads where high-efficiency speakers wiped the floor with the competition on music and movies.


I am all for high sensitivity speakers and have often commented on their dynamic, unstressed sound, especially at high SPLs. And I am very much in favor of pro gear and have often advocated its use. Ugly black speakers ... well, I actually have a HT full of them, so that's not really an issue 

But in the old days, when amps were not very powerful typically, there was a compelling reason for horns. These days, with cheap, powerful amps everywhere, that advantage is less meaningful. So there would be no purpose in sacrificing anything - eg a smooth FR and smooth treble - just to get the SPLs one needs. But if the horn designs that are being referenced by credible members are as good as they say, and I have no reason to doubt their word, than I stand corrected and will look at horns in a new light. If I get the chance to listen to some of the designs mentioned, I definitely will, although I personally have no need for them at this time.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I guess I'm stuck on the idea that as long as the system as a whole can reproduce the entire frequency range (near-)flat at reference levels without distortion, how they go about doing it is largely a matter of choice by the manufacturer and a preference on the characteristic of the high range (tweeter/horn) that is most pleasing to the buyer.


Pretty much my own view too. I tried to explain this to Scott a while back but it fell on stony ground. If the speaker does what you describe, another speaker won’t do it better, or differently. Some seem to believe that, to use the dreaded car analogy, a car which can do 200 mph is somehow better than a car which can do 100 mph, even though at 70 mph, the speed they drive at, the two cars perform identically.



BigScreen said:


> I'm fine with the fact that some people prefer horns and some prefer traditional domes, but preference is different than measurable performance, and that's what got this conversation started in the first place. I would welcome the chance to audition these fine horn-based speakers that you guys are happy with. Maybe it would make me a believer, too.


Quite. If someone can show me some measurements which support the view that my S150s don't deliver what their bigger can do, then I will accept it as game, set and match for them.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> I've been sitting this one out, but tough to do that when it's clear many have an uninformed view of horn speakers.
> If we want to discuss accuracy and fidelity, then how can I not discuss the M2?


Thanks for your intervention Gooddoc. If I am following correctly, these speakers would be several thousand dollars each? I have to say I would expect a speaker which costs that sort of money to be very special, and from your description and chart, it is. HST, I do think that when discussing speakers comparatively, it is important to compare like for like, pricewise, or an entirely new, additional dimension enters the equation. Nonetheless, your post has caused me to revise my earlier sweeping statement


----------



## Nightlord

Gooddoc said:


> I've been sitting this one out, but tough to do that when it's clear many have an uninformed view of horn speakers.
> If we want to discuss accuracy and fidelity, then how can I not discuss the M2?


Interesting. I've just sent a mail to the distributor over here to find out if there's a pair anywhere close that I could go listen to.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for your intervention Gooddoc. If I am following correctly, these speakers would be several thousand dollars each? I have to say I would expect a speaker which costs that sort of money to be very special, and from your description and chart, it is. HST, I do think that when discussing speakers comparatively, it is important to compare like for like, pricewise, or an entirely new, additional dimension enters the equation. Nonetheless, your post has caused me to revise my earlier sweeping statement


Well, ahem....it depends on your definition of "several" 

My point was simply that horns are not inherently low fidelity.


----------



## markus767

Gooddoc said:


> Well, ahem....it depends on your definition of "several"
> 
> My point was simply that horns are not inherently low fidelity.


Anybody who's interested should check out the LSR308. Very high value.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Well, ahem....it depends on your definition of "several"


I had a quick look and here in the UK they sell for £7,500 *each*. Usually our £ price is the equivalent of the US $ price 



Gooddoc said:


> My point was simply that horns are not inherently low fidelity.


And, thanks to you and various other members, I have revised my view.  But not to the extent of paying over $20,000 for three LCR speakers  At that price level, TBH I'd expect any speakers I would buy to be stellar.


----------



## kbarnes701

markus767 said:


> Anybody who's interested should check out the LSR308. Very high value.


Now you're talking. Powered monitors at sensible prices.


----------



## richmagnus

It isn't all about size. 
A correctly specced Steinway Model M system will comfortably outperform a JBL Pro system IMO. 
Tiny drivers, 12" subs. 

Lights touch paper


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Molon_Labe

richmagnus said:


> I've heard JBL synthesis several times, I've also heard several JBL pro cinema systems. never said JBL were a PA system. Very good in fact.
> 
> My comment was regarding my personal preference.
> 
> Have you heard a properly set up MK 300 system?
> In fact a Steinway system would be my personal choice hands down.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, I have never heard them. I am sure they are superb speakers because they have always gotten rave reviews. There are speakers that are great in all line-ups. I was just giving some personal opinions on my experiences. They are not to be taken as gospel but rather to give people options as they are reevaluating Atmos speakers and potentially replacing bi-poles with direct radiating to support this new format.


----------



## richmagnus

Molon_Labe said:


> No, I have never heard them. I am sure they are superb speakers because they have always gotten rave reviews. There are speakers that great in all line-ups. I was just giving some personal opinions on my experiences. They are not to be taken as gospel but rather to give people options as they are reevaluating Atmos speakers and potentially replacing bi-poles with direct radiating to support this new format.


I know and it's good to discuss all the options, even if some are way too expensive!!!

I'm a Tripole man myself. Ha ha 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Molon_Labe

Group hug - Horns aren't necessarily bad like they used to be, but they still aren't for everyone. Sound will always be subjective. We are all friends who enjoy this stupidly, addictive, expensive hobby and are all passionate about our systems. @Gooddoc has more money than me, and I am wrought with envy for his M2s. Keith @kbarnes701 loves the 90s', and I bet Vanilla Ice is in his Nakamichi tape deck as we speak  @audiofan1 hasn't determined if he likes me or hates me 

Back to Atmos and collectively defending this new amazing format.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Group hug - Horns aren't necessarily bad like they used to be, but they still aren't for everyone. Sound will always be subjective. We are all friends who enjoy this stupidly, addictive, expensive hobby and are all passionate about our systems. @GODdoc has more money than me, and I am wrought with envy for his M2s. Keith @kbarnes701 loves the 90s', and I bet Vanilla Ice is in his Nakamichi tape deck as we speak  @audiofan1 hasn't determined if he likes me or hates me
> 
> Back to Atmos and collectively defending this new amazing format.


Haha. Good post. I have, since the 'discussion' been researching some of the horn speakers mentioned and I have come to the conclusion that my former view was outdated. I especially like some of the horn speakers I have looked at, including all of the JBLs (I have always liked JBLs anyway) and those inexpensive powered JBLs Markus recommended look like extraordinary value for money. The M2s of course... well they cost the equivalent here of 10 grand (dollars) *each*, so I’d expect them to be very special. In fact, I'd expect them to reproduce my movies, fetch my beer, wash my car and attend to my 'male needs' at that price


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Haha. Good post. I have, since the 'discussion' been researching some of the horn speakers mentioned and I have come to the conclusion that my former view was outdated. I especially like some of the horn speakers I have looked at, including all of the JBLs (I have always liked JBLs anyway) and those inexpensive powered JBLs Markus recommended look like extraordinary value for money. The M2s of course... well they cost the equivalent here of 10 grand (dollars) *each*, so I’d expect them to be very special. In fact, I'd expect them to reproduce my movies, fetch my beer, wash my car and attend to my 'male needs' at that price


Yeah, the LSR308 that Markus recommended have gotten pretty much 5 stars on Amazon, Sweetwater, Full Compass, and anywhere you look. I am going to get a pair for my computer. If you like smaller footprint, the RA and PSA 10" speakers have a cult following too. I have heard nothing but rave reviews on both of those lines.


----------



## rontalley

This discussion reminds me of a quote from the book The Shack

_“Most emotions are responses to perception—what you think is true about a given situation. If your perception is false, then your emotional response to it will be false too. So check your perceptions, and beyond that check the truthfulness of your paradigms—what you believe. Just because you believe something firmly doesn’t make it true. Be willing to reexamine what you believe. The more you live in the truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly…”
_


----------



## rontalley

maikeldepotter said:


> I believe reference is made to an experiment where you would put some surround info up (inverted or not) while at the same time leaving the ear-level surrounds active as well.
> 
> The past 12 months (still in my pre-Atmos phase) I am doing a similar thing with my LCR channels (lifting and adding L/R out-of-phase info to the front heights) and the effect on the sound is impressive.


Well, DSU is kinda doing that. We know that the information is there, but it is interesting how DSU is extracting certain sounds and frequencies and putting them overhead while at the same time taking those sound out of the the surrounds and sides. It shouldn't be the same as leaving the sounds in the surrounds and sides and copying them to ceiling position and reversing phase, adding delays, eq'ing etc...

DSU and the other various DSPs are truly adding dimension to the listening space. We all know its just math but still, I am not the one to sit in front of a chalk board and figure out long equations while gazing at the stars and sipping tea. I will gladly pay for this technolgy that someone else has already figured out and give them full credit for their accomplishments.

Dolby Atmos and DSU is Amazing and there is nothing anyone can tell me to convince me otherwise.  

BTW, I also was blown away by 5.1 but no so much by 7.1 but was impressed with wides although at the time, I did not know that is what I was impressed by. Heard it, but didn't understand the tech.


----------



## I WANT MORE

Can someone please direct me to the "Speakers" thread? 
I came here to learn about speakers but all anyone is discussing is Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Molon_Labe

I WANT MORE said:


> Can someone please direct me to the "Speakers" thread?
> I came here to learn about speakers but all anyone is discussing is Dolby Atmos.


Well played sir.....

Too bad that team in your avatar doesn't play as well as you


----------



## Stoked21

I WANT MORE said:


> Can someone please direct me to the "Speakers" thread?
> I came here to learn about speakers but all anyone is discussing is Dolby Atmos.


And my coffee comes out through my nose. HAHA


----------



## smurraybhm

I WANT MORE said:


> Can someone please direct me to the "Speakers" thread?
> I came here to learn about speakers but all anyone is discussing is Dolby Atmos.


As much as I would like to agree with you, the speaker discussion is important as we all try to figure out what is best for producing the best Atmos experience, especially up-top now that we are seeing more titles coming out. Angles, speakers, equipment, which disk is best or DSU v Auro - pick your poison


----------



## Molon_Labe

smurraybhm said:


> As much as I would like to agree with you, the speaker discussion is important as we all try to figure out what is best for producing the best Atmos experience, especially up-top now that we are seeing more titles coming out. Angles, speakers, equipment, which disk is best or DSU v Auro - pick your poison


I am sure he and others have enjoyed the speaker banter (some are probably annoyed too). He was just being facetious about the whole thing. Humor is good for the soul.


----------



## Movie78

smurraybhm said:


> As much as I would like to agree with you, the speaker discussion is important as we all try to figure out what is best for producing the best Atmos experience, especially up-top now that we are seeing more titles coming out. Angles, speakers, equipment, which disk is best or DSU v Auro - pick your poison


In this case a separated thread should be created for ATMOS speaker discussion.
This thread is base on 
ATMOS content
User movies reviews
ATMOS sound placement


----------



## Hopinater

Molon_Labe said:


> Yeah, the LSR308 that Markus recommended have gotten pretty much 5 stars on Amazon, Sweetwater, Full Compass, and anywhere you look. I am going to get a pair for my computer. If you like smaller footprint, the RA and PSA 10" speakers have a cult following too. I have heard nothing but rave reviews on both of those lines.


I can speak to the sound quality of the PSA high efficiency horn speakers since I own the PSA 110's. I used to stay away from horn speakers because they always sounded bad to me. But I took a chance on the PSA speakers and fell in love with them, they are by far and away the best speakers I've ever owned. So now my view regarding horn speakers is you need to choose carefully, but there are some wonderful examples of high efficiency horn speakers out there.

Sorry to be off topic…back to Atmos!


----------



## tbaucom

SoundChex said:


> My understanding of how VBAP works is that the listener infers the direction of a [dynamic] object--from the MLP--based on the relative SPL strength of the object's audio emissions delivered by [probably] three speakers that "encircle" an imaginary line from the MLP which extends through the object's current position. The *object specific content* delivered through each of the three speakers presumably shares a common XO--otherwise one speaker alone delivering dominant mid-bass would tend to influence the perceived position of the object 'inappropriately'...?!
> 
> This suggests to me that the object rendering engine should use one single *object content XO* for all *dynamic* objects--above the highest measured|selected XO among all _Middle_ and _Top Layer_ speakers--as the specific speakers that will be used to render any one dynamic object are presumably unknown in advance. In contrast, the subset of speakers involved in the rendering of a *static* object might be determinable on first use, so that an *object content XO* specific to that one static object could be computed. _In any event, take care how you modify the XOs Audyssey has determined for your speakers! _
> 
> 
> _


Thanks. I was thinking that if the crossovers were different it could influence the object position in the room. So far I have 1 suggestion to use the same crossover all the way around and another user suggesting that it doesn't matter. If anyone else has any thoughts I'd like to hear them.

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

I WANT MORE said:


> Can someone please direct me to the "Speakers" thread?
> I came here to learn about speakers but all anyone is discussing is Dolby Atmos.


 It is sort of relevant since Atmos does require speakers. IIRC this discussion started off about the appropriate size of driver that one needed for Atmos overhead speakers. Since then it seems to have 'developed' 

My take is still this: until/when/if mixers start to put as much content in the overheads as they put into the LCR set (probably never), one needs overhead speakers which are up to the task of reproducing, cleanly and without audible distortion, to the SPLs required, what content is actually sent to them. Since currently one of the main complaints about Atmos is that "hardly anything" is sent to them, and since with DSU it is mostly fairly low-level ambience, it seems to me that fairly small speakers of good quality will suffice, in a bass-managed system, with good sub(s). I am using Tannoy Di5 DCs to very good effect, and I have experimented with replacing them with the larger Tannoy Di6DCs but heard no difference with the latter _at all_, so went back to the smaller, neater, cheaper Di5s (crossed at 100hz). I currently have no intention of changing these speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Movie78 said:


> In this case a separated thread should be created for ATMOS speaker discussion.
> This thread is base on
> ATMOS content
> User movies reviews
> ATMOS sound placement


It is? The thread title just says the thread is about Atmos for home theaters. No restrictions of the sort you mention. The type of speaker needed for Atmos is hugely relevant IMO.


----------



## gbaby

audiofan1 said:


>


Hello Audiofan! Out of respect for you I just wanted to explain that my comments which confused you were intended to show I am an independent thinker who is not influenced by other folks opinions.  Regardless, enjoy your Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> Hello Audiofan! Out of respect for you I just wanted to explain that my comments which confused you were intended to show I am an independent thinker who is not influenced by other folks opinions.  Regardless, enjoy your Atmos.


 @audiofan1

Let me translate @gbaby comment for you "Hello Audiofan! Out of respect for you I just wanted to explain my comments which confused you, *and explain how your ears and equipment are inferior to mine*, were intended to show I am an independent thinker *which means I am close minded and unwilling to accept new SoTA technologies* who is not influenced by other folks opinions *because their opinions are wrong and I wouldn't want to expand my horizons and experiences by hearing something new implemented correctly.* Regardless, enjoy your Atmos *gimmick*

HA HA.....razzing you @gbaby.  Just having some fun.
Seriously though, did you only listen to your last purchased speakers or preamp etc after only listening to it one singular time? Without evaluating multiple alternatives in order to make the most informed decision? Or did you just go out and immediately buy the first thing you saw and heard? Independent thinking is only beneficial through exhaustive evaluation of all viable alternatives. Otherwise it's short-sighted. I've always hated horn speakers...until I heard some over the last several weeks and I admitted I was wrong and I benefitted by doing so.....(See how I brought the speaker argument back into this? That was _smoooth_. HA HA)


----------



## FattyMcButterPants

Hopinater said:


> I can speak to the sound quality of the PSA high efficiency horn speakers since I own the PSA 110's. I used to stay away from horn speakers because they always sounded bad to me. But I took a chance on the PSA speakers and fell in love with them, they are by far and away the best speakers I've ever owned. So now my view regarding horn speakers is you need to choose carefully, but there are some wonderful examples of high efficiency horn speakers out there.
> 
> Sorry to be off topic…back to Atmos!


Since the thread is going this way I will chime in as well haha.

I have had the same experience as Hop. I was always afraid of horns since I had only ever heard klipsch speakers, but when I read about how dynamic they can be when done properly I decided to roll the dice on some Reaction Audio CX-10's (high efficiency coax, point source). I am so thankful to the people on this forum that led me to the HE designs because these speakers create the most immersive movie atmosphere I have ever experienced, residential or commercial. They also have a certain "sparkle" that has re-energized my waning interest in music, which has been a pleasant surprise. For the first time I am completely happy with my speakers and no longer pine for something more. 

When I went to THE Show Newport this past May I expected this to change when I heard some of the best speakers in the world, but surprisingly it did not. The only setup I heard at that show that produced the same level of immersion was one employing JTR 212's, another horn speaker. 

Basically my point is that in my experience, if a dynamic/immersive movie atmosphere is what you are chasing, I have not heard anything that does it better (or as well even) than a properly designed HE speaker.


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> @gbaby
> 
> Regardless of @bguzman misguided comment, people here are not trying to bully you or bad mouth your equipment and choices. No one has said anything derogatory. On the contrary most of us have agreed that DSU for music is 100% preference. What we are trying to do is educate you on Atmos and help you with our obtained knowledge (especially as it pertains to movies). No one is professing to be a "know it all" or an absolute expert in all things Atmos. What people are trying to tell you is that you didn't hear Atmos correctly due to setup. If you want to make your own decision, everyone is encouraging you to make it based on facts and multiple listens as opposed to on just one shotty demo. You'll do yourself an injustice otherwise and make a sweeping judgement on a technology that likely will blow your mind if you give it a fair listen. Even on a modestly designed system.


I appreciated bguzman's comments.  And, some of the comments did make me feel the way the folks feel about this thread on Audioholics. But, I will say that I feel the Atmos setup I heard was proper, its just it underwhelmed me.  It sounds too gimmicky to me. Its not the same substantial improvement one gets from stereo to pro logic. Its a subtle improvement that left me underwhelmed. That is my subjective impression.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> It is sort of relevant since Atmos does require speakers. IIRC this discussion started off about the appropriate size of driver that one needed for Atmos overhead speakers. Since then it seems to have 'developed'
> 
> My take is still this: until/when/if mixers start to put as much content in the overheads as they put into the LCR set (probably never), one needs overhead speakers which are up to the task of reproducing, cleanly and without audible distortion, to the SPLs required, what content is actually sent to them. Since currently one of the main complaints about Atmos is that "hardly anything" is sent to them, and since with DSU it is mostly fairly low-level ambience, it seems to me that fairly small speakers of good quality will suffice, in a bass-managed system, with good sub(s). I am using Tannoy Di5 DCs to very good effect, and I have experimented with replacing them with the larger Tannoy Di6DCs but heard no difference with the latter _at all_, so went back to the smaller, neater, cheaper Di5s (crossed at 100hz). I currently have no intention of changing these speakers.


I started off with speakers that IMHO sounded pretty darn good in my bedroom but I said hey, it's only for Atmos overhead sounds so these "should" work....










Well after living with them for a week, I realized that I was not getting the same reaction as people were describing...I had to pump them up to +9db and after 3 movies and various demos, I realized I had to try something different.

I purchased these from Amazon for $40/speaker...They are now $49 and the price is rising. These speakers brought my Atmos setup to life! Whoa!!!










I really do get that you have to pay to play but expensive doesn't always equate to better than inexpensive.

So yeah, in the context of Atmos, I believe that the type of speaker is important. I can say that I am not talking from speculation but from personal experience. Yeah both speakers were cheap but the 8" ceiling speaker sounded 10x better than the satellite speaker that sounded just fine in my BR. No you don't have to pay out the ass but you do have to have appropriate speakers to make Atmos shine.

If, I was demoing Atmos with the speakers I had up before, no one would really be that impressed, including me but now, EVERYONE compliments me on my setup and I am genuinely happy with my purchases.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I initially was going to be using some 8" speakers behind my screen, but did a fair bit of listening to various speakers (and like many of us hear have heard quite a few different set ups over the years), including 8", 10", 12" and found that in my room from the same place at the same level, 15" speakers with horns gave by far the more cinematic audio. So now I will be using some 15" PA speakers with a 1.75" CD. I can't believe it either!

I had got into hearing waveguide speakers after stumbling onto Zilches Econowave thread a while back, and then DIYSoundgroups offerings. Domes and waveguides do have a different sound so much of the preference is just that, personal preference, but I would say like others before me in this thread, people should have a listen to horns/waveguides as recommended here (not all are good of course) and see for themselves. Dennis Erskine will always try and use CD drivers over domes in his builds because of what they have to offer over domes.

If you look at the 2pi space measurements (i.e in a baffle wall) for the 4277ns, it' surprisingly flat (like the M2s FR). Not many manufacturers have or can supply that kind of data, even if you ask them.

Gary.


----------



## rontalley

Molon_Labe said:


> You must not have kids or a pet That lone wolf surround speaker in the middle of the floor would have bounced off the tile many times with my crew


I went out of my way to explain to the "crew" that this speaker was special. In fact, this speaker is soooooooo special that if it gets knocked over, then one of you will have to leave! I velcroed the speaker to the stand but so at least the entire stand would have to be pushed over. So far, only one topple, that I know of...

Here is some of the "crew"! It gets pretty wild over here sometimes!


----------



## Stoked21

Nice puppies.
Thanks for showing them to us.


----------



## dormie1360

^^^LOL Got to love puppies when they're sleeping.


----------



## Molon_Labe

dormie1360 said:


> ^^^LOL Got to love puppies when they're sleeping.


I love my teenagers too - when they are sleeping!


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> I appreciated bguzman's comments.  And, some of the comments did make me feel the way the folks feel about this thread on Audioholics. But, I will say that I feel the Atmos setup I heard was proper, its just it underwhelmed me.  It sounds too gimmicky to me. Its not the same substantial improvement one gets from stereo to pro logic. Its a subtle improvement that left me underwhelmed. That is my subjective impression.


Your comments reveal that it was NOT set up properly, which is not unusual for dealerships. Moreover, the fact that it was a 5.2.4 system should have set off an alarm bell in your mind. That is no way to demo Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> It was you, not me, who referenced the 90s when talking about speaker design. I am guessing you must believe there has been no advance in speaker design or technology in the last two decades. Are your speakers 90's designs and you're just trying to defend them? There's no need to defend them - if you like them that is all that matters.


Nope. Very modern, actually.

They just don't have a thick coat of lacquer on them to make them sound as good as one from the 2015's. 

Why hasn't a mod come in and deleted the last few pages of comments? This isn't about Atmos at all. 

Totally not bitter.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Nope. Very modern, actually.
> 
> They just don't have a thick coat of lacquer on them to make them sound as good as one from the 2015's.


I see that as a benefit. I loathe paying for things on speakers which add to the cost but contribute nothing to the sound. All my speakers are, therefore, butt ugly. But in a HT, I sit in the dark so I don't GAF what they look like. Of course, in a living room I would (and do) have different criteria and there my speakers are nicely veneered with some sort of exotic tree substance. The ultimate of course, as you know, is to have an AT screen and hide the butt ugly blighters behind it  (Blighter - Limey word, look it up or work it out from context LOL).



Scott Simonian said:


> Why hasn't a mod come in and deleted the last few pages of comments? This isn't about Atmos at all.
> 
> Totally not bitter.


Hahaha. Just be thankful that Big Brother has taken his beady eye off you for a while


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. I guess I'll take the good with the bad. 

But ... umm.. yeah! Atmos, y'all!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I guess I'll take the good with the bad.
> 
> But ... umm.. yeah! Atmos, y'all!


 I guess someone must have reported you last time. Now you can begin a paranoid search among the recent posters to wonder which one it was that dobbed you in. (_Dobbed you in_ - Limey phrase meaning, well, it's obvious from context. I'll get you speaking English if it's the last thing I do! LOL).


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Your comments reveal that it was NOT set up properly, which is not unusual for dealerships. Moreover, the fact that it was a 5.2.4 system should have set off an alarm bell in your mind. That is no way to demo Atmos.


Agree. If he came into my HT and thought that the immersive nature was gimmicky, then I would have to disagree but respect his opinion. I expect my wife and teenage daughter to not notice and not care as they are technology illiterate and not big fans of movies or spl or bass etc. But someone with a so called trained expert ear that calls themselves an enthusiasts couldn't help but notice the bubble of sound. 

I find it hard to believe that someone whom has never previously heard Atmos can be such an expert on it to so adamantly declare, numerous times, that the demo was correct. If you've never seen or heard something before then how can you know right from wrong? I tend to think it's misplaced faith in an untouchable, best in the world, holy grail of all dealers whom can do no wrong. Sprinkled with a bit of the demoee having super natural omnipotence that extends to all things audio (even gross knowledge on technologies he's never experienced previously).


----------



## Ricoflashback

The discussion of Atmos speakers is relevant to the Dolby Atmos thread to a degree. What I've taken from it is to go with the largest speaker you can with the most bass capability to provide a more immersive environment for Atmos & DSU. A lot of that will depend your HT environment and room capability. 

Now - esoteric discussions about 8" plus woofers and surround speakers over $5K a piece (hell, $1K a piece) is a quick read for me and move on to another post. 

Especially when we start getting into diagrams, wave lengths and the other "angle of the dangle" supporting documentation for one's position. 

I just want to learn how to get the best sound environment I can for my Dolby Atmos setup within my budget and HT man cave constraints.


----------



## bargervais

Ricoflashback said:


> The discussion of Atmos speakers is relevant to the Dolby Atmos thread to a degree. What I've taken from it is to go with the largest speaker you can with the most bass capability to provide a more immersive environment for Atmos & DSU. A lot of that will depend your HT environment and room capability.
> 
> Now - esoteric discussions about 8" plus woofers and surround speakers over $5K a piece (hell, $1K a piece) is a quick read for me and move on to another post.
> 
> Especially when we start getting into diagrams, wave lengths and the other "angle of the dangle" supporting documentation for one's position.
> 
> I just want to learn how to get the best sound environment I can for my Dolby Atmos setup within my budget and HT man cave constraints.


totally agree
$5K a Piece  i have a hard time with 500 a piece I'm one of the few in here that has this set up in their living room or den, now if i had the money to build a home theater maybe but $5K a piece that still a stretch.

I love my little set up it's Immersive enough for me to enjoy Atmos in my home.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Agree. If he came into my HT and thought that the immersive nature was gimmicky, then I would have to disagree but respect his opinion. I expect my wife and teenage daughter to not notice and not care as they are technology illiterate and not big fans of movies or spl or bass etc. But someone with a so called trained expert ear that calls themselves an enthusiasts couldn't help but notice the bubble of sound.


Yep. That is why it is so obvious it was badly set up. If someone sincerely believes that _"it sounds too gimmicky"_ and asserts that it is _"not the same substantial improvement one gets from stereo to pro logic"_ and describes it as _"a subtle improvement that left me underwhelmed"_ then those of us who have properly set up Atmos systems know there is something wrong. This isn't the realm of opinion either. 



Stoked21 said:


> I find it hard to believe that someone whom has never previously heard Atmos can be such an expert on it to so adamantly declare, numerous times, that the demo was correct.


Indeed - with no other point of reference, how would one know? And regardless, it is not sensible anyway to come to a conclusion, so strongly expressed, on the basis of just one experience. This, to me, doesn’t smack of 'open minded independent thinking' but rather the exact opposite.



Stoked21 said:


> If you've never seen or heard something before then how can you know right from wrong? I tend to think it's misplaced faith in an untouchable, best in the world, holy grail of all dealers whom can do no wrong. Sprinkled with a bit of the demoee having super natural omnipotence that extends to all things audio (even gross knowledge on technologies he's never experienced previously).


A lot of people put their trust in these so-called "high end" dealers and really do believe they know what they are talking about. I can’t tell you how many "high end" dealers I visited regularly in my old audiofool days and the BS they spouted at me. Since educating myself a bit I can see that they really were talking from the heart of their bottom. Once someone tells me that the amp or processor is the most important component, or even one of the most important, in the system, my BS detector sounds at 120dB. But hey man, it costs 10,000 dollars so it _must_ be high end and it _must_ sound better than something that costs a fifth or a tenth of that. I bet it weighs more too. It's obvious common sense!


----------



## stikle

gbaby said:


> I have concluded that those hi end processors do distinguish themselves sonically over mid range Atmos processors.



I've noticed that you continually say "high end processors" vs "Atmos" processors. You do realize that Atmos has NOTHING to do with the reproduction of music, right? You can run an Atmos capable receiver in regular 2 channel stereo mode, as well as putting it in Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) mode, or various other modes to suit your taste. 

I certainly don't look at my $2000 (at the time) X5200 as low or medium end... On the other hand, I'm not an audiophile snob (grin) and have never heard a $10K processor. My system has extremely good fidelity and power output.

If you chose to listen to what most everybody here is telling you instead of relying on a single demo, you would have the best of both worlds (in a properly set up configuration)...stereo mode for your music, and DSU/Atmos for your movies. I don't recall even seeing you specify whether this demo you went to played music in 2 channel mode or not...you just refer to the mid-range Atmos processor as gimicky.

"It was a high-end dealer!" you cry out. So? A high end dealer should have more than a 5.1.2 setup to demo what a properly configured system sounds like. And who's to say that the overheads were in the proper position and that the bed layer was set up optimally? Maybe the separation between the bed layer and overheads wasn't enough, leading to disappointing/no immersion. Or maybe what was demo'd was crap demo content. Maybe the seating wasn't in the proper place. Who knows. Regardless, you should have been blown away.

Also, I've been in a few retail demo rooms. Few of them are set up for a good experience. Magnolia, for instance, typically has 34256 speakers crammed in one room along with 30 AVRs so you can try everything out. I would almost guarantee that they have never been run through their calibration routines...or how they even could be with the way they switch speakers. And I'm not even going to talk about Fry's...

I first heard my Mirage Omnisats in a crappy demo room, but they sounded better than the other offerings to my ear. I went to Magnolia to price check and give them a second listen. Pricing was in line, but they had them so far apart in their demo room that the imaging sucked. Still...I went with them and they sound fabulous in my theater room.

On the other hand, maybe all of us here that have gone to lengths to properly set up our own systems are wrong...

You owe it to yourself to find another demo or two before you wash your hands of upgrading.



Carrick said:


> I have a left to right slant ceiling, what Atmos height speakers should I be looking to buy?
> Ceiling, bookshelf or surround speakers for above MLP?
> 
> If I get in ceiling speakers, can the Denon 4200w DSP compensate for the L/R 6-8" difference in height?



It really doesn't matter. My room has a lower right to upper left slant. I've got on-ceiling mounted bookshelves (see my signature), and they work fabulously.

Once you get all of your speakers mounted, run through the Audyssey calibration, and it will set all of the distances and levels for you, rendering the angled ceiling inconsequential.

In the dark while watching a movie, you'd never be able to tell aurally that my ceiling isn't flat or that there are even speakers there unless you look.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Group hug - Horns aren't necessarily bad like they used to be, but they still aren't for everyone. Sound will always be subjective. We are all friends who enjoy this stupidly, addictive, expensive hobby and are all passionate about our systems. @Gooddoc has more money than me, and I am wrought with envy for his M2s. Keith @kbarnes701 loves the 90s', and I bet Vanilla Ice is in his Nakamichi tape deck as we speak  @audiofan1 hasn't determined if he likes me or hates me
> 
> Back to Atmos and collectively defending this new amazing format.


Are you kidding! your all good in my book and this has been a great discussion and look forward to hearing some the speakers you horn lovers mentioned and besides! you owe me that beer


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I can't believe you actually said that  Very wise indeed Keith.


Really? I thought everyone knew that my preference was always for the sound itself not for the flashy appendages and appurtenances  All my speakers are fugly. I doubt even the least aesthetically minded person in the world could live with any of them in a living room. I routinely recommend people to consider fugly pro amps for example. And I haven't, in decades, equated price with performance. One of the beauties of a dedicated room is that we don't need fancy veneers from exotic trees culled from faraway places with strange-sounding names (Canada?). Sometimes these veneered cabinets cost more than the sum total of all the drivers and components. Add on the cost of marketing, distribution and retail markup and speakers selling for $2,000 actually have $50 worth of parts inside them. NFW José.

HAHAHA. You got me. I only just spotted your cunning editing of my original. With women, I rate aesthetics incredibly highly, which is perhaps why I am on my third wife, the first two having been upgraded.


----------



## audiofan1

gbaby said:


> Hello Audiofan! Out of respect for you I just wanted to explain that my comments which confused you were intended to show I am an independent thinker who is not influenced by other folks opinions.  Regardless, enjoy your Atmos.


gbaby You know I'm an independent thinker as well and sometimes stubbornly so No need to explain my friend as I love the fact you don't allow much to get in the way of your musical & move enjoyment. chime in from time to time here to see whats going on in immersive audio land as the demos I heard as well didn't impress by a long shot and making a jump from a 5.1 setup to a full blown 7.1.4 was indeed a gamble! I skipped over other 11.1 Audyssey's DSX and DTS neo even though my pre/pro at the time had the ability, as it sounded like a glorified DSP mode which I admit I never used , I was strictly a native to the source guy. When learning how Atmos worked , I felt it would be great for the theaters as they needed something new and thought it would be years before it would make it to the home cinema setting i went out to see Pacific Rim and while not overly impressed it was still very good and better than what was. Well that was way off As that came far sooner than expected. Long story short after the install and sitting back with the demo disc, it was the best thing I'd ever heard


----------



## rontalley

stikle said:


> I've got on-ceiling mounted bookshelves (see my signature), and they work fabulously.


I'd imagine you have two scenes, one that includes wides and one that doesn't. When running 7.2.4, your wides are not being used right? Considering that you do have wides in your setup, how often do you go 9.2.2 or when you use wides its just in a 9.2 scenario?

I love what wides do but sux that we can't have 9.2.4 without spending tons of money.

Still say that 9 ear level, 4-6 height, and 4-6 ceiling would kick all forms of arse and should be pretty easy to accomplish! 

Two processors should be able to talk to each other and therefor having expansion boxes 4-8 channels with/without amps only to run objects would be super cool!

Yamaha rx-3060 (11 Channel AVR) MSRP $1999
Yamaha ex-800 (8 Channel Expansion) MSRP $1299 (same circuitry just minus all of the other stuff that are on AVR. Volume controlled by network)
19 Channel setup that communicate via network or HDMI link. 

Why is this not a brilliant idea that would satisfy us all! I had a profession recording studio and when you needed more inputs or outputs or processing power, you would just buy additional converters or HD cards... Why wouldn't it be the same for consumer?


----------



## Stoked21

stikle said:


> "It was a high-end dealer!" you cry out. So? A high end dealer should have more than a 5.1.2 setup to demo what a properly configured system sounds like. And who's to say that the overheads were in the proper position and that the bed layer was set up optimally? Maybe the separation between the bed layer and overheads wasn't enough, leading to disappointing/no immersion. Or maybe what was demo'd was crap demo content. Maybe the seating wasn't in the proper place. Who knows. Regardless, you should have been blown away.


It's funny this came up recently and that you say this. Just this weekend I was at my high-end dealer for an Atmos and a Bryston demo. 

I demoed a Bryston preamp first. We hooked it up to my Sony walkman headphones. I felt the sound stage was all wrong and there were no dynamics whatsoever. Next we plugged in my college dorm room pioneer speakers from 1992 and played AM radio. The sound was extremely flat and distorted and staticy. The VHS tape "dances with wolves" from my college days was then ran through a mono input with the tracking out of whack---behold there was absolutely no distinction in the dialogue with the Bryston and it was extremely muddy. Finally we hooked up a top of the line amp with top of the line speakers for the final test (over $1M with the Operetta amps). I couldn't believe how terrible and gimmicky the Bryston sounded through the shop door as I stood in the parking lot having a smoke. 

Next I demoed the entry level Denon Atmos AVR-S710 at $400. We ran B&W speakers all around in their dedicated Atmos theater room (which Dolby flew in to setup themselves specifically for me). The sound stage was immersive and expansive with both Blu-Ray Atmos discs and SACD content using DSU. 

I was there when this was all hooked up, so I know it was done correctly. I've never heard Bryston before this demo. I can say that beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bryston is an overpriced, gimmicky solution after just one listen in this ideal demo environment. The sonic quality of the entry level $400 Japanese AVR just plain blew it away.


_Extreme eh? Sorry to the Bryston guys as I literally have never heard one and I'm sure it's lovely. I'm starting to realize that this isn't "independent thinking". Or a self-proclaimed enthusiast looking for answers to "why atmos?" or "why was the demo so mundane?". It actually appears to be someone's extreme ignorance, questionable logic or lack thereof and egotism in one's ways of "thinking". Oh well I'm done. His loss _


----------



## Carrick

stikle said:


> It really doesn't matter. My room has a lower right to upper left slant. I've got on-ceiling mounted bookshelves (see my signature), and they work fabulously.
> 
> Once you get all of your speakers mounted, run through the Audyssey calibration, and it will set all of the distances and levels for you, rendering the angled ceiling inconsequential.
> 
> In the dark while watching a movie, you'd never be able to tell aurally that my ceiling isn't flat or that there are even speakers there unless you look.



Thanks I was worried. So now I am looking at getting four ceiling speakers with the 45° slant, can you recommend any? I am planning to get DT L,R & C since they have a good sale right now. Does that mean I should get DT ceiling speakers or does it matter since I am only using for movies? Thanks


----------



## jsb75

I was just reading one of the yamaha threads,and I guess when atmos is used it disables ypao. Do the denons or onkyo disable there room correction as well when dolby atmos is used?


----------



## stikle

Carrick said:


> Thanks I was worried. So now I am looking at getting four ceiling speakers with the 45° slant, can you recommend any? I am planning to get DT L,R & C since they have a good sale right now. Does that mean I should get DT ceiling speakers or does it matter since I am only using for movies? Thanks



I'm sorry, I really can't. I'm not up on current speaker offerings (other than SVS products after a recent upgrade). I've had my Mirages for years and they fit the bill and worked perfectly for me. Unfortunately, Klipsch bought Mirage and then killed off the line. Thanks for that, Klipsch. They still show up occasionally on Woot.com though, but I'm sure there are just as good or better offerings today.



Molon_Labe said:


> *I would try to use the same speaker as your surrounds if possible.* This will give you a seamless rear/ceiling sound field. If that isn't possible, then go with what fits within your space and budget.



^ this...although it may not be 100% critical anymore, so don't let that be a showstopper.



rontalley said:


> I'd imagine you have two scenes, one that includes wides and one that doesn't. When running 7.2.4, your wides are not being used right?



Wides are not used in DSU mode, only in Atmos. It's been a while since I revisited my configuration...think I'll do that tonight to refresh what's what.



Molon_Labe said:


> Considering that you do have wides in your setup, how often do you go 9.2.2 or when you use wides its just in a 9.2 scenario?



I'm 100% either in DSU or Atmos for all content across the board.



rontalley said:


> I love what wides do but sux that we can't have 9.2.4 without spending tons of money.



Yep....Trinov or bust.


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> @audiofan1
> 
> 
> HA HA.....razzing you @gbaby.  Just having some fun.
> Seriously though, did you only listen to your last purchased speakers or preamp etc after only listening to it one singular time? Without evaluating multiple alternatives in order to make the most informed decision? Or did you just go out and immediately buy the first thing you saw and heard? Independent thinking is only beneficial through exhaustive evaluation of all viable alternatives. Otherwise it's short-sighted. I've always hated horn speakers...until I heard some over the last several weeks and I admitted I was wrong and I benefitted by doing so.....(See how I brought the speaker argument back into this? That was _smoooth_. HA HA)


Actually, I purchased my speakers without even hearing them due to a comprehensive article on them I read in Stereophile magazine. It turned out that every sonic trait I read about in the article was true as described in the article. I did, however, listened to my processor prior to buying it because it was outrageously expensive to me, and I had never considered a product in its price range. It turned out that every sonic trait Kal Rubinson of Stereophile described in his review of that processor was true, so I bought it and never looked back. I will say I have no problems with fans of Atmos being enamored by this new surround format. I'm just not one of them. And regardless of other opinions, the Atmos system I heard was set up properly. Indeed, I heard the height channels which sometimes offered just ambiance and at other times a discreet signal. I was just underwhelmed.  I guess it boils down to an old song by Sly and the Family Stones, "Different Strokes for Different Folks."


----------



## Scott Simonian

jsb75 said:


> I was just reading one of the yamaha threads,and I guess when atmos is used it disables ypao.


What? No they don't.

You can't use CinemaDSP and a couple of other features when decoding Atmos. YPAO still works with Atmos.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> What? No they don't.
> 
> You can't use CinemaDSP and a couple of other features when decoding Atmos. YPAO still works with Atmos.


Totally agree 100%. Even so that you can change YPAO setting while decoding an Atmos movie such as Flat, Natural, Front and Manual...Can hear the differences on the fly.


----------



## rontalley

stikle said:


> Wides are not used in DSU mode, only in Atmos. It's been a while since I revisited my configuration...think I'll do that tonight to refresh what's what.





stikle said:


> I'm 100% either in DSU or Atmos for all content across the board.


This is why I am asking. If you can only have 7.2.4 then there is no more room for wides in Atmos. If you are in DSU which does not include wides or Atmos which you have no room for wides if using 4 ceilings, then what's the point in having wides?

In other words, in what scenario do you have your wides engaged. Only asking because I looked at your signature and it appears you have wides in a 7.2.4 setup.


----------



## bargervais

gbaby said:


> Actually, I purchased my speakers without even hearing them due to a comprehensive article on them I read in Stereophile magazine. It turned out that every sonic trait I read about in the article was true as described in the article. I did, however, listened to my processor prior to buying it because it was outrageously expensive to me, and I had never considered a product in its price range. It turned out that every sonic trait Kal Rubinson of Stereophile described in his review of that processor was true, so I bought it and never looked back. I will say I have no problems with fans of Atmos being enamored by this new surround format. I'm just not one of them. And regardless of other opinions, the Atmos system I heard was set up properly. Indeed, I heard the height channels which sometimes offered just ambiance and at other times a discreet signal. I was just underwhelmed.  I guess it boils down to an old song by Sly and the Family Stones, "Different Strokes for Different Folks."


If your not enamored by Atmos then why continue to post your dissatisfaction, now if you need advice on how to set it up we are here to Help. 
There are a lot of HIGH END advisors in this thread if that's what will help.


----------



## stikle

rontalley said:


> This is why I am asking. If you can only have 7.2.4 then there is no more room for wides in Atmos. If you are in DSU which does not include wides or Atmos which you have no room for wides if using 4 ceilings, then what's the point in having wides?
> 
> In other words, in what scenario do you have your wides engaged. Only asking because I looked at your signature and it appears you have wides in a 7.2.4 setup.



That is a very good question. And honestly...uh...I don't. I previously had an 11.2 Audyssey DSX setup in which they WERE used. Then I upgraded to an Atmos receiver and moved some things around. The wides are still where they were from before...no need to take them down. I'm relatively certain they ARE hooked up (which I'm going to verify tonight), so in theory if I went back to DSX or Neo:X they should be active. But I don't ever switch from DSU...it's that good.


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> Actually, I purchased my speakers without even hearing them due to a comprehensive article on them I read in Stereophile magazine. It turned out that every sonic trait I read about in the article was true as described in the article. I did, however, listened to my processor prior to buying it because it was outrageously expensive to me, and I had never considered a product in its price range. It turned out that every sonic trait Kal Rubinson of Stereophile described in his review of that processor was true, so I bought it and never looked back. I will say I have no problems with fans of Atmos being enamored by this new surround format. I'm just not one of them. And regardless of other opinions, the Atmos system I heard was set up properly. Indeed, I heard the height channels which sometimes offered just ambiance and at other times a discreet signal. I was just underwhelmed.  I guess it boils down to an old song by Sly and the Family Stones, "Different Strokes for Different Folks."


So answer these. Why and how do you know it was setup correctly? 

Better yet, What speakers were in the ceiling? What was their angle? What optimization/eq was ran? What was the ceiling height? How was the Atmos configuration set in the avr? Why was it 5.1.4 instead of 7.1.4? Of the seven different Atmos speaker types which were used? What was the demo material and how was it encoded? What mode was the Atmos avr in?

I know you can't honestly answer these. Why do you have to hang on to it being setup correctly when so many tell you it wasn't? Does it take an article in stereophile disputing their setup for you to believe it wasn't right? You can argue all day long that Bryston or any other hifi prepro is superior to a Japanese made mass market in a stereo music deployment and you will get no argument from me. I was a Counterpoint guy so I understand. You can state that you don't like it for music and again get no argument from many. But why poopoo all over a new movie technology when you clearly know nothing about the setup, know nothing about the technology, and have only heard one demo setup by someone who was clueless (they were likely trying to sell you on the higher end higher dollar system to line their pocket. Plus their room has to be setup for multiple demo environments and likely can't display Atmos properly). You fell for it gullibly


----------



## jsb75

rontalley said:


> Totally agree 100%. Even so that you can change YPAO setting while decoding an Atmos movie such as Flat, Natural, Front and Manual...Can hear the differences on the fly.


 Thanks. I didn't think that sounded right


----------



## kbarnes701

jsb75 said:


> I was just reading one of the yamaha threads,and I guess when atmos is used it disables ypao. Do the denons or onkyo disable there room correction as well when dolby atmos is used?


No - Atmos has nothing to do with room EQ and does not disable it at all.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> the Atmos system I heard was set up properly.


Can you describe what you mean by that, using the Dolby guidelines as a reference point?


----------



## markus767

gbaby said:


> Actually, I purchased my speakers without even hearing them due to a comprehensive article on them I read in Stereophile magazine. It turned out that every sonic trait I read about in the article was true as described in the article. I did, however, listened to my processor prior to buying it because it was outrageously expensive to me, and I had never considered a product in its price range. It turned out that every sonic trait Kal Rubinson of Stereophile described in his review of that processor was true, so I bought it and never looked back. I will say I have no problems with fans of Atmos being enamored by this new surround format. I'm just not one of them. And regardless of other opinions, the Atmos system I heard was set up properly. Indeed, I heard the height channels which sometimes offered just ambiance and at other times a discreet signal. I was just underwhelmed.  I guess it boils down to an old song by Sly and the Family Stones, "Different Strokes for Different Folks."


Sounds like you first need to read a glowing Atmos review from one of your favorite reviewer before confirmation bias can kick in.

You've heard one Atmos mix on one system somewhere – so what? Do you know how many bad mixes I've heard (and made) in my life? Who's to blame? The reproduction system?

By the way, Atmos is not exactly new. Most mixes are based on the same channel-based recording and mixing techniques that have been around for decades. The "only" addition that Atmos brings is audio objects. Please read up what it is in post one.


----------



## Spanglo

bargervais said:


> totally agree
> $5K a Piece  i have a hard time with 500 a piece I'm one of the few in here that has this set up in their living room or den, now if i had the money to build a home theater maybe but $5K a piece that still a stretch.
> 
> I love my little set up it's Immersive enough for me to enjoy Atmos in my home.


+1

Enjoying the speaker discussion... every bit as important as setup IMO. 

I also went high efficiency horn speakers all around, but on a budget. Front, surrounds, overhead speakers cost me under 1K for all 10 speakers. It doesn't sound like a budget system tho, even after demoing much better $ystems.


----------



## toofast68

stikle said:


> That is a very good question. And honestly...uh...I don't. I previously had an 11.2 Audyssey DSX setup in which they WERE used. Then I upgraded to an Atmos receiver and moved some things around. The wides are still where they were from before...no need to take them down. I'm relatively certain they ARE hooked up (which I'm going to verify tonight), so in theory if I went back to DSX or Neo:X they should be active. But I don't ever switch from DSU...it's that good.


I am new (and slow) Atmos convert...used to love my wides for DSX, and quite frankly for football watching in my WIDE ROOM, they are still better than DSU. Guess Football games are not upmixed that well...

However when listening to movies the DSU shines....

I do believe when DTS:X comes out, we will once again be able to us our wides, thus I am keeping mine as well. Hopefully I am right!


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> This is why I am asking. If you can only have 7.2.4 then there is no more room for wides in Atmos. If you are in DSU which does not include wides or Atmos which you have no room for wides if using 4 ceilings, then what's the point in having wides?
> 
> In other words, in what scenario do you have your wides engaged. Only asking because I looked at your signature and it appears you have wides in a 7.2.4 setup.


Good question.


Hmmm.... dare I? 


Actually, you can do wides with 7.1.4 by omitting the rear surrounds. So it's a 5.1 system with wides and four height speakers. Imho, it would be the wiser choice to do a proper 7.1 layout with four heights.


----------



## Spanglo

Molon_Labe said:


> DIY? Huge performance potential at bargain prices in that arena. I don't have decent woodworking skills, so I sit on the sidelines pouting.


Fronts were DIY, and the rest craigslist deals.

DIY is made easy these days with pre cut cabinets. But with your speakers I doubt you're pouting much.


----------



## rontalley

stikle said:


> That is a very good question. And honestly...uh...I don't. I previously had an 11.2 Audyssey DSX setup in which they WERE used. Then I upgraded to an Atmos receiver and moved some things around. The wides are still where they were from before...no need to take them down. I'm relatively certain they ARE hooked up (which I'm going to verify tonight), so in theory if I went back to DSX or Neo:X they should be active. But I don't ever switch from DSU...it's that good.


Right on that makes since.

I was semi-forced to place my speakers farther apart than normal. There here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2098498-them-damn-stairs-speaker-placement-help.html

I recently put the speakers in the close position and couldn't believe how closed in the sound became! So this had me thinking, what they would sound like in the ideal place or the suggested 22-30 degrees from MLP. In my case I put them right at 26 degrees. Yeah, that sounded much better than 20 degrees but oddly now, being spread out at 38 degrees actually sound pretty darn spacious but again things are a little too off screen. The hole between fronts and surrounds especially if yous surrounds are at 100 degrees really needs plugged. I (unknowingly) semi-plugged this hole by having my front spread like they are but again, it's not ideal.

With wides, my situation would be eliminated but oh well.


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> Right on that makes since.
> 
> I was semi-forced to place my speakers farther apart than normal. There here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2098498-them-damn-stairs-speaker-placement-help.html
> 
> I recently put the speakers in the close position and couldn't believe how closed in the sound became! So this had me thinking, what they would sound like in the ideal place or the suggested 22-30 degrees from MLP. In my case I put them right at 26 degrees. Yeah, that sounded much better than 20 degrees but oddly now, being spread out at 38 degrees actually sound pretty darn spacious but again things are a little too off screen. The hole between fronts and surrounds especially if yous surrounds are at 100 degrees really needs plugged. I (unknowingly) semi-plugged this hole by having my front spread like they are but again, it's not ideal.
> 
> With wides, my situation would be eliminated but oh well.


Move your surrounds to 60-70 degrees and listen if your room allows. You will be pleasantly surprised. Its quick and free to do. Easier if on stands vs wall mounted. You will want to rerun calibration after moving.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, you can do wides with 7.1.4 by omitting the rear surrounds. So it's a 5.1 system with wides and four height speakers. Imho, it would be the wiser choice to do a proper 7.1 layout with four heights.



You know, Scott, I just might try that actually to hear what the difference is. I'm super pleased with how things sound now, but one never knows unless one tries. And it's not like I'm going have to hang new speakers or run wire to try it.



rontalley said:


> I (unknowingly) semi-plugged this hole by having my front spread like they are but again, it's not ideal.
> 
> With wides, my situation would be eliminated but oh well.



I was watching some show last night...I think it was this week's Family Guy. At one point there was a voice coming from directly between my right center and surround. DSU was on, so I know it wasn't the wide speaker that was there. It was awesome phantom imaging. The funny thing is, the sound appeared to be coming from the Darth Vader figure I have over there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Never hurts to try.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Good question.
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... dare I?
> 
> 
> Actually, you can do wides with 7.1.4 by omitting the rear surrounds. So it's a 5.1 system with wides and four height speakers. Imho, it would be the wiser choice to do a proper 7.1 layout with four heights.


I would be game for this but my wife wouldn't go for it with two sets of speakers in the middle of the floor! LMAO... I can just hear here now!

Do have a question, with the 5200W, the wides are also labeled height 2 (top rear I assume), can you reassign the rears to wides? Also, the bad part of this would be sacrificing the rears and wides for non-Atmos material... Unless you had a speaker switcher or something...










I think the 3050 can have 9 channels with rear presence but I don't think it can have what you described....









However, I did come across an interesting setting in the manual that might fix my center stage issue...









It's almost quitting time and I can't wait to go home an play with my toys!


----------



## kingwiggi

*VUDU now streaming Atmos movies *(4K also)

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...by-VUDU-Launch-Future-Home-Theater-Experience

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/17/vudu-dolby-atmos-and-vision-support/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/vudu-streaming-dolby-atmos-dolby-vision-4k-ultra-hd/


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> I think the 3050 can have 9 channels with rear presence but I don't think it can have what you described....
> 
> 
> !


Right. No Yamaha has support for wides.

*ahem for good reason*


----------



## gbaby

kbarnes701 said:


> Can you describe what you mean by that, using the Dolby guidelines as a reference point?


I don't need to answer.  Enjoy your Atmos. Like I said Different Strokes..... Peace.


----------



## NorthSky

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul.../1508185-lexicon-mc12b-marantz-8801-what.html


----------



## dschulz

Stoked21 said:


> Looks like we have an extremely low-intellect person who can only take the opinion of a magazine reviewer.


C'mon dude, we're better than this sort of ad hominem. I agree gbaby is being stubborn, and I totally agree with the consensus opinion that it sounds like he got a shaky demo from a dealer with a vested interest in pushing high-margin gear, but this sort of wording does nothing to convince anyone on the sidelines.


----------



## NorthSky

I agree *^*


----------



## Gooddoc

Stoked21 said:


> Ahhhh...I feel like I'm dealing with a slooowww 5 year-old child on this one.


Ignorance is an unnassailable position. I started ignoring his comments many posts ago. I suggest you do the same .


----------



## Molon_Labe

@Stoked21 - Let it go bro....that is what the IL is for.


----------



## Waboman




----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> @Stoked21 - Let it go bro....that is what the IL is for.


Yeah. Agreed. Deleted my post. Didn't want to stoop to that level or encourage more posts. It's frustrating to watch close mindedness.


----------



## bargervais

^^^^^^
I think he was just trying to get under our skin, you know us Atmos devotees are not easily shaken. Maybe he was a plant


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> ^^^^^^
> I think he was just trying to get under our skin, you know us Atmos devotees are not easily shaken. Maybe he was a plant


Lmao. I bet he worked for Auro or DTS!!!!


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> Lmao. I bet he worked for Auro or DTS!!!!


Or audioholics


----------



## Waboman

Is Audioholics infiltrating AVS? Code name: _Atmos and the Snowman_.


----------



## sdrucker

Waboman said:


>



My two year old son is addicted to that song...and I think he and his daycare buddies have a crush on the Disney princess. If Disney ever comes out with an Atmos release (LOL) we're in big trouble...


----------



## NorthSky

It's a good song*; I bet it sounds good too with 3D up-mixing sound...from above.

* Not for everyone though. ...Like repeatedly. 
{I prefer more the tunes from 'Tron: Legacy'}

________


----------



## Waboman

sdrucker said:


> My two year old son is addicted to that song...and I think he and his daycare buddies have a crush on the Disney princess. If Disney ever comes out with an Atmos release (LOL) we're in big trouble...


Lol. I bet it would sound great in Atmos... at least the first 2 dozen times. I told you, I don't want to build a snowman!


----------



## BigScreen

You can add Sicario to the list of Atmos Blu-ray titles. It's being released on January 5, 2016. This is per an official press release from Lionsgate.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> You can add Sicario to the list of Atmos Blu-ray titles. It's being released on January 5, 2016. This is per an official press release from Lionsgate.


You mean *dts:X* ::: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sicario-Blu-ray/140944/


----------



## dkwong

NorthSky said:


> You mean *dts:X* ::: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sicario-Blu-ray/140944/



I don't understand how they can release DTS:X discs before there are consumer AVRs to test with. How do they know this will play correctly on consumer devices?


----------



## Argyle

NorthSky said:


> You mean *dts:X* ::: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sicario-Blu-ray/140944/


Looks like it will be released in Atmos.



Lionsgate Press Release said:


> The Blu-ray is encoded in Dolby TrueHD and features a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack, which delivers captivating sound that places and moves audio anywhere in the room, including overhead, to bring entertainment alive all around the audience. The Sicario Blu-ray Combo Pack and DVD will be available for the suggested retail price of $39.99 and $29.95, respectively.


Link to press release: http://www.lionsgatepublicity.com/uploads/assets/SICARIO_Press Release_FINAL.docx


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dkwong said:


> I don't understand how they can release DTS:X discs before there are consumer AVRs to test with. How do they know this will play correctly on consumer devices?


Ex Machina remains the sole U.S. DTS: X release. Lionsgate changed the press announcement.


----------



## NorthSky

Argyle said:


> Looks like it will be released in Atmos.
> Link to press release: http://www.lionsgatepublicity.com/uploads/assets/SICARIO_Press Release_FINAL.docx


I cannot access the link.

♦ But this one yes: http://www.nextgenhometheater.com/

A new change for sure (November 12 new announcement) - DTS:X is gone now. Oh well, long live the king!...Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Shniks

NorthSky said:


> I cannot access the link.


When you click on the link it downloads a word file with the press release. Look at the bottom of your web browser or check your download folder.


Cheers,


Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net


----------



## bguzman

I don't know what the final release will be but I believe he was referring to this.


----------



## bargervais

Shniks said:


> When you click on the link it downloads a word file with the press release. Look at the bottom of your web browser or check your download folder.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Nikhil
> http://www.lihkin.net


Looks like they switched it to Dolby Atmos I'm starting to have my doubts about DTS:X I got a TX-NR 747 thinking I'd have the DTS:X firmware by now, and now I have worries that this machine won't get DTS:X. Thank goodness Dolby Atmos is gaining the lions share. No pun intended lionsgate


----------



## Zhorik

BigScreen said:


> You can add Sicario to the list of Atmos Blu-ray titles. It's being released on January 5, 2016. This is per an official press release from Lionsgate.


Do you have link to the press release?


----------



## wse

*Dolby and VUDU Launch the Future Home Theater Experience with Immersive Sound and Advanced Imaging.*

*Consumers can now watch Warner Bros . titles mastered in Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision *

SAN FRANCISCO --(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Please replace the infographic with the accompanying corrected infographic. 
This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151117006135/en/ 
Click here for release.


----------



## bguzman

Zhorik said:


> Do you have link to the press release?


PDF of press release.


----------



## Waboman

Atmos and/or DTS X, this movie looks :yawn:


----------



## NorthSky

dkwong said:


> I don't understand how they can release DTS:X discs before there are consumer AVRs to test with. How do they know this will play correctly on consumer devices?


It looks like that Lionsgate Films realized that, and they redesigned the proper 3D audio soundtrack for people with Dolby Atmos receivers as nobody has a DTS:X receiver, yet. 

But, only some BR players will be able to access it (bitstream); because Lionsgate Films Blu-ray movies encoded with Dolby Atmos cause some Blu-ray players to have audio dropouts. Unless they change their nasty anti-piracy encoding habits, a lot of people with some Oppo, Sony, Panasonic (Samsung?) Blu-ray players are going to be left "cold". ...No Dolby Atmos audio from 'Sicario' for them folks. ...The worst movie studio (along with Disney 2D) in the year 2015. ...And FOX studios too. 

I wonder now...if DTS:X still has a leg in this 3D audio race. ...2016 is going to be the year in which we'll see/hear. 
For now Dolby Atmos is walking all over its rivals; dts:x and Auro-3D when it comes to content and easy installation and accessible hardware. 

The future? Ultra hi-end is just about to be exterminated by the budget end with inexpensive audio products with Atmos and Dirac Live. 
Because after all when it comes to audio what counts is the real sound experience in full glory; well EQ Music and Movies in our rooms...in stereo and in multichannel, including 3D from above.

Krell, Classe, Bryston, they'd better get on with the new 3D program, by following McIntosh with Dirac Live (Audio Control and Arcam too, in addition to Emotiva), plus by adding the new 3D audio decoders.

Hey, Anthem has an affordable pre/pro and receivers. Marantz has the 7702MKII (street price is going to be real swell). ...Yamaha. 
Eventually Dirac Live is going to be easier for all people (right now it doesn't look like A-B-C). 

And I'm still optimist about the DTS:X prospect. In two months we'll know a little bit more, and by next Summer 2026 even more , and by Christmas 2016 (not 2015), it might be rolling for good. And comes 2017...Oppo UHD Universal 3D Blu-ray players. 
I'm sure that by then UHD Blu-ray will be as popular as 3D Blu-ray (1080p). 

And! Everyone will get better @ mixing sound (not like Ultron from Avengers), and that the new films in UHD (filmed with the UHD 4K cameras), some of them will look splendid on UHD Blu-ray. 

Then...holographic 4D and 8K will be the next wave...in Japan. ...By the time we, in North America, are starting to roll in 4K and with 3D sound.
It truly is atmospheric and phantasmagoria and almost gargantuan...like 'Interstellar'.
We live in "elevated" times.


----------



## bguzman

Waboman said:


> Atmos and/or DTS X, this movie looks :yawn:


Hey there Wabs my multi-forum online amigo. This is once again where we must agree to disagree.


----------



## NorthSky

Shniks said:


> When you click on the link it downloads a word file with the press release. Look at the bottom of your web browser or check your download folder.
> Cheers,
> Nikhil
> http://www.lihkin.net


♦ Yes; it took a while...too long...I don't have the patience...I was still waiting after 30 seconds+...I gave up.



bguzman said:


> I don't know what the final release will be but I believe he was referring to this.


♦ Yes, exactemente; they had a change of heart and went with Dolby Atmos instead, on November 12...just five days ago, last Thursday:
=> http://www.nextgenhometheater.com/tag/lionsgate/


----------



## Waboman

bguzman said:


> Hey there Wabs my multi-forum online amigo. This is once again where we must agree to disagree.


Listen, if Michael Bay was involved I'd be all in. As it is now Zzzzz


----------



## HondaF17

I have my Atmos setup up and running! 5.1.2 for now - waiting for my 2 additional height speakers to arrive. Watched about 30 minutes of Transformers. Do they make good use of height channels? Everything sounded good but didn't seem like they used the heights a lot - I am sure some movies utilize heights more than others.


Also, PS3 can successfully output Atmos. I never saw a concrete answer to that question, but it indeed can. I was so excited when my Denon 4200W lit up with "Blu-Ray / Dolby Atmos"!


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> The "only" addition that Atmos brings is audio objects.


And the "only" discernible addition that Atmos 7.1.4 brings to our homes is overhead sound.


----------



## Carrick

HondaF17 said:


> Watched about 30 minutes of Transformers. Do they make good use of height channels?


Same thing happened with rear surround speakers with my 5.1 and Yamaha HTR-5540 many years ago, maybe heard a door shut behind me every once in awhile, but most of the time everything was silent. I suspect it will be the same for at least a couple more years with Atmos until we get more 4k movies. Which receiver did you get, some have a upconversion feature that "creates" at Atmos environment.


----------



## Steven James 2

NorthSky said:


> It looks like that Lionsgate Films realized that, and they redesigned the proper 3D audio soundtrack for people with Dolby Atmos receivers as nobody has a DTS:X receiver, yet.
> 
> But, only some BR players will be able to access it (bitstream); because Lionsgate Films Blu-ray movies encoded with Dolby Atmos cause some Blu-ray players to have audio dropouts. Unless they change their nasty anti-piracy encoding habits, a lot of people with some Oppo, Sony, Panasonic (Samsung?) Blu-ray players are going to be left "cold". ...No Dolby Atmos audio from 'Sicario' for them folks. ...The worst movie studio (along with Disney 2D) in the year 2015. ...And FOX studios too.
> 
> I wonder now...if DTS:X still has a leg in this 3D audio race. ...2016 is going to be the year in which we'll see/hear.
> For now Dolby Atmos is walking all over its rivals; dts:x and Auro-3D when it comes to content and easy installation and accessible hardware.
> 
> The future? Ultra hi-end is just about to be exterminated by the budget end with inexpensive audio products with Atmos and Dirac Live.
> Because after all when it comes to audio what counts is the real sound experience in full glory; well EQ Music and Movies in our rooms...in stereo and in multichannel, including 3D from above.
> 
> Krell, Classe, Bryston, they'd better get on with the new 3D program, by following McIntosh with Dirac Live (Audio Control and Arcam too, in addition to Emotiva), plus by adding the new 3D audio decoders.
> 
> Hey, Anthem has an affordable pre/pro and receivers. Marantz has the 7702MKII (street price is going to be real swell). ...Yamaha.
> Eventually Dirac Live is going to be easier for all people (right now it doesn't look like A-B-C).
> 
> And I'm still optimist about the DTS:X prospect. In two months we'll know a little bit more, and by next Summer 2026 even more , and by Christmas 2016 (not 2015), it might be rolling for good. And comes 2017...Oppo UHD Universal 3D Blu-ray players.
> I'm sure that by then UHD Blu-ray will be as popular as 3D Blu-ray (1080p).
> 
> And! Everyone will get better @ mixing sound (not like Ultron from Avengers), and that the new films in UHD (filmed with the UHD 4K cameras), some of them will look splendid on UHD Blu-ray.
> 
> Then...holographic 4D and 8K will be the next wave...in Japan. ...By the time we, in North America, are starting to roll in 4K and with 3D sound.
> It truly is atmospheric and phantasmagoria and almost gargantuan...like 'Interstellar'.
> We live in "elevated" times.



Is there a list of these bluray players that have audio issues with certain films? I have a panasonic bluray player and just recently purchased my first atmos receiver. I havent had any trouble playing atmos from any of the blurays i own.


----------



## NorthSky

Steven James 2 said:


> Is there a list of these blu-ray players that have audio issues with certain films? I have a panasonic blu-ray player and just recently purchased my first atmos receiver. I have'nt had any trouble playing atmos from any of the blu-rays i own.


1. I am not aware of such a list...yet. 
2. If you have some Lionsgate Films Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies (eg.; 'John Wick') and that they play fine when bistreaming, and that your Dolby Atmos receiver clearly indicate Dolby Atmos on its front panel display; then your Panasonic model Blu-ray player is fine. 
{Only the Lionsgate Dolby Atmos BRs are the ones affected; only from that movie studio.}

So, came January 2016 and 'Sicario' will play nice with your Panny BR player (99.999% chance that it will; IMO). 

But the chance that it won't play nice with Oppo 93, 95, 83, BR players, and some models from Sony, and some model Panasonic BR players...is also 99.999% in the opposite direction ... or unless that Lionsgate is changing their BR encoding algorithm. ...Good luck to all these folks. Soon or later they'll buy another Blu-ray player if they want to play Dolby Atmos from Lionsgate. 

* 'Sicario' has a 93% rating @ Rotten Tomatoes; higher than 'The Peanuts Movie' 3D, and equal the 'The Martian' 3D. 
Unless the folks here have already seen it; everything else is just cheap whiskey. 

______

Also, blurayforum.com needs a confirmation on the 'Sicario' Blu-ray audio before they switch it from DTS:X to Dolby Atmos. 
I guess it should come soon now from the links we now have. 

Now back to the topic: Speakers.  ...The biggest, the meanest, the more of them with lots of subs..the closest we can get to the real 3D IMAX movie experience in our own homes. ...Like real big rooms with 600+ seats. For regular home theater rooms, say 16' by 21' by 9', a 9.4.4 Atmos setup should just be fine...with all the satellite speakers crossed over @ 80Hz and their bass redirected to the four subwoofers (or six). ...So, satellites with a good quality 6" woofer driver would be the minimum size, IMO. ...And with a horn tweeter. ...Or with a wave guide for wide dispersion. ...Coaxials should be the ticket for Atmos elevation (in or on-ceiling). 

For hi-end rooms (larger and professionally/acoustically treated), nothing less than an 8" woofer driver above, in each of the four (or six) overheads. 

For mini-rooms (11' by 13' by 8'), Bose cubes should do, or a quality Yamaha Dolby Atmos/DTS:X soundbar, with wireless sub. 

Without speakers there wouldn't be any discussion on Dolby Atmos. The Atmos immersive sound needs speakers to work.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> And the "only" discernible addition that Atmos 7.1.4 brings to our homes is overhead sound.


One follows from the other, not the other way around.


----------



## audiofan1

Waboman said:


> Lol. I bet it would sound great in Atmos... at least the first 2 dozen times. I told you, I don't want to build a snowman!


Hey Wabo

Word on the street say's you gettin some high efficiency horns , care to valid this and why the switch
:kiss:


----------



## Zhorik

maikeldepotter said:


> And the "only" discernible addition that Atmos 7.1.4 brings to our homes is overhead sound.


And the ability to move sound in free space.


----------



## NorthSky

Zhorik said:


> And the ability to move sound in free space.


Sounds like gravity, above the atmosphere.


----------



## Waboman

audiofan1 said:


> Hey Wabo
> 
> Word on the street say's you gettin some high efficiency horns , care to valid this and why the switch
> :kiss:


Lol. The only horns I like are at a Black Sabbath concert. :devil: Now if you like your new horns I might reconsider... no I won't.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> One follows from the other, not the other way around.


Correct.

Home Atmos brings:
A) Renderable objects, which enables 
B) Discrete sound in overhead speakers. 
B follows from A and is the only audibly discernible feature of Atmos 7.1.4 as compared to a legacy 7.1 playback at home.

Cinema Atmos brings:
1) Two additional bed channels to create discrete sound in overhead arrays,
2) Objects renderable to any speaker (or combination of speakers) of a bed array, 
enabling a higher positional resolution of specific sounds. 
3) Full range surrounds.
All three features audibly distinguishes Atmos from legacy 7.1 playback in the Cinema.

So Atmos is adding much more to the cinema experience than that it is currently adding to our legacy 7.1 home theater experience (not counting Trinnov Altitude implementations).


----------



## markus767

Uhm and how is that related to the contents of the original post by gbaby I've responded to?


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> Uhm and how is that related to the contents of the original post by gbaby I've responded to?


I have tried to translate an added technical feature, like "audio objects", into actual audible differences when playing Atmos on a home set-up. This was at least my understanding of what the discussion was all about.

I agree, the cinema example has no direct relation but helps to put things into perspective when talking about the audible features of Atmos.

Personally, and in that regard I can sympathize with gbaby's opinion, I would anyone - unless he is a fanatic hobbyist, has loads of money, or both - advice to first put his available budget in getting the best sounding 5.1 or 7.1 set-up rather than jumping to a 7.1.4 Atmos system at the expense of e.g. speaker/sub quality. In fact, for people with mediocre stereo systems or ultra-cheap HTIB systems that want to enjoy better movie sound, I continue to recommend making the first step to a quality stereo set-up with added subwoofer, before anything else.

For myself, having 11 speakers and 2 subs installed in a multi-purpose room, my wife wonders and still has no clue where those additional 4 standing in the hallway are going to be put.


----------



## Nightlord

maikeldepotter said:


> So Atmos is adding much more to the cinema experience than that it is currently adding to our legacy 7.1 home theater experience (not counting Trinnov Altitude implementations).


Though getting a Trinnov does not enable you to get the Cinema Atmos media when you buy a movie, unfortunately.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter, if anything I would advise people to get a better understanding of how to set up a system. No amount of money will buy you experience and knowledge. Well-maintained confirmation bias can help though


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> maikeldepotter, if anything I would advise people to get a better understanding of how to set up a system.


I fully agree, and added the slogan that already was part of my professional communication to my signature.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> I don't need to answer.  Enjoy your Atmos. Like I said Different Strokes..... Peace.


That answer speaks volumes...


----------



## gbaby

kbarnes701 said:


> That answer speaks volumes...


Really!


----------



## bargervais

gbaby said:


> Really!


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> Really!


Yes, really. If you recall, I asked you how you could assess that the dealer's room you visited was set up correctly, which you have asserted several times. In order to know if it is set up correctly, one needs to know what the Dolby setup guidelines are. These include, among other things, the type of speakers used, the angles at which they are placed wrt to MLP and so on. In addition, to ensure that the setup is correct one needs to ensure that the AVR settings are correct for the speaker configuration, that the levels and delays are correctly set and so on. You have not mentioned in your posts that you have any knowledge of these and other parameters, and you have merely asserted that the setup was correct. I am sure you will forgive me for asking for confirmation that you understand the requirements of a correctly implemented Atmos room, in order to establish the credibility of your assertion that the room was indeed set up correctly. That you feel no need to respond to my request suggests to me that either you do not know, or that you simply expect me to take your word for it. Another possibility would be an arrogance which implied that you are so important you have no need to explain or answer questions, but I am sure that this is not the case of course. 

The fact that your "high end" dealer was demonstrating Atmos with a 5.1.4 setup and not a 7.1.4 setup has mystified not just me but several other members who have commented. It seems extraordinary that a "high end" dealer would use a compromised Atmos setup when attempting to demonstrate it to prospective purchasers. One could almost think that he wasn't as "high end" as he is being made out to be, or even that he was demoing a less than stellar Atmos setup in order to deter customers from going down that route so he could divert them to a $10,000+ processor or amplifier, but I am sure that no customer could be so stupid as to fall for that, so hopefully I am mistaken. 

Regardless, you have made your own opinions clear even while refusing to add credibility to them, so there is no further need for me to read your posts on the subject.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, really.


Keith....He sent me a PM and described the setup in detail. Every speaker and every component was IDENTICAL to yours. In retrospect, he said he believed the problem with the demo was that it really needed high-e pro horns up front for increased dynamics.



LMAO.....Sorry couldn't help it!


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Keith....He sent me a PM and described the setup in detail. Every speaker and every component was IDENTICAL to yours. In retrospect, he said he believed the problem with the demo was that it really needed high-e pro horns up front for increased dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.....Sorry couldn't help it!


And wides. Did it need wides to fill that sonic black hole that people without wides always have?  (Don't answer that!).


----------



## rontalley

HondaF17 said:


> I have my Atmos setup up and running! 5.1.2 for now - waiting for my 2 additional height speakers to arrive. Watched about 30 minutes of Transformers. Do they make good use of height channels? Everything sounded good but didn't seem like they used the heights a lot - I am sure some movies utilize heights more than others.
> 
> 
> Also, PS3 can successfully output Atmos. I never saw a concrete answer to that question, but it indeed can. I was so excited when my Denon 4200W lit up with "Blu-Ray / Dolby Atmos"!


Not so much in the beginning but there is action in the overheads throughout the movie. I believe that it is beneficial to bump up the volume of the overheads as well as the rears in order for you to really hear what they are doing. Or disconnect all of the speakers besides the ones that you are investigating. You would be surprised as to how much actually comes out.



Carrick said:


> Same thing happened with rear surround speakers with my 5.1 and Yamaha HTR-5540 many years ago, maybe heard a door shut behind me every once in awhile, but most of the time everything was silent. I suspect it will be the same for at least a couple more years with Atmos until we get more 4k movies. Which receiver did you get, some have a upconversion feature that "creates" at Atmos environment.


The jump from 5.1 to 7.1, if comparing to movies that were recording in full 7.1, wasn't too mind blowing. However, using matrix mixers like PLIIx, the rears get almost as much action as the sides in non 7.1 movies. The rears adds that ambiance and stuff that is not that noticeable when on but can tell it's missing when they are off. With DSU, all love, is distributed appropriately. All 11 of my speakers get action but if I was to complain about any speakers, it would be the fronts! Seems like the fronts just get the garbage left over from the center channel and that is why I be so confused as to why people have to have big huge power hungry fronts...

I guess this is why I love DSU so much. Atmos is cool yeah but DSU is cooler!


----------



## BigScreen

NorthSky said:


> It looks like that Lionsgate Films realized that, and they redesigned the proper 3D audio soundtrack for people with Dolby Atmos receivers as nobody has a DTS:X receiver, yet.


I don't think it's possible to speculate with any accuracy as to why Sicario will be in Atmos instead of DTS:X. There might have been some reasons that have nothing to do with the availability of the DTS:X decoder in the marketplace, but if all other things were equal, it would make sense that it might factor into the decision. Lionsgate is no stranger to releasing Atmos titles, and Ex Machina and American Ultra might have been DTS:X test titles for them, much like Gravity was for Warner Bros.



> I wonder now...if DTS:X still has a leg in this 3D audio race. ...2016 is going to be the year in which we'll see/hear.
> For now Dolby Atmos is walking all over its rivals; dts:x and Auro-3D when it comes to content and easy installation and accessible hardware.


Like I've said before, I don't think we need to look at this as a format war. DTS:X will come when it comes, and we can celebrate the fact that Sicario is being released in an immersive format. This is actually better news for everyone right now, because no one has DTS:X decoding capability yet, and may not when Jan 5th rolls around. Releasing it in Atmos provides everyone that has purchased a receiver/processor with immersive sound (even those with 2014 models) the ability to enjoy the soundtrack more fully than if it had just been released in TrueHD or DTS-HD MA.

That said, it doesn't bolster the prospects of DTS:X getting a foothold in the marketplace, but it doesn't signal impending doom either. The true test will be in the UHD arena, which is the future going forward. Since there have been no official details released from any studio about which titles will have which format, we don't know how things will settle out with immersive soundtracks on UHD, and whether or not they will include Atmos/DTS:X on the Blu-ray disc that is being included in the UHD combo packages. If DTS:X firmware is released at the beginning of 2016 (as anticipated) and DTS:X soundtracks are included on UHD and/or Blu-ray releases from that point on, then this awkward pre-release period will be insignificant in the larger picture.


----------



## gbaby

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, really. If you recall, I asked you how you could assess that the dealer's room you visited was set up correctly, which you have asserted several times. In order to know if it is set up correctly, one needs to know what the Dolby setup guidelines are. These include, among other things, the type of speakers used, the angles at which they are placed wrt to MLP and so on. In addition, to ensure that the setup is correct one needs to ensure that the AVR settings are correct for the speaker configuration, that the levels and delays are correctly set and so on. You have not mentioned in your posts that you have any knowledge of these and other parameters, and you have merely asserted that the setup was correct. I am sure you will forgive me for asking for confirmation that you understand the requirements of a correctly implemented Atmos room, in order to establish the credibility of your assertion that the room was indeed set up correctly. That you feel no need to respond to my request suggests to me that either you do not know, or that you simply expect me to take your word for it. Another possibility would be an arrogance which implied that you are so important you have no need to explain or answer questions, but I am sure that this is not the case of course.
> 
> The fact that your "high end" dealer was demonstrating Atmos with a 5.1.4 setup and not a 7.1.4 setup has mystified not just me but several other members who have commented. It seems extraordinary that a "high end" dealer would use a compromised Atmos setup when attempting to demonstrate it to prospective purchasers. One could almost think that he wasn't as "high end" as he is being made out to be, or even that he was demoing a less than stellar Atmos setup in order to deter customers from going down that route so he could divert them to a $10,000+ processor or amplifier, but I am sure that no customer could be so stupid as to fall for that, so hopefully I am mistaken.
> 
> Regardless, you have made your own opinions clear even while refusing to add credibility to them, so there is no further need for me to read your posts on the subject.


I also did not ask the dealer if he had the speakers in proper phase either.


----------



## FilmMixer

Waboman said:


> Atmos and/or DTS X, this movie looks :yawn:



Sicario is of my favorite films of the year so far. 

It's a bit of a slow burn. A great, subtle and detailed sound job....


----------



## Stoked21

BigScreen said:


> Like I've said before, I don't think we need to look at this as a format war.
> 
> The true test will be in the UHD arena, which is the future going forward. Since there have been no official details released from any studio about which titles will have which format, we don't know how things will settle out with immersive soundtracks on UHD, and whether or not they will include Atmos/DTS:X on the Blu-ray disc that is being included in the UHD combo packages. If DTS:X firmware is released at the beginning of 2016 (as anticipated) and DTS:X soundtracks are included on UHD and/or Blu-ray releases from that point on, then this awkward pre-release period will be insignificant in the larger picture.


All excellent points. To a consumer, there never really was a format war between DTS and Dolby. It was at the studio level as most AVRs always supported both. And I would imagine that most people never really paid attention as to what format it was. Now mind you, some were more selective about which disc they bought because the wanted to hear DTS-HD or TrueHD; just as we cherry pick new releases for ones with Atmos inclusion. But _for the most part,_ what discs we buy or what AVRs we buy does not impact DTS or Dolby or the studio releases themselves. If a movie is great and in DTS, I'm buying it anyway. We represent such a small slice of the market we cannot impact the bottom lines of these companies.

And with UHD signaling a major turning point for Atmos releases (and supposedly DTS:X releases)....That will indeed be the point where we see which format becomes more prevalent. DTS probably doesn't really care about the small number of 30 titles or so that have been released in Atmos. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the non-immersive releases on a weekly basis worldwide. So to your point, yeah DTS:X isn't really behind at all....I hadn't thought of it in that light.


----------



## stikle

HondaF17 said:


> Watched about 30 minutes of Transformers. Do they make good use of height channels?



This is not actually one of the better movies for height/overhead usage in my opinion. I was underwhelmed for most of the movie. There are other excellent Atmos mixes available such as John Wick, the re-release of The Fifth Element, Unbroken, and Gravity.



Carrick said:


> Same thing happened with rear surround speakers with my 5.1 and Yamaha HTR-5540 many years ago, maybe heard a door shut behind me every once in awhile, but most of the time everything was silent. I suspect it will be the same for at least a couple more years with Atmos until we get more 4k movies.



There plenty of great examples of current Atmos offerings (see above for some) that fully showcase current available technology. No need to wait for UHD-BD - we have it now.



Carrick said:


> Which receiver did you get, some have a upconversion feature that "creates" at Atmos environment.



Any Dolby Atmos enabled receiver will also have the Dolby Surround Upmixer included. It doesn't create an Atmos environment (Atmos being 3D positional objects instead of channels), rather it upmixes the existing 2-7 channel audio to use all available speakers (minus wides) resulting in more immersion with legacy sources.


----------



## HondaF17

Guys, I am hoping I can get some help. My frustration level is mounting.

I recently remodeled my basement and put in a nice home theater, complete with 5.1.4 Atmos and a 65'' JS8500. Receiver is brand new Denon 4200. My blu ray player is currently a PS3. I have everything set up correctly, PS3 set to send Bitstream audio, and last night enjoyed a sample of Transformers in Dolby Atmos. Here is my question:

On my PS3, I downloaded the Vudu app. Loaded Vudu, "bought" the Atmos samples for $0. Played them, and I'm not getting Atmos. My receiver just says "Multi Ch". I believe the problem is because the PS3 can only do bitstream via blu ray, not apps. Can anyone confirm?

So, that leads me to: what is a good Blu Ray player that supports Atmos via both Blu Rays AND apps? The new Blu Ray player will be my new streaming device (I think it will be better than the TV), so I want to get Atmos via both Blu Ray discs and apps like Vudu.

The lack of Atmos information/compatability is becoming frustrating. Have to check discs, then the player (took me awhile to figure it out on PS3), and then the apps?!? Annoying.

Appreciate it if you guys can steer me in the right direction.


----------



## Ricoflashback

I recently added height speakers to my HT setup (Cornered Audio C4's). I now have a 9.1 system and have moved my rear back surround speakers down to ear level (which has made a huge difference!)

Even though there is little "bass" coming from these height speakers (mostly matrixed -ambient sounds) they are setup for Dolby Atmos/DTS: X, in the future, with my ultimate configuration being 7.1.6 & probably 7.1.4 by next year. 

It's going to take some time before object based soundtracks fully take advantage of Dolby Atmos & DTS: X. I believe the overhead experience will be the most perceptible benefit.

That being said, we are finally getting to a point where more 7.1 soundtracks are available. Imagine how much longer before we get the same penetration with Atmos tracks. We watched "San Andreas" yesterday on my 100" projector screen and while it was somewhat predictable, the soundtrack was fantastic! The height speakers added an extra dimension and even though it wasn't Dolby Atmos, they were definitely noticeable. Oh, by the way, "AD" is great to look at ANYTIME on the big screen. (She was great in True Detective with Woody Harrelson.)

Sorry for my digression! At any rate - - 7.1 soundtracks are amazing and when done right, they totally immerse you into the movie. I imagine that native Dolby Atmos will be even better. 

Does DSU add more "height" experience to a 7.1 soundtrack? Is it perceptibly better than just height speakers?


----------



## stikle

rontalley said:


> With wides, my situation would be eliminated but oh well.



I remembered to take a look last night, and here's how my system is configured:



I ran through the entire sound level list and the wides are definitely connected and active...when in the correct mode.


----------



## rontalley

stikle said:


> I remembered to take a look last night, and here's how my system is configured:
> 
> 
> 
> I ran through the entire sound level list and the wides are definitely connected and active...when in the correct mode.


Cool! I would have thought that they would be active if tested but curious as to when are they in practice.

So you run your hieght 2 off of an external and have the wides hooked up to the terminal? 
Can switch modes when you want to use heights? 
Is it possible to run wides and top front (9.2.2)? 
Are you able to reassign rear surrounds to wides?
Have you been a a situation where wides and heights were playing and if so which?

Just curious here.


----------



## Stoked21

HondaF17 said:


> Guys, I am hoping I can get some help. My frustration level is mounting.
> 
> I recently remodeled my basement and put in a nice home theater, complete with 5.1.4 Atmos and a 65'' JS8500. Receiver is brand new Denon 4200. My blu ray player is currently a PS3. I have everything set up correctly, PS3 set to send Bitstream audio, and last night enjoyed a sample of Transformers in Dolby Atmos. Here is my question:
> 
> On my PS3, I downloaded the Vudu app. Loaded Vudu, "bought" the Atmos samples for $0. Played them, and I'm not getting Atmos. My receiver just says "Multi Ch". I believe the problem is because the PS3 can only do bitstream via blu ray, not apps. Can anyone confirm?
> 
> So, that leads me to: what is a good Blu Ray player that supports Atmos via both Blu Rays AND apps? The new Blu Ray player will be my new streaming device (I think it will be better than the TV), so I want to get Atmos via both Blu Ray discs and apps like Vudu.
> 
> The lack of Atmos information/compatability is becoming frustrating. Have to check discs, then the player (took me awhile to figure it out on PS3), and then the apps?!? Annoying.
> 
> Appreciate it if you guys can steer me in the right direction.


Honda,

It's not uncommon for various apps not supporting bitstream and defaulting to PCM. This is seen a lot on TV apps (I don't run PS3, so I'm extrapolating to TVs). Case and point my brand-new LG 4K TV apps. They default to PCM for apps and only spit out 2 ch even though you can set the user menu to a DD output. Many others have complained of this as well on various TVs with apps and using HDMI ARC. We literally had to hack into the service menus to enable the DTS and DD output. Even at that, they only put out DD and not DD+. So I default over to my BD player which outputs DD+ and THD from apps. From _what I was told...._. There is a licensing element on this as well. If a device OUTPUTS DD or DTS-HD etc, then the TV manufacturer has to pay additional licensing. So they default everything to PCM stereo output to prevent added costs to them.

It is frustrating and not all devices are going to support all formats. Just the way it is. I'm personally waiting for the new UHD players to come out. I will upgrade to one with great streaming capabilities as opposed to purchasing a Roku 4 or something of the sorts. As for using gaming consoles.....Someone else will have to weigh in on that one and their capabilities. But it doesn't surprise me you are having issues, especially with Atmos.


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> I recently added height speakers to my HT setup (Cornered Audio C4's). I now have a 9.1 system and have moved my rear back surround speakers down to ear level (which has made a huge difference!)
> 
> Even though there is little "bass" coming from these height speakers (mostly matrixed -ambient sounds) they are setup for Dolby Atmos/DTS: X, in the future, with my ultimate configuration being 7.1.6 & probably 7.1.4 by next year.
> 
> It's going to take some time before object based soundtracks fully take advantage of Dolby Atmos & DTS: X. I believe the overhead experience will be the most perceptible benefit.
> 
> That being said, we are finally getting to a point where more 7.1 soundtracks are available. Imagine how much longer before we get the same penetration with Atmos tracks. We watched "San Andreas" yesterday on my 100" projector screen and while it was somewhat predictable, the soundtrack was fantastic! The height speakers added an extra dimension and even though it wasn't Dolby Atmos, they were definitely noticeable. Oh, by the way, "AD" is great to look at ANYTIME on the big screen. (She was great in True Detective with Woody Harrelson.)
> 
> Sorry for my digression! At any rate - - 7.1 soundtracks are amazing and when done right, they totally immerse you into the movie. I imagine that native Dolby Atmos will be even better.
> 
> *Does DSU add more "height" experience to a 7.1 soundtrack?* Is it perceptibly better than just height speakers?


IMHO, height experiences and overhead experiences are two different things. Meaning, I believe that both adds something different. DSU does a great job at extracting audio to put overhead. I have no idea how it knows what sounds but in general, it is pretty accurate! Height speakers, IMHO, give more of a spacial surround field. Things are more open and big but overheads gives you a 3D sound where it seems like you are in the action. This is what 5.1 did back in the day and it was HUGE!!!! Wow, the sound wraps around your ears! Then height added upper dimension and the sound still surrounded you 360 degrees but was a bigger effect. DSU is a whole other thing. It shoots sound down from the ceiling which give you another dimension.

I've said this time and time again. It would be super cool to not only have overhead but also height and wides! They all work together but I am happy with 7.2.4 for now. Would love to have 9.1.6.6!


----------



## Selden Ball

HondaF17 said:


> So, that leads me to: what is a good Blu Ray player that supports Atmos via both Blu Rays AND apps? The new Blu Ray player will be my new streaming device (I think it will be better than the TV), so I want to get Atmos via both Blu Ray discs and apps like Vudu.


In general, Sony's Blu-ray players tend to have better app support than the players from other manufacturers. 

Unfortunately, it's often the service provider (Vudu, Netflix, etc), not the player device (TV, BDP, AVR) which limits the features available. The providers intentionally make different levels of service available to different player devices. It's quite annoying.


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> IMHO, height experiences and overhead experiences are two different things. Meaning, I believe that both adds something different. DSU does a great job at extracting audio to put overhead. I have no idea how it knows what sounds but in general, it is pretty accurate! Height speakers, IMHO, give more of a spacial surround field. Things are more open and big but overheads gives you a 3D sound where it seems like you are in the action. This is what 5.1 did back in the day and it was HUGE!!!! Wow, the sound wraps around your ears! Then height added upper dimension and the sound still surrounded you 360 degrees but was a bigger effect. DSU is a whole other thing. It shoots sound down from the ceiling which give you another dimension.
> 
> I've said this time and time again. It would be super cool to not only have overhead but also height and wides! They all work together but I am happy with 7.2.4 for now. Would love to have 9.1.6.6!


I concur with your "height" vs "top" assessment. I ran $250/speaker for FH and RH in April during the construction of the HT for experimentation. My opinion of Atmos was, well it's interesting but hardly noticeable (could have been speaker dispersion issues). I switched over to $100/speaker ICs in August and was BLOWN away by the difference in sound. 

So this brings up my question. My current ICs have aimable woofers and tweeters at about 15-30 degrees. The new speakers would be slanted boxes on the ceiling and have similar angles with the slanted baffles (15, 20, 30 degrees or so TBD). This would also help with clearance behind the drywall and diminish some sound transfer as one pair currently does not have back boxes. Mounting enclosures to the ceiling will lower them into the listening room by at least 7" as well. I don't want to mess with a great thing that's working for me, but I long for higher SPL, higher efficiency, wider FR speakers that are more linear and dynamic up there (and matched to the rest of my system).

So would you classify these as height speaker or a top speaker? The angle to MLP specs of a "height" and a "top" overlap for the most part. If it's "on" the ceiling, 7" down below the ceiling, and angled baffle at as high as 30 degrees....I'm wondering if the sound coming from "above" will lead back to where I started with less than impressive results? It seems like a grey area.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kingwiggi said:


> *VUDU now streaming Atmos movies *(4K also)
> 
> http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...by-VUDU-Launch-Future-Home-Theater-Experience
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/17/vudu-dolby-atmos-and-vision-support/
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/vudu-streaming-dolby-atmos-dolby-vision-4k-ultra-hd/


Interesting... according to this "Into the Storm" has an Atmos mix for @ home. One of the most impressive uses of Atmos was the intro scene for into the storm (a parked car interior during a rain storm). 

Do you guys think that when UHD discs start coming out, that they will also include 1080p BD's with atmos mix on releases that other wise wouldn't have had Atmos? (like for example... if Disney really is saving Atmos for UHD BD releases?)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Oh and good news all... I got my 7.1.4 setup up & running again... the situation isn't ideal (I'm in a one bedroom apartment with a baby so the volume stays low for the most part) 
But at least I have Atmos again & the occasional "loud" viewing. 

So I'm excited to get a few of the Atmos BD's I missed out on... especially if Sicario is indeed Atmos. I was a bit sad to hear my receiver wouldn't be getting DTS X a while back... but seeing as how DTS X seems to have a pitiful roll-out I don't have much to feel bad about I guess. My plan still remains to hold onto this receiver for another 3 to 4 years, by which time hopefully I can pick up a 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 receiver if they will exist.

Though... if any of you know how to repair the holes left from in ceiling speakers I might appreciate advice (LOL)... I didn't notify the land lord because I knew the answer would be no. But they never enter these units anyway, if any work has to be done they send a crew of polish dudes to fix stuff. We'll probably stay here a few years though so I got time to figure this out.


----------



## dadio917

just tried out 5th Element remix on my new 7.1.2 system. Was really great! so far glad I made the upgrade. Wife loved it! I did have to turn the surrounds up quite a bit over the audysey settings. Just used a meter app on my phone to equalize the volumes around the room.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rontalley*  
_IMHO, height experiences and overhead experiences are two different things. Meaning, I believe that both adds something different. DSU does a great job at extracting audio to put overhead. I have no idea how it knows what sounds but in general, it is pretty accurate! Height speakers, IMHO, give more of a spacial surround field. Things are more open and big but overheads gives you a 3D sound where it seems like you are in the action. This is what 5.1 did back in the day and it was HUGE!!!! Wow, the sound wraps around your ears! Then height added upper dimension and the sound still surrounded you 360 degrees but was a bigger effect. DSU is a whole other thing. It shoots sound down from the ceiling which give you another dimension.

I've said this time and time again. It would be super cool to not only have overhead but also height and wides! They all work together but I am happy with 7.2.4 for now. Would love to have 9.1.6.6!_




Stoked21 said:


> I concur with your "height" vs "top" assessment. I ran $250/speaker for FH and RH in April during the construction of the HT for experimentation. My opinion of Atmos was, well it's interesting but hardly noticeable (could have been speaker dispersion issues). I switched over to $100/speaker ICs in August and was BLOWN away by the difference in sound.
> 
> So this brings up my question. My current ICs have aimable woofers and tweeters at about 15-30 degrees. The new speakers would be slanted boxes on the ceiling and have similar angles with the slanted baffles (15, 20, 30 degrees or so TBD). This would also help with clearance behind the drywall and diminish some sound transfer as one pair currently does not have back boxes. Mounting enclosures to the ceiling will lower them into the listening room by at least 7" as well. I don't want to mess with a great thing that's working for me, but I long for higher SPL, higher efficiency, wider FR speakers that are more linear and dynamic up there (and matched to the rest of my system).
> 
> So would you classify these as height speaker or a top speaker? The angle to MLP specs of a "height" and a "top" overlap for the most part. If it's "on" the ceiling, 7" down below the ceiling, and angled baffle at as high as 30 degrees....I'm wondering if the sound coming from "above" will lead back to where I started with less than impressive results? It seems like a grey area.


*********************************
Great feedback from both of you. Here is my two cents - 

I definitely like my "Front Height" speakers and assume that the designation in Atmos would be "Front Height." (Sorry if I sound confused sometimes, but I am with the naming of the Atmos speaker connections from the various AVR's that have Dolby Atmos right now.)

Now - since ceiling speakers are not possible in my man cave - - I do have another option. Namely, the Cornered Audio C4 speakers that I have mounted vertically on the top left and top right corners of my HT room and by adding another set of Cornered Audio C4 speakers horizontally on the beam in front of the MLP, pointed right at the listening area - 45 degrees, to be deployed as my "Top Middle" Atmos speakers. That, to me, would be the best 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration and if 7.1.6 were available, I again would use the C4's mounted high on the beams/ceiling meeting point, directly behind the MLP and pointing to the listeners at 45% - horizontally mounted. 

Lastly - - I believe the effect I am looking for is a total sound immersion - Left/Center/Right/Front/Side/Back/Up/Down.

My Dipole ADP-590's work great as side surrounds. They disperse sounds perfectly and since they are close to the seating area, there isn't the problem of localization - - which I had before with direct firing speakers. Also - - every one of my speakers are on somewhat a different plane - if that makes any sense. By properly angling all the speakers (within the limitations of my theater room!) - I can obtain the best possible sound immersion and enjoyment.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> I also did not ask the dealer if he had the speakers in proper phase either.


You just assume that your "high end" dealer knows what he is doing and you see him as an authoritative source, much like you see magazine reviews. I get it. Unfortunately, the symptoms you describe inform those who actually know what Atmos is capable of that the dealer does not in fact know what he is doing, which also explains why he chooses to demo a format in a compromised, sub-optimal system. Given that he clearly does not know how to set up a Dolby Atmos demo (or he wouldn't have done it sub-optimally) then, yes, I would also question if he understands speaker phase.


----------



## rontalley

Stoked21 said:


> I concur with your "height" vs "top" assessment. I ran $250/speaker for FH and RH in April during the construction of the HT for experimentation. My opinion of Atmos was, well it's interesting but hardly noticeable (could have been speaker dispersion issues). I switched over to $100/speaker ICs in August and was BLOWN away by the difference in sound.
> 
> So this brings up my question. My current ICs have aimable woofers and tweeters at about 15-30 degrees. The new speakers would be slanted boxes on the ceiling and have similar angles with the slanted baffles (15, 20, 30 degrees or so TBD). This would also help with clearance behind the drywall and diminish some sound transfer as one pair currently does not have back boxes. Mounting enclosures to the ceiling will lower them into the listening room by at least 7" as well. I don't want to mess with a great thing that's working for me, but I long for higher SPL, higher efficiency, wider FR speakers that are more linear and dynamic up there (and matched to the rest of my system).
> 
> So would you classify these as height speaker or a top speaker? The angle to MLP specs of a "height" and a "top" overlap for the most part. If it's "on" the ceiling, 7" down below the ceiling, and angled baffle at as high as 30 degrees....I'm wondering if the sound coming from "above" will lead back to where I started with less than impressive results? It seems like a grey area.


For Atmos and DSU, "height" and "top" does overlap. The difference is how the processor interprets the sounds. Sounds that come from overhead will play over head but if you have top and rear heights mounted on the walls in the conventional locations then sound will travel more up and down the walls than "overhead" if my understanding of, "You tell the AVR where your speakers are and it will process the objects accordingly" concept. So in your situation, they would be classified as Tops because they are intended to have sound come from overhead.

Now we have to remember that in the theaters you can have sound travel up and down the walls AND overhead! How cool is that! The other many of height in processors like PLIIz were different than what is being achieved in Atmos.

Let's take someone, like me, who has a 7.2.4 setup. I can get a nice ear level surround field and get action overhead, however, I can not get a sound to be 3/4 up in the right middle of the room. Theaters can achieve this by having height channels in a horizontal plane. Just like a sound can pan from left front to center then to right front, in theaters, sound can pan from bottom left surround to top left surround. It can then travel from top left surround to top left ceiling on over to top right ceiling then back down the wall. We at home can not get this. Sound coming out of the left surround then panned upward to the top left and top right speaker does not make a smooth transition.

Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that could output dolby atmos and had different sounds that you could virtually pan around in your 3d field?!?! Or even a demo disc with pans doing the same?

I did do some research on trying to make my own disc but got a little too techie for me. Oh well.


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by *rontalley*
> _IMHO, height experiences and overhead experiences are two different things. Meaning, I believe that both adds something different. DSU does a great job at extracting audio to put overhead. I have no idea how it knows what sounds but in general, it is pretty accurate! Height speakers, IMHO, give more of a spacial surround field. Things are more open and big but overheads gives you a 3D sound where it seems like you are in the action. This is what 5.1 did back in the day and it was HUGE!!!! Wow, the sound wraps around your ears! Then height added upper dimension and the sound still surrounded you 360 degrees but was a bigger effect. DSU is a whole other thing. It shoots sound down from the ceiling which give you another dimension.
> 
> I've said this time and time again. It would be super cool to not only have overhead but also height and wides! They all work together but I am happy with 7.2.4 for now. Would love to have 9.1.6.6!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *********************************
> Great feedback from both of you. Here is my two cents -
> 
> I definitely like my "Front Height" speakers and assume that the designation in Atmos would be "Front Height." (Sorry if I sound confused sometimes, but I am with the naming of the Atmos speaker connections from the various AVR's that have Dolby Atmos right now.)
> 
> Now - since ceiling speakers are not possible in my man cave - - I do have another option. Namely, the Cornered Audio C4 speakers that I have mounted vertically on the top left and top right corners of my HT room and by adding another set of Cornered Audio C4 speakers horizontally on the beam in front of the MLP, pointed right at the listening area - 45 degrees, to be deployed as my "Top Middle" Atmos speakers. That, to me, would be the best 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration and if 7.1.6 were available, I again would use the C4's mounted high on the beams/ceiling meeting point, directly behind the MLP and pointing to the listeners at 45% - horizontally mounted.
> 
> Lastly - - I believe the effect I am looking for is a total sound immersion - Left/Center/Right/Front/Side/Back/Up/Down.
> 
> My Dipole ADP-590's work great as side surrounds. They disperse sounds perfectly and since they are close to the seating area, there isn't the problem of localization - - which I had before with direct firing speakers. Also - - every one of my speakers are on somewhat a different plane - if that makes any sense. By properly angling all the speakers (within the limitations of my theater room!) - I can obtain the best possible sound immersion and enjoyment.


That's the beauty of Atmos and DSU. You just tell the AVR where your speakers are, of course accordingly to legal locations, and the AVR will process the information accordingly. Sweet!

My AVR does not allow for Top Front(Rear) and Top Middle. It's either Top Front and Top Back or you have to do Overhead and Front(Rear) Height. I do believe that there are some models out there that will allow Top Middle and Top Front(Rear) but most will treat 4 overheads as Top Front and Top Rear. 1 set of Overheads would just be Overhead or Top Middle.

I do see a need for 6 speakers but only if there are 2 or more rows. But Front and Rear playing the same tone should translate to directly Overhead...


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> For Atmos and DSU, "height" and "top" does overlap. The difference is how the processor interprets the sounds. Sounds that come from overhead will play over head but if you have top and rear heights mounted on the walls in the conventional locations then sound will travel more up and down the walls than "overhead" if my understanding of, "You tell the AVR where your speakers are and it will process the objects accordingly" concept. So in your situation, they would be classified as Tops because they are intended to have sound come from overhead.
> 
> Now we have to remember that in the theaters you can have sound travel up and down the walls AND overhead! How cool is that! The other many of height in processors like PLIIz were different than what is being achieved in Atmos.
> 
> Let's take someone, like me, who has a 7.2.4 setup. I can get a nice ear level surround field and get action overhead, however, I can not get a sound to be 3/4 up in the right middle of the room. Theaters can achieve this by having height channels in a horizontal plane. Just like a sound can pan from left front to center then to right front, in theaters, sound can pan from bottom left surround to top left surround. It can then travel from top left surround to top left ceiling on over to top right ceiling then back down the wall. We at home can not get this. Sound coming out of the left surround then panned upward to the top left and top right speaker does not make a smooth transition.
> 
> Wouldn't it be cool if there was an app that could output dolby atmos and had different sounds that you could virtually pan around in your 3d field?!?! Or even a demo disc with pans doing the same?
> 
> I did do some research on trying to make my own disc but got a little too techie for me. Oh well.



Ron

We can essentially do this. It's phantom imaging and heard today with our 7.1.4 Atmos setups. Conductor girl demo is a great example of a bird flying seamlessly and smoothly from surround, across tops to opposite surround on the right. Yes having a surround height is preferable. Couldn't agree more. 

I also understand the diff between tops and heights and that they're treated differently in the processor. I guess my question is that if an angled baffle box is mounted on the ceiling within a "top" specification....isn't it kind of a mix of a height and a top speaker? That angled baffle kind of changes the diffusion/dispersion and in a sense makes it come from above and behind you more directly. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. But I didn't like the heights monopoles pointed at mlp. It just didn't seem to create the same immersion bubble. I worry I could drop $3k on new tops that function more like heights. 

Obviously if the axis is pointed straight down from a horizontal baffle that's not an issue. But then my top fronts will be behind my first row (effectively placing my TM TF and tr all behind the first row). I like my TF just slightly forward of the front row which creates a 30 degree angle to mlp in back row. But that means I need a minimum 120 dispersion for whatever TF I use. Unless it's slanted or aims to shift the axis.


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> I got my 7.1.4 setup up & running again...
> 
> Though... if any of you know how to repair the holes left from in ceiling speakers I might appreciate advice (LOL)...


Good to hear you're settled in and enjoying your HT again! Relative to your ceiling...is it drywall (sheetrock) and did you keep the round pieces your removed? If so, and you can tape and mud, the round pieces just go back in with a stick bridging the hole (inside) and securing with a few drywall screws. If you don't have the pieces, you can cut some later or make it a square piece. Also, I've seen square aluminum self adhesive repair patches up 8" in hardware stores. If all else fails, your security deposit will be a bit lighter.


----------



## Ricoflashback

rontalley said:


> That's the beauty of Atmos and DSU. You just tell the AVR where your speakers are, of course accordingly to legal locations, and the AVR will process the information accordingly. Sweet!
> 
> My AVR does not allow for Top Front(Rear) and Top Middle. It's either Top Front and Top Back or you have to do Overhead and Front(Rear) Height. I do believe that there are some models out there that will allow Top Middle and Top Front(Rear) but most will treat 4 overheads as Top Front and Top Rear. 1 set of Overheads would just be Overhead or Top Middle.
> 
> I do see a need for 6 speakers but only if there are 2 or more rows. But Front and Rear playing the same tone should translate to directly Overhead...


If I understand you correctly, an optimal 7.1.4 configuration could be Atmos speakers, Top Front/Top Back (no Top Middle) with the rest of your speaker setup. In my case - - L/C/R, Side Surrounds (Paradigm ADP 590 Dipoles) and Rear Back Surrounds. 

My current "Front Height" speakers, which are mounted vertically, in each corner, would be my Atmos "Top Front" speakers and I could install two Atmos "Top Back" speakers which I would position horizontally (Cornered Audio C4's), which are naturally angled 45% to the listening position as my Atmos "Top Back" selection. (See pics - RDome 1.jpg shows my new "Front Height" speakers, which would become "Top Front" in Atmos. Ricodome_Back Dolby shows where I would place my "Top Back" Atmos speakers. Cornered Audio C4's in place of Bravo 20's - better bass & mounting options. Ricodome_Front Dolby shows where a "Top Middle" configuration could be placed. To me, it's all about the sound and if "Top Back" works better than "Top Middle" - then great. By the layout of my smaller room, "Top Back" might work the best.)

A note on placement - - horizontal for "Top Back," and vertical for "Top Front." This has more to do with the room limitations and the fact that the projector screen mount is in the way of a "Top Front" horizontal installation. (Too far to the right).

Lastly - - I'm looking at the Denon X5200. I believe I can use the "Height" channels with this configuration? (Back panel of the Denon 5200X - last four inputs).

P.S. - Rear back surrounds have been lowered and resting on ledge to the left and right at ear level (Horizontal Paradigm Millenia One stands). Much better imaging.


----------



## Charles R

Stoked21 said:


> I also understand the diff between tops and heights and that they're treated differently in the processor.


Is there a link for details on how this is _handled/processed_?


----------



## gbaby

kbarnes701 said:


> You just assume that your "high end" dealer knows what he is doing and you see him as an authoritative source, much like you see magazine reviews. I get it. Unfortunately, the symptoms you describe inform those who actually know what Atmos is capable of that the dealer does not in fact know what he is doing, which also explains why he chooses to demo a format in a compromised, sub-optimal system. Given that he clearly does not know how to set up a Dolby Atmos demo (or he wouldn't have done it sub-optimally) then, yes, I would also question if he understands speaker phase.


Wow Barnes, could you not tell I was being sarcastic? But, for the record, I know this dealer is credible just like the magazine sources and writers I follow. Stereophile is a great source for reviews, however, you have to have somewhat of a discerning spirit and know which are the better reviewers. I happen to like Kal Rubinson, and I agree with every thing he writes except on room correction. Kal has a track record so he has my ear. Steophile has a track record, and I have relied on them for every purchase without regret. In this day in time there are not many audio storefronts so it is important to rely on credible writers and reviewers. The dealer I visited sells the likes of Ariel Acoustics, Ayre Audio Research, Classe, DataSat, B&W, Bryston and JBL Synthesis to name a few. In fact, I cannot afford the majority of products they sell as I am sure they deal with millionaires and I'm definitely not one of them. But, to make a long story short, I felt the demo was set up fine, I heard the immersion, I just was not impressed because the improvement was so subtle, but there, that I was not moved. So what? I think I have a killer system, but I have some friends who could not give a damn about it sound, while I have other friends who are wowed. Just because you are excited about this new format does not mean everyone agrees. Heck, PLIIz made an improvement, although not discreet, and some adopted it, most did not. Like I said, different strokes. The civility on this thread needs a lot to be desired. Audioholics commented on the almost militant way Atmos is defended on this site. It makes you feel like if you do not like At​mos, you'll get your head chopped off. :


----------



## Nightlord

No worries, just stick it back on with green glue.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> Audioholics commented...


Ah - the mist begins to clear...


----------



## stikle

gbaby said:


> I felt the demo was set up fine, I heard the immersion, I just was not impressed because the improvement was so subtle, but there, that I was not moved.



You STILL have not answered what exactly the demo material was...



gbaby said:


> The civility on this thread needs a lot to be desired. Audioholics commented on the almost militant way Atmos is defended on this site. It makes you feel like if you do not like Atmos, you'll get your head chopped off.



Audioholics...you're trusting the two guys that did the review that weren't impressed by it? Ha!

In fairness, you came into this Atmos thread with your mind already made up that it was gimmicky and you didn't like it. You don't really want to hear what anybody has to say because you are sure that your high-end dealer knows what they are doing and can do no wrong.

If you were truly interested in learning more about Atmos, then you would be asking questions and getting honest answers. You would be finding other Atmos demo rooms to experience instead of deciding your one experience was the benchmark to which all Atmos installations are equal. Maybe it's because you had to drive two hours to hear something that was underwhelming to you that causes you to think that Atmos isn't all that. You must be correct, and all of us must be wrong. It IS your opinion, and that's fine. You just seem awfully argumentative to a group that knows what the value of Atmos is. The people in this thread aren't trumpeting Atmos just because they have a significant investment in hardware and are trying to justify it...it's because in a properly set up room, Atmos and DSU sound AMAZING and breathe new life into older content as well as new releases.

So...why are you still here?


----------



## Waboman

I think we may have an Audioholics sleeper cell in our ranks. We must capture one and make him talk. Water boarding won't work with these black op specialists. We need to bust out the big gun, Atmos boarding. They'll be talking like a drunken sailor when we're done. #AtmosAndTheSnowman


----------



## gbaby

stikle said:


> In fairness, you came into this Atmos thread with your mind already made up that it was gimmicky and you didn't like it. You don't really want to hear what anybody has to say because you are sure that your high-end dealer knows what they are doing and can do no wrong.
> 
> 
> So...why are you still here?


Your comment in the first paragraph is false. I did not read about Audioholics until after reading comments calling me ignorant, childish or whatever. 

Now the only reason I'm here is to defend my honor. You folks accuse people of having ulterior motives for posting, misrepresenting and the like. No need to spin insults due to differences of opinions. There is a lot of ego in some of these responses. The bottom line is posting honest assessments of Atmos on this thread is like a Christian or Jew trying to exercise religious freedom in the Middle East. You guys are just too militant and cannot see it.  If you don't want me to respond in the future, don't respond to this comment in a negative and demeaning way.


----------



## Hopinater

The only problem with reviews (in basically any magazine) is that the products that usually get reviewed are made by companies that pay for advertising in said magazine. Thus there is a serious downside for the magazine if the review is negative and the company receiving the negative publicity decides to pull it's ads which really equates to pulling it's funding for the magazine. So I take any review found in an ad supported publication with a grain of salt.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Okay folks. Back to some technical discussion.
It's a bit OT to bring it up here, but I did not see a response yet to this thread I opened a few hours ago.
Please do visit and post your inputs/advice.
In summary I am trying to see if Klipsch R-28F would be a significant upgrade to my 10 year old JBL E80s.


----------



## stikle

gbaby said:


> Your comment in the first paragraph is false. I did not read about Audioholics until after reading comments calling me ignorant, childish or whatever.



I made no such comment regarding when you read Audioholics. 



gbaby said:


> The bottom line is *posting honest assessments of Atmos on this thread is like a Christian or Jew trying to exercise religious freedom in the Middle East*. You guys are just too militant and cannot see it.



You TOTALLY nailed it! That's _exactly_ what it's like. Heil Atmos!

And good job STILL not saying what the demo material was. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles perhaps?

Well anyway, this bores me so I'm done.


----------



## Charles R

gbaby said:


> You folks accuse people of having ulterior motives for posting, misrepresenting and the like.


I'll make one attempt... and that's that. I think the "blowback" is based on two lines of thinking...



A more expensive receiver is _far superior_ to a less expensive one. Based on price alone. - This is always bait material and referenced as such on several occasions.
Stating Atmos is a gimmick is no different than stating 5.1 or 7.1 is a gimmick compared to 2.1. - It may not be something you prefer (for any number of logical or non-logical reasons) but undeniably it offers the ability to have an enhanced experience. Such that is doesn't take anything away rather it adds to the experience.


----------



## Stoked21

gbaby said:


> I felt the demo was set up fine, I heard the immersion, I just was not impressed because the improvement was so subtle, but there, that I was not moved.
> 
> It makes you feel like if you do not like At​mos, you'll get your head chopped off.


It's comments like these that are getting "your head chopped off". I'm sorry but they are ignorant. You "felt" it was setup fine? What does that feel like anyway? I "felt" my 1967 Mustang was the fastest car in the world when I was 16. When I was twelve I felt my mom's lasagna was the best in the world, yet I'd never eaten it at a great Italian restaurant nor been to Italy. How accurate do you think those statements are? They're biases based on inexperience and ego.

If you said you had been to 5 local HTs and didn't think it was beneficial (heck even 2 or 3!) then no one would dismiss you and that would be an educated opinion and a valid matter of taste/preference. Plenty of people don't see the need for Atmos or care. They don't hang around here. Plenty have no experience at all and they come here to learn. Some of those then adopt the technology or they do not. Plenty have decided that 5.1 is good enough. Plenty have heard numerous HTs with the technology and said, well who cares I don't need it. But those people came to that determination through experience. Only with that experience does it become a matter of justified taste and opinion. Otherwise it's just plain speculation and a sheltered uneducated view. If people state their educated disdain for Atmos....None of us care and we support them and do not bash them. but "felt it was setup fine"? That's truly laughable.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> The bottom line is posting honest assessments of Atmos on this thread is like a Christian or Jew trying to exercise religious freedom in the Middle East.


Ignoring the ludicrous metaphor, the problem is that your 'honest assessment' lacks all credibility. No offense intended.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Ah - the mist begins to clear...


That's what thought too, and he was here to get under our skin. That's what Gene said about Atmos that it was gimmicky in one of his videos.


----------



## rontalley

Stoked21 said:


> Ron
> 
> We can essentially do this. It's phantom imaging and heard today with our 7.1.4 Atmos setups. Conductor girl demo is a great example of a bird flying seamlessly and smoothly from surround, across tops to opposite surround on the right. Yes having a surround height is preferable. Couldn't agree more.


Yeah, that really does showcase well. Wish there were more examples but slower or just a steady tone. But you are right, if the sound sweeps fast enough, then we do not have time to focus on pinpointing the sound in an exact location in the 3D sound-field. The leaf demo is another good example does a good job as well. 



Stoked21 said:


> Ron
> I guess my question is that if an angled baffle box is mounted on the ceiling within a "top" specification....isn't it kind of a mix of a height and a top speaker? That angled baffle kind of changes the diffusion/dispersion and in a sense makes it come from above and behind you more directly. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. But I didn't like the heights monopoles pointed at mlp. It just didn't seem to create the same immersion bubble. I worry I could drop $3k on new tops that function more like heights.
> 
> Obviously if the axis is pointed straight down from a horizontal baffle that's not an issue. But then my top fronts will be behind my first row (effectively placing my TM TF and tr all behind the first row). I like my TF just slightly forward of the front row which creates a 30 degree angle to mlp in back row. But that means I need a minimum 120 dispersion for whatever TF I use. Unless it's slanted or aims to shift the axis.


Interesting to say the least. I played with aiming the tweeters towards the MLP vs straight down and I could hear the difference but not enough to say if one was better than the other. In the true sense of "height" speakers, I would imagine that you would be getting a little of what "height" speakers do for the sound-field and getting overhead effects to create a 3D bubble. Hey, if it works then it works for you. I think that you just have to get the speaker close to the appropriate position and have the correct speakers with the correct dispersion pattern to accomplish what you are trying to achieve.



Ricoflashback said:


> If I understand you correctly, an optimal 7.1.4 configuration could be Atmos speakers, Top Front/Top Back (no Top Middle) with the rest of your speaker setup. In my case - - L/C/R, Side Surrounds (Paradigm ADP 590 Dipoles) and Rear Back Surrounds.
> 
> My current "Front Height" speakers, which are mounted vertically, in each corner, would be my Atmos "Top Front" speakers and I could install two Atmos "Top Back" speakers which I would position horizontally (Cornered Audio C4's), which are naturally angled 45% to the listening position as my Atmos "Top Back" selection. (See pics - RDome 1.jpg shows my new "Front Height" speakers, which would become "Top Front" in Atmos. Ricodome_Back Dolby shows where I would place my "Top Back" Atmos speakers. Cornered Audio C4's in place of Bravo 20's - better bass & mounting options. Ricodome_Front Dolby shows where a "Top Middle" configuration could be placed. To me, it's all about the sound and if "Top Back" works better than "Top Middle" - then great. By the layout of my smaller room, "Top Back" might work the best.)
> 
> A note on placement - - horizontal for "Top Back," and vertical for "Top Front." This has more to do with the room limitations and the fact that the projector screen mount is in the way of a "Top Front" horizontal installation. (Too far to the right).
> 
> Lastly - - I'm looking at the Denon X5200. I believe I can use the "Height" channels with this configuration? (Back panel of the Denon 5200X - last four inputs).
> 
> P.S. - Rear back surrounds have been lowered and resting on ledge to the left and right at ear level (Horizontal Paradigm Millenia One stands). Much better imaging.


Dolby Atmos has 3 Height options. Overhead (place overhead and aimed downward)
Dolby Atmos Enabled (aimed towards the ceiling to bounce of the ceiling back to the MLP) 
Height (place above Front Mains and/or Rear Surrounds and aimed toward MLP)

All three are legal and can be mixed and matched according to your layout. Dolby Enabled and Overhead receives the same sounds but Height is processed differently (personally tested). Your layout seems to point more towards Front/Rear Heights. When its all said and done, you really want to tell the AVR how it should interpret your speaker locations. If you want overhead and feel like you can place the speakers close enough and aimed appropriately to a legal placement then try it with Overhead option. If it sounds funky then switch them over to Height. 

Now the super cool thing is with the calibration tools included in these awesome AVRs, they interpret the angles and placements with precise measurements and make all of the electronic adjustments for you so things are played back accordingly to "YOUR" configuration.

Who's to say that L/C/R+Wides+Surround+Rear Height+Top Middle wouldn't kick all forms of ass? Not a talked about configuration but still sounds like enough speakers to make a nice 3D sound-field!


----------



## gbaby

Hopinater said:


> The only problem with reviews (in basically any magazine) is that the products that usually get reviewed are made by companies that pay for advertising in said magazine. Thus there is a serious downside for the magazine if the review is negative and the company receiving the negative publicity decides to pull it's ads which really equates to pulling it's funding for the magazine. So I take any review found in an ad supported publication with a grain of salt.


I agree. But, I have not found that to be true for equipment I purchased from a Stereophile review. Call it luck or whatever, but I'd like to think it goes to the integrity of the reviewer.  But, again, I agree that this can happen.


----------



## gbaby

stikle said:


> I made no such comment regarding when you read Audioholics.


I know you did not nor did I accuse you specifically.


----------



## Charles R

rontalley said:


> Now the super cool thing is with the calibration tools included in these awesome AVRs, they interpret the angles and placements with precise measurements and make all of the electronic adjustments for you so things are played back accordingly to "YOUR" configuration.


Where did you read this? How about a link as I'd love to read the details. Especially in regards to Heights/Tops.


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> Okay folks. Back to some technical discussion.
> It's a bit OT to bring it up here, but I did not see a response yet to this thread I opened a few hours ago.
> Please do visit and post your inputs/advice.
> In summary I am trying to see if Klipsch R-28F would be a significant upgrade to my 10 year old JBL E80s.


Bump.
(Sorry, it got buried at the bottom of last page.)


----------



## gbaby

Charles R said:


> I'll make one attempt... and that's that. I think the "blowback" is based on two lines of thinking...
> 
> 
> 
> A more expensive receiver is _far superior_ to a less expensive one. Based on price alone. - This is always bait material and referenced as such on several occasions.
> Stating Atmos is a gimmick is no different than stating 5.1 or 7.1 is a gimmick compared to 2.1. - It may not be something you prefer (for any number of logical or non-logical reasons) but undeniably it offers the ability to have an enhanced experience. Such that is doesn't take anything away rather it adds to the experience.


No problem with you making an attempt which is good. But, if proponents of Atmos think I like this it is a complete misunderstanding. I am a regular Joe who in the past purchase mid fi electronics. I started with Sony Receivers, Sony ES pre-amps, Arcam Processors, and last a Bryston SP3 which is by far the most expensive processor I've purchased to date. I have two systems and I went to hear Atmos to determine if I need to replace my Arcam AV9. I heard Atmos and could hear the extra ambiance it offered, I just was not impressed. So what. It could be age, maturity or whatever, it just did not move me. I did find from my demo that my 7.1 processor more than trumped the extra sound or directional discreet sound I heard in the Atmos processor in that the quality of the sound was lacking to me compared to my SP3, and when I heard a sound overhead with Atmos, I processed it as a gimmick. You may find it revolutionary. One thing is for sure, its not for music lovers, at least this music lover.


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> It's comments like these that are getting "your head chopped off". I'm sorry but they are ignorant. You "felt" it was setup fine? What does that feel like anyway? I "felt" my 1967 Mustang was the fastest car in the world when I was 16. When I was twelve I felt my mom's lasagna was the best in the world, yet I'd never eaten it at a great Italian restaurant nor been to Italy. How accurate do you think those statements are? They're biases based on inexperience and ego.
> 
> If you said you had been to 5 local HTs and didn't think it was beneficial (heck even 2 or 3!) then no one would dismiss you and that would be an educated opinion and a valid matter of taste/preference. Plenty of people don't see the need for Atmos or care. They don't hang around here. Plenty have no experience at all and they come here to learn. Some of those then adopt the technology or they do not. Plenty have decided that 5.1 is good enough. Plenty have heard numerous HTs with the technology and said, well who cares I don't need it. But those people came to that determination through experience. Only with that experience does it become a matter of justified taste and opinion. Otherwise it's just plain speculation and a sheltered uneducated view. If people state their educated disdain for Atmos....None of us care and we support them and do not bash them. but "felt it was setup fine"? That's truly laughable.


Man, you are all over the place. I think your ego dominates your comments to the point that a friendly disagreement incurs your wrath. Everyone will not like Atmos. I'm one of them, and reported my findings to get feed back not persecution for not being in agreement. Like I said, the responses on this thread are too militant. It does not cost you anything to be nice.


----------



## toofast68

Don't shoot the messenger, but I come to this forum to try and learn, and nearly every question I asked is overlooked and a few people battle over nothing.....come on everybody, can't we all just get along and get back to what this forum is about ?


----------



## gbaby

What does Dolby Atmos bring to the table? By most accounts, a bit more spaciousness to the sound and the occasionally, "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!" 

The above comment which I borrowed from another site (Audtioholics.com), mirrors my Atmos experience, but I do not knock other folks who think otherwise.


----------



## pasender91

Which is a MAJOR improvement for movie lovers compared to "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly *THRU *me!" 
And please count not only planes but also helicopters, space ships, bullets, deep charges in submarine movies, wind in trees, rain on roof, people calling from 2nd floor .... the height effects are NOT occasional !!!

Never 5.1 again in my case


----------



## NorthSky

I admit; I'm more happy today near Christmas 2015 than I was last Christmas 2014: http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I admit; I'm more happy today near Christmas 2015 than I was last Christmas 2014: http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


Glad that your happy and soon we shall have Atmos streaming from Vudu, once I get my Roku4 and once they get the bugs are out of it.


----------



## bargervais

gbaby said:


> What does Dolby Atmos bring to the table? By most accounts, a bit more spaciousness to the sound and the occasionally, "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!"
> 
> The above comment which I borrowed from another site (Audtioholics.com), mirrors my Atmos experience, but I do not knock other folks who think otherwise.


Dolby Atmos is so much more, and Atmos and DSU is more then "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!" It's the whole immersive sound not just planes and helicopters overhead.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: Rontalley Post - (And Much Thanks!)

Dolby Atmos has 3 Height options. Overhead (place overhead and aimed downward)
Dolby Atmos Enabled (aimed towards the ceiling to bounce of the ceiling back to the MLP) 
Height (place above Front Mains and/or Rear Surrounds and aimed toward MLP)

All three are legal and can be mixed and matched according to your layout. Dolby Enabled and Overhead receives the same sounds but Height is processed differently (personally tested). Your layout seems to point more towards Front/Rear Heights. When its all said and done, you really want to tell the AVR how it should interpret your speaker locations. If you want overhead and feel like you can place the speakers close enough and aimed appropriately to a legal placement then try it with Overhead option. If it sounds funky then switch them over to Height. 

Now the super cool thing is with the calibration tools included in these awesome AVRs, they interpret the angles and placements with precise measurements and make all of the electronic adjustments for you so things are played back accordingly to "YOUR" configuration.

Who's to say that L/C/R+Wides+Surround+Rear Height+Top Middle wouldn't kick all forms of ass? Not a talked about configuration but still sounds like enough speakers to make a nice 3D sound-field!

********************************
Question: Will the Dolby Atmos Police arrest me if I do NOT have a LEGAL layout? Just kidding. 

It sounds like the "Height" option makes the most sense for me - Front/Rear Height. 

Any Dolby Atmos DVR's that you recommend for the 7.1.4 configuration, using my Emotiva XPA-3 for the L/C/R channels? Again, much thanks - Rico.


----------



## Stoked21

Just wrapped up the new Terminator in Atmos. Pretty heavy use of tops. I was pleasantly surprised, though not a huge fan of the movie. Had entertainment value. Great Atmos track.

Very interesting part in the movie is the locker room scene. During the dialogue, you hear their voices image in the room. I don't mean just between FL and C for instance. I don't mean a few feet forward of LCR. I think it utilized TFL too and the dialogues distance themselves by a good 10' from the screen. They were literally in front of me talking in my front row. It just popped out that deep into the room. Was kind of freaky, but a great example of object based instead of channel based. It had to have been using all three speakers to place that object. (guess it's not a big deal though cus my high-end dealer told me a stereo Bryston unit can do this even without Atmos ).

I think the most entertaining part was that while I was in my basement HT, Google Fiber was power trenching/jackhammering/digging my corner and my neighbors corner. I live on a 1/2 acre lot in the suburbs. The neighbor across the 2 lane road that divides us sent me a text "Is that bass coming from your house?". Truth be told, I strongly dislike that one neighbor so I'm sure I'm on his list for bass now, as well as for the time of day that my sprinkler system runs! 

Regardless, I guess that's what a JTR cap1400 with gain at 9 o'clock will do.......(seriously, from my basement over jackhammers outside???) Oh man I was laughing and so proud.


----------



## Contuzzi

Early impressions of the Roger Waters - The Wall BD...

Having seen the concert 7 times, but not seeing the theatrical version that played in theaters awhile back, this BluRay is better than I could have ever imagined. 

First off, the picture quality is not reference. It is truly a master reference picture that is not only quite possibly as good as we will ever see out of a 1080p format, but the cinematography is as good as it gets. Visually, it is truly a work of art. I'm not just speaking of the concert clips, but the little vignettes with Roger that are cleverly placed during the concert are shot so masterfully, it's truly inspiring for anyone who is into any kind of visual arts.

Anyway, the sound is outstanding. I have only watched the first 36 minutes so far, but the sound is oustanding. I'll report more on the sound in the next few days.

I cannot stress enough that this is an absolute spectacle in every sense of the word. $17.99 on Amazon (or wherever) couldn't be better spent.


----------



## toofast68

roger waters....is that atmos...can't tell on amazon

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## gbaby

bargervais said:


> Dolby Atmos is so much more, and Atmos and DSU is more then "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!" It's the whole immersive sound not just planes and helicopters overhead.


It may be I am a little older than the average poster on this thread. I have been through 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, pro logic, pro logic II, IIx, Dolby Digital, True DolbyHD, DTS, DTS-MA, you name it. Over the years, I have found the design of the processors power supply, analog section and D/A converter, does more for my sonic satisfaction than the spaciousness of a new codec like Atmos. It's there, but I don't care. Quality over quantity.


----------



## rontalley

Charles R said:


> Where did you read this? How about a link as I'd love to read the details. Especially in regards to Heights/Tops.


Everything that I have read and understood about Dolby Atmos states that object based audio is put in a 3D space and is rendered according to the speaker configuration that you have...

This is what the technology is based off of and why it is so darn cool. Now, I have said over and over again I have no clue on how DSU does this when the audio was not mixes for Atmos but I can absolutely confirm that the same audio played with height vs tops sound different. How do I know this? I tested it with my own setup. 

Why does the AVR ask where your speakers are located and what configuration you have if it didn't matter? It does. Front Height sounds different than Front Top. Makes total sense that it would...


----------



## carp

toofast68 said:


> roger waters....is that atmos...can't tell on amazon
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I don't know, but that's great that it's in 2:40:1!!!


----------



## grendelrt

So anyone playing Battlefront on PC? Curious how well gaming translates over.


----------



## Spanglo

grendelrt said:


> So anyone playing Battlefront on PC? Curious how well gaming translates over.


One avs user reported an issue with the game... no atmos yet. 

On the PS4, sounds great with DSU. That game has top notch audio and video.


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> Just curious? Do you like getting kicked in the balls? You come into an Atmos thread and say its a gimmick and then get offended when you get taken to the parking lot for a bruising. Isnt there a hi-fi group, vinyl, or Beta tape thread on AVS where you can find like minded folks?


Lol ... good laugh on that one. ...8-track tapes through a Bryston SSP. 


Hey, Bryston is Canadian.  ...I'm sure their next pre/pro will include Dolby Atmos and DTS:X ... anyone for a bet?


----------



## NorthSky

Contuzzi said:


> Early impressions of the Roger Waters - The Wall BD...
> Having seen the concert 7 times, but not seeing the theatrical version that played in theaters awhile back, this BluRay is better than I could have ever imagined.
> First off, the picture quality is not reference. It is truly a master reference picture that is not only quite possibly as good as we will ever see out of a 1080p format, but the cinematography is as good as it gets. Visually, it is truly a work of art. I'm not just speaking of the concert clips, but the little vignettes with Roger that are cleverly placed during the concert are shot so masterfully, it's truly inspiring for anyone who is into any kind of visual arts.
> Anyway, the sound is outstanding. I have only watched the first 36 minutes so far, but the sound is oustanding. I'll report more on the sound in the next few days.
> I cannot stress enough that this is an absolute spectacle in every sense of the word. $17.99 on Amazon (or wherever) couldn't be better spent.


That, is a sure thing: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=17649


----------



## Stoked21

NorthSky said:


> Lol ... good laugh on that one. ...8-track tapes through a Bryston SSP.
> 
> 
> Hey, Bryston is Canadian.  ...I'm sure their next pre/pro will include Dolby Atmos and DTS:X ... anyone for a bet?


You can bet it will. Trinnov, Arcam, Audio Control, Emotiva, Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha, Dennon, Marantz to name just a few of the hi-end and mid-range manufacturers....Plus all the movie studios. Plus the speaker manufacturers. Game designers. Streaming service companies. Plus some music albums and videos. Dolby themselves plus DTS and Auro. And all of us crazies here on this thread. 

We can't all be wrong and can't all be obsessed with an immersive technology that has an insubstantial affect on the sound....Or maybe we could be.


----------



## NorthSky

toofast68 said:


> roger waters....is that atmos...can't tell on amazon


Sure is: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Roger-Waters-The-Wall-Blu-ray/12873/


----------



## bargervais

toofast68 said:


> roger waters....is that atmos...can't tell on amazon
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Look at the picture of the back cover

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015RD3AHO?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00


----------



## Scott Simonian

carp said:


> I don't know, but that's great that it's in 2:40:1!!!


Lol! CIH owners...

It's the little victories that make life great.


----------



## bargervais

gbaby said:


> It may be I am a little older than the average poster on this thread. I have been through 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, pro logic, pro logic II, IIx, Dolby Digital, True DolbyHD, DTS, DTS-MA, you name it. Over the years, I have found the design of the processors power supply, analog section and D/A converter, does more for my sonic satisfaction than the spaciousness of a new codec like Atmos. It's there, but I don't care. Quality over quantity.


Wow you must be very old and wise  I stand corrected. I still enjoy 2.1 for music. For movies I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU thanks and I do care very much to be immersed in sound 

That's all I need to say and it looks like your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts.


----------



## Carrick

gbaby said:


> What does Dolby Atmos bring to the table? By most accounts, a bit more spaciousness to the sound and the occasionally, "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!"



Wait for the Oculus Rift VR glasses to be incorporated into movies and then you will truly be amazed.

https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/


----------



## Stoked21

Carrick said:


> Wait for the Oculus Rift VR glasses to be incorporated into movies and then you will truly be amazed.
> 
> https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/


Lol. I can just see him with his Rifts perched on the bridge of his nose and 32 channels immersing him with Fury Road ripping through his room and walls of subs. I think he's holding out on us and doesn't want to put our little 11.1 Atmos HTs to shame!!!!


----------



## mikela

gbaby said:


> And regardless of other opinions, the Atmos system I heard was set up properly.


How do you know?


----------



## Charles R

rontalley said:


> Front Height sounds different than Front Top. Makes total sense that it would...


I searched several times before I upgraded to Atmos and the answers were virtually identical (for those who tested). They couldn't hear much (any?) difference between the Height and Top settings. I have tried several times and haven't heard a noticeable difference (which isn't surprising since there are many steps involved in switching such as running Audyssey). I agree it makes total sense... I just don't understand why the related details are never linked.

How exactly did you test it?.. what material, etc.


----------



## gbaby

bargervais said:


> Wow you must be very old and wise  I stand corrected. I still enjoy 2.1 for music. For movies I'll enjoy Atmos and DSU thanks and I do care very much to be immersed in sound
> 
> That's all I need to say and it looks like your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts.


Not confused with facts. We think differently because we have different caliber of equipment.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

gbaby said:


> It may be I am a little older than the average poster on this thread. I have been through 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, pro logic, pro logic II, IIx, Dolby Digital, True DolbyHD, DTS, DTS-MA, you name it. Over the years, I have found the design of the processors power supply, analog section and D/A converter, does more for my sonic satisfaction than the spaciousness of a new codec like Atmos. It's there, but I don't care. Quality over quantity.




I won't argue with you about Atmos like some are. If you didn't care for it, you didn't care for it, for whatever reason... And that's perfectly fine. However, you should be aware that you ultimately will be a step behind, because many movies are being mixed for Atmos now, with the other available tracks being rendered down from there for legacy 7.1 and 5.1 audio. And that's the point - that even 7.1 is considered legacy in the theatrical space... And immersive audio is quickly making its way to Blu-ray in numbers. You can call it a gimmick, but if it is, it has an awful lot of professionals in the industry mixing specifically for it... and not in gimmicky ways, as the reviews reflect. Quality of equipment aside, if accurate playback of the intended audio crafted by those who make these great movies we love is your goal, as it is for many of us here, then anything less than Atmos is a compromise going forward.



And if that's okay with you, you're not wrong... any more than the guy who thinks 2 channel is enough with movies that have 7.1 tracks is wrong. It's unfortunate that you didn't hear the precision that many of us hear in Atmos, and that mixers are enjoying making some excellent use of. And I think many of us wish that you could hear another Atmos setup because we're passionate about how much it adds when properly done. When I started in home theater, it was with a fairly pathetic pro-logic processor... So I've been around the block like you. And in my modest setup, Atmos is astounding and the speakers disappear. Wish you could hear what I hear... But if you didn't, you didn't. And I wish you well.


----------



## gbaby

Stoked21 said:


> Just wrapped up the new Terminator in Atmos. Pretty heavy use of tops. I was pleasantly surprised, though not a huge fan of the movie. Had entertainment value. Great Atmos track.
> 
> Very interesting part in the movie is the locker room scene. During the dialogue, you hear their voices image in the room. I don't mean just between FL and C for instance. I don't mean a few feet forward of LCR. I think it utilized TFL too and the dialogues distance themselves by a good 10' from the screen. They were literally in front of me talking in my front row. It just popped out that deep into the room. Was kind of freaky, but a great example of object based instead of channel based. It had to have been using all three speakers to place that object. (guess it's not a big deal though cus my high-end dealer told me a stereo Bryston unit can do this even without Atmos ).
> 
> I think the most entertaining part was that while I was in my basement HT, Google Fiber was power trenching/jackhammering/digging my corner and my neighbors corner. I live on a 1/2 acre lot in the suburbs. The neighbor across the 2 lane road that divides us sent me a text "Is that bass coming from your house?". Truth be told, I strongly dislike that one neighbor so I'm sure I'm on his list for bass now, as well as for the time of day that my sprinkler system runs!
> 
> Regardless, I guess that's what a JTR cap1400 with gain at 9 o'clock will do.......(seriously, from my basement over jackhammers outside???) Oh man I was laughing and so proud.


This is truly an outstanding soundtrack and I wrote about it on the Official blu-ray review thread. Rewatcning it as I write to figure out its convoluted plot.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

gene4ht said:


> Good to hear you're settled in and enjoying your HT again! Relative to your ceiling...is it drywall (sheetrock) and did you keep the round pieces your removed? If so, and you can tape and mud, the round pieces just go back in with a stick bridging the hole (inside) and securing with a few drywall screws. If you don't have the pieces, you can cut some later or make it a square piece. Also, I've seen square aluminum self adhesive repair patches up 8" in hardware stores. If all else fails, your security deposit will be a bit lighter.


It's drywall... I saved the cut outs  I forgot to label them though... except for one. So there is some type of material I can buy to fill in the gap where the cuts are? I was thinking I'd fill it, then paint over it in the hopes of making it look like nothing was ever there. 

My only experience with filling stuff in was when I worked at a piano shop... sometimes if there was a big gouge in a piano's case I'd fill it with wood filler & use these coloring sticks to match the color of the veneer as much as possible... though it's very hard because wood grain is hard to replicate. It seems like a white drywall would be much easier?


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> It's drywall... I saved the cut outs  I forgot to label them though... except for one. So there is some type of material I can buy to fill in the gap where the cuts are? I was thinking I'd fill it, then paint over it in the hopes of making it look like nothing was ever there.


Just need to buy some drywall joint tape ($4-$5), pre-mixed joint compound ($3-$4), plastic tape knife set ($3), and drywall screws from Home Depot/Lowes...not too difficult to do with a little practice...plenty of "How To Repair Drywall" on YouTube...here's an example.

Good Luck! Now back to our regularly scheduled Atmos programming.


----------



## Ricoflashback

gene4ht said:


> Just need to buy some drywall joint tape ($4-$5), pre-mixed joint compound ($3-$4), plastic tape knife set ($3), and drywall screws from Home Depot/Lowes...not too difficult to do with a little practice...plenty of "How To Repair Drywall" on YouTube...here's an example.
> 
> Good Luck! Now back to our regularly scheduled Atmos programming.
> 
> http://youtu.be/K37G2j0K8BA


Then, paint the ceiling black and be done with it. Tell your landlord that it is a leasehold improvement - theater ready room.


----------



## gene4ht

Ricoflashback said:


> Then, paint the ceiling black and be done with it. Tell your landlord that it is a leasehold improvement - theater ready room.


LOL..Excellent suggestion! It could then accommodate at star field as well!


----------



## Ricoflashback

gene4ht said:


> LOL..Excellent suggestion! It could then accommodate at star field as well!


Indeed! It will provide a 3D visual experience for movies like Titanic and the Star Trek series. Sound and night sky all around you. Let's call it Blackmos. 

By the way -- zero clouds here in Colorado after a tremendous snow storm yesterday. I can clearly see Uranus tonight.


----------



## NorthSky

Carrick said:


> Wait for the Oculus Rift VR glasses to be incorporated into movies and then you will truly be amazed.
> 
> https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/


That looks...exciting.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I won't argue with you about Atmos like some are. If you didn't care for it, you didn't care for it, for whatever reason... And that's perfectly fine. However, you should be aware that you ultimately will be a step behind, because many movies are being mixed for Atmos now, with the other available tracks being rendered down from there for legacy 7.1 and 5.1 audio. And that's the point - that even 7.1 is considered legacy in the theatrical space... And immersive audio is quickly making its way to Blu-ray in numbers. You can call it a gimmick, but if it is, it has an awful lot of professionals in the industry mixing specifically for it... and not in gimmicky ways, as the reviews reflect. Quality of equipment aside, if accurate playback of the intended audio crafted by those who make these great movies we love is your goal, as it is for many of us here, then anything less than Atmos is a compromise going forward.
> 
> And if that's okay with you, you're not wrong... any more than the guy who thinks 2 channel is enough with movies that have 7.1 tracks is wrong. It's unfortunate that you didn't hear the precision that many of us hear in Atmos, and that mixers are enjoying making some excellent use of. And I think many of us wish that you could hear another Atmos setup because we're passionate about how much it adds when properly done. When I started in home theater, it was with a fairly pathetic pro-logic processor... So I've been around the block like you. And in my modest setup, Atmos is astounding and the speakers disappear. Wish you could hear what I hear... But if you didn't, you didn't. And I wish you well.


Awesome post, right on!


----------



## audiofan1

Hopinater said:


> The only problem with reviews (in basically any magazine) is that the products that usually get reviewed are made by companies that pay for advertising in said magazine. Thus there is a serious downside for the magazine if the review is negative and the company receiving the negative publicity decides to pull it's ads which really equates to pulling it's funding for the magazine. So I take any review found in an ad supported publication with a grain of salt.


Hop Kalman Rubinson , David Vaughn and Kris Deering at the end of the day, are enthusiast like you and I and post here regularly. I like to think they put in a days work honestly and with do diligence. We should be mindful of this before calling there work(or work place) less than credible without really knowing the ends and outs of the magazine business or what they do


----------



## blazar

Listen to star wars battlefront with atmos on a full system and any debate about immersive audio will be over.

Atmos IS better than anything else before it. 1st person video games are one of the best applications since the sound is rotating around the viewer while always being in the correct orientation (as opposed to varying camera viewpoints in movies).

The immersion in a proper system is well... Sweet


----------



## jjackkrash

Aras_Volodka said:


> It's drywall... I saved the cut outs  I forgot to label them though... except for one. So there is some type of material I can buy to fill in the gap where the cuts are? I was thinking I'd fill it, then paint over it in the hopes of making it look like nothing was ever there.
> 
> My only experience with filling stuff in was when I worked at a piano shop... sometimes if there was a big gouge in a piano's case I'd fill it with wood filler & use these coloring sticks to match the color of the veneer as much as possible... though it's very hard because wood grain is hard to replicate. It seems like a white drywall would be much easier?


Drywall is easy peasy to fix if its just a basic patch, texture, and paint job. Google and youtube are your friend, there are loads of videos showing the basics.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> Man, you are all over the place. I think your ego dominates your comments to the point that a friendly disagreement incurs your wrath. Everyone will not like Atmos. I'm one of them, and reported my findings to get feed back not persecution for not being in agreement. Like I said, the responses on this thread are too militant. It does not cost you anything to be nice.


Not Stoked, but.... I hope I am being 'nice' in my replies to you. You are missing the point. Nobody would disagree with you that you do not like Atmos and prefer something else. The disagreement comes from your _uninformed opinion_ that's all. 

One listen, at one unspecified 'high end' dealer, using a compromised setup, with no mention of the content you heard and your refusal to answer polite questions - all of that does not put you in a good position to judge Atmos unfortunately. There are many people in this thread who have listened to Atmos in Dolby's own SOTA theater and in their replica HT room (me included), who have listened to Atmos in several dealerships and who, most importantly, listen to Atmos every day in their own, properly setup (thanks to this thread) HT. It is likely that these people will know much more about Atmos than you do.

There is also the question of your motives in this thread. Since you have decided that Atmos is not for you, and since you are clearly not here to learn anything about Atmos, some of us wonder why you are here at all? It does smack of the T word if you don't mind my saying so.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> What does Dolby Atmos bring to the table? By most accounts, a bit more spaciousness to the sound and the occasionally, "Hey, that plane sounded like it flew directly over me!"
> 
> The 'above comment' which I borrowed from another site (Audtioholics.com), mirrors my Atmos experience, but I do not knock other folks who think otherwise.


The 'above comment' reveals a level of ignorance of object-based audio that is breathtaking. I suggest you take some time to read the Dolby white papers and some credible commentary and then come back afterwards and give us an *informed* view.

Your unquestioning faith in reviewers is astonishing.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> It may be I am a little older than the average poster on this thread. I have been through 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, pro logic, pro logic II, IIx, Dolby Digital, True DolbyHD, DTS, DTS-MA, you name it. Over the years, I have found the design of the processors power supply, analog section and D/A converter, does more for my sonic satisfaction than the spaciousness of a new codec like Atmos. It's there, but I don't care. Quality over quantity.


You believe they are mutually exclusive then? A Trinnov or a Datasat wouldn't be "high end" enough for you?


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Everything that I have read and understood about Dolby Atmos states that object based audio is put in a 3D space and is rendered according to the speaker configuration that you have...
> 
> This is what the technology is based off of and why it is so darn cool. Now, I have said over and over again I have no clue on how DSU does this when the audio was not mixes for Atmos but I can absolutely confirm that the same audio played with height vs tops sound different. How do I know this? I tested it with my own setup.
> 
> Why does the AVR ask where your speakers are located and what configuration you have if it didn't matter? It does. Front Height sounds different than Front Top. Makes total sense that it would...


There is no positional rendering in domestic AVRs and processors. Atmos is capable of it, but the manufacturers are not, currently, supporting it.


----------



## shyyour

Guys,

Please i need advice/confirmation about my atmos in-ceiling speaker placement. I plan to have 4 in-ceiling speakers (TF & TR) and would like to make sure that my placement is ideal before cutting holes in the ceiling.

I have attached pics of the room and proposed placements. 

Thanks in advance for all your help 

PS: Apologies for the grainy pictures.


----------



## aaranddeeman

shyyour said:


> Guys,
> 
> Please i need advice/confirmation about my atmos in-ceiling speaker placement. I plan to have 4 in-ceiling speakers (TF & TR) and would like to make sure that my placement is ideal before cutting holes in the ceiling.
> 
> I have attached pics of the room and proposed placements.
> 
> Thanks in advance for all your help
> 
> PS: Apologies for the grainy pictures.


Your first order of business is to get those surrounds to ear level.
For the placement of TF and TR, you can use the ATMOS calculator in my signature (hoping it is of help for your situation).
The question is only the spatial separation between each of the left and right height pairs. For that there is calculation, you need to follow the Dolby Guidelines.


----------



## shyyour

aaranddeeman said:


> Your first order of business is to get those surrounds to ear level.
> For the placement of TF and TR, you can use the ATMOS calculator in my signature (hoping it is of help for your situation).
> The question is only the spatial separation between each of the left and right height pairs. For that there is calculation, you need to follow the Dolby Guidelines.


Thanks. i have decided to bring the surrounds down. Initially i was avoiding putting them at ear level because of the speaker wires/trunking showing (WAF) . If i can get the speaker placement right i should have everything setup properly this weekend.


Thanks again, im sure i'll have more questions once im done.


----------



## Ricoflashback

shyyour said:


> Thanks. i have decided to bring the surrounds down. Initially i was avoiding putting them at ear level because of the speaker wires/trunking showing (WAF) . If i can get the speaker placement right i should have everything setup properly this weekend.
> 
> 
> Thanks again, im sure i'll have more questions once im done.


Your theater room is narrow, like mine. Trying to get the side surrounds at ear level will be a challenge. If you put them there, they will be too close to the listener on the couch (left position) - I mean, less than a foot from your ear. Plus - folks seated forward from your "L shaped" couch will not be able to hear the side surrounds hardly at all. You have those speakers angled down and for the room, that's probably the best location - IMHO. That's why I went with Dipoles, high up, to stop the localization effect in a 7.1 setup due to the narrowness of my room and the close position of my seating to the side wall. 

You can certainly have the rear back surrounds lowered and keep the other speakers as Atmos "Height" speakers.


----------



## shyyour

aaranddeeman said:


> Your first order of business is to get those surrounds to ear level.
> For the placement of TF and TR, you can use the ATMOS calculator in my signature (hoping it is of help for your situation).
> The question is only the spatial separation between each of the left and right height pairs. For that there is calculation, you need to follow the Dolby Guidelines.


 @aaranddeeman im back already 

Thanks the calculator will help immensely. Please can you explain what you mean by spatial separation?(apologies for the noob question).

I assumed that once i got the distance in front and behind MLP that i just had to align the in-ceiling speakers with the fronts as shown in the dolby atmos speaker placement guide. No ?


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Guys,
> 
> Please i need advice/confirmation about my atmos in-ceiling speaker placement. I plan to have 4 in-ceiling speakers (TF & TR) and would like to make sure that my placement is ideal before cutting holes in the ceiling.
> 
> I have attached pics of the room and proposed placements.
> 
> Thanks in advance for all your help
> 
> PS: Apologies for the grainy pictures.


As aaranddeeman says, the first thing you will have to do is to bring those surrounds and rear surrounds down to ear level or as close as you can. There is no point in proceeding with the ceiling speakers until you do that. Your locations for the Atmos speakers look OK but it is hard to tell from a photo if you are following the recommended Dolby angles. If you are, then you will be fine. Here is a chart showing the angles you need to be aiming for:


----------



## shyyour

Ricoflashback said:


> Your theater room is narrow, like mine. Trying to get the side surrounds at ear level will be a challenge. If you put them there, they will be too close to the listener on the couch (left position) - I mean, less than a foot from your ear. Plus - folks seated forward from your "L shaped" couch will not be able to hear the side surrounds hardly at all. You have those speakers angled down and for the room, that's probably the best location - IMHO. That's why I went with Dipoles, high up, to stop the localization effect in a 7.1 setup due to the narrowness of my room and the close position of my seating to the side wall.
> 
> You can certainly have the rear back surrounds lowered and keep the other speakers as Atmos "Height" speakers.


Thanks i have been racking my head trying to figure the best placement for them. My wife is really insistent on the L shaped couch. Ideally i would love to have two tower speakers on each side of the couch.

To be honest im not really worried about other seating arrangements . im more concerned about the MLP as i use it more often than anybody else. If i drop the surrounds a bit above ear height and angle them down. do you think that will work?

Thanks again


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Your theater room is narrow, like mine. Trying to get the side surrounds at ear level will be a challenge. If you put them there, they will be too close to the listener on the couch (left position) - I mean, less than a foot from your ear. Plus - folks seated forward from your "L shaped" couch will not be able to hear the side surrounds hardly at all. You have those speakers angled down and for the room, that's probably the best location - IMHO. That's why I went with Dipoles, high up, to stop the localization effect in a 7.1 setup due to the narrowness of my room and the close position of my seating to the side wall.
> 
> You can certainly have the rear back surrounds lowered and keep the other speakers as Atmos "Height" speakers.


It can be a problem with surrounds at ear level when one considers people on the end of the rows. I am in the same situation, and I am sure many are.

Nevertheless, he will not get a good Atmos effect if he leaves the surrounds where they are currently so some sort of compromise will need to be made (as is usually the case with HT design). What I did was:

a) switch to dual concentric design surrounds and rear surrounds (Tannoy Di6 DC) as these have phase cohesion right from the driver, so the close proximity to the listeners' ears at the ends of the rows is partially taken care of; 

b) I moved my side surrounds forward to about 80° from their previous 90° position - I would have moved them more forward still but there is a door in the way; 

c) I decided not to worry too much about the end of row seats since they are not used often, and to concentrate on the seat which is used all the time (mine at MLP).

In practice, I have sat in both end of row seats and still enjoyed the movie very much. While it is obviously less than ideal, it is still a darn good presentation for people in those two seats.


----------



## Stoked21

shyyour said:


> @aaranddeeman im back already
> 
> Thanks the calculator will help immensely. Please can you explain what you mean by spatial separation?(apologies for the noob question).
> 
> I assumed that once i got the distance in front and behind MLP that i just had to align the in-ceiling speakers with the fronts as shown in the dolby atmos speaker placement guide. No ?


Spacing the distance of your fronts generally works. You want a good distance between them for spacial separation. However not do much that you destroy the imaging between them. FYI I believe mine are about 11' apart but that's room specific. 

Look at the chart kbarnes sent you as it is the most helpful. You can get all fancy and shoot for specific angles to try to get the widest coverage for all seats and to avoid ceiling obstacles. Or you can locate them very simple. Shoot for 45 degrees to front and 45 degrees to back. Measure from your seated ear at mlp up to the ceiling. Measure that distance forward and backwards from the mlp. Those points represent the front and rear 45 degrees positions. Just space the speakers to the left and right of those points and you are done. 

Something to remember is that at the ideal 45 degrees, you need a speaker that has at least a 90 degrees dispersion or a tweeter that can be aimed, if dispersion is less than 90.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> @aaranddeeman im back already
> 
> Thanks the calculator will help immensely. Please can you explain what you mean by spatial separation?(apologies for the noob question).
> 
> I assumed that once i got the distance in front and behind MLP that i just had to align the in-ceiling speakers with the fronts as shown in the dolby atmos speaker placement guide. No ?


Distance is not as important as angles. Get the angles right and you will be OK. You need angular separation between the Atmos speakers and the rest, more than you need distance. That is why you need to lower the surrounds.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> As aaranddeeman says, the first thing you will have to do is to bring those surrounds and rear surrounds down to ear level or as close as you can. There is no point in proceeding with the ceiling speakers until you do that. Your locations for the Atmos speakers look OK but it is hard to tell from a photo if you are following the recommended Dolby angles. If you are, then you will be fine. Here is a chart showing the angles you need to be aiming for:


Thanks @kbarnes701 i eyeballed & used an app to get the angles as per dolby guidlines, what i wasnt sure was the distance behind and in front of the MLP. i had two options for the TF previously but with the calculator i downloaded from @aaranddeeman's signature im hoping i get just one location. 

Thanks a lot


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Thanks @kbarnes701 i eyeballed & used an app to get the angles as per dolby guidlines, what i wasnt sure was the distance behind and in front of the MLP. i had two options for the TF previously but with the calculator i downloaded from @aaranddeeman's signature im hoping i get just one location.
> 
> Thanks a lot


You’re welcome. Also, not *c)* in my reply above. This is very relevant advice IMO


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> Spacing the distance of your fronts generally works. You want a good distance between them for spacial separation. However not do much that you destroy the imaging between them. FYI I believe mine are about 11' apart but that's room specific.
> 
> Look at the chart kbarnes sent you as it is the most helpful. You can get all fancy and shoot for specific angles to try to get the widest coverage for all seats and to avoid ceiling obstacles. Or you can locate them very simple. Shoot for 45 degrees to front and 45 degrees to back. Measure from your seated ear at mlp up to the ceiling. Measure that distance forward and backwards from the mlp. Those points represent the front and rear 45 degrees positions. Just space the speakers to the left and right of those points and you are done.
> 
> Something to remember is that at the ideal 45 degrees, you need a speaker that has at least a 90 degrees dispersion or a tweeter that can be aimed, if dispersion is less than 90.


Thanks will definitely try that. Luckily my tweeters are amiable, im not sure if they have a 90 deg dispersion though. (Polk 620rt)


----------



## Ricoflashback

shyyour said:


> Thanks i have been racking my head trying to figure the best placement for them. My wife is really insistent on the L shaped couch. Ideally i would love to have two tower speakers on each side of the couch.
> 
> To be honest im not really worried about other seating arrangements . im more concerned about the MLP as i use it more often than anybody else. If i drop the surrounds a bit above ear height and angle them down. do you think that will work?
> 
> Thanks again


RE: If i drop the surrounds a bit above ear height and angle them down. do you think that will work? 

Response: The height would have to be level with the top of the window frame but it all honesty - - I'd leave them where there are and concentrate on the back rear surrounds where you have enough space to bring them down.

You have large speakers and a narrow room. If you had your side surrounds at ear level, they would extend over the couch on the left side of the MLP area. You could tilt your head to the left and rest it on the speaker itself! I do not think a couple of feet will make that much difference in the sound of the side surrounds. Aesthetically speaking - - they'd look weird, as well. Right now the room looks great and visual appealing. A VERY important factor as far as "Mama" (your wife) is considered.

RE; My wife is really insistent on the L shaped couch.

Response: I can understand that. Otherwise, it would be your room, totally! (Just kidding). You'd probably outfit it with two theater seats and a separate combination lock to gain access to the room. Then, you could have in wall, ceiling speakers for the side surrounds and it would work. But with the L shaped couch and the narrowness of the room - - it doesn't make sense, IMHO, to mess with your side surrounds for such a little return. You'd have to sit way to the right or in the middle to even make it work!

Besides, the L shaped couch is great when you lie down on it after a couple of Tequila's. Great for a nap, too!


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> You’re welcome. Also, not *c)* in my reply above. This is very relevant advice IMO


Thanks i will definitely do, im learning a lot here, (angles are more important than distances for atmos). @Stoked21 has suggested a simple way of getting the angles needed which i will try later today.

I already planned to bring down all the surround speakers this weekend when installing the in ceiling speakers. I figured i already spent the money to get everything might as well set it up right.

Where would you advice i place my surrounds based on my room width and with priority to the MLP?


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> Distance is not as important as angles. Get the angles right and you will be OK. You need angular separation between the Atmos speakers and the rest, more than you need distance. That is why you need to lower the surrounds.


Really good advice, IMHO. I'm looking for that Left, Center, Right, Side, Up, Down, Back & Front Dolby Atmos effect with the correct angles that work for my man cave.

Now, if I could just win one of the many Dolby Atmos receiver contests I've entered - - I'll be good to go. Otherwise, "Black Friday" here I come!


----------



## Stoked21

Nothing against rico's comment but those surrounds being up there are going to play hell with your Atmos speakers. It's so close to them and right between them. I understand form before function and I'm the king of it!!! Screw form follows function! If it doesn't look good then I don't care how it works. Not in this case though. Bring the surrounds down. 

As for where to place them that's s big debate. The diagram kbarnes sent you shows Dolby spec if 90-110 of mlp. SOME OF US like to run our surrounds a bit forward. Many complain about not having 9.1.4 to get wide surrounds too. I'm not starting that debate back up! I run my surrounds in the surround wide position which is considered a bit insane here (about 50 degrees to mlp but 100 degrees in spec to front row) 

I'd suggest playing with that left surround placing it in various spots on the back of the couch and find where YOU think it sounds best. It's going to fall in a shallow range of maybe 50-100 degrees from mlp. Many like the 70-80 range and some beat the Dolby bible spec and insist on 100-110. Just experiment before you mount it. This is the one speaker placement that seems to receive the most debate. No one ever questions locations for lcr or surround backs.


----------



## shyyour

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: If i drop the surrounds a bit above ear height and angle them down. do you think that will work?
> 
> Response: The height would have to be level with the top of the window frame but it all honesty - - I'd leave them where there are and concentrate on the back rear surrounds where you have enough space to bring them down.
> 
> You have large speakers and a narrow room. If you had your side surrounds at ear level, they would extend over the couch on the left side of the MLP area. You could tilt your head to the left and rest it on the speaker itself! I do not think a couple of feet will make that much difference in the sound of the side surrounds. Aesthetically speaking - - they'd look weird, as well. Right now the room looks great and visual appealing. A VERY important factor as far as "Mama" (your wife) is considered.
> 
> RE; My wife is really insistent on the L shaped couch.
> 
> Response: I can understand that. Otherwise, it would be your room, totally! (Just kidding). You'd probably outfit it with two theater seats and a separate combination lock to gain access to the room. Then, you could have in wall, ceiling speakers for the side surrounds and it would work. But with the L shaped couch and the narrowness of the room - - it doesn't make sense, IMHO, to mess with your side surrounds for such a little return. You'd have to sit way to the right or in the middle to even make it work!
> 
> Besides, the L shaped couch is great when you lie down on it after a couple of Tequila's. Great for a nap, too!



Lol  you're right, i lie down on the couch all the time, its quite comfy. I planned on making the changes and then facing her wrath . 

What if i placed the surrounds at halfway length of the window frame either 90 deg or slightly behind, that way no one's head will hit/touch the speakers. i mostly have the room to myself which is why im trying to get the best placement for me . 

Thanks again for your advice, its much appreciated.


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> Nothing against rico's comment but those surrounds being up there are going to play hell with your Atmos speakers. It's so close to them and right between them. I understand form before function and I'm the king of it!!! Screw form follows function! If it doesn't look good then I don't care how it works. Not in this case though. Bring the surrounds down.
> 
> As for where to place them that's s big debate. The diagram kbarnes sent you shows Dolby spec if 90-110 of mlp. SOME OF US like to run our surrounds a bit forward. Many complain about not having 9.1.4 to get wide surrounds too. I'm not starting that debate back up! I run my surrounds in the surround wide position which is considered a bit insane here (about 50 degrees to mlp but 100 degrees in spec to front row)
> 
> I'd suggest playing with that left surround placing it in various spots on the back of the couch and find where YOU think it sounds best. It's going to fall in a shallow range of maybe 50-100 degrees from mlp. Many like the 70-80 range and some beat the Dolby bible spec and insist on 100-110. Just experiment before you mount it. This is the one speaker placement that seems to receive the most debate. No one ever questions locations for lcr or surround backs.


Thanks again will test before i mount. Do i have to run audyssey every time i change the surround locations for the test?


----------



## gbaby

kbarnes701 said:


> There is also the question of your motives in this thread.


None whatsoever. :kiss:


----------



## Ricoflashback

shyyour said:


> Lol  you're right, i lie down on the couch all the time, its quite comfy. I planned on making the changes and then facing her wrath .
> 
> What if i placed the surrounds at halfway length of the window frame either 90 deg or slightly behind, that way no one's head will hit/touch the speakers. i mostly have the room to myself which is why im trying to get the best placement for me .
> 
> Thanks again for your advice, its much appreciated.


Your very welcome and you'll find many posters here who are willing to share their experiences and help you.

I believe you have a 7.1 setup with side surrounds? If I'm incorrect, please let me know. 

For a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 configuration, I'd lower (or add two more speakers - floor stands) for the rear back surrounds. For Atmos, I'd keep the rear speakers as mounted and make them "Rear Height" Dolby Atmos speakers. You could complement them with a "Front Height" setup. I'm not sure if you could go with a "Top Front," "Rear Height" configuration - - that would definitely be cool but many folks say they can't tell that much difference between "Top" and "Height" speakers. I'll let those folks comment.

I always look at the room, first, and then try to figure out the angles ALONG with the aesthetics as I believe there is a balance here that can work best. Again, I just wouldn't lower the side surrounds and I'd keep them as is, regular speakers, in a 7.1 setup (side surrounds) and designate four "Height" speakers for your Dolby Atmos implementation. 

I do not believe you will get that much benefit out of moving your side surrounds down and installing ceiling speakers compared to this option. Plus - - it's a lot less work and will look better. Remember - there is nothing beyond a .4 Dolby speaker setup that I know of right now. (4 Dolby Atmos ceiling or height speakers. Or enabled, but that's not something you need to look at here.) 

You could always add four more ceiling speakers for a 7.1.8 configuration in 2018 (estimated...)

Form over function? Only when the latter compromises or totally alters the outlook of your room, which by the way, is very nice looking. Is that travertine tile on the floor? It looks great! Are you in a cold or warm environment? Main floor or basement? I imagine the acoustics bouncing off the floor will provide a cacophony of sound. 

Enjoy your journey to Dolby Atmos!


----------



## Stoked21

@shyyour

Hold the saw! Rico makes a great point about using your current surround backs as RH. You could potentially just add 1 pair IC for TM or try to complement with FH up by your screen. With either option add floor standers in the back for surround back. I hadn't even thought of that since you were proposing 4 ICs. It could be the picture, but your room looks pretty long. It may be very problematic to keep the angles in spec for FH and RH. RH looks okay if I had to guess but FH may be more difficult. A shallower angle than spec destroys the sense of height hence why I think maybe even TM+RH could be a great option for you.

I personally ran RH for a little bit and really did not feel I gained much out of it. I know others have had excellent results but to me top speakers were a drastic improvement. I thought TM worked great but I still went TF+TR. TM is in the spec, so it will exist at some point with an x.x.6 configuration from dolby. The question is just when.

If you went FH+RH, you could potentially leave your surrounds where they are. I've never tried so I don't want to say so definitively. But if you go with RH+TM then your surrounds are going to be right on top of you TM and that's baaaaddd.... If you went TF+TR, I would still move those surrounds. You are just collapsing all of your drivers into the same plane and compressing the sound stage/immersion factor if you don't. Maybe it won't sound bad, but it would be like driving your car on a spare tire....functional but far from ideal and very performance limiting. Rico and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Many others are going to concur with that and you are going to find very few who support leaving them that high up


----------



## pasender91

shyyour said:


> Thanks again will test before i mount. Do i have to run audyssey every time i change the surround locations for the test?


Yes you need to run Audissey every time you change the speaker location, as it has a huge impact on its effects.

Regarding surround speaker placement, in line with several people, i would lower all of them, but no need to be strictly at ear level, a slight vertical angle of 10 to 20° is still acceptable, so for example you could line up the tweeters with the height of your interruptors, it would be about right. Also, keep the surrounds at +-90° horizontal angle, don't listen too much to Stoked21 and his clan 

Regarding ceiling speakers, 45° angle is a simple procedure, measure distance from head to ceiling, let's call it D, and then position the speakers at +D and -D relative to your MLP.
If your speakers do not have very wide dispersion, you can reduce D by about 10%, this will get you to around 40° instead of 45°, making the job of the speakers easier.
On lateral placement, its hard to judge from the photos, but still i believe they should a be a bit more inside the room than what you're proposing.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: Side Surrounds (moving them down) "Rico and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Many others are going to concur with that and you are going to find very few who support leaving them that high up."

Trump card - da wife....

Wait till she sees those side surrounds lowered so close to the couch. I can just see her now....she'll sit right under/next to them and say, "Honey, look, it's going to fall on me! I can't get up! (Without hitting my head.)

"What did you do to this beautiful room?!!"


----------



## Stoked21

pasender91 said:


> Regarding surround speaker placement, in line with several people, i would lower all of them, but no need to be strictly at ear level, a slight vertical angle of 10 to 20° is still acceptable, so for example you could line up the tweeters with the height of your interruptors, it would be about right. Also, keep the surrounds at +-90° horizontal angle, don't listen too much to Stoked21 and his clan


Ha ha. Yeah, it's definitely not for everyone and doesn't work in every room. Especially my radical departure from spec! I'm betting 70-90 works out great there though!

For his room, it may work to go with 100-110 and that way they're behind the back 90 degree corner of the couch and toed in. Keeps it from hanging over the couch and would look a lot better. That's probably what I would do if that were my room.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: Side Surrounds (moving them down) "Rico and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Many others are going to concur with that and you are going to find very few who support leaving them that high up."
> 
> Trump card - da wife....
> 
> Wait till she sees those side surrounds lowered so close to the couch. I can just see her now....she'll sit right under/next to them and say, "Honey, look, it's going to fall on me! I can't get up! (Without hitting my head.)
> 
> "What did you do to this beautiful room?!!"


Touche! And yep, I've heard those kinds of plays before!!


----------



## rontalley

Charles R said:


> I searched several times before I upgraded to Atmos and the answers were virtually identical (for those who tested). They couldn't hear much (any?) difference between the Height and Top settings. I have tried several times and haven't heard a noticeable difference (which isn't surprising since there are many steps involved in switching such as running Audyssey). I agree it makes total sense... I just don't understand why the related details are never linked.
> 
> How exactly did you test it?.. what material, etc.


I was bouncing back and forth between DSU and DSP selecting Height and Ceiling sometimes running YPAO, sometimes not, playing the same test files that I have been playing since I got the AVR and actually before. I am pretty familiar with the test files and I know how they should sound. Maybe I should pull out one of my mics with an omni pattern and capture what I am hearing. The wave patterns should show a difference if there is one. We all know that our minds can play tricks on us and I do remember a very different experience with Yamaha DSP concerning rather or not you selected height or ceiling and maybe, just maybe I am getting that confused with DSU and/or Atmos... 

But I will say that, I honestly believe that with Atmos and DSU depending on if I had ceiling or height selected and running YPAO, the same speaker sounded different. Maybe the material was the same but the way it was processed was different...



kbarnes701 said:


> There is no positional rendering in domestic AVRs and processors. Atmos is capable of it, but the manufacturers are not, currently, supporting it.


So, if I am understanding you correctly, If I tell the Yamaha 3050 that I have Front and Rear Presence speakers vs Ceiling Speakers, then it really doesn't matter because the option is bogus? I am not challeging here, just want to be sure. I do not want to be that person who can't accept the facts. Just going by what they claim and what I thought I heard.


----------



## rontalley

Carrick said:


> Wait for the Oculus Rift VR glasses to be incorporated into movies and then you will truly be amazed.
> 
> https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/


You can watch movies, including 3D, in the DK2 now. Talk about a big ass screen! Resolution is not there but I enjoy gaming with 7.1 surround headphones and a bass shaker! Elite Dangerous in Atmos would be BANANAS!!!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It can be a problem with surrounds at ear level when one considers people on the end of the rows.


Dolby's recommendations shouldn't be followed blindly. It's not unreasonable to apply some common sense to speaker placement. For example: if lowering surrounds to ear level can be a problem for listeners at the end of the row, then don't lower those speakers to ear level. Instead, raise them high enough that they're firing over the heads of the listeners at the end of the row. They still won't be anywhere near the ceiling, so the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you will remain distinct.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Call me simple minded, but I didn't do any angles or measurements etc when going Atmos. I looked at the Dolby example, looked at my ceiling joist, where my seats were gonna be and said, "Right about there should do it" and drilled the hole. If you have a good dispersion patterned speaker, just mount em and watch some movies.


----------



## shyyour

Ricoflashback said:


> Your very welcome and you'll find many posters here who are willing to share their experiences and help you.
> 
> I believe you have a 7.1 setup with side surrounds? If I'm incorrect, please let me know.
> 
> For a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 configuration, I'd lower (or add two more speakers - floor stands) for the rear back surrounds. For Atmos, I'd keep the rear speakers as mounted and make them "Rear Height" Dolby Atmos speakers. You could complement them with a "Front Height" setup. I'm not sure if you could go with a "Top Front," "Rear Height" configuration - - that would definitely be cool but many folks say they can't tell that much difference between "Top" and "Height" speakers. I'll let those folks comment.
> 
> I always look at the room, first, and then try to figure out the angles ALONG with the aesthetics as I believe there is a balance here that can work best. Again, I just wouldn't lower the side surrounds and I'd keep them as is, regular speakers, in a 7.1 setup (side surrounds) and designate four "Height" speakers for your Dolby Atmos implementation.
> 
> I do not believe you will get that much benefit out of moving your side surrounds down and installing ceiling speakers compared to this option. Plus - - it's a lot less work and will look better. Remember - there is nothing beyond a .4 Dolby speaker setup that I know of right now. (4 Dolby Atmos ceiling or height speakers. Or enabled, but that's not something you need to look at here.)
> 
> You could always add four more ceiling speakers for a 7.1.8 configuration in 2018 (estimated...)
> 
> Form over function? Only when the latter compromises or totally alters the outlook of your room, which by the way, is very nice looking. Is that travertine tile on the floor? It looks great! Are you in a cold or warm environment? Main floor or basement? I imagine the acoustics bouncing off the floor will provide a cacophony of sound.
> 
> Enjoy your journey to Dolby Atmos!


Thanks Rico for all your advice. Yeap my current setup is supposed to be 7.1 (side surrounds). i'll try as many options as i can and stick to the one that sounds as best to me. I am hoping that early next year (by march) i'll have enough funds to get the LSIM705's and i'll move my current towers to the side (ill relocate the current couch in that position).

I'm not sure if it is a traverine tile, we went to the showroom and i really liked it so we got it . I'm in Lagos, Nigeria the weather is warm all year round (lowest is about 22 deg centigrade). I've read that sound bounces of hardwood floors and tiles, i plan to get a rug but i don't know how it'll fit since it has to be in front of the speakers (or so i've read). It's too expensive to do the whole room since i'm not sure whether i'll get the benefit. To be honest it currently sounds wonderful (i'm guessing its because i haven't heard a properly setup system). I'll be in Dubai upper week and hope to find some stores i can demo atmos and some nice floor standing speakers. I also plan to do the same when im in the states next year.

Thanks again Rico


----------



## RMK!

wse said:


> *Dolby and VUDU Launch the Future Home Theater Experience with Immersive Sound and Advanced Imaging.*
> 
> *Consumers can now watch Warner Bros . titles mastered in Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision *
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO --(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Please replace the infographic with the accompanying corrected infographic.
> This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151117006135/en/
> Click here for release.


Yes, I was VUDU streaming a movie the other night and surprise!, it was ATMOS format.  

Regarding this whole speaker matching discussion. I have been using unmatched ATMOS speakers and they sound fine when playing in concert with my base channel layer speakers for most movies. I did not like using the ATMOS channels (DSU or ATMOS format) for music so I decided to A/B test the speakers and the result of that test was that the differences in timbre (sound quality) was definitely audible. 

This knowledge compelled me to upgrade my ATMOS speakers to speakers that are more timbre matched with my base channel speakers. I think small satellites will make sound and produce a satisfying ATMOS experience for most movie sound tracks (think back to the first time you heard surround sound). 

If you are content with your current setup, I suggest that to do not perform the A/B listening test that I did as you will be left wondering how much better 3D audio would sound with better matched base channel/ATMOS speakers.


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> @shyyour
> 
> Hold the saw! Rico makes a great point about using your current surround backs as RH. You could potentially just add 1 pair IC for TM or try to complement with FH up by your screen. With either option add floor standers in the back for surround back. I hadn't even thought of that since you were proposing 4 ICs. It could be the picture, but your room looks pretty long. It may be very problematic to keep the angles in spec for FH and RH. RH looks okay if I had to guess but FH may be more difficult. A shallower angle than spec destroys the sense of height hence why I think maybe even TM+RH could be a great option for you.
> 
> I personally ran RH for a little bit and really did not feel I gained much out of it. I know others have had excellent results but to me top speakers were a drastic improvement. I thought TM worked great but I still went TF+TR. TM is in the spec, so it will exist at some point with an x.x.6 configuration from dolby. The question is just when.
> 
> If you went FH+RH, you could potentially leave your surrounds where they are. I've never tried so I don't want to say so definitively. But if you go with RH+TM then your surrounds are going to be right on top of you TM and that's baaaaddd.... If you went TF+TR, I would still move those surrounds. You are just collapsing all of your drivers into the same plane and compressing the sound stage/immersion factor if you don't. Maybe it won't sound bad, but it would be like driving your car on a spare tire....functional but far from ideal and very performance limiting. Rico and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Many others are going to concur with that and you are going to find very few who support leaving them that high up


I've to import all my speakers and equipment as i cant get it locally so i already have the 4 IC speakers. i'll play around with the placement and pick what sounds best. i am definitely bringing the rear surrounds down. i dont know much about heights, but ill research and test them out. Thanks


----------



## Stoked21

RMK! said:


> Yes, I was VUDU streaming a movie the other night and surprise!, it was ATMOS format.


What device were you streaming from? Roku, BD player, etc? Also if it was Roku I'm assuming it was UHD and not HDX version from Vudu? Which title specifically?

I stream a lot from Vudu, but I can only purchase HDX option from them as I don't run a Roku 4 for UHD. I don't even see the UHD atmos option anymore. I saw it several weeks ago but they disabled it in the app on both of my TVs and both of my BD Players.


----------



## shyyour

pasender91 said:


> Yes you need to run Audissey every time you change the speaker location, as it has a huge impact on its effects.
> 
> Regarding surround speaker placement, in line with several people, i would lower all of them, but no need to be strictly at ear level, a slight vertical angle of 10 to 20° is still acceptable, so for example you could line up the tweeters with the height of your interruptors, it would be about right. Also, keep the surrounds at +-90° horizontal angle, don't listen too much to Stoked21 and his clan
> 
> Regarding ceiling speakers, 45° angle is a simple procedure, measure distance from head to ceiling, let's call it D, and then position the speakers at +D and -D relative to your MLP.
> If your speakers do not have very wide dispersion, you can reduce D by about 10%, this will get you to around 40° instead of 45°, making the job of the speakers easier.
> On lateral placement, its hard to judge from the photos, but still i believe they should a be a bit more inside the room than what you're proposing.



Thanks pasender91 but pls can you explain +D and -D a little. Say D is 60cm (from my head to the ceiling) so +D will be ?


----------



## NeO_Sk8eR

*battlefront*



blazar said:


> Listen to star wars battlefront with atmos on a full system and any debate about immersive audio will be over.
> 
> Atmos IS better than anything else before it. 1st person video games are one of the best applications since the sound is rotating around the viewer while always being in the correct orientation (as opposed to varying camera viewpoints in movies).
> 
> The immersion in a proper system is well... Sweet


How did you get Atmos working in battlefront?
It's completely greyed out and someone who reported it was told its not yet activated and being fixed in an upcoming patch


----------



## Stoked21

shyyour said:


> Thanks pasender91 but pls can you explain +D and -D a little. Say D is 60cm (from my head to the ceiling) so +D will be ?


60cm (+D) in front of your head for TF. 60 cm (-D) behind your head for TR is what he's saying. Of course spaced to the left and right of that mark for TFL and TFR, as well as TRL and TRR.


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> 60cm (+D) in front of your head for TF. 60 cm (-D) behind your head for TR is what he's saying. Of course spaced to the left and right of that mark for TFL and TFR, as well as TRL and TRR.


Ah i get it now . Thanks again


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Yep, once you hear a seamless system you cannot un-hear it. For this reason, I am trying to find a solution for replacing my ceiling speakers.


Ditto....I've not heard a 100% matched system but I know I want one regardless. 

Chris, I am curious what your plans are to fit monster horns with 15" drivers on your ceiling though?


----------



## shyyour

I'm so excited to setup everything this weekend. It took about a month or so from ordering online to actually receiving all the items (atmos pre/pro, amps and iC speakers) in Lagos. I've been reading on here everyday how atmos and DSU sounds and i cant wait to be immersed. I wont have the luxury of returning anything, which is why i want to get the placement right as best as my room will allow. 

Thanks everyone for all your advice and tips


----------



## Ricoflashback

Height speakers or Ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos? How close to the MLP? It depends..... 

I've learned a tremendous amount of information on this thread. Much thanks to all the posters on this forum. As far as Dolby Atmos setup goes (speaker wise) - angles seem to be more important than exact location (within reason). And of course - - your room limitations. 

In my case, ceiling speakers are not an option (older house) and I also have a very low ceiling - - which turns a ceiling speaker right on top of you. Now for higher ceilings, I could definitely see Top Dolby Atmos speakers all around. 

When I initially setup my 7.1 man cave, I quickly noticed that my side surrounds were too close to the MLP. They were way too directional - - a ping-ponging of sound that I couldn't help because of my low ceiling and narrow room. I switched from direct firing speakers to Paradigm Dipoles (ADP 590's). It has worked out very well. 

For Dolby Atmos, I'll deploy Front Height (currently used in a 9.1 configuration) and Rear Height speakers for a 7.1.4 Atmos setup. By the time x.x.6 roles around - - maybe there will be a better solution for a middle Atmos speaker. I think this is the best I can do for my theater room. 9.1 sounds fantastic with a 7.1 soundtrack. I'm sure Dolby will sound even better.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> Chris, I am curious what your plans are to fit monster horns with 15" drivers on your ceiling though?


I am not sure. I am fairly positive it will end up in ******* fashion like some of my Southern brethren's projects


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I know this isn't atmos related exactly, but I know someone here will have the answer this this question. 

Last night I heard some type of static/ crackling come out of one of my rear ceiling speakers. It happened several times but very briefly, & otherwise the speakers play perfectly fine.

I'm curious if it's something to be concerned about... perhaps even a safety issue? 

The reason why I ask is because when I was installing the speaker wire, there was fiberglass & drywall dust all over the place, some particles got in the wire... I'm wondering if it's possible that speaker wire can ignite / create an electrical fire or blow out the speaker? (I'm guessing there is a reason why speaker wire going into walls should have protective coating?)

Before placing my speakers in the ceiling, I did place giant plastic bags above the speaker to ensure nothing would get on the speakers internal parts, so I don't think it has anything to do with the speaker itself. 

Another theory is that I bundled all the speaker wires together with zip ties coming from the rear half of my HT... so I'm wondering if it might be interference? 

Otherwise I'm stumped... I never heard the static sound at my other place. I also hadn't heard it the day before when I tested out the speakers.


----------



## RMK!

Stoked21 said:


> What device were you streaming from? Roku, BD player, etc? Also if it was Roku I'm assuming it was UHD and not HDX version from Vudu? Which title specifically?
> 
> I stream a lot from Vudu, but I can only purchase HDX option from them as I don't run a Roku 4 for UHD. I don't even see the UHD atmos option anymore. I saw it several weeks ago but they disabled it in the app on both of my TVs and both of my BD Players.


I use the OPPO BDP-103D for content streaming. My only other source (HTPC) is HDMI to the OPPO and then one HDMI input to my SSP. Much to my surprise, my SSP showed it was using an ATMOS source. It was "The Man from U.N.C.L.E" but there are several others that are available.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> I am not sure. I am fairly positive it will end up in ******* fashion like some of my Southern brethren's projects



P.S. - Please, please, PLEASE !!! - - Make sure to post pictures of this installation. The Dolby Atmos world awaits your adventure. 

(You might want to read up on the "How To Repair Drywall" posts earlier in this thread.)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

blazar said:


> Listen to star wars battlefront with atmos on a full system and any debate about immersive audio will be over.
> 
> Atmos IS better than anything else before it. 1st person video games are one of the best applications since the sound is rotating around the viewer while always being in the correct orientation (as opposed to varying camera viewpoints in movies).
> 
> The immersion in a proper system is well... Sweet


I have Battlefront but I haven't hooked my PC up to the Atmos system... is an HDMI all it would take to get Atmos for battlefront? 



jjackkrash said:


> Drywall is easy peasy to fix if its just a basic patch, texture, and paint job. Google and youtube are your friend, there are loads of videos showing the basics.


TY



grendelrt said:


> So anyone playing Battlefront on PC? Curious how well gaming translates over.


I like the game, it's the most beautiful graphics I've ever seen on a PC game. Playing on a PC is no doubt the optimum experience vs. console (assuming your system is up to snuff). 
My processor is 4 years old now, but the game runs great. 

My only gripe is the price... you basically only have 4 planets to play on, so it gets repetitive once you go through all 4. for an extra 50 bucks they will gradually add some 12 more... but I think that's a rip off. 

The audio is amazing, even just on stereo... I could only imagine how it will sound on Atmos. 



Spanglo said:


> One avs user reported an issue with the game... no atmos yet.
> 
> On the PS4, sounds great with DSU. That game has top notch audio and video.


I concur... I need to hook the receiver up to my PC (haha. )



gene4ht said:


> Just need to buy some drywall joint tape ($4-$5), pre-mixed joint compound ($3-$4), plastic tape knife set ($3), and drywall screws from Home Depot/Lowes...not too difficult to do with a little practice...plenty of "How To Repair Drywall" on YouTube...here's an example.
> 
> Good Luck! Now back to our regularly scheduled Atmos programming.


TY for the advice


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> Call me simple minded, but I didn't do any angles or measurements etc when going Atmos. I looked at the Dolby example, looked at my ceiling joist, where my seats were gonna be and said, "Right about there should do it" and drilled the hole. If you have a good dispersion patterned speaker, just mount em and watch some movies.


Not simple minded....rather common sense. I too, reviewed the Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines to get a sense of things. Rather than getting a protractor out, it became obvious that other elements came into play...room size/configuration, ceiling height/angles, seating arrangements, etc. It ultimately comes down to adaptation to/for your environment and utilizing common sense and a little experimentation.


----------



## Stoked21

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know this isn't atmos related exactly, but I know someone here will have the answer this this question.
> 
> Last night I heard some type of static/ crackling come out of one of my rear ceiling speakers. It happened several times but very briefly, & otherwise the speakers play perfectly fine.
> 
> I'm curious if it's something to be concerned about... perhaps even a safety issue?
> 
> The reason why I ask is because when I was installing the speaker wire, there was fiberglass & drywall dust all over the place, some particles got in the wire... I'm wondering if it's possible that speaker wire can ignite / create an electrical fire or blow out the speaker? (I'm guessing there is a reason why speaker wire going into walls should have protective coating?)
> 
> Before placing my speakers in the ceiling, I did place giant plastic bags above the speaker to ensure nothing would get on the speakers internal parts, so I don't think it has anything to do with the speaker itself.
> 
> Another theory is that I bundled all the speaker wires together with zip ties coming from the rear half of my HT... so I'm wondering if it might be interference?
> 
> Otherwise I'm stumped... I never heard the static sound at my other place. I also hadn't heard it the day before when I tested out the speakers.




So, I never ran CL in-wall rated wire for all my numerous (20 or so) long runs of speaker cable. Not the smartest idea, but it's so unlikely for a speaker wire to melt unless there's a much bigger problem. It's more likely that the house will catch fire from something else and then the insulation on the speaker wire will ignite and act as a fuse/kindling to spread the fire more quickly throughout the house. When I installed my ICs, the instructions very clearly stated to make sure NOTHING touched the back of them or was near them. It said the speakers could get hot and ignite anything touching them. I find that unlikely, but still....Plastic bag around them seems iffy.


----------



## NeO_Sk8eR

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have Battlefront but I haven't hooked my PC up to the Atmos system... is an HDMI all it would take to get Atmos for battlefront?
> 
> 
> 
> TY
> 
> 
> 
> I like the game, it's the most beautiful graphics I've ever seen on a PC game. Playing on a PC is no doubt the optimum experience vs. console (assuming your system is up to snuff).
> My processor is 4 years old now, but the game runs great.
> 
> My only gripe is the price... you basically only have 4 planets to play on, so it gets repetitive once you go through all 4. for an extra 50 bucks they will gradually add some 12 more... but I think that's a rip off.
> 
> The audio is amazing, even just on stereo... I could only imagine how it will sound on Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> I concur... I need to hook the receiver up to my PC (haha. )
> 
> 
> 
> TY for the advice


Unfortunately battlefront doesnt support Atmos just yet.
Few of us in the support forums complaining. The option is there its just greyed out.
Been raised with Nvidia, AMD and EA.
Ea have told one person its not yet enabled and will need to be patched in


----------



## NeO_Sk8eR

Aras_Volodka said:


> I have Battlefront but I haven't hooked my PC up to the Atmos system... is an HDMI all it would take to get Atmos for battlefront?


Unfortunately battlefront doesnt support Atmos just yet.
Few of us in the support forums complaining. The option is there its just greyed out.
Been raised with Nvidia, AMD and EA.
Ea have told one person its not yet enabled and will need to be patched in


----------



## Stoked21

gene4ht said:


> Not simple minded....rather common sense. I too, reviewed the Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines to get a sense of things. Rather than getting a protractor out, it became obvious that other elements came into play...room size/configuration, ceiling height/angles, seating arrangements, etc. It ultimately comes down to adaptation to/for your environment and utilizing common sense and a little experimentation.


I come across as a big laser measure, protractor guy as an MSEE. Truth be told I measured mine out with a tape measure and figured out a few best locations for ease of mounting and 2-row coverage. I then hung them around in several spots to listen to them and I let my ears decide. Afterwards, I broke out the measuring tools to see where they were at and found out they were in dolby spec. They're on the outer edges of the spec though. (31° for TF). Anyway, when I switch over to my high-end permanent speakers, I will be more thorough and likely pull them in a bit left to right. It doesn't hurt to be thorough and measure it out, but I think my "Luke, use your ears" solution was the best way to locate them.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Yep, once you hear a seamless system you cannot un-hear it. For this reason, I am trying to find a solution for replacing my ceiling speakers.


Reasonable choices that will perform as well as the 4722's.



Scott Simonian said:


> DIY single 15"???
> 
> This: http://www.pispeakers.com/Measurements/fourPi.html
> 
> or
> 
> This:http://www.diysoundgroup.com/waveguide-speaker-kits/fusion-15.html
> 
> 
> You're welcome.


----------



## cdy2179

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know this isn't atmos related exactly, but I know someone here will have the answer this this question.
> 
> Last night I heard some type of static/ crackling come out of one of my rear ceiling speakers. It happened several times but very briefly, & otherwise the speakers play perfectly fine.
> 
> I'm curious if it's something to be concerned about... perhaps even a safety issue?
> 
> The reason why I ask is because when I was installing the speaker wire, there was fiberglass & drywall dust all over the place, some particles got in the wire... I'm wondering if it's possible that speaker wire can ignite / create an electrical fire or blow out the speaker? (I'm guessing there is a reason why speaker wire going into walls should have protective coating?)
> 
> Before placing my speakers in the ceiling, I did place giant plastic bags above the speaker to ensure nothing would get on the speakers internal parts, so I don't think it has anything to do with the speaker itself.
> 
> Another theory is that I bundled all the speaker wires together with zip ties coming from the rear half of my HT... so I'm wondering if it might be interference?
> 
> Otherwise I'm stumped... I never heard the static sound at my other place. I also hadn't heard it the day before when I tested out the speakers.



I had this same problem with a rear channel speaker. It was in the AVR on that amp channel. I tested it out by using a separate amp and running it that way, crackling was gone and never returned... all fingers point to the AVR having an amp issue for that channel. Of course mine was a crackling static sound that was intermittent but did it a lot... every few seconds you'd hear it with a few seconds of no issue. Try it and see if it goes away.. or maybe hook another speaker on another cable and if it still does it on that speaker too it's probably the avr and a bad channel.

And yes, you can bundle your wires together, just don't coil them up.. you can basically produce an inductor. Monster cables have been caught doing this to competitor wires in A/B displays so they'd sound better.


----------



## dkwong

NeO_Sk8eR said:


> Unfortunately battlefront doesnt support Atmos just yet.
> Few of us in the support forums complaining. The option is there its just greyed out.
> Been raised with Nvidia, AMD and EA.
> Ea have told one person its not yet enabled and will need to be patched in


On Xbox One with DSU, the game sounds fantastic.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Dolby's recommendations shouldn't be followed blindly. It's not unreasonable to apply some common sense to speaker placement. For example: if lowering surrounds to ear level can be a problem for listeners at the end of the row, then don't lower those speakers to ear level. Instead, raise them high enough that they're firing over the heads of the listeners at the end of the row. They still won't be anywhere near the ceiling, so the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you will remain distinct.


I would also toss in that if you can't put them ear level (as I can't), placing the overheads further toward the middle of the room helps separate the height layer from the surrounds. In my room, the distances from left surround to left top mid to right top mid to right surround are all roughly the same... and that helps mitigate the limitations I have that keep me from lowering my side surrounds more. May not be per Dolby spec, but it seemed logical to me and works pretty well. I think we all agree that if you can't go strictly by the spec, a little common sense goes a long way.


----------



## kingwiggi

Just received a survey from Dolby

"At CEDIA 2015, we introduced a new Dolby Atmos® demonstration disc. This new demo disc contains 32 different clips, including a mix of movies & TV, Dolby trailers, music videos, audio clips, sports, video games and test tones."

On completion of the survey you get a copy of the New Atmos Demo disc mailed

Probably emailed to anyone that attended CEDIA this year


----------



## easystar

Wow what a wealth of information this is! I wish I had read this thread before installing my 4 in-ceilings. I did the eyeball method and wound up installing my in-ceilings at 25 degrees, outside of Dolby spec. Didn't choose that angle on purpose, that's just what I ended up. Basically I screwed up because I have a huge hole in the sound bubble right above me at MLP. My speakers are GoldenEar HTR 7000, both the driver and the tweeter are non-adjustably angled at 30 degrees and I toe them in to the MLP. Ceiling is only 7 feet and both pairs of top speakers are 14 feet apart (between TFL & TFR, and TRL & TRR). My plan now is to re-install at 30 degrees, right at the edge of Dolby's recommendation. It seems the consensus is 45 degrees but I'm trying to account for the angle in the speakers, Dolby's recs seem to apply only for downward firing speakers. Anyone have experience with angled ceiling speakers? How much do you need to account for it? Or am I overthinking this? I don't want to screw up again!

Any advice is appreciated!

Thanks,

Nick


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Thanks i will definitely do, im learning a lot here, (angles are more important than distances for atmos). @Stoked21 has suggested a simple way of getting the angles needed which i will try later today.
> 
> I already planned to bring down all the surround speakers this weekend when installing the in ceiling speakers. I figured i already spent the money to get everything might as well set it up right.
> 
> Where would you advice i place my surrounds based on my room width and with priority to the MLP?


Just lower them as much as is practical, bearing in mind every seat needs as clear a line of sight to them as possible. You probably won't get them to ear level (other listeners, chairs etc get in the way usually) but get as much angular separation from the overheads as you can manage.


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> I come across as a big laser measure, protractor guy as an MSEE. Truth be told I measured mine out with a tape measure and figured out a few best locations for ease of mounting and 2-row coverage. I then hung them around in several spots to listen to them and I let my ears decide. Afterwards, I broke out the measuring tools to see where they were at and found out they were in dolby spec. They're on the outer edges of the spec though. (31° for TF). Anyway, when I switch over to my high-end permanent speakers, I will be more thorough and likely pull them in a bit left to right. * It doesn't hurt to be thorough and measure it out, but I think my "Luke, use your ears" solution was the best way to locate them*.


Truth be told, my background is also technical...and I do have a laser measuring tool...but didn't use it. Like, Molon_Labe, the Dolby recommendations got me into the general ballpark then I let Luke show me the rest of the way. As I mentioned, environmental constraints for most people will require some adaptation and experimentation. Agreed that in the end, achieving the best results for a particular environment requires some initial knowledge and then good judgement.

BTW: Like yourself, I will eventually replace my entry level IC speakers as well and would be interested in your decision process as we move forward...thx!


----------



## stikle

gene4ht said:


> I too, reviewed the Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines to get a sense of things. Rather than getting a protractor out, it became obvious that other elements came into play...room size/configuration, ceiling height/angles, seating arrangements, etc. It ultimately comes down to adaptation to/for your environment and utilizing common sense and a little experimentation.



Yep, every room is different. I used a protractor app and a laser pointer from MLP to figure out about where they needed to be within spec. Then I used a stud finder to find the closest ceiling joists to screw into through the sheetrock as my on-ceiling speakers are more heavy than I was comfortable hanging from just sheetrock. I lucked out and both TF & TR joists were within spec, and there we go...fabulousity. I lowered my surrounds another foot for more separation, and all is glorious now.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would also toss in that if you can't put them ear level (as I can't), placing the overheads further toward the middle of the room helps separate the height layer from the surrounds.


Home theatre designer Tony Grimani does the same, using elevated surrounds and placing the overheads a little closer together than the home Atmos guide recommends. 

Another approach is to use angular separation, like placing the front overheads in the gap between the fronts & sides and placing the rear overheads in the gap between the sides & rears. So even if the surrounds have to be raised high up, they won't be near the overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> So, if I am understanding you correctly, If I tell the Yamaha 3050 that I have Front and Rear Presence speakers vs Ceiling Speakers, then it really doesn't matter because the option is bogus? I am not challeging here, just want to be sure. I do not want to be that person who can't accept the facts. Just going by what they claim and what I thought I heard.


You have always had to tell your AVR which speakers you are using, even in a 5.1 or 7.1 system. That hasn't changed with Atmos. (Some REQ systems identify the speakers by pinging all possible locations and noting where speakers are and aren't, but it's the same thing, just automated). Atmos has the ability to do 'positional rendering'. This means it works out which speakers you have and then renders to them - if you have 4 overheads, it works it out and renders to all four, if you have 2, to those 2 and, eventually, maybe, if you have 6, to those 6 etc. IOW it uses whatever speakers exist in the system in order to determine how to render the sounds/objects appropriately. However, no consumer AVR manufacturer has, so far, decided to implement this capability even though Atmos offers it. 

So we have to tell the AVR if we are using 2 overheads, or 4 overheads, and just surrounds or surround backs as well, plus a center speaker and so on. What one assumes, and that is all we can do since no specific information has been published, is that when you specify, say, Top Middle or Top Front etc, the AVR uses predetermined rendering, based on Dolby's approved angles, to send sounds to those speakers. If the permitted angular range is 30-55° (as it is for Top front) then in all probability the AVR assumes a halfway or average angle of 42.5°, but that is speculation since they don't tell us. 

There is every chance that it doesn't matter all that much in a 7.1.4 setup because, as Dolby have said more than once, "it is hard to make Atmos NOT work", so possibly the manufacturers decided that the additional complexity of adding positional rendering to their units was not worthwhile.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Dolby's recommendations shouldn't be followed blindly. It's not unreasonable to apply some common sense to speaker placement. For example: if lowering surrounds to ear level can be a problem for listeners at the end of the row, then don't lower those speakers to ear level. Instead, raise them high enough that they're firing over the heads of the listeners at the end of the row. They still won't be anywhere near the ceiling, so the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you will remain distinct.


Yes indeed. Or move the surrounds forwards a little, which also brings other potential benefits. And of course, one also needs to ensure line of sight to all speakers for the mic in any REQ system being used. Ear level is a goal more than anything else, and common sense should always be used, as you say.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Call me simple minded, but I didn't do any angles or measurements etc when going Atmos. I looked at the Dolby example, looked at my ceiling joist, where my seats were gonna be and said, "Right about there should do it" and drilled the hole. If you have a good dispersion patterned speaker, just mount em and watch some movies.


While not exactly condoning that method, I do think that sometimes people overthink all this. Dolby say it is hard to make Atmos NOT work in a domestic room, and I suspect they are right.


----------



## shyyour

Aras_Volodka said:


> I know this isn't atmos related exactly, but I know someone here will have the answer this this question.
> 
> Last night I heard some type of static/ crackling come out of one of my rear ceiling speakers. It happened several times but very briefly, & otherwise the speakers play perfectly fine.
> 
> I'm curious if it's something to be concerned about... perhaps even a safety issue?
> 
> The reason why I ask is because when I was installing the speaker wire, there was fiberglass & drywall dust all over the place, some particles got in the wire... I'm wondering if it's possible that speaker wire can ignite / create an electrical fire or blow out the speaker? (I'm guessing there is a reason why speaker wire going into walls should have protective coating?)
> 
> Before placing my speakers in the ceiling, I did place giant plastic bags above the speaker to ensure nothing would get on the speakers internal parts, so I don't think it has anything to do with the speaker itself.
> 
> Another theory is that I bundled all the speaker wires together with zip ties coming from the rear half of my HT... so I'm wondering if it might be interference?
> 
> Otherwise I'm stumped... I never heard the static sound at my other place. I also hadn't heard it the day before when I tested out the speakers.


As someone else suggested i think you should check your AVR. I recently had the same problem, my SR5009 started out that way (static/popping on one channel till it spread to all the channels). i had to send it back and i was told the hdmi pcb board was replaced. try resetting your AVR and if it occurs again switch AVR's to confirm.


----------



## batpig

shyyour said:


> I'm so excited to setup everything this weekend. It took about a month or so from ordering online to actually receiving all the items (atmos pre/pro, amps and iC speakers) in Lagos. I've been reading on here everyday how atmos and DSU sounds and i cant wait to be immersed. I wont have the luxury of returning anything, which is why i want to get the placement right as best as my room will allow.
> 
> Thanks everyone for all your advice and tips


It's possible (likely?) that you have the first home Atmos setup in Nigeria


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> While not exactly condoning that method,* I do think that sometimes people overthink all this*. Dolby say it is hard to make Atmos NOT work in a domestic room, and I suspect they are right.


No question....like most things in life, not everything is 100% objective nor subjective, but usually a little of both.


----------



## jpco

rontalley said:


> I was bouncing back and forth between DSU and DSP selecting Height and Ceiling sometimes running YPAO, sometimes not, playing the same test files that I have been playing since I got the AVR and actually before. I am pretty familiar with the test files and I know how they should sound. Maybe I should pull out one of my mics with an omni pattern and capture what I am hearing. The wave patterns should show a difference if there is one. We all know that our minds can play tricks on us and I do remember a very different experience with Yamaha DSP concerning rather or not you selected height or ceiling and maybe, just maybe I am getting that confused with DSU and/or Atmos...
> 
> But I will say that, I honestly believe that with Atmos and DSU depending on if I had ceiling or height selected and running YPAO, the same speaker sounded different. Maybe the material was the same but the way it was processed was different...
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I am understanding you correctly, If I tell the Yamaha 3050 that I have Front and Rear Presence speakers vs Ceiling Speakers, then it really doesn't matter because the option is bogus? I am not challeging here, just want to be sure. I do not want to be that person who can't accept the facts. Just going by what they claim and what I thought I heard.


I have the 3050 as well with speakers in the height positions pointing toward the MLP. I started off designating them as Height and found the sound to be good, but somewhat diffuse and not powerful. I switched them to Overhead in the AVR and found the difference to be significant for Atmos and DSU. I'm not sure if all AVRs work this way, but with Yamaha, I strongly recommend choosing Overhead when using speakers in the height position.

The Overhead and Height designations do not seem to affect Cinema DSP modes as far as I can tell.


----------



## Nabs17

sdurani said:


> Home theatre designer Tony Grimani does the same, using elevated surrounds and placing the overheads a little closer together than the home Atmos guide recommends.
> 
> *Another is to use angular separation, like placing the front overheads in the gap between the fronts & sides and placing the rear overheads in the gap between the sides & rears. So even if the surrounds have to be raised high up, they won't be near the overheads approach*.


This makes sense to me and I used this while following the guidelines.


----------



## batpig

jpco said:


> rontalley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was bouncing back and forth between DSU and DSP selecting Height and Ceiling sometimes running YPAO, sometimes not, playing the same test files that I have been playing since I got the AVR and actually before. I am pretty familiar with the test files and I know how they should sound. Maybe I should pull out one of my mics with an omni pattern and capture what I am hearing. The wave patterns should show a difference if there is one. We all know that our minds can play tricks on us and I do remember a very different experience with Yamaha DSP concerning rather or not you selected height or ceiling and maybe, just maybe I am getting that confused with DSU and/or Atmos...
> 
> But I will say that, I honestly believe that with Atmos and DSU depending on if I had ceiling or height selected and running YPAO, the same speaker sounded different. Maybe the material was the same but the way it was processed was different...
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I am understanding you correctly, If I tell the Yamaha 3050 that I have Front and Rear Presence speakers vs Ceiling Speakers, then it really doesn't matter because the option is bogus? I am not challeging here, just want to be sure. I do not want to be that person who can't accept the facts. Just going by what they claim and what I thought I heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the 3050 as well with speakers in the height positions pointing toward the MLP. I started off designating them as Height and found the sound to be good, but somewhat diffuse and not powerful. I switched them to Overhead in the AVR and found the difference to be significant for Atmos and DSU. I'm not sure if all AVRs work this way, but with Yamaha, I strongly recommend choosing Overhead when using speakers in the height position.
> 
> The Overhead and Height designations do not seem to affect Cinema DSP modes as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

I do think something unique to yamaha is at play here. The height vs ceiling designation definitely matters for Cinema DSP so there may be other proprietary differences. 

In other brands (eg D+M) there isn't this hard distinction and you can mix all the different speaker types. For Atmos terms it really doesn't make sense to think about wall vs ceiling because all the renderer cares about is implied elevation angle. In the Atmos cinema there are no "height" speakers just the surround arrays and top surround arrays.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> I do think something unique to yamaha is at play here. The height vs ceiling designation definitely matters for Cinema DSP so there may be other proprietary differences.
> 
> In other brands (eg D+M) there isn't this hard distinction and you can mix all the different speaker types. For Atmos terms it really doesn't make sense to think about wall vs ceiling because all the renderer cares about is implied elevation angle. In the Atmos cinema there are no "height" speakers just the surround arrays and top surround arrays.


This is one of the things that annoys me about Dolby Atmos AVR's. It seems that each manufacturer uses its own terminology in describing the channel connections. It would sure be nice to have some uniformity. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and as long as they designate which channels are "Dolby Atmos," you can figure it out from there?

If I understand this correctly, "Height" speakers are up high, on the wall where the ceiling meets and "Ceiling" speakers are "IC" or in the ceiling, correct? (Surface mount, as well) 

What if you have a cornered speaker that is installed as a "Height" but by its design, is angled down? Do you configure that as a "Height" speaker.


----------



## shyyour

batpig said:


> It's possible (likely?) that you have the first home Atmos setup in Nigeria


Lol im sure some rich billionaire or celebrity may have beaten me to it. When i started this audio/video journey most of my friends thought i was crazy (shipping charges are quite expensive) then i met someone that installs speakers for a living and then i was able to bounce ideas/ discuss with someone else, i somehow stumbled on AVS forum and everything went downhill from there . i was reading about so many experiences that my imagination couldn't handle and i had to test out for myself. I started out with a HTIB and now i have a pre/pro (i didnt even know what that was until i started reading on this forum). I am grateful for all the contributions and help on this forum. i would probably still be using the HTIB and wouldnt be the wiser.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> This is one of the things that annoys me about Dolby Atmos AVR's. It seems that each manufacturer uses its own terminology in describing the channel connections. It would sure be nice to have some uniformity. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and as long as they designate which channels are "Dolby Atmos," you can figure it out from there?
> 
> If I understand this correctly, "Height" speakers are up high, on the wall where the ceiling meets and "Ceiling" speakers are "IC" or in the ceiling, correct? (Surface mount, as well)
> 
> What if you have a cornered speaker that is installed as a "Height" but by its design, is angled down? Do you configure that as a "Height" speaker.


Yeah Rico,
I was pondering this just yesterday on this thread. I came from a Yamaha 2040 to a Marantz so I know what is being described well. Yamaha calls Atmos speakers "Presence". After reading a lot of documentation 6 months ago, I determined that it should really be called Top Front Left (TFL) instead of Front Presence Left (FPL) for instance. I had to relabel all my wires! 

And with Yamaha a height and a top DO sound different. I still have height and top both installed in my room. I flipped back and forth between height and top with the Yamaha and was always baffled by WHY they processed different. Yes the speakers are different, but it's like they literally played as different "channels" at times (I know they are not channels, but it's the only way I can describe the difference in processing). I haven't tried with the Marantz and just run them as ceiling.

What I was debating yesterday though was kind of like your cornered speakers, but with slanted ceiling mount boxes. Technically they are "tops" as they are mounted on ceiling. But they kind of are angled and positioned as "heights" would be. So if you had slanted on ceiling boxes, should you set them as heights or tops? And would it make a difference? It really wouldn't be any different than what you have installed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

jpco said:


> I have the 3050 as well with speakers in the height positions pointing toward the MLP. I started off designating them as Height and found the sound to be good, but somewhat diffuse and not powerful. I switched them to Overhead in the AVR and found the difference to be significant for Atmos and DSU. I'm not sure if all AVRs work this way, but with Yamaha, I strongly recommend choosing Overhead when using speakers in the height position.
> 
> The Overhead and Height designations do not seem to affect Cinema DSP modes as far as I can tell.


Sounds familiar.


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> What if you have a cornered speaker that is installed as a "Height" but by its design, is angled down? Do you configure that as a "Height" speaker.


What I'm saying is that, in Atmos terms, all that matters is the angle. If they are closer to 30 degrees elevation, call them "Height". If they are closer to 45 degrees, call them "Top". 

With respect to Atmos (for home) there is just an array of 5 pairs of overhead locations... in consumer processors they probably just piggybacked on the "height" label for convenience, the same way that what is called "Front Surround" in cinemas has piggybacked on the "Front Wide" label already present in consumer AVRs.


----------



## Ricoflashback

*Update On Immersive Sound - Article By Chris Boylan 06-25-2015
*
I had not seen this article before (AVS Forum's Scott Wilkinson was the Moderator) but it really struck me as a replay of so many technologies of the past - - namely, the inability to agree on standards that would promote a single goal (in this case, "immersive sound") regardless of the format - Dolby Atmos, DTS:X or Auro 3D.

If I were an AVR manufacturer, I'd be pushing big time for a single speaker layout with common terminology that encompassed all of these sound formats. Once the complexity is removed (or lessened) - - they could focus on selling the "immersive sound" concept as opposed to having the consumer figure everything out. 

Then, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D could all jump on the "immersive sound" bandwagon and still be able to differentiate their approach by letting the consumer decide which sound field interpretation (based on availability) they'd like to listen to. My two cents for a less complicated HT/Audio world. 

Excerpt:

*One Speaker Layout to Rule Them All*
When asked whether it would be possible to do a single speaker layout that would support all three immersive sound formats, all three of the company reps agreed that it could work, but did not elaborate. I drilled down on that question with Brett Crockett after the event and he said Dolby does support a wide array of height speaker configurations, some of which could also be compatible with AURO-3D and DTS:X. I asked him specifically about a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system where the 4 height channels are placed high on the front and rear walls, above the front and rear main speaker pairs, firing down toward the listener (which is consistent with AURO-3D recommendations) and he said this could work for Dolby Atmos as well.
DTS has already gone on record saying that they would support either the AURO or Dolby Atmos recommended speaker layouts for DTS:X. They've even gone so far as to say that DTS:X could work with Dolby's "Atmos elevation modules." Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers, available from companies such as Pioneer, KEF and Definitive Technology, are designed to sit on top of, or be integrated into, standard tower or bookshelf speakers and bounce sound off the ceiling for the height effects. The appeal for consumers is that this gives you an overhead speaker effect without having to run speaker wires up or inside your walls or install additional speakers on your walls or in your ceiling.


Article Link: http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/U...-New-with-Dolby-Atmos-DTS-X-and-AURO-3D.shtml


----------



## NorthSky

With Yamaha you can apply DSP over Dolby Atmos and DSU; with their Atmos pre/pro (A5100), their top Atmos "flagship" receiver (A3050);
*other models below, and from last year?*

...Like the A2050, A1050, A3040, A2040, A1040? 

* And they all retain DPLIIx.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Only the 5100, Bob and not at all possible with DSU.


----------



## Nightlord

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would also toss in that if you can't put them ear level (as I can't), placing the overheads further toward the middle of the room helps separate the height layer from the surrounds. In my room, the distances from left surround to left top mid to right top mid to right surround are all roughly the same... and that helps mitigate the limitations I have that keep me from lowering my side surrounds more. May not be per Dolby spec, but it seemed logical to me and works pretty well. I think we all agree that if you can't go strictly by the spec, a little common sense goes a long way.


I was thinking the same regarding the middle layer for Auro, but they didn't fancy the idea when I mailed them. But we're obviously thinking similarly.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NeO_Sk8eR said:


> Unfortunately battlefront doesnt support Atmos just yet.
> Few of us in the support forums complaining. The option is there its just greyed out.
> Been raised with Nvidia, AMD and EA.
> Ea have told one person its not yet enabled and will need to be patched in


Interesting, I could live with a patch... but man they gouged us pretty good... well those of us who want to play the full game. 



cdy2179 said:


> I had this same problem with a rear channel speaker. It was in the AVR on that amp channel. I tested it out by using a separate amp and running it that way, crackling was gone and never returned... all fingers point to the AVR having an amp issue for that channel. Of course mine was a crackling static sound that was intermittent but did it a lot... every few seconds you'd hear it with a few seconds of no issue. Try it and see if it goes away.. or maybe hook another speaker on another cable and if it still does it on that speaker too it's probably the avr and a bad channel.
> 
> And yes, you can bundle your wires together, just don't coil them up.. you can basically produce an inductor. Monster cables have been caught doing this to competitor wires in A/B displays so they'd sound better.





shyyour said:


> As someone else suggested i think you should check your AVR. I recently had the same problem, my SR5009 started out that way (static/popping on one channel till it spread to all the channels). i had to send it back and i was told the hdmi pcb board was replaced. try resetting your AVR and if it occurs again switch AVR's to confirm.


Interesting... it wasn't happening when I had all the same equipment at my other HT/House. I'm hoping it's not the AVR! I have an audiosource AMP 100 so if it's a hardware related issue I'd prefer it to be that (haha).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stoked21 said:


> So, I never ran CL in-wall rated wire for all my numerous (20 or so) long runs of speaker cable. Not the smartest idea, but it's so unlikely for a speaker wire to melt unless there's a much bigger problem. It's more likely that the house will catch fire from something else and then the insulation on the speaker wire will ignite and act as a fuse/kindling to spread the fire more quickly throughout the house. When I installed my ICs, the instructions very clearly stated to make sure NOTHING touched the back of them or was near them. It said the speakers could get hot and ignite anything touching them. I find that unlikely, but still....Plastic bag around them seems iffy.


So you think I could have a potentially hazardous situation here? 

The problem is the insulation in the ceiling is like a giant pad... I didn't want that touching the speaker... would think it's better to have the plastic up against the speaker than that. Do the speakers really generate that much heat though? I'll read through my KEF manual to see if it says something. 

There is a draft that runs through the ceiling, so I'm not too concerned about heat... actually I'm more worried about ice cold winds damaging the speaker, which was the initial reason for the plastic. + who knows if something wet will seep through whatever surface (the roof of the building) is above the speaker. 

But as for the wires themselves... those are unlikely to catch fire/ the static being indicative of something that could result in a fire? (lol) Just want to know before I start using it again.


----------



## Stoked21

Aras_Volodka said:


> So you think I could have a potentially hazardous situation here?
> 
> The problem is the insulation in the ceiling is like a giant pad... I didn't want that touching the speaker... would think it's better to have the plastic up against the speaker than that. Do the speakers really generate that much heat though? I'll read through my KEF manual to see if it says something.
> 
> There is a draft that runs through the ceiling, so I'm not too concerned about heat... actually I'm more worried about ice cold winds damaging the speaker, which was the initial reason for the plastic. + who knows if something wet will seep through whatever surface (the roof of the building) is above the speaker.
> 
> But as for the wires themselves... those are unlikely to catch fire/ the static being indicative of something that could result in a fire? (lol) Just want to know before I start using it again.


I have no idea. My BS meter kind of went off on the speaker getting hot. I've never seen a hot speaker, but then again I've never ran one through destructive testing to burn the coil either! Insulation is fire rated so I can't see how it would catch fire. Plastic surely would go up in flames though. Someone else can weigh in if need be. I just chose to keep anything off the back of the speaker! Safe vs sorry, but I think pretty darn unlikely.

If there's no back box behind the speaker....and there's plastic behind the speaker.....It's going to move air that moves the plastic. Hence the crackling sound. Are you sure it's not the plastic moving from the displacement of the speaker?


----------



## gbaby

kingwiggi said:


> Just received a survey from Dolby
> 
> "At CEDIA 2015, we introduced a new Dolby Atmos® demonstration disc. This new demo disc contains 32 different clips, including a mix of movies & TV, Dolby trailers, music videos, audio clips, sports, video games and test tones."


This is needed as the one I heard left a lot to be desired.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aras_Volodka said:


> Do the speakers really generate that much heat though? I'll read through my KEF manual to see if it says something.


Lol, no!


----------



## Spanglo

Aras_Volodka said:


> Interesting, I could live with a patch... but man they gouged us pretty good... well those of us who want to play the full game.


I'm not a fan of season passes either, but Battlefield 4 is still supported two years later, so you should get the extra value you're paying for. The game is literally revitalized each time a new set of maps drops, so you have that content to look forward to.


----------



## Spanglo

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, no!


Pay no attention to all of those youtube videos of speakers catching fire.


----------



## Stoked21

Spanglo said:


> Pay no attention to all of those youtube videos of speakers catching fire.


Like I said, my BS meter went off when I read that in an installation warnings. 

BUT THEN I started thinking.....I've seen it happen at Kiss concerts!!!!! So now I know it's true.


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> Last night I heard some type of static/ crackling come out of one of my rear ceiling speakers. It happened several times but very briefly, & otherwise the speakers play perfectly fine.





Stoked21 said:


> If there's no back box behind the speaker....and there's plastic behind the speaker.....It's going to move air that moves the plastic. Hence the crackling sound. Are you sure it's not the plastic moving from the displacement of the speaker?


Just an FYI...have never experienced a "static/crackling" sound from my speakers. However, shortly after installing my IC's, I noticed a minor buzz from one of the speakers from time to time. I ultimately found that the speaker wire was vibrating against the drywall/joist at certain frequencies and taping the wire with duct tape eliminated the noise.

BTW: Switching the wires of the offending speaker (prob easier at the AVR end) with another speaker will help isolate the problem.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Spanglo said:


> I'm not a fan of season passes either, but Battlefield 4 is still supported two years later, so you should get the extra value you're paying for. The game is literally revitalized each time a new set of maps drops, so you have that content to look forward to.


Yeah I know... though BF4 had more than 4 maps for each mode to play at opening, and the price for the deluxe edition (which I think only gets you the Jakku expansion a week early?) doesn't make me feel better about the purchase. I thought the deluxe edition would do the same thing BF 4 premium did... they didn't spring up the season pass until just now to my knowledge. 

Granted, there's a ton of modes, but really, the only ones worth playing seem to be supremacy & walker assault. The fighter multiplayer is awful! 

But I'm loving the sound though... I get the chills when I play it sometimes so I guess there is that.




Stoked21 said:


> I have no idea. My BS meter kind of went off on the speaker getting hot. I've never seen a hot speaker, but then again I've never ran one through destructive testing to burn the coil either! Insulation is fire rated so I can't see how it would catch fire. Plastic surely would go up in flames though. Someone else can weigh in if need be. I just chose to keep anything off the back of the speaker! Safe vs sorry, but I think pretty darn unlikely.
> 
> If there's no back box behind the speaker....and there's plastic behind the speaker.....It's going to move air that moves the plastic. Hence the crackling sound. Are you sure it's not the plastic moving from the displacement of the speaker?





Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, no!






Spanglo said:


> Pay no attention to all of those youtube videos of speakers catching fire.





Stoked21 said:


> Like I said, my BS meter went off when I read that in an installation warnings.
> 
> BUT THEN I started thinking.....I've seen it happen at Kiss concerts!!!!! So now I know it's true.





gene4ht said:


> Just an FYI...have never experienced a "static/crackling" sound from my speakers. However, shortly after installing my IC's, I noticed a minor buzz from one of the speakers from time to time. I ultimately found that the speaker wire was vibrating against the drywall/joist at certain frequencies and taping the wire with duct tape eliminated the noise.
> 
> BTW: Switching the wires of the offending speaker (prob easier at the AVR end) with another speaker will help isolate the problem.


Thanks guys, so likely no fire hazard it seems. I packed it in such a way that the wires themselves (- sheilding) don't touch the plastic, I stripped them so only 1/4" is exposed for going into the speaker inputs. 

Switching the wires @ the preamp end actually sounds like the best solution. Assuming the problem persists... maybe it was just a fluke. Just making sure everything is safe... the sound I'm hearing is kind of similar to the texture of a radio struggling to acquire signal... but in a crackly way (not uninterputed white noise). No loud pops or anything like that.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Oh for any of you guys who might have purchased the Atmos Dracula disc or 5th element... I notice there are 2 versions of the Supreme Cinema series... do they both include Atmos?

I was hoping to buy the cheaper version shown in the link here (13 bucks vs. 25 bucks for the "limited edition")

http://www.amazon.com/Stokers-Dracu...7975076&sr=8-3&keywords=bram+stoker's+dracula


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Oh for any of you guys who might have purchased the Atmos Dracula disc or 5th element... I notice there are 2 versions of the Supreme Cinema series... do they both include Atmos?

I was hoping to buy the cheaper version shown in the link here (13 bucks vs. 25 bucks for the "limited edition")

http://www.amazon.com/Stokers-Dracu...7975076&sr=8-3&keywords=bram+stoker's+dracula


----------



## kingwiggi

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh for any of you guys who might have purchased the Atmos Dracula disc or 5th element... I notice there are 2 versions of the Supreme Cinema series... do they both include Atmos?
> 
> I was hoping to buy the cheaper version shown in the link here (13 bucks vs. 25 bucks for the "limited edition")
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Stokers-Dracula-Supreme-UltraViolet-Packaging/dp/B012RC81MC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1447975076&sr=8-3&keywords=bram+stoker%27s+dracula


Yes 

I purchased the regular (Non Limited Edition) versions and both had Atmos. Oct 2015 re-release dates


----------



## Spanglo

Aras_Volodka said:


> The fighter multiplayer is awful!
> 
> But I'm loving the sound though... I get the chills when I play it sometimes so I guess there is that.


Fighter Squadron was tough at first. The first half dozen games I could barely manage a few kills. After about an hour I was posting double digit kills, and after a couple hours around 20. Takes some getting used to. I just love the sound of Tie Fighters and x-wings whooshing as they fly by. http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddkenreck/2015/11/18/star-wars-battlefronts-fighter-squadron-is-so-good-it-is-almost-its-own-game/

The sound is great. I purposely didn't join party chat for most of the night so I could hear/feel the sound through my system rather than using headphones & mic. 

For those of you not into video games, the sound is as good/exciting as any action movie. Good stuff.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Only the 5100, Bob and not at all possible with DSU.



Ok thanks Scott, I did not know that for sure. ...Probably much more DSP processing power in the A5100. 


And funny though; not possible with DSU*, but only with Dolby Atmos. ...Hmmm...

* P.S. No it makes sense; DSU is a sound processing...no use to add more DSP (Yamaha) processing on top of it.


----------



## jpco

batpig said:


> What I'm saying is that, in Atmos terms, all that matters is the angle. If they are closer to 30 degrees elevation, call them "Height". If they are closer to 45 degrees, call them "Top".
> 
> With respect to Atmos (for home) there is just an array of 5 pairs of overhead locations... in consumer processors they probably just piggybacked on the "height" label for convenience, the same way that what is called "Front Surround" in cinemas has piggybacked on the "Front Wide" label already present in consumer AVRs.


I agree that angle is all that matters. I want to reiterate, to those who own Yamaha in particular, I recommend using Overhead designation even if they're in the 30 degree range. Something is happening in height mode that is not nearly as good as Overhead. This is not a different signal due to a different angle thing. It's more like it's trying to image in a more diffuse way. Does not deliver well IMO.


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> I agree that angle is all that matters. I want to reiterate, to those who own Yamaha in particular, I recommend using Overhead designation even if they're in the 30 degree range. Something is happening in height mode that is not nearly as good as Overhead. This is not a different signal due to a different angle thing. It's more like it's trying to image in a more diffuse way. Does not deliver well IMO.


Same thing I heard when I ran the 2040. I attribute that to my love of IC installations over heights. But in fairness, if I would have tried my FH/RH with them configured in the avr as ICs, maybe they would have been good.


----------



## Charles R

Stoked21 said:


> I flipped back and forth between height and top with the Yamaha and was always baffled by WHY they processed different.


With the Denon AVR-X5200W if I bounce between four Height and Top speakers (11.1) with Audyssey on most of the levels are different - such as fronts, subs, etc. So I'm presuming Audyssey is getting switched off on the setting that didn't get EQed. Which of course makes it impossible to (directly) compare. I played a file with test tones for each channel (7.1) and the levels vary to a large extent. If I go back to the original setting they are back to the original levels.

I guess I could turn Audyssey off and try to compare the two but since I use Audyssey it would be of little value. Although if I could heard a difference it would say something...


----------



## Stoked21

Charles R said:


> With the Denon AVR-X5200W if I bounce between four Height and Top speakers (11.1) with Audyssey on most of the levels are different - such as fronts, subs, etc. So I'm presuming Audyssey is getting switched off on the setting that didn't get EQed. Which of course makes it impossible to (directly) compare. I played a file with test tones for each channel (7.1) and the levels vary to a large extent. If I go back to the original setting they are back to the original levels.
> 
> I guess I could turn Audyssey off and try to compare the two but since I use Audysey it would be of little value. Although if I could heard a difference it would say something...


I haven't tried switching with Marantz. I would assume the results would be similar to switching between the two configs in Yamaha though as the processor code is likely identical.


----------



## toddman36

Hey guys, Just installed IC, TM speakers for a 5.1.2 setup.... I watched American Sniper with Atmos, and wasnt super impressed... Would John Wick, be a better Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## NorthSky

toddman36 said:


> Hey guys, Just installed IC, TM speakers for a 5.1.2 setup.... I watched American Sniper with Atmos, and wasnt super impressed...
> Would John Wick, be a better Atmos soundtrack?


Mad Max: Fury Road...yes. ...And Gravity...Diamond Luxe Edition. ...And San Andreas. 

...John Wick; not bad.


----------



## dschulz

Ricoflashback said:


> Excerpt:
> 
> *One Speaker Layout to Rule Them All*
> When asked whether it would be possible to do a single speaker layout that would support all three immersive sound formats, all three of the company reps agreed that it could work, but did not elaborate. I drilled down on that question with Brett Crockett after the event and he said Dolby does support a wide array of height speaker configurations, some of which could also be compatible with AURO-3D and DTS:X. I asked him specifically about a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system where the 4 height channels are placed high on the front and rear walls, above the front and rear main speaker pairs, firing down toward the listener (which is consistent with AURO-3D recommendations) and he said this could work for Dolby Atmos as well.


A lot of the magic of Auro-3D comes from having the height surround channels (on the side walls). Yes, you can use Auromatic and sort-of-reproduce Auro-3D with only Front and Rear Heights, but it's really not close to the artistic intent of Auro recordings without the surround heights being in their intended locations. Do the D&M implementations of Auro-3D support Surround Height channels as opposed to Rear Height?


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> A lot of the magic of Auro-3D comes from having the height surround channels (on the side walls). Yes, you can use Auromatic and sort-of-reproduce Auro-3D with only Front and Rear Heights, but it's really not close to the artistic intent of Auro recordings without the surround heights being in their intended locations.


Putting all your heights/overheads on-ceiling allows optimal (as per specifications) usage by both Atmos and Auro:

TF/FH speakers installed on-ceiling at about 35-40 degrees Atmos elevation (within optimal range) and at 30-35 degrees azimuth (above mains), translating to about 30-35 degrees Auro3D elevation (within optimal range) and a lateral elevation of 45-50 degrees.

and

TR/SH speakers installed on-ceiling at 125 Atmos elevation (within optimal range) and at 125 degrees azimuth (in-between side and back surrounds) translating to about 40 degrees Auro3D elevation (within optimal range when surrounds are slightly elevated) and a lateral elevation of 45 degrees.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Lol im sure some rich billionaire or celebrity may have beaten me to it. When i started this audio/video journey most of my friends thought i was crazy (shipping charges are quite expensive) then i met someone that installs speakers for a living and then i was able to bounce ideas/ discuss with someone else, i somehow stumbled on AVS forum and everything went downhill from there . i was reading about so many experiences that my imagination couldn't handle and i had to test out for myself. I started out with a HTIB and now i have a pre/pro (i didnt even know what that was until i started reading on this forum). I am grateful for all the contributions and help on this forum. i would probably still be using the HTIB and wouldnt be the wiser.


That is a heartwarming post and a nice journey that you describe. I am sure you will get great pleasure from your HT and continue to make improvements as you read more on AVS. It is a great hobby, with a terrific end result: movies at home!! And this is a great community for learning more. Enjoy!


----------



## JamesE

Aras_Volodka said:


> It's drywall... I saved the cut outs  I forgot to label them though... except for one. So there is some type of material I can buy to fill in the gap where the cuts are? I was thinking I'd fill it, then paint over it in the hopes of making it look like nothing was ever there.
> 
> My only experience with filling stuff in was when I worked at a piano shop... sometimes if there was a big gouge in a piano's case I'd fill it with wood filler & use these coloring sticks to match the color of the veneer as much as possible... though it's very hard because wood grain is hard to replicate. It seems like a white drywall would be much easier?


Hire a professional taper to come in and patch it. In the long run it will be money well spent.


----------



## Molon_Labe

I finally got around to playing Star Wars Battlefront. DSU is very active with the ceiling channels.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> That is a heartwarming post and a nice journey that you describe. I am sure you will get great pleasure from your HT and continue to make improvements as you read more on AVS. It is a great hobby, with a terrific end result: movies at home!! And this is a great community for learning more. Enjoy!


Thanks a lot


----------



## Zhorik

Molon_Labe said:


> I finally got around to playing Star Wars Battlefront. DSU is very active with the ceiling channels.


How is the accuracy of DSU with the game?


----------



## rontalley

I went back and tested the Front Top vs Front Height in the 3050 and I can again confirm that the two settings "sound" different but the content does appear to be the same. I believe that since I was hearing different, I believed that the content was different because of my own logical thinking.

Hopefully in the future, for Atmos home, they would give us a 11 channel floor bed and 11 channel height bed plus 10 overheads. This would be less than what is spec'd now because who needs *24 floor* speakers!?!?!

I could easily see myself doing:
9ch. Floor: L/C/R/WL/WR/SL/SR/RSL/RSR
7ch. Height: FHL/HC/FHR/SHL/SHR/RHSL/RHSR
6ch. Overhead: TFL/TFR/TML/TMR/TRL/TRR

Wait a minute! I am NOT going to be doing all of that! WTF?!?!?!? This $hit is getting crazy Ron Talley! All I wanted to do was watch Netflix in 5.1...How am I now dreaming of a 21 channel system?!?!?

I better log off of this site now before I get pulled even further into the Dark Side.


----------



## Ricoflashback

rontalley said:


> I went back and tested the Front Top vs Front Height in the 3050 and I can again confirm that the two settings "sound" different but the content does appear to be the same. I believe that since I was hearing different, I believed that the content was different because of my own logical thinking.
> 
> Hopefully in the future, for Atmos home, they would give us a 11 channel floor bed and 11 channel height bed plus 10 overheads. This would be less than what is spec'd now because who needs *24 floor* speakers!?!?!
> 
> I could easily see myself doing:
> 9ch. Floor: L/C/R/WL/WR/SL/SR/RSL/RSR
> 7ch. Height: FHL/HC/FHR/SHL/SHR/RHSL/RHSR
> 6ch. Overhead: TFL/TFR/TML/TMR/TRL/TRR
> 
> Wait a minute! I am NOT going to be doing all of that! WTF?!?!?!? This $hit is getting crazy Ron Talley! All I wanted to do was watch Netflix in 5.1...How am I now dreaming of a 21 channel system?!?!?
> 
> I better log off of this site now before I get pulled even further into the Dark Side.


Must see Dolby Atmos Installations - I'm going to add your 24 speaker retrofit to Molon_Labe's 15" subwoofer ceiling installation(s) as "must see" Atmos enhancements.

I think both of you should hire Imagic to film the entire install in HD and then post it to the AVS Forum. 

We want to party with you, Cowboys!!!


----------



## zgemboandislic

I just watched Roger Waters The Wall (2014), it is with Dolby Atmos, but I don't have that setup yet. If anyone has it, please let me know how it sounds, because the movie/concert was AMAZING. Picture quality was stunning, I can imagine David Gilmour's face when he saw it, as his own "Remember That Night" BluRay was total crap quality (except sound of course).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

gene4ht said:


> Just an FYI...have never experienced a "static/crackling" sound from my speakers. However, shortly after installing my IC's, I noticed a minor buzz from one of the speakers from time to time. I ultimately found that the speaker wire was vibrating against the drywall/joist at certain frequencies and taping the wire with duct tape eliminated the noise.
> 
> BTW: Switching the wires of the offending speaker (prob easier at the AVR end) with another speaker will help isolate the problem.





shyyour said:


> As someone else suggested i think you should check your AVR. I recently had the same problem, my SR5009 started out that way (static/popping on one channel till it spread to all the channels). i had to send it back and i was told the hdmi pcb board was replaced. try resetting your AVR and if it occurs again switch AVR's to confirm.





cdy2179 said:


> I had this same problem with a rear channel speaker. It was in the AVR on that amp channel. I tested it out by using a separate amp and running it that way, crackling was gone and never returned... all fingers point to the AVR having an amp issue for that channel. Of course mine was a crackling static sound that was intermittent but did it a lot... every few seconds you'd hear it with a few seconds of no issue. Try it and see if it goes away.. or maybe hook another speaker on another cable and if it still does it on that speaker too it's probably the avr and a bad channel.
> 
> And yes, you can bundle your wires together, just don't coil them up.. you can basically produce an inductor. Monster cables have been caught doing this to competitor wires in A/B displays so they'd sound better.


Ugh... the crackle came back. It's definitely not a buzz or a consistent sound like that. It's crackling that happens for about 6 or so seconds... it's definitely coming from the rear right speaker. It only happens once an hour though.... so it's going to be a ***** solving that issue. If I have time I'll reset the AVR later today because I have to run a calibration anyway. I'm really hoping I don't have to ship my AVR out though


----------



## Nightlord

Make sure the cable is connected properly in both ends (and in the connectors). You could draw a new cable temporarily and see if it goes away if it's not connectors you can open.


----------



## Molon_Labe

So did you swap the speaker/channel as recommended to see if it follows the channel?


----------



## Zhorik

Molon_Labe said:


> Better than mine. I have a terrible kill to death ratio
> 
> I am not sure what you are asking though by accuracy.


With constant motion, does it still maintain the smooth (and reasonably correct) panning of sound in all the channels?


----------



## cdy2179

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ugh... the crackle came back. It's definitely not a buzz or a consistent sound like that. It's crackling that happens for about 6 or so seconds... it's definitely coming from the rear right speaker. It only happens once an hour though.... so it's going to be a ***** solving that issue. If I have time I'll reset the AVR later today because I have to run a calibration anyway. I'm really hoping I don't have to ship my AVR out though


Man tell me about it. It's almost worth it to buy a cheap 7.1 AVR from accessories4less to use while yours gets fixed. Being without the HT for a month or so flat out sucks, I could live without Atmos for that long but not the whole use of the HT.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> A lot of the magic of Auro-3D comes from having the height surround channels (on the side walls). Yes, you can use Auromatic and sort-of-reproduce Auro-3D with only Front and Rear Heights, but it's really not close to the artistic intent of Auro recordings without the surround heights being in their intended locations.


Yup, the spaciousness that comes from laterally placed speakers (surrounds or heights) cannot be reproduced by speakers in front or behind.


> Do the D&M implementations of Auro-3D support Surround Height channels as opposed to Rear Height?


Yes they do, but those speakers cannot then be used for Atmos (no such designation as Surround Height in Atmos). The Rear Height designation is common to both immersive formats, so it will allow switching between them AND use of all 4 height speakers (not possible currently).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> I finally got around to playing Star Wars Battlefront. DSU is very active with the ceiling channels.


----------



## Amzie Williams

Bob, 

Have you still not heard Atmos? I'm running 7.1.4 with the Denon 7200WA and all B&W 680s2 speakers but why don't you get the Onkyo Atmos HTIB? 



NorthSky said:


> Rieper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just heard the greatest audio in a movie in my entire 39yrs of life.
> 
> The Man From U.N.C.L.E. - Atmos 5.1.4 speaker setup
> 
> I literally came in my pants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contact Dolby's marketing team. I think I found their new slogan.
> 
> *Sound so real you'll come in your pants.*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> And I thought _I_ was excited about immersive audio at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...only here in the Dobly Atoms thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nightlord

Molon_Labe said:


> I haven't paid that close attention to be honest. When I am playing, I am focusing more on the game than what is coming out of the speakers. The experience is very immersive, so I would be inclined to say yes to your question but I haven't just focused on the just the sound aspect with regards to where I am at. All channels are jamming though, that is for sure.


Let someone else play and focus on the listening yourself?


----------



## jsb75

sdurani said:


> Yup, the spaciousness that comes from laterally placed speakers (surrounds or heights) cannot be reproduced by speakers in front or behind. Yes they do, but those speakers cannot then be used for Atmos (no such designation as Surround Height in Atmos). The Rear Height designation is common to both immersive formats, so it will allow switching between them AND use of all 4 height speakers (not possible currently).


Now I'm confused. I have read other post and threads that say, while not optimal for dolby atmos ,the front height placement will work for atmos . I thought that was one of the placement options if your receiver only does .2 atmos. Over head,up firing or front height. Shoots my plan in the foot if that's the case


----------



## batpig

jsb75 said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the spaciousness that comes from laterally placed speakers (surrounds or heights) cannot be reproduced by speakers in front or behind. Yes they do, but those speakers cannot then be used for Atmos (no such designation as Surround Height in Atmos). The Rear Height designation is common to both immersive formats, so it will allow switching between them AND use of all 4 height speakers (not possible currently).
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm confused. I have read other post and threads that say, while not optimal for dolby atmos ,the front height placement will work for atmos . I thought that was one of the placement options if your receiver only does .2 atmos. Over head,up firing or front height. Shoots my plan in the foot if that's the case
Click to expand...

Sanjay is referring to the Surround Height location which is only used by Auro.


----------



## Stoked21

toddman36 said:


> Hey guys, Just installed IC, TM speakers for a 5.1.2 setup.... I watched American Sniper with Atmos, and wasnt super impressed... Would John Wick, be a better Atmos soundtrack?


Hey toddman....Go Royals!!  (I'm an ex cards fan as I basically lived there 50% of the year for several years....Ex-fan being I cheer for them as long as they're not playing the boys in blue!)

I've had Atmos for about 6 months and have made my way through about 20 titles now. Ironically, I've had American Sniper for several months and just finally watched it this last weekend. I'd seen it twice already so was in no hurry to watch it a third time, Atmos or not.

Anyway, I run 7.1.4 with tops/ICs. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the Atmos. It's one of the earliest releases on BD and is known not to be as good as the more recent ones. But I had bullets zinging through the room, explosions that were very immersive and helicopters flying everywhere. Granted the Atmos speakers do not get used an extreme amount, but when there is elevation it is excellent.

My personal choices that showcase Atmos to it's best capabilities are Fifth Element, Terminator and Gravity. John Wick and Mad Max are pretty good. I just don't think the content lends itself well to Atmos vs the titles with planes/spaceships etc. Bram Stoker is great for an extremely erie ambience....Give those a shot.


----------



## NorthSky

Amzie Williams said:


> Bob,
> 
> Have you still not heard Atmos? I'm running 7.1.4 with the Denon 7200WA and all B&W 680s2 speakers but why don't you get the Onkyo Atmos HTIB?


I'm thinking about the new hi-end Yamaha Dolby Atmos/DTS:X Ready soundbar. 

The Onkyo HTIB is not my cup of tea. ...Just my own free choice. 

I learned a lot here since Dolby Atmos's introduction to the new 3D immersive surround sound from above the sky.
And now with Mad Max that helps a lot. 

Nice gear you have; top Denon flagship receiver (DTS:X Ready), and B&W speakers (British sound). ...Nice combination. 

The best is yet to come ...


----------



## Flinthead

Alright, I've been lurking for a while and just decided to join. I'm not sure I'm posting this in the correct place but here it goes...
I'm no audiophile but I do hold a MSEE so I'm fairly descent around electronics. I've started framing on my basement game room/movie room and I thought I'd ask you guys for your opinions. I want to go with Atmos and I'm thinking 5.1.4 although I will wire for 7.2.4. I have a 10" sub and four Niles CM7MP for the ceiling, everything else will need to be purchased (Receiver, LRC and surrounds). I don't really want to use a seperate amp so I'm looking at a 9 channel receiver that will also need zone 2 video out. Any suggestion on the receiver, LRC and side surrounds? Trying to stay under $3,000. Room is 16'x 30' and drawings attached, I hope!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Flinthead said:


> Alright, I've been lurking for a while and just decided to join. I'm not sure I'm posting this in the correct place but here it goes...
> I'm no audiophile but I do hold a MSEE so I'm fairly descent around electronics. I've started framing on my basement game room/movie room and I thought I'd ask you guys for your opinions. I want to go with Atmos and I'm thinking 5.1.4 although I will wire for 7.2.4. I have a 10" sub and four Niles CM7MP for the ceiling, everything else will need to be purchased (Receiver, LRC and surrounds). I don't really want to use a seperate amp so I'm looking at a 9 channel receiver that will also need zone 2 video out. Any suggestion on the receiver, LRC and side surrounds? Trying to stay under $3,000. Room is 16'x 30' and drawings attached, I hope!


I don't really have any advice... Just wanted to say that I would put rear surrounds between the antlers on both sides, because WHOO, DEERBY ATMOS!


----------



## batpig

Flinthead said:


> Alright, I've been lurking for a while and just decided to join. I'm not sure I'm posting this in the correct place but here it goes...
> I'm no audiophile but I do hold a MSEE so I'm fairly descent around electronics. I've started framing on my basement game room/movie room and I thought I'd ask you guys for your opinions. I want to go with Atmos and I'm thinking 5.1.4 although I will wire for 7.2.4. I have a 10" sub and four Niles CM7MP for the ceiling, everything else will need to be purchased (Receiver, LRC and surrounds). I don't really want to use a seperate amp so I'm looking at a 9 channel receiver that will also need zone 2 video out. Any suggestion on the receiver, LRC and side surrounds? Trying to stay under $3,000. Room is 16'x 30' and drawings attached, I hope!


$3,000 for everything (speakers + receiver)? Considering you want a 9ch receiver, that doesn't leave a ton for speakers, especially if you want that receiver to be capable of expanding to 11ch in the future. 

If you don't have any 4K gear yet, you might want to consider getting one of last year's Atmos models (e.g. the Denon X5200W) which will save a lot of budget room for speakers. You should be able to find a 9ch model from last year for under $1k, which then frees up a lot of cash for other stuff. That means you won't get DTS:X quite yet, but you can swap out the receiver in a year or two if you really want to add that feature later. 

For the speaker decision, there are many, many good speakers out there. You might want to go to some stores and listen and get a sense for what type of sound you like.


----------



## pasender91

Welcome to the forum and the crazyness of Atmos 

With your budget, the cheapest 9-ch Atmos & DTS:X AVRs are suggested => Yamaha RXA 2050, Pioneer SC 95, and Marantz 7010.
I personallly would pick the Marantz 7010 ...

This will set you back about 1500 so now for a good 5.0 speaker kit with the 1500 left there are many good options on the market, a few of them being:
- SVS PRIME TOWER SURROUND SYSTEM
- Kllipsch R28, very different, you either hate it or love it
- JBL Arena
- Monitor Audio Bronze 5, for warm british sound 
- Focal Chorus 7xx, for analytical french sound 
As already mentioned, listening to several speakers is important before making your choice, if you can ...


----------



## toddman36

NorthSky said:


> Mad Max: Fury Road...yes. ...And Gravity...Diamond Luxe Edition. ...And San Andreas.
> 
> ...John Wick; not bad.


Thanks, I give em a listening...


----------



## toddman36

Stoked21 said:


> Hey toddman....Go Royals!!  (I'm an ex cards fan as I basically lived there 50% of the year for several years....Ex-fan being I cheer for them as long as they're not playing the boys in blue!)
> 
> I've had Atmos for about 6 months and have made my way through about 20 titles now. Ironically, I've had American Sniper for several months and just finally watched it this last weekend. I'd seen it twice already so was in no hurry to watch it a third time, Atmos or not.
> 
> Anyway, I run 7.1.4 with tops/ICs. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the Atmos. It's one of the earliest releases on BD and is known not to be as good as the more recent ones. But I had bullets zinging through the room, explosions that were very immersive and helicopters flying everywhere. Granted the Atmos speakers do not get used an extreme amount, but when there is elevation it is excellent.
> 
> My personal choices that showcase Atmos to it's best capabilities are Fifth Element, Terminator and Gravity. John Wick and Mad Max are pretty good. I just don't think the content lends itself well to Atmos vs the titles with planes/spaceships etc. Bram Stoker is great for an extremely erie ambience....Give those a shot.



Nice, Id love to have a 7.1.4 setup, but my 4100 doesnt support it! I installed TM IC ( I actually have a 7.1.2 setup, but my 2 ch. Stereo amp powers my Zone 2 speakers), nearly right over the MLP. Maybe later on Ill pickup a 6200 or 6300, and install a pair of TF IC.... 

Awesome, thanks... I want to pick up the Atmos verson of F.E., and Gravity...


----------



## toddman36

Renting Pixels tonight free from Redbox, my son wants to see it. I believe its a Atmos bluray, correct?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

toddman36 said:


> Renting Pixels tonight free from Redbox, my son wants to see it. I believe its a Atmos bluray, correct?


It is. 

Good thing you're paying nothing for it. However, afterwards you may be calling Sony anyways and asking for compensation due to pain and suffering.


----------



## Waboman

Dan Hitchman said:


> It is.
> 
> Good thing you're paying nothing for it. However, afterwards you may be calling Sony anyways and asking for compensation due to pain and suffering.


Lol. Pixels isn't that bad. It's a fun movie.


----------



## Stoked21

Improvements in my Atmos HT....
No more Def Tech surrounds/backs!!! YAH!!!

Great example of how a high-e pro speaker's typical flat-black paint can actually look GREAT in a room by not drawing attention to themselves. Nice and muted and not flashy. Likely replacing my Atmos speakers with slanted versions of these in the coming months. The rear surrounds have the added effect of being a blow-dryer, tactile response. Ports right at hair level! HA HA


----------



## Flinthead

pasender91 said:


> Welcome to the forum and the crazyness of Atmos
> 
> With your budget, the cheapest 9-ch Atmos & DTS:X AVRs are suggested => Yamaha RXA 2050, Pioneer SC 95, and Marantz 7010.
> I personallly would pick the Marantz 7010 ...
> 
> This will set you back about 1500 so now for a good 5.0 speaker kit with the 1500 left there are many good options on the market, a few of them being:
> - SVS PRIME TOWER SURROUND SYSTEM
> - Kllipsch R28, very different, you either hate it or love it
> - JBL Arena
> - Monitor Audio Bronze 5, for warm british sound
> - Focal Chorus 7xx, for analytical french sound
> As already mentioned, listening to several speakers is important before making your choice, if you can ...


Thanks for the speaker suggestions. I've been considering the Marantz 7010; does Denon have a comparable model?


----------



## toddman36

Watched Pixels, with my 2 sons... we all loved it, the sound effects were awesome... Yes, it was corny.... But, funny as well...


----------



## gene4ht

Flinthead said:


> Thanks for the speaker suggestions. I've been considering the Marantz 7010; does Denon have a comparable model?


Yes...Denon X6200W...very similar specifications and price.


----------



## Zhorik

NorthSky said:


> I'm thinking about the new hi-end Yamaha Dolby Atmos/DTS:X Ready soundbar.
> 
> The Onkyo HTIB is not my cup of tea. ...Just my own free choice.
> 
> I learned a lot here since Dolby Atmos's introduction to the new 3D immersive surround sound from above the sky.
> And now with Mad Max that helps a lot.
> 
> Nice gear you have; top Denon flagship receiver (DTS:X Ready), and B&W speakers (British sound). ...Nice combination.
> 
> The best is yet to come ...


I see you quote DTS:X as being better than Atmos in your recent posts, what qualifiers is that based on?

And to help me understand your deduction, do you frequent Atmos equipped cinemas to watch Atmos released films?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Yup, the spaciousness that comes from laterally placed speakers (surrounds or heights) cannot be reproduced by speakers in front or behind.


By laterally do you mean the 45 to 135 degrees azimuth range, or more narrow like between +/- 60 and +/- 120 degrees?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ugh... the crackle came back. It's definitely not a buzz or a consistent sound like that. It's crackling that happens for about 6 or so seconds... it's definitely coming from the rear right speaker. It only happens once an hour though.... so it's going to be a ***** solving that issue. If I have time I'll reset the AVR later today because I have to run a calibration anyway. I'm really hoping I don't have to ship my AVR out though


Have you swapped the speaker over to isolate the problem (easiest to do it at the AVR end)? If you swap the wires at the AVR and the crackle stays with the same speaker, it's the speaker. If not, it's something in the signal chain and you can look more closely there.


----------



## pasender91

gene4ht said:


> Yes...Denon X6200W...very similar specifications and price.


Depends where Flinthead is located 
Is the US, they are roughly the same price, but in europe Marantz is a lot cheaper than Denon 
I guess it is marketing positioning ...


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> By laterally do you mean the 45 to 135 degrees azimuth range, or more narrow like between +/- 60 and +/- 120 degrees?


Depends on amount. The effect peaks for reflections around ±60°.


----------



## zimmo

FOR those whit a low ceilling mine 7 foots ,you need more power because the son is lost,I change my Yamaha ns-ic800 for eathquake sweet spot ss82w,whit wofer to 20 degrée and yas a very big différence ,so you can adjusted direct to the speaker plus or lest tribble and same thing for bass.
see internet earthquake sound.


----------



## Ricoflashback

toddman36 said:


> Renting Pixels tonight free from Redbox, my son wants to see it. I believe its a Atmos bluray, correct?


Toddman36 - I rent from Redbox a lot - - very cheap. 

Question: Did the rental Pixels from Redbox have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack? If so, I wonder if more Redbox rentals will have Dolby Atmos encoding. Thx - Rico.


----------



## cyclones22

kbarnes701 said:


> Have you swapped the speaker over to isolate the problem (easiest to do it at the AVR end)? If you swap the wires at the AVR and the crackle stays with the same speaker, it's the speaker. If not, it's something in the signal chain and you can look more closely there.


This is sound advice. When I first bought a Denon 3805 a long time ago, I was experiencing crackling on my left surround. It was intermittent and it drove me nuts. I couldn't understand why in some movies it was happening and other it would not. Well, this was before Blu-ray and the reason that was important is that back then, most mixes were Dolby and it sounded perfectly fine. Turns out it only happened when I played a DTS track. It wasn't the speaker, it was the AVR. The left surround amp had issues with DTS. Banana plugs are perfect for this kind of trouble shooting. Makes your life so much easier when trying to isolate a problem.


----------



## DAK4

Ricoflashback said:


> Toddman36 - I rent from Redbox a lot - - very cheap.
> 
> Question: Did the rental Pixels from Redbox have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack? If so, I wonder if more Redbox rentals will have Dolby Atmos encoding. Thx - Rico.


Yeah, Pixels from RedBox has Atmos and San Andreas had Atmos as well.


----------



## jjackkrash

I am looking at JBL SCS8s or SCS12s for X.X.4's (overheads). Any specific reason not to use these? The room will likely be 30' L, 12' W, 8' H when finished. I am looking into high E speakers for the floor as well, but have not decided on the final speakers. Thanks in advance.


----------



## toddman36

Ricoflashback said:


> Toddman36 - I rent from Redbox a lot - - very cheap.
> 
> Question: Did the rental Pixels from Redbox have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack? If so, I wonder if more Redbox rentals will have Dolby Atmos encoding. Thx - Rico.


Yes sir, it sure did.... Joh Wick, did as well, got both from RedBox...


----------



## gene4ht

Ricoflashback said:


> Toddman36 - I rent from Redbox a lot - - very cheap.
> 
> Question: Did the rental Pixels from Redbox have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack? If so, I wonder if more Redbox rentals will have Dolby Atmos encoding. Thx - Rico.





toddman36 said:


> Yes sir, it sure did.... Joh Wick, did as well, got both from RedBox...


So far, all of the Atmos titles I've rented from Redbox were Atmos encoded...


----------



## toddman36

gene4ht said:


> So far, all of the Atmos titles I've rented from Redbox were Atmos encoded...


Yup, even The Age of Adeline, was Atmos encoded...


----------



## gene4ht

toddman36 said:


> Yup, even The Age of Adeline, was Atmos encoded...


As I recall, a minimal Atmos mix, but Atmos never the less. For a "chick flick," it wasn't a bad movie.


----------



## toddman36

gene4ht said:


> As I recall, a minimal Atmos mix, but Atmos never the less. For a "chick flick," it wasn't a bad movie.


My wife picked it, but yes.... It was a good movie....


----------



## Stoked21

Niles DS7 & DS8 series for Atmos ICs.....Innovative simple mounting clamp system that swivels to ease installation in ceilings.....


Translation....Good ****ing luck uninstalling them without destroying drywall! I had to take my TFR and TRR out to pull 2 XLR cables to the front of my HT. Inevitably one of the 3 swiveling clamps would not swing back into it's pocket. No matter what, you have pry and tear and eventually rip that one out through the drywall. Can easily be rotated a bit when re-installed and MAY not be visible once back in with grill cover. 

Just saying beware of the Niles if you plan to ever get them back out!! The 2 part clamp systems I used for my TR require more hands and alignment to get it in but simple enough; and it comes out easy as hell too.


----------



## Archaea

blazar said:


> Listen to star wars battlefront with atmos on a full system and any debate about immersive audio will be over.
> 
> Atmos IS better than anything else before it. 1st person video games are one of the best applications since the sound is rotating around the viewer while always being in the correct orientation (as opposed to varying camera viewpoints in movies).
> 
> The immersion in a proper system is well... Sweet



How'd you hear it. As best I can tell it's broken on PC. There is a bunch of threads on EA forums saying it doesn't work.

I know I can't get it enabled on my AMD card - the option is grayed out, and the Nvidia guys are saying the same thing.


Frustrating - because Atmos is the reason I bought Battlefront on PC instead of PS4.


One thread says EA says Atmos will be made to work in a future patch.


----------



## thebland

I"m sure this has been posted but where are the *white papers for ATMOS HT set up*. I'm ordering Front Wides and want to kow ideal angles to MLP.

Thanks!


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Depends on amount. The effect peaks for reflections around ±60°.


Very interesting diagram. I recognize it from the book Sound Reproduction by Toole (page 106) but never really looked into it. 

So apparently, spatial cues are most effective in the lateral zone between 30 to 110 degrees azimuth. From its maximum at 60 degrees it goes down to about 3/4 of that towards the edges, being the Auro3D speaker positions (L/R and surrounds respectively).

At 125 degrees azimuth the effectivity still is about 2/3 of its maximum. IMO good enough to give this position a serious try as best compromise TR/SH position in an Atmos/Auro3D combination.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dame spot as Neo:X wides.

Between the mains and side surrounds. Don't need a guide for that.


----------



## Nalleh

thebland said:


> I"m sure this has been posted but where are the *white papers for ATMOS HT set up*. I'm ordering Front Wides and want to kow ideal angles to MLP.
> 
> Thanks!


Check out the first post in this thread


----------



## dkwong

FYI, the Terminator Genisys bluray is now $11, San Andreas bluray is now $10, and John Wick bluray is $5 at amazon.


----------



## FilmMixer

Archaea said:


> How'd you hear it. As best I can tell it's broken on PC. There is a bunch of threads on EA forums saying it doesn't work.
> 
> I know I can't get it enabled on my AMD card - the option is grayed out, and the Nvidia guys are saying the same thing.
> 
> 
> Frustrating - because Atmos is the reason I bought Battlefront on PC instead of PS4.
> 
> 
> One thread says EA says Atmos will be made to work in a future patch.


If it indeed broken, you can assume he has heard it off of the latest Dolby Atmos Demo disc, which has a gameplay clip on it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

dkwong said:


> FYI, the Terminator Genisys bluray is now $1, .


You mean $11..


----------



## dkwong

aaranddeeman said:


> You mean $11..



Yes, typo. Fixed.


----------



## Ricoflashback

DAK4 said:


> Yeah, Pixels from RedBox has Atmos and San Andreas had Atmos as well.


Much thanks! I believe that Dolby Atmos is embedded in the True HD soundtrack. I wonder if this will be the same for DTS: X. 

The fact that it can seamlessly ride along with the basic soundtrack from RedBox is huge IMHO. It means that Dolby Atmos can be enjoyed by folks who rent or stream as opposed to buying discs. 

This is somewhat the same with Dolby Digital Plus riding along with Dolby Digital when I stream Amazon Prime via my Roku 4. 

All the reason to move to Atmos sooner than later!


----------



## toddman36

dkwong said:


> FYI, the Terminator Genisys bluray is now $11, San Andreas bluray is now $10, and John Wick bluray is $5 at amazon.


Is that Amazon Prime Member pricing? Or for any old body! J.W. seems to be the only 1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Much thanks! I believe that Dolby Atmos is embedded in the True HD soundtrack. I wonder if this will be the same for DTS: X.
> 
> The fact that it can seamlessly ride along with the basic soundtrack from RedBox is huge IMHO. It means that Dolby Atmos can be enjoyed by folks who rent or stream as opposed to buying discs.
> 
> This is somewhat the same with Dolby Digital Plus riding along with Dolby Digital when I stream Amazon Prime via my Roku 4.
> 
> All the reason to move to Atmos sooner than later!


Consumer DTS:X should work _similarly_ to consumer Dolby Atmos. They do this for backwards compatibility. The extension data is an addition to the rest of the soundtrack, but the 7.1 channel bed is still combined along with the extra object and metadata file. The whole thing is rather complicated, but at least it sounds good in the end.


----------



## dkwong

toddman36 said:


> Is that Amazon Prime Member pricing? Or for any old body! J.W. seems to be the only 1.



I don't think it's prime only. I found out about it from bluray.com.


----------



## toddman36

dkwong said:


> I don't think it's prime only. I found out about it from bluray.com.


Says John Wick at 5.00, is reserved for Prime Members Only!


----------



## dkwong

toddman36 said:


> Says John Wick at 5.00, is reserved for Prime Members Only!



Ah, my bad.


----------



## fredl

So, I had DW nephews over last night and lugged my gaming PC down to the home theatre. They are huge Star Wars fans and I've just gotten SW BF. I prefer playing most shooter style games with a keyboard and a mouse and the PC versions promise of Atmos sealed the deal.


I have a Nvida GTX 660 and the option for Atmos was greyed out. Too bad! 


We opted for regular 7.1 ch since I got some strange static when using DSU (I think my 2x15 T-amp which I use for the on-ceiling speakers are the culprit, I don't think it fares well with the 4 ohm load).


It sure is an immersive experience. But 117" from 13' is a bit too immersive! 


I think I will do most of my gaming in the living from instead, 60" from 10' might be more up my sleeve (I have Atmos there as well).


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> Consumer DTS:X should work _similarly_ to consumer Dolby Atmos. They do this for backwards compatibility. The extension data is an addition to the rest of the soundtrack, but the 7.1 channel bed is still combined along with the extra object and metadata file. The whole thing is rather complicated, but at least it sounds good in the end.


Right you are. Although object and metadata can sound complex and confusing - - once I learned that it was "embedded" with the existing channel soundtrack, it all made sense. It rides along and if you have a Dolby Atmos receiver, it can easily see the data and will render the Dolby Atmos playback.

Again, I think this is really huge. When you are looking for mass adoption or moving more mainstream - - you want to make the technology as easy as possible for people to acquire. To me, 4K/UHD is much more difficult to move upstream because there is limited content. Bluray discs will become available but you'll need to purchase a 4K/UHD capable Bluray player. 

You can stream 4K but that is expensive right now. 

People talk about Dolby Atmos as hype and how difficult it is to get there. Well - - with two additional speakers or four (optimal) and a new receiver that is 4K compliant - - you can get there pretty fast. AND - - content is much easier to obtain, especially if you're a cheapo like myself (eh, thrifty) who rents from his local Redbox right down the street.

Lastly - I do not know what additional bandwidth requirements are for a Dolby Atmos transmission (broadcast channels or cable/satellite) but I do not believe it is as large a data hog as 4K/UHD. Therefore - I really believe that Dolby Atmos audio will be available from cable/satellite/broadcast TV much sooner than 4K/UHD. 

All good!


----------



## jvkahl

*Opinions Please*

Opinions please. I have a difficult room to deal with and can only do so much. I've actually had height speakers for 15 years and overhead sounds were actually very good but I was actually missing low sounds ie: something dropping on the floor. I want to redo my layout and was thinking if I move my front speakers inward and place heights above them and add 2 lower speakers in the surrounds, 1 under the counter top edge and the left between the 2 windows. Since my MLP is on the right side of the couch the LS would be below the top of the couch and 1 1/2 feet behind me... would the sound be "adequate" and any other suggestions? 
Another ?? would be what speakers to use for heights, I could use the smaller G12 or stay the same as surrounds with G16 or even use the klipsch atmos speaker (though more difficult)?


----------



## Ricoflashback

jvkahl said:


> Opinions please. I have a difficult room to deal with and can only do so much. I've actually had height speakers for 15 years and overhead sounds were actually very good but I was actually missing low sounds ie: something dropping on the floor. I want to redo my layout and was thinking if I move my front speakers inward and place heights above them and add 2 lower speakers in the surrounds, 1 under the counter top edge and the left between the 2 windows. Since my MLP is on the right side of the couch the LS would be below the top of the couch and 1 1/2 feet behind me... would the sound be "adequate" and any other suggestions?
> Another ?? would be what speakers to use for heights, I could use the smaller G12 or stay the same as surrounds with G16 or even use the klipsch atmos speaker (though more difficult)?
> View attachment 1074114
> 
> 
> View attachment 1074122
> 
> 
> View attachment 1074130


First things first and I hope I have read your room right: 

1. Move L/R speakers to the floor. Absolutely essential - - move them in, on the floor with stand, at ear level tilted in towards the listening position. That way, they should be on the same plane as your center speaker, which I assume is hidden behind the grill of your stand, below the TV.

2. Move your rear surrounds down like you have illustrated. You might have to go with "white" speakers to match your decor. Or, you could move the right surround closer to the left surround (or is that a heating vent? :>) directly above and pointing down towards your listening position on the couch. Having moved my rear back surrounds down to ear level has made a huge difference in the sound quality and movie experience. Much more immersive.

3. For Dolby Atmos, a ".2" configuration with in ceiling speakers would work best (Top Middle). If you can match your current speaker line - - that would be best, IMHO. 

You could add "Front Height" later but you really need an angled speaker like the Cornered Audio C4 or C3 or the Bravo 20. Otherwise, they are shooting horizontally too high up and hitting the room above you (no wall).

To me, with your layout and the open room/loft above, you want to tighten up the soundstage for your MLP area. An in ceiling speaker (Top Middle) or surface mount, facing down will provide the immersive sound you are looking for. One man's opinion. 

I hope this helps start the conversation for you.


----------



## Stoked21

jvkahl said:


> Opinions please. I have a difficult room to deal with and can only do so much. I've actually had height speakers for 15 years and overhead sounds were actually very good but I was actually missing low sounds ie: something dropping on the floor. I want to redo my layout and was thinking if I move my front speakers inward and place heights above them and add 2 lower speakers in the surrounds, 1 under the counter top edge and the left between the 2 windows. Since my MLP is on the right side of the couch the LS would be below the top of the couch and 1 1/2 feet behind me... would the sound be "adequate" and any other suggestions?
> Another ?? would be what speakers to use for heights, I could use the smaller G12 or stay the same as surrounds with G16 or even use the klipsch atmos speaker (though more difficult)?
> View attachment 1074114
> 
> 
> View attachment 1074122
> 
> 
> View attachment 1074130


Having your bed level speakers up high is not even similar to "having heights for 15 years". Height speakers are a completely different animal with different processing, supplemental object data etc. They complement your bed level speakers.


----------



## jvkahl

Stoked21 said:


> Having your bed level speakers up high is not even similar to "having heights for 15 years". Height speakers are a completely different animal with different processing, supplemental object data etc. They complement your bed level speakers.


I was sort of joking, however sounds of helicopters, gun fire and lasers etc was over my head and carried from Fr to Back in 5.1. It just also carried everything else.


----------



## makrelov

jvkahl said:


> I was sort of joking, however sounds of helicopters, gun fire and lasers etc was over my head and carried from Fr to Back in 5.1. It just also carried everything else.


Another suggestion, if you let me. Remove the subwoofer from the TV stend. It shouldn't be placed on any kind of furniture. You have plenty of room and nice floor to put it besides the TV stend, or near one of the back/side walls. This speaker produces a lot of vibrations which are not good for the other electronics on the stend and might make parts of furniture to vibrate, making unpleasant noise. For other speakers' placement the guys gave you good proposals.


----------



## cholmes1

Does anyone have experience with Tannoy's CMS lineup? I am looking to find a close timber match with my existing B&W 6 Series setup (604, CC6, DS6). In other threads I have seen the dispersion is excellent and they also do well at not hot spotting which would be important. I am looking specifically at the CMS 603

Thanks, 
C.H.


----------



## jvkahl

Thanks to Makrelov and Ricoflashback for your input


----------



## Steven James 2

Has anyone tried the 3d version of pixels? I watched it last night and it only had dts ma. I put in the 2d version and it had atmos.


----------



## Movie78

Steven James 2 said:


> Has anyone tried the 3d version of pixels? I watched it last night and it only had dts ma. I put in the 2d version and it had atmos.


That's why i bought both version and merge it together.


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> That's why i bought both version and merge it together.


How did you merge them together as I'd like to do that with Gravity but don't know how?


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> How did you merge them together as I'd like to do that with Gravity but don't know how?


You need a couple software and Bluray BD R/Burner

My method only work on Gravity and Pixels...

Follow the instruction below.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-networking-media-servers-content-streaming/1939705-gravity-3d-mkv-atmos-how-do.html#post32885529


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> You need a couple software and Bluray BD R/Burner
> 
> My method only work on Gravity and Pixels...
> 
> Follow the instruction below.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-networking-media-servers-content-streaming/1939705-gravity-3d-mkv-atmos-how-do.html#post32885529


Thanks, I'm trying it now as we speak...


----------



## Csbooth

Steven James 2 said:


> Has anyone tried the 3d version of pixels? I watched it last night and it only had dts ma. I put in the 2d version and it had atmos.


PS3 cannot do 3D and TrueHD concurrently, at least I'm assuming you were using one. If you have a PS4 yet then that will play it fine.


----------



## Steven James 2

Csbooth said:


> PS3 cannot do 3D and TrueHD concurrently, at least I'm assuming you were using one. If you have a PS4 yet then that will play it fine.



I am using a panasonic blu ray player, however it seems dtsma was the track used for the 3d version... Not atmos.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Steven James 2 said:


> I am using a panasonic blu ray player, however it seems dtsma was the track used for the 3d version... Not atmos.


It's normal, only the 2D disc of Pixels comes with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Steven James 2

SteveTheGeek said:


> It's normal, only the 2D disc of Pixels comes with Dolby Atmos.



Im glad thats not the case with every movie! And if i really want atmos and 3d i can have my tv convert to 3d!


----------



## Csbooth

Steven James 2 said:


> I am using a panasonic blu ray player, however it seems dtsma was the track used for the 3d version... Not atmos.


Ah yes, my mistake!


----------



## HTPCat

Deleted Double Post


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> Thanks, I'm trying it now as we speak...


Let me know if you have any question.


----------



## HTPCat

I am in the planning stages of implementing a Dolby Atmos speaker setup in my theater/den and would like some help with regards to ceiling speaker placement and if I should go with 2 or 4 ceiling speakers. 

My room dimensions are [front wall] 14' X [left side wall] 12' X [back wall] 10' with right side open to a much larger area. Ceiling slopes down from 102" to 93" from right to left. My seating is a long sofa 32" from back wall and 112" from AT screen. Currently have bottom layer of 5.2 speaker setup and don't believe that adding rear surrounds would be beneficial because of seating distance. When looking at Atmos top ceiling placement it looks like I could do TM & TF with TM being anywhere from 10" behind MLP to 25" in front (I am thinking of placing the center of the speaker 12" in front) and TF being from 39" in front to 97" in front of MLP (not sure where to place these?).

First question is considering the small size of the room do you think I should go with 2 or 4 Atmos in ceiling speakers? The speakers I am going to buy will be JTR single 8 LP (14" X 14" X 7") or slanted 8 LP (30 degree slant 14" X 14" X 8") and a match for my 3 JTR 212HTR LCR and 2 single 8 surrounds. The cost for a pair is $1800 so I would like to make sure I will get some benefit for adding the second pair. Also, if I do get TF speakers is there a particular distance of separation between the TM & TF for placement?

Second question, the speakers have a 90 degree dispersion and the LP will fire straight down and the slanted LP will fire at 30 degree angle so which style should I get for TM and TF?

Final question, there is a beam running from front to back that protrudes 8" from ceiling 6" inside the front R speaker so for the right side TM & TF ceiling speakers if they are placed in line with the front speaker would put them at 11" center from the outside edge of the beam. The speaker will be built into the ceiling but will protrude out maybe 3" so would need to clear 5" with 90 degree dispersion do you think this will be a problem? Should I move them inside of the beam? 

Thanks for the help, Scott


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> Let me know if you have any question.


Sure will, thanks!


----------



## Romans828

*Atmos Heights...which ceiling position (width wise)*

I have a double Tray/Soffit. The ceiling steps up from 9 to 10 to 11 feet.* See attached picture.* Should I place the Atmos heights in the wider 10 foot high area *(Area 1 in attached picture)* or the more narrow 11 foot high area *(Area 2 in attached picture)*. I know that some are thinking that placing the Atmos height speakers closer together is a good thing *(Anthony Grimani)*. Others are pushing them out wider to increase the distance from the MLP *(more like Dolby spec)*. What are the latest thoughts from the early adopters on this? Any and all guidance/opinions would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## thomasfxlt

Romans828 said:


> I have a double Tray/Soffit. The ceiling steps up from 9 to 10 to 11 feet.* See attached picture.* Should I place the Atmos heights in the wider 10 foot high area *(Area 1 in attached picture)* or the more narrow 11 foot high area *(Area 2 in attached picture)*. I know that some are thinking that placing the Atmos height speakers closer together is a good thing *(Anthony Grimani)*. Others are pushing them out wider to increase the distance from the MLP *(more like Dolby spec)*. What are the latest thoughts from the early adopters on this? Any and all guidance/opinions would be greatly appreciated!



I went with the Dolby spec and stayed pretty much inline with the fronts. I have a 5.1.4 setup. Sound awesome.


----------



## Romans828

thomasfxlt said:


> I went with the Dolby spec and stayed pretty much inline with the fronts. I have a 5.1.4 setup. Sound awesome.


My ceiling will be similar to the one in the attached picture. Each tray/level is 2 feet wide. The middle section is 11 feet high. It steps down a foot for each tray.


----------



## thomasfxlt

Romans828 said:


> My ceiling will be similar to the one in the attached picture. Each tray/level is 2 feet wide. The middle section is 11 feet high. It steps down a foot for each tray.



Where r the fronts going to be?


----------



## Romans828

thomasfxlt said:


> Where r the fronts going to be?


The screen will be 140" wide...so L & R will be near the outside of the screen...probably more in line with the 10 foot area.


----------



## batpig

Romans828 said:


> thomasfxlt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where r the fronts going to be?
> 
> 
> 
> The screen will be 140" wide...so L & R will be near the outside of the screen...probably more in line with the 10 foot area.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that in the CINEMA spec the overhead arrays are aligned in between the center and L/R speakers, unlike the home spec/recommendation of lining them up with the L/R mains. 

So everyone agrees they should be, at most, as wide as the mains. Given that you have a more "cinematic" layout with a huge screen and PJ, it would make sense to line them up a bit narrower than the mains. 

That said, honestly, it will sound awesome either way.


----------



## NorthSky

Zhorik said:


> I see you quote DTS:X as being better than Atmos in your recent posts, what qualifiers is that based on?
> 
> And to help me understand your deduction, do you frequent Atmos equipped cinemas to watch Atmos released films?


Sorry, I was away with my family for the weekend. 

DTS:X is not here yet, so it's impossible for me to say that it's "better". ...But it probably is. ;-)

No, no Atmos here in igloo country; they can't even afford to warm the place during winter. 

* We won't know for sure till next year...summer 2016. But according to some demos some people attended to it is promising. 
And on Vancouver Island we don't have any Dolby Atmos theaters.


----------



## mastermaybe

Hi gang; I'll post a pic tomorrow (EDIT: added) hopefully, but I'm FINALLY ready to get started on my 23 x 45 FUN ROOM, with about a 23 x 23 footprint for the main theater area.

I'll have a 7.2.4 array. All but the rear surrounds should be optimally or near-optimally placed.

But the rear surrounds will suffer from "imperfect" placement. It's simply not feasible to have them 4-5 feet off the floor (8 foot ceilings) optimally angled behind the main listening position. I am not placing speaker stands and running xlr's and power cords (powered QSC K 10's) to these points.

This all never minds the fact that I'll have a separate "seating area" behind the main 4 seats (on a 7" riser) that will never receive the optimal surround effect(s): too bad lol. 

Basically, it's:


"Optimum" lateral placement, but ceiling mounted and "aimed" onto the main listening position...

OR

"Optimum" height, side wall mounted, but splayed out beyond optimum "behind" angling.

My inclination is ceiling...and it would make install cleaner and easier, conveniently. But I'm also thinking that if I can get them far enough behind the MLP, then I can talk myself into rear wall placement easily enough- seems much less inclined to impact the overhead speakers.

Optimum angle, poor/imperfect height

Vs

Optimum height, poor/imperfect angle

The dispersion on the K10's is 90 degrees.

Help would be appreciated!

Thanks gang!

James


----------



## FilmMixer

Zhorik said:


> I see you quote DTS:X as being better than Atmos in your recent posts, what qualifiers is that based on?


Let's just do an objective comparison based on the information at hand. 

DTS : X features

32 possible speaker locations total for the base, height and overhead layers.

16 total audio streams (+LFE) So a total of 7.1 + 9 objects, or any type of combination to get you to 16...

Ability to have dialog desperately encoded as an object and raise it in level. 

Atmos:

7.1 bed + a maximum of 20 discrete objects. 

34 speaker locations... 24 on the base, 10 on the ceiling. 

Most accounts from CEDIA were that they both sounded similar.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> DTS : X features
> 
> 
> 
> Ability to have dialog *desperately* encoded as an object and raise it in level.


LOL. I think we all know you meant to type "separately" but if it was a Freudian slip, it was a very good one!


----------



## Ricoflashback

FilmMixer said:


> Let's just do an objective comparison based on the information at hand.
> 
> DTS : X features
> 
> 32 possible speaker locations total for the base, height and overhead layers.
> 
> 16 total audio streams (+LFE) So a total of 7.1 + 9 objects, or any type of combination to get you to 16...
> 
> Ability to have dialog desperately encoded as an object and raise it in level.
> 
> Atmos:
> 
> 7.1 bed + a maximum of 20 discrete objects.
> 
> 34 speaker locations... 24 on the base, 10 on the ceiling.
> 
> Most accounts from CEDIA were that they both sounded similar.


*************************************************************

The fun begins when these immersive formats are all available to the consumer with one AVR or Pre/Pro. Denon offers Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D (monetary upgrade) with a promise of DTS:X when ready.

Maybe they are all similar - - but it would be nice if the consumer had the choice to determine what they like the best. That would be an optimal world, IMHO. 

Then, no matter what disc you rent or buy, if the immersive soundtrack is there, you'll have your choice of playback.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. I think we all know you meant to type "separately" but if it was a Freudian slip, it was a very good one!


LOOOOL   Good catch


----------



## robert816

I'm replacing my Pioneer SC-87 AVR with Pioneer's SC-99 AVR this weekend. I have an old Denon 3 channel amp (ah, pro logic, those were the days!) I can use for the two extra channels so that I can go with a 7.2.4 Atmos speaker configuration, currently 5.2.4.


My question is, should I set the gain (volume control) of the external amp to max and leave it there, then run the audio calibration, or set it to a lower level? I certainly do not want to damage my amp or my speakers so I thought I'd ask a little advice from the group.


Thanks in advance!


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> Let me know if you have any question.


Well I ripped both discs using AnyDVD and got stuck on the step that says:

4-Extract the BDMV and Certificate file in a new folder name (CD1).

Is it file or folder because I found the BDMV and Certificate folders but didn't find any files with those names? And do we extract them or just copy them?

I'm assuming on step 3 that once you find the correct .m2Ts file for the main movie you use the same number for the .mpls file, correct?

Thanks


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> Well I ripped both discs using AnyDVD and got stuck on the step that says:
> 
> 4-Extract the BDMV and Certificate file in a new folder name (CD1).
> 
> Is it file or folder because I found the BDMV and Certificate folders but didn't find any files with those names? And do we extract them or just copy them?
> 
> I'm assuming on step 3 that once you find the correct .m2Ts file for the main movie you use the same number for the .mpls file, correct?
> 
> Thanks


Check your PM


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. I think we all know you meant to type "separately" but if it was a Freudian slip, it was a very good one!



My money is on "*discretely*" not "separately" as in "My Denon X5200 has 9 discrete amplifiers."


----------



## Markitron

Have there been any impressions about the ELAC Atmos modules yet? They fit my budget perfectly but worried they might be as bad as the Onkyo modules apparently are.


----------



## pasender91

Markitron said:


> Have there been any impressions about the ELAC Atmos modules yet? They fit my budget perfectly but worried they might be as bad as the Onkyo modules apparently are.


Elac generally makes very good speakers, and they have a very good reputation in Germany.
I was always pleasantly surprised when listening to them, especially in regards to their small size.
Things can always go wrong on a given model, but i doubt it regarding this company.

That said, i have not listened to this speaker


----------



## PoppaC

*TMOS add on speakers*



Markitron said:


> Have there been any impressions about the ELAC Atmos modules yet? They fit my budget perfectly but worried they might be as bad as the Onkyo modules apparently are.


I just bought a set of the Pioneer Atmos add-on speakers and was quite surprised at the good quality (and weight) They are 30.00 cheaper than the ELAC, but look much nicer than the Onkyo ones. The cabinets are nicely curved and not boxy like the ELAC. I have them sitting on top on my monitor 9s, and they don't look bad at all. The box says they are designed by Andrew Jones, who is with ELAC now if I understand correctly.


----------



## bezlar

Little help with my speaker placement. My two new triad's came in today so I will be placing in ceiling for my atmos system. I have a basic 6.2 system with front heights on screen wall. I've included a very rough drawing of my setup. Only place I can add two more speakers is in front of my theater sofa. So roughly how far from sofa out and should they toe in towards the sofa a little. These are in-ceiling bronze sat so they are angled to the listener from the factory. Next question is what to connect them to and label on the 7010. I have small emotive amp to run them. Also all my surrounds are in ceiling. I have no choice in the matter the way my basement is. Thanks













Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## scarabaeus

So, I like 3D, and because of that I bought "The Mask". To my surprise, there was a seven minute animated short on there as well ... in Atmos! It's called "One Night In Hell".


----------



## batpig

bezlar said:


> Little help with my speaker placement. My two new triad's came in today so I will be placing in ceiling for my atmos system. I have a basic 6.2 system with front heights on screen wall. I've included a very rough drawing of my setup. Only place I can add two more speakers is in front of my theater sofa. So roughly how far from sofa out and should they toe in towards the sofa a little. These are in-ceiling bronze sat so they are angled to the listener from the factory. Next question is what to connect them to and label on the 7010. I have small emotive amp to run them. Also all my surrounds are in ceiling. I have no choice in the matter the way my basement is. Thankstalk


With in-ceiling surrounds to the sides and behind, and front heights above the screen, you basically have no other choice than the "Top Middle" location/designation for your new speakers. And, if just look at the speaker layout and say "where is the gap", it's basically right where those two question marks are. 

With the angled baffle, I don't think you want them firing straight ahead smacking the person on that side of the couch in the face. It would be too hot-spotty and overbearing there. Ideally if you have enough room in the joist bay you could angle them across the couch to the opposite end (energy trading) .

In terms of connections, it's quite simple, the front heights are "Height1" and the second pair is "Height2". So hook up RCA cables from the Height2 pre-outs to the inputs on the emotiva amp, then from there run speaker wire from the amp to the speakers. Recalibrate and off you go.


----------



## blazar

Archaea said:


> How'd you hear it. As best I can tell it's broken on PC. There is a bunch of threads on EA forums saying it doesn't work.
> 
> I know I can't get it enabled on my AMD card - the option is grayed out, and the Nvidia guys are saying the same thing.
> 
> 
> Frustrating - because Atmos is the reason I bought Battlefront on PC instead of PS4.
> 
> 
> One thread says EA says Atmos will be made to work in a future patch.


I apologize if I was misleading in my post.

Dolby Atmos's most recent test disc shows some protracted game play with the atmos running. It was played at CEDIA 2015 a couple of months ago during a few demos there.

It is very very impressive on the demo. I have not heard it on the actual game yet and I read the posts mentioning that it wasn't available yet. I am assuming the demo is not "doctored" in any way to sound better than it would be in actual game play.

Hopefully it comes out very soon in a patch to the actual game...


----------



## thebland

FilmMixer said:


> Let's just do an objective comparison based on the information at hand.
> 
> DTS : X features
> 
> 32 possible speaker locations total for the base, height and overhead layers.
> 
> 16 total audio streams (+LFE) So a total of 7.1 + 9 objects, or any type of combination to get you to 16...
> 
> Ability to have dialog desperately encoded as an object and raise it in level.
> 
> Atmos:
> 
> 7.1 bed + a maximum of 20 discrete objects.
> 
> 34 speaker locations... 24 on the base, 10 on the ceiling.
> 
> Most accounts from CEDIA were that they both sounded similar.


How may rooms at CEDIA were running DTS-X??


----------



## gbaby

robert816 said:


> I'm replacing my Pioneer SC-87 AVR with Pioneer's SC-99 AVR this weekend. I have an old Denon 3 channel amp (ah, pro logic, those were the days!) I can use for the two extra channels so that I can go with a 7.2.4 Atmos speaker configuration, currently 5.2.4.
> 
> 
> My question is, should I set the gain (volume control) of the external amp to max and leave it there, then run the audio calibration, or set it to a lower level? I certainly do not want to damage my amp or my speakers so I thought I'd ask a little advice from the group.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!


If your amp has a gain control, you should set it at its max to ensure maximum power output before calibration.


----------



## bezlar

batpig said:


> With in-ceiling surrounds to the sides and behind, and front heights above the screen, you basically have no other choice than the "Top Middle" location/designation for your new speakers. And, if just look at the speaker layout and say "where is the gap", it's basically right where those two question marks are.
> 
> 
> 
> With the angled baffle, I don't think you want them firing straight ahead smacking the person on that side of the couch in the face. It would be too hot-spotty and overbearing there. Ideally if you have enough room in the joist bay you could angle them across the couch to the opposite end (energy trading) .
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of connections, it's quite simple, the front heights are "Height1" and the second pair is "Height2". So hook up RCA cables from the Height2 pre-outs to the inputs on the emotiva amp, then from there run speaker wire from the amp to the speakers. Recalibrate and off you go.



Thank you so much. That's what I was thinking just wasn't real sure about the toe in. I have room to angle so I will. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

scarabaeus said:


> So, I like 3D, and because of that I bought "The Mask". To my surprise, there was a seven minute animated short on there as well ... in Atmos! It's called "One Night In Hell".



I'm glad you clarified what version of The Mask your were talking about. I immediately thought of Jim Carrey's The Mask, which was the very first DVD I ever bought back in '97 and was mystified that they would re-release and add 3D.


----------



## Scott Simonian

blazar said:


> It is very very impressive on the demo.


The game will never sound as good as that demo which is too bad.


----------



## blazar

Scott Simonian said:


> The game will never sound as good as that demo which is too bad.


I'm not so sure about that. There isn't any technical reason why it shouldn't that I'm aware of... 

Are you speaking about some specific reasons why it can't be done?


----------



## toofast68

thebland said:


> How may rooms at CEDIA were running DTS-X??


I hope I can ask this in the Atmos thread....but do we know if DTS-X will allow the use of Wide's Again - loving Atmos, but I have a super wide room and the wides really helped with the front stage.


----------



## carp

mastermaybe said:


> Hi gang; I'll post a pic tomorrow (EDIT: added) hopefully, but I'm FINALLY ready to get started on my 23 x 45 FUN ROOM, with about a 23 x 23 footprint for the main theater area.
> 
> I'll have a 7.2.4 array. All but the rear surrounds should be optimally or near-optimally placed.
> 
> But the rear surrounds will suffer from "imperfect" placement. It's simply not feasible to have them 4-5 feet off the floor (8 foot ceilings) optimally angled behind the main listening position. I am not placing speaker stands and running xlr's and power cords (powered QSC K 10's) to these points.
> 
> This all never minds the fact that I'll have a separate "seating area" behind the main 4 seats (on a 7" riser) that will never receive the optimal surround effect(s): too bad lol.
> 
> Basically, it's:
> 
> 
> "Optimum" lateral placement, but ceiling mounted and "aimed" onto the main listening position...
> 
> OR
> 
> "Optimum" height, side wall mounted, but splayed out beyond optimum "behind" angling.
> 
> My inclination is ceiling...and it would make install cleaner and easier, conveniently. But I'm also thinking that if I can get them far enough behind the MLP, then I can talk myself into rear wall placement easily enough- seems much less inclined to impact the overhead speakers.
> 
> Optimum angle, poor/imperfect height
> 
> Vs
> 
> Optimum height, poor/imperfect angle
> 
> The dispersion on the K10's is 90 degrees.
> 
> Help would be appreciated!
> 
> Thanks gang!
> 
> James


Hey James,

LOVE the angled couches idea - I've never seen that!! You'll be able to fit a ton of people in that room!


----------



## batpig

toofast68 said:


> thebland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How may rooms at CEDIA were running DTS-X??
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I can ask this in the Atmos thread....but do we know if DTS-X will allow the use of Wide's Again - loving Atmos, but I have a super wide room and the wides really helped with the front stage.
Click to expand...

Atmos supports wides (aka Front Surround). Are you thinking of DSU upmixing?


----------



## dvdwilly3

I finally pulled the trigger on a full 7.1.4 Atmos setup. But, I have a concern.


I am running my TX-NR1030 for the 7.1.2 and using the Onkyo Height 2 pre outs to feed a signal to a Denon X1200W and using the analog audio in for Cbl/Sat. Initially, I was puzzled because I could not get very much volume at all from my Height 2 speakers...at all. I knew that the speakers were good because I was running them before as the Top Rear in 5.1.4. And, they are the same speakers as my Top Fronts, and those were playing normally. The Top Rear running off of the Denon sounded very, very weak.


After some experimentation, I found that if I went into the Denon setup and selected Source Level and cranked it to the max +12 dB, that the Top Rears level could be brought into balance with the rest of the speakers, that is, they now sound matched to the front heights.


My question is, “By maxing out the source level setting on the Denon, will I do any damage to that unit?”


The speaker level on the Onkyo for the Top Front speakers is 0.0 dB. To get the same level on the Top Rear speakers (same make), the speaker level on the Onkyo is +9.0 dB.
If it makes any difference, the relative volume on the Denon is set at 60.
Am I at risk of damaging either receiver?


----------



## batpig

Before you cranked the source level did you try the more obvious remedy of simply raising the master volume of the Denon?


----------



## dvdwilly3

batpig said:


> Before you cranked the source level did you try the more obvious remedy of simply raising the master volume of the Denon?


I did that...right now it is at 60 on the Denon.
But, IIRC, it was at 60 before I started fooling with the source level.

Should I go back to master volume and boost it to...80 on the Denon?

And, then go back and lower the source level on the Denon? Is that a better solution?

I just do not want to damage either of the AVRs.


----------



## batpig

dvdwilly3 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you cranked the source level did you try the more obvious remedy of simply raising the master volume of the Denon?
> 
> 
> 
> I did that...right now it is at 60 on the Denon.
> But, IIRC, it was at 60 before I started fooling with the source level.
> 
> Should I go back to master volume and boost it to...80 on the Denon?
> 
> And, then go back and lower the source level on the Denon? Is that a better solution?
> 
> I just do not want to damage either of the AVRs.
Click to expand...

Turn it up to 80. You won't damage anything. 

It's a digital volume control so 60 volume with +10 source level is identical to just raising the volume to 70.


----------



## bass addict

I just broke down and ordered a 3050 to replace my A5000. I am in the process of finalizing my Volt 10 top install, but read a couple accounts where people mentioned when running rears to install the tops in a TF/TM orientation as opposed to the more widely accepted TF/TR setup. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## NorthSky

Looking @ your avatar...*TF & TR*.

Experiment, with high speaker's stands; try that first, then FH and TM.

* With the Yamaha 3050 can you do TF and TM?


----------



## Skylinestar

NorthSky said:


> * With the Yamaha 3050 can you do TF and TM?


This (adjacent config) is not possible on D&M avr/prepro. I wonder can the Yamaha and Pioneer do it?


----------



## jpco

Yamaha does not do top middle at all.


----------



## toofast68

batpig said:


> Atmos supports wides (aka Front Surround). Are you thinking of DSU upmixing?


Ok, so I must have a setting issue going on, I can only get my Wide's to work in the Audyssey mode on the Denon 6200, in Atmos all I get is my 4 Atmos speakers up top, but no wides.

I understand the DSU upmix "issue" should be fixed with the DTS-X stuff, but now I know that I also should get the Wide's to work in Pure Atmos mode...

Back to the testing mode...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

cdy2179 said:


> Man tell me about it. It's almost worth it to buy a cheap 7.1 AVR from accessories4less to use while yours gets fixed. Being without the HT for a month or so flat out sucks, I could live without Atmos for that long but not the whole use of the HT.


I think I'd just rather put up with the crackle. I've only heard it once since you guys wrote (I think). 



kbarnes701 said:


> Have you swapped the speaker over to isolate the problem (easiest to do it at the AVR end)? If you swap the wires at the AVR and the crackle stays with the same speaker, it's the speaker. If not, it's something in the signal chain and you can look more closely there.


My apologies for the delayed response... I've been so busy. I've only experienced the crackle once after I was asking around on the thread about this. That's a good suggestion, the only problem is that it happens so rarely. 

It's strange... it usually only happens when I watch the show "the wire" on bluray. I usually hear the crackle while listening with the volume set @ 44 on the X5200W. I never hear the crackle when watching 7.1 or Atmos films with the volume set @ 50-65, I figure Atmos or 7.1 content will more likely set off the crackle due to speaker activity (I gotta turn it down when things get loud since I'm in an apartment now) (lol)

So I'm wondering if the increase in volume obscures the crackle? 

Perhaps the issue is going away. If it happens again, then I'll swap the speaker wires.

One last question... if it is the wires, do you guys think the crackling from the preamp/wire/AVR could be damaging the speaker in any way?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

scarabaeus said:


> So, I like 3D, and because of that I bought "The Mask". To my surprise, there was a seven minute animated short on there as well ... in Atmos! It's called "One Night In Hell".


What did you think of the film itself? I tried looking it up on google but only found a goofy trailer for it which didn't help too much with showing what the film is like. 

It seems like it might be sort of like an old vincent price-style film? How was the 3D & the sound of the film itself? 

I just rented San Andreas... damn! The sound in that movie is fantastic... one of the best Atmos mixes yet. The film itself is soooo corny but I'd almost consider buying it just to hear those sounds again. A lot of parts in that film remind me of the end of the "conductor" trailer on the Atmos demo disc (rumbling bass, crackling sounds coming from overhead). 

I haven't been on the forums here for a week... I'm curious if any new Atmos related releases for discs are rumored/ announced? I saw Sicario is officially Atmos?


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> I finally pulled the trigger on a full 7.1.4 Atmos setup. But, I have a concern.
> 
> 
> I am running my TX-NR1030 for the 7.1.2 and using the Onkyo Height 2 pre outs to feed a signal to a Denon X1200W and using the analog audio in for Cbl/Sat. Initially, I was puzzled because I could not get very much volume at all from my Height 2 speakers...at all. I knew that the speakers were good because I was running them before as the Top Rear in 5.1.4. And, they are the same speakers as my Top Fronts, and those were playing normally. The Top Rear running off of the Denon sounded very, very weak.
> 
> 
> After some experimentation, I found that if I went into the Denon setup and selected Source Level and cranked it to the max +12 dB, that the Top Rears level could be brought into balance with the rest of the speakers, that is, they now sound matched to the front heights.
> 
> 
> My question is, “By maxing out the source level setting on the Denon, will I do any damage to that unit?”
> 
> 
> The speaker level on the Onkyo for the Top Front speakers is 0.0 dB. To get the same level on the Top Rear speakers (same make), the speaker level on the Onkyo is +9.0 dB.
> If it makes any difference, the relative volume on the Denon is set at 60.
> Am I at risk of damaging either receiver?


have you tried using the CD in instead of cbl/sat, when I used an old denon receiver as an amp this worked for me I just made sure that the sound from the denon was processed as straight through as stereo.
Then the other thing I did was run the test tone on the Onkyo that the volume on the denon was the same as the onkyo. If you don't have a sound meter I used an app on my phone, ounce I got the volume on the denon. Then I ran AccEQ worked for me.


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> You need a couple software and Bluray BD R/Burner
> 
> My method only work on Gravity and Pixels...
> 
> Follow the instruction below.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-networking-media-servers-content-streaming/1939705-gravity-3d-mkv-atmos-how-do.html#post32885529


I tried this 3 times and couldn't get it to work:

1) First, after muxing and copying the .m2ts file onto a flash drive, and playing the movie on my Oppo 103, the video froze after a couple of seconds.
2) Second, I muxed the .iso file and burned it on a disk and then played it on the Oppo and the audio was just DTS HD Master 5.1.
3) Third, after muxing and copying the .m2ts file onto an external hard drive, the audio was coming in and out at split second intervals.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong but this obviously doesn't work in every instance or maybe the Oppo doesn't like the files created by this method?


----------



## batpig

bargervais said:


> dvdwilly3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I finally pulled the trigger on a full 7.1.4 Atmos setup. But, I have a concern.
> 
> 
> I am running my TX-NR1030 for the 7.1.2 and using the Onkyo Height 2 pre outs to feed a signal to a Denon X1200W and using the analog audio in for Cbl/Sat. Initially, I was puzzled because I could not get very much volume at all from my Height 2 speakers...at all. I knew that the speakers were good because I was running them before as the Top Rear in 5.1.4. And, they are the same speakers as my Top Fronts, and those were playing normally. The Top Rear running off of the Denon sounded very, very weak.
> 
> 
> After some experimentation, I found that if I went into the Denon setup and selected Source Level and cranked it to the max +12 dB, that the Top Rears level could be brought into balance with the rest of the speakers, that is, they now sound matched to the front heights.
> 
> 
> My question is, ?By maxing out the source level setting on the Denon, will I do any damage to that unit??
> 
> 
> The speaker level on the Onkyo for the Top Front speakers is 0.0 dB. To get the same level on the Top Rear speakers (same make), the speaker level on the Onkyo is +9.0 dB.
> If it makes any difference, the relative volume on the Denon is set at 60.
> Am I at risk of damaging either receiver?
> 
> 
> 
> have you tried using the CD in instead of cbl/sat, when I used an old denon receiver as an amp this worked for me I just made sure that the sound from the denon was processed as straight through as stereo.
> Then the other thing I did was run the test tone on the Onkyo that the volume on the denon was the same as the onkyo. If you don't have a sound meter I used an app on my phone, ounce I got the volume on the denon. Then I ran AccEQ worked for me.
Click to expand...

No no. Input has nothing to do with it. The only problem is that he's attenuating the signal by 20db before he begins (60 is 20db down from reference 80).


----------



## tjenkins95

*Looking for 2 more Atmos Speakers*

Currently I have 4 "in-ceiling" Klipsch CDT-3650-C II speakers positioned as Top Front(front height) and Top Middle.


Here are the current specs for my Klipsch CDT-3650 in ceiling speakers:
_Recommended Amplifier Power 100 W_
_High Frequency Driver: 1” (2.54cm) Aluminum diaphragm compression driver_
_mated to a swiveling 100° round Tractrix® Horn_
_Low Frequency Driver - 6.5" (16.51cm) pivoting IMG cone woofer_




I wanted to move my middle speakers to the rear to have the TF/TR setup as members have previously suggested.
However, it turns out that behind my acoustic ceiling panels in the back of the room, there are several electrical wires running to the circuit breaker which prevents me from installing the Klipsch speakers into the ceiling panels.


So, I am looking for suggestions for a pair of speakers which can be mounted onto the ceiling panel.
I will leave the TM speakers where they are for future use when they develop AVRs with support for 6 Atmos speakers.


Any recommendations for on-ceiling speakers that will fit in with my set of Klipsch speakers.
Maybe the Tannoy DI5/6 speakers? 


Thanks.
Ray


----------



## aaranddeeman

toofast68 said:


> Ok, so I must have a setting issue going on, I can only get my Wide's to work in the Audyssey mode on the Denon 6200, in Atmos all I get is my 4 Atmos speakers up top, but no wides.
> 
> I understand the DSU upmix "issue" should be fixed with the DTS-X stuff, but now I know that I also should get the Wide's to work in Pure Atmos mode...
> 
> Back to the testing mode...


Wides will work in Atmos (with 6200 or any other Denon) only if you sacrifice wither SBR or one of the top pairs.


----------



## toofast68

aaranddeeman said:


> Wides will work in Atmos (with 6200 or any other Denon) only if you sacrifice wither SBR or one of the top pairs.


Okay if I have no surround back's... what you're saying is I should get the fromt wides to work for Atmos.... Roger that.... it is my setup I'll keep trying to figure out what I did wrong

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> With the Yamaha 3050 can you do TF and TM?





Skylinestar said:


> This *^* (adjacent config) is not possible on D&M avr/prepro. I wonder can the Yamaha and Pioneer do it?





jpco said:


> Yamaha does not do top middle at all.


Ok; what are the overhead Dolby Atmos combinations possible with the Yamaha 3050 receiver? ...No Top Middle (TM) @ all, but TF and TR yes...what else? ...And the Presence speakers (front and rear), are they part of the Dolby Atmos alphabet soup? 

________

* If my memory is correct, with Denon/Marantz Dolby Atmos products, the configurations permissible are:
1. TF & TR
2. FH & TM
3. TM & RH
4. FH & RH
5. TF & RH
6. FH & TR

- Please correct me if I have one wrong or if one is missing. 

________

** And what are the combinations admissible with Pioneer Dolby Atmos receivers, and Onkyo/Integra receivers and pre/pros?


----------



## NorthSky

toofast68 said:


> Okay if I have no surround back's... what you're saying is I should get the fromt wides to work for Atmos.... Roger that.... it is my setup I'll keep trying to figure out what I did wrong.


Say you have ten Blu-ray movies encoded with Dolby Atmos, total, and that some streaming places (Vudu, Netflix, ...whatever else) allow Dolby Atmos;
the Front Wides would be activated. ...If of course the Back surrounds were disabled (or one of the top overhead pairs). 

With everything else (99%), when engaging DSU the Front Wides would be inactive. 
The only way to get them active will be to disengage DSU and use Audyssey DSX or DTS Neo:X 
* DPLII family is gone with Denon/Marantz Dolby Atmos products.
...Only Yamaha retained it, but no DPLIIz and no DTS Neo:X with Yamaha (DPLIIx & DTS Neo:6 - yes)

And! With their new receicers and pre/pros (D&M), you cannot apply DSU on any flavor of dts. ...Unless you set your BR player HDMI Audio Out to LPCM. 
...Then revert back to Bitstream for the Dolby Atmos content.

________

♦ Our receivers are getting more and more complex since the introduction of the HDMI cables. Lol, that was supposed to be the opposite, and I'm not even mentioning the HDMI handshake issues still very present today after almost fourteen years of living with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
Our world goes so fast that engineers don't have the time to implement solid communications/connections. 
Newest audio/video technologies for profits are more important than product's reliability. ...Time is money, and money is in the new stuff; there is simply no time to fix the old stuff. Do I need to cite few examples to demonstrate the veracity of this fact? 

For the few hardcore audio/video people like some of us here, time is on our side; we take it to learn all the ups and downs of our passionate hobby of this audio/video industry. We are representing approximately 0.00001% of the entire audiophile/videophile population. 
The rest, 99.99999% of the population is simply not into all those complexities. ...And the few who slowly dare to jump in this all new 3D sound stuff; they need to get info somewhere to understand it all; configurations and system setups and calibration and equalization and speaker's angling and positioning. 

Even the pros are having a hard time, and the dts engineers as well. And I'm not mentioning the Voice Of God (VOG) from Auro-3D. 

But it's ok; it's mainly fun, more enveloping, and the extremely tiny minority (us) don't mind the time to explore, learn, and experiment. 
For newcomers the learning curve is just a little steeper, and the hardcore gurus are here to make the road flatter and more manageable. 

You go to an audio/video store today (amazon, best buy, wallmart, AVS, eBay, A4L, ...), you download the instruction manual @ home from the internet, you might read some, or not, and if you don't go to some audio/video sites on the internet to ask few questions to learn more, your system setup won't be optimized to perform @ its best, most likely.
So, places like here, AVSForum, with the good folks who took the time to read, to understand, to experiment, etc., day in day out, are the mega highway of the audio/video bible book, better than most instructions manuals written @ the time when. ...But the instructions manuals of the internet are often updated, just like our Blu-ray players and receivers with new firmware updates. 

Like I said, all is good.


----------



## Nalleh

Ok, so i watched PHANTOM tonight.










It is regionfree, has Atmos and english subtitiles.

Well, these guys really turned the "Atmos-knob" to 11!! In the beginning there is a car chase in Chicago, and it is just bananas! Even car engine noise and tire squeling comes from the ceiling, LOOL. It is a VERY active Atmos track, and it's the first time i was thinking maybe it was to much. But it is actually a pretty good action movie about a secret agent finding and killing terrorists. 

Like i said it has a very active Atmos track, VERY dynamic, and it really uses the platform to the max, like the music scores that is hovering above, bombs going off, helicopters, planes, underwater scenes and lots of cool little details trough the movie.

And the LFE track is awsome, with some scenes actually making it windy in my living room.

Recommended? Yup


----------



## batpig

toofast68 said:


> aaranddeeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wides will work in Atmos (with 6200 or any other Denon) only if you sacrifice wither SBR or one of the top pairs.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay if I have no surround back's... what you're saying is I should get the fromt wides to work for Atmos.... Roger that.... it is my setup I'll keep trying to figure out what I did wrong
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, if you don't have surround backs you are running 5.1 + FW + 4 Heights. That's only 11 channels so you should be able to render to all 11 speakers with native Atmos. Several people (eg Dan Hitchman) are running this version of a 7.1.4 setup. 

My bet is something is off with your amp assign settings. What are they set to and which speakers have external amps?


----------



## jpco

NorthSky said:


> Ok; what are the overhead Dolby Atmos combinations possible with the Yamaha 3050 receiver? ...No Top Middle (TM) @ all, but TF and TR yes...what else? ...And the Presence speakers (front and rear), are they part of the Dolby Atmos alphabet soup?
> 
> ________
> 
> * If my memory is correct, with Denon/Marantz Dolby Atmos products, the configurations permissible are:
> 1. TF & TR
> 2. FH & TM
> 3. TM & RH
> 4. FH & RH
> 5. TF & RH
> 6. FH & TR
> 
> - Please correct me if I have one wrong or if one is missing.
> 
> ________
> 
> ** And what are the combinations admissible with Pioneer Dolby Atmos receivers, and Onkyo/Integra receivers and pre/pros?



Yamaha has height, overhead, and Dolby enabled Speakers to select for both front and rear. They are called Presence in the setup menu.

They are selected separately, so it can be FH and TR, and so on.


----------



## NorthSky

jpco said:


> Yamaha has height, overhead, and Dolby enabled Speakers to select for both front and rear. They are called Presence in the setup menu.
> 
> They are selected separately, so it can be FH and TR, and so on.


Thx. ...Like in Denon/Marantz Dolby Atmos products but except for number 2 and 3 enumerated just above (with the TM). ...Right?


----------



## toofast68

NorthSky said:


> Say you have ten Blu-ray movies encoded with Dolby Atmos, total, and that some streaming places (Vudu, Netflix, ...whatever else) allow Dolby Atmos;
> the Front Wides would be activated. ...If of course the Back surrounds were disabled (or one of the top overhead pairs).
> ________
> 
> ♦ Our receivers are getting more and more complex...


Tell me about it, I must have a setting wacked somewhere. I have an external amp powering my "wides", with Atmos tracks on the wides are not lite up and of course no sound.

No do dig into the manual and try to figure this out...

Of course with DSX I do get the wides, so I know they are "working".


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Ok, so i watched PHANTOM tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is regionfree, has Atmos and english subtitiles.
> 
> Well, these guys really turned the "Atmos-knob" to 11!! In the beginning there is a car chase in Chicago, and it is just bananas! Even car engine noise and tire squeling comes from the ceiling, LOOL. It is a VERY active Atmos track, and it's the first time i was thinking maybe it was to much. But it is actually a pretty good action movie about a secret agent finding and killing terrorists.
> 
> Like i said it has a very active Atmos track, VERY dynamic, and it really uses the platform to the max, like the music scores that is hovering above, bombs going off, helicopters, planes, underwater scenes and lots of cool little details trough the movie.
> 
> And the LFE track is awsome, with some scenes actually making it windy in my living room.
> 
> Recommended? Yup



The reviews of this movie were pretty crap. (And I can read/write/speak Hindi)
Else I would I picked it up during My India trip. I did get the Bahubali and Mary Kom though.


----------



## aaranddeeman

toofast68 said:


> Tell me about it, I must have a setting wacked somewhere. I have an external amp powering my "wides", with Atmos tracks on the wides are not lite up and of course no sound.
> 
> No do dig into the manual and try to figure this out...
> 
> Of course with DSX I do get the wides, so I know they are "working".


Please give some details of your connections and amp assign. (I suppose you have 2 external Amps at the least)


----------



## ckgolf

I bought Enchanted Kingdom. It doesn't display atmos on my 7200WA, only dd+Dolby surround? Box says it's atmos. Any idea what could be the problem? I've never had it not display before with other titles...


----------



## FilmMixer

ckgolf said:


> I bought Enchanted Kingdom. It doesn't display atmos on my 7200WA, only dd+Dolby surround? Box says it's atmos. Any idea what could be the problem? I've never had it not display before with other titles...


Did you check to make sure you selected the TrueHD track on the disc from the audio setup?


----------



## ckgolf

FilmMixer said:


> Did you check to make sure you selected the TrueHD track on the disc from the audio setup?


There isn't a spot on the disc menu for audio setup, but when I hit the audio button on the player remote the 2 options are 2.0 or 7.1 TRUEHD. 

I figured it out. I had to set the commentary mix to off in the player. I remember now reading about that, and how it causes problems.


----------



## witchdoctor

*Height Speaker Question*

What speakers should I use for Atmos height channels? Atmos enabled, ceiling speakers, of just stick bookshelf speakers on the ceiling?


----------



## Zhorik

Nalleh said:


> Ok, so i watched PHANTOM tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is regionfree, has Atmos and english subtitiles.
> 
> Well, these guys really turned the "Atmos-knob" to 11!! In the beginning there is a car chase in Chicago, and it is just bananas! Even car engine noise and tire squeling comes from the ceiling, LOOL. It is a VERY active Atmos track, and it's the first time i was thinking maybe it was to much. But it is actually a pretty good action movie about a secret agent finding and killing terrorists.
> 
> Like i said it has a very active Atmos track, VERY dynamic, and it really uses the platform to the max, like the music scores that is hovering above, bombs going off, helicopters, planes, underwater scenes and lots of cool little details trough the movie.
> 
> And the LFE track is awsome, with some scenes actually making it windy in my living room.
> 
> Recommended? Yup


Was the engine and tire noise supposed to be in the ceiling, i.e. was the shot framed in that manner?


----------



## Ricoflashback

witchdoctor said:


> What speakers should I use for Atmos height channels? Atmos enabled, ceiling speakers, of just stick bookshelf speakers on the ceiling?


Your room will determine your options. From everything I have read in this forum, ceiling speakers are optimal. If that isn't possible, you could look at Atmos enabled. 

It would be great to match your existing speakers, but that might not be possible. 

In my case -- for my TM and FH -- I went with Cornered Audio C4 and C3. I used the beam in front of the MLP for my TM and mounted my FH speakers in the corner, up high, angled toward the MLP. This was totally dictated by my room and combo projection screen (100") and 65" LCD/LED TV. 

Lastly - try to get a decent size woofer for your surrounds/Atmos speakers. That's the major tip I found out on this thread. I was able to find the Cornered Audio C series with a 4 inch woofer. Granted, no where near the monster IC ceiling speakers some other folks have, but much bigger than the satellites I originally looked at based on the small size of my home theater room. 

To help everyone on this forum -- can you provide a diagram of your proposed Atmos layout and current speaker configuration?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Ok, so i watched PHANTOM tonight.
> 
> 
> It is regionfree, has Atmos and english subtitiles.
> 
> Well, these guys really turned the "Atmos-knob" to 11!! In the beginning there is a car chase in Chicago, and it is just bananas! Even car engine noise and tire squeling comes from the ceiling, LOOL. It is a VERY active Atmos track, and it's the first time i was thinking maybe it was to much. But it is actually a pretty good action movie about a secret agent finding and killing terrorists.
> 
> Like i said it has a very active Atmos track, VERY dynamic, and it really uses the platform to the max, like the music scores that is hovering above, bombs going off, helicopters, planes, underwater scenes and lots of cool little details trough the movie.
> 
> And the LFE track is awsome, with some scenes actually making it windy in my living room.
> 
> Recommended? Yup


Where did you buy it?

And are car engines supposed to come from overhead????


----------



## kbarnes701

witchdoctor said:


> What speakers should I use for Atmos height channels? Atmos enabled, ceiling speakers, of just stick bookshelf speakers on the ceiling?


Use the best speakers you can afford and accommodate. Just as you would with the other speakers in your system. Atmos hasn't changed the basic rules of a good HT.

The Atmos modules are good for people who cannot accommodate physical speakers on or in the ceiling, and they work remarkably well, but the recommendation has to be for physical speakers if you can do it (WAF etc).

BTW, where did you hear the upfiring Atmos-enabled speakers and which make were they?


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> The reviews of this movie were pretty crap. (And I can read/write/speak Hindi)
> Else I would I picked it up during My India trip. I did get the Bahubali and Mary Kom though.


Nahh, it wasn't that bad. I liked it, but not my favourite by a long shot 



Zhorik said:


> Was the engine and tire noise supposed to be in the ceiling, i.e. was the shot framed in that manner?


No, no! Those sounds was in the ear level speakers too, but by turning those of, you heard them in the ceiling speakers too.
You could say it added to the immersive feeling, but it sure was a step up in ceiling speaker use, compared to "normal" Atmos.



kbarnes701 said:


> Where did you buy it?
> 
> And are car engines supposed to come from overhead????


Ebay 

Like i said above : no. I guess i would call it a "very fun" Atmos track to listen too


----------



## witchdoctor

Ricoflashback said:


> Your room will determine your options. From everything I have read in this forum, ceiling speakers are optimal. If that isn't possible, you could look at Atmos enabled.
> 
> It would be great to match your existing speakers, but that might not be possible.
> 
> In my case -- for my TM and FH -- I went with Cornered Audio C4 and C3. I used the beam in front of the MLP for my TM and mounted my FH speakers in the corner, up high, angled toward the MLP. This was totally dictated by my room and combo projection screen (100") and 65" LCD/LED TV.
> 
> Lastly - try to get a decent size woofer for your surrounds/Atmos speakers. That's the major tip I found out on this thread. I was able to find the Cornered Audio C series with a 4 inch woofer. Granted, no where near the monster IC ceiling speakers some other folks have, but much bigger than the satellites I originally looked at based on the small size of my home theater room.
> 
> To help everyone on this forum -- can you provide a diagram of your proposed Atmos layout and current speaker configuration?


Thanks, you answered my question. I agree that most members here feel "ceiling speakers" are optimal for Atmos. I will check out my available choices for getting the biggest woofer possible for a ceiling speaker that matches my current speakers.


----------



## MarkMul1

ckgolf said:


> There isn't a spot on the disc menu for audio setup, but when I hit the audio button on the player remote the 2 options are 2.0 or 7.1 TRUEHD.
> 
> I figured it out. I had to set the commentary mix to off in the player. I remember now reading about that, and how it causes problems.


Not sure if you got it figured out. 

When I put mine in for the first time it starts playing animal clips. I thought it was the movie and thought the same thing as you. If you have not yet let it go thru all its motions and then get to the real movie you won't see Atmos. 

Just a thought. Maybe something else i thought I would throw that out.


----------



## MarkMul1

MarkMul1 said:


> Not sure if you got it figured out.
> 
> When I put mine in for the first time it starts playing animal clips. I thought it was the movie and thought the same thing as you. If you have not yet let it go thru all its motions and then get to the real movie you won't see Atmos.
> 
> Just a thought. Maybe something else i thought I would throw that out.


Oops

Re read and looks like your good. 

Gotta dig that croc that sticks his eyes up and then disappears for a second. Stupid Wildabeast did not see it coming. Ha


----------



## toofast68

aaranddeeman said:


> Please give some details of your connections and amp assign. (I suppose you have 2 external Amps at the least)


I have an external amp powering the front wide speakers - the AVR has enough amps to power the rest.

on my AVR, the Front Wide preouts feed the amp that feeds the wides.

I am not using the surround back channel.

I have my ATMOS ceiling speakers on Height1 and then Front Wide/Height 2

But my AVR is crazy complex (for me) and I wonder if I have some setting wrong somewhere.....


----------



## aaranddeeman

toofast68 said:


> I have an external amp powering the front wide speakers - the AVR has enough amps to power the rest.
> 
> on my AVR, the Front Wide preouts feed the amp that feeds the wides.
> 
> I am not using the surround back channel.
> 
> I have my ATMOS ceiling speakers on Height1 and then Front Wide/Height 2
> 
> But my AVR is crazy complex (for me) and I wonder if I have some setting wrong somewhere.....


I guess you will still need an additional amp. I don't think 6200 you can reassign the amps from SBR to other speakers.
Please go to the Amp Assign and make sure the picture (GUI) indicates all your connections correctly.
i.e. PRE is shown only for Front Wides. If it is showing PRE for some other pair as well, then that could be your problem.
You really have to get the amp assign right.


----------



## toofast68

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess you will still need an additional amp. I don't think 6200 you can reassign the amps from SBR to other speakers.
> Please go to the Amp Assign and make sure the picture (GUI) indicates all your connections correctly.
> i.e. PRE is shown only for Front Wides. If it is showing PRE for some other pair as well, then that could be your problem.
> You really have to get the amp assign right.


Thanks for giving me some pointers...I think I will take this issue to the dedicated Denon thread, I am sure someone had this issue and there is already an answer


----------



## Nalleh

Yeeeii!










Looking forward to watching this in the weekend


----------



## FilmMixer

ckgolf said:


> There isn't a spot on the disc menu for audio setup, but when I hit the audio button on the player remote the 2 options are 2.0 or 7.1 TRUEHD.
> 
> I figured it out. I had to set the commentary mix to off in the player. I remember now reading about that, and how it causes problems.


Since you had said this was the only disc you've had issues with, I assumed you had already checked secondary audio mix settings. 

Glad it's working now.


----------



## dvdwilly3

batpig said:


> No no. Input has nothing to do with it. The only problem is that he's attenuating the signal by 20db before he begins (60 is 20db down from reference 80).


Batpig and bargervais, thank you for the responses.
To close the loop, I went back to the Denon (secondary AVR) and set the master volume at 80 (for the Top Rear speakers). I then went to the Denon set up and lowered the source level input for the Cbl/Sat to +8.

Then, I went back to the Onkyo and reran the AccuEQ (I know, I know...) calibration. Now, the Top Rear set of SuperSat3s is set by AccuEQ to +7.5 and _+8, respectively, BUT they now sound exactly like the SuperSat3s that are running as Top Fronts. Mission accomplished!

The sound in the home theater is exceptional (I have felt that at each stage...more later...) and complete.

I will post separately my perceptions of how the sound field in the room changed as I progressed from 5.1 to 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 to 7.1.2 to 7.1.4.
Each produced slightly different results, but each was better.
Bottom line, Atmos in any configuration is better than no Atmos, but I understand why Dolby claims that 7.1.4 is the reference system for the home theater.

Thanks again!


----------



## dvdwilly3

For those who continue to struggle... I started with 5.1. I had never bothered to go to 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1. I was not convinced that there would be that much difference...boy, was I wrong.

So, when I read about Dolby Atmos with true overhead sound, I decided to try it. I started *5.1.2* with Top Middle, and was excited with the new dimension in my previously 5.1 home theater. Sounds were truly overhead whereas they were only sort of overhead before. But, when I ran the Dolby Atmos demo of Amaze the bird that circles the room only really got about as far as crossing right in front of me. It did not really get all the way to the front of the room. It did not take long for me to decide that *5.1.4* would be an even better implementation so that there would be actual panning overhead from front to back and vice versa. So, I did. And, it did. Running Top Front and Top Rear was a notable improvement over simply Top Middle. From the Dolby Atmos Amaze demo track, the bird that takes off on the left and circles the room circled the room...sort of. It moved from about left surround to top rear left to top rear right to right surround, to the fronts, across, and then back to the left surround. It did fade as it moved behind me. I had not tried up until this point even running *7.1.2* because of the mechanics of making the change. Granted, it was only changing speaker jacks and moving my height speakers (on stands), but still. To try to keep myself honest, I enlisted the help of a friend and fellow enthusiast to make sure that someone else would hear or would not hear, an audible difference. But, running the AIX disk 7.1 tests, I thought to myself, "How can side surrounds accurately reproduce sounds behind you? A phantom rear? I don't see how.". Similarly, "How can surrounds placed to your rear accurately reproduce sounds at your side?". Well, a phantom side surround would be more plausible, but still, that might be stretching it. So, he came out and we did some blind testing with me changing settings. We used some older material that we were both familiar with. I jumped back and forth among configurations...5.1 to 5.1.4 to 5.1.2 with variations. He found only marginal differences with 5.1 vs 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4. We are both older and suffer from high-frequency hearing loss in one or both ears. This directly affected his perception of the effects of the height speakers. I have to wonder if not age, but a high-frequency hearing loss, has affected the perception (or lack thereof...) of Atmos effects among some of the posters here. But, my primary purpose was to have his help with testing the *7.1.2* configuration. So, I changed the connections and re-ran the same scene. His response? "No question! I can tell it immediately!" To be honest, I was standing well to the side and could also hear the difference. So, I had my answer...sort of. Now, it is on to 7.1.2, at least. However, as I ran Amaze again, I was pleased to note that the flying bird movement across the back from left side to right side filled in and was more solid. What caught me by surprise was that the bird did not make it to the front of the room so much...it only got to about the middle (from back to front) and crossed from the right side back to the left side. The front depth had collapsed. Since this involved still another set of speakers and wiring and a secondary amp/AVR (and $$), I was still a bit hesitant. So, I sat down to give a careful listen to the Dolby Atmos demo disk again. And, then it dawned on me...I am running 7.1.2 with Top Middle...and that is exactly where the imaging stopped before in 5.1.2. Final confirmation...for me, it needs to be 7.1.4 to get the full depth of the space from front to back including at height. I bought the final set of speakers, and wiring, and a Denon X1200W (overkill, but it provides a backup if the TX-NR1030 craps out..). Once again, I tried the Dolby Atmos Amaze demo and it is clear and complete...all the way around me at about 10 o'clock all the way to the front of the room and across. Bottom line, do Dolby Atmos in whatever flavor you can. It is better than not Atmos. And, go as high with it as you can--there are benefits to be gained at each level. If it came to 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2, that is a tough call. It depends on whether you want your immersion more complete at the upper level or the lower level. This is what works for me in my room, but as always, YMMV. 

Gee, I guess now I will have to go back and re-watch all of my old (and new) favorites. Oh, too bad!


----------



## dannybee

kbarnes701 said:


> Where did you buy it?
> 
> And are car engines supposed to come from overhead????


I ordered it on ebay india store.


----------



## Carrick

Molon_Labe said:


> Tire squealing should never come from overhead.


That's hilarious and I got a good chuckle out of it. BRAVO!


----------



## toofast68

aaranddeeman said:


> I guess you will still need an additional amp. I don't think 6200 you can reassign the amps from SBR to other speakers.
> Please go to the Amp Assign and make sure the picture (GUI) indicates all your connections correctly.
> i.e. PRE is shown only for Front Wides. If it is showing PRE for some other pair as well, then that could be your problem.
> You really have to get the amp assign right.


Just for phone I figured I would post what the gu interface looks like in my Atmos setup - I still can't get the wides going, but working on that in another thread!


----------



## Stoked21

toofast68 said:


> Just for phone I figured I would post what the gu interface looks like in my Atmos setup - I still can't get the wides going, but working on that in another thread!


I don't know the denon but have sister company marantz 7702mk2. I can hook up all 13 chs to it at one time (9.1.4) and it will req all 13 with audyssey. Obviously it can only process 11chs Simultaneously. It cannot however run wides and both sets of heights in one configuration. you have to select EITHER height2 or wides for any particular use at one time. In either configuration surround backs are included in the 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 config. I cannot opt to run 7.1.4 substituting wides for backs. Or for that matter substitute backs for TM etc. 

I'm guessing that's a similar issue you are facing as the processors and sw share commonality across the D&M models. Having said that, integrated amplifier configurations aside, you are probably looking at a limitation on the prepro portion of the avr.


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> For those who continue to struggle... I started with 5.1. I had never bothered to go to 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1. I was not convinced that there would be that much difference...boy, was I wrong.
> 
> So, when I read about Dolby Atmos with true overhead sound, I decided to try it. I started *5.1.2* with Top Middle, and was excited with the new dimension in my previously 5.1 home theater. Sounds were truly overhead whereas they were only sort of overhead before. But, when I ran the Dolby Atmos demo of Amaze the bird that circles the room only really got about as far as crossing right in front of me. It did not really get all the way to the front of the room. It did not take long for me to decide that *5.1.4* would be an even better implementation so that there would be actual panning overhead from front to back and vice versa. So, I did. And, it did. Running Top Front and Top Rear was a notable improvement over simply Top Middle. From the Dolby Atmos Amaze demo track, the bird that takes off on the left and circles the room circled the room...sort of. It moved from about left surround to top rear left to top rear right to right surround, to the fronts, across, and then back to the left surround. It did fade as it moved behind me. I had not tried up until this point even running *7.1.2* because of the mechanics of making the change. Granted, it was only changing speaker jacks and moving my height speakers (on stands), but still. To try to keep myself honest, I enlisted the help of a friend and fellow enthusiast to make sure that someone else would hear or would not hear, an audible difference. But, running the AIX disk 7.1 tests, I thought to myself, "How can side surrounds accurately reproduce sounds behind you? A phantom rear? I don't see how.". Similarly, "How can surrounds placed to your rear accurately reproduce sounds at your side?". Well, a phantom side surround would be more plausible, but still, that might be stretching it. So, he came out and we did some blind testing with me changing settings. We used some older material that we were both familiar with. I jumped back and forth among configurations...5.1 to 5.1.4 to 5.1.2 with variations. He found only marginal differences with 5.1 vs 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4. We are both older and suffer from high-frequency hearing loss in one or both ears. This directly affected his perception of the effects of the height speakers. I have to wonder if not age, but a high-frequency hearing loss, has affected the perception (or lack thereof...) of Atmos effects among some of the posters here. But, my primary purpose was to have his help with testing the *7.1.2* configuration. So, I changed the connections and re-ran the same scene. His response? "No question! I can tell it immediately!" To be honest, I was standing well to the side and could also hear the difference. So, I had my answer...sort of. Now, it is on to 7.1.2, at least. However, as I ran Amaze again, I was pleased to note that the flying bird movement across the back from left side to right side filled in and was more solid. What caught me by surprise was that the bird did not make it to the front of the room so much...it only got to about the middle (from back to front) and crossed from the right side back to the left side. The front depth had collapsed. Since this involved still another set of speakers and wiring and a secondary amp/AVR (and $$), I was still a bit hesitant. So, I sat down to give a careful listen to the Dolby Atmos demo disk again. And, then it dawned on me...I am running 7.1.2 with Top Middle...and that is exactly where the imaging stopped before in 5.1.2. Final confirmation...for me, it needs to be 7.1.4 to get the full depth of the space from front to back including at height. I bought the final set of speakers, and wiring, and a Denon X1200W (overkill, but it provides a backup if the TX-NR1030 craps out..). Once again, I tried the Dolby Atmos Amaze demo and it is clear and complete...all the way around me at about 10 o'clock all the way to the front of the room and across. Bottom line, do Dolby Atmos in whatever flavor you can. It is better than not Atmos. And, go as high with it as you can--there are benefits to be gained at each level. If it came to 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2, that is a tough call. It depends on whether you want your immersion more complete at the upper level or the lower level. This is what works for me in my room, but as always, YMMV.
> 
> Gee, I guess now I will have to go back and re-watch all of my old (and new) favorites. Oh, too bad!


Like yourself, I've read reports of others who have described varying experiences with the Amaze bird. But your progressive accounts bring to light what expectations should be and what's required to distinctly experience full circle flight and ultimately Atmos's true potential.

I am currently in transition from 5.2.2 to 7.2.4 for the same reasons you've indicated. The Amaze bird with 5.2.2 flies exactly in my system as you've described...left surround, very vaguely to the rear, right surround, crosses from TM right to TM left (very vaguely perceived in the fronts while doing this), and then back to the left surround. From the onset, I installed six ceiling speakers...with 5.2.2 using only the TM's...but looking forward to 7.2.4 (TF+TR)...and anticipating 9.4.6 (TF+TM+TR) in the future.

Thanks for sharing your findings!


----------



## toofast68

Stoked21 said:


> I don't know the denon but have sister company marantz 7702mk2. I can hook up all 13 chs to it at one time (9.1.4) and it will req all 13 with audyssey. Obviously it can only process 11chs Simultaneously. It cannot however run wides and both sets of heights in one configuration. you have to select EITHER height2 or wides for any particular use at one time. In either configuration surround backs are included in the 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 config. I cannot opt to run 7.1.4 substituting wides for backs. Or for that matter substitute backs for TM etc.
> 
> I'm guessing that's a similar issue you are facing as the processors and sw share commonality across the D&M models. Having said that, integrated amplifier configurations aside, you are probably looking at a limitation on the prepro portion of the avr.


Oh crude, so many folks said I can run the wides in Atmos, but I guess there is an issue that most don't know about, rats!


----------



## Stoked21

toofast68 said:


> Oh crude, so many folks said I can run the wides in Atmos, but I guess there is an issue that most don't know about, rats!


Just to be clear: I have no experience with 6200. Maybe it doesn't have the limitation the marantz versions do. So take that with a grain of salt. But seriously there is so much commonality between d & m. I would find it hard to believe one would offer a config tweak in the sw, such as this, that the other one didn't offer. Maybe across different model year releases, but not within the same model years. 

I experimented with 9.1.2 myself just for fun. But ditched the wides in favor of height2 for 7.1.4.


----------



## aaranddeeman

toofast68 said:


> Oh crude, so many folks said I can run the wides in Atmos, but I guess there is an issue that most don't know about, rats!


You can do wides in Atmos.
Your GUI looks about right. 
This sounds like a dumb question, but you are sure that you have connected wide preout to the external amp?


----------



## toofast68

No such thing as a dumb question but I can run DSX and the wides light up and work just fine so yes I'm 99.99% sure they're connected to the amp

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zhorik

A question about Atmos in cinema. Are the offscreen speakers (side, rear, ceiling) aimed towards a main listening position about two thirds of the way back and in the centre? 

I watched mockingjay 2 in a newly opened local cinema where this was the case. I was sitting in the perfect seat, so it didn't negatively affect the presentation.

My other local cinema that has 7.1 has speakers pointing flat from the wall (not towed in) and similar was the case in the Atmos cinema in a different city.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> I don't know the denon but have sister company marantz 7702mk2. I can hook up all 13 chs to it at one time (9.1.4) and it will req all 13 with audyssey. Obviously it can only process 11chs Simultaneously. It cannot however run wides and both sets of heights in one configuration. you have to select EITHER height2 or wides for any particular use at one time. In either configuration surround backs are included in the 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 config. I cannot opt to run 7.1.4 substituting wides for backs. Or for that matter substitute backs for TM etc.


If I understand you correctly:

In order to have the Front Width speakers active during Dollby Atmos material you need to have all the seven main floor speakers active (L, C, R, SR, SBR, SBL, SL), select Front Width, and only one pair of overhead speakers, for a 9.1.2 Atmos configuration.

And in a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration, you can't have the Front Width Surround speakers and take out the Back Surround speakers.
* It would work with Audyssey DSX, but not with Dolby Atmos. ...Because the member asking that question said that he has the Front Width working, the Back Surrounds disabled, and the TF and RH active, but can only get sound from his Front Width speakers during Audyssey DSX activation, but not with Dolby Atmos material. 

Is my interpretation correct?


----------



## kbarnes701

Zhorik said:


> A question about Atmos in cinema. Are the offscreen speakers (side, rear, ceiling) aimed towards a main listening position about two thirds of the way back and in the centre?
> 
> I watched mockingjay 2 in a newly opened local cinema where this was the case. I was sitting in the perfect seat, so it didn't negatively affect the presentation.
> 
> My other local cinema that has 7.1 has speakers pointing flat from the wall (not towed in) and similar was the case in the Atmos cinema in a different city.


The Atmos theaters I have been in all have their side surrounds toed-in, except for one row roughly in the center of the theater. I can’t tell if the overheads are toed - it is too dark to see. How I select my seat is to choose the center of the row which has the side surrounds directly aimed at it (no toe-in). That is the theater's sweet spot.


----------



## I WANT MORE

MarkMul1 said:


> Oops
> 
> Re read and looks like your good.
> 
> Gotta dig that croc that sticks his eyes up and then disappears for a second. Stupid Wildabeast did not see it coming. Ha


Thanks for the spoiler tags. Now you ruined the movie for me.


----------



## toofast68

NorthSky said:


> If I understand you correctly:
> 
> In order to have the Front Width speakers active during Dollby Atmos material you need to have all the seven main floor speakers active (L, C, R, SR, SBR, SBL, SL), select Front Width, and only one pair of overhead speakers, for a 9.1.2 Atmos configuration.
> 
> And in a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos configuration, you can't have the Front Width Surround speakers and take out the Back Surround speakers.
> * It would work with Audyssey DSX, but not with Dolby Atmos. ...Because the member asking that question said that he has the Front Width working, the Back Surrounds disabled, and the TF and RH active, but can only get sound from his Front Width speakers during Audyssey DSX activation, but not with Dolby Atmos material.
> 
> Is my interpretation correct?


Also to be clear (and I know you know this, but for others), in DSX - the top 4 Atmos speakers DO NOT WORK...

Seems strange that some report it works, yet others (like me) can't get it working...I guess I am one of the rare ones that can't use rear surrounds and either the AVR MFG or the Atmos developers forgot about guys like me


----------



## aaranddeeman

toofast68 said:


> Also to be clear (and I know you know this, but for others), in DSX - the top 4 Atmos speakers DO NOT WORK...
> 
> Seems strange that some report it works, yet others (like me) can't get it working...I guess I am one of the rare ones that can't use rear surrounds and either the AVR MFG or the Atmos developers forgot about guys like me


Please note I have it working (Wides in Atmos) with my 7200 by deselecting SBR pair.
However please note that I have 2 external amps and not one. I did try using one external amp initially and it did not work.
I suggest, if you have one more external amp, please use that for RH as well.


----------



## toofast68

aaranddeeman said:


> Please note I have it working (Wides in Atmos) with my 7200 by deselecting SBR pair.
> However please note that I have 2 external amps and not one. I did try using one external amp initially and it did not work.
> I suggest, if you have one more external amp, please use that for RH as well.


Son of a biscuit...

Ok, so I am in deep, why not go deeper 

I have a secondary AVR (old Onkyo 809, so in theory I could test this) - I am so totally bummed, I am out of room for a second amp - but since I was already needing to return my Emotiva Mini, I could rethink my setup.

I was thinking about new speakers and a new 3 Channel to drive the LCR, but I am guess I will still have Atmos issues...

Next time you are bored, can you take a picture of your amp assign in the GUI screen....I've been looking at the manual and can't seem to figure out what layout I would use.


----------



## aaranddeeman

toofast68 said:


> Son of a biscuit...
> 
> Ok, so I am in deep, why not go deeper
> 
> I have a secondary AVR (old Onkyo 809, so in theory I could test this) - I am so totally bummed, I am out of room for a second amp - but since I was already needing to return my Emotiva Mini, I could rethink my setup.
> 
> I was thinking about new speakers and a new 3 Channel to drive the LCR, but I am guess I will still have Atmos issues...
> 
> Next time you are bored, can you take a picture of your amp assign in the GUI screen....I've been looking at the manual and can't seem to figure out what layout I would use.


For both height pairs I connect using preout to external amps.
My wides are connected to the Wide/Height2 speaker post on the 7200.
(I drive the LCR as well through external amps, but that is immaterial for our discussion).


----------



## gammanuc

toofast68 said:


> Son of a biscuit...
> 
> Ok, so I am in deep, why not go deeper
> 
> I have a secondary AVR (old Onkyo 809, so in theory I could test this) - I am so totally bummed, I am out of room for a second amp - but since I was already needing to return my Emotiva Mini, I could rethink my setup.
> 
> I was thinking about new speakers and a new 3 Channel to drive the LCR, but I am guess I will still have Atmos issues...
> 
> Next time you are bored, can you take a picture of your amp assign in the GUI screen....I've been looking at the manual and can't seem to figure out what layout I would use.


It works perfectly fine on my Denon x5200 with just one external amp. I have my Rear Heights powered by it. When it is configured like I have in the picture in Amp Assign, you can go back one screen, go into Speaker Config and set your Surr Back to none and you will have 5.1.4 with wides. Set the Surr Back to small and you will have 7.1.4. In both cases all four Height Speakers will be active.


----------



## Ricoflashback

From everything I've been able to learn on this thread, getting the optimal immersive environment is most dependent on your room limitations. Of course, budget, speaker layout, configuration and the AVR you select (most people's option versus an expensive processor) also factor in to your decision. 

In preparing my HT room for a seamless transition from 11.1 to a 7.1.4, the best layout that works for my room is Front Height and Top Middle Atmos speakers. I've really enjoyed the depth of sound with DTS Neo X + THX in the Cinema mode. Filling in the holes within my listening environment was priority one. 

Now, the dilemma. What AVR to choose in conjunction with my Emotiva XPA-3, which power my main L/C/R channels. I've researched the few Dolby Atmos receivers in my budget and the Denon x5200W seems to be the most bang for the buck. I am partial to the Pioneer Elite series as I currently have an SC-65. But Pioneer's first generation Atmos receivers seem half baked and not as configurable as the Denon models. I'm also leery of giving up the DTS Neo X + THX Cinema mode as the center dialog enhancement is a huge benefit, IMHO. 

Any idea on when the next big releases of Atmos receivers will take place? First half of 2016? Second half? Part of me wants to get to Atmos now and the other part is telling me to wait for generation two when DTS and possibly greater flexibility & a 7 1.6 implantation is available (the max Atmos layout for my HT room.)

Anybody else on the fence?


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Please note I have it working (Wides in Atmos) with my 7200 by deselecting SBR pair.
> However please note that I have 2 external amps and not one. I did try using one external amp initially and it did not work.
> I suggest, if you have one more external amp, please use that for RH as well.


♦ Most interesting; two external amps were needed in your setup with your Denon 7200 receiver to make it all works.
I admit; it's a little confusing on how it has to be configured.



aaranddeeman said:


> For both height pairs I connect using preout to external amps.
> My wides are connected to the Wide/Height2 speaker post on the 7200.
> (I drive the LCR as well through external amps, but that is immaterial for our discussion).


♦ Precise instruction; that should help us.

♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1133.html#post39285314



gammanuc said:


> It works perfectly fine on my Denon x5200 with just one external amp. I have my Rear Heights powered by it. When it is configured like I have in the picture in Amp Assign, you can go back one screen, go into Speaker Config and set your Surr Back to none and you will have 5.1.4 with wides. Set the Surr Back to small and you will have 7.1.4. In both cases all four Height Speakers will be active.


♦ Very clear post here too, and I am wondering if everyone has the same settings as to external power amp(s), and which speakers are used...the connections in the back of the receiver (or pre/pro). 

But all great contribution because now the fellow with the Denon 6200 receiver has more options to explore, and one of them will eventually get him where he wants to: 7.1.4 Atmos setup with the Front Width surround speakers, NO Back surround speakers (ear level), and the four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers...Top Front pair and Rear Height pair. ...So that when playing Dolby Atmos content, the Front Wides are active and delivering sounds from them, and so as all the other speakers (L, C, R, SR, SL & TFL, TFR, RHR, RHL). 

I really want to understand that myself, not just the other members, because I too is highly interested in how it all works; and the easier it is to understand the better for everyone. Sure, most folks don't bother with the Wides, but others like to explore and see how it sounds in their own rooms.
Some people have their couch right against the back wall (I know bad idea, but many don't have the luxurious choice of having other alternative), so instead of having the back surrounds right behind you (6 inches from your ears...might as well use headphones  ), then it's a cool option to have the Front Wides. ...And overhead; TF and RH. ...Or TM (with D&M) and FH.


----------



## Stoked21

Rico

The 7.1.4 pioneer, denon, marantz and Yamaha models have all just been released in the last few months. I wouldn't expect anything from them until later next year. Summer at the earliest. 

Onkyo is the wild card. They haven't released anything in the 7.1.4 arena in some time. My bet is they will release new models in the first half of 2016. They could _potentially_ be the first to expand beyond 11 channels in some format.


----------



## Sittler27

I'd like to know what the easiest and and best value route (not necessarily cheapest though) to an Atmos setup is for me.

Current setup:
Marantz 7002 AVR
5.1 setup of Paradigm Monitor 7v3s, Paradigm CC-370 centre, Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds
Two SVS PB12-Plus subs

My HT area:
a 22' wide x 15' deep x 7-8' high area at one end of a very large open concept basement (total basement is ~1400sq. ft)
HT area has walls for screen wall, left and right sides, but no back wall for 45' or so where behind couch in HT area opens up to a large games area (ping/pong, air hockey, etc.)


----------



## Sittler27

I'd like to know what the easiest and and best value route (not necessarily cheapest though) to an Atmos setup is for me.

Current setup:
Marantz 7002 AVR
5.1 setup of Paradigm Monitor 7v3s, Paradigm CC-370 centre, Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds
Two SVS PB12-Plus subs

My HT area:
a 22' wide x 15' deep x 7-8' high area at one end of a very large open concept basement (total basement is ~1400sq. ft)
HT area has walls for screen wall, left and right sides, but no back wall for 45' or so where behind couch in HT area opens up to a large games area (ping/pong, air hockey, etc.)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> The Atmos theaters I have been in all have their side surrounds toed-in, except for one row roughly in the center of the theater. I can’t tell if the overheads are toed - it is too dark to see. How I select my seat is to choose the center of the row which has the side surrounds directly aimed at it (no toe-in). That is the theater's sweet spot.


Dolby Prime's ceiling speakers are toed in.


----------



## NorthSky

Sittler27 said:


> I'd like to know what the easiest and and best value route (not necessarily cheapest though) to an Atmos setup is for me.
> 
> Current setup:
> Marantz 7002 AVR
> 5.1 setup of Paradigm Monitor 7v3s, Paradigm CC-370 centre, Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds
> Two SVS PB12-Plus subs
> 
> My HT area:
> a 22' wide x 15' deep x 7-8' high area at one end of a very large open concept basement (total basement is ~1400sq. ft)
> HT area has walls for screen wall, left and right sides, but no back wall for 45' or so where behind couch in HT area opens up to a large games area (ping/pong, air hockey, etc.)


I would ditch your two surround speakers (dipole), I would get four direct radiating (monopole) speakers; the two side surrounds on your side walls (@ 90 to 110°), the two back surrounds on speaker stands, and all your four surrounds @ roughly 38-48" from the floor (between tweeter/mid drivers), if say your ear level is somewhere between 32 and 36" from the floor. 
...And four overhead Paradigm speakers (on or in-ceiling), with @ least a 6.5" woofer driver, wide dispersion tweeter (perhaps rotating manually adjustable aim), for the full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos/DTS:X system setup. 

♦ Check the first post of this thread with links for Dolby Atmos speaker's setups.

For a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X receiver; plenty of threads for all budgets, but pick one with enough power reserve to power your Paradigm speakers, and you'd need a separate two-channel amp (use your actual receiver for that, even to power the four overhead Atmos speakers). 
Marantz has a topflight receiver, and Denon too, and Yamaha too. 
If Audyssey is your bag then it's very easy about your choice.


----------



## Sittler27

NorthSky said:


> I would ditch your two surround speakers (dipole), I would get four direct radiating (monopole) speakers; the two side surrounds on your side walls (@ 90 to 110°), the two back surrounds on speaker stands, and all your four surrounds @ roughly 38-48" from the floor (between tweeter/mid drivers), if say your ear level is somewhere between 32 and 36" from the floor.
> ...And four overhead Paradigm speakers (on or in-ceiling), with @ least a 6.5" woofer driver, wide dispersion tweeter (perhaps rotating manually adjustable aim), for the full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos/DTS:X system setup.
> 
> ♦ Check the first post of this thread with links for Dolby Atmos speaker's setups.
> 
> For a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X receiver; plenty of threads for all budgets, but pick one with enough power reserve to power your Paradigm speakers, and you'd need a separate two-channel amp (use your actual receiver for that, even to power the four overhead Atmos speakers).
> Marantz has a topflight receiver, and Denon too, and Yamaha too.
> If Audyssey is your bag then it's very easy about your choice.


Thanks.

For in-ceiling/on-ceiling, are these available in wireless or do they all need to be wired to the receiver?

So in summary, you'd recommend four new surround speakers, four on/in ceiling speakers, and an additional Atmos-capable receiver?


----------



## NorthSky

- Wired speakers are best. 
- Dipole speakers are not the ideal for Dolby Atmos...are yours switchable to bipole? 
- But yes, from your post I simply shared what has been viewed as one of the best setup since over a year now (Summer 2014). 
♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


- Is your Marantz 7002 a Dolby Atmos receiver? ♦ http://www.marantz.pl/pl/Products/P...VReceiver&ProductId=SR7002&Status=Discontinue
* Then you need one.


----------



## dannybee

Another atmos title is Pan due out end of dec according to picture of back cover on amazon.


----------



## Zhorik

kbarnes701 said:


> The Atmos theaters I have been in all have their side surrounds toed-in, except for one row roughly in the center of the theater. I can’t tell if the overheads are toed - it is too dark to see. How I select my seat is to choose the center of the row which has the side surrounds directly aimed at it (no toe-in). That is the theater's sweet spot.





Aras_Volodka said:


> Dolby Prime's ceiling speakers are toed in.



Thank you to both of you. I have been to Atmos cinemas a few times and this was the first time the lights were on full, so I was able to observe the speakers layout properly (as I was a few minutes before anyone else).

My next visit will be for "In the heart of the Sea" and I might move around the cinema to see how it sounds sitting out of the sweet spot.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> From everything I've been able to learn on this thread, getting the optimal immersive environment is most dependent on your room limitations. Of course, budget, speaker layout, configuration and the AVR you select (most people's option versus an expensive processor) also factor in to your decision.
> 
> In preparing my HT room for a seamless transition from 11.1 to a 7.1.4, the best layout that works for my room is Front Height and Top Middle Atmos speakers. I've really enjoyed the depth of sound with DTS Neo X + THX in the Cinema mode. Filling in the holes within my listening environment was priority one.
> 
> Now, the dilemma. What AVR to choose in conjunction with my Emotiva XPA-3, which power my main L/C/R channels. I've researched the few Dolby Atmos receivers in my budget and the Denon x5200W seems to be the most bang for the buck. I am partial to the Pioneer Elite series as I currently have an SC-65. But Pioneer's first generation Atmos receivers seem half baked and not as configurable as the Denon models. I'm also leery of giving up the DTS Neo X + THX Cinema mode as the center dialog enhancement is a huge benefit, IMHO.
> 
> Any idea on when the next big releases of Atmos receivers will take place? First half of 2016? Second half? Part of me wants to get to Atmos now and the other part is telling me to wait for generation two when DTS and possibly greater flexibility & a 7 1.6 implantation is available (the max Atmos layout for my HT room.)
> 
> Anybody else on the fence?


I'd get a DTS:X capable unit now if I was in the market for an upgrade. And then I'd choose Denon or Marantz because they have Audyssey XT32 which I believe to be the best of the onboard REQ systems in affordable units.


----------



## witchdoctor

kbarnes701 said:


> Use the best speakers you can afford and accommodate. Just as you would with the other speakers in your system. Atmos hasn't changed the basic rules of a good HT.
> 
> The Atmos modules are good for people who cannot accommodate physical speakers on or in the ceiling, and they work remarkably well, but the recommendation has to be for physical speakers if you can do it (WAF etc).
> 
> BTW, where did you hear the upfiring Atmos-enabled speakers and which make were they?


Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html


----------



## kbarnes701

witchdoctor said:


> Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html


I, personally, would avoid DefTech like I'd avoid an axe-wielding lunatic on Halloween. Check the Tannoy and JBL sites.


----------



## witchdoctor

kbarnes701 said:


> I, personally, would avoid DefTech like I'd avoid an axe-wielding lunatic on Halloween. Check the Tannoy and JBL sites.


Can anyone else help me out please of the 4 choices I posted?


----------



## smurraybhm

witchdoctor said:


> Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html


Not Keith, but what are you trying to achieve, in-ceiling, on-ceiling or modules. The Def Tech modules based on forum user experience (see Batpig) are one of the worst options for that type of speaker. If you figure out a way to mount the Studio 45s to the ceiling let me know, they have no mounting holes if you haven't noticed. Personally I would go with the PM800s, aim them towards the MLP.

Given the discussion on the Auro thread is this a serious question, one has to wonder.


----------



## kbarnes701

witchdoctor said:


> Can anyone else help me out please of the 4 choices I posted?


You’ve deliberately chosen 4 pretty poor speakers IMO. I have come to the conclusion that you are not being serious with your requests so I will now bow out of any further discussion with you.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Given the discussion on the Auro thread is this a serious question, one has to wonder.


Well I am not wondering, or responding any further. I advised to consider Tannoy or JBL for on-ceiling speakers suitable for Atmos. Totally ignored. Fortunately, two can play that game


----------



## witchdoctor

kbarnes701 said:


> Well I am not wondering, or responding any further. I advised to consider Tannoy or JBL for on-ceiling speakers suitable for Atmos. Totally ignored. Fortunately, two can play that game


I saw your post on the Tannoy speaker already and am familiar with JBL. Not ignoring you thanks. Thanks


----------



## witchdoctor

kbarnes701 said:


> You’ve deliberately chosen 4 pretty poor speakers IMO. I have come to the conclusion that you are not being serious with your requests so I will now bow out of any further discussion with you.


Keith owners have posted positive reviews if you look on those links. If you don't like DefTech that's OK.


----------



## witchdoctor

smurraybhm said:


> Not Keith, but what are you trying to achieve, in-ceiling, on-ceiling or modules. The Def Tech modules based on forum user experience (see Batpig) are one of the worst options for that type of speaker. If you figure out a way to mount the Studio 45s to the ceiling let me know, they have no mounting holes if you haven't noticed. Personally I would go with the PM800s, aim them towards the MLP.
> 
> Given the discussion on the Auro thread is this a serious question, one has to wonder.


This is how you could mount the SM45's:
http://www.amazon.com/Clamping-Book...qid=1444572269&sr=8-3&keywords=pinpoint+am+41


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> I, personally, would avoid DefTech like I'd avoid an axe-wielding lunatic on Halloween. Check the Tannoy and JBL sites.


Now I'm feeling bad.  I'm using four ProMonitor 800s for my ceiling mounted ATMOS speakers and I'm pretty happy with them. My local AV store is, or at least was last time I checked, using four ProMonitor 1000s for their ATMOS demostration room, a room set up by Dolby techs last year. In my little 12'x14' "theater" the recommendation was the 800s to go along with my B&Ws. I guess ignorance is bliss and maybe there are many choices out there and maybe I made the worse one I could but I did the best I could at the time with what I could see and hear.


----------



## alfa1

witchdoctor said:


> Keith owners have posted positive reviews if you look on those links. If you don't like DefTech that's OK.


I guess Keith really dislikes Deftech speakers, but I have a 5.1.2 Def Tech system with A60 modules on top of bp 8060st towers at the front, and the system sounds terrific, with overhead effect that are very convincing. I convinced the wife to add 2 overhead speakers to make a 5.1.4 system so I can get a full atmos experience, and wanted to stay with def tech, so I just ordered UIW-55's which are 1/2 price on Amazon, so you may want to look at those.

I know some people have not had good results with the A60 modules, so I suspect their effectiveness depends greatly on the room/setup. I have a reflective 8 foot ceiling so maybe I got lucky! I do note that Daniel Kumin at Sound & Vision gave a very positive review of a Def Tech 8060st Atmos system with 4 A60 modules, so I don't think I am imagining that my setup sounds very good, given how blown away people are who hear it.


----------



## witchdoctor

alfa1 said:


> I guess Keith really dislikes Deftech speakers, but I have a 5.1.2 Def Tech system with A60 modules on top of bp 8060st towers at the front, and the system sounds terrific, with overhead effect that are very convincing. I convinced the wife to add 2 overhead speakers to make a 5.1.4 system so I can get a full atmos experience, and wanted to stay with def tech, so I just ordered UIW-55's which are 1/2 price on Amazon, so you may want to look at those.
> 
> I know some people have not had good results with the A60 modules, so I suspect their effectiveness depends greatly on the room/setup. I have a reflective 8 foot ceiling so maybe I got lucky! I do note that Daniel Kumin at Sound & Vision gave a very positive review of a Def Tech 8060st Atmos system with 4 A60 modules, so I don't think I am imagining that my setup sounds very good, given how blown away people are who hear it.


Excellent feedback and thanks for the 50% off tip Please post how the UIW-55's compare to the A60's when you are ready.


----------



## Stoked21

witchdoctor said:


> Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html


I have 6 promonitor 1000s in black that were all purchased in the last 6-7 months from authorized reseller. I used them as surrounds. They have threaded inserts on the bottom and can easily be wall/ceiling mounted. I'd get rid of them for less than you could buy a pair of the smaller 800s. Sent you a pm.


----------



## witchdoctor

randyk47 said:


> Now I'm feeling bad.  I'm using four ProMonitor 800s for my ceiling mounted ATMOS speakers and I'm pretty happy with them. My local AV store is, or at least was last time I checked, using four ProMonitor 1000s for their ATMOS demostration room, a room set up by Dolby techs last year. In my little 12'x14' "theater" the recommendation was the 800s to go along with my B&Ws. I guess ignorance is bliss and maybe there are many choices out there and maybe I made the worse one I could but I did the best I could at the time with what I could see and hear.


That is excellent info, thanks for posting


----------



## witchdoctor

Stoked21 said:


> I have 6 promonitor 1000s in black that were all purchased in the last 6-7 months from authorized reseller. I used them as surrounds. They have threaded inserts on the bottom and can easily be wall/ceiling mounted. I'd get rid of them for less than you could buy a pair of the smaller 800s. Sent you a pm.


Thanks Stoked21, I'll check and send a reply.


----------



## alfa1

witchdoctor said:


> Excellent feedback and thanks for the 50% off tip Please post how the UIW-55's compare to the A60's when you are ready.


Will do, but just to be clear I am adding the UIW 55's to the A60 modules not replacing them, so I will have a "hybrid" atmos setup with both modules and in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Rico
> 
> The 7.1.4 pioneer, denon, marantz and Yamaha models have all just been released in the last few months. I wouldn't expect anything from them until later next year. Summer at the earliest.
> 
> Onkyo is the wild card. They haven't released anything in the 7.1.4 arena in some time. My bet is they will release new models in the first half of 2016. They could _potentially_ be the first to expand beyond 11 channels in some format.


Much thanks. I was hoping for a 7.1.6 offering but that doesn't look likely for some time. I'm also looking forward to Pioneer's release of an Atmos receiver with a Top Middle option. I can't see that with their SC95 right now. 

Whatever I buy, I'll make sure it's DTS:X compatible. Maybe DTS:X will be available by then and we'll find out how the old DTS Neo X is handled and sounds. I really enjoy the DTS Neo X + THX Cinema mode that provides great dialog clarity with my current Pioneer SC65.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> I, personally, would avoid DefTech like I'd avoid an axe-wielding lunatic on Halloween. Check the Tannoy and JBL sites.


I'll put in a plug for the Cornered Audio C3 or C4 series by LineQ. Danish speaker with a 4" woofer (extra 4" baffle/passive radiator on C4). 

These speakers work great as Front or Rear Heights angled down to the listener with a very clean install with no brackets. 

In my case, ceiling speakers were not an option and I have a beam in my basement about in the middle of my setup where the Top Middle speakers are located. 

Best used for ceiling/wall mount, up high, or on a beam, like I have. Especially clean look in a corner which I had to do with my Front Heights as my combo projector/LCD TV did not allow for direct, on wall placement due to the length of my 100" projection screen.


----------



## zimmo

I just change my in ceilling yamaha (ns-ic800)because my ceilling top cinéma room is only 7 feets ,when your top ceilling room is low ,you need mutch power because the sound not have to mutch place for work,that why i buy the earhquake sweet spot ss-82w is very strong and your woofer is 20 degré directionel in your place and tweeter to.
Now one week work and is very good.:d


----------



## kbarnes701

randyk47 said:


> Now I'm feeling bad.  I'm using four ProMonitor 800s for my ceiling mounted ATMOS speakers and I'm pretty happy with them. My local AV store is, or at least was last time I checked, using four ProMonitor 1000s for their ATMOS demostration room, a room set up by Dolby techs last year. In my little 12'x14' "theater" the recommendation was the 800s to go along with my B&Ws. I guess ignorance is bliss and maybe there are many choices out there and maybe I made the worse one I could but I did the best I could at the time with what I could see and hear.


Sorry - I didn’t mean to rubbish anyone's choice and I hope I was clear that it was personal thing of my own. It is more the company (DefTech I mean, not me and you LOL) that I have a problem with and I may have been hasty in broadly condemning their entire output. Please accept my apologies if I have offended you in any way.


----------



## kbarnes701

alfa1 said:


> I guess Keith really dislikes Deftech speakers, but I have a 5.1.2 Def Tech system with A60 modules on top of bp 8060st towers at the front, and the system sounds terrific, with overhead effect that are very convincing. I convinced the wife to add 2 overhead speakers to make a 5.1.4 system so I can get a full atmos experience, and wanted to stay with def tech, so I just ordered UIW-55's which are 1/2 price on Amazon, so you may want to look at those.
> 
> I know some people have not had good results with the A60 modules, so I suspect their effectiveness depends greatly on the room/setup. I have a reflective 8 foot ceiling so maybe I got lucky! I do note that Daniel Kumin at Sound & Vision gave a very positive review of a Def Tech 8060st Atmos system with 4 A60 modules, so I don't think I am imagining that my setup sounds very good, given how blown away people are who hear it.


See my reply to randyk47....


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Much thanks. I was hoping for a 7.1.6 offering but that doesn't look likely for some time. I'm also looking forward to Pioneer's release of an Atmos receiver with a Top Middle option. I can't see that with their SC95 right now.
> 
> Whatever I buy, I'll make sure it's DTS:X compatible. Maybe DTS:X will be available by then and we'll find out how the old DTS Neo X is handled and sounds. I really enjoy the DTS Neo X + THX Cinema mode that provides great dialog clarity with my current Pioneer SC65.


Rick,

As you may recall, I'm wired for about 23 speakers in my HT. I ran cables everywhere to avoid having to fish them later as configurations were expanded. With that being said, I physically have the speakers placed for 9.1.6 and have since I started my HT journey in May of this year. 

I initially went with 5.1.4 about 6 months ago, because the AVR was lower cost than 7.1.4 and I didn't require an external amp. It drove me nuts that I had 2 pairs of def tech promonitor 1000s that I could not use. So I was holding out for at least 7.1.6 or 9.1.4, as my AVR was only a few months old. I didn't want to buy a new one so soon.

I finally got tired of waiting and realized I'd rather enjoy what I have now than play the waiting game for more channels. So about a month ago I threw in a 7.1.4 and sold my nearly new 5.1.4 unit. My point is that we can all sit around and wait for 15 or 21 or 50+ channels.....or we can enjoy what we have now. Personally I'm glad I made the jump just to pick up the 2 rear channels in 7.1.4. 

You can always expect to lose about 40-50% when you sell your lightly used avr/prepro. So it's a question of how bad you really want to gain a couple more channels and how frequently you want to hassle with it. 

I'll likely hold out for 15 channels and skip any 13 channel releases. Then again maybe not


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Rick,
> 
> As you may recall, I'm wired for about 23 speakers in my HT. I ran cables everywhere to avoid having to fish them later as configurations were expanded. With that being said, I physically have the speakers placed for 9.1.6 and have since I started my HT journey in May of this year.
> 
> I initially went with 5.1.4 about 6 months ago, because the AVR was lower cost than 7.1.4 and I didn't require an external amp. It drove me nuts that I had 2 pairs of def tech promonitor 1000s that I could not use. So I was holding out for at least 7.1.6 or 9.1.4, as my AVR was only a few months old. I didn't want to buy a new one so soon.
> 
> I finally got tired of waiting and realized I'd rather enjoy what I have now than play the waiting game for more channels. So about a month ago I threw in a 7.1.4 and sold my nearly new 5.1.4 unit. My point is that we can all sit around and wait for 15 or 21 or 50+ channels.....or we can enjoy what we have now. Personally I'm glad I made the jump just to pick up the 2 rear channels in 7.1.4.
> 
> You can always expect to lose about 40-50% when you sell your lightly used avr/prepro. So it's a question of how bad you really want to gain a couple more channels and how frequently you want to hassle with it.
> 
> I'll likely hold out for 15 channels and skip any 13 channel releases. Then again maybe not


Nice setup! Can we cross wire those puppies? I was envisioning a whole rack of Emotiva XPA-7's to power all those speakers. And a new electrical panel, hooked into a "solar backup," since we can never trust the power company these days. 

I know there are always tradeoffs between waiting and buying now. Trouble is - - I am partial to the Pioneer Elite series as I've had nothing but great experiences with their gear. I know other folks might see it different. I haven't had a Denon in fifteen years as Yamaha or Pioneer Elite have been my preferences. 

The Denon x5200w certainly has the best price and Dolby Atmos options (speaker configuration) - IMHO. Some folks say it sounds harsh compared to the Pioneer Elite. I'm not sure if any receiver can impart that type of sonic image but I know Pioneer and how they lay out their options like the back of my hand. There is something to be said for staying with a brand you trust and being familiar with navigating your way through the manual/setup. 

I'm probably going to wait until the spring or early summer to see what is available and if there are any price mark downs. As I said earlier - - while it's no where close to Dolby Atmos, my DTS Neo X + THX in Cinema mode has been very enjoyable. 

Much thanks, as always. I'm "Turkied Out" and looking forward to some football today and anything BUT turkey for dinner! Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## randyk47

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry - I didn’t mean to rubbish anyone's choice and I hope I was clear that it was personal thing of my own. It is more the company (DefTech I mean, not me and you LOL) that I have a problem with and I may have been hasty in broadly condemning their entire output. Please accept my apologies if I have offended you in any way.


I really wasn't offended. What I think it points up though is there are a lot of paths and options available to us. Hopefully we all try to do the best we can but "best" is defined by our knowledge, experience, desires, access to equipment, room environment limitations, and our pocket books just to name a few.


----------



## witchdoctor

Ricoflashback said:


> I'll put in a plug for the Cornered Audio C3 or C4 series by LineQ. Danish speaker with a 4" woofer (extra 4" baffle/passive radiator on C4).
> 
> These speakers work great as Front or Rear Heights angled down to the listener with a very clean install with no brackets.
> 
> In my case, ceiling speakers were not an option and I have a beam in my basement about in the middle of my setup where the Top Middle speakers are located.
> 
> Best used for ceiling/wall mount, up high, or on a beam, like I have. Especially clean look in a corner which I had to do with my Front Heights as my combo projector/LCD TV did not allow for direct, on wall placement due to the length of my 100" projection screen.


Thanks, that would be by far the most convenient install. I have noticed similar designs from Boston Acoustics and JBL and will check them out.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Zhorik said:


> Thank you to both of you. I have been to Atmos cinemas a few times and this was the first time the lights were on full, so I was able to observe the speakers layout properly (as I was a few minutes before anyone else).
> 
> My next visit will be for "In the heart of the Sea" and I might move around the cinema to see how it sounds sitting out of the sweet spot.


Is that an AMC PRIME? I might be in the minority here, but I am not a big fan of the sound @ the AMC PRIME theater, the rear surrounds get cut off due to the steep angle of seating, and the ceiling speakers are so high up I feel like the overhead sound gets washed out. But the low end is fantastic, & I might also be in the minority who enjoy the butt kickers. The projection is fantastic too, when scenes taking full advantage of laser show themselves off.


----------



## alfa1

randyk47 said:


> I really wasn't offended. What I think it points up though is there are a lot of paths and options available to us. Hopefully we all try to do the best we can but "best" is defined by our knowledge, experience, desires, access to equipment, room environment limitations, and our pocket books just to name a few.


Ditto, no offense taken Keith, I always enjoy your thoughts and insights.


----------



## diyty

Anyone ever run speaker wire under plush carpet and underpad? I found some flat speaker wire online it's very expensive but I don't want to feel any wires under the carpet. However, from what I read online it's height is 0.070" and regular 16 gauge is 0.050" am i mistaken? 
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B005FM...eaker+wire&dpPl=1&dpID=51q4lGblyTL&ref=plSrch


----------



## Stanton

diyty said:


> Anyone ever run speaker wire under plush carpet and underpad? I found some flat speaker wire online it's very expensive but I don't want to feel any wires under the carpet. However, from what I read online it's height is 0.070" and regular 16 gauge is 0.050" am i mistaken?


I did in our old house (a long time ago); I didn't have the option of running it through the walls and I was already into surround sound. It works, but bottom line is: you will _always_ be able to tell there is _something_ under the carpet when you walk on it.


----------



## dschulz

diyty said:


> Anyone ever run speaker wire under plush carpet and underpad? I found some flat speaker wire online it's very expensive but I don't want to feel any wires under the carpet. However, from what I read online it's height is 0.070" and regular 16 gauge is 0.050" am i mistaken?
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B005FM...eaker+wire&dpPl=1&dpID=51q4lGblyTL&ref=plSrch


I did this for the surround speakers in my apartment, and I didn't even use flat wire, just standard 12 AWB speaker wire. The way I made it work was by tucking the wire in at the seams of the carpet pads (in one spot cutting a seam in the pad), so that the wire doesn't protrude about the carpet pad at all. Once the carpet went down over the pad the wire are invisible and you can' tell they're their at all.


----------



## AllenA07

Want to get some opinions of going with on-ceiling speakers for a 7.2.4 setup. I originally wanted to do in-ceiling, but for various reasons, the install is going to be a nightmare. I'm thinking about going with four SVS Prime Satellites and mounting them to the ceiling. This would keep my surrounds timbre matched (my fronts are EMP), and would make Atmos possible in my room. Is there anything in losing my going this way instead of a in-ceiling-speaker? I figure I need to find a decent bracket to hold the speaker in a mount so I can angle towards to MLP. Any thoughts on how this will preform versus a more traditional in-ceiling or module based approach?


----------



## diyty

Do you think the flat wire is actually flatter? Because what I've read for demensions suggest the "flat" stuff is .020 inches thicker I want to be sure because it comes in at $100 more then standard wire.
I can run it along two walls under the trim, then leave one strand behind at the couch, for the left surround speaker and continue the second strand along the couch to the right surround speaker. So you'd never really walk on it and I could use standard wire and save the $100


----------



## dkwong

diyty said:


> Anyone ever run speaker wire under plush carpet and underpad? I found some flat speaker wire online it's very expensive but I don't want to feel any wires under the carpet. However, from what I read online it's height is 0.070" and regular 16 gauge is 0.050" am i mistaken?
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B005FM...eaker+wire&dpPl=1&dpID=51q4lGblyTL&ref=plSrch



Check out Sewell Ghost Speaker Wire. Those are even thinner. I used those to run wire for surrounds and ceiling speakers and am very happy with them. A coat of paint over them and they are pretty much invisible.


----------



## diyty

Now for the atmos part of my question. I have the onkyo tx-nr636. I do not have any speakers yet. Am I reading this correctly this receiver can do eitger 7.2 surround with no atmos or 5.2.2 with atmos? 
What do people suggest for speakers around or under the $1000 range for all. Is getting right and left fronts with height speakers built in best or should I put ceiling speakers in?
My room as an 800sqr/ft multi function basement there is a wide bulkhead that runs all the way across my room starting from the middle of my screen to behind the seats. Ceiling speakers are possible but the ceiling is about 12 inches different heights from one side of the couch to the other. Room is still in progress. Just ordered carpet.


----------



## diyty

Is one side of that got wire unprotected? How do you terminate this stuff?


----------



## diyty

dkwong said:


> diyty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone ever run speaker wire under plush carpet and underpad? I found some flat speaker wire online it's very expensive but I don't want to feel any wires under the carpet. However, from what I read online it's height is 0.070" and regular 16 gauge is 0.050" am i mistaken?
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B005FM...eaker+wire&dpPl=1&dpID=51q4lGblyTL&ref=plSrch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Sewell Ghost Speaker Wire. Those are even thinner. I used those to run wire for surrounds and ceiling speakers and am very happy with them. A coat of paint over them and they are pretty much invisible.
Click to expand...

Is one side of those ghost wires unprotected? How do you terminate these?


----------



## NODES

Did anyone turn up the db's on their atmos ceiling speakers then what Audyssey sets it at?


----------



## dkwong

diyty said:


> Is one side of those ghost wires unprotected? How do you terminate these?



Both sides are protected. It's clear on the sticky side and white on the other. You'll have to buy a set of terminators for them: https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-gho...6-and-18-awg?gclid=cpeyu5v6tskcfrosfgodhwui3w.


----------



## dkwong

NODES said:


> Did anyone turn up the db's on their atmos ceiling speakers then what Audyssey sets it at?



I have mine +3 from what AccuEQ set them to.


----------



## NorthSky

witchdoctor said:


> Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?
> 
> 1. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193
> 
> 2. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186
> 
> *3*. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186
> 
> 4. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html


I would go with number 3. ...Eleven of them...all around (7.2.4 Atmos setup) with two HSU Research VTF-15H MK2 subwoofers. 
* Total cost (street): approximately $2,500 (Christmas). ...Perhaps a little less.

♦ http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-mk5-hp-subwoofer-reviews#FOXIeRIg19BZB2FI.97
- If you won't use the XLR balanced connections go for a pair of VTF-3 MK5 HPs.

Flat speaker wires: 14AWG - 2mm thick - from Radio Shack (very inexpensive, even less when on sale). ...Under a thin carpet, you won't even feel.

For truly flat (0.5mm): https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-sup...ker-wire-18-awg-2-conductor-50-ft-spool-white

Or this: http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=11936


----------



## witchdoctor

NorthSky said:


> I would go with number 3. ...Eleven of them...all around (7.2.4 Atmos setup) with two HSU Research VTF-15H MK2 subwoofers.
> * Total cost (street): approximately $2,500 (Christmas). ...Perhaps a little less.
> 
> ♦ http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-mk5-hp-subwoofer-reviews#FOXIeRIg19BZB2FI.97
> - If you won't use the XLR balanced connections go for a pair of VTF-3 MK5 HPs.
> 
> Flat speaker wires: 14AWG - 2mm thick - from Radio Shack (very inexpensive, even less when on sale). ...Under a thin carpet, you won't even feel.
> 
> For truly flat (0.5mm): https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-sup...ker-wire-18-awg-2-conductor-50-ft-spool-white
> 
> Or this: http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=11936


Thanks, I like the idea of matching speakers all around. That is also a good tip on the Sewell wire, I didn't know there was adhesive wire.


----------



## NorthSky

• http://www.ebay.com/bhp/flat-speaker-wire

♠ http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#longerwires


----------



## BigScreen

witchdoctor said:


> Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html


If it were me, I'd go for the ProMonitor 800's (or better yet, the ProMonitor 1000's that you were offered). They are intended to be mounted, as opposed to having to try and figure out how to ceiling mount a bookshelf speaker. Furthermore, their performance will likely exceed what will be required of them, so trying to extend further by going with the bookshelves seems like it will be a lot of pain for not a lot of gain.

As far as the other two options go, while I don't think one needs to go with monster speakers for overheads, I think 3.5" drivers are just a little too small. The rated specs seem a little too optimistic. Given the negative reviews here by those that have tried the A60's, I'd avoid them because of that reason, as well as the cost. They seem to work in certain situations, so if you can find a place with a great return policy, that would be the only way I'd try them.

Good luck!


----------



## witchdoctor

BigScreen said:


> If it were me, I'd go for the ProMonitor 800's (or better yet, the ProMonitor 1000's that you were offered). They are intended to be mounted, as opposed to having to try and figure out how to ceiling mount a bookshelf speaker. Furthermore, their performance will likely exceed what will be required of them, so trying to extend further by going with the bookshelves seems like it will be a lot of pain for not a lot of gain.
> 
> As far as the other two options go, while I don't think one needs to go with monster speakers for overheads, I think 3.5" drivers are just a little too small. The rated specs seem a little too optimistic. Given the negative reviews here by those that have tried the A60's, I'd avoid them because of that reason, as well as the cost. They seem to work in certain situations, so if you can find a place with a great return policy, that would be the only way I'd try them.
> 
> Good luck!


Thanks for the feedback, I will make sure I get a return policy on whatever I decide on. I totally see your point about the convenience of the 800's vs the pain of installing bookshelves to the ceiling.


----------



## NODES

dkwong said:


> I have mine +3 from what AccuEQ set them to.


I went up +2, sounds better will try 2.5-3.5 might be the sweet spot.


----------



## diyty

Unfortunately radio shack left canada and the only place I can find the monoprice stuff is amazon. For that same 100 ft roll it will cost me $165 to get. 

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B018HH...+monoprice&dpPl=1&dpID=31qkcg7ZKuL&ref=plSrch
Also 2mm is .078" which is the same as standard wire. I'm wondering about this flat wire strip though. Should it be adhered to the concrete then slice the carpet to pass through and terminate on top of the carpet? I'd be worried of where it comes through the carpet snapping.


----------



## diyty

NorthSky said:


> witchdoctor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, these are the 4 I am considering and are all around the same price that I could accommodate in my room. Which one would you say is the best speaker?
> 
> 1. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735DI35R/Definitive-Technology-DI-3-5R.html?tp=193
> 
> 2. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735PMON8W/Definitive-Technology-ProMonitor-800-White.html?tp=186
> 
> *3*. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735SM45/Definitive-Technology-StudioMonitor-45.html?tp=186
> 
> 4. http://www.crutchfield.com/p_735A60/Definitive-Technology-A60-Elevation-Module.html
> 
> 
> 
> I would go with number 3. ...Eleven of them...all around (7.2.4 Atmos setup) with two HSU Research VTF-15H MK2 subwoofers.
> * Total cost (street): approximately $2,500 (Christmas). ...Perhaps a little less.
> 
> :diamonds: http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-mk5-hp-subwoofer-reviews#FOXIeRIg19BZB2FI.97
> - If you won't use the XLR balanced connections go for a pair of VTF-3 MK5 HPs.
> 
> Flat speaker wires: 14AWG - 2mm thick - from Radio Shack (very inexpensive, even less when on sale). ...Under a thin carpet, you won't even feel.
> 
> For truly flat (0.5mm): https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-sup...ker-wire-18-awg-2-conductor-50-ft-spool-white
> 
> Or this: http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=11936
Click to expand...

Unfortunately radio shack left canada and the only place I can find the monoprice stuff is amazon. For that same 100 ft roll it will cost me $165 to get. 

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B018HH...+monoprice&dpPl=1&dpID=31qkcg7ZKuL&ref=plSrch
Also 2mm is .078" which is the same as standard wire. I'm wondering about this flat wire strip though. Should it be adhered to the concrete then slice the carpet to pass through and terminate on top of the carpet? I'd be worried of where it comes through the carpet snapping.


----------



## NorthSky

diyty said:


> Unfortunately radio shack left canada and the only place I can find the monoprice stuff is amazon. For that same 100 ft roll it will cost me $165 to get.
> 
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B018HH...+monoprice&dpPl=1&dpID=31qkcg7ZKuL&ref=plSrch
> Also 2mm is .078" which is the same as standard wire. I'm wondering about this flat wire strip though. Should it be adhered to the concrete then slice the carpet to pass through and terminate on top of the carpet? I'd be worried of where it comes through the carpet snapping.


I replied to a member living in the USA. Radio Shack is still alive over there. For us in Canada it has been replaced by The Source. 

You are Canadian; give me a minute or two because I saw that same flat speaker wire that I bought a long time ago available @ The Source (I think) and @ Amazon.ca (100% certain) and affordable in Canadian dollars. ...I'll be back...

♦ http://www.amazon.ca/Acoustic-Resea...1448861468&sr=8-1&keywords=flat+speaker+cable => Very micro thin (few more dollars).
♦ http://www.amazon.ca/SIIG-16-Gauge-...1448861751&sr=8-3&keywords=flat+speaker+cable => Flat (2mm) and more affordable.
♦ http://www.amazon.ca/Sewell-AWG-Adh..._UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=1A4C28H67FTDX0XZAA3K => Micro flat (adhesive).
♦ http://www.cablesonsale.ca/index.php/monoprice-100ft-16awg-pure-copper-flat-speaker-wire-beige.html => I have some of that.
♦ http://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?poi=&...crdt=0&treatment_id=7&clk_rvr_id=940618770756 => Bunch of them here.


----------



## diyty

NorthSky said:


> diyty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately radio shack left canada and the only place I can find the monoprice stuff is amazon. For that same 100 ft roll it will cost me $165 to get.
> 
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B018HH...+monoprice&dpPl=1&dpID=31qkcg7ZKuL&ref=plSrch
> Also 2mm is .078" which is the same as standard wire. I'm wondering about this flat wire strip though. Should it be adhered to the concrete then slice the carpet to pass through and terminate on top of the carpet? I'd be worried of where it comes through the carpet snapping.
> 
> 
> 
> I replied to a member living in the USA. Radio Shack is still alive over there. For us in Canada it has been replaced by The Source.
> 
> You are Canadian; give me a minute or two because I saw that same flat speaker wire that I bought a long time ago available @ The Source (I think) and @ Amazon.ca (100% sure) for very low Canadian dollars. ...I'll be back...
Click to expand...

Ok sorry I thought you where trying to nock of a few people's questions in one go. Two birds kinda thing. Thanks for your time though. I might have to go into a few stores and see if they just don't have it online yet


----------



## NorthSky

diyty said:


> Ok sorry I thought you where trying to nock of a few people's questions in one go. Two birds kinda thing. Thanks for your time though. I might have to go into a few stores and see if they just don't have it online yet


I have read roughly the last sixty posts and simply posted one to touch two questions:
1. Speakers (Atmos purpose)
2. Wires (Atmos purpose; along the ceiling or under the carpet...back surrounds)

...Just straight to the point with most effectiveness possible and less posting (saving space). 
Let me check now for you @ The Source, or would you rather check yourself? 
* I'm curious anyway for my Canadian brothers here @ AVS with their new Dolby Atmos setup...getting ready to install their Atmos speakers with the required wires.

If you go to your local Canadian The Source, they should have something very very similar to that, white, and transparent jacket:
♦ http://www.parts-express.com/jsc-wire-16-awg-flat-speaker-wire-50-ft-usa--100-040
♦ Here: http://www.thesource.ca/estore/product.aspx?product=2781384&language=en-CA


----------



## Zhorik

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is that an AMC PRIME? I might be in the minority here, but I am not a big fan of the sound @ the AMC PRIME theater, the rear surrounds get cut off due to the steep angle of seating, and the ceiling speakers are so high up I feel like the overhead sound gets washed out. But the low end is fantastic, & I might also be in the minority who enjoy the butt kickers. The projection is fantastic too, when scenes taking full advantage of laser show themselves off.


No. I am in Australia and here we have large screens which are similar to Prime except, no Dbox or wall behind the seats. Most new large screen cinemas are built with the same design as shown below.



Spoiler


----------



## Selden Ball

AllenA07 said:


> Want to get some opinions of going with on-ceiling speakers for a 7.2.4 setup. I originally wanted to do in-ceiling, but for various reasons, the install is going to be a nightmare. I'm thinking about going with four SVS Prime Satellites and mounting them to the ceiling. This would keep my surrounds timbre matched (my fronts are EMP), and would make Atmos possible in my room. Is there anything in losing my going this way instead of a in-ceiling-speaker? I figure I need to find a decent bracket to hold the speaker in a mount so I can angle towards to MLP. Any thoughts on how this will preform versus a more traditional in-ceiling or module based approach?


On-ceiling gives you more choices in high-quality speakers. Also, you can toe them in properly, which is difficult or impossible with most in-ceilings. However, they're visually less attractive. Appearance can be irrelevant, though, if you have a dedicated home theater room. You do still have to run the cables. Hiding on-ceiling cables can be more difficult than in-ceiling cables.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> On-ceiling gives you more choices in high-quality speakers. Also, you can toe them in properly, which is difficult or impossible with most in-ceilings. However, they're visually less attractive. Appearance can be irrelevant, though, if you have a dedicated home theater room. You do still have to run the cables. Hiding on-ceiling cables can be more difficult than in-ceiling cables.


While not disagreeing with you, Selden, a couple of observations. If the speakers have the appropriate Dolby-recommended wide dispersion, then toeing isn't required. Indeed, I have recently changed the orientation of my on-ceiling speakers to point directly down (they were previously aimed at MLP) and I have found the result to be more pleasing. The other point was that cables for on-ceiling speakers can still be run inside the ceiling of course (caveat about wire rated for burial in walls etc).


----------



## diyty

NorthSky said:


> diyty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok sorry I thought you where trying to nock of a few people's questions in one go. Two birds kinda thing. Thanks for your time though. I might have to go into a few stores and see if they just don't have it online yet
> 
> 
> 
> I have read roughly the last sixty posts and simply posted one to touch two questions:
> 1. Speakers (Atmos purpose)
> 2. Wires (Atmos purpose; along the ceiling or under the carpet...back surrounds)
> 
> ...Just straight to the point with most effectiveness possible and less posting (saving space).
> Let me check now for you @ The Source, or would you rather check yourself?
> * I'm curious anyway for my Canadian brothers here @ AVS with their new Dolby Atmos setup...getting ready to install their Atmos speakers with the required wires.
> 
> If you go to your local Canadian The Source, they should have something very very similar to that, white, and transparent jacket:
> :diamonds: http://www.parts-express.com/jsc-wire-16-awg-flat-speaker-wire-50-ft-usa--100-040
> :diamonds: Here: http://www.thesource.ca/estore/product.aspx?product=2781384&language=en-CA
Click to expand...

Hey thanks alot. I'll check out the source later. Do you think it is a good idea to tape down the cable under the carpet? Parts express appears to be out of stock on the white stuff.


----------



## smurraybhm

witchdoctor said:


> Thanks for the feedback, I will make sure I get a return policy on whatever I decide on. I totally see your point about the convenience of the 800's vs the pain of installing bookshelves to the ceiling.


Just to add since we started this discussion, I ordered 2 more Def Tech PM1000s for my TM position, the little Ascends will be going up for sale or moved to computer duty. Wanted to match my front heights and if you check out eBay (search for Bajawaverunner - he is highly regarded on the Def Tech thread) you'll find some great prices on refurb Def Tech speakers with free shipping - apologies if that was mentioned earlier, quickly reading the thread this morning before work. 

Bob - thanks for the tip on the Sewell adhesive speaker wire, never knew it was out there.


----------



## dvdwilly3

diyty said:


> Unfortunately radio shack left canada and the only place I can find the monoprice stuff is amazon. For that same 100 ft roll it will cost me $165 to get.
> 
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B018HH...+monoprice&dpPl=1&dpID=31qkcg7ZKuL&ref=plSrch
> Also 2mm is .078" which is the same as standard wire. I'm wondering about this flat wire strip though. Should it be adhered to the concrete then slice the carpet to pass through and terminate on top of the carpet? I'd be worried of where it comes through the carpet snapping.


I think that you will find it cheaper to deal directly with Monoprice.

If you have baseboard and/or quarter round, pull it off. You should see about a one-half inch gap between the bottom of the dry wall and the floor.

Tuck your speaker wire in there, put the baseboard or quarter round back, and skip the painting.

Listen, and enjoy!


----------



## Gates

NODES said:


> Did anyone turn up the db's on their atmos ceiling speakers then what Audyssey sets it at?


I left mine to what Audyssey put it at and it sounds fantastic, but I have amazing ceiling speakers, so I'm wondering if that makes a difference. I noticed that a lot of people up their volume for their ceiling speakers.


----------



## witchdoctor

smurraybhm said:


> Just to add since we started this discussion, I ordered 2 more Def Tech PM1000s for my TM position, the little Ascends will be going up for sale or moved to computer duty. Wanted to match my front tops and if you check out eBay (search for Bajawaverunner - he is highly regarded on the Def Tech thread) you'll find some great prices on refurb Def Tech speakers with free shipping - apologies if that was mentioned earlier, quickly ready the thread this morning before work.
> 
> Bob - thanks for the tip on the Sewell adhesive speaker wire, never knew it was out there.



So many good deals on the bajawaverunner page, thanks!


----------



## Stanton

Gates said:


> I left mine to what Audyssey put it at and it sounds fantastic, but I have amazing ceiling speakers, so I'm wondering if that makes a difference. I noticed that a lot of people up their volume for their ceiling speakers.


Obviously it depends on the AVR, but I didn't mess with the YPAO levels on my Yamaha. I figure if you're going to pay top $$ for good DSP, why mess with the "sound bubble"?


----------



## batpig

Gates said:


> I left mine to what Audyssey put it at and it sounds fantastic, but I have amazing ceiling speakers, so I'm wondering if that makes a difference. I noticed that a lot of people up their volume for their ceiling speakers.


I actually turn DOWN the volume of my Top Middle speakers. I am currently running Top Middle + Front Height and I installed the TM first so they are almost directly above the couch. I also have lowish ceilings (~7.5ft) so I find the TM sound somewhat overbearing, such that it detracts from the balance of the system. 

I also have my FH speakers at too low of an angle currently (~20 degrees) which may be contributing to the imbalance of the overheads. I'm going to swap them with another pair of IC for the front at a more kosher elevation angle (~35-40 degrees) which may restore the overhead balance and prevent me from having to dial down the TM. 

If the issue persists after I add the IC up front to replace the too-low FH speakers, I may have to take the painful step of moving the IC speakers I have as TM to a more rearward position so they aren't beating down on my head as much.


----------



## olsonadr

*Help with new Atmos Receiver*

Hello All,

There is a chance this has been answered but there are 1136 pages in this thread and that is a lot to review!.

So here is my situation. 

I bought the base visio 4k tv. The 42/43" model that is msrp 600. For that price was easy for me to give 4k a spin without being too worried about spending a ton of money as an early adopter.

I had run into some issues with tv and my older receiver due to not having HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. So snagged black friday deal at Fry's for the X3200W. Love the receiver so far. I bought it for HDCP 2.2 not for Atmos (although I like being future proof). Speakers are setup in a 7.1 setup. Also due to space issues speakers are wall mounted near the ceiling. So definitely not at ear level or near ear level but works just fine for me.

I figured when i setup the receiver I would not have access to Atmos as I did not have speakers dedicated to height or ceiling. However when I went through Audyssey i selected back surround for my back two speakers as before. Something I noticed in going through setup was even choosing surround back as opposed to front height or ceiling for those two speakers the receiver had a comment that the back two speakers was part of a dolby atmos setup.

So everything configured and did some testing. I have about 4 movies that have Dolby Atmos sound tracks. When I play one of those movies I was surprised to see the receiver saying it was playing an Atmos soundtrack, not the fallback to 7.1 TrueHD or DSU but Atmos. 


These movies sound good to me but I have had zero chance to compare a home Atmos setup with overhead speakers paired with a standard 5.1 setup.


Given that my speakers are all the same height around the room Does anyone know what I am actually getting? My receiver is playing the Atmos track. I get lots of great surround sound and I do feel like everything is very active and it does sound like sound is moving around in space a bit better than a sound track with 5.1 or 7.1.


Anyone else experienced this and/or can suggest how my receiver is handling an Atmos track in my situation?

Thanks in advance for any guidance. At some point I may move things around and try a 5.1.2 setup but for now I am just happy to have the new receiver itself.


----------



## Stanton

olsonadr said:


> Anyone else experienced this and/or can suggest how my receiver is handling an Atmos track in my situation?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any guidance. At some point I may move things around and try a 5.1.2 setup but for now I am just happy to have the new receiver itself.


You are getting exactly what you hear: an Atmos track playing over a (non-Atmos) 5.1 configuration. Probably doesn't sound bad, but not optimal. I suggest 1 of 2 things:
1) Turn off the metadata decoding in your AVR (so it won't/can't decode Atmos) and it will "fall back" to 5.1
2) Install/re-arrange your speaker set-up to 5.1.2 (as you mentioned)


----------



## olsonadr

Stanton said:


> You are getting exactly what you hear: an Atmos track playing over a (non-Atmos) 5.1 configuration. Probably doesn't sound bad, but not optimal. I suggest 1 of 2 things:
> 1) Turn off the metadata decoding in your AVR (so it won't/can't decode Atmos) and it will "fall back" to 5.1
> 2) Install/re-arrange your speaker set-up to 5.1.2 (as you mentioned)


Actually it is a 7.1 not 5.1. One thing I did look at was changing the sound settings during playback. I do have the ability to hold down the movie button on the denon remote and switch through separate outputs, stereo etc. IT does allow me to select TrueHD 7.1 as an option. 

So since I do not have 'true' Atmos Configuration for my speakers would stepping down the the 7.1 TrueHD track inside the Atmos stream be my best option for me for now?


----------



## olsonadr

Stanton said:


> You are getting exactly what you hear: an Atmos track playing over a (non-Atmos) 5.1 configuration. Probably doesn't sound bad, but not optimal. I suggest 1 of 2 things:
> 1) Turn off the metadata decoding in your AVR (so it won't/can't decode Atmos) and it will "fall back" to 5.1
> 2) Install/re-arrange your speaker set-up to 5.1.2 (as you mentioned)



Actually it is a 7.1 not 5.1. One thing I did look at was changing the sound settings during playback. I do have the ability to hold down the movie button on the denon remote and switch through separate outputs, stereo etc. IT does allow me to select TrueHD 7.1 as an option. 

So since I do not have 'true' Atmos Configuration for my speakers would stepping down the the 7.1 TrueHD track inside the Atmos stream be my best option for me for now? Assuming no changes to speaker layout?


----------



## batpig

The receiver is reporting "Dolby Atmos" since that's the input signal, but with a standard 7.1 setup what you are hearing is just the 7.1 Dolby TrueHD "bed" mix without any of the Atmos metadata being decoded.


----------



## jlanzy

AllenA07 said:


> Want to get some opinions of going with on-ceiling speakers for a 7.2.4 setup. I originally wanted to do in-ceiling, but for various reasons, the install is going to be a nightmare. I'm thinking about going with four SVS Prime Satellites and mounting them to the ceiling. This would keep my surrounds timbre matched (my fronts are EMP), and would make Atmos possible in my room. Is there anything in losing my going this way instead of a in-ceiling-speaker? I figure I need to find a decent bracket to hold the speaker in a mount so I can angle towards to MLP. Any thoughts on how this will preform versus a more traditional in-ceiling or module based approach?


 







JBL SCS 8 is a coaxial-driver, 2-way, full-range cinema surround loudspeaker ideal for multi-channel surround formats and is designed for overhead installation as well as for standard on-wall installations 

250 Watt power handling (average continuous pink noise) with high sensitivity provides high SPL capability.

Consistent 120° x 120° broadband pattern control
Extraordinary clarity cinema surround with extended frequency response for special effects
Components:
• 200 mm (8 in) woofer with Kevlar-reinforced cone and 50 mm (2 in)
voice coil.
 • 25 mm (1 in) exit compression driver with unique patented design 
and high temperature polymer diaphragm.
70 Hz – 20 kHz frequency response

I've been seriously looking at these especially with the included bracket making installation relatively easy. I would install them to aim at the MLP since we only have 2 seats in our theater room with an 8 ft ceiling and projector in the back. I actually think JBL used the 12" version in one of their immersive audio demos at CEDIA.


----------



## jlanzy

batpig said:


> I actually turn DOWN the volume of my Top Middle speakers. I am currently running Top Middle + Front Height and I installed the TM first so they are almost directly above the couch. I also have lowish ceilings (~7.5ft) so I find the TM sound somewhat overbearing, such that it detracts from the balance of the system.
> 
> I also have my FH speakers at too low of an angle currently (~20 degrees) which may be contributing to the imbalance of the overheads. I'm going to swap them with another pair of IC for the front at a more kosher elevation angle (~35-40 degrees) which may restore the overhead balance and prevent me from having to dial down the TM.
> 
> If the issue persists after I add the IC up front to replace the too-low FH speakers, I may have to take the painful step of moving the IC speakers I have as TM to a more rearward position so they aren't beating down on my head as much.


Thanks for that info, I also have a lower ceiling 7'9", and was planning on the atmos front/top ceiling speakers to be about 30 degrees from MLP and the top/rear to be about same , 30 degrees behind and just outside of MLP. These will be on ceiling co-axial speakers aimed at the MLP, do you think that would sound ok?


----------



## dannybee

Which Atmos movie do you guys think is the best to use for checking your system setup.


----------



## batpig

jlanzy said:


> Thanks for that info, I also have a lower ceiling 7'9", and was planning on the atmos front/top ceiling speakers to be about 30 degrees from MLP and the top/rear to be about same , 30 degrees behind and just outside of MLP. These will be on ceiling co-axial speakers aimed at the MLP, do you think that would sound ok?


Yes, with the speakers in front and behind you will have more separation so I doubt you will experience the issue I am. I also wouldn't necessarily generalize my personal experience with my room and speakers and assume everyone would have the same problems. 

That said, your plan sounds solid and should yield distinct front/back and side to side panning as intended.


----------



## batpig

dannybee said:


> Which Atmos movie do you guys think is the best to use for checking your system setup.


The Atmos demos are probably the best for a quick "setup check" since everyone has access to them and can report on a known quantity. If you don't have a Blu-ray version you can stream them for free from VUDU (provided your streaming device can handle DD+ output). 

The "Amaze" demo has 360 degree panning (bird flying around you) plus extreme bass (thunder) and powerful overhead effects (rainstorm).

The "Leaf" demo is a good test of ambiance and panning with wind wooshing and stuff flying around you.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Bob - thanks for the tip on the Sewell adhesive speaker wire, never knew it was out there.


Hey Steve, some positive words. 



Spoiler



1. 



2. 



3. 




♦ https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-sup...er-wire-16-awg-2-conductor-100-ft-spool-white


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Hey Steve, some positive words.


It is the Holiday Season, miracle on AVS


----------



## mlmiller707

*Dolby Atmos capability*

Do you have an opinion on this please?

1. I will be adding them as 5.1.2. Can these be substituted for 7.1 when Atmos material is not on the file/disk?
2. I want to use these as well for music in multi channel stereo, and providing Audyssey mixes appropriately it should sound more powerful than now?

3. I have 18' ceilings. I would assume the theaters are higher. They will be placed approximately 8' off the ground. Will I still be able to enjoy questions 1,2 relatively the same? 

This is what the speaker company said, but another speaker company said different..

Atmos is an entirely different encoding and decoding technology. All non-Atmos content, when played through an Atmos decoder with Atmos speakers will be un-converted into an approximation of Atmos.

Theater ceilings are really tall, but 18’ is very high for a home theater speaker. Cinemas use huge speakers and many of them. The no speakers available will really fill a room with 18’ ceilings with Atmos. That is 36’ from the point of view of the speaker!
Even setting the speaker up 8’ means the sound has to get “back” to you. Figure 14’+10’=24’ round trip.
We honestly don’t know what will happen. I have set up Atmos theaters in many rooms. Ceilings as high as 10’. But 18 might be a stretch.

Not all rooms will support Dolby Atmos.

I wouldn’t use them for anything other than music with the receiver set to Dolby atmos. Atmos enabled speakers are specifically degined for Atmos and object based audio. During set up you need to inform the receiver you are using Atmos enabled speakers. This changes the signal sent to them from the receiver. I would imagine setting the receiver to multichannel stereo will turn off the Atmos channels. But it depends on the receiver.





-- 
Thank You,
Matt Miller


----------



## NorthSky

*Atmos overhead speakers*



smurraybhm said:


> Just to add since we started this discussion, I ordered 2 more Def Tech PM1000s for my TM position, the little Ascends will be going up for sale or moved to computer duty. Wanted to match my front heights and if you check out eBay (search for Bajawaverunner - he is highly regarded on the Def Tech thread) you'll find some great prices on refurb Def Tech speakers with free shipping - apologies if that was mentioned earlier, quickly reading the thread this morning before work.





witchdoctor said:


> So many good deals on the bajawaverunner page, thanks!





smurraybhm said:


> It is the Holiday Season, miracle on AVS


 You too gave a good tip.


----------



## NorthSky

mlmiller707 said:


> Do you have an opinion on this please?
> 
> 1. I will be adding them as 5.1.2. Can these be substituted for 7.1 when Atmos material is not on the file/disk?
> 2. I want to use these as well for music in multi channel stereo, and providing Audyssey mixes appropriately it should sound more powerful than now?
> 
> 3. I have 18' ceilings. I would assume the theaters are higher. They will be placed approximately 8' off the ground. Will I still be able to enjoy questions 1,2 relatively the same?
> 
> Thank You,
> Matt Miller


1. If you install a Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 setup; for non-Atmos material you can use DSU (Dolby Surround Up-mixer) and play anything through that setup.
{And when you play regular Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA 5.1 and 7.1 - it'll play in 5.1 - straight as is, without DSU, the two overhead speakers). 
2. No sweat. Stereo and multichannel music can be played in 5.1 or in 5.1.2 - your choice (preference). 
3. Perfect; 8 feet from the ground.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Horizontal mounting of speakers for Dolby Theater question - 

This is for my "Top Middle" Dolby Atmos speakers. They will be installed on a beam in front of the MLP. 

So - from left to right - - Left Top Middle - tweeter/woofer .... Right Top Middle woofer/tweeter? I hope this makes sense. Imagine the speaker in a vertical position (tweeter on top/woofer on bottom) and then the best way to install horizontally. 

This question WILL be on the mid-term, Dolby Atmos final exam.


----------



## NorthSky

Ricoflashback said:


> Horizontal mounting of speakers for Dolby Theater question -
> 
> This is for my "Top Middle" Dolby Atmos speakers. They will be installed on a beam in front of the MLP.
> 
> So - from left to right - - Left Top Middle - tweeter/woofer .... Right Top Middle woofer/tweeter? I hope this makes sense. Imagine the speaker in a vertical position (tweeter on top/woofer on bottom) and then the best way to install horizontally.
> 
> This question WILL be on the mid-term, Dolby Atmos final exam.


I like it!  ♦ Both Atmos speaker's tweeters on the inside, closer to the MLP. ...That's what I would do myself.

__________

Viewed from below:

[O○] ------------ [○O]


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Horizontal mounting of speakers for Dolby Theater question -
> 
> This is for my "Top Middle" Dolby Atmos speakers. They will be installed on a beam in front of the MLP.
> 
> So - from left to right - - Left Top Middle - tweeter/woofer .... Right Top Middle woofer/tweeter? I hope this makes sense. Imagine the speaker in a vertical position (tweeter on top/woofer on bottom) and then the best way to install horizontally.
> 
> This question WILL be on the mid-term, Dolby Atmos final exam.


Not sure how much it matters honestly for a smallish speaker with only ~6" or so (at most) between tweeter and woofer. As long as you do it mirror image (both tweeters either on the inside or the outside) it shouldn't matter much IMO.


----------



## batpig

mlmiller707 said:


> Do you have an opinion on this please?
> 
> 1. I will be adding them as 5.1.2. Can these be substituted for 7.1 when Atmos material is not on the file/disk?
> 2. I want to use these as well for music in multi channel stereo, and providing Audyssey mixes appropriately it should sound more powerful than now?
> 
> 3. I have 18' ceilings. I would assume the theaters are higher. They will be placed approximately 8' off the ground. Will I still be able to enjoy questions 1,2 relatively the same?
> 
> This is what the speaker company said, but another speaker company said different..
> 
> Atmos is an entirely different encoding and decoding technology. All non-Atmos content, when played through an Atmos decoder with Atmos speakers will be un-converted into an approximation of Atmos.
> 
> Theater ceilings are really tall, but 18’ is very high for a home theater speaker. Cinemas use huge speakers and many of them. The no speakers available will really fill a room with 18’ ceilings with Atmos. That is 36’ from the point of view of the speaker!
> Even setting the speaker up 8’ means the sound has to get “back” to you. Figure 14’+10’=24’ round trip.
> We honestly don’t know what will happen. I have set up Atmos theaters in many rooms. Ceilings as high as 10’. But 18 might be a stretch.
> 
> Not all rooms will support Dolby Atmos.
> 
> I wouldn’t use them for anything other than music with the receiver set to Dolby atmos. Atmos enabled speakers are specifically degined for Atmos and object based audio. During set up you need to inform the receiver you are using Atmos enabled speakers. This changes the signal sent to them from the receiver. I would imagine setting the receiver to multichannel stereo will turn off the Atmos channels. But it depends on the receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Thank You,
> Matt Miller


Matt - I'm not seeing a link or anything? Your post is kind of disjointed and hard to follow what is you talking vs. you quoting someone else?

Based on the context (i.e. the discussion of the "round trip" distance), it sounds like you are talking about reflecting "Atmos enabled" speakers right? If so, they are definitely a no go with 18' ceilings. For ceilings that high you really would want to use ceiling-mounted speakers with high power handling (e.g. those JBL's noted right above your post).


----------



## Movie78

Anybody seen this?

http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/11/30/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-sep-2015/


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's so last CEDIA.


----------



## jlanzy

NorthSky said:


> I like it!  ♦ Both Atmos speaker's tweeters on the inside, closer to the MLP. ...That's what I would do myself.
> 
> __________
> 
> Viewed from below:
> 
> [O○] ------------ [○O]


 
Great minds think alike, I have 2 ceiling mounted bookshelf speakers mounted exactly like that for the front heights for my dts neo x, and my reasoning was the same, the higher frequencies closer to the MLP. I chose to not place those speakers above the front mains as dts recommended since I always believed any height information would better be appreciated in how atmos positions are advised. My 'interpretation' of atmos will use 4 new coaxial ceiling mounted speakers aimed at the MLP about 30 degrees to front and rear of MLP. For my smaller 8ft or so ceiling in a 19x14 room I think a more directional wide dispersion type speaker would work better than in-ceiling down facing wide dispersion, but that is just an idea that will be my first atmos config experiment, if it doesn't produce a pleasing result back to the drawing board.


----------



## jlanzy

Molon_Labe said:


> I use those speakers for Atmos. If you can support their size, they are hard to beat.



Thanks Molon, I don't hear too many on the forum using these and was worried that they wouldn't work well, but at least now I have one person using them as I intend and have no regrets. I actually was looking at the 12" but then thought holy crap, a 12 inch woofer for atmos on a 8 ft ceiling sitting maybe only 7 ft from all 4 aimed at the MLP may well be overkill as well as hanging down from ceiling to bottom of speaker about 16 to 17", so back to the ' little fellas'


----------



## Ricoflashback

I would have gone w


batpig said:


> Not sure how much it matters honestly for a smallish speaker with only ~6" or so (at most) between tweeter and woofer. As long as you do it mirror image (both tweeters either on the inside or the outside) it shouldn't matter much IMO.


I would have gone with a large, industrial speaker like yours for my top middles but it would have blocked my view and probably pull my upstairs den into my basement HT theater due to the weight. 

Here's hoping my puny woofer and teeny tweeter will make a difference in my man cave. No jokes, girls, if u please..


----------



## kaotikr1

What is your input on the proximity of my surrounds to my seating? If I went Atmos I would go 7.1.4 and drop down the surround side speakers but as you can see they would be extremely close to the outside chairs. Think it's too close?


----------



## Ricoflashback

kaotikr1 said:


> What is your input on the proximity of my surrounds to my seating? If I went Atmos I would go 7.1.4 and drop down the surround side speakers but as you can see they would be extremely close to the outside chairs. Think it's too close?


Great room! Love the ticket pillows. Are those acoustical panels in the back?

Are u looking for Atmos Front Wides? Where are your other Atmos speakers?


----------



## kaotikr1

I don't have any ATMOS, I am just curious on what the feedback is if I dropped down my side surrounds as they would be quite close to the outside seats. Just testing the waters, as if I go to ATMOS I will need to remove some drywall and run wires so it will be a project so I want to make sure I am checking all the boxes.

Those are acoustic panels I have 3 on the back and each side wall, and then 4 on the front wall floor to ceiling in the corners.


----------



## NorthSky

kaotikr1 said:


> I don't have any ATMOS, I am just curious on what the feedback is if I dropped down my side surrounds as they would be quite close to the outside seats. Just testing the waters, as if I go to ATMOS I will need to remove some drywall and run wires so it will be a project so I want to make sure I am checking all the boxes.
> 
> Those are acoustic panels I have 3 on the back and each side wall, and then 4 on the front wall floor to ceiling in the corners.


♦ Always a good guiding link: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 22

* Me, I would drop all the four surrounds about 14 inches lower (12" ok too). 
- I would position the two back surrounds closer together by roughly 14 inches (12" to 16"). 
- I would ditch the side dipoles (if they are) and replace them with direct front radiating ones, and roughly @ 90-100° to the sides.
- The four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers from that link above (page 22): the only change would be to position them closer to each other...right now they are in line with the two font mains...I would position them inside the mains by roughly 14 inches. ...So 28 inches total closer (each pair). 
But the angles remain (front to back).


----------



## Molon_Labe

jlanzy said:


> Thanks Molon, I don't hear too many on the forum using these and was worried that they wouldn't work well, but at least now I have one person using them as I intend and have no regrets. I actually was looking at the 12" but then thought holy crap, a 12 inch woofer for atmos on a 8 ft ceiling sitting maybe only 7 ft from all 4 aimed at the MLP may well be overkill as well as hanging down from ceiling to bottom of speaker about 16 to 17", so back to the ' little fellas'


I built my theater room for 100% function with little regard to aesthetics. My philosophy, albeit a minority, is when the lights go out the screen is the focus of attention so big speakers disappear into the darkness of a room. The SCS8 is a pretty good sized speaker, especially once they are hanging from the ceiling.


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> I like it!  ♦ Both Atmos speaker's tweeters on the inside, closer to the MLP. ...That's what I would do myself.
> 
> __________
> 
> Viewed from below:
> 
> [O○] ------------ [○O]


Much thanks - this makes sense. It will also make for a clean install.


----------



## mbsaph

*Problems with Atmos playback of demo files*

Hi,

Just set up my Atmos-enabled system (Yamaha RX-A3050 receiver, MartinLogan fronts and center, etc. etc.) and when trying to play certain files that were posted from the 2014/15 Atmos demo Blu-ray - particularly the Enrique music video (M2TS file), F1 Red Bull (M2TS file), et al.) I'm either getting "Audio format not supported" error and then a picture but no sound, or I'm getting good picture and sound, but no evidence on the receiver that it's decoding an Atmos stream. I'm playing the files back through my Sony BDP-BX510 Blu-Ray player (which should handle MKV and M2TS files) from a networked NAS drive. 

Anyone have suggestions and/or solved this problem already? 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## AllenA07

I'm waiting to see how things work out, but there is an increasing chance that I'm going to pull the trigger on my Atmos upgrade much sooner then expected. The end game is going to a 7.2.4 system, but I think I might hold off on buying the external amp for a few months (I need 6 speakers and a Denon x6200, so cost is becoming a factor). If I were to do that and was left with 9 channels of audio initially, would you guys recommend going to 7.2.2 or a 5.2.4?


----------



## eddysnake

I purchases a new Pioneer 1130 receiver. It has the ability to use speaker b setup in a different room and when that is turned off it will switch back to 7.2 or 5.2.2 in the main room, this is my setup I plan to use. My current setup below (5.1) has my surround speakers mounted on the wall slightly behind my couch. I would like to install 2 new ceiling speakers (red circles in picture below) above the couch for use in both 7.2 and 5.2.2. If I installed the ceiling speakers, would those wire to the surround or surround back terminals on the receiver? Would the software setup figure out where they are and work around that? I'm not sure if this would be a good setup to take advantage of 5.2.2 and 7.2. Any help would be greatly appreciated.




Spoiler


----------



## smurraybhm

Molon_Labe said:


> I built my theater room for 100% function with little regard to aesthetics. My philosophy, albeit a minority, is when the lights go out the screen is the focus of attention so big speakers disappear into the darkness of a room. The SCS8 is a pretty good sized speaker, especially once they are hanging from the ceiling.


If money is no object who would argue - but at $350 (or more) per speaker I just don't "hear" the benefit of dropping that much coin on the tops, unless we are trying to fill up a very large room. I've spent time with my ear up to my TM (easy to reach given nearby sofa) and there just isn't that much coming out of the tops during an Atmos mixed movie. Usually when I think I am hearing something up top, the sound is just coming from the base layer. Personally I would invest the funds elsewhere like a projector or Dirac, but I believe you've done that already


----------



## Stoked21

smurraybhm said:


> If money is no object who would argue - but at $350 (or more) per speaker I just don't "hear" the benefit of dropping that much coin on the tops, unless we are trying to fill up a very large room. I've spent time with my ear up to my TM (easy to reach given nearby sofa) and there just isn't that much coming out of the tops during an Atmos mixed movie. Usually when I think I am hearing something up top, the sound is just coming from the base layer. Personally I would invest the funds elsewhere like a projector or Dirac, but I believe you've done that already


I think we all have to agree to disagree on this one. I happen to agree with @Molon_Labe on this one. I've ran through countless iterations of top speakers, height speakers, DAE speakers, smaller, larger from various manufacturers. Each time the drivers were enlarged, the sound improved immensely. And that's even going from a nicer but smaller speaker to cheaper but larger speakers. I went from $300 DTs to $400 RBH, trialed $300+ AT and others an settled on $100 7" Niles!!!

I've noticed with each new title release, the Atmos speakers are being used more and more. And this trend will definitely continue. I run proamps. So what's really cool is I just literally flip a few switches and all I have is my 4 tops on. So no standing on couches etc for me.  My ceiling booms with mid-bass even at an 80hz xover. The amount of sound coming out of the tops is staggering IMO. The timber match is becoming more and more of an issue as well as the tops are increasingly utilized.

So originally I would have said (and did), go with cheap inexpensive speakers cus There's not much up there anyway. They don't need to be high quality, high cost, or large size. I've completely proven that's NOT the case. They should be treated as any other speaker in your system and adhere to the same budget you apply elsewhere. If it's $100/speaker, then fine buy speakers that fit the budget like the rest of them. If you can spend more $ and want better sound....then a larger, more expensive Atmos speaker IS going to accomplish that.

I personally will be dropping about $5K for 3 pairs of top speakers in the New Year.....Call it insane, but I'll be timber matched, be able to support a flat F3 down to 70Hz, have a 120° dispersion and be able to keep up with the rest of my other 7 speakers. All of my testing has proven that this is a sound approach.


----------



## Selden Ball

mbsaph said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just set up my Atmos-enabled system (Yamaha RX-A3050 receiver, MartinLogan fronts and center, etc. etc.) and when trying to play certain files that were posted from the 2014/15 Atmos demo Blu-ray - particularly the Enrique music video (M2TS file), F1 Red Bull (M2TS file), et al.) I'm either getting "Audio format not supported" error and then a picture but no sound, or I'm getting good picture and sound, but no evidence on the receiver that it's decoding an Atmos stream. I'm playing the files back through my Sony BDP-BX510 Blu-Ray player (which should handle MKV and M2TS files) from a networked NAS drive.
> 
> Anyone have suggestions and/or solved this problem already?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


What DLNA software are you using in the NAS and when was it built? 

Many older DLNA packages (those built before November, 2014) can't pass the Atmos metadata due to bugs in the ffmpeg library. They have to have been rebuilt to include the most recent version.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> If money is no object who would argue - but at $350 (or more) per speaker I just don't "hear" the benefit of dropping that much coin on the tops, unless we are trying to fill up a very large room. I've spent time with my ear up to my TM (easy to reach given nearby sofa) and there just isn't that much coming out of the tops during an Atmos mixed movie. Usually when I think I am hearing something up top, the sound is just coming from the base layer. Personally I would invest the funds elsewhere like a projector or Dirac, but I believe you've done that already


I'm kind of surprised at your experience with TM in a Dolby Atmos setup. From everything I've read on this forum (and elsewhere) - the TM provide a noticeable difference in the height "immersive" experience. In other words - - folks noticed a considerable difference with TM's deployed as opposed to not having them. 

I agree with one of the posters that as Dolby Atmos evolves, more use of the TM speaker will be seen. Some AVR's do not even have the option for TM speakers, which makes no sense to me. There should be a standard, Dolby Atmos layout that all AVR's adhere to. Or at least that option.


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm kind of surprised at your experience with TM in a Dolby Atmos setup. From everything I've read on this forum (and elsewhere) - the TM provide a noticeable difference in the height "immersive" experience. In other words - - folks noticed a considerable difference with TM's deployed as opposed to not having them. /QUOTE]
> 
> Where did I say that I wasn't satisfied
> All I did say was that they top aren't used as much as expected - no surprise there given all the comments since Transformers was released a little over a year ago. DSU add more to the top and from the first time I used my system (Aug 2014), first with only 2 then 4 speakers up-top, I've enjoyed the "immersiveness" thoroughly. What I did say was given the roll they play spending $1400 or more on your top speakers isn't what I would be doing to improve my audio experience with Atmos, DSU or good old 2-channel. You guys can hope all you want that the tops become as important as the base layer, forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Cheers.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> Ricoflashback said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kind of surprised at your experience with TM in a Dolby Atmos setup. From everything I've read on this forum (and elsewhere) - the TM provide a noticeable difference in the height "immersive" experience. In other words - - folks noticed a considerable difference with TM's deployed as opposed to not having them. /QUOTE]
> 
> Where did I say that I wasn't satisfied
> All I did say was that they top aren't used as much as expected - no surprise there given all the comments since Transformers was released a little over a year ago. DSU add more to the top and from the first time I used my system (Aug 2014), first with only 2 then 4 speakers up-top, I've enjoyed the "immersiveness" thoroughly. What I did say was given the roll they play spending $1400 or more on your top speakers isn't what I would be doing to improve my audio experience with Atmos, DSU or good old 2-channel. You guys can hope all you want that the tops become as important as the base layer, forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> My comment wasn't meant to be negative or disparaging at all. I'm not debating anything about the base layer - - I'm just trying to quantify/qualify the benefit of ceiling or height speakers. Since I do not have Dolby Atmos right now, I can only plan for the future based on the recommendations from this forum.
> 
> I have FH's right now (9.1) and will soon have TM's by the end of this week. I've been enjoying DTS Neo X +THX (Cinema Mode) with the single "FH" speakers. Even though they are not deployed all the time, it is very noticeable (and enjoyable) when they are on.
> 
> For a base Atmos setup, everything I read leads to a .4 designation with a preference on a "TM" location, if you can swing it.
> 
> There was no intention to debate the base layer at all or its importance.
Click to expand...


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> I think we all have to agree to disagree on this one. I happen to agree with @Molon_Labe on this one. I've ran through countless iterations of top speakers, height speakers, DAE speakers, smaller, larger from various manufacturers. Each time the drivers were enlarged, the sound improved immensely. And that's even going from a nicer but smaller speaker to cheaper but larger speakers. I went from $300 DTs to $400 RBH, trialed $300+ AT and others an settled on $100 7" Niles!!!
> 
> I've noticed with each new title release, the Atmos speakers are being used more and more. And this trend will definitely continue. I run proamps. So what's really cool is I just literally flip a few switches and all I have is my 4 tops on. So no standing on couches etc for me.  My ceiling booms with mid-bass even at an 80hz xover. The amount of sound coming out of the tops is staggering IMO. The timber match is becoming more and more of an issue as well as the tops are increasingly utilized.
> 
> So originally I would have said (and did), go with cheap inexpensive speakers cus There's not much up there anyway. They don't need to be high quality, high cost, or large size. I've completely proven that's NOT the case. They should be treated as any other speaker in your system and adhere to the same budget you apply elsewhere. If it's $100/speaker, then fine buy speakers that fit the budget like the rest of them. If you can spend more $ and want better sound....then a larger, more expensive Atmos speaker IS going to accomplish that.
> 
> I personally will be dropping about $5K for 3 pairs of top speakers in the New Year.....Call it insane, but I'll be timber matched, be able to support a flat F3 down to 70Hz, have a 120° dispersion and be able to keep up with the rest of my other 7 speakers. All of my testing has proven that this is a sound approach.


I agree 100% with your findings. I have just stopped the forum banter with regards to gear and preference. It rarely if ever changes peoples perceptions and just derails from the topics/questions being asked by those new to Atmos. My new forum philosophy is the same as racing cars at the track - run what-cha bought or brought. I will never convince you that Chevy is better than Ford or vice versa.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I agree 100% with your findings. I have just stopped the forum banter with regards to gear and preference. It rarely if ever changes peoples perceptions and just derails from the topics/questions being asked by those new to Atmos. My new forum philosophy is the same as racing cars at the track - run what-cha bought or brought. I will never convince you that Chevy is better than Ford or vice versa.


Very true. What's surprising to me is that people haven't actually experimented and yet come to conclusions based on one setup. If people really want to KNOW what's coming through their tops they should perform 2 easy, free tests.

1) Unplug all of your speakers except the tops. Throw in the new Terminator movie or Gravity re-entry scene and listen to JUST the four tops.
2) Repeat same experiment except plug your fronts (typically better F3, larger speakers) into TF or TR and leave the other smaller top pair alone. Listen to what a bigger more dynamic speaker sounds like when receiving the TF or TR input. And the comparison to the deployed alternate top pair.

If anyone does this, they will be scrambling to place larger, better speakers on the ceiling. If you repeat the same experiment with Transformers or GoT or a lesser mix, you will immediately come to the conclusion that the tops are not all that relevant.

If someone hasn't done this, then they have no clue what importance the tops actually play in the Atmos mix. Likely they are just happy with what they have and are not on a true quest for the best, most immersive sound (budget always a limiting factor of course).

PS: Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not directed at anyone. It's directed towards the growing attitude/trend on the thread that the Atmos speaker quality and size is inconsequential. Yet most people have not tried to prove or disprove this with an ignorance is bliss attitude. An attitude that isn't applied to any other speaker in their system. I'm not advocating high $ speakers or 10"+ speakers for Atmos. If one is running $200 each LCR, then a $100 top is a good choice (like I was when I deployed mine). If you're running $500 each LCR, like I am now, then a $250-350 atmos speaker that is comparable is a good choice. If you're running $1000+ each LCR, then of course go with a higher $ atmos speaker that compliments your setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> I don't have any ATMOS, I am just curious on what the feedback is if I dropped down my side surrounds as they would be quite close to the outside seats. Just testing the waters, as if I go to ATMOS I will need to remove some drywall and run wires so it will be a project so I want to make sure I am checking all the boxes.
> 
> Those are acoustic panels I have 3 on the back and each side wall, and then 4 on the front wall floor to ceiling in the corners.


I’d probably leave those surrounds where they are. It seems you will have plenty of angular separation from the overhead speakers. The problems occur when people have their surrounds right up near the ceiling.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Stoked21 said:


> Very true. What's surprising to me is that people haven't actually experimented and yet come to conclusions based on one setup. If people really want to KNOW what's coming through their tops they should perform 2 easy, free tests.
> 
> 1) Unplug all of your speakers except the tops. Throw in the new Terminator movie or Gravity re-entry scene and listen to JUST the four tops.
> 2) Repeat same experiment except plug your fronts (typically better F3, larger speakers) into TF or TR and leave the other smaller top pair alone. Listen to what a bigger more dynamic speaker sounds like when receiving the TF or TR input. And the comparison to the deployed alternate top pair.
> 
> If anyone does this, they will be scrambling to place larger, better speakers on the ceiling. If you repeat the same experiment with Transformers or GoT or a lesser mix, you will immediately come to the conclusion that the tops are not all that relevant.
> 
> If someone hasn't done this, then they have no clue what importance the tops actually play in the Atmos mix. Likely they are just happy with what they have and are not on a true quest for the best, most immersive sound (budget always a limiting factor of course).
> 
> PS: Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not directed at anyone. It's directed towards the growing attitude/trend on the thread that the Atmos speaker quality and size is inconsequential. Yet most people have not tried to prove or disprove this with an ignorance is bliss attitude. An attitude that isn't applied to any other speaker in their system. I'm not advocating high $ speakers or 10"+ speakers for Atmos. If one is running $200 each LCR, then a $100 top is a good choice (like I was when I deployed mine). If you're running $500 each LCR, like I am now, then a $250-350 atmos speaker that is comparable is a good choice. If you're running $1000+ each LCR, then of course go with a higher $ atmos speaker that compliments your setup.





> PS: Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not directed at anyone. It's directed towards the growing attitude/trend on the thread that the Atmos speaker quality and size is inconsequential. Yet most people have not tried to prove or disprove this with an ignorance is bliss attitude. An attitude that isn't applied to any other speaker in their system. I'm not advocating high $ speakers or 10"+ speakers for Atmos. If one is running $200 each LCR, then a $100 top is a good choice (like I was when I deployed mine). If you're running $500 each LCR, like I am now, then a $250-350 atmos speaker that is comparable is a good choice. * If you're running $1000+ each LCR, then of course go with a higher $ atmos speaker that compliments your setup.*


It's nice to see a post like your's on this thread.

I'm waiting until the newest Pre-Amp Processors finally come out with all the newest audio formats.
Also another "Major" consideration" is which 4-ceiling speakers to go with.
As well as which separate amplifier to power them.
I have a totally matched JMLab Utopia 7.1 speaker set-up.
(Actually 4 Subs)
I'm no expert at all on Atmos but from a common-sense stand-point it seems to me one should match the new ceiling 4-speakers to the rest of their system.
And also the same quality amplifier.
And speaker cables.

Also to me I think forget about what the added speakers in the ceiling look like as the more important aspect should IMHO be Function over Aesthetics.
Why spend the dollars to add the Atmos system and worry about the size and or cost of the speakers.
I try to read the posts on this thread with the hope that every once in awhile I will actually see and read a post like your's and a few others that actually make sense.

Thanks for HITTING the Real Facts and the way things should be if at all possible with adding Atmos to a Dedicated H/T (Home Theater) system.

You have shown me that there is hope for me adding Atmos in the Future after all !!!

Terry

*My System,*


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> PS: Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not directed at anyone. It's directed towards the growing attitude/trend on the thread that the Atmos speaker quality and size is inconsequential. Yet most people have not tried to prove or disprove this with an ignorance is bliss attitude. An attitude that isn't applied to any other speaker in their system. I'm not advocating high $ speakers or 10"+ speakers for Atmos. If one is running $200 each LCR, then a $100 top is a good choice (like I was when I deployed mine). If you're running $500 each LCR, like I am now, then a $250-350 atmos speaker that is comparable is a good choice. If you're running $1000+ each LCR, then of course go with a higher $ atmos speaker that compliments your setup.


I don't think anyone is advocating that speaker quality is not important for Atmos speakers. What is important is that one chooses a speaker that meets the requirements of what it is meant to reproduce and how loudly with, obviously, low distortion. In a bass managed system, what a speaker can do much below the chosen crossover is irrelevant. So, if you cross at 100Hz for your overheads, which is a reasonable XO for overheads if you have good subwoofers, then all you need is a speaker which has good performance characteristics down to something below 100Hz - say 70Hz for example. To meet that requirement one does not need a very large speaker. Also, there is the question of the content the speaker is being asked to handle. Overhead speakers are just not being stretched by current Atmos mixes (this may or may not change in the future) so even being able to handle frequencies down to 70Hz is questionable right now.

My advice to anyone would be to choose a speaker with reliable and meaningful manufacturer specifications (so probably a pro speaker like Tannoy or JBL etc), that has the frequency response that you need in a BM system, that has the required wide dispersion and sufficient power handling to meet the chosen SPLs. I wouldn’t worry too much about the size of the enclosure so long as the speaker has these specs. My own researches have led me to believe that Pro speakers are the place to go to meet the various requirements.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Yeah, the timbre mismatch is very bothersome between the 4722 and the SCS8. My issue is finding and mounting speakers that match my mains as close as possible. I will probably end up getting the parts from JBL and building my own units. I understand that most view me as nuts but one can't unhear the changes of having all matching speakers vs not. The change, in my opinion, is not subtle. Others could care less and as long as the Atmos content is audible then the subtleties aren't worth the cost or trouble. Different strokes for different folks.


Timbre mismatch isn't too much of an issue if one is using good room EQ like Audyssey XT32 etc. The REQ will bring them all into line (assuming they are decent speakers to begin with of course). Timbre matching is more to do with marketing these days than it is with sonics.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Agreed. But then we are back to the discourse of buying another 88A since the Atmos speakers are outside the bed channel EQ. This is why I am really contemplating selling my AVR/88A and going with an all inclusive setup. I am a keep it simple stupid kinda guy


Yep. I am trying to find a used 88A to use with my overheads even as we type. I have located an open box deal but the seller isn't sure if it has been sold or not and I am waiting for him to get back to me. I am loathe to pay the full price of an additional 88A for the overheads alone as I am not at all convinced I will hear any worthwhile difference. But it will give me peace of mind. 

What all-inclusive setup that EQs all 11 speakers are you considering? Trinnov or Datasat? Or will you 'step down' from Dirac to something like XT32?


----------



## mbsaph

Selden Ball said:


> What DLNA software are you using in the NAS and when was it built?
> 
> Many older DLNA packages (those built before November, 2014) can't pass the Atmos metadata due to bugs in the ffmpeg library. They have to have been rebuilt to include the most recent version.


I assume it's the DLNA software built into my NAS and/or Blu-ray player. The NAS is a Lacie Cloudbox, which I bought 3 or so years ago, and the Blu-ray player is a Sony BDP-BX510.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Audiocontrols or Arcam. I am on a beer budget, the champagne is out of my reach without my wife beating me to a pulp.
> 
> Are you going to rain on my parade and tell me it has been found out they don't do all channels? I haven't been active reading on those threads in awhile.


Yep. The Arcams definitely do not EQ all 11 channels. Not sure about the AudioControl, but as they are essentially the Arcam units, I'd be sure to check carefully first.


----------



## Selden Ball

mbsaph said:


> I assume it's the DLNA software built into my NAS and/or Blu-ray player. The NAS is a Lacie Cloudbox, which I bought 3 or so years ago, and the Blu-ray player is a Sony BDP-BX510.


If you haven't been keeping it up to date, you need to update the firmware in the Lacie NAS. A DLNA server from 3 years ago would be too old to be able to provide Atmos audio. See http://manuals.lacie.com/en/manuals/cb/07_device/update

Please let us know if that update helps.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Thanks Keith, my misery is now complete


Haha. I can give you a glimmer of hope. It seems there is no technical reason why these units cannot EQ all 11 channels. 

Indeed when the calibration runs, all channels are pinged and delays etc set and filters preliminarily made. But as soon as Dirac phones home (which it does to finalise the filters) the result comes back and the data from the overhead channels has been removed. 

This, to me, implies that there is a licensing issue, not a technical issue, between the AVR maker and Dirac (maybe the license fee is based on a per-channel arrangement?) and if so, then it is resolvable fairly easily. 

For the avoidance of doubt the info in the second paragraph of this post is factual, and based on what users of the unit have reported in the UK forums. The info in the third paragraph of this post is purely speculative on my part and I have had no confirmation, or denial, of this from any credible source. Do not buy a unit on the basis that it might be FW upgradeable to EQ all 11 channels. It may never happen, so wait until it has before jumping.


----------



## mbsaph

Selden Ball said:


> If you haven't been keeping it up to date, you need to update the firmware in the Lacie NAS. A DLNA server from 3 years ago would be too old to be able to provide Atmos audio. See
> 
> Please let us know if that update helps.


Thanks so much for the legwork, Selden! I'm pretty sure that I updated the firmware very recently, but I'll confirm to make sure. If it turns out that I did update the firmware, but Lacie didn't update the DLNA/FFMPEG software, could I sidestep this issue (at least in the short term) by simply using a USB flash drive plugged into the Sony BD player?


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think anyone is advocating that speaker quality is not important for Atmos speakers. What is important is that one chooses a speaker that meets the requirements of what it is meant to reproduce and how loudly with, obviously, low distortion. In a bass managed system, what a speaker can do much below the chosen crossover is irrelevant. So, if you cross at 100Hz for your overheads, which is a reasonable XO for overheads if you have good subwoofers, then all you need is a speaker which has good performance characteristics down to something below 100Hz - say 70Hz for example. To meet that requirement one does not need a very large speaker. Also, there is the question of the content the speaker is being asked to handle. Overhead speakers are just not being stretched by current Atmos mixes (this may or may not change in the future) so even being able to handle frequencies down to 70Hz is questionable right now.
> 
> My advice to anyone would be to choose a speaker with reliable and meaningful manufacturer specifications (so probably a pro speaker like Tannoy or JBL etc), that has the frequency response that you need in a BM system, that has the required wide dispersion and sufficient power handling to meet the chosen SPLs. I wouldn’t worry too much about the size of the enclosure so long as the speaker has these specs. My own researches have led me to believe that Pro speakers are the place to go to meet the various requirements.


Agree with the whole pro speaker approach Keith. Also agree with BM. And advocate dispersion requirements vehemently. But Seems to be more and more advocates across various threads with 3.5-5" speakers. Short of getting into physics of smaller drives with f3 down to 80, I wasn't advocating larger speakers per say. I've ran 4.5,5.5 and 6.5 in addition to my current 7". I do believe an 8" pro speaker will have a better f3 that gets more dynamics down to an 80 xover. More so than a 6" would for instance. And typically you are going to see that a 6"+ driver is going to have a wider dispersion than a smaller one. I've seen very few if any below 6" that can hit 90. Yet in 6-8" up, one can find 90 and 120 dispersion. 

I've just been reading more threads where people say that there's no mid bass coming from tops, quality of speaker is irrelevant, not much sound comes from them anyway. I think these are all very misleading, and incorrect at times, statements. It baffles me as to why there is typically such disregard to the selection of these speakers but that's never heard during selection of surrounds for instance.


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked21 said:


> I've seen very few if any below 6" that can hit 90. Yet in 6-8" up, one can find 90 and 120 dispersion.
> 
> I've just been reading more threads where people say that there's no mid bass coming from tops, quality of speaker is irrelevant, not much sound comes from them anyway. I think these are all very misleading, and incorrect at times, statements. It baffles me as to why there is typically such disregard to the selection of these speakers but that's never heard during selection of surrounds for instance.


IMO if one is happy with how things sound then that should be what matters. I don't want to reopen the whole size discussion - trust me - but at the same time I think it is just plain wrong to imply that one can't have a great Atmos/DSU experience without having a speaker up top with a 8" woofer or mid-bass driver, again assuming they don't have a HT sized like Jeff or some other members. Speakers that large in my room for tops would be a waste of $. Maybe one of these days someone with more knowledge about how things are mixed and Atmos is implemented in our devices that decode those mixes will weigh in on the importance of full-range speakers for tops, until then its a discussion without end 

I will admit the desire to buy some Volt speaker kits and see how they work for tops - what size TBD. That is likely to be a few years away - I've sworn to stay away from DIY until I retire. Not enough time time in the day to go down that addictive rabbit hole until then.


----------



## NorthSky

Ricoflashback said:


> ... as Dolby Atmos evolves, more use of the TM speaker will be seen. Some AVR's do not even have the option for TM speakers, which makes no sense to me. There should be a standard, Dolby Atmos layout that all AVR's adhere to. Or at least that option.


I was also astonished to learn that some receivers/pre-pros don't offer that very important (IMO) option for Dolby Atmos overhead speakers. 
...The Top Middle. 

So I agree 100% with you, because not everyone here has a dedicated Dolby Atmos home theater room; some folks do with a large size room and with 4-8 timbre matched Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and crossed @ 40Hz or so. 

All the speakers in a 7.1.4 Atmos setup should be treated equally; sound matching for the very best music and movie experience.
And the closest to full range (all of them eleven) the better. 

And for people using their living room for Dolby Atmos, with their couch against or near the back wall, the Top Middle Atmos overheads are a very important option; it helps Dolby Atmos to be compatible with more people's setups (rooms of all sizes). 

Denon/Marantz offer that option, Yamaha does not. ...About Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer? ...Arcam? ...Audio Control? ...Anthem?


----------



## Selden Ball

mbsaph said:


> Thanks so much for the legwork, Selden! I'm pretty sure that I updated the firmware very recently, but I'll confirm to make sure. If it turns out that I did update the firmware, but Lacie didn't update the DLNA/FFMPEG software, could I sidestep this issue (at least in the short term) by simply using a USB flash drive plugged into the Sony BD player?


Maybe. Probably not, though. 

I've recently been trying to play some of the Dolby TrueHD trailers available from demoworld.eu using a USB thumbdrive on my brand new S6500. Instead of getting 7.1 TrueHD/Atmos audio, I'm only getting stereo PCM. A web search discovered that the same problem is seen in the S7200. The problem does _NOT_ exist with my old BDP-S590. I fear you'll encounter the same problem with your S5100 (equivalent) since that's the first model year when Sony stopped providing a full-function TrueHD decoder. Please try it, though, and let us know your results.

For a summary of my travails, see 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...00-s6500-blu-ray-players-41.html#post39367450
and
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...00-s6500-blu-ray-players-41.html#post39378354


----------



## Stoked21

smurraybhm said:


> IMO if one is happy with how things sound then that should be what matters. I don't want to reopen the whole size discussion - trust me - but at the same time I think it is just plain wrong to imply that one can't have a great Atmos/DSU experience without having a speaker up top with a 8" woofer or mid-bass driver, again assuming they don't have a HT sized like Jeff or some other members. Speakers that large in my room for tops would be a waste of $. Maybe one of these days someone with more knowledge about how things are mixed and Atmos is implemented in our devices that decode those mixes will weigh in on the importance of full-range speakers for tops, until then its a discussion without end
> 
> I will admit the desire to buy some Volt speaker kits and see how they work for tops - what size TBD. That is likely to be a few years away - I've sworn to stay away from DIY until I retire. Not enough time time in the day to go down that addictive rabbit hole until then.


I think my comments are being taken out of context. I've not said full range speakers. On the contrary I'm touting f3 down to 80hz. I will cross them there regardless of their fr. Actually Dolby recommends this as well. I'm also not wanting to reopen the size discussion! .

I am however saying that these smaller 3.5-5" are not necessarily doing justice to Atmos though. And I'm primarily taking this stance because everything I've ever seen in that smaller range has really low dispersion (as I stated above). There is a correlation between driver design/size and dispersion. 

But again I agree that as long as someone likes the sound them great. Go with it.


----------



## mbsaph

Selden Ball said:


> Maybe. Probably not, though.
> 
> I've recently been trying to play some of the Dolby TrueHD trailers available from demoworld.eu using a USB thumbdrive on my brand new S6500. Instead of getting 7.1 TrueHD/Atmos audio, I'm only getting stereo PCM. A web search discovered that the same problem is seen in the S7200. The problem does _NOT_ exist with my old BDP-S590. I fear you'll encounter the same problem with your S5100 (equivalent) since that's the first model year when Sony stopped providing a full-function TrueHD decoder. Please try it, though, and let us know your results.
> 
> For a summary of my travails, see
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...00-s6500-blu-ray-players-41.html#post39367450
> and
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...00-s6500-blu-ray-players-41.html#post39378354


What a tangled web, Selden! Anyone know if there's another OTT device that reliably streams Dolby TrueHD with Atmos - e.g., Roku, WD TV, etc.?


----------



## blastermaster

Stoked21 said:


> Very true. What's surprising to me is that people haven't actually experimented and yet come to conclusions based on one setup. If people really want to KNOW what's coming through their tops they should perform 2 easy, free tests.
> 
> 1) Unplug all of your speakers except the tops. Throw in the new Terminator movie or Gravity re-entry scene and listen to JUST the four tops.
> 2) Repeat same experiment except plug your fronts (typically better F3, larger speakers) into TF or TR and leave the other smaller top pair alone. Listen to what a bigger more dynamic speaker sounds like when receiving the TF or TR input. And the comparison to the deployed alternate top pair.
> 
> If anyone does this, they will be scrambling to place larger, better speakers on the ceiling. If you repeat the same experiment with Transformers or GoT or a lesser mix, you will immediately come to the conclusion that the tops are not all that relevant.
> 
> If someone hasn't done this, then they have no clue what importance the tops actually play in the Atmos mix. Likely they are just happy with what they have and are not on a true quest for the best, most immersive sound (budget always a limiting factor of course).
> 
> PS: Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not directed at anyone. It's directed towards the growing attitude/trend on the thread that the Atmos speaker quality and size is inconsequential. Yet most people have not tried to prove or disprove this with an ignorance is bliss attitude. An attitude that isn't applied to any other speaker in their system. I'm not advocating high $ speakers or 10"+ speakers for Atmos. If one is running $200 each LCR, then a $100 top is a good choice (like I was when I deployed mine). If you're running $500 each LCR, like I am now, then a $250-350 atmos speaker that is comparable is a good choice. If you're running $1000+ each LCR, then of course go with a higher $ atmos speaker that compliments your setup.


This is so true. I don't see how some feel like because they are height speakers they somehow don't need to have good output. Dolby specs say they should be full range (but it doesn't mean you necessarily need 8" speakers). If you don't have decent ceiling speakers, of course you're not going to be impressed! 

I have upgraded my fronts three times and each time it's been the same - a gargantuan increase in sound fidelity. Have the movies changed? Not at all, but the same gunfire has gone from pew pew pew, to BANG BANG BANG! I'm sure it will be the same increase going from average ceiling speakers to great ones. I'm banking on the mixes only getting more aggressive over time (compare older Dolby titles to new ones). Best to do it right the first time if you can afford it (although if you can't it may be best to save until you can ).


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I've just been reading more threads where people say that there's no mid bass coming from tops, quality of speaker is irrelevant, not much sound comes from them anyway. I think these are all very misleading, and incorrect at times, statements. It baffles me as to why there is typically such disregard to the selection of these speakers but that's never heard during selection of surrounds for instance.


We used to see it wrt to surrounds (I even said so myself probably) but surround channels these days handle much more content than they used to. Not the case with overheads (at this time and maybe never). 

So would you advocate using the exact same speaker for surrounds as you use for LCR (in a BM system and disregarding cost)?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Movie78 said:


> Anybody seen this?
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/11/30/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-sep-2015/





Scott Simonian said:


> That's so last CEDIA.


Anywhere that can be purchased or are you at Ebay's mercy if you want this content?


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> IMO if one is happy with how things sound then that should be what matters. I don't want to reopen the whole size discussion - trust me - but at the same time I think it is just plain wrong to imply that one can't have a great Atmos/DSU experience without having a speaker up top with a 8" woofer or mid-bass driver, again assuming they don't have a HT sized like Jeff or some other members. Speakers that large in my room for tops would be a waste of $. Maybe one of these days someone with more knowledge about how things are mixed and Atmos is implemented in our devices that decode those mixes will weigh in on the importance of full-range speakers for tops, until then its a discussion without end
> 
> I will admit the desire to buy some Volt speaker kits and see how they work for tops - what size TBD. That is likely to be a few years away - I've sworn to stay away from DIY until I retire. Not enough time time in the day to go down that addictive rabbit hole until then.


If my room was big enough and my budget unlimited, then chances are I'd go with JBL SCS12s on the ceiling. I don't believe they are necessary at all, and am fairly sure I would hear no difference between them and SCS8s on the ceiling, but hey, why not? Then I'd know for sure I was good to go. But my aim has always been to mimic to some extent a structural engineer's approach: sure you could use a 15 inch wide steel girder to prop up your kitchen ceiling and sure it would definitely work. But if, after the various load and stress analyses you discovered that a 6 inch would handle the job perfectly well, you'd be nuts to use anything more. The extra 9 inches would be totally and utterly wasted. As would, I am betting, those SCS12s in my room


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I am however saying that these smaller 3.5-5" are not necessarily doing justice to Atmos though. And I'm primarily taking this stance because everything I've ever seen in that smaller range has really low dispersion (as I stated above). There is a correlation between driver design/size and dispersion.


Tannoy Di5 DC has 90° dispersion and a 4.5 inch driver.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. The Arcams definitely do not EQ all 11 channels. Not sure about the AudioControl, but as they are essentially the Arcam units, I'd be sure to check carefully first.


I believe you, but I will add that I asked this exact question of the AudioControl rep's tech person at CEDIA in October, and he said that the AudioControl would EQ "all channels" with their implementation of Durac. However, that doesn't mean that he was referring to an Atmos setup, or that his definition of "all channels" wasn't just the 7 bed channels.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I don't know what the acronym BM stands for, but that withstanding - Yes. Going to all matching full-sized, large speakers for all 7 bed channels has been the most substantial upgrade in my HT endeavors.


*B*ass *M*anaged. Interesting. I doubt if I would use M&K S150s for my surrounds even if I had room. Just can't see it's necessary. It's more or less saying that the surrounds will do as much work as the LCR and we know that isn't the case.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I believe you, but I will add that I asked this exact question of the AudioControl rep's tech person at CEDIA in October, and he said that the AudioControl would EQ "all channels" with their implementation of Durac. However, that doesn't mean that he was referring to an Atmos setup, or that his definition of "all channels" wasn't just the 7 bed channels.


Well he may have believed that when he said it for sure. And I did say I wasn't sure about the AudioControl units so it may yet be true. But it is absolutely 100% certain that the Arcam units don't. And since they are essentially the same units in different clothes, if the AudioControl units are applying Dirac to the 4 overhead speakers, then it reinforces my speculation that Arcam could fix this fairly easily if they chose to do so. If they don't I think the appeal of their units diminishes very rapidly. On reflection I am of the view that the best (affordable) way to apply Dirac to all channels in an Atmos system is to use twin DDRC-88A units. This leaves the choice of AVR/AVP entirely open going forward and also has other, practical benefits too (eg ability to store 4 calibrations and choose between them at the press of a button on the remote - ideal for those who want a single listener cal, a family gathering cal, a music cal, a late night cal, etc).


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> *B*ass *M*anaged. Interesting. I doubt if I would use M&K S150s for my surrounds even if I had room. Just can't see it's necessary. It's more or less saying that the surrounds will do as much work as the LCR and we know that isn't the case.


It's about having a fully cohesive surround experience. Whether or not one speaker is used more than another, they will for sure have an identical timbre and performance envelope.

The only reason one shouldn't have identical speakers all around is either: practicality and/or budget

If those aren't constraints for a person then there is no reason not to have identical speakers all around. Big or small.


----------



## Movie78

Aras_Volodka said:


> Anywhere that can be purchased or are you at Ebay's mercy if you want this content?


$75 on ebay,that is crazy.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Well he may have believed that when he said it for sure. And I did say I wasn't sure about the AudioControl units so it may yet be true. But it is absolutely 100% certain that the Arcam units don't. And since they are essentially the same units in different clothes, if the AudioControl units are applying Dirac to the 4 overhead speakers, then it reinforces my speculation that Arcam could fix this fairly easily if they chose to do so. If they don't I think the appeal of their units diminishes very rapidly. On reflection I am of the view that the best (affordable) way to apply Dirac to all channels in an Atmos system is to use twin DDRC-88A units. This leaves the choice of AVR/AVP entirely open going forward and also has other, practical benefits too (eg ability to store 4 calibrations and choose between them at the press of a button on the remote - ideal for those who want a single listener cal, a family gathering cal, a music cal, a late night cal, etc).



I couldn't agree with you more - two 88As is the most affordable solution unless a) you're a stickler about DAC conversion or b) worrying about synching two different 88As presets is an issue. Neither of these should be important to anyone making it this far...


----------



## BigScreen

NorthSky said:


> I was also astonished to learn that some receivers/pre-pros don't offer that very important (IMO) option for Dolby Atmos overhead speakers.
> ...The Top Middle.
> 
> So I agree 100% with you, because not everyone here has a dedicated Dolby Atmos home theater room; some folks do with a large size room and with 4-8 timbre matched Dolby Atmos overhead speakers, and crossed @ 40Hz or so.
> 
> All the speakers in a 7.1.4 Atmos setup should be treated equally; sound matching for the very best music and movie experience.
> And the closest to full range (all of them eleven) the better.
> 
> And for people using their living room for Dolby Atmos, with their couch against or near the back wall, the Top Middle Atmos overheads are a very important option; it helps Dolby Atmos to be compatible with more people's setups (rooms of all sizes).
> 
> Denon/Marantz offer that option, Yamaha does not. ...About Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer? ...Arcam? ...Audio Control? ...Anthem?


Unless I misunderstand the situation, what Denon/Marantz refers to as "Top Middle" is the position that Dolby recommends for a x.x.2 configuration. The attached image is from Page 20 of the Dolby Atmos Installation Guide. For a x.x.4 configuration, that placement does not exist in Dolby's guidelines, and it isn't an option (IIRC) in D+M configs unless you are specifying the front pair as Front Heights, which essentially mean that what you are indicating are Top Middle are just really Top Rear moved forward. I don't have any direct experience to prove this, but my guess is that in a x.x.4 configuration, TM and TR are the same thing when using FH, and TM and TF are the same when using Rear Height (RH). If I remember correctly, someone here tried TM and TR and found no difference between them some time ago. This would explain why.

Looking at Yamaha's manual for the RX-A3050, page 22 has the layout for installing ceiling speakers. That's the second attachment below. While Yamaha does not specify any exact angles, the layouts of the "two presence speakers" and "four presence speakers" follow the layouts in Dolby's guidelines. If one couldn't handle the vagueness of "between the front speakers and the listening position" and were to use the angles in Dolby's guidelines, I would imagine that they would be placing them where Yamaha and Dolby want them to be.

Does that preclude someone from taking the Rear Presence speakers and placing them above the listener when the MLP is up against a wall? Not at all. Will the result be any different with the Yamaha than a Denon? My guess is no, but someone that actually has experimented with this would be a definitive resource in the matter.

Bottom line in my mind: if Dolby is supplying the code that is used in the DSP's, I'm betting that the code is the same between the D+M and Yamaha DSP implementations.

I admit that your comment had me thinking, as I have the 3050 at the top of my short list of receivers, so if my logic is flawed I would appreciate someone chiming in.


----------



## NorthSky

> Interesting. I doubt if I would use M&K S150s for my surrounds even if I had room. Just can't see it's necessary. It's more or less saying that the surrounds will do as much work as the LCR and we know that isn't the case.


In a multichannel Music setup, full range speakers all around makes all the difference with many multichannel music recordings (DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio, hybrid multichannel SACD). 

With Dolby Atmos multichannel music (native or DSU), on UHD Blu-ray (example), a classical organ multichannel music recording would benefit.
But not only that, a Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental jet flying just over your head in your home theater room would sound more accurate with full pledged loudspeakers above, and all around. ...And with tiny 4.5 woofers it would sound more like a remote control toy plane.


----------



## NorthSky

> I couldn't agree with you more - two 88As is the most affordable solution unless a) you're a stickler about DAC conversion or b) worrying about synching two different 88As presets is an issue. Neither of these should be important to anyone making it this far...


...Or Dirac Live will come up with a 12-channel unit in the same box (7.1.4). ...In 2016. 
...And perhaps a 16-channel one (9.1.6). ...They contemplate that possibility, and then the Emotiva next pre/pro, the XMR-1.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> *B*ass *M*anaged. Interesting. I doubt if I would use M&K S150s for my surrounds even if I had room. Just can't see it's necessary. It's more or less saying that the surrounds will do as much work as the LCR and we know that isn't the case.


In the past, I would agree. Surrounds were not much more than ambiance and a few effects sprinkled here and there. Today, they may not do as much work as the L/C/R, but they are doing the same work. Surrounds get the same content as the L/R but the concept of keeping the smaller surround has stuck since the early days. Center is still the dialog anchor but the L/R and all the surrounds get the same content. Granted, they are not getting used as frequently as the front L/R; but, when they are called upon, they get the same explosions, shattering glass, music, gun shots, vehicles, etc as the fronts. There isnt much difference in the channels and content anymore. It doesn't become apparent until you implement it. Give it a try - I double dog dare ya.


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> Unless I misunderstand the situation, what Denon/Marantz refers to as "Top Middle" is the position that Dolby recommends for a x.x.2 configuration. The attached image is from Page 20 of the Dolby Atmos Installation Guide. For a x.x.4 configuration, that placement does not exist in Dolby's guidelines, and it isn't an option (IIRC) in D+M configs unless you are specifying the front pair as Front Heights, which essentially mean that what you are indicating are Top Middle are just really Top Rear moved forward. I don't have any direct experience to prove this, but my guess is that in a x.x.4 configuration, TM and TR are the same thing when using FH, and TM and TF are the same when using Rear Height (RH). If I remember correctly, someone here tried TM and TR and found no difference between them some time ago. This would explain why.
> 
> Looking at Yamaha's manual for the RX-A3050, page 22 has the layout for installing ceiling speakers. That's the second attachment below. While Yamaha does not specify any exact angles, the layouts of the "two presence speakers" and "four presence speakers" follow the layouts in Dolby's guidelines. If one couldn't handle the vagueness of "between the front speakers and the listening position" and were to use the angles in Dolby's guidelines, I would imagine that they would be placing them where Yamaha and Dolby want them to be.
> 
> Does that preclude someone from taking the Rear Presence speakers and placing them above the listener when the MLP is up against a wall? Not at all. Will the result be any different with the Yamaha than a Denon? My guess is no, but someone that actually has experimented with this would be a definitive resource in the matter.
> 
> Bottom line in my mind: if Dolby is supplying the code that is used in the DSP's, I'm betting that the code is the same between the D+M and Yamaha DSP implementations.
> 
> I admit that your comment had me thinking, as I have the 3050 at the top of my short list of receivers, so if my logic is flawed I would appreciate someone chiming in.


Ok, that's good you included the Yamaha graph when using only two Presence speakers; they became the Top Middle.
But someone here (two members) mentioned not too long ago that Yamaha doesn't have TM. I guess only by the term (name), but now I can clearly see that they do; Side Left and Right Presence, in direct line (90°) above the MLP. Called FPL & FPR, but their positioning is definitely in the Middle, from that two only overheads graph. 

With Denon/Marantz we know that you can also use TM with FH or TM with RH. 
I don't know if with Yamaha you have as many options.

__________

♦ I own a bunch of multichannel music and movie concert videos in several hi-res formats with full range content in the surrounds. 
In the past, long time ago, my surrounds were two-way speakers with a 6.5" woofer/midrange driver. On speaker stands. 
Now I got towers that have output in the 30Hz range. I don't use BM with multichannel music listening. And my center channel is good with 26Hz. 

For movies yes I use BM (80Hz all across), for the heck fun of it (subs). But it's true that many of my movie Blus have full range content in the side and rear surrounds. Ask the pro sound movie and music mixers what kind of stuff they put in the surrounds, from 5.1 and 7.1-channel recordings. 
Sure, it varies, but still full content is directed to the surrounds in many Blu-rays, SACDs, and @ the theater. 
Multichannel SACD advocates full range all around.
Dolby Atmos said also full range content is present all around, including the four Dolby Atmos overhead channels. 

Lionsgate Blu-rays are very active generally in the surrounds. They are obvious compared to other movie studios. 
Disney and Fox are also very active in their surrounds.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No. Yamaha does not have an option for a "middle height" if you use more than two.

But... that shouldn't stop anyone from using a "middle height" if that's what they need/want to do and own a Yamaha Atmos receiver. 

If you have two, then well... that's easy. Select 'overhead' and use the two overheads as "middle".

If you have four then install your front pair where ever you will and place the rear set above you. Select overhead for that set. Easy.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> No. Yamaha does not have an option for a "middle height" if you use more than two.
> 
> But... that shouldn't stop anyone from using a "middle height" if that's what they need/want to do and own a Yamaha Atmos receiver.
> 
> If you have two, then well... that's easy. Select 'overhead' and use the two overheads as "middle".
> 
> If you have four then install your front pair where ever you will and place the rear set above you. Select overhead for that set. Easy.


Yes Scott, that much I have already figured it out, just before you posted it. We are free to put them wherever we have space for them. 

It's good now, because I'm back with Yamaha.  
...Their 5100 pre/pro: http://www.areadvd.de/tests/xxl-tes...ch-pur-fuer-installationen-der-spitzenklasse/


And there is this baby too: http://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/receiver-processor/processors/marantz-av8802-processor-review/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yep. Both excellent choices.

Bob, you ever gonna get one? Yeesh.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Yep. Both excellent choices.
> 
> Bob, you ever gonna get one? Yeesh.


Can you just imagine that day what it would be like!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> Can you just imagine that day what it would be like!


I don't have to imagine it's been here in my space for more than a year now, and I'm just sitting here at the moment watching and being fully immersed in Roger Waters THE WALL. 
Atmos is here and I love it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Can you just imagine that day what it would be like!


I can imagine it would be pretty quiet around here while you're off having fun with your new immersive audio experience.


----------



## Daryl L

Scott Simonian said:


> I can imagine it would be pretty quiet around here while you're off having fun with your new immersive audio experience.


Good grief Scott! That's not a home theater room or a home media room. That's a full-blown movie theater micro compressed into a small man cave. :eeksurprise: :grin: :wink:


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I can imagine it would be pretty quiet around here while you're off having fun with your new immersive audio experience.


You got it Scott; I'm gathering everything right now, and waiting for the full enchilada (DTS:X) and 9.1.4 before spending money and having to start all over again. And when I got my unit installed then I will check for the newest technology to come up next...4D sound immersion. 

Some folks are sharing great info here. I enjoyed all the feedback from all various people's classes. 

♥ *Roger Waters - 'The Wall'* on Blu...got dat!  ...Not Atmos yet for me, but it'll come; just nobody worry for me please.
And if you are watching it with Dolby Atmos I would love to hear your comments...Big Waters' fan here. This is major to me, because I'm very into multichannel music.


----------



## Stoked21

NorthSky said:


> You got it Scott; I'm gathering everything right now, and waiting for the full enchilada (DTS:X) and 9.1.4 before spending money and having to start all over again. And when I got my unit installed then I will check for the newest technology to come up next...4D sound immersion.
> 
> Some folks are sharing great info here. I enjoyed all the feedback from all various people's classes.
> 
> ♥ *Roger Waters - 'The Wall'* on Blu...got dat!  ...Not Atmos yet for me, but it'll come; just nobody worry for me please.
> And if you are watching it with Dolby Atmos I would love to hear your comments...Big Waters' fan here. This is major to me, because I'm very into multichannel music.


Technically Bob, it is 4D already. The fourth dimension is time.....


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Technically Bob, it is 4D already. The fourth dimension is time.....


♪ http://4dsound.net/
♫ http://4dsound.net/news/
♪ http://4dsound.net/overview/
♫ http://4dsound.net/system_control/

♪ http://4dsound.net/impressions/
♫ http://4dsound.net/press/

________


----------



## Carrick

NorthSky said:


> You got it Scott; I'm gathering everything right now, and waiting for the full enchilada (DTS:X) and 9.1.4 before spending money and having to start all over again.


This ^^^

I wanted to get a Denon 4200 (5.1.4) or 6200 (7.1.4) but will hold steady with a budget friendly 1200 until I see what comes next in 2016 now that UHD players will be the norm in the coming months.


----------



## howard68

HI DEF DIGEST has given Minions Atmos a lesser review than the true HD 7.1 version 

I think it is about time to do a balls to the wall mix to show off what we have put our speakers in the ceiling for !!!!
IF NOT STICK TO 7.1 
I LOVE the Concept of Atmos i just feel underwhelmed so far 
Also ordered pixles in Auro 3d from Europe 
Will be very interested to do an A B comparison


----------



## dominica

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think anyone is advocating that speaker quality is not important for Atmos speakers. What is important is that one chooses a speaker that meets the requirements of what it is meant to reproduce and how loudly with, obviously, low distortion. In a bass managed system, what a speaker can do much below the chosen crossover is irrelevant. So, if you cross at 100Hz for your overheads, which is a reasonable XO for overheads if you have good subwoofers, then all you need is a speaker which has good performance characteristics down to something below 100Hz - say 70Hz for example. To meet that requirement one does not need a very large speaker. Also, there is the question of the content the speaker is being asked to handle. Overhead speakers are just not being stretched by current Atmos mixes (this may or may not change in the future) so even being able to handle frequencies down to 70Hz is questionable right now.
> 
> My advice to anyone would be to choose a speaker with reliable and meaningful manufacturer specifications (so probably a pro speaker like Tannoy or JBL etc), that has the frequency response that you need in a BM system, that has the required wide dispersion and sufficient power handling to meet the chosen SPLs. I wouldn’t worry too much about the size of the enclosure so long as the speaker has these specs. My own researches have led me to believe that Pro speakers are the place to go to meet the various requirements.


Kbarnes I have looked at the Dolby specification paper and I have not seen any recommendations/speaker characteristics. Is there any white paper on the speaker frequency/specs needed for the speakers? My friend bought 4 speakers with the follower spec ( would it fall within the specs?) and is planning to use them in his setup.

Drivers: 6.5" woofer, one wide dispersion 1" silk dome tweeter
Sensitivity: 88 dB (2.83 volts/1m)
Recommended amplifier power: 10 - 150 watts RMS
Frequency response: 50 Hz-20 kHz +/- 3 dB


Thanks


----------



## AllenA07

I suck at waiting. Initially I was planning on waiting a year for the Atmos upgrade, reading this entire thread. Well, that went out the window tonight. I ordered a Emotiva-XPA 5 this evening. I'll be ordering a Denon x6200 tomorrow as well as 6 new speakers (I've got to replace my side surrounds, I'll miss my bipoles). This represents the single biggest upgrade I've done in the 15 years I've been in this hobby.


----------



## FilmMixer

howard68 said:


> HI DEF DIGEST has given Minions Atmos a lesser review than the true HD 7.1 version
> 
> I think it is about time to do a balls to the wall mix to show off what we have put our speakers in the ceiling for !!!!
> IF NOT STICK TO 7.1
> I LOVE the Concept of Atmos i just feel underwhelmed so far
> Also ordered pixles in Auro 3d from Europe
> Will be very interested to do an A B comparison


Minions makes fantastic use of the wides... It's isn't heavy on the overheads.


----------



## Roudan

Hi

Sometimes it is hard for me to distinguish sounds between rear back surround and rear top. Sound separation is not clear . Do you have same feeling? My back surround is 12ft away from MLP with tweeter at 4ft height. Rear tops at 135 degree on 8ft ceiling. Maybe higher ceiling would be better for sound separation.


----------



## NorthSky

Hi Roudan, 

If I remember correctly your front trio is also a fair distance from the MLP?

* Is it possible to put your rear surrounds on speaker stands and six-seven-eight feet or so from the MLP? 
How far are the side surrounds from the MLP?


----------



## howard68

FilmMixer said:


> Minions makes fantastic use of the wides... It's isn't heavy on the overheads.


Hi FilmMixer 
I will reconfigure my Denon and try 9.2.2 again 

The review has not encourage me to get the film however my son wants to see it so will watch it soon in 9.2.2 

What film uses the best ceiling speakers in your 
to prove to my wife it is worth putting in the top speakers

Regards Howard


----------



## funhouse69

I just got Roger Waters - The Wall today and all I can say is WOW and highly recommend getting it. The fist 10 minutes I was blown away. I saw him live at Fenway Park a few years ago and talk about reliving that night! You will not be disappointed!


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> Hi Roudan,
> 
> If I remember correctly your front trio is also a fair distance from the MLP?
> 
> * Is it possible to put your rear surrounds on speaker stands and six-seven-eight feet or so from the MLP?
> How far are the side surrounds from the MLP?


Thanks Bob. My fronts are 17ft away from MLP from audyssey results. Side surround is 10ft away , rear surround is 12ft.

Yes I am thinking as well maybe rear surround is too far away . Yes I can move it to 6-8ft but they will be in the middle of back area which is not convenient, block the traffic. 

The sound is indeed very immersive but not very distinguishable. I found most of the time rear surround has exactly the same sound as rear top, which maybe one of the reasons??

Thanks Bob.


----------



## Carrick

*Atmos height speaker locations for 5.1.2*

I am getting a Denon x1200w from Mike and going for 5.1.2 and need advice for what Atmos speaker location will have the greatest spatial effect. My room is 12w x 15d and MLP will be 10 feet from the screen/wall. Thanks in advance

Do I put the speakers:

1. As front heights mounted on top front wall

2. 30° in front of MLP

3. Directly above MLP

4. 30° behind MLP


----------



## NorthSky

Roudan said:


> Thanks Bob. My fronts are 17ft away from MLP from audyssey results. Side surround is 10ft away , rear surround is 12ft.
> 
> Yes I am thinking as well maybe rear surround is too far away . Yes I can move it to 6-8ft but they will be in the middle of back area which is not convenient, block the traffic.
> 
> The sound is indeed very immersive but not very distinguishable. I found most of the time rear surround has exactly the same sound as rear top, which maybe one of the reasons??
> 
> Thanks Bob.


Yes, you have a large room. I would install an 11.5.6-channel setup in a room that size.  

I understand totally what you're saying. And I know that you positioned your speakers with the walls and shelves you have. ...The decor of your room and other activities in that room and easy walking around. 

1. Being inside a bubble of sound; like @ the same distance from each speaker, eleven of them. 
2. The audio soundtracks from the Blu-rays themselves; some better envelopment, others not so. 
3. Because your room is large, it requires serious driving force, and speakers (like large). 
4. Your room could be totally remodeled to become a dedicated home theater room with acoustical room treatments; panel absorbers, bass traps, lens deflectors/diffusers...

But here's my take: In my own room the surround experience is generally not so "distinguishable" either. And not as immersive as in yours because I don't have oveerheads, yet. I'm talking Blu-ray movies here. But for mutichannel hi-res music (5.1) from hybrid mult.ch. SACDs and DVD Audios and Blu-ray Audios, ...it is much better. That's me @ home. Some BR movies are immersive; Mad Max, Gravity, Interstellar, Oblivion, and others. But many are also very ordinary surround wise. 

And we're talking Dolby Atmos here, so which one(s) in particular are you referring to? 

a) Your three front speakers are 17 feet from the MLP.
b) The back surrounds 12 feet.
c) The side surrounds 10 feet,
d) And the four overheads; 7-8 feet from your ears?

Audyssey is adding a delay to all the ones which are closer....to correspond with 17 feet (three front ones). 
If your room doesn't have some acoustic treatments, that sound bubble will have reflections from the walls, ceiling and floor, and it will make the sound less than ideal; blurry, not so "distinguishable" like you said coming up/down from the back surround area. That's my deductive opinion. 

It might take 6 months, two years, ...before you can get your room with the sound you're happy with. Are you following me...
It takes experimentation, measurements, time, energy/work, consultation, money too, acoustic treatments (home-made or panels you buy)...drapes, curtains, carpet(s), good speaker positioning, good MLP positioning, ... 

It's much easier to set up a near field surround sound system than one in a large room. I think. 

I remember THX saying that ideally your rear surrounds should not be closer than your front mains. But those days are gone now. 
The room I have before this one my front mains and my back surrounds were roughly 9 feet from the MLP. The sides about 6 feet. 
I was not satisfied with it, and was always experimenting, non-stop. No acoustic room treatments either, just a thick carpet wall to wall, heavy drapes on front, some on the back, but not thick. And none on the side walls and ceiling, just some CD shelves. 

The room I was in before that one wasn't better either, and the room I'm in now is ok, but far from ideal because it's my living room too. 

Anyway, we play with what we have, and the people with dedicated home theater rooms have a better surround sound experience than the rest of us, in the very vast majority. Because if you start to treat your living room acoustically it's going to look "panelling". But all sound reflections are going to affect your overall sound quality. And the less delays in sound the better. ...Clarity and definition and distinguishable. 

And think bubble:


----------



## pasender91

Carrick said:


> I am getting a Denon x1200w from Mike and going for 5.1.2 and need advice for what Atmos speaker location will have the greatest spatial effect. My room is 12w x 15d and MLP will be 10 feet from the screen/wall. Thanks in advance
> 
> Do I put the speakers:
> 
> 1. As front heights mounted on top front wall
> 
> 2. 30° in front of MLP
> 
> 3. Directly above MLP
> 
> 4. 30° behind MLP


That's an easy one to respond to, go with option 3. , directly above MLP


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> In the past, I would agree. Surrounds were not much more than ambiance and a few effects sprinkled here and there. Today, they may not do as much work as the L/C/R, but they are doing the same work. Surrounds get the same content as the L/R but the concept of keeping the smaller surround has stuck since the early days. Center is still the dialog anchor but the L/R and all the surrounds get the same content. Granted, they are not getting used as frequently as the front L/R; but, when they are called upon, they get the same explosions, shattering glass, music, gun shots, vehicles, etc as the fronts. There isnt much difference in the channels and content anymore. It doesn't become apparent until you implement it. Give it a try - I double dog dare ya.


All my floor level speakers have the same response characteristics. The front 3 are THX designs so roll off at 80Hz. The other 4 are Tannoy Di6DC which roll off at 75Hz. Unless you believe that THX got it all wrong, that makes all 7 speakers 'the same' in the context of this discussion. All the speakers are crossed at 110Hz to the dual Submersives. No need therefore for any bigger speakers here


----------



## kbarnes701

dominica said:


> Kbarnes I have looked at the Dolby specification paper and I have not seen any recommendations/speaker characteristics. Is there any white paper on the speaker frequency/specs needed for the speakers? My friend bought 4 speakers with the follower spec ( would it fall within the specs?) and is planning to use them in his setup.
> 
> Drivers: 6.5" woofer, one wide dispersion 1" silk dome tweeter
> Sensitivity: 88 dB (2.83 volts/1m)
> Recommended amplifier power: 10 - 150 watts RMS
> Frequency response: 50 Hz-20 kHz +/- 3 dB
> 
> 
> Thanks


There is some information from Dolby which I believe is contained in their setup recommendations document for home theater use. In a nutshell they recommend 'full range' speakers with wide dispersion characteristics. In a bass managed system 'full range' means the same as it means for the other speakers in a system: that they need to play well down to frequencies where the crossover to the sub takes place. The spec you list seems that it will be adequate to meet these requirements so long as the power handling capability enables the speakers to be driven to the SPLs required by the user and the dispersion is wide enough. Unfortunately, 'consumer' speakers rarely come with detailed specification information, unlike Pro speakers (eg Tannoy's and JBL's pro lines) so it is always difficult to be certain what one is actually buying.


----------



## bargervais

funhouse69 said:


> I just got Roger Waters - The Wall today and all I can say is WOW and highly recommend getting it. The fist 10 minutes I was blown away. I saw him live at Fenway Park a few years ago and talk about reliving that night! You will not be disappointed!


Agree, I watched Roger Waters - THE WALL last night I felt very immersed I don't get on a ladder to see what activity the height speakers were doing anymore, or turn off my floor speakers. I just sat there and enjoyed what I was seeing and hearing.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> Agree, I watched Roger Waters - THE WALL last night I felt very immersed *I don't get on a ladder to see what activity the height speakers were doing anymore, or turn off my floor speakers. I just sat there and enjoyed what I was seeing and hearing.*


Call yourself an enthusiast? Pah!


----------



## pasender91

dominica said:


> Kbarnes I have looked at the Dolby specification paper and I have not seen any recommendations/speaker characteristics. Is there any white paper on the speaker frequency/specs needed for the speakers? My friend bought 4 speakers with the follower spec ( would it fall within the specs?) and is planning to use them in his setup.
> 
> Drivers: 6.5" woofer, one wide dispersion 1" silk dome tweeter
> Sensitivity: 88 dB (2.83 volts/1m)
> Recommended amplifier power: 10 - 150 watts RMS
> Frequency response: 50 Hz-20 kHz +/- 3 dB
> 
> 
> Thanks


I took the liberty to copy below an extract from the official Dolby guidelines, highlighting important bits:

"
Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, *full-range audio objects* that may move
around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, *overhead speakers
should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities
of the listener-level speakers*. *Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched* as
closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. *Overhead speakers with a
wide dispersion pattern are desirable* for use in a Dolby Atmos system. 
"

It's crystal clear, the Atmos speakers should be as full-range as main speakers, and timbre matched. 

So it all depends what you have as main speakers:
- If you have small 5" or 6"as mains, then you can do the same for Atmos speakers.
- If you have bigger 8" or 10" as mains, it becomes difficult to match them for ceilings, i guess a compromise for a smaller speaker in the same family is also acceptable.
- If you have BIG main speakers, like JBL Pro, B&W 800 or such, then you're in trouble . There is no choice, the only way is to do the same as above, to compromise and install smaller speakers of the same brand (JBL LSR 308, B&W CM5, or their IC equivalents)

I wonder what 4 B&W 800 would look like suspended from the ceiling ...


----------



## mbsaph

mbsaph said:


> What a tangled web, Selden! Anyone know if there's another OTT device that reliably streams Dolby TrueHD with Atmos - e.g., Roku, WD TV, etc.?


Well, Selden, I confirmed that the firmware on my Lacie Cloudbox is up-to-date, so your theory about my Sony Blu-ray player being the culprit for failing to pass the Atmos stream is sounding right. Now to find a device that'll work with MKVs . . .


----------



## Gates

howard68 said:


> HI DEF DIGEST has given Minions Atmos a lesser review than the true HD 7.1 version
> 
> I think it is about time to do a balls to the wall mix to show off what we have put our speakers in the ceiling for !!!!
> IF NOT STICK TO 7.1
> I LOVE the Concept of Atmos i just feel underwhelmed so far
> Also ordered pixles in Auro 3d from Europe
> Will be very interested to do an A B comparison


There's plenty of balls to the wall mixes in ATMOS. Every time I've heard or read someone say they have to get on a ladder to hear their tops or that they hardly hear anything, it's been about having inadequate ceiling speakers. I have full range 8" ceiling speakers and not once did I have to wonder if they were active. They are loud and clear and can distinctly hear what's going on up there. ATMOS has been the best thing to happen to me in HT in the past 20 years.


----------



## howard68

Hi 
I have 3 sets of 8 inch full range speaker in ceiling 
So I can try TF and TR
Or 9.2.2 with TM 

I will do a full reset and try again


----------



## batpig

Carrick said:


> I am getting a Denon x1200w from Mike and going for 5.1.2 and need advice for what Atmos speaker location will have the greatest spatial effect. My room is 12w x 15d and MLP will be 10 feet from the screen/wall. Thanks in advance
> 
> Do I put the speakers:
> 
> 1. As front heights mounted on top front wall
> 
> 2. 30? in front of MLP
> 
> 3. Directly above MLP
> 
> 4. 30? behind MLP


No question use the Top Middle location for a 5.1.2 setup. I would place them directly above and a couple of feet forward.


----------



## sdurani

Roudan said:


> Sometimes it is hard for me to distinguish sounds between rear back surround and rear top.


Same problem THX found: Surround-Back content often masks sound from the Top Rear speakers. So for two pairs of heights, they recommend one pair above the main listening position and another pair forward of the seating (e.g., Top Middle + Front Height configuration).


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Same problem THX found: Surround-Back content often masks sound from the Top Rear speakers. So for two pairs of heights, they recommend one pair above the main listening position and another pair forward of the seating (e.g., Top Middle + Front Height configuration).


Same reason why panning in the height dimension doesn't work I guess... We need quite large angular spacing to tell them apart. In the reat most people will have difficult having the rear surrounds low enough to make the top speakers really work (that would include me too if I was to give it a try).


----------



## NorthSky

> Same problem THX found: Surround-Back content often masks sound from the Top Rear speakers. So for two pairs of heights, they recommend one pair above the main listening position and another pair forward of the seating (e.g., Top Middle + Front Height configuration).


That *^* , sounds fundamentally right to me too. 

Or:
1. Lower the back surrounds to ear level (mid-point between woofer/tweeter).
And 2. The TR speakers; narrower [email protected] 115° (between 110 and 120°). 

* Key word: Experimentation.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Same reason why panning in the height dimension doesn't work I guess...


It does work, just not as well behind us. 

https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0025-2.pdf


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Same problem THX found: Surround-Back content often masks sound from the Top Rear speakers. So for two pairs of heights, they recommend one pair above the main listening position and another pair forward of the seating (e.g., Top Middle + Front Height configuration).


Sanjay, using same argument (proximity of speakers?), wouldn't Surround-Side "mask" Top Middle as much as the Surround-Back mask Top Rear?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> It does work, just not as well behind us.
> 
> https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0025-2.pdf


I have my rear surrounds in the corners and slightly above ear level. When it came time to mount the rear heights I thought I should try and exaggerate the difference in angle as much as possible. I didn't want to have the rear heights too far forward knowing I was going to have a middle set as well. So instead of spreading out the rear heights laterally I pushed them in closer for a narrower separation between each other but a larger angle from the rear surrounds. Not sure if it helps. I often have a hard time telling what speaker a sound comes from in my room. That being said, I can hear a slight difference when playing tones and such but during movies it's hard to say for sure. What is a definite is the rear surround field is now capable of sounding much taller than before so I guess it is working well enough. Just that rear height effects don't seem as obvious as the directly overhead speakers do.


----------



## Scott Simonian

cannga said:


> Sanjay, using same argument (proximity of speakers?), wouldn't Surround-Side "mask" Top Middle as much as the Surround-Back mask Top Rear?


Great question! I can answer that as I'm running 7.1.6 Atmos-EX. 

Yes and no. It is quite surprised how much overhead sound actually comes out from the side surrounds believe it or not. At the MLP it can be hard to tell sometimes. Off-axis? No way. That's when the middle overhead really makes a difference.


----------



## dominica

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think anyone is advocating that speaker quality is not important for Atmos speakers. What is important is that one chooses a speaker that meets the requirements of what it is meant to reproduce and how loudly with, obviously, low distortion. In a bass managed system, what a speaker can do much below the chosen crossover is irrelevant. So, if you cross at 100Hz for your overheads, which is a reasonable XO for overheads if you have good subwoofers, then all you need is a speaker which has good performance characteristics down to something below 100Hz - say 70Hz for example. To meet that requirement one does not need a very large speaker. Also, there is the question of the content the speaker is being asked to handle. Overhead speakers are just not being stretched by current Atmos mixes (this may or may not change in the future) so even being able to handle frequencies down to 70Hz is questionable right now.
> 
> My advice to anyone would be to choose a speaker with reliable and meaningful manufacturer specifications (so probably a pro speaker like Tannoy or JBL etc), that has the frequency response that you need in a BM system, that has the required wide dispersion and sufficient power handling to meet the chosen SPLs. I wouldn’t worry too much about the size of the enclosure so long as the speaker has these specs. My own researches have led me to believe that Pro speakers are the place to go to meet the various requirements.





pasender91 said:


> I took the liberty to copy below an extract from the official Dolby guidelines, highlighting important bits:
> 
> "
> Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, *full-range audio objects* that may move
> around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, *overhead speakers
> should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities
> of the listener-level speakers*. *Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched* as
> closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. *Overhead speakers with a
> wide dispersion pattern are desirable* for use in a Dolby Atmos system.
> "
> 
> It's crystal clear, the Atmos speakers should be as full-range as main speakers, and timbre matched.
> 
> So it all depends what you have as main speakers:
> - If you have small 5" or 6"as mains, then you can do the same for Atmos speakers.
> - If you have bigger 8" or 10" as mains, it becomes difficult to match them for ceilings, i guess a compromise for a smaller speaker in the same family is also acceptable.
> - If you have BIG main speakers, like JBL Pro, B&W 800 or such, then you're in trouble . There is no choice, the only way is to do the same as above, to compromise and install smaller speakers of the same brand (JBL LSR 308, B&W CM5, or their IC equivalents)
> 
> I wonder what 4 B&W 800 would look like suspended from the ceiling ...


Thanks kbarnes701 and pasender91 for your help and info. I will read up a little more. My 2nd sub is being shipped out today and I will buy 4 speaker for Atmos by the by the end of the week and get the receiver within 1 to 2 months.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> Sanjay, using same argument (proximity of speakers?), wouldn't Surround-Side "mask" Top Middle as much as the Surround-Back mask Top Rear?


Apparently not. THX made no mention of it as a problem, instead encouraging placement right above the listening area. Also, the Hamasaki paper linked in my previous post shows that our hearing is better at telling differences in elevation at our sides than in front or behind.


----------



## NorthSky

Makes sense; our two ears face our two sides.


----------



## Roudan

Thanks Sanjay. 

So move top rears forward from 135 degree to 115 degree while keeping front tops at 45degree. Does it work better?


----------



## sdurani

Roudan said:


> So move top rears forward from 135 degree to 115 degree while keeping front tops at 45degree.


More like around 90 degrees for the Top Middle, while keeping the Front Heights around 45 degrees.


----------



## AllenA07

Want to get a quick opinion from the group. I'm going to be installing 4 SVS Prime Satellites on swivel mounts to the ceiling. Considering that I'm going to be able to adjust the speakers, do you guys think I would be better having the speaker positioned vertically or horizontally? I'm thinking horizontally might be a little bit easier to aim as opposed to a vertical setup.


----------



## Carrick

batpig said:


> No question use the Top Middle location for a 5.1.2 setup. I would place them directly above and a couple of feet forward.





pasender91 said:


> That's an easy one to respond to, go with option 3. , directly above MLP



Thanks.

Now if I were to go all in (for a non-audiophile) and get a AVR that is 5.1.4 (Denon 4200, Yamaha 2050, or other brand), where would I place the second pair of speakers?

I am missing the rear and right side walls (pic) so I was planning on putting the rear surrounds up near the ceiling just 5' from MLP, so then the rear Atmos height speaker sound would be lost.

Do I then put them:

1. As front heights mounted on top front wall (10' from MLP)

2. 30-45° in between front wall and MLP (5' from MLP)


----------



## batpig

AllenA07 said:


> Want to get a quick opinion from the group. I'm going to be installing 4 SVS Prime Satellites on swivel mounts to the ceiling. Considering that I'm going to be able to adjust the speakers, do you guys think I would be better having the speaker positioned vertically or horizontally? I'm thinking horizontally might be a little bit easier to aim as opposed to a vertical setup.


I think with a standard 2-way bookshelf the dispersion should be fairly even horizontally and vertically. So you're probably fine mounting them horizontally for simplicity.


----------



## batpig

Carrick said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question use the Top Middle location for a 5.1.2 setup. I would place them directly above and a couple of feet forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an easy one to respond to, go with option 3. , directly above MLP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Now if I were to go all in (for a non-audiophile) and get a AVR that is 5.1.4 (Denon 4200, Yamaha 2050, or other brand), where would I place the second pair of speakers?
> 
> I am missing the rear and right side walls (pic) so I was planning on putting the rear surrounds up near the ceiling just 5' from MLP, so then the rear Atmos height speaker sound would be lost.
> 
> Do I then put them:
> 
> 1. As front heights mounted on top front wall (10' from MLP)
> 
> 2. 30-45? in between front wall and MLP (5' from MLP)
Click to expand...

So will the surrounds be on the back wall or to the sides? 

Maybe some more pics would help visualize. 

If the surrounds are super high it's going to exacerbate the problem of separation. You might want to consider doing 7.1.2 instead with side surrounds mounted up on that partial wall to the sides, the back surrounds mounted on that partial wall behind, and then a pair of Top Middle on the ceiling above and slightly in front of the LP.


----------



## pasender91

Carrick said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Now if I were to go all in (for a non-audiophile) and get a AVR that is 5.1.4 (Denon 4200, Yamaha 2050, or other brand), where would I place the second pair of speakers?
> 
> I am missing the rear and right side walls (pic) so I was planning on putting the rear surrounds up near the ceiling just 5' from MLP, so then the rear Atmos height speaker sound would be lost.
> 
> Do I then put them:
> 
> 1. As front heights mounted on top front wall (10' from MLP)
> 
> 2. 30-45° in between front wall and MLP (5' from MLP)


If you go for 5.1.4, then you have no rear surrounds, only surrounds somewhere on the sides and only slightly higher than your ears.
For your atmos speakers, i would then go with the optimal solution, TF +TR, positionned at 45 and 135°.


----------



## shyyour

mbsaph said:


> Well, Selden, I confirmed that the firmware on my Lacie Cloudbox is up-to-date, so your theory about my Sony Blu-ray player being the culprit for failing to pass the Atmos stream is sounding right. Now to find a device that'll work with MKVs . . .


I'm sorry i cant remember what your original issue was but i'm assuming you're trying to stream an atmos movie from your NAS. 

Have you tried using Amazon Fire TV with Kodi as a streaming device. I haven't tested with atmos but it works fine for DD 5.1 movies. Also BTW LG Blu ray players play MKVs (i currently own the BP540 and it plays MKVs fine).


----------



## shyyour

Please can anyone confirm if the UK (region B) Bluray discs of Terminator Genisys & San Andreas have Atmos?

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1" i got from the UK didn't and i don't want to make that mistake again.

Thanks


----------



## Contuzzi

If anyone in the US has and wants to sell the Metalica Through the Never, Chicago, or Lucy Atmos edition BDs let me know.

Would be interested in buying.


----------



## blastermaster

sdurani said:


> Same problem THX found: Surround-Back content often masks sound from the Top Rear speakers. So for two pairs of heights, they recommend one pair above the main listening position and another pair forward of the seating (e.g., Top Middle + Front Height configuration).


Hmm. And here I've been fretting that I can't move my "rear" heights back because of room issues. As it stands, they are just in line with the rear of my sectional and my front heights are per Dolby spec. Good to go? I'll find out soon enough...


----------



## AllenA07

Sorry for the barrage of questions, I'm trying to figure this whole setup out quickly. Reading the Dolby Installer guide it appears that my side surrounds should be dropped to ear level. As of right now I have my side approximately 2 feet above the ear position. I'm not really able to lower the speakers (otherwise getting into the theater becomes a problem) how big of an issue is the extra height on the side surrounds going to be? I'm just trying to figure out how much thought I need to give to coming up with a solution.


----------



## FilmMixer

Contuzzi said:


> If anyone in the US has and wants to sell the Metalica Through the Never, Chicago, or Lucy Atmos edition BDs let me know.
> 
> Would be interested in buying.


Just FYI that Metallica is locked region B... 

I forget how much it was, but I don't believe the import for Lucy was ultra expensive from Yes Asia...

Good luck hunting.


----------



## batpig

AllenA07 said:


> Sorry for the barrage of questions, I'm trying to figure this whole setup out quickly. Reading the Dolby Installer guide it appears that my side surrounds should be dropped to ear level. As of right now I have my side approximately 2 feet above the ear position. I'm not really able to lower the speakers (otherwise getting into the theater becomes a problem) how big of an issue is the extra height on the side surrounds going to be? I'm just trying to figure out how much thought I need to give to coming up with a solution.


2ft ain't no thang. The caution is really for those people who have their surrounds way up near the ceiling 4-5ft+ above ear level). 

As others have commented what you can do to compensate slightly is place the overhead speakers a bit narrower, creating more angular separation between "side" and "above".


----------



## funhouse69

bargervais said:


> Agree, I watched Roger Waters - THE WALL last night I felt very immersed I don't get on a ladder to see what activity the height speakers were doing anymore, or turn off my floor speakers. I just sat there and enjoyed what I was seeing and hearing.


This (in my opinion) is one of if not the best concert videos I've ever seen / heard. I am so impressed with it. I admit that I am a little biased here since 1) I saw this show live and watching this is bring me back / reliving it 2) I am a huge Pink Floyd Fan 3) I am always looking for a reason to crank up the volume!!! 

I just looked and this is taking about 40mb/sec of bandwidth streaming from my NAS to my Mede8er. Wow high bit rate.. Imagine what 4k is going to be like!


----------



## bargervais

funhouse69 said:


> This (in my opinion) is one of if not the best concert videos I've ever seen / heard. I am so impressed with it. I admit that I am a little biased here since 1) I saw this show live and watching this is bring me back / reliving it 2) I am a huge Pink Floyd Fan 3) I am always looking for a reason to crank up the volume!!!
> 
> I just looked and this is taking about 40mb/sec of bandwidth streaming from my NAS to my Mede8er. Wow high bit rate.. Imagine what 4k is going to be like!


I cranked The Wall up as close to reference as I could. I had to look out the window to see if of my neighbors were coming out of their houses to see what was going on. I loved it... the sound was very immersive and the video quality was superb, i can't imagine this in 4K


----------



## AllenA07

Atmos is confusing. Alright after some measurements I've come into the next issue in that my room isn't really big enough to get all of Dolby's requirements for angles. The best I can do is mount my speakers in the corners of the room, while it isn't ideal, it really is the best I've got. The problem is that this means my front speakers are going to be mounted right next to my acoustic panels on the ceiling. How much of an impact are the panels going to have? Dolby seems to be okay with an acoustically treated room, so I'm hoping it will work. I've included a picture below, the front two speakers are going to be in the corners right before the ceiling vaults down. That will put them basically going on the side of the panels. This also means that my front Atmos speakers are going to be almost directly over my front speakers, that just doesn't seem right.

The back is going to be more of a problem than the front in terms of mounting capabilities, however for that I'm just going to put it as close as I can to the rear corners. All of this does mean that I will be sitting significantly closer to the rear Atmos channels then the front Atmos channels. How much of a problem is it going to be not having a equal distance between the speakers? I can make things an equal distance, but that is going to require me to complete ditch the angles recommended.

Final question, because my speakers are going to be on mounts that give me the flexibility to angle them towards the MLP, does that change anything in terms of the recommended installation position? I'm hoping that by being able to aim the speakers I can cheat a little bit on the recommended angles.

This project really is changing how I've always thought about installing speakers, I appreciate all the help I've gotten in here.



In the picture it gives you a better idea of what I'm talking about.


----------



## NorthSky

Your acoustic panels on your ceiling; they run vertically, why not horizontally?


----------



## AllenA07

NorthSky said:


> Your acoustic panels on your ceiling; they run vertically, why not horizontally?


That was based on the recommendation of the people at GIK.


----------



## NorthSky

funhouse69 said:


> I just got Roger Waters - The Wall today and all I can say is WOW and highly recommend getting it. The fist 10 minutes I was blown away. I saw him live at Fenway Park a few years ago and talk about reliving that night! You will not be disappointed!





bargervais said:


> Agree, I watched Roger Waters - THE WALL last night I felt very immersed I don't get on a ladder to see what activity the height speakers were doing anymore, or turn off my floor speakers. I just sat there and enjoyed what I was seeing and hearing.





funhouse69 said:


> This (in my opinion) is one of if not the best concert videos I've ever seen / heard. I am so impressed with it. I admit that I am a little biased here since 1) I saw this show live and watching this is bring me back / reliving it 2) I am a huge Pink Floyd Fan 3) I am always looking for a reason to crank up the volume!!!
> 
> I just looked and this is taking about 40mb/sec of bandwidth streaming from my NAS to my Mede8er. Wow high bit rate.. Imagine what 4k is going to be like!





bargervais said:


> I cranked The Wall up as close to reference as I could. I had to look out the window to see if of my neighbors were coming out of their houses to see what was going on. I loved it... the sound was very immersive and the video quality was superb, i can't imagine this in 4K


Same here last night, core audio. ...Phantasmagoria! 

* And: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-82.html#post39429426


----------



## NorthSky

AllenA07 said:


> That was based on the recommendation of the people at GIK.


 I was expecting that type of answer.


----------



## AllenA07

NorthSky said:


> I was expecting that type of answer.


I ran up and measured, turning them wouldn't really buy me any extra room.


----------



## batpig

Is it just the photo or are the panels off-center to the screen? It appears that the centerline of the screen runs between the two rightmost panel, making those two panels somewhat symmetrical to the centerline?

I'm thinking you could use on-ceiling speakers mounted flanking the panels (see my sophisticated mockup photo attached). As long as they are large enough or mounted with an extending bracket so that they aren't obstructed by the panels. That would place them in a nice array lined up nicely a bit inside the outer edge of the screen on the high ceiling, actually a very "cinematic" way to do it.


----------



## Carrick

batpig said:


> So will the surrounds be on the back wall or to the sides?
> 
> Maybe some more pics would help visualize.
> 
> If the surrounds are super high it's going to exacerbate the problem of separation. You might want to consider doing 7.1.2 instead with side surrounds mounted up on that partial wall to the sides, the back surrounds mounted on that partial wall behind, and then a pair of Top Middle on the ceiling above and slightly in front of the LP.


It's a messy with 2 walls missing, though I would like to install an acrylic side wall to keep the visibility sight lines, and leaving the back one open with access to the foyer.




pasender91 said:


> If you go for 5.1.4, then you have no rear surrounds, only surrounds somewhere on the sides and only slightly higher than your ears.
> For your atmos speakers, i would then go with the optimal solution, TF +TR, positionned at 45 and 135°.


I think JD recommended something like that. Though I would have to find a telescoping bracket for the missing right wall that can be lowered when necessary. Any DIY ideas?


----------



## batpig

Carrick said:


> It's a messy with 2 walls missing, though I would like to install an acrylic side wall to keep the visibility sight lines, and leaving the back one open with access to the foyer.
> 
> 
> I think JD recommended something like that. Though I would have to find a telescoping bracket for the missing right wall that can be lowered when necessary. Any DIY ideas?


Could you "undermount" a ceiling/outdoor type speaker with a C-bracket below the soffit thingy? That would gain (or lose) you some height on the surrounds helping to create a bit more separation from the ceiling and mitigate the missing rear/right walls somewhat. And then you could do a true 7ch base layer with surrounds to the sides and back.

See my sophisticated technical diagram, attached.


----------



## AllenA07

batpig said:


> Is it just the photo or are the panels off-center to the screen? It appears that the centerline of the screen runs between the two rightmost panel, making those two panels somewhat symmetrical to the centerline?
> 
> I'm thinking you could use on-ceiling speakers mounted flanking the panels (see my sophisticated mockup photo attached). As long as they are large enough or mounted with an extending bracket so that they aren't obstructed by the panels. That would place them in a nice array lined up nicely a bit inside the outer edge of the screen on the high ceiling, actually a very "cinematic" way to do it.


Because the ceiling vaults on only one side the panels are off center from the screen. I'm not sure how large the mounts are, but I'm hoping the clear the panels. As I said above, I'm hoping between that and angling the speakers towards my seating position it helps fix the problem. So I guess the big question is, can I cheat on the recommended Dolby angles my point the speakers at my MLP, or should I try to extend the angle and have to point the speakers straight down. 

If I were to put my atmos speakers up front I think there is a good chance that I'll need them to point straight down, if I angle then I think the drivers will be effected by the panels. The other option I have is mounting then in front of the panels. It would give me maximum flexibility, but means there would only be about a 5-10 degree angle on the speakers from my MLP. I only have a single row, with no plans to do a second row. 

The speakers will be at different distances from me, but I assume the AVR can set the delays in that and fix that problem.


----------



## Roudan

sdurani said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So move top rears forward from 135 degree to 115 degree while keeping front tops at 45degree.
> 
> 
> 
> More like around 90 degrees for the Top Middle, while keeping the Front Heights around 45 degrees.
Click to expand...

Hi Sanjay 

Last night I turned off main 7 channels and only listened 4 heights channels. I played both atmos demo disc and the wall . I found among these 4 heights channels the sound from the top fronts pair is much weaker than top rear. For example when playing bailando, the whisper singing comes from top fronts while top rears is much louder. Most of the time I felt sound coming from top rear speakers. I checked Audyssey results and the levels are almost the same .

Do you have similar impression ? And reasons ? Thanks


----------



## sdurani

Roudan said:


> Do you have similar impression ?


No, it's typically the other way 'round for me (I end up slightly boosting the rear heights after auto calibration).


----------



## stikle

howard68 said:


> I think it is about time to do a balls to the wall mix to show off what we have put our speakers in the ceiling for !!!!



Have you not seen Mad Max: Fury Road, which was just named Film of the Year by the National Board of Review?

If you want "balls to the wall" with all speakers cranked to 11 (thank you Spinal Tap), then you really need to watch this in Atmos. It may not be the BEST mix ever, but it's certainly quite bombastic.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Sorry, once again asking a somewhat non-Atmos related question for any of you who has a projector or knows a lot about them. 

There is an AMC PRIME 1 hour outside of Chicago that I've gone to see a few films at. 

To make a long story short, I think there's something wrong with the projector. I don't know how to describe it, but I see strange coloration in dark scenes... green & orange tints, most noticeable on people's faces, and in those scenes everything looks blurry/ double image-ish. But in the following scene everything looks nice & sharp. 

Just to double check I saw Mockingjay part 2 @ both AMC PRIME & an IMAX. I looked for the blurry/ strange colors in the district 2 scene when the train rolls in at night time. In IMAX it was not blurry, & the colors felt more natural. I'd almost go as far to say that the IMAX was superior, though lacked the definition of the train's headlight beams / cast light. 

So I guess my question is... is it possible for the projector @ the PRIME to be messing up like that? It looks great when the Dolby PRIME trailer shows before the film, & when I saw Spectre the title sequence looked AMAZING. But then I saw the blurry scenes (I also noticed the same thing going on in Scorch Trials)

If it is messed up... who should I contact to see if the problem can be resolved? (There is also the annoying cast red light from the walkways being cast onto the screen... so black scenes are red) (I've heard that LA's PRIME addressed that situation). 

The sound also doesn't seem up to snuff either... I mean the bass is incredible, but TBH even in my apartment the surround sound/ Atmos is far more effective.


----------



## Amags

*5.1.4 or 7.1.2 in small theater??*

Hello everyone,
I’ve been lurking here for quite awhile trying to learneverything I can before jumping in and asking questions. I’m putting together afairly small dedicated theater room with dimensions 15’-6”d x 12’-9”w. Theceiling is 8’-8”h and will have 30”w x 10”d soffits on the sides.
I am interested in Dolby Atmos but am struggling with theright configuration for this room size. I have not purchased my AVR yet and amwondering if I should plan for a 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4 system. My hunch isthat 7.1.4 is too much for this room size. If I am right, then the question is 5.1.4 or 7.1.2? I am planning on placing in-ceiling speakers in the soffits forthe heights Thoughts?


----------



## sdurani

Amags said:


> My hunch isthat 7.1.4 is too much for this room size.


Depends on seating location. If your seating is at/near the back wall, stick to 5.1 (no space behind you for the rear speakers). If your seating is a few feet away from the back wall, then you're an ideal candidate for a 7.1 layout (you'll get wrap-around envelopment and rear-vs-side separation in the surround field that is not possible with only 2 surround speakers). With your 15'6" room length, I would place the seating about 5' from the back wall and go for a 7.1.4 layout.


----------



## Ricoflashback

The ultimate Dolby Atmos reference disc...

I was wondering if there is such a thing. You know - - verify your setup, play sample sounds through all of the speakers and then test your Dolby coverage. All with a visual screen of what you should be seeing/hearing.

Example 1: A bird flying around from speaker to speaker.
Example 2: A jet coming toward you and flying over you (behind you)
Example 3: Shoot em up - - gunfire flying all over the room. Explosions, overhead jets, helicopters, etc.

Wouldn't that be fun?


----------



## Kris Deering

The September 2015 Atmos demo disc does a pretty good job of covering what you are asking for in a reference disc. But it doesn't seem to be very widely available.


----------



## ahmedreda

I finished installing my atmos speakers last week and I finally got it up and running. I watched a few movies and my best experience was with the fifth element. So far I like the DSU with Atmos as well as non-Atmos tracks. With music not so much. I moved from a Denon 4311ci to a Denon x5200w. Both ran with a minidsp 88a.
The pliix did a perfect job with music for my tastes. DSU however felt unnatural to me. Is there a way to minimize the ceiling effects to make it close to how the pliix was?!


----------



## Amags

sdurani said:


> Depends on seating location. If your seating is at/near the back wall, stick to 5.1 (no space behind you for the rear speakers). If your seating is a few feet away from the back wall, then you're an ideal candidate for a 7.1 layout (you'll get wrap-around envelopment and rear-vs-side separation in the surround field that is not possible with only 2 surround speakers). With your 15'6" room length, I would place the seating about 5' from the back wall and go for a 7.1.4 layout.



Thank you for your advice. My main seating will indeed be about 5' forward of the back wall and I was thinking about a narrow bar height counter (on legs, not solid wall)with stools behind the main row seating to get a bit more seating capacity. I understand that these stools would be very close to the back wall and not optimally placed from a sound standpoint, but my bigger concern in doing this is that the bar and stools may negatively impact the effectiveness of the rears relative to the main seating position. I suppose I could lift the rears slightly on the wall.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Please can anyone confirm if the UK (region B) Bluray discs of Terminator Genisys & San Andreas have Atmos?


Yes they do.


----------



## Nightlord

stikle said:


> Have you not seen Mad Max: Fury Road, which was just named Film of the Year by the National Board of Review?


How about everyone on that board give up their seats to someone capable for 2016? They obviously haven't had their proper dose of Ingmar Bergman in a while...


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes they do.


Thanks a lot


----------



## kbarnes701

Amags said:


> Hello everyone,
> I’ve been lurking here for quite awhile trying to learneverything I can before jumping in and asking questions. I’m putting together afairly small dedicated theater room with dimensions 15’-6”d x 12’-9”w. Theceiling is 8’-8”h and will have 30”w x 10”d soffits on the sides.
> I am interested in Dolby Atmos but am struggling with theright configuration for this room size. I have not purchased my AVR yet and amwondering if I should plan for a 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4 system. My hunch isthat 7.1.4 is too much for this room size. If I am right, then the question is 5.1.4 or 7.1.2? I am planning on placing in-ceiling speakers in the soffits forthe heights Thoughts?


I'm doing 7.2.4 in a room smaller than yours and it works just fine. I’d recommend you go for the full-on Atmos experience and install 7.x.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> The ultimate Dolby Atmos reference disc...
> 
> I was wondering if there is such a thing. You know - - verify your setup, play sample sounds through all of the speakers and then test your Dolby coverage. All with a visual screen of what you should be seeing/hearing.
> 
> Example 1: A bird flying around from speaker to speaker.
> Example 2: A jet coming toward you and flying over you (behind you)
> Example 3: Shoot em up - - gunfire flying all over the room. Explosions, overhead jets, helicopters, etc.
> 
> Wouldn't that be fun?


----------



## AllenA07

batpig said:


> Is it just the photo or are the panels off-center to the screen? It appears that the centerline of the screen runs between the two rightmost panel, making those two panels somewhat symmetrical to the centerline?
> 
> I'm thinking you could use on-ceiling speakers mounted flanking the panels (see my sophisticated mockup photo attached). As long as they are large enough or mounted with an extending bracket so that they aren't obstructed by the panels. That would place them in a nice array lined up nicely a bit inside the outer edge of the screen on the high ceiling, actually a very "cinematic" way to do it.


After further discussion with SVS, I think this is how I'm going to do it. According to them, the panel flanking the speaker may improve imaging some, so long as the tweeter has a clear path.

Would I want the rear speakers to be in line with the fronts, or would I want those wider? If I run then in the position Batpig suggests, that does make for a nice line of speakers through the room.


----------



## batpig

AllenA07 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just the photo or are the panels off-center to the screen? It appears that the centerline of the screen runs between the two rightmost panel, making those two panels somewhat symmetrical to the centerline?
> 
> I'm thinking you could use on-ceiling speakers mounted flanking the panels (see my sophisticated mockup photo attached). As long as they are large enough or mounted with an extending bracket so that they aren't obstructed by the panels. That would place them in a nice array lined up nicely a bit inside the outer edge of the screen on the high ceiling, actually a very "cinematic" way to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> After further discussion with SVS, I think this is how I'm going to do it. According to them, the panel flanking the speaker may improve imaging some, so long as the tweeter has a clear path.
> 
> Would I want the rear speakers to be in line with the fronts, or would I want those wider? If I run then in the position Batpig suggests, that does make for a nice line of speakers through the room.
Click to expand...

The overhead speakers should be in a line (from front to back). They are intended to operate as an array.


----------



## batpig

ahmedreda said:


> I finished installing my atmos speakers last week and I finally got it up and running. I watched a few movies and my best experience was with the fifth element. So far I like the DSU with Atmos as well as non-Atmos tracks. With music not so much. I moved from a Denon 4311ci to a Denon x5200w. Both ran with a minidsp 88a.
> The pliix did a perfect job with music for my tastes. DSU however felt unnatural to me. Is there a way to minimize the ceiling effects to make it close to how the pliix was?!


No, the only adjustable parameter for DSU is the Center Spread option (which helps things from collapsing to the center with music). 

Since you have the 5200 which won't get the new DTS, you can try Neo:X music mode which has some parameters and is more similar to PLIIx.


----------



## AllenA07

batpig said:


> The overhead speakers should be in a line (from front to back). They are intended to operate as an array.


I think this will work, the angles (especially to the back) won't be perfect, but I think it's the best setup I can do. Once I get the speakers mounted I will play around with the angle of the mounts and see how that changes the sound stage. Either way, a new AVR, 6 new speakers, and a new amp makes this a pretty huge upgrade to my theater. I'm looking very forward to taking the jump into Atmos.

I'm very excited for DTS X, it seems a lot more forgiving!


----------



## FilmMixer

AllenA07 said:


> I'm very excited for DTS X, it seems a lot more forgiving!


I would temper your expectations..


----------



## Scott Simonian

AllenA07 said:


> I'm very excited for DTS X, it seems a lot more forgiving!


Actually....you're right about that!


----------



## AllenA07

FilmMixer said:


> I would temper your expectations..


It came up during one of the presentations that I saw at CEDIA that DTS X will be easier to setup then Atmos. I guess DTS X is going with more of the thinking of put the speakers where they fit, and let the processor figure out what to do them them. Of course, YMMV.

Now the bigger question is when the pink unicorn that is DTS X will ever actually appear.


----------



## sdurani

AllenA07 said:


> I guess DTS X is going with more of the thinking of put the speakers where they fit, and let the processor figure out what to do them them.


Sure, any minute now.


----------



## AllenA07

sdurani said:


> Sure, any minute now.


 I can dare to dream.


----------



## Carrick

batpig said:


> Could you "undermount" a ceiling/outdoor type speaker with a C-bracket below the soffit thingy? That would gain (or lose) you some height on the surrounds helping to create a bit more separation from the ceiling and mitigate the missing rear/right walls somewhat. And then you could do a true 7ch base layer with surrounds to the sides and back.
> 
> See my *sophisticated technical diagram*, attached.



You are one of many very knowledgeable patrons of AVS so I have another placement question based on speaker brands. ML vs Energy.

I just ordered an ML motion 8 center from Mike and so If I were to get (4) ML LX16 speakers (closeouts), where should I put the 2 extra ones that will get me the most benefit for watching movies?

1. Rear surrounds as shown in your sophisticated technical diagram

2. Atmos heights in 5.1.2?

3. Just get another pair of ML speakers and hide the bill when it arrives?

note: I have an Energy Take 5.2 speaker set that will supply the sub and alternate satellite locations for now due to budget constraints. *WAF*

Thanks


----------



## batpig

Carrick said:


> You are one of many very knowledgeable patrons of AVS so I have another placement question based on speaker brands. ML vs Energy.
> 
> I just ordered an ML motion 8 center from Mike and so If I were to get (4) ML LX16 speakers (closeouts), where should I put the 2 extra ones that will get me the most benefit for watching movies?
> 
> 1. Rear surrounds as shown in your sophisticated technical diagram
> 
> 2. Atmos heights in 5.1.2?
> 
> 3. Just get another pair of ML speakers and hide the bill when it arrives?
> 
> note: I have an Energy Take 5.2 speaker set that will supply the sub and alternate satellite locations for now due to budget constraints. *WAF*
> 
> Thanks


I'l sorry, I'm having a little trouble following everything as things go back and forth. Can you back up a step and describe all the speakers you have (or will buy) and how many channels you are going to run?

What I'm reading is you will have:

4 x ML LX16 bookshelf speakers
1 x ML Motion 8 center channel
4 x Energy Take 5.2 satellites
1 x Energy Take 5.2 center
1 x Energy S8.2 subwoofer (I'm assuming that one since you said it's the Take 5.2?)

Is that everything?


----------



## Carrick

batpig said:


> I'l sorry, I'm having a little trouble following everything as things go back and forth. Can you back up a step and describe all the speakers you have (or will buy) and how many channels you are going to run?
> 
> What I'm reading is you will have:
> 
> 4 x ML LX16 bookshelf speakers
> 1 x ML Motion 8 center channel
> 4 x Energy Take 5.2 satellites
> 1 x Energy Take 5.2 center
> 1 x Energy S8.2 subwoofer (I'm assuming that one since you said it's the Take 5.2?)
> 
> Is that everything?


Yes that is everything I will have to pick from in including the S8.2, and the extras will be waiting for a couple years until I can get a 7.1.4 receiver.


----------



## zeus33

AllenA07 said:


> It came up during one of the presentations that I saw at CEDIA that DTS X will be easier to setup then Atmos. I guess DTS X is going with more of the thinking of put the speakers where they fit, and let the processor figure out what to do them them. Of course, YMMV.



That all sounds good in theory and I know they are pitching that as a selling point, but it's mostly BS. As has been discussed ad nauseam about this "feature", the receiver would have to have the software, hardware and measuring equipment to measure your room, map out all of the physical speaker locations in your room, import this data into the receiver and make the necessary adjustments to compensate for their actual positioning. The DTS:X "ready" receivers that are available don't have that feature, so how exactly would it work? It won't. YMWon'tV

Just like Atmos, there will be "recommended" ranges of where you can put the speakers.

If a manufacturer decides to add all of the necessary pieces down the road, then it's possible.

DTS needs to worry about actually getting their product working properly and out to their customers and then worry about useless features that 99% of their customers wouldn't need anyways. You are always going to want your speakers to be in the basic layout that Atmos recommends for the best experience.


----------



## NorthSky

AllenA07 said:


> I can dare to dream.


Yes, you can. And your dreams will be mainly ignored.  ...Just kidding. ...We'll all find out soon now, next month.


----------



## batpig

Carrick said:


> Yes that is everything I will have to pick from in including the S8.2, and the extras will be waiting for a couple years until I can get a 7.1.4 receiver.


In that case I would keep the whole base layer as ML and run a 5.1.4 setup, with the four Take 5.2 satellites mounted on the ceiling pointed down as Atmos overheads.

The only problem is where you can even place a pair of LX16 bookshelf speakers as surrounds.... that right wall is a big problem, and you can't really mount them horizontally because of the orientation of the tweeter. Crazy idea, maybe use another pair of centers, e.g. Motion 6, for side surrounds? The tweeter is rotated 90 degrees so you can mount the right side surround horizontally under the overhang without it dangling super far down as a big visual eyesore.

I'd also look to add a second subwoofer ASAP, the S8.2 is a solid little 8-incher but it's not a legit HT sub. I'm sure you can find something for $100 on craigslist or something that you can place elsewhere to help fill in the bass.


----------



## Carrick

batpig said:


> In that case I would keep the whole base layer as ML and run a 5.1.4 setup, with the four Take 5.2 satellites mounted on the ceiling pointed down as Atmos overheads.
> 
> I'd also look to add a second subwoofer ASAP, the S8.2 is a solid little 8-incher but it's not a legit HT sub. I'm sure you can find something for $100 on craigslist or something that you can place elsewhere to help fill in the bass.


Excellent. I did not know what to use as Atmos overheads so if the Energy will be good enough then that's a good thing because they come with angled brackets.

For the side wall I am planning to DIY a temporary wall though not sure where to look for ideas since it needs to have a clear line of sight. 

So wife and dogs do not like subs, the latter get really scared as though it's thunder. So if I were to get another sub it would only be to get a lower frequency in the teens that I can feel, but not loud enough so the neighbors can hear me. Any thoughts? Budget would be $250-$500 max. 

BTW I bought the LX16 speakers.


----------



## dvdwilly3

carrick said:


> excellent. I did not know what to use as atmos overheads so if the energy will be good enough then that's a good thing because they come with angled brackets.
> 
> For the side wall i am planning to diy a temporary wall though not sure where to look for ideas since it needs to have a clear line of sight.
> 
> So wife and dogs do not like subs, the latter get really scared as though it's thunder. So if i were to get another sub it would only be to get a lower frequency in the teens that i can feel, but not loud enough so the neighbors can hear me. Any thoughts? Budget would be $250-$500 max.
> 
> Btw i bought the lx16 speakers.


svs sb1000...$499...


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> svs sb1000...$499...


 @dvdwilly3...I'm in the process of upgrading from 5.2.2 to 7.2.4 and have an Onkyo 1030 ordered. I'm assuming you're using your Height2 pre-out to the Denon and then to one pair of your Atmos speakers...TR? Thanks for any clarification!


----------



## dvdwilly3

gene4ht said:


> @dvdwilly3...I'm in the process of upgrading from 5.2.2 to 7.2.4 and have an Onkyo 1030 ordered. I'm assuming you're using your Height2 pre-out to the Denon and then to one pair of your Atmos speakers...TR? Thanks for any clarification!


Yep! You have a choice of either Height2 or Wide. Make sure that you make the Speaker Configuration setting matches the pre out that you sre using. And, make sure that you set 11 channel output in the Setup...somewhere under Speaker Settings. And, yes, Top Rear.

When I set up the Denon, I set the volume at 80 and the source input level at +10. 

Then, I ran the AccuEQ. If you fail to set up the Denon correctly, the Onkyo will probably not detect your Height 2 speakers. Either that or set them so low that cannot hear them.

Even with the setup done like that, Onkyo will probably set the height 2s at something like +6 or 7.

But, it works beautifully! Have fun!


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> It came up during one of the presentations that I saw at CEDIA that DTS X will be easier to setup then Atmos. I guess DTS X is going with more of the* thinking of put the speakers where they fit, and let the processor figure out what to do them them.* Of course, YMMV.
> 
> Now the bigger question is when the pink unicorn that is DTS X will ever actually appear.


That is positional rendering. Atmos has always been able to do this, and it seems DTS:X may do it too. The problem is, no current AVR from any mainstream manufacturer supports it, so you are in exactly the same position with DTS:X as with Atmos: you have to figure out where to put the speakers, based on the guidelines of the manufacturer of the codec. Hopefully, since DTS have had aeons now to get their system right, they will have worked out that the best solution for them is to adopt the speaker locations used by Atmos, since the latter have real-life installations in real-life rooms already.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> That is positional rendering. Atmos has always been able to do this, and it seems DTS:X may do it too. The problem is, no current AVR from any mainstream manufacturer supports it, so you are in exactly the same position with DTS:X as with Atmos: you have to figure out where to put the speakers, based on the guidelines of the manufacturer of the codec.


Positional rendering in terms of establishing the exact physical position of every speaker in the room is exclusively found in cinema applications of Atmos. For the home, even the Trinnov Altitude still has to rely on predefined speaker positions (24 at ear level, 10 overhead). So no, Atmos cannot do that in our homes.


----------



## toofast68

batpig said:


> Could you "undermount" a ceiling/outdoor type speaker with a C-bracket below the soffit thingy? That would gain (or lose) you some height on the surrounds helping to create a bit more separation from the ceiling and mitigate the missing rear/right walls somewhat. And then you could do a true 7ch base layer with surrounds to the sides and back.



I could not find the original poster, so hopefully he/she will find this....

Due to my soffits...I need to under mount my Atmos speakers...now I know some people might not totally love my choice of speakers, HOWEVER based on my options, it is about the best I could do without ripping up the room......Picture below are just meant to help share my love


----------



## eddysnake

Question about the dolby surround upmixer. I just got a new receiver and my current setup is 5.1 I can use the DSU on 2 channel with no issues, but for multi-channel, it's saying I need to have the speakers in the "surround back" outs. Would there be any issues moving my speakers from the "surround" terminals to the "surround back" terminals and rerun mcaac pro again to take advantage of this until I get my full atmos setup complete?


----------



## jpco

eddysnake said:


> Question about the dolby surround upmixer. I just got a new receiver and my current setup is 5.1 I can use the DSU on 2 channel with no issues, but for multi-channel, it's saying I need to have the speakers in the "surround back" outs. Would there be any issues moving my speakers from the "surround" terminals to the "surround back" terminals and rerun mcaac pro again to take advantage of this until I get my full atmos setup complete?



You can't have surround backs without surrounds. DSU won't work on 5.1 for you because you have only 5.1 speakers, so there's nothing to upmix.


----------



## eddysnake

jpco said:


> You can't have surround backs without surrounds. DSU won't work on 5.1 for you because you have only 5.1 speakers, so there's nothing to upmix.


The manual says that when listening to a source in 2 channel, you can use dolby surround. This did work for me last night. I assumed it created a matrix track similar to dts:neo? The manual also reads that when using multi-channel sources, if you have either surround back speakers, top middle, or front wide speakers active, you can also use dolby surround (up to a maximum of 7 channels using the upmixing technology). I connected the 5.1 setup through "surround" outlets, but wondered why if I took those and put them in surround back and reran mcaac, why wouldn't the receiver be able to figure out that I'm using those as my "surround" speakers, thus being able to use the dolby surround feature as well?


----------



## pasender91

As already explained, NO.

You have 5.1 speakers, so if you feed it 5.1 signal, there is no DSU possible.
You would need at least a 7.1 or 5.1.2 speaker configuration to activate DSU on top of 5.1 signal.


----------



## eddysnake

pasender91 said:


> As already explained, NO.
> 
> You have 5.1 speakers, so if you feed it 5.1 signal, there is no DSU possible.
> You would need at least a 7.1 or 5.1.2 speaker configuration to activate DSU on top of 5.1 signal.


OK. 

just curious why I am able to use that feature for 2 channel? Is it upmixing to the 5.1 setup? I'm new to this and just trying to figure it all out. Thanks


----------



## Daryl L

eddysnake said:


> OK.
> 
> just curious why I am able to use that feature for 2 channel? Is it upmixing to the 5.1 setup? I'm new to this and just trying to figure it all out. Thanks


Yes it takes 2 channel audio (and even 3 channel audio) and expands it to 5.1 channels (just like DTS: Neo 6 and DPLII/x does/did) when using a 5.1 speaker configuration. But, since Dolby Digital 5.1 is already sending signals to all those 5.1 speakers, Dolby Surround Upmix has nothing to expand beyond 5.1 speakers so it cannot be used if you only have a 5.1 speaker configuration. In order to use Dolby Surround Upmix on a Dolby Digital 5.1 audio track you need more channels to expand it to like 7.1 or 5.1.2 or more.


----------



## eddysnake

Thank You, I appreciate it.


----------



## kbarnes701

eddysnake said:


> The manual says that when listening to a source in 2 channel, you can use dolby surround. This did work for me last night. I assumed it created a matrix track similar to dts:neo? The manual also reads that when using multi-channel sources, if you have either surround back speakers, top middle, or front wide speakers active, you can also use dolby surround (up to a maximum of 7 channels using the upmixing technology). I connected the 5.1 setup through "surround" outlets, but wondered why if I took those and put them in surround back and reran mcaac, why wouldn't the receiver be able to figure out that I'm using those as my "surround" speakers, thus being able to use the dolby surround feature as well?


DSU is an upmixer. That means it takes the content in the original and 'expands' it to speakers which it was not originally intended to go to. For example, if you have a stereo source it will upmix that to use all of your 5.1 speakers or all of your 7.1 speakers, whichever you have. Or even all 11 of your speakers if you have a 7.1.4 Atmos setup.

In your system you have 5.1 speakers. So there is nothing to 'expand' that to if the source content is already 5.1. And, as already stated, you cannot use back surrounds unless you also have surrounds so that issue is moot.


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> Yep! You have a choice of either Height2 or Wide. Make sure that you make the Speaker Configuration setting matches the pre out that you sre using. And, make sure that you set 11 channel output in the Setup...somewhere under Speaker Settings. And, yes, Top Rear.
> 
> When I set up the Denon, *I set the volume at 80 and the source input level at +10*.
> 
> Then, I ran the AccuEQ.* If you fail to set up the Denon correctly, the Onkyo will probably not detect your Height 2 speakers*. Either that or set them so low that cannot hear them.
> 
> Even with the setup done like that, *Onkyo will probably set the height 2s at something like +6 or 7*.
> 
> But, it works beautifully! Have fun!


Appreciate the great tips! Although slightly OT, just one more curiosity question please: When using an AVR as an external amp, are there known general setting guidelines or is it gear/product dependent and a matter of experimentation/trail and error to establish the sweet spots (workable settings)? Thanks again!


----------



## Carrick

dvdwilly3 said:


> svs sb1000...$499...


I have been reading and wondering is it worth getting a sub that handles frequencies in the teens? Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

Carrick said:


> I have been reading and wondering is it worth getting a sub that handles frequencies in the teens? Thanks


 Although you can't hear them, you can feel them. Also, by being able to reproduce lower frequencies, a sub can do a better (more linear) job of reproducing the frequencies that you can hear. How much that's worth to you only you can decide. There are many people who greatly enjoy having that kind of low frequency response. Bear in mind, though, for the best bass response in your room, it's usually recommended that you have two identical subwoofers, so that one can fill in the nulls left by the other.


----------



## loknload

I am getting ready to pick an AVR-X4100 (would love a 4200 but don't want to spend over $1000 on a new receiver). It will replace an AVR-3808 in my 5.1 system. My room is a dedicated media room and is 11 feet wide by 12.5 feet long by 8 feet high. My seating is almost against the back wall and my rear speakers are Energy RC-R's mounted on the side walls on either end of the seating and about 20 inches forward of the rear wall but they are mounted up by the ceiling. They cannot move because of the way the room is laid out. The room is just too small for 7.1 so I am running 5.1 (actually have 2 subs). My question is for atmos speaker placement. Top rear speakers wouldn't do any good because they would pretty much be right on top of the seating position and not have a lot of separation from the surrounds. Am I better off just doing 5.2.2 with one pair of top middle speakers just forward of the seating position or could I do 5.2.4 with top middle and either top front or front height? I've searched over this thread for hours and others in this section and I know there are some folks out there with small media rooms like mine but I haven't been able to find any good threads or pictures about them. I am only looking for suggestions on atmos speaker placement. I have had several people tell me that I need to lower my surrounds to ear level and I know that would be optimal but, again, they are not moving due to the way the room is laid out. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Carrick

Selden Ball said:


> the best bass response in your room, it's usually recommended that you have *two *identical subwoofers, so that one can fill in the nulls left by the other.


Thanks but I don't expect that WAF will approve 2 of anything she doesn't want in the first place so that's not gonna happen. I know it's non-directional but most likely it will be placed either on my side of the couch or behind it so she does not have to look at it.


----------



## stikle

toofast68 said:


> now I know some people might not totally love my choice of speakers



I am totally in love with your Mirages (see my sig). I'd drop those rear surrounds down a bunch though.


----------



## dvdwilly3

gene4ht said:


> Appreciate the great tips! Although slightly OT, just one more curiosity question please: When using an AVR as an external amp, are there known general setting guidelines or is it gear/product dependent and a matter of experimentation/trail and error to establish the sweet spots (workable settings)? Thanks again!


I don't know of existing guidelines, though some others might.

I would say that you want to provide enough signal boost on the secondary devices input (source level), so that you are not putting too big a load on your primary AVR/amp.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Carrick said:


> I have been reading and wondering is it worth getting a sub that handles frequencies in the teens? Thanks


In a den or living room or other shared space, a definite maybe, depending upon other people's taste/tolerances.

In a home theater, absolutely!


----------



## toofast68

stikle said:


> I am totally in love with your Mirages (see my sig). I'd drop those rear surrounds down a bunch though.


Thanks a ton, they are really a PERFECT fit for wide dispersion Atmos type speakers.....no now the madness. 

Due to how close my back row is, and due to it being using a bunch and due to how wide my room is, I don't run Rear Surrounds. What you saw in the pic is my REAR Atmos Heights, that go with my FRONT TOP Atmos Heights.

I would not find a way (without building a new room) to get ceiling speakers in that made sense.

The side surrounds do a nice job of blending panning and my front wides fill my WIDE space in Atmos quite nicely.


----------



## batpig

loknload said:


> I am getting ready to pick an AVR-X4100 (would love a 4200 but don't want to spend over $1000 on a new receiver). It will replace an AVR-3808 in my 5.1 system. My room is a dedicated media room and is 11 feet wide by 12.5 feet long by 8 feet high. My seating is almost against the back wall and my rear speakers are Energy RC-R's mounted on the side walls on either end of the seating and about 20 inches forward of the rear wall but they are mounted up by the ceiling. They cannot move because of the way the room is laid out. The room is just too small for 7.1 so I am running 5.1 (actually have 2 subs). My question is for atmos speaker placement. Top rear speakers wouldn't do any good because they would pretty much be right on top of the seating position and not have a lot of separation from the surrounds. Am I better off just doing 5.2.2 with one pair of top middle speakers just forward of the seating position or could I do 5.2.4 with top middle and either top front or front height? I've searched over this thread for hours and others in this section and I know there are some folks out there with small media rooms like mine but I haven't been able to find any good threads or pictures about them. I am only looking for suggestions on atmos speaker placement. I have had several people tell me that I need to lower my surrounds to ear level and I know that would be optimal but, again, they are not moving due to the way the room is laid out. Thanks for the help.


Is there really no way you can lower the surrounds at all? Having them up by the ceiling is really sub optimal. Even if you can't get them all the way down to ear lowering them by a few feet could make a big difference. 

Regardless the Top Middle location is the correct option in this case. I'd "cheat" them a bit forward to fill the gap above and in front of you. You are already getting some sense of side/rear elevation from your high surrounds.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> That is positional rendering. Atmos has always been able to do this, and it seems DTS:X may do it too. The problem is, no current AVR from any mainstream manufacturer supports it, so you are in exactly the same position with DTS:X as with Atmos: you have to figure out where to put the speakers, based on the guidelines of the manufacturer of the codec. Hopefully, since DTS have had aeons now to get their system right, they will have worked out that the best solution for them is to adopt the speaker locations used by Atmos, since the latter have real-life installations in real-life rooms already.





maikeldepotter said:


> Positional rendering in terms of establishing the exact physical position of every speaker in the room is exclusively found in cinema applications of Atmos. For the home, even the Trinnov Altitude still has to rely on predefined speaker positions (24 at ear level, 10 overhead). So no, Atmos cannot do that in our homes.


Just a semantic nitpick, but home Atmos is already doing "positional rendering". It's just doing so from a predefined template of position options; as opposed to knowing precisely where your speakers are, it assumes it knows where they are based upon the menu assignment. As Maikel notes, even Trinnov is limited like this, it just has greater access to the full menu of positional options.

Of course, we all agree that the marketing fluff that DTS will somehow magically overcome this is nonsense. Even if you could measure where the speakers are, we are still all somewhat constrained by the fixed 7ch bed as the starting point, and will be for a long time....


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> I don't know of existing guidelines, though some others might.
> 
> I would say that you want to provide enough signal boost on the secondary devices input (source level), so that you are not putting too big a load on your primary AVR/amp.


Makes total sense...thanks again!


----------



## loknload

batpig said:


> Is there really no way you can lower the surrounds at all? Having them up by the ceiling is really sub optimal. Even if you can't get them all the way down to ear lowering them by a few feet could make a big difference.


There really is no way. The room is an extra bedroom. I could lower the rear on the right side easy enough but the rear on the left side is above a set of pocket doors for the closet, thus, would have to be hung on one of the doors which I will not do. I guess I could always find a set of RC10's and put them on stands or mounts in the back corners of the room angled toward the listening position. I guess that would be more direct instead of the diffused sound I get from the RCR's. It would also suck because I spent a lot of time and energy (no pun intended) finding a set of RCR's. 

I wish I was one of those that could decide it's "good enough" at some point but like the majority of people here I have a sickness and my system will never be totally done.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

loknload said:


> There really is no way. The room is an extra bedroom. I could lower the rear on the right side easy enough but the rear on the left side is above a set of pocket doors for the closet, thus, would have to be hung on one of the doors which I will not do. I guess I could always find a set of RC10's and put them on stands or mounts in the back corners of the room angled toward the listening position. I guess that would be more direct instead of the diffused sound I get from the RCR's. It would also suck because I spent a lot of time and energy (no pun intended) finding a set of RCR's.
> 
> I wish I was one of those that could decide it's "good enough" at some point but like the majority of people here I have a sickness and my system will never be totally done.


Direct radiators on stands is your best bet. Otherwise, immersive audio won't really work in your situation.


----------



## FilmMixer

maikeldepotter said:


> Positional rendering in terms of establishing the exact physical position of every speaker in the room is exclusively found in cinema applications of Atmos. For the home, even the Trinnov Altitude still has to rely on predefined speaker positions (24 at ear level, 10 overhead). So no, Atmos cannot do that in our homes.


DTS:X will also rely on predetermined speaker locations.... 

Neither of the home codecs offer "exact" positional rendering.


----------



## dvdwilly3

loknload said:


> There really is no way. The room is an extra bedroom. I could lower the rear on the right side easy enough but the rear on the left side is above a set of pocket doors for the closet, thus, would have to be hung on one of the doors which I will not do. I guess I could always find a set of RC10's and put them on stands or mounts in the back corners of the room angled toward the listening position. I guess that would be more direct instead of the diffused sound I get from the RCR's. It would also suck because I spent a lot of time and energy (no pun intended) finding a set of RCR's.
> 
> I wish I was one of those that could decide it's "good enough" at some point but like the majority of people here I have a sickness and my system will never be totally done.


I would get a set of these and put the RCRs on them. 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005JTV358?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00

You can lock the height of the stand with pins at something like 6" intervals.
They come with rubber feet and floor spikes.
Use mounting putty between the speaker bottom and the mounting plate on top of the stand for a reasonably secure situation.
I am using 2 pair in my HT. They are very sturdy


----------



## loknload

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would get a set of these and put the RCRs on them.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005JTV358?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00
> 
> You can lock the height of the stand with pins at something like 6" intervals.
> They come with rubber feet and floor spikes.
> Use mounting putty between the speaker bottom and the mounting plate on top of the stand for a reasonably secure situation.
> I am using 2 pair in my HT. They are very sturdy


I have no problem with using stands or wall mounts. If I do that, though, I would have to move the speakers from directly on either side of the seating to the rear corners of the room. This would mean they move toward the rear about 20 inches and would angle toward the main listening position. I don't think I want to do that with a bipole/dipole speaker like the RCR.

I know my setup isn't optimal. My question was, with my current layout, would I be better to use a 5.2.2 configuration with a set of top middle speakers just in front of the seating or could I do 5.2.4 with top middle and either front height or top front speakers? I do believe there would be enough separation between the current location of the RCR's and a set of top middle speakers. I'm just not able to do top rear and want to know if the ".4" is worth doing or to stick with ".2".


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Just a semantic nitpick, but home Atmos is already doing "positional rendering". It's just doing so from a predefined template of position options; as opposed to knowing precisely where your speakers are, it assumes it knows where they are based upon the menu assignment. As Maikel notes, even Trinnov is limited like this, it just has greater access to the full menu of positional options.
> 
> Of course, we all agree that the marketing fluff that DTS will somehow magically overcome this is nonsense. Even if you could measure where the speakers are, we are still all somewhat constrained by the fixed 7ch bed as the starting point, and will be for a long time....


You may be right but it isn’t what I was told directly by Dolby in London. They assured me that home Atmos had the capability of determining the precise location of the speakers and rendering directly to them, but no (mainstream) manufacturer had implemented in AVRs.

Either way, as you say, it doesn't change DTS's BS.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> You may be right but it isn’t what I was told directly by Dolby in London. They assured me that home Atmos had the capability of determining the precise location of the speakers and rendering directly to them, but no (mainstream) manufacturer had implemented in AVRs.
> 
> Either way, as you say, it doesn't change DTS's BS.


The DSP can easily locate every speaker to within a fraction of an inch (or millimeter for you ). That's not even necessarily a Dolby feature. We were writing code to do things such as that 20 years ago. 

I think (know) the limitation on the consumer side is that Dolby wants the technology to sound successful in all installs. By limiting the locations they guarantee a consistent desirable result. Furthermore it reduces the complexity of the algorithms, thus reducing costs on the DSP selection (lower memory lower clock lower price). I can just see someone stacking all .4 speakers in a corner, calibrating and then saying "this Atmos sounds like ****!!" Predefined helps to eliminate some of the bonehead moves. 

Lastly, even though the DSP could locate the speakers to accurately.....the cheap mics are a limitation to doing so.


----------



## Archaea

I've done many searches but can't yet find a legitimate source for the new Dolby Atmos 2015 demo disk. For that matter I can't even find an illegitimate source. Why doesn't Dolby sell these disks? Somehow there aren't even any on EBAY. There's got to be a market for them!?! They could charge $30 and people would line up to pay! I would, and usually I like to try to pay $10 or less for my blurays as a comparison. $20-$30 is only acceptable for disks I really want to add to my collection! There just isn't that much Atmos content out for home use yet, and a best of best disk is fantastic for showing off the Atmos home theater setup for guests! Its free advertising for Dolby! I don't understand the apparent reluctance to publically release the disk.

Any word on why these disks are limited to installers and retailers? Or guidance to a source for the disk purchase, or ISO download?


----------



## kbarnes701

Archaea said:


> I've done many searches but can't yet find a legitimate source for the new Dolby Atmos 2015 demo disk. For that matter I can't even find an illegitimate source. Why doesn't Dolby sell these disks? Somehow there aren't even any on EBAY. There's got to be a market for them!?! They could charge $30 and people would line up to pay! I would, and usually I like to try to pay $10 or less for my blurays as a comparison. $20-$30 is only acceptable for disks I really want to add to my collection! There just isn't that much Atmos content out for home use yet, and a best of best disk is fantastic for showing off the Atmos home theater setup for guests! Its free advertising for Dolby! I don't understand the apparent reluctance to publically release the disk.
> 
> Any word on why these disks are limited to installers and retailers? Or guidance to a source for the disk purchase, or ISO download?


The most likely reason is to do with intellectual property rights. The discs feature commercial material, which one assumes has been licensed to Dolby for limited distribution use only. This would preclude Dolby from releasing the disc to a widescale audience and probably almost certainly preclude them from charging money for the disc.

Of course, Dolby have some good material of their own, eg the trailers, which could be released by them. These are widely available however from legitimate sources (eg Roku and other streaming services) and also from questionable sources such as DemoWorld. So you can get hold of the Dolby trailers easily enough - just not the other content which features on the demo disc.

The one thing most people are really wanting is the set of Dolby Atmos test tones, which, AFAIK, are only on the disc you mention.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Archaea said:


> I've done many searches but can't yet find a legitimate source for the new Dolby Atmos 2015 demo disk. For that matter I can't even find an illegitimate source. Why doesn't Dolby sell these disks? Somehow there aren't even any on EBAY. There's got to be a market for them!?! They could charge $30 and people would line up to pay! I would, and usually I like to try to pay $10 or less for my blurays as a comparison. $20-$30 is only acceptable for disks I really want to add to my collection! There just isn't that much Atmos content out for home use yet, and a best of best disk is fantastic for showing off the Atmos home theater setup for guests! Its free advertising for Dolby! I don't understand the apparent reluctance to publically release the disk.
> 
> Any word on why these disks are limited to installers and retailers? Or guidance to a source for the disk purchase, or ISO download?


I assume it is due to license issues with the content on the disc. They have movie clips that would require royalties to be paid if they were sold. I assume there is a clause in the contract that allows for "demo", not for profit use. I agree though, it is very frustrating that license legalities keep the consumer from having these for our home "demo" purposes. I don't use any of the movie clips and prefer the Dolby production clips the most. Dump the movies and only use the in-house production clips on the discs. Sell them and make additional cash for your investors while supporting the habits of your consumer - win win 

I hate that Keith types faster than me.


----------



## Rocky3RD

I just hooked up a new Onkyo Atmos HTS 7700. It comes with a HT-R693 receiver.
After calibration was completed, I now need to choose a Mode, and that is where I am stuck.

We have a Dolby Surround mode and an All Ch Stereo mode. Which one to select and when?
It seems that Dolby Surround gives me surround effect but now the voices coming out of the center speaker are a bit overwhelmed by the music/special effects coming out of the other speakers. If I switch to All Ch mode all voices and sounds come out of all speakers evenly, now the voices sound full like the other sound effects, but I am not sure if I am missing out on the surround sound capabilities that this system offers


----------



## SteveStevensonUSA

loknload said:


> ...My question was, with my current layout, would I be better to use a 5.2.2 configuration with a set of top middle speakers just in front of the seating or could I do 5.2.4 with top middle and either front height or top front speakers?


I too have been thinking about a 5.2.4 implementation of Atmos. I can do the 4 overheads, but there is no space for rear surrounds in my setup either.

If anyone reading this has tried a 5.2.4 Atmos arrangement, was it good or bad?


----------



## Molon_Labe

SteveStevensonUSA said:


> I too have been thinking about a 5.2.4 implementation of Atmos. I can do the 4 overheads, but there is no space for rear surrounds in my setup either.
> 
> If anyone reading this has tried a 5.2.4 Atmos arrangement, was it good or bad?


In my opinion, the more speakers you can accommodate the better. This starts with two speakers in stereo vs TV speakers, three up front are better than two, two surrounds are better than none, four surrounds are better than two, so on and so forth. The ceilings are just another grouping of speakers. All of the same rules apply with Atmos as they did prior to Atmos to include speaker numbers, driver size, quality, frequency response, EQ, etc. To me, the only difference is they are above and not below. I may be simplifying things but there appears to be an unnecessary over complication or worry when it comes to Atmos. I am not putting down your question, just a general observation. I think you should use four overheads vs two if you can fit them.


----------



## Stoked21

SteveStevensonUSA said:


> I too have been thinking about a 5.2.4 implementation of Atmos. I can do the 4 overheads, but there is no space for rear surrounds in my setup either.
> 
> If anyone reading this has tried a 5.2.4 Atmos arrangement, was it good or bad?


I ran 5.1.4 for about 6 months. It was excellent. But I always knew the rear surrounds were missing. So I jumped to 7.1.4 almost immediately. If you can't accommodate that layout then so be it. 5.1.4 is amazing. It will never be as immersive as 7.1.4 obviously. But that also comes at a stiffer price tag which is always a concern. 

I personally found 5.1.4 better than 7.1.2. That's a matter of preference and most will agree, not all. I would also choose 5.1.4 over any other configuration that's possible with the same or fewer speakers.


----------



## loknload

Stoked21 said:


> I ran 5.1.4 for about 6 months. It was excellent. But I always knew the rear surrounds were missing. So I jumped to 7.1.4 almost immediately. If you can't accommodate that layout then so be it. 5.1.4 is amazing. It will never be as immersive as 7.1.4 obviously. But that also comes at a stiffer price tag which is always a concern.
> 
> I personally found 5.1.4 better than 7.1.2. That's a matter of preference and most will agree, not all. I would also choose 5.1.4 over any other configuration that's possible with the same or fewer speakers.


So back to my original question then. When doing 5.1.4 in a small room where the seating is pretty much up against the back wall and the surrounds are side surrounds mounted on either end of the seating, what speaker positioning would make the most sense? Top middle with the speakers being located slightly in front of the seating in the ceiling and top front with the speakers being located three or four feet from the front wall in the ceiling? Or top middle in the same location as previously stated and front height speakers on the front wall? Or, in a small configuration with the seating against the back wall do you just say screw it and do 5.1.2 and only use the top middle speakers?


----------



## AllenA07

Parts have started arriving and I'm thinking my theater is going to be going down tomorrow so I can start prepping for my conversion to 7.1.4. My biggest concern keeps coming back to the fact that no matter what I do (shy of demolishing the back wall of my theater and expanding into the bathroom, which my wife said no to) I'm going to fall outside of the Dolby recommended angles for Atmos. It's disappointing, but I'm crossing my fingers that being able to aim the speakers towards the MLP will help alleviate some of the problem. If any of you have some great thoughts (and I'll toss out there, reading this thread and responses from people has changed how I'm doing the install) on how aiming the speakers will affect imaging if I don't have room for the proper angles, I would love to hear it!


----------



## Stoked21

loknload said:


> So back to my original question then. When doing 5.1.4 in a small room where the seating is pretty much up against the back wall and the surrounds are side surrounds mounted on either end of the seating, what speaker positioning would make the most sense? Top middle with the speakers being located slightly in front of the seating in the ceiling and top front with the speakers being located three or four feet from the front wall in the ceiling? Or top middle in the same location as previously stated and front height speakers on the front wall? Or, in a small configuration with the seating against the back wall do you just say screw it and do 5.1.2 and only use the top middle speakers?


I've said this before and will state my opinion again. I view speaker distribution as a balancing act.

If you have 5 channels in the bed, then you need to have something comparable in the top to complete the bubble. For instance, 7.1.2 creates a huge imbalance towards the bed level though it does create a better 360° effect. However, I would tell you to run 5.1.4 and go for the entire bubble effect. The TRs are behind you and also compliment the 360°. You will just hear the transitions from TR to TF to front so much more distinctly during flyovers, etc.

But your question is kind of convoluted. You cannot run TM with TF. You can run TM with FH (I'm speaking in regards to Marantz and I've read that Denon offers the same configuration limitation). If the seating cannot be moved forward to accommodate TF+TR, then I would definitely do TM+FH. I'm not a fan of FH and RH, but it's better than nothing and it does add to the immersive experience. For many rooms it's the only choice.


----------



## batpig

loknload said:


> Stoked21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ran 5.1.4 for about 6 months. It was excellent. But I always knew the rear surrounds were missing. So I jumped to 7.1.4 almost immediately. If you can't accommodate that layout then so be it. 5.1.4 is amazing. It will never be as immersive as 7.1.4 obviously. But that also comes at a stiffer price tag which is always a concern.
> 
> I personally found 5.1.4 better than 7.1.2. That's a matter of preference and most will agree, not all. I would also choose 5.1.4 over any other configuration that's possible with the same or fewer speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> So back to my original question then. When doing 5.1.4 in a small room where the seating is pretty much up against the back wall and the surrounds are side surrounds mounted on either end of the seating, what speaker positioning would make the most sense? Top middle with the speakers being located slightly in front of the seating in the ceiling and top front with the speakers being located three or four feet from the front wall in the ceiling? Or top middle in the same location as previously stated and front height speakers on the front wall? Or, in a small configuration with the seating against the back wall do you just say screw it and do 5.1.2 and only use the top middle speakers?
Click to expand...

With seating against the back wall 5.1.4 with Top Middle + Front Height is the way to go.


----------



## Stoked21

AllenA07 said:


> Parts have started arriving and I'm thinking my theater is going to be going down tomorrow so I can start prepping for my conversion to 7.1.4. My biggest concern keeps coming back to the fact that no matter what I do (shy of demolishing the back wall of my theater and expanding into the bathroom, which my wife said no to) I'm going to fall outside of the Dolby recommended angles for Atmos. It's disappointing, but I'm crossing my fingers that being able to aim the speakers towards the MLP will help alleviate some of the problem. If any of you have some great thoughts (and I'll toss out there, reading this thread and responses from people has changed how I'm doing the install) on how aiming the speakers will affect imaging if I don't have room for the proper angles, I would love to hear it!


Looked at your pics. Not sure why you would not be able to maintain Dolby recommended angles. Unless it's a matter of ceiling height. It looks like you have plenty of room behind the seating to accommodate TR and you definitely have enough in front of seating for TF. Vaulted ceiling height could be problematic for physical installation of speakers I suppose. Aimables will solve a lot of that problem by allowing you to pivot the dispersion cone towards the MLP and thus stay in the sweet spot. And the REQ calibration will sense the top speakers are "further" away (height of vault) and adjust the db levels accordingly. 

It's a tried and true theory. I'm pretty positive I would be able to install speakers within Dolby spec in that room for TF and TR configuration.


----------



## loknload

batpig said:


> With seating against the back wall 5.1.4 with Top Middle + Front Height is the way to go.


Thank you. Batpig, I still have some Energy RVSS's in a closet so if I mount my my Energy RVSS surrounds in the back corners of the room at ear level do you think they would work OK? With the wierd shape they are, one side of the speaker would be firing along the back wall and the other side would be firing along the sidewall. I might then be able to do top middle along with top rear but the top rear would almost be on top of the seating position instead of behind it. At any rate that would get the surrounds down to ear level. Or, like I said, I could always see if somebody wanted to trade a set of RC-R's for RC-10"s and mount those in the back corners.


----------



## witchdoctor

Stoked21 said:


> I ran 5.1.4 for about 6 months. It was excellent. But I always knew the rear surrounds were missing. So I jumped to 7.1.4 almost immediately. If you can't accommodate that layout then so be it. 5.1.4 is amazing. It will never be as immersive as 7.1.4 obviously. But that also comes at a stiffer price tag which is always a concern.
> 
> I personally found 5.1.4 better than 7.1.2. That's a matter of preference and most will agree, not all. I would also choose 5.1.4 over any other configuration that's possible with the same or fewer speakers.


How much more immersive do you find 7 vs 5 channels?


----------



## loknload

Stoked21 said:


> I've said this before and will state my opinion again. I view speaker distribution as a balancing act.
> 
> If you have 5 channels in the bed, then you need to have something comparable in the top to complete the bubble. For instance, 7.1.2 creates a huge imbalance towards the bed level though it does create a better 360° effect. However, I would tell you to run 5.1.4 and go for the entire bubble effect. The TRs are behind you and also compliment the 360°. You will just hear the transitions from TR to TF to front so much more distinctly during flyovers, etc.
> 
> But your question is kind of convoluted. You cannot run TM with TF. You can run TM with FH (I'm speaking in regards to Marantz and I've read that Denon offers the same configuration limitation). If the seating cannot be moved forward to accommodate TF+TR, then I would definitely do TM+FH. I'm not a fan of FH and RH, but it's better than nothing and it does add to the immersive experience. For many rooms it's the only choice.


Hmmm. I didn't realize those receivers wouldn't let you do TM and TF at the same time as I've never seen the speaker configuration menu on either of them. Thanks for your help and it looks like TM and FH would be the way I have to go for 5.1.4.


----------



## Stoked21

witchdoctor said:


> How much more immersive do you find 7 vs 5 channels?


In bed level, significant. 

I ran 7.1.2 and 5.1.4 and preferred 5.1.4. But I hated not having the surround rears. It was just a void of where I "expected" to hear speakers. I think our ear's are trained to hear speakers in that position in a typical surround system deployment. So it's difficult to lose them, but worth the trade for 4 tops.

Obviously it costs a lot more to do it....much more expensive AVR/pre....extra 2-ch amp....extra set of speakers....cabling...


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dolby Atmos Setup - Great Picture

I thought this was a great picture of what you are looking for in setting up Dolby Atmos. It also does a nice job of naming your speaker based on its location. 

Example: I have a 11.1 current setup that will convert to a 7.1.4 once I pickup a Dolby Atmos receiver (I'm using DTS Neo X +THX - Cinema Mode for all my viewing now). I'd like to see the next iteration of Dolby Atmos receivers - - especially with DTS X. 

Since the nomenclature can be different for AVR manufacturers, you can easily translate what your setup is. For me, it will be "Front Height" and "Front Wide," which translates to "Top Front." Based on my room limitations (no ceiling speakers available) I went with the Cornered Audio C3's & C4's which can be mounted horizontally or vertically and fire down in the horizontal position. I also have a smaller man cave with low ceilings and was looking to eliminate hot spots and get as an immersive environment as I could based on installation limitations.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Dolby Atmos Setup - Great Picture
> 
> I thought this was a great picture of what you are looking for in setting up Dolby Atmos. It also does a nice job of naming your speaker based on its location.
> 
> Example: I have a 11.1 current setup that will convert to a 7.1.4 once I pickup a Dolby Atmos receiver (I'm using DTS Neo X +THX - Cinema Mode for all my viewing now). I'd like to see the next iteration of Dolby Atmos receivers - - especially with DTS X.
> 
> Since the nomenclature can be different for AVR manufacturers, you can easily translate what your setup is. For me, it will be "Front Height" and "Front Wide," which translates to "Top Front." Based on my room limitations (no ceiling speakers available) I went with the Cornered Audio C3's & C4's which can be mounted horizontally or vertically and fire down in the horizontal position. I also have a smaller man cave with low ceilings and was looking to eliminate hot spots and get as an immersive environment as I could based on installation limitations.



This is from the D&M manuals...But it's really the most applicable diagram to the dolby spec. There's always confusion and people misuse height vs top. They are different. The line starts to grey when you are talking about ceiling mounted speakers with the drivers/baffles angled towards the MLP. The angles also overlap, but top deployments allow for the speakers to be a little closer to the MLP. As for the processor, it does treat them differently. How, nobody here knows for 100% sure. I can tell you running them in a "top" configuration provides more pleasing immersive experience. Using "height" in the AVR seems to make the Atmos effect a little more diffuse and less prominent (in my room, with my setup, IMO). I found myself cranking up the levels several db when I tried height configurations. Using the same speakers in the same location in a top configuration was much better (and my speakers are mounted in top specifications)


----------



## batpig

loknload said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> With seating against the back wall 5.1.4 with Top Middle + Front Height is the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. Batpig, I still have some Energy RVSS's in a closet so if I mount my my Energy RVSS surrounds in the back corners of the room at ear level do you think they would work OK? With the wierd shape they are, one side of the speaker would be firing along the back wall and the other side would be firing along the sidewall. I might then be able to do top middle along with top rear but the top rear would almost be on top of the seating position instead of behind it. At any rate that would get the surrounds down to ear level. Or, like I said, I could always see if somebody wanted to trade a set of RC-R's for RC-10"s and mount those in the back corners.
Click to expand...

I would continue to use the RC-Rs whatever you do. They aren't really traditional dipoles, although they have a dipole mode, they are more like tripoles. There is a single woofer and tweeter that fire direct from the front face. Then a pair of midranges that fire to the sides and can be set to in phase or out of phase and also have a volume control to tune the dispersion. So if you set them to in phase you are basically getting a direct firing speaker with some extra dispersion splashing to the sides from the midranges. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing when you can only run two surrounds. 

The other option I'll mention which could mitigate these restrictions somewhat is to grab that pair of RC-10s but instead install them as wides which is an acceptable alternate path to a 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## Amzie Williams

I'll pitch in to buy you an Onkyo Atmos HTIB or Atmos Soundbar so you'll be more informed. 




NorthSky said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Both excellent choices.
> 
> Bob, you ever gonna get one? Yeesh.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you just imagine that day what it would be like!
Click to expand...


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> This is from the D&M manuals...But it's really the most applicable diagram to the dolby spec. There's always confusion and people misuse height vs top. They are different. The line starts to grey when you are talking about ceiling mounted speakers with the drivers/baffles angled towards the MLP. The angles also overlap, but top deployments allow for the speakers to be a little closer to the MLP. As for the processor, it does treat them differently. How, nobody here knows for 100% sure. I can tell you running them in a "top" configuration provides more pleasing immersive experience. Using "height" in the AVR seems to make the Atmos effect a little more diffuse and less prominent (in my room, with my setup, IMO). I found myself cranking up the levels several db when I tried height configurations. Using the same speakers in the same location in a top configuration was much better (and my speakers are mounted in top specifications)


I'm not sure what a D&M manual is (Denon & Marantz? I know what S&M is!) but I got it from the Marantz AV7702 (Pre-processor) albeit in Japanese.

I do not think there is much confusion about height versus top, especially if you DO NOT have any ceiling mounted speakers. The real issue is how to configure your room and properly hook them up to your AVR.

In my case, it was the only configuration that would work based on my room limitations. My "Front Height" speakers are in each corner, mounted up high where the ceiling meets. My "Front Wides" can be configured as "Top Front" or "Front Wide," depending on the AVR or sound processing. As I mentioned before, there is no standard, established vocabulary as each AVR manufacturer uses their own nomenclature.

To me, this does a much better job of illustrating your choices based on your room configuration & limitations as it shows both "Top" and "Height" alignment in a schematic drawing with direct sight lines together. One simple illustration.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm not sure what a D&M manual is (Denon & Marantz? I know what S&M is!) but I got it from the Marantz AV7702 (Pre-processor) albeit in Japanese.
> 
> I do not think there is much confusion about height versus top, especially if you DO NOT have any ceiling mounted speakers. The real issue is how to configure your room and properly hook them up to your AVR.
> 
> In my case, it was the only configuration that would work based on my room limitations. My "Front Height" speakers are in each corner, mounted up high where the ceiling meets. My "Front Wides" can be configured as "Top Front" or "Front Wide," depending on the AVR or sound processing. As I mentioned before, there is no standard, established vocabulary as each AVR manufacturer uses their own nomenclature.
> 
> To me, this does a much better job of illustrating your choices based on your room configuration & limitations as it shows both "Top" and "Height" alignment in a schematic drawing with direct sight lines together. One simple illustration.


D&M is Denon/Marantz. Same company.

Pic I posted is directly from the english 7702(mk2) manual. 

Confusion of top vs height. Wasn't calling you out.  It's extremely prevalent: Almost every other post here people inaccurately refer to top as a height or vice versa. Sure it's semantics occasionally, but it's relevant to describe the speaker type, mounting method, angles, and more importantly the setup within a D&M product. Yes, this confusion grows when you start to have enclosures mounted on the ceiling. Height and tops start to blur. Right now I have ICs which are true "tops". When I move to angled enclosures mounted on the ceiling with a slight baffle angle.....well they're mounted as tops but the driver angle starts to blur between height and top.


Nomenclature: height doesn't exist in the Atmos Installation white paper. So that is non-traditional. They only refer to "TF" and "TR" as "top front overhead" and "top rear overhead". D&M does the best job at staying true vs some other vendors. Yamaha does the worst calling them "presence" and then within the config menu you identify them as either a "height" mounted speaker or an IC mounted speaker.


----------



## jpco

witchdoctor said:


> How much more immersive do you find 7 vs 5 channels?


In my experience, the difference between 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 is quite a bit greater than the difference between 5.1 and 7.1. Something about Atmos and DSU that benefits greatly from the rear surrounds. 

If it is an option either now or down the road, I recommend 7.1.4.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> This is from the D&M manuals...But it's really the most applicable diagram to the dolby spec. There's always confusion and people misuse height vs top. They are different. The line starts to grey when you are talking about ceiling mounted speakers with the drivers/baffles angled towards the MLP. The angles also overlap, but top deployments allow for the speakers to be a little closer to the MLP. As for the processor, it does treat them differently. How, nobody here knows for 100% sure. I can tell you running them in a "top" configuration provides more pleasing immersive experience. Using "height" in the AVR seems to make the Atmos effect a little more diffuse and less prominent (in my room, with my setup, IMO). I found myself cranking up the levels several db when I tried height configurations. Using the same speakers in the same location in a top configuration was much better (and my speakers are mounted in top specifications)


That picture is very useful!


----------



## jpco

Stoked21 said:


> Nomenclature: height doesn't exist in the Atmos Installation white paper. So that is non-traditional. They only refer to "TF" and "TR" as "top front overhead" and "top rear overhead". D&M does the best job at staying true vs some other vendors. Yamaha does the worst calling them "presence" and then within the config menu you identify them as either a "height" mounted speaker or an IC mounted speaker.


True that height doesn't exist in Atmos white papers as far as I have found, but the Atmos decoder, at least in Yamaha, does do different processing for height vs. overhead. That makes me think that height is a part of the decoder and home Atmos spec. So it's kind of mixed messaging.

Regardless, I definitely recommend overhead > height.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> D&M is Denon/Marantz. Same company.
> 
> Pic I posted is directly from the english 7702(mk2) manual.
> 
> Confusion of top vs height. Wasn't calling you out.  It's extremely prevalent: Almost every other post here people inaccurately refer to top as a height or vice versa. Sure it's semantics occasionally, but it's relevant to describe the speaker type, mounting method, angles, and more importantly the setup within a D&M product. Yes, this confusion grows when you start to have enclosures mounted on the ceiling. Height and tops start to blur. Right now I have ICs which are true "tops". When I move to angled enclosures mounted on the ceiling with a slight baffle angle.....well they're mounted as tops but the driver angle starts to blur between height and top.
> 
> 
> Nomenclature: height doesn't exist in the Atmos Installation white paper. So that is non-traditional. They only refer to "TF" and "TR" as "top front overhead" and "top rear overhead". D&M does the best job at staying true vs some other vendors. Yamaha does the worst calling them "presence" and then within the config menu you identify them as either a "height" mounted speaker or an IC mounted speaker.


Understood. This diagram helped me understand the angles and make them work as best I could with my room. It would have been a piece of cake if I could have installed ceiling speakers - - no question as to what they would be configured as. And you are certainly right about Height and Tops starting to blur when speakers are installed on corners, up high, or even on the side - - up high. 

To me, the goal is to get as much coverage as you can within your room limitations and eliminate "hot spots" to get that dome effect. I'm sure if I was starting from scratch, I'd build to Dolby specs, period. But, that is not an option for 90% of folks on this thread.


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> True that height doesn't exist in Atmos white papers as far as I have found, but the Atmos decoder, at least in Yamaha, does do different processing for height vs. overhead. That makes me think that height is a part of the decoder and home Atmos spec. So it's kind of mixed messaging.
> 
> Regardless, I definitely recommend overhead > height.


Yep. I tried with both a Yamaha 5.1.4 2040 and a Marantz AV7702mk2. Both were much less desirable in "height" configurations and excelled in "top" configurations. This was true whether speakers were mounted on wall or in-ceiling. I've tried countless iterations with countless speakers and in both height and top modes (whether the the speakers were mounted as such or not).

On both AVRs, I found myself cranking up the db levels if set to "height". If set to "top", I found myself turning the TR speaker levels down!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> I just hooked up a new Onkyo Atmos HTS 7700. It comes with a HT-R693 receiver.
> After calibration was completed, I now need to choose a Mode, and that is where I am stuck.
> 
> We have a Dolby Surround mode and an All Ch Stereo mode. Which one to select and when?
> It seems that Dolby Surround gives me surround effect but now the voices coming out of the center speaker are a bit overwhelmed by the music/special effects coming out of the other speakers. If I switch to All Ch mode all voices and sounds come out of all speakers evenly, now the voices sound full like the other sound effects, but I am not sure if I am missing out on the surround sound capabilities that this system offers


All Channel Stereo is what its name implies - it dumps the L&R speaker output to all your other speaker pairs. IOW, it is an unholy mess. If they called it 'party mode' one could perhaps see a legitimate use for it but for any regular listening by using it you are totally destroying your nice 5.1 (etc) imaging.

Dolby Surround is an upmixer - it takes content from the channels encoded into the source material and 'expands' it to the other speakers in your system intelligently. It uses algorithms to determine which content to extract and where to steer it to. So, for example, if you have a 2.0 source it will expand it to 5.1 if you have 5 speakers and a sub, or to 7.1 if you have rear surrounds, or to 7.1.4 if you have 4 atmos speakers overhead. The result is so good most people leave DSU permanently engaged so they light up ALL of the speakers they have paid for, regardless of the source.


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveStevensonUSA said:


> I too have been thinking about a 5.2.4 implementation of Atmos. I can do the 4 overheads, but there is no space for rear surrounds in my setup either.
> 
> If anyone reading this has tried a 5.2.4 Atmos arrangement, was it good or bad?


I ran 5.2.4 for ages. It is very good. It isn't as good as the 7.2.4 I run now, but then it wouldn't be would it! So yeah - if you can only go for 5.2.4, go for it.


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> Yep. I tried with both a Yamaha 5.1.4 2040 and a Marantz AV7702mk2. Both were much less desirable in "height" configurations and excelled in "top" configurations. This was true whether speakers were mounted on wall or in-ceiling. I've tried countless iterations with countless speakers and in both height and top modes (whether the the speakers were mounted as such or not).
> 
> On both AVRs, I found myself cranking up the db levels if set to "height". If set to "top", I found myself turning the TR speaker levels down!!!


Good info. 

- Height is ambiance; like "presence" from the venue, reverberations, multiplication of sounds, with a "magic twist".
- Top is the top real deal; discrete, separation, direct provenance, imaging from distinction, without a "magic trick". 

Makes about sense?


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> Good info.
> 
> - Height is ambiance; like "presence" from the venue, reverberations, multiplication of sounds, with a "magic twist".
> - Top is the top real deal; discrete, separation, direct provenance, imaging from distinction, without a "magic trick".
> 
> Makes about sense?


No. If you configure your "Height" speakers as Atmos speakers, it's just a magic twist? Matrix versus Discrete?


----------



## thxman

And so it begins.


*Proteus* – *HQ - High SPL & Low Fatigue - 9.4.4 Trinnov ł Alcons ł Seaton Theater*


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You may be right but it isn’t what I was told directly by Dolby in London. They assured me that home Atmos had the capability of determining the precise location of the speakers and rendering directly to them, but no (mainstream) manufacturer had implemented in AVRs.


I was told similar when I accompanied other AVS members to the Atmos presser at Dolby in Burbank, though they didn't mention what they meant by "precise" (turned out to be ±7.5° for the listener level speakers).


----------



## KBMAN

A little confusion here (from the last couple of posts)...I have the Marantz AV7702 and I am in the process of installing 'Top Front' speakers in my theater (duck and cover theater: HToTM). I am going to use paradigm Atoms (bookshelf's) IN THE CEILING, located as close to Dolby specs as possible....

SO, 'top vs 'height config in the AVP is what needs to be clarified for me. In my current setup my top front speakers (in stereo or other non-atmos modes) are sounding very echoee....In atmos, it seems to be more discreet. Guess I should print out the manual PotFM! lol (print out the F#$%G Manual)


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I was told similar when I accompanied other AVS members to the Atmos presser at Dolby in Burbank, though they didn't mention what they meant by "precise" (turned out to be ±7.5° for the listener level speakers).


Big range. Which makes me wonder how important properly precise positional rendering would be? Maybe it wouldn't make any audible difference in a HT environment? I always come back to Dolby's remark, "It's hard to make Atmos NOT work."


----------



## KBMAN

A little confusion here (from the last couple of posts)...I have the Marantz AV7702 and I am in the process of installing 'Top Front' speakers in my theater (duck and cover theater: HToTM). I am going to use paradigm Atoms (bookshelf's) IN THE CEILING, located as close to Dolby specs as possible....

SO, 'top vs 'height config in the AVP is what needs to be clarified for me. In my current setup my top front speakers (in stereo or other non-atmos modes) are sounding very echoee....In atmos, it seems to be more discreet. Guess I should print out the manual PotFM! lol (print out the F#$%G Manual)


----------



## NorthSky

thxman said:


> And so it begins.
> 
> 
> *Proteus* – *HQ - High SPL & Low Fatigue - 9.4.4 Trinnov ł Alcons ł Seaton Theater*


Right on!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Which makes me wonder how important properly precise positional rendering would be?


Not as important as I originally thought it to be (wanted it to be). Still, I think most of us would welcome finer granularity than 7.5 degrees. The 'glass half full' view is that knowing which Atmos or DTS:X speaker range your speakers are physically located in is a step up from not knowing where your speaker are at all. Current implementation allows selection of overhead ranges; hopefully selection of listener level ranges will eventually be implemented.


----------



## bass addict

Is it generally recommended to try and space the tops out to fill in the gaps, as long as they fall within the specs? 

For example. 

MLP is app 12' from mains and 8' from rears. So would I be better off to go 5' in front of the MLP and 4' behind the MLP (both of these meet the requirements for angle) instead of spacing them equidistant from the MLP? 

Or because my side surrounds are located at 110 degrees (2' behind MLP) would I be better to push closer to 5' behind the MLP for the rear tops as well (54" is about all the money for the rears as they are being mounted in a 2 tier sofit).


----------



## AllenA07

Alright, I decided to go up to my theater and use some string to plot things out (pictures below).

I've got a few different options and I would like some feedback on what you all think is the best. The front atmos speakers aren't going to be an issue. I've got a 40 degree angle to the front speaker so I'm well inside Atmos specs. The rear speaker is going to be the bigger problem. As for that I have two different options. I can place the spear at a 105 degree angle and keep it on my ceiling (10 foot ceilings). Alternatively I could place the speaker on the vaulted part of the ceiling and have a 125 degree angle, which is at the border of the Dolby specifications. Of course, having the speaker on the vault means that it is going to be sitting approximately 1 foot lower then the front speakers.

The other question that comes up is do I need to keep the Atmos speakers equal-angular? Do I want the same angle from the MLP to both the front and rear Atmos speakers. Of course, These speakers are going to be on mounts that will allow me to adjust the pitch of the speaker and point it towards the MLP.



Whole room view. The pins mark the speaker locations.



This shows the two possible places for the rear Atmos speakers.

Again folks, big thanks to everybody who has given me advice. Not sure I would be able to do this project without this site. The height difference between the ceiling and the spot marked on the vault is 1ft.


----------



## Rocky3RD

This next question is about Bluetooth connection: 

I managed to pair my Acer laptop computer to the Onkyo receiver, but every time I try to play something like Youtube or Netflix the audio and video are out of sync. It seems as though the audio is slightly ahead of the video by a few seconds.
Onkyo customer support seems to provide no support at all. The "tech"who handled my case said that bluetooth is meant just for music listening, not for streaming movies or videos, which to me seems absurd because I was able to use my laptop with my soundbar via bluetooth just fine, when streaming Netflix or watching Youtube.
Any ideas as to why this is happening?


----------



## Rocky3RD

This next question is about Bluetooth connection: 

I managed to pair my Acer laptop computer to the Onkyo receiver, but every time I try to play something like Youtube or Netflix the audio and video are out of sync. It seems as though the audio is slightly ahead of the video by a few seconds.
Onkyo customer support seems to provide no support at all. The "tech"who handled my case said that bluetooth is meant just for music listening, not for streaming movies or videos, which to me seems absurd because I was able to use my laptop with my soundbar via bluetooth just fine, when streaming Netflix or watching Youtube.
Any ideas as to why this is happening?


----------



## witchdoctor

Rocky3RD said:


> This next question is about Bluetooth connection:
> 
> I managed to pair my Acer laptop computer to the Onkyo receiver, but every time I try to play something like Youtube or Netflix the audio and video are out of sync. It seems as though the audio is slightly ahead of the video by a few seconds.
> Onkyo customer support seems to provide no support at all. The "tech"who handled my case said that bluetooth is meant just for music listening, not for streaming movies or videos, which to me seems absurd because I was able to use my laptop with my soundbar via bluetooth just fine, when streaming Netflix or watching Youtube.
> Any ideas as to why this is happening?


Video streaming takes a lot more bandwidth. Looks like you need to get a cable. What speakers did you get? what sub? How do they sound?


----------



## bargervais

Rocky3RD said:


> This next question is about Bluetooth connection:
> 
> I managed to pair my Acer laptop computer to the Onkyo receiver, but every time I try to play something like Youtube or Netflix the audio and video are out of sync. It seems as though the audio is slightly ahead of the video by a few seconds.
> Onkyo customer support seems to provide no support at all. The "tech"who handled my case said that bluetooth is meant just for music listening, not for streaming movies or videos, which to me seems absurd because I was able to use my laptop with my soundbar via bluetooth just fine, when streaming Netflix or watching Youtube.
> Any ideas as to why this is happening?


not sure how this relates to Atmos, but I thing you would be better served in an onkyo thread.


----------



## BigScreen

Stoked21 said:


> Confusion of top vs height. Wasn't calling you out.  It's extremely prevalent: Almost every other post here people inaccurately refer to top as a height or vice versa. Sure it's semantics occasionally, but it's relevant to describe the speaker type, mounting method, angles, and more importantly the setup within a D&M product. Yes, this confusion grows when you start to have enclosures mounted on the ceiling. Height and tops start to blur. Right now I have ICs which are true "tops". When I move to angled enclosures mounted on the ceiling with a slight baffle angle.....well they're mounted as tops but the driver angle starts to blur between height and top.
> 
> Nomenclature: height doesn't exist in the Atmos Installation white paper. So that is non-traditional. They only refer to "TF" and "TR" as "top front overhead" and "top rear overhead". D&M does the best job at staying true vs some other vendors. Yamaha does the worst calling them "presence" and then within the config menu you identify them as either a "height" mounted speaker or an IC mounted speaker.


Well, actually I consider Yamaha to be in line with Dolby. There are no "heights" in Dolby's guidelines, only overheads and Dolby-enabled reflecting speakers. See attached figure from the Dolby guidelines.

The minimum angle for the front overhead speakers is 30°, which corresponds to the D+M diagram for the minimum angle for FH. The maximum angle for the rear overhead speakers is 150°, which corresponds to D+M's diagram for the maximum angle for RH.

D+M takes the Dolby angles for two overheads and applies them to a position they call Top Middle (TM). While D+M allow for FH and TM to be used in a .4 configuration, that isn't spelled out in Dolby's guidelines. My guess is that in that situation, TM and TR are the same signal. Likewise if you have TM and RH, where specifying the front speakers as TM is just an aesthetic difference from TF and not a sonic one.


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> Alright, I decided to go up to my theater and use some string to plot things out (pictures below).
> 
> I've got a few different options and I would like some feedback on what you all think is the best. The front atmos speakers aren't going to be an issue. I've got a 40 degree angle to the front speaker so I'm well inside Atmos specs. The rear speaker is going to be the bigger problem. As for that I have two different options. I can place the spear at a 105 degree angle and keep it on my ceiling (10 foot ceilings). Alternatively I could place the speaker on the vaulted part of the ceiling and have a 125 degree angle, which is at the border of the Dolby specifications. Of course, having the speaker on the vault means that it is going to be sitting approximately 1 foot lower then the front speakers.
> 
> The other question that comes up is do I need to keep the Atmos speakers equal-angular? Do I want the same angle from the MLP to both the front and rear Atmos speakers. Of course, These speakers are going to be on mounts that will allow me to adjust the pitch of the speaker and point it towards the MLP.
> 
> 
> Whole room view. The pins mark the speaker locations.
> 
> This shows the two possible places for the rear Atmos speakers.
> 
> Again folks, big thanks to everybody who has given me advice. Not sure I would be able to do this project without this site. The height difference between the ceiling and the spot marked on the vault is 1ft.


I doubt the 1 ft of difference will matter - your room EQ system will set the delays correctly and adjust the levels accordingly. I’d stick as closely as you can to the recommended angles, even if this means the 1ft height difference between front and rear overheads.


----------



## Rocky3RD

witchdoctor said:


> Video streaming takes a lot more bandwidth. Looks like you need to get a cable. What speakers did you get? what sub? How do they sound?


This is what I got:


http://www.hhgregg.com/onkyo-5-1-2-channel-dolby-atmos-ready-network-home-theater/item/HTS7700


----------



## witchdoctor

Rocky3RD said:


> This is what I got:
> 
> 
> http://www.hhgregg.com/onkyo-5-1-2-channel-dolby-atmos-ready-network-home-theater/item/HTS7700


Congrats, how do they sound?


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> Well, actually I consider Yamaha to be in line with Dolby. There are no "heights" in Dolby's guidelines, only overheads and Dolby-enabled reflecting speakers. See attached figure from the Dolby guidelines.
> 
> The minimum angle for the front overhead speakers is 30°, which corresponds to the D+M diagram for the minimum angle for FH. The maximum angle for the rear overhead speakers is 150°, which corresponds to D+M's diagram for the maximum angle for RH.
> 
> D+M takes the Dolby angles for two overheads and applies them to a position they call Top Middle (TM). While D+M allow for FH and TM to be used in a .4 configuration, that isn't spelled out in Dolby's guidelines. My guess is that in that situation, TM and TR are the same signal. Likewise if you have TM and RH, where specifying the front speakers as TM is just an aesthetic difference from TF and not a sonic one.


Ok, this is an interesting post.

In a Dolby Atmos setup, exactly what audio signals are sent to:

1. Top Front L&R channel speakers?
2. Top Rear L&R channels?
3. Top Middle L&R channels?
4. Front Height L&R channels?
5. Front Rear L&R channels?

Above is for D&M Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pros.

* With Yamaha Dolby Atmos receivers and pre/pro; any audio signals difference sent to the "Overhead" speakers, or the "Presence" speakers?
...Front/Rear L&R. ...When using two pairs (4 speakers total, front and rear), and when using only one pair straight above the MLP (2 speakers total).

And! What about the two, or four *up-firing* Dolby Atmos speakers; what audio signals are sent to them...extracted from where?


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> I doubt the 1 ft of difference will matter - your room EQ system will set the delays correctly and adjust the levels accordingly. I’d stick as closely as you can to the recommended angles, even if this means the 1ft height difference between front and rear overheads.


I'm thinking if the AVR is setting the delays I won't stress about keeping the angles equal between the front and rear speakers. I would rather keep my front speakers comfortably in the recommended range.


----------



## Stoked21

BigScreen said:


> Well, actually I consider Yamaha to be in line with Dolby. There are no "heights" in Dolby's guidelines, only overheads and Dolby-enabled reflecting speakers. See attached figure from the Dolby guidelines.
> 
> The minimum angle for the front overhead speakers is 30°, which corresponds to the D+M diagram for the minimum angle for FH. The maximum angle for the rear overhead speakers is 150°, which corresponds to D+M's diagram for the maximum angle for RH.
> 
> D+M takes the Dolby angles for two overheads and applies them to a position they call Top Middle (TM). While D+M allow for FH and TM to be used in a .4 configuration, that isn't spelled out in Dolby's guidelines. My guess is that in that situation, TM and TR are the same signal. Likewise if you have TM and RH, where specifying the front speakers as TM is just an aesthetic difference from TF and not a sonic one.


????

Not sure what's being questioned here? Statement was that Yamaha has the worst nomenclature (Presence?). Not that Yamaha does not use the same dolby processing, which they do. Obviously Yamaha D&M and everyone else use the same angles as well; these are Dolby specifications not specs by AVR vendors.

As for TM. No they are different and their own independent pairs. Different delays and I'm sure other things as well. Plus TM is indeed part of the dolby spec. It should be a specific part of the metadata stream for object rendering.

FH/RH are different speakers than TF and TR in the dolby spec as well. But no where in the dolby papers is "presence" listed. Somehow Yamaha decided to take TF/FH and TR/RH (discretely different speaker pairs per Dolby) and group them into their own made-up category of Presence. Albeit, they do allow for the discrimination in their GUI by selecting the placement of the particular "presence" speaker. If you refer to the papers, you will see these are all different speakers per Dolby. D&M keeps them discretely labeled per Dolby guidelines.

Is this an academic discussing? yes because we can't support them all simultaneously anyway. But WHEN they can be supported, Yamaha will have to redo all of their labeling to fall in-line with specifications.

Just to be clear, I love Yamaha product. I only own 2 of their AVRs now instead of 3, but I still think they make a great AVR. This is not a bash on Yamaha. It is gripe about their nomenclature, which someone else brought up.



EDIT: FYI in the Dolby guidelines, Page 33 "additional speaker placement guidelines" is the starting discussion for Dolby Height speakers. TM is covered in section 3 of the standard x.x.2 diagrams. Same angles as listed in the D&M pic, obviously.


----------



## jpco

Stoked21 said:


> ????
> 
> Not sure what's being questioned here? Statement was that Yamaha has the worst nomenclature (Presence?). Not that Yamaha does not use the same dolby processing, which they do. Obviously Yamaha D&M and everyone else use the same angles as well; these are Dolby specifications not specs by AVR vendors.
> 
> As for TM. No they are different and their own independent pairs. Different delays and I'm sure other things as well. Plus TM is indeed part of the dolby spec. It should be a specific part of the metadata stream for object rendering.
> 
> FH/RH are different speakers than TF and TR in the dolby spec as well. But no where in the dolby papers is "presence" listed. Somehow Yamaha decided to take TF/FH and TR/RH (discretely different speaker pairs per Dolby) and group them into their own made-up category of Presence. Albeit, they do allow for the discrimination in their GUI by selecting the placement of the particular "presence" speaker. If you refer to the papers, you will see these are all different speakers per Dolby. D&M keeps them discretely labeled per Dolby guidelines.
> 
> Is this an academic discussing? yes because we can't support them all simultaneously anyway. But WHEN they can be supported, Yamaha will have to redo all of their labeling to fall in-line with specifications.
> 
> Just to be clear, I love Yamaha product. I only own 2 of their AVRs now instead of 3, but I still think they make a great AVR. This is not a bash on Yamaha. It is gripe about their nomenclature, which someone else brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: FYI in the Dolby guidelines, Page 33 "additional speaker placement guidelines" is the starting discussion for Dolby Height speakers. TM is covered in section 3 of the standard x.x.2 diagrams. Same angles as listed in the D&M pic, obviously.


Yamaha has had height processing speakers since they introduced their DSPs in the 80s. It may be a made up category of speakers, but they made it up well over a decade ago. They are called Presence in Atmos models because they still fill that capacity when using Cinema DSP.

As you know, when you configure the "presence" speakers, you can choose Overhead, Front Height, and Dolby Enabled. The setting here only matters for Atmos and Dolby Surround. It does not affect the sound when using a Yamaha DSP mode.

I do not expect Yamaha to stop calling them presence just because Dolby and DTS have arrived on the height processing scene.


----------



## SoundChex

Stoked21 said:


> Is this an academic discussing? yes because we can't support them all simultaneously anyway. But WHEN they can be supported, Yamaha will have to redo all of their labeling to fall in-line with specifications.





For an "exciting" and|or "challenging" experience, you might want to see what the *ITU* uses (recommends?) concerning speaker names and positioning . . .

*Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_*link*_)

*Report ITU-R BS.2159-7 (02/2015) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications* (_*link*_)



*Inter*|*intra* document "_nomenclature deconfliction_" is left as an exercise for the reader!  


_


----------



## Stoked21

SoundChex said:


> For an "exciting" and|or "challenging" experience, you might want to see what the *ITU* uses (recommends?) concerning speaker names and positioning . . .
> 
> *Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (_*link*_)
> 
> *Report ITU-R BS.2159-7 (02/2015) Multichannel sound technology in home and broadcasting applications* (_*link*_)
> 
> 
> 
> *Inter*|*intra* document "_nomenclature deconfliction_" is left as an exercise for the reader!
> 
> 
> _


ITU and IEEE are my day job....I try to keep it out of my hobby!!! 
But yeah...I hear you!


----------



## SoundChex

jpco said:


> Yamaha has had height processing speakers since they introduced their DSPs in the 80s. It may be a made up category of speakers, but they made it up well over a decade ago. They are called Presence in Atmos models because they still fill that capacity when using Cinema DSP.
> 
> As you know, when you configure the "presence" speakers, you can choose Overhead, Front Height, and Dolby Enabled. The setting here only matters for Atmos and Dolby Surround. It does not affect the sound when using a Yamaha DSP mode.
> 
> I do not expect Yamaha to stop calling them presence just because Dolby and DTS have arrived on the height processing scene.



The Owner's Manual for the first Yamaha DSP processor, the DSP-1, calls them "*Sub speaker (For effect sound reproduction)*", but Yamaha labelled them *Effect* channels|speakers for the next two models, the DSP-3000 and DSP-100U (the latter was my first Yamaha processor, around 1990). They were not renamed *Presence* channels|speakers until some time later...


_


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> You may be right but it isn’t what I was told directly by Dolby in London. They assured me that home Atmos had the capability of determining the precise location of the speakers and rendering directly to them, but no (mainstream) manufacturer had implemented in AVRs.


Is there a remote possibility that you were given false information?



> Either way, as you say, it doesn't change DTS's BS.


That is another way to put it.


----------



## fjerina

I would like to buy a set of the ELAC A4 add-on speakers but everyone seems to be out of stock. Any leads out there?


----------



## Rocky3RD

witchdoctor said:


> Congrats, how do they sound?


It took me a while to figure things out. For some reason I couldnt get it to sound right in Dolby Surround after calibration.
When I finally found a way to manually calibrate the speakers I realized that the EQ Calibration done with the MIC that comes in the package was totally screwed up...The Center speaker was too low (-3) the Surround speakers also too low...Just an utter mess.
I manually changed the speakers levels myself and now it sounds exactly the way it's supposed to.
Only thing I dont get is why when I stream Netflix or Youtube from my laptop via youtube the video is slightly behind the audio


----------



## Selden Ball

Rocky3RD said:


> Only thing I dont get is why when I stream Netflix or Youtube from my laptop via youtube the video is slightly behind the audio


Auto sync of audio with video sometimes doesn't work as one would like. You'll have to set the audio delay manually in the receiver.


----------



## apesterin

jpco said:


> ... just because Dolby and DTS have arrived on the height processing scene.


DTS has arrived? They would certainly like everyone to think so


----------



## apesterin

maikeldepotter said:


> Is there a remote possibility that you were given false information?


Equally remote is the possibility that that is precisely what it really is (not to contest it may remain so for a long time). We can certainly speculate either way. What remains true is that current generation processors certainly don't have that capability (which is what was said anyway), so it's moot for now


----------



## Rocky3RD

Selden Ball said:


> Auto sync of audio with video sometimes doesn't work as one would like. You'll have to set the audio delay manually in the receiver.


that specific command to set the audio delay manually is not available in bluetooth mode, onlyin BD/DVD mode. 
I guess because this is a 5.1 system, bluetooth connection cannot support the passing of the signal properly, as it would with a 2.1 soundbar. The other option would be to just use a cable to plug from my laptop headset portal to the receiver headset portal


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Is there a remote possibility that you were given false information?


If you believe that Dolby would deliberately give out false information to the industry in general and to AV journalists in particular, then I guess it is possible. Personally, I have no doubts about Dolby's integrity, so when they say that Atmos for Home can do positional rendering, and that no mainstream AVR makers have chosen to implement it, I believe them.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> If you believe that Dolby would deliberately give out false information to the industry in general and to AV journalists in particular, then I guess it is possible. Personally, I have no doubts about Dolby's integrity, so when they say that Atmos for Home can do positional rendering, and that no mainstream AVR makers have chosen to implement it, I believe them.


I have no doubt it is capable. "Can" is the operative word. Sure the DSP is more than capable, the specs exist, and commercial Atmos can. The algorithm is just not deployed in low cost home market models. So I guess I would say it cannot, but it is possible/capable of doing so. Dolby isn't spreading false info. 

I have no doubt that in several years Dolby will prove that statement but likely not until we pass 15.1 (9.1.6). I just don't think it's practical until we surpass some level of bed/overheads. At that point additional speaker placement begins to become more user preference and based on room accommodations.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> If you believe that Dolby would deliberately give out false information to the industry in general and to AV journalists in particular, then I guess it is possible. Personally, I have no doubts about Dolby's integrity, so when they say that Atmos for Home can do positional rendering, and that no mainstream AVR makers have chosen to implement it, I believe them.


It would seem to me that doing positional rendering on a live audio signal would be the equivalent of doing Audyssey, AccuEQ, etc. initial calibration on the fly and continuously.
That would entail a significant increase in terms of complexity and capability (chip architecture and possibly size leading addional physical size, power consumption, etc.) of any DSP chip which = $$$...one way or the other...


----------



## Stoked21

dvdwilly3 said:


> It would seem to me that doing positional rendering on a live audio signal would be the equivalent of doing Audyssey, AccuEQ, etc. initial calibration on the fly and continuously.
> That would entail a significant increase in terms of complexity and capability (chip architecture and possibly size leading addional physical size, power consumption, etc.) of any DSP chip which = $$$...one way or the other...


Running the algorithm real time would involve substantial mflops above and beyond current capabilities. But I don't believe that was Keith's point. I venture to guess that most of us are not moving our speakers around the room while watching a movie. The principal here is that one could completely ignore recommended placements and angles. The DSP/req calibration would run through all outputs and map the speaker locations. It would then utilize that predefined map for object rendering based on the speaker locations available. 

Even then there would have to be some guidelines to achieve optimal immersion. Otherwise some schmuck would put all his speakers in the front and complain of no sound behind...or all at bed level and complain there was no height.


----------



## lujan

Rocky3RD said:


> This is what I got:
> 
> 
> http://www.hhgregg.com/onkyo-5-1-2-channel-dolby-atmos-ready-network-home-theater/item/HTS7700


Let us know how you like it as I'm interested in getting something like that?


----------



## Rocky3RD

lujan said:


> Let us know how you like it as I'm interested in getting something like that?


I think this an entry-level very basic Atmos system.I say this because it seems as if I need to crank up the db levels on all 5 speakers in order to get decent surround quality. If I go by the EQ Calibration with the mic that came in the box I get very low center speaker levels and weak surround speakers levels


----------



## Selden Ball

Rocky3RD said:


> I think this an entry-level very basic Atmos system.I say this because it seems as if I need to crank up the db levels on all 5 speakers in order to get decent surround quality. If I go by the EQ Calibration with the mic that came in the box I get very low center speaker levels and weak surround speakers levels


If you haven't already, please consult with the Audyssey 101 & FAQ here on AVS. The instructions in the equipment owners' manuals are woefully inadequate.


----------



## BigScreen

Stoked21 said:


> ????
> 
> Not sure what's being questioned here? Statement was that Yamaha has the worst nomenclature (Presence?). Not that Yamaha does not use the same dolby processing, which they do. Obviously Yamaha D&M and everyone else use the same angles as well; these are Dolby specifications not specs by AVR vendors.
> 
> As for TM. No they are different and their own independent pairs. Different delays and I'm sure other things as well. Plus TM is indeed part of the dolby spec. It should be a specific part of the metadata stream for object rendering.
> 
> FH/RH are different speakers than TF and TR in the dolby spec as well. But no where in the dolby papers is "presence" listed. Somehow Yamaha decided to take TF/FH and TR/RH (discretely different speaker pairs per Dolby) and group them into their own made-up category of Presence. Albeit, they do allow for the discrimination in their GUI by selecting the placement of the particular "presence" speaker. If you refer to the papers, you will see these are all different speakers per Dolby. D&M keeps them discretely labeled per Dolby guidelines.
> 
> Is this an academic discussing? yes because we can't support them all simultaneously anyway. But WHEN they can be supported, Yamaha will have to redo all of their labeling to fall in-line with specifications.
> 
> Just to be clear, I love Yamaha product. I only own 2 of their AVRs now instead of 3, but I still think they make a great AVR. This is not a bash on Yamaha. It is gripe about their nomenclature, which someone else brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: FYI in the Dolby guidelines, Page 33 "additional speaker placement guidelines" is the starting discussion for Dolby Height speakers. TM is covered in section 3 of the standard x.x.2 diagrams. Same angles as listed in the D&M pic, obviously.


Presence or height, it really doesn't matter too much to me. However, the original statement that Yamaha was off-base by calling them Presence speakers, and then also that they were somehow behind the curve when it comes to implementing Atmos, was what I was disputing.

We might be talking around in circles, but I think the latter detail is worth hashing out nonetheless. Figure 14 on Page 22 of the Dolby Atmos Guidelines shows a 7.1.4 configuration. The angles for the front pair of speakers is 30-55°, and the angles for the rear pair are 125-150°. The only time that Top Middle (TM) comes into play in that document is for a x.x.2 configuration, where only one pair of speakers overhead is used.

Now, I realize that Atmos for the home is capable of having up to five pairs of overhead speakers, which is what is shown in Figure 1 on Page 4, but that is what the technology allows, not how it's been implemented in consumer-grade (non-Trinnov level) equipment at this time. We have the choice of two overhead pairs or one overhead pair. Dolby's document shows the placement for each, and when two pair are being used, TM isn't shown as an option.

In my understanding, that leaves us with two options for how D+M have implement Dolby Atmos for the home


Decoding changes based on whether FH, TF, or TM (and likewise RH, TR, and TM) is chosen. For example, if FH and TM is chosen, the processor decodes for the front-most and middle position in the 10-speaker layout, but if TF and TR are chosen, the processor chooses the second position from the front and back.
 Decoding is the same for FH, TF, and TM in a x.x.4 configuration where RH or TR positions are chosen for the rear pair. Regardless if FH or TF is chosen, the processor uses only one of the two front-most positions in the 10-speaker layout for decoding.
#1 would mean that D+M's implementation of Atmos is more sophisticated than Yamaha's, because of the greater placement resolution. However, given that D+M's angles for FH and TF overlap, I'm not thinking that this is the case, because if you had the front pair at 40°, you could label them as TF and be within D+M guidelines, even though it would likely make more sense to label them as FH.

#2 would mean that D+M's decoding would be the same as a Yamaha processor. In a x.x.4 configuration, I could place the front pair at 40° and specify them at the Front Overhead Presence position, and the decoding would be the same as if I was using a D+M processor and labeled them as either FH or TF.

I wish I could find the post that was written (I think by @kbarnes701 ?) where they tried the different rear positions (RH, TR, and TM) in a x.x.4 and found very little (if any) difference between them.

It may not be possible to know the answer to this for sure without someone from Dolby saying so or a rigorous test setup that would allow a pan from front to rear to be analyzed closely to see what's going on.

I find it difficult to believe that these two companies are using drastically different DSP code when it comes to speaker placements. However, I'm willing to proven wrong, as it might affect my choice between a Denon and a Yamaha receiver.


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^^
Read above again. I never once said Yamaha wasn't doing Atmos correctly. on the contrary the quote you responded too---I actually say the processing algorithms are the same. 

I don't know the history on "presence" nomenclature and plead ignorance on it. I loved my Yamaha Atmos but only chose to get rid of it to move to an 11.1 pre that also had X and Auro and supported wides. 

D&m and Yamaha both support heights and tops. It's strictly a gui and nomenclature difference. It's honestly a non issue. It just convolutes discussions in a manufacturer agnostic Atmos discussion. As someone could say presence and others won't know what that means and it also doesn't detail mounting location. 

Don't draw negatives on Yamaha based on the nomenclature discussion someone brought up, to which I replied. In many ways I prefer the Yamaha over the Marantz.


----------



## chicago66

might have been posted already.. but when looking at 1145 pages who knows... dolby in there specs suggest side surrounds in standard side postion. yet Yamaha suggest that the side surrounds go in back of four ceiling speakers ... thoughts.. who is correct what is best option.. for use with Yamaha rx-a2040
snips of docs below


----------



## NorthSky

For the floor speakers: http://www.howtogeek.com/137896/how-to-place-your-speakers-to-maximize-your-home-theater-experience/

For the overheads: Dolby Atmos guide, and that Yamaha graph is very good (complete 7.1.4 sound bubble). 

In general, but with many variations; depending of the room, the listener's preference, and with movies and multichannel music listening.

How the sound mixers position their own monitors in their studio recording/mixing rooms should be a good indication.


----------



## virtualrain

chicago66 said:


> might have been posted already.. but when looking at 1145 pages who knows... dolby in there specs suggest side surrounds in standard side postion. yet Yamaha suggest that the side surrounds go in back of four ceiling speakers ... thoughts.. who is correct what is best option.. for use with Yamaha rx-a2040
> snips of docs below



As I mentioned in the Yamaha owners thread, the Dolby illustration is correct. That particular Yamaha illustration takes some liberties and I don't think is meant to serve as a placement guide for anything other than ceiling speakers (it should be accompanied by a disclaimer like "Your side-surrounds are closer than they appear"). 

There is a better illustration on page 19 of the Yamaha manual that shows angles for side surrounds (10-30-deg) which is close (but not identical) to the Dolby recommendation of 0-20-deg (normalizing to the same axis).


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> If you believe that Dolby would deliberately give out false information to the industry in general and to AV journalists in particular, then I guess it is possible.


I don't believe Dolby would deliberately do such thing. As I don't believe DTS would do a similar thing either. So what strikes me is that a claimed feature also not materialized in real products nor expected in the foreseeable future, is called BS when coming from DTS.



> Personally, I have no doubts about Dolby's integrity, so when they say that Atmos for Home can do positional rendering, and that no mainstream AVR makers have chosen to implement it, I believe them.


I respect that. But what's the origin of your doubts about DTS' integrity then? Why would in terms of believability DTS' claim of DTS:X being speaker lay-out agnostic be any different than Dolby's claim of home Atmos being able to determine the precise speaker locations?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> If you believe that Dolby would deliberately give out false information to the industry in general and to AV journalists in particular, then I guess it is possible. Personally, I have no doubts about Dolby's integrity, so when they say that Atmos for Home can do positional rendering, and that no mainstream AVR makers have chosen to implement it, I believe them.


I can believe that too. But in such a case I would have liked to see a different logo on the machine... If I read Dolby's material, I would expect a machine with an official Logo on to adhere to that.


----------



## kbarnes701

BigScreen said:


> I wish I could find the post that was written (I think by @kbarnes701 ?) where they tried the different rear positions (RH, TR, and TM) in a x.x.4 and found very little (if any) difference between them.


I've been following your recent posts on this topic with interest. My situation here is that I can mount the forward pair of overhead speakers at the correct angles for either a FH or TF designation, albeit they are on the ceiling. But the rearmost pair cannot be accommodated in the TR position, angle-wise, so my rearmost pair are designated as TM. Thus I can only run a FH+TM setup if I want both the forward and rearmost speakers to be within officially recommended angles of MLP. 

However, and without moving the speakers, I have done extensive listening tests with the overheads designated as FH+TM and as TF+TR. You will note that in the latter designation, the rearmost pair are out of spec, angle-wise, so that may have a bearing on what I am about to type. In the listening tests, I cannot reliably discern any audible difference at all between the FH+TM and TF+TR designations. I don't know what conclusions to draw from this but this is my experience. Currently, the overheads are designated as TF+TR which means my TR set are out of spec, but I still can't reliably hear any significant difference to the FH+TM designation, to which I will return sooner or later if past experience is any guideline 

Of course, in other rooms people may have different experiences, but I can't recall anyone giving a definitive answer on this.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Selden Ball said:


> If you haven't already, please consult with the Audyssey 101 & FAQ here on AVS. The instructions in the equipment owners' manuals are woefully inadequate.


Is it comkon to see calibration settings in the "negative" range? The calibration I am getting with the mic gives me results with center speaker and a few other speakers at -3 or -4 db...why so low?


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> Is it comkon to see calibration settings in the "negative" range? The calibration I am getting with the mic gives me results with center speaker and a few other speakers at -3 or -4 db...why so low?


It's normal. Audyssey attempts to get all your speakers playing at movie 'reference level' at 0dB on the MV. So when it calibrates it adjusts the speaker trims to that end. It's all explained in the Audyssey FAQ (linked in my sig).


----------



## Rocky3RD

kbarnes701 said:


> It's normal. Audyssey attempts to get all your speakers playing at movie 'reference level' at 0dB on the MV. So when it calibrates it adjusts the speaker trims to that end. It's all explained in the Audyssey FAQ (linked in my sig).


I am skimming through your Audyssey FAQ. I dont have a tripod and you dont recommend holding mic in my hand when calibrating. What is the other alternative?
Also you said that the mic must face the ceiling...The mic that came with my Onkyo looks round in shape, with a hole on one side, so which side must face the ceiling exactly? Thank you for your time


----------



## AllenA07

Rocky3RD said:


> I am skimming through your Audyssey FAQ. I dont have a tripod and you dont recommend holding mic in my hand when calibrating. What is the other alternative?
> Also you said that the mic must face the ceiling...The mic that came with my Onkyo looks round in shape, with a hole on one side, so which side must face the ceiling exactly? Thank you for your time


Buy a tripod, they're cheap and a very useful tool to have when trying to run Audyssey. When it comes to Audyssey you holding the mic in your hand while it runs is going to have a big effect on your results.


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> Buy a tripod, they're cheap and a very useful tool to have when trying to run Audyssey. When it comes to Audyssey you holding the mic in your hand while it runs is going to have a big effect on your results.


 Do you have any pics of illustrations showing the positioning of the mic during calibration? I cant figure out what side must face the ceiling


----------



## Stoked21

Rocky3RD said:


> I am skimming through your Audyssey FAQ. I dont have a tripod and you dont recommend holding mic in my hand when calibrating. What is the other alternative?
> Also you said that the mic must face the ceiling...The mic that came with my Onkyo looks round in shape, with a hole on one side, so which side must face the ceiling exactly? Thank you for your time


Hey Rocky,
Spend the $10-20 for a cheap tripod or I'm assuming it came with a cardboard one? Maybe redirect most, if not all, your questions to the Onkyo thread specific to your model. Conversations here are all about Atmos and it's less likely that anyone has the exact same mic as the HTIB. The other threads will really be much more helpful as they will have hands-on owner experience with your setup. 

Not running you off if there's a legitimate Atmos question....just trying to help you by redirecting your off-topic questions to a place where people have ownership experience and more knowledge about specific product issues and resolution.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> Hey Rocky,
> Spend the $10-20 for a cheap tripod or I'm assuming it came with a cardboard one? Maybe redirect most, if not all, your questions to the Onkyo thread specific to your model. Conversations here are all about Atmos and it's less likely that anyone has the exact same mic as the HTIB. The other threads will really be much more helpful as they will have hands-on owner experience with your setup.
> 
> Not running you off if there's a legitimate Atmos question....just trying to help you by redirecting your off-topic questions to a place where people have ownership experience and more knowledge about specific product issues and resolution.


 You are totally right, but I dont see any threads dedicated specifically to my Onkyo model


----------



## Selden Ball

Rocky3RD said:


> Do you have any pics of illustrations showing the positioning of the mic during calibration? I cant figure out what side must face the ceiling


The side with the hole in a bump should be up. The microphone's sensor element is inside the hole, at the bottom. If the hole you're talking about is threaded, that's the hole used for fastening it to a tripod. If one side doesn't have a bump, then the microphone is damaged. See the picture below. 

I'm guessing that you have one of the early Onkyo receivers which came with what's commonly called a "hockey puck" microphone and no microphone stand. If you can, you should consider getting a boom microphone stand like those used at musical events. They aren't very expensive (< $30 U.S.) and can be used to position the microphone very reliably.


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> I am skimming through your Audyssey FAQ. I dont have a tripod and you dont recommend holding mic in my hand when calibrating. What is the other alternative?
> Also you said that the mic must face the ceiling...The mic that came with my Onkyo looks round in shape, with a hole on one side, so which side must face the ceiling exactly? Thank you for your time


A cheap mic stand is the best solution - you can pick them up at music stores for about $20 or from the Internet of course. Failing that a camera tripod can be used. If you have neither you have a problem because there is no other way guaranteed to give you a good result. Holding it your hand is guaranteed to give you a poor result though. Some members have made makeshift arrangements using stepladders, pillows or towels, but really, 20 bucks isn't much of an investment to get a good result.

The side of the mic with the mic 'capsule' must face the ceiling. The bottom of the mic is the side with the mounting hole for the tripod or mic stand.

EDIT: gee, I thought I was replying in the Audyssey thread! Genuinely. So apologies for the OT post. Best to take this to the Audyssey thread, Rocky, if you want to continue the discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

London nightclub first to introduce Atmos speaker system...

http://stoneyroads.com/2015/12/mos-london-installing-state-of-the-art-dolby-sound-system

_"Move over Funktion-One. London club Ministry of Sound is getting a monster 60-speaker, 22-audio channel upgrade with the very first 'Dolby Atmos', a brand spanking new sound-system technology that's described as 'moving audio that flows all around you with breathtaking realism.'

The London club's main room will see the new rig installed mid to late January for a takeover by drum 'n' bass label Hospital Records - fitting to say the least!

Ministry CEO Lohan Presencer told media, "Dolby Atmos allows our patrons to experience the future of dance music, creating multidimensional soundscapes the likes of which have never been heard before in a nightclub environment. It's simply breathtaking."

This will be the first major Dolby sound system installed to a club. Previous homes of the cutting edge sound systems has been movie cinemas."_


----------



## PoppaC

kbarnes701 said:


> London nightclub first to introduce Atmos speaker system...
> 
> http://stoneyroads.com/2015/12/mos-london-installing-state-of-the-art-dolby-sound-system
> 
> _"Move over Funktion-One. London club Ministry of Sound is getting a monster 60-speaker, 22-audio channel upgrade with the very first 'Dolby Atmos', a brand spanking new sound-system technology that's described as 'moving audio that flows all around you with breathtaking realism.'
> 
> The London club's main room will see the new rig installed mid to late January for a takeover by drum 'n' bass label Hospital Records - fitting to say the least!
> 
> Ministry CEO Lohan Presencer told media, "Dolby Atmos allows our patrons to experience the future of dance music, creating multidimensional soundscapes the likes of which have never been heard before in a nightclub environment. It's simply breathtaking."
> 
> This will be the first major Dolby sound system installed to a club. Previous homes of the cutting edge sound systems has been movie cinemas."_


Take the shade off of a table lamp, and screw the mic into that. If you are sitting the lamp at the MLP, then it should be close in height to where to where your head would be if it is a full size lamp.

Done that many times.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> London nightclub first to introduce Atmos speaker system...
> 
> http://stoneyroads.com/2015/12/mos-london-installing-state-of-the-art-dolby-sound-system
> 
> _"Move over Funktion-One. London club Ministry of Sound is getting a monster 60-speaker, 22-audio channel upgrade with the very first 'Dolby Atmos', a brand spanking new sound-system technology that's described as 'moving audio that flows all around you with breathtaking realism.'
> 
> The London club's main room will see the new rig installed mid to late January for a takeover by drum 'n' bass label Hospital Records - fitting to say the least!
> 
> Ministry CEO Lohan Presencer told media, "Dolby Atmos allows our patrons to experience the future of dance music, creating multidimensional soundscapes the likes of which have never been heard before in a nightclub environment. It's simply breathtaking."
> 
> This will be the first major Dolby sound system installed to a club. Previous homes of the cutting edge sound systems has been movie cinemas."_



Well **** Keith.....

Seeing as you're across the pond and closest.....You need to open up "The Official Dolby Atmos Night Club Edition" thread.

Personally, I've now decided to convert my HT into a night club and will be following that thread exclusively. Nice knowing you all....Peace, I'm outta here.


----------



## Rocky3RD

kbarnes701 said:


> A cheap mic stand is the best solution - you can pick them up at music stores for about $20 or from the Internet of course. Failing that a camera tripod can be used. If you have neither you have a problem because there is no other way guaranteed to give you a good result. Holding it your hand is guaranteed to give you a poor result though. Some members have made makeshift arrangements using stepladders, pillows or towels, but really, 20 bucks isn't much of an investment to get a good result.
> 
> The side of the mic with the mic 'capsule' must face the ceiling. The bottom of the mic is the side with the mounting hole for the tripod or mic stand.
> 
> EDIT: gee, I thought I was replying in the Audyssey thread! Genuinely. So apologies for the OT post. Best to take this to the Audyssey thread, Rocky, if you want to continue the discussion.


 Definetely, I am moving my questions and comments in the Audyssey thread


----------



## Stoked21

PoppaC said:


> Take the shade off of a table lamp, and screw the mic into that. If you are sitting the lamp at the MLP, then it should be close in height to where to where your head would be if it is a full size lamp.
> 
> Done that many times.


Now that is ingenuity at it's finest. I love it!
You won't read that in any Onkyo manual!


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Well **** Keith.....
> 
> Seeing as you're across the pond and closest.....You need to open up "The Official Dolby Atmos Night Club Edition" thread.
> 
> Personally, I've now decided to convert my HT into a night club and will be following that thread exclusively. Nice knowing you all....Peace, I'm outta here.


Hahaha. Just thought our Atmos buddies would be interested to know that little tidbit...


----------



## BigScreen

Stoked21 said:


> ^^^^^
> Read above again. I never once said Yamaha wasn't doing Atmos correctly. on the contrary the quote you responded too---I actually say the processing algorithms are the same.
> 
> I don't know the history on "presence" nomenclature and plead ignorance on it. I loved my Yamaha Atmos but only chose to get rid of it to move to an 11.1 pre that also had X and Auro and supported wides.
> 
> D&m and Yamaha both support heights and tops. It's strictly a gui and nomenclature difference. It's honestly a non issue. It just convolutes discussions in a manufacturer agnostic Atmos discussion. As someone could say presence and others won't know what that means and it also doesn't detail mounting location.
> 
> Don't draw negatives on Yamaha based on the nomenclature discussion someone brought up, to which I replied. In many ways I prefer the Yamaha over the Marantz.


I apologize if my comments seemed directed only at you, which is I guess a result of quoting your message and not any others.

There were two points that I was addressing. The first was the semantics of the terminology used by the different companies, which isn't of much consequence beyond the possibility of confusing newcomers. The second was really the topic that I was trying to discuss further, and that's whether or not the implementation of Atmos was different between the various manufacturers. 

There was a statement by someone that, because Yamaha only specified front and rear overhead presence speaker positions instead of five (which is what D+M is doing), theirs was a lesser solution. That got me thinking, because if that were true, it could have an impact on the flexibility and performance of the end result. As I dove into that rabbit hole, it became clear to me that it was most likely only a difference in documentation and labeling, as opposed to an actual difference in what sounds were routed where.

Again, I apologize if I inadvertently assigned a position of conflict to you. Your message was purely a starting point for joining the discussion, and not me trying to prove you wrong. On the contrary, my hope was to engage you and others here in a conversation about whether my conclusions were correct or not.


----------



## Daryl L

PoppaC said:


> Take the shade off of a table lamp, and screw the mic into that. If you are sitting the lamp at the MLP, then it should be close in height to where to where your head would be if it is a full size lamp.
> 
> Done that many times.


That is brilliant!!! Would never have thought of that in my lifetime, and I'm great with makeshift ideas. I ordered this little cheap tripod from Amazon. It's kind of flimsy so I would not recommend it for cameras but it worked perfectly for the calibration mic.

Inexpensive tripod from Amazon


----------



## Rocky3RD

Daryl L said:


> That is brilliant!!! Would never have thought of that in my lifetime, and I'm great with makeshift ideas. I ordered this little cheap tripod from Amazon. It's kind of flimsy so I would not recommend it for cameras but it worked perfectly for the calibration mic.
> 
> Inexpensive tripod from Amazon


This one looks more suited for Onkyo "hockey puck" shaped mic...


http://www.amazon.com/PYLE-PRO-PMKS...TF8&qid=1449498956&sr=8-3&keywords=MIC+TRIPOD


----------



## cdelena

kbarnes701 said:


> A cheap mic stand is the best solution
> ...


I recently witnessed someone setup a theater and he just placed the mic on the headrest of the MLP seat (using a bit of tape on the wire). Said he always did it that way and thinks it works well.

What is the down side of this technique?


----------



## Daryl L

Rocky3RD said:


> This one looks more suited for Onkyo "hockey puck" shaped mic...
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/PYLE-PRO-PMKS...TF8&qid=1449498956&sr=8-3&keywords=MIC+TRIPOD


That's a tabletop small one. You would want something that stands on the floor so there's no reflections off the surface of the table you set that small one on.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Rocky3RD said:


> This one looks more suited for Onkyo "hockey puck" shaped mic...
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/PYLE-PRO-PMKS...TF8&qid=1449498956&sr=8-3&keywords=MIC+TRIPOD


Not really...this is made for a regular microphone that is cylindrical in shape.

You want something that has a 1/4 x 20 screw on top,that will screw into,the bottom of the Onkyo mic.

More like this...

http://www.amazon.com/Aluminum-Sams...&qid=1449503264&sr=1-8&keywords=camera+TRIPOD


----------



## kbarnes701

cdelena said:


> I recently witnessed someone setup a theater and he just placed the mic on the headrest of the MLP seat (using a bit of tape on the wire). Said he always did it that way and thinks it works well.
> 
> What is the down side of this technique?


Reflections from the seat back getting to the mic and spoiling the calibration. Possibly difficult to get it pointing directly up to the ceiling. And what did he rest it on for the other measurements?

It's good to know Rube Goldberg has found a new career as a calibrator anyway


----------



## bargervais

Rocky3RD said:


> I am skimming through your Audyssey FAQ. I dont have a tripod and you dont recommend holding mic in my hand when calibrating. What is the other alternative?
> Also you said that the mic must face the ceiling...The mic that came with my Onkyo looks round in shape, with a hole on one side, so which side must face the ceiling exactly? Thank you for your time


----------



## Rocky3RD

Daryl L said:


> That's a tabletop small one. You would want something that stands on the floor so there's no reflections off the surface of the table you set that small one on.


If your seated position is your bed (bedroom home theater), do you put the stand directly on the bed? Beds do not provide a very even surface like the floor. I was thinking about taping the mic to a lmap stand and sit the lamp stand on the bed where I usually seat


----------



## Daryl L

Rocky3RD said:


> If your seated position is your bed (bedroom home theater), do you put the stand directly on the bed? Beds do not provide a very even surface like the floor. I was thinking about taping the mic to a lmap stand and sit the lamp stand on the bed where I usually seat


Can you actually see me or something? lol Actually I am a quadriplegic paralyzed from the neck down and my regular seated position is in a bed over by the back left corner of my 13.6 x 13.6 room (bedroom home theater so to speak). My TV and speakers are centered on the opposite side of the room in front of me just to my right. Using the tripod I posted a link to earlier I usually do the first calibration dead center of the speakers and TV back between my side surround speakers. I have six calibration positions I can choose to calibrate to all 6 with my Denon but I usually just only go through three. So the center one as I mentioned first then over to the left a couple feet (right beside my bed) as recommended by Audyssey and then the third over a couple feet off center to the right where a chair is that guests sit in.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Daryl L said:


> Can you actually see me or something? lol Actually I am a quadriplegic paralyzed from the neck down and my regular seated position is in a bed over by the back left corner of my 13.6 x 13.6 room (bedroom home theater so to speak). My TV and speakers are centered on the opposite side of the room in front of me just to my right. Using the tripod I posted a link to earlier I usually do the first calibration dead center of the speakers and TV back between my side surround speakers. I have six calibration positions I can choose to calibrate to all 6 with my Denon but I usually just only go through three. So the center one as I mentioned first then over to the left a couple feet (right beside my bed) as recommended by Audyssey and then the third over a couple feet off center to the right where a chair is that guests sit in.


 Interesting, my Onkyo instructions manual says to perform just ONE calibration from the spot where I seat and watch TV from...
What I dont get is this: if the center speaker is EQ calibrated at -2db, how can that be any better than setting the center speaker at +4, for example? Wouldnt we get better sounding voices out of the center, at higher db?


----------



## Daryl L

Rocky3RD said:


> Interesting, my Onkyo instructions manual says to perform just ONE calibration from the spot where I seat and watch TV from...
> What I dont get is this: if the center speaker is EQ calibrated at -2db, how can that be any better than setting the center speaker at +4, for example? Wouldnt we get better sounding voices out of the center, at higher db?


It is designed to equal the SPL (sound pressure level) to where all speakers sound the same level of volume at the position of the microphone. How audible dialogue sounds from the center channel can very between shows and movies dependent on the way there mixed in the studios. I noticed last season I had absolutely no problem understanding dialogue on the TV show "Sleepy Hollow" but this season they mixed it as if it was being played in a large theater at reference level making it sometimes hard to understand dialogue. After calibrating this should be a place in the menu to go in to increase center channel level or dialog level if you choose to do so. The EQ part helps alleviate soundwaves and reflections while at the same time helping balance out tonal qualities of each speaker so they sound similar especially if all your speakers aren't timber matched.

Again as others have mentioned this is getting slightly off-topic of the subject matter in this thread. If I were you I would start a new thread for your model number system. I'm sure there's others on this forum that probably run the same system that could chime in there.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Daryl L said:


> It is designed to equal the SPL (sound pressure level) to where all speakers sound the same level of volume at the position of the microphone. How audible dialogue sounds from the center channel can very between shows and movies dependent on the way there mixed in the studios. I noticed last season I had absolutely no problem understanding dialogue on the TV show "Sleepy Hollow" but this season they mixed it as if it was being played in a large theater at reference level making it sometimes hard to understand dialogue. After calibrating this should be a place in the menu to go in to increase center channel level or dialog level if you choose to do so. The EQ part helps alleviate soundwaves and reflections while at the same time helping balance out tonal qualities of each speaker so they sound similar especially if all your speakers aren't timber matched.
> 
> Again as others have mentioned this is getting slightly off-topic of the subject matter in this thread. If I were you I would start a new thread for your model number system. I'm sure there's others on this forum that probably run the same system that could chime in there.


 Ok let's stay on topic: Dolby Atmos

Given tha tthe Height speakers (Atmos) work by bouncing off the ceiling and surrounding the audience area with surround sound, wouldnt it make sense that those specific speakers must be calibrated at higher db since they need to bounce off the ceiling and hit the audience rather than hit the audience directly? In other words, they have a further distance to travel than the other speakers, correct?


----------



## NorthSky

1. A mic stand with a boom is the best, because a tripod cannot be installed over the couch with its three legs touching the floor. 
With a real mic stand and boom the base remain on the floor, and with the boom you have total positioning mic freedom without adverse effects.
Those, the cheapest ones, start @ around $15 (on sale @ amazon).
♦ Here's one for only $20, on sale: http://www.amazon.ca/Microphone-360...513095&sr=1-15&keywords=microphone+stand+boom
{It comes with two different mic clips; no adapter necessary here.}

2. Use the maximum mic positions that your receiver would allow; with some it's eight, others six, others three, others two, and some only one.
But the maximum is recommended. 

3. Over you bed; mic stand with a boom, again the very best. 

4. The little black plastic "hockey puck" style mic; the small tiny hole pointing straight up (90°) to the ceiling, and of course the bigger hole underneath with the tread is the one that screws to the mic holder @ the end of the boom: you need an additional mic adapter for that proper size screw...only five bucks. * The adapter is only required for stands that don't offer two different mic clips. 

__________






__________

http://lifehacker.com/5981606/build-a-simple-microphone-stand-or-boom-pole-out-of-pvc-pipe


----------



## Chesebro

I have a Marantz 7009 with a 5-2-4 setup I want to upgrade to 7-2-4 I need help picking out an amp. My budget is 500 dollars. I also have a question about volume , do i have to adjust volume on the amp separate from my receiver?


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky said:


> 2. Use the maximum mic positions that your receiver would allow; with some it's eight, others six, others three, others two, and some only one.
> But the maximum is recommended.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okyNlhJ3Hvo


I would tend to disagree depending on your individual use. If the MLP is a fixed position, and that is the one you want to optimize; then you would want to run one mic position only. 

Multiple mic positions are just that, for multiple seats. You can't have your cake and eat it too though. By optimizing for multiple seats, you are compromising at the MLP. 

So pick your poison.


----------



## bass addict

Chesebro said:


> I have a Marantz 7009 with a 5-2-4 setup I want to upgrade to 7-2-4 I need help picking out an amp. My budget is 500 dollars. I also have a question about volume , do i have to adjust volume on the amp separate from my receiver?


No. For that price range I'd look at the Outlaw 5000. It's a little over budget, but a lot of amp for the money. Otherwise surf the classifieds. A nice Emotiva or Outlaw would work great and I'm sure you could find one to fit your budget.

If you only want/need the 2 channel then you could probably save a few bucks there. I have a nice 2 channel Rotel that I was using to power my rears before upgrading amps I'd probably cut loose cheap if you don't find anything else.


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> I would tend to disagree depending on your individual use. If the MLP is a fixed position, and that is the one you want to optimize; then you would want to run one mic position only.
> 
> Multiple mic positions are just that, for multiple seats. You can't have your cake and eat it too though. By optimizing for multiple seats, you are compromising at the MLP.
> 
> So pick your poison.


Alright, with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 I always take eight mic measurements @ eight different positions, but really tight within each other, a cluster. 
Next time I'll try only one, and I will listen for improvement. Thx for the tip.

♦ Spatial averaging: http://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...ion/anthem-room-correction-arc-system-part-1/

_"In using the ARC, I made nine measurements with the ARC microphone by placing the microphone around the perimeter of an 18-inch square to yield eight points. The ninth point was the center of the square. I then proceeded to make my measurements with the RplusD software. I placed my microphone in the same position as the ARC microphone and captured a response curve. I then moved my microphone to the next spot I had placed the ARC microphone and captured another response. I continued this process until I made nine coincident measurements, then averaged the results. Since the microphones were moved in space, this is referred to as a spatial average. ARC requires a minimum of 5 different placements of the microphone and allows up 10."_

But read the entire article; it is quite educative. And taking several measurements is a good thing.


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> I would tend to disagree depending on your individual use. If the MLP is a fixed position, and that is the one you want to optimize; then you would want to run one mic position only.
> 
> Multiple mic positions are just that, for multiple seats. You can't have your cake and eat it too though. By optimizing for multiple seats, you are compromising at the MLP.
> 
> So pick your poison.


Not always true. If you run ypao it tells you to run multiple seats. So this confirms what you stated. However if you run those multiple seats you will notice the measurement errors are minimized, results are averaged out for better accuracy and the distances are more precise..I'm talking fractions of an inch precise as opposed to half a foot off with one measurement. ..but yes you are compromising for all seating vs just the mlp. 

With audyssey 32 however, all 8 measurements are made in a 1-2' radius around mlp. Accomplishing all of the averaging, measurement precision and distance precision stated above. But this is all done with respect to mlp not for multiple seats. 

Even with multiple seat calibrations such as ypao, you get better results for the mlp if you allow it to measure in a tight pattern around the mlp's head. Your head and 2 opposing ears are never in the same position all the time in mlp anyway.


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> Not always true. If you run ypao it tells you to run multiple seats. So this confirms what you stated. However if you run those multiple seats you will notice the measurement errors are minimized, results are averaged out for better accuracy and the distances are more precise..I'm talking fractions of an inch precise as opposed to half a foot off with one measurement. ..but yes you are compromising for all seating vs just the mlp.
> 
> With audyssey 32 however, all 8 measurements are made in a 1-2' radius around mlp. Accomplishing all of the averaging, measurement precision and distance precision stated above. But this is all done with respect to mlp not for multiple seats.
> 
> Even with multiple seat calibrations such as ypao, you get better results for the mlp if you allow it to measure in a tight pattern around the mlp's head. Your head and 2 opposing ears are never in the same position all the time in mlp anyway.


If you dig through the Audyssey thread it was confirmed that multiple positions were for multiple seats; in fact it even went so far as to break down the sequencing for each mic placement. 

Think about it; how is time delay figured? If you measure 5 different positions that are all further/nearer the speaker than the MLP, it's going to average time delay based on the average. Same goes with FR. I can move my mic around by a couple feet and REW will spit out a noticeable FR difference. 

I have run both YPAO and Aud multiple times (more than I could count) and never have I had a more accurate FR when measuring multiple positions as opposed to one. Each room and situation is unique however so YMMV.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/73284-Microphone-placement-

_"The MultEQ algorithms require acoustical information from multiple locations within the listening area in order to create the appropriate room correction filters for each loudspeaker and subwoofer in the system. The first measurement is used to determine the distance and level of each speaker and it should be taken in the center-most position of the listening area. After that, it is recommended to take 6-8 more measurements throughout the listening area.

- The order of the measurements after the first one does not matter.
- It is very important to avoid extreme positions including up against the back wall or too far outside angle spanned by the front Left and Right speakers. Taking measurements in these positions will cause MultEQ to make unnecessary adjustments.
- Measurements should be at ear height with some small vertical variation."_


----------



## NorthSky

...And for the new immersive/spatial Dolby Atmos with eleven speakers and two subs, it matters even more that you take all mic measurements for all those speakers and with their sound dispersion in your room for best acoustical/spatial average. 

So, eight mics measurements will give you better overall results than only one mic measurement. Your Atmos setup will sound better, more harmonized together, better gelling.


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky said:


> _The first measurement is used to determine the distance and level of each speaker and it should be taken in the center-most position of the listening area. After that, it is recommended to take 6-8 more measurements *throughout the listening area.*
> _


North, you are always quick to post quotes from other sources, but how many of these quotes you regurgitate have actually been put to use by you personally? 

Throughout the listening area can certainly imply more than one seat, as would be understandable. 

As I mentioned; YMMV, but I personally have used REW to map FR plots running multiple mic sweeps with Aud. I will repeat; I have yet to see a better FR than when running from a singular position. Now multiple sweeps from the MLP certainly isn't going to hurt and can help eliminate anomalies; but averaging multiple positions is doing just that; averaging. If you are looking for an average FR than I suppose that would work perfectly fine. For those looking for the best FR at the MLP, then not so much.


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> Think about it; how is time delay figured? If you measure 5 different positions that are all further/nearer the speaker than the MLP, it's going to average time delay based on the average.


Speaker delays and levels are calibrated from the MLP only, not an average of multiple seating locations.


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky said:


> ...And for the new immersive/spatial Dolby Atmos with eleven speakers and two subs, it matters even more that you take all mic measurements for all those speakers and with their sound dispersion in your room for best acoustical/spatial average.
> 
> So, eight mics measurements will give you better overall results than only one mic measurement. Your Atmos setup will sound better, more harmonized together, better gelling.


One more reason why I disagree. Dolby gives a fairly wide angle range for installation of tops (a couple feet or more in some instances). A lot of people have found that the tops sound considerably better at say 135 degrees as opposed to 150 degrees. Dolby can't foresee all possible installations and therefore is going to supply you with a "safe" range to provide average results to all seating positions. 

I would be willing to bet that your installation is going to be different when running two or three rows as opposed to a singular row. Same reason why there is an option for MT and FT and RT. One size doesn't fit all and neither does Aud.


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> North, you are always quick to post quotes from other sources, but how many of these quotes you regurgitate have actually been put to use by you personally?
> 
> Throughout the listening area can certainly imply more than one seat, as would be understandable.
> 
> As I mentioned; YMMV, but I personally have used REW to map FR plots running multiple mic sweeps with Aud. I will repeat; I have yet to see a better FR than when running from a singular position. Now multiple sweeps from the MLP certainly isn't going to hurt and can help eliminate anomalies; but averaging multiple positions is doing just that; averaging. If you are looking for an average FR than I suppose that would work perfectly fine. For those looking for the best FR at the MLP, then not so much.


I have been using Audyssey automatic Room Calibration and EQ system for the last ten years. 
I am very familiar with Audyssey technology and its operational practicality and theory and computational algorithm processing and memorizing.

Forget the one seat; first nobody remains in a vice grip during two hours, second the multiple measurements are for acoustical room property from all the speakers, a spatial average, and multiple seating positions are best with XT32 PRO with up to 32 mic measurements.
But for three rows of seats, or more, usually no more than a dozen mic measurements are performed. ...Sixteen would be the max, from my readings. 

* Yamaha new pre/pro has a three-mic positioning boomerang, and it has horizontal and vertical axis measurements. I'm not sure exactly what Yamaha recommends, I just asked few minutes ago in its dedicated thread. 

♦ Dirac Live (9 mic position measurements): https://www.minidsp.com/applications/digital-room-correction/dirac-live-setup

I've been @ this for a long time. So one mic position measurement only; not in my book of acoustical room calculation. 
It's not the listener who is spatially measured and averaged, it's the room where the listener is in, and from all the speakers locations (13 here with Dolby Atmos for the full 7.2.4 setup, and more with Trinnov and JBL Synthesis systems).


----------



## bass addict

sdurani said:


> Speaker delays and levels are calibrated from the MLP only, not an average of multiple seating locations.


Fair enough. So we're still back to averaging the FR. 

From my testing I saw better results at just the MLP then I ever did with multiple. Now keep in mind I run multiple because I have two rows of seats. For someone who only cares about the MLP I'd do the measurements yourself and confirm.


----------



## batpig

bass addict said:


> Fair enough. So we're still back to averaging the FR.
> 
> From my testing I saw better results at just the MLP then I ever did with multiple. Now keep in mind I run multiple because I have two rows of seats. For someone who only cares about the MLP I'd do the measurements yourself and confirm.


Just to piggyback on others and make sure nobody tries to follow your "advice", the multiple mic positions is NOT necessarily about multiple seats. Spatial variation happens even within small differences (e.g. a single seat where you have two ears and your head moves around) and the point of multiple mic positions is to ensure that the correction algorithm is capturing this spatial variation. 

There is a ton of research on why multiple mic positions are a superior way to use auto REQ products -- it's no coincidence that Dirac, Audyssey etc. do it this way. Because it's a better way to do it and aligns more closely with how human hearing actually works. And this principle is NOT negated by the fact that you only care about one seat. If you only measure one position, you may end up "overcorrecting" for a highly localized phenomenon that disappears 3 inches to the left, creating more problems than you fix. The fact that you feel you've verified with REW is somewhat circular as I assume you're only measuring ONE point again with REW, so it's sort of self-referential. Obviously if your goal is to make the response graph look as pretty as possible at a single point in space than one-position calibration w Audyssey followed by a one-position measurement in REW is going to do it. But all that tells you is that the REQ solution is capable of hitting the target curve correctly _at that single point in space_. 

So for everyone reading -- even if you only care about one seat, DEFINITELY use multiple measurements so you are capturing some spatial variation in the correction. The proper way to do it is to "cluster" the mic positions within a small area, e.g. maybe take 4-5 measurements within a few inches of each other rather than the standard spread.

If you're happy with how things sound then awesome, but it's not good general advice for others.


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky said:


> I have been using Audyssey automatic Room Calibration and EQ system for the last ten years.
> I am very familiar with Audyssey technology and its operational practicality and theory and computational algorithm processing and memorizing.


I'd love to see your REW measurements.


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> Just to piggyback on others and make sure nobody tries to follow your "advice", the multiple mic positions is NOT necessarily about multiple seats. Spatial variation happens even within small differences (e.g. a single seat where you have two ears and your head moves around) and the point of multiple mic positions is to ensure that the correction algorithm is capturing this spatial variation.
> 
> There is a ton of research on why multiple mic positions are a superior way to use auto REQ products -- it's no coincidence that Dirac, Audyssey etc. do it this way. Because it's a better way to do it and aligns more closely with how human hearing actually works. And this principle is NOT negated by the fact that you only care about one seat. If you only measure one position, you may end up "overcorrecting" for a highly localized phenomenon that disappears 3 inches to the left, creating more problems than you fix. The fact that you feel you've verified with REW is somewhat circular as I assume you're only measuring ONE point again with REW, so it's sort of self-referential. Obviously if your goal is to make the response graph look as pretty as possible at a single point in space than one-position calibration w Audyssey followed by a one-position measurement in REW is going to do it. But all that tells you is that the REQ solution is capable of hitting the target curve correctly _at that single point in space_.
> 
> So for everyone reading -- even if you only care about one seat, DEFINITELY use multiple measurements so you are capturing some spatial variation in the correction. The proper way to do it is to "cluster" the mic positions within a small area, e.g. maybe take 4-5 measurements within a few inches of each other rather than the standard spread.
> 
> If you're happy with how things sound then awesome, but it's not good general advice for others.


I think you have misunderstood where I was going with this. My response is in regards to multiple positions more than multiple measurements. 

My original response was in regards to multiple positions for one seating area. Multiple positions is providing an average. How is this better than measure in one area (yes I am aware of moving the mic a few inches).

Sorry for the off topic rambling. I'll drop it.


----------



## NorthSky

The first mic position (MLP) is only that one for levels and distances to all your speakers and subs; all the other ones are for your room acoustic property, a spatial integration from all your speakers' sound dispersion and low bass frequencies, in the frequency range and in the time domain...more or less depending of the EQ system used and the digital filters type (parametric, IIR, FIR, or a combination). 

You are the only one person who is taking only one mic position measurement (from recent memory); and I said to you earlier...thank you for the tip. I will do it again, because I did it before but that was a long time ago, and see if I hear an improvement compared to my already learned common routine method. ...Eight mic measurements, and as recommended by Audyssey (in my case), and even with only one person @ the MLP.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Can someone let a mod know there is a problem with the forum/website. Recently, every time I click on the Atmos thread, I keep getting redirected to the Audyssey thread.


----------



## Kain

When you place acoustical treatments around the room, is having only one "layer" of treatments placed around the room at ear-level (all at ear-level) enough or do you need to vary the height the treatments are placed at on the walls?


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> I'd love to see your REW measurements.


If I say that I don't have any are you going to disqualify me?  ...And then say that one mic measurement is better than multiple ones? 
Is REW the ultimate proof? ...Because I'm sure a lot of people here can provide that. ...With one mic, and multiple mic measurements (averaging).

And then! Listening is the other part of the equation...REW graphs are nice to look @ and the complete picture includes your ears too. ...Your listening experience.


----------



## Daryl L

Molon_Labe said:


> Can someone let a mod know there is a problem with the forum/website. Recently, every time I click on the Atmos thread, I keep getting redirected to the Audyssey thread.


Maybe this thread has artificial intelligence/fuzzy logic and has detected that the Atmos discussion has somehow miraculously migrated to an Audyssey room correction and calibration discussion.


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> Fair enough. So we're still back to averaging the FR.
> 
> From my testing I saw better results at just the MLP then I ever did with multiple.
> *Now keep in mind I run multiple because I have two rows of seats.*
> For someone who only cares about the MLP I'd do the measurements yourself and confirm.


How many mic measurements are you taking all together? ...And are they all @ the exact same position?


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> When you place acoustical treatments around the room, is having only one "layer" of treatments placed around the room at ear-level (all at ear-level) enough or do you need to vary the height the treatments are placed at on the walls?


That is a complicated question with no easy answer and well outside the scope of the Atmos thread.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> Can someone let a mod know there is a problem with the forum/website. Recently, every time I click on the Atmos thread, I keep getting redirected to the Audyssey thread.


Sorry for my one contribution but I had to correct some misinformation for the public good. I agree that this should be dropped for now.


----------



## bass addict

NorthSky said:


> How many mic measurements are you taking all together? ...And are they all @ the exact same position?


North, I'm not going to belabor the point. This has gotten way off topic. 

To answer your question I am taking multiple readings from different positions. Why would I take multiple measurements from the same position? I even mentioned earlier that my REW graphs vary significantly when moving just a few inches. 

I'll say it one last time as either I didn't word it right, it's being misinterpreted, or I misread your initial response to the guy asking about measurements. 

If the MLP is all you care about, moving the mic all over the place and taking multiple measurements is going to provide an average. This is not to be confused with multiple measurements in a very small area at the MLP. 

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> Sorry for my one contribution but I had to correct some misinformation for the public good. I agree that this should be dropped for now.


You are so altruistic.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Can someone let a mod know there is a problem with the forum/website. Recently, every time I click on the Atmos thread, I keep getting redirected to the Audyssey thread.


I think the new guy with the HTIB started it. Let's blame him!


----------



## batpig

bass addict said:


> If the MLP is all you care about, moving the mic all over the place and taking multiple measurements is going to provide an average. This is not to be confused with multiple measurements in a very small area at the MLP.
> 
> I'll leave it at that.


Ok criticism retracted  

It sounded like you were advocating single point measurements, but now I see you are just advocating a tighter cluster. 

Back to Atmos!


----------



## NorthSky

bass addict said:


> I think you have misunderstood where I was going with this. My response is in regards to multiple positions more than multiple measurements.
> 
> My original response was in regards to multiple positions for one seating area. Multiple positions is providing an average. How is this better than measure in one area (yes I am aware of moving the mic a few inches).
> 
> Sorry for the off topic rambling. I'll drop it.


Don't sweat it; it's actually very good that you brought it in. The discussion is fruitful. And furthermore it's important with Dolby Atmos that all speakers are taken into consideration in their sound propagation...from above. Multiple mic position measurements will provide the additional help from the new four Dolby Atmos overheads. And Audyssey is providing it (14 channel speakers: 9.1.4 but with 12 running simultaneously - 7.1.4), but not Dirac Live (MiniDSP for only 8 channels: 7.1). ...Equalized from multiple mic position measurements. ...For best spatial averaging within a good MLP coverage, and not slaved to the vice grip stratagem with only one mic position (between your two ears), and only one mic measurement (between your two ears).

It's all good man.


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> Can someone let a mod know there is a problem with the forum/website. Recently, every time I click on the Atmos thread, I keep getting redirected to the Audyssey thread.


Lol :grin:


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> When you place acoustical treatments around the room, is having only one "layer" of treatments placed around the room at ear-level (all at ear-level) enough or do you need to vary the height the treatments are placed at on the walls?


Couple feet above and below ear level (four feet all together) is a good starting point for most people. 

And then bass traps in the corners. ...And acoustical sound absorbing panels on the ceiling too, for the first reflections....except with Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers where you want your ceiling preferably flat and reflective, and no higher than 14 feet.


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> Couple feet above and below ear level (four feet all together) is a good starting point for most people.
> 
> And then bass traps in the corners. ...And acoustical sound absorbing panels on the ceiling too, for the first reflections....except with Dolby Atmos up-firing speakers where you want your ceiling preferably flat and reflective, and no higher than 14 feet.


Thanks.

Would it be OK to get acoustic panels that are four feet in length and position the middle of the panel at ear-level (which would make them extend a bit above and below ear-level) or is it better to get smaller panels and place a few above and a few below ear-level? Based on what you stated, I'm assuming it is OK to use ceiling panels with ceiling speakers? Lastly, how important are bass traps? How much of a difference do they make? I know you place them in the corners of the room but do they have to extend from the floor to the ceiling or only cover a portion of the corner? What if I cannot place bass traps in my room due to the layout and other factors or what if I can only place bass traps in some of the corners of the room?


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> I think it has more to do with the issue that you have lied previously about product ownership in this thread. Most of your posts are regurgitations of other peoples' information. It is one thing to present findings that have been observed in your system/home, but quite the contrary to argue something as factual because you read it on the Internet and happen to agree with it. When someone owns a product or is having a problem, I find it disingenuous and fraudulent to post feedback if there is no personal experience. Posting links is to other's research, articles, or findings is perfectly fine and a valid contribution; but, to claim others' information as your own is plagiarism. Long story short. You are being called out while the BS flag is raised.


Listen, I'll make it very clear for the last time: One member kept stubbornly asking me if I had a Dolby Atmos receiver (his intention was very clear), I said yes, that one was waiting in my closet (it was very clear what it meant to him). ...Just to please him, and with humor. Case closed, stop coming back on that and read the full story before you accuse me publicly of lying. I have repeated several times that I don't have my new pre/pro yet, and this is not a requirement to post in this thread and I still can give my opinion. It's easy to misinterpret and read what you only want to read. 

That's it man.


----------



## quinn4528

Chesebro said:


> I have a Marantz 7009 with a 5-2-4 setup I want to upgrade to 7-2-4 I need help picking out an amp. My budget is 500 dollars. I also have a question about volume , do i have to adjust volume on the amp separate from my receiver?


You can pick up a Rotel 1080 for about $400 used on EBay. Very good amp @ 200 watts per channel. There is no volume control on most power amps. Volume is controlled from the SR7009 receiver.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Would it be OK to get acoustic panels that are four feet in length and position the middle of the panel at ear-level (which would make them extend a bit above and below ear-level) or is it better to get smaller panels and place a few above and a few below ear-level? Based on what you stated, I'm assuming it is OK to use ceiling panels with ceiling speakers? Lastly, how important are bass traps? How much of a difference do they make? I know you place them in the corners of the room but do they have to extend from the floor to the ceiling or only cover a portion of the corner? What if I cannot place bass traps in my room due to the layout and other factors or what if I can only place bass traps in some of the corners of the room?


That was exactly what I meant. And the other method you just mentioned is perfect too; usually those panels are 2' by 2', but they can be larger too, like 2' by 4', or/and 4' by 4'. 

And yes, you can still use absorbing panels on your ceiling with Dolby Atmos overhead speakers; you just put the panels between the front pair, roughly; 
you have to calculate (mirror and laser) the first reflection points from your ceiling with your three main front speakers @ the MLP. 

Bass traps are important too. Easy to position; they go mainly in the corners and are usually four feet high...you put one on top of each other for 8-foot ceiling. For their benefit I recommend that you check some dedicated threads here regarding room treatments and absorbing panels and bass traps; acoustic room treatments. 
* If you cannot put the bass traps in your corners they can also go between; check dedicated threads...we're in Dolby Labs territory here, Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

Chesebro said:


> I have a Marantz 7009 with a 5-2-4 setup I want to upgrade to 7-2-4 I need help picking out an amp. My budget is 500 dollars. I also have a question about volume , do i have to adjust volume on the amp separate from my receiver?


This one got buried by the impromptu Audyssey thread it seems. I used Rotel many moons ago and liked them as someone else mentioned. Though I've heard their quality has slipped???? Not sure on that statement.

A couple members here turned me onto pro amps (Crown XLS1500) as I was weighing Outlaw and Emotiva options to move from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 as well. At the end of the day, the Crown's were a fraction of the price, higher power, and lower cost among other things. [email protected] 2ch at $199 delivered! More than enough to drive my high efficiency 600-1200W speakers. True there is a slight hiss with them if you have a 90s-100db sensitivity speaker. But I have yet to find a drawback to them. But for $1600 you can pickup 16chs to take you well into the future with 9.1.6....Hard to beat.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> I think the new guy with the HTIB started it. Let's blame him!


The irony here is... if he has an Onkyo Atmos HTIB with the small puck mic, it doesn't have Audyssey. It's using their Accu-EQ solution. Kinda' surprised that no one has said that yet, at least that I can tell. This discussion of Audyssey is wholly irrelevant to his particular receiver.

On a more Atmos-related subject, I know that Audyssey's DynamicEQ boosts certain frequency ranges in the surrounds as volume comes down from reference (at which no boost is performed)... but does anyone know if it performs a similar boost to the Atmos top speakers? I understand the notion of boosting surround presence as you lower level to maintain the perceived surround balance, but with Atmos, that would mean that you would also be shifting sounds further toward the bed layer and away from the tops if they aren't receiving a similar boost in presence. Seems like those two technologies would kinda' clash, since there would be no way to restore the proper balance between bed-layer surrounds and height/top channels. I'm curious as to whether the folks at Audyssey have taken any of this into account when providing MultEQ XT32 for these Atmos products.


----------



## NorthSky

My guess; it does. Because it affects all 7.1 channels, and also all 11.1 channels (Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X).


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The irony here is... if he has an Onkyo Atmos HTIB with the small puck mic, it doesn't have Audyssey. It's using their Accu-EQ solution. Kinda' surprised that no one has said that yet, at least that I can tell. This discussion of Audyssey is wholly irrelevant to his particular receiver.


Not necessarily true, he could have an OLDER model Onkyo with Audyssey 2EQ (they used to use puck mics years ago) which of course would mean that, instead of not having Audyssey, it instead doesn't have Atmos... making the whole thing even less relevant to this thread 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> On a more Atmos-related subject, I know that Audyssey's DynamicEQ boosts certain frequency ranges in the surrounds as volume comes down from reference (at which no boost is performed)... but does anyone know if it performs a similar boost to the Atmos top speakers? I understand the notion of boosting surround presence as you lower level to maintain the perceived surround balance, but with Atmos, that would mean that you would also be shifting sounds further toward the bed layer and away from the tops if they aren't receiving a similar boost in presence.


I asked Chris Kyriakakis about this directly and, no, there is no boost to the Atmos speakers, only the surrounds.

Also FYI but you are conflating two different things that DEQ does. The surround boost is simply a level boost that is fixed based on the volume level. It is NOT just boosting certain frequency ranges. That is the loudness compensation portion of DEQ. Ironically, DEQ's surround boost would be much less annoying if they had done it the way you were saying


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NorthSky said:


> My guess; it does. Because it affects all 7.1 channels, and also all 11.1 channels (Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X).


Well, no offense... but your _guess_ about technology you don't even have hands-on experience with in no way answers the question. So I'll discount it accordingly.


batpig said:


> I asked Chris Kyriakakis about this directly and, no, there is no boost to the Atmos speakers, only the surrounds.


See, NorthSky? THAT is how you answer a question... ACTUAL FACTS! 


batpig said:


> Also FYI but you are conflating two different things that DEQ does. The surround boost is simply a level boost that is fixed based on the volume level. It is NOT just boosting certain frequency ranges. That is the loudness compensation portion of DEQ. Ironically, DEQ's surround boost would be much less annoying if they had done it the way you were saying


But when you engage DynamicEQ, it's doing both things... right? Either way, the point remains that if nothing is done to the Atmos speakers, it's basically just throwing off the intended bed-to-height image placement. Makes me wonder if that's why some people boost their height-channel levels post-calibration.


----------



## NorthSky

Oh, I shouldn't have guessed I guess, and just wait for the correct answer. ;-) ...But it's cool man because now I know.


----------



## sdrucker

Stoked21 said:


> This one got buried by the impromptu Audyssey thread it seems. I used Rotel many moons ago and liked them as someone else mentioned. Though I've heard their quality has slipped???? Not sure on that statement.
> 
> A couple members here turned me onto pro amps (Crown XLS1500) as I was weighing Outlaw and Emotiva options to move from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 as well. At the end of the day, the Crown's were a fraction of the price, higher power, and lower cost among other things. [email protected] 2ch at $199 delivered! More than enough to drive my high efficiency 600-1200W speakers. True there is a slight hiss with them if you have a 90s-100db sensitivity speaker. But I have yet to find a drawback to them. But for $1600 you can pickup 16chs to take you well into the future with 9.1.6....Hard to beat.



Just out of curiosity, have you tried the XLS1500s with your height speakers (assumedly, you're not running 600-1200W ceiling speakers), and did you pick up any hiss from the amps if you went that route?


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> I am using XLS1500's for my Atmos speakers. My speakers are 96bd and there is no hiss audible in the seating position. If you put your ear to the speaker, you can hear some slight hiss.



The speakers that I'm looking at (Dolby enabled Atlantic Tech or possibly the Triad Silver modules) have efficiency closer to 85 to 90 db than 96 db. Hopefully we'll be OK and the hiss won't be detectible at any meaningful listening volume.


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> Also FYI but you are conflating two different things that DEQ does. The surround boost is simply a level boost that is fixed based on the volume level. It is NOT just boosting certain frequency ranges. That is the loudness compensation portion of DEQ. Ironically, DEQ's surround boost would be much less annoying if they had done it the way you were saying





Jeremy Anderson said:


> But when you engage DynamicEQ, it's doing both things... right? Either way, the point remains that if nothing is done to the Atmos speakers, it's basically just throwing off the intended bed-to-height image placement. Makes me wonder if that's why some people boost their height-channel levels post-calibration.


No, you're still not quite getting it. There are two components to DEQ -- the loudness compensation (freq response shaping) that is done to ALL CHANNELS, and the surround boost which is ONLY applied to the surround channels.

So the statement that "nothing is done to the Atmos speakers" is false. They still get the standard loudness comp portion of DEQ which is applied to the entire signal and all channels, the part that is missing is only the simple level boost which is applied to the surround speakers. 

I think the phenomenon of people boosting the height channels is not very common, and is mostly restricted to those who want more "wow" effect from overhead sounds. I certainly don't do it (in fact I lower the level of my TM speakers but that's my own problem due to room issues) and I would bet the vast majority don't either, just leaving the levels as set by the auto-cal program. (note: this last paragraph is speculative, not factual)


----------



## Stoked21

sdrucker said:


> Just out of curiosity, have you tried the XLS1500s with your height speakers (assumedly, you're not running 600-1200W ceiling speakers), and did you pick up any hiss from the amps if you went that route?


Noooo....my ICs are not that high wattage (yet). They are however powered with XLS1500. I have the 16 chs for 9.x.6 (subs are plate amps not XLS). So both pairs of my tops are ran by Crown. I do not run anything in bridge mode as [email protected] really is sufficient for massive SPL. 

I use low-cost Niles ICs for my .4. I believe they are about 150W or so. They don't provide a sensitivity in their specs. I would have guessed in the mid 80s-90db. However, Audyssey routinely sets them in the -3 to -7 range, which is on par with all the high sensitivity (~95-100db) JTRs around them. And they're also further away from MLP. So I could be wrong and the Niles may be low to mid 90s.

Point being, I hear hiss in the bed level. I've never heard hiss from the ICs, but they are 7.5-8.5' up (TR on lowered soffit). EDIT: But the TR is only 40" or so above and a little behind MLP. Maybe when I go with matched, high sensitivity Atmos speakers it will become more noticeable.

Frankly, the hiss isn't that bad at all on the XLS series, once you gain match. My furnace, refrigerator and STB generate more noise than the hiss from the amps/high sensitivity combo.


----------



## jkasanic

sdrucker said:


> The speakers that I'm looking at (Dolby enabled Atlantic Tech or possibly the Triad Silver modules) have efficiency closer to 85 to 90 db than 96 db. Hopefully we'll be OK and the hiss won't be detectible at any meaningful listening volume.


No hiss here with the XLS1500 and my MK Sound S150 mkii's but I haven't seen any published specs on their efficiency. I believe Keih has stated they're in the 87-90 dB range BICBW.


----------



## Stoked21

jkasanic said:


> No hiss here with the XLS1500 and my MK Sound S150 mkii's but I haven't seen any published specs on their efficiency. I believe Keih has stated they're in the 87-90 dB range BICBW.


On second read of @sdrucker hiss question. I just realized he said "at meaningful listening level". Any hiss I'm referring to is when nothing is on. Movie is paused, you're in the room by yourself, no furnace running etc. Then I hear it. I haven't tried to measure it Cus quite frankly it would be so low. You have to be listening for it. If you press play it's completely undetectable. I think majority is from the closer surrounds not Atmos ICs


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> No, you're still not quite getting it. There are two components to DEQ -- the loudness compensation (freq response shaping) that is done to ALL CHANNELS, and the surround boost which is ONLY applied to the surround channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the statement that "nothing is done to the Atmos speakers" is false. They still get the standard loudness comp portion of DEQ which is applied to the entire signal and all channels, the part that is missing is only the simple level boost which is applied to the surround speakers.



You're nitpicking. The point remains that the overheads are not receiving any level boost, so bed-to-height imaging would be shifted toward the bed the further down from reference you get. And you couldn't mitigate it with the DEQ offset without also reducing the loudness compensation applied. So it seems like the only way to maintain correct imaging between heights and surrounds in the bed would be to not use DEQ. It seems to me like this is something Audyssey should have taken into consideration with Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

Chesebro said:


> I have a Marantz 7009 with a 5-2-4 setup I want to upgrade to 7-2-4 I need help picking out an amp. My budget is 500 dollars. I also have a question about volume , do i have to adjust volume on the amp separate from my receiver?


Several people already provided amp references.
My advice is to use the new amp to power the main speakers, and let the internal amps power the other speakers 
Volume will be controlled from the 7009.


----------



## Nightlord

Stoked21 said:


> This one got buried by the impromptu Audyssey thread it seems. I used Rotel many moons ago and liked them as someone else mentioned. Though I've heard their quality has slipped???? Not sure on that statement.


They have had some class-D amps out that obviously did not match the 1080/1090.

The 1090 has been put out under yet another name - 1590 - and matches the sound quality and power quite closely - though they have stricter protection ciruits in it now, so it's not recommended for speakers dropping to low impedances.


----------



## Ironman1718

*Pioneer elite a-20 amp*

All, 

Quick question, I currently have a pioneer sc-97 for a 7.2.2 setup but would like to go 7.2.4, I know I need an external 2 channel amp. Would the elite a-20 work, how would I hook it to the receiver?

Just a little unsure. Thank you


----------



## Nightlord

Applemike68 said:


> All,
> 
> Quick question, I currently have a pioneer sc-97 for a 7.2.2 setup but would like to go 7.2.4, I know I need an external 2 channel amp. Would the elite a-20 work, how would I hook it to the receiver?
> 
> Just a little unsure. Thank you


Well, generally you don't use an integrated amp externally. But of course you can, but it would need some thinking or experimenting to find out were to set the volume knob... and then never move it.
It's quite low on power compared to the sc-97 so I guess driving the extra ceiling speakers would be max I'd want to use if for in any case.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

Nightlord said:


> Well, generally you don't use an integrated amp externally. But of course you can, but it would need some thinking or experimenting to find out were to set the volume knob... and then never move it.
> It's quite low on power compared to the sc-97 so I guess driving the extra ceiling speakers would be max I'd want to use if for in any case.


I'll eventually have the same dilemma. I assumed the best approach would be to buy an amp that is more powerful than my SC-97 and use it to drive my FR & FL (RP-280F). Is that correct?


----------



## smurraybhm

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> I'll eventually have the same dilemma. I assumed the best approach would be to buy an amp that is more powerful than my SC-97 and use it to drive my FR & FL (RP-280F). Is that correct?


Only if you have front speakers that require the extra output. You could purchase a Mini-X from Emotiva for $149 and have plenty of power from it to drive a pair of your tops. As a former Pioneer Elite owner, the Pioneer will have plenty of gas for most speakers, unless you just are craving the mysterious headroom provided by additional wattage or have some really difficult to drive speakers. 

By the way you can see I bought some decent amps for my front 3, in all honesty they sound the same now as they did when I had them hooked up to my Denon. Welcome to Atmos.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

smurraybhm said:


> Only if you have front speakers that require the extra output. You could purchase a Mini-X from Emotiva for $149 and have plenty of power from it to drive a pair of your tops. As a former Pioneer Elite owner, the Pioneer will have plenty of gas for most speakers, unless you just are craving the mysterious headroom provided by additional wattage or have some really difficult to drive speakers.
> 
> By the way you can see I bought some decent amps for my front 3, in all honesty they sound the same now as they did when I had them hooked up to my Denon. Welcome to Atmos.


Here's the specs on my Klipsch front mains.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE 32-25kHz +/- 3dB
SENSITIVITY 98dB @ 2.83V / 1m
POWER HANDLING (CONT/PEAK) 150W / 600W
NOMINAL IMPEDANCE 8 Ohms Compatible
CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 1750Hz
HIGH FREQUENCY DRIVER 1” Titanium Dome LTS Tweeter with Hybrid Tractrix Horn
LOW FREQUENCY DRIVER Dual 8” Cerametallic Cone Woofers

So my decision comes down to buying a cheap amp for a pair of my tops, or spend a little more on an amp to drive my front mains. I really don't know what I should do...


----------



## smurraybhm

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Here's the specs on my Klipsch front mains.
> FREQUENCY RESPONSE 32-25kHz +/- 3dB
> SENSITIVITY 98dB @ 2.83V / 1m
> POWER HANDLING (CONT/PEAK) 150W / 600W
> NOMINAL IMPEDANCE 8 Ohms Compatible
> CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 1750Hz
> HIGH FREQUENCY DRIVER 1” Titanium Dome LTS Tweeter with Hybrid Tractrix Horn
> LOW FREQUENCY DRIVER Dual 8” Cerametallic Cone Woofers
> 
> So my decision comes down to buying a cheap amp for a pair of my tops, or spend a little more on an amp to drive my front mains. I really don't know what I should do...


The Emo isn't a cheap amp (on sale right now) and should you decide to do something else later it will sell quickly. Klipsch are known to be easy to drive, your Pioneer should have no trouble making them sing. No need to spend $ on more amplification unless you are so inclined. Get your system up and running, enjoy it and then decide later if you want more wattage up front - unlikely but at my age I've learned to never say never


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

smurraybhm said:


> The Emo isn't a cheap amp (on sale right now) and should you decide to do something else later it will sell quickly. Klipsch are known to be easy to drive, your Pioneer should have no trouble making them sing. No need to spend $ on more amplification unless you are so inclined. Get your system up and running, enjoy it and then decide later if you want more wattage up front - unlikely but at my age I've learned to never say never


Cool, thanks for the input.


----------



## Ironman1718

Nightlord said:


> Well, generally you don't use an integrated amp externally. But of course you can, but it would need some thinking or experimenting to find out were to set the volume knob... and then never move it.
> It's quite low on power compared to the sc-97 so I guess driving the extra ceiling speakers would be max I'd want to use if for in any case.


So what would be a good amp to drive two ATMOS speakers? Emo? Or other?

Thanks


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> The Emo isn't a cheap amp (on sale right now) and should you decide to do something else later it will sell quickly. Klipsch are known to be easy to drive, your Pioneer should have no trouble making them sing. No need to spend $ on more amplification unless you are so inclined. Get your system up and running, enjoy it and then decide later if you want more wattage up front - unlikely but at my age I've learned to never say never


I have the Pioneer SC-65 and I use the Emotiva XPA-3 for the L/C/R channels in a 11.1 configuration. (DTS Neo X + THX - Cinema Mode.) I am all ready for Dolby Atmos but will wait for the 2016 AVR releases in hopes that the DTS X issue is resolved and available. 

Having the extra amplifier frees up internal AVR amps to be designated for my ultimate .4 Dolby Atmos height speakers. Pioneer is great in that you can turn off L/C/R and hopefully (with the new Dolby Atmos receivers) reassign the amps to your height speakers. I know Denon works that way.

I believe there is benefit to having a separate amplifier for the three main channels but you will get lots of opinions on that. I can tell you this - - for two channel stereo, there is no comparison between the Emotiva versus the standalone Pioneer SC-65. Hands down, more punch and power (especially bass) compared to when I had two channel stereo via my SC-65 alone.

Besides - - with today's AVR's, you need another amplifier to get to a .4 Atmos setup.


----------



## Flinthead

About to install drywall for my theater/man cave basement build. I have ran all the wiring for a 5.1.4 setup but have been thinking about going with the 7.1.4, meaning i'll need to run wire for the rear surrounds. My question here is - Can I mount these effectively on the back wall (30' from screen)? I have JBL FLC and surrounds and Niles for the ceiling... will probably buy matching JBL surrounds for the back. Attached are a couple of layout drawings.

Thanks!


----------



## smurraybhm

Personally, put the blindfold on and have a friend switch back and forth and I doubt our new owner of an Atmos receiver would be able to hear the $600 difference. He has very efficient speakers, I say hear how they sound before you run out and spend more money on amplification that shouldn't make them sound any better  As a former Elite owner too, one thing an Elite receiver doesn't need is help sounding good. When someone has just spent a good chunk of change on an amp, you really think that the old brain isn't going to say to those ears that is sounds better because you've got that new amp. 

I would like to tell everyone my Sierras and Horizon sounded remarkably better once I hooked them up to my Outlaw amps, unfortunately as much as I try to hear a difference I can't. They still sound great, I feel better knowing I've got 250 watts per channel on my front 3 speakers, finally got rid of that I need separate amps bug, but was it a necessary purchase to improve the sound - no. 

What has made a difference is spending some funds on woofage - music and movies. If one is looking to make an upgrade, that is a great place to start along with room treatments, etc.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> Personally, put the blindfold on and have a friend switch back and forth and I doubt our new owner of an Atmos receiver would be able to hear the $600 difference. He has very efficient speakers, I say hear how they sound before you run out and spend more money on amplification that shouldn't make them sound any better  As a former Elite owner too, one thing an Elite receiver doesn't need is help sounding good. When someone has just spent a good chunk of change on an amp, you really think that the old brain isn't going to say to those ears that is sounds better because you've got that new amp.
> 
> I would like to tell everyone my Sierras and Horizon sounded remarkably better once I hooked them up to my Outlaw amps, unfortunately as much as I try to hear a difference I can't. They still sound great, I feel better knowing I've got 250 watts per channel on my front 3 speakers, finally got rid of that I need separate amps bug, but was it a necessary purchase to improve the sound - no.
> 
> What has made a difference is spending some funds on woofage - music and movies. If one is looking to make an upgrade, that is a great place to start along with room treatments, etc.


Understood. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you need the extra amplifier for a Dolby Atmos .4 configuration, correct? (Denon X5200)


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> Understood. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you need the extra amplifier for a Dolby Atmos .4 configuration, correct? (Denon X5200)


Which can be accomplished for $100 - to cover a pair of the tops/heights. No need to run out and spend more unless you are so inclined. I had the Outlaws prior to my entry into Atmos - that amp/wattage bug I referred to 

There is only one "consumer" level receiver out there right now made by Onkyo that does not require 2 channels of amplification if the receiver is capable of a 7.x.4 setup.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> Which can be accomplished for $100 - to cover a pair of the tops/heights. No need to run out and spend more unless you are so inclined. I had the Outlaws prior to my entry into Atmos - that amp/wattage bug I referred to
> 
> There is only one "consumer" level receiver out there right now made by Onkyo that does not require 2 channels of amplification if the receiver is capable of a 7.x.4 setup.


Hey, now that that "itch" has been scratched (amps) - - why not sell the Outlaws, pocket the money and get a $100 solution (less on eBay?) for your Atmos height speakers? I also take it that your height speakers do not have much bass (small satellites?). No need to push that woofer....


----------



## Nightlord

Applemike68 said:


> So what would be a good amp to drive two ATMOS speakers? Emo? Or other?
> 
> Thanks


If finances exist, I would recommend getting a big good amp for the front pair and use the AVR to power the extra ceiling pair - if it can be configured like that. 

I have never listened to Emotiva, and I have only seen a review of one and in that case I could just as well go with a NAD.

In any case, best bang for the buck will be a used one. Go back a number of years on a Nad, Rotel will give great value. A NAD 2100 might be possible to find dirt cheap. Rotel 991? Denon made a few really good ones back in time too.


----------



## Nightlord

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Here's the specs on my Klipsch front mains.
> FREQUENCY RESPONSE 32-25kHz +/- 3dB
> SENSITIVITY 98dB @ 2.83V / 1m
> POWER HANDLING (CONT/PEAK) 150W / 600W
> NOMINAL IMPEDANCE 8 Ohms Compatible
> CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 1750Hz
> HIGH FREQUENCY DRIVER 1” Titanium Dome LTS Tweeter with Hybrid Tractrix Horn
> LOW FREQUENCY DRIVER Dual 8” Cerametallic Cone Woofers
> 
> So my decision comes down to buying a cheap amp for a pair of my tops, or spend a little more on an amp to drive my front mains. I really don't know what I should do...


Those speakers would put out about 115dB at ten feet listening distance with 128W... I think most AVRs would drive them satisfactory unless we're not talking about a huge room here.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> North, you are always quick to post quotes from other sources, but how many of these quotes you regurgitate have actually been put to use by you personally?
> 
> Throughout the listening area can certainly imply more than one seat, as would be understandable.
> 
> As I mentioned; YMMV, but I personally have used REW to map FR plots running multiple mic sweeps with Aud. I will repeat; I have yet to see a better FR than when running from a singular position. Now multiple sweeps from the MLP certainly isn't going to hurt and can help eliminate anomalies; but averaging multiple positions is doing just that; averaging. If you are looking for an average FR than I suppose that would work perfectly fine. For those looking for the best FR at the MLP, then not so much.


It doesn't average them. It measures multiple positions so that it can find commonalities in the room. If, for example, there is a peak that occurs at only one mic position and not at all at the other 7, Audyssey will ignore it, or at least treat it differently, rather than correct for that one anomaly at the expense of the other positions. If, OTOH, it finds a peak at all the mic positions it knows that it can safely deal with it without compromising any of the other positions. That is why it is always important to measure using all the available mic positions, even if you only care about one seat. Just make the mic pattern 'tighter' for one seat calibrations, but it is still important to run them all. As you said yourself, when measuring with REW moving the mic just a small amount can make a significant difference in results, so it is important to give Audyssey the information to work with too.

AFAIK all REQ systems - ARC, Dirac, YPAO, Audyssey, MCACC etc - all use multiple positions for these reasons.



bass addict said:


> If you dig through the Audyssey thread it was confirmed that multiple positions were for multiple seats; in fact it even went so far as to break down the sequencing for each mic placement.


That isn’t true. Mic positions for Audyssey have nothing at all to do with seats.



bass addict said:


> Think about it; how is time delay figured? If you measure 5 different positions that are all further/nearer the speaker than the MLP, it's going to average time delay based on the average.


No, that isn't correct. Audyssey doesn’t 'average' anyway in the way you say it does, but even if it did, delays and levels are measured for once only and that is for the first mic position (at MLP).


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> I think you have misunderstood where I was going with this. My response is in regards to multiple positions more than multiple measurements.
> 
> My original response was in regards to multiple positions for one seating area. Multiple positions is providing an average. How is this better than measure in one area (yes I am aware of moving the mic a few inches).
> 
> Sorry for the off topic rambling. I'll drop it.


You are hung up on one thing - averaging - and unfortunately it isn't correct. Multiple mic positions and multiple measurements are essential if you are going to use Audyssey correctly, even for a single seat, as batpig says.


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> You are hung up on one thing - averaging - and unfortunately it isn't correct. Multiple mic positions and multiple measurements are essential if you are going to use Audyssey correctly, even for a single seat, as batpig says.


OK. Even though one is only using one position, they should go ahead and measure all over the room from now on.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> No hiss here with the XLS1500 and my MK Sound S150 mkii's but I haven't seen any published specs on their efficiency. I believe Keih has stated they're in the 87-90 dB range BICBW.


Yes - they are, IIRC, about 86dB/w/m. Stereophile reckoned about 88dB/w/m. Not very sensitive, not very insensitive. 4 ohm of course so they need a suitable amp. High power handling means their lack of super sensitivity isn't really an issue, so long as one has decent amps of course to drive them with. The user manual says they can take 400 watts RMS.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> OK. Even though one is only using one position, they should go ahead and measure all over the room from now on.


Who said that?


----------



## SeaNile

For those of you with a non riser setup. How far off the ground are you mounting the rear and side surrounds in the 7.4 Atmos setup? Looks like on the Dolby diagram the rear and side surrounds are slightly above ear level?


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> OK. Even though one is only using one position, they should go ahead and measure all over the room from now on.


Let's keep mic positions and seating positions differentiated. 

With ypao I followed "directions" and measured multiple seating positions with the numerous mic positions. My Atmos always seemed weak and off. Without researching I decided to experiment and started measuring a cluster around mlp instead. Bingo. Perfect Atmos effects. 

Switched to Audyssey on Marantz. Gui pics show multiple seating positions for mic placement but verbiage says within 2' of mlp. That's when I verified my ypao adaptation of clustering around mlp made sense. 

No one is (necessarily) advocating measuring at multiple seating positions. We are advocating multiple mic positions around one seating position: mlp. I always shoot for a 1' radius but I think I'm going to try to cut that down to a 3" radius or so. This does has significant impacts on Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

bass addict said:


> OK. Even though one is only using one position, they should go ahead and measure all over the room from now on.


*It's not what we all keep responding back to you.*
You NEED to make multiple measurements for Audissey to work correctly.
If you're only interested with a single-seat solution then do:
1) MLP
2) MLP + 10 inch left
3) MLP + 10 inch right
4) MLP + 10 inch front
5) MLP + 10 inch back
6) MLP + 10 inch left-front
7) MLP + 10 inch right-front
8) MLP + 10 inch higher

... creating a kind of clustered measure all around your MLP


----------



## bass addict

pasender91 said:


> *It's not what we all keep responding back to you.*
> You NEED to make multiple measurements for Audissey to work correctly.
> If you're only interested with a single-seat solution then do:
> 1) MLP
> 2) MLP + 10 inch left
> 3) MLP + 10 inch right
> 4) MLP + 10 inch front
> 5) MLP + 10 inch back
> 6) MLP + 10 inch left-front
> 7) MLP + 10 inch right-front
> 8) MLP + 10 inch higher
> 
> ... creating a kind of clustered measure all around your MLP


Good freaking grief. I have stated clearly in previous posts that I am in total agreement with measuring around a small cluster. I was opposed to measuring at different seating positions when the MLP was most important.

How about we go back to arguing about Atmos installations.


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> Good freaking grief. I have stated clearly in previous posts that I am in total agreement with measuring around a small cluster. I was opposed to measuring at different seating positions when the MLP was most important.
> 
> How about we go back to arguing about Atmos installations.


Well s*%#. I think we're running out of Atmos topics to argue about. We have to find some subject over which we can verbally assault and insult each other. Don't be the party pooper and take away the outlet for our pent up angst!


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> Well s*%#. I think we're running out of Atmos topics to argue about. We have to find some subject over which we can verbally assault and insult each other. Don't be the party pooper and take away the outlet for our pent up angst!


LOL. It wouldn't be AVS if we didn't.


----------



## Selden Ball

SeaNile said:


> For those of you with a non riser setup. How far off the ground are you mounting the rear and side surrounds in the 7.4 Atmos setup? Looks like on the Dolby diagram the rear and side surrounds are slightly above ear level?


An Atmos question!!!

The lower level of speakers should be just barely high enough that there's an unobstructed line-of-sight (line-of-ear?) from all of the listeners' seats to all of the speakers. They should be as low as possible so that there's the maximum amount of audible difference in direction between them and the overhead speakers.


----------



## bass addict

Selden Ball said:


> An Atmos question!!!
> 
> The lower level of speakers should be just barely high enough that there's an unobstructed line-of-sight (line-of-ear?) from all of the listeners' seats to all of the speakers. They should be as low as possible so that there's the maximum amount of audible difference in direction between them and the overhead speakers.


So I'm assuming in the case of a rear riser you should mount the surround at the highest line of ear  ?


----------



## Selden Ball

bass addict said:


> So I'm assuming in the case of a rear riser you should mount the surround at the highest line of ear  ?


Right. You don't want the speaker's sound to be obstructed by someone's head, if at all possible.


----------



## dvdwilly3

bass addict said:


> So I'm assuming in the case of a rear riser you should mount the surround at the highest line of ear  ?


That's what I did. I have 2 rows of seats.
I have the 2nd row sitting on an 8" riser.
The side surrounds are firing into the center of the room and into the space between the 1st and 2nd rows. It pulls the side sound slightly forward and works well enough for the first row.
My rear surrounds are tucked into my rear corners behind the second row of seats on the riser.
So, both side and rear surrounds are right at ear height on the riser. A bit high for the front row, but it works well.
It works perfectly for the middle seat (of 3) in the second row...my seat.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> That's what I did. I have 2 rows of seats.
> I have the 2nd row sitting on an 8" riser.
> The side surrounds are firing into the center of the room and into the space between the 1st and 2nd rows. It pulls the side sound slightly forward and works well enough for the first row.
> My rear surrounds are tucked into my rear corners behind the second row of seats on the riser.
> So, both side and rear surrounds are right at ear height on the riser. A bit high for the front row, but it works well.
> It works perfectly for the middle seat (of 3) in the second row...my seat.


FWIW I tried it with the side surrounds firing directly into the 2nd row, and I found it a bit "hot" for my taste.
Splitting the difference works well for both rows.


----------



## bass addict

dvdwilly3 said:


> That's what I did. I have 2 rows of seats.
> I have the 2nd row sitting on an 8" riser.
> The side surrounds are firing into the center of the room and into the space between the 1st and 2nd rows. It pulls the side sound slightly forward and works well enough for the first row.
> My rear surrounds are tucked into my rear corners behind the second row of seats on the riser.
> So, both side and rear surrounds are right at ear height on the riser. A bit high for the front row, but it works well.
> It works perfectly for the middle seat (of 3) in the second row...my seat.


That's almost exactly my setup with exception of rear surrounds (they are mounted about 1/3 inside room). My side surrounds are almost split between first and second row. They come up to right at 110 degree angle for first row. They are currently Axiom QS8's and about 4' above my listening position to keep them out of the way. The Volt 10's I'm building will be getting semi flush mounted into my columns (narrow room with narrow columns) to keep them out of the walking path as much as possible. 





dvdwilly3 said:


> FWIW I tried it with the side surrounds firing directly into the 2nd row, and I found it a bit "hot" for my taste.
> Splitting the difference works well for both rows.


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> Hey, now that that "itch" has been scratched (amps) - - why not sell the Outlaws, pocket the money and get a $100 solution (less on eBay?) for your Atmos height speakers? I also take it that your height speakers do not have much bass (small satellites?). No need to push that woofer....


Well we really are getting personal today - sorry forgot we were talking about the size of my woofers - good news is I have Minons to check out when time permits. Next week bring MI Rogue with Atmos too 

I keep forgetting a speaker with a 5.25 inch woofer that can easily get down to 80 isn't adequate for my tops, but it sounds good to me so i won't take it any further since we beat the crap out of that topic already. My second pair of Def Techs arrived today so I will get to tinker this weekend. 

As for selling my amps, thanks for the advice, but you may not know the eventual goal is to switch over to using a 88A for room correction so I have a few more to buy - most likely a couple of Outlaw 5000s in case you're wondering. 

Deep breath Rico, forgive me for trying to save a guy some $ when they own easy to drive speakers. The 80 or 90 watts the Pioneer will put out per channel under normal circumstances is more than enough for his speakers to hit reference. We all are familiar with the calculator from Crown that will validate that claim as well as what the additional 100 or 200 watts will bring in regards to output - not much per $ spent. I bought my amps knowing that, thanks to our fellow forum members. Life is sort, I had the itch so what the heck (not quite as eloquent as Northsky) why not scratch it.

Forgive me as I am one of those AVSers who believes if an amp is designed properly then they all sound the same. That excludes some of our high end amps that are known to tweak things so as to provide that signature sound. Try as I may, I haven't been able to hear headroom, I keep trying though  

Cheers, I'm out of this one, I'm keeping my amps and inadequate tops just because I can


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> Well we really are getting personal today - sorry forgot we were talking about the size of my woofers - good news is I have Minons to check out when time permits. Next week bring MI Rogue with Atmos too
> 
> I keep forgetting a speaker with a 5.25 inch woofer that can easily get down to 80 isn't adequate for my tops, but it sounds good to me so i won't take it any further since we beat the crap out of that topic already. My second pair of Def Techs arrived today so I will get to tinker this weekend.
> 
> As for selling my amps, thanks for the advice, but you may not know the eventual goal is to switch over to using a 88A for room correction so I have a few more to buy - most likely a couple of Outlaw 5000s in case you're wondering.
> 
> Deep breath Rico, forgive me for trying to save a guy some $ when they own easy to drive speakers. The 80 or 90 watts the Pioneer will put out per channel under normal circumstances is more than enough for his speakers to hit reference. We all are familiar with the calculator from Crown that will validate that claim as well as what the additional 100 or 200 watts will bring in regards to output - not much per $ spent. I bought my amps knowing that, thanks to our fellow forum members. Life is sort, I had the itch so what the heck (not quite as eloquent as Northsky) why not scratch it.
> 
> Forgive me as I am one of those AVSers who believes if an amp is designed properly then they all sound the same. That excludes some of our high end amps that are known to tweak things so as to provide that signature sound. Try as I may, I haven't been able to hear headroom, I keep trying though
> 
> Cheers, I'm out of this one, I'm keeping my amps and inadequate tops just because I can


Lighten up, Francis. Glad that you are trying to save him some money but then again, he'll never know the joy of wasting $$$ on a gazillion amps when 50 wpc will suffice. Or, busting his gonads to only find out that he needs a new component rack, as well. The joy of separates. 

As long as you are happy, that's all that counts. No offense intended. Maybe too much sarcasm on my side and my apologies if it hit you wrong. Having lived the sole AVR solution versus a combined amplifier added to the mix -- I'll never go back. I'm always surprised by folks who buy an amplifier and can't discern any power or sonic difference -- especially with two channel stereo if you are using an amplifier for the main L/C/R channels. I know this debate precedes Adam & Eve and folks rarely change their opinion. 

For a real esoteric discussion, are you not entertained by the room correction debate? A true "Angle of the Dangle" discussion with intense dialog on proper positioning and scientific measuring algorithms. Personally, I found Pioneer's room correction wanting as I ended up adjusting the channel levels individually. It probably has to do with my lack of hearing due to all the rock concerts I went to when I was younger. That explains my bias towards separates versus a single AVR. 

At any rate, enjoy your HT however you set it up as that's what these forums are all about.


----------



## virtualrain

At the risk of alienating myself, I have to say I watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles tonight. Now before you run me through with a pitch fork let me say... Atmos  and Megan Fox 

The sound track is actually pretty good... Lots of overhead action and some killer bass. The fight scenes with the robot Samurai were well mixed... That thing reminded me a lot of a Transformer so I wasn't surprised to see Michael Bay's name in the credits as a producer. In fact this movie clearly has his finger prints all over it. 

The turtles are goofy but the story behind them, as with many super hero movies, is interesting but requires a large dose of suspension of disbelief. 

Visually, the best thing going for this flick is Megan Fox. I may be alone, but I actually can't focus on anything in the scene besides her whenever she's on screen. She is mesmerizing. Pathetic.


----------



## Movie78

*ATMOS DEMO 2015 
*


This is LEAF on crack

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4or4ez07kv40z5i/Shattered.m2ts?dl=0


----------



## aaranddeeman

Movie78 said:


> *ATMOS DEMO 2015
> *
> 
> 
> This is LEAF on crack
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/4or4ez07kv40z5i/Shattered.m2ts?dl=0



Thanks for sharing..


----------



## Ironman1718

Ricoflashback said:


> I have the Pioneer SC-65 and I use the Emotiva XPA-3 for the L/C/R channels in a 11.1 configuration. (DTS Neo X + THX - Cinema Mode.) I am all ready for Dolby Atmos but will wait for the 2016 AVR releases in hopes that the DTS X issue is resolved and available.
> 
> Having the extra amplifier frees up internal AVR amps to be designated for my ultimate .4 Dolby Atmos height speakers. Pioneer is great in that you can turn off L/C/R and hopefully (with the new Dolby Atmos receivers) reassign the amps to your height speakers. I know Denon works that way.
> 
> I believe there is benefit to having a separate amplifier for the three main channels but you will get lots of opinions on that. I can tell you this - - for two channel stereo, there is no comparison between the Emotiva versus the standalone Pioneer SC-65. Hands down, more punch and power (especially bass) compared to when I had two channel stereo via my SC-65 alone.
> 
> Besides - - with today's AVR's, you need another amplifier to get to a .4 Atmos setup.


Hi Rico,


This is a great setup, I currently have the SC-97 and currently run 7.2.2 but want to expand to 7.2.4. I will buy an XPA-3 to run the Fronts and Center than have the Elite run the rest. 


Quick question, If you go this route and have the XPA-3 run the fronts and center am I to assume, the Rears and Front back will be wired this way. From the back of the Pioneer receiver you have Surround and Surround back, Top middle for one pair of Atmos and extra 1 for the other pair of atmos speakers and leave fronts and center empty. Is this correct? Thank you


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> No offense intended. Maybe too much sarcasm on my side and my apologies if it hit you wrong.
> 
> For a real esoteric discussion, are you not entertained by the room correction debate? A true "Angle of the Dangle" discussion with intense dialog on proper positioning and scientific measuring algorithms. Personally, I found Pioneer's room correction wanting as I ended up adjusting the channel levels individually. It probably has to do with my lack of hearing due to all the rock concerts I went to when I was younger. That explains my bias towards separates versus a single AVR.


No offense taken, just messing with you as I waited for my wife to finish up some work so we could watch the latest episode of Fargo last night. Personally I like Pio's room correction, just missed not having anything applied to the sub, but they fixed it last year. I would have likely been using Pioneer for Atmos right now if they hadn't limited their receivers to only 9 channels. Good to see they fixed that this year.

Rock concerts as a youth. I'm with you on that one; Rush (at age 15 in a ballroom - the song Lakeside Park is named after that place by the way), Grand Funk Railroad, Head East, Foreigner, Kiss, Rolling Stones, etc. - those were the days when you had some bands that made a whole album of music instead of a couple of songs like a lot of artists today - maybe. Fortunately Tidal and Spotify help me avoid buying albums with limited song value. When I was waiting to start grad school a long time ago at age 26 I worked in a Atlanta record store, a fellow employee and I pulled tickets early and went to see Rush again from about the 5th row. I had to use napkins to protect my hearing, even then it was still crazy loud. Sorry the ramble, you evoked some fond memories of a era gone by. Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll 

Now it's Atmos on my sofa with the dogs


----------



## darryn

Applemike68 said:


> Hi Rico,
> 
> 
> This is a great setup, I currently have the SC-97 and currently run 7.2.2 but want to expand to 7.2.4. I will buy an XPA-3 to run the Fronts and Center than have the Elite run the rest.
> 
> 
> Quick question, If you go this route and have the XPA-3 run the fronts and center am I to assume, the Rears and Front back will be wired this way. From the back of the Pioneer receiver you have Surround and Surround back, Top middle for one pair of Atmos and extra 1 for the other pair of atmos speakers and leave fronts and center empty. Is this correct? Thank you


That would be intuitive, but assuming it works the same as the SC-95 it is not the correct way to hook up this particular model of receiver. 

Instead, you need to hook the terminals to the front speakers to your top rear atmos speakers and the extra1 terminals to the top front Atmos speakers. You also need to go into the settings menu prior to running MCAAC and select 7.2.4 Front Pre Out.

Also, if you would like to turn off the center channel amplifier, you can set AMP in the audio settings to Center Off.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Applemike68 said:


> Hi Rico,
> 
> 
> This is a great setup, I currently have the SC-97 and currently run 7.2.2 but want to expand to 7.2.4. I will buy an XPA-3 to run the Fronts and Center than have the Elite run the rest.
> 
> 
> Quick question, If you go this route and have the XPA-3 run the fronts and center am I to assume, the Rears and Front back will be wired this way. From the back of the Pioneer receiver you have Surround and Surround back, Top middle for one pair of Atmos and extra 1 for the other pair of atmos speakers and leave fronts and center empty. Is this correct? Thank you


That sounds right but I'd confirm with Pioneer. I know the Denon X5200w can reassign the internal amps but I'm not sure about the Pioneer Elite SC-97 that you have. You should be able to go into the settings and turn off the L/C/R channels and use the pre-outs with the Emotiva XPA-3 for those speakers. Then, the "Top Middle" for one pair of Atmos speakers and the other "Extra 1" should be configurable - - but I'm not exactly sure if Pioneer does it that way or makes you use a separate amp, period, for the Dolby Atmos "height/ceiling" speakers. (Which would be really ridiculous but stranger things have happened.)

So - I'd confirm with Pioneer just to be safe. I'd like to see generation two of the Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos AVR's and hopefully, the price will drop and it will have DTS X. I'm a year away and it would be great to have 7.1.6 capability, but that might not happen next year, technology wise or even within my price range. I'm ready to make the leap but would like more AVR Dolby Atmos options.

Good luck with your implementation and let us know how it goes!


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> No offense taken, just messing with you as I waited for my wife to finish up some work so we could watch the latest episode of Fargo last night. Personally I like Pio's room correction, just missed not having anything applied to the sub, but they fixed it last year. I would have likely been using Pioneer for Atmos right now if they hadn't limited their receivers to only 9 channels. Good to see they fixed that this year.
> 
> Rock concerts as a youth. I'm with you on that one; Rush (at age 15 in a ballroom - the song Lakeside Park is named after that place by the way), Grand Funk Railroad, Head East, Foreigner, Kiss, Rolling Stones, etc. - those were the days when you had some bands that made a whole album of music instead of a couple of songs like a lot of artists today - maybe. Fortunately Tidal and Spotify help me avoid buying albums with limited song value. When I was waiting to start grad school a long time ago at age 26 I worked in a Atlanta record store, a fellow employee and I pulled tickets early and went to see Rush again from about the 5th row. I had to use napkins to protect my hearing, even then it was still crazy loud. Sorry the ramble, you evoked some fond memories of a era gone by. Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll
> 
> Now it's Atmos on my sofa with the dogs


Pass the bong, please. (I cannot confirm nor deny this statement and can only say that any "research" I did back in my youth was purely scientific in nature and that I did NOT exhale.)

Boy - Grand Funk Railroad and the Detroit Rock & Roll scene. What memories. Yes, the old concert days where the ringing of the amplifiers in your head (thanks Bob Seger) continued on long after the show was over. Hey, who has the Doritos bag?


----------



## Rocky3RD

I think the best way to test your Atmos speakers is by downloading some uncompressed demos tha tyou can find online. After calibrating my Onkyo Atmos 5.1.2 system I tested the results with a few of those demos and that will give you a good idea of what capabilities your atmos speakers have


----------



## Flinthead

About to install drywall for my theater/man cave basement build. I have ran all the wiring for a 5.1.4 setup but have been thinking about going with the 7.1.4, meaning i'll need to run wire for the rear surrounds. My question here is - Can I mount these effectively on the back wall (30' from screen)? I have JBL FLC and surrounds and Niles for the ceiling... will probably buy matching JBL surrounds for the back. Attached are a couple of layout drawings.

Thanks!


----------



## batpig

Flinthead said:


> About to install drywall for my theater/man cave basement build. I have ran all the wiring for a 5.1.4 setup but have been thinking about going with the 7.1.4, meaning i'll need to run wire for the rear surrounds. My question here is - Can I mount these effectively on the back wall (30' from screen)? I have JBL FLC and surrounds and Niles for the ceiling... will probably buy matching JBL surrounds for the back. Attached are a couple of layout drawings.
> 
> Thanks!


Obviously the deer heads should be converted into speakers. 

I think it will be fine to mount them back there as long as you use higher sensitivity speakers to help mitigate the distance. Since you're already using JBL you are probably good to go with lots of options.


----------



## Nightlord

batpig said:


> Obviously the deer heads should be converted into speakers.
> 
> I think it will be fine to mount them back there as long as you use higher sensitivity speakers to help mitigate the distance. Since you're already using JBL you are probably good to go with lots of options.


A fullrange in the mouth and a couple of tweeters out the ears could do nicely, I agree.


----------



## ahmedreda

Just read this at bluray forum and it seems like the Martian is not going to be released with Atmos on bluray. I hope that is not going to be a trend.


----------



## NorthSky

ahmedreda said:


> Just read this at bluray forum and it seems like the Martian is not going to be released with Atmos on bluray. I hope that is not going to be a trend.



This is FOX studios, so most probably DTS:X on UHD Blu.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ahmedreda said:


> Just read this at bluray forum and it seems like the Martian is not going to be released with Atmos on bluray. I hope that is not going to be a trend.


I saw it at a Dolby Cinema in Dallas during CEDIA with a few fellow AVS'ers and I can comfortably opine that we didn't think it showcased the Atmos format. Personally, I have to wonder if it was actually released in Atmos or if it was a marketing error and it was really just 7.1. It didn't have any noticeable object based audio traits in the steering of sound effects or music.

Though, you must remember that Fox won't be releasing immersive audio capable titles until UHD Blu-ray's debut next spring.


----------



## sdurani

ahmedreda said:


> Just read this at bluray forum and it seems like the Martian is not going to be released with Atmos on bluray. I hope that is not going to be a trend.


Already is a trend. The Martian is from 20th Century Fox; they don't release any of their theatrical Atmos mixes on Blu-ray.


----------



## eddysnake

Need some clarification on this. If you have a 5.1.2 setup and are watching something that is sending a dd7.1 
+ signal, will Dolby surround be able to matrix that into your 5.1.2 setup or is that not possible because you already have an incoming 7 channel feed coming in and there is nothing to upmix into 5.1.2 because it's already 7.1?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

eddysnake said:


> Need some clarification on this. If you have a 5.1.2 setup and are watching something that is sending a dd7.1
> + signal, will Dolby surround be able to matrix that into your 5.1.2 setup or is that not possible because you already have an incoming 7 channel feed coming in and there is nothing to upmix into 5.1.2 because it's already 7.1?


The back surround channels of the 7.1 mix are folded into the side surround channels and matrix logic steering is still used to pull certain audio cues into the overhead speakers when Dolby Surround upmixing is engaged.


----------



## sdurani

eddysnake said:


> ...will Dolby surround be able to matrix that into your 5.1.2 setup


Sure. Downmixing will fold 4 surround channels of the 7.1 track to your 2 surround speakers. Upmixing will extract height info for your 2 overhead speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Dolby has started encouraging Atmos for music: 

https://vimeo.com/147811521


----------



## dkwong

Too bad Vimeo streaming doesn't support Atmos. Maybe they should host this video on Vudu or something.


----------



## Movie78

Just finish watching the new release ATMOS Demo.



> *Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc* (Sep 2015)
> 
> Trailers:
> *Audiosphere* : Amazing
> *Shattered* : Leaf on crack
> 
> Audio Only:
> *747 Takeoff *: I felt like i was under a Airplane takeoff
> *Helicopter Demo* : Overheard sensation
> *The Encounter* : Hear it to believe it
> *Rainstorm* : Better have an umbrella
> *Santeria* : I hope of these flying birds don't s$$h on me
> 
> Video Games:
> *Star Wars Battlefront* : A must watch,with Atmos video game has a better future
> 
> Test Tones:
> *Test Tones 5.1.2
> Test Tones 5.1.4
> Test Tones 7.1.2
> Test Tones 7.1.4*
> The Test Tones are must have for anyone using ATMOS


Dolby is way ahead, DTS:X has a lot of catch up tp do


----------



## Movie78

Delete!!!


----------



## toofast68

Movie78 said:


> Just finish watching the new release ATMOS Demo.
> 
> Dolby is way ahead, DTS:X has a lot of catch up tp do


ok, so I must have missed this....there is a new Atmos Demo Disk ?


----------



## Movie78

toofast68 said:


> ok, so I must have missed this....there is a new Atmos Demo Disk ?


Sep 2015 version


----------



## SoundChex

Movie78 said:


> Just finish watching the new release ATMOS Demo. Dolby is way ahead, DTS:X has a lot of catch up to do.




In my admittedly limited understanding, *DTS:X* is intended to deliver "the same" functionality as *Dolby AC-4* and *Dolby Atmos* combined. However, we must wait to see just how true this is until both *DTS:X* and *Dolby AC-4* are running in consumer products . . . _and only after that might we be able to judge whether the apparently monolithic architecture of *DTS:X* offers an advantage over its *Dolby* competitor, or vice versa._  


_


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> Sep 2015 version


You didn't say where you got it?


----------



## mcascio

I've been out of the loop for a while.

Has anyone found a place to download the entire Sep 2015 Atmos Demo Disc?

I found this site, but no download link that I could find:
http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/11/30/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-sep-2015/


----------



## Rocky3RD

sdurani said:


> Dolby has started encouraging Atmos for music:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/147811521


I am not into music much, more into film. I like music within the context of a movie (score)


----------



## Rocky3RD

So where can we find the 2015 Dolby Atmos demo disc?


----------



## Movie78

Buy on eBay or call DOLBY


----------



## dvdwilly3

Movie78 said:


> Buy on eBay or call DOLBY


Does anyone know whether the Dolby Atmos test tones themselves would be copyrighted material?

Not the movie or other clips, but just the the test tones produced by Dolby?

For that matter, is something like a test tone even copyrightable?


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Does anyone know whether the Dolby Atmos test tones themselves would be copyrighted material?
> 
> Not the movie or other clips, but just the the test tones produced by Dolby?
> 
> For that matter, is something like a test tone even copyrightable?


Every original work is automatically protected by copyright unless specifically placed in the public domain. This will apply to the Dolby trailers, test tones and anything else they have originated. A tone isn't copyrightable in itself, but it is when it is used in a specific way (eg to test an Atmos system).


----------



## Stoked21

Movie78 said:


> Buy on eBay or call DOLBY


Has anyone in the US just called Dolby and received a disc? I haven't "wasted" my time attempting this as I just assumed the answer would be no. If you have received one by calling them, free or charge and how much? I'd happily pay a fair amount for one from them vs a bootleg on eBay...


----------



## Movie78

Just kidding about eBay!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rew452

I did try, but the answer was a No unless I was retailer or pro-installer.

Very disappointing that they have not made this available to end users. I would not even mind paying a reasonable fee for it either.

Had to do with content, as I recall.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I did not call; however, I sent them an email.

To their credit, I did get a response from them. They asked if I was an installer, and whether I could furnish business credentials of some sort.

I forget what...IRS tax ID or something which I obviously id noy have. Their response was, "Sorry, no. Installers only."


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I did not call; however, I sent them an email.
> 
> To their credit, I did get a response from them. They asked if I was an installer, and whether I could furnish business credentials of some sort.
> 
> I forget what...IRS tax ID or something which I obviously id noy have. Their response was, "Sorry, no. Installers only."


Dolby really needs to get their head out of their collective a55es.

Most people will not go to a professional installer just to upgrade their home installation. The services would cost as much or more than the hardware. 

Doubling the cost of adoption of the new technology will put people off even worse than the base cost of adoption.

And, part of the DIY approach is certainly the ability to demonstrate to yourself if noone else that you have, in fact, done it correctly.

I think that they are strangling the golden goose that they have before it can lay any more golden eggs...


----------



## Movie78

Time to make friends with the GeekSqaud guys at Bestbuy!


----------



## dschulz

dvdwilly3 said:


> Dolby really needs to get their head out of their collective a55es.


Guys, guys - this isn't Dolby's fault (I went through this years ago when I worked at DTS). Dolby (and DTS) go to the movie studios to request clips to use on the demo discs, along with permission to use those clips. The terms of permission are dictated by the studios, and are very clear that they are for demo purposes only in a retail or trade-show setting, not for sale or loan or rental or whatever to end users. That's just the studios protecting their own content and revenue streams, they don't want Dolby making money by selling clips of their own content. It's not easy getting any sort of permission at all from the movie studios!

If Dolby were to distribute the demo discs to us end users, in violation of their agreement with the studios, then they wouldn't be able to get content in the future!

EDIT: to add that I do agree with the above posts that a disc of test tones and *some* kind of content to validate a setup would be very useful. I'm going to suggest that to the Powers That Be at Dolby.


----------



## David Susilo

I understand all that, but Dolby, DTS etc, should get clearance from the studios from the get go. Plus the studios should also be convinced that having the trailers, people will have the tendency to buy their movies featured on the demo disc


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^

Exactly. They are no different than on line trailers and no longer in length. 
Trust me I understand licensing and Schulz is right. But it is movie trailer advertising for the studios. Dolby just didn't go to the length to justify the marketing advantages to their partner studios. Lazy


----------



## Dan Hitchman

David Susilo said:


> I understand all that, but Dolby, DTS etc, should get clearance from the studios from the get go. Plus the studios should also be convinced that having the trailers, people will have the tendency to buy their movies featured on the demo disc


Booyah!


----------



## David Susilo

I do buy most of the movies shown on various demo disc. On DTS discs, I average in buying about 80% of the movies. Dolby about 60% of the movies. When I showed both Dolby and DTS demo to my clients, not once they left my demo without writing at least 3 titles to be bought. I even bought several boxes of Robocop, Lorax, Dredd, Million Ways to Die in the West, Transformers, etc and sell them without profit (I bought them from Bestbuy and Amazon) just as a service to my clients so they don't have to get out of their way to buy those movies elsewhere.

So yeah, on-disc clip as advertising works.


----------



## David Susilo

I'm a consultant. I don't have a store. Clients come to my demo theatre to hear and see what can be done for their HT. I show them some clips, and they always end up buying some movies from me based on the clips... BEFORE they even build their own theatre.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I do agree with the above posts that a disc of test tones and *some* kind of content to validate a setup would be very useful.


Not issuing a demo disc with movie clips is understandable, considering there are over 30 Atmos titles available for purchase on Blu-ray. If you absolutely must have a specific scene from a particular movie to demo on your system, it's not unreasonable to suggest buying the movie on BD. 

But a disc with Atmos trailers, test tones, etc., can't come from anyone besides Dolby. As you said, something like that, even if it is 100% Dolby-generated content, would be very helpful.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dschulz said:


> Guys, guys - this isn't Dolby's fault (I went through this years ago when I worked at DTS). Dolby (and DTS) go to the movie studios to request clips to use on the demo discs, along with permission to use those clips. The terms of permission are dictated by the studios, and are very clear that they are for demo purposes only in a retail or trade-show setting, not for sale or loan or rental or whatever to end users. That's just the studios protecting their own content and revenue streams, they don't want Dolby making money by selling clips of their own content. It's not easy getting any sort of permission at all from the movie studios!
> 
> If Dolby were to distribute the demo discs to us end users, in violation of their agreement with the studios, then they wouldn't be able to get content in the future!
> 
> EDIT: to add that I do agree with the above posts that a disc of test tones and *some* kind of content to validate a setup would be very useful. I'm going to suggest that to the Powers That Be at Dolby.


dschulz, I fully understand the necessity for honoring rights, agreements, etc. and that Dolby (DTS, whoever) is bound by them. I do not argue anyone in the businesses rights to protection of their property.

What I am annoyed about is that Dolby, who produced the test tracks themselves, could chose to produce them and sell them. Dolby has total and complete control of that material.
There is zero reason for them not to take such a step. Maybe they simply do not want to get into a DVD distribution side.

BUT, they are pushing the material otherwise...providing the Atmos tracks to movie, licensing speakers, licensing AVR, pre/pro, and other equipment makers, and providing (albeit probably at a price...) the authoring tools for the studios to produce the home theater mix of Atmos.

They are going out of their way to put it in place everywhere but where it actually needs to be...the consumers.

I continue to believe that it is a poor marketing strategy. 

The only thing that makes sense to me would be that Dolby is trying to protect the retailers and installers (who do need to make a living as well...I do not begrudge them that), but frustrating the hell out of people who are doing their best to implement anything and everything that they can...and do it correctly, or at least as correctly as they can.

There needs to be a reference standard that everyone can work toward...and it ain't there...yet!


----------



## Ricoflashback

I guess widespread adoption of the Dolby Atmos platform is not a business objective of Dolby Laboratories. If you think about it, that is a very short sighted strategy. 

Why not make a Dolby reference disc downloadable via their website? Why in the world would any movie studio object to having a clip of their movie as a Dolby Atmos reference? Wouldn't that make the movie more desireable to own? How about a link to buy the movie at a discounted price?

Incredibly stupid and a sure guarantee of slower sales and adoption by everyone who is a part of the Dolby Atmos sales chain.


----------



## AllenA07

I'm thinking the highlight of CEDIA for me was scoring both an Atmos and a DTS X demo disc.


----------



## Zhorik

Has anyone asked Dolby just for the test tones for different Atnos configurations (not the film clips)?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Zhorik said:


> Has anyone asked Dolby just for the test tones for different Atnos configurations (not the film clips)?


Ooh, good one! I certainly have not...

But, frankly, I expect the results to be the same...


----------



## llep64

Ok... I have regular height speakers now, can I use them as part of an Atmos configuration?? Sorry I'm confused . My media room came pre-wired for 7.1 so I really don't know how to add more speakers.


----------



## awblackmon

Dolby used to have a "store" website to buy demo discs of the dolby trailers shown before the movie. There were no movie trailers on them. Just the Dolby Surround trailers. There was a few in house productions to show off some different aspects of Dolby surround. The store also sold plaques to put on the wall in the theater. I still have mine up. I would love to buy a new Atmos plaque rather than making the pirated one I made for myself to put on the wall for bragging rights to Home Atmos. 

Now why can't Dolby do that with the Atmos trailers? Charge $25 bucks plus shipping. I bet the disc could fly out the door. No movie scenes, just Dolby trailers. Maybe include the past dolby 5.1 trailers and the 7.1 trailer played in one of our local theaters. No movie studio need be involved. Just Dolbys own stuff.

I would buy it just to use to set up my theater. Anyone with me? Can't be to difficult to produce such a disc. They did in the past.


----------



## awblackmon

Sorry double post. Macbook did something odd.


----------



## Glock3540

dvdwilly3 said:


> For those who continue to struggle... I started with 5.1. I had never bothered to go to 7.1, 9.1, or 11.1. I was not convinced that there would be that much difference...boy, was I wrong.
> 
> So, when I read about Dolby Atmos with true overhead sound, I decided to try it. I started *5.1.2* with Top Middle, and was excited with the new dimension in my previously 5.1 home theater. Sounds were truly overhead whereas they were only sort of overhead before. But, when I ran the Dolby Atmos demo of Amaze the bird that circles the room only really got about as far as crossing right in front of me. It did not really get all the way to the front of the room. It did not take long for me to decide that *5.1.4* would be an even better implementation so that there would be actual panning overhead from front to back and vice versa. So, I did. And, it did. Running Top Front and Top Rear was a notable improvement over simply Top Middle. From the Dolby Atmos Amaze demo track, the bird that takes off on the left and circles the room circled the room...sort of. It moved from about left surround to top rear left to top rear right to right surround, to the fronts, across, and then back to the left surround. It did fade as it moved behind me. I had not tried up until this point even running *7.1.2* because of the mechanics of making the change. Granted, it was only changing speaker jacks and moving my height speakers (on stands), but still. To try to keep myself honest, I enlisted the help of a friend and fellow enthusiast to make sure that someone else would hear or would not hear, an audible difference. But, running the AIX disk 7.1 tests, I thought to myself, "How can side surrounds accurately reproduce sounds behind you? A phantom rear? I don't see how.". Similarly, "How can surrounds placed to your rear accurately reproduce sounds at your side?". Well, a phantom side surround would be more plausible, but still, that might be stretching it. So, he came out and we did some blind testing with me changing settings. We used some older material that we were both familiar with. I jumped back and forth among configurations...5.1 to 5.1.4 to 5.1.2 with variations. He found only marginal differences with 5.1 vs 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4. We are both older and suffer from high-frequency hearing loss in one or both ears. This directly affected his perception of the effects of the height speakers. I have to wonder if not age, but a high-frequency hearing loss, has affected the perception (or lack thereof...) of Atmos effects among some of the posters here. But, my primary purpose was to have his help with testing the *7.1.2* configuration. So, I changed the connections and re-ran the same scene. His response? "No question! I can tell it immediately!" To be honest, I was standing well to the side and could also hear the difference. So, I had my answer...sort of. Now, it is on to 7.1.2, at least. However, as I ran Amaze again, I was pleased to note that the flying bird movement across the back from left side to right side filled in and was more solid. What caught me by surprise was that the bird did not make it to the front of the room so much...it only got to about the middle (from back to front) and crossed from the right side back to the left side. The front depth had collapsed. Since this involved still another set of speakers and wiring and a secondary amp/AVR (and $$), I was still a bit hesitant. So, I sat down to give a careful listen to the Dolby Atmos demo disk again. And, then it dawned on me...I am running 7.1.2 with Top Middle...and that is exactly where the imaging stopped before in 5.1.2. Final confirmation...for me, it needs to be 7.1.4 to get the full depth of the space from front to back including at height. I bought the final set of speakers, and wiring, and a Denon X1200W (overkill, but it provides a backup if the TX-NR1030 craps out..). Once again, I tried the Dolby Atmos Amaze demo and it is clear and complete...all the way around me at about 10 o'clock all the way to the front of the room and across. Bottom line, do Dolby Atmos in whatever flavor you can. It is better than not Atmos. And, go as high with it as you can--there are benefits to be gained at each level. If it came to 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2, that is a tough call. It depends on whether you want your immersion more complete at the upper level or the lower level. This is what works for me in my room, but as always, YMMV.
> 
> Gee, I guess now I will have to go back and re-watch all of my old (and new) favorites. Oh, too bad!


Wow! Thanks for the extremely informative post!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Looks like I may have a new Dolby Atmos title to add to my small collection. 

*Sherlock: The Abominable Bride *TV special Blu-ray will be getting Dolby Atmos in at least the UK. 

Like the Doctor Who special that received a limited theatrical run in Atmos, I would assume the US will get Atmos on the BBC's disc release as well.

Same show producers too.

The series is a damn fine modernization of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's tales, though this one is a period piece.


----------



## bass addict

*Atmos Woes. Need some input. 

*Well based on how much my theater fought me every step of the way during the initial build, why should I be surprised that I'm running into issues upgrading once again. I think I am going to change the name from Epicenter Cinema, to Christine Cinema. 

Problem 1: I initially wired the theater for heights and wides so I had extra wires for future upgrades. I'm currently utilizing wides so I was going to use to take them out of active duty and use the wiring for top fronts. I was then going to use the unused wide wires for top rears. Simple enough. I'll just pop out some can lights and pull wires to where I need them. Would have worked great until I realize I ran both wires for the heights down the same sofit.  After hours of racking my brain I've figured out a solution, but unfortunately it will involve tearing apart a couple columns. 

Problem 2: The big one. 

A) Due to having a very narrow room to work with (10' 6" x 22' x 9'), everything in the theater had to be thought out with maximizing space in mind. Because of this the side columns are literally only an inch and a half deep. Any deeper and they'd be in the way when walking from the back row to the front row. It would also make the room look smaller than it is. My surround speakers were originally mounted up high inside a column (they obviously stick out) out of the way and they blended in perfectly. 

B) Due to Atmos requirements of needing to move the surrounds down closer to ear level to separate from the tops, I decided to semi flush mount them into the wall to maximize space. With a depth requirement on the Volt 8's of 6", I figure if I could drop them inside the wall and they would only stick out of the wall and column about an inch or so which would be acceptable (3.5" stud + 1/2" drywall + 1-1/2" deep column). 

C) So I start cutting out the drywall where I am going to flush mount the volt10, and lo and behold what do I have but a load bearing support right in the way of where the speaker is going to mount.  (I obviously forgot about it when I initially built the theater a few years ago). 

So after all the rambling here is what I am looking at. 

Side Surrounds are at 113 degrees from center of front seats. Dolby lists a range from 90-110. I am running two rows, so this puts them almost dead center between the two rows but it just seems really far back from the MLP (front row which is where I sit 100% of the time). Should this cause any concern? Should I angle them slightly towards the MLP or leave them firing straight forward between the two rows? I'm also worried a little about dispersion at this point. Or would I be better not to flush mount them and move them back up out of the way (thus losing separation between the tops)?

Front tops can be mounted anywhere within the recommended angle range, but I almost thought about moving them closer to the MLP a little bit due to the rear surrounds moving rearward? Or should they stay further forward to split the gap between the mains and the MLP? 

Rear tops can only be mounted so far back as these (and fronts) are being installed in a two tier sofit. The second tier is stepped and so it runs into the first sofit tier towards the back of the room if anybody can picture that. Basically a box inside a box. Due to this, the maximum rear angle I can achieve is 135 degrees, which puts the rear top close in the vertical sense to the surround. So there will be much more separation between the mains and surround, then the surround and rear surrounds, and more separation between the front top and side surround, then rear top and side surround. 

Sorry for the long rambling post. Just trying to come up with the best way to do this before hacking up anything further. 


​


----------



## multit

Dan Hitchman said:


> Looks like I may have a new Dolby Atmos title to add to my small collection.
> *Sherlock: The Abominable Bride *TV special Blu-ray will be getting Dolby Atmos in at least the UK. ...


Cool... just preordered by amazon.co.uk. My daughter and me are big fans of this famous series... and with Atmos one more reason...


----------



## Selden Ball

llep64 said:


> Ok... I have regular height speakers now, can I use them as part of an Atmos configuration?? Sorry I'm confused . My media room came pre-wired for 7.1 so I really don't know how to add more speakers.


If by "regular height" you mean Front Height, then yes. They'll work fine.


----------



## llep64

Thx! Great, do I still hook them up to " front height"?


----------



## Rocky3RD

Dolby has no sense of business


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> Dolby has no sense of business


LOL. I guess the close to *1 billion dollars* of turnover they did in year-ending October 2015 was just luck then? Along with their *$206,000,000* net profits for 2014. I wish I'd had that no sense of business when I was in business on my own account


----------



## Rocky3RD

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. I guess the close to *1 billion dollars* of turnover they did in year-ending October 2015 was just luck then? Along with their *$206,000,000* net profits for 2014. I wish I'd had that no sense of business when I was in business on my own account


 Imagine the money they could be making by selling the Dolby Atmos demos to the public...It would be a win-win deal. Profit from selling the demos and profit from getting new customers into buying Dolby Atmos-ready equipment


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> Imagine the money they could be making by selling the Dolby Atmos demos to the public...It would be a win-win deal. Profit from selling the demos and profit from getting new customers into buying Dolby Atmos-ready equipment


Yes! Their annual revenue for 2015 might have gone from $967,410,000,000 to $967,410,001,000. I am sure this issue must be at the very forefront of their Chief Financial Officer's mind pretty much all the time.


----------



## Rocky3RD

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes! Their annual revenue for 2015 might have gone from $967,410,000,000 to $967,410,001,000. I am sure this issue must be at the very forefront of their Chief Financial Officer's mind pretty much all the time.


Sell the demos at $20 each, you have how many audio enthusiasts like us willing to pay that? You do the math


----------



## Stoked21

Rocky3RD said:


> Imagine the money they could be making by selling the Dolby Atmos demos to the public...It would be a win-win deal. Profit from selling the demos and profit from getting new customers into buying Dolby Atmos-ready equipment


They wouldn't make profit from a demo disc more than likely. That's the big misconception. They'd probably actually LOSE money on the gross/net line even if they sold them with a modest markup. A demo disc alone isn't going to make people go out and buy Atmos...The dealers selling the technology already have the demo discs and can demonstrate to potential consumers. How many average consumers really go to a dealer with an Atmos dedicated room? 95% just buy online, Target, Best buy, etc with no demos whatsoever. And they don't care since it's just going in their bedroom or living room. 

The people complaining about NOT having the disc are the one's who have already bought in to the Atmos technology. And I am one of them complaining! Atmos enthusiasts will have demo clips, one way or another, to show their friends/family. But how many people can one Atmos HT enthusiast really sway to invest into the immersive side? 1 or 2 maybe?

Quite frankly Dolby doesn't probably really care how many people implement Atmos in their homes....They get the licensing from the AVR sell regardless (where the units are typically used in stereo or maybe 5.1 configs). I have a entry Atmos Yamaha that is used only as an input selector to my whole house surround!! No amps no processor nothing actually used on it. Dolby still got their licensing fee. They don't care how many BD that are sold are actually watched in Atmos...The encoding is on the disc regardless and they still got their licensing fee.

What it could do is solidify their name in the immersive space as the industry leader/household name (yes even more so than now).....Imagine Beta vs VHS. HD-DVD vs BluRay.....DVD-A vs SACD....etc Who says tissue instead of Kleenex?

Dolby Atmos vs DTS:X...... "DTS What who???? My friend has Atmos and that's the best!!!"


----------



## Amzie Williams

If someone has a Denon 7200wa running a legit 7.1.4 setup then yes that might sway friends to adopt Dolby Atmos. Onkyo Atmos 5.1.2 HTIB.... not so much. 




Rocky3RD said:


> Imagine the money they could be making by selling the Dolby Atmos demos to the public...It would be a win-win deal. Profit from selling the demos and profit from getting new customers into buying Dolby Atmos-ready equipment


----------



## Rocky3RD

Well we can all agree that Dolby Atmos>DTS>TrueHD?

I only downloaded a few of the demos available (Silent,Horizon,Leaf) and not even the lossless versions, and I cant stop replaying them over and over again


----------



## bargervais

Rocky3RD said:


> Sell the demos at $20 each, you have how many audio enthusiasts like us willing to pay that? You do the math


how many of these audio enthusiasts like us do you think are out there... and then count the ones who committed to Atmos you'll see that Kieth is spot on.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Amzie Williams said:


> If someone has a Denon 7200wa running a legit 7.1.4 setup then yes that might sway friends to adopt Dolby Atmos. Onkyo Atmos 5.1.2 HTIB.... not so much.


What do you have against Onkyo Atmos HTIB? Customers on Amazon give it 5 stars. My neighbors were walking by and I had the door open carrying groceries and the Onkyo was playing some netflix stuff and they even said it sounded just like being at the movies


----------



## Rocky3RD

bargervais said:


> how many of these audio enthusiasts like us do you think are out there... and then count the ones who committed to Atmos you'll see that Kieth is spot on.


so that's it? no demo disc for us?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Check again - Dolby Laboratories show nice revenue but downward growth. I guess Dolby Atmos isn't a big priority for HT enthusiasts. Dolby Cinema? I haven't been to a movie theater in ten years since I developed my man cave setup. 

"For fiscal 2015, Dolby reported total revenue of $967.4 million, compared to $960.2 million for fiscal 2014. Fiscal 2015 GAAP net income was $179.3 million, or $1.73 per diluted share, compared to $206.1 million, or $1.99 per diluted share, for fiscal 2014."

"Although revenue was at the low end of our expectations, we are projecting growth in fiscal 2016," said Kevin Yeaman, President and CEO, Dolby Laboratories. "Dolby Cinema and Dolby Voice have captivated customers, and we expect these initiatives to contribute to higher revenues."


----------



## Rocky3RD

Ricoflashback said:


> Check again - Dolby Laboratories show nice revenue but downward growth. I guess Dolby Atmos isn't a big priority for HT enthusiasts. Dolby Cinema? I haven't been to a movie theater in ten years since I developed my man cave setup.
> 
> "For fiscal 2015, Dolby reported total revenue of $967.4 million, compared to $960.2 million for fiscal 2014. Fiscal 2015 GAAP net income was $179.3 million, or $1.73 per diluted share, compared to $206.1 million, or $1.99 per diluted share, for fiscal 2014."
> 
> "Although revenue was at the low end of our expectations, we are projecting growth in fiscal 2016," said Kevin Yeaman, President and CEO, Dolby Laboratories. "Dolby Cinema and Dolby Voice have captivated customers, and we expect these initiatives to contribute to higher revenues."


 Time to put those demo discs on sale


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> Sell the demos at $20 each, you have how many audio enthusiasts like us willing to pay that? You do the math


. OK, I admit I got it wrong. Their revenue would likely grow to $967,410,003,000.


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> how many of these audio enthusiasts like us do you think are out there... and then count the ones who committed to Atmos you'll see that Kieth is spot on.


Outside of the local AVS crowd.....I know a handful of people with 5.1. Yet I don't think I know anyone with 7.1, let alone 9.1. I know a ton of people with sound-bars and TV speakers!!!

If people won't commit to 7.1 then why would they commit to a costly, finicky Atmos system; one that requires tons of speaker wires, dry wall work, and a nearly dedicated room. Most people don't even want to put speakers on the walls or especially stands. Even if this is just to keep the wife happy in non-dedicated rooms. They're not lining up around the block to destroy their ceilings and spend large amounts of cash for Atmos----whether they are impressed with it or not. So, what need is there for a demo disc with the .0001% who actually run Atmos today? Other than to keep your current customer base happy.

While I'm not a fan of HTiB systems, I think these and the release of Atmos soundbars are going to help push the need for a demo disc. Those are the type of mass-market systems that people are going to want to hear a demo before they invest the extra $$$ in a more complex box system. Atmos soundbars and HTiB systems on the end-caps of Target on an Atmos demo loop (though we all know it would be less than impressive in that environment). I imagine the lower cost systems will eventually come with included demo discs of sorts.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> Outside of the local AVS crowd.....I know a handful of people with 5.1. Yet I don't think I know anyone with 7.1, let alone 9.1. I know a ton of people with sound-bars and TV speakers!!!
> 
> If people won't commit to 7.1 then why would they commit to a costly, finicky Atmos system; one that requires tons of speaker wires, dry wall work, and a nearly dedicated room. Most people don't even want to put speakers on the walls or especially stands. Even if this is just to keep the wife happy in non-dedicated rooms. They're not lining up around the block to destroy their ceilings and spend large amounts of cash for Atmos----whether they are impressed with it or not. So, what need is there for a demo disc with the .0001% who actually run Atmos today? Other than to keep your current customer base happy.
> 
> While I'm not a fan of HTiB systems, I think these and the release of Atmos soundbars are going to help push the need for a demo disc. Those are the type of mass-market systems that people are going to want to hear a demo before they invest the extra $$$ in a more complex box system. Atmos soundbars and HTiB systems on the end-caps of Target on an Atmos demo loop (though we all know it would be less than impressive in that environment). I imagine the lower cost systems will eventually come with included demo discs of sorts.


 I agree onthe HTiB being the best choice if you want all the benefits of movie theater-like surround sound without having to destroy your living room.It's a perfect middle ground for both husband and wife as well


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> They wouldn't make profit from a demo disc more than likely. That's the big misconception. They'd probably actually LOSE money on the gross/net line even if they sold them with a modest markup. A demo disc alone isn't going to make people go out and buy Atmos...The dealers selling the technology already have the demo discs and can demonstrate to potential consumers. How many average consumers really go to a dealer with an Atmos dedicated room? 95% just buy online, Target, Best buy, etc with no demos whatsoever. And they don't care since it's just going in their bedroom or living room.
> 
> The people complaining about NOT having the disc are the one's who have already bought in to the Atmos technology. And I am one of them complaining! Atmos enthusiasts will have demo clips, one way or another, to show their friends/family. But how many people can one Atmos HT enthusiast really sway to invest into the immersive side? 1 or 2 maybe?
> 
> Quite frankly Dolby doesn't probably really care how many people implement Atmos in their homes....They get the licensing from the AVR sell regardless (where the units are typically used in stereo or maybe 5.1 configs). I have a entry Atmos Yamaha that is used only as an input selector to my whole house surround!! No amps no processor nothing actually used on it. Dolby still got their licensing fee. They don't care how many BD that are sold are actually watched in Atmos...The encoding is on the disc regardless and they still got their licensing fee.
> 
> What it could do is solidify their name in the immersive space as the industry leader/household name (yes even more so than now).....Imagine Beta vs VHS. HD-DVD vs BluRay.....DVD-A vs SACD....etc Who says tissue instead of Kleenex?
> 
> Dolby Atmos vs DTS:X...... "DTS What who???? My friend has Atmos and that's the best!!!"


I am glad at least two people agree with me  Sadly, it is always you and Keith....lol

I think people forget that the end user is not Dolby's customer. It is the studios and hardware vendors that license their software.


----------



## Selden Ball

llep64 said:


> Thx! Great, do I still hook them up to " front height"?


On Denon and Marantz receivers, the appropriate speaker posts are labelled "Height 1". Then in the receiver's setup menus you tell it that they're "Front Height". "Top Front" and "Top Middle" are the other valid speaker positions for the "Height 1" connections. Which designation you should choose depends on where the speakers are physically located. "Front Height" usually is appropriate, if only because it's recognized by all of the 3D audio formats and upmixers.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I am glad at least two people agree with me  Sadly, it is always you and Keith....lol
> 
> I think people forget that the end user is not Dolby's customer. It is the studios and hardware vendors that license their software.


The math just doesn't work out....

Assume 100K people running Atmos all buying demo discs at $30....$3M
Demo disc causes Atmos licensed AVR sales to go up 1MU/year ($50 license)...$50M
And all million people buy 10 Atmos titles ($1 license each)...$10M

Dolby just increased their GROSS revenue by $60M or about 6% (nothing to sneeze at). Net of maybe half of that. But the above numbers would never happen and the licensing is exaggerated!

What it does do is piques the studio's interest to license on more titles...And on that Dolby makes $$$$$$$$
They profit on that license fee on every disc sold or streamed, whether watched in an Atmos HT or not.


So yep...Studios are their bread and butter


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> The math just doesn't work out....
> 
> Assume 100K people running Atmos all buying demo discs at $30....$3M
> Demo disc causes Atmos licensed AVR sales to go up 1MU/year ($50 license)...$50M
> And all million people buy 10 Atmos titles ($1 license each)...$10M
> 
> Dolby just increased their GROSS revenue by $60M or about 6% (nothing to sneeze at). Net of maybe half of that. But the above numbers would never happen and the licensing is exaggerated!
> 
> What it does do is piques the studio's interest to license on more titles...And on that Dolby makes $$$$$$$$
> They profit on that license fee on every disc sold or streamed, whether watched in an Atmos HT or not.
> 
> 
> So yep...Studios are their bread and butter


 i would pay $30 for DolbyAtmos demo disc...When we are talking high-end equipment you dont need to sell millions of copies to make a profit. You just need afew loyal customers with good financial assetts


----------



## BigScreen

Molon_Labe said:


> You make the assumption the studios actually care about the home audio enthusiast - not. Has anyone bought a movie from a clip on a DTS or Dolby demo? I have purchased most of them and there has never been a clip that made me go....hmmmm, I need to buy that movie. I get what your saying, but it isn't practical.


Perhaps not directly, but such clips serve to demonstrate the experience of watching a dynamic movie in the best environment possible. If if doesn't result in a direct sale of that particular title, persuading someone to get into the home theater hobby (or get deeper into it) can result in them buying more movies, which is in the studios' best interest. Dolby benefits if people buy new receivers in order to get new features, such as Atmos.

I've done my share of demos to family, friends, and guests in the past, and each time they walk away quite impressed. Some of them have gone on to buy equipment, others have not. Even those that have not now have an appreciation and an awareness of what can be done if they choose to do so. The great part is that you don't have to spend a whole lot of money, so it's not like it's a "spend $5,000 or nothing" type of situation.

The construction guys building a home theater installation I was working on (circa 2004) didn't understand why they had to take certain steps to insulate, eliminate vibrations, etc. So I showed them the depth charge scene from U-571 and how the subwoofer got involved, as well as the surround activity. Not only did they come out of it with big grins, they then understood why they were doing the extra work.



dvdwilly3 said:


> What I am annoyed about is that Dolby, who produced the test tracks themselves, could chose to produce them and sell them. Dolby has total and complete control of that material.
> There is zero reason for them not to take such a step. Maybe they simply do not want to get into a DVD distribution side.
> :
> The only thing that makes sense to me would be that Dolby is trying to protect the retailers and installers (who do need to make a living as well...I do not begrudge them that), but frustrating the hell out of people who are doing their best to implement anything and everything that they can...and do it correctly, or at least as correctly as they can.


I think Dolby is probably trying to avoid the issues that come with the selling of content, as well as the support issues that can come up with people having trouble. Imagine a guy buying the Atmos Demo Disc from Dolby and popping it in, and he doesn't get any sound from his overhead speakers. Is it because the Blu-ray player isn't set to bitstream? Is it because he has the wrong mode set on his receiver? Is it because his receiver isn't Atmos compatible (or hasn't had its firmware upgraded to support Atmos)? Now, the Dolby receptionist becomes a tech support level 1 rep. I'm pretty sure that no one at Dolby wants that.

By distributing these discs to retailers and integrators, the support issues are eliminated. They don't sell them, so there is no retail fulfillment process that has to be supported. Sure, I would imagine that someone at Dolby has to send out discs to qualified requests, but that's probably a small portion of someone's list of responsibilities.

The enthusiast community here is in a unique position to offload all of the support issues that could arise from a set of Atmos test tones being made available. An ISO could be provided by Dolby that would have just the content that they have rights to distribute (presumably just the test tones and Atmos trailers they created), and a support community could be built around that demo disc, much like was done with the AVS Rec709 disc.

If Dolby hosted the downloads, that would give them the ability to monitor the number of downloads and collect info on where they were being downloaded from, which could result in studios agreeing to include some of their content on a future revision. If they don't want to expend the resources, I'd be willing to work with them to provide the ISO via The BigScreen Cinema Guide.

I've said these things to Dolby via several methods dating back to June 2014, but the idea hasn't gotten any traction as of yet. I'm reaching out to DTS as well, as they are going to be facing the same issues when DTS:X is released.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> . OK, I admit I got it wrong. Their revenue would likely grow to $967,410,003,000.


Your math is off. Stop thinking "disc" sales and start thinking incremental licensed revenue from Dolby Atmos related products. Any company that has year over year decrease in sales and net revenue has issues. 

It's unfortunate that Dolby doesn't view the HT market and associated revenue streams as important as this forum does. If there is more demand for Dolby Atmos receivers/speakers and home setups - - that will drive more studios to encode using Dolby Atmos technology.

The ultimate goal is to have widespread adoption - - especially Broadcast, Cable & Satellite TV. That will increase sales all along the chain.


----------



## Selden Ball

My hope has been that there'll be new calibration discs from Avia or Spears&Munsil with test tracks for all of the 3D audio formats. Maybe even a UHD HDR test disc from Disney, replacing their current WoW title.


----------



## kbarnes701

Here you go:










http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/


----------



## Rocky3RD

How do you set the bluray player to bitstream??


----------



## Scott Simonian

Rocky3RD said:


> Dolby has no sense of business


Ummm....

I think they're doing.... okay.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> [
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/


According to the review, it doesn't have the speaker test tracks.


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> How do you set the bluray player to bitstream??


In the blu-ray player settings menu.  Probably under Audio or some similar section. While you're there, you need to turn secondary audio off as well, if you want to decode Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> According to the review, it doesn't have the speaker test tracks.


Jeepers... you guys are never freakin' satisfied!  I scour the planet for you, find a demo disc with all the clips and trailers, and then all I get is complaints. LOL.


----------



## Selden Ball

Rocky3RD said:


> How do you set the bluray player to bitstream??


It depends on the player. Some have an explicit "bitstream" option. Sony players have an "auto" option. Don't forget you have to disable "Secondary Audio Mix", too. More help would be available in the AVS thread which discusses your particular BD player.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Jeepers... you guys are never freakin' satisfied!


Of course not!


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Of course not!


Then I hope everyone using Dirac Live has bought a second miniDSP DDRC-88A and has up to 16 channels of Dirac goodness now  Clue: I did. It's awesome.


----------



## Josh Z

Rocky3RD said:


> Sell the demos at $20 each, you have how many audio enthusiasts like us willing to pay that? You do the math


I have counted. There are 47 audio enthusiasts who would be willing to pay $20 for the demo disc. That number is worldwide, out of the entire human population alive on Earth at the current moment.

Oh, wait, one of them just died since I started writing this. Now we're down to 46.

46 x $20 = $920. Now deduct the amount of money Dolby would pay to create content for the disc, license additional content from the Hollywood studios or recording industry, author the disc, manufacture it, and establish a distribution channel.

I'm afraid the math doesn't work out in your favor.


----------



## Rocky3RD

kbarnes701 said:


> In the blu-ray player settings menu.  Probably under Audio or some similar section. While you're there, you need to turn secondary audio off as well, if you want to decode Atmos.


Are you sure that high-end bluray players dont do that automatically depending on the source?


----------



## Rocky3RD

Selden Ball said:


> It depends on the player. Some have an explicit "bitstream" option. Sony players have an "auto" option. Don't forget you have to disable "Secondary Audio Mix", too. More help would be available in the AVS thread which discusses your particular BD player.


That thread is dead...Nobody ever posts in the section dedicated to my particular BD player


----------



## kbarnes701

Rocky3RD said:


> Are you sure that high-end bluray players dont do that automatically depending on the source?


Yes. Why would they decide for you whether you want to bitstream or to use PCM? Or secondary audio?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Then I hope everyone using Dirac Live has bought a second miniDSP DDRC-88A and has up to 16 channels of Dirac goodness now  Clue: I did. It's awesome.



Yeah, yeah, yeah....


But how many subwoofers do you have?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah....
> 
> 
> But how many subwoofers do you have?


"Sufficient".

So, are you running an Atmos system and not benefiting from Dirac Live on all channels? How primitive 

I can do 9.1.6 now, all fully EQd. Well I could if I could Tardisize my room.


----------



## Selden Ball

Rocky3RD said:


> That thread is dead...Nobody ever posts in the section dedicated to my particular BD player


I suspect most of the people who ever posted there are still subscribed. They're just waiting for someone to post something they can answer. So ask.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> "Sufficient".
> 
> So, are you running an Atmos system and not benefiting from Dirac Live on all channels? How primitive
> 
> I can do 9.1.6 now, all fully EQd. Well I could if I could Tardisize my room.


Sounds like codephrase for "only a couple". 

Pathetic.

Apparently you can have "enough woofage" and a couple of dinky 15's is enough.


----------



## bass addict

Apparently my original post earlier was too lengthy so I'll simplify it. 

1) Is a 113degree surround angle going to cause any problems? Dolby recommends 90-110. I am using a Volt 10 with a 90 degree dispersion pattern so it will probably be down a couple db's at 110+ degrees. This placement puts the surround between the first and second row. Would you recommend angling the surrounds a bit towards the MLP? 

2) Due to the surround being placed 2' behind the MLP, would you recommend shifting the tops fronts further back (say closer to 55 degrees) or leave them further forward to split the difference between the fronts and MLP? The max rear top angle due to sofit placement will be 135 degrees.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Sounds like codephrase for "only a couple".
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Apparently you can have "enough woofage" and a couple of dinky 15's is enough.


Four 15 inches in fact. More than enough. I definitely don't need any more output and two are enough to smooth the response to my liking. Did I ever show you my ruler-flat bass graph?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Four 15 inches in fact. More than enough. I definitely don't need any more output and two are enough to smooth the response to my liking.


Sure. That's what they all say.




kbarnes701 said:


> Did I ever show you my ruler-flat bass graph?


Maybe. Did I ever show you mine?


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like codephrase for "only a couple".
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Apparently you can have "enough woofage" and a couple of dinky 15's is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four 15 inches in fact. More than enough. I definitely don't need any more output and two are enough to smooth the response to my liking. Did I ever show you my ruler-flat bass graph?
Click to expand...

But ... But ... Keith, you only have more than enough output for your space. You could more more more than enough and then you could talk about "effortless" bass to make yourself feel justified about your ridiculous excess and pretend it's not just excess for the sake of excess


----------



## Scott Simonian

_"You can never have too much woofage"_


----------



## batpig

bass addict said:


> Apparently my original post earlier was too lengthy so I'll simplify it.
> 
> 1) Is a 113degree surround angle going to cause any problems? Dolby recommends 90-110. I am using a Volt 10 with a 90 degree dispersion pattern so it will probably be down a couple db's at 110+ degrees. This placement puts the surround between the first and second row. Would you recommend angling the surrounds a bit towards the MLP?
> 
> 2) Due to the surround being placed 2' behind the MLP, would you recommend shifting the tops fronts further back (say closer to 55 degrees) or leave them further forward to split the difference between the fronts and MLP? The max rear top angle due to sofit placement will be 135 degrees.


1) the 110 degrees is relative to the centerline. Putting the surrounds at 113 degrees means you are 23 degrees off axis at MLP. Not 113. So with two rows I think you will be just fine getting broad coverage for both. 

2) hard to say... I doubt 10 degrees will matter that much. You could split the difference at 50 and call it a day


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> _"You can never have too much woofage"_


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> So I guess having fourteen 15" woofers is excessive? Oh wait, your talking about subs - I thought we were talking speakers
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer words have I agreed with more.


Fourteen _18's_ and _twelve_ 15's.

Get it right! 




Still looking for spots in here where I can fit more in. The ceiling looks rather lonely.


----------



## Daryl L

Scott Simonian said:


> Fourteen _18's_ and _twelve_ 15's.
> 
> Get it right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for spots in here where I can fit more in. The ceiling looks rather lonely.


Just use a few for seats and throw some cushions on top.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Fourteen _18's_ and _twelve_ 15's.
> 
> Get it right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for spots in here where I can fit more in. The ceiling looks rather lonely.


I am feeling insufficiently small right now


----------



## batpig

Daryl L said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteen _18's_ and _twelve_ 15's.
> 
> Get it right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for spots in here where I can fit more in. The ceiling looks rather lonely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just use a few for seats and throw some cushions on top.
Click to expand...

You think you're joking but Scott's already done it


----------



## Daryl L

batpig said:


> You think you're joking but Scott's already done it


But I can predict where the next future sinkhole will be located on the news.


----------



## bass addict

batpig said:


> 1) the 110 degrees is relative to the centerline. Putting the surrounds at 113 degrees means you are 23 degrees off axis at MLP. Not 113. So with two rows I think you will be just fine getting broad coverage for both.
> 
> 2) hard to say... I doubt 10 degrees will matter that much. You could split the difference at 50 and call it a day


Thanks. 

I am more concerned with the front row as that's my MLP and I am down there the most. 

I'm just concerned about having a gap between the mains and surrounds. The only way to move them further forward would be to mount them on the wall, which would put them sticking out further into the room than I would like.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Josh Z said:


> I have counted. There are 47 audio enthusiasts who would be willing to pay $20 for the demo disc. That number is worldwide, out of the entire human population alive on Earth at the current moment.
> 
> Oh, wait, one of them just died since I started writing this. Now we're down to 46.
> 
> 46 x $20 = $920. Now deduct the amount of money Dolby would pay to create content for the disc, license additional content from the Hollywood studios or recording industry, author the disc, manufacture it, and establish a distribution channel.
> 
> I'm afraid the math doesn't work out in your favor.


Josh, you make the point that it would be a marginal market for Dolby (home theater enthusiasts). I agree that as a direct revenue stream it might not really be worth it to them.

Except for this statement..."...Now deduct the amount of money Dolby would pay to create content for the disc, license additional content from the Hollywood studios or recording industry, author the disc, manufacture it, and establish a distribution channel..."

Dolby has already internalized those costs, and already are distributing said disks to retailers and installers (CEDIA, etc...) for zippo $$. Anybody who snagged one at CEDIA feel free to correct me here. What was your cost?

I guess that we simply wait until Dolby loosens their grip, and someone like AIX, Avia, or Spears&Munsil creates such a disk.
It would not surprise me if that were in the works as we speak...for those companies, it does make sense.

FWIW, I bought one off of eBay (from a retailer, installer, CEDIA attendee...frankly, I don't care...).

So now I will have the test tones (and clips, etc.), and I will quit complaining and quit chasing it. 

But, I still think that Dolby is wrong to ignore the end user.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> *Fourteen 18's and twelve 15's.*
> Get it right!
> Still looking for spots in here where I can fit more in. The ceiling looks rather lonely.


That's about normal...for a room's size like yours. ...Yeah, sounds right, very normal. 

That is totally outrageous!  ...Get a "slice" of yourself.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dvdwilly3 said:


> So now I will have the test tones (and clips, etc.), and I will quit complaining and quit chasing it.


And you'll immediately upload those test tones somewhere and send us all links, right? RIGHT? JUST SAY I'M RIGHT, DAMN YOU!


----------



## Stoked21

Dolby would do so much better, and be so much more profitable, if they just let the thread users here run the company......


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> Dolby would do so much better, and be so much more profitable, if they just let the thread users here run the company......


LOL. The same could be said for a lot of mfg's.


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> LOL. The same could be said for a lot of mfg's.


Just to be clear...I was being facetious....


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> Just to be clear...I was being facetious....


I picked up on that (hence the lol), but wanted to add there is a tinge of truth to that statement. Sometimes big corporations can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## lujan

Molon_Labe said:


> I know it's a principle issue with some people, but spending $65 on a Dolby Demo disc is a small fraction of what you have spent on your system. The unabated truth is that the Dolby clips on the demo disc are the best source material for Atmos - period. How many people, including myself, have spent $20 plus on a turd movie just to hear some Atmos source material? Raise your hands.... I see a lot of hands raised out there.
> 
> Buy the disc, you will be glad you did. Hold out if you wish, but Dolby won't be changing anytime soon. The Dolby Atmos demo is my go to disc for demoing my system to friends and family, or if I change something in my equipment/room. Sometimes I just play it by myself because it is so darn cool to listen too


I've only used my previous Atmos demo disk once in 6 months since I got it so I don't plan on spending anything on the next demo disk.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Then sell it, it looks like there are plenty of potential buyers.



But by waiving this above their heads and collecting the tears of AV geeks, it is worth much more than $60 to some.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And you'll immediately upload those test tones somewhere and send us all links, right? RIGHT? JUST SAY I'M RIGHT, DAMN YOU!


Jeremy, if there were some legal way to do it, I would not hesitate.

Actually, I would hesitate, because I don't know how to rip Atmos files (or most others for that matter...).

But, I have no desire to be wearing striped pajamas, so, unfortunately, no...

Sorry...


----------



## MarkMul1

Rocky3RD said:


> I agree onthe HTiB being the best choice if you want all the benefits of movie theater-like surround sound without having to destroy your living room.It's a perfect middle ground for both husband and wife as well


You never cease to amaze me. I click on your profile and read 5-10 of your idiotic posts each day. You seem to bring mayhem to every thread you visit. It truly does crack me up, better than Comedy Central. 

Anyone else looking for a little joy each day should give it a try.


----------



## Stoked21

MarkMul1 said:


> You never cease to amaze me. I click on your profile and read 5-10 of your idiotic posts each day. You seem to bring mayhem to every thread you visit. It truly does crack me up, better than Comedy Central.
> 
> Anyone else looking for a little joy each day should give it a try.


Dammit Mark.....
I was just sitting down to watch Star Wars on the new PJ in Atmos.....
You sent me down a rat hole digging around threads for 30 minutes....
Dammit you man! 


Side note....I know I'm expecting a lot of a 40 year old remixed movie . But man the sound is still difficult to listen to even as much as I love the movie.


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> But by waiving this above their heads and collecting the tears of AV geeks, it is worth much more than $60 to some.


Ahhh. The old Pavlovian response tease. Works every time!
Yep I'd drool to have one.


----------



## Ironman1718

All

Is their a guideline for spacing the ATMOS speakers from each other? I already have two and will wire two more this weekend for a 7.2.4 setup. Thanks


----------



## smurraybhm

Well I for one refuse to go the HTIB route even if it meant saving my marriage. A man doesn't ask for much, usually those of us staying married for a while or not smart enough to bail have survived this long by saying, yes dear," without hesitation. Some of us are slow to learn, but I've got it down on marriage #2 - 17 plus years.

All of you with you're separate HT say, Praise the Lord (?wife/partner?). I just got done installing a pair def tech PM1000 as TMs to match a pair in the FH position. Boy did I catch the looks and comments from my wife. " Are they going to look as bad as the one your taking down? I'm convinced there is no right answer to that one. One simple request, just a room to rock out in, spin some Atmos - other than that I'm the perfect husband, hell I do her laundry now along with other choirs after a 60 hour plus work week 

I'll do a rerun of Audyssey when she's out of the house tomorrow. Some day maybe a Hobbit Theatre of my own - ten feet by ten feet would be perfect. Keith aren't you moving so won't your flat be for sale?

By the way thumbs up on Ant Man, great flick, good soundtrack and something you can watch with the whole family or not.


----------



## boulder_bum

Hey all. I'm having a 5.1.2 surround experience installed soon. 

What is the ideal placement for in-ceiling speakers in an Atmosphere setup? Right above the sides in the front? How far from the wall? Anything I should know?


----------



## NorthSky

boulder_bum said:


> Hey all. I'm having a 5.1.2 surround experience installed soon.
> 
> What is the ideal placement for in-ceiling speakers in an Atmosphere setup? Right above the sides in the front? How far from the wall? Anything I should know?


♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 16 (L & R Top Middle overheads)


----------



## Rocky3RD

Can someone explain to me how to set up bluray player to bitstream? I went to the Audio settings in My Samsung player and there are several bitstream options. Which one should I pick? One bitstream otion is labeled "unprocessed", is that the one I want?
Also, will this bitsream setup affect streaming and media material, or it just works with a bluray or DVD disc?
Sorry I am asking here but the Bluray player forum is practically dead, at least in the section dedicated to my specific bluray player


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Sure. That's what they all say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Did I ever show you mine?


If the bass response is flat as can be, and if the bass reaches the required SPLs at all frequencies, then what would be the benefit of adding more subwoofage?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> But ... But ... Keith, you only have more than enough output for your space. You could more more more than enough and then you could talk about "effortless" bass to make yourself feel justified about your ridiculous excess and pretend it's not just excess for the sake of excess


Hehe. Yes indeed. If the most SPL I ever want is, say, movie reference, and I am getting that, cleanly, and if two subwoofers give me a ruler-flat bass response in the room, I guess I could add more woofage and it would enable me to play louder than I ever will want to, and make ruler flat even more ruler flat  Of course, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with ridiculous excess. 










(Unsmoothed graph)


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> I'll do a rerun of Audyssey when she's out of the house tomorrow. Some day maybe a Hobbit Theatre of my own - ten feet by ten feet would be perfect. Keith aren't you moving so won't your flat be for sale?


 Hobbit Theaters can be really great - they take some ingenuity and some work to get them right, but when they are, they make for an exceptionally intimate AV experience. It's not a flat BTW - I make way, way too much noise to ever live in an apartment ;


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> I make way, way too much noise to ever live in an apartment ;


Some would disagree given your lack of woofage 
Damn the measurements, more is always better. Sorry have to stay off the Emo amp forums.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Some would disagree given your lack of woofage


Yeah - dual Submersives with 4 x 15 inch drivers, 6,000 watts of amplification and a flat response to single figures really is pants, I concur 



smurraybhm said:


> Damn the measurements, more is always better. Sorry have to stay off the Emo amp forums.


I've enjoyed being able to chat about Emo again!


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Hehe. Yes indeed. If the most SPL I ever want is, say, movie reference, and I am getting that, cleanly, and if two subwoofers give me a ruler-flat bass response in the room, I guess I could add more woofage and it would enable me to play louder than I ever will want to, and make ruler flat even more ruler flat  Of course, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with ridiculous excess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Unsmoothed graph)


#yawn Feels like that graph is as old as you are!  When are we going to see some "real" updated measurements?! And of course you know what I mean by real...REW.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> #yawn Feels like that graph is as old as you are!  When are we going to see some "real" updated measurements?! And of course you know what I mean by real...REW.


Do you believe that the speakers' response changes over time then, thus invalidating an older graph?

And what makes you think REW is any better at measuring than OmniMic?

EDIT: I make most of my measurements with OM these days. It is just so much easier than the whole performance of using REW, fighting ASIO4ALL and so on. Slip in the test tones disc, measure, finished. Easy!


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> Hehe. Yes indeed. If the most SPL I ever want is, say, movie reference, and I am getting that, cleanly, and if two subwoofers give me a ruler-flat bass response in the room, I guess I could add more woofage and it would enable me to play louder than I ever will want to, and make ruler flat even more ruler flat  Of course, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with ridiculous excess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Unsmoothed graph)


 That's from your Audyssey days right


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you believe that the speakers' response changes over time then, thus invalidating an older graph?
> 
> And what makes you think REW is any better at measuring than OmniMic?
> 
> EDIT: I make most of my measurements with OM these days. It is just so much easier than the whole performance of using REW, fighting ASIO4ALL and so on. Slip in the test tones disc, measure, finished. Easy!


My biggest gripe with OM (admittedly personal), is the graph representation. By my eye, you're probably +\- 4-4.5 dB in that plot but very difficult to tell with the tight scale and lack of flexibility to change it in OM (unless that has changed since I used it several years ago). Anyway, Jerry and I will keep clamoring for REW measurements in the hopes you fold as easily as you did on purchasing your second 88A!


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> That's from your Audyssey days right


It could be. But the subs haven't been touched for as far back as I can remember now. If I make a new OM graph of the bass I am pretty sure it will look the same.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> My biggest gripe with OM (admittedly personal), is the graph representation. By my eye, you're probably +\- 4-4.5 dB in that plot but very difficult to tell with the tight scale and lack of flexibility to change it in OM (unless that has changed since I used it several years ago). Anyway, Jerry and I will keep clamoring for REW measurements in the hopes you fold as easily as you did on purchasing your second 88A!


You can change the scale, but it seems perfectly clear to me as it is TBH.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

*Put which speakers where??*

I have attached our room layout. My speakers consist of four *RP-280FA* (Klipsch towers with the built in Atmos speaker on top), RP-450C center channel, a pair of RP-140SA, and a PSA V3600i. 

I will have my sub in the front left corner. One pair of the RP-280FA will be used as my front mains and top Atmos speakers. The RP-450C will be centered up front, of course. Here's where I'm lost...

Option A) Put one set of the RP-280FA near the back wall as my rear surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair to go on the wall, either a foot in front or a foot behind the MLP as side surrounds

Option B) Put one set of the RP-280FA along the wall, angled toward the MLP, just a few feet behind where we sit as side surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair mounted on the back wall as rear surrounds

Thoughts??


----------



## AllenA07

Rocky3RD said:


> Can someone explain to me how to set up bluray player to bitstream? I went to the Audio settings in My Samsung player and there are several bitstream options. Which one should I pick? One bitstream otion is labeled "unprocessed", is that the one I want?
> Also, will this bitsream setup affect streaming and media material, or it just works with a bluray or DVD disc?
> Sorry I am asking here but the Bluray player forum is practically dead, at least in the section dedicated to my specific bluray player


All bitstream vs PCM does is select where the decoding is happening. If you're bluray player can't decode Atmos (spoiler alert, it can't) then you're going to want to select bitstream so your AVR can do the decoding. Set your player to bitstream and forget about it. 

As you've posted this question in basically every movie review thread, I did want to mention that I'm not sure how much PCM vs Bitstream matters for you. You mention that you have a 5.1 Atmos system. All evidence I've seen says there is no advantage to Atmos if you're not using a 5.1.x setup. In that case the difference between PCM and bitstream becomes moot. If you do eventually end up with the speakers necessary for Atmos, switch to bitstream.


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> All bitstream vs PCM does is select where the decoding is happening. If you're bluray player can't decode Atmos (spoiler alert, it can't) then you're going to want to select bitstream so your AVR can do the decoding. Set your player to bitstream and forget about it.
> 
> As you've posted this question in basically every movie review thread, I did want to mention that I'm not sure how much PCM vs Bitstream matters for you. You mention that you have a 5.1 Atmos system. All evidence I've seen says there is no advantage to Atmos if you're not using a 5.1.x setup. In that case the difference between PCM and bitstream becomes moot. If you do eventually end up with the speakers necessary for Atmos, switch to bitstream.


Trust me I read and read as much as there was to read about bitstream vs PCM...All the literature I have researched agrees that there is NO audible difference between the two...In other words, they sound exactly the same. Is that correct? Should I just leave the BD player in PCM and forget about it? This is confusing


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> It could be. But the subs haven't been touched for as far back as I can remember now. If I make a new OM graph of the bass I am pretty sure it will look the same.


If for nothing but academia and the fact that I might be a bit nosey , it would be nice to see the Dirac graph put up against the Audyssey graph.


----------



## MarkMul1

Brother Rocky the Thrid above is just coming from a sound bar to a Onkyo home theater in a box. It is 5.1.2. I've banged my head for hours and days on end trying to help him. With things like holding cal mic in hand and saying calibration is stupid and sucks to trimming speakers to +12 to not wanting to hear that Bluetooth would not be the optimal solution. Things like Dolby sucks, let's get rich on demo discs or my painted wall is the best for a projector. Loving keystone correction and on and on. Many forums thinks he's a plant trying to rile people up. Now that would be hilarious. Anyways, for those that try and help him, there's a tiny bit of background. He is known to bite the hand that feeds him. 

Good luck


----------



## batpig

Rocky3RD said:


> AllenA07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All bitstream vs PCM does is select where the decoding is happening. If you're bluray player can't decode Atmos (spoiler alert, it can't) then you're going to want to select bitstream so your AVR can do the decoding. Set your player to bitstream and forget about it.
> 
> As you've posted this question in basically every movie review thread, I did want to mention that I'm not sure how much PCM vs Bitstream matters for you. You mention that you have a 5.1 Atmos system. All evidence I've seen says there is no advantage to Atmos if you're not using a 5.1.x setup. In that case the difference between PCM and bitstream becomes moot. If you do eventually end up with the speakers necessary for Atmos, switch to bitstream.
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me I read and read as much as there was to read about bitstream vs PCM...All the literature I have researched agrees that there is NO audible difference between the two...In other words, they sound exactly the same. Is that correct? Should I just leave the BD player in PCM and forget about it? This is confusing
Click to expand...

If you have an Atmos setup then you must bitstream because the player will not decode Atmos. 

If you just have a standard setup (like 5.1) then it doesn't matter.


----------



## batpig

Applemike68 said:


> All
> 
> Is their a guideline for spacing the ATMOS speakers from each other? I already have two and will wire two more this weekend for a 7.2.4 setup. Thanks


Google the "Atmos for Home" whitepaper from DOLBY. It's a PDF you can download and discusses all the nuts and bolts of angles and stuff.


----------



## AllenA07

Rocky3RD said:


> Trust me I read and read as much as there was to read about bitstream vs PCM...All the literature I have researched agrees that there is NO audible difference between the two...In other words, they sound exactly the same. Is that correct? Should I just leave the BD player in PCM and forget about it? This is confusing


If you don't have Atmos it simply doesn't matter. Not in the slightest. If you have Atmos, switch to Bitstream. Problem solved.


----------



## batpig

boulder_bum said:


> Hey all. I'm having a 5.1.2 surround experience installed soon.
> 
> What is the ideal placement for in-ceiling speakers in an Atmosphere setup? Right above the sides in the front? How far from the wall? Anything I should know?


As above, check out the Atmos home whitepaper. 

5.1.2 is simple. Start with a 5.1 setup, add a pair of speakers directly above and maybe a couple of feet in front of you, spaced at most the width of your front L/R speakers.


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> If you don't have Atmos it simply doesn't matter. Not in the slightest. If you have Atmos, switch to Bitstream. Problem solved.


This is what I have, does it look like Dolby Atmos to you?

http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=HT-S7700&class=Systems&source=prodClass

Furthemore, if what I have is in fact a Dolby Atmos unit, what bitstream do I select? There are like 3 or 4 different bitsream options to choose from.


----------



## Amzie Williams

I can't say that I've seen anyone that uses that particular model. If you put it to bitstream it will say Dolby Digital + Dolby logo. In that event it will save us from you saying the word Dolby Surround 100 times a day. 



Rocky3RD said:


> This is what I have, does it look like Dolby Atmos to you?
> 
> http://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=HT-S7700&class=Systems&source=prodClass
> 
> Furthemore, if what I have is in fact a Dolby Atmos unit, what bitstream do I select? There are like 3 or 4 different bitsream options to choose from.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Amzie Williams said:


> I can't say that I've seen anyone that uses that particular model. If you put it to bitstream it will say Dolby Digital + Dolby logo. In that event it will save us from you saying the word Dolby Surround 100 times a day.


I can see the digital display on the receiver lit up when I set player to bitstream...Should I select a specific bitstream depending on what I am playing? My BD player shows an "unprocessed" bitstream, a Dolby bitstream, a TrueHD bitstream, and a couple more...So what I should do is hit the audio menu on the bluray disc to check what audio comes in and then select the bitstream accordingly?
Would I switch back to PCM when I go back to streaming Netflix (no bluray disc)?


----------



## Rocky3RD

...and by the way, thanks for the help


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> If for nothing but academia and the fact that I might be a bit nosey , it would be nice to see the Dirac graph put up against the Audyssey graph.


TBH I have lost interest in measuring the room as there is so little now that I can do to make it any better regardless what the measurements show. I have maxed out the potential of this small room I think. I'm not really interested in measuring for the sake of it - only to find things that I can improve. It isn't complacency and if anyone can tell me how to improve the SQ in this room, I am all ears.


----------



## AllenA07

Rocky3RD said:


> I can see the digital display on the receiver lit up when I set player to bitstream...Should I select a specific bitstream depending on what I am playing? My BD player shows an "unprocessed" bitstream, a Dolby bitstream, a TrueHD bitstream, and a couple more...So what I should do is hit the audio menu on the bluray disc to check what audio comes in and then select the bitstream accordingly?
> Would I switch back to PCM when I go back to streaming Netflix (no bluray disc)?


I'm not sure why there would be different modes of bitstream. Really when you select bitsteam all you are doing is selecting where the signal is decoded.


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> I'm not sure why there would be different modes of bitstream. Really when you select bitsteam all you are doing is selecting where the signal is decoded.


Maybe because my specific Samsung J7500 player has more options being a new 2015 model and it targets the specif type of Audio to decode?
I assume bitstream is solely when playing bluray discs, so should I always reset to PCM when streaming stuff like netflix?


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> Hehe. Yes indeed. If the most SPL I ever want is, say, movie reference, and I am getting that, cleanly, and if two subwoofers give me a ruler-flat bass response in the room, I guess I could add more woofage and it would enable me to play louder than I ever will want to, and make ruler flat even more ruler flat  Of course, that wouldn't have anything at all to do with ridiculous excess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Unsmoothed graph)


What size room are you working with. I have a similar graph but I get massive room gain at the lower end of the spectrum.


----------



## AllenA07

bass addict said:


> What size room are you working with. I have a similar graph but I get massive room gain at the lower end of the spectrum.


Where does your theater roll off??? Not many theaters that have a small peak forming up at 7hz!


----------



## bass addict

AllenA07 said:


> Where does your theater roll off??? Not many theaters that have a small peak forming up at 7hz!


I hear ya. It looks like I've built in a housecurve, but that lower end is all room gain with just some minor tweaks to a couple small peaks.


----------



## shyyour

I just finished watching Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and to be honest i was a bit disappointed. I assumed there will be more atmos content (only reason i got the bluray) or was i expecting too much?

I kept looking at my IC amps to see when they would light up and out of the whole movie they lit up only for a couple of scenes.

Unbroken was my first atmos movie and i loved it, the opening scene was absolutely amazing. 

I am expecting some atmos Blurays next week (Man from Uncle, San Andreas, Fifth Element & The professional). I am hoping one of them will have some good atmos content.

Please i would like to know the blurays that really blew people away with their atoms content.

Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

Rocky3RD said:


> Maybe because my specific Samsung J7500 player has more options being a new 2015 model and it targets the specif type of Audio to decode?
> I assume bitstream is solely when playing bluray discs, so should I always reset to PCM when streaming stuff like netflix?



Select "Bitstream (unprocessed)" and leave it at that setting. Your Onkyo receiver can and will do any necessary decoding.

Samsung is misusing the term. Bitstream means that the bits are streaming from the disk (or other source) to the receiver unmodified. The Samsung J5000 Blu-ray player has options to re-encode multichannel audio into either of the two lossy audio formats Dolby Digital or DTS. (See page 50 in the owner's manual.) Calling them "Bitstream" (as it does) is just plain wrong. Converting to DD or DTS is appropriate only if you have an audio system which cannot process high resolution audio. Your Onkyo receiver can process hires audio, so don't select either of those two options. Also, since your Onkyo's speaker system does include "Dolby Enabled" reflecting speakers so it can produce 5.1.2 audio, you should select "Bitstream (unprocessed)" so you can fully enjoy Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## Josh Z

Rocky3RD said:


> I can see the digital display on the receiver lit up when I set player to bitstream...Should I select a specific bitstream depending on what I am playing? My BD player shows an "unprocessed" bitstream, a Dolby bitstream, a TrueHD bitstream, and a couple more...So what I should do is hit the audio menu on the bluray disc to check what audio comes in and then select the bitstream accordingly?
> Would I switch back to PCM when I go back to streaming Netflix (no bluray disc)?


You should use the "Bitstream (Unprocessed)" setting. The "processed" settings will re-encode a Dolby soundtrack to DTS or vice versa. These are useless, stupid features that you should never, ever use under any circumstance.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> You can change the scale, but it seems perfectly clear to me as it is TBH.


Well then, I always thought your stated goal was +/- 5 dB without EQ (i.e. via speaker and sub placement as well as treatments only) and then +/- 3 dB with EQ? Or did I dream that at some point?!


----------



## NorthSky

Oppo Blu-ray players (and Sony); they have better audio setup menus (clear and not confusing) for setting up your BR player correctly, in order to play Dolby Atmos material (Bitstream). ...From the HDMI Audio Out.


----------



## Stoked21

@shyyour

My opinions on the Atmos discs I own....ranking based on intensity of top usage. Not the quality of movie. 

*Horrible Atmos use:*
Game of Thrones
Man from uncle
Minions
Pixels

*Ok Atmos use:*
Mad Max
John Wick
_***both of these have scenes that I use as default Atmos demos though._

*Pretty good Atmos:*
Insurgent
Mockingjay
American Sniper
Enchanted Kingdom (subtle but tasteful)

*Excellent top notch Atmos:*
Gravity
Terminator
Fifth Element
***I would add Bram Stoker to the excellent category. It's doesn't utilize tops to an extreme. But when it uses them it's in this eerie artistic manner that just makes it amazing and makes your skin crawl!

*No mention:*
Leon the professional 
Age Adeline 
Transformers
Step Up
San Andreas (haven't watched)
_***no judgement either way. Good bad ugly. I have no definitive input _

I'd say all the movies above have some scenes where you think "wow! Atmos!" But few do it well and use it as an instrumental part of the mix to add to the story telling experience.


----------



## kaotikr1

kbarnes701 said:


> I’d probably leave those surrounds where they are. It seems you will have plenty of angular separation from the overhead speakers. The problems occur when people have their surrounds right up near the ceiling.


I have another follow up question. I found some of my raw construction pictures and found I have return air duct work in the ceiling right where my TR would have went, so I decided to test out just having TM. I am trying to decide if I should tear down half of my ceiling and adjust the duct work to accommodate the TF/TR setup, or if there is another direction I should go. 

I looked at a calculator someone posted here at according to it I should have my TR between 35 and 87" behind my MLP, the problem is my MLP is 32" from the back wall, so the TR would be right up at the back of the ceiling if I went with TF/TR. 

So I guess it boils down to this for me. 

1. Keep the TM and add I think FH but my FH would be 2 in ceiling speakers with the tweeters aimed towards the MLP. 
2. Ditch the TM, and go TF/TR but have to ensure that it would be worth it as my rears would be at the very back of the room. 

I don't mind doing the dry wall work and would lower my surrounds at the same time so just looking for the advice of the more knowledgeable ones here.


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> @shyyour
> 
> My opinions on the Atmos discs I own....ranking based on intensity of top usage. Not the quality of movie.
> 
> *Horrible Atmos use:*
> Game of Thrones
> Man from uncle
> Minions
> Pixels
> 
> *Ok Atmos use:*
> Mad Max
> John Wick
> _***both of these have scenes that I use as default Atmos demos though._
> 
> *Pretty good Atmos:*
> Insurgent
> Mockingjay
> American Sniper
> Enchanted Kingdom (subtle but tasteful)
> 
> *Excellent top notch Atmos:*
> Gravity
> Terminator
> Fifth Element
> ***I would add Bram Stoker to the excellent category. It's doesn't utilize tops to an extreme. But when it uses them it's in this eerie artistic manner that just makes it amazing and makes your skin crawl!
> 
> *No mention:*
> Leon the professional
> Age Adeline
> Transformers
> Step Up
> San Andreas (haven't watched)
> _***no judgement either way. Good bad ugly. I have no definitive input _
> 
> I'd say all the movies above have some scenes where you think "wow! Atmos!" But few do it well and use it as an instrumental part of the mix to add to the story telling experience.


Thanks Stoked21 i will add American Sniper and Gravity to my to get list. I'll try watch the Terminator tomorrow; i was lucky to get the limited edition on my recent trip.


----------



## Stoked21

shyyour said:


> Thanks Stoked21 i will add American Sniper and Gravity to my to get list. I'll try watch the Terminator tomorrow; i was lucky to get the limited edition on my recent trip.


I'd say Gravity is the best yet. Followed by Fifth Element. It's a toss up from there down.
Do yourself a favor though and grab Bram Stoker Dracula.


----------



## Daryl L

Stoked21 said:


> I'd say Gravity is the best yet. Followed by Fifth Element. It's a toss up from there down.
> Do yourself a favor though and grab Bram Stoker Dracula.


Got my Atmos speaker set up Thursday and watched Gravity last night. I agree, it was an excellent atmos presentation. That was my first Atmos Blu-ray viewing so far. Only got a couple more so far. Get around to watching them in a couple of days. (Transformers Age of Extinction and Expendables 3) 

Oh, I also have Doctor Who: Dark Water/Death in Heaven 3D in Atmos. Don't know how well that's going to go but I'll find out.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> What size room are you working with. I have a similar graph but I get massive room gain at the lower end of the spectrum.


Tiny. 10ft 6ins x 10ft 6ins x 8ft 4ins. Dual Seaton Submersives, Dirac Live room EQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Well then, I always thought your stated goal was +/- 5 dB without EQ (i.e. via speaker and sub placement as well as treatments only) and then +/- 3 dB with EQ? Or did I dream that at some point?!


Disregarding the bass below 20Hz, which I don't believe is reliably measured, it's pretty much ±3dB or so. Near enough anyway. Sounds great.


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> I have another follow up question. I found some of my raw construction pictures and found I have return air duct work in the ceiling right where my TR would have went, so I decided to test out just having TM. I am trying to decide if I should tear down half of my ceiling and adjust the duct work to accommodate the TF/TR setup, or if there is another direction I should go.
> 
> I looked at a calculator someone posted here at according to it I should have my TR between 35 and 87" behind my MLP, the problem is my MLP is 32" from the back wall, so the TR would be right up at the back of the ceiling if I went with TF/TR.
> 
> So I guess it boils down to this for me.
> 
> 1. Keep the TM and add I think FH but my FH would be 2 in ceiling speakers with the tweeters aimed towards the MLP.
> 2. Ditch the TM, and go TF/TR but have to ensure that it would be worth it as my rears would be at the very back of the room.
> 
> I don't mind doing the dry wall work and would lower my surrounds at the same time so just looking for the advice of the more knowledgeable ones here.


TBH I wouldn't worry too much about it. My TRs are well out of spec (they are in spec for TM but I am designating them as TR) and it sounds just fantastic. Get as close as you can but don't obsess over it - "it's pretty hard to make Atmos *not* work" as Dolby themselves say.

Otherwise your option 1 is OK.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Disregarding the bass below 20Hz, which I don't believe is reliably measured, it's pretty much ±3dB or so. Near enough anyway. Sounds great.


Well, that's just it. Since you implemented DL, I'd expect to see more of a house curve or at least the Harmon curve but your OM graph is actually down 7dB below 20Hz around 14-15Hz and then I'm guessing the PGM of the Submersives is kicking in below that BICBW. Anyway, the intent here is to actually ask whether or not the curve you posted is representative of what you're *currently *hearing in your Atmos setup or if it's some legacy measurement prior to DL, dual SubM's repositioned, new furniture etc.


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> Is the Atmos soundtrack only available on the Gravity: Special Edition?


Sure is: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...dition-blu-ray-official-avs-forum-review.html


----------



## gammanuc

Yes, the Diamond Luxe Edition.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I bought Gravity awhile back and watched it prior to finishing my theater. I popped it in tonight only to realize it was outputting DTS-HD on my receiver  I never paid attention before because I was watching in a 7.2 setup at the time. The DSU was superb but I want to hear the Atmos track. I checked the back of the cover and no Atmos mentioned.
> 
> Is the Atmos soundtrack only available on the Gravity: Special Edition?


Yep. Diamond luxe. 

I bought 3D first and realized same thing afterwards.


----------



## michaelscott73

*Atmos channel expansion*

Do you think anyone will announce something at January CES or will we have to wait for fall?


----------



## batpig

michaelscott73 said:


> Do you think anyone will announce something at January CES or will we have to wait for fall?


I'm pretty confident somebody will announce something at CES.


----------



## Argyle

So I remember that there was some discussion much earlier in the thread about how front height basically played the same thing as top front...

Based on that I set up my top front speakers as front heights on my X5200 (the angle to the top fronts is barely in the overlap zone) so I could try out Neo:X on the handful of discs that use it. 

I just tried the 7.1.4 test tones and you can definitely tell that the sound is playing from both front height and top rear when it tries to play the top front test tones in order to create a phantom image. Top rear only comes out of the top rear for me.

This makes total sense but I just thought I'd confirm that there is a difference, I think it's probably quite subtle on actual program material but it's there.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Well, that's just it. Since you implemented DL, I'd expect to see more of a house curve or at least the Harmon curve but your OM graph is actually down 7dB below 20Hz around 14-15Hz and then I'm guessing the PGM of the Submersives is kicking in below that BICBW. Anyway, the intent here is to actually ask whether or not the curve you posted is representative of what you're *currently *hearing in your Atmos setup or if it's some legacy measurement prior to DL, dual SubM's repositioned, new furniture etc.


It's an old graph. I can reproduce it easily enough here today but I am indeed using a house curve with a boosted bottom end (boosted from XO to 20Hz) so that would show up in a new graph if I was using the house curve. Is there a point to this discussion because, if there is, it is eluding me?


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> *It's an old graph*. I can reproduce it easily enough here today but I am indeed using a house curve with a boosted bottom end (boosted from XO to 20Hz) so that would show up in a new graph if I was using the house curve. Is there a point to this discussion because, if there is, it is eluding me?


You just confirmed the point (which admittedly is OT for this thread). Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> You just confirmed the point (which admittedly is OT for this thread). Thanks.


I'm glad we cleared that up then!  I posted that graph, IIRC, to make the point that one doesn't need 57 subwoofers to get decent bass, not especially to show what my current result is. I have to get OM out at some point soon because I need to check the integration around the splice which I haven't done yet since recalibrating when I added my second DDRC-88A. I'll make a new graph at the same time.


----------



## lujan

Stoked21 said:


> @shyyour
> 
> My opinions on the Atmos discs I own....ranking based on intensity of top usage. Not the quality of movie.
> 
> *Horrible Atmos use:*
> Game of Thrones
> Man from uncle
> Minions
> Pixels
> 
> ....


I have to agree with your opinion of "Man From U.N.C.L.E." I rented it from Redbox last night and it had a terrible Atmos mix. The movie wasn't very good either. Thought it would be much better from all the hype they gave it. Just wanted to let others know that the Redbox rental has the Atmos audio.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> I have attached our room layout. My speakers consist of four *RP-280FA* (Klipsch towers with the built in Atmos speaker on top), RP-450C center channel, a pair of RP-140SA, and a PSA V3600i.
> 
> I will have my sub in the front left corner. One pair of the RP-280FA will be used as my front mains and top Atmos speakers. The RP-450C will be centered up front, of course. Here's where I'm lost...
> 
> Option A) Put one set of the RP-280FA near the back wall as my rear surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair to go on the wall, either a foot in front or a foot behind the MLP as side surrounds
> 
> Option B) Put one set of the RP-280FA along the wall, angled toward the MLP, just a few feet behind where we sit as side surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair mounted on the back wall as rear surrounds
> 
> Thoughts??


Bump


----------



## Selden Ball

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> I have attached our room layout. My speakers consist of four *RP-280FA* (Klipsch towers with the built in Atmos speaker on top), RP-450C center channel, a pair of RP-140SA, and a PSA V3600i.
> 
> I will have my sub in the front left corner. One pair of the RP-280FA will be used as my front mains and top Atmos speakers. The RP-450C will be centered up front, of course. Here's where I'm lost...
> 
> Option A) Put one set of the RP-280FA near the back wall as my rear surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair to go on the wall, either a foot in front or a foot behind the MLP as side surrounds
> 
> Option B) Put one set of the RP-280FA along the wall, angled toward the MLP, just a few feet behind where we sit as side surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair mounted on the back wall as rear surrounds
> 
> Thoughts??


For the best overhead sound, the reflecting speakers need to be on the sides. If you put them in the rear, their sound will be reflected off the ceiling toward the TV, not toward the seating.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

Selden Ball said:


> For the best overhead sound, the reflecting speakers need to be on the sides. If you put them in the rear, their sound will be reflected off the ceiling toward the TV, not toward the seating.


My towers with the built-in Atmos speakers would have to sit a little behind the seating positions, angled toward the middle of the room. Unfortunately, I don't have a place to put them directly to the side. So you suggest mounting the RP-140SA on the back wall, as my rear surrounds, correct?


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> IA_Chiefs_fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have attached our room layout. My speakers consist of four *RP-280FA* (Klipsch towers with the built in Atmos speaker on top), RP-450C center channel, a pair of RP-140SA, and a PSA V3600i.
> 
> I will have my sub in the front left corner. One pair of the RP-280FA will be used as my front mains and top Atmos speakers. The RP-450C will be centered up front, of course. Here's where I'm lost...
> 
> Option A) Put one set of the RP-280FA near the back wall as my rear surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair to go on the wall, either a foot in front or a foot behind the MLP as side surrounds
> 
> Option B) Put one set of the RP-280FA along the wall, angled toward the MLP, just a few feet behind where we sit as side surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair mounted on the back wall as rear surrounds
> 
> Thoughts??
> 
> 
> 
> For the best overhead sound, the reflecting speakers need to be on the sides. If you put them in the rear, their sound will be reflected off the ceiling toward the TV, not toward the seating.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with Selden here. If you have enough space to place the speakers behind you that is the preferred arrangement (Front Dolby + Back Dolby). Especially given the layout of your room where you don't really have room to one side due to the sectional. 

Dolby specifically recommends Front+Rear over Front+Side when doing 7.1.4 with reflected modules. If you think about it this will more closely simulate the array of physical on ceiling speakers in a line from front to back.


----------



## batpig

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Selden Ball said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the best overhead sound, the reflecting speakers need to be on the sides. If you put them in the rear, their sound will be reflected off the ceiling toward the TV, not toward the seating.
> 
> 
> 
> My towers with the built-in Atmos speakers would have to sit a little behind the seating positions, angled toward the middle of the room. Unfortunately, I don't have a place to put them directly to the side. So you suggest mounting the RP-140SA on the back wall, as my rear surrounds, correct?
Click to expand...

See my reply above. I think Selden is wrong on this one.

Front + Rear will give you one bounce in front and one behind, which is the preferred simulation of TF +TR physical speakers.


----------



## dan webster

I know this may have been discussed here. My marantz 7009 receiver will not work if i select a single back surround channel. It allows me to select that in the menu but it wont send any sound to the single rear speaker. Could this be something to do with atmos? Is amyone using a single back surround with an atmos set up?


----------



## toddman36

Just rented Mad Max from Redbox lastnite. It had the Atmos Mix, which sounded awesome. The picture was incredible as well, ome of my new favorites...


----------



## batpig

dan webster said:


> I know this may have been discussed here. My marantz 7009 receiver will not work if i select a single back surround channel. It allows me to select that in the menu but it wont send any sound to the single rear speaker. Could this be something to do with atmos? Is amyone using a single back surround with an atmos set up?


Not all surround modes can use the single surround back speaker. DSU for example doesn't. Native Atmos should however.

If at all possible I would strongly recommend going with two surround back speakers. Even if you are stuck placing them relatively close together.


----------



## Selden Ball

batpig said:


> See my reply above. I think Selden is wrong on this one.
> 
> Front + Rear will give you one bounce in front and one behind, which is the preferred simulation of TF +TR physical speakers.


If you're going to have them behind the seating, they have to go way back: at least as far back as the ceiling's height, preferably more like 2x that. Reflecting sound off the ceiling is just like reflecting light off a mirror (although not quite as precise) : Angle of incidence = angle of reflection.

But speakers that are on or in the ceiling are better


----------



## tjenkins95

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> I have attached our room layout. My speakers consist of four *RP-280FA* (Klipsch towers with the built in Atmos speaker on top), RP-450C center channel, a pair of RP-140SA, and a PSA V3600i.
> 
> I will have my sub in the front left corner. One pair of the RP-280FA will be used as my front mains and top Atmos speakers. The RP-450C will be centered up front, of course. Here's where I'm lost...
> 
> Option A) Put one set of the RP-280FA near the back wall as my rear surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair to go on the wall, either a foot in front or a foot behind the MLP as side surrounds
> 
> Option B) Put one set of the RP-280FA along the wall, angled toward the MLP, just a few feet behind where we sit as side surrounds and top Atmos speakers, leaving the RP-140SA pair mounted on the back wall as rear surrounds
> 
> Thoughts??


 
I see that you bought 4 RP-280FA speakers. Is it better to match the 2 front speakers with the 2 back surround speakers?
I also have Klipsch speakers but I use 2 smaller speakers for the back surround. Is there any advantage to matching with the fronts?
Thanks.
Ray


----------



## David Susilo

Man From UNCLE is a huge disappointment. Many of my non Atmos movies can give better Atmos experience just by using DSU

Minions is also disappointing. There are so many instances where they can throw the sound above our heads and not being utilized... And I love Minions (as characters). What a let down.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> For the best overhead sound, the reflecting speakers need to be on the sides. If you put them in the rear, their sound will be reflected off the ceiling toward the TV, not toward the seating.





IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> My towers with the built-in Atmos speakers would have to sit a little behind the seating positions, angled toward the middle of the room. Unfortunately, I don't have a place to put them directly to the side. So you suggest mounting the RP-140SA on the back wall, as my rear surrounds, correct?





batpig said:


> I'm going to disagree with Selden here. If you have enough space to place the speakers behind you that is the preferred arrangement (Front Dolby + Back Dolby). Especially given the layout of your room where you don't really have room to one side due to the sectional.
> 
> Dolby specifically recommends Front+Rear over Front+Side when doing 7.1.4 with reflected modules. If you think about it this will more closely simulate the array of physical on ceiling speakers in a line from front to back.





Selden Ball said:


> If you're going to have them behind the seating, they have to go way back: at least as far back as the ceiling's height, preferably more like 2x that. Reflecting sound off the ceiling is just like reflecting light off a mirror (although not quite as precise) : Angle of incidence = angle of reflection.
> 
> But speakers that are on or in the ceiling are better


 
♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
♦♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Pages 10, 11, 14, 19 & 23


----------



## loknload

I did a crude rendering of my room. I was able to move the surround speakers from directly beside the seating to just above ear level in the rear corners of the room and I am now a believer in having them there. As you can see I don't have much room behind the seating and the surrounds can't go ear level directly to the sides of the seating because I have sliding closet doors on one side but I'm making due with the hand I was dealt. In getting ready for Atmos I will either get a Denon 4200 and an Audiosource amp or a 5200 and would like to do 5.1.4. I modeled in a couple of top middle speakers where I would probably put them if running just 5.1.2. As was previously discussed the Denon will not let me selrct top middle and top front at the same time. If so, I would just install another set of in ceiling speakers more toward the front of the room. So, that leaves me with a few choices.

A) Just run 5.1.2 with the top middle.

B) Move the top middle speakers forward and designate them as top front and then put another set of in ceiling speakers as close to the back wall as I can get them and designate them as top rear. They would pretty much be on top of the listening position when fully reclined.

C) Keep the top middle and then either install a true set of front height speakers at the front wall/ceiling or install another set of in ceiling toward the front of the room and designate whichever one I do as front height.

I have searched and searched for pictures and write ups of people doing Atmos in a very small room but I have not come across anything other than people mentioning they've done it. My room is 11' wide x 12.5' long x 8' high. I've seen the mention of doing Atmos in the "Hobbit" style rooms (I even saw somebody mention they did 5.1.4 in a 10x10 room) but never seen any pictures or write ups. Maybe some folks who have successfully done that could give me some insight. Thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

loknload said:


> I did a crude rendering of my room. I was able to move the surround speakers from directly beside the seating to just above ear level in the rear corners of the room and I am now a believer in having them there. As you can see I don't have much room behind the seating and the surrounds can't go ear level directly to the sides of the seating because I have sliding closet doors on one side but I'm making due with the hand I was dealt. In getting ready for Atmos I will either get a Denon 4200 and an Audiosource amp or a 5200 and would like to do 5.1.4. I modeled in a couple of top middle speakers where I would probably put them if running just 5.1.2. As was previously discussed the Denon will not let me selrct top middle and top front at the same time. If so, I would just install another set of in ceiling speakers more toward the front of the room. So, that leaves me with a few choices.
> 
> A) Just run 5.1.2 with the top middle.
> 
> B) Move the top middle speakers forward and designate them as top front and then put another set of in ceiling speakers as close to the back wall as I can get them and designate them as top rear. They would pretty much be on top of the listening position when fully reclined.
> 
> C) Keep the top middle and then either install a true set of front height speakers at the front wall/ceiling or install another set of in ceiling toward the front of the room and designate whichever one I do as front height.
> 
> I have searched and searched for pictures and write ups of people doing Atmos in a very small room but I have not come across anything other than people mentioning they've done it. My room is 11' wide x 12.5' long x 8' high. I've seen the mention of doing Atmos in the "Hobbit" style rooms (I even saw somebody mention they did 5.1.4 in a 10x10 room) but never seen any pictures or write ups. Maybe some folks who have successfully done that could give me some insight. Thanks.


Move your chairs forward, couple more feet away from the rear wall. ...Your flat panel is small, so you'll have a larger field of view (better). 
And then you can go for a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup; similar to that below...with Front Height and Top Middle for the four overhead speakers.









* Your flat panel TV is 60" diagonal (or 65")? ...You can sit six feet from it; it would be "perfect". 
Even in a small room, many options are available; 5.1.2 - 5.1.4 - 7.1.2 - 7.1.4 ...if you are free to move your furniture around, as in yours. 
I would certainly go with 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup in a room of 11' (W) by 12.5' (D) by 8' (H)

For larger rooms...9.1.6


----------



## loknload

NorthSky said:


> Move your chairs forward, couple more feet from the rear wall. ...Your flat panel is small, so you'll have a larger field of view (better).
> And then you can go for a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup; similar to that below...with Front Height and Top Middle for the four overhead speakers.
> 
> [iurl="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1117962&d=1450038131"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]


I don't have a problem moving my seating forward slightly but 7.1.4 isn't going to happen. I am not willing to block the closet doors on the left side of the room with side surrounds. The display is a 6 year old Panasonic 65" plasma. When it dies I plan on doing a projector and probably a 106"-110" screen. I was, however, thinking that the top middle/front height combo would probably be the correct 5.1.4 setup to do with all 4 speakers in the ceiling. I would imagine that would be more immersive than just 5.1.2. I just don't know that putting top rears in that close to the rear wall and almost directly overhead when reclined would do any better than TM & FH.


----------



## AllenA07

I got around this weekend to getting the speakers mounted. I ended up having to mount the rear atmos speakers a bit lower the the fronts (about 18 inches lower) which isn't really something I wanted to do. However, by doing that I was able to get all my speakers mounted within the Dolby recommended angles. I'm hoping the reciever can help compensate for the differences in height by adjusting the delays and speaker levels. 

I've still got to get my side surrounds mounted, and will start running wires next weekend.


----------



## NorthSky

loknload said:


> I don't have a problem moving my seating forward slightly but 7.1.4 isn't going to happen. I am not willing to block the closet doors on the left side of the room with side surrounds. The display is a 6 year old Panasonic 65" plasma. When it dies I plan on doing a projector and probably a 106"-110" screen. I was, however, thinking that the top middle/front height combo would probably be the correct 5.1.4 setup to do with all 4 speakers in the ceiling. I would imagine that would be more immersive than just 5.1.2. I just don't know that putting top rears in that close to the rear wall and almost directly overhead when reclined would do any better than TM & FH.


Very good, 5.1.4 Atmos setup. ...Floor surrounds @ 110° (roughly) behind the straight MLP line.
Forget Top Rears, go Top Middle and Front Heights; that's the right idea. IMO

* Should be excellent when you'll get your front projector (4K).


----------



## kbarnes701

loknload said:


> I have searched and searched for pictures and write ups of people doing Atmos in a very small room but I have not come across anything other than people mentioning they've done it. My room is 11' wide x 12.5' long x 8' high. I've seen the mention of doing Atmos in the "Hobbit" style rooms (I even saw somebody mention they did 5.1.4 in a 10x10 room) but never seen any pictures or write ups. Maybe some folks who have successfully done that could give me some insight. Thanks.


My Hobbit*™* room is smaller than yours. I am running 7.2.4 with dual Seaton Submersives (with the 6,000 watts of amplification between them). The LCR are M&K S150s, the 4 surrounds are Tannoy Di6DC and the 4 overheads are Tannoy Di5 DC. Amplification is all-external with 300 wpc for the LCR and roughly 150 wpc for the others. Room correction is Dirac Live on all channels via a pair of miniDSP DDRC-88As. I use an Epson PJ for the biggest screen my room can accommodate. There is a single row of 3 seats. The room is quite heavily treated with acoustic panels and is painted a very dark grey and black with black carpet.

The whole experience is incredibly immersive and the smallness of the room makes for an extremely intimate aural and visual experience. The Atmos presentation is excellent.

So, what is it you want to know?


----------



## Selden Ball

loknload said:


> I did a crude rendering of my room


How about rotating the AV system by 90 degrees so the doorways are behind the seating?


----------



## loknload

Selden Ball said:


> How about rotating the AV system by 90 degrees so the doorways are behind the seating?


I considered that. Now that I pretty much have the room set up it would take a whole lot of re-wiring. I didn't imagine I would be this picky about setting up atmos. The room sounds outstanding now with 5.1. I need to stop worrying so much and start expirimenting.


----------



## loknload

kbarnes701 said:


> My Hobbit*:tm:* room is smaller than yours. I am running 7.2.4 with dual Seaton Submersives (with the 6,000 watts of amplification between them). The LCR are M&K S150s, the 4 surrounds are Tannoy Di6DC and the 4 overheads are Tannoy Di5 DC. Amplification is all-external with 300 wpc for the LCR and roughly 150 wpc for the others. Room correction is Dirac Live on all channels via a pair of miniDSP DDRC-88As. I use an Epson PJ for the biggest screen my room can accommodate. There is a single row of 3 seats. The room is quite heavily treated with acoustic panels and is painted a very dark grey and black with black carpet.
> 
> The whole experience is incredibly immersive and the smallness of the room makes for an extremely intimate aural and visual experience. The Atmos presentation is excellent.
> 
> So, what is it you want to know?


While I am in no way shape or form spend that kind of money on my room, I would love to see the orientation of your room, seating, and how the speakers fit into the room. Like I said, I don't mind sitting close to the back wall and my room sounds excellent but it does present some challenges. I think the biggest challenge with my room is the location of the entry and closet doors and those are not going to change.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Until I see pictures, in my mind's eye you are a hobbit with one big ear.


Pictures might not change that perception


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> You don't need to block the closet doors for the side surrounds. Mount them next to the closet door and *buy wall mounts that allow you to swivel the speakers.* The side surrounds don't need to be on axis to your side. They actually sound better slightly forward and then aimed back toward the MLP.


That is what I had to do here. Works beautifully.


----------



## bass addict

I'm curious; how many of you are aiming your tops towards the mlp as opposed to straight down. 

Has anyone experimented both ways and which is preferred.

Reason I ask is I'm in the process of building cabs for my volt 10s and don't really have the luxury of experimenting with them before semi flushing them into the sofit.


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> I'm curious; how many of you are aiming your tops towards the mlp as opposed to straight down.
> 
> Has anyone experimented both ways and which is preferred.
> 
> Reason I ask is I'm in the process of building cabs for my volt 10s and don't really have the luxury of experimenting with them before semi flushing them into the sofit.


I think I was the first advocate of pivoting speakers (aim-ables) on this thread and "best IC for atmos". I have tried heights, tops, DAE, aimed and not aimed varieties. 

My personal take....Go with a slanted box with the drivers aimed at MLP. Don't even consider anything else if you have 2 rows. A 90-120° dispersion is great and preferable---but you want that axis aimed towards MLP and covering both rows. If the speaker baffle is slanted towards MLP, and the driver is wide dispersion, you can space the TF and TR far enough out to still cover both rows. All while still maintaining TF ahead of both rows and TR behind both rows.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> I'm curious; how many of you are aiming your tops towards the mlp as opposed to straight down.
> 
> Has anyone experimented both ways and which is preferred.
> 
> Reason I ask is I'm in the process of building cabs for my volt 10s and don't really have the luxury of experimenting with them before semi flushing them into the sofit.


Mine are currently toed in towards MLP. I have tried them both ways several times. I can’t honestly say with conviction that I can reliably hear much, if any, difference. But my Tannoys are very wide dispersion and the room is small, so they are not too far away, which might affect things. If the overheads have a narrower dispersion than Dolby recommends, toeing them in may well make a significant difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

loknload said:


> While I am in no way shape or form spend that kind of money on my room, I would love to see the orientation of your room, seating, and how the speakers fit into the room. Like I said, I don't mind sitting close to the back wall and my room sounds excellent but it does present some challenges. I think the biggest challenge with my room is the location of the entry and closet doors and those are not going to change.


As the room is square, the orientation doesn't matter. The M&K S150s sit underneath the screen on low stands, angled up towards MLP. They are designed with a dispersion characteristic which permits them to be used effectively in this way (or more likely in a studio environment, mounted above the desk and angled down). This was one of the reasons for choosing those speakers - mounting them below the screen enables me to use the widest screen that will fit the room, since I am not constrained by the L&R speakers being to the side.

The MLP is approximately 2ft 9 inches from the rear wall, giving me a distance from screen of about 7ft 9 inches. This gives me (just) enough room to mount rear surrounds. To create greater separation between the surrounds and rear surrounds, I have moved my surrounds forward of MLP to about 80°. This works very well.

The 4 overhead speakers are mounted as FH+TM, respecting the angles for both as recommended. The FH are on the ceiling - I can’t recall offhand the exact angle from MLP but it is something like 45° from memory, which is in spec. The TM pair are also in spec and are mounted just forward of MLP, which I found better than just behind MLP, possibly as it gives them a little more angular separation from the rear surrounds. The L set and R set of overheads are mounted in line with the front L and front R speakers as recommended by Dolby.

I too have a problem door and I solved it by mounting one of my surround speakers on a swivel bracket so that it sits in front of the door. Fortunately it is a double door and the speaker sits in front of the half of the door which isn't used. Doors are a real PITA in small rooms. The speaker can easily be swung out of the way of the door if I did want to use the door.

There is no reason why one cannot achieve exceptional PQ and SQ in a small room, but it does take some ingenuity, perseverance and creativity. I watch a movie every day and my Hobbit Theater never ceases to bring a big smile to my face.


----------



## AllenA07

bass addict said:


> I'm curious; how many of you are aiming your tops towards the mlp as opposed to straight down.
> 
> Has anyone experimented both ways and which is preferred.
> 
> Reason I ask is I'm in the process of building cabs for my volt 10s and don't really have the luxury of experimenting with them before semi flushing them into the sofit.


A totally useless response, but my speakers are all pointing at the MLP. That being said, there currently isn't any speaker wire going to the channels, so I've got no idea if it matters. Reading around the Internet there seems to be a small concensus that the speakers should be aimed if possible.


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my reply above. I think Selden is wrong on this one.
> 
> Front + Rear will give you one bounce in front and one behind, which is the preferred simulation of TF +TR physical speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to have them behind the seating, they have to go way back: at least as far back as the ceiling's height, preferably more like 2x that. Reflecting sound off the ceiling is just like reflecting light off a mirror (although not quite as precise) : Angle of incidence = angle of reflection.
Click to expand...

Sorry Selden, I'm still not with you. A few points here:

1. Did you look at the diagram of his room? In a practical sense he has no place to put towers to the side, but plenty of space behind. 

2. Dolby specifically recommends 7.1.4 as Front+Rear when using Dolby enabled speakers. I'm assuming this is for the reason I noted, in that it more closely mimics the Front + Back array of overhead speakers. Remember the overhead speakers are theoretically supposed to be a line array from front to back. 

3. I also don't think you've fully thought through the geometry here. The typical Atmos module has an elevation angle of around 60-65 degrees (ie 25-30 degrees tilt forward from straight up). Let's assume a simple case of 4' height on modules and 8' ceilings. The direct path of the speaker beam is going to strike the ceiling only 2 - 2.5ft in front of the modules. That means you only need them to be around 5ft behind you to be fairly optimal. I'm not sure where you came up with this 1-2x ceiling height thing.


----------



## batpig

AllenA07 said:


> bass addict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious; how many of you are aiming your tops towards the mlp as opposed to straight down.
> 
> Has anyone experimented both ways and which is preferred.
> 
> Reason I ask is I'm in the process of building cabs for my volt 10s and don't really have the luxury of experimenting with them before semi flushing them into the sofit.
> 
> 
> 
> A totally useless response, but my speakers are all pointing at the MLP. That being said, there currently isn't any speaker wire going to the channels, so I've got no idea if it matters. Reading around the Internet there seems to be a small concensus that the speakers should be aimed if possible.
Click to expand...

In the THX report they found that they preferred wide dispersion speakers pointed straight down. The idea being they gave the best sense of sound coming from "up there" overhead. 

Just another data point -- as with many topics, I don't think there's a clear cut consensus here. There's a lot of factors at play and it will depend on your room, the speaker layout, speaker design, personal preference etc.


----------



## AllenA07

How high do you guys have your side surrounds mounted? Mine are 3 feet above seated ear level, which is slightly higher than I wish they were. I put them that high to keep the aisle open so people aren't hitting their heads. 

I'm not sure if Atmos changes the recommended mounting height for the surrounds, but in the past I know 2-3 feet above ear level was correct.


----------



## NorthSky

The surrounds should be @ ear level, or just slightly above to not be blocked by high back chairs. ...That's for both Side and Back surrounds.

* The THX expert people, after experimentation, found that the four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers were better performers when aiming straight down.
But I don't remember the type of speakers they were using and in what room.


----------



## jvkahl

NorthSky said:


> The surrounds should be @ ear level, or just slightly above to not be blocked by high back chairs. ...That's for both Side and Back surrounds.
> 
> * The THX expert people, after experimentation, found that the four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers were better performers when aiming straight down.
> But I don't remember the type of speakers they were using and in what room.


Good spot for my ?? With high backed chair (above my head) how can you possibly mount SB speakers high enough to have a direct line to my ears. They'd have to be TM. So then wouldn't it be best to go with 5.1.4 instead of 7.1.2?? I have bad discs in my neck and don't want a low back chair.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Josh Z said:


> You should use the "Bitstream (Unprocessed)" setting. The "processed" settings will re-encode a Dolby soundtrack to DTS or vice versa. These are useless, stupid features that you should never, ever use under any circumstance.


I will try "unprocessed" bitstream and report back, thanks!


----------



## AllenA07

NorthSky said:


> The surrounds should be @ ear level, or just slightly above to not be blocked by high back chairs. ...That's for both Side and Back surrounds.
> 
> * The THX expert people, after experimentation, found that the four overhead Dolby Atmos speakers were better performers when aiming straight down.
> But I don't remember the type of speakers they were using and in what room.


Ugh... The correct answer is that 3ft above ear level will work great and that I don't have to remount.  Seriously though just eyeballing it I think my side surrounds are much too high, and do likely need to be redone.


----------



## Movie78

Stoked21 said:


> @shyyour
> 
> My opinions on the Atmos discs I own....ranking based on intensity of top usage. Not the quality of movie.
> 
> *Horrible Atmos use:*
> Game of Thrones


Just order the Game Of Throne S1/S2 ATMOS from Amazon, i guess i have to cancel my order.

Thanks!


----------



## Charles R

Argyle said:


> I just tried the 7.1.4 test tones and you can definitely tell that the sound is playing from both front height and top rear when it tries to play the top front test tones in order to create a phantom image. Top rear only comes out of the top rear for me.


What disc are you using? Does it have test tones for each location? I guess since Atmos is "configurable" the test tones aren't discrete like the bed channels... either they play or not.


----------



## Stoked21

Movie78 said:


> Just order the Game Of Throne S1/S2 ATMOS from Amazon, i guess i have to cancel my order.
> 
> Thanks!


It's a great presentation and I enjoyed watching them a second time. But the Atmos is weak. Just some ambient torches in caverns/caves. Lots of echo and reverb up top when inside the stone palaces etc.....Atmos adds to the experience, but it doesn't have the wow factor I was hoping for.

S3 and S4 should be better when they release in Jan 2016----all the wars and the dragons etc. But 1&2 were just weak....


----------



## Rocky3RD

Josh Z said:


> You should use the "Bitstream (Unprocessed)" setting. The "processed" settings will re-encode a Dolby soundtrack to DTS or vice versa. These are useless, stupid features that you should never, ever use under any circumstance.





Stoked21 said:


> It's a great presentation and I enjoyed watching them a second time. But the Atmos is weak. Just some ambient torches in caverns/caves. Lots of echo and reverb up top when inside the stone palaces etc.....Atmos adds to the experience, but it doesn't have the wow factor I was hoping for.
> 
> S3 and S4 should be better when they release in Jan 2016----all the wars and the dragons etc. But 1&2 were just weak....


 Atmos is supposed to be a subtle effect, I dont think what you heard was a weak display of Atmos, it's just that Atmos effects take the backseat to the center and front speakers


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> I think I was the first advocate of pivoting speakers (aim-ables) on this thread and "best IC for atmos". I have tried heights, tops, DAE, aimed and not aimed varieties.
> 
> My personal take....Go with a slanted box with the drivers aimed at MLP. Don't even consider anything else if you have 2 rows. A 90-120° dispersion is great and preferable---but you want that axis aimed towards MLP and covering both rows. If the speaker baffle is slanted towards MLP, and the driver is wide dispersion, you can space the TF and TR far enough out to still cover both rows. All while still maintaining TF ahead of both rows and TR behind both rows.


They are Volt 10's which have a 90 degree dispersion pattern. That being said; even at 110 degrees they are only down a db or so. Due to the room layout and sofit design, I can't get them behind the rear row (the RT's will be slightly forward of the rear row seating unfortunately) so maybe straight down is the best setup. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Mine are currently toed in towards MLP. I have tried them both ways several times. I can’t honestly say with conviction that I can reliably hear much, if any, difference. But my Tannoys are very wide dispersion and the room is small, so they are not too far away, which might affect things. If the overheads have a narrower dispersion than Dolby recommends, toeing them in may well make a significant difference.


Interesting. While my room isn't much wider than yours 10' 7", I do have more length to work with at 22'ish. 



batpig said:


> In the THX report they found that they preferred wide dispersion speakers pointed straight down. The idea being they gave the best sense of sound coming from "up there" overhead.


Makes sense. What about toeing them in? I have an odd situation where I am going to be mounting them in an IB setup in my tiered sofit. The second tier is 4" deep so I will be be building a small box to connect the driver to the sofit to utilize the air space in the sofit for IB. Because of this it will be butted up against the deeper sofit. I thought about a slight toe in to keep too much reflected sound from bouncing off of it, if that makes sense. 

I tried to dig up a pic to show what I'm talking about. Here you can see the different tiers and the tops will be semi flush mounted into the blue tier. 





















> Just another data point -- as with many topics, I don't think there's a clear cut consensus here. There's a lot of factors at play and it will depend on your room, the speaker layout, speaker design, personal preference etc.


Agreed. 



AllenA07 said:


> How high do you guys have your side surrounds mounted? Mine are 3 feet above seated ear level, which is slightly higher than I wish they were. I put them that high to keep the aisle open so people aren't hitting their heads.
> 
> I'm not sure if Atmos changes the recommended mounting height for the surrounds, but in the past I know 2-3 feet above ear level was correct.


As you can see in my pics; I originally had mine mounted up quite high for space concerns. They sit right at the stairs and I wanted them out of the way. I have since moved them down but they are still a ways above ear level as I had to account for the back row as well. These are QS8's however; and do extremely well in less than optimal mounting scenarios. 



AllenA07 said:


> Ugh... The correct answer is that 3ft above ear level will work great and that I don't have to remount.  Seriously though just eyeballing it I think my side surrounds are much too high, and do likely need to be redone.


I'd try it first and see what you think before changing anything. You might be perfectly happy with them as they are.


----------



## Stoked21

Rocky3RD said:


> Atmos is supposed to be a subtle effect, I dont think what you heard was a weak display of Atmos, it's just that Atmos effects take the backseat to the center and front speakers


No disrespect Rocky. 

I think I'm a little more knowledgable about Atmos and have much more experience. Yes ambience is an affect of Atmos. But there is also very pronounced usage as well. 

GoT is a weak Atmos mix. Period.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> No disrespect Rocky.
> 
> I think I'm a little more knowledgable about Atmos and have much more experience. Yes ambience is an affect of Atmos. But there is also very pronounced usage as well.
> 
> GoT is a weak Atmos mix. Period.


 Have you tried to increase your Atmos speakers dcb levels just for Games of Thrones?


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> My opinions on the Atmos discs I own....ranking based on intensity of top usage. Not the quality of movie.
> 
> San Andreas (haven't watched)



I felt San Andreas had a very active mix - lot of overhead effects. It's an awesome Saturday afternoon popcorn movie.



Daryl L said:


> That was my first Atmos Blu-ray viewing so far. Only got a couple more so far. Get around to watching them in a couple of days. (Transformers Age of Extinction and Expendables 3)



Don't use Transformers as a basis for how good Atmos is. It's far from the best example of a good mix.

Pick up Gravity (Diamond Luxe Edition). The Atmos mix is one of the best out there.

Also, the recent re-release of The Fifth Element is spectacular.


----------



## Stoked21

Rocky3RD said:


> Have you tried to increase your Atmos speakers dcb levels just for Games of Thrones?


Why would someone do that. That makes no sense. The intent is not to raise speaker levels so it suits your liking or to overly emphasize an effect. Once your room is setup and REQ calibrated appropriately, your levels are where they should be. Changing the levels to an significant extreme will change the object locations. Half a db or so is one thing on initial REQ. Adjusting speaker levels for a particular disc is insane. The acoustics of your finished room and final speaker placement do not change---so your levels should not be changed. 

The mix is done by the studio and they are the ones who have established how much, if any, of an effect should be elevated to the tops. A prime example is why the helicopter in San Andreas does not come from the top speakers. Any tampering with your top levels isn't going to change that....Cranking a level on your settings is just going to make the system sound like **** and ruin the intentions of the sound mixer. Likely collapsing the entire sound field both bed and height layers.


----------



## Stoked21

stikle said:


> I felt San Andreas had a very active mix - lot of overhead effects. It's an awesome Saturday afternoon popcorn movie.


San Andreas was so painful at the theater, I've been putting off watching it at home!! Figured I would give it another shot on my own system but have yet to do so. I did see the helicopter part and was disappointed by lack of Atmos. I'll sit down one of these days and watch it all again for Atmos evaluation.

Agree on Gravity and 5E....They are both amazing.


----------



## Charles R

Rocky3RD said:


> Atmos is supposed to be a subtle effect, I dont think what you heard was a weak display of Atmos, it's just that Atmos effects take the backseat to the center and front speakers


Subtle is open to debate but I completely agree with the intent. Atmos in and of itself doesn't make the experience. No more than rear surrounds or a second sub woofer. Sure it can enhance but if it "makes it" there wasn't much to begin with...


----------



## Rocky3RD

Charles R said:


> Subtle is open to debate but I completely agree with the intent. Atmos in and of itself doesn't make the experience. No more than rear surrounds or a second sub woofer. Sure it can enhance but if it "makes it" there wasn't much to begin with...


That is what I meant. To be disappointed by a bluray title for "lack of Atmos" to me is like saying that my whole movie experience was ruined by lack of left surround presence (for example)


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> Why would someone do that. That makes no sense. The intent is not to raise speaker levels so it suits your liking or to overly emphasize an effect. Once your room is setup and REQ calibrated appropriately, your levels are where they should be. Changing the levels to an significant extreme will change the object locations. Half a db or so is one thing on initial REQ. Adjusting speaker levels for a particular disc is insane. The acoustics of your finished room and final speaker placement do not change---so your levels should not be changed.
> 
> The mix is done by the studio and they are the ones who have established how much, if any, of an effect should be elevated to the tops. A prime example is why the helicopter in San Andreas does not come from the top speakers. Any tampering with your top levels isn't going to change that....Cranking a level on your settings is just going to make the system sound like **** and ruin the intentions of the sound mixer. Likely collapsing the entire sound field both bed and height layers.


I guess you have never had the bad expeience of watchin a bluray title where no matter what, the voices keep sounding like whispers, and as soon as music or sound effects kick in the center speaker gets totally overwhelmed? Do you keep your center speaker at the same calibration, despite tthe fact that you cant even hear what the actors on the screen are saying? I personally crank up the center dlbs until the voices are audible. When I am done I make sure to return center levels to original settings


----------



## Stoked21

Charles R said:


> Subtle is open to debate but I completely agree with the intent. Atmos in and of itself doesn't make the experience. No more than rear surrounds or a second sub woofer. Sure it can enhance but if it "makes it" there wasn't much to begin with...


Age of Adeline has a nice subtlety. Leon the Professional. Occasional points where the tops are emphasized when appropriate for the scene. Another nice subtle Atmos effect is when the score is pulled into the top to be elevated. Everyone agrees that there is value to an immersive bubble when Atmos is used in those instances.

Gravity or 5E or Terminator are examples where Atmos is used to an extreme....and yet still fitting for the scenes...Explosions above you, Bullets flying by, voices shifting and panning from bed to tops and back. Not all movies have these types of scenes and therefore cannot emphasize Atmos without sounded stupid and over done.

In GoT: when dragons fly over, or it's raining, or swords are clashing above your head or arrows whizzing by, or ocean waves crashing-----and the tops stay eerily inactive----that's a bad Atmos presentation. A handful of times when torches are flickering over your head or voices are echoing in a cave (over a 10 hour period) does not make for a good Atmos mix. Countless scenes over 10 hours per season when the tops SHOULD have been utilized to add to the immersive nature. Is it more immersive than 5.1? Well hell yeah it extends the field at times. But most of the time you are pressing "info" on the remote thinking you are not in Atmos. Watching it in a well setup 7.1 system is just as immersive.

I'm a huge GoT fan...I will not be buying S3-S5 in Atmos. I'd rather save the $40/season and just stream it in DD+ over HBOGO for free. Short of laughably cranking up the Audyssey level settings for your tops, you won't get much out of the Atmos version releases.


----------



## Charles R

Rocky3RD said:


> That is what I meant. To be disappointed by a bluray title for "lack of Atmos" to me is like saying that my whole movie experience was ruined by lack of left surround presence (for example)


For some the Atmos factor is the main attraction. Much like "bassheads" their real focus isn't on the movie experience rather it's on one aspect of it. As often stated... _Not that there's anything wrong with that_...


----------



## Stoked21

Rocky3RD said:


> I guess you have never had the bad expeience of watchin a bluray title where no matter what, the voices keep sounding like whispers, and as soon as music or sound effects kick in the center speaker gets totally overwhelmed? Do you keep your center speaker at the same calibration, despite tthe fact that you cant even hear what the actors on the screen are saying? I personally crank up the center dlbs until the voices are audible. When I am done I make sure to return center levels to original settings


Can't say I have had that experience. Yes there are scenes that are dynamic and louder. Explosions etc that clearly should be higher levels than whispered dialogue. But nope, I can hear the voices just fine.

Yes I keep my center speaker exactly where Audyssey, or any other REQ, would set it. No reason to adjust it and doing so would destroy the mix. I may tweak my tops by 0.5-1.0db at most upon initial REQ; and IF so that's usually to better balance all seating vs to modify the sound at the MLP. Traditionally, I don't change them at all. When I do it's because I'm in the middle of some room modification that has maybe altered the acoustics causing something to hot-spot or attenuation of some channel for some reason or another (putting a screen over LCR for instance). Audyssey seems to set things pretty damn spot-on whereas YPAO tended to run tops a little hot or a little cold measurement to measurement (0.5-1.0db). I do boost my sub by about +5db in Audyssey. 

Sounds like you have a bad center speaker or something wrong in your system. In general, you really don't want to mess with the settings. The mics are low-cost and not extremely accurate..but they are more accurate than your ears.


----------



## Scott Simonian

If it's gonna be mixed in Atmos, use the heights.

Otherwise just give me a regular 7.1 track.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> Age of Adeline has a nice subtlety. Leon the Professional. Occasional points where the tops are emphasized when appropriate for the scene. Another nice subtle Atmos effect is when the score is pulled into the top to be elevated. Everyone agrees that there is value to an immersive bubble when Atmos is used in those instances.
> 
> Gravity or 5E or Terminator are examples where Atmos is used to an extreme....and yet still fitting for the scenes...Explosions above you, Bullets flying by, voices shifting and panning from bed to tops and back. Not all movies have these types of scenes and therefore cannot emphasize Atmos without sounded stupid and over done.
> 
> In GoT: when dragons fly over, or it's raining, or swords are clashing above your head or arrows whizzing by, or ocean waves crashing-----and the tops stay eerily inactive----that's a bad Atmos presentation. A handful of times when torches are flickering over your head or voices are echoing in a cave (over a 10 hour period) does not make for a good Atmos mix. Countless scenes over 10 hours per season when the tops SHOULD have been utilized to add to the immersive nature. Is it more immersive than 5.1? Well hell yeah it extends the field at times. But most of the time you are pressing "info" on the remote thinking you are not in Atmos. Watching it in a well setup 7.1 system is just as immersive.
> 
> I'm a huge GoT fan...I will not be buying S3-S5 in Atmos. I'd rather save the $40/season and just stream it in DD+ over HBOGO for free. Short of laughably cranking up the Audyssey level settings for your tops, you won't get much out of the Atmos version releases.


The GoT Atmos mix is _supremely disappointing_... almost as if the home video department just re-encoded the 5.1 television mix, so the marketing department could say it was in Atmos and be able to re-sell the same episodes over again to the fans.


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> If it's gonna be mixed in Atmos, use the heights.
> 
> Otherwise just give me a regular 7.1 track.


Exactly...That's what DSU is for anyway. I can stream GoT for free with DSU and it would probably sound identical or even better than the expensive ass steelbook BD release.


----------



## Stoked21

Charles R said:


> For some the Atmos factor is the main attraction. Much like "bassheads" their real focus isn't on the movie experience rather it's on one aspect of it. As often stated... _Not that there's anything wrong with that_...


Yep and I'm one of those people that want Atmos as a main attraction. _If I buy a disc that's touting Atmos as a selling/marketing feature, then it better damn well use it. _ I buy and stream plenty of movies weekly that do not include Atmos. And I enjoy them just the same with or without DSU, whether the tops do a lot or not. My expectations for most every Atmos movie are that the tops will only be infrequently noticeable. If it's an Atmos release that is more non-fiction/drama, then I expect a subtle immersive ambience and I am usually always pleased with that. But when helicopters and dragons are anchored to the bed channels on a premier Atmos release???? That's just idiotic.

If you sat through 10 hours of a movie and only heard your surround and rear surround speakers 3-4 times....I can promise you that you would be disappointed. Especially when their usage is justifiable in many of the scenes. To label that as not being focused on the "movie experience" isn't a real fair statement. Yes you are focused on and enjoying the movie experience...but you can't help but hear the big sonic holes.


----------



## tjenkins95

bass addict said:


> I'm curious; how many of you are aiming your tops towards the mlp as opposed to straight down.
> 
> Has anyone experimented both ways and which is preferred.
> 
> Reason I ask is I'm in the process of building cabs for my volt 10s and don't really have the luxury of experimenting with them before semi flushing them into the sofit.


 

My 4 in-ceiling speakers are pointed straight down. I tried angling them but found no difference in the sound. The speakers in the Atmos movie theater also point downwards.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> Exactly...That's what DSU is for anyway. I can stream GoT for free with DSU and it would probably sound identical or even better than the expensive ass steelbook BD release.


Off topic: Where do you stream GoT for free? The only place I can think of is HBO Now (or HBO Go, whatever it's called) and that seems to come with a paying subscription


----------



## bass addict

tjenkins95 said:


> My 4 in-ceiling speakers are pointed straight down. I tried angling them but found no difference in the sound. The speakers in the Atmos movie theater also point downwards.


Cool. It seems as if the consensus is to point them down. I'll end up angling them in a few degrees because of the aforementioned sofit install (cut down on immediate reflections) and call it a day.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> Sounds like you have a bad center speaker or something wrong in your system. In general, you really don't want to mess with the settings. The mics are low-cost and not extremely accurate..but they are more accurate than your ears.


 My center speaker is fine, this only happens with a few titles, usually older re-mastered classics in bluray. If the movie editing has the center levels too low, despite of your current calibration, it wont hurt to counter that problem with a little increase in center dbls


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> The GoT Atmos mix is _supremely disappointing_... almost as if the home video department just re-encoded the 5.1 television mix, so the marketing department could say it was in Atmos and be able to re-sell the same episodes over again to the fans.


As always, with any recording or soundtrack, YMMV or in this case, DolbyAtmosMMV.

I have an AVS Forum friend who is a professional sound mixer that has done many TV shows and films. When he told me that often times, broadcast TV will take a plain old Dolby Surround recording and dump it into a 5.1 format, I was floored. In essence, what you see on your AVR or audio encoding display might turn out to sound great or might be so-so. Your ears will be the judge. 

I couldn't agree more with the statement that if it's Dolby Atmos, then use the heights - - that's what they're there for. That doesn't mean that you have to contrive a soundtrack - - but I know there are many films out there that are labeled "Dolby Atmos" and the responses on this forum are "WTF?" 

Just like a referee in boxing, if Atmos is done right, you don't notice it that much but it's always present. That being said, I still think this is an evolving technology that will get better as the studios gain more knowledge on how to effectively use object based encoding.


----------



## MarkMul1

Stoked21 said:


> Can't say I have had that experience. Yes there are scenes that are dynamic and louder. Explosions etc that clearly should be higher levels than whispered dialogue. But nope, I can hear the voices just fine.
> 
> Yes I keep my center speaker exactly where Audyssey, or any other REQ, would set it. No reason to adjust it and doing so would destroy the mix. I may tweak my tops by 0.5-1.0db at most upon initial REQ; and IF so that's usually to better balance all seating vs to modify the sound at the MLP. Traditionally, I don't change them at all. When I do it's because I'm in the middle of some room modification that has maybe altered the acoustics causing something to hot-spot or attenuation of some channel for some reason or another (putting a screen over LCR for instance). Audyssey seems to set things pretty damn spot-on whereas YPAO tended to run tops a little hot or a little cold measurement to measurement (0.5-1.0db). I do boost my sub by about +5db in Audyssey.
> 
> Sounds like you have a bad center speaker or something wrong in your system. In general, you really don't want to mess with the settings. The mics are low-cost and not extremely accurate..but they are more accurate than your ears.


You are sparring with someone who i believe has never even heard Atmos. Its printed on his box and it is amazing going from 2.0 to 5.1. He went from a Soundbar to a Home Theater in A Box not 2-3 weeks ago and yesterday was posting in multiple forums asking how to set his bluray player. And most likely does not even understand up fire speakers .. I'm going with a fake $10,000 bet against the chosen one as never actually hearing Atmos at this point.

I'm just amazed at his ability to draw people into debate.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> The GoT Atmos mix is _supremely disappointing_... almost as if the home video department just re-encoded the 5.1 television mix, so the marketing department could say it was in Atmos and be able to re-sell the same episodes over again to the fans.


As the mixing and editorial crews changes after the first seasons, I can tell you that there are reasons why the first couple of seasons sound as they do... 

And 3-5 are a lot more aggressive as they go on...

Or at least, that's what I've "heard"


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rocky3RD said:


> My center speaker is fine, this only happens with a few titles, usually older re-mastered classics in bluray. If the movie editing has the center levels too low, despite of your current calibration, it wont hurt to counter that problem with a little increase in center dbls


You do understand that having to raise the level of your center channel for older titles that are poorly mastered isn't the same as bumping up the levels of your height channels. Ideally, once all your speakers are set to the same standards that are dictated for the mixing studio, you wouldn't change them from title to title. That's not to say that you can't do it... but as the placement of sounds between the beds and heights is dependent upon those speakers all being at the same level, you're essentially shifting the between-channel sounds upward so they collapse to the heights rather than image between height/bed channels correctly.

I get what you're saying about "it won't hurt", but if your goal is to reproduce some semblance of what the mixer intended you to hear, then... well, it kinda' does.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Stoked21 said:


> On second read of @sdrucker hiss question. I just realized he said "at meaningful listening level". Any hiss I'm referring to is when nothing is on. Movie is paused, you're in the room by yourself, no furnace running etc. Then I hear it.


I'm planning an XLS1500 amp for my next subwoofers, and the S/N specs are lower than a typical audiophile amp. 103 dB vs, say, 120 dB (Anthem MCA50). Also note that the S/N is 6 dB worse in the higher sensitivity mode, so make sure to always use the 1.4v setting rather than 0.7v when driving full range speakers. For subs, it won't matter.

In the 1.4v mode the XLS1500's gain is 31 dB, so no need to use the 37 dB mode except in unusual circumstances.


----------



## bargervais

Rocky3RD said:


> I guess you have never had the bad expeience of watchin a bluray title where no matter what, the voices keep sounding like whispers, and as soon as music or sound effects kick in the center speaker gets totally overwhelmed? Do you keep your center speaker at the same calibration, despite tthe fact that you cant even hear what the actors on the screen are saying? I personally crank up the center dlbs until the voices are audible. When I am done I make sure to return center levels to original settings


can you talk a little louder i can't hear you. my set up is unchanged i don't change anything after i do AccEQ i don't touch the center at all i pays to have good speakers and set up. when i listen to Blu-Rays center is clear to me. But then i can't help you i have never dealt with theater in a box


----------



## AllenA07

bass addict said:


> I'd try it first and see what you think before changing anything. You might be perfectly happy with them as they are.


The more I think about it the more I think I'm going to try them where they are. They are sitting right at 3 feet above my ear level, so technically that is within the recommended range. The eyeball test tells me that they look too high, but before going to the work of dropping them lower I will try them where they are.


----------



## Stoked21

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm planning an XLS1500 amp for my next subwoofers, and the S/N specs are lower than a typical audiophile amp. 103 dB vs, say, 120 dB (Anthem MCA50). Also note that the S/N is 6 dB worse in the higher sensitivity mode, so make sure to always use the 1.4v setting rather than 0.7v when driving full range speakers. For subs, it won't matter.
> 
> In the 1.4v mode the XLS1500's gain is 31 dB, so no need to use the 37 dB mode except in unusual circumstances.


OT....Now I have to ask though as this is new to me.

I didn't even realize this was an option as it wasn't in the menus. All I saw was crossover and HPF/LPF options....I did a quick double check in manual and I now do see there is a PeakX Limiter option that is defaulted to on. It doesn't say it's 0.7 vs 1.4v toggle. Is this what you are referring to? I'm assuming "On" is the lower voltage?


----------



## bass addict

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You do understand that having to raise the level of your center channel for older titles that are poorly mastered isn't the same as bumping up the levels of your height channels. Ideally, once all your speakers are set to the same standards that are dictated for the mixing studio, you wouldn't change them from title to title. That's not to say that you can't do it... but as the placement of sounds between the beds and heights is dependent upon those speakers all being at the same level, you're essentially shifting the between-channel sounds upward so they collapse to the heights rather than image between height/bed channels correctly.
> 
> I get what you're saying about "it won't hurt", but if your goal is to reproduce some semblance of what the mixer intended you to hear, then... well, it kinda' does.


In playing devils advocate here; how is this any different than bumping up a sub level on a poorly mastered BR. Take AOU for example. I found myself bumping the sub trim by 3 or 4db's due to the horrible output. Once could easily say I ruined what the mixer intended you to hear. 

I think a lot of times we get lost in the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit.


----------



## Argyle

Charles R said:


> What disc are you using? Does it have test tones for each location? I guess since Atmos is "configurable" the test tones aren't discrete like the bed channels... either they play or not.


I'm using the September 2015 demo disc.

I have a 7.1.4 setup but all the other test tones will play, they just put objects playing white noise where those speakers should be. So if you have a speaker there you'll only hear it there, but otherwise it will use your other speakers to try to position it where it should be.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Stoked21 said:


> I didn't even realize this was an option as it wasn't in the menus. All I saw was crossover and HPF/LPF options....I did a quick double check in manual and I now do see there is a PeakX Limiter option that is defaulted to on. It doesn't say it's 0.7 vs 1.4v toggle. Is this what you are referring to? I'm assuming "On" is the lower voltage?


I was looking in the XLS1502 manual. Sorry about that. It looks like the sensitivity option is only part of the XLSxxx2 series amps, whereas in the XLS1500 you have it is always the 1.4v mode. So you're good to go there.


----------



## stikle

Holy moly, it's a Roger! 

How's the new build coming?


----------



## fjerina

I ordered a pair of the ELAC A4 Atmos speakers from Amazon. I wondered why it was taking so long to get them (they were backordered) after a few weeks. I contacted ELAC directly to see what was the holdup and they were kind to quickly respond with the following. 

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your interest in the ELAC brand and products. The A4 Atmos speakers will arrive to the U.S. on February 9th. They will be shippable 3-5 business days after that.
Unfortunately, it won’t be any quicker ordering them directly from ELAC.
Sorry for the inconvenience………If there are any other questions I can answer for you, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Jim

I ordered a cheaper Onkyo pair which I will receive tomorrow from Amazon. If I am happy with the Onkyo I may keep them and cancel my ELAC order. 

Just wanted to spread the word.


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> Yep and I'm one of those people that want Atmos as a main attraction. _If I buy a disc that's touting Atmos as a selling/marketing feature, then it better damn well use it. _ I buy and stream plenty of movies weekly that do not include Atmos. And I enjoy them just the same with or without DSU, whether the tops do a lot or not. My expectations for most every Atmos movie are that the tops will only be infrequently noticeable. If it's an Atmos release that is more non-fiction/drama, then I expect a subtle immersive ambience and I am usually always pleased with that. But when helicopters and dragons are anchored to the bed channels on a premier Atmos release???? That's just idiotic.
> 
> If you sat through 10 hours of a movie and only heard your surround and rear surround speakers 3-4 times....I can promise you that you would be disappointed. Especially when their usage is justifiable in many of the scenes. To label that as not being focused on the "movie experience" isn't a real fair statement. Yes you are focused on and enjoying the movie experience...but you can't help but hear the big sonic holes.


I so agree with you, whats the point of watching an "atmos Movie" if it isn't rarely used or not used when it should have been. Its a waste of your time IMHO.


----------



## barty88

*Atmos or 7.1 +(2?) Setup advice*

I have a small room (about 12x14 feet) and am wondering if the cost and hassle of re-wiring for Atmos then upgrading to an Atmos receiver right now is even worth it? My Yamaha RX-A1040 receiver I am currently trying to hook up gives directions for a 7.1+2 setup.... isnt that 9.1? Weird, anyway... I have large Klipsch towers and center for front and 4 small Definitive Tech speakers for side (though I think these may be placed too far forward) and rear surround, with a 10" Klipsch sub. I also have an 8 inch DT sub I could hook up if it made a difference in a good way? ...but because of my room and a very old house the 4 DT surround speakers are at almost 8 feet off the floor and angled down (not ideal, I know... but I cant do it any other way here). Wondering if it makes sense to just try and leave it as is or add front presence speakers for a 7.1+2 setup and get good surround?

I have read alot of places but do not understand the whole "height" thing that is talked about with DTS or Dolby pro or whatever... can I get a fairly comparable yet obviously not as good as the new 'gold standard' Atmos listening experience doing a 7.1+2 for this small space and save alot of hassle and money in the process? Will YPAO correct the speakers outputs in this setup enough to sound good? And lastly if I do the 2 front presence speakers how good of quality for the amount of sound coming out do I really need? Should they be inside or outside of the 2 towers? Meaning, I may have to place my towers closer together as they are now around 8-10 feet apart and the diagrams I have seen have them around 5-6 feet apart and the presence speakers above and to the outside of the room of those....


----------



## dvdwilly3

fjerina said:


> I ordered a pair of the ELAC A4 Atmos speakers from Amazon. I wondered why it was taking so long to get them (they were backordered) after a few weeks. I contacted ELAC directly to see what was the holdup and they were kind to quickly respond with the following.
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> Thanks for your interest in the ELAC brand and products. The A4 Atmos speakers will arrive to the U.S. on February 9th. They will be shippable 3-5 business days after that.
> Unfortunately, it won’t be any quicker ordering them directly from ELAC.
> Sorry for the inconvenience………If there are any other questions I can answer for you, please don’t hesitate to ask.
> Sincerely,
> Jim
> 
> I ordered a cheaper Onkyo pair which I will receive tomorrow from Amazon. If I am happy with the Onkyo I may keep them and cancel my ELAC order.
> 
> Just wanted to spread the word.


For those interested in the *Elac Debut* series, I got the latest edition of Sound and Vision in the mail today, and there is a rave review for the Elac 5.1 system that they were looking at.
The review will probably be online in about a week or two.

Sound and Vision is usually pretty tempered in their reviews. 

FWIW, Steve Gutenburg on cNet thought that the Elac B6s were top value for the $$.


----------



## Ironman1718

How far apart should the Atmos (Ceiling) speakers be from each other? 4', 5' etc...Is their a rule of thumb...I've downloaded the Dolby Atmos on their website but they do not have measurements, just placement.


Thank you


----------



## AllenA07

Applemike68 said:


> How far apart should the Atmos (Ceiling) speakers be from each other? 4', 5' etc...Is their a rule of thumb...I've downloaded the Dolby Atmos on their website but they do not have measurements, just placement.
> 
> 
> Thank you


I believe this depends more on the angle from the MLP more then any set distance.


----------



## chrismnj

anyone can help with atoms speaker placement? would like to add 4 celling speakers. Should they go above sitting position or above front towers and rear surrounds?


----------



## bass addict

chrismnj said:


> anyone can help with atoms speaker placement? would like to add 4 celling speakers. Should they go above sitting position or above front towers and rear surrounds?


I'm assuming you meant to say Atmos?, or do you have atom speakers? 

If atmos; there are plenty of diagrams throughout this forum showing proper placement. They will be somewhat splitting the different between fronts and rears and not over either (depending on exact angle placement should range between 3-6' in front and behind MLP).


----------



## chrismnj

bass addict said:


> I'm assuming you meant to say Atmos?, or do you have atom speakers?
> 
> If atmos; there are plenty of diagrams throughout this forum showing proper placement. They will be somewhat splitting the different between fronts and rears and not over either (depending on exact angle placement should range between 3-6' in front and behind MLP).


sorry for the typo i meant atmos. could you please take a look at my room layout. see attached drawing


----------



## aaranddeeman

chrismnj said:


> sorry for the typo i meant atmos. could you please take a look at my room layout. see attached drawing


Looks like you are better served with FH+TM configuration.
Please see if the calculator in my signature is any useful.


----------



## chrismnj

aaranddeeman said:


> Looks like you are better served with FH+TM configuration.
> Please see if the calculator in my signature is any useful.


my room height is 108" and what is "FH+TM configuration"?


----------



## aaranddeeman

chrismnj said:


> my room height is 108" and what is "FH+TM configuration"?


FH = Front Height
TF = Top Front
TM = Top Middle
TR = Top Rear
RH = Rear Height

Please refer to the Dolby Guidelines and locations of these speakers in the first post of this thread.


----------



## NorthSky

chrismnj said:


> anyone can help with atoms speaker placement? would like to add 4 celling speakers. Should they go above sitting position or above front towers and rear surrounds?



♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bass addict said:


> In playing devils advocate here; how is this any different than bumping up a sub level on a poorly mastered BR. Take AOU for example. I found myself bumping the sub trim by 3 or 4db's due to the horrible output. Once could easily say I ruined what the mixer intended you to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of times we get lost in the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit.




I'm fairly certain that nothing about the AOU disc is what the mixer intended you to hear, unless he was deaf. But as to how that's different, turning up the sub doesn't change where a sound images in space the way turning up the Atmos heights does. It would be like if you turn your left main up for no reason... Any sound that is 50% in the center and 50% in the left should image between those two speakers... But will collapse toward the left because of the discrepancy in levels. Same with the bed to height imaging. If that's your preference, more power to ya... But let's not pretend that it doesn't negatively affect the intended presentation.


----------



## chrismnj

aaranddeeman said:


> FH = Front Height
> TF = Top Front
> TM = Top Middle
> TR = Top Rear
> RH = Rear Height
> 
> Please refer to the Dolby Guidelines and locations of these speakers in the first post of this thread.


Thank you!


----------



## AllenA07

Another mounting question, but what are people's thoughts about the height difference between the listener level speakers and the heights. I've only got about a 3.5 foot difference between my rear surrounds and my rear atmos speakers. Not much I can do to fix this, having a room with a vaulted ceiling has made things more difficult. 

My Atmos speakers being at different heights does have me a little bit concerned. I'm really hoping the AVR can adjust levels and delays to compensate. I'm going to leave my side surrounds alone, I'll lower them if need be, but the higher placement helps preserve my aisle, so I would like to keep them where they are. They are exactly 3 feet above ear level, which is within Dolby's recommended height. 

This weekend I'll run the wires, and by early next week I should have a functioning 7.2.4 theater.


----------



## chrismnj

thats what sucks about atmos celling placement cut the holes and hope for the best what if you wanna move them +-1'. its almost like withe a wife its cheaper to keep it. lol


----------



## NorthSky

chrismnj said:


> thats what sucks about atmos celling placement cut the holes and hope for the best what if you wanna move them +-1'. its almost like withe a wife its cheaper to keep it. lol


 
Just build your own high custom speaker stands that you can move around easily (with 2 by 4 and a base and a speaker plate*), voila. ...Roughly less than 8 feet high (perhaps 7.5'). Experiment, and when you know the spots that sound best in your room's ceiling, start drilling. 


* Attach the Atmos overhead speaker to the top plate with Blue Tack and a bungee cord. And the base of the stand should be large enough so that the high speaker stand remains straight and solidly anchored to the floor. The time you put to build those temporary custom speaker stands and the few dollars for some 2 by 4 and some plywood and screws and blue tack and bungee cords (you might have already some of those items) is the aggravation saved of drilling @ the wrong places and your wife beating you up.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> As the mixing and editorial crews changes after the first seasons, I can tell you that there are reasons why the first couple of seasons sound as they do...
> 
> And 3-5 are a lot more aggressive as they go on...
> 
> Or at least, that's what I've "heard"


Hmmm... Not enough individual sound elements and stems available from the first two seasons' soundtrack sessions to really make a proper immersive re-mix?

One would think if they did a ground up Atmos overhaul and started from scratch, they could overcome some of the original tracks' limitations. Again... one would think... wouldn't one?


----------



## Archaea

Battlefront on PC finally has functional Atmos and it's as good as everyone claimed!

I didn't see the Cedia demo off the Atmos Demonstration Disk with the Battlefront scene on it, but it's definitely grin inducing with the actual game implementation. I think this is the best Atmos content I've experienced yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
THIS is why Atmos is finally worthwhile IMO.

Walk under an AT-AT - you hear the lasers firing from above you - a plane flies over - you can tell which direction it is flies over. Shrapnel falling from explosions and wrecked vehicles planes etch. Even flying through falling debris in one of the space ship battles, electricity sounds, laser sounds, etc. The bubble effect of the personal shield LITERALLY sounds like you are in a personal bubble shield! Very cool! So yeah - the ceiling channels add a very tremendous element for gaming.



This is excellently done! And no noticeable lag introduction, which was another concern I'd read about.


----------



## Ricoflashback

bass addict said:


> In playing devils advocate here; how is this any different than bumping up a sub level on a poorly mastered BR. Take AOU for example. I found myself bumping the sub trim by 3 or 4db's due to the horrible output. Once could easily say I ruined what the mixer intended you to hear.
> 
> I think a lot of times we get lost in the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit.


And now the Dolby Atmos & EQ police have your handle name and are conducting a background search as I type. They will be in touch. 

You could turn yourself in but I do not think that will affect your sentence. For a small fee, I'll gladly help prepare anyone's defense IF your case goes to trial.


----------



## richmagnus

loknload said:


> I don't have a problem moving my seating forward slightly but 7.1.4 isn't going to happen. I am not willing to block the closet doors on the left side of the room with side surrounds. The display is a 6 year old Panasonic 65" plasma. When it dies I plan on doing a projector and probably a 106"-110" screen. I was, however, thinking that the top middle/front height combo would probably be the correct 5.1.4 setup to do with all 4 speakers in the ceiling. I would imagine that would be more immersive than just 5.1.2. I just don't know that putting top rears in that close to the rear wall and almost directly overhead when reclined would do any better than TM & FH.



My room dimensions are similar to yours. 
I've run front height/top middle and it worked well. I've now settled on front height/rear height and prefer the results.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shyyour

richmagnus said:


> My room dimensions are similar to yours.
> I've run front height/top middle and it worked well. I've now settled on front height/rear height and prefer the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


WoW i love how neat your room is , more impressed at how neat your speaker presentation is (no wires showing). i wish i could break my walls and hide all my wires .

Really nice


----------



## richmagnus

shyyour said:


> WoW i love how neat your room is , more impressed at how neat your speaker presentation is (no wires showing). i wish i could break my walls and hide all my wires .
> 
> 
> 
> Really nice



Thank you. 
It to a week to finish. The walls are all solid so had to be chased out then plastered. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

*Spears & Munsil Atmos disk??*

As we are thrashing about over the lack of calibration material, I thought, Why not go to the source? Si, I emailed Spears & Munsil.

Below is my email (at the bottom) and the response at the top...

"Hi Bill,

Our next disc will be released sometime around mid 2017, which will cover UHD and HDR. We are not sure what we can for Atmos since it is object based and the AVR controls which speakers the sound comes from. With 5.1 and 7.1 we can force a specific speaker to play pink noise, this is not the case with Atmos.

Best,

Stacey

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:23 PM, William Cook wrote:
Will you be doing any kind of calibration/benchmark/test disk in the future that will include Atmos?

Very, very interested.

Thanks,

Bill Cook"

I guess that I am surprised...


----------



## Selden Ball

dvdwilly3 said:


> As we are thrashing about over the lack of calibration material, I thought, Why not go to the source? Si, I emailed Spears & Munsil.
> 
> Below is my email (at the bottom) and the response at the top...
> 
> "Hi Bill,
> 
> Our next disc will be released sometime around mid 2017, which will cover UHD and HDR. We are not sure what we can for Atmos since it is object based and the AVR controls which speakers the sound comes from. With 5.1 and 7.1 we can force a specific speaker to play pink noise, this is not the case with Atmos.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Stacey
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:23 PM, William Cook wrote:
> Will you be doing any kind of calibration/benchmark/test disk in the future that will include Atmos?
> 
> Very, very interested.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Cook"
> 
> I guess that I am surprised...


That sounds like they haven't done their homework. 

Atmos includes "snap to speaker" options in addition to spacial positioning. Presumably DTS:X does, too. However, I want to be able to test how well both features are working in my sound system.

I used their "contact" page to send them a query just now. If people don't ask, they can't know that such features are wanted.

eta: I've also sent a query to Ovation (Avia), and to Joe Kane Productions (DVE)


----------



## Movie78

richmagnus said:


> My room dimensions are similar to yours.
> I've run front height/top middle and it worked well. I've now settled on front height/rear height and prefer the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This show that space can't stop a man from archiving his ATMOS dream!!!

Nice!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Can't say I have had that experience. Yes there are scenes that are dynamic and louder. Explosions etc that clearly should be higher levels than whispered dialogue. But nope, I can hear the voices just fine.
> 
> Yes I keep my center speaker exactly where Audyssey, or any other REQ, would set it. No reason to adjust it and doing so would destroy the mix. I may tweak my tops by 0.5-1.0db at most upon initial REQ; and IF so that's usually to better balance all seating vs to modify the sound at the MLP. Traditionally, I don't change them at all. When I do it's because I'm in the middle of some room modification that has maybe altered the acoustics causing something to hot-spot or attenuation of some channel for some reason or another (putting a screen over LCR for instance). Audyssey seems to set things pretty damn spot-on whereas YPAO tended to run tops a little hot or a little cold measurement to measurement (0.5-1.0db). I do boost my sub by about +5db in Audyssey.
> 
> Sounds like you have a bad center speaker or something wrong in your system. In general, you really don't want to mess with the settings. The mics are low-cost and not extremely accurate..but they are more accurate than your ears.


+1 

Dialog unintelligibility is a sure sign of a badly set up system, a poor room, lack of good room EQ, poor speakers, or of course, all of them. In a good system dialog is consistently clear in almost every modern movie IME. Goosing the center channel trim is a Bandaid solution - finding and fixing the underlying cause is the way to go.


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> +1
> 
> Dialog unintelligibility is a sure sign of a badly set up system, a poor room, lack of good room EQ, poor speakers, or of course, all of them. In a good system dialog is consistently clear in almost every modern movie IME. Goosing the center channel trim is a Bandaid solution - finding and fixing the underlying cause is the way to go.


I'm going to agree with this. In the last few years I've put a lot of time and effort into really improving my theater, and since that point I've never had to adjust individual speaker trims outside of the initial calibration. There have been a few times (looking at you Age of Ultron) where I have thought about give my subs an extra nudge, but I can't say that I've ever actually done it. Ideally you should be in a place where once you have your room setup and calibrated all you should need to worry about is popping the disc in and adjusting the volume.


----------



## Stoked21

AllenA07 said:


> I'm going to agree with this. In the last few years I've put a lot of time and effort into really improving my theater, and since that point I've never had to adjust individual speaker trims outside of the initial calibration. There have been a few times (looking at you Age of Ultron) where I have thought about give my subs an extra nudge, but I can't say that I've ever actually done it. Ideally you should be in a place where once you have your room setup and calibrated all you should need to worry about is popping the disc in and adjusting the volume.


If your remote becomes a joystick for individual channel level control.....you have a problem.

I just watched the remastered Star Wars this weekend....1977. Dialogue was clear as could be even if the fidelity was less than desired.

YPAO tended to set my TR about 2-3db hot and the TF about 1-1.5db cold. This is likely due to the measurement method as well as my TR being so near the MLP. . With YPAO I ran it at all 6 seats. So it is intuitive that it would set this way. Audyssey seems to set them really well and I haven't had to tweak them (tight 8 position cluster around MLP though).


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> If your remote becomes a joystick for individual channel level control.....you have a problem.
> 
> I just watched the remastered Star Wars this weekend....1977. Dialogue was clear as could be even if the fidelity was less than desired.
> 
> YPAO tended to set my TR about 2-3db hot and the TF about 1-1.5db cold. This is likely due to the measurement method as well as my TR being so near the MLP. . With YPAO I ran it at all 6 seats. So it is intuitive that it would set this way. Audyssey seems to set them really well and I haven't had to tweak them (tight 8 position cluster around MLP though).


With Audyssey I find that typically it sets my speakers just a little bit on the low side. Anytime after I run it I will go through with pink noise and an SPL meter and adjust all my levels 75db. I admittedly cheat more then I probably should on bass as I'm guessing a lot of people on this site do. 

Star Wars... It always makes me pretty happy with the amount of bass in the movie considering the age, but the imaging is an absolute train wreck.


----------



## Selden Ball

AllenA07 said:


> With Audyssey I find that typically it sets my speakers just a little bit on the low side. Anytime after I run it I will go through with pink noise and an SPL meter and adjust all my levels 75db. I admittedly cheat more then I probably should on bass as I'm guessing a lot of people on this site do.


Hopefully you're using an external source of calibration tones. 

The AVR's internal tones bypass Audyssey. i.e. if you use the internal tones you're messing up the speaker balance that Audyssey has carefully set for you. If all of the speakers have to be changed the same amount, that's the same as adjusting the volume.

If you haven't already done so, please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ that's here on AVS. The instructions in the equipment manuals are woefully inadequate.


----------



## AllenA07

Selden Ball said:


> Hopefully you're using an external source of calibration tones.
> 
> The AVR's internal tones bypass Audyssey. i.e. if you use the internal tones you're messing up the speaker balance that Audyssey has carefully set for you. If all of the speakers have to be changed the same amount, that's the same as adjusting the volume.
> 
> If you haven't already done so, please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ that's here on AVS. The instructions in the equipment manuals are woefully inadequate.


I use the tone generator in REW to set the speaker levels.


----------



## Selden Ball

AllenA07 said:


> I use the tone generator in REW to set the speaker levels.


 Great!


----------



## stikle

shyyour said:


> i wish i could break my walls and hide all my wires



Can you use some fish tape (as I did) to run the wires inside your walls without "breaking" them? One hole at the top and one at the bottom, which I hid behind the baseboard trim.



kbarnes701 said:


> Dialog unintelligibility is a sure sign of a badly set up system, a poor room, lack of good room EQ, poor speakers, or of course, all of them.



...or of a Christopher Nolan mix (e.g. Interstellar).


----------



## shyyour

stikle said:


> Can you use some fish tape (as I did) to run the wires inside your walls without "breaking" them? One hole at the top and one at the bottom, which I hid behind the baseboard trim.


Unfortunately i don't think i can. My walls are concrete/cement so i have to break the walls, insert pipes,run speaker wires, plaster and then repaint. It can be done but it'll cost me and the wife wont be happy @ all so i settled on towers all round and pvc trunking on tile skirts.

I'll definitely do it at some point when i have the spare cash and the Mrs is not around.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> In the THX report they found that they preferred wide dispersion speakers pointed straight down. The idea being they gave the best sense of sound coming from "up there" overhead.


I believe @sdurani was also referring to this THX report but I have not yet seen a link to it. Is it publicly available?


----------



## Chesebro

*Dolby atmos and streaming*

Do any of the streaming services stream Dolby Atmos? If so which one(s)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chesebro said:


> Do any of the streaming services stream Dolby Atmos? If so which one(s)


Vudu, M-GO (don't know if it's download only or streaming too) and Kaleidescape and a few other extremely pricey services for the super rich. The latter premo services are bit-for-bit lossless Atmos like Blu-ray.


----------



## Skylinestar

maikeldepotter said:


> I believe @sdurani was also referring to this THX report but I have not yet seen a link to it. Is it publicly available?


It's in the interview with THX.


----------



## fjerina

I just added a couple of Dolby Atmos speakers to my setup. I have the Onkyo 646 receiver (with updated firmware to give me the latest and greatest, hopefully). I redid my setup specifying the additional speakers and did a auto-calibration (with the included microphone) and it sent a calibration signal to those speakers during the auto-calibration.

Now, I just played the "Enchanted Kingdom" Blu-Ray in 3D mode. I think I am getting the Atmos added sounds but how am I sure that is happening? I also selected the "receiver" button on the receiver remote and cycled into modes until "Dolby Digital Direct" is selected. Am I all set to hear the Dolby Atmos sound from the Blu-Rays???


----------



## Stoked21

Dan Hitchman said:


> Vudu, M-GO (don't know if it's download only or streaming too) and Kaleidescape and a few other extremely pricey services for the super rich. The latter premo services are bit-for-bit lossless Atmos like Blu-ray.


I've never seen M-Go pricing. I assume, since there's no dedicated HW and it seems to be more of a smartTV app, that they are probably similar to Vudu or such.

As for Kaleidescape....yeah pricey. Entry level $2-4K for the units also gets UHD, TBs of storage and a disc player that supports DVD and BD. But more importantly: it is lossless, eliminates much of the HDCP 2.2 requirements and eliminates buffering or streaming issues. Movie prices are about the same as buying the disc or streaming elsewhere. Staying OT, they have every Atmos release that's been put out to date.

If you start to add up the features: HDCP 1.4-2.2 converter ($200), UHD HDR BD Player (~$500-1000), lossy Roku streaming device ($150), potentially some amount of NAS HDD storage ($100-200), you could easily spend $1000+ for an inferior piece parted solution. 

Sure, $3500 for Kaleidescape is significantly more. I'm not lining up to buy one!!! I'm crossing my fingers that the streamed UHD and Atmos titles come to fruition quickly through other providers (Vudu, Amazon, etc). If the $3500 unit was about half the price, I'd be all in. I already expect I'm going to be asked to pay about $500-1000 for a UHD HDR disc player next year anyway. And many of us Atmos fans are going to happily do just that in order to get Atmos encoded content from certain studios. (Fox, Disney, etc).

I am a big supporter of snipping the wifi connection and allowing movie downloads to eliminate network dependency.
I would also be a fan of not having to swap discs every time I want to watch a flick.

So while I agree the Kaleidoscope is very expensive for initial entry (maybe too expensive), I guess I don't view it as uber pricey. Seriously, some people are paying $30K+ just for their Atmos prepros. $2K for a player is at least somewhat in the realm of sanity.


----------



## stikle

fjerina said:


> I just added a couple of Dolby Atmos speakers to my setup. I have the Onkyo 646 receiver (with updated firmware to give me the latest and greatest, hopefully). I redid my setup specifying the additional speakers and did a auto-calibration (with the included microphone) and it sent a calibration signal to those speakers during the auto-calibration.
> 
> Now, I just played the "Enchanted Kingdom" Blu-Ray in 3D mode. I think I am getting the Atmos added sounds but how am I sure that is happening? I also selected the "receiver" button on the receiver remote and cycled into modes until "Dolby Digital Direct" is selected. Am I all set to hear the Dolby Atmos sound from the Blu-Rays???



The display on your Onkyo should say "Atmos" on it if everything is working correctly. If not, then it's not receiving the correct signal.

Go into the setup for your Bluray player and turn Bitstreaming ON and any secondary audio OFF.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fjerina said:


> I just added a couple of Dolby Atmos speakers to my setup. I have the Onkyo 646 receiver (with updated firmware to give me the latest and greatest, hopefully). I redid my setup specifying the additional speakers and did a auto-calibration (with the included microphone) and it sent a calibration signal to those speakers during the auto-calibration.
> 
> Now, I just played the "Enchanted Kingdom" Blu-Ray in 3D mode. I think I am getting the Atmos added sounds but how am I sure that is happening? I also selected the "receiver" button on the receiver remote and cycled into modes until "Dolby Digital Direct" is selected. Am I all set to hear the Dolby Atmos sound from the Blu-Rays???


You want AUTO sound decoding turned on in the Onkyo. That way it will switch to whatever format the player sends to your receiver. On regular channel-based stuff, you can also apply Dolby Surround upmixing to come on as a default surround parameter.


----------



## fjerina

Dan Hitchman said:


> You want AUTO sound decoding turned on in the Onkyo. That way it will switch to whatever format the player sends to your receiver. On regular channel-based stuff, you can also apply Dolby Surround upmixing to come on as a default surround parameter.


I went through the SETUP menu on the Onkyo and not sure where the "AUTO sound decoding" is defined. However, for the "listening mode preset" SETUP menu and in that menu I would then select "BD/DVD" and then I changed each of the following to "Direct" mode...

Dolby D / Dolby D + / TrueHD
DTC / DTS-ES / DTS-HD
Other Multich Source

Is that the same thing?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fjerina said:


> I went through the SETUP menu on the Onkyo and not sure where the "AUTO sound decoding" is defined. However, for the "listening mode preset" SETUP menu and in that menu I would then select "BD/DVD" and then I changed each of the following to "Direct" mode...
> 
> Dolby D / Dolby D + / TrueHD
> DTC / DTS-ES / DTS-HD
> Other Multich Source
> 
> Is that the same thing?


Direct means no upmixing or DSP "enhancements" will be applied to non Atmos based soundtracks. You probably want Dolby Surround applied to Dolby, DTS, and PCM (MultiCh) sources, so that the overhead speakers will engage.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dan Hitchman said:


> Direct means no upmixing or DSP "enhancements" will be applied to non Atmos based soundtracks. You probably want Dolby Surround applied to Dolby, DTS, and PCM (MultiCh) sources, so that the overhead speakers will engage.


Dolby Surround is what you want to select.

Do not leave it on Last Valid or the AVR will default to the last signal that it saw and recognized, for instance Dolby 5.1.

Also, make sure that you have set Dolby Surround for the various flavors of DTS, assuming, of course, that you do want DSU to upmix the signal.


----------



## blastermaster

Archaea said:


> Battlefront on PC finally has functional Atmos and it's as good as everyone claimed!
> 
> I didn't see the Cedia demo off the Atmos Demonstration Disk with the Battlefront scene on it, but it's definitely grin inducing with the actual game implementation. I think this is the best Atmos content I've experienced yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THIS is why Atmos is finally worthwhile IMO.
> 
> Walk under an AT-AT - you hear the lasers firing from above you - a plane flies over - you can tell which direction it is flies over. Shrapnel falling from explosions and wrecked vehicles planes etch. Even flying through falling debris in one of the space ship battles, electricity sounds, laser sounds, etc. The bubble effect of the personal shield LITERALLY sounds like you are in a personal bubble shield! Very cool! So yeah - the ceiling channels add a very tremendous element for gaming.
> 
> 
> 
> This is excellently done! And no noticeable lag introduction, which was another concern I'd read about.


As soon as I read this I bought it online through Origin. I was taking a stance that I wouldn't buy it until Atmos actually worked with the game. It's on sale, too!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blastermaster said:


> As soon as I read this I bought it online through Origin. I was taking a stance that I wouldn't buy it until Atmos actually worked with the game. It's on sale, too!


I'd buy Battlefront for my PC and I'm not a gamer. Probably die every two minutes and love every Atmos second.  

Is it on disc or do you have to download it? No DRM crap for me!


----------



## NorthSky

Skylinestar said:


> It's in the interview with THX.


I was looking for that; thx!


----------



## blastermaster

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd buy Battlefront for my PC and I'm not a gamer. Probably die every two minutes and love every Atmos second.
> 
> Is it on disc or do you have to download it? No DRM crap for me!


I've been downloading games off steam and Origin for a while now and It's been great for me. I don't see myself ever paying for a movie download, as the Blu Ray quality still wins, so for me that's a different story. I don't know if you can buy the dvd of the game. Honestly, I've been purchasing online for so long it almost seems weird to buy a PC game on disc...


----------



## Csbooth

Stoked21 said:


> I've never seen M-Go pricing. I assume, since there's no dedicated HW and it seems to be more of a smartTV app, that they are probably similar to Vudu or such.


M-GO uses dedicated hardware (latest model is the 1TB My Cinema Passport) for it's more notable UHD-HDR content, but I'm not aware of any titles that are for rent/purchase that include 3D audio. I use one with my JS9500, it hooks into the OCB and sends audio via ARC (Atmos would not be possible over ARC from what I understand as it doesn't support DD+). 

I am not sure if you can connect the external drive on to another source like a PS3/4 and it could send the atmos metadata via the hdmi from there? I know the preloaded movies on there show they come with lossless audio so it would seem it is possible since HD audio isn't possible through ARC.


----------



## chrismnj

how close can I place rear atoms ceiling speakers to the wall?


----------



## Natrix1973

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd buy Battlefront for my PC and I'm not a gamer. Probably die every two minutes and love every Atmos second.
> 
> Is it on disc or do you have to download it? No DRM crap for me!


I don't think it is available as a disk anywhere. I pre ordered it for PC at Best Buy and it was a DVD case that came with a slip of paper with a digital download code on it.


----------



## NorthSky

chrismnj said:


> how close can I place rear atoms ceiling speakers to the wall?


Rear Height, right against it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Natrix1973 said:


> I don't think it is available as a disk anywhere. I pre ordered it for PC at Best Buy and it was a DVD case that came with a slip of paper with a digital download code on it.


Looks like I won't be buying it. They even make you pay extra to get the entire game!! And it's more of a multi-player game than a single player.


----------



## Argon52

My Xbox One doesn't allow me to receive Atmos, so I'm looking for a no frills Blu-Ray player for cheap that will get me the Atmos decoding from my Denon S910W receiver, and the best picture quality for my 1080p rear projection Sony Lcos TV. Thanks for any suggestions. I am considering the Sony BDP-S3500 or the Panasonic DMP-BDT370. I don't want to spend too much, because I'm saving up for a 4K TV and 4K oppo Blu-ray player. Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Argon52 said:


> My Xbox One doesn't allow me to receive Atmos, so I'm looking for a no frills Blu-Ray player for cheap that will get me the Atmos decoding from my Denon S910W receiver, and the best picture quality for my 1080p rear projection Sony Lcos TV. Thanks for any suggestions. I am considering the Sony BDP-S3500 or the Panasonic DMP-BDT370. *I don't want to spend too much, because I'm saving up for a 4K TV and 4K oppo Blu-ray player. Thanks in advance for any help*.


Then get the cheapest player you can find that isn't some knockoff. Even the cheapest player can bitstream DTS, Dolby, and PCM audio over HDMI. Put the money towards an Oppo UHD universal player.


----------



## Argon52

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then get the cheapest player you can find that isn't some knockoff. Even the cheapest player can bitstream DTS, Dolby, and PCM audio over HDMI. Put the money towards an Oppo UHD universal player.


Exactly. I don't care about streaming apps, etc... I was more worried if there was any significant differences in video quality for a 1080p TV using a cheap Blu-ray player. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Argon52 said:


> Exactly. I don't care about streaming apps, etc... I was more worried if there was any significant differences in video quality for a 1080p TV using a cheap Blu-ray player.
> 
> Thanks again.


Not that you'd ever really notice. Most players are pretty similar in terms of just spitting out bits with no extra processing applied.


----------



## Argon52

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not that you'd ever really notice. Most players are pretty similar in terms of just spitting out bits with no extra processing applied.


Thanks so much Dan! You're are rock star! I'll finally get to experience Atmos that I just installed my front height speakers (that I had to steal from my back rear.) Couldn't afford the 7.2.4 or even 7.1.2 receiver.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Argon52 said:


> Thanks so much Dan! You're are rock star! I'll finally get to experience Atmos that I just installed my front height speakers (that I had to steal from my back rear.) Couldn't afford the 7.2.4 or even 7.1.2 receiver.


Be sure that bitstreaming is turned ON and all audio settings like Dynamic Range Control and Secondary Audio (or BD Audio Mix) are turned OFF in the player settings. Otherwise, you will still have problems getting Atmos decoded correctly.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You do understand that having to raise the level of your center channel for older titles that are poorly mastered isn't the same as bumping up the levels of your height channels. Ideally, once all your speakers are set to the same standards that are dictated for the mixing studio, you wouldn't change them from title to title. That's not to say that you can't do it... but as the placement of sounds between the beds and heights is dependent upon those speakers all being at the same level, you're essentially shifting the between-channel sounds upward so they collapse to the heights rather than image between height/bed channels correctly.
> 
> I get what you're saying about "it won't hurt", but if your goal is to reproduce some semblance of what the mixer intended you to hear, then... well, it kinda' does.


So you would rather go through 90 minutes of movie action where the actors on the screen seem to whisper only because all speakers have been perfectly calibrated?
I am no expert, but I know that once I increase dbl on my center we were able to continue watching the movie with the same quality sound as previously, only that now we could actually understand what the actors were saying.
Oncewe were done with the movie and went back to regular programming I lowered center levels back to original calibration settings


----------



## AllenA07

Rocky3RD said:


> So you would rather go through 90 minutes of movie action where the actors on the screen seem to whisper only because all speakers have been perfectly calibrated?
> I am no expert, but I know that once I increase dbl on my center we were able to continue watching the movie with the same quality sound as previously, only that now we could actually understand what the actors were saying.
> Oncewe were done with the movie and went back to regular programming I lowered center levels back to original calibration settings


I don't think that's what he is trying to say. If you're having to boost the center it indicates that somewhere in your system there is a problem. You shouldn't need to boost the level of any channel once the room setup is complete. It may be the speaker, the calibration, or the room itself, but somewhere in that chain, you do have an issue. If you can figure out the problem, you'll get better sound as a result.


----------



## jpco

Dan Hitchman said:


> Then get the cheapest player you can find that isn't some knockoff. Even the cheapest player can bitstream DTS, Dolby, and PCM audio over HDMI. Put the money towards an Oppo UHD universal player.



Have to be careful with this. I purchased the Sony S3500 only to find that it does not decode bitstream to multichannel PCM.


----------



## Ricoflashback

AllenA07 said:


> I don't think that's what he is trying to say. If you're having to boost the center it indicates that somewhere in your system there is a problem. You shouldn't need to boost the level of any channel once the room setup is complete. It may be the speaker, the calibration, or the room itself, but somewhere in that chain, you do have an issue. If you can figure out the problem, you'll get better sound as a result.


Not my experience. I have one of the best center channel speakers in the world - - the monster Paradigm Studio CC-690 and I dial it up a +3 as that is my preference. I tried using my Pioneer's "MCAAC" settings but I couldn't hear a goddam thing. O.K. - my hearing is shot on the high end and maybe this is not "reference" level as the directors of the movies intend it to be. I also use Neo X + THX, Cinema mode as I prefer a very clear center channel with an emphasis (focus) on dialog. 

Congratulations to all of those who are happy with your audio calibration settings. I'm happy with my setup and I can hear it - - which is my number one goal.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rocky3RD said:


> So you would rather go through 90 minutes of movie action where the actors on the screen seem to whisper only because all speakers have been perfectly calibrated?
> I am no expert, but I know that once I increase dbl on my center we were able to continue watching the movie with the same quality sound as previously, only that now we could actually understand what the actors were saying.
> Oncewe were done with the movie and went back to regular programming I lowered center levels back to original calibration settings




No, I'm saying that raising the center channel level because a particular title is poorly mastered isn't remotely the same as jacking up the height channels because you want to hear more "up there". Atmos depends on the levels being matched so that things image correctly in the spaces BETWEEN "up there" and your bed channels. If you turn up your heights on a whim, be aware that you are shifting the overall imaging upwards from where it was intended to be. And that's fine if that's your preference... So long as you know that it isn't ideal. Not every mixer is going to choose to use Atmos aggressively... And subtle uses of Atmos have just as much value as the whiz-bang showpieces people like.



But if you're having to make a habit of bumping your center channel up to hear dialogue, I still maintain that you have acoustic issues that need to be addressed, as several others here have expressed.


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> I don't think that's what he is trying to say. If you're having to boost the center it indicates that somewhere in your system there is a problem. You shouldn't need to boost the level of any channel once the room setup is complete. It may be the speaker, the calibration, or the room itself, but somewhere in that chain, you do have an issue. If you can figure out the problem, you'll get better sound as a result.


 How about the other and more logical option: That the master audio of the movie, out of the box, is screwed up? 
If there was something wrong with my settings (calibration, room, etc)then this would occur with anything that I play, not just with some specific titles


----------



## Ironman1718

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd buy Battlefront for my PC and I'm not a gamer. Probably die every two minutes and love every Atmos second.
> 
> Is it on disc or do you have to download it? No DRM crap for me!



It takes you that long to die, WOW, must be a great gamer, I can't last longer than 30 seconds...


----------



## AllenA07

Rocky3RD said:


> How about the other and more logical option: That the master audio of the movie, out of the box, is screwed up?
> If there was something wrong with my settings (calibration, room, etc)then this would occur with anything that I play, not just with some specific titles


Just curious, but what are the movies giving you this problem? Do you watch a lot of older DVD's? 

I'm simply trying to see why this is happening. Movies all have a dynamic range but none of it should be so low you can't hear it. Do you an Spl meter? Maybe play some pink noise and see where your levels are. Ultimately it's your system, boost away.


----------



## AllenA07

Ricoflashback said:


> Not my experience. I have one of the best center channel speakers in the world - - the monster Paradigm Studio CC-690 and I dial it up a +3 as that is my preference. I tried using my Pioneer's "MCAAC" settings but I couldn't hear a goddam thing. O.K. - my hearing is shot on the high end and maybe this is not "reference" level as the directors of the movies intend it to be. I also use Neo X + THX, Cinema mode as I prefer a very clear center channel with an emphasis (focus) on dialog.
> 
> Congratulations to all of those who are happy with your audio calibration settings. I'm happy with my setup and I can hear it - - which is my number one goal.


Do you leave it boosted, or do you adjust based on the source material?


----------



## barty88

Pics.

I am planning on installing Two additional Atmos speakers in the ceiling 4-5 feet forward of direct overhead on the couch for the 7.2+2 setup on my Yamaha RX-A1050. 

As you can see the small speakers are mounted high for the surround. Should they be lowered a little, alot or does it REALLY matter if they are angled downward? The main 2 issues are:

1) The couch is against the back wall.... I shouldn't mount all 4 speakers in a line against that wall.... right?
2) So then the Right rear side surround (left side as you look at the pic) has nowhere really to go or it would be behind that door. I can lower it some....

Also, should my front towers come toward the middle more or are they OK there? 
Attached Thumbnails


----------



## MarkMul1

Captain of the Dolby Atmos Debate Team : Rocky
_____________________________________________________

♦♦♦ Bitstream (Unprocessed) 
=> That's it (your HDMI Audio Out Selection) ... page 50 in your manual.
And page 19 (Audio Seup menu - Select Dynamic Range Control @ Off - uncompressed).

Again, page 50 => Bitstream (Uncompressed) is your audio selection, the only good one, nothing else than that one.

* I have two Samsung BR players (different models though), but/so I'm used to their own language and setup menus and all that Samsung jazz.
I followed your instructions, and now when I play a movie, let's say something in DTS, I get another option called "DTS", but also the Dolby Surround option says "DTS Dolby Surround"...
So which one should I select? The one that only indicates the type of audio the movie is in or the one that in addition to that also says "Dolby Surround"? Or are they the same thing?
I tried something else that was in Dolby Digital Plus and now I get a "Dolby Digital Plus" option by itself but also a "Dolby Digital Plus-Dolby Surround" option...which one is the one I want to select?


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But if you're having to make a habit of bumping your center channel up to hear dialogue, I still maintain that you have acoustic issues that need to be addressed, as several others here have expressed.


Agreed. Also of course when one bumps up the level of the center channel it isn't just dialog that is affected but everything played by the center channel. This will cause left-right pans to be wonky for one thing as the level of the panned sound will increase when the sound transitions from L to R in a way likely not intended by the listener. It will also throw off the balance of the channels to have one that is playing much louder than it should be. IMO it is a bad idea to attempt to 'fix' dialog intelligibility by goosing the trim on the center channel. Find the cause of the problem and fix it!


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> Just curious, but what are the movies giving you this problem? Do you watch a lot of older DVD's?
> 
> I'm simply trying to see why this is happening. Movies all have a dynamic range but none of it should be so low you can't hear it. Do you an Spl meter? Maybe play some pink noise and see where your levels are. Ultimately it's your system, boost away.


Just older stuff like Ben Hur, Ten Commandments, the Robe (which was the first Hollywood movie in Cinemascope), Cleopatra


----------



## dvdwilly3

MarkMul1 said:


> Captain of the Dolby Atmos Debate Team : Rocky
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> ♦♦♦ Bitstream (Unprocessed)
> => That's it (your HDMI Audio Out Selection) ... page 50 in your manual.
> And page 19 (Audio Seup menu - Select Dynamic Range Control @ Off - uncompressed).
> 
> Again, page 50 => Bitstream (Uncompressed) is your audio selection, the only good one, nothing else than that one.
> 
> * I have two Samsung BR players (different models though), but/so I'm used to their own language and setup menus and all that Samsung jazz.
> I followed your instructions, and now when I play a movie, let's say something in DTS, I get another option called "DTS", but also the Dolby Surround option says "DTS Dolby Surround"...
> So which one should I select? The one that only indicates the type of audio the movie is in or the one that in addition to that also says "Dolby Surround"? Or are they the same thing?
> I tried something else that was in Dolby Digital Plus and now I get a "Dolby Digital Plus" option by itself but also a "Dolby Digital Plus-Dolby Surround" option...which one is the one I want to select?


It sounds similar to the setup on my Onkyo.

The top is the incoming stream, such as DTS-HD MA (whatever the proper acronym is...) and the bottom is what you want as output, in this case, Dolby Surround.

This forces the output into DSU for whatever the incoming signal is other than Atmos. 

If the incoming signal is Atmos, it will output as Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Also of course when one bumps up the level of the center channel it isn't just dialog that is affected but everything played by the center channel. This will cause left-right pans to be wonky for one thing as the level of the panned sound will increase when the sound transitions from L to R in a way likely not intended by the listener. It will also throw off the balance of the channels to have one that is playing much louder than it should be. IMO it is a bad idea to attempt to 'fix' dialog intelligibility by goosing the trim on the center channel. Find the cause of the problem and fix it!


Most AVRs have a "dialog lift" or "dialog level" function. I've never used them or had the need to. I'm guessing that is more of a targeted FR that is boosted as opposed to increasing the level across the board for the center channel. 

I'd prefer not to have to do either, and I don't, but maybe using such a feature is preferable to jacking around with your REQ settings constantly.


----------



## fjerina

dvdwilly3 said:


> Dolby Surround is what you want to select.
> 
> Do not leave it on Last Valid or the AVR will default to the last signal that it saw and recognized, for instance Dolby 5.1.
> 
> Also, make sure that you have set Dolby Surround for the various flavors of DTS, assuming, of course, that you do want DSU to upmix the signal.


OK, I set my receiver for "Dolby Surround" on the following formats...

Dolby D / Dolby D + / TrueHD
DTC / DTS-ES / DTS-HD
Other Multich Source

Is there any indication (light on the front panel) that the receiver is decoding and outputting the Dolby Atmos sound channels?

I wish there was a Dolby Atmos demo BluRay which sends a Dolby Atmos channel output with the other channels muted so you can actually hear, without a doubt, that you have a functional system.


----------



## Rocky3RD

dvdwilly3 said:


> It sounds similar to the setup on my Onkyo.
> 
> The top is the incoming stream, such as DTS-HD MA (whatever the proper acronym is...) and the bottom is what you want as output, in this case, Dolby Surround.
> 
> This forces the output into DSU for whatever the incoming signal is other than Atmos.
> 
> If the incoming signal is Atmos, it will output as Atmos.


 So if the movie is in DTS-HD, do I set my Onkyo AVR to DTS-HD (by itself) or to DTS-HD (top display) + Dolby Surround (bottom display)? 

What is the difference between:

*DTS-HD *
and
*DTS-HD*
*Dolby Surround*


----------



## Rocky3RD

fjerina said:


> OK, I set my receiver for "Dolby Surround" on the following formats...
> 
> Dolby D / Dolby D + / TrueHD
> DTC / DTS-ES / DTS-HD
> Other Multich Source
> 
> Is there any indication (light on the front panel) that the receiver is decoding and outputting the Dolby Atmos sound channels?
> 
> I wish there was a Dolby Atmos demo BluRay which sends a Dolby Atmos channel output with the other channels muted so you can actually hear, without a doubt, that you have a functional system.


 On my receiver, when set to Dolby D, Dolby D +, TrueHD, the diplay appears in red, and if I select Dolby Surround as output the Dolby logo appears also


----------



## MarkMul1

Do I win my own 10 K bet? .....!!!!!!


----------



## dvdwilly3

fjerina said:


> OK, I set my receiver for "Dolby Surround" on the following formats...
> 
> Dolby D / Dolby D + / TrueHD
> DTC / DTS-ES / DTS-HD
> Other Multich Source
> 
> Is there any indication (light on the front panel) that the receiver is decoding and outputting the Dolby Atmos sound channels?
> 
> I wish there was a Dolby Atmos demo BluRay which sends a Dolby Atmos channel output with the other channels muted so you can actually hear, without a doubt, that you have a functional system.


There is a bright white light on the upper left corner of the display thay says Dolby Atmos (Onkyo TX-NR 1030). It will only light up when the AVR is receiving an original Atmos signal.

It will NOT light up when you are receiving a DSU upmix of other signals (DTS, etc.).


----------



## dvdwilly3

MarkMul1 said:


> Do I win my own 10 K bet? .....!!!!!!


I give up!


----------



## fjerina

dvdwilly3 said:


> There is a bright white light on the upper left corner of the display thay says Dolby Atmos (Onkyo TX-NR 1030). It will only light up when the AVR is receiving an original Atmos signal.
> 
> It will NOT light up when you are receiving a DSU upmix of other signals (DTS, etc.).


I just noticed on my Onkyo 646 that there is a Dolby Atmos indicator light (and show it in their manual). I am not seeing that light go on when playing the Dolby Atmos "Enchanted Kingdom" BluRay. I have a support call into Onkyo to see if they can help me on my setup.


----------



## Stoked21

fjerina said:


> I just noticed on my Onkyo 646 that there is a Dolby Atmos indicator light (and show it in their manual). I am not seeing that light go on when playing the Dolby Atmos "Enchanted Kingdom" BluRay. I have a support call into Onkyo to see if they can help me on my setup.


More than willing to bet that your BD player is set for PCM and not for Bitstream....


----------



## Rocky3RD

Stoked21 said:


> More than willing to bet that your BD player is set for PCM and not for Bitstream....


I got mine set on bitstream "unprocessed", and now every time I switch bluray disc in the BD player I see the display on my AVR indicating what type of audio it's decoding. The display lights on the AVR are in red, not white, and next to them I see the Dolby logo if I switch to Dolby Surround. What a marvelous piece of equipment.


----------



## fjerina

Rocky3RD said:


> I got mine set on bitstream "unprocessed", and now every time I switch bluray disc in the BD player I see the display on my AVR indicating what type of audio it's decoding. The display lights on the AVR are in red, not white, and next to them I see the Dolby logo if I switch to Dolby Surround. What a marvelous piece of equipment.


Just checked my Sony BluRay player. The "Digital Audio Output" is set to auto versus PCM (only two choices). Others options include...

DSD Output Mode (I have currently set to OFF)
BD Audio MIX Setting (I have currently set to ON versus OFF)
DTS Neo:6 (currently set to Cinema versus Music or OFF)
Audio DRC (currently set to On versus Auto or OFF)
Downmix (currently set to Surround versus Stereo)


----------



## Rocky3RD

So far I have not used my Onkyo with any legit Dolby Atmos blurays so I would cross that road before being able to provide any feedback on what my AVR will display then. Very few titles in Dolby Atmos currently out


----------



## MarkMul1

Correctomundo

I'm fake 10K richer...........................Please see above.


----------



## stikle

fjerina said:


> BD Audio MIX Setting (I have currently set to ON versus OFF)



You need to pay a little closer attention to the replies people have given you. It's already been mentioned that you need to have this setting OFF.


----------



## fjerina

Rocky3RD said:


> So far I have not used my Onkyo with any legit Dolby Atmos blurays so I would cross that road before being able to provide any feedback on what my AVR will display then. Very few titles in Dolby Atmos currently out


OK. Update. I just got off the phone with Onkyo support and they walked me through my setup. I did change (per their directive) my receiver configuration to define the height speaker to "Dolby Speaker (Front)". But I still did not see a change. However, the rep told me to push the display button on the receiver and the "input" did not show Dolby Atmos. So he asked me to switch my DVD and I happen to have the Fury Road 3D DVD and put that in. And then sure enough, the input showed (hitting the display button) Dolby Atmos and the output showed "Dolby Atmos" also. 

So the Enchanted Kingdom DVD I was playing is not Dolby Atmos encoded. Although the BluRay box says it is Dolby Atmos. Suggestions???


----------



## Rocky3RD

fjerina said:


> OK. Update. I just got off the phone with Onkyo support and they walked me through my setup. I did change (per their directive) my receiver configuration to define the height speaker to "Dolby Speaker (Front)". But I still did not see a change. However, the rep told me to push the display button on the receiver and the "input" did not show Dolby Atmos. So he asked me to switch my DVD and I happen to have the Fury Road 3D DVD and put that in. And then sure enough, the input showed (hitting the display button) Dolby Atmos and the output showed "Dolby Atmos" also.
> 
> So the Enchanted Kingdom DVD I was playing is not Dolby Atmos encoded. Although the DVD box says it is Dolby Atmos. Suggestions???


So the issue was not your receiver or your BD player, but the bluray title you were playing. 
Suggestions? Exchange "Enhanced Kingdom" for a legit Dolby Atmos title


----------



## Selden Ball

fjerina said:


> OK. Update. I just got off the phone with Onkyo support and they walked me through my setup. I did change (per their directive) my receiver configuration to define the height speaker to "Dolby Speaker (Front)". But I still did not see a change. However, the rep told me to push the display button on the receiver and the "input" did not show Dolby Atmos. So he asked me to switch my DVD and I happen to have the Fury Road 3D DVD and put that in. And then sure enough, the input showed (hitting the display button) Dolby Atmos and the output showed "Dolby Atmos" also.
> 
> So the Enchanted Kingdom DVD I was playing is not Dolby Atmos encoded. Although the DVD box says it is Dolby Atmos. Suggestions???


DVD? DVDs don't have Atmos. Only Blu-rays have Atmos. My BD of _Enchanted Kingdom_ certainly does.


----------



## stikle

Brrr....it sure is cold out there. Has it frozen over?



jdsmoothie said:


> D&M has formally announced the release of the DTS:X / DTS Neural:X firmware update for the 2015 AVR models with the X7200W and X7200WA expected to receive the update on Jan 28, 2016.


----------



## fjerina

Rocky3RD said:


> So the issue was not your receiver or your BD player, but the bluray title you were playing.
> Suggestions? Exchange "Enhanced Kingdom" for a legit Dolby Atmos title


Where can I get a legit "Enchanted Kingdom" BluRay with Dolby Atmos? My Amazon one does not have working Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

fjerina said:


> OK. Update. I just got off the phone with Onkyo support and they walked me through my setup. I did change (per their directive) my receiver configuration to define the height speaker to "Dolby Speaker (Front)". But I still did not see a change. However, the rep told me to push the display button on the receiver and the "input" did not show Dolby Atmos. So he asked me to switch my DVD and I happen to have the Fury Road 3D DVD and put that in. And then sure enough, the input showed (hitting the display button) Dolby Atmos and the output showed "Dolby Atmos" also.
> 
> So the Enchanted Kingdom DVD I was playing is not Dolby Atmos encoded. Although the BluRay box says it is Dolby Atmos. Suggestions???


This is the reason why Dolby doesn't want to sell an Atmos demo disc....


----------



## Selden Ball

fjerina said:


> Where can I get a legit "Enchanted Kingdom" BluRay with Dolby Atmos? My Amazon one does not have working Dolby Atmos.


 I got mine at the local Barnes & Noble book store.


----------



## Stoked21

stikle said:


> Brrr....it sure is cold out there. Has it frozen over?


DTS:X and DTS Neural:X Upmixer will be enabled via future firmware update. For more info, please visit www.marantz.com./dtsx


Click on the link...."404 Not Found". Kind of funny.....


----------



## Daryl L

stikle said:


> Don't use Transformers as a basis for how good Atmos is. It's far from the best example of a good mix.
> 
> Pick up Gravity (Diamond Luxe Edition). The Atmos mix is one of the best out there.
> 
> Also, the recent re-release of The Fifth Element is spectacular.


Yes, I read that Transformers wasn't a very good Atmos mix. Which is kind of sad considering all the overhead action that goes on in those Transformer movies. Also it actually was the "Gravity (Diamond Luxe Edition)" that I watched and the only Atmos movie I watched so far. I also just ordered "The Fifth Element" due to its excellent Atmos mix. I had been planning getting "The Fifth Element" Blu-ray disc for quite some time. Glad I had not done so before now, so now I get to have the Atmos mixed version.


----------



## Rocky3RD

fjerina said:


> Where can I get a legit "Enchanted Kingdom" BluRay with Dolby Atmos? My Amazon one does not have working Dolby Atmos.


 Is this the exact one you ordered from Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-DVD-Blu-ray/dp/B013JBJ6MO


----------



## blastermaster

Ok, so I tried out Star Wars: Battlefront yesterday. Honestly, if you are even remotely into the Star Wars universe, you should definitely check this out. I only ran through the tutorials, but the Endor battle on the speeders through the forest was mind bogglingly awesome. I just tested it out on my computer and monitor, but the graphics are incredible. Below is some guy who's running it at 4K and 60fps:






I can't wait to set it up downstairs with Atmos when my receiver comes in. 138" Scope image with Atmos and perfect controller support? Good gravy. Come on, January!!!


----------



## fjerina

Rocky3RD said:


> Is this the exact one you ordered from Amazon?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Enchanted-Kingdom-3D-DVD-Blu-ray/dp/B013JBJ6MO


Yes, that is the one I ordered and received. Even though is states Dolby Atmos on the box it really doesn't output it.


----------



## stikle

fjerina said:


> Yes, that is the one I ordered and received. Even though is states Dolby Atmos on the box it really doesn't output it.



Again, did you turn this setting OFF in your Bluray Player? That will kill the Atmos output.

*BD Audio MIX Setting (I have currently set to ON versus OFF)*


----------



## Argon52

Dan Hitchman said:


> Be sure that bitstreaming is turned ON and all audio settings like Dynamic Range Control and Secondary Audio (or BD Audio Mix) are turned OFF in the player settings. Otherwise, you will still have problems getting Atmos decoded correctly.


Will do, thank you again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpco said:


> Have to be careful with this. I purchased the Sony S3500 only to find that it does not decode bitstream to multichannel PCM.


If the OP only wants to bitstream native audio files, then he's fine.


----------



## Rocky3RD

blastermaster said:


> Ok, so I tried out Star Wars: Battlefront yesterday. Honestly, if you are even remotely into the Star Wars universe, you should definitely check this out. I only ran through the tutorials, but the Endor battle on the speeders through the forest was mind bogglingly awesome. I just tested it out on my computer and monitor, but the graphics are incredible. Below is some guy who's running it at 4K and 60fps:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA
> 
> I can't wait to set it up downstairs with Atmos when my receiver comes in. 138" Scope image with Atmos and perfect controller support? Good gravy. Come on, January!!!


More of a fan of The Hobbit and LOTR myself, although I doubt those titles will ever be released in Dolby Atmos


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rocky3RD said:


> How about the other and more logical option: That the master audio of the movie, out of the box, is screwed up?
> If there was something wrong with my settings (calibration, room, etc)then this would occur with anything that I play, not just with some specific titles


That's hardly "more logical" considering that many of us here have played hundreds of discs on our systems without having to monkey around with the center channel at all. These movies are mixed to a set of standards that you are essentially trying to reproduce in your home by calibrating. So long as you don't have acoustic issues that cause problems, a proper calibration should net you intelligible dialogue because the levels of the other speakers will match what they do during the mix. And believe it or not, YES, you could have a problem with just some specific titles...


Rocky3RD said:


> Just older stuff like Ben Hur, Ten Commandments, the Robe (which was the first Hollywood movie in Cinemascope), Cleopatra


Note here that the titles you're having dialogue intelligibility issues with are older titles whose sources tend to already be a bit light on the high end simply as a matter of the recordings. And if I understand you correctly, you're then applying THX mode in your AVR, which further rolls off the high end. So yes, you could certainly have a setup issue going on here that causes issues with specific older titles due to either the room acoustics or your particular settings. Room equalization, while definitely a great thing to have, ultimately can't fix extreme issues with your room that should be dealt with by speaker repositioning/aiming, room treatment, etc. Every room is a compromise, and there is no magic bullet that fixes every issue.


Rocky3RD said:


> So far I have not used my Onkyo with any legit Dolby Atmos blurays so I would cross that road before being able to provide any feedback on what my AVR will display then. Very few titles in Dolby Atmos currently out


So... you haven't played any Atmos titles, but were suggesting that other people just haphazardly raise their height channel levels based on your habit of raising the center channel for older titles? No offense, but I hope you see how crazy that is. (As for there being so few Atmos titles, you wouldn't know it in my house. I have a gaggle of 'em.)


----------



## Rocky3RD

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That's hardly "more logical" considering that many of us here have played hundreds of discs on our systems without having to monkey around with the center channel at all. These movies are mixed to a set of standards that you are essentially trying to reproduce in your home by calibrating. So long as you don't have acoustic issues that cause problems, a proper calibration should net you intelligible dialogue because the levels of the other speakers will match what they do during the mix. And believe it or not, YES, you could have a problem with just some specific titles...
> 
> Note here that the titles you're having dialogue intelligibility issues with are older titles whose sources tend to already be a bit light on the high end simply as a matter of the recordings. And if I understand you correctly, you're then applying THX mode in your AVR, which further rolls off the high end. So yes, you could certainly have a setup issue going on here that causes issues with specific older titles due to either the room acoustics or your particular settings. Room equalization, while definitely a great thing to have, ultimately can't fix extreme issues with your room that should be dealt with by speaker repositioning/aiming, room treatment, etc. Every room is a compromise, and there is no magic bullet that fixes every issue.
> 
> So... you haven't played any Atmos titles, but were suggesting that other people just haphazardly raise their height channel levels based on your habit of raising the center channel for older titles? No offense, but I hope you see how crazy that is. (As for there being so few Atmos titles, you wouldn't know it in my house. I have a gaggle of 'em.)


1. My room acoustics are just fine
2. My speaker positioning is excellent
3. When I play 80% of blurays, DVDs, or streaming, center levels are good
4. I was not suggesting anybody to raise their channel leves, only the ones that were experiencing low dialogue...nothing to do with Atmos per se


----------



## Archaea

blastermaster said:


> Ok, so I tried out Star Wars: Battlefront yesterday. Honestly, if you are even remotely into the Star Wars universe, you should definitely check this out. I only ran through the tutorials, but the Endor battle on the speeders through the forest was mind bogglingly awesome. I just tested it out on my computer and monitor, but the graphics are incredible. Below is some guy who's running it at 4K and 60fps:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA
> 
> I can't wait to set it up downstairs with Atmos when my receiver comes in. 138" Scope image with Atmos and perfect controller support? Good gravy. Come on, January!!!



I am super enthused about it! It's my favorite implementation of Atmos so far! It truly adds a worthy element of audio tracking queues to the gameplay! (besides being absolutely cool!) 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...front-game-best-implementation-atmos-yet.html


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Most AVRs have a "dialog lift" or "dialog level" function. I've never used them or had the need to. I'm guessing that is more of a targeted FR that is boosted as opposed to increasing the level across the board for the center channel.
> 
> I'd prefer not to have to do either, and I don't, but maybe using such a feature is preferable to jacking around with your REQ settings constantly.


I thought the Dialog Lift thing in my Denon might target specific frequencies. So I got out my REW kit and measured what it does. And all it does, unfortunately, is apply a blanket boost in level to the center channel. It's no different to raising the trim level - the only reason I can see that Denon offer it is that it accessible from the Options menu so can be changed 'on the fly' during a movie rather than having to go into Setup and change the trim.

Never used it. Never needed to.


----------



## Stoked21

Rocky3RD said:


> 1. My room acoustics are just fine *How do you know?*
> 2. My speaker positioning is excellent *How do you know?*
> 3. When I play 80% of blurays, DVDs, or streaming, center levels are good *Why not 100%?*
> 4. I was not suggesting anybody to raise their channel leves, only the ones that were experiencing low dialogue...nothing to do with Atmos per se *Actually your recommendation for weak Atmos mixes was to just erroneously raise the levels. *


You do see how counterintuitive this is don't you? You say you have a problem with dialogue being unintelligible. But then you say that you don't have a problem. It's not your system, it's not your room. It's a problem with the 20% of all manufactured BD or DVD or the failure of the streaming service. Doesn't it seem odd to you that 20% of content doesn't sound correct?

Numerous people have told you that they don't have problems with dialogue. Numerous highly experienced people. Personally, if someone tells me there's an issue with my room/system, then I listen. I evaluate their recommendation and either do or do not take their advice. After all, it's my system.

You probably need to look into the fact that the common denominator with the "problematic" content is your room and your setup. That's not a dig...we all have problems in our rooms/systems that we try to solve. We either live with it and suffer or we TRY to troubleshoot it and solve it correctly.

Maybe re-run calibration, maybe throw a $40 SPL meter into your cart and test what your levels are, maybe move the speakers just to see if the problem goes away, maybe swap your center with another of the speakers and see if the problem persist.... These are all free to little cost trouble-shooting methods you can quickly and easily use.

But if you're happy with changing your levels and degrading your sound quality, then by all means do so and just live with the inferior sound with a problematic setup.


----------



## MarkMul1

Here's one from today from our elusive Dolby Atmos Ambassador, the one and only. Super Rocky:
_____________________________________________________________________________

I did not know that a HTIB could offer so much. These systems usually get such a bad rap.
But this has now become literally the "brain" of my whole Home theater room. I have BD player, laptop computer, Roku device, all connected and controlled by the AVR. Maybe it is my imagination, but even the picture displayed on my wall from my projector and from my laptop, through the AVR, looks more 4K-ish...
Maybe some people rather spend $5000 on a Denon or whatever, but for $799 you cant beat this little jewel



Yee Haw


----------



## fjerina

Argon52 said:


> Will do, thank you again.


Thank you. You solved my problem. I got suspicious when I bought the "Enchanted Kingdom" from Target and it behaved the same. No Dolby Atmos output. I then went to my Sony BluRay settings and set the ...

DSD Output Mode to OFF
BD Audio Mix Setting to OFF
DTS Neo:6 setting to OFF
Audio DRC setting to OFF

I left the Digital Audio Output setting to Auto (only other choice was PCM)
Downmix to Surround

I now have Dolby Atmos being output to my system with the Dolby Atmos blue indicator light being on and the DISPLAY shows that to, coming input my AVR and output from my AVR.

Nice to get help from you guys that have been through all of this. Thanks again.


----------



## Charles R

I find it comical to worship Audyssey's calibrations. Recently I ran three calibrations without ever moving the microphone (two passes each). A few items I noted...



Crossover on the rear height or top speakers were different.
Crossover on some of the other speakers were different.
Front(s) reported out of and in phase (sometimes one sometimes both).
Speaker levels were different (center especially).

The system including the speakers were "warmed" up and I have noticed differences over the years regardless of receiver. Certainly it does a ballpark estimation which is probably more helpful than harmful. But to suggest altering its settings in and of itself degrades the audio is ridiculous as even Audyssey can't make up its mind. And if you happen to enable Dynamic EQ you are opening up a whole can of worms... and if you don't you are opening yet another.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rocky3RD said:


> 1. My room acoustics are just fine
> 2. My speaker positioning is excellent
> 3. When I play 80% of blurays, DVDs, or streaming, center levels are good
> 4. I was not suggesting anybody to raise their channel leves, only the ones that were experiencing low dialogue...nothing to do with Atmos per se


But you do get that 3 contradicts 1 & 2, right? Because you've had many very experienced people telling you the same thing here... and you're still unwilling to listen to any of the advice or tips that people are trying to give you to resolve that particular issue. Why even come here if you're not willing to interact and learn from those with more experience than you? 

As for 4, you were actually comparing the boost you make to your center to people boosting their heights. My point remains that these are two completely different things... neither of which should be done if your goal is accurate reproduction of the established standards of the environment these mixes are created in and for.


----------



## kbarnes701

MarkMul1 said:


> Here's one from today from our elusive Dolby Atmos Ambassador, the one and only. Super Rocky:
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I did not know that a HTIB could offer so much. These systems usually get such a bad rap.
> But this has now become literally the "brain" of my whole Home theater room. I have BD player, laptop computer, Roku device, all connected and controlled by the AVR. Maybe it is my imagination, but even the picture displayed on my wall from my projector and from my laptop, through the AVR, looks more 4K-ish...
> Maybe some people rather spend $5000 on a Denon or whatever, but for $799 you cant beat this little jewel
> 
> 
> 
> Yee Haw


At least we may now have an answer as to why he can’t hear the dialog on 20% of his discs.


----------



## dannybee

Bought a copy of pixels here in australia,the american version says atmos soundtrack and our version dosen't it has a auro 3d soundtrack first one I've noticed with auro 3d.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Charles R said:


> I find it comical to worship Audyssey's calibrations. Recently I ran three calibrations without ever moving the microphone (two passes each). A few items I noted...
> 
> 
> 
> Crossover on the rear height or top speakers were different.
> Crossover on some of the other speakers were different.
> Front(s) reported out of and in phase (sometimes one sometimes both).
> Speaker levels were different (center especially).
> 
> The system including the speakers were "warmed" up and I have noticed differences over the years regardless of receiver. Certainly it does a ballpark estimation which is probably more helpful than harmful. But to suggest altering its settings in and of itself degrades the audio is ridiculous as even Audyssey can't make up its mind. And if you happen to enable Dynamic EQ you are opening up a whole can of worms... and if you don't you are opening yet another.


I don't know that anyone here is treating Audyssey as the end-all-be-all gospel. It's just another tool in the arsenal, and that arsenal extends to quite a bit of stuff (not the least of which is a handy SPL meter). Ideally, you deal with your acoustic issues in the room instead of the processor. Audyssey in and of itself doesn't set system crossovers; it just passes on its -3dB point data to the AVR and then each manufacturer's own software attempts to set crossovers based on that. While it's helpful to see where they get set, it definitely shouldn't be taken as 100% "correct" by any stretch. Hell, my Denon (and my Onkyo before it) sees my Polk RTi28s as LARGE about half the time I do a run-through of XT32. A quick gander at where Audyssey's equalization goes from cut to boost shows that an 80Hz crossover is optimal instead... which also lines up with their factory specs, given a bit of breathing room for a smooth transition. Sensible adjustment of system crossovers post-Audyssey is absolutely recommended, if you check the FAQ here. My point here is that ultimately, any REQ algorithm is both garbage-in/garbage-out and subject to tweaking. 

But in the instant discussion, we're not even being specific to Audyssey since (if I recall correctly) the HTIB in question is an Onkyo, which uses their AccuEQ tech, not Audyssey. The crux of the discussion is that if you're having dialogue intelligibility issues in a fairly large chunk of titles compared to those with more stringently calibrated rigs in treated rooms, some tweaking to address those acoustic issues is likely a good idea. And since no REQ method is a magic bullet that will fix all your problems, you will ALWAYS get better results running them after you've dealt with your outstanding problems as much as possible in the room itself. That's not specific to Audyssey... nor specific to whether you use any REQ at all. If you're having dialogue intelligibility issues, there are plenty of things you can do to alleviate them. The point here is to know the standards, address the physical issues as much as possible, and not recommend haphazard boosting of channels that can negatively affect the intended balance of sound in the room. That's ESPECIALLY true with Atmos, where the 3-D placement of sound in the area between the bed and height channels is absolutely dependent upon those levels being as closely matched as possible.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> At least we may now have an answer as to why he can’t hear the dialog on 20% of his discs.


I want to point out that if he's using a HTIB, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all started somewhere. I started pretty modestly myself... and it has been a series of gradual upgrades ever since. But it bears mentioning that in my experience (and I think most here would agree), the weakest element of almost every HTIB system tends to be the center channel. Those of us who have been doing this a while know that the center is arguably the single most important speaker in your setup, and is responsible for a fair majority of the audio in modern soundtracks, dialogue included. One of my first upgrades from my initially modest setup was the best center I could afford... and I would absolutely recommend doing the same to anyone who is starting out with a modestly priced HTIB setup.

If he is having dialogue issues with a HTIB setup, I don't think there's any mystery here left to be solved. And despite all of that, if his knowledge is based solely upon his experience with his HTIB setup and he doesn't want to listen to others, then that's fine too... so long as he's not also giving bad advice to anyone else re: Atmos based on that limited experience.


----------



## Archaea

Anyone who thinks there is such a thing as even a somewhat similar reference among auto calibrated home theater systems (Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, Trinnov, AccuEQ, ARC, etc) - they are in for some disappointment.
Post 199 and 208
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...vember-8-2014-kansas-city-7.html#post28900602




Archaea said:


> *The Madness*
> So what's the deal? Why was our test madness?
> Well - here are the post calibration frequency responses from each entry. No funny business, just absurdity. The helpers and I set the mic in the same standardized positions for each system (unless specific places were actually required, IE Anthem, DIRAC, Yamaha) and the starting position for the initial calibration was the exact same spot for ever processor. Stitch1 loaned a drum kit with a bunch of high hat stands (used as mic stands) - to ensure our mic capture positions weren't different from processor to processor. In theory, after calibration each processor should be close to the same SPL at least, if not generally reasonably close to a flatter frequency plot - RIGHT?? I mean that's the point of these systems -- RIGHT? To get the AVRs to a reference volume and try to flatten frequency response while doing so - so that each user's system in different rooms and different speaker setups has a similar audio experience?!?!?!
> 
> Well, with eight different systems here is what was captured by omnimic for each as post calibration results. We followed instructions to let each auto processor optimize the room. The ONLY change we allowed post calibration was setting speakers to small and crossover to 80hz when the processor/AVR allowed. To capture the post calibration frequency response plots shown here I simply turned each AVR to -12dB on the main volume knob and played track 2 of the omnimic disk from the HTPC to the processor. The results are ridiculous. But that is the tested state of variance in these processors.


 



Heck even among two same part number Audyssey mics there is a big variance (up to about a 5dB swing between bass and treble between the two mics I tested (from a Onkyo prepro 5508 and a Denon 45020CI))
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-between-two-audyssey-multi-eq-xt32-mics.html














*Point being:*
It's not at all easy to clearly say that someone is deviating from reference or what the directors intent was by changing a channel SPL trim a bit - when they might not have even been close to any kind of reference SPL or EQ to begin with based on their auto calibration results.


--


----------



## SoundChex

kbarnes701 said:


> At least we may now have an answer as to why he can’t hear the dialog on 20% of his discs.



Nonetheless, immersive audio technology penetration and exploitation of the HTiB and soundbar markets would seem an important pathway to gaining widespread "_non audio aficionado_" consumer marketplace acceptance|choice|purchase of Atmos and DTS:X content products. It will be interesting to see what LG and Samsung show for all-in-one B&M store purchase "out-the-door under $1000" at CES 2016.

I'm guessing it wouldn't take much to 'upgrade' the (current) LG BH9430PW HTiB (MSRP $799.99) to be Atmos|DTS:X capable...?


"fun-to-watch" LG BH9430PW promo video.
http://uds.ak.o.brightcove.com/1665...mp4?pubId=1665893145001&videoId=2780882960001


_


----------



## Rew452

Brings up a good point, has anyone figured out how to use a calibrated mic for this?

I seem to remember Denon had a article to do this awile back but not sure if it still applies to the newer receivers.


----------



## Ricoflashback

AllenA07 said:


> Do you leave it boosted, or do you adjust based on the source material?


I leave it boosted at a +3 all the time. In fact, I've boosted all my channels (especially the rears) based on personal preference. 

Please keep in mind that I'm not your typical AVS Forum Home Theater aficionado. I'm just a burnt out hippie from the 70's who has attended way too many rock concerts and whose hearing suffers from the high end to the mid range. I can't hear the tea kettle go off in the morning which drives my significant other crazy. (I can hear, however, when she passes wind. No problem with sub frequencies.)

Forget the double blind test - - double deaf is more like it. So, take my recommendations with a grain of salt. My comment was to reassure those folks who mess with channel levels that it's o.k. - - because your good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, there are other people just like you!


----------



## johnnymacIII

What would be a good receiver to do atmos in 9.1.2 with wides and top middles? I have an external amp. So 9 channels of amplification is enough. Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I want to point out that if he's using a HTIB, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all started somewhere. I started pretty modestly myself... and it has been a series of gradual upgrades ever since. But it bears mentioning that in my experience (and I think most here would agree), the weakest element of almost every HTIB system tends to be the center channel. Those of us who have been doing this a while know that the center is arguably the single most important speaker in your setup, and is responsible for a fair majority of the audio in modern soundtracks, dialogue included. One of my first upgrades from my initially modest setup was the best center I could afford... and I would absolutely recommend doing the same to anyone who is starting out with a modestly priced HTIB setup.
> 
> If he is having dialogue issues with a HTIB setup, I don't think there's any mystery here left to be solved. And despite all of that, if his knowledge is based solely upon his experience with his HTIB setup and he doesn't want to listen to others, then that's fine too... so long as he's not also giving bad advice to anyone else re: Atmos based on that limited experience.


Agreed. I wouldn't ever diss someone's setup - we all have different priorities in life and different amounts of spare cash. HST, someone with a system which is, shall we say, less than a reference system shouldn't be offering advice based on how that system sounds. And, as you and others have very lucidly pointed out - simply goosing the overhead speakers in an attempt to compensate for a weak Atmos mix is just plain wrong.


----------



## Stoked21

Archaea said:


> Anyone who thinks there is such a thing as even a somewhat similar reference among auto calibrated home theater systems (Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, Trinnov, AccuEQ, ARC, etc) - they are in for some disappointment.
> 
> --


Without question. I have experienced this with YPAO and Audyssey both. More so with YPAO due to the mic. Most people make the mistake of assuming that the discrepancies measurement-to-measurement are due to one algorithm/product being better than the other. While there can be some adv/disadv, the truth is the microphone is the culprit. The DSP will process the data the same way every single time---guaranteed. But that's skewed in most people's minds with a complete disregard for WHAT data the DSP is receiving from the analog circuit.

I laugh when I see people talk about one DAC or one ADC being better than another...It's a bunch of BS in the audio semiconductor field (for the most part; apples to apples). Most people don't realize that consumer level passive components (resistors, capacitors, VRs etc) can have as much as a 10% tolerance. Typically only 2-5%, but in any condenser or piezo mic setting that can make a big difference. Add into that the xtal oscillators, or worse yet RC oscillators, and things drift all over the place. You will see this happen as the units become warm, as your AC or heater kicks on...Temperature is one of the biggest variables (whether external or self generating). Sampling errors become abundant due to the ANALOG circuits, not due to the digital ICs. Therein lies the problems with the mic RC circuits and the Vref for the sampling circuit.

Anyway, that's why it's always best to take REQ with a grain of salt. I for one do tweak the levels on initial calibration....Again, I've seen as bad as 3db, but normally only 0.5-1.0db of trimming is necessary. With Atmos....this is even more important as you start to see people with all of their height effects ON the ceiling instead of in and throughout the room...Due to setting the levels too high.

*For someone to need to kick up their center channel by +12db?????? That's not a calibration inconsistency.....that's indicative of a problem.*


----------



## MarkMul1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I want to point out that if he's using a HTIB, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all started somewhere. I started pretty modestly myself... and it has been a series of gradual upgrades ever since. But it bears mentioning that in my experience (and I think most here would agree), the weakest element of almost every HTIB system tends to be the center channel. Those of us who have been doing this a while know that the center is arguably the single most important speaker in your setup, and is responsible for a fair majority of the audio in modern soundtracks, dialogue included. One of my first upgrades from my initially modest setup was the best center I could afford... and I would absolutely recommend doing the same to anyone who is starting out with a modestly priced HTIB setup.
> 
> If he is having dialogue issues with a HTIB setup, I don't think there's any mystery here left to be solved. And despite all of that, if his knowledge is based solely upon his experience with his HTIB setup and he doesn't want to listen to others, then that's fine too... so long as he's not also giving bad advice to anyone else re: Atmos based on that limited experience.



Yes, Yes and Yes

Some are missing the point. It has nothing to do with being new and learning and starting off with certain product level and learning and growing. The last quote is one of 100's from this individual that has no humility, no tack, no gratitude....He has over 700 posts in one month, blowing up and offending multitudes in most of the posts where people are trying to help him. I watched here as he was debating and going on and on about Dolby Atmos when i knew from other posts he had never even heard Dolby Atmos. 

I would guess that many start and learn on the AVS forum and as more and more lower end products try to adapt Atmos and DTS-X they will need help. If they all go about it the way we have been witnessing it will be a disaster. I would bet that 99,999 out of 100,000 will go about it in a different way and appreciate the help


----------



## Stoked21

Archaea said:


> Heck even among two same part number Audyssey mics there is a big variance (up to about a 5dB swing between bass and treble between the two mics I tested (from a Onkyo prepro 5508 and a Denon 45020CI))
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-between-two-audyssey-multi-eq-xt32-mics.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --



Looking at graphs now. This is clearly skew in the Vref circuit and/or drift of the passive electronics. You can see that the DSP (whether ADC was onboard channel or external), is processing very similar waveform. Peaks and valleys line up. What's happening is the sampling is offset and shifted due to something in the analog circuit--more than likely associated with the passive mic components.

This is also one of the reasons you should never swap mics from any given model....i.e. use the Denon X7200 mic with my X1200 model etc. They are biased differently and will result in radically different (false) results that are "perceived" as being better or worse. You really have to stick with the same model of mic that was shipped with any given AVR (or at very least analyze the circuit/schematic to verify specs match)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> Anyway, that's why it's always best to take REQ with a grain of salt. I for one do tweak the levels on initial calibration....Again, I've seen as bad as 3db, but normally only 0.5-1.0db of trimming is necessary. With Atmos....this is even more important as you start to see people with all of their height effects ON the ceiling instead of in and throughout the room...Due to setting the levels too high.
> 
> *For someone to need to kick up their center channel by +12db?????? That's not a calibration inconsistency.....that's indicative of a problem.*


This is exactly my point. I don't think any of us were ever saying that you shouldn't mess with the results of any REQ, because none of it is perfect. And when I was referring to "standards", I wasn't making some global assumption that anyone can get their room to sound exactly like the mixer's room by any stretch, with or without REQ (and regardless of each REQ method's consistency with the others). Every mix room is different too. REQ is mostly to deal with acoustic issues that one can't work around in-room with physical modifications (room treatments, positioning, etc.). But there are established references that we strive for that aim to maintain SOME level of consistent presentation between the mix room/stage, the theater, and the home environment.

If you're having to bump your center channel up regularly for 20% of the discs you play and most people generally observe that this shouldn't be the case in a well-calibrated and placed system, it's likely that you have some in-room problems that need to be addressed. And they can be... and fairly cheaply, even if you have a HTIB setup. But if you ignore that, it's on you. And I think that's the case here. If he can't take the care to address dialogue intelligibility with reasonable steps, then his Atmos experience is going to be even more compromised.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> Looking at graphs now. This is clearly skew in the Vref circuit and/or drift of the passive electronics. You can see that the DSP (whether ADC was onboard channel or external), is processing very similar waveform. Peaks and valleys line up. What's happening is the sampling is offset and shifted due to something in the analog circuit--more than likely associated with the passive mic components.
> 
> This is also one of the reasons you should never swap mics from any given model....i.e. use the Denon X7200 mic with my X1200 model etc. They are biased differently and will result in radically different (false) results that are "perceived" as being better or worse. You really have to stick with the same model of mic that was shipped with any given AVR (or at very least analyze the circuit/schematic to verify specs match)


Even then, you can sometimes _just get a bad mic_. The first mic that I got with my Onkyo 3010 produced AWFUL results. And when I compared post-calibrated SPL levels to what my meter showed, they were 8-10dB off. Got Onkyo to send me a new mic... and then all was well and the calibration sounded much better.


----------



## scarabaeus

dannybee said:


> Bought a copy of pixels here in australia,the american version says atmos soundtrack and our version dosen't it has a auro 3d soundtrack first one I've noticed with auro 3d.


Australia, too? I thought it was only Sony Germany that had lost their mind.


----------



## Daryl L

As far as dialogue intelligibility. There can be fluctuations in the source material. Some studios mixing the audio when it's being transferred to disk don't always account that it's not being played at reference level by everyone in a home theater environment. Micasa Studio is one example of an excellent studio that always took into account the dialogue level when mixing for transfers. Movies are mixed with levels that are designed to be played at reference level in theaters. But when you tone that down for an home theater environment sometime the dialogue especially during whispering moments can be difficult to understand. It can also happen with TV shows.

I watch a TV show called "Sleepy Hollow" on the Fox network. The previous couple of seasons I never, ever had a problem understanding dialogue. I never had to touch my volume. I also never listen at reference level I always listen at a level between -27 to-22 (dependent on the show). But this season was totally different. With the exact same receiver and no changes whatsoever in the set up or calibration, absolutely no changes in my room furniture, or any change whatsoever in the speakers there would be times I had difficulty understanding what they were saying when they were talking in a low tone. It wasn't like that the first two seasons. Only this last season. I'm guessing most of you listen to material at reference level or close to. In that situation, no you should never have a problem understand dialogue. But when you don't listen at high volumes, with some material dialogue can be a little difficult to hear. I've noticed in some theater movies that was aired on cable. Not all and not very many but it has happened. I would just have to bump up the volume a couple of decibels to make out what they say on a few occasions. That's just my experience with it and I'm a not pro With all the measuring software and equipment. But I have been in this hobby the since the 90s. Been using the same M&K K7 speakers since the late 90s (just replaced two weeks ago). This is just been my observations.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...rogue-nation-blu-ray-review.html#post39348066

Anyone, in Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Selden Ball

Stoked21 said:


> DTS:X and DTS Neural:X Upmixer will be enabled via future firmware update. For more info, please visit www.marantz.com./dtsx
> 
> 
> Click on the link...."404 Not Found". Kind of funny.....


Look at it closely. The link you copied has a dot at the end of the domain name. That's not a valid address.

If you erase the dot, the URL works, but it redirects to http://www.marantz.com/pages/dtsx.aspx

And that page does not include any new information about the firmware update. It just says that one will be needed.


----------



## Stoked21

Selden Ball said:


> Look at it closely. The link you copied has a dot at the end of the domain name. That's not a valid address.
> 
> If you erase the dot, the URL works, but it redirects to http://www.marantz.com/pages/dtsx.aspx
> 
> And that page does not include any new information about the firmware update. It just says that one will be needed.


HA HA. Hadn't noticed it. Then I thought it was dirt on my screen!!!
Well, nice to know that Marantz is at least updating and proofing their website! Not.
I guess there's not too much focus on a product that's so severely late from one of their partners!


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> This is also one of the reasons you should never swap mics from any given model....i.e. use the Denon X7200 mic with my X1200 model etc. They are biased differently and will result in radically different (false) results that are "perceived" as being better or worse. You really have to stick with the same model of mic that was shipped with any given AVR (or at very least analyze the circuit/schematic to verify specs match)


Just a small point of correction -- ALL of the consumer Audyssey mics for the past 5+ years (Eiffel tower style) are the same internally and use the same batch calibration files. So there's nothing wrong with using a mic from a Denon 2200 on a Marantz 5007. 

I think you are correct about inter-mic variability being a major factor, but don't conflate that with inherent variation between mics with different Audyssey equipped AVRs. You are just as likely to get the variability you describe with two 7200 mics as between a 1200 and 7200 mic. 

(And BTW this info is straight from Chris Kyriakakis)


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> Just a small point of correction -- ALL of the consumer Audyssey mics for the past 5+ years (Eiffel tower style) are the same internally and use the same batch calibration files. So there's nothing wrong with using a mic from a Denon 2200 on a Marantz 5007.
> 
> I think you are correct about inter-mic variability being a major factor, but don't conflate that with inherent variation between mics with different Audyssey equipped AVRs. You are just as likely to get the variability you describe with two 7200 mics as between a 1200 and 7200 mic.
> 
> (And BTW this info is straight from Chris Kyriakakis)



Good to know that at least audyssey tries to keep a common spec across the models. Excellent strategy. With that being said, the life cycle of passive components tends to be a little longer than actives. But even then Murata or any of the other mic manufs typically only produce any given component for a few years. Manufacturing efficiencies, process changes, production locations (for components not the mic itself), etc. So the EOL does guarantee that in the 5 years you reference, those manufacturer parts and processes have changed. I would guess at least twice if not more. 

That will result in impedance changes (lcr), sensitivity and frequency changes. The designer can work to maintain an equivalent schematic/specification and attempt to bias accordingly. but the change in manufacturers or MPN will still result in subtle but measurable variance. If designed correctly it could be almost as minor as a component to component variance, though more difficult and more costly.


----------



## dth122

I have a thread going in the build forum about adding four direct-firing Atmos speakers in a soffit to create a 7.1.4 system. My room has a relatively low 8' ceiling. The consensus seems to be that Atmos add-on speakers might be preferable due to the ceiling height.

The Dolby recommended approach for Atmos speakers is to add them on the side surrounds and fronts. Unfortunately, for various reasons, it's not viable for me to put them on the fronts. My alternate option would be to place them on all four surround speakers - two on the sides between the front and rear rows and two behind the rear row.

Has anyone tried this alternate configuration? Does it work well or is it a significant compromise compared to four direct speakers and/or the recommended Dolby placement?
- Dave


----------



## batpig

I would still recommend direct firing ceiling speakers if at all possible. Can you post some pics? Could you mount speakera inside the soffits to gain some extra height?


----------



## NorthSky

dth122 said:


> I have a thread going in the build forum about adding four direct-firing Atmos speakers in a soffit to create a 7.1.4 system. My room has a relatively low 8' ceiling. The consensus seems to be that Atmos add-on speakers might be preferable due to the ceiling height.
> 
> The Dolby recommended approach for Atmos speakers is to add them on the side surrounds and fronts. Unfortunately, for various reasons, it's not viable for me to put them on the fronts. My alternate option would be to place them on all four surround speakers - two on the sides between the front and rear rows and two behind the rear row.
> 
> Has anyone tried this alternate configuration? Does it work well or is it a significant compromise compared to four direct speakers and/or the recommended Dolby placement?
> - Dave


I checked your two threads; here's the last picture (ceiling): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...eme-home-theater-planning-4.html#post15317231 

I looked @ all the posts, all the pictures...nice room.

1. Your side and rear surrounds are too high, IMO. ...I would work on modifying your columns so that you can lower them. 
Open the columns, lower the speaker plate brackets so that the tweeters are only slightly above ear level, cover the top hole of the columns and cut new holes lower. 

2. For four overhead Atmos speakers; I would use on-ceiling speakers with brackets attached to your soffit (@ the edge between it and your main ceiling). 

♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 26 (9.1.4)

You worked hard for your room to be what it is now. Do you want the new 3D immersive audio sensations (Atmos/dtsX)? I certainly would. 
And I would accommodate my room accordingly.  

It could be done; with more work for sure, and wire your soffit for six Atmos speakers (9.1.6). 
Take your time, think it over, future-proof your room, ...


----------



## audiofan1

Daryl L said:


> As far as dialogue intelligibility. There can be fluctuations in the source material. Some studios mixing the audio when it's being transferred to disk don't always account that it's not being played at reference level by everyone in a home theater environment. Micasa Studio is one example of an excellent studio that always took into account the dialogue level when mixing for transfers. Movies are mixed with levels that are designed to be played at reference level in theaters. But when you tone that down for an home theater environment sometime the dialogue especially during whispering moments can be difficult to understand. It can also happen with TV shows.
> 
> I watch a TV show called "Sleepy Hollow" on the Fox network. The previous couple of seasons I never, ever had a problem understanding dialogue. I never had to touch my volume. I also never listen at reference level I always listen at a level between -27 to-22 (dependent on the show). But this season was totally different. With the exact same receiver and no changes whatsoever in the set up or calibration, absolutely no changes in my room furniture, or any change whatsoever in the speakers there would be times I had difficulty understanding what they were saying when they were talking in a low tone. It wasn't like that the first two seasons. Only this last season. I'm guessing most of you listen to material at reference level or close to. In that situation, no you should never have a problem understand dialogue. But when you don't listen at high volumes, with some material dialogue can be a little difficult to hear. I've noticed in some theater movies that was aired on cable. Not all and not very many but it has happened. I would just have to bump up the volume a couple of decibels to make out what they say on a few occasions. That's just my experience with it and I'm a not pro With all the measuring software and equipment. But I have been in this hobby the since the 90s. Been using the same M&K K7 speakers since the late 90s (just replaced two weeks ago). This is just been my observations.


I can attest to Sleepy Hollow having dialog issues as well compared to previous seasons.I listen at the same levels as you for the show and you need not be a pro or have measuring gear to hear the considerable drop off


----------



## batpig

Stoked21 said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a small point of correction -- ALL of the consumer Audyssey mics for the past 5+ years (Eiffel tower style) are the same internally and use the same batch calibration files. So there's nothing wrong with using a mic from a Denon 2200 on a Marantz 5007.
> 
> I think you are correct about inter-mic variability being a major factor, but don't conflate that with inherent variation between mics with different Audyssey equipped AVRs. You are just as likely to get the variability you describe with two 7200 mics as between a 1200 and 7200 mic.
> 
> (And BTW this info is straight from Chris Kyriakakis)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know that at least audyssey tries to keep a common spec across the models. Excellent strategy. With that being said, the life cycle of passive components tends to be a little longer than actives. But even then Murata or any of the other mic manufs typically only produce any given component for a few years. Manufacturing efficiencies, process changes, production locations (for components not the mic itself), etc. So the EOL does guarantee that in the 5 years you reference, those manufacturer parts and processes have changed. I would guess at least twice if not more.
> 
> That will result in impedance changes (lcr), sensitivity and frequency changes. The designer can work to maintain an equivalent schematic/specification and attempt to bias accordingly. but the change in manufacturers or MPN will still result in subtle but measurable variance. If designed correctly it could be almost as minor as a component to component variance, though more difficult and more costly.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt what you're saying at all. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that, despite differences in external color and badging, they are all supposed to be the same. Audyssey took over control of the mic production process years back and standardized the design and calibration offsets for all manufacturers.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I want to point out that if he's using a HTIB, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all started somewhere. I started pretty modestly myself... and it has been a series of gradual upgrades ever since. But it bears mentioning that in my experience (and I think most here would agree), the weakest element of almost every HTIB system tends to be the center channel. Those of us who have been doing this a while know that the center is arguably the single most important speaker in your setup, and is responsible for a fair majority of the audio in modern soundtracks, dialogue included. One of my first upgrades from my initially modest setup was the best center I could afford... and I would absolutely recommend doing the same to anyone who is starting out with a modestly priced HTIB setup.
> 
> If he is having dialogue issues with a HTIB setup, I don't think there's any mystery here left to be solved. And despite all of that, if his knowledge is based solely upon his experience with his HTIB setup and he doesn't want to listen to others, then that's fine too... so long as he's not also giving bad advice to anyone else re: Atmos based on that limited experience.


Before my HTIB I was using a 2.1 Soundbar, so yes I am very excited about my very first 5.1 system, and tge fact that is Dolby Atmos-ready is just a bonus.
I am not trying to go against the "experts" but sometimes common sense win. I know my speakers are so-so, but the receiver can and will handle better speakers in the future when it will be time for an upgrade.
I have speakers at ear-level height, perfectly calibrated with AccuEQ and mic placed exactly at ear-level in the MLP...all that good stuff.
So when the voices are too low I do crank up the center by a few dbs. It is not a crime, it does not cause any harm and all it does is let me hear the voices. I couldnt care less what Audyssey or AccuEQ suggest, I go by what I hear


----------



## Rocky3RD

audiofan1 said:


> I can attest to Sleepy Hollow having dialog issues as well compared to previous seasons.I listen at the same levels as you for the show and you need not be a pro or have measuring gear to hear the considerable drop off


So what to do in those cases? Keep turning volume up and down from one scene to another? Turn captions on? I rather just bump up the center speaker until I can tell what the charatcters are saying


----------



## qwerty_88

when playing a 5.1 or 7.1 non-atmos track, does the ceiling atmos speakers (top front/ mid/ rear) work?


----------



## metalsaber

I had been making that mistake for years. My center speaker was constantly getting overwhelmed by the other speakers making it hard to hear dialogue. Since changing my dynamics are great and dialogue is crystal clear. 



Selden Ball said:


> AllenA07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With Audyssey I find that typically it sets my speakers just a little bit on the low side. Anytime after I run it I will go through with pink noise and an SPL meter and adjust all my levels 75db. I admittedly cheat more then I probably should on bass as I'm guessing a lot of people on this site do.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully you're using an external source of calibration tones.
> 
> The AVR's internal tones bypass Audyssey. i.e. if you use the internal tones you're messing up the speaker balance that Audyssey has carefully set for you. If all of the speakers have to be changed the same amount, that's the same as adjusting the volume.
> 
> If you haven't already done so, please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ that's here on AVS. The instructions in the equipment manuals are woefully inadequate.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Simply goosing the overhead speakers in an attempt to compensate for a weak Atmos mix is just plain wrong."

I can understand your reasoning and if your hearing is good and you can properly setup your environment with room correction software - - the more power to you. 

Looking for fireworks in a weak Dolby Atmos mix is understandable. Like the one poster so aptly put it - - if you're not using the overhead speakers for Dolby Atmos, then give us a solid 7.1 soundtrack. 

Sometimes, I'm not sure if "reference level" or what the director intended necessarily means the right thing or the best thing for your specific environment. A lot of this is trial and error - - see what works best for you. 

Lastly - - everybody/every thing needs a good "goosing" once in a while.


----------



## AllenA07

qwerty_88 said:


> when playing a 5.1 or 7.1 non-atmos track, does the ceiling atmos speakers (top front/ mid/ rear) work?


If you're watching a movie with a True HD soundtrack the DSU can up mix it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

AllenA07 said:


> With Audyssey I find that typically it sets my speakers just a little bit on the low side. Anytime after I run it I will go through with pink noise and an SPL meter and adjust all my levels 75db. I admittedly cheat more then I probably should on bass as I'm guessing a lot of people on this site do.


Allen, what disk you use (or recommend) for the external test tones (pin noise)?
I have the DVE (DVD), and I believe it should have the pink noise for all 7 channels..


----------



## Tamas

About centre channel intelligibility, what I have found is that you need to treat the first reflection point off the back wall. I use a 3" inch thick 2' x 4' absorber with a 3" air gap behind it and it works great for the whole front sound stage. We always think of first reflection points being to the sides of our rooms, but when you have a front sound stage and the speakers are all facing forwards the back wall is a huge reflector and will bounce sound waves right back at you from behind causing all kinds of negative effects. YMMV.


----------



## Opethion

Daryl L said:


> Micasa Studio is one example of an excellent studio that always took into account the dialogue level when mixing for transfers.


They did the original LotR DVDs, right? At least their TFotR mix was very loud and dynamically compressed. I remember being very disappointed.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Tamas said:


> About centre channel intelligibility, what I have found is that you need to treat the first reflection point off the back wall. I use a 3" inch thick 2' x 4' absorber with a 3" air gap behind it and it works great for the whole front sound stage. We always think of first reflection points being to the sides of our rooms, but when you have a front sound stage and the speakers are all facing forwards the back wall is a huge reflector and will bounce sound waves right back at you from behind causing all kinds of negative effects. YMMV.


My couch is attached to the wall, so when I sit my back is nearly touching the back wall. In other words, there is no empty space between the back wall and the MLP. The MLP is the back wall itself, almost


----------



## qwerty_88

AllenA07 said:


> If you're watching a movie with a True HD soundtrack the DSU can up mix it.


will i get more immersive sound with a Back Surround (7.1) or a Top Mid ceiling speaker (5.1.2)?


----------



## pletwals

Rocky3RD said:


> My couch is attached to the wall, so when I sit my back is nearly touching the back wall. In other words, there is no empty space between the back wall and the MLP. The MLP is the back wall itself, almost











There's a solution for every problem.


----------



## pletwals

qwerty_88 said:


> will i get more immersive sound with a Back Surround (7.1) or a Top Mid ceiling speaker (5.1.2)?


Both.


----------



## batpig

Rocky3RD said:


> Tamas said:
> 
> 
> 
> About centre channel intelligibility, what I have found is that you need to treat the first reflection point off the back wall. I use a 3" inch thick 2' x 4' absorber with a 3" air gap behind it and it works great for the whole front sound stage. We always think of first reflection points being to the sides of our rooms, but when you have a front sound stage and the speakers are all facing forwards the back wall is a huge reflector and will bounce sound waves right back at you from behind causing all kinds of negative effects. YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> My couch is attached to the wall, so when I sit my back is nearly touching the back wall. In other words, there is no empty space between the back wall and the MLP. The MLP is the back wall itself, almost
Click to expand...

So that's part of your perfect room acoustics with no positioning issues?


----------



## Daryl L

Opethion said:


> They did the original LotR DVDs, right? At least their TFotR mix was very loud and dynamically compressed. I remember being very disappointed.


Been a while but yes if I remember correctly they did do LotR.


----------



## Daryl L

Rocky3RD said:


> So what to do in those cases? Keep turning volume up and down from one scene to another? Turn captions on? I rather just bump up the center speaker until I can tell what the charatcters are saying


I usually just bump up the main volume 2 or 3 dB during that show. Which way you choose to do it is a matter of personal choice. You could bump up the main volume like I do or like you do by increasing the center channel level output and also there is usually a dialogue enhancement option on most receivers now that you can enable just for specific shows or movies you have trouble hearing dialogue with. Some people think these options should not be used or should not be necessary but it's your system and you're the one listening to it. You choose the way you wish to do it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rocky3RD said:


> Before my HTIB I was using a 2.1 Soundbar, so yes I am very excited about my very first 5.1 system, and tge fact that is Dolby Atmos-ready is just a bonus.
> I am not trying to go against the "experts" but sometimes common sense win. I know my speakers are so-so, but the receiver can and will handle better speakers in the future when it will be time for an upgrade.
> I have speakers at ear-level height, perfectly calibrated with AccuEQ and mic placed exactly at ear-level in the MLP...all that good stuff.
> So when the voices are too low I do crank up the center by a few dbs. It is not a crime, it does not cause any harm and all it does is let me hear the voices. I couldnt care less what Audyssey or AccuEQ suggest, I go by what I hear





Rocky3RD said:


> So what to do in those cases? Keep turning volume up and down from one scene to another? Turn captions on? I rather just bump up the center speaker until I can tell what the charatcters are saying





Rocky3RD said:


> My couch is attached to the wall, so when I sit my back is nearly touching the back wall. In other words, there is no empty space between the back wall and the MLP. The MLP is the back wall itself, almost


I'm quoting all of these things because they illustrate the problem people are having with you. You can have "so-so" speakers and still do things to address acoustic issues. However, based on what you're telling us, you have 1) a seating position against a wall (which is a no-no, but sometimes unavoidable), and 2) you're running AccuEQ (which isn't ideal, but it's what you have) with the mic at ear level in close proximity to said wall. The problem here is that the reflection of sound off of your back wall is going to play hell with what your AccuEQ mic reads, essentially giving it bad data to work with. As we've been saying about all room equalization methods, garbage in = garbage out. I see that you've had people suggest an acoustic panel on your back wall to help with this. *Listen to them.

*And since it's clear that you are new to this and are still learning, please stop making suggestions to people that they boost levels haphazardly. I know you say that you weren't doing that... but if you'll recall, when someone said that the Atmos mix on Game Of Thrones was weak, you said:


> Have you tried to increase your Atmos speakers dcb levels just for Games of Thrones?


Then when others said that wasn't the solution, you compared it to bumping up your center channel. We're trying to educate you by telling you that yes, you do have acoustic issues in your room, even if you don't seem to think so. EVERY room does. And with what you describe, there are simple (and cheap) ways to greatly improve things so that you aren't having to reach for the center channel trim every time you watch an older movie. My room is far from perfect... but I couldn't tell you the last time I had an issue with dialogue being drowned out by the other channels, and I'm running 7.1.4 (and 9.1 DPL-IIz Height before it). I think if you're willing to actually learn from those with more experience, you'll find that you can improve your HTIB's sound. Some tweaks are as simple as angling your center channel toward ear level at your seats... or isolating the speakers from vibration using pieces of platfoam... or putting up a fairly low budget acoustic panel to deal with reflections in your room. And the more of that stuff you do, the better data AccuEQ will have to try to further tweak the calibration to get the best sound possible out of your gear.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm quoting all of these things because they illustrate the problem people are having with you. You can have "so-so" speakers and still do things to address acoustic issues. However, based on what you're telling us, you have 1) a seating position against a wall (which is a no-no, but sometimes unavoidable), and 2) you're running AccuEQ (which isn't ideal, but it's what you have) with the mic at ear level in close proximity to said wall. The problem here is that the reflection of sound off of your back wall is going to play hell with what your AccuEQ mic reads, essentially giving it bad data to work with. As we've been saying about all room equalization methods, garbage in = garbage out. I see that you've had people suggest an acoustic panel on your back wall to help with this. *Listen to them.*
> 
> And since it's clear that you are new to this and are still learning, please stop making suggestions to people that they boost levels haphazardly. I know you say that you weren't doing that... but if you'll recall, when someone said that the Atmos mix on Game Of Thrones was weak, you said:
> 
> Then when others said that wasn't the solution, you compared it to bumping up your center channel. We're trying to educate you by telling you that yes, you do have acoustic issues in your room, even if you don't seem to think so. EVERY room does. And with what you describe, there are simple (and cheap) ways to greatly improve things so that you aren't having to reach for the center channel trim every time you watch an older movie. My room is far from perfect... but I couldn't tell you the last time I had an issue with dialogue being drowned out by the other channels, and I'm running 7.1.4 (and 9.1 DPL-IIz Height before it). I think if you're willing to actually learn from those with more experience, you'll find that you can improve your HTIB's sound. Some tweaks are as simple as angling your center channel toward ear level at your seats... or isolating the speakers from vibration using pieces of platfoam... or putting up a fairly low budget acoustic panel to deal with reflections in your room. And the more of that stuff you do, the better data AccuEQ will have to try to further tweak the calibration to get the best sound possible out of your gear.


 What I could do is re-calibrate my system using a MLP that is further off the back wall, and then see how the center speaker responds.


----------



## Rocky3RD

Because this thread is strictly about Dolby Atmos, please let's take this conversation here...I think I might have figured out what the issue is with my center speaker:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2251138-could-issue-center-speaker.html


----------



## stikle

Rocky3RD said:


> What I could do is re-calibrate my system using a MLP that is further off the back wall, and then see how the center speaker responds.



...thus calibrating with inaccurate positional data. Doing that will render your MLP as NOT the best place to sit, probably making things sound even worse...

It's kind of funny how you are fighting/ignoring any suggestions that may help you out.


----------



## barty88

pletwals said:


> View attachment 1125618
> 
> 
> There's a solution for every problem.



And what is that solution?

I have the same issue... couch sits against the back wall, so how do i properly install rear and surround speakers which are supposed to be behind and at the side of the head. Right now I think I have them installed too high (~7 feet and angled down) Compounding this the rear sides one is right niext to you but the other is 7 or 8 feet away to that side wall. Yamahs YPAO does the measurement thing, but not sure if that correction is enough.

Wish there were a site or a reference about oddly shaped rooms with barriers to proper optimal install like varying wall distances and doors and windows, etc.


----------



## MarkMul1

Rocky3RD said:


> Because this thread is strictly about Dolby Atmos, please let's take this conversation here...I think I might have figured out what the issue is with my center speaker:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2251138-could-issue-center-speaker.html


Oh my lord it's snowing in Miami.


----------



## kaotikr1

kbarnes701 said:


> TBH I wouldn't worry too much about it. My TRs are well out of spec (they are in spec for TM but I am designating them as TR) and it sounds just fantastic. Get as close as you can but don't obsess over it - "it's pretty hard to make Atmos *not* work" as Dolby themselves say.
> 
> Otherwise your option 1 is OK.


Well I went all in last night. 

Denon 6200 
7.2.6 for future gen 
DDRC-88A

I figured since I already have TM and I found a way to make the locations work for TF/TR I might as well wire for all 3 and try out leaving my back surrounds a bit higher and test FH/TM and if that doesn't sound good then lower all 4 surrounds and go TF/TR. 

I have 11 days off for Christmas break and I plan on having some fun. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## dth122

batpig said:


> I would still recommend direct firing ceiling speakers if at all possible. Can you post some pics? Could you mount speakera inside the soffits to gain some extra height?


That's definitely possible and probably easier, as long as I can get something to fit in my 7" tall soffits and point them in the right direction. I'm curious on what basis you think direct firing is preferable? There doesn't seem to be consensus on this subject, especially for low ceiling heights. 

You can see some pictures of my room and the soffits here. If you need better pictures of the finished space I'll have to take some more.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...n/851666-x-treme-home-theater-planning-3.html



NorthSky said:


> I checked your two threads; here's the last picture (ceiling): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...eme-home-theater-planning-4.html#post15317231
> 
> I looked @ all the posts, all the pictures...nice room.
> 
> 1. Your side and rear surrounds are too high, IMO. ...I would work on modifying your columns so that you can lower them.
> Open the columns, lower the speaker plate brackets so that the tweeters are only slightly above ear level, cover the top hole of the columns and cut new holes lower.


If you're looking at the pictures at the top of the third page, that's not representative of the current positioning. The surrounds are at ear level for the back row and about 8" above ear level for the front row. The base of the surround speakers is at the same height as the trim molding that separates the blue top from the gray bottom.



NorthSky said:


> 2. For four overhead Atmos speakers; I would use on-ceiling speakers with brackets attached to your soffit (@ the edge between it and your main ceiling).
> 
> ♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 26 (9.1.4)


That's the setup I was planning on (without the wide speakers) until I started receiving feedback that Atmos bounce speakers might be preferable given my ceiling height.

To follow your advice, I would still want to keep the speakers concealed, just like the rest. My soffit is framed and GOM covered - that's what creates the angle from the bottom of the soffit to the intersection with ceiling. That whole height is 7", so I need to find a speaker that's reasonable voice-matched to what I have that I can angle appropriately.

Are you suggesting that I use ceiling speakers and point them straight down? I'm not sure I'd be able to do that from that location. The bottom of the soffit is drywall, so I wouldn't be able to install something at the top (main ceiling) and have it point down through the bottom of the soffit. It needs to shoot through the angled GOM.
- Dave


----------



## Hyabusha

qwerty_88 said:


> when playing a 5.1 or 7.1 non-atmos track, does the ceiling atmos speakers (top front/ mid/ rear) work?


Dolby DSU will activate all Dolby sources to overheard sound.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kaotikr1 said:


> Well I went all in last night.
> 
> Denon 6200
> 7.2.6 for future gen
> DDRC-88A
> 
> I figured since I already have TM and I found a way to make the locations work for TF/TR I might as well wire for all 3 and try out leaving my back surrounds a bit higher and test FH/TM and if that doesn't sound good then lower all 4 surrounds and go TF/TR.
> 
> I have 11 days off for Christmas break and I plan on having some fun.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Congrats! Enjoy and have fun. Keep us posted. One quick question - - how is it 7.2.6 for future Atmos (6 overhead or Atmos speakers)??? Firmware upgrade? 

I know someone who is going to have a wonderful holiday season.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Congrats! Enjoy and have fun. Keep us posted. One quick question - - how is it 7.2.6 for future Atmos (6 overhead or Atmos speakers)??? Firmware upgrade?
> 
> I know someone who is going to have a wonderful holiday season.


He means just the wiring for future proofing (or maybe even putting in the speakers). 
I for one wired for an x.x.10. Since I was fishing cable anyway I thought why not fish it all to try to prevent having to do it again in the short term. So, I have FH, TF, TM, TR, and RH all wired. Until just a several weeks ago I even had all the speakers in place. Now I just have the .6 speakers in the ceiling (TF,TM,TR) and only use TF and TR for now.

Plan ahead.


----------



## Stoked21

An AV dealer I've worked with a bunch didn't say anything to me about this....but I just received a notice from UPS saying there's a package coming to me from them. It baffled me so I tracked it....Only 1 pound.

Any guesses what this may be? 

HINT: It's still on-topic.....


----------



## NorthSky

dth122 said:


> If you're looking at the pictures at the top of the third page, that's not representative of the current positioning. The surrounds are at ear level for the back row and about 8" above ear level for the front row. The base of the surround speakers is at the same height as the trim molding that separates the blue top from the gray bottom.


Ok, I didn't know that. This is good then.



> That's the setup I was planning on (without the wide speakers) until I started receiving feedback that Atmos bounce speakers might be preferable given my ceiling height.
> 
> To follow your advice, I would still want to keep the speakers concealed, just like the rest. My soffit is framed and GOM covered - that's what creates the angle from the bottom of the soffit to the intersection with ceiling. That whole height is 7", so I need to find a speaker that's reasonable voice-matched to what I have that I can angle appropriately.
> 
> Are you suggesting that I use ceiling speakers and point them straight down? I'm not sure I'd be able to do that from that location. The bottom of the soffit is drywall, so I wouldn't be able to install something at the top (main ceiling) and have it point down through the bottom of the soffit. It needs to shoot through the angled GOM.
> - Dave


If you can install your speakers in your ceiling or soffit, that would be great, and much preferable than bouncing the sound around. 

And yes, my suggestion was for on-ceiling speakers with a wide dispersion (coaxials) and aiming straight down if possible; if not then crisscrossing the MLP. ...Left Top aiming @ right end of MLP, and Right Top aiming towards left end of MLP. ...For both pairs of Front and Rear Top, respective of your two rows of seats. ...And wire for a third pair (future proof - Top Middle). 

* Question: Do you feel more comfy with up-firing Atmos speakers (bouncing the sound of your ceiling), or with the challenge of installing Atmos speakers in/on your ceiling?


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked21 said:


> An AV dealer I've worked with a bunch didn't say anything to me about this....but I just received a notice from UPS saying there's a package coming to me from them. It baffled me so I tracked it....Only 1 pound.
> 
> Any guesses what this may be?
> 
> HINT: It's still on-topic.....


Demo disk?


----------



## Stoked21

smurraybhm said:


> Demo disk?


Well it could be a box of candy canes saying "thanks for your biz and merry Xmas". I'm guessing demo disc though. Not sure if 2014 or 2015 but hoping for the latter. Hey beggars can't be choosers though!!!

Will be pretty funny if it's just a catalog or something though.


----------



## dth122

NorthSky said:


> If you can install your speakers in your ceiling or soffit, that would be great, and much preferable than bouncing the sound around.
> 
> And yes, my suggestion was for on-ceiling speakers with a wide dispersion (coaxials) and aiming straight down if possible; if not then crisscrossing the MLP. ...Left Top aiming @ right end of MLP, and Right Top aiming towards left end of MLP. ...For both pairs of Front and Rear Top, respective of your two rows of seats. ...And wire for a third pair (future proof - Top Middle).
> 
> * Question: Do you feel more comfy with up-firing Atmos speakers (bouncing the sound of your ceiling), or with the challenge of installing Atmos speakers in/on your ceiling?


I have no preference for either type of installation. The work is not an issue. My #1 goal is best performance and my distant #2 goal is to keep the speakers hidden.

My real question is about your advice that direct radiating speakers are "much preferable to bouncing sound around." My gut instinct agrees with this, but other people with experience that I trust advise that "bouncing sound around" is the preferable solution in rooms with low ceilings (like mine). This is due to the fact that even wide-dispersion direct radiating speakers mounted on the ceiling don't provide enough soundfield for all listeners to get an even overhead effect. 

I can see logic in both arguments.
- Dave


----------



## NorthSky

dth122 said:


> I have no preference for either type of installation. The work is not an issue. My #1 goal is best performance and my distant #2 goal is to keep the speakers hidden.
> 
> My real question is about your advice that direct radiating speakers are "much preferable to bouncing sound around." My gut instinct agrees with this, but other people with experience that I trust advise that "bouncing sound around" is the preferable solution in rooms with low ceilings (like mine). This is due to the fact that even wide-dispersion direct radiating speakers mounted on the ceiling don't provide enough soundfield for all listeners to get an even overhead effect.
> 
> I can see logic in both arguments.
> - Dave


I understand; that's why I share my idea(s). I put myself in your shoes.

_________



Spoiler


















































♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...onstruction/1161148-opinion-soffit-depth.html

Seven inches depth ...


----------



## Stoked21

dth122 said:


> I have no preference for either type of installation. The work is not an issue. My #1 goal is best performance and my distant #2 goal is to keep the speakers hidden.
> 
> My real question is about your advice that direct radiating speakers are "much preferable to bouncing sound around." My gut instinct agrees with this, but other people with experience that I trust advise that "bouncing sound around" is the preferable solution in rooms with low ceilings (like mine). This is due to the fact that even wide-dispersion direct radiating speakers mounted on the ceiling don't provide enough soundfield for all listeners to get an even overhead effect.
> 
> I can see logic in both arguments.
> - Dave


Dave, 
1) direct radiating is going to be the best sound. Most consistent and IMO the easiest to implement since you have some great carpentry skills. Positioning DAE speakers would be a PITA and be a lot less forgiving when it comes to future room changes and modifications. 2) direct radiating ICs will also be the most hidden solution. Don't worry about the 7" depth so much. There are many ICs out there that are less than 4" behind drywall. The biggest issue with the depth limitation is not being able to fit a back-box as easily. If you can't fit them then you may need to buy Dynamat boxes or make something custom....That will be easier to do since your room is unfinished. A more difficult proposition for those of us that already have finished drywall in place.

FYI, the back of my HT has a soffit for ducting that can't be moved and the height is only 88". The rest of the room is about 101" tall. So I vary from 7.5' to 8.5'. My TF are on the taller part of the ceiling and my TR on the lower soffit. In the back row (MLP) everything sounds phenomenal even at 48" ear height with riser. In the front row the TF sound great and the TR are not very noticeable due to angles/heights/distance to the front LP. 

I don't think you need to be worried about going with the ICs and I know you will be happier with them. But you also need to come to acceptance with the fact that Atmos is going to have it's sweet spots in your room (like everything else). This would be no different with using DAE; it will be better in certain seats vs others.


----------



## lpnaz480

got my theater completed and the speakers dialed in and have really enjoyed going back and watching my atmos movies. surprisingly one i just purchased was gravity diamond luxe. cant wait to hear it!
also looks like Sicarioo is going to be great. Per review on dvdtalk :



> Audio:
> 
> We get a Dolby Atmos 7.1 track, which is a godsend for audiences who want to showcase the intense action set pieces of the film. Sicario has its share of quiet moments, which the audio transfer captures with impressive detail. But when the crap hits the fan, get ready for your system to have quite a workout. One thing I love about this release is that a 2.0 track, optimized for late-night viewing, is also offered. For those of us with a toddler who's a light sleeper, this option is highly appreciated.


link to the site DVDtalk


----------



## faulkton

Ok i am a newb who got excited on cyber monday and bought an A2050, a pair of focal bird 5" and a pair of Sib 5" with no real research. I'm now researching and most likely going with a DIY/ID setup of 5.2.4. Right now im using the the Birds as front atmos and sibs as rear atmos. 

1. I have 1 MLP and do not care at all about any other seating position. Should i angle the Atmos speakers straight down or angle them to the MLP?

2. Should I buy another pair of sibs/bird and keep them consistent and use the left over as surround in my final build? The Sibs were labeled as Atmos speakers, but ....

I'd really appreciate it and like it if someone took a second to reply.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Stoked21 said:


> Well it could be a box of candy canes saying "thanks for your biz and merry Xmas". I'm guessing demo disc though. Not sure if 2014 or 2015 but hoping for the latter. Hey beggars can't be choosers though!!!
> 
> Will be pretty funny if it's just a catalog or something though.


It's a $5 off $2500 coupon..


----------



## dth122

Stoked21 said:


> Dave,
> 1) direct radiating is going to be the best sound. Most consistent and IMO the easiest to implement since you have some great carpentry skills. Positioning DAE speakers would be a PITA and be a lot less forgiving when it comes to future room changes and modifications. 2) direct radiating ICs will also be the most hidden solution. Don't worry about the 7" depth so much. There are many ICs out there that are less than 4" behind drywall. The biggest issue with the depth limitation is not being able to fit a back-box as easily. If you can't fit them then you may need to buy Dynamat boxes or make something custom....That will be easier to do since your room is unfinished. A more difficult proposition for those of us that already have finished drywall in place.


Thanks for your thoughts. I guess there are a few things I should clarify... my room is finished and has been for some time. The pictures I linked were from my build thread and made it easier to see the soffit construction. It's hard to see in the later pictures, but the finished room has GOM stretched from ~4" down from the ceiling on the soffit side to ~1.5" down at the star ceiling panels, all the way around. This limits my available mounting depth. I can re-arrange some of the stuff to get another 1-2" or so out of it, which could help.

Here are some pictures that hopefully illustrate the construction of the soffits a little better. I've taken down the GOM in the corner for illustrative purposes.





























The other thing I should clarify is that my ceiling is multi-layer and acoustically sealed. I don't want to breach it, but I can surface-mount to it.

One option would be to install ceiling speakers in the soffits, which would be quite low, especially for the back row on the riser. The other option would be to find some high-quality surface-mount speakers (or in-ceiling with back boxes) that are


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^

You won't find back box speaker less than 4". You can find speakers that come in under 4" and use the flexible dynabox solution for a back. I doubt it's as good as a true sealed back box but it's something. 

As for mounting speakers from the ceiling. I've seen straight and angled baffle boxes coming in from 6-10". I'm sure you could make some thinner too as long as you account for volume. I'm still seriously considering the Volt 8 with flat pack. My TR are limited to less than 4.75" depth and I could not find a back box solution. So I'm going to surface mount to soffit with either those or JTR. JBL makes some great options as well. 

So it's really pick your poison. No or inferior back box or something visible on the ceiling. 

FYI. Seeing your ceiling I'd be concerned about reflecting off the ceiling with DAE option. Soffit, ledges, any absorption material you have up there COULD complicate their use. I didn't say will. Just throwing out caution.


----------



## lackey

Does anyone know if the Klipsch G12s or G16s can be ceiling mounted? They are only 2.5" deep and could possibly work for dth122. Any opinions on why they would be a good or bad choice for 4 atmos ceiling speakers? My ceiling is 7'10" and I would like to mount on ceiling rather than in ceiling. I have an RC64ii center and 4 RB61ii's for front and rear lefts and rights. Also considering Klipsch CP-6s to complete a 5.2.4 system. Other suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.


----------



## dth122

lackey said:


> Does anyone know if the Klipsch G12s or G16s can be ceiling mounted? They are only 2.5" deep and could possibly work for dth122. Any opinions on why they would be a good or bad choice for 4 atmos ceiling speakers? My ceiling is 7'10" and I would like to mount on ceiling rather than in ceiling. I have an RC64ii center and 4 RB61ii's for front and rear lefts and rights. Also considering Klipsch CP-6s to complete a 5.2.4 system. Other suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.


I actually looked at those. I haven't heard them, but the G12 is really small. I'm not sure it will do what I want to my satisfaction. And the driver layout of the G16 probably doesn't have the dispersion that we need in this application.

As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong because they sure would be easy to fit into the space I have available.
- Dave


----------



## dth122

Stoked21 said:


> As for mounting speakers from the ceiling. I've seen straight and angled baffle boxes coming in from 6-10". I'm sure you could make some thinner too as long as you account for volume. I'm still seriously considering the Volt 8 with flat pack. My TR are limited to less than 4.75" depth and I could not find a back box solution. So I'm going to surface mount to soffit with either those or JTR. JBL makes some great options as well.


I hadn't thought about that... I could build a box that follows the contour that's there now and extend it wide enough to get the volume I need. That could work, but I would need to mock it up to make sure.



> So it's really pick your poison. No or inferior back box or something visible on the ceiling.
> 
> FYI. Seeing your ceiling I'd be concerned about reflecting off the ceiling with DAE option. Soffit, ledges, any absorption material you have up there COULD complicate their use. I didn't say will. Just throwing out caution.


Certainly there are fewer variables with the ceiling speaker options. More of the design and plan are in my control.
- Dave


----------



## batpig

lackey said:


> Does anyone know if the Klipsch G12s or G16s can be ceiling mounted? They are only 2.5" deep and could possibly work for dth122. Any opinions on why they would be a good or bad choice for 4 atmos ceiling speakers? My ceiling is 7'10" and I would like to mount on ceiling rather than in ceiling. I have an RC64ii center and 4 RB61ii's for front and rear lefts and rights. Also considering Klipsch CP-6s to complete a 5.2.4 system. Other suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.


What about the Klipsch RP-140SA modules? http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-premiere-dolby-atmos-series#rp-140sa

They state they can be used in a direct firing application as an angled baffle surround. Might be a nice choice as on-ceiling speakers which mount pretty flush but have some angle built in to aim towards the seating, and match other Klpsch speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

dth122 said:


> I actually looked at those. I haven't heard them, but the G12 is really small. I'm not sure it will do what I want to my satisfaction. And the driver layout of the G16 probably doesn't have the dispersion that we need in this application.
> 
> As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong because they sure would be easy to fit into the space I have available.
> - Dave


Idea: But they would need to be crossed @ 120Hz






♦ http://www.kef.com/html/ca_en/showr...speakers/ci_series/speaker/Ci160TR/index.html

__________

...And those: http://www.nilesaudio.com/product.p...dspeakers&categoryID=Speakers&prdcdID=FG01665
♠ http://www.amazon.com/Niles-CM7SD-Two-Way-Shallow-Ceiling-Mount/dp/B006H1NXJ6


----------



## dth122

batpig said:


> What about the Klipsch RP-140SA modules? http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-premiere-dolby-atmos-series#rp-140sa
> 
> They state they can be used in a direct firing application as an angled baffle surround. Might be a nice choice as on-ceiling speakers which mount pretty flush but have some angle built in to aim towards the seating, and match other Klpsch speakers.


I looked at those and was intrigued. Given the dimensions and shape, I'm not confident I can make them work in the height. I looked for dimensioned drawings on the Klipsch site, but they didn't have any. I think the "thin" end might still be too thick for the clearance I need.
- Dave


----------



## NorthSky

faulkton said:


> *Ok i am a newb who got excited on cyber monday and bought an A2050, a pair of focal bird 5" and a pair of Sib 5" with no real research. I'm now researching and most likely going with a DIY/ID setup of 5.2.4. Right now im using the the Birds as front atmos and sibs as rear atmos.
> 
> 1. I have 1 MLP and do not care at all about any other seating position. Should i angle the Atmos speakers straight down or angle them to the MLP?
> 
> 2. Should I buy another pair of sibs/bird and keep them consistent and use the left over as surround in my final build? The Sibs were labeled as Atmos speakers, but ....
> 
> I'd really appreciate it and like it if someone took a second to reply.*


Did you get any response yet?


----------



## pasender91

faulkton said:


> Ok i am a newb who got excited on cyber monday and bought an A2050, a pair of focal bird 5" and a pair of Sib 5" with no real research. I'm now researching and most likely going with a DIY/ID setup of 5.2.4. Right now im using the the Birds as front atmos and sibs as rear atmos.
> 
> 1. I have 1 MLP and do not care at all about any other seating position. Should i angle the Atmos speakers straight down or angle them to the MLP?
> 
> 2. Should I buy another pair of sibs/bird and keep them consistent and use the left over as surround in my final build? The Sibs were labeled as Atmos speakers, but ....
> 
> I'd really appreciate it and like it if someone took a second to reply.


1) People have different opinions on this point, and installations are done both ways. I believe all speakers should be oriented towards MLP, especially in your case as you have a single seat 

2) Keep speakers consistent, so get additional Focal, they are good speakers anyway. If i counted right you got 4 speakers now, so if you want to do 5.2.4 you're 5 speakers short. Going low cost, you can simply get a 5.0 kit of Birds or SuperBirds and keep using the Sibs for Atmos rear (no issue). Or you have proper space and budget for your main 5.0 and you can get a Focal Aria 926 System for your lower level.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "Simply goosing the overhead speakers in an attempt to compensate for a weak Atmos mix is just plain wrong."
> 
> I can understand your reasoning and if your hearing is good and you can properly setup your environment with room correction software - - the more power to you.
> 
> Looking for fireworks in a weak Dolby Atmos mix is understandable. Like the one poster so aptly put it - - if you're not using the overhead speakers for Dolby Atmos, then give us a solid 7.1 soundtrack.
> 
> Sometimes, I'm not sure if "reference level" or what the director intended necessarily means the right thing or the best thing for your specific environment. A lot of this is trial and error - - see what works best for you.
> 
> Lastly - - everybody/every thing needs a good "goosing" once in a while.


The main point I was hoping to make is that the balance between the overheads and the floor level speakers in an Atmos system is important because Atmos is aiming to create a three-dimensional soundstage in the HT. So upsetting the balance from the one used when the movie was mixed is potentially going to spoil what may have been a carefully crafted 3D soundscape.

I can understand why people do raise the level of their overhead speakers. They just bought a new AVR, went to the trouble and expense of installing overhead speakers and they darn well want to hear them! But many Atmos mixes are not making fantastic use of the overheads at this time and so raising the level isn't going to change that. But it may well upset the rest of the system.

FWIW I too raised the levels of my Atmos speakers (by 2dB) for the same reasons that most would. However, because I am using Dirac Live with the miniDSP DDRC-88A hardware, at the time only my floor level speakers were EQ'd by Dirac. Recently, I added a second 88A to my system so that I could apply the same EQ to my overhead speakers and bingo! - I no longer need to boost their level and my Atmos soundstage has 'snapped into focus' giving me a an entirely 3D soundstage. (Those using Audyssey will have always had EQ on all their speakers, including overheads, so they too shouldn't perhaps need to raise their level).

And yes, I 100% concur that everyone needs a good goosing whenever they can get one!


----------



## faulkton

pasender91 said:


> 1) People have different opinions on this point, and installations are done both ways. I believe all speakers should be oriented towards MLP, especially in your case as you have a single seat
> 
> 2) Keep speakers consistent, so get additional Focal, they are good speakers anyway. If i counted right you got 4 speakers now, so if you want to do 5.2.4 you're 5 speakers short. Going low cost, you can simply get a 5.0 kit of Birds or SuperBirds and keep using the Sibs for Atmos rear (no issue). Or you have proper space and budget for your main 5.0 and you can get a Focal Aria 926 System for your lower level.


Thanks a ton, I can get another set f the bird for $225 and match them or another set of the Sib 5 and match them for $249

I currently have Polk Monitor 70s and C2 center with Monitor 40s as surrounds. Overall over the last few years i have been fairly happy with the Polks, as entry level as they are. However they fall apart when i really appraoch like -10 or lower on music. I'm leaning toward ordering the birds and then possibly replacing the montior 40's for surround or maybe keeping the monitor 40s for surround and using whatever extra Focals i have as a zone two/three/four or just saving them for use with an older AVR in another room. I'd also be interested in selling the old AVR and all the polks to have more upgrade money. 

The same time i bought the Focals, I also spent $999 on two Boston Accoustic Msubs which i'm at least going to break in before i deide if that was a big mistake. 

ike i said i am an old school car audio nut, think Pheonix gold M series. A 3 way focal comp 8-5-1 in custom fiberglass pods were my favorite comps ever. I'm just not sure if i am ever going to get the low, low low for HT our of the msubs and probably should have gone ID or DIY. I definitely like sound quality, but when you're used to running 1600-2000 rms to a 15" i'm ust not sure two of the Msubs will ever make me happy. 

As far as DIY towers/center i was looking at the Fusion Alchemy 8. REasonably priced, but idk how they compare to the 926 or KEFQ or R series. 

Thanks for answering


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "But many Atmos mixes are not making fantastic use of the overheads at this time and so raising the level isn't going to change that. But it may well upset the rest of the system."

Dead on. You do not want to compromise your system to hear sounds you think should be there. I think future Dolby Atmos soundtracks (1 yr - 2 yrs. from now) will be much better in their implementation of object technology. As it's a crime, IMHO, to label a Bluray movie "Dolby Atmos" where the use of the overheads is not apparent at all. You feel like you've been ripped off.

Imagine someone spending a couple grand (at least) for a new Dolby Atmos AVR and new speakers while working diligently to perfect their home theater layout as close to Dolby specs as possible. They've spent hours retrofitting speaker locations or adding them to their existing setup. 

Then, they say - "Honey, it's ready! Let's watch a Dolby Atmos movie!" After the movie, she says to him, "I can't tell any difference!" Instant mortification. As time passes and the technology & application of object based soundtracks is perfected - - then you'll be able to truly judge the impact (and enjoyment) of Dolby Atmos in your home theater environment. Stay tuned and keep the faith.


----------



## pletwals

pletwals said:


> View attachment 1125618
> 
> 
> There's a solution for every problem.





barty88 said:


> And what is that solution?
> 
> I have the same issue... couch sits against the back wall, so how do i properly install rear and surround speakers which are supposed to be behind and at the side of the head. Right now I think I have them installed too high (~7 feet and angled down) Compounding this the rear sides one is right niext to you but the other is 7 or 8 feet away to that side wall. Yamahs YPAO does the measurement thing, but not sure if that correction is enough.
> 
> Wish there were a site or a reference about oddly shaped rooms with barriers to proper optimal install like varying wall distances and doors and windows, etc.


Sorry, just kidding! I thought the pic of the caped boy made that clear enough...

All joking aside, there's only so much you can do in any given space. With your left and rear walls right next to you it might be worth trying to put the surround slightly ahead of you and make use of a dipole design. Combine this with Atmos TM + FH and it could very well turn out very okay.


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^^

I liken Atmos to 3D video. It always adds to the depth and immersion. But it's not always eye or ear popping. I like to think of some of the lesser Atmos movies....there's depth to them with the subtle ambience. It's more immersive than just a DD mix. The disappointment stems from us having a new technology and wanting to hear it turned up to 11 in the mix. 

The newness will wear off eventually and we will accept it as the nice ambience that it is. And then occasionally we will be blown away like with Gravity, Terminator and 5E. 

No different than most 3D titles are mediocre with just an element of depth....then there's Avatar, Graviry and Life Pi that are amazing.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> I liken Atmos to 3D video. It always adds to the depth and immersion. But it's not always eye or ear popping. I like to think of some of the lesser Atmos movies....there's depth to them with the subtle ambience. It's more immersive than just a DD mix. The disappointment stems from us having a new technology and wanting to hear it turned up to 11 in the mix.
> 
> The newness will wear off eventually and we will accept it as the nice ambience that it is. And then occasionally we will be blown away like with Gravity, Terminator and 5E.
> 
> No different than most 3D titles are mediocre with just an element of depth....then there's Avatar, Graviry and Life Pi that are amazing.


Let's be honest, that's true of most basic surround sound movies. I'm planning on debuting Atmos Monday night with San Andreas. Only reason I picked that movie is because people say it will show off the technology. I imagine that in a year or so the wow factor will be gone, and Atmos will just be another thing that I expect when I watch a movie. I don't think it's a bad thing at all when the theater itself slips into the background and you can just enjoy the movie.


----------



## Stoked21

AllenA07 said:


> Let's be honest, that's true of most basic surround sound movies. I'm planning on debuting Atmos Monday night with San Andreas. Only reason I picked that movie is because people say it will show off the technology. I imagine that in a year or so the wow factor will be gone, and Atmos will just be another thing that I expect when I watch a movie. I don't think it's a bad thing at all when the theater itself slips into the background and you can just enjoy the movie.


I haven't watched San Andreas in Atmos but have owned since it's release. Eventually I'll get to it. Having said that, I have played the helicopter scene (oddly void of height) and some of the big quake and tidal wave scenes. Most people say the Atmos isn't all that in that movie. If it's a debut to show off the technology then go with Terminator, 5E or Gravity.

Again, I think most of us expect Atmos to be the "Main event" as someone else had said. And for the present time, that's a fair expectation. I imagine the Atmos is decent in San Andreas. If I'm showing off the technology, San Andreas wouldn't leave the shelf. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Stoked21

DTS:X update from JDsmoothie


AV8802/A - Feb 4

AV7702MKII, SR7010, SR6010 - March 3

SR5010, NR1606 - later date in 2016


----------



## Rocky3RD

AllenA07 said:


> Let's be honest, that's true of most basic surround sound movies. I'm planning on debuting Atmos Monday night with San Andreas. Only reason I picked that movie is because people say it will show off the technology. I imagine that in a year or so the wow factor will be gone, and Atmos will just be another thing that I expect when I watch a movie. I don't think it's a bad thing at all when the theater itself slips into the background and you can just enjoy the movie.


 Is San Andreas the #1 movie to show off Dolby Atmos technology? From what I heard Gravity is the one title you cant go wrong with for purely putting Dolby Atmos speakers to work


----------



## smurraybhm

Rocky3RD said:


> Is San Andreas the #1 movie to show off Dolby Atmos technology? From what I heard Gravity is the one title you cant go wrong with for purely putting Dolby Atmos speakers to work


It's really just a matter of opinion, folks have bashed UNCLE, I enjoyed it, thought it sounded good, but I admit to not focusing on what was coming from above. I've stopped standing on the sofa to listen to my tops. I want the overheads used when appropriate like everyone else, the helicopter rescue at the beginning of San Andreas was a missed opportunity, but more importantly I want a good mix for my lower level - 7 channels plus subs. If I was picking a demo to show off my system it would be Fury Road before Gravity, just one guy's preference, not that I didn't enjoy Gravity. There are also titles like Maze Runner using DSU that most folks would find even more impressive, just don't point out to your guests that the Dolby Atmos isn't showing on your receiver (or HTIB).

P.S. Another non-stop surround action movie with an "active" mix - Rogue Nation. I will be watching it again this weekend when I have the house to myself and can crank it up.


----------



## MarkMul1

Rocky3RD said:


> Is San Andreas the #1 movie to show off Dolby Atmos technology? From what I heard Gravity is the one title you cant go wrong with for purely putting Dolby Atmos speakers to work


Dude,

You are looking for more trouble. Last thing you need to be doing now is try to show off your Dolby Atmos. From your other post we have just learned your front left and right speakers which have the only Atmos speakers in them are up high on a shelf and you have never even played an Atmos disc yet. The most you know is that sound did come out of them with the test tones. 

Like i said in the other post. No more

Good luck and i do highly recommend you go back to the soundbar.


----------



## shyyour

smurraybhm said:


> It's really just a matter of opinion, folks have bashed UNCLE, I enjoyed it, thought it sounded good, but I admit to not focusing on what was coming from above. I've stopped standing on the sofa to listen to my tops. I want the overheads used when appropriate like everyone else, the helicopter rescue at the beginning of San Andreas was a missed opportunity, but more importantly I want a good mix for my lower level - 7 channels plus subs. If I was picking a demo to show off my system it would be Fury Road before Gravity, just one guy's preference, not that I didn't enjoy Gravity. There are also titles like Maze Runner using DSU that most folks would find even more impressive, just don't point out to your guests that the Dolby Atmos isn't showing on your receiver (or HTIB).
> 
> P.S. Another non-stop surround action movie with an "active" mix - Rogue Nation. I will be watching it again this weekend when I have the house to myself and can crank it up.


Oddly enough i wasn't impressed with Rogue Nation's atmos mix. Terminator as other people have mentioned was really good way better than John wick IMHO


----------



## barty88

All joking aside, there's only so much you can do in any given space. With your left and rear walls right next to you it might be worth trying to put the surround slightly ahead of you and make use of a dipole design. Combine this with Atmos TM + FH and it could very well turn out very okay.[/QUOTE]

Sorry... whats TM + FH? I have a couple pics here that show my dilemma.... ANY advice would be appreciated. I now, also probably wont be able to afford an Atmos receiver for a while so just the RX-A1040 thats 7.2

As you can see the small speakers are mounted high for the surround. Should they be lowered a little, alot or does it REALLY matter if they are angled downward? The main 2 issues are:

1) The couch is against the back wall.... I shouldn't mount all 4 speakers in a line against that wall.... right?
2) So then the Right rear side surround (left side as you look at the pic) has nowhere really to go or it would be behind that door. I can lower it some....

Also, should my front towers come toward the middle more or are they OK there? Attached Thumbnails


----------



## smurraybhm

shyyour said:


> Oddly enough i wasn't impressed with Rogue Nation's atmos mix. Terminator as other people have mentioned was really good way better than John wick IMHO


My point exactly


----------



## Rocky3RD

sorry if we dont all have an ideal speaker placement

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk


----------



## shyyour

smurraybhm said:


> My point exactly



Lol im a bit slow, i just saw the quotes


----------



## dmarcink

Rocky3RD said:


> Is San Andreas the #1 movie to show off Dolby Atmos technology? From what I heard Gravity is the one title you cant go wrong with for purely putting Dolby Atmos speakers to work


In my opinion the top 4 "show off" Dolby Atmos titles are as follows:

Mad Max - Fury Road (sonic overhead onslaught)
John Wick (crazy good 3D immersion)
Gravity (short, sweet, fully of motion)
San Andreas (take the fine china off the shelf)


----------



## smurraybhm

barty88 said:


> All joking aside, there's only so much you can do in any given space. With your left and rear walls right next to you it might be worth trying to put the surround slightly ahead of you and make use of a dipole design. Combine this with Atmos TM + FH and it could very well turn out very okay.


Sorry... whats TM + FH? I have a couple pics here that show my dilemma.... ANY advice would be appreciated. I now, also probably wont be able to afford an Atmos receiver for a while so just the RX-A1040 thats 7.2

As you can see the small speakers are mounted high for the surround. Should they be lowered a little, alot or does it REALLY matter if they are angled downward? The main 2 issues are:

1) The couch is against the back wall.... I shouldn't mount all 4 speakers in a line against that wall.... right?
2) So then the Right rear side surround (left side as you look at the pic) has nowhere really to go or it would be behind that door. I can lower it some....

Also, should my front towers come toward the middle more or are they OK there? [/QUOTE]

Here's what I have done and my MLP is pretty much against the back wall give or take a few inches. Ideal, no, but I haven't had anyone complain about how things sound. The picture just shows the "surrounds" and the position I found worked best for my TM after a little experimentation. You've got a really tough room, limited wall/floor placement options and kids to worry about too. I would review where you can place speakers and then focus on filling in the holes with the number of speakers you have available. That's the advice someone much wiser than me has given from the beginning of our Atmos journey back in September 2014 with the release of Transformers. At the same time keep the Dolby recommendations in mind as you position your speakers, follow them the best you can, but remember that Atmos speaker placement is more forgiving then it may seem if you've spent time reading this thread. Worse case you try a location, it doesn't sound good/correct and you've got to spackle/paint after relocation. When I was trying to decide where to put things step ladders were my friends. Good luck and once you've got it set up be prepared to enjoy the sound.


----------



## Rocky3RD

dmarcink said:


> In my opinion the top 4 "show off" Dolby Atmos titles are as follows:
> 
> Mad Max - Fury Road (sonic overhead onslaught)
> John Wick (crazy good 3D immersion)
> Gravity (short, sweet, fully of motion)
> San Andreas (take the fine china off the shelf)


 Thanks, which one out of those 4 has somewhat of a decent story with decent acting? I dont want to bore my audience to death by just offering great sound at the expenses of a boring story or poor acting.


----------



## Stoked21

dmarcink said:


> In my opinion the top 4 "show off" Dolby Atmos titles are as follows:
> 
> Mad Max - Fury Road (sonic overhead onslaught)
> John Wick (crazy good 3D immersion)
> Gravity (short, sweet, fully of motion)
> San Andreas (take the fine china off the shelf)


I sense a bass head in the mist. 3 of those 4 are insane sub/LF demos and I LOVE them for that. I use them for demos too! I wouldn't place them as showcase Atmos material though. Although I confess that my local forum members are slowly turning me into a bass head as well! If you want the best of both worlds (bass and Atmos).....Do yourself a favor and pickup the new Terminator movie. You'll thank me.


----------



## barty88

smurraybhm said:


> Sorry... whats TM + FH? I have a couple pics here that show my dilemma.... ANY advice would be appreciated. I now, also probably wont be able to afford an Atmos receiver for a while so just the RX-A1040 thats 7.2
> 
> As you can see the small speakers are mounted high for the surround. Should they be lowered a little, alot or does it REALLY matter if they are angled downward? The main 2 issues are:
> 
> 1) The couch is against the back wall.... I shouldn't mount all 4 speakers in a line against that wall.... right?
> 2) So then the Right rear side surround (left side as you look at the pic) has nowhere really to go or it would be behind that door. I can lower it some....
> 
> Also, should my front towers come toward the middle more or are they OK there?


Here's what I have done and my MLP is pretty much against the back wall give or take a few inches. Ideal, no, but I haven't had anyone complain about how things sound. The picture just shows the "surrounds" and the position I found worked best for my TM after a little experimentation. You've got a really tough room, limited wall/floor placement options and kids to worry about too. I would review where you can place speakers and then focus on filling in the holes with the number of speakers you have available. That's the advice someone much wiser than me has given from the beginning of our Atmos journey back in September 2014 with the release of Transformers. At the same time keep the Dolby recommendations in mind as you position your speakers, follow them the best you can, but remember that Atmos speaker placement is more forgiving then it may seem if you've spent time reading this thread. Worse case you try a location, it doesn't sound good/correct and you've got to spackle/paint after relocation. When I was trying to decide where to put things step ladders were my friends. Good luck and once you've got it set up be prepared to enjoy the sound.[/QUOTE]


Thanks. I think my biggest decision is what to do with the two side rear surrounds. I can put the left one on that very narrow strp of wall next to the couch but then that right one would either be behind that door (which isnt an option) or down further next to that window .... but that wouldn't be symmetrical with the other one.... or I leave the left one up high, move it back and down a few inches, keep it angled down and do the same wit the right? How important is symmetry? I will also pull those rears down a couple feet too.


----------



## lujan

dmarcink said:


> In my opinion the top 4 "show off" Dolby Atmos titles are as follows:
> 
> Mad Max - Fury Road (sonic overhead onslaught)
> John Wick (crazy good 3D immersion)
> Gravity (short, sweet, fully of motion)
> San Andreas (take the fine china off the shelf)


I haven't seen Mad Max - Fury Road because I didn't like the original movie. I thought it was just violence and destruction. Is this one like the first or should I give it a rent?


----------



## MarkMul1

Rocky3RD said:


> Thanks, which one out of those 4 has somewhat of a decent story with decent acting? I dont want to bore my audience to death by just offering great sound at the expenses of a boring story or poor acting.


Don't worry about the Dolby Atmos movies. That will limit your choices. You have a 5.1 system and not an Atmos system. You have an Atmos capable system but probably will never make it work.

Just saying


----------



## Rocky3RD

MarkMul1 said:


> Don't worry about the Dolby Atmos movies. That will limit your choices. You have a 5.1 system and not an Atmos system. You have an Atmos capable system but *probably* will never make it work.
> 
> Just saying


Probaly? Not surely? There is hope


----------



## Rocky3RD

lujan said:


> I haven't seen Mad Max - Fury Road because I didn't like the original movie. I thought it was just violence and destruction. Is this one like the first or should I give it a rent?


 That was exactly what I was getting at. No audio technology can replace 90 minutes of mindless volence and destruction with a weak storyline and even worse acting


----------



## Rocky3RD

barty88 said:


> Here's what I have done and my MLP is pretty much against the back wall give or take a few inches. Ideal, no, but I haven't had anyone complain about how things sound. The picture just shows the "surrounds" and the position I found worked best for my TM after a little experimentation. You've got a really tough room, limited wall/floor placement options and kids to worry about too. I would review where you can place speakers and then focus on filling in the holes with the number of speakers you have available. That's the advice someone much wiser than me has given from the beginning of our Atmos journey back in September 2014 with the release of Transformers. At the same time keep the Dolby recommendations in mind as you position your speakers, follow them the best you can, but remember that Atmos speaker placement is more forgiving then it may seem if you've spent time reading this thread. Worse case you try a location, it doesn't sound good/correct and you've got to spackle/paint after relocation. When I was trying to decide where to put things step ladders were my friends. Good luck and once you've got it set up be prepared to enjoy the sound.


 
Thanks. I think my biggest decision is what to do with the two side rear surrounds. I can put the left one on that very narrow strp of wall next to the couch but then that right one would either be behind that door (which isnt an option) or down further next to that window .... but that wouldn't be symmetrical with the other one.... or I leave the left one up high, move it back and down a few inches, keep it angled down and do the same wit the right? How important is symmetry? I will also pull those rears down a couple feet too.[/QUOTE]
*My two front speakers are not perfectly simmetrical, either. The right speaker is closer to the right side of the screen than the left speaker is to the left side of the screen*


----------



## rontalley

Stoked21 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> I liken Atmos to 3D video. It always adds to the depth and immersion. But it's not always eye or ear popping. I like to think of some of the lesser Atmos movies....there's depth to them with the subtle ambience. It's more immersive than just a DD mix. The disappointment stems from us having a new technology and wanting to hear it turned up to 11 in the mix.
> 
> The newness will wear off eventually and we will accept it as the nice ambience that it is. And then occasionally we will be blown away like with Gravity, Terminator and 5E.
> 
> No different than most 3D titles are mediocre with just an element of depth....then there's Avatar, Graviry and Life Pi that are amazing.





Rocky3RD said:


> Is San Andreas the #1 movie to show off Dolby Atmos technology? From what I heard Gravity is the one title you cant go wrong with for purely putting Dolby Atmos speakers to work


San Andreas is NOT the Atmos movie to show off. It had potential to be awesome but fell short.

I agree with @Stoked21, Terminator, Gravity, Mad Max and 5th Element will all give you a wow. Gravity showcases the tech but for Terminator has some freaking PUNCH and Girth to it!


----------



## MalevolentHamster

*Has anyone kept their bipoles with Atmos*

Hi All 

Planning to upgrade to ATMOS soon and everyone seems to suggest I can't use my existing bipoles as my side surrounds. This seems totally illogical. If I'm happy with my 7.1 bed channels, why would I want to change them. I get the dispersion requirements for the overheads but my bed channels perfrom very well

has anyone actually kept them? 

If you swapped them out, why?

Regards

Mark


----------



## dmarcink

Rocky3RD said:


> Thanks, which one out of those 4 has somewhat of a decent story with decent acting? I dont want to bore my audience to death by just offering great sound at the expenses of a boring story or poor acting.


You said "show off" so I did not consider the story as the primary concern. This list can certainly highlight the performance capabilities of a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system.

That said Gravity would hit the sweet spot for a story targeted for a general audience. Mad Max is fun, over the top mayhem, bombastic Atmos presentation. John Wick is extremely violent (Keanu is good, the story is good). San Andreas sucked but will give your audio system a workout.


----------



## Amzie Williams

Dude don't go ruining Atmos for your friends. The reason Dolby won't just send out that demo discs to anyone is because someone with a 5.1 HTIB will ruin it. 

I have 5 official demo discs: 3 Dolby Atmos demo discs, DTS:X demo disc and Auro 3D. I haven't paid a dime for them nor am I an installer. Some of y'all need to learn creativity skills. 


Rocky3RD said:


> Thanks, which one out of those 4 has somewhat of a decent story with decent acting? I dont want to bore my audience to death by just offering great sound at the expenses of a boring story or poor acting.


----------



## Rocky3RD

dmarcink said:


> You said "show off" so I did not consider the story as the primary concern. This list can certainly highlight the performance capabilities of a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system.
> 
> That said Gravity would hit the sweet spot for a story targeted for a general audience. Mad Max is fun, over the top mayhem, bombastic Atmos presentation. John Wick is extremely violent (Keanu is good, the story is good). San Andreas sucked but will give your audio system a workout.


I might go with Garvity in this case. You still need a story to keep your audience watching


----------



## Rocky3RD

*Gravity in Dolby Atmos*

Do you guys know what edition of Gravity is in Dolby Atmos? I would like to get the 3D version but as shown here on Amazon, I cant tell whether it's in Doby Atmos:

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-3D-Bl...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1450460142&sr=1-8


----------



## Daryl L

Rocky3RD said:


> Do you guys know what edition of Gravity is in Dolby Atmos? I would like to get the 3D version but as shown here on Amazon, I cant tell whether it's in Doby Atmos:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-3D-Bl...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1450460142&sr=1-8


You have to get this version if you want the version with Atmos.

Gravity: Special Edition. (Diamond Luxe Edition) 
http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Speci...8&qid=1450460581&sr=1-1&keywords=Gravity+luxe


----------



## Rocky3RD

Daryl L said:


> You have to get this version if you want the version with Atmos.
> 
> Gravity: Special Edition. (Diamond Luxe Edition)
> http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Speci...8&qid=1450460581&sr=1-1&keywords=Gravity+luxe


WOW, either 3D or Dolby Atmos, but not both....Decisions decisions


----------



## batpig

lujan said:


> I haven't seen Mad Max - Fury Road because I didn't like the original movie. I thought it was just violence and destruction. Is this one like the first or should I give it a rent?


It is even more non-stop violence and destruction.  But it's about as well executed as a movie that is nothing but non-stop violence and destruction could possibly be.

But if that's not your bag, then you won't like it.

Just to be clear -- unlike schlock-fests like "San Andreas", it is NOT a bad movie with terrible script and acting where you suffer through for the booms and 'splosions. The script and acting are spare, but it's a great movie IMO... you just have to understand it's more of an experiental thrill ride than a character/plot driven story.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rocky3RD said:


> WOW, either 3D or Dolby Atmos, but not both....Decisions decisions


There are instructions floating around the internet on how to mux the Atmos track with the 3D video, if you are so inclined.


----------



## JamesE

I'm having some people over next week to watch a movie. Their kids are 8, 14, and 16. Any suggestions for a movie with Atmos and 3D? I'm not around kids very much any more.


----------



## Stoked21

JamesE said:


> I'm having some people over next week to watch a movie. Their kids are 8, 14, and 16. Any suggestions for a movie with Atmos and 3D? I'm not around kids very much any more.


8 year old? Then definitely choose Mad Max or John Wick.....


----------



## Rocky3RD

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are instructions floating around the internet on how to mux the Atmos track with the 3D video, if you are so inclined.


 Using the AVR to play audio from one source and video from another source?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

JamesE said:


> I'm having some people over next week to watch a movie. Their kids are 8, 14, and 16. Any suggestions for a movie with Atmos and 3D? I'm not around kids very much any more.


Minions ? It's a bit tough of the 14/16, but I think it still works, it does for me at 36


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rocky3RD said:


> Using the AVR to play audio from one source and video from another source?


Nope. Ripping the Atmos audio from the Diamond Luxe Edition and replacing the 5.1 track on the 3D version and then sticking it all on a recordable Blu-ray. For personal use only, of course.


----------



## JamesE

Does Jupiter Ascending work?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JamesE said:


> Does Jupiter Ascending work?


Not unless you want your friends to question your taste in movies... 

Minions is your closest mixed audience choice.


----------



## batpig

I would also recommend Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for that mixed age audience. 

People complain that it doesn't have constant overhead action but it's a pretty fun surround mix and there are action scenes where the overheads are used very effectively to enhance the action. Obviously not Oscar material but it was a fun time and (while I'm not watching it repeatedly) it was not at all a painful experience for me to watch.

The Fifth Element may also be a winner, although some of the content may be a bit too mature for the 8 year old? Maybe MI: Rogue Nation if the 8 year old is cool with action movies?


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> I would also recommend Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for that mixed age audience.
> 
> People complain that it doesn't have constant overhead action but it's a pretty fun surround mix and there are action scenes where the overheads are used very effectively to enhance the action.
> 
> *The Fifth Element* may also be a winner, although some of the content may be a bit too mature for the 8 year old?


Did I miss something, I didn't know Fifth Element was available with an Atmos track?


----------



## bass addict

JamesE said:


> Does Jupiter Ascending work?





Dan Hitchman said:


> Not unless you want your friends to question your taste in movies...
> 
> Minions is your closest mixed audience choice.


I may be one of the few, but I didn't mind JA at all. It certainly won't win movie of the year, but the audio track was fantastic. There is a scene where they are battling through the city and the audio pulled you right into the middle of the action. Great use of surrounds to draw you in. 

I think it's worth at least a rental.


----------



## BrandonH

JamesE said:


> I'm having some people over next week to watch a movie. Their kids are 8, 14, and 16. Any suggestions for a movie with Atmos and 3D? I'm not around kids very much any more.


I would recommend Pixels, my kids loved it. I can't remember though if that was another one that was only Atmos on the 2d or not. That's how we watched it and the Atmos soundtrack was great.


----------



## lujan

Al Sherwood said:


> Did I miss something, I didn't know Fifth Element was available with an Atmos track?


http://www.amazon.com/The-Fifth-Ele...nkId=PCZRLVU3AOA7AK2Y&creativeASIN=B013UZ6TP6


----------



## Amzie Williams

Hmm Rocky the Third must've swiped my latest Demo disc on his latest trolling expedition 



Amzie Williams said:


> Dude don't go ruining Atmos for your friends. The reason Dolby won't just send out that demo discs to anyone is because someone with a 5.1 HTIB will ruin it.
> 
> I have 5 official demo discs:3 Dolby Atmos demo discs, DTS:X demo disc and Auro 3D. I haven't paid a dime for them nor am I an installer. Some of y'all need to learn creativity skills.


----------



## Selden Ball

Al Sherwood said:


> Did I miss something, I didn't know Fifth Element was available with an Atmos track?


_Fifth Element_ and _Leon: The Professional_ were re-released in October with Atmos soundtracks and remastered video.

See http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/L...-Dolby-Atmos-Blu-ray-Releases-This-Fall.shtml


----------



## Nightlord

jamese said:


> i'm having some people over next week to watch a movie. Their kids are 8, 14, and 16. Any suggestions for a movie with atmos and 3d? I'm not around kids very much any more.


tmnt

Edit: saw further down it had already been mentioned.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Al Sherwood said:


> Did I miss something, I didn't know Fifth Element was available with an Atmos track?


Bram Stoker's Dracula was also re-released with a 4k-based transfer and new Atmos mix.


----------



## Tamas

MalevolentHamster said:


> Hi All
> 
> Planning to upgrade to ATMOS soon and everyone seems to suggest I can't use my existing bipoles as my side surrounds. This seems totally illogical. If I'm happy with my 7.1 bed channels, why would I want to change them. I get the dispersion requirements for the overheads but my bed channels perfrom very well
> 
> has anyone actually kept them?
> 
> If you swapped them out, why?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mark


I have added def tech bipole in walls for side surrounds, before that I had a traditional bookshelf in place. The bipole speaker works just fine. Depending on how high up the wall you have them, you may have to lower them to be closer to ear height.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Selden Ball said:


> _Fifth Element_ and _Leon: The Professional_ were re-released in October with Atmos soundtracks and remastered video.
> 
> See http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/L...-Dolby-Atmos-Blu-ray-Releases-This-Fall.shtml



Ahhh yes: Both the action/thriller and the sci-fi spectacle will get an all-new 4K restoration as well as a new Dolby Atmos soundtrack

I also see it is a 4K restoration, I am loath to buy another 1080p version when 4K Blu-ray is coming soon...


----------



## batpig

For 15 bucks, you really can't go wrong with the Fifth Element remaster if you're a fan of the film, even if you end up double-dipping in a couple of years on a 4K version. Worst-case you sell the regular BD for 5 bucks and you paid $10 for a 2-year "rental". 

It's truly a terrific remaster and a showcase film for Atmos.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> The Fifth Element may also be a winner, although some of the content may be a bit too mature for the 8 year old?



Mmmmmila nipples.


----------



## BB1111

Is it possible to only run the Atmos modules on your surround speakers in a 5.1.2 configuration? Everything I've seen only shows them sitting atop the L/R.


----------



## batpig

BB1111 said:


> Is it possible to only run the Atmos modules on your surround speakers in a 5.1.2 configuration? Everything I've seen only shows them sitting atop the L/R.


Yes, you can do a 5.1.2 setup with "Surround Dolby" as the overhead setting. Well, at least on Denon/Marantz, not sure about other brands.


----------



## BB1111

batpig said:


> Yes, you can do a 5.1.2 setup with "Surround Dolby" as the overhead setting. Well, at least on Denon/Marantz, not sure about other brands.


Awesome, thank you for the speedy response. This opens up the opportunity for me to get into an Atmos setup.

Have any personal experience with the modules? Worth the upgrade?


----------



## petetherock

MalevolentHamster said:


> Hi All
> 
> Planning to upgrade to ATMOS soon and everyone seems to suggest I can't use my existing bipoles as my side surrounds. This seems totally illogical. If I'm happy with my 7.1 bed channels, why would I want to change them. I get the dispersion requirements for the overheads but my bed channels perfrom very well
> 
> has anyone actually kept them?
> 
> If you swapped them out, why?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mark


Hi Mark
I am using MA RFX Silver Bipoles in my setup, and it's lovely - see my signature for more info, cheers.


----------



## NorthSky

JamesE said:


> I'm having some people over next week to watch a movie. Their kids are 8, 14, and 16. Any suggestions for a movie with Atmos and 3D? I'm not around kids very much any more.





Stoked21 said:


> 8 year old? Then definitely choose Mad Max or John Wick.....


Oh yeah, Mad Max...definitely.


----------



## Al Sherwood

batpig said:


> For 15 bucks, you really can't go wrong with the Fifth Element remaster if you're a fan of the film, even if you end up double-dipping in a couple of years on a 4K version. Worst-case you sell the regular BD for 5 bucks and you paid $10 for a 2-year "rental".
> 
> It's truly a terrific remaster and a showcase film for Atmos.



I follow your logic, unfortunately in Canada the movie sells for closer to $30...


----------



## Stoked21

Al Sherwood said:


> I follow your logic, unfortunately in Canada the movie sell for closer to $30...


Even better....that's only like $0.47 in USD.....HA HA


----------



## Spanglo

Al Sherwood said:


> I follow your logic, unfortunately in Canada the movie sell for closer to $30...


Don't let that stop you... it's the best use of atmos to date.


----------



## NorthSky

MarkMul1 said:


> Dude,
> 
> You are looking for more trouble. Last thing you need to be doing now is try to show off your Dolby Atmos. From your other post we have just learned your front left and right speakers which have the only Atmos speakers in them are up high on a shelf and you have never even played an Atmos disc yet. The most you know is that sound did come out of them with the test tones.
> 
> Like i said in the other post. No more
> 
> Good luck and *i do highly recommend you go back to the soundbar*.


Not exactly what I'd recommend; he is doing much better now with a dedicated Atmos receiver, seven speakers, and a subwoofer. ... 5.1.2 Atmos setup. 
Plus he has a large screen with a front projector. 

And that, is my sincere opinion.


----------



## NorthSky

Rocky3RD said:


> Thanks, which one out of those 4 has somewhat of a decent story with decent acting?
> I dont want to bore my audience to death by just offering great sound at the expenses of a boring story or poor acting.


Mad Max: Fury Road. ...Then Gravity. ...Or Gravity first than Mad Max right along with it. ...Get them both; they are essential to your BR movie collection. 

John Wick and San Andreas don't have the essence. ...They're full of "bullet holes".


----------



## MalevolentHamster

petetherock said:


> Hi Mark
> I am using MA RFX Silver Bipoles in my setup, and it's lovely - see my signature for more info, cheers.


Thanks Pete

Good to know!


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Just to be clear -- unlike schlock-fests like "San Andreas", it is NOT a bad movie with terrible script and acting where you suffer through for the booms and explosions. *The script and acting are spare*, but it's a great movie IMO... you just have to understand it's more of an experiental thrill ride than a character/plot driven story." (Bold and underline added)

As far as acting goes, Alexandra Daddario doesn't need to act one lick IMHO. She did a fine acting job in her nude scene with Woody Harrelson (True Detective)  Otherwise, the movie has great sound effects!


----------



## NorthSky

Stoked21 said:


> .....Do yourself a favor and pickup the new Terminator movie. You'll thank me.


To me Terminator Genisys sucks (the film).


----------



## NorthSky

*'Gravity'*



Rocky3RD said:


> WOW, either 3D or Dolby Atmos, but not both....Decisions decisions


If you are a 3D lover like I am definitely pick the 3D version. 

* I also have the 2D version from the Diamond Luxe Edition (Atmos) in a metal case that is the nicest/coolest BR case of them all.

Get them both; 3D picture, and 3D sound...separately...unfortunately. ...Very unfortunately. 
...And the "Silent" version from the Diamond Luxe Edition is also cool.


----------



## NorthSky

Rocky3RD said:


> Using the AVR to play audio from one source and video from another source?


Very tough to sync perfectly. It's not worth the aggravation...IMO.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> I haven't watched San Andreas in Atmos but have owned since it's release. Eventually I'll get to it. Having said that, I have played the helicopter scene (oddly void of height) and some of the big quake and tidal wave scenes. Most people say the Atmos isn't all that in that movie. If it's a debut to show off the technology then go with Terminator, 5E or Gravity.
> 
> Again, I think most of us expect Atmos to be the "Main event" as someone else had said. And for the present time, that's a fair expectation. I imagine the Atmos is decent in San Andreas. If I'm showing off the technology, San Andreas wouldn't leave the shelf. Just my 2 cents.


I just watched Terminator, so that one is unfortunately out. I'm intrigued by Gravity, however I'm still pretty upset with it not coming out with 3D and Atmos, so that's on hold for a while. I've got Mad Max, American Sniper, and Unbroken all plastic wrapped and ready to go as well. I'm crossing my fingers that over the next year we see a decent influx of Atmos movies.


----------



## NorthSky

> Not unless you want your friends to question your taste in movies...
> 
> Minions is your closest mixed audience choice.


...And Pixels.


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Did I miss something, I didn't know Fifth Element was available with an Atmos track?


Yep, and only twelve Canadian loonies ($11.49).  

♦ http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/139911/#Review


----------



## Nalleh

*PIXELS: Atmos vs. Auro 3D soundtrack.*

Atmos on the left, and Auro 3D on the right.










As you may know, the US Bluray version of PIXELS has a Atmos soundtrack, while the Euro version has Auro 3D soundtrack. So, naturally I ordered both, to be able to compare the two formats with the same source. This is still not a correct comparison, as it is still up to the mixers to make good mixes.

That said, i first got the US version, and i have to say this is not the best Atmos track out today, and i was a little disappointed. It is a very good soundtrack, very dynamic, with good use of the surrounds and a lot of action, but not as active as some other Atmos tracks on the marked today, like Fifth Element, Terminator Genisys, etc.
Putting the Auro version in the BD-player, and i was impressed and disappointed at the same time!
Impressed that the Auro version sounded so much like the Atmos version!
Disappointed that, as the Atmos track, this Auro track was not of the active kind, either.
There were, however, a couple of scenes were the Auro track shined, compared to the Atmos track:
One is when Ludlow take Brenner to his house to show him what he found. As they are in the basement, his grandmother shouts at him from the first floor, and in Auro, her voice clearly comes from above, while in Atmos it was not as precise.
Another scene was when they, with help from Qbert, were standing under the mothership, trying to get into it, when the "commander" layed out the rules, his voice was perfectly placed from above in Auro, while Atmos was much more diffuse and placed in the surrounds.

I listened in a 7.1.4 Atmos setup, and a 10.1 Auro setup. In spite of no surround backs, i can not say that Auro was lacking anything, sounds and pannings in the rear worked very well, and as i said: both formats performed very similar.

I blame the disappointment on the mixers, as both formats have proved their capabilities earlier.

So i don't think i can declare a winner, based on this movie, as both was equally good, but then again: not very active.
I had higher hopes going into this test ....


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MalevolentHamster said:


> Hi All
> 
> Planning to upgrade to ATMOS soon and everyone seems to suggest I can't use my existing bipoles as my side surrounds. This seems totally illogical. If I'm happy with my 7.1 bed channels, why would I want to change them. I get the dispersion requirements for the overheads but my bed channels perfrom very well
> 
> has anyone actually kept them?
> 
> If you swapped them out, why?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mark


It's mostly DIPOLES that are the big no-no, because the out-of-phase side will also be out of phase with the adjacent speaker, which can affect phantom imaging between them... and the diffuse sound in the null will affect between-channel imaging that Atmos depends on. Bipoles, on the other hand, should remain in-phase with adjacent bed channel speakers... and basically mimic a two-speaker array on the sides. I kept my Polk FXi50s for side surround duty, though I swapped them so that the driver side was facing toward the MLP for calibration purposes (which gave me a better result to my ears). For giggles, I tried my RTi38s in their place and greatly preferred the bipoles for the side surrounds, so they stayed.

It may be against Dolby's recommendations, but it certainly doesn't sound bad to me!


----------



## Al Sherwood

NorthSky said:


> Yep, and only twelve Canadian loonies ($11.49).
> 
> ♦ http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/139911/#Review


Hmmm maybe not quite.

I checked that out and it doesn't say that it is 4K and it is not the same ASIN as the "Supreme Cinema Series" release...

http://www.amazon.ca/Fifth-Element-...0480044&sr=1-3&keywords=Supreme+Cinema+Series

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Fifth-Elem...5953&creativeASIN=B014QF2692&m=A3DWYIK6Y9EEQB


----------



## Zhorik

Rocky3RD said:


> Thanks, which one out of those 4 has somewhat of a decent story with decent acting? I dont want to bore my audience to death by just offering great sound at the expenses of a boring story or poor acting.


You do realise, you can use DSU on non Atmos films, so you arent limited by the Atmos titles.

Have you watched Age of Adaline?


----------



## NorthSky

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmm maybe not quite.
> 
> I checked that out and it doesn't say that it is 4K and it is not the same ASIN as the "Supreme Cinema Series" release...
> 
> http://www.amazon.ca/Fifth-Element-...0480044&sr=1-3&keywords=Supreme+Cinema+Series
> 
> http://www.amazon.ca/The-Fifth-Elem...5953&creativeASIN=B014QF2692&m=A3DWYIK6Y9EEQB


That's because your first link is for the "Supreme" edition; which adds a booklet inside a very bad designed case. ...Get the other 4K remastered one with Dolby Atmos...only $11.49 (Sony is trying a low blow here).


----------



## airgas1998

*no go if you have vaulted ceilings???*

so it sounds like dolby says you can have the atmos experience by using module speakers if you have a flat ceiling. is this really true? or it just isn't recommended if you have vaulted ceilings. do they change the way the sound is reflected in an adverse way? i can't use fixed in-ceiling speakers so modules would be my only option, but now it sounds like i'm sol because of my ceiling design. please clear this up for me...thanks....


----------



## MalevolentHamster

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's mostly DIPOLES that are the big no-no, because the out-of-phase side will also be out of phase with the adjacent speaker, which can affect phantom imaging between them... and the diffuse sound in the null will affect between-channel imaging that Atmos depends on. Bipoles, on the other hand, should remain in-phase with adjacent bed channel speakers... and basically mimic a two-speaker array on the sides. I kept my Polk FXi50s for side surround duty, though I swapped them so that the driver side was facing toward the MLP for calibration purposes (which gave me a better result to my ears). For giggles, I tried my RTi38s in their place and greatly preferred the bipoles for the side surrounds, so they stayed.
> 
> It may be against Dolby's recommendations, but it certainly doesn't sound bad to me!


Thanks Jeremy


----------



## NorthSky

airgas1998 said:


> so it sounds like dolby says you can have the atmos experience by using module speakers if you have a flat ceiling. is this really true? or it just isn't recommended if you have vaulted ceilings. do they change the way the sound is reflected in an adverse way? i can't use fixed in-ceiling speakers so modules would be my only option, but now it sounds like i'm sol because of my ceiling design. please clear this up for me...thanks....


♦ https://www.svsound.com/blogs/svs/75358787-intro-to-dolby-atmos

* Give me few more minutes ...

• http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
• http://www.klipsch.com/blog/klipsch-dolby-atmos-speakers-faq/

"What happens if I don’t have a horizontal ceiling?
A horizontal ceiling between 7.5’ and 14’ high is the most ideal for a Dolby Atmos-enabled elevation speaker; however, we have done a lot of testing with vaulted/cathedral ceilings and you often can get the same experience as you would with a horizontal ceiling. If you have doubts about your particular setup, we would recommend contacting Klipsch customer support. Any photos of your listening area that you can provide will aid the process. Another option for two story or cathedral/vaulted ceilings would be Klipsch in-ceiling speakers which can be angled properly for Dolby Atmos sound."


----------



## tjenkins95

bass addict said:


> I may be one of the few, but I didn't mind JA at all. It certainly won't win movie of the year, but the audio track was fantastic. There is a scene where they are battling through the city and the audio pulled you right into the middle of the action. Great use of surrounds to draw you in.
> 
> I think it's worth at least a rental.



It is one of my favorite ATMOS blu-rays and the video and audio are excellent!


----------



## batpig

airgas1998 said:


> if you have vaulted ceilings. do they change the way the sound is reflected in an adverse way?


Well, just think about it. If you shine a light at a mirror, and then you tilt the mirror 30 degrees away from you, it will obviously change the way it is reflected. The same is true for sound bouncing off the ceiling. 

There are two issues to contend with:

1. The angle of the bounce -- with a vaulted ceiling, the intended bounce is not going to be "aimed" at the right spot, although you could theoretically mitigate this by careful positioning.
2. The distance of the path the sound has to travel -- the higher the ceiling, the longer the sound has to travel, bounce, and travel back. The longer this path of travel becomes, the more time the sound has to (1) spread out and (2) lose power. At a certain point, the sound becomes so diffuse and weak that you aren't hearing any real overhead effect.

It's not a binary thing -- it's not like you have a flat ceiling and it works great, and then you angle the ceiling a bit and it completely fails. Rather, it's a matter of degree... a slight vaulting angle is probably no big deal, but a severe angle will really impact the angle of the bounce adversely. Similarly, an 8ft ceiling, a 10ft ceiling, even up to 12ft... probably OK.... but if the ceiling is 16ft tall at the bounce point then the sound is travelling a looong way before it gets to your ears (well, more importantly, the reflected sound is travelling a lot farther than the direct sound) and the overhead sensation will thus be completely diluted.

It can't hurt to give it a shot and see how it sounds, and just be prepared to return if you don't hear any gains.

I know you mentioned you can't do in-ceiling speakers, but is there any way you could mount some small speakers high up as front/rear "heights"?


----------



## airgas1998

batpig said:


> Well, just think about it. If you shine a light at a mirror, and then you tilt the mirror 30 degrees away from you, it will obviously change the way it is reflected. The same is true for sound bouncing off the ceiling.
> 
> There are two issues to contend with:
> 
> 1. The angle of the bounce -- with a vaulted ceiling, the intended bounce is not going to be "aimed" at the right spot, although you could theoretically mitigate this by careful positioning.
> 2. The distance of the path the sound has to travel -- the higher the ceiling, the longer the sound has to travel, bounce, and travel back. The longer this path of travel becomes, the more time the sound has to (1) spread out and (2) lose power. At a certain point, the sound becomes so diffuse and weak that you aren't hearing any real overhead effect.
> 
> It's not a binary thing -- it's not like you have a flat ceiling and it works great, and then you angle the ceiling a bit and it completely fails. Rather, it's a matter of degree... a slight vaulting angle is probably no big deal, but a severe angle will really impact the angle of the bounce adversely. Similarly, an 8ft ceiling, a 10ft ceiling, even up to 12ft... probably OK.... but if the ceiling is 16ft tall at the bounce point then the sound is travelling a looong way before it gets to your ears (well, more importantly, the reflected sound is travelling a lot farther than the direct sound) and the overhead sensation will thus be completely diluted.
> 
> It can't hurt to give it a shot and see how it sounds, and just be prepared to return if you don't hear any gains.
> 
> I know you mentioned you can't do in-ceiling speakers, but is there any way you could *mount some small speakers high up as front/rear "heights"?*




i could go this route, but the waf with the wires vertically running down the front and rear wall will be an issue. i would say my ceiling has a pitch of 3 inches to every foot rise, and at the peak would be about 13' high from peak to ground. also if i went modules they would be about 5' from the ceiling as i have front and rear towers.


----------



## airgas1998

NorthSky said:


> ♦ https://www.svsound.com/blogs/svs/75358787-intro-to-dolby-atmos
> 
> * Give me few more minutes ...
> 
> • http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> • http://www.klipsch.com/blog/klipsch-dolby-atmos-speakers-faq/
> 
> "What happens if I don’t have a horizontal ceiling?
> A horizontal ceiling between 7.5’ and 14’ high is the most ideal for a Dolby Atmos-enabled elevation speaker; however, we have done a lot of testing with vaulted/cathedral ceilings and you often can get the same experience as you would with a horizontal ceiling. If you have doubts about your particular setup, we would recommend contacting Klipsch customer support. Any photos of your listening area that you can provide will aid the process. Another option for two story or cathedral/vaulted ceilings would be Klipsch in-ceiling speakers which can be angled properly for Dolby Atmos sound."


interesting...


----------



## stikle

airgas1998 said:


> i could go this route, but the waf with the wires vertically running down the front and rear wall will be an issue. i would say my ceiling has a pitch of 3 inches to every foot rise, and at the peak would be about 13' high from peak to ground. also if i went modules they would be about 5' from the ceiling as i have front and rear towers.



There is almost always a solution to most home theater problems.

First of all, you can't go in-ceiling, but what about on-ceiling? Are your walls hollow? Is the ceiling hollow? Could wires potentially be run in-wall to hide them? I had a buddy of mine get up in the crawl space above my vaulted ceiling. Ran the wires from the speakers overhead, then down inside one of the walls to the baseboard. Worked out awesome and looks super clean.

What about wire channel? It's paintable and looks better than bare wires.

Or...use a router/dremel/anything else inconvenient to drill a channel in the sheetrock for the wires to lay in. Mud over the channel, let dry, and then paint.

Or...ditch the wife and get your priorities in order. Get those overheads up!

That last one may be a little extreme, but it IS an option.


----------



## airgas1998

stikle said:


> There is almost always a solution to most home theater problems.
> 
> First of all, you can't go in-ceiling, but what about on-ceiling? Are your walls hollow? Is the ceiling hollow? Could wires potentially be run in-wall to hide them? I had a buddy of mine get up in the crawl space above my vaulted ceiling. Ran the wires from the speakers overhead, then down inside one of the walls to the baseboard. Worked out awesome and looks super clean.
> 
> What about wire channel? It's paintable and looks better than bare wires.
> 
> *Or...use a router/dremel/anything else inconvenient to drill a channel in the sheetrock for the wires to lay in. Mud over the channel, let dry, and then paint.
> *
> Or...ditch the wife and get your priorities in order. Get those overheads up!
> 
> That last one may be a little extreme, but it IS an option.


didn't think about that option...that could be doable.


----------



## NorthSky

Would you be interested @ hanging them from your ceiling; say with three-foot long tubular on-ceiling speaker bracket/extendable posts? 
/// Or with chains?


----------



## mumps

Okay, losing it here. Just upgraded to a Denon AVR-X6200W yesterday. Up til 1 am setting it up. The Atmos demos play fine. Gravity and American Sniper play fine. Terminator Genesys, Pixels and Transformers all come up as DTS Surround, even if I select Atmos from the menu, which don't even offer DTS!!! Source is an Oppo 95 set to output bitstream. Thoughts?

Chris


----------



## Josh Z

mumps said:


> Okay, losing it here. Just upgraded to a Denon AVR-X6200W yesterday. Up til 1 am setting it up. The Atmos demos play fine. Gravity and American Sniper play fine. Terminator Genesys, Pixels and Transformers all come up as DTS Surround, even if I select Atmos from the menu, which don't even offer DTS!!! Source is an Oppo 95 set to output bitstream. Thoughts?


Did you turn off the "Secondary Audio" setting in the Blu-ray player?


----------



## mumps

Secondary audio is showing on but it won't let me select it...

Chris


----------



## virtualrain

Rocky3RD said:


> That was exactly what I was getting at. No audio technology can replace 90 minutes of mindless volence and destruction with a weak storyline and even worse acting



One man's mindless violence and destruction is another man's amusing entertainment. 

This movie is not a chick flick. It's a kaleidoscope of raunchy images and sounds.


----------



## ultraflexed

Hey

For some reason I can't get my Sony blue ray player to play my blur rays in atmos, I never had a problem playing atmos before, I thinks my kids were messing around with the bottons on the remote.

I have a 1030 5.2.4 onkyo reciever, can someone please remind of the process to fix this problem, I tried going into audio settings but all I could change was the pcm, hopefully that works...help please !!!


----------



## petetherock

Try going into options and making sure it's outputting bitstream and the secondary audio is turned off. Check your manual for how to do it.


----------



## audiofan1

Mission Impossible Rogue Nation is the best Atmos track to date and everything was masterfully placed overhead that should be!

No room to complain on this one


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> It is even more non-stop violence and destruction. But it's about as well executed as a movie that is nothing but non-stop violence and destruction could possibly be.
> 
> But if that's not your bag, then you won't like it.
> 
> Just to be clear -- unlike schlock-fests like "San Andreas", it is NOT a bad movie with terrible script and acting where you suffer through for the booms and 'splosions. The script and acting are spare, but it's a great movie IMO... you just have to understand it's more of an experiental thrill ride than a character/plot driven story.


Absolutely. *Mad Max Fury Road *is fantastic _cinema_, but not so fantastic as a movie. Thoroughly enjoyable. And while it isn't a movie to watch for a showcase of acting talent, Charlize Theron's performance is Oscar-worthy IMO. A spare, focused performance relying on all her acting skill in a movie where she has little actual dialog. The way she users her eyes is mesmerising.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I would also recommend Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for that mixed age audience.
> 
> People complain that it doesn't have constant overhead action but it's a pretty fun surround mix and there are action scenes where the overheads are used very effectively to enhance the action. Obviously not Oscar material but it was a fun time and (while I'm not watching it repeatedly) it was not at all a painful experience for me to watch.


Also agreed. I enjoyed TMNT. A good, fun ride with some outstanding scenes (eg the downhill chase). People seem to expect every movie to be *The Seventh Seal*. Sometimes, we just want a *fun time* for a an hour or two.


----------



## JamesE

Thanks everyone for movie recommendations. I bought Minions yesterday and will probably pick up tmnt’s just to have around for when grandkids are in town. We all vary a lot in our preferences. Some see 3D as a gimmick—what’s not to like? Others liked San Andreas—it was ok. Some put a lot of effort into tweaking the video getting the colors just right—I never did anything to my HW40ES, maybe I just got lucky. I’m into the sound and have spent months working on getting it just right—I may never be done! The grandmother of the kids coming over is a retired English teacher and is totally into the plot and character development. She wants me to turn the volume down! I like sci-fi and I liked Jupiter Ascending. I like movies that are “just fun movies to watch.”


----------



## NorthSky

audiofan1 said:


> Mission Impossible Rogue Nation is the best Atmos track to date and everything was masterfully placed overhead that should be!
> 
> No room to complain on this one


Ralph's own review is pretty high on the Dolby Atmos' section of Entertaiment Factor (5 stars), and with an overall score of *86* for the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack it ranked roughly @ number 12-15 position of all the Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray movies so far (approximately 25 total; reviewed). 

Others that are rated higher/equal include:

1. Mad Max: Fury Road (((3D))) @ *100*
2. Gravity (Diamond Luxe Edition) @ *100*
3. San Andreas (((3D))) @ *100*
4. Terminator Genisys (((3D))) @ *94*
5. Jupiter Ascending (((3D))) @ *94*
6. Unbroken @ *92*
7. The Fifth Element @ *92*
8. Pixels (((3D))) @ *90*
9. The Divergent Series: Insurgent (((3D))) @ *90*
10. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 @ *90*
11. Bram Stoker's Dracula @ *88*
12. John Wick @ *86*
13. American Sniper @ *86*
14. TMNT (((3D))) @ *86*
15. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation @ *86*

...From Ralph's own sound system and ears.  ...And MI5 is among the top 12-15 (about half way out of about 25 Atmos BR titles reviewed by him). 

♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...rogue-nation-blu-ray-review.html#post39348066


----------



## Archaea

I personally liked the amos audio on Terminator Genisys better than the atmos audio on Mad Maxx. Mad Max was loud bass, but not that varied. 

Genisys had a LOT of varied bass and deep stuff! But yes those two and Gravity are my go to disks for sound demos and I haven't even heard the Atmos mix of Gravity yet. Nor have I seen San Andrea, or Unbroken. I'll add them to my list!


----------



## jvkahl

lackey said:


> Does anyone know if the Klipsch G12s or G16s can be ceiling mounted? They are only 2.5" deep and could possibly work for dth122. Any opinions on why they would be a good or bad choice for 4 atmos ceiling speakers? My ceiling is 7'10" and I would like to mount on ceiling rather than in ceiling. I have an RC64ii center and 4 RB61ii's for front and rear lefts and rights. Also considering Klipsch CP-6s to complete a 5.2.4 system. Other suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.


I have 4 G-12's in my drop ceiling but admittedly I built boxes at a 45 angle to aim them at the MLP


----------



## NorthSky

*29* Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles total so far in North America (over 50 worldwide). 

♦ http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## Scarriere

Hello @kokishin. Could you add a Paradigm Monitor Sub 12 to my setup please?
The 12 is in front and the 10 is in back, if that matters.
Thank you!


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> *29* Blu-ray Dolby Atmos titles total so far in North America (over 50 worldwide).
> 
> ♦ http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


I have 32 30 are from Amazon.com. Transcendence I got from Amazon Japan and Lucy I got from YES ASIA IN HK.


----------



## AllenA07

I'm almost done, I got the speakers all wired up last night, and I'll be connecting components here in a little bit. I will say that the amount of work to do this upgrade has been impressive. I'm using speakers mounted on the ceiling, so I don't have any drywall repair, but still this has been a ton of work. I have a hard time seeing the average consumer putting in this much effort to install Atmos. 

That being said, I imagine that Atmos modules or enabled speakers will be how Atmos is implemented for the vast majority of people who want it. The in or on ceiling speakers I think is going to remain a niche for higher end theaters.


----------



## kokishin

Scarriere said:


> Hello @kokishin. Could you add a Paradigm Monitor Sub 12 to my setup please?
> The 12 is in front and the 10 is in back, if that matters.
> Thank you!


I don't document subs in the spreadsheet; only Atmos/Auro related gear (i.e., avr/pre-pros, amps, Atmos/Auro speakers, and configurations.

You can document your entire setup using your signature if you like.


----------



## AllenA07

kokishin said:


> I don't document subs in the spreadsheet; only Atmos/Auro related gear (i.e., avr/pre-pros, amps, Atmos/Auro speakers, and configurations.
> 
> You can document your entire setup using your signature if you like.


You can add mine to the list if you'd like. I'm at 7.2.4 with a Denon x6200 as my AVR. Speakers are on-ceiling using SVS Prime Satellites in a Top Front plus Top Rear configuration. I've got an Emotiva XPA-5 as my amp.


----------



## kokishin

AllenA07 said:


> You can add mine to the list if you'd like. I'm at 7.2.4 with a Denon x6200 as my AVR. Speakers are on-ceiling using SVS Prime Satellites in a Top Front plus Top Rear configuration. I've got an Emotiva XPA-5 as my amp.


Done.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

barty88 said:


> Sorry... whats TM + FH? I have a couple pics here that show my dilemma.... ANY advice would be appreciated. I now, also probably wont be able to afford an Atmos receiver for a while so just the RX-A1040 thats 7.2
> 
> As you can see the small speakers are mounted high for the surround. Should they be lowered a little, alot or does it REALLY matter if they are angled downward? The main 2 issues are:
> 
> 1) The couch is against the back wall.... I shouldn't mount all 4 speakers in a line against that wall.... right?
> 2) So then the Right rear side surround (left side as you look at the pic) has nowhere really to go or it would be behind that door. I can lower it some....
> 
> Also, should my front towers come toward the middle more or are they OK there? Attached Thumbnails


This is the Dolby Atmos thread... Atmos uses elevated speakers. Current AVR's let you pick 2 non-adjacent pairs out of 5 possible positions
FH: Front Height
Top Front
TM: Top Middle
Top Rear
Rear Height

I can see you live in a very nice house. But about the only thing right in your set is the position of the tower pair, sorry. Teevee above a fireplace... That's to watch the flames together with the telly, right? Living is making choices. Watch the fire, or watch the teevee! 

This said, when my kids were the age of yours, judging by the accessories in your living room, I had very little interest in audio because of the low volume since they were asleep a lot of the time. 

You can learn a lot by reading the stuff that's linked on page 1 of this very thread.


----------



## bass addict

My setup is as follows: 

7.2.4 with Volt 10's semi flushed in ceiling (technically in sofit) in a TF/TR config, Yammy 3050 pre pro paired with Outlaw 7200. Outlaw running lower layer with Yammy powering tops.


----------



## thebland

erwinfrombelgium said:


> This is the Dolby Atmos thread... Atmos uses elevated speakers. Current AVR's let you pick 2 non-adjacent pairs out of 5 possible positions
> FH: Front Height
> Top Front
> TM: Top Middle
> Top Rear
> Rear Height
> 
> I can see you live in a very nice house. But about the only thing right in your set is the position of the tower pair, sorry. Teevee above a fireplace... That's to watch the flames together with the telly, right? Living is making choices. Watch the fire, or watch the teevee!
> 
> This said, when my kids were the age of yours, judging by the accessories in your living room, I had very little interest in audio because of the low volume since they were asleep a lot of the time.
> 
> You can learn a lot by reading the stuff that's linked on page 1 of this very thread.


Cool. I've ordered more speakers for an 11.6.6 set up (will have Front Sides, 2 pair of side surrounds, 1 pair rear surrounds). I did not know there was a distinction between Top Height and Front Height. Since my Front ceiling speakers will be ~6 ft forward of the LCRs, I guess I'm adding Top Fronts, Top Mid, Top Rears (as my Rear ceiling will be ~ 3 ft forward of my Rear Surrounds). Correct?


----------



## Amzie Williams

I own every Atmos disc released in the US with the exception of Any Given Sunday plus I've got 3 or the 4 Atmos Demo disc created. Bob will you be the last person in this thread to hear Atmos? 



NorthSky said:


> Ralph's own review is pretty high on the Dolby Atmos' section of Entertaiment Factor (5 stars), and with an overall score of *86* for the Dolby Atmos audio soundtrack it ranked roughly @ number 12-15 position of all the Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray movies so far (approximately 25 total; reviewed).
> 
> Others that are rated higher/equal include:
> 
> 1. Mad Max: Fury Road (((3D))) @ *100*
> 2. Gravity (Diamond Luxe Edition) @ *100*
> 3. San Andreas (((3D))) @ *100*
> 4. Terminator Genisys (((3D))) @ *94*
> 5. Jupiter Ascending (((3D))) @ *94*
> 6. Unbroken @ *92*
> 7. The Fifth Element @ *92*
> 8. Pixels (((3D))) @ *90*
> 9. The Divergent Series: Insurgent (((3D))) @ *90*
> 10. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 @ *90*
> 11. Bram Stoker's Dracula @ *88*
> 12. John Wick @ *86*
> 13. American Sniper @ *86*
> 14. TMNT (((3D))) @ *86*
> 15. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation @ *86*
> 
> ...From Ralph's own sound system and ears.  ...And MI5 is among the top 12-15 (about half way out of about 25 Atmos BR titles reviewed by him).
> 
> ♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...rogue-nation-blu-ray-review.html#post39348066


----------



## Amzie Williams

Sounds like you've got a blandtatmos setup. Dolby only allows 4 overhead speakers. 



thebland said:


> Cool. I've ordered more speakers for an 11.6.6 set up (will have Front Sides, 2 pair of side surrounds, 1 pair rear surrounds). I did not know there was a distinction between Top Height and Front Height. Since my Front ceiling speakers will be ~6 ft forward of the LCRs, I guess I'm adding Top Fronts, Top Mid, Top Rears (as my Rear ceiling will be ~ 3 ft forward of my Rear Surrounds). Correct?


----------



## bass addict

Amzie Williams said:


> I own every Atmos disc released in the US with the exception of Any Given Sunday plus I've got 3 or the 4 Atmos Demo disc created. Bob will you be the last person in this thread to hear Atmos?


Bob is our resident regurgitator of information.


----------



## deepcut

Amzie Williams said:


> Sounds like you've got a blandtatmos setup. Dolby only allows 4 overhead speakers.


I saw an interview with Dolby and they do allow more than 4 overhead speakers. The only device that can do it at the moment is the Trinnov Altitude 32. Which can use up to 32 channels. I looked up the price and I think one of those run about 20k. According to them, Atmos doesn't use discrete channels per say. It uses objects so theoretically you can have up to 128 channels for Dolby Atmos. So you can have a high number of height channels which depending on the space would be overkill.


----------



## thebland

Amzie Williams said:


> Sounds like you've got a blandtatmos setup. Dolby only allows 4 overhead speakers.





deepcut said:


> I saw an interview with Dolby and they do allow more than 4 overhead speakers. The only device that can do it at the moment is the Trinnov Altitude 32. Which can use up to 32 channels. I looked up the price and I think one of those run about 20k. According to them, Atmos doesn't use discrete channels per say. It uses objects so theoretically you can have up to 128 channels for Dolby Atmos. So you can have a high number of height channels which depending on the space would be overkill.


What he said...


----------



## AlexBen

*Construction/newb/planning question*

I'm in the planning stages of a dedicated HT space.

Currently have a Marantz 8801, but I suspect that by the time the room is completed, I will be upgrading to the 8802a to enable ATMOS.

I'm a B&W fanboy, admitted, and will run the following configuration 7.2.X

X is the problem.

LCR B&W 802 Matrix
Side B&W SCM-8
Rear B&W 804 or 805 Matrix (can choose) 

So... here is the question. All the above speakers are excellent matches for tone/timbre whatever you might choose to describe them. They are of a family.

Almost any B&W "ceiling speaker" is of a more modern vintage with new drivers and materials. They are not likely to be excellent matches.

Should I go with the best I can from their ceiling speaker selection, (due to dispersion characteristics) (or)

Get four B&W 805 Matrix and either use them "as is" up in the ceiling, or potentially, if space is really, really critical, re-build boxes for them that are close in volume and design that could be still used in the ceiling.

I've long been "picky" about the quality of pans across the front of the screen, and even front to rear, and for that reason I'm using an AT screen, and three identical LCR speakers. Nothing ruins a sound track to me or pulls me out of a movie as quickly as the sound of something moving in the movie that changes its sound noticeably from front to rear, side to side, or.... side to top to side maybe in the future? or, front to top to rear?

Just how important is the tone/timbre matching for these ceiling speakers?

B&W doesn't seemingly having anything appearing to duplicate the quality of their stand-alone speakers for ceiling use, certainly didn't have a good match in the mid 90's where my speakers date back to. While I don't want to say budget is not an issue, I want to get the right sound. For example, if I could spend $750 for a pair of ceiling speakers or $750 for a pair of 805 matrix, which is really going to be sounding better for ATMOS?

Help?


----------



## NorthSky

Amzie Williams said:


> I own every Atmos disc released in the US with the exception of Any Given Sunday plus I've got 3 or the 4 Atmos Demo disc created.
> Bob will you be the last person in this thread to hear Atmos?


Back in June 2014, when I started to be interested in the new 3D immersive sound (Dolby Atmos), I read a lot here @ AVSForum from this thread and others (Auro-3D and DTS:X). I wanted to learn everything that there was to be learned, no rock left un-turned. 

@ one point I was highly interested to acquire the Marantz AV7702 Dolby Atmos pre/pro. I'm glad that I kept my impulsive excitement under control, as I would have missed few. ...And money is not freely floating in my household. ...As many of us here. 

DTS:X is the slow dominating factor @ this time in point. I only have one DTS:X Blu-ray title so far and more than twenty Dolby Atmos BR titles, software wise. 

Time is not important to me, life is ('The Fifth Element').  ...Because in time things are going to shape up just fine, and even if I arrive @ destination the last of the Mohicans. 

Back in the days of AC-3 I was one of the first to jump in, and also before that with Dolby Pro Logic. And then the year after (1998) came to the scene in our homes dts. I had already spent two grands (Canadian loonies) on my Yamaha DD receiver. I had lots of money back then, but only few DVDs with dts encoding (less than 50, back in 1998). It wasn't the end of the world, and I waited till I upgraded to a new receiver with a dts audio decoder. Then I revisited most of my dts DVDs (Universal studios most of them). 

Fast forward to today, @ the threshold of UHD and dtsX. ...Plus OLED and all that new jazz. It is slow going, in particular with dtsX and other important little touches. In less than two weeks we'll be in a new year, and inside that new year there is a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X pre/pro waiting just for me. 
So no, I won't be the last person to jump in the new 3D immersive sound, because some folks won't get in until 2017, 2018, ...and up to 2038 and beyond.

But from this thread alone, the members who post in it (not the guests who just read it); yes, I'll be the last one...and it'll be all my honor with full merits and appreciation. Life is good, today. ...Not as good as some who have it real very good with Atmos right now, but still good enough to not feel guilty with my ancestral/vintage/historical older pre/pro of the 2D era (Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio). 

This is new territory, and the Hollywood audio mixers have a lot to learn before everyone is completely happy @ the movies.

2014 was fantastic with Live-Die-Repeat (Edge of Tomorrow) and Gravity in (((3D))) BLu.

2015 was spectacular with Mad Max: Fury Road in (((3D))) and Gravity in Atmos and Interstellar on Blu. 

2016 is going to be awesome with Sicario (Atmos) and Star Wars: The Force Awakens (((3D))) on Blu. ...And UHD BR. 

♦ We all love movies and music; that's why we're here. We love to talk about and with the good and the lesser good that we see and hear and feel (senses and sensibilities). We cannot force/impose upon ourselves what others have already imposed upon themselves. That force awakens in time for each one of us; and nobody is first and last. 

You just asked me a straight/honest question, I just gave you a straight/honest answer. ...Next.


----------



## stikle

AllenA07 said:


> You can add mine to the list if you'd like. I'm at 7.2.4 with a Denon x6200 as my AVR. Speakers are on-ceiling using SVS Prime Satellites in a Top Front plus Top Rear configuration. I've got an Emotiva XPA-5 as my amp.



I'd love to hear your impressions of the SVS Satellites. I'm running SVS for my front stage and it is awesome.


----------



## dschulz

deepcut said:


> I saw an interview with Dolby and they do allow more than 4 overhead speakers. The only device that can do it at the moment is the Trinnov Altitude 32. Which can use up to 32 channels. I looked up the price and I think one of those run about 20k. According to them, Atmos doesn't use discrete channels per say. It uses objects so theoretically you can have up to 128 channels for Dolby Atmos. So you can have a high number of height channels which depending on the space would be overkill.


This is close, but be careful not to conflate "objects" with "speaker feeds" (speaker feed being perhaps a more useful term now than channels in terms of total independent outputs). The current Dolby Atmos cinema processor for commercial cinemas playing DCPs supports up to 128 objects rendering to up to 64 speaker feeds.

The home theater implementation of Dolby Atmos supports 24.1.10 with 10 being the height speakers - in 5 pairs, Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. The Altitude is the only home theater processor on the market that can support all 10 height speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

AlexBen said:


> I'm in the planning stages of a dedicated HT space.
> 
> 
> Just how important is the tone/timbre matching for these ceiling speakers?


Do you use any form of room EQ, such as Audyssey etc?


----------



## AllenA07

I watched San Andreas last night as my first Atmos movie. I had never seen a full Atmos movie before, so other then the demos at CEDIA I was going in blind. Overall it was a bit different then I expected. The effect was more subtle and not as in your face as I personally thought it would be. A little dissapointing for the first movie (I wanted the over the top experience) , but overall I was pleased. I found that my soundstage seemed a lot bigger then a standard 7.1 movie. The surround actually seemed to surround me more then before the upgrade. 

A little more wow would have been nice, but overall I'm happy with how much improved my surround sounds. I'm looking forward to trying some different movies in there and seeing how different things compare.


----------



## AllenA07

stikle said:


> I'd love to hear your impressions of the SVS Satellites. I'm running SVS for my front stage and it is awesome.


I'm a big fan of the SVS speakers, I think they're a tremendous value. Now in full disclosure, this is coming from a guy with 2 SVS subs and 8 of their speakers. Overall I have found them all to be very capable of running a system around. I think a theater using the Prime bookshelf speakers in the front and Satellites in the back would give some impressive results. 

The speakers themselves I find to be pretty neutral in their sound with minimal color being added. If anything that might be very slightly bright. I can't comment much on their bass handling abilities, but I wouldn't expect much considering their size. As far as Atmos speakers, the jury is still out, as they've only been in service for the last day,though I'm realitively confident they will do well in this role.


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> I watched San Andreas last night as my first Atmos movie. I had never seen a full Atmos movie before, so other then the demos at CEDIA I was going in blind. Overall it was a bit different then I expected. The effect was more subtle and not as in your face as I personally thought it would be. A little dissapointing for the first movie (I wanted the over the top experience) , but overall I was pleased. I found that my soundstage seemed a lot bigger then a standard 7.1 movie. The surround actually seemed to surround me more then before the upgrade.
> 
> A little more wow would have been nice, but overall I'm happy with how much improved my surround sounds. I'm looking forward to trying some different movies in there and seeing how different things compare.


The individual movies do vary. If *Gravity* or *Mad Max Fury Road* are your thing, you will find more overhead speaker activity in those. And if you like nature documentaries, try *Enchanted Kingdom *which is a fabulous Atmos demo disk as well as being a pretty good documentary. 

But you have put your finger on the real benefit of Atmos which isn't just to do with sounds from above. What you describe is the classic greater immersion that you get with Atmos tracks.


----------



## AlexBen

*Matching speakers issue*



kbarnes701 said:


> Do you use any form of room EQ, such as Audyssey etc?


I'm most likely to use the built in Audessey that comes with the 8802a.

I am new to room EQ products.

Do they do manipulations beyond delay and frequency roll offs? 
(My way of saying bass management)

I did not think, rather I'd hope, they don't affect the midrange or treble.


----------



## Selden Ball

AlexBen said:


> I'm most likely to use the built in Audessey that comes with the 8802a.
> 
> I am new to room EQ products.
> 
> Do they do manipulations beyond delay and frequency roll offs?
> (My way of saying bass management)


 Much more.



> I did not think, rather I'd hope, they don't affect the midrange or treble.


How much they affect the midrange and treble frequencies depends on how much damage is being done by your room's acoustics.

If you haven't already, please take the time to read the Audyssey 101/FAQ which is available here on AVS. The instructions in the equipment manuals are pathetically inadequate.


----------



## Nightlord

AlexBen said:


> I'm in the planning stages of a dedicated HT space.
> 
> Currently have a Marantz 8801, but I suspect that by the time the room is completed, I will be upgrading to the 8802a to enable ATMOS.
> 
> I'm a B&W fanboy, admitted, and will run the following configuration 7.2.X
> 
> X is the problem.
> 
> LCR B&W 802 Matrix
> Side B&W SCM-8
> Rear B&W 804 or 805 Matrix (can choose)
> 
> So... here is the question. All the above speakers are excellent matches for tone/timbre whatever you might choose to describe them. They are of a family.
> 
> Almost any B&W "ceiling speaker" is of a more modern vintage with new drivers and materials. They are not likely to be excellent matches.
> 
> Should I go with the best I can from their ceiling speaker selection, (due to dispersion characteristics) (or)
> 
> Get four B&W 805 Matrix and either use them "as is" up in the ceiling, or potentially, if space is really, really critical, re-build boxes for them that are close in volume and design that could be still used in the ceiling.
> 
> I've long been "picky" about the quality of pans across the front of the screen, and even front to rear, and for that reason I'm using an AT screen, and three identical LCR speakers. Nothing ruins a sound track to me or pulls me out of a movie as quickly as the sound of something moving in the movie that changes its sound noticeably from front to rear, side to side, or.... side to top to side maybe in the future? or, front to top to rear?
> 
> Just how important is the tone/timbre matching for these ceiling speakers?
> 
> B&W doesn't seemingly having anything appearing to duplicate the quality of their stand-alone speakers for ceiling use, certainly didn't have a good match in the mid 90's where my speakers date back to. While I don't want to say budget is not an issue, I want to get the right sound. For example, if I could spend $750 for a pair of ceiling speakers or $750 for a pair of 805 matrix, which is really going to be sounding better for ATMOS?
> 
> Help?


Well, at least today B&W have quite advanced in-wall speakers, which I guess could be used in-ceiling. If they are a good enough tonal match to the matrix-series is another matter, but I don't think it should be off by much - they've have been quite excellent for quite a while. But if you have ceiling height to spare to put 805s up there... go for it!


----------



## kbarnes701

AlexBen said:


> I'm most likely to use the built in Audessey that comes with the 8802a.
> 
> I am new to room EQ products.
> 
> Do they do manipulations beyond delay and frequency roll offs?
> (My way of saying bass management)
> 
> I did not think, rather I'd hope, they don't affect the midrange or treble.


How they work will depend on which product you have and how much control it gives you. My general point is that timbre matching becomes much less important if one has a good quality room EQ system.


----------



## MGBPUFF

I would not recommend using the 805 Matrix for ceiling installation. Their coil/basket design is not meant to be vertical. Buy a speaker designed for ceiling installation. The Audyssey RMC will compensate for differences in timbre even if the speakers are a different brand.


----------



## dholmes54

I know I've asked this before but why couldn't I add sm bookshelf spks to the top of my Polk tower spks and have them firing up ward,would that work instead of buy add on moduals spks to the towers?My avr I'm wanting to try this with is Yamaha 1050 which 7.1,if I did this I would not have back spks anymore but I want the atmos effect without buying extra spks or hanging over head spks,thxs


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

thebland said:


> Cool. I've ordered more speakers for an 11.6.6 set up (will have Front Sides, 2 pair of side surrounds, 1 pair rear surrounds). I did not know there was a distinction between Top Height and Front Height. Since my Front ceiling speakers will be ~6 ft forward of the LCRs, I guess I'm adding Top Fronts, Top Mid, Top Rears (as my Rear ceiling will be ~ 3 ft forward of my Rear Surrounds). Correct?


Top Front and Top Height, actually. It's not about distances, it's bout angles. As explaned in the guidelines:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-home-theater-version.html#post25147242
Are you using the Trinnov then? AFAIK, no other processor can deal with more than 4 overheads.


----------



## Stoked21

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Top Front and Top Height, actually. It's not about distances, it's bout angles. As explaned in the guidelines:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-home-theater-version.html#post25147242
> Are you using the Trinnov then? AFAIK, no other processor can deal with more than 4 overheads.


 @thebland....

Erwin is right that it's about angles. However, he's wrong on the nomenclature. You were correct to say Top Front and Front Height (same with rear). In the .10 deployment you would go FH, TF, TM, TR, RH. The Dolby installation guide for home theater will detail this for you. Front Height and Rear Height are buried in the back in section 4 as they are "non-traditional" Atmos deployments vs. the Top front or top rear overhead. They are however, widely supported by all AVR as they are the simplest to install with less drywall damage for most people.


----------



## thebland

Stoked21 said:


> @thebland....
> 
> Erwin is right that it's about angles. However, he's wrong on the nomenclature. You were correct to say Top Front and Front Height (same with rear). In the .10 deployment you would go FH, TF, TM, TR, RH. The Dolby installation guide for home theater will detail this for you. Front Height and Rear Height are buried in the back in section 4 as they are "non-traditional" Atmos deployments vs. the Top front or top rear overhead. They are however, widely supported by all AVR as they are the simplest to install with less drywall damage for most people.


Good to know. Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

AlexBen said:


> I'm in the planning stages of a dedicated HT space.
> Currently have a Marantz 8801, but I suspect that by the time the room is completed, I will be upgrading to the 8802a to enable ATMOS.
> I'm a B&W fanboy, admitted, and will run the following configuration 7.2.X
> X is the problem.
> LCR B&W 802 Matrix
> Side B&W SCM-8
> Rear B&W 804 or 805 Matrix (can choose)
> So... here is the question. All the above speakers are excellent matches for tone/timbre whatever you might choose to describe them. They are of a family.
> Almost any B&W "ceiling speaker" is of a more modern vintage with new drivers and materials. They are not likely to be excellent matches.
> Should I go with the best I can from their ceiling speaker selection, (due to dispersion characteristics) (or)
> Get four B&W 805 Matrix and either use them "as is" up in the ceiling, or potentially, if space is really, really critical, re-build boxes for them that are close in volume and design that could be still used in the ceiling.
> I've long been "picky" about the quality of pans across the front of the screen, and even front to rear, and for that reason I'm using an AT screen, and three identical LCR speakers. Nothing ruins a sound track to me or pulls me out of a movie as quickly as the sound of something moving in the movie that changes its sound noticeably from front to rear, side to side, or.... side to top to side maybe in the future? or, front to top to rear?
> 
> *Just how important is the tone/timbre matching for these ceiling speakers?*
> 
> B&W doesn't seemingly having anything appearing to duplicate the quality of their stand-alone speakers for ceiling use, certainly didn't have a good match in the mid 90's where my speakers date back to. While I don't want to say budget is not an issue, I want to get the right sound. For example, if I could spend $750 for a pair of ceiling speakers or $750 for a pair of 805 matrix, which is really going to be sounding better for ATMOS?
> Help?


♦ _*Characteristics*

"Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move
around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers
should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities
of the listener-level speakers. *Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as
closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a
wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system.* This will
ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead
speakers are placed high above the listeners."_

______

♦♦ _*Frequency Response Target Curves*

"Consistency of response among all the speakers in a home theater system is
important for good panning between the overhead and listener-level speakers. But
calibration with steady-state pink noise to a totally flat curve on a real-time analyzer
(RTA) will rarely sound neutral or correct. This is for two main reasons. First, most
speakers radiate lower frequencies more broadly than higher frequencies, even if
they have a flat on-axis response. Total radiated-power response decreases at higher
frequencies. Second, most rooms have decreasing reverberation at higher
frequencies, which leads to a flat perceived response with a steady-state measured
response that decreases in amplitude at frequencies above the midband (for
example, a response with a knee point at 2 kHz). Target curves vary with the size
and treatment of a given room, but they generally follow this pattern.
For rooms with volumes greater than 4400 cubic feet (125 m3), we recommend that
the installer refer to SMPTE ST 202:2010, known as the X-curve standard. This
standard provides multiple target responses in which the response is flat to 2 kHz
and then declines gradually with increasing frequency. Per this standard, these
rooms will generally provide a flat perceived response when the measured response
declines at –3 dB (+/-1 dB) per octave. Larger rooms require more attenuation at
higher frequencies. Once a target system response has been established, speaker-to-speaker
matching can be held to tighter tolerances for optimal panning.
For rooms with volumes less than 4400 cubic feet (125 m3), the slope may be
reduced above 2 kHz (for example, to 1.5 dB per octave), or the knee point of the
response may be moved up to 4 kHz, 8 kHz, or even higher in some cases.
Ultimately, many factors contribute to a well-balanced system, and many factors
influence each listener’s judgments of sound quality. Today, most home AVR systems
feature autocalibration technologies that handle level setting, delays, and frequency
response correction adequately for the home theater. However, such systems are not
perfect, and *we recommend that the installer combine a calibration sweep with
skilled listening and adjustment of the system’s responses to ensure accurate
reproduction capability and channel-to-channel timbre consistency*."_


----------



## BB1111

What receiver would you guys recommend if going for atmos and targeting a 5.1.2 setup? (maybe 5.1.4 in the future)

I'm currently using a Denon 4520 with an XPA-5 and would like to get a prepro if possible but the price between prepro and receiver seem identical for Atmos units.

I prefer Denon / Marantz.


----------



## mumps

BB1111 said:


> What receiver would you guys recommend if going for atmos and targeting a 5.1.2 setup? (maybe 5.1.4 in the future)
> 
> I'm currently using a Denon 4520 with an XPA-5 and would like to get a prepro if possible but the price between prepro and receiver seem identical for Atmos units.
> 
> I prefer Denon / Marantz.


I just went from a 4311CI to the X6200W and am quite happy with it. It will do your 5.1.4 no problem. I am doing 7.1.2 and like it.

Chris


----------



## kaotikr1

My project is underway. Waiting for my drywall work to dry so I can get in a second coat. Lowered all my surrounds.


----------



## NorthSky

AlexBen said:


> I'm most likely to use the built in Audyssey that comes with the 8802a. - Yes, do use it.
> 
> I am new to room EQ products.
> Do they do manipulations beyond delay and frequency roll offs? - Yes, it'll EQ all your speakers with digital Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters.
> (My way of saying bass management)
> I did not think, rather I'd hope, they don't affect the midrange or treble. - It'll make them more "clearer" and "balanced" and "intelligible".


With the Audyssey Platinum Suite (XT32 +++) inside the Marantz AV8802A, your overall sound in your room will improve to a level equivalent of the degree in acoustic room treatments. ...From roughly 33% to 99% - so you'll benefit for sure.

♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...enon-x4000-i-have-them-both.html#post24170220

* In your quote above; the lines in red are mine.


----------



## NorthSky

kaotikr1 said:


> My project is underway. Waiting for my drywall work to dry so I can get in a second coat. Lowered all my surrounds.


It looks scary and exciting @ the same time. 

- You are installing three pairs of Dolby Atmos overhead speakers? ...Future-roofing*? 

* Future-proofing. ;-)


----------



## kaotikr1

I want to be able to try a couple configurations. TF/TR or TM/FH and I figure 7.6 will come soon and while I was pulling wire I figured I might as well do it once. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## bargervais

dholmes54 said:


> I know I've asked this before but why couldn't I add sm bookshelf spks to the top of my Polk tower spks and have them firing up ward,would that work instead of buy add on moduals spks to the towers?My avr I'm wanting to try this with is Yamaha 1050 which 7.1,if I did this I would not have back spks anymore but I want the atmos effect without buying extra spks or hanging over head spks,thxs


Try it it's been done it won't cost you anything to try it.


----------



## rontalley

kaotikr1 said:


> My project is underway. Waiting for my drywall work to dry so I can get in a second coat. Lowered all my surrounds.


My Top Lefts and Rights are approximately 10' apart and my Top Rears and Top Fronts are approximately 6' apart. I get great separation from Left to Right but hardly any separation from Front to Back. I've concluded that I would need at least an 8' spread from Front to Rears to experience good overhead effects. 

How far apart are yours?


----------



## kaotikr1

About 10 left and right and 80" front to back. They are equidistant from the MLP 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

bargervais said:


> Try it it's been done it won't cost you anything to try it.


It won't cost you anthing until you hear it...

That's how I started and now I am at 7.1.4...

Have fun!


----------



## dholmes54

Thxs guys


----------



## Steven James 2

dholmes54 said:


> I know I've asked this before but why couldn't I add sm bookshelf spks to the top of my Polk tower spks and have them firing up ward,would that work instead of buy add on moduals spks to the towers?My avr I'm wanting to try this with is Yamaha 1050 which 7.1,if I did this I would not have back spks anymore but I want the atmos effect without buying extra spks or hanging over head spks,thxs



I have the yamaha 2050 and currently have my bookshelf speakers on top of my polk towers and it sounds decent. My ceiling is rather low and non reflective so i probably dont get as much effect as i should. But it works til i receive my polk audio owm5 speakers for the ceiling!


----------



## Stoked21

aaranddeeman said:


> It's a $5 off $2500 coupon..


Got that mystery package from one of the av dealers I work with.....While it's not a $5 off $2500 nor a box of candy canes...It's also not a 2015 demo disk. It is a 2014 disc though, so hey that beats streaming it off Vudu from now on!!! Was hoping for 2015 with test tones, but I'm not complaining!

BTW I was told that D&M told him that the 2015 disc won't even make it to the dealers until early next year. So they should start to be a little more prolific after the new year.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dholmes54 said:


> Thxs guys


Seriously, experiment with it. Change the angle of your upfiring speakers, move the to a different position...outside of your fronts, inside of your fronts (assuming that you have a stand of some kind...). You can and should do as much of that as possible unless and until you start cutting holes in your drywall. Then, it gets serious in terms of destruction and repair. And, your wife's dismay at said renovations...LOL!

It will be enough for you to tell whether or not you will like the results. Then, you can get the wires to where you need them by fishing, running under the baseboard, whatever.

For me, the difference between 5.1 and 5.1.2 was such that I will never go back. But, eveyone's situation is unique. Nobody else has a room with the exact dimensions, and finishes, and furnishings, and equipment...and ears.

Find what combination pleases you and get on with it within your budget conctraints and abilities.

But, seriously, enjoy what you are doing. If you do not enjoy it you need to be doing something else.


----------



## dholmes54

I still have my spks in the old 7.1 configuration, 3 front,2 side and 2 back & was wanting to try up firing add on spks instead of rear SPK with the Yamaha 1050 I would loose back spks if I use add on spks to the front towers


----------



## HondaF17

Anyone see Star Wars yet? Saw it yesterday at my local Atmos theater. Loved the movie and loved the sound. Some really great Atmos effects, IMO. Looking forward to adding it to my theater collection.


----------



## HondaF17

BB1111 said:


> What receiver would you guys recommend if going for atmos and targeting a 5.1.2 setup? (maybe 5.1.4 in the future)
> 
> I'm currently using a Denon 4520 with an XPA-5 and would like to get a prepro if possible but the price between prepro and receiver seem identical for Atmos units.
> 
> I prefer Denon / Marantz.


I've had a Denon X4200 for over a month now - it does 5.1.4 perfectly. It can do your 5.1.2 setup as is, if you wanted to do 5.1.4 in the future you'd need to add an amp to power the 2 additional height speakers. That's what I have and it works great. Very pleased.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dholmes54 said:


> I still have my spks in the old 7.1 configuration, 3 front,2 side and 2 back & was wanting to try up firing add on spks instead of rear SPK with the Yamaha 1050 I would loose back spks if I use add on spks to the front towers


You could always go to BB, and get a pair of Pioneer Dolby-enabled speakers...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/pioneer...lack/4561482.p?id=1219767654543&skuId=4561482

They are $199 for the pair. If you do not like them, return them and get your money back.

If you like them, rock on!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HondaF17 said:


> Anyone see Star Wars yet? Saw it yesterday at my local Atmos theater. Loved the movie and loved the sound. Some really great Atmos effects, IMO. Looking forward to adding it to my theater collection.


That's if Disney will release it on UHD Blu-ray at release date or soon after. That's the only way I see we will get the Atmos mix.


----------



## Stoked21

Popped in the 2014 demo disc. SQ is better than Vudu stream. Atmos placement "seemed" more precise and clear as well. Probably streaming/server limitations dulling things down SQ wise.

Anyway, the Enrique Iglesias video is the BEST Atmos material I've heard yet, and I'm not a fan! Phantom people sitting to the left and right of MLP clapping. Rapper standing right in front of you. Lots of panning effects from side surround up to where a VOG would be and back down numerous times. Tons of ceiling activity and object placement IN the room (not ON the ceiling per say). 

Pretty damn impressed with that clip. More importantly, it shows what can be accomplished if music albums are recorded using the technology. Makes for an amazing musical experience.


----------



## BB1111

HondaF17 said:


> I've had a Denon X4200 for over a month now - it does 5.1.4 perfectly. It can do your 5.1.2 setup as is, if you wanted to do 5.1.4 in the future you'd need to add an amp to power the 2 additional height speakers. That's what I have and it works great. Very pleased.


If I use the XPA-5 for 5 channels can I do the ".2" (or ".4") on the receiver only?


----------



## HondaF17

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's if Disney will release it on UHD Blu-ray at release date or soon after. That's the only way I see we will get the Atmos mix.


Why is that? Why wouldn't they include Atmos on a standard BD?


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> Popped in the 2014 demo disc. SQ is better than Vudu stream. Atmos placement "seemed" more precise and clear as well. Probably streaming/server limitations dulling things down SQ wise.
> 
> Anyway, the Enrique Iglesias video is the BEST Atmos material I've heard yet, and I'm not a fan! Phantom people sitting to the left and right of MLP clapping. Rapper standing right in front of you. Lots of panning effects from side surround up to where a VOG would be and back down numerous times. Tons of ceiling activity and object placement IN the room (not ON the ceiling per say).
> 
> Pretty damn impressed with that clip. More importantly, it shows what can be accomplished if music albums are recorded using the technology. Makes for an amazing musical experience.


That's really exciting to hear. I'm a huge proponent of SACD/DVDA and was really bummed to see that tech stall out. It would be awesome to see music get the same treatment as movies get.


----------



## HondaF17

BB1111 said:


> If I use the XPA-5 for 5 channels can I do the ".2" (or ".4") on the receiver only?


Not sure. Someone else, maybe JDSmoothie, will have to answer that for you.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HondaF17 said:


> Why is that? Why wouldn't they include Atmos on a standard BD?


Because they're using it as an upselling feature for UHD media. Just like Fox Home Video. That and HDR graded video.


----------



## bass addict

HondaF17 said:


> Not sure. Someone else, maybe JDSmoothie, will have to answer that for you.


JD would be the "in the know", but it appears all newer receivers will allow you to assign outputs. I will be setup the same way with my outlaw 7100 driving the lower speakers leaving the 3050 to handle tops only.


----------



## toofast68

So I tried searching, but I got lost...

How do I know FOR SURE what Fifth Element is in ATMOS ? Is it ONLY the Cinema Series one ?

- link to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6PK0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


----------



## toofast68

So I tried searching, but I got lost...

How do I know FOR SURE what Fifth Element is in ATMOS ? Is it ONLY the Cinema Series one ?

- link to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6PK0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


----------



## bass addict

toofast68 said:


> So I tried searching, but I got lost...
> 
> How do I know FOR SURE what Fifth Element is in ATMOS ? Is it ONLY the Cinema Series one ?
> 
> - link to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...rue&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


If you don't need, or care about, the extra frills. 

http://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Element...450720639&sr=1-2&keywords=fifth+element+atmos


----------



## lujan

toofast68 said:


> So I tried searching, but I got lost...
> 
> How do I know FOR SURE what Fifth Element is in ATMOS ? Is it ONLY the Cinema Series one ?
> 
> - link to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6PK0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


I ordered this one and it has the Atmos track:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6TP6?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00


----------



## Daryl L

toofast68 said:


> So I tried searching, but I got lost...
> 
> How do I know FOR SURE what Fifth Element is in ATMOS ? Is it ONLY the Cinema Series one ?
> 
> - link to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013UZ6PK0?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


Look at the audio specs. You can even look at the back of the box in a large image. 
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/138634/

If you want the fancy box and extras.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/138246/


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> That's really exciting to hear. I'm a huge proponent of SACD/DVDA and was really bummed to see that tech stall out. It would be awesome to see music get the same treatment as movies get.


DVD-A kicked A**. I had it in my car too. Was super cool. SQ was amazing. Some Police, Queen, Metallica Black, etc.


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> DVD-A kicked A**. I had it in my car too. Was super cool. SQ was amazing. Some Police, Queen, Metallica Black, etc.


Absolutely. 

My go to Albums are Black, In Absentia, anything from Blue Man Group, Live at Union Station, and DSOM.


----------



## Stoked21

bass addict said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> My go to Albums are Black, In Absentia, anything from Blue Man Group, Live at Union Station, and DSOM.


The Enrique Atmos demo reminded me of the true 5.1 DVD-A of Queen Bohemian Rhapsody on the Night at the Opera album. If you've ever heard that montage of Freddie voices in 5.1 encoded DVD-A, it made you feel like you were on tripping....Insane the way the voices bounced around.


----------



## thxman

One step closer to Atmos.


----------



## bass addict

Stoked21 said:


> The Enrique Atmos demo reminded me of the true 5.1 DVD-A of Queen Bohemian Rhapsody on the Night at the Opera album. If you've ever heard that montage of Freddie voices in 5.1 encoded DVD-A, it made you feel like you were on tripping....Insane the way the voices bounced around.


I have yet to hear that one on DVD-A. Sounds like another one to add to the collection.


----------



## toofast68

Daryl L said:


> Look at the audio specs. You can even look at the back of the box in a large image.
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/138634/
> 
> If you want the fancy box and extras.
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/138246/


Thanks guys....I forgot about the Blu-ray site...was looking for specs on the Amazon site....

I got her ordered up!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

toofast68 said:


> Thanks guys....I forgot about the Blu-ray site...was looking for specs on the Amazon site....
> 
> I got her ordered up!


Never go on Amazon's specs. They are normally wrong.


----------



## bass addict

thxman said:


> One step closer to Atmos.


Oh, yeah. I'm holding off installing my 3050 till my Atmos speakers are finished up. Have to suffer with my A5000 for another week or so.


----------



## batpig

BB1111 said:


> If I use the XPA-5 for 5 channels can I do the ".2" (or ".4") on the receiver only?





HondaF17 said:


> Not sure. Someone else, maybe JDSmoothie, will have to answer that for you.


The 4200 is a bit more limited in how you can deploy the amps vs. the 5200/6200 and higher models.

The 4200 does NOT have dedicated speaker posts for "Height2". What this means is that with a 5.1.4 setup you have to use external amps for the rear heights/tops. 

So for a 5.1.4 setup with the XPA-5, you would have to "waste" two channels of the XPA-5 on the rear heights/tops (Height2 pre-outs). 

However, for a 7.1.2 setup, you CAN just run the surround backs and the single pair of heights (Height1) off the internal amps, with the XPA-5 powering the L/C/R and surrounds.


----------



## batpig

HondaF17 said:


> Why is that? Why wouldn't they include Atmos on a standard BD?


Not every Atmos theaterical mix is making it to standard BD.

First problem is that the home Atmos stuff didn't even debut until a bit over a year ago. So many great Atmos mixes from the previous couple of years (e.g. _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ and _Maze Runner_) made it to BD too early for Atmos. So we have to hope for a double-dip re-release (probably for UHD BD).

The bigger problem is that certain studios are _intentionally_ refusing to release ANY mixes in Atmos on BD. Fox and Disney are the biggest offenders here. As Dan notes, this is a crass strategy to create more value-add for the enventual price premium for UHD BD.


----------



## rckrzy1

dvdwilly3 said:


> You could always go to BB, and get a pair of Pioneer Dolby-enabled speakers...
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/pioneer...lack/4561482.p?id=1219767654543&skuId=4561482
> 
> They are $199 for the pair. If you do not like them, return them and get your money back.
> 
> If you like them, rock on!


how is it the add ons cost more than the base units ? I assume these sit ontop of the book shelf speakers that are $129 a pair .


----------



## dvdwilly3

rckrzy1 said:


> how is it the add ons cost more than the base units ? I assume these sit ontop of the book shelf speakers that are $129 a pair .


That would be correct...more expensive than the base unit.

You are paying a large amount for the Dolby Enabled certification..the manufacturer paid a licensing fee and it carries through to the consumer.

You could use non-certified speakers of an appropriate size as long as you can get the desired angle on them.

That is what I am doing for my height speakers...Goldenear Technology Supersat 3s mounted with Def Tech ProMount 90 mounts on top of speaker stands. I can move them along or rotate them on any axis.

What are your fronts again?


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> That would be correct...more expensive than the base unit.
> 
> You are paying a large amount for the Dolby Enabled certification..the manufacturer paid a licensing fee and it carries through to the consumer.
> 
> You could use non-certified speakers of an appropriate size as long as you can get the desired angle on them.
> 
> That is what I am doing for my height speakers...Goldenear Technology Supersat 3s mounted with Def Tech ProMount 90 mounts on top of speaker stands. I can move them along or rotate them on any axis.
> 
> What are your fronts again?


Yeah, I just looked on BB and they have the Polk T15 on sale for $50 a pair. Not a lot of point in having your Atmos speakers outclass your fronts...these would arguably work with your fronts.

You could always give it a shot with those and see what you think...minimal outlay...and, as before, if you don't like them, take them back...


----------



## rontalley

Stoked21 said:


> Popped in the 2014 demo disc. SQ is better than Vudu stream. Atmos placement "seemed" more precise and clear as well. Probably streaming/server limitations dulling things down SQ wise.
> 
> Anyway, the Enrique Iglesias video is the BEST Atmos material I've heard yet, and I'm not a fan! Phantom people sitting to the left and right of MLP clapping. Rapper standing right in front of you. Lots of panning effects from side surround up to where a VOG would be and back down numerous times. Tons of ceiling activity and object placement IN the room (not ON the ceiling per say).
> 
> Pretty damn impressed with that clip. More importantly, it shows what can be accomplished if music albums are recorded using the technology. Makes for an amazing musical experience.


So agree! I had a listen again when I switched my fronts. Still awesome and great display of what Atmos can do for music presentation.



thxman said:


> One step closer to Atmos.


What the hell am I doing with my life where I can not afford cool toys like this?! Sweet Bro!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

thebland said:


> Cool. I've ordered more speakers for an 11.6.6 set up (will have Front Sides, 2 pair of side surrounds, 1 pair rear surrounds). I did not know there was a distinction between Top Height and Front Height. Since my Front ceiling speakers will be ~6 ft forward of the LCRs, I guess I'm adding Top Fronts, Top Mid, Top Rears (as my Rear ceiling will be ~ 3 ft forward of my Rear Surrounds). Correct?





erwinfrombelgium said:


> Top Front and Top Height, actually. It's not about distances, it's bout angles. As explaned in the guidelines:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-home-theater-version.html#post25147242
> Are you using the Trinnov then? AFAIK, no other processor can deal with more than 4 overheads.





Stoked21 said:


> @thebland....
> 
> Erwin is right that it's about angles. However, he's wrong on the nomenclature. You were correct to say Top Front and Front Height (same with rear). In the .10 deployment you would go FH, TF, TM, TR, RH. The Dolby installation guide for home theater will detail this for you. Front Height and Rear Height are buried in the back in section 4 as they are "non-traditional" Atmos deployments vs. the Top front or top rear overhead. They are however, widely supported by all AVR as they are the simplest to install with less drywall damage for most people.


Bummer! Thanks for correcting me. I had it right the first time when thebland quoted me, but somehow I got confused...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*Arcam AVR 550 & AVR 850*

There was a period when I browsed this thread on a daily basis, but I let go a couple of months ago. In the mean time, a really interesting AVR has been introduced, namely the Arcam. It supports both Atmos/dtsX and Dirac Live. If it was mentioned here, I missed it. First deliveries are out the door now.

It comes in two variations, the more expensive AVR 850 (£4,200) is supposed to have superior class G amplifier technology, where the AVR 550 (£2,400) has "traditional" amps. Both have 7 amps on board, hence need 4 more external amps for full blown 7.1.4

I still want 9.1.6... 

https://www.avforums.com/threads/arcam-av550-inc-dirac-live.1985785/


----------



## dholmes54

dvdwilly3 said:


> You could always go to BB, and get a pair of Pioneer Dolby-enabled speakers...
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/pioneer...lack/4561482.p?id=1219767654543&skuId=4561482
> 
> They are $199 for the pair. If you do not like them, return them and get your money back.
> 
> If you like them, rock on!


Thxs I'll check them out,I've got old Polk audio towers RTA 150 and got a extra pair of bookshelf spks Polk monitor 10s I was going to try on top of the towers


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I would like to buy some BD's with Dolby Atmos. Blu-ray.com has a fine list of these, but they mostly lead you to the US release, but I am in EU.
Blu-ray with Atmos

When I search the EU branches of Amazon, it's impossible to single out the Atmos versions. Any tips on spending my money on this?

Purchasing the US version usually means it's region A playback. I will make my Oppo region free, no biggie. 

What about duties and VAT when buying these from Amazon US? Is this the same rate as with electronics? That would be 30% extra.

I would be interested in these:
_*Dracula
The Fifth Element
Gravity
Lucy (not on Amazon)
Mad Max: Fury Road*_

Thanks.


----------



## DoctorVideo

I just installed a new Dolby Atmos capable receiver. Although I didn't specifically buy it for that purpose, I thought it might be fun to add a couple of Atmos modules in front. The only problem is that the only place I can put them will be on top of my entertainment center which will place them about 2 feet from the ceiling. Is that going to be a deal-breaker, or can I perhaps angle them a bit forward to compensate? My seating position is about 10.5' from where the speakers would be located, and it's an 8' dry wall ceiling.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DoctorVideo said:


> I just installed a new Dolby Atmos capable receiver. Although I didn't specifically buy it for that purpose, I thought it might be fun to add a couple of Atmos modules in front. The only problem is that the only place I can put them will be on top of my entertainment center which will place them about 2 feet from the ceiling. Is that going to be a deal-breaker, or can I perhaps angle them a bit forward to compensate? My seating position is about 10.5' from where the speakers would be located, and it's an 8' dry wall ceiling.



Your best bet, without installing on or in ceiling speakers, would be speakers mounted up high on the wall near the ceiling juncture and angled toward the listening space. The modules are the very last thing you want to use.

If the receiver allows for four overheads, then place the other two up high on the rear wall. Set the receiver for front and rear heights. Again... if you can't or will not do ceiling speakers.


----------



## joetheater

Can anyone point me to a resource or explain how a Dolby Atmos Bluray disc is handled by a 7.1 receiver? I have a Denon 7.1 capable receiver and am wondering what happens to the sound objects on an Atmos soundtrack when its only played through a 7.1 system. Are these sound objects just put through and combined with one of the available 7 channels or are the Atmos enabled sound objects just silent and not played?


----------



## batpig

joetheater said:


> Can anyone point me to a resource or explain how a Dolby Atmos Bluray disc is handled by a 7.1 receiver? I have a Denon 7.1 capable receiver and am wondering what happens to the sound objects on an Atmos soundtrack when its only played through a 7.1 system. Are these sound objects just put through and combined with one of the available 7 channels or are the Atmos enabled sound objects just silent and not played?


The Atmos bitstream is carried in a Dolby TrueHD container -- it's a standard 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack with "extensions" carrying metadata for the objects. If the processor does NOT have an Atmos decoder, it will play exactly like any other 7.1 TrueHD track.

Nothing is lost as the objects are "folded" into the 7.1 channel core soundtrack.


----------



## P-Worm

*How to achieve the mythical 34 speakers?*

The Atmos for Home Theater white paper states that Atmos supports up to 34 speakers - 24 on the floor and 10 on the ceiling. My question is, how do you achieve that? Are we going to literally have to wait for a single receiver that has 68 wire ports on the back for audio? How much will that receiver cost? $10,000? It seems like the only way to really scale this is to be able to chain Atmos receivers together so they can share the information.


----------



## Selden Ball

P-Worm said:


> The Atmos for Home Theater white paper states that Atmos supports up to 34 speakers - 24 on the floor and 10 on the ceiling. My question is, how do you achieve that? Are we going to literally have to wait for a single receiver that has 68 wire ports on the back for audio? How much will that receiver cost? $10,000? It seems like the only way to really scale this is to be able to chain Atmos receivers together so they can share the information.


Get a Trinnov Altitude32. It supports up to 32 speakers. I'm sure you can find two you really don't need  It uses DB25 connectors to get its preamp outputs to professional amplifiers. That configuration would cost something like $30K, though.


----------



## Movie78

rontalley said:


> So agree! I had a listen again when I switched my fronts. Still awesome and great display of what Atmos can do for music presentation.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell am I doing with my life where I can not afford cool toys like this?! Sweet Bro!


This comment almost made me:crying:


----------



## helvetica bold

HondaF17 said:


> Anyone see Star Wars yet? Saw it yesterday at my local Atmos theater. Loved the movie and loved the sound. Some really great Atmos effects, IMO. Looking forward to adding it to my theater collection.


Saw it yesterday at a Dolby Theater. Amazing audio and PQ experience to say the least. Im sold on both Atmos and Dolby Vision. One of the most immersive moving going experiences Ive had.


----------



## noah katz

Did they fix the elevated black level issue?

IIRC I have the Superbit version (it's loaned out to a friend), and the opening space scene for example looks awful.



batpig said:


> For 15 bucks, you really can't go wrong with the Fifth Element remaster if you're a fan of the film, even if you end up double-dipping in a couple of years on a 4K version. Worst-case you sell the regular BD for 5 bucks and you paid $10 for a 2-year "rental".
> 
> It's truly a terrific remaster and a showcase film for Atmos.


----------



## Roudan

I was on vacation in Maui in the last few days and I watched stars war 3d at Maui Mall regal cinema yesterday. No atmos. The sounding was just too loud and it became noisy. I was not enjoying it. Just wondering what kind of speakers does cinema usually have? I just felt my home theatre sounds better. 3D effect is also not impressive. Maybe the screen is too big so it is darker. Or is it due to the quality of 3d glasses? Again I still think my home theatre has better 3D effect. Also it played almost 30 minutes preview trailers of other upcoming movies. Quite annoying!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roudan said:


> I was on vacation in Maui in the last few days and I watched stars war 3d at Maui Mall regal cinema yesterday. No atmos. The sounding was just too loud and it became noisy. I was not enjoying it. Just wondering what kind of speakers does cinema usually have? I just felt my home theatre sounds better. 3D effect is also not impressive. Maybe the screen is too big so it is darker. Or is it due to the quality of 3d glasses? Again I still think my home theatre has better 3D effect. Also it played almost 30 minutes preview trailers of other upcoming movies. Quite annoying!


Pro compression horn speakers: JBL, Klipsch, etc. Some makes are definitely better sounding than others, but any of the horn loaded speakers pushed to ear blowing levels will sound harsh and shrill.


----------



## DAK4

thxman said:


> One step closer to Atmos.


Wow! I didn't realize the trinnov was so big that it could take up the entire entrance to a staircase. I see now why it's so expensive.  JK


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was on vacation in Maui in the last few days and I watched stars war 3d at Maui Mall regal cinema yesterday. No atmos. The sounding was just too loud and it became noisy. I was not enjoying it. Just wondering what kind of speakers does cinema usually have? I just felt my home theatre sounds better. 3D effect is also not impressive. Maybe the screen is too big so it is darker. Or is it due to the quality of 3d glasses? Again I still think my home theatre has better 3D effect. Also it played almost 30 minutes preview trailers of other upcoming movies. Quite annoying!
> 
> 
> 
> Pro compression horn speakers: JBL, Klipsch, etc. Some makes are definitely better sounding than others, but any of the horn loaded speakers pushed to ear blowing levels will sound harsh and shrill.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan. Good to know it.


----------



## bass addict

Dan Hitchman said:


> Pro compression horn speakers: JBL, Klipsch, etc. Some makes are definitely better sounding than others, but any of the horn loaded speakers pushed to ear blowing levels will sound harsh and shrill.


I'm not sure I totally agree with you on that sentiment Dan. I can play mine to ear bleeding levels and I'd say they are far from harsh or shrill (TD15M with BMS4550). My only complaint with horns is they are _very_ revealing. Poorly mastered tracks rear their ugly head and can be grating, but this has no relation to volume (sounds like crap at any level).


----------



## rckrzy1

dvdwilly3 said:


> That would be correct...more expensive than the base unit.
> 
> You are paying a large amount for the Dolby Enabled certification..the manufacturer paid a licensing fee and it carries through to the consumer.
> 
> You could use non-certified speakers of an appropriate size as long as you can get the desired angle on them.
> 
> That is what I am doing for my height speakers...Goldenear Technology Supersat 3s mounted with Def Tech ProMount 90 mounts on top of speaker stands. I can move them along or rotate them on any axis.
> 
> What are your fronts again?


My fronts are junk, so most likely buy the bottom pioneers to match the atmos tops. Just seems strange to pay a license fee for a speaker which has no intelligence or such in it.


----------



## dvdwilly3

rckrzy1 said:


> My fronts are junk, so most likely buy the bottom pioneers to match the atmos tops. Just seems strange to pay a license fee for a speaker which has no intelligence or such in it.


The Atmos enabled modules are $199 the pair.

Spend $299 for these and you will have maching fronts AND the Atmos speakers all in one unit...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/pioneer...lack/4561459.p?id=1219768223434&skuId=4561459


----------



## Molon_Labe

Dan Hitchman said:


> Pro compression horn speakers: JBL, Klipsch, etc. Some makes are definitely better sounding than others, but *any *of the horn loaded speakers pushed to ear blowing levels will sound harsh and shrill.



Dan, I dont mean to be insulting but that statement could not be further from the truth. The JBL M2 completely annihilates your statement. This discussion was previously covered, but you do realize that JBL, QSC, Reaction Audio, Power Sound Audio, JTR, Danley, etc are all horn loaded speakers. Reach out to @tvuong He has a hobby of visiting member's theaters while traveling for work. He has been in some of the most impressive setups around the country. Guess what his speaker of choice is? Hint - it has a horn.


----------



## dvdwilly3

rckrzy1 said:


> My fronts are junk, so most likely buy the bottom pioneers to match the atmos tops. Just seems strange to pay a license fee for a speaker which has no intelligence or such in it.


The certified speakers do have something additional--a passive filter that applies what is known as a HRTF (head related transfer function) filter that restricts the frequency in a way that makes your brain think that these sounds are coming from overhead.

I understand it, but do not buy into it for a number of reasons. But, that is largely what you are paying for in the certified speakers.

Sound is reflective and if you point it at a surface, it will reflect. So, upfiring speakers will work. How well is the subject of a number of factors and discussion...


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> Dan, I dont mean to be insulting but that statement could not be further from the truth. The JBL M2 completely annihilates your statement. This discussion was previously covered, but you do realize that JBL, QSC, Reaction Audio, Power Sound Audio, JTR, Danley, etc are all horn loaded speakers. Reach out to @tvuong He has a hobby of visiting member's theaters while traveling for work. He has been in some of the most impressive setups around the country. Guess what his speaker of choice is? Hint - it has a horn.


I know we've beat this topic into the ground previously. I completely agreed with Dan.....until a few months ago when I heard REAL horn loaded designs (JTR).....Shrill is not even remotely applicable. This is meant as no disrespect to Klipsch, but most of us liken the sounds of horns with their lower-end, entry-level designs. We've all heard exactly what Dan is referring too. This characteristic is not present with JBL and JTR (I haven't personally heard any by the other mentioned companies). 

_I know Klipsch has some higher-end designs that probably sound great, though I've never heard any. So please no one be offended as I'm not trying to stereotype all Klipsch designs as being of poor SQ. _


----------



## Hyabusha

DAK4 said:


> Wow! I didn't realize the trinnov was so big that it could take up the entire entrance to a staircase. I see now why it's so expensive.  JK


Holy S*&^! I had no Idea how big It was untill I looked at the stairs! I've never seen anything like this before!


----------



## dvdwilly3

DAK4 said:


> Wow! I didn't realize the trinnov was so big that it could take up the entire entrance to a staircase. I see now why it's so expensive.  JK


Actually, it is not that big...17.5" across.

This photo is close focus on the Trinnov on top of a counter. 
The stairs are several feet behind it creating an illusion.

It is sort of like those photos of someone holding the sun in their hand...


----------



## DAK4

dvdwilly3 said:


> Actually, it is not that big...17.5" across.
> 
> This photo is close focus on the Trinnov on top of a counter.
> The stairs are several feet behind it creating an illusion.
> 
> It is sort of like those photos of someone holding the sun in their hand...


I know, I was Just Kidding. But if it was that big it would have plenty of space for all the speaker connections but it might take two hands to turn the knobs.


----------



## lujan

Roudan said:


> I was on vacation in Maui in the last few days and I watched stars war 3d at Maui Mall regal cinema yesterday. No atmos. The sounding was just too loud and it became noisy. I was not enjoying it. Just wondering what kind of speakers does cinema usually have? I just felt my home theatre sounds better. 3D effect is also not impressive. Maybe the screen is too big so it is darker. Or is it due to the quality of 3d glasses? Again I still think my home theatre has better 3D effect. Also it played almost 30 minutes preview trailers of other upcoming movies. Quite annoying!


I know, that's why I hardly go the the movies anymore. The damned previews. I complained to the theater when I went to see Jurassic World about 20 minutes worth of commercials and never heard anything back. They don't care as they still have tons of people going to see the movies. The next time I go to see a movie (probably Stars Wars), I will call ahead and ask them when the actual movie starts first in order to skip all or most of the previews.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Pro compression horn speakers: JBL, Klipsch, etc. Some makes are definitely better sounding than others, but any of the horn loaded speakers speaker pushed to ear blowing levels will sound harsh and shrill.


Fixed that for you, Dan. 

It should be said that most conventional home theater branded "hi-fi" speakers will sound awful much earlier than good high sensitivity systems. My speakers can reach "ear blowing levels" and sound perfectly fine while doing it.


----------



## Movie78

ATMOS height speaker Test!!

This sample is only for the 4 height speaker test!!!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s7isi0inr61nw99/Dolby%20Atmos%20.4.mkv?dl=0












Happy Holidays!!!


----------



## GXMnow

In my many years of tuning sound systems in both home theatre and in commercial movie theatres, I have heard it all. I will not give brand names here as most companies offer a large range from budget systems to very high end.

In a large movie theatre, you have several challenges to get past. First off is the room volume and the distance to the listeners. For many years, the only way to get enough high frequency energy, through a screen and out 80 feet was to use a horn to direct the energy. Much of the shrill honk sound that people have heard in theatres was caused by trying to push a speaker to make sound beyond it's designed range. Back in the 50's a 1,200 seat movie theatre could have great clear dialog out of a 30 watt amplifier due to the incredibly efficient speakers of the day. But when you try to pump up some music at 95 db, the system gave out. Going to a bigger amplifier got some headroom back, but the drivers were then stressed and the distortion would rise. Even magnetic sound was pushing them too far. Amplifier cost for a given amount of power has fallen greatly, so the horns have become much less peaky and generally sound a lot smoother than they did 20 years ago. In the 80's and 90's there was a big step to better systems with most of the LF sections going to direct radiating instead of the horn bass cabinets, but the high sections still use a horn to get the energy to cover the audience. Most systems were still 2 way in the 90s but Bi Amp systems started to become the norm. The change to electronic crossovers and Bi, Tri, and even quad amp setups now have allowed the use of individual driver correction and far less out of band energy which greatly reduces the distortion. A modern cinema sound system that is capable of 30 hz to 18 khz with levels hitting 105 db per channel with very low distortion are common now. But there are still many theatres that have not upgraded their speakers since digital film sound came out in the early 90's, let alone when they converted to D-Cinema and uncompressed sound. This is one of the complaints from theatres that is keeping the installation of Dolby Atmos on the slow side. Dolby has to run the room design and speaker specs through a design study and ensure the speaker and amplifier combination for each channel can reach the required levels without breaking up. In some older theatres, they are finding the screen speakers were not really up to normal 5.1 sound. In other cases, they are seeing back wall surrounds that were not even good enough to do 7.1, let alone trying to hit 3 db more out of just one of the speakers instead of the array of 3 or 4. So when a Dolby Atmos system does go online, it has capable equipment. Just throwing a new processor onto whatever was in the room, is no longer good enough. The general public has been spoiled by great sounding gear in homes and even cars now days. The cinema system had to evolve to keep up. 

Most systems still use horns for the HF, and even the midrange generally uses a horn flare to control the coverage from a larger driver. Other systems have gone to ribbon drivers for the high and arrays of small drivers for the mid. Amplifier power has gotten cheap enough, that you can trade some efficiency for much lower distortion. Even the compression drivers do not have as much throat compression in the design. The "Classic" 2 way cinema system with a pair of 15 inch woofers going up to 500 hz and a huge compression horn covering 500 hz to 20 khz is just about gone in new installs. The latest 3 way designs have a very capable midrange unit covering from under 300 up to over 2 khz with far better voice clarity. The high driver no longer has to reach down and the honk is gone. The woofers can be tuned lower as they don't have to go up as high. Some systems have even gone to 4 way with a coaxial HF driver on the high horn. This gives a smaller dome for better response above 8 khz. And I have seen a few that have 4 woofers and they drive all from 20 hz up to about 100 or so, then drop to 2 drivers for better control. The technology keeps moving. Some large theatres have gone to line array systems with great coverage control and very low distortion. This led companies to develop smaller and lower cost line arrays specifically for cinema use where you don't need or want the concert sound setup for a medium sized room and a lower peak sound pressure requirement. Tuning still plays a very large roll in making it all blend and sound right. The timbre of the speakers should be close, but with proper eq they certainly do not have to be the same speaker. One of the final tests on an Atmos install is to play pink noise in a pan all around the room and up and back on the ceiling. Before it is tuned, you can hear the response shift as it goes from speaker to speaker, but after the tune, it becomes a smooth moving sound, even as if goes from the front wide back onto the screen. And in many cases, that is going from a passive crossover 12 in 2 way system with bass management, to a monster 3 way tri amp'd dual 15 inch system. Eq should not be used to "fix" a poor speaker, but when used to shape the response to the desired curve, it can make a system sound so much better. 

Obviously a home setup has a completely different set of challenges. But it still comes down to being able to get the sound to cover the listeners with the right levels and response. Efficiency may not be quite as important as it was back when amplifiers cost more than a car, but keep in mind, just a 3 db loss of efficiency still requires double the power to get the same level. Going from a 120 watt per channel unit to a 160 watt unit, is not even a 1 db change.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's if Disney will release it on UHD Blu-ray at release date or soon after. That's the only way I see we will get the Atmos mix.


It's hard to imagine that SWTFA won't be a UHD release with the full bells and whistles... hopefully


----------



## kbarnes701

HondaF17 said:


> Why is that? Why wouldn't they include Atmos on a standard BD?


The studios seem to believe that UHD needs more than the picture improvements for it to really take off, so combining those with Atmos soundtracks should create a really attractive package, and also encourage double/triple/quadruple etc dipping. If UHD means a lot more Atmos releases then I will be buying a UHD player as soon as they are available even though I am not at this stage interested in the picture improvements.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> There was a period when I browsed this thread on a daily basis, but I let go a couple of months ago. In the mean time, a really interesting AVR has been introduced, namely the Arcam. It supports both Atmos/dtsX and Dirac Live. If it was mentioned here, I missed it. First deliveries are out the door now.
> 
> It comes in two variations, the more expensive AVR 850 (£4,200) is supposed to have superior class G amplifier technology, where the AVR 550 (£2,400) has "traditional" amps. Both have 7 amps on board, hence need 4 more external amps for full blown 7.1.4
> 
> I still want 9.1.6...
> 
> https://www.avforums.com/threads/arcam-av550-inc-dirac-live.1985785/


Neither however, offer Dirac Live on all 11 channels.


----------



## bass addict

GXMnow said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> In my many years of tuning sound systems in both home theatre and in commercial movie theatres, I have heard it all. I will not give brand names here as most companies offer a large range from budget systems to very high end.
> 
> In a large movie theatre, you have several challenges to get past. First off is the room volume and the distance to the listeners. For many years, the only way to get enough high frequency energy, through a screen and out 80 feet was to use a horn to direct the energy. Much of the shrill honk sound that people have heard in theatres was caused by trying to push a speaker to make sound beyond it's designed range. Back in the 50's a 1,200 seat movie theatre could have great clear dialog out of a 30 watt amplifier due to the incredibly efficient speakers of the day. But when you try to pump up some music at 95 db, the system gave out. Going to a bigger amplifier got some headroom back, but the drivers were then stressed and the distortion would rise. Even magnetic sound was pushing them too far. Amplifier cost for a given amount of power has fallen greatly, so the horns have become much less peaky and generally sound a lot smoother than they did 20 years ago. In the 80's and 90's there was a big step to better systems with most of the LF sections going to direct radiating instead of the horn bass cabinets, but the high sections still use a horn to get the energy to cover the audience. Most systems were still 2 way in the 90s but Bi Amp systems started to become the norm. The change to electronic crossovers and Bi, Tri, and even quad amp setups now have allowed the use of individual driver correction and far less out of band energy which greatly reduces the distortion. A modern cinema sound system that is capable of 30 hz to 18 khz with levels hitting 105 db per channel with very low distortion are common now. But there are still many theatres that have not upgraded their speakers since digital film sound came out in the early 90's, let alone when they converted to D-Cinema and uncompressed sound. This is one of the complaints from theatres that is keeping the installation of Dolby Atmos on the slow side. Dolby has to run the room design and speaker specs through a design study and ensure the speaker and amplifier combination for each channel can reach the required levels without breaking up. In some older theatres, they are finding the screen speakers were not really up to normal 5.1 sound. In other cases, they are seeing back wall surrounds that were not even good enough to do 7.1, let alone trying to hit 3 db more out of just one of the speakers instead of the array of 3 or 4. So when a Dolby Atmos system does go online, it has capable equipment. Just throwing a new processor onto whatever was in the room, is no longer good enough. The general public has been spoiled by great sounding gear in homes and even cars now days. The cinema system had to evolve to keep up.
> 
> Most systems still use horns for the HF, and even the midrange generally uses a horn flare to control the coverage from a larger driver. Other systems have gone to ribbon drivers for the high and arrays of small drivers for the mid. Amplifier power has gotten cheap enough, that you can trade some efficiency for much lower distortion. Even the compression drivers do not have as much throat compression in the design. The "Classic" 2 way cinema system with a pair of 15 inch woofers going up to 500 hz and a huge compression horn covering 500 hz to 20 khz is just about gone in new installs. The latest 3 way designs have a very capable midrange unit covering from under 300 up to over 2 khz with far better voice clarity. The high driver no longer has to reach down and the honk is gone. The woofers can be tuned lower as they don't have to go up as high. Some systems have even gone to 4 way with a coaxial HF driver on the high horn. This gives a smaller dome for better response above 8 khz. And I have seen a few that have 4 woofers and they drive all from 20 hz up to about 100 or so, then drop to 2 drivers for better control. The technology keeps moving. Some large theatres have gone to line array systems with great coverage control and very low distortion. This led companies to develop smaller and lower cost line arrays specifically for cinema use where you don't need or want the concert sound setup for a medium sized room and a lower peak sound pressure requirement. Tuning still plays a very large roll in making it all blend and sound right. The timbre of the speakers should be close, but with proper eq they certainly do not have to be the same speaker. One of the final tests on an Atmos install is to play pink noise in a pan all around the room and up and back on the ceiling. Before it is tuned, you can hear the response shift as it goes from speaker to speaker, but after the tune, it becomes a smooth moving sound, even as if goes from the front wide back onto the screen. And in many cases, that is going from a passive crossover 12 in 2 way system with bass management, to a monster 3 way tri amp'd dual 15 inch system. Eq should not be used to "fix" a poor speaker, but when used to shape the response to the desired curve, it can make a system sound so much better.
> 
> Obviously a home setup has a completely different set of challenges. But it still comes down to being able to get the sound to cover the listeners with the right levels and response. Efficiency may not be quite as important as it was back when amplifiers cost more than a car, but keep in mind, just a 3 db loss of efficiency still requires double the power to get the same level. Going from a 120 watt per channel unit to a 160 watt unit, is not even a 1 db change.


I wonder how many of these maligned speakers were more of a result of a poor room, more than limitations inherent to the design. I've heard great speakers sound like crap, and I've heard mediocre speakers sound way better than I ever though they would have based on a properly treated room.


----------



## ChldsPlay

So, I haven't really been paying close enough attention to this, but I've been looking to upgrade my theater to Atmos at some point. I know the receivers weren't really ready for what I wanted last year, but I'm not sure what is available now.

My requirements:

Atmos/DTS-X capable. 7.2.2 configuration (prefer without the need for an additional amp).
HDMI 2.0.
HDCP 2.2

That's probably it. Pretty sure other things I want are pretty standard on receivers these days.

I'll upgrading from a 2010 Onkyo TX-SR608.
Is there anything reasonable out there now that has that, or should I really just wait until next year?


----------



## bass addict

ChldsPlay said:


> Is there anything reasonable out there now that has that, or should I really just wait until next year?


There will always be something better around the corner. If you're always waiting for the next big thing.................... well, you'll always be waiting.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

kbarnes701 said:


> Neither however, offer Dirac Live on all 11 channels.


What??? That's not cricket... 

Keith, where do you purchase your Atmos BD's from?


----------



## ChldsPlay

bass addict said:


> There will always be something better around the corner. If you're always waiting for the next big thing.................... well, you'll always be waiting.


Yes, of that I'm aware. But I know what I'm waiting for. Something that meets my specific requirements...at a "reasonable" price. I'm just not really sure what options are available right now.


----------



## johnsmith808

I'm investigating whether I should invest in a Dolby Atmos setup for my home theater. So I saw Star Wars yesterday to see what Atmos was all about. The theater had the full array of speakers on the ceiling. The Dolby Atmos little clip played during the previews. Then the movie started. I can honestly say that nothing really jumped out at me as significantly more immersive than standard 5.1 surround. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Movie78 said:


> ATMOS height speaker Test!!
> 
> This sample is only for the 4 height speaker test!!!
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s7isi0inr61nw99/Dolby Atmos .4.mkv?dl=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Holidays!!!


Dammit! I get a 404 error every time you post one of these links! Guess I'm not fast enough.


----------



## NorthSky

> ATMOS height speaker Test!!
> 
> This sample is only for the 4 height speaker test!!!
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s7isi0inr61nw99/Dolby%20Atmos%20.4.mkv?dl=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Happy Holidays!!!*


And same to you and your family!


----------



## NorthSky

thxman said:


> One stair closer to Atmos.





DAK4 said:


> Wow! I didn't realize the trinnov was so big that it could take up the entire entrance to a staircase. I see now why it's so expensive.  JK





Hyabusha said:


> Holy S*&^! I had no Idea how big It was untill I looked at the stairs! I've never seen anything like this before!


It's an optical illusion. ...Trinnov has usually that effect on people...(((3D))).


----------



## NorthSky

GXMnow said:


> In my many years of tuning sound systems in both home theatre and in commercial movie theatres, I have heard it all. I will not give brand names here as most companies offer a large range from budget systems to very high end.
> 
> In a large movie theatre, you have several challenges to get past. First off is the room volume and the distance to the listeners. For many years, the only way to get enough high frequency energy, through a screen and out 80 feet was to use a horn to direct the energy. Much of the shrill honk sound that people have heard in theatres was caused by trying to push a speaker to make sound beyond it's designed range. Back in the 50's a 1,200 seat movie theatre could have great clear dialog out of a 30 watt amplifier due to the incredibly efficient speakers of the day. But when you try to pump up some music at 95 db, the system gave out. Going to a bigger amplifier got some headroom back, but the drivers were then stressed and the distortion would rise. Even magnetic sound was pushing them too far. Amplifier cost for a given amount of power has fallen greatly, so the horns have become much less peaky and generally sound a lot smoother than they did 20 years ago. In the 80's and 90's there was a big step to better systems with most of the LF sections going to direct radiating instead of the horn bass cabinets, but the high sections still use a horn to get the energy to cover the audience. Most systems were still 2 way in the 90s but Bi Amp systems started to become the norm. The change to electronic crossovers and Bi, Tri, and even quad amp setups now have allowed the use of individual driver correction and far less out of band energy which greatly reduces the distortion. A modern cinema sound system that is capable of 30 hz to 18 khz with levels hitting 105 db per channel with very low distortion are common now. But there are still many theatres that have not upgraded their speakers since digital film sound came out in the early 90's, let alone when they converted to D-Cinema and uncompressed sound. This is one of the complaints from theatres that is keeping the installation of Dolby Atmos on the slow side. Dolby has to run the room design and speaker specs through a design study and ensure the speaker and amplifier combination for each channel can reach the required levels without breaking up. In some older theatres, they are finding the screen speakers were not really up to normal 5.1 sound. In other cases, they are seeing back wall surrounds that were not even good enough to do 7.1, let alone trying to hit 3 db more out of just one of the speakers instead of the array of 3 or 4. So when a Dolby Atmos system does go online, it has capable equipment. Just throwing a new processor onto whatever was in the room, is no longer good enough. The general public has been spoiled by great sounding gear in homes and even cars now days. The cinema system had to evolve to keep up.
> 
> Most systems still use horns for the HF, and even the midrange generally uses a horn flare to control the coverage from a larger driver. Other systems have gone to ribbon drivers for the high and arrays of small drivers for the mid. Amplifier power has gotten cheap enough, that you can trade some efficiency for much lower distortion. Even the compression drivers do not have as much throat compression in the design. The "Classic" 2 way cinema system with a pair of 15 inch woofers going up to 500 hz and a huge compression horn covering 500 hz to 20 khz is just about gone in new installs. The latest 3 way designs have a very capable midrange unit covering from under 300 up to over 2 khz with far better voice clarity. The high driver no longer has to reach down and the honk is gone. The woofers can be tuned lower as they don't have to go up as high. Some systems have even gone to 4 way with a coaxial HF driver on the high horn. This gives a smaller dome for better response above 8 khz. And I have seen a few that have 4 woofers and they drive all from 20 hz up to about 100 or so, then drop to 2 drivers for better control. The technology keeps moving. Some large theatres have gone to line array systems with great coverage control and very low distortion. This led companies to develop smaller and lower cost line arrays specifically for cinema use where you don't need or want the concert sound setup for a medium sized room and a lower peak sound pressure requirement. Tuning still plays a very large roll in making it all blend and sound right. The timbre of the speakers should be close, but with proper eq they certainly do not have to be the same speaker. One of the final tests on an Atmos install is to play pink noise in a pan all around the room and up and back on the ceiling. Before it is tuned, you can hear the response shift as it goes from speaker to speaker, but after the tune, it becomes a smooth moving sound, even as if goes from the front wide back onto the screen. And in many cases, that is going from a passive crossover 12 in 2 way system with bass management, to a monster 3 way tri amp'd dual 15 inch system. Eq should not be used to "fix" a poor speaker, but when used to shape the response to the desired curve, it can make a system sound so much better.
> 
> Obviously a home setup has a completely different set of challenges. But it still comes down to being able to get the sound to cover the listeners with the right levels and response. Efficiency may not be quite as important as it was back when amplifiers cost more than a car, but keep in mind, just a 3 db loss of efficiency still requires double the power to get the same level. Going from a 120 watt per channel unit to a 160 watt unit, is not even a 1 db change.


Very informative post, thank you.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Dammit! I get a 404 error every time you post one of these links! Guess I'm not fast enough.


Exact same here; 404 Error! 

* Merry Christmas!


----------



## Ricoflashback

thxman said:


> One step closer to Atmos.


One step closer to Bankruptcy. That Trinnov deserves a $50 bottle of KBarnes701 wine. 

Yes, I'm jealous.....


----------



## Zhorik

johnsmith808 said:


> I'm investigating whether I should invest in a Dolby Atmos setup for my home theater. So I saw Star Wars yesterday to see what Atmos was all about. The theater had the full array of speakers on the ceiling. The Dolby Atmos little clip played during the previews. Then the movie started. I can honestly say that nothing really jumped out at me as significantly more immersive than standard 5.1 surround. Am I missing something here?


Where were you sitting in the cinema?

The Force Awakens makes good use of objects with lasers and ship/fighters sounds moving through the auditorium, not to mention all channels being actively used.


----------



## rckrzy1

Help, I have the Onkyo TX-NR636 and want to test dolby Atmos but not sure which speaker "type to select in set up , dolby , dolby surround, top, bottom etc , nothing states Atmos . And yes I upgraded the firmware to the newest.

Thanks


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> The studios seem to believe that UHD needs more than the picture improvements for it to really take off, so combining those with Atmos soundtracks should create a really attractive package, and also encourage double/triple/quadruple etc dipping. If UHD means a lot more Atmos releases then I will be buying a UHD player as soon as they are available even though I am not at this stage interested in the picture improvements.


I'm going to be annoyed whey Atmos starts being released on UHD and not the Blu-ray. I'll buy the UHD player, but with the price of 4K projection being where it is, I'm several years out of using the primary feature of UHD.


----------



## batpig

rckrzy1 said:


> Help, I have the Onkyo TX-NR636 and want to test dolby Atmos but not sure which speaker "type to select in set up , dolby , dolby surround, top, bottom etc , nothing states Atmos . And yes I upgraded the firmware to the newest.
> 
> Thanks


Well, you didn't tell us anything about your speaker setup, which is what deteremines what setting to use.

Since the 636 is a 7ch receiver, any Atmos setup is going to be a 5.1.2 arrangement at most. So all you should have to do is tell it what type of speaker is connected to the 6th/7th speaker channels (e.g. Front Height or Top Middle).


----------



## blastermaster

AllenA07 said:


> I'm going to be annoyed whey Atmos starts being released on UHD and not the Blu-ray. I'll buy the UHD player, but with the price of 4K projection being where it is, I'm several years out of using the primary feature of UHD.


I doubt it will be years. Once UHD content really starts rolling out (hopefully at least at the end of next year), so will the competition for your dollars and the prices of projectors will go down. I'm really rooting for 4K DLP projection to roll out at a decent price (fingers crossed).


----------



## AllenA07

blastermaster said:


> I doubt it will be years. Once UHD content really starts rolling out (hopefully at least at the end of next year), so will the competition for your dollars and the prices of projectors will go down. I'm really rooting for 4K DLP projection to roll out at a decent price (fingers crossed).


I'm thinking late 2017 before we see much in the way of reasonably priced 4K. When it gets to the $3-4000 range, that's when I'll get really interested.


----------



## blastermaster

AllenA07 said:


> I'm thinking late 2017 before we see much in the way of reasonably priced 4K. When it gets to the $3-4000 range, that's when I'll get really interested.


Quite possibly. In the meantime, I'll most likely invest in a UHD player right from the get go to get Atmos now and, in the future, 4K. 1080p still looks quite awesome, TBH.


----------



## SoundChex

AllenA07 said:


> I'm thinking late 2017 before we see much in the way of reasonably priced 4K.



_Late 2017 sounds about right to me . . . if the South Koreans get to drive the timetable: _From this December 3, 2015, article in *TVTechnology*, "*Sinclair Demos HDR 4KTV Over ATSC 3.0 in Vegas | Test run for CES 2016*" (*link*), it seems South Korea is giving serious thought to getting 4K ATSC 3.0 OTA TV "up and running"--with some meaningful number of ATSC 3.0 TV receivers sold and installed--in time for the XXIII Olympic Winter Games at PyeongChang, South Korea, in February 2018. I'm guessing this means "real" OTA broadcasting would need to begin in the second half of 2017 . . . and "mass availability" of 'reasonably priced' 4K ATSC 3.0 TV receivers. 


_


----------



## johnsmith808

I was sitting a little off center and maybe 6 rows from the back. It sounded really good but I guess I was just expecting something revolutionary. So would you say that a home setup of atmos won't be as good as a good theater?


----------



## johnsmith808

Molon_Labe said:


> johnsmith808 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm investigating whether I should invest in a Dolby Atmos setup for my home theater. So I saw Star Wars yesterday to see what Atmos was all about. The theater had the full array of speakers on the ceiling. The Dolby Atmos little clip played during the previews. Then the movie started. I can honestly say that nothing really jumped out at me as significantly more immersive than standard 5.1 surround. Am I missing something here?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, completely over-rated.
Click to expand...

Was Star Wars audio overrated or Atmos in general?


----------



## Stoked21

blastermaster said:


> Quite possibly. In the meantime, I'll most likely invest in a UHD player right from the get go to get Atmos now and, in the future, 4K. 1080p still looks quite awesome, TBH.


Keep in mind that a UHD player may be a paper-weight for you. Your entire signal path will need to be HDCP2.2 compliant---BD player, AVR, TV/PJ. Either that or you will have to find one of the $200 adapter boxes like hd fury and hope it actually works.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Zhorik said:


> Where were you sitting in the cinema?
> 
> The Force Awakens makes good use of objects with lasers and ship/fighters sounds moving through the auditorium, not to mention all channels being actively used.



I guess the Atmos theater I saw it at had the surrounds and overheads turned down too much because it only seemed like a few times they really, noticeably utilized the Atmos effect.


----------



## darklord700

I've just started planning a potential conversion of my 7.1 setup into a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. For those who have heard Atmos, how big of a jump will this be? Would you say it is as big as going from lossy to lossless codec when BR/HD DVD was introduced?


----------



## Selden Ball

darklord700 said:


> I've just started planning a potential conversion of my 7.1 setup into a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. For those who have heard Atmos, how big of a jump will this be?


Big.


> Would you say it is as big as going from lossy to lossless codec when BR/HD DVD was introduced?


 Bigger.


----------



## batpig

darklord700 said:


> I've just started planning a potential conversion of my 7.1 setup into a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. For those who have heard Atmos, how big of a jump will this be? Would you say it is as big as going from lossy to lossless codec when BR/HD DVD was introduced?


Why give up the back surrounds? If you've already got a 7.1 base layer you should keep it and add overheads. Atmos mixes are very aggressive in surround panning.


----------



## Steven James 2

Whats up guys, im changing from a 5.2.2 to a 7.2.2 atmos system. Currently i use bipole/dipole speakers for my surrounds which are placed behind me. Many articles ive read talk about removing bipole/dipole speakers from atmos setups. Can anyone comment on that statement? Should i replace with regular surround and surround backs?


----------



## mumps

darklord700 said:


> I've just started planning a potential conversion of my 7.1 setup into a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. For those who have heard Atmos, how big of a jump will this be? Would you say it is as big as going from lossy to lossless codec when BR/HD DVD was introduced?


First, I agree with batpig. Keep the backs.

Second, I would compare the jump to going from stereo to 5.1 - it's a new game changer.

Chris


----------



## mumps

Steven James 2 said:


> Whats up guys, im changing from a 5.2.2 to a 7.2.2 atmos system. Currently i use bipole/dipole speakers for my surrounds which are placed behind me. Many articles ive read talk about removing bipole/dipole speakers from atmos setups. Can anyone comment on that statement? Should i replace with regular surround and surround backs?


I'm running a 7.1.2 with bipolar surrounds and am really liking the experience. Perhaps a more direct sound field would be an improvement but I'm used to the bipolar sound and have no problems with the setup.

I did lower my side surrounds to ear level from 2 feet above ear level however.

Chris


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Keep in mind that a UHD player may be a paper-weight for you. Your entire signal path will need to be HDCP2.2 compliant---BD player, AVR, TV/PJ. Either that or you will have to find one of the $200 adapter boxes like hd fury and hope it actually works.


I don't think that is right is it? UHD players, when confronted with a non-HDCP2.2 compliant signal will just downres to 1080p. So while one might not get the benefits in terms of image quality, one will still get the sound quality benefits from the (expected) proliferation of Atmos soundtracks on UHD.


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> What??? That's not cricket...


It's not Dirac on the overhead speakers either  It is possible that a future FW update might fix this though. Note, possible.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Keith, where do you purchase your Atmos BD's from?


Usually from Amazon - either the UK store or one of the European stores (see what I did there? LOL). For other regions, I look at Amazon US, YesAsia and even eBay.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> One step closer to Bankruptcy. That Trinnov deserves a $50 bottle of KBarnes701 wine.
> 
> Yes, I'm jealous.....


 I have a simple rule for wine these days: it is white from New Zealand and red from Australia. Never lets me down and costs waaaaaaay less than 50 bucks a bottle


----------



## kbarnes701

darklord700 said:


> I've just started planning a potential conversion of my 7.1 setup into a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. For those who have heard Atmos, how big of a jump will this be? Would you say it is as big as going from lossy to lossless codec when BR/HD DVD was introduced?


Much bigger than that. More like the jump from Stereo or Prologic to discrete 5.1.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think that is right is it? UHD players, when confronted with a non-HDCP2.2 compliant signal will just downres to 1080p. So while one might not get the benefits in terms of image quality, one will still get the sound quality benefits from the (expected) proliferation of Atmos soundtracks on UHD.


Nope. About 6 months ago I posted in this thread a more technical synopsis warning people are going to lose Atmos when its primary delivery is going to become streamed or disc UHD. There's a handshake of sorts through the entire chain. I won't repeat the details. But simply put even if one device is not 2.2, then you will get a screen of death with no audio or video. 

This is the reason I upgraded from my Yamaha to the marantz so quickly. I saw I was going to lose Atmos content when Fox and Disney and Vudu would only put Atmos in UHD. 

Everyone claims a $200-500 converter box may fix this....but no one says it works! Further more I'm sure they'll try to stop the sale of said devices.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Nope. About 6 months ago I posted in this thread a more technical synopsis warning people are going to lose Atmos when its primary delivery is going to become streamed or disc UHD. There's a handshake of sorts through the entire chain. I won't repeat the details. But simply put even if one device is not 2.2, then you will get a screen of death with no audio or video.
> 
> This is the reason I upgraded from my Yamaha to the marantz so quickly. I saw I was going to lose Atmos content when Fox and Disney and Vudu would only put Atmos in UHD.
> 
> Everyone claims a $200-500 converter box may fix this....but no one says it works! Further more I'm sure they'll try to stop the sale of said devices.


Will a UHD player be backwards compatible with 1080p blu-ray discs? It would be extraordinary if this were not the case, but if I am reading you correctly you are saying that if someone has a 1080p TV (without HDCP 2.2) and he buys a UHD player, it will just not work. He won't be able to play anything at all on it - not UHD discs, not his 1080p blu-rays, nothing? Am I reading you correctly?

If I am then it means I will have to delay my UHD upgrade until I change my AVR, which isn't going to be until fall 2016. And in the meantime, any new movies with Atmos/DTS:X released exclusively on UHD will be unavailable to me totally? So if the studios decide to discontinue HD Blu-ray Atmos releases in favor of UHD releases then Atmos will be denied to everyone who doesn't own a UHD player and a display with HDCP 2.2? This seems extraordinary and means that Atmos will be denied totally to the vast majority of potential buyers.

While I have no reason to prefer the following source to your own comments, a quick google revealed this counterpoint view:

*
Will Ultra HD Blu-ray players be backward compatible?

Yes. Ultra HD-Blu-ray players will play Blu-ray discs, DVDs, SACDs, DVD-Audio, and Redbook CDs. Both standard 1080p Blu-ray discs and DVDs will be up-converted to UHD resolution for playback on 4K UHD TVs.

In addition, Ultra HD Blu-ray players will downscale Ultra HD Blu-ray discs to work on 1080p HD TVs, so if you want to get a little ahead of the curve and purchase a new player and the latest discs, even before you get a 4K UHD TV, that’s just fine.


Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/ultra-hd-blu-ray-specs-dates-and-titles/#ixzz3v98RXyh2 
Follow us: @digitalTrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/ultra-hd-blu-ray-specs-dates-and-titles/*


----------



## Stoked21

They will work with HD BD. No problems there. They'll support 1.4 as well. 

But the copy protection scheme maintains a master-slave ID list of all devices for 2.2 compliance. There's a handshake that passes tokens through the chain from source to repeater(avr) to receiver(tv or pj). This table is stored in each device. If just one device in the signal path is non 2.2, it will violate copy protection scheme and error out when attempting to play a UHD disc. Note....only with UHD. No problems elsewhere. You can plug them into non compliant devices and watch or listen to whatever you want. EXCEPT UHD. 

The UHD players nor AVRs are meant to serve as copy protection "hacking" devices to eliminate the exact protection standard they are meaning to implement. They will not down convert a UHD 2.2 signal to a 4K or 1080p 1.4 signal. That would defeat their encryption and make 2.2 null and void. 

Note. 1.4 devices cannot "speak" 2.2. A source will switch over to 1.4 for 1080p content if it sees a non 2.2 compliant device. However, it will not opt to down convert a 2.2 signal to satisfy your system and bypass copy protection that the studios fought so hard for to stop pirating and protect their IP.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> They will work with HD BD. No problems there. They'll support 1.4 as well.
> 
> But the copy protection scheme maintains a master-slave ID list of all devices for 2.2 compliance. There's a handshake that passes tokens through the chain from source to repeater(avr) to receiver(tv or pj). This table is stored in each device. If just one device in the signal path is non 2.2, it will violate copy protection scheme and error out when attempting to play a UHD disc. Note....only with UHD. No problems elsewhere. You can plug them into non compliant devices and watch or listen to whatever you want. EXCEPT UHD.
> 
> The UHD players nor AVRs are meant to serve as copy protection "hacking" devices to eliminate the exact protection standard they are meaning to implement. They will not down convert a UHD 2.2 signal to a 4K or 1080p 1.4 signal. That would defeat their encryption and make 2.2 null and void.
> 
> Note. 1.4 devices cannot "speak" 2.2. A source will switch over to 1.4 for 1080p content if it sees a non 2.2 compliant device. However, it will not opt to down convert a 2.2 signal to satisfy your system and bypass copy protection that the studios fought so hard for to stop pirating and protect their IP.


OK thanks. So, backwards compatible, will play everything but NOT UHD discs unless 2.2 integrity is maintained through the chain. So my Blurays will play just fine but there would be no point buying UHD discs unless I swap my PJ, which isn't going to happen any time soon. This will be a real bummer if Atmos starts appearing only on UHD discs going forward since there is no way I am changing my PJ for the foreseeable. I guess I will have to buy an HD Fury and hope it works.

It's a pity this information isn't more widely available. Since posting the above, I've found a couple more allegedly reliable sources which make the same claim as I posted just above.


----------



## Stoked21

So in a nutshell no Atmos, if it is only specifically offered on UHD content. Period. 

Options
1) upgrade everything. New avr. New pj or tv. 
2) use DSU only with DD+ on standard BD
3) buy an HD Fury that supposedly will have s 2.2 and down convert to 1.4. 
4) hope that the UHD offerings come in dual packs with an Atmos encoded HD BD. 

Curiously enough in #3 . They've been out for 3-4 months. No one has posted feedback. No one has verified they work. And no one has verified it maintains the Atmos metadata while doing so. I suppose this is likely due to the fact that there really isn't any content to test it on anyway as of today. We will know more next year on these converter boxes. I have heard that the studios are fighting to stop the production of said boxes and attempting to prevent their sales to consumer. 

On #4 ....look at Gravity 3D and Pixels 3D. No Atmos. But the 2D has Atmos. It is Probably likely that the studios will not opt to include Atmos on non UHD discs. much like Fox and Disney. Just like Vudu will not provide Atmos on non UHD content.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> OK thanks. So, backwards compatible, will play everything but NOT UHD discs unless 2.2 integrity is maintained through the chain. So my Blurays will play just fine but there would be no point buying UHD discs unless I swap my PJ, which isn't going to happen any time soon. This will be a real bummer if Atmos starts appearing only on UHD discs going forward since there is no way I am changing my PJ for the foreseeable. I guess I will have to buy an HD Fury and hope it works.
> 
> It's a pity this information isn't more widely available. Since posting the above, I've found a couple more allegedly reliable sources which make the same claim as I posted just above.


Most of that quote is true except for the down convert part. The important part!!!

There would be basically no reason to go to 2.2 at all if what that says is true. 

Let's face it. Pirates are going to bypass 2.2 and find a way to defeat the copy protection anyway. The only people getting screwed in this are us the consumers.


----------



## gammanuc

Stoked21 said:


> Most of that quote is true except for the down convert part. The important part!!!
> 
> There would be basically no reason to go to 2.2 at all if what that says is true.
> 
> Let's face it. Pirates are going to bypass 2.2 and find a way to defeat the copy protection anyway. The only people getting screwed in this are us the consumers.


Ironically the copy protection implemented this way will only serve to increase piracy. There will certainly be ripped versions of the UHD discs that anyone willing to download can play on their existing systems.


----------



## rckrzy1

batpig said:


> Well, you didn't tell us anything about your speaker setup, which is what deteremines what setting to use.
> 
> Since the 636 is a 7ch receiver, any Atmos setup is going to be a 5.1.2 arrangement at most. So all you should have to do is tell it what type of speaker is connected to the 6th/7th speaker channels (e.g. Front Height or Top Middle).


Mounted 20-30 degree pointed up speakers on top of my floor sp52 pioneers facing forward to bounce off of ceiling.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

I am using Klipsch RP-140SA as my side surrounds on 10' walls. I want to place these about 8' high. I understand that this is typically a no-no, but these speakers angle down when mounted to the wall. http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-premiere-dolby-atmos-series#rp-140sa So does that make it okay to have them mounted higher? By doing so, they'll actually be pointed at the MLP.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> I have a simple rule for wine these days: it is white from New Zealand and red from Australia. Never lets me down and costs waaaaaaay less than 50 bucks a bottle


Just yankin your chain!!! Agreed. Especially on wines from New Zealand like Starborough Sauvignon Blanc 2014 ($10.99) or Chile's Galan Cabernet Sauvignon 2012 ($8.99) Lots of great buys out there if you know what you're looking for. Kind of like AVR equipment.

On second thought, that Trinnov deserves a champagne like Dom Perignon White Gold Jeroboam at $40K a bottle. O.K. - maybe not that outrageous but definitely a top of the line bubbly. Still jealous.


----------



## carp

mumps said:


> First, I agree with batpig. Keep the backs.
> 
> Second, I would compare the jump to going from stereo to 5.1 - it's a new game changer.
> 
> Chris





kbarnes701 said:


> Much bigger than that. More like the jump from Stereo or Prologic to discrete 5.1.




Come on guys... no way. No way. Going from Stereo to 5.1 was such a huge leap, I don't think anything will compare to that. I challenge you guys to run some scenes from some impressive Atmos movies (Gravity, Fury Road etc.) and then run the scenes again in 7.1. I have done that at a friends house and *the difference is there for sure, but it is NO WHERE CLOSE to the difference between stereo or pro logic compared to 5.1. *

I will say that recently my friend Archaea has been playing an Atmos Star Wars game and he says it's a huge improvement from what you hear in Atmos movies or even in the Atmos demo disk. I haven't heard it yet, so maybe the Star Wars game is as big of a jump as you guys are saying - but - movies or even the Atmos demo disk is not like going from stereo to 5.1.

The Atmos demo disk is great and shows off Atmos really well, however I own that disk and in my room it's also VERY impressive played on a 7.1 system. 

For me Atmos it is a no brainer upgrade and I plan to do it myself when the price of AVR's comes down a bit and the format is more solidified with DTS X etc. However, I'm under no delusions that this will be like going from stereo to 5.1 because I know it won't be like that. In fact that's a huge reason why I am waiting for prices to come down. I know exactly what I'll be getting and paying 2 grand or more for the AVR alone does not make the difference worth it to me. If/when you can get an AVR for closer to 1000 that will get you to 7.1.4 (even if it means using external amps) then I'm in.

I feel bad for the guy that follows this thread and hasn't experienced Atmos for himself and goes by the hype that he reads here from some of you guys. In my opinion he will be disappointed when he fires up Atmos in his room for the first time and realizes that *while it is very cool and indeed an upgrade* it is not the night and day/black and white difference from 7.1 that some of you guys say it is. 

@Archaea
@Stoked21


----------



## DAK4

Stoked21 said:


> They will work with HD BD. No problems there. They'll support 1.4 as well.
> 
> But the copy protection scheme maintains a master-slave ID list of all devices for 2.2 compliance. There's a handshake that passes tokens through the chain from source to repeater(avr) to receiver(tv or pj). This table is stored in each device. If just one device in the signal path is non 2.2, it will violate copy protection scheme and error out when attempting to play a UHD disc. Note....only with UHD. No problems elsewhere. You can plug them into non compliant devices and watch or listen to whatever you want. EXCEPT UHD.
> 
> The UHD players nor AVRs are meant to serve as copy protection "hacking" devices to eliminate the exact protection standard they are meaning to implement. They will not down convert a UHD 2.2 signal to a 4K or 1080p 1.4 signal. That would defeat their encryption and make 2.2 null and void.
> 
> Note. 1.4 devices cannot "speak" 2.2. A source will switch over to 1.4 for 1080p content if it sees a non 2.2 compliant device. However, it will not opt to down convert a 2.2 signal to satisfy your system and bypass copy protection that the studios fought so hard for to stop pirating and protect their IP.


Do you know if the Onkyo models with the dumbed down version of the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 will work. I'm hoping that my Onkyo NR1030 will at least be able to except the signal from an UHD player and use any Atmos content. I know it won't be able to extract any HDR content but that's okay for now. I too though would have to use a HD Fury between the AVR and my Projector and hope the HD Fury works.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Just yankin your chain!!! Agreed. Especially on wines from New Zealand like Starborough Sauvignon Blanc 2014 ($10.99) or Chile's Galan Cabernet Sauvignon 2012 ($8.99) Lots of great buys out there if you know what you're looking for. Kind of like AVR equipment.
> 
> On second thought, that Trinnov deserves a champagne like Dom Perignon White Gold Jeroboam at $40K a bottle. O.K. - maybe not that outrageous but definitely a top of the line bubbly. Still jealous.


 I admire the Trinnov for what it can do but have no desire to own one. I am very happy with my Denon and am committed to the belief that, EQ and DSP apart, electronics have vanishingly small influences, if any, on the final sound we hear. So it boils down to features and the Trinnov feature set, while impressive, has no lure for me at this time (and probably for ever). The Denon and 7.2.4 Atmos with Dirac Live on all channels is giving me a sublime experience here.


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> Come on guys... no way. No way. Going from Stereo to 5.1 was such a huge leap, I don't think anything will compare to that. I challenge you guys to run some scenes from some impressive Atmos movies (Gravity, Fury Road etc.) and then run the scenes again in 7.1. I have done that at a friends house and *the difference is there for sure, but it is NO WHERE CLOSE to the difference between stereo or pro logic compared to 5.1. *
> 
> I will say that recently my friend Archaea has been playing an Atmos Star Wars game and he says it's a huge improvement from what you hear in Atmos movies or even in the Atmos demo disk. I haven't heard it yet, so maybe the Star Wars game is as big of a jump as you guys are saying - but - movies or even the Atmos demo disk is not like going from stereo to 5.1.
> 
> The Atmos demo disk is great and shows off Atmos really well, however I own that disk and in my room it's also VERY impressive played on a 7.1 system.
> 
> For me Atmos it is a no brainer upgrade and I plan to do it myself when the price of AVR's comes down a bit and the format is more solidified with DTS X etc. However, I'm under no delusions that this will be like going from stereo to 5.1 because I know it won't be like that. In fact that's a huge reason why I am waiting for prices to come down. I know exactly what I'll be getting and paying 2 grand or more for the AVR alone does not make the difference worth it to me. If/when you can get an AVR for closer to 1000 that will get you to 7.1.4 (even if it means using external amps) then I'm in.
> 
> I feel bad for the guy that follows this thread and hasn't experienced Atmos for himself and goes by the hype that he reads here from some of you guys. In my opinion he will be disappointed when he fires up Atmos in his room for the first time and realizes that *while it is very cool and indeed an upgrade* it is not the night and day/black and white difference from 7.1 that some of you guys say it is.
> 
> @Archaea
> @Stoked21


Maybe you haven't heard a really good Atmos setup?


----------



## sdurani

carp said:


> Going from Stereo to 5.1 was such a huge leap, I don't think anything will compare to that.


It does compare, to the extent that each "leap" added a dimension: stereo could image left to right, surround added front to back, immersive adds up and down.


----------



## AllenA07

carp said:


> Come on guys... no way. No way. Going from Stereo to 5.1 was such a huge leap, I don't think anything will compare to that. I challenge you guys to run some scenes from some impressive Atmos movies (Gravity, Fury Road etc.) and then run the scenes again in 7.1. I have done that at a friends house and *the difference is there for sure, but it is NO WHERE CLOSE to the difference between stereo or pro logic compared to 5.1. *
> 
> I will say that recently my friend Archaea has been playing an Atmos Star Wars game and he says it's a huge improvement from what you hear in Atmos movies or even in the Atmos demo disk. I haven't heard it yet, so maybe the Star Wars game is as big of a jump as you guys are saying - but - movies or even the Atmos demo disk is not like going from stereo to 5.1.
> 
> The Atmos demo disk is great and shows off Atmos really well, however I own that disk and in my room it's also VERY impressive played on a 7.1 system.
> 
> For me Atmos it is a no brainer upgrade and I plan to do it myself when the price of AVR's comes down a bit and the format is more solidified with DTS X etc. However, I'm under no delusions that this will be like going from stereo to 5.1 because I know it won't be like that. In fact that's a huge reason why I am waiting for prices to come down. I know exactly what I'll be getting and paying 2 grand or more for the AVR alone does not make the difference worth it to me. If/when you can get an AVR for closer to 1000 that will get you to 7.1.4 (even if it means using external amps) then I'm in.
> 
> I feel bad for the guy that follows this thread and hasn't experienced Atmos for himself and goes by the hype that he reads here from some of you guys. In my opinion he will be disappointed when he fires up Atmos in his room for the first time and realizes that *while it is very cool and indeed an upgrade* it is not the night and day/black and white difference from 7.1 that some of you guys say it is.
> 
> @Archaea
> @Stoked21


Honestly I have so far found it to be a pretty huge upgrade. It's different then what I expected, but it has made my room sound huge. More then simply giving you overheads it expands the sound field very significantly. I've had Atmos less then a week, but so far I'm ranking this only behind my subs and room treatments for impact of my sound


----------



## ahmedreda

So if I have a receiver that doesn't support HDCP 2.2 like the X5200W, will I be able to play UHD bluray discs and downscale them to 1080p?




kbarnes701 said:


> Will a UHD player be backwards compatible with 1080p blu-ray discs? It would be extraordinary if this were not the case, but if I am reading you correctly you are saying that if someone has a 1080p TV (without HDCP 2.2) and he buys a UHD player, it will just not work. He won't be able to play anything at all on it - not UHD discs, not his 1080p blu-rays, nothing? Am I reading you correctly?
> 
> If I am then it means I will have to delay my UHD upgrade until I change my AVR, which isn't going to be until fall 2016. And in the meantime, any new movies with Atmos/DTS:X released exclusively on UHD will be unavailable to me totally? So if the studios decide to discontinue HD Blu-ray Atmos releases in favor of UHD releases then Atmos will be denied to everyone who doesn't own a UHD player and a display with HDCP 2.2? This seems extraordinary and means that Atmos will be denied totally to the vast majority of potential buyers.
> 
> While I have no reason to prefer the following source to your own comments, a quick google revealed this counterpoint view:
> 
> *
> Will Ultra HD Blu-ray players be backward compatible?
> 
> Yes. Ultra HD-Blu-ray players will play Blu-ray discs, DVDs, SACDs, DVD-Audio, and Redbook CDs. Both standard 1080p Blu-ray discs and DVDs will be up-converted to UHD resolution for playback on 4K UHD TVs.
> 
> In addition, Ultra HD Blu-ray players will downscale Ultra HD Blu-ray discs to work on 1080p HD TVs, so if you want to get a little ahead of the curve and purchase a new player and the latest discs, even before you get a 4K UHD TV, that’s just fine.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/ultra-hd-blu-ray-specs-dates-and-titles/#ixzz3v98RXyh2
> Follow us: @digitalTrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/ultra-hd-blu-ray-specs-dates-and-titles/*


----------



## DoctorVideo

rckrzy1 said:


> Help, I have the Onkyo TX-NR636 and want to test dolby Atmos but not sure which speaker "type to select in set up , dolby , dolby surround, top, bottom etc , nothing states Atmos . And yes I upgraded the firmware to the newest.
> 
> Thanks


I have the NR737, and here's what worked for me. In speaker settings, go to "Height Speakers Type" and change from "Not Use" to "Dolby Enabled Speaker Front" if you are using up-firing modules or "Top Front" if you are using ceiling speakers. I assume that "front high" means standard front-firing speakers.

Next, play your movie, and make sure that Dolby TrueHD is lit-up on your receiver. Then hit the Listening Mode button for movies on your remote and cycle through the choices. Dolby Atmos should be one of the choices.


----------



## jpco

I'd say it's a clear upgrade, bigger than lossy to lossless and bigger than 5.1 to 7.1, but not bigger than 2.0 to 5.1. 

Since all of this is subjective, it's insulting to tell someone who's not blown away that they haven't heard a good Atmos setup.

My first Atmos movie at home was San Andreas. It took me almost the whole movie to realize that the top layer was not being used in many key scenes, demonstrating that 7.1 can be absolutely phenomenal. Upon release, the movie was lauded as a great Atmos mix. That was until people really listened to the top layer and found there wasn't much there in key scenes. Expectation bias looms large here. 

As for upmixing, I've been listening to Dolby Surround for a few months, and lately I've been listening to 5.1 and 7.1 straight at times and enjoying the clarity and precision of the native mixes. There are trade offs to any kind of upmixing as far as straying from what was intended in the mix. 

If one is into home theater and great sound, Atmos is a no-brainer. The best mixes are possible with object based mixing, and if one wants to hear them natively, Atmos (and maybe someday DTS:X) is the way to go.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

My room should be ready mid next week and I want to have a movie ready and waiting! I'm open to about anything that will look great on my OLED 3D and sound great with my Atmos setup. What do you suggest?


----------



## Spanglo

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> My room should be ready mid next week and I want to have a movie ready and waiting! I'm open to about anything that will look great on my OLED 3D and sound great with my Atmos setup. What do you suggest?


The Fifth Element
Gravity 
Mad Max: Fury Road
John Wick
Terminator Genisys
Everest
San Andreas
Enchanted Kingdom
Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Insurgent
The Age of Adaline
American Sniper
Unbroken
The Gunman
Lucy
Pixels
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Bram Stoker's Dracula


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

Spanglo said:


> The Fifth Element
> Gravity
> Mad Max: Fury Road
> John Wick
> Terminator Genisys
> Everest
> San Andreas
> Enchanted Kingdom
> Man From U.N.C.L.E.
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> Insurgent
> The Age of Adaline
> American Sniper
> Unbroken
> The Gunman
> Lucy
> Pixels
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
> Bram Stoker's Dracula


Thank you. To be clear, those titles all have 3D and Atmos on the same disc, correct?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

^^ Not every version...


----------



## Spanglo

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Thank you. To be clear, those titles all have 3D and Atmos on the same disc, correct?


No, I glanced over the 3D part, sorry.

For 3D:
Gravity (with a bit of work)
Pixels
Enchanted Kingdom
Insurgent
San Andreas
TMNT
Transformers


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

Spanglo said:


> No, I glanced over the 3D part, sorry.
> 
> For 3D:
> Gravity (with a bit of work)
> Pixels
> Enchanted Kingdom
> Insurgent
> San Andreas
> TMNT
> Transformers


Thanks again!


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> Honestly I have so far found it to be a pretty huge upgrade. It's different then what I expected, but it has made my room sound huge. More then simply giving you overheads it expands the sound field very significantly. I've had Atmos less then a week, but so far I'm ranking this only behind my subs and room treatments for impact of my sound


My experience also. And I've had Atmos since the first day the AVRs were available in the UK. I still thrill to the hugely immersive soundscape you describe every time I play an Atmos movie or use DSU to upmix the rest of my collection. Once heard, there is no going back to 7.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmedreda said:


> So if I have a receiver that doesn't support HDCP 2.2 like the X5200W, will I be able to play UHD bluray discs and downscale them to 1080p?


Apparently not. Your UHD player will play HD Blu-rays no matter what, but it will only play UHD discs if you have HDCP 2.2 all through the chain - ie player, AVR and display. Sucks doesn't it?


----------



## kbarnes701

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Thank you. To be clear, those titles all have 3D and Atmos on the same disc, correct?


No they don't. A very good 3D demo with Atmos is the documentary Enchanted Kingdom. If you like nature documentaries, then you will enjoy the content - but as an Atmos/3D demo it is fabulous. They really make good use of both technologies.

Sorry, I can't tell you which of that list is also in 3D as 3D isn’t really my thing, but maybe the OP can.


----------



## metalsaber

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> My room should be ready mid next week and I want to have a movie ready and waiting! I'm open to about anything that will look great on my OLED 3D and sound great with my Atmos setup. What do you suggest?


Which OLED?

I have the LG 65EF9500. I have to say 3D and Atmos, then it's Mad Max. Sound and Visually it's amazing.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

metalsaber said:


> Which OLED?
> 
> I have the LG 65EF9500. I have to say 3D and Atmos, then it's Mad Max. Sound and Visually it's amazing.


65EG9600. I'll order Mad Max and Enchanted Kingdom as well. Thanks, all!


----------



## ahmedreda

It sure does especially the display part.. I was not planning to upgrade my projector until the 4k Projectors become more affordable (~$3k). Let's hope they keep making the Atmos tracks available on regular BDs.



kbarnes701 said:


> Apparently not. Your UHD player will play HD Blu-rays no matter what, but it will only play UHD discs if you have HDCP 2.2 all through the chain - ie player, AVR and display. Sucks doesn't it?


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> Apparently not. Your UHD player will play HD Blu-rays no matter what, but it will only play UHD discs if you have HDCP 2.2 all through the chain - ie player, AVR and display. Sucks doesn't it?


Keith... Have you seen that confirmed. 

I think only the 4k handshake will not work.... The players should be able to play the UHD titles @ 1080p AFAIK. 

Hate to rub it in however, but I won't have that issue


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe you haven't heard a really good Atmos setup?


Well for starters. One of the systems @carp is referring to is mine!!!! I know he's making an Atmos comment in general and not judging systems, so no harm no foul.

Having said that, I'm sure he'll acknowledge that my system images beautiful between bed and height, top front to top rear, top lefts to top rights, with lots of in room object imaging. So let's not turn the comment into a criticism of my setup, as I can tell you that my Atmos setup is impeccable and extremely well done. 

I believe it is an improvement that is as extreme as stereo to 5.1. This for the exact reason that @sdurani mentioned...It finally brings the height element into the mix which is an area that has been sorely missing. On the other hand, there is limited content and limited mixing that can be added to the tops (without sounding awkward or using Atmos just for sake of overdoing it). So with today's material usage, given a handful of exceptions, it doesn't show to it's absolute best capabilities. After all, everyone references the same 4-5 movies as the Atmos benchmarks while there are over 30 of them out there! That just demonstrates that it's not utilized to it's best capabilities today.

I personally still marvel every time I hear a well done Atmos disc. When watching one of my 23 or so disc, the Atmos content always jumps out at me and is very obvious (even in the lesser mixes). I can't speak for @carp listening tests, but if you listen to the same system and same clip with and without Atmos, the difference becomes astonishing. If you watch a complete movie in Atmos it becomes ground breaking. Listening to a few of the best clips only gives you a sense of what Atmos can accomplish. It doesn't necessarily immerse you into the entire movie experience showing a practical application from beginning to end. So I for one do believe it is equivalent to a switch from stereo to 5.1, but I've also watched about 30 different movies with it.

The demos leaves you saying, well yeah a bird flew above the room. Yeah, the rain fell from the ceiling in the room. Yeah the thunder clap was dead center in the room or the conductor girl was swinging through the room and the bugs are flying in the room......Again, not a practical application other than a highlight reel. But does that really translate to a major difference to everyone? Not necessarily. And everyone has to also weigh the level of effort and cost vs the potential gain....


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmedreda said:


> It sure does especially the display part.. I was not planning to upgrade my projector until the 4k Projectors become more affordable (~$3k). Let's hope they keep making the Atmos tracks available on regular BDs.


My hope too, for the same reasons as you. I am happy with 1080p in my room, at my seating distance in terms of resolution, and I can wait for the benefits of WCG and HDR. But I do want to continue to expand my Atmos collection. Maybe, just maybe, they will package an Atmos 1080p Blu-ray with the UHD disc, much as they package a DVD with a Blu-ray now quite commonly. Then again, maybe they won't. 

Chances are I will have HDCP 2.2 on my AVR by the time this becomes an issue, but there is no way it will be on my PJ for some considerable time.

If it becomes an issue for me I will buy my UHD player, buy the discs and also buy the FuryHD Integral which should make me good to go. Although TBH I resent having to spend an additional $200.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Keith... Have you seen that confirmed.
> 
> I think only the 4k handshake will not work.... The players should be able to play the UHD titles @ 1080p AFAIK.


This was also my understanding, but Stoked21 knows his onions, as we Limeys say and he has convinced me otherwise. What he says makes sense - if we could play UHD titles even without HDCP 2.2, then what is the point of HDCP 2.2? Of course I hope you are right, and the first thing I will be doing when UHD players are available is getting my dealer to set one up with a 1080p, non-2.2 display and seeing what happens. A UHD player is an upgrade I really want to make - but for the Atmos/DTS:X titles not the image aspects.



FilmMixer said:


> Hate to rub it in however, but I won't have that issue


You know how to wound, Marc


----------



## Scarriere

Stoked21 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters. One of the systems @carp is referring to is mine!!!! I know he's making an Atmos comment in general and not judging systems, so no harm no foul.
> 
> Having said that, I'm sure he'll acknowledge that my system images beautiful between bed and height, top front to top rear, top lefts to top rights, with lots of in room object imaging. So let's not turn the comment into a criticism of my setup, as I can tell you that my Atmos setup is impeccable and extremely well done.
> 
> I believe it is an improvement that is as extreme as stereo to 5.1. This for the exact reason that @sdurani mentioned...It finally brings the height element into the mix which is an area that has been sorely missing. On the other hand, there is limited content and limited mixing that can be added to the tops (without sounding awkward or using Atmos just for sake of overdoing it). So with today's material usage, given a handful of exceptions, it doesn't show to it's absolute best capabilities. After all, everyone references the same 4-5 movies as the Atmos benchmarks while there are over 30 of them out there! That just demonstrates that it's not utilized to it's best capabilities today.
> 
> I personally still marvel every time I hear a well done Atmos disc. When watching one of my 23 or so disc, the Atmos content always jumps out at me and is very obvious (even in the lesser mixes). I can't speak for @carp listening tests, but if you listen to the same system and same clip with and without Atmos, the difference becomes astonishing. If you watch a complete movie in Atmos it becomes ground breaking. Listening to a few of the best clips only gives you a sense of what Atmos can accomplish. It doesn't necessarily immerse you into the entire movie experience showing a practical application from beginning to end. So I for one do believe it is equivalent to a switch from stereo to 5.1, but I've also watched about 30 different movies with it.
> 
> The demos leaves you saying, well yeah a bird flew above the room. Yeah, the rain fell from the ceiling in the room. Yeah the thunder clap was dead center in the room or the conductor girl was swinging through the room and the bugs are flying in the room......Again, not a practical application other than a highlight reel. But does that really translate to a major difference to everyone? Not necessarily. And everyone has to also weigh the level of effort and cost vs the potential gain....


Nicely said!


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Keith... Have you seen that confirmed.
> 
> I think only the 4k handshake will not work.... The players should be able to play the UHD titles @ 1080p AFAIK.
> 
> *Hate to rub it in however, but I won't have that issue*


Yeah but.... your screen is curved.


----------



## Stoked21

Convenient timing, but I'm finishing up an Atmos movie no one was excited to buy.....Pan in 3D with Atmos.

From the get-go, the Atmos was great!!!! It's the first movie I'm watching beginning to end in 3D at 130"w. The 3D is mind boggling with images popping off the screen instead of just added depth. No Avatar but it's extreme 3D. Visually really done as well and the acting isn't as bad as many of the Atmos releases (San Andreas, Jupiter Ascending, etc). The bass is actually kicking quite a bit, though no Terminator or MM.

Anyway, the opening scenes have some great Atmos and the majority of the movie has the orchestral score located in the tops. Average Atmos effects throughout the rest of the movie, but honestly it's probably one of the better done Atmos movies IMO.....


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Well for starters. One of the systems @carp is referring to is mine!!!! I know he's making an Atmos comment in general and not judging systems, so no harm no foul.


Well, in that case, that argument of mine is dead and buried 



Stoked21 said:


> Having said that, I'm sure he'll acknowledge that my system images beautiful between bed and height, top front to top rear, top lefts to top rights, with lots of in room object imaging. So let's not turn the comment into a criticism of my setup, as I can tell you that my Atmos setup is impeccable and extremely well done.


I have no doubt at all that this is the case. 



Stoked21 said:


> I believe it is an improvement that is as extreme as stereo to 5.1. This for the exact reason that @sdurani mentioned...It finally brings the height element into the mix which is an area that has been sorely missing.


We are on the same page. I said I too believe it is the most significant improvement since stereo to 5.1 - but carp was saying "no way man it can't be". This is why I wondered if he had just heard Atmos on a crappy dealer demo or something. Now I know he has heard Atmos on a good system, I am mystified as to why he doesn’t share my (and your) view about it.



Stoked21 said:


> On the other hand, there is limited content and limited mixing that can be added to the tops (without sounding awkward or using Atmos just for sake of overdoing it). So with today's material usage, given a handful of exceptions, it doesn't show to it's absolute best capabilities. After all, everyone references the same 4-5 movies as the Atmos benchmarks while there are over 30 of them out there! That just demonstrates that it's not utilized to it's best capabilities today.


Agreed. But it's still early days and I expect things will change as we go forward.



Stoked21 said:


> I personally still marvel every time I hear a well done Atmos disc. When watching one of my 23 or so disc, the Atmos content always jumps out at me and is very obvious (even in the lesser mixes). I can't speak for @carp listening tests, but if you listen to the same system and same clip with and without Atmos, the difference becomes astonishing. If you watch a complete movie in Atmos it becomes ground breaking.


My experience here too. Exactly.



Stoked21 said:


> Listening to a few of the best clips only gives you a sense of what Atmos can accomplish. It doesn't necessarily immerse you into the entire movie experience showing a practical application from beginning to end. So I for one do believe it is equivalent to a switch from stereo to 5.1, but I've also watched about 30 different movies with it.


Same here. I have 27 Atmos Blu-rays and have watched some of those movies multiple times.



Stoked21 said:


> The demos leaves you saying, well yeah a bird flew above the room. Yeah, the rain fell from the ceiling in the room. Yeah the thunder clap was dead center in the room or the conductor girl was swinging through the room and the bugs are flying in the room......Again, not a practical application other than a highlight reel. But does that really translate to a major difference to everyone? Not necessarily. And everyone has to also weigh the level of effort and cost vs the potential gain....


Again, agreed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah but.... your screen is curved.


He has a 15 foot wide curved projection screen? R.E.S.P.E.C.T.  (You surely don't mean one of those little TV things with a curved screen do you? I mean, surely not?) LOL.


----------



## darklord700

batpig said:


> Why give up the back surrounds? If you've already got a 7.1 base layer you should keep it and add overheads. Atmos mixes are very aggressive in surround panning.





mumps said:


> First, I agree with batpig. Keep the backs.


The 11 channel receivers are very expensive so I am thinking of doing 9 channels. I have an Emotiva XPA 7 so I'll need pre outs which the cheapest one has right now is the Denon 4200 (1800 CAD).

So my decision is to either do 7.1.2 or 5.1.4. Frankly the back surrounds never did much for me in my current 7.1 setup so that's why I am leaning towards 5.1.4. Does it make sense?

I have a small narrow room of 11 ft X 18 ft X 8 ft (height) and my 7.1 never made my room sound large to me which is what I hope Atmos will do for me.

The biggest decision for me is to see if Dolby will reserve the Atmos for only UHD. If that's the case, there's no point in upgrading until I make the gigantic jump to 4K altogether. But if Atmos has appeared in BR right now, I don't see why Dolby will do Atmos for only UHD.


----------



## Stoked21

FilmMixer said:


> Keith... Have you seen that confirmed.
> 
> I think only the 4k handshake will not work.... The players should be able to play the UHD titles @ 1080p AFAIK.
> 
> Hate to rub it in however, but I won't have that issue


With 2.2 content the handshakes must take place.... Accomplished via 128-bit key exchanges and even random locality checks. UHD disc will not play and you will get an error per spec (yeah, I've read all 100 pages of it...will put you to sleep! ). It is based on an I2C protocol that I've always coded for with embedded DSP and MCU design. Bottom line, a 1.4a device cannot communicate with a 2.2 device. No upward compatibility. At any point if the heartbeats (mclk signals) disappear, then your video and audio both will cease. If any device doesn't speak 2.2, it cannot exchange the necessary session keys nor can it pass locality checks. It's essentially a signaling control protocol that's independent of all data. There is a concession for a 1.4 to 2.2 converter and vice versa. To date, no consumer product is supposedly using it though----by design.

This is also the sole reason a device like the HD Fury even has any marketability. And the reason they moved to the new spec, in order to eliminate older ripping setups and beef up the protection. 

As a side note, I did see a leaked spec about 6-12 months ago of a UHD BD player that had dual HDMI outputs (a 1.4 and a 2.2)....I'm not sure if it was specifically to bypass copy protection or if it will ever be produced. It appears that it was just a testing prototype. 

Lastly, keep in mind that this has recently been verified in the consumer world by a few Roku 4 owners as well....They cannot stream UHD content from Vudu just for the Atmos content. Even if the Roku is set for 1080p, the content will not pass HDCP.


----------



## mumps

darklord700 said:


> The 11 channel receivers are very expensive so I am thinking of doing 9 channels. I have an Emotiva XPA 7 so I'll need pre outs which the cheapest one has right now is the Denon 4200 (1800 CAD).
> 
> So my decision is to either do 7.1.2 or 5.1.4. Frankly the back surrounds never did much for me in my current 7.1 setup so that's why I am leaning towards 5.1.4. Does it make sense?
> 
> I have a small narrow room of 11 ft X 18 ft X 8 ft (height) and my 7.1 never made my room sound large to me which is what I hope Atmos will do for me.
> 
> The biggest decision for me is to see if Dolby will reserve the Atmos for only UHD. If that's the case, there's no point in upgrading until I make the gigantic jump to 4K altogether. But if Atmos has appeared in BR right now, I don't see why Dolby will do Atmos for only UHD.


The decision to use Atmos for BD or UHD is up to the studios (Disney, Fox, Warner Bros., etc.) not Dolby. I understand some are using it now and some are waiting for UHD. Pity.

I feel the backs are an integral part of the Atmos experience; though admittedly I have not heard Atmos without the backs in use.

You could also add a small 2 channel amp to run the back channels and have a 7.1.4 - something I'm considering as well (I have the X6200W).

Chris


----------



## carp

Guys, I agree that Atmos is great! Skoked21's room and Archaea's room are the two Atmos setups I have heard and both are incredible!! Both are running 7.1.4 btw. 

As I posted, I am going to upgrade to Atmos as soon as it becomes a bit more affordable. So far the difference isn't enough to make me buy 4 new speakers and a new AVR. 

I think you guys are underrating how great a 7.1 (or even 5.1) system can be. 

The best HT I have been in is not an Atmos setup, it's a 7.1 (2 sets of side surrounds, so 6 surround speakers total). The room I'm talking about is dlbeck's Savoy in Des Moines Iowa. I know a lot of it has to do with the way the room is treated and the fact that David used JRiver which has Audiolense room correction which is similar to Dirac from what I understand. 

Here is a link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...-construction/1498786-savoy.html#post23929564

The second best room I've been in is also a 7.1 room, Craig John's room.

To me that speaks volumes for how great 7.1 can be. Now.... if/when those two rooms upgrade to Atmos will it be even better? Absolutely!!! 

I'll say it again, from my experience Atmos is awesome. I want it for my room. However... to compare it to the GIANT leap forward that we experienced back in the 90's going from pro logic to 5.1 is not accurate IMO. 

I think you guys are forgetting how good a 5.1/7.1 system can be. I'm telling you... try this if you are curious enough:

*Play a great Atmos scene in 3 ways back to back to back.

1. Play it in 2 channel.
2. Play it in 7.1.
3. Play it in Atmos. *

I stand by my previous statements.  

Now... Jonathan (Archaea) may come along and say that this Star Wars video game is that much of a game changer but I haven't heard that yet, I can only go on what I've heard (several great Atmos movies and the Atmos demo disk).


----------



## darklord700

mumps said:


> You could also add a small 2 channel amp to run the back channels and have a 7.1.4 - something I'm considering as well (I have the X6200W).
> Chris


I just realized that the some amps have more pre-outs than binding posts. Your 6200 has 13 pre-outs and only 11 binding posts. 

The X4200W has 13 pre-outs and only 9 binding posts. Since I have an Emtiva XPA 7 power amp, my problem is solved and I can got full banana 7.1.4 with two pairs of upfiring heights. Thanks Chris.


----------



## carp

Stoked21 said:


> Well for starters. One of the systems @carp is referring to is mine!!!! I know he's making an Atmos comment in general and not judging systems, so no harm no foul.
> 
> Having said that, I'm sure he'll acknowledge that my system images beautiful between bed and height, top front to top rear, top lefts to top rights, with lots of in room object imaging. So let's not turn the comment into a criticism of my setup, as I can tell you that my Atmos setup is impeccable and extremely well done.



Hey man, I'm sure you know I meant no offense - I don't have to tell you that the sound in your room is amazing!!! Now that you have the new speakers/subs it's even that much better. Love it!!!!


----------



## jdsmoothie

darklord700 said:


> I just realized that the some amps have more pre-outs than binding posts. Your 6200 has 13 pre-outs and only 11 binding posts.
> 
> The X4200W has 13 pre-outs and only 9 binding posts. Since I have an Emtiva XPA 7 power amp, my problem is solved and* I can got full banana 7.1.4 with two pairs of upfiring heights.* Thanks Chris.


With the X6200W or X7200WA, yes, but not with the X4200W which can only process a maximum of 9CH at one time.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, in that case, that argument of mine is dead and buried


Well who knows, maybe my Atmos sucks!  I am a little biased! 

All jokes aside, several AVSers have heard my Atmos and all were extremely impressed and complimentary including my buddy @carp who has heard it several times.

One thing I can say though, is carp has AMAZING LCR and subs. Gorgeous sounding JTR 215s (dual 15s) that are almost as tall as me and I'm over 6'. Matched with quad 18s on each side, and 18" NF. His surrounds are volt 8s and are actually really stunning as well. I guess I expected less of the DIY speaker pair, but they truly are nice sounding surrounds. (Sorry for sharing your setup!!!!) My point being with his LCR and his surrounds, he has a LOT of height in his room without Atmos. I was pretty blown away by how tall his sound stage is. Obviously not as much height as having direct radiators above your head (and no object imaging), but an awesome sounding setup like his does diminish the impressiveness of Atmos to an extent. 

I guess shame on me really.  Next time he pops by, I'll throw on some clips with the tops powered down. Turn the amps back on and repeat for an A/B comparison. I imagine that's a demo that most of us normally never think to run, as most of us with Atmos have already decided that it's superior.

I know it's not a practical question. But if you had to choose between a 2.1.4 or 5.1 setup which would you pick? Look at it in that light and he's kind of right. I would pick 5.1 in a heart beat which does say that moving from stereo to 5.1 is more significant than moving to Atmos.....


----------



## Stoked21

carp said:


> Hey man, I'm sure you know I meant no offense - I don't have to tell you that the sound in your room is amazing!!! Now that you have the new speakers/subs it's even that much better. Love it!!!!


None taken!!! I know you love it! Just like I drool over the subs and LCR in your HT!! We all have different priorities and preferences and they're all great! If I could marry my Atmos with your bass and LCR.....Oh man.....That would be something to hear!!!!

I do agree that if I had to choose between 7.1 or 3.1.4, I'd go with the 7.1 instantly. To me, that does add a lot of credibility to your statement that Atmos isn't as big of a leap, despite being a massive jump nonetheless.


----------



## carp

Stoked21 said:


> Well who knows, maybe my Atmos sucks!  I am a little biased!
> 
> All jokes aside, several AVSers have heard my Atmos and all were extremely impressed and complimentary including my buddy @carp who has heard it several times.
> 
> One thing I can say though, is carp has AMAZING LCR and subs. Gorgeous sounding JTR 215s (dual 15s) that are almost as tall as me and I'm over 6'. Matched with quad 18s on each side, and 18" NF. His surrounds are volt 8s and are actually really stunning as well. I guess I expected less of the DIY speaker pair, but they truly are nice sounding surrounds. (Sorry for sharing your setup!!!!) My point being with his LCR and his surrounds, he has a LOT of height in his room without Atmos. I was pretty blown away by how tall his sound stage is. Obviously not as much height as having direct radiators above your head (and no object imaging), but an awesome sounding setup like his does diminish the impressiveness of Atmos to an extent.
> 
> I guess shame on me really.  Next time he pops by, I'll throw on some clips with the tops powered down. Turn the amps back on and repeat for an A/B comparison. I imagine that's a demo that most of us normally never think to run, as most of us with Atmos have already decided that it's superior.
> 
> I know it's not a practical question. But if you had to choose between a 2.1.4 or 5.1 setup which would you pick? Look at it in that light and he's kind of right. I would pick 5.1 in a heart beat which does say that moving from stereo to 5.1 is more significant than moving to Atmos.....


Thanks for the compliments! After hearing your room and Jonathan's I'd trade mine for either of yours when it comes to movies!!  Ha, well... I'd still want all my subs! 

For 2 channel (haha, ironically) music I don't know if I'd trade with any room I've heard.... maybe Craig John's. That's not to say my 2 channel setup is all that, it's just what I'm used to and it does it for me. 2 channel music is such a personal preference thing IMO. For example I bet most people don't prefer their mains further apart than they are from the listening position. For me it's a must. 

Back to your setup. Yes we should try that sometime!! I'll gladly eat crow if the difference between 7.1 and Atmos is as great as 2 channel to 7.1!!! Ha, might motivate me to find a way to upgrade a little sooner... hmmm on second thought maybe this isn't such a good idea.  

We ran Atmos scenes in Archaea's room back to back with 7.1 and the difference was there for sure - but not as massive as some might think IMO!!


----------



## darklord700

jdsmoothie said:


> With the X6200W or X7200WA, yes, but not with the X4200W which can only process a maximum of 9CH at one time.


Ahh. What's the cheapest receiver on the market that could do 11CH processing? I already have the XPA 7 so don't want to spend a ton on a receiver to do mainly the decoding? Thanks.


----------



## zimmo

only onkyo tx-nr3030(2014) have 11 trues chanels discrets but the new onkyo from next summer (2016)the model rz-1000 and rz-3000 


suppose replace tx-nr1030 and tx-nr3030 ,have new power calibration system and this avr(rz-1000and rz-3000) now is comming whit 


class D not whit AB. 


Idont know the price ,new information comming éventually.


----------



## carp

Maybe I'm too nostalgic.... I so clearly remember when I fired up a dvd for the first time. I had a pro logic setup (LRC and 2 surrounds) in the 90's and even though I used the system mostly for 2 channel music I did enjoy having the cable tv hooked up to the receiver along with watching the occasional VCR movie in pro logic. 

When I put in the dvd movie Heat for the first time and heard 5.1 I was FLOOOOOORED. From that day on home theater has been a huge hobby for me but nothing (not even getting massive subs) has had as big of an impact on me as hearing 5.1 for the first time. 

So.. some of this could just be me.


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> Maybe I'm too nostalgic.... I so clearly remember when I fired up a dvd for the first time. I had a pro logic setup (LRC and 2 surrounds) in the 90's and even though I used the system mostly for 2 channel music I did enjoy having the cable tv hooked up to the receiver along with watching the occasional VCR movie in pro logic.
> 
> When I put in the dvd movie Heat for the first time and heard 5.1 I was FLOOOOOORED. From that day on home theater has been a huge hobby for me but nothing (not even getting massive subs) has had as big of an impact on me as hearing 5.1 for the first time.
> 
> So.. some of this could just be me.


And I apologise for any implications in my remark that maybe you hadn't heard a good Atmos setup. Clearly you have. I was thinking that maybe you'd only heard it in a dealer demo and these are often fairly poorly set up. So, my bad. I personally still think it is the biggest step up since 2.0 > 5.1 but it's only a personal opinion. Like you, I too was floored (no pun intended) when I first heard 5.1. I can remember it to this day - it was at a buddy's house and I just had no idea until then that we could achieve that sort of surround immersion at home. But also, when I heard my first Atmos demo (which was at Dolby's London HQ, so no setup issues obviously) I was similarly blown away. Anyway, regardless of how much of a step-up it is, I think we are agreed that it is the cat's whiskers.


----------



## thebland

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe you haven't heard a really good Atmos setup?


Nor you an *Auro* set up??


----------



## Stoked21

carp said:


> Thanks for the compliments! After hearing your room and Jonathan's I'd trade mine for either of yours when it comes to movies!!  Ha, well... I'd still want all my subs!
> 
> For 2 channel (haha, ironically) music I don't know if I'd trade with any room I've heard.... maybe Craig John's. That's not to say my 2 channel setup is all that, it's just what I'm used to and it does it for me. 2 channel music is such a personal preference thing IMO. For example I bet most people don't prefer their mains further apart than they are from the listening position. For me it's a must.
> 
> Back to your setup. Yes we should try that sometime!! I'll gladly eat crow if the difference between 7.1 and Atmos is as great as 2 channel to 7.1!!! Ha, might motivate me to find a way to upgrade a little sooner... hmmm on second thought maybe this isn't such a good idea.
> 
> We ran Atmos scenes in Archaea's room back to back with 7.1 and the difference was there for sure - but not as massive as some might think IMO!!



Ok....I'll preface this one! . I didn't start the comment! But the debate from the OP I believe was that it was "as big" as stereo to 5.1. I could take a stance either way, as I love Atmos but it is a stretch to say it's just as big as 5.1. "As big" implies to me that it's the biggest thing since 5.1, which is true!  
Semantics...It's as big....or It's AS BIG!!! HA HA I'll go with the former.

So I've obviously been playing with the new LCR setup non-stop since yesterday. My original speaker setup was all low-cost DT with a Klipsch sub.....Then some nice Monitor Audio LCR with Klipsch....Followed by swapping the sub for JTR (which was THE biggest improvement in my room IMO, even over Atmos). And next by swapping all surrounds for JTR. In all iterations, I've flipped between TrueHD and Atmos on many tracks and watched over and over and heard a SUBSTANTIAL difference every time. Now I've come to rest on a completely matched JTR bed with mated subs. 

So, I just went and swapped between True and Atmos on all the Atmos demos numerous times. Even pressing the button to switch modes countless times with my eyes closed (blind test). Every single time I can easily tell whether it stopped on Atmos or True. Amaze, Leaf, Conductor, Unfold. The extended height does jump out. But to @carp 's point......It really is less significant than it use to be. I think this goes to show what nice speakers, completely matched, will do for a room. Especially vs the DT speakers that I despised....I have been in rooms where there is almost no height whatsoever when running these demo clips, so clearly speaker quality dependent.

After those four demos I hit the Enrique demo....It was world's apart in Atmos vs True. So maybe the CG Atmos demos are the least preferable demos for the technology. I think it also reinforces one of my earlier comments that in a movie setting, Atmos seems to provide a much bigger benefit than just running the short demo clips. I venture to guess that if I were to run an Atmos movie in Atmos vs True setting, that it would be as significant as the Enrique demo....YMMV


----------



## SoundChex

_Only for the brave,,,_

Lots of useful and|or bewildering info about *Dolby AC-4*--and inferentially some about *Dolbv Atmos*--in the *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*) . . . including in *Table A.27 Speaker layouts and speaker indices* and several following tables.


_


----------



## DaGamePimp

darklord700 said:


> Ahh. What's the cheapest receiver on the market that could do 11CH processing? I already have the XPA 7 so don't want to spend a ton on a receiver to do mainly the decoding? Thanks.


There have been some insane deals on the Denon X5200 recently and it can process 11 channel (with additional amp), it can do 11.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.2.


- Jason


----------



## carp

kbarnes701 said:


> And I apologise for any implications in my remark that maybe you hadn't heard a good Atmos setup. Clearly you have. I was thinking that maybe you'd only heard it in a dealer demo and these are often fairly poorly set up. So, my bad. I personally still think it is the biggest step up since 2.0 > 5.1 but it's only a personal opinion. Like you, I too was floored (no pun intended) when I first heard 5.1. I can remember it to this day - it was at a buddy's house and I just had no idea until then that we could achieve that sort of surround immersion at home. But also, when I heard my first Atmos demo (which was at Dolby's London HQ, so no setup issues obviously) I was similarly blown away. Anyway, regardless of how much of a step-up it is, I think we are agreed that it is the cat's whiskers.


No worries Keith.  I didn't take any offense.


----------



## Selden Ball

darklord700 said:


> Ahh. What's the cheapest receiver on the market that could do 11CH processing? I already have the XPA 7 so don't want to spend a ton on a receiver to do mainly the decoding? Thanks.





DaGamePimp said:


> There have been some insane deals on the Denon X5200 recently and it can process 11 channel (with additional amp), it can do 11.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.2.
> 
> 
> - Jason


The X5200w is a 2014 model, so it also supports the use of Dolby Surround upmixing on all types of soundtracks, not just on Dolby soundtracks. Unfortunately, although it does have high-speed HDMI v2.0, it doesn't have HDCP v2.2, so it won't be usable with 4K BDPs or 4K copy-protected streaming.

You have to decide if that tradeoff is one you can live with for a while.


----------



## carp

Stoked21 said:


> Ok....I'll preface this one! . I didn't start the comment! But the debate from the OP I believe was that it was "as big" as stereo to 5.1. I could take a stance either way, as I love Atmos but it is a stretch to say it's just as big as 5.1. "As big" implies to me that it's the biggest thing since 5.1, which is true!
> Semantics...It's as big....or It's AS BIG!!! HA HA I'll go with the former.
> 
> So I've obviously been playing with the new LCR setup non-stop since yesterday. My original speaker setup was all low-cost DT with a Klipsch sub.....Then some nice Monitor Audio LCR with Klipsch....Followed by swapping the sub for JTR (which was THE biggest improvement in my room IMO, even over Atmos). And next by swapping all surrounds for JTR. In all iterations, I've flipped between TrueHD and Atmos on many tracks and watched over and over and heard a SUBSTANTIAL difference every time. Now I've come to rest on a completely matched JTR bed with mated subs.
> 
> So, I just went and swapped between True and Atmos on all the Atmos demos numerous times. Even pressing the button to switch modes countless times with my eyes closed (blind test). Every single time I can easily tell whether it stopped on Atmos or True. Amaze, Leaf, Conductor, Unfold. The extended height does jump out. But to @carp 's point......It really is less significant than it use to be. I think this goes to show what nice speakers, completely matched, will do for a room. Especially vs the DT speakers that I despised....I have been in rooms where there is almost no height whatsoever when running these demo clips, so clearly speaker quality dependent.
> 
> After those four demos I hit the Enrique demo....It was world's apart in Atmos vs True. So maybe the CG Atmos demos are the least preferable demos for the technology. I think it also reinforces one of my earlier comments that in a movie setting, Atmos seems to provide a much bigger benefit than just running the short demo clips. I venture to guess that if I were to run an Atmos movie in Atmos vs True setting, that it would be as significant as the Enrique demo....YMMV



The Enrique clip was very different in Atmos for sure. All the clips are better obviously, but the voices in the different speakers jumped out at me with Atmos. That's the first time I have heard that clip in Atmos.

Did you try any clips in 2.0 to compare?


----------



## DaGamePimp

Selden Ball said:


> The X5200w is a 2014 model, so it also supports the use of Dolby Surround upmixing on all types of soundtracks, not just on Dolby soundtracks. Unfortunately, although it does have high-speed HDMI v2.0, it doesn't have HDCP v2.2, so it won't be usable with 4K BDPs or 4K copy-protected streaming.
> 
> You have to decide if that tradeoff is one you can live with for a while.



Can always add an HDfury Integral. 

- Jason


----------



## petetherock

I have used 3 Atmos equipped amps, and I am using a full 11 channel setup with 2 subs, with the Atmos Top Front and Rear in the right positions.
I like the new setup, but I won't try to pretend it was as dramatic as the moment I stepped into a Yamaha demo store years ago to hear the DSP 1 playing Lion King on LD...

It's great, and a nice addition, but it's more like a good mustard, adding some tang and flavor, rather than a fundamental change... again YMMV. Cheers


----------



## darklord700

Selden Ball said:


> The X5200w is a 2014 model, so it also supports the use of Dolby Surround upmixing on all types of soundtracks, not just on Dolby soundtracks. Unfortunately, although it does have high-speed HDMI v2.0, it doesn't have HDCP v2.2, so it won't be usable with 4K BDPs or 4K copy-protected streaming.
> 
> You have to decide if that tradeoff is one you can live with for a while.


Thanks for letting me know. I assumed that since the X4200W supports HDCP 2.2, then the X5200W must do the same.

Personally, the reason I will even look into Atmos is because my Denon 2808ci is long overdue for an upgrade. HDCP 2.2 4K support is as good as any reason to get a new receiver. Then adding 2 or 4 more speakers to get Atmos for not much is a no brainer.

There's no reason to buy an Atmos receiver with no HDCP 2.2 support at this point.


----------



## radamo

Stoked21 said:


> Nope. About 6 months ago I posted in this thread a more technical synopsis warning people are going to lose Atmos when its primary delivery is going to become streamed or disc UHD. There's a handshake of sorts through the entire chain. I won't repeat the details. But simply put even if one device is not 2.2, then you will get a screen of death with no audio or video.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the reason I upgraded from my Yamaha to the marantz so quickly. I saw I was going to lose Atmos content when Fox and Disney and Vudu would only put Atmos in UHD.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone claims a $200-500 converter box may fix this....but no one says it works! Further more I'm sure they'll try to stop the sale of said devices.



If true, this will really have me bummed. If the studios are not going to include atmos on non-uhd versions there will be many people who don't get to benefit from the new tech. That would be a typical short sighted move. The streaming companies not including it is absurd, I truly hope that does not happen. I don't want a 4K set but I do want to be able to enjoy atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^^

There's no guarantee that fox and Disney won't do double disc packs with UHD and HD. Like we get BD with DVD today. I don't think anyone outside the studio circles can definitively say how the discs will be marketed and sold. Same goes with the other studios though they are at least releasing Atmos on HD BD today. 

So don't go cursing yet until discs are actually being sold and the direction is clear.


----------



## dvdwilly3

darklord700 said:


> Ahh. What's the cheapest receiver on the market that could do 11CH processing? I already have the XPA 7 so don't want to spend a ton on a receiver to do mainly the decoding? Thanks.


The Onkyo TX-NR 1030 will also do 11 channel processing.

You do have to use one of the sets of pre outs with an external amp, but it will decode 11 channels. And, it does an excellent job of it.

I think that the price has dropped recently.


----------



## johnsmith808

AllenA07 said:


> Honestly I have so far found it to be a pretty huge upgrade. It's different then what I expected, but it has made my room sound huge. More then simply giving you overheads it expands the sound field very significantly. I've had Atmos less then a week, but so far I'm ranking this only behind my subs and room treatments for impact of my sound


So maybe that's why I wasn't too impressed with Atmos at the theater. Since the theater is huge, I already expect that of a theater. But if my little living room theater could sound "huge" with Atmos, now that's something to get excited over.


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> The *Onkyo TX-NR1030* will also do *11 channel processing (Atmos 7.1.4)*. ...HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2
> You do have to use one of the sets of pre outs with an external amp, but it will decode all 11 channels. And, it does an excellent job of it.
> I think that the price has dropped recently.


♦ http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...work-receiver-hdmi-2.0/wi-fi/bluetooth/1.html

* Not dtsX ready though, same as the Denon AVR-X5200W (same price too).


----------



## Glock3540

petetherock said:


> I have used 3 Atmos equipped amps, and I am using a full 11 channel setup with 2 subs, with the Atmos Top Front and Rear in the right positions.
> I like the new setup, but I won't try to pretend it was as dramatic as the moment I stepped into a Yamaha demo store years ago to hear the DSP 1 playing Lion King on LD...
> 
> It's great, and a nice addition, but it's more like a good mustard, adding some tang and flavor, rather than a fundamental change... again YMMV. Cheers


 An Excellent Description!

I watched my first Atmos movie on my upgraded setup tonight. I finished wiring my ceiling speakers yesterday and hooked everything up today.
I bought a x6200 to replace my 4520ci. I had an 11.1 set up with my 4520. With Atmos I now have 7.8.4. I also have my old "wides" hooked up but they do not work with Atmos. I do not like that I'm unable to use my old height speakers either. 
After running Audyssey, my wife and I watched Enchanted Kingdom in 3D. I have to say the PQ was the best ever on my TV/Oppo BDP 103D. The sound was also the most realistic I have ever heard. The combination of the two made this the best overall movie experience I have ever had. With that said, I was a bit underwhelmed with the amount of information/sound that came from my overhead speakers. I know that sounds crazy since it was the best I've ever heard but it was not as dramatic of a difference as I was expecting. I guess this is testament to how good my old 11.1 was. Maybe it would have been much more dramatic if all I had before was 5.1 or 7.1. Maybe after watching Mad Max Fury and MI Rogue Nation I'll change my mind. 

I'm not disappointed but I also wish my new receiver would support 9.1.6 or even 11.1.8. I knew this going in that I would have to live with the 6200's limitations until the 7200's replacement comes out late 2016. That is the main reason I did not purchase a 7200 instead. I use 6 separate outboard amps so I did not need the 7200's beefier amp section. Losing the use of my old height speakers (having the 4 ceiling heights instead) did take away a little in my multi channel stero listening experience. It doesn't seem quite as loud as before but to be honest I have not checked it with my Rat Shack meter yet. Maybe after a little tweaking it will be just as good.
This is my 5th Denon receiver. I know that in a blindfolded test I most likely could not tell an audible difference in using my receiver's internal amplification vs outboard. The reason I have all of these Emotiva amps is I push my receivers hard. During extended high volume multi channel stero sessions (parties,etc.) sometimes my previous Denon (4802, 4810, etc.) receiver's would go into protection mode and shut down until they cooled off. Even with fans blowing directly on the receiver(s) they would still overheat. Probably some clipping going on also. I've burned out several tweeters and crossovers over the years When I added all of the Emo amps, all of these problems went away.
I just put together a multi fan cooling system that I put directly on top of my 6200 (4x 120mm fans with a thermostat and auto fan controller)
and it works like a charm. It lowered the top cover of the receiver's temp from 129F to 90F! (BTW, I keep my room at a constant 74 deg).

In closing, I am glad I upgraded to Dolby Atmos. I just wish they would have still allowed me to use my previous height and wide speakers and also add the 4 ceiling heights into the mix. Hopefully my new receiver, in appx 12 months, will. Until then, I'll enjoy this setup! 
Thanks for letting me chase rabbits.
Blessings, Brian


----------



## Archaea

carp said:


> Come on guys... no way. No way. Going from Stereo to 5.1 was such a huge leap, I don't think anything will compare to that. I challenge you guys to run some scenes from some impressive Atmos movies (Gravity, Fury Road etc.) and then run the scenes again in 7.1. I have done that at a friends house and *the difference is there for sure, but it is NO WHERE CLOSE to the difference between stereo or pro logic compared to 5.1. *
> 
> I will say that recently my friend Archaea has been playing an Atmos Star Wars game and he says it's a huge improvement from what you hear in Atmos movies or even in the Atmos demo disk. I haven't heard it yet, so maybe the Star Wars game is as big of a jump as you guys are saying - but - movies or even the Atmos demo disk is not like going from stereo to 5.1.
> 
> The Atmos demo disk is great and shows off Atmos really well, however I own that disk and in my room it's also VERY impressive played on a 7.1 system.
> 
> For me Atmos it is a no brainer upgrade and I plan to do it myself when the price of AVR's comes down a bit and the format is more solidified with DTS X etc. However, I'm under no delusions that this will be like going from stereo to 5.1 because I know it won't be like that. In fact that's a huge reason why I am waiting for prices to come down. I know exactly what I'll be getting and paying 2 grand or more for the AVR alone does not make the difference worth it to me. If/when you can get an AVR for closer to 1000 that will get you to 7.1.4 (even if it means using external amps) then I'm in.
> 
> I feel bad for the guy that follows this thread and hasn't experienced Atmos for himself and goes by the hype that he reads here from some of you guys. In my opinion he will be disappointed when he fires up Atmos in his room for the first time and realizes that *while it is very cool and indeed an upgrade* it is not the night and day/black and white difference from 7.1 that some of you guys say it is.
> 
> @Archaea
> @Stoked21


Agreed.

Battlefield in Atmos is the best content in Atmos I've experienced yet.
Atmos's best still sounds dang good in 7.1! 
And Atmos is good, but Atmos ceiling speaker implementation is overhyped on the forums. It is better, but its like 10-20% better over the same mix in 7.1 in my subjective opinion.
I've heard it in two different home theater rooms now and my room is 7.1.4, and two different AMC Primes, and two different Dolby Cinemas. It's 10-20% better.

For games its more than that, but there is only one game so far and its only on PC. Rumor is the current gen consoles (ps4 and xbone) don't have the horsepower to encode the audio realtime. Crying shame because it is very impressive indeed and I wish it could be more widely experienced, and the consoles are the proper platform for its gaming expansion. (Cause PC gamers traditionally use headphones and sit at their PC desk)


----------



## Archaea

Carps recommended it several times here, but I'll promote the same recommendation, and define a specific test.

Turn on Mad Max Fury Roads intro with Atmos. Play it at reference or -5 MLV.
It is utterly fantastic! 
Then skip back to the beginning and without changing anything on the disk, change your AVR to spit out Dolby True HD instead of Dolby Atmos. This is easy on the Denon 7200 I have, I'm not sure how easy it is on other AVRs, but the point is have the disk still spitting out Atmos audio but stop using the ceiling speakers. Watch it again at the same volume. Sure you can tell there are no ceiling speakers now, but honestly it is still absolutely fantastic in 7.1! That's the 10-20% difference I mentioned. My guests hear that intro and are blown away and say Atmos is the greatest thing!!! -one non technical guest even said those ceiling speakers sure add a lot! Then for fun I play it back using 7.1 and every one says it still sounds awesome without the ceiling speakers! I think Atmos mixing has made a big jump to the quality of the soundtrack which fortunately shows up as well on a traditional 7.1 bed.


----------



## petetherock

It's natural to give Atmos a lot of credit, and I also see what the poster had before.. eg, when Oppo first developed their BR player, it was likened to a gift from God, and how wonderful it sounded, and sometimes you notice that the poster did not have a BR player before, or had a much inferior one, so the Oppo provided a quantum leap..

Even so, if one has space and the ability to do it, it adds space and dimension and to the discerning listener, it's a nice addition. Of course to those who like to share how many speakers / sub / discs they own, it certainly adds to the bragging rights


----------



## virtualrain

Since getting my Atmos system setup at home this summer, I haven't been out to a theater. I broke down to see Star Wars and unfortunately, booked tickets only a few days ago so was sadly in the last row of the 4D Atmos theater (one of the best in the city with special seats).  The sound was ok but not great. My buddy agreed. It was so perplexing, that I will go again when I can get a seat in the middle sweet-spot. Anyway, from where we sat, we obviously had overly loud rear surround (directly overhead), and there seemed to be a bit of Atmos overhead sound in the theater on ship fly-overs, but nothing that jumped out at me. What was noticeably absent was any sub-bass, to the point where I wondered if there was even sub woofers in the house. We must have been in a nasty null or I'm just spoiled by my own setup. 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing it again in Atmos with the family in a better seat, and getting this film for home viewing when it comes available. 

BTW, the visuals where a treat. I'm not a huge fan of 3D but it was sufficiently immersive most of the time that you didn't notice it. And the story was incredibly familiar in many parts (borrowing heavily I felt from the successes of episodes IV,V,VI) which is probably a good thing to relaunch this franchise.


----------



## kbarnes701

thebland said:


> Nor you an *Auro* set up??


Yeah - you know, I looked for a good movie on Bluray that had Auro and guess what....

But then, since I have *never once* commented on what auro sounds like, the fact I haven't heard it isn’t relevant to a darn thing.

So, not even close never mind no cigar


----------



## kbarnes701

johnsmith808 said:


> So maybe that's why I wasn't too impressed with Atmos at the theater. Since the theater is huge, I already expect that of a theater. But if my little living room theater could sound "huge" with Atmos, now that's something to get excited over.


It will sound huge, on the appropriate content obviously. Your walls will disappear, your ceiling will disappear. And your speakers will disappear. In their place you will have a 3D soundscape like you have never experienced before. And best of all, you will get this sort of experience even on your legacy discs to thanks to Dolby Surround Upmixer.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glock3540 said:


> I also have my old "wides" hooked up but they do not work with Atmos.


Atmos does support the use of Wides.



Glock3540 said:


> I do not like that I'm unable to use my old height speakers either.


Why are you unable to use them? Atmos supports Front Height speakers.



Glock3540 said:


> After running Audyssey, my wife and I watched Enchanted Kingdom in 3D. I have to say the PQ was the best ever on my TV/Oppo BDP 103D. The sound was also the most realistic I have ever heard. The combination of the two made this the best overall movie experience I have ever had. With that said, I was a bit underwhelmed with the amount of information/sound that came from my overhead speakers. I know that sounds crazy since it was the best I've ever heard but it was not as dramatic of a difference as I was expecting. I guess this is testament to how good my old 11.1 was. Maybe it would have been much more dramatic if all I had before was 5.1 or 7.1. Maybe after watching Mad Max Fury and MI Rogue Nation I'll change my mind.


*Enchanted Kingdom* makes impressive use of the overhead speakers. Could you describe your setup in more detail? What speakers you are using, what configuration, their location etc?



Glock3540 said:


> I'm not disappointed but I also wish my new receiver would support 9.1.6 or even 11.1.8.


I think you are a little disappointed judging from your report. 9.1.6 might be good, but if you are not getting a really good result from 7.1.4 then it could be a setup issue - we don't need 9.1.6 to make Atmos shine - it already does.



Glock3540 said:


> In closing, I am glad I upgraded to Dolby Atmos. I just wish they would have still allowed me to use my previous height and wide speakers and also add the 4 ceiling heights into the mix.


Did you not consider a FH+TM setup to allow you to keep your old height speakers for use with, eg, Neo:X? Same with the wides. Atmos uses Wides, but DSU does not. Some people have retained their wides and are using them with Neo:X or Audyssey DSX on legacy content.


----------



## nirvy111

I watched Star Wars The Force Awakens in new Vmax cinemas that just opened near me which uses a Dolby Atmos 41.10 system and it sounded awesome, best sound I've ever heard, cinema or home theatre. The Dolby Atmos promo at the beginning of the movie was 'holy ****' good. The bass was deep and realistic, explosions sounded like they were actually happening in the room, the general sound was really immersive and dynamic. But I never noticed the sounds coming from ceiling really, it just sounded like one big sound field.


----------



## kbarnes701

nirvy111 said:


> But I never noticed the sounds coming from ceiling really, it just sounded like one big sound field.


That's right. When we first set up our Atmos systems at home, it's only natural to strive to hear those overhead speakers that cost so much and were such as PITA to install. It was the same when we first added surround speakers to our systems. But, over time, we learn to 'not listen' consciously to any of the speakers in the system (and a good system does not draw attention to any speakers of course) and just enjoy the immersion in sound. Occasionally, the mixer will put a discrete sound effect in one of the surrounds, or one of the overheads, and it will command our attention, but mostly we are just immersed in sound.

These days I am rarely conscious of my overhead speakers (or my surrounds or my LCR TBH) but I know that they are creating this amazing 3D soundstage in which I am immersed. Sounds 'appear' in the room, in the right place, at the right time. It is as though I don't actually have any speakers as such - just some way to generate sounds in the room. This is also true of a well set-up 7.1 system too of course, but with the addition of the overhead speakers we have, literally, a new dimension to the sound. Once experienced, I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to go back.


----------



## HDTVGCL

virtualrain said:


> Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing it again in Atmos with the family in a better seat, and getting this film for home viewing when it comes available.


Release date slated for April 2016. I enjoy Star Wars and would like to see it in the theater BUT typically waiting a couple months to watch it at home when released. Can watch it anytime without paying for tickets and concession stand candy prices.
Was going to view at the theater but will wait for release. That's how I do it, haven't been in a theater in years knowing movie release out in a few months.
However, in the old days (vhs) I waited a year for Star Trek The Movie to be released and at $69.95!
We get more for the money these days in quality of image and sound.


----------



## Ricoflashback

carp said:


> Maybe I'm too nostalgic.... I so clearly remember when I fired up a dvd for the first time. I had a pro logic setup (LRC and 2 surrounds) in the 90's and even though I used the system mostly for 2 channel music I did enjoy having the cable tv hooked up to the receiver along with watching the occasional VCR movie in pro logic.
> 
> When I put in the dvd movie Heat for the first time and heard 5.1 I was FLOOOOOORED. From that day on home theater has been a huge hobby for me but nothing (not even getting massive subs) has had as big of an impact on me as hearing 5.1 for the first time.
> 
> So.. some of this could just be me.


Nostalgic? How about the 1980's when Miami Vice first broadcasted in "S-T-E-R-E-O" or Stereophonic sound... Quite the feat for the day.

That was "Bad to the Bone," or "Wicked" in 80's vernacular.


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...work-receiver-hdmi-2.0/wi-fi/bluetooth/1.html
> 
> * Not dtsX ready though, same as the Denon AVR-X5200W (same price too).


Great prices but buy an extended warranty, if you can. Virtually all of these units are "Refurbished" with a one year warranty.

My bet is that when the new models are introduced late next year, you will see quite a drop in prices of older models that are still available. And, if you can forsake 4K - - and HDCP 2.2, you'll get an even better deal.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> With 2.2 content the handshakes must take place.... Accomplished via 128-bit key exchanges and even random locality checks. UHD disc will not play and you will get an error per spec (yeah, I've read all 100 pages of it...will put you to sleep! ). It is based on an I2C protocol that I've always coded for with embedded DSP and MCU design. Bottom line, a 1.4a device cannot communicate with a 2.2 device. No upward compatibility. At any point if the heartbeats (mclk signals) disappear, then your video and audio both will cease. If any device doesn't speak 2.2, it cannot exchange the necessary session keys nor can it pass locality checks. It's essentially a signaling control protocol that's independent of all data. There is a concession for a 1.4 to 2.2 converter and vice versa. To date, no consumer product is supposedly using it though----by design.
> 
> This is also the sole reason a device like the HD Fury even has any marketability. And the reason they moved to the new spec, in order to eliminate older ripping setups and beef up the protection.
> 
> As a side note, I did see a leaked spec about 6-12 months ago of a UHD BD player that had dual HDMI outputs (a 1.4 and a 2.2)....I'm not sure if it was specifically to bypass copy protection or if it will ever be produced. It appears that it was just a testing prototype.
> 
> Lastly, keep in mind that this has recently been verified in the consumer world by a few Roku 4 owners as well....They cannot stream UHD content from Vudu just for the Atmos content. Even if the Roku is set for 1080p, the content will not pass HDCP.


Let me get this straight. Are you saying that if you do NOT have a UHD Bluray player and HDCP 2.2 compliance all along the chain that future UHD discs with Dolby Atmos will NOT be able to be played on your current system? (Non 4K set, no HDCP 2.2 AVR)

So will we have three classes of DVD's?

1. Standard DVD
2. Bluray DVD with Dolby Atmos (rides along with Dolby soundtrack)
3. Bluray/UHD/Dolby Atmos ONLY playable with a UHD Bluray player AND full HDCP 2.2 compliance all along the chain.

Why wouldn't they make #3 that could play on any Bluray player (Dolby Atmos included, no UHD video, standard 1080P)??

Since I rent exclusively from Redbox, it will be interesting to see what their availability will be. I know that many of the movies from Redbox do have the Dolby Atmos mix. (Yes, this limits my choices but at a buck or less per Bluray rental (with all the promotions) - it's pretty cost effective.)


----------



## Archaea

@kbarnes701,

Do you use Audysseys dynamic Eq? I'm still not sure if I like it or not. I'd like it for sure if the effect was dialed back. Its overpowering at lower volumes. I don't like the concept of the reference offset because it actually pulls down the bass and surrounds (does the opposite) as you play at levels beyond your new custom reference point. I'd prefer the tech just return to neutral as you go beyond your stated reference offset. I'm still making up my mind on it.

Yes I have experienced that sound bubble with Atmos where it is spacious and the ceiling and walls seem to disappear, but it is rare. One noticeable instance of it is a track on one of the Dolby demo disks where its the night sky and cricket and night sounds are all around you. Another is the personal shield effect in the Battlefront game. Its cool when it happens!

I've also read the current denon series can't do front wide with true 7.1.4 Atmos content, only with upmixing legacy content. This is probably a current generation denon limitation, vs. An, Atmos limitation, but it is discussed fairly regularly in the denon threads. I tried front wide at several points in two different rooms and it didn't do anything for me, so personally speaking - no lose there.


----------



## smurraybhm

Archaea said:


> @kbarnes701 ,
> 
> Do you use Audysseys dynamic Eq? I'm still not sure if I like it or not. I'd like it for sure if the effect was dialed back. Its overpowering at lower volumes. I don't like the concept of the reference offset because it actually pulls down the bass and surrounds (does the opposite) as you play at levels beyond your new custom reference point. I'd prefer the tech just return to neutral as you go beyond your stated reference offset. I'm still making up my mind on it.
> 
> Yes I have experienced that sound bubble with Atmos where it is spacious and the ceiling and walls seem to disappear, but it is rare. One noticeable instance of it is a track on one of the Dolby demo disks where its the night sky and cricket and night sounds are all around you. Another is the personal shield effect in the Battlefront game. Its cool when it happens!
> 
> I've also read the current denon series can't do front wide with true 7.1.4 Atmos content, only with upmixing legacy content. This is probably a current generation denon limitation, vs. An, Atmos limitation, but it is discussed fairly regularly in the denon threads. I tried front wide at several points in two different rooms and it didn't do anything for me, so personally speaking - no lose there.


Not Keith, but he switched over to Dirac months ago (88A). I use Dynamic EQ, and have been keeping up with the debate regarding whether its better on/off over on the sub threads (most of the posts, I stay off the Audyssey thread here, enough to cover and I have been using it for a while). I like it and should point out I really listen at a level below 18 - I have a small room. Given the rave reviews of Dirac I plan on switching over, I just keep hoping a receiver that is "reasonable" will offer it as an option or Emo actually releases their promised pre on time (unlikely given past record). 

I don't agree with the Denon not decoding wides correctly for Atmos content, I have not read that and the few that have had problems with their wides on the Denon threads didn't have things setup/configured correctly.


----------



## kbarnes701

Archaea said:


> @kbarnes701,
> 
> Do you use Audysseys dynamic Eq? I'm still not sure if I like it or not. I'd like it for sure if the effect was dialed back. Its overpowering at lower volumes. I don't like the concept of the reference offset because it actually pulls down the bass and surrounds (does the opposite) as you play at levels beyond your new custom reference point. I'd prefer the tech just return to neutral as you go beyond your stated reference offset. I'm still making up my mind on it.


I don't use Audyssey any more. I use Dirac Live now. Dynamic EQ should give you a good result with movie soundtracks (but maybe not so good with music). Reference Level Offset just moves the point at which DEQ ceases to boost the bass frequencies. With RLO turned off, DEQ boost stops at 0dB on the MV. If you set a RLO of 10, then the boost ceases at -10dB on the MV (etc). RLO should not be used for movie soundtracks - it was designed to be used with music and TV which are not mixed to any agreed standardised levels. More information in my Audyssey FAQ - see my sig for link).



Archaea said:


> I've also read the current denon series can't do front wide with true 7.1.4 Atmos content, only with upmixing legacy content. This is probably a current generation denon limitation, vs. An, Atmos limitation, but it is discussed fairly regularly in the denon threads. I tried front wide at several points in two different rooms and it didn't do anything for me, so personally speaking - no lose there.


Other way around - Atmos uses wide speakers, DSU does not. It isn't a Denon limitation - DSU does not support wides, period.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Not Keith, but he switched over to Dirac months ago (88A).


Sure did. It's one of those "once experienced you'll never go back" things, like Atmos itself.



smurraybhm said:


> Given the rave reviews of Dirac I plan on switching over, I just keep hoping a receiver that is "reasonable" will offer it as an option or Emo actually releases their promised pre on time (unlikely given past record).


Arcam do a reasonably priced AVR (AVR-550) with Dirac Live, but note that, as things currently stand, none of the affordable units offers Dirac on all 11 channels. The only way to do that, short of spending megabucks, is by using dual 88As in tandem (as I am doing). The Emo XMC-1 is here now of course, but it is a processor not an AVR and it doesn’t have Atmos of course, which makes it as much use as an ashtray on a Harley.

I can report with some confidence that SQ is improved when Dirac Live is applied to the overhead speakers as well as the floor-level speakers, so having a full Atmos system EQd with Dirac Live is a laudable objective.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> I am using Klipsch RP-140SA as my side surrounds on 10' walls. I want to place these about 8' high. I understand that this is typically a no-no, but these speakers angle down when mounted to the wall. http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-premiere-dolby-atmos-series#rp-140sa So does that make it okay to have them mounted higher? By doing so, they'll actually be pointed at the MLP.


Anyone?


----------



## blastermaster

Ricoflashback said:


> Nostalgic? How about the 1980's when Miami Vice first broadcasted in "S-T-E-R-E-O" or Stereophonic sound... Quite the feat for the day.
> 
> That was "Bad to the Bone," or "Wicked" in 80's vernacular.


The words "boss", "choice" and "rad" also came to mind.


----------



## rontalley

Saw a couple more demos on DemoWorld that I hadn't heard before:

Audiosphere (Lossless)
Shattered (Lossless)
Silent (Lossless)

Umm remember, you must have special permission to listen to these demos that were specifically made for Dolby Atmos and Dolby Atmos gear that you have spent thousands of dollars on to equip your room with this exciting technology.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure did. It's one of those "once experienced you'll never go back" things, like Atmos itself.


Just keep twisting that knife 
I have purposely stayed off that other thread, must resist.


----------



## smurraybhm

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Anyone?


I would not mount my side surrounds 8' high. I was using bipoles as side surrounds that were mounted about that high prior to moving them down and getting another pair of Ascends to go in their place when I bought my Atmos receiver August 2014. After hearing the difference moving the speakers down to ear level made on regular 5.1 or 7.1 content (not including Atmos/DSU) I was kicking myself for not doing it sooner. Even pointed down the sound is still going to be coming from above you. That would mean sounds in the 3D field that are intended to be heard as part of the base layer will instead be coming from the top layer. Defeats the whole purpose of Atmos, but if you have no choice then you have no choice. I would rather have a compromised Atmos system then no Atmos.


----------



## Chesebro

I have a 5-2-4 setup on my marantz 7009 and want add external amp to go to 7-2-4 would a Pioneer Elite A-20 2-Channel Integrated Amplifier with Direct Energy Design
by Pioneer
3.9 out of 5 stars 12 customer reviews | 11 answered questions
List Price:	$599.98
Price:	$299.00 & FREE Shipping. Details
You Save:	$300.98 (50%)
Only 19 left in stock (more on the way).
Want it Tuesday, Dec. 29? Order within 33 hrs 32 mins and choose Two-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
Symmetrical Power Amp
Isolated Power Supply
Speaker A, B, A+B Selector
50 W + 50 W (20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.1 % THD, 4 ohms)
4 new from $299.00 5 used from $249.77 1 refurbished from $299.99

do the job?


----------



## Chesebro

*External Amp*

I have a 5-2-4 setup on my marantz 7009 and want add external amp to go to 7-2-4 would a Pioneer Elite A-20 2-Channel Integrated Amplifier with Direct Energy Design
by Pioneer
3.9 out of 5 stars 12 customer reviews | 11 answered questions
List Price:	$599.98
Price:	$299.00 & FREE Shipping. Details
You Save:	$300.98 (50%)
Only 19 left in stock (more on the way).
Want it Tuesday, Dec. 29? Order within 33 hrs 32 mins and choose Two-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
Symmetrical Power Amp
Isolated Power Supply
Speaker A, B, A+B Selector
50 W + 50 W (20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.1 % THD, 4 ohms)
4 new from $299.00 5 used from $249.77 1 refurbished from $299.99

do the job?


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> Saw a couple more demos on DemoWorld that I hadn't heard before:
> 
> Audiosphere (Lossless)
> Shattered (Lossless)
> Silent (Lossless)


Audiosphere is one of the best Atmos demos I've heard, allows you to synch what you're seeing on-screen with what you're hearing in a 3D soundfield.


----------



## Glock3540

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos does support the use of Wides.
> 
> I knew this going in but didn't realize I would miss them so much during multi channel music mode.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you unable to use them? Atmos supports Front Height speakers.
> 
> On my receiver, I have the height 1 and height 2 hooked up to 2 pair of speakers I installed on my ceiling. In my previous 11.1, my "height" speakers were (still are) mounted above my TV near the ceiling, but not actually on the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> *Enchanted Kingdom* makes impressive use of the overhead speakers. Could you describe your setup in more detail? What speakers you are using, what configuration, their location etc?
> 
> I have a 7.1.4 setup (batpig said he would not scold me if I referred to it as a 7.8.4 since I have eight 18" subs ). I also have my wides hooked up but they do not have any sound coming out of them during Atmos play. They do work well in multi channel stero (my favorite!).
> 
> 
> I think you are a little disappointed judging from your report. 9.1.6 might be good, but if you are not getting a really good result from 7.1.4 then it could be a setup issue - we don't need 9.1.6 to make Atmos shine - it already does.
> 
> It DOES Shine! I know it sounds crazy/weird me whining about my best home movie experience ever. I do my best to always be positive and truly grateful for all I have. I don't want to be a complainer. With all of the hype, I thought it would be different that it is.
> I guess I was expecting the ceiling speakers to be more of a dramatic difference. It does make a big difference in movie watching. In multi channel stero, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not consider a FH+TM setup to allow you to keep your old height speakers for use with, eg, Neo:X? Same with the wides. Atmos uses Wides, but DSU does not. Some people have retained their wides and are using them with Neo:X or Audyssey DSX on legacy content.


 That is what I did, but I could not figure out a way to use my heights too..

quote:
It will sound huge, on the appropriate content obviously. Your walls will disappear, your ceiling will disappear. And your speakers will disappear. In their place you will have a 3D soundscape like you have never experienced before. And best of all, you will get this sort of experience even on your legacy discs to thanks to Dolby Surround Upmixer.

Yeah, that is exactly what I experienced. The speakers completely disappeared. It seemed like I had no ceiling and I was right there in the action. I've never seen or experienced anything like it. I commented to my wife that with the 3D and Atmos, it was so realistic that it seemed "fake" at times. Kind of like an animation, but it wasn't! I've spent a small fortune to get a realistic sounding system and finally have it, then I complain because I cannot localize hearing the new ceiling speakers! What is wrong with me? lol 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nirvy111 View Post
But I never noticed the sounds coming from ceiling really, it just sounded like one big sound field.
That's right. When we first set up our Atmos systems at home, it's only natural to strive to hear those overhead speakers that cost so much and were such as PITA to install. It was the same when we first added surround speakers to our systems. But, over time, we learn to 'not listen' consciously to any of the speakers in the system (and a good system does not draw attention to any speakers of course) and just enjoy the immersion in sound. Occasionally, the mixer will put a discrete sound effect in one of the surrounds, or one of the overheads, and it will command our attention, but mostly we are just immersed in sound.

These days I am rarely conscious of my overhead speakers (or my surrounds or my LCR TBH) but I know that they are creating this amazing 3D soundstage in which I am immersed. Sounds 'appear' in the room, in the right place, at the right time. It is as though I don't actually have any speakers as such - just some way to generate sounds in the room. This is also true of a well set-up 7.1 system too of course, but with the addition of the overhead speakers we have, literally, a new dimension to the sound. Once experienced, I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to go back.
Like

You hit the nail on the head. I spent appx $2500 on an upgrade and could not hear the ceiling speakers. When watching a movie, I need to just enjoy the realistic sound and not worry about which speakers the sound is coming from. When listening to multi channel stero, I need to just enjoy it until the next gen of Denon receivers come out that will hopefully support a few more speakers (would love to have 11.1.8!). I actually purchased 6 more speakers (and am looking at a few more at the moment) anticipating that day. I guess in this hobby one is never completely satisfied. I have 8 sealed subs and am already looking to upgrade. This is a sickness....

Thank You for letting me ramble on. Now on to take some pics and put my 4520ci up for sale.

Blessings,Brian


----------



## kbarnes701

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Anyone?


Ideally you need to get good angular separation between your surrounds and overheads. Unless there is a compelling reason to mount the surrounds at 8 feet, I would mount them lower, but no so low that some of the listeners block the line of sight to them. If you can't mount them lower, then it is what it is and it will still work, but perhaps not as convincingly as if you mounted the surrounds lower - say at 6 feet. Maybe you can angle the surrounds down to the listening area as a sort of compromise if they really can't be mounted lower?


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Just keep twisting that knife
> I have purposely stayed off that other thread, must resist.


Come on in.. you'll like it there!

One question: do you already have all-external amplification? If so, it makes the switch to Dirac Live much easier.


----------



## AllenA07

HDTVGCL said:


> Release date slated for April 2016. I enjoy Star Wars and would like to see it in the theater BUT typically waiting a couple months to watch it at home when released. Can watch it anytime without paying for tickets and concession stand candy prices.
> Was going to view at the theater but will wait for release. That's how I do it, haven't been in a theater in years knowing movie release out in a few months.
> However, in the old days (vhs) I waited a year for Star Trek The Movie to be released and at $69.95!
> We get more for the money these days in quality of image and sound.


I went and saw Star Wars yesterday and did it in a 3D plus Atmos theater. Honestly it's getting very hard for me to justify spending the money on seeing movies at the theater. I'm past the point where mine generally sounds and looks better (even with a cheap projector). Not to mention the comfort (I sat next to a guy who took 15 minutes in the middle of the movie to tell his wife about Han Solo's life) that comes with watching in your own theater. I thought the Atmos was disappointing (this was my first Atmos experience in a real theater), I didn't really sense the effect much and so far I've been more impressed with what I've heard in my theater as opposed to what I heard yesterday. I would love for the BluRay track to include the Atmos mix so I can compare.


----------



## kbarnes701

Glock3540 said:


> Thank You for letting me ramble on. Now on to take some pics and put my 4520ci up for sale.
> 
> Blessings,Brian


No worries Brian. You seem to have a good grip on it all. Enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Saw a couple more demos on DemoWorld that I hadn't heard before:
> 
> Audiosphere (Lossless)
> Shattered (Lossless)
> Silent (Lossless)
> 
> Umm remember, you must have special permission to listen to these demos that were specifically made for Dolby Atmos and Dolby Atmos gear that you have spent thousands of dollars on to equip your room with this exciting technology.


The Atmos trailers seem to have all gone missing there. Can you post a link in case I am just temporarily insane?


----------



## dvdwilly3

IA_Chiefs_fan said:


> Anyone?


Given that they have a built-in angle of about 20 degrees, mounting them lower could end up with the drivers pointing toward the floor.

How about turning them on their side slightly forward so that the drivers are pointing directly at the MLP?

I know that putting side surrounds forward of the MLP is generally a no-no, but given the angle of the drivers, I am not sure what else you could do.

These are being used as side surrounds, right?


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> Come on in.. you'll like it there!
> 
> One question: do you already have all-external amplification? If so, it makes the switch to Dirac Live much easier.


Technically yes but it is part of my upstairs system and I don't really want to mess with it - I find no fun in re-wiring or swapping stuff around like I use to, plus its in a cabinet. Yesterday I took delivery of a 2 channel Emo amp with plans to use it at my office, then move it home when I make THE switch. That amp coupled with a 7 channel amp gets me my 11 channels of amplification for my main HT/music room. I will either buy Outlaw's 7 channel amp (125 watt version as I have no need for 300 watts) or one of the new Class D amps from Emo. Waiting to see a few user reviews on the Emo amps before deciding which way to go. 

My compatibility excuse with the Mac OS went away months ago, the funds are there so its just a matter of time. Most likely post CEDIA just to cover the hope something comes along. I do realize (I lied about not viewing the 88A thread, can't resist) that the 88A offers a number of advantages over the XMC-1 version of Dirac, plus I could never give up my immersive sound


----------



## bguzman

kbarnes701 said:


> The Atmos trailers seem to have all gone missing there. Can you post a link in case I am just temporarily insane?


This is quite odd. They show up on my Windows laptop but not on my iPad.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Technically yes but it is part of my upstairs system and I don't really want to mess with it - I find no fun in re-wiring or swapping stuff around like I use to, plus its in a cabinet. Yesterday I took delivery of a 2 channel Emo amp with plans to use it at my office, then move it home when I make THE switch. That amp coupled with a 7 channel amp gets me my 11 channels of amplification for my main HT/music room. I will either buy Outlaw's 7 channel amp (125 watt version as I have no need for 300 watts) or one of the new Class D amps from Emo. Waiting to see a few user reviews on the Emo amps before deciding which way to go.


Then you are all set for an 88A in your life Steve! 



smurraybhm said:


> My compatibility excuse with the Mac OS went away months ago, the funds are there so its just a matter of time. Most likely post CEDIA just to cover the hope something comes along. I do realize (I lied about not viewing the 88A thread, can't resist) that the 88A offers a number of advantages over the XMC-1 version of Dirac, plus I could never give up my immersive sound


Quite so. For someone with the necessary amps already in the rack, the 88A is the way to go. Two 88As is, of course, even better


----------



## kbarnes701

bguzman said:


> This is quite odd. They show up on my Windows laptop but not on my iPad.


I am a Mac user, so maybe we’ve been specially selected to uphold the IP rights of the world


----------



## NorthSky

Ricoflashback said:


> Great prices but buy an extended warranty, if you can. Virtually all of these units are "Refurbished" with a one year warranty.
> 
> My bet is that when the new models are introduced late next year, you will see quite a drop in prices of older models that are still available. And, if you can forsake 4K - - and HDCP 2.2, you'll get an even better deal.


On my screen, that link says that it comes with a free three-year warranty: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...work-receiver-hdmi-2.0/wi-fi/bluetooth/1.html

* Sure, next year that same receiver will be only $549.99

Five years from now, 20% of all AVSForum members will have a Dolby Atmos decoder.
- Right now, $300 will get your feet wet: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...iver-hdmi-2.0-wi-fi/bt-sale-reduced-50/1.html
- About $260: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...a/v-receiver-bluetooth-sale-reduced-20/1.html

- Or another 7.1.4 Atmos receiver (by adding an external stereo amp): http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...ra-hd-receiver-wi-fi/bluetooth/airplay/1.html

_________

One with dtsX Ready ($320): http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...ra-hd-receiver-wi-fi/bluetooth/airplay/1.html


----------



## Spanglo

Movie78 said:


> ATMOS height speaker Test!!
> 
> This sample is only for the 4 height speaker test!!!
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/s7isi0inr61nw99/Dolby%20Atmos%20.4.mkv?dl=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Holidays!!!


Page not found error...


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Audiosphere is one of the best Atmos demos I've heard, allows you to synch what you're seeing on-screen with what you're hearing in a 3D soundfield.


Yeah, really impressive! Actually made me rerun YPAO and move some stuff around. Demo really allows you to make sure your 3D field is correct. Now things sounds better than ever!


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> The Atmos trailers seem to have all gone missing there. Can you post a link in case I am just temporarily insane?


I'm scared the "internet" police will come knocking on my door for posting links. However, if you just google Audiosphere (Lossless)...


----------



## rontalley

OK Dammit!  I upgraded the firmware this morning and now my Dialogue Level does not work in DSU anymore! Arrrgg. It works in Straight mode but not DSU unless, it never has and I am just now realizing it...

Here's a test for you guys:

1. Play some Atmos content vocal heavy on Straight.
2. On the remote press option then Dialogue then Dialogue Level and turn it up to 3.
3. Switch to DSU then back to Straight.

Doing this with the lastest firmware shows that Dialogue Level is not working for me when playing Atmos Content and in DSU mode. This sux because I typically keep my AVR in DSU mode but typically have Dialogue on +1. Has this always been like this?

And is Dialog and Dialogue the same damn word?...


----------



## jpco

rontalley said:


> OK Dammit!  I upgraded the firmware this morning and now my Dialogue Level does not work in DSU anymore! Arrrgg. It works in Straight mode but not DSU unless, it never has and I am just now realizing it...
> 
> Here's a test for you guys:
> 
> 1. Play some Atmos content vocal heavy on Straight.
> 2. On the remote press option then Dialogue then Dialogue Level and turn it up to 3.
> 3. Switch to DSU then back to Straight.
> 
> Doing this with the lastest firmware shows that Dialogue Level is not working for me when playing Atmos Content and in DSU mode. This sux because I typically keep my AVR in DSU mode but typically have Dialogue on +1. Has this always been like this?
> 
> And is Dialog and Dialogue the same damn word?...


I've already done all updates, so I can't check, but when I first got the unit and tested everything out, I surmised that none of the adjustments ever worked on Atmos or DSU. It was almost as if DSU and Atmos activated a separate part of the processor that locked everything else out.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Audiosphere is one of the best Atmos demos I've heard, allows you to synch what you're seeing on-screen with what you're hearing in a 3D soundfield.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, really impressive! Actually made me rerun YPAO and move some stuff around. Demo really allows you to make sure your 3D field is correct. Now things sounds better than ever!
Click to expand...

Audiosphere is now my favorite Atmos demo (surpassing Amaze). If someone came to my room and could only hear one demo, that's what I would pick. 

As Sanjay notes it's incredible how it ties the visuals to the 3D soundscape bubble. I can't wait for this to be more widely accessible so others can hear it.


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> Since getting my Atmos system setup at home this summer, I haven't been out to a theater. I broke down to see Star Wars and unfortunately, booked tickets only a few days ago so was sadly in the last row of the 4D Atmos theater (one of the best in the city with special seats).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sound was ok but not great. My buddy agreed. It was so perplexing, that I will go again when I can get a seat in the middle sweet-spot. Anyway, from where we sat, we obviously had overly loud rear surround (directly overhead), and there seemed to be a bit of Atmos overhead sound in the theater on ship fly-overs, but nothing that jumped out at me. What was noticeably absent was any sub-bass, to the point where I wondered if there was even sub woofers in the house. We must have been in a nasty null or I'm just spoiled by my own setup.
> 
> Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing it again in Atmos with the family in a better seat, and getting this film for home viewing when it comes available.
> 
> BTW, the visuals where a treat. I'm not a huge fan of 3D but it was sufficiently immersive most of the time that you didn't notice it. And the story was incredibly familiar in many parts (borrowing heavily I felt from the successes of episodes IV,V,VI) which is probably a good thing to relaunch this franchise.


I saw SW on opening night in an IMAX 3D theater and was underwhelmed by the bass. I saw it again last night in Atmos at a Regal RPX theater and the bass was awesome. So it's almost certainly something about the theater or your seats.


----------



## rontalley

jpco said:


> I've already done all updates, so I can't check, but when I first got the unit and tested everything out, I surmised that none of the adjustments ever worked on Atmos or DSU. It was almost as if DSU and Atmos activated a separate part of the processor that locked everything else out.


Try it out on straight. It definitely works. Let me know. Try the Bailando.


----------



## batpig

My comments about the Atmos presentation of SWFA, which I saw last night with AVS member @jkasanic....

As noted above I saw it first in a Regal IMAX 3D theater last week, but this was my first time seeing a movie at this Regal RPX Atmos theater. (I have seen several movies at the other Atmos theater in San Diego, an Arclight theater). This particular Atmos theater had six speakers in each overhead array, six speakers on each side wall, and four speakers across the back. The side walls had two "front surrounds" (those pesky wides!) toed in, then two side surrounds firing straight across, and two more in the back toed in. Or, in other words, each side had a 2-speaker array for front surround, a 4-speaker array for side surround, a 2 speaker array for back surround, and a 6 speaker array for overhead. We were seated about 1/3 of the way back, in between the pair of side surrounds that were firing straight across. Unfortunately we weren't centered, but about 1/4 of the way in from the side, so basically under the left overhead array.

Overall, the Atmos RPX audio was SO MUCH better than the IMAX 3D theater it was silly. Not louder (other than the bass), but significantly more refined and spacious and precise. In the IMAX theater, I've learned (thanks @sdurani) that they use a single big ass surround speaker/subwoofer thing in the back corners of the theater, and I felt like surround effects were "shouting" at me from over my shoulder. Not so in the Atmos theater, it felt very seamless.

In terms of the "Atmos-ness" of the mix... I will admit that I've found it hard to judge sometimes when things are actually coming from overhead in these enormous commercial venues. You are so far from the speakers, and the surrounds are already high up, that surround effects can just sound "huge" and hard to pinpoint precisely in origin. 

That said, I would judge the overhead usage as not overwhelming, but it was definitely there and I felt it was used appropriately. There were definitely moments where I heard a TIE fighter or laser blast zooming overhead, but it seemed to me the Atmos was more used to create this seamless wraparound "bubble" as stuff was zooming all around you in the intense action sequences. As opposed to stuff being "forced" above you. Not there wasn't overhead action, but again, I wouldn't call it constant or overwhelming in that respect. However, overall, the surround effects in the battle scenes were absolutely terrific. 

HOWEVER.... I do think this mix was VERY "Atmos-esque" in a way that doesn't really include the overheads. This gets right to the heart of the cinema vs. home Atmos issue, where the 7.1.4 layout means you are mostly looking to the overheads for "Atmos-ness". What I noticed, and maybe this was a bit easier to hear sitting off center towards one side, was that in many scenes it sounded like the score was pulled OUTSIDE the screen, and was coming directly from the front surround speakers. This use of these speakers surrounding the screen, but not the screen channels themselves, created this sense of scale and auditory width by pulling the score out to just outside the edges of the screen, allowing the on-screen action to be more focused. Because these are "object only" speakers, the score must have been placed as an object at this location; I would bet that at home in a standard 7.1.4 without "wides" that sound will snap/collapse back to the front L/R speakers in the front soundstage, so you'd lose that effect.

It also felt like the front overhead speakers were used this way too, although it's harder to pinpoint since they are so far up there... but, for example, there were some moments of big orchestral score swelling up, or a massive explosion on screen, where the scale of the effect seemed a bit wider/taller than the screen itself. It wasn't enough to quite feel "overhead", but it definitely felt bigger, taller than the image on screen. 

Overall, I feel like these "just off screen" speakers (the front surrounds and frontal overheads) were being used quite aggressively to expand that sense of scale and presence.... this is an effect we can't yet really duplicate in the non-Trinnov HT environment (unless you sacrifice other speaker locations to bring in the "Wide" and "Front Height" speakers).

My fingers are firmly crossed that 9.1.4 comes through in next year's models as rumoured. I really think there is quite a bit of unrealized benefit in home Atmos from being unable to expand beyond the 7ch bed without sacrificing other speaker locations.


----------



## Glock3540

"My fingers are firmly crossed that 9.1.4 comes through in next year's models as rumoured. I really think there is quite a bit of unrealized benefit in home Atmos from being unable to expand beyond the 7ch bed without sacrificing other speaker locations."

My thoughts exactly...


----------



## jpco

rontalley said:


> Try it out on straight. It definitely works. Let me know. Try the Bailando.


I tried it. Atmos content definitely works in Straight and does not in DSU. I'm not sure if this is different from prior to the update. I know that I checked a lot of other features in DSU when I first got the unit, and they did not work. I never tried the Dialogue Level before, though.


----------



## rontalley

Glock3540 said:


> "My fingers are firmly crossed that 9.1.4 comes through in next year's models as rumoured. I really think there is quite a bit of unrealized benefit in home Atmos from being unable to expand beyond the 7ch bed without sacrificing other speaker locations."
> 
> My thoughts exactly...


I will not be upgrading for a long time but I might consider it if I could have a 9ch bed, 7ch height, 6 ceiling and 4 subs. Until then I'm good with my current setup.

Still think that the future is a 7-9 channel base unit and 6-8 channel expansion units that can be chained.


----------



## rontalley

jpco said:


> I tried it. Atmos content definitely works in Straight and does not in DSU. I'm not sure if this is different from prior to the update. I know that I checked a lot of other features in DSU when I first got the unit, and they did not work. I never tried the Dialogue Level before, though.


There was a discussion a while back here regarding rather or not vocals could be raised or was it that the entire track was just being attenuated around the vocals. With Dialogue Level, the vocals are being raised. No question. If you switch back and forth between DSU and Straight, nothing changes outside of the vocals really popping out.

Saying all of that, I do not remember it working this well in straight and now that I really hear the effect, I am not sure that it was working in DSU as I thought. All I know is I had the Dialogue Level raised and that is why all of a sudden Straight sounded different then DSU for Atmos material which was not the case prior the update. Being upset that I updated and now things are different, I narrowed it down to Dialogue Level not working in DSU...Probably more accurate is, Dialog Level now works in Straight.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> There was a discussion a while back here regarding rather or not vocals could be raised or was it that the entire track was just being attenuated around the vocals. With Dialogue Level, the vocals are being raised. No question. If you switch back and forth between DSU and Straight, nothing changes outside of the vocals really popping out.
> 
> Saying all of that, I do not remember it working this well in straight and now that I really hear the effect, I am not sure that it was working in DSU as I thought. All I know is I had the Dialogue Level raised and that is why all of a sudden Straight sounded different then DSU for Atmos material which was not the case prior the update. Being upset that I updated and now things are different, I narrowed it down to Dialogue Level not working in DSU...Probably more accurate is, Dialog Level now works in Straight.


In Yamaha-speak, Straight and DSU are fundamentally, mutually exclusive because "Straight" by definition means there is no upmixing. A 5.1 signal will be played as 5.1. DSU is upmixing so of course it will not function in "Straight" mode.


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> In Yamaha-speak, Straight and DSU are fundamentally, mutually exclusive because "Straight" by definition means there is no upmixing. A 5.1 signal will be played as 5.1. DSU is upmixing so of course it will not function in "Straight" mode.


Only referencing Atmos material in this discussion. Previously parking my AVR on Dolby Surround (DSU), when playing a native Atmos track, the AVR would display Atmos and play ans sound no different than it would if the AVR was on Straight. This has now changed with the recent update. If you have settings such as Dialogue Level enabled, it will work in Straight but not in DSU. Therefore, now having to switch the AVR to Straight when playing Atmos material and wanting to use settings such as Dialogue Level...


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> Only referencing Atmos material in this discussion. Previously parking my AVR on Dolby Surround (DSU), when playing a native Atmos track, the AVR would display Atmos and play ans sound no different than it would if the AVR was on Straight. This has now changed with the recent update. If you have settings such as Dialogue Level enabled, it will work in Straight but not in DSU. Therefore, now having to switch the AVR to Straight when playing Atmos material and wanting to use settings such as Dialogue Level...


That doesn't make sense to me. If you're only referencing Atmos material, why are you talking about DSU? 

DSU is an upmixer. Using DSU with "a native Atmos track" is not possible.


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> That doesn't make sense to me. If you're only referencing Atmos material, why are you talking about DSU?
> 
> DSU is an upmixer. Using DSU with "a native Atmos track" is not possible.


I know. Not talking about upmixing Atmos material rather leaving the AVR on Dolby Surround and when the AVR detects an Atmos track it plays it Straight...

Now saying that, there is now a difference in the way the material sound if you have Dialogue Level enabled. The feature doesn't work when the AVR is on Dolby Surround but works when the AVR is on Straight.

Making it even more clear, I rarely switch the AVR off of DSU because there was not a reason to..Now, things have changed from the last update.


----------



## shyyour

rontalley said:


> Yeah, really impressive! Actually made me rerun YPAO and move some stuff around. Demo really allows you to make sure your 3D field is correct. Now things sounds better than ever!


Ron please what are you using to play the "atmos demos". i tried using AFTV and my bluray player but i just get some weird sound coming out and just stereo showing on the avr.


----------



## rontalley

shyyour said:


> Ron please what are you using to play the "atmos demos". i tried using AFTV and my bluray player but i just get some weird sound coming out and just stereo showing on the avr.


HTPC W8.1 Pro
Sharks Codec
Windows Media Player
Let me know if you need setup info


----------



## Movie78

Delete


----------



## Movie78

AllenA07 said:


> HDTVGCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Release date slated for April 2016. I enjoy Star Wars and would like to see it in the theater BUT typically waiting a couple months to watch it at home when released. Can watch it anytime without paying for tickets and concession stand candy prices.
> Was going to view at the theater but will wait for release. That's how I do it, haven't been in a theater in years knowing movie release out in a few months.
> However, in the old days (vhs) I waited a year for Star Trek The Movie to be released and at $69.95!
> We get more for the money these days in quality of image and sound.
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw Star Wars yesterday and did it in a 3D plus Atmos theater. Honestly it's getting very hard for me to justify spending the money on seeing movies at the theater. I'm past the point where mine generally sounds and looks better (even with a cheap projector). Not to mention the comfort (I sat next to a guy who took 15 minutes in the middle of the movie to tell his wife about Han Solo's life) that comes with watching in your own theater. I thought the Atmos was disappointing (this was my first Atmos experience in a real theater), I didn't really sense the effect much and so far I've been more impressed with what I've heard in my theater as opposed to what I heard yesterday. I would love for the BluRay track to include the Atmos mix so I can compare.
Click to expand...

I had the same feeling and my was like this is not ATMOS, base on what she has heard in our little theater..


----------



## Movie78

batpig said:


> rontalley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Audiosphere is one of the best Atmos demos I've heard, allows you to synch what you're seeing on-screen with what you're hearing in a 3D soundfield.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, really impressive! Actually made me rerun YPAO and move some stuff around. Demo really allows you to make sure your 3D field is correct. Now things sounds better than ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Audiosphere is now my favorite Atmos demo (surpassing Amaze). If someone came to my room and could only hear one demo, that's what I would pick.
> 
> As Sanjay notes it's incredible how it ties the visuals to the 3D soundscape bubble. I can't wait for this to be more widely accessible so others can hear it.
Click to expand...

Audiosphere is Amazing
But height only, I like Audio demo of the Helicopter...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

darklord700 said:


> Thanks for letting me know. I assumed that since the X4200W supports HDCP 2.2, then the X5200W must do the same.
> 
> Personally, the reason I will even look into Atmos is because my Denon 2808ci is long overdue for an upgrade. HDCP 2.2 4K support is as good as any reason to get a new receiver. Then adding 2 or 4 more speakers to get Atmos for not much is a no brainer.
> 
> There's no reason to buy an Atmos receiver with no HDCP 2.2 support at this point.


The *Pioneer Elite SC-95* is currently the cheapest receiver I am aware of with 7.1.4 processing of Dolby Atmos (Dolby Surround upmixing), and in 2016 DTS: X (Neural: X upmixing). It has HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2 ports. It's around the same price MSRP-wise as units that only allow for up to 5.1.4 rendering.


----------



## IA_Chiefs_fan

dvdwilly3 said:


> Given that they have a built-in angle of about 20 degrees, mounting them lower could end up with the drivers pointing toward the floor.
> 
> How about turning them on their side slightly forward so that the drivers are pointing directly at the MLP?
> 
> I know that putting side surrounds forward of the MLP is generally a no-no, but given the angle of the drivers, I am not sure what else you could do.
> 
> These are being used as side surrounds, right?


Yes, side surrounds. And you have a great idea for mounting them that way! I'll see if I can make that work.


----------



## rontalley

rontalley said:


> OK Dammit!  I upgraded the firmware this morning and now my Dialogue Level does not work in DSU anymore! Arrrgg. It works in Straight mode but not DSU unless, it never has and I am just now realizing it...
> 
> Here's a test for you guys:
> 
> 1. Play some Atmos content vocal heavy on Straight.
> 2. On the remote press option then Dialogue then Dialogue Level and turn it up to 3.
> 3. Switch to DSU then back to Straight.
> 
> Doing this with the lastest firmware shows that Dialogue Level is not working for me when playing Atmos Content and in DSU mode. This sux because I typically keep my AVR in DSU mode but typically have Dialogue on +1. Has this always been like this?
> 
> And is Dialog and Dialogue the same damn word?...


I thought I was posting in the Yamaha thread! Carry on.


----------



## Movie78

Spanglo said:


> Page not found error...



Merry Christmas!!!!


----------



## Ceej64

Quick noob question, I do not currently have an atmos-enabled receiver or speakers, if I have a Blu-Ray (like say, Gravity) with an atmos track, is that track typically have better audio quality in general than the old "non-atmos" version or is there literally no difference without a new receiver?


----------



## multit

Merry Christmas to everyone!!!

My wife made me a nice christmas gift... Roger Waters - The Wall in Dolby Atmos and I'm really looking forward ... 
I hope, everyone's immersion collection has been extended as well...


----------



## jdsmoothie

ChldsPlay said:


> So, I haven't really been paying close enough attention to this, but I've been looking to upgrade my theater to Atmos at some point. I know the receivers weren't really ready for what I wanted last year, but I'm not sure what is available now.
> 
> My requirements:
> 
> *Atmos/DTS-X capable. 7.2.2 configuration (prefer without the need for an additional amp).*
> *HDMI 2.0.*
> *HDCP 2.2*
> 
> That's probably it. Pretty sure other things I want are pretty standard on receivers these days.
> 
> I'll upgrading from a 2010 Onkyo TX-SR608.
> Is there anything reasonable out there now that has that, or should I really just wait until next year?


All of the following 2015 models are 9CH AVRs and meet your above listed requirements:

Denon X6200W
Denon X7200WA
Marantz SR7010
Yamaha A2050
Yamaha A3050
Pioneer SC-95
Pioneer SC-97
Pioneer SC-99


----------



## bargervais

Merry Christmas everyone


----------



## AllenA07

Ceej64 said:


> Quick noob question, I do not currently have an atmos-enabled receiver or speakers, if I have a Blu-Ray (like say, Gravity) with an atmos track, is that track typically have better audio quality in general than the old "non-atmos" version or is there literally no difference without a new receiver?


It will be the same as the non-atmos mix. Because it's an extension of TrueHD the sound from the height channels will simply be rerouted to your remaining surrounds.


----------



## Selden Ball

Ceej64 said:


> Quick noob question, I do not currently have an atmos-enabled receiver or speakers, if I have a Blu-Ray (like say, Gravity) with an atmos track, is that track typically have better audio quality in general than the old "non-atmos" version or is there literally no difference without a new receiver?





AllenA07 said:


> It will be the same as the non-atmos mix. Because it's an extension of TrueHD the sound from the height channels will simply be rerouted to your remaining surrounds.


The contrarian argument is that movies which were mixed using Atmos or DTS:X should sound better than movies which were mixed without. This is because the people mixing the audio are able to position sounds more precisely within the soundfield than when mixing for speaker channels. They don't have to worry about how the sounds should get distributed among the speakers: the encoding software does that for the 7.1 audio channels on the disc, just as the decoding software does it for whatever speaker arrangement exists in a home theater.

Whether or not this is actually true is relatively hard to determine, since usually only a single audio encoding method is used for a particular movie. People have reported that most Atmos movies do tend to have better than average soundtracks, but that could simply be that the people mixing their soundtracks have been doing better jobs than average. However, some movies have been released in different regions with different audio encodings. _Lucy_, for example, was released in the U.S. with a DTS-HD MA soundtrack but was released in Japan with an Atmos soundtrack. There are several others like that. Also, several movies are being released in Germany with Auro3D soundtracks but in the U.S. with Atmos soundtracks, with _Pixels_ being the first. It would be interesting if someone would report on their listening experiences after viewing both versions.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Movie78 said:


> Audiosphere is Amazing
> But height only, I like Audio demo of the Helicopter...


Audiosphere is my favorite so far, but I'm looking forward to trying the others. Thanks for the links! Got 'em!


----------



## Daryl L

May I ask how are you guys playing these ".m2ts" files? I put two on a USB stick and plugged it into my Denon Atmos receiver and it did not even list them visibly in the menu.


----------



## Nalleh

Selden Ball said:


> Also, several movies are being released in Germany with Auro3D soundtracks but in the U.S. with Atmos soundtracks, with _Pixels_ being the first. *It would be interesting if someone would report on their listening experiences after viewing both versions*.


I did:
A few notes on my comparison of the Auro and Atmos track :

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-auro-3d-thread-home-theater-version-111.html

Post 3318.


----------



## bargervais

I got three Atmos movies through Vudu streaming with my Roku4. Edge of tomorrow, into the Storm and Superman Man of Steel. Picture quality for what you think 4K should be is not very good not even close to Blu-Ray IMHO, but the sound is great. I just wanted to share with you all, that there are a lot of titles available through Vudu streamed from your Roku4 that are not available on Blu-Ray.
http://www.watchvudu.com/UHD/


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> On my screen, that link says that it comes with a free three-year warranty: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...work-receiver-hdmi-2.0/wi-fi/bluetooth/1.html
> 
> * Sure, next year that same receiver will be only $549.99
> 
> Five years from now, 20% of all AVSForum members will have a Dolby Atmos decoder.
> - Right now, $300 will get your feet wet: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...iver-hdmi-2.0-wi-fi/bt-sale-reduced-50/1.html
> - About $260: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...a/v-receiver-bluetooth-sale-reduced-20/1.html
> 
> - Or another 7.1.4 Atmos receiver (by adding an external stereo amp): http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...ra-hd-receiver-wi-fi/bluetooth/airplay/1.html
> 
> _________
> 
> One with dtsX Ready ($320): http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...ra-hd-receiver-wi-fi/bluetooth/airplay/1.html


I think you're taking it to the extreme. Also - - refurbished is refurbished. Only one year warranty, period. The little logo that says three year warranty is ONLY for new purchases. Hence the recommendation for an extended warranty.

I believe the improvement from Gen1 to Gen2 AVR Dolby Atmos will be significant. And surely DTS-X will be on board by then. Yes, prices will always drop and if you wait ten years from now, I'm sure you can find a good deal. 

The dust will settle more on immersive formats as well as HDCP 2.2 availability by this time next year. And, with any luck, maybe the introduction of a Bluray UHD player, as well. Also -- more availability of Dirac Live AVR's.


----------



## FilmMixer

dkwong said:


> Can someone re-post these? Looks like Dropbox took them down.


As hey should. 

Again guys... These are copyrighted material, and being distributed illegally. 

Oh.... And Merry Christmas.


----------



## Movie78

Ok!

I took them OFF!!!!

Merry Christmas!!!!!!


----------



## teachsac

Please do not link to copyrighted material.


----------



## sdurani

bargervais said:


> I got three Atmos movies through Vudu streaming with my Roku4. Edge of tomorrow, into the Storm and Superman Man of Steel.


Smart of VUDU to offer Atmos titles not on BD in Atmos rather than just offering streaming versions of the same Atmos soundtracks you can buy on BD.


> I just wanted to share with you all, that there are a lot of titles available through Vudu streamed from your Roku4 that are not available on Blu-Ray.
> http://www.watchvudu.com/UHD/


Thanx, but if that web page is to be believed, then all 24 UHD movies they list, including Goodfellas and all three Hangover movies, have Atmos soundtracks. Do they really?


----------



## HDTVGCL

Daryl L said:


> May I ask how are you guys playing these ".m2ts" files? I put two on a USB stick and plugged it into my Denon Atmos receiver and it did not even list them visibly in the menu.


The way I play the files is to plug USB stick into USB input of DVD player (if have one) then USB will be recognized and select it. Then play file you desire.


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> Overall, I feel like these "just off screen" speakers (the front surrounds and frontal overheads) were being used quite aggressively to expand that sense of scale and presence.... this is an effect we can't yet really duplicate in the non-Trinnov HT environment (unless you sacrifice other speaker locations to bring in the "Wide" and "Front Height" speakers).
> 
> My fingers are firmly crossed that 9.1.4 comes through in next year's models as rumoured. I really think there is quite a bit of unrealized benefit in home Atmos from being unable to expand beyond the 7ch bed without sacrificing other speaker locations.



Yours is a much better analysis of the sound than my report. I'll endeavour to do something equally as thorough during my viewing next week. 

Anyway, about your comment above regarding off-screen speakers...

In most home theater setups, the front left and right channels ARE off-screen and toed-in much as you describe these front surrounds. So maybe the film mixers were trying to duplicate the effect you get at home... Expanding the sense of sound and scale beyond the screen.


----------



## Daryl L

HDTVGCL said:


> The way I play the files is to plug USB stick into USB input of DVD player (if have one) then USB will be recognized and select it. Then play file you desire.


I put the USB stick in the Denon Atmos receiver, my Oppo-BP83 Blu-ray player and my Samsung 3-D Blu-ray player (2010 model) and none of them recognize the .m2ts files. Guess I'm out of luck trying them. I guess my Blu-ray players are too old for that format. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## tjenkins95

sdurani said:


> Smart of VUDU to offer Atmos titles not on BD in Atmos rather than just offering streaming versions of the same Atmos soundtracks you can buy on BD. Thanx, but if that web page is to be believed, then all 24 UHD movies they list, including Goodfellas and all three Hangover movies, have Atmos soundtracks. Do they really?


 
Yes, that is correct according to this article which made the announcement last month: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/vudu-streaming-dolby-atmos-dolby-vision-4k-ultra-hd/


Ray


----------



## Nightlord

virtualrain said:


> In most home theater setups, the front left and right channels ARE off-screen and toed-in much as you describe these front surrounds. So maybe the film mixers were trying to duplicate the effect you get at home... Expanding the sense of sound and scale beyond the screen.


Doing that you effectively kill off any chances for any good stereo music in the setup. 21-23 degrees (instead of 30) is a better goal for that (I believe that's just the narrowest speced for Atmos, actually), and then another wide speaker to fill the gap would be a very good idea.


----------



## sdurani

tjenkins95 said:


> Yes, that is correct according to this article which made the announcement last month: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/vudu-streaming-dolby-atmos-dolby-vision-4k-ultra-hd/


Thanx. That article links to an infographic that separates VUDU 4K offerings into 3 categories: movies with Dolby Vision, movies with Dolby Atmos, and movies that have both. 

http://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/url-b63f25bf3c342223208cf53ce998838d.jpg 

Seems not all the 4K movies on the list have Atmos soundtracks, despite what their detailed description says at the VUDU website.


----------



## SherazNJ

Due to the lack the space for my surround speakers, I cant place them at 90 degrees from MLP? What's 2nd best position considered for surrounds in a 7.2.4 setup? Thx.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Anything between 75 and 105° in 7.x.x will work.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Smart of VUDU to offer Atmos titles not on BD in Atmos rather than just offering streaming versions of the same Atmos soundtracks you can buy on BD. Thanx, but if that web page is to be believed, then all 24 UHD movies they list, including Goodfellas and all three Hangover movies, have Atmos soundtracks. Do they really?


Goodfellas doesn't have an Atmos mix. It is great though that there are titles you can stream with Atmos that aren't available on Blu-Ray.

It is cool to stream a movie in Atmos in my opinion picture quality has a bit to be desired not as good as Blu-Ray, but the Atmos mix is excellent.
I'll wait till UHD Blu-Ray players are available before buying anything else unless it something I want. I think 2016 is going to be exciting, and hopefully DTS will get there act together, UHD Blu-Ray  will flood the market.


----------



## HT-Eman

*The Revenant*

Just finished watching The Revenant which is supposed to be another atmos movie . The movie itself is awesome and theres plenty of elements of nature and battle scenes that would make for a really good atmos movie.


----------



## virtualrain

Nightlord said:


> Doing that you effectively kill off any chances for any good stereo music in the setup. 21-23 degrees (instead of 30) is a better goal for that (I believe that's just the narrowest speced for Atmos, actually), and then another wide speaker to fill the gap would be a very good idea.



Everything is so much more compact at home achieving expansion of the front stage is easy. In a typical HT the front R/L are not behind the screen like in a theater. So "expanding" the front stage beyond the screen happens at home naturally without needing wides.


----------



## FilmMixer

HT-Eman said:


> Just finished watching The Revenant which is supposed to be another atmos movie . The movie itself is awesome and theres plenty of elements of nature and battle scenes that would make for a really good atmos movie.


It is a very very good Atmos mix IHO.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Revenant'* ... but it's not on Blu-ray yet.
And @ the theater (December 25) it's not as good as @ home with a properly calibrated surround sound system. 

* I saw Mad Max @ IMAX and Gravity @ IMAX...both in 3D...and it was better @ home on Blu-ray.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> HT-Eman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just finished watching The Revenant which is supposed to be another atmos movie . The movie itself is awesome and theres plenty of elements of nature and battle scenes that would make for a really good atmos movie.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very very good Atmos mix IHO.
Click to expand...

I am SO looking forward to this flick and Hateful Eight!


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> Nightlord said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing that you effectively kill off any chances for any good stereo music in the setup. 21-23 degrees (instead of 30) is a better goal for that (I believe that's just the narrowest speced for Atmos, actually), and then another wide speaker to fill the gap would be a very good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is so much more compact at home achieving expansion of the front stage is easy. In a typical HT the front R/L are not behind the screen like in a theater. So "expanding" the front stage beyond the screen happens at home naturally without needing wides.
Click to expand...

That's only because the screen is usually (relatively) smaller so the mains have to be outside the screen edge to get good angular separation. People with dedicated HT rooms with a huge AT screen probably do it more like the cinema. 

It's not at all the same thing as what I was describing. You can't do that by just placing your fronts wider. Yes, the sound will be wider but so will be everything else, you aren't getting the separation. With all those extra speakers in cinema Atmos the mix can pull elements apart in space.


----------



## AtmosGirl

I'm new here and I just want to say that I really love Atmos! My family isn't really into technology so I'm setting up an Atmos wanna-be home theater in our apartment. It's a long shot but I want to try using Non-Atmos satellite speakers and simply point them to the ceiling since they are about 2ft away from it. I hope my idea works! I posted some questions and I hope to get useful info.


----------



## bguzman

NorthSky said:


> *'The Revenant'* ... but it's not on Blu-ray yet.
> And @ the theater (December 25) it's not as good as @ home with a properly calibrated surround sound system.
> 
> * I saw Mad Max @ IMAX and Gravity @ IMAX...both in 3D...and it was better @ home on Blu-ray.


You're watching Atmos movies in an IMAX theater. I saw Star Wars here at an Atmos theater and it was phenomenal. I could not possibly recreate all that sound and power in a room in my house. Well maybe if I won the Lottery.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> I am SO looking forward to this flick and Hateful Eight!


"The Hateful 8" is also a fantastic mix... 

Much different than "The Revenant."

But also really, really good at creating geography with sound.


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> That's only because the screen is usually (relatively) smaller so the mains have to be outside the screen edge to get good angular separation. People with dedicated HT rooms with a huge AT screen probably do it more like the cinema.
> 
> It's not at all the same thing as what I was describing. You can't do that by just placing your fronts wider. Yes, the sound will be wider but so will be everything else, you aren't getting the separation. With all those extra speakers in cinema Atmos the mix can pull elements apart in space.



In my original reply, I was only half serious, but you raised an interesting aspect of commercial theater sound that is different from home theater... in a typical commercial theater, the front left and right as well as center sounds all come from the screen. Using front L/R to render objects to the left or right off screen or broaden the sound stage beyond the screen won't work effectively. 

If a mixer wants to widen the front stage a bit beyond the screen (as with the score in Star Wars) or for effects happening just off screen, they can position the sounds there and they will presumably get rendered by a combination of speakers on the side wall and the mains behind the screen. If the mixer then wants to achieve a similar wider effect on the Bluray mix, similarly positioning those sounds a bit wide of the screen... They will end up primarily being rendered by the Front L/R as those are the closest speakers to render such sounds. 

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that by virtue of our smaller screens at home with mains outside the screen area, there's an inherent benefit of a wider stage "beyond the screen". On the other hand, that comes at the cost of having only the center channel (and phantom imaging) to properly render sounds that are on screen.


----------



## AllenA07

I watched Mad Max:Fury Road last night and wow. The movie was exhausting there was so much sound going on. Nice owning some Atmos demo material now.


----------



## Daryl L

I did a little experiment with Dolby Atmos playback versus Dolby Digital + DSU playback. I decided to use the Dolby Atmos demo clips on VUDU. My television will not pass nothing more than Dolby Digital 5.1 through the ARC HDMI (or the SPDIF port) port to the receiver so I listened to the demos that way using DD+DSU first. Next I used my Roku box connected to my receiver allowing me to listen to Dolby Atmos audio from the demos.

The Dolby Atmos soundfield playback was clearly the winner. It offered a much more noticeably enveloping sound field and was also a more fuller and richer sounding experience. I'm not knocking DSU but it was not near as enveloping and sounded a bit thinner and less rich than the Atmos soundtrack.

I'm using a 5.1.2 speaker set up with Atmos add-on speakers in the front. I know a lot of people keep saying that DSU as a great improvement to plain Dolby Digital and it may sound better with the speaker layout that has overhead direct reflecting speakers than when Atmos add-on speakers but to me the DD+DSU although added some enhancement to the Dolby Digital 5.1 track it wasn't too much of an improvement over straight Dolby Digital 5.1. Noticeable but not by a large margin. Just my observations and opinion of what I experienced.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

virtualrain said:


> In my original reply, I was only half serious, but you raised an interesting aspect of commercial theater sound that is different from home theater... in a typical commercial theater, the front left and right as well as center sounds all come from the screen. Using front L/R to render objects to the left or right off screen or broaden the sound stage beyond the screen won't work effectively.
> 
> If a mixer wants to widen the front stage a bit beyond the screen (as with the score in Star Wars) or for effects happening just off screen, they can position the sounds there and they will presumably get rendered by a combination of speakers on the side wall and the mains behind the screen. If the mixer then wants to achieve a similar wider effect on the Bluray mix, similarly positioning those sounds a bit wide of the screen... They will end up primarily being rendered by the Front L/R as those are the closest speakers to render such sounds.
> 
> Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that by virtue of our smaller screens at home with mains outside the screen area, there's an inherent benefit of a wider stage "beyond the screen". On the other hand, that comes at the cost of having only the center channel (and phantom imaging) to properly render sounds that are on screen.


I would assume if we get the Star Wars Atmos mix at some point from Disney that those basic consumer renderers (not a Trinnov or the like with a more cinema grade renderer) with wide speaker capabilities will place any sounds or music meant to be directly off screen in the two Front Wides (or Front Surrounds). That's how it has been for the Atmos mixes I've listened to through my system so far.


----------



## bargervais

sdurani said:


> Thanx. That article links to an infographic that separates VUDU 4K offerings into 3 categories: movies with Dolby Vision, movies with Dolby Atmos, and movies that have both.
> 
> http://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/url-b63f25bf3c342223208cf53ce998838d.jpg
> 
> Seems not all the 4K movies on the list have Atmos soundtracks, despite what their detailed description says at the VUDU website.


I think that some of these titles are only available to me in Atmos, because I'm not set up to get Dolby Vision. the others that say Atmos they may only be available if you can stream with Dolby Vision. Like with a Vizio for now and this is only a speculation on my part at this time.


----------



## brahman12

*AMC Prime*



NorthSky said:


> *'The Revenant'* ... but it's not on Blu-ray yet.
> And @ the theater (December 25) it's not as good as @ home with a properly calibrated surround sound system.
> 
> * I saw Mad Max @ IMAX and Gravity @ IMAX...both in 3D...and it was better @ home on Blu-ray.


Hello NorthSky, and happy holidays. Your post is indeed often correct, but not all of the time. I live in NYC and we have an AMC Prime theater on 42nd Street that is absolutely the greatest movie watching experience I have encountered, whether home based or multiplex based. The Dolby Vision system is crystal clear and highly resolved on a huge screen with awesome black levels. Also absolutely the best 3d performance I have ever encountered. Bright and smooth. The sound is phenomenal- detailed, POWERFUL, and ass-kicking bass. Really really a fun and worthwhile experience even for the indiscernible movie goers that are not as particular as we are here in our AVS family. Happy Holidays to everyone!!!!


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> If a mixer wants to widen the front stage a bit beyond the screen (as with the score in Star Wars) or for effects happening just off screen, they can position the sounds there and they will presumably get rendered by a combination of speakers on the side wall and the mains behind the screen.


No, that's not quite right. And it gets right to the heart of what I'm saying. 

That sound doesn't have to be rendered by a combination of side surrounds and mains. Because the commercial Atmos cinema has an array of front surrounds that sit in that formerly empty space between the side surround array and the screen channels (basically the front most portion of the side walls). 

These are "object only" channels that function the same as the "wide" speaker in home Atmos. Until a 9.1.4 arrangement is available for us (non Trinnov) home users we can't replicate that effect. It's not about screen size or front speaker placement, it's about those extra speakers that the commercial cinema has. And with the 7.1.4 consumer layout we lose the benefit they provide.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> virtualrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my original reply, I was only half serious, but you raised an interesting aspect of commercial theater sound that is different from home theater... in a typical commercial theater, the front left and right as well as center sounds all come from the screen. Using front L/R to render objects to the left or right off screen or broaden the sound stage beyond the screen won't work effectively.
> 
> If a mixer wants to widen the front stage a bit beyond the screen (as with the score in Star Wars) or for effects happening just off screen, they can position the sounds there and they will presumably get rendered by a combination of speakers on the side wall and the mains behind the screen. If the mixer then wants to achieve a similar wider effect on the Bluray mix, similarly positioning those sounds a bit wide of the screen... They will end up primarily being rendered by the Front L/R as those are the closest speakers to render such sounds.
> 
> Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that by virtue of our smaller screens at home with mains outside the screen area, there's an inherent benefit of a wider stage "beyond the screen". On the other hand, that comes at the cost of having only the center channel (and phantom imaging) to properly render sounds that are on screen.
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume if we get the Star Wars Atmos mix at some point from Disney that those basic consumer renderers (not a Trinnov or the like with a more cinema grade renderer) with wide speaker capabilities will place any sounds or music meant to be directly off screen in the two Front Wides (or Front Surrounds). That's how it has been for the Atmos mixes I've listened to through my system so far.
Click to expand...

This. 

Without those extra horizontal layer speakers, as has been much discussed, the primary benefit of home Atmos mixes is overhead stuff. Which is why people complain so much about weak Atmos mixes lacking overhead activity.


----------



## Surfdrifter

Hi. I'm making plans for a living room/atmos 7.2.4 setup. I will have bipole/dipole (svs Ultra Surround) for surrounds and SVS Ultra Bookshelves for Surround Back.
I can place my surrounds in whatever height i wish (i was thinking about 30cm/1ft above ear level), but the surround backs can be placed at about 2m (about 6-7ft) from the floor. The ceiling speakers would be at about 2,55m(8-8,5ft) from the floor. 

Would the Surround Backs, being that high, cause problems with the Atmos tracks?

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> This.
> 
> Without those extra horizontal layer speakers, as has been much discussed, the primary benefit of home Atmos mixes is overhead stuff. Which is why people complain so much about weak Atmos mixes lacking overhead activity.


Bingo. 

They marketed the overheads as the big add-on selling point for consumers without the sound mixers getting the same memo.  There is far more activity going on in the individual speakers comprising the _horizontal arrays_ than the overheads much of the time. That was quite apparent during the JBL Synthesis demos with Trinnov based processor at CEDIA. 

Too bad we "normal" people don't get any of those vital surround arrays in our A/V gear.


----------



## NorthSky

brahman12 said:


> Hello NorthSky, and happy holidays. Your post is indeed often correct, but not all of the time. I live in NYC and we have an AMC Prime theater on 42nd Street that is absolutely the greatest movie watching experience I have encountered, whether home based or multiplex based. The Dolby Vision system is crystal clear and highly resolved on a huge screen with awesome black levels. Also absolutely the best 3d performance I have ever encountered. Bright and smooth. The sound is phenomenal- detailed, POWERFUL, and ass-kicking bass. Really really a fun and worthwhile experience even for the indiscernible movie goers that are not as particular as we are here in our AVS family. Happy Holidays to everyone!!!!


Happy and warm and peaceful holidays to you too and your family sir brahman.

I don't have the privilege to live in a magnificent city as New York or Los Angeles or San Francisco or Reno or Houston or Miami or ...
I live on a humble island of the Canadian west coast and our IMAX theaters (or any other regular theaters) are not equipped with 'Dobly Atoms'.
For that I would have to fly or take the ferry to the mainland...Vancouver. ...Roughly three hours all together to get to that theater, plus all the preparations and financial investment...roughly $450...including transportation, room and board (hotel) and food. 

Also Toronto and Montreal have Dolby Atmos theaters...but that's 3,000 miles from where I live. 

Anyway, I've been in many theaters in my days, and still occasionally, but nothing like New York city prime theaters or Los Angeles the city of angels. 
Yes, I have been in those two cities,,,but not @ their Dolby Atmos theaters. ...Very unfortunately. 

All I can honestly say, in my own environment where I live, is that I prefer @ home on Blu-ray on my small 60" plasma tv set watching Mad Max and Gravity. The picture is less grainy and the sound much more homogeneous. ...Plus the 3D visual effects are better too (mine is a Samsung). 

So yes sir, I totally agree with you...depending of where we live. 

* Some theaters are magnificent...decor wise...from the old era of cinema when it was done with love and artistic class. 
Today is different...boring rectangular boxes with old bulb lights that should have been replaced years ago and with a bunch of speakers blown out and with amps that have no current. ...In many theaters from the humble towns where many people live.

It is a great asset in the year 2016 to live in New York City and Los Angeles where the best Dolby Atmos theaters are. 

Wish you more of the best going forward. ...Including dtsX


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> Bingo.
> 
> They marketed the overheads as the big add-on selling point for consumers without the sound mixers getting the same memo.  There is far more activity going on in the individual speakers comprising the _horizontal arrays_ than the overheads much of the time. That was quite apparent during the JBL Synthesis demos with Trinnov based processor at CEDIA.
> 
> Too bad we "normal" people don't get any of those vital surround arrays in our A/V gear.


What speaker configuration did JBL use st CEDIA?


----------



## NorthSky

bguzman said:


> You're watching Atmos movies in an IMAX theater. I saw Star Wars here at an Atmos theater and it was phenomenal. I could not possibly recreate all that sound and power in a room in my house. Well maybe if I won the Lottery.


Looks like a real swell theater. 

Unfortunately where I live (on an island), we don't have any Dolby Atmos equipped theaters. ...And the projector's bulbs are often old and not replaced in time. Plus, some speakers distortion grossly when the sound is loud (most likely blown out drivers that are ripped apart and burned voice coils in the tweeters). 

The closest Dolby Atmos theater from where I live is on the mainland, Vancouver. ...And it's too much of a stretch to get there (about half hour by plane then in a taxi from the airport to the theater...about an hour drive...when traffic permitting). ...Or by ferry (1.5 hour, then another 1.5 hour drive). ...And I need to come back...so about $450 total (transport, food, miscellaneous). 

I just have to content myself @ home, or @ those mediocre theaters from my island. ...The best one is in downtown Victoria, @ the museum, ...IMAX. 
But no Dolby Atmos there, the accent is on the aboriginals. ...Totems, canoes, tepees, Indians from the Canadian west coast. ...Salmons from the rivers and killer whales from the Pacific ocean, with bald eagles flying above in the great northern Canadian sky. ...And grizzly bears from up North. 

Merry New Year and Happy Christmas!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> What speaker configuration did JBL use st CEDIA?


13.4.11 

The 11th overhead was for the centralized mono VOG used in Auro3D.


----------



## Stoked21

Dan Hitchman said:


> 13.4.11
> 
> The 11th overhead was for the centralized mono VOG used in Auro3D.


Where were other 4 in the bed located? Obviously 7+wides. The other 2 pair?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> Where were other 4 in the bed located? Obviously 7+wides. The other 2 pair?


If I'm not mistaken, there were two extra sides and two extra rears. 

It was all covered up with acoustic fabric, but that's what it sounded like anyway when things were panning around the room.


----------



## NorthSky

Ricoflashback said:


> I think you're taking it to the extreme. Also - - refurbished is refurbished. Only one year warranty, period. The little logo that says three year warranty is ONLY for new purchases. Hence the recommendation for an extended warranty.
> 
> I believe the improvement from Gen1 to Gen2 AVR Dolby Atmos will be significant. And surely DTS-X will be on board by then. Yes, prices will always drop and if you wait ten years from now, I'm sure you can find a good deal.
> 
> The dust will settle more on immersive formats as well as HDCP 2.2 availability by this time next year. And, with any luck, maybe the introduction of a Bluray UHD player, as well. Also -- more availability of Dirac Live AVR's.


I did not know that you can get that 3-year warranty on only brand new Onkyo receivers (and Denon/Marantz). ...Not on refurbs.
Then I agree with you; best with those products is to get that extended warranty. 

Methinks that Gen3 AVR Dolby Atmos (2016) is going to be even better than the two previous gens. ...And yes, with operative dtsX.
As for waiting ten years...I won't be alive by then...most likely (heart condition won't allow me). ...So 2016 is dtsX year for me, and that demands serious consideration as to which new pre/pro will take the place of my older Integra one. ...And as a bonus I have already more than twenty Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies. My budget (total, with four overhead speakers) is between three and six thousand dollars (Canadian loonies).

Also, I am setting aside another four to eight thousands for a 4K front projector, plus 4K OLED bedroom TV. 

And, I need more money for the new UHD Blu-ray movies (here in Canada those are going to be real expensive).

And finally, of course, a new oppo UHD Universal Blu-ray player. 

Santa came through the chimney last night but he forgot to leave a check for what will be needed in the next few months. 
Then I'll have to rely on the "magic reindeer". ...Santa I don't believe in anymore, but the reindeer yes. 

Wish you the best New Year ever! ...It should be a real blast...Sicario, Spotlight, Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Walk, The Revenant, The Faithful Eight (Hateful), SW: The Force Awakens, ...all in UHD Blu-ray with (((3D))) immersive sound. ...And hopefully Mad Max 2. ...And the first one remastered in Black and White.


----------



## Kain

I wonder if Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix for an Ultra HD Blu-ray release?


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> 13.4.11
> 
> The 11th overhead was for the centralized mono VOG used in Auro3D.


So, how many rows of seating? Any pics somewhere??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> I wonder if Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix for an Ultra HD Blu-ray release?


That's only if Spielberg deems it appropriate. The movie isn't really IMHO the kind of film used primarily for demo purposes. Kind of like Schindler's List.

I could see Minority Report, War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, E.T., or the Indy films being likely candidates.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> So, how many rows of seating? Any pics somewhere??


I'm sure there are a few pics around somewhere on the net. I just haven't really noticed any that popped out at me. Though, all you'll see is a large scope screen and fabric walls.

There were two small rows at the demo. I sat in the front row. The back was raised on a platform.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> 13.4.11
> 
> The 11th overhead was for the centralized mono VOG used in Auro3D.


So, how many rows of seating? Any pics somewhere??


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> I wonder if *Saving Private Ryan* will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix for an Ultra HD Blu-ray release?


IMHO it would be awesome on UHD Blu-ray, with a dtsX remastered audio soundtrack. ...I'll buy it again...my sixth copy.


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's only if Spielberg deems it appropriate. The movie isn't really IMHO the kind of film used primarily for demo purposes. Kind of like Schindler's List.
> 
> I could see Minority Report, War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, E.T., or the Indy films being likely candidates.


Ah yes, Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds would be really fun. 



NorthSky said:


> IMHO it would be awesome on UHD Blu-ray, with a dtsX remastered audio soundtrack. ...I'll buy it again...my sixth copy.


The only version of the movie I have is the DTS version on DVD. It somehow got scratched-up and skips/freezes at some parts (specifically at the opening beach scene).


----------



## Stanton

Kain said:


> I wonder if Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix for an Ultra HD Blu-ray release?





Dan Hitchman said:


> That's only if Spielberg deems it appropriate. The movie isn't really IMHO the kind of film used primarily for demo purposes. Kind of like Schindler's List.


Are you kidding? The first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan is a demo reel! Based on the fact that it received a special Blu-Ray edition, we could see it on UHD BD _before_ Jurassic Park because it isn't full of CGI.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stanton said:


> Are you kidding? The first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan is a demo reel! Based on the fact that it received a special Blu-Ray edition, we could see it on UHD BD _before_ Jurassic Park because it isn't full of CGI.


But Spielberg probably wouldn't see it like that. It's a war movie honoring the sacrifice of the Greatest Generation, not an action/adventure or sci fi romp.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> The only version of the movie I have is the DTS version on DVD. It somehow got scratched-up and skips/freezes at some parts (specifically at the opening beach scene).


Check eBay for that dts DVD (the sound is awesome, even lossy). ...Or get the Blu-ray (lossless DTS-HD Master Audio...not bad, not bad @ all).

But! In dtsX with overhead sounds it would be fantastic! ...I truly think so. ...And not only for the first 25 opening immersive minutes but also @ the end with the planes flying by over that bridge they are defending. ...The tank scene in destroyed village, the sniper scene too, the Germans in the bunkhouse when the wall falls down, the background explosions when @ night they are talking smoothly, ...so many great scenes where overhead sounds are perfectly adequate...brief the perfect flick for dtsX (or Dolby Atmos). This is all perfect dtsX demo stuff...'Saving Private Ryan'.


----------



## NorthSky

...Get this one for now (till it comes on UHD Blu-ray): ♦ http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Saving-Private-Ryan-Blu-ray/72113/

♥ But this one is the Ultimate Best: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Saving-Private-Ryan-Blu-ray/8683/#Review
...Because it comes with a second Blu-ray disc (special features), and you save $55 ($70 versus $15).


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> ...Get this one for now (till it comes on UHD Blu-ray): ♦ http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Saving-Private-Ryan-Blu-ray/72113/


I've made a promise to myself that I won't be buying any more movies until Ultra HD Blu-ray is here.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> I've made a promise to myself that I won't be buying any more movies until Ultra HD Blu-ray is here.


That is very wise thinking...but what about if it takes four years till 'Saving Private Ryan' comes on UHD Blu-ray? 
Meanwhile are you going to demo your friends your broken (scratched dts DVD copy) with interrupted sound? 
The Blu-ray with lossless hi-res sound (DTS-HD MA 5.1) is only fifteen bucks right now. And that would be great demo stuff to your friends for the next four years...or more. ...Less maybe but better not count on it then dream for the best. ...Because the best might never come. 

Anyway, people from Dubai they know best. ...Merry Christmas!


----------



## AllenA07

NorthSky said:


> That is very wise thinking...but what about if it takes four years till 'Saving Private Ryan' comes on UHD Blu-ray?
> Meanwhile are you going to demo your friends your broken (scratched dts DVD copy) with interrupted sound?
> The Blu-ray with lossless hi-res sound (DTS-HD MA 5.1) is only fifteen bucks right now. And that would be great demo stuff to your friends for the next four years...or more. ...Less maybe but better not count on it then dream for the best. ...Because the best might never come.



I owned Saving Private Ryan on VHS, DVD, and now Blu Ray. I suspect I'll own it on UHD, and what ever comes after that as well.


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> That is very wise thinking...but what about if it takes four years till 'Saving Private Ryan' comes on UHD Blu-ray?
> Meanwhile are you going to demo your friends your broken (scratched dts DVD copy) with interrupted sound?
> The Blu-ray with lossless hi-res sound (DTS-HD MA 5.1) is only fifteen bucks right now. And that would be great demo stuff to your friends for the next four years...or more. ...Less maybe but better not count on it then dream for the best. ...Because the best might never come.
> 
> Anyway, people from Dubai they know best. ...Merry Christmas!


A quick recap of my current home theater setup:

I bought/set it all up in 2004 and it has been the same since except for the fact that I added a subwoofer in 2009 (was running without a subwoofer all that time) and changed the DVD player soon after that because my original one went bad. So, yep, my main (or "real") home theater is still in the DVD ages (including the display which is a Panasonic SD plasma).

However, I do have a Sony Blu-ray 5.1 HTIB that is connected to a 1080p TV in the TV lounge.

I own maybe 20 or so DVDs and not a single Blu-ray. A Blu-ray has never been inserted in the Sony HTIB. 

I will most likely be scrapping my main/real home theater in a year or two and starting fresh. Just waiting for all this Ultra HD Blu-ray, DTS:X, and OLED stuff to settle down.

If you had the choice between high-end Klipsch speakers with a SubMersive + DVD + 42" Panasonic SD plasma and a Sony Blu-ray 5.1 HTIB + Blu-ray + 40" Sony 1080p TV, which "platform" would you prefer to watch movies on?

Merry Christmas to you too!


----------



## bass addict

Kain said:


> If you had the choice between high-end Klipsch speakers with a SubMersive + DVD + 42" Panasonic SD plasma and a Sony Blu-ray 5.1 HTIB + Blu-ray + 40" Sony 1080p TV, which "platform" would you prefer to watch movies on?
> 
> Merry Christmas to you too!


Is this a real question?


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> If you had the choice between high-end Klipsch speakers with a SubMersive + DVD + 42" Panasonic SD plasma and a Sony Blu-ray 5.1 HTIB + Blu-ray + 40" Sony 1080p TV, which "platform" would you prefer to watch movies on?
> 
> Merry Christmas to you too!


On Blu-ray, and in 3D. I'm a Blu-ray man, and a big 3D fan. 1080p beats 480p, and dts-HD MA hi-res lossless audio beats dts compressed lossy audio.

* Put the best sound system with the best display (high def picture with high res audio). 
You don't have to put the best sound system with standard DVD and TV. It's your choice, it's your entertainment. 

If sound is so important, then do as most people; stay with hi-fi stereo, and forget about the rest...listen to the music.
For movies use your cell phone, and stream from youtube.


----------



## Kain

bass addict said:


> Is this a real question?


I guess it depends on whether you value better picture more or better sound more.


----------



## bass addict

Kain said:


> I guess it depends on whether you value better picture more or better sound more.


Then I must be a big sound buff cause it's not even a question for me, better speakers all the way.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Kain said:


> I've made a promise to myself that I won't be buying any more movies until Ultra HD Blu-ray is here.


Looks like a new year's resolution. Now everyone knows what happens..


----------



## petetherock

HI
I did that before and the sound didn't quite flow.. If possible the maximum would be about 1.5m 
Even pointing them down doesn't quite work. You can see my current setup in my signature. Cheers



Surfdrifter said:


> Hi. I'm making plans for a living room/atmos 7.2.4 setup. I will have bipole/dipole (svs Ultra Surround) for surrounds and SVS Ultra Bookshelves for Surround Back.
> I can place my surrounds in whatever height i wish (i was thinking about 30cm/1ft above ear level), but the surround backs can be placed at about 2m (about 6-7ft) from the floor. The ceiling speakers would be at about 2,55m(8-8,5ft) from the floor.
> 
> Would the Surround Backs, being that high, cause problems with the Atmos tracks?
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> If you had the choice between high-end Klipsch speakers with a SubMersive + DVD + 42" Panasonic SD plasma and a Sony Blu-ray 5.1 HTIB + Blu-ray + 40" Sony 1080p TV, which "platform" would you prefer to watch movies on?


The one with the 1080p display. I tend to be somewhat more visually oriented. Being able to actually read the end credits is one indication of the improved visual quality that 1080p provides.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Looks like a new year's resolution. Now everyone knows what happens..


...They all got drunk and they all forgot about all them new resolutions. ...And they keep streaming in low audio resolution (lossy, compressed), with mediocre picture in lower definition from the internet cafe with pixels breaking up and halos around the sun and the moon. ...Soapish opera tv style, with that polished antiseptic hospital grade looks. Only the high healed ones rent from Netflix and stream from Vudu and Hulu. 

Here's me future prediction: UHD Blu-ray is an extension to Blu-ray, the prices for new releases will remain high and higher and market shares will keep falling down while DVDs and streaming and downloading will become the major force. ...And Disney will make more money @ the Box Office. 

3D? Forget it, it's a niche market for only the true cinema aficionados. UHD is in the streaming and downloading, not on Blu-ray. Blu-ray UHD is just a physical medium for the physical/material people...like I. The best picture and sound are not the ones people adopt in masses. It's more for the Hollywood class of high end taste...Quentin Tarantino and elite gang...myself included. 

Good humor is more important than good picture in the year 2016. And good sound goes hand in hand, with that picture of good humor.
And if you don't you simply forgot about living life on the bright side. Methinks, my two cents, IMO and all that jazz. 

Without Mad Max and Gravity and Avatar 3D sound (Atmos) and 3D picture wouldn't be the majesty they are now. ...In my humble opinion. 
Fun and entertainment are the essential ingredients of film and music scores. Mad Max is the number one winner in Sound, and in Picture too. ...For the year 2015 3D. 

Avengers "Ultron" forget it...a big fiasco sound wise. And Star Wars: The Force Awakens...lol, take your best shot and guess...

- Academy Awards 2016 winner for Best Sound Mix/Design: Max.
- Best Picture: Max.
- Best Overall: Max.
- Best Makeups: Max.
- Best Costumes: Max.
- Best Sound Effects: Max.
- Best Cinematography: Max. 
- Best artistic Set Designs: Max.


----------



## electronics craz

looking to get atmos receiver can i use klipsch surround speakers for height speakers in7 .2 setup?


----------



## Selden Ball

electronics craz said:


> looking to get atmos receiver can i use klipsch surround speakers for height speakers in7 .2 setup?


Yes. You just have to have the appropriate brackets so you can hang them from the ceiling.


----------



## makrelov

Selden Ball said:


> Yes. You just have to have the appropriate brackets so you can hang them from the ceiling.


Can you propose some appropriate brackets for hangind, let's say, KLIPSCH RS-52's, from ceiling? I am looking for such right now as I am expecting my set of speakers to come in next days.

And regarding the discussion of which movie would be the best to have in Atmos - I would like to hear *Black Hawk Down*. It would have a perfect sound mix, don't you agree?


----------



## Roudan

Hi 

I am wondering what sound you prefer, DTS HD 7.1 or its DSU version?

For 2015 Marantz model in order to apply DSU to DTS sound, i went to blue ray player set audio to LPCM, then I can see audio in Marantz becomes Multi In + DSU. What is this Mult in ? Why not just DSU alone?


I kind of feel DSU sound better than DTS 7.1? Just wondering how this sound codec change from DTS to LPCM to DSU works?

Thanks


----------



## NorthSky

makrelov said:


> Can you propose some appropriate brackets for hangind, let's say, KLIPSCH RS-52's, from ceiling? I am looking for such right now as I am expecting my set of speakers to come in next days.
> 
> And regarding the discussion of which movie would be the best to have in Atmos - I would like to hear *Black Hawk Down*. It would have a perfect sound mix, don't you agree?


Happy Holidays! 

1. Something similar to that would do: https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=108&cp_id=10828&cs_id=1082804&p_id=6839&seq=1&format=2
2. 'Black Hawk Down' with Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU) should sound real real good. ...Yes, I think so, very.



Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> I am wondering what sound you prefer, DTS HD 7.1 or its DSU version?
> 
> For 2015 Marantz model in order to apply DSU to DTS sound, i went to blue ray player set audio to LPCM, then I can see audio in Marantz becomes Multi In + DSU. What is this Mult in ? Why not just DSU alone?
> 
> I kind of feel DSU sound better than DTS 7.1? Just wondering how this sound codec change from DTS to LPCM to DSU works?
> 
> Thanks


Hi Roudan and Happy Holidays! 

'Mult In' is LPCM Multichannel Input where your Blu-ray player is doing the decoding inside and sending the high resolution multichannel audio as is (lossless, equal to DTS-HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD). Adding DSU on top of it, like you do with your Marantz AV7702MKII pre/pro, is the way to do it, and that is exactly how I would do it myself, till you get the firmware upgrade for DTS:X coming up soon. 

*Mult In + DSU* is perfect. ...For the DTS audio soundtracks (with Dolby you can leave your BR player set @ Bitstream).


----------



## Nightlord

Kain said:


> If you had the choice between high-end Klipsch speakers with a SubMersive + DVD + 42" Panasonic SD plasma and a Sony Blu-ray 5.1 HTIB + Blu-ray + 40" Sony 1080p TV, which "platform" would you prefer to watch movies on?


The Klipsch/Panasonic definitely. 40" is much to small for any real benefit of HD in any case and plasma is quite good at hiding that it's lower res. If the viewing distance is ten feet or more, dvd or bluray should not make a real difference - but the sound would be magnitudes better.

Had you put a 60" hdtv in the second system it would have been a little more pondering to do, but I may have ended up on the same answer still.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> But Spielberg probably wouldn't see it like that. It's a war movie honoring the sacrifice of the Greatest Generation, not an action/adventure or sci fi romp.


The one would think he'd want to see it presented in the best possible way, with immersive audio enhancing his work.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> I am wondering what sound you prefer, DTS HD 7.1 or its DSU version?
> 
> For 2015 Marantz model in order to apply DSU to DTS sound, i went to blue ray player set audio to LPCM, then I can see audio in Marantz becomes Multi In + DSU. What is this Mult in ? Why not just DSU alone?
> 
> 
> I kind of feel DSU sound better than DTS 7.1? Just wondering how this sound codec change from DTS to LPCM to DSU works?
> 
> Thanks


You are fine running it that way. All that you have done is change where the unpacking of the codec is done, from Blu-ray player to AVR. There is no sound difference either way. To use DSU on your 2015 Marantz this is the only way to apply DSU to DTS tracks, until Marantz get around to fixing the bug (if they ever do).

It says Multi-In +DSU because DSU is an upmixer, so it has to run 'on top' of the original sound IYSWIM. You can't just have DSU on its own, just as you can't have PLII on its own.

DSU allows you to use all the speakers in your system including the overheads. It will 'redirect' sound from 5.1 to 7.1 or 7.1.4 etc. On a 5.1 system playing a 5.1 track, DSU will not do anything - there has to be more speakers in the system than were catered for in the original soundtrack.

You will likely prefer DSU upmixing in the above circumstances as all your speakers will be in play.

If you want to listen to an Atmos soundtrack, remember to set your Blu-ray player back to bitstream, or you will not be able to decode Atmos.


----------



## Selden Ball

makrelov said:


> Can you propose some appropriate brackets for hangind, let's say, KLIPSCH RS-52's, from ceiling? I am looking for such right now as I am expecting my set of speakers to come in next days.


 Unfortunately, the mounts I've found seem to be designed for wall mounting. http://www.klipsch.com/pro/cinema/parts-upgrades You might try contacting Klipsch directly for recommendations.

The RS-52 model seems to be a bipole or dipole design (the manual doesn't say which), intended to reflect sound off walls to produce an enveloping ambient sound. While many people do enjoy them, they might not be optimal for Atmos, which works best with directly radiating speakers.


----------



## HT-Eman

*The Hateful Movie*

A little off topic but the Hateful Eight uses racial dialogue ( N-Word , ******* , etc ) way to much in this movie. As the title says.... This is a Hateful movie. Ok , carry on .


----------



## thebland

HT-Eman said:


> A little off topic but the Hateful Eight uses racial dialogue ( N-Word , ******* , etc ) way to much in this movie. As the title says.... This is a Hateful movie. Ok , carry on .


Quentin Tarantino... no surprise there...


----------



## crazyhog

Just lurking on this thread even i dont have Atmos receiver yet , 

Re: dts hdma to DSU, if i understnd correctly, ( my xtreamer player ) must be set to LPCM to enable height speakers? 

and Dolby codec file can be bitsteam on xtreamer?

so,
> DTS / DTSHDMA set media player to LPCM
> DOLBY / TrueHD / ATMOS set to bitstream......?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

HT-Eman said:


> A little off topic but the Hateful Eight uses racial dialogue ( N-Word , ******* , etc ) way to much in this movie. As the title says.... This is a Hateful movie. Ok , carry on .


No objection to all the gratuitous killing then? Just some of the dialogue? What I really object to about this movie is that it isn't an Atmos mix. QT is lagging behind... let's hope this is something he puts right in *Faster, Pussycat Kill Kill*.


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Here's me future prediction:
> 
> - Academy Awards 2016 winner for
> - Best Sound Mix/Design: Max.
> - Best Picture: Max.
> - Best Overall: Max.
> - Best Makeups: Max.
> - Best Costumes: Max.
> - Best Sound Effects: Max.
> - Best Cinematography: Max.
> - Best artistic Set Designs: Max.


Way to "Max" it out Bob. If you pay attention to how the Academy nominates and awards films you would never make this prediction, but in Bob's world not a surprise  

Max is a decent flick, especially if you want to hear some sounds up top with an Atmos setup and shake your woofer(s). Not that special to take those awards. Just keep in mind that my opinion doesn't matter as I'm not a real movie buff since I find 3D to be undesireable


----------



## bargervais

HT-Eman said:


> A little off topic but the Hateful Eight uses racial dialogue ( N-Word , ******* , etc ) way to much in this movie. As the title says.... This is a Hateful movie. Ok , carry on .


Ill have to get this one for sure.


----------



## jpco

crazyhog said:


> Just lurking on this thread even i dont have Atmos receiver yet ,
> 
> Re: dts hdma to DSU, if i understnd correctly, ( my xtreamer player ) must be set to LPCM to enable height speakers?
> 
> and Dolby codec file can be bitsteam on xtreamer?
> 
> so,
> > DTS / DTSHDMA set media player to LPCM
> > DOLBY / TrueHD / ATMOS set to bitstream......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Only with a Denon or Marantz unit. Other brands can handle bitstream of DTS with DSU.


----------



## Roudan

NorthSky said:


> makrelov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you propose some appropriate brackets for hangind, let's say, KLIPSCH RS-52's, from ceiling? I am looking for such right now as I am expecting my set of speakers to come in next days.
> 
> And regarding the discussion of which movie would be the best to have in Atmos - I would like to hear *Black Hawk Down*. It would have a perfect sound mix, don't you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Holidays!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Something similar to that would do: https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=108&cp_id=10828&cs_id=1082804&p_id=6839&seq=1&format=2
> 2. 'Black Hawk Down' with Dolby Surround Up-mixer (DSU) should sound real real good. ...Yes, I think so, very.
> 
> 
> 
> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I am wondering what sound you prefer, DTS HD 7.1 or its DSU version?
> 
> For 2015 Marantz model in order to apply DSU to DTS sound, i went to blue ray player set audio to LPCM, then I can see audio in Marantz becomes Multi In + DSU. What is this Mult in ? Why not just DSU alone?
> 
> I kind of feel DSU sound better than DTS 7.1? Just wondering how this sound codec change from DTS to LPCM to DSU works?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Roudan and Happy Holidays!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Mult In' is LPCM Multichannel Input where your Blu-ray player is doing the decoding inside and sending the high resolution multichannel audio as is (lossless, equal to DTS-HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD). Adding DSU on top of it, like you do with your Marantz AV7702MKII pre/pro, is the way to do it, and that is exactly how I would do it myself, till you get the firmware upgrade for DTS:X coming up soon.
> 
> *Mult In + DSU* is perfect. ...For the DTS audio soundtracks (with Dolby you can leave your BR player set @ Bitstream).
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob. Happy Holiddys to you too. And happy holidays to all of others as well


----------



## Roudan

kbarnes701 said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I am wondering what sound you prefer, DTS HD 7.1 or its DSU version?
> 
> For 2015 Marantz model in order to apply DSU to DTS sound, i went to blue ray player set audio to LPCM, then I can see audio in Marantz becomes Multi In + DSU. What is this Mult in ? Why not just DSU alone?
> 
> 
> I kind of feel DSU sound better than DTS 7.1? Just wondering how this sound codec change from DTS to LPCM to DSU works?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> You are fine running it that way. All that you have done is change where the unpacking of the codec is done, from Blu-ray player to AVR. There is no sound difference either way. To use DSU on your 2015 Marantz this is the only way to apply DSU to DTS tracks, until Marantz get around to fixing the bug (if they ever do).
> 
> It says Multi-In +DSU because DSU is an upmixer, so it has to run 'on top' of the original sound IYSWIM. You can't just have DSU on its own, just as you can't have PLII on its own.
> 
> DSU allows you to use all the speakers in your system including the overheads. It will 'redirect' sound from 5.1 to 7.1 or 7.1.4 etc. On a 5.1 system playing a 5.1 track, DSU will not do anything - there has to be more speakers in the system than were catered for in the original soundtrack.
> 
> You will likely prefer DSU upmixing in the above circumstances as all your speakers will be in play.
> 
> If you want to listen to an Atmos soundtrack, remember to set your Blu-ray player back to bitstream, or you will not be able to decode Atmos.
Click to expand...

Thanks Keith. That is very clear ! Happy Holiday!


----------



## virtualrain

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, the mounts I've found seem to be designed for wall mounting. http://www.klipsch.com/pro/cinema/parts-upgrades You might try contacting Klipsch directly for recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> The RS-52 model seems to be a bipole or dipole design (the manual doesn't say which), intended to reflect sound off walls to produce an enveloping ambient sound. While many people do enjoy them, they might not be optimal for Atmos, which works best with directly radiating speakers.



The Klipsch surrounds are an in-phase design (bipole?) and work great as overhead speakers IMHO. They offer good on-axis performance for objects with extremely wide dispersion for ambient sounds. 

Their semi-circular design also makes them look ok when mounted to the ceiling. 

To the OP inquiring about brackets, I used a pair of L-brackets to mount each of mine. Simple and effective although it does require you attach the brackets to the sides of the speaker cabinets likely impacting resale value (if that's important).


----------



## dianebrat

Trying to get some ATMOS advice before I start drilling holes this weekend, I posted in the Yamaha thread but it's not a Yamaha specific question.
A Yamaha RX-A850 was my xmas present so I could do an ATMOS install and I have two options presented to me, both require some installation and reconfiguration for the presence speakers.

Yamaha documentation seems to suggest I can use the high front right and left presence speakers for ATMOS, but ATMOS documents keep pushing me to overhead and I can fake overhead with 2 very high up bookcases on each side of the room, but I'm not sure which sounds best in the long run, am I giving up a ton of ATMOS experience with the high front presence speakers? I'm not sure how the other non-ATMOS sources would sound with high front vs overhead.

Thoughts and guidance welcomed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roudan said:


> Thanks Keith. That is very clear ! Happy Holiday!


You're welcome. Seasons greetings to you too!


----------



## crazyhog

jpco said:


> Only with a Denon or Marantz unit. Other brands can handle bitstream of DTS with DSU.



tnx jpco.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daryl L

virtualrain said:


> The Klipsch surrounds are an in-phase design (bipole?) and work great as overhead speakers IMHO. They offer good on-axis performance for objects with extremely wide dispersion for ambient sounds.
> 
> Their semi-circular design also makes them look ok when mounted to the ceiling.
> 
> To the OP inquiring about brackets, I used a pair of L-brackets to mount each of mine. Simple and effective although it does require you attach the brackets to the sides of the speaker cabinets likely impacting resale value (if that's important).


I am right now in the process of looking for some small surround speakers to replace my old dipole surround speakers in my 5.1.2 Atmos (w/ atmos add-on reflecting speakers) set up. So you think bipole surrounds would not have an adverse effect on the atmos sound field? I'm quite aware that my dipole surrounds do have an adverse effect and is the reason I'm going to replace them. Due to my room design I have to go with small speakers and I cannot be drilling any holes. I'm limited to purchasing speakers with a keyhole to hang with the screw already in there. Unfortunately I can't lower them to the recommended height. I'm stuck with what I got. They have to fit between the trim of a 9 inch space. I was considering a pair of one of these two speakers.

Klipsch R-14S
http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-surround-sound-speakers#r-14s

Or

Definitive Technology Promonitor 800's
http://www.definitivetech.com/products/promonitor-800

I'm an old man with a very small budget so my fronts are:
Pioneer AJ SP-FS52 L/R
Pioneer AJ SP-T22A-LR Atmos add-ons
Pioneer AJ SP-C22 Center


----------



## virtualrain

Daryl L said:


> I am right now in the process of looking for some small surround speakers to replace my old dipole surround speakers in my 5.1.2 Atmos (w/ atmos add-on reflecting speakers) set up. So you think bipole surrounds would not have an adverse effect on the atmos sound field? I'm quite aware that my dipole surrounds do have an adverse effect and is the reason I'm going to replace them. Due to my room design I have to go with small speakers and I cannot be drilling any holes. I'm limited to purchasing speakers with a keyhole to hang with the screw already in there. Unfortunately I can't lower them to the recommended height. I'm stuck with what I got. They have to fit between the trim of a 9 inch space. I was considering a pair of one of these two speakers.
> 
> Klipsch R-14S
> http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-surround-sound-speakers#r-14s
> 
> Or
> 
> Definitive Technology Promonitor 800's
> http://www.definitivetech.com/products/promonitor-800
> 
> I'm an old man with a very small budget so my fronts are:
> Pioneer AJ SP-FS52 L/R
> Pioneer AJ SP-T22A-LR Atmos add-ons
> Pioneer AJ SP-C22 Center



As I said, I use bipoles overhead and am very pleased with the result. But it sounds like you're talking about surround speakers and the recommendation these days is monopole for that purpose. So the appropriate Klipsch would be from their bookshelf line.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> Quentin Tarantino... no surprise there...


At least it's supposedly his last movie. Thankfully. IMHO.


----------



## batpig

Daryl L said:


> virtualrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klipsch surrounds are an in-phase design (bipole?) and work great as overhead speakers IMHO. They offer good on-axis performance for objects with extremely wide dispersion for ambient sounds.
> 
> Their semi-circular design also makes them look ok when mounted to the ceiling.
> 
> To the OP inquiring about brackets, I used a pair of L-brackets to mount each of mine. Simple and effective although it does require you attach the brackets to the sides of the speaker cabinets likely impacting resale value (if that's important).
> 
> 
> 
> I am right now in the process of looking for some small surround speakers to replace my old dipole surround speakers in my 5.1.2 Atmos (w/ atmos add-on reflecting speakers) set up. So you think bipole surrounds would not have an adverse effect on the atmos sound field? I'm quite aware that my dipole surrounds do have an adverse effect and is the reason I'm going to replace them. Due to my room design I have to go with small speakers and I cannot be drilling any holes. I'm limited to purchasing speakers with a keyhole to hang with the screw already in there. Unfortunately I can't lower them to the recommended height. I'm stuck with what I got. They have to fit between the trim of a 9 inch space. I was considering a pair of one of these two speakers.
> 
> Klipsch R-14S
> http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-surround-sound-speakers#r-14s
> 
> Or
> 
> Definitive Technology Promonitor 800's
> http://www.definitivetech.com/products/promonitor-800
> 
> I'm an old man with a very small budget so my fronts are:
> Pioneer AJ SP-FS52 L/R
> Pioneer AJ SP-T22A-LR Atmos add-ons
> Pioneer AJ SP-C22 Center
Click to expand...

Are you happy with your current surrounds? I wouldn't be so quick to throw money at a problem that may not need solving. 

It's possible to be very happy with a setup that doesn't satisfy the purist vision


----------



## Daryl L

virtualrain said:


> As I said, I use bipoles overhead and am very pleased with the result. But it sounds like you're talking about surround speakers and the recommendation these days is monopole for that purpose. So the appropriate Klipsch would be from their bookshelf line.


Yeah, that's the reason I asked. I was afraid those tweeters firing forwards and backwards probably wouldn't be appropriate for the situation. To bad there the smallest bookshelf is about an inch too tall to fit. Looks like I'll be goning with the Def Tech's.


----------



## Daryl L

batpig said:


> Are you happy with your current surrounds? I wouldn't be so quick to throw money at a problem that may not need solving.
> 
> It's possible to be very happy with a setup that doesn't satisfy the purist vision


I love my surrounds. They are very old. They are the last of the home theater speakers Altec Lansing ever made back in the late 90s. They are THX dipole surrounds. I can tell they are interfering with the atmos sound field effect. Sometimes makes it difficult to tell was coming from the add-on modules and what's coming from the diffuse southfield of the surrounds. And yes, I used to be one of those purists a while back. Now I'm 54 and not quite so as picky as I used to be.


----------



## batpig

Darryl - are those mounted up near the ceiling? That could be the problem. Have you tried mounting them around ear level?


----------



## Daryl L

batpig said:


> Darryl - are those mounted up near the ceiling? That could be the problem. Have you tried mounting them around ear level?


Yes they are and I wished I could mount them lower but I can't. Two doors at that corner and on-wall bookshelves next to the doors. Makes it impossible to lower them anymore. That's why said my location of use is pretty darn limited to what I got there. And as you can see the space between the door trim and ceiling trim is 9 inches so the speakers I get need to fit in there. I'm not able to drill any holes in the ceiling either and no space on the back or side wall on the right half of the room. That's why I'm figuring even at that height with them slightly behind me about a foot and on the sidewalls, using direct radiating speakers would be better and have less adverse effect on the up firing atmos sound field then I'm getting with the dipoles.


----------



## jpco

dianebrat said:


> Trying to get some ATMOS advice before I start drilling holes this weekend, I posted in the Yamaha thread but it's not a Yamaha specific question.
> A Yamaha RX-A850 was my xmas present so I could do an ATMOS install and I have two options presented to me, both require some installation and reconfiguration for the presence speakers.
> 
> Yamaha documentation seems to suggest I can use the high front right and left presence speakers for ATMOS, but ATMOS documents keep pushing me to overhead and I can fake overhead with 2 very high up bookcases on each side of the room, but I'm not sure which sounds best in the long run, am I giving up a ton of ATMOS experience with the high front presence speakers? I'm not sure how the other non-ATMOS sources would sound with high front vs overhead.
> 
> Thoughts and guidance welcomed.



Atmos is best with overhead speakers. Object placement with true Atmos content will be far better with overheads. 

With Yamaha, you have the option of using Cinema DSP or Dolby Surround for non-Atmos content (or of course just playing it straight). Yamaha's DSPs were designed with height in mind. If you plan to use them extensively, height may be the way to go. If you want the best Atmos, work toward Overhead placement.


----------



## Roudan

Dan Hitchman said:


> thebland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quentin Tarantino... no surprise there...
> 
> 
> 
> At least it's supposedly his last movie. Thankfully. IMHO.
Click to expand...

Hi Dan

Happy Holiday!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Daryl L said:


> I love my surrounds. They are very old. They are the last of the home theater speakers Altec Lansing ever made back in the late 90s. They are THX dipole surrounds. I can tell they are interfering with the atmos sound field effect. Sometimes makes it difficult to tell was coming from the add-on modules and what's coming from the diffuse southfield of the surrounds. And yes, I used to be one of those purists a while back. Now I'm 54 and not quite so as picky as I used to be.


Dipole...can you pull the back cover off to re-wire them as bi-pole?

I would not expect dipole to work that well because they wired are out of phase.

I would expect bipole to work, and psooibly very well, particilarly if you have more than one row of seats.


----------



## Daryl L

dvdwilly3 said:


> Dipole...can you pull the back cover off to re-wire them as bi-pole?
> 
> I would not expect dipole to work that well because they wired are out of phase.
> 
> I would expect bipole to work, and psooibly very well, particilarly if you have more than one row of seats.


Unfortunately I can't and nobody around here is that technically inclined except me. I'm quadriplegic paralyzed from neck down. And the dipole soundfield is why they are interfering with my atmos sound field. The out of phase signal. I was thinking about those Klipsch R-14S bipoles but with a tweeter firing toward the front I fear they too would also interfere with the atmos sound field.

Although I could possibly get my son to try rewiring them as bipoles. I will weigh that option. Thanks for that suggestion.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dan Hitchman said:


> At least it's supposedly his last movie. Thankfully. IMHO.




No... He's doing two more. And I loved The Hateful Eight. Some of his best dialogue scenes to date!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jeremy Anderson said:


> No... He's doing two more. And I loved The Hateful Eight. Some of his best dialogue scenes to date!


He keeps reneging on his promises. Maybe he's turning into a politician.


----------



## NorthSky

smurraybhm said:


> Way to "Max" it out Bob. If you pay attention to how the Academy nominates and awards films you would never make this prediction, but in Bob's world not a surprise
> 
> Max is a decent flick, especially if you want to hear some sounds up top with an Atmos setup and shake your woofer(s). Not that special to take those awards. Just keep in mind that my opinion doesn't matter as I'm not a real movie buff since I find 3D to be undesireable


I never watch TV, so no Academy Awards either. I just gave my opinion on movies I saw, and on what I thought deserve the best of the best in several categories. I just don't care on how the Academy and the judges vote. I follow my own instinct, senses and sensibilities. 

Mad Max was "thee" movie of the year in 2015. That, is entertainment! ...And 'The Age of Adaline' deserves an honorable mention. IMO

I have yet to see 'The Walk', 'The Martian', 'The Faithful Eight', 'Sicario', 'Spectre', 'Everest', 'The Force Awakens', 'Bridge of Spies', 'The Peanuts Movie'.
Hope they'll all be in Dolby Atmos when they appear on Blu, and in 3D. ...'Sicario' will, but not in 3D, so won't be 'Spectre' and 'Bridge of Spies' and 'Faithful Eight', the eighth Tarantino's flick (with blood in their mouth), and with Morricone's music score. 

Of course this is just my two cents; it wasn't written in the Movie bible.

Merry Christmas Steve!


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy Anderson said:


> No... He's doing two more. And I loved The Hateful Eight. Some of his best dialogue scenes to date!


It has some excellent reviews, and Quentin is not done yet with filmmaking... 'Reservoir Dogs' might have a sequel and prequel in the future ... in UHD.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Daryl L said:


> Unfortunately I can't and nobody around here is that technically inclined except me. I'm quadriplegic paralyzed from neck down. And the dipole soundfield is why they are interfering with my atmos sound field. The out of phase signal. I was thinking about those Klipsch R-14S bipoles but with a tweeter firing toward the front I fear they too would also interfere with the atmos sound field.
> 
> Although I could possibly get my son to try rewiring them as bipoles. I will weigh that option. Thanks for that suggestion.


Clear some books off of one of the shelves and mount the speakers there with some brackets.

Pull them forward to the shelf edge (if you can) so that you avoid edge diffraction issues. They are never going to work as you need them to mounted near the ceiling no matter whether they are dipole, bipole, or monopole if they are mounted that high.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> Clear some books off of one of the shelves and mount the speakers there with some brackets.
> 
> Pull them forward to the shelf edge (if you can) so that you avoid edge diffraction issues. They are never going to work as you need them to mounted near the ceiling no matter whether they are dipole, bipole, or monopole if they are mounted that high.


BUT, do rewire them as bipoles instead of dipoles...


----------



## helvetica bold

Interesting article on Dolby Atmos for Battlefront, most impressive.  ARGH! I just want console support. 

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-surrou...ayed-star-wars-battlefront-in-atmos-surround/


----------



## makrelov

virtualrain said:


> As I said, I use bipoles overhead and am very pleased with the result. But it sounds like you're talking about surround speakers and the recommendation these days is monopole for that purpose. So the appropriate Klipsch would be from their bookshelf line.


Hi Virtualrain,

As we are discussing Klipsch RS's as top Atmos, could you please tell me how you placed them, according to MLP. I plan to place them with apeakers facing my MLP, not towards the ftont speakers and back wall. If you can post some pics with your placement - as a reference? I am posting one with my present Speakers, which have to be changed with RS's.


----------



## DaGamePimp

helvetica bold said:


> Interesting article on Dolby Atmos for Battlefront, most impressive.  ARGH! I just want console support.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/the-surrou...ayed-star-wars-battlefront-in-atmos-surround/


 
I already have Battlefront on PS4 but I am about to buy it on PC just to try out the Atmos inclusion (keeping expectations in check).

* I guess I should have grabbed it a couple days ago when it was $35.99 on Origin, it's back up to regular price now. 

- Jason


----------



## helvetica bold

Jason, I'd love to hear your Battlefront Atmos impressions when you get set up. 

Did you see this thread? Between this and CNET it must be great. 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...front-game-best-implementation-atmos-yet.html


----------



## AllenA07

I'm bummed that there is no evidence of console support for Atmos. Battlefront would be a great game to have it.


----------



## Spanglo

AllenA07 said:


> I'm bummed that there is no evidence of console support for Atmos. Battlefront would be a great game to have it.


Um yeah. Sports games, driving, survival horror, shooters... no doubt atmos tracks would take games to the next level.


----------



## NorthSky

I'll start playing games when they'll be in holosonic sound with holographic moving images. ...4D picture and sound.

...With 4D virtual goggles and headphones?

* Nice 'toasted' cat Spanglo.


----------



## DaGamePimp

helvetica bold said:


> Jason, I'd love to hear your Battlefront Atmos impressions when you get set up.
> 
> Did you see this thread? Between this and CNET it must be great.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...front-game-best-implementation-atmos-yet.html


I am doing Atmos in both of my rooms because the HT projector is a JVC and not suitable for gaming due to input lag. 

I currently have 7.2.2 in the HT but will be 7.2.4 by the weekend, the media/game room will be 5.2.2 this week and 5.2.4 within the next couple months.

I should just add a cheap DLP for gaming to the HT (and will down the road) but I scored such a good deal on a denon x4100 that I have to add it to the game room (wife is actually making me do it, no joke ). 

Thanks for the link to Archaea's comments, I had not seen that and if he is impressed that is good enough for me. 
The next Battlefront pc sale... I'm in.


- Jason


----------



## blackreign66

AllenA07 said:


> I'm bummed that there is no evidence of console support for Atmos. Battlefront would be a great game to have it.


And this game sounds amazing in Dolby Atmos on my HTPC. Hell it's the only reason i purchased this game because I don't play online games.


----------



## Movie78

Why did they release ATMOS version just for the PC version only...

DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Movie78 said:


> Why did they release ATMOS version just for the PC version only...
> 
> DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNN




Because the PS4 and Xbox One don't currently support Dolby Digital Plus output to carry the Atmos height info. Both could potentially enable it with a system update (because both use programmable audio chipsets), but it's also a matter of Microsoft and Sony having to license that tech from Dolby, which costs money. Being that Atmos is a relatively niche thing in their demographics, I wouldn't hold my breath. That said, it would be a feather in the cap of whoever implemented it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Movie78 said:


> Why did they release ATMOS version just for the PC version only...
> 
> DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


----------



## DanGraney

aaranddeeman said:


> I have mounted bookshelf on the ceiling. It's not the box bookshelf, but a bit thinner (JBL northridge E10).
> Mounting standard speakers in upfiring mode may not be such a good idea.



Hi, just curious what you thought of your experience using the JBL E10 in an Atmos setup. I have a couple and may be doing the same. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> At least it's supposedly his last movie. Thankfully. IMHO.


Yeah... Not a fan either - but my fav from his was Kill Bill.


----------



## aaranddeeman

DanGraney said:


> Hi, just curious what you thought of your experience using the JBL E10 in an Atmos setup. I have a couple and may be doing the same.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For lack of comparison with any other speakers, I would say they are serving the purpose.
By the way I have all JBL Northridge E series speakers. So all 15 speakers match. (2x E80, 2x E60, 1x EC25, 10x E10).
6 of the E10s were acquired used from CL. (All of which are on ceiling)


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> Yeah... Not a fan either - but my fav from his was Kill Bill.


If I would met Quentin in person I would ask him for his ninth film if he would be interested to have red blood falling from the sky above in Dolby Atmos. 
...Literally, bucket loads of it, like rain on a rainy day with a typhoon playing in the near horizon of planet Mars. 

* My favorite scene is the "buried alive" one inside the coffin. ...Sound wise. ...Pitch dark black @ one point, and the only thing you hear is the hammer hitting the nails and the earth falling on the coffin's top cover from above. ...Spooky!


----------



## BB1111

About to install some overhead (ceiling) speakers for Dolby Atmos and was hoping to get some clarification on where they should go.

If it's a 5.1.2 setup is the placement inline with the L/R speakers and slightly in front of the MLP?


----------



## NorthSky

BB1111 said:


> About to install some overhead (ceiling) speakers for Dolby Atmos and was hoping to get some clarification on where they should go.
> 
> If it's a 5.1.2 setup is the placement inline with the L/R speakers and slightly in front of the MLP?


Yes, pretty much.


----------



## Movie78

Scott Simonian said:


>


Like that!!!

Now i am regretting buying the XboxOne,the XboxOne is not for a Home Audio enthusiast.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Movie78 said:


> Now i am regretting buying the XboxOne,the XboxOne is not for a Home Audio enthusiast.




Sure it is. Lossless PCM output for games works fine. But because its blu-ray playback is software based and has to coexist within the 3 OS system, it won't bit stream blu-rays. The good news is that the audio chipset is reprogrammable, so the possibility of adding DD+ with Atmos is pretty good if they decide to implement it for games.


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> For lack of comparison with any other speakers, I would say they are serving the purpose.
> By the way I have all JBL Northridge E series speakers. So all 15 speakers match. (2x E80, 2x E60, 1x EC25, 10x E10).
> 6 of the E10s were acquired used from CL. (All of which are on ceiling)


I took a look at your calculator and I have a question. I noticed that you have values for Front/Rear Height and Front/Rear Top...I remember a discussion here that stated that the sound was the same rather or not you had designated your speakers as Dolby Enabled, Height or Top...

What's your opinion?

Also looked at the diagram to expand the Height Channels to 3 per side vs 2. What decoder is being used? I'd imagine you would use PLII and a 3.0 configuration. 

How effective has this been?

Can wides and heights be setup the same way maybe using a DSP?

Hmmm. On my AVR all of the Pre Outs are active...Hmmm


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> I took a look at your calculator and I have a question. I noticed that you have values for Front/Rear Height and Front/Rear Top...I remember a discussion here that stated that the sound was the same rather or not you had designated your speakers as Dolby Enabled, Height or Top...
> 
> What's your opinion?
> 
> Also looked at the diagram to expand the Height Channels to 3 per side vs 2. What decoder is being used? I'd imagine you would use PLII and a 3.0 configuration.
> 
> How effective has this been?
> 
> Can wides and heights be setup the same way maybe using a DSP?
> 
> Hmmm. On my AVR all of the Pre Outs are active...Hmmm


Yes, PL2 Movie mode. No "surrounds" so yes, 3.0 output each.

Very effective!

You can generate wides using the same method, yes. Use the outputs from the L/R front and L/R side surrounds to extract a common "center" for your new wide speaker output.


----------



## Kain

helvetica bold said:


> Interesting article on Dolby Atmos for Battlefront, most impressive.  ARGH! I just want console support.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/the-surrou...ayed-star-wars-battlefront-in-atmos-surround/


I have a feeling the next Battlefield game (Battlefield 5?) made by DICE using what will most likely be the next iteration of the Frostbite engine will support Atmos (at least on the PC). 

Will be releasing late 2016. Can't wait.


----------



## Kain

Quick question...

My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> Quick question...
> 
> My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating.


Not IMO, no.


----------



## Kain

kbarnes701 said:


> Not IMO, no.


With the TM right over the seating position and the TF in front of it and the TR behind it, won't I get a better height sound image? With 7.1.4 I'll won't have any TM right over the seating position, only in front and behind it.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, PL2 Movie mode. No "surrounds" so yes, 3.0 output each.
> 
> Very effective!
> 
> You can generate wides using the same method, yes. Use the outputs from the L/R front and L/R side surrounds to extract a common "center" for your new wide speaker output.


Very interesting.


----------



## sdrucker

Kain said:


> Quick question...
> 
> My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating.


 
Not in general IMO - the conventional wisdom is that > 4 heights is for multi-seat and/or large rooms. 


It's also debatable how much use you'd get out of the extra channels beyond the 7, or possibly 9, with a 15' width in your Atmos configuration. You could possibly do two sets of side surrounds, and you'd have more flexibility over where side and rear surrounds go by drawing on the full 24.1.10 Dolby configuration (and you could use more speakers for remapping purposes potentially). But barring the special circumstances of your room, something in the 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 space is where you'll likely wind up. That's not to say that you couldn't use more channels for active crossover speakers or for special purpose configurations (e.g. music, or Atmos vs. Auro where there a need). I take it you're thinking of the 16 channel version?


----------



## Kain

sdrucker said:


> Not in general, and it's also debatable how much use you'd get out of the extra channels beyond the 7, or possibly 9, with a 15' width in your Atmos configuration. You could possibly do two sets of side surrounds, and you'd have more flexibility over where side and rear surrounds go by drawing on the full 24.1.10 Dolby configuration (and you could use more speakers for remapping purposes potentially). But barring the special circumstances of your room, something in the 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 space is where you'll likely wind up. That's not to say that you couldn't use more channels for active crossover speakers or for special purpose configurations (e.g. music, or Atmos vs. Auro where there a need). I take it you're thinking of the 16 channel version?


Correct, I'm currently thinking of the 16-channel version. But the length of the room is 15 ft, not the width. Width is 12 ft.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Correct, I'm currently thinking of the 16-channel version. But the length of the room is 15 ft, not the width. Width is 12 ft.


If only you could expand your room...by knocking down a wall or two...to make it larger...

I would think 9.1.4 myself for the size of your room. And that, we might see in the near future, and affordable too. 

My


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> If only you could expand your room...by knocking down a wall or two...to make it larger...
> 
> I would think 9.1.4 myself for the size of your room. And that, we might see in the near future, and affordable too.
> 
> My


I think 7.1.x is the max I can go in my room. Knocking down walls is really not an option at this stage.

Here is a crude and not-to-scale drawing of my proposed new setup (it includes the front wide speakers). It does not include the subwoofers. As you can see, the front wide speakers need to be squeezed-in if I really want them. I don't think they would be worth it. But the real question is 4 vs. 6 ceiling speakers. The drawing shows 6 ceiling speakers.










Red = floor speakers
Blue = ceiling speakers
Green = seating position


----------



## letsplay99

Hi guys,

I am consdering the Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA-S Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker and I wanted to get your feedback to see people's thoughts. 

Just to give you a background, I have a dedicated home theater room which is about 14 ft wide by 25 ft long but the ceiling is a little short of 7.5 ft. I have 2 rows of seating and currently I have 3 Triad left, center and right main speakers and 4 atlantic technology IWTS surround speakers making a 7.1 configuration.

I am planning on getting a Marantz 7010 receiver and adding 4 ceiling speakers to make it a 7.1.4 atmos system and am currently looking for good ceiling speakers which don't break the bank. Please let me know if you would recommend the atlantic technology IC-60BA-S still or if you have other recommendations. 

thanks and looking forward to your comments.

vipul


----------



## letsplay99

*atmos recommendations*

Hi guys,

I am consdering the Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA-S Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker and I wanted to get your feedback to see people's thoughts. 

Just to give you a background, I have a dedicated home theater room which is about 14 ft wide by 25 ft long but the ceiling is a little short of 7.5 ft. I have 2 rows of seating and currently I have 3 Triad left, center and right main speakers and 4 atlantic technology IWTS surround speakers making a 7.1 configuration.

I am planning on getting a Marantz 7010 receiver and adding 4 ceiling speakers to make it a 7.1.4 atmos system and am currently looking for good ceiling speakers which don't break the bank. Please let me know if you would recommend the atlantic technology IC-60BA-S still or if you have other recommendations. 

thanks and looking forward to your comments.

vipul


----------



## Stoked21

If you're really chomping at the bit for more than 11 channels...Then by all means go with the Trinnov. If it was in my budget, I sure would.

Having said that, I have 9.1.6 even though I'm wired for about 23-25 channels or so and only run 7.1.4. I can easily expand when the technology is in the thousands instead of the tens of thousands range.

I can tell you two things.....

1) Even though I have top middles (not connected), people always think they are on. Imaging between TF and TR is splendid. So sure you can gain more precise object imaging with the addition of top middles, but I doubt you really hear much improvement. Especially in a one row HT. Especially in the home BD market until studios take Atmos more serious.

2) Your surrounds are way too far forward. They should be 90-110° or so. Looks like a glass door way there. But you need to move them back. This is particularly important when running front wides as well. You need the separation. I for one run my surrounds about where yours are----but I don't run front wides since I'm 7.1.4. As soon as I can jump to 9 chs in the bed, I will swap my cables and my surrounds will be beside the MLP while front wides flank in front at about 55°. So with both pairs being so far forward of the MLP, again I don't think you will gain much.

If you are willing to make compromises on speaker positions, you could easily run 9.1.6. But from the looks of it, I'd save tens of thousands of dollars and go 7.1.4 personally...


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> I think 7.1.x is the max I can go in my room. Knocking down walls is really not an option at this stage.
> 
> Here is a crude and not-to-scale drawing of my proposed new setup (it includes the front wide speakers). It does not include the subwoofers. As you can see, the front wide speakers need to be squeezed-in if I really want them. I don't think they would be worth it. But the real question is 4 vs. 6 ceiling speakers. The drawing shows 6 ceiling speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red = floor speakers
> Blue = ceiling speakers
> Green = seating position


1. The two front main left and right flankers could be positioned closer to each other. ...Like nine feet apart.
2. The two side surrounds I would put them @ 90° to the sides of the couch.
3. The two front above height speakers (way up front) I would totally annihilate them.
4. The front left and right wide surrounds now make sense.
5. The two back surrounds I would positioned them closer to each other; five feet separation between. 

* Everything else is about right; just one foot or so closer between each pair of overheads (TF and TR pairs)...between the left and right speaker from each pair, and not changing their triangulation (angle of the front and rear top pair). 

That's just me, and what I would do if it was my room with those dimensions.


----------



## Jive Turkey

thebland said:


> Yeah... Not a fan either - but my fav from his was Kill Bill.


"Pulp Fiction" for me.


----------



## Spanglo

Stoked21 said:


> If you are willing to make compromises on speaker positions, you could easily run 9.1.6. But from the looks of it, I'd save tens of thousands of dollars and go 7.1.4 personally...


+1

I've been calling for .6 support since the first week I bought my x5200 home, but not since I heard the Dolby Atmos 747 demo.

That demo flies a 747 overhead from the front of the room until travels out the back and into the sunset. The sound transitions seamlessly from my TF to RH speakers. I no longer feel the need for TM speakers to fill the gap between the TF+RH speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kain said:


> With the TM right over the seating position and the TF in front of it and the TR behind it, won't I get a better height sound image? With 7.1.4 I'll won't have any TM right over the seating position, only in front and behind it.


A physical speaker at a given location will always be a better choice than allowing two other speakers to phantom image at that location. However, I am answering the question you asked, which was:
_
"My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating."_

Your room is fairly small, speakers phantom image pretty well when the setup is good and, as you observe, ceiling speakers aren't doing very much work at this stage of immersive audio evolution. Often they are silent for most of the movie. So in your case I would expect 7.1.4 would work very well. If I were you, I would wire for additional overhead speakers now, because wire is cheap and one day more speakers may be beneficial. I would also consider 9.1.4 ahead of 7.1.6 in a 13 channel installation.

My last consideration was for the fact that you mentioned spending $20,000+ on a Trinnov Altitude in order to achieve the 7.1.6 you asked about. If that is your sole reason for spending that sort of money, then I think it will be wasted. We may soon see much more affordable AVRs offering 7.1.6 for example - hopefully by the time that the industry is making more use of the overhead speakers.

So, by all means spend your money any way you like. I am just giving my perspective on it. In short, save the cash for now, or spend it on *better speakers, better subwoofers and room treatments*. The latter will give you a huge improvement in sound quality, whereas the plan you mentioned will, at best, give you only a marginal improvement.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> "Pulp Fiction" for me.


Me too. But not for this guy who ranks, er, another one, higher. Nice little article.

http://www.slashfilm.com/quentin-tarantino-movies-ranked/3/

When both Kubrick and Tarantino were alive at the same time I had a hard time deciding which one was the world's greatest living movie director. At that stage, QT had only directed *Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction* and *Jackie Brown*, compared with Kubrick's entire oeuvre, but my feeling at that time was that QT perhaps showed sufficient promise to gain the crown. 

I haven't seen *The Hateful Eight *yet, but I can't wait!


----------



## dholmes54

Well I tried using bookshelf spks and set them on top of my Polk 150 floor standing spks and I think it sounds get for atmos,the bookshelves spks match the Polks there monitor 30s.my avr is a Yamaha 1050 so I had to give up using back spks but don't miss them.There are several models of add on moduals would they sound better?


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> When both Kubrick and Tarantino were alive at the same time I had a hard time deciding which one was the world's greatest living movie director.


Strange. He would be named Ridley Scott no matter which.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Strange. He would be named Ridley Scott no matter which.


I like the movies of both the Scott brothers but Ridley doesn't have the depth of vision of Kubrick nor the chutzpah of QT. Obviously Tony wasn't what one would call 'great' but he made some very entertaining movies. Both Kubrick and QT redefined the way movies are made which is why I consider them both to be 'great'. I guess this would make an interesting thread in its own right (Who is the greatest living movie director?) if it hasn't already been done.


----------



## thebland

Kain said:


> Quick question...
> 
> My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating.



I think if you're buying a Trinnov Altitude, I would max out the speakers more than 7.1.6. The remapping is great if your speakers are poorly positioned.


----------



## AllenA07

thebland said:


> I think if you're buying a Trinnov Altitude, I would max out the speakers more than 7.1.6. The remapping is great if your speakers are poorly positioned.


I agree. If you're going to spend the money on a Trinnov Altitude, you should run more then just 7.1.6. You've got a whole lot of channels at your disposal with a Trinnov.


----------



## Stoked21

thebland said:


> I think if you're buying a Trinnov Altitude, I would max out the speakers more than 7.1.6. The remapping is great if your speakers are poorly positioned.


If I were spending that kind of jack on a trinnov....I'd be running at least 20 channels. I'd salivate to be able to do so!!!

But for sub 20 channels.....It's commercially available, sub $4K, prepros and AVRs that make the most sense. From not only a financial but from a technological viewpoint.

Let's be serious...In less than 1 year (probably more like 6 months), we will have $2-4K 13.1 or 15.1 units available anyway.


----------



## bargervais

Happy New Year tout le monde (everybody)


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, PL2 Movie mode. No "surrounds" so yes, 3.0 output each.
> 
> Very effective!
> 
> You can generate wides using the same method, yes. Use the outputs from the L/R front and L/R side surrounds to extract a common "center" for your new wide speaker output.





Kain said:


> Quick question...
> 
> My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating.


I see no point in spending that much money to gain TM when you only have 1 row of seating. However, you might want to look at @Scott Simonian ingenious way of getting 3 sets of Tops with a PLII trick and 2 addition AVRs. Doing the math and understanding how PLII works, it makes sense to me!

What are you not liking about 7.x.4? I have no problem hearing sound overhead? Maybe it's your speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

If you're asking me? It's simply out of principle. Just like I do not like 5.1 audio and prefer 7.1 audio. I want a clear separation of front, middle and rear imaging. I don't care if 4 overheads "simply work" because having six works too and better, imho. You can phantom image above your head, sure, but with speaker actually above your head there is no denying that the sound is right above. Also, middle overheads aid greatly to the 'overhead effect' for those sitting far off axis.

Anyway. That's why I do it. My method is not for everybody.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Stoked21 said:


> If I were spending that kind of jack on a trinnov....I'd be running at least 20 channels. I'd salivate to be able to do so!!!
> 
> But for sub 20 channels.....It's commercially available, sub $4K, prepros and AVRs that make the most sense. From not only a financial but from a technological viewpoint.
> 
> *Let's be serious...In less than 1 year (probably more like 6 months), we will have $2-4K 13.1 or 15.1 units available anyway.*


Dang! Just when I thought I had made a choice for an AVR! 

Back to the drawing board!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Stoked21 said:


> Let's be serious...In less than 1 year (probably more like 6 months), we will have $2-4K 13.1 or 15.1 units available anyway.


I've been predicting 'flagship' Denon/Marantz will have 13.1 near the end of *this* year. Could happen. Most likely for better support of 7.1.4 Atmos and Auro concurrently.

15.1? Long shot. I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Prime316

I have the Pioneer atmos Add-ons and am wondering where I should put the crossover. Anyone have any idea?


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> I've been predicting 'flagship' Denon/Marantz will have 13.1 near the end of *this* year. Could happen. Most likely for better support of 7.1.4 Atmos and Auro concurrently.
> 
> 15.1? Long shot. I wouldn't count on it.


I hear yeah on the 15.1. Wishful thinking there. Several of the higher end D&M units (like my 7702mk2), already support 13 channels on the preouts. NOT concurrently, but it's there. If we only get 13 in the next year, it will be a toss up for me as to whether I do TM or FW.....I'm ready for both and want all of them. Do I want them $20K bad? No way!!! But I'll quickly spend several grand to get 13 and especially 15. Makes it easy when you can sell a nearly new 11.1 unit to cover much of the cost too!


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> If you're asking me? It's simply out of principle. Just like I do not like 5.1 audio and prefer 7.1 audio. I want a clear separation of front, middle and rear imaging. I don't care if 4 overheads "simply work" because having six works too and better, imho. You can phantom image above your head, sure, but with speaker actually above your head there is no denying that the sound is right above. Also, middle overheads aid greatly to the 'overhead effect' for those sitting far off axis.
> 
> Anyway. That's why I do it. My method is not for everybody.


My top middles are already in. While I'm preaching phantom imaging, of course I'd rather have physical channels. No different than my mains image, I still have a center channel. Obviously a cost vs gain argument. Is $10-20K worth it to add TM? If you're adding more speakers, then maybe an easy choice. But that price tag does not justify 9.1.6. I'll save the $20K and phantom all day!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Prime316 said:


> I have the Pioneer atmos Add-ons and am wondering where I should put the crossover. Anyone have any idea?


Looks like the manual says 180 Hz...

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/PUSA/Files/AJ SP-T22A-LR Add-on Manual_new.pdf

But, if you run your AVR calibration (Ausyssey, AccuEQ, etc.) it should set the crossover at the appropriate point for you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Let's be serious...In less than 1 year (probably more like 6 months), we will have $2-4K 13.1 or 15.1 units available anyway.


Do you think so? I think that is a very optimistic schedule. I'm betting on a max of 11 channels in affordable units for quite some time. I hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Dang! Just when I thought I had made a choice for an AVR!
> 
> Back to the drawing board!


Al, that fabulous kitchen of yours will need another remodelling before you eventually choose an AVR!  Happy New Year to you BTW.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> My top middles are already in. While I'm preaching phantom imaging, of course I'd rather have physical channels. No different than my mains image, I still have a center channel.


Yeah, but that isn't because phantom imaging doesn't work really well. As in stereo systems. Problem is, it only works really well for _one listener_. As I am the one listener in my HT who actually GAF, phantom is fine for me. But sure, a physical speaker is a physical speaker, there's no denying that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Stoked21 said:


> I hear yeah on the 15.1. Wishful thinking there. Several of the higher end D&M units (like my 7702mk2), already support 13 channels on the preouts. NOT concurrently, but it's there. If we only get 13 in the next year, it will be a toss up for me as to whether I do TM or FW.....I'm ready for both and want all of them. Do I want them $20K bad? No way!!! But I'll quickly spend several grand to get 13 and especially 15. Makes it easy when you can sell a nearly new 11.1 unit to cover much of the cost too!





Stoked21 said:


> My top middles are already in. While I'm preaching phantom imaging, of course I'd rather have physical channels. No different than my mains image, I still have a center channel. Obviously a cost vs gain argument. Is $10-20K worth it to add TM? If you're adding more speakers, then maybe an easy choice. But that price tag does not justify 9.1.6. I'll save the $20K and phantom all day!


Exactly and pretty much everybody is in the same boat. That is a LOT of money for a surround processor.

In a couple to few years we will have modestly priced ones that do 16ch output, I'm sure. Just not in the_ near_ near future but they're coming. I can't wait for native 9.1.6 decoding!


----------



## Prime316

dvdwilly3 said:


> Looks like the manual says 180 Hz...
> 
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/PUSA/Files/AJ SP-T22A-LR Add-on Manual_new.pdf
> 
> But, if you run your AVR calibration (Ausyssey, AccuEQ, etc.) it should set the crossover at the appropriate point for you.


It set them at 120.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> If I were spending that kind of jack on a trinnov....I'd be running at least 20 channels. I'd salivate to be able to do so!!!
> 
> But for sub 20 channels.....It's commercially available, sub $4K, prepros and AVRs that make the most sense. From not only a financial but from a technological viewpoint.
> 
> Let's be serious...In less than 1 year (probably more like 6 months), we will have $2-4K 13.1 or 15.1 units available anyway.


I'd say closer to $4,000 than $2,000 especially for something above 13.1. 

If it's in the form of a pre-amp, I would rather they start switching over to mini XLR or other low profile professional balanced interconnect (with cable converter connectors included). Full sized XLR out consumer pre-amps can't seem to fit 13.2 outputs in their cases to begin with.


----------



## Al Sherwood

kbarnes701 said:


> Al, that fabulous kitchen of yours will need another remodelling before you eventually choose an AVR!  Happy New Year to you BTW.


I told the wife that the kitchen is now complete with a very firm tone ( oh I might have been alone at the time...). 

Keith, I just don't know what happens to the time, even if I don't have a suitable AVR right now I do have a lot of work before I can even turn it on, problem seems to be 'spare time', 2015 was no exception, here we are on the final day and there are as many projects to complete as there were last year at this time! The HT room is near the top but not quite, this spring a deck and stairs for the outside is the springtime #1 , and then the front inside entry stairs, when they are done I hope to have the weather and the space to at least rough in the HT room... fingers crossed!

All the best to you as well for 2016!


----------



## Chesebro

letsplay99 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I am consdering the Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA-S Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker and I wanted to get your feedback to see people's thoughts.
> 
> Just to give you a background, I have a dedicated home theater room which is about 14 ft wide by 25 ft long but the ceiling is a little short of 7.5 ft. I have 2 rows of seating and currently I have 3 Triad left, center and right main speakers and 4 atlantic technology IWTS surround speakers making a 7.1 configuration.
> 
> I am planning on getting a Marantz 7010 receiver and adding 4 ceiling speakers to make it a 7.1.4 atmos system and am currently looking for good ceiling speakers which don't break the bank. Please let me know if you would recommend the atlantic technology IC-60BA-S still or if you have other recommendations.
> 
> thanks and looking forward to your comments.
> 
> vipul


I have the Atlantic Technology speakers and I like them. They also got a good review by David Vaughn


----------



## helvetica bold

Im thinking about going with a 5.1.4 up firing Atmos system. However, I have one rear surround about a foot from the couch. 
What is the idea distance from the listener, 2 feet? If its too close I could just go with a 5.1.2 set up then.


----------



## NorthSky

> Me too. But not for this guy who ranks, er, another one, higher. Nice little article.
> 
> http://www.slashfilm.com/quentin-tarantino-movies-ranked/3/
> 
> When both Kubrick and Tarantino were alive at the same time I had a hard time deciding which one was the world's greatest living movie director. At that stage, QT had only directed *Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction* and *Jackie Brown*, compared with Kubrick's entire oeuvre, but my feeling at that time was that QT perhaps showed sufficient promise to gain the crown.
> 
> I haven't seen *The Hateful Eight *yet, but I can't wait!





Nightlord said:


> Strange. He would be named Ridley Scott no matter which.


♦ http://www.thetoptens.com/greatest-film-directors-of-all-time/upendra-474860.asp
♠ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upendra_(actor)


----------



## NorthSky

> I like the movies of both the Scott brothers but Ridley doesn't have the depth of vision of Kubrick nor the chutzpah of QT. Obviously Tony wasn't what one would call 'great' but he made some very entertaining movies. Both Kubrick and QT redefined the way movies are made which is why I consider them both to be 'great'.
> I guess this would make an interesting thread in its own right *(Who is the greatest living movie director?)* if it hasn't already been done.


Post just above *^*


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> I think if you're buying a Trinnov Altitude, I would max out the speakers more than 7.1.6. The remapping is great if your speakers are poorly positioned.


Methinks that his room is simply too small for Trinnov Altitude. ...But perfect for Marantz AV8802A ($4,000 MSRP*). 
...Or Marantz AV7702MKII ($2,200 MSRP*). 

* Street prices less, of course.


----------



## NorthSky

bargervais said:


> Happy New Year tout le monde (everybody)


Happy New Year to you too bargervais! 

* And you speak French too! 



Scott Simonian said:


> I've been predicting 'flagship' Denon/Marantz will have 13.1 near the end of *this* year. Could happen. Most likely for better support of 7.1.4 Atmos and Auro concurrently.
> 
> 15.1? Long shot. I wouldn't count on it.


Me turn:

1. 13.1 (9.1.4 or 7.1.6) running simultaneously, from some flagship pre/pros and AV receivers (Anthem, Arcam, NAD, ROTEL, Marantz/Denon, McIntosh, ...) by the year 2018 ... @ the latest. ...Maybe in 2017...just maybe. 

2. 15.1 (9.1.6 or 11.1.4) ... same as above, by the year 2020. 

* This is only a wild guess, and nothing appears what it could truly be...like reality becoming a dream. 

Happy New Year Scott! Aim high, aim big (extra-large), aim for the sky. :nerd:

_________

P.S. Wow, four posts in a row! I feel like a true criminal, I feel better than James Brown. 
What a coup to finish the year 2015 in grand style! :grin:


----------



## Stanton

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think so? I think that is a very optimistic schedule. I'm betting on a max of 11 channels in affordable units for quite some time. I hope I'm wrong though.


I agree. You also have to think about the limits of power in a single package; from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure they can put > 11 channels of *decent* amplification in an AVR without active cooling. I'm not talking about pre/pros, I'm talking about the kind of AVR the average consumer buys (and we're not the average consumer).


----------



## rontalley

NorthSky said:


> Happy New Year to you too bargervais!
> 
> * And you speak French too!
> 
> 
> 
> Me turn:
> 
> 1. 13.1 (9.1.4 or 7.1.6) running simultaneously, from some flagship pre/pros and AV receivers (Anthem, Arcam, NAD, ROTEL, Marantz/Denon, McIntosh, ...) by the year 2018 ... @ the latest. ...Maybe in 2017...just maybe.
> 
> 2. 15.1 (9.1.6 or 11.1.4) ... same as above, by the year 2020.
> 
> * This is only a wild guess, and nothing appears what it could truly be...like reality becoming a dream.
> 
> Happy New Year Scott! Aim high, aim big (extra-large), aim for the sky. :nerd:
> 
> _________
> 
> P.S. Wow, four posts in a row! I feel like a true criminal, I feel better than James Brown.
> What a coup to finish the year 2015 in grand style! :grin:
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TxHInkyNpg


I just listened to this 3 times! This song Rocks!!!!!


----------



## NorthSky

rontalley said:


> I just listened to this 3 times! This song Rocks!!!!!


Big fan of Was Not Was...have several albums of theirs...great professional music recording artists.

♦ Was (Not Was): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_(Not_Was)
♦♦ Don Was (record producer): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Was


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think so? I think that is a very optimistic schedule. I'm betting on a max of 11 channels in affordable units for quite some time. I hope I'm wrong though.


HNY to you on the other side of the pond!!

Yeah, I really think we will see 13 channels "this year". The decode algorithms already exist for 9.1.2 and 7.1.4. Marantz and Denon are already supporting both deployments and 11 channels has been out for almost 2 years. A couple of units, like the 8801 and 7702, both already support 13 preouts even if not simultaneous. Doesn't even need major mechanical rework, just a DSP swap.

A little more DSP floating point operation capabilities (on the selected DSP), coupled with a little code regurgitation and optimization.......9.1.4. 

I'd speculate that front-wide will come first over TM, as more consumers are likely to run bed level speakers over Atmos ICs. Ergo more marketable feature. Additionally, I'd guess the SW algorithms are less complex for wides than for three pairs of Atmos channels.

My guess (kind of like a**holes cus we all have one!), is that 9.1.4 will be available from Onkyo and D&M before October 2016. If I had to put money on it I'd say Onkyo/Integra will be the first to 13; as they are deficient in the high-end arena right now (no X, no auro, no HDCP2.2....). They need to upgrade the 3030 and other top-end units to catchup with the competition. They won't try to just match the competitors feature-to-feature, they'll try to one-up them.


----------



## promike

letsplay99 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I am consdering the Atlantic Technology IC-6OBA-S Object Based Audio In-Ceiling Speaker and I wanted to get your feedback to see people's thoughts.
> 
> Just to give you a background, I have a dedicated home theater room which is about 14 ft wide by 25 ft long but the ceiling is a little short of 7.5 ft. I have 2 rows of seating and currently I have 3 Triad left, center and right main speakers and 4 atlantic technology IWTS surround speakers making a 7.1 configuration.
> 
> I am planning on getting a Marantz 7010 receiver and adding 4 ceiling speakers to make it a 7.1.4 atmos system and am currently looking for good ceiling speakers which don't break the bank. Please let me know if you would recommend the atlantic technology IC-60BA-S still or if you have other recommendations.
> 
> thanks and looking forward to your comments.
> 
> vipul


I have a similar size room with a ceiling that is a little more than a foot higher. The AT's sound great and I would also highly recommend them. Bought mine from AVS.


----------



## johnnymacIII

Of those of you that have heard 9.2.2 or 7.2.4 setups at CEDIA, homes, or demo rooms, which ones have you liked most and how were they setup? Were the surrounds at ear height or higher than that? What combination of overheads were used? Were the overheads aimed at the PLP. And how close to the side walls were the overheads? Thanks.


----------



## virtualrain

I'd much rather see 9 channels (5.1.4 or 7.1.2) at a mainstream $500 price point. That would propel interest in immersive sound and solidify the market.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd say closer to $4,000 than $2,000 especially for something above 13.1.
> 
> If it's in the form of a pre-amp, I would rather they start switching over to mini XLR or other low profile professional balanced interconnect (with cable converter connectors included). Full sized XLR out consumer pre-amps can't seem to fit 13.2 outputs in their cases to begin with.


That's another reason for it to not happen IMO. The miniDSP DDRC-88A that some of us are using for Dirac Live room EQ has that type of balanced connector, to enable them to fit 16 connections into a 1RU chassis and you should see the difficulties people have in cabling them over in the 88A thread. And these are enthusiasts. The general public will never take to all that which makes >13 channel AVRs even more unlikely any time soon IMO. Same with accommodating amps, although they could move to Class D to save weight and space.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> I told the wife that the kitchen is now complete with a very firm tone ( oh I might have been alone at the time...).
> 
> Keith, I just don't know what happens to the time, even if I don't have a suitable AVR right now I do have a lot of work before I can even turn it on, problem seems to be 'spare time', 2015 was no exception, here we are on the final day and there are as many projects to complete as there were last year at this time! The HT room is near the top but not quite, this spring a deck and stairs for the outside is the springtime #1 , and then the front inside entry stairs, when they are done I hope to have the weather and the space to at least rough in the HT room... fingers crossed!
> 
> All the best to you as well for 2016!


 Priorities, Al, priorities  You need to get the HT done first, then you can reward yourself with a good movie after a hard day constructing decking and stairs!


----------



## kbarnes701

Stanton said:


> I agree. You also have to think about the limits of power in a single package; from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure they can put > 11 channels of *decent* amplification in an AVR without active cooling. I'm not talking about pre/pros, I'm talking about the kind of AVR the average consumer buys (and we're not the average consumer).


Class D amps might solve that one though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> HNY to you on the other side of the pond!!
> 
> Yeah, I really think we will see 13 channels "this year". The decode algorithms already exist for 9.1.2 and 7.1.4. Marantz and Denon are already supporting both deployments and 11 channels has been out for almost 2 years. A couple of units, like the 8801 and 7702, both already support 13 preouts even if not simultaneous. Doesn't even need major mechanical rework, just a DSP swap.
> 
> A little more DSP floating point operation capabilities (on the selected DSP), coupled with a little code regurgitation and optimization.......9.1.4.
> 
> I'd speculate that front-wide will come first over TM, as more consumers are likely to run bed level speakers over Atmos ICs. Ergo more marketable feature. Additionally, I'd guess the SW algorithms are less complex for wides than for three pairs of Atmos channels.
> 
> My guess (kind of like a**holes cus we all have one!), is that 9.1.4 will be available from Onkyo and D&M before October 2016. If I had to put money on it I'd say Onkyo/Integra will be the first to 13; as they are deficient in the high-end arena right now (no X, no auro, no HDCP2.2....). They need to upgrade the 3030 and other top-end units to catchup with the competition. They won't try to just match the competitors feature-to-feature, they'll try to one-up them.


HNY to you too!

You make several very good points and I hope you are right and I am wrong, although it is academic for me as I just can't squeeze any more speakers into this room unfortunately.

I am seeing it more as a practical design issue rather than an electronics design issue. The chassis would need to accommodate 16 balanced outputs (I can't see them dropping balanced on their higher-end units) and unless they moved from XLR to Phoenix that could be a problem. And Phoenix would scare off most customers. They'd have to move to Class D amplification to get the amps in without causing heat issues and even then they may need to use fans, which is a big consumer no-no it seems, judging by the remarks whenever anyone suggests using Crown XLS amps etc. Then there is the price issue - these units would cost more than $2,500 or so I’d guess, and currently that seems to be the limit for 'affordable units' from the mainstream makers. And if they did bite that bullet and release at say $4,000, then they would be appealing to a very small market which could make the whole exercise futile.

Onkyo could be a contender if they restricted their 16 channel units to their Integra brand. They could pitch these at a higher price, and as they are primarily meant for installers, the Phoenix issue wouldn't arise.

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens - but my bet is that affordable units with more than 11 channels are not on the immediate horizon.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> The chassis would need to accommodate 16 balanced outputs (I can't see them dropping balanced on their higher-end units) and unless they moved from XLR to Phoenix that could be a problem. And Phoenix would scare off most customers.


Why not use DB25 for line-level signals instead of Phoenix? DB25 to XLR adapter cables (called "snakes" in pro music because they often are quite long) are readily available. Trinnov uses that type of connector, although they do provide XLR for the first 8 or so connections.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*new Atmos capable 16 channel AVR announced*

Check out the recently updated www.stormaudio.com site introducing the new GalaxisAudio brand and announcing (July 2016) a renewed Atmos capable Auriga 16 channel AVR (14 channels amplified). The big question of course is whether it will support Atmos above 7.1.4.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Why not use DB25 for line-level signals instead of Phoenix? DB25 to XLR adapter cables (called "snakes" in pro music because they often are quite long) are readily available. Trinnov uses that type of connector, although they do provide XLR for the first 8 or so connections.


Yes, good idea. But whether it will ever take off in what is, after all, relatively cheap gear is the question. Anything can be done - but can it be done at the price point which makes sense to the manufacturer? And with a user-friendliness that appeals to the targeted audience?


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Class D amps might solve that one though.


Since about the late 90s, we were designing FETs in packages of 5 for the audio market. Obvious reason of 5.1 surround sound. Putting them in smaller, higher heat-dissipation packages like DPAKs (similar shape to TO-220 single FET). In doing so, the heat isn't decreased, but board size and cost is decreased. There is a physical limitation as to how many FETs can be placed on a die within a single package. The heat has to get out and the tab still mounted to heat sink. These packages are also a lot of the reason why you see the typical wpc decreasing (sacrificing power for cost and board space).

This alone is why you see the typical limitation of 9 channels in AVR. 10 doesn't really fit any home AV spec. But if you were to rip apart a modern AVR, I bet you would see 2 of the 5 channel DPAKs on the PCB. Increasing the count to 3 of the 5-channel DPAKs would give you the 13 or 15 chs most of us want. However, that wouldn't solve the power supply or heat issues that would become problematic.

So yes, more difficult for an AVR....But on the prepro front, 13 channels would take little to no effort.


----------



## Al Sherwood

maikeldepotter said:


> Check out the recently updated www.stormaudio.com site introducing the new GalaxisAudio brand and announcing (July 2016) a renewed Atmos capable Auriga 16 channel AVR (14 channels amplified). The big question of course is whether it will support Atmos above 7.1.4.



Interesting for sure, but no representation for distributors on this side of the pond at all... seems like early days for the company.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Since about the late 90s, we were designing FETs in packages of 5 for the audio market. Obvious reason of 5.1 surround sound. Putting them in smaller, higher heat-dissipation packages like DPAKs (similar shape to TO-220 single FET). In doing so, the heat isn't decreased, but board size and cost is decreased. There is a physical limitation as to how many FETs can be placed on a die within a single package. The heat has to get out and the tab still mounted to heat sink. These packages are also a lot of the reason why you see the typical wpc decreasing (sacrificing power for cost and board space).
> 
> This alone is why you see the typical limitation of 9 channels in AVR. 10 doesn't really fit any home AV spec. But if you were to rip apart a modern AVR, I bet you would see 2 of the 5 channel DPAKs on the PCB. Increasing the count to 3 of the 5-channel DPAKs would give you the 13 or 15 chs most of us want. However, that wouldn't solve the power supply or heat issues that would become problematic.
> 
> So yes, more difficult for an AVR....But on the prepro front, 13 channels would take little to no effort.


Good info - thanks. The problem with the prepro is that it is such a small market for the manufacturer, compared to the equivalent AVR. This usually means it costs more (due to lack of economies of scale) and represents worse value than the corresponding AVR (depending on how important one believes it is nowadays to physically separate pre and power amps). I used to go the prepro route myself, but latterly have gone for AVRs even though I am fully externally amped. I don't need or use the amps, but they are useful to have 'in reserve' maybe, and the AVR costs less than its equivalent prepro.

So, if you agree that the prepro is more expensive to begin with, then adding more channels to it can only exacerbate that, again calling into question whether it is viable for the manufacturer to offer the product in the first place. They may do of course since I have long suspected that the only reason they offer prepros anyway is to capitalise on the much higher price some will pay for them, giving the manufacturer a significant leap in profits compared with the mass-market (relatively speaking) AVR with its lower selling price and hence lower profit margins.

Thanks for your insights into the design and manufacture of these things, which I find fascinating.


----------



## kbarnes701

Al Sherwood said:


> Interesting for sure, but no representation for distributors on this side of the pond at all... seems like early days for the company.


And no worthwhile room EQ, which is scandalous on what I am sure will be a very costly unit.

One could go with the Crux processor and do room EQ with a pair of miniDSP DDRC-88As running Dirac Live (as I do for my Atmos setup, giving me the potential of 16 channels all EQd with Dirac)) but that adds another $2,000 to the price. And one would need the power amps of course. Alternatively, the Mensa features Dirac Live but they don't explicitly say on the site that it runs on all channels (which is the problem with the Arcam units and the AudioControl units, which are only 7.1.4 anyway).

Seems to me we are going to max out at 11 channels for some time to come, unless we are prepared to dig very deep into our bank balances.


----------



## AllenA07

I would be very curious how much the extra channels would improve Atmos in a average sized home theater. My room is on the smaller side at 11x16, and I'm just not that convinced that more speakers would help. I'm not sure where the point of diminishing returns begins with Atmos in the home theater.


----------



## Contuzzi

AllenA07 said:


> I would be very curious how much the extra channels would improve Atmos in a average sized home theater. My room is on the smaller side at 11x16, and I'm just not that convinced that more speakers would help. I'm not sure where the point of diminishing returns begins with Atmos in the home theater.


I think 9.1.6 is an ideal realistic goal for modestly priced receivers/processors. That covers a lot of the gaps that are left with 7.1.4, without overdoing it. Even in a decently sized home theater.


----------



## tigerhonaker

carp said:


> Come on guys... no way. No way. Going from Stereo to 5.1 was such a huge leap, I don't think anything will compare to that. I challenge you guys to run some scenes from some impressive Atmos movies (Gravity, Fury Road etc.) and then run the scenes again in 7.1. I have done that at a friends house and *the difference is there for sure, but it is NO WHERE CLOSE to the difference between stereo or pro logic compared to 5.1. *
> 
> I will say that recently my friend Archaea has been playing an Atmos Star Wars game and he says it's a huge improvement from what you hear in Atmos movies or even in the Atmos demo disk. I haven't heard it yet, so maybe the Star Wars game is as big of a jump as you guys are saying - but - movies or even the Atmos demo disk is not like going from stereo to 5.1.
> 
> The Atmos demo disk is great and shows off Atmos really well, however I own that disk and in my room it's also VERY impressive played on a 7.1 system.
> 
> For me Atmos it is a no brainer upgrade and I plan to do it myself when the price of AVR's comes down a bit and the format is more solidified with DTS X etc. However, I'm under no delusions that this will be like going from stereo to 5.1 because I know it won't be like that. In fact that's a huge reason why I am waiting for prices to come down. I know exactly what I'll be getting and paying 2 grand or more for the AVR alone does not make the difference worth it to me. If/when you can get an AVR for closer to 1000 that will get you to 7.1.4 (even if it means using external amps) then I'm in.
> _*
> I feel bad for the guy that follows this thread and hasn't experienced Atmos for himself and goes by the hype that he reads here from some of you guys.
> 
> *_In my opinion he will be disappointed when he fires up Atmos in his room for the first time and realizes that *while it is very cool and indeed an upgrade
> *it is not the night and day/black and white difference from 7.1 that some of you guys say it is.
> 
> @Archaea
> @Stoked21


Very interesting post ...........

Thanks for it !!!

Terry

BTW,
I have not spent my monies yet on Atmos.
So that's why I find your comments of interest.


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> I would be very curious how much the extra channels would improve Atmos in a average sized home theater. My room is on the smaller side at 11x16, and I'm just not that convinced that more speakers would help. I'm not sure where the point of diminishing returns begins with Atmos in the home theater.


Nor am I. For a single row HT, which is what many of us have, then four speakers on the ceiling may well be enough. I won't be adding any more here in the Hobbitarama anyway


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Trinnov uses that type of connector, although they do provide XLR for the first 8 or so connections.


Their pre-pro has 16 normal-sized XLR connections in a single row across a standard-width back panel. Marantz has 15 in a single row on the back panel of the 8802; could probably squeeze in one more. So 9.1.6 is do-able, without even resorting to a second row of XLR connectors.


----------



## vitod

Stoked21 said:


> HNY to you on the other side of the pond!!
> 
> Yeah, I really think we will see 13 channels "this year". The decode algorithms already exist for 9.1.2 and 7.1.4. Marantz and Denon are already supporting both deployments and 11 channels has been out for almost 2 years. A couple of units, like the 8801 and 7702, both already support 13 preouts even if not simultaneous. Doesn't even need major mechanical rework, just a DSP swap.
> 
> A little more DSP floating point operation capabilities (on the selected DSP), coupled with a little code regurgitation and optimization.......9.1.4.


Doesn't the 7702MKII support 13.1/9.2.4 already? I understand that a later model will have a more utilized DSP. If that's the case, what's the point of the current 13.1/9.2.4, Marantz offers?


----------



## Stoked21

vitod said:


> Doesn't the 7702MKII support 13.1/9.2.4 already? I understand that a later model will have a more utilized DSP. If that's the case, what's the point of the current 13.1/9.2.4, Marantz offers?


None of the D&M models support 13. The 8802 and 7702 have 13 preout. But only 11 are processed simultaneously for 7.1.4 or 9.1.2


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> 1. The two front main left and right flankers could be positioned closer to each other. ...Like nine feet apart.
> 2. The two side surrounds I would put them @ 90° to the sides of the couch.
> 3. The two front above height speakers (way up front) I would totally annihilate them.
> 4. The front left and right wide surrounds now make sense.
> 5. The two back surrounds I would positioned them closer to each other; five feet separation between.
> 
> * Everything else is about right; just one foot or so closer between each pair of overheads (TF and TR pairs)...between the left and right speaker from each pair, and not changing their triangulation (angle of the front and rear top pair).
> 
> That's just me, and what I would do if it was my room with those dimensions.





kbarnes701 said:


> A physical speaker at a given location will always be a better choice than allowing two other speakers to phantom image at that location. However, I am answering the question you asked, which was:
> _
> "My room is roughly 15 x 12 x 9.5 ft. If I get a Trinnov Altitude32, will upgrading from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 be worth it? Do ceiling channels get enough information to make this worthwhile? There will be only one row of seating."_
> 
> Your room is fairly small, speakers phantom image pretty well when the setup is good and, as you observe, ceiling speakers aren't doing very much work at this stage of immersive audio evolution. Often they are silent for most of the movie. So in your case I would expect 7.1.4 would work very well. If I were you, I would wire for additional overhead speakers now, because wire is cheap and one day more speakers may be beneficial. I would also consider 9.1.4 ahead of 7.1.6 in a 13 channel installation.
> 
> My last consideration was for the fact that you mentioned spending $20,000+ on a Trinnov Altitude in order to achieve the 7.1.6 you asked about. If that is your sole reason for spending that sort of money, then I think it will be wasted. We may soon see much more affordable AVRs offering 7.1.6 for example - hopefully by the time that the industry is making more use of the overhead speakers.
> 
> So, by all means spend your money any way you like. I am just giving my perspective on it. In short, save the cash for now, or spend it on *better speakers, better subwoofers and room treatments*. The latter will give you a huge improvement in sound quality, whereas the plan you mentioned will, at best, give you only a marginal improvement.





thebland said:


> I think if you're buying a Trinnov Altitude, I would max out the speakers more than 7.1.6. The remapping is great if your speakers are poorly positioned.





rontalley said:


> I see no point in spending that much money to gain TM when you only have 1 row of seating. However, you might want to look at @Scott Simonian ingenious way of getting 3 sets of Tops with a PLII trick and 2 addition AVRs. Doing the math and understanding how PLII works, it makes sense to me!
> 
> What are you not liking about 7.x.4? I have no problem hearing sound overhead? Maybe it's your speakers?


Thanks for the replies.

I might end up with 7.1.4 but I'm sure more channels is not the only reason you'd want to buy an Altitude32? I mean it is easily software upgradable to support new formats, excellent sonics, excellent room correction, and supports many channels. I'm thinking of the 16-channel version.

By the way, here is an updated drawing of my proposed setup based on the recommendations I got here (however note that while the distance from the seating position to the front of the room seems a lot, it is actually 10 feet. I don't want to move it any closer to the front of the room than than because it would be too lose the front speakers. Also, the side surrounds are slightly in front of the seating position because of the large window to the right of the room):










I've also added the subwoofers this time around. They are the gray boxes.


----------



## vitod

Stoked21 said:


> None of the D&M models support 13. The 8802 and 7702 have 13 preout. But only 11 are processed simultaneously for 7.1.4 or 9.1.2


Ok, then help me understand something. On pg 66 on the 7702MKII manual, it shows 9 speakers and 4 ceiling. That's 13 all together. If you're saying that it doesn't process 13 speakers, that means the 4 ceiling are getting the same processing? Just that using 4 ceiling, you're only dispersing a wider area? 

_*11.1-channel playback
This system, which is based on a 5.1-channel system, plays back up to
11.1-channels at the same time.
You can connect speakers for up to 13-channels for MAIN ZONE.
When you connect speakers for 12 or more channels, the output
speakers automatically switch according to the input signal and sound
mode.
*_


----------



## Scott Simonian

vitod said:


> Ok, then help me understand something. On pg 66 on the 7702MKII manual, it shows 9 speakers and 4 ceiling. That's 13 all together. If you're saying that it doesn't process 13 speakers, that means the 4 ceiling are getting the same processing? Just that using 4 ceiling, you're only dispersing a wider area?
> 
> _*11.1-channel playback
> This system, which is based on a 5.1-channel system, plays back up to
> 11.1-channels at the same time.
> You can connect speakers for up to 13-channels for MAIN ZONE.
> When you connect speakers for 12 or more channels, the output
> speakers automatically switch according to the input signal and sound
> mode.
> *_


It does not support simultaneous output of all of those speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

vitod said:


> Ok, then help me understand something. On pg 66 on the 7702MKII manual, it shows 9 speakers and 4 ceiling. That's 13 all together. If you're saying that it doesn't process 13 speakers, that means the 4 ceiling are getting the same processing? Just that using 4 ceiling, you're only dispersing a wider area?
> 
> _*11.1-channel playback
> This system, which is based on a 5.1-channel system, plays back up to
> 11.1-channels at the same time.
> You can connect speakers for up to 13-channels for MAIN ZONE.
> When you connect speakers for 12 or more channels, the output
> speakers automatically switch according to the input signal and sound
> mode.
> *_


I actually use the 7702mk2. 13 speakers hooked up previously but only 11 hooked up now (I omitted the front wides in my upgrade but will put them back in soon). 

As it says, the DSP will only process 11 chs for any given source. Dependent on the source it may be 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. Or the user may change config for one layout or another. No different than someone with a 9.1 unit can select 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. The .4 will not receive the same signals: if it's .4 then it won't process wides. If you select wides it won't process one pair of tops. Bottom line you will only get output from 11 speakers at any one time. 

This is also true for any onkyo, pioneer or Yamaha unit that can support multiple layouts.....11 outputs is the max today.


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> It does not support simultaneous output of all of those speakers.


Thanks Scott. This stuff is new to me. Learning all the time. Thank goodness for AVS. 

Ok, I already have 9 speakers. Installing 2 ceiling. Was thinking of front heights, but I want to do it the 'right' way.


----------



## Scott Simonian

vitod said:


> Thanks Scott. This stuff is new to me. Learning all the time. Thank goodness for AVS.
> 
> Ok, I already have 9 speakers. Installing 2 ceiling. Was thinking of front heights, but I want to do it the 'right' way.


If you can have only one pair of overhead speakers, I'd suggest installing them as a set right over the main listening position instead of "front heights". Unless you can squeeze in a 2nd pair of overheads then go ahead with front and rear overhead/heights.


----------



## Stoked21

vitod said:


> Thanks Scott. This stuff is new to me. Learning all the time. Thank goodness for AVS.
> 
> Ok, I already have 9 speakers. Installing 2 ceiling. Was thinking of front heights, but I want to do it the 'right' way.


Read closely before you buy a unit. Most 11.1 capable units only have 9 onboard amps and require 2 chs ext amp. Some of These are labeled as 9.1 units and have descriptions stating they support up to 11 with ext amp. Some 9.1 units though will only process 9 chs and cannot be 11.1.


----------



## vitod

Stoked21 said:


> I actually use the 7702mk2. 13 speakers hooked up previously but only 11 hooked up now (I omitted the front wides in my upgrade but will put them back in soon).
> 
> As it says, the DSP will only process 11 chs for any given source. Dependent on the source it may be 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. Or the user may change config for one layout or another. No different than someone with a 9.1 unit can select 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. The .4 will not receive the same signals: if it's .4 then it won't process wides. If you select wides it won't process one pair of tops. Bottom line you will only get output from 11 speakers at any one time.
> 
> This is also true for any onkyo, pioneer or Yamaha unit that can support multiple layouts.....11 outputs is the max today.


Got it. Thank you!


----------



## vitod

Stoked21 said:


> Read closely before you buy a unit. Most 11.1 capable units only have 9 onboard amps and require 2 chs ext amp. Some of These are labeled as 9.1 units and have descriptions stating they support up to 11 with ext amp. Some 9.1 units though will only process 9 chs and cannot be 11.1.


I have a MKII on the way.


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> If you can have only one pair of overhead speakers, I'd suggest installing them as a set right over the main listening position instead of "front heights". Unless you can squeeze in a 2nd pair of overheads then go ahead with front and rear overhead/heights.


Yes, I can do 7.1.4. I have a drop ceiling so installation should be easy.


----------



## rontalley

vitod said:


> Yes, I can do 7.1.4. I have a drop ceiling so installation should be easy.


Best case scenario! You would definitely want to do 2 sets of tops. There are some demos that really, really, really showcase how awesome 2 sets of tops are like Horizons and Audiosphere.


----------



## vitod

rontalley said:


> Best case scenario! You would definitely want to do 2 sets of tops. There are some demos that really, really, really showcase how awesome 2 sets of tops are like Horizons and Audiosphere.


Fantastic! The Miccas are coming in tomorrow!


----------



## Contuzzi

AllenA07 said:


> I would be very curious how much the extra channels would improve Atmos in a average sized home theater. My room is on the smaller side at 11x16, and I'm just not that convinced that more speakers would help. I'm not sure where the point of diminishing returns begins with Atmos in the home theater.


I think 9.1.6 is an ideal realistic goal for modestly priced receivers/processors. That covers a lot of the gaps that are left with 7.1.4, without overdoing it. Even in a decently sized home theater.


----------



## Stoked21

Contuzzi said:


> I think 9.1.6 is an ideal realistic goal for modestly priced receivers/processors. That covers a lot of the gaps that are left with 7.1.4, without overdoing it. Even in a decently sized home theater.


I have a medium sized room. 2 row dedicated HT. 16' deep plus 3' behind screen. Completey open on right side, but I call it 16' wide. 

Having said that, my room screams for 9.1.6. I could see maybe growing to 11.1.8 or so at a maximum. Anything beyond that will be diminishing returns and complicate speaker install. 

I imagine most of us will max out at about 15-21 channels in the future. Anything beyond that really requires a large room to gain benefit. IMO


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have been running 7.1.4 happily (at least for a week or so...LOL), but I continue to look for improvement. I am running my rear height speakers on stands. 
Without getting too tricky, I could run wiring up inside the wall and mount them on the wall near...well, at least close to, the ceiling. I could then run them as either Top Rear (maybe?) or Rear High.

I have attached some pictures of my home theater looking toward the back of the theater. So, in the picture, the left corner of the photo is my Top Rear Right (Supersat 3) and Back Surround Right (ML LX16).
In the right corner of the photo is my Top Rear Left (Supersat 3) and my Back Surround Left (ML LX16).

You will note in the pictures that a soffit extends from the side wall and extends about 5' into my 14.5' width room.

If I put them on the wall, I would like to put them (Supersat 3s) as high as possible, but I am concerned about diffraction issues cause by the soffit. I have a couple of questions.

Do you think it would be worth putting them on the wall in terms of imaging instead of on stands as upfiring speakers?
Another question is, "Should I mount the speaker by the soffit low enough that it is not a diffraction issue, i.e. at or just below the outer edge of the soffit?
And, should I mount both the right and the left at the same height?"


----------



## NorthSky

virtualrain said:


> I'd much rather see 9 channels (5.1.4 or 7.1.2) at a mainstream $500 price point. That would propel interest in immersive sound and solidify the market.


Dolby Atmos/DTS:X 7.1.4 for $500 ... even better.  ...We just add one or two stereo amps...that we already have...from yesteryears with Main Ins. 

Not for us, but for the receiver's manufacturers; if they want to sell more units...and make more money. ...And give the big boys (Trinnov, datasat, Lyngdorf, JBL, ...) a real scary run for their money. 

...Barco, Auro-Max, IOSONO, Aroma...


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> Why not use DB25 for line-level signals instead of Phoenix? DB25 to XLR adapter cables (called "snakes" in pro music because they often are quite long) are readily available. Trinnov uses that type of connector, although they do provide XLR for the first 8 or so connections.


Trinnov Altitude 32 (rear panel with 16 XLR jacks in one single horizontal [email protected] top):


----------



## stikle

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have been running 7.1.4 happily (at least for a week or so...LOL), but I *continue to look for improvement*.
> ...
> ...
> I have attached some pictures of my home theater looking toward the back of the theater.



A thought - You appear to have a LOT of nice flat surfaces for sound to bounce around on. I suggest putting up some kind of sound dampening material and then re-running your room correction.

I went with a pack of 2"x12"x12" foam to break up a large flat wall in my room. I wanted all brown so I just put that in the order comments. They do have multiple other colors. $40 delivered was cheap enough to see if it would make a difference. In my room, it did, so I just ordered some more to add to the ceiling and back wall.


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> I've also added the subwoofers this time around. They are the gray boxes.


Looks good to me. ...Happy New Year!


----------



## NorthSky

vitod said:


> I have a MKII on the way.


Wise choice...Happy New Year!


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have been running 7.1.4 happily (at least for a week or so...LOL), but I continue to look for improvement. I am running my rear height speakers on stands.
> Without getting too tricky, I could run wiring up inside the wall and mount them on the wall near...well, at least close to, the ceiling. I could then run them as either Top Rear (maybe?) or Rear High.
> 
> I have attached some pictures of my home theater looking toward the back of the theater. So, in the picture, the left corner of the photo is my Top Rear Right (Supersat 3) and Back Surround Right (ML LX16).
> In the right corner of the photo is my Top Rear Left (Supersat 3) and my Back Surround Left (ML LX16).
> 
> You will note in the pictures that a soffit extends from the side wall and extends about 5' into my 14.5' width room.
> 
> If I put them on the wall, I would like to put them (Supersat 3s) as high as possible, but I am concerned about diffraction issues cause by the soffit. I have a couple of questions.
> 
> Do you think it would be worth putting them on the wall in terms of imaging instead of on stands as upfiring speakers?
> Another question is, "Should I mount the speaker by the soffit low enough that it is not a diffraction issue, i.e. at or just below the outer edge of the soffit?
> And, should I mount both the right and the left at the same height?"


I would mount them on the ceiling; the right front and rear speakers under the soffit, and the left front and rear with extended brackets (roughly a foot long) to be @ the same level all four of them.

♦ One pair of those (similar) for the Top Front Left & Top Rear Left side (longer): http://www.cotytech.com/content-pro...cket_for_large_satellite_speaker_sp_os04.html
♦♦ And similar to that for the Top Front Right & Top Rear Left side (shorter): http://www.toa.jp/products/pro_speakers/speaker_stands/hy-c0801.html

Another link for ceiling mount speaker brackets (ideas): http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Silicon-audio-home-theatre-ceiling-speaker_1604878395.html --> Scroll down.

And a picture for a another short one (under the soffit):


----------



## Burningcoals

I want to do 5.1.4 with front presence and middle in-ceiling Atmos speakers. 

I have front height Presence speakers.
I have rear surrounds mounted very high, near ceiling.

I would just like to add Atmos in-ceiling in the middle of the room or between the front heights and rear surrounds.

Anyone have experience with this configuration? Would it image well?


----------



## NorthSky

Burningcoals said:


> I want to do 5.1.4 with front presence and middle in-ceiling Atmos speakers.
> 
> I have front height Presence speakers.
> I have rear surrounds mounted very high, near ceiling.
> 
> I would just like to add Atmos in-ceiling in the middle of the room or between the front heights and rear surrounds.
> 
> Anyone have experience with this configuration? Would it image well?


♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 18

- Rear surrounds should be @ or slightly above ear level (say no more than 12"). 

If you use Top Middle, they would work with Front Height. ...Or Rear Height. ...Top Middle with both Front and Rear Height? ...Nope.


----------



## Burningcoals

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 18


I was asking if anyone had experience with this configuration. I know I can add the speakers.

Also do you know if DSU would use the TM Atmos speakers?


----------



## NorthSky

Burningcoals said:


> I was asking if anyone had experience with this configuration. I know I can add the speakers.


I have read your post very clearly; and I added slightly to my above post. 
It wouldn't be optimal to have your back surrounds that high...IMO.



> Also do you know if DSU would use the TM Atmos speakers?


Of course it would. ...It's all in the designation you select in your receiver for the four above Atmos speakers.


----------



## Burningcoals

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf => Page 18
> 
> - Rear surrounds should be @ or slightly above ear level (say no more than 12").
> 
> If you use Top Middle, they would work with Front Height. ...Or Rear Height. ...Top Middle with both Front and Rear Height? ...Nope.


Thanks!

My surrounds are THX spec, mounted very high and slightly behind the MLP. They image amazingly, and even with just 5.1.2 since they are mounted high, pans do very well front to back.

However, I think what you are getting at is that its not THX land anymore, and that the encoding would favor ear level surrounds, this seems pretty ridiculous really since high mounted surrounds have always been the standard, they always sounded way better then ear level surrounds.

In my room its not possible for ear level surrounds, it would definitely be a few feet above MLP no matter what, but I can point them at MLP. I could lower them and add TR Atmos surrounds, but maybe I would prefer Wall mounted presence speakers instead so I could run with Auro 3D, this would mean I have zero Top mounted speakers and basically all wall mounted presence.

I have to wonder though, since my rear surrounds are mounted high I get a phantom rear height affect, its very good in DSU and Atmos already. Which is why I am thinking TM Atmos speakers would be good, however, if I had top rear Atmos speakers I could almost double those as rear presence speakers with Auro 3D?

If my AVR could do 5.1.6 like they should all have been able to this would probably be a non issue. I guess what I am saying is my rear surrounds are mounted perfect for my room and do a very good job as both surround and height speaker for channel based mixes, and seem to do ok in Atmos also. Which is why I am trying to decide if TM would be better in my room, since moving the rear surrounds would be extremely problematic. As long as DSU/Atmos is covered I am good, I don't need Auro 3D


----------



## Stoked21

@Burningcoals

You are welcome to mount speakers wherever you would like. 

However if you want the best Atmos sound....move all your bed channels to bed height (I.e ear level). This is necessary for a very specific reason which is contradictory to your previous layouts. you want to create 2 planes that are physically separated. Height/top and bed. This allows for object imaging between, around, and throughout the entire bubble surrounding the MLP. 

Now some people leave their surrounds a few feet above ear level, but still fairly height separated from their tops. Some still use bipole for surrounds even though Dolby highly recommends all speakers being monopole. Some use AT top speakers which are dipole (big mistake IMO). I run my surrounds about 12" below ear (at ear level for front row though) and my mains about 6" below ear. So everyone varies a bit for room reasons and for personal preference. 

At the end of the day, you will not realize all the benefits of Atmos and will collapse the surround bubble if any bed speakers are up that high. No spatial separation of layers. You also destroy the possibility of adding additional height speakers in the future.


----------



## NorthSky

@Burningcoals, Yes, I follow you real good; I'm not drunk.  ...I don't drink...only during celebration times...with meals (vino, mostly red). 

THX is no more with Dolby Atmos. Atmos recommends your two side and back surrounds @ ear level...or slightly above just to not be blocked by high back chairs or couches. 
The thing with Atmos (and DTS:X and Auro-3D) is this: a good separation between the floor and ceiling surround speakers. 

In your Denon 7200 receiver's manual it is indicated the combinations possible for the four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers. 
And Auro-3D is a slightly different animal...but not by much. ...It's your choice...more Atmos/DSU use or more Auro-3D/Auro-Matic use. 
Because right now the switching between those two 3D audio decoders is not that simple...we're only @ the beginning of this 3D audio immersion. 
We all wish that in 2016 Denon/Marantz will give us happiness by making it easy to play with all three new 3D audio decoders without too much aggravation. 

I am following you so well that my next decision is based on that. 
...But there is no doubt now in my mind that the THX standards they don't apply anymore with the new audio revolution (3D immersion). 
...No more dipole, no more high surrounds, no more Re-EQ and decorrelation a la dinosaurus ProLogic phantomas of the prehistoric Ice age. 
All is in space now, will full discretion from 20Hz to 20Khz and everywhere in that 360° 3-Dimensional sphere of our living rooms (home theaters). 
And for that it requires proper speaker positioning all around plus intelligent 3D audio mixes from the pro movie/music multichannel audio mixers a la OBJECTivity. 
We're all in the bubble together now, and VHS and Laserdisc and even DVD they are no more in this brand new UHD Blu-ray world and Hulu & Vudu magic (4K and Dolby Atmos streaming). ...And those other sources...a la Roku 4. 

Me too I feel sad and nostalgic...and even more so than you because my actual pre/pro right now is THX Ultra2 Plus certified. But my surrounds are monopoles...towers and on stands.

The Denon 7200 is the master receiver of them all in my book of 3D sound. Best is to adapt to it and leave THX standards in the dust of past history, just like I will when I'll buy my new pre/pro this year...from your sister...Marantz.


----------



## KennyLSU

My investment has finally paid off (in the eye of the banker of the house). Decided to watch Terminator Genisys today with my wife. I did not tell her that it was in Atmos prior to starting it. About 10 mins in, she asks, "does this have that special audio? I just heard something above my head and felt the ceiling was coming down."


----------



## dvdwilly3

NorthSky said:


> I would mount them on the ceiling; the right front and rear speakers under the soffit, and the left front and rear with extended brackets (roughly a foot long) to be @ the same level all four of them.
> 
> ♦ One pair of those (similar) for the Top Front Left & Top Rear Left side (longer): http://www.cotytech.com/content-pro...cket_for_large_satellite_speaker_sp_os04.html
> ♦♦ And similar to that for the Top Front Right & Top Rear Left side (shorter): http://www.toa.jp/products/pro_speakers/speaker_stands/hy-c0801.html
> 
> Another link for ceiling mount speaker brackets (ideas): http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Silicon-audio-home-theatre-ceiling-speaker_1604878395.html --> Scroll down.
> 
> And a picture for a another short one (under the soffit):
> 
> View attachment 1156034


NorthSky, I appreciate the response, but I cannot ceiling mount the speakers. I would have to cut holes in the wall to be able to drill a hole in the top plate to pull wire into the ceiling. No holes...

I can mount the rear speakers on the wall. I can pull the shoe molding off the wall and cut a small hole (1" to 1 1/2") in the dry wall, run the wiring in and once done, put the shoe molding back and it will cover that hole. Up on the wall, I will have to cut a 2" x 4" hole for a box to take the wire out next to the speaker. It will be covered by a hooded plate--that is, the wiring comes out of a hole in the plate which has a hood covering it.

The bottom hole is invisible and the top hole is covered by a visually blank plate. That much I can get away with.

However, you did inadvertently address one issue--the rear height speakers should be mounted at the same height. By mounting on the wall, I can mount high, but I feel that the soffit will pose problems. So, I will mount them on the rear wall at the edge of the soffit to avoid diffraction issues, for both of the rear height speakers. And, by mounting on the wall, I can avoid the extended mount that you were suggesting.

As I am thinking about it, I have a couple of ladders that I can use behind the chairs to simulate the proposed wall mount. That is, I can get them off of the stands, and at approximately the correct height to see if there is an audible difference before going through all of the permanent stuff. If there is not, leave everything alone. If there is, get to it.

The front speakers will remain upfiring...I cannot get wiring to the ceiling at the appropriate location, in particular, because of the soffit. However, I have found that I can modify the top plates of the Triton Seven towers to screw on a swivel mount and mount the front height speakers directly on top of the towers.

Thanks again.


----------



## dvdwilly3

stikle said:


> A thought - You appear to have a LOT of nice flat surfaces for sound to bounce around on. I suggest putting up some kind of sound dampening material and then re-running your room correction.
> 
> I went with a pack of 2"x12"x12" foam to break up a large flat wall in my room. I wanted all brown so I just put that in the order comments. They do have multiple other colors. $40 delivered was cheap enough to see if it would make a difference. In my room, it did, so I just ordered some more to add to the ceiling and back wall.


Stikle, good call...I do have 24" x 48" on the front wall corners. Those did smooth out the response of the SVS PB-12 Plus that sits in the front left corner.

I just need to think about placement.

Thanks.


----------



## Burningcoals

@Stoked21 and @NorthSky

Awesome responses!! It's what I needed to hear. I can indeed move the surrounds (B&W CM5S2) down farther to ear level and more in line with L/R.

Next question.

Should I just add another set of monopoles near the ceiling pointed at MLP? That way I can do Auro 3D, and a full 5.1.4 Atmos via Presence speakers(Wall mounted Heights and Surround Heights) Monopoles pointed at MLP

Or.. is it that much better to have full .4 in-ceiling and get rid of wall mounted font heights, do full .4 in ceiling and go all in on Atmos?

--

Guessing I know the answer on this, removing my wall mounted height and going with x4 in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Stoked21

I personally had much better experience using ICs vs heights mounted on walls. I think keeping the angles in line is more difficult with on walls vs in ceilings. Plus having the speakers above you is the primary goal to create an effect of sound coming from above you!!! Pretty simple thought there! Anyway others have claimed to have good experience with height layout.


----------



## Stoked21

As for Auro. My marantz pre has the optional upgrade. But in the US there isn't really any content. More in Europe. I'd pay the $200 to try it if I felt it was going to take hold. Pixels is great example. Atmos in US but Auro in Europe. I'm not sure we will see much Auro here so I'm hesitant to waste the $200....plus install a VOG. 

I'll stick with the common Atmos and X layout until or IF Auro gains traction here.


----------



## Burningcoals

Stoked21 said:


> I personally had much better experience using ICs vs heights mounted on walls. I think keeping the angles in line is more difficult with on walls vs in ceilings. Plus having the speakers above you is the primary goal to create an effect of sound coming from above you!!! Pretty simple thought there! Anyway others have claimed to have good experience with height layout.


I love my heights setup. They are mounted at the ceiling and very wide, they work well with DSX. Although I stopped using DSX since I picked up my 7200, now its Dolby Atmos/DSU.

There are some trade offs with in-ceiling speakers vs wall mounted heights.

I would have to demo a well put together Auro 3D layout vs Atmos layout for Atmos playback.

So far I am leaning to go full in on Atmos and install four quality in-cealing speakers.

Thanks for all the feedback. Hope there is a review coming out for those who have both setups Wall vs in-ceiling. I am anxious to order speakers but need to figure this out...


----------



## bosoxfan

Lots of pages in this thread, so sorry if this has been answered.
I am getting my new Denon x6200 this week so the next step is looking at in ceiling atmos speakers. I have access to the attic above so that part isn't an issue.
Anyone find good speakers with enclosures and how do you support that sitting on the ceiling drywall?
The speaker would be covered back over with the loose attic insulation, so an enclosure would really be better for me.
Thanks for any opinions or suggestions!


----------



## aaranddeeman

stikle said:


> I went with a pack of 2"x12"x12" foam to break up a large flat wall in my room. I wanted all brown so I just put that in the order comments. They do have multiple other colors. $40 delivered was cheap enough to see if it would make a difference. In my room, it did, so I just ordered some more to add to the ceiling and back wall.


That looks interesting. Looks like worth a try.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

bosoxfan said:


> Lots of pages in this thread, so sorry if this has been answered.
> I am getting my new Denon x6200 this week so the next step is looking at in ceiling atmos speakers. I have access to the attic above so that part isn't an issue.
> Anyone find good speakers with enclosures and how do you support that sitting on the ceiling drywall?
> The speaker would be covered back over with the loose attic insulation, so an enclosure would really be better for me.
> Thanks for any opinions or suggestions!


Do you mean backer boxes for in-ceiling speakers? Many brands provide these, such as B&W. But you can DIY.


----------



## bosoxfan

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Do you mean backer boxes for in-ceiling speakers? Many brands provide these, such as B&W. But you can DIY.


Yep, what about support? Do these just sit on top of the ceiling drywall or is there some sort of support/bracket? I assume there must be with the weight of the speaker/box and vibration.


----------



## NM20

I am thinking of dropping my rear surrounds to ear height. They are currently about two feet above due to a high backed sofa but this only puts them 2 feet below my Atmos speakers. 

What do people think, drop them to ear level although they will fire into the sofa (they are around 7 ft back from the sofa) or have them above the back of the sofa firing over the top?

Also I was listening to Horizon today in Atmos on my HTPC and I found the voice of the narrator quite distorted just before the spaceship flies over your head, it seems to become quite gravely and his voice starts to break up almost. Have others experienced this? I am using a Denon 5200 and I am wondering if I need to play with the settings or if it is part of the recording.


----------



## bass addict

NM20 said:


> I am thinking of dropping my rear surrounds to ear height. They are currently about two feet above due to a high backed sofa but this only puts them 2 feet below my Atmos speakers.
> 
> What do people think, drop them to ear level although they will fire into the sofa (they are around 7 ft back from the sofa) or have them above the back of the sofa firing over the top?
> .


You are going to want to make sure they are high enough to not be obstructed by people or objects. With my rear riser my sides and rears are raised quite a bit over the first row seating's ear level. You have to do what you have to do sometimes and compromise for the best overall scenario.

Can you split the difference and drop them 1' instead. Every little bit would help as long as you aren't blocking the dispersion from them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> HNY to you on the other side of the pond!!
> 
> Yeah, I really think we will see 13 channels "this year". The decode algorithms already exist for 9.1.2 and 7.1.4. Marantz and Denon are already supporting both deployments and 11 channels has been out for almost 2 years. A couple of units, like the 8801 and 7702, both already support 13 preouts even if not simultaneous. Doesn't even need major mechanical rework, just a DSP swap.
> 
> A little more DSP floating point operation capabilities (on the selected DSP), coupled with a little code regurgitation and optimization.......9.1.4.
> 
> I'd speculate that front-wide will come first over TM, as more consumers are likely to run bed level speakers over Atmos ICs. Ergo more marketable feature. Additionally, I'd guess the SW algorithms are less complex for wides than for three pairs of Atmos channels.
> 
> My guess (kind of like a**holes cus we all have one!), is that 9.1.4 will be available from Onkyo and D&M before October 2016. If I had to put money on it I'd say Onkyo/Integra will be the first to 13; as they are deficient in the high-end arena right now (no X, no auro, no HDCP2.2....). They need to upgrade the 3030 and other top-end units to catchup with the competition. They won't try to just match the competitors feature-to-feature, they'll try to one-up them.


In fact, D+M was stating at CEDIA that they _may_ have high end gear capable of at least two more rendered channels this year using the new DSP chips and new 13.1 architecture added to 2015's top models (9.1.4). Would the old gear get a firmware upgrade...? I'm thinking no... even though they could probably handle the extra two speaker outputs of processing already.


----------



## NM20

bass addict said:


> You are going to want to make sure they are high enough to not be obstructed by people or objects. With my rear riser my sides and rears are raised quite a bit over the first row seating's ear level. You have to do what you have to do sometimes and compromise for the best overall scenario.
> 
> Can you split the difference and drop them 1' instead. Every little bit would help as long as you aren't blocking the dispersion from them.


Thanks. I think I will split the difference to start with, I suppose I can move them back if I am not happy. 

Currently I find the rear Atmos are next to useless and I am unsure of whether it is due to my rears being too high or the fact I need to change the TR Atmos speakers. I am using Tannoy DI 6 (non DC) for the TR.


----------



## batpig

bosoxfan said:


> Lots of pages in this thread, so sorry if this has been answered.
> I am getting my new Denon x6200 this week so the next step is looking at in ceiling atmos speakers. I have access to the attic above so that part isn't an issue.
> Anyone find good speakers with enclosures and how do you support that sitting on the ceiling drywall?
> The speaker would be covered back over with the loose attic insulation, so an enclosure would really be better for me.
> Thanks for any opinions or suggestions!


There are several speaker companies that sell IC speakers with integrated sealed enclosures. Triad is probably most known for this as that's ALL they make for IW/IC speakers. 

Triad's system allows you to retro install straight to drywall. The enclosure has little tabs that clamp to the back of the drywall and the grill frame clamps the front.


----------



## radamo

batpig said:


> There are several speaker companies that sell IC speakers with integrated sealed enclosures. Triad is probably most known for this as that's ALL they make for IW/IC speakers.
> 
> Triad's system allows you to retro install straight to drywall. The enclosure has little tabs that clamp to the back of the drywall and the grill frame clamps the front.


I just installed Definitive DI 8R's for my Front Presence speakers and they have enclosures and all you do is cut the hole in the drywall and drop the speaker wire through from above. Then connect the wires and lift the speaker into the hole and tighten the 4 mount screws. They each flip out a tab that holds the speaker flush to the drywall. Then the grills magnetically mount from below. Very clean install and really easy. They sound excellent too.


----------



## NorthSky

bosoxfan said:


> Yep, what about support? Do these just sit on top of the ceiling drywall or is there some sort of support/bracket? I assume there must be with the weight of the speaker/box and vibration.


♦ https://rbhsound.com/backbox.php


----------



## batpig

radamo said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several speaker companies that sell IC speakers with integrated sealed enclosures. Triad is probably most known for this as that's ALL they make for IW/IC speakers.
> 
> Triad's system allows you to retro install straight to drywall. The enclosure has little tabs that clamp to the back of the drywall and the grill frame clamps the front.
> 
> 
> 
> I just installed Definitive DI 8R's for my Front Presence speakers and they have enclosures and all you do is cut the hole in the drywall and drop the speaker wire through from above. Then connect the wires and lift the speaker into the hole and tighten the 4 mount screws. They each flip out a tab that holds the speaker flush to the drywall. Then the grills magnetically mount from below. Very clean install and really easy. They sound excellent too.
Click to expand...

Did you buy some optional enclosure? Because those speakers don't come with sealed integrated enclosures. They are standard IC design with a basket in frame and the flip tab "dog ear" clamps.


----------



## bosoxfan

I love this forum 

Thank you guys so much, I appreciate the responses!


----------



## Kain

NorthSky said:


> Looks good to me. ...Happy New Year!


Thanks. You sure installing front wide speakers over the front two subwoofers will be no good? Too close the side surround and front LCR speakers? Reposting the drawing below to make your life easier. 










Happy New Year to you too!


----------



## dvdwilly3

I do not believe that I have seen it laid out quite so clearly as to why aiming your speakers for the MLP is a rational, logical idea...

http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> I do not believe that I have seen it laid out quite so clearly as to why aiming your speakers for the MLP is a rational, logical idea...


Hasn't aiming speakers towards the MLP been a good idea ever since there were speakers?


----------



## joemancpa

Hi Everyone,

I have been researching the perfect systems for my new home and I have some ideas but it is time to get some input from the pros on this forum. We are going to be moving into our new house in March. There are two systems that I'm building and I have some parts from my existing system that are available for use. My existing set-up was a Denon 7.1 with no 4K. Everything is in storage right now so I don't have the model number but it was roughly $1200 in 2007. I also have four Def Tech 350 Studio Monitors, one CLR 2300 center and a supercube II. 

Room Stats: 

This is new construction and all walls are currently open so I have some flexibility. 

Great Room - 25ft wide x 36ft deep. Living Area is 25ft wide and 21ft deep and has with vaulted ceilings that peak at ~14ft. This is open to the kitchen that is 25ft wide and 15ft deep with a 9ft ceiling. 12ft. wide built in tv cabinet that can hold a 24 inch bookshelf on each side and up to 90 inch tv. See attached.
Bonus Room - 24ft wide and 21ft with 9ft ceilings. See attached. 11ft. wide built in tv cabinet that can hold a 24 inch bookshelf on each side and up to 90 inch tv.

Use - 
Football 20%, HT 60% and Music 20%.
Music - Beatles, Classic Rock (Led Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, Jimi), Indy Rock (Freighted Rabbit, Mother Hips), Alternative (Foo Fighters, Weezer)

Goals - Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 and 2.2 HDCP

Budget - You can gauge it based on what I'm considering below but I don't really want to go higher than $1500 for each receiver and $1500 for my sub. Also, I've always considered myself a price to quality buyer and don't buy because of the name. Lastly, I'm patient enough to identify what I want and find a deal before pulling the trigger. 

Obstacles - Wife hates the look of tower speakers but got the sign-off for towers in the bonus room. Great Room will have to be bookshelf speakers. She would prefer the white towers but I can do black towers. No Martin Logan Electromotion towers, she thinks these look awful. 

Great Room Possible Set -Up - I was thinking about a few different options but I'm open to other ideas as well. I'm thinking about keeping my Def Tech Center, Studios and Sub in the Great Room, getting either Martin Logan electromotion IW or FXs for the rear and four ML electromotion IC or R for the ceiling atmos speakers. *Receiver - Open to suggestions...* Any other pieces (other than speakers and receiver) I should be considering? I plan to use an IR transmitter and keep all of the equipment in a closet. Any suggestions with the IR transmitter?

Bonus Room - Martin Logan everything . Main Debate - Fronts - Motion 40s (white and my wife would be happier) or 35XTs black bookshelf (wife would still be happy) or 60XTs Black towers (wife would be accepting). Center 50XTs, Rear - Either FXs, electromotion IWs, or Rs. Ceiling Atmos - Electromotion IWs, or Rs. Subwoofer - No idea, need help? *Receiver - Open to suggestions...* Any other pieces (other than speakers and receiver) I should be considering? Might use an IR transmitter. 

I have listened to the 40s and 60XTs and I really like them both. I haven't had an opportunity to listed to the 35XT or 50XT but I got a feel from the 60XT to gauge what that tweeter can do. 

TVs - Don't know if this matters but I'm either going Sony 75" (900 series) or Samsung 75" (8000 series) or bigger but most likely 75". Cabinets are built to hold up to a 90" but that was mainly to future proof and with the 75", I only have a six border which isn't bad. 

Outdoor - I'm also looking for some outdoor speakers as well that could be linked up with the great room so if I'm outside, I can still listen to the game or some music. 

In advance, I really appreciate any feedback or suggestions. I'm excited to hear what you guys have to say. 

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## healthnut

For subwoofers, Rythmik, Hsu and SVS are great options. In my opinion, a sealed Rythmik would be best for music, due to the servo technology. If you're looking for low end without real limits, I'd suggest Deep Sea Sound's Mariana 24. The 24" driver is the largest on the market and is paired with a 4,000 watt amp. I ordered one of these myself, with a second one later one. Best of luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> Thanks. *You sure installing front wide speakers over the front two subwoofers will be no good?*
> Too close the side surround and front LCR speakers? Reposting the drawing below to make your life easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happy New Year to you too!


Not really because your side surrounds are roughly @ 70° in front of the MLP. ...It looks perfect for your room's dimensions, an Atmos/dtsX 7.4.4 setup.

* I would put the two front mains away from the front wall (say couple feet measured from the speaker's front plane) but the left one might obstruct the door there.


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> I do not believe that I have seen it laid out quite so clearly as to why aiming your speakers for the MLP is a rational, logical idea...
> 
> http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


♦ Very nice. 



s said:


> Hasn't aiming speakers towards the MLP been a good idea ever since there were speakers?


It all depends; some speakers sound best when firing straight @ the rear wall, instead of being toed in @ the MLP. 
And, with THX surround speakers, dipoles were all the rage...with their aiming all over the place except @ the MLP. ...For a simili " surround envelopment", without the discrete intended sound direction by the movie/sound director/producer/mixer. 

Now the THX experts prefer the overhead Dolby Atmos firing straight down instead of aiming towards the MLP. 

So from the beginning of "Sound" and "Surround Sound" there have been many variations as to where the sound was/should be aimed @.
Narrow dispersion (THX certified speakers), wide dispersion (dipole, bipole, tripole, omnipolar...), electrostatics, horns, ...speakers are all over the map as far the dispersion is concerned. And looking @ a theater the side and back surrounds are about six to ten feet above our heads!

My own speakers @ home (front flankers) they need to fire straight (about 4 feet away from both my shoulders) to sound their best, or they will rip my ears apart with the 12kHz content of the "E" chord of a piano and violin. 

So it really depends of the type of speakers we have, their drivers, their x-overs, brief their overall design and real set of measurements in a real room where they will be performing. ...Plus all the acoustical properties of that room. 

Conclusion: It depends.


----------



## radamo

batpig said:


> Did you buy some optional enclosure? Because those speakers don't come with sealed integrated enclosures. They are standard IC design with a basket in frame and the flip tab "dog ear" clamps.


The speakers have a built in enclosure. At least that is what I thought they were when I installed them. I could not see the speakers from the back and there is a sealed enclosure on the back portion. What did I miss? This pic is from the Definitive web site. This does make them look open but I don't remember seeing that. Maybe I was just too excited to get them in...


----------



## Francesion

*9.x.4 question*

I like the idea of 4 Atmos ceiling speakers, rather than 2, to keep the overhead sound source from being too localised. I’m aware of the upfiring 'Atmos enabled' option but would prefer ceiling speakers for now. Problem is that if I want a 9.x.4 layout then I’m 2 channels short, even with the Denon 7200. So I wondered if anyone has tried driving the 4 overhead speakers with just 2 channels? What would the downsides be?

Ion


----------



## Selden Ball

Francesion said:


> I like the idea of 4 Atmos ceiling speakers, rather than 2, to keep the overhead sound source from being too localised. I’m aware of the upfiring 'Atmos enabled' option but would prefer ceiling speakers for now. Problem is that if I want a 9.x.4 layout then I’m 2 channels short, even with the Denon 7200. So I wondered if anyone has tried driving the 4 overhead speakers with just 2 channels? What would the downsides be?
> 
> Ion


Atmos is designed to provide localization of sounds. The overheads should be driven separately. 

If you want a 9.1.4 configuration, it's supported by the higher-end AVRs and pre/pros from Denon and Marantz. The limitation is that only 11 of the speakers will be active simultaneously. With that speaker configuration, Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround won't use the Front Wide speakers, while the DTS and Audyssey upmixers won't use the rear overhead speakers. Which eleven will be used by DTS:X and Neural:X is currently unknown.


----------



## Francesion

Thanks Selden. The online manual for the Denon 7200W has an illustrated section: "When 9.1-channel speakers are installed using front wide speakers". If I were to then add two Atmos ceiling speakers I assumed the result would be 9.1.2 and this would use all 11 available channels. You're saying that would not happen?

Ion


----------



## Selden Ball

Francesion said:


> Thanks Selden. The online manual for the Denon 7200W has an illustrated section: "When 9.1-channel speakers are installed using front wide speakers". If I were to then add two Atmos ceiling speakers I assumed the result would be 9.1.2 and this would use all 11 available channels. You're saying that would not happen?
> 
> Ion


You can connect and calibrate up to thirteen (13) speakers in a 9.1.4 configuration. You do need to add at least four channels of external amplification since the receiver contains only nine amplifiers. When you play a soundtrack, the receiver will use a maximum of eleven of those speakers. Which eleven are used depends on the sound mode you select in the receiver.


----------



## pasender91

Francesion said:


> Thanks Selden. The online manual for the Denon 7200W has an illustrated section: "When 9.1-channel speakers are installed using front wide speakers". If I were to then add two Atmos ceiling speakers I assumed the result would be 9.1.2 and this would use all 11 available channels. You're saying that would not happen?
> 
> Ion


To be crystal clear, you can do 9.1.2 AND 7.1.4, but obviously NOT at the same time 
So you can setup your speakers as 9.1.4 but you have to choose & switch between the two modes listed above.
The other benefit is that you will be ready when 9.1.4 AVRs are finally released


----------



## Francesion

Many thanks pasender91. Running 9.x.2 was what I was hoping for. I asked about running 4 speakers on 2 channels because I read that some people could pinpoint the location of the Atmos speakers if the ceiling was too low, in my case 1.6 meters above MLP ear level. I think one of the attractions of Atmos enabled speakers bouncing sound off the ceiling was to mitigate this issue. But since I still want to use ceiling speakers, does anyone think that distributing the same .2 channels across 4 speakers (in series perhaps) could achieve the same Atmos 3D/height effect AND better disguise the speakers' location?

Ion


----------



## kbarnes701

Burningcoals said:


> However, I think what you are getting at is that its not THX land anymore, and that the encoding would favor ear level surrounds, this seems pretty ridiculous really since high mounted surrounds have always been the standard, they always sounded way better then ear level surrounds.


Back in the day. But things have moved on now. Dolby recommend ear-level (or close to) for all the 'floor level' speakers in an Atmos system. No need to get height effects by shoving the surrounds up near the ceiling any more - we have dedicated Atmos speakers on our ceilings for that now.

And high surrounds never really worked once mixers started using the surrounds for stuff other than ambient noise. If a car moves from front to back, what do you want it to do? End up with the engine and tyre noise on the ceiling?



Burningcoals said:


> In my room its not possible for ear level surrounds, it would definitely be a few feet above MLP no matter what, but I can point them at MLP. I could lower them and add TR Atmos surrounds, but maybe I would prefer Wall mounted presence speakers instead so I could run with Auro 3D, this would mean I have zero Top mounted speakers and basically all wall mounted presence.


The surrounds don't have to be exactly at ear level, but the more separation you have between them and the ceiling speakers the better. Auro is Ok so long as you are happy with just one movie released in Auro on disc in the US, and not much likelihood of any more, given that Auro has been around now for over a year. A lot of people believe Auro is a Dead Format Walking.



Burningcoals said:


> If my AVR could do 5.1.6 like they should all have been able to this would probably be a non issue. I guess what I am saying is my rear surrounds are mounted perfect for my room and do a very good job as both surround and height speaker for channel based mixes, and seem to do ok in Atmos also. Which is why I am trying to decide if TM would be better in my room, since moving the rear surrounds would be extremely problematic. As long as DSU/Atmos is covered I am good, I don't need Auro 3D


The more you deviate from the Dolby guidelines, the less well you can expect it to work. It will work of course, but not optimally.


----------



## thebland

Funny on how the better and more accurate codecs / products become, the more compromise seems to reign supreme!


----------



## dormie1360

kbarnes701 said:


> And high surrounds never really worked once mixers started using the surrounds for stuff other than ambient noise. If a car moves from front to back, what do you want it to do? End up with the engine and tyre noise on the ceiling?


My face crunched up a little bit when I read this.  By "high" surround do you mean what Dolby's recommendations were pre Atmos? Don't know that I'd agree they never really worked for things other than ambient noise. 

Also, it has been suggested to me that movies are mixed with elevated surrounds, so if you want to hear what the mixer heard, (especially for a non atmos movie) you would leave the surrounds alone. HT Atmos guidlines, consequently, are a trade-off in order to accommodate the potential of your ceiling speakers.

I'd be curious on @FilmMixer 's comments.


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> My face crunched up a little bit when I read this.  By "high" surround do you mean what Dolby's recommendations were pre Atmos? Don't know that I'd agree they never really worked for things other than ambient noise.


Depends what you mean by 'worked'. If a car moves from front center to left rear you don't expect the engine and tyre noise to end up in the treetops. If your surrounds are up near the ceiling that's what you will get. When surrounds just carried ambient noise it didn’t matter, but those days went a long time ago. If you know of a way to mount surrounds up near the ceiling without unintended floor-level sound ending up way too high, I am all ears 

It was always a compromise to enable ambient sounds to have some height. Nowadays, with Atmos, we don't need that compromise.



dormie1360 said:


> Also, it has been suggested to me that movies are mixed with elevated surrounds, so if you want to hear what the mixer heard, (especially for a non atmos movie) you would leave the surrounds alone. HT Atmos guidlines, consequently, are a trade-off in order to accommodate the potential of your ceiling speakers.


No, the tradeoff was the high-mounted surrounds.



dormie1360 said:


> I'd be curious on @FilmMixer 's comments.


Yep.


----------



## Tnedator

Francesion said:


> Many thanks pasender91. Running 9.x.2 was what I was hoping for. I asked about running 4 speakers on 2 channels because I read that some people could pinpoint the location of the Atmos speakers if the ceiling was too low, in my case 1.6 meters above MLP ear level. I think one of the attractions of Atmos enabled speakers bouncing sound off the ceiling was to mitigate this issue. But since I still want to use ceiling speakers, does anyone think that distributing the same .2 channels across 4 speakers (in series perhaps) could achieve the same Atmos 3D/height effect AND better disguise the speakers' location?
> 
> Ion


Personally, I think you will get more with the .4 than the wides. 

That aside, since Atmos is object orientated and the decoder needs to know where the speakers are in order to decide where to send the sound for the objects, I would think driving four overhead with two channels could muddle up the sound effects. 

I've found that the dolby Atmos upmixer is good, but where the sound with the overheads is amazing is with real Atmos sound tracks. So, depending on if you are watching things like Vudu without Atmos tracks, or watching on Blurays with Atmos tracks, probably should drive your direction. 

If Blurays and with more and more Atmos tracks being released, I would highly recommend losing the wides and going with the 4 overheads, or do what was suggested, and hook up both, and then choose based on your source material.


----------



## dormie1360

kbarnes701 said:


> Depends what you mean by 'worked'. If a car moves from front center to left rear you don't expect the engine and tyre noise to end up in the treetops. If your surrounds are up near the ceiling that's what you will get. When surrounds just carried ambient noise it didn’t matter, but those days went a long time ago. If you know of a way to mount surrounds up near the ceiling without unintended floor-level sound ending up way too high, I am all ears
> 
> It was always a compromise to enable ambient sounds to have some height. Nowadays, with Atmos, we don't need that compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the tradeoff was the high-mounted surrounds.
> Yep.


Whether or not the surrounds are mounted near the ceiling is based on ceiling height. The surrounds are a certain angle above your ears regardless on the height of the ceiling. The point is whether or not certain sounds coming from surround speakers appear to be higher than they should be. I honestly don't know what the previous Dolby recommendation was for this vertical angle. I get your point to mean, other than for ambient sounds, this angle was too high. I guess your other point is this sound seems to emanate from the ceiling in most HT's.

I assume, given that commercial theaters have high surrounds, you have the same feeling there. I'd be curious to know if mixers avoid putting anything other than ambient sounds in the surrounds because of this.

I guess we just disagree on how much of a compromise this is.


----------



## cyclones22

Tnedator said:


> Personally, I think you will get more with the .4 than the wides.
> 
> That aside, since Atmos is object orientated and the decoder needs to know where the speakers are in order to decide where to send the sound for the objects, I would think driving four overhead with two channels could muddle up the sound effects.
> 
> I've found that the dolby Atmos upmixer is good, but where the sound with the overheads is amazing is with real Atmos sound tracks. So, depending on if you are watching things like Vudu without Atmos tracks, or watching on Blurays with Atmos tracks, probably should drive your direction.
> 
> If Blurays and with more and more Atmos tracks being released, I would highly recommend losing the wides and going with the 4 overheads, or do what was suggested, and hook up both, and then choose based on your source material.


I have an X4200W and going from 7.2.2 (wides, rear speaker placement just won't work in my room for a variety of reasons) to 5.2.4 was a great decision for me personally. Going to 7.2.2 from 7.2 made the front sound stage huge, and that was cool. But dropping the wides for 2 rear upfiring Atmos speakers created the dome effect, which is ideal. Dolby Surround Upmixing is always on for me and it's great for non-Atmos material. I'm really looking forward to the DTS Neural Upmix update so I don't have to constantly switch from Bitstream to PCM on my Blu-ray player when playing DTS HD Master Audio material.


----------



## jpco

dormie1360 said:


> My face crunched up a little bit when I read this.  By "high" surround do you mean what Dolby's recommendations were pre Atmos? Don't know that I'd agree they never really worked for things other than ambient noise.
> 
> Also, it has been suggested to me that movies are mixed with elevated surrounds, so if you want to hear what the mixer heard, (especially for a non atmos movie) you would leave the surrounds alone. HT Atmos guidlines, consequently, are a trade-off in order to accommodate the potential of your ceiling speakers.
> 
> I'd be curious on @FilmMixer 's comments.


Mixers mix with elevated surrounds, and they work fine. I've never had the feeling that car tires or inappropriate sounds were over my head. Dolby changed the recommendation after all this time to support the introduction of a height layer, which makes sense for that purpose. That doesn't make what has been working suddenly stop working. There're really too many solid objects that will interfere with ear level surrounds, including the heads of other viewers.

OTOH, I was watching a movie with DSU the other night, and a tray that was rattling about 3 feet from the floor on screen showed up in my top overhead speakers. That was more distracting than any elevated surround effect I can remember.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Depends what you mean by 'worked'.


Maybe recreating what the mixer heard, since mixing rooms (even ones for Atmos) have surrounds well above the listener. If movies are mixed with surrounds elevated significantly above ear level, then playing them back at home with surrounds similarly elevated 'worked'.


----------



## dormie1360

jpco said:


> Mixers mix with elevated surrounds, and they work fine. I've never had the feeling that car tires or inappropriate sounds were over my head. Dolby changed the recommendation after all this time to support the introduction of a height layer, which makes sense for that purpose. That doesn't make what has been working suddenly stop working. There're really too many solid objects that will interfere with ear level surrounds, including the heads of other viewers.
> 
> OTOH, I was watching a movie with DSU the other night, and a tray that was rattling about 3 feet from the floor on screen showed up in my top overhead speakers. That was more distracting than any elevated surround effect I can remember.





sdurani said:


> Maybe recreating what the mixer heard, since mixing rooms (even ones for Atmos) have surrounds well above the listener. If movies are mixed with surrounds elevated significantly above ear level, then playing them back at home with surrounds similarly elevated 'worked'.


Thanks for the comments.

Adam Pelz calibrated my theater, and even though it's an Atmos theater, he vetoed lowering the surrounds to Atmos guidelines. I asked him why. (The guidelines showed surrounds almost at shoulder level). 

_"Quite a few reasons, based on experience, and basic physics. At 48", the speakers are directly in line with your ears. Very hard to create an immersive ambient surround field when you can localize the speakers. With two way speakers, they generally crossover in the 2-3 kHz range. We are extremely sensitive to those exact frequencies, so I prefer to get sides and rears above us. 

Also, with speakers in line with your head, that same sound now has to pass thru others peoples heads! 

In addition, the higher I can get them, the more equal I can get the spl level at each listener. With Atmos, it is a compromise tho, trading all of the above for separation between over heads and sides. 

I have met and spoken with several Atmos engineers, and most of their home suggestions are extrapolated from commercial cinema experience. I don't think it translates that well. 

Also, the rooms that the movies were mixed in have not been modified for Atmos. The sides and rears are still where they have always been...so I suspect we are closer to what the engineer heard." 

_

My ceilings are higher than average, so I still have a fair amount of separation. I have four side surround speakers in an array. Although both arrays are elevated, because of my riser, the back row has a more direct line to it's surround than the front row. I can definitely tell the difference. The back surrounds are more "localized". I prefer the front row as far as side surround performance. I have a feeling this is closer to what the mixer intended.

I would just make the point that there isn't a perfect setup. Atmos is a big room technology, and making it work in HT's means trade-offs. Although I love Atmos, my own personal preference is to try and protect my surround speaker performance as much as possible in an Atmos setup.


----------



## Tnedator

dormie1360 said:


> My ceilings are higher than average, so I still have a fair amount of separation. I have four side surround speakers in an array. Although both arrays are elevated, because of my riser, the back row has a more direct line to it's surround than the front row. I can definitely tell the difference. The back surrounds are more "localized". I prefer the front row as far as side surround performance. I have a feeling this is closer to what the mixer intended.
> 
> I would just make the point that there isn't a perfect setup. Atmos is a big room technology, and making it work in HT's means trade-offs. Although I love Atmos, my own personal preference is to try and protect my surround speaker performance as much as possible in an Atmos setup.


I also have an array, two on each side. Adam put them all the same height, which for the back row is just slightly above ear level (depending on your height of course), but still high enough that people in the inner seats shouldn't have heads on the outer seats blocking the direct path. However, for the front row, the surrounds are maybe 1/3 of the way between the ears and ceiling height. Guessing and going from memory here, haven't measured and am not up in the room looking at them.


----------



## audiofan1

My side surrounds are staying high and direct to the sides ,I've been saying this for awhile and its for good reason Glad to see others using a bit of common practice on this


----------



## Scott Simonian

I keep my surrounds elevated slightly for various reasons. It's mostly a practical choice to put them higher up than the front main speakers. Some compromise will be had in even the best surround systems out there. 

These are all good excuses to mount your actual height/overhead speakers _really_ high up and exaggerate the angle of separation as much as possible.


----------



## pletwals

The problem is that many rooms are narrow which means having the Surrounds at ear height (4' according to Atmos Guidelines) will result in a less than desirable listening distance. But if the room is wide enough, I' d go with 4' height. 

And at the same time try to put them in such manner that the folks next you do not block the direct path of said speakers. This means rather than @ +/- 90° put the Sides @ +/- 75/80° when Rears are present or @ +/- 100°/105° if Wides are present... IMO.


----------



## NorthSky

1. Dolby Atmos @ home is generally in smaller rooms. ...The ceiling is on average eight feet high.
2. Dolby Atmos mixing/dubbing stages are larger rooms. ...The ceiling is much higher. The size of film dubbing stages vary.
3. Dolby Atmos theaters are big public amphitheaters. 

* Dolby Atmos for the Home has Speaker Positioning Guidelines...for optimal performance. ...On the first post of this thread. 
________________________________________________________________________________________________


















































________________________________________________________________________________________________

• How big is your room...will pretty much determine your speaker's positioning. ...From near-field (small PC rooms in the basement with seven feet high ceilings) to big far-field private dedicated home theater rooms with fourteen feet high ceilings, and everything between in the mid-field.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Maybe recreating what the mixer heard, since mixing rooms (even ones for Atmos) have surrounds well above the listener. If movies are mixed with surrounds elevated significantly above ear level, then playing them back at home with surrounds similarly elevated 'worked'.


Does your definition of "works" include, eg, squealing car tyre noise being above your head when the car moves from front to rear?

And given that Dolby are quite unequivocal in recommending surrounds are at ear height in an Atmos system, then maybe they and the mixers need to get onto the same song sheet.


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> Whether or not the surrounds are mounted near the ceiling is based on ceiling height. The surrounds are a certain angle above your ears regardless on the height of the ceiling. The point is whether or not certain sounds coming from surround speakers appear to be higher than they should be. I honestly don't know what the previous Dolby recommendation was for this vertical angle. I get your point to mean, other than for ambient sounds, this angle was too high. I guess your other point is this sound seems to emanate from the ceiling in most HT's.
> 
> I assume, given that commercial theaters have high surrounds, you have the same feeling there. I'd be curious to know if mixers avoid putting anything other than ambient sounds in the surrounds because of this.
> 
> I guess we just disagree on how much of a compromise this is.


I think that in the past, having the surrounds fairly high up was a good thing, and I had mine positioned the same way. Mostly ambient noises came from them in those days. Then we started to see more and more discrete content being placed in the surrounds, and I lowered mine so they were about 2ft above ear height. Now we have no need to gain the impression of elevation from surround speakers, since we have dedicated on-ceiling speakers, so I have moved my surrounds as close to ear level as is practical. A definite progression based on the advance of the tech.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Mixers mix with elevated surrounds, and they work fine. I've never had the feeling that car tires or inappropriate sounds were over my head.


Where else would they be if the speaker is over your head?

I take your point about what has worked in the past, but we are not in the past any more. Now we have a dedicated overhead layer of speakers, there is no purpose in elevating the surrounds any more than necessary (to avoid other listeners' heads etc).


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> Adam Pelz calibrated my theater, and even though it's an Atmos theater, he vetoed lowering the surrounds to Atmos guidelines. I asked him why. (The guidelines showed surrounds almost at shoulder level).
> 
> _"Quite a few reasons, based on experience, and basic physics. At 48", the speakers are directly in line with your ears. Very hard to create an immersive ambient surround field when you can localize the speakers. With two way speakers, they generally crossover in the 2-3 kHz range. We are extremely sensitive to those exact frequencies, so I prefer to get sides and rears above us.
> 
> Also, with speakers in line with your head, that same sound now has to pass thru others peoples heads!
> 
> In addition, the higher I can get them, the more equal I can get the spl level at each listener. With Atmos, it is a compromise tho, trading all of the above for separation between over heads and sides.
> 
> I have met and spoken with several Atmos engineers, and most of their home suggestions are extrapolated from commercial cinema experience. I don't think it translates that well.
> 
> Also, the rooms that the movies were mixed in have not been modified for Atmos. The sides and rears are still where they have always been...so I suspect we are closer to what the engineer heard."
> 
> _
> 
> My ceilings are higher than average, so I still have a fair amount of separation. I have four side surround speakers in an array. Although both arrays are elevated, because of my riser, the back row has a more direct line to it's surround than the front row. I can definitely tell the difference. The back surrounds are more "localized". I prefer the front row as far as side surround performance. I have a feeling this is closer to what the mixer intended.
> 
> I would just make the point that there isn't a perfect setup. Atmos is a big room technology, and making it work in HT's means trade-offs. Although I love Atmos, my own personal preference is to try and protect my surround speaker performance as much as possible in an Atmos setup.


Your installer's reply would suggest that Dolby don't know all that. Does that seem realistic? That the inventors of the Atmos system weren't aware of the same issues raised by an installer? I chose dual concentric designs for my surrounds to avoid some of the issues he raises and they are working very well at ear height, or just above ear height in the case of the rear surrounds to avoid them being blocked by the seat backs.

Until someone can show me that Dolby don't really understand their own technology, I'll stick with following their guidelines as closely as I can.

On a slightly separate note, it's bemusing to read through this thread and see how people are insistent that it is important to follow Dolby guidelines, but then it seems that there are some we don't need to follow. So we pick and choose what part of the spec to follow??

All rooms are different of course and I am sure that your installer made the best choices for your particular room and he had good reasons for not adhering to the recommendations of Dolby. But as a general principle, it seems to me to be more cogent for people in general to adhere as closely as they can to the recommendations of those who actually invented the technology.


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> My side surrounds are staying high and direct to the sides ,I've been saying this for awhile and its for good reason Glad to see others using a bit of common practice on this


Why though, when you now have speakers above you? What is the purpose of elevating the surrounds in a system that has speakers on the ceiling? (Other than obviously avoiding the heads of people sitting in line with the surround speakers - but that usually means a pretty small elevation, not having the surrounds way high up on the walls). What are the benefits you are seeing that I am not seeing?


----------



## vitod

kbarnes701 said:


> Why though, when you now have speakers above you? What is the purpose of elevating the surrounds in a system that has speakers on the ceiling? (Other than obviously avoiding the heads of people sitting in line with the surround speakers - but that usually means a pretty small elevation, not having the surrounds way high up on the walls). What are the benefits you are seeing that I am not seeing?


I think it comes down to one thing.

Work.

Especially if the high surrounds have in-wall speaker cable. Lowering it requires making another hole, patching the old one, sanding and painting. I think you get where I'm going. In my case, I have Paradigm ADP 470 and they are fantastic. BUT, Atmos recommends monopoles. I _*really *_don't want to buy new or used speakers which I would have to because to timbre match the LCR. Also, my room is narrow and lowering the speakers would interfere. (that's my best excuse ) So, there you have it. I want Atmos, but the extra work and expense is meh. I am putting in ICs though.


----------



## kbarnes701

vitod said:


> I think it comes down to one thing.
> 
> Work.
> 
> Especially if the high surrounds have in-wall speaker cable. Lowering it requires making another hole, patching the old one, sanding and painting. I think you get where I'm going. In my case, I have Paradigm ADP 470 and they are fantastic. BUT, Atmos recommends monopoles. I _*really *_don't want to buy new or used speakers which I would have to because to timbre match the LCR. Also, my room is narrow and lowering the speakers would interfere. (that's my best excuse ) So, there you have it. I want Atmos, but the extra work and expense is meh. I am putting in ICs though.


 I sympathize with that. I actually did the work to relocate mine from their former high-up-ish position to their current ear-level-ish position, including making new holes in drywall and repairing them afterwards. And for good measure I managed to drill a hole into a central heating pipe which then squirted about 50 gallons of water into the HT before I could stop the flow. Cleaning up the mess, repairing the pipe and making good took me an additional whole day of work. But it was worth it. I now have my surrounds where Dolby says they work best with Atmos.

I really don't understand the fervor of some in defending a placement of surrounds which is clearly against Dolby recommendations, so your answer was at least really honest


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Does your definition of "works" include, eg, squealing car tyre noise being above your head when the car moves from front to rear?


Does your definition include moving sounds to ear level that the mixer had placed above?


> And given that Dolby are quite unequivocal in recommending surrounds are at ear height in an Atmos system, then maybe they and the mixers need to get onto the same song sheet.


The Atmos install guide is not a suicide pact, where you unequivocally follow recommendations even to the ruin of your system. It's a starting point, where common sense should trump blind abeyance (e.g., it's OK to place surrounds above ear height to avoid sounds being blocked by other listeners' heads).


----------



## sablack2

I had front height speakers in my past configuration. I've added an Atmos receiver (Denon 6200) and will be adding ceiling speakers. Should I keep the front height speakers I currently have? If so...do I add Top Center or Top Rear for the best sound? Or should I just can the front height and add both Top Front and Rear ceiling speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Does your definition include moving sounds to ear level that the mixer had placed above?


My definition includes doing it the way Dolby suggest and do it themselves in their demo facilities.

Sounds the mixer wishes to place high up in an Atmos system can be placed high up simply by sending those sounds to the speakers on the ceiling, or to a combination of those speakers and the floor level speakers (for phantom imaging). So there is no question of those sounds being moved to ear level.




sdurani said:


> The Atmos install guide is not a suicide pact, where you unequivocally follow recommendations even to the ruin of your system. It's a starting point, where common sense should trump blind abeyance (e.g., it's OK to place surrounds above ear height to avoid sounds being blocked by other listeners' heads).


Yes, I agree with that and so my rear surrounds are slightly higher than ear level for the reason you say (although it's a chair back here).

So, aside from that problem, what would be the good reason to ignore Dolby's own recommendation for the position of surrounds?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> My definition includes doing it the way Dolby suggest and do it themselves in their demo facilities.


As long as you understand that it is at odds with every Atmos mixing facility, where surrounds are well elevated above ear height.


> So, aside from that problem, what would be the good reason to ignore Dolby's own recommendation for the position of surrounds?


To mimic what was mixers heard on the dubbing stage and what audiences heard in Atmos theatres.


----------



## AllenA07

From everything I've ever seen you should stick to the Dolby specs as much as possible. While having your sides at the ceiling level might not completely destroy the effect, it isn't likely to improve anything either. I had a pair of bipoles that were only about 18 months old that I had to replace as part of this project. I was bummed to see them go, but I wanted to do as much as I could to get Atmos done correctly. Ultimately I've been thrilled with the results and I'm glad I did things right the first time around.


----------



## vitod

The thing that's puzzling to me is, *why *does Dolby suggest ear level when the Atmos mixing facilities are at ear height?


----------



## sdurani

^^^^Probably to get greater "around vs above" separation in the surround field.


----------



## dormie1360

kbarnes701 said:


> Back in the day. But things have moved on now. Dolby recommend ear-level (or close to) for all the 'floor level' speakers in an Atmos system. No need to get height effects by shoving the surrounds up near the ceiling any more - we have dedicated Atmos speakers on our ceilings for that now.
> 
> And high surrounds never really worked once mixers started using the surrounds for stuff other than ambient noise. If a car moves from front to back, what do you want it to do? End up with the engine and tyre noise on the ceiling?





kbarnes701 said:


> Depends what you mean by 'worked'. If a car moves from front center to left rear you don't expect the engine and tyre noise to end up in the treetops. If your surrounds are up near the ceiling that's what you will get. When surrounds just carried ambient noise it didn’t matter, but those days went a long time ago. If you know of a way to mount surrounds up near the ceiling without unintended floor-level sound ending up way too high, I am all ears
> 
> It was always a compromise to enable ambient sounds to have some height. Nowadays, with Atmos, we don't need that compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the tradeoff was the high-mounted surrounds.


Hi Keith,

This has gotten a little off point. My posts were a disagreement with the above opinions. So all these year's that we have been putting Surrounds where Dolby 5.1 has recommended putting them is now wrong because Dolby has just figured out there is a better place for them. It has come to their attention that things like tire screeches are too high, emanating near our ceilings. (BTW I can't say I've personally heard this phenomena.) I find this really hard to believe.

I think Dolby lowered surrounds to make the addition of Atmos (ceiling speakers) work better, not because they decided surrounds were too high to begin with. My other posts were just explaining what some of the trade offs one should be aware of when lowering surrounds . I never said Dolby doesn't know about them.


----------



## bkeeler10

vitod said:


> The thing that's puzzling to me is, *why *does Dolby suggest ear level when the Atmos mixing facilities are at ear height?


To me it's more puzzling that Atmos mixing facilities are not conforming to the Dolby spec (at least, if they're Atmos-specific facilities).


----------



## virtualrain

bkeeler10 said:


> To me it's more puzzling that Atmos mixing facilities are not conforming to the Dolby spec (at least, if they're Atmos-specific facilities).



The mixing facilities are likely designed to conform to a commercial theater where surrounds are well above the audience (which is likely to allow everyone to hear them clearly rather than position sounds as accurately as possible). The home is the only venue where ear level speakers can work due to the small audience but as with a commercial theater, I'm sure it's perfectly ok to make audibility by all audience members a priority over positional accuracy.


----------



## vitod

bkeeler10 said:


> To me it's more puzzling that Atmos mixing facilities are not conforming to the Dolby spec (at least, if they're Atmos-specific facilities).


If that's true, then why not comply? I'm sure they can lower the surrounds with no problem.


----------



## vitod

virtualrain said:


> The mixing facilities are likely designed to conform to a commercial theater where surrounds are well above the audience (which is likely to allow everyone to hear them clearly rather than position sounds as accurately as possible). The home is the only venue where ear level speakers can work due to the small audience but as with a commercial theater, I'm sure it's perfectly ok to make audibility by all audience members a priority over positional accuracy.


That makes sense. So, either way should work fine, just that ear level may work better, but no guarantee.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> As long as you understand that it is at odds with every Atmos mixing facility, where surrounds are well elevated above ear height.


Who would we expect to know most about how Atmos should be set up - Dolby or mixers? 



sdurani said:


> To mimic what was mixers heard on the dubbing stage and what audiences heard in Atmos theatres.


The advice to place the surrounds at ear height is advice for home theaters not cinemas.


----------



## Nabs17

I think the guidelines are just that and one should try to adhere to them as closely as possible within the constraints of your room. I had my surrounds (almost) to ear level and that put them too close to the outside seats in both rows and this collapsed the sounds to that speaker. If your room is narrow (like mine...12') then I don't think your surrounds should be at ear level...that's just too close. So I raised my side and rear surrounds up to the point where they were not ruining the sounds for the outside seats and I still get good separation between surrounds and overheads. I think you have to apply the guidelines to your room and follow what makes sense and (most importantly) still sounds good.


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> This has gotten a little off point. My posts were a disagreement with the above opinions. So all these year's that we have been putting Surrounds where Dolby 5.1 has recommended putting them is now wrong because Dolby has just figured out there is a better place for them.


All those years nobody had speakers on the ceiling, so the advice was good for its time but has now been superseded. In a non-Atmos system the old advice still holds good, but we are discussing Atmos systems.



dormie1360 said:


> It has come to their attention that things like tire screeches are too high, emanating near our ceilings. (BTW I can't say I've personally heard this phenomena.) I find this really hard to believe.


Where would you expect the sound to come from when the speaker is high up above your ears? One can’t say that the great benefit of Atmos is that it allows us to hear sounds above us, and at the same time say that putting speakers above us does not create sounds above us. The two statements are mutually exclusive. 



dormie1360 said:


> I think Dolby lowered surrounds to make the addition of Atmos (ceiling speakers) work better, not because they decided surrounds were too high to begin with.


Yes - bingo! It's Atmos we're discussing and the Dolby recommendation for surround placement *in an Atmos system *is at or close to ear level. In a non-Atmos system, the surrounds were recommended to be above ear level.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nabs17 said:


> I think the guidelines are just that and one should try to adhere to them as closely as possible within the constraints of your room. I had my surrounds (almost) to ear level and that put them too close to the outside seats in both rows and this collapsed the sounds to that speaker. If your room is narrow (like mine...12') then I don't think your surrounds should be at ear level...that's just too close. So I raised my side and rear surrounds up to the point where they were not ruining the sounds for the outside seats and I still get good separation between surrounds and overheads. I think you have to apply the guidelines to your room and follow what makes sense and (most importantly) still sounds good.


Yes we all have to make compromises, but that doesn't invalidate the recommendation for ideal placement. Dolby say without equivocation that in a HT the surrounds should be at ear level, like the mains. Sometimes, and for good reasons, that isn’t practical or possible but that doesn't mean that ear-level is not the best place for the surrounds in an Atmos *home* system. If we can’t do it, we can’t do it, but at least let us acknowledge that we are deviating from best practice and not try to suggest that it doesn’t matter, or that the surrounds should be high up (because that's how they are in cinemas, which his irrelevant to this discussion).

In a cinema the surrounds are not at ear level because they cannot be, for practical reasons (too many people in the way, risk of tampering etc). So obviously mixing suites mimic the cinema layouts for which the mixer is mixing. He needs to hear how the mix will sound in a cinema, even if the surrounds in the cinema are in a compromised position for practical reasons.

At home we do not have all of the constraints imposed by the cinema environment. We don't have 40 rows of seats with 30 or 40 chairs in each row and we have no need to elevate our speakers so that 500 people can all hear them. On this basis, Dolby decided the best home Atmos experience was with the surrounds at or close to ear height. There can be no real justification for not adhering to this advice, other than where it is not practical - eg your room. But the practical aspects don't invalidate the advice as some seem to be suggesting.


----------



## Nabs17

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes we all have to make compromises, but that doesn't invalidate the recommendation for ideal placement. Dolby say without equivocation that in a HT the surrounds should be at ear level, like the mains. Sometimes, and for good reasons, that isn’t practical or possible but that doesn't mean that ear-level is not the best place for the surrounds in an Atmos *home* system. If we can’t do it, we can’t do it, but at least let us acknowledge that we are deviating from best practice and not try to suggest that it doesn’t matter, or that the surrounds should be high up (because that's how they are in cinemas, which his irrelevant to this discussion).
> 
> In a cinema the surrounds are not at ear level because they cannot be, for practical reasons (too many people in the way, risk of tampering etc). So obviously mixing suites mimic the cinema layouts for which the mixer is mixing. He needs to hear how the mix will sound in a cinema, even if the surrounds in the cinema are in a compromised position for practical reasons.
> 
> At home we do not have all of the constraints imposed by the cinema environment. We don't have 40 rows of seats with 30 or 40 chairs in each row and we have no need to elevate our speakers so that 500 people can all hear them. On this basis, Dolby decided the best home Atmos experience was with the surrounds at or close to ear height. There can be no real justification for not adhering to this advice, other than where it is not practical - eg your room. But the practical aspects don't invalidate the advice as some seem to be suggesting.


So Keith, I'm assuming your surrounds are at ear level so how are you preventing them from overpowering the seat closet to them? Are you adjusting SPL or do you never sit in the outside seats?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nabs17 said:


> So Keith, I'm assuming your surrounds are at ear level so how are you preventing them from overpowering the seat closest to them? Are you adjusting SPL or do you never sit in the outside seats?


I suspected you would ask that  Truth is, I don't really GAF about the other seats in my HT. I only have 3 seats anyway, and mine is, of course, the one in the middle. Rarely are the other seats occupied and even then usually by people who don't GAF about SQ and believe that the HT is the best thing since chocolate biscuits anyway. 

My side surrounds are slightly forward of MLP at about 80° so even when people are in the end seats, they are not blocking the sound from the side surrounds. The rear surrounds are slightly elevated and the same applies. Of course the people in the end seats are too close to the surrounds and rear surrounds on their side of the room, but the most important seat (mine!) is perfectly centred to those speakers and also to the L&R. Mentioning the L&R also reminds me that the people on the end of the row will also not be properly aligned for the L&R speakers either, so that is as much of a consideration (more so in fact) than how they sit relative to the surrounds. In anything other than MLP everyone is sitting in a compromised seat so why worry?

I do occasionally sit in the end seat on the row, when I have someone round who actually cares about the SQ and in the spirit of being a good host, I allow them the best seat in the house. It is still surprisingly good. Of course, the surrounds nearest to me are too loud but they aren’t overpoweringly so and the presentation is still exciting and enjoyable. People sit at the end of rows in cinemas so the same applies there but cinemas don't worry about it do they?

If you routinely watch movies with most of your seats occupied, you will have different priorities to me of course.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Who would we expect to know most about how Atmos should be set up - Dolby or mixers?


This isn't a test of who knows most about Atmos but merely pointing out a reality that those soundtracks are ALL mixed with surrounds well above ear height. Whether you personally choose to reproduce it the way mixers heard it is completely up to you (your room, your system, your preference). But let's not pretend mixers were hearing those sounds at ear height when creating those mixes.


> The advice to place the surrounds at ear height is advice for home theaters not cinemas.


Again, it is a choice of whether you want to recreate how the mixers heard it or blindly follow the Atmos install guide. I'm not judging nor telling you which one to choose, just pointing out why elevated surrounds are a valid choice (even if they wouldn't be your personal choice).


----------



## blastermaster

So I just bought a pair of Tannoy Di6DC speakers with the brackets and am about to install them to act as my rear ceiling speakers. Unfortunately, I'm only able to to set them around 4 feet apart due to a bulkhead. What I could do is rig it up so that I can move one side of the bracket (plunge router an arc for the bolt to follow) for slight toe-out on both speakers. Thoughts? Is 4 feet enough? My room is 11 feet wide, FWIW.


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> Why though, when you now have speakers above you? What is the purpose of elevating the surrounds in a system that has speakers on the ceiling? (Other than obviously avoiding the heads of people sitting in line with the surround speakers - but that usually means a pretty small elevation, not having the surrounds way high up on the walls). What are the benefits you are seeing that I am not seeing?


Keith the benefits I'm finding are the same ones I found before my Atmos install.

One is imaging and placement of surround & side effects across the single row along with a seamless integration with the front stage. As an example of this if you remember the side car impact scene from "Ghost Protocol" ? I can tell you I almost jumped clear out my seat to the visceral impact due to my ears picking up that sound as though I was seated in that car.

Another example would be Smaugs voice which came through with extreme clarity as he went around the room and again the effect came through as though the speakers where more at ear height. Since things went discrete from mono , things indeed changed and even with 5.1 the recommendations of speaker placement and choice (di-pole vs Bi-pole vs. Direct radiating ) and the one thing that became crucial for me was level and delay(no to mention the improvement of room correction that came latter) to getting a properly integrated surround sound field.

So hear we are in present day with the advent of Atmos, which doesn't, at least I believe seek to redefine the surround sound experience but add to and or complete what's already there , if Atmos overhead speakers where indeed mono channels(with information extracted from other channels ,which is more like DSU in some way or another) like in the past when things where being added, then I could see the benefit of lower surrounds for better separation but seeing as we jumped from 7.1 to the likes of 7.1.4 fully discrete channels with an even further degree of control of the sound mix due it being more "Object" based , I've found what has worked well for me over the years of experimenting with speaker placement ,delay's and levels (along with now Audyssey or what ever your DRC flavor is) has not only helped with going Atmos but doing so to render the best at home or movie sound reproduction I've ever heard since starting this hobby many years ago

This is just my personal take of course , just listen for yourself


----------



## Nabs17

kbarnes701 said:


> I suspected you would ask that  Truth is, I don't really GAF about the other seats in my HT. I only have 3 seats anyway, and mine is, of course, the one in the middle. Rarely are the other seats occupied and even then usually by people who don't GAF about SQ and believe that the HT is the best thing since chocolate biscuits anyway.
> 
> My side surrounds are slightly forward of MLP at about 80° so even when people are in the end seats, they are not blocking the sound from the side surrounds. The rear surrounds are slightly elevated and the same applies. Of course the people in the end seats are too close to the surrounds and rear surrounds on their side of the room, but the most important seat (mine!) is perfectly centred to those speakers and also to the L&R. Mentioning the L&R also reminds me that the people on the end of the row will also not be properly aligned for the L&R speakers either, so that is as much of a consideration (more so in fact) than how they sit relative to the surrounds. In anything other than MLP everyone is sitting in a compromised seat so why worry?
> 
> I do occasionally sit in the end seat on the row, when I have someone round who actually cares about the SQ and in the spirit of being a good host, I allow them the best seat in the house. It is still surprisingly good. Of course, the surrounds nearest to me are too loud but they aren’t overpoweringly so and the presentation is still exciting and enjoyable. People sit at the end of rows in cinemas so the same applies there but cinemas don't worry about it do they?
> 
> If you routinely watch movies with most of your seats occupied, you will have different priorities to me of course.


OK this explains it and I appreciate the reply because I thought maybe you had some secret (that I was unaware of) that would allow the surrounds to be at ear level and not overpower the closest seat....well in fact you do...it's called you don't GAF.  I have experimented with having them at ear level and it was not an enjoyable experience for the closest seat, which I happen to be sitting in at that time. So I decided then (even though I don't routinely sit in the outside seats) to not have them at ear level and to set out to find the sweet spot up the wall that would allow for:
1) No overpowering any seats
2) Provide enough separation between them and overheads to be able to discern height information.


So that is my mission and I think I'm almost there and my surrounds are (at the moment) 6'7" on the wall and my overheads are at 10'. 


One more thing....if you ever come to the states bring me some chocolate biscuits because they sound pretty good.


----------



## Spanglo

sdurani said:


> This isn't a test of who knows most about Atmos but merely pointing out a reality that those soundtracks are ALL mixed with surrounds well above ear height.


Even Dolby's own Atmo demos are mixed that way. The bird flying around the room in the Amaze demo should be well above listener's heads, and not at ear level. Although inaccuracies like that are more the exception than the norm IMO, so little harm in having low surrounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> This isn't a test of who knows most about Atmos but merely pointing out a reality that those soundtracks are ALL mixed with surrounds well above ear height. Whether you personally choose to reproduce it the way mixers heard it is completely up to you (your room, your system, your preference).


No, it is not my preference. It is Dolby's advice. Let's not pretend that people with their surrounds up high are somehow getting the Atmos result that Dolby intended, because they are not. It is they who are using preference and trying to justify it as somehow being the right way to do it. Of course, it will still work. But it won't work the way Dolby intended.



sdurani said:


> But let's not pretend mixers were hearing those sounds at ear height when creating those mixes.


Not pretending that and I never said they were. But I am not discussing cinema setups but home setups. For home setups Dolby want surrounds at ear height for Atmos. No getting around it.



sdurani said:


> Again, it is a choice of whether you want to recreate how the mixers heard it or blindly follow the Atmos install guide.


I want to hear it the way Dolby intended me to hear it, which is with surrounds at ear height where possible. Others may choose to ignore the setup advice or to cherrypick which parts they follow. 



sdurani said:


> I'm not judging nor telling you which one to choose, just pointing out why elevated surrounds are a valid choice (even if they wouldn't be your personal choice).


They are not a valid choice according to Dolby. Cinemas have their own reasons for mounting surrounds up high, and mixers mix for cinemas, so it is no surprise that mixers want to hear their mix the way it will sound in cinemas. But at home we have different strictures, and we do not have to follow the compromised theatrical layout.


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> Keith the benefits I'm finding are the same ones I found before my Atmos install.
> 
> One is imaging and placement of surround & side effects across the single row along with a seamless integration with the front stage. As an example of this if you remember the side car impact scene from "Ghost Protocol" ? I can tell you I almost jumped clear out my seat to the visceral impact due to my ears picking up that sound as though I was seated in that car.


So what you are saying is that when your surrounds are mounted up high, you don't hear sounds coming from up high, but when your ceiling speakers are mounted up high, you do? Do you see the paradox in that?



audiofan1 said:


> Another example would be Smaugs voice which came through with extreme clarity as he went around the room and again the effect came through as though the speakers where more at ear height. Since things went discrete from mono , things indeed changed and even with 5.1 the recommendations of speaker placement and choice (di-pole vs Bi-pole vs. Direct radiating ) and the one thing that became crucial for me was level and delay(no to mention the improvement of room correction that came latter) to getting a properly integrated surround sound field.
> 
> So hear we are in present day with the advent of Atmos, which doesn't, at least I believe seek to redefine the surround sound experience but add to and or complete what's already there , if Atmos overhead speakers where indeed mono channels(with information extracted from other channels ,which is more like DSU in some way or another) like in the past when things where being added, then I could see the benefit of lower surrounds for better separation but seeing as we jumped from 7.1 to the likes of 7.1.4 fully discrete channels with an even further degree of control of the sound mix due it being more "Object" based , I've found what has worked well for me over the years of experimenting with speaker placement ,delay's and levels (along with now Audyssey or what ever your DRC flavor is) has not only helped with going Atmos but doing so to render the best at home or movie sound reproduction I've ever heard since starting this hobby many years ago


Nobody is suggesting you can’t use your own preferences for speaker placement. But equally, there is no doubt where Dolby say surrounds should be placed in an Atmos system.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nabs17 said:


> OK this explains it and I appreciate the reply because I thought maybe you had some secret (that I was unaware of) that would allow the surrounds to be at ear level and not overpower the closest seat....well in fact you do...it's called you don't GAF.  I have experimented with having them at ear level and it was not an enjoyable experience for the closest seat, which I happen to be sitting in at that time. So I decided then (even though I don't routinely sit in the outside seats) to not have them at ear level and to set out to find the sweet spot up the wall that would allow for:
> 1) No overpowering any seats
> 2) Provide enough separation between them and overheads to be able to discern height information.
> 
> 
> So that is my mission and I think I'm almost there and my surrounds are (at the moment) 6'7" on the wall and my overheads are at 10'.


I agree entirely with you. If that is the best solution for you, then by all means, go for it. All I am saying is that Dolby recommend surrounds at ear height for Atmos systems. As that is 100% incontrovertible I can’t see why people are so exercised about it.



Nabs17 said:


> One more thing....if you ever come to the states bring me some chocolate biscuits because they sound pretty good.


Hahaha. Sorry, I lapsed inadvertently into Limey. I meant, of course, chocolate cookies.


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Even Dolby's own Atmo demos are mixed that way. *The bird flying around the room in the Amaze demo should be well above listener's heads,* and not at ear level. Although inaccuracies like that are more the exception than the norm IMO, so little harm in having low surrounds.


How do you know?

And the point is the mixer can put the bird wherever he or she likes. That can be in the surrounds, at ear level, or in between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers, or in the ceiling speakers. Of course, if the surrounds are way too high...


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> So I just bought a pair of Tannoy Di6DC speakers with the brackets and am about to install them to act as my rear ceiling speakers. Unfortunately, I'm only able to to set them around 4 feet apart due to a bulkhead. What I could do is rig it up so that I can move one side of the bracket (plunge router an arc for the bolt to follow) for slight toe-out on both speakers. Thoughts? Is 4 feet enough? My room is 11 feet wide, FWIW.


I’d say yes. With the wide dispersion of the Di6DCs you should get a good result. Maybe not the very best result, but still a very good result.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Let's not pretend that people with their surrounds up high are somehow getting the Atmos result that Dolby intended, because they are not.


Dolby's intentions are not a consideration during the mix, only the filmmakers' intentions. Let's see if you can honestly answer a simple question: when a mixer puts sound in the left surround channel, does he hear it at ear height or above ear height?


> I am not discussing cinema setups but home setups. For home setups Dolby want surrounds at ear height for Atmos. No getting around it.


How will surrounds at ear height let you hear those sounds above ear height, like they were during the mixing session?


> I want to hear it the way Dolby intended me to hear it....


No one is stopping you. I'm simply pointing out an alternative preference: hearing it the way the mixer did. People get to choose whose intention to follow: Dolby Labs or the filmmakers.


> Cinemas have their own reasons for mounting surrounds up high, and mixers mix for cinemas, so it is no surprise that mixers want to hear their mix the way it will sound in cinemas.


Not just mixers, some home theatre enthusiasts also want to hear it the way it will (did) sound in cinemas. Again, I'm not telling you that you are required to reproduce an Atmos soundtrack the way you experienced it at the cinema; I'm explaining why it is a valid choice for those that do.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Dolby's intentions are not a consideration during the mix, only the filmmakers' intentions. Let's see if you can honestly answer a simple question: when a mixer puts sound in the left surround channel, does he hear it at ear height or above ear height?


Above ear height. He is mixing for a cinema which has the surrounds above ear height. And when the tyre squeal goes from the Center channel, at ear height, through to the L surround and rear L surround, which are way above ear height, he will hear the tyre squeal up in the air. Like a flying car. Unless, of course, you are saying that the sounds from the high-up speaker won't actually seem to come from high up. And if that is the case, then Atmos is pointless.




sdurani said:


> How will surrounds at ear height let you hear those sounds above ear height, like they were during the mixing session?


With Atmos, as you know, the sound can be placed anywhere. So a sound above ear height can come from the overhead speakers (if it is very much above ear height) or from phantom imaging between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers, if it is 'halfway' up. Or indeed, any place else. As you know  Have you forgotten we are talking about Atmos, not the old 7.1?



sdurani said:


> No one is stopping you. I'm simply pointing out an alternative preference: hearing it the way the mixer did. People get to choose whose intention to follow: Dolby Labs or the filmmakers. Not just mixers, some home theatre enthusiasts also want to hear it the way it will (did) sound in cinemas. Again, I'm not telling you that you are required to reproduce an Atmos soundtrack the way you experienced it at the cinema; I'm explaining why it is a valid choice for those that do.


And I am explaining that it isn't what Dolby recommend. One can follow Dolby's recommendations, or ignore them. That is fine and it is user preference. Just as some users leave their surrounds next to their L&R speakers. It's their preference. They must like the way it sounds. Does that make it the right way to do it, or the best way to do it? Of course not. People will put their surrounds where they can or where they wish - but if they want to follow Dolby's guidelines for Atmos, they will put them as close to ear height as possible.


----------



## sdurani

Spanglo said:


> Even Dolby's own Atmo demos are mixed that way. The bird flying around the room in the Amaze demo should be well above listener's heads, and not at ear level.


The first time I heard it was in a movie theatre, where it phantom imaged between the surrounds and heights, appearing right where the side wall met the ceiling. Two things impressed me: phantom imaging in a movie theatre (rare to hear that) and vertical phantom imaging high up (which was not supposed to work, if the inventor of Auro is to be believed). In any case, the same bird flying sound doesn't image that way in home demos where surrounds are at ear height.


> Although inaccuracies like that are more the exception than the norm IMO, so little harm in having low surrounds.


Sure, no harm in adding separation between the surrounds and heights that didn't exist at the cinema. But I don't begrudge those that want to recreate what they heard at the cinema.


----------



## NorthSky

What do we want? We want the same experience as the movie director with his sound mixer heard @ the dubbing stage facilities (film sound mixing rooms); as intended.
We want the same sound experience as in the big movie theaters...or do we really? ...Because not all cinema theaters are created equal when it comes to sound envelopment, and picture quality immersion...be it in 2D and in 3D. 

For home; small rooms and larger ones too, here are the Dolby Atmos Speaker Positioning "Guidelines" (recommendations):
♦ http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

And I looked @ hundreds of movie dubbing stages around the world, several now equipped with Dolby Atmos setups, and 95% of them have their arrays of Side and Back surround speakers positioned high up on the walls...even close to the ceiling. 

☼ Look @ this picture for instance:









What do you see...I mean the separation between the regular surround speakers and the ceiling/overhead ones? 
There are NONE floor surrounds (ear level)...none, except perhaps on the front stage from the main Left, Center and Right front speakers and with the subwoofers.
I am not sure but I believe it's the Dolby Atmos demo room: http://cinemaaudiosociety.org/?page_id=606
...And there is also a VOG (Voice Of God) speaker up there, right in the middle. 

Yes, look carefully and see the separation that Dolby Atmos recommends for best imaging sound between the side/back surrounds and overheads.









I think we can all use common sense here, and experiment on our own. Because, what is it exactly that the sound mixer with the film director heard in that particular dubbing stage for that particular movie? ...Isn't it also what we would like to hear in our own rooms @ home? ...Or/and @ the large public movie theaters...Cineplex and IMAX? 

We just want the best 3D sound experience @ home when we watch Mad Max: Fury Road, Gravity and Sicario. ...The same surround sound experience as heard and created (director's intent) by the sound mixers in their own rooms. ...Every film director is different (Woody Allen, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, James Cameron, etc.) when hiring and working with film sound mixers. ...It's a great collaboration effort in the goal to make their film more involving...a la San Andreas, a la Everest, etc. 

A guide is a guide is a guide. ...Pictures are telling. And an IMAX theater is not a large movie dubbing stage is not a small near-field studio film mixing room is not a home theater room is not a living room. 

So we do what's best: Experiment on our own and balance everything using common sense with scientific measurements based on the best acoustics of sound envelopment/propagation.

Each room, each studio, each theater is different (dimensions, acoustics, etc.)...so there shouldn't be a set of commandments that applies to all. 

Dolby Atmos came up with some Guidelines in speaker positioning, etc. for the home. It's up to us to improve upon it and furthermore in our own sound room exploration. ...And without eschewing all the pitfalls and benefits from our own effort. ...And also by using room treatments and room correction EQ systems. 

So, where do they go those Side and Back surround speakers @ home? [email protected] ear/near ear level, above slightly, higher up, near the ceiling, ...? 
They go where the film director with his film sound mixer have them in their own rooms where the mixes were created...as intended. But with a caveat; @ home is not @ the dubbing stage. @ home is more cozy, more intimate, smaller...much more smaller for the majority. And each room is particularly different than all the other rooms, and there are positions where the surround speakers sound their best. ...We experiment to find out, but that takes a long time because each movie is not exactly mixed like the other one...and short of having/taking all that time...we simply look @ Dolby Atmos own guidelines for the home and adhere more or less to them. ...We're free, and that's the beauty in the year 2016!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Above ear height.


Why is it "not a valid choice" to hear it that way at home?


> I am explaining that it isn't what Dolby recommend.


You're going further by claiming it is invalid to hear it the way the mixers heard while creating the mix.


----------



## Kain

Pretty sure this has been posted here before (quite a while back) but I am reposting it because there have been new trailers added (including Atmos and Auro-3D).

http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


----------



## Selden Ball

/off topic/



Nabs17 said:


> One more thing....if you ever come to the states bring me some chocolate biscuits because they sound pretty good.


 In case you weren't aware, "biscuits" is UK English for "cookies". Where I live, grocery stores carry Dare chocolate cookies, which are made in Canada. I dunno how widely they're distributed. They're delicious, *far* better than US-made equivalents.


----------



## FilmMixer

Today Fox, WB and Sony are announcing more specifics about their UHD BR 2016 plans. 

WB has already announced Atmos on their titles (where they have an theatrical Atmos mix...)


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> /off topic/
> 
> In case you weren't aware, "biscuits" is UK English for "cookies". Where I live, grocery stores carry Dare chocolate cookies, which are made in Canada.
> I dunno how widely they're distributed. They're delicious, *far* better than US-made equivalents.


Because Canadians "dare".  ...And "there" here too.


----------



## KMFDMvsEnya

First place that I saw mentioning various titles and including the WHV announcement.

http://www.digitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/010416_0001


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

From the theatrical Dolby Atmos specs:

*4.9.1 Side Surround Elevation*
_The elevation of the side surround loudspeakers should form a straight line from the acoustic center of the screen loudspeaker array to the rear surround loudspeakers, as shown in the following figure.

Similar principles apply when upgrading a legacy surround system to Dolby Atmos. Reusing existing loudspeaker locations can ease the upgrade process, and is acceptable as long as the existing speaker placement falls within the specified tolerance._

*4.12 Side and Rear Surround Elevation Aiming*
_Side and rear surround loudspeakers should be tilted vertically to orient the axis of each loudspeaker to the ear height of aseated listener in the farthest seat, based on the horizontal, lateral aim of the particular loudspeaker.
_

So the Surrounds and LCR Fronts have to be in a continuous line (to allow seamless panning obviously).

As written here before, speakers have to be put out of reach of "patrons" and the elevation is also needed so that all spectators are within direct beam of the speakers. Both these rules are less applicable in most home situations.

My Surrounds are built exactly with their tweeter at ear height as per ITU rules... But the room is very wide hence these are almost at the same distance as the LCR fronts.


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> So what you are saying is that when your surrounds are mounted up high, you don't hear sounds coming from up high, but when your ceiling speakers are mounted up high, you do? Do you see the paradox in that?
> 
> * Not at all, just as well as my main speakers can produce a perceived tall (as well as behind ,center and beyond there borders)image up front as well as down low , I'm only saying the same holds true for high mounted surrounds they in like can produce a perceived image down low and due to the way we may hear sounds that are behind and above us, it may just be why I prefer it that way!
> 
> *
> 
> Nobody is suggesting you can’t use your own preferences for speaker placement. But equally, there is no doubt where Dolby say surrounds should be placed in an Atmos system.


*Then perhaps Dolby should donate me there proper setup and install it as well, so as I can call it an "certified Atmos install"*


----------



## Nabs17

erwinfrombelgium said:


> From the theatrical Dolby Atmos specs:
> 
> *4.9.1 Side Surround Elevation*
> _The elevation of the side surround loudspeakers should form a straight line from the acoustic center of the screen loudspeaker array to the rear surround loudspeakers, as shown in the following figure._
> 
> _Similar principles apply when upgrading a legacy surround system to Dolby Atmos. Reusing existing loudspeaker locations can ease the upgrade process, and is acceptable as long as the existing speaker placement falls within the specified tolerance._
> 
> *4.12 Side and Rear Surround Elevation Aiming*
> _Side and rear surround loudspeakers should be tilted vertically to orient the axis of each loudspeaker to the ear height of aseated listener in the farthest seat, based on the horizontal, lateral aim of the particular loudspeaker._
> 
> 
> So the Surrounds and LCR Fronts have to be in a continuous line (to allow seamless panning obviously).
> 
> As written here before, speakers have to be put out of reach of "patrons" and the elevation is also needed so that all spectators are within direct beam of the speakers. Both these rules are less applicable in most home situations.
> 
> My Surrounds are built exactly with their tweeter at ear height as per ITU rules... *But the room is very wide hence these are almost at the same distance as the LCR fronts*.


In my opinion (and I know Keith will disagree) that is the only time surrounds should be placed at ear height because that will eliminate the closest surround from dominating any chair.


----------



## Nabs17

Selden Ball said:


> /off topic/
> 
> In case you weren't aware, "biscuits" is UK English for "cookies". Where I live, grocery stores carry Dare chocolate cookies, which are made in Canada. I dunno how widely they're distributed. They're delicious, *far* better than US-made equivalents.


Anything with chocolate is greatness, heck even an American biscuit.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I know that the surrounds high vs surrounds at ear level debate has been going on for a bit with adherents in both camps.

One thing that seems to drive the surrounds high camp seems to be that they are that way in commercial theaters and mixing rooms so they should be that way for home theater.

IIRC professional technical people have previously said on this forum that the Atmos mix on bluray is different than the Atmos mix in commercial theaters.

Am I just imagining that? If that is correct, then high surrounds may well be appropriate for commercial theaters, but high surrounds are not then necessarily appropriate for home theaters because it is a different Atmos mix.

They are 2 different mixes and each is mixed according to the environment that it is intended to be reproduced in...yes or no?


----------



## FilmMixer

erwinfrombelgium said:


> From the theatrical Dolby Atmos specs:
> 
> *4.9.1 Side Surround Elevation*
> _The elevation of the side surround loudspeakers should form a straight line from the acoustic center of the screen loudspeaker array to the rear surround loudspeakers, as shown in the following figure.
> 
> Similar principles apply when upgrading a legacy surround system to Dolby Atmos. Reusing existing loudspeaker locations can ease the upgrade process, and is acceptable as long as the existing speaker placement falls within the specified tolerance._
> 
> *4.12 Side and Rear Surround Elevation Aiming*
> _Side and rear surround loudspeakers should be tilted vertically to orient the axis of each loudspeaker to the ear height of aseated listener in the farthest seat, based on the horizontal, lateral aim of the particular loudspeaker.
> _
> 
> So the Surrounds and LCR Fronts have to be in a continuous line (to allow seamless panning obviously).
> 
> As written here before, speakers have to be put out of reach of "patrons" and the elevation is also needed so that all spectators are within direct beam of the speakers. Both these rules are less applicable in most home situations.
> 
> My Surrounds are built exactly with their tweeter at ear height as per ITU rules... But the room is very wide hence these are almost at the same distance as the LCR fronts.


Edward. I've been meaning to answer some of the questions directed towards me. 

But your post sums up the points about surround height in the cinema. 

We've seen some theaters where the surrounds are so high it doesn't give a good deal of distance to the circling, and the overhead effect is diminished. 

The number one reason it's desirable to have the spekaers raised in the cinema is so that when a sound pans off the screen it doesn't jump down into the first surrounds. So they spec them surrounds to be in line with the main channel drivers.... Creates a smooth 360 surround feild. 

So while it is indeed different than the home recommendation, the end results are similar enough that the intention isn't lost. 

And for obvious reasons almost every cinema has a good deal of height to the ceiling.... But the ratio of the distance (surrounds to ceiling) should be fairly close in most homes. 

The bigger issue we face in the cinema (for all immersive formats) is the very popular choice of stadium/raked seating. 

Most dubbing stages and homes don't have that issue to contend with. And it's not hugely an issue with Atmos, but when you also want a row of height surrounds it can limit the effectiveness of those formats.


----------



## dormie1360

Tnedator said:


> I also have an array, two on each side. Adam put them all the same height, which for the back row is just slightly above ear level (depending on your height of course), but still high enough that people in the inner seats shouldn't have heads on the outer seats blocking the direct path. However, for the front row, the surrounds are maybe 1/3 of the way between the ears and ceiling height. Guessing and going from memory here, haven't measured and am not up in the room looking at them.


Hey Tnedator,

How's Arkansas?

Here's what we did. The measurements are approximate. As mentioned I prefer the front row. The rear surrounds localize more or "hot spot" when compared to the front. Not bad, but a noticeable difference. This is when sitting in the two middle seats. On the end seats the effect is greater. There's about 4' 10' lateral distance from ear to tweeter from these seats.

My overheads are pointed at, and calibrated for, the front row. Having said that, I've spent some time just listening to the overheads and I have to say the differences between the front and back row are not very noticeable.

Keith has probably ruined the next couple of movies for me, because I'm just going to be concentrating on where the side car noises are coming from and not just enjoying the movie.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dvdwilly3 said:


> I know that the surrounds high vs surrounds at ear level debate has been going on for a bit with adherents in both camps.
> 
> One thing that seems to drive the surrounds high camp seems to be that they are that way in commercial theaters and mixing rooms so they should be that way for home theater.
> 
> IIRC professional technical people have previously said on this forum that the Atmos mix on bluray is different than the Atmos mix in commercial theaters.
> 
> Am I just imagining that? If that is correct, then high surrounds may well be appropriate for commercial theaters, but thigh surrounds are not then necessarily appropriate for home theaters because it is a different Atmos mix.
> 
> They are 2 different mixes and each is mixed according to the environment that it is intended to be reproduced in...yes or no?


Yes, but IIRC preparing a near field mix from a theatrical Atmos soundtrack does not include repositioning of (object) sounds, let alone account for lowered surrounds.


----------



## FilmMixer

dvdwilly3 said:


> I know that the surrounds high vs surrounds at ear level debate has been going on for a bit with adherents in both camps.
> 
> One thing that seems to drive the surrounds high camp seems to be that they are that way in commercial theaters and mixing rooms so they should be that way for home theater.
> 
> IIRC professional technical people have previously said on this forum that the Atmos mix on bluray is different than the Atmos mix in commercial theaters.
> 
> Am I just imagining that? If that is correct, then high surrounds may well be appropriate for commercial theaters, but high surrounds are not then necessarily appropriate for home theaters because it is a different Atmos mix.
> 
> They are 2 different mixes and each is mixed according to the environment that it is intended to be reproduced in...yes or no?


You're talking about a couple different things. 

Home and cinema Atmos differ in capability (max speaker and object count mainly)...

Because home Atmos is constrained by bandwidth and space limitations, Dolby created a technology called spatial coding to allow co-located object to be encoded as a single one. Nothing is getting thorown out... Just combined when space doesn't allow all the objects to be discretely encoded. 

To term it a different mix is erroneous. 

And there is no yes or no answer to your last question. 

Many of the mixes on BR at this point are direct "ports" from the full theatrical printmaster. Some are not. If pressed at this point I'd say 35/65 theatrical vs home theater mix. 

Depends on the studio, depends on the project.... 

The discussion about high surrounds seems to be getting blown a little out of proportion... When you look at things in terms of scale/distance ratio they're not worlds apart. 

And as I said earlier, having the surrounds on the same plane as the HF drivers of the screen wall isn't all that uncommon on most feature stages.... Because the consoles sit on the floor, and not in the middle of some raked auditorium (a generalization to be sure, but more often than not that is the case.) the surrounds aren't elevated to some extreme where it FEELS completely different when listening to content in the two environments. 

And also as a general rule, most mixers I've spoken to who have done "home" Atmos masters for their films face the same issues as we do on 5.1/7.1.... Point source surrounds vs arrays, etc.... 

And they make the same kinds of adjustments. 

But they don't really start making fundamental changes to the object panning, etc.


----------



## Burningcoals

My surrounds are 9.5FT high and slightly behind the MLP pointed at just above MLP. I can point them anywhere, but this has provided the best diffused vs direct effect, when the mix wants you to think the sound is at ear level it sounds that way, at the same time pans from above you sound very good.

As a test this weekend I placed my surrounds down to ear level. I re-listened to a majority of my demo content sampeling a variety of DSU/DSX/Atmos mixes.

I find that having elevated surrounds still is superior than ear level surrounds, remember the surround height speakers wont be used all the time, some folks have even claimed surround height as not being that benefitial. 90% of the mix will be out of the main surrounds which makes their placement the most critical. Using monopoles as surrounds gives you the sensation that they are indeed at ear level if they are pointed at the MLP.

I have no problem changing the way I have done things, but I draw the line at reducing the sound quality to make a specification, I have always hated surrounds at ear level. I personally think that wall mounted presense speakers are superior for channel based mixes where a lot of the contect from L/R is being played a majority of the time.

The other problem I have with downfiring in-ceiling speakers is they are no longer ponting at the MLP, which means it will be reduced for music, I grew accustomed to hearing soundtrack music through my front heights using DSX. Soundstage is much bigger. However, I do understand that DSU does also do a similar thing, even in Mission impossible Atmos you can hear soundtrack music coming from heights, if these were speakers pointing straight down you would get a diffused sound instead. This seems like the dipole vs monopole argument all over again. I moved away from dipoles a long time ago and loved it.

I am thinking of doing a hybrid, Front wall heights mounted far apart, middle in-cealing Atmos speakers in front of the MLP, and high mounted surrounds. I think this will give the best overall effect. If done right, might be a phantom 5.1.6 setup.

I sit back 14FT, and having in-ceiling Atmos front speakers even @ 80' would be hard for the MLP to hear. I also have a ceiling fan in the way, that the front wall mounted heights are fine and do not have these limitations, in addition they are better speakers than in-ceiling. I do understand that any divergence from the spec is indeed that. But 5.1 today is the same as 5.1 yesterday, and it didn't all a sudden make high mounted surrounds obsolete or sound worse. DSX/DSU is still the majority of content. I guess I am not sold that following the spec will be better for anything other than Atmos...


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> I know that the surrounds high vs surrounds at ear level debate has been going on for a bit with adherents in both camps.
> 
> One thing that seems to drive the surrounds high camp seems to be that they are that way in commercial theaters and mixing rooms so they should be that way for home theater.
> 
> IIRC professional technical people have previously said on this forum that the Atmos mix on bluray is different than the Atmos mix in commercial theaters.
> 
> Am I just imagining that? If that is correct, then high surrounds may well be appropriate for commercial theaters, but high surrounds are not then necessarily appropriate for home theaters because it is a different Atmos mix.
> 
> They are 2 different mixes and each is mixed according to the environment that it is intended to be reproduced in...yes or no?


I believe there's only one mix...except when a studio like Disney does a "Home Theater" one (near-field) on their Blu-rays. 

If I'm wrong please don't beat me up, I got a full year ahead of me.  ...And besides, this is it, this is the year where I'm going to experiment with my own new DTS:X/Dolby Atmos machine. And I hope that Disney will give us lots of 3D immersive soundtracks on 3D Blu-ray. 

P.S. I've just seen that it was answered. I didn't realize that there were that many "home theater" mixes specially for our homes, on Blu-ray. 
If one was to dream good he would wish for both mixes (theatrical and home) in all our Blu-rays. 
Now, we just have to position our surrounds in the middle, between the theatrical and home 3D immersive audio mix. 

Anthony Grimani, I believe, is from the camp of "theatrical" audio mixes @ home.


----------



## PMR

Here are two quotes from the Dolby Atmos Papers one is for the placement of speakers and the second one is about the height of the back surround speakers so there is some room for variations and nothing is set is stone.


Preface: How to Use this Guide
This document contains recommendations and best practices for setting up a Dolby Atmos® home theater system. The guidelines are intended to cover a typical home theater in a standard listening space. *This document does not cover all possible variables and factors present to a specific installation; adaptations and deviations may be required in particular situations. Dolby Atmos is a highly flexible solution, so minor variations from these recommendations are unlikely to materially detract from the immersive Dolby Atmos experience.
*
*If possible*, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the *rear speakers may be higher than the front  speakers*. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.


----------



## GXMnow

I will back up what Film Mixer said about the home mix for Dolby Atmos.

As far as I know, most "home Atmos" mixes do start as the original full theatrical mix. But they then encode it and decode it back to a typical 7.1.4 setup and listen to it. Some mixes may have little to no changes, while others may decide they can make their mix sound better by changing the level or position of certain objects etc. Even in 5.1 and 7.1 mixes, it is not uncommon to have to alter the levels of some dialog, music, or effects when it is played on the near field home type speaker setup to get it to sound the way they feel it should. Once the person responsible for the "home" mix is happy with the result, that is what gets encoded. 

As for surround speaker height.... 

Having the base level speakers as low as you can get away with will make the change to the upper speakers have a greater difference in angle, so this can be a good thing, but there are certainly trade offs. The larger your seating area is, the higher you will likely need to have the speakers to be able to get good coverage across all seating positions. In a movie theatre, the side surrounds are intentionally set higher up and aimed across the room to the far seat. This is done so that the apparent level from the speakers is as close as possible across as much of the audience as possible. As you are seated closer, you are also further off of the speaker's axis. If you only have a pair of seats, you can locate the speakers quite low and both seats will get basically the same sound. Put 4 seats across, and the person close to an "ear level" speaker will get it much louder than the person on the other side of the room, with 3 bodies blocking the sound from getting over there. My current 7.1 setup has the surround speakers at 6.5 feet up. aimed at the far seat across the room, just like in a cinema. When I install my Atmos at home, I will lower them to about 5.5 feet up, to still shoot over the head of the close listener to the further listener. I wish I had 9 feet or more to work with, but I don't, just a normal 8 foot ceiling. 

The "Top Surrounds" have the same coverage issues. If they do aim straight down, the listener closer to a speaker will hear that one dominate. With a low ceiling, this can be a big problem. I have heard several systems where the top speaker near you was way too obvious when you were not seated in the center between the 4 of them. This is one of the reasons that the upward firing "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers actually can sound better in a room with just an 8 foot ceiling. The bounce can more than double the distance and make the coverage angles much better. Many systems I have heard with the Dolby Atmos enabled bounce speakers had a much smoother coverage from the top. If you look at the path of the sound to the listeners, you will see, the sound is coming at a much greater angle across the listeners. And the apparent distances from the speaker to the close and far seat are much more similar than if the speaker was on the ceiling. I am still on the fence between up firing and true over head speakers. If I do go with speakers in or on my ceiling, they will probably be aimed across the room and not down on the head of the person right under it. This could very well require the speaker to be at a 30 to 45 degree angle to get the coverage I want. This is just my own personal judgement. I have not seen anyone else recommending aiming the top speakers at such extreme angles. On the flip side, in a cinema with a 50 foot high ceiling, this is not near as much of an issue, but you will notice that in most rooms, the speakers are still angled towards the middle of the room, and not straight down.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why is it "not a valid choice" to hear it that way at home? You're going further by claiming it is invalid to hear it the way the mixers heard while creating the mix.


Where did I claim it was invalid? What I am saying is that there is one way and one way only which Dolby recommend for the placement of surrounds in an Atmos system for the home: ear level. Any other placement may well be preferred, or more practical, or whatever, but it will not be the recommended placement. 

And nor is there any need for surrounds to be placed high up any more since we now have speakers that can be placed on the ceiling. If we want a sense of envelopment from above, we have dedicated speakers for it now. Surrounds give us envelopment around us (the clue is in the name) and overheads give us envelopment from above us. And by placing the surrounds lower, it enhances the difference between the surround envelopment and the overhead envelopment too, which is presumably why Dolby recommend it this way.

One can discuss this until the cows come home, but the Dolby-recommended placement for surrounds in an Atmos home system will not change just because some prefer to place them in a non-recommended position.

Barring any impracticalities there is no good reason to place the surrounds high up any more in a home environment.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Today Fox, WB and Sony are announcing more specifics about their UHD BR 2016 plans.
> 
> WB has already announced Atmos on their titles (where they have an theatrical Atmos mix...)


35 titles from WB over the coming year apparently. I wonder how many will have Atmos mixes??

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1451474912


----------



## kbarnes701

erwinfrombelgium said:


> From the theatrical Dolby Atmos specs:
> 
> *4.9.1 Side Surround Elevation*
> _The elevation of the side surround loudspeakers should form a straight line from the acoustic center of the screen loudspeaker array to the rear surround loudspeakers, as shown in the following figure.
> 
> Similar principles apply when upgrading a legacy surround system to Dolby Atmos. Reusing existing loudspeaker locations can ease the upgrade process, and is acceptable as long as the existing speaker placement falls within the specified tolerance._
> 
> *4.12 Side and Rear Surround Elevation Aiming*
> _Side and rear surround loudspeakers should be tilted vertically to orient the axis of each loudspeaker to the ear height of aseated listener in the farthest seat, based on the horizontal, lateral aim of the particular loudspeaker.
> _
> 
> *So the Surrounds and LCR Fronts have to be in a continuous line (to allow seamless panning obviously).*
> 
> As written here before, speakers have to be put out of reach of "patrons" and the elevation is also needed so that all spectators are within direct beam of the speakers. Both these rules are less applicable in most home situations.
> 
> My Surrounds are built exactly with their tweeter at ear height as per ITU rules... But the room is very wide hence these are almost at the same distance as the LCR fronts.


Exactly, And since the LCR are, or should ideally be, at ear height, it follows that so should the surrounds. There can be no real argument or disagreement that this is the 'correct' way to do it. Is it the only way? Of course it isn't. But it is the only correct way.


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> *Then perhaps Dolby should donate me there proper setup and install it as well, so as I can call it an "certified Atmos install"*


No, that would be unreasonable. What Dolby did, instead, was publish their recommendations on how to do it for yourself. If you don't want to, or can't, follow those recommendations, that is up to you, but let’s not pretend that individual preferences or placement difficulties trump Dolby's own guidelines for installation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nabs17 said:


> In my opinion (and I know Keith will disagree) that is the only time surrounds should be placed at ear height because that will eliminate the closest surround from dominating any chair.


It is inevitable that people at the end of a row will be too close to one surround speaker and too far away from another. There is nothing anyone can do about that. And that is true regardless of whether the speaker is at ear height or high up on the wall. But it is not relevant to the discussion about where Dolby recommend that surrounds should be placed in a home Atmos setup because they recommend only one placement. Any seat other than MLP is a compromised seat whether we like it or not.

And the same is true for Left and Right speakers of course. The people at the end of the rows will be too close to one and too far from the other. Using the logic seen here in recent posts, one should be recommending they mount their Left and Right speakers high up to counteract the problem. As can so easily be imagined, this is pure nonsense.


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> Keith has probably ruined the next couple of movies for me, because I'm just going to be concentrating on where the side car noises are coming from and not just enjoying the movie.


You have a beautiful HT and I would give pretty much anything to be able to emulate it. And if I did, I'd be very happy with where you have put your surrounds, so enjoy!

I think a lot of the defensiveness from some posters is that, for one reason or another, they have mounted their surrounds high up and they feel the need to defend that. I can understand that but it doesn't change the Dolby advice one whit. Every HT has to make some sort of compromises and the best response, IMO, to this issue of surround placement should go something like _"I know what Dolby recommend but I can’t do it here for - nonetheless I am happy with the result. If I could follow the Dolby guidelines more closely, I would, but I can't so it is what it is." _ Trying to make out that mounting them high up is in some way better is just silly IMO.

So don't let me ruin your next couple of movies, please! If I had that room I would live in it and have my food pushed through a flap (at mouth level).


----------



## kbarnes701

GXMnow said:


> This is one of the reasons that the upward firing "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers actually can sound better in a room with just an 8 foot ceiling. The bounce can more than double the distance and make the coverage angles much better. Many systems I have heard with the Dolby Atmos enabled bounce speakers had a much smoother coverage from the top. If you look at the path of the sound to the listeners, you will see, the sound is coming at a much greater angle across the listeners. And the apparent distances from the speaker to the close and far seat are much more similar than if the speaker was on the ceiling. I am still on the fence between up firing and true over head speakers. If I do go with speakers in or on my ceiling, they will probably be aimed across the room and not down on the head of the person right under it. This could very well require the speaker to be at a 30 to 45 degree angle to get the coverage I want.


Very interesting. At the Dolby demos I went to in London, in their 'HT room' the majority of the attendees (industry professionals, journalists etc) preferred the upfirers to the physical speakers. I (marginally) preferred the physical speakers as they were a little more 'precise' in the way they positioned sounds and normally I like precision over diffuseness. However, having had Atmos at home ever since Day One I have come to the conclusion that I too may prefer the upfiring speakers, and for the reasons you mention. In a room with an 8 foot ceiling, we are, by force, quite close to the ceiling when sitting down. I am coming to the view that in these rooms, the 'double distance' effect of the upfirers can enhance the apparent size of the room (ceiling height) and thus give a better effect of overhead immersion. 

In my small, awkward little Hobbitarama I am one of the few who actually found it easier to mount physical speakers on the ceiling than to use upfirers, so for me there was never a question of experimenting with upfirers as they are, here, as I say, very difficult to incorporate. However, for those who can choose either method, I would urge them not to dismiss upfirers out of hand. From listening experience I can say without question that the upfirers are not the compromise that many think they are. And, as I say above, in some circumstances (maybe even most circumstances in normal homes with 8 feet ceilings) they may even be the best choice.


----------



## thebland

PMR said:


> Here are two quotes from the Dolby Atmos Papers one is for the placement of speakers and the second one is about the height of the back surround speakers so there is some room for variations and nothing is set is stone.
> 
> 
> Preface: How to Use this Guide
> This document contains recommendations and best practices for setting up a Dolby Atmos® home theater system. The guidelines are intended to cover a typical home theater in a standard listening space. *This document does not cover all possible variables and factors present to a specific installation; adaptations and deviations may be required in particular situations. Dolby Atmos is a highly flexible solution, so minor variations from these recommendations are unlikely to materially detract from the immersive Dolby Atmos experience.
> *
> *If possible*, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the *rear speakers may be higher than the front speakers*. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.


Do you have a LINK to this PDF?? Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Where did I claim it was invalid?





kbarnes701 said:


> They are not a valid choice according to Dolby.


Hence my asking WHY it's not a valid choice.


kbarnes701 said:


> Barring any impracticalities there is no good reason to place the surrounds high up any more in a home environment.


Very good reason that you are not willing to acknowledge: to recreate what the mixer heard while mixing the Atmos soundtrack. Since it was produced that way, why is it not a valid choice to re-produce it that way?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Hence my asking WHY it's not a valid choice.


That isn't me making a claim - it is me saying Dolby is making that claim. Dolby say to use ear level surrounds unless it is not practical to do so. But their recommendation is for ear level surrounds. There is no possible dispute over this, and their recommendations have been posted above in the last 24 hours.




sdurani said:


> Very good reason that you are not willing to acknowledge: to recreate what the mixer heard while mixing the Atmos soundtrack. Since it was produced that way, why is it not a valid choice to re-produce it that way?


People are free to place their surrounds wherever they wish. However, according to Dolby, they should be placed at ear level unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. What mixers do when mixing for a totally different environment than the home Atmos environment does not seem to be a compelling reason according to Dolby. There is no mention of cinema standards in their home Atmos guidelines. But for the home, their advice is clear and unequivocal: surrounds at ear level. 

I can't quite follow why you keep on bringing cinema standards into the discussion. We know that cinemas are rooms with many rows of many seats, catering for hundreds of listeners at the same time, and this is so vastly different to the home theater, with usually a couple of rows of three or four seats that it makes no sense to try to duplicate cinema conditions at home. In a cinema there are good reasons for the surrounds to be elevated: the ceiling is way, way higher than at home (so the separation between surrounds and overheads is greater), there are hundreds of people who need to be able to hear the surround speakers, there is the risk of tampering etc. None of this applies at home.

If Dolby had intended the surrounds to be placed high up for the best possible reproduction of Atmos soundtracks, then they would have placed them that way in their own simulations of home theaters in their various demo facilities. But they did not. There is clearly a reason why they did not. They did not, one assumes, place them at ear height just for fun or because they had any difficulty in placing them high up the walls.

So, for the best possible reproduction of Atmos at home, the surrounds near to be as close to ear level as is practical. Obviously this does not mean placing them where they are blocked by other listeners or where they would be firing directly into a listener's earhole. Common sense has to prevail. But if those issues are not relevant (eg in my HT) then the best practice is to follow Dolby's own advice and to place the surrounds at ear height.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's if Disney will release it on UHD Blu-ray at release date or soon after. That's the only way I see we will get the Atmos mix.





batpig said:


> Not every Atmos theaterical mix is making it to standard BD.
> 
> First problem is that the home Atmos stuff didn't even debut until a bit over a year ago. So many great Atmos mixes from the previous couple of years (e.g. _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ and _Maze Runner_) made it to BD too early for Atmos. So we have to hope for a double-dip re-release (probably for UHD BD).
> 
> The bigger problem is that certain studios are _intentionally_ refusing to release ANY mixes in Atmos on BD. Fox and Disney are the biggest offenders here. As Dan notes, this is a crass strategy to create more value-add for the enventual price premium for UHD BD.


Are details starting to emerge regarding the UHD disc specs? (Like does anyone know if Disney is planning on releasing UHD discs within a few months?)

My plan, if they release The Force Awakens on UHD with Atmos... is to hopefully buy a multi-format edition which would include the 1080 p blruray with Atmos if it's included on all discs. 
But if you buy the UHD disc then the 1080p wouldn't have 3D I'm guessing right? I want that one in 3D  



johnsmith808 said:


> I'm investigating whether I should invest in a Dolby Atmos setup for my home theater. So I saw Star Wars yesterday to see what Atmos was all about. The theater had the full array of speakers on the ceiling. The Dolby Atmos little clip played during the previews. Then the movie started. I can honestly say that nothing really jumped out at me as significantly more immersive than standard 5.1 surround. Am I missing something here?





HondaF17 said:


> Anyone see Star Wars yet? Saw it yesterday at my local Atmos theater. Loved the movie and loved the sound. Some really great Atmos effects, IMO. Looking forward to adding it to my theater collection.





Zhorik said:


> Where were you sitting in the cinema?
> 
> The Force Awakens makes good use of objects with lasers and ship/fighters sounds moving through the auditorium, not to mention all channels being actively used.





johnsmith808 said:


> Was Star Wars audio overrated or Atmos in general?





Dan Hitchman said:


> I guess the Atmos theater I saw it at had the surrounds and overheads turned down too much because it only seemed like a few times they really, noticeably utilized the Atmos effect.





sdurani said:


> It does compare, to the extent that each "leap" added a dimension: stereo could image left to right, surround added front to back, immersive adds up and down.


I saw Star Wars 4 times (LOL). 2 IMAX, 2 Atmos theaters (ICON & AMC PRIME). IMAX had no bass & was very quiet... a real shame because the screen there is awesome. 

The bass @ both Atmos theaters was amazing... hearing the Millenium Falcon fly over head & across the theater was fantastic. Although I felt the mix was tame in terms of general overhead usage... lots of missed opportunities. IMO... I think the reason why is that JJ wanted everything subdued in the interest of making the story more emotional... like the John Williams score has a very different feel from the other 6 films. But where it counts it delivers. But yeah, I don't think it's the demo disc you are looking for. It seems like Ben Burtt's involvement was very minimal in comparison to the other films... not much in the way of new sounds aside from alien dialogue. 

I do think having an Atmos system in the home will in many cases be superior to what you'd get at a theater. I haven't been to one Atmos theater (Prime or ICON) where the rear surrounds are audible... like Sdurani mentioned when we saw the whale film. At my place the rear surrounds add *soooo* much. One other thing is that due to the size of the theater, with the speakers being so far away, things get washed out a bit. @ home sounds are more clear... well that's been my impression. 

Is Atmos as big a leap as going from stereo to 5.1? I think that depends on the scene you are watching (haha). 





virtualrain said:


> Since getting my Atmos system setup at home this summer, I haven't been out to a theater. I broke down to see Star Wars and unfortunately, booked tickets only a few days ago so was sadly in the last row of the 4D Atmos theater (one of the best in the city with special seats).  The sound was ok but not great. My buddy agreed. It was so perplexing, that I will go again when I can get a seat in the middle sweet-spot. Anyway, from where we sat, we obviously had overly loud rear surround (directly overhead), and there seemed to be a bit of Atmos overhead sound in the theater on ship fly-overs, but nothing that jumped out at me. What was noticeably absent was any sub-bass, to the point where I wondered if there was even sub woofers in the house. We must have been in a nasty null or I'm just spoiled by my own setup.
> 
> Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing it again in Atmos with the family in a better seat, and getting this film for home viewing when it comes available.
> 
> BTW, the visuals where a treat. I'm not a huge fan of 3D but it was sufficiently immersive most of the time that you didn't notice it. And the story was incredibly familiar in many parts (borrowing heavily I felt from the successes of episodes IV,V,VI) which is probably a good thing to relaunch this franchise.





nirvy111 said:


> I watched Star Wars The Force Awakens in new Vmax cinemas that just opened near me which uses a Dolby Atmos 41.10 system and it sounded awesome, best sound I've ever heard, cinema or home theatre. The Dolby Atmos promo at the beginning of the movie was 'holy ****' good. The bass was deep and realistic, explosions sounded like they were actually happening in the room, the general sound was really immersive and dynamic. But I never noticed the sounds coming from ceiling really, it just sounded like one big sound field.





AllenA07 said:


> I went and saw Star Wars yesterday and did it in a 3D plus Atmos theater. Honestly it's getting very hard for me to justify spending the money on seeing movies at the theater. I'm past the point where mine generally sounds and looks better (even with a cheap projector). Not to mention the comfort (I sat next to a guy who took 15 minutes in the middle of the movie to tell his wife about Han Solo's life) that comes with watching in your own theater. I thought the Atmos was disappointing (this was my first Atmos experience in a real theater), I didn't really sense the effect much and so far I've been more impressed with what I've heard in my theater as opposed to what I heard yesterday. I would love for the BluRay track to include the Atmos mix so I can compare.





batpig said:


> I saw SW on opening night in an IMAX 3D theater and was underwhelmed by the bass. I saw it again last night in Atmos at a Regal RPX theater and the bass was awesome. So it's almost certainly something about the theater or your seats.





bguzman said:


> You're watching Atmos movies in an IMAX theater. I saw Star Wars here at an Atmos theater and it was phenomenal. I could not possibly recreate all that sound and power in a room in my house. Well maybe if I won the Lottery.


Nice to see everyone's thoughts regarding the mix... I must admit I was let down but at the same time I get why it's mix might have been subdued... though very strange considering the activity of the mix's in JJ's other films... Into Darkness had a lot of 3 Dimensional depth @ 7.1, sounds fantastic upmixed. 

Though it might be possible the BD disc (assuming it might be available in Atmos) would have more impact at the home. 



Kain said:


> I wonder if Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix for an Ultra HD Blu-ray release?





NorthSky said:


> IMHO it would be awesome on UHD Blu-ray, with a dtsX remastered audio soundtrack. ...I'll buy it again...my sixth copy.


Saving Private Ryan... one of the 10 best mixes of all time IMO. Would love to have that one in Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> That isn't me making a claim - it is me saying Dolby is making that claim.


I know WHERE the recommendation comes from, I'm asking WHY sounds that were originally heard above ear height when the mix was produced should instead be heard at ear height when that same mix is re-produced at home? Why is it so important that those sounds be heard from a different direction/elevation than originally heard?


> I can't quite follow why you keep on bringing cinema standards into the discussion.


I'm pointing out how an Atmos soundtrack was heard when originally mixed. WHY is recreating that experience "not a valid choice"?


----------



## virtualrain

sdurani said:


> I know WHERE the recommendation comes from, I'm asking WHY sounds that were originally heard above ear height when the mix was produced should instead be heard at ear height when that same mix is re-produced at home?



Panning? I don't know the elevation of the mains behind the screen in a cinema, but my guess is they are not just a few feet off the floor. I'm guessing they are positioned so a pan around the theater hall doesn't change in elevation radically. If true, it would make sense to provide the same panning experience at home. With mains only a few feet off the floor, it would make sense for the other drivers to be at a similar elevation. No?


----------



## rontalley

dormie1360 said:


> Hey Tnedator,
> 
> How's Arkansas?
> 
> Here's what we did. The measurements are approximate. As mentioned I prefer the front row. The rear surrounds localize more or "hot spot" when compared to the front. Not bad, but a noticeable difference. This is when sitting in the two middle seats. On the end seats the effect is greater. There's about 4' 10' lateral distance from ear to tweeter from these seats.
> 
> My overheads are pointed at, and calibrated for, the front row. Having said that, I've spent some time just listening to the overheads and I have to say the differences between the front and back row are not very noticeable.
> 
> Keith has probably ruined the next couple of movies for me, because I'm just going to be concentrating on where the side car noises are coming from and not just enjoying the movie.


Can we see more of your HT?! Looks bad ass!


----------



## audioguy

I have Triad base level speakers but I initially installed non Triad Atmos speakers since they did not have any that met what I was told was a mandatory “requirement” - 90 degree dispersion.

I recently asked the again about their solution since none of their speakers appeared to meet the 90 degree “requirement”. 

Here is the response I received from Triad. Very thoughtful and well stated. I know most on this thread are not Triad owners but this still applies.



> Hi Chuck,
> 
> Thank you for your kind words about our speakers.
> 
> There are some misunderstandings about "requirements" for Atmos Ceiling speakers. Dolby, in fact, has no current requirements for them and if you consider the range of possible seating areas and conditions they would have to cover, it is easy to understand why. As Dolby Labs development partner for home Atmos Enabled speakers, Triad has a great deal of experience in designing home Atmos rooms & systems. We have been fortunate in being able to experience the sonic results of these designs, particularly in custom installations. When done right, Dolby Atmos has an almost uncanny ability to draw listeners into the action on the screen to a degree far greater than what has been previously possible. In Dolby's ceiling speaker placement guidelines and drawings, Dolby does show round 90 X 90 speakers (like our InCeiling Open & Sealed Rounds and our R Series Rounds), but you should notice that they all show a single, relatively narrow seating area (couch). In these applications, 90 X 90 round speakers can work effectively (although they are not the only speaker design that can do so). In the real world, particularly in the custom installation world where seating area broadens with more than 1 row or L/U type couches, down firing 90 X 90 speakers can be less effective than other designs. In our extensive experience (I personally have helped design over 100 Atmos theaters to date.), the answer for the optimal ceiling speakers for any given application is, "It depends."
> 
> It depends on a number of factors including room size, # and locations of seats, ceiling height and type, risers, etc plus a whole slew of speaker characteristics such as output levels, room power response, timbre matching, etc. This, I believe, is why Dolby has not created firm specifications for ceiling speakers like they did for Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers. To put this in context, when we worked with Dolby to design the ceiling speaker package for their initial Atmos demo at CEDIA 2014, we used 4 angled baffle speakers positioned and aimed to provide the broadest, most even coverage for the 20 seats (4 rows of 5) at the demo while keeping the necessary output for the large room. If we had used down firing 90 X 90 speakers, listeners in each seating quadrant would have had their overall soundstage dominated by the nearby overhead speaker and the folks in what would normally be the prime seats would have been in a sonic hole, with both output levels and high frequency response dramatically different (reduced) from nearby areas.
> 
> So no, it is not a simple equation to select the optimal ceiling height speakers for any given Atmos system & room. Triad offers a huge variety of speakers that work effectively in different Atmos ceiling applications. I suggest that you work with one of our dealers who can consult with us here at the factory to specify ceiling speaker options, along with the pluses and minuses of each choice based on your unique situation. BTW we continue to develop new and new different types of speakers for ceiling height speaker applications.
> 
> Hope you had a great holiday. We are actually closed today due to an unforeseen ice storm.
> 
> All The Best,


----------



## Ted99

I've just had a lot of fun setting up a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos speaker layout in my Mancave. It's in the toe of an "L" shaped room of about 12' wide X 15' long. Two-position MLP has eyeballs 8.5' from the screen. Rather than wait for a consumer-grade pre-pro that will do 9.1.6, I've purchased a Denon X3200W at a half-price sale as an interim processor. To use all the speakers, the Fronts are slaved to the Front Wide speakers. The Side surrounds are slaved to the Rear surrounds, and the Front Height and Rear Height are slaved to the Top Middle of the Denon's 5.1.2 outputs. I'm the King of "Y" connectors. Each speaker has it's own amp. I've tried to compensate for the missing right wall by draping the left wall with 1/8" thick 1 psf Mass-loaded vinyl in an attempt to absorb some of the near reflections. The gimbaled mounts for the NHT Super One Rear height speakers are "Mustang" universal projector mounts. The Front Height speakers are suspended with left-over brackets from the Mustang mounts. This layout certainly results in an "enveloping" sound field--bring on the next generation of receivers, please!


----------



## dormie1360

rontalley said:


> Can we see more of your HT?! Looks bad ass!


Thanks. I'm very happy with the results, both aesthetically and performance wise. Open invitation to anyone who want's to check it out.

Here's the build thread. I still don't have any really good pictures of the theater yet but there are a few more in the thread.

This was the final Equipment list. Didn't follow Dolby on ceiling speakers either.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I know WHERE the recommendation comes from, I'm asking WHY sounds that were originally heard above ear height when the mix was produced should instead be heard at ear height when that same mix is re-produced at home? Why is it so important that those sounds be heard from a different direction/elevation than originally heard?


You'd have to ask Dolby why they recommend the surrounds be at ear height for home use. I assume it is because they tried them in different positions during the development of Atmos for the home and came to the conclusion that Atmos (at home) was a better experience with the surrounds at ear height. One thig is for sure - they didn't suggest it to make the Atmos experience worse. Mixers mix for the cinema, and as I just pointed out above, cinemas are totally different environments to home theaters. The one certainty is what Dolby advise: surrounds at or close to ear height.



sdurani said:


> I'm pointing out how an Atmos soundtrack was heard when originally mixed. WHY is recreating that experience "not a valid choice"?


The original mix was intended to be heard in a room with hundreds of seats and ceilings 20 feet high. If you have that sort of room at home, then emulating the cinema speaker setup IS a valid choice. If you have a room that seats half a dozen people, in two rows at most, with 8 foot ceilings, then not so much.

If Dolby had wanted us to put our surrounds high on the walls for home Atmos, do you think they wouldn't tell us that?


----------



## rontalley

dormie1360 said:


> Thanks. I'm very happy with the results, both aesthetically and performance wise. Open invitation to anyone who want's to check it out.
> 
> Here's the build thread. I still don't have any really good pictures of the theater yet but there are a few more in the thread.
> 
> This was the final Equipment list. Didn't follow Dolby on ceiling speakers either.


Oh!! I stopped by that thread several times but didn't put 2 and 2 together! Wow, Awesome HT! The space is perfect with high ceilings. Enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

virtualrain said:


> Panning? I don't know the elevation of the mains behind the screen in a cinema, but my guess is they are not just a few feet off the floor. I'm guessing they are positioned so a pan around the theater hall doesn't change in elevation radically. If true, it would make sense to provide the same panning experience at home. With mains only a few feet off the floor, it would make sense for the other drivers to be at a similar elevation. No?


Good point. But those who have their LCR at ear height, and their surrounds much higher can't get this smooth panning can they?

Putting surrounds up higher, in the old days of 7.1, was a good idea because it was the only way to get any height dimension to the sound. Now, that no longer applies since we now have speakers especially dedicated to giving us sounds from above. Hence, no more good reason to have the surrounds high up.

Sanjay's repeated attempt to bring this to a discussion of cinema surrounds is just because it fits his postulation. He knows very well that there is little comparison between a cinema and a HT. And he can't submit that Dolby don't know what they are doing when they recommend surrounds at ear height in the home. So he has arrived at that part of the floor where it is all covered in paint and there's a wall to his left and a wall to his right...


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Can we see more of your HT?! Looks bad ass!


Please no... LOL. I already feel so ghetto when I compare it to mine


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You'd have to ask Dolby why they recommend the surrounds be at ear height for home use. I assume...


So you don't know WHY you're doing something in your own system, just following edict religiously (so it is written, so it shall be done), assuming someone in authority has a good reason (even if you don't know what it is).


> The original mix was intended to be heard in a room with hundreds of seats and ceilings 20 feet high.


I don't know why you're bringing cinema into the discussion. I'm talking about the sounds themselves: WHY is it not valid to hear them from the same direction the mixer did?


----------



## rontalley

Ted99 said:


> I've just had a lot of fun setting up a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos speaker layout in my Mancave. It's in the toe of an "L" shaped room of about 12' wide X 15' long. Two-position MLP has eyeballs 8.5' from the screen. Rather than wait for a consumer-grade pre-pro that will do 9.1.6, I've purchased a Denon X3200W at a half-price sale as an interim processor. To use all the speakers, the Fronts are slaved to the Front Wide speakers. The Side surrounds are slaved to the Rear surrounds, and the Front Height and Rear Height are slaved to the Top Middle of the Denon's 5.1.2 outputs. I'm the King of "Y" connectors. Each speaker has it's own amp. I've tried to compensate for the missing right wall by draping the left wall with 1/8" thick 1 psf Mass-loaded vinyl in an attempt to absorb some of the near reflections. The gimbaled mounts for the NHT Super One Rear height speakers are "Mustang" universal projector mounts. The Front Height speakers are suspended with left-over brackets from the Mustang mounts. This layout certainly results in an "enveloping" sound field--bring on the next generation of receivers, please!


You Sir, need to seek counselling! Do NOT pass go, do NOT collect $200! Nope, go straight in, have a seat and explain your addiction in hopes of getting healed. 

What is your method of dealing with the Comb Filtering?

Your setup is exactly what I will be upgrading to when its available except I would also like a pair of side heights.

9 speaker bed
5-7 speaker height
4-6 speaker top


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> Please no... LOL. I already feel so ghetto when I compare it to mine


Let's see yours too! I love seeing other peoples setup. No matter how big or small or "ghetto". 

As long as it sound good, I am all in!


----------



## sdurani

virtualrain said:


> Panning?


That, or having greater around-vs-above separation, or any number of reasons that make more sense than blind abeyance that is not to be questioned.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> So you don't know WHY you're doing something in your own system, just following edict religiously (so it is written, so it shall be done), assuming someone in authority has a good reason (even if you don't know what it is).


You said that not me. I said you'd have to ask Dolby why they recommend what they recommend. I am following their advice because it makes sense to me to follow the manufacturer's advice where possible, and here it is possible. It may not be possible for everyone, but that doesn't invalidate the advice. 

But it is possible for me. When I hear front to back pans, I don't want the sound that is intended to remain at ear level shooting up to the ceiling. And especially not just because that is how they do it in cinemas, where they have to, for the reasons I have mentioned more than once. Of course, if my room was the same size as my local cinema, I would follow a different set of Dolby guidelines. Just as the cinema owners do - would you also condone cinema owners deviating from the Atmos guidelines in their installations? Am I not correct that cinemas are actually inspected by Dolby to ensure conformity to their requirements? Yet you seem to believe that when it comes to the same company's recommendations for home theaters, they can be safely ignored.

I do this sort of thing quite a lot though. When the speaker manufacturer tells me to connect + to + and - to -, that's what I do. When the maker of my TV tells me not to immerse it in water (really!) I don't immerse it in water. When the manufacturer of my car tells me to fit tyres of a certain specification, that's what I do. Following the sensible guidelines of manufacturers isn't something strange or unusual.



sdurani said:


> I don't know why you're bringing cinema into the discussion. I'm talking about the sounds themselves: WHY is it not valid to hear them from the same direction the mixer did?


It is you who brought the irrlevant requirements of cinema speaker placement into the discussion not me. Again, mixers are mixing for commercial cinemas which have no physical bearing on our tiny (by comparison) home theaters.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Let's see yours too! I love seeing other peoples setup. No matter how big or small or "ghetto".
> 
> As long as it sound good, I am all in!


Mine is so small that even my ultrawide 10mm Canon lens cannot take a good overall picture of it! Not to mention that it is painted black and dark grey and is very difficult to get an image at all in there. I have tried, and if I can find the results I will post them.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I said you'd have to ask Dolby why they recommend what they recommend.


Because you don't know why, otherwise you would have stated it. You're arguing from an appeal to authority, not actual knowledge.


> It is you who brought the irrlevant requirements of cinema speaker placement into the discussion not me.


Let's leave out the word "cinema" completely and talk strictly about where the sound was heard during the creation of the Atmos track. WHY is it not valid to hear that same directionality at home?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That, or having greater around-vs-above separation, or any number of reasons that make more sense than blind abeyance that is not to be questioned.


Only you say that I am using blind faith. I OTOH have repeatedly said that there are many reasons why someone might deviate from the recommended positions for their surrounds, but that does not invalidate the advice. In a post only a few above this one I said that common sense has to prevail. It makes no sense, I said, to put surrounds at ear height if they are then blocked by the heads of the people sitting near to them. I also gave other situations where deviation might make sense. But none of that changes the fact, which you refuse to acknowledge, that the people who know more about Atmos than anyone else in the world recommend surrounds to be at ear height, where possible.


----------



## PMR

PMR said:


> Here are two quotes from the Dolby Atmos Papers one is for the placement of speakers and the second one is about the height of the back surround speakers so there is some room for variations and nothing is set is stone.
> 
> 
> Preface: How to Use this Guide
> This document contains recommendations and best practices for setting up a Dolby Atmos® home theater system. The guidelines are intended to cover a typical home theater in a standard listening space. *This document does not cover all possible variables and factors present to a specific installation; adaptations and deviations may be required in particular situations. Dolby Atmos is a highly flexible solution, so minor variations from these recommendations are unlikely to materially detract from the immersive Dolby Atmos experience.
> *
> *If possible*, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the *rear speakers may be higher than the front speakers*. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.


Here is the link 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Because you don't know why, otherwise you would have stated it. You're arguing from an appeal to authority, not actual knowledge.


No. I have given reasons why the advice makes sense. When you cherrypick the parts of my posts that you choose to respond to, you leave the other points on the table. I assume this is because you cannot counter them effectively. For example, I have repeatedly stated why cinemas would put their surrounds up high, but you have repeatedly ignored those parts of my posts. It is an effective debating technique, but it just means we go around in circles all the time with little forward movement.



sdurani said:


> Let's leave out the word "cinema" completely and talk strictly about where the sound was heard during the creation of the Atmos track. WHY is it not valid to hear that same directionality at home?


As I said, circles... I have given sufficient attention to answering that, and it is readily seen in my recent posts. You can't leave the word "cinema" out of a discussion of what mixers do since they are mixing for *cinemas*, not homes. So what you are effectively saying is "_Let's not use the word 'cinema' but tell me why people mixing for the cinema do it the way they do...."._


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I have given reasons why the advice makes sense.


The reason was you "assume" Dolby has a reason.


> You can't leave the word "cinema" out of a discussion of what mixers do since they are mixing for *cinemas*, not homes.


Same mix, especially now that Atmos tracks are being ported to home video. Why is it not valid to hear that same directionality at home? Why is it valid to hear those same sounds from a different direction than was originally heard?


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> You'd have to ask Dolby why they recommend the surrounds be at ear height for home use. I assume it is because they tried them in different positions during the development of Atmos for the home and came to the conclusion that Atmos (at home) was a better experience with the surrounds at ear height. One thig is for sure - they didn't suggest it to make the Atmos experience worse. Mixers mix for the cinema, and as I just pointed out above, cinemas are totally different environments to home theaters. The one certainty is what Dolby advise: surrounds at or close to ear height.
> 
> 
> 
> The original mix was intended to be heard in a room with hundreds of seats and ceilings 20 feet high. If you have that sort of room at home, then emulating the cinema speaker setup IS a valid choice. If you have a room that seats half a dozen people, in two rows at most, with 8 foot ceilings, then not so much.
> 
> If Dolby had wanted us to put our surrounds high on the walls for home Atmos, do you think they wouldn't tell us that?


Dolby specs them at ear height because the algorithm is different. Object based---if they can maintain a semi consistent placement of surrounds, then objects that are at ear level will stay at ear level. Objects that are placed towards corner of wall and ceiling---will simple have more output from the ceiling speaker with less from the bed surround....Place your surrounds too much above ear level and the entire bubble will shift up and be compressed. More of a surround funnel shape instead of a surround bubble. Pretty easy and intuitive to me....not sure where the rub is and why anyone wouldn't at least attempt to keep them quasi ear height.


----------



## markus767

In a reproduction system that is capable of placing sounds at any location of a hemispherical dome (Atmos) it is a rather ill-conceived idea to put speakers just at elevated locations. Why cinemas and dubbing stages still use elevated surround speakers can only be explained from history.


----------



## markus767

Stoked21 said:


> Place your surrounds too much above ear level and the entire bubble will shift up and be compressed. More of a surround funnel shape instead of a surround bubble.


In movie theaters I've been lately that's exactly how most Atmos mixes sound like.


----------



## Shniks

kbarnes701 said:


> The original mix was intended to be heard in a room with hundreds of seats and ceilings 20 feet high. If you have that sort of room at home, then emulating the cinema speaker setup IS a valid choice. If you have a room that seats half a dozen people, in two rows at most, with 8 foot ceilings, then not so much.
> 
> If Dolby had wanted us to put our surrounds high on the walls for home Atmos, do you think they wouldn't tell us that?



Sanjay and you both have valid points. However, Sanjay does make a logical argument that the mixer had mixed the sound in a studio where the surrounds/ rears were elevated. Thus the mix we hear in the cinema as well as the blu ray will sound closer to what the mixer intended it to sound like (and heard at the time of mixing) if the surrounds at home are elevated too. I understand that Dolby has different guidelines and you are right in pointing that out. However, Sanjay is right too in stating that if one wishes to hear the mix as intended to be heard by the mixer, one would need to elevate the surrounds. No right or wrong - pick your poison. 


Cheers,


----------



## Stoked21

This whole debate, while interesting, is really missing the main point. 
Let's use the Amaze bird example. None of us truly know where it should image as we haven't spoken with the mixer. But let's use common sense here. 

Break away from Dolby surround height recommendation. Those people say the bird flies around room wall/ceiling corners. Obviously Cus every speaker is elevated. 

Fail to REQ properly or place Atmos speakers drastically outside of spec...those people say the bird doesn't pass through lcr very prominently. 

Raise top speaker levels in REQ to make Atmos speakers more prominent and those people hear the bird flying through top fronts. 

Calibrate appropriately and place bed speakers as close to ear level as possible....and the bird flies 360 at ear height. 

With object based, ACCURATELY following the RECOMMENDED placements provides for the most ACCURATE sound reproduction. We see this disparity because people ignore the recommendations and then mislead newcomers with incorrect info on where and how things should image. 

They are recommendations at the end of the day. But those recommendations will achieve the best sound. Even if great sound can be achieved sans recommendations. The speakers should be located to make a dome around the MLP. Again pretty much common sense.


----------



## Stoked21

Shniks said:


> Sanjay and you both have valid points. However, Sanjay does make a logical argument that the mixer had mixed the sound in a studio where the surrounds/ rears were elevated. Thus the mix we hear in the cinema as well as the blu ray will sound closer to what the mixer intended it to sound like (and heard at the time of mixing) if the surrounds at home are elevated too. I understand that Dolby has different guidelines and you are right in pointing that out. However, Sanjay is right too in stating that if one wishes to hear the mix as intended to be heard by the mixer, one would need to elevate the surrounds. No right or wrong - pick your poison.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Yes. But Dolby Atmos home expects the surrounds close to ear. The home Atmos algorithm is weighted differently to apply more output to the tops when an object should be elevated. If you elevate your surrounds too, then even more sound is reproduced at an elevated height...regardless of Audyssey or anything. You need some drivers anchored at bed level in a HT.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The reason was you "assume" Dolby has a reason.


 I also postulated various reasons of my own. But really, you think a billion dollar company like Dolby does things without a reason? You seriously think they just said "heck, put them at ear height, they'll be fine"? 



sdurani said:


> Same mix, especially now that Atmos tracks are being ported to home video. Why is it not valid to hear that same directionality at home? Why is it valid to hear those same sounds from a different direction than was originally heard?


Why do you think it is valid to ignore Dolby's advice? Do you believe cinemas should do that when setting up for Atmos? Do you ignore ITU recommendations for the placement of the floor level speakers? Do you ignore THX or SMPTE recommendations for viewing distances and angles? Are all of these different recommendations just hooey, to be ignored at will by those who find their strictures inconvenient?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Dolby specs them at ear height because the algorithm is different. Object based---if they can maintain a semi consistent placement of surrounds, then objects that are at ear level will stay at ear level. Objects that are placed towards corner of wall and ceiling---will simple have more output from the ceiling speaker with less from the bed surround....Place your surrounds too much above ear level and the entire bubble will shift up and be compressed. More of a surround funnel shape instead of a surround bubble. Pretty easy and intuitive to me....not sure where the rub is and why anyone wouldn't at least attempt to keep them quasi ear height.


Yes indeed. But some think we should stick then high up because that's how cinemas do it. While ignoring the substantial differences in environment.


----------



## Stoked21

markus767 said:


> In movie theaters I've been lately that's exactly how most Atmos mixes sound like.


Not sure if you think that's good or bad? I would think the later. 
In cinema it is also much more seat dependent due to the mass quantity of chairs. Add in liability and damage of speakers if closer to ear level in a public venue....trying to eliminate blocking of speakers by audience....honestly IMO it's a lot easier to get ideal speaker placements in a small HT catering to s few people than it is in a large venue. 

I personally prefer a dome/bubble vs a funnel of sound. Maybe that's preference and independent of Dolby intentions.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shniks said:


> Sanjay and you both have valid points. However, Sanjay does make a logical argument that the mixer had mixed the sound in a studio where the surrounds/ rears were elevated. Thus the mix we hear in the cinema as well as the blu ray will sound closer to what the mixer intended it to sound like (and heard at the time of mixing) if the surrounds at home are elevated too. I understand that Dolby has different guidelines and you are right in pointing that out. However, Sanjay is right too in stating that if one wishes to hear the mix as intended to be heard by the mixer, one would need to elevate the surrounds. No right or wrong - pick your poison.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Sanjay just wants to keep the discussion going until one of us gives up or we get our wrists slapped by a Mod for something or other 

I am not even disagreeing with him, having said all along that if practical considerations make following Dolby's advice difficult or impossible, then people should do whatever they can, while at the same time acknowledging that their layout is sub-optimal. Mixers are mixing for cinemas not homes. And cinemas have their surrounds up high for various reasons, all of which have been aired here recently.


----------



## cyclones22

Stoked21 said:


> Calibrate appropriately and place bed speakers as close to ear level as possible....and the bird flies 360 at ear height.
> 
> With object based, ACCURATELY following the RECOMMENDED placements provides for the most ACCURATE sound reproduction. We see this disparity because people ignore the recommendations and then mislead newcomers with incorrect info on where and how things should image.
> 
> They are recommendations at the end of the day. But those recommendations will achieve the best sound. Even if great sound can be achieved sans recommendations. The speakers should be located to make a dome around the MLP. Again pretty much common sense.


Yep, I'm fairly certain that when I first tested my Atmos setup the bird flying is ear level the entire way (and it makes sense since each part of the demo is set to accentuate a certain aspect of Atmos). Unplugged my LCR and SR/LR and you shouldn't hear anything come out of the Atmos speakers, well bird flapping wings related that is, at least I seem to remember that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> This whole debate, while interesting, is really missing the main point.
> Let's use the Amaze bird example. None of us truly know where it should image as we haven't spoken with the mixer. But let's use common sense here.
> 
> Break away from Dolby surround height recommendation. Those people say the bird flies around room wall/ceiling corners. Obviously Cus every speaker is elevated.
> 
> Fail to REQ properly or place Atmos speakers drastically outside of spec...those people say the bird doesn't pass through lcr very prominently.
> 
> Raise top speaker levels in REQ to make Atmos speakers more prominent and those people hear the bird flying through top fronts.
> 
> Calibrate appropriately and place bed speakers as close to ear level as possible....and the bird flies 360 at ear height.
> 
> With object based, ACCURATELY following the RECOMMENDED placements provides for the most ACCURATE sound reproduction. We see this disparity because people ignore the recommendations and then mislead newcomers with incorrect info on where and how things should image.
> 
> They are recommendations at the end of the day. But those recommendations will achieve the best sound. Even if great sound can be achieved sans recommendations. The speakers should be located to make a dome around the MLP. Again pretty much common sense.


Spot on. And when I play the Amaze trailer, the bird flaps around the room, doing a 360 at ear height. This readily distinguishes its location from the other sounds which are overhead.

And if you play the Conductor trailer, there is also a visual clue in there. At the beginning, when there is a flapping sound going right overhead, the Conductor follows its motion with her eyes, looking up and across. A few seconds later, something else, smaller, flies across the room but this time at ear height - and the Conductor's eyes remain at ear height as she follows it around the room. It is clearly meant to be two different elevations, and it clearly is in my system (and no doubt yours too). 

However, those who have their surrounds up high will not hear that trailer the way we are hearing it, for obvious reasons. Game, set and match.


----------



## Shniks

Stoked21 said:


> Yes. But Dolby Atmos home expects the surrounds close to ear. The home Atmos algorithm is weighted differently to apply more output to the tops when an object should be elevated. If you elevate your surrounds too, then even more sound is reproduced at an elevated height...regardless of Audyssey or anything. You need some drivers anchored at bed level in a HT.



I am not sure I understand. So let's say that there is a bird flying in the left surround in the cinema. Now at home, the bird is flying at ear level - or to your point, it's actually flying at a different location (i.e. the Atmos speaker). Wouldn't that mean that the location of the bird has changed (i.e. from left surround to top ceiling)? And can you provide a link to how the Dolby Atmos algorithm works? I am interested in reading more about this. 

While Atmos is supposed to be all about objects which can be placed anywhere in space, I don't think any of the current receivers actually do any kind of phantom imaging (e.g. 40% top middle and 60% left surround to have the object 33% between the surround and top middle speakers - I am just throwing out numbers here). Or do they? If so, which receivers/ manufacturers have algorithms that do indeed do this phantom imaging? Finally, when movies are mixed for HT, are the mixers actually placing the objects in space or are they simply putting them in the height or listener level speakers? I have listened to Atmos mixes in 7.1.4 and 5.1.4 configurations and have yet to hear proper phantom imaging. I could be wrong though.


Cheers,


----------



## sdurani

Shniks said:


> No right or wrong - pick your poison.


Thanx, that was my point. This is a situation where there happens to be conflicting interests because you can't have both: recreate what the mixer heard vs emphasize attributes of the format during home playback. There have always been two broad categories in this hobby: those that want to re-create as best possible what the mixer heard (stated goal of the home THX program) vs those that don't want to be restricted to what's practical on a dubbing stage (e.g., have surrounds around ear height). The latter approach doesn't invalidate the former; i.e., recreating what the mixer heard isn't wrong or sub-optimal.


----------



## markus767

Stoked21 said:


> Not sure if you think that's good or bad? I would think the later.


It is bad. One of the reasons I don't go to cinemas very often anymore. The quality I get at home is simply better.



Stoked21 said:


> In cinema it is also much more seat dependent due to the mass quantity of chairs. Add in liability and damage of speakers if closer to ear level in a public venue....trying to eliminate blocking of speakers by audience....honestly IMO it's a lot easier to get ideal speaker placements in a small HT catering to s few people than it is in a large venue.
> 
> I personally prefer a dome/bubble vs a funnel of sound. Maybe that's preference and independent of Dolby intentions.


There's a lot of factors. I think most people simply don't care.

Regarding the speaker being blocked by the audience, in my opinion this is a non-issue. If there's a sound of an approaching train coming from an ear level side surround it really doesn't matter if there are 10 people sitting next to me. Sure the sound will be different than having no "obstacles" between me and the speaker but it still is very much coming from that location and that's the important property of that sound.


----------



## 1forsnow

Shniks said:


> Sanjay and you both have valid points. However, Sanjay does make a logical argument that the mixer had mixed the sound in a studio where the surrounds/ rears were elevated. Thus the mix we hear in the cinema as well as the blu ray will sound closer to what the mixer intended it to sound like (and heard at the time of mixing) if the surrounds at home are elevated too. I understand that Dolby has different guidelines and you are right in pointing that out. However, Sanjay is right too in stating that if one wishes to hear the mix as intended to be heard by the mixer, one would need to elevate the surrounds. No right or wrong - pick your poison.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Well said. I am surprised FilmMixer has not jumped in on this tiff. He has experience in both these arena's and has first hand experience on how a film sounds in the mixing room and how it sounds(or should sound) at home. It sure would be nice to hear a comment from him...

I may be missing something, but IMO I think its about bed and overhead separation. It appears most mixing rooms have ceilings much higher than most typical homes, not to mention room size in general. I think if you lowered the surrounds to ear level in a mixing room, there will be too much of a gap between the bed and overheads and have separation. This may be why DTS:X is proposing a height layer in between to make up for this gap?

My .02


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But really, you think a billion dollar company like Dolby does things without a reason?


You're appealing to authority rather than stating the reason. Why is it important that listeners at home NOT hear what the mixer heard? Why should a bird that was circling above you during the mix instead now be circling around you at home?


> Why do you think it is valid to ignore Dolby's advice?


Never said to ignore their advice, simply explained the reason WHY elevated surrounds are not sub-optimal or invalid (because re-creating what the mixer heard is not sub-optimal or invalid). 

Where you and I differ is that I see two valid approaches, you see one.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Where you and I differ is that I see two valid approaches, you see one.


Yeah, _his_. You should know better, Sanjay. Whichever method is the one that Keith is doing is the correct one.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Why is it important that listeners at home NOT hear what the mixer heard?


Because they might better hear what was intended. Monitoring in typical dub stages and cinemas is just a crippled version of Atmos


----------



## Frohlich

I can't tell you guys how many times I have turned off a movie because the birds didn't sound like they were in the right location!!!!


----------



## jpco

I turned off my base layer in Amaze and didn't hear the bird in the height layer. Still sounds weak to me across the front. Time-aligned and level matched. What could be wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audioguy

1forsnow said:


> Well said. I am surprised FilmMixer has not jumped in on this tiff. He has experience in both these arena's and has first hand experience on how a film sounds in the mixing room and how it sounds(or should sound) at home. It sure would be nice to hear a comment from him...
> 
> I may be missing something, but IMO I think its about bed and overhead separation. It appears most mixing rooms have ceilings much higher than most typical homes, not to mention room size in general. I think if you lowered the surrounds to ear level in a mixing room, there will be too much of a gap between the bed and overheads and have separation. This may be why DTS:X is proposing a height layer in between to make up for this gap?
> 
> My .02


Totally agree. I have 8 foot ceilings and my surrounds were originally at 6 feet. Atmos was a nice improvement until I moved my surrounds down to 49 inches. Then, and only then, was I able to experience a true 3D immersive bubble.

I have a friend who has 11 foot ceilings and his side surrounds are at 6 feet and his rears are a bit higher. Truly immersive.

It's all about the angles!!!!!

I can't "know" the mixer's intent, but if it was anything other than providing the most 3D immersive experience *I *could possibly achieve in *my* room, then I don't care.


----------



## kbarnes701

1forsnow said:


> Well said. I am surprised FilmMixer has not jumped in on this tiff.


I suspect he has more sense  LOL.


----------



## blastermaster

sdurani said:


> Thanx, that was my point. This is a situation where there happens to be conflicting interests because you can't have both: recreate what the mixer heard vs emphasize attributes of the format during home playback. There have always been two broad categories in this hobby: those that want to re-create as best possible what the mixer heard (stated goal of the home THX program) vs those that don't want to be restricted to what's practical on a dubbing stage (e.g., have surrounds around ear height). The latter approach doesn't invalidate the former; i.e., recreating what the mixer heard isn't wrong or sub-optimal.


Reading this it all seems rather odd. I'm guessing the mixers have elevated surrounds because they know the theaters will also be using elevated surrounds? Yet Dolby knows that optimally they should be placed at ear height? So my choices are:

1) Recreate theater sound (ie. compressed elevated sound) or
2) Immersive bubble that may not sound like the original mix (but more than likely sounds as it should if the mixers had their way by putting THEIR speakers at ear level).

Now, assuming that either setup is neither right or wrong, I'd choose option two every day of the week and twice on Sunday. My 0.02.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You're appealing to authority rather than stating the reason. Why is it important that listeners at home NOT hear what the mixer heard? Why should a bird that was circling above you during the mix instead now be circling around you at home?


Why is it important to you that people should feel that the advice given by Dolby can be ignored at will?



sdurani said:


> Never said to ignore their advice, simply explained the reason WHY elevated surrounds are not sub-optimal or invalid (because re-creating what the mixer heard is not sub-optimal or invalid).


It is sub-optimal according to Dolby. Feel free to dismiss an references to how Dolby say surround speakers should be set up as "an appeal to authority" but that doesn't change what they are saying, which is, BTW unequivocal.

You forgot to address my point that you presumably also feel that it is OK for cinema owners to ignore Dolby's recommendations if it suits them to do so?



sdurani said:


> Where you and I differ is that I see two valid approaches, you see one.


I am simply stating what Dolby recommend for the placement of surround speakers. Nowhere do they say they should be optimally installed high up on the walls. In fact, they say the opposite of that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, _his_. You should know better, Sanjay. Whichever method is the one that Keith is doing is the correct one.


That's very flattering, Scott, but I am pretty sure that Dolby didn’t make their recommendations for the correct positioning of surround speakers in a home Atmos setup based on anything I am doing 

I am equally sure that everyone defending the sub-optimal position of elevated surrounds, has, er, elevated surrounds


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> That, or having greater around-vs-above separation, or any number of reasons that make more sense than blind abeyance that is not to be questioned.


Can't believe I am getting pulled into this mess, but a client quoted me...Thanks Dormie. 

Any number of reasons is spot on truth. 

In KBarnes case, where he really only has one listening position he cares about, I could probably be convinced to mount the side surrounds at or near ear level. Although I thought I read earlier in the thread that his were 2' higher?

However, most theaters are a social event. I want to create a listening environment with minimal seat to seat variation, generally across 4-5 seats, and three rows. Having a surround sound speaker 3' away from a seat prohibits that. By raising the speakers higher, I accomplish several things. First, I get the poor guys on the end out of the near-field for that speaker. *Surround sound* speakers should do exactly that; create immersive surround sound fields. If I have a speaker pointed straight at my ear, it cannot be immersive. The surround sound field should be enveloping. Not only do I get the speaker out of someone's ear, I also get more sound to bonce around the rear third of the room, contributing more to an immersive sound field. 

In addition, I gain a little extra distance, helping me achieve closer SPL measurements across that row. If the surround speakers have poor off-axis response, angle them down slightly. I prefer a slight roll-off anyway at about 7k or so for the surrounds however, which I get naturally by putting my ears out of the direct field. 

I'm not even going to go down the road towards HRTF measurements, and how we perceive sounds from above/below. 

I understand why Dolby suggests putting surrounds lower. It will increase the apparent separation between the side surrounds and the overheads, especially in an average room with 8' or lower ceilings. Homeowners can clearly hear the benefit, tell their friends, and more speakers get sold! No one can possibly believe marketing isn't involved somewhere....In most of the rooms I work, I get to work with much higher ceilings. I can keep the surrounds at a proper height, and still keep the overheads separated. 

To that point, that is why Dolby gives guidelines! They can't make a suggestion for every room. Dolby recommends 45-60 degrees for the mains, 90-110 for sides, 135-150 for rears, 30-55 for overheads...and yet we want to believe they insist on the side surrounds to be EXACTLY AT EAR HEIGHT? Absurd. 

Most of you probably remember installing your first set of sides, or even rear surrounds. You probably had them turned up much louder than recommended, which would of course be level matched to the mains. But we all wanted to hear MORE! But the intent of the sides and surrounds was immersion; creating an ambient sound field around us. Eventually, we got used to them being there, and realized how they were intended, and level matched them properly, and ended up with the techniques accepted everywhere for surround sound speaker placement. 

I believe we are still in that same exact initial phase, and eventually the newness will wear off, the technology accepted and mainstream, and common sense and installation experience will once again rule.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Why is it important to you that people should feel that the advice given by Dolby can be ignored at will?


Again, where did I say that people "should" ignore Dolby's recommendations? Instead, I'm pointing out two conflicting approaches: re-create what the mixers heard vs change things for home playback. I see both approaches as valid, you see only the latter as valid.


> I am simply stating *what* Dolby recommend for the placement of surround speakers.


You keep deflecting to what instead of answering why. Are you ever going to answer: why should a bird that was heard above ear height during the mix be instead heard at ear height at home?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> That's very flattering, Scott, but I am pretty sure that Dolby didn’t make their recommendations for the correct positioning of surround speakers in a home Atmos setup based on anything I am doing
> 
> I am equally sure that everyone defending the sub-optimal position of elevated surrounds, has, er, elevated surrounds


Then there is that. 

This discussion can go in either way but it's really a simple battle for a certain kind of performance and a balance of practicality with it.


----------



## Nabs17

Even though I think this has gone on too long, I also think there has been very good information exchanged and I've learned lots over the last few pages. I think we can all agree on we won't be in 100% agreement and the room and Dolby guidelines have to work together as best they can. I don't want to lower my surrounds to ear level because it would be to close to the edge seats but it may be great for my seat (1st row middle of 3) and I'm usually not the only one in there. I have (however) lowered my surrounds to 6'7" in a room that has 10' ceilings so I will experiment with that and see what kind of separation that creates with the Atmos trailers. I also don't think the folks that have their surrounds at ear level are wrong and are gearing towards the single seat....I'm working towards multiple seats.


----------



## kbarnes701

appelz said:


> Can't believe I am getting pulled into this mess, but a client quoted me...Thanks Dormie.


Beautiful job on Dormie's HT.



appelz said:


> In KBarnes case, where he really only has one listening position he cares about, I could probably be convinced to mount the side surrounds at or near ear level. Although I thought I read earlier in the thread that his were 2' higher?


Oh they have been all over the place. But for some time now the side surrounds have been at approx 80° and ear height exactly, and the rear surrounds are about 1ft above ear height so they clear the back of the chairs.



appelz said:


> However, most theaters are a social event. I want to create a listening environment with minimal seat to seat variation, generally across 4-5 seats, and three rows. Having a surround sound speaker 3' away from a seat prohibits that. By raising the speakers higher, I accomplish several things. First, I get the poor guys on the end out of the near-field for that speaker. *Surround sound* speakers should do exactly that; create immersive surround sound fields. If I have a speaker pointed straight at my ear, it cannot be immersive. The surround sound field should be enveloping. Not only do I get the speaker out of someone's ear, I also get more sound to bonce around the rear third of the room, contributing more to an immersive sound field.


Agreed totally. For a three row HT with multiple listeners that's how I’d want to do it too, if I could. One has to use common sense and take account of individual circumstances. I've said that three times at least in the recent exchanges. But there is no getting away from what Dolby's recommendation is, which is all I said and then it started a sh*tstorm for some reason.



appelz said:


> I understand why Dolby suggests putting surrounds lower. It will increase the apparent separation between the side surrounds and the overheads, especially in an average room with 8' or lower ceilings. Homeowners can clearly hear the benefit, tell their friends, and more speakers get sold! No one can possibly believe marketing isn't involved somewhere....In most of the rooms I work, I get to work with much higher ceilings. I can keep the surrounds at a proper height, and still keep the overheads separated.


That's right. But most of us have 8ft ceilings unfortunately. If I had room in my house for a HT like you created for Dormie, I'd be all over it like a rash.



appelz said:


> To that point, that is why Dolby gives guidelines! They can't make a suggestion for every room. Dolby recommends 45-60 degrees for the mains, 90-110 for sides, 135-150 for rears, 30-55 for overheads...and yet we want to believe they insist on the side surrounds to be EXACTLY AT EAR HEIGHT? Absurd.


At or close to they say. They do allow for practicalities.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Again, where did I say that people "should" ignore Dolby's recommendations? Instead, I'm pointing out two conflicting approaches: re-create what the mixers heard vs change things for home playback. I see both approaches as valid, you see only the latter as valid.


If they place their surrounds high up on the walls it's pretty obvious that they are ignoring Dolby's recommendations. So simply by saying it is OK you are suggesting they ignore the advice.



sdurani said:


> You keep deflecting to what instead of answering why. Are you ever going to answer: why should a bird that was heard above ear height during the mix be instead heard at ear height at home?


I'm learning from you. I'm just ignoring the parts I don't care to answer  Soon I’ll stop even quoting them back too 

Like, for example, am I ever going to get an answer to this: do you believe it is correct for cinema owners to ignore Dolby's guidelines, or does it just apply to HTs?


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> You're appealing to authority rather than stating the reason. Why is it important that listeners at home NOT hear what the mixer heard? Why should a bird that was circling above you during the mix instead now be circling around you at home? Never said to ignore their advice, simply explained the reason WHY elevated surrounds are not sub-optimal or invalid (because re-creating what the mixer heard is not sub-optimal or invalid).
> 
> Where you and I differ is that I see two valid approaches, you see one.


Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the demo disc mix is different than what you heard in the theater with Amaze? Why are you so sure that what the theater played is identical to the clip you have?

A bigger question to support this is on conductor girl. The bird flies from left surround up through room and down right. That one doesn't restrict the bird to ear level like it does in Amaze. So if it's the location of the surrounds that makes the bird lower down to bed level in Amaze, then why not the case with Conductor????

I haven't tried this. But if I raise surrounds up high (to make Amaze bird up high) then I bet the conductor girl bird doesn't follow her cues as well. It probably flies up high. 

We can all modify speaker locations and heights and levels to suit one particular clip. But then you are likely compromising on other material imaging.


----------



## appelz

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh they have been all over the place. But for some time now the side surrounds have been at approx 80° and ear height exactly, and the rear surrounds are about 1ft above ear height so they clear the back of the chairs.


But, but..! The long established Dolby spec is 90-110?! How could you possibly be so far out of spec and live with yourself?! 

Sorry..could not resist!


----------



## bass addict

audioguy said:


> Totally agree. I have 8 foot ceilings and my surrounds were originally at 6 feet. Atmos was a nice improvement until I moved my surrounds down to 49 inches. Then, and only then, was I able to experience a true 3D immersive bubble.


So what are you guys doing with multiple rows? I just ended up tearing apart my sofits to update and remount my side surrounds and I ended up mounting them at around 58" to match the rear surround height due to the riser. I'd think you'd want the sides and rears to match height wise to tie the base layer together? 

There is so much conflicting information on what works best.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So simply by saying it is OK you are suggesting they ignore the advice.


Not advocating nor suggesting what people should do, just explaining why they do it. Fidelity to what the mixer heard is just one of the reasons; Adam listed several others. Again, the difference is that I can see advantages to both approaches, you can't.


> Like, for example, am I ever going to get an answer to this: do you believe it is correct for cinema owners to ignore Dolby's guidelines, or does it just apply to HTs?


Answered a long time ago when I said that Dolby's guidelines are not a suicide pact to be rigidly followed even to detrimental results. IF there is a good reason to deviate from those guidelines, then better results trump unequivocal devotion. I don't have the mindset of a blind follower, and that doesn't change for Dolby. 

So, in return, gonna answer my question: why should a bird that was heard above ear height during the mix be instead heard at ear height at home?


----------



## Nabs17

bass addict said:


> So what are you guys doing with multiple rows? I just ended up tearing apart my sofits to update and remount my side surrounds and I ended up mounting them at around 58" to match the rear surround height due to the riser. I'd think you'd want the sides and rears to match height wise to tie the base layer together?
> 
> There is so much conflicting information on what works best.


That's what I'm doing now...lowering my side surrounds to the level of the rear surrounds. Now, they are (all 4) a little bit higher that the front left/right but we'll see how it sounds.


----------



## bargervais

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes indeed. But some think we should stick then high up because that's how cinemas do it. While ignoring the substantial differences in environment.


i don't think it so much placing surrounds high up above that is the issue with some, i think people don't want to move them down to ear level. They want to find a justification for just leaving them up there. 
but i would agree ear level will give a better separation that helps create that bubble of sound.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "I am not sure I understand. So let's say that there is a bird flying in the left surround in the cinema. Now at home, the bird is flying at ear level - or to your point, it's actually flying at a different location (i.e. the Atmos speaker). Wouldn't that mean that the location of the bird has changed (i.e. from left surround to top ceiling)? And can you provide a link to how the Dolby Atmos algorithm works? I am interested in reading more about this."

Just enjoy the bird.  I don't think Dolby Laboratories will provide any info on their algorithm that we could understand. Even if you are familiar with "object technology" and constructs, I'm not sure we could get an answer to your question. It would be nice to know how they are panning the objects/sounds and how they are routed to the various speaker locations (overheads - primarily). Maybe a developer or sound mixer could chime in here. 

Which reminds me of a bird story that I'd like to share. My dearly departed mother, a long time ago, went to Easter church service. She had on a very wide, brim hat. Everyone was smiling at her and she thought she was particularly radiant that day. When she stepped into the restroom and went to the mirror, she discovered what all the smiles were about. Turns out that a bird or two took a major dump on my Mom's wide brimmed hat and she had been walking around with it like that all morning. Priceless.


----------



## bass addict

Nabs17 said:


> That's what I'm doing now...lowering my side surrounds to the level of the rear surrounds. Now, they are (all 4) a little bit higher that the front left/right but we'll see how it sounds.


I'm hoping it turns out good. I was running QS8's (quad polar design) at around 6.5' originally, before switching out to Volt 10's and lowering them to 58" to match the Volt 8's in the rear. 

It seems that the tide has shifted a bit over the past month or two from, "Holy hell Atmos completely transformed my theater" to "Atmos is like the cherry added to the top of a Sunday (it was good before but just a little better now)" 

I have a ton of work and obviously funds involved in this Atmos upgrade; so I'm really hoping for more than a cherry.


----------



## audiofan1

bargervais said:


> i don't think it so much placing surrounds high up above that is the issue with some, i think people don't want to move them down to ear level. They want to find a justification for just leaving them up there.
> but i would agree ear level will give a better separation that helps create that bubble of sound.


 Mine are left there (side surrounds in Bi-pole mode) due to the simple fact , they excel there in there application and if it wasn't broke before why fix it? if it helps my rear surrounds are placed about a foot above ear levelMy bubble is precise ,expansive and best of all immersive. 

I'm the one who posted Atmos and or immersive audio as the best thing to happen to audio in 20 yrs and don't feel its just cherry on top!

It rocks


----------



## blastermaster

Nabs17 said:


> That's what I'm doing now...lowering my side surrounds to the level of the rear surrounds. Now, they are (all 4) a little bit higher that the front left/right but we'll see how it sounds.



IIRC the Dolby guidelines also say that it's ok to put them slightly higher if necessary (too lazy to find it for ya). I think, realistically though, in a multiple row setup there is still going to be one sweet spot or even sweet row. I would put my rear row surrounds "just" above ear level which, yes, would mean being higher than the row in front. Now, that would also mean you have to contend with your rears as well. In a setup like that, I'd be inclined to put my fronts higher up in line with my rear row since your rear surrounds are also going to be at that level. In that scenario, the middle back seat should be the sweet spot.


----------



## markus767

appelz said:


> I want to create a listening environment with minimal seat to seat variation, generally across 4-5 seats, and three rows. Having a surround sound speaker 3' away from a seat prohibits that. By raising the speakers higher, I accomplish several things. First, I get the poor guys on the end out of the near-field for that speaker. *Surround sound* speakers should do exactly that; create immersive surround sound fields. If I have a speaker pointed straight at my ear, it cannot be immersive. The surround sound field should be enveloping. Not only do I get the speaker out of someone's ear, I also get more sound to bonce around the rear third of the room, contributing more to an immersive sound field.
> 
> In addition, I gain a little extra distance, helping me achieve closer SPL measurements across that row. If the surround speakers have poor off-axis response, angle them down slightly. I prefer a slight roll-off anyway at about 7k or so for the surrounds however, which I get naturally by putting my ears out of the direct field.


Just a couple of remarks.
a) >3' is not the nearfield for most rather smallish surround speakers
b) "Immersion", spaciousness and envelopment should be a property of the recording not the speaker
c) Preventing SPL fall-off would require a different speaker design or mounting the speakers as high as possible, preferably at the middle of the ceiling – oops there are already top surround speakers 

Regarding c), if a car hits from two seats away I would expect it to sound different than sitting directly next to it, so why have the speaker higher? It only shifts the sound upwards.


----------



## Daryl L

Does the old option of placing back surround speakers on the floor firing straight up fly straight out the window with the birds now with these new recommended Dolby specifications?


----------



## cyclones22

Regarding the whole bird in the Amaze demo discussion, it seems very obvious to me on what the actual plane the bird is flying. The demo has an onscreen prompt of full 360 sound then the bird starts flying. It then flies from LS to RS to RF to C to LF. It never flies into the Atmos speakers. Having the surrounds on the same level of your LCR seems like an obvious intention for this on a 360 surround sound demo, unless you think the bird is flying higher initially and then dips down to the level of your front sound stage. Or you think your front sound stage should be elevated as well. Then the rain starts and that is the real display of the Atmos channels as rain drops fall down on top of you.


----------



## markus767

The sound of a bird would make sense in any speaker but there are a ton of sounds like footsteps that don't make sense coming from elevated locations. The exception proves the rule.


----------



## Stoked21

Furthermore. When it rains, much of that sound comes from the surrounds to make it appear it's raining IN the room. I would think higher surrounds would also mean all the rain was on the ceiling. 

I know Sanjay and others know their stuff too, as well as us in the ear level camp. I can see some benefits for hot spot etc to put surrounds up high. I'm sure some people following that camp have great systems with elevated surrounds. And there can definitely be benefits and reasons for doing so. 

For my money, all 9 bed speakers will remain in the bed to allow for greater height and bed separation, a domed speaker layout, room for future expansion such as top surrounds, trying to adhere somewhat to the company that innovated the technology's guidelines. 

As opposed to trying to recreate the imaging of one clip; which may have been mixed for a commercial system or may have been at a theater with a configuration out of whack. Not saying that either is the case and likely may not be. After all, none of us know for certain where the bird example should be based. Despite some obvious cues of bed level. 

I guess those of us who adhere to the 80/20 rule, and try to stay at least 80% by the book, can sleep better at night. We know we are not doing anything wrong at least. As subjective as that may be!!!!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

On a different topic : is it me or after the January 19th release of Everest we have no more movies planned for Atmos on Blu-ray in 2016 (other than some TV materiel for Sherlock (not sure yet for North America) and Game of Thrones ?

The next couple months will be long !


----------



## Dan Hitchman

One of the bits of CES news is that Fox Home Video will only be including immersive audio with UHD Blu-ray releases (and internet 4k media). 

I wonder if Disney will follow suit and if other studios will start shifting immersive audio to UHD exclusive releases, perhaps even those that released on regular Blu-ray initially.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Because they might better hear what was intended. Monitoring in typical dub stages and cinemas is just a crippled version of Atmos


I wouldn't go that far.

There is a difference between having surrounds at ear level or higher than ear level and meaningful separation of the surrounds and height/overhead speakers.

Just because the surrounds aren't at ear level doesn't mean there is a compromised presentation of an immersive audio format. There can still be a huge difference in angle from surround array to overhead array.


As if there aren't a TON of compromised HT systems around here, immersive or not.


----------



## Ted99

rontalley said:


> You Sir, need to seek counselling! Do NOT pass go, do NOT collect $200! Nope, go straight in, have a seat and explain your addiction in hopes of getting healed.
> 
> What is your method of dealing with the Comb Filtering?
> 
> Your setup is exactly what I will be upgrading to when its available except I would also like a pair of side heights.
> 
> 9 speaker bed
> 5-7 speaker height
> 4-6 speaker top


Yes, just waiting to see what DTS recommends when we have 15+ processing capability to see where else I can put speakers. What comb filtering? We don't have no comb filterings! Seriously, though, I'm wondering if, instead of having "over and under" horizontal front speakers; I should try two vertical speakers on each side of the screen for the Center. It might image to a point source in the center of the screen and avoid the comb filtering resulting from horizontal multi-speaker boxes.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I wouldn't go that far.
> 
> There is a difference between having surrounds at ear level or higher than ear level and meaningful separation of the surrounds and height/overhead speakers.
> 
> Just because the surrounds aren't at ear level doesn't mean there is a compromised presentation of an immersive audio format. There can still be a huge difference in angle from surround array to overhead array.
> 
> 
> As if there aren't a TON of compromised HT systems around here, immersive or not.


True but having surrounds at elevated locations is more compromised than having them at ear level. How good old and new content fits various setups is a different matter.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> True but having surrounds at elevated locations is more compromised than having them at ear level. How good old and new content fits various setups is a different matter.


But it's not compromised if there is still meaningful separation of lower effects and overhead effects.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ted99 said:


> Yes, just waiting to see what DTS recommends when we have 15+ processing capability to see where else I can put speakers. What comb filtering? We don't have no comb filterings! Seriously, though, I'm wondering if, instead of having "over and under" horizontal front speakers; I should try two vertical speakers on each side of the screen for the Center. It might image to a point source in the center of the screen and avoid the comb filtering resulting from horizontal multi-speaker boxes.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> But it's not compromised if there is still meaningful separation of lower effects and overhead effects.


If we are digging this deep then wouldn't one also want to add in the dispersion characteristics of said speakers. I'd almost think if a speaker had a wider dispersion (say 90deg) then you'd benefit a bit more from a little higher placement, than a speaker with say a 50deg dispersion? 

Just thinking aloud here.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> But it's not compromised if there is still meaningful separation of lower effects and overhead effects.


If footsteps come from above I don't care if there's separation between "too high" and "from above". It can't be anyone's intend to place sounds at locations that simply don't make any sense.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> If we are digging this deep then wouldn't one also want to add in the dispersion characteristics of said speakers. I'd almost think if a speaker had a wider dispersion (say 90deg) then you'd benefit a bit more from a little higher placement, than a speaker with say a 50deg dispersion?
> 
> Just thinking aloud here.


That's more of a question of coverage throughout the listening space than sound placement which is what these guys are arguing on about.



markus767 said:


> If footsteps come from above I don't care if there's separation between "too high" and "from above". It can't be anyone's intend to place sounds at locations that simply don't make any sense.


So then ear level speakers are a compromise too.

Put speakers on the ground for footsteps. 

I mean, I know I'm short but I don't hear peoples footsteps when approaching me at ear level.


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> Put speakers on the ground for footsteps.
> )


Done. Moving on to 9.1.6.4

When I get home I'm adding 4 more on the ground!!!


On a serious note, not to split hairs, my mains are about 5" below ear height and my surrounds are about 10" below ear. Back row MLP. That puts them all at about ear level for front row SLP secondary. I don't think Dolby or anyone else can argue that a foot above or below MLP is going to be a deal breaker for most any HT. 
It does increase the bubble of surround. 

A couple of feet? No thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

Dan Hitchman said:


> One of the bits of CES news is that Fox Home Video will only be including immersive audio with UHD Blu-ray releases (and internet 4k media).
> 
> I wonder if Disney will follow suit and if other studios will start shifting immersive audio to UHD exclusive releases, perhaps even those that released on regular Blu-ray initially.


My hope has been that they'll be releasing dual-disc packages containing both HD and UHD discs with the same immersive soundtrack on both. Unfortunately, they've been extremely tight-mouthed about such plans. We won't know what they'll be actually supplying for a while.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Call me simple and stupid, but AVS'ers put way too much thought and consideration into angles, heights, separation, on axis, off axis, toe in, toe out, flux capacitors, and hyper drives. Pop the cork and watch a movie once in awhile


----------



## audiofan1

Selden Ball said:


> My hope has been that they'll be releasing dual-disc packages containing both HD and UHD discs with the same immersive soundtrack on both. Unfortunately, they've been extremely tight-mouthed about such plans. We won't know what they'll be actually supplying for a while.


 That would be the a bad decision on there half if they don't as there the one's who made it the defacto standard today! It would be akin to the Laser disc days with high prices and a niche market.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Selden Ball said:


> My hope has been that they'll be releasing dual-disc packages containing both HD and UHD discs with the same immersive soundtrack on both. Unfortunately, they've been extremely tight-mouthed about such plans. We won't know what they'll be actually supplying for a while.


Would be nice. They are definitely going to package them as UHD and regular BD. That will be common. It's yet to be seen if the regular BD portion will have immersive audio. I would guess, no.



Molon_Labe said:


> Call me simple and stupid, but AVS'ers but way too much thought and consideration into angles, heights, separation, on axis, off axis, toe in, toe out, flux capacitors, and hyper drives Pop the cork and watch a movie once in awhile


But it's more fun to argue all that crap under the guise of "science" and not just being a pedantic a-hole about it all.


----------



## appelz

At or close to they say. They do allow for practicalities.[/QUOTE]



markus767 said:


> Just a couple of remarks.
> a) >3' is not the nearfield for most rather smallish surround speakers
> b) "Immersion", spaciousness and envelopment should be a property of the recording not the speaker
> c) Preventing SPL fall-off would require a different speaker design or mounting the speakers as high as possible, preferably at the middle of the ceiling – oops there are already top surround speakers
> 
> Regarding c), if a car hits from two seats away I would expect it to sound different than sitting directly next to it, so why have the speaker higher? It only shifts the sound upwards.


Eh, not sure where greater than 3' came from. Anyway, I would definitely consider 3' to be in the nearfield. I am hearing the direct speaker at that distance, and very little indirect sound from the room. The speaker completely dominates what I hear. 

Immersion/Envelopment is definitely not a property of the speaker, correct. It is very much a function of the room and speaker placement. 

Not trying to prevent SPL roll-off. That is unavoidable. But by increasing the distance between speakers and listeners, I can mitigate it between listening positions. SPL decays with the doubling of distance, so even small improvements in speaker distance can be quite audible. Untrained listeners can discern 1db increments. Some research indicates even lower.


----------



## cyclones22

Selden Ball said:


> My hope has been that they'll be releasing dual-disc packages containing both HD and UHD discs with the same immersive soundtrack on both. Unfortunately, they've been extremely tight-mouthed about such plans. We won't know what they'll be actually supplying for a while.


Me too. But I have a feeling us 1080p folks are gonna get screwed over. Most times when these studios have the option to cheap out, they will. I mean Sony friggin' didn't include the Atmos track on the 3D disc of Pixels and only included it on the 2D disc. Lame. I hope to be surprised, but the pessimist in me says prepare to be disappointed.


----------



## DoctorVideo

I just set up a modest Atmos 5.1.2 system, and tested it out with the Atmos demos as well as my only Atmos movie, "San Andreas." The demos have lots going on in the height channels (2 up front), but I am really disappointed in the movie. The movie has great sound overall, but based on the reviews I had read, I expected a whole lot more from the Atmos channels, rather than just an occasional effect. I literally put my ear up to one of the speakers and listened through the entire opening rescue sequence, without a single sound from the speaker. Nothing really happens until the scene at the dam, and then it's only just a couple of times. One review mentioned the effect in the last act where they pass under the ship's propellers and you can hear them pass overhead. On my system I hear the sound pass from my front mains to my surounds, but nothing from the Atmos speakers. I know that my system is working correctly, because the demos sound great, the Atmos indicator lights-up on my amp, and there are occasional instances in the film where the speakers will come on for a second or so. Any thoughts?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Call me simple and stupid, but AVS'ers but way too much thought and consideration into angles, heights, separation, on axis, off axis, toe in, toe out, flux capacitors, and hyper drives Pop the cork and watch a movie once in awhile


Very true but then again this wouldn't be the AVS Forum IF members didn't put too much thought into it. 

Dolby Atmos quiz:

If someone breaks wind, when is it proper to have sounds emanating from the ceiling (height speakers) according to Dolby Atmos specs:

a) Some of the time
b) Never
c) Dependent on the direction
d) Only if the perp is above the main actor on an open stairwell


----------



## bass addict

appelz said:


> At or close to they say. They do allow for practicalities.
> Eh, not sure where greater than 3' came from. Anyway, I would definitely consider 3' to be in the nearfield. I am hearing the direct speaker at that distance, and very little indirect sound from the room. The speaker completely dominates what I hear.


I would have to agree with this to some extent, but with the provision depending on room setup. 

I have a narrower room, and a speaker that is 3' away from me (which is almost exactly where it happens to be from the outside front seats on either side) comes across as distracting and too direct for my taste. I prefer a more diffuse sound that melts into the room a bit more, but not so much at the expense of losing all object placement. 

Now in a wider room with a speaker that is say 5'+ away, I think a speaker mounted at ear height has plenty of merit. Not all rooms or setups are the same; and what works great for one room, could very well sound like crap in another. JMTC.


----------



## virtualrain

bass addict said:


> I would have to agree with this to some extent, but with the provision depending on room setup.
> 
> I have a narrower room, and a speaker that is 3' away from me (which is almost exactly where it happens to be from the outside front seats on either side) comes across as distracting and too direct for my taste. I prefer a more diffuse sound that melts into the room a bit more, but not so much at the expense of losing all object placement.
> 
> Now in a wider room with a speaker that is say 5'+ away, I think a speaker mounted at ear height has plenty of merit. Not all rooms or setups are the same; and what works great for one room, could very well sound like crap in another. JMTC.



There are other ways to get a more diffuse surround effect without resorting to placing the speakers high in the wall. For example: dipoles/bipoles or pointing a monopole such that it's off-axis from MLP.


----------



## bass addict

virtualrain said:


> There are other ways to get a more diffuse surround effect without resorting to placing the speakers high in the wall. For example: dipoles/bipoles or pointing a monopole such that it's off-axis from MLP.


Well if we're going by the letter of the Atmos law here; Dolby recommends against dipole/bipoles for surrounds. So which is the greater crime, a bipole or elevated surround?


----------



## audiofan1

Ricoflashback said:


> Very true but then again this wouldn't be the AVS Forum IF members didn't put too much thought into it.
> 
> Dolby Atmos quiz:
> 
> If someone breaks wind, when is it proper to have sounds emanating from the ceiling (height speakers) according to Dolby Atmos specs:
> 
> a) Some of the time
> b) Never
> c) Dependent on the direction
> d) Only if the perp is above the main actor on an open stairwell


 As long as the windbreaker doesn't accidentally drop an *"Object" *in there pants and as long as there alone, then what happens  in the* "immersive Bubble"* stays in the immersive bubble


----------



## Scott Simonian

Better it be an object. Then you can literally pan that s**t around.


----------



## Shniks

DoctorVideo said:


> I just set up a modest Atmos 5.1.2 system, and tested it out with the Atmos demos as well as my only Atmos movie, "San Andreas." The demos have lots going on in the height channels (2 up front), but I am really disappointed in the movie. The movie has great sound overall, but based on the reviews I had read, I expected a whole lot more from the Atmos channels, rather than just an occasional effect. I literally put my ear up to one of the speakers and listened through the entire opening rescue sequence, without a single sound from the speaker. Nothing really happens until the scene at the dam, and then it's only just a couple of times. One review mentioned the effect in the last act where they pass under the ship's propellers and you can hear them pass overhead. On my system I hear the sound pass from my front mains to my surounds, but nothing from the Atmos speakers. I know that my system is working correctly, because the demos sound great, the Atmos indicator lights-up on my amp, and there are occasional instances in the film where the speakers will come on for a second or so. Any thoughts?


What are your Atmos speakers configured as? Front Height? Have you tried different configurations in the receiver? I noticed that if I switched from Top Middle to Top Front, then certain sounds from the Gravity track that were coming through the Top Middle speakers were sent to the Front L and R speakers. Was very strange. Try changing the configuration and see if there is a difference.

Cheers,


----------



## appelz

bass addict said:


> Well if we're going by the letter of the Atmos law here; Dolby recommends against dipole/bipoles for surrounds. So which is the greater crime, a bipole or elevated surround?


Dipole/Bipole = Evil. Yes yes, I am sure someone can come up with a suitable scenario. Please don't bother sharing. Nitpicking about the one-off you used a bipole on with great success derails other posts of substance. 

Also, everyone please understand that we are still talking about home cinemas. An "elevated surround" is going to be 12"-24" higher than ear level, not the image in your mind of a commercial cinema with the surrounds 12' up the wall. If the mains can be in the range of 45-60 degrees apart, I am certain that pushing a surround speaker a foot or two up the wall for clearly beneficial reasons is not going to bring the Dolby Enforcement Squad(tm) by your house.


----------



## bass addict

appelz said:


> I am certain that pushing a surround speaker a foot or two up the wall for clearly beneficial reasons is not going to bring the Dolby Enforcement Squad(tm) by your house.


But it could bring the AVS Enforcement Squat.


----------



## virtualrain

appelz said:


> Dipole/Bipole = Evil. Yes yes, I am sure someone can come up with a suitable scenario. Please don't bother sharing. Nitpicking about the one-off you used a bipole on with great success derails other posts of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, everyone please understand that we are still talking about home cinemas. An "elevated surround" is going to be 12"-24" higher than ear level, not the image in your mind of a commercial cinema with the surrounds 12' up the wall. If the mains can be in the range of 45-60 degrees apart, I am certain that pushing a surround speaker a foot or two up the wall for clearly beneficial reasons is not going to bring the Dolby Enforcement Squad(tm) by your house.



True but with ear level typically around 4' off the floor and overhead speakers 8' off the floor, the available elevation to work with is very limited. I'm guessing the difference in immersion can change dramatically with one or two feet change in surround elevation. With surrounds 6' off the floor your entire bubble collapses upwards. Everything will sound overhead.


----------



## appelz

bass addict said:


> But it could bring the AVS Enforcement Squat.


Love your sig btw. Over the years, Jamin and I have calibrated quite a few manufacturer's demos at trade shows and the like. They always run late on the setup, so we end up calibrating from late evening until the show starts in the morning, and then do touch-ups the next night after the show. We started calling those "Psychotic Episodes". 

Achievement Unlocked!


----------



## Ricoflashback

bass addict said:


> Well if we're going by the letter of the Atmos law here; Dolby recommends against dipole/bipoles for surrounds. So which is the greater crime, a bipole or elevated surround?


Guilty as charged on both accounts. We'll have to wait for sentencing to see which crime gets the larger Dolby Atmos thrashing.

Do I sense a poll, here?


----------



## sdurani

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meld...m-Sound-nur-auf-Ultra-HD-Blu-ray-3061663.html

Via Google translate:


> The home theater division of the Hollywood studios 20th Century Fox wants, according to continue to offer films with "3D sound", but only on Ultra HD Blu-ray discs (UHD-BD) and not for the titles released on Blu-ray Disc become. This was stated by President Worldwide Mike Dunn told heise online at the edge of a previous event at CES.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> My hope has been that they'll be releasing dual-disc packages containing both HD and UHD discs with the same immersive soundtrack on both. Unfortunately, they've been extremely tight-mouthed about such plans. We won't know what they'll be actually supplying for a while.


Fox doesn't seem to want to include the immersive track on the 1080p disc according to CES reporting. They're viewing 3D audio like HDR... exclusive features of UHD. 

Warner Brothers says their UHD disc MSRP's will start at about the same price as 3D Blu-ray discs. So, if Disney shows up, their "must-have" titles will probably be even higher than that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I almost liked that post, Sanjay. Then I thought about it.

But I guess consistent immersive on the new format will be a good thing and we'll soon forget about BD. Well, maybe not soon but you get what I mean.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Put speakers on the ground for footsteps.


Actually it's a very good idea...and it might be part of the future 4D sound immersion...which is already here. 

* Scott, do you have the music recording of _Roger Waters - Amused to Death?_ ...The stereo CD is encoded with QSound. 
And there is also a Blu-ray Audio mixed in multichannel 5.1 hi-res audio. ...Very satisfying...both. And you can have your surrounds @ ear level or a foot above and it's just great both positions. ...I prefer @ ear level myself...or just slightly above...by about 3-6 inches. ...It depends. ...Of your room's dimensions...and all that jazz.


----------



## bosoxfan

appelz said:


> Dipole/Bipole = Evil. Yes yes, I am sure someone can come up with a suitable scenario. Please don't bother sharing. Nitpicking about the one-off you used a bipole on with great success derails other posts of substance.
> 
> Also, everyone please understand that we are still talking about home cinemas. An "elevated surround" is going to be 12"-24" higher than ear level, not the image in your mind of a commercial cinema with the surrounds 12' up the wall. If the mains can be in the range of 45-60 degrees apart, I am certain that pushing a surround speaker a foot or two up the wall for clearly beneficial reasons is not going to bring the Dolby Enforcement Squad(tm) by your house.


Oh no! I have klipsch rs 62iis that are elevated, what does it all mean!
No seriously, I have no idea if those are dipole or bipole and they sit about 12" above ear on side walls....going to put in Atmos speakers soon. I don't know if that's good or bad....


----------



## NorthSky

> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meld...m-Sound-nur-auf-Ultra-HD-Blu-ray-3061663.html


Great for the niche market (less than 0.001%), and sucks for the rest (more than 99.999%). ...And that, is a realistic figure.
It's like FOX saying: Get the new format if you want to experience the new 3D audio immersion...because regular Blu-ray won't give it to you...it's a disappearing/inferior species for the masses. 

I'm all for the new, better, spending more money in the year 2016, but still...this sucks! 
So we'll be watching 3D Blu-ray movies, but with only 2K picture, and 2D sound. Wow, talk about the big depression/recession/digression/disgrace. 

My gut feeling tells me that FOX is going after the money first (totally normal and logical), and that most of us, the vast majority is going to suffer the penalty. And if other movie studios follow FOX example we ain't out of the woods yet. 

What can we do? ...Nothing. It costs money I guess to put 3D sound on regular Blu-rays in addition to UHD Blu-rays. 
And me I'm much more into 3D picture, and now this! 

The new year starts just great for the (((3D))) people.


----------



## jpco

DoctorVideo said:


> I just set up a modest Atmos 5.1.2 system, and tested it out with the Atmos demos as well as my only Atmos movie, "San Andreas." The demos have lots going on in the height channels (2 up front), but I am really disappointed in the movie. The movie has great sound overall, but based on the reviews I had read, I expected a whole lot more from the Atmos channels, rather than just an occasional effect. I literally put my ear up to one of the speakers and listened through the entire opening rescue sequence, without a single sound from the speaker. Nothing really happens until the scene at the dam, and then it's only just a couple of times. One review mentioned the effect in the last act where they pass under the ship's propellers and you can hear them pass overhead. On my system I hear the sound pass from my front mains to my surounds, but nothing from the Atmos speakers. I know that my system is working correctly, because the demos sound great, the Atmos indicator lights-up on my amp, and there are occasional instances in the film where the speakers will come on for a second or so. Any thoughts?



Welcome to Atmos. What you heard was exactly how it was mixed. The reviewers of this movie that praise overhead sounds and immersion must be victims of expectation bias. Great soundtrack, but more missed opportunities to use the height layer than instances of actual use.


----------



## DoctorVideo

Shniks said:


> What are your Atmos speakers configured as? Front Height? Have you tried different configurations in the receiver? I noticed that if I switched from Top Middle to Top Front, then certain sounds from the Gravity track that were coming through the Top Middle speakers were sent to the Front L and R speakers. Was very strange. Try changing the configuration and see if there is a difference.
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks for responding. As far as settings, my options are: Dolby Enabled Speaker (front), Dolby Enabled Speaker (surround), Top Front (I assume this would be a ceiling speaker), Top Middle, and Front High (I assume this would be a forward-firing speaker mounted near the ceiling.) I chose "Dolby Enabled Front," because my speakers are in front, firing towards the ceiling.


----------



## DoctorVideo

jpco said:


> Welcome to Atmos. What you heard was exactly how it was mixed. The reviewers of this movie that praise overhead sounds and immersion must be victims of expectation bias. Great soundtrack, but more missed opportunities to use the height layer than instances of actual use.


Ah Ha! That's exactly what I was thinking. The regular 5.1 audio in this film is really quite immersive, and gives the illusion that there is really something coming out of those height speakers. I guess the reviewers were duped.


----------



## markus767

appelz said:


> Eh, not sure where greater than 3' came from. Anyway, I would definitely consider 3' to be in the nearfield. I am hearing the direct speaker at that distance, and very little indirect sound from the room. The speaker completely dominates what I hear.


Then you're not talking about "nearfield" which has a well defined meaning in acoustics but about "critical distance" which is probably even closer.
Again, you want the speaker to dominate what you hear otherwise you're not really hearing the recording but the recording through a mechanical filter, namely your room. Having the speaker at ear height or above isn't relevant in that context.



appelz said:


> Not trying to prevent SPL roll-off. That is unavoidable. But by increasing the distance between speakers and listeners, I can mitigate it between listening positions. SPL decays with the doubling of distance, so even small improvements in speaker distance can be quite audible. Untrained listeners can discern 1db increments. Some research indicates even lower.


How many dB's is seat to seat variance decreased by lifting those surrounds? Have you ever measured? My guess is the difference is insignificant in acoustically small rooms. It will be different for rows of 10 or more seats of course. In my opinion it's not worth lifting sounds to unnaturally high positions just to reduce SPL variance in common home theater sizes.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> So then ear level speakers are a compromise too.


Yep. But in my opinion less of a compromise. 20° isn't 10° but it's closer than 30°.
And you'll get a more immersive sound field and not just a sound cloud above your head.



Scott Simonian said:


> Put speakers on the ground for footsteps.


That has been proposed several times.


----------



## kbarnes701

appelz said:


> But, but..! The long established Dolby spec is 90-110?! How could you possibly be so far out of spec and live with yourself?!
> 
> Sorry..could not resist!


 The ITU spec for 7.1 allows for it.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> There is so much conflicting information on what works best.


Which is precisely why it is a good idea to at least start with Dolby's own recommendations. If anyone knows where to put Atmos speakers, it's Dolby.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Not advocating nor suggesting what people should do, just explaining why they do it. Fidelity to what the mixer heard is just one of the reasons; Adam listed several others. Again, the difference is that I can see advantages to both approaches, you can't.


Nobody knows if they have fidelity to what the mixer heard anyway, unless they were at the mix session. But you are assuming again that a person mixing for the cinema mixes with higher surrounds because he thinks that is the best way to do it. But in reality he uses higher surrounds because he is mixing for the cinema and cinemas have high surrounds. If the cinema did not have to compromise the position of their surrounds due to practicalities already discussed, they would mount the surrounds, in an Atmos system, much closer to ear level. There is just no purpose in mounting surrounds up high when one has a layer of speakers on the ceiling anyway. Why do you keep on bringing cinemas into this discussion when we are discussing Atmos for the home?




sdurani said:


> Answered a long time ago when I said that Dolby's guidelines are not a suicide pact to be rigidly followed even to detrimental results. IF there is a good reason to deviate from those guidelines, then better results trump unequivocal devotion. I don't have the mindset of a blind follower, and that doesn't change for Dolby.


That's not an answer to the question I asked. This is what I asked: do you think it is OK for cinema owners to ignore Dolby recommendations for Atmos systems or not? Yes or no will do.



sdurani said:


> So, in return, gonna answer my question: why should a bird that was heard above ear height during the mix be instead heard at ear height at home?


Because the cinema mix, with which you are obsessed, has compromised surround speaker positions due to the fact it is a cinema. If the mixer had a free hand to mix the track for the home, the bird would fly at ear height. It is quite obvious from the context of the trailer that the whole idea is to provide 'layers' of sound in order to showcase Atmos. The Conductor example proves the point better as there are also the visual cues to go on. Forget cinemas - this is a thread for HOME Atmos. Substituting "the mix" for "cinema" isn’t working.


----------



## kbarnes701

bargervais said:


> i don't think it so much placing surrounds high up above that is the issue with some, i think people don't want to move them down to ear level. *They want to find a justification for just leaving them up there. *
> but i would agree ear level will give a better separation that helps create that bubble of sound.


That's fine. Then all they have to say, like a recent poster, is that it's too much trouble to relocate them. I don't care where people put their surrounds - all I am saying, despite incredible and incomprehensible resistance, is what Dolby say is the best place for them, and I can see why they say that.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> I'm hoping it turns out good. I was running QS8's (quad polar design) at around 6.5' originally, before switching out to Volt 10's and lowering them to 58" to match the Volt 8's in the rear.
> 
> It seems that the tide has shifted a bit over the past month or two from, "Holy hell Atmos completely transformed my theater" to "Atmos is like the cherry added to the top of a Sunday (it was good before but just a little better now)"
> 
> I have a ton of work and obviously funds involved in this Atmos upgrade; so I'm really hoping for more than a cherry.


When you first experience Atmos at home it is like "wow! Just wow!!!". But as you get used to it over time, it becomes 'normal' for you so people are less effusive about it. Trust me, you will think you have way more than a cherry.


----------



## kbarnes701

cyclones22 said:


> Regarding the whole bird in the Amaze demo discussion, it seems very obvious to me on what the actual plane the bird is flying. The demo has an onscreen prompt of full 360 sound then the bird starts flying. It then flies from LS to RS to RF to C to LF. It never flies into the Atmos speakers. Having the surrounds on the same level of your LCR seems like an obvious intention for this on a 360 surround sound demo, unless you think the bird is flying higher initially and then dips down to the level of your front sound stage. Or you think your front sound stage should be elevated as well. Then the rain starts and that is the real display of the Atmos channels as rain drops fall down on top of you.


The flapping is indeed at ear level as it does the 360. It is easy to see where it is intended to be simply by turning off the floor level speakers and listening only to the ceiling speakers. If the surrounds were mounted high up then the bird would start high up (in LS and RS) then dip down as it flies through RCL. It clearly is not intended to do that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> One of the bits of CES news is that Fox Home Video will only be including immersive audio with UHD Blu-ray releases (and internet 4k media).
> 
> I wonder if Disney will follow suit and if other studios will start shifting immersive audio to UHD exclusive releases, perhaps even those that released on regular Blu-ray initially.


That makes commercial sense and is what I would be advising them to do if they were a client. Atmos is (currently) enjoyed by enthusiasts and they are also the target (initially) for UHD, so it makes sense to nudge the existing enthusiast base for Atmos towards UHD. So long as they also enclose a Blu-ray with the UHD disc (much as they include a DVD with many Blu-ray releases (which is incomprehensible now you can buy a Blu-ray player for 50 bucks, but hey...) that will suit everyone it seems.

I was hoping I could buy a UHD player as soon as they are released and just use it to downscale UHD to 1080p for my PJ, but apparently unless HDCP 2.2 is in every component in the chain that won't work and the UHD disc will crap out with a "you are not compatible so get lost" message. So we still need the Blu-ray disc but we can build a UHD collection while we wait for the upgrade to be complete in the entire playback chain.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> But it's not compromised if there is still meaningful separation of lower effects and overhead effects.


There is separation but some sounds intended for ear level are still too high if the surrounds are high. Eg footsteps.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> So then ear level speakers are a compromise too.
> 
> Put speakers on the ground for footsteps.
> 
> I mean, I know I'm short but I don't hear peoples footsteps when approaching me at ear level.


So tell me, which do you think is closer to hearing footsteps on the ground - speakers at ear level or speakers up near the ceiling?


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Would be nice. They are definitely going to package them as UHD and regular BD. That will be common. It's yet to be seen if the regular BD portion will have immersive audio. I would guess, no.


Bad guess. That would make no sense. The aim of putting the immersive audio only into the UHD package is to get you to buy the UHD disc. Since you have already now bought the UHD disc in order to get the immersive audio, there's no point in not putting it on the Blu-ray too.


----------



## kbarnes701

appelz said:


> Immersion/Envelopment is definitely not a property of the speaker, correct. It is very much a function of the room and speaker placement.


Not really. It's in the recording. Regardless of your speaker or its placement, you won't hear envelopment if the scene is two guys talking in the desert for example since the sound engineers will make that very 'dry' (as befits the desert LOL). Similarly, no matter what the speaker or its placement, if the two guys are talking in an aircraft hangar and the engineer has also recorded that 'dry', then you will not hear their voices bouncing around the hangar, and nor should you if the engineer or sound designer has decided already that you shouldn’t. Using speakers and placement to create 'ambience' was right when we only had one or two speakers, but with m/ch sound everything we need is already baked in.


----------



## kbarnes701

DoctorVideo said:


> I just set up a modest Atmos 5.1.2 system, and tested it out with the Atmos demos as well as my only Atmos movie, "San Andreas." The demos have lots going on in the height channels (2 up front), but I am really disappointed in the movie. The movie has great sound overall, but based on the reviews I had read, I expected a whole lot more from the Atmos channels, rather than just an occasional effect. I literally put my ear up to one of the speakers and listened through the entire opening rescue sequence, without a single sound from the speaker. Nothing really happens until the scene at the dam, and then it's only just a couple of times. One review mentioned the effect in the last act where they pass under the ship's propellers and you can hear them pass overhead. On my system I hear the sound pass from my front mains to my surounds, but nothing from the Atmos speakers. I know that my system is working correctly, because the demos sound great, the Atmos indicator lights-up on my amp, and there are occasional instances in the film where the speakers will come on for a second or so. Any thoughts?


Mixers are being sparing with the amount of sound they out in the overheads. I agree with you - if ever a scene cries out for overhead speaker activity it is that early scene in *San Andreas*, yet there is nothing. We are expecting/hoping that more content makes it to the overheads as the technology matures. Remember how in the early days of stereo the mixer would put some instruments in the left channel, some in the right channel and the vocals in the center (R&L equally)? It sounded really bad and was a total misunderstanding of the whole purpose of stereophonic sound reproduction. Then when we got surround speakers with 5.1, all we got initially in the surrounds was a bit of gentle ambience. But now we get full-blooded sound from them in many movies. I expect Atmos will develop in a similar way as mixers become more used to, and more confident with, immersive audio.

HST there are some superb movies in Atmos which really impress. Try* Bram Stoker's Dracula* or *Gravity*, or *John Wick *or *Terminator Genisys* or *Insurgent* or *Mad Max Fury Road* as examples. Especially that latter one!


----------



## kbarnes701

I hate this time difference thing. All you guys are in bed asleep when I start posting and we get a whole string of consecutive posts from me. Looks bad


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> I hate this time difference thing. All you guys are in bed asleep when I start posting and we get a whole string of consecutive posts from me. Looks bad


My my, KB. We certainly had some energy this morning, heh? 

Always enjoy reading your posts. Write on....


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> When you first experience Atmos at home it is like "wow! Just wow!!!". But as you get used to it over time, it becomes 'normal' for you so people are less effusive about it. Trust me, you will think you have way more than a cherry.


One contrarian argument is that Atmos is much more of an "Wow!" improvement if the previous installation was only 5.1. Going from a 9.1 configuration (7.1.2 in Atmos parlance, including Front Heights used by upmixers like Neo:X and Dolby Prologic IIz) to 11.1 (7.1.4) is less exciting.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Selden Ball said:


> One contrarian argument is that Atmos is much more of an "Wow!" improvement if the previous installation was only 5.1. Going from a 9.1 configuration (7.1.2 in Atmos parlance, including Front Heights used by upmixers like Neo:X and Dolby Prologic IIz) to 11.1 (7.1.4) is less exciting.


Agreed but again, Dolby Atmos is a relatively new technology. As the developers and sound mixers start perfecting their craft, I believe you will see more aggressive use of the height channels. Or at least more use where it is warranted - - sounds overhead that naturally belong above you. 

It's only going to get better.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> My my, KB. We certainly had some energy this morning, heh?
> 
> Always enjoy reading your posts. Write on....


Thanks Rico. I always think it looks a bit weird to see a succession of posts like that - but it's just the time difference. I am several hours ahead of the States of course (time-wise only I'd add).


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Looking at the list of movies announced on UltraHD Blu-ray, there is a great potential already of new Atmos titles. Here are the announced titles that were mixed in Atmos theatrically and were not released like this on Blu-ray : 


Exodus: Gods and Kings
Fantastic Four
Kingsman: Secret Service
Life of Pi
Man of Steel
Martian, The
Maze Runner, The : Scorch Trials
Maze Runner, The
Pacific Rim
X-Men: Days of Future Past

Looking forward to get the official announcements to see which ones will get Atmos on UHD.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> One contrarian argument is that Atmos is much more of an "Wow!" improvement if the previous installation was only 5.1. Going from a 9.1 configuration (7.1.2 in Atmos parlance, including Front Heights used by upmixers like Neo:X and Dolby Prologic IIz) to 11.1 (7.1.4) is less exciting.


That could indeed be the case. I went from 5.1 to 5.1.4 to 7.1.4. In my 5.1 system I did have two height speakers (top of front wall) which I used with PLIIz, so I was used to hearing something from 'up there' but I was still blown away by Atmos/DSU. DSU never ceases to amaze me. On last night's movie, all the trailers were in 2.0 but you'd never have known it just from listening. DSU expanded 2.0 to 7.2.4 effortlessly. I had to bring up the disc info to see they were really 2.0, so good was DSU at creating an immersive soundscape.


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Looking at the list of movies announced on UltraHD Blu-ray, there is a great potential already of new Atmos titles. Here are the announced titles that were mixed in Atmos theatrically and were not released like this on Blu-ray :
> 
> 
> Exodus: Gods and Kings
> Fantastic Four
> Kingsman: Secret Service
> Life of Pi
> Man of Steel
> Martian, The
> Maze Runner, The : Scorch Trials
> Maze Runner, The
> Pacific Rim
> X-Men: Days of Future Past
> 
> Looking forward to get the official announcements to see which ones will get Atmos on UHD.


I am hoping all of them. Although it will mean a double dip for all of them as I have all of them (so far released in the UK anyway) already.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> I am hoping all of them. Although it will mean a double dip for all of them as I have all of them (so far released in the UK anyway) already.


Yeah, I hope for all of them too, but I'm doubtful about older titles like Life of Pi...

On my side, I decided to not buy a 20th Century Fox and Disney title that was mixed in Atmos until UltraHD is out, so no so many double dips in this list


----------



## sablack2

sablack2 said:


> I had front height speakers in my past configuration. I've added an Atmos receiver (Denon 6200) and will be adding ceiling speakers. Should I keep the front height speakers I currently have? If so...do I add Top Center or Top Rear for the best sound? Or should I just can the front height and add both Top Front and Rear ceiling speakers?



Bump....any recommendations before I start cutting holes in my ceiling??? LOL


----------



## Selden Ball

sablack2 said:


> Bump....any recommendations before I start cutting holes in my ceiling??? LOL


The answer is "Yes". 

Placing the front overheads closer to the seating than the front wall does provide more of an "ovehead" sensation, so that's a reasonable thing to consider. Note that Dolby's recommended elevation angles for Front Height and Top Front overlap in the vicinity of 45 degrees. Using the designation "Front Height" for the front overheads (despite where you actually put them) can be useful if you want to use the older Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X upmixers (assuming your AVR has them). They don't recognize the "Top Front" designation.

Edited to add:

If your room can accommodate overhead speakers to the rear of the seating, that might be more appropriate than overheads right over the seatting. It'll give better front-to-back panning. Some people are constrained by having the seating essentially against the back wall of the room, thus forcing the use of "Top Middle"


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Yep. But in my opinion less of a compromise. 20° isn't 10° but it's closer than 30°.
> And you'll get a more immersive sound field and not just a sound cloud above your head.
> 
> 
> 
> That has been proposed several times.


And it's still ridiculous. 



kbarnes701 said:


> There is separation but some sounds intended for ear level are still too high if the surrounds are high. Eg footsteps.


No way?!?!?



kbarnes701 said:


> So tell me, which do you think is closer to hearing footsteps on the ground - speakers at ear level or speakers up near the ceiling?


I think you're putting too much thought into ridiculous expectations of sound placement and this whole thing is overblown but whatever.

Better put your surrounds on the floor then. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Bad guess. That would make no sense. The aim of putting the immersive audio only into the UHD package is to get you to buy the UHD disc. Since you have already now bought the UHD disc in order to get the immersive audio, there's no point in not putting it on the Blu-ray too.


Lol! Yeah, good luck with that one.


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> That makes commercial sense and is what I would be advising them to do if they were a client. Atmos is (currently) enjoyed by enthusiasts and they are also the target (initially) for UHD, so it makes sense to nudge the existing enthusiast base for Atmos towards UHD. So long as they also enclose a Blu-ray with the UHD disc (much as they include a DVD with many Blu-ray releases (which is incomprehensible now you can buy a Blu-ray player for 50 bucks, but hey...) that will suit everyone it seems.
> 
> I was hoping I could buy a UHD player as soon as they are released and just use it to downscale UHD to 1080p for my PJ, but apparently unless HDCP 2.2 is in every component in the chain that won't work and the UHD disc will crap out with a "you are not compatible so get lost" message. So we still need the Blu-ray disc but we can build a UHD collection while we wait for the upgrade to be complete in the entire playback chain.


I hope you're wrong but I don't think you are. At this point 4k projectors are still basically a pipe dream, which I image will be the case until 2017-2018. I'm going to wait and see what other studios do, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least thinking about going to a UHD player and adding an HD fury.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> And it's still ridiculous.


Well, sitting in a darkened room with all sorts of absorption and speakers and staring at a rectangular area is already ridiculous.


----------



## FilmMixer

Here we go.......

"Sony Pictures Home Entertainment and Dolby Announce Collaboration to Release Extensive Slate of Titles Featuring Dolby Atmos
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to release its first 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos soundtracks

San Francisco and Culver City, CA, January 6, 2016—Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (SPHE) today announced a collaboration to release SPHE titles in Dolby Atmos® over the coming years, including SPHE’s first films to be released in the 4K Ultra HD disc format. Dolby Atmos delivers captivating audio that places and moves specific sounds anywhere in the room, including overhead, to bring entertainment alive all around the audience.

The studio’s first films to be released in the new 4K Ultra HD disc format with Dolby Atmos include The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Salt, Hancock, Chappie, Pineapple Express, and The Smurfs 2 in early 2016, with additional titles to be announced throughout 2016 and beyond.

“By adding Dolby Atmos to our home entertainment content, SPHE has the ability to offer audiences a rich, enveloping sound experience on both physical and digital formats, including the new 4K Ultra HD discs,” said SPHE president Man Jit Singh.

“With Sony Pictures leading the expansion of 4K Ultra HD for home entertainment, Dolby is thrilled that Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has selected Dolby Atmos to deliver a more-immersive next-generation audio experience to consumers, including SPHE’s initial slate of 4K Ultra HD discs,” said Curt Behlmer, Senior Vice President, Content Solutions and Industry Relations, Dolby Laboratories.

With more than 60 AVRs and 25 speaker products supporting the Dolby Atmos format, in addition to Dolby Atmos enabled sound bar products, consumers have a variety of options to enable Dolby Atmos in the home."


----------



## FilmMixer

SteveTheGeek said:


> Looking at the list of movies announced on UltraHD Blu-ray, there is a great potential already of new Atmos titles. Here are the announced titles that were mixed in Atmos theatrically and were not released like this on Blu-ray :
> 
> 
> Exodus: Gods and Kings
> Fantastic Four
> Kingsman: Secret Service
> Life of Pi
> Man of Steel
> Martian, The
> Maze Runner, The : Scorch Trials
> Maze Runner, The
> Pacific Rim
> X-Men: Days of Future Past
> 
> Looking forward to get the official announcements to see which ones will get Atmos on UHD.


From what a little birdie told me I think it's safe to say they all will


----------



## thebland

Selden Ball said:


> The answer is "Yes".
> 
> Placing the front overheads closer to the seating than the front wall does provide more of an "ovehead" sensation, so that's a reasonable thing to consider. Note that Dolby's recommended elevation angles for Front Height and Top Front overlap in the vicinity of 45 degrees. Using the designation "Front Height" for the front overheads (despite where you actually put them) can be useful if you want to use the older Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X upmixers (assuming your AVR has them). They don't recognize the "Top Front" designation.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> If your room can accommodate overhead speakers to the rear of the seating, that might be more appropriate than overheads right over the seatting. It'll give better front-to-back panning. Some people are constrained by having the seating essentially against the back wall of the room, thus forcing the use of "Top Middle"



Ha, me too! It is not easy and there are so many differing opinions. 

Did / can someone post the definitive Dolby guide to Atmos speaker placement?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

FilmMixer said:


> The studio’s first films to be released in the new 4K Ultra HD disc format with Dolby Atmos include The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Salt, Hancock, Chappie, Pineapple Express, and The Smurfs 2 in early 2016, with additional titles to be announced throughout 2016 and beyond.


Wow, this includes (or even is mostly) movies not even mixed in Atmos in theater, this is a strong commitment from Sony !

And a huge blow to DTS, if Disney was to follow suit, this would be terrible for DTS...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

FilmMixer said:


> From what a little birdie told me I think it's safe to say they all will


The little birdie has really great news then ! 

Thanks for the insight!

2016 will be a great and really expensive year for home theater !


----------



## markus767

thebland said:


> Ha, me too! It is not easy and there are so many differing opinions.
> 
> Did / can someone post the definitive Dolby guide to Atmos speaker placement?


Yes, in post 1 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## thebland

markus767 said:


> Yes, in post 1
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thanks!!!


----------



## FilmMixer

SteveTheGeek said:


> Wow, this includes (or even is mostly) movies not even mixed in Atmos in theater, this is a strong commitment from Fox !
> 
> And a huge blow to DTS, if Disney was to follow suit, this would be terrible for DTS...


Sony you mean 

In regards to Dinsey..... 

I think it goes without saying that we will know their initial plans very soon......


----------



## SteveTheGeek

FilmMixer said:


> Sony you mean
> 
> In regards to Dinsey.....
> 
> I think it goes without saying that we will know their initial plans very soon......


Yeah Sony, I think I did not work up yet, I read the PR as Fox's PR, for whatever reason even with all the Sony titles listed ! Not proud of me 

Looking forward to see what Disney will say !


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yeah, I hope for all of them too, but I'm doubtful about older titles like Life of Pi...
> 
> On my side, I decided to not buy a 20th Century Fox and Disney title that was mixed in Atmos until UltraHD is out, so no so many double dips in this list


Such restraint


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I think you're putting too much thought into ridiculous expectations of sound placement and this whole thing is overblown but whatever.
> 
> Better put your surrounds on the floor then.


If the surrounds are at the correct ear level placement then sounds intended to be on the floor will still be much closer to correct than if the surrounds are up by the ceiling. No getting away from that is there? 




Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! Yeah, good luck with that one.


We'll see soon enough.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> Such restraint


lol ! You don't know how hard it was to hold out all that time !

Good news is that I have a backlog of a couple of hundreds of movie to watch so it's not that bad, but my OCD on collection DVDs/Blu-rays is still making this hard


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> I hope you're wrong but I don't think you are. At this point 4k projectors are still basically a pipe dream, which I image will be the case until 2017-2018. I'm going to wait and see what other studios do, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least thinking about going to a UHD player and adding an HD fury.


I just ordered an HD Fury Integral today. So I am all set no matter what. I have no intention of upgrading my PJ to 4K for the foreseeable future and I have no intention of copying, distributing or otherwise illegally using the content I have paid for, so I am comfortable with my solution. Just got to wait for the UHD players now.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> From what a little birdie told me I think it's safe to say they all will


Good news on the immersive audio front. Bad news on the double dipping front...


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Wow, this includes (or even is mostly) movies not even mixed in Atmos in theater, this is a strong commitment from Sony !
> 
> And a huge blow to DTS, if Disney was to follow suit, this would be terrible for DTS...


And these UHD deals will be the final kiss of death to Auro probably, finally putting the end to its miserable, painful, protracted suffering.


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> lol ! You don't know how hard it was to hold out all that time !
> 
> Good news is that I have a backlog of a couple of hundreds of movie to watch so it's not that bad, but my OCD on collection DVDs/Blu-rays is still making this hard


I tried, and failed. I need to take the 12 steps again I think...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> I just ordered an HD Fury Integral today. So I am all set no matter what. I have no intention of upgrading my PJ to 4K for the foreseeable future and I have no intention of copying, distributing or otherwise illegally using the content I have paid for, so I am comfortable with my solution. Just got to wait for the UHD players now.


Will the Fury downscale the resolution to 1080p ?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody knows if they have fidelity to what the mixer heard anyway, unless they were at the mix session.


We know absolutely that sounds from the surrounds weren't heard at ear height.


> That's not an answer to the question I asked. This is what I asked: do you think it is OK for cinema owners to ignore Dolby recommendations for Atmos systems or not? Yes or no will do.


Not a yes or no (all or nothing) proposition. And I already answered: IF deviating from one or some Dolby recommendations is helpful, then the cinema owner can do it. Besides, Dolby's recommendations keep changing: e.g., the latest rev allows surrounds and heights to be paired to a single amp channel. If Dolby themselves can ignore their own (each speaker individually amplified) recommendation for Atmos installs, due to the realities of cinema ownership, then why can't cinema owners do the same, for the same reason? That's why different Atmos theatres sound so different from each other. 

This also applies at home: IF deviating from a Dolby recommendation yields better (preferred) results, then the HT owner can do it. No better example of this than your own system. Even though Dolby offers a range for side surround placement, 90-110 degrees, you ignored their recommendation and placed your side speakers a full 10 degrees outside that range (80 degrees from centre). Is that "sub-optimal" or "incorrect" or "not valid" placement, since it ignores Dolby's recommendations?


> Because the cinema mix, with which you are obsessed, has compromised surround speaker positions due to the fact it is a cinema.


It is the original mix and oftentimes the ONLY mix: even when soundtracks are re-mastered for home (re-equalized for nearfield playback), sounds aren't re-mixed to different elevations. If a bird was heard circling above ear height during the mix, what's the justification for a consumer to use speaker placement (not a remix) to have the bird circle at ear height? If someone else wants to hear the bird circle above ear height, as the mixer heard, then why is that not valid?


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> And these UHD deals will be the final kiss of death to Auro probably, finally putting the end to its miserable, painful, protracted suffering.


Let loose the flood gates of Atmos releases...


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Will the Fury downscale the resolution to 1080p ?


The HD Fury Integra converts HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 (note it does not defeat or bypass the correction - it converts it, which HD Fury say is permitted by the HDCP specification. They also point out that DCP (the 'owners' of HDCP) point out on their own website that this is the way to enable people with 1080p displays to view UHD content:










With the Integra in between the source and the display, the unit permits HDCP 2.2 protected content to be viewed on 1080p displays. Obviously the content will be downrezzed to 1080p.

This solves the problem of those who want to buy UHD discs for the Atmos content but who have no inclination at this time to upgrade their TV or PJ to 4K.]

More information on HD Fury's website:

www.hdfury.com/12133/


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> The HD Fury Integra converts HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 (note it does not defeat or bypass the correction - it converts it, which HD Fury say is permitted by the HDCP specification. They also point out that DCP (the 'owners' of HDCP) point out on their own website that this is the way to enable people with 1080p displays to view UHD content:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Integra in between the source and the display, the unit permits HDCP 2.2 protected content to be viewed on 1080p displays. Obviously the content will be downrezzed to 1080p.
> 
> This solves the problem of those who want to buy UHD discs for the Atmos content but who have no inclination at this time to upgrade their TV or PJ to 4K.]
> 
> More information on HD Fury's website:
> 
> www.hdfury.com/12133/


Nice ! This will be a purchase on my side too.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> We know absolutely that sounds from the surrounds weren't heard at ear height.


We do indeed. And we know why as well: because they are mixing for cinemas which are forced to have their surrounds up high.



sdurani said:


> Not a yes or no (all or nothing) proposition. And I already answered: IF deviating from one or some Dolby recommendations is helpful, then the cinema owner can do it. Besides, Dolby's recommendations keep changing: e.g., the latest rev allows surrounds and heights to be paired to a single amp channel. If Dolby themselves can ignore their own (each speaker individually amplified) recommendation for Atmos installs, due to the realities of cinema ownership, then why can't cinema owners do the same, for the same reason? That's why different Atmos theatres sound so different from each other.


And you think this is a good thing?



sdurani said:


> This also applies at home: IF deviating from a Dolby recommendation yields better (preferred) results, then the HT owner can do it. No better example of this than your own system.


That's right. As I have continued to say, common sense should prevail. And as I have also continued to say, Dolby recommend surrounds at ear height as the optimum location for home Atmos.



sdurani said:


> Even though Dolby offers a range for side surround placement, 90-110 degrees, you ignored their recommendation and placed your side speakers a full 10 degrees outside that range (80 degrees from centre). Is that "sub-optimal" or "incorrect" or "not valid" placement, since it ignores Dolby's recommendations?


I am not even trying to comply with Dolby standards for floor level speakers. I am complying with ITU. The better example of my non-compliance is that I am currently using TF+TR but my TR speakers are out of angular spec. I have never said that one should follow the guidelines in a stupid, blind manner. What I have said, repeatedly, is what Dolby recommend as optimal placement for surrounds.



sdurani said:


> It is the original mix and oftentimes the ONLY mix: even when soundtracks are re-mastered for home (re-equalized for nearfield playback), sounds aren't re-mixed to different elevations. If a bird was heard circling above ear height during the mix, what's the justification for a consumer to use speaker placement (not a remix) to have the bird circle at ear height? If someone else wants to hear the bird circle above ear height, as the mixer heard, then why is that not valid?


Who says the bird should circle above ear height? If that is so, then at least some of the sound of the bird's flapping will emanate from the ceiling speakers. What do you hear from the ceiling speakers when you temporarily kill the floor level speakers to listen to the bird flaps? Of course, if you have your surrounds up high then you will hear the bird flaps up high too. But in a properly set up Atmos system... well, you try it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Here we go.......
> 
> "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment and Dolby Announce Collaboration to Release Extensive Slate of Titles Featuring Dolby Atmos
> Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to release its first 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray titles with Dolby Atmos soundtracks
> 
> San Francisco and Culver City, CA, January 6, 2016—Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (SPHE) today announced a collaboration to release SPHE titles in Dolby Atmos® over the coming years, including SPHE’s first films to be released in the 4K Ultra HD disc format. Dolby Atmos delivers captivating audio that places and moves specific sounds anywhere in the room, including overhead, to bring entertainment alive all around the audience.
> 
> The studio’s first films to be released in the new 4K Ultra HD disc format with Dolby Atmos include The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Salt, Hancock, Chappie, Pineapple Express, and The Smurfs 2 in early 2016, with additional titles to be announced throughout 2016 and beyond.
> 
> “By adding Dolby Atmos to our home entertainment content, SPHE has the ability to offer audiences a rich, enveloping sound experience on both physical and digital formats, including the new 4K Ultra HD discs,” said SPHE president Man Jit Singh.
> 
> “With Sony Pictures leading the expansion of 4K Ultra HD for home entertainment, Dolby is thrilled that Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has selected Dolby Atmos to deliver a more-immersive next-generation audio experience to consumers, including SPHE’s initial slate of 4K Ultra HD discs,” said Curt Behlmer, Senior Vice President, Content Solutions and Industry Relations, Dolby Laboratories.
> 
> With more than 60 AVRs and 25 speaker products supporting the Dolby Atmos format, in addition to Dolby Atmos enabled sound bar products, consumers have a variety of options to enable Dolby Atmos in the home."


Too bad Sony's CES press conference was such a dud. Not even a peep about UHD Blu-ray... just more streaming and downloads... only on their Bravia TV's.  Their idea for "better music sound quality?" Turn up the bass!


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Nice ! This will be a purchase on my side too.


I sort of panic-bought mine this morning after reading about the Warner Bros law suit. But since then I have realised that the makers of the HD Fury are a Chinese company, based in China, so regardless of the outcome of any law suits, the results won't stop a Chinese company selling its goods overseas. HD Fury seem to have a strong rebuttal anyway as posted on their own website and linked above. One good outcome of the Warner Bros initiative is that they have extensively tested the Integra for us and proved to us that it works, so one can buy in confidence  The Law of Unintended Consequences huh?


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad Sony's CES press conference was such a dud. Not even a peep about UHD Blu-ray... just more streaming and downloads... only on their Bravia TV's.


You are such a sourpuss Dan  *The news that all of Sony's UHD content going forward will be released with Atmos soundtracks* is huge. I imagine if the CEO of Sony came round to your house with his personally signed solid gold signature edition UHD player and gave it you for free, while cooking your dinner, washing your cat and dancing an Irish jig, you’d still not be happy 

Do you have a cat?


----------



## Selden Ball

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad Sony's CES press conference was such a dud. Not even a peep about UHD Blu-ray... just more streaming and downloads... only on their Bravia TV's.


That's surprising, since their UHD player UHP-H1 has been announced.

http://presscentre.sony.eu/pressrel...lution-premium-audio-and-video-player-1284176

Edited to add: *sigh* maybe not, despite the U in the name. Careful reading of the fine print reveals that it's their new flagship 1080p Blu-ray player.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> That's surprising, since their UHD player UHP-H1 has been announced.
> 
> http://presscentre.sony.eu/pressrel...lution-premium-audio-and-video-player-1284176
> 
> Edited to add: *sigh* maybe not, despite the U in the name. Careful reading of the fine print reveals that it's their new flagship 1080p Blu-ray player.


It's just their flagship 1080p player.


----------



## DAK4

kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/


Hey, it worked! I emailed them asking to purchase that issue of the magazine and that I was in the United States. They emailed me back (two weeks later) and said they would, for Free! I couldn't believe it but it finally arrived yesterday. 

















Sorry for bad pictures

Thanks Keith for the link!


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> I sort of panic-bought mine this morning after reading about the Warner Bros law suit. But since then I have realised that the makers of the HD Fury are a Chinese company, based in China, so regardless of the outcome of any law suits, the results won't stop a Chinese company selling its goods overseas. HD Fury seem to have a strong rebuttal anyway as posted on their own website and linked above. One good outcome of the Warner Bros initiative is that they have extensively tested the Integra for us and proved to us that it works, so one can buy in confidence  The Law of Unintended Consequences huh?


Order placed ! Thanks for the hint !


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> And these UHD deals will be the final kiss of death to Auro probably, finally putting the end to its miserable, painful, protracted suffering.


Did Auro even make it to the taxiway in the US? (They certainly never made it off the ground). Other than the Auro Demo disc which I got when I spent my (wasted) $200 for the Auro upgrade, I am not aware of any other US available sources - music or movies. I'm not sure how they thought they could actually compete against Sony and DTS/Datasat. And while I am clearly in the minority on this issue, I thought their up-mixer (AuroMatic) was far inferior to DSU. (I know folks with the Datasat RS20i think AuroMatic is awesome and I will get to try that out shortly). But after I (accidentally) found out that the only sounds coming from the ceiling speakers with AuroMatic enabled were the "identical" sounds of the base level speakers other than reduced in trim and some delay, I was really taken back.

In some (not many) ways it is too bad. The Auro Demo I heard at CEDIA 2014 was the most realistic music (an organ piece) reproducion I have ever heard. Of course it is possible that what I heard had as much or more to do with the venue, the Datasat running it or the sheer number of speakers!!!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> We do indeed. And we know why as well:


Doesn't matter why. Since it was heard that way when mixed, it's not an invalid choice to hear it that way during playback.


> And you think this is a good thing?


I wasn't judging, merely pointing out reality when it comes to sticking to Dolby's recommendations.


> I am not even trying to comply with Dolby standards for floor level speakers.


Just as you have valid reasons for choosing to ignore Dolby recommendations, so do others have valid reasons for doing the same.


> Who says the bird should circle above ear height?


No one has to say it, because that's what was heard during the mix. Recreating that isn't invalid.


----------



## sdurani

SteveTheGeek said:


> Wow, this includes (or even is mostly) movies not even mixed in Atmos in theater, this is a strong commitment from Sony !


Sony's made-for-home Atmos mixes on non-Atmos titles like Fifth Element and Dracula show that those remixes aren't a mere cash grab; they're really good, immersive mixes. Hopefully they'll maintain that level of quality as they convert more non-Atmos mixes to Atmos for UHD.


> And a huge blow to DTS, if Disney was to follow suit, this would be terrible for DTS...


I hope they carve out a niche in the immersive market; nothing against Dolby, I just prefer competition to monopoly.


----------



## audioguy

I find this discussion so much like the analog vs digital discussions or tube vs solid-state, or 5.1 vs 7.1 or .......

Until such time as the "audio police" are allowed to invade our homes (could be coming in the US), preference choice still drives most of the decisions we make - Standards and Guidelines be darned. I much prefer DSU vs AuroMatic, most others disagree. I, and those who have heard my room, MUCH prefer the envelopment since I lowered my surrounds. CLEARLY, Sanjay/Sdurani, and I assume others, are more than satisfied with the surrounds higher even though to my ears and many others, it seriously compromises the bubble effect. 

Even with speakers, one can easily perform some very scientific measurements (frequency, time/impulse, phase, step response, etc) and it is not uncommon for folks to "prefer" the speaker that measured much worse. In fact, it happens all of the time. 

Anyway, onward and upward we go!! (or not)


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> I, and those who have heard my room, MUCH prefer the envelopment since I lowered my surrounds. CLEARLY, Sanjay/Sdurani, and I assume others, are more than satisfied with the surrounds higher even though to my ears and many others, it seriously compromises the bubble effect.


Just to be clear, my personal preference is with you and Keith: in an Atmos set-up, I prefer lowered surrounds (though not AT ear height) in order to add more separation between layers. You can see this in a discussion I had with Roger Dressler last year, where he was making his case for keeping his elevated surrounds where they were and I was arguing my preference for lowering them for Atmos. 

My main difference with Keith is that I find it valid to deviate from Dolby recommendations for height speaker elevation while he has described elevated surrounds as "not valid", "incorrect" and "sub-optimal". I see how both choices can be optimal; Keith doesn't.


----------



## Ricoflashback

DAK4 said:


> Hey, it worked! I emailed them asking to purchase that issue of the magazine and that I was in the United States. They emailed me back (two weeks later) and said they would, for Free! I couldn't believe it but it finally arrived yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for bad pictures
> 
> Thanks Keith for the link!


Wow - - what is Dolby Laboratories thinking? Providing a Dolby Atmos Demo Disk to help people understand the technology and hear the best examples of Atmos tracks?

At least they are not repeating this marketing mistake in the U.S.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> The main difference with Keith is that I find it valid to deviate from Dolby recommendations for height speaker elevation while he has described elevated surrounds as "not valid", "incorrect" and "sub-optimal". I see how both choices can be optimal; Keith doesn't.


In the case of "not valid" and "incorrect" I agree with you. We are back to my preference argument. But based upon my experience in both my theater and others, the height difference between the main level speakers and ceiling speakers is key. With an 8 foot ceiling, speaker at 6 feet are clearly sub-optimal if you are trying for a full 3D immersive experience. If your ceiling are at 10 or more, then putting speaker a bit above ear level works very, very well. So, if we are talking about traditional height room (8 foot ceilings), I am on Keith's side.


----------



## Argon52

It is killing me now that I have officially moved my 7.1 into a 5.1.2 Atmos Home Theater. 

I'm enjoying the much larger sound stage found in the front of my listening position, but I feel like I'm missing the back rear channels more than I thought I would. Maybe it is the soundtracks of The Minions Movie and The 5th Element and I need more movies that use the back side speakers more aggressively, but man I'm really missing the immersion I originally felt with the 7.1 back rear channels. 

Anyone think it is because my side surrounds are bi-directional, and Atmos really needs mono-directional surrounds for a 5.1.2 set-up? Or do I just need to spend $500 more and get a receiver that allows for 7.1.2? Or are there better Blu-ray movies out there that use the surrounds more aggressively that I can enjoy? Thanks!

Thanks for anyone's help. Blessings.


----------



## DAK4

Ricoflashback said:


> Wow - - what is Dolby Laboratories thinking? Providing a Dolby Atmos Demo Disk to help people understand the technology and hear the best examples of Atmos tracks?
> 
> At least they are not repeating this marketing mistake in the U.S.


Haha, I know right! If I could only read German, it looks like a really informative magazine. My Son is taking German language class so I'll just have to have him read it to me.
Thanks again to @kbarnes701 for finding the link.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Doesn't matter why. Since it was heard that way when mixed, it's not an invalid choice to hear it that way during playback.


Any way of listening to it is valid I guess. One could pile all 11 speakers up at the back of the room and listen that way. But the way Dolby say you should optimise your surround speaker placement for Atmos is to put them at ear level.

For the eleventeenth time, mixers mix for cinemas. Cinemas have compromised surround speaker positions. I am discussing home theaters.



sdurani said:


> I wasn't judging, merely pointing out reality when it comes to sticking to Dolby's recommendations. Just as you have valid reasons for choosing to ignore Dolby recommendations, so do others have valid reasons for doing the same.


And as I have said repeatedly, common sense should prevail. If one can't meet Dolby's guidelines 100% then one has to compromise because it's that or no Atmos at all. But it is still a compromise and it is still not in line with Dolby's guidelines for speaker placement optimisation.



sdurani said:


> No one has to say it, because that's what was heard during the mix. Recreating that isn't invalid.


So where do you hear the bird's flapping when you kill the floor level speakers? If it isn’t in the overhead speakers then clearly it wasn't intended to come from above.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> CLEARLY, Sanjay/Sdurani, and I assume others, are more than satisfied with the surrounds higher ...


Have you asked Sanjay that specific question? 

EDIT: I see he fessed up


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Just to be clear, my personal preference is with you and Keith: in an Atmos set-up, I prefer lowered surrounds (though not AT ear height) in order to add more separation between layers. You can see this in a discussion I had with Roger Dressler last year, where he was making his case for keeping his elevated surrounds where they were and I was arguing my preference for lowering them for Atmos.
> 
> My main difference with Keith is that I find it valid to deviate from Dolby recommendations for height speaker elevation while he has described elevated surrounds as "not valid", "incorrect" and "sub-optimal". I see how both choices can be optimal; Keith doesn't.


They are only not valid, incorrect or sub-optimal with reference to Dolby's recommended positioning. It is clear that putting them outside the recommended positioning will be sub-optimal. Dolby didn't tell us to put them at or close to ear height to tease us or because that is the incorrect place, or the sub-optimal place.


----------



## dormie1360

audioguy said:


> In the case of "not valid" and "incorrect" I agree with you. We are back to my preference argument. But based upon my experience in both my theater and others, the height difference between the main level speakers and ceiling speakers is key. With an 8 foot ceiling, speaker at 6 feet are clearly sub-optimal if you are trying for a full 3D immersive experience. If your ceiling are at 10 or more, then putting speaker a bit above ear level works very, very well. So, if we are talking about traditional height room (8 foot ceilings), I am on Keith's side.


I kind of feel bad because I think I started all this.  

The original discussion, at least my point (and I believe Keith's), had nothing to do with Atmos. It was about the pro's and cons of placing surround speakers at various heights, whether it's Dolby's recommendation of ear level or something higher. I think this has been thoroughly discussed and at this point I don't think anyone's view is going to change.


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> With an 8 foot ceiling, speaker at 6 feet are clearly sub-optimal if you are trying for a full 3D immersive experience.


Right, sub-optimal if your priority is separation between layers. What if your priority is to re-create how you first heard that mix in an Atmos theatre or you have the same goal as the home THX program (try to get as close as possible to what was heard on the dubbing stage)? Then ear level surrounds are sub-optimal for this particular purpose. And that goal isn't arbitrary, since everyone hears Atmos mixes that way (including the people that mixed it) until it shows up on home video. Can that experience be recreated by placing surrounds at ear height?


----------



## kbarnes701

Argon52 said:


> It is killing me now that I have officially moved my 7.1 into a 5.1.2 Atmos Home Theater.
> 
> I'm enjoying the much larger sound stage found in the front of my listening position, but I feel like I'm missing the back rear channels more than I thought I would. Maybe it is the soundtracks of The Minions Movie and The 5th Element and I need more movies that use the back side speakers more aggressively, but man I'm really missing the immersion I originally felt with the 7.1 back rear channels.
> 
> Anyone think it is because my side surrounds are bi-directional, and Atmos really needs mono-directional surrounds for a 5.1.2 set-up? Or do I just need to spend $500 more and get a receiver that allows for 7.1.2? Or are there better Blu-ray movies out there that use the surrounds more aggressively that I can enjoy? Thanks!
> 
> Thanks for anyone's help. Blessings.


I originally had 5.1.4. I was surprised when I went to 7.1.4 just how much better it was. So yes, dig deeper in that pocket unfortunately. I think you will find it worthwhile.


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> I kind of feel bad because I think I started all this.
> 
> The original discussion, at least my point (and I believe Keith's), had nothing to do with Atmos. It was about the pro's and cons of placing surround speakers at various heights, whether it's Dolby's recommendation of ear level or something higher. I think this has been thoroughly discussed and at this point I don't think anyone's view is going to change.


I agree. It is a pointless discussion but Sanjay won’t let go and I do like to respond to posts directed at me. Sanj keeps attributing things to me that I don't actually subscribe to - like one should blindly follow guidelines even if they make no sense in an individual setup. And he keeps bringing cinema mixes into the discussion even though they are not relevant to the home setup. And he won't accept that Dolby made their recommendations for surround speaker placement for good reasons, and that placing them high up is a compromise. And so round and round it goes, where it ends nobody knows 

Incidentally, lest anyone get the wrong idea, Sanjay and I are good buddies


----------



## appelz

markus767 said:


> Then you're not talking about "nearfield" which has a well defined meaning in acoustics but about "critical distance" which is probably even closer.
> Again, you want the speaker to dominate what you hear otherwise you're not really hearing the recording but the recording through a mechanical filter, namely your room. Having the speaker at ear height or above isn't relevant in that context.


Thanks for the education on the definition. It doesn't change the point I was making however. No, I don't really want the direct sound from the speaker to be all I hear. Reflections are a part of any live music environment, and I don't want my room to be a sterile listening environment. Are you suggesting I line my room with 16" or more of fiberglass so all I hear is the speaker, or perhaps do all of my listening in an anechoic chamber?




markus767 said:


> How many dB's is seat to seat variance decreased by lifting those surrounds? Have you ever measured? My guess is the difference is insignificant in acoustically small rooms. It will be different for rows of 10 or more seats of course. In my opinion it's not worth lifting sounds to unnaturally high positions just to reduce SPL variance in common home theater sizes.


I calibrate high end dedicated home cinemas for a living, and I also teach classes on the processes. I measure those differences every day in rooms all over the world, and in my lab. It is not insignificant. And no one in this thread is asking for speakers to be lifted "unnaturally high". Simply within the always accepted surround sound standards we have used for decades. 

Off to CES, so I won't have time to respond to this thread. By the time I get back, there will be another 20 pages to sift through.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> One could pile all 11 speakers up at the back of the room and listen that way.


Based on what? I'm talking about elevated surrounds in the context of hearing what the mixer heard, not something arbitrary.


> For the eleventeenth time, mixers mix for cinemas. Cinemas have compromised surround speaker positions. I am discussing home theaters.


Then you're discussing the same mix. It's not like sounds get raised on home Atmos tracks to compensate for lower surround placement.


> If one can't meet Dolby's guidelines 100% then one has to compromise because it's that or no Atmos at all.


Not a question of "can't". It's not that you can't place your surrounds within the Dolby recommendations, you've made a choice not to. Likewise, even for folks that can place surrounds at ear level, there are valid reason for them to choose not to. You can understand it when you make that choice but not when they do.


> So where do you hear the bird's flapping when you kill the floor level speakers? If it isn’t in the overhead speakers then clearly it wasn't intended to come from above.


Sounds intended to come from above (birds, rain, helicopters) are often placed in the surrounds of Atmos mixes because they are heard as coming from above during the mix. If you sat in on the Atmos mix of San Andreas, you would have heard helicopter sounds above you, even if those sounds weren't in the speakers directly overhead. So just because it isn't in the overhead speakers doesn't mean it wasn't intended to come from above. It's not invalid to recreate that effect at home, so you're not left wondering why the helicopter is at ear height.


----------



## sdurani

dormie1360 said:


> I kind of feel bad because I think I started all this.


Please don't feel bad, for a couple of reasons: 1) whether to lower surrounds or not has been a discussion since home Atmos showed up and this won't be the last discussion, and 2) Keith and I wouldn't be so comfortable pressing our cases this hard unless we were friends outside this forum.


----------



## kbarnes701

appelz said:


> It doesn't change the point I was making however. No, I don't really want the direct sound from the speaker to be all I hear. Reflections are a part of any live music environment


That is a recording or live music environment, which is entirely different from a playback environment. The ambience you mention should be captured in the recording itself and not required to be created again in an unknown environment (unknown to the content creators I mean). Eg, if I sing in the bath, I get loads of ambient reflections that make me sound like Pavarotti. If I record that and then play it back in the bathroom, it will sound awful.


----------



## appelz

kbarnes701 said:


> That is a recording or live music environment, which is entirely different from a playback environment. The ambience you mention should be captured in the recording itself and not required to be created again in an unknown environment (unknown to the content creators I mean). Eg, if I sing in the bath, I get loads of ambient reflections that make me sound like Pavarotti. If I record that and then play it back in the bathroom, it will sound awful.


Are you seriously suggesting that you don't want your room to have any acoustical reflections at all?!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Based on what? I'm talking about elevated surrounds in the context of hearing what the mixer heard, not something arbitrary.


Based on user preference. The mixer is mixing for a cinema. We are discussing home theaters. Well, I am 



sdurani said:


> Then you're discussing the same mix. It's not like sounds get raised on home Atmos tracks to compensate for lower surround placement.


I actually don't want to discuss cinemas at all but you keep bringing it back up. Cinema surround speaker placement is a compromise to cater for the environment, number or rows, number of listeners etc. The mixer, whose responsibility is to create mixes for cinema playback, has no choice but to accept the reality of life that surround speakers are high up. At home we don't have those restrictions, so when the mixer puts the sound of car tyres squealing into the surrounds, he has to accept he now has a car that is flying through the air. But when we play *that same mix* at home, _with surrounds closer to ear height_, the car tyre squealing is placed much more realistically and in line with the front speakers where the sound started.



sdurani said:


> Sounds intended to come from above (birds, rain, helicopters) are often placed in the surrounds of Atmos mixes because they are heard as coming from above during the mix. If you sat in on the Atmos mix of San Andreas, you would have heard helicopter sounds above you, even if those sounds weren't in the speakers directly overhead. So just because it isn't in the overhead speakers doesn't mean it wasn't intended to come from above. It's not invalid to recreate that effect at home, so you're not left wondering why the helicopter is at ear height.


So you are saying that even though the guy mixing for Atmos has overhead speakers at his disposal, he doesn’t use them because the helicopter will still seem to come from above because the surrounds are high up? Really?


----------



## kbarnes701

appelz said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that you don't want your room to have any acoustical reflections at all?!


HT or music? I have them as separate systems. For m/ch music I prefer a somewhat 'dead-ish' environment. Much like a real cinema is. All the ambience etc is recorded in a m/ch mix and there is no need to have the room 'helping out'. So my HT is heavily treated. If I was ever fortunate enough to have you design me a HT room like Dormie's, that would be my brief to you.

I only really listen to music in 2 channel (yes I know, but that's a conscious choice of mine) and in an untreated room. With 2 channel I think some added reflections are benign, but I would still prefer the room to be treated so I can decide which I have and which I can get rid of. Unfortunately, my music system is in a living room so treatments are not practical there.

You presumably take my point about the difference between the recording environment and the playback environment though.


----------



## asarose247

I've been lurking thru all this surround height placement and general ATMOS discourse

I love it

New modded F4Q4 surrounds for perhaps better top-base layer separation, lowered to a 62" horizontal CL, about 20" above my 42' usual ear level and about a vertical 30"+ separation from the tops and on full motion TV mounts.

maybe a better "tie" /smoother transition of fronts to rears in the base layer and smoother dispersion / reflection from the slant sides

Thanks to all "combatants" for a lively HT year

Wil


----------



## markus767

appelz said:


> Thanks for the education on the definition. It doesn't change the point I was making however. No, I don't really want the direct sound from the speaker to be all I hear. Reflections are a part of any live music environment, and I don't want my room to be a sterile listening environment. Are you suggesting I line my room with 16" or more of fiberglass so all I hear is the speaker, or perhaps do all of my listening in an anechoic chamber?


In a multichannel reproduction system reflections should come from the recording not the room. That's how it is designed. Reflective mixing environments don't exist.



appelz said:


> I calibrate high end dedicated home cinemas for a living, and I also teach classes on the processes. I measure those differences every day in rooms all over the world, and in my lab. It is not insignificant. And no one in this thread is asking for speakers to be lifted "unnaturally high". Simply within the always accepted surround sound standards we have used for decades.


So how much difference did you measure?

The Dolby Atmos specs are pretty clear about preferred surround speaker placement:
"As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:

The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).
If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the rear speakers may be higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers."

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



appelz said:


> Off to CES, so I won't have time to respond to this thread. By the time I get back, there will be another 20 pages to sift through.


You betcha.


----------



## appelz

kbarnes701 said:


> HT or music? I have them as separate systems. For m/ch music I prefer a somewhat 'dead-ish' environment. Much like a real cinema is. All the ambience etc is recorded in a m/ch mix and there is no need to have the room 'helping out'. So my HT is heavily treated. If I was ever fortunate enough to have you design me a HT room like Dormie's, that would be my brief to you.
> 
> I only really listen to music in 2 channel (yes I know, but that's a conscious choice of mine) and in an untreated room. With 2 channel I think some added reflections are benign, but I would still prefer the room to be treated so I can decide which I have and which I can get rid of. Unfortunately, my music system is in a living room so treatments are not practical there.
> 
> You presumably take my point about the difference between the recording environment and the playback environment though.


Ok. So we probably fundamentally disagree on acoustical treatment designs. Maybe another thread for some other time. I think we have mucked up this thread enough.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> If the surrounds are at the correct ear level placement then sounds intended to be on the floor will still be much closer to correct than if the surrounds are up by the ceiling. No getting away from that is there?


Agreed

Example - I recently watched Pan while my parents were in from out of town. There is a scene where a bucket of water is tossed from the rear and it lands in the side surround. It made my mother jump because it sounded like the water was right beside her. If the side surrounds were up high, the effect would have been lost. The water hit the ground and then splashed. Not sure how you could pull that off with the surrounds up high. Just my two cents but I am with Keith on this one. Did I just admit publicly that I agreed with Keith? 



Scott Simonian said:


> And it's still ridiculous.
> 
> Better put your surrounds on the floor then. .


They are on the floor


----------



## cyclones22

Well, let's be honest here...most multiplex theater experiences in regards to both audio and video are severely lacking compared to a good home theater. So when I hear talk about cinema mixes, it doesn't interest me as I rarely leave the theater thinking, wow, that mix was fantastic and I really want to emulate that at home! I'm sure there are state of the art theaters out there which provide an awesome experience, but I don't think that's the norm. Far from it, I'd bet.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The mixer is mixing for a cinema.


The mixer is mixing for everything, since they are aware (have been for decades) that their mixes will visit theatres for a brief run but live forever on home video.


> The mixer, whose responsibility is to create mixes for cinema playback, has no choice but to accept the reality of life that surround speakers are high up. At home we don't have those restrictions, so when the mixer puts the sound of car tyres squealing into the surrounds, he has to accept he now has a car that is flying through the air.


At home we have a choice: hear car tyres and helicopter blades at ear height or hear them both above ear height. Cars driving through the air are no more unrealistic than helicopters flying on the ground. One of those situations is not more "incorrect" than the other.


> So you are saying that even though the guy mixing for Atmos has overhead speakers at his disposal, he doesn’t use them because the helicopter will still seem to come from above because the surrounds are high up?


If you're the mixer, and those sounds are already coming from above you, where is the pressure to mix them specifically into the speakers directly overhead? Hence the frequent lament about Atmos BDs missing opportunities for overhead speakers, as though those were the only sounds meant to be heard above you. THAT'S why I look at two conflicting approaches for playing back Atmos soundtracks and don't judge either choice as sub-optimal or incorrect. I see the merits to your approach (since that would be closer to my personal preference) but I also understand why someone would keep their surrounds elevated. Both "work" (to get back to the word that started this whole discussion).


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> I recently watched Pan when my parents were in from out of town. There is a scene where a bucket of water is tossed from the rear and it lands in the side surround. It made my mother jump because it sounded like the water was right beside her. It the side surrounds were up high, the effect would have been lost. The water hit the ground and then splashed. Not sure how you could pull that off with the surrounds up high. Just my two cents but I am with Keith on this one.


Sorry to burst your bubble & Keith's but my wife yelped when that scene happened  her seat is just to left of mine and the precision of the effect from my seat was great ,as it came from behind over her seat and splashed down just to the middle right front of the room . As noted earlier my rear surrounds(direct radiating) are mounted a foot above ear level and my side surrounds(bi/di/poles) are around 2.5ft above ear level

:kiss:


----------



## Molon_Labe

audiofan1 said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble & Keith's but my wife yelped when that scene happened  her seat is just to left of mine and the precision of the effect from my seat was great ,as it came from behind over her seat and splashed down just to the middle right front of the room . As noted earlier my rear surrounds(direct radiating) are mounted a foot above ear level and my side surrounds(bi/di/poles) are around 2.5ft above ear level
> 
> :kiss:


Just think how much more she would have yelped if the sound was where it was supposed to be. Its all about the qualtiy of the yelp. :kiss: lol

Two feet above ear level isn't what I would call high up though. My horns are a bit above ear level when seated.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Did I just admit publicly that I agreed with Keith?


There's no easy cure for that


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Just think how much more she would have yelped if the sound was where it was supposed to be. Its all about the qualtiy of the yelp. :kiss: lol
> 
> Two feet above ear level isn't what I would call high up though. My horns are a bit above ear level when seated.


 Maybe more like 3ft with a slight angle downward, I guess just how high is more the question


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The mixer is mixing for everything, since they are aware (have been for decades) that their mixes will visit theatres for a brief run but live forever on home video.


But you know as well as I do that their primary responsibility is to the cinema.



sdurani said:


> At home we have a choice: hear car tyres and helicopter blades at ear height or hear them both above ear height. Cars driving through the air are no more unrealistic than helicopters flying on the ground. One of those situations is not more "incorrect" than the other.


Not so. We are now in the age of Atmos and we can have sounds anywhere and especially above us, so there is no need at all to have helicopters flying on the ground. They can be rightly put into the overheads.



sdurani said:


> If you're the mixer, and those sounds are already coming from above you, where is the pressure to mix them specifically into the speakers directly overhead?


You are denying the entire point of Atmos. When the mixer had no speakers above him he had no choice. Now he does have a choice. He can place appropriate sounds in the overheads, and appropriate sounds at ear level. But nowadays he can place sounds at ear level all around us instead of solely at the front of us. Huge step forward. You are speaking as though Atmos had never been invented.



sdurani said:


> Hence the frequent lament about Atmos BDs missing opportunities for overhead speakers, as though those were the only sounds meant to be heard above you. THAT'S why I look at two conflicting approaches for playing back Atmos soundtracks and don't judge either choice as sub-optimal or incorrect. I see the merits to your approach (since that would be closer to my personal preference) but I also understand why someone would keep their surrounds elevated. Both "work" (to get back to the word that started this whole discussion).


I too can see why someone would put his surrounds higher up. There are many reasons and I have listed some of them earlier. If someone has a 12 foot ceiling he may decide to mount his surrounds higher so that he can cover more listeners, in a multi-seat, multi-row room - much like real cinemas have to do. And he will still have pretty good separation between overheads and surrounds. Someone else said it was just too much work to relocate his surrounds and since his room sounds pretty good as it is he is leaving them alone. If you regularly have a full house of listeners, you may want to put your surrounds higher up so that they don't fire into the ears of the people on the ends of the row. There are many reasons, and Dolby themselves say that you have to use common sense. But they also say that their recommended place for surrounds in a home Atmos system is at or close to ear level. They don't say, and neither have I, that Atmos will be an unmitigated disaster if the surrounds cannot be placed there, but nonetheless that is their preferred location wherever possible and will yield the optimum Atmos experience. The latter is why Dolby make the recommendation they do. Obviously they want people to have the optimum Atmos experience at home and thus they suggest the best place to put the surrounds. At ear level (in case anyone missed it ).


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> Right, sub-optimal if your priority is separation between layers. What if your priority is to re-create how you first heard that mix in an Atmos theatre or you have the same goal as the home THX program (try to get as close as possible to what was heard on the dubbing stage)? Then ear level surrounds are sub-optimal for this particular purpose. And that goal isn't arbitrary, since everyone hears Atmos mixes that way (including the people that mixed it) until it shows up on home video. Can that experience be recreated by placing surrounds at ear height?


 When I visit an Atmos theater (with the surrounds well above ear level), I hear a very immersive 3D sound presentation. When I listened at home with my surrounds well above ear level, not even close to what I hear in the theater. I lowered my surrounds and now I have a very immersive 3D experience.

I have no clue what the mix sounds like on a sound stage – and neither do you. I have only seen one dubbing stage and I can assure you it did not have 8 foot ceilings. I can only assume, given this is all about 3D audio, that the mixer wants me to experience immersive 3D audio, which, in my room, I can not do with the surrounds at 6 feet but can at ear level. 

I will now bow out of this discussion. You sir, get to listen anyway you like. Put the surrounds in the next room if it makes you feel better --- or maybe even outside --- or better yet, remove them completely.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> At home we have a choice: hear car tyres and helicopter blades at ear height or hear them both above ear height. Cars driving through the air are no more unrealistic than helicopters flying on the ground. One of those situations is not more "incorrect" than the other.


I thought this thread is about Atmos, no? In a good Atmos (re-)mix I'd expect cars to be in the side surrounds and helicopter blades in the top surrounds. Legacy mixes can be processed with DSU.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Argon52 said:


> It is killing me now that I have officially moved my 7.1 into a 5.1.2 Atmos Home Theater.
> 
> I'm enjoying the much larger sound stage found in the front of my listening position, but I feel like I'm missing the back rear channels more than I thought I would. Maybe it is the soundtracks of The Minions Movie and The 5th Element and I need more movies that use the back side speakers more aggressively, but man I'm really missing the immersion I originally felt with the 7.1 back rear channels.
> 
> Anyone think it is because my side surrounds are bi-directional, and Atmos really needs mono-directional surrounds for a 5.1.2 set-up? Or do I just need to spend $500 more and get a receiver that allows for 7.1.2? Or are there better Blu-ray movies out there that use the surrounds more aggressively that I can enjoy? Thanks!
> 
> Thanks for anyone's help. Blessings.


Definitely you lose a lot without the rear surrounds... especially with Atmos content. I had my rear surrounds in for repair & when I brought them back it added a lot to the sound & immersion. 

On 5.1 content it's really not the biggest deal for the most part (some 5.1 movies like "the secret world of arriety" & "kumiko the treasure hunter" do get some aggresive rear use... strange). 7.1 films & Atmos films... rears are a must IMO.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But you know as well as I do that their primary responsibility is to the cinema.


Their responsibility is to the mix, irrespective of where it will be played back.


> We are now in the age of Atmos and we can have sounds anywhere and especially above us, so there is no need at all to have helicopters flying on the ground. They can be rightly put into the overheads.


You're talking about what CAN be done; I'm describing what IS being done. You place your surround for what you want mixers to do. Others place their surrounds for what mixers are doing. Their acceptance of reality doesn't make their placement incorrect compared to your wishful thinking.


> When the mixer had no speakers above him he had no choice. Now he does have a choice.


And even with the choice, helicopters and birds and rain are still being placed in the surrounds, NOT the heights.


> Obviously they want people to have the optimum Atmos experience at home and thus they suggest the best place to put the surrounds.


They want people to easily hear the difference after investing in Atmos, even if that means adding more separation between layers than was heard during the mix by the person actually doing the mixing.


----------



## sdurani

Argon52 said:


> Or do I just need to spend $500 more and get a receiver that allows for 7.1.2?


That would give you more even coverage all the way around, with a pair of speakers anchoring sounds at your sides, a pair of speakers anchoring sounds behind you, and a pair of speakers anchoring sounds above you.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I'm describing what IS being done.


If height sounds are mixed to the side surrounds instead of top surrounds in an Atmos mix then it's a bad mix. Dolby specs about side surround speaker elevation is unambiguous.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Their responsibility is to the mix, irrespective of where it will be played back.


Their primary responsibility is to mix for the cinema. 



sdurani said:


> You're talking about what CAN be done; I'm describing what IS being done. You place your surround for what you want mixers to do. Others place their surrounds for what mixers are doing. Their acceptance of reality doesn't make their placement incorrect compared to your wishful thinking.


I am placing my surrounds for Atmos. This is the Atmos for the home thread and we are discussing Atmos. What you are describing relates to the pre-Atmos world. Nowadays if a mixer mixing an Atmos movie wants sounds to appear above the listener's head, it is inconceivable that he will rely on the surrounds to do that job. And why would he when he has dedicated overhead speakers which are perfect for replaying content intended to be over the head of the listener? You say that with surrounds at ear level we will hear helicopters on the ground, as though overhead speakers hadn't been invented yet. 



sdurani said:


> And even with the choice, helicopters and birds and rain are still being placed in the surrounds, NOT the heights.


Yes - some mixers haven't got the hang of it yet it seems. Is a defense of ineptitude the basis of your argument?



sdurani said:


> They want people to easily hear the difference after investing in Atmos, even if that means adding more separation between layers than was heard during the mix by the person actually doing the mixing.


Are you saying that the greater separation between layers is a bad thing then? You seem to be suggesting that we should prefer things if the sound was less clearly differentiated between floor level and overhead level. Just so it's the same as heard in a compromised speaker setup in cinemas.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Their primary responsibility is to mix for the cinema.


They know it will be played back in both environments.


> What you are describing relates to the pre-Atmos world.


I'm describing current Atmos mixing rooms.


> Yes - some mixers haven't got the hang of it yet it seems. Is a defense of ineptitude the basis of your argument?


They're not inept for mixing based on what they hear rather than what you'd like them to do.


> Are you saying that the greater separation between layers is a bad thing then?


I'm saying that exaggerating the separation helps to highlight the Atmos format, irrespective of the intent of the filmmakers. Wasn't judging whether that's good or bad.


> You seem to be suggesting that we should prefer things if the sound was less clearly differentiated between floor level and overhead level.


Where did I say anyone "should" prefer anything? I'm simply explaining why other choices are just as valid as yours.


----------



## rontalley

Doesn't theater Atmos also have a height bed?

Does all of those objects that are mixed to the height bed go to top? I am saying this because they are objects and objects don't exist in the 7.1 bed do it?

Seems pretty obvious that you would not want bed info in your height plan even though we at home do not have a height plan. Even if you assign your object speakers to height and not Atmos enabled or ceilings, the same information comes out of the speakers regardless...

It's like those who put their sides in the front of the MLP and says how awesome it sounds...might but that is not the way it was intended to sound. To each it's own. Right?


----------



## SoundChex

Because existing HT mass market AVRs include NO mechanism for entering the elevation angle of Middle Layer speakers, e.g., L|C|R|SL|SR|RL|RR, the included Atmos VBAP rendering engine "knows" (for the purposes of computation) that these speakers are located at ear level, i.e., with elevation angle 'zero degrees'. Can someone who has installed a Dolby Atmos Cinema Processor CP850 enlighten us as to whether the actual ("measured") elevation angle of each surround speaker is included in the entered configuration info when that RMU is setup for a new mixing studio or movie auditorium, please...?


_


----------



## PeterTHX

SteveTheGeek said:


> Wow, this includes (or even is mostly) movies not even mixed in Atmos in theater, this is a strong commitment from Sony !
> 
> And a huge blow to DTS, if Disney was to follow suit, this would be terrible for DTS...



Why? Disney's theatrical output is in Atmos. They now own Skywalker Sound, which was the first to mix in Atmos with _*Brave*_.

It's more insulting when one of their titles like _Frozen_ or _Inside Out_ is gimped to 7.1 DTS-MA.


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> The HD Fury Integra converts HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 (note it does not defeat or bypass the correction - it converts it, which HD Fury say is permitted by the HDCP specification. They also point out that DCP (the 'owners' of HDCP) point out on their own website that this is the way to enable people with 1080p displays to view UHD content:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Integra in between the source and the display, the unit permits HDCP 2.2 protected content to be viewed on 1080p displays. Obviously the content will be downrezzed to 1080p.


The downscaling is happening in your source device, because the display does not support 2160p. The HDFury can pass 2160p/HDCP2.2 to 2160p/HDCP1.4. They basically found a loophole and the content providers are not happy, and that's why they are suing.

Basically, DCP says you can convert 2.2 to 1.4, while the content providers tell a playback device that UHD content has to be protected by 2.2 at its output. The intended implementation, which pretty much all AVRs and players are doing, is to fall back to 1.4 at every leg of the HDMI connection, when just one device in the chain does not support 2.2. This way the player can avoid sending 2160p content with 1.4 protection. The HDFury is so far the only device that does 2.2 at its input, and 1.4 at the output, allowing for mixed HDCP chains.

Curious about how that pans out in court. I had mine pre-ordered and got one of the first batch, because I anticipated it would take even less time for this to happen.


----------



## darklord700

http://feature.u-audio.com.tw/featuredetail.asp?featureid=571

These speaker stands could solve a lot of problems for Atmos if you don't find them hideous.


----------



## sdrucker

darklord700 said:


> http://feature.u-audio.com.tw/featuredetail.asp?featureid=571
> 
> These speaker stands could solve a lot of problems for Atmos if you don't find them hideous.


 
If you have a dedicated HT room that's painted black and light controlled, you might not care  .


Just out of curiosity are they available in the US? And are they stable enough to be a safe placement? Even if they are hideous.


True story: across the way from our condo is an office building, where the guy working at a particular cubicle can see across into the HT room if the shades are all up. It would be pretty funny if he had to stare at these from 9 to 5...if I had the guts to do them LOL.


----------



## lujan

darklord700 said:


> http://feature.u-audio.com.tw/featuredetail.asp?featureid=571
> 
> These speaker stands could solve a lot of problems for Atmos if you don't find them hideous.


Those are just hideous 

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Prime316

Can anyone compare the atmos add-ons? I own the Pioneer version and am not terribly impressed. I'm wondering if the Def Tech ones are any better for $100 more. I don't plan on doing in ceiling speakers so this is my one shot at Atmos before I look ahead to Dts X.


----------



## NorthSky

Spoiler






kbarnes701 said:


> The ITU spec for 7.1 allows for it.





kbarnes701 said:


> Which is precisely why it is a good idea to at least start with Dolby's own recommendations. If anyone knows where to put Atmos speakers, it's Dolby.





kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody knows if they have fidelity to what the mixer heard anyway, unless they were at the mix session. But you are assuming again that a person mixing for the cinema mixes with higher surrounds because he thinks that is the best way to do it. But in reality he uses higher surrounds because he is mixing for the cinema and cinemas have high surrounds. If the cinema did not have to compromise the position of their surrounds due to practicalities already discussed, they would mount the surrounds, in an Atmos system, much closer to ear level. There is just no purpose in mounting surrounds up high when one has a layer of speakers on the ceiling anyway. Why do you keep on bringing cinemas into this discussion when we are discussing Atmos for the home?
> 
> That's not an answer to the question I asked. This is what I asked: do you think it is OK for cinema owners to ignore Dolby recommendations for Atmos systems or not? Yes or no will do.
> 
> Because the cinema mix, with which you are obsessed, has compromised surround speaker positions due to the fact it is a cinema. If the mixer had a free hand to mix the track for the home, the bird would fly at ear height. It is quite obvious from the context of the trailer that the whole idea is to provide 'layers' of sound in order to showcase Atmos. The Conductor example proves the point better as there are also the visual cues to go on. Forget cinemas - this is a thread for HOME Atmos. Substituting "the mix" for "cinema" isn’t working.





kbarnes701 said:


> That's fine. Then all they have to say, like a recent poster, is that it's too much trouble to relocate them. I don't care where people put their surrounds - all I am saying, despite incredible and incomprehensible resistance, is what Dolby say is the best place for them, and I can see why they say that.





kbarnes701 said:


> When you first experience Atmos at home it is like "wow! Just wow!!!". But as you get used to it over time, it becomes 'normal' for you so people are less effusive about it. Trust me, you will think you have way more than a cherry.





kbarnes701 said:


> The flapping is indeed at ear level as it does the 360. It is easy to see where it is intended to be simply by turning off the floor level speakers and listening only to the ceiling speakers. If the surrounds were mounted high up then the bird would start high up (in LS and RS) then dip down as it flies through RCL. It clearly is not intended to do that.





kbarnes701 said:


> That makes commercial sense and is what I would be advising them to do if they were a client. Atmos is (currently) enjoyed by enthusiasts and they are also the target (initially) for UHD, so it makes sense to nudge the existing enthusiast base for Atmos towards UHD. So long as they also enclose a Blu-ray with the UHD disc (much as they include a DVD with many Blu-ray releases (which is incomprehensible now you can buy a Blu-ray player for 50 bucks, but hey...) that will suit everyone it seems.
> 
> I was hoping I could buy a UHD player as soon as they are released and just use it to downscale UHD to 1080p for my PJ, but apparently unless HDCP 2.2 is in every component in the chain that won't work and the UHD disc will crap out with a "you are not compatible so get lost" message. So we still need the Blu-ray disc but we can build a UHD collection while we wait for the upgrade to be complete in the entire playback chain.





kbarnes701 said:


> There is separation but some sounds intended for ear level are still too high if the surrounds are high. Eg footsteps.





kbarnes701 said:


> So tell me, which do you think is closer to hearing footsteps on the ground - speakers at ear level or speakers up near the ceiling?





kbarnes701 said:


> Bad guess. That would make no sense. The aim of putting the immersive audio only into the UHD package is to get you to buy the UHD disc. Since you have already now bought the UHD disc in order to get the immersive audio, there's no point in not putting it on the Blu-ray too.





kbarnes701 said:


> Not really. It's in the recording. Regardless of your speaker or its placement, you won't hear envelopment if the scene is two guys talking in the desert for example since the sound engineers will make that very 'dry' (as befits the desert LOL). Similarly, no matter what the speaker or its placement, if the two guys are talking in an aircraft hangar and the engineer has also recorded that 'dry', then you will not hear their voices bouncing around the hangar, and nor should you if the engineer or sound designer has decided already that you shouldn’t. Using speakers and placement to create 'ambience' was right when we only had one or two speakers, but with m/ch sound everything we need is already baked in.





kbarnes701 said:


> Mixers are being sparing with the amount of sound they out in the overheads. I agree with you - if ever a scene cries out for overhead speaker activity it is that early scene in *San Andreas*, yet there is nothing. We are expecting/hoping that more content makes it to the overheads as the technology matures. Remember how in the early days of stereo the mixer would put some instruments in the left channel, some in the right channel and the vocals in the center (R&L equally)? It sounded really bad and was a total misunderstanding of the whole purpose of stereophonic sound reproduction. Then when we got surround speakers with 5.1, all we got initially in the surrounds was a bit of gentle ambience. But now we get full-blooded sound from them in many movies. I expect Atmos will develop in a similar way as mixers become more used to, and more confident with, immersive audio.
> 
> HST there are some superb movies in Atmos which really impress. Try* Bram Stoker's Dracula* or *Gravity*, or *John Wick *or *Terminator Genisys* or *Insurgent* or *Mad Max Fury Road* as examples. Especially that latter one!








kbarnes701 said:


> I hate this time difference thing.
> All you guys are in bed asleep when I start posting and we get a whole string of consecutive posts from me. Looks bad


No it doesn't, all in your mind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## FilmMixer

@NorthSky

Do you have something to add to the discussion... seriously, that kind of multi quite post is a waste of everyone else's time having to slog through that while they are trying to add something pertinent and contributory to this thread....

Personally, I'm outta here until that kind of nonsense stops.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Prime316 said:


> Can anyone compare the atmos add-ons? I own the Pioneer version and am not terribly impressed. I'm wondering if the Def Tech ones are any better for $100 more. I don't plan on doing in ceiling speakers so this is my one shot at Atmos before I look ahead to Dts X.


I don't know if you'll gain anything. You might want to give us an idea on what you're projecting up to (vaulted ceiling, popcorn ceiling, angles of projection in relation to your MLP).


----------



## Prime316

7channelfreak said:


> I don't know if you'll gain anything. You might want to give us an idea on what you're projecting up to (vaulted ceiling, popcorn ceiling, angles of projection in relation to your MLP).



Flat ceiling. There's about 6 feet between the top of my floorstanders to the ceiling. The Pioneer add-ons has a 10 degree angle built in I believe. The main listening position is about 11 feet from the floorstanders which hold the add-ons.


I haven't measured any angles to my seating position.


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> That's surprising, since their UHD player UHP-H1 has been announced.
> 
> http://presscentre.sony.eu/pressrel...lution-premium-audio-and-video-player-1284176
> 
> Edited to add: *sigh* maybe not, despite the U in the name. Careful reading of the fine print reveals that it's their new flagship 1080p Blu-ray player.


Typical Sony's style.


----------



## Jive Turkey

FilmMixer said:


> [MENTION=7536738]@NorthSky
> 
> Do you have something to add to the discussion... seriously, that kind of multi quite post is a waste of everyone else's time having to slog through that while they are trying to add something pertinent and contributory to this thread....
> 
> Personally, I'm outta here until that kind of nonsense stops.


Please use the ignore button instead (it's worked great for me!). Your input is valuable to the rest of us.


----------



## HT-Eman

*Whats going on at CES ?*

I know its early but have there been anything new at ces concerning atmos besides sound bars ? Any news on Emotiva XMR-1 or any other pre/pro/ receivers.


----------



## 7channelfreak

Prime316 said:


> Flat ceiling. There's about 6 feet between the top of my floorstanders to the ceiling. The Pioneer add-ons has a 10 degree angle built in I believe. The main listening position is about 11 feet from the floorstanders which hold the add-ons.
> 
> 
> I haven't measured any angles to my seating position.


I've only heard one up firing atmos system and I was pleasantly surprised. Can you adjust the levels in the upfiring modules? Maybe move around while you have an atmos mix on to see if the sound is better in parts of the room. Hopefully others with more experience will chime in.


----------



## cyclones22

7channelfreak said:


> I've only heard one up firing atmos system and I was pleasantly surprised. Can you adjust the levels in the upfiring modules? Maybe move around while you have an atmos mix on to see if the sound is better in parts of the room. Hopefully others with more experience will chime in.


Do you mean the tilt levels or the output levels? For output levels, yes you can do that in manual speaker settings with test tones. Most people run them a little hot. I personally do not. As far as changing the angle of the modules themselves, I experimented with felt pads stacked on top of one another until I got the desired angle/result.


----------



## Ricoflashback

FilmMixer said:


> @NorthSky
> 
> Do you have something to add to the discussion... seriously, that kind of multi quite post is a waste of everyone else's time having to slog through that while they are trying to add something pertinent and contributory to this thread....
> 
> Personally, I'm outta here until that kind of nonsense stops.


Kind of harsh. Lots of examples of heavy slogging on multiple AVS Forums. Goes with the territory. 

I think the height/side surrounds, Dolby Atmos strict specs debate has run its course. If you can setup eveything according to Dolby Laboratories recommendations, then good for you. 

If you can't due to room limitations or even if you don't want to follow Do!by specs, you still should be able to enjoy Dolby Atmos soundtracks unless you're totally off the wall, so to speak, with your configuration. 

Looking forward to more Dolby Atmos releases and better use of the overhead channels.


----------



## Steven James 2

Sorry to interrupt the atmos spec debate.... Has anyone heard auro 3d? How does it compare to atmos? Just wondering


----------



## DAK4

Oh no you di'int!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> They know it will be played back in both environments.


Their primary responsibility is to mix for the cinema.



sdurani said:


> I'm describing current Atmos mixing rooms.


What you seem to be saying is that mixers, even when mixing for Atmos, will place sounds they wish to come from above _into the surrounds_, knowing that their surrounds are mounted higher up, rather than using the overhead speakers which Atmos provides specifically for overhead sounds. I say that is a ludicrous proposition.



sdurani said:


> They're not inept for mixing based on what they hear rather than what you'd like them to do.


They are pretty inept if they are ignoring the fact they have overhead speakers in Atmos systems and instead of using them are putting sounds intended for overhead into the surrounds. That is a bad mix. You can’t surely be falling back on bad mix practice to shore up your proposition?



sdurani said:


> I'm saying that exaggerating the separation helps to highlight the Atmos format, irrespective of the intent of the filmmakers. Wasn't judging whether that's good or bad.


Emphasising the separation between ear level and overhead level sounds must be a good thing I'd have thought. It's why we bought into Atmos in the first place - to hear a distinct difference in sound placement depending on whether it is around us or above us. 



sdurani said:


> Where did I say anyone "should" prefer anything? I'm simply explaining why other choices are just as valid as yours.


It cannot be "as valid" to deviate from a clear specification for placement of speakers as it is to adhere to it.

Coming back to a question you didn't really answer, have you listened to the Amaze trailer with the floor level speakers turned off? I think we can agree that the Dolby trailers have been mixed in a specific way which will clearly show the mixer's intent and which will also clearly demonstrate the benefits of Atmos.

Early into the trailer (for the benefit of those who haven’t heard it) there is the sound of a medium-sized bird flapping its way around the room. It completes a full 360° turn of the room and it is, crucially, at ear height. There can be no doubt that the bird flapping is intended to be heard at ear height, because if one isolates the overhead speakers, there is no sound of the flapping at all from the overhead speakers. It is evident that if the mixer had wished the sound of the bird flaps to be above our heads, he would have placed all or part of the sound into the overhead speakers (as he does elsewhere on different effects). That the mixer did not do this is a clear indication of his intention that the flaps should be heard at ear level.

However... if one elevates one's surrounds then some of this flapping will come from above the listener's head, obviously. To make matters worse, when the bird is behind you and to your sides, it will be above your head and when it is in front of you it will be at ear height. This is clearly not how it is supposed to sound but it will be a direct result of elevated surrounds. IOW, you will not be hearing what the mixer intended you to hear. By placing the surrounds higher up than they should be (according to Dolby spec) you have ruined the effect and spoiled to a good degree the whole Atmos presentation, which was designed in this instance to showcase the difference between sounds around you and sounds above you.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> It's like those who put their sides in the front of the MLP and says how awesome it sounds...might but that is not the way it was intended to sound.


That's not quite true. ITU spec allows for side surrounds to be slightly in front of the listener and there are some circumstances in which that is beneficial. There is a range of permitted angles, not one specific 'right' angle.

Interestingly, Dolby gave us a range of permitted angles for overhead speakers too and so long as your speakers fall within those ranges you are good. They did not give a range of permitted heights for surround speakers, advising us to place them at ear level, although they did also say that practical considerations might make this difficult. In that case they suggested that the rear surrounds (note only the rear surrounds IIRC) could be up to 1.25 times higher than the front L and R.


----------



## kbarnes701

scarabaeus said:


> The downscaling is happening in your source device, because the display does not support 2160p. The HDFury can pass 2160p/HDCP2.2 to 2160p/HDCP1.4. They basically found a loophole and the content providers are not happy, and that's why they are suing.
> 
> Basically, DCP says you can convert 2.2 to 1.4, while the content providers tell a playback device that UHD content has to be protected by 2.2 at its output. The intended implementation, which pretty much all AVRs and players are doing, is to fall back to 1.4 at every leg of the HDMI connection, when just one device in the chain does not support 2.2. This way the player can avoid sending 2160p content with 1.4 protection. The HDFury is so far the only device that does 2.2 at its input, and 1.4 at the output, allowing for mixed HDCP chains.
> 
> Curious about how that pans out in court. I had mine pre-ordered and got one of the first batch, because I anticipated it would take even less time for this to happen.


Thanks for that. Mine is on its way and I feel better already


----------



## kbarnes701

darklord700 said:


> http://feature.u-audio.com.tw/featuredetail.asp?featureid=571
> 
> These speaker stands could solve a lot of problems for Atmos if you don't find them hideous.


Clever solution.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> @NorthSky
> 
> Do you have something to add to the discussion... seriously, that kind of multi quite post is a waste of everyone else's time having to slog through that while they are trying to add something pertinent and contributory to this thread....
> 
> Personally, I'm outta here until that kind of nonsense stops.


Marc, it would be a real shame to lose you from the thread. May I instead suggest there is a simple way to avoid seeing posts you don't wish to see, which I have adopted myself and can confirm it works fairly well most of the time. I just made an effort to look at the post you were referencing and it is indeed a ludicrous 'contribution' of no value whatsoever. That the poster knows I do not even read his posts makes it even more so and adds insult to injury for the rest of you.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "What you seem to be saying is that mixers, even when mixing for Atmos, will place sounds they wish to come from above _into the surrounds_, knowing that their surrounds are mounted higher up, rather than using the overhead speakers which Atmos provides specifically for overhead sounds. I say that is a ludicrous proposition."

I'm not questioning the validity or viewpoint of this statement at all, either way. What piqued my curiosity is how developers are using object technology for Atmos soundtracks. 

Any there any movie sound mixers out there? Anybody experienced or even dabbled with Dolby Atmos as a developer? (And yes, I am with all the other contributors on this forum who enjoy and want more posts from FilmMixer.) 

I think most of the complaints from folks who have invested in height speakers and Dolby Atmos is the lack of use with the height channels when it's obvious that sounds should be emanating from overhead. I'm not talking about the equivalent of audio "bling" - - height sounds for the sake of it, but rather the more effective use of Atmos height channels dependent on a scene and applicability.

I'm sure there are a lot of HT enthusiasts that have installed height speakers and then listened to an Atmos track and put their ears as close to the height channels to see if they are getting any audio from them. This is common behavior and if you watch a whole supposed Atmos movie and you don't hear anything from the height channels, the natural reaction is WTF? I know that Dolby Atmos isn't ALL about height channels but it sure is a big part of it.

Anyway - - it would be interesting to hear more about Atmos from mixers or developers who have actually been involved in creating an Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "What you seem to be saying is that mixers, even when mixing for Atmos, will place sounds they wish to come from above _into the surrounds_, knowing that their surrounds are mounted higher up, rather than using the overhead speakers which Atmos provides specifically for overhead sounds. I say that is a ludicrous proposition."
> 
> I'm not questioning the validity or viewpoint of this statement at all, either way. What piqued my curiosity is how developers are using object technology for Atmos soundtracks.
> 
> Any there any movie sound mixers out there? Anybody experienced or even dabbled with Dolby Atmos as a developer? (And yes, I am with all the other contributors on this forum who enjoy and want more posts from FilmMixer.)
> 
> I think most of the complaints from folks who have invested in height speakers and Dolby Atmos is the lack of use with the height channels when it's obvious that sounds should be emanating from overhead. I'm not talking about the equivalent of audio "bling" - - height sounds for the sake of it, but rather the more effective use of Atmos height channels dependent on a scene and applicability.
> 
> I'm sure there are a lot of HT enthusiasts that have installed height speakers and then listened to an Atmos track and put their ears as close to the height channels to see if they are getting any audio from them. This is common behavior and if you watch a whole supposed Atmos movie and you don't hear anything from the height channels, the natural reaction is WTF? I know that Dolby Atmos isn't ALL about height channels but it sure is a big part of it.
> 
> Anyway - - it would be interesting to hear more about Atmos from mixers or developers who have actually been involved in creating an Atmos soundtrack.


I don't recall seeing anyone raise this point. Prior to Atmos, sound mixers did try, and sometimes very effectively succeed in placing height information in a movie.

And, if they were mixing for 5.1 or 7.1 (not counting 9.1 since it does include height channels...), they had no other place to put height effects except for the existing base channels, including the side and rear surrounds.

I don't know if the Atmos DSU is smart enough to deconstrut that info and place it into the Atmos speakers, as appropriate, but it seems that dependent upon the mix in the movie that having higher placed surrounds could certainly enhance height effects in some movies.

I am not saying that side surround should be placed near the ceiling, nothing that extreme, but in some home theaters it might not necessarily be wrong.

Does that make sense?


----------



## audioguy

Steven James 2 said:


> Sorry to interrupt the atmos spec debate.... Has anyone heard auro 3d? How does it compare to atmos? Just wondering


I'm not a fan but also not a totally fair comparison. My speakers are set up for Atmos. Unfortunately for us (and eventually for Auro) virtually no source material is available so all we get is AuroMatic. If one turns off the base level speakers, AuroMatic ONLY puts in the ceiling speakers the identical sounds from the base level speakers but with reduced trims and some delays. That is an indisputable fact that you can easily test by turning off the base level speakers. Lots of folks like it but not me.

The Auro demo disc is excellent but I wasted my $200. My next SSP (RS20i) will have Auro in it so I can play with it some more. Maybe I will like it better but all I have to listen to is the demo disc.

IMHO, Auro is toast ---- just stick a fork in it!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm sure there are a lot of HT enthusiasts that have installed height speakers and then listened to an Atmos track and put their ears as close to the height channels to see if they are getting any audio from them. This is common behavior and if you watch a whole supposed Atmos movie and you don't hear anything from the height channels, the natural reaction is WTF? I know that Dolby Atmos isn't ALL about height channels but it sure is a big part of it.
> 
> Anyway - - it would be interesting to hear more about Atmos from mixers or developers who have actually been involved in creating an Atmos soundtrack.


Yes, agreed. But I liken it to the early days of stereo when the mixer put half the band into the left speaker, the other half into the right speaker and the singer equally in both speakers. It was horrible, and showed a lack of understanding of what stereophonic sound really was. Then we had 5.1 and all that we heard from our surrounds, initially, for the most part was the occasional squeak of ambience. But after a while, mixers of both stereo and 5.1 started to make much better use of the opportunities available to them. I suspect we will see a similar progression with Atmos. I have no real idea of all the work which must go into a mix, but I imagine it is considerable, performed against tight deadlines and under some pressure, and there is a learning curve to making the best of a brand new technology.

Meanwhile, those who have paid for costly overhead speakers, ripped their ceilings apart to install them and their wiring, risked the endless wrath of their spouses and double dipped every Atmos blu-ray in the catalog, _want to hear content coming from over their heads_. It's natural. I am sure it will progress with a happy outcome, but will take a little time. Meanwhile, there are plenty of great Atmos mixes already available or coming our way, so we have much to celebrate.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Meanwhile, those who have paid for costly overhead speakers, ripped their ceilings apart to install them and their wiring, risked the endless wrath of their spouses and double dipped every Atmos blu-ray in the catalog, _want to hear content coming from over their heads_. It's natural. I am sure it will progress with a happy outcome, but will take a little time. Meanwhile, there are plenty of great Atmos mixes already available or coming our way, so we have much to celebrate.


Given the still fairly limited supply of Atmos titles, and even fewer that are really well done, I would still do it all over again -- for DSU alone. My wife NEVER can see or hear changes that I have made over the years to my system. Two exceptions: The change from my JVC RS55 to my Sony 600ES AND DSU. Need I say more !!!


----------



## thebland

I have a friend looking for a modest Atmos enabled receiver that will do DTS-X (eligible for update) - not crazy priced - under $1K?

Any suggestions?


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Given the still fairly limited supply of Atmos titles, and even fewer that are really well done, I would still do it all over again -- for DSU alone. My wife NEVER can see or hear changes that I have made over the years to my system. Two exceptions: The change from my JVC RS55 to my Sony 600ES AND DSU. Need I say more !!!


I agree, so would I. I am not in the least bit disappointed. The 28 Atmos discs I currently have are a mixed bag, of course, with some showcasing the technology better than others, but this is also true of the couple of thousand other discs I have. Some have poor sound, some have great sound, most have OK sound. One thing is for sure - the sound quality on almost all of my recently produced discs exceeds that on the older discs in almost every case. There are exceptions obviously and some discs from the past sound magnificent, but on balance, the SQ seems to have gotten better over time and is, usually, nowadays excellent. Similarly, I have great Atmos discs, average Atmos discs and poor Atmos discs, which is how I would expect it to be at this stage.

I agree with you about DSU too. It's worth the ticket price alone IMO. I am not sure if it was in this thread or not where I recently commented on how amazingly well it upmixed the 2.0 trailers on a recent Blu-ray I watched. I had to go into the 'info' on my AVR to double-check that they were not native 7.1 mixes, not to mention the overhead speakers' contribution. 

And IMO it can only get better and better. We now have UHD discs on the way, and Sony has confirmed that every one of its UHD releases will feature an Atmos soundtrack. Every one. Other studios are sure to follow suit. I think 2016 will see the Atmos floodgates open, and it will soon become the norm rather than the exception for new releases to have Atmos tracks.


----------



## AllenA07

The DSU is amazing. I'm not typically a fan of upmixers, but the DSU really does improve everything. I'm hoping that DTS Nueral X is as good as the DSU has been, especially considering that the vast majority of movies have the DTS track. 

I'm thinking that I'll likely add UHD later this year, I'm hoping though that for the next year at least you still see some Atmos trickling down to Blu-ray. My guess is around the holidays you will be able to get a UHD player for $200ish. I'm really hoping that by the time 2018 roles around 4K projectors are at least starting to become a reality.


----------



## Ricoflashback

audioguy said:


> Given the still fairly limited supply of Atmos titles, and even fewer that are really well done, I would still do it all over again -- for DSU alone. My wife NEVER can see or hear changes that I have made over the years to my system. Two exceptions: The change from my JVC RS55 to my Sony 600ES AND DSU. Need I say more !!!


Ditto. But she does know the difference in audio. As far as video goes, she can't really tell that much difference from a plain old DVD versus a Bluray disc. Blasphemy, IMHO, but there you have it. 

When I upgraded my system for Dolby Atmos she said, "You already have enough speakers." Ain't gonna win that argument and I just continued to install them with a smile and said, "Thanks, Dear."


----------



## audioguy

AllenA07 said:


> The DSU is amazing. I'm not typically a fan of upmixers, but the DSU really does improve everything. I'm hoping that DTS Nueral X is as good as the DSU has been, especially considering that the vast majority of movies have the DTS track.
> 
> I'm thinking that I'll likely add UHD later this year, I'm hoping though that for the next year at least you still see some Atmos trickling down to Blu-ray. My guess is around the holidays you will be able to get a UHD player for $200ish. I'm really hoping that by the time 2018 roles around 4K projectors are at least starting to become a reality.


The sole exception to my praise of DSU is upmixing 2 channel music. [It does a fabulous job on Bluray concerts or even DVD-A multi-channel music].

With two channel music, I followed Roger Dressler's advice and lowered the rear surrounds by about 6db and the side surrounds about 3db - and many times that is seriously inadequate.

My soon to be SSP has many more upmixing options so I will give some of those a try.


----------



## vitod

kbarnes701 said:


> I sort of panic-bought mine this morning after reading about the Warner Bros law suit. But since then I have realised that the makers of the HD Fury are a Chinese company, based in China, so regardless of the outcome of any law suits, the results won't stop a Chinese company selling its goods overseas. HD Fury seem to have a strong rebuttal anyway as posted on their own website and linked above. One good outcome of the Warner Bros initiative is that they have extensively tested the Integra for us and proved to us that it works, so one can buy in confidence  The Law of Unintended Consequences huh?


Link to purchase?


----------



## Stoked21

Hate to say I told you so!!!  I was met with a lot of rebuttal and a lot of naysayers.....

I warned everyone about 5 months ago that you better not buy any equipment that is not 2.2 compliant if you expect to continue to enjoy native Atmos without having to use DSU......I also warned about lawsuits likely starting on units such as the HD Fury.....

I made the jump to a 7702mk2 (from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4, but also to gain X and most importantly 2.2). Also chose a JVC PJ that is 2.2 vs the slightly lower cost Sony. All because I didn't want to lose Atmos.

Now the studio releases are just proving this every day that Atmos will be specific to UHD discs. Not necessarily all, but some major studios with the biggest releases!!! Also seeing the likes of Vudu and others only providing Atmos tracks on UHD rentals/purchases.

To all on this forum....I haven't tested it, but better safe than sorry!! Buy an HD Fury while you can still get one (if you are not 2.2). Alternatively, do not buy non 2.2 compliant hardware.....


----------



## PeterTHX

AllenA07 said:


> The DSU is amazing. I'm not typically a fan of upmixers, but the DSU really does improve everything. I'm hoping that DTS Nueral X is as good as the DSU has been, especially considering that the vast majority of movies have the DTS track.


What's stopping you from playing a DTS track through DSU...


----------



## Stoked21

What I really want to know is WHEN can I finally buy a UHD player??????? I have a 5 year old Panasonic BD that has intermittent Wifi issues, less than ideal remote, and some other minor gripes (such as no IR in). I've been holding off buying an Oppo or the likes as I know I'm going to need UHD version to receive my Atmos content....

All the releases are saying early part of this year for UHD discs with Atmos....Unless I'm going to use the discs as coasters, what about the players? HA HA

I also do not want to continue to double-dip and will stop buying Atmos BD and wait a few months for Atmos UHD....
But only if I have a clearly defined time line. I'm not willing to stop all BD purchases if it's over a month or two!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Their primary responsibility is to mix for the cinema.


As opposed to what? Mix not for cinema? Where are these non-cinema mixes?


> What you seem to be saying is that mixers, even when mixing for Atmos, will place sounds they wish to come from above _into the surrounds_, knowing that their surrounds are mounted higher up, rather than using the overhead speakers which Atmos provides specifically for overhead sounds. I say that is a ludicrous proposition.


It is the reality of the situation, irrespective of what you "say". You can either accept reality or live in denial. Your choice. It won't change how Atmos soundtracks are mixed.


> They are pretty inept if they are ignoring the fact they have overhead speakers in Atmos systems and instead of using them are putting sounds intended for overhead into the surrounds. That is a bad mix. You can’t surely be falling back on bad mix practice to shore up your proposition?


Re-recording engineers are not inept nor putting out bad mixes just because they don't conform to your wishes. You had your surrounds elevated. Movie mixers had their surrounds elevated. You lowered your surrounds to ear level. People mixing Atmos soundtracks didn't. You will have to figure out your own way to reconcile that difference because dubs stages are certainly not going to bend to your will.


> Emphasising the separation between ear level and overhead level sounds must be a good thing I'd have thought. It's why we bought into Atmos in the first place - to hear a distinct difference in sound placement depending on whether it is around us or above us.


It's why you bought Atmos. For others it was object-based audio that would scale with their system as it grew and/or the ability to go beyond 7.1 and/or having stable imaging directly overhead (rather than just above ear level), etc. You're projecting your priorities onto others.


> It cannot be "as valid" to deviate from a clear specification for placement of speakers as it is to adhere to it.


When you ignore Dolby's recommendations for side speaker azimuth but adhere to it for side speaker elevation, no problem. When someone else deviates from Dolby recommendations for side speaker elevation but adheres to for azimuth, that placement is suddenly "not valid", "sub-optimal" and "incorrect". That's some double standard.


> Coming back to a question you didn't really answer, have you listened to the Amaze trailer with the floor level speakers turned off?


Yes, I have. Same as listening to San Andreas with floor speakers turned off.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> You had your surrounds elevated. Movie mixers had their surrounds elevated. You lowered your surrounds to ear level. People mixing Atmos soundtracks didn't. You will have to figure out your own way to reconcile that difference because dubs stages are certainly not going to bend to your will.


Serious question here, not facetious. How do you know that ALL mixers have their surrounds elevated? That seems a little presumptuous? That's like someone sitting in Dolby HQ right now saying "Yeah, but ALL consumer Atmos installations have their surrounds at ear-level." Or me assuming that ALL stores accept American Express! 

I guess if my auto mechanic says to change my oil every 5K miles for best engine life and performance, then I'll try. I won't time it down to the last mile. Maybe I do it a little early, maybe a little later. But I'm going to take the manufacturer's recommendations as they know what's best. They know how they designed, they've preformed all of the testing, and know how to best achieve optimal results.

I don't know. Maybe all studios still have them elevated. But maybe since Atmos is new....Maybe for the home mix some of them are or will be lowering their surrounds to match Dolby guidelines. Especially as Atmos gains acceptance and popularity?


----------



## markus767

Stoked21 said:


> How do you know that ALL mixers have their surrounds elevated?


Especially those home re-mixes


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am not saying that side surround should be placed near the ceiling, nothing that extreme, but in some home theaters it might not necessarily be wrong.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Makes sense, IF your priority is to hear what the re-recording engineer heard while mixing an Atmos soundtrack. They didn't lower their surrounds for Atmos, makes sense that you don't need to either. 

However, if you have a different priority (e.g., emphasizing around-you vs above-you separation), then it makes sense to get as much angular difference between the surrounds and heights as needed to get the desired results.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> if you have a different priority (e.g., emphasizing around-you vs above-you separation), *then it makes sense to get as much angular difference between the surrounds and heights *as needed to get the desired results.


In other words, exactly what is called out in the Dolby Atmos white papers and guidelines etc?


----------



## vitod

Stoked21 said:


> I made the jump to a 7702mk2 (from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4, but also to gain X and most importantly 2.2). Also chose a JVC PJ that is 2.2 vs the slightly lower cost Sony. All because I didn't want to lose Atmos.
> 
> To all on this forum....I haven't tested it, but better safe than sorry!! Buy an HD Fury while you can still get one (if you are not 2.2). Alternatively, do not buy non 2.2 compliant hardware.....


Dang. I recently bought an Oppo 103D, but have the 7702 MKII. Wish I've seen you post before getting the Oppo. 

But, I'm going for the HD Fury though...just to have in case I stick to my 1080P PJ. All left now is to wait for UHD players.


----------



## richmagnus

Jesus, l just skipped the last 200 posts due to the back and forth argument of where to position surrounds in an Atmos system. 

Simple: place them as near to ear height as practically possible depending on room layout. If they have to be slightly higher so be it, not the end of the world. Keep the heights and surrounds as far apart as you can. 
I run FH and RH I also use Tripoles for surrounds and RH's. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> What I really want to know is WHEN can I finally buy a UHD player??????? I have a 5 year old Panasonic BD that has intermittent Wifi issues, less than ideal remote, and some other minor gripes (such as no IR in). I've been holding off buying an Oppo or the likes as I know I'm going to need UHD version to receive my Atmos content....
> 
> All the releases are saying early part of this year for UHD discs with Atmos....Unless I'm going to use the discs as coasters, what about the players? HA HA
> 
> I also do not want to continue to double-dip and will stop buying Atmos BD and wait a few months for Atmos UHD....
> But only if I have a clearly defined time line. I'm not willing to stop all BD purchases if it's over a month or two!


Samsung's player is up first at either the end of February or March. Then Phillips, then Panasonic probably more towards the summer, then Sony later on.


----------



## audioguy

I am really, really confused. Here is some copy from the Official Dolby Atmos Home Theater Guidelines - Direct Quote:



> As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
> • The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
> •* ALL listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).*


Sanjay, however, say screw these guidelines - put the speakers up high because apparently the folks at Dolby who published are a bunch of morons. They must have just published these Guidelines since they had nothing better to do. And it makes absolutely no difference as what goes on inside of the mixing room. Sanjay doesn't know and neither do we.

And yes, I do recognize the word "Guidelines" and no one is required to follow them. But they are still the recommended approach from the company that created the technology -and I have yet to see Sanjay's credentials that would suggest that we should ignore Dolby's.

What am I missing here?

I don't think he is a troll but it sure, sure feels like it.


----------



## smurraybhm

vitod said:


> Link to purchase?


Here you go. I just ordered one myself as I don't have plans to upgrade my plasma until it dies or OLED drops more in price. 

https://www.hdfury.com/shop/splitters/integral-4k60-444-600mhz/


----------



## Shniks

Stoked21 said:


> In other words, exactly what is called out in the Dolby Atmos white papers and guidelines etc?


I am not sure why a few of you are bent on proving that Sanjay is wrong. No one here is wrong. Sanjay has NEVER stated that the Dolby white papers want the surrounds elevated. All he is saying is that there are two schools of thought:

1) Elevate the surround speakers if you would like to hear what the mixer heard while mixing the audio
2) Keep them at or slightly above ear level if layer separation is more important to you (which will result in not hearing the audio as it was intended to be heard by the mixer, given that mixing studios have their surrounds elevated. It doesn't matter if the mix was for the cinema, as the same mix will be used for home audio, with a few adjustments)

Seriously, I fail to see why everyone is getting so heated about this - two viewpoints here. Neither one is right or wrong. Choose the one you are happy with and enjoy your awesome home theater.


Cheers,


----------



## Shniks

audioguy said:


> I don't think he is a troll but it sure, sure feels like it.



I am surprised that you would think Sanjay is a troll simply because he is stating something you don't agree with. I have learnt a lot from him (as I have from others on this forum). Let's not resort to demeaning someone if their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours. He has a valid point and so do the others like Keith. 


Cheers,


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^^

Ditto.


I don't agree with his viewpoint on the issue, but there is merit to it as well. Sanjay is a sharp and extremely informed individual. Troll he definitely is NOT.


----------



## vitod

smurraybhm said:


> Here you go. I just ordered one myself as I don't have plans to upgrade my plasma until it dies or OLED drops more in price.
> 
> https://www.hdfury.com/shop/splitters/integral-4k60-444-600mhz/


Thank you!


----------



## kbarnes701

vitod said:


> Link to purchase?


I am in the UK and bought mine from Holland. But the easiest way to buy it is from the HD Fury website. They dispatch Express for free - say it takes 2 to 4 days to get to anywhere in the world. You can select a US mains adapter/PSU in the checkout.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> To all on this forum....I haven't tested it, but better safe than sorry!! Buy an HD Fury while you can still get one (if you are not 2.2). Alternatively, do not buy non 2.2 compliant hardware.....


Warner Bros tested it for us. No doubt it works! They made it very clear that it works alright


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> What I really want to know is WHEN can I finally buy a UHD player??????? I have a 5 year old Panasonic BD that has intermittent Wifi issues, less than ideal remote, and some other minor gripes (such as no IR in). I've been holding off buying an Oppo or the likes as I know I'm going to need UHD version to receive my Atmos content....
> 
> All the releases are saying early part of this year for UHD discs with Atmos....Unless I'm going to use the discs as coasters, what about the players? HA HA
> 
> I also do not want to continue to double-dip and will stop buying Atmos BD and wait a few months for Atmos UHD....
> But only if I have a clearly defined time line. I'm not willing to stop all BD purchases if it's over a month or two!


You can preorder the Samsung UHD player for $399 here: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-JPDIVRxhxmt/p_305BDK8500/Samsung-UBD-K8500.html


----------



## audioguy

Shniks said:


> I am surprised that you would think Sanjay is a troll simply because he is stating something you don't agree with. I have learnt a lot from him (as I have from others on this forum). Let's not resort to demeaning someone if their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours. He has a valid point and so do the others like Keith.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Please reread my post. First of all, I did not say he was a troll. I did say it felt like it. And it does. It has zero to do with he and I not agreeing. There are a whole lot of folks on this forum and others I don't agree with. It has everything to do with his never ending beating of the same dead horse. If he stated something like: "I know what Dolby recommends and I chose to not follow those guidelines", there would be no issue. Instead, he says over and over and over and over (or strongly implies) that while Dolby has guidelines, ignoring them is a much better plan since he apparently knows the intent of all of those mixing facilities and they really want you to place your surrounds higher than Dolby suggests. I'll ask again. I've shown the Official Dolby Guidelines. Where are Sanjay official credentials that would suggest I follow his recommended approach vs Dolby's?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stoked21 said:


> What I really want to know is WHEN can I finally buy a UHD player??????? I have a 5 year old Panasonic BD that has intermittent Wifi issues, less than ideal remote, and some other minor gripes (such as no IR in). I've been holding off buying an Oppo or the likes as I know I'm going to need UHD version to receive my Atmos content....
> 
> All the releases are saying early part of this year for UHD discs with Atmos....Unless I'm going to use the discs as coasters, what about the players? HA HA
> 
> I also do not want to continue to double-dip and will stop buying Atmos BD and wait a few months for Atmos UHD....
> But only if I have a clearly defined time line. I'm not willing to stop all BD purchases if it's over a month or two!


I don't know what the trend in new disc format releases are (I'm a relative new-comer to the HT scene).

My hope is that UHD releases will come out in "books" like many other releases do which include DVD's... so if a UHD bluray comes out... I'd buy the UHD atmos disc in the hopes that it would include a BD with an Atmos mix as well. Too optimistic? 




audioguy said:


> I am really, really confused. Here is some copy from the Official Dolby Atmos Home Theater Guidelines - Direct Quote:
> 
> I don't think he is a troll but it sure, sure feels like it.


Sanjay is a great guy... in knowing me for less than 10 min He bought me a beer! 

Sanjay, if you are reading I meant to say thank you. 

I do my surrounds @ ear level... I'm sure it's a distortion from the mixer's perspective. But for the most part everything is. 

I'm excited to hear about Trumbull's new system as was discussed on the last episode of HTG... He said sound from "below" which was something I was always curious about, because sounds do come from beneath as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> As opposed to what? Mix not for cinema? Where are these non-cinema mixes?


Their priority is to mix for the cinema. Cinemas have high surrounds for various reasons. We've done all this. Forget cinemas - this is a home Atmos thread.



sdurani said:


> It is the reality of the situation, irrespective of what you "say". You can either accept reality or live in denial. Your choice. It won't change how Atmos soundtracks are mixed.


Not saying it will. But for you to cite bad mixes (ie those where the mixer has used the surrounds for sounds above rather than using the dedicated Atmos speakers for sounds from above) demonstrates the weakness of your position. You can only defend it by citing ineptitude as a reason for it.



sdurani said:


> Re-recording engineers are not inept nor putting out bad mixes just because they don't conform to your wishes.


Of course not. They are inept, however, if they ignore the speakers on the ceiling and instead decide to put sounds from above in the surrounds.



sdurani said:


> You had your surrounds elevated. Movie mixers had their surrounds elevated. You lowered your surrounds to ear level. People mixing Atmos soundtracks didn't. You will have to figure out your own way to reconcile that difference because dubs stages are certainly not going to bend to your will.


I am aware of that. It doesn't change what Dolby say is the proper place for surrounds in a home Atmos system. Just because you keep telling us what cinemas do doesn't somehow change Dolby's recommendation. Surrounds at ear level they say, whenever possible. If not possible, compromise.



sdurani said:


> It's why you bought Atmos. For others it was object-based audio that would scale with their system as it grew and/or the ability to go beyond 7.1 and/or having stable imaging directly overhead (rather than just above ear level), etc. You're projecting your priorities onto others.


You are putting words into my mouth. All of those are my priorities too. But the essential feature of Atmos is sounds from above.



sdurani said:


> When you ignore Dolby's recommendations for side speaker azimuth but adhere to it for side speaker elevation, no problem. When someone else deviates from Dolby recommendations for side speaker elevation but adheres to for azimuth, that placement is suddenly "not valid", "sub-optimal" and "incorrect". That's some double standard.


It's a compromise I have to make because of the peculiarities of my room. It's still a compromise. Just like putting the surrounds high up is a compromise. I have never said "if you can't fit in 100% with Dolby's spec, don't do Atmos". Of course people have to compromise. That doesn't alter the recommendation from Dolby to put the surrounds at ear height whenever possible. Would I prefer my speakers to be 100% on spec? Of course I would. But your position is that not meeting spec is OK - a "valid choice". Of course it is OK if it's all someone can do. But that doesn’t make it optimal.



sdurani said:


> Yes, I have. Same as listening to San Andreas with floor speakers turned off.


That is right. Nothing in the overheads for the bird flapping scene. Difference between that and *San Andreas *is that we are 100% sure of the mixer's intent for the trailer where we can only guess for the movie. And *San Andreas* is another bad mix - in a scene where the action is from the POV of a woman hanging down a cliff in a trashed car with a helicopter hovering above her trying to rescue her, and given this is an Atmos mix, there can be no good reason not to put the sound of that chopper in the overheads - just as the woman would hear it when we are viewing from her POV. So again, you have to fall back to a bad mix to substantiate your position.


----------



## audioguy

smurraybhm said:


> Here you go. I just ordered one myself as I don't have plans to upgrade my plasma until it dies or OLED drops more in price.
> 
> https://www.hdfury.com/shop/splitters/integral-4k60-444-600mhz/


I've just ordered one as well and am not 100% sure why I did.

I have a 4K but not UHD projector. I want to be able to watch 4K material when it is available. I assume that this device needs to sit between my SSP (which will be compliant) and my PJ to "down-sample" from UHD to just 4K. If it does that, I made the right decision. If not, let me know and I will cancel my order.

I also need an HDMI splitter since my new SSP only has 1 HDMI out and I need to drive two displays.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Here you go. I just ordered one myself as I don't have plans to upgrade my plasma until it dies or OLED drops more in price.
> 
> https://www.hdfury.com/shop/splitters/integral-4k60-444-600mhz/


That Warner Bros suit is doing wonders for HD Fury's sales  Again the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes.


----------



## Shniks

audioguy said:


> Please reread my post. First of all, I did not say he was a troll. I did say it felt like it. And it does. It has zero to do with he and I not agreeing. There are a whole lot of folks on this forum and others I don't agree with. It has everything to do with his *never ending beating of the same dead horse*. If he stated something like: "I know what Dolby recommends and I chose to not follow those guidelines", there would be no issue. Instead, he says over and over and over and over (or strongly implies) that while Dolby has guidelines, ignoring them is a much better plan since *he apparently knows the intent of all of those mixing facilities and they really want you to place your surrounds higher than Dolby suggests*. I'll ask again. I've shown the Official Dolby Guidelines. Where are Sanjay official credentials that would suggest I follow his recommended approach vs Dolby's?



Couldn't someone else then say that you too are beating the same dead horse by continuing to emphasize the opposing viewpoint in so many posts? And he never stated anywhere that he knows the intent of those mixing facilities and that they want us to place our surrounds higher than Dolby suggests. He is simply stating that since the surrounds are elevated in the mixing studios and the mixers are hearing the audio from those elevated speakers and mixing the movie track based on the audio reaching their ears, it behooves some of us, that want to hear what the mixer heard, to elevate our surrounds. Nowhere does he state that he knows the intent of the mixing facilities. Not sure where you got that from?

BTW please note that I am not taking any sides here as I can understand where both sides are coming from. I am just trying to understand why there is so much animosity towards someone expressing their opinion (a valid one). Not sure why people get so personal about such stuff- the mixers don't care and neither does Dolby as to where you place your surrounds. Place them where you want to and enjoy your audio. No one is forcing anyone to change their setup and layout.


Cheers,


----------



## audioguy

Shniks said:


> the mixers don't *care* and neither does Dolby as to where you place your surrounds. Place them where you want to and enjoy your audio. No one is forcing anyone to change their setup and layout.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Care? Maybe not. But the Dolby Guidelines they provide are very clear where the surrounds are to go. Very clear.


----------



## Shniks

audioguy said:


> Care? Maybe not. But the Dolby Guidelines they provide are very clear where the surrounds are to go. Very clear.



Alright - it's very clear that I am unable to articulate my point, so I am going to bow out.

Sanjay and Keith, please know that you both make valid points and I always enjoy reading your posts, even if they get a little heated. 


Cheers,


----------



## sdurani

Shniks said:


> I fail to see why everyone is getting so heated about this - two viewpoints here. Neither one is right or wrong.


For some the idea that a different solution can be as valid as theirs is unacceptable. Their approach has to be right; the other solution has to be wrong. Seeing the validity of both approaches gets people heated.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shniks said:


> 1) Elevate the surround speakers if you would like to hear what the mixer heard while mixing the audio...


Changing the subject slightly, do we really believe we hear what the mixer heard? Really? The mixer has a no-compromise, acoustically brilliant room, with speakers and amps purchased with no real restriction on cost. He sits in the ideal seat, the right distance from every speaker and from the screen. He has no WAF, no budget problems, no awkwardly shaped room to deal with. He hits Reference level with ease, even for the 115dB on the LFE channel. His speakers were chosen for their analytic abilities and not their 'audiophile' properties. And he doesn’t have to make any compromise so that the room is good for 2 channel music as it is for movies.

Add to that we have absolutely no idea what the mixer really heard unless we were sitting with him at the mix session.

Yet we really believe we can "hear what the mixer heard"? BTW, as this is off topic for the thread, let's not start another marathon  I'm sure there's already a thread for it so we could take it there - or if there isn't, maybe start a new one?


----------



## smurraybhm

audioguy said:


> I've just ordered one as well and am not 100% sure why I did.
> 
> I have a 4K but not UHD projector. I want to be able to watch 4K material when it is available. I assume that this device needs to sit between my SSP (which will be compliant) and my PJ to "down-sample" from UHD to just 4K. If it does that, I made the right decision. If not, let me know and I will cancel my order.
> 
> I also need an HDMI splitter since my new SSP only has 1 HDMI out and I need to drive two displays.


Your issue above is a perfect reason to buy one. The 4K display market right now is all over the place, hopefully fixed by the new standard announced yesterday (?) but we will see. I bought mine so I can enjoy Ultra UHD Blu-Rays without having to go out and buy a new display - immersive audio being the key since I have no doubt some studios will limit them to those disks only. We also have to remember the streaming side, suspect that it will prove useful for that as well should there be something I would rather rent vs. buy. A new display is a few years off for me, by then I hope the industry has uniformity, plus I really enjoy my Panny's picture, DNice works magic with his calibrations. 

As Keith has said a few times, nothing like having the effectiveness of the device endorsed by at least one studio - suspect more will join in the suit. I'm taking no chances and even if HD Fury wins the lawsuit, they should remain useful. It will be a good add-on when the time comes for me to sell/upgrade my 5200.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Add me to the HD Fury list. What is another $200 bucks in this ridiculous hobby? I need to add AVS to my URL filter so I stop spending money.


----------



## kaotikr1

Well I received my last shipment yesterday and spent the evening installing and messing with my dirac 88a and so far I am impressed. I had to redo my room again as I went with round surrounds. 

I'm running a full Golden Ear setup with Triton 2s, Supercenter XXL and 8 Invisa 650s. Using a denon 6200 with. Minidsp dirac unit.


----------



## audioguy

Shniks said:


> Couldn't someone else then say that you too are beating the same dead horse by continuing to emphasize the opposing viewpoint in so many posts?
> Cheers,


I have no issue with where Sanjay or anyone else places their surrounds. It, like most things audio, is all about preference. The issue I have is Sanjay suggesting that if I want the intent of the mixer and to hear what he hears, I should place the surrounds higher. And while the surrounds MAY be higher in the mixing studio (does Sanjay know for fact that is the case in all Dolby Atmos Home missing studios???). And how does he know that maybe while the mixer might have higher surrounds, he does not take that into account in his mixing for home use.

I don't have to be dogmatic in Dolby's position. It is in writing. Sanjay comes across as quite dogmatic in his position that in order to hear what the mixer hears and/or what he wants us to hear, we must put the surrounds up higher. Let him show me the equivalent documentation of his recommendation that Dolby has provided.

Once again, where the speakers go is not the issue. Sanjay's rationale on why they should go where he thinks they should is problematic for me. 

I said I was out of this discussion once before and clearly I lied. I will try and refrain from any further posts on this subject. (I believe I see the Emperor approaching)


----------



## audioguy

Molon_Labe said:


> Add me to the HD Fury list. What is another $200 bucks in this ridiculous hobby? I need to add AVS to my URL filter so I stop spending money.


There surely must be a 12 Step Program for all of us.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> My hope is that UHD releases will come out in "books" like many other releases do which include DVD's... so if a UHD bluray comes out... I'd buy the UHD atmos disc in the hopes that it would include a BD with an Atmos mix as well. Too optimistic?


Hi Aras, long time no see. All the cover shots of the upcoming UHD packages show UHD Disc, Blu-ray disc and HD download. I too hope the Blu-ray disc includes the Atmos soundtrack. I have seen nothing to say it won't, but then nothing to say it will either. I guess we'll soon find out.



Aras_Volodka said:


> Sanjay is a great guy... in knowing me for less than 10 min He bought me a beer!
> 
> Sanjay, if you are reading I meant to say thank you.


+1. I hope everyone still reading along on his and my apparently endless discussion can see that there is no animosity whatsoever between us and we remain good friends despite our differences of opinion. We agree much more often than we disagree.



Aras_Volodka said:


> I do my surrounds @ ear level... I'm sure it's a distortion from the mixer's perspective. But for the most part everything is.


Yep. How many of us can honestly say we have not had to compromise one or more aspects of our HTs? I know I can't. But they remain fabulous audio and visual experiences for us, often (usually?) surpassing many commercial cinemas. I can't ever remember spending money on anything material which has given me so much pleasure as the ability to watch movies at home with the kind of sound and picture quality we can so readily achieve nowadays. And with Atmos, DTS:X, UHD etc it continues to get better and better!


----------



## smurraybhm

Molon_Labe said:


> Add me to the HD Fury list. What is another $200 bucks in this ridiculous hobby? I need to add AVS to my URL filter so I stop spending money.


When I saw the $199 price I couldn't help but think which is more valuable - Auro or the HD Fury? Since I will soon have both I'm guessing I find the Fury a lot more useful in the year to come and beyond.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> For some the idea that a different solution can be as valid as theirs is unacceptable. Their approach has to be right; the other solution has to be wrong. Seeing the validity of both approaches gets people heated.


I agree broadly with that sentiment - but in this case the other view is not "as valid" simply because it goes against Dolby's recommendations. Not adhering to the advice of the manufacturer cannot be as valid as adhering to it. It may be an acceptable alternative solution for some. It may sound great. But it cannot be as valid as adhering to the official recommendation.


----------



## Shniks

kbarnes701 said:


> But they remain fabulous audio and visual experiences for us, often (usually?) surpassing many commercial cinemas. I can't ever remember spending money on anything material which has given me so much pleasure as the ability to watch movies at home with the kind of sound and picture quality we can so readily achieve nowadays. And with Atmos, DTS:X, UHD etc it continues to get better and better!



So true - home theaters today (even if you have limited budget) can end up sounding so much better than a lot of the commercial theaters. My friends and I are always surprised at how good a blu-ray can sound in my modest home theater compared with some of the cinemas we have been to in LA. And I can only imagine what the experience is like in some of the theaters built by the AVS members (with multiple JTR speakers, multiple Seaton and Funk subs, Atmos 7.1.4, Trinnov audio et al). Great time to be alive for sure. 

Cheers,


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Forget cinemas - this is a home Atmos thread.


Which Atmos mix do people listen to at home?


> But for you to cite bad mixes (ie those where the mixer has used the surrounds for sounds above rather than using the dedicated Atmos speakers for sounds from above) demonstrates the weakness of your position. You can only defend it by citing ineptitude as a reason for it.


San Andreas isn't a bad mix. Your subjective dislike for a mix doesn't make it objectively "bad".


> They are inept, however, if they ignore the speakers on the ceiling and instead decide to put sounds from above in the surrounds.


Re-recording engineers are not inept for being able to differentiate sounds above ear height from sounds overhead. Not their problem if you conflate the two.


> But the essential feature of Atmos is sounds from above.


For you. Not necessarily for others.


> Nothing in the overheads for the bird flapping scene.


From which you've made the leap that it was intended to be heard at ear height. You're starting from the false premise that sounds meant to be heard above ear height can only come from overhead speakers, when that's never ever been the case for movie mixes (not even with Atmos mixes).


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> Well I received my last shipment yesterday and spent the evening installing and messing with my dirac 88a and so far I am impressed. I had to redo my room again as I went with round surrounds.
> 
> I'm running a full Golden Ear setup with Triton 2s, Supercenter XXL and 8 Invisa 650s. Using a denon 6200 with. Minidsp dirac unit.


With your surrounds pretty much at ear level, I am sure you will get an awesomely awesome Atmos result there! LOL. And that 88A is worth its weight in diamonds.


----------



## scarabaeus

audioguy said:


> I've just ordered one as well and am not 100% sure why I did.
> 
> I have a 4K but not UHD projector. I want to be able to watch 4K material when it is available. I assume that this device needs to sit between my SSP (which will be compliant) and my PJ to "down-sample" from UHD to just 4K. If it does that, I made the right decision. If not, let me know and I will cancel my order.
> 
> I also need an HDMI splitter since my new SSP only has 1 HDMI out and I need to drive two displays.


Depends on whether your SSP supports HDCP 2.2 or not. If not, then you'lll have to put the fury inbetween your UHD player and the SSP input. If it does, then connect the fury between the SSP and your PJ.

All of us 2014 Atmos AVR owners (except for Onkyo/Integra) need the former configurations, since they can only do HDCP 1.4.

Not sure about your distinction between 4K (4096x2160) and UHD (3840x2160). Are you saying your PJ is 4096x2160, and does not accept any 3840x2160 input formats? That would be strange, since even HDMI 1.4 included support for both (UHD at 24, 25 and 30 Hz, 4K at 24 Hz). So it should be fine to send UHD signals to your PJ, and it will show that pillarboxed with 128 pixels of black on each side.

The fury, by the way, has two outputs and works as a splitter. Not sure if both outputs can be HDCP 1.4, or if one has to be 2.2.


----------



## kaotikr1

kbarnes701 said:


> With your surrounds pretty much at ear level, I am sure you will get an awesomely awesome Atmos result there! LOL. And that 88A is worth its weight in diamonds.


I watched some of Gravity and John Wick last night and thought they both sounded awesome but Gravity was very impressive.


----------



## sdurani

Shniks said:


> Couldn't someone else then say that you too are beating the same dead horse by continuing to emphasize the opposing viewpoint in so many posts?


He and Keith aren't beating a dead horse for continuing the discussion, only I can be accused of that for doing the exact same thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> San Andreas isn't a bad mix. Your subjective dislike for a mix doesn't make it objectively "bad".


Whoa there! There was nothing subjective in my criticism of that mix. It is an objective fact where the woman was vis-a-vis the helicopter. It is an objective fact that one of the prime purposes of Atmos is to give us sounds from above us. Nowhere is that more observable than when the action is at ear level (ie we are viewing the scene from the POV of the character on screen) and there is relevant additional action (the helicopter) above. To deliberately not take full advantage of Atmos capabilities in those circumstances is indicative of a bad mix. Nothing to do with my subjective preference - in fact I loved the *San Andreas *mix overall. Pity the movie wasn't as good.



sdurani said:


> Re-recording engineers are not inept for being able to differentiate sounds above ear height from sounds overhead. Not their problem if you conflate the two.


In the example we are discussing there was no question of "above ear height" - the helicopter was directly above the character on screen. It's not my problem if you have chosen a really bad example to make your point. 



sdurani said:


> For you. Not necessarily for others.


Ask anyone on here - do they believe sounds from above are a quintessential part of the Atmos experience, and what differentiates Atmos from regular 7.1 and what is generally regarded as the major breakthrough in cinema and home theater sound? Of course it is. Not just for me - it is most of the entire point: to give us sounds from above instead of just sounds from around, thus making the whole experience much more "immersive". As you yourself have put it many times - a dome of sound rather than a circle of sound.



sdurani said:


> From which you've made the leap that it was intended to be heard at ear height.


Oh come on! The mixer was able to place that sound anywhere. He chose NOT to put ANY of the sound in the overheads. What does that tell you about his intent?



sdurani said:


> You're starting from the false premise that sounds meant to be heard above ear height can only come from overhead speakers, when that's never ever been the case for movie mixes (not even with Atmos mixes).


Not even close let alone a cigar. You are putting more words into my mouth. Of course sounds from above can come from elsewhere other than 'only the overheads'. They can come from ear height, a little above ear height, a lot above ear height and from above. The mixer can use any of those locations with Atmos. When he chooses to put the sound in the ear level speakers and none of the sound in the overheads for a particular effect, we surely know what he intended us to hear.


----------



## kbarnes701

kaotikr1 said:


> I watched some of Gravity and John Wick last night and thought they both sounded awesome but Gravity was very impressive.


HT Rule No 172: never, ever start watching movies until your HT is complete, or you will never complete it 

This is also Rule most universally broken 

Glad you had a good first experience though.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> That's not quite true. ITU spec allows for side surrounds to be slightly in front of the listener and there are some circumstances in which that is beneficial. There is a range of permitted angles, not one specific 'right' angle.
> 
> Interestingly, Dolby gave us a range of permitted angles for overhead speakers too and so long as your speakers fall within those ranges you are good. They did not give a range of permitted heights for surround speakers, advising us to place them at ear level, although they did also say that practical considerations might make this difficult. In that case they suggested that the rear surrounds (note only the rear surrounds IIRC) could be up to 1.25 times higher than the front L and R.


Yeah, nothing wrong with "slightly in front" but I am talking about those who have them in the front wide position. Either way, we get it. There are some that will argue that their setup, although going against the recommended specs, is better for them. It's human nature and plus, things will sound better if you have convinced yourself that they do...

I am no different! I've convinced myself that fronts at 42 degrees is perfectly ok.  Talking about things being off screen! I just consider them as wide/fronts! I know that this is the reason why the bird sounds like it goes around the room then right as it passes center speakers, it sounds like it fly diagonally back to the left surround...

My Top speakers are not right either. I have them 6 feet from each other with an 7'8" ceiling. I knew that I was installing them at a around 55 degrees vs the recommended 45 degrees but since it is a temporary setup, I disregarded the recommended specs thinking it would be good enough. Listening to the helicopter demo, there is no doubt that my top front and back are too close. Sounds like it is slightly behind me then flying over me. Pretty sure it suppose to be a circular pattern around the room...

The thing is, if we would just put the speakers where Dolby says...then everything would sound the way it was intended to sound.


----------



## Dreamgazers

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I can't seem to get my new Fifth Element blu-ray with Atmos to diplay Atmos on my AVR. Other Atmos movies like Mad Max work. I have tried playing the movie on my Xbox One, PS4 and PC. Not sure what is going on. Anyone else having this issue?


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> but in this case the other view is not "as valid" simply because it goes against Dolby's recommendations.


 I actually don't care about going against the Dolby recommendation. I'm all for doing what provides the most entertaining experience. I've even lost my audiophile card for no longer listening to 2 channels music with only 2 speakers.

The issue I have with Sanjay's position has nothing to do with his "recommendation" for placing them higher. But it has everything to do with his rationale. The problems with his rationale is that he has no clue what the mixer is hearing, or how high the surround speakers really are, or if the mixer is taking into consideration the speaker height he is using and making adjustments for the home environment, or anything else for that matter. But we should just take his word for it and that if we want to hear what the mixer hears and what the mixer's intent for us is, we must raise our surrounds. Seriously? Where is his proof that he KNOWS the mixer's environment and intent? He has none.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Changing the subject slightly, do we really believe we hear what the mixer heard?


Depends on which aspects you're talking about. Do I hear most of the dialogue come from the centre speaker like the mixer heard? Yes. Do I hear the same decay (reverberation time) in my living room that the mixer heard on his dub stage? No. So it's not an all or nothing proposition. 

The goal of the home THX program was to get as close as possible to what the mixer heard on the dub stage. Not a goal I was interested in, but not invalid or incorrect for those that wanted to hear what the filmmakers signed off on.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> He and Keith aren't beating a dead horse for continuing the discussion, only I can be accused of that for doing the exact same thing.


I am ready to call it a draw and leave these guys in some sort of peace, if you are


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It is an objective fact where the woman was vis-a-vis the helicopter.


The helicopter was heard above ear height during the mix. You re-arranged your speakers to bring those sounds down to ear height. Don't blame the soundtrack for that.


> It is an objective fact that one of the prime purposes of Atmos is to give us sounds from above us.


For you. You can't accept that it is not one of the prime purposes for those that mix Atmos soundtracks.


> To deliberately not take full advantage of Atmos capabilities in those circumstances is indicative of a bad mix.


They're not required to take full advantage of any technology, just use what they need to convey their point.


> The mixer was able to place that sound anywhere. He chose NOT to put ANY of the sound in the overheads. What does that tell you about his intent?


He was already hearing it from above, so no need to put it specifically in the overheads.


> Of course sounds from above can come from elsewhere other than 'only the overheads'.


Not from speakers at ear height. Like I said, you lowered your surrounds, people who create Atmos mixes didn't. That's a legitimate problem. Different people choose to deal with that problem differently. Some choose not lower their surrounds. You choose to call re-recording engineers "inept". Doesn't make their choice incorrect.


----------



## audiofan1

audioguy said:


> Please reread my post. First of all, I did not say he was a troll. I did say it felt like it. And it does. It has zero to do with he and I not agreeing. There are a whole lot of folks on this forum and others I don't agree with. It has everything to do with his never ending beating of the same dead horse. If he stated something like: "I know what Dolby recommends and I chose to not follow those guidelines", there would be no issue. Instead, he says over and over and over and over (or strongly implies) that while Dolby has guidelines, ignoring them is a much better plan since he apparently knows the intent of all of those mixing facilities and they really want you to place your surrounds higher than Dolby suggests. I'll ask again. I've shown the Official Dolby Guidelines. Where are Sanjay official credentials that would suggest I follow his recommended approach vs Dolby's?


 I think we need to slow things down a bit on the subject as its getting a bit personal, while I love passionate ,heated discussions asking for credentials just to take a stance on a point of view is pointless. Many on this discussion have plenty of "Hands on experience" to qualify for an opinion. This is where the rubber meets the road as Atmos for Home is in the hands of users in countless applications and the results are still with in reach of the suggested guidelines


----------



## DAK4

I'm learning a lot from those Master Debaters  sorry

My vote: (chanting) Ear Level, Ear Level, Better Bubble, Better Bubble, Ear Level, Ear Level, Better Bubble, Better Bubble.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> The helicopter was heard above ear height during the mix.


And you KNOW this how?

You continue to assert you know what the mixer heard. You don't know what the mixer heard or from which speaker he heard it. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Were you there in the mixing room? Did the mixer provide documentation so that you clearly understood what he was hearing and from where and what his intent was? Of course not. It is simply your opinion but you continue to dogmatically make assertion about which you have zero proof.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am ready to call it a draw and leave these guys in some sort of peace, if you are


Make your final reply and I'll leave it alone, since I have to drive to Vegas in a few hours for CES (yes, I'll try to snag you some demo discs).


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> They're not required to take full advantage of any technology, just use what they need to convey their point.


This is definitely not understood widely enough... You can choose to make nay movie mono no matter what format someone else may request.
It might not be appreciated, but from an artistic perspective there's nothing prohibiting it.

The tools for placing sounds for Dolby Atmos (etc.) seem quite interesting to work with compared to previous gen, so even if you don't even like using the height dimension, there's probably quite a bit to gain from using the software for the mix.


----------



## ellisr63

kbarnes701 said:


> HT Rule No 172: never, ever start watching movies until your HT is complete, or you will never complete it
> 
> This is also Rule most universally broken
> 
> Glad you had a good first experience though.


Very true... 1 1/2 years later the room still is not completed.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The helicopter was heard above ear height during the mix. You re-arranged your speakers to bring those sounds down to ear height. Don't blame the soundtrack for that.


Who else is to blame other than the mixer? He has overhead speakers available to him, and an overhead sound. So what does he do? He doesn’t put the overhead sound in the overhead speakers. If he was mixing in non-Atmos I could agree with you. But I am pretty sure they told him Atmos has speakers right up there... overhead.



sdurani said:


> For you. You can't accept that it is not one of the prime purposes for those that mix Atmos soundtracks.


Simply ignoring the fact that Atmos has overhead speakers can't really be a great move, can it? No need to put overhead sounds in the surrounds any more - and in any event they still wouldn't be overhead - they'd be high up on the walls. The whole point of the scene you chose is that the helicopter is directly overhead.



sdurani said:


> They're not required to take full advantage of any technology, just use what they need to convey their point.


This guy didn't make his point. That's the beef. The chopper is overhead the woman. He placed the sounds into the wrong speakers. He should have used the overheads. Epic fail.



sdurani said:


> He was already hearing it from above, so no need to put it specifically in the overheads.


So he just said _"Hey, I could use this Atmos tech to put these overhead sounds in the overhead speakers. But tell you what, I'll pretend we don't have overhead speakers and stick it into the surrounds. That will be close enough."_ Really?



sdurani said:


> Not from speakers at ear height.


No - from the speakers which are overhead.



sdurani said:


> Like I said, you lowered your surrounds, people who create Atmos mixes didn't. That's a legitimate problem. Different people choose to deal with that problem differently. Some choose not lower their surrounds. You choose to call re-recording engineers "inept". Doesn't make their choice incorrect.


It is definitely incorrect and inept to deliberately choose not to use the overhead speakers for sounds which come from overhead. Maybe he didn't realise he was working on an Atmos movie?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Make your final reply and I'll leave it alone, since I have to drive to Vegas in a few hours for CES (yes, I'll try to snag you some demo discs).


Done.  I declare it a draw  Have a safe journey. And yes, please and thanks in advance!


----------



## kbarnes701

Huge collective sigh of relief raised (from the overheads) by everyone. LOL


----------



## robert ham

*Happy New Year*

Just stopping in to wish everyone a great 2016 as Dolby Atmos continues to evolve.. Will have to see what might be coming out this year as previewed at the CES in Las Vegas this week... Always a fun time of the year, despite San Diego washing away into the ocean!!!


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I just bought a Sony 55es projector. I have no inclination to pay the outrageous 4k projector prices, but I would like to enjoy the benefits of the audio with UHD until the 4k projectors drop into the $4k-ish range. My limit is $4k for 4k


You should have gone RS400.....

I debated between the 55 and the JVC. The JVC pre-sale price was only a little more than the 55ES (just a little more than $3K)....With 2.2 support and pseudo-4K via eShift....Made my decision easy!


----------



## rontalley

DAK4 said:


> I'm learning a lot from those Master Debaters  sorry
> 
> My vote: (chanting) Ear Level, Ear Level, Better Bubble, Better Bubble, Ear Level, Ear Level, Better Bubble, Better Bubble.


So...why did I just join in with you?! I literally was over hear chanting along with you!


----------



## healthnut

Like most people on this forum, I have a lot of money and time invested in my home theater. This year, virtual reality will be a real product, and it's ability to create a truly immersive experience has me wondering if all the parsing and debating about the position of Atmos speakers will soon be rendered moot. Early on, games will be emphasized, but I think it's a real possibility that movies will eventually be part of the experience and where will that leave all of us who have invested so much in our home theaters?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nabs17

healthnut said:


> Like most people on this forum, I have a lot of money and time invested in my home theater. This year, virtual reality will be a real product, and it's ability to create a truly immersive experience has me wondering if all the parsing and debating about the position of Atmos speakers will soon be rendered moot. Early on, games will be emphasized, but I think it's a real possibility that movies will eventually be part of the experience and where will that leave all of us who have invested so much in our home theaters?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I know Oculus Rift is coming and Gear VR is here and they have potential in the gaming space...we'll see. I think we're safe for the time being on the HT front and have no plans to not spend based upon VR. I should reduce spending just because I've spent so much in 2015 but who am I kidding.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

darklord700 said:


> http://feature.u-audio.com.tw/featuredetail.asp?featureid=571
> 
> These speaker stands could solve a lot of problems for Atmos if you don't find them hideous.


Stolen from this 1962 floor lamp named Arco by Castiglioni for Flos...


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> For some the idea that a different solution can be as valid as theirs is unacceptable. Their approach has to be right; the other solution has to be wrong. Seeing the validity of both approaches gets people heated.


The issue simply is that one approach is protecting compromised (re)production techniques from the past and the other is pushing for actually improving reproduction.


----------



## Selden Ball

AllenA07 said:


> The DSU is amazing. I'm not typically a fan of upmixers, but the DSU really does improve everything. I'm hoping that DTS Nueral X is as good as the DSU has been, especially considering that the vast majority of movies have the DTS track.





PeterTHX said:


> What's stopping you from playing a DTS track through DSU...


I'm not Allen, but since your question seems to have gotten buried under the dead horse...

I suspect he purchased one of the 2015 Denon or Marantz units. Unfortunately, they have a serious upmixing limitation: they cannot apply DSU to DTS audio, only to Dolby or PCM audio. This limitation is not present in the 2015 equipment models from other manufacturers, nor in the 2014 models from D+M. Whether or not it'll be fixed after the DTS firmware updates become available is not known. In the meantime, the workaround is to have DTS audio decoded into PCM in the player.


----------



## healthnut

Nabs17 said:


> I know Oculus Rift is coming and Gear VR is here and they have potential in the gaming space...we'll see. I think we're safe for the time being on the HT front and have no plans to not spend based upon VR. I should reduce spending just because I've spent so much in 2015 but who am I kidding.



I'm with you on the spending situation. I 'm also skeptical that VR can replace what we've built on the audio front. How can headphones replicate 10 speakers effectively, to say nothing of subwooferage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AllenA07

Selden Ball said:


> I'm not Allen, but since your question seems to have gotten buried under the dead horse...
> 
> I suspect he purchased one of the 2015 Denon or Marantz units. Unfortunately, they have a serious upmixing limitation: they cannot apply DSU to DTS audio, only to Dolby or PCM audio. This limitation is not present in the 2015 equipment models from other manufacturers, nor in the 2014 models from D+M. Whether or not it'll be fixed after the DTS firmware updates become available is not known. In the meantime, the workaround is to have DTS audio decoded into PCM in the player.


You would be correct. I've got the Denon x6200 which doesn't allow me to use DSU on the DTS soundtrack. At this point it is a serious annoyance. I'm hoping that once the update for DTS X comes in February, I'm pleased with Neural X and the issue becomes moot.


----------



## rontalley

healthnut said:


> Like most people on this forum, I have a lot of money and time invested in my home theater. This year, virtual reality will be a real product, and it's ability to create a truly immersive experience has me wondering if all the parsing and debating about the position of Atmos speakers will soon be rendered moot. Early on, games will be emphasized, but I think it's a real possibility that movies will eventually be part of the experience and where will that leave all of us who have invested so much in our home theaters?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Nabs17 said:


> I know Oculus Rift is coming and Gear VR is here and they have potential in the gaming space...we'll see. I think we're safe for the time being on the HT front and have no plans to not spend based upon VR. I should reduce spending just because I've spent so much in 2015 but who am I kidding.


I bought the DK2 when it was released and although I hated spending $678 for the new Rift, I pre-ordered it as well. I will say that I have always thought how cool it was to catch a movie on the bid screen while sitting in my living room, unfortunately, the resolution of the DK2 was too low to make it an enjoyable experience. 

Fast forward and now I do believe that VR will be a thing for movie watching. However, VR has never been as immersive with speakers vs having headphones on. Add a bass shaker to your seat and BAM! Oh man! 

Good thing for HT is VR is a one man show right now and plus here's the real problem with VR!


Not Suitable for Work!


Spoiler


----------



## healthnut

Please share your impressions when you've had a chance to put it through its paces, especially as it compares to the home theater experience. Btw, have you seen the movie "Brainstorm" (Natalie Wood's last movie). There's some important warnings in it about what VR could eventually become.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markus767

healthnut said:


> I'm with you on the spending situation. I 'm also skeptical that VR can replace what we've built on the audio front. How can headphones replicate 10 speakers effectively, to say nothing of subwooferage?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You can actually get a way better results from headphones than from speakers. You could even get sound from below which is impossible to do with speakers (because there is a floor). The only stumbling block is to get your individual HRTF scanned. The rest is rather trivial.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> You can actually get a way better results from headphones than from speakers. You could even get sound from below which is impossible to do with speakers (because there is a floor). The only stumbling block is to get your individual HRTF scanned. The rest is rather trivial.


Smyth Research has taken that hurdle with their Realiser A8. Only 8 channels though...


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Smyth Research has taken that hurdle with their Realiser A8. Only 8 channels though...


I own one – it's not quite there yet.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> I own one – it's not quite there yet.


I think it's a pity that they - or any other party for that matter - don't seem to be further developing this personalized HRTF technique. I always thought it to be very promising, even more so with the new immersive sound formats.


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> I think it's is a pity that they - or any other party for that matter - don't seem to be further developing this personalized HRTF technique. I always thought it to be very promising, even more so with the new immersive sound formats.


Quite true but ask people, even geeks if they would wear headphones for movie watching. Most find the idea off-putting even if the technology itself would deliver results that are lightyears ahead of and way cheaper than any speaker based system. So you get resistance from the consumer and from the industry. Not a really desirable environment for a commercial enterprise.


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> Add me to the HD Fury list. What is another $200 bucks in this ridiculous hobby? I need to add AVS to my URL filter so I stop spending money.


A1+ 

Two hundred bucks is peanuts. ...For HDFury, and for Auro-3D too. 

And if your room's size is normal, like @ home and not a movie studio or a theater; position your regular floor speakers of a Dolby Atmos system setup @ or near ear level (between roughly 36" and 48" above the floor). ...As recommended by Dolby Atmos in their Guidelines papers (link on the 1st post). 
But having the freedom to put them higher (preference) is a very valid second option. ...In particular if you have high/vaulted ceilings. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Whoa there! There was nothing subjective in my criticism of that mix. It is an objective fact where the woman was vis-a-vis the helicopter. It is an objective fact that one of the prime purposes of Atmos is to give us sounds from above us. Nowhere is that more observable than when the action is at ear level (ie we are viewing the scene from the POV of the character on screen) and there is relevant additional action (the helicopter) above. To deliberately not take full advantage of Atmos capabilities in those circumstances is indicative of a bad mix. Nothing to do with my subjective preference - in fact I loved the *San Andreas *mix overall. Pity the movie wasn't as good.


I feel the need to mention that mixers don't tend to necessarily mix based on POV in the scene of either the character or the camera. The transitions between scenes would be an absolute nightmare if they did. The sound mix is an artistic decision made by the mixer to serve the needs of the movie... so saying there should have been a helicopter sound in the heights is really a subjective thing as far as movie sound is concerned. The mixer would have to decide whether it makes more sense to use the overheads in a flashy way for POV, then how to transition that out for external shots or the internal shots from the dangling car, etc. Whereas keeping it in the beds lets them make those transitions with good immersion across all of the cuts of that particular scene, with minor non-jarring changes such as the occlusion of the sound that would occur without having to shift the placement of the sound if it were handled as a discrete object. 

My point here is that you see it as a "bad mix". I see it a bit more practically as the right decision for that particular scene, given the challenges of that scene and what the filmmakers intended to convey. Whereas momentary pans of objects (such as flyovers or weather effects) make sense, a sustained sound like a helicopter's rotor wouldn't necessarily be the best thing to use an object for. And ultimately, what they use objects for and what they use the discrete channels for is an artistic decision, not one based on the logic of where the sound would be based on the POV of the camera or placement of characters. Even pre-Atmos, you would be surprised at how much restraint mixers have to show when it comes to deciding what to place where and how that transitions to the next shot or scene. I'm fairly sure that Filmmixer would agree with me on that.


----------



## audioguy

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm fairly sure that Filmmixer would agree with me on that.


Where is Filmmixer when we need him!! He could at least add some clarity if not settle this whole high or low surround speaker question.


----------



## Ricoflashback

healthnut said:


> Like most people on this forum, I have a lot of money and time invested in my home theater. This year, *virtual reality* will be a real product, and it's ability to create a *truly immersive experience* has me wondering if all the parsing and debating about the position of Atmos speakers will soon be rendered moot. Early on, games will be emphasized, but I think it's a real possibility that movies will eventually be part of the experience and *where will that leave all of us who have invested so much in our home theaters?*
> 
> Answer: Scurrying to invest in porno stocks.


----------



## Ricoflashback

audioguy said:


> Where is Filmmixer when we need him!! He could at least add some clarity if not settle this whole high or low surround speaker question.


He took the "High" Road outta here until the thread settles down.


----------



## DaGamePimp

I'm just going to place speakers every 12" after 36" and wire a speaker selector in chain so I can change on the fly based upon who's mix I am listening to.
This way I can re-route helicopters and burn-outs where ever the heck I want... standards, we don't need no stinking standards.


- Jason


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> He took the "High" Road outta here until the thread settles down.


Be honest - he got frustrated with one of our top posters - again. The name isn't Keith either 
The man who says spending $400 is no big deal, but has yet to put their $ where their posts are 
Just saying 
Thank goodness the debate is over, we can all test our systems (speakers low/high) with Everest based on the stellar review Mr. Potts gave it a few days ago.


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> Where is Filmmixer when we need him!! He could at least add some clarity if not settle this whole high or low surround speaker question.


His "position" on the subject should be pretty obvious.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> I hate this time difference thing. All you guys are in bed asleep when I start posting and we get a whole string of consecutive posts from me. Looks bad



Pssssst Keith...maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the *Multi-Quote* button. 



FilmMixer said:


> Personally, I'm outta here until that kind of nonsense stops.



This message is hidden because NorthSky is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because NorthSky is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because NorthSky is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because NorthSky is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because NorthSky is on your ignore list.

I smile every time I see this in the thread. 



thebland said:


> I have a friend looking for a modest Atmos enabled receiver that will do DTS-X (eligible for update) - not crazy priced - under $1K?



PM @jdsmoothie



Dreamgazers said:


> Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I can't seem to get my new Fifth Element blu-ray with Atmos to diplay Atmos on my AVR. Other Atmos movies like Mad Max work. I have tried playing the movie on my Xbox One, PS4 and PC. Not sure what is going on. Anyone else having this issue?



Are you sure that you bought the re-release from last October, and not one of the previous incarnations?


----------



## Jive Turkey

smurraybhm said:


> Your issue above is a perfect reason to buy one. The 4K display market right now is all over the place, hopefully fixed by the new standard announced yesterday (?) but we will see. I bought mine so I can enjoy Ultra UHD Blu-Rays without having to go out and buy a new display - immersive audio being the key since I have no doubt some studios will limit them to those disks only. We also have to remember the streaming side, suspect that it will prove useful for that as well should there be something I would rather rent vs. buy. A new display is a few years off for me, by then I hope the industry has uniformity, plus I really enjoy my Panny's picture, DNice works magic with his calibrations.
> 
> As Keith has said a few times, nothing like having the effectiveness of the device endorsed by at least one studio - suspect more will join in the suit. I'm taking no chances and even if HD Fury wins the lawsuit, they should remain useful. It will be a good add-on when the time comes for me to sell/upgrade my 5200.


I've been meaning to stay on top of things, but maybe you can just short cut me here. I've got all 1080P from source to projector and I want to be able to play whatever UHD stuff comes along, downconverted to 1080p I assume, and especially because I'm an Atmos audio guy. This HDFury box for $200 will make all things good for me?

Any trouble with it working with an outboard Darbee Darblet in line?


----------



## AllenA07

Jive Turkey said:


> I've been meaning to stay on top of things, but maybe you can just short cut me here. I've got all 1080P from source to projector and I want to be able to play whatever UHD stuff comes along, downconverted to 1080p I assume, and especially because I'm an Atmos audio guy. This HDFury box for $200 will make all things good for me?
> 
> Any trouble with it working with an outboard Darbee Darblet in line?


You're correct, the HD fury is the solution to that problem.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jive Turkey said:


> I've been meaning to stay on top of things, but maybe you can just short cut me here. I've got all 1080P from source to projector and I want to be able to play whatever UHD stuff comes along, downconverted to 1080p I assume, and especially because I'm an Atmos audio guy. This HDFury box for $200 will make all things good for me?
> 
> Any trouble with it working with an outboard Darbee Darblet in line?


Your best bet is getting one of the dual HDMI out UHD players coming this year (one is HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2, the other HDMI 1.4 for backwards compatibility).


----------



## apesterin

Dan Hitchman said:


> Your best bet is getting one of the dual HDMI out UHD players coming this year (one is HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2, the other HDMI 1.4 for backwards compatibility).


That won't work I think. The dual players won't down convert. He doesn't have hdcp 2.2 chain anywhere to pass uhd video 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

apesterin said:


> That won't work I think. The dual players won't down convert. He doesn't have hdcp 2.2 chain anywhere to pass uhd video
> 
> Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


If nothing is HDCP 2.2 then yes, it sounds like he will get no picture at all if AACS 2.0 is included on the disc. If the display is 1080p, but has HDCP 2.2, you could get UHD video down-converted by the player.

Looking at the very small print in the Samsung manual.


----------



## Jive Turkey

AllenA07 said:


> You're correct, the HD fury is the solution to that problem.


Okay. Just bought one. I appreciate the handholding on this one. My gear is fine at 1080P (Sony 55ES on 118" Carada screen) and the 4k bug doesn't have a hold on me at this time (and I've seen 4k on screens of this size).

Integral 4K60 4:4:4 600MHz (#INTEGRAL)
power-supply: US Power Supply (120V/60Hz) $199.00


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Your best bet is getting one of the dual HDMI out UHD players coming this year (one is HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2, the other HDMI 1.4 for backwards compatibility).


So does that mean if a UHD disc is playing, it will "down-sample" the data and put it out on the other HDMI (1.4) out port? THAT would be good news.


----------



## Tom Ames

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Stolen from this 1962 floor lamp named Arco by Castiglioni for Flos...
> 
> View attachment 1169658


hideous?!?! I have one of these, handed down from my parents, in my living room where my newly acquired Pioneer up-firing Atmos speakers rest atop my vintage Marantz speakers. Can you say time warp? Or perhaps eclectic?

I've been looking for an opportunity to subscribe to this thread, but I never figured it would present itself in this fashion


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audioguy said:


> So does that mean if a UHD disc is playing, it will "down-sample" the data and put it out on the other HDMI (1.4) out port? THAT would be good news.


I just downloaded the Samsung manual and the very fine print mentions that AACS 2.0 encoded UHD Blu-ray discs will cause the player to stop outputting video completely when attached to non HDCP 2.2 compliant devices. 

A nasty little side effect of the new Hollywood copy coding protocols.


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> I just downloaded the Samsung manual and the very fine print mentions that AACS 2.0 encoded UHD Blu-ray discs will cause the player to stop outputting video completely when attached to non HDCP 2.2 compliant devices.
> 
> A nasty little side effect of the new Hollywood copy coding protocols.


Sounds like an HD Fury is in my future.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audioguy said:


> Sounds like an HD Fury is in my future.


Very near future if the lawsuit takes down the company and others like it.


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Very near future if the lawsuit takes down the company and others like it.


Ordered.


----------



## Csbooth

Regarding the recent topic brought up about VR and audio. I don't know much about it right now, but couldn't one place their headset on and output sound (hopefully immersive audio) via their PC/Console to their SSP/AVR while simultaneously outputting the video to the headset's display? Is headphones mandatory if you are to hear audio, or is doing the aforementioned method a sub-optimal experience?

I'm mainly curious if someone has read that it's not possible to output sound to an actual audio system and instead you must use headphones. I'm sure with some really good processing and quality components, headphones could be an excellent experience (minus having proper bass of course), but if you are in the correct position where your "real" audio gear is and not having to wear additional gear, wouldn't this be the more preferable situation?


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> A1+
> 
> Two hundred bucks is peanuts. ...For HDFury, and for Auro-3D too.
> 
> And if your room's size is normal, like @ home and not a movie studio or a theater; position your regular floor speakers of a Dolby Atmos system setup @ or near ear level (between roughly 36" and 48" above the floor). ...As recommended by Dolby Atmos in their Guidelines papers (link on the 1st post).
> But having the freedom to put them higher (preference) is a very valid second option. ...In particular if you have high/vaulted ceilings.
> 
> Just my two cents.


Bob: Sometimes your posts really confuse me. You say the $200 for HDFury and Auro 3D is peanuts, but you have neither. And unless something has changed, you have yet to move to an Atmos processor yet continue to make recommendations to folks on how to set up these systems.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## maikeldepotter

SoundChex said:


> Because existing HT mass market AVRs include NO mechanism for entering the elevation angle of Middle Layer speakers, e.g., L|C|R|SL|SR|RL|RR, the included Atmos VBAP rendering engine "knows" (for the purposes of computation) that these speakers are located at ear level, i.e., with elevation angle 'zero degrees'. Can someone who has installed a Dolby Atmos Cinema Processor CP850 enlighten us as to whether the actual ("measured") elevation angle of each surround speaker is included in the entered configuration info when that RMU is setup for a new mixing studio or movie auditorium, please...?
> _


This earlier response from Roger Dressler might shed some light...



maikeldepotter said:


> If you assume that:
> 1) Atmos re-recording mixing studios use elevated surrounds,
> 2) their position has been accurately programmed into the Atmos mixing tool,
> 3) in re-mixing the home mix, metadata for object positioning are not adjusted, and
> 4) the consumer Atmos playback renderer assumes surrounds at listener's level.
> 
> This would imply that:
> All the objects that are positioned at surround speaker level in the re-recording mixing studio, will at home end up being panned between surround speakers and height speakers. In other words, if the re-recording engineer decides not address the height speakers in panning an helicopter object, the heights at home will still come into action to pan the sound from listener level speakers to the right elevated height.
> 
> From the reviews I have read this does not seem to be happening. So which of the 4 assumption is false. Or am I missing something?





Roger Dressler said:


> 2). In all cases, the main speakers are assumed to be at zero elevation. The idea is to prevent the objects panned through the main speakers from being spread upward.


Remark: 'main speakers' refers to LCR+surrounds



maikeldepotter said:


> So lowering surrounds to ear level will result in lowered sounds from side and back as compared to what was heard in the mixing room. This phenomenon apparently applies not only for standard 5.1/7.1 content but - remarkably - also for Atmos soundtracks. Therefore I would suggest the following addition/alternation of Dolby's guidelines for surround placement at home: Ear level for optimizing DSU, and 15-20 degrees elevation for optimizing Atmos (and standard 5.1/7.1 content).


----------



## NorthSky

audioguy said:


> Bob: Sometimes your posts really confuse me. You say the $200 for HDFury and Auro 3D is peanuts, but you have neither. And unless something has changed, you have yet to move to an Atmos processor yet continue to make recommendations to folks on how to set up these systems.
> 
> Am I missing something here?


Yes Chuck, I'm very close to strike a deal...no more than just few months now (or even less). 

And please don't be confused because I shared my opinion on HDFury and Auro-3D (both very inexpensive a $200 each...for what the owners have to say). 
I'm not the only person who shares his opinion on things that he doesn't have...many people do and no one gets ever hurt for it. 
I have only couple posts in the last ten pages or so here. 

Would be real swell if good humor would prevail above all. I like to read the long exchanges that Keith and Sanjay have between them; they keep repeating the exact same thing over and over, posts after posts and pages after pages: ear level, yes but higher is valid too, no because Dolby home says ear level, but Dolby is not the bible...cinema is with its high surrounds and film mixers have their speakers high up on the walls. I have read all those posts that just kept saying the same thing over and over. And did I complain? No, because they enjoyed their discussions, and us, we are just reading them...and we fly high with them too...it don't hurt us...it ain't hurt no one. ...Still keep repeating themselves though, and that's a fact.

Funny, in the past (no more now) I was reminded for posting in series, and it was suggested to me to multi-quote. No problemo anymore. 

This official Atmos thread is NOT for the owners only...it's for everybody. And it would be nice for some people, to say: _"Bob, we truly appreciate your lesser participation here, and it's nice to see you posting less and less, and mainly on the threads where your true real passion is."_

Thank you very much; that's exactly the way I feel too...and I do. Happy New Year! 

Anyway, if we can all relax a little bit more here and there and @ all times...life would be much more enjoyable with more happiness. 
This is not the end of the world that non-owners are interested to learn, exchange ideas, ask questions, have fun by being sociable like in real life, respect, and just be nice and friendly, no? ...Of course yes.

Atmos is a big interest in my life right now...and I'm just about to jump in (DTS:X), and I love life too like you, like him, like her, like all of them. 

Cool off a little bit the folks who like to criticize the most, ease off on others; this is not a personality forum, it's an Atmos thread where everyone is welcome no matter if they have an Atmos receiver or not, and no matter if they have a big room with Trinnov Altitude or small room with an Onkyo HTIB with soundbar and DD+. 

It's not a contest. It's a friendly forum. If some don't like each other, no big deal...pass over them and concentrate on your real passion...and if some people are happy by what you share it's always a very good feeling and it inspires you to pursue your dream further. 

Voila...Atmos I'm coming home real soon. ET go home. 

P.S. Find a post that you think is wrong, and tell me exactly what you see wrong in it, but quote me first, and explain very clearly why you think it's wrong.
If you show me exactly where I did something wrong, and that you are absolutely right with what you just have shown me; I will rectify, readjust, and/or delete if I have to, and no one will get hurt. And try to be objective and positive in your criticism. Don't put me down for your personal beliefs, be constructive in your criticism about my post's content...and not about me...never about a person, never. The content, and not the personality of the poster.

When someone doesn't like something from someone here @ AVS there are always vocal members to jump in and say so. But most often than not they just don't know how to be nice and be constructive about criticizing, and they don't criticize the content of the post but the poster. 
You can't keep putting down the same people over and over because they don't have an Atom receiver yet, can you? 

You addressed me directly in your quote above; I tried to reply to it the best I can.


----------



## Nugget

kbarnes701 said:


> Feel free to dismiss an references to how Dolby say surround speakers should be set up as "an appeal to authority" but that doesn't change what they are saying, which is, BTW unequivocal.


There is nothing inherently wrong with making an appeal to authority. It's only a fallacy if the authority referenced is not a legitimate authority on the subject. Dolby Laboratories is undeniably an authority on the subject of Dolby Atmos speaker positioning.

I also do not understand why people seem resistant to this concept. The Dolby recommendations are quite clear and unambiguous.


----------



## jumarapol

Is Denon AVR x7200 capable of 9.2.4 Atmos set-up? If yes how? Thanks...


----------



## Nugget

jumarapol said:


> Is Denon AVR x7200 capable of 9.2.4 Atmos set-up? If yes how? Thanks...


It can process up to 7.2.4 (11 channels + LFE) but it only has 9 channels of amplification. To do 7.2.4 you need to add two channels of external amplification.


----------



## NorthSky

jumarapol said:


> Is Denon AVR x7200 capable of 9.2.4 Atmos set-up? If yes how? Thanks...


Like the poster above said. It cannot do 9.2.4 simultaneously, it is limited to 7.2.4 (or more precisely to eleven channels, plus the LFE channel of course).

* I don't have the Denon 7200, I don't have an Atmos receiver, but I still know that...what I just told you.


----------



## jdsmoothie

jumarapol said:


> Is Denon AVR x7200 capable of 9.2.4 Atmos set-up? If yes how? Thanks...


Although you can connect and Audyssey EQ all 13 speakers, you must choose which 11 speakers to use at one time for an Atmos config of 7.2.4 noting the Dolby Surround upmixer will not use Front Wide speakers while an Atmos audio track will.


----------



## markus767

Nugget said:


> The Dolby recommendations are quite clear and unambiguous.


Yes.

"*All listener speakers* should be at the *same height*, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is *ear level* for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).
If possible, the *height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers*."

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## thebland

markus767 said:


> Yes.
> 
> "*All listener speakers* should be at the *same height*, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is *ear level* for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).
> If possible, the *height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers*."
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Can't happen in theaters with tiered seating. It's impossible as ears in various rows are at different heights. As these are simply recommendations, I've chosen to have the surrounds in the same plane but in a line following the upward angle of the tiered seats. In my room, the surrounds and reads are 14"to 24" over ear height over 3 rows. Though not perfectly following the 'guidelines' I'll bet the result is as good as any single row theater (or better because larger spaces acoustically preferred.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I feel the need to mention that mixers don't tend to necessarily mix based on POV in the scene of either the character or the camera. The transitions between scenes would be an absolute nightmare if they did. The sound mix is an artistic decision made by the mixer to serve the needs of the movie... so saying there should have been a helicopter sound in the heights is really a subjective thing as far as movie sound is concerned. The mixer would have to decide whether it makes more sense to use the overheads in a flashy way for POV, then how to transition that out for external shots or the internal shots from the dangling car, etc. Whereas keeping it in the beds lets them make those transitions with good immersion across all of the cuts of that particular scene, with minor non-jarring changes such as the occlusion of the sound that would occur without having to shift the placement of the sound if it were handled as a discrete object.


I agree. However, I don't agree wrt to the specific scene we are discussing. Notwithstanding the very good points you make, if the mixers cannot find a way to use the overheads in a scene like that, they never will.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> My point here is that you see it as a "bad mix". I see it a bit more practically as the right decision for that particular scene, given the challenges of that scene and what the filmmakers intended to convey. Whereas momentary pans of objects (such as flyovers or weather effects) make sense, a sustained sound like a helicopter's rotor wouldn't necessarily be the best thing to use an object for. And ultimately, what they use objects for and what they use the discrete channels for is an artistic decision, not one based on the logic of where the sound would be based on the POV of the camera or placement of characters. Even pre-Atmos, you would be surprised at how much restraint mixers have to show when it comes to deciding what to place where and how that transitions to the next shot or scene. I'm fairly sure that Filmmixer would agree with me on that.


I agree with you too FWIW! "Bad mix" was too strong - overall I think* San Andreas* has a fabulous mix. But I still see no good reason to totally ignore the overhead speakers in that opening scene. Consider the opening few minutes of *Mad Max Fury Road* for an example of what I mean by "the scene cries out for use of the overheads". MMFR was much more creative in its use of the overheads IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Where is Filmmixer when we need him!! He could at least add some clarity if not settle this whole high or low surround speaker question.


I suspect he is using his common sense and keeping well out of it


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Pssssst Keith...maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the *Multi-Quote* button.


I have considered it but I think it makes it harder for people to quote back if they want to reply, and it also mixes up different topics into single posts, which goes against my inner sense of order 




stikle said:


> This message is hidden because ****** is on your ignore list.
> This message is hidden because ****** is on your ignore list.
> This message is hidden because ****** is on your ignore list.
> This message is hidden because ****** is on your ignore list.
> This message is hidden because ****** is on your ignore list.
> 
> I smile every time I see this in the thread.


 I see that kind of message very often. Sometimes I can get an entire page of it


----------



## kbarnes701

Jive Turkey said:


> I've been meaning to stay on top of things, but maybe you can just short cut me here. I've got all 1080P from source to projector and I want to be able to play whatever UHD stuff comes along, downconverted to 1080p I assume, and especially because I'm an Atmos audio guy. This HDFury box for $200 will make all things good for me?
> 
> Any trouble with it working with an outboard Darbee Darblet in line?


You are correct that the Fury is the solution. I don't think it will matter to the Darblet so long as the Darblet comes after the Fury in the chain. IOW, you need to convert 2.2 to 1.4 before the signal reaches the Darblet. The Darblet, IIRC, cannot handle 2.2 so it will need the converted 1.4 signal.

There are two places you could insert the Fury. Either right after the UHD player, between it and the AVR, or between the AVR and the display. If you choose the latter, you would need to go AVR > Fury > Darblet > Display assuming your Darblet is between the AVR and the Display. I see no real downside to inserting the Fury between the UHD player and the AVR given that we are likely to have only one UHD source at this stage.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Your best bet is getting one of the dual HDMI out UHD players coming this year (one is HDMI 2.0a with HDCP 2.2, the other HDMI 1.4 for backwards compatibility).


That won’t help him play UHD discs if he has a 1080p display. If Atmos is only on the UHD disc in the package (as yet unknown) he will need to play the UHD disc to get Atmos. To play the UHD disc there has to be an unbroken 2.2 chain.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Very near future if the lawsuit takes down the company and others like it.


HD Fury is a Chinese company based in China. Fortunately for them, they do not have to abide by decisions made in American courts.


----------



## markus767

thebland said:


> Can't happen in theaters with tiered seating.


Well that is a compromised listening setup. Standard multichannel reproduction is really just a single seat solution and has been for the last 80 years.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> HD Fury is a Chinese company based in China. Fortunately for them, they do not have to abide by decisions made in American courts.


Fortunately for us as well (people with non hdcp 2.2 devices)


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> That won’t help him play UHD discs if he has a 1080p display. If Atmos is only on the UHD disc in the package (as yet unknown) he will need to play the UHD disc to get Atmos. To play the UHD disc there has to be an unbroken 2.2 chain.


I haven't seen any of the specs on a UHD player, yet, and since I do not have a 4K TV in the main theater room (BenQ projector and Samsung 65" LCD/LED) - I do not anticipate buying one for a long time. 

Why wouldn't a UHD player have two video outputs - 4K & 1080P and be able to play any disc - DVD, Bluray, UHD? 

Are we looking at three sets of movie discs in the future? It probably doesn't make much difference to me as I rent all my movies from RedBox and I doubt they will have any UHD offerings for a long time - - at least three to five years from now. As long as I can get the Dolby Atmos soundtrack via conventional Bluray, I'll be happy.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Fortunately for us as well (people with non hdcp 2.2 devices)


Indeed. If for some reason the sale of Fury devices is banned in the US one can always order direct from China. The Fury website has a good online ordering section and they offer free express delivery to anywhere in the world with a 2-4 day delivery target after order. Whatever the outcome of the WB lawsuit, it seems to me that people will be able to buy these devices without too much difficulty. It is absurd for the studios to treat everyone as a potential criminal. I have no intention of copying, distributing or otherwise illegally using the UHD content I buy, but to prevent me from watching it unless I also spend $5,000 or more on a new, and at this time unwanted, 4K PJ is ludicrous. If the studios just continued to release Atmos soundtracks on Blu-ray the whole issue wouldn't arise for me anyway. I want to buy the UHD packages now so that I am future-proofed for the time when I do eventually move to a 4K PJ, but that date should be one of my choosing, not Warner Bros. I am buying their darn content - that should be enough for them.


----------



## jpco

Nugget said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with making an appeal to authority. It's only a fallacy if the authority referenced is not a legitimate authority on the subject. Dolby Laboratories is undeniably an authority on the subject of Dolby Atmos speaker positioning.
> 
> 
> 
> I also do not understand why people seem resistant to this concept. The Dolby recommendations are quite clear and unambiguous.



The problem is that Dolby is not the system. Dolby has recommendations, but they only are absolutely right when the whole chain abides, which right now it doesn't.

No point in debating. We know what Dolby recommends and we know how mixes are generally mixed, including legacy content. We each can make our decision. 

After a couple of months of listening, I determined that I do not prefer DSU over a straight presentation of a mix. That means well over 99% of my viewing is 51 or 7.1. In order for legacy content to be correct and provide the immersive soundfield I've enjoyed for well over a decade, the surrounds are better elevated, just a little lower than they've always been.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> I haven't seen any of the specs on a UHD player, yet, and since I do not have a 4K TV in the main theater room (BenQ projector and Samsung 65" LCD/LED) - I do not anticipate buying one for a long time.
> 
> Why wouldn't a UHD player have two video outputs - 4K & 1080P and be able to play any disc - DVD, Bluray, UHD?
> 
> Are we looking at three sets of movie discs in the future? It probably doesn't make much difference to me as I rent all my movies from RedBox and I doubt they will have any UHD offerings for a long time - - at least three to five years from now. As long as I can get the Dolby Atmos soundtrack via conventional Bluray, I'll be happy.


UHD players can play DVD, Blu-ray or UHD discs. They are even giving you a Blu-ray disc along with the UHD disc in the packages so far seen. So there is no problem there - whatever format of disc you have, the UHD player will play it. But you will not be able to play a UHD disc unless you have an unbroken chain of HDCP 2.2 devices between the player and the display (including the display obviously).

So there is no problem for anyone in buying a UHD player - it will play the discs you already own with no problem.

The problem is that, as we understand it today, going forward only the UHD discs will have Atmos soundtracks on them. So if you want Atmos, and we do, then you will need 2.2 all the way through. If, like many of us, you want Atmos but you also have a 1080p display, then you are stuffed since you cannot play the UHD disc.

All this is 'as we understand it' and there are confusing messages on the Internet, depending which sites you look at. Until someone has a UHD player working we won't really know for sure. But we do know for certain that UHD discs will not play if part of the chain is HDCP 1.4.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> Indeed. If for some reason the sale of Fury devices is banned in the US one can always order direct from China. The Fury website has a good online ordering section and they offer free express delivery to anywhere in the world with a 2-4 day delivery target after order. Whatever the outcome of the WB lawsuit, it seems to me that people will be able to buy these devices without too much difficulty. It is absurd for the studios to treat everyone as a potential criminal. I have no intention of copying, distributing or otherwise illegally using the UHD content I buy, but to prevent me from watching it unless I also spend $5,000 or more on a new, and at this time unwanted, 4K PJ is ludicrous. If the studios just continued to release Atmos soundtracks on Blu-ray the whole issue wouldn't arise for me anyway. I want to buy the UHD packages now so that I am future-proofed for the time when I do eventually move to a 4K PJ, but that date should be one of my choosing, not Warner Bros. I am buying their darn content - that should be enough for them.


Exactly i was so close to ordering one and then i realized i would be better off using the $200 to get the New Darbee DVP-5000S. Ill deal with my UHD restrictions once the players and discs are out. 

It really is an exciting time to be in this hobby so much to look forward to this year.

Does anyone know what or when the atmos movie will be released on bluray?


----------



## jpco

On a side note, if one chooses to ignore another member, please consider ignoring and not ridiculing him. It's hardly ignoring if one posts about him and his posting style.


----------



## 1forsnow

kbarnes701 said:


> I suspect he is using his common sense and keeping well out of it


All he really needs to do is tell us what height his speakers are in his personal HT room


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> HD Fury is a Chinese company based in China. Fortunately for them, they do not have to abide by decisions made in American courts.


Good for them. I have purchased one as well. My new SSP has only one HDMI out and this thing works as a switcher. And my Sony 600ES is 4K but not 2.2 compliant so it solves that problem as well. 

If there are folks smart enough to hack into the Pentagon and untold numbers of other places, certainly the industry had to know that there was no encryption that would keep people out. I have no nefarious intent in mind. I just don't want to be forced to buy a new display to watch a movie. But the industry sees it differently. Fortunately, HD Fury exists.


----------



## thebland

markus767 said:


> Well that is a compromised listening setup. Standard multichannel reproduction is really just a single seat solution and has been for the last 80 years.


I think that is up for argument. Movies are mixed for crowds and that is likely considered when mixing... the process is not for a single listener. Likely, if only a single row in exist in a HT, there are likely large acoustical compromises due to the small space - not Dolby compromises. There are compromises either way... I consider my room at 28" X 17" X 9.5" to still be compromised in size acoustically - and smaller is generally worse - like you might find in a single seat / (or row) HT..

My point being is there are compromises - you may better meet Dolby recommendations with a single seat and ear height surrounds but a smaller room or a non-dedicated space generally adds far worse compromises than surround speaker height. *Bottom line, every set up is compromised and the weight of the compromise seems to have been lost in this ridiculous back-and-forth on speaker height*. Surround height be it at ear height or a couple feet higher seems minimally important relative to equipment, having a dedicated room, using DSP for EQ, professional calibration, etc...


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> UHD players can play DVD, Blu-ray or UHD discs. They are even giving you a Blu-ray disc along with the UHD disc in the packages so far seen. So there is no problem there - whatever format of disc you have, the UHD player will play it. But you will not be able to play a UHD disc unless you have an unbroken chain of HDCP 2.2 devices between the player and the display (including the display obviously).
> 
> So there is no problem for anyone in buying a UHD player - it will play the discs you already own with no problem.
> 
> The problem is that, as we understand it today, going forward only the UHD discs will have Atmos soundtracks on them. So if you want Atmos, and we do, then you will need 2.2 all the way through. If, like many of us, you want Atmos but you also have a 1080p display, then you are stuffed since you cannot play the UHD disc.
> 
> All this is 'as we understand it' and there are confusing messages on the Internet, depending which sites you look at. Until someone has a UHD player working we won't really know for sure. But we do know for certain that UHD discs will not play if part of the chain is HDCP 1.4.


KB - are you saying that all future movie discs with Dolby Atmos will ONLY be Bluray UHD? That doesn't make any sense. I don't see Redbox or Netflix providing UHD discs unless the production cost is reduced OR they raise their prices. From my understanding, the Dolby Atmos encoding seamlessly "rides along" with the Dolby soundtrack that is on current Bluray discs - even rentals from RedBox and Netflix. (Exception - rentals originating from Lionsgate. Pox on them.) 

I believe there will be a small market for UHD players if it is this restricted. And it will greatly slow any adoption of Dolby Atmos IF it's only available via a UHD Bluray disc. (Notwithstanding streaming which has bandwidth issues.) 

I have a 4K TV in the bedroom but rarely do I watch any 4K content (Amazon Prime free 4K content.) HDR/UHD is still a pipe dream until they can figure out compression algorithms that enable lower Internet speed connections and other delivery mechanisms (broadcast TV - Sports especially).

I'm not trying to be negative. The quality 4K content I've seen is exceptional. It's always a question of cost, implementation and availability. Thanks for your post.


----------



## thebland

*OT: is there a list somewhere of DTS-X (or upgradeable to DTS-X) and Atmos ready receivers???*

Thanks!!


----------



## audioguy

thebland said:


> *Bottom line, every set up is compromised and the weight of the compromise seems to have been lost in this ridiculous back-and-forth on speaker height*. Surround height be it at ear height or a couple feet higher seems minimally important relative to equipment, having a dedicated room, using DSP for EQ, professional calibration, etc...


While compromises are indeed unavoidable, they are manageable. In the case of how high the surrounds can/should go, it's all about ceiling height and the angles of separation from the surrounds that the ceiling height facilitates. My ceilings are 8 feet. Prior to 3D audio, my surrounds were at 6 feet. It was awesome. But when I went 3D, and initially kept the surrounds at 6 feet, it was clear that my 3D soundscape was sub par. When I lowered the surrounds to just above ear level (in my case, about 50 inches down from 72 inches), it was a dramatic improvement. Equivalent to room correction vs no room correction? Probably not but significant nonetheless - way more so than changing amps or preamps to any such thing.

If I were to add another row, I, too would slightly raise my rear surrounds and if I were to add additional side surrounds, I would raise them about a foot as well. But sure not up to 6 feet. 

I have a friend with 11 foot ceilings in his room and his surrounds are at 6 feet. Sounds incredible.

It appears to me, at least, that ceiling height is the key factor in determining how high the surrounds can go and not compromise the 3D bubble. [Regardless of how high the speakers were in the mixing room].


----------



## thebland

audioguy said:


> While compromises are indeed unavoidable, they are manageable. In the case of how high the surrounds can/should go, it's all about ceiling height and the angles of separation from the surrounds that the ceiling height facilitates. My ceilings are 8 feet. Prior to 3D audio, my surrounds were at 6 feet. It was awesome. But when I went 3D, and initially kept the surrounds at 6 feet, it was clear that my 3D soundscape was sub par. When I lowered the surrounds to just above ear level (in my case, about 50 inches down from 72 inches), it was a dramatic improvement. Equivalent to room correction vs no room correction? Probably not but significant nonetheless - way more so than changing amps or preamps to any such thing.
> 
> If I were to add another row, I, too would slightly raise my rear surrounds and if I were to add additional side surrounds, I would raise them about a foot as well. But sure not up to 6 feet.
> 
> I have a friend with 11 foot ceilings in his room and his surrounds are at 6 feet. Sounds incredible.
> 
> It appears to me, at least, that ceiling height is the key factor in determining how high the surrounds can go and not compromise the 3D bubble. [Regardless of how high the speakers were in the mixing room].


Gotcha... but compared to DIRAC or the EQ abilities of the Datasat, if I had to choose, I'd take the Datasat over any receiver and raise the speakers a bit...


----------



## audioguy

thebland said:


> Gotcha... but compared to DIRAC or the EQ abilities of the Datasat, if I had to choose, I'd take the Datasat over any receiver and raise the speakers a bit...


Me too!


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> KB - are you saying that all future movie discs with Dolby Atmos will ONLY be Bluray UHD? That doesn't make any sense. I don't see Redbox or Netflix providing UHD discs unless the production cost is reduced OR they raise their prices. From my understanding, the Dolby Atmos encoding seamlessly "rides along" with the Dolby soundtrack that is on current Bluray discs - even rentals from RedBox and Netflix.


I am only repeating what I have heard or read. I hope I am wrong. There is a body of opinion which states that in future Atmos will only be offered on UHD discs. Sony's recent announcement, for example, said that they will offer Atmos on ALL their UHD discs going forward - they didn't mention Atmos on Bluray at all.

Since, as you say, Atmos is just metadata in the HD bitstream I too am not sure how they could remove Atmos (short of removing the metadata) from a Bluray TrueHD track. But I guess they can strip the metadata if they want, or flag the player to do it, or force the player to output PCM for Blu-ray TrueHD tracks etc etc. Who knows how stupid they can be? All for a copy protection which seems to have _already_ been broken (hence the lawsuit).



Ricoflashback said:


> I believe there will be a small market for UHD players if it is this restricted. And it will greatly slow any adoption of Dolby Atmos IF it's only available via a UHD Bluray disc. (Notwithstanding streaming which has bandwidth issues.)
> 
> I have a 4K TV in the bedroom but rarely do I watch any 4K content (Amazon Prime free 4K content.) HDR/UHD is still a pipe dream until they can figure out compression algorithms that enable lower Internet speed connections and other delivery mechanisms (broadcast TV - Sports especially).
> 
> I'm not trying to be negative. The quality 4K content I've seen is exceptional. It's always a question of cost, implementation and availability. Thanks for your post.


I agree with all your sentiments and I hope I am wrong and that Atmos continues to be available on Blu-ray. If it does I don't even need to buy a UHD player at all since I have no current intention of upgrading my PJ. Although I probably will buy the UHD packages if they include a Blu-ray for future-proofing.


----------



## markus767

thebland said:


> I think that is up for argument. Movies are mixed for crowds and that is likely considered when mixing... the process is not for a single listener. Likely, if only a single row in exist in a HT, there are likely large acoustical compromises due to the small space - not Dolby compromises. There are compromises either way... I consider my room at 28" X 17" X 9.5" to still be compromised in size acoustically - and smaller is generally worse - like you might find in a single seat / (or row) HT..
> 
> My point being is there are compromises - you may better meet Dolby recommendations with a single seat and ear height surrounds but a smaller room or a non-dedicated space generally adds far worse compromises than surround speaker height. *Bottom line, every set up is compromised and the weight of the compromise seems to have been lost in this ridiculous back-and-forth on speaker height*. Surround height be it at ear height or a couple feet higher seems minimally important relative to equipment, having a dedicated room, using DSP for EQ, professional calibration, etc...


Sure mixers try to make it work but my point is that you can't make it work for everybody. The framework doesn't allow it. The guys at Bell labs thought they could recreate a specific sound field but Alan Blumlein soon realized that this is not the case and different perceptual mechanisms were responsible for the stereo illusion (his patent from the 1930's is available online). This is still the case.

P.S. The speaker location is the most fundamentally important property of good reproduction in a channel-based reproduction system.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> UHD players can play DVD, Blu-ray or UHD discs. They are even giving you a Blu-ray disc along with the UHD disc in the packages so far seen. So there is no problem there - whatever format of disc you have, the UHD player will play it. But you will not be able to play a UHD disc unless you have an unbroken chain of HDCP 2.2 devices between the player and the display (including the display obviously).
> 
> So there is no problem for anyone in buying a UHD player - it will play the discs you already own with no problem.
> 
> The problem is that, as we understand it today, going forward only the UHD discs will have Atmos soundtracks on them. So if you want Atmos, and we do, then you will need 2.2 all the way through. If, like many of us, you want Atmos but you also have a 1080p display, then you are stuffed since you cannot play the UHD disc.
> 
> All this is 'as we understand it' and there are confusing messages on the Internet, depending which sites you look at. Until someone has a UHD player working we won't really know for sure. But we do know for certain that UHD discs will not play if part of the chain is HDCP 1.4.


Has it been confirmed that Atmos soundtrack will only be on the UHD disc releases? Or are you speculating?

I have no need for 4K right now and I have already spent thousands on Atmos...To spend thousands more for 4K just to watch $30 movies seems like alot to swallow. It would be a shame if this was the case because it will, without any doubt, promote piracy to the utmost and "they" will surely loose.


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> [ ... ]So if you want Atmos, and we do, then you will need 2.2 all the way through. If, like many of us, you want Atmos but you also have a 1080p display, then you are stuffed since you cannot play the UHD disc.[ ... ]


This is how the Roku 4 works with VUDU now. No 2160p (and HDCP 2.2, of course) display, no UHD content stream and therefore no Atmos. It falls back to the HDX stream without Atmos on 1080p displays, even with HDCP 2.2.

The UHD Blu-ray players might be different. It could be possible to play an UHD disc at 1080p with HDCP 2.2, and get Atmos, if you lack a 2160p display.

This, by the way, could very well be a question for the dual output players as well: With the secondary output playing audio-only 1080p, does the main output have to be 2160p / HDCP 2.2 for UHD/Atmos discs to play, or is 1080p / HDCP 2.2 enough? Or even 1080p / HDCP 1.4 if AACS 2.0 does not prohibit it?


----------



## scarabaeus

kbarnes701 said:


> Who knows how stupid they can be?


Only God knows...



kbarnes701 said:


> All for a copy protection which seems to have _already_ been broken (hence the lawsuit).


Well, not exactly. HDCP 2.2 has not been broken, as far as we know it. HDCP 1.4 has been compromised, meaning if you have access to certain hardware, or somehow implement your own HDCP for an HDMI input, you can create rogue keys on the fly, which can not be revoked through the SRM process.

SRM is a data record holding compromised key IDs, that can be put on future optical media if a breached HDCP device has been found in the market place. An optical disc player is supposed to store any new version of the SRM in non-volatile memory and compare key IDs during each HDCP authentication process. The issuee of the breached HDCP key is charged a steep penalty. If the rougue key is random every time, this system can not be used.

So far, SRM has not been used, except for 4 test key IDs.

What the HD Fury is doing is convert from the unbroken HDCP 2.2 to the compromised HDCP 1.4. If it were all 2.2, the content would be "safe" for now.

I'm not sure if Intel has offically admitted the existence of the reverse engineered master key that was published. Maybe that's why they still have the paragraph in their documentation that HD Fury is quoting as a legal basis for their device. By the way, this master key, I heard, is different from Intel's master key, but the generated HDCP keys are indistinguishable, so someone actually reverse engineered it, not leaked/stole from Intel.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I'm still waiting for NAD to release their Atmos/DTS:X MDC. It was supposed to be announced before the end of the year which didn't happen. Now the latest info is that they hope to get it on the market by the end of Q1. So in other words, with a bit of luck it might actually be available by summer.

Now the question is how to use the 4 channels in the most productive way? One option is to use an old AVR with 5.1 input and use it as a dedicated amplifier for the Atmos channels, the second option is to get one more old AVR, use the CD in on both, enable Dolby Pro Logic II or similar and drive 3 Atmos speakers on each for a 7.1.6 system.


----------



## ahmedreda

From the bestbuy UHD discs preorder page:
BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE
Upgrade to an Ultra HD Blu-ray player and you can still enjoy watching standard Blu-ray discs and DVDs. When connected to an HDTV, an Ultra HD Blu-ray player will output a standard HDTV signal.

also found the same information in the following link:
http://www.uhdbdinnumbers.com/









How sure are we that we need the HDFury Integral to use UHD discs with 1080p displays?


----------



## darklord700

I'm currently using my Denon 2808 pre-out to Emotiva UPA7 to do 7.1. But my Denon 2808 also have 7.1 External-In so instead of buying a full blown Atmos receiver like the Denon 5200, I can just buy a pre/pro that could output 9 or 11 channels to my Decnon 2808 and UPA7 to do Atmos, am I right?


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> Has it been confirmed that Atmos soundtrack will only be on the UHD disc releases? Or are you speculating?


Educated guess is nearest I'd say. Don't take my word for it - it is only my interpretation of what I have read and been told. Nothing 'official'.



rontalley said:


> I have no need for 4K right now and I have already spent thousands on Atmos...To spend thousands more for 4K just to watch $30 movies seems like alot to swallow. It would be a shame if this was the case because it will, without any doubt, promote piracy to the utmost and "they" will surely loose.


As always. Honest guys get penalised and it makes no difference at all to the pirates and thieves.


----------



## KMFDMvsEnya

There was a link to a German site that claimed that for all Fox Studios titles immersive audio tracks will be exclusive to the UHD version.
Whether other studios will follow suit is unclear. It is on odd policy that seems specifically targeted at early adopters than the general public.

Elsewhere in the ethers there is terminology that makes it seem as though 4k to 2k conversion can be optional and title dependent.


----------



## kbarnes701

scarabaeus said:


> Only God knows...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not exactly. HDCP 2.2 has not been broken, as far as we know it. HDCP 1.4 has been compromised, meaning if you have access to certain hardware, or somehow implement your own HDCP for an HDMI input, you can create rogue keys on the fly, which can not be revoked through the SRM process.
> 
> SRM is a data record holding compromised key IDs, that can be put on future optical media if a breached HDCP device has been found in the market place. An optical disc player is supposed to store any new version of the SRM in non-volatile memory and compare key IDs during each HDCP authentication process. The issuee of the breached HDCP key is charged a steep penalty. If the rougue key is random every time, this system can not be used.
> 
> So far, SRM has not been used, except for 4 test key IDs.
> 
> What the HD Fury is doing is convert from the unbroken HDCP 2.2 to the compromised HDCP 1.4. If it were all 2.2, the content would be "safe" for now.
> 
> I'm not sure if Intel has offically admitted the existence of the reverse engineered master key that was published. Maybe that's why they still have the paragraph in their documentation that HD Fury is quoting as a legal basis for their device. By the way, this master key, I heard, is different from Intel's master key, but the generated HDCP keys are indistinguishable, so someone actually reverse engineered it, not leaked/stole from Intel.


Thanks for the info and clarification. The only totally certain way to work through this minefield is, I guess, to buy a UHD player, choose a UHD disc and play it to a 1080 display and see what happens. Will it play as 1080p with Atmos intact, will it crap out totally? If the player is set to output 1080p, does that make a difference? Will the Atmos track be exclusive to the UHD disc? Will the Fury solve all problems? So many questions...


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> UHD players can play DVD, Blu-ray or UHD discs. They are even giving you a Blu-ray disc along with the UHD disc in the packages so far seen. So there is no problem there - whatever format of disc you have, the UHD player will play it. *But you will not be able to play a UHD disc unless you have an unbroken chain of HDCP 2.2 devices* between the player and the display (including the display obviously).


From everything I've read this is inaccurate.


UHD discs will play on a HDCP 1.4 (your typical 1080p HDTV), it just won't display 2160p content. HDCP 2.2 is required for 4K. *If the UHD player is connected to a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain (1080p display, receiver, etc) it will downconvert to 1080p*. The audio should be unaffected. So Atmos discs should still play in Atmos. Indeed, dual output BD players "expect" this - direct connection to the UHD 2.2 display and the audio sent to an existing 1.4 receiver, with Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> From everything I've read this is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> UHD discs will play on a HDCP 1.4 (your typical 1080p HDTV), it just won't display 2160p content. HDCP 2.2 is required for 4K. *If the UHD player is connected to a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain (1080p display, receiver, etc) it will downconvert to 1080p*. The audio should be unaffected. So Atmos discs should still play in Atmos. Indeed, dual output BD players "expect" this - direct connection to the UHD 2.2 display and the audio sent to an existing 1.4 receiver, with Atmos.


I hope you are right. Can you link me to some of the things you've read? It will cheer me up no end  Even if it turns out to be wrong, it might give us some hope for a while.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> From everything I've read this is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> UHD discs will play on a HDCP 1.4 (your typical 1080p HDTV), it just won't display 2160p content. HDCP 2.2 is required for 4K. *If the UHD player is connected to a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain (1080p display, receiver, etc) it will downconvert to 1080p*. The audio should be unaffected. So Atmos discs should still play in Atmos. Indeed, dual output BD players "expect" this - direct connection to the UHD 2.2 display and the audio sent to an existing 1.4 receiver, with Atmos.


The Samsung UHD player manual has small print that says AACS 2.0 encoded UHD Blu-ray's may not have any video output depending on the equipment you have attached.


----------



## BigScreen

thebland said:


> *OT: is there a list somewhere of DTS-X (or upgradeable to DTS-X) and Atmos ready receivers???*
> 
> Thanks!!


We have attempted to keep a list of capable receivers on these two pages:



Dolby Atmos Resources
DTS:X Resources

With Atmos being more mature, an exhaustive list of models has not been compiled, but I believe the DTS:X list is complete. 

If anyone has updates, send me the info and links to the supporting documentation, and I'll make the necessary changes.


----------



## ahmedreda

That makes sense. Lets hope it is true. I think it is more beneficial for the format to have it backward compatible with older displays. That way people can start buying and using the UHD discs without actually owning 4k displays. I think they are off to the right start offering the UHD discs for $25 which is fairly close to regular blurays on release day.



PeterTHX said:


> From everything I've read this is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> UHD discs will play on a HDCP 1.4 (your typical 1080p HDTV), it just won't display 2160p content. HDCP 2.2 is required for 4K. *If the UHD player is connected to a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain (1080p display, receiver, etc) it will downconvert to 1080p*. The audio should be unaffected. So Atmos discs should still play in Atmos. Indeed, dual output BD players "expect" this - direct connection to the UHD 2.2 display and the audio sent to an existing 1.4 receiver, with Atmos.


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope you are right. Can you link me to some of the things you've read? It will cheer me up no end  Even if it turns out to be wrong, it might give us some hope for a while.



Nothing specific, just talking with industry guys and previous articles. All UHD players are supposed to be compatible with standard HDTVs. Just as early BD players output to SD 480i sets.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The Samsung UHD player manual has small print that says AACS 2.0 encoded UHD Blu-ray's may not have any video output depending on the equipment you have attached.



That disclaimer is for possible protection flags on the discs themselves, the player won't be making the decision not to send video to 1080p TVs


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> That disclaimer is for possible protection flags on the discs themselves, the player won't be making the decision not to send video to 1080p TVs


You'll end up with the same result, no? Zero video.


----------



## PeterTHX

Dan Hitchman said:


> You'll end up with the same result, no? Zero video.



*Only* if the disc is flagged to display only 2160p/HDCP 2.2 , which is unlikely until 4K displays are the norm.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> *Only* if the disc is flagged to display only 2160p/HDCP 2.2 , which is unlikely until 4K displays are the norm.


We'll find out soon enough.


----------



## ahmedreda

I just heard back from HD Fury. *They confirmed that UHD BD Players will downscale to 1080p.* they also mentioned the possibility that the sound may be downgraded to 5.1. I have heard that may happen with streaming but I really doubt it will happen with BD discs since we will be playing the same stream just downscaled.
He also brought a valid point that if I switch to a 4k display, the UHD BD player may cease to work due to the lack of HDCP 2.2 in my receiver. 
I am torn whether I should cancel the order or not at this point.




Dan Hitchman said:


> We'll find out soon enough.


----------



## PeterTHX

ahmedreda said:


> I just heard back from HD Fury. *They confirmed that UHD BD Players will downscale to 1080p.* they also mentioned the possibility that the sound may be downgraded to 5.1. I have heard that may happen with streaming but I really doubt it will happen with BD discs since we will be playing the same stream just downscaled.
> He also brought a valid point that if I switch to a 4k display, the UHD BD player may cease to work due to the lack of HDCP 2.2 in my receiver.
> I am torn whether I should cancel the order or not at this point.



That's why they have dual outputs. If your receiver isn't 2.2 compliant then connect both, one directly to the 4K display and the other to the receiver.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. However, I don't agree wrt to the specific scene we are discussing. Notwithstanding the very good points you make, if the mixers cannot find a way to use the overheads in a scene like that, they never will.


Perhaps where you and I differ on this, conceptually, is... It's not the mixer's job to find a way to use the overheads in that scene. That's not even remotely a concern for him. He's not making an Atmos demo, and those additional channels and the ability to use objects for precise placement needs are just additional weapons in his arsenal. It's the mixer's job to craft a soundscape that serves the needs of the story. And it is a CRAFT. As I said before, audio for movies isn't necessarily mixed based on POV, because that simply doesn't work for most situations. It would be jarring if every sound shifted based on POV when you cut between perspectives or camera positions. 

For example, say you have a scene with two characters talking in a loud muscle car. Your camera POV changes between the driver and passenger during the conversation. If the mixer places the engine sound based on camera POV, then you'll hear it ping-pong between the right side for the driver's dialogue and left side for the passenger. If, on the other hand, the mixer places the engine sound based on character POV, it's the exact opposite (and would make no sense whatsoever). The reality is that the mixer wouldn't want that sound to change positions during that scene based on POV, so he'd likely place it across the front soundstage and leave it static throughout the scene (or ambiently in the surrounds). This is where things differ from say the sound you would hear in a game, where the audio IS steered based on POV and can change in real-time based on where your character's view is. And that makes sense for that medium... but isn't typically the best idea for cinematic purposes.



kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with you too FWIW! "Bad mix" was too strong - overall I think* San Andreas* has a fabulous mix. But I still see no good reason to totally ignore the overhead speakers in that opening scene. Consider the opening few minutes of *Mad Max Fury Road* for an example of what I mean by "the scene cries out for use of the overheads". MMFR was much more creative in its use of the overheads IMO.


Consider, if you will, the difference between these two movies and their opening scenes, and what's actually happening in each mix. In MMFR, you have that overhead pan of the car jumping over the camera's POV, which is done to great effect. Bear in mind, however, that this is a quick pan, not something that remains across several cuts (as is most of the object use in that movie). Atmos objects moving through the height channels are ideal for something like that. You also have the placement of voices all around the room as Max recalls his past (or just hears them in his head), which is another perfect use of objects and placement, as it puts you in that character's head, regardless of the POV of the camera. Those two situations make sense, and are far more obviously suited to overhead involvement. The opening of San Andreas, however, doesn't fit that particular bill, IMHO. Atmos objects would be great for a scene of a transient helicopter flyby, but you have to consider the other needs of that scene. For instance, the mixer has to consider that 1) these characters need to be heard over any environmental noise used to establish setting (i.e. the ambient helicopter rotor noise); 2) in the helicopter, they're speaking through noise-cancelling headsets (because you can't hear **** in a helicopter), so you have an effect to apply to voices during that scene that further necessitates balancing of the ambient sound; 3) the viewer's attention needs to remain anchored on the dialogue and action in the scene; 4) every speaker that the helicopter sound gets mixed into, you have to balance the global level down so it doesn't overwhelm your dialogue; 5) the scene changes from inside the helicopter to the outside rescue of the girl from the car, which dialogue carries over across, meaning you can't make a sudden change in the directions of the sound across those scene changes without it being jarring, 6) there's a transition of the helicopter from open-air flight to being within the walls of a canyon, where you might want to logically apply some reverberation to denote the rotor sounds echoing off the canyon walls (which would inherently be from the sides, not above), 7) even if the placement of the helicopter in the scene might logically move you to place its sound in the overhead channels, it may not serve the scene itself to do so... or may be distracting enough that you detract from the emotional intent of that scene.

Emotional intent, since I mentioned it, is another consideration. For instance (and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with San Andreas as I can't speak to what decisions the mixer made with the director), if the filmmaker wants to convey the catastrophic event as a "character" in the movie, they might use restraint with the audio up until that point, then really push for envelopment once it begins. You hear this a lot in movies if you pay attention, and I would liken the effect it has perceptually to the change from B&W to color in The Wizard Of Oz. So if I'm doing that mix, I would start off in kind of a normal real-world environment and not really go crazy with the surround/height involvement, keeping things anchored to the front soundstage, then BAM! You as a viewer are thrown into the middle of this world with the characters where everything is going to hell in a handbasket and things are collapsing all around you. That's part of the art of sound mixes for movies, and it seems woefully unappreciated. So again, IMHO (and as respectfully as possible), I think your approach of "that's where it was, so the sound should come from there" is a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account all the other factors. Personally, I thought San Andreas' Atmos mix was a great example of a non-gimmicky but enveloping experience that kicks in the heights and audio object steering when it really makes sense in the movie. Had they gone crazy with it before that scene at the dam, that particular scene would not have had the same emotional impact. Up to that point, the mix is fairly restrained... but when you hear that quake and the cracking of the dam combined with Giamatti's reaction on-screen, you are IN that "oh, crap!" moment with him because it's the first time the sound has really expanded out in an immersive way. Again, I can't say if that was the intent... but from my observation, that was the effect it had, so it wouldn't surprise me that some conscious choices were made there.

Just saying... You may not agree with some of the choices made for your own purposes, but that doesn't mean that those weren't the best choices to convey what the filmmakers intended. Personally, I'm glad that Atmos mixes thus far are being handled with some subtlety and are being used in some very artistic ways. Maybe that's why my favorite Atmos mix thus far is The Age Of Adaline.


----------



## AllenA07

ahmedreda said:


> From the bestbuy UHD discs preorder page:
> BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE
> Upgrade to an Ultra HD Blu-ray player and you can still enjoy watching standard Blu-ray discs and DVDs. When connected to an HDTV, an Ultra HD Blu-ray player will output a standard HDTV signal.
> 
> also found the same information in the following link:
> http://www.uhdbdinnumbers.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How sure are we that we need the HDFury Integral to use UHD discs with 1080p displays?


If this were indeed the case and you don't need an unbroken chain of HDCP 2.2 this would be great. I think a lot of us would be rushing out to get a UHD player. I'm taking a bit more of a wait and see approach at this time. I actually want to see if Atmos sound tracks start falling off of Blu-Rays. If it becomes a UHD only thing, I'll have to seriously look at my options. I have full intentions to go to 4K projection, but as of right now I think 2018 is the soonest that I see something that matches what I want.

Right now I'm hoping somebody around here gets their hands on a UHD player and acts as our crash test dummy.


----------



## JDontee

I'm at CES. Does anyone know if there is a good Atmos demo that I could check out?


----------



## smurraybhm

ahmedreda said:


> I just heard back from HD Fury. *They confirmed that UHD BD Players will downscale to 1080p.* they also mentioned the possibility that the sound may be downgraded to 5.1. I have heard that may happen with streaming but I really doubt it will happen with BD discs since we will be playing the same stream just downscaled.
> He also brought a valid point that if I switch to a 4k display, the UHD BD player may cease to work due to the lack of HDCP 2.2 in my receiver.
> I am torn whether I should cancel the order or not at this point.


You have more faith in backwards compatibility with our "older" equipment than I do when it comes to the new standards. When streaming 4k with Atmos we already know that you can't do this without a device (like your AVR) being HDCP 2.2 compliant. I look at the $199 expense as cheap insurance, plus for those of us in the States given the lawsuit we may lose the ability to purchase an HD Fury in the future. Keith is in England, so he's right that it may not impact him for now, but that doesn't mean that the studios don't seek protection from the EU eventually. 

Call me a pessimist on this one, I think there will be a number of studios that will chose to release immersive audio on their Ultra disks only. Worse case I can take advantage streaming. We all know how finicky HDMI handshakes can be, so the Fury could help with that too. My decision to purchase one easy - see lawsuit. If everything was going to be compatible as some posters have claimed/hope - why would you need to sue them, no market for their device, right?


----------



## rontalley

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm still waiting for NAD to release their Atmos/DTS:X MDC. It was supposed to be announced before the end of the year which didn't happen. Now the latest info is that they hope to get it on the market by the end of Q1. So in other words, with a bit of luck it might actually be available by summer.
> 
> Now the question is how to use the 4 channels in the most productive way? One option is to use an old AVR with 5.1 input and use it as a dedicated amplifier for the Atmos channels, the second option is to get one more old AVR, use the CD in on both, enable Dolby Pro Logic II or similar and drive 3 Atmos speakers on each for a 7.1.6 system.


I have my old AVR serving as .4 amp via 5.1 input (L/R/SL/SR). My Front to Back separation is only 6ft and this is not enough to get a good sense of space. Left to Right separation is 10ft and this is plenty. (7'8" Ceiling). 

The .6 hookup using PLII is out right ingenious however, if you do not have the ceiling length to do it then I do not seeing it being a great addition. Front and Rear Tops should be 45 degrees from the MLP, with an 8' ceiling this is roughly around 8' apart if ear level is 4'. I will be re-installing my tops 10' apart from front to rear and there is no way I would need middles because if a sound is played equally in Top Front and Top Back then it sounds like it is directly overhead. I think they call this phantom imaging or something like that. Same concept as with stereo speakers. Using PLII shrinks the stereo image. Sound that sound more separated in 2ch mode end up dead smack in the middle in PLII. Same thing would happen with .6 top...Well at least by my logic.

However, if you have a large length to cover say 15' or more and your speakers have high dispersion then I can see the need for .6 because of an obvious hole over the MLP, other than that, .4 is should be plenty.


----------



## Scott Simonian

JDontee said:


> I'm at CES. Does anyone know if there is a good Atmos demo that I could check out?


I didn't see any good ones and Dolby doesn't even have a booth.


----------



## helvetica bold

Im just finding out about the HDFury from this thread. I have Sony, 2013, 55-KDLW900a its a 1080p TV and it has quantum dots.
Its supposed to cover 94% of P3. In theory could I connect a UHD player (via HDFURY) and benefit for the expanded color gamut and high bit rate? And let the player down covert to 1080p? I also have a Sony 1040 receiver thats not HDCP 2.2 compliant. 
I do want to upgrade to Atmos this year so extracting the audio is important as well. Just wondering if the Sony TV can read some of the metadata from UHD BD discs. I guess we are all trying to figure this out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Perhaps where you and I differ on this, conceptually, is... [...]
> 
> Just saying... You may not agree with some of the choices made for your own purposes, but that doesn't mean that those weren't the best choices to convey what the filmmakers intended. Personally, I'm glad that Atmos mixes thus far are being handled with some subtlety and are being used in some very artistic ways. Maybe that's why my favorite Atmos mix thus far is The Age Of Adaline.


That is a really great post, Jeremy and I thank you for it, and the time to type it, and the insights contained in it. Much food for thought there, and I will read and re-read your post to aid my understanding.


----------



## Ted99

scarabaeus said:


> This is how the Roku 4 works with VUDU now. No 2160p (and HDCP 2.2, of course) display, no UHD content stream and therefore no Atmos. It falls back to the HDX stream without Atmos on 1080p displays, even with HDCP 2.2.
> 
> The UHD Blu-ray players might be different. It could be possible to play an UHD disc at 1080p with HDCP 2.2, and get Atmos, if you lack a 2160p display.
> 
> This, by the way, could very well be a question for the dual output players as well: With the secondary output playing audio-only 1080p, does the main output have to be 2160p / HDCP 2.2 for UHD/Atmos discs to play, or is 1080p / HDCP 2.2 enough? Or even 1080p / HDCP 1.4 if AACS 2.0 does not prohibit it?


There will be a side benefit to owning a UHD player. I bought a Roku4 for the ability to stream not only 4K, but to pass the Atmos soundtrack thru the receiver, which cannot be passed by ARC or Digital Optical using the TV's internal streaming apps. I'm sure the UHD players will have a full suite of streaming apps and we will be able to feed the Atmos signal thru the UHD player's HDMI output. If I had thought of this, I could have put the $125 toward a UHD player, rather than purchasing a Roku4 (and it's bugs).


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> Right now I'm hoping somebody around here gets their hands on a UHD player and acts as our crash test dummy.


That will be me  But I suspect that you will get UHD players in the States before we see them here in the UK. There's no doubt I will be one of the first to jump (always am) and am more than willing to be the guinea pig, but I’d imagine someone in the US will beat me to it. But you're right. There is so much FUD flying around that until someone does a live test, it's best to sit on the fence.


----------



## jkasanic

smurraybhm said:


> If everything was going to be compatible as some posters have claimed/hope - why would you need to sue them, no market for their device, right?


I think the market for the Fury was intended for those with 4k displays and without HDCP 2.2. You know, the first 3 years or so of 4k display technology! In this case, the Fury would still allow >1080p output to the display. I'm just speculating though.

On a similar note, I'd think if you were able to get ANY video output from the UHD disc to your display then the risk of the mix being down mixed goes considerably down. Otherwise, it would seem to be an intentional FU on the part of the studios who really shouldn't care either way what display type you have with respect to which audio mix you hear. After all, by including the immersive mix only on the UHD disc, they'd potentially be limiting UHD sales to current owners of 4k displays with HDCP 2.2 as opposed to offering the consumer an additional incentive to buy the UHD disc just to get the immersive audio mix (as many here have already indicated). Again, clearly speculation on my part and if this isn't the case then it wouldn't be the first time these same studios have cutoff their nose to spite their face.


----------



## Selden Ball

Jeremy Anderson said:


> audio for movies isn't necessarily mixed based on POV, because that simply doesn't work for most situations. It would be jarring if every sound shifted based on POV when you cut between perspectives or camera positions.


 While it might not be common, I've certainly watched movies (and TV shows) where the soundstage changed depending on the camera's POV: noises coming from in front when the camera was facing the noise-generator, and from behind when the camera faced away from it. Of course, I can't cite an example off the top of my head, it was just something I accepted. The same should be true for all noise sources, whether overhead or not.


----------



## Daryl L

Am I correct in thinking that Dolby's design specs for Dolby Atmos up-firing reflective add-on speakers is suggested to be 150hz crossover minimum? I think I read that somewhere but I can't find it again.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> That will be me  But I suspect that you will get UHD players in the States before we see them here in the UK. There's no doubt I will be one of the first to jump (always am) and am more than willing to be the guinea pig, but I’d imagine someone in the US will beat me to it. But you're right. There is so much FUD flying around that until someone does a live test, it's best to sit on the fence.


At these prices, I will be a guinea pig too.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ng-details-at-ces-2016-preorders-now-open.htm


----------



## markus767

JDontee said:


> I'm at CES. Does anyone know if there is a good Atmos demo that I could check out?


Sorry no recommendation but you could check out what miniDSP and Emotiva are showing at the Venetian Tower, floor 30.



Scott Simonian said:


> I didn't see any good ones and Dolby doesn't even have a booth.


Seriously?!


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> That will be me  But I suspect that you will get UHD players in the States before we see them here in the UK. There's no doubt I will be one of the first to jump (always am) and am more than willing to be the guinea pig, but I’d imagine someone in the US will beat me to it. But you're right. There is so much FUD flying around that until someone does a live test, it's best to sit on the fence.



It's kinda funny...I had zero intention of moving to 4K and falling into the early adopter category again (e.g. HD-DVD).

Then along came Atmos. All of a sudden the audio experience far outweighed the visual experience of my 60" plasma (first world problems). So I decided to "go big or go home" and went with a new 75" LCD to make the upgrade worthwhile. Well, lo and behold it's a 4K set. Oh...hey...my whole library of DVDs looks pretty crappy now.

Well, now I have a 4K display and suddenly my trusty old Sony BDP is no longer sufficient. That means that I OBVIOUSLY need to jump and go UHD-BD. But wait...my 5200 isn't compliant.

So, now I'm jumping on the bandwagon that I was going to watch pass by, and just ordered my Fury today too (after reporting it back in October and missing out on the $50 pre-order discount on THAT too). I COULD run the second HDMI right to the TV, but I don't really want to run a 3rd cable up and reprogram my remote to switch inputs (note the justification, since it's super easy to reprogram).

And finally, according to this press release...



> Lastly, it's worth pointing out that the Samsung UBD-K8500 costs $399.99 now, with preorders open, but it will go up to $499.99 afterward.



So now I have to pre-order THAT to save $100. Which is their plan.

I _WAS_ thinking about sticking to the "go big or go home philosophy and waiting for Oppo to release theirs later this year as they make some of the most highly regarded players (at a premium price)....but now I just don't know.

DAMN YOU, HOBBY!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Selden Ball said:


> While it might not be common, I've certainly watched movies (and TV shows) where the soundstage changed depending on the camera's POV: noises coming from in front when the camera was facing the noise-generator, and from behind when the camera faced away from it. Of course, I can't cite an example off the top of my head, it was just something I accepted. The same should be true for all noise sources, whether overhead or not.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen... but it depends on the scene in question, more specifically how many cuts you have going on. For example, if you had what was basically three shots in sequence over several minutes, you could certainly change audio based on camera POV without it seeming unnatural. But when you're dealing with a scene with a lot of cuts, jumping between characters for dialogue, bouncing in and out between a helicopter and a car, etc. like the San Andreas opening, you're dealing with a cut to a new POV every few seconds as opposed to three longer takes edited together. I wasn't trying to say that there are never situations where mixing based on POV makes sense... I was merely saying that it's an artistic decision the mixer has to make given the scene, how it's cut together, the editing, the emotional intent, future scenes in the movie, etc. It isn't as simple a notion as "that thing is above you, so it should be placed there." Audio mixers have to take WAY more into consideration, and Atmos hasn't changed that. It just gives them more tools to work with to craft the sound for movies.


----------



## audioguy

smurraybhm said:


> You have more faith in backwards compatibility with our "older" equipment than I do when it comes to the new standards. When streaming 4k with Atmos we already know that you can't do this without a device (like your AVR) being HDCP 2.2 compliant. I look at the $199 expense as cheap insurance, plus for those of us in the States given the lawsuit we may lose the ability to purchase an HD Fury in the future. Keith is in England, so he's right that it may not impact him for now, but that doesn't mean that the studios don't seek protection from the EU eventually.
> 
> Call me a pessimist on this one, I think there will be a number of studios that will chose to release immersive audio on their Ultra disks only. Worse case I can take advantage streaming. We all know how finicky HDMI handshakes can be, so the Fury could help with that too. My decision to purchase one easy - see lawsuit. If everything was going to be compatible as some posters have claimed/hope - why would you need to sue them, no market for their device, right?


I'm with you. "Insurance". Additionally, I needed a way to get two HDMI outputs from my SSP. $199 isn't zero but it "may" allow me to see and hear content that I would not otherwise.

And it is sure worth a lot more than the $200 I completely wasted on the Auro upgrade. I've used it 2 times: Once to play the demo disc (particularly the church organ piece), and to try AuroMatic (THAT was a joke).


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> Seriously?!


Yup. No booth.

Even DTS doesn't have one. Ran into a couple of DTS guys and had a chat with them about UHD bd. Asked if they had a booth and they said no. No dts x demo either. Though one vendor has some new dtsx disks. I'll see of I can get a copy.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. No booth.
> 
> Even DTS doesn't have one. Ran into a couple of DTS guys and had a chat with them about UHD bd. Asked if they had a booth and they said no. No dts x demo either. Though one vendor has some new dtsx disks. I'll see of I can get a copy.


CES for consumer A/V seems like it was a bit of a bust overall. Glad I didn't go.


----------



## audioguy

And from what I gather at the Emotiva Lounge, Emotiva did not announce at CES their new flagship SSP with 16 channels and Dirac and other stuff. So it looks like they will be living up to their history and not being able to meet their quoted Q1 2016 delivery date. Too bad for them and too bad for those looking for a sub $20,000 SSP with Dirac that supports that many channels. 

They can't seem to get this in their head: "Under Promise and Over Deliver"


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm so not interested this year. I'm just sitting on the floor finishing a pizza. Ugh. I guess I'll get up and hit the floor again. You know....I do it for the tech. *yawn*


----------



## blastermaster

I'm in the club! I just picked up my Anthem MRX 720 today and I'm so stoked! My first Atmos movie will be...Age of Adeline. Even on my legacy setup the previews and the movie itself had a three dimensionality about the sound that few others in my collection could rival.


----------



## rontalley

blastermaster said:


> I'm in the club! I just picked up my Anthem MRX 720 today and I'm so stoked! My first Atmos movie will be...Age of Adeline. Even on my legacy setup the previews and the movie itself had a three dimensionality about the sound that few others in my collection could rival.


Congrats!!! Umm Age of Adeline, although a great movie, does not really showcase Atmos they much. The sound is great but not Atmos great. You might want to try something a little more impressive if you are showcasing Atmos for the first time.

There are plenty or recommendations.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. No booth.
> 
> Even DTS doesn't have one. Ran into a couple of DTS guys and had a chat with them about UHD bd. Asked if they had a booth and they said no. No dts x demo either. Though one vendor has some new dtsx disks. I'll see of I can get a copy.


I'm surprised.

Did you get to see the Optoma 4K LED projector prototype with the new TI chip?


----------



## Steve Goff

PeterTHX said:


> From everything I've read this is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> UHD discs will play on a HDCP 1.4 (your typical 1080p HDTV), it just won't display 2160p content. HDCP 2.2 is required for 4K. *If the UHD player is connected to a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain (1080p display, receiver, etc) it will downconvert to 1080p*. The audio should be unaffected. So Atmos discs should still play in Atmos. Indeed, dual output BD players "expect" this - direct connection to the UHD 2.2 display and the audio sent to an existing 1.4 receiver, with Atmos.



This finds some support in the manual for Samsung's UBD-K8500, which says on page 12: "If your TV does not support HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) version 2.2, some of Ultra HD Blu-ray titles may play at the 1080p resolution."


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> And from what I gather at the Emotiva Lounge, Emotiva did not announce at CES their new flagship SSP with 16 channels and Dirac and other stuff. So it looks like they will be living up to their history and not being able to meet their quoted Q1 2016 delivery date. Too bad for them and too bad for those looking for a sub $20,000 SSP with Dirac that supports that many channels.
> 
> They can't seem to get this in their head: "Under Promise and Over Deliver"


I'm not surprised – their motto is and has always been "Over-promise and under-deliver". Made in USA


----------



## rontalley

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Consider, if you will, the difference between these two movies and their opening scenes, and what's actually happening in each mix. In MMFR, you have that overhead pan of the car jumping over the camera's POV, which is done to great effect. Bear in mind, however, that this is a quick pan, not something that remains across several cuts (as is most of the object use in that movie). Atmos objects moving through the height channels are ideal for something like that. You also have the placement of voices all around the room as Max recalls his past (or just hears them in his head), which is another perfect use of objects and placement, as it puts you in that character's head, regardless of the POV of the camera. Those two situations make sense, and are far more obviously suited to overhead involvement. The opening of San Andreas, however, doesn't fit that particular bill, IMHO. Atmos objects would be great for a scene of a transient helicopter flyby, but you have to consider the other needs of that scene. For instance, the mixer has to consider that 1) these characters need to be heard over any environmental noise used to establish setting (i.e. the ambient helicopter rotor noise); 2) in the helicopter, they're speaking through noise-cancelling headsets (because you can't hear **** in a helicopter), so you have an effect to apply to voices during that scene that further necessitates balancing of the ambient sound; 3) the viewer's attention needs to remain anchored on the dialogue and action in the scene; 4) every speaker that the helicopter sound gets mixed into, you have to balance the global level down so it doesn't overwhelm your dialogue; 5) the scene changes from inside the helicopter to the outside rescue of the girl from the car, which dialogue carries over across, meaning you can't make a sudden change in the directions of the sound across those scene changes without it being jarring, 6) there's a transition of the helicopter from open-air flight to being within the walls of a canyon, where you might want to logically apply some reverberation to denote the rotor sounds echoing off the canyon walls (which would inherently be from the sides, not above), 7) even if the placement of the helicopter in the scene might logically move you to place its sound in the overhead channels, it may not serve the scene itself to do so... or may be distracting enough that you detract from the emotional intent of that scene.


Replace cowbell with Helicopter Blade Wash Crazy Rotary Action! Don't agree. They dropped the ball on that scene. Gotta have more Atmos baby!








Jeremy Anderson said:


> Maybe that's why my favorite Atmos mix thus far is The Age Of Adaline.


----------



## blastermaster

rontalley said:


> Congrats!!! Umm Age of Adeline, although a great movie, does not really showcase Atmos they much. The sound is great but not Atmos great. You might want to try something a little more impressive if you are showcasing Atmos for the first time.
> 
> There are plenty or recommendations.


It's just me and my wife watching a flick tonight. I'm going to have some fellas over to watch John Wick in the next bit. I'm actually also really looking forward to watching my favourites in DSU (Daniel Craig Bond movies). Ok, I really have to get off this darn forum and set things up!


----------



## healthnut

ahmedreda said:


> From the bestbuy UHD discs preorder page:
> BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE
> Upgrade to an Ultra HD Blu-ray player and you can still enjoy watching standard Blu-ray discs and DVDs. When connected to an HDTV, an Ultra HD Blu-ray player will output a standard HDTV signal.
> 
> also found the same information in the following link:
> http://www.uhdbdinnumbers.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How sure are we that we need the HDFury Integral to use UHD discs with 1080p displays?



I'd like to know the answer to this too. Are we able to watch in 1080p and still decide Atmos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

BigScreen said:


> We have attempted to keep a list of capable receivers on these two pages:
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos Resources
> DTS:X Resources
> 
> With Atmos being more mature, an exhaustive list of models has not been compiled, but I believe the DTS:X list is complete.
> 
> If anyone has updates, send me the info and links to the supporting documentation, and I'll make the necessary changes.


Thank you BigScreen for this.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

blastermaster said:


> I'm in the club! I just picked up my Anthem MRX 720 today and I'm so stoked! My first Atmos movie will be...Age of Adeline. Even on my legacy setup the previews and the movie itself had a three dimensionality about the sound that few others in my collection could rival.





rontalley said:


> Congrats!!! Umm Age of Adeline, although a great movie, does not really showcase Atmos they much. The sound is great but not Atmos great. You might want to try something a little more impressive if you are showcasing Atmos for the first time.
> 
> There are plenty or recommendations.


Blaster, you'll see a lot of people who feel the same as Ron here, and that's okay. It all comes down to what your expectations are, as well as how the mix serves the genre of film. For me, Adeline makes some fantastic and nuanced use of the format considering it's basically a romantic fantasy, which is not a genre you'd usually expect much surround usage from. This is certainly not a movie where you're going to constantly be thinking, "Oh, man, listen to that sound up there!", which seems to be what a lot of people immediately want from the format. There's more to Atmos than just plane flybys and sounds whizzing overhead. Pay particular attention to the car wreck toward the beginning of the movie, where the camera POV is inside the car and the sound is used to place you inside the accident. Also, I really enjoyed the subtle touches the mixer did with the ambient sound during the city scenes, including one very particular sound that I swear made me think a car was outside my house because it imaged beautifully near where my front door is in my room. Even as a base 7.1 mix, there's some really nice work here... and Atmos absolutely improves upon it. I look forward to hearing your impressions since you've already seen it once or twice without Atmos.

And then, hey... throw in Mad Max Fury Road for a bit of contrast, so you can hear the difference between subtle and bombastic uses of Atmos. Both are impressive in their own ways!


----------



## NorthSky

*Ces 2016*



Scott Simonian said:


> I didn't see any good ones and Dolby doesn't even have a booth.


What are you seeing/hearing that is interesting Scott?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Not much.


----------



## rontalley

blastermaster said:


> It's just me and my wife watching a flick tonight. I'm going to have some fellas over to watch John Wick in the next bit. I'm actually also really looking forward to watching my favourites in DSU (Daniel Craig Bond movies). Ok, I really have to get off this darn forum and set things up!


Enjoy!



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Blaster, you'll see a lot of people who feel the same as Ron here, and that's okay. It all comes down to what your expectations are, as well as how the mix serves the genre of film. For me, Adeline makes some fantastic and nuanced use of the format considering it's basically a romantic fantasy, which is not a genre you'd usually expect much surround usage from. This is certainly not a movie where you're going to constantly be thinking, "Oh, man, listen to that sound up there!", which seems to be what a lot of people immediately want from the format. There's more to Atmos than just plane flybys and sounds whizzing overhead. Pay particular attention to the car wreck toward the beginning of the movie, where the camera POV is inside the car and the sound is used to place you inside the accident. Also, I really enjoyed the subtle touches the mixer did with the ambient sound during the city scenes, including one very particular sound that I swear made me think a car was outside my house because it imaged beautifully near where my front door is in my room. Even as a base 7.1 mix, there's some really nice work here... and Atmos absolutely improves upon it. I look forward to hearing your impressions since you've already seen it once or twice without Atmos.
> 
> And then, hey... throw in Mad Max Fury Road for a bit of contrast, so you can hear the difference between subtle and bombastic uses of Atmos. Both are impressive in their own ways!


Don't get me wrong, I heard every bit of Atmos use in this movie. However, I am trained to hear objects now but if it was my first Atmos movie, I would not have been blown away although it was great use of Atmos. But that Center Speaker Mix is WHOA!!!

For the untrained ear, they would probably miss alot of the effects. Especially if you have your speakers at calibration level where everything blends well and nothing really stands out.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol!

"Trained to hear objects."

Now that's a good one.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> It's kinda funny...I had zero intention of moving to 4K and falling into the early adopter category again (e.g. HD-DVD).
> 
> Then along came Atmos. All of a sudden the audio experience far outweighed the visual experience of my 60" plasma (first world problems). So I decided to "go big or go home" and went with a new 75" LCD to make the upgrade worthwhile. Well, lo and behold it's a 4K set. Oh...hey...my whole library of DVDs looks pretty crappy now.
> 
> Well, now I have a 4K display and suddenly my trusty old Sony BDP is no longer sufficient. That means that I OBVIOUSLY need to jump and go UHD-BD. But wait...my 5200 isn't compliant.
> 
> So, now I'm jumping on the bandwagon that I was going to watch pass by, and just ordered my Fury today too (after reporting it back in October and missing out on the $50 pre-order discount on THAT too). I COULD run the second HDMI right to the TV, but I don't really want to run a 3rd cable up and reprogram my remote to switch inputs (note the justification, since it's super easy to reprogram).
> 
> And finally, according to this press release...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now I have to pre-order THAT to save $100. Which is their plan.
> 
> I _WAS_ thinking about sticking to the "go big or go home philosophy and waiting for Oppo to release theirs later this year as they make some of the most highly regarded players (at a premium price)....but now I just don't know.
> 
> DAMN YOU, HOBBY!


 Your story could be mine too. There's no sign of UHD players here in Britain yet, even for pre-order. I hope we get the chance to pre-order and save some cash too. I'm not massively keen on a curved UHD player, but hey, if it's the only one I can get hold of. I was hoping Pioneer or Panasonic would join in the game soon too. I guess I will be selling my Oppo 103 at some stage.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Not much.


Pick me up a 2016 Atmos Demo Disc please Sir. 

Or,.. just ask the fellaz if I can be authorized to demo them.

Thanks!

Oh yeah, stop by the Oculus Rift Booth!!! Tell me how good or bad my $678 investment is that I can't use until May.


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> For the untrained ear, they would probably miss alot of the effects. Especially if you have your speakers at calibration level where everything blends well and nothing really stands out.


Yeah. Listening to the mix they way it's supposed to sound is so amateur. Gotta have trained ears to listen to it improperly set up.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm so not interested this year. I'm just sitting on the floor finishing a pizza. Ugh. I guess I'll get up and hit the floor again. You know....I do it for the tech. *yawn*


Scott, did you see *Sicario* on Blu-ray?

It's a great flick with a great soundtrack (realistic gunshots) and with a fantastic music score. 
* It's in Dolby Atmos too, but I only experienced the core audio, Dolby TrueHD 7.1 ...still, I was very impressed on how immersive it was, plus the tension.
Emily and Benicio both delivered top notch performances. 

Happy times @ CES.


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> Pick me up a 2016 Atmos Demo Disc please Sir.
> 
> Or,.. just ask the fellaz if I can be authorized to demo them.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Oh yeah, stop by the Oculus Rift Booth!!! Tell me how good or bad my $678 investment is that I can't use until May.


I tried twice and I'm not waiting an hour and a half or more, really for the demo. They f***ed that chance up. Why make people wait so long. I've tried OR before and it still has a long way to go and needs much more content and killer apps of which there aren't any.

I'll see if I get that dts disk.

Content on it doesn't look that interesting except for Gravity in DTS X which raises an eyebrow.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> And from what I gather at the Emotiva Lounge, Emotiva did not announce at CES their new flagship SSP with 16 channels and Dirac and other stuff. So it looks like they will be living up to their history and not being able to meet their quoted Q1 2016 delivery date. * Too bad for them and too bad for those looking for a sub $20,000 SSP with Dirac that supports that many channels. *
> 
> They can't seem to get this in their head: "Under Promise and Over Deliver"


I have a potential 16 channels with Dirac Live here. Only 11 in use at this time though unfortunately. It cost me less than $4,000. It's a Denon X5200 and twin miniDSP DDRC-88As. Works like a charm. I currently have 11 channels EQd with DL for a 7.1.4 setup, but I am good for 9.1.6 if AVRs ever come along that can do that. So if someone introduces a mainstream AVR with 9.1.6 capability for, say, $3,000 at some stage, I will have 9.1.6, with full Dirac Live for a total of $5,000 less whatever the X5200 sells for on the used market.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Scott, did you see *Sicario* on Blu-ray?
> 
> It's a great flick with a great soundtrack (realistic gunshots) and with a fantastic music score.
> * It's in Dolby Atmos too, but I only experienced the core audio, Dolby TrueHD 7.1 ...still, I was very impressed on how immersive it was, plus the tension.
> Emily and Benicio both delivered top notch performances.
> 
> Happy times @ CES.


I saw it in theaters.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I saw it in theaters.


It's better @ home on Blu than @ the theater.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol!
> 
> "Trained to hear objects."
> 
> Now that's a good one.


Well, trained to hear stuff coming from overhead. Half the stuff coming from the 4 speakers up top, my wife, kids, neighbors, dogs and a couple of random people that I grabbed and said hey come listen to my system, they don't catch. It's not that they didn't hear it but Atmos and DSU does a great job of putting you in a bubble that you feel like you know that this audio sounds great but you can't localize everything as it's happening.

So I am "trained", although this is not such a good thing, to over listen to everything that I hear. And since the stuff coming from the .4 is all object based sounds, I can effectively hear that in the infamous 360 "Bird" there is also a squeak/squeal/squawk or whatever coming from the Top Left Speaker right as the bird passes the center speaker going to the left speaker...I bet most will not realize this though...


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> I tried twice and I'm not waiting an hour and a half or more, really for the demo. They f***ed that chance up. Why make people wait so long. I've tried OR before and it still has a long way to go and needs much more content and killer apps of which there aren't any.
> 
> I'll see if I get that dts disk.
> 
> Content on it doesn't look that interesting except for Gravity in DTS X which raises an eyebrow.


I for one, am all the way sold on VR. No question about the tech. It's freaking awesome sauce. Immersive? You said you want IMMERSIVE?! Stand in that line Scott! Mind Blowing!

As for DTS-X disc...no thanks. I could care less about DTS-X at this point. First-movers Advantage is Real.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. Listening to the mix they way it's supposed to sound is so amateur. Gotta have trained ears to listen to it improperly set up.


Just saying, most people only hear certain things in a movie. All the work post engineers put into creating a mix will rarely be realized by the average listener. Nothing about a proper or improper setup. Its simply that we as humans, just don't pay that much attention.


----------



## rontalley

NorthSky said:


> Scott, did you see *Sicario* on Blu-ray?
> 
> It's a great flick with a great soundtrack (realistic gunshots) and with a fantastic music score.
> * It's in Dolby Atmos too, but I only experienced the core audio, Dolby TrueHD 7.1 ...still, I was very impressed on how immersive it was, plus the tension.
> Emily and Benicio both delivered top notch performances.
> 
> Happy times @ CES.





Scott Simonian said:


> I saw it in theaters.


Good Flick! Had me and the Mrs. arguing way past midnight. She claimed that Benicio Del Toro' character, Alejandro was on a separate rogue mission. I thought that, although he had an alternative motive, the movie was still about bring down the kingpin. I was confused as to why Kate was tripping in the tunnel? Why else were they there and why did Alejandro have air support if he was rogue? #B613


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> Your story could be mine too. There's no sign of UHD players here in Britain yet, even for pre-order. I hope we get the chance to pre-order and save some cash too. I'm not massively keen on a curved UHD player, but hey, if it's the only one I can get hold of. I was hoping Pioneer or Panasonic would join in the game soon too. I guess I will be selling my Oppo 103 at some stage.


I'm all in on UHD. Nothing holding me back. 

I agree I don't want a curved unit. Looks stupid in my rack. Plus I need Vudu and Amazon for streaming. I think that unit doesn't support vudu. Deal killer for me. If no back lit remote, that's a deterrent as well though not a killer.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> It's better @ home on Blu than @ the theater.


Lol, ok. You compared them?



rontalley said:


> I for one, am all the way sold on VR. No question about the tech. It's freaking awesome sauce. Immersive? You said you want IMMERSIVE?! Stand in that line Scott! Mind Blowing!
> 
> As for DTS-X disc...no thanks. I could care less about DTS-X at this point. First-movers Advantage is Real.


Meh. I agree in principle but I've seen VR and it just doesn't really work well. Plus, it is even worse for people like myself who wear glasses. Tech needs maturing and there needs more content. My feet hurt and I ain't standing line a queue for an hr or two for a shi**y demo. Ever been to CES? If there is a line for something, it's usually never worth the wait.

Agreed in full on immersive. I just like to keep up with it all. Too many fan boys of dts have this completely skewed and unrealistic view of what their flavor of immersive audio is or is going to be. They all were born yesterday or live under a rock. But...whatever. 



rontalley said:


> Just saying, most people only hear certain things in a movie. All the work post engineers put into creating a mix will rarely be realized by the average listener. Nothing about a proper or improper setup. Its simply that we as humans, just don't pay that much attention.


Fair enough.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Sicario was a great movie, IMHO. I got the dumbed down version (5.1) from Redbox. Thanks Lionsgate. I might look into joining 3D Bluray Rental again for the nominal monthly price to cover those Lionsgate discs that they dumb down the audio for Redbox (Netflix, as well). 

Funny - - I read some of the Sicario reviews on Redbox and I'm always amazed at differences of opinion. Like - "Lousy movie, no action. Slow." I'm convinced that these movie goers/viewers can only be satisfied with the John Wick's & Mission Impossible's of the world. Nothing against either - I enjoy watching them, as well, but character development, a slow burn and a real life situation (Juarez & the Mexican Drug Cartels) is pretty compelling drama. 

I've always been a fan of Benicio Del Toro. Excelente, como siempre.


----------



## bguzman

Watched The Phantom Menace last night, DSU freakin' rocks!


----------



## Kain

bguzman said:


> Watched The Phantom Menace last night, DSU freakin' rocks!


I'd love to hear the pod race with DSU.


----------



## NorthSky

*Sicario ... @ home ... on Blu*



Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, ok. You compared them?


I didn't have to...I saw Mad Max, Gravity, Interstellar, ... and they were all better @ home than @ my local theater. ...Picture and sound quality wise. 
And my local theater, including IMAX (((3D))) ain't too shabby.


----------



## virtualrain

Ricoflashback said:


> Sicario was a great movie, IMHO. I got the dumbed down version (5.1) from Redbox. Thanks Lionsgate. I might look into joining 3D Bluray Rental again for the nominal monthly price to cover those Lionsgate discs that they dumb down the audio for Redbox (Netflix, as well).
> 
> Funny - - I read some of the Sicario reviews on Redbox and I'm always amazed at differences of opinion. Like - "Lousy movie, no action. Slow." I'm convinced that these movie goers/viewers can only be satisfied with the John Wick's & Mission Impossible's of the world. Nothing against either - I enjoy watching them, as well, but character development, a slow burn and a real life situation (Juarez & the Mexican Drug Cartels) is pretty compelling drama.
> 
> I've always been a fan of Benicio Del Toro. Excelente, como siempre.



Ditto. I literally jumped during the opening chapter and the whole convoy across the border and back was one of the most intense movie scenes I've witnessed in a while.


----------



## shyyour

bguzman said:


> Watched The Phantom Menace last night, DSU freakin' rocks!


Just finished Phantom Menace as well. You'll also love Attack of the clones  (if you haven't seen it with DSU yet) I kept turning my head back to look for the space ships/planes coming . I dont know how to explain it but you're right DSU is freaking awesome . Now on to Revenge of the Sith.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> I didn't have to...I saw Mad Max, Gravity, Interstellar, ... and they were all better @ home than @ my local theater. ...Picture and sound quality wise.
> And my local theater, including IMAX (((3D))) ain't too shabby.


Hmm. Okay. So you're just speculating since you never heard it.

Nice.


----------



## AllenA07

Searching the Internet generally what I'm seeing is that if the HDCP 2.2 chain is broken you won't be able to display 4K. Of course, no mention on if that means 1080p will display. If you can display 1080p without needing a HDCP 2.2 projector, I would be happy to jump on the UHD bandwagon. Next question I've got is if UHD players will play 3D blu rays. I know at this point there aren't any 4K UHD plans, but the backwards compatibility would be appreciated.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi Aras, long time no see. All the cover shots of the upcoming UHD packages show UHD Disc, Blu-ray disc and HD download. I too hope the Blu-ray disc includes the Atmos soundtrack. I have seen nothing to say it won't, but then nothing to say it will either. I guess we'll soon find out.


Sorry I haven't been on the forums lately... I've been real busy looking for work (finally found a job but it's only temporary unfortunately). I was out of the loop for a while as well while half my HT was in storage.





kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. How many of us can honestly say we have not had to compromise one or more aspects of our HTs? I know I can't. But they remain fabulous audio and visual experiences for us, often (usually?) surpassing many commercial cinemas. I can't ever remember spending money on anything material which has given me so much pleasure as the ability to watch movies at home with the kind of sound and picture quality we can so readily achieve nowadays. And with Atmos, DTS:X, UHD etc it continues to get better and better!


Definitely... although in my case being in an apartment & with the baby I don't get the chance to blast the sound... so I've found that going to the theater is worth while again (lol). The neighbor on the other side of the wall blasts house music any time I set the receiver past 60... & won't stop until 2 am even though I'm done watching the movie by 9 or 10pm. Soooo I've been watching movies quietly which sucks... the low end really suffers. 

Due to the circumstances I'm probably not going UHD for another 4 years or so. 
My plan is to get a UHD/HDR OLED when the tech is all worked out + 9.1.6 receiver at that time unless if something else drastic changes in the audio or video world by that time.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

(assuming the 5200 lasts that long... not sure how long these 12 channel receivers were meant to last)


----------



## dormie1360

bguzman said:


> Watched The Phantom Menace last night, DSU freakin' rocks!


Just watched the Maze Runner...I'm a little behind.....anyway DSU really worked well. The beginning elevator scene had me looking at my ceiling. Great bass as well.


----------



## dannybee

AllenA07 said:


> Next question I've got is if UHD players will play 3D blu rays. I know at this point there aren't any 4K UHD plans, but the backwards compatibility would be appreciated.



The Samsung will play bluray 3D.


----------



## AllenA07

Dan Hitchman said:


> CES for consumer A/V seems like it was a bit of a bust overall. Glad I didn't go.


I feel like CES has changed. For home theater CEDIA now seems like the biggest event of the year.


----------



## pletwals

Tom Ames said:


> hideous?!?! I have one of these, handed down from my parents, in my living room where my newly acquired Pioneer up-firing Atmos speakers rest atop my vintage Marantz speakers. Can you say time warp? Or perhaps eclectic?
> 
> I've been looking for an opportunity to subscribe to this thread, but I never figured it would present itself in this fashion


The Arco floorlamp is very elegant indeed. The base is a masssive piece of Carara marble. When you head for the north-west coast leaving Pisa (I), you pass by the all the yards with the raw blocks of white marble. But those Koreans stole and raped the Castiglioni design. Not sure if they use the same marble. Maybe it's painted


----------



## PeterTHX

shyyour said:


> Just finished Phantom Menace as well. You'll also love Attack of the clones  (if you haven't seen it with DSU yet) I kept turning my head back to look for the space ships/planes coming . I dont know how to explain it but you're right DSU is freaking awesome . Now on to Revenge of the Sith.


 
I'm wondering if it's because these were mixed with a (matrixed) hard rear center channel (Dolby Surround EX) - I find these have a more "overhead/flyby" effect on the sound, whereas a lot discrete 7.1 tracks are more spread out and seem to be more subtle in their use of the surround backs.


----------



## shyyour

PeterTHX said:


> I'm wondering if it's because these were mixed with a (matrixed) hard rear center channel (Dolby Surround EX) - I find these have a more "overhead/flyby" effect on the sound, whereas a lot discrete 7.1 tracks are more spread out and seem to be more subtle in their use of the surround backs.


Interesting, i didn't know that. i was rather surprised that for a movie so old the DSU was spot on with the over head sounds. Its been really amazing re-watching Star Wars (I - VI) with DSU.


----------



## shyyour

I have a Question (i am hoping this is the right thread to ask): For blurays that have 7.1 DTS-HDMA and Dolby 5.1 which will sound better to use on a 2014 atmos receiver. I ask because i just found out that you could do DTS+ DD but since its dolby conversion (dont know what word to use) would a 5.1 +DD sound better ?


----------



## Zhorik

shyyour said:


> I have a Question (i am hoping this is the right thread to ask): For blurays that have 7.1 DTS-HDMA and Dolby 5.1 which will sound better to use on a 2014 atmos receiver. I ask because i just found out that you could do DTS+ DD but since its dolby conversion (dont know what word to use) would a 5.1 +DD sound better ?


The Dolby or DTS wrapper doesn't affect Dolby Surround implementation. 

That being said, the 7.1 DTS-HD MA is lossless track and (presumably alternate track) DD 5.1 is lossy. The lossless track will have greater definition and should be used.


----------



## markus767

shyyour said:


> I have a Question (i am hoping this is the right thread to ask): For blurays that have 7.1 DTS-HDMA and Dolby 5.1 which will sound better to use on a 2014 atmos receiver. I ask because i just found out that you could do DTS+ DD but since its dolby conversion (dont know what word to use) would a 5.1 +DD sound better ?


7.1 DTS-HD MA is lossless and has 7 main channels whereas Dolby Digital 5.1 uses lossy compression and has 5 channels hence you want to listen to the 7.1 DTS-HD MA track.
Not sure what you mean by "DTS+ DD" and "5.1 +DD".


----------



## Roger Dressler

rontalley said:


> And since the stuff coming from the .4 is all object based sounds...


The height speakers can be sourced from either objects or channels. A channel sounds like an object standing still, and yet, even with channel based height signals, lateral panning is possible, blurring the lines further.


----------



## dvdwilly3

shyyour said:


> Interesting, i didn't know that. i was rather surprised that for a movie so old the DSU was spot on with the over head sounds. Its been really amazing re-watching Star Wars (I - VI) with DSU.


In a re-mastered SW reissue set (all in one box) from Amazon, the original Star Wars is mixed in Dolby 6.1. Maybe that makes the difference...

Not sure about the rest... I will go downstairs and look...after coffee so that my brain is working properly.

That is the only movie that I can think of that used DD 6.1.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> In a re-mastered SW reissue set (all in one box) from Amazon, the original Star Wars is mixed in Dolby 6.1. Maybe that makes the difference...
> 
> Not sure about the rest... I will go downstairs and look...after coffee so that my brain is working properly.
> 
> That is the only movie that I can think of that used DD 6.1.


Apologies to PeterTHX...I should have read on to see if someone had already noted the DD 6.1.

See note re coffee...


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I'm all in on UHD. Nothing holding me back.
> 
> I agree I don't want a curved unit.* Looks stupid in my rack.* Plus I need Vudu and Amazon for streaming. I think that unit doesn't support vudu. Deal killer for me. If no back lit remote, that's a deterrent as well though not a killer.


Ditto. Might look nice under a TV in a living room, but in a rack, stoopid. Still, if it's the only one available IDK how strong my resolve will be to wait for a Panny. I am guessing Panny will be second out of the gate. I'd prefer a Pioneer, but nowadays they seem to be way behind all the time so there's no chance of waiting that long. And last out of the gate will probably be Oppo who will do it right, do it well and be pretty expensive I'd bet. I've had 3 Oppos in a row and loved them all but PQ is PQ from HD content and I don't really need all the other Oppo features, so going forward I am being more sensible. (What did I just say???).


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry I haven't been on the forums lately... I've been real busy looking for work (finally found a job but it's only temporary unfortunately). I was out of the loop for a while as well while half my HT was in storage.


Glad you got something. It will give you a chance to make some money while you look for something permanent. Good luck buddy!



Aras_Volodka said:


> Definitely... although in my case being in an apartment & with the baby I don't get the chance to blast the sound... so I've found that going to the theater is worth while again (lol). The neighbor on the other side of the wall blasts house music any time I set the receiver past 60... & won't stop until 2 am even though I'm done watching the movie by 9 or 10pm. Soooo I've been watching movies quietly which sucks... the low end really suffers.


Your neighbor sounds like (NPI) a piece of work. Doesn't the House music keep your baby awake? Have you ever considered headphones and a ButtKicker? I have a friend in similar circumstances to yours and that's what he uses. I think he has those cans which simulate 5.1, and the ButtKicker is silent but really gives a genuine impression of deep bass. Just a thought.



Aras_Volodka said:


> Due to the circumstances I'm probably not going UHD for another 4 years or so.
> My plan is to get a UHD/HDR OLED when the tech is all worked out + 9.1.6 receiver at that time unless if something else drastic changes in the audio or video world by that time.


Waiting will certainly give some time for all the confusion to be sorted out. As it is, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the UHD/2.2 business when playing to a 1080p delay. We’ll know soon enough I guess when the first players and discs hit the street.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Roger Dressler said:


> The height speakers can be sourced from either objects or channels. A channel sounds like an object standing still, and yet, even with channel based height signals, lateral panning is possible, blurring the lines further.




But the home version of Atmos doesn't have the discrete height channels of the theatrical version... So isn't he correct that the heights would be all objects?


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I've had 3 Oppos in a row and loved them all but PQ is PQ from HD content and I don't really need all the other Oppo features, so going forward I am being more sensible. (What did I just say???).


First of all, you are not allowed to use the word "sensible" when discussing our mutual addiction. It may be some form of oxymoron!! To cover yourself, I would change that to say: "so going forward, I am being more sensible .......... except on those occasions when I'm not".

I am hoping there will be an "all-in-one-4K access solution". So far I have a box for AppleTV (not 4K), another "stick" for Amazon TV (don't know if it supports 4K) and am now looking into a way to access Vudo for 4K streaming content and will want access to 4K streaming content from Netflix. While I suspect Apple won't allow anyone to bypass their product, it would be nice to have a single 4K Streaming Access Point. If Oppo (or anyone else) were to bring that to the table, it would, for me, be worth a longer wait and more money.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> First of all, you are not allowed to use the word "sensible" when discussing our mutual addiction. It may be some form of oxymoron!! To cover yourself, I would change that to say: "so going forward, I am being more sensible .......... except on those occasions when I'm not".


You are indeed correct!



audioguy said:


> I am hoping there will be an "all-in-one-4K access solution". So far I have a box for AppleTV (not 4K), another "stick" for Amazon TV (don't know if it supports 4K) and am now looking into a way to access Vudo for 4K streaming content and will want access to 4K streaming content from Netflix. While I suspect Apple won't allow anyone to bypass their product, it would be nice to have a single 4K Streaming Access Point. If Oppo (or anyone else) were to bring that to the table, it would, for me, be worth a longer wait and more money.


IKWYM. I'm not hugely into streaming but I do have an Amazon Prime box hooked to our main TV. Since I can get loads of content for free/included with my Prime subscription, this was a no-brainer for us and Mrs Keith enjoys some of the American TV series via this method. HD PQ is excellent too.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm not hugely into streaming but I do have an Amazon Prime box hooked to our main TV. Since I can get loads of content for free/included with my Prime subscription, this was a no-brainer for us and Mrs Keith enjoys some of the American TV series via this method. HD PQ is excellent too.


We only stream a few TV shows (the following season) as I hate commercials and fast forwarding through them when we record them is only marginally better. I was thinking more about future 4K content that may or may not be available on shiny discs!!


----------



## Stoked21

So it sounds like CES was a bust this year? Haven't heard anything more on the immersive front from anyone. 

I take it no one is positioning a 13.1 product? By this I mean affordable companies (o&I, DM, Yammie etc). 

Was really hoping to expand this year to 7.1.6 or 9.1.4.


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> Ditto. Might look nice under a TV in a living room, but in a rack, stoopid. Still, if it's the only one available IDK how strong my resolve will be to wait for a Panny. I am guessing Panny will be second out of the gate. I'd prefer a Pioneer, but nowadays they seem to be way behind all the time so there's no chance of waiting that long. And last out of the gate will probably be Oppo who will do it right, do it well and be pretty expensive I'd bet. I've had 3 Oppos in a row and loved them all but PQ is PQ from HD content and I don't really need all the other Oppo features, so going forward I am being more sensible. (What did I just say???).


The cost of the Panny is holding me up. Looks like it will cost nearly twice as much as the Samsung. At this point I'm waiting to see what my options are this Summer. If nothing grabs me, I may hold off until the end of the year. All of this is contingent on how this whole HDCP mess sorts out.


----------



## shyyour

markus767 said:


> 7.1 DTS-HD MA is lossless and has 7 main channels whereas Dolby Digital 5.1 uses lossy compression and has 5 channels hence you want to listen to the 7.1 DTS-HD MA track.
> Not sure what you mean by "DTS+ DD" and "5.1 +DD".


Thanks for the clarification."DTS 7.1HDMA+DD" shows on my pre/pro (I think or maybe it was DSU). I'm assuming the DD or DSU is used for the height channels.


----------



## markus767

shyyour said:


> Thanks for the clarification."DTS 7.1HDMA+DD" shows on my pre/pro (I think or maybe it was DSU). I'm assuming the DD or DSU is used for the height channels.


"DD" = Dolby Digital = sound format
"DSU" = "Dolby Surround Upmixer" = upmixer


----------



## shyyour

Zhorik said:


> The Dolby or DTS wrapper doesn't affect Dolby Surround implementation.
> 
> That being said, the 7.1 DTS-HD MA is lossless track and (presumably alternate track) DD 5.1 is lossy. The lossless track will have greater definition and should be used.


Thanks makes sense now.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> "DD" = Dolby Digital = sound format
> "DSU" = "Dolby Surround Upmixer" = upmixer


He was taking about the double D Dolby Surround indicator, not literally DD.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> He was taking about the double D Dolby Surround indicator, not literally DD.


Probably.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "IKWYM. I'm not hugely into streaming but I do have an Amazon Prime box hooked to our main TV. Since I can get loads of content for free/included with my Prime subscription, this was a no-brainer for us and Mrs Keith enjoys some of the American TV series via this method. HD PQ is excellent too.[/QUOTE]"

I find Amazon Prime to be one of the best deals I've ever purchased. Besides great prices and second day free delivery - - I've found 4K streaming material like the series "Bosch" and other moves (1080P) that have been very enjoyable and free!

I use the Roku 4 in the main theater room downstairs and it's been great for 1080P content. Upstairs with the 4K set, it's the native Amazon app. from Vizio. 

I'm not much of a streamer outside of this as I enjoy the quality of Bluray -- especially for a projector and 100" screen. I also find the prices of streaming exorbitant. I know this is a way for cable & satellite companies to make money, but the cost trumps the convenience for me - - unless it's free! 

If they ever could get to a dollar or dollar fifty for a quality streaming moving with Dolby Atmos, that would change my mind (rough equivalent of what I pay per disc for Redbox with all the discounts). But I don't think that model will ever exist. Even if they had a plan like twenty bucks a month for 7 first run movies and your credits rolled if you didn't use them in a month - - I would consider that. But the lack of a quality soundtrack via streaming is a huge deterrent for me in addition to the cost. Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth. It will get solved one day.


----------



## Stoked21

shyyour said:


> Thanks makes sense now.


I believe you are using a Marantz? 7702mk2? 

When you see the +DD that's DSU. You can select just Dolby Digital which is native encoded. Or you can pick Dolby Digital +DD. If you press info button, you will see that when in +DD, the height channel boxes are lit up.

If you set your BDP to PCM on DTS discs, you can pick +DD also and you will see that the heights become active also.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm not sure why they put +DD for DSU. I just know that DSU is active when it says that.


----------



## shyyour

FilmMixer said:


> He was taking about the double D Dolby Surround indicator, not literally DD.


Yes I was. I was watching Ant Man and ibwas shocked when it showed it. I didn't know the two could work together.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> I believe you are using a Marantz? 7702mk2?
> 
> When you see the +DD that's DSU. You can select just Dolby Digital which is native encoded. Or you can pick Dolby Digital +DD. If you press info button, you will see that when in +DD, the height channel boxes are lit up.
> 
> If you set your BDP to PCM on DTS discs, you can pick +DD also and you will see that the heights become active also.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger. I'm not sure why they put +DD for DSU. I just know that DSU is active when it says that.


Can DSU be invoked for cable/satellite/OTA signals? If so, how does it sound? I'm still trying to find a Denon X5200 at a reasonable price. If I don't find it, I'll have to wait until the fall of this year with the new AVR releases. Or save up more $$$ for a Dirac Live or Anthem type setup. 

I'm all set for Dolby Atmos speaker wise - 7.1.4. I've really enjoyed DTS Neo X + THX (Cinema Mode). I keep this setting on for everything I watch. Even sports. Hockey sounds great with the puck reverberating around the room when it hits the boards or glass. 

I'd like to know if DSU provides a similar experience with sports that DTS Neo X does. (If possible.)


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> I believe you are using a Marantz? 7702mk2?
> 
> When you see the +DD that's DSU. You can select just Dolby Digital which is native encoded. Or you can pick Dolby Digital +DD. If you press info button, you will see that when in +DD, the height channel boxes are lit up.
> 
> If you set your BDP to PCM on DTS discs, you can pick +DD also and you will see that the heights become active also.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger. I'm not sure why they put +DD for DSU. I just know that DSU is active when it says that.


Lol I wish I have the 7702. I noticed it on Ant Man which was why I asked which format would be better to use. Funny though my BDP automatically does it( I have not changed any settings on it).

Thanks


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Can DSU be invoked for cable/satellite/OTA signals? If so, how does it sound? I'm still trying to find a Denon X5200 at a reasonable price. If I don't find it, I'll have to wait until the fall of this year with the new AVR releases. Or save up more $$$ for a Dirac Live or Anthem type setup.
> 
> I'm all set for Dolby Atmos speaker wise - 7.1.4. I've really enjoyed DTS Neo X + THX (Cinema Mode). I keep this setting on for everything I watch. Even sports. Hockey sounds great with the puck reverberating around the room when it hits the boards or glass.
> 
> I'd like to know if DSU provides a similar experience with sports that DTS Neo X does. (If possible.)


Don't really use my HT for TV. I did watch all of postseason MLB in it though. DSU is really kind of annoying with it IMO. The announcers are anchored to the front. Periodically you would hear some yahoo cussing and yelling behind you. Or all of a sudden the crowd cheering would just crank out at high db beside/behind you. Really distracting since it's basically a stereo source (though broadcast in 5.1). I can't say I really ever heard anything from the tops.

I'll be watching wildcard games today in DSU, so will see.


----------



## Daryl L

dvdwilly3 said:


> In a re-mastered SW reissue set (all in one box) from Amazon, the original Star Wars is mixed in Dolby 6.1. Maybe that makes the difference...
> 
> Not sure about the rest... I will go downstairs and look...after coffee so that my brain is working properly.
> 
> That is the only movie that I can think of that used DD 6.1.


Don't you mean they were mixed in DTS–HD Master 6.1. I just checked my set and the two English tracks are DTS–HD Master 6.1 and Dolby Digital 5.1.

Star Wars: Original Trilogy Blu-ray


----------



## markus767

shyyour said:


> Yes I was. I was watching Ant Man and ibwas shocked when it showed it. I didn't know the two could work together.


It seems that DSU can even upmix itself  Not much is known about how it actually works though.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Don't really use my HT for TV. I did watch all of postseason MLB in it though. DSU is really kind of annoying with it IMO. The announcers are anchored to the front. Periodically you would hear some yahoo cussing and yelling behind you. Or all of a sudden the crowd cheering would just crank out at high db beside/behind you. Really distracting since it's basically a stereo source (though broadcast in 5.1). I can't say I really ever heard anything from the tops.
> 
> I'll be watching wildcard games today in DSU, so will see.


Interesting. And I have the same observation on hearing some yahoo cussing or different crowd noises behind you. This reminds me of the cheapo seats I used to get at sporting events. It just like I was there - - without the cost, cheaper beers and the same yokels I'm accustomed to! (Kind of like that idiot behind Christian McCaffery at the Rose Bowl, ruining his interview by yelling "Heisman" every five seconds.)

DTS Neo X - Cinema Mode emphasizes more of the dialog on the center channel. This works great for me as I have an excellent center speaker (Paradigm CC-690) and it helps me understand what the announcers are saying when the crowd is really loud. I know the Denon X5200 still has DTS Neo X and I certainly hope that the never version of DTS X has a similar offering.

And nice catch, by the way, on the comment about a broadcast in 5.1 that is really stereo. I had this practice confirmed from a sound mixer that has worked on many movies and television shows.

How about movies for satellite/cable that are truly broadcast in 5.1? Does DSU help? Or, do you really need 7.1 audio to appreciate the benefits of DSU?


----------



## audioguy

Ricoflashback said:


> Interesting. And I have the same observation on hearing some yahoo cussing or different crowd noises behind you. This reminds me of the cheapo seats I used to get at sporting events. It just like I was there - - without the cost, cheaper beers and the same yokels I'm accustomed to! (Kind of like that idiot behind Christian McCaffery at the Rose Bowl, ruining his interview by yelling "Heisman" every five seconds.)


That guy should have been pulled away from the area --- or had ice water dumped on his head. REALLY annoying.




> How about movies for satellite/cable that are truly broadcast in 5.1? Does DSU help? Or, do you really need 7.1 audio to appreciate the benefits of DSU?


I use DSU for all of the "TV" we watch in our theater, 98% of which is sports. But the few movies we have watched from DirecTV,, AppleTV or Amazon have been "improved" with the utilization of DSU. It works better with some than others.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> How about movies for satellite/cable that are truly broadcast in 5.1? Does DSU help? Or, do you really need 7.1 audio to appreciate the benefits of DSU?


DSU does great with 5.1 content. I use it frequently with dated 5.1 mixed BD. Though again, not normally using the HT for broadcast. 

When I first built my rev 1 of the HT, I did a bunch of testing with 5.1 movies on HBO and Showtime. Worked great. But my take on DSU is similar with Atmos. Some Atmos mixes are mediocre while others are incredible. I've been watching a bunch of older movies (1970-2000s) using DSU over the last few weeks. Some of them sound incredible with a fair amount of top usage while some of them don't seem to utilize at all.


----------



## audioguy

I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.

Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.

Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????


----------



## Ricoflashback

audioguy said:


> That guy should have been pulled away from the area --- or had ice water dumped on his head. REALLY annoying.
> 
> 
> I use DSU for all of the "TV" we watch in our theater, 98% of which is sports. But the few movies we have watched from DirecTV,, AppleTV or Amazon have been "improved" with the utilization of DSU. It works better with some than others.


Comment: Couldn't agree more. I live here in Colorado and we're quite partial to Christian McCaffrey. His dad was a member of the Denver Broncos and still lives here. Quality kid and first national interview virtually ruined by that idiot in the back.


Comment: Great to hear! Sounds like YMMV - - and as always, dependent on the source. Thanks for your post.


----------



## AllenA07

audioguy said:


> I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.
> 
> Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.
> 
> Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????


I think that happens to everybody and ultimately is a good thing. I've spent a ton of money on my theater, and I like to actively listen to just how good it sounds. Ultimately though the goal should be to make the movies we are watching more immersive. The theater itself should not be the focus during a movie. 

A few weeks ago my wife (who will claim to have never noticed one of my upgrades) and I watched a movie that wasn't in my theater. Afterwards in the car she told me that I ruined her. She can't tell how good my theater sounds, but she absolutely could tell how bad the other system was.


----------



## rontalley

Roger Dressler said:


> The height speakers can be sourced from either objects or channels. A channel sounds like an object standing still, and yet, even with channel based height signals, lateral panning is possible, blurring the lines further.


Interesting. 

When I disable "Object Decode Mode" on my AVR (Yamaha 3050), nothing comes out of the ceiling speakers when watching an Atmos movie or playing any of the Demos. Don't think they fire in DSU mode either even though I know that there are no objects in non-Atmos movies. So I thought technically, even if .x (in my case .4) audio could be sourced from channels, they are still decoded as objects.

I would love to have lateral panning with the addition of a 7 channel height bed!


----------



## Stoked21

audioguy said:


> I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.
> 
> Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.
> 
> Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????


Ditto. I guess I fell into that a long time ago though. I'm probably ADD. I tend to forget I'm listening for Atmos effects and get drawn into the movie. At times I hear the top speakers going nuts (watched Unbroken last night). Can't help but hear them. But again I don't focus on it much anymore.

My biggest issue is I see almost every movie at the theater as I'm impatient and enjoy having lunch there. I just watch them again in the HT for better sound and so the rest of my family can see them. So I was always afforded the luxury of ignoring the story to evaluate my HT.

But still, the newness wears off and I'd rather watch the movie than focus on 4 speakers up top.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.
> 
> Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.
> 
> Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????


No - IKWYM too. It's natural I think. Like I don't really notice the surrounds much any more, unless the mixer deliberately puts a big effect directly into one of them. But I still now they are working and adding to the 'bubble'. When we first have speakers on the ceiling, it's like, wow, there are speakers on the ceiling. But then we settle down and get used to them and just start enjoying the additional immersion and watching the movie, without wondering where the sound is coming from all the time.


----------



## bguzman

Ricoflashback said:


> Can DSU be invoked for cable/satellite/OTA signals? If so, how does it sound? I'm still trying to find a Denon X5200 at a reasonable price. If I don't find it, I'll have to wait until the fall of this year with the new AVR releases. Or save up more $$$ for a Dirac Live or Anthem type setup.
> 
> I'm all set for Dolby Atmos speaker wise - 7.1.4. I've really enjoyed DTS Neo X + THX (Cinema Mode). I keep this setting on for everything I watch. Even sports. Hockey sounds great with the puck reverberating around the room when it hits the boards or glass.
> I'd like to know if DSU provides a similar experience with sports that DTS Neo X does. (If possible.)





Stoked21 said:


> Don't really use my HT for TV. I did watch all of postseason MLB in it though. DSU is really kind of annoying with it IMO. The announcers are anchored to the front. Periodically you would hear some yahoo cussing and yelling behind you. Or all of a sudden the crowd cheering would just crank out at high db beside/behind you. Really distracting since it's basically a stereo source (though broadcast in 5.1). I can't say I really ever heard anything from the tops.
> I'll be watching wildcard games today in DSU, so will see.


I really like DSU for sports on TV. For better or worse it puts you right in the "stands" with all of the other obnoxious fans. Closest thing to being there that I have heard so far. In my set up the crowd noise seems to be from all around so when stuff happens the crowd goes wild, again very realistic.


----------



## rontalley

audioguy said:


> I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.
> 
> Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.
> 
> Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????


I am sooooo trying to get back to just enjoying movies! This is what I meant by my ear has been "trained" to listen, which is a distraction from enjoyment. I just rearranged my fronts, moved the subs yet again, ran YPAO like 12 times, tinker, tinker, tinker, tweak, tweak, tinker, move, listen, listen, tinker, tweak....ARRRRGGGG!!!!

I'm exhausted!


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> No - IKWYM too. It's natural I think. Like I don't really notice the surrounds much any more, unless the mixer deliberately puts a big effect directly into one of them. But I still now they are working and adding to the 'bubble'. When we first have speakers on the ceiling, it's like, wow, there are speakers on the ceiling. But then we settle down and get used to them and just start enjoying the additional immersion and watching the movie, without wondering where the sound is coming from all the time.


Actually, this same thing happened even before I added the ceiling speakers. You just forget that you have all of this stuff. But the best way to remind yourself of why we made the investment is to either (a) occasionally silence the ceiling speakers or (b) go listen someplace that is the equivalent of a crappy and inexpensive HTIB. Or, for that matter, go to most any second class commercial theater.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> I am sooooo trying to get back to just enjoying movies! This is what I meant by my ear has been "trained" to listen, which is a distraction from enjoyment. I just rearranged my fronts, moved the subs yet again, ran YPAO like 12 times, tinker, tinker, tinker, tweak, tweak, tinker, move, listen, listen, tinker, tweak....ARRRRGGGG!!!!
> 
> I'm exhausted!


You are in danger of using the content to play the system instead of the other way around. This is something I fell foul of many years ago in my 'audiofool period' when I realised I never actually listened to the music any more, just to the system. If you can, it is a good idea to try to force yourself to break the habit.


----------



## dormie1360

audioguy said:


> I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.
> 
> Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.
> 
> Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????


I'm sure you've heard the expression: "you can't see the forest for the trees". A common ailment with AVS's, me included, "we can't hear the movie because of the speakers". What you are experiencing is a very good thing. 
With my current theater, I've pretty much been the same way....unless I start reading too much AVS.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Stoked21 said:


> Ditto. I guess I fell into that a long time ago though. I'm probably ADD. I tend to forget I'm listening for Atmos effects and get drawn into the movie. At times I hear the top speakers going nuts (watched Unbroken last night). Can't help but hear them. But again I don't focus on it much anymore.
> 
> My biggest issue is I see almost every movie at the theater as I'm impatient and enjoy having lunch there. I just watch them again in the HT for better sound and so the rest of my family can see them. So I was always afforded the luxury of ignoring the story to evaluate my HT.
> 
> But still, the newness wears off and I'd rather watch the movie than focus on 4 speakers up top.


I have a similar feeling... I watched Dracula for a bit last night, at first it's like "oh cool overhead stuff" then 20 min later I'm just used to it. I do think the best Atmos mixes are yet to come, & that when they do we'll be blown away. In watching San Andreas I was really impressed with the Atmos sound on that. I definitely recognize the Atmos sound from the start of each film though & know it's far superior to 5.1/7.1... just even sounds coming from the front sound stage are much more 3 dimensional. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Glad you got something. It will give you a chance to make some money while you look for something permanent. Good luck buddy!


I'm very happy about it because it's a job that could lead to other opportunities (industrial printing). Being unemployed wasn't all bad though, I got a lot of painting done! I'm aiming to finish that large painting mid summer. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Your neighbor sounds like (NPI) a piece of work. Doesn't the House music keep your baby awake? Have you ever considered headphones and a ButtKicker? I have a friend in similar circumstances to yours and that's what he uses. I think he has those cans which simulate 5.1, and the ButtKicker is silent but really gives a genuine impression of deep bass. Just a thought.


It's not that loud, the apartment is oriented in such a way that the bedroom doesn't allow the low end frequencies to be heard from the neighbor's unit. Their sound system is on the other side of the wall from my TV.

I used to be in a much worse situation back in 2009 when I moved into a loft & tried to setup a recording studio there. It was a beautiful space & great for recording but then some teenagers moved upstairs. They blasted gansta rap super loud, & then I'd go to my drum set & have volume wars with them. But things started getting scary... we had multiple break ins & my rickenbacker guitar was stolen... (though thank god I had renter's insurance). Compared to that, my current situation is a minor annoyance (1st world problems... haha). 

I might try the headphones! I'm very curious what ever became of the Atmos headphone concept. I wrote Tyll Hersens who's appeared on HTG several times to discuss headphones, I asked him about surround headphones but he's not a big fan of them. I think that's mostly due to surround sound working within a large 3 dimensional space as opposed to the enclosure around the ears. I 



kbarnes701 said:


> Waiting will certainly give some time for all the confusion to be sorted out. As it is, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the UHD/2.2 business when playing to a 1080p delay. We’ll know soon enough I guess when the first players and discs hit the street.


Has anyone here been keeping track of the news regarding when the discs are hitting the market? I'm curious if any reveals were made @ CES? 



Stoked21 said:


> So it sounds like CES was a bust this year? Haven't heard anything more on the immersive front from anyone.
> 
> I take it no one is positioning a 13.1 product? By this I mean affordable companies (o&I, DM, Yammie etc).
> 
> Was really hoping to expand this year to 7.1.6 or 9.1.4.


It's hard to say... I think the AVS people covering it are too busy with the events to post news about what's going on. Nothing revolutionary... on Home Theater Geeks last episode Scott interviewed Douglas Trumbull about a new theater system he came up with, that supposedly has full 360 sound (up & down). I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect this tech hitting theaters any time soon or if the market will take him seriously... though he is a heavy hitter in many regards. 

I did hear there will be 100 UHD titles this year... supposedly they might be in Atmos? 

As far as receiver tech the general consensus based on what I read here seems to be that 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 products are probably still a year or 2 away. Next summer the picture might be clearer. 

One thing I have noticed is that Atmos theatrical mixes are gaining traction... 3 releases this month. The Bluray releases still are painfully slow though... I want to know if more legacy content will be getting remixes.


----------



## audioguy

dormie1360 said:


> I'm sure you've heard the expression: "you can't see the forest for the trees". A common ailment with AVS's, me included, "we can't hear the movie because of the speakers". What you are experiencing is a very good thing.
> With my current theater, I've pretty much been the same way....unless I start reading too much AVS.


Part of what prompted my original post is that I wonder, at what point, are we just spending money. I ask specifically since I have ordered (and waiting for delivery) the Datasat RS20i. I have had it in my room before and it is incredible. Way way way better than anything I have ever heard before. I know after I get it installed and calibrated I will certainly hear and enjoy all of it's many, many positive [and expensive] attributes. But how about 4 weeks later? Will I even be further engrossed in the movie "experience" due to the greatly improved immersive capability of the product? I sure hope so??

This is more of a philosophical question, I think, than one about hardware or systems, but I do find it both interesting, perplexing and frustrating all at the same time.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> You are in danger of using the content to play the system instead of the other way around. This is something I fell foul of many years ago in my 'audiofool period' when I realised I never actually listened to the music any more, just to the system. If you can, it is a good idea to try to *force* yourself to break the habit.


I am using the "*force*" now. ♪Duuuun ♪Dunn ♪Da ♪Da ♪Da ♪Duuuun ♪Dunnn ♪Da ♪Da ♪Da ♪Dunnn ♪Dunnn ♪Da ♪Da ♪Da ♪Dunnnn


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I might try the headphones! I'm very curious what ever became of the Atmos headphone concept. I wrote Tyll Hersens who's appeared on HTG several times to discuss headphones, I asked him about surround headphones but he's not a big fan of them. I think that's mostly due to surround sound working within a large 3 dimensional space as opposed to the enclosure around the ears.


The Smyth Realiser could also be of interest. IDK what it costs or what its limitations are. I know markus767 has one so if you were interested he might be able to give you lowdown on it. I used to have a ButtKicker here (before the Submersives) and I can tell you that they do work great. You really do believe you are hearing the bass rather than feeling it. It's odd how if you stand up from the seat the bass disappears, so convincing was the illusion that you are hearing it rather than feeling it (in conjunction with some bass from the rest of the system of course - even headphones). IMO the ButtKicker is a great way for people in apartments to get a real sensation of bass without annoying the neighbors. And not too expensive either.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Part of what prompted my original post is that I wonder, at what point, are we just spending money. I ask specifically since I have ordered (and waiting for delivery) the Datasat RS20i. I have had it in my room before and it is incredible. Way way way better than anything I have ever heard before. I know after I get it installed and calibrated I will certainly hear and enjoy all of it's many, many positive [and expensive] attributes. But how about 4 weeks later? Will I even be further engrossed in the movie "experience" due to the greatly improved immersive capability of the product? I sure hope so??
> 
> This is more of a philosophical question, I think, than one about hardware or systems, but I do find it both interesting, perplexing and frustrating all at the same time.


Diminishing returns will always be a big factor once one gets to a certain level. Going from $1,000 to $2,000 probably really is worth double the cost, but once you get to $10,000, going to $20,000 is always going to be an incremental improvement. With the Datasat you will be getting subtle differences (I hope) but that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile or worth the money to you.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But the home version of Atmos doesn't have the discrete height channels of the theatrical version... So isn't he correct that the heights would be all objects?


 Yes. Structurally speaking, both the objects and height channels of an Atmos theatrical mix are delivered as objects in the consumer Atmos format. My original comment was to address the audibility of objects in an Atmos mix, as opposed to height channels. I did not mean to muddy the water with a semantic argument. Just wanted to add a bit of color regarding "the .4 is all object based sounds..." 

If the issue boils down to hearing height sounds or not, the statement reduces to "the .4 is all height sounds..." but that's self-evident -- by definition the height speakers only produce height sounds. Up there  



rontalley said:


> Interesting.
> 
> When I disable "Object Decode Mode" on my AVR (Yamaha 3050), nothing comes out of the ceiling speakers when watching an Atmos movie or playing any of the Demos.


Makes sense. You are telling the AVR to play out the standard 7.1 rendition of the Atmos track.



> Don't think they fire in DSU mode either even though I know that there are no objects in non-Atmos movies. So I thought technically, even if .x (in my case .4) audio could be sourced from channels, they are still decoded as objects.


The height speakers will indeed be silent with DSU on some occasions. It has nothing to do with objects, just whether there are uncorrelated signals in the L/R or surround channels.



> I would love to have lateral panning with the addition of a 7 channel height bed!


?? I was just intending to say that even a 2-channel height bed can express lateral movement overhead, and that could be interpreted as having originated from "object-based sounds" in a theatrical Atmos mix, even though no objects were harmed in the making of the soundtrack.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Daryl L said:


> Don't you mean they were mixed in DTS–HD Master 6.1. I just checked my set and the two English tracks are DTS–HD Master 6.1 and Dolby Digital 5.1.
> 
> Star Wars: Original Trilogy Blu-ray


I told you I needed coffee!

Yeah, you are right! But, I would still speculate that the reason for better definition in the rear field would be because of DTS-HD MA 6.1

And, that is pure speculation. I have no idea how DSU translates that...


----------



## rontalley

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes. Structurally speaking, both the objects and height channels of an Atmos theatrical mix are delivered as objects in the consumer Atmos format. My original comment was to address the audibility of objects in an Atmos mix, as opposed to height channels. I did not mean to muddy the water with a semantic argument. Just wanted to add a bit of color regarding "the .4 is all object based sounds..."
> 
> If the issue boils down to hearing height sounds or not, the statement reduces to "the .4 is all height sounds..." but that's self-evident -- by definition the height speakers only produce height sounds. Up there
> 
> Makes sense. You are telling the AVR to play out the standard 7.1 rendition of the Atmos track.
> 
> The height speakers will indeed be silent with DSU on some occasions. It has nothing to do with objects, just whether there are uncorrelated signals in the L/R or surround channels.
> 
> ?? I was just intending to say that even a 2-channel height bed can express lateral movement overhead, and that could be interpreted as having originated from "object-based sounds" in a theatrical Atmos mix, even though no objects were harmed in the making of the soundtrack.


Got it! Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Diminishing returns will always be a big factor once one gets to a certain level. Going from $1,000 to $2,000 probably really is worth double the cost, but once you get to $10,000, going to $20,000 is always going to be an incremental improvement. With the Datasat you will be getting subtle differences (I hope) but that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile or worth the money to you.


I have had the Datasat in my room for 4 months. The differences are way way way past subtle (we tested blind). I would not even suggest those huge improvements are worth the price but that is a different discussion.

But my question remains: Once it has been in my room for 2 or 3 months and is all set up and calibrated, it will just become part of the "experience". Will it sound better? Absolutely. But, how much will it improve the experience? I would say that the improvement from 2D to 3D was is the order of (plus or minus) the change from non Dirac/Other Platform to Datasat/Dirac. But I have managed to, for the most part, "ignore" 3D audio and I suspect, the same will occur with my newest upgrade.

Sort of thinking out loud here!!!!!!


----------



## NODES

dvdwilly3 said:


> I told you I needed coffee!
> 
> Yeah, you are right! But, I would still speculate that the reason for better definition in the rear field would be because of DTS-HD MA 6.1
> 
> And, that is pure speculation. I have no idea how DSU translates that...



You may be right, just watched attack of the clones and DSU sounds awesome it might be copying the stuff from the back channel to the ceiling speakers...either way it sounds awesome.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> I have had the Datasat in my room for 4 months.  The differences are way way way past subtle (we tested blind). I would not even suggest those huge improvements are worth the price but that is a different discussion.


What do you attribute these huge audible differences to (taking room EQ out of the equation for now)?



audioguy said:


> But my question remains: Once it has been in my room for 2 or 3 months and is all set up and calibrated, it will just become part of the "experience". Will it sound better? Absolutely. But, how much will it improve the experience? I would say that the improvement from 2D to 3D was is the order of (plus or minus) the change from non Dirac/Other Platform to Datasat/Dirac. But I have managed to, for the most part, "ignore" 3D audio and I suspect, the same will occur with my newest upgrade.
> 
> Sort of thinking out loud here!!!!!!


Only you can say since "better" is a subjective parameter. You are sure to get used to the improvements after a while IMO but that doesn't make them disappear or go away. I am betting that if you took a one month break and then came back, you would be blown away all over again.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> What do you attribute these huge audible differences to (taking room EQ out of the equation for now)?


This is off the seat of my pants guessing but based upon how we listened, 25% Hardware (better DACs, more DSP chips, better power supply, etc) and 75% software --- Dirac, PEQ's on the output channels, low and high pass filter options, the ability to measure pre and post Dirac on every channel and fine tune as necessary, greater flexibility on crossover slope and type, and I'm sure there are others that I can't recall at the moment. There are also a bunch of other abilities that will allow folks with larger rooms (or larger wallets) to get even better sound through the use of the additional channels (up to 24) and the channel mapping function. 

Once I have completed my calibration, I will post (probably not on this thread) the differences that show up in plotting of the corrected outputs on my existing SSP vs the new one. I already know two of the differences: MUCH MUCH MUCH smoother individual channel response (Dirac by itself can not achieve that same level of smoothness) and MUCH better splice between the mains and subs.

Is all of this worth the obscene amount of money charged??? Not for most!!

*Some* of that will be available on the Datasat LS10 eventually; if Emotiva ever gets their product up and running, it may be a contender; and I just heard the miniDSP has made some improvements/2016 CES announcments to Dirac running on their platforms that will facilitate better calibration possibilities.


----------



## Stoked21

audioguy said:


> *Some* of that will be available on the Datasat LS10 eventually; if Emotiva ever gets their product up and running, it may be a contender; and I just heard the miniDSP has made some improvements/2016 CES announcments to Dirac running on their platforms that will facilitate better calibration possibilities.


Hadn't heard the MinIDSP improvements at CES. 

Anything that directly supports/improves Atmos (i.e. More than 8 chs?) obviously I know it can be used for bed or 2 88a for 7.1.4. But I want more tailored for Atmos ch count.


----------



## JamesE

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Perhaps.....Just saying... You may not agree with some of the choices made for your own purposes, but that doesn't mean that those weren't the best choices to convey what the filmmakers intended. Personally, I'm glad that Atmos mixes thus far are being handled with some subtlety and are being used in some very artistic ways. Maybe that's why my favorite Atmos mix thus far is The Age Of Adaline.


I don't disagree with what you have said, however, a helicopter over your head in a small canyon would be deafening and terrifying. It would be shaking stable objects off the canyon wall. Not to convey that in this situation was a mistake in my opinion. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words and the audio in this situation would have been also. Many of the subtle Atmos effects are my favorite effects. This situation did not call for subtlety.


----------



## Nabs17

Stoked21 said:


> Hadn't heard the MinIDSP improvements at CES.
> 
> Anything that directly supports/improves Atmos (i.e. More than 8 chs?) obviously I know it can be used for bed or 2 88a for 7.1.4. But I want more tailored for Atmos ch count.


Check out the 88a thread, Mark Seaton reported minidsp is stepping up their game with substantial improvements coming.


----------



## Nabs17

audioguy said:


> Part of what prompted my original post is that I wonder, at what point, are we just spending money. I ask specifically since I have ordered (and waiting for delivery) the Datasat RS20i. I have had it in my room before and it is incredible. Way way way better than anything I have ever heard before. I know after I get it installed and calibrated I will certainly hear and enjoy all of it's many, many positive [and expensive] attributes. But how about 4 weeks later? Will I even be further engrossed in the movie "experience" due to the greatly improved immersive capability of the product? I sure hope so??
> 
> This is more of a philosophical question, I think, than one about hardware or systems, but I do find it both interesting, perplexing and frustrating all at the same time.


I've asked a similar philosophical question before...what is it that we chase in this hobby of ours and how do we know when (if) we get there. Why do we spend what we spend and will spending more get us "there" faster. Not sure. Every time I think my system sounds very good and can't get better, I find something else that I think will make it sound better. Oh well, I figure this is a struggle we will all have for as long as we endulge in this hobby.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

JamesE said:


> I don't disagree with what you have said, however, a helicopter over your head in a small canyon would be deafening and terrifying. It would be shaking stable objects off the canyon wall. Not to convey that in this situation was a mistake in my opinion. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words and the audio in this situation would have been also. Many of the subtle Atmos effects are my favorite effects. This situation did not call for subtlety.




In fairness, a helicopter couldn't actually hover in that narrow of a canyon. Nor would any rescue pilot have "tipped the hat" to put his helicopter in that narrow a space, where the turbulence would have made it impossible to stabilize. Nor would a person in a car below said helicopter have been able to hear a guy hanging from a cable say much of anything. Nor would said helicopter have had enough fuel to travel long enough for its pilot to abandon his job to go save his wife and daughter. I could go on... But the point I'm trying to make is that this isn't reality - it's a movie. And it's made by people who are trying to tell a story, not worry about whether the height channels get used the way laymen believe they should. ;-)


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> Only you can say since "better" is a subjective parameter. You are sure to get used to the improvements after a while IMO but that doesn't make them disappear or go away. I am betting that if you took a one month break and then came back, you would be blown away all over again.


I have the hardest time trying to explain to the Mrs. why I purchased this or that. She wouldn't allow my to position my Fronts properly so I had to either have them at around 18 degrees with the pj screen covering the top 3rd of the speakers or at 44 degrees out of the way of traffic. I decided to do the wide spread for WAF.

Today I said to the hell with it and moved the speakers to around 28 degrees and moved the subs after doing the subcrawl. The Mrs. has been absent from movie watching for about 2 weeks now.

Not even really noticing I had moved things around, she sat down to watch John Wick with me. She was completely blown away and realized things sounded different (to her). She started looking around trying to figure out what I had purchased new. She then realized I had went against her wishes as far as speaker placement. She told me *NOT* to move anything around and to *NOT* touch a thing! She was so excited as to how awesome the movie sounded. This is coming from someone who NEVER hears a difference!!!

Long story short, I really didn't hear that much difference although I could definitely tell a difference but she had been absent during many tweaks so it sounded like a million bucks to her. All those small things add up and like you said, if we stepped back for awhile, we would realize more than what we do.

Now, am I done? Hell no! I have absolutely no treatment and trying to figure out how to sneak that in my "living room".


----------



## NODES

Nabs17 said:


> I've asked a similar philosophical question before...what is it that we chase in this hobby of ours and how do we know when (if) we get there. Why do we spend what we spend and will spending more get us "there" faster. Not sure. Every time I think my system sounds very good and can't get better, I find something else that I think will make it sound better. Oh well, I figure this is a struggle we will all have for as long as we endulge in this hobby.



I stop when my accountant gets involved and gives me the real facts $$$


----------



## audioguy

Nabs17 said:


> I've asked a similar philosophical question before...what is it that we chase in this hobby of ours and how do we know when (if) we get there. Why do we spend what we spend and will spending more get us "there" faster. Not sure. Every time I think my system sounds very good and can't get better, I find something else that I think will make it sound better. Oh well, I figure this is a struggle we will all have for as long as we endulge in this hobby.


The answer: The best "things" in life aren't "things"!!!


----------



## Selden Ball

rontalley said:


> Now, am I done? Hell no! I have absolutely no treatment and trying to figure out how to sneak that in my "living room".


Some companies sell absorbers which have artwork of your choice silk-screened onto the front.


----------



## Steven James 2

So i finally got my speakers up on the ceiling for atmos and wow!!!! What a difference! Now i hear what ive been missing the whole time! Its not a great setup but my basement has a bad layout. I did the best i could with what i had and im pleased with the sound!!


----------



## NODES

OWM5's or 3?


----------



## Steven James 2

NODES said:


> OWM5's or 3?



Owm5's . They sound great for such a small speaker!


----------



## NODES

Steven James 2 said:


> Owm5's . They sound great for such a small speaker!




i use the 3's those 5's look huge.


----------



## Steven James 2

NODES said:


> i use the 3's those 5's look huge.



I almost got the 3's but i chose the 5's mainly because i thought id get more sound out of them, and if they ended up being too big id just juse them as rears or a zone 2 somewhere. But i like them.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> What do you attribute these huge audible differences to (taking room EQ out of the equation for now)?
> 
> 
> 
> Only you can say since "better" is a subjective parameter. You are sure to get used to the improvements after a while IMO but that doesn't make them disappear or go away. I am betting that if you took a one month break and then came back, you would be blown away all over again.


For me, one of the most telling is to get someone who is not so picky about audio like my wife into the equation. 

I remember several years ago when I first set up our TV on Dolby 5.1. I had been playing it that way for several days.
One night, as we set down, I did not immediately turn the receiver on, and she asked "What's wrong with the TV?"
I had to laugh and told her that I had not turned the receiver on.
Her response, "Well, turn it on!"

We forget how good things really sound until we don't have them and step back...


----------



## Glock3540

audioguy said:


> I am beginning to no longer "listen to" Atmos or DSU movies. By that I mean, I tend to get lost in the film and the sound just sort of "happens". It bothers me a bit since I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into the whole 3D audio experience and want to "enjoy" what I paid for.
> 
> Last night we watched the second in the series of "The Maze" [not a particularly great movie and certainly not as good as the first but I am easily entertained] and I had to "go out of" enjoying (?) the film to listen for audio effects. I guess the whole purpose of the audio in general and 3D Immersive audio in particular is to get you to connect to the film, so maybe it's working.
> 
> Am I the only one to whom this is happening?????



Yeah, I've got a 7.8.4 setup with 8 subs. I was anticipating hearing all of this "overhead" sound when I bought my X6200W for Atmos last month. I was mildly disappointed when watching my first Atmos BluRay. The movie sounded great! It sounded like the walls and roof 
of my A/V room disappeared. It was the most realistic sounding movie I have ever experienced. Still..., For some reason I expected to be able to "localize" and hear my new overheads but I could not. I must be going crazy. The best I ever heard and I'm still not satisfied. I've already purchased several more pair of speakers anticipating 9.1.6 or 11.1.8 or whatever is next. I guess I enjoy the chase more than the catch. 
Blessings, Brian


----------



## audioguy

Glock3540 said:


> Yeah, I've got a 7.8.4 setup with 8 subs. I was anticipating hearing all of this "overhead" sound when I bought my X6200W for Atmos last month. I was mildly disappointed when watching my first Atmos BluRay. The movie sounded great! It sounded like the walls and roof
> of my A/V room disappeared. It was the most realistic sounding movie I have ever experienced. Still..., For some reason I expected to be able to "localize" and hear my new overheads but I could not. I must be going crazy. The best I ever heard and I'm still not satisfied. I've already purchased several more pair of speakers anticipating 9.1.6 or 11.1.8 or whatever is next. I guess I enjoy the chase more than the catch.
> Blessings, Brian


Initially, I did "hear all of this 'overhead' sound". But what really happens over time is that short of center channel dialog, there is very little speaker-specific sound. The entire room is filled with sound and it emanates from various spots around the room. But when I'm "in the moment", I don't pay much attention to it. To remind myself what I paid for, I,occassionally use the Marantz iPad app and instantly switch from Atmos or DSU to stereo or regular 7.1. THEN I remember why I spent all of that money.


----------



## videoray

westmd said:


> As promised in my previous entry I wanted to prepare a suggestion for *speaker types and layout* to provide for *Atmos* as well as *Auro3D* sound. For everybody who haven't heard Auro 3D so far, writing it off already is a huge mistake IMO and Auro will most likely be available in normal priced gear also soon. Preparing your speakers for both is thus very important to be future proof.
> 
> Basis for this guideline were countless hours in this thread as well as talking to different dealers and a long conversation with the Auro engineers during the IFA in Berlin. We looked together at the famous Denon diagram which is in general also valid for Auro so we should use this to start with. Fortubately the 5.x or 7.x bed is the same for Auro and Atmos, so we should only concentrate what is happening at the ceiling.
> 
> Starting from the back we have first the *rear height speakers* and the *rear top speakers*. According to the chart both these have very similar angles of 125-150 respectvely 135-150 degrees, so installing one pair of speakers fulfilling both requirement is very easy achievable. In regards to speaker types two possibilities exist. A direct aiming height speaker tilted towards the MLP or an in ceiling speaker with a pointable tweeter towards the MLP. Both ways are a compromise but should work for both systems. Maybe the direct speakers are a little bit better for Auro and the ceiling speakers better for Atmos so choice should be done depending on preferences.
> 
> Next row of speakers are the *top middle speakers.* In a normal sized Atmos setup this row should not have much relevance as normal setup would be rear and front top speakers, but for Auro3D this is the position where the *Voice of God speaker* should be. VOG is a mono speaker located more or less directly above the MLP. Speaker type can be a normal in-ceiling speaker such as used for Atmos rear and top speakers. In general it can be stated that the VOG speaker does not hold much relevance in the Auro setup. Especially when directly pointing back and front speakers are used no real difference can be heard between a setup with an without VOG speaker, so this one can be skipped without much influence.
> 
> The following row of speaker is the *front top speaker*. Now whilst the middle top was not really that important for Atmos the front top row has little to none importance for Auro. Therfore my suggestion for this row would be in-ceiling or Dolby enabled speakers. If the overall amount of channels is of relevance this row could be muted during Auro playback and the amplifier could be used to drive front height speakers.
> 
> The last row according to the Denon sheet is the *front height speaker* which again like the rear height are direct firing speakers tilted to the MLP. The difference between Atmos and Auro for this row would be that the speakers should be attached 30-45 degrees which leave them sometimes in the middle of the room (in my case for instance) Auro requires them to be in line with front row speakers / the screen and not much relevance is given to the angle. As these speakers do not hold much relevance for Atmos, my suggestion would be to install them by the screen and maybe even mute them for Atmos. As suggested above front top for Atmos and front height for Auro could be run over the same amp using a switch in between.
> 
> One last speaker which is an Auro only one is the *height center soeaker *. This one is a mono speaker and should be installed either directly firing over the screen or as a LCR designated in-ceiling speaker (such as the IC 608 FG LCR from Jamo). This speaker is not essential for Auro but has quite a nice effect to distribute dialogues more homogeniozsly over the screen.
> 
> *Conclusion* Some clever arrangement and maybe one additional pair of speakers can achieve that your speaker types and layout is at least Atmos and Auro compatible. Now DTS UHD might be another story again...
> 
> *Addition on September 12th* In the meantime I got feedback from Auro tgemselves. I forwarded this post to them and they replied that they don't see any issue with using this setup for Auro!


Where do i place the speakers for Atmos and Auro? Is there a placement picture?

_The pre/pro can only operate 4 height speakers (Atmos/DTS:X) or 5 height speakers (Auro3D); however, currently the SH and TS speaker settings for Auro 3D cannot be used with Atmos/DTS:X. Ans.
_
So why can't I use any setting that is available to any channel to any output, if I use 2 DDRC 88A bypassing Audyssey? At this point won't all you have with AV8802A is codec's directed to where 11 speakers it needs to go? Leaving me with 3 extra outputs excluding the sub. I have 14 amp outs and from those 14 outputs 10 speakers are for height and top positions. I don't know where to put the 10 height and top speakers in my room? 

Maybe 5 height, 3 in front and 2 in the rear and 5 top in-ceiling, forming an "X"?. ..


----------



## rontalley

Steven James 2 said:


> So i finally got my speakers up on the ceiling for atmos and wow!!!! What a difference! Now i hear what ive been missing the whole time! Its not a great setup but my basement has a bad layout. I did the best i could with what i had and im pleased with the sound!!


Welcome to the club! This tech is pure awesome sauce. There is no denying it. I just can't understand how there are non-believers who have actually heard a proper demo. 

Even with just 2 overheads equals awesome sauce! We have watched more movies since the upgrade than we have ever watched!

I went with the RTi series as well and people can say what they want about Polk but they sound great to my ears! I've heard the OMW 3s and almost got a set for rear surrounds cause they sounded darn good but decided to get another set of RTi4s.

You sure do have a cozy bubble now!

Enjoy!


----------



## GXMnow

I think I may have just discovered what I will use for my overhead speakers when the time comes.

I was helping a friend pick out speakers for a reasonable upgrade for his car using the stock 22 watt head unit. So we started looking at efficient speakers with wide frequency response. After many listening tests at several car audio places as well as Best Buy and Fry's Electronics, we came down to a pair of Kenwood 6.5 inch 2 way coax speakers. These things are very efficient for any speaker, let alone the usual car audio stuff. They are rated at 92 db 1 watt at 1 meter. And they also have a very wide spec'd frequency response at 35 hz to 22 Khz. I assume that is 10 db down, not 3, but still pretty amazing. Now toss in that they cost just over $30 for a pair!! What? When we were listening and comparing, we were not looking at the prices, and that just shocked us. Sure, some of the others sounded a little smoother, but were 4 to 6 db less efficient, and costed 3 or 4 times as much. So we took them home and changed just one side in the car and tried it, what an amazing improvement over the factory speakers. With no Eq they sound quite good and the level is a solid 4 db more than the old speaker, so the efficiency claim is for real. Oh, if you are curious, the Kenwood model number is KFC-1665R

This all got me thinking....
All I need is a baffle to isolate the back wave as the speaker is tuned for open back. I "borrowed" the second speakers as my friend tore open the other door of his car. I made a very crude baffle about 20 inches square out of double layer corrugated card board and wired the speaker in place of one of my old surrounds. I did not re run Audyssey as I knew this was not going to stay, I just wanted to do a quick compare. That cheap car speaker goes lower, and has a nicer high end and is about 2 - 3 db more efficient than my existing side surround speakers, and even with the Eq for the old speaker, it sounded good. 

So.... Now I need to design a box with the speaker at the angle I want, and I will have the back vent into my attic space so they run as intended with no back loading. I did put the cardboard baffle onto a Rubbermaid bin that was about 2 cu ft and it killed the great low end. I do not want it to act like a ported cabinet, so I need an open hole about the size of the cone. I could mount them flush in the ceiling, but I want them tilted to aim across the MLP area. I may look into some Sonotube that is just a little bigger than the speaker and cut it off at the desire aiming angle. That stuff is super tough as it is meant for casting concrete pillars.

It is great to read how much people are enjoying their home Atmos setups. I will get mine up and running this year, but I am still torn by wanting 9.1.4 as a starting point. I can't justify a Datasat or Trinnov for 2 or 4 more speakers.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

rontalley said:


> I have the hardest time trying to explain to the Mrs. why I purchased this or that. She wouldn't allow my to position my Fronts properly so I had to either have them at around 18 degrees with the pj screen covering the top 3rd of the speakers or at 44 degrees out of the way of traffic. I decided to do the wide spread for WAF.
> ...
> 
> Now, am I done? Hell no! I have absolutely no treatment and trying to figure out how to sneak that in my "living room".


That's great!

+1 for the treatment. IMO the best surface in a living room to receive treatment is the ceiling. Visually less intrusive than walls and large enough to make substantial difference. Make it absorbent and as thick as possible.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm so not interested this year. I'm just sitting on the floor finishing a pizza. Ugh. I guess I'll get up and hit the floor again. You know....I do it for the tech. *yawn*


This was your spot for sitting on the floor eating pizza and having an Atmos demo – you missed it 










http://www.my-hiend.com/vbb/showthread.php?10141-2016年CES實況報導-High-Perfomance-Audio-高級音響/page2


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> This is off the seat of my pants guessing but based upon how we listened, 25% Hardware (better DACs, more DSP chips, better power supply, etc) and 75% software --- Dirac, PEQ's on the output channels, low and high pass filter options, the ability to measure pre and post Dirac on every channel and fine tune as necessary, greater flexibility on crossover slope and type, and I'm sure there are others that I can't recall at the moment. There are also a bunch of other abilities that will allow folks with larger rooms (or larger wallets) to get even better sound through the use of the additional channels (up to 24) and the channel mapping function.


Thanks. I'm not one who believes hardware or DACs etc these days make any audible difference, but I can agree about Dirac's contribution for sure. The ability to measure each channel pre and post Dirac is way cool - how do you ensure the mic is in the exact spot each time? Does it measure and calibrate one channel then, without you touching the mic, let you measure the result of the EQ? Then move on to the next and so on? How does that work exactly?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> Hadn't heard the MinIDSP improvements at CES.
> 
> Anything that directly supports/improves Atmos (i.e. More than 8 chs?) obviously I know it can be used for bed or 2 88a for 7.1.4. But I want more tailored for Atmos ch count.


Significant changes - see the 88A thread for the info we currently have.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In fairness, a helicopter couldn't actually hover in that narrow of a canyon. Nor would any rescue pilot have "tipped the hat" to put his helicopter in that narrow a space, where the turbulence would have made it impossible to stabilize. Nor would a person in a car below said helicopter have been able to hear a guy hanging from a cable say much of anything. Nor would said helicopter have had enough fuel to travel long enough for its pilot to abandon his job to go save his wife and daughter. I could go on... But the point I'm trying to make is that this isn't reality - it's a movie.


But the suspension of disbelief allows us to ignore all of the sensible points you make and, I think, the OP is saying that this suspension of disbelief can be carried over into the sound design as well as the story. I totally respect your POV and the insights in the long reply you made to me earlier - but it would sure have been good if the mixer had found some sort of way to utilise the overheads in that scene. Even some ambient noise up there would be better than nothing at all. If the mixers can’t find a way to use overheads in a scene which apparently, to the average viewer, seems to cry out for it, then they are inevitably going to be disappointed with the investment of time and money that they have made.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> And it's made by people who are trying to tell a story, not worry about whether the height channels get used the way laymen believe they should. ;-)


In movies, part of 'telling the story' is the appropriate use of sound and vision, otherwise we'd just read books. That's the point the OP is making - he feels the story would have been told much better if the sound met with his expectations. He may be a 'layman' but that is who the movie is made for, so it isn't a good defense to suggest that as such he is wrong when he expects the sound and the story to match better. I appreciate the reasons why this is not easy (as you detailed before) but the viewers don't care how easy or difficult the mixer's job is when he is trying to balance all the disparate elements. He just wants to be entertained and part of that, when he's put speakers on his ceiling, is for those speakers to be used.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> For me, one of the most telling is to get someone who is not so picky about audio like my wife into the equation.


IKWYM, but audio must be the only field of endeavor where people deliberately solicit the views of those who admit to knowing nothing at all about the subject at hand, and then attach so much importance to their pronouncements 

Imagine it in other fields: you go to the hospital and they tell you that you need the latest, newest treatment regime for your condition. You ask if it is better than the old method. And the surgeon says, _"Hang on, let me go get my wife and ask her what she thinks..."_ and you say _"Is your wife an expert then?"_ and the doc replies, _"Hell no - she knows nothing about it at all!"_.


----------



## rontalley

This is what happens when you spend too much time on AVS Forums!


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> IKWYM, but audio must be the only field of endeavor where people deliberately solicit the views of those who admit to knowing nothing at all about the subject at hand, and then attach so much importance to their pronouncements
> 
> Imagine it in other fields: you go to the hospital and they tell you that you need the latest, newest treatment regime for your condition. You ask if it is better than the old method. And the surgeon says, _"Hang on, let me go get my wife and ask her what she thinks..."_ and you say _"Is your wife an expert then?"_ and the doc replies, _"Hell no - she knows nothing about it at all!"_.


I know that I am perfectly capable of convincing myself that I am perceiving a desired effect. Well, nobody's perfect...

But, if I drag my wife in who has no pre-conceived notion and is also somewhat sceptical, and ask if she hears any difference, I feel assured that I actually effected a change rather than simply convincing myself that I changed something if she hears a difference, particularly if she can tell me what that difference is.

Such an experiment caused me to change my 7.1.4 setup from upfiring rear height speakers to physically mounting them near the ceiling on the rear wall (in ceiling was problematic...). I will still run them as Top Rear.

But, it is fun, isn't it?


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> This is what happens when you spend too much time on AVS Forums!


CLEARLY PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!! Those surrounds are at ear level!


Sorry couldn't help it!


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. I'm not one who believes hardware or DACs etc these days make any audible difference, but I can agree about Dirac's contribution for sure. The ability to measure each channel pre and post Dirac is way cool - how do you ensure the mic is in the exact spot each time? Does it measure and calibrate one channel then, without you touching the mic, let you measure the result of the EQ? Then move on to the next and so on? How does that work exactly?


Remembering the it was a guess about the 25/75, there are enough significant hardware differences that I gave it the benefit of the doubt. For all I know, it could be way way less. But, some of those hardware differences may not be directly audible but they allow software that other lesser systems simply don't have.

But I also don't believe that Dirac by itself is the only software difference. There are many other software capabilities that other SSP's do not have as I listed previously. 

The measuring pre and post Dirac is done outside of running Dirac. For pre-Dirac, I put the mic (REW or OmniMic) at the MLP and use a laser measuring device [$120 from Home Depot] to get it exactly in the center of the room (within /16th of an inch) and get it the same distance from the ceiling. I do the same post Dirac so while not "perfect" it is within a 16th of an inch - so close enough. 

The RS20i has digital inputs for all 16 input channels and 8 analog inputs. I have frequency sweeps on my music server (from the OmniMic software). and my server has digital outputs. I am looking for a digital switching device but until then, I simply move the output from the server to each of my inputs.

Running sweeps allows me to diddle with the PEQ's available on the output channels (PEQ's on the input channels are ignored by Dirac). While Dirac does a great job smoothing the response, it is not perfect in some cases. For example, in my front LR speakers, there is a 6 or 7 db very narrow excess energy peak on either side of 100HZ. Dirac knocks them down but they are still there. By almost completely eliminating them pre-Dirac with PEQ's, the post Dirac results are much better. I only do that for the reasonably large excess energy spots and maybe a few that are dips not associated with nulls [total of 6 PEQ's per output channel]. I do that for all channels less the subs as I use a miniDSP to do the same on the subs.

Then post Dirac, I remeasure from the same spot to see the results. The final result is that each channel is as smooth as possible (FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR superior to anything Audyssey can do a FAR better than JUST Dirac can do). The audible result: MUCH better envelopment and much better everything else as well.

Couple the above with the ability to adjust the crossover slopes and types on each channel, high and low pass filters on each channel, and on and on and on and the end result is spectacular.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Remembering the it was a guess about the 25/75, there are enough significant hardware differences that I gave it the benefit of the doubt. For all I know, it could be way way less. But, some of those hardware differences may not be directly audible but they allow software that other lesser systems simply don't have.
> 
> But I also don't believe that Dirac by itself is the only software difference. There are many other software capabilities that other SSP's do not have as I listed previously.
> 
> The measuring pre and post Dirac is done outside of running Dirac. For pre-Dirac, I put the mic (REW or OmniMic) at the MLP and use a laser measuring device [$120 from Home Depot] to get it exactly in the center of the room (within /16th of an inch) and get it the same distance from the ceiling. I do the same post Dirac so while not "perfect" it is within a 16th of an inch - so close enough.
> 
> The RS20i has digital inputs for all 16 input channels and 8 analog inputs. I have frequency sweeps on my music server (from the OmniMic software). and my server has digital outputs. I am looking for a digital switching device but until then, I simply move the output from the server to each of my inputs.
> 
> Running sweeps allows me to diddle with the PEQ's available on the output channels (PEQ's on the input channels are ignored by Dirac). While Dirac does a great job smoothing the response, it is not perfect in some cases. For example, in my front LR speakers, there is a 6 or 7 db very narrow excess energy peak on either side of 100HZ. Dirac knocks them down but they are still there. By almost completely eliminating them pre-Dirac with PEQ's, the post Dirac results are much better. I only do that for the reasonably large excess energy spots and maybe a few that are dips not associated with nulls [total of 6 PEQ's per output channel]. I do that for all channels less the subs as I use a miniDSP to do the same on the subs.
> 
> Then post Dirac, I remeasure from the same spot to see the results. The final result is that each channel is as smooth as possible (FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR superior to anything Audyssey can do a FAR better than JUST Dirac can do). The audible result: MUCH better envelopment and much better everything else as well.
> 
> Couple the above with the ability to adjust the crossover slopes and types on each channel, high and low pass filters on each channel, and on and on and on and the end result is spectacular.



OK, thanks for the detailed reply. A tweaker's paradise it seems!


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> OK, thanks for the detailed reply. A tweaker's paradise it seems!


For those of us with serious OCD, it is either a blessing or a curse!!!!!!!


----------



## smurraybhm

If you want to see what DSU can do with 5.1 via Netflix watch the first season of Daredevil which was mixed by our own FilmMixer. It is without a doubt reference material in regards to what DSU can do. Second season is coming out in about a month and I can't wait to listen to what Marc has mixed up this year.

I find DSU enhances most content via streaming or DirecTV, I've been using it from day one. Sports, movies or whatever - definitely prefer it to Auromatic. Only caveat is music - I stay away from any processing on two or multi.


----------



## jqmn

Given the current limitations of most AVRs to 11 simultaneous speakers (without going to Trinnov that is) I seem to recall talk quite a while ago about chaining two AVRs (AVR1 zone 2 out to AVR2 main in) to get the speaker count up. Has anyone actually done this and reported on its effectiveness? Thanks!

Edit: OK I searched a different way and saw that Nalleh is doing this and likes it.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> For those of us with serious OCD, it is either a blessing or a curse!!!!!!!


I can imagine. If it was me, I think I would end up spending more time tweaking than watching movies. I’d forever be looking for that 'next little improvement' I think.


----------



## kbarnes701

jqmn said:


> Given the current limitations of most AVRs to 11 simultaneous speakers (without going to Trinnov that is) I seem to recall talk quite a while ago about chaining two AVRs (AVR1 zone 2 out to AVR2 main in) to get the speaker count up. Has anyone actually done this and reported on its effectiveness? Thanks!
> 
> Edit: OK I searched a different way and saw that Nalleh is doing this and likes it.


Also search the posts of Scott Simonian.


----------



## JamesE

erwinfrombelgium said:


> That's great!
> 
> +1 for the treatment. IMO the best surface in a living room to receive treatment is the ceiling. Visually less intrusive than walls and large enough to make substantial difference. Make it absorbent and as thick as possible.


An overhead bass trap is setup as a cloud in my theater. The bass trap was called the black hole. Recently I covered it with a 2d QRD diffusor. The diffusor was one of the best things I have done to my theater. The spaciousness of the front sound field now extends from left to right but also over the top of me. One gets rid of the initial reflection off of the ceiling by adding absorption but the cost is loss of spaciousness.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> I can imagine. If it was me, I think I would end up spending more time tweaking than watching movies. I’d forever be looking for that 'next little improvement' I think.


I know someone who uses a TacT Preamp/Room Correction system. It is infinitely flexible for adjusting target curves (like Dirac) and he literally does adjustments EVERY day. Unlike Dirac or Audyssey, however, each change you make is instantly audible [or not]. So yes, it would be very easy to confuse the process with the destination. Even with my Marantz and Audyssey Pro, that can happen - and does.

Oh well. I am for the most part retired and have the time to mess around - so I do!!!


----------



## rontalley

JamesE said:


> An overhead bass trap is setup as a cloud in my theater. The bass trap was called the black hole. Recently I covered it with a 2d QRD diffusor. The diffusor was one of the best things I have done to my theater. The spaciousness of the front sound field now extends from left to right but also over the top of me. One gets rid of the initial reflection off of the ceiling by adding absorption but the cost is loss of spaciousness.


(Chant) We want pic. We want pic. We want pic.


----------



## audioguy

rontalley said:


> (Chant) We want pic. We want pic. We want pic.


+1


----------



## AllenA07

JamesE said:


> An overhead bass trap is setup as a cloud in my theater. The bass trap was called the black hole. Recently I covered it with a 2d QRD diffusor. The diffusor was one of the best things I have done to my theater. The spaciousness of the front sound field now extends from left to right but also over the top of me. One gets rid of the initial reflection off of the ceiling by adding absorption but the cost is loss of spaciousness.


I've got bass traps on my ceiling as a cloud as well. In terms of effectiveness the ceiling panels do more for improving my room then any other panels with the exception of my corner bass traps.

I would be curious how absorption panels on a ceiling would mesh with Atmos up firing modules. My speakers are on ceiling so thankfully it's not an issue for me.


----------



## Spanglo

I recommend measuring the response of the room prior to adding treatments. Then you can address specific problem areas (frequencies), identify harmful reflections, modal ringing. Otherwise you risk over treating the room.


----------



## AllenA07

Spanglo said:


> I recommend measuring the response of the room prior to adding treatments. Then you can address specific problem areas (frequencies), identify harmful reflections, modal ringing. Otherwise you risk over treating the room.


Agreed. When I treated my room I will admit I was a little lost on what to do. I worked with GIK Acoustics on the project and they were a great resource. Prior to me buying a single treatment, they worked with me on getting my speaker/sub placements just right and getting everything dialed in. Once the theater was preforming to its fullest, we started addressing the problems in the room. 

If you're where I was and lost by the idea of doing treatments, I would strongly recommend working either with GIK or the guys with Real Traps. They'll help you figure out what you actually need to do.


----------



## audioguy

AllenA07 said:


> Agreed. When I treated my room I will admit I was a little lost on what to do. I worked with GIK Acoustics on the project and they were a great resource. Prior to me buying a single treatment, they worked with me on getting my speaker/sub placements just right and getting everything dialed in. Once the theater was preforming to its fullest, we started addressing the problems in the room.
> 
> If you're where I was and lost by the idea of doing treatments, I would strongly recommend working either with GIK or the guys with Real Traps. They'll help you figure out what you actually need to do.


+1 on GIK!!


----------



## JamesE

rontalley said:


> (Chant) We want pic. We want pic. We want pic.


Before and after.


----------



## Stoked21

AllenA07 said:


> Agreed. When I treated my room I will admit I was a little lost on what to do. I worked with GIK Acoustics on the project and they were a great resource. Prior to me buying a single treatment, they worked with me on getting my speaker/sub placements just right and getting everything dialed in. Once the theater was preforming to its fullest, we started addressing the problems in the room.
> 
> If you're where I was and lost by the idea of doing treatments, I would strongly recommend working either with GIK or the guys with Real Traps. They'll help you figure out what you actually need to do.


I worked with a guy at GIK over the last 2 months.....My dentist was more fun. I mean the guy was rude and accusatory. Claiming I failed to respond after speaking with him on the phone!! Was extremely condescending and wouldn't even send a quote; short of a quick email saying put this here and this here. When asked why he's recommending options that don't exist on website and telling him I find it's convoluted....he responded with what can't be understood?? Just horrible all around. I still spent $2K with those guys in the last few weeks. Then 4 of the 7 panels showed up broken.

Miserable experience. But not too many other options. I still just placed a second order as I have to put panels up on the ceiling before I swap my Atmos speakers and I want them all to match. I do admit the room sounds better and the Atmos effects are even more stellar. So for a 7.2.4 system...It's a must. 

Just now running REW for the first time. Fairly easy. I may take all the panels down and measure to see before and after responses. I have to say I can't find an easy way to run REW with 7.2.4....7.2 yes, but I can't activate DSU to pickup the heights.


----------



## audioguy

Stoked21 said:


> I worked with a guy at GIK over the last 2 months.....My dentist was more fun. I mean the guy was rude and accusatory. Claiming I failed to respond after speaking with him on the phone!! Was extremely condescending and wouldn't even send a quote; short of a quick email saying put this here and this here. When asked why he's recommending options that don't exist on website and telling him I find it's convoluted....he responded with what can't be understood?? Just horrible all around. I still spent $2K with those guys in the last few weeks. Then 4 of the 7 panels showed up broken.


What was the name of the guy you worked with? That is the exact opposite of my experience and I have used them on two different rooms.



> Just now running REW for the first time. Fairly easy. I may take all the panels down and measure to see before and after responses. I have to say I can't find an easy way to run REW with 7.2.4....7.2 yes, but I can't activate DSU to pickup the heights


REW with their HDMI connection can only access 8 channels so you are stuck. You could test the pre-Audyssey response if you physically connect each the ceiling channels individually to one of the 8 channels it can test.


----------



## richmagnus

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thebland

Well, the *ATMOS* set up process is beginning for me. I am lowering all of my surrounds to 6" above ear level. That's the best I can do without reworking 8 columns. I am going to have to do some re-working of 6 columns but am committed to it. I am going to use Side Fronts, 2 pair of Side Surrounds, and 1 pair Rear Surrounds.


----------



## audioguy

thebland said:


> Well, the *ATMOS* set up process is beginning for me. I am lowering all of my surrounds to 6" above ear level. That's the best I can do without reworking 8 columns. I am going to have to do some re-working of 6 columns but am committed to it. I am going to use Side Fronts, 2 pair of Side Surrounds, and 1 pair Rear Surrounds.


I did that as well and since I was able to compare the before and after with the surrounds at 72 inches vs 49 inches, you will be glad you lowered them --- even though it is a PITA!


----------



## rick98761

I've got my new receiver and speakers on the way. I'd like to get an atmos pre roll for Plex. Is there a place I can get ahold of one of those nice pre rolls like in the theater?


----------



## thebland

audioguy said:


> I did that as well and since I was able to compare the before and after with the surrounds at 72 inches vs 49 inches, you will be glad you lowered them --- even though it is a PITA!


Thanks! Good to know. I've got to have the wood working shop rework the speaker mounts and re-make 4 columns... Then it's off to the group of heights and reworking the ceiling speakers and adding new mounts. A process for sure.


----------



## rontalley

JamesE said:


> Before and after.


Awesome Sauce! Would love to see more of your setup. So interesting and unique. Love it!


----------



## rontalley

markus767 said:


> http://youtu.be/b5sAsZyRm_k
> 
> Official Dolby Atmos at home website
> 
> Dolby on Atmos for the home:
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf
> Ceiling-firing speakers ("Atmos-enabled speakers")
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
> Installation guidelines
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> Blog posts
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-coming-soon-living-room-near/
> http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/
> 
> Information from Onkyo:
> http://dolbyatmos.onkyousa.com
> 
> Dolby Patent Application:
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2014036085A1.html
> 
> Dolby on Atmos for movie theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...by-Atmos-Next-Generation-Audio-for-Cinema.pdf
> 
> Specifications for movie theaters:
> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/Dolby_Atmos_Specifications.pdf
> 
> ---
> 
> avsforum.com Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet (at Google Docs, maintained by user kokishin)
> 
> ---
> 
> I'll update this post with news as we go along.


This has to be posted on the front page of this thread!!!!

From this post by @sillywilly:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...culate-ceiling-atmos-angles.html#post40497778








Simple but good info. Measurement from ear to ceiling is the middle point measurement for front and rear if installing at 45 degrees. 

In other words, whatever your measurement is from ear to ceiling then the separation from front to rear should be double that with MLP being dead smack in the middle. If installing at 45 degrees then @sillywilly should help alot of people who didn't pay attention in HS.


----------



## rick98761

I could use some quick advice on placement of my two speakers that are on the way. I am going to use two Klipsch Synergy B-2 speakers. They will match the rest of my system. As far as why I am using book shelf speakers on the ceiling I think that my picture will explain it. My MLP is right behind an area where my ceiling lowers for some duct work. Based on what I've read in ceiling speakers would be optimally placed right in front of the drop down. I worry sound would just bounce right off that wall coming down and kill the effect. I can mount the bookshelf speakers so the grill lines up perfectly with the lower ceiling. My question is, will I be ok to fire these straight down? Or should I figure out a way to angle them towards me?


----------



## rontalley

rick98761 said:


> I could use some quick advice on placement of my two speakers that are on the way. I am going to use two Klipsch Synergy B-2 speakers. They will match the rest of my system. As far as why I am using book shelf speakers on the ceiling I think that my picture will explain it. My MLP is right behind an area where my ceiling lowers for some duct work. Based on what I've read in ceiling speakers would be optimally placed right in front of the drop down. I worry sound would just bounce right off that wall coming down and kill the effect. I can mount the bookshelf speakers so the grill lines up perfectly with the lower ceiling. My question is, will I be ok to fire these straight down? Or should I figure out a way to angle them towards me?


I would say straight down or slightly angled towards MLP. Since its only .2 you will get the overhead effect regardless. Just mount them about 1-2 ft. in front of MLP and the other ceiling shouldn't come into the equation. The higher, the better the effect.

Where's your sub?
Should consider making some 2'x4' OC703 panels also since you have a dedicated room. 

Good Luck and welcome to the club!


----------



## aaranddeeman

NorthSky said:


> Scott, did you see *Sicario* on Blu-ray?


Knowing Lions Gate, the answer is clear, but sometimes they make exceptions (rarely).
So let me ask. Does the RedBox version carry Atmos Track?


----------



## rick98761

rontalley said:


> I would say straight down or slightly angled towards MLP. Since its only .2 you will get the overhead effect regardless. Just mount them about 1-2 ft. in front of MLP and the other ceiling shouldn't come into the equation. The higher, the better the effect.
> 
> Where's your sub?
> Should consider making some 2'x4' OC703 panels also since you have a dedicated room.
> 
> Good Luck and welcome to the club!



Sub was behind the couch in the picture. Moving it up front as we speak. New house so still figuring out what works in this small space.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rontalley said:


> This has to be posted on the front page of this thread!!!!
> 
> From this post by @sillywilly:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...culate-ceiling-atmos-angles.html#post40497778
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple but good info. Measurement from ear to ceiling is the middle point measurement for front and rear if installing at 45 degrees.
> 
> In other words, whatever your measurement is from ear to ceiling then the separation from front to rear should be double that with MLP being dead smack in the middle. If installing at 45 degrees then @sillywilly should help alot of people who didn't pay attention in HS.




*Or just feed the numbers in the calculator in my signature.*.


----------



## rick98761

aaranddeeman said:


> Knowing Lions Gate, the answer is clear, but sometimes they make exceptions (rarely).
> 
> So let me ask. Does the RedBox version carry Atmos Track?



Redbox is dd5.1


----------



## aaranddeeman

rick98761 said:


> Redbox is dd5.1


Yes of course.. 
Looks like I need to buy Sicario..


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> *Or just feed the numbers in the calculator in my signature.*.


According to the calculator is your sig, which should also be linked on the front page of this thread, my speakers are within guidelines.










Although there is some separation at 6' from front to back, 2" pass minimum , this is not enough (IMHO). Seems like 45 degrees is ideal which would put mines at 8'4". Sad thing is it would have been so simple for me to add 2' to my sus ceiling when I was installing it for Atmos. Keep telling myself that I am going to demo it and redo it but TBH, I was perfectly happy until those damn Helicopter and Audiosphere demos changed my perspective. 

At least I know now that these Micca M-8C, have a high dispersion rate. 

But yeah, the calculator makes short work of the calculations, although the minimum is questionable.


----------



## Tnedator

Are there any non UHD atmos titles on Vudu or are they only putting out Atmos soundtracks on the UHD titles?


----------



## Fogyreef

rontalley said:


> This has to be posted on the front page of this thread!!!!
> 
> From this post by @sillywilly:
> 
> Simple but good info. Measurement from ear to ceiling is the middle point measurement for front and rear if installing at 45 degrees.
> 
> In other words, whatever your measurement is from ear to ceiling then the separation from front to rear should be double that with MLP being dead smack in the middle. If installing at 45 degrees then @sillywilly should help alot of people who didn't pay attention in HS.


Hey now. I paid attention in HS. Then 30 years happened. 

What, if anything, changes about the calculations with a vaulted ceiling sloping from 8' to 12' from rear to front, with the MLP 5' from the back wall, 13' from the front?


----------



## richmagnus

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Press information from Dolby.


*Sherlock: The Abominable Bride*, the latest instalment of the world famous BBC drama, is available TODAY on Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos, demonstrating ongoing support from studios and content creators for the innovative sound format. Dolby Atmos delivers moving audio—sound that can be precisely placed and moved anywhere in three-dimensional space, including overhead. It brings entertainment alive all around the audience in a powerfully immersive and emotive experience.

The one-off Victorian period special premiered on New Year’s Day in cinemas and on BBC1 in the UK. It was hugely successful, drawing over eight million viewers in the UK, amounting to 34.7% of the total number of people watching television in the UK at that time. This made Sherlock: The Abominable Bride the most watched television program of the festive period. Consolidated viewing figures amounted to 11.6 million, cementing its lead.


----------



## radamo

Tnedator said:


> Are there any non UHD atmos titles on Vudu or are they only putting out Atmos soundtracks on the UHD titles?


From the search that I did it appeared that only UHD titles included the Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## AllenA07

rontalley said:


> This has to be posted on the front page of this thread!!!!
> 
> From this post by @sillywilly:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...culate-ceiling-atmos-angles.html#post40497778
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple but good info. Measurement from ear to ceiling is the middle point measurement for front and rear if installing at 45 degrees.
> 
> In other words, whatever your measurement is from ear to ceiling then the separation from front to rear should be double that with MLP being dead smack in the middle. If installing at 45 degrees then @sillywilly should help alot of people who didn't pay attention in HS.


If you want to cheat you could always use my highly technical methods for determining angles. I used push pins, string, duct tape, and a protractor. Before I started hanging speakers I had strings going everywhere through my room until I decided on the ideal angles. It took some work, but ultimately it saved me from having to do math that I was going to somehow screw up.


----------



## JamesE

rontalley said:


> Awesome Sauce! Would love to see more of your setup. So interesting and unique. Love it!


I started a build thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ruction/2285146-imaginarium.html#post40533938


----------



## I WANT MORE

aaranddeeman said:


> Knowing Lions Gate, the answer is clear, but sometimes they make exceptions (rarely).
> So let me ask. Does the RedBox version carry Atmos Track?





rick98761 said:


> Redbox is dd5.1





aaranddeeman said:


> Yes of course..
> Looks like I need to buy Sicario..


The version I received from Netflix was NOT Atmos.


----------



## rontalley

Fogyreef said:


> Hey now. I paid attention in HS. Then 30 years happened.
> 
> What, if anything, changes about the calculations with a vaulted ceiling sloping from 8' to 12' from rear to front, with the MLP 5' from the back wall, 13' from the front?


Can still use geometry. Just have to figure out 2 triangles or Google Sketchup to the rescue! 45 degress for Front and 35 degrees for Back should work good.

Your AVR will compensate for the height difference. Would build backer boxes so the speakers aim straight down and not follow the angle of the ceiling.


----------



## Nabs17

I used this little device here:


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VUGBEXU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00


----------



## Stoked21

Nabs17 said:


> I used this little device here:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VUGBEXU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00


+1

I have a manual spreadsheet with all angle calculations for all speakers that I created. 6 ways from Sunday down to the inch for every possible position and down to tenth of a degree. It's a great reference when I need to view or change anything. If I move the MLP by 1", it will recalculate all bed and height angles and positions etc. Great master document for my layout.

HOWEVER, for everyday use, $25 for this laser angle is awesome. Just hold it at MLP and you can do about anything. Used it to toe in my mains (hold on baffle and shoot towards MLP). Used it to locate FRP for acoustic treatments (hold at MLP and shoot at mirror. look for reflection on speaker driver). Use it to evaluate a potential MLP shift to front. All in the last few days. Highly recommend it. Realistically, you don't need an XLS. Just use this and you're close enough down to a couple of degrees. Should be in every HT enthusiast's toolbox.


----------



## ahmedreda

I used this 
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Measure-Master-Multi-Functional-Line-Laser-Level-MM-L/205066776
which can be used for the angle as well as a laser level. Used it to position all my speakers.
Only disadvantage is that it uses AG13 batteries. 











Nabs17 said:


> I used this little device here:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VUGBEXU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> Press information from Dolby.
> 
> 
> *Sherlock: The Abominable Bride*, the latest instalment of the world famous BBC drama, is available TODAY on Blu-ray in Dolby Atmos, demonstrating ongoing support from studios and content creators for the innovative sound format. Dolby Atmos delivers moving audio—sound that can be precisely placed and moved anywhere in three-dimensional space, including overhead. It brings entertainment alive all around the audience in a powerfully immersive and emotive experience.
> 
> The one-off Victorian period special premiered on New Year’s Day in cinemas and on BBC1 in the UK. It was hugely successful, drawing over eight million viewers in the UK, amounting to 34.7% of the total number of people watching television in the UK at that time. This made Sherlock: The Abominable Bride the most watched television program of the festive period. Consolidated viewing figures amounted to 11.6 million, cementing its lead.


Keith have you seen it? If you have did it have a good/aggressive Atmos mix?


----------



## AllenA07

Nabs17 said:


> I used this little device here:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VUGBEXU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00


That is a cool little device! I duct taped a laser pointer to a protractor so it does the same thing, but this is admittedly much prettier.


----------



## rontalley

Nabs17 said:


> I used this little device here:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VUGBEXU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00


Ohhh Wee! I like this. I am a tool freak and this is just super cool. Currently unavailable at Amazon and can't find another like that one on the web. Instant order for me if under $30.


----------



## KK in CT

I was fortunate to find a great deal on the Denon X5200W and made the upgrade to Atmos this weekend. I FINALLY get to experience what I've been reading about on here for so long. I went from 5.2 to 7.2.4 and am simply amazed at what I'm hearing. I cannot believe what the DSU upmixer is capable of. And the WAF couldn't be higher - she typically could care less, and normally I would be in a bit of trouble for adding more speakers to the great room. But she commented on how great it sounds and is not even "suggesting" that the extra speakers need to go. Now it's time to start building my Atmos movie collection and start re-watching my current collection of movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Keith have you seen it? If you have did it have a good/aggressive Atmos mix?



I just ordered it on Blu-ray. It will arrive tomorrow and I will watch it tomorrow night, so ask me again in a couple of days, if I forget to post about it here.


----------



## Nabs17

AllenA07 said:


> That is a cool little device! I duct taped a laser pointer to a protractor so it does the same thing, but this is admittedly much prettier.



I did that same thing before I found the laser pointer at Amazon. I prefer the laser pointer.



rontalley said:


> Ohhh Wee! I like this. I am a tool freak and this is just super cool. Currently unavailable at Amazon and can't find another like that one on the web. Instant order for me if under $30.


Yes, it was less an $30. Not sure if I'm allowed to mention price but it was $5.26 less than $30


----------



## kbarnes701

KK in CT said:


> I was fortunate to find a great deal on the Denon X5200W and made the upgrade to Atmos this weekend. I FINALLY get to experience what I've been reading about on here for so long. I went from 5.2 to 7.2.4 and am simply amazed at what I'm hearing. I cannot believe what the DSU upmixer is capable of. And the WAF couldn't be higher - she typically could care less, and normally I would be in a bit of trouble for adding more speakers to the great room. But she commented on how great it sounds and is not even "suggesting" that the extra speakers need to go. Now it's time to start building my Atmos movie collection and start re-watching my current collection of movies.


Welcome to the immersive audio experience! Your initial impression/reaction parallels my own exactly.


----------



## LRS3

rontalley said:


> Ohhh Wee! I like this. I am a tool freak and this is just super cool. Currently unavailable at Amazon and can't find another like that one on the web. Instant order for me if under $30.


The same item is available on eBay for $39.99 as of this writing. That price includes free shipping.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> I just ordered it on Blu-ray. It will arrive tomorrow and I will watch it tomorrow night, so ask me again in a couple of days, if I forget to post about it here.


Sure will do thanks


----------



## rontalley

JamesE said:


> I started a build thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ruction/2285146-imaginarium.html#post40533938


Whoa! Dude. I am super impressed. Did you build that with the intentions of putting your HT up there? Bet they don't have calculations for that room mode!!!! 

Where are you located?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

JamesE said:


> Before and after.


Fantastic! 

Q: doesn't the diffusion blocks the bass from entering the bass-trap?


----------



## JamesE

rontalley said:


> Whoa! Dude. I am super impressed. Did you build that with the intentions of putting your HT up there? Bet they don't have calculations for that room mode!!!!
> 
> Where are you located?


This past year I found one paper that examined the acoustics of a spherical room. It was like a lot of mathematics--Got it, got it, got it....whoosh--that when over my head.

Montana--Your welcome to come visit.


----------



## JamesE

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Fantastic!
> 
> Q: doesn't the diffusion blocks the bass from entering the bass-trap?


It does a little bit but the cloud is suspended from the ceiling so there is a lot of surface area on the top and sides for the bass to enter. Plus bass waves are really big so a lot of the sound energy would pass through the Styrofoam.


----------



## Stoked21

LRS3 said:


> The same item is available on eBay for $39.99 as of this writing. That price includes free shipping.


Yeah don't pay that much. I almost bought through the company directly instead of Amazon. It's like Tools USA or something. Only like $25-26 so just order directly vs the 50% markup on eBay.


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> Yeah don't pay that much. I almost bought through the company directly instead of Amazon. It's like Tools USA or something. Only like $25-26 so just order directly vs the 50% markup on eBay.


I paid like $15 to ToolsUSA. That product number doesn't come up in a search anymore however.


----------



## dvdwilly3

stikle said:


> I paid like $15 to ToolsUSA. That product number doesn't come up in a search anymore however.


Just for balance...I, too, bought one from ToolUSA.

It worked like a champ until it didn't. Lasted about 30 days. Warranty? What warranty?

If it still worked, I would still use it.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Ideal overhead speaker positioning*

Given the rather broad optimal ranges for each of the five overhead speaker pairs, do we yet know where they should ideally be positioned in relation to the ear-level speakers? 

For example, if you are are preparing for a 11.1.10 set-up, should each overhead speaker ideally be straight above a speaker below (as seen from MLP position), in other words: being at the same horizontal angle (azimuth)?

Like:

FH right above L/R
TF right above Wides
TM right above 1st Side Surrounds
TR right above 2nd Side Surrounds
RH right above Rears.

Or if you skip FH and RH (considering those are no real overheads) for a 11.1.6 layout:

TF exactly in-between L/R and Wides
TM right above 1st side surrounds
TR exactly in-between 2nd side surrounds and rears

Anyone?

That information would make me feel more at ease when starting to drill holes in my ceiling...


----------



## dianebrat

kbarnes701 said:


> I just ordered it on Blu-ray. It will arrive tomorrow and I will watch it tomorrow night, so ask me again in a couple of days, if I forget to post about it here.


 I got my Abominable Bride last night, the early Afghanistan battle scene pushed the the overheads pretty hard, I was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## shyyour

dianebrat said:


> I got my Abominable Bride last night, the early Afghanistan battle scene pushed the the overheads pretty hard, I was pleasantly surprised.


Nice  are there any other scenes that use the overheads?


----------



## dianebrat

dianebrat said:


> I got my Abominable Bride last night, the early Afghanistan battle scene pushed the the overheads pretty hard, I was pleasantly surprised.





shyyour said:


> Nice  are there any other scenes that use the overheads?


I got nuffin, I had just watched it live last week and I wanted to take it for a quick spin to see what bonus features it had and watched the first 10 minutes


----------



## shyyour

dianebrat said:


> I got nuffin, I had just watched it live last week and I wanted to take it for a quick spin to see what bonus features it had and watched the first 10 minutes



Ah i see, Thanks ill wait for you or Keith's review.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Ah i see, Thanks ill wait for you or Keith's review.


Mine has arrived. I hope to watch it tonight. On a video of the program makers discussing the sound design, they mention a scene where the action takes place underground, in a sewer or something, and the director asked if they could highlight the fact it is underground, so the mixer placed sounds of footsteps on the floor above, which he said worked really well, so that is at least one scene to look out for. The same guy said that he felt that Atmos really helped him tell the story, so that is encouraging. I can't post a link to the video unfortunately as it seems to be on some sort of private Dolby site.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> Mine has arrived. I hope to watch it tonight. On a video of the program makers discussing the sound design, they mention a scene where the action takes place underground, in a sewer or something, and the director asked if they could highlight the fact it is underground, so the mixer placed sounds of footsteps on the floor above, which he said worked really well, so that is at least one scene to look out for. The same guy said that he felt that Atmos really helped him tell the story, so that is encouraging. I can't post a link to the video unfortunately as it seems to be on some sort of private Dolby site.


Thanks for that. I have promised myself to hold off on buying anymore Atmos bluray's till i get reviews from here. Considering i have to ship them in i have been disappointed with some movies and felt it wasn't worth the hassle or money spent. If i had just been patient and checked the reviews here i would have saved myself the heartache.


----------



## I WANT MORE

No more purchases that are not 4k UHD.


----------



## rontalley

maikeldepotter said:


> Given the rather broad optimal ranges for each of the five overhead speaker pairs, do we yet know where they should ideally be positioned in relation to the ear-level speakers?
> 
> For example, if you are are preparing for a 11.1.10 set-up, should each overhead speaker ideally be straight above a speaker below (as seen from MLP position), in other words: being at the same horizontal angle (azimuth)?
> 
> Like:
> 
> FH right above L/R
> TF right above Wides
> TM right above 1st Side Surrounds
> TR right above 2nd Side Surrounds
> RH right above Rears.
> 
> Or if you skip FH and RH (considering those are no real overheads) for a 11.1.6 layout:
> 
> TF exactly in-between L/R and Wides
> TM right above 1st side surrounds
> TR exactly in-between 2nd side surrounds and rears
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> That information would make me feel more at ease when starting to drill holes in my ceiling...


For .4, 45 degrees seems ideal. 

For .2, 2ft. in front of MLP.

If going .6 then 42 degrees should give you the ideal separation.

Regarding point .10, this would bring in the minimum and maximum angles of 30 degrees and 55 degrees... 30,55,90,125,150

Regarding point .8 seems like this would be the same as .10 without overheads...

I am at 53 degrees with .4 and that is, IMHO, too close.

There is also the FH and RH option when doing .10...


----------



## Ricoflashback

AllenA07 said:


> If you want to cheat you could always use my highly technical methods for determining angles. I used push pins, string, duct tape, and a protractor. Before I started hanging speakers I had strings going everywhere through my room until I decided on the ideal angles. It took some work, but ultimately it saved me from having to do math that I was going to somehow screw up.


Will this be on the mid-term exam?


----------



## Ricoflashback

KK in CT said:


> I was fortunate to find a great deal on the Denon X5200W and made the upgrade to Atmos this weekend. I FINALLY get to experience what I've been reading about on here for so long. I went from 5.2 to 7.2.4 and am simply amazed at what I'm hearing. I cannot believe what the DSU upmixer is capable of. And the WAF couldn't be higher - she typically could care less, and normally I would be in a bit of trouble for adding more speakers to the great room. But she commented on how great it sounds and is not even "suggesting" that the extra speakers need to go. Now it's time to start building my Atmos movie collection and start re-watching my current collection of movies.


Excellent! Now that the WAF has accepted the new 7.2.4 setup, she'll be much more open to 7.4.11 when you expand your Dolby Atmos theater. Enjoy!!!


----------



## KK in CT

Ricoflashback said:


> Excellent! Now that the WAF has accepted the new 7.2.4 setup, she'll be much more open to 7.4.11 when you expand your Dolby Atmos theater. Enjoy!!!


Haha... She has definitely warmed up to my hobby over the years and now appreciates the sound she has with movies, but that might be pushing it a bit. I have to say this particular upgrade is by far the one that she has the most positive comments on.


----------



## maikeldepotter

rontalley said:


> For .4, 45 degrees seems ideal.
> 
> For .2, 2ft. in front of MLP.
> 
> If going .6 then 42 degrees should give you the ideal separation.
> 
> Regarding point .10, this would bring in the minimum and maximum angles of 30 degrees and 55 degrees... 30,55,90,125,150
> 
> Regarding point .8 seems like this would be the same as .10 without overheads...
> 
> I am at 53 degrees with .4 and that is, IMHO, too close.
> 
> There is also the FH and RH option when doing .10...


Makes sense to me. I assume with .6 you would put TM more towards right above?

But your information does not completely answer my question with regard to the ideal position relative to the surround level speakers which also relies to the lateral elevation of the overheads..


----------



## audioguy

Nabs17 said:


> I used this little device here:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VUGBEXU?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00


I want one. Amazon is out of stock and can't find one anywhere else, including eBay.

Bah Hah. :crying:


----------



## Nabs17

audioguy said:


> I want one. Amazon is out of stock and can't find one anywhere else, including eBay.
> 
> Bah Hah. :crying:


Yeah, I noticed that but I'd say keep checking I'm sure they will come back in. It is a very useful device and not expensive.


----------



## rontalley

maikeldepotter said:


> Makes sense to me. I assume with .6 you would put TM more towards right above?
> 
> But your information does not completely answer my question with regard to the ideal position relative to the surround level speakers which also relies to the lateral elevation of the overheads..


In theater, there is lateral movement from floor bed to height bed because there are 3 layers. In home, we just have the floor bed and overhead. Although, there is "height" speakers in home, it is not the same as height in the theater. Actually same sound plays out of height or ceiling or dolby enabled. 

To my understanding, there is really no relationship between the floor bed and overhead as it relates to lateral movement in home rather proper placement of both seperately relative to the MLP.


----------



## badboi

Could use some help/advise on whether or not I could even attempt to add Atmos to my setup without going to in-ceiling speakers. As you can see the roof is vaulted, but the distance between to two front speakers (where the add-on speakers would sit) is 7 feet to the top of the ceiling. Ceiling at the peak is 12 feet from floor. I do have an attic, but the area where the speakers would have to be placed is very limited because of the design of the house. Over the garage I have 18 feet of space between floor and roof, but once you get over the main part of the house it's very narrow. I would either need to lose about 80 pounds to even think of getting in there, or find an out of work Cirque du Soleil cast member to squeeze in there.


----------



## rontalley

badboi said:


> Could use some help/advise on whether or not I could even attempt to add Atmos to my setup without going to in-ceiling speakers. As you can see the roof is vaulted, but the distance between to two front speakers (where the add-on speakers would sit) is 7 feet to the top of the ceiling. Ceiling at the peak is 12 feet from floor. I do have an attic, but the area where the speakers would have to be placed is very limited because of the design of the house. Over the garage I have 18 feet of space between floor and roof, but once you get over the main part of the house it's very narrow. I would either need to lose about 80 pounds to even think of getting in there, or find an out of work Cirque du Soleil cast member to squeeze in there.


Or cut the holes and use an electrical snake to fish the speaker wires back to where you can grab them...

The Dolby Enabled speakers will probably not work well in that room.

These are pretty darn good ceiling speakers, can be mounted flush without needing to go into attict as long as you can get a speaker wire to the hole.

Micca M-8C 8-Inch 2-Way In-Ceiling


----------



## badboi

rontalley said:


> Or cut the holes and use an electrical snake to fish the speaker wires back to where you can grab them...
> 
> The Dolby Enabled speakers will probably not work well in that room.
> 
> These are pretty darn good ceiling speakers, can be mounted flush without needing to go into attict as long as you can get a speaker wire to the hole.
> 
> Micca M-8C 8-Inch 2-Way In-Ceiling


Thanks. Hate to buy the enabled speakers and a new receiver and then it not work. Will check out the in ceiling route and see if I can find an installer who can give me an opinion of if it is even possible to access the attic space.


----------



## Selden Ball

badboi said:


> Thanks. Hate to buy the enabled speakers and a new receiver and then it not work. Will check out the in ceiling route and see if I can find an installer who can give me an opinion of if it is even possible to access the attic space.


If the vault is high enough, an alternative might be track lighting supports with pendant speakers.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> But your information does not completely answer my question with regard to the ideal position relative to the surround level speakers which also relies to the lateral elevation of the overheads..


The Dolby diagram he posted shows the middle of the TF and TR speakers at 45 degrees elevation. I would take the hint. Dolby doesn't give azimuth numbers for height speakers, just as they don't give elevation numbers for floor speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> The Dolby diagram he posted shows the middle of the TF and TR speakers at 45 degrees elevation. I would take the hint. Dolby doesn't give azimuth numbers for height speakers, just as they don't give elevation numbers for floor speakers.


 Note that instead they recommend that the overhead speakers be in line with the main front speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Note that instead they recommend that the overhead speakers be in line with the main front speakers.


Right, just as elevation for floor speakers is described but never give a number range (like their azimuth is).


----------



## ahmedreda

You can get the one from homedepot. It is the exact same thing with even more functions for $25.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Measure-Master-Multi-Functional-Line-Laser-Level-MM-L/205066776



audioguy said:


> I want one. Amazon is out of stock and can't find one anywhere else, including eBay.
> 
> Bah Hah. :crying:


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Right, just as elevation for floor speakers is described but never give a number range (like their azimuth is).


Elevation for floor speakers is ear height. The Dolby setup guide is very clear on that.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> But your information does not completely answer my question with regard to the ideal position relative to the surround level speakers which also relies to the lateral elevation of the overheads..


Dolby has submitted a paper to ITU describing a baseline renderer aimed at home use. It tells a little about how the renderer thinks. Here's a short excerpt:

>>3.2.1 Rendering point objects
The purpose of the point panner is to calculate a gain coefficient for each speaker in the output speaker layout, given an object position.

With regards to speaker layout, the point panner requires that the following conditions are satisfied in order to be able to accurately place a phantom image of the object anywhere in the room:
-- The speakers must be grouped into one or more discrete planes in the z-dimension.
-- The speakers on each plane must be grouped into one or more discrete rows in the y-dimension.
-- There must be two or more speakers on every row and there must be speakers at 𝑥=1 and 𝑥=−1.
-- Every speaker location must lie on the surface of the room cube, that is, either on the floor, ceiling, or walls.


----------



## dominica

badboi said:


> Could use some help/advise on whether or not I could even attempt to add Atmos to my setup without going to in-ceiling speakers. As you can see the roof is vaulted, but the distance between to two front speakers (where the add-on speakers would sit) is 7 feet to the top of the ceiling. Ceiling at the peak is 12 feet from floor. I do have an attic, but the area where the speakers would have to be placed is very limited because of the design of the house. Over the garage I have 18 feet of space between floor and roof, but once you get over the main part of the house it's very narrow. I would either need to lose about 80 pounds to even think of getting in there, or find an out of work Cirque du Soleil cast member to squeeze in there.



You can try hanging the speakers. I am working on setting up my speakers (work in progress). I ran the speaker wire on the crown molding. I used white CL2 In-wall/ 4 Conductor Loud speaker cables (For In-Wall Installation). 4 wires in one cable, so I only had to run one set of speaker wires on the crown molding for my back speakers. You can even paint the speaker wires if you want. I painted it in one area(not shown) and in blends even more with the ceiling and molding. Project is wife approved 

I got the idea from a friend of mine when I was helping him set up his Atmos speakers. He had $400 plus in ceiling speakers and also bookshelf speakers but the Emotiva outdoor speakers gave a better sound and wider dispersion in his room than the bookshelf and in ceiling that he had in his Atmos setup when testing different type of speakers. We were able to get a pair for $129 from Emotiva. It comes in both black or white. I also have them set up for my fronts. However I do not have a Atmos receiver yet, but they sound so good. Running them as front height speaker and the sound and dispersion is great so far.

6.5" woofer, one wide dispersion 1" silk dome tweeter
Frequency response: 50 Hz-20 kHz +/- 3 dB
fully adjustable mounting brackets ( takes me more time to get the ladder/step than adjusting them) / plus it has Rear mounted, threaded inserts for third party universal mounts if you do not want to use the included ones.
around 7.5 pound each / 4 ohms


You can take a look at the included pic's to see a quick example of how easy you can adjust the speakers. Pic quality is not to good


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> >>The purpose of the point panner is to calculate a gain coefficient for each speaker in the output speaker layout, given an object position.


----------



## 9V7W3

dominica said:


> You can try hanging the speakers. I am working on setting up my speakers (work in progress). I ran the speaker wire on the crown molding. I used white CL2 In-wall/ 4 Conductor Loud speaker cables (For In-Wall Installation). 4 wires in one cable, so I only had to run one set of speaker wires on the crown molding for my back speakers. You can even paint the speaker wires if you want. I painted it in one area(not shown) and in blends even more with the ceiling and molding. Project is wife approved
> 
> I got the idea from a friend of mine when I was helping him set up his Atmos speakers. He had $400 plus in ceiling speakers and also bookshelf speakers but the Emotiva outdoor speakers gave a better sound and wider dispersion in his room than the bookshelf and in ceiling that he had in his Atmos setup when testing different type of speakers. We were able to get a pair for $129 from Emotiva. It comes in both black or white. I also have them set up for my fronts. However I do not have a Atmos receiver yet, but they sound so good. Running them as front height speaker and the sound and dispersion is great so far.
> 
> 6.5" woofer, one wide dispersion 1" silk dome tweeter
> Frequency response: 50 Hz-20 kHz +/- 3 dB
> fully adjustable mounting brackets ( takes me more time to get the ladder/step than adjusting them) / plus it has Rear mounted, threaded inserts for third party universal mounts if you do not want to use the included ones.
> around 7.5 pound each / 4 ohms
> 
> 
> You can take a look at the included pic's to see a quick example of how easy you can adjust the speakers. Pic quality is not to good


I also have a Cathedral ceiling in my theatre space.. I did something similar for my 5.2.4 Atmos setup. I used 4 JBL control 1 pro speakers which come with ball joint mounts that screw into the speaker with a standard 1/4" Rod. On the right side I mounted them with just the mount and on the left side where the ceiling was 2 1/2" higher I just got some threaded rod from Home Depot and extended them so they hang at the same level as the right side. I covered the threaded rod with black expandable wire braiding and then ran some black CL2 rated wire along the ceiling and wrapped it around the rod to keep it neat. Turned out great and looks pretty impressive when you walk into the room.


----------



## maikeldepotter

rontalley said:


> In theater, there is lateral movement from floor bed to height bed because there are 3 layers.


Surround layer and overhead layer. I count two. Atmos does not have a 'height' layer.



> In home, we just have the floor bed and overhead.


Yes two layers, like in the theater.



> Although, there is "height" speakers in home, it is not the same as height in the theater. Actually same sound plays out of height or ceiling or dolby enabled.


For the sake of the argument, let's forget about the heights (FH and RH) for the moment.



> To my understanding, there is really no relationship between the floor bed and overhead as it relates to lateral movement in home rather proper placement of both seperately relative to the MLP.


Really? No positioning or panning of object sounds between surround and overhead layer? Interesting thought, but not what I have come to understand and in contradiction what others have reported to have heard while listening to Atmos trailers and movies.

Imagine a sound mixer panning an object sound from the left front corner (45H/0V) to straight overhead (0H/90V) to the right rear corner (135H/0V) and playing this back on an Atmos 9.1.4 system (surround layer azimuth positions 0/30/60/90/120/150). This sound will start right in-between the left Front and left Wide and will end right in-between the right 2nd Side Surround and the right Rear. Now if the object renderer further assumes the left TF speaker to be at 45H, the sound will pass right through it. Ditto for the right TR speaker if assumed by the renderer to be at 135H. If, on the other hand, the renderer assumes TF and TR to be at 60H and respectively 120h, the sound traveling overhead will be panned between the two pairs (front and rear) of overheads. So accurate reproduction of that sound trajectory dóes depend on this relationship between surround and overhead layer, which goes beyond the recommendation of putting the overheads in line with the front left and right. Hence my question....

xxH represent horizontal angle (azimuth)
xxV represents vertical elevation


----------



## Contuzzi

Another new Atmos Bluray release -- Goosebumps. It's been awhile since another decent Atmos release so hopefully it's good. Will watch tonight.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Contuzzi said:


> Another new Atmos Bluray release -- Goosebumps. It's been awhile since another decent Atmos release so hopefully it's good. Will watch tonight.


Mmm... This was not announced as Atmos on Blu-ray, is it really on the disc?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> The Dolby diagram he posted shows the middle of the TF and TR speakers at 45 degrees elevation. I would take the hint. Dolby doesn't give azimuth numbers for height speakers, just as they don't give elevation numbers for floor speakers.


I always appreciate receiving hints, even if those confirm what I already know (although I have yet to come across a written confirmation from Dolby that this 45 degrees elevation is indeed the default value the renderer uses for a TF-TR combination, as for now it remains just some dotted lines in the guidelines diagrams). But this hint has not answered my question about the positional relation between surround and overhead layer.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> But this hint has not answered my question about the positional relation between surround and overhead layer.


No angular relationship. Meaning no optimal location for surrounds in relation to tops. When mixing in Atmos, the floor layer is at 0 and the height layer is at 100, with no specified angular separation between the layers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> No angular relationship. Meaning no optimal location for surrounds in relation to tops. When mixing in Atmos, the floor layer is at 0 and the height layer is at 100, with no specified angular separation between the layers.


... nor specified azimuth relation between speakers of floor and height (overhead) layer. Hence, no specified ideal relation whatsoever between speakers of both layers. Got it.


----------



## dominica

9V7W3 said:


> I also have a Cathedral ceiling in my theatre space.. I did something similar for my 5.2.4 Atmos setup. I used 4 JBL control 1 pro speakers which come with ball joint mounts that screw into the speaker with a standard 1/4" Rod. On the right side I mounted them with just the mount and on the left side where the ceiling was 2 1/2" higher I just got some threaded rod from Home Depot and extended them so they hang at the same level as the right side. I covered the threaded rod with black expandable wire braiding and then ran some black CL2 rated wire along the ceiling and wrapped it around the rod to keep it neat. Turned out great and looks pretty impressive when you walk into the room.
> 
> 
> 9V7W3 great setup. I like how you ran the wires. Real clean job


----------



## KennyLSU

Might be the wrong place but I will try here. 

With the Sony announcement of Atmos tracks on UHD BD, did they mention if the 1080p version be included with an Atmos track? I assume it would similar to a 3D package (Enchanted Kingdom), but I've been wrong before.


----------



## Movie78

Contuzzi said:


> Another new Atmos Bluray release -- Goosebumps. It's been awhile since another decent Atmos release so hopefully it's good. Will watch tonight.


Where is the source of your information?


----------



## sdurani

KennyLSU said:


> With the Sony announcement of Atmos tracks on UHD BD, did they mention if the 1080p version be included with an Atmos track?


Don't know if Sony mentioned specifically, but it will vary by studio (e.g., Fox and Disney will likely have Atmos tracks only on the UHD disc).


----------



## Contuzzi

Movie78 said:


> Where is the source of your information?


A definitive one. I'm sure they'll have an official announcement soon enough if you don't trust me.


----------



## KennyLSU

sdurani said:


> Don't know if Sony mentioned specifically, but it will vary by studio (e.g., Fox and Disney will likely have Atmos tracks only on the UHD disc).


That would be unfortunate. I have no urge to replace my projector or BD player anytime soon.


----------



## sdurani

KennyLSU said:


> I have no urge to replace my projector or BD player anytime soon.


Shouldn't have to, like it wasn't necessary to replace 720p sets when BD came out.


----------



## sdurani

Lionsgate announced today their first 4 UHD releases: Enders Game, Expendables 3, Sicario and Last Witch Hunter. The latter in DTS:X and the other 3 in Atmos. Last Witch Hunter never had an Atmos mix, was exclusively DTS:X in theatres, so no surprise it is DTS:X on UHD. Glad to see Lionsgate supporting both.


----------



## KennyLSU

sdurani said:


> Shouldn't have to, like it wasn't necessary to replace 720p sets when BD came out.


So if my projector is only 1080p and player only plays 1080p, I will be able to play an UHD or 4K disc and see it in what, 1080p?

Am I wrong in thinking to play an UHD or 4K disc I need a player that is capable to playing it and a display that is 4K capable?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Shouldn't have to, like it wasn't necessary to replace 720p sets when BD came out.


 That would be nice, and is what I'm hoping for, but... "people who should know" are claiming that you'll just get a blank screen if you try to play a UHD disc and don't have HDCP v2.2 in all of the devices in the chain. Certainly my 1080p TVs and projector don't have it.


----------



## rontalley

maikeldepotter said:


> Surround layer and overhead layer. I count two. Atmos does not have a 'height' layer.


I thought that Atmos could also process surround heights like FH and RH but not for Home. I also thought that Atmos could process Front Wides but not for Home. I might be confused. 



maikeldepotter said:


> Really? No positioning or panning of object sounds between surround and overhead layer? Interesting thought, but not what I have come to understand and in contradiction what others have reported to have heard while listening to Atmos trailers and movies.


From Sides to Top not so much from my experience.
Meaning, take a stereo song and play it on a 2 channel system. You would swear there was a center speaker playing as the position of the speakers puts the sound directly in front of you. That concept is not true or I haven't experienced it with surround to top positioning or panning...However, I do see your point if this is what you are expecting with speaker placement. If Side to Top lateral movement was such a thing then it would always be on a diagonal path for Side to Top in a lest than .6 configuration unless you positions your TF and TR right over the Front Wide (Don't exist in Home Atmos) and Surrounds. Even if you did that, I think it would sound strange for one speaker to be point horizontally toward your ear and the other vertically way off axis of your ear...

Now there should be lateral movement from front to top and rear to top. However, from my experience, Dolby Atmos Home does not have (use?) FH and RH as the theaters can? (Again, I could be wrong here) 
However, my thinking has always been that, if using Front Heights, you should be able to raise or lower the front stage by lateral panning? Although, logically this makes sense...Doesn't matter what you select in the AVR, heights are not working like heights but rather just ceilings. This is why I suggested a 3rd layer although only Front and Back... 



maikeldepotter said:


> Imagine a sound mixer panning an object sound from the left front corner (45H/0V) to straight overhead (0H/90V) to the right rear corner (135H/0V) and playing this back on an Atmos 9.1.4 system (surround layer azimuth positions 0/30/60/90/120/150). This sound will start right in-between the left Front and left Wide and will end right in-between the right 2nd Side Surround and the right Rear. Now if the object renderer further assumes the left TF speaker to be at 45H, the sound will pass right through it. Ditto for the right TR speaker if assumed by the renderer to be at 135H. If, on the other hand, the renderer assumes TF and TR to be at 60H and respectively 120h, the sound traveling overhead will be panned between the two pairs (front and rear) of overheads. So accurate reproduction of that sound trajectory dóes depend on this relationship between surround and overhead layer, which goes beyond the recommendation of putting the overheads in line with the front left and right. Hence my question....
> 
> xxH represent horizontal angle (azimuth)
> xxV represents vertical elevation


Over my head.


----------



## sdurani

KennyLSU said:


> Am I wrong in thinking to play an UHD or 4K disc I need a player that is capable to playing it and a display that is 4K capable?


You'd need a new player for the new format, but it should still work with your current projector (of course you'll see it in 1080p).


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> "people who should know" are claiming that you'll just get a blank screen if you try to play a UHD disc and don't have HDCP v2.2 in all of the devices in the chain.


Can't imagine any manufacturer deliberately setting themselves up for a customer service/tech support nightmare like that. I can understand not getting full 4K resolution, but a completely blank screen?


----------



## AllenA07

KennyLSU said:


> So if my projector is only 1080p and player only plays 1080p, I will be able to play an UHD or 4K disc and see it in what, 1080p?
> 
> Am I wrong in thinking to play an UHD or 4K disc I need a player that is capable to playing it and a display that is 4K capable?


You'll absolutely need a UHD player. As far as a new projector, nobody really knows at this point. the entire HDCP 2.2 issue may mean that you need to have HDCP 2.2 along the entire chain. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this and not a whole lot in terms of answers at this point.


----------



## KennyLSU

AllenA07 said:


> You'll absolutely need a UHD player. As far as a new projector, nobody really knows at this point. the entire HDCP 2.2 issue may mean that you need to have HDCP 2.2 along the entire chain. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this and not a whole lot in terms of answers at this point.


That's what I was thinking. I have a receiver with HDCP 2.2. If all I needed to do was upgrade my player and the projector would display 1080p, I would be very happy. I realize that may be a long shot though.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> I thought that Atmos could also process surround heights like FH and RH but not for Home. I also thought that Atmos could process Front Wides but not for Home. I might be confused.


Native Atmos decoding/rendering supports Wides and all 5 pairs of overhead speakers (FH, TF, TM, TR, RH).


----------



## rontalley

Roger Dressler said:


> Dolby has submitted a paper to ITU describing a baseline renderer aimed at home use. It tells a little about how the renderer thinks. Here's a short excerpt:
> 
> >>3.2.1 Rendering point objects
> The purpose of the point panner is to calculate a gain coefficient for each speaker in the output speaker layout, given an object position.
> 
> With regards to speaker layout, the point panner requires that the following conditions are satisfied in order to be able to accurately place a phantom image of the object anywhere in the room:
> -- The speakers must be grouped into one or more discrete planes in the z-dimension.
> -- The speakers on each plane must be grouped into one or more discrete rows in the y-dimension.
> -- There must be two or more speakers on every row and there must be speakers at 𝑥=1 and 𝑥=−1.
> -- Every speaker location must lie on the surface of the room cube, that is, either on the floor, ceiling, or walls.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Selden Ball said:


> That would be nice, and is what I'm hoping for, but... "people who should know" are claiming that you'll just get a blank screen if you try to play a UHD disc and don't have HDCP v2.2 in all of the devices in the chain. Certainly my 1080p TVs and projector don't have it.





sdurani said:


> Can't imagine any manufacturer deliberately setting themselves up for a customer service/tech support nightmare like that. I can understand not getting full 4K resolution, but a completely blank screen?


Yeah. I'm quite confident that at worst you'll get 1080p picture but a totally locked out screen? Yikes.


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Native Atmos decoding/rendering supports Wides and all 5 pairs of overhead speakers (FH, TF, TM, TR, RH).


This is what I thought but I tested and tested and tested. Selecting FH plays the exact same sounds as selecting TF. Why is that? Shouldn't FH be more relative to F/L expanding the Front Sound Stage allowing for lateral movement from floor to upper wall?


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Can't imagine any manufacturer deliberately setting themselves up for a customer service/tech support nightmare like that. I can understand not getting full 4K resolution, but a completely blank screen?


Roku 4 already does it. I understand that this is a little different as they are trying to stream 4k content. But if you try to do so, just to obtain Atmos audio output, you get the screen of death due to non-2.2 compliance.

If you view the backs of the few announced UHD players...They have a 2.2 HDMI output for video and a 1.4 HDMI that is specifically labeled as audio only. The purpose of HDCP 2.2 schema is to prevent video and audio playback unless keys have been exchanged between all devices in the chain---at 2.2 for ALL devices. There is a provision in the specification that allows for a conversion (hence HD Fury type devices). However, that bypasses the entire copy protection schema and defeats the purpose to an extent.

We can all "hope" that the players will be allowed to down convert to 1080p. We can all hope that the metadata is undisturbed for Atmos. And we can all hope that combo packs are sold with Atmos encoded blu-rays included with the UHD disc.

But just to be crystal clear.....The output on the UHD player HW will *HAVE TO SWITCH TO 1.4!* There's no way around this. No backwards compatibility. So it's not just a matter of SW down-conversion to 1080p. It's a matter of completely switching the HDMI output to an outdated, legacy communications protocol for lack of better terminology. IMO and from the research I've done, this is highly unlikely to be supported. Even though it's possible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Lionsgate announced today their first 4 UHD releases: Enders Game, Expendables 3, Sicario and Last Witch Hunter. The latter in DTS:X and the other 3 in Atmos. Last Witch Hunter never had an Atmos mix, was exclusively DTS:X in theatres, so no surprise it is DTS:X on UHD. Glad to see Lionsgate supporting both.


If I can't use my wides with DTS:X even though my Marantz manual says I will, I hope they switch back to Dolby Atmos exclusively.


----------



## stikle

Selden Ball said:


> That would be nice, and is what I'm hoping for, but... "people who should know" are claiming that you'll just get a blank screen if you try to play a UHD disc and don't have HDCP v2.2 in all of the devices in the chain. Certainly my 1080p TVs and projector don't have it.



I'll be able to test this. I've ordered the HD Fury Integral and pre-ordered the Samsung UBD-K8500.

My chain will be:

UHDBD -> Denon X5200W (non HDCP2.2) -> Vizio M75 UHD TV

In theory I won't be able to play a UHDBD and get an image on the screen.

I'm not sure whether I need to add the HD Fury before or after the Denon, although I suspect AFTER as the Denon is the device that doesn't have HDCP 2.2 and the Fury will fix that pre-display device.

I think.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. I'm quite confident that at worst you'll get 1080p picture but a totally locked out screen? Yikes.


There's that little bastard called the Fine Print and one of the finely printed sentences in the Samsung UHD player manual states that under certain circumstances with AACS 2.0 encoded discs and legacy equipment, you may get no video signal.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> *If I can't use my wides* with DTS:X even though my Marantz manual says I will, I hope they switch back to Dolby Atmos exclusively.


Seriously?



Dan Hitchman said:


> There's that little bastard called the Fine Print and one of the finely printed sentences in the Samsung UHD player manual states that under certain circumstances with AACS 2.0 encoded discs and legacy equipment, you may get no video signal.


We'll see.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Seriously?


Why use a crippled format, if Dolby Atmos isn't? 

Yes, seriously.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> Selecting FH plays the exact same sounds as selecting TF. Why is that?


Because there's no place else for the height information to go, so ALL the height information goes to those speakers, irrespective of designation.


----------



## audioguy

Here is the Home Screen of the most recent Dolby Atmos Demo Disc. A couple of points: The 747 Takeoff and the Helicopter Demo are the two most realistic uses of ceiling speakers I have heard on any Atmos disc. The Helicopter Demo is particularly interesting in that it flies all around the "ceiling" so you get virtual images between the ceiling speakers and between the ceiling and surround speakers --- just like it is supposed to do!!! 

Secondly, notice it has some test tone segments. The 9.1.6 track I find interesting in that I am not aware of any processor that can play that many discreet channels, with the exception of the Trinnov. I have a 7.1.4 so for the wides, it played the fronts and for the 3rd pair of ceiling speakers, it played one of the other pair.


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's that little bastard called the Fine Print and one of the finely printed sentences in the Samsung UHD player manual states that under certain circumstances with AACS 2.0 encoded discs and legacy equipment, you may get no video signal.


Hence the reason to order the HD Fury. Then you are covered.


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Because there's no place else for the height information to go, so ALL the height information goes to those speakers, irrespective of designation.


So your saying, If a sound engineer mixed a movie and he put a bid chirping in the back,left, high corner and all I had was TF speakers then that sound would go to the top front left speaker vs the rear left surround?

Or the mix engnineer did a sweep from center channel to front height and all I had was TM then the sound would just be played over my head?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why use a crippled format, if Dolby Atmos isn't?
> 
> Yes, seriously.


That wasn't the complaint. You do not want DTS:X _only_ if you can't use "your" wides. So it's not that you have a problem with DTS:X, the dealbreaker is not using your wides. Good grief. Seriously? 

Instead of worrying about the audio format, why worry about a speaker position that is so poorly supported if at all? That's my question.


----------



## rontalley

audioguy said:


> Here is the Home Screen of the most recent Dolby Atmos Demo Disc. A couple of points: The 747 Takeoff and the Helicopter Demo are the two most realistic uses of ceiling speakers I have heard on any Atmos disc. The Helicopter Demo is particularly interesting in that it flies all around the "ceiling" so you get virtual images between the ceiling speakers and between the ceiling and surround speakers --- just like it is supposed to do!!!
> 
> Secondly, notice it has some test tone segments. The 9.1.6 track I find interesting in that I am not aware of any processor that can play that many discreet channels, with the exception of the Trinnov. I have a 7.1.4 so for the wides, it played the fronts and for the 3rd pair of ceiling speakers, it played one of the other pair.


Will have to listen to the helicopter demo again. Could have sworn nothing else played but the tops...


----------



## Ricoflashback

rontalley said:


> So your saying, If a sound engineer mixed a movie and he put a bid chirping in the back,left, high corner and all I had was TF speakers then that sound would go to the top front left speaker vs the rear left surround?


If this is true, then that bird would have crapped on your Dolby Atmos setup. Doesn't make sense. 

I would think that the object based soundtrack would be able to know your speaker configuration and direct the chirping to the rear left surround in the absence of any rear Atmos "height" channels. Behind you is behind you. Maybe more authentic up high in the rear but the concept is the same.

Then again, I do not know the Director's intent....


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> Here is the Home Screen of the most recent Dolby Atmos Demo Disc. A couple of points: The 747 Takeoff and the Helicopter Demo are the two most realistic uses of ceiling speakers I have heard on any Atmos disc. The Helicopter Demo is particularly interesting in that it flies all around the "ceiling" so you get virtual images between the ceiling speakers and between the ceiling and surround speakers --- just like it is supposed to do!!!
> 
> Secondly, notice it has some test tone segments. The 9.1.6 track I find interesting in that I am not aware of any processor that can play that many discreet channels, with the exception of the Trinnov. I have a 7.1.4 so for the wides, it played the fronts and for the 3rd pair of ceiling speakers, it played one of the other pair.



My "cobbled" 7.1.6 system plays back the 9.1.6 tones appropriately. Except for the wides, anyway.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> That wasn't the complaint. You do not want DTS:X _only_ if you can't use "your" wides. So it's not that you have a problem with DTS:X, the dealbreaker is not using your wides. Good grief. Seriously?
> 
> Instead of worrying about the audio format, why worry about a speaker position that is so poorly supported if at all? That's my question.


Some people want to use wides. I use wides and they work great. It's used quite a bit in Atmos (more than the overheads). It's not just about wides, it's that DTS seemingly only has the 7.1.4 permutation working correctly (even in the Trinnov. and Curt is still trying to get DTS to get things in gear)... and they've had _how long_ to get things right? 

Just because _you _don't use wides, doesn't mean it isn't important to some people.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Just because you're addicted to them doesn't make them important.

I like wides. I like the idea of wides. I don't like how there is no solid support for them unlike EVERY other speaker location. So why bother? Wait til there is good support for them instead of setting yourself up and to get your expectations of using them shot down.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> So your saying, If a sound engineer mixed a movie and he put a bid chirping in the back,left, high corner and all I had was TF speakers then that sound would go to the top front left speaker vs the rear left surround?


If you have no other height speakers, then that's the only place height information can go. 

If you're playing a 7.1 track on a stereo set-up, then sounds from the rear channels will come from the 2 front speakers, because they have no place else to go.


> Or the mix engnineer did a sweep from center channel to front height and all I had was TM then the sound would just be played over my head?


Yup, where else will that height info go?


----------



## 9V7W3

dominica said:


> 9V7W3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also have a Cathedral ceiling in my theatre space.. I did something similar for my 5.2.4 Atmos setup. I used 4 JBL control 1 pro speakers which come with ball joint mounts that screw into the speaker with a standard 1/4" Rod. On the right side I mounted them with just the mount and on the left side where the ceiling was 2 1/2" higher I just got some threaded rod from Home Depot and extended them so they hang at the same level as the right side. I covered the threaded rod with black expandable wire braiding and then ran some black CL2 rated wire along the ceiling and wrapped it around the rod to keep it neat. Turned out great and looks pretty impressive when you walk into the room.
> 
> 
> 9V7W3 great setup. I like how you ran the wires. Real clean job
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, I tried!
Click to expand...


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just because _you _don't use wides, doesn't mean it isn't important to some people.


Apparently not important to immersive audio as a whole, since DTS:X and Auro don't decode Wides, and Dolby supports it for decoding but not upmixing.


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> If this is true, then that bird would have crapped on your Dolby Atmos setup. Doesn't make sense.
> 
> I would think that the object based soundtrack would be able to know your speaker configuration and direct the chirping to the rear left surround in the absence of any rear Atmos "height" channels. Behind you is behind you. Maybe more authentic up high in the rear but the concept is the same.
> 
> Then again, I do not know the Director's intent....


Right, this is what I am thinking as well.



sdurani said:


> If you have no other height speakers, then that's the only place height information can go.
> 
> If you're playing a 7.1 track on a stereo set-up, then sounds from the rear channels will come from the 2 front speakers, because they have no place else to go. Yup, where else will that height info go?


Only using logic here, I would expect that if the sound did not have a logical place in the height field then it would not process it and leave it where it would be in the regular 7.1 bed mix just like those who do not have .x setups...

That's why it doesn't make sense, to me, that FH/RH play the exact same sounds as TF/TR. Unless there is truly only 2 possible layers for Dolby Atmos no matter if Home or Commercial.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> My "cobbled" 7.1.6 system plays back the 9.1.6 tones appropriately. Except for the wides, anyway.


No bleed when playing TM? If not then, that totally freaking awesome!

I never used wides but are they a matrix of Front and Sides? Where do the sound come from for the Test Tone Wides?


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> No bleed when playing TM? If not then, that totally freaking awesome!
> 
> I never used wides but are they a matrix of Front and Sides? Where do the sound come from for the Test Tone Wides?


There is a little bleed but not really noticeable at the MLP. Unless you get up and walk to the front and rear overheads to listen you'll never really notice.

The 9.1.6 tones are odd in that the wide outputs do not phantom between the mains and side like they do when using the Neo:X channel test on some discs. On that the wides come out right between the pairs of speakers just as they should. With the Atmos test tones the wides output from the main left and right. Not sure why.

Wides are a matrix of the front and sides using DTS Neo:X, yes. With Atmos, they will only be used for objects that happen to pan through that location. No channel content will output from the wides, ever (with Atmos).


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> Only using logic here, I would expect that if the sound did not have a logical place in the height field then it would not process it and leave it where it would be in the regular 7.1 bed mix just like those who do not have .x setups...


That would be one approach, but the way Atmos works is that if it cannot get the sound above you at the intended location then it will at least get the sound above you (i.e., it doesn't give up completely and leave that height information in the floor speakers).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> That would be one approach, but the way Atmos works is that if it cannot get the sound above you at the intended location then it will at least get the sound above you (i.e., it doesn't give up completely and leave that height information in the floor speakers).


All the more reason to opt for directly overhead speaker pair if you can only have one set of speakers for immersive audio.

IMHO


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> My "cobbled" 7.1.6 system plays back the 9.1.6 tones appropriately. Except for the wides, anyway.


Right, some of the test tones on that track (including wides) 'snap' to the nearest speaker instead of phantom imaging between pairs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's the only one I seem to have any issue with. Of the 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 test tones, they all render correctly except for the wides.

I'd say "oh well" but then it makes me wonder what happens to objects at that vector while watching Atmos encoded titles with no wides.

I guess it's just the disc though.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> There is a little bleed but not really noticeable at the MLP. Unless you get up and walk to the front and rear overheads to listen you'll never really notice.
> 
> The 9.1.6 tones are odd in that the wide outputs do not phantom between the mains and side like they do when using the Neo:X channel test on some discs. On that the wides come out right between the pairs of speakers just as they should. With the Atmos test tones the wides output from the main left and right. Not sure why.
> 
> Wides are a matrix of the front and sides using DTS Neo:X, yes. With Atmos, they will only be used for objects that happen to pan through that location. No channel content will output from the wides, ever (with Atmos).


Great to hear that your .6 rocks! Regarding the wides, seems logical that it would just put it in the mains but also seems logical that it would phantom between mains and sides...

Now saying all of that, the wide is without doubt an object right? But the sound did not go to an object speaker but rather just left it in the bed channel. Kinda supports my thinking that the decoder has the ability to not unfold objects if there is not a logical place to put it...

How far apart are your TF and TR in feet/inches? So interesting how much stuff you have crammed into that room! You need rehab!


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> Great to hear that your .6 rocks! Regarding the wides, seems logical that it would just put it in the mains but also seems logical that it would phantom between mains and sides...
> 
> Now saying all of that, the wide is without doubt an object right? But the sound did not go to an object speaker but rather just left it in the bed channel. Kinda supports my thinking that the decoder has the ability to not unfold objects if there is not a logical place to put it...
> 
> How far apart are your TF and TR in feet/inches? So interesting how much stuff you have crammed into that room! You need rehab!


Lol! Thanks. I guess. 

Don't know the exact distance from front to rear heights. Probably 14-15ft or something.

Yeah, it works really well but I'm not happy with the speakers I'm using or the location of the front heights. I mean, I like the speaker but they are not fit to keep up with the rest of the system. They were chosen because I had them and that's like, free. Yeah? Will like to change up the system even if it means disabling my Atmos-EX system which works great.

Wides should image at the correct location but Sanjay suggests that there is a "snap to" feature utilized during the authoring of the tones that makes them behave that way. Otherwise these objects will act accordingly.

About wides. There is no official designation for them as a channel so yes, they exist either as a speaker location for objects only to pan through OR as a derived speaker location based from post processing (IE: Neo:X or DSX).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Apparently not important to immersive audio as a whole, since DTS:X and Auro don't decode Wides, and Dolby supports it for decoding but not upmixing.


Home DTS: X doesn't decode wides supposedly because DTS can't seem to get their object rendering code working right, not because they're not important. The question remains if Neural: X is affected as well.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS: X doesn't decode wides supposedly because DTS can't seem to get their coding working right, not because they're not important.


Let me rephrase then: they're less important than all the other speaker locations, including heights, since DTS somehow got their coding working right.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> That's the only one I seem to have any issue with. Of the 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 test tones, they all render correctly except for the wides.


The wides, top fronts and top rears on the 9.1.6 track snap to the nearest speaker; the top middles phantom between speaker pairs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Let me rephrase then: they're less important than all the other speaker locations, including heights, since DTS somehow got their coding working right.


They didn't get the coding right because originally there was supposed to be support for Front Wide speakers. Even Curt from Trinnov was surprised at the very limited code DTS gave them (7.1.4 as well with no option for wides when there was, again, supposed to be... even Neural: X is supposed to use them) and Trinnov is trying to get them to add more speaker rendering positions ASAP.

The DTS: X mixing software and potential position diagrams as in WSR even shows positions for Front Surrounds between the sides and screen speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Sanjay suggests that there is a "snap to" feature utilized during the authoring of the tones that makes them behave that way.


Behaviour described in the Atmos authoring guide: 

_"This button toggles Speaker Snap mode on and off. Speaker Snap mode moves object audio to the active speaker nearest its established location during playback (for example, to eliminate phantom panning). At the RMU, this ensures that 100% of the audio signal is routed to the single speaker that is nearest to the current spatial placement."_


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> Kinda supports my thinking that the decoder has the ability to not unfold objects if there is not a logical place to put it...


If Atmos is being decoded, ALL the audio objects are unfolded from the downmix.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> They didn't get the coding right because originally there was supposed to be support for Front Wide speakers.


Why didn't this coding problem affect any other speakers, including either pair of heights?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Why didn't this coding problem affect any other speakers, including either pair of heights?


The DTS engineering team only knows for certain.

All I can think of is that they wanted to get the basics working first before tackling other speaker configuration possibilities as you see with Atmos. 

For instance, on my lowly Marantz pre-amp, I can choose an odd-ball 7.1.4 rendering option that has Front Surround rendering kick in if I state I don't have back surrounds... and yet keep the four overheads working properly... still 11.1 rendering, but with a twist. It's the twist part, DTS hasn't figured out yet.

Curt said they didn't even get 9.1.2 with DTS: X, which is a _standard _11.1 immersive offshoot.


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> The wides, top fronts and top rears on the 9.1.6 track snap to the nearest speaker; the top middles phantom between speaker pairs.


What is packed into the average Atmos recording you get on Blu Ray?? How many potential discrete channels?

What if, for example, if you have Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Rears and Rear Heights all installed (e.g. Trinnov)? Does each Atmos recording have potentially 22.1.10 channels on board or just 9.1.6 for example and extra speakers just get sounds to 'snap' to the nearest speaker?

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> What is packed into the average Atmos recording you get on Blu Ray?? How many potential discrete channels?
> 
> What if, for example, if you have Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Rears and Rear Heights all installed (e.g. Trinnov)? Does each Atmos recording have potentially 22.1.10 channels on board or just 9.1.6 for example and extra speakers just get sounds to 'snap' to the nearest speaker?
> 
> Thanks!


*24.1.10 *is the home Atmos discrete object rendering configuration limit for soundtracks. 

24 base, one LFE (counts as a bed channel), and 10 overhead. There are 7.1 bed channels rather than 9.1 in the cinema.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> 24.1.10 is the home Atmos object rendering configuration limit. 24 base, one LFE (counts as a bed channel), and 10 overhead. There are 7.1 bed channels rather than 9.1 in the cinema.


Thanks! So all Atmos releases can natively play up to 24.1.10?

I imagine DTS-X will have Wides and a similar array when they get it together...

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> Thanks! So all Atmos releases can natively play up to 24.1.10?
> 
> I imagine DTS-X will have Wides and a similar array when they get it together...
> 
> Thanks!


Yes, as far as I am aware, all Atmos tracks for home use go up to 24.1.10.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> All I can think of is that they wanted to get the basics working first before tackling other speaker configuration possibilities as you see with Atmos.


That's my point, "the basics" didn't include Wides; the same channels left out of DSU, Auro-Matic, native Auro decoding and now DTS:X. Just a coincidence? Wides seem to be the step-children of immersive audio.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> That's my point, "the basics" didn't include Wides; the same channels left out of DSU, Auro-Matic, native Auro decoding and now DTS:X. Just a coincidence? *Wides seem to be the step-children of immersive audio*.


I hope not because, again, Dolby Atmos mixes tend to use them quite a lot (compared to the overheads). Really widens the front sound-stage and expands the musical score, from my experience. Check out _Gravity _as a good example... the use of front wides, especially for dialog tracking, is quite effective.


----------



## sdurani

thebland said:


> What is packed into the average Atmos recording you get on Blu Ray?? How many potential discrete channels?


7 channels and up to 20 audio object clusters.


> Does each Atmos recording have potentially 22.1.10 channels on board or just 9.1.6 for example and extra speakers just get sounds to 'snap' to the nearest speaker?


Speaker snap is an optional feature that can be used if the mixer doesn't want objects to be rendered as phantom images between speakers. Just because certain test tones in the Atmos demo disc are encoded that way doesn't mean all other Atmos material are also. Not something to worry about. Just annoying when trying to use test signals to check imaging.


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> What is packed into the average Atmos recording you get on Blu Ray?? How many potential discrete channels?
> 
> What if, for example, if you have Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Rears and Rear Heights all installed (e.g. Trinnov)? Does each Atmos recording have potentially 22.1.10 channels on board or just 9.1.6 for example and extra speakers just get sounds to 'snap' to the nearest speaker?
> 
> Thanks!


The consumer level version of Atmos supports up to a 24.1.10 layout.

There is only ever 9.1 channels of information. 7.1ch + 2ch height is how the native cinema Atmos mix is encoded. The objects can however pan through many more speakers, in the case of home use with a fully loaded Trinnov, 24speakers around and 10 height/overhead speakers. However, all these extra speaker locations will only be used inside Atmos decoding and only for objects that are in those positions. As far as any hardware exists outside a cinema-grade CP850, there will be no channel content in any of these extra speakers beyond 7.1 + four heights.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I hope not because...


Understood, but I'm not talking about what we hope for, I'm talking about what is. If you look across the three immersive formats, Wides get little love; the recent news about DTS:X being the latest example. I don't see how you can reconcile this reality with the idea that Wides are just as important as any of the other speaker locations.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Understood, but I'm not talking about what we hope for, I'm talking about what is. If you look across the three immersive formats, Wides get little love; the recent news about DTS:X being the latest example. I don't see how you can reconcile this reality with the idea that Wides are just as important as any of the other speaker locations.


So are you saying that if Dolby (or DTS for that matter), came to you today and said...."Sanjay, we are going to hand you a brand new processor tomorrow morning for free. You can only have 13.1 and we will have to hard code the 2 extra channels into any position you would like." Where would you want to put the 2 new speakers?

If I had a choice between TM and wide, I'd probably take wide for 9.1.4. I feel that in a 2 row HT, wides really compliment very well and provide a better 360° for both rows. Providing a more immersive experience for the entire audience. Especially when your surrounds are 14' away from the fronts, like in my HT. Don't get me wrong, I'd be just as happy to go to 7.1.6 instead of 9.1.4. But I also think that wides, if actually encoded and utilized, would provide more value and see more use than one more pair on the ceiling. Physically in the room, there's just a much bigger distance between the mains and everything else further towards the back of the HT.


----------



## Scott Simonian

7.1.6 _then_ add wides.

How does all that overhead imaging work for your two rows with just four overhead speakers?  

With a real middle overhead, there is no denying where ever you are sitting that the effect is right above you.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> 7.1.6 _then_ add wides.
> 
> How does all that overhead imaging work for your two rows with just four overhead speakers?
> 
> With a real middle overhead, there is no denying where ever you are sitting that the effect is right above you.


There's a problem with your theory... the overheads are barely used!


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> 7.1.6 _then_ add wides.
> 
> How does all that overhead imaging work for your two rows with just four overhead speakers?
> 
> With a real middle overhead, there is no denying where ever you are sitting that the effect is right above you.


For my back row (MLP).....middles won't do much of anything. Imaging between my TF and TR is astounding and I hear phantom images between them constantly. So yeah, TM wouldn't buy me much....except satisfy my ego through the perception of more granularity! 

For my front row, the top fronts are almost directly overheard and sound great. But the TR in the front-row are almost non-existent. If I added TM, then they would help as they would essentially function like TR for that row. So yeah there would be some improvement.

I still stick by 9.1.4 for my choice! But each their own. I wouldn't kick either config out of my room for sure!!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's a problem with your theory... the overheads are barely used!


At least they are supported unlike wides.



Stoked21 said:


> For my back row (MLP).....middles won't do much of anything. Imaging between my TF and TR is astounding and I hear phantom images between them constantly. So yeah, TM wouldn't buy me much....except satisfy my ego through the perception of more granularity!
> 
> For my front row, the top fronts are almost directly overheard and sound great. But the TR in the front-row are almost non-existent. If I added TM, then they would help as they would essentially function like TR for that row. So yeah there would be some improvement.
> 
> I still stick by 9.1.4 for my choice! But each their own. I wouldn't kick either config out of my room for sure!!!


Okay! Good luck with that.


----------



## Dr_Mark

I'm not sure if is was posted, the latest ATMOS demo disk is revision Sept 2015. I know of 3 revisions out. Jan 2015 was the second. I had the first but not any longer. So 3 revisions out.


----------



## batpig

I will take Dan's side here in the sense of the "importance" of wides -- not in the respect that Sanjay/Scott is talking about (support) but in the respect of CONTENT.

Bottom line -- there is a lot more shiz happening around you than above you. That's pretty much a fact. It's also a fact that with a 7ch bed layer you are getting NO additional horizontal resolution vs. the standard 7.1 channel based stuff. Which is why all anyone talks about is whether a given movie has overhead sound or not when judging the "quality" of the Atmos mix.

Several of us have talked offline about how, in theatrical Atmos, those "just off the screen" speakers (the front surrounds / wides and the frontal overheads) are used to "expand" the front soundstage beyond the perimeter of the screen for big explosions, musical scores etc. Star Wars TFA did this a lot in the theaterical Atmos mix -- the score was positioned outside the screen edges to make it seem, um, huger. 

We've also heard about the "Minions" Atmos mix on BD, which has been panned for not having any overhead usage... the mixers talk about how they monitored it with wide speakers and there is a lot of action there. We've heard many anecdotal reports from Atmos home users who have wides installed that they get a lot more action than the overheads.

Below I link a neat video about the Atmos mix of "Unbroken" (credit to Sanjay for clueing me in on this) where they specifically talk about this usage to "expand" the front soundstage.

For me, it's a total no brainer that 9.1.4 is better than 7.1.6 if I had to choose. With 4 overheads I'm getting overhead coverage, front to back, left and right... but as I noted above you gain NOTHING over standard 7.1 channel mixes in the horizontal layer. Any of that "expanding the front soundstage" stuff we are discussing, pulling the score outside the screen, you don't get that without those front surrounds because the music is almost certainly "snapping" back to the screen channels (I can't imagine they want the score blasting you from the side surrounds).

So, while I understand the theoretical reasoning why 6 overheads is more ideal (in front, overhead, and behind) the pratical reality of how content is being delivered makes the wides clearly more beneficial, IMO.

Of course it's largely a moot point, and I think we all agree 9.1.6 is really where it's at on the diminishing returns curve for a "typical" sized HT.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Dr_Mark said:


> I'm not sure if is was posted, the latest ATMOS demo disk is revision Sept 2015. I know of 3 revisions out. Jan 2015 was the second. I had the first but not any longer. So 3 revisions out.




Now if I can only figure out how to get one? I have the first demo disc, but I really want this one for the test tones primarily.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dr_Mark said:


> I'm not sure if is was posted, the latest ATMOS demo disk is revision Sept 2015. I know of 3 revisions out. Jan 2015 was the second. I had the first but not any longer. So 3 revisions out.


Please stop posting any information about the Demo disks.
It's useless for most of the ATMOS enthusiasts (except few lucky ones).
Until Dolby arranges some decent way to give these demos out, it's of no use.
It's like you make a fantastic advertisement of your great product and you watch it yourself not letting anyone else. What's the point if it does not reach the potential consumer and customer.
(Sorry, nothing against you. It's just the frustration Dolby has created for most of us)


----------



## batpig

Now that the Sept 2015 disc is getting out to people, and we are discussing the various channel tones, I would like people to test out a weird behavior that Scott and I have both independently verified.

We've just talked about about how with the 9.1.6 tones the FW signal "snaps" to the FR/FL speakers, rather than imaging between the Fronts and Surrounds.

We also know the Top Middle signal plays equally between front+rear overheads (as you'd expect) to create a phantom image overhead. You can hear this in the 9.1.6 and 7.1.2 tracks.

Basically it appears that, other than the sole exception of the Top Middle speaker, all the channel tones have the "snap to speaker" option checked.

HOWEVER..... if your Height1 speakers are labeled as "Front Height" rather than "Top Front", and you play the 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 channel tracks, the "Top Front" signal is played by BOTH the Height1 and Height2 speakers. For example, if you have a FH+RH layout, the "Top Front Left" signal will play in BOTH the FHL and RHL speakers. 

For some reason, the sound "leaks" back to the Height2 speaker on that side of the room in this case. Even weirder is that it does NOT happen with the 9.1.6 tones.

So others who have this disc, check it out. I was talking about this with FilmMixer recently and he seems to agree that something is wonky with the authoring of the disc on that tone.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Use a 4 height speaker layout (Height1 pair + Height2 pair)
2. Designate the Height1 speakers as "Front Height"
3. Play the "Top Front" signals from either the 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 channel tests.

You should hear the "Top Front" signal leak to the Height2 speaker on that side of the room.


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> Okay! Good luck with that.


I'm wired for something like 11.4.10 and speakers installed for 7.1.6. So doesn't really matter to me! I can likely install about anything without pulling cable. 

Murphy's law: they'll add top speakers above where wides would go or something odd. Then I'm tearing open drywall again.


----------



## Dr_Mark

aaranddeeman said:


> Please stop posting any information about the Demo disks.
> It's useless for most of the ATMOS enthusiasts (except few lucky ones).
> Until Dolby arranges some decent way to give these demos out, it's of no use.
> It's like you make a fantastic advertisement of your great product and you watch it yourself not letting anyone else. What's the point if it does not reach the potential consumer and customer.
> (Sorry, nothing against you. It's just the frustration Dolby has created for most of us)



Disk was available for purchase from Dolby. do they have to be given out free to ok to post here? will not post anymore...


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> This is what I thought but I tested and tested and tested. Selecting FH plays the exact same sounds as selecting TF. Why is that? Shouldn't FH be more relative to F/L expanding the Front Sound Stage allowing for lateral movement from floor to upper wall?


To add to what Sanjay said... 

If you ONLY have one frontal pair of overheads (in any typical processor you are stuck with a front and rear pair) then sounds that are above and in front have to go above and in front of you. So if you've got Front Height they go there, if you've got Top Front they go there. 

That's why they sound like they are playing the same thing. If you had a Trinnov and could do an 8-10 speaker overhead array, then you would definitely hear differences between them because there would be more discrete content for each pair. Sounds extending just above the screen would go to FH but not TF... but if you have to choose one or the other, as you do on any other processor pretty much, then there can't be much differentiation.

Also important to remember that the concept of "height" vs. "overhead" is really a home theater thing. In the commercial Atmos cinema there aren't "height" speakers on the front wall. There is an array of overhead speakers, arrayed in two parallel lines from front to back. They are ALL overhead. Home Atmos just piggybacked on the "Height" speaker location that was already in processor lingo, just like the Front Surround speaker in commercial Atmos piggybacks on the "Front Wide" position we ALL know and love


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dr_Mark said:


> Disk was available for purchase from Dolby. do they have to be given out free to ok to post here? will not post anymore...


Really. I am not saying it must be free. If it is available from Dolby for reasonable price, I am all for it.

Edit; Will appreciate a link for purchase. You can PM me if forum rules do not allow.


----------



## DanGraney

9V7W3 said:


> I also have a Cathedral ceiling in my theatre space.. I did something similar for my 5.2.4 Atmos setup. I used 4 JBL control 1 pro speakers which come with ball joint mounts that screw into the speaker with a standard 1/4" Rod. On the right side I mounted them with just the mount and on the left side where the ceiling was 2 1/2" higher I just got some threaded rod from Home Depot and extended them so they hang at the same level as the right side. I covered the threaded rod with black expandable wire braiding and then ran some black CL2 rated wire along the ceiling and wrapped it around the rod to keep it neat. Turned out great and looks pretty impressive when you walk into the room.


Sweet! I may do this exact thing - could you provide specifics about the rod from Home Depot? I have the same type of ceiling situation.

Thanks in advance!
(Edit: just input "1/4" rod" in the Lowes app and voila! Duh. Thanks again for the creative inspiration.)


----------



## LowellG

aaranddeeman said:


> Please stop posting any information about the Demo disks.
> It's useless for most of the ATMOS enthusiasts (except few lucky ones).
> Until Dolby arranges some decent way to give these demos out, it's of no use.
> It's like you make a fantastic advertisement of your great product and you watch it yourself not letting anyone else. What's the point if it does not reach the potential consumer and customer.
> (Sorry, nothing against you. It's just the frustration Dolby has created for most of us)


I only read this part of your conversation and don't know what disc you are talking about. Just in case you can download some Atmos Demo trailers here.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> As far as any hardware exists outside a cinema-grade CP850, there will be no channel content in any of these extra speakers beyond 7.1 + four heights.


This last sentence is not quite true - the Atmos code will support arrays for the side surrounds. I don't remember the Dolby nomenclature , but a few of those 24 ear-level speakers are Left Surround 1, Left Surround 2, Left Surround 3 etc., and the array of Left Surround speakers can all be fed the Left Surround channel bed.

Obviously a moot point for affordable AVRs, but for Trinnov-class processors used in larger home theaters a useful feature (although last I heard this particular functionality was not yet enabled).


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I will take Dan's side here in the sense of the "importance" of wides -- not in the respect that Sanjay/Scott is talking about (support) but in the respect of CONTENT.
> 
> Bottom line -- there is a lot more shiz happening around you than above you. That's pretty much a fact. It's also a fact that with a 7ch bed layer you are getting NO additional horizontal resolution vs. the standard 7.1 channel based stuff. Which is why all anyone talks about is whether a given movie has overhead sound or not when judging the "quality" of the Atmos mix.
> 
> Several of us have talked offline about how, in theatrical Atmos, those "just off the screen" speakers (the front surrounds / wides and the frontal overheads) are used to "expand" the front soundstage beyond the perimeter of the screen for big explosions, musical scores etc. Star Wars TFA did this a lot in the theaterical Atmos mix -- the score was positioned outside the screen edges to make it seem, um, huger.
> 
> We've also heard about the "Minions" Atmos mix on BD, which has been panned for not having any overhead usage... the mixers talk about how they monitored it with wide speakers and there is a lot of action there. We've heard many anecdotal reports from Atmos home users who have wides installed that they get a lot more action than the overheads.
> 
> Below I link a neat video about the Atmos mix of "Unbroken" (credit to Sanjay for clueing me in on this) where they specifically talk about this usage to "expand" the front soundstage.
> 
> For me, it's a total no brainer that 9.1.4 is better than 7.1.6 if I had to choose. With 4 overheads I'm getting overhead coverage, front to back, left and right... but as I noted above you gain NOTHING over standard 7.1 channel mixes in the horizontal layer. Any of that "expanding the front soundstage" stuff we are discussing, pulling the score outside the screen, you don't get that without those front surrounds because the music is almost certainly "snapping" back to the screen channels (I can't imagine they want the score blasting you from the side surrounds).
> 
> So, while I understand the theoretical reasoning why 6 overheads is more ideal (in front, overhead, and behind) the pratical reality of how content is being delivered makes the wides clearly more beneficial, IMO.


Guess what? You're right. You're right about all of that.

But here's the thing....

In my room, I don't have "gap" or any other separation that I have issue with front main to sides. When something happens off screen, I don't require an actual speaker in that spot for it to sound like it's coming from there. Quite stable, even. I get this kind of imaging throughout my whole system. At least, laterally. There is a clear sonic "anchor" at my front, mid and rear of the room and I get imaging between each set of speaker. Up until recently, I have a HUGE gap above me. Sure, every so often I'd get some obscure height event (think: Master&Commander footsteps) but there wasn't any real imaging there. Now with Atmos, I have a chance. My thoughts and principles tell me I should treat my height portion no different from my "ear level" part of the surround sound system. I want front, middle and rear imaging. Sure, I can get away with four (front and rear) like every one is doing now but ... 

...we're talking about "what _should_ be next?" and my answer is: since I have no desires for more imaging precision on the "ground floor" but I do have that to fix above... I'd rather treat the part above. Only then would I start to consider to expand the capabilities of the lower portion with additional sonic vectors such as the wide speaker.

Feel me? 



batpig said:


> Of course it's largely a moot point, and I think we all agree 9.1.6 is really where it's at on the diminishing returns curve for a "typical" sized HT.


Now there we share common ground.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> This last sentence is not quite true - the Atmos code will support arrays for the side surrounds. I don't remember the Dolby nomenclature , but a few of those 24 ear-level speakers are Left Surround 1, Left Surround 2, Left Surround 3 etc., and the array of Left Surround speakers can all be fed the Left Surround channel bed.
> 
> Obviously a moot point for affordable AVRs, but for Trinnov-class processors used in larger home theaters a useful feature (although last I heard this particular functionality was not yet enabled).


Very true, Dan. Well put.

The code does allow for this but... can you name one non Dolby CP850 Atmos decoder/pre-pro that *exists currently* that can and is actually doing that? 

Have there been any systems set up with a Trinnov that do both channel arrays and object individually addressed speakers using all those speakers?


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> The code does allow for this but... can you name one non Dolby CP850 Atmos decoder/pre-pro that *exists currently* that can and is actually doing that?
> 
> Have there been any systems set up with a Trinnov that do both channel arrays and object individually addressed speakers using all those speakers?


The last I heard even the Trinnov couldn't do it just yet, and Curt was working with Dolby to get that detail enabled. 

But since the OP was asking about the content on the discs, I thought it was worth clarifying that as our home theater capabilities expand we won't have to keep replacing our content - the Dolby Atmos soundtracks on Blu Ray today support all of these nifty possibilities.


----------



## maikeldepotter

rontalley said:


> That's why it doesn't make sense, to me, that FH/RH play the exact same sounds as TF/TR. Unless there is truly only 2 possible layers for Dolby Atmos no matter if Home or Commercial.


Two layers for Dolby Atmos. You got it.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Thanks for that. I have promised myself to hold off on buying anymore Atmos bluray's till i get reviews from here. Considering i have to ship them in i have been disappointed with some movies and felt it wasn't worth the hassle or money spent. If i had just been patient and checked the reviews here i would have saved myself the heartache.


I watched *Sherlock: The Abominable Bride* last night. The sound design is quite aggressive with whooshes and shooshes as the camera cuts from one scene to another used often enough for me to find a little irritating. Bass is strong, deep and well controlled. Dialog is crystal clear. The surrounds are used well. There are explosions and gunshots which will make viewers sit up and take notice, but also small ambient details are well captured, with a good impression of the size and type of environment in which the action is taking place. The scenes in the mortuary (morgue) are good examples.

Atmos fans will be pleased that the user of overheads is considerable throughout the movie. More so than most Hollywood productions to date I'd say, although at times the level (SPL) of the sound emanating from the overhead speakers is very low - so low that one wonders if it would even be audible if the floor level speakers were turned back on. There is a scene where a deranged woman encounters a male character in a maze and the mixer has put all of her voice into the overhead speakers. This seems an odd choice to me as it doesn't tie in with the on-screen image, but it does make for a very strange and eery effect. Towards the end of the movie there is a lengthy scene where water is falling from above for several minutes and this is very well handled by Atmos and is highly immersive. There are numerous other scenes throughout the presentation which make good use of the overheads IMO.

The movie itself is weak and not as good as the films from Seasons 1 to 3 but it is enjoyable enough and the Blu-ray retails for a fairly reasonable price so I have no real complaints. It is presented in 1.85:1 format and is 90 minutes in length.

Here is a short interview with the sound mixers:

https://vimeo.com/151577679


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> That would be nice, and is what I'm hoping for, but... "people who should know" are claiming that you'll just get a blank screen if you try to play a UHD disc and don't have HDCP v2.2 in all of the devices in the chain. Certainly my 1080p TVs and projector don't have it.


That's right. The issue is HDCP more than the downrezzing of the 4k > 1080p. That wasn't a factor when playing a 1080p disc to a 720p display - a simple downres solved that problem.


----------



## Dr_Mark

aaranddeeman said:


> Really. I am not saying it must be free. If it is available from Dolby for reasonable price, I am all for it.
> 
> Edit; Will appreciate a link for purchase. You can PM me if forum rules do not allow.


They had an announcement on the Atmos page in early December. Basically it said, if you are a Dealer sign in here and get one free. If you are a consumer, sign in here and get one for cheap. I don't remember what the cost was. 
My only point was there are now 3 versions of the disk. I know of at least 6 "consumer" friends of mine who have a disk. Steve at Sound Video gives them with a Marantz Pre/Pro. Not sure of any other units he gives a disk with. Also a lot of other dealers give them out with an Atmos unit purchase too. the disk is out there and in some significant numbers. 


Since there are a lot of people with this disk, why not use it or talk about it?


I'm not trying to be confrontational about it, just not sure why a reference disk should be black-listed?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You'd need a new player for the new format, but it should still work with your current projector (of course you'll see it in 1080p).


It won't, unless his PJ has HDCP 2.2. 2.2 is required in every component in the chain if the UHD disc is to display a picture.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Can't imagine any manufacturer deliberately setting themselves up for a customer service/tech support nightmare like that. I can understand not getting full 4K resolution, but a completely blank screen?


Correct. Just like you will get now if you set your Oppo player to a res which your display cannot support. Oppo even specifically tell you in the user manual how to get a picture back, since the screen is blank.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's that little bastard called the Fine Print and one of the finely printed sentences in the Samsung UHD player manual states that under certain circumstances with AACS 2.0 encoded discs and legacy equipment, you may get no video signal.


I'm surprised so many people are surprised that, in certain circumstances, a blank screen is entirely possible. I recall this happening to me when I first installed an Oppo player here. I selected some sort of incompatible combination just to "see what happens" and what happened was the screen went black. I almost panicked, wondering how to get back to where I had been since I now had no way to see what I was doing. Fortunately, Oppo had it covered. All I had to do was observe the unit's front panel display instead of the TV in order to navigate back. So yes, it happens.

What people seem to be missing is that, wrt to UHD and 1080p displays, it isn't a simple downrezzing issue. The main problem is HDCP 2.2 and whether is is supported on every device in the chain. Stoked21 just explained it pretty clearly I think.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> So your saying, If a sound engineer mixed a movie and he put a bid chirping in the back,left, high corner and all I had was TF speakers then that sound would go to the top front left speaker vs the rear left surround?


If all you have is two on-ceiling speakers, you should put them over your head as a Top Middle pair. Then when the scenario you describe happens, the sound of the bird is still over your head and still more or less in the 'right' place.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dolby Atmos Setup Question - Pics Attached 

O.K. - after months of research and much help from the posters on this thread, I've installed additional speakers to move to a Dolby Atmos environment. I've also narrowed down my choice of an AVR - - and after a lot of research the winner is.....SURVEY SAYS..... Denon AVR x6200. Bang for buck, features/benefits and future changes (R.I.P. - David Bowie, a true legend) -- I believe this model really checks all the boxes. Much thanks to JD Smoothie and the fine AVS Forum thread on the Denon models. 

My man cave and situation is a great example of the limitations one has to work with (not my own, which are considerable - thanks Clint) in terms of room size, inability to have ceiling speakers and compromises needed to be made based on my equipment setup - - projector, 100" screen & 65" LCD/LED TV. 

Here are my constraints:

(1) Low ceilings, narrow room. I'm six feet tall and I can touch the ceiling when raising my hand.
(2) Inability to install ceiling speakers - - older house, 1970's, with man cave in basement. Popcorn ceiling.
(3) Limitations on where I can mount the "Height" speakers due to the size of the projection screen (Front Height) and proposed "Top Middle" location due to the beam in front of the seating area and proximity to the seating area. Net-net, I considered all locations and they ended up where they are based on ease of installation and room constraints.
(4) While not optimal, I still believe I can get a very nice immersive sound. Notice the spacing of the speakers. Also - the SSL and SSR are Dipoles - Paradigm ADP-590's. They have worked very well due to the "hot spotting" of previous direct radiating speakers that were used in this location before.
(5) Front Height are Cornered Audio C4's. Top Middle are Cornered Audio C3's. The TM speakers are angled down. The FH speakers are up high, in the corner, angled in to the listening area. The rest are Paradigm as listed in my signature.
(6) Proposed layout is 7.1.4 - - FH/TM. Ability to move to 7.1.6 in the future with Rear Height Atmos speakers.

While not "in line" with the L/R speakers (TM) - this was the only location I could really use effectively. They might look like a classic "Front Wide" layout, but the room is very narrow and the angles & lines are what they are. I have been using DTS Neo X - THX Cinema Mode and have been very happy with the sound. 

Lastly - I will be using my Emotiva XPA-3 to power the L/C/R speakers and I believe that I can direct the amps. on the Denon X6200 to handle the FH/TM, Dolby Atmos "Height" speakers. 

Any thoughts, recommendations, improvements are greatly appreciated. 

Best - Rico


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Now that the Sept 2015 disc is getting out to people, and we are discussing the various channel tones, I would like people to test out a weird behavior that Scott and I have both independently verified.
> 
> We've just talked about about how with the 9.1.6 tones the FW signal "snaps" to the FR/FL speakers, rather than imaging between the Fronts and Surrounds.
> 
> We also know the Top Middle signal plays equally between front+rear overheads (as you'd expect) to create a phantom image overhead. You can hear this in the 9.1.6 and 7.1.2 tracks.
> 
> Basically it appears that, other than the sole exception of the Top Middle speaker, all the channel tones have the "snap to speaker" option checked.
> 
> HOWEVER..... if your Height1 speakers are labeled as "Front Height" rather than "Top Front", and you play the 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 channel tracks, the "Top Front" signal is played by BOTH the Height1 and Height2 speakers. For example, if you have a FH+RH layout, the "Top Front Left" signal will play in BOTH the FHL and RHL speakers.
> 
> For some reason, the sound "leaks" back to the Height2 speaker on that side of the room in this case. Even weirder is that it does NOT happen with the 9.1.6 tones.
> 
> So others who have this disc, check it out. I was talking about this with FilmMixer recently and he seems to agree that something is wonky with the authoring of the disc on that tone.
> 
> Steps to reproduce:
> 
> 1. Use a 4 height speaker layout (Height1 pair + Height2 pair)
> 2. Designate the Height1 speakers as "Front Height"
> 3. Play the "Top Front" signals from either the 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 channel tests.
> 
> You should hear the "Top Front" signal leak to the Height2 speaker on that side of the room.


You remind me that I was going to do this test and forgot all about it. I will do it in the next day or so and report back.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Sherlock: The Abominable Bride* last night. The sound design is quite aggressive with whooshes and shooshes as the camera cuts from one scene to another used often enough for me to find a little irritating. Bass is strong, deep and well controlled. Dialog is crystal clear. The surrounds are used well. There are explosions and gunshots which will make viewers sit up and take notice, but also small ambient details are well captured, with a good impression of the size and type of environment in which the action is taking place. The scenes in the mortuary (morgue) are good examples.
> 
> Atmos fans will be pleased that the user of overheads is considerable throughout the movie. More so than most Hollywood productions to date I'd say, although at times the level (SPL) of the sound emanating from the overhead speakers is very low - so low that one wonders if it would even be audible if the floor level speakers were turned back on. There is a scene where a deranged woman encounters a male character in a maze and the mixer has put all of her voice into the overhead speakers. This seems an odd choice to me as it doesn't tie in with the on-screen image, but it does make for a very strange and eery effect. Towards the end of the movie there is a lengthy scene where water is falling from above for several minutes and this is very well handled by Atmos and is highly immersive. There are numerous other scenes throughout the presentation which make good use of the overheads IMO.
> 
> The movie itself is weak and not as good as the films from Seasons 1 to 3 but it is enjoyable enough and the Blu-ray retails for a fairly reasonable price so I have no real complaints. It is presented in 1.85:1 format and is 90 minutes in length.
> 
> Here is a short interview with the sound mixers:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/151577679


Thanks for that i'll definitely get it now


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Just like you will get now if you set your Oppo player to a res which your display cannot support.


Why would I deliberately set my disc player to an unsupported resolution when it automatically handshakes for the correct resolution?


----------



## tbaucom

sdurani said:


> That would be one approach, but the way Atmos works is that if it cannot get the sound above you at the intended location then it will at least get the sound above you (i.e., it doesn't give up completely and leave that height information in the floor speakers).


I don't mean to come across as rude, but how do you know the details of how atmos decoding works in AVRs? I have read many of your posts and you appear very helpful and knowledgeable. You present yourself as some sort of expert but I have never seen any credentials to back it up. 

I would like to be able to take your word in these instances but from my point of view you are an anonymous internet poster. When I read posts by Roger Dressler or Mark Seaton, I am familiar with there credentials. I know who they are are. This gives their statements more weight.

Do you work in the industry? What is your background? How did you come by this expertise and knowledge?


----------



## FilmMixer

tbaucom said:


> I don't mean to come across as rude, but how do you know the details of how atmos decoding works in AVRs? I have read many of your posts and you appear very helpful and knowledgeable. You present yourself as some sort of expert but I have never seen any credentials to back it up.
> 
> I would like to be able to take your word in these instances but from my point of view you are an anonymous internet poster. When I read posts by Roger Dressler or Mark Seaton, I am familiar with there credentials. I know who they are are. This gives their statements more weight.
> 
> Do you work in the industry? What is your background? How did you come by this expertise and knowledge?


Sanjay can answer for himself about details ...

But you can absolutely trust his "word."


----------



## tbaucom

FilmMixer said:


> Sanjay can answer for himself about details ...
> 
> But you can absolutely trust his "word."


Thank you. I always look forward to reading your insights. If you say his statement is correct that is good enough for me.


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> I don't mean to come across as rude, but how do you know the details of how atmos decoding works in AVRs?


By reading the SDK.


> Do you work in the industry?


From my AVS public profile: Tech Support at ATI.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> The movie itself is weak and not as good as the films from Seasons 1 to 3 but it is enjoyable enough and the Blu-ray retails for a fairly reasonable price so I have no real complaints.


Here we actually have something in common, Keith. I too thought TAB was one of the lesser Sherlock outings. It covered ground we've already covered in previous episodes and didn't really move the main plot from the last series more than a couple inches and played like a tiny teaser for Series 4 (coming in _another_ year's time). 

It's almost like Moffat and Gatiss thought the fans might have forgotten the character and plot points due to the long gap between series and they were more than happy to hit you over the head with them again in a filler episode. And here I thought it would actually be a stand alone period piece... the story was kind of creepy and atmospheric if they had just stayed with it.

Though, I will probably get the Blu-ray since it's better from a story and performance perspective than a lot of Atmos discs in the wild IMHO.


----------



## tbaucom

sdurani said:


> By reading the SDK. From my AVS public profile: Tech Support at ATI.


Thanks.

Since the decoder works in the fashion you described, I would think that listening to an atmos soundtrack with a single pair of overheads designated anything other than top middle could produce a very strange soundfield.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why would I deliberately set my disc player to an unsupported resolution when it automatically handshakes for the correct resolution?


No reason at all. I was commenting on the fact that a blank screen during such operations is not unknown.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Here we actually have something in common, Keith. I too thought TAB was one of the lesser Sherlock outings. It covered ground we've already covered in previous episodes and didn't really move the main plot from the last series more than a couple inches and played like a tiny teaser for Series 4 (coming in _another_ year's time).
> 
> It's almost like Moffat and Gatiss thought the fans might have forgotten the character and plot points due to the long gap between series and they were more than happy to hit you over the head with them again in a filler episode. And here I thought it would actually be a stand alone period piece... the story was kind of creepy and atmospheric if they had just stayed with it.
> 
> Though, I will probably get the Blu-ray since it's better from a story and performance perspective than a lot of Atmos discs in the wild IMHO.


Yes, a rare time when we agree totally on something, Dan  It was enjoyable enough, but some of the exposition was unnecessary as you rightly say. The first 3 seasons were outstanding IMO, and I am looking forward to Season 4. I have all of them on Blu-ray and they have made good discs for them. Seasons 1 and 2 are DD only, with Season 3 being DTS-HD MA and TAB being, of course, Atmos, so a good progression on the sound front. One assumes that Season 4 will have all episodes in Atmos.

IDK when TAB was aired in the States. Here in the UK, the BBC put it out over the Christmas holiday period - it is traditional now in the UK to have a 'ghost story' of some sort on TV at that time of the year. 

I omitted to mention in my short review that the photography is superb throughout TAB, as are the sets and period details, something at which the BBC excels. The acting was first rate too.


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> Since the decoder works in the fashion you described, I would think that listening to an atmos soundtrack with a single pair of overheads designated anything other than top middle could produce a very strange soundfield.


As others have pointed out, changing the designation of a single pair of overheads doesn't change their output, so it doesn't really matter whether you designate them as top middle or something else. 

As for the strange soundfield, you are correct to the extent that some sounds won't image at the intended direction when downmixed to only 2 overheads. But the same thing happens when watching a 7.1 soundtrack downmixed to 2 speakers in a stereo set-up or your TV: sounds intended to come from behind you will instead come from in front of you (the exact opposite direction).


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> reading the SDK


What's an SDK?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> What's an SDK?


Software development kit.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Sherlock: The Abominable Bride* last night. The sound design is quite aggressive with whooshes and shooshes as the camera cuts from one scene to another used often enough for me to find a little irritating. Bass is strong, deep and well controlled. Dialog is crystal clear. The surrounds are used well. There are explosions and gunshots which will make viewers sit up and take notice, but also small ambient details are well captured, with a good impression of the size and type of environment in which the action is taking place. The scenes in the mortuary (morgue) are good examples.


Where do you get this? Is it on disc or is it on Hulu or something like that?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, a rare time when we agree totally on something, Dan  It was enjoyable enough, but some of the exposition was unnecessary as you rightly say. The first 3 seasons were outstanding IMO, and I am looking forward to Season 4. I have all of them on Blu-ray and they have made good discs for them. Seasons 1 and 2 are DD only, with Season 3 being DTS-HD MA and TAB being, of course, Atmos, so a good progression on the sound front. One assumes that Season 4 will have all episodes in Atmos.
> 
> IDK when TAB was aired in the States. Here in the UK, the BBC put it out over the Christmas holiday period - it is traditional now in the UK to have a 'ghost story' of some sort on TV at that time of the year.
> 
> I omitted to mention in my short review that the photography is superb throughout TAB, as are the sets and period details, something at which the BBC excels. The acting was first rate too.


I'm assuming Doctor Who and Sherlock's Christmas Specials received full movie-grade Dolby Atmos mixes because they had short run theatrical releases. Though it would be nice if all episodes moving forward were in Atmos, I'm going to assume they'll switch back to television-grade 5.1 for the remaining stories... until the next theatrical specials. 

The TAB was shown on PBS the same date as the UK since Masterpiece (a co-producer of many larger budget BBC and ITV series) has cut a deal to now get episodes at the same time as the UK rather than us having to wait months later.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Where do you get this? Is it on disc or is it on Hulu or something like that?


On Blu-ray. It was released this week in the UK.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm assuming Doctor Who and Sherlock's Christmas Specials received full movie-grade Dolby Atmos mixes because they had short run theatrical releases. Though it would be nice if all episodes moving forward were in Atmos, I'm going to assume they'll switch back to television-grade 5.1 for the remaining stories... until the next theatrical specials.


I hope not. The BBC used to be one of the great innovators and pioneers in technical advances but these days they seem to lag behind sometimes, so you could be right.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The TAB was shown on PBS the same date as the UK since Masterpiece (a co-producer of many larger budget BBC and ITV series) has cut a deal to now get episodes at the same time as the UK rather than us having to wait months later.


Cool. BTW there is something else we are in total agreement on: no DNR and EE


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> To add to what Sanjay said...
> 
> If you ONLY have one frontal pair of overheads (in any typical processor you are stuck with a front and rear pair) then sounds that are above and in front have to go above and in front of you. So if you've got Front Height they go there, if you've got Top Front they go there.
> 
> That's why they sound like they are playing the same thing. If you had a Trinnov and could do an 8-10 speaker overhead array, then you would definitely hear differences between them because there would be more discrete content for each pair. Sounds extending just above the screen would go to FH but not TF... but if you have to choose one or the other, as you do on any other processor pretty much, then there can't be much differentiation.
> 
> Also important to remember that the concept of "height" vs. "overhead" is really a home theater thing. In the commercial Atmos cinema there aren't "height" speakers on the front wall. There is an array of overhead speakers, arrayed in two parallel lines from front to back. They are ALL overhead. Home Atmos just piggybacked on the "Height" speaker location that was already in processor lingo, just like the Front Surround speaker in commercial Atmos piggybacks on the "Front Wide" position we ALL know and love


All makes sense with that great explanation. So, really in order to get any good use out of FH or RH you need to have at least TF *and* TR installed. Since us common peasant folk can only really get .4 or a phantom .6 setup the real use of FH and/or RH are unobtainable unless you are a nobleman and can afford the big boy stuff!



maikeldepotter said:


> Two layers for Dolby Atmos. You got it.


Yeah, I will concede although I see FH and/or RH as more of a height layer for lateral movement of the front stage or in back of you. Hard to achieve the same effect with overheads. i.e. A creepy ghost scary girl climbing up the wall behind you then onto the ceiling. (Immersive!)



kbarnes701 said:


> If all you have is two on-ceiling speakers, you should put them over your head as a Top Middle pair. Then when the scenario you describe happens, the sound of the bird is still over your head and still more or less in the 'right' place.


My AVR will not even let me do what I described which is, now that I think of it, a good thing. It's either TF(FH)+TR(RH) or TM. Can't do a TM + anything else. This avoids the imaginary issue presented and forces you into a sensible configuration. Yep makes a whole lot of sense now that it has been discussed. I remember pages back several people were upset that they couldn't set their systems up like this... Yet, some AVRs will let you do it anyway. 

All in all, I have definitely learned from this discussion. Ultimately Atmos II will come around where there will be a ear bed, height bed and top layer. Sorta a combination of Auro 3D and Atmos/DTS-X.

9.1.7.6 would be my ultimate setup
.7 would be a height bed above the ear bed
.6 would be 3 sets of overheads

Maybe 2020...Wife will not let me buy another thing until we buy another house.


----------



## stikle

Hey Keith - if you want to order from Amazon US...










I haven't seen it pop up on Amazon.co.uk yet. I was watching for you, but I'll pass that burden back to you.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Hey Keith - if you want to order from Amazon US...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it pop up on Amazon.co.uk yet. I was watching for you, but I'll pass that burden back to you.


Thanks. Problem is, it is Region A locked for Blu-ray. UHD is all region-free so no worries there, but if I went with a region-locked (for Blu-ray) unit, I’d have to keep my multiregion Blu-ray player (Oppo 103) in the rack as well as the UHD player and, ideally, I don't want to do that. HST, I will still need a m/r player to play all my out-of-region discs, so maybe it's not such a bad idea to order from the US after all. I definitely want UHD asap (of course). Then again, it's unlikely UHD discs will be released here until the players are also available. Food for thought though for sure.

EDIT to add: this is the one I really would like to get hold of:

http://news.panasonic.co.uk/pressre...unds-exactly-as-the-director-intended-1286440

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/136...anasonic-enters-4k-disc-market-with-dmp-ub900

http://www.whathifi.com/news/panasonics-4k-blu-ray-player-to-go-sale-in-europe-spring

Apparently it will be available here the same time as the Sammy, but for quite a bit more money.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I was talking about this with FilmMixer recently and he seems to agree that something is wonky with the authoring of the disc on that tone.


Wonky to the extent that it's inconsistent: TF signal snaps in the 9.1.6 track but phantoms in the 7.1.4 track.


----------



## Travis Prange

I asked in another thread and forgive me if it's been mentioned before, but will the UHD combo packs that utilize Atmos include BD's that have Atmos? For instance Ender's Game doesn't have it on the standard BD, but the UHD disc will. Does that mean the BD in that package will too?


----------



## Selden Ball

Travis Prange said:


> I asked in another thread and forgive me if it's been mentioned before, but will the UHD combo packs that utilize Atmos include BD's that have Atmos? For instance Ender's Game doesn't have it on the standard BD, but the UHD disc will. Does that mean the BD in that package will too?


It'll doubtless vary from one studio to another, but for titles that have already been released on BD, my guess is that they'll just include a copy of that previous version. That guess is reinforced by the picture of the preliminary back cover of _The Lego Movie_ which shows the UHD BD to have Atmos but the accompanying BD to have DTS-HD MA. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...itles-will-updated-often-40.html#post40515858


----------



## Travis Prange

Selden Ball said:


> It'll doubtless vary from one studio to another, but for titles that have already been released on BD, my guess is that they'll just include a copy of that previous version. That guess is reinforced by the picture of the preliminary back cover of _The Lego Movie_ which shows the UHD BD to have Atmos but the accompanying BD to have DTS-HD MA. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...itles-will-updated-often-40.html#post40515858


Thanks for the image! That's what I was looking for. I think you're right, I doubt that studios will really add Atmos or DTS:X when applicable to titles they've already released before. I'd like to hope a couple might slip through though, as 4K is a ways off for me (just completing 1.0!). Thanks again.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm assuming Doctor Who and Sherlock's Christmas Specials received full movie-grade Dolby Atmos mixes because they had short run theatrical releases.


The new Imagine Dragons concert is similarly going to be shown in cinemas on March 2nd in 4K and Atmos. Hopefully this bodes well for the BD release, like it did for Doctor Who and Sherlock.


----------



## sdrucker

Selden Ball said:


> It'll doubtless vary from one studio to another, but for titles that have already been released on BD, my guess is that they'll just include a copy of that previous version. That guess is reinforced by the picture of the preliminary back cover of _The Lego Movie_ which shows the UHD BD to have Atmos but the accompanying BD to have DTS-HD MA. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...itles-will-updated-often-40.html#post40515858


The common sense answer - and what I expect to happen now - is that the studios releasing UHD that have otherwise held off offering BDs with Atmos will have a two-tiered product: a premium UHD with Atmos, and a standard BD without Atmos. They'll bundle a BD with the UHD, but that's for other reasons (someone playing the BD on a PC vs. a UHD player). Of course, what we don't know yet is whether studios that have released BDs with Atmos will continue releasing BDs with Atmos, or also reserve it to UHD. 

So far we only have a sample of one to go on, so I wouldn't consign BDs to second-class status WRT 3D audio just yet.


----------



## ahmedreda

I am fine with that but they should include Atmos tracks with regular 3D blurays since there is no 4k 3D. It doesn't have to be one or the other between Atmos and 3D.



sdrucker said:


> The common sense answer - and what I expect to happen now -* is that the studios releasing UHD that have otherwise held off offering BDs with Atmos will have a two-tiered product: a premium UHD with Atmos, and a standard BD without Atmos*. They'll bundle a BD with the UHD, but that's for other reasons (someone playing the BD on a PC vs. a UHD player). Of course, what we don't know yet is whether studios that have released BDs with Atmos will continue releasing BDs with Atmos, or also reserve it to UHD.
> 
> So far we only have a sample of one to go on, so I wouldn't consign BDs to second-class status WRT 3D audio just yet.


----------



## sdrucker

ahmedreda said:


> I am fine with that but they should include Atmos tracks with regular 3D blurays since there is no 4k 3D. It doesn't have to be one or the other between Atmos and 3D.



Nor between BD and UHD. But the market imperative for the studios is to sell product, and their partners on the C/E manufacturer side have an imperative to sell product too. The UHD player from that POV is simply a way to get people to adapt SUHD TVs quicker, and the more you differentiate UHD from BD, the more that's going to happen. It's synergy.


----------



## tyler webb

If you two different sets of speakers (different brands) in my case 4 energy take classic speakers and 4 goldenear supersat 30s. Which speaker set should I use for surrounds and which set for Atmos??


----------



## BigScreen

rontalley said:


> This is what I thought but I tested and tested and tested. Selecting FH plays the exact same sounds as selecting TF. Why is that? Shouldn't FH be more relative to F/L expanding the Front Sound Stage allowing for lateral movement from floor to upper wall?


If you look at Dolby's guidelines for 5.1.4/7.1.4, (pages 18 and 22) you'll notice that there are only two positions for overhead speakers: Front and Rear.









The front overhead speaker can be placed between 30° and 55°. Per Dolby's guidelines, there is no such thing as FH in Atmos for the home in a x.x.4 configuration. 

The oft-referenced Denon speaker configuration (which can be found on page 36 of the Denon AVR-X6200W manual) splits the front overhead speaker placement in Dolby's guideline into two positions, FH (Front Height) and TF (Top Front). The angle for FH is 30°-45° and the angle for TF is 30°-55°.

As far as I can tell from the Yamaha RX-A3050 manual, Yamaha only refers to the overheads as "Front" and "Rear" (page 25) and very little is said about the placement of the overhead speakers. However, I did find that page 136 does mention that you have the ability to specify Front Height, Overhead, or Dolby Enabled SP as the layout for the Front Presence Speakers, which would appear to mirror what Denon is doing with FH and TF (but no angles are specified by Yamaha).

All that said, though, since Dolby doesn't differentiate between wall and ceiling, my guess is that as far as Dolby Atmos is concerned, there is no difference between a speaker placed on the wall at 30° and a speaker placed on the ceiling at 55°.

While it's possible that Denon and Yamaha are differentiating between them and using two front sets of speaker positions in Dolby's 24.1.10 layout (as shown on page 15 of the August 2014 white paper, Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater), comments from people here that have not been able to discern a difference between FH and TF would lead me to believe that there is no difference between how they are being decoded at this time.

Then why specify a difference?

Yamaha has been doing height speakers for a very long time, so it would not surprise me in the least that they would utilize them differently in their own DSP code. The manual does mention on page 78 that Front Height speakers are used to employ Virtual Cinema Front. Since Denon supports Audyssey DSX, which can use front heights/wides, maybe that's where they come into play on those units?


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> As others have pointed out, changing the designation of a single pair of overheads doesn't change their output, so it doesn't really matter whether you designate them as top middle or something else.
> 
> As for the strange soundfield, you are correct to the extent that some sounds won't image at the intended direction when downmixed to only 2 overheads. But the same thing happens when watching a 7.1 soundtrack downmixed to 2 speakers in a stereo set-up or your TV: sounds intended to come from behind you will instead come from in front of you (the exact opposite direction).


Sanjay - if you have a x.4 Dolby Atmos setup (four height channels) - is each height "channel/speaker" getting discrete information from a Dolby Atmos soundtrack? And, is X.4 is current state of home theater Dolby Atmos technology via today's AVR's? I know the Trinnov can provide more "height" locations, but is the sound matrixed like it is when moving from a 5.1 or even a 2.1 sound track to a 7.1 configuration?

Maybe I'm confusing existing technology versus object oriented technology. But the gist of this question is whether the sounds coming from an Atmos track with a HT 7.1.4 setup (and especially the .4 height speakers) are indeed unique, if that makes any sense. 

By the way, one of the unintended consequences/benefits of having my side surrounds up high (small room, cannot get them lower) is that I do get sound from above me with these speakers, albeit "diffused" due to the design of the speaker (Dipole - Paradigm ADP-590's), which was intentionally setup with 7.1 due to "hot spotting" and proximity to the main seating.

Lastly - - I would think that object technology has the ability to work with whatever your speaker setup is and maximize the immersive effect. I believe that is what DTS:X is all about. If I remember correctly, "Front Wides" do not get any sound from a Dolby Atmos mix. I'm not sure if this is true, as well, with DSU. In my configuration, I could easily designate "Front Wides" or "Top Middle" based on the narrowness of my man cave as shown in the Pic below. 

Suggestion on optimal setup for Dolby Atmos? (Speaker designation for the height channels.) Any different for DTS:X ?


----------



## Selden Ball

BigScreen said:


> If you look at Dolby's guidelines for 5.1.4/7.1.4, (pages 18 and 22) you'll notice that there are only two positions for overhead speakers: Front and Rear.


That's somewhat of an exaggeration, since on page 12 of _Dolby Atmos® Home Theater 
Installation Guidelines 
October 2014 _
it says


> Front height mounted speakers
> Most AVRs will support the use of front height (Dolby® Pro Logic® IIz) mounted
> speakers with Dolby Atmos playback; however, Dolby recommends the use of either
> overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to create the most lifelike and enveloping
> audio experience. Front height speakers may be used in conjunction with overhead
> speakers in larger room installations that can support a greater number of
> overhead/height outputs.


----------



## Tnedator

Dr_Mark said:


> I'm not sure if is was posted, the latest ATMOS demo disk is revision Sept 2015. I know of 3 revisions out. Jan 2015 was the second. I had the first but not any longer. So 3 revisions out.


Do you get them from a friendly dealer?


----------



## Dr_Mark

Tnedator said:


> Do you get them from a friendly dealer?


Ver 1 was with my 7702 Marantz Pre/Pro. I don't remember where this one is. I think I gave it away
Ver 2 was with my 8802 Marantz Pre/Pro.
Ver3 was directly from Dolby.


----------



## rontalley

BigScreen said:


> If you look at Dolby's guidelines for 5.1.4/7.1.4, (pages 18 and 22) you'll notice that there are only two positions for overhead speakers: Front and Rear.


Taken from your link:











BigScreen said:


> The front overhead speaker can be placed between 30° and 55°. Per Dolby's guidelines, there is no such thing as FH in Atmos for the home in a x.x.4 configuration.


In a .4 configuration right. However, if you have TF+TR, then you should be able to add FH or RH. The question is, do they work like heights where lateral movement from can be achieved instead of jumping from floor to ceiling?



BigScreen said:


> Yamaha has been doing height speakers for a very long time, so it would not surprise me in the least that they would utilize them differently in their own DSP code. The manual does mention on page 78 that Front Height speakers are used to employ Virtual Cinema Front. Since Denon supports Audyssey DSX, which can use front heights/wides, maybe that's where they come into play on those units?


Yeah, Yamaha specifically states that heights are used in their various DSP modes to change the ambiance of a room and other effects.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Sanjay - if you have a x.4 Dolby Atmos setup (four height channels) - is each height "channel/speaker" getting discrete information from a Dolby Atmos soundtrack?


Yes, discrete to the extent that it's not matrix decoding (e.g., Pro-Logic, Neo:X). If the audio object is large or moving or not at a speaker location, that sound will come from more than one speaker.


> And, is X.4 is current state of home theater Dolby Atmos technology via today's AVR's?


Pretty much. According to a datasheet from circuit board maker Momentum Data Systems, current DSP chips from Texas Instruments can render Atmos to up to 13 speaker locations and DTS:X to up to 11 speaker locations. Don't know about DSP chips from other manufacturers (Cirrus Logic and Analog Devices). Doubt there's enough market pressure for mainstream products to go beyond 11 speakers.


> I know the Trinnov can provide more "height" locations, but is the sound matrixed like it is when moving from a 5.1 or even a 2.1 sound track to a 7.1 configuration?


Sure, converting 5.1 and 2.0 to 7.1 is done via upmixing (like Dolby Surround).


> I would think that object technology has the ability to work with whatever your speaker setup is and maximize the immersive effect. I believe that is what DTS:X is all about.


That's the promise of object-based audio, though it has yet to be implemented the way you described in consumer products. To that end, Atmos is like multiple choice: 34 possible zones, pick the one closest to your actual speaker location. By comparison, DTS really does want a fill-in-the-blank approach, where the actual location of your speakers is input into the rendering engine. Ambitious, and who knows when DTS will be able to accomplish it, but that is their ultimate goal.


> If I remember correctly, "Front Wides" do not get any sound from a Dolby Atmos mix. I'm not sure if this is true, as well, with DSU.


Wides are supported for native Atmos decoding/rendering, but not for DSU.


> Suggestion on optimal setup for Dolby Atmos?


Looking at your pic, can you mount the height speakers on the ceiling?


> Any different for DTS:X ?


A little further away from the walls, but close enough to Atmos that one layout can serve both. Thankfully all three immersive formats use the same floor speaker locations.


----------



## Selden Ball

I'm not Sanjay, but here are my comments 



Ricoflashback said:


> Sanjay - if you have a x.4 Dolby Atmos setup (four height channels) - is each height "channel/speaker" getting discrete information from a Dolby Atmos soundtrack?


 Not from Atmos. Atmos says a sound is coming from a particular (x,y,z) location and optionally includes a "snap to speaker" option telling the decoder to use the single closest speaker instead of phantom imaging the sound's location. The Atmos decoder in the AVR (or pre/pro) then decides which speaker(s) to use.


> And, is X.4 is current state of home theater Dolby Atmos technology via today's AVR's?


 Four overhead speakers is the max supported by AVRs, since Trinnov doesn't make an AVR  Their Altitude32 pre/pro can use all of the 10 overhead speaker positions defined by the home implementation of Atmos.


> I know the Trinnov can provide more "height" locations, but is the sound matrixed like it is when moving from a 5.1 or even a 2.1 sound track to a 7.1 configuration?


 Matrixing is a completely different technology. It's an analog mixing technique which uses phase and amplitude information to (reversibly) mix additional channels into a soundtrack that doesn't have that many. Atmos uses digital metadata to describe which sounds are coming from what direction.



> Maybe I'm confusing existing technology versus object oriented technology. But the gist of this question is whether the sounds coming from an Atmos track with a HT 7.1.4 setup (and especially the .4 height speakers) are indeed unique, if that makes any sense.


 Yes, they are unique. They're delivered in a 7.1 channel "envelope" (either Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus) but the Atmos metadata is used by the decoder to decide which sounds should be deleted from those channels when delivering those sounds to appropriate speaker(s).



> By the way, one of the unintended consequences/benefits of having my side surrounds up high (small room, cannot get them lower) is that I do get sound from above me with these speakers, albeit "diffused" due to the design of the speaker (Dipole - Paradigm ADP-590's), which was intentionally setup with 7.1 due to "hot spotting" and proximity to the main seating.
> 
> Lastly - - I would think that object technology has the ability to work with whatever your speaker setup is and maximize the immersive effect. I believe that is what DTS:X is all about.


And Atmos, too.


> If I remember correctly, "Front Wides" do not get any sound from a Dolby Atmos mix. I'm not sure if this is true, as well, with DSU.


 Unfortunately, you've confused the capabilities of the Atmos decoder with those of the new Dolby Surround upmixer. A lot of people do that. Atmos does use Front Wides, but the upmixer (DSU) can't.


> In my configuration, I could easily designate "Front Wides" or "Top Middle" based on the narrowness of my man cave as shown in the Pic below.
> 
> Suggestion on optimal setup for Dolby Atmos? (Speaker designation for the height channels.) Any different for DTS:X ?


Sticking with your existing speaker locations, I'd suggest changing the designations (and AVR connections) of the SBLRs to be "Surrounds" (SSLR) , the SSLRs to be "Top Middle" (TM) and the TM to be "Front Height" (FH). Using the FH designation allows the front overheads to be used by all of the currently available upmixers in addition to Atmos, Auro3D and DTS:X.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Sanjay - Much thanks for your input. It is greatly appreciated. Please see answers below. I'm sure other folks have room configuration issues. This really helps me understand how to obtain the most immersive environment for Dolby Atmos within my room constraints. 

Quote:_ If I remember correctly, "Front Wides" do not get any sound from a Dolby Atmos mix. I'm not sure if this is true, as well, with DSU._ Wides are supported for native Atmos decoding/rendering, but not for DSU. 

COMMENT: Whoops, got it the other way around. To me, they could be configured as "Front Wides," "Top Middle," or even "Front Height" - Selden's suggestion. 

Quote:_ Suggestion on optimal setup for Dolby Atmos?_ Looking at your pic, can you mount the height speakers on the ceiling? 

COMMENT: Unfortunately, no. Older house (1970) with an add-on finished basement. Lots of insulation, wires & probably beer cans from the original builder and first owner. Loved the earlier comment by one of the AVM posters who commented about Rico's passing away after being exposed to asbestos during his Dolby Atmos retrofit. That's why I keep coming back to the AVS Forum. Where else do you find folks like that! (No asbestos that I know of but not planning to crack that egg.) 

*************************************************************************

Selden - Ditto for you. Much thanks for your observations and Atmos knowledge. It is greatly appreciated. Please see answer below.

Quote:_ In my configuration, I could easily designate "Front Wides" or "Top Middle" based on the narrowness of my man cave as shown in the Pic below. Suggestion on optimal setup for Dolby Atmos? (Speaker designation for the height channels.) Any different for DTS:X ?_ Sticking with your existing speaker locations, I'd suggest changing the designations (and AVR connections) of the SBLRs to be "Surrounds" (SSLR) , the SSLRs to be "Top Middle" (TM) and the TM to be "Front Height" (FH). Using the FH designation allows the front overheads to be used by all of the currently available upmixers in addition to Atmos, Auro3D and DTS:X. 

COMMENT: O.K., I think I follow you. Keep in mind that my current SSLR's are Dipole speakers that would be designated as "Top Middle." Current listing of TM to FH - O.K. - I follow that. What about my existing "Front Height" speakers (or Top Height?) - They are the speakers on the front wall, up high, very close to the end caps of the projector screen. Can they still be used? We're already maxed out on "Atmos Height Speakers." 

To me, if you look at my HT pic, it cries out "Front Wide" and "Front Height" (Top Height - I always get confused with some of the conflicting terminology.) Is this a valid Atmos "Height" configuration?

If I go with "Front Wide," - it will be good for native Dolby Atmos tracks but no DSU. If I go with "Top Middle/Front Height" - would that still work? The TM's would not be directly over me but a little in front of me but with the speaker angled down and tweeter closer to the main listening position (horizontal mounting).

Thx again Sanjay & Selden for your valuable insight.


----------



## batpig

tyler webb said:


> If you two different sets of speakers (different brands) in my case 4 energy take classic speakers and 4 goldenear supersat 30s. Which speaker set should I use for surrounds and which set for Atmos??


If you have to mix, use the better speakers as your base layer and the lesser speakers as overheads. So in your case the Goldenear speakers would be surrounds and the Energy speakers up high.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Unfortunately, no. Older house (1970)...


If you can't mount any of the height speakers on the ceiling, then my only other suggestion would be to move your current front heights from the front tri-corners of the room to the back tri-corners of the room and re-designate them Top Rear. Your current TM speakers aren't above you like they should be, but they are much closer to the Top Front location. If you do the move, then you can have a TF + TR set-up.


----------



## FilmMixer

aaranddeeman said:


> Please stop posting any information about the Demo disks.
> It's useless for most of the ATMOS enthusiasts (except few lucky ones).
> Until Dolby arranges some decent way to give these demos out, it's of no use.
> It's like you make a fantastic advertisement of your great product and you watch it yourself not letting anyone else. What's the point if it does not reach the potential consumer and customer.
> (Sorry, nothing against you. It's just the frustration Dolby has created for most of us)


So let me say a couple of things....

One of the reasons that Dolby can't sell these discs is because of the use of licensed film and video clips that they don't hold distribution rights to....

They acquired such clips to be used only for demo purposes at trade shows and by dealers....

In addition, Dolby isn't a company that is setup to direct sell to consumers... it's expensive to setup a store front, etc... but again, they can't sell certain demo discs because of licensing issues...

I have some connections at the company...

And I've been after them for a long time to figure out a solution to offer the discs to those that want them...

Same holds true for any other company.. DTS and Auro... anyone using licensed materials.. they can't direct sell or distribute to consumers..

All that being said...

I've been after them to figure out some solutions..

In response, and after a long time working with them, I finally have a very limited number of discs that I can help to find a new home..

These are brand new pressings (with some minor "bug" fixes) of the disc they produced for CEDIA 2015...

It is a _*fantastic*_ disc..

Some great audio only demos... AND HAS TEST TONES...

Here is the track listing...



> Video Clip:
> Introducing Dolby Atmos For The Home
> 
> Trailers:
> Amaze
> Audiosphere
> Horizon
> Leaf
> Shattered
> 
> Movies & TV:
> Game Of Thrones
> Insurgent
> John Wick
> Jupiter Ascending
> Mad Max: Fury Road
> Transformers: Age Of Extinction
> Unbroken
> 
> Audio Only:
> 747 Takeoff
> Helicopter Demo
> The Encounter
> Rainstorm
> Santeria
> 
> Music:
> Makoto Nakura – Ciaccona From Partita II
> Def Tech – Marathon (Japanese)
> Philharmonia Baroque – Haydn Symphonies
> Cappella SF – Dance
> Sammi Cheng – Prologue (Cantonese)
> Enrique Iglesias – Bailando
> 
> Sports:
> On Any Sunday: The Next Chapter
> Red Bull F1
> Where The Trail Ends
> 
> Video Games:
> Star Wars Battlefront
> 
> Test Tones:
> Test Tones 5.1.2
> Test Tones 5.1.4
> Test Tones 7.1.2
> Test Tones 7.1.4
> Test Tones 9.1.6


So here's the rub....

I only have a handful (as you can see by the picture...)

It will require a signed agreement not to copy or reproduce, nor to sell/resell the discs at any time... and will only be for the CONUS/Lower 48... 

I'm going to figure out a fun, fair way to distribute these to a couple of you lucky AVS'ers in the next couple of days... 

Until then... PLEASE... NO DIRECT PM's OR REQUESTS ON THIS THREAD.. 

I'll be back...


----------



## dvdwilly3

FilmMixer said:


> So let me say a couple of things....
> 
> One of the reasons that Dolby can't sell these discs is because of the use of licensed film and video clips that they don't hold distribution rights to....
> 
> They acquired such clips to be used only for demo purposes at trade shows and by dealers....
> 
> In addition, Dolby isn't a company that is setup to direct sell to consumers... it's expensive to setup a store front, etc... but again, they can't sell certain demo discs because of licensing issues...
> 
> I have some connections at the company...
> 
> And I've been after them for a long time to figure out a solution to offer the discs to those that want them...
> 
> Same holds true for any other company.. DTS and Auro... anyone using licensed materials.. they can't direct sell or distribute to consumers..
> 
> All that being said...
> 
> I've been after them to figure out some solutions..
> 
> In response, and after a long time working with them, I finally have a very limited number of discs that I can help to find a new home..
> 
> These are brand new pressings (with some minor "bug" fixes) of the disc they produced for CEDIA 2015...
> 
> It is a _*fantastic*_ disc..
> 
> Some great audio only demos... AND HAS TEST TONES...
> 
> Here is the track listing...
> 
> 
> 
> So here's the rub....
> 
> I only have a handful (as you can see by the picture...)
> 
> It will require a signed agreement not to copy or reproduce, nor to sell/resell the discs at any time... and will only be for the CONUS/Lower 48...
> 
> I'm going to figure out a fun, fair way to distribute these to a couple of you lucky AVS'ers in the next couple of days...
> 
> Until then... PLEASE... NO DIRECT PM's OR REQUESTS ON THIS THREAD..
> 
> I'll be back...


Sign me up...or line me up...or whatever, please!


----------



## batpig

Marc you are going to be a popular guy 

That disc (I'm one of the lucky ones to have it already) is awesome. The Audiosphere demo is my favorite of all the short Atmos trailers. And the SW Battlefront clip is mind blowing. 

The 747 takeoff is pretty sweet too


----------



## Natrix1973

dvdwilly3 said:


> Sign me up...or line me up...or whatever, please!


Marc said no requests in this thread....you are out of the running!!!!


----------



## AllenA07

As much as I would like the 2015 demo disc, I've got the 2014 one and a DTS: X disc. I'll refrain from getting greedy, and hopefully snag a 2015 disc later this year at CEDIA.


----------



## GoCaboNow

Anyone see the movie DEVIL? Fantastic sounding movie!! I can't wait to watch it again on my new ATMOS capable system. New AVR (Thanks JD!) and top front and top rear speakers in the ceiling. (Thanks DIY SOUNDGROUP!) Sure, it was a lot of work cutting holes through three layers of ceiling, but am almost done and looking forward to sitting down for some good immersive content!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Audiospheres is my new favorite too. Thought my favorite audio only clip is Encounter. That's a fun one!


----------



## Prime316

I asked this here earlier but didn't get a valid response...


Can someone compare the add-on speakers for atmos?


I have the Pioneer version but am wondering if the Def Techs or Klipsch are a lot better. I can tell you, the Pioneers are doing a thing for me beyond making the front soundstage sound better. Nothing overhead.


----------



## FilmMixer

GoCaboNow said:


> Anyone see the movie DEVIL? Fantastic sounding movie!!


Thank you. I'm very proud of that mix


----------



## DaGamePimp

batpig said:


> Marc you are going to be a popular guy
> 
> That disc (I'm one of the lucky ones to have it already) is awesome. The Audiosphere demo is my favorite of all the short Atmos trailers. *And the SW Battlefront clip is mind blowing. *
> 
> The 747 takeoff is pretty sweet too



I would be very happy if the Battlefront clip was available somewhere since I am considering buying the PC version for Atmos alone (already bought the PS4 version). Is there a way to get just that demo clip?


Thank you, very much appreciated.
Jason


----------



## Shniks

FilmMixer said:


> Thank you. I'm very proud of that mix



Did you mix that? I love the mix and I am probably one of the few people that really liked that movie too. I think it is severely under-rated. Great job on the mix. 


Cheers,


----------



## BigScreen

Selden Ball said:


> That's somewhat of an exaggeration, since on page 12 of _Dolby Atmos® Home Theater
> Installation Guidelines
> October 2014 _
> it says:
> Front height mounted speakers
> Most AVRs will support the use of front height (Dolby® Pro Logic® IIz) mounted speakers with Dolby Atmos playback; however, Dolby recommends the use of either overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to create the most lifelike and enveloping audio experience. Front height speakers may be used in conjunction with overhead speakers in larger room installations that can support a greater number of overhead/height outputs.​


No exaggeration, but rather a direct interpretation of the guidelines. 

Are there any mainstream AVRs that decode ProLogic IIz? They go on to encourage overhead placement instead of on the front wall 
"Dolby recommends the use of either overhead or Dolby Atmos enabled speakers to create the most lifelike and enveloping audio experience"​The last sentence probably generated some confusion, as no mainstream AVR can support more than four overhead speakers at once. Maybe they were referring to having FH and TM/TR?

Either way, it doesn't disagree with my interpretation. If Front Height speakers are between 30°-55° they fall into the range for Dolby's Front Overhead position.


----------



## BigScreen

rontalley said:


> Taken from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a .4 configuration right. However, if you have TF+TR, then you should be able to add FH or RH. The question is, do they work like heights where lateral movement from can be achieved instead of jumping from floor to ceiling?


That's the 24.1.10 layout that I was referring to. No mainstream AVR can decode that layout. That's why the diagram on pages 18 and 22 show you what a x.x.4 configuration looks like. My guess is the front two positions are combined into the 30° and 55° range that is available in the Front Overhead position of the x.x.4 configuration.

To my knowledge, no mainstream AVR allows you to specify "FH and TF" or "TR and RH" as positions for overhead speakers.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Marc you are going to be a popular guy


Yeah, but he's not going to fall for the old "your mix sounds so awesome" line. Or will he?


----------



## aaranddeeman

FilmMixer said:


> So let me say a couple of things....
> 
> One of the reasons that Dolby can't sell these discs is because of the use of licensed film and video clips that they don't hold distribution rights to....
> 
> They acquired such clips to be used only for demo purposes at trade shows and by dealers....
> 
> In addition, Dolby isn't a company that is setup to direct sell to consumers... it's expensive to setup a store front, etc... but again, they can't sell certain demo discs because of licensing issues...
> 
> I have some connections at the company...
> 
> And I've been after them for a long time to figure out a solution to offer the discs to those that want them...
> 
> Same holds true for any other company.. DTS and Auro... anyone using licensed materials.. they can't direct sell or distribute to consumers..
> 
> All that being said...
> 
> I've been after them to figure out some solutions..
> 
> In response, and after a long time working with them, I finally have a very limited number of discs that I can help to find a new home..
> 
> These are brand new pressings (with some minor "bug" fixes) of the disc they produced for CEDIA 2015...
> 
> It is a _*fantastic*_ disc..
> 
> Some great audio only demos... AND HAS TEST TONES...
> 
> Here is the track listing...
> 
> 
> 
> So here's the rub....
> 
> I only have a handful (as you can see by the picture...)
> 
> It will require a signed agreement not to copy or reproduce, nor to sell/resell the discs at any time... and will only be for the CONUS/Lower 48...
> 
> I'm going to figure out a fun, fair way to distribute these to a couple of you lucky AVS'ers in the next couple of days...
> 
> Until then... PLEASE... NO DIRECT PM's OR REQUESTS ON THIS THREAD..
> 
> I'll be back...


Thank you so much Marc.
I salute you for your efforts for us AVSers.
Hope I make it to your list. 
Thanks a (1.5 billion)..


----------



## tjenkins95

For those who have not heard, if you are interested in a 30% off coupon to purchase a movie on blu-ray or UHD, 
if you sign up for the FoxConnect Newsletter, Fox will give you a coupon to purchase one of their movies from their online store. 
https://www.foxconnect.com/

I just ordered The Kingsman for $18.00 with free shipping!


Ray


----------



## lujan

sdurani said:


> Yeah, but he's not going to fall for the old "your mix sounds so awesome" line. Or will he?


I wonder how he's going to decide who to distribute them to?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tjenkins95 said:


> For those who have not heard, if you are interested in a 30% off coupon to purchase a movie on blu-ray or UHD,
> if you sign up for the FoxConnect Newsletter, Fox will give you a coupon to purchase one of their movies from their online store.
> https://www.foxconnect.com/
> 
> I just ordered The Kingsman for $18.00 with free shipping!
> 
> 
> Ray


Haven't seen it yet, but _The Peanuts Movie_ is also being released on UHD Blu-ray. No specs. on the audio from Fox yet. I'm hoping for Atmos on all of them.

How the heck did you get free shipping? Did you order more than one?


----------



## tjenkins95

Dan Hitchman said:


> Haven't seen it yet, but _The Peanuts Movie_ is also being released on UHD Blu-ray. No specs. on the audio from Fox yet. I'm hoping for Atmos on all of them.
> 
> How the heck did you get free shipping? Did you order more than one?


 
Nope - I just ordered the one movie for $18 and it said free shipping.


----------



## kingwiggi

tjenkins95 said:


> For those who have not heard, if you are interested in a 30% off coupon to purchase a movie on blu-ray or UHD,
> if you sign up for the FoxConnect Newsletter, Fox will give you a coupon to purchase one of their movies from their online store.
> https://www.foxconnect.com/
> 
> I just ordered The Kingsman for $18.00 with free shipping!
> 
> 
> Ray


Thanks for the tip

3 UHD's for $54.58 inc shipping, good way to start my collection


----------



## dvdwilly3

Natrix1973 said:


> Marc said no requests in this thread....you are out of the running!!!!


Hmmm...win some, lose some. Would have been nice.

I am among those who would be willing to actually pay if someone were actually selling...


----------



## Jive Turkey

FilmMixer said:


> I'm going to figure out a fun, fair way to distribute these to a couple of you lucky AVS'ers in the next couple of days...
> 
> Until then... PLEASE... NO DIRECT PM's OR REQUESTS ON THIS THREAD..
> 
> I'll be back...


I think I just pee'd a little.


----------



## Waboman

Looking at UHD titles on Fox Connect and I'm not seeing any listed with immersive audio.


----------



## Stoked21

Thanks @tjenkins95!

Sucker for Life of Pi. Really too bad there's no 3D 4K as the 3D in that movies is great. Better yet would be an Atmos mix. $18.19 free shipping. 

Looks like they only had about 12 UHD discs on the site. I clicked through all of them and searched for audio. Many do not have the UHD disc audio labeled. You could also run through the Blu-Ray disc (in the triple packs) and view the audio. All that were listed were DD 5.1 or DTS-HD. None were Atmos. 

Thanks for the link still!


----------



## dormie1360

sdurani said:


> Yeah, but he's not going to fall for the old "your mix sounds so awesome" line. Or will he?


He's not going to fall for that crap.

BTW, We Were Soldiers is one of my goto audio demo disks.


----------



## Daemun

Hi all, I'm trying to setup a atmos 7.1.4 at home and after blowing my budget on my receiver and fronts I'm left with a very limited budget for the atmos positions. Secondly I have a vaulted ceiling so my only choices would be to mount them high on the side walls for all 4 "atmos" speakers. 

My question is:
1. How important is the quality of the 4 atmos speakers? To give an idea of what I'm working with this is my current 7.1 setup. 

2x energy rc-70 (lr) 
Energy rc-lcr (c) 
Polk rti8 (surrounds) 
Klipsch rs 3 in (back surrounds) 
Outlaw x12 ultra sub

As my budget is destroyed I'm thinking of getting some cheap satellites to mount, maybe some harman kardon as they are very cheap. I know this won't give the optimal experience, but given that it's mostly for ambient effects would it be serviceable? Or would it detract away from the experience? 

2. I know wall mounting speakers isn't technically atmos "spec". Will I get the desired effect from wall mounting 4 speakers relatively high up (12 feet ish) and pointed down? They will be mounted about 45 degrees forward and 45 degrees back from the seating area (unless there's a better arramgement) 

Thanks for your help atmos gurus!


----------



## Selden Ball

BigScreen said:


> No exaggeration, but rather a direct interpretation of the guidelines.
> 
> Are there any mainstream AVRs that decode ProLogic IIz?


 Yes. Yamaha still provides it in addition to DSU, and (although it's not a mainstream AVR) the literature for the upcoming McIntosh MX122 pre/pro claims that it will, too.


----------



## 9V7W3

Daemun said:


> Hi all, I'm trying to setup a atmos 7.1.4 at home and after blowing my budget on my receiver and fronts I'm left with a very limited budget for the atmos positions. Secondly I have a vaulted ceiling so my only choices would be to mount them high on the side walls for all 4 "atmos" speakers.
> 
> My question is:
> 1. How important is the quality of the 4 atmos speakers? To give an idea of what I'm working with this is my current 7.1 setup.
> 
> 2x energy rc-70 (lr)
> Energy rc-lcr (c)
> Polk rti8 (surrounds)
> Klipsch rs 3 in (back surrounds)
> Outlaw x12 ultra sub
> 
> As my budget is destroyed I'm thinking of getting some cheap satellites to mount, maybe some harman kardon as they are very cheap. I know this won't give the optimal experience, but given that it's mostly for ambient effects would it be serviceable? Or would it detract away from the experience?
> 
> 2. I know wall mounting speakers isn't technically atmos "spec". Will I get the desired effect from wall mounting 4 speakers relatively high up (12 feet ish) and pointed down? They will be mounted about 45 degrees forward and 45 degrees back from the seating area (unless there's a better arramgement)
> 
> Thanks for your help atmos gurus!


Well IMO I think as long as the speakers you use for the height channels are powerful or resilient enough to keep up with the rest of your system at the same maximum output levels you intend to listen at then you should be happy with them. I would just look for a speaker with a decent mid/high and power rating for what you can afford. Remember they're going to be smaller speakers no matter what so your sub is going to take care of the low end for them assuming you have them crossed over high enough. I have a friend I help set up a system for who blew all his change on his receiver and bought some $50 no name outdoor speaker pairs for his height channels but his stage setup was pretty solid and quality speakers and honestly I thought it really didn't sound that bad at all. Not saying buy garbage, but it's probably not as critical as you think. I would say the placement is probably a lot more important than anything. 

That being said, even though you have a vaulted ceiling it could still be possible to mount the height speakers in an optimal location if you don't mind getting creative. Whether it works for you or not is totally an opinion (I know my wife wasn't happy at first when she saw them haha) but I just installed my height speakers on my ceiling by hanging them from threaded rod so they all are hanging level. My room is also a little unorthodox since it's very short and my couch has to be up against my back wall so don't mind the placement as much but you can get the idea.


----------



## jpco

Selden Ball said:


> Yes. Yamaha still provides it in addition to DSU, and (although it's not a mainstream AVR) the literature for the upcoming McIntosh MX122 pre/pro claims that it will, too.



Yamaha has PLIIx, but not z.


----------



## sdurani

Waboman said:


> Looking at UHD titles on Fox Connect and I'm not seeing any listed with immersive audio.


Any? Could Fox have decided not to release their Atmos mixes after all?


----------



## drwho099

Wondering if I could get a few suggestions for (non-Atmos) movie scenes for use to test-out different surround L/R speaker positions, in advance of getting my Atmos equipment setup.

I'm switching my side surround speakers from dipoles to directs, and have a couple of different side locations (neither ideal vs the guidelines) to try out in my 7.1.4 setup. I"m not asking for placement suggestions, just good content to use for comparison of new side positions in the 7.1 subset.

thanks in advance


----------



## sdurani

lujan said:


> I wonder how he's going to decide who to distribute them to?


I was wondering the same thing until he sent me a pic of himself posing next to his new toy:


----------



## Waboman

sdurani said:


> Any? Could Fox have decided not to release their Atmos mixes after all?


Of the titles they listed the audio of, none were immersive. They had other titles that had no audio listing at all. So there's a chance those will get the immersive love. 



sdurani said:


> I was wondering the same thing until he sent me a pic of himself posing next to his new toy:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Lol. Price is Right rules, FM. Wheel has to go all the way around.


----------



## 9V7W3

Waboman said:


> Of the titles they listed the audio of, none were immersive. They had other titles that had no audio listing at all. So there's a chance those will get the immersive love.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Price is Right rules, FM. Wheel has to go all the way around.


I think he should play plinko for them instead.. Everyones name at the bottom in the slots..


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> One of the reasons that Dolby can't sell these discs is because of the use of licensed film and video clips that they don't hold distribution rights to....
> 
> They acquired such clips to be used only for demo purposes at trade shows and by dealers....
> ... AND HAS TEST TONES...


It's beyond me why Dolby doesn't offer these test tones as a download form their site. Can't imagine someone holds the rights for those pink noise mixes.


----------



## sdurani

Waboman said:


> Of the titles they listed the audio of, none were immersive. They had other titles that had no audio listing at all. So there's a chance those will get the immersive love.


If those non-immersive titles were immersive in theatrical release, then that doesn't bode well for Fox's UHD launch titles. I'm typically not a pessimist, but I'm going to assume Fox is (again) holding back on releasing their Atmos mixes until I see otherwise.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> It's beyond me why Dolby doesn't offer these test tones as a download form their site. Can't imagine someone holds the rights for those pink noise mixes.


Because they also don't want to provide tech support for a download. 

It's offers no benefit over the pink noise in the AVR.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Because they also don't want to provide tech support for a download.


They don't need to if they don't want to speak to us ugly consumers. Hand that part to a site like AVS.



FilmMixer said:


> It's offers no benefit over the pink noise in the AVR.


It does because the signal goes through the decoder and renderer. The AVR test signal does not.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> They don't need to if they don't want to speak to us ugly consumers. Hand that part to a site like AVS.
> 
> It does because the signal goes through the decoder and renderer. The AVR test signal does not.


It's not anti consumer Markus.... The comment "ugly" customers is an unfair descriptor for how they view their user base. 

You know as well as I do that if they provide a download link for a file and customers can't get it to download, or burn a disc, or properly format a USB drive....... Why open yourself up as a company to such headaches. 

Doesn't matter. 

The files and discs aren't available to the general public. 

Being critical of them as a company doesn't change the fact that 99.9999% of users have no practical utility for such tones in proper setup of their rooms...


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> It's not anti consumer Markus.... The comment "ugly" customers is an unfair descriptor for how they view their user base.
> 
> You know as well as I do that if they provide a download link for a file and customers can't get it to download, or burn a disc, or properly format a USB drive....... Why open yourself up as a company to such headaches.
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The files and discs aren't available to the general public.


If devices were bug free and users wouldn't make mistakes in setting them up then it wouldn't matter. We both know that this is not the case. That's why having test files matters.



FilmMixer said:


> Being critical of them as a company doesn't change the fact that 99.9999% of users have no practical utility for such tones in proper setup of their rooms...


In that case there shouldn't be a support nightmare waiting for them by making those test files available to the public. Again, for the remaining 0.0001% of users (in marketing speak called "multipliers") they could make them available through a 3rd party that also does the support. I'm pretty sure AVS or similar would host the files. Support is available through the forum.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Dolby has submitted a paper to ITU describing a baseline renderer aimed at home use. It tells a little about how the renderer thinks. Here's a short excerpt:
> 
> >>3.2.1 Rendering point objects
> The purpose of the point panner is to calculate a gain coefficient for each speaker in the output speaker layout, given an object position.
> 
> With regards to speaker layout, the point panner requires that the following conditions are satisfied in order to be able to accurately place a phantom image of the object anywhere in the room:
> -- The speakers must be grouped into one or more discrete planes in the z-dimension.
> -- The speakers on each plane must be grouped into one or more discrete rows in the y-dimension.
> -- There must be two or more speakers on every row and there must be speakers at ������=1 and ������=−1.
> -- Every speaker location must lie on the surface of the room cube, that is, either on the floor, ceiling, or walls.


----------



## Lesmor

*If* and when DTS:X Neural:X appears will it be the subject of a new thread or be shared here?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The new Imagine Dragons concert is similarly going to be shown in cinemas on March 2nd in 4K and Atmos. Hopefully this bodes well for the BD release, like it did for Doctor Who and Sherlock.


There's a press screening in London in early February but I am not sure I can make it. I will attend if I can and report back to the thread. It looks to be a pretty stunning presentation.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Any? Could Fox have decided not to release their Atmos mixes after all?


Why would they do that if the mixes are already made?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If those non-immersive titles were immersive in theatrical release, then that doesn't bode well for Fox's UHD launch titles. I'm typically not a pessimist, but I'm going to assume Fox is (again) holding back on releasing their Atmos mixes until I see otherwise.


Seems a strange decision though on the face of it. Holding back while waiting for UHD made sense - kick off the new format with amazing PQ as well as amazing SQ all on one disc. But what could they be waiting for now?


----------



## audioguy

As long as Dolby continues to create Atmos Demo Discs, there is one thing that would be super great for me: Instead of pink or white or some other kind of test signal noise, a full frequency sweep would be awesome for all channels. There is currently no easy way to run sweeps through the height/ceiling speakers as REW only provides 8 channels of sweeps. It would facilitate pre and post room correction analysis, accurately setting of PEQ filters where that is an option, running signal sweeps comparing all channels smoothed responses for much more accurately setting trims than using the traditional "noise" on either the current Demo disc or traditional AVR's/SSP's.

If I can dream about winning the $1.5 Billion Lottery, I can dream about this as well. And no, I did not win the Lottery because apparently you actually have to enter to win - only very, very slightly increasing the probability that actually you would win.


----------



## Stoked21

audioguy said:


> If I can dream about winning the $1.5 Billion Lottery, I can dream about this as well. And no, I did not win the Lottery because apparently you actually have to enter to win - only very, very slightly increasing the probability that actually you would win.


Man I really did win the lottery last night. 

I'm going to pickup my $4 this weekend. 
I think FilmMixer probably has a better lottery than that!!!


----------



## aaranddeeman

markus767 said:


> It's beyond me why Dolby doesn't offer these test tones as a download form their site. Can't imagine someone holds the rights for those pink noise mixes.


Yup. Absolutely. That's exactly what I kept harping when I send emails after emails to Dolby. Just give me that freaking test tone file and then get on with your life.. But..


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> As long as Dolby continues to create Atmos Demo Discs, there is one thing that would be super great for me: Instead of pink or white or some other kind of test signal noise, a full frequency sweep would be awesome for all channels.


Yep, that's a great idea. Right now you have to connect your top surrounds to channels your measuring software can "reach". Major PITA.


----------



## BB1111

Got my 5.1.2 setup up and running today with in-ceiling speakers and it's pretty sweet. The front sound stage has opened up dramatically, I used the 2014 Atmos Demo discs to test and the bird / leaves flying around the front part of the room, the F1 car echoing through the tunnel and the classical performance in a music hall (?) were really awesome experiences.

I'm really considering adding another set of speakers and doing 5.1.4 now to complete the bubble. If I add the atmos modules in the back will they have a similar effect as the in-ceilings?


----------



## Tnedator

drwho099 said:


> Wondering if I could get a few suggestions for (non-Atmos) movie scenes for use to test-out different surround L/R speaker positions, in advance of getting my Atmos equipment setup.
> 
> I'm switching my side surround speakers from dipoles to directs, and have a couple of different side locations (neither ideal vs the guidelines) to try out in my 7.1.4 setup. I"m not asking for placement suggestions, just good content to use for comparison of new side positions in the 7.1 subset.
> 
> thanks in advance


One scene that I think would be worth watching is the scene Book of Eli when they are shooting the Gatling gun out of the back of the box truck at the house. Actually, starting a little before that, when they shoot the RPG, and then through finishing the Gatling. It's a scene with a lot of action, and changing perception as the main bad guy (drawing a blank on who it was -- the commissioner in recent Batmans -- turns in different directions). 

It's the first one that comes to mind as a good non Atmos scene. It's one of the scenes Adam Pelz showed me after calibrating my theater.


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> Yep, that's a great idea. Right now you have to connect your top surrounds to channels your measuring software can "reach". Major PITA.


Unfortunately, that only allows measurement pre-correction, since Audyssey and Dirac correct input channels not physical output channels. The Datasat has the ability to do so buy purchasing the cable(s) that allow access to all 16 (digital) input channels. But first you get to spend $23,000 !!!


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Unfortunately, that only allows measurement pre-correction, since Audyssey and Dirac correct input channels not physical output channels.


Well, you can run the correction and measure but you have to do it in two steps. Major PITA.


----------



## urbeenjammin

I'm sure it's been asked before but I would like to know anyway, can you use surround speakers as Atmos speakers by laying it on a flat surface with the woofers pointing upwards? I'll be doing this for the rear Atmos speakers.


----------



## scarabaeus

markus767 said:


> Yep, that's a great idea. Right now you have to connect your top surrounds to channels your measuring software can "reach". Major PITA.





audioguy said:


> Unfortunately, that only allows measurement pre-correction, since Audyssey and Dirac correct input channels not physical output channels. The Datasat has the ability to do so buy purchasing the cable(s) that allow access to all 16 (digital) input channels. But first you get to spend $23,000 !!!


I have an even better idea: Add Atmos encoding support to the REW software. Shouldn't be impossible, if PC video games can do it. Use a single object with speaker snap, and you are set.


----------



## Selden Ball

urbeenjammin said:


> I'm sure it's been asked before but I would like to know anyway, can you use surround speakers as Atmos speakers by laying it on a flat surface with the woofers pointing upwards? I'll be doing this for the rear Atmos speakers.


It works, but not as well as speakers designed to do it. "Dolby enabled" speakers include a patented frequency shaping circuit which reinforces the "overheadness" of the sounds. This helps to mitigate the distraction of the sounds that you hear coming directly from the speakers.

You also should make sure that Audyssey (or other roomEQ) is turned on, since that also includes some frequency shaping for the speaker channels designated as "Dolby enabled". (If the roomEQ didn't include that feature, it would intentionally flatten out and eliminate the frequency shaping provided in real "Dolby enabled" speakers.)


----------



## markus767

scarabaeus said:


> I have an even better idea: Add Atmos encoding support to the REW software. Shouldn't be impossible, if PC video games can do it. Use a single object with speaker snap, and you are set.


Do you pay for the Dolby licensing fees this would require?


----------



## markus767

urbeenjammin said:


> I'm sure it's been asked before but I would like to know anyway, can you use surround speakers as Atmos speakers by laying it on a flat surface with the woofers pointing upwards? I'll be doing this for the rear Atmos speakers.


It works. Whether the "patented frequency shaping circuit" is necessary or not is open for debate.


----------



## DoctorVideo

Out of the currently available Blu-Rays with Dolby Atmos, which ones do you all think make the best use of the Atmos channels? The only one I currently own is San Andreas, which has great audio, but has practically nothing going on in the overheads. I would not normally buy any of the others, but I need a really good Atmos demo.


----------



## Shniks

DoctorVideo said:


> Out of the currently available Blu-Rays with Dolby Atmos, which ones do you all think make the best use of the Atmos channels? The only one I currently own is San Andreas, which has great audio, but has practically nothing going on in the overheads. I would not normally buy any of the others, but I need a really good Atmos demo.


Gravity (Diamond Luxe edition) is pretty awesome with discrete sounds from all the speakers.


Cheers,


----------



## batpig

Two flicks which ironically weren't originally mixed in Atmos have a ton of overhead action -- John Wick and The Fifth Element. And both are good movies to boot.


----------



## blastermaster

Just watched Insurgent last night for the first time in Atmos. Holy crap that movie is awful, but wow the Atmos mix I find to be really incredible. There were numerous times where Kate Winslet's character was talking and her voice was just "out there" and the speakers disappeared - no localization, just sound all around. It's funny because I've heard a lot of people complain about their overhead speakers not having a lot of activity during Atmos movies, but every single time I've gone to check if anything is going on, there's always sound coming out of them. I find that the addition of the ceiling speakers, especially the top fronts has really made the mains disappear (in a good way) and allowed the sound to be anywhere and everywhere in the volume of space in front of me. 

I can't wait to see what becomes of Atmos movies once mixers truly get a handle on what they can do with the technology. Now, I have got almost 200 Blu movies to go watch in DSU. I'm so glad it's winter and I've got an excuse to stay inside!


----------



## kbarnes701

DoctorVideo said:


> Out of the currently available Blu-Rays with Dolby Atmos, which ones do you all think make the best use of the Atmos channels? The only one I currently own is San Andreas, which has great audio, but has practically nothing going on in the overheads. I would not normally buy any of the others, but I need a really good Atmos demo.


*Enchanted Kingdom* is very good, if you like nature documentaries.


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> J I find that the addition of the ceiling speakers, especially the top fronts has really made the mains disappear (in a good way) and allowed the sound to be anywhere and everywhere in the volume of space in front of me.


I find the same. It is uncanny. There are no speakers anywhere - just sounds appearing and disappearing, moving here and there, above me, around me, everywhere. When I am watching a movie I can't see any speakers so there are no visual clues as to where they are located anyway, but nowadays they simply 'cease to exist'.


----------



## trevrox

Do the speakers have to be "in-ceiling"? Are there any good speakers for overhead to attach ON the ceiling from the outside? Too difficult to get inside mine


----------



## audioguy

scarabaeus said:


> I have an even better idea: Add Atmos encoding support to the REW software. Shouldn't be impossible, if PC video games can do it. Use a single object with speaker snap, and you are set.


Excellent. I guess we need to send a note to the REW forum.


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> Well, you can run the correction and measure but you have to do it in two steps. Major PITA.


Unless you know something I don't (very likely), I'm not sure how you can measure a ceiling speaker with it's filter applied. If you move one of the ceiling speakers from it's normal output connector to one of the channel outputs that can be measured, you will be applying the filter from the real measurable speaker to one of the ceiling sealers and you get the wrong answer;

If you know how to do this even if it is two steps, I'm all ears!!


----------



## AllenA07

trevrox said:


> Do the speakers have to be "in-ceiling"? Are there any good speakers for overhead to attach ON the ceiling from the outside? Too difficult to get inside mine


Take a look at my theater (link in my signature) for a few pics of what I did. I'm using SVS Prime Satellite speakers mounted to the ceiling using brackets meant for hanging Satellite speakers. It isn't as pretty as in-ceiling speakers, but I can assure you that my setup works well. The biggest challenge I encountered with on-ceiling speakers as opposed to in-ceiling is what to do with the wires. I didn't come up with a great solution, but I figure that when my theater is dark, people can't tell that it is kind of ugly.


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Unless you know something I don't (very likely), I'm not sure how you can measure a ceiling speaker with it's filter applied. If you move one of the ceiling speakers from it's normal output connector to one of the channel outputs that can be measured, you will be applying the filter from the real measurable speaker to one of the ceiling sealers and you get the wrong answer;
> 
> If you know how to do this even if it is two steps, I'm all ears!!


The Dolby-enabled filter is in the speaker. So any room correction will remove it (Audyssey will reapply it later). So you can do before/after measurements when connecting top surrounds on the satellite outputs with the exception of MultEQ. But even in the case of MultEQ you can do basic evaluations. By the way, the most important one is probably delay which can't be measured when the test signal is coming from a disc because there's no timing reference between the player and the measuring software.

Best case would be the measuring software being able to send a test signal to any speaker over HDMI but this is not going to happen because of Dolby licensing fees.
Another solution would be the AVR/processor providing a specific measuring signal input that could be routed to any speaker within the AVR/processor. Any manufacturers listening?


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> The Dolby-enabled filter is in the speaker. So any room correction will remove it (Audyssey will reapply it later). So you can do before/after measurements when connecting top surrounds on the satellite outputs with the exception of MultEQ. But even in the case of MultEQ you can do basic evaluations. By the way, the most important one is probably delay which can't be measured when the test signal is coming from a disc because there's no timing reference between the player and the measuring software.
> 
> Best case would be the measuring software being able to send a test signal to any speaker over HDMI but this is not going to happen because of Dolby licensing fees.
> Another solution would be the AVR/processor providing a specific measuring signal input that could be routed to any speaker within the AVR/processor. Any manufacturers listening?


  Actually, you can measure and adjust delays. Delay is adjustable with OmniMic but only for a 5.1 setup (it provides a disc). It allows you to run two speakers at the same time (front left plus one more), compare the two impulse responses and adjust the delay of the one speaker up or down until the two impulse peaks line up. Works like a champ. 



I was not talking about Dolby enabled filters but rather Dirac or Audyssey filters. 



Every AVR/SSP system I am familiar with that generates test signals does so with the correction filters disabled.


----------



## Nalleh

FilmMixer said:


> AND HAS TEST TONES...
> 
> So here's the rub....
> 
> I only have a handful (as you can see by the picture...)
> 
> It will require a signed agreement not to copy or reproduce, nor to sell/resell the discs at any time... and will only be for the CONUS/Lower 48...
> 
> I'm going to figure out a fun, fair way to distribute these to a couple of you lucky AVS'ers in the next couple of days...
> 
> Until then... PLEASE... NO DIRECT PM's OR REQUESTS ON THIS THREAD..
> 
> I'll be back...


Please put me on the list  It would be cool to test those 9.1.6 tones on my Franken setup 

(I have a US adress, in case)


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> I find the same. It is uncanny. There are no speakers anywhere - just sounds appearing and disappearing, moving here and there, above me, around me, everywhere. When I am watching a movie I can't see any speakers so there are no visual clues as to where they are located anyway, but nowadays they simply 'cease to exist'.


This has been the best thing I've seen so far with Atmos. Often times I find it impossible to figure out what speakers sound is coming from. The scene at the very beginning of Mad Max with all the whispers (which incidentally, after hearing at CEDIA convinced me that I wanted Atmos) really shows off just how great imaging can be with this technology.

I think Atmos has a lot of hurdles to jump to become something that is mainstream, but when well implemented it's almost impossible to debate how big of an impact it has on the overall sound of a system.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I find the same. It is uncanny. There are no speakers anywhere - just sounds appearing and disappearing, moving here and there, above me, around me, everywhere. When I am watching a movie I can't see any speakers so there are no visual clues as to where they are located anyway, but nowadays they simply 'cease to exist'.


You know you are succeeding in HT when your system sounds like this.


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Actually, you can measure and adjust delays. Delay is adjustable with OmniMic but only for a 5.1 setup (it provides a disc). It allows you to run two speakers at the same time (front left plus one more), compare the two impulse responses and adjust the delay of the one speaker up or down until the two impulse peaks line up. Works like a champ.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about Dolby enabled filters but rather Dirac or Audyssey filters.
> 
> 
> 
> Every AVR/SSP system I am familiar with that generates test signals does so with the correction filters disabled.


So what exactly is it you're struggling with?

First connect the top surrounds to some floor speaker outputs, run calibration and measure. Include one satellite speaker as the reference – L for example. Now connect the satellites to the correct outputs, run calibration and measure. Now you should have all the data you need.


----------



## BigScreen

Selden Ball said:


> > Are there any mainstream AVRs that decode ProLogic IIz?
> 
> Yes. Yamaha still provides it in addition to DSU, and (although it's not a mainstream AVR) the literature for the upcoming McIntosh MX122 pre/pro claims that it will, too.


The specs for the RX-A3050 do not list ProLogic IIz as a format. Page 79 of the manual shows PLII and PLIIx, neither of which will use overhead/presence speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No PL2z on any Yamaha.

PL2x or Dolby Surround are your choices.


----------



## bjhess

blastermaster said:


> Just watched Insurgent last night for the first time in Atmos. Holy crap that movie is awful, but wow the Atmos mix I find to be really incredible.


Heh. I like to see these sorts of honest thoughts.

I set up Atmos in a 5.1.2 configuration in the past month. At that time I started keeping a digital note of all the Atmos-capable BDs. I really went overboard as I wanted to see all the Atmos content I could. Thankfully now I'm pulling back a bit and trying to find things I actually want to watch as a movie *plus* have impressive audio qualities. Hopefully there'll always be enough movies that hit on both marks to keep me busy for a good while.

Though I will say that the production itself (audio and video) weighs into my opinion of a movie. So there is room for mediocre content being "saved" for me by great production.

*tl; dnr*: Trying not to spend my time on low-quality content in order to experience high-quality production.


----------



## SeanCJ

I have been reading through this thread for days now. I'm very grateful to all of you for the information and recommendations you've all added here. I'm hooked on this Atmos sound system and am looking forward to installing my new ceiling speakers this weekend. I was lucky to find a clearance Yamaha 2040 at Best Buy to replace my old, but still going strong, Onkyo 805 receiver. 
I would be grateful to be considered for the new demo disc give away. My wife is not convinced that cutting holes in the ceiling is a good idea. I'd like as much 'proof' as possible that it is indeed a good idea that will enhance our movie watching experience.


----------



## SeanCJ

I thought I'd ask this hear since it is directly related to the Atmos sound field I'm hoping to create. I have 4 Axiom QS8's as surrounds, 2 side, and 2 rear. They were installed 8' high (12' ceilings) many years ago when I first set up my home theater. Due to windows, I can not lower them to ear height otherwise I would. I'm contemplating tilting them, but I just read a post recently on another forum that Dipole/Bipole speakers do not need to be, should not be, tilted. 
Any thoughts on this?
Also, has anyone increased the db level of their surrounds significantly higher than what their YPAO recommends in order to get a better, more immersive, sound field?
Thanks!
Sean


----------



## dianebrat

trevrox said:


> Do the speakers have to be "in-ceiling"? Are there any good speakers for overhead to attach ON the ceiling from the outside? Too difficult to get inside mine


No, on is fine, it's the location, I was able to get away with 2 up on top of high bookcases pointed down at the MLP and they're not perfect, but they're certainly close enough.

Granted it's not for purists, but you can fudge a lot and still get decent results.


----------



## stikle

SeanCJ said:


> Also, has anyone increased the db level of their surrounds significantly higher than what their YPAO recommends in order to get a better, more immersive, sound field?



You don't really want to do that. YPAO is going to set levels and distances as they should be. If you start raising your levels arbitrarily, then you throw that balance out of whack. You DON'T want to be able to hear the different speakers due to higher levels.

This will result in a WORSE and LESS immersive sound field, not better.

Your speakers should disappear into the room and all you hear is sound.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Any? Could Fox have decided not to release their Atmos mixes after all?



Fox Connect just ported the stats from the Blu-rays. Those are not the official specs.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> Please put me on the list  It would be cool to test those 9.1.6 tones on my Franken setup
> 
> (I have a US adress, in case)


You have to be resident of US..


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> I find the same. It is uncanny. There are no speakers anywhere - just sounds appearing and disappearing, moving here and there, above me, around me, everywhere. When I am watching a movie I can't see any speakers so there are no visual clues as to where they are located anyway, but nowadays they simply 'cease to exist'.


 Well said Keith! for me that's the most profound benefit of "Immersive audio" simply lost in a true monsoon of sound and 7.1.4 has done it!

On another note, DSU and Maze Runner 2 Scorched Trials showcased an outstanding integration of sound


----------



## Lesmor

aaranddeeman said:


> You have to be resident of US..


I can certainly understand it if that is indeed the case, which will exclude those of us from the UK


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> You have to be resident of US..


Why?


----------



## Nalleh

tjenkins95 said:


> For those who have not heard, if you are interested in a 30% off coupon to purchase a movie on blu-ray or UHD,
> if you sign up for the FoxConnect Newsletter, Fox will give you a coupon to purchase one of their movies from their online store.
> https://www.foxconnect.com/
> 
> I just ordered The Kingsman for $18.00 with free shipping!
> 
> 
> Ray


Where did you find info about that newsletter coupon?

Edit: found it


----------



## Al Sherwood

tjenkins95 said:


> For those who have not heard, if you are interested in a 30% off coupon to purchase a movie on blu-ray or UHD,
> if you sign up for the FoxConnect Newsletter, Fox will give you a coupon to purchase one of their movies from their online store.
> https://www.foxconnect.com/
> 
> I just ordered The Kingsman for $18.00 with free shipping!
> 
> 
> Ray


Unless I misunderstand the version you ordered, I see that the BD version of Kingsman is available on Amazon.ca for on $9.99... http://www.amazon.ca/Kingsman-Secre...=UTF8&qid=1452818099&sr=8-1&keywords=kingsman


----------



## healthnut

SeanCJ said:


> I thought I'd ask this hear since it is directly related to the Atmos sound field I'm hoping to create. I have 4 Axiom QS8's as surrounds, 2 side, and 2 rear. They were installed 8' high (12' ceilings) many years ago when I first set up my home theater. Due to windows, I can not lower them to ear height otherwise I would. I'm contemplating tilting them, but I just read a post recently on another forum that Dipole/Bipole speakers do not need to be, should not be, tilted.
> Any thoughts on this?
> Also, has anyone increased the db level of their surrounds significantly higher than what their YPAO recommends in order to get a better, more immersive, sound field?
> Thanks!
> Sean



I have these speakers also, but Dolby recommends point source speakers (not dipoles, triples or quadrapoles, as the Axioms are). Another option, assuming you want to continue using them, is to mount them on stands, roughly 4 ft high and you could move them as necessary when watching movies. Best of luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

trevrox said:


> Do the speakers have to be "in-ceiling"? Are there any good speakers for overhead to attach ON the ceiling from the outside? Too difficult to get inside mine


I am using Goldenear Technology Supersat 3s on Definitive Technology Promount 90s as my Top Rear. They are mounted right under the ceiling and they are excellent.

What are your main speakers?


----------



## tjenkins95

Shniks said:


> Did you mix that? I love the mix and I am probably one of the few people that really liked that movie too. I think it is severely under-rated. Great job on the mix.
> Cheers,


 
I also own a blu-ray copy of *Devil* and definitely enjoy watching the movie! I like horror movies when they are done well and have a great soundtrack.


----------



## marcdorfman

stikle said:


> You don't really want to do that. YPAO is going to set levels and distances as they should be. If you start raising your levels arbitrarily, then you throw that balance out of whack. You DON'T want to be able to hear the different speakers due to higher levels.
> 
> This will result in a WORSE and LESS immersive sound field, not better.
> 
> Your speakers should disappear into the room and all you hear is sound.


Your advice would seem logical except if you read the Sound and Vision review of the Pioneer Elite SP-EBS73-LR Speaker system (posted 2/12/15) you will see a differing opinion. In that review Andrew Jones suggested boosting the height speaker "between 1.5 and 3 decibels over the basic speaker settings" . Now this advice was specifically for the Atmos enabled speakers that he designed and calibrated using MCACC (not YPAO) and may not directly correlate with your situation. However, the assumption that the calibration settings our receivers measure will give us the absolutely best sound field, may or may not be correct. Perhaps judicious use of our own ears might be warranted at times too.


----------



## 9V7W3

kbarnes701 said:


> I find the same. It is uncanny. There are no speakers anywhere - just sounds appearing and disappearing, moving here and there, above me, around me, everywhere. When I am watching a movie I can't see any speakers so there are no visual clues as to where they are located anyway, but nowadays they simply 'cease to exist'.


And this was the exact intent of Atmos.. Not to be so blatantly obvious that you are constantly able to pick what sound came out of which speaker but to make you feel like you're actually IN the environment that you're witnessing with your eyeballs.. If you can consistently pinpoint the exact speaker or location of every sound coming from your overheads something is either not calibrated right or speakers are placed incorrectly in the room.


----------



## retro124

Anybody here have experience with RF-7II's system and on top of them RP-140sa? If si how do they work together? are RP-140sa a good Atmos speakers?

Thanks


----------



## audioguy

stikle said:


> You don't really want to do that. YPAO is going to set levels and distances as they should be. If you start raising your levels arbitrarily, then you throw that balance out of whack. You DON'T want to be able to hear the different speakers due to higher levels.
> 
> This will result in a WORSE and LESS immersive sound field, not better.
> 
> Your speakers should disappear into the room and all you hear is sound.


I have a different view. Well before Atmos, my rear surrounds [I have sides and rears] have been about 3 db hot. And I GUARANTEE that you can not "hear" them. My front ceiling speakers ar set at 2 db hot and my rears ceilling speakers are at 3db hot --- and I GUARANTEE you can not hear them either. 

Maybe each room is different becasue in my room, doing what I did, it easily increased the immersive sound field. Experimentation is the key [my speakers are mounted ON the ceiling].


----------



## cyclones22

retro124 said:


> Anybody here have experience with RF-7II's system and on top of them RP-140sa? If si how do they work together? are RP-140sa a good Atmos speakers?
> 
> Thanks


I do. They work great. That being said, my system really came alive when I retired my wides and replaced my 2 RS-62IIs surrounds with 2 RP-280FAs. It was a ridiculously big upgrade.


----------



## retro124

cyclones22 said:


> I do. They work great. That being said, my system really came alive when I retired my wides and replaced my 2 RS-62IIs surrounds with 2 RP-280FAs. It was a ridiculously big upgrade.


Thanks for response. I'm thinking to get them I was just expecting Klipsch would offer them also in bigger size when 4" woofer. I'mreading a lot positive to move to Atmos. 
Would you mind to send me picture of your RF-7II and rp-140sa on top, no hurry just when and if you can, thanks


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> I have a different view. Well before Atmos, my rear surrounds [I have sides and rears] have been about 3 db hot. And I GUARANTEE that you can not "hear" them. My front ceiling speakers ar set at 2 db hot and my rears ceilling speakers are at 3db hot --- and I GUARANTEE you can not hear them either.
> 
> Maybe each room is different becasue in my room, doing what I did, it easily increased the immersive sound field. Experimentation is the key [my speakers are mounted ON the ceiling].


Might just show that level calibration based on steady-state pink noise measurements are flawed.


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> Might just show that level calibration based on steady-state pink noise measurements are flawed.


Could be which is exactly why I want to be able to run frequency sweeps for the ceiling speakers. But as for my rear speakers, they are calibrated with frequency sweeps (through the filters) and I still prefer them a bit hot.


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Could be which is exactly why I want to be able to run frequency sweeps for the ceiling speakers. But as for my rear speakers, they are calibrated with frequency sweeps (through the filters) and I still prefer them a bit hot.


Yep. An AVR/processor that provides a measurement signal input (and return for timing reference) which can be routed to any speaker would be very desirable.


----------



## tjenkins95

Al Sherwood said:


> Unless I misunderstand the version you ordered, I see that the BD version of Kingsman is available on Amazon.ca for on $9.99... http://www.amazon.ca/Kingsman-Secre...=UTF8&qid=1452818099&sr=8-1&keywords=kingsman


I ordered a copy of the new 4K UHD version which will be released on March 1st.


----------



## Rixxx

*Height speaker placement for 5.2?*

Here's what I have.....

I have read to put the height speakers in front...in back....and directly overhead. Which is correct? Installer will be here in less than an hr.

thanks!!


----------



## urbeenjammin

Is the Denon 4200 the only 7.2 receiver that can accommodate a 5.2.4 atmos set up with a 2 channel amp?

P.S.
Looking for other 7.2 receivers that can do the same...


----------



## Lesmor

Rixxx said:


> Here's what I have.....
> 
> I have read to put the height speakers in front...in back....and directly overhead. Which is correct? Installer will be here in less than an hr.
> 
> thanks!!


If those red dots are the proposed location I certainly wouldn't put then there.
They need to be forward of the couch in line with the L/R Speakers.
How far forward depends on the ceiling height from your ears when seated.


----------



## BigScreen

sdurani said:


> > Looking at UHD titles on Fox Connect and I'm not seeing any listed with immersive audio.
> 
> Any? Could Fox have decided not to release their Atmos mixes after all?


I pre-ordered 4K UHD versions of The Martian and The Peanuts Movie from foxconnect.com, and then contact them to find out more details (a little backwards, but I figured I had plenty of time to cancel the order).

For what it's worth, I did get a response about the details for The Martian. However, what they sent was a copy of what's on the detail page, and I don't have confidence that this wasn't just a copy-and-paste job gone wrong. I sent a reply asking for confirmation that the 3D version of the movie is included along with the 2D version of the movie on 1080p HD Blu-ray as well as the 4K UHD Blu-ray (which presumably contains just the 2D version, but you wouldn't know it from the details they are providing). 

I don't expect to get anything more useful than what they've already sent. It's unfortunate, but not unexpected, that these kinds of issues are coming up with a new format. The fulfillment business is just trying to sell SKUs and this new format is not what they're used to. It's a lost opportunity, as it would only take a little extra work to provide really good, thorough, and detailed information about what buyers can expect to receive for their $25.99.

I have also contacted someone in marketing at Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment who should be able to get the details we're looking for. I'll pass along any information I receive that's useful.

My prediction: The Martian and The Peanuts Movie will come out on 4K UHD with non-immersive soundtracks. But with the 30% promotion, the end price comes out lower than (or equal to) the current promotional prices for the HD Blu-ray packages, so the only downside is that they aren't being released until after the HD Blu-ray release dates.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> My prediction: The Martian and The Peanuts Movie will come out on 4K UHD with non-immersive soundtracks.


I'm guessing that as well. Considering 'The Martian' had a 2K digital intermediate, what is the UHD offering? Doesn't come from a 4K source, isn't in 3D, doesn't have its immersive mix; is HDR the main benefit? 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/


----------



## Scott Simonian

And all there is is the HDR encoded video, I ain't buying it. Seen it in HDR at the cinema and there really was no extended dynamic range nor have I seen any in the movies presented in HDR. They aren't using the extended range much if at all.

So if there is no immersive audio = no UHD purchase for meez


----------



## markus767

No money from me either.

My priority list:
1. Atmos
2. 4k
3. HDR


----------



## Waboman

Yup, save your money and immersive yourself in a deep dish pizza pie.


----------



## markus767

That's exactly what is going to happen in 20 minutes.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> They aren't using the extended range much if at all.


Reminds me of Atmos: trailer gives a better idea of the technology than anything in the movie (the Dolby Cinema trailer was the only time I saw what HDR was really capable of).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Reminds me of Atmos: trailer gives a better idea of the technology than anything in the movie (the Dolby Cinema trailer was the only time I saw what HDR was really capable of).


Exactly.

So far of all the HDR movies I've seen with you, I can think of one scene from one movie where _maybe_ there was some use of extended dynamic range and it was that single 'totally-shot-for-HDR-demo' shot from Tomorrowland. You know which one. Beyond that? Nothing. Nada. 

Atmos has done better. Even though I usually walk away slightly disappointed (showing at AMC Prime) with the Atmos, I still do get a sense at the least that what I just experienced was something *more* than just 5/7.1 audio.

Not HDR, so far. 

However, I believe fully that it is a feature that will make a big difference in presentation. Whenever filmmakers actually want to use it. I think it's like early surround sound or 3D or Atmos. They don't know how to use it yet.


----------



## Rixxx

Lesmor said:


> If those red dots are the proposed location I certainly wouldn't put then there.
> They need to be forward of the couch in line with the L/R Speakers.
> How far forward depends on the ceiling height from your ears when seated.


Turns out that when the house was wired, they did it as a 5.1 It was supposed to be 5.1.2

The ceiling wiring runs down to the rear surrounds...same wire. the overhead and rears are the same. In ceiling ATMOS is impossible. Call to installer coming... 

thanks for the help.


----------



## Steve Goff

sdurani said:


> I'm guessing that as well. Considering 'The Martian' had a 2K digital intermediate, what is the UHD offering? Doesn't come from a 4K source, isn't in 3D, doesn't have its immersive mix; is HDR the main benefit?
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/



They seem to say they are going back to the Red raw footage when they can for the 4K HDR, but the statement is vague and special effects are 2k.


----------



## Al Sherwood

sdurani said:


> I'm guessing that as well. Considering 'The Martian' had a 2K digital intermediate, what is the UHD offering? Doesn't come from a 4K source, isn't in 3D, doesn't have its immersive mix; is HDR the main benefit?
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/


WOW!

After reading that bit of information, it would seem we are a ways from seeing true end-to-end 4K content in the home... 

I was worried about buying movies that might soon be available in 4K, however, if I can get a movie for less ten $10 that I would like to see I I don't think I will be waiting for now.


----------



## Nabs17

Al Sherwood said:


> WOW!
> 
> After reading that bit of information, it would seem we are a ways from seeing true end-to-end 4K content in the home...
> 
> I was worried about buying movies that might soon be available in 4K, however, if I can get a movie for less ten $10 that I would like to see I I don't think I will be waiting for now.


Which is why I'm perfectly happy waiting a bit for 4k...I don't feel the need to rush in but I couldn't wait for Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Steve Goff said:


> They seem to say they are going back to the Red raw footage when they can for the 4K HDR, but the statement is vague and special effects are 2k.


From the description, resolution comes from upconverting the 2K DI but grading (dynamic range and colour) is based on the raw Red footage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. Atmos alone will get me buying UHD discs. I really don't care about 4K as I use front projection and the only real 4K projectors out on the market are near $10k. NO!!!

So Atmos will be the only reason to purchase for this new format for myself and several others I know.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Exactly.
> 
> So far of all the HDR movies I've seen with you, I can think of one scene from one movie where _maybe_ there was some use of extended dynamic range and it was that single 'totally-shot-for-HDR-demo' shot from Tomorrowland. You know which one. Beyond that? Nothing. Nada.
> 
> Atmos has done better. Even though I usually walk away slightly disappointed (showing at AMC Prime) with the Atmos, I still do get a sense at the least that what I just experienced was something *more* than just 5/7.1 audio.
> 
> Not HDR, so far.
> 
> However, I believe fully that it is a feature that will make a big difference in presentation. Whenever filmmakers actually want to use it. I think it's like early surround sound or 3D or Atmos. They don't know how to use it yet.


Well, there's simply too much variance in how picture and sound get reproduced in cinemas that would make those advancements in dynamic range or immersion clearly visible/audible. There need to be better standards but some things simply aren't fixable (like channel-based mixes that need to work over a huge listening area).


----------



## Travis Prange

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. Atmos alone will get me buying UHD discs. I really don't care about 4K as I use front projection and the only real 4K projectors out on the market are near $10k. NO!!!
> 
> So Atmos will be the only reason to purchase for this new format for myself and several others I know.


Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I am interested in the Atmos side as well. I have a PJ that is not 4K, so even if I get a UHD player, I assume I will not be able to play the content regardless?

I primarily want Atmos and don't have an issue with buying the combo packs (I did the same before upgrading to Blu-Ray). Perhaps I will need to rely on ripping the disc with audio and playing that way? I don't mind not having 4K but I do want Atmos if regular BD's will not support it (such as Ender's Game, maybe Star Wars?).


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. Atmos alone will get me buying UHD discs. I really don't care about 4K as I use front projection and the only real 4K projectors out on the market are near $10k. NO!!!
> 
> So Atmos will be the only reason to purchase for this new format for myself and several others I know.


If you buy UHD for the Atmos track, and don't have a UHD TV Or projector, how can you watch it?


----------



## KennyLSU

Nalleh said:


> If you buy UHD for the Atmos track, and don't have a UHD TV Or projector, how can you watch it?


I think he may be like others and hoping that the non UHD version will include the atmos track. I'm one of the others hoping for this as I also use front projection and have no intent on upgrading to a 4K projector anytime soon.


----------



## Travis Prange

KennyLSU said:


> I think he may be like others and hoping that the non UHD version will include the atmos track. I'm one of the others hoping for this as I also use front projection and have no intent on upgrading to a 4K projector anytime soon.


As much as I want this I can't possibly think that studios will be gracious enough to do this. Want Atmos? Buy 4K equipment. At least that's where I think they're going with it...I hope UHD isn't the death of Atmos (or 3D) on BD.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Travis Prange said:


> Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I am interested in the Atmos side as well. I have a PJ that is not 4K, so even if I get a UHD player, I assume I will not be able to play the content regardless?
> 
> I primarily want Atmos and don't have an issue with buying the combo packs (I did the same before upgrading to Blu-Ray). Perhaps I will need to rely on ripping the disc with audio and playing that way? I don't mind not having 4K but I do want Atmos if regular BD's will not support it (such as Ender's Game, maybe Star Wars?).


Honestly, I don't know. And really neither does anybody else. We can speculate (AND WE ALL WILL) about this and that and if this is going to work or not. Blah blah blah.

Don't care.

Won't care until real people buy a real product and try their movie purchase on their system. Until then, we don't know for sure if those without 4K display technology can enjoy the new releases just for the audio, alone. 



KennyLSU said:


> I think he may be like others and hoping that the non UHD version will include the atmos track. I'm one of the others hoping for this as I also use front projection and have no intent on upgrading to a 4K projector anytime soon.


No, I don't. I have NO expectation that the "regular" BD included with a UHD purchase will have immersive audio (assuming the "regular" non-UHD version didn't) on it. I fully expect the BD included will be identical to the non-UHD SKU of said movie.

I would buy the UHD version, playback the UHD, all for the Atmos audio. No interest in the enhanced picture, for now.


----------



## rontalley

Nalleh said:


> If you buy UHD for the Atmos track, and don't have a UHD TV Or projector, how can you watch it?


I wonder will you be able to rip your UHD to MKV like you can with BD? 
If so, I wonder can you downscale to 1080p? 
I wonder what's the typical file size of a UHD?
Wouldn't UHD players have the ability to downscale? 
HD Fury seems like a solution if one is not offered by the player itself.

Just seems stupid "unfair" for those who are not needing 4K and enjoying Atmos on BD to not be able to do so once UHD hits...I understand that they have to get us to constantly buy consumer electronics but to force such an issue seems like it will lead to viewer movies being purchased.

Regarding your setup:
Dual Atmos Receivers
Atmos 9.1.8/Auro 3D 12.1
-Denon AVR X7200W+AVR X5200W-Emotiva XPA5

How are you achieving this?


----------



## Stoked21

Nabs17 said:


> Which is why I'm perfectly happy waiting a bit for 4k...I don't feel the need to rush in but I couldn't wait for Atmos.


I've already bought one 4k movie. The biggest issue I have is what Scott and others have eluded too. We don't know what titles do or will have Atmos. I'd rather have my immersive audio than worry about HDR. My pj is only pseudo-4k with e-shift so I'm not sure exactly how much I would gain anyway. Couple that with lack of UHD players, especially ones that offer Vudu and Amazon, and lack of Dolby Vision support.....I'll likely wait until late this year and hope Oppo puts a nice one out.

I am however switching over to 4K discs where it makes sense...buying the ones that do have Atmos and buying regular BD if it's the only Atmos option available. Might as well try to avoid the double-dipping where it's possible. Even if you pay more now for a non-utilized UHD HDR feature, it will save you in the long run.

EDIT: I am fully 2.2 compliant, so I know I'll be able to downscale UHD discs. It doesn't matter to me whether the BD discs do or do not have Atmos metadata. I can play either way.


----------



## Stoked21

I think D&M were suppose to release DTS:X for 8802 and some other units this week, right?

Anybody download the FW update and experiment with it yet?

My 7702mk2 isn't scheduled until early March.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> If you buy UHD for the Atmos track, and don't have a UHD TV Or projector, how can you watch it?


Some people believe that the UHD player will downrez and down-HDCP the UHD disc so that it will play on a 1080p display. Others (me included) believe that UHD discs will not play unless HDCP 2.2 is in every component in the chain. Pick your poison.

For those in the latter camp, there is the HD Fury Integral which converts HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 and should therefore allow the content to play on a display which only has HDCP 1.4. (If the Fury is put between the UHD player and the AVR/display).

For clarification: if the Fury is placed after the UHD player, it will convert HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 and then send that on to the display (directly or via the AVR). By selecting 1080p as the output of the player (permitted according to the Samsung player user guide) one has then assured a 1080p output which has HDCP 1.4. It is hard to see how this could not work, but so far nobody is able to prove the concept because nobody yet has a UHD player or disc.


----------



## Nalleh

rontalley said:


> .
> 
> Regarding your setup:
> Dual Atmos Receivers
> Atmos 9.1.8/Auro 3D 12.1
> -Denon AVR X7200W+AVR X5200W-Emotiva XPA5
> 
> How are you achieving this?


Here is how i did it:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-601.html#post30961698

And pictures:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-37.html#post31169602


----------



## healthnut

kbarnes701 said:


> Some people believe that the UHD player will downrez and down-HDCP the UHD disc so that it will play on a 1080p display. Others (me included) believe that UHD discs will not play unless HDCP 2.2 is in every component in the chain. Pick your poison.
> 
> For those in the latter camp, there is the HD Fury Integral which converts HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 and should therefore allow the content to play on a display which only has HDCP 1.4. (If the Fury is put between the UHD player and the AVR/display).
> 
> For clarification: if the Fury is placed after the UHD player, it will convert HDCP 2.2 to HDCP 1.4 and then send that on to the display (directly or via the AVR). By selecting 1080p as the output of the player (permitted according to the Samsung player user guide) one has then assured a 1080p output which has HDCP 1.4. It is hard to see how this could not work, but so far nobody is able to prove the concept because nobody yet has a UHD player or disc.



Sounds great for those of us with front projectors we want to keep longer. What about Atmos (and eventually DTS:X ) : will it be possible to send the Atmos signal to the receiver and still watch in 1080P?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

healthnut said:


> Sounds great for those of us with front projectors we want to keep longer. What about Atmos (and eventually DTS:X ) : will it be possible to send the Atmos signal to the receiver and still watch in 1080P?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The encryption (copy protection HDCP) and the audio packets are completely independent entities. The later being carried in the encrypted signal. 

THEORETICALLY, there should be no alteration to the audio signal whatsoever whether played in 1080p or 4k, 2.2 compliant system or not (via HD Fury). As others have mentioned, there are no players or disc on the market. Unless the player manufs put something funny in the down conversion on 2.2 compliant systems, to destroy the metadata that rides on the TrueHD signal, then it should absolutely work. I can't see why they would do that, but there are no owners to verify at this point in time. So my bet is yes, you will be able to play Atmos if you down convert.

If you run an HD fury to convert 2.2 down to 1.4 protection, I can think of no reason why this wouldn't work either.


----------



## healthnut

Stoked21 said:


> The encryption (copy protection HDCP) and the audio packets are completely independent entities. The later being carried in the encrypted signal.
> 
> 
> 
> THEORETICALLY, there should be no alteration to the audio signal whatsoever whether played in 1080p or 4k, 2.2 compliant system or not (via HD Fury). As others have mentioned, there are no players or disc on the market. Unless the player manufs put something funny in the down conversion on 2.2 compliant systems, to destroy the metadata that rides on the TrueHD signal, then it should absolutely work. I can't see why they would do that, but there are no owners to verify at this point in time. So my bet is yes, you will be able to play Atmos if you down convert.
> 
> 
> 
> If you run an HD fury to convert 2.2 down to 1.4 protection, I can think of no reason why this wouldn't work either.



Thanks for the prompt response. This is good news for sure. Is there any real concern that the HD Fury will soon be unavailable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KennyLSU

Scott Simonian said:


> Honestly, I don't know. And really neither does anybody else. We can speculate (AND WE ALL WILL) about this and that and if this is going to work or not. Blah blah blah.
> 
> Don't care.
> 
> Won't care until real people buy a real product and try their movie purchase on their system. Until then, we don't know for sure if those without 4K display technology can enjoy the new releases just for the audio, alone.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I have NO expectation that the "regular" BD included with a UHD purchase will have immersive audio (assuming the "regular" non-UHD version didn't) on it. I fully expect the BD included will be identical to the non-UHD SKU of said movie.
> 
> I would buy the UHD version, playback the UHD, all for the Atmos audio. No interest in the enhanced picture, for now.


Maybe I'm missing it in your response, but how do you plan on viewing UHD without everything in the process being UHD compatible (BD -> BD Player -> AVR -> Projector)?


----------



## Stoked21

KennyLSU said:


> Maybe I'm missing it in your response, but how do you plan on viewing UHD without everything in the process being UHD compatible (BD -> BD Player -> AVR -> Projector)?


Scott can answer for his system, but I've seen him post that he is 2.2 compliant (wise man!). Your display doesn't have to be able to support UHD in order to down convert and play UHD disc. Your system does have to be HDCP 2.2 compliant though.

I too have a 2.2 compliant prepro (or avr would do), with a UHD player and a 2.2 compliant PJ or TV and you can play UHD discs even if in 1080p. In my case, my pj isn't a true 4k. It uses a JVC e-shift technology to mimic a 4K picture. So in my case the (BD -> BD Player -> AVR -> Projector) would all be 2.2, even if not true 4k UHD HDR.

There are VERY few PJs out there that support 2.2 that are not true 4K. So one's wallet has to be thick if you want true 4K. JVC has a nice compromise to give people 2.2 and great 1080p with pseudo-4K pq, without breaking the bank.


----------



## KennyLSU

Stoked21 said:


> Scott can answer for his system, but I've seen him post that he is 2.2 compliant (wise man!). Your display doesn't have to be able to support UHD in order to down convert and play UHD disc. Your system does have to be HDCP 2.2 compliant though.
> 
> I too have a 2.2 compliant prepro (or avr would do), with a UHD player and a 2.2 compliant PJ or TV and you can play UHD discs even if in 1080p. In my case, my pj isn't a true 4k. It uses a JVC e-shift technology to mimic a 4K picture. So in my case the (BD -> BD Player -> AVR -> Projector) would all be 2.2, even if not true 4k UHD HDR.
> 
> There are VERY few PJs out there that support 2.2 that are not true 4K. So one's wallet has to be thick if you want true 4K. JVC has a nice compromise to give people 2.2 and great 1080p with pseudo-4K pq, without breaking the bank.


Got it. Based on this I only need a BD player that is 2.2 compliant. AVR already is.


----------



## Stoked21

KennyLSU said:


> Got it. Based on this I only need a BD player that is 2.2 compliant. AVR already is.


Kind of an irrelevant statement. I think you mean a UHD player that is 2.2 compliant. It goes without saying that all UHD players will be 2.2 compliant.....otherwise they would never play UHD discs. I also highly doubt you will ever see regular HD BD players that support 2.2....again, no reason to do so as 2.2 exists primarily to protect UHD content. There's no reason to manuf them.

What you need is a 2.2 compliant TV or PJ......And that ain't cheap. So you have to buy a new one or potentially the $200 HD Fury will translate the protection schema for you.


----------



## Travis Prange

healthnut said:


> Thanks for the prompt response. This is good news for sure. Is there any real concern that the HD Fury will soon be unavailable?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm curious on this myself as I do not see it available on Amazon. I'm not sure I want to plunk down that money on a bet, either. I will wait to see what the early adopters find out.


----------



## KennyLSU

Yes. Meant to say UHD player. 

So my projector may be 2.2 compliant but not display in UHD/4K? I don't believe my BenQ W1100 is 2.2 compliant so I would at least need to upgrade to one that is to even downgrade the image to 1080P, correct?


----------



## stikle

Travis Prange said:


> I'm curious on this myself as I do not see it available on Amazon.



You're not likely to either, in my opinion.

It's available direct from HDFury.com in Taiwan. They bumped it up another $50 to $250 this week (probably due to the lawsuit(s) and expected increase in sales).

Mine is scheduled to be delivered Tuesday, the Samsung UHD-BDP on 2/17, and the first UHD-BD on 3/1. So...yeah I'll be sitting around the fire in the early adopter camp making s'mores. 

I wasn't GOING to, but what the hell...it's just money and the side job did good last year, so...


----------



## Stoked21

Travis Prange said:


> I'm curious on this myself as I do not see it available on Amazon. I'm not sure I want to plunk down that money on a bet, either. I will wait to see what the early adopters find out.


Most manufacturers won't be releasing their UHD players for 6-12 months from now! Samsung is the only one, releasing in about 2 months.

The fact of the matter is that the current models I've read about, and being intimate with HDCP protection protocol, will not allow you to down convert a UHD to 1080p to satisfy 2.2. Period. HOWEVER, 6-12 months is a long time. Maybe they decide to run "dual protection" code, enable video output on the 1.4a audio output, or allow the user to select 1.4 primary HDMI output in the player GUI. I give this about a 1% chance of happening, as the player manufs signed up with the studios to make this the new standard. In other words, I would plan on being 2.2 if I were you. EDIT: The HDCP 2.2 spec is intentionally written to invalidate all 1.4 devices to stop piracy (though concessions are made in the spec to allow conversion). 

Studios may decide to release Atmos on regular BD still (Disney and Fox won't). Streaming companies may decide to start offering Atmos on their HD downloads too......A lot could change in a year that would negate the need for an HD fury or the replacement of all 1.4 devices in your system.

There are lawsuits to try to stop companies from manufacturing conversion devices, which would result in copyright abuse. But who knows how far that will go in court.....


----------



## kingwiggi

Stoked21 said:


> I think D&M were suppose to release DTS:X for 8802 and some other units this week, right?
> 
> Anybody download the FW update and experiment with it yet?
> 
> My 7702mk2 isn't scheduled until early March.



Denon 7200 is first in line for the DTS:X update on January 28th 

AFAIK


----------



## kbarnes701

healthnut said:


> Sounds great for those of us with front projectors we want to keep longer. What about Atmos (and eventually DTS:X ) : will it be possible to send the Atmos signal to the receiver and still watch in 1080P?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I would expect so. I can’t see why they would strip the Atmos metadata from the TrueHD bitstream.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> The encryption (copy protection HDCP) and the audio packets are completely independent entities. The later being carried in the encrypted signal.
> 
> THEORETICALLY, there should be no alteration to the audio signal whatsoever whether played in 1080p or 4k, 2.2 compliant system or not (via HD Fury). As others have mentioned, there are no players or disc on the market. Unless the player manufs put something funny in the down conversion on 2.2 compliant systems, to destroy the metadata that rides on the TrueHD signal, then it should absolutely work. I can't see why they would do that, but there are no owners to verify at this point in time. So my bet is yes, you will be able to play Atmos if you down convert.
> 
> If you run an HD fury to convert 2.2 down to 1.4 protection, I can think of no reason why this wouldn't work either.


And, FWIW, the HD Fury packaging has an Atmos logo on it, which would imply that Atmos is possible.


----------



## kbarnes701

healthnut said:


> Thanks for the prompt response. This is good news for sure. Is there any real concern that the HD Fury will soon be unavailable?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not IMO. The company behind HD Fury is a Chinese company based in China. There's nothing a US court can decide that can be imposed on a foreign company. To prevent the sale of HD Furys they would need to bring their court action in China. Good luck with that! So it's possible that sales could be prevented in the USA but then you'd just buy direct from China, via the HD Fury website. Or you could buy from Europe where such devices are not illegal to own (but may be illegal to use - go figure). And it is by no means certain that the court action underway will result in a win for Warner Bros. HD Fury's defence is that copy protection is not being bypassed - just that the HDCP 2.2 is being converted to HDCP 1.4, which they say is permitted in the spec (and have published documents which seem to support that view).


----------



## Travis Prange

stikle said:


> You're not likely to either, in my opinion.
> 
> It's available direct from HDFury.com in Taiwan. They bumped it up another $50 to $250 this week (probably due to the lawsuit(s) and expected increase in sales).
> 
> Mine is scheduled to be delivered Tuesday, the Samsung UHD-BDP on 2/17, and the first UHD-BD on 3/1. So...yeah I'll be sitting around the fire in the early adopter camp making s'mores.
> 
> I wasn't GOING to, but what the hell...it's just money and the side job did good last year, so...


Yeah I notice in Europe it's 200 euros, which as of today is about $217. Not TERRIBLY expensive, but honestly I'm trying to stop the bleeding from HT 1.0 and am not even finished yet, so a $400 UHD player right now is hardly justifiable (plus the WAF), so I have at least a year or so before I can get into this, which leads me to...



Stoked21 said:


> Most manufacturers won't be releasing their UHD players for 6-12 months from now! Samsung is the only one, releasing in about 2 months.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the current models I've read about, and being intimate with HDCP protection protocol, will not allow you to down convert a UHD to 1080p to satisfy 2.2. Period. HOWEVER, 6-12 months is a long time. Maybe they decide to run "dual protection" code, enable video output on the 1.4a audio output, or allow the user to select 1.4 primary HDMI output in the player GUI. I give this about a 1% chance of happening, as the player manufs signed up with the studios to make this the new standard. In other words, I would plan on being 2.2 if I were you.
> 
> Studios may decide to release Atmos on regular BD still (Disney and Fox won't). Streaming companies may decide to start offering Atmos on their HD downloads too......A lot could change in a year that would negate the need for an HD fury or the replacement of all 1.4 devices in your system.
> 
> There are lawsuits to try to stop companies from manufacturing conversion devices, which would result in copyright abuse. But who knows how far that will go in court.....


6-12 months is a long time. And it's long enough for me to wait to see what happens before jumping in. Fortunately I just got an AVR that's 2.2 compliant, so the only thing I'm missing is a UHD player (or disc drive) and PJ. But the PJ will not be replaced for several years!


----------



## KennyLSU

Still trying to learn what HD Fury is. Does it go between the AVR and Display to convert 2.2 to whatever the current display has? Thus downgrading 4K to 1080P?


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> Some people believe that the UHD player will downrez and down-HDCP the UHD disc so that it will play on a 1080p display. Others (me included) believe that UHD discs will not play unless HDCP 2.2 is in every component in the chain. Pick your poison.


Again, from what I've read and heard UHD discs will downgrade to 1080p if there isn't a HDCP 2.2 compliant chain.


Again, I point out, BDs played just fine into my parent's old Sony CRT via S-video from both a Sony and Panasonic BD player.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> And, FWIW, the HD Fury packaging has an Atmos logo on it, which would imply that Atmos is possible.


Interesting. The Fury would absolutely not strip metadata regardless of the logo. It doesn't modify it at all. It just changes the signaling comm protocol. It wouldn't mess with the actual data. 

One of the big unknowns to many of us is if the UHD player itself would s**t on the metadata....Like something in the programming that says, "Ah, this guy is 2.2 compliant but he's down converting to 1080p. So let's cripple the audio". I think there's absolutely no chance any device manufacturer would do that. That would be a marketing decision of the company and would have nothing to do with HDCP. I give it a snowballs chance in hell that any of the devices destroy Atmos.


----------



## Stoked21

PeterTHX said:


> Again, from what I've read and heard UHD discs will downgrade to 1080p if there isn't a HDCP 2.2 compliant chain.
> 
> 
> Again, I point out, BDs played just fine into my parent's old Sony CRT via S-video from both a Sony and Panasonic BD player.


Yeah, but HDCP 1.0 was released 16 years ago on DVDs. It's been backwards compatible all the way up to 1.4. That's why it worked. It also did not exchange HW keys and keep tables of every device in the signal chain. 

There is no longer backwards compatibility with 2.2 and every device in the signal path is logged in a table with a unique key number and shared with all devices in the path. I can nearly assure you 100% that the player will not dumb down to a legacy, retired 1.4 schema just because you decided you wanted to down convert a UHD disc to 1080p and output 1.4. I won't say 100% because there is a conversion allowance in the spec, although it is not intended to be used as a mass-market bypass to the new copy protection standard.....Defeats the entire purpose of the protection scheme.


----------



## corradizo

I have ordered a Denon x2200w reciever to replace my onkyo tx-nr609. My current setup is 7.1 however the rear surrounds are actually maybe a foot or so behind the mlp but far off to the left and right. The side surrounds are about four feet ahea d of the mlp and far as far off to the side as the rear surrounds. This is due to waf and clearance issues with my finished basement. Would I be better off going to an atmos 5.1.2 config when my new reciever shows up? This is what I'm thinking, I'm not sure of any pitfalls.


----------



## AllenA07

I just rented Sicario from Redbox. Of course, this means I get the Dolby Digital 5.1 lossy neutered version. My question is what does the DSU do in this situation? Will it still up mix to my top speakers or will it still be stuck in 5.1?


----------



## lujan

AllenA07 said:


> I just rented Sicario from Redbox. Of course, this means I get the Dolby Digital 5.1 lossy neutered version. My question is what does the DSU do in this situation? Will it still up mix to my top speakers or will it still be stuck in 5.1?


It will up mix to your top speakers but good luck liking the movie as I didn't.


----------



## jamesmil

kbarnes701 said:


> Not IMO. The company behind HD Fury is a Chinese company based in China. There's nothing a US court can decide that can be imposed on a foreign company.



Pretty sure they still have to go through US Customs to ship into the US...


----------



## kbarnes701

jamesmil said:


> Pretty sure they still have to go through US Customs to ship into the US...


They don't open every package! In fact they don't open any unless they are "suspicious". They rely on the description on the Customs Declaration. HDF will be unlikely to put "Package contains HD Fury Integral" on the form  The Chinese don't really concern themselves with the niceties of other country's regulations.


----------



## rick98761

Just got mine installed tonight. Never thought I would be thankful for that soffit in the room. Allowed me to pick up two book shelfs that match my fronts and surrounds off eBay dirt cheap and get atmos going.


----------



## Shniks

*Dolby Atmos Disc*

Hi guys,


Just wanted to confirm that I too wrote to Video Magazin as mentioned earlier in the thread and requested them to send me the Jan issue with the Dolby Atmos Demo disc (I told them I would pay). I did not get any response to my email, but today, just a week later, I received just the disc in the mail. Awfully nice of that magazine to send a disc out to me (free of charge) all the way to the good ol' USA. This disc doesn't have the test tones, but has the 747 takeoff, Helicopter, Rainstorm, Santeria, Encounter, Shattered, Audiosphere (AWESOME) in addition to the other ones that I have already have (like Amaze, Leaf etc.). Santeria and Encounter are awesome, but Audiosphere really shines. 


For those of you wanting a demo disc for Atmos, no harm in emailing the magazine and requesting them to send you one. 


Cheers,


----------



## 9V7W3

Hey guys,

Do any of you have either a Sony BDP-S580 or a BDP-S790? I have both but I''m using the S790 right now and with my Denon X4200W I can't get it to play atmos at all. I tried a few movies as well as my 2015 Dolby Atmos test disc.. In the menu of the Sony player for HDMI audio out only two options are Auto and PCM.. So I'm not sure if the player doesn't do bitstream or it's just too old or what but I'm really bummed because I just finished setting up atmos and can't use it!!! Grrr


----------



## loknload

I just joined the world of Atmos today. I have a Denon 4200 and picked up some Def Tech DI6.5R in ceilings for a good price. They are about the closest thing I could find to my Energy RC series that I'm using for my 5.1 system. My room is pretty small at 11.5' wide by 12.5' long and my seating is pretty close to the back wall (and I have a closet door on one side to deal with) so my rear speaker placement is the best I could do to get them down to ear level. There is nothing but attic space with blown in insulation above my room so I have access to the top side. I built enclosures for the Def Tech's from 3/4" mdf and then screwed the enclosures in to the trusses on one side to anchor them down. I built the enclosures without the tops on them, lined them with poly batting, then took them up in the attic and screwed them down and then caulked every seam. Once all that was done I ran a bead of caulk around the top edge and then screwed the top on and put the insulation back around the boxes. 

I sat down and watched clips from a few Atmos movies I have after running Audyssey on the Denon. The opening scene of Unbroken was incredible and I watched most of American Sniper because I couldn't shut it off because it sounded so good. Another user here said that Insurgent made good use of the top speakers so I played several scenes from that and thought it was OK but it's not really a movie that I enjoy (daughter's movie) so that may have something to do with it. I also switched the DTS output on my blu-ray player to PCM and popped in my 2013 DTS-HD Master demo disc and was blown away by the DSU on nearly every clip.

I am going to buy a 2 channel amp at some point and get another couple of speakers, although, I don't know if I will install top rear and switch the setting in the AVR to top front for the two that are in the ceiling now (they are about 18" in front of the seating) because I don't have the room in the attic to do enclosures for rear speakers mounted so close to the back wall. I may have to either do another set of DI6.5R's at the front of the room and designate them front height or do an actual set of front heights mounted at the corner of the front wall/ceiling and angled at the MLP or a set of rear heights at the corner of the rear wall/ceiling angled at the MLP. I suppose if I did the rear heights I could designate the DI6.5R's I installed today as top front and then the rear heights as top rear. I can say that I wouldn't look forward to building enclosures and all that again because it's a major PITA but 5.1.2 sounds outstanding. I snapped a few pics throughout the day. The flash made my ceiling look washed out but it's a very dark slate grey, almost black.


----------



## Argyle

9V7W3 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Do any of you have either a Sony BDP-S580 or a BDP-S790? I have both but I''m using the S790 right now and with my Denon X4200W I can't get it to play atmos at all. I tried a few movies as well as my 2015 Dolby Atmos test disc.. In the menu of the Sony player for HDMI audio out only two options are Auto and PCM.. So I'm not sure if the player doesn't do bitstream or it's just too old or what but I'm really bummed because I just finished setting up atmos and can't use it!!! Grrr


I have an S790 and Atmos works for me. I left my HDMI setting on auto. Did you set "BD audio mix setting" to off?


----------



## anwallac

My new house being built has a family room that will be 18'x19' but with a 20' flat ceiling. I am having it wired for surround sound. Due to WAF, there's no way I can hang speakers on down rods so if I go Atmos it would have to be in ceiling speakers. The couch will be towards the back middle of the room. 

With a ceiling this tall, is Dolby Atmos worth it (my research says yes) and if so should I go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4? I ask because I feel like with a ceiling this tall, it will be difficult to discern difference between front or rear ceiling speakers which makes me lean towards 5.1.2.


----------



## dvdwilly3

loknload said:


> I just joined the world of Atmos today. I have a Denon 4200 and picked up some Def Tech DI6.5R in ceilings for a good price. They are about the closest thing I could find to my Energy RC series that I'm using for my 5.1 system. My room is pretty small at 11.5' wide by 12.5' long and my seating is pretty close to the back wall (and I have a closet door on one side to deal with) so my rear speaker placement is the best I could do to get them down to ear level. There is nothing but attic space with blown in insulation above my room so I have access to the top side. I built enclosures for the Def Tech's from 3/4" mdf and then screwed the enclosures in to the trusses on one side to anchor them down. I built the enclosures without the tops on them, lined them with poly batting, then took them up in the attic and screwed them down and then caulked every seam. Once all that was done I ran a bead of caulk around the top edge and then screwed the top on and put the insulation back around the boxes.
> 
> I sat down and watched clips from a few Atmos movies I have after running Audyssey on the Denon. The opening scene of Unbroken was incredible and I watched most of American Sniper because I couldn't shut it off because it sounded so good. Another user here said that Insurgent made good use of the top speakers so I played several scenes from that and thought it was OK but it's not really a movie that I enjoy (daughter's movie) so that may have something to do with it. I also switched the DTS output on my blu-ray player to PCM and popped in my 2013 DTS-HD Master demo disc and was blown away by the DSU on nearly every clip.
> 
> I am going to buy a 2 channel amp at some point and get another couple of speakers, although, I don't know if I will install top rear and switch the setting in the AVR to top front for the two that are in the ceiling now (they are about 18" in front of the seating) because I don't have the room in the attic to do enclosures for rear speakers mounted so close to the back wall. I may have to either do another set of DI6.5R's at the front of the room and designate them front height or do an actual set of front heights mounted at the corner of the front wall/ceiling and angled at the MLP or a set of rear heights at the corner of the rear wall/ceiling angled at the MLP. I suppose if I did the rear heights I could designate the DI6.5R's I installed today as top front and then the rear heights as top rear. I can say that I wouldn't look forward to building enclosures and all that again because it's a major PITA but 5.1.2 sounds outstanding. I snapped a few pics throughout the day. The flash made my ceiling look washed out but it's a very dark slate grey, almost black.


What you could do is an on-wall mount near the ceiling at the rear of Goldenear Tech Supersat 3s using Def Tech Promount 90 mounts. They are sealed units so you would not have to build a box.

They are an excellent speaker and would be tonally close to the di 6.5s, I think. If you don't have the wiring for them at the rear you could pull off the quarter round and run the wiring in the gap that usually exists at the bottom edge of the drywall.

Or, use raceway sitting on top of the quarter round to get to the rear.

I took that approach and it works like a champ. I am finishing the install and will post some pix. Very clean and excellent soundstage.


----------



## Lesmor

loknload said:


> I just joined the world of Atmos today. I have a Denon 4200 and picked up some Def Tech DI6.5R in ceilings for a good price. They are about the closest thing I could find to my Energy RC series that I'm using for my 5.1 system. My room is pretty small at 11.5' wide by 12.5' long and my seating is pretty close to the back wall (and I have a closet door on one side to deal with) so my rear speaker placement is the best I could do to get them down to ear level. There is nothing but attic space with blown in insulation above my room so I have access to the top side. I built enclosures for the Def Tech's from 3/4" mdf and then screwed the enclosures in to the trusses on one side to anchor them down. I built the enclosures without the tops on them, lined them with poly batting, then took them up in the attic and screwed them down and then caulked every seam. Once all that was done I ran a bead of caulk around the top edge and then screwed the top on and put the insulation back around the boxes.
> 
> I sat down and watched clips from a few Atmos movies I have after running Audyssey on the Denon. The opening scene of Unbroken was incredible and I watched most of American Sniper because I couldn't shut it off because it sounded so good. Another user here said that Insurgent made good use of the top speakers so I played several scenes from that and thought it was OK but it's not really a movie that I enjoy (daughter's movie) so that may have something to do with it. I also switched the DTS output on my blu-ray player to PCM and popped in my 2013 DTS-HD Master demo disc and was blown away by the DSU on nearly every clip.
> 
> I am going to buy a 2 channel amp at some point and get another couple of speakers, although, I don't know if I will install top rear and switch the setting in the AVR to top front for the two that are in the ceiling now (they are about 18" in front of the seating) because I don't have the room in the attic to do enclosures for rear speakers mounted so close to the back wall. I may have to either do another set of DI6.5R's at the front of the room and designate them front height or do an actual set of front heights mounted at the corner of the front wall/ceiling and angled at the MLP or a set of rear heights at the corner of the rear wall/ceiling angled at the MLP. I suppose if I did the rear heights I could designate the DI6.5R's I installed today as top front and then the rear heights as top rear. I can say that I wouldn't look forward to building enclosures and all that again because it's a major PITA but 5.1.2 sounds outstanding. I snapped a few pics throughout the day. The flash made my ceiling look washed out but it's a very dark slate grey, almost black.


Nice job on the backer boxes
A very tidy install


----------



## Ricoflashback

HDCP 2.2 question:

Say you want to future proof your AVR (as much as possible) but you have no intention of upgrading your current setup (in my case, LCD & Projector at 1080P with an OPPO 103.)

My main interest is ensuring Dolby Atmos soundtrack capability. I primarily rent movies via Redbox. As long as the disc is 1080P - do I have any issues with say a Denon x6200 as my AVR? I do not anticipate getting a 4K TV or UHD player for many years to come (especially NOT replacing the projector).

The choice of the Denon x6200 is made for DTX:S capability.


----------



## rontalley

corradizo said:


> I have ordered a Denon x2200w reciever to replace my onkyo tx-nr609. My current setup is 7.1 however the rear surrounds are actually maybe a foot or so behind the mlp but far off to the left and right. The side surrounds are about four feet ahea d of the mlp and far as far off to the side as the rear surrounds. This is due to waf and clearance issues with my finished basement. Would I be better off going to an atmos 5.1.2 config when my new reciever shows up? This is what I'm thinking, I'm not sure of any pitfalls.


Would be really cool if you could get a set (or 2) of ear level surrounds and use the 4 tops as .4 in Atmos! The subs are there already, a couple more "visible" speakers wouldn't hurt the Mrs.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Shniks said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> Just wanted to confirm that I too wrote to Video Magazin as mentioned earlier in the thread and requested them to send me the Jan issue with the Dolby Atmos Demo disc (I told them I would pay). I did not get any response to my email, but today, just a week later, I received just the disc in the mail. Awfully nice of that magazine to send a disc out to me (free of charge) all the way to the good ol' USA. This disc doesn't have the test tones, but has the 747 takeoff, Helicopter, Rainstorm, Santeria, Encounter, Shattered, Audiosphere (AWESOME) in addition to the other ones that I have already have (like Amaze, Leaf etc.). Santeria and Encounter are awesome, but Audiosphere really shines.
> 
> 
> For those of you wanting a demo disc for Atmos, no harm in emailing the magazine and requesting them to send you one.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks for this info. My main interest is in test tones and I am trying to get either the disk with test tones or simply test tones file that I can download and use is fine.
But thanks again for sharing. I will skip this disk.


----------



## audioguy

anwallac said:


> My new house being built has a family room that will be 18'x19' but with a 20' flat ceiling. I am having it wired for surround sound. Due to WAF, there's no way I can hang speakers on down rods so if I go Atmos it would have to be in ceiling speakers. The couch will be towards the back middle of the room.
> 
> With a ceiling this tall, is Dolby Atmos worth it (my research says yes) and if so should I go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4? I ask because I feel like with a ceiling this tall, it will be difficult to discern difference between front or rear ceiling speakers which makes me lean towards 5.1.2.


If you follow the Dolby guidelines (e.g. 45 degrees in front and 45 degrees to the rear), the angles take into account your ceiling height so it will work as it should.


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked21 said:


> What you need is a 2.2 compliant TV or PJ......And that ain't cheap. So you have to buy a new one or potentially the $200 HD Fury will translate the protection schema for you.


Just a couple of things to add. The Fury is now selling for $249, guessing due to demand after the lawsuit was filed they saw the opportunity to increase its price without hurting sales. Those of us who ordered a week or two ago got a deal  As for the question about availability of the Fury I would say if if you live in the USA be would be worried about being able to purchase one. With one studio having sued them already, it's likely others will join and then we see the courts order their sales ended here.

Mine has shipped, not taking chances. Given they have been sued we know the product works and if the current process for streaming is indicative of how Ultra will work as Stoked has said you must be 2.2 compliant at every point - receiver/pre and display and of course of an Ultra player.

Call me a pessimist, I believe a number of releases containing the immersive audio mixes will be available on 4K disks only. Current pre-orders being an example as there is no mention of a blu-ray disk included that has it too. I don't want to upgrade until the dust settles and we know more about all of this (4K, HDR, our immersive audio, equipment upgrades, HDCP 2.2 and content availability). But I want my immersive audio, enter the Fury.

Fun times in the land of ambiguity. Who said DTS:X was a mystery?


----------



## 9V7W3

Argyle said:


> I have an S790 and Atmos works for me. I left my HDMI setting on auto. Did you set "BD audio mix setting" to off?


I'm almost positive.. I'll double check my settings and report back. Firmware is up to date. I'm going into a Denon X4200W, im assuming it should auto detect it, no? I tried every sound setting on that like pure, Dolby Dig with DSU, but whenever I switch on a Blu-Ray it just says "Multi Channel In."


----------



## aaranddeeman

9V7W3 said:


> I'm almost positive.. I'll double check my settings and report back. Firmware is up to date. I'm going into a Denon X4200W, im assuming it should auto detect it, no? I tried every sound setting on that like pure, Dolby Dig with DSU, but whenever I switch on a Blu-Ray it just says "Multi Channel In."


Ha. You are not bitstreaming from BR. Please select Bitstream and not PCM.


----------



## Kain

Are Mama and The Gallows the only horror movies with an immersive audio mix (Atmos for these ones)?


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> Just a couple of things to add. The Fury is now selling for $249, guessing due to demand after the lawsuit was filed they saw the opportunity to increase its price without hurting sales. Those of us who ordered a week or two ago got a deal  As for the question about availability of the Fury I would say if if you live in the USA be would be worried about being able to purchase one. With one studio having sued them already, it's likely others will join and then we see the courts order their sales ended here.
> 
> Mine has shipped, not taking chances. Given they have been sued we know the product works and if the current process for streaming is indicative of how Ultra will work as Stoked has said you must be 2.2 compliant at every point - receiver/pre and display and of course of an Ultra player.
> 
> Call me a pessimist, I believe a number of releases containing the immersive audio mixes will be available on 4K disks only. Current pre-orders being an example as there is no mention of a blu-ray disk included that has it too. I don't want to upgrade until the dust settles and we know more about all of this (4K, HDR, our immersive audio, equipment upgrades, HDCP 2.2 and content availability). But I want my immersive audio, enter the Fury.
> 
> Fun times in the land of ambiguity. Who said DTS:X was a mystery?


If immersive audio (Dolby Atmos or DTS:X) is ONLY available via 4K/UHD discs, then two things will happen....

Companies that offer a product like Fury will flourish. 

Rental companies like Redbox and Netflix will have to get the same non 4K discs they've been getting before. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it much more expensive to produce a UHD disc?

All this is speculation right now. Even though I have a 4K TV, I'm far more interested in immersive audio than 4K video. In fact, I could easily live with a quality 1080P picture for the rest of my life -- LCD and projector. 

I'm sure the movie studios will continue to try and control every aspect of their distribution chain but if we've learned anything over the past twenty years it's that encryption can be broken and if there is a market for it, someone or some company will fill the need.


----------



## Selden Ball

Ricoflashback said:


> HDCP 2.2 question:
> 
> Say you want to future proof your AVR (as much as possible) but you have no intention of upgrading your current setup (in my case, LCD & Projector at 1080P with an OPPO 103.)
> 
> My main interest is ensuring Dolby Atmos soundtrack capability. I primarily rent movies via Redbox. As long as the disc is 1080P - do I have any issues with say a Denon x6200 as my AVR?


 No.


> I do not anticipate getting a 4K TV or UHD player for many years to come (especially NOT replacing the projector).
> 
> The choice of the Denon x6200 is made for DTX:S capability.


Your only concern would be whether or not the discs provided by Redbox include Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks. Sometimes the discs provided by the rental companies provide only Dolby Digital soundtracks, not Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Atmos and DTS:X are provided in the lossless HD soundtracks.


----------



## Selden Ball

9V7W3 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Do any of you have either a Sony BDP-S580 or a BDP-S790? I have both but I''m using the S790 right now and with my Denon X4200W I can't get it to play atmos at all. I tried a few movies as well as my 2015 Dolby Atmos test disc.. In the menu of the Sony player for HDMI audio out only two options are Auto and PCM.. So I'm not sure if the player doesn't do bitstream or it's just too old or what but I'm really bummed because I just finished setting up atmos and can't use it!!! Grrr


As previous posters have tried to point out, but not explicitly:

Set Audio (HDMI) to Auto. (the default)
Set BD Audio MIX Setting to Off. (NOT the default)
(When Mix is On, it forces the output to be PCM, removing the Atmos metadata.)

The Dolby Digital/DTS setting is irrelevant, but you might as well set it to Bitstream (the default). It determines how (lossy) DD and DTS are handled on the S/PDIF digital audio output.


----------



## JamesE

With regards to the 2.2 compliant issue, the consumer should vote with their pocket book. Currently I'm spending a lot of money on Blu-rays. If they start stripping Atmos out of these disks because I haven't upgraded to 2.2., the spending will stop. I'm only one person but I believe the consumer has power in this situation.


----------



## 9V7W3

Argyle said:


> I have an S790 and Atmos works for me. I left my HDMI setting on auto. Did you set "BD audio mix setting" to off?


So weird thing..

All my audio settings in the player were correct.. I was just about to give up, but then decided to go through the entire menu system of the player to see if I missed something.. I noticed for some reason the S790 was set to output 1080i instead of 1080P.. Not that this should have anything to do with it but I fixed that and also set 3D output to auto because it was off and I now have a 3D TV.. Anyway I went and popped in the atmos disc again and bam, now it works..

If you have a minute to spare sometime can you set your player to output 1080i and see if atmos still gets to your AVR?


----------



## anwallac

audioguy said:


> If you follow the Dolby guidelines (e.g. 45 degrees in front and 45 degrees to the rear), the angles take into account your ceiling height so it will work as it should.


I saw Dolby recommends 35-45 degrees from the vertical line at the MLP.

That's kind of my problem - with an 18x18 room with a 20 foot ceiling and the couch towards the back of the space the angles I come with would be 16 degrees with the top rear speakers and 30 degrees for the top front speakers. That's with the ceiling speakers nearly adjacent to the intersecting wall. This is why I was thinking 5.1.2 with which I could place top-middle speakers perfectly.

What would be the effect of going 5.1.4 but with the Top Rears placed in the recommended Top Middle Location and the Top Fronts mounted on the front wall in a Front Height position? - would that be worth it or just stick with 5.1.2?


----------



## Selden Ball

anwallac said:


> I saw Dolby recommends 35-45 degrees from the vertical line at the MLP.
> 
> That's kind of my problem - with an 18x18 room with a 20 foot ceiling and the couch towards the back of the space the angles I come with would be 16 degrees with the top rear speakers and 30 degrees for the top front speakers. That's with the ceiling speakers nearly adjacent to the intersecting wall. This is why I was thinking 5.1.2 with which I could place top-middle speakers perfectly.
> 
> What would be the effect of going 5.1.4 but with the Top Rears placed in the recommended Top Middle Location and the Top Fronts mounted on the front wall in a Front Height position? - would that be worth it or just stick with 5.1.2?


The positions will work fine, but why not use their "real" designations? Since current mainstream AVRs and pre/pros are limited to only four overhead speaker positions, the different front/back designations don't make an audible difference: front overhead sounds are sent to the frontmost overhead speakers while rear overhead sounds go to the rearmost overhead speakers. Atmos really doesn't have any choice. At the very least using the "Front Height" designation will make the front overhead speakers available to the non-Dolby 3D upmixers like Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Selden Ball said:


> No.
> 
> Your only concern would be whether or not the discs provided by Redbox include Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks. Sometimes the discs provided by the rental companies provide only Dolby Digital soundtracks, not Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Atmos and DTS:X are provided in the lossless HD soundtracks.


Thanks Selden. I always appreciate your responses and information. 

I'm also looking at 3d Bluray Rental as they provide the full version of the Blu-ray Disc. As long as there is the availability of Dolby Atmos soundtracks on regular Blu-ray Discs, I'll be a happy camper.


----------



## Selden Ball

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks Selden. I always appreciate your responses and information.


 Thanks for the kind words. You're very welcome.


> I'm also looking at 3d Bluray Rental as they provide the full version of the Blu-ray Disc. As long as there is the availability of Dolby Atmos soundtracks on regular Blu-ray Discs, I'll be a happy camper.


I don't rent, but it does seem that they're a better choice.


----------



## corradizo

rontalley said:


> Would be really cool if you could get a set (or 2) of ear level surrounds and use the 4 tops as .4 in Atmos! The subs are there already, a couple more "visible" speakers wouldn't hurt the Mrs.


I wish, she's already not so happy about my 18's. I'm going to build them into a faux entertainment center.


----------



## trevrox

dvdwilly3 said:


> I am using Goldenear Technology Supersat 3s on Definitive Technology Promount 90s as my Top Rear. They are mounted right under the ceiling and they are excellent.
> 
> What are your main speakers?


My main speakers are the Infinity Primus line...floorstanding P363's up front and bookshelf P163's in the surround and back.

Would that affect my decision on added height speakers?


----------



## anwallac

Selden Ball said:


> The positions will work fine, but why not use their "real" designations? Since current mainstream AVRs and pre/pros are limited to only four overhead speaker positions, the different front/back designations don't make an audible difference: front overhead sounds are sent to the frontmost overhead speakers while rear overhead sounds go to the rearmost overhead speakers. Atmos really doesn't have any choice. At the very least using the "Front Height" designation will make the front overhead speakers available to the non-Dolby 3D upmixers like Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.


I see your point. So with a 20 foot ceiling, my question really is 5.1.2 with ideal top speaker placement or 5.1.4 with less than ideal placement (15 degrees TR, 30 degrees TF - close to the adjoining walls). What would you do?


----------



## Jarery

Selden Ball said:


> Since current mainstream AVRs and pre/pros are limited to only four overhead speaker positions, the different front/back designations don't make an audible difference: front overhead sounds are sent to the frontmost overhead speakers while rear overhead sounds go to the rearmost overhead speakers. Atmos really doesn't have any choice. At the very least using the "Front Height" designation will make the front overhead speakers available to the non-Dolby 3D upmixers like Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X.


Interesting, is that how it works with the Front Height?
If I have a standard 7.1 layout at ear level, then add 2 ceiling speakers in middle of room, and 2 speakers above the front towers at the ceiling/wall corner, then atmos will use the front top corners as the front half of a 7.1.4 setup ?
And if playing a regular 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack the front heights would be used as regular front height presence speakers?

Or does one have to go into the AVR setup and change the designation every time ?


----------



## Selden Ball

anwallac said:


> I see your point. So with a 20 foot ceiling, my question really is 5.1.2 with ideal top speaker placement or 5.1.4 with less than ideal placement (15 degrees TR, 30 degrees TF - close to the adjoining walls). What would you do?


Front-to-back panning can be more immersive than just one overhead source, so I'd use 5.1.4.

However, getting the wiring in place usually is the most time consuming and expensive, making it better to do all the wiring at the same time, so do it for the most speakers you can imagine ever using -- 9.1.6 maybe.

Personally I went with FH + TM. I'm constrained both by front-to-back floor space (sofa near the back wall) and not being able to hang anything from the ceiling. (It's concrete and I rent.) While reflective speakers might have been an option, there weren't any good ones available when I made my decision, so they're mounted at the tops of bookshelving on the side walls. Lots of compromises there....


----------



## dvdwilly3

trevrox said:


> My main speakers are the Infinity Primus line...floorstanding P363's up front and bookshelf P163's in the surround and back.
> 
> Would that affect my decision on added height speakers?


Not so much...if you like the Def Tech with your current set up, then I think that you would like the Goldenear Tech as a close match to the Def Tech.

In particular, the Supersats have a 1/4 x 20 thread that permits direct mounting on the DefTech Pormount 90s.

Many people want a timbre match on their speakers, same maker, same model line. It makes sense, in particular, for the fronts and center. Ideally, a pan across the front would not change in sound and be seamless from left to right and vice versa.

Some swear by it for all speakers. But, since you find the Def Tech ICs pleasing, I would think that the Supersat 3s would work well for you in your particular situation.


----------



## 9V7W3

Selden Ball said:


> As previous posters have tried to point out, but not explicitly:
> 
> Set Audio (HDMI) to Auto. (the default)
> Set BD Audio MIX Setting to Off. (NOT the default)
> (When Mix is On, it forces the output to be PCM, removing the Atmos metadata.)
> 
> The Dolby Digital/DTS setting is irrelevant, but you might as well set it to Bitstream (the default). It determines how (lossy) DD and DTS are handled on the S/PDIF digital audio output.


All of my audio settings were correct.. The only thing I changed was the output resolution of the player from 1080i to 1080P and now it works.. Shouldn't effect it but it did.. I don't know why


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> Are Mama and The Gallows the only horror movies with an immersive audio mix (Atmos for these ones)?


The Crimson Peak Blu Ray (street date Feb 9) will have a DTS:X soundtrack.


----------



## 9V7W3

dschulz said:


> The Crimson Peak Blu Ray (street date Feb 9) will have a DTS:X soundtrack.


That's nice of DTS.. Releasing discs with the format before they update our receivers..


----------



## kingwiggi

stikle said:


> It's available direct from HDFury.com in Taiwan. They bumped it up another $50 to $250 this week (probably due to the lawsuit(s) and expected increase in sales).


BTW anyone else interested in the HDfury.

Use HDfury in the promotion code at checkout for 10% off


----------



## kingwiggi

kbarnes701 said:


> They don't open every package! In fact they don't open any unless they are "suspicious". They rely on the description on the Customs Declaration. HDF will be unlikely to put "Package contains HD Fury Integral" on the form  The Chinese don't really concern themselves with the niceties of other country's regulations.


The HDfury integral that I purchased last November had 'HDMI cable or HDMI splitter' written on the customs declaration so there is little chance that it will raise any eyebrows.


----------



## kbarnes701

kingwiggi said:


> The HDfury integral that I purchased last November had 'HDMI cable or HDMI splitter' written on the customs declaration so there is little chance that it will raise any eyebrows.


I regularly source stuff from China and they are always very "helpful" and creative with their descriptions of package contents, and also of the value of the goods, thus minimising duty (which is 20% in the UK so a worthwhile thing to save money on). Not so long ago I bought an item that cost over $3,000 and they wrote it up as "secondhand parts - value $50".


----------



## Jim S.

For those of us seeking an affordable 9.1.6 solution, last February's Emotiva announcement of the upcoming XMR processor was somewhat encouraging. However, after seeing no articles from this year's CES on this, I contacted Emotiva the other day for a product release date update. Forgettaboutit.


Here's the response from the sales dept.:


"The XMR is a ways out for production. It is basically a drawing and a concept at this point. Maybe, only a maybe, the end of this year or early next year. We really don't have a time line at this point. The initial thoughts at this point are 16 channels of output, but again this is just considerations at this point. I have no idea of the final product specifications." 



This would have been their response a year ago, if asked. Nothing seems to have changed. Cross this one off your list for at least another year and a half. 


On to Plan B.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jim S. said:


> For those of us seeking an affordable 9.1.6 solution,* last February's Emotiva announcement of the upcoming XMR processor *was somewhat encouraging. However, after seeing no articles from this year's CES on this, I contacted Emotiva the other day for a product release date update. Forgettaboutit.
> 
> Here's the response from the sales dept.:
> 
> 
> "The XMR is a ways out for production. It is basically a drawing and a concept at this point. Maybe, only a maybe, the end of this year or early next year. We really don't have a time line at this point. The initial thoughts at this point are 16 channels of output, but again this is just considerations at this point. I have no idea of the final product specifications."
> 
> 
> 
> This would have been their response a year ago, if asked. Nothing seems to have changed. Cross this one off your list for at least another year and a half.
> 
> 
> On to Plan B.


That is *so* Emo! They announced a *drawing*! LOL!


----------



## cyclones22

kbarnes701 said:


> I regularly source stuff from China and they are always very "helpful" and creative with their descriptions of package contents, and also of the value of the goods, thus minimising duty (which is 20% in the UK so a worthwhile thing to save money on). Not so long ago I bought an item that cost over $3,000 and they wrote it up as "secondhand parts - value $50".


Yep, that's how it goes down. I've purchased a handful of watches from China and I don't think any of them were ever declared as watches. I'm personally gonna wait and see how it shakes out before I buy an Integral, as I don't want/plan to replace my main display anytime soon (knock on wood it doesn't break). I have no doubt I'll be able to get my hands on an HDFury if I need one. I just may have to pay a little more for it. But hey, better than replacing my still fine plasma display.

The funny thing is that I learned about this product in this thread. So I have a chat with my brother-in-law who works for a very high end home theater design and implementation company and I mention I've found this device and right away he blurts out "HDFury" and I laugh and he says they use them all the time. Funny, I didn't think to ask him about it earlier. But I guess I didn't realize I may possibly need one till I started reading about it here.


----------



## radamo

Selden Ball said:


> No.
> 
> Your only concern would be whether or not the discs provided by Redbox include Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks. Sometimes the discs provided by the rental companies provide only Dolby Digital soundtracks, not Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Atmos and DTS:X are provided in the lossless HD soundtracks.


I rent from Redbox and my copies of San Andreas, MI5-Rogue Nation and John Wick were all Atmos. I have not rented others yet. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the studios continue to produce Blu-Rays with Atmos without requiring UHD/4K etc... Time will tell.


----------



## Rileyrott

John Wick (From Netflix) was NOT in Atmos (it's a Lionsgate release).


----------



## audioguy

Jim S. said:


> For those of us seeking an affordable 9.1.6 solution, last February's Emotiva announcement of the upcoming XMR processor was somewhat encouraging. However, after seeing no articles from this year's CES on this, I contacted Emotiva the other day for a product release date update. Forgettaboutit.
> 
> 
> Here's the response from the sales dept.:
> 
> 
> "The XMR is a ways out for production. It is basically a drawing and a concept at this point. Maybe, only a maybe, the end of this year or early next year. We really don't have a time line at this point. The initial thoughts at this point are 16 channels of output, but again this is just considerations at this point. I have no idea of the final product specifications."
> 
> 
> 
> This would have been their response a year ago, if asked. Nothing seems to have changed. Cross this one off your list for at least another year and a half.
> 
> 
> On to Plan B.


Before making the decision I just did for a new SSP, I called Emotiva. I was told in no uncertain terms that the product would be available sometime prior to the end of the 1st or worst case 2nd quarter of this year. The woman I spoke said that Emotiva did not want to put themselves in the same position they did with the XMC-1 and end up with mud all over their face.

This would not have even been an issue if Dan had not pre-announced the product. But he can't seem to keep his mouth shut. They are the Kings of Over Promise and Under Deliver. It is beyond me why they keep doing this!!!!!

I have no doubt that when it is finally released in November of 2019, it will be an excellent product - but the market place will, by then, have moved on to a new technology and yet, again, Emotiva will be way behind the power curve!!!

They should just stick to amps (and maybe their speakers are good as well).


----------



## Argyle

9V7W3 said:


> So weird thing..
> 
> All my audio settings in the player were correct.. I was just about to give up, but then decided to go through the entire menu system of the player to see if I missed something.. I noticed for some reason the S790 was set to output 1080i instead of 1080P.. Not that this should have anything to do with it but I fixed that and also set 3D output to auto because it was off and I now have a 3D TV.. Anyway I went and popped in the atmos disc again and bam, now it works..
> 
> If you have a minute to spare sometime can you set your player to output 1080i and see if atmos still gets to your AVR?


I tested this and it still works for me with output forced to 1080i.


----------



## DanGraney

9V7W3 said:


> I also have a Cathedral ceiling in my theatre space.. I did something similar for my 5.2.4 Atmos setup. I used 4 JBL control 1 pro speakers which come with ball joint mounts that screw into the speaker with a standard 1/4" Rod. On the right side I mounted them with just the mount and on the left side where the ceiling was 2 1/2" higher I just got some threaded rod from Home Depot and extended them so they hang at the same level as the right side. I covered the threaded rod with black expandable wire braiding and then ran some black CL2 rated wire along the ceiling and wrapped it around the rod to keep it neat. Turned out great and looks pretty impressive when you walk into the room.



Thank you so much for posting - it inspired me!


----------



## Roger Dressler

blastermaster said:


> I find that the addition of the ceiling speakers, especially the top fronts has really made the mains disappear (in a good way) and allowed the sound to be anywhere and everywhere in the volume of space in front of me.





kbarnes701 said:


> I find the same. It is uncanny. There are no speakers anywhere - just sounds appearing and disappearing, moving here and there, above me, around me, everywhere. When I am watching a movie I can't see any speakers so there are no visual clues as to where they are located anyway, but nowadays they simply 'cease to exist'.


If the height speakers happen to go silent during the movie, wouldn't the mains temporarily "re-appear," just like with standard soundtracks?


----------



## FilmMixer

Cross posted.. but pertinent..



Roger Dressler said:


> I guess I should add a qualifier. This may be a decision made at encode time. For example, certain objects may be tagged to ensure independence so as to preserve complete downstream access and control, e.g. dialog. In other cases, an encoder may be set to a "maximum compression" strategy, where spatial coding is active even for 2 nearby objects. Or there may be a "maximize separation" strategy that keeps spatial coding off until the prescribed max bitrate has been reached. I would think BD would typically use the latter, so that is what I described in my previous post.


I have confirmed that spatial coding only comes into play when the number of objects exceeds the maximum set in the encoder in regards to Atmos.. and you cannot prioritize an object to not be spatially coded..


----------



## Holiday121

Since getting a denon x5200 i decided to take a plunge into atmos. 

My setup:

Martin Logan Esl fronts
Martin Logan theater center
Martin Logan fx2 rears.

I don't think I want to go the in ceiling route. Simply fact is the electro motion ic martin Logan speakers are crazy expensive.

Was wondering if I ceiling mounted Martin Logan motion 2 or motion 4 would these be enough for atmos?


----------



## Selden Ball

Holiday121 said:


> Since getting a denon x5200 i decided to take a plunge into atmos.
> 
> My setup:
> 
> Martin Logan Esl fronts
> Martin Logan theater center
> Martin Logan fx2 rears.
> 
> I don't think I want to go the in ceiling route. Simply fact is the electro motion ic martin Logan speakers are crazy expensive.
> 
> Was wondering if I ceiling mounted Martin Logan motion 2 or motion 4 would these be enough for atmos?


They would be fine. However, you might want to point them toward the seating since their dispersion is as wide as that of speakers designed to be mounted in the ceiling.


----------



## blastermaster

Roger Dressler said:


> If the height speakers happen to go silent during the movie, wouldn't the mains temporarily "re-appear," just like with standard soundtracks?


Exactly. But they are in use more often than not from the Atmos movies that I've watched and even moreso with DSU. When they are not in use, the "re-appearance" of the mains isn't jarring in any way. It's like when the ceiling speakers are really being used, the sound is brought forward into the room and a voice, for example (Insurgent), will be localizable in front of the main speakers instead of just across the screen which is typical of 7.1/5.1. I absolutely love it, but so far Insurgent is the only one I've seen so far (though I haven't seen many) that makes decent use of the format and that movie is a steaming pile of crap. I'm going to give Mad Max a spin tonight. I just have to get over how friggin' weird that movie is.


----------



## Holiday121

Selden Ball said:


> Holiday121 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since getting a denon x5200 i decided to take a plunge into atmos.
> 
> My setup:
> 
> Martin Logan Esl fronts
> Martin Logan theater center
> Martin Logan fx2 rears.
> 
> I don't think I want to go the in ceiling route. Simply fact is the electro motion ic martin Logan speakers are crazy expensive.
> 
> Was wondering if I ceiling mounted Martin Logan motion 2 or motion 4 would these be enough for atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> They would be fine. However, you might want to point them toward the seating since their dispersion is as wide as that of speakers designed to be mounted in the ceiling.
Click to expand...


So in ceiling speakers would be better? I can probably get away with doing them but really trying to avoid


----------



## Selden Ball

Holiday121 said:


> So in ceiling speakers would be better? I can probably get away with doing them but really trying to avoid


You have to define what you mean by "better". I'm sure the MLs will produce a higher quality sound. It's just that ceiling speakers are designed to better spread their output over a larger area than standard bookshelf speakers are designed to do.


----------



## Holiday121

Selden Ball said:


> Holiday121 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in ceiling speakers would be better? I can probably get away with doing them but really trying to avoid
> 
> 
> 
> You have to define what you mean by "better". I'm sure the MLs will produce a higher quality sound. It's just that ceiling speakers are designed to better spread their output over a larger area than standard bookshelf speakers are designed to do.
Click to expand...

Ahhh I see. Good point. Ain't no way I'm dropping over $2000 on electro motion ceiling speakers. Maybe I will settle either for another brand or the lower end logan ceiling


----------



## DLCPhoto

I've been seeking information in the Speaker forum, but was referred here for more specific advice, concerning Atmos. And I admit, I haven't read all of the 36,000+ posts here!!

I am upgrading what was built 25 years ago as an audio only system, with first generation digital sound processing (Yamaha DSP-1). I recently added a video component to it (Vizio 65" non-4k TV), and want to enhance the audio with an up-to-date Dolby system. I have a couple of graphics below to show the room, which has dimensions of:

20' wide x 32' long
Side Walls 7' 8", with vaulted ceiling, which is 12 1/2 feet at the peak.
Ceiling is popcorn surface (fairly hard surface, not thick or designed for sound absorption)
Listening position is 15 feet or so from the front wall
Main speakers are large Duntech Sovereigns (6' tall)
4 surround speakers are located in the corners of the room, on shelves at a height of 6'3" (Wharfdale Diamonds)
There are 3 cross-beams traversing the room, at 8 foot intervals, each about 9 feet from the floor.

I am replacing the current Adcom GFP-555 Preamp, Yamaha DSP-1 and AudioSource Equalizer, with most likely the Marantz AV7702 (not Mk II)
I am keeping a pair of Adcom GFA-555 Amps (600W bridged) to power the Duntechs
I am keeping the Yamaha M-35 to power 4 surround speakers (20W/channel)
I will be adding 1 or 2 subwoofers, to be placed at the sides of the entertainment system at the front of the room
I have already purchased the powered JBL LSR308 studio monitor for the Center Channel

I will keep the pair of Wharfdales in the upper rear corners as Dolby Rear Surrounds.
I will likely put my other pair of Wharfdales at the left and right of the listening position, at ear height, as the Dolby Side Surrounds

*I am looking for advice on adding Atmos to the system, in terms of which speakers, where they are to be placed, and amps to drive them.*

I can put the new speakers in the upper front corners, on the shelves where the front pair of Wharfdales are currently located, or on top of the Duntechs. Both would be at about the same height (6' or so), but differ in terms of distance from those front corners of the room.

I am also considering mounting the new speakers, perhaps 2 pairs, on the Beams that traverse the room (see the graphic below): the middle one is almost directly over the listening position, with the others 8 feet toward the front, and 8 feet toward the back. The logistics of mounting speakers and getting speaker wire up there are not insignificant, although obviously not insurmountable.

*Question 1*: The easiest option would be to simply place either conventional or DAES speakers on the front corner shelves, or on top of the Duntechs. Given the relatively high (6 foot) placement in either of these locations, and the vaulted ceiling with a relatively hard popcorn surface, would I achieve reasonably Atmos good performance? Which would be the better speaker type and location for this option?

*Question 2*: If the answer to Question 1 is that I'm very unlikely to get acceptable Atmos performance with either speaker type, in either available location, given the ceiling specifics, would mounting 1 or 2 pairs on the Beams produce a demonstrably better result? If so, I'm guessing a traditional surround, rather than DAES, speaker, but placed on which beams, and pointing in which direction?

*Question 3*: Depending on the answer to Questions 1 and 2, which specific speakers would be best suited to my particular room?

*Question 4*: Any recommendations on either a 2 or 4 channel Amp to power the 1 or 2 pairs of Atmos speakers? I wouldn't think that I'd need to spend a fortune here, given the relatively lesser role these speakers would play in the overall "audio ecosystem." 


Any thoughts or suggestions on my overall goal of bringing this system into the modern digital era (choice of Preamp, or anything else) would also be appreciated and considered.

Thanks.

Don


----------



## MarkMul1

DLCPhoto said:


> I've been seeking information in the Speaker forum, but was referred here for more specific advice, concerning Atmos. And I admit, I haven't read all of the 36,000+ posts here!!
> 
> I am upgrading what was built 25 years ago as an audio only system, with first generation digital sound processing (Yamaha DSP-1). I recently added a video component to it (Vizio 65" non-4k TV), and want to enhance the audio with an up-to-date Dolby system. I have a couple of graphics below to show the room, which has dimensions of:
> 
> 20' wide x 32' long
> Side Walls 7' 8", with vaulted ceiling, which is 12 1/2 feet at the peak.
> Ceiling is popcorn surface (fairly hard surface, not thick or designed for sound absorption)
> Listening position is 15 feet or so from the front wall
> Main speakers are large Duntech Sovereigns (6' tall)
> 4 surround speakers are located in the corners of the room, on shelves at a height of 6'3" (Wharfdale Diamonds)
> There are 3 cross-beams traversing the room, at 8 foot intervals, each about 9 feet from the floor.
> 
> I am replacing the current Adcom GFP-555 Preamp, Yamaha DSP-1 and AudioSource Equalizer, with most likely the Marantz AV7702 (not Mk II)
> I am keeping a pair of Adcom GFA-555 Amps (600W bridged) to power the Duntechs
> I am keeping the Yamaha M-35 to power 4 surround speakers (20W/channel)
> I will be adding 1 or 2 subwoofers, to be placed at the sides of the entertainment system at the front of the room
> I have already purchased the powered JBL LSR308 studio monitor for the Center Channel
> 
> I will keep the pair of Wharfdales in the upper rear corners as Dolby Rear Surrounds.
> I will likely put my other pair of Wharfdales at the left and right of the listening position, at ear height, as the Dolby Side Surrounds
> 
> *I am looking for advice on adding Atmos to the system, in terms of which speakers, where they are to be placed, and amps to drive them.*
> 
> I can put the new speakers in the upper front corners, on the shelves where the front pair of Wharfdales are currently located, or on top of the Duntechs. Both would be at about the same height (6' or so), but differ in terms of distance from those front corners of the room.
> 
> I am also considering mounting the new speakers, perhaps 2 pairs, on the Beams that traverse the room (see the graphic below): the middle one is almost directly over the listening position, with the others 8 feet toward the front, and 8 feet toward the back. The logistics of mounting speakers and getting speaker wire up there are not insignificant, although obviously not insurmountable.
> 
> *Question 1*: The easiest option would be to simply place either conventional or DAES speakers on the front corner shelves, or on top of the Duntechs. Given the relatively high (6 foot) placement in either of these locations, and the vaulted ceiling with a relatively hard popcorn surface, would I achieve reasonably Atmos good performance? Which would be the better speaker type and location for this option?
> 
> *Question 2*: If the answer to Question 1 is that I'm very unlikely to get acceptable Atmos performance with either speaker type, in either available location, given the ceiling specifics, would mounting 1 or 2 pairs on the Beams produce a demonstrably better result? If so, I'm guessing a traditional surround, rather than DAES, speaker, but placed on which beams, and pointing in which direction?
> 
> *Question 3*: Depending on the answer to Questions 1 and 2, which specific speakers would be best suited to my particular room?
> 
> *Question 4*: Any recommendations on either a 2 or 4 channel Amp to power the 1 or 2 pairs of Atmos speakers? I wouldn't think that I'd need to spend a fortune here, given the relatively lesser role these speakers would play in the overall "audio ecosystem."
> 
> 
> Any thoughts or suggestions on my overall goal of bringing this system into the modern digital era (choice of Preamp, or anything else) would also be appreciated and considered.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Don


You made it to the right place. You should get great advice. I hope someday to see speakers from your beams and you thrilled with Atmos.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Holiday121 said:


> Ahhh I see. Good point. Ain't no way I'm dropping over $2000 on electro motion ceiling speakers. Maybe I will settle either for another brand or the lower end logan ceiling


You might check out the Invisa line of Goldenear Technology if you are going in ceiling.

And, some dealers may discount...


----------



## 9V7W3

DanGraney said:


> Thank you so much for posting - it inspired me!


Haha that's great, I'm glad! We're you able to get them near optimal placement now? How does it sound? I finally calibrated my system yesterday and I played the 2015 Dolby Atmos Demo disk for her and she had a grin on her face the entire time..


----------



## Steven James 2

Kain said:


> Are Mama and The Gallows the only horror movies with an immersive audio mix (Atmos for these ones)?



Not sure if they are the only 2 but the gallows is not worth watching. One of the worst movies ever!


----------



## Brett C

Steven James 2 said:


> Not sure if they are the only 2 but the gallows is not worth watching. One of the worst movies ever!


Besides those two, Insidious 2 and the upcoming film The Boy and a horror/thriller entitled Regression are so far, the only horror films mixed in Atmos. Crimson Peak was remixed for BD in DTS X.


----------



## Holiday121

They actually look nice. What model you suggest


----------



## DanGraney

9V7W3 said:


> Haha that's great, I'm glad! We're you able to get them near optimal placement now? How does it sound? I finally calibrated my system yesterday and I played the 2015 Dolby Atmos Demo disk for her and she had a grin on her face the entire time..



Sounds good! Still learning the amp, but played some of "Mad Max" and wow! Finding the perfect spot to mount them took some planning... Managed to get them in close to optimum at 8 1/2'.


----------



## 9V7W3

DanGraney said:


> Sounds good! Still learning the amp, but played some of "Mad Max" and wow! Finding the perfect spot to mount them took some planning... Managed to get them in close to optimum at 8 1/2'.


Nice.. I'm still experimenting too. I wasn't happy with the SPL levels the way Audyssey set them initially.. The timing is PERFECT, but I ended up taking out my handheld analyzer and setting all the ceiling speakers to match the stage speakers at my MLP (except for the sub, I have them 10db hotter than stage). So far im happiest with that.. When my wife is out of the house with the baby and I can actually play with my toy at reference levels I will probably tweak again.


----------



## AllenA07

DanGraney said:


> Sounds good! Still learning the amp, but played some of "Mad Max" and wow! Finding the perfect spot to mount them took some planning... Managed to get them in close to optimum at 8 1/2'.


Mad Max is awesome, both as a movie and technically. The whisper scene at the beginning of the movie was played often during CEDIA, and is what convinced me that Atmos was something that I wanted in my theater. Before CEDIA and that clip I was far from sold on Atmos being an upgrade that I actually wanted to do.


----------



## Nalleh

Brett C said:


> *Besides those two*, Insidious 2 and the upcoming film The Boy and a horror/thriller entitled Regression are so far, the only horror films mixed in Atmos. Crimson Peak was remixed for BD in DTS X.


Whats this "Mama" movie? With Atmos?

And those other two you mention? Any links?


----------



## dschulz

Nalleh said:


> Whats this "Mama" movie? With Atmos?
> 
> And those other two you mention? Any links?


Mama is a truly delightful horror film - really scary, but also really thinky. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2023587/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Insidious and Insidious 2 are both surprisingly good for something you expect to be a pretty formulaic horror franchise. The sequel ties back to the original in very unexpected ways - watch them back to back, or at least on consecutive nights. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/?ref_=nv_sr_2

I am sorry to report that Insidious 3 doesn't live up to the first two films however.

Haven't yet seen The Boy, it opens theatrically in the U.S. next weekend. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3882082/?ref_=nv_sr_1


----------



## jpco

Roger Dressler said:


> If the height speakers happen to go silent during the movie, wouldn't the mains temporarily "re-appear," just like with standard soundtracks?


I find that Atmos mixes with mainly discrete objects in the height layer really call attention to the speakers and take me out of the movie for a moment. Speakers "disappear" more when the top layer has ambience and makes the top layer part of a 3-dimensional sound field throughout the movie. I'd prefer if immersive mixing moved in that direction.


----------



## tjenkins95

dschulz said:


> Mama is a truly delightful horror film - really scary, but also really thinky.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2023587/?ref_=nv_sr_2
> 
> Insidious and Insidious 2 are both surprisingly good for something you expect to be a pretty formulaic horror franchise. The sequel ties back to the original in very unexpected ways - watch them back to back, or at least on consecutive nights.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/?ref_=nv_sr_2
> 
> I am sorry to report that Insidious 3 doesn't live up to the first two films however.
> 
> Haven't yet seen The Boy, it opens theatrically in the U.S. next weekend. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3882082/?ref_=nv_sr_1


 
I really enjoyed *Mama* - it would be nice if they released it on BD or UHD with an ATMOS soundtrack!


----------



## dvdwilly3

jpco said:


> I find that Atmos mixes with mainly discrete objects in the height layer really call attention to the speakers and take me out of the movie for a moment. Speakers "disappear" more when the top layer has ambience and makes the top layer part of a 3-dimensional sound field throughout the movie. I'd prefer if immersive mixing moved in that direction.


You might try lowering the volume on the heights slightly.

Or, if you have them aimed directly at the MLP, aim the Top Front slightly in front of the MLP and slightly behind for Top Rear.

Or, both...it is your theater, tweak it until you like it...


----------



## GXMnow

DLCPhoto said:


> I am upgrading what was built 25 years ago as an audio only system, with first generation digital sound processing (Yamaha DSP-1). I recently added a video component to it (Vizio 65" non-4k TV), and want to enhance the audio with an up-to-date Dolby system. I have a couple of graphics below to show the room, which has dimensions of:
> 
> 20' wide x 32' long
> Side Walls 7' 8", with vaulted ceiling, which is 12 1/2 feet at the peak.
> Ceiling is popcorn surface (fairly hard surface, not thick or designed for sound absorption)
> Listening position is 15 feet or so from the front wall
> Main speakers are large Duntech Sovereigns (6' tall)
> 4 surround speakers are located in the corners of the room, on shelves at a height of 6'3" (Wharfdale Diamonds)
> There are 3 cross-beams traversing the room, at 8 foot intervals, each about 9 feet from the floor.
> 
> *Question 1*: The easiest option would be to simply place either conventional or DAES speakers on the front corner shelves, or on top of the Duntechs. Given the relatively high (6 foot) placement in either of these locations, and the vaulted ceiling with a relatively hard popcorn surface, would I achieve reasonably Atmos good performance? Which would be the better speaker type and location for this option?
> 
> *Question 2*: If the answer to Question 1 is that I'm very unlikely to get acceptable Atmos performance with either speaker type, in either available location, given the ceiling specifics, would mounting 1 or 2 pairs on the Beams produce a demonstrably better result? If so, I'm guessing a traditional surround, rather than DAES, speaker, but placed on which beams, and pointing in which direction?
> 
> *Question 3*: Depending on the answer to Questions 1 and 2, which specific speakers would be best suited to my particular room?
> 
> *Question 4*: Any recommendations on either a 2 or 4 channel Amp to power the 1 or 2 pairs of Atmos speakers? I wouldn't think that I'd need to spend a fortune here, given the relatively lesser role these speakers would play in the overall "audio ecosystem."


That is a nice big room with a lot of potential.

A few comments up front.
The 20 watt amp for the surrounds will not cut it for Dolby Atmos. Each surround speaker alone will need to be able to hit a decent level at your main listening position. Unless those speakers are 100 db/watt @ 1 meter, 20 watts will not fly.

You may want to go with separate Left and Right mains for movies vs 2 ch. music. After the auto tuning, you may be perfectly happy with your current speakers, and I am sure your left and right speakers sound amazing, and they would work great for movies as well, but even with great eq and room correction, it will be hard to get a center speaker to sound the same for a seamless pan across the front. For movies, the center channel is actually more important than the left and right. Do your best to get a center speaker that will keep up and try to get them to sound fairly similar before room correction is applied. 

Place your 2 sub woofers at different distances from the side walls. This will reduce the resonance in the room and make for a more pleasing and smooth sound. If both subs are the same off the side walls, you can end up with a single frequency being boosted.

Your back wall surrounds will work way out in the corners, but it is not ideal. You should move them in to the same width as your front left and right speakers. 

Since your lower ring will be 7.1 around the room, I would put the other pair of surround speakers a bit behind the couch. Just 2 foot behind you should work well. As for their height, there has been a lot of discussion on here. The lower they are will increase the separation to the tops, and Dolby is recommending down at ear level for the best effect. That being said, if you have them about a foot above your seated ear height in a room this size, you will get better coverage across more seats. But if you only have the one couch, it is not a big concern. 6 foot up is not ideal but will still sound fine. My surrounds for 7.1 were at 7 foot high in a smaller room than yours, but I am lowering them to about 5'3" with my Atmos conversion. My seated ear height is just under 4 foot.

For the top speakers in your room, I see an easy call. The front beam and rear beam are nearly perfect for "Top Front" and "Top Rear" down aimed speakers. Aim them towards the couch in the front to back direction, and towards the middle of the room in the left right direction. They do not need to be aimed all the way to the listening position, but straight down tends to make them play louder and become more obvious than if they are aimed in. When the level is set from the listening position, it makes a big difference in the level outside of the center listening area.

It is hard to recommend a speaker for your system. You want something that will make enough level and sound close to your other speakers before the room correction is dialed in. The less adjustment needed to match the response, the better the system will sound as objects pan through all of the different speakers. They do not have to be the same make and line but the closer you can match them up, the easier it is to get a smooth end result.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> If the height speakers happen to go silent during the movie, wouldn't the mains temporarily "re-appear," just like with standard soundtracks?


That makes sense, but what I am thinking is that the extra care etc with which the Atmos mixes are mixed accounts for the superior result (from all the speakers), rather than the overhead speakers per se. The Atmos mixes I own (pretty much all of them to date) all seem to me to be superb mixes. Of course, there are also superb non-Atmos mixes too. What, if anything, would account for the "total immersion" I was describing?


----------



## GXMnow

There seems to be a little misunderstanding about the speaker names and how they change what a Dolby Atmos AVR does with the sound.

The home version of Dolby Atmos gives you 5 places to put top speakers. 

Front height
Top Front
Top Middle
Top Rear
Rear Height

This may be over simplifying it a bit, but I hope it helps with the understanding.

Object sounds in Dolby Atmos have an X,Y,Z position coded with them.

The X position is the side to side location. The sound will be panned left to right between the tops, but in all 5 locations, the system knows it is a pair a little inside of the side walls, so the side to side pan is not changed by the choice of height location. The Z also just pans from the "Ear height" to the "Height layer". This talk is about front to back. "Y" is the front to back position of the sound in the room and the one effected by this speaker choice. The 5 front to back positions are places along the length of the room in this "Y" direction. I think they basically work out to Front, 1/4 back, halfway back, 3/4 back, and at the back.

Let's say you have speakers at "Front Height" and "Top Middle"
A sound object is located at 30% back in the room.
This is between the two overhead speakers, but closer to the top middle, so it will play from both pairs, but a little louder in the top middle set. 

If the sound panned to 60% back, it would go completely off in the front height as it reached the top middle, and to go further back, it most likely will start to use the back surrounds to help pull the image back further. 

Now change the speaker choice to "Top Front" and "Top Back" and see how this same pan goes.

At 30% back, the sound is very close to the front top speakers, so will be quite loud there, and very quiet in the pack pair, but still there as the sound is just behind the front top. As the pan moves back to 60%, the front fades down and the back fades up, as the sound passes 50%, the two tops are at the same level. At 60%, it is now just a little louder in the back pair than the front pair.

The names of the speakers assume you are in the middle of an ideal room and you tell it where the speakers are to give the correct pan. If you are sitting near the back of a room, you can "lie" and still tell it the speakers above you are top middle to get the effect of being in the middle of the sound image. If you use "Front Height" and "Rear Height", then all top pans will just pan between those. All the way front to all the way back. This is not a bad thing and will allow use of just wall mounted speakers near the ceiling. With my room, I may end up going "Top Front" and "Rear Height". This will have the sounds pass the front speakers fairly early and pan all the way to the back on the height speakers.

Think about where the sound appears from you to decide which set to use, but keep in mind how it will effect a moving sound. This also comes into play with the "Ear Height" speakers as well. So if you do lie about the true height speaker location, you should also fudge the low speaker positions so that a pan from the side to the top is in the same place and does not take an odd shift forward or back. I think most home AVR's are using the true side surround location which is 50% back. So a pan straight up from there would go to "Top Middle", so a side surround should be roughly in line with those height speakers. This is why I would use "Top Front" as they are ahead of my side surrounds. Back surrounds should be at the same width as the front left right and the top pairs. A bit of variation is not going to kill it, but this is the ideal. In my case, my front Left and Right are a little too wide as I chose to put them just outside of my screen. Behind the 80 inch wide screen was just too narrow. So I will plot a line from my front left to my back left surround, and the tops will go on that line.

Hope this helps. Enjoy!


----------



## Nalleh

dschulz said:


> Mama is a truly delightful horror film - really scary, but also really thinky.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2023587/?ref_=nv_sr_2
> 
> Insidious and Insidious 2 are both surprisingly good for something you expect to be a pretty formulaic horror franchise. The sequel ties back to the original in very unexpected ways - watch them back to back, or at least on consecutive nights.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/?ref_=nv_sr_2
> 
> I am sorry to report that Insidious 3 doesn't live up to the first two films however.
> 
> Haven't yet seen The Boy, it opens theatrically in the U.S. next weekend. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3882082/?ref_=nv_sr_1


Right. I thought we were talking about blurays with Atmos.


----------



## DLCPhoto

I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful reply, GXMMnow.



GXMnow said:


> The 20 watt amp for the surrounds will not cut it for Dolby Atmos. Each surround speaker alone will need to be able to hit a decent level at your main listening position. Unless those speakers are 100 db/watt @ 1 meter, 20 watts will not fly.


These are Wharfedale Diamond II's, circa 1990; don't know about their sensitivity, and couldn't easily find specs online. What amp(s) would you suggest to replace the Yamaha M-35, or is it adequate for these particular speakers? They do seem to put out a fair amount of sound, subjectively speaking.



GXMnow said:


> You may want to go with separate Left and Right mains for movies vs 2 ch. music.


I'm not sure what you're saying here; could you elaborate?



GXMnow said:


> For movies, the center channel is actually more important than the left and right. Do your best to get a center speaker that will keep up and try to get them to sound fairly similar before room correction is applied.


I have the JBL LSR308 Studio Monitor, which has received pretty favorable reviews. Thoughts?



GXMnow said:


> Place your 2 sub woofers at different distances from the side walls. This will reduce the resonance in the room and make for a more pleasing and smooth sound. If both subs are the same off the side walls, you can end up with a single frequency being boosted.


Excellent point, easily implemented (although my OCD self will object!). Trying to manage costs, and avoid things getting completely out of control, would a pair of the relatively inexpensive Yamaha 8" (YST-SW012) be adequate?



GXMnow said:


> Your back wall surrounds will work way out in the corners, but it is not ideal. You should move them in to the same width as your front left and right speakers.
> Since your lower ring will be 7.1 around the room, I would put the other pair of surround speakers a bit behind the couch. Just 2 foot behind you should work well. As for their height, there has been a lot of discussion on here. The lower they are will increase the separation to the tops, and Dolby is recommending down at ear level for the best effect. That being said, if you have them about a foot above your seated ear height in a room this size, you will get better coverage across more seats. But if you only have the one couch, it is not a big concern. 6 foot up is not ideal but will still sound fine. My surrounds for 7.1 were at 7 foot high in a smaller room than yours, but I am lowering them to about 5'3" with my Atmos conversion. My seated ear height is just under 4 foot.


Also easily accommodated.



GXMnow said:


> For the top speakers in your room, I see an easy call. The front beam and rear beam are nearly perfect for "Top Front" and "Top Rear" down aimed speakers. Aim them towards the couch in the front to back direction, and towards the middle of the room in the left right direction. They do not need to be aimed all the way to the listening position, but straight down tends to make them play louder and become more obvious than if they are aimed in. When the level is set from the listening position, it makes a big difference in the level outside of the center listening area.


This is the nitty gritty, in terms of relative cost and difficulty. I'm not sure what you mean by "Aim them towards the couch in the front to back direction, and towards the middle of the room in the left right direction."

And I assume you're saying conventional speakers, like perhaps 4 Diamond 10.1's, rather than Atmos enabled speakers? Not exactly sure how I would mount/orient them, with the beam being about 8" high, 7" wide.

I guess the hardest question is whether there will be a dramatic difference between using a single pair of let's say Klipsch RP140SA's, on top of the Duntech speakers, which is easily done, vs 2 pairs of a conventional speakers, buying a couple of amps to power them, getting some type of channels to hide the speaker wires, etc. What I'm asking myself, and you, is whether or not all that time, money and effort will really pay off in a demonstrably better experience than the simple solution (especially keeping in mind posts where many have struggled to achieve any type of positive experience with Atmos implementation).

I just saw your other post, and will tackle that next - thanks much!


----------



## healthnut

I have a question/concern about Atmos and DTS:X. Some have indicated that DTS:X doesn't recommend in ceiling overhead speakers. I'd like to set up for Atmos, but if this is true, and DTS:X emerges as the dominant format, all the effort and expense setting up for Atmos would not be a smart investment. Anyone have any thoughts about this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nightlord

9V7W3 said:


> I also have a Cathedral ceiling in my theatre space.. I did something similar for my 5.2.4 Atmos setup. I used 4 JBL control 1 pro speakers which come with ball joint mounts that screw into the speaker with a standard 1/4" Rod. On the right side I mounted them with just the mount and on the left side where the ceiling was 2 1/2" higher I just got some threaded rod from Home Depot and extended them so they hang at the same level as the right side. I covered the threaded rod with black expandable wire braiding and then ran some black CL2 rated wire along the ceiling and wrapped it around the rod to keep it neat. Turned out great and looks pretty impressive when you walk into the room.


Not that I don't think that's clever... But if you have all that space, why don't you build a fake ceiling and use all those nice cubic feet for basstrap? There would be plenty of space to hide some nice, lovely large subs too!


----------



## MarkMul1

DLCPhoto said:


> I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful reply, GXMMnow.
> 
> 
> 
> These are Wharfedale Diamond II's, circa 1990; don't know about their sensitivity, and couldn't easily find specs online. What amp(s) would you suggest to replace the Yamaha M-35, or is it adequate for these particular speakers? They do seem to put out a fair amount of sound, subjectively speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying here; could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> I have the JBL LSR308 Studio Monitor, which has received pretty favorable reviews. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point, easily implemented (although my OCD self will object!). Trying to manage costs, and avoid things getting completely out of control, would a pair of the relatively inexpensive Yamaha 8" (YST-SW012) be adequate?
> 
> 
> 
> Also easily accommodated.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the nitty gritty, in terms of relative cost and difficulty. I'm not sure what you mean by "Aim them towards the couch in the front to back direction, and towards the middle of the room in the left right direction."
> 
> And I assume you're saying conventional speakers, like perhaps 4 Diamond 10.1's, rather than Atmos enabled speakers? Not exactly sure how I would mount/orient them, with the beam being about 8" high, 7" wide.
> 
> I guess the hardest question is whether there will be a dramatic difference between using a single pair of let's say Klipsch RP140SA's, on top of the Duntech speakers, which is easily done, vs 2 pairs of a conventional speakers, buying a couple of amps to power them, getting some type of channels to hide the speaker wires, etc. What I'm asking myself, and you, is whether or not all that time, money and effort will really pay off in a demonstrably better experience than the simple solution (especially keeping in mind posts where many have struggled to achieve any type of positive experience with Atmos implementation).
> 
> I just saw your other post, and will tackle that next - thanks much!



All good information but i think you were missing my point about sending you to this forum. The dolby enabled speakers in a room with an angled ceiling covered with popcorn coating WILL result in you going on a forum and saying they don't see the benefit of Atmos. I cannot try again to be more specific here....... If you want to do Atmos and get the benefit i believe you are looking for you need to implement it from the ceiling down and not try and bounce the sound off of your uneven ceiling coated with sound absorption material...... Popcorn. I tried to get you out of the dolby enabled speaker section and get you here in the main Atmos section where there are a lot of people implementing the down fire Atmos from beams in their room. 

Maybe get your room all good with 7.1 before you try and understand / implement Atmos? Get an amp capable of Atmos if you decide to do it. Just a thought.

Parting gift: Try an understand your room is maybe possible for up fire bounce Dolby enabled speakers but more than likely you will be scratching your head wondering what the big deal is with Atmos, sounds about the same as 7.1.


----------



## healthnut

healthnut said:


> I have a question/concern about Atmos and DTS:X. Some have indicated that DTS:X doesn't recommend in ceiling overhead speakers. I'd like to set up for Atmos, but if this is true, and DTS:X emerges as the dominant format, all the effort and expense setting up for Atmos would not be a smart investment. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DLCPhoto

MarkMul1 said:


> All good information but i think you were missing my point about sending you to this forum. The dolby enabled speakers in a room with an angled ceiling covered with popcorn coating WILL result in you going on a forum and saying they don't see the benefit of Atmos. I cannot try again to be more specific here....... If you want to do Atmos and get the benefit i believe you are looking for you need to implement it from the ceiling down and not try and bounce the sound off of your uneven ceiling coated with sound absorption material...... Popcorn. I tried to get you out of the dolby enabled speaker section and get you here in the main Atmos section where there are a lot of people implementing the down fire Atmos from beams in their room.
> 
> Maybe get your room all good with 7.1 before you try and understand / implement Atmos? Get an amp capable of Atmos if you decide to do it. Just a thought.
> 
> Parting gift: Try an understand your room is maybe possible for up fire bounce Dolby enabled speakers but more than likely you will be scratching your head wondering what the big deal is with Atmos, sounds about the same as 7.1.


I do understand where you're coming from, and what you're suggesting. Basically you're saying that *anyone and every one* who tries DAES in a vaulted ceiling with popcorn surface, for Atmos implementation, will be disappointed. There are posts in that other thread that support this, but I guess I just don't have enough information or experience to say that this is intrinsically true, although I acknowledge that it may be completely 100% accurate.

I just want to be thorough in my research, especially before committing to the hassle, time and expense of setting up 4 speakers on my ceiling beams.

So in that regard, is there anybody in the forum who has used DAES mounted on speaker tops, in a room with a vaulted ceiling, with popcorn surface, and achieved successful Atmos implementation?

Or is this an exercise in futility, with in-ceiling/suspended from the ceiling, or in my case, ceiling-beam-mounted, speakers, the only viable way to implement Atmos?


----------



## smurraybhm

healthnut said:


> I have a question/concern about Atmos and DTS:X. Some have indicated that DTS:X doesn't recommend in ceiling overhead speakers. I'd like to set up for Atmos, but if this is true, and DTS:X emerges as the dominant format, all the effort and expense setting up for Atmos would not be a smart investment. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you'll be fine one way or the other. Given quality in-ceiling speaker I don't think your AVR is going to know the difference. The same could be said for a mediocre speaker mounted. Buy the best you can afford, stick to the Dolby guidelines, and enjoy


----------



## lego1

Question for you guys about Atmos speaker placement. I am in a small room around 11 feet long by 15 feet wide with my couch against a back wall. Currently I have Tannoy CMS501DC speakers in the 85 degree top main position. Due to my couch being against the back wall, I can not accommodate top rear speakers, therefore I am using these Tannoy as top main and using the Tannoy DI5DC near the ceiling on the front wall above my mains for front height. My ceiling is 8 feet high so the front height angle currently is around 26.5 degrees since the front wall is 10 feet from my ears. The front height speakers are aimed at ear height. 

I am debating if it would be an improvement to use another pair of Tannoy CMS501DC speakers in the ceiling for front height between 30-45 degrees instead of the Tannoy DI5DC. The only issue I'm seeing is that I cannot aim the Tannoy CMS speakers and they would have to be pointed straight down. If I mount them at the 45 degree position, they would be around 4 feet from the top main speakers. 

Do you guys think this is enough separation between the front height and top main or should I mount them around 30 degrees? If I do 30 degrees, there is more separation between the front height and top main, but since I can't aim them, I don't know if this would be ideal and maybe it would make sense to keep the DI5DC at 26.5 degrees aimed at me. 

Thank you for your time.


----------



## Brett C

Nalleh said:


> Right. I thought we were talking about blurays with Atmos.


The titles I mentioned were all the Horror films currently mixed for Atmos, but none are out on BD except The Gallows.
That film has some decent height effects, but is a stinker of a film.


----------



## GXMnow

DLCPhoto said:


> I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful reply, GXMMnow.
> 
> 
> 
> These are Wharfedale Diamond II's, circa 1990; don't know about their sensitivity, and couldn't easily find specs online. What amp(s) would you suggest to replace the Yamaha M-35, or is it adequate for these particular speakers? They do seem to put out a fair amount of sound, subjectively speaking.


I am just saying that the amount of sound put into the surrounds in a modern mix, 5.1, 7.1, and especially Dolby Atmos, can put a much higher demand on the sound pressure out of a surround speaker than older mixes. Even with bass management to take the low end stress off of the surround speakers, I am thinking you will want 100 watts or so available to ensure it does not clip on the peaks. Minor clipping can sound very harsh, and bad clipping will damage a speaker far faster than a bigger amp set for the same level. I tried to find specs on your Diamond II's but they just introduced the Diamond 10 line. The Diamond 10.0 is only 86 db at 1 watt 1 meter. That is not very efficient, and will need some power to keep up. They recommend only 15 to 75 watts which tells me they were not intended for a large room. You need to more than double the power to make the same level each time you double the distance from the speaker. Your room is big for a home theatre. With 20 watts to an 86 db efficient speaker, you get 99 db at 1 meter, and at 3 meters away, it falls to about 90 db. This is okay for moderate movies at less than reference levels, but a big action movie will want more. 

I know, many on here are going to say that sound levels over 90 db are crazy. Especially from a single speaker. Short quick transients can be much higher than the average level. The amplifier and speaker system needs to be able to produce these spikes without breaking up or the sound will become harsh and annoying. Very often, an under powered system will sound louder because of distortion as the system reaches it's limits. In your case, your Duntech speakers are much more efficient and you have far more power going to them. Would you even think of running them at just 20 watts? 

About a separate Left/Right pair...


> I'm not sure what you're saying here; could you elaborate?


Your left and right speakers "Duntech Sovereigns" are a very large format music speaker. It may be difficult to get small home theatre speakers to blend well for a seamless sound field. Those speakers are great and may still be the best for your left and right, but there is not much you will find to keep up for the rest of the speakers. Some people use a dedicated pair of speakers for 2 channel music listening, and then have a separate set of speakers for movie listening. You can certainly try it with your existing speakers and see if you like how they work together, but going from small bookshelf surrounds and a studio monitor center, and the large music speakers, it just might not sound ideal as a sound pans from left surround, into the left speaker, and then to the center speaker. 



> I have the JBL LSR308 Studio Monitor, which has received pretty favorable reviews. Thoughts?


The JBL LSR308 is an excellent speaker and should sound great. Your room is on the big side for it, but with bass management, it should put out enough sound. It has 56 watts to both the woofer and tweeter and is rated to produce 112 db at 1 meter away. At your couch position, it looks about 5 meters back in the picture, that speaker should still top 98 db so it should be fine. That would make a great surround and overhead speaker as well. And then it takes care of the power amp situation as well.



> Excellent point, easily implemented (although my OCD self will object!). Trying to manage costs, and avoid things getting completely out of control, would a pair of the relatively inexpensive Yamaha 8" (YST-SW012) be adequate?


The Yamaha sub you mentioned is not a bad part, but when you look at what your Duntech's have for low end, the Yamaha sub could never keep up. You could just send the LFE and the bass management to the Sovereigns and have 4 x 12 inch cones and more power for the bass in the room. To come close to what you have for bass now, you would need a pair of 15 inch subs with 500 watts pushing them. Depending on what type of movies you like, you may want more low end punch. My room is much smaller and I have 600 watts to a single 15 inch sub. A good sub can really make an action movie sound so much better. Now if you watch love stories, you don't need so much.



> This is the nitty gritty, in terms of relative cost and difficulty. I'm not sure what you mean by "Aim them towards the couch in the front to back direction, and towards the middle of the room in the left right direction."
> 
> And I assume you're saying conventional speakers, like perhaps 4 Diamond 10.1's, rather than Atmos enabled speakers? Not exactly sure how I would mount/orient them, with the beam being about 8" high, 7" wide.


All speakers are a bit louder when on axis and the level falls off as you are off the center from the speaker. With the size of your room and how far away the top speakers will be, if you left them pointed straight down, they would need to drive harder to get the correct level over where the couch is. You are not under the speaker. So tilt the speaker towards the couch and to the middle of the room a bit. 

In your case, I would certainly use a "normal" speaker mounted above you and aiming down. The "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers work best on flat ceilings in average rooms to bounce the sound off the ceiling to the listeners. Since your ceiling is not flat, you would have to plot your angles and locate the speakers so the bounce still hits at the listening position. Putting actual overhead speakers on your beams is nearly ideal positions. Run the wires on the top of the beams and you can either go in the wall to get down or use a wire duct to hide the cables. I have heard many great sounding systems with the DAES bouncing off of the ceiling, but most seem to agree, if you have the height and ability to get real speakers up there, it is more precise sounding.



> I guess the hardest question is whether there will be a dramatic difference between using a single pair of let's say Klipsch RP140SA's, on top of the Duntech speakers, which is easily done, vs 2 pairs of a conventional speakers, buying a couple of amps to power them, getting some type of channels to hide the speaker wires, etc. What I'm asking myself, and you, is whether or not all that time, money and effort will really pay off in a demonstrably better experience than the simple solution (especially keeping in mind posts where many have struggled to achieve any type of positive experience with Atmos implementation).


I can't say what you will find better or how much you will like how Dolby Atmos or DSU sounds. There is certainly a lot of personal taste involved here. I have setup several rooms for other people and I love the sound, and I have started buying and budgeting for my own room. I want to go 9.1.6 and right now, there is no reasonable processor that will do more then 7.1.4 unless you think over $20,000 for a Trinnov is reasonable. Dolby Atmos is not just about sound over your head. It allows the mixers much greater freedom when mixing to place sounds where they want them in the room. Even around you in the ear level speakers. The resulting tracks are some of the best around, even when played in 5.1 and 7.1, they just sound great. Fully decode the track back into a well setup Dolby Atmos system, and the sound field just becomes part of the movie. Some have said it didn't sound like much from the "atmos" speakers. Well, the point is it should sound "right", not yank you out of the movie and scream, "Hey!!, there is a speaker over your head!" To my ears, the best part of a good Dolby Atmos mix is the subtle details that just sound real. Just think about the sounds around you when you go eat at a restaurant, or when you walk through a park. There could be hundreds of little sounds that just are there, and you never think much of it. But when it is there, it really pulls you into the movie and makes you feel like you are there in the scene. Of course, big action movies also do like to use the plane flying over and such, and when used well, it can also help bring you into the action. Some mixes are certainly better than others, but I have not heard one I would say was ever worse than listening in 5.1


----------



## healthnut

smurraybhm said:


> I think you'll be fine one way or the other. Given quality in-ceiling speaker I don't think your AVR is going to know the difference. The same could be said for a mediocre speaker mounted. Buy the best you can afford, stick to the Dolby guidelines, and enjoy



Appreciate your response. The sensible side of me is saying to wait for DTS:X to come out and see if there is enough studio support for it and how early adopters feel about the Atmos speaker configuration for DTS:X, the impulsive side of me is saying to dive right into Atmos...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DLCPhoto

GXMnow said:


> Lots of useful information!


Thanks for the various explanations; I see what you're saying overall.

As for having separate left/right speakers for movies, vs music, I don't really think that's something I wish to pursue at this point, but I do understand the limitations this will impose on the theater experience.

I guess between you and MarkMul1, though, I'll wave the white flag, and surrender - so I'll be looking at beam-mounted speakers.

Given the need to adjust direction, I came across the Polk OWM3 (I think someone recommended these in another thread). They're fairly inexpensive ($90/pair, so $180 for the 2 pairs I'd need), and apparently have multiple ways to orient them, which would definitely come in handy. Any thoughts on these for the beam-mounted speakers? Other suggestions?

As for amps for these speakers, again trying to control costs, I came across the AudioSource AMP-100 (50W/channel) for $112, or the Onkyo M-5010 (75W/channel) for $250. Obviously I'd need 2 of them. If inadequate in your opinion, other reasonable options?

Or do you know of any 4-channel amps with adequate power for all 4 speakers, in one unit?

I don't want to 'cheap out' and buy inadequate gear, but I also know it's very easy to overspend, and buy more than I actually need. I basically always like to get the best "bang for the buck." But any reasonable suggestions will be considered.

Lastly, with regard to the subs, I see where you're coming from about the power relative to the Duntechs.



GXMnow said:


> You could just send the LFE and the bass management to the Sovereigns


How would this be implemented, given that I have the main left/right going there? Not sure how I would go about doing this.

Or is there sufficient bass coming out of the Duntechs such that I really don't need to add subwoofer(s)?

Thanks!!

Don


----------



## 9V7W3

Nightlord said:


> Not that I don't think that's clever... But if you have all that space, why don't you build a fake ceiling and use all those nice cubic feet for basstrap? There would be plenty of space to hide some nice, lovely large subs too!


I appreciate the comment.. But first of all, I think it would be really silly and a waste to cover up a 17ft peaked ceiling like I have, especially with the custom woodwork, for 4 little surround speakers. Not to mention I installed all the track lighting you see in the room myself which would also become useless. I also don't know too many people who put their subs in their ceiling in a HT, and it would be very hard to create a fake ceiling that large completely sealed and strong enough to not flex or vibrate in the high air pressure conditions of a bunch of large drivers, and if you did it would also have to hold a ton of weight. Essentially you would be building a structural floor. I'm sure even if I was crazy enough to do all that in the end it would cost as much as hiring the best acoustician in the world to come treat the room and upgrade my subs... Aside from all that I don't really need more bass anyway, I'm running two 18's and my whole system is pushing over 5,000 watts in a 12' x 14' viewing area. As it is my neighbors across the street have told me I shake things off the table in their bedroom when I listen to music!


----------



## MarkMul1

DLCPhoto said:


> I do understand where you're coming from, and what you're suggesting. Basically you're saying that *anyone and every one* who tries DAES in a vaulted ceiling with popcorn surface, for Atmos implementation, will be disappointed. There are posts in that other thread that support this, but I guess I just don't have enough information or experience to say that this is intrinsically true, although I acknowledge that it may be completely 100% accurate.
> 
> I just want to be thorough in my research, especially before committing to the hassle, time and expense of setting up 4 speakers on my ceiling beams.
> 
> So in that regard, is there anybody in the forum who has used DAES mounted on speaker tops, in a room with a vaulted ceiling, with popcorn surface, and achieved successful Atmos implementation?
> 
> Or is this an exercise in futility, with in-ceiling/suspended from the ceiling, or in my case, ceiling-beam-mounted, speakers, the only viable way to implement Atmos?


I read down below about waving the white flag. I think it will same you tons of time and frustration and money down the road. 

I never said it was 100% not doable. Who knows but you had 2 stikes against you and I was trying to help. I've read so much pain and anger in people's post when it doesn't work well. I happen to have flat ceilings at the right height and my up fires are absolutely incredible. 

I hope someday you get to sit back and enjoy and who knows. I might of saved you $$$, lots of grey hair and hours of frustration.


----------



## DLCPhoto

MarkMul1 said:


> I read down below about waving the white flag. I think it will same you tons of time and frustration and money down the road.
> 
> I never said it was 100% not doable. Who knows but you had 2 stikes against you and I was trying to help. I've read so much pain and anger in people's post when it doesn't work well. I happen to have flat ceilings at the right height and my up fires are absolutely incredible.
> 
> I hope someday you get to sit back and enjoy and who knows. I might of saved you $$$, lots of grey hair and hours of frustration.


Well, it's a little bit late for the grey hair...


----------



## smurraybhm

healthnut said:


> Appreciate your response. The sensible side of me is saying to wait for DTS:X to come out and see if there is enough studio support for it and how early adopters feel about the Atmos speaker configuration for DTS:X, the impulsive side of me is saying to dive right into Atmos...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I guess I missed the part where an Atmos configuration was less then optimal for DTS:X. You can always wait, I think DTS is going to have a tough time winning the immersive battle given they are 18 months behind, right now only D&M has announced upgrades (we will see if they meet them - hopefully so), Dolby is tying HDR and Atmos together, Sony just announced a deal with Dolby, Atmos is available for streaming now and then there is the broadcast side, Dolby again. I know there are a lot of DTS fans (never understood why, a good mix Dolby or DTS is all that matters to me), they have a bigger hole to climb out of then the Seahawks did today 

Don't get me wrong I want both to succeed as competition is good, but I guess I don't see the point in waiting, then again I jumped in early - Sept 2014.

The Martian is a great movie for those who want to see what DSU can do with a good mix. Opening scene with the storm made me feel like I was in it. Will be watching it tomorrow for the 3rd time, that's how enjoyable the audio is along with the movie itself.

Keith - thanks for the Sherlock Holmes recommendation, I really liked it and the Atmos mix was solid, not great but no regrets on the purchase. Plan on going back and watching some past seasons too, first time I had watched the popular BBC show. Steve


----------



## DanGraney

9V7W3 said:


> Nice.. I'm still experimenting too. I wasn't happy with the SPL levels the way Audyssey set them initially.. The timing is PERFECT, but I ended up taking out my handheld analyzer and setting all the ceiling speakers to match the stage speakers at my MLP (except for the sub, I have them 10db hotter than stage). So far im happiest with that.. When my wife is out of the house with the baby and I can actually play with my toy at reference levels I will probably tweak again.



I'm running the Pioneer SC-97... Pretty happy with MCACC's levels. I keep hopping on the stepladder to confirm the overheads are on, because it's so slight, yet the audio seems less directionless... Less, left to right, right to left, etc. Which is the point. It's cool.


----------



## healthnut

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I missed the part where an Atmos configuration was less then optimal for DTS:X. You can always wait, I think DTS is going to have a tough time winning the immersive battle given they are 18 months behind, right now only D&M has announced upgrades (we will see if they meet them - hopefully so), Dolby is tying HDR and Atmos together, Sony just announced a deal with Dolby, Atmos is available for streaming now and then there is the broadcast side, Dolby again. I know there are a lot of DTS fans (never understood why, a good mix Dolby or DTS is all that matters to me), they have a bigger hole to climb out of then the Seahawks did today
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong I want both to succeed as competition is good, but I guess I don't see the point in waiting, then again I jumped in early - Sept 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> The Martian is a great movie for those who want to see what DSU can do with a good mix. Opening scene with the storm made me feel like I was in it. Will be watching it tomorrow for the 3rd time, that's how enjoyable the audio is along with the movie itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Keith - thanks for the Sherlock Holmes recommendation, I really liked it and the Atmos mix was solid, not great but no regrets on the purchase. Plan on going back and watching some past seasons too, first time I had watched the popular BBC show. Steve



Thanks again Steve. Btw, I noticed Amazon dropped the price of the Martian Blu Ray to $15.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GXMnow

DLCPhoto said:


> Thanks for the various explanations; I see what you're saying overall.
> 
> As for having separate left/right speakers for movies, vs music, I don't really think that's something I wish to pursue at this point, but I do understand the limitations this will impose on the theater experience.


You can always start with just a small change to what you have and build on later if you want to go further. Just moving your current surrounds, and adding the center and make 7.1 for now with the new Pre Pro. Then add a pair or 2 pair of ceiling speakers later down the road. 



> I guess between you and MarkMul1, though, I'll wave the white flag, and surrender - so I'll be looking at beam-mounted speakers.
> 
> Given the need to adjust direction, I came across the Polk OWM3 (I think someone recommended these in another thread). They're fairly inexpensive ($90/pair, so $180 for the 2 pairs I'd need), and apparently have multiple ways to orient them, which would definitely come in handy. Any thoughts on these for the beam-mounted speakers? Other suggestions?


We just feel you will get a greater benefit from overhead speakers in your case. The DAES are possible, but would be tricky to make work well. Have to miss the beams, and have a proper angle to reach the listener. And the popcorn coating is meant to reduce the echo, or in other words, reduce how much sound will bounce. Just not ideal. I have heard several Polk speakers and they sound good, especially for the money, but do not be shocked when your 'cost no object' front left/right speakers leave you wanting something more. 



> As for amps for these speakers, again trying to control costs, I came across the AudioSource AMP-100 (50W/channel) for $112, or the Onkyo M-5010 (75W/channel) for $250. Obviously I'd need 2 of them. If inadequate in your opinion, other reasonable options?
> 
> Or do you know of any 4-channel amps with adequate power for all 4 speakers, in one unit?
> 
> I don't want to 'cheap out' and buy inadequate gear, but I also know it's very easy to overspend, and buy more than I actually need. I basically always like to get the best "bang for the buck." But any reasonable suggestions will be considered.


I do not have any good line on a home stereo grade amp for 2 or 4 channels. I have thought about using a solid car audio amp with a solid 12 volt power supply. Not for the typical home user as it will be a bit more to wire and make work well. I also have some old BGW and Hafler amps here, but they are beasts with massive power supplies that are far from efficient and they pump out a far bit of heat. I also have an older Denon AVR with 7.1 analog input, so it would work as a 7 channel amp. I just have to decide what I will use. 

This amp caught my eye.
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_866VTL850/SpeakerCraft-Vital-850.html?tp=48757
It is 8 channels at 50 watts, and the pairs can be bridged to make it 4 channels at 140 watts. This is about where I want to be for my 4 ceiling speakers. There are other choices out there as well. Just do a few internet searches and ask on the forums, someone will let you know if it is crap.



> Lastly, with regard to the subs, I see where you're coming from about the power relative to the Duntechs.
> 
> How would this be implemented, given that I have the main left/right going there? Not sure how I would go about doing this.
> 
> Or is there sufficient bass coming out of the Duntechs such that I really don't need to add subwoofer(s)?


In most AVR's and Pre Pros, there is anoption to select "No Sub-Woofer". In my Denon AVR, this forces the front main Left/Right speakers to "Large" mode which will let them play down to 20 Hz or less. The LFE " .1" will then be fed to the left and right front speakers. Any other speakers that are set to "Small" will then have the bass below the crossover frequency routed to the front speakers as well. This would use your Duntech speakers as the sub woofer for everything else. 

Here is a link to the MArantz online manual page
http://manuals.marantz.com/AV7702/NA/EN/GFNFSYcrpfrlsu.php

There is more explanation if you go to the "crossovers" and "Bass" pages. Look at the menu on the left and follow the links.


----------



## DLCPhoto

GXMnow said:


> More very useful information.


Yeah, I'm thinking of a stepwise approach as well, but want to make sure my initial steps don't conflict with or restrict future options.

So adding the Marantz pre/pro, moving the speakers, using the center, will give me a good base to start with. I am intrigued enough with the Atmos concept that I'll likely pursue that not long afterwards!

Interestingly, I had just downloaded the 7702 manual, and was reading through it. It does address the 'no subwoofer' scenario, which makes sense (and will also save me some money).

I don't know how many channels you'll need amps for, but I was just looking at the Outlaw Audio 7125 7-channel amp, 125W into each channel. $999. FWIW. No bridging capability that I saw, if that's important to you.

Yeah, those Duntechs were a big indulgence - they were purchased, in fact, when we built this room addition to our house. Speaker wires were built into the walls, with outlets at each corner. I would obviously make different choices of placement based on today's technology!

Thanks again for your help and advice.

Don


----------



## MarkMul1

DLCPhoto said:


> Yeah, I'm thinking of a stepwise approach as well, but want to make sure my initial steps don't conflict with or restrict future options.
> 
> So adding the Marantz pre/pro, moving the speakers, using the center, will give me a good base to start with. I am intrigued enough with the Atmos concept that I'll likely pursue that not long afterwards!
> 
> Interestingly, I had just downloaded the 7702 manual, and was reading through it. It does address the 'no subwoofer' scenario, which makes sense (and will also save me some money).
> 
> I don't know how many channels you'll need amps for, but I was just looking at the Outlaw Audio 7125 7-channel amp, 125W into each channel. $999. FWIW. No bridging capability that I saw, if that's important to you.
> 
> Yeah, those Duntechs were a big indulgence - they were purchased, in fact, when we built this room addition to our house. Speaker wires were built into the walls, with outlets at each corner. I would obviously make different choices of placement based on today's technology!
> 
> Thanks again for your help and advice.
> 
> Don


I don't recall what you have yet. 

Just to look and compare. I have a Denon 6200 with Emotiva XPA-200 amp. I run the left and right fronts from the Emotiva and my 4 Atmos from the 6200 with the rest. 

I have towers in the front but can't imagine not having a sub for home theater. I run 2.


----------



## DLCPhoto

MarkMul1 said:


> I don't recall what you have yet.
> 
> Just to look and compare. I have a Denon 6200 with Emotiva XPA-200 amp. I run the left and right fronts from the Emotiva and my 4 Atmos from the 6200 with the rest.
> 
> I have towers in the front but can't imagine not having a sub for home theater. I run 2.


The Denon and Emotiva look like some nice gear!

As for the subs, I don't know if you're familiar with the Duntech Sovereigns, but they're a very massive speaker with excellent low frequency performance. As GMXnow was alluding to, it would take a fairly massive subwoofer to compete with the Duntech. So hopefully I'm not missing out with the setup he's suggesting.

Thanks for sending me to this thread; it's been very helpful.

Don


----------



## DaGamePimp

helvetica bold said:


> Jason, I'd love to hear your Battlefront Atmos impressions when you get set up.
> 
> Did you see this thread? Between this and CNET it must be great.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...front-game-best-implementation-atmos-yet.html




Finally picked up Battlefront pc today and... WOW, talk about immersive audio! 


I have been playing the PS4 version (which sounds great thanks to amazing sound design) but the Atmos experience with this game is fantastic. 
I was far more involved and felt like I was actually in the battle (very intense).


They need to get Atmos going on more games (probably not likely on anything but a few AAA titles due to expense).


- Jason


----------



## 9V7W3

DanGraney said:


> I'm running the Pioneer SC-97... Pretty happy with MCACC's levels. I keep hopping on the stepladder to confirm the overheads are on, because it's so slight, yet the audio seems less directionless... Less, left to right, right to left, etc. Which is the point. It's cool.


Yea I had to do the same thing at first too.. I guess I'm a bit biased. I install and service Atmos systems in commercial cinemas (Dolby certified) and when we calibrate Atmos every surround speaker, even when there are 64 of them on the ceiling in 4 rows, is calibrated to 85db at the main listening or calibration area. Now this is averaged because we use a multiplexor of 8 mics for our EQ which covers a much larger area than the couch in our living rooms but I'm used to the presence of the height channels just being a bit stronger that's all. 

I ended up doing basically the same thing with my HT. After running Audyssey using the Dolby Atmos test disc I ran the pink noise tones and first set the master volume with the center Channel tone out until I read 85db on my handheald analyzer, then I raised each height speaker gain to match at 85db. It wasn't that drastic from where Audyssey set them, but it definitely made a difference and my image is still great. That is I don't find myself realizing there are "speakers" above me, it just seems more immersive at any volume level now. Give it a try you can always go back just snap a pic of your levels before hand.


----------



## DanGraney

9V7W3 said:


> Yea I had to do the same thing at first too.. I guess I'm a bit biased. I install and service Atmos systems in commercial cinemas (Dolby certified) and when we calibrate Atmos every surround speaker, even when there are 64 of them on the ceiling in 4 rows, is calibrated to 85db at the main listening or calibration area. Now this is averaged because we use a multiplexor of 8 mics for our EQ which covers a much larger area than the couch in our living rooms but I'm used to the presence of the height channels just being a bit stronger that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> I ended up doing basically the same thing with my HT. After running Audyssey using the Dolby Atmos test disc I ran the pink noise tones and first set the master volume with the center Channel tone out until I read 85db on my handheald analyzer, then I raised each height speaker gain to match at 85db. It wasn't that drastic from where Audyssey set them, but it definitely made a difference and my image is still great. That is I don't find myself realizing there are "speakers" above me, it just seems more immersive at any volume level now. Give it a try you can always go back just snap a pic of your levels before hand.



Ill have to dig into the recommended specs... I do have the day off tomorrow, and I have a sound meter. Hmmm.


----------



## Carrick

Speaker placement advice using Denon 4200? 

Can I put the FH at 25° above the MLP horizontal plane on my wall vs 45° ? And if YES, do I have to match the same angle for my rear .4 speakers?

Also I have mixed speakers:
5- ML LX16
4- Energy 5.2 sats
1- Energy 8.2 Sub

Yesterday I installed 3-ML as my LCR speakers, what should I do with the rest to best enjoy 5.1.4 with a Denon 4200?

1. Put the Energy sats for all heights and the 2 ML for side surrounds
2. Use the 2 MLs for FH to match the LCR timbre and then use the Energy sats for RH and side surrounds

Thanks


----------



## 9V7W3

DanGraney said:


> Ill have to dig into the recommended specs... I do have the day off tomorrow, and I have a sound meter. Hmmm.


Go for it! From everything I've researched online I can't find any documentation for SPL settings for the home version of Atmos.. I think I'll just give my friends at Dolby a call tomorrow and pick their brain, I'll fill you guys in if I learn anything.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Keith - thanks for the Sherlock Holmes recommendation, I really liked it and the Atmos mix was solid, not great but no regrets on the purchase. Plan on going back and watching some past seasons too, first time I had watched the popular BBC show. Steve


Glad you enjoyed it. IMO Seasons 1 to 3 are all better than the one-off special, although no Atmos. You can get all three seasons in one Blu-ray package - that's 9 episodes of about 90 minutes each. Good value. And good sound albeit not Atmos. The three seasons are all set in the modern day, which is a neat twist.


----------



## jkasanic

kbarnes701 said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. IMO Seasons 1 to 3 are all better than the one-off special, although no Atmos. You can get all three seasons in one Blu-ray package - that's 9 episodes of about 90 minutes each. Good value. And good sound albeit not Atmos. The three seasons are all set in the modern day, which is a neat twist.


Say it isn't so Keith! You actually watched 3 seasons of a *TV show*?!


----------



## pasender91

Carrick said:


> Speaker placement advice using Denon 4200?
> 
> Can I put the FH at 25° above the MLP horizontal plane on my wall vs 45° ? And if YES, do I have to match the same angle for my rear .4 speakers?
> 
> Also I have mixed speakers:
> 5- ML LX16
> 4- Energy 5.2 sats
> 1- Energy 8.2 Sub
> 
> Yesterday I installed 3-ML as my LCR speakers, what should I do with the rest to best enjoy 5.1.4 with a Denon 4200?
> 
> 1. Put the Energy sats for all heights and the 2 ML for side surrounds
> 2. Use the 2 MLs for FH to match the LCR timbre and then use the Energy sats for RH and side surrounds
> 
> Thanks


I would without any doubts go with option 1, using the Energy sats as heights. It is important to keep the lower 5 speakers consistent ...


----------



## kbarnes701

jkasanic said:


> Say it isn't so Keith! You actually watched 3 seasons of a *TV show*?!


LOL. Yes, I did. It's the only TV I have watched, other than the news and the occasional documentary, in quite a few years. Of course I didn't actually watch it on TV - saw them on the HT big screen via Blu-ray. They are all made very much like movies, although all the usual 'TV twitches' are in them - you know, the two-shots and big close-ups and so on.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Yes, I did. It's the only TV I have watched, other than the news and the occasional documentary, in quite a few years. Of course I didn't actually watch it on TV - saw them on the HT big screen via Blu-ray. They are all made very much like movies, although all the usual 'TV twitches' are in them - you know, the two-shots and big close-ups and so on.


Keith, if you liked the movie _Fargo_ at all, you should at least check out the first season of the TV show sequel... also made with assistance from the Coen Brothers. Martin Freeman, sporting the Coens' trade-marked comical Northern "Ya, Donchaknow" accent, and Billy Bob Thornton are especially fantastic. Billy's villainous and oily Lorne Malvo character is just as cleverly diabolical as Anton Chigurh in _No Country for Old Men_.

It too plays like a long form movie in separate chapters, though about 10 hours in length. The production values, classical pacing, and crafted ambiance of creeping dread are excellent for a TV show.


----------



## Carrick

pasender91 said:


> I would without any doubts go with option 1, using the Energy sats as heights. It is important to keep the lower 5 speakers consistent ...


That makes me happier since they weigh much less to mount from the ceiling and get the true 45° from MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Keith, if you liked the movie _Fargo_ at all, you should at least check out the first season of the TV show sequel... also made with assistance from the Coen Brothers. Martin Freeman, sporting the Coens' trade-marked comical Northern "Ya, Donchaknow" accent, and Billy Bob Thornton are especially fantastic. Billy's villainous and oily Lorne Malvo character is just as cleverly diabolical as Anton Chigurh in _No Country for Old Men_.
> 
> It too plays like a long form movie in separate chapters, though about 10 hours in length. The production values, classical pacing, and crafted ambiance of creeping dread are excellent for a TV show.


Thanks Dan. *Fargo* is one of my favorite movies. The series sounds as if it should be fantastic, with the cast and the involvement of the Coens too. My only reason for shying away from some of these great TV series that are being made these days is the time investment in watching a whole series. Something like Game of Thrones, for example, must be in the region of hundreds of hours of time commitment. I do enjoy the luxury of a couple of hours a day of 'me time' and I have to choose between a movie or a TV episode, and the thought of getting hooked on a series which runs into dozens of hours concerns me. Every hour spent watching the series is an hour spent not watching movies. But I have toyed with *Fargo* in the past, since I love the movie so much, and will take another look on your recommendation.

*No Country For Old Men *is another of my favorites and you remind me to add it to my 'upcoming movies' list.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Dan. *Fargo* is one of my favorite movies. The series sounds as if it should be fantastic, with the cast and the involvement of the Coens too. My only reason for shying away from some of these great TV series that are being made these days is the time investment in watching a whole series. Something like Game of Thrones, for example, must be in the region of hundreds of hours of time commitment. I do enjoy the luxury of a couple of hours a day of 'me time' and I have to choose between a movie or a TV episode, and the thought of getting hooked on a series which runs into dozens of hours concerns me. Every hour spent watching the series is an hour spent not watching movies. But I have toyed with *Fargo* in the past, since I love the movie so much, and will take another look on your recommendation.
> 
> *No Country For Old Men *is another of my favorites and you remind me to add it to my 'upcoming movies' list.


Cool! You won't be disappointed... I too was skeptical, but came away impressed. The second season is more like a prequel and takes on an entirely different tone with many more homages and references to odd Coen brothers moments from their other films... including a random UFO showing up out of the blue.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Dan. *Fargo* is one of my favorite movies. The series sounds as if it should be fantastic, with the cast and the involvement of the Coens too. My only reason for shying away from some of these great TV series that are being made these days is the time investment in watching a whole series. Something like Game of Thrones, for example, must be in the region of hundreds of hours of time commitment. I do enjoy the luxury of a couple of hours a day of 'me time' and I have to choose between a movie or a TV episode, and the thought of getting hooked on a series which runs into dozens of hours concerns me. Every hour spent watching the series is an hour spent not watching movies. But I have toyed with *Fargo* in the past, since I love the movie so much, and will take another look on your recommendation.
> 
> You betcha!!!


----------



## Steven James 2

smurraybhm said:


> I guess I missed the part where an Atmos configuration was less then optimal for DTS:X. You can always wait, I think DTS is going to have a tough time winning the immersive battle given they are 18 months behind, right now only D&M has announced upgrades (we will see if they meet them - hopefully so), Dolby is tying HDR and Atmos together, Sony just announced a deal with Dolby, Atmos is available for streaming now and then there is the broadcast side, Dolby again. I know there are a lot of DTS fans (never understood why, a good mix Dolby or DTS is all that matters to me), they have a bigger hole to climb out of then the Seahawks did Steve



Yamaha has said their DTS:X upgrade will come in first quarter of 2016.


----------



## wyattroa

anyone know of a good pair of low profile speakers to attach to the ceiling for atmos? I was looking at the polk OWM3's. Just wondering what else is out there.
Robert


----------



## wyattroa

anyone know of a good pair of low profile speakers to attach to the ceiling for atmos? I was looking at the polk OWM3's. Just wondering what else is out there.
Robert


----------



## DaGamePimp

wyattroa said:


> anyone know of a good pair of low profile speakers to attach to the ceiling for atmos? I was looking at the polk OWM3's. Just wondering what else is out there.
> Robert



I currently have 4 OWM3's in use for Atmos, they are very flexible for mounting and sound great (the drivers/x-overs are very similar to my existing surrounds so I gave them a shot).
They can be purchased on ebay for $65/pair direct from Polk, refurbished but they are like new and carry the same warranty as new.
I tested them with 2 channel music and pushed them fairly hard, they are more than enough for Atmos height speakers IMO.


Best of luck,
Jason


----------



## 9V7W3

Steven James 2 said:


> Yamaha has said their DTS:X upgrade will come in first quarter of 2016.


Wow.. Why is DTS/Datasat even bothering.. They may as well wave the white flag now..


----------



## thebland

Any one with an ATMOS set up tell me if *height speaker sounds are ever as loud or strong as s full on LCR signal?* Debating how much power I need in heights. Thanks!!


----------



## Holiday121

thebland said:


> Any one with an ATMOS set up tell me if *height speaker sounds are ever as loud or strong as s full on LCR signal?* Debating how much power I need in heights. Thanks!!


Trying to figure out as well. Some people have massive systems in massive rooms. Trying to find that middle line


----------



## Shniks

9V7W3 said:


> Wow.. Why is DTS/Datasat even bothering.. They may as well wave the white flag now..



I have to agree. Not sure how DTS will regain lost ground. It's going to be a supremely uphill task - unless their system really sounds better and scales more efficiently.


Cheers,


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> Any one with an ATMOS set up tell me if *height speaker sounds are ever as loud or strong as s full on LCR signal?* Debating how much power I need in heights. Thanks!!


Maybe. Depends on the movie and I doubt anyone has tested that.

However.... it is in the specification of the format that ALL height/overhead channels are just as capable as any other speaker in the system. No more, no less.

Treat them at worst, like a surround speaker. At best, just like your LCR's.

How much power will it take to hit 105dB peak at the seats? That's how much power you'll need.


----------



## DaGamePimp

*All* speakers in the system require level matching for optimal results and I do not think this has changed for Atmos.


- Jason


----------



## dschulz

9V7W3 said:


> Wow.. Why is DTS/Datasat even bothering.. They may as well wave the white flag now..


DTS:X belongs only to DTS - Datasat has nothing to do with it (other than Datasat is licensing all of the Dolby and DTS codecs for inclusion in the RS20i and LS10 home theater products).

Datasat (which acquired the DTS Digital Cinema division from DTS in 2008) is now a hardware business, manufacturing and selling cinema processors to movie theaters and pre/pros and amplifiers in the home theatre market.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Seeing that DTS just got back into the cinema world just this last year, I could see how someone would still presume that Datasat _was_ DTS. 

But I'm glad you cleared that up, Dan.


----------



## Nabs17

Steven James 2 said:


> Yamaha has said their DTS:X upgrade will come in first quarter of 2016.


This is good to hear as I'm a Yamaha guy but I haven't seen anything anywhere (and I have been looking) that indicates that. All I've seen is the announcement for Denon.


Do you have a link?


----------



## Nabs17

Nabs17 said:


> This is good to hear as I'm a Yamaha guy but I haven't seen anything anywhere (and I have been looking) that indicates that. All I've seen is the announcement for Denon.
> 
> 
> Do you have a link?


Nevermind...found it:


http://au.yamaha.com/en/news_events/audio-visual/dts-x_rel/


----------



## sdurani

9V7W3 said:


> They may as well wave the white flag now..


Let's hope not. I'd rather have competition than a monopoly. There's enough content for both formats.


----------



## BrandonH

As an owner of an Atmos receiver that won't be getting a DTS X update, I'm not sure there is much benefit in DTS succeeding for me and a lot of downside since I'd like to see everything released in Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Let's hope not. I'd rather have competition than a monopoly. There's enough content for both formats.


Totally.

Especially since we are all very lucky to have Atmos right now, I can easily wait it out on the DTS front. Seriously, just take your time, DTS and get back to us when you got your stuff working as intended. Don't half-ass it (you know what I mean. Yes, you do.) and get it right. We'll be here and still (lol) demanding that upgrade.


----------



## batpig

wyattroa said:


> anyone know of a good pair of low profile speakers to attach to the ceiling for atmos? I was looking at the polk OWM3's. Just wondering what else is out there.
> Robert


If you can't go IN ceiling, and don't want bigger box speakers dangling off the ceiling, those Polks are a neat choice. Although I would recommend if at all possible to go with the larger OWM5's for their greater output and dynamics. 

The only other "low profile" options would be to use the "flat panel" wall mounted type speakers like GoldenEar SuperSats or Def Tech ProMonitors, and mount them on the ceiling instead.


----------



## audioguy

thebland said:


> Any one with an ATMOS set up tell me if *height speaker sounds are ever as loud or strong as s full on LCR signal?* Debating how much power I need in heights. Thanks!!


Rarely. Actually the ONLY time I have heard much continuous loud sound out of them was during the 747 Flyover on the most recent Atmos Demo disc. I have fairly efficient speakers in the ceiling and am using a 5 channel Emotiva amp @ 200 Watts/Channel. That is all you will need in my opinion and the amp is reliable and very cost effective. And don't forget, most all of the "heavy lifting" in audio is in the bass and to address your concern about power handling and volume and amp size, just cross the ceiling speakers over at 100HZ (Your SubMersives sound excellent up there). Problem solved !! (FWIW, that is what I have done).

At the end of the day I would echo what another poster said: At worst they need to have the capability of your surrounds and at most match the LCR's. (I would never consider this option since my surrounds don't have the capability of my LCR's)


----------



## Charles R

batpig said:


> The only other "low profile" options would be to use the "flat panel" wall mounted type speakers like GoldenEar SuperSats or Def Tech ProMonitors, and mount them on the ceiling instead.


The Boston Acoustics Bravo 20 is a nice size and well constructed - versatile mounting bracket included. Not so small it looks "under scaled" and so big it looks out of place. Performance wise I went with them by default since the rest of my speakers are Boston Acoustics and overall they hang with the others. However Audyssey sets the fronts crossover at 120Hz and the rears 150Hz so don't expect a lot of bass... probably a better bang for the buck out there.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Charles R said:


> The Boston Acoustics Bravo 20 is a nice size and well constructed - versatile mounting bracket included. Not so small it looks "under scaled" and so big it looks out of place. Performance wise I went with them by default since the rest of my speakers are Boston Acoustics and overall they hang with the others. However Audyssey sets the fronts crossover at 120Hz and the rears 150Hz so don't expect a lot of bass... probably a better bang for the buck out there.



Those are exactly what I wanted to go with initially (since my HT has BA VR2, VR12, CR67) but I could not find a reasonable price on four speakers and had no desire to spend $600+ on four small Atmos speakers. 


I also auditioned the OWM5's with the OWM3's when I bought the first pair a few years ago and they sounded identical other than a bit more bass from the OWM5's. Refurbished OWM5's can be purchased in white direct from Polk for $70 each on ebay (while the OWM3's are $65/pair and come in black).


- Jason


----------



## Charles R

DaGamePimp said:


> Those are exactly what I wanted to go with initially (since my HT has BA VR2, VR12, CR67) but I could not find a reasonable price on four speakers and had no desire to spend $600+ on four small Atmos speakers.


I was both ways on them. Compared to my other speakers they were "cheap" per se and at the same time "felt" expensive for what they were. I will say they timber match wonderfully and I'm happy with them. Mine are ancient VR975, VR960, etc.


----------



## HT-Eman

Well since i didnt hear anything about the emotiva xmr-1 at CES im still looking at the audiocontrol avr-9 . I was hoping there was going to be a couple of reviews out by now. Wanting to have this by the end of March . What do you guys think about audiocontrol products ? I think i would be the only person with this avr in this thread .


----------



## Steven James 2

batpig said:


> If you can't go IN ceiling, and don't want bigger box speakers dangling off the ceiling, those Polks are a neat choice. Although I would recommend if at all possible to go with the larger OWM5's for their greater output and dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> The only other "low profile" options would be to use the "flat panel" wall mounted type speakers like GoldenEar SuperSats or Def Tech ProMonitors, and mount them on the ceiling instead.



I agree the owm5's are the way to go! I tried 3's and ended up getting the 5's and it was a huge improvement!


----------



## Selden Ball

HT-Eman said:


> Well since i didnt hear anything about the emotiva xmr-1 at CES im still looking at the audiocontrol avr-9 . I was hoping there was going to be a couple of reviews out by now. Wanting to have this by the end of March . What do you guys think about audiocontrol products ? I think i would be the only person with this avr in this thread .


My understanding is that they're essentially identical to the equivalent Arcam units, the AVR 850 and AVR 550, although their firmware has to be different. There have been reviews of the Arcam AVRs on avforum.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Anyone know if Filmakers give away is over yet? I'm hating the price I see on Ebay, but I may just have to. 

The torrent thing isn't for me. I don't have the hardware to burn bluray, so I haven't tried to figure that one out.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Anyone know if FilmMixers give away is over yet? I'm hating the price I see on Ebay, but I may just have to. 

The torrent thing isn't for me. I don't have the hardware to burn bluray, so I haven't tried to figure that one out.


----------



## LowellG

Jive Turkey said:


> Anyone know if Filmakers give away is over yet? I'm hating the price I see on Ebay, but I may just have to.
> 
> The torrent thing isn't for me. I don't have the hardware to burn bluray, so I haven't tried to figure that one out.


Are you talking about Atmos Demo files. You can down load 8 lossless ones here:



http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Let's hope not. I'd rather have competition than a monopoly. There's enough content for both formats.





Scott Simonian said:


> Totally.
> 
> Especially since we are all very lucky to have Atmos right now, I can easily wait it out on the DTS front. Seriously, just take your time, DTS and get back to us when you got your stuff working as intended. Don't half-ass it (you know what I mean. Yes, you do.) and get it right. We'll be here and still (lol) demanding that upgrade.


Ehhhh...kinda sounds like "I wish HD DVD was still around as competition for Blu-ray" - consumers hate competing standards. When the mainstream finds out they have to purchase equipment that may or may not play back object based audio in a particular format (like the Samsung soundbar for instance) they may just say "screw it" all together.


It's not like Dolby stopped innovating once their formats became de facto standards.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> It's not like Dolby stopped innovating once their formats became de facto standards.


If you get a chance to talk to reps from Dolby, ask them whether competition from DTS has made their own technology (like TrueHD encoders) better or not.


----------



## shyyour

Please can anyone confirm if Legend (2015) UK Bluray will have Atmos? I saw it on the "Lists of BDs with Dolby Atmos" on blu-ray.com (i don't know what the protocol is about linking to other forums).

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

I watched *Everest* last night. There are problems with its pacing IMO. The first act is very slow. The idea is to build up rapport with the characters and to fill in their backgrounds, but most of that doesn't matter as the character arcs aren't very well developed in the movie anyway. I'd have preferred to see the movie start with some of the "disaster" scenes from later on, then go to flashback for the bulk of the movie. Knowing what is coming up for the characters would make us pay more attention to their backgrounds etc. And it wouldn't be a spoiler since the movie is fact-based anyway.

However, having said that, when it gets going, it gets going and as tale of human endurance against overwhelming circumstances, it plays pretty well. My fear that the "mountain would be a significant character" was groundless, and in fact there isn't enough made of the brutal, uncaring aspect of Mother Nature's personality and our puny inability to combat it. I’d have liked to see the mountain play _more_ as a character.

The visuals are stunning, as one would hope given their setting. And the sound is very good. There are numerous scenes where the overheads are given a good workout and especially so in one helicopter rescue scene close to the end of the movie. In the storms, we frequently hear the wind whistling overhead, along with some deep thunderclaps. Bass is very strong throughout the movie, especially in the storm sequences and, of course, the various avalanches.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie.

A few pages ago I was having a discussion with @Jeremy Anderson where he was defending the mixer's lack of use of the overhead speakers in the opening scenes of *San Andreas*, where a woman is rescued by a helicopter. Jeremy put forward a very strong case for why the mixer chose not to put helicopter sounds in the overhead speakers.

However, contrast this with a similar helicopter rescue scene in *Everest*, where you will fear your ceiling is about to collapse in one instance and where, in another instance, the sound of rotor blades whips across and around the ceiling, adding considerable drama to the whole scene. I cannot see how there is much difference between the two scenes, artistically, yet we have, in the one instance, no sounds from overhead at all, and in the other, considerable sounds from overhead. If the argument was that the mixer on *San Andreas* didn't use the overheads for fear of bringing us out of the movie, then why does it work so effectively in *Everest*? 

In general, wrt to the use of Atmos in movies, here is another conundrum. In *Everest*, there are numerous scenes which take place in severe weather conditions. Yet the use of the overhead speakers in these scenes seems almost random to me. Some scenes feature the overheads extensively, with wind whipping back and forth and side to side over our heads, yet in other almost identical scenes, the overheads are totally silent. In one such scene I muted my floor level speakers, expecting to hear a lot of wind and ice and snow etc above me, and I was rewarded with total silence. No audio output whatsoever until the floor speakers were re-engaged. What is the explanation for this? Why do we have considerable 'storm noise' above us in one scene and totally absent in another almost identical scene?


----------



## kbarnes701

thebland said:


> Any one with an ATMOS set up tell me if *height speaker sounds are ever as loud or strong as s full on LCR signal?* Debating how much power I need in heights. Thanks!!


I have 30 Atmos movies on Bluray. Based on those movies, my answer to your question would be "no". Not nearly so.

However, the view expressed by Scott and audioguy _"At worst they need to have the capability of your surrounds and at most match the LCR's"_ is probably the best way to go to ensure future-proofing if mixers ever decide to really give those overheads a work-out. As things stand, the overheads are silent for the majority of Atmos movies and just whimpering the rest of the time.

I've done extensive listening with the floor level speakers muted - yes, it is sad isn’t it?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Regarding Dolby Atmos mixes - - it just like 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks in that it really depends on the level of expertise of the sound engineer on how well it comes across when listening on a home theater system. I know this isn't shocking news to anyone but I think it's really important to consider when reviewing movies.

Object based audio is still relatively new. That doesn't excuse, however, supposed Dolby Atmos soundtracks that do not use the overheads when it's obvious that that is where the sound is coming from (helicopter scenes, extreme weather, planes flying overhead). I'm not asking for sound "Bling" - - rather the practical application of object based audio where it's applicable. It makes a film much more enjoyable and life like. 

Does anybody remember the first time they heard Saving Private Ryan in Dolby 5.1? That was one of the first movies where I said to myself after watching & listening to it that my investment in a home theater was a great choice!


----------



## wyattroa

batpig said:


> Although I would recommend if at all possible to go with the larger OWM5's for their greater output and dynamics..


My plan as of now is this. I have ordered the Polk owm3's from ebay for $65, seems like a good deal. I will attached them to the ceiling and let the wife get past the annoyance of having them there and give her a demo. Once she has got accustom to the speakers I plan to swap them out with the OWM5's in the same exact location. I really don't think she will notice, or if she does, she will wonder if she is going crazy..lol


----------



## Ricoflashback

wyattroa said:


> My plan as of now is this. I have ordered the Polk owm3's from ebay for $65, seems like a good deal. I will attached them to the ceiling and let the wife get past the annoyance of having them there and give her a demo. Once she has got accustom to the speakers I plan to swap them out with the OWM5's in the same exact location. I really don't think she will notice, or if she does, she will wonder if she is going crazy..lol


Excellent WAF plan! You should charge for consulting other AVS Forum members on how to handle this delicate situation. That would cover any of your upgrade speaker expenses!


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> In general, wrt to the use of Atmos in movies, here is another conundrum. In *Everest*, there are numerous scenes which take place in severe weather conditions. Yet the use of the overhead speakers in these scenes seems almost random to me. Some scenes feature the overheads extensively, with wind whipping back and forth and side to side over our heads, yet in other almost identical scenes, the overheads are totally silent. In one such scene I muted my floor level speakers, expecting to hear a lot of wind and ice and snow etc above me, and I was rewarded with total silence. No audio output whatsoever until the floor speakers were re-engaged. What is the explanation for this? Why do we have considerable 'storm noise' above us in one scene and totally absent in another almost identical scene?



For me, what would make Atmos tracks most effective would be to use the height layer for ambience at appropriate levels whenever there is ambience in the surrounds. If they are adding to the Atmosphere of the soundfield, then why would there not be sound all around? Dead silence in the heights for long stretches makes discrete objects and the speakers noticeable and not as natural at times.


----------



## tjenkins95

shyyour said:


> Please can anyone confirm if Legend (2015) UK Bluray will have Atmos? I saw it on the "Lists of BDs with Dolby Atmos" on blu-ray.com (i don't know what the protocol is about linking to other forums).
> Thanks


The fact that it was added to the list in the "Lists of BDs with Dolby Atmos" forum already indicates that it has been confirmed to contain Atmos.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


The physical blu-ray will not be released to the public until next Monday. 



Ray


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> A few pages ago I was having a discussion with @Jeremy Anderson where he was defending the mixer's lack of use of the overhead speakers in the opening scenes of *San Andreas*, where a woman is rescued by a helicopter. Jeremy put forward a very strong case for why the mixer chose not to put helicopter sounds in the overhead speakers.
> 
> However, contrast this with a similar helicopter rescue scene in *Everest*, where you will fear your ceiling is about to collapse in one instance and where, in another instance, the sound of rotor blades whips across and around the ceiling, adding considerable drama to the whole scene. I cannot see how there is much difference between the two scenes, artistically, yet we have, in the one instance, no sounds from overhead at all, and in the other, considerable sounds from overhead. If the argument was that the mixer on *San Andreas* didn't use the overheads for fear of bringing us out of the movie, then why does it work so effectively in *Everest*?


My argument was that we don't know the intentions of the mixer... or the director he was serving. Different movies, different mixers, different needs. The point of my post was that Atmos is just an additional tool in the mixer's palette. That mixer will still have his preferences for how things should sound, and that might not jive with your need to hear a bunch of stuff from the heights. For instance, my favorite sound guy for years has been Gary Rydstrom. He consistently creates very balanced mixes and makes choices that show off the surrounds when called for but not at the expense of pulling you out of the movie. If you don't know his name, you certainly know his work - Saving Private Ryan, Finding Nemo, Minority Report... The list goes on, and believe it or not, you eventually learn to recognize his style of mixing if you're a fan. On the Atmos demo discs you can hear his work on the SILENT clip, which it seems most people like the LEAST of all of the demo clips. And yet, it may be the most nuanced use of Atmos on all of those demos. Different mixer... different projects... different purposes.


kbarnes701 said:


> In general, wrt to the use of Atmos in movies, here is another conundrum. In *Everest*, there are numerous scenes which take place in severe weather conditions. Yet the use of the overhead speakers in these scenes seems almost random to me. Some scenes feature the overheads extensively, with wind whipping back and forth and side to side over our heads, yet in other almost identical scenes, the overheads are totally silent. In one such scene I muted my floor level speakers, expecting to hear a lot of wind and ice and snow etc above me, and I was rewarded with total silence. No audio output whatsoever until the floor speakers were re-engaged. What is the explanation for this? Why do we have considerable 'storm noise' above us in one scene and totally absent in another almost identical scene?


Bear in mind that these mixers aren't necessarily mixing with the heights as a discrete channel at all times, so the focus isn't "put a bunch of stuff in the heights". Yes, they have the ability to place things discretely in the height channels in the cinema (and to emulate that using objects in the home version), but for the most part, they're placing these sounds using objects in a 3-D space. It seems like a minor distinction, but it really is counter to what most people seem to be expecting when they express expectations of things being above the listener. Mixers are placing and moving sounds in 3-D space, which can be anywhere between the heights and beds, in varying increments. When you isolate the height channels and listen for activity there, keep in mind that if an object is placed anywhere below full height on the Z axis, you will only hear PART of the sound in the height channels, with the rest (and usually the majority) in multiple other speakers in the 3-D array. And sometimes, the heights will be pretty much silent... if the object placement in 3-D space doesn't need them to place that sound in the room.

Ultimately, we can argue over that San Andreas scene all day long, but the only person who can say for sure is the guy who did the mix. I wasn't being an apologist for his choices as much as I was explaining that their concerns and needs vary greatly from the desires of those of us who have Atmos in the home. I should have Everest in the next day or so. Am looking forward to hearing it!


----------



## shyyour

tjenkins95 said:


> The fact that it was added to the list in the "Lists of BDs with Dolby Atmos" forum already indicates that it has been confirmed to contain Atmos.
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> 
> The physical blu-ray will not be released to the public until next Monday.
> 
> 
> Ray


Thanks. I figured it would have it but it was just weird that no one had mentioned it here.


----------



## Stoked21

tjenkins95 said:


> The fact that it was added to the list in the "Lists of BDs with Dolby Atmos" forum already indicates that it has been confirmed to contain Atmos.
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> 
> The physical blu-ray will not be released to the public until next Monday.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray


Odd...Amazon shows March 1st. I had wanted to see this movie, but it didn't really release to any theaters. Bonus...For once I get to watch a movie I've never seen in my HT with Atmos!


----------



## shyyour

Stoked21 said:


> Odd...Amazon shows March 1st. I had wanted to see this movie, but it didn't really release to any theaters. Bonus...For once I get to watch a movie I've never seen in my HT with Atmos!


He was referring to Amazon UK which is Jan 26th. I'll also be getting it


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> My argument was that we don't know the intentions of the mixer... or the director he was serving. Different movies, different mixers, different needs. The point of my post was that Atmos is just an additional tool in the mixer's palette. That mixer will still have his preferences for how things should sound, and that might not jive with your need to hear a bunch of stuff from the heights. For instance, my favorite sound guy for years has been Gary Rydstrom. He consistently creates very balanced mixes and makes choices that show off the surrounds when called for but not at the expense of pulling you out of the movie. If you don't know his name, you certainly know his work - Saving Private Ryan, Finding Nemo, Minority Report... The list goes on, and believe it or not, you eventually learn to recognize his style of mixing if you're a fan. On the Atmos demo discs you can hear his work on the SILENT clip, which it seems most people like the LEAST of all of the demo clips. And yet, it may be the most nuanced use of Atmos on all of those demos. Different mixer... different projects... different purposes.


Yes, Gary Rydstrom is a favorite of mine too. I also like the more "in your face" style of Erik Aadahl too. I am sure you will know his movies but anyone following along who may not be familiar with the name, these are some of his movies which I own on disc:

Terminator Genisys (2015) (supervising sound editor) 
Godzilla (2014) (sound designer) (supervising sound editor)
World War Z (2013) (supervising sound designer: U.K.)
Pain & Gain (2013) (sound designer) (supervising sound editor)
G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) (supervising sound editor) 
Argo (2012) (sound designer) (supervising sound editor)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) (supervising sound editor) 
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011) (supervising sound editor)
The Tree of Life (2011) (co-supervising sound editor) (sound designer)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) (supervising sound editor) 

And now everyone can see what I mean by "in your face" (in the most complimentary way). 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Bear in mind that these mixers aren't necessarily mixing with the heights as a discrete channel at all times, so the focus isn't "put a bunch of stuff in the heights". Yes, they have the ability to place things discretely in the height channels in the cinema (and to emulate that using objects in the home version), but for the most part, they're placing these sounds using objects in a 3-D space. It seems like a minor distinction, but it really is counter to what most people seem to be expecting when they express expectations of things being above the listener. Mixers are placing and moving sounds in 3-D space, which can be anywhere between the heights and beds, in varying increments. When you isolate the height channels and listen for activity there, keep in mind that if an object is placed anywhere below full height on the Z axis, you will only hear PART of the sound in the height channels, with the rest (and usually the majority) in multiple other speakers in the 3-D array. And sometimes, the heights will be pretty much silent... if the object placement in 3-D space doesn't need them to place that sound in the room.
> 
> Ultimately, we can argue over that San Andreas scene all day long, but the only person who can say for sure is the guy who did the mix. I wasn't being an apologist for his choices as much as I was explaining that their concerns and needs vary greatly from the desires of those of us who have Atmos in the home. I should have Everest in the next day or so. Am looking forward to hearing it!


Thanks for answering the call, Jeremy. 

Again, your post is very insightful and I thank you for the time you have taken to make such a considered response. When you have had the opportunity to watch Everest, I’d be interested in your views. In particular, why do you think the mixer chose to put storm sounds in the overheads on some scenes, and not on others? I'd also be interested in your view on the helicopter scene - it's right near the end of the movie.


----------



## tjenkins95

shyyour said:


> He was referring to Amazon UK which is Jan 26th. I'll also be getting it


 
In the United States, new dvds/blu-rays are released on Tuesdays but in England they are released on Mondays.
It is actually being released on Jan 25th. I already have it pre-ordered.


----------



## howieshel

After reading this last page, I'm asking myself, if this is the way Dolby Atmos is, very little effect from the 2 overheads, than what is Dolby Atmos and why the big deal being made about it. I haven't heard it in action yet and from all i read about it before reading this page was, it will really change the way you hear movies. Now, I don't know if mounting the overheads was worth the effort.


----------



## shyyour

tjenkins95 said:


> In the United States, new dvds/blu-rays are released on Tuesdays but in England they are released on Mondays.
> It is actually being released on Jan 25th. I already have it pre-ordered.


Oh i didnt know that. Where are you getting it from ?


----------



## Nightlord

Just hazarding a guess, could we not be getting movies at is early stage that the sound mixing had begun before the studio had Atmos-capabilities and therefore only some scenes mixed late in the process will use it?


----------



## tjenkins95

shyyour said:


> Oh i didnt know that. Where are you getting it from ?


I pre-ordered mine from Amazon UK. It takes about 14 days before the mailman delivers it to my door.
I don't know why it takes 14 days. If I order a blu-ray from Amazon Japan, it arrives within 5 days!


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Everest* last night. There are problems with its pacing IMO. The first act is very slow. The idea is to build up rapport with the characters and to fill in their backgrounds, but most of that doesn't matter as the character arcs aren't very well developed in the movie anyway. I'd have preferred to see the movie start with some of the "disaster" scenes from later on, then go to flashback for the bulk of the movie. Knowing what is coming up for the characters would make us pay more attention to their backgrounds etc. And it wouldn't be a spoiler since the movie is fact-based anyway.
> 
> However, having said that, when it gets going, it gets going and as tale of human endurance against overwhelming circumstances, it plays pretty well. My fear that the "mountain would be a significant character" was groundless, and in fact there isn't enough made of the brutal, uncaring aspect of Mother Nature's personality and our puny inability to combat it. I’d have liked to see the mountain play _more_ as a character.
> 
> The visuals are stunning, as one would hope given their setting. And the sound is very good. There are numerous scenes where the overheads are given a good workout and especially so in one helicopter rescue scene close to the end of the movie. In the storms, we frequently hear the wind whistling overhead, along with some deep thunderclaps. Bass is very strong throughout the movie, especially in the storm sequences and, of course, the various avalanches.
> 
> Overall, I enjoyed this movie.
> 
> A few pages ago I was having a discussion with @Jeremy Anderson where he was defending the mixer's lack of use of the overhead speakers in the opening scenes of *San Andreas*, where a woman is rescued by a helicopter. Jeremy put forward a very strong case for why the mixer chose not to put helicopter sounds in the overhead speakers.
> 
> However, contrast this with a similar helicopter rescue scene in *Everest*, where you will fear your ceiling is about to collapse in one instance and where, in another instance, the sound of rotor blades whips across and around the ceiling, adding considerable drama to the whole scene. I cannot see how there is much difference between the two scenes, artistically, yet we have, in the one instance, no sounds from overhead at all, and in the other, considerable sounds from overhead. If the argument was that the mixer on *San Andreas* didn't use the overheads for fear of bringing us out of the movie, then why does it work so effectively in *Everest*?
> 
> In general, wrt to the use of Atmos in movies, here is another conundrum. In *Everest*, there are numerous scenes which take place in severe weather conditions. Yet the use of the overhead speakers in these scenes seems almost random to me. Some scenes feature the overheads extensively, with wind whipping back and forth and side to side over our heads, yet in other almost identical scenes, the overheads are totally silent. In one such scene I muted my floor level speakers, expecting to hear a lot of wind and ice and snow etc above me, and I was rewarded with total silence. No audio output whatsoever until the floor speakers were re-engaged. What is the explanation for this? Why do we have considerable 'storm noise' above us in one scene and totally absent in another almost identical scene?


 
Thanks for the nice review Keith. I am picking up my 3D copy this afternoon!


----------



## dianebrat

howieshel said:


> After reading this last page, I'm asking myself, if this is the way Dolby Atmos is, very little effect from the 2 overheads, than what is Dolby Atmos and why the big deal being made about it. I haven't heard it in action yet and from all i read about it before reading this page was, it will really change the way you hear movies. Now, I don't know if mounting the overheads was worth the effort.


"not worth it"? the overheads are the biggest selling point of Atmos IMO.. I set up my 2 overheads and it's very clear they're getting a a workout with most of my Atmos BD's


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, Gary Rydstrom is a favorite of mine too. I also like the more "in your face" style of Erik Aadahl too.


It probably won't surprise you that of those movies, Argo is my favorite mix-wise (though if you had thrown I Robot in that list, it wins hands down). Similarly, one of my favorite Rydstrom mixes is The Yards, which isn't particularly an action-heavy movie. It's sometimes nice to hear what these mixers do with a little restraint, when the mix calls for mostly ambient sounds in the surround field. Consider if you will that the same guy who handled sound design on The Age Of Adaline also handled Mad Max: Fury Road... and that both are great mixes for their own reasons, though hardly similar. 

Speaking of Rydstrom, I got the pleasure of watching Bridge Of Spies over the weekend. Fantastic audio mix! Not showy, lots of ambient sound to set the scene, but really cuts loose when the one heavy action scene involving a plane crash happens. For a mostly dialogue-centered movie, it has some very nice sound.



kbarnes701 said:


> Again, your post is very insightful and I thank you for the time you have taken to make such a considered response. When you have had the opportunity to watch Everest, I’d be interested in your views. In particular, why do you think the mixer chose to put storm sounds in the overheads on some scenes, and not on others? I'd also be interested in your view on the helicopter scene - it's right near the end of the movie.


I've actually seen the movie already, but only in 5.1 with DSU engaged. Should be interesting to hear it in all its Atmos glory. I have Everest, Sicario, Pan and Roger Waters: The Wall coming in today, so it's gonna be an Atmos-heavy week for me.


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> Just hazarding a guess, could we not be getting movies at is early stage that the sound mixing had begun before the studio had Atmos-capabilities and therefore only some scenes mixed late in the process will use it?


No. 

That's not the way the process works at all. You can't mix some parts of the film in Atmos and others not... 

There are many reasons why something may or may not be but into the overhead speakers, as I've discussed In the past. 

Challenging production sound, dramatic intent, personal taste, the fact that when things get loud the overheads tend to disappear.... The list goes on and on. 

The mixes are what they are...


----------



## kbarnes701

howieshel said:


> After reading this last page, I'm asking myself, if this is the way Dolby Atmos is, very little effect from the 2 overheads, than what is Dolby Atmos and why the big deal being made about it. I haven't heard it in action yet and from all i read about it before reading this page was, it will really change the way you hear movies. Now, I don't know if mounting the overheads was worth the effort.


It's more than worth the effort. We're just bitchin' because we want even more of its awesomeness than we sometimes think we're being given. There are another 1,200+ pages in this thread that are also worth reading!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Just hazarding a guess, could we not be getting movies at is early stage that the sound mixing had begun before the studio had Atmos-capabilities and therefore only some scenes mixed late in the process will use it?


I don't think so. Most of the movies were mixed for theatrical release, during normal production. I don't see how they could start the mix using channels and then switch to objects partway through, or why they'd want to. And the Atmos Blu-rays that weren't released theatrically in Atmos, eg *John Wick, Chicago, The Fifth Element, Leon* etc, were mixed in Atmos specially for the Blu-ray release.

Of course, there is a learning curve and some mixers may be further along it than others, but they will all get up to speed eventually. And then there's creative decision-making, which Jeremy was referencing above. Mixing is an _art_ as much as a science (more so probably) so no two mixers will ever do a mix the same.


----------



## kbarnes701

tjenkins95 said:


> Thanks for the nice review Keith. I am picking up my 3D copy this afternoon!


Listen out for the storm in the camp the day before the final push. Also the thunderclaps. And the later storms on the mountain. Plus that chopper rescue towards the end of the movie. Great use of the overheads.

And in 3D there are at least a couple of scenes which will have you gripping the arms of your chair. I hope you're not afraid of ladders


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

howieshel said:


> After reading this last page, I'm asking myself, if this is the way Dolby Atmos is, very little effect from the 2 overheads, than what is Dolby Atmos and why the big deal being made about it. I haven't heard it in action yet and from all i read about it before reading this page was, it will really change the way you hear movies. Now, I don't know if mounting the overheads was worth the effort.


I would say that yes, it will change the way you hear movies... but not just because of the overheads, because it isn't that simple. Part of it is that it sets the mixers free to place sounds anywhere in the space of your room. Yes, that includes overhead... but that isn't 100% of the appeal here. With Atmos, a mixer can place a sound so that it appears to come from slightly above and to your left... or directly overhead... or moving from front to above you to rear... or precisely placed behind and to the left... or spinning around the room at ear level, with some bleed into the heights to give the sound some scale. Objects in Atmos are very flexible, so they can specify not just the position but the size of the object in the space, which determines how much it bleeds into the other channels. For instance, you could take a generalized sound of thunder that is meant to be ambient in nature and place it overhead but with a large object size so that it spills into the other adjacent channels... or you could take a specific thunder-crack and make it small so that you can move that sound through multiple speakers in a quick pan. It gives the mixer a lot more freedom to handle the sound in the movies you love in a far more precise way.

But get yourself in the mindset now that the overhead channels are there to serve as the additional part needed for sounds to be placed on the Z-axis in the room - not just to make sounds appear over your head. Not every movie will have obvious overhead sounds. They will, however, be able to convey the intended soundfield better than 5.1/7.1. You may see people try to break it down to just what's happening in the overheads... but that's simplistic. Placing 10% of a sound in the overheads elevates it above the ear-level speakers slightly... 50% makes it appear partially above but not quite from the ceiling... etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It probably won't surprise you that of those movies, Argo is my favorite mix-wise (though if you had thrown I Robot in that list, it wins hands down). Similarly, one of my favorite Rydstrom mixes is The Yards, which isn't particularly an action-heavy movie. It's sometimes nice to hear what these mixers do with a little restraint, when the mix calls for mostly ambient sounds in the surround field. Consider if you will that the same guy who handled sound design on The Age Of Adaline also handled Mad Max: Fury Road... and that both are great mixes for their own reasons, though hardly similar.


+1. I forgot *I, Robot*. Brilliant sound in that movie, and the movie is a favorite of mine too. As is *Minority Report* which you mentioned earlier. I don't think I have tried either with DSU. Two more to add to my 'upcoming movies' list. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Speaking of Rydstrom, I got the pleasure of watching Bridge Of Spies over the weekend. Fantastic audio mix! Not showy, lots of ambient sound to set the scene, but really cuts loose when the one heavy action scene involving a plane crash happens. For a mostly dialogue-centered movie, it has some very nice sound.


Not released here yet. It's on my pre-order list though.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I've actually seen the movie already, but only in 5.1 with DSU engaged. Should be interesting to hear it in all its Atmos glory. I have Everest, Sicario, Pan and Roger Waters: The Wall coming in today, so it's gonna be an Atmos-heavy week for me.


Of that lot I have seen *Everest* and* The Wall*. I'd say they are both good Atmos movies, in different ways.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Nightlord said:


> Just hazarding a guess, could we not be getting movies at is early stage that the sound mixing had begun before the studio had Atmos-capabilities and therefore only some scenes mixed late in the process will use it?


Like all new tech, you'll naturally see them use it more effectively as mixers get accustomed to having that particular tool in their arsenal. That doesn't necessarily mean that every movie will suddenly have a bunch of obvious overhead sounds like the Atmos demo clips going forward... Just that when they get more comfortable with the tools, they will do more interesting things with them. Right now, it seems like people are more into the in-your-face gimmicky approach that makes the heights stand out, but I think you'll eventually just hear mixes that are transparent, placing you in the scene and making you forget there are speakers in the room. As much as 5.1/7.1 can do, Atmos has a far better chance of placing listeners in a convincing 3-dimensional world.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Like all new tech, you'll naturally see them use it more effectively as mixers get accustomed to having that particular tool in their arsenal. That doesn't necessarily mean that every movie will suddenly have a bunch of obvious overhead sounds like the Atmos demo clips going forward... Just that when they get more comfortable with the tools, they will do more interesting things with them. *Right now, it seems like people are more into the in-your-face gimmicky approach that makes the heights stand out,* but I think you'll eventually just hear mixes that are transparent, placing you in the scene and making you forget there are speakers in the room. As much as 5.1/7.1 can do, Atmos has a far better chance of placing listeners in a convincing 3-dimensional world.


I think this (bolded) is spot on. When stereo started out that was how the initial mixes were done - half the band in the left speaker, half in the right and the vocalist in the middle, sometimes with ping-pong effects going side to side. It was awful. Then they started to appreciate what stereo was about: the ability to create a cohesive, solid image between the speakers (and in front and behind them too on occasion). So to argue that Atmos is all about overheads, is a bit like they used to see stereo as "all about left and right effects". Gradually that mindset disappeared and we started to routinely get amazingly good stereo mixes with solid dimensionality. If we had had AVS back then, I can imagine discussions where people were saying "but they don't put sounds in the left and the right speaker and zap it between them..." and others saying "but stereo is about much more than left-right effects". That argument was won 50 years ago.

Similarly with surrounds and they way their use has evolved over time. In a year or two, when immersive mixes are the norm, I predict all these arguments and discussions will disappear, just as they did with stereo.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> I think this (bolded) is spot on. When stereo started out that was how the initial mixes were done - half the band in the left speaker, half in the right and the vocalist in the middle, sometimes with ping-pong effects going side to side. It was awful. Then they started to appreciate what stereo was about: the ability to create a cohesive, solid image between the speakers (and in front and behind them too on occasion). So to argue that Atmos is all about overheads, is a bit like they used to see stereo as "all about left and right effects". Gradually that mindset disappeared and we started to routinely get amazingly good stereo mixes with solid dimensionality. If we had had AVS back then, I can imagine discussions where people were saying "but they don't put sounds in the left and the right speaker and zap it between them..." and others saying "but stereo is about much more than left-right effects". That argument was won 50 years ago.
> 
> Similarly with surrounds and they way their use has evolved over time. In a year or two, when immersive mixes are the norm, I predict all these arguments and discussions will disappear, just as they did with stereo.


This is why I shudder when I see people say stuff like, "I turned my overheads up +6dB because they didn't stand out enough." I want to scream when I see that, because you're basically compressing the range of sound on the Z-axis upward... the same way you would be shifting stereo imaging to one side if you ran one channel hotter in stereo. It's fine if that's someone's preference, but... it isn't "right".


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is why I shudder when I see people say stuff like, "I turned my overheads up +6dB because they didn't stand out enough." I want to scream when I see that, because you're basically compressing the range of sound on the Z-axis upward... the same way you would be shifting stereo imaging to one side if you ran one channel hotter in stereo. It's fine if that's someone's preference, but... it isn't "right".


Agreed. All the speakers should be calibrated for the same level, from MLP, including the overheads.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Totally okay to have your subs up +10dB or more though.

Totally cool.


----------



## Charles R

howieshel said:


> After reading this last page, I'm asking myself, if this is the way Dolby Atmos is, very little effect from the 2 overheads, than what is Dolby Atmos and why the big deal being made about it. I haven't heard it in action yet and from all i read about it before reading this page was, it will really change the way you hear movies. Now, I don't know if mounting the overheads was worth the effort.


My take is it would be my lowest priority. Once you have "everything else" in place it makes sense to go there. If you have to short cut any of the other experiences to get there it's not worth it...


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> No.
> 
> That's not the way the process works at all. You can't mix some parts of the film in Atmos and others not...


Process? Nothing to do with process. I never said anyone wants you to do it, but it's totally possible.

There's nothing preventing you importing the parts of a mix already done and just placing them in the Atmos bed channels (or assigning each channel's mix to an object placed in that location)

Atmos mixing software won't be able to tell a piece of recorded sound from a piece of previously mixed sound. That you are abusing the process if you do it is another matter.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Totally okay to have your subs up +10dB or more though.
> 
> Totally cool.


Yeah - subs not being directional... (localisable). Like, they’re not going to impact imaging are they, which is what Jeremy was discussing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well, to play devil's advocate, you still mess up the balance or integrity of the mix bumping up the sub output to absurd levels.


----------



## Charles R

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is why I shudder when I see people say stuff like, "I turned my overheads up +6dB because they didn't stand out enough."


Doesn't Audyssey (Dynamic EQ) often increase a speaker's level as much or even higher? Such as a subwoofer, surrounds, etc.

To a large degree the speaker's level setting is irrelevant. It's how loud one's ear hears the speaker's sounds compared to others. And if you give Audyssey (and many others) any credence we hear differently based on the sound's location. Now whether Audyssey is adjusting the levels on the fly or Audyssey is turned off and it's being done manually I find little damnation in adjusting the various speaker levels. With a fairly good shot at capturing what was "intended"


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well, to play devil's advocate, you still mess up the balance or integrity of the mix bumping up the sub output to absurd levels.


True. If the levels are absurd. 










I've read that some guys have a whole wall of subs at the front of their HT, with more subs crammed into every available space, but I'm not sure if I believe it 

Look at this guy's room for example:










He's got so much woofage it's stripped his curtains back to 1950!


----------



## ahmad_ie

can I say there is no atmos movie that uses object based surroud sound or utilize the technology 100% yet ? i mean i watched pixels and expendables 3 but non of them have even 50% of the sound field and immersive experience i had with the 8 atmos demos i download.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> True. If the levels are absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read that some guys have a whole wall of subs at the front of their HT, with more subs crammed into every available space, but I'm not sure if I believe it
> 
> Look at this guy's room for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's got so much woofage he's stripped his curtains back to 1950!



Absurd levels....


....of AWESOME right there!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Absurd levels....
> 
> 
> ....of AWESOME right there!


If that guy's internal organs are still in the normally accepted positions according to human biology, I will be amazed.


----------



## FilmMixer

ahmad_ie said:


> can I say there is no atmos movie that uses object based surroud sound or utilize the technology 100% yet ? i mean i watched pixels and expendables 3 but non of them have even 50% of the sound field and immersive experience i had with the 8 atmos demos i download.


Atmos was designed to be a channel plus objects based format. 

So no you can't say that. 

The trailers and demos aren't tied to telling a narrative story with dialog... And it's very easy to be ultra aggressive in under a minute. Doing so for hours at a time can be taxing.


----------



## kbarnes701

ahmad_ie said:


> can I say there is no atmos movie that uses object based surroud sound or utilize the technology 100% yet ? i mean i watched pixels and expendables 3 but non of them have even 50% of the sound field and immersive experience i had with the 8 atmos demos i download.


They're not likely to. A demo is an artificial thing designed to showcase whatever it is trying to demonstrate. Can you imagine a whole 2 hour movie made like the Amaze trailer? You’d be a gibbering wreck by the end of it.


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> Process? Nothing to do with process. I never said anyone wants you to do it, but it's totally possible.
> 
> There's nothing preventing you importing the parts of a mix already done and just placing them in the Atmos bed channels (or assigning each channel's mix to an object placed in that location)
> 
> Atmos mixing software won't be able to tell a piece of recorded sound from a piece of previously mixed sound. That you are abusing the process if you do it is another matter.


Do you really think you understand more about the way this works than I do? 

Just a couple of weeks ago you were insinuating there were no object in Home Atmos... 

So I think others can figure out who has more credibility on the subject at hand..

The reeason why there is not a totally consistent overhead presentation of the storm sounds in Everest has ZERO to do with one part of the movie being mixed before the mixing facility had Atmos installed.... That was your premise, and you are completely off base.


----------



## Spanglo

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. All the speakers should be calibrated for the same level, from MLP, including the overheads.


Agreed. But last night I was thrown a curve ball.

Had to do with the demo disc helicopter demo, which didn't sound very good on my system. The RH speakers were noticeably louder than the TF with the levels audyssey set.

So I level matched all speakers to 75dB at the MLP using avr test tones, but it didn't help the helicopter demo... made the speaker imbalance worse. 

Then I level matched the overheads using the dolby demo disc test tones, and voila the helicopter demo was spot on. The difference in levels between the avr test tones and demo disc test tones was over 6dB!

Anyone else have this issue?


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> And it's very easy to be ultra aggressive in under a minute. Doing so for hours at a time can be taxing.



Mad Max

I felt a little drained at the end of that. In fairness, I DID have it turned up quite loud however.


----------



## kbarnes701

Spanglo said:


> Agreed. But last night I was thrown a curve ball.
> 
> Had to do with the demo disc helicopter demo, which didn't sound very good on my system. The RH speakers were noticeably louder than the TF with the levels audyssey set.
> 
> So I level matched all speakers to 75dB at the MLP using avr test tones, but it didn't help the helicopter demo... made the speaker imbalance worse.
> 
> Then I level matched the overheads using the dolby demo disc test tones, and voila the helicopter demo was spot on. The difference in levels between the avr test tones and demo disc test tones was over 6dB!
> 
> Anyone else have this issue?


Interesting. In an Audyssey system the test tones from the AVR bypass the EQ, so it's possible that Audyssey made adjustments to levels, based on the EQ calibration, which were not then being taken into account by the test tones, but I’d be really surprised if it made a 6dB difference. For info and background, see the Audyssey FAQ, here:

*e)3. Why is it a bad idea to use your AVR test tones and a SPL meter to check trim levels?*

I haven't tried level setting using the Dolby test disc. I'll give that a try and see if it is any different here, compared with using the AVR test tones (although I am not an Audyssey user so the comments above regarding how the EQ and test tones interact doesn't apply to me).


----------



## Lesmor

Spanglo said:


> Agreed. But last night I was thrown a curve ball.
> 
> Had to do with the demo disc helicopter demo, which didn't sound very good on my system. The RH speakers were noticeably louder than the TF with the levels audyssey set.
> 
> So I level matched all speakers to 75dB at the MLP using avr test tones, but it didn't help the helicopter demo... made the speaker imbalance worse.
> 
> Then I level matched the overheads using the dolby demo disc test tones, and voila the helicopter demo was spot on. The difference in levels between the avr test tones and demo disc test tones was over 6dB!
> 
> Anyone else have this issue?


Which Dolby demo disc has test tones?


----------



## azn_fire_fly

I currently have the Denon 4200 and 5.2.2 setup and my MLP is about 10 feet from the front sides. And the rears are only feet away from me and 3 feet above. But would I be better off with having the ATMOS speakers above the fronts or in the rears? If I decide to go with the fronts where should they be placed or is it best to put them on top of the front speakers? I have the Klipscch Atmos speakers 140SA. Or would it be better to place them in the rears beside the side surround speakers? I have demoed the ATMOS above the fronts and it may be that there is not a movie that does the front ATMOS justice or that the speakers are so small compared to my Klipsch RF7ii overpowering everything. Any help would be gladly appreciated. 

On one last note I do not have the option of ceiling mounting my speakers. My seat/couch is as far back as it can go with only 2.5 feet from the wall that has a basement bedroom and washroom behind it.


----------



## Spanglo

Lesmor said:


> Which Dolby demo disc has test tones?


The latest 2015 disc.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Charles R said:


> Doesn't Audyssey (Dynamic EQ) often increase a speaker's level as much or even higher? Such as a subwoofer, surrounds, etc.
> 
> To a large degree the speaker's level setting is irrelevant. It's how loud one's ear hears the speaker's sounds compared to others. And if you give Audyssey (and many others) any credence we hear differently based on the sound's location. Now whether Audyssey is adjusting the levels on the fly or Audyssey is turned off and it's being done manually I find little damnation in adjusting the various speaker levels. With a fairly good shot at capturing what was "intended"


That's why early on in my Atmos adventure, I questioned whether Audyssey had been given a chance to evaluate their DynamicEQ with the added paradigm of overhead channels. I understand the logic of altering surround presence as you go further down below reference... but once you throw height channels into the mix, I think they need to reevaluate how that existing change to surround presence affects the intended placement of sounds on the Z-axis. Unfortunately, I think they would have to re-do their test sessions with mixers to see how they adjusted the height channels at lower than reference levels. I'm pretty sure Audyssey hasn't done anything significant to modify things based on Atmos, which is why I honestly think DynamicEQ may not be suited for use in Atmos systems, not just on account of the overhead channels but due to the bed channels being moved to ear level as well. Honestly, I wish there was a way to separate the two things that DEQ is doing so that you could have the bass presence boost without altering the levels in the surrounds. As it stands now, it makes more sense to balance the levels of all channels and maybe apply a house curve of your own on the subwoofer. That's IF you're listening below reference, of course. Right now, we have no clue whether they're doing ANY adjustments - to EQ or level - to the height channels as the level decreases from reference. Maybe someone with one of these test discs can test height levels at reference and below with DynamicEQ engaged to see what's going on... but I strongly suspect they're doing nothing to them.



kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. In an Audyssey system the test tones from the AVR bypass the EQ, so it's possible that Audyssey made adjustments to levels, based on the EQ calibration, which were not then being taken into account by the test tones, but I’d be really surprised if it made a 6dB difference. For info and background, see the Audyssey FAQ, here:
> 
> *e)3. Why is it a bad idea to use your AVR test tones and a SPL meter to check trim levels?*
> 
> I haven't tried level setting using the Dolby test disc. I'll give that a try and see if it is any different here, compared with using the AVR test tones (although I am not an Audyssey user so the comments above regarding how the EQ and test tones interact doesn't apply to me).


One of my early questions about Audyssey with Atmos was how the mic being oriented straight up would affect levels and equalization... because the Audyssey mic is calibrated for grazing incidence. So it would read all bed-level speakers just fine, but the height channels are firing closer to on-axis with the mic capsule than grazing. I can't imagine that wouldn't have some effect on the level setting and equalization. That's why I wish I had the Atmos test tones - so I can spot-check post-EQ levels in the same way I do with my AIX disc for 7.1 levels post-Audyssey. There's always some variation, and setting it based on disc-based tones ALWAYS makes the system sound more balanced to me than if set with Audyssey alone, even if I'm talking adjustments of 0.5-1.0dB. I'm not really sure how you could fix that problem without some physical change to the mic to obscure the top of the mic capsule so it reads the heights more indirectly... or some built-in generalized adjustment in the AVR to account for the positional difference.


----------



## rontalley

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is why I shudder when I see people say stuff like, "I turned my overheads up +6dB because they didn't stand out enough." I want to scream when I see that, because you're basically compressing the range of sound on the Z-axis upward... the same way you would be shifting stereo imaging to one side if you ran one channel hotter in stereo. It's fine if that's someone's preference, but... it isn't "right".












Starting off, I was notorious for adjusting the overhead levels so I can "hear" them... 

I've learned to leave the levels where YPAO sets them, well...besides sub level (NEED MORE BASS!!). Everything sounds wonderful and nothing stands out now. The imaging and sound really gets thrown off once you start adjusting things manually.

The Helicopter demo, alone with Audiosphere demo helped me realize how off things were. With Audioshpere, if your levels are off, you will not get the distinct difference/effect of the sounds going around the outer ring vs the middle ring. Yeah the overheads will sound right but the inner ring is a combination of overhead and surrounds that gives you the feeling of being in an inner circle. Simply amazing if your levels are correct.


----------



## howieshel

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would say that yes, it will change the way you hear movies... but not just because of the overheads, because it isn't that simple. Part of it is that it sets the mixers free to place sounds anywhere in the space of your room. Yes, that includes overhead... but that isn't 100% of the appeal here. With Atmos, a mixer can place a sound so that it appears to come from slightly above and to your left... or directly overhead... or moving from front to above you to rear... or precisely placed behind and to the left... or spinning around the room at ear level, with some bleed into the heights to give the sound some scale. Objects in Atmos are very flexible, so they can specify not just the position but the size of the object in the space, which determines how much it bleeds into the other channels. For instance, you could take a generalized sound of thunder that is meant to be ambient in nature and place it overhead but with a large object size so that it spills into the other adjacent channels... or you could take a specific thunder-crack and make it small so that you can move that sound through multiple speakers in a quick pan. It gives the mixer a lot more freedom to handle the sound in the movies you love in a far more precise way.
> 
> But get yourself in the mindset now that the overhead channels are there to serve as the additional part needed for sounds to be placed on the Z-axis in the room - not just to make sounds appear over your head. Not every movie will have obvious overhead sounds. They will, however, be able to convey the intended soundfield better than 5.1/7.1. You may see people try to break it down to just what's happening in the overheads... but that's simplistic. Placing 10% of a sound in the overheads elevates it above the ear-level speakers slightly... 50% makes it appear partially above but not quite from the ceiling... etc.


Thanks Jeremy, That was a simple layout of what they do and what to expect.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That's why early on in my Atmos adventure, I questioned whether Audyssey had been given a chance to evaluate their DynamicEQ with the added paradigm of overhead channels. I understand the logic of altering surround presence as you go further down below reference... but once you throw height channels into the mix, I think they need to reevaluate how that existing change to surround presence affects the intended placement of sounds on the Z-axis. Unfortunately, I think they would have to re-do their test sessions with mixers to see how they adjusted the height channels at lower than reference levels. I'm pretty sure Audyssey hasn't done anything significant to modify things based on Atmos, which is why I honestly think DynamicEQ may not be suited for use in Atmos systems, not just on account of the overhead channels but due to the bed channels being moved to ear level as well. Honestly, I wish there was a way to separate the two things that DEQ is doing so that you could have the bass presence boost without altering the levels in the surrounds. As it stands now, it makes more sense to balance the levels of all channels and maybe apply a house curve of your own on the subwoofer. That's IF you're listening below reference, of course. Right now, we have no clue whether they're doing ANY adjustments - to EQ or level - to the height channels as the level decreases from reference. Maybe someone with one of these test discs can test height levels at reference and below with DynamicEQ engaged to see what's going on... but I strongly suspect they're doing nothing to them.


Good question. I too strongly suspect that DEQ does nothing with overhead channels. But then, I doubt if the overhead channels will suffer from not having DEQ applied to them (since they are doing so little work in terms of level and bandwidth). Audyssey have made no changes to their MultEQ suite now for about 5 years so it's unlikely they have taken account of Atmos in any way at all I'd say. You’re not the first to want DEQ split into two parts - the bass boost part and the surround boost part, mostly so they can turn off the latter 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> One of my early questions about Audyssey with Atmos was how the mic being oriented straight up would affect levels and equalization... because the Audyssey mic is calibrated for grazing incidence. So it would read all bed-level speakers just fine, but the height channels are firing closer to on-axis with the mic capsule than grazing. I can't imagine that wouldn't have some effect on the level setting and equalization. That's why I wish I had the Atmos test tones - so I can spot-check post-EQ levels in the same way I do with my AIX disc for 7.1 levels post-Audyssey. There's always some variation, and setting it based on disc-based tones ALWAYS makes the system sound more balanced to me than if set with Audyssey alone, even if I'm talking adjustments of 0.5-1.0dB. I'm not really sure how you could fix that problem without some physical change to the mic to obscure the top of the mic capsule so it reads the heights more indirectly... or some built-in generalized adjustment in the AVR to account for the positional difference.


I think there is always a lot of overthinking going on with regard to Audyssey's mic placement etc. It's only natural since Audyssey gives almost zero user control and one way to achieve an element of control is to vary the mic placements (and the grazing angle in some cases). People get a result they don't like and they wonder what they can do to change it. Well, the real answer is pretty much nothing since it affords so little user control. So they play with the mic in the hope it makes a difference, and of course, sometimes it will, even if it's random chance. It is instructive that in the Dirac Live thread, where users have a high level of control over the calibration, I cannot recall any serious discussion about mic placements. This is a long-winded way, Jeremy, of me saying "don't sweat it too much". There is nothing you can do wrt to the mic's relationship to the (overhead) speakers during an Audyssey calibration, so it is what it is. 

I use Dirac Live for REQ now as you may know and I have twin miniDSP DDRC-88A units, so all of my 11 Atmos speakers are EQd (in my 7..2.4 setup). I do use a 90° cal file for the mic when measuring the floor level speakers and a 0° cal file when measuring the overheads, but TBH I doubt if it makes a massive difference, or any sort of audible difference.

We are well OT with this in this thread. If you want to continue this interesting discussion, perhaps we can take it to the Official Audyssey Thread?


----------



## Holiday121

So I officially got 4 martin Logan motion 2s to start my atmos journey when I receive them I will post results


----------



## Ricoflashback

I just watched Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1. I used DTS Neo X + THX (Cinema Mode) and the use of the heights, especially for the helicopter scenes, is very well done. To me, a great soundtrack. (I'm still in the process of acquiring a Dolby Atmos AVR. Speakers are ready to go.) 

Did anyone listen to this via DSU? Your impressions? Any comparison between plain old DTS Neo X & Dolby Atmos DSU?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> We are well OT with this in this thread. If you want to continue this interesting discussion, perhaps we can take it to the Official Audyssey Thread?


I don't think it's at all off-topic. It's related to the reason we need those test tones available to us in a more accessible way than just the demo discs, and we're referring specifically to the specific issues with Atmos systems. If I could buy a disc with Atmos test tones right now, I would. I don't know why they don't provide them on Atmos Blu-rays the way they have stuff like the THX Optimizer, etc.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Ricoflashback said:


> I just watched Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1. I used DTS Neo X + THX (Cinema Mode) and the use of the heights, especially for the helicopter scenes, is very well done. To me, a great soundtrack. (I'm still in the process of acquiring a Dolby Atmos AVR. Speakers are ready to go.)
> 
> Did anyone listen to this via DSU? Your impressions? Any comparison between plain old DTS Neo X & Dolby Atmos DSU?


I was never a fan of Neo:X because it tended to give things a weird metallic sound in the highs. It's hard to explain. They were just harsh, though if you're using THX's filter, maybe that mitigates it some. DPL-IIz didn't have that issue, so that's always what I went with. As for Maze Runner 2, I watched it with DSU engaged and it sounded good. Not as good a movie as the first one, but still sounded decent. It's a shame that the Blu-ray doesn't have Atmos though, considering it was mixed for it theatrically.


----------



## Lesmor

Spanglo said:


> The latest 2015 disc.


Thanks Spanglo 
I take it that's a download,as I don't have a Blu-ray burner I'll pass


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't think it's at all off-topic. It's related to the reason we need those test tones available to us in a more accessible way than just the demo discs, and we're referring specifically to the specific issues with Atmos systems. If I could buy a disc with Atmos test tones right now, I would. I don't know why they don't provide them on Atmos Blu-rays the way they have stuff like the THX Optimizer, etc.


OK, fair enough.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I was never a fan of Neo:X because it tended to give things a weird metallic sound in the highs. It's hard to explain. They were just harsh, though if you're using THX's filter, maybe that mitigates it some. DPL-IIz didn't have that issue, so that's always what I went with. As for Maze Runner 2, I watched it with DSU engaged and it sounded good. Not as good a movie as the first one, but still sounded decent. It's a shame that the Blu-ray doesn't have Atmos though, considering it was mixed for it theatrically.


Since it's a DTS release, DTS:X won't be available until the firmware upgrade on January 28, 2016. Which make me wonder if future DTS:X will give you the same metallic sound in the highs that you experienced with DTS: Neo X. 

There was a lot of panning of sounds and use of my Front Heights with DTS: Neo X + THX (Cinema Mode). The movie was much better than some of the reviews. Different than the first movie. A little more disjointed, but still enjoyable. It set the stage for Maze Runner 3, 4, 5 and 6.....


----------



## meegwell

stikle said:


> Mad Max
> 
> I felt a little drained at the end of that. In fairness, I DID have it turned up quite loud however.


yeah, me too. 

...and loved every freaking minute of it


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Which make me wonder if future DTS:X will give you the same metallic sound in the highs that you experienced with DTS: Neo X.


Shouldn't, since they're two different technologies. Neo:X is multi-band surround processing (what we now call upmixing), so there is potential for the sound to distort or change character compared to the unprocessed signal. That's really not possible with DTS:X, since there is no processing involved, just unpacking the data (decoding) and routing sounds to their intended locations.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> Do you really think you understand more about the way this works than I do?


Obviously, since you can't figure out how to move an old 7.1 mix into Atmos, which is logically trivial.

If you're 80% done with a mix and your employer suddenly wants it to be Atmos, you'd be stupid if you didn't move what you had into Atmos and just re-mixed those scenes where it would be obvious you needed height sounds. If not, then you don't have a VW bone in your body.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nightlord said:


> Obviously, since you can't figure out how to move an old 7.1 mix into Atmos, which is logically trivial.
> 
> If you're 80% done with a mix and your employer suddenly wants it to be Atmos, you'd be stupid if you didn't move what you had into Atmos and just re-mixed those scenes where it would be obvious you needed height sounds. If not, then you don't have a VW bone in your body.



Oh boy! Where's the popcorn and soda?? This exchange is gonna be good.


----------



## wyattroa

I am converting my 5.2 setup to 5.2.2. I will be ceiling mounting the atmos speakers. Do they go slightly in front of the seating position or do the go above it? I have looked at some diagrams but cant really figure it out. I am seeing the figure of 80 degrees from sitting position, this would put them just above the front of the couch. Does this sound about right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wyattroa said:


> I am converting my 5.2 setup to 5.2.2. I will be ceiling mounting the atmos speakers. Do they go slightly in front of the seating position or do the go above it? I have looked at some diagrams but cant really figure it out.


Just slightly ahead of the listening position.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh boy! Where's the popcorn and soda?? This exchange is gonna be good.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> Just a couple of weeks ago you were insinuating there were no object in Home Atmos...


And it turns out that it can do objects if there are only a few, so you had an escape route. Still cheating... We can do a few real objects so the demos are important, but movies with many objects we will do in a non-object way...



> So I think others can figure out who has more credibility on the subject at hand..


Not interested in credibitily, interested in making people think instead of taking things at face value.



> The reeason why there is not a totally consistent overhead presentation of the storm sounds in Everest has ZERO to do with one part of the movie being mixed before the mixing facility had Atmos installed.... That was your premise, and you are completely off base.


I never claimed it was that case, I offered the possibility it could be like that. Understand the difference? Also it did not necessarily have with that movie to do, but any movie in Atmos that does not give the effect expected.


----------



## azn_fire_fly

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just slightly ahead of the listening position.


What about non ceiling mounted speakers for the front and rears?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


>


You forgot the pizza.


----------



## Nightlord

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh boy! Where's the popcorn and soda?? This exchange is gonna be good.


Don't bother, it's midnight so I'm just going to have my dram of Ardbeg and go to bed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

azn_fire_fly said:


> What about non ceiling mounted speakers for the front and rears?


Do you mean front and rear heights or just regular main layer front LCR's and side/rear surrounds?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> You forgot the pizza.


Never.

I'm always packin', mister. Got a holster and everything.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Never.
> 
> I'm always packin', mister. Got a holster and everything.



You should put a patent on that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> You should put a patent on that.


Thought about it but I was already beat to the punch on that one.


----------



## rontalley

Nightlord said:


> Obviously, since you can't figure out how to move an old 7.1 mix into Atmos, which is logically trivial.
> 
> If you're 80% done with a mix and your employer suddenly wants it to be Atmos, you'd be stupid if you didn't move what you had into Atmos and just re-mixed those scenes where it would be obvious you needed height sounds. If not, then you don't have a VW bone in your body.


----------



## Scott Simonian

^^^^^

Werd.


----------



## Waboman

I came here to raise db levels and eat pizza. And I'm all out of pizza.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Damn kids, get off my lawn.




- Jason


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> Obviously, since you can't figure out how to move an old 7.1 mix into Atmos, which is logically trivial.


Right... Like I couldn't figure out to to take my 5.1 mix for "The Heat" and later mix it in Atmos....

Many shows are pre dubbing in Atmos (or 7.1,) final mixing in 7.1 and doing the Atmos last. 

You are the master of saying one thing and then when corrected acting like you never said it. 

You are the one who responded to Keith's specific question about Everest with your comment.... Now you say your making a general point (forget the fact that you're wrong anyways...) 

You keep claiming Atmos didn't use objects when spatial coding comes into play. 

That's patently false. 

You dont understand the technology or workflow (as was made obvious in your arguments made in the Auro thread...) of doing a project in Atmos.... So I really don't feel the need to continue this discussion.. 

I've too much self respect.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> ...movies with many objects we will do in a non-object way...


Not true. When the number of simultaneous objects in a theatrical Atmos mix at a particular moment exceeds the number of objects in the home Atmos format, ONLY THEN do objects in the same general location get clustered together. But even then, combining two nearby objects doesn't suddenly make them "non-objects". Those sounds still have x,y,z coordinates rather than being mixed into channels.


----------



## azn_fire_fly

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you mean front and rear heights or just regular main layer front LCR's and side/rear surrounds?


Yes front and rear heights for atmos. I am wondering if I can only do one should it be front heights or rear heights and where should the speakers be placed


----------



## Ricoflashback

Gee, with all the drama on Atmos mixing, maybe there's a way the studios can a provide home viewers a one time write, never copy, Bluray movie where we can mix the Dolby Atmos soundtrack ourselves. Not from scratch, mind you. Some type of logical multiple choice options. And they can charge for it, too!

Options like...

A) Helicopter sounds - 1. Use Overheads, 2. Overheads and Pan Front To Back, 3. Overheads, Front and Rear Surrounds, 4. Professional Choice - Helicopter sounds are NOT to be used by the overhead channels in a Dolby Atmos mix. This is what the director/sound mixer intended for you to fully enjoy how the movie has been made.

B) Plane taking off - 1. Use Overheads, 2. Overheads and Pan Front to Middle To Back, 3. Center speaker, Overheads, Rear surrounds, Side Surrounds based on direction the plane is going, 4. Professional Choice - Plane sounds are NOT to be used by the overhead channels in a Dolby Atmos mix. This is what the director/sound mixer intended for you to fully enjoy how the movie has been made.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

azn_fire_fly said:


> Yes front and rear heights for atmos. I am wondering if I can only do one should it be front heights or rear heights and where should the speakers be placed


Front heights placed at the ceiling/wall junction usually above the front left and right speakers (unless they happen to be placed too close together for some reason) and aimed towards the main listening position.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> Not true. When the number of simultaneous objects in a theatrical Atmos mix at a particular moment exceeds the number of objects in the home Atmos format, ONLY THEN do objects in the same general location get clustered together. But even then, combining two nearby objects doesn't suddenly make them "non-objects". Those sounds still have x,y,z coordinates rather than being mixed into channels.


Sounds like a cluster f&$k. Just kidding. I always enjoy your technical contributions. But when we get to x, y & z coordinates - - then I'm ready for graphs and more math. Whatever happened to "sounds great, I can dance to it?" Same way with soundtracks - - you know a good one when you hear it.


----------



## FilmMixer

Ricoflashback said:


> Gee, with all the drama on Atmos mixing, maybe there's a way the studios can a provide home viewers a one time write, never copy, Bluray movie where we can mix the Dolby Atmos soundtrack ourselves. Not from scratch, mind you. Some type of logical multiple choice options. And they can charge for it, too!
> 
> Options like...
> 
> A) Helicopter sounds - 1. Use Overheads, 2. Overheads and Pan Front To Back, 3. Overheads, Front and Rear Surrounds, 4. Professional Choice - Helicopter sounds are NOT to be used by the overhead channels in a Dolby Atmos mix. This is what the director/sound mixer intended for you to fully enjoy how the movie has been made.
> 
> B) Plane taking off - 1. Use Overheads, 2. Overheads and Pan Front to Middle To Back, 3. Center speaker, Overheads, Rear surrounds, Side Surrounds based on direction the plane is going, 4. Professional Choice - Plane sounds are NOT to be used by the overhead channels in a Dolby Atmos mix. This is what the director/sound mixer intended for you to fully enjoy how the movie has been made.


Can't do that with streaming or a Blu Ray... 

Atmos is a delivery/transmission codec... You can't manipulate the objects once encoded into a bitstream. 

But a video game would be the preferred method to deliver such a demo... You create the sound + panning information and then encode it in Atmos for delivery to a decoder.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Atmos is a delivery/transmission codec... You can't manipulate the objects once encoded into a bitstream.


Not yet supported on current hardware/software but Atmos has some end-user manipulation capability. IE: Dialog control

You just can't move it. 




FilmMixer said:


> But a video game would be the preferred method to deliver such a demo... You create the sound + panning information and then encode it in Atmos for delivery to a decoder.


Pretty much realtime encoding there.

Dolby really should make an interactive PC demo for Atmos such as this.


----------



## wyattroa

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just slightly ahead of the listening position.


Are the speakers positioned then to fire straight down, or should the be angled towards the listening position? Thanks again.
Robert


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> But when we get to x, y & z coordinates - - then I'm ready for graphs and more math.


Just another way of saying sound at a particular location (rather than in a channel).


> Whatever happened to "sounds great, I can dance to it?"


Sure, dance and sing (there are a few Bollywood movies mixed in Atmos).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wyattroa said:


> Are the speakers positioned then to fire straight down, or should the be angled towards the listening position?  Thanks again.
> Robert


Depends on the type of monopole speaker and its dispersion pattern. If it happens to have a wide spray of sound (which can be a rare animal) then straight down is fine.


----------



## sdurani

wyattroa said:


> Are the speakers positioned then to fire straight down, or should the be angled towards the listening position?


Speakers usually sound best on-axis, so aiming them towards the listening area can be beneficial. I would aim them towards the person on the opposite end of the couch for a bit of time/energy trading (compensating for distance with level).


----------



## wyattroa

Dan Hitchman said:


> Depends on the type of monopole speaker and its dispersion pattern. If it happens to have a wide spray of sound (which can be a rare animal) then straight down is fine.





sdurani said:


> Speakers usually sound best on-axis, so aiming them towards the listening area can be beneficial. I would aim them towards the person on the opposite end of the couch for a bit of time/energy trading (compensating for distance with level).


Thanks very much to both of you. Ill experiment a little when I get everything set up.
Robert


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> Just another way of saying sound at a particular location (rather than in a channel). Sure, dance and sing (there are a few Bollywood movies mixed in Atmos).


2nd reference was more of a metaphor for those like me that understand technology but not as well as folks like you and FilmMixer. 

First example - understood, they are objects that are squeezed into a smaller speaker layout for home theater. Is there some type of algorithm that directs the sounds to the proper speaker locations?


----------



## Holiday121

Would it be safe to say in a recliner chair. Once you fully recline baxk the atmos speakers should be at the edge of the footrest of course on the ceiling for fronts


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Holiday121 said:


> Would it be safe to say in a recliner chair. Once you fully recline baxk the atmos speakers should be at the edge of the footrest of course on the ceiling for fronts


Are you _reclining_? Are you _reclining_? There's no reclining! There's no reclining in movie watching!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Well... perhaps I chastised him too vehemently.


----------



## Shniks

Holiday121 said:


> Would it be safe to say in a r*ecliner* chair. Once you *fully recline* baxk the atmos speakers should be at the edge of the footrest of course on the ceiling for fronts



"Recline?" Blasphemy! Don't you know your ears are supposed to be in line with the front tweeters, centered 0.1" between the FL,FR? 


Cheers,


----------



## Nabs17

Ricoflashback said:


> Sounds like a cluster f&$k. Just kidding. I always enjoy your technical contributions. But when we get to x, y & z coordinates - - then I'm ready for graphs and more math. Whatever happened to "sounds great, *I can dance to it*?" Same way with soundtracks - - you know a good one when you hear it.


Like this?????


----------



## Vaggeto

Hi everyone,

I'm looking to install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos and I am having trouble finding the best location in my room.

They are 4 down-firing circular speakers (https://www.paradigm.com/products-archived/model=sa-10r/page=overview).
My room is 20ft deep with 12ft high (non vaulted) ceilings over the HT area. I'm sitting about 11ft back and at the angles of 135-155*, that puts these speakers very far from the listener.

Do the angles only apply to 8ft ceilings or do I have to just estimate and compromise the sound and bring them closer?

Thanks!


----------



## DaGamePimp

Four tops go in front and behind MLP while two tops go slightly forward of MLP.




- In the dark "Speaker Placement" box on the left be sure to click the circled "2" for ceiling speaker location (regarding the links below).


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


I do not see why there is so much confusion regarding optimal speaker location when the layout is shown on the Dolby website (at least for those that do not have to compromise location).


- Jason


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> First example - understood, they are objects that are squeezed into a smaller speaker layout for home theater.


Actually, the reason for object clustering isn't smaller speaker layouts but bandwidth restrictions (data delivery pipe at home is much smaller than at commercial cinemas). Easiest way to think of clusters is to imagine a dome around you divided into zones. If the soundtrack has the default 12 object clusters, then divide the imaginary dome into 12 zones. If the soundtrack has the max 20 objects, divide the dome into 20 zones. 

IF, at any given time, a theatrical Atmos soundtrack has more objects playing simultaneously than there are zones available, the home Atmos encoder will start combining objects that are in the same zone (same general area) into a cluster. But it will resort to clustering ONLY if there are more objects than zones. Otherwise, each object in the theatrical Atmos soundtrack gets a separate object in the home Atmos soundtrack.


> Is there some type of algorithm that directs the sounds to the proper speaker locations?


That's basically what Atmos is: an algorithm or a set of instructions (metadata) that tells the sound (data) where to go. Channels get routed to their respective speakers, but audio objects are tagged with location & size and get rendered to their intended placement. 

Aside from those instructions, the other component of Atmos is the sound. But that's the same sound that's always been in soundtracks. It can be delivered via lossless packing (TrueHD) on discs or lossy compression (DD+) for streaming and broadcast. Nothing new there.


----------



## Stoked21

Just finished Everest 3D/Atmos. First, the 3D is just mediocre. Typical 3D movie.....i.e. best just to stick to 2D.

As for the Atmos.....I always comment that most sci-fi movies and aircraft type movies are going to utilize the tops more due to the story's nature. Alien spacecraft, flying super heroes, fighter jets, bullets whizzing by everywhere, etc. Gravity, Mad Max, Terminator.....When I watch drama movies in Atmos, they always fell flat as there's typically not much call for overhead effects short of ambience. However, I as well am just getting use to being immersed and not focusing on the height so much. 

This movie had the whole Atmos works IMO. Bringing in the overhead immersion at key moments. The big storm....Wow, it's IN your room! The helicopter scene was just a BEAUTIFUL use of Atmos. And ambience throughout with mild wind and ringing bells. Yes, there are lulls in the Atmos usage (though I found it hard to remember to listen to the tops). It's never over utilized for the sake of showcasing the technology...Just when the action heightens, the tops kick in and pull you right into the story. 

I think this is a great example of how drama/realism movies should utilize the technology. Use it as a supplement to help tell the story and to escalate the audience "participation". Everest should serve as a guide to mixers on how and when to use Atmos.....

And the bass during the storm? Righteous.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's a great description of how objects and their grouping works, Sanjay. 

Hope everybody reads that one.


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> Actually, the reason for object clustering isn't smaller speaker layouts but bandwidth restrictions (data delivery pipe at home is much smaller than at commercial cinemas). Easiest way to think of clusters is to imagine a dome around you divided into zones. If the soundtrack has the default 12 object clusters, then divide the imaginary dome into 12 zones. If the soundtrack has the max 20 objects, divide the dome into 20 zones.
> 
> IF, at any given time, a theatrical Atmos soundtrack has more objects playing simultaneously than there are zones available, the home Atmos encoder will start combining objects that are in the same zone (same general area) into a cluster. But it will resort to clustering ONLY if there are more objects than zones. Otherwise, each object in the theatrical Atmos soundtrack gets a separate object in the home Atmos soundtrack..


Very nice explanation!


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That's why early on in my Atmos adventure, I questioned whether Audyssey had been given a chance to evaluate their DynamicEQ with the added paradigm of overhead channels.... Right now, we have no clue whether they're doing ANY adjustments - to EQ or level - to the height channels as the level decreases from reference. Maybe someone with one of these test discs can test height levels at reference and below with DynamicEQ engaged to see what's going on... but I strongly suspect they're doing nothing to them.





kbarnes701 said:


> Good question. I too strongly suspect that DEQ does nothing with overhead channels. But then, I doubt if the overhead channels will suffer from not having DEQ applied to them (since they are doing so little work in terms of level and bandwidth). Audyssey have made no changes to their MultEQ suite now for about 5 years so it's unlikely they have taken account of Atmos in any way at all I'd say.


Actually we do know some things. Jeremy, you may not recall but I've posted about this before.

First, on DEQ, I asked Chris K directly (via his Audyssey Tech Talk FB page) and he confirmed there is NO "surround boost" on the overhead channels. The surround boost is only applied to the four surround channels (SR/SL/SBR/SBL) and NOT the overheads. However, it's not accurate to say DEQ isn't doing anything with the overheads, because ALL channels will receive the loudness compensation (EQ) portion of DEQ.

Second, we also know that Audyssey had to do SOME things to "take account of Atmos in any way at all". All AVR manufacturers worked closely with REQ partners to meet certain requirements for handling the Dolby-enabled reflecting speakers, including incoporating the HRTF notches into the target curve and making adjustement for distance/delay on the reflected sound. 

In other respects though, there are no changes because (as far as Audyssey is concerned) sending a ping to a speaker, having the mic listen to that ping and then creating a correction filter to try and shape the impulse into the desired target curve is speaker agnostic. Audyssey MultEQ doesn't care if the speaker is in-ceiling, in-wall, direct vs dipole, etc. It just tries its best to shape the impulse to meet the target based on what it hears. Audyssey didn't need to add more channels because they already supported 11ch EQ with Neo:X, DSX etc. And of course MultEQ doesn't really care how many channels there are, each speaker is filtered independently so the only limitation is DSP resources, not MultEQ.

Chris K also addressed the question of overhead speakers calibration wrt the grazing incidence of the mic. His comments were that it shouldn't matter too much unless the speakers were directly above the mic firing straight down, and even then the only difference would be the higher freqs. This idea is supported by those who've done tests in REW with mics using the 0 vs 90 degree cal files -- the only difference is above ~2kHz or so. 

So, all of that is the theory.....

HOWEVER.....

I definitely agree that the surround boost of DEQ, which is already annoying, is even worse with immersive audio and the ceiling speakers. I'm in the category of many who loves the loudness compensation aspect of DEQ (I can't listen loud all the time), but hates the surround boost. I also have my surrounds nearly directly to the sides, maybe 1 ft in front, which obviates the entire theoretical premise for the surround boost (perception of sounds behind you falling off faster due to the anatomy of the ear etc). Even with the Ref Level Offset adjusted to max, I can still hear the volume jump as it passes through the side surrounds (not the back surrounds so much, but of course they are actually behind me). 

Just last night, after some convo about the Helicopter demo in the Immersive audio thread, I spent some time futzing with various demos and DEQ/Audyssey settings. The surround boost was super obvious, and annoying, with things like the 360 deg bird fly-around in "Amaze", or the sound bouncing around in "Audiosphere". When I turned off DEQ, the balance was right, and the hot-spotting was reduced for the off-axis seats as well.

This puts me in a conundrum because I really do want the loudness comp, but Audyssey of course (as Keith noted) has always refused to disassociate the surround boost with the loudness comp. So I can use DEQ and manually tweak the surround volumes down to try and negate the surround boost... or turn it off and try and bring the bass back with some SW boost. But that's not really the same as a "house curve" becuase it's just shelving up the bass below the crossover freq.

So bottom line, I agree that it would be awesome if Audyssey could overhaul/reevaluate DEQ to take account of immersive audio... but unfortunately their AVR product development seems totally stagnant and has for years.

Also, final point, but back to the microphone angle issue... I do think there is something going on with the levels of the ceiling speakers at these non-grazing incidences. Not just Audyssey, but many people have reported anecdotally of wacked-out levels for overhead speakers with YPAO as well. Much moreso than I've ever heard for "ear level" speakers.


----------



## Vaggeto

DaGamePimp said:


> Four tops go in front and behind MLP while two tops go slightly forward of MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - In the dark "Speaker Placement" box on the left be sure to click the circled "2" for ceiling speaker location (regarding the links below).
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> 
> I do not see why there is so much confusion regarding optimal speaker location when the layout is shown on the Dolby website (at least for those that do not have to compromise location).
> 
> 
> - Jason


My issue is that their website specifically says 30-55 degrees for the front 2, and for me with a 12ft ceiling, that puts 45* about 80% up my front wall and 55* just over my mains/screen area.

Should my in-ceiling heights really be placed practically against my front and back walls in a 20 ft long room? I believe that angle to be for rooms with a lower ceiling, but it isn't specified.


----------



## jpco

batpig said:


> Chris K also addressed the question of overhead speakers calibration wrt the grazing incidence of the mic. His comments were that it shouldn't matter too much unless the speakers were directly above the mic firing straight down, and even then the only difference would be the higher freqs. This idea is supported by those who've done tests in REW with mics using the 0 vs 90 degree cal files -- the only difference is above ~2kHz or so.




I have Polk OWM 3 speakers that I was using as rear surrounds near the ceiling. I am now using them as on-ceiling Top Rears, about 2.5 feet behind the MLP. Here are their measurements in the two locations using Dirac with the 90 degree mic calibration file.



Rear surround:












Top rear:












There is a difference in the top end that can be attributed to angle, I think. I've tried some target curves that compensate for the difference, but I don't hear much difference in the top rears when compensating.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> First, on DEQ, I asked Chris K directly (via his Audyssey Tech Talk FB page) and he confirmed there is NO "surround boost" on the overhead channels. The surround boost is only applied to the four surround channels (SR/SL/SBR/SBL) and NOT the overheads. However, it's not accurate to say DEQ isn't doing anything with the overheads, because ALL channels will receive the loudness compensation (EQ) portion of DEQ.


Oh, I recall that we've discussed this before. The loudness compensation is what I was thinking of with the heights.



batpig said:


> Chris K also addressed the question of overhead speakers calibration wrt the grazing incidence of the mic. His comments were that it shouldn't matter too much unless the speakers were directly above the mic firing straight down, and even then the only difference would be the higher freqs. This idea is supported by those who've done tests in REW with mics using the 0 vs 90 degree cal files -- the only difference is above ~2kHz or so.


Yeah, I know he SAID that it shouldn't matter too much... but in my particular room, I can calibrate with the mic in certain positions that place them closer to on-axis with my top mids, and the result sounds completely unbalanced (even if those mic positions make more sense for my bed-level channels). However, if I'm a bit more careful with my mic positions to keep the top mids off-axis more, I get a way better result to my ears. So while I get that there's not SUPPOSED to be a vast difference, it's noticeable in my room. Now, if I was running top front and top rear (as I will be in my new pad in a few months), maybe that's not as big a deal. But for my current front height/top mid setup, the top mids are definitely affected by this.



batpig said:


> I definitely agree that the surround boost of DEQ, which is already annoying, is even worse with immersive audio and the ceiling speakers. I'm in the category of many who loves the loudness compensation aspect of DEQ (I can't listen loud all the time), but hates the surround boost. I also have my surrounds nearly directly to the sides, maybe 1 ft in front, which obviates the entire theoretical premise for the surround boost (perception of sounds behind you falling off faster due to the anatomy of the ear etc). Even with the Ref Level Offset adjusted to max, I can still hear the volume jump as it passes through the side surrounds (not the back surrounds so much, but of course they are actually behind me).


That's the biggest problem I see with DEQ and Atmos. If you're still boosting surround presence, you're essentially making the bed channels louder than the heights, thus shifting the Z-axis down toward the bed more (and away from the front soundstage). When you get into being able to place sounds in XYZ 3-D space, I would imagine that you'd really need things level-matched to recreate the placement the mixer was wanting you to hear... however minor a difference it may be. Of course, maybe I'm being nit-picky... but hey, isn't that what this forum is for? 



batpig said:


> This puts me in a conundrum because I really do want the loudness comp, but Audyssey of course (as Keith noted) has always refused to disassociate the surround boost with the loudness comp. So I can use DEQ and manually tweak the surround volumes down to try and negate the surround boost... or turn it off and try and bring the bass back with some SW boost. But that's not really the same as a "house curve" becuase it's just shelving up the bass below the crossover freq.


Well, when I said "house curve", I was being a bit specific as to my setup. I have an outboard EQ that I could use post-Audyssey to make that happen... though it seems needlessly complex to have to resort to that. So like you, I'm stuck in that compromise position between tweaking surround levels for my usual listening level to match the heights better or boosting the subwoofer (or using my outboard EQ to compensate a bit). It really sucks that Audyssey isn't still interested in the market enough to account for this... or run some in-studio tests with mixers to see how they would change height channel presence at lower levels. Or just do what we'd all prefer and separate the EQ'ing from the surround presence leveling with DEQ so we can have the option.



batpig said:


> Also, final point, but back to the microphone angle issue... I do think there is something going on with the levels of the ceiling speakers at these non-grazing incidences. Not just Audyssey, but many people have reported anecdotally of wacked-out levels for overhead speakers with YPAO as well. Much moreso than I've ever heard for "ear level" speakers.


As I said before... I can attest to this in my room, because if I'm not careful with my mic placement and pay attention to the angle of the top mids to my mic, it doesn't result in a great sound even if I tweak levels to account for it. That possibly minor change in the equalization just doesn't maintain the same sound as the other speakers, and I've had to run Audyssey a few times with different mic placements to understand what was going on there. For me, I'm aware of it and can work around it somewhat... but I wish I didn't have to. Seems like this should have been a thing they would consider more when licensing Audyssey for Atmos AVRs. I'm basically having to start from scratch in a few months in a new house, so I'm definitely going to consider these issues when choosing my speaker placements.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jpco said:


> I have Polk OWM 3 speakers that I was using as rear surrounds near the ceiling. I am now using them as on-ceiling Top Rears, about 2.5 feet behind the MLP. Here are their measurements in the two locations using Dirac with the 0 degree mic calibration file.


I'm running OWM5 speakers as top mids... which I think is a different situation than running them behind the MLP a bit as you are. They are essentially overhead enough that mic placement to keep them significantly off-axis from the mic capsule is precarious. It may well be that at the angles you're talking about, it doesn't make as much of a difference as it seems to at top mid. Fortunately, I'll be changing to in-ceiling front/rear instead of mid in a few months, so it will probably all be moot anyway.

Thanks for sharing those measurements though.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Also, final point, but back to the microphone angle issue... I do think there is something going on with the levels of the ceiling speakers at these non-grazing incidences. Not just Audyssey, but many people have reported anecdotally of wacked-out levels for overhead speakers with YPAO as well. Much moreso than I've ever heard for "ear level" speakers.


Excellent post, batpig. To the comment above... this is interesting because when I was not EQing my overhead speakers at all (using a miniDSP DDRC-88A + Dirac Live on the floor level speakers but nothing for the overheads) and I was setting levels manually, I always found that I needed to boost the overheads by ~3dB in order to get the balance sounding 'right'. Since I added a second DDRC-88A for the overhead speakers, I am calibrating with DL but using a 0° mic cal file for the overhead channels (only) and one of the big differences I have found since calibrating all the speakers is that I no longer need to boost the overheads. In fact, boosting them makes the balance audibly 'wrong' with too much emphasis on the sounds from above. (A bit like your DEQ surround boost - you can hear that it is just not 'right'.) 

IDK if this has any connection with the Audyssey mix grazing angle thing, but thought I would just comment on it. I know that one or two members are getting a second DDRC-88A and it will be interesting to hear their comments in due course.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Sounds like a cluster f&$k. Just kidding. I always enjoy your technical contributions. But when we get to x, y & z coordinates - - then I'm ready for graphs and more math. Whatever happened to "sounds great, I can dance to it?" Same way with soundtracks - - you know a good one when you hear it.


I agree that we know a good mix when we hear one and that an understanding of the underlying technology isn't required of the listener. But Sanjay is replying to a very specific, incorrect, postulation made by Nightlord. Nightlord said, first of all, that home Atmos doesn't use objects. When this was corrected, he changed his position to:



Nightlord said:


> And it turns out that it can do objects if there are only a few, so you had an escape route. Still cheating... We can do a few real objects so the demos are important, but movies with many objects we will do in a non-object way...


Which is also incorrect. Spatial Coding lumps some of the 'excess' objects together in some sort of intelligent way, but as Sanjay is pointing out, that doesn't mean they suddenly cease to be objects. Two objects separately is two objects. Two objects combined (with Spatial Coding) is one object. It's still an object.

I can't be too hard on Nightlord - anyone who likes Ardbeg is basically A Good Guy IMO  But hopefully he will come back and admit he was wrong, thank the others for helping him to understand better and then we can all move on.


----------



## rontalley

Vaggeto said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm looking to install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos and I am having trouble finding the best location in my room.
> 
> They are 4 down-firing circular speakers (https://www.paradigm.com/products-archived/model=sa-10r/page=overview).
> My room is 20ft deep with 12ft high (non vaulted) ceilings over the HT area. I'm sitting about 11ft back and at the angles of 135-155*, that puts these speakers very far from the listener.
> 
> Do the angles only apply to 8ft ceilings or do I have to just estimate and compromise the sound and bring them closer?
> 
> Thanks!





Vaggeto said:


> My issue is that their website specifically says 30-55 degrees for the front 2, and for me with a 12ft ceiling, that puts 45* about 80% up my front wall and 55* just over my mains/screen area.
> 
> Should my in-ceiling heights really be placed practically against my front and back walls in a 20 ft long room? I believe that angle to be for rooms with a lower ceiling, but it isn't specified.


Angles are not really for 8' ceilings but rather a guideline. The higher the ceiling the further out the speakers go at a particular angle so that is why there's a range. 45 degrees do seem to be ideal for 8' ceilings but in your case you will have to adjust accordingly.

I put together a drawing to help. I will tell you the further the speakers are spread the better the effect. But too far will require .6. 

IMHO I believe that 50 and around 128 should work well for you.


----------



## Nalleh

*Regarding different content from the 5 different height positins.*

After i got the Dolby Audiosphere demo file, i did a little test.
I have two 7.1.4 AVR's, one setup with FH+TM, and the other have TF+TR. I disconnected ALL speakers, exept the one set of heights i wanted to listen to, and played Audiosphere.

Front height= no content!! Well, almost. They have very little of the bells from above, and only very little music content.

Top front= these have very clear and loud content of the bells from above, and not much else.

Top middle= same as top front, bells only.

Top rear= same as top front, bells only.

Rear height= (switched over in amp assign to test) bells here too, but not so loud. And also a little music her, same as front height.

So this test clearly showed that there IS different content to the different heights. The 3 top positions had very similar sounds(only different to aid pans etc), while front height had (almost) none of the top content, and more (background)music sounds. Rear height had a mix of the two, with lowered tops sounds, and music.

For good measure a did a test with just the front wides connected.

In all the Dolby demos they have content ALL THE TIME!
Also played the first chapter of Terminator Genisys with ONLY wides connected. And there are sound all the time! Even the "monolog" of Kyle is in the wides. Music, etc. Clearly more than the heights, and more than "a object here and there". I would call the wides *active* in a Atmos track.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> *Regarding different content from the 5 different height positins.*
> 
> After i got the Dolby Audiosphere demo file, i did a little test.
> I have two 7.1.4 AVR's, one setup with FH+TM, and the other have TF+TR. I disconnected ALL speakers, exept the one set of heights i wanted to listen to, and played Audiosphere.
> 
> Front height= no content!! Well, almost. They have very little of the bells from above, and only very little music content.
> 
> Top front= these have very clear and loud content of the bells from above, and not much else.
> 
> Top middle= same as top front, bells only.
> 
> Top rear= same as top front, bells only.
> 
> Rear height= (switched over in amp assign to test) bells here too, but not so loud. And also a little music her, same as front height.
> 
> So this test clearly showed that there IS different content to the different heights. The 3 top positions had very similar sounds(only different to aid pans etc), while front height had (almost) none of the top content, and more (background)music sounds. Rear height had a mix of the two, with lowered tops sounds, and music.
> 
> For good measure a did a test with just the front wides connected.
> 
> In all the Dolby demos they have content ALL THE TIME!
> Also played the first chapter of Terminator Genisys with ONLY wides connected. And there are sound all the time! Even the "monolog" of Kyle is in the wides. Music, etc. Clearly more than the heights, and more than "a object here and there". I would call the wides *active* in a Atmos track.


This is interesting.
This means half of us will be losing what other half can hear? Unless we use Nallah_tech to employ 2 AVRs one for FH+RH and another TF+TR ? (Will ignore TM for the moment)


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> This is interesting.
> This means half of us will be losing what other half can hear? Unless we use Nallah_tech to employ 2 AVRs one for FH+RH and another TF+TR ? (Will ignore TM for the moment)


I switched from FH+TM to TF+TR some time back after extensive listening tests. This was without moving the speakers physically - just redesignating them. With FH+TM I can meet the Dolby recommended angles with no problem which is why I initially went that way. With TF+TR, the forwardmost pair are within spec for TF but the TR pair are way out of spec, being more or less over my head (ie within spec for a TM pair). Nonetheless, I feel that an out-of-spec TF+TR gives me a better presentation than an on-spec FH+TM arrangement.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> I switched from FH+TM to TF+TR some time back after extensive listening tests. This was without moving the speakers physically - just redesignating them. With FH+TM I can meet the Dolby recommended angles with no problem which is why I initially went that way. With TF+TR, the forwardmost pair are within spec for TF but the TR pair are way out of spec, being more or less over my head (ie within spec for a TM pair). Nonetheless, I feel that an out-of-spec TF+TR gives me a better presentation than an on-spec FH+TM arrangement.


So are we saying that TF+TR will have almost all contents and FH+RH should be avoided.
This may have some implications come DTS:X (if they insist on FH+RH as their primary overheads) and also those who want Auro (a rare few) to use the Atmos setup with the firmware update Denon is coming up with.


----------



## Charles R

Nalleh said:


> Rear height= (switched over in amp assign to test) bells here too, but not so loud.


Were you using Audyssey? If so, did you rerun it each time you changed speaker assignments? I know Audyssey will alter the levels when you change speaker assignments. As an example my subwoofers' volume will change dramatically if I switch assignments from FH+RH to TF+TR without rerunning. Not sure why perhaps Audyssey is turned off (internally) when you change assignments?.. Also, I'm not understanding did you use to two AVRs to compare? How would you know if they are level matched per se...


----------



## rontalley

Nalleh said:


> *Regarding different content from the 5 different height positins.*
> 
> After i got the Dolby Audiosphere demo file, i did a little test.
> I have two 7.1.4 AVR's, one setup with FH+TM, and the other have TF+TR. I disconnected ALL speakers, exept the one set of heights i wanted to listen to, and played Audiosphere.
> 
> Front height= no content!! Well, almost. They have very little of the bells from above, and only very little music content.
> 
> Top front= these have very clear and loud content of the bells from above, and not much else.
> 
> Top middle= same as top front, bells only.
> 
> Top rear= same as top front, bells only.
> 
> Rear height= (switched over in amp assign to test) bells here too, but not so loud. And also a little music her, same as front height.
> 
> So this test clearly showed that there IS different content to the different heights. The 3 top positions had very similar sounds(only different to aid pans etc), while front height had (almost) none of the top content, and more (background)music sounds. Rear height had a mix of the two, with lowered tops sounds, and music.
> 
> For good measure a did a test with just the front wides connected.
> 
> In all the Dolby demos they have content ALL THE TIME!
> Also played the first chapter of Terminator Genisys with ONLY wides connected. And there are sound all the time! Even the "monolog" of Kyle is in the wides. Music, etc. Clearly more than the heights, and more than "a object here and there". I would call the wides *active* in a Atmos track.


I've tested and tested and tested this. FH and TF has always played the same exact sounds. Even setup a mic and recorded it into ProTools and examined the waves...

Will check when I get home as it may be different with certain mixes then.

So, in my case, If I change my TF to FH and play the Audiosphere Demo, then it should sound different than having them as TF? 
Also by theory, If FH plays lower then technically speaking, TR should play louder? Meaning more sounds should go to it...If not then those with .4 (most of us peasant folk), and using FH are missing sounds...

My AVR will not allow me to do TM+anything. Its either TF/FH+TR/RH or just TM.


----------



## SeanCJ

I just heard the 'Amaze' demo at my local Atmos enabled movie theater last night prior to seeing SWFA. The demo was truly amazing and the most immersive sound experience I've ever heard. Wish I could reproduce that sound at home. Mine is no where close.


----------



## Jarery

This may not be the best thread for this, but its about Atmos Speaker suggestions. There is a thread for up-firing speakers, but that just seems wrong to me.

I intend to put up 4 height speakers, I'd do 6 if there was a receiver or pre/pro that supported 6 heights.
My room layout is 23' front to back, with 9.5' ceilings, 14' wide. My single row seating is at about the 15' mark, with the screen at 2' so seating is 13' from screen and 15' from wall. 

I can put speakers either at front above the mains and at the back above the rear surrounds at the wall/ceiling corner. I cannot use in-ceiling for either of these front/rear and must use on-ceiling or bookshelf type speaker mounted on brackets and angled to the seating.
In the middle about 2' in front of the seating I have a false beam that runs across the ceiling where I can either install in-ceiling speakers. Or I could use again on-ceiling or bookshelf and mount them sideways to the side of the beam and angle them towards the seating.

So big question is, Can I get 2 in-ceiling (for the beam) and 2 bookshelf for ceiling/wall corner that work together as a matched set? Or do I get 4 bookshelf type so i can keep them sounding the same. If so whats a good on-ceiling or bookshelf type speaker in the $100-300 price range per speaker that works well for Atmos? If they are aim-able by being mounted to wall brackets are they still recommended to be wide dispersion or is that just when they are in-ceiling and cant be rotated towards the mlp?

For in-ceiling I was looking at Speakercraft or MartinLogan ML-80i


----------



## Nabs17

SeanCJ said:


> I just heard the 'Amaze' demo at my local Atmos enabled movie theater last night prior to seeing SWFA. The demo was truly amazing and the most immersive sound experience I've ever heard. Wish I could reproduce that sound at home. Mine is no where close.


What was lacking from your perspective? I've never heard the Amaze demo in a theater but it sound pretty good in my house....maybe because I've never heard it in a theater.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Which is also incorrect. Spatial Coding lumps some of the 'excess' objects together in some sort of intelligent way, but as Sanjay is pointing out, that doesn't mean they suddenly cease to be objects. Two objects separately is two objects. Two objects combined (with Spatial Coding) is one object. It's still an object.


That is not what "you guys who know something" have said before. The info seems to be constantly changing... how can anyone know the truth when the spec isn't published and the facts seems to change due to whom you discuss with... .*sigh*



> I can't be too hard on Nightlord - anyone who likes Ardbeg is basically A Good Guy IMO  But hopefully he will come back and admit he was wrong, thank the others for helping him to understand better and then we can all move on.


I'm just working on the best intel I have so far... fact seems hard to get. This last one is a contradiction to what's been said before... then it was "few obects, then spatial encoding", now is is "few objects, then lumped larger objects". Would it be so difficult for Dolby to publish the full spec, they would still have the rights to it?

And do keep in mind that this is NOT my first language, possibly not even my 2nd...


----------



## JamesE

Something that has always bothered me about Dolby Digitals approach to speaker layout. That is they never discuss audio theory—the black box approach. They just present the optimal way to layout your speakers. On the other hand, Auro-3D talks about audio theory. We still don’t know what DTS is going to do but we have pictures floating around of an amazing sound lab with dozens of speakers. 



I put my height speakers at 30 degrees above my ear. Dolby’s 45 degrees just seems too high. Dolby’s standard seems to be designed for sound bars and Dolby Atmos speakers. The standard seems to be created by corporate committee whereas Auro-3D and DTS standards are being determined by sound engineers—I’m sure Dolby has lots of sound engineers. Another example of our small niche hobby being just a part of a much larger industry. 



Most things are compromises. I’m sure the sound-bars are going to sound great in a lot of TV rooms.
I’m thrilled with the Atmos sound but I’m also glad that there is competition.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> So are we saying that TF+TR will have almost all contents and FH+RH should be avoided.
> This may have some implications come DTS:X (if they insist on FH+RH as their primary overheads) and also those who want Auro (a rare few) to use the Atmos setup with the firmware update Denon is coming up with.


I wouldn’t draw any generalised conclusions from my specific experience. I can only say what I found here, in my room, with my speaker placements and my setup. I prefer the TF+TR designation even though my TR are out of spec. YMMV.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> This last one is a contradiction to what's been said before... then it was "few obects, then spatial encoding", now is is "few objects, then lumped larger objects".


No contradiction, since "spatial coding" results in "lumped larger objects" (replace those terms with "combining objects" and "combined objects", respectively).


----------



## kbarnes701

SeanCJ said:


> I just heard the 'Amaze' demo at my local Atmos enabled movie theater last night prior to seeing SWFA. The demo was truly amazing and the most immersive sound experience I've ever heard. Wish I could reproduce that sound at home. Mine is no where close.


In what ways is it different? Can you describe your setup and equipment for us?


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> I've tested and tested and tested this. FH and TF has always played the same exact sounds. Even setup a mic and recorded it into ProTools and examined the waves...


Remember that when I changed designations from FH+TM to TF+TR I am also changing the TM/TR potential for differences and also the way they interact with FH/TF. I definitely prefer TF+TR but it is real hard for me to say why without sounding like some audiofool type  I can only advise that people try these different designations in their own room and evaluate as best they can.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> No contradiction, since "spatial coding" results in "lumped larger objects" (replace those terms with "combining objects" and "combined objects", respectively).


Might be a language issue, but that's not true in my book. Spatial coding is relative to a fix coordinate system, while lumped larger objects come together with a coordinate on where they are. It's a fundamental difference. You're being much too vague here.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nabs17 said:


> What was lacking from your perspective? I've never heard the Amaze demo in a theater but it sound pretty good in my house....maybe because I've never heard it in a theater.


I've heard the Amaze trailer in possibly the best place of all to hear it - at Dolby's London HQ and it is indeed 'amazing'. But, like you, I find it sounds pretty good at home too. I don't expect my HT to sound the same as Dolby's million dollar plus setup. If it did, there'd be something pretty wrong at Dolby  But nor am I disappointed in any way with what I hear at home.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> That is not what "you guys who know something" have said before. The info seems to be constantly changing... how can anyone know the truth when the spec isn't published and the facts seems to change due to whom you discuss with... .*sigh*


Well it's definitely what I have said before. It has to be because what I said is the limit of my knowledge about it. Objects do not 'disappear' and become channels in home Atmos when the number of objects exceeds the capability of the process. They become 'spatially coded' which means they are still objects. I am sure there is information out there about Spatial Coding if you look. No matter which source you consider, it is still entirely wrong that home Atmos becomes channel based in some circumstances, which is what you said.



Nightlord said:


> I'm just working on the best intel I have so far... fact seems hard to get. This last one is a contradiction to what's been said before... then it was "few obects, then spatial encoding", now is is "few objects, then lumped larger objects". Would it be so difficult for Dolby to publish the full spec, they would still have the rights to it?
> 
> And do keep in mind that this is NOT my first language, possibly not even my 2nd...


It may be that you are misinterpreting it due to language issues, but your command of English seems to me (a languages graduate) to be pretty good and certainly good enough to follow the current discussion with no problems. Sanjay explained it above, pretty lucidly I thought.


----------



## kbarnes701

JamesE said:


> On the other hand, Auro-3D talks about audio theory.


Well, theory is all they've got. With no content (in the USA) and only one major manufacturer (D&M) offering Auro, their hands-on talk is sure to be pretty limited


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No contradiction, since "spatial coding" results in "lumped larger objects" (replace those terms with "combining objects" and "combined objects", respectively).


And "lumped larger objects" are, of course, still objects.


----------



## rontalley

Nalleh said:


> *Regarding different content from the 5 different height positins.*
> 
> After i got the Dolby Audiosphere demo file, i did a little test.
> I have two 7.1.4 AVR's, one setup with FH+TM, and the other have TF+TR. I disconnected ALL speakers, exept the one set of heights i wanted to listen to, and played Audiosphere.
> 
> Front height= no content!! Well, almost. They have very little of the bells from above, and only very little music content.
> 
> Top front= these have very clear and loud content of the bells from above, and not much else.
> 
> Top middle= same as top front, bells only.
> 
> Top rear= same as top front, bells only.
> 
> Rear height= (switched over in amp assign to test) bells here too, but not so loud. And also a little music her, same as front height.
> 
> So this test clearly showed that there IS different content to the different heights. The 3 top positions had very similar sounds(only different to aid pans etc), while front height had (almost) none of the top content, and more (background)music sounds. Rear height had a mix of the two, with lowered tops sounds, and music.
> 
> For good measure a did a test with just the front wides connected.
> 
> In all the Dolby demos they have content ALL THE TIME!
> Also played the first chapter of Terminator Genisys with ONLY wides connected. And there are sound all the time! Even the "monolog" of Kyle is in the wides. Music, etc. Clearly more than the heights, and more than "a object here and there". I would call the wides *active* in a Atmos track.





rontalley said:


> I've tested and tested and tested this. FH and TF has always played the same exact sounds. Even setup a mic and recorded it into ProTools and examined the waves...
> 
> Will check when I get home as it may be different with certain mixes then.
> 
> So, in my case, If I change my TF to FH and play the Audiosphere Demo, then it should sound different than having them as TF?
> Also by theory, If FH plays lower then technically speaking, TR should play louder? Meaning more sounds should go to it...If not then those with .4 (most of us peasant folk), and using FH are missing sounds...
> 
> My AVR will not allow me to do TM+anything. Its either TF/FH+TR/RH or just TM.


I had to go home and test this! 

With Audiosphere demo and Yamaha 3050. All 3 settings play the *exact same sounds* but all 3 sound different. 

FH sounds like the sound is pushed more towards the front when compared to TH. Sounds that are louder in TF are softer in FH and sounds that are louder in FH are a little softer in TF. This does confirms that there are positional however, FH sounds dull while TF sounds big and punchy. 

Dolby Enabled sounds more "excited" and "exaggerated" even a little harsh on the louder parts.

Now here comes the kicker!!!

The damn "bells" are not playing differently from from to back on the right or left side!! I disconnected the left side and stood in the middle of right side and the bells played right over my freaking head.
Wait, it gets even deeper!!! Selecting TF+TR the music starts all the way in the rear then pans all the way to the front.
With FH+RH the music starts in *between* RH and TM (1/4) then travels to in *between* TM and FH(3/4)...WTF?
This is strange behavior to say the least. Wouldn't FH+RH have a bigger span than TF+TR?

Selecting Dolby Enabled gives the full pan from Front to Back like TF+TR.

One thing is sure, the Demo indicates that bells are coming from Front to Back but with my system, although all speakers are playing bells, I am only getting panning from left to right. However the music is panning from Rear to Front and then from Front to Back.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember that when I changed designations from FH+TM to TF+TR I am also changing the TM/TR potential for differences and also the way they interact with FH/TF. I definitely prefer TF+TR but it is real hard for me to say why without sounding like some audiofool type  I can only advise that people try these different designations in their own room and evaluate as best they can.


TF+TR gives the greatest separation and sonically sounds the best. Your ears have not deceived you! 

Confirmed after spending my entire lunch hour listening to the damn Bells!


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> FH sounds like the sound is pushed more towards the front when compared to TH. Sounds that are louder in TF are softer in FH and sounds that are louder in FH are a little softer in TF. This does confirms that there are positional however, FH sounds dull while TF sounds big and punchy.


This is more or less the conclusion I came to with my own (entirely subjective) listening tests. FH+TM does not give me the same 'overhead' presence as TF+TR, which plays to your first point and TF+TR just 'sounds more engaging' to me, which plays to your last point.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Spatial coding is relative to a fix coordinate system, while lumped larger objects come together with a coordinate on where they are.


Then you're using the term "spatial coding" differently than Dolby is. They use the term to describe the combining of objects in the same general area (objects with similar coordinates).


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> TF+TR gives the greatest separation and sonically sounds the best. Your ears have not deceived you!


It's good to see someone else confirm this though. I spent hours and hours evaluating the differences between FH+TM and TF+TR. My OCDness baulks at the idea of having the rearmost pair out of spec wrt to placement, so I really wanted FH+TM to sound at least as good as TF+TR. But I always kept coming back to TF+TR as just 'more engaging', despite the rearmost pair being seriously out of spec wrt to placement. I have settled now on TF+TR and I will not be going back to FH+TM.



rontalley said:


> Confirmed after spending my entire lunch hour listening to the damn Bells!


For which I at least say a big "thanks".


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I switched from FH+TM to TF+TR some time back after extensive listening tests. This was without moving the speakers physically - just redesignating them. With FH+TM I can meet the Dolby recommended angles with no problem which is why I initially went that way. With TF+TR, the forwardmost pair are within spec for TF but the TR pair are way out of spec, being more or less over my head (ie within spec for a TM pair). Nonetheless, I feel that an out-of-spec TF+TR gives me a better presentation than an on-spec FH+TM arrangement.





kbarnes701 said:


> I wouldn’t draw any generalised conclusions from my specific experience. I can only say what I found here, in my room, with my speaker placements and my setup. I prefer the TF+TR designation even though my TR are out of spec. YMMV.


Hmm. How bout that?

Guess you can move on to the Yamaha when you're ready then and not have to worry about that whole "no middle height option, it bothers me because...." issue.  

"Out of spec"? _No way!_

Ugh. Lol.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



Scott Simonian said:


> ...
> 
> How much power will it take to hit 105dB peak at the seats? That's how much power you'll need.


That only used to be the case. 

As today with the requirements of the latest Dolby Atmos HT Installation guidelines (p38, Advanced System Calibration), this peak level is now targeted as being between 99dB and 102dB, includind a +20dB headroom above Reference level... 











Now what becomes interesting is how manufacturers have integrated this shift in the Ref Level and how the actual Dolby Atmos compatible products are auto-calibrated. Does the 0 (zero) Ref Level represent the previous 85dB level or is it now "between" 79dB and 82dB?

And for this matter, what is the Ref application level for Audyssey Dynamic EQ equipped products in the Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround context?

My bet is that nothing has probably changed concerning the 0 Ref level at 85dB, but then who knows...

Hugo 

PS: link to the latest Dolby Atmos HT Installation guidelines : http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm. How bout that?
> 
> Guess you can move on to the Yamaha when you're ready then and not have to worry about that whole "no middle height option, it bothers me because...." issue.


I am still a big fan of Yamaha gear, but I am pretty much set on an outgoing Marantz SR7010, at a bargain price, when they go on close-out in the fall ahead of the 2017 models coming in. The 7010 has everything I need and it will be real cheap.



Scott Simonian said:


> "Out of spec"? _No way!_
> 
> Ugh. Lol.


 Well yeah - not having a TM position makes it real easy to not use a TM setting.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> It's good to see someone else confirm this though. I spent hours and hours evaluating the differences between FH+TM and TF+TR. My OCDness baulks at the idea of having the rearmost pair out of spec wrt to placement, so I really wanted FH+TM to sound at least as good as TF+TR. But I always kept coming back to TF+TR as just 'more engaging', despite the rearmost pair being seriously out of spec wrt to placement. I have settled now on TF+TR and I will not be going back to FH+TM.


I had front heights up from my previous DPL-IIz setup and added top mids in my room. When I changed to Atmos, I was afraid I would lose that big sound that DPL-IIz gave my front soundstage, because it made it sound like things were coming from my screen more than down from the speakers. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Atmos/DSU handles the FH speakers so that it still has that big wall of sound feel from the front... and adding top mid after that gave me both that and the height aspect of Atmos. But I'm interested in what you're saying because I'm going to change to in-ceiling TF/TR in my new home in a few months due to the room in question not having space in the front for speakers next to the screen I have. Now that you've shared this, I may have to recalibrate my current layout as TF/TR and see how it sounds. After saving my current calibration, of course, because it sounds phenomenal.

BTW: I didn't watch Everest last night because a friend wants to come over tonight to check it out, so I watched Roger Waters The Wall instead. To anyone who is even remotely a fan of The Wall, this disc is a must-buy. It uses Atmos in some incredible ways throughout the concert scenes, and was just utterly jaw-dropping to watch. It's an absolutely fantastic Atmos mix!


----------



## blastermaster

So I tried a few games last night on my PC. First was Star Wars Battlefront. I've got the PC connected via HDMI and am using an Nvidia Gtx 970. I was able to choose Atmos in the game setting and it sounds great, but the readout on my receiver is pcm multichannel. Is that what I should be expecting (those who have played the game in Atmos)? It sounds great, but I wasn't able to discern any sound coming from the heights in the short time I played it. Then I tried Dark Souls 2 (man I hate and love that game so much). It sounds phenomenal in DSU! I'm going to test out more games but wow gaming just got a whole lot better.


----------



## SoundChex

Nightlord said:


> The *[Atmos]* info seems to be constantly changing... how can anyone know the truth when the spec isn't published and the facts seems to change due to whom you discuss with... .*sigh*
> 
> I'm just working on the best intel I have so far... fact seems hard to get. This last one is a contradiction to what's been said before... then it was "few obects, then spatial encoding", now is is "few objects, then lumped larger objects". Would it be so difficult for Dolby to publish the full spec, they would still have the rights to it?



However, the "related" *Dolby AC-4* codec is a published Standard, and available as *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*).

_You might be able to draw some inferences about how objects are treated in Atmos by looking at how the smaller number of objects in AC-4 are processed 'under corresponding conditions'...?!_


_


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I had front heights up from my previous DPL-IIz setup and added top mids in my room. When I changed to Atmos, I was afraid I would lose that big sound that DPL-IIz gave my front soundstage, because it made it sound like things were coming from my screen more than down from the speakers. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Atmos/DSU handles the FH speakers so that it still has that big wall of sound feel from the front... and adding top mid after that gave me both that and the height aspect of Atmos. But I'm interested in what you're saying because I'm going to change to in-ceiling TF/TR in my new home in a few months due to the room in question not having space in the front for speakers next to the screen I have. Now that you've shared this, I may have to recalibrate my current layout as TF/TR and see how it sounds. After saving my current calibration, of course, because it sounds phenomenal.


It was that front-centricness of the FH designation that I didn’t like so much. I wanted the Atmos overhead sounds to be more 'over my head' and I feel that TF+TR does this for me better than FH+TM did. But it is very subjective, I have to stress that.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> BTW: I didn't watch Everest last night because a friend wants to come over tonight to check it out, so I watched Roger Waters The Wall instead. To anyone who is even remotely a fan of The Wall, this disc is a must-buy. It uses Atmos in some incredible ways throughout the concert scenes, and was just utterly jaw-dropping to watch. It's an absolutely fantastic Atmos mix!


Agreed. I am not a huge fan but I too loved the disc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> That only used to be the case.
> 
> As today with the requirements of the latest Dolby Atmos HT Installation guidelines (p38, Advanced System Calibration), this peak level is now targeted as being between 99dB and 102dB, includind a +20dB headroom above Reference level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now what becomes interesting is how manufacturers have integrated this shift in the Ref Level and how the actual Dolby Atmos compatible products are auto-calibrated. Does the 0 (zero) Ref Level represent the previous 85dB level or is it now "between" 79dB and 82dB?
> 
> And for this matter, what is the Ref application level for Audyssey Dynamic EQ equipped products in the Dolby Atmos / Dolby Surround context?
> 
> My bet is that nothing has probably changed concerning the 0 Ref level at 85dB, but then who knows...
> 
> Hugo
> 
> PS: link to the latest Dolby Atmos HT Installation guidelines : http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Very interesting. Thanks for the correction. Never saw this latest update in the specification. I'll check it out.

Ehhhh... but still. I'd opt for the original rated spec and shoot for that. Headroom is good. 





kbarnes701 said:


> I am still a big fan of Yamaha gear, but I am pretty much set on an outgoing Marantz SR7010, at a bargain price, when they go on close-out in the fall ahead of the 2017 models coming in. The 7010 has everything I need and it will be real cheap.



Eww.


----------



## Nightlord

SoundChex said:


> However, the "related" *Dolby AC-4* codec is a published Standard, and available as *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*).
> 
> _You might be able to draw some inferences about how objects are treated in Atmos by looking at how the smaller number of objects in AC-4 are processed 'under corresponding conditions'...?!_
> 
> 
> _


I'll read it.  Thanks! 
(Though it's not the "smaller number" case that I have the most interest in, as (I hope) that will be the odd case out for future movies. I regard that as a "optimization for demo" mode. )


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Eww.


Eww? WTF?


----------



## Hugo S

Scott Simonian said:


> ...
> Ehhhh... but still. I'd opt for the original rated spec and shoot for that. *Headroom is good.*
> ...


... and 105dB peak level too often used in domestic conditions _not quite optimal_ for long term hearing... 

H.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Then you're using the term "spatial coding" differently than Dolby is. They use the term to describe the combining of objects in the same general area (objects with similar coordinates).


Well, sad to say, but Dolby is wrong then... and threw me off. Spatial coding should be coding relative to space, not relative to a point in space. But I can change my point of view (regarding Atmos, not about what Spatial Coding is) as soon as I feel certain this is an established fact rather than something concocted here.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Eww? WTF?


I know, right! 



Hugo S said:


> ... and 105dB peak level too often used in domestic conditions _not quite optimal_ for long term hearing...
> 
> H.


Well... if it is "too often" then it's not a peak anymore. 

The occasional 105dB A-weighted peak SPL effect from time to time will do no damage to your hearing. Even over a lifetime. We experience louder things in normal day-to-day living all the time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hugo S said:


> ... and 105dB peak level too often used in domestic conditions _not quite optimal_ for long term hearing...
> 
> H.


Hi Hugo - do you think many people can hit 105dB peaks in their HTs? I know I can, and I am sure you can - les petits oignons and all that  But do you think most people can? Even I don't regularly listen as loud as that - I just find it is too much. Not because it sounds harsh or bad in any way - it doesn't. In fact it sounds seductively smooth and effortless, which makes it all the more dangerous as it is easy to let the level creep up almost unnoticed. A bit like the way a 911 can be doing 120 mph and you'd swear you were doing 70! Honestly Office, I had no idea! But 105dB is sort of 'wearing' I find. I'd say I tend to listen with my peaks at about 99dB typically.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Well, sad to say, but Dolby is wrong then... and threw me off. Spatial coding should be coding relative to space, not relative to a point in space. But I can change my point of view (regarding Atmos, not about what Spatial Coding is) as soon as I feel certain this is an established fact rather than something concocted here.


 How can they be wrong about the meaning of a term they invented?

And do you think there is a conspiracy at AVS to deceive you on the way Spatial Coding works? Do you not believe a professional Hollywood film mixer (Marc) or a professional audio industry Tech Support guy (at ATI) with an impeccable reputation (Sanjay)?


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi Hugo - do you think many people can hit 105dB peaks in their HTs? I know I can, and I am sure you can - les petits oignons and all that  But do you think most people can? Even I don't regularly listen as loud as that - I just find it is too much. Not because it sounds harsh or bad in any way - it doesn't. In fact it sounds seductively smooth and effortless, which makes it all the more dangerous as it is easy to let the level creep up almost unnoticed. A bit like the way a 911 can be doing 120 mph and you'd swear you were doing 70! Honestly Office, I had no idea! But 105dB is sort of 'wearing' I find. I'd say I tend to listen with my peaks at about 99dB typically.


Yes, both good and bad.

Most people can not reproduce these signals at those levels cleanly. Long time exposure to these levels on hardware that can not do it cleanly would be bad. Tons of distortion. However, that distortion can be good in that your ears pick up that awful sound and your brain says "turn it the f**k down!!" and you do to protect your hearing.

People with VERY capable speakers that can reproduce very high SPL with little to no distortion will never get that "turn it down!" cue from the brain. You simply enjoy and then an hour or two later when you're done you're wondering why your ears are ringing.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Jeremy Anderson said:


> ..., so I watched Roger Waters The Wall instead. To anyone who is even remotely a fan of The Wall, this disc is a must-buy. It uses Atmos in some incredible ways throughout the concert scenes, and was just utterly jaw-dropping to watch. It's an absolutely fantastic Atmos mix!


Thanks, I saw this on Amazon but didn't bite as I didn't know what to aspect. I will order it certainly.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, both good and bad.
> 
> Most people can not reproduce these signals at those levels cleanly. Long time exposure to these levels on hardware that can not do it cleanly would be bad. Tons of distortion. However, that distortion can be good in that your ears pick up that awful sound and your brain says "turn it the f**k down!!" and you do to protect your hearing.
> 
> People with VERY capable speakers that can reproduce very high SPL with little to no distortion will never get that "turn it down!" cue from the brain. You simply enjoy and then an hour or two later when you're done you're wondering why your ears are ringing.


Yep. That is entirely possible. I noticed the effect a few days ago on a rare occasion I watched a movie with a friend. At one point, I wanted to say something to my buddy, and I did. Not only did he not hear me at all but *I* couldn’t hear me at all, even though I was shouting. We had let the volume 'creep' and neither of us was aware of it until I tried to say something out loud. Doesn't happen very often though.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> And do you think there is a conspiracy at AVS to deceive you on the way Spatial Coding works? Do you not believe a professional Hollywood film mixer (Marc) or a professional audio industry Tech Support guy (at ATI) with an impeccable reputation (Sanjay)?


Yes. :serious:


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Well it's definitely what I have said before. It has to be because what I said is the limit of my knowledge about it. Objects do not 'disappear' and become channels in home Atmos when the number of objects exceeds the capability of the process. They become 'spatially coded' which means they are still objects. I am sure there is information out there about Spatial Coding if you look. No matter which source you consider, it is still entirely wrong that home Atmos becomes channel based in some circumstances, which is what you said.


I'd like to sigh, but not at you, but at the futility of getting my thoughts across. You probably believe as soon as I call it a channel, it's a channel you hear, a channel played. That's not what I meant. I've been talking about using a number of virtual channels place inbetween the normal ones, from which you can extract the information of where the objects were in space. That is what proper spatial encoding _could_ do. I'm not claiming Atmos does it this way, I'm just saying that they could be doing it this way and possibly would be doing it this way if I was the boss there and someone told me we would not get the bandwidth on the media to do it full out. But it seems that people here have problems reading when I'm being theoretical or factual posts. I'm actually more intested when it's theoretical... factual is more like "been there, done that"... theoretical is more a forwards perspective.



> It may be that you are misinterpreting it due to language issues, but your command of English seems to me (a languages graduate) to be pretty good and certainly good enough to follow the current discussion with no problems. Sanjay explained it above, pretty lucidly I thought.


well, I can't do anything more than take my bows then... but it is a risk that if your language is generally good enough, but lacking in a specific area... you'll be considered stupid rather than realizing that in that area the person does not possess all the correct words. I noticed that very much in my cinema build thread... that we never learned the words having to do with house construction in school. And it doesn't help that that I'm reading and speaking (UK) english at work, in a software production environment, everyday, I still don't get that glossary in a natural way. So, it's quite possible I pick up words reading your posts here and re-use them a bit wrong - even if my basic grasp of the english (rather than american) language is somewhat decent. I did start pretty early as I wanted to know what ABBA was singing...


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> How can they be wrong about the meaning of a term they invented?
> 
> And do you think there is a conspiracy at AVS to deceive you on the way Spatial Coding works? Do you not believe a professional Hollywood film mixer (Marc) or a professional audio industry Tech Support guy (at ATI) with an impeccable reputation (Sanjay)?


It's not a term they invented. Spatial (en)coding isn't something new. 

No, I don't believe in any conspiracy about what you claim Spatial Coding for Atmos is. I've just understood, thanks to you guys, that it doesn't mean what it says, but it something different. Dolby just isn't using the phrase in the normal sense, but once you know that you can handle it. 

On the other hand, I do not give a damn about who works with that or what their reputation is. I don't get impressed by titles. People have to impress me by consistently stating correct things before I will give them the benefit on the doubt about things I don't know. And I haven't read enough of either person you refer to to have the slightest possibility to do that judgement.


----------



## sdurani

Nightlord said:


> Well, sad to say, but Dolby is wrong then... and threw me off.


If you're used to the way MPEG and Fraunhofer use the term Spatial Audio Object Coding (SAOC), then you'll be thrown off by the fact that Dolby decided to refer to their combining of objects as "spatial coding". That's still not an excuse for deliberately spreading misinformation about objects becoming channels or home Atmos not using any objects.


----------



## Vaggeto

rontalley said:


> Angles are not really for 8' ceilings but rather a guideline. The higher the ceiling the further out the speakers go at a particular angle so that is why there's a range. 45 degrees do seem to be ideal for 8' ceilings but in your case you will have to adjust accordingly.
> 
> I put together a drawing to help. I will tell you the further the speakers are spread the better the effect. But too far will require .6.
> 
> IMHO I believe that 50 and around 128 should work well for you.


Thank you, that was exceptionally helpful. I guess in my mind initially I thought these 4 heights would be going about 3 feet in front of me and 3 feet behind, but this proves they will be further away but hopefully that only improves the experience. I did wire for 6 and hopefully would be able to do that in the future if the receivers allow for it, but it would likely be years from now since I wouldn't want to pay for another receiver so soon.

Also, I realized I was not accounting for the listener height in my calculations, putting the speakers slightly further back than they need to be at these angles.

For the room depth, would you recommend I count the entire room depth, or just the depth from the front of my front speakers to my back wall/rear speakers?

Lastly, on the left/right or width placement... I haven't seen that discussed much at all but is it best to try to keep the width apart some ratio of the length apart front to back, or is it based purely on your seating constraints or other speaker widths?
Thanks!


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> If you're used to the way MPEG and Fraunhofer use the term Spatial Audio Object Coding (SAOC), then you'll be thrown off by the fact that Dolby decided to refer to their combining of objects as "spatial coding". That's still not an excuse for deliberately spreading misinformation about objects becoming channels or home Atmos not using any objects.


Huh? I'm not informing anyone, I'm writing posts on a forum, and if you think I have an agenda that just because you don't know/understand me. 'Deliberately' does not apply to me at all. I'm not payed by anyone, nor do I have any personal gains, monetary or not, from anything regarding sound/hifi/home theater. (The only software I have done in the area is totally free of charge and I don't even supply a method of donations with it.)


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. That is entirely possible. I noticed the effect a few days ago on a rare occasion I watched a movie with a friend. At one point, I wanted to say something to my buddy, and I did. Not only did he not hear me at all but *I* couldn’t hear me at all, even though I was shouting. We had let the volume 'creep' and neither of us was aware of it until I tried to say something out loud. Doesn't happen very often though.


That's quite fun to experience... First time it happened to me, I was trying to tell the owner of the system to turn it up a bit more. 

I had ears ringing for the better part of a week afterwards, so in retrospect I shouldn't have been there at all...


----------



## rontalley

Vaggeto said:


> Thank you, that was exceptionally helpful. I guess in my mind initially I thought these 4 heights would be going about 3 feet in front of me and 3 feet behind, but this proves they will be further away but hopefully that only improves the experience. I did wire for 6 and hopefully would be able to do that in the future if the receivers allow for it, but it would likely be years from now since I wouldn't want to pay for another receiver so soon.
> 
> Also, I realized I was not accounting for the listener height in my calculations, putting the speakers slightly further back than they need to be at these angles.
> 
> For the room depth, would you recommend I count the entire room depth, or just the depth from the front of my front speakers to my back wall/rear speakers?
> 
> Lastly, on the left/right or width placement... I haven't seen that discussed much at all but is it best to try to keep the width apart some ratio of the length apart front to back, or is it based purely on your seating constraints or other speaker widths?
> Thanks!


You are more than welcomed. 

Left/Right should be in line with your Mains.


----------



## Nabs17

kbarnes701 said:


> I've heard the Amaze trailer in possibly the best place of all to hear it - at Dolby's London HQ and it is indeed 'amazing'. But, like you, I find it sounds pretty good at home too. I don't expect my HT to sound the same as Dolby's million dollar plus setup. If it did, there'd be something pretty wrong at Dolby  But nor am I disappointed in any way with what I hear at home.


Yeah that should be the best place to hear...you'd think they would have their setup optimized to the hilt. I don't even have an Atmos equipped theater near me so I cant even go and give a listen. The closest (to me) is Downtown Disney in Orlando. For those of you that go do they typically play one of the Atmos demo's before the movie starts?


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. That is entirely possible. I noticed the effect a few days ago on a rare occasion I watched a movie with a friend. At one point, I wanted to say something to my buddy, and I did. Not only did he not hear me at all but *I* couldn’t hear me at all, even though I was shouting. We had let the volume 'creep' and neither of us was aware of it until I tried to say something out loud. Doesn't happen very often though.



That's awesome. I've had that happen at home too. Turn it up fairly loud and ask the guests if it's too loud and surprisingly they're fine with it.

As opposed to my local theater...which cranks the volume. I've almost gone out and asked them to turn it down before, but suffered through it instead. Not the most pleasant experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> On the other hand, I do not give a damn about who works with that or what their reputation is. I don't get impressed by titles.* People have to impress me by consistently stating correct things *before I will give them the benefit on the doubt about things I don't know. And I haven't read enough of either person you refer to to have the slightest possibility to do that judgement.


Exactly. That is what Marc and Sanjay do.


----------



## Scott Simonian

_Only_ Marc and Sanjay? 

I'm pretty impressed by the amount of asinine things said in here.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> _Only_ Marc and Sanjay?


No, not only Marc and Sanjay, obviously. That's why I didn't say "only" Marc and Sanjay I guess 



Scott Simonian said:


> I'm pretty impressed by the amount of asinine things said in here.












Good word...


----------



## batpig

aaranddeeman said:


> So are we saying that TF+TR will have almost all contents and FH+RH should be avoided.


I want to chime in on this overhead position stuff....

First off thanks to Nalleh especially but also others who have diligently indulged their OCD in testing various configs with common reference material. It seems like we've reached a point where enough data exists that we can say, with certainty, that there IS a difference between FH vs TF and other positions. Although I think we can all agree it's subtle and probably irrelevant for a lot of real world program material.

Part of the difficulty in discerning these subtle differences is, as we all know, the x.x.4 limitation of current non-Trinnov processors which means there is only so much granularity possible in overhead positioning with only 2 pairs of overhead speakers.

We know from Sanjay that the Atmos renderer will always try to keep height information in the overhead channels. 

We can also hear from experimenting with the test tones on the new Atmos demo disc (and other sources) that overhead information won't "bleed" into the floor channels (corroborating Sanjay's statement), so overhead rendering is largely divided into front/back zones with only two pairs of speakers (left/right panning shouldn't be affected, only focusing on front-to-back).

For example, if you play the 9.1.6 test tone track, if your speakers are configured as Front+Rear (whether it's TF+TR or FH+TR etc) then the "Top Front" signal plays from the front pair, and the "Top Rear" signal plays from the rear pair, but the "Top Middle" signal plays from BOTH pairs. This makes sense, because if the render "knows" you have a front+rear combo, then stuff intended to be directly overhead will be split between front/rear so it images directly overhead.

However, if you have a FH+TM arrangement (TF+TM not being possible) then what happens is the "Top Front" signal plays from FH, and "Top Middle" plays from TM, but the kicker is that the "Top Rear" signal also plays from the TM speakers ONLY. My initial supposition was that it would split between TM and SB, to attempt to phantom image above and behind you, but this is obviously not the case. Rather, the render has to keep elevated sounds in the overhead layer, and thus anything in the "top rear" spatial zone HAS TO play from Top Middle speakers, because they are the rear-most overhead pair.

This distinction is ultimately why I think people are finding that front+rear designation is somewhat preferable, even with real-world program content (vs test tones). And it's why Dolby recommends using a TF+TR arrangement as the "ideal" for a x.x.4 system.

If you think about it, extrapolating from the findings above, what's going to happen with real world program content with a FH+TM arrangment (vs front+rear)? For many overhead effects, it's not going to make a difference. Let's say a spaceship zooms overhead from back to front... regardless of the designation of your 2 pairs of overheads, that sound is going to pass through the two pairs of speakers in sequence. So it's unlikely you'd hear a difference with FH+TM vs. TF+TR, either way it's zooming through both pairs over your head.

This is probably why in most cursory experiments early on, people assumed they were identical because they couldn't hear a difference. It takes specific types of content to highlight the distinction in rendering.

So now, let's think about a more localized sound that is placed directly above you. If you have a FH+TM arrangement, this sound is going to produced primarily by the TM speakers... depending on the size/spread of the object, it could be 100% TM or maybe it could also leak a bit into the FH speakers. But it's mostly coming from two speakers directly above you. If you switch your setting to TF+TR (not moving the speakers, just changing the setting) then that same sound will be produced equally by ALL FOUR speakers. 

What's the implication? I think that TF+TR, by spreading the sound out to all four speakers, will reduce "hot spotting" of those speakers directly over your head. This could be why Keith finds it "more engaging" and others find it more "balanced". The effect feels more generally "overhead-ish" with all four overhead speakers playing. 

With FH+TM, anything above or behind you will be produced by just those two TM speakers, and the FH will only be used for stuff in front of you. That means the overhead spatial content is "squished" forward so the TM speakers do a lot more work than the FH speakers. If you make a theoretical assumption of equal distribution of front/rear content, with FH+TM the load will be something like 30/70 in favor of the TM. With TF+TR, the two pairs will essentially share the load equally and both will be engaged more often for the "overhead" stuff. 

Thus, I conclude that, all else being equal, a front+rear layout should give a more "balanced" overhead presentation, closer to the intent of the mix, than a FH+TM layout. Again, likely not a big deal with a majority of real program content, but I have reached this conclusion that, if at all possible, one should strive for TF+TR even if you can't place the TR speakers fully in spec (30-55 degrees behind). This has steeled my resolve to deal with the PITA and re-jigger my setup and relocate my TM in-ceilings to be a bit behind me so I can go with a front+rear arrangement. I would tenatively assert that FH+TM should only be used if you REALLY don't have any space behind you (i.e. couch against the back wall) or if there is some other fundamental conflict (e.g. couch only a few feet forward of back wall with very elevated SBack speakers).

SO..... bringing this all back full circle to aaranddeeman's question that I quoted at the outset.... IMO, these conclusions don't necessarily have that much negative implication for FH+RH versus TF+TR, because you still have a front+rear pair. When I experimented with the test tones and FH+RH vs. TF+TR, it didn't sound much different... things in front were played by FH/TF, things in back were played by RH/TR, and stuff overhead (TM) was played equally by both. So both pairs will get heavy, and theoretically equal, engagement either way. It does seem there IS still some subtle difference from those who have monkeyed with Audiosphere and other demos, but it seems to be a minimal negative consequence if you prefer FH+RH to support Auro or another legacy upmixer.

Whew.... them's my thoughts on the matter...


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> ... *In all the Dolby demos they have content ALL THE TIME!
> Also played the first chapter of Terminator Genisys with ONLY wides connected. And there are sound all the time!
> Even the "monolog" of Kyle is in the wides...Music, etc. Clearly more than the heights, and more than "a object here and there".
> I would call the wides active in a Atmos track.*


Most interesting discovery! ...Thanks *Nalleh* for taking the time and sharing that post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1228.html#post40810114


----------



## stikle

Nightlord said:


> On the other hand, I do not give a damn about who works with that or what their reputation is.



Maybe you should.



Nightlord said:


> And I haven't read enough of either person you refer to to have the slightest possibility to do that judgement.



@FilmMixer has a body of work that speaks for itself. 

A little respect is deserved and you should take what he says as truth based in experience.

I'd no sooner state that James Cameron doesn't know how to make movies than I would say that Marc doesn't know the technicalities of his trade.


----------



## batpig

Also forgot to mention -- Nalleh's post only adds to the growing mountain of evidence that the wides get heavy, active usage with native Atmos content. Makes me strongly consider attempting a 9.1.2 setup while I still have TM speakers directly above. A lot of these mixes which cause people to moan about completely silent overheads (e.g. "Minions" or "Man from U.N.C.L.E.") may yet have redeeming benefits in the horizontal layer.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I want to chime in on this overhead position stuff....
> 
> 
> Whew.... them's my thoughts on the matter...


Outstanding analysis, batpig. And I agree totally with your reasoning and your conclusions. They explain why I prefer TF+TR even with my TR speakers 'out of spec' wrt to placement. The only thing I am now wondering is whether moving my rearmost pair back a little would be worthwhile? At the moment they are just slightly ahead of MLP (very slightly since I moved my seating forward some time ago so I could accommodate rear surrounds). There probably isn't sufficient room to move them back to an audibly significant degree and in so doing they would come closer to my rear surrounds, which may not be a good thing. Something to think about anyway. Again, thanks for that superb analysis.


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> This is interesting.
> This means half of us will be losing what other half can hear? Unless we use Nallah_tech to employ 2 AVRs one for FH+RH and another TF+TR ? (Will ignore TM for the moment)


Yes, but FH was only silent when in a FH+TM config. I later tried FH+TR (and also RH), and then there was bells in FH too!! Go figure.



Charles R said:


> Were you using Audyssey? If so, did you rerun it each time you changed speaker assignments? I know Audyssey will alter the levels when you change speaker assignments. As an example my subwoofers' volume will change dramatically if I switch assignments from FH+RH to TF+TR without rerunning. Not sure why perhaps Audyssey is turned off (internally) when you change assignments?.. Also, I'm not understanding did you use to two AVRs to compare? How would you know if they are level matched per se...


Correct. The first test i did were all with Audyssey, exept the last one with RH. But i tried it again, with no Audyssey on all tests, and you are right, the level was now more like the other setups.



rontalley said:


> I've tested and tested and tested this. FH and TF has always played the same exact sounds. Even setup a mic and recorded it into ProTools and examined the waves...
> 
> Will check when I get home as it may be different with certain mixes then.
> 
> So, in my case, If I change my TF to FH and play the Audiosphere Demo, then it should sound different than having them as TF?
> Also by theory, If FH plays lower then technically speaking, TR should play louder? Meaning more sounds should go to it...If not then those with .4 (most of us peasant folk), and using FH are missing sounds...
> 
> My AVR will not allow me to do TM+anything. Its either TF/FH+TR/RH or just TM.


Well, as i discovered on my second test, FH is only silent in a FH+TM setup. If i changed to a FH+TR setup, FH had the bells ringing again.



rontalley said:


> I had to go home and test this!
> 
> With Audiosphere demo and Yamaha 3050. All 3 settings play the *exact same sounds* but all 3 sound different.
> 
> FH sounds like the sound is pushed more towards the front when compared to TH. Sounds that are louder in TF are softer in FH and sounds that are louder in FH are a little softer in TF. This does confirms that there are positional however, FH sounds dull while TF sounds big and punchy.
> 
> Dolby Enabled sounds more "excited" and "exaggerated" even a little harsh on the louder parts.
> 
> Now here comes the kicker!!!
> 
> The damn "bells" are not playing differently from from to back on the right or left side!! I disconnected the left side and stood in the middle of right side and the bells played right over my freaking head.
> Wait, it gets even deeper!!! Selecting TF+TR the music starts all the way in the rear then pans all the way to the front.
> With FH+RH the music starts in *between* RH and TM (1/4) then travels to in *between* TM and FH(3/4)...WTF?
> This is strange behavior to say the least. Wouldn't FH+RH have a bigger span than TF+TR?
> 
> Selecting Dolby Enabled gives the full pan from Front to Back like TF+TR.
> 
> One thing is sure, the Demo indicates that bells are coming from Front to Back but with my system, although all speakers are playing bells, I am only getting panning from left to right. However the music is panning from Rear to Front and then from Front to Back.


Yes, in all setups, exept FH+TM, the bells are in all positions. And i hear differences too. TM has all the bells the same level, only different positions left and right. In all the other speakers, the level is loud when in center, but gets lower as they move to the left or right.

But when listening to all 4 height speakers(only), there is not much differences in a FH+TM vs a TF+TR setup on the Audiosphere demo. Either in panning, level or placement of sounds.

I guess because the bells are straight above you, so TF+TR places those sound the same place as TM are.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Now only if wides got more _wide_ support across the board.

Heheh.


----------



## NorthSky

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Thanks, I saw this on Amazon but didn't bite as I didn't know what to aspect. I will order it certainly.


Erwin, *Roger Waters - The Wall* on Blu-ray is simply amazing! ...Top notch rock music concert/documentary...with incredible visuals and sounds.
To any Flyod's members fan this is a Supremely Must Own BR disc. ...I'm sure the Atoms audio is the additional pancake on the sunday...way of speech.
Purchase with total absolute confidence. ...Extra bonus brownie points here.


----------



## Nalleh

NorthSky said:


> Most interesting discovery! ...Thanks *Nalleh* for taking the time and sharing that post


You're welcome 



batpig said:


> Also forgot to mention -- Nalleh's post only adds to the growing mountain of evidence that the wides get heavy, active usage with native Atmos content. Makes me strongly consider attempting a 9.1.2 setup while I still have TM speakers directly above. A lot of these mixes which cause people to moan about completely silent overheads (e.g. "Minions" or "Man from U.N.C.L.E.") may yet have redeeming benefits in the horizontal layer.


Indeed! I have earlier tried wides only on one or two Atmos demos, but now played them all+ the movie i mentioned. Let me put it this way: if you didn't know better, you would think you were listening to the front speakers.... almost.


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> Yes, but FH was only silent when in a FH+TM config. I later tried FH+TR (and also RH), and then there was bells in FH too!! Go figure.


This goes exatly to what I am saying... if you have a front/rear pair, they can split "directly overhead" content equally. If you have a TM pair designated, then "directly overhead" goes straight to those two speakers and FH is silent. 

So one has to be careful to not draw absolute conclusions about FH vs TF behavior when there is a second variable changing, i.e. FH+TM vs. TF+TR also changes the Height2 designation.


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> SO..... bringing this all back full circle to aaranddeeman's question that I quoted at the outset.... IMO, these conclusions don't necessarily have that *much negative implication for FH+RH versus TF+TR*, because you still have a front+rear pair. When I experimented with the test tones and FH+RH vs. TF+TR, it didn't sound much different... things in front were played by FH/TF, things in back were played by RH/TR, and stuff overhead (TM) was played equally by both. So both pairs will get heavy, and theoretically equal, engagement either way. It does seem there IS still some subtle difference from those who have monkeyed with Audiosphere and other demos, but it seems to be a minimal negative consequence if you prefer FH+RH to support Auro or another legacy upmixer.
> 
> Whew.... them's my thoughts on the matter...


I was with you until the end there. FH+RH shrinks the image (balance?) from Front to Back. You can easily see this for yourself by doing what I did below. 



rontalley said:


> Wait, it gets even deeper!!! Selecting TF+TR the music starts all the way in the rear then pans all the way to the front.
> With FH+RH the music starts in *between* RH and TM (1/4) then travels to in *between* TM and FH(3/4)...WTF?
> This is strange behavior to say the least. Wouldn't FH+RH have a bigger span than TF+TR?





Nalleh said:


> Yes, in all setups, exept FH+TM, the bells are in all positions. And i hear differences too. TM has all the bells the same level, only different positions left and right. In all the other speakers, the level is loud when in center, but gets lower as they move to the left or right.
> 
> But when listening to all 4 height speakers(only), there is not much differences in a FH+TM vs a TF+TR setup on the Audiosphere demo. Either in panning, level or placement of sounds.
> 
> I guess because the bells are straight above you, so TF+TR places those sound the same place as TM are.


Go back and disconnect all speakers besides the right *or* left side tops. Then stand right in the middle of front and back on whichever side you choose as if you are listening to 2track stereo file. Now don't pay attention to the bells but rather listen to the music. In TF+TR, the music will start all the way in the back but with FH+RH, the music will start midway point to TM. The bells should sound slightly different but mostly the same.

Try it out and tell me what you come up with.


----------



## Nightlord

stikle said:


> A little respect is deserved and you should take what he says as truth based in experience.


Not because he mixed some movies, no matter how well.
If he would happen to give me the proper angles for placement and toe-in of stereo speakers it would increase the chance of listening to technical arguments. Or if I saw him arguing how big amplifiers you need.. Or something else. He may have done that, I'm not saying he hasn't... But I haven't noticed it, and I'm not basing any oppinions, good nor bad, on something I don't know. And I honestly don't think he'd want me to either.


----------



## 9V7W3

Spanglo said:


> Agreed. But last night I was thrown a curve ball.
> 
> Had to do with the demo disc helicopter demo, which didn't sound very good on my system. The RH speakers were noticeably louder than the TF with the levels audyssey set.
> 
> So I level matched all speakers to 75dB at the MLP using avr test tones, but it didn't help the helicopter demo... made the speaker imbalance worse.
> 
> Then I level matched the overheads using the dolby demo disc test tones, and voila the helicopter demo was spot on. The difference in levels between the avr test tones and demo disc test tones was over 6dB!
> 
> Anyone else have this issue?


+1! I ended up doing the same thing because of the helicopter demo as well as the audiosphere trailer.. The levels were completely off with the actual disc compared to internal tone measurements I took.. I ended up setting the entire system not just the height speakers with the tones on the demo disk and bam, perfect image.

Now, this came to mind... Why are the levels so inconsistent between the tones on the disc and tones in the AVR.. Theoretically they should be EXACTLY the same. It's a digital discreet signal. That means that either the microphone isn't calibrated properly for the AVR, the levels in the almost demo disc are off, OR there's something about the way the Atmos track was mixed on this disc compared to a regular True HD track. From doing some experimenting though I'm fairly certain that doing it with the disc is the safest way as all the rest of the content I play whether it be 2ch or 5.1-7.1 sounds much more naturally balanced now as well. 

To verify this I just remembered I also have a Dolby TrueHD demo disc from Dolby a few years back when that was released. I'm going to run the tones from THAT disc and measure against the 2015 Atmos Disc's tones and see if they're identical. I'll report my findings this weekend most likely.


----------



## SeanCJ

Nabs17 said:


> What was lacking from your perspective? I've never heard the Amaze demo in a theater but it sound pretty good in my house....maybe because I've never heard it in a theater.


I'm pretty sure its my surround speakers (dipole) and possibly not enough subwoofer for my room size that are behind my less than ideal Atmos experience.


kbarnes701 said:


> In what ways is it different? Can you describe your setup and equipment for us?


The actual theater experience was almost surreal, totally immersive, actually a bit skin tingling. It felt as if all the sounds were so close and enveloping, truly as if I could reach out and touch it. 
I'll go into more details on my home set up when I get home. I'd be grateful for some input.


----------



## Stoked21

Nightlord said:


> Not because he mixed some movies, no matter how well.
> If he would happen to give me the proper angles for placement and toe-in of stereo speakers it would increase the chance of listening to technical arguments. Or if I saw him arguing how big amplifiers you need.. Or something else. He may have done that, I'm not saying he hasn't... But I haven't noticed it, and I'm not basing any oppinions, good nor bad, on something I don't know. And I honestly don't think he'd want me to either.


Ok seriously man? If he could spout off some angle specifications out of a Dolby installation white paper, then you would believe his input? Or tell you how big an amplifier one needs based on a subjective opinion? But if he shares industry insight and info with us, about which he is gainfully employed and paid to do every day, then you cry foul?

He doesn't work for Dolby.....He doesn't design or sell amps....He mixes movies. On that note, I'll listen to everything he has to say in his area of expertise. It's just frustrating. I'm paid to be a semiconductor expert with emphasis in encryption and communication protocols. When someone on a forum questions your knowledge of your own profession.....Well, that's just crappy and rude.

Curious enough, I looked up the provided link....Fury is probably hands down one of the best mixes ever. I've watched that movie probably 10 times....I even got the Brad Pitt pompadour haircut after seeing that movie! LOL


----------



## Nightlord

Stoked21 said:


> Ok seriously man? If he could spout off some angle specifications out of a Dolby installation white paper, then you would believe his input? Or tell you how big an amplifier one needs based on a subjective opinion?


I'd recommend you try reading my post once again.

1) it was not about Dolby, it was about stereo. (Y'know, oldfashioned 2.0)

(1.5 - I was talking knowledge, not stating specs)

2) it's not subjective, it's pure physics/electronics, but I have yet to come across a hifi salesman capable of doing the math. I, on the other hand, have calculated the power needs for more than one hifi salesman for their own rig. (Speaker efficiency, listening distance, average power requirements, crest factor capability)

He might be great at mixing movies, I don't know. I haven't met him. I'll take your word for it. It does not affect any specific discussion though, as it has nothing to do with him, only the subject matter itself. And I really think people should stop bringing him up, I have no quarrels with him nor anyone else. I'm not interested in people, I'm interested in ideas.


----------



## rontalley

Stoked21 said:


> Curious enough, I looked up the provided link....Fury is probably hands down one of the best mixes ever. I've watched that movie probably 10 times....I even got the Brad Pitt pompadour haircut after seeing that movie! LOL


BHD=50 after 15 years,
Fury=20 after 1 year 10 of those after DSU!


----------



## NM20

blastermaster said:


> So I tried a few games last night on my PC. First was Star Wars Battlefront. I've got the PC connected via HDMI and am using an Nvidia Gtx 970. I was able to choose Atmos in the game setting and it sounds great, but the readout on my receiver is pcm multichannel. Is that what I should be expecting (those who have played the game in Atmos)? It sounds great, but I wasn't able to discern any sound coming from the heights in the short time I played it. Then I tried Dark Souls 2 (man I hate and love that game so much). It sounds phenomenal in DSU! I'm going to test out more games but wow gaming just got a whole lot better.


For Star Wars, firstly you need to select Atmos from the in game sound menu, it isn't on by default. If you can't select it check the sound options in Windows, when you go into properties and select the sound quality it needs to be one of the DVD ones.
playback devices > properties > advanced > 16 bit DVD quality sound in order to get it to work.


----------



## Spanglo

9V7W3 said:


> +1! I ended up doing the same thing because of the helicopter demo as well as the audiosphere trailer.. The levels were completely off with the actual disc compared to internal tone measurements I took.. I ended up setting the entire system not just the height speakers with the tones on the demo disk and bam, perfect image.
> 
> Now, this came to mind... Why are the levels so inconsistent between the tones on the disc and tones in the AVR.. Theoretically they should be EXACTLY the same. It's a digital discreet signal. That means that either the microphone isn't calibrated properly for the AVR, the levels in the almost demo disc are off, OR there's something about the way the Atmos track was mixed on this disc compared to a regular True HD track. From doing some experimenting though I'm fairly certain that doing it with the disc is the safest way as all the rest of the content I play whether it be 2ch or 5.1-7.1 sounds much more naturally balanced now as well.
> 
> To verify this I just remembered I also have a Dolby TrueHD demo disc from Dolby a few years back when that was released. I'm going to run the tones from THAT disc and measure against the 2015 Atmos Disc's tones and see if they're identical. I'll report my findings this weekend most likely.


This is interesting.

What's your overhead arrangement?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> However, if you have a FH+TM arrangement (TF+TM not being possible) then what happens is the "Top Front" signal plays from FH, and "Top Middle" plays from TM, but the kicker is that the "Top Rear" signal also plays from the TM speakers ONLY. My initial supposition was that it would split between TM and SB, to attempt to phantom image above and behind you, but this is obviously not the case. Rather, the render has to keep elevated sounds in the overhead layer, and thus anything in the "top rear" spatial zone HAS TO play from Top Middle speakers, because they are the rear-most overhead pair.


I may be off-base here, but couldn't the lack of imaging between TM and SB for that test tone be because that particular object is encoded to be exclusive, i.e. locked to that general channel designation? I thought we discussed that being a thing that they could specifically control with objects earlier in the thread (which is how they basically emulate the theatrical discrete height channel with objects in home Atmos, if I recall the context of the conversation). If that's the case, then perhaps this particular test tone won't image between TM and SB, but objects without that exclusivity tag would use the entire speaker layout to reproduce the XYZ placement of that object and WOULD image between TM and SB.

Of course, I could be remembering all of this incorrectly. It's late in the day and I want to go home to watch Everest.


----------



## Stoked21

rontalley said:


> BHD=50 after 15 years,
> Fury=20 after 1 year 10 of those after DSU!


Yeah but I bet you don't have the straight-razor haircut like me! 

Embarrassingly I admit...I haven't watched in DSU yet...But on the list.


----------



## Nabs17

SeanCJ said:


> I'm pretty sure its my surround speakers (dipole) and possibly not enough subwoofer for my room size that are behind my less than ideal Atmos experience.


I would think those 2 items would be contributing factors to the (lack of) experience you're getting at home vs the theater. Dipoles aren't part of the Atmos spec and I won't go into enough subwoofer because there are many threads about that and it's totally subjective.


----------



## 9V7W3

Spanglo said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> What's your overhead arrangement?


Yes I can't wait to do the comparison with the TrueHD disc VS. Atmos disc..

My config at the moment is 5.2.4 but by Saturday it will be 7.2.4, adding back surround just waiting for them to get delivered! Couldn't leave those channels empty on my AVR It just bugged me! 

Anyway I've assigned my heights TF+TR, and right after I ran the 8 point Audyssey XT32 I noticed immediately just running through the manual tones by ear before even playing content that the levels were weird.. I took out my analyzer and I don't remember exactly what the levels were but I ended up setting the whole system to 85db at reference with the AVR test tones.. 

After I did that I ran some of the Atmos Demo Disc trailers for the first time. I noticed immediately that something sounded off.. I then went to the test tones on the disc and realized I again had to reset the levels. I did a rough quick SPL set again with the disc and then played some trailers again and it finally sounded accurate.


----------



## stikle

Nightlord said:


> He might be great at mixing movies, I don't know. I haven't met him. I'll take your word for it.



I've never met J.J. Abrams either, and know that he's great at making movies. Meeting someone and knowing someone has nothing to do with their knowledge and experience.



Nightlord said:


> It does not affect any specific discussion though, as it has nothing to do with him, only the subject matter itself. And I really think people should stop bringing him up, I have no quarrels with him nor anyone else.



Except that...

You what? Never mind. I have a brick wall to go slam my forehead into, which will be far less painful and it will actually get the concept.

I'm out. Good day sir!


----------



## rontalley

blastermaster said:


> So I tried a few games last night on my PC. First was Star Wars Battlefront. I've got the PC connected via HDMI and am using an Nvidia Gtx 970. I was able to choose Atmos in the game setting and it sounds great, but the readout on my receiver is pcm multichannel. Is that what I should be expecting (those who have played the game in Atmos)? It sounds great, but I wasn't able to discern any sound coming from the heights in the short time I played it. Then I tried Dark Souls 2 (man I hate and love that game so much). It sounds phenomenal in DSU! I'm going to test out more games but wow gaming just got a whole lot better.


Mines say Dolby Atmos


----------



## Vaggeto

rontalley said:


> You are more than welcomed.
> 
> Left/Right should be in line with your Mains.


My mains are quite wide in my situation. About 10' wide due to the width of the 2.35:1 screen. Is it consider acceptable to bring them in a bit? My fear is that if they are too far from the center seat(s), without the perfect dispersion pattern which is unknown for my top speakers, it might not sound as good as it could.

Lastly, with the top speakers coming relatively close to my front and back walls, are there are concerns with the 1st reflection point? My walls are 1/4" wood on top of drywall so probably not ideal.


----------



## batpig

blastermaster said:


> So I tried a few games last night on my PC. First was Star Wars Battlefront. I've got the PC connected via HDMI and am using an Nvidia Gtx 970. I was able to choose Atmos in the game setting and it sounds great, but the readout on my receiver is pcm multichannel. Is that what I should be expecting (those who have played the game in Atmos)? It sounds great, but I wasn't able to discern any sound coming from the heights in the short time I played it.


No, that's wrong -- multich pcm means the HTPC is decoding the audio so you are losing the Atmos metadata. You need to get your PC bistreaming the audio so the receiver displays "Dolby Atmos" as the input signal.


----------



## Stoked21

Vaggeto said:


> My mains are quite wide in my situation. About 10' wide due to the width of the 2.35:1 screen. Is it consider acceptable to bring them in a bit? My fear is that if they are too far from the center seat(s), without the perfect dispersion pattern which is unknown for my top speakers, it might not sound as good as it could.
> 
> Lastly, with the top speakers coming relatively close to my front and back walls, are there are concerns with the 1st reflection point? My walls are 1/4" wood on top of drywall so probably not ideal.


My mains are about 14' apart in a 16' deep room (19' counting behind screen). Also a 130"w 2.35 screen, but it's AT. Regardless they are at about 23° to MLP which is per Dolby's spec. I don't think the width matters so much as long as relative angle of incidence is achieved to the listener.....Some will argue for music that's too far apart. But my HT is movies only for the most part.


----------



## batpig

Vaggeto said:


> My mains are quite wide in my situation. About 10' wide due to the width of the 2.35:1 screen. Is it consider acceptable to bring them in a bit? My fear is that if they are too far from the center seat(s), without the perfect dispersion pattern which is unknown for my top speakers, it might not sound as good as it could.
> 
> Lastly, with the top speakers coming relatively close to my front and back walls, are there are concerns with the 1st reflection point? My walls are 1/4" wood on top of drywall so probably not ideal.


In the home Atmos whitepapers, Dolby suggests the height arrays be in line with your L/R main speakers.

However, in the cinema spec, the height arrays are in line with the point in between the L/R speakers and the Center (i.e. narrower than the mains).

With a HT that has a PJ setup with a big screen, it makes sense to shift closer to the cinema spec and bring the arrays in a bit narrower.


----------



## FilmMixer

Stoked21 said:


> Ok seriously man? If he could spout off some angle specifications out of a Dolby installation white paper, then you would believe his input? Or tell you how big an amplifier one needs based on a subjective opinion? But if he shares industry insight and info with us, about which he is gainfully employed and paid to do every day, then you cry foul?
> 
> He doesn't work for Dolby.....He doesn't design or sell amps....He mixes movies. On that note, I'll listen to everything he has to say in his area of expertise. It's just frustrating. I'm paid to be a semiconductor expert with emphasis in encryption and communication protocols. When someone on a forum questions your knowledge of your own profession.....Well, that's just crappy and rude.
> 
> Curious enough, I looked up the provided link....Fury is probably hands down one of the best mixes ever. I've watched that movie probably 10 times....I even got the Brad Pitt pompadour haircut after seeing that movie! LOL


Thanks for the kinds words....

I've tried to correct the information our "friend" keeps posting when it's false. 

I don't think he realizes that when I'm not sure about something regarding Atmos I go straight to the source... It's not speculation on my part. Of course there are many things I'm not always at liberry to discuss, but I always try and keep things on the up and up. 

Atmos is fairly new, but I've been involved since the beginning of the format (and had been consulting for Dolby (and DTS) for the last 15 or so years before Atmos even launched...)

I've got thicker skin than most (a necessity in Hollywood...). Even if sometimes I get heated and passionate, it's never personal. Even if I have to plant my face firmly in my palm. 

Anyone can look over our exchanges and see it's a constant example of stating something as fact, being corrected, then saying he never said that while introducing another point, then bringing the language barrier into it, then saying my experience doesn't matter because......... It's never ending. And like some others on these boards we've grown to love 

Doesn't matter to me..... I'm here to help where I can, learn when I need to and above all else geek out. 

Thanks about the "Fury" comment... 

Really proud to be a part of that film. 

And as to not be too off topic, my next film with the same director (this will be my fourth time working with him) will be in Atmos.... And it's a doozy


----------



## batpig

9V7W3 said:


> Anyway I've assigned my heights TF+TR, and right after I ran the 8 point Audyssey XT32 I noticed immediately just running through the manual tones by ear before even playing content that the levels were weird.. I took out my analyzer and I don't remember exactly what the levels were but I ended up setting the whole system to 85db at reference with the AVR test tones..


FYI - the internal pink noise tones are -30dbfs, so you should be aiming for 75dB not 85dB. Not sure about the Atmos demo tones but most of these channel tests for a home environment tend to be -30dbfs also.


----------



## blastermaster

Hmm, that's what I figured. I'm running Windows 10. I'll look into it again tonight. Would I change the bitstream settings through Windows or is there something in the Nvidia control panel?


----------



## batpig

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I may be off-base here, but couldn't the lack of imaging between TM and SB for that test tone be because that particular object is encoded to be exclusive, i.e. locked to that general channel designation? I thought we discussed that being a thing that they could specifically control with objects earlier in the thread (which is how they basically emulate the theatrical discrete height channel with objects in home Atmos, if I recall the context of the conversation). If that's the case, then perhaps this particular test tone won't image between TM and SB, but objects without that exclusivity tag would use the entire speaker layout to reproduce the XYZ placement of that object and WOULD image between TM and SB.


Yes, you are thinking of the "snap to speaker" option for objects in Atmos, which forces the object to be produced only be ONE speaker at a time. It definitely appears this option is enabled in the Atmos tones for everything except the TM signal (so it can split equally between TF+TR). For example, the "front wide" signal collapses 100% to the FR/FL speaker on that side, it isn't split equally between Surround and Front as you'd expect (to image it at ~60 degrees).

However, based on what Sanjay has reported it doesn't seem like the renderer lets sounds with elevation "leak" down to the ear level speakers. Someone (I believe Roger Dressler?) has reported that the surround speakers are designated with a 0-deg elevation parameter specifically to prevent overhead effects from leaking down to them.

So, I guess it's possible that sounds can image between overhead and ear level layers, but I'm pretty convinced at this point that a sound that is explicitly designated to be overhead is going to stay in the overheads if at all possible.

But, yeah, I agree we can't draw universal conlcusions based only on these test tones.


----------



## 9V7W3

batpig said:


> FYI - the internal pink noise tones are -30dbfs, so you should be aiming for 75dB not 85dB. Not sure about the Atmos demo tones but most of these channel tests for a home environment tend to be -30dbfs also.


Thanks for the info, but I remember reading recently when I bought the 4200 either in the Denon or Audyssey thread or somewhere that the recommended level at reference should be anywhere from 75db-82db. In the cinema world which I work in Atmos specs are 85db to Calibration area for each speaker so I was just using that number because it's familiar to me. 

Also, the final level of each channel is kind of irrelevant to what I was trying to point out. The issue I was talking about was the inconsistency in level from channel to channel, not the overall calibrated level of the entire system.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> I was with you until the end there. FH+RH shrinks the image (balance?) from Front to Back. You can easily see this for yourself by doing what I did below.
> 
> "Wait, it gets even deeper!!! Selecting TF+TR the music starts all the way in the rear then pans all the way to the front.
> With FH+RH the music starts in between RH and TM (1/4) then travels to in between TM and FH(3/4)...WTF?
> This is strange behavior to say the least. Wouldn't FH+RH have a bigger span than TF+TR?"
> 
> Go back and disconnect all speakers besides the right *or* left side tops. Then stand right in the middle of front and back on whichever side you choose as if you are listening to 2track stereo file. Now don't pay attention to the bells but rather listen to the music. In TF+TR, the music will start all the way in the back but with FH+RH, the music will start midway point to TM. The bells should sound slightly different but mostly the same.
> 
> Try it out and tell me what you come up with.


I'll try it out if I have a chance. Honestly, I was musing more on the different between a front+rear arrangment vs. a front+middle, and wasn't really as focused on "top" vs "height" in this context.

But, that said, I want to be clear on what you are saying.... am I right that:

1. The speakers are not physically moving, just the designation of those speakers in the processor?
2. When you talk about the music "starting in between RH and TM" you are talking about where it IMAGES, right? because you don't physically have a TM speaker pair?

If I have that right, I have a theory... let's say the elevation assumptions for the renderer are 30 degrees for heights and 45 degrees for tops (that's close enough for this thought experiment and probably close to reality based on what we know). 

Now, let's say a particular sound is supposed to travel from 45 degrees behind you to 45 degrees in front of you. If you have the processor set to TF+TR, then those speakers represent the full range of movement for that sound, so the sound will start 100% in the TR speaker, and then travel forward ending up 100% in the TF speaker.

Then you switch the setting to FH+RH. Now, the render thinks your speakers are 30 degrees elevated, so the sound that starts at 45 degrees elevation is _already above_ where it thinks the speaker is. So, it will play that sound maybe 80% in RH and 20% in FH, in order to "lift" the phantom image of that speaker to the intended 45 degree elevation. Similarly, when it travels forward and ends in the front, it will never get to 100% in the FH speaker because it's supposed to stop at 45 degree elevation, and never makes it to the 30 degree elevation that the render assumes for the FH speaker.

So, as far as the renderer is concerned, the "span" of the sound (to use your term) is the same: it travels from 45 degrees elevation behind you to 45 deg in front of you. However, because the speakers it thinks are at 30 deg elevation are actually at 45 deg elevation, the actual "span" in terms of how it is imaging is "compressed". Make sense?


----------



## batpig

9V7W3 said:


> Thanks for the info, but I remember reading recently when I bought the 4200 either in the Denon or Audyssey thread or somewhere that the recommended level at reference should be anywhere from 75db-82db. In the cinema world which I work in Atmos specs are 85db to Calibration area for each speaker so I was just using that number because it's familiar to me.


There's a distinction between "average level" of *content *and the specific level required for a particular test signal. Full scale is 105dB, so a -30dbfs test signal should be calibrated to 75dB by definition. That calibration will then allow the CONTENT to play at the desired levels (~75-82dB or whatever) if the MV is then set to reference level.

If you calibrate a -30dbfs test signal to 85dB for all channels, then your MV will be turned down by 10dB for actual program content to reach the same loudness level.



9V7W3 said:


> Also, the final level of each channel is kind of irrelevant to what I was trying to point out. The issue I was talking about was the inconsistency in level from channel to channel, not the overall calibrated level of the entire system.


Understood, I just wanted to point that out because I enjoy pedantry


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> Yes, you are thinking of the "snap to speaker" option for objects in Atmos, which forces the object to be produced only be ONE speaker at a time. It definitely appears this option is enabled in the Atmos tones for everything except the TM signal (so it can split equally between TF+TR). For example, the "front wide" signal collapses 100% to the FR/FL speaker on that side, it isn't split equally between Surround and Front as you'd expect (to image it at ~60 degrees).
> 
> However, based on what Sanjay has reported it doesn't seem like the renderer lets sounds with elevation "leak" down to the ear level speakers. Someone (I believe Roger Dressler?) has reported that the surround speakers are designated with a 0-deg elevation parameter specifically to prevent overhead effects from leaking down to them.
> 
> So, I guess it's possible that sounds can image between overhead and ear level layers, but I'm pretty convinced at this point that a sound that is explicitly designated to be overhead is going to stay in the overheads if at all possible.
> 
> But, yeah, I agree we can't draw universal conlcusions based only on these test tones.


Yeah, my thinking was that if you had an object set to "snap to speaker" for a location where there is no speaker assigned, maybe it snaps to the nearest adjacent speaker in that plane rather than try to draw it back to the rear surrounds at all. That would explain some of the observations we're seeing with these test tones and different speaker position designations. I'm curious whether that's the case for objects that aren't set to snap to speaker though. Guess there's no real way to know for sure and we should just enjoy the damn movies. 

And naturally, if an object was set to full Z axis positioning, I wouldn't expect it to bleed to the bed-level unless in some small increment to provide directionality beyond the expected position of the heights (i.e. if you had a sound placed in the left rear corner of the room at full Z), or unless the object size parameter dictated that it should bleed down into the bed some. But of course a sound can image between overhead and ear level layers... That would be how things get steered to image through the middle of the room (or any spot between the two layers of speakers), like what we hear in the Leaf demo clip.

Glad people are analyzing this a bit. I'm always a proponent of checking with test tones at the source to ensure that things are working as they should. This is good stuff to know.


----------



## Vaggeto

Alright... so based on all of these recent discussions, I'm a bit lost on what to do and really what is even possible to some extent. (Particularly in the future)

Overall, it sounds like 7.2.4 is the recommendation for the best experience.

I just wired my HT for 9.2 but I also ran wires just in case for 3 L/C/R front heights, 2 L/R rear heights, 2 surround L/R heights, and 6 Top speakers. I purchased 4 in-ceiling speakers with the plan to run a 7.2.4 setup, but am very intrigued on the possibility of running heights or wides as well. Ideally LR or LCR heights based on my room config.

I know this isn't possible without multiple AVRs at this point and even then, is that proven to work 100% properly? Is it worth it knowing most of the content will up upmixed?

Do we have any indication what future AVRs will have the capability of doing and when? I know the Atmos spec itself is much more flexible.

Also, the current state of DTS:X seems confusing. I keep reading about it being announced late 2014 and the launch delayed until mid-2015, but then even now it seems like it's not really out yet and everyone is unsure on what speakers might be recommended for the best effect?


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> I'll try it out if I have a chance. Honestly, I was musing more on the different between a front+rear arrangment vs. a front+middle, and wasn't really as focused on "top" vs "height" in this context.
> 
> But, that said, I want to be clear on what you are saying.... am I right that:
> 
> 1. The speakers are not physically moving, just the designation of those speakers in the processor?
> 2. When you talk about the music "starting in between RH and TM" you are talking about where it IMAGES, right? because you don't physically have a TM speaker pair?
> 
> If I have that right, I have a theory... let's say the elevation assumptions for the renderer are 30 degrees for heights and 45 degrees for tops (that's close enough for this thought experiment and probably close to reality based on what we know).
> 
> Now, let's say a particular sound is supposed to travel from 45 degrees behind you to 45 degrees in front of you. If you have the processor set to TF+TR, then those speakers represent the full range of movement for that sound, so the sound will start 100% in the TR speaker, and then travel forward ending up 100% in the TF speaker.
> 
> Then you switch the setting to FH+RH. Now, the render thinks your speakers are 30 degrees elevated, so the sound that starts at 45 degrees elevation is _already above_ where it thinks the speaker is. So, it will play that sound maybe 80% in RH and 20% in FH, in order to "lift" the phantom image of that speaker to the intended 45 degree elevation. Similarly, when it travels forward and ends in the front, it will never get to 100% in the FH speaker because it's supposed to stop at 45 degree elevation, and never makes it to the 30 degree elevation that the render assumes for the FH speaker.
> 
> So, as far as the renderer is concerned, the "span" of the sound (to use your term) is the same: it travels from 45 degrees elevation behind you to 45 deg in front of you. However, because the speakers it thinks are at 30 deg elevation are actually at 45 deg elevation, the actual "span" in terms of how it is imaging is "compressed". Make sense?


Well damn.  That actually did make a whole-lotta-sense. Scary!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> Now, let's say a particular sound is supposed to travel from 45 degrees behind you to 45 degrees in front of you. If you have the processor set to TF+TR, then those speakers represent the full range of movement for that sound, so the sound will start 100% in the TR speaker, and then travel forward ending up 100% in the TF speaker.
> 
> Then you switch the setting to FH+RH. Now, the render thinks your speakers are 30 degrees elevated, so the sound that starts at 45 degrees elevation is _already above_ where it thinks the speaker is. So, it will play that sound maybe 80% in RH and 20% in FH, in order to "lift" the phantom image of that speaker to the intended 45 degree elevation. Similarly, when it travels forward and ends in the front, it will never get to 100% in the FH speaker because it's supposed to stop at 45 degree elevation, and never makes it to the 30 degree elevation that the render assumes for the FH speaker.
> 
> So, as far as the renderer is concerned, the "span" of the sound (to use your term) is the same: it travels from 45 degrees elevation behind you to 45 deg in front of you. However, because the speakers it thinks are at 30 deg elevation are actually at 45 deg elevation, the actual "span" in terms of how it is imaging is "compressed". Make sense?


You may be on to something here. When I play the Helicopter demo, it moves around between fully in my TM and then images somewhere between my FH and TM rather than moving completely forward... whereas I imagine if what you're saying is true, if I had TF/TR designated instead, it would move from TR to TF, etc. instead so that it images where that object is placed in 3-D space on the XYZ axes. So maybe the "very little" people are hearing in certain channels is because that's all that is required to help image that sound where the decoder is trying to place it given your height channel designations.


----------



## 9V7W3

batpig said:


> There's a distinction between "average level" of *content *and the specific level required for a particular test signal. Full scale is 105dB, so a -30dbfs test signal should be calibrated to 75dB by definition. That calibration will then allow the CONTENT to play at the desired levels (~75-82dB or whatever) if the MV is then set to reference level.
> 
> If you calibrate a -30dbfs test signal to 85dB for all channels, then your MV will be turned down by 10dB for actual program content to reach the same loudness level.
> 
> 
> 
> Understood, I just wanted to point that out because I enjoy pedantry


Haha understood. Thanks for the explanation, I'm definitely aware of how a -30db internal AVR signal set to 85db at reference will effect the MV, and I had no intention of keeping it there neccesarily im still going to completely recalibrate after I add my back surrounds this week, but if I'm using the test pink noise from the Atmos or TrueHD demo disc is this level also supposed to be -30db? If it is then something is definitely wrong because the levels I was reading were not the same between AVR tones and disc tones. This was where my main concern is. Not only overall level, but there was inconsistency from channel to channel as well.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I agree we can't draw universal conlcusions based only on these test tones.


Especially on this disc. If someone were making judgments based on some of these test tones, and were unaware that Atmos encoding included a feature that prevented objects from phantom imaging, they could draw all sorts of possibly incorrect conclusions. Even when playing back the 9.1.6 track downmixed to a 5.1 or 7.1 set-up, the Wide L/R signals are exclusively in the Front L/R speakers, not phantom imaging outside of them as would be reasonably expected. At first listen, you'd think your decoder was broken.


----------



## Spanglo

batpig said:


> FYI - the internal pink noise tones are -30dbfs, so you should be aiming for 75dB not 85dB. Not sure about the Atmos demo tones but most of these channel tests for a home environment tend to be -30dbfs also.


Do us a favor and measure the demo tones at your MLP and report back. Pretty please.


----------



## batpig

Sanjay - since you've read the SDK (see I got that jargon down now) do you have any more insight into imaging between "layers"? If an object has >0 deg elevation and isn't set to snap will it ever bleed down to the ear level layer? A lot of people (myself included) are assuming that this happens but your comments about height sounds always going to height speakers cause me to ponder further. 

Marc (or anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about and isn't speculating like me) feel free to chime in. 

Now that we've got discrete test tones (which we know "snap") what we need to go further is some panning tests, eg a sound that is supposed to travel in an arc above you so it travels from ear level layer to overhead layer and back down again on the other side. The helicopter demo seems like one of our best options right now since I have to assume it is intended to sound like its circling overhead with you in the middle. 

Actually now that I think about it -- anyone who has either of the two 2015 demo discs there is an audio only experience demo track called "Encounter" which has robot sounds traveling overhead from side to side. We've beaten to death the "Amaze" bird, the buzzing flies in "Unbroken", and are currently bludgeoning "Audiosphere". Let's find a new target


----------



## tjenkins95

FilmMixer said:


> Thanks for the kinds words....
> 
> I've tried to correct the information our "friend" keeps posting when it's false.
> 
> I don't think he realizes that when I'm not sure about something regarding Atmos I go straight to the source... It's not speculation on my part. Of course there are many things I'm not always at liberry to discuss, but I always try and keep things on the up and up.
> 
> Atmos is fairly new, but I've been involved since the beginning of the format (and had been consulting for Dolby (and DTS) for the last 15 or so years before Atmos even launched...)
> 
> I've got thicker skin than most (a necessity in Hollywood...). Even if sometimes I get heated and passionate, it's never personal. Even if I have to plant my face firmly in my palm.
> 
> Anyone can look over our exchanges and see it's a constant example of stating something as fact, being corrected, then saying he never said that while introducing another point, then bringing the language barrier into it, then saying my experience doesn't matter because......... It's never ending. And like some others on these boards we've grown to love
> 
> Doesn't matter to me..... I'm here to help where I can, learn when I need to and above all else geek out.
> 
> Thanks about the "Fury" comment...
> 
> Really proud to be a part of that film.
> 
> And as to not be too off topic, my next film with the same director (this will be my fourth time working with him) will be in Atmos.... And it's a doozy


 
And would that hopefully be his next film coming out this summer!?!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. 'Encounter' is the shizznit!


----------



## rontalley

This stuff is sooooo darn interesting! I mixed songs for over 20 years and I've never really been as intrigued regarding processing as I am now. Going to go try and "watch" a movie now.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. 'Encounter' is the shizznit!


Dammit! Don't have that one. Arrrrgggg


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> Dammit! Don't have that one. Arrrrgggg


If you have Audiosphere doesn't that mean you have the Sept 2015 disc? If so, Encounter is on it. 

It's also on the Jan 2015 disc that was pretty widely available.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> If an object has >0 deg elevation and isn't set to snap will it ever bleed down to the ear level layer? A lot of people (myself included) are assuming that this happens but your comments about height sounds always going to height speakers cause me to ponder further.


Sure, if it's mixed that way (it's easy enough to hear vertical phantom imaging between floor speakers and height speakers). If this disc had test tones for objects parked mid-way between the two layers, you'd hear those sounds mid-way between the two layers. But that would be a phase test (testing phantom imaging) and this disc has speaker identification tests. As such, the height speaker identification test tones don't bleed down. Like you said a couple posts ago, best not to draw firm conclusions based solely on this one disc. 

BTW, I remember there being some inconsistency in the encoding. If you've configured your receiver for FH+TM, the same TF test tone in the 9.1.6 track that snaps completely to the FH speaker does not snap on the 7.1.4 track, instead phantom imaging between the FH and TM speakers. I haven't tried it in a while, so if someone could verify that discrepancy....


> Actually now that I think about it -- anyone who has either of the two 2015 demo discs there is an audio only experience demo track called "Encounter" which has robot sounds traveling overhead from side to side.


And here I thought that was the sound of a space ship landing and taking off, as in close "encounter".


----------



## lego1

How important is it to be able to aim the ceiling speakers? I currently have tannoy cms501dc as my top middle and tannoy di5dc as my front height on the front wall. The front height are aimed since they are not in wall speakers but are not in an optimal position. 

I really like the sound of the tannoys so I wanted another pair of the cms501dc for in ceiling at 45 degrees front height but I cannot aim the tannoys. 

My ceiling height is 8 feet and I will be sitting around 5 feet away from the new front height position. My mlp is 10 feet from the front wall. 

I know the tannoy cms series has wide dispersion but will they not be optimal since I can't aim them and should I go with something like the niles ds7fx? I'm just hoping I will like the sound of the niles since I haven't heard them but have heard the tannoys and like them. 

Thanks!


----------



## PeterTHX

FilmMixer said:


> And as to not be too off topic, my next film with the same director (this will be my fourth time working with him) will be in Atmos.... And it's a doozy



_*Smurfs III*_???  


Actually, I know quite a few people are really looking forward to _Suicide Squad_.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Sure, if it's mixed that way (it's easy enough to hear vertical phantom imaging between floor speakers and height speakers). If this disc had test tones for objects parked mid-way between the two layers, you'd hear those sounds mid-way between the two layers. But that would be a phase test (testing phantom imaging) and this disc has speaker identification tests. As such, the height speaker identification test tones don't bleed down. Like you said a couple posts ago, best not to draw firm conclusions based solely on this one disc.


Cool beans. Makes sense.



sdurani said:


> BTW, I remember there being some inconsistency in the encoding. If you've configured your receiver for FH+TM, the same TF test tone in the 9.1.6 track that snaps completely to the FH speaker does not snap on the 7.1.4 track, instead phantom imaging between the FH and TM speakers. I haven't tried it in a while, so if someone could verify that discrepancy....


Yes, this is what I've described before and Scott verified. If your Height1 speakers are configured as "Front Height", then the "Top Front" signal in the 9.1.6 track snaps to the FH output, whereas in the 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 tracks it bleeds back to the Height2 speaker. Your speculation was that someone forgot to check the "snap to speaker" option on those specific tones.



sdurani said:


> And here I thought that was the sound of a space ship landing and taking off, as in close "encounter".


We may not be referring to the same sound. I'm talking about this mechanical/robotic whirring sound that zooms overhead (I think from left to right and then back) at around the 1-minute mark.


----------



## batpig

lego1 said:


> How important is it to be able to aim the ceiling speakers? I currently have tannoy cms501dc as my top middle and tannoy di5dc as my front height on the front wall. The front height are aimed since they are not in wall speakers but are not in an optimal position.
> 
> I really like the sound of the tannoys so I wanted another pair of the cms501dc for in ceiling at 45 degrees front height but I cannot aim the tannoys.
> 
> My ceiling height is 8 feet and I will be sitting around 5 feet away from the new front height position. My mlp is 10 feet from the front wall.
> 
> I know the tannoy cms series has wide dispersion but will they not be optimal since I can't aim them and should I go with something like the niles ds7fx? I'm just hoping I will like the sound of the niles since I haven't heard them but have heard the tannoys and like them.
> 
> Thanks!


The need for aiming has to do with your desired coverage angles vs. the dispersion of the speaker. As you know those Tannoy DC's have a wide, conical dispersion pattern due to the dual concentric design. So having them point straight down if you are 45-degrees off axis may not be an issue.

That said, relevant to the extensive discussion preceding this, if you will be running TM+FH (not TF+TR) then you will have the same speakers point straight down at you in TM position. So you will be much more on-axis with the TM speakers than the FH speakers if both are pointing straight down. I would bet this will lead to timbre matching issues.

So I would think two courses of action would be best (if possible)... either (1) use all CMS501DC's and relocate them to TF+TR so you are fairly equally off-axis to all overhead speakers, or (2) relocate the Di5DC's to on-ceiling mounting and aim them at the MLP as you do now (just with them on the ceiling instead of the wall) so you are on-axis with all overhead speakers.

I would not go with the Niles speakers instead. Coincidently the DS7FX speakers are the ones I am using for TM speakers, and they do the job very well. But with their funny double-tweeter on the angle bridge design there is no way they have the same even conical dispersion as the Tannoy DC models with their true point-source dual concentric array. Doesn't seem worth introducing a potential timbre mismatch to your setup.


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> T
> I would not go with the Niles speakers instead. Coincidently the DS7FX speakers are the ones I am using for TM speakers, and they do the job very well. But with their funny double-tweeter on the angle bridge design there is no way they have the same even conical dispersion as the Tannoy DC models with their true point-source dual concentric array. Doesn't seem worth introducing a potential timbre mismatch to your setup.


I'm using DS7FX and DS7MP. I use DS7FX for TF. The bipole tweeters are great for covering 2 rows while still being in front of both rows. While I've always been the number one advocate for aiming, there are specific reasons to do so. Or I guess I should say certain reasons when they are necessary. Primarily wanting to cover 2 rows. Also great if you can't place them within spec or if you are concerned about your installation skills or location selection. They provide a lot of flexibility. Regardless of aim-ability, it's still advisable to find a 90°+ dispersion for 2 rows. 

In a 1 row HT, I would stick with strictly wide-dispersion speakers (Tannoy, KEF, JTR, JBL, etc) and keep them mounted at or inside 45° and 135° to the MLP. Almost guaranteed to work and almost impossible to screw up. For TM, mounting is easy and just a little forward of MLP...dispersion isn't even that big of a deal with TM as just about anywhere you will be within the dispersion cone. Aiming is not necessary at all for TM IMO.

That being said, in the next few days my Niles are coming down. I'm switching over to JTR. 30° angled baffles, so essentially the "aiming" is already done for me.


----------



## lego1

Regretfully mounting the di5dc on ceiling is an issue due to WAF or I would do that. Due to my small room having the couch against the rear wall, I can only do FH and TM. TM is currently in the 80 degree position. 

So I'd be good with putting some cms501dc in ceiling at 45 degrees pointing down? They will be about 5 feet in front of me.


----------



## audioguy

9V7W3 said:


> Anyway I've assigned my heights TF+TR, and right after I ran the 8 point Audyssey XT32 I noticed immediately just running through the manual tones by ear before even playing content that the levels were weird.. I took out my analyzer and I don't remember exactly what the levels were but I ended up setting the whole system to 85db at reference with the AVR test tones..
> 
> After I did that I ran some of the Atmos Demo Disc trailers for the first time. I noticed immediately that something sounded off.. I then went to the test tones on the disc and realized I again had to reset the levels. I did a rough quick SPL set again with the disc and then played some trailers again and it finally sounded accurate.


The internal test tones on Audyssey enabled AVR/Pre Pros run WITHOUT Audyssey enabled. The test tones from the new Atmos disc ARE processed through Audyssey (assuming you have Audyssey enabled) so they will never sound the same.


----------



## 9V7W3

audioguy said:


> The internal test tones on Audyssey enabled AVR/Pre Pros run WITHOUT Audyssey enabled. The test tones from the new Atmos disc ARE processed through Audyssey (assuming you have Audyssey enabled) so they will never sound the same.


Well that's really REALLY dumb.. I mean if you've already run Audyssey like I have but you want to tweak your own levels slightly using your own analyzing equipment and don't have a test disc they you really can't. This means if you have Audyssey enabled the internal AVR test tones are completely useless for measurement purposes. 

That means only way to effectively set specific SPL levels with Audyssey enabled is to leave whatever levels Audyssey sets in your main level set menu alone and run a test disc with Audyssey enabled and use the input specific level set menu to fine tune your levels. That also means that if you want to tweak any of your other inputs you either have to manually copy those level settings for each input or somehow generate tones from all of those sources independently. I guess you could just take your blu-ray and move your HDMI from one input to another but wow what a PITA.

I now look at my AVR in a whole different light and the printer scene from office space is clouding my mind... Grr


----------



## aaranddeeman

So I presume if you want to run the test tones from the disk (so that Audyssey will get used), one should set the MV=0 and then check set each speaker.


----------



## 9V7W3

aaranddeeman said:


> So I presume if you want to run the test tones from the disk (so that Audyssey will get used), one should set the MV=0 and then check set each speaker.


Well yea the MV should be at reference level whenever you are setting SPL anyway. Its really silly though that if you have Audyssey enabled it doesn't stay enabled in the main level set menu. If that's the case there should be an option to enable or disable the Audyssey EQ in the manual level set menu so WE can decide.


----------



## Seeking

For those who live around Los Angeles there is an Audio Engineering Meeting that is probably going to be very interesting. Since I'm a new member and can not post links or attachments you will need to do a search to find the AES in LA, but it will be worth it I'm sure.

January 26, 2016 Meetings are free. Guests are welcome. 

The Mix: The Challenges of Creating a Multi-Channel, Multi-Platform Product

This meeting will look at how one creates a mix that works everywhere (from cinema to home theater to
tablets with headphones), from sound acquisition to post production and through to distribution, from the
vantage point of the creators and through the various crafts. We'll review the available formats and workflow
solutions and discuss what decisions need to be made with respect to creating immersive, object-based and/or
multichannel sound that is deliverable over a wide variety of distribution channels.

Our panelists for the evening:
Tony Lamberti has been a re-recording mixer for more than 30 years. He won Emmy Awards for his work on
the television specials John Adams and And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself. He earned an Academy
Award™ nomination for Inglourious Basterds. His credits also include Django Unchained, Shrek, Mission:
Impossible II and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Parts 1 & 2).

Greg P. Russell, sound re-recording mixer, Technicolor. Greg has mixed more than 190 feature films,
including Spider Man, Armageddon, The Mask of Zorro and Transformers, and has been nominated for 16
Academy Awards™, 11 Cinema Audio Society awards, two BAFTA and two Emmys, with one Emmy win.

David Gould - Director Audio Content Solutions at Dolby Laboratories. David is responsible for creating
products and solutions for the audio post community in the Dolby Atmos format. Before joining Dolby, David
was Senior Product Manager for Pro Tools at Avid Technology. David started his career in London as a
recording engineer at Abbey Road Studios.

Lon Neumann - Founder Neumann Technologies, providing Audio Training Seminars, Standards
Development, Loudness Measurement & Management, Surround-Sound Production & Management,
Loudspeaker-to-Room Analysis, Alignment, Calibration and Correction, Metadata Authoring & Management,
System Integration and more. Lon’s previous positions and engagements include Linear Acoustic, THX, Sony
SACD, and NVISION. In addition, Lon has hundreds of hours of live production engineering experience.

Michael Karagosian is a leader in new entertainment technologies. Michael’s history in the development of
cinema sound goes back to Apocalypse Now with Dolby Laboratories. He has chaired standards committees in
both AES and SMPTE, and is a SMPTE Fellow. He represented the National Association of Theatre Owners
(NATO) during the development of digital cinema, leading collaborations with DCI and driving the formation
of standards. Internationally, he led VPF subsidy negotiations for over $300M of equipment in Ireland, the
Philippines, and Latin America.

Moderator and Contributor - Jim DeFilippis. The founder of TMS Consulting, Jim provides expertise in
advanced broadcast media technologies including immersive 3D audio, UHDTV, High Dynamic Range
(HDR) and High Frame Rate (HFR). Jim’s projects include delivery of content to the home, mobile and OTT.
Jim is a SMPTE Fellow, David Sarnoff Medal recipient, and has two Emmys for his work on ATSC and
MPEG splicing. A member of AES and IEEE, Jim has worked on six Olympics for the Host Broadcaster,
FOX Television and ABC TV and Radio.


----------



## NM20

blastermaster said:


> Hmm, that's what I figured. I'm running Windows 10. I'll look into it again tonight. Would I change the bitstream settings through Windows or is there something in the Nvidia control panel?


Look at my post above.


----------



## blastermaster

NM20 said:


> Look at my post above.


Yep, I did all that. I am able to choose Atmos in the game menu, and I set it to DVD quality in the speaker properties for my audio device, but still no dice. I'm getting multi pcm/dolby surround on the GUI for my receiver. I wish it was as easy to set up as on my blu ray player - here's your choice - pcm or bitstream. Done. I just don't see any way to set things to bitstream on my PC.


----------



## DaGamePimp

*FilmMixer*,

Chalk up another "Fury" fan. I have watched it at least a dozen times since release. 

Thank you for making it such a great audio experience! 



blastermaster said:


> Yep, I did all that. I am able to choose Atmos in the game menu, and I set it to DVD quality in the speaker properties for my audio device, but still no dice. I'm getting multi pcm/dolby surround on the GUI for my receiver. I wish it was as easy to set up as on my blu ray player - here's your choice - pcm or bitstream. Done. I just don't see any way to set things to bitstream on my PC.



I downloaded and installed Battlefront with no audio issues, set to Atmos and works 100%, changed nothing on Nvidia driver regarding audio but I am running Win7-64. I seem to recall reading something about Win10 audio issues but not sure if it relates to Atmos.


- Jason


----------



## NorthSky

Seeking said:


> For those who live around Los Angeles there is an Audio Engineering Meeting that is probably going to be very interesting. Since I'm a new member and can not post links or attachments you will need to do a search to find the AES in LA, but it will be worth it I'm sure.
> 
> January 26, 2016 Meetings are free. Guests are welcome.
> 
> The Mix: The Challenges of Creating a Multi-Channel, Multi-Platform Product
> 
> This meeting will look at how one creates a mix that works everywhere (from cinema to home theater to
> tablets with headphones), from sound acquisition to post production and through to distribution, from the
> vantage point of the creators and through the various crafts. We'll review the available formats and workflow
> solutions and discuss what decisions need to be made with respect to creating immersive, object-based and/or
> multichannel sound that is deliverable over a wide variety of distribution channels.
> 
> Our panelists for the evening:
> Tony Lamberti has been a re-recording mixer for more than 30 years. He won Emmy Awards for his work on
> the television specials John Adams and And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself. He earned an Academy
> Award™ nomination for Inglourious Basterds. His credits also include Django Unchained, Shrek, Mission:
> Impossible II and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Parts 1 & 2).
> 
> Greg P. Russell, sound re-recording mixer, Technicolor. Greg has mixed more than 190 feature films,
> including Spider Man, Armageddon, The Mask of Zorro and Transformers, and has been nominated for 16
> Academy Awards™, 11 Cinema Audio Society awards, two BAFTA and two Emmys, with one Emmy win.
> 
> David Gould - Director Audio Content Solutions at Dolby Laboratories. David is responsible for creating
> products and solutions for the audio post community in the Dolby Atmos format. Before joining Dolby, David
> was Senior Product Manager for Pro Tools at Avid Technology. David started his career in London as a
> recording engineer at Abbey Road Studios.
> 
> Lon Neumann - Founder Neumann Technologies, providing Audio Training Seminars, Standards
> Development, Loudness Measurement & Management, Surround-Sound Production & Management,
> Loudspeaker-to-Room Analysis, Alignment, Calibration and Correction, Metadata Authoring & Management,
> System Integration and more. Lon’s previous positions and engagements include Linear Acoustic, THX, Sony
> SACD, and NVISION. In addition, Lon has hundreds of hours of live production engineering experience.
> 
> Michael Karagosian is a leader in new entertainment technologies. Michael’s history in the development of
> cinema sound goes back to Apocalypse Now with Dolby Laboratories. He has chaired standards committees in
> both AES and SMPTE, and is a SMPTE Fellow. He represented the National Association of Theatre Owners
> (NATO) during the development of digital cinema, leading collaborations with DCI and driving the formation
> of standards. Internationally, he led VPF subsidy negotiations for over $300M of equipment in Ireland, the
> Philippines, and Latin America.
> 
> Moderator and Contributor - Jim DeFilippis. The founder of TMS Consulting, Jim provides expertise in
> advanced broadcast media technologies including immersive 3D audio, UHDTV, High Dynamic Range
> (HDR) and High Frame Rate (HFR). Jim’s projects include delivery of content to the home, mobile and OTT.
> Jim is a SMPTE Fellow, David Sarnoff Medal recipient, and has two Emmys for his work on ATSC and
> MPEG splicing. A member of AES and IEEE, Jim has worked on six Olympics for the Host Broadcaster,
> FOX Television and ABC TV and Radio.


Do you know if this will be video taped, and avail to the general public @ large; us the 3D sound immersive passionate folks?


----------



## dschulz

Seeking said:


> For those who live around Los Angeles there is an Audio Engineering Meeting that is probably going to be very interesting. Since I'm a new member and can not post links or attachments you will need to do a search to find the AES in LA, but it will be worth it I'm sure.
> 
> January 26, 2016 Meetings are free. Guests are welcome.
> 
> The Mix: The Challenges of Creating a Multi-Channel, Multi-Platform Product
> 
> This meeting will look at how one creates a mix that works everywhere (from cinema to home theater to
> tablets with headphones), from sound acquisition to post production and through to distribution, from the
> vantage point of the creators and through the various crafts. We'll review the available formats and workflow
> solutions and discuss what decisions need to be made with respect to creating immersive, object-based and/or
> multichannel sound that is deliverable over a wide variety of distribution channels.


Thanks for the plug! I am currently serving as the Secretary for AES-LA - look me up at the meeting & say hi!


----------



## dschulz

NorthSky said:


> Do you know if this will be video taped, and avail to the general public @ large; us the 3D sound immersive passionate folks?


AES-LA monthly meetings are recorded, but audio only (no video), and currently the audio archives are only available to AES members.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> AES-LA monthly meetings are recorded, but audio only (no video), and currently the audio archives are only available to AES members.


1. Thank you.
2. Audio only is sufficient to keep up to date on this subject...for now...I think. But video would be a good idea...with boards, graphs, plans, demos...
3. You have some very experienced people on the subject; it would be a good step forward, I believe, to share future meetings with people @ large. 

Just a suggestion, as not everyone passionate on this new 3D audio immersion lives in Los Angeles.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Keith,



kbarnes701 said:


> Hi Hugo - do you think many people can hit 105dB peaks in their HTs? I know I can, and I am sure you can - les petits oignons and all that  But do you think most people can? Even I don't regularly listen as loud as that - I just find it is too much. Not because it sounds harsh or bad in any way - it doesn't. In fact it sounds seductively smooth and effortless, which makes it all the more dangerous as it is easy to let the level creep up almost unnoticed. A bit like the way a 911 can be doing 120 mph and you'd swear you were doing 70! Honestly Office, I had no idea! But 105dB is sort of 'wearing' I find. I'd say I tend to listen with my peaks at about 99dB typically.


When watching films at home, this is almost all the time done at Ref -12, eventualy Ref -10. Even though our installation has been elaboretad to be free of any dynamic limitations up to and @ +6dB beyond Ref, in the context of our (European size) HT.

Now from time to time I like to listen to Music BRDs at Ref -5 or Ref 0, in DSU or DTS Neo X 11 Music, titles like Stones in IMAX (ah Satisfaction...), Michael J This is It and my favourite and exceptionnal DTS 5.1 tracks of Jean-Michel Jarre's Aero DVD.

This Jarre's Aero DVD in DSU is a sort of an exceptional experience that I recommend as at @ Ref -5, one gets the feeling that beyond the sound being "present" and "tactile", it also has a form of "solidity"... impressive and worth a try...  

Amclt,

Hugo


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: FilmMixer - "Thanks about the "Fury" comment... Really proud to be a part of that film."

I echo the sentiment of many forum members - - besides Fury being a very entertaining film, the soundtrack was phenomenal. I was able to watch it with the sound level up and the roar of the tanks, clarity of the dialog and overall mix really draws you into the picture. You really don't think about your HT setup when the mix is that good. You are so immersed into the movie that it becomes transparent. Really, really "Good Stuff!!!"

Now, regarding the issues with other posters - - may I offer one piece of advice: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." (Just kidding - - we're all pals here on the AVS Forum...sort of... :>) )


----------



## Nightlord

stikle said:


> INever mind. I have a brick wall to go slam my forehead into, which will be far less painful and it will actually get the concept.


Don't forget to post the pics to prove it, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> I've got thicker skin than most (a necessity in Hollywood...). Even if sometimes I get heated and passionate, it's never personal. Even if I have to plant my face firmly in my palm.
> 
> Anyone can look over our exchanges and see it's a constant example of stating something as fact, being corrected, then saying he never said that while introducing another point, then bringing the language barrier into it, then saying my experience doesn't matter because......... It's never ending. And like some others on these boards we've grown to love


I'm happy that you're not offended, as that is never something I intend.

But the latter part is incorrect. The exchange started with me just offering a hypothesis/asking a question, which doesn't even state that I'm thinking of the movie besing discussed (which I haven't seen or even heard of before):

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1225.html#post40780418


> Just hazarding a guess, could we not be getting movies at is early stage that the sound mixing had begun before the studio had Atmos-capabilities and therefore only some scenes mixed late in the process will use it?


After that I've only been defending my thinking that lead to asking a f***ing question. So claiming I'm "stating facts" is a ridicolous notion. It may be that you don't understand what I'm writing as I'm definitely thinking in Swedish and then translating. But I am truly surprised that something ending with a quesion mark ever could be interpreted as a factual statement. Everything discussed afterwards is, in my book, only in reference to this question/hypothesis. If it isn't true, then it isn't. It was a possibility I wanted people to consider at this early stage of Atmos movies coming out... It's apparent from your defence of it that you have not done that with anything, but that does not necessarily mean that someone else wouldn't.


----------



## Holiday121

Ok . Some help here guys. I purchased 4 Martin Logan morion 4s for my atmos setup. The folded motion tweeter will sort of blend in with my setup and got them pretty nice price.

Now here is my setup. As you can see on the top left I have duct work so the ceiling lowers and my front left tower sort of sits Under it.

Now do you think I should mount the top front motion 2 to the side of the duct work and face it towards my middle position or should I mount it on the ceiling facing on a angle towards my left seat in the set of 4?


2. And for the rears my seats are around 5 feet behind me. Would it be safe to mout then at the back wall firing down towards the seats or should I bring them in closer then the 5 feet?


----------



## Stoked21

Had local HT expert over last night. Threw on Gravity re-entry scene for demo purposes. I think he thought I was crazy and I was a little ashamed to admit this. But I told him some of the best Atmos I've heard is actually the CREDITS for Gravity! LOL. 

I'm not sure how many of you have actually listened to them. Right after the large GRAVITY logo with sucking closing sound.....Credits will scroll and radio chatter will bounce everywhere in the room. Faint to loud and very non-localizable. After a few minutes of this, a fingers-on-chalkboard closing song comes on with these piercing, shrieking sounds. Really sets you on nerves and these sucking, shrieking sounds bounce around the room high-to-low.

I guess I haven't lost my mind cus he agreed that it was amazing Atmos material!
If you have 3 minutes....Give it a spin.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Don't forget to post the pics to prove it, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

@kbarnes701 While you're banging your head on the wall... I watched Everest last night. First, outstanding Atmos track! Very cohesive soundfield that puts you smack in the middle of that environment.

As far as the helicopter scene vs. the one in San Andreas, I would still say that the two mixes were done with different approaches. San Andreas keeps things relatively grounded up until the first quake... whereas Everest is a pretty aggressive mix from start to finish. Also, the majority of the helicopter scene in Everest is external shots, though they did keep the rotor sound moving through the heights during the transitions to shots inside the helicopter. I think we ultimately just have to chalk it up to the preferences of the mixer on each flick. Does make for an interesting comparison though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> @kbarnes701 While you're banging your head on the wall... I watched Everest last night. First, outstanding Atmos track! Very cohesive soundfield that puts you smack in the middle of that environment.


Glad you enjoyed it. We are in agreement about the sound.




Jeremy Anderson said:


> As far as the helicopter scene vs. the one in San Andreas, I would still say that the two mixes were done with different approaches. San Andreas keeps things relatively grounded up until the first quake... whereas Everest is a pretty aggressive mix from start to finish. Also, the majority of the helicopter scene in Everest is external shots, though they did keep the rotor sound moving through the heights during the transitions to shots inside the helicopter. I think we ultimately just have to chalk it up to the preferences of the mixer on each flick. Does make for an interesting comparison though.


Yes, mixing is an art more than a science IMO, so different mixers will always do things differently to each other. I don't think there's much doubt that the Atmos enthusiasts here will prefer the *Everest* approach to the *San Andreas* approach though.  HST, I very much enjoyed the sound of the latter as well overall.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> I want to chime in on this overhead position stuff....
> 
> SO..... bringing this all back full circle to aaranddeeman's question that I quoted at the outset.... IMO, these conclusions don't necessarily have that much negative implication for FH+RH versus TF+TR, because you still have a front+rear pair. When I experimented with the test tones and FH+RH vs. TF+TR, it didn't sound much different... things in front were played by FH/TF, things in back were played by RH/TR, and stuff overhead (TM) was played equally by both. So both pairs will get heavy, and theoretically equal, engagement either way. It does seem there IS still some subtle difference from those who have monkeyed with Audiosphere and other demos, but it seems to be a minimal negative consequence if you prefer FH+RH to support Auro or another legacy upmixer.
> 
> Whew.... them's my thoughts on the matter...


Good in depth analysis, TY. 

I was absent from the forums for a while, so I'm not sure if there has been a consensus in regards to this specific issue: 

On HTG (Q&A episode) i-magic stated that having speakers pointing straight down with 180 degree dispersion is a waste; instead preferring the direct firing/ tilted approach.

But I've seen other forum members on here say that they felt tilting distorted the overhead image. 

I have TF+TR 180 degree pointing down, & I've heard tilted with electromotions... in some cases the tilted sounds cool for panning effects but I didn't get the "overhead" feeling from them. If I recall the rationale given by i-magic was that the 180 degree speakers creates & disperses extra sound that is never heard... (in my case absorption prevents this from being an issue IMO). 

I'm not sure why he'd think it would be that big of an issue. If I stand directly under one of my ceiling speakers, the other ceiling speakers are very quiet in comparison... though if I sit in the MLP I get an even sound from the overheads. 

I am curious as to how overhead configurations will evolve over time... I still feel like the Atmos configuration could benefit from incorporating a VOG. I've seen some on here say that direct overhead sound can't be localized... but that hasn't been my experience when testing out overhead speakers.


----------



## SJHT

Having some work done in our dedicated theater and looking to upgrade speaker configuration to handle Dolby Atmos. Pretty standard 9.2 setup with the addition of front height speakers above my main speakers. However, my LR Surrounds are dipole across/above the seating area. My back surrounds are behind/above. All of my surrounds are almost at ceiling level - around 7'. Now, if I add 2-4 ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos (and remove my current height speakers), am I going to run into issues in having my surrounds speakers so high? Having them a listening level is not going to work well. Also, should I ditch my dipoles? Thanks for any feedback. SJ


----------



## kbarnes701

SJHT said:


> Having some work done in our dedicated theater and looking to upgrade speaker configuration to handle Dolby Atmos. Pretty standard 9.2 setup with the addition of front height speakers above my main speakers. However, my LR Surrounds are dipole across/above the seating area. My back surrounds are behind/above. All of my surrounds are almost at ceiling level - around 7'. Now, if I add 2-4 ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos (and remove my current height speakers), am I going to run into issues in having my surrounds speakers so high? Having them a listening level is not going to work well. Also, should I ditch my dipoles? Thanks for any feedback. SJ


Dolby advise that surround speakers should be at ear level. If this is not possible, then Atmos will, of course, still 'work' but it will be less than optimal. It will be harder for you to discern if sounds behind you are behind you or above you. IOW, the soundstage will be less precise. You may still enjoy this but the advice is nonetheless to lower the surrounds to ear height, or as close to ear height as makes sense within the strictures of your room.

From P7 of the Dolby Guidelines for Home Atmos:

_As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
• The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
• All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).
If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the rear speakers may be higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.
_
Dipoles are similarly not recommended. Dolby recommends monopoles with a wide dispersion characteristic. If I were you, I wouldn't just throw the dipoles away - I would test them in situ and see how they sound to you. If you are getting a highly immersive sound 'dome' then you are golden. If not, then I would replace the dipoles with monopoles.


----------



## jimmyk36

SJHT said:


> Having some work done in our dedicated theater and looking to upgrade speaker configuration to handle Dolby Atmos. Pretty standard 9.2 setup with the addition of front height speakers above my main speakers. However, my LR Surrounds are dipole across/above the seating area. My back surrounds are behind/above. All of my surrounds are almost at ceiling level - around 7'. Now, if I add 2-4 ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos (and remove my current height speakers), am I going to run into issues in having my surrounds speakers so high? Having them a listening level is not going to work well. Also, should I ditch my dipoles? Thanks for any feedback. SJ



I have the same setup that you do (rears and surrounds are also dipole). Good questions. Gonna be a pain to have redo my columns to lower the speakers since I built them in.... I am going to put the ceiling speakers up first and see how that goes....


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got thicker skin than most (a necessity in Hollywood...). Even if sometimes I get heated and passionate, it's never personal. Even if I have to plant my face firmly in my palm.
> 
> Anyone can look over our exchanges and see it's a constant example of stating something as fact, being corrected, then saying he never said that while introducing another point, then bringing the language barrier into it, then saying my experience doesn't matter because......... It's never ending. And like some others on these boards we've grown to love
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy that you're not offended, as that is never something I intend.
> 
> But the latter part is incorrect. The exchange started with me just offering a hypothesis/asking a question, which doesn't even state that I'm thinking of the movie besing discussed (which I haven't seen or even heard of before):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1225.html#post40780418
> 
> 
> 
> Just hazarding a guess, could we not be getting movies at is early stage that the sound mixing had begun before the studio had Atmos-capabilities and therefore only some scenes mixed late in the process will use it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After that I've only been defending my thinking that lead to asking a f***ing question. So claiming I'm "stating facts" is a ridicolous notion. It may be that you don't understand what I'm writing as I'm definitely thinking in Swedish and then translating. But I am truly surprised that something ending with a quesion mark ever could be interpreted as a factual statement. Everything discussed afterwards is, in my book, only in reference to this question/hypothesis. If it isn't true, then it isn't. It was a possibility I wanted people to consider at this early stage of Atmos movies coming out... It's apparent from your defence of it that you have not done that with anything, but that does not necessarily mean that someone else wouldn't.
Click to expand...

You were stating falsehoods as facts in the Auro thread when discussing how Atmos works.... Anyone else who's interested can easily find those posts. 

In regards to this "theory" you put forward in regards to why a mix might contain overhead sounds in some areas and not in others...

It seems you don't have a fundamental understanding of workflow and how a film is mixed in Atmos. 

Regardless...

It doesn't matter if I've done "that" or not... I can tell you because of how Atmos mixes are made, prescribed by the workflow and methodology, that no one else has ever not put something into the overheads because the studio they were working in didn't have Atmos at the inception of a project, but later acquired it. (Bad grammar included for emphasis..) 

Because you don't understand how films are mixed in the format you won't be able to understands why that would NEVER be the reason why any given part of a mix doesn't have sound in the overhead speakers.


----------



## Jarery

I need to purchase and install 4 height speakers. I'd also like to replace my rear surrounds which are dipole with monopole. 

All the atmos speakers talk is about in ceiling speakers that point down and have wide dispersion. 

But what about when your buying regular on wall or on ceiling bookshelf type speakers and mounting them on the ceiling. Does it matter if they are wide dispersion since they can be tilted to aim at the mlp?

What is a recommendation for a compact self contained speaker that I can use for 4 height and possible surround back for atmos and dts:X? Budget of $100-300 each ?


----------



## smurraybhm

Marc - I guess you can cross Nightlord off the list of possible recipients for your Dolby 2015 demo disks 

I know everyone has been talking about Fury, as they should, but I would like to remind everyone to watch Daredevil which is another sound masterpiece compliments of FilmMixer (Season 2 premiers on March 18 - Netflix). As I've said before it is reference material for DSU. Great show too.


----------



## batpig

Jarery said:


> I need to purchase and install 4 height speakers. I'd also like to replace my rear surrounds which are dipole with monopole.
> 
> All the atmos speakers talk is about in ceiling speakers that point down and have wide dispersion.
> 
> But what about when your buying regular on wall or on ceiling bookshelf type speakers and mounting them on the ceiling. Does it matter if they are wide dispersion since they can be tilted to aim at the mlp?
> 
> What is a recommendation for a compact self contained speaker that I can use for 4 height and possible surround back for atmos and dts:X? Budget of $100-300 each ?


The Dolby guidelines state that IF you point it downward, the speaker should have wide, conical dispersion. And if the speaker doesn't, then you should angle them to aim at the MLP. The point is to provide consistent coverage across the listening area.

In terms of recommendations, the Polk OWM5 is quite popular for an affordable, low-profile speaker that can be mounted in a variety of ways.


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> Marc - I guess you can cross Nightlord off the list of possible recipients for your Dolby 2015 demo disks
> 
> I know everyone has been talking about Fury, as they should, but I would like to remind everyone to watch Daredevil which is another sound masterpiece compliments of FilmMixer (Season 2 premiers on March 18 - Netflix). As I've said before it is reference material for DSU. Great show too.


Just an FYI, but Marc said he is NOT doing the sound for Season 2.

But, yea, that show is awesome and the sound mix is spectacular


----------



## bargervais

OK I'm going to Start to Double Dip going to get Mad Max: Fury Road 4K Blu-ray United States	12971294 4K Ultra HD + (Blu-ray 4K HDR Atmos)

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mad-Max-Fury-Road-4K-Blu-ray/147183/

got to love it, Then all I will need is a UHD Blu-Ray Player.


----------



## Nightlord

smurraybhm said:


> Marc - I guess you can cross Nightlord off the list of possible recipients for your Dolby 2015 demo disks


Would not lose any sleep over it, I haven't bought any demo disc thus far, so I'll survive without starting a collection.

I'm much more interested in seeing how good transfer to BluRay it is for "Where Eagles Dare" which is the latest movie I bought.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> Because you don't understand how films are mixed in the format you won't be able to understands why that would NEVER be the reason why any given part of a mix doesn't have sound in the overhead speakers.


Well, please enlighten me what makes it impossible to import the 7.1 channels from a completed film mix into the beds of an Atmos mix, or into a few objects placed in those locations and press 'done'. Apart from work ethics, I mean.


----------



## markus767

Nightlord said:


> Well, please enlighten me what makes it impossible to import the 7.1 channels from a completed film mix into the beds of an Atmos mix, or into a few objects placed in those locations and press 'done'. Apart from work ethics, I mean.


I guess you are familiar with this document:
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/...ng_for_Dolby_Atmos_Cinema_Sound_Manual(1).pdf
Documents describing the encoder aren't freely available.

One probably can make an AVR show "Atmos" without actually delivering any objects but only a standard channel-based mix. Does that answer your question?


----------



## stikle

Nightlord said:


> I'm much more interested in seeing how good transfer to BluRay it is for "Where Eagles Dare" which is the latest movie I bought.



What a great movie. I've got it on DVD. And because you brought up Where Eagles Dare on Bluray, I just ordered the double feature of Where Eagles Dare/Kelly's Heroes (one of my favorite WWII movies). $10 for two great movies...whadda bahgain!


----------



## Scott Simonian

@FilmMixer I can't wait for you to set that date for the tour so I can literally go to where you work and tell you how to do your job. It's going to be awesome...


----------



## audioguy

9V7W3 said:


> Well that's really REALLY dumb.. I mean if you've already run Audyssey like I have but you want to tweak your own levels slightly using your own analyzing equipment and don't have a test disc they you really can't. This means if you have Audyssey enabled the internal AVR test tones are completely useless for measurement purposes.


"Completely useless" may be a bit strong, but close. 

REW can send a test signal through 8 channels (7.1) with Audyssey enabled, but not the ceiling speakers (yet). OmniMic can send test signals through 6 channels (5.1). And the Atmos test disc is another solution (I much prefer a frequency signal sweep) and currently the only one I know of that gets you access up to 9.1.6 channels. OR, you can upgrade to the Datasat RS20i and get access to all 16 input channels .......(for an additional $23,000 !!!).


----------



## Waboman

stikle said:


> What a great movie. I've got it on DVD. And because you brought up Where Eagles Dare on Bluray, I just ordered the double feature of Where Eagles Dare/Kelly's Heroes (one of my favorite WWII movies). $10 for two great movies...whadda bahgain!


Kelly's Heroes is a great movie.


----------



## smurraybhm

Nightlord said:


> Would not lose any sleep over it, I haven't bought any demo disc thus far, so I'll survive without starting a collection.
> 
> I'm much more interested in seeing how good transfer to BluRay it is for "Where Eagles Dare" which is the latest movie I bought.


It was meant as a joke our Swedish AVS member, just making that clear since we've been talking language barrier the past few days, even though your English skills are better than a lot of forum members. I have the combo pack like our member above, great movie, but don't expect miracles on the transfer.


----------



## rec head

The sound on Daredevil was great. I don't ever expect much from streamed shows but I was really impressed. I still think of the kid whistling. It isn't often we get a slow pan around the whole room. Thanks.


----------



## smurraybhm

batpig said:


> Just an FYI, but Marc said he is NOT doing the sound for Season 2.
> 
> But, yea, that show is awesome and the sound mix is spectacular


 Damn it - well the series is still very good but the sound mix on season one was perfect. It showed me what was possible with Netflix, Dolby 5.1 and DSU. Thanks for the info Batpig.


----------



## SJHT

jimmyk36 said:


> I have the same setup that you do (rears and surrounds are also dipole). Good questions. Gonna be a pain to have redo my columns to lower the speakers since I built them in.... I am going to put the ceiling speakers up first and see how that goes....


Seems like most movie theaters have the side and back surrounds above the listeners. Never really seen it "at ear level". Not sure that is even possible in a large theater. I will look at lowering mine a bit. SJ


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SJHT said:


> Seems like most movie theaters have the side and back surrounds above the listeners. Never really seen it "at ear level". Not sure that is even possible in a large theater. I will look at lowering mine a bit. SJ


Even Dolby's new theater specs recommend lower side and rear arrays... just out of the reach of patrons, that's it... in order to create a greater sense of space between the two layers.

If you have multiple seating, you want the side and rear speakers just above seated head height, so that sound isn't blocked for adjacent viewers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have multiple seating, you want the side and rear speakers just above seated head height, so that sound isn't blocked for adjacent viewers.



Yeah. That's why commercial cinemas AND mixing stages have their surrounds above ear level.


But who cares cuz some Dolby guide says you should have them AT ear level (psst, even though they allow a 25% higher than such as totally acceptable but forget about that, okay?).


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have finished (I hope) with my 7.1.4 project...at least for now. It never stops, does it?

My project--to convert my rear up-firing Atmos speakers to on-ceiling. In ceiling is not possible--"No holes in the ceiling!"
But, the bigger issue was to get wiring back to those rear speakers even for on-ceiling.

Where there is a will, there is a way...I ran one jacketed 10 ga. wire for a top rear right speaker under the baseboard (mostly). For the other top rear left speaker, I ran it in a 3/4" raceway. For my rear surrounds (needed to get the wire back there for them also as I moved from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4...), I ran two runs of 12 ga. unjacketed wires tucked into a run of 3/4" raceway on top of the first raceway.

When I got to the rear wall, to get up to the Top Rear speakers, I cut a circular hole thru the baseboard and drywall and ran behind the wall. I then used desk/wall grommets to cover my 2" holes. Up behind the speakers where the wires come out, I used black grommets to try to keep it as subtle as possible.

The result I now my Top Rear speakers on ceiling, near the juncture of the rear wall and ceiling. The angles work--about 125 degrees for the rear row of seats, and about 150 degrees for the front row of seats.
The sound is exceptional.

And, happy wife, happy life! And, she is...


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't understand how films are mixed in the format you won't be able to understands why that would NEVER be the reason why any given part of a mix doesn't have sound in the overhead speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, please enlighten me what makes it impossible to import the 7.1 channels from a completed film mix into the beds of an Atmos mix, or into a few objects placed in those locations and press 'done'. Apart from work ethics, I mean.
Click to expand...

That wasn't you're argument. 

You said a possible reason there was no overhead activity in Everest (which was what Keith was pondering) might be because the studio didn't have Atmos when they started the mix. Or why that would explain such behavior in other films.... 

Now you're asking why something is or isn't technically possible to do. That's two different matters. 

Again... It seems as if you've little idea or concept of how an Atmos mix is done. 

You're so fixed on not being "wrong" now you're changing what you want to discuss. 

But I'll indulge your new "request." 

You would never take a "complete" 7.1 mix and then do as you suggest. 

What would be the reason to ever do so? 

It doesn't matter how you could achieve such a feat... Or if was was technically possible. 

The fact is you would not do it.


----------



## Ricoflashback

KB - Re - "Dipoles are similarly not recommended. Dolby recommends monopoles with a wide dispersion characteristic. If I were you, I wouldn't just throw the dipoles away - I would test them in situ and see how they sound to you. If you are getting a highly immersive sound 'dome' then you are golden. If not, then I would replace the dipoles with monopoles."

I understand your logic and the Dolby specs/recommendation. But I also think you have to consider the room and the $$$ invested in your HT. Example: I still use a pair of Paradigm ADP-590's as my side surrounds. I have no choice - - there is no physical way of lowering them (original 7.1 configuration.) I DID move my rear surrounds to ear level from up high and that has made a great difference in sound quality. 

For my Atmos setup - - I'll have FH & TM. For DTS Neo X & someday DTS: X, I will have "Front Wides," as well. This is the speaker configuration that works the best with my room constraints. (Low ceilings, 1970's house.) Hopefully, it gives me more options based on the soundtrack. So, my main point is that sometimes we can't have everything according to spec - - but we can still enjoy what we have.


----------



## batpig

SJHT said:


> Seems like most movie theaters have the side and back surrounds above the listeners. Never really seen it "at ear level". Not sure that is even possible in a large theater. I will look at lowering mine a bit. SJ


The topic of surround height, and the conflict between the home recommendation of "ear height" vs. the elevated surrounds of commercial cinemas and mixing rooms, has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. But a few quick points...

First, theaters do have elevated surrounds but they also have extremely high ceilings. The surrounds therefore are elevated but they are NOT shoved up into the wall/ceiling junction. Also, the high ceilings still means there is a good angular separation between the surrounds and overhead arrays.

At home, with an 8' ceiling and the surrounds 7' up, that is not the case. 

Cinemas also elevate their surrounds for practical reasons. They have to cover an enormous seating area, and elevating the surrounds allows for more even SPL coverage across that wide area (i.e. preventing "hot spotting" for the closer listeners). Plus there are non-performance reasons like preventing people from putting their grubby paws on them.

But another important difference is that ALL the speakers are elevated in the cinema, including the front speakers. Unless you're sitting in the back rows of a stadium seating theater, the screen is elevated from your ears so all the seats can see it clearly, so (unlike at home) the screen channels are also elevated. The surrounds are elevated but they are "tilted" rows, with the speakers following the line of the seating elevation, but the front surrounds are probably about the same height as the screen channels. So a sound that pans around is still going to sound contiguous. If you have a home setup with the front 3 speakers at 3ft height and the surrounds at 7ft, anything going around you is going to jump up suddenly as it travels to the sides.

This is why the ITU document quoted above notes the screen channels as the "reference" for the surrounds. You want to thing of those speakers as a ring of sound... if you need to elevate the surrounds for some reason, so be it, but they should still ideally form a ring (even if it's a "tilted" ring like in the cinema). 

So the bottom line is EXACTLY at ear level is probably not necessary, but at the other extreme (ceiling height) it's clearly too high. So lower them as much as you can while still accommodating other practical considerations in the room design.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The surrounds therefore are elevated but they are NOT shoved up into the wall/ceiling junction.


Actually, I've been to a few Atmos rooms that are like this. 

Hell, even Dolby's own Burbank HQ has their system like this. *bleegh!!*











We finally got our first Atmos theater recently where I live. Ugh... and it's just like that. F**k me.


----------



## batpig

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have finished (I hope) with my 7.1.4 project...at least for now. It never stops, does it?


You ain't finished yet! Next step is to make some more of those nice acoustic panels you have in the front corners and start treating the rest of the room  I'm seeing a lot of bare drywall!


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, I've been to a few Atmos rooms that are like this.


But how does that correlate to the screen channels, does the surround array eventually slope down to where it's close to the middle of the screen with the frontmost wid... er... surround speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

No, not that I know of. They never showed us behind the screen at the Burbank HQ.

But... look at the picture. The photo is taken essentially right at the screen. They are ALL up at the ceiling. The chain that just installed Atmos near me has it set up, just ... like... that. 

What's even funnier (more sad) is that _that_ is the Atmos room. They have another room called ETX or whatever. That room has an Atmos system that I've heard and their surrounds are at a proper just-above ear level. Yet when I go in there they play it 7.1 Surround. lolwtf?


----------



## batpig

That's a bummer man....

Here's what I was talking about, this image is more like the Atmos theaters I've experienced. If you just sit in a seat and look to your sides, it's like sure, the surrounds are way up there. But if you follow the line of the surrounds they pretty much nail the screen dead center in terms of height. So the "ring of sound" is unbroken.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, most of the Atmos rooms I've been in are more like that. Proper.

Unfortunately, there is little consistency applied in the Atmos installation world. I've seen wildly different installations from each system I've heard and I've heard quite a few now. All of them are different.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, I've been to a few Atmos rooms that are like this.
> 
> Hell, even Dolby's own Burbank HQ has their system like this. *bleegh!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We finally got our first Atmos theater recently where I live. Ugh... and it's just like that. F**k me.


WOW! That just plain don't look right!?! No way that is the optimal setup in that room....


----------



## SJHT

batpig said:


> The topic of surround height, and the conflict between the home recommendation of "ear height" vs. the elevated surrounds of commercial cinemas and mixing rooms, has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. But a few quick points...
> 
> First, theaters do have elevated surrounds but they also have extremely high ceilings. The surrounds therefore are elevated but they are NOT shoved up into the wall/ceiling junction. Also, the high ceilings still means there is a good angular separation between the surrounds and overhead arrays.
> 
> At home, with an 8' ceiling and the surrounds 7' up, that is not the case.
> 
> Cinemas also elevate their surrounds for practical reasons. They have to cover an enormous seating area, and elevating the surrounds allows for more even SPL coverage across that wide area (i.e. preventing "hot spotting" for the closer listeners). Plus there are non-performance reasons like preventing people from putting their grubby paws on them.
> 
> But another important difference is that ALL the speakers are elevated in the cinema, including the front speakers. Unless you're sitting in the back rows of a stadium seating theater, the screen is elevated from your ears so all the seats can see it clearly, so (unlike at home) the screen channels are also elevated. The surrounds are elevated but they are "tilted" rows, with the speakers following the line of the seating elevation, but the front surrounds are probably about the same height as the screen channels. So a sound that pans around is still going to sound contiguous. If you have a home setup with the front 3 speakers at 3ft height and the surrounds at 7ft, anything going around you is going to jump up suddenly as it travels to the sides.
> 
> This is why the ITU document quoted above notes the screen channels as the "reference" for the surrounds. You want to thing of those speakers as a ring of sound... if you need to elevate the surrounds for some reason, so be it, but they should still ideally form a ring (even if it's a "tilted" ring like in the cinema).
> 
> So the bottom line is EXACTLY at ear level is probably not necessary, but at the other extreme (ceiling height) it's clearly too high. So lower them as much as you can while still accommodating other practical considerations in the room design.


Thank you for the information. This really helps. SJ


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> But how does that correlate to the screen channels, does the surround array eventually slope down to where it's close to the middle of the screen with the frontmost wid... er... surround speakers.


And Dolby room has a VOG channel too...


----------



## Stoked21

I just put 3 of my 6 242 panels on my ceiling. Played all the Atmos test tracks. I'm hearing new voices, new subtle effects from the tops and my ICs seem much louder and image even better (and they did phenomenal before). I'm thinking killing the FRP on the ceiling has caused them just to pop into place even more. That really makes sense. But still to gain that level of improvement, on a system that sounds great already, was pleasantly surprising!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> WOW! That just plain don't look right!?! No way that is the optimal setup in that room....


Heheh. Well...that's it. Myself and a few others from AVS got a demo there. If they have changed it since then is up to someone who has been there recently to say.



aaranddeeman said:


> And Dolby room has a VOG channel too...


It was a subwoofer, iirc.


----------



## Stoked21

All jokes aside....Is that a VOG or is it really a sub on the ceiling???? Both seem insane per Dolby's documents....But I see it in the damn pic!?!?!?!


----------



## NorthSky

Looking @ that picture above; what would happen if you were to position/lower the surrounds near ear level?


----------



## Scott Simonian

People closest to the surround arrays would get quite an earful.  No thanks.


----------



## NorthSky

You got it Scott; so the surrounds in a theater, like the one above, are @ the right height position.


----------



## NorthSky

But in this screening/mixing room here, they seem to be "quite" high.

* Is that truly a subwoofer here @ the VOG position? ...It's a slightly different shape than the others...we can easily observe this.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> @FilmMixer I can't wait for you to set that date for the tour so I can literally go to where you work and tell you how to do your job. It's going to be awesome...



I wanna go too! Make it summer please, thanks.

Uh...not to tell Marc what to do, to be clear. I've wanted to see that part of the process for many, many years - 1994 or so when I ran a four screen theater booth.



smurraybhm said:


> I have the combo pack like our member above, great movie, but don't expect miracles on the transfer.



Bluray > DVD

Also, 480i upscaled to 4K blows chunks. 720p -> 4K is tolarable. Mostly. So yeah, replace 2 DVDs with a BR. One more step in the demise of DVD.



batpig said:


> You ain't finished yet! Next step is to make some more of those nice acoustic panels you have in the front corners and start treating the rest of the room  I'm seeing a lot of bare drywall!



I did too. @rdressler stopped by one day and suggested trying some acoustic management to tame the sheetrocked beast. So this is what I did. They're only stuck there with a couple T-Pins, so easy to re/move. I think it was ~$80 for 24 squares. It was so simple and (to me) relatively cheap that I feel it was worth it.

I don't know how to do any kind of measuring (nor have the equipment) to figure out the actual offending reflection points, so I just guesstimated.

The room noticeably deadened once I put them up and close the curtains.











Can you see my Atmos speakers up there? Look closely...well do you? Good, because that puts us back on topic. Carry on!


----------



## aaranddeeman

^^^^ Do those foams work well (compared to 2x4 panels from GIK and such).
If they do, I would really like to get some from here.


----------



## dormie1360

batpig said:


> That's a bummer man....
> 
> Here's what I was talking about, this image is more like the Atmos theaters I've experienced. If you just sit in a seat and look to your sides, it's like sure, the surrounds are way up there. But if you follow the line of the surrounds they pretty much nail the screen dead center in terms of height. So the "ring of sound" is unbroken.


This is a good point. When people sit in their seats in a large theater and look up at the surrounds they get the impression of height. In reality the surrounds are near the height of the front speakers. My room is similar in that I have a big screen that I look up at from the front row. Looking at my surrounds you get the impression of height but in reality they aren't that far above the fronts.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> You got it Scott; so the surrounds in a theater, like the one above, are @ the right height position.


Yes sir.



aaranddeeman said:


> ^^^^ Do those foams work well (compared to 2x4 panels from GIK and such).
> If they do, I would really like to get some from here.


No, not really. The foam doesn't do that much but depends on how thick you get and what your expectations are. It does a little bit but I wouldn't do what I did and buy a lot to treat a good chunk of the room.  Better off with the fiberglass panels of sorts. Use this stuff to fill in the gaps.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Scott Simonian said:


> No, not really. The foam doesn't do that much but depends on how thick you get and what your expectations are. It does a little bit but I wouldn't do what I did and buy a lot to treat a good chunk of the room.  Better off with the fiberglass panels of sorts. Use this stuff to fill in the gaps.


Ah. You mean those Owens Corning type things should be used...


----------



## stikle

aaranddeeman said:


> ^^^^ Do those foams work well (compared to 2x4 panels from GIK and such). If they do, I would really like to get some from here.



I've never heard panels in another home theater room. Oh wait, I've never heard anybody's home theater room.

For me, in my room, these made enough of a difference that it was worth the cost.

And SoundProofStore is where I got these. I just specified that I wanted them all in brown to match the accent wall.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> They are ALL up at the ceiling. The chain that just installed Atmos near me has it set up, just ... like... that.


When the local AMC Prime converted to a Dolby Cinema, they actually move the surrounds up, closer to the ceiling.


----------



## GXMnow

The Dolby Burbank screening room (pictured in the posts here) was built as the specs were being written and did result in some learning along the way. The side wall surround speakers for a Dolby Atmos cinema, should form a straight line from the screen speaker height to the back wall speaker height, to keep the ring of sound as straight as possible. In the case of the Dolby Burbank screening room, the screen speakers are quite tall JBL 3 way systems, and the HF horn is in the top 1/3 of the screen. In the picture, you can see the speakers are sloping down towards the front and they do end up very close to the same height as the screen HF horns. The back wall speakers could not go any lower because of the projection port windows, so in keeping with the straight line from front to back, that is where they ended up. A little lower would possibly be a little better, but if you do get a chance to listen to any soundtrack in this room, I am sure you will agree that the sound coverage is excellent and there is not lack of imaging due to the height. The angle difference from the side to the top channels is still plenty to give a very immersive pan. The MLP is the row of seats behind the mixing console, which is also quite high in the room. One row of the stadium seat slope was filled in to make room for the console, so the mix position is a bit higher than the normal theatre seats as well. 

This room also does not use any surround bass management. Each surround speaker is a very powerful JBL 12 inch woofer that easilly goes below 40 hz so there was no need to use the bass management function. The speaker in the center of the room is not used for Dolby Atmos playback. It is a full range 2 way speaker that has been used for demos of VOG content.

Most of the mixing rooms still have the surround speakers more than 5 feet above the seating area. The coverage across the width of the room is more important than extending the sound image lower. When you need to cover a wide room, this will always be a trade off that requires a higher speaker placement.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ http://hometheatermedia.com/HTF_Scrapbook_2013/Dolby_Labs.html


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. That's why commercial cinemas AND mixing stages have their surrounds above ear level.


There's not much "blockage" with the surrounds at ear level. The reason for having surrounds elevated in cinemas is
- before Atmos was available it was the only way to introduce a more enveloping sound stage
- reduce SPL differences across seating rows
- get speakers out of reach of audience

At home there's no reason not to have side surrounds at ear level.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> You would never take a "complete" 7.1 mix and then do as you suggest.
> 
> What would be the reason to ever do so?
> 
> It doesn't matter how you could achieve such a feat... Or if was was technically possible.
> 
> The fact is you would not do it.


Like VW would never cheat emission tests? There's enough bad people in any industry. Good for us we have the Atmos police forces in this thread that does listen to movies with only the top surrounds active so fake Atmos mixes will never happen.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^lol!


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> KB - Re - _*"Dipoles are similarly not recommended. Dolby recommends monopoles with a wide dispersion characteristic. If I were you, I wouldn't just throw the dipoles away - I would test them in situ and see how they sound to you. If you are getting a highly immersive sound 'dome' then you are golden. If not, then I would replace the dipoles with monopoles."*
> _
> I understand your logic and the Dolby specs/recommendation. But I also think you have to consider the room and the $$$ invested in your HT. Example: I still use a pair of Paradigm ADP-590's as my side surrounds. I have no choice - - there is no physical way of lowering them (original 7.1 configuration.) I DID move my rear surrounds to ear level from up high and that has made a great difference in sound quality.
> 
> For my Atmos setup - - I'll have FH & TM. For DTS Neo X & someday DTS: X, I will have "Front Wides," as well. This is the speaker configuration that works the best with my room constraints. (Low ceilings, 1970's house.) Hopefully, it gives me more options based on the soundtrack. * So, my main point is that sometimes we can't have everything according to spec - - but we can still enjoy what we have*.


I thought that is what I said  See the bit you quoted from me above, in bold italic. I suggested he try them and if he was happy, to keep them.


----------



## Movie78

New ATMOS demo disc from ELAC

http://wlc.enterprises/portfolio/elac-atmosdemo/


*Description* 
Elac Opener 
Dolby Amaze
Sentimental Feeling 
Dolby Unfold
Sky Full Of Stars 
Dolby Horizon


----------



## I WANT MORE

^^ Great. How do you purchase one? ^^


----------



## 9V7W3

NorthSky said:


> But in this screening/mixing room here, they seem to be "quite" high.
> 
> * Is that truly a subwoofer here @ the VOG position? ...It's a slightly different shape than the others...we can easily observe this.


There's a very good chance it's a subwoofer...

In an optimal Atmos setup in a commercial cinema environment the specs call for LFE cabinets JUST to support the surrounds and height channels. It works like this... Even though every surround speaker in an Atmos theatre is its "own" channel the Atmos processor still groups these speakers into separate "arrays" for when you're playing content that is not Atmos, Such as 5.1, 7.1, etc.. So in this instance every "row" of surrounds is grouped and considered a single "channel" just like a regular 7.1 system (LS, RS, LBS, RBS, etc). Even though the individual surround speakers are usually a much higher power speaker than your standard cinema surround speaker in order to achieve 85db at the central listening area from EVERY surround speaker they're still not optimal for reproducing the extremely low frequencies so to fill in that grey area Dolby calls for adding subwoofer cabinets on the ceiling which are dedicated completely for the surround and height speakers. It will take all of the LFE information from lets say the entire row of side wall surrounds on the left side and pass them to that ceiling subwoofer rather than to group that information into the main subwoofers in the system behind the screen since the sub track is a discrete channel in itself and to add to the efficiency of the entire system not to overload the main subwoofer cabinets. Some also feel this adds to the separation and image. 

I've worked on installs with as many as 4-6 ceiling subwoofers dedicated for the surrounds. It's sure fun to see the huge cabinets hanging overhead inbetween the surround haha.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> I thought that is what I said  See the bit you quoted from me above, in bold italic. I suggested he try them and if he was happy, to keep them.


You did, KB, but I often see Dipoles getting a bad rap on this thread. Not Dolby specs. O.K. - understood, maybe not optimal, but much better than a hot spotting speaker. It's probably me, not you (Seinfeld?) - - and my main advice is to NOT junk your Dipoles unless you absolutely have no choice OR you have made the conscious decision to scrap them to comply with Dolby Atmos specifications in search of a better sound. 

By the way - - I find that the elevated sounds of a pair of Dipole speakers (Side Surrounds) works great for imaging. With direct firing, rear surrounds, it's a nice combination. Interesting to see the picture of the theater with all the speakers "up high" and angled toward the listening area. Granted, a movie theater is a different beast than a home theater setup. (Unless you won the last Mega Lotto!)


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> You did, KB, but I often see Dipoles getting a bad rap on this thread. Not Dolby specs. O.K. - understood, maybe not optimal, but much better than a hot spotting speaker. It's probably me, not you (Seinfeld?) - - and my main advice is to NOT junk your Dipoles unless you absolutely have no choice OR you have made the conscious decision to scrap them to comply with Dolby Atmos specifications in search of a better sound.
> 
> By the way - - I find that the elevated sounds of a pair of Dipole speakers (Side Surrounds) works great for imaging. With direct firing, rear surrounds, it's a nice combination. Interesting to see the picture of the theater with all the speakers "up high" and angled toward the listening area. Granted, a movie theater is a different beast than a home theater setup. (Unless you won the last Mega Lotto!)


What I found interesting about that pic, and the subsequent explanation of how it came to be that way, was the fact that _even Dolby _had to make compromises (setting the surrounds higher than they would like due to the position of the projection windows) with their speaker placement. That gives hope to all of us I think


----------



## SJHT

I could integrate side speakers at ear level, but because of the size and configuration of our theater, the seating is very close to one wall. The speaker would literally be at one persons ear as the main walkway is on one side with the seating pushed towards one wall. I can either raise above the listener, put on the top of the wall pointing down, or even drop side channels and go with only 5.1.4. Any thoughts on this? SJ


----------



## bargervais

I would Assume that the 4K UHD will have the same Atmos mix as the current Blu-Rays Am I Correct in assuming this?? all that i can see what the improvements would be is the 4K resolution with HDR.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/San-Andreas-4K-Blu-ray/147440/


----------



## bargervais

sorry duplicate


----------



## dvdwilly3

SJHT said:


> I could integrate side speakers at ear level, but because of the size and configuration of our theater, the seating is very close to one wall. The speaker would literally be at one persons ear as the main walkway is on one side with the seating pushed towards one wall. I can either raise above the listener, put on the top of the wall pointing down, or even drop side channels and go with only 5.1.4. Any thoughts on this? SJ


If it were me, I would figure out a way to make side surrounds work. For me, 7.1.4 is much more immersive than 5.1.4.

If you went with something like Goldenear Tech Invisa (in wall), they have an aimable tweeter, and you could pace above the seating. That would get you a bit of distance. Of course, if you change the seating, you would need to change the speaker location.


----------



## dschulz

9V7W3 said:


> There's a very good chance it's a subwoofer...


As GXMnow mentioned upthread, it's a mono VOG speaker, not used for Atmos playback.

A few years back there was an experiment with using Dolby Surround EX to matrix an extra channel for the ceiling, instead of for the usual 6.1 configuration with a Back Surround channel. The Mel Gibson film *We Were Soldiers* was to use it. If memory serves Filmmixer was involved on that project.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> There's not much "blockage" with the surrounds at ear level. The reason for having surrounds elevated in cinemas is
> - before Atmos was available it was the only way to introduce a more enveloping sound stage
> - reduce SPL differences across seating rows
> - get speakers out of reach of audience
> 
> At home there's no reason not to have side surrounds at ear level.


Yeah, awesome. I was talking about the cinema. 



markus767 said:


> At home there's no reason not to have side surrounds at ear level.


Yes, there is.

Btw, if I have my own surround at ear level, then they would be about a foot away from whoever is sitting on the side of my single row of a couch.

No thanks.

There is a reason why people put their surrounds where they do and it's not automatically wrong because some new Dolby guideline says in their brochure says they'd like you to put them at ear level _*now*_. It also says it's totally okay to have it at ear level plus 25%. Also, nobody really has a mixing stage set up like your home system so why is it suddenly wrong? Oh right. Because the guide for that new surround format you like says it should be at ear level....now. Well... yeah. 

Whatever.


----------



## SeanCJ

My room is 24' x 24'. Ceilings are 12' high. MLP is direct center of the room, about 12' to 13' from all speakers. Front LCR are behind a 136" DIY AT screen and are sitting 46" high.
Initially set up for 7.1 surround sound with the side and back surrounds on wall at 8' high. I've recently added two Speakercraft AIM LCR 3 speakers in the ceiling for front height as per Atmos specs giving me 7.1.2. 
Running a Yamaha 2040 receiver and a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amplifier powering LCR and side surrounds. The 2040 is powering the ceiling and back surrounds. I have an Epik Knight subwoofer placed directly under the center speaker behind the AT screen. I'm using 4 Axiom QS8's as surrounds. For regular 7.1 this system has sounded great. 
However, with the Atmos demo content, the sound field at times seems to be too high and too far away, like I'm sitting under it rather than "in" it. 
I'm currently looking to replace the Axioms with direct radiating speakers as recommended, however, I can't lower their physical location due to windows in the back and 'decor' on the sides. 
There is a set of 4 used Theil power point speakers being offered locally that I'm considering. I could mount them in the same location as the QS8's (8' up), but the design of the Theils has the speaker angled 45 degrees down, which would face them pretty close to directly at MLP. They are also direct radiating.
Reading the past few replies on the surround placement 'compromises' and looking at the photos of the Atmos recording studios and theaters, I'm thinking that the Theils angled down may be a good option.
Thoughts?
Thanks for the help!
Sean


----------



## NorthSky

9V7W3 said:


> *There's a very good chance it's a subwoofer...*
> 
> In an optimal Atmos setup in a commercial cinema environment the specs call for LFE cabinets JUST to support the surrounds and height channels. It works like this... Even though every surround speaker in an Atmos theatre is its "own" channel the Atmos processor still groups these speakers into separate "arrays" for when you're playing content that is not Atmos, Such as 5.1, 7.1, etc.. So in this instance every "row" of surrounds is grouped and considered a single "channel" just like a regular 7.1 system (LS, RS, LBS, RBS, etc). Even though the individual surround speakers are usually a much higher power speaker than your standard cinema surround speaker in order to achieve 85db at the central listening area from EVERY surround speaker they're still not optimal for reproducing the extremely low frequencies so to fill in that grey area Dolby calls for adding subwoofer cabinets on the ceiling which are dedicated completely for the surround and height speakers. It will take all of the LFE information from lets say the entire row of side wall surrounds on the left side and pass them to that ceiling subwoofer rather than to group that information into the main subwoofers in the system behind the screen since the sub track is a discrete channel in itself and to add to the efficiency of the entire system not to overload the main subwoofer cabinets. Some also feel this adds to the separation and image.
> 
> I've worked on installs with as many as 4-6 ceiling subwoofers dedicated for the surrounds. It's sure fun to see the huge cabinets hanging overhead inbetween the surround haha.


Thx for that post. 

* @ the top center of the ceiling I am not 100% certain; the small red sticker is usually a JBL speaker logo.
And I am not sure if it is not a speaker used as a center height channel. Perhaps it was there before, like twelve years ago or more, when they remixed
*'We Were Soldiers'* (2002) with Mel Gibson...first movie mixed with a height channel. ...And they forgot to take it out or it's there to simply experiment with center height sound information. 

My best guess: It is a Dolby Center Height speaker (VOG in Auro parlance). It is not a subwoofer. 

• http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...lby-demos-atmos-cinema-home.html#post26623145


----------



## kbarnes701

SJHT said:


> I could integrate side speakers at ear level, but because of the size and configuration of our theater, the seating is very close to one wall. The speaker would literally be at one persons ear as the main walkway is on one side with the seating pushed towards one wall. I can either raise above the listener, put on the top of the wall pointing down, or even drop side channels and go with only 5.1.4. Any thoughts on this? SJ


Put the side surrounds a little above head height and aim the left speaker to the right end of the row and the right speaker to the left end of the row. This will allow the sound to 'clear' the heads of the people in the row and will mean that the person closest to the right speaker is hearing it off-axis and vice-versa which will help with the 'speaker in the ear' issue. If you can also move the side surrounds forward of the row a little then so much the better. This brings the added benefit of 'closing some of the gap' between your front L&R speakers and their corresponding rear surrounds, for a more immersive experience.


----------



## dholmes54

I WANT MORE said:


> ^^ Great. How do you purchase one? ^^


I want to know also.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> There is a reason why people put their surrounds where they do and it's not automatically wrong because some new Dolby guideline says in their brochure says they'd like you to put them at ear level _*now*_. It also says it's totally okay to have it at ear level plus 25%. Also, nobody really has a mixing stage set up like your home system so why is it suddenly wrong? Oh right. Because the guide for that new surround format you like says it should be at ear level....now. Well... yeah.
> 
> Whatever.


It IS automatically a inferior configuration because "some new" Dolby technology came along, namely "Atmos".

The specs says:

"As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
• The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
• All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).
If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the rear speakers may be higher than the front speakers. However, *we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers*."

In my book that's different from "it's totally okay". My mother tongue isn't US English though so there might be no difference.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> It IS automatically a inferior configuration because "some new" Dolby technology came along, namely "Atmos".
> 
> The specs says:



Yeah, I know.

Atmos is new and has updated standards. That doesn't mean surrounds above ear height is automatically 100% wrong. Just in your mind and following the principles of the technology and not applying any practicality to the issue.

There is real life and an ideal life.

In real life, it helps often to have elevated surrounds. That also does not mean a completely compromised Atmos experience because they are not in 100% of the spec for some guide for consumer use.


I know it sounds arrogant but just because Dolby says something doesn't mean it should be blindly followed. Believe it or not but they don't always know whats best even of their own products.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Atmos is new and has updated standards. That doesn't mean surrounds above ear height is automatically 100% wrong. Just in your mind and following the principles of the technology and not applying any practicality to the issue.
> 
> There is real life and an ideal life.
> 
> In real life, it helps often to have elevated surrounds. That also does not mean a completely compromised Atmos experience because they are not in 100% of the spec for some guide for consumer use.
> 
> 
> I know it sounds arrogant but just because Dolby says something doesn't mean it should be blindly followed. Believe it or not but they don't always know whats best even of their own products.


Is this going to be a re-run between you and Markus of the interminable discussion about the same topic that Sanjay and I had a few pages back?


----------



## Scott Simonian

No, I'm done. Just clarifying the "other side" of this reoccurring discussion.

It will never stop with certain personalities around the boards. Cuz it's their way and only their way that is right.

Whatever. It's friday and I ain't got time for this stuff.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, I know.
> 
> Atmos is new and has updated standards. That doesn't mean surrounds above ear height is automatically 100% wrong. Just in your mind and following the principles of the technology and not applying any practicality to the issue.
> 
> There is real life and an ideal life.
> 
> In real life, it helps often to have elevated surrounds. That also does not mean a completely compromised Atmos experience because they are not in 100% of the spec for some guide for consumer use.


My life feels pretty real to me. My surrounds are at ear height. DSU is also real. I use it quite often. You should try it. You can cling to your elevated speaker location mantra as long as you want but it doesn't make newer developments and optimal setup recommendations go away. It's also not hard to follow those recommendations. You and sdurani seem to be a very vocal exception.


----------



## NorthSky

dschulz said:


> As GXMnow mentioned upthread, it's a mono VOG speaker, not used for Atmos playback.
> 
> A few years back there was an experiment with using Dolby Surround EX to matrix an extra channel for the ceiling, instead of for the usual 6.1 configuration with a Back Surround channel. The Mel Gibson film *We Were Soldiers* was to use it. If memory serves Filmmixer was involved on that project.


I am reading your post just now, after posting mine and after reading on the origin of that speaker...yesterday...from Roger Dressler back in 2013 from another thread. Scott mentioned that perhaps it was a subwoofer, but no, it's a center height channel speaker. ...And I don't know if they are experimenting with it in relation to Dolby Atmos...who knows what the future might bring...

WidescreenReview had an article back in 2003 regarding the height channel speaker...they had only one back then, and later on a cluster of four right above the MLP. And they were talking about the film _'We Were Soldiers'_ with its new remix with center height info. 
I still have all my WidesceenReview mags right from the very beginning when it was LaserDisc time (Issue number one, and up to infinity...). 
And I can locate that article no problem as I have that WR issue too:
Volume 12, Number 1, Issue 68 (January 2003) ... Page 80 - _The Height Channel_ - Holosonic Spherical Surround By Gary Reber & Norm Schnieder 

It was dubbed _"Sonic Whole Overhead Sound"_ by *We Were Soldiers* producers. 
The .1 LFE channel was used instead to reproduce height information. 

I have the mag right in front of me: _"...Dolby Laboratories, Inc. premiered an experimental overhead sound concept on the occasion of an exclusive re-release of Paramount Pictures' *We Were Soldiers* on Friday, September 20 (2002), in Tempe, Arizona."_

• _"The height channel has been used in several discrete SACD and DVD-Audio multichannel recordings since the introduction of those formats."_


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> My life feels pretty real to me. My surrounds are at ear height. DSU is also real. I use it quite often. You should try it.


I have. Have you tried mildly elevated surrounds with Atmos? Both methods are perfectly acceptable and both work/sound great.



> You can cling to your elevated speaker location mantra as long as you want but it doesn't make newer developments and optimal setup recommendations go away.


Yeah, right back at ya.



markus767 said:


> It's also not hard to follow those recommendations.


Obviously (not to you) this isn't the case.



markus767 said:


> You and sdurani seem to be a very vocal exception.


Umm, yeah. Sure. Just Sanjay and I.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> No, I'm done. Just clarifying the "other side" of this reoccurring discussion.
> 
> It will never stop with certain personalities around the boards. Cuz it's their way and only their way that is right.


I'm just pointing out what Dolby recommends. You have to admit they have some sort of authority when it comes to Atmos, no? Then there's practical limitations that might prevent having surrounds not at ear hight. But make no mistake, that's an inferior configuration. There's no reason to promote an inferior configuration over the ideal one. Now that would qualify for "Cuz it's their way and only their way that is right".


----------



## batpig

It's not "inferior" if other constraints cause ear level surrounds to produce a worse result in a multi-seat environment.

The issues of hot-spotting for listeners to the sides and even SPL coverage are not unique to a commercial cinema.

It seems valid for someone to make an informed choice that they'd rather have the surround image be slightly elevated in order to avoid a speaker blasting directly into the ear of the person on the end of their couch.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> And they were talking about the film _'We Were Soldiers'_ with its new remix with center height info.
> 
> It was dubbed _"Sonic Whole Overhead Sound"_ by *We Were Soldiers* producers.
> The .1 LFE channel was used instead to reproduce height information.


We original mixed the show in EX... 

We used the "unused" surround channel in the matrixed LS RS... Just like decoding and Lt Rt into LCRS... Except the L was LS, C was CS, R was RS and S went to the overhead. 

The LFE in DD is not a full range encode (i.e. it is data bandwidth limited.)


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> No, I'm done. Just clarifying the "other side" of this reoccurring discussion.


Phew. Thank the lord for that then  I got bored with it even when it was me doing it 



Scott Simonian said:


> It will never stop with certain personalities around the boards. Cuz it's their way and only their way that is right.


I don't think that is quite right. All that Markus is saying is what the Dolby specs are. Anyone is free to ignore the specs, but that doesn’t mean they are not the specs.



Scott Simonian said:


> Whatever. It's friday and I ain't got time for this stuff.


Now you're talking! So tell me, what's up for tonight? You on the razz with buddies? Staying home and playing with your toys? Going out for Pizza? Disciplining an errant maid? What's it to be Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## AllenA07

Curious if any of you have had issues with specific source material when running the DSU. We were watching The Man in the High Castle and noticed what sounded like static from the height channels. It's only with that source so I'm not worried about an equipment problem, just wondering if anybody else has had source specific issues with the DSU?


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> We original mixed the show in EX...
> 
> We used the "unused" surround channel in the matrixed LS RS... Just like decoding and Lt Rt into LCRS... Except the L was LS, C was CS, R was RS and S went to the overhead.
> 
> The LFE in DD is not a full range encode (i.e. it is data bandwidth limited.)


Hey thanks for posting about this! I am quite familiar of this example but .... I think that you, I and everybody else would agree that it is better you for to have said it than I.   Like... seriously. But if you'd like and feeling bored. I can tell YOU how you did it. How bout it, Marc? Up for some punishment this Friday? 

Btw, this mix holds up very well by modern standards. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Phew. Thank the lord for that then  I got bored with it even when it was me doing it


Yeah, me too. 




kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think that is quite right. All that Markus is saying is what the Dolby specs are. Anyone is free to ignore the specs, but that doesn’t mean they are not the specs.


Umm, yeah. I get it and I understand the specs of Dolby Atmos cinema and consumer FULLY. But it's fun to be "schooled" by other people about it all the time. 




kbarnes701 said:


> Now you're talking! So tell me, what's up for tonight? You on the razz with buddies? Staying home and playing with your toys? Going out for Pizza? Disciplining an errant maid? What's it to be Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.


Pizza was last night. No plans tonight but something else starting with a P sounds good. Yeah. I'll play with something, alright.


----------



## Waboman

kbarnes701 said:


> Phew. Thank the lord for that then  I got bored with it even when it was me doing it
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is quite right. All that Markus is saying is what the Dolby specs are. Anyone is free to ignore the specs, but that doesn’t mean they are not the specs.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're talking! So tell me, what's up for tonight? You on the razz with buddies? Staying home and playing with your toys? Going out for Pizza? Disciplining an errant maid? What's it to be Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.


Seems someone leaked Simonian's itinerary to TMZ. Disciplining an errant maid was Wednesday nights festivity.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Pizza was last night. No plans tonight but something else starting with a P sounds good. Yeah. I'll play with something, alright.


*P*oker? *P*ie? *P*rometheus? * P*assion?* P*ro-amps? *P*olyphiloprogenysis?


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> Curious if any of you have had issues with specific source material when running the DSU. We were watching The Man in the High Castle and noticed what sounded like static from the height channels. It's only with that source so I'm not worried about an equipment problem, just wondering if anybody else has had source specific issues with the DSU?


Is it repeatable at the same time code every time?


----------



## NorthSky

In a smaller room, the side surrounds (@ 90°) would be too close to the listeners sitting @ extremity of a couch; just position them @ 110° behind, and a foot above ear level.

In a larger room, the seats by the side walls are right against them; so elevate those side and rear surrounds...by couple feet or so, above the MLP.
...Roughly in line with the front speakers.

♦ Goal: to form an horizontal ring on the same plane with the three front main speakers. ...Use common sense.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> It's not "inferior" if other constraints cause ear level surrounds to produce a worse result in a multi-seat environment.


Same difference. If you can't have them at ear level results will be inferior. Doesn't matter what the reason for the compromise is, it's still a compromise.



batpig said:


> The issues of hot-spotting for listeners to the sides and even SPL coverage are not unique to a commercial cinema.
> 
> I hear that argument all the time but nobody actually showed any SPL numbers so we could actually
> 
> It seems valid for someone to make an informed choice that they'd rather have the surround image be slightly elevated in order to avoid a speaker blasting directly into the ear of the person on the end of their couch.


I hear that argument all the time but nobody actually showed any SPL numbers. Furthermore a car from the left is a car from the left. If you're sitting closer than me to that car then of course it should be louder. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> *P*oker? *P*ie? *P*rometheus? * P*assion?* P*ro-amps? *P*olyphiloprogenysis?


You got me.

It's *Pizza*, again.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> You got me.
> 
> It's *Pizza*, again.


Damn! I should've realised, knowing you  Enjoy!


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> It's not "inferior" if other constraints cause ear level surrounds to produce a worse result in a multi-seat environment.
> 
> The issues of hot-spotting for listeners to the sides and even SPL coverage are not unique to a commercial cinema.
> 
> It seems valid for someone to make an informed choice that they'd rather have the surround image be slightly elevated in order to avoid a speaker blasting directly into the ear of the person on the end of their couch.


Incorrect. All speaker recommendations from Dolby Labs are sacrosanct, above the law and punishable by clearly inferior sound, regardless of the situation. Much like Hoyle's Official Rules of Cards, Emily Post's Book of Etiquette and The King's English - - no deviations allowed. 

Reclining (Reclining Position) is also forbidden. I propose a "self-tax" to be paid by every transgressor that will go into a "party fund" for AVS Members on this thread so one day we can all meet and associate mugs with posts.


----------



## NorthSky

*Quote from Widescreen Review (January 2003 issue) | Precision*

*The Height Channel*
_Holosonic Spherical Surround

// " The height channel has been used in several discrete SACD and DVD-Audio multichannel music recordings since the introduction of those formats (around 2000). In such cases, the sixth full-frequency channel, normally used for low frequency effects (.1 LFE) is instead used to reproduce height information."_ \\

• I should have mentioned that precision prior; that with those two formats the LFE channel is full range.

// *"In the case of the "height" signal (for the film 'We Were Soldiers'), the in-phase signal is derived from the center front and center back (in Dolby Digital Surround EX) channel vectors, and reproduced overhead by a dedicated loudspeaker." * \\

• In that particular film, back in 2002, that's how the height channel info was derived. 

____________

I remember very well Gary's reference room @ Widescreen headquarters using a single center overhead channel speaker @ the beginning. 
Later on he had four of them separated by only two feet from each other...in a square pattern. 
And we was using the SMART Devices CS-3X professional decoder, or CS-3X Jr, with center back channel decoding and also with center overhead channel decoding.
Gary Reber started advocating for overhead sound years prior to that, in the 1990s. 

So, *We Were Soldiers* was the first movie to include a "height" channel, back in 2002. 

♦ It's a good article, and Widescreen Review had/has excellent articles dating back from 1992 and up to today, 2016. 
Some of the writers were/are top notch audio/video experts. I learned some of the best from those best articles written by some of the best reviewer experts. ...That's twenty-four years existence of higher learning on all things picture and sound quality. 

Before that I was subscribing to other audio reviews from the sixties and seventies and nineties. 
In 1969 I built my first center back surround channel speaker. ...Only one, mono. ...And the sound was derived from the front mono center channel, crossover-less. It was spooky when later I watched a live broadcast of Pink Floyd Live @ Pompeii. ...In black and white; CRT tube TV with a rounded screen (bubble), 25" diag. 

DD & dts supported 10.2 channels on HD DVD and Blu-ray way back when our planet was ruled by the dinos... ;-)
[This is humor, underlined, just in case]

Today our home receivers and pre/pros (medium end), support up to the same, twelve channels (7.1.4 configuration). 
...Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D (adding VOG).


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> Is it repeatable at the same time code every time?


I've never gone back to check. I didn't think to pay attention to the time.


----------



## smurraybhm

AllenA07 said:


> Curious if any of you have had issues with specific source material when running the DSU. We were watching The Man in the High Castle and noticed what sounded like static from the height channels. It's only with that source so I'm not worried about an equipment problem, just wondering if anybody else has had source specific issues with the DSU?


No problem here - equipment is below.


----------



## DaGamePimp

If we all had perfect rooms/layouts this would be a really boring thread.

However, this horse is dead, buried and decomposed. 

While we need to aim for Atmos specification we also need to use what makes sense since most will have compromised rooms in some form.

This stuff is supposed to be fun, no..?

- Jason


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm still having fun (are you?) but this thread got boring a long time ago.


----------



## Waboman

Bust out some P and let's liven it up.


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> I've never gone back to check. I didn't think to pay attention to the time.


The reason I ask is because some people have reported static pops happening randomly. If yours is always at the same time code it is likely to be the disc itself which is generating them. This was with the miniDSP DDRC-88A though which, AFAIK, you are not using so chances are it's just the disc. But the time code will help determine it.


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> The reason I ask is because some people have reported static pops happening randomly. If yours is always at the same time code it is likely to be the disc itself which is generating them. This was with the miniDSP DDRC-88A though which, AFAIK, you are not using so chances are it's just the disc. But the time code will help determine it.


This is actually when streaming on Amazon. I may go back and see if always at the same time. This is the only thing I've had the issue with.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm still having fun (are you?) but this thread got boring a long time ago.


 
Loads of fun with my new compromised Atmos system. 

I truly enjoy AVS and the inherent OCD that follows but it often seem like many spend more time obsessing than they do enjoying. 

Maybe we should do group Atmos movie night where we vote and watch the same flick on our non-cinema Atmos systems.

First person to mention helicopters has to sit out the next group movie night. 

- Jason


----------



## NorthSky

SeanCJ said:


> My room is 24' x 24'. Ceilings are 12' high. MLP is direct center of the room, about 12' to 13' from all speakers. Front LCR are behind a 136" DIY AT screen and are sitting 46" high.
> Initially set up for 7.1 surround sound with the side and back surrounds on wall at 8' high. I've recently added two Speakercraft AIM LCR 3 speakers in the ceiling for front height as per Atmos specs giving me 7.1.2.
> Running a Yamaha 2040 receiver and a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amplifier powering LCR and side surrounds. The 2040 is powering the ceiling and back surrounds. I have an Epik Knight subwoofer placed directly under the center speaker behind the AT screen. I'm using 4 Axiom QS8's as surrounds. For regular 7.1 this system has sounded great.
> However, with the Atmos demo content, the sound field at times seems to be too high and too far away, like I'm sitting under it rather than "in" it.
> I'm currently looking to replace the Axioms with direct radiating speakers as recommended, however, I can't lower their physical location due to windows in the back and 'decor' on the sides.
> There is a set of 4 used Theil power point speakers being offered locally that I'm considering. I could mount them in the same location as the QS8's (8' up), but the design of the Theils has the speaker angled 45 degrees down, which would face them pretty close to directly at MLP. They are also direct radiating.
> Reading the past few replies on the surround placement 'compromises' and looking at the photos of the Atmos recording studios and theaters, I'm thinking that the Theils angled down may be a good option.
> Thoughts?
> Thanks for the help!
> Sean


Hi Sean, 

I was waiting for someone to reply to you, but no one has come forward yet. I'll share what I know:

• Your room's dimensions aren't the ideal; they are actually the worst: 24 by 24 by 12. ...Width and length are the same (bad) and the height is exactly half of the others (bad too). ...Sorry, but it is a reality. ...Room treatments would help; absorbing panels, bass traps, ...
• The MLP dead center of your room is also the worst position; would be much better @ 2/3 (or 1/3, or multiples of 1/5th).
I would use multiples of 1/5 because 1/3 is 8 feet and eight feet is a multiple of 24 (not a good idea). Ten feet or 15, would be better from your screen. Seventh (1/7) is also a good measure...like 3/7 or 4/7 of your room's length. 
• Your Side and Back surrounds are 8 feet high...what is the height of the MLP (main set of listener ears)? Dolby Atmos recommends @ or near ear level (up to 1.25 times the height of your main front speakers). And 8' is again a multiple of 24, not a good idea. Five feet would be better, or 4.5'.
• Your room is large enough for *4* Dolby Atmos overhead speakers; check the very first post of this thread with very useful links on speaker's positioning and much more.
• I don't remember out of the bat if the Yamaha 2040 can support a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 setup.
• Your subwoofer position, under the center channel speaker, might not be the ideal position...and a second subwoofer would be a great benefit for your particular room's dimensions. 
• Dolby Atmos recommends ceiling speakers that have a wide dispersion, and preferably timbre matched with your floor speakers.
Also, full range audio signals can go to them, so good lower response in the 60-80Hz region is a good attribute.

♦ A drawing of your room to see where your side and back surrounds could be positioned for best would help. ...Windows and all. 
♦ Again, try to have a similar tone (timbre) between your three main fronts, your four floor surrounds and your two-four ceiling surrounds.


----------



## howard68

So, *We Were Soldiers* was the first movie to include a "height" channel, back in 2002. 

I read an article from the sound mixer who stated that We Were Soldiers was was not released on dvd or blu ray with the top sound track encoded 
Hope Dolby or Dts x will re release it now


----------



## SeanCJ

Thank you for the detailed reply. 


NorthSky said:


> Hi Sean,
> 
> I was waiting for someone to reply to you, but no one has come forward yet. I'll share what I know:
> Thank you very much for your reply and advice. I've responded below. I just got an email that the Theil's I was looking at might have been sold out from under me. I just listened to the Martin Logan motion 4's at BestBuy and they sound really good. I think they would be great as side and rear surrounds. Heck, I demo'd them as stereo fronts at Best Buy and they had a great and huge soundstage for such a small speaker. I think they will handle surround duties well.
> 
> • Your room's dimensions aren't the ideal; they are actually the worst: 24 by 24 by 12. ...Width and length are the same (bad) and the height is exactly half of the others (bad too). ...Sorry, but it is a reality. ...Room treatments would help; absorbing panels, bass traps, ...
> Yes, I've read that a square room is not ideal, but it is what it is. I'll do some more research on room treatments and see what can be done.
> • The MLP dead center of your room is also the worst position; would be much better @ 2/3 (or 1/3, or multiples of 1/5th).
> I would use multiples of 1/5 because 1/3 is 8 feet and eight feet is a mutiple of 24 (not a good idea). Ten feet or 15, would be better from your screen.
> I'm stuck where I am in terms of seating location. Any closer and I'm too close to the screen. Can't go back as I encroach on the pool table.
> • Your Side and Back surrounds are 8 feet high...what is the height of the MLP (main set of listener ears)? Dolby Atmos recommends @ or near ear level (up to 1.25 times the height of your main front speakers). And 8' is again a multiple of 24, not a good idea. Five feet would be better, or 4.5'.
> My ears are at 42" when seated. I can lower my side surrounds to ear level or slightly above if I move some movie posters. I can't move the rear surrounds due to windows beneath them.
> • Your room is large enough for *4* Dolby Atmos overhead speakers; check the very first post of this thread with very useful links on speaker's positioning and much more.
> • I don't remember out of the bat if the Yamaha 2040 can support a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 setup.
> I'm aware of the Dolby specs on Atmos locations. I'd love to install two rear height speakers above me, but the 2040 can only handle 7.1.2, unless I can figure out how to reassign speakers since I'm running the Sunfire amp.
> • Your subwoofer position, under the center channel speaker, might not be the ideal position...and a second subwoofer would be a great benefit for your particular room's dimensions.
> I did the sub crawl and below the center speaker behind the AT screen was a pretty good spot. I'm currently looking for a second sub to pair with the 'Knight'.
> • Dolby Atmos recommends ceiling speakers that have a wide dispersion, and preferably timbre matched with your floor speakers.
> Also, full range audio signals can go to them, so good lower response in the 60-80Hz region is a good attribute.
> I believe the two speaker craft AIM LCR 5's are pretty good. I can direct them to the MLP. I have them set to small so LFE is sent to the sub.
> 
> ♦ A drawing of your room to see where your side and back surrounds could be positioned for best would help. ...Windows and all.
> I'll attache a room layout asap. I think all the speakers are in the right location in terms of axis to MLP. I'm working on surround heights.
> ♦ Again, try to have a similar tone (timbre) between your three main fronts, your four floor surrounds and your two-four ceiling surrounds.
> After my demo at Best Buy tonight, I'm strongly considering selling off all my speakers (Klipsch Ultra IIs up front, Axiom Qs8's surrounds, Epik Knight sub) and going a full Martin Logan set up (with the exception of the ceiling speaker crafts, can't swap them out now.)


----------



## Scott Simonian

howard68 said:


> So, *We Were Soldiers* was the first movie to include a "height" channel, back in 2002.
> 
> I read an article from the sound mixer who stated that We Were Soldiers was was not released on dvd or blu ray with the top sound track encoded
> Hope Dolby or Dts x will re release it now


Yeah. That would be Marc @FilmMixer 

He worked on the re-release version which has the support for height effects. The mix on DVD and Blu Ray is not the same mix. Though that didn't stop WSR.


----------



## howard68

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. That would be Marc @FilmMixer
> 
> He worked on the re-release version which has the support for height effects. The mix on DVD and Blu Ray is not the same mix. Though that didn't stop WSR.


Hi 
That is cool 
So now I have speakers in ceiling and a old prologic amp 
How do I know what disc I need to get 
The blu ray is not encoded?


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's not about being "encoded" or not. It's a completely different mix. Marc worked on it and says it is not available on home video. The mix was done for a special showing for veterans in...Utah? Nevada? I forget.


----------



## FilmMixer

Scott Simonian said:


> It's not about being "encoded" or not. It's a completely different mix. Marc worked on it and says it is not available on home video. The mix was done for a special showing for veterans in...Utah? Nevada? I forget.





howard68 said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. That would be Marc @FilmMixer
> 
> He worked on the re-release version which has the support for height effects. The mix on DVD and Blu Ray is not the same mix. Though that didn't stop WSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> That is cool
> So now I have speakers in ceiling and a old prologic amp
> How do I know what disc I need to get
> The blu ray is not encoded?
Click to expand...

No. It's not. 

We did a one off print for the screenings in Phoenix. 

The theatrical release Printmaster is what is on all releases.


----------



## NorthSky

howard68 said:


> So, *We Were Soldiers* was the first movie to include a "height" channel, back in 2002.
> 
> I read an article from the sound mixer who stated that We Were Soldiers was was not released on dvd or blu ray with the top sound track encoded
> Hope Dolby or Dts x will re release it now


 
I have the DVD, the HD DVD and the Blu-ray versions.

- DVD: I believe it is in Dolby Digital 5.1 EX
- HD DVD & Blu-ray: Dolby Digital+ 5.1 EX and DTS-ES 6.1


Use Dolby Surround (DSU) with the Blu; it should work well.


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> I have the DVD, the HD DVD and the Blu-ray versions.
> 
> - DVD: I believe it is in Dolby Digital 5.1 EX
> - HD DVD & Blu-ray: Dolby Digital+ 5.1 EX and DTS-ES 6.1
> 
> 
> Use Dolby Surround (DSU) with the Blu; it should work well.


There is no overhead material encoded in any of those...

DSU might work great... but it won't be the result of any special encoding in the track... they're the same as every other film in that respect..

All three tracks that you mention are identical.. the only difference would be the metadata flag being set to EX/ES=True/Yes/On...


----------



## howard68

FilmMixer said:


> There is no overhead material encoded in any of those...
> 
> DSU might work great... but it won't be the result of any special encoding in the track... they're the same as every other film in that respect..
> 
> All three tracks that you mention are identical.. the only difference would be the metadata flag being set to EX/ES=True/Yes/On...


Thanks FilmMixer
It is what I had read that it was not on the mix used for any dvd release 
Can you tell us anything about the mix ? 
Regards Howard


----------



## Kazz063

I'm new to the whole Atmos thing and have just upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4200. I currently run a 7.2 system and want to add 2 ceiling speakers, I would think that top middle would be best, but am unsure on what would be the best position in relation to my surrounds which are just slightly forward of the MLP.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> Then there's practical limitations that might prevent having surrounds not at ear hight. But make no mistake, that's an inferior configuration.


Why would Dolby's 'It is hard to make Atmos not work' tolerance not be applicable to the elevation of the side surrounds? While you can put your overheads about everywhere and still be within specs, elevating your side surrounds will immediately throw you into the sub-optimal zone? I have a hard time buying that, as IMO Dolby is doing a bad job in selling it. 

Let me put it in another way: 

In not disclosing the intended (as programmed into the rendering blocks) overhead positions, Dolby implies that the 'ideal' overhead speaker placement is irrelevant for a true Atmos experience. So forget about ideal or inferior. According to Dolby there is just optimal ranges that make Atmos work. Why would an optimal range for surrounds elevation conflict with such a view?


----------



## DaGamePimp

- Jason


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> Why would Dolby's 'It is hard to make Atmos not work' tolerance not be applicable to the elevation of the side surrounds? While you can put your overheads about everywhere and still be within specs, elevating your side surrounds will immediately throw you into the sub-optimal zone? I have a hard time buying that, as IMO Dolby is doing a bad job in selling it.
> 
> Let me put it in another way:
> 
> In not disclosing the intended (as programmed into the rendering blocks) overhead positions, Dolby implies that the 'ideal' overhead speaker placement is irrelevant for a true Atmos experience. So forget about ideal or inferior. According to Dolby there is just optimal ranges that make Atmos work. Why would an optimal range for surrounds elevation conflict with such a view?


1. I was referring to side surrounds, not top surrounds.
2. If you want to create a sound on a hemisphere you have to have speakers at specific locations. If you don't you'll get spatial distortion.
3. Spatial distortion is acceptable in a system that a) needs to work over a wide variety of rooms and configurations and b) doesn't need to accurately reproduce locations because there's no need for it (no screen showing an object at 86.84123456° with 47.23541867° elevation)
4. You will never see Dolby trying to force people and businesses to adhere to ideal configurations and practices when they know it would negatively impact the success of their technology. They are too clever for that.
5. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean it can't be made to work even better. Recommending the former over the latter isn't good advise.


----------



## Nightlord

dschulz said:


> As GXMnow mentioned upthread, it's a mono VOG speaker, not used for Atmos playback.
> 
> A few years back there was an experiment with using Dolby Surround EX to matrix an extra channel for the ceiling, instead of for the usual 6.1 configuration with a Back Surround channel. The Mel Gibson film *We Were Soldiers* was to use it. If memory serves Filmmixer was involved on that project.


Believe the info that came along with my Circle Surround decoders talks a bit about that... Pity that it never took off.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Kazz063 said:


> I'm new to the whole Atmos thing and have just upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4200. I currently run a 7.2 system and want to add 2 ceiling speakers, I would think that top middle would be best, but am unsure on what would be the best position in relation to my surrounds which are just slightly forward of the MLP.


Same as your Side Surrounds in your situation. TM slightly ahead of MLP is what the Guidelines say.


----------



## audioguy

maikeldepotter said:


> Why would Dolby's 'It is hard to make Atmos not work' tolerance not be applicable to the elevation of the side surrounds? While you can put your overheads about everywhere and still be within specs, elevating your side surrounds will immediately throw you into the sub-optimal zone? I have a hard time buying that, as IMO Dolby is doing a bad job in selling it.
> 
> Let me put it in another way:
> 
> In not disclosing the intended (as programmed into the rendering blocks) overhead positions, Dolby implies that the 'ideal' overhead speaker placement is irrelevant for a true Atmos experience. So forget about ideal or inferior. According to Dolby there is just optimal ranges that make Atmos work. Why would an optimal range for surrounds elevation conflict with such a view?


Based upon my particular experience, the issue is NOT about how high the surrounds are but where they sit relative to the height/ceiling speakers. I have 8 foot ceilings. My surrounds were originally at 6 feet and when I moved them to just about 4 feet, the "bubble" greatly improved.

I have a friend whose ceiling is 11 feet. His surrounds are still at 6 feet (or so) and the bubble in his room is every bit as good as mine, and maybe better. And that is why a commercial theater can have surrounds so far above ear level because the ceilings are a million miles (or so) high. 

My conclusion: It is not about the absolute value of the height of the surround speakers but the angular separation between them and the ceiling speakers.

YMMV!!!!!!!


----------



## dvdwilly3

I have 2 rows of seats in my home theater. The first row is on the floor and the second row is on an 8" riser.

So while my fronts and center are on the same plane as the front row, they are below the second row. The tweeters fire at ear level for the front row, but, obviously, not the back.

Would I be well served by putting my front towers on something like Primacoustic RX9s? Not necessarily for the acostic treatment, but to get them closer to ear level for the back row (around 4" thick...).

Anyone with multi-rows tried anything like it? That is, raising the fronts?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Why would an optimal range for surrounds elevation conflict with such a view?


Optimal is one of those words like accurate, to the extent that it needs context. If someone tells me their speaker layout is accurate, I wonder what it is accurate to (what's being used as a reference). Same with optimal elevation for surrounds. What is it optimal for? Maximizing separation with the height layer or recreating what the mixer heard (and mixed for)? Two different goals. The disagreement isn't really about surround elevation as it is about whether both goals are valid.


----------



## batpig

Kazz063 said:


> I'm new to the whole Atmos thing and have just upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4200. I currently run a 7.2 system and want to add 2 ceiling speakers, I would think that top middle would be best, but am unsure on what would be the best position in relation to my surrounds which are just slightly forward of the MLP.


Place them above and a bit in front of the couch. 

How high is your ceiling? In my experience with a lower ceiling having the TM speakers nearly directly overhead is a bit too intense, so I would push them slightly forward so they aren't beating right down on your head. This also helps close the gap above and in front with your main speakers.


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> Optimal is one of those words like accurate, to the extent that it needs context. If someone tells me their speaker layout is accurate, I wonder what it is accurate to (what's being used as a reference). Same with optimal elevation for surrounds. What is it optimal for? Maximizing separation with the height layer or recreating what the mixer heard (and mixed for)? Two different goals. The disagreement isn't really about surround elevation as it is about whether both goals are valid.


Straw man. Your goal is neither. Recreating the listening conditions during mixing would require a largish and acoustically treated room with an array of surround speakers OR a near field set up with surrounds at ear height mimicking the near field re-mix configuration in dubbing stages. Single discrete elevated surrounds in a living room is neither.

What's so hard about following or at least acknowledging Dolby's recommendations linked in post 1 of this thread? To move forward with immersive sound formats surround speakers need to move down.


----------



## Nightlord

sdurani said:


> Optimal is one of those words like accurate, to the extent that it needs context. If someone tells me their speaker layout is accurate, I wonder what it is accurate to (what's being used as a reference).


The recording played. Not the original event, but what is left after all processing it's gone through. The cd, dvd or bluray ...or whatever media format you are using. You can't go further backwards, as it will never arrive from live recording to that format in the same mannor twice.


----------



## carp

The constant debate makes no sense to me when we can all try it out for ourselves and see what works best in our own rooms. 

I don't have Atmos yet, just a 7.1 setup. My side surrounds and rear surrounds used to be up close to my near 8 foot ceiling. A couple months ago I did a lot of experimenting with placement of all 4 surround speakers. 

I experimented with the placement (using bar stools and books stacked on them and the speakers on top of that as well as ladders and tried many different heights and degree of angle related to the main LP seat) to see if I would like it before making the change since it's a pain to move speaker placement. 

I found the lower I got them the better, as long as the seat backs weren't blocking them. 

This is just for me, in my room. 

So my advice is TRY IT THE F OUT IN YOUR OWN ROOM PEOPLE! Who cares what other people on the interwebs are saying as far as the right and wrong way to do it. You may prefer the higher placement with less hot spotting on the outside row seats, you may prefer the lower placement for the sweet spot seat, etc. but it will make the decision obvious either way after trying it out.

Eventually I'll move to an Atmos setup when all the dust clears and AVR prices start coming down for 7.1.4.


----------



## healthnut

carp said:


> The constant debate makes no sense to me when we can all try it out for ourselves and see what works best in our own rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have Atmos yet, just a 7.1 setup. My side surrounds and rear surrounds used to be up close to my near 8 foot ceiling. A couple months ago I did a lot of experimenting with placement of all 4 surround speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> I experimented with the placement (using bar stools and books stacked on them and the speakers on top of that as well as ladders and tried many different heights and degree of angle related to the main LP seat) to see if I would like it before making the change since it's a pain to move speaker placement.
> 
> 
> 
> I found the lower I got them the better, as long as the seat backs weren't blocking them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just for me, in my room.
> 
> 
> 
> So my advice is TRY IT THE F OUT IN YOUR OWN ROOM PEOPLE! Who cares what other people on the interwebs are saying as far as the right and wrong way to do it. You may prefer the higher placement with less hot spotting on the outside row seats, you may prefer the lower placement for the sweet spot seat, etc. but it will make the decision obvious either way after trying it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually I'll move to an Atmos setup when all the dust clears and AVR prices start coming down for 7.1.4.



Agree completely! The Dolby guidelines are merely a starting point, everyone is free to set their speakers up however they please. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

So I bit the bullet and bought the Sept 2015 CEDIA Atmos disc....I hated the idea of spending $80 for it and held out for as long as I could. But at the end of the day, I have a couple more dollars spent in my HT...So should I really be squabbling about overpaying $80 on a disc????? 

The best demos are definitely the audio only tracks....They are phenomenal....One of the best rainstorms ever. 747 is cool cus I use to have a wall in the back of my room and evidently someone came and took it down!! Audio sphere is great to show where the objects are placed; but alas, it showcases that I've broken Dolby recommendations and placed my surrounds in front wide position.... Test tones are good and demonstrates that my TF and TR image perfectly in the TM position.

But as @Archaea had brought to attention....The SWBF demo is INSANE!!!! Man it's fun. Watched it 3 times in a row!


----------



## smurraybhm

healthnut said:


> Agree completely! The Dolby guidelines are merely a starting point, everyone is free to set their speakers up however they please.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As are we to discuss what is optimal. As someone who got in the game very early, moved speakers around and tested different speaker positions for up top/below, I have found all of this discussion helpful and thought provoking. I plan on using some Atmos test tones/demos to do some testing as soon as the schedule permits. Wondering if there isn't room for improvement. Helpful discussion regarding top locations over on the immersive thread - compliments of Scott and Batpig.

If you don't like what your reading - just skip it 

Everest is on tap later this afternoon. For those of you up the east coast I hope you are safe, have power and are using the snow storm/inside time to enjoy music/movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> The constant debate makes no sense to me when we can all try it out for ourselves and see what works best in our own rooms.





healthnut said:


> Agree completely! The Dolby guidelines are merely a starting point, everyone is free to set their speakers up however they please.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed. But one cannot deny or ignore that Dolby's advice for placement of surround speakers in an Atmos setup is at ear level, wherever possible and no more than 1.25 times ear height in any circumstances. All that people like Markus (and me) are saying is that it is good advice to adhere to the Dolby spec wherever possible and bad advice to suggest it doesn’t matter or that some other placement is just as good. If it is impossible to position the speakers within spec, then of course, by all means do your best, but at the same time let's not pretend that it would be an optimal result as one could achieve by following Dolby's spec.


----------



## carp

smurraybhm said:


> As are we to discuss what is optimal. As someone who got in the game very early, moved speakers around and tested different speaker positions for up top/below, I have found all of this discussion helpful and thought provoking. I plan on using some Atmos test tones/demos to do some testing as soon as the schedule permits. Wondering if there isn't room for improvement. Helpful discussion regarding top locations over on the immersive thread - compliments of Scott and Batpig.
> 
> If you don't like what your reading - just skip it
> 
> Everest is on tap later this afternoon. For those of you up the east coast I hope you are safe, have power and are using the snow storm/inside time to enjoy music/movies.





kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. But one cannot deny or ignore that Dolby's advice for placement of surround speakers in an Atmos setup is at ear level, wherever possible and no more than 1.25 times ear height in any circumstances. All that people like Markus (and me) are saying is that it is good advice to adhere to the Dolby spec wherever possible and bad advice to suggest it doesn’t matter or that some other placement is just as good. If it is impossible to position the speakers within spec, then of course, by all means do your best, but at the same time let's not pretend that it would be an optimal result as one could achieve by following Dolby's spec.





I know guys, I know. I agree it's important to know the guidelines and I don't mind sifting through pages of the same argument over and over again it's not that big of a deal. 

My point was what really matters is to try out those guidelines and anything/everything else in your own room because that's the only way you will know for sure. 

Talk is cheap in other words.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> 1. I was referring to side surrounds, not top surrounds.


Yes, I know. I threw the top surrounds into the discussion, to draw attention to Dolby's seemingly double standard with regard to elevation tolerances.



> 2. If you want to create a sound on a hemisphere you have to have speakers at specific locations. If you don't you'll get spatial distortion.


Agreed. But what I fail to understand is why elevation specificity is important for side surrounds, but apparently not for the top surrounds. Following Dolby's specs those can end up at all kinds of elevations.



> 3. Spatial distortion is acceptable in a system that a) needs to work over a wide variety of rooms and configurations and b) doesn't need to accurately reproduce locations because there's no need for it (no screen showing an object at 86.84123456° with 47.23541867° elevation). .


Agreed. Without direct reference to on-screen action, accurate placement is less important.



> 4. You will never see Dolby trying to force people and businesses to adhere to ideal configurations and practices when they know it would negatively impact the success of their technology. They are too clever for that.


I understand that. Defining optimal ranges is a prerequisite for successful introduction. But providing us with some additional hints for approaching an ideal configuration is not the same as forcing people to adhere to such configuration, is it?



> 5. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean it can't be made to work even better. Recommending the former over the latter isn't good advise.


Agreed. So then why does Dolby only specify optimal ranges for top surrounds without disclosing their ideal positions? They allow us to get Atmos working, but leave us guessing on how to make things work better....

Except for LCR and side surround speakers obviously. They should be at ear-level, period. No optimal range for that, only ideal. Isn't that an example of what you mean by 'forcing to adhere'?


----------



## NODES

What is this "The SWBF demo is INSANE" ?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Star Wars: Battlefront

It's a gameplay trailer of a videogame.


----------



## dormie1360

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. But one cannot deny or ignore that Dolby's advice for placement of surround speakers in an Atmos setup is at ear level, wherever possible and no more than 1.25 times ear height in any circumstances. All that people like Markus (and me) are saying is that it is good advice to adhere to the Dolby spec wherever possible and bad advice to suggest it doesn’t matter or that some other placement is just as good. If it is impossible to position the speakers within spec, then of course, by all means do your best, but at the same time let's not pretend that it would be an optimal result as one could achieve by following Dolby's spec.



I'm probably going to regret this.

Maybe we need to define "optimal". Not everyone is forced into a specific surround speaker position. For those that have the opinion that *only one position is "optimal" * I'm curious as to the amount of exposure they actually have to different Atmos home theaters. I have no doubt Dolby has specific recommendations for a reason, but if some are basing their opinion solely on Dolby's recommendation, how do you square that with companies that are designing, building, and calibrating atmos theaters and are using different "optimal" positions, not because they are forced to, but because past results has shown it provides the best immersive sound for that particular room. Unless I misunderstand Markus and yourself, it does sound like you continue to suggest anything other than ear level is not "optimal".


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> I'm probably going to regret this.
> 
> Maybe we need to define "optimal". Not everyone is forced into a specific surround speaker position. For those that have the opinion that *only one position is "optimal" * I'm curious as to the amount of exposure they actually have to different Atmos home theaters. I have no doubt Dolby has specific recommendations for a reason, but if some are basing their opinion solely on Dolby's recommendation, how do you square that with companies that are designing, building, and calibrating atmos theaters and are using different "optimal" positions, not because they are forced to, but because past results has shown it provides the best immersive sound for that particular room. Unless I misunderstand Markus and yourself, it does sound like you continue to suggest anything other than ear level is not "optimal".


All that I am saying is that Dolby recommend a defined location for the surrounds. That location is at ear level, or where this is not practical, 1.25 times max above ear level. If others believe they know better than Dolby about speaker locations for Atmos, that is for them to defend. To deliberately go against manufacturers' specific instructions as to the best way to use their product is bizarre IMO.


----------



## DaGamePimp

NODES said:


> What is this "The SWBF demo is INSANE" ?





Scott Simonian said:


> Star Wars: Battlefront
> 
> It's a gameplay trailer of a videogame.




Just listening to it is nothing compared to playing it (at reference)... INTENSE. 


- Jason


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> All that I am saying is that Dolby recommend a defined location for the surrounds. That location is at ear level, or where this is not practical, 1.25 times max above ear level.


Unfortunately, Dolby's specs only allow the *rear* surrounds to be at max 1.25 times above ear level....


----------



## dormie1360

kbarnes701 said:


> All that I am saying is that Dolby recommend a defined location for the surrounds. That location is at ear level, or where this is not practical, 1.25 times max above ear level. If others believe they know better than Dolby about speaker locations for Atmos, that is for them to defend. To deliberately go against manufacturers' specific instructions as to the best way to use their product is bizarre IMO.


Ok, I understand.

Apologies for hitting the horse again.


----------



## RxpSGR

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Unfortunately, Dolby's specs only allow the *rear* surrounds to be at max 1.25 times above ear level....


Very true:

*"Many installations currently have systems with a subwoofer and either five or seven
speakers positioned at about ear level. This document refers to these speakers as
being at the listener level. Any speaker type that is capable of accurately
representing a stereo pan is suitable to reproduce objects.
As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these
recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
• The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference
point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the
listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be
used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
• All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2
meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in
ITU-R BS.1116-1).
If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the
front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical, or impossible, the rear
speakers may be higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the
height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers."*


----------



## lego1

http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/

Just an FYI, if someone is looking for the Dolby Atmos demo disc, I emailed the German magazine in the link above to buy the January edition of the magazine which includes the new demo disc. I bought the magazine for 8 euro with shipping included to the US. I'll update you guys when it arrives. Cheaper than buying one on eBay.


----------



## Scarriere

lego1 said:


> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/
> 
> Just an FYI, if someone is looking for the Dolby Atmos demo disc, I emailed the German magazine in the link above to buy the January edition of the magazine which includes the new demo disc. I bought the magazine for 8 euro with shipping included to the US. I'll update you guys when it arrives. Cheaper than buying one on eBay.


Which magazine is it? 01/2016 or 01/2016?
Thank you!


----------



## AllenA07

Not sure how this topic keeps going. Dolby recommendations are the correct way of doing things and is what we should shoot for. Like most other people I've had to make compromises in my theater. It still sounds great, but I'm not going to pretend that I understand speaker placement better then Dolby. I'm sure my compromises have an effect on the sound, the extent of the effect is the debatable part. I do what I can to stick as close as possible to what Dolby recommends, but sometimes you have to do something else.


----------



## lego1

I emailed them asking which edition and they told me 01/2016. I had to call them to pay with credit card so I paid another dollar fifty for international calling. $10 for the new Dolby disc isn't bad.


----------



## Shniks

lego1 said:


> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/
> 
> Just an FYI, if someone is looking for the Dolby Atmos demo disc, I emailed the German magazine in the link above to buy the January edition of the magazine which includes the new demo disc. I bought the magazine for 8 euro with shipping included to the US. I'll update you guys when it arrives. Cheaper than buying one on eBay.



I actually just emailed them a couple of weeks ago (from their website) asking them how I could get this Atmos disc (I told them I was willing to pay for it). I had my address in my signature - well, a week later, the disc arrived in my mailbox. They did not reply to my email, but decided to just send me the disc (free of charge). A few other members had emailed them too and got the discs free from the magazine. But 10 bucks is a great price too. 


Cheers,


----------



## lego1

I tried that too because I saw your post. But when I emailed them, they told me the disc only comes with the magazine and they will not send it or sell it by itself. Maybe they received too many emails requesting it and figured they didn't want to lose out on the money.


----------



## Shniks

lego1 said:


> I tried that too because I saw your post. But when I emailed them, they told me the disc only comes with the magazine and they will not send it or sell it by itself. Maybe they received too many emails requesting it and figured they didn't want to lose out on the money.


Yeah I guess you are right. Little bit of a bummer, but $10 is still a great price for some awesome material. You will love it. 


Cheers,


----------



## lego1

Yes. Definitely can't complain.


----------



## Lesmor

lego1 said:


> I tried that too because I saw your post. But when I emailed them, they told me the disc only comes with the magazine and they will not send it or sell it by itself. Maybe they received too many emails requesting it and figured they didn't want to lose out on the money.


Kinda puts to bed any copyright issues?


----------



## Stoked21

I emailed them a couple weeks ago. Partially in German since I'm Stuttgart born. 
Never heard back so bought the overpriced Sept 2015 disc on eBay. 

I have to say that the Video magazine disc seems just as good. The only tracks I was interested in on the full blown disc were the audio only and test tones. 

The Dolby disc has a bunch of crappy music videos and a bunch of movies which I already own. That stuff is clearly copyrighted. But I don't think any of us really wanted that stuff anyway.


----------



## virtualrain

Someone needs to "leak" this disc online


----------



## AllenA07

On another note I watched Everest last night. It was a very impressive movie if you're looking for something to show off how imersive Atmos can be. When the storm hits it hits everywhere in the room. Not to mention there is finally a helicopter scene where the sound is actually above you. If you're a 3D fan,this is also a very well done film in that regard. Definitely a movie for you guys to check out,one of the best Atmos movies I've heard. 

It was a good movie to boot!


----------



## lujan

virtualrain said:


> Someone needs to "leak" this disc online


----------



## Lesmor

virtualrain said:


> Someone needs to "leak" this disc online


Whaaaaaaaaaaat absolutely not 
Easy to see you holiday cruise on the Jolly Rodger.
More than happy to pay for my media thank you


----------



## dvdmd1

Can someone post the link where I can buy this disc?


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Kinda puts to bed any copyright issues?


Not really. They may have licensed the material specifically for use on that magazine cover disc for an additional fee payment. And maybe restricted it to a one-time pressing. And only when the magazine was bought at the same time. Etc. There could be numerous licensing conditions attached to it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I emailed them a couple weeks ago. Partially in German since I'm Stuttgart born.
> Never heard back so bought the overpriced Sept 2015 disc on eBay.
> 
> I have to say that the Video magazine disc seems just as good. *The only tracks I was interested in on the full blown disc were the *audio only and* test tones. *


The test tones aren't on the magazine cover disc.


----------



## smurraybhm

kbarnes701 said:


> The test tones aren't on the magazine cover disc.


Which in my opinion are the most important feature on the disk. Demos are nice but given the Scott/Batpig and others discussion about the Helicopter and 747 demos I wouldn't want to pass judgement on my system (or tweaks) using the demos only. Seems like some differences IMO on how the tops were mixed/utilized on those two clips, but I will check them out for myself later today.

After watching Everest yesterday I have more than a couple of demo clips from it - Allen's mention of the storm being one of the best. 

Just got a new MacBook Pro that has an HDMI output, so using REW to test things just got a lot easier vs. having been limited 2-channels max with my old one.


----------



## apesterin

smurraybhm said:


> Just got a new MacBook Pro that has an HDMI output, so using REW to test things just got a lot easier vs. having been limited 2-channels max with my old one.


Seems REW over hdmi only does the base 7.1 channels. How are you doing atmos height layer measurements?


----------



## audioguy

apesterin said:


> Seems REW over hdmi only does the base 7.1 channels. His are you doing atmos height layer measurements?


I'd like to know that as well.


----------



## virtualrain

apesterin said:


> Seems REW over hdmi only does the base 7.1 channels. His are you doing atmos height layer measurements?



While you can't measure heights with the room correction applied, you could swap terminals so your heights are connected to your bed posts and run sweeps on them that way.


----------



## audioguy

virtualrain said:


> While you can't measure heights with the room correction applied, you could swap terminals so your heights are connected to your bed posts and run sweeps on them that way.


My interest was to measure with room correction applied.


----------



## lego1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you change the speaker cable terminals from your fronts to the ceiling, you should still be able to measure in REW with room correction applied.


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Which in my opinion are the most important feature on the disk. Demos are nice but given the Scott/Batpig and others discussion about the Helicopter and 747 demos I wouldn't want to pass judgement on my system (or tweaks) using the demos only. Seems like some differences IMO on how the tops were mixed/utilized on those two clips, but I will check them out for myself later today.


Yes, the tones are useful. I just didn't want people to order this magazine from Germany expecting the tones to be on it and then being disappointed. Most of the trailers can be downloaded from various places these days.



smurraybhm said:


> Just got a new MacBook Pro that has an HDMI output, so using REW to test things just got a lot easier vs. having been limited 2-channels max with my old one.


Yes- full 8 channel output via HDMI makes using REW so much easier.


----------



## kbarnes701

apesterin said:


> Seems REW over hdmi only does the base 7.1 channels. How are you doing atmos height layer measurements?





audioguy said:


> I'd like to know that as well.


Very few REW users measure the surrounds let alone the overheads. Most measure L, C, R, subs and a combination of LR and C + subs.


----------



## audioguy

lego1 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you change the speaker cable terminals from your fronts to the ceiling, you should still be able to measure in REW with room correction applied.


Dirac (and Audyssey) is applied to an input channel. So if you move the speaker connection from, for example, a front left speaker to any other speaker, you will see the Audyssey/Dirac filter of the front left speaker played through the other speaker - which will be meaningless.


----------



## blastermaster

So what's everyone's favourite Dolby Atmos demo (from the demo discs)? I find the 747 and Amaze demos to be pretty jaw dropping.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

lego1 said:


> I emailed them asking which edition and they told me 01/2016. I had to call them to pay with credit card so I paid another dollar fifty for international calling. $10 for the new Dolby disc isn't bad.


I'm guessing that disc isn't region free though right? I've got an Oppo so I'm not sure if it would play on my system.


----------



## DaGamePimp

Lesmor said:


> Whaaaaaaaaaaat absolutely not
> Easy to see you holiday cruise on the Jolly Rodger.
> More than happy to pay for my media thank you


I agree with buying media but the prices on ebay for these sample/demo discs are just people gouging because some of us are dumb enough to pay for it. 

I would have no problem paying a reasonable price for the demo discs if they were made available but ~ $80 is just absurd.

Dolby has to understand that what they are doing is only encouraging people to obtain these via questionable methods, at minimum there should be a method to obtain the disc(s) legitimately without working in the industry (it's not the people working in the industry that will make Atmos at home succeed, it's the consumers).

Just my $.02 

- Jason


----------



## Jarery

I posted the below in the "calling all polkies" thread but i believe a more informed answer here, since I'm trying to find the importance of matching all 4 height speakers for a Atmos setup...

Current situation
Fronts - Polk Rti A9's
Center - Paradign cc209v6
Surrounds - Polk RTI A5's (soon to be anyways)
Subwoofers Klipsch R115sw and Velodyne deq-10

Receiver Denon X6200w
Ext Amp Emotiva XPA-5
Room - 23' x 14' x 9.5' open on one side to another room

I wish to add 4 height speakers. While I'm at it, i wish to replace my rear surrounds (paradign 290v6). So may as well go all Polk to keep timber, blah, blah, blah. My options are RTiA1 and/or OWM5 

My new heights positions will be RH at ceiling/wall corner 8' behind seating on 9.5' high ceilings, and either TF or TM mounted underneath a beam 4 or 5' in front of the seating. 

Now the choices where i need advice..

Back surrounds will be RTi A1
Rear Heights can be either RTi A1 or OWM5 mounted on wall up close to ceiling 
The other heights have to be owm5 due to mounting

So whats better for rear heights, OWM5 or RTiA1?

I can have either the rear 4 all the same (RTiA1) or all 4 heights the same (OWM5's), I can't do all 6 the same due to mounting so 2 will always be different.

Sounds confusing after i read it myself so heres the options.

Option 1 - Rear Surround RTiA1 - Rear Height RTi A1 - Top Front OWM5
Option 2 - Rear Surround RTiA1 - Rear Height OWM5 - Top Front OWM5

How important to keep the heights the same ?


----------



## dannybee

DaGamePimp said:


> I agree with buying media but the prices on ebay for these sample/demo discs are just people gouging because some of us are dumb enough to pay for it.
> 
> I would have no problem paying a reasonable price for the demo discs if they were made available but ~ $80 is just absurd.
> 
> Dolby has to understand that what they are doing is only encouraging people to obtain these via questionable methods, at minimum there should be a method to obtain the disc(s) legitimately without working in the industry (it's not the people working in the industry that will make Atmos at home succeed, it's the consumers).
> 
> Just my $.02
> 
> - Jason


They should include a copy with the purchase of a dolby atmos enabled receiver.


----------



## batpig

Jarery said:


> I posted the below in the "calling all polkies" thread but i believe a more informed answer here, since I'm trying to find the importance of matching all 4 height speakers for a Atmos setup...
> 
> Current situation
> Fronts - Polk Rti A9's
> Center - Paradign cc209v6
> Surrounds - Polk RTI A5's (soon to be anyways)
> Subwoofers Klipsch R115sw and Velodyne deq-10
> 
> Receiver Denon X6200w
> Ext Amp Emotiva XPA-5
> Room - 23' x 14' x 9.5' open on one side to another room
> 
> I wish to add 4 height speakers. While I'm at it, i wish to replace my rear surrounds (paradign 290v6). So may as well go all Polk to keep timber, blah, blah, blah. My options are RTiA1 and/or OWM5
> 
> My new heights positions will be RH at ceiling/wall corner 8' behind seating on 9.5' high ceilings, and either TF or TM mounted underneath a beam 4 or 5' in front of the seating.
> 
> Now the choices where i need advice..
> 
> Back surrounds will be RTi A1
> Rear Heights can be either RTi A1 or OWM5 mounted on wall up close to ceiling
> The other heights have to be owm5 due to mounting
> 
> So whats better for rear heights, OWM5 or RTiA1?
> 
> I can have either the rear 4 all the same (RTiA1) or all 4 heights the same (OWM5's), I can't do all 6 the same due to mounting so 2 will always be different.
> 
> Sounds confusing after i read it myself so heres the options.
> 
> Option 1 - Rear Surround RTiA1 - Rear Height RTi A1 - Top Front OWM5
> Option 2 - Rear Surround RTiA1 - Rear Height OWM5 - Top Front OWM5
> 
> How important to keep the heights the same ?


If it were me I'd go with four OWM5 for the heights, both for consistency and the simplicity / versatility of mounting options.


----------



## DaGamePimp

dannybee said:


> They should include a copy with the purchase of a dolby atmos enabled receiver.


Agreed but I think there have been some AVR's that have had it in the box (it should be with every unit sold however since the licensing fees have been paid and the discs have been created). You can be certain there are many buying Atmos enabled AVR's that have no idea what it is and assume that simply hooking to their existing 5.1 layout means they are now ready for Atmos, the disc could help to explain and show the difference.


Holding the discs hostage is completely the wrong approach.


- Jason


----------



## NorthSky

DaGamePimp said:


> Agreed but I think there have been some AVR's that have had it in the box (it should be with every unit sold however since the licensing fees have been paid and the discs have been created). You can be certain there are many buying Atmos enabled AVR's that have no idea what it is and assume that simply hooking to their existing 5.1 layout means they are now ready for Atmos, the disc could help to explain and show the difference.
> 
> Holding the discs hostage is completely the wrong approach.
> 
> - Jason


 I agree with that idea Jason. When introducing a new surround sound format, it's a very good incentive/encouragement to supply a test/demo disc with the units having that new surround sound decoder. ...So that you have some guide to set things right with the new product you just purchased. 

Marantz* did it with their AV8802 pre/pro, but not in all of them, only a batch or so. And I believe that it was only a Dolby Atmos demo disc (an earlier version), without tests for your speaker's calibration.

P.S. SteveH's own generosity, on his own gracious will, did put some Dolby Atmos demo discs in the box for some of his customers.


----------



## aaranddeeman

dannybee said:


> They should include a copy with the purchase of a dolby atmos enabled receiver.


Tell me about it.
When I asked Denon they pointed fingers to Dolby and retailer. When I asked the retailer, he pointed his fingers to Dolby and Denon.
Dolby is common in both and the root cause of this mess.
I don't care for what copyright issues that have with studios and I am not interested in those trailers (when I can watch the whole movie).
All other Dolby only stuff is important for everyone here at AVS. Dolby should have at least made it available through some channel. But the failed (even the format is success).
On the other hand, when I asked Auro, the disk was at my door in about a week all the way from Belgium. They were awesome (but the format....  )


----------



## FilmMixer

NorthSky said:


> Marantz did it with their AV8802 pre/pro, but not in all of them, only a batch or so. And I believe that it was only a Dolby Atmos demo disc (an earlier version), without tests for your speaker's calibration.


100% untrue. 

Steve H who is a dealer did that for some of his customers. 

No CE that I know of has EVER included discs with the introduction of a new codec. 

Auro has provided them with the paid $200 upgrade fee for their codec.


----------



## Waboman

FilmMixer said:


> 100% untrue.
> 
> Steve H who is a dealer did that for some of his customers.
> 
> No CE that I know of has EVER included discs with the introduction of a new codec.
> 
> Auro has provided them with the paid $200 upgrade fee for their codec.


Exactly. Steve had a limited number and gave them to his customers. As for Auro, I emailed them asking for one and the sent it free of charge.

*Still looking for the latest disc, FM.


----------



## aaranddeeman

FilmMixer said:


> Auro has provided them with the paid $200 upgrade fee for their codec.


Marc, Auro provides the demo disk on request for free.. They even ship internationally at their cost.
Yeah, but the commercial take up of that format is another story.


----------



## FilmMixer

aaranddeeman said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Auro has provided them with the paid $200 upgrade fee for their codec.
> 
> 
> 
> Marc, Auro provides the demo disk on request for free.. They even ship internationally at their cost.
> Yeah, but the commercial take up of that format is another story.
Click to expand...

Denon was supposed to send them to those who purchased the license. 

When I emailed Auro about it, I was specifically asked if I had purchased the upgrade... 

But I do know of you and others who have received them no questions asked... As a small company which has very little market penetration (only available on two mainstream product lines) and being a smaller company they are much more suited to handle such distribution (yes... Dolly's size actually makes it harder to do so...)

IMO since they're charging extra for the codec, and have zero domestic filmed content for their users, I understand their motivation to get demo material into the hands of consumers. 

I fully understand why Dolby doesn't put the resources, time and money into making a disc that can be distributed to the general public. 

The argument that it would help to sell processors is why they provide the disks to retailers and installers. And that is what the limited use licenses are for on the film/video clips. 

The trailers are readily available to stream for many consumers, and their is plenty of commercial content in the marketplace at this point to show off ones system. 

I've spoken to my contacts about the desire to get the disc by some memebrs here (which is why they gave me a bunch to give out...). 

I'm hopeful that one or more studios will put the trailers and demos on some of their commercial tites...


----------



## GXMnow

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have 2 rows of seats in my home theater. The first row is on the floor and the second row is on an 8" riser.
> 
> So while my fronts and center are on the same plane as the front row, they are below the second row. The tweeters fire at ear level for the front row, but, obviously, not the back.
> 
> Would I be well served by putting my front towers on something like Primacoustic RX9s? Not necessarily for the acostic treatment, but to get them closer to ear level for the back row (around 4" thick...).
> 
> Anyone with multi-rows tried anything like it? That is, raising the fronts?


I would try a little experiment.

Have people sit in all seating positions. If every person can't see all of the speakers, then you should adjust positions until they can. The biggest problem is usually the center channel speaker which most place below the screen. There is almost no way a second row can see this speaker. This is bad and will result in poor dialog as second row does not have a clear line for the sound. Unlike light, sound will bend around objects a bit, so it is not a complete kill, but there will be a very distinct difference in the sound that the person who can see the speaker and the person in the shadow of an object or other person is able to hear. For left right front and side surround speakers, you may be able to move them side to side and front to back in the room to get a clear shot to all listeners with them still at the lowest possible height, but in many cases, a small increase in height can do an even better job of getting the best sound to all seats. 

Depending on the size of your screen with a flat screen TV, you may find that the speaker above the screen will work much better. For a front projection system, behind the middle to top 1/3 of an acoustic transparent projection screen is the best for coverage as well as placing the sound source in the right place for the image. 

For those who think the sound level from the middle to the end of a couch is no big deal, keep in mind that sound level drops off with the inverse square law. If you double the distance from the speaker, the sound drops 6 db. This is a hug drop for a fairly small change in a small room. A person on the end of a couch in a 10 foot wide room could easily be just 2 feet from the near side surround speaker and 8 feet from the far side surround speaker. This 4 x difference in distance works out to 12 db in level shift. A combination of moving them either up and/or to the side, and aiming them at the further listener can greatly reduce the level difference. Ear height in my room with my couch measures at 43 inches. My front L, C, R speakers have the HF horns at 63 inches behind an AT screen. 1.25 x 43 inches is about 54 inches. I will probably end up a little higher than that. Trying to stay under 60 inches. 

In a perfect world, which does not exist, having the speakers at a true ear level does in theory give you the ability to pan a full 180 degrees from left to right over your head and front to back as well, and the full 360 around you, so that is the idea. If I raise the speakers to 5 feet (60 inches) on my 12 foot wide room, the center seating position has a pan range of 154 degrees. That is not losing much at all for the far better coverage on 2 rows of seats. With my current screen size, the 63 inch high front speakers have the horns very close to the ideal 2/3 up the screen. Lowering the front speakers to "Ear Height" would not only hurt the room coverage, but it would also make the sound no longer come from the ideal area of the screen. 

As for which top speakers to use....
Think of it like this. The speaker names and angles are relative to a perfect main listening point. If your couch is against or near the back wall, and you use "top front" and "top rear" even thought the rear ones are basically straight above you, then it is just like sitting a little behind the MLP in a movie theatre. To make the pans correct, you should also have your side surround speakers ahead of you a bit to land close to mid way between the front and rear top speakers. A sound panned halfway back in the room will be evenly between the top front and top rear speakers, but will be directly in the side surround speaker. Front wide speakers appear to render close to the top front speakers as far as angle, or distance back in the room. 

Due to the shape of my room (12 feet wide and 18 feet long with an 8 foot ceiling), I am thinking a bit unconventional. The front pair seems easy, I think I will use the "Top front" and have them about 6 to 7 feet back from the front wall. This does place them close to the correct angle in my 18 foot long room with the couch back 12 feet from the screen. The angle from straight forward is 36 degrees up, and from center channel, it is still 28 degrees up.

For the rear height position, I am really leaning at going to "rear height" and just using my existing rear surrounds for that purpose. They are just 9 inches below the ceiling at the back of the room now and the right distance apart too, with ball mounts, and aimed down to my front row seated ear height. From my front couch listening position, this places the rear height speakers at 31.4 degrees up behind me, close to the same angle as the front height is up. This is the same as 148.6 degrees from straight ahead, which is also in range for "rear height" speakers. I will then just add new back surrounds under them. Since my second row of seat will be on a riser of about 8 inches, I will put my new back surround at 63 inches like the screen channels. Seated ear height with the riser comes out to 52 inches. This 11 inches will keep the speakers from blasting into the heads of the back row seats. 

for complete curiosity, I ran the trig on the front row seat for the front to back overhead pan angle range and I came up with 156 degrees of angle from front screen over my head to back surround. 

I so wish I could afford a unit that could do 9.1.6


----------



## SJHT

Good info. I'm in the process of updating out dedicated HT and with the three competing options,what is a good option for speaker configuration?, thanks. SJ


----------



## NorthSky

Here's an idea: Movie studios who endorsed Dolby Atmos can promote the new 3D immersive sound by putting Dolby Atmos audio calibration test signals for all speakers (7.1.4 and 9.1.2) in the Special features of their Blu-ray discs, and also in the new UHD Blu-ray discs. ...Like THX did in the past...with video parameters for best picture calibration and audio test signals for best balanced sound everywhere. 

That would be a good jump start. ...From Warner Brothers, Universal, Lionsgate Films, Paramount studios, Sony/Columbia.
...Then on UHD BR from FOX and Disney studios.

Online downloads help too; for Dolby Atmos speaker calibration audio test signals. It's been eighteen months that Dolby Atmos is in the people's home; more homes can benefit. And more homes means more Atmos product sales. It's good for the product's manufacturers, and it's good for their customers.
Everyone benefits, Dolby Atmos (Laboratories) and the movie studios included.


----------



## Lesmor

Never mind this weekend the question will be "Where can I get a DTS:X Demo disc?"


----------



## Lesmor

SJHT said:


> Good info. I'm in the process of updating out dedicated HT and with the three competing options,what is a good option for speaker configuration?, thanks. SJ


With the DTS:X update info just released Denon are proposing FH and RH as a 3D catch all.
Go figure


----------



## dannybee

Lesmor said:


> Never mind this weekend the question will be "Where can I get a DTS:X Demo disc?"


Already out I have one.


----------



## dvdwilly3

GXMnow said:


> I would try a little experiment.
> 
> Have people sit in all seating positions. If every person can't see all of the speakers, then you should adjust positions until they can. The biggest problem is usually the center channel speaker which most place below the screen. There is almost no way a second row can see this speaker. This is bad and will result in poor dialog as second row does not have a clear line for the sound. Unlike light, sound will bend around objects a bit, so it is not a complete kill, but there will be a very distinct difference in the sound that the person who can see the speaker and the person in the shadow of an object or other person is able to hear. For left right front and side surround speakers, you may be able to move them side to side and front to back in the room to get a clear shot to all listeners with them still at the lowest possible height, but in many cases, a small increase in height can do an even better job of getting the best sound to all seats.
> 
> Depending on the size of your screen with a flat screen TV, you may find that the speaker above the screen will work much better. For a front projection system, behind the middle to top 1/3 of an acoustic transparent projection screen is the best for coverage as well as placing the sound source in the right place for the image.
> 
> For those who think the sound level from the middle to the end of a couch is no big deal, keep in mind that sound level drops off with the inverse square law. If you double the distance from the speaker, the sound drops 6 db. This is a hug drop for a fairly small change in a small room. A person on the end of a couch in a 10 foot wide room could easily be just 2 feet from the near side surround speaker and 8 feet from the far side surround speaker. This 4 x difference in distance works out to 12 db in level shift. A combination of moving them either up and/or to the side, and aiming them at the further listener can greatly reduce the level difference. Ear height in my room with my couch measures at 43 inches. My front L, C, R speakers have the HF horns at 63 inches behind an AT screen. 1.25 x 43 inches is about 54 inches. I will probably end up a little higher than that. Trying to stay under 60 inches.
> 
> In a perfect world, which does not exist, having the speakers at a true ear level does in theory give you the ability to pan a full 180 degrees from left to right over your head and front to back as well, and the full 360 around you, so that is the idea. If I raise the speakers to 5 feet (60 inches) on my 12 foot wide room, the center seating position has a pan range of 154 degrees. That is not losing much at all for the far better coverage on 2 rows of seats. With my current screen size, the 63 inch high front speakers have the horns very close to the ideal 2/3 up the screen. Lowering the front speakers to "Ear Height" would not only hurt the room coverage, but it would also make the sound no longer come from the ideal area of the screen.
> 
> As for which top speakers to use....
> Think of it like this. The speaker names and angles are relative to a perfect main listening point. If your couch is against or near the back wall, and you use "top front" and "top rear" even thought the rear ones are basically straight above you, then it is just like sitting a little behind the MLP in a movie theatre. To make the pans correct, you should also have your side surround speakers ahead of you a bit to land close to mid way between the front and rear top speakers. A sound panned halfway back in the room will be evenly between the top front and top rear speakers, but will be directly in the side surround speaker. Front wide speakers appear to render close to the top front speakers as far as angle, or distance back in the room.
> 
> Due to the shape of my room (12 feet wide and 18 feet long with an 8 foot ceiling), I am thinking a bit unconventional. The front pair seems easy, I think I will use the "Top front" and have them about 6 to 7 feet back from the front wall. This does place them close to the correct angle in my 18 foot long room with the couch back 12 feet from the screen. The angle from straight forward is 36 degrees up, and from center channel, it is still 28 degrees up.
> 
> For the rear height position, I am really leaning at going to "rear height" and just using my existing rear surrounds for that purpose. They are just 9 inches below the ceiling at the back of the room now and the right distance apart too, with ball mounts, and aimed down to my front row seated ear height. From my front couch listening position, this places the rear height speakers at 31.4 degrees up behind me, close to the same angle as the front height is up. This is the same as 148.6 degrees from straight ahead, which is also in range for "rear height" speakers. I will then just add new back surrounds under them. Since my second row of seat will be on a riser of about 8 inches, I will put my new back surround at 63 inches like the screen channels. Seated ear height with the riser comes out to 52 inches. This 11 inches will keep the speakers from blasting into the heads of the back row seats.
> 
> for complete curiosity, I ran the trig on the front row seat for the front to back overhead pan angle range and I came up with 156 degrees of angle from front screen over my head to back surround.
> 
> I so wish I could afford a unit that could do 9.1.6


GMXnow, thanks very much for the detailed response. You are the only one who responded to this question. It is appropriate that you were the one. Our rooms are very similar. Mine is 14 1/2' wide x 19 1/2' long laid out along the length, i.e. screen is at the front of the 19 1/2'. My ceiling is 8' high along 1/3 of the right side (facing the screen) and 9' along the left 2/3.

Our speaker layouts are somewhat similar, particularly the heights. Don't get me wrong, the sound is excellent as it is, but I know that physically the tweeter on the front towers is firing into the seats on the front row.

As I am thinking about this more, I have the mic, etc. to run REW, but I have not run it yet. So, if I ran a sweep at, say, the middle of the front fow, and again at the middle of the second row, that would show literally any differences between the two rows, wouldn't it?

I do have the center channel sitting on top of a console below the screen. I got an isolation pad that is about 2" thick and provides about a 5 degree up tilt. It improved dialogue considerably.

Okay, now I have some more things to do. Your answer helps me considerably. Thaks again.


----------



## Ricoflashback

I'll make one more comment on this and then leave it alone. Another dead horse like side surround locations and absolute adherence to Dolby Specs. regardless of the situation.

RE: "I fully understand why Dolby doesn't put the resources, time and money into making a disc that can be distributed to the general public. The argument that it would help to sell processors is why they provide the disks to retailers and installers. And that is what the limited use licenses are for on the film/video clips."

If your true goal is "Mass Adoption" for Dolby Atmos, then marketing wise, you would do everything you can to get the technology/"Buzz" into the hands of the public. Providing a Dolby Atmos reference demo disc - - whether it's Dolby alone or in a partnership with the movie studios makes a lot of sense. In fact, a download site would be even better. That way, early adopters could show off their system to their friends & help generate additional buzz about the technology. Stores like Best Buy could put on a Dolby Atmos reference disc and loop it so people could hear the added difference Dolby Atmos means to a soundtrack. 

EVERYONE along the Dolby Atmos food chain would benefit - - manufacturers of AVR's/Pre-Processors, Dolby Atmos speakers, speaker manufacturers, movie theaters, movie studios, sales and rentals of Dolby Atmos encoded movies - - anyone who is looking to sell more product/service. O.K. - you can download trailers but who the hell wants to do that? 

Another example of marketing gone wrong and a great topic for the Harvard Business Review.


----------



## aaranddeeman

FilmMixer said:


> I fully understand why Dolby doesn't put the resources, time and money into making a disc that can be distributed to the general public.


I fail to understand one thing though. Dolby has produced 3 disks until now. 
IMHO 
- They do have resource, time and money to put together the content 3 times. With my limited knowledge I can say that is major cost.
- But they don't have small %of that same cost to press extra copies (minus the copyrighted stuff may be)?


----------



## healthnut

Ricoflashback said:


> I'll make one more comment on this and then leave it alone. Another dead horse like side surround locations and absolute adherence to Dolby Specs. regardless of the situation.
> 
> RE: "I fully understand why Dolby doesn't put the resources, time and money into making a disc that can be distributed to the general public. The argument that it would help to sell processors is why they provide the disks to retailers and installers. And that is what the limited use licenses are for on the film/video clips."
> 
> If your true goal is "Mass Adoption" for Dolby Atmos, then marketing wise, you would do everything you can to get the technology/"Buzz" into the hands of the public. Providing a Dolby Atmos reference demo disc - - whether it's Dolby alone or in a partnership with the movie studios makes a lot of sense. In fact, a download site would be even better. That way, early adopters could show off their system to their friends & help generate additional buzz about the technology. Stores like Best Buy could put on a Dolby Atmos reference disc and loop it so people could hear the added difference Dolby Atmos means to a soundtrack.
> 
> EVERYONE along the Dolby Atmos food chain would benefit - - manufacturers of AVR's/Pre-Processors, Dolby Atmos speakers, speaker manufacturers, movie theaters, movie studios, sales and rentals of Dolby Atmos encoded movies - - anyone who is looking to sell more product/service. O.K. - you can download trailers but who the hell wants to do that?
> 
> Another example of marketing gone wrong and a great topic for the Harvard Business Review.



Sensible points. Even studios would benefit with demo material, as a certain percentage of viewers would be interested in owning the movie demonstrated. But logic doesn't always prevail: Disney sued VCR makers and lost, and no studio has profited more from losing a lawsuit than Disney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> I'll make one more comment on this and then leave it alone. Another dead horse like side surround locations and absolute adherence to Dolby Specs. regardless of the situation.
> 
> RE: "I fully understand why Dolby doesn't put the resources, time and money into making a disc that can be distributed to the general public. The argument that it would help to sell processors is why they provide the disks to retailers and installers. And that is what the limited use licenses are for on the film/video clips."
> 
> If your true goal is "Mass Adoption" for Dolby Atmos, then marketing wise, you would do everything you can to get the technology/"Buzz" into the hands of the public. Providing a Dolby Atmos reference demo disc - - whether it's Dolby alone or in a partnership with the movie studios makes a lot of sense. In fact, a download site would be even better. That way, early adopters could show off their system to their friends & help generate additional buzz about the technology. Stores like Best Buy could put on a Dolby Atmos reference disc and loop it so people could hear the added difference Dolby Atmos means to a soundtrack.
> 
> EVERYONE along the Dolby Atmos food chain would benefit - - manufacturers of AVR's/Pre-Processors, Dolby Atmos speakers, speaker manufacturers, movie theaters, movie studios, sales and rentals of Dolby Atmos encoded movies - - anyone who is looking to sell more product/service. O.K. - you can download trailers but who the hell wants to do that?
> 
> Another example of marketing gone wrong and a great topic for the Harvard Business Review.


As a professional marketing/advertising person with huge experience with major and international corporations, perhaps I can comment. First off, overall, Dolby's marketing for Atmos has been a text-book classically, almost-perfect example of how to do it. The huge success of Atmos can, in part at least, be attributed to its marketing. The global coordination, timing and pretty much everything was spot on. If the Harvard Business Review did a study of it, I am sure that is the conclusion they would reach.

You say that the provision of demo discs would aid the "true goal of "Mass Adoption" for Dolby Atmos." But Dolby have already achieved mass adoption. They are totally dominating the studio and cinema market for immersive audio and Atmos is available in every mainstream manufacturers' AVRs, even those with price tags below $500. In addition, streaming and broadcast services are adopting Atmos and the Blu-ray disc market is being better served every day as more and more new releases feature Atmos soundtracks. With the advent of UHD we have already seen Sony announce that all of their UHD discs will feature Atmos. Dolby have successfully sold Atmos to every one of their target customer groups.

As for "Stores like Best Buy could put on a Dolby Atmos reference disc and loop it so people could hear the added difference Dolby Atmos means to a soundtrack" - well retailers already have the demo discs, or can obtain them easily enough so I am not sure what your point is there. 

To your main point, you have to remember that Dolby is not a company concerned with end users at all, per se. Dolby's customers are all inside the industry. They have no infrastructure, and probably no staff, devoted to serving the end-user customer. As such, the end-user marketing of Atmos is handled by Dolby's own customers - the studios, cinemas, equipment manufacturers etc. The exception to this has been through Dolby's excellent PR operation via their PR agency, which has co-ordinated various press events and so on, which have resulted in many articles in AV media throughout the world. Again, I call this an 'exception' but it is really another example of Dolby not interfacing directly with the end-user. Dolby are interfacing with their PR company, who then generate newsworthy stories for the various media.

All of the above explains why Dolby will not start releasing content discs to the public. They are constrained by licensing arrangements for commercial content anyway, but even their own content in the form of trailers will not, IMO, ever be marketed direct to the public. It is unreasonable to criticise Dolby for this, any more than one could criticise, for example, the makers of the DSP chips inside your AVR simply because their model does not cater for direct end-user engagement. 

No amount of customer agitation is likely to be successful in changing Dolby's business model and no matter how great the sense of entitlement is among various members of AVS Forum, and no matter how much people may feel, for some reason, aggrieved that Dolby will not do what they want, it seems to me extremely unlikely that Dolby are going to get into the business of distributing content to end-users.

What’s more, really, what is the point of people clamoring for demo material anyway? There are now at least 30 Dolby Atmos Blu-rays available and many downloadable trailers. Surely that is the best demo material of all - the actual movies which are using Atmos? And as for the test tones - well I am not reading massive criticism of AVR manufacturers for failing to provide test material to facilitate the setup of their equipment. TV and PJ manufacturers are not providing free calibration discs (of the sort sold by S&M etc).


----------



## AllenA07

Lesmor said:


> Never mind this weekend the question will be "Where can I get a DTS:X Demo disc?"


The DTS Demo disc I've got doesn't actually have that much on it in terms of imersive audio. The majority of the clips show off their lossless mixes. Only 3-4 clips are actually DTS X.

Of course, that's assuming they aren't going to have another disc in the near future which focuses exclusively on X.


----------



## Lakesideb

*Placement of right two Atmos ceiling speakers*

Hi Guys, 

I am getting my basement finished, and will have a dedicated home theater room there. Its a 16ft x 16ft x 9ft room. I will have a L shaped couch which will go all the way to the back wall. 

Inititally I was thinking of doing 5.1.2 atmos implementation, however have read that 5.1.4 gives a more immersive feeling. Given, how easy it is to do a 4 atmos speaker implementation while I have access to the unfinished space, I thought of going with .4 implementation. 

Notice the space below ... 



3D rendering



The issue I have is that the right most ceiling speakers in green will have to be much closer to the MLP. I can't put them closer to the right wall due to a lot of duct work, pipes going on in the joists on the right hand side ... forcing me to put the 2 atmos speakers much more into the middle of the room as highlighted in the picture above. 

I was wondering if this will wreck the atmos implementation, or is this something that a Denon 6200's equalization will be able to handle/correct?

I am thinking of going with Kef Ci200QR, which I have heard has a very wide dispersion due to their UniQ driver. Those will match my other Kef speakers in 5.1 setting.

I would really appreciate any insights here.

Thank you


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> I fail to understand one thing though. Dolby has produced 3 disks until now.
> IMHO
> - They do have resource, time and money to put together the content 3 times. With my limited knowledge I can say that is major cost.
> - But they don't have small %of that same cost to press extra copies (minus the copyrighted stuff may be)?


As I just said, at length, that is not the business they are in. If they wanted to be in the business of distributing content to end-user consumers, they would. But first they'd have to gain the infrastructure it requires and the staff it needs. This is not their model - they have no direct presence in the consumer marketplace - as a consumer you cannot buy a product with Dolby's name on it, other than as a badge put there by someone else such as the AVR maker. I can't see why people fail to understand this - the same people clamoring for it are not, AFAICS, clamoring for the DSP chip makers to interface directly with them, or the manufacturers of flat panels for TVs etc. And nor are they haranguing AVR and TV makers for failing to provide test discs to help set up the equipment. Do you know of a single TV manufacturer who provides a calibration setup disc with their TVs? I don't. Why are people not beating their doors down to demand it?


----------



## audioguy

@kbarnes701. I am in total agreement with your analysis. 

The issue we have on this forum is that many of us think, apparently, that we are the "masses" and nothing could be further from the truth.

We are such a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny part of the audio/video consumer base. I don't care what kind of neighborhood you live in (home price point wise), just do a casual check on how many of your neighbors even have separate speakers to play the TV audio through something like sound bars, much less separate speakers, much less surround. I live in a neighborhood of moderately priced home ($300K to $600K). LOTS of big screen TV's. A few with sound bars, one other home has a projector and NO ONE has Atmos - and of all of the folks I have met in this neighborhood, not a single one has even heard of Atmos, much less actually heard it -- or at least they didn't know they heard it.

I have a friend who lives in a much more upscale neighborhood ($1 million to $10 million). While he certainly does not know everyone in his neighborhood, he is aware of ONE who actually has a dedicated home theater. The rest: a dozen big screen TV's spread all over the house.

The point of my comments: To get broader based knowledge of, acceptance (and implementation) into the more consumer homes, the first point of consumer contact (retailers, system integrators, consultants --- not Dolby) has to do a much better job of marketing. 

The one thing Dolby might consider would be to do some advertising clips of the "fun of home Atmos" as movie trailers in commercial theaters. But to do that, more theaters need to be Atmos equipped. And that takes Dolby focus, not on consumers, but on their primary customer base.


----------



## Daryl L

Well, 10 days ago I decided to contact Dolby labs about possibly getting a demo disc. Here is their reply.



> Thank you for your interest in Dolby Atmos® for the home, including demonstration (demo) discs.
> 
> If you are a home theater retailer or installer, demo discs are available through our partners who manufacture Dolby Atmos enabled AVRs and speakers. Please contact those partners directly for more information.
> 
> If you are a home theater enthusiast, you can now find Dolby Atmos trailers on Vudu®. You can easily access them from a Dolby Atmos ready streaming device connected to your AVR. Most Blu-ray™ players with the Vudu app will work, in addition to the PlayStation®4 console, Roku® devices, and the new Vudu Spark™ stick.
> 
> Step One: Visit Vudu on your Dolby Atmos ready streaming device, and ensure that it’s connected to your Dolby Atmos enabled AVR, set for bitstream pass-through or surround sound (the setting language may vary by device).
> 
> Step Two: Search “Atmos,” find the “The Dolby Atmos Experience” HDX bundle, and get it for free by selecting “Purchase for $0.” In this bundle, you will find five trailers designed to demonstrate the full capabilities of Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Step Three: Once a trailer is selected and streaming, your AVR display should indicate “Dolby Atmos.”


Since they mentioned retailers as well as installers could receive these discs I decided to contact the retailer (Crutchfield) who I purchased my Denon Dolby Atmos receiver from. They told me they did not have any to obtain and directed me to the manufacturer or Dolby. So I contacted the manufacturer (Denon) about a disk and they told me that they had none to obtain and that I should try contacting Dolby about getting one. It's just a vicious loop.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Shniks

AllenA07 said:


> The DTS Demo disc I've got doesn't actually have that much on it in terms of imersive audio. The majority of the clips show off their lossless mixes. Only 3-4 clips are actually DTS X.
> 
> Of course, that's assuming they aren't going to have another disc in the near future which focuses exclusively on X.



I have the 2016 DTS Demo disc and it seems to have a lot of DTS:X clips. Is yours an earlier version?


Cheers,


----------



## Stoked21

audioguy said:


> @kbarnes701.
> We are such a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny part of the audio/video consumer base. I don't care what kind of neighborhood you live in (home price point wise), just do a casual check on how many of your neighbors even have separate speakers to play the TV audio through something like sound bars, much less separate speakers, much less surround. I live in a neighborhood of moderately priced home ($300K to $600K). LOTS of big screen TV's. A few with sound bars, one other home has a projector and NO ONE has Atmos - and of all of the folks I have met in this neighborhood, not a single one has even heard of Atmos, much less actually heard it -- or at least they didn't know they heard it.


I live in a subdivision with similar price range of $400-550K. That's considered an upper-end, higher cost home in my area (short of living down-town or in one of the golf-course exclusive subdivisions for the uber wealthy spending millions). People drive MB S class, Maseratis, Porsches, a $1M Camaro, Tesla, Audi, one Lambo etc.....The point is there's money to be spent and AFAIK only 3 people in my division have HT, out of maybe 150-200 homes. And NO ONE has Atmos but me. As a matter of fact, NO ONE has even heard of it! Seriously that's like 0.5% of a neighborhood with surplus income, whom are not afraid to spend it.....



Daryl L said:


> Well, 10 days ago I decided to contact Dolby labs about possibly getting a demo disc. Here is their reply.


I too was on this demo disc rant a while ago....None of us want to pay the $80-100 costs on eBay.....But let's be serious guys----you've spent at least $1000 on the supporting AVR----you've spent at least a few hundred dollars on additional speakers, mountings, and cables. In the grand scheme of things, you're spending a very small percentage to obtain the disc off eBay, relative to what you spent to go Atmos in the first place. 

Just last week I decided that if I wanted it, I would buy it! It's not even 1% of the cost of anyone's Atmos HT! If I see value in having it, and I did, then it should be viewed no different than any other piece of equipment in your HT! And seriously, we will spend $30 on a BD that gets watched once or twice a year, IF THAT. The demo disc gets utilized over and over for calibration/demos/setup evaluation. It will see more spin time than any other disc in your collection. None of us argue about $130 to get a calibrated mic for REW, or $100s for acoustic treatment, or $50 for some new cables, or, or, or...All to test our systems, showcase our systems, and improve our systems. Acquiring the disc should be viewed as a "cost of entry" to the Atmos world. If you're not willing to pay it, then don't. If you see value in going to the Atmos disc park, then buy the ticket!

It's really kind of a contradiction to complain about the eBay disc costs. We are in a hobby that mandates spending thousands frivolously and spending on things that are debatably beneficial....Yet everyone wants to complain about an $80 disc......It's kind of ironic. It's like buying a high-end sports car and complaining about the cost of the gas! Well, leave it parked in the garage then!

Lastly, I'm not recommending this....But I'm sure you can find someone in your local area who is willing to share "joint custody" of the disc once you acquire it......


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> As I just said, at length, that is not the business they are in. If they wanted to be in the business of distributing content to end-user consumers, they would. But first they'd have to gain the infrastructure it requires and the staff it needs. This is not their model - they have no direct presence in the consumer marketplace - as a consumer you cannot buy a product with Dolby's name on it, other than as a badge put there by someone else such as the AVR maker. I can't see why people fail to understand this - the same people clamoring for it are not, AFAICS, clamoring for the DSP chip makers to interface directly with them, or the manufacturers of flat panels for TVs etc. And nor are they haranguing AVR and TV makers for failing to provide test discs to help set up the equipment. Do you know of a single TV manufacturer who provides a calibration setup disc with their TVs? I don't. Why are people not beating their doors down to demand it?


Sorry, but your TV argument does not fly.
- No TV manufacturer have made a small set of calibration disk and distributed them privately while rejecting consumer requests. But Dolby has done that. And hence we are after Dolby and not the TV manufacturer.
- While I understand it's not Dolby's segment, they can outsource it to someone or as someone suggested before, they can let someone (like AVS) host these files. Problem solved.

The problem I (and my be others as well) don't understand is
- They create a content and calibration setup for uplift of their product
- But they only give it to pro installers who care less for that as they will use their own pro tools
- they don't give it away to consumers on request neither free nor paid

So why the heck they even created it. Not 1, not 2 but 3 times.


----------



## blastermaster

Daryl L said:


> Well, 10 days ago I decided to contact Dolby labs about possibly getting a demo disc. Here is their reply.
> 
> 
> 
> Since they mentioned retailers as well as installers could receive these discs I decided to contact the retailer (Crutchfield) who I purchased my Denon Dolby Atmos receiver from. They told me they did not have any to obtain and directed me to the manufacturer or Dolby. So I contacted the manufacturer (Denon) about a disk and they told me that they had none to obtain and that I should try contacting Dolby about getting one. It's just a vicious loop.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


K, but Dolby did give you a legitimate and reasonable way of getting atmos clips. Also, you can download them easily if you google them and play them through your computer. I use MPC-HC and go into LAV filter settings and make sure everything is set to bitstream. Then you're golden.


----------



## Daryl L

@Stoked21 & @blastermaster

I agree with both of you. I wasn't complaining. I just wanted to share my quest for a legitimate copy in case anyone was curious as to about contacting Dolby directly. And they can still contact Dolby and probably do better than I. I also have viewed the demo clips on Vudu. One downside I noticed when trying them on Vudu is that three or four out of the five are only one minute and by the time the signal changes from Dolby Digital to Dolby Atmos for the receiver to play it 30 seconds of that one minute of the clip has already played. I tried downloaded demo clips and playing them from a USB stick but neither of my Blu-ray players (2010 Samsung 3-D Blu-ray player or my Oppo BDP-83) would play the clips. Nor my Denon receiver. No point in plugging it into the new Samsung UltraHD TV because it will only pass Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1 out the optical or the HDMI ARC ports. I use a Mac and no way to get the audio to the receiver other than airplay. I've debated eBay but I seem to recall hearing about Spears&Musill planning on releasing a disk with test signals on it. There was no timeframe mentioned as I recall. So no telling how long it will be. It's possible that it could include demo clips also. I have no idea. Just a wild guess.


----------



## umenon

I don't have a Blu-ray burner - so been unable to play any of those Atmos-encoded demo clips. My current BluRay player will not read these files off the USB or CD-R. 

Anyone have success in getting their BluRay player to read these files off the USB? If yes, please share the model number. Thanks. // Max


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> I do know of you and others who have received them no questions asked...


Why have companies like DTS and Auro not needed to resort to the excuse of copyrighted material when handing out demo discs much more freely than Dolby does? If anyone can write to Auro and receive a movie and music laden demo disc "no questions asked", what legally prevents Dolby from responding similarly?


----------



## Lakesideb

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am getting my basement finished, and will have a dedicated home theater room there. Its a 16ft x 16ft x 9ft room. I will have a L shaped couch which will go all the way to the back wall.
> 
> Inititally I was thinking of doing 5.1.2 atmos implementation, however have read that 5.1.4 gives a more immersive feeling. Given, how easy it is to do a 4 atmos speaker implementation while I have access to the unfinished space, I thought of going with .4 implementation.
> 
> Notice the space below ...
> 
> 
> 
> 3D rendering
> 
> 
> 
> The issue I have is that the right most ceiling speakers in green will have to be much closer to the MLP. I can't put them closer to the right wall due to a lot of duct work, pipes going on in the joists on the right hand side ... forcing me to put the 2 atmos speakers much more into the middle of the room as highlighted in the picture above.
> 
> I was wondering if this will wreck the atmos implementation, or is this something that a Denon 6200's equalization will be able to handle/correct?
> 
> I am thinking of going with Kef Ci200QR, which I have heard has a very wide dispersion due to their UniQ driver. Those will match my other Kef speakers in 5.1 setting.
> 
> I would really appreciate any insights here.
> 
> Thank you


Hi Guys, any pointers here would be greatly appreciated. 

I need to put in an order within a day or two as with dropping CAD dollar, I fear prices increasing very soon.


----------



## pasender91

I really think you should not install the speakers in an assymetric way, as this will mess up the object positioning 

So, the conclusion is that you should position speakers 1 and 2 more inside the room, in a symetric way to 3 and 4.
It will not be ideal in terms of scene "width", but it should be the best compromise ...


----------



## sdurani

Lakesideb said:


> I was wondering if this will wreck the atmos implementation, or is this something that a Denon 6200's equalization will be able to handle/correct?


Height content will still come from above, though it will sound asymmetrical. Like sitting in front of your right speaker: content intended to come from the front soundstage will still come from that direction, but it will sound asymmetrical. Equalization in the Denon receiver cannot fix that problem (it can compensate for speaker distance, by adjusting level & delay, but not for speaker angle).


----------



## rontalley

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am getting my basement finished, and will have a dedicated home theater room there. Its a 16ft x 16ft x 9ft room. I will have a L shaped couch which will go all the way to the back wall.
> 
> Inititally I was thinking of doing 5.1.2 atmos implementation, however have read that 5.1.4 gives a more immersive feeling. Given, how easy it is to do a 4 atmos speaker implementation while I have access to the unfinished space, I thought of going with .4 implementation.
> 
> Notice the space below ...
> 
> 
> 
> 3D rendering
> 
> 
> 
> The issue I have is that the right most ceiling speakers in green will have to be much closer to the MLP. I can't put them closer to the right wall due to a lot of duct work, pipes going on in the joists on the right hand side ... forcing me to put the 2 atmos speakers much more into the middle of the room as highlighted in the picture above.
> 
> I was wondering if this will wreck the atmos implementation, or is this something that a Denon 6200's equalization will be able to handle/correct?
> 
> I am thinking of going with Kef Ci200QR, which I have heard has a very wide dispersion due to their UniQ driver. Those will match my other Kef speakers in 5.1 setting.
> 
> I would really appreciate any insights here.
> 
> Thank you


Does the duct work prohibit go all the way through? Can you move the duct work? 

The TF speakers need to go more towards the front of the room. Your TF and TR are too close together. I needed about 8' to get good separation, 9' would have been ideal but also depends on your speakers.

Tops should be inline with Mains.


----------



## kbarnes701

*Legend *has an Atmos soundtrack, or at least the version Amazon are selling in the UK does.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Sorry, but your TV argument does not fly.
> - No TV manufacturer have made a small set of calibration disk and distributed them privately while rejecting consumer requests. But Dolby has done that. And hence we are after Dolby and not the TV manufacturer.
> - While I understand it's not Dolby's segment, they can outsource it to someone or as someone suggested before, they can let someone (like AVS) host these files. Problem solved.
> 
> The problem I (and my be others as well) don't understand is
> - They create a content and calibration setup for uplift of their product
> - But they only give it to pro installers who care less for that as they will use their own pro tools
> - they don't give it away to consumers on request neither free nor paid
> 
> So why the heck they even created it. Not 1, not 2 but 3 times.


They created it for their customers.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> They created it for their customers.


Then why they give it to "some" who are not their customers?
Anyways. Just leave it. However I rant, Dolby is not going to change anything. So it's just a waste of each other's time.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why have companies like DTS and Auro not needed to resort to the excuse of copyrighted material when handing out demo discs much more freely than Dolby does? If anyone can write to Auro and receive a movie and music laden demo disc "no questions asked", what legally prevents Dolby from responding similarly?


Dolby's decision not to hand out discs to consumers may only partially be due to copyright reasons. It is possible DTS and Auro have negotiated distribution rights which extend to the end user or public at large, and may/may not include an option to charge a fee for the disc. Dolby may have decided not to do that, and so the very presence of copyrighted material on their discs means they have to abide by the terms of whatever license they negotiated. Since licensing copyright material is a nightmare, it may be that Dolby do not wish to go back and renegotiate the terms. There could be numerous reasons but there is no reason why Dolby would tell us, and they may be restricted by their licensing agreements from revealing the terms of those agreements.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Then why they give it to "some" who are not their customers?


Such as who? AFAIK they have only given them to the AVR manufacturers who have passed them on to some retailers and possibly even some of their end users. Dolby also gave quantities to their PR agencies who in turn distributed them to journalists etc. AFAIK Dolby have given none to end users.



aaranddeeman said:


> Anyways. Just leave it. However I rant, Dolby is not going to change anything. So it's just a waste of each other's time.


Yep, that is definitely true.


----------



## Jarery

rontalley said:


> The TF speakers need to go more towards the front of the room. Your TF and TR are too close together. I needed about 8' to get good separation, 9' would have been ideal but also depends on your speakers.
> 
> Tops should be inline with Mains.


I also am just about to buy and install 4 ceiling mounted height speakers. 

The mounting width of the speakers brings up some issues for my situation. My 14.5' wide room with 12' wide screen means my LR mains are pushed out to the corners. 

If I then mount atmos speakers for TF and TR or RH do I conform to "inline with mains" which means mounting them at the far sides of the ceiling ? Or do I mount them about 8-9 ft apart so they are away from the walls. 

I know what Dolby advises but my room does not allow for optimum. So what's the better compromise? In line with mains and against the walls or not inline and away from the walls ?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Since licensing copyright material is a nightmare, it may be that Dolby do not wish to go back and renegotiate the terms.


Why isn't it a similar nightmare for DTS and Auro? I'm not asking this about Dolby in a vacuum but in comparison to DTS and Auro. How are other companies immune to the problems afflicting Dolby when it comes to demo discs?


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do know of you and others who have received them no questions asked...
> 
> 
> 
> Why have companies like DTS and Auro not needed to resort to the excuse of copyrighted material when handing out demo discs much more freely than Dolby does? If anyone can write to Auro and receive a movie and music laden demo disc "no questions asked", what legally prevents Dolby from responding similarly?
Click to expand...

I don't know... And I can't vouch that those who received discs from Auro didn't "fib" about paying for the Auro license... (Not calling those on here liars... Just saying they were very clear with me.). 

And I didn't know DTS was freely sending discs to those who requested them. 

If that's the case, I can only speculate that they do have the license agreements in place which allows the to do so... Maybe they paid for the authoring and encoding of the films in exchange for the right to distribute said clips... Or???

Or maybe they don't have the rights but don't care if they violate their agreements. 

Who cares the reasons...

Dolby doesn't distribute these discs to the general public, and I've been told in no uncertain terms they don't own the rights to distribute these discs to the genere consumer audience. 

It's not an excuse. 

While they were kind enough to provide me with a bunch to pass out to enthusiasts here, they don't have a great deal of interest in doing so on a larger scale.. 

At this point there is plenty of content for consumers to use to show off their systems....


----------



## sdurani

Jarery said:


> If I then mount atmos speakers for TF and TR or RH do I conform to "inline with mains" which means mounting them at the far sides of the ceiling ? Or do I mount them about 8-9 ft apart so they are away from the walls.


TF and TR with each pair spread 8ft apart would give a better sense of sound overhead than spreading them the entire 14.5ft width of the room (just to get them in line with your mains).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why isn't it a similar nightmare for DTS and Auro? I'm not asking this about Dolby in a vacuum but in comparison to DTS and Auro. How are other companies immune to the problems afflicting Dolby when it comes to demo discs?


The nightmare will be the same, but maybe DTS and Auro have more time to spend negotiating these things than Dolby. Dolby were perhaps too busy getting Atmos into every mainstream AVR, hundreds of theaters, most studios, broadcast and streaming media - this is something that hasn't troubled DTS and Auro much 

Seriously, there is no way for us to know. Licensing commercial content, especially movies which have a minefield of rights and ownerships to navigate, is a very complex and time-consuming procedure (disclosure: my wife is an IP attorney). People have been wanting *True Lies *and *The Abyss* on Blu-ray for years, for example, and I would bet the farm that the reason they aren't is something to do with copyright licensing. 

You know _Happy Birthday_ is copyright material, owned by the two sisters who wrote it? If their tune was in a movie, and they objected to that movie being released in, say, Turkey (for the sake of picking somewhere) then that movie wouldn't be released in Turkey. Unless they recut it to remove the song. And if the song was integral to the story that might be difficult. Or possibly it's a low priority and never gets attended to. Or any one of a thousand reasons.


----------



## Scott Simonian

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby......they don't have a great deal of interest in doing so on a larger scale..
> 
> At this point there is plenty of content for consumers to use to show off their systems....


Can we hammer this point home? Like, really hard? 

I've been very fortunate to be lucky enough to get my hands on many (most?) of these disks and they are fun but at this point, we have plenty of movies to watch and an ever increasing amount of Atmos content rolling out. We don't need these kinds of discs anymore. 

Now, I would like some more technical type discs to come out (like a new Spears&Munsil or Video Essentials) with Atmos encoded content like test tones and such. Those are really useful. That being said, I will not demand that Dolby themselves produce such content. I'm sure they would be happy to lend or license out their stuff to 3rd party authoring houses that want to go through the trouble of making and distributing this content.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> TF and TR with each pair spread 8ft apart would give a better sense of sound overhead than spreading them the entire 14.5ft width of the room (just to get them in line with your mains).


The Auro guys might like the latter implementation.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> Why have companies like DTS and Auro not needed to resort to the excuse of copyrighted material when handing out demo discs much more freely than Dolby does? If anyone can write to Auro and receive a movie and music laden demo disc "no questions asked", what legally prevents Dolby from responding similarly?


Maybe Auro is trying to do a "bottoms up" marketing approach. They have a few AVR's/SSP's with Auro capability and ZERO source material? Whatever their "marketing plan" is, it has not helped me one bit. I have a single demo disc, and some hardware I paid for (now on two separate SSP's - 7702 and Datasat) and still nothing to play. Dolby actually HAS material I can and have enjoyed. Whose marketing approach provides ME what I WANT? Not Auro. Not DTS. My objective is not to have a library of demo discs. Dolby/Atmos wins in my book - even without test tracks !!!!!.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> You know _Happy Birthday_ is copyright material, owned by the two sisters who wrote it? If their tune was in a movie, and they objected to that movie being released in, say, Turkey (for the sake of picking somewhere) then that movie wouldn't be released in Turkey. Unless they recut it to remove the song. And if the song was integral to the story that might be difficult. Or possibly it's a low priority and never gets attended to. Or any one of a thousand reasons.


Wow. I was not aware (one of the may things I am not..  ).
Next time I wish someone I will have to whisper in his/her ears..


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Who cares the reasons...


People care because "reasons" are being posted explaining why Dolby's demo discs are not an e-mail away, like Auro's are. Not unreasonable to question why those reasons don't affect Auro similarly. It's Dolby's prerogative if they don't want consumers to have access to Atmos trailers and test tones. Doesn't me we have to be happy about it or even agree with their decision.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Seriously, there is no way for us to know.


Without having a concrete answer "why", I don't think it's unreasonable for Atmos enthusiasts to lament Dolby's decision to keep Atmos trailers and test tones out of their hands.


> You know _Happy Birthday_ is copyright material, owned by the two sisters who wrote it?


You know that copyright was judged invalid as of September 22?


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> While they were kind enough to provide me with a bunch to pass out to enthusiasts here, they don't have a great deal of interest in doing so on a larger scale..
> 
> At this point there is plenty of content for consumers to use to show off their systems....



With the exception of those of us here on AVS, my suspicion/feeling is that the average consumer buying an Atmos capable AVR from Amazon/Crutchfield/OneCall/Frys etc is not going to have any idea that Atmos specific demo discs even exist. The general populace isn't going to care about them. WE care because we're in the know and are passionate about it. But aside from hobbyist forums, I just don't think there's any call for making mass quantities of demo discs.



kbarnes701 said:


> People have been wanting *True Lies *and *The Abyss* on Blu-ray for years, for example, and I would bet the farm that the reason they aren't is something to do with copyright licensing.



Oh Lord YES PLEASE! Two of my favorite movies EVER. Give'em to me on UHD with Atmos, thanks. The Abyss has so much promise...


(27 Year old)


Spoiler



So many ambient effects underwater on the rig...the storm scenes. And my favorite of all - when the crane is ripped loose and is falling; they can only watch in suspenseful horror as the cable is piling up outside as well as hitting above.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Wow. I was not aware (one of the may things I am not..  ).
> Next time I wish someone I will have to whisper in his/her ears..


It's an interesting case. The song has earned some $50,000,000 in royalties since it was first created, making it one of the most successful songs ever. I was wrong about the ownership - it was transferred to Warner/Chappell Music. The copyright has been jealously guarded by Warner since their acquisition of it, and it is claimed that copyright does not expire in the US until 2030, and in Europe in 2016. As with all things which involve lawyers, things are never straightforward and in September 2015, a federal judge declared that the Warner/Chappell copyright claim was invalid, ruling that the copyright registration applied only to a specific piano arrangement of the song, and not to its lyrics and melody.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> People care because "reasons" are being posted explaining why Dolby's demo discs are not an e-mail away, like Auro's are. Not unreasonable to question why those reasons don't affect Auro similarly. It's Dolby's prerogative if they don't want consumers to have access to Atmos trailers and test tones. Doesn't me we have to be happy about it or even agree with their decision.


Indeed, but our disagreement or unhappiness will not change Dolby's position, especially as they do not hold the rights to distribute generally anyway.

The whole discussion smacks of two fleas arguing about who owns the dog.


----------



## Nightlord

There is no one involved in the material on a demo disc that does not benefit from it being free of charge. If you don't sell a movie based on the clip, you would not sell it anyway. It's free advertising to the power of two. Free downloads would be the best way to do it. You don't only promote your own stuff, you get people hooked on a format which you could release other material in/to.. Being ridicolous about demo discs could in worst case cut future customers into half....

(Note: this has nothing to do with me, As I personally have no interest in demo discs)


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Can we hammer this point home? Like, really hard?
> 
> I've been very fortunate to be lucky enough to get my hands on many (most?) of these disks and they are fun but at this point, we have plenty of movies to watch and an ever increasing amount of Atmos content rolling out. We don't need these kinds of discs anymore.
> 
> Now, I would like some more technical type discs to come out (like a new Spears&Munsil or Video Essentials) with Atmos encoded content like test tones and such. Those are really useful. That being said, I will not demand that Dolby themselves produce such content. I'm sure they would be happy to lend or license out their stuff to 3rd party authoring houses that want to go through the trouble of making and distributing this content.


Scott, all that pizza is definitely giving you the ability to see clearly.  +1.


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Maybe Auro is trying to do a "bottoms up" marketing approach. They have a few AVR's/SSP's with Auro capability and ZERO source material? Whatever their "marketing plan" is, it has not helped me one bit. I have a single demo disc, and some hardware I paid for (now on two separate SSP's - 7702 and Datasat) and still nothing to play. Dolby actually HAS material I can and have enjoyed. Whose marketing approach provides ME what I WANT? Not Auro. Not DTS. My objective is not to have a library of demo discs. Dolby/Atmos wins in my book - even without test tracks !!!!!.


Cynics might suggest that Auro is keen to distribute their demo disk because they have next to nothing else to distribute  And, of course, DTS have a disc out, but no hardware capable of playing it. I believe you Americans would call the development of Auro and DTS a 'cluster' something or other


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I've been very fortunate to be lucky enough to get my hands on many (most?) of these disks and they are fun but at this point, we have plenty of movies to watch and an ever increasing amount of Atmos content rolling out. We don't need these kinds of discs anymore.


YOU "don't need these kind of discs anymore" because you already have them and therefore cannot sympathize with the frustration of those that don't. Easy to develop a let-them-eat-cake mindset. Buying ALL the Atmos movies on Blu-ray, domestic and international, still doesn't get you the test tones being discussed in this thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Without having a concrete answer "why", I don't think it's unreasonable for Atmos enthusiasts to lament Dolby's decision to keep Atmos trailers and test tones out of their hands.


We know why they made the decision: they don't have the rights to distribute generally. No amount of lamenting is going to change that.




sdurani said:


> You know that copyright was judged invalid as of September 22?


Putatively. I don't think Warner/Chappell have come back on it yet have they?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> YOU "don't need these kind of discs anymore" because you already have them and therefore cannot sympathize with the frustration of those that don't. Easy to develop a let-them-eat-cake mindset. Buying ALL the Atmos movies on Blu-ray, domestic and international, still doesn't get you the test tones being discussed in this thread.





Scott Simonian said:


> Can we hammer this point home? Like, really hard?
> 
> I've been very fortunate to be lucky enough to get my hands on many (most?) of these disks and they are fun but at this point, we have plenty of movies to watch and an ever increasing amount of Atmos content rolling out. We don't need these kinds of discs anymore.
> 
> *Now, I would like some more technical type discs to come out (like a new Spears&Munsil or Video Essentials) with Atmos encoded content like test tones and such. Those are really useful. That being said, I will not demand that Dolby themselves produce such content. I'm sure they would be happy to lend or license out their stuff to 3rd party authoring houses that want to go through the trouble of making and distributing this content.*


I was talking about the *copyrighted movie/music clips* on these disks, Sanjay. Not the ever so useful test tones. Even mentioned that I would still like to see someone (other than Dolby) make a disc with said test tones on it.

Also... I sure do sympathize with them. It's just... that's not a huge deal this far into us now having Atmos at home. More of an issue when all you could get was Transformers and Step Up.

Easy fix now. Go buy a movie or two and there are many good ones to choose from.



kbarnes701 said:


> Cynics might suggest that Auro is keen to distribute their demo disk because they have next to nothing else to distribute


LMAO! OH SNAP!


----------



## FilmMixer

Nightlord said:


> There is no one involved in the material on a demo disc that does not benefit from it being free of charge. If you don't sell a movie based on the clip, you would not sell ot anyway. It's free advertising to the power of two. Free downloads would be the best way to do it. You don't only promote your own stuff, you get people hooked on a format which you could release other material in/to.. Being ridicolous about demo discs could in worst case cut future customers into half....
> 
> (Note: this has nothing to do with me, As I personally have no interest in demo discs)


Dolby has zero interest I offering tech support when someone downloads a demo file and it can't play, the USB stick isn't formatted properly, etc. 

The trailers are available on Vudu for those who can't live without them. 

To say that it will cut future customers by even one person is ludicrous. 

Dolby is a mandatory format for broadcast and disc. It has been almost universally adopted by the streaming business. 

They aren't losing sales because the sale happens for them every time a decoder is produced or licensed. 

Much like you're misunderstanding of most things Atmos, you don't have a good grasp of the business model the company operates under.


----------



## GXMnow

Jarery said:


> I also am just about to buy and install 4 ceiling mounted height speakers.
> 
> The mounting width of the speakers brings up some issues for my situation. My 14.5' wide room with 12' wide screen means my LR mains are pushed out to the corners.
> 
> If I then mount atmos speakers for TF and TR or RH do I conform to "inline with mains" which means mounting them at the far sides of the ceiling ? Or do I mount them about 8-9 ft apart so they are away from the walls.
> 
> I know what Dolby advises but my room does not allow for optimum. So what's the better compromise? In line with mains and against the walls or not inline and away from the walls ?


My room has this same exact issue. WIth my 92 inch screen, it was a tough call between having Left/Right behing the sides are putting them beyond the screen. I ended up putting Left and right outside of the screen, which places their acoustic center about 15 inches off of the wall. I do have them aimed in to hit center of the back wall and the side wall near the speaker is treated to reduce the reflection. My back surround speakers are just 5 feet apart, putting their acoustic centers about 3 feet in from the walls. I am trying to decide if I should split the difference and put all my ceiling speakers at about 2 feet in, or if I should plot the diagonal line from the front to the back and place the speakers on that line. The front pair would be a little wider than the back pair. I am leaning towars the straight line at 2 foot off the wall for 2 reasons. First off I think it will look better. But the second reason is that I have thought about putting in a bigger screen now that I have enough light, and I am going to be moving the back speakers anyways, so... With the larger screen, it will again be acoustic transparent, so I could then put my Left and Right behind it at 2 foot from the wall and not have as much trouble with an early reflection on the side and the new placement of the back surrounds can also be a 2 foot from the sides putting them all in spec. But this would be done as 3 separate steps. If I do the angled setup, that would be it, and I would not move the fronts. 

If I did move the fronts in so the center of the horns are 2 foot from the walls, then the side of the screen would need to be at least 6 inches further out to ensure all the sound is passing through screen and not the edging. My true wall width is 11' 9". So this would mean a screen sheet about 105 inches wide. That would then be 59 inches high for 16 x 9. 120 inches diagonal. That is a big step up from 92 inches. I have to run the math and see if my Benq can still make 18 fl for TV watching.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> You know _Happy Birthday_ is copyright material, owned by the two sisters who wrote it? If their tune was in a movie, and they objected to that movie being released in, say, Turkey (for the sake of picking somewhere) then that movie wouldn't be released in Turkey. Unless they recut it to remove the song. And if the song was integral to the story that might be difficult. Or possibly it's a low priority and never gets attended to. Or any one of a thousand reasons.


Court ruling from 2015 - copyright only applies to a certain piano arrangement of it. (Source: Wikipedia)


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Oh Lord YES PLEASE! Two of my favorite movies EVER. Give'em to me on UHD with Atmos, thanks. The Abyss has so much promise...
> 
> 
> (27 Year old)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So many ambient effects underwater on the rig...the storm scenes. And my favorite of all - when the crane is ripped loose and is falling; they can only watch in suspenseful horror as the cable is piling up outside as well as hitting above.


Same here. Well we eventually got Bad Boys II so there's hope. That crane-falling scene used to be my go-to demo scene for demoing what I called my HT back in the day. I would to hear that movie in Atmos!


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Court ruling from 2015 - copyright only applies to a certain piano arrangement of it.


In the opinion of the judge. Let's see what Warner make of it  It expires in Europe this year anyway. I am forbidden by my wife from singing it since I would be in breach of copyright, performing rights and all sorts of deep sh1t. Come this December it will be the first time anyone has sung it to me on my birthday since I got married.



Spoiler



Just kidding of course.



It is an interesting ruling. Any original work automatically has copyright protection, so the lyric is automatically protected. For how long depends on the territory and what type of content it is - music, literature etc. So it is bizarre for a court to rule that only a certain piano arrangement is protected, since the lyric itself is automatically protected. Note that the court didn’t opine that the song was out of copyright, but that it didn't exist. I am sure that Warner/Chappell will contest this ruling vigorously.


----------



## lujan

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby's decision not to hand out discs to consumers may only partially be due to copyright reasons. It is possible DTS and Auro have negotiated distribution rights which extend to the end user or public at large, and may/may not include an option to charge a fee for the disc. Dolby may have decided not to do that, and so the very presence of copyrighted material on their discs means they have to abide by the terms of whatever license they negotiated. Since licensing copyright material is a nightmare, it may be that Dolby do not wish to go back and renegotiate the terms. There could be numerous reasons but there is no reason why Dolby would tell us, and they may be restricted by their licensing agreements from revealing the terms of those agreements.


All I want are the test tones which shouldn't be copyrighted. Anyone want to give me a link to the test tones only, please send me a PM. Thanks


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Even mentioned that I would still like to see someone (other than Dolby) make a disc with said test tones on it.


You already have those test tones, so it's not a problem for you to wait while someone (other than Dolby) makes a disc with said test tones on it. That wait doesn't affect you, so it's easy to tell others that it's "not a huge deal", all while you discuss the very test tones that they don't have. I'll cut them some slack; you keep telling them it's not a big deal.


----------



## rontalley

This is really a case of "Rules" vs. "Reality". *NO* you should not download and/or distribute copyrighted material! However, how else can we obtain them? These are freaking *"DEMO"* disc that you can not Demo unless you are fortunate enough to be blessed by the "Authorized Dealer Gods" who are Authorized to give you a Demo Disc for *Free* that only a specialized piece of equipment can play correctly that has been specifically coded to play the unavailable DEMO material.  

At this point, we should all know that the "disc" are readily available and can even be streamed. "Rules" say you are not authorized to watch them unless you have been given the disc by an ADG but "Reality" says this is just freaking stupid. 

I am a pretty honest person and would not take this stance if I could purchase them but I can't so I "Google" because I just don't see me in a situation where I will run into a ADG and say,"Excuse me Great One, would you so happen to have an Atmos Demo Disc available for me to have?" Nope, no moral dilemma here.


----------



## healthnut

kbarnes701 said:


> They created it for their customers.



Maybe they consider their customers the hardware manufacturers, not the end user.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> You already have those test tones, so it's not a problem for you to wait while someone (other than Dolby) makes a disc with said test tones on it. That wait doesn't affect you, so it's easy to tell others that it's "not a huge deal", all while you discuss the very test tones that they don't have. I'll cut them some slack; you keep telling them it's not a big deal.


Sanjay, I said "not a huge deal" to have movie clip disks anymore. I also said I'd like to see someone release a disk with test tones. I simply don't demand that Dolby has to be the one to do it. 

Why aren't we getting on the ass of the Spears&Munsil or V:E guys? They have had a whole year and a half to make a new disk with immersive audio on it. This is more in line with what they actually do than expecting Dolby to author, publish and distribute it.

I've been very clear to point out that - 

A: I'm very fortunate to have access to this content

B: all that really matters is the test tones which I'd like everyone to have access to as well

C: why does this burden fall purely on the shoulders of Dolby?



Btw, I'd like to mention something a bit radical here at AVS about Atmos....


*You can still enjoy Dolby Atmos very much without demo disks and/or test tones.* 

I know, right? Sorry to mention such an obscene suggestion for some of you.


----------



## kbarnes701

healthnut said:


> Maybe they consider their customers the hardware manufacturers, not the end user.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's what I meant.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> You already have those test tones, so it's not a problem for you to wait while someone (other than Dolby) makes a disc with said test tones on it. That wait doesn't affect you, so it's easy to tell others that it's "not a huge deal", all while you discuss the very test tones that they don't have. I'll cut them some slack; you keep telling them it's not a big deal.


My understanding is that the existing "test tones" are accompanied with no documentation whatsoever, so it isn't entirely obvious how they are intended to sound on specific speaker configurations. In particular, there's no info about whether or not "snap to speaker" was used or which (if any) of the tones are intended to produce phantom images in between existing speakers. 

There is hope that the various companies which produce hifi calibration discs will be authoring versions for use with UHD video systems and/or imerssive audio systems, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if their final products are having to wait for systems to be available which are capable of supporting Dolby Vision and DTS:X. It's kind of hard to test that kind of product without anything to play it on.


----------



## rontalley

Jarery said:


> I also am just about to buy and install 4 ceiling mounted height speakers.
> 
> The mounting width of the speakers brings up some issues for my situation. My 14.5' wide room with 12' wide screen means my LR mains are pushed out to the corners.
> 
> If I then mount atmos speakers for TF and TR or RH do I conform to "inline with mains" which means mounting them at the far sides of the ceiling ? Or do I mount them about 8-9 ft apart so they are away from the walls.
> 
> I know what Dolby advises but my room does not allow for optimum. So what's the better compromise? In line with mains and against the walls or not inline and away from the walls ?





GXMnow said:


> My room has this same exact issue. WIth my 92 inch screen, it was a tough call between having Left/Right behing the sides are putting them beyond the screen. I ended up putting Left and right outside of the screen, which places their acoustic center about 15 inches off of the wall. I do have them aimed in to hit center of the back wall and the side wall near the speaker is treated to reduce the reflection. My back surround speakers are just 5 feet apart, putting their acoustic centers about 3 feet in from the walls. I am trying to decide if I should split the difference and put all my ceiling speakers at about 2 feet in, or if I should plot the diagonal line from the front to the back and place the speakers on that line. The front pair would be a little wider than the back pair. I am leaning towars the straight line at 2 foot off the wall for 2 reasons. First off I think it will look better. But the second reason is that I have thought about putting in a bigger screen now that I have enough light, and I am going to be moving the back speakers anyways, so... With the larger screen, it will again be acoustic transparent, so I could then put my Left and Right behind it at 2 foot from the wall and not have as much trouble with an early reflection on the side and the new placement of the back surrounds can also be a 2 foot from the sides putting them all in spec. But this would be done as 3 separate steps. If I do the angled setup, that would be it, and I would not move the fronts.
> 
> If I did move the fronts in so the center of the horns are 2 foot from the walls, then the side of the screen would need to be at least 6 inches further out to ensure all the sound is passing through screen and not the edging. My true wall width is 11' 9". So this would mean a screen sheet about 105 inches wide. That would then be 59 inches high for 16 x 9. 120 inches diagonal. That is a big step up from 92 inches. I have to run the math and see if my Benq can still make 18 fl for TV watching.


8'-10' should be fine for stereo imaging. Same distance apart for Front and Back. Don't do the diagonal thing. 45 degrees for 8' ceiling. The higher the ceiling the steeper the angle as 45 degrees for a 10' ceiling will spread TF and TR too far apart.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> *You can still enjoy Dolby Atmos very much without demo disks and/or test tones.*



Whaaaaaaaaat?!


----------



## Selden Ball

umenon said:


> I don't have a Blu-ray burner - so been unable to play any of those Atmos-encoded demo clips. My current BluRay player will not read these files off the USB or CD-R.
> 
> Anyone have success in getting their BluRay player to read these files off the USB? If yes, please share the model number. Thanks. // Max


I didn't see any answer to this.

The "lossless" demo files I've found contain both Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks.

My Sony BDP-S590 has no problems playing the mt2s Atmos demo files from a USB thumbdrive. Both their Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks are properly bitstreamed to my SR7009 which decodes them as Atmos.

My Sony BDP-S6500 can bitstream their Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks, but not the Dolby TrueHD ones. They're downconverted to stereo PCM.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Sanjay, I said "not a huge deal" to have movie clip disks anymore. I also said I'd like to see someone release a disk with test tones. I simply don't demand that Dolby has to be the one to do it.
> 
> Why aren't we getting on the ass of the Spears&Munsil or V:E guys? They have had a whole year and a half to make a new disk with immersive audio on it. This is more in line with what they actually do than expecting Dolby to author, publish and distribute it.
> 
> I've been very clear to point out that -
> 
> A: I'm very fortunate to have access to this content
> 
> B: all that really matters is the test tones which I'd like everyone to have access to as well
> 
> C: why does this burden fall purely on the shoulders of Dolby?
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I'd like to mention something a bit radical here at AVS about Atmos....
> 
> 
> *You can still enjoy Dolby Atmos very much without demo disks and/or test tones.*
> 
> I know, right? Sorry to mention such an obscene suggestion for some of you.


Yeah but Scott, those of us who do have the material have become very familiar with how stuff supposed to sound and faithfully play the Demo whenever we tweak things. Just recently I "acquired" the Encounter Demo and it shut me up about everything that I said about lateral movement from side to ceiling. So yeah, we can enjoy Atmos without the Demo disc but they are kinda important when setting up your system and making sure imaging and calibrations are correct.

Hell for the longest the bird did not go a full 360 for various reasons. Now it does. I would have never known this without access to the Demo. 

We should be able to tell someone to simply "Google" for access to the material and all of this talk about copyright infringement and blah blah blah should cease.


----------



## rontalley

umenon said:


> I don't have a Blu-ray burner - so been unable to play any of those Atmos-encoded demo clips. My current BluRay player will not read these files off the USB or CD-R.
> 
> Anyone have success in getting their BluRay player to read these files off the USB? If yes, please share the model number. Thanks. // Max


No laptop with HDMI or HTPC? Windows Media Player has no problems playing the files if your PC is setup to Bitstream.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I like how you guys keep quoting my comments and responding to them as if I disagree with value of these test tones. 

Really, guys?

All I said was that I don't think we need movie clip type Atmos demo disks anymore. But please.... let's keep this round and round going. I'll be back in a week.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> I like how you guys keep quoting my comments and responding to them as if I disagree with value of these test tones.
> 
> Really, guys?
> 
> All I said was that I don't think we need movie clip type Atmos demo disks anymore. But please.... let's keep this round and round going. I'll be back in a week.


Cause we like given you a hard time. Jealous of all them damn speakers!


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Why aren't we getting on the ass of the Spears&Munsil or V:E guys?


Because they don't already have that content pressed onto discs like Dolby does.


> why does this burden fall purely on the shoulders of Dolby?


This isn't a question of putting Atmos trailers and test tones onto a Blu-ray; Dolby has already done that. The discussion is about why keep it out of the hands of end users.


> *You can still enjoy Dolby Atmos very much without demo disks and/or test tones.*


Shame you don't know what it's like to not have those discs already, because you wouldn't be as glib about the situation.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Seriously, there is no way for us to know.





kbarnes701 said:


> We know why they made the decision:


Which is it?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Which is it?


It's both of course. We know the decision but we have no way of knowing why they made it.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> This isn't a question of putting Atmos trailers and test tones onto a Blu-ray; Dolby has already done that. The discussion is about why keep it out of the hands of end users.


We know why. The discs contain copyrighted material for which Dolby have no license to distribute to the general public. No discussion needed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well I can't go back in time to play out a situation where I don't have them so what am I to do, Sanjay?

So a few enthusiasts can't/don't have access to some demo material. It's not the end of the world. But I guess it is _today_ for those that don't.


You seem to be lumping me into some category that does not want to see these discs get out there. That is inaccurate.

What can I do, Sanjay for I am only one man?


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that the existing "test tones" are accompanied with no documentation whatsoever, so it isn't entirely obvious how they are intended to sound on specific speaker configurations.


They are speaker identifier checks, so at the very least consumers could play the test track that matches their layout to check if the appropriate speakers light up.


> In particular, there's no info about whether or not "snap to speaker" was used or which (if any) of the tones are intended to produce phantom images in between existing speakers.


Pretty obvious it was used (play the Wides signal on a set-up with no Wides speakers, they snap 100% to the Front speakers).


----------



## maikeldepotter

GXMnow said:


> With my current screen size, the 63 inch high front speakers have the horns very close to the ideal 2/3 up the screen. Lowering the front speakers to "Ear Height" would not only hurt the room coverage, but it would also make the sound no longer come from the ideal area of the screen.


The Dolby Atmos Cinema Technical Guidelines recommends positioning the acoustical center midway between two-thirds of the screen height of the flat and scope images, and a downward elevation angle of the screen speakers.

By contrast, the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Guidelines does not clearly specify speaker positioning relative to the screen, but recommends all lower level speakers to be at ear-level.

So if the middle of your 16:9 screen is *above* ear height (like for the most of us), you have to choose for either:
1) front sounds coming from the correct screen area (height), combined with an 'inferior' Atmos sound (as in: not following Dolby's Atmos specs), or 
2) front sounds originating from the bottom or below the screen (as shown in Dolby's diagrams), combined with an optimal Atmos sound (as in: following Dolby's Atmos specs), or
3) the best compromise between 1) and 2)

Take your pick.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> They are speaker identifier checks, so at the very least consumers could play the test track that matches their layout to check if the appropriate speakers light up.


Their AVR test tones permit that.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Well I can't go back in time to play out a situation where I don't have them so what am I to do, Sanjay?


Not asking you to do anything, just pointing out why I don't have your let-them-eat-cake attitude and make glib comments like:


> It's not the end of the world.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Their AVR test tones permit that.


No, they don't test for proper Atmos decoding.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Well I can't go back in time to play out a situation where I don't have them so what am I to do, Sanjay?


You sure about that, Scott? I think we know different. Your dirty little secret is out. Go on, tell us that's not you, before the pizza got to you....


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The discs contain copyrighted material for which Dolby have no license to distribute to the general public.


Why isn't that a problem for Auro?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No, they don't test for proper Atmos decoding.


You said "the test track that matches their layout". The AVR test tones will show the speakers match their layout. WRT to the decoding, there seems to be some doubt about how the disc has been authored, with people reporting inconsistencies in their test results (eg when playing the 9.1.6 tones and the 7.1.4 tones on a 7.1.4 system). So the disc may be of less use than people think it is.

As you know, I have the disc anyway, so again, it is easy for me to be complacent about it, along with Scott (if he is) - but no amount of discussion, endless or otherwise, is going to make any difference to the plain and simple fact that Dolby are not, and can not, going to distribute the disc to the public at large. If ever there was a pointless discussion on AVS, this is it. It makes the discussion about surround speaker height look like a submission to the Nobel committee.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> WRT to the decoding, there seems to be some doubt about how the disc has been authored, with people reporting inconsistencies in their test results (eg when playing the 9.1.6 tones and the 7.1.4 tones on a 7.1.4 system).


That's why I said they could pick the track that matched their layout (e.g., playing 7.1.4 track on a 7.1.4 set-up). The AVR's internal test tones don't go through the Atmos decoder, so they can't be used to check proper rendering.


> If ever there was a pointless discussion on AVS, this is it.


If it was pointless, you wouldn't be participating and offering counterpoints.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why isn't that a problem for Auro?


Auro don't have any real content other than their esoteric music stuff. Maybe they negotiated a distribution deal with their content providers that allows them to sell the discs, to give them away, to do wtf they like with them. Negotiating for the rights of *TIËSTO’S album "Elements of Life" *is, I guess, not nearly as difficult as negotiating for* Transformers: Age of Ultron*. I think we can see why.


----------



## Nightlord

FilmMixer said:


> They aren't losing sales because the sale happens for them every time a decoder is produced or licensed.
> 
> Much like you're misunderstanding of most things Atmos, you don't have a good grasp of the business model the company operates under.


Unless you motivate people to upgrade to a new AVR, they won't get anything. If people aren't buying, manufacturers won't produce/license anything (even if there may be some delay in the system). Perhaps not in your part of the world, but in mine - people are going back to older Denon AVRs for a better preamp section, myself I went back to a 2807, for instance. It will take quite some doing to move us to a weaker preamp based on a format alone. And if you can't get it demoed, even less reason.

Keep in mind, stereo performance outweighs any new surround format. That's where 95% of the usage of the AVR will be (at least until stereo preamp makers learn to put in a cinema bypass function on a wider scale). (And no, I don't expect 95% of AVS members to agree on that, the VS members seems to outweight the AS members by quite a bit.)


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If it was pointless, you wouldn't be participating and offering counterpoints.


That is so true. But my participation in something isn't the universal arbiter of pointlessness, or otherwise.


----------



## audioguy

stikle said:


> Oh Lord YES PLEASE! Two of my favorite movies EVER. Give'em to me on UHD with Atmos, thanks. The Abyss has so much promise...
> 
> 
> (27 Year old)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So many ambient effects underwater on the rig...the storm scenes. And my favorite of all - when the crane is ripped loose and is falling; they can only watch in suspenseful horror as the cable is piling up outside as well as hitting above.


I agree on both. But the Abyss Director's Cut is the only one that makes any sense. When I originally saw this movie, I left scratching my head. Then when I purchased the Director's cut, it all came together. I can only image how those under water scenes could be the very best home Atmos movie ever.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro don't have any real content other than their esoteric music stuff.


The demo disc has half a dozen movie clips, including Rise of the Guardians and The Croods. Hardly esoteric. Besides, the content people want from the Atmos disc is from Dolby themselves, not from movie studios nor record labels. Don't tell me they can't negotiate a distribution deal for that content.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> I've been very fortunate to be lucky enough to get my hands on many (most?) of these disks and they are fun but at this point, we have plenty of movies to watch and an ever increasing amount of Atmos content rolling out. *We don't need these kinds of discs anymore.*



Hey Scott...since *you don't need these kinds of discs anymore*, can I borrow your September 2015 disc for a week or so to verify my Atmos configuration? I'll pay for shipping both ways.

I mean, *since you don't need it* and all, you won't miss it for a week.


----------



## Lakesideb

Thanks for the suggestion guys. I could definitely try to get the TFL and TFR to be much closer to the screen wall such that the distance between TR and TF is about 8ft to 10ft. The issue is that there is a bulk head running through this room. The bulk head is rather wide as it has HVAC trunk aswell as two beams running through. 




So I could put the two TF speakers inside the bulk head. The room height is 9ft... but if the speakers are in the bulk head, the TF will be at 8ft height. I could also put TF speaker in the cavity between the screen wall and the start of the bulk head. but I am not sure if this is a good idea.

The TRR speaker is another issue. There just isn't anyway they can fit at their required optimum place as there is just too much HVAC pipes in the area. I could create a bulk head and place the TRR beside the return duct. 

Take a look at the picture below. Please ignore the two red poles, as they will be relocated. 



So in this situation:
TFs are in bulk head (at 8ft height) 8 to 9ft apart with each other. 
TRL speaker can be placed between joists at 9ft height.
TRR speaker will be in a bulk head in front of the return duct. It will be 8ft height.

What do you guys think about this? Would this be a good compromise? 

Thanks


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro don't have any real content other than their esoteric music stuff. Maybe they negotiated a distribution deal with their content providers that allows them to sell the discs, to give them away, to do wtf they like with them. Negotiating for the rights of *TIËSTO’S album "Elements of Life" *is, I guess, not nearly as difficult as negotiating for* Transformers: Age of Ultron*. I think we can see why.


Hmmm.... One of the World's best DJs vs a pretty average pseudo-scifi movie?


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro don't have any real content other than their esoteric music stuff. Maybe they negotiated a distribution deal with their content providers that allows them to sell the discs, to give them away, to do wtf they like with them. Negotiating for the rights of *TIËSTO’S album "Elements of Life" *is, I guess, not nearly as difficult as negotiating for* Transformers: Age of Ultron*. I think we can see why.


Keith, Tiesto won a Grammy in 2015, and he's hardly obscure in the music world:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Tiësto

Maybe you need some EDM or Ozark Henry in your life  .


----------



## sdurani

Lakesideb said:


> What do you guys think about this? Would this be a good compromise?


My first choice would be to put the Top Middle speakers forward of the bulkhead and Front Height speakers high up on the front wall. This will give them decent separation while still keeping them symmetrical. Second choice would be to just have one pair of height speakers, mounted forward of the bulkhead, designated either TM or TF depending on what the elevation angle turns out to be.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Why isn't that a problem for Auro?



Because nobody cares what Auro does. 












(kidding)


----------



## Lakesideb

sdurani said:


> My first choice would be to put the Top Middle speakers forward of the bulkhead and Front Height speakers high up on the front wall. This will give them decent separation while still keeping them symmetrical. Second choice would be to just have one pair of height speakers, mounted forward of the bulkhead, designated either TM or TF depending on what the elevation angle turns out to be.


Hi Sanjay, thanks for the reply. I am abit confused. Are you suggesting this configuration?



If this works then it would be terrific as all speakers will be completely symmetrical. But aren't the TF speakers way too much in front. Key CiQ200QR have wide dispersion, but I am not sure if the sound will get dispersed to someone sitting 10 to 13 feet away on a couch. Also, there will be a bulk head close to them which may obstruct sound. Hopefully this shouldn't be a big issue. 

Could you confirm this is indeed what you are suggesting?

Thanks


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> So a few enthusiasts can't/don't have access to some demo material. It's not the end of the world. But I guess it is _today_ for those that don't.


Not the end of the world, but as with you, some of us have traveled beyond "regular" 7.1.4, and those blasted test tones would confirm if all is functioning as it should.

How goes it with the giveaway, @FilmMixer ?



kbarnes701 said:


> Auro don't have any real content other than their esoteric music stuff. Maybe they negotiated a distribution deal with their content providers that allows them to sell the discs, to give them away, to do wtf they like with them. Negotiating for the rights of *TIËSTO’S album "Elements of Life" *is, I guess, not nearly as difficult as negotiating for* Transformers: Age of Ultron*. I think we can see why.


Keith, Keith, Keith. Get your facts straight, the Auro disc contains 2.5 hours of movieclips, music, test signals, etc.

http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/10/16/auro-3d-2014-demonstration-disc/


----------



## Stoked21

I agree they should be included....Or at least available directly from Dolby or authorized 3rd party at a lower cost with Dolby receiving the profit....I agree test tones should be standard issue. I agree that it showcases the technology, store purposes, in home demos with potentially new consumers buying the technology, etc etc......

Guys...There are a handful on eBay for $68 up to $125....So the material is available. 
How is that not the end of the discussion? You paid $1k, 2k, 3k for an Atmos AVR/Prepro. You paid for the extra speakers. You paid for the extra amplifiers and cables...Are you really upset about paying an additional $80 or so if it's something you want so bad?????

It's $70-100.....Spears and Munsil would cost you $30+ anyway, even if it's only for setup with no wow factor.....Are we really haggling over the extra couple of twenty dollar bills in these expensive HTs???

It's available online even if not directly purchased from Dolby....The people who are upset they don't have one are the people who are not willing to pay for it (even if it is overpriced). You must not want it or need it bad enough. Either that or feel entitled to it.


----------



## sdurani

Lakesideb said:


> Are you suggesting this configuration?


Close. I'm suggesting placing the TM pair as close to above the listeners as symmetrically possible. To that end, I have a quick question: how much to the left would you have to move the green speaker marked TRR to get it above the listeners? In your previous diagram, you had it almost above the MLP. Does it really need to move that far left in order to be above the couch? 

For the FH pair, I was suggesting placing them high up on the front wall (not obstructed to listeners and well separated from the TM pair).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Not asking you to do anything, just pointing out why I don't have your let-them-eat-cake attitude and make glib comments like:


I understand your point of view, Sanjay but try and understand mine as well.

_Because_ I have had the privilege of owning these disks, I am in a position that other should take notice of and listen to. My POV on the situation is that you can enjoy Atmos and live a happy immersive audio filled life with out these disks. I'm sorry to everybody here who wants them can not get them. That's not a choice I made. I was lucky to get them.






stikle said:


> Hey Scott...since *you don't need these kinds of discs anymore*, can I borrow your September 2015 disc for a week or so to verify my Atmos configuration? I'll pay for shipping both ways.
> 
> I mean, *since you don't need it* and all, you won't miss it for a week.


Hey! I would love to, seriously! Unfortunately, this material is copyrighted and I am forbidden from distributing it. I'd get in trouble if I did and lose trust with my contact. So, no. Sorry.


----------



## markus767

Scott Simonian said:


> Now, I would like some more technical type discs to come out (like a new Spears&Munsil or Video Essentials) with Atmos encoded content like test tones and such. Those are really useful.


I agree. Such test material would probably settle the question where to best place speakers pretty quickly


----------



## rontalley

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Sanjay, thanks for the reply. I am abit confused. Are you suggesting this configuration?
> 
> 
> 
> If this works then it would be terrific as all speakers will be completely symmetrical. But aren't the TF speakers way too much in front. Key CiQ200QR have wide dispersion, but I am not sure if the sound will get dispersed to someone sitting 10 to 13 feet away on a couch. Also, there will be a bulk head close to them which may obstruct sound. Hopefully this shouldn't be a big issue.
> 
> Could you confirm this is indeed what you are suggesting?
> 
> Thanks


Build two bulkheads or backer boxes and put the TR in as TM right over the couch. Put the TF no more than 9'6" from the TR. Put the speakers in the symmetrically. You only need 4" for most in-ceilings. You are thinking too hard. Even if you have to mount on-ceilings, it would be better than a non-symmetrical installation.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Not the end of the world, but as with you, some of us have traveled beyond "regular" 7.1.4, and those blasted test tones would confirm if all is functioning as it should.


It did, yes! These test tones sure were a big help, especially for us in the "advanced class" of surround sound. 

But ... yet a-f**king-gian, I _*WANT*_ people to have access to these materials. It is totally reasonable that I do not agree with the importance of Atmos demo disks and at the same time value the importance of the test material that just so happens to be on the same disks.

Yo, for you guys in the nose bleed section....

*Wonderfully useful Atmos test tones =/= (that means DOES NOT EQUAL) must-have "demo disk"*

Test tones? Yes!

Demo clips? Meh.

That's all I'm sayin'. That's all I have been saying about this matter.


And yes, I'm very aware that these test tones are on these demo disks. Lol. The root of the "discussion" is 'why aren't these available?' And the answer is always "because of copyrighted material"

And around and around and around and around we go. 


But whatever.... Auro-something. Something about wides or whatever. Objects, yo.


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> Guys...There are a handful on eBay for $68 up to $125....So the material is available.
> How is that not the end of the discussion? You paid $1k, 2k, 3k for an Atmos AVR/Prepro. You paid for the extra speakers. You paid for the extra amplifiers and cables...Are you really upset about paying an additional $80 or so if it's something you want so bad?????



Because some people don't have $68-125 to drop on a single disc after paying $1K, $2K, $3K, for an Atmos AVR/Prepro, speakers, amplifiers, and cables...?



Scott Simonian said:


> Hey! I would love to, seriously! Unfortunately, this material is copyrighted and I am forbidden from distributing it. I'd get in trouble if I did and lose trust with my contact. So, no. Sorry.



Uh...no, you are loaning it to a friend and will be getting it back. You're not distributing anything. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night in your bed of Atmos demo discs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> Because nobody cares what Auro does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (kidding)


Lol. We aren't. 

Das the truth. Only people that care about what Auro does are the suckers people who bought that upgrade to use it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

markus767 said:


> I agree. Such test material would probably settle the question where to best place speakers pretty quickly


WTF?!? That is a totally reasonable thing for you to agree with. 

Who are you and what have you done with the _real_ Markus767?





stikle said:


> Uh...no, you are loaning it to a friend and will be getting it back. You're not distributing anything. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night in your bed of Atmos demo discs.


Well now....


----------



## SeanCJ

Hi Guys.
Forive me if this has been discussed here, but I've tried to go back through all the pages and via 'search' to find any discussion on this to find a consensus.
I have the Yamaha 2040, hooked up to a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amp. 
I'm running 7.1.2 (currently looking for a second sub for 7.2). I'm running top front ceiling speakers exactly where Dolby recommends. 
During the Atmos demos, I feel like I'm lacking quite a bit from the back height location and am wondering if back height speakers would be more immersive with atmos as well as regular 7.1 material using DSU versus the current rear surrounds? 
What's the consensus from those of you with Atmos experience regarding 5.1.4 rather than 7.1.2?
It would not be an easy switch for me, hence hoping for some actual experiences before cutting more holes and running new wire in the ceiling and patching holes in the rear wall.
Thanks in advance for the discussion/opinions.
Sean


----------



## Stoked21

stikle said:


> Because some people don't have $68-125 to drop on a single disc after paying $1K, $2K, $3K, for an Atmos AVR/Prepro, speakers, amplifiers, and cables...?


No. I get that man. Trust me, I felt screwed having to pay that much for it. I'm not trying to be overly blunt or rude. So please don't take it as such. We all agree on the purpose of it and we all agree that it should come from Dolby or an authorized party...We all agree that the means of acquiring it is less than ideal.....But it is what it is. It really comes down to being chapped about the cost. 

But for people to say "I just spent $X,XXX on an AVR and $XXX on speakers and $XXX on amplifier and $XX on cables and $XXX on several Atmos BDs"...And then to follow that up with "I can't (won't) spend $80 on a test disc."......Well....I think that says it all. It's almost like some people feel a sense of entitlement or that it's owed to them, if you ask me.....And I'm one of those people that feels this way! But in lieu of no other alternative, I just bought the darn disc and solved my problem.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@SeanCJ

Move your front heights and put them over your head. That'll do it.


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> I'm not trying to be overly blunt or rude. So please don't take it as such.



Naw, I've got nothing invested here, it's all good. I was just bored today so I thought I'd try and catch up with Bob's post count. 



Scott Simonian said:


> Well now....


----------



## batpig

SeanCJ said:


> Hi Guys.
> Forive me if this has been discussed here, but I've tried to go back through all the pages and via 'search' to find any discussion on this to find a consensus.
> I have the Yamaha 2040, hooked up to a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amp.
> I'm running 7.1.2 (currently looking for a second sub for 7.2). I'm running top front ceiling speakers exactly where Dolby recommends.
> During the Atmos demos, I feel like I'm lacking quite a bit from the back height location and am wondering if back height speakers would be more immersive with atmos as well as regular 7.1 material using DSU versus the current rear surrounds?
> What's the consensus from those of you with Atmos experience regarding 5.1.4 rather than 7.1.2?
> It would not be an easy switch for me, hence hoping for some actual experiences before cutting more holes and running new wire in the ceiling and patching holes in the rear wall.
> Thanks in advance for the discussion/opinions.
> Sean


If you're only doing 7.1.2 you really should have Top Middle speakers, not Top Front, in order to get that overhead sound OVER you.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> My POV on the situation is that you can enjoy Atmos and live a happy immersive audio filled life with out these disks.


Who said Atmos cannot be enjoyed without these discs? Folks simply want a copy of something you're fortunate enough to take for granted. To that end, it's perfectly reasonable on a discussion board for people to discuss a situation or policy they're disappointed with.


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that the existing "test tones" are accompanied with no documentation whatsoever, so it isn't entirely obvious how they are intended to sound on specific speaker configurations. In particular, there's no info about whether or not "snap to speaker" was used or which (if any) of the tones are intended to produce phantom images in between existing speakers.





sdurani said:


> They are speaker identifier checks, so at the very least consumers could play the test track that matches their layout to check if the appropriate speakers light up. Pretty obvious it was used (play the Wides signal on a set-up with no Wides speakers, they snap 100% to the Front speakers).


Sanjay - that seems like a pretty flippant dismissal of the lack of info or documentation. It is not at all "obvious" outside of a select few, highly informed enthusiasts that there is even such a thing as "snap to speaker". Pretty much any test disc (whether visual patterns or audio tracks) has accompanying documentation detailing the intent of the test material and how it is to be used. 

You could easily imagine a consumer playing a "Front Wide Left" test signal and flipping out that something is wrong with their setup or receiver because it's only playing from their Front Left speaker. 

With the caveat that the test tones intended audience may not be the same, it would far better if the tones were well documented so the consumer would know what they were supposed to be hearing and thus be able to compare it to the actual output. Shoot, I'm certainly in the top percentile of "informed" home users and I was surprised about some of the results, and especially perplexed (still am) about the inconsistency with the "snap" apparently not being used on the Top Front signal in the x.x.4 tracks. I still don't have a clear answer as to whether that was intentional or an error, and only accurate documentation can answer that.


----------



## Selden Ball

SeanCJ said:


> Hi Guys.
> Forive me if this has been discussed here, but I've tried to go back through all the pages and via 'search' to find any discussion on this to find a consensus.
> I have the Yamaha 2040, hooked up to a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5 channel amp.
> I'm running 7.1.2 (currently looking for a second sub for 7.2). I'm running top front ceiling speakers exactly where Dolby recommends.
> During the Atmos demos, I feel like I'm lacking quite a bit from the back height location and am wondering if back height speakers would be more immersive with atmos as well as regular 7.1 material using DSU versus the current rear surrounds?
> What's the consensus from those of you with Atmos experience regarding 5.1.4 rather than 7.1.2?
> It would not be an easy switch for me, hence hoping for some actual experiences before cutting more holes and running new wire in the ceiling and patching holes in the rear wall.
> Thanks in advance for the discussion/opinions.
> Sean


While Top Middle speakers probably are more appropriate for Atmos than Top Front for a 7.1.2 system, going to 5.1.4 will provide front-to-back panning in the overhead sounds. Different people have different opinions about which of the two configurations is superior: 7.1.2 or 5.1.4. I fear you'll have to try them out to determine which you prefer.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Who said Atmos cannot be enjoyed without these discs? Folks simply want a copy of something you're fortunate enough to take for granted. To that end, it's perfectly reasonable on a discussion board for people to discuss a situation or policy they're disappointed with.


Dude... WTF would you state that I take them for granted? That is way past the line and untrue.

These disks, even with test tones are a mere pinprick of enjoyment that someone will have with their Atmos system. All other real world and attainable content is much better. It's only because I have got to experience them that I can say that the people who can't get them aren't missing too much. You're making me out to be someone or something that I am not. 


But now I'm an a**hole because I have these disks and they can't? What the hell?


----------



## SeanCJ

batpig said:


> If you're only doing 7.1.2 you really should have Top Middle speakers, not Top Front, in order to get that overhead sound OVER you.


Well, Dolby's website recommended front placement, not middle, for 7.1.2. I'm not wanting to move the top front speakers now. 
Really wish they had added that option to their website's speaker configuration recommendations!


----------



## tjenkins95

kbarnes701 said:


> *Legend *has an Atmos soundtrack, or at least the version Amazon are selling in the UK does.


 

Already pre-ordered it last week and it is on its way! Unfortuantely it takes about 2 weeks to get to the States.
On the other side, blu-rays from Japan only take 5 days!


----------



## Scott Simonian

SeanCJ said:


> Well, Dolby's website recommended front placement, not middle, for 7.1.2. I'm not wanting to move the top front speakers now.


Then you're never going to get good overhead imaging. 

Move your speakers.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Auro don't have any real content other than their esoteric music stuff. Maybe they negotiated a distribution deal with their content providers that allows them to sell the discs, to give them away, to do wtf they like with them. Negotiating for the rights of *TIËSTO’S album "Elements of Life" *is, I guess, not nearly as difficult as negotiating for* Transformers: Age of Ultron*. I think we can see why.


Is this a new movie? Looks like a fusion...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol! It's all the same s**t, isn't it?


----------



## SeanCJ

Selden Ball said:


> While Top Middle speakers probably are more appropriate for Atmos than Top Front for a 7.1.2 system, going to 5.1.4 will provide front-to-back panning in the overhead sounds. Different people have different opinions about which of the two configurations is superior: 7.1.2 or 5.1.4. I fear you'll have to try them out to determine which you prefer.


Thank you. I'll look into what I'll have to do to 'rig' some top back speakers to test it out.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It is not at all "obvious" outside of a select few, highly informed enthusiasts that there is even such a thing as "snap to speaker".


I was responding to the comment _"there's no info about whether or not "snap to speaker" was used"_. Seems obvious that it was used.


----------



## batpig

SeanCJ said:


> Well, Dolby's website recommended front placement, not middle, for 7.1.2.


Not sure where you are looking but all Dolby documentation recommends Top Middle for a 7.1.2 layout.

Here is the layout info on their website: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html

It clearly shows Top Middle speakers being recommended for that layout, including side-view diagrams with the recommended angle of 65-100 degree elevation. 

If you download the PDF whitepaper it shows the exact same thing.

The images below are used in all the literature including the website recommendations.

Did you perhaps confuse the upward-firing "Atmos enabled" speakers for physical overhead speakers?


----------



## goldark

Has anyone mounted 4 Atmos speakers in the corners of the room? If so, how effective was this?

The back corner ceiling mounted speakers would be a few feet behind the surround speakers in a 5.2.4 setup I'm trying for. The fronts Atmos speakers would be a couple feet behind the mains in the corner.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> I was responding to the comment _"there's no info about whether or not "snap to speaker" was used"_. Seems obvious that it was used.


Except for the confusing inconsistency... 

But it sounds like you aren't disagreeing that documentation of the intended output would be beneficial.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Stoked21 said:


> No. I get that man. Trust me, I felt screwed having to pay that much for it. I'm not trying to be overly blunt or rude. So please don't take it as such. We all agree on the purpose of it and we all agree that it should come from Dolby or an authorized party...We all agree that the means of acquiring it is less than ideal.....But it is what it is. It really comes down to being chapped about the cost.
> 
> But for people to say "I just spent $X,XXX on an AVR and $XXX on speakers and $XXX on amplifier and $XX on cables and $XXX on several Atmos BDs"...And then to follow that up with "I can't (won't) spend $80 on a test disc."......Well....I think that says it all. It's almost like some people feel a sense of entitlement or that it's owed to them, if you ask me.....And I'm one of those people that feels this way! But in lieu of no other alternative, I just bought the darn disc and solved my problem.


My question is, if Dolby is not "distributing" or selling them to general public, how such a volume becomes available on eBay? How do know if it is not pirated?


----------



## batpig

goldark said:


> Has anyone mounted 4 Atmos speakers in the corners of the room? If so, how effective was this?
> 
> The back corner ceiling mounted speakers would be a few feet behind the surround speakers in a 5.2.4 setup I'm trying for. The fronts Atmos speakers would be a couple feet behind the mains in the corner.


I'm sure it will "work" in the sense of there being sound above and around you, but it's not going to give the intended effect.

It's really all about the angles, placing them in the four corners is somewhat arbitray and may or may not come close the correct spec.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> These disks, even with test tones are a mere pinprick of enjoyment that someone will have with their Atmos system.


You're arguing as though someone has been saying that Atmos system cannot be enjoyed without these discs. No one has said that.


> It's only because I have got to experience them that I can say that the people who can't get them aren't missing too much.


Can you not understand other people wanting to have the disc so that they can make that same judgment for themselves rather than take your word for it?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> You're arguing as though someone has been saying that Atmos system cannot be enjoyed without these discs. No one has said that. Can you not understand other people wanting to have the disc so that they can make that same judgment for themselves rather than take your word for it?


Now you're just being ridiculous.

Why would you make me out to be someone who doesn't care that not everybody can have these? Of course people want them. They can't have them. They'll have to get over it or find it one way another to obtain this stuff.


I guess this will just keep going on forever or until Marc comes in and says something about these being copyrighted material and that Dolby has no interest in distributing them for about the 100th time.... this a week.

This s**t is exhausting. 

I can't wait for more "where do I put my speakers" questions right now.


----------



## SeanCJ

batpig said:


> Not sure where you are looking but all Dolby documentation recommends Top Middle for a 7.1.2 layout.
> 
> Here is the layout info on their website: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html
> 
> It clearly shows Top Middle speakers being recommended for that layout, including side-view diagrams with the recommended angle of 65-100 degree elevation.
> 
> If you download the PDF whitepaper it shows the exact same thing.
> 
> The images below are used in all the literature including the website recommendations.
> 
> Did you perhaps confuse the upward-firing "Atmos enabled" speakers for physical overhead speakers?


That's the diagram I used and that is how I have them placed. About 15/20 degrees forward of mlp. I guess I do have top middle, but called them top front mistakenly since my receiver refers to them as "front presence".


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Except for the confusing inconsistency...


True. I'm not saying these are the best Atmos test signals. Unfortunately, they're the only Atmos test signals.


> But it sounds like you aren't disagreeing that documentation of the intended output would be beneficial.


Sure, not just for the test signals, but even for some of the trailers (letting people know what to connect visually in the Audiosphere trailer to what they're hearing on their system). As someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, mostly us enthusiasts rather than general consumers would end up with the disc IF Dolby sent them out the way Auro does (doubt the typical consumer would even be away of the disc's existence).


----------



## Scott Simonian

SeanCJ said:


> That's how I have them. About 15/20 degrees forward of mlp. I guess I do have top middle, but called them top front mistakenly since my receiver refe s to them as "front presence".


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Why would you make me out to be someone who doesn't care that not everybody can have these? Of course people want them. They can't have them. They'll have to go over it or find it one way another to obtain this stuff.
> 
> 
> I guess this will just keep going on forever or until Marc comes in and says something about these being copyrighted material and that Dolby has no interest in distributing them for about the 100th time.... this a week.
> 
> This s**t is exhausting.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/images/AVSForum/smilies/tango_face_kiss.png
> I can't wait for more "where do I put my speakers" questions right now.


Can my height speakers go on the floor if I fire them upward at 45 degrees, will this be within anyone here's spec 

That should hold you over for awhile:kiss:


----------



## Scott Simonian

audiofan1 said:


> Can my height speakers go on the floor if I fire them upward at 45 degrees, will this be within anyone here's spec
> 
> That should hold you over for awhile:kiss:


Absolutely. Just sit inverted.


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Absolutely. Just sit inverted.


I meant basement floor to the first floor ceiling!

Back to work


----------



## dormie1360

Scott Simonian said:


> Absolutely. Just sit inverted.


What about surrounds then?


----------



## Scott Simonian

dormie1360 said:


> What about surrounds then?


THEY BETTER BE AT EAR LEVEL!!!!


----------



## SoundChex

audiofan1 said:


> Can my height speakers go on the floor if I fire them upward at 45 degrees, will this be within anyone here's spec
> That should hold you over for awhile:kiss:



Congratulations, you appear to have rediscovered Ambisonics! 











_


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> Congratulations, you appear to have rediscovered Ambisonics!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Whew! Almost thought you were going to post something about that NHK 22.2ch format.

Or did you forget this time?


----------



## MarkMul1

Man I hope I don't explode the can of worms.......... Would be a good visual

I've been curious what to think or do with the Atmos test tones. I have the disc. I went back the last 4 or 5 pages to read thru and see if I could find out exactly or kinda what they were for. I've seen lots and lots but must of missed the part of what they are for. I don't mean that in a silly way to burst open the worm can. I just have not figured out what your supposed to do with them. If My Denon 6200 set levels when calibrating, what are these. 

Again, maybe I missed it and if someone could point me to that page number I would appreciate it. And if I blew up some worms.... I'm sorry and to anyone pissed I have one and they don't, it's eBay on the WWW where I purchased it. 

Thanks


----------



## DaGamePimp

Stoked21 said:


> No. I get that man. Trust me, I felt screwed having to pay that much for it. I'm not trying to be overly blunt or rude. So please don't take it as such. We all agree on the purpose of it and we all agree that it should come from Dolby or an authorized party...We all agree that the means of acquiring it is less than ideal.....But it is what it is. It really comes down to being chapped about the cost.
> 
> But for people to say "I just spent $X,XXX on an AVR and $XXX on speakers and $XXX on amplifier and $XX on cables and $XXX on several Atmos BDs"...And then to follow that up with "I can't (won't) spend $80 on a test disc."......Well....I think that says it all. It's almost like some people feel a sense of entitlement or that it's owed to them, if you ask me.....And I'm one of those people that feels this way! But in lieu of no other alternative, I just bought the darn disc and solved my problem.


Has nothing to do with entitlement, I certainly do not feel I am owed something for free from Dolby. We all know the right thing to do here if the demand is there, which it appears to be, especially from the vast majority that do not have insider connections or wish to over pay someone gouging on ebay. Speaking of which how is it ok with Dolby that these consumers are selling copyrighted discs for profit, if Dolby cannot sell them to the general public then why is it ok for these ebay sellers. I guess it's not in their business model to care. 

I'm sorry but if they can send a box of discs to a single person for distribution however he see's fit they have just violated whatever copyright agreement was in place (no..?). Could they not send a box of discs to retailers and allow the retailer to distribute said discs to consumers that buy Atmos enabled AVR's (as Steve was so generous to have done). I have nothing but respect for the industry people that share their time with us here, I know we all appreciate it.

I just contacted several retailers and asked if they had even seen the discs, not one of them had (one retailer actually has an Atmos demo room with 7.1.4).

A company with Dolby's resources should easily be capable of outsourcing distribution (if they really wanted to), how did the German magazine obtain distribution rights (I would be shocked if they paid some astronomical fee or even had the resources to do so).

With that said I am not the least bit upset about any of this, hard to convey tone on the internet without being deliberate. I simply do not agree with it because without consumers going to the movies and buying Dolby licensed products there would be no Dolby (what companies would pay their licensing fee without the consumer to recoup the investment). So the argument that Dolby is not in the end consumer business is totally off-base, their entire business actually depends upon it (us).

Anyway, at the end of the day it does not keep any of us from enjoying our Atmos systems. 

- Jason


----------



## rolldog

batpig said:


> Not sure where you are looking but all Dolby documentation recommends Top Middle for a 7.1.2 layout.
> 
> Here is the layout info on their website: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html
> 
> It clearly shows Top Middle speakers being recommended for that layout, including side-view diagrams with the recommended angle of 65-100 degree elevation.
> 
> If you download the PDF whitepaper it shows the exact same thing.
> 
> The images below are used in all the literature including the website recommendations.
> 
> Did you perhaps confuse the upward-firing "Atmos enabled" speakers for physical overhead speakers?


I assume he's referring to this document downloaded from page 1 of this thread. I've attached it, and if you read page 8, they recommend using the front. 

On a different note, I just started looking into a Dolby Atmos setup, and I was wondering if anyone had any input regarding setting up a system using Dolby Atmos Speakers vs individual speakers. Has anyone used both and prefer one over the other or is it more personal preference? 

I sold me house a few years ago, and I'm living someplace temporary. I still want to setup a Dolby Atmos system, but I've been thinking about going with individual free standing speakers instead of ceiling mounted flush speakers. When I built my house, the one I sold a few years ago, I had the house wired with 42 Sonance in ceiling speakers, since they pretty much invented the concept. My main listening room was setup with 8 ceiling speakers plus a free standing sub. Having free standing speakers most of my life, I felt like free standing speakers offered more and could be purchased with quality that no in ceiling speaker could match. 

So, I've been considering buying free standing speakers, but I'm not familiar with the manufacturers of Dolby Atmos speakers and if they're worth looking into or if I should get some free standing speakers for my main front right and left and surround right and left and then consider adding the in-ceiling mounted speakers just for the overhead channels. If anyone has tried out any of the Dolby Atmos speakers and has any opinions on them vs individual speakers, I would love to hear your input. 

Another reason why I'm considering free standing speakers in because it was a tough pill to swallow when I sold my house and left all the speakers in place. Of course, if I were the buyer, I would have expected the speakers to stay since every room in the house had 2 speakers, except the main TV room, all with individual volume controls. It would be nice to be able to walk away with something if I invested in a nice set of B&Ws or something similar. I just felt like having all in-ceiling mounted speakers didn't give me the sound I had previously, but if these Dolby Atmos speakers are worth taking a look at, I'd like to know. 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


----------



## IanR

rolldog said:


> I assume he's referring to this document downloaded from page 1 of this thread. I've attached it, and if you read page 8, they recommend using the front.


I think the difference between what batpig is saying and what you're reading in the Dolby documentation you attached, is that batpig is referring to the placement of in-ceiling speakers whereas what you were reading on p8 was the recommendation for using atmos-enabled speakers (whether 'standalone' or 'add=ons').


----------



## Csbooth

So I guess HBO forgot about seasons 3 & 4 steelbook Atmos editions for GoT? No mention of them in the past 2 months since the first two have released. I wouldn't exactly dub that an "on the heels of" type of release. 

No mention of season 5 having a steelbook Atmos release either, but I suspect they'll double dip on that for holiday 2016,...pity.


----------



## MarkMul1

Anyone on the purpose of the test tones on the new demo disc? I kinda wrote them off and have been enjoying the new demo's. Jet taking off is fabulous. 

Thanks


----------



## FilmMixer

Csbooth said:


> So I guess HBO forgot about seasons 3 & 4 steelbook Atmos editions for GoT? No mention of them in the past 2 months since the first two have released. I wouldn't exactly dub that an "on the heels of" type of release.
> 
> No mention of season 5 having a steelbook Atmos release either, but I suspect they'll double dip on that for holiday 2016,...pity.


I know the Atmos mixes are done through S5..... and I believe the "regular" box set for that season will have Atmos.. so we should expect the 3/4 editors soon????


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Csbooth said:


> So I guess HBO forgot about seasons 3 & 4 steelbook Atmos editions for GoT? No mention of them in the past 2 months since the first two have released. I wouldn't exactly dub that an "on the heels of" type of release.
> 
> No mention of season 5 having a steelbook Atmos release either, but I suspect they'll double dip on that for holiday 2016,...pity.


I was wondering about that myself... I think they will announce 3 & 4 soon. 

According to the list of Atmos releases I think the original bluray version of season 5 might actually contain the Atmos mix. 

*HOWEVER* After watching the first 4 episodes of season 1 I've got to say this is beyond the tamest Atmos mix I've heard yet. 
Only the start of episode 1 sounded active to me... what do you guys think? 

I also checked out the man from U.N.C.L.E. in Atmos, tame as well but the music mix is FANTASTIC. Really cool to hear a real harpsichord in the soundtrack.


----------



## Waboman

Lol. Simonian and his...



Spoiler


----------



## Csbooth

FilmMixer said:


> I know the Atmos mixes are done through S5..... and I believe the "regular" box set for that season will have Atmos.. so we should expect the 3/4 editors soon????


Thank you for the heads up, I'll be on the lookout for that!


----------



## Csbooth

Aras_Volodka said:


> I was wondering about that myself... I think they will announce 3 & 4 soon.
> 
> According to the list of Atmos releases I think the original bluray version of season 5 might actually contain the Atmos mix.
> 
> *HOWEVER* After watching the first 4 episodes of season 1 I've got to say this is beyond the tamest Atmos mix I've heard yet.
> Only the start of episode 1 sounded active to me... what do you guys think?
> 
> I also checked out the man from U.N.C.L.E. in Atmos, tame as well but the music mix is FANTASTIC. Really cool to hear a real harpsichord in the soundtrack.


I do hope something is mentioned soon. I haven't actually had the time to sit down and give the Atmos mixed BD a spin and I was hoping to binge them all ahead of season 6, so I am hopeful that I can still do that lol.

While The Man From U.N.C.L.E was a tame mix concerning height information, I felt the score and accuracy overall was pretty well done. Goosebumps tomorrow!


----------



## stikle

Geez...look what I did. Sorry Scott, love you man.


----------



## Shniks

Csbooth said:


> So I guess HBO forgot about seasons 3 & 4 steelbook Atmos editions for GoT? No mention of them in the past 2 months since the first two have released. I wouldn't exactly dub that an "on the heels of" type of release.
> 
> No mention of season 5 having a steelbook Atmos release either, but I suspect they'll double dip on that for holiday 2016,...pity.



Seasons 3 and 4 (Atmos) are available for pre-order from Amazon Italy, here and here. The release date is June 15, 2016. The US and UK ones should be coming out shortly.


Cheers,


----------



## Shniks

Aras_Volodka said:


> *HOWEVER* After watching the first 4 episodes of season 1 I've got to say this is beyond the tamest Atmos mix I've heard yet.
> Only the start of episode 1 sounded active to me... what do you guys think?
> 
> I also checked out the man from U.N.C.L.E. in Atmos, tame as well but the music mix is FANTASTIC. Really cool to hear a real harpsichord in the soundtrack.



I agree - I watched the full Season 1 and half Season 2 (Atmos version) and was a little disappointed with the Atmos authoring. Same for Man from U.N.C.L.E.

I am not a fan of Transformers - AoE, but man, is the audio on that excellent. 


Cheers,


----------



## FilmMixer

Shniks said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> *HOWEVER* After watching the first 4 episodes of season 1 I've got to say this is beyond the tamest Atmos mix I've heard yet.
> Only the start of episode 1 sounded active to me... what do you guys think?
> 
> I also checked out the man from U.N.C.L.E. in Atmos, tame as well but the music mix is FANTASTIC. Really cool to hear a real harpsichord in the soundtrack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - I watched the full Season 1 and half Season 2 (Atmos version) and was a little disappointed with the Atmos authoring. Same for Man from U.N.C.L.E.
> 
> I am not a fan of Transformers - AoE, but man, is the audio on that excellent.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...

I promise you that the Atmos gets better as the seasons go on


----------



## Shniks

FilmMixer said:


> I promise you that the Atmos gets better as the seasons go on



Coming from you, that's great news. Thanks for letting us know. I guess I will order the next 3 seasons too. 


Cheers,


----------



## Lakesideb

rontalley said:


> Build two bulkheads or backer boxes and put the TR in as TM right over the couch. Put the TF no more than 9'6" from the TR. Put the speakers in the symmetrically. You only need 4" for most in-ceilings. You are thinking too hard. Even if you have to mount on-ceilings, it would be better than a non-symmetrical installation.



Hi Rontalley and Sanjiv and others,

I went to dolby's site and this is their recommendation for 5.1.4 










So two speakers in front of MLP and two at back. Since the MLP has a wall at the back, I was thinking the rear become mids. 

Take a look at my room layout ...










Notice the following, 

There is duct work on the right hand side of MLP. I had another look at the area tonight and think I can rework the duct work such that there is a 12' gap between the back wall and start of duct trunk. I could fit a ceiling speaker (ie TRR or TMR) here. As this is very close to the back wall, I am not sure if this is a good idea. I will then extend this duct all the way across the room (which will house a return). The TRL or TML speaker is situated on left hand side. 

Both TR/M left and right are about 10 feet apart. The bad part is that they are very very close to the back wall.

There is another bulk head in this area sort of in middle of the room. I could put TFL and TFR in this bulk head, symmetrically opposite TR/M speakers on the back wall. The distance between TF and TR/M speakers is also 10ft. 

What are your thoughts. I am thinking of using Kef Ci200QR here for their wide dispersion. But could also go with ceiling speakers with amiable tweeter such as Speakercraft Aim 7 series 2 and aim the speakers towards MLP. Both I can obtain for similar pricing. 

A picture of the existing duct work in the pic below. I will have to rework some ducts to free up space between backwall and the start of the duct. 

This is pic taken from standing at MLP and looking right. Notice, the existing duct. I will have to rework that duct to squeeze in the Ci200QR.










The ceiling speakers will be slightly more than 8ft from ground as they are installed in bulk heads. The normal ceiling height is 9ft.

Sanjiv, you had mentioned front height speakers on the front wall. This is an interesting idea aswell, but I don't see dolby recommending this in their 5.1.4 arrangement. I would likely have to buy something like Kef R100 instead of their inceiling speakers to angle the front height towards MLP. There is quiet a bit of pricing difference between a pair of R100 vs pair of Kef CiQ200QR. 

Thanks for your insights. Again very much appreciate it.


----------



## sdurani

Lakesideb said:


> Sanjiv, you had mentioned front height speakers on the front wall.


That was my evil twin Sanjay. With your seating against the back wall, there is no space behind you to do Top Rear speakers, so you'll have to designate them Top Middle. Easier to hear Top Middle speakers if they are mounted slightly forward of the MLP rather than directly above (around 80 degrees elevation instead of 90). 

Your Denon 6200 will not allow you to configure the other pair of heights for an adjacent location (Top Front), so you'll have to designate them Front Height. If you look at the Atmos install guide, it shows the Front Height speaker at 30 degrees elevation high up on the wall rather than the ceiling (though its range is 30-45 degrees). 

You can certainly place the Front Heights at a higher elevation, though I would caution against reducing the gap between both pairs to the point that you end up with no meaningful separation between them. Hence the suggestion to mount them high up on the front wall (plus trying to avoid having the bulkhead obstruct their sound).


----------



## pletwals

goldark said:


> Has anyone mounted 4 Atmos speakers in the corners of the room? If so, how effective was this?
> 
> The back corner ceiling mounted speakers would be a few feet behind the surround speakers in a 5.2.4 setup I'm trying for. The fronts Atmos speakers would be a couple feet behind the mains in the corner.


I haven't but I presume this would mean a setting as Front Height and Rear Height instead of TF+TR. You also need to asses if the elevation of the speakers is enough when viewed from back to front. I presume these are also wider placed than the main Front speakers?


----------



## Steven James 2

I think the lack of distribution of dolby atmos demo disks is making me want to wait for dts x because they have demo disks available.... Said no one


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Hmmm.... One of the World's best DJs vs a pretty average pseudo-scifi movie?





sdrucker said:


> Keith, Tiesto won a Grammy in 2015, and he's hardly obscure in the music world:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Tiësto
> 
> Maybe you need some EDM or Ozark Henry in your life  .


Give me a break guys. This is relative as you know - one is an obscure performer enjoyed by how many? The other is a movie seen by millions of people, all over the world and earning over $1,000,000,000!

If this is Auro's claim to fame, no wonder they're dead in the water.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> Keith, Keith, Keith. Get your facts straight, the Auro disc contains 2.5 hours of movieclips, music, test signals, etc.
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/10/16/auro-3d-2014-demonstration-disc/


I'm talking about the real world, where Auro have, let's see, oh yeah, zero movies on disc in the US and a bunch of obscure music. Since they have nothing worth mentioning out there in the real world, they've had plenty of time to organise their demo disk - that is what I was saying.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Rontalley and Sanjiv and others,
> 
> I went to dolby's site and this is their recommendation for 5.1.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So two speakers in front of MLP and two at back. Since the MLP has a wall at the back, I was thinking the rear become mids.
> 
> Take a look at my room layout ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the following,
> 
> There is duct work on the right hand side of MLP. I had another look at the area tonight and think I can rework the duct work such that there is a 12' gap between the back wall and start of duct trunk. I could fit a ceiling speaker (ie TRR or TMR) here. As this is very close to the back wall, I am not sure if this is a good idea. I will then extend this duct all the way across the room (which will house a return). The TRL or TML speaker is situated on left hand side.
> 
> Both TR/M left and right are about 10 feet apart. The bad part is that they are very very close to the back wall.
> 
> There is another bulk head in this area sort of in middle of the room. I could put TFL and TFR in this bulk head, symmetrically opposite TR/M speakers on the back wall. The distance between TF and TR/M speakers is also 10ft.
> 
> What are your thoughts. I am thinking of using Kef Ci200QR here for their wide dispersion. But could also go with ceiling speakers with amiable tweeter such as Speakercraft Aim 7 series 2 and aim the speakers towards MLP. Both I can obtain for similar pricing.
> 
> A picture of the existing duct work in the pic below. I will have to rework some ducts to free up space between backwall and the start of the duct.
> 
> This is pic taken from standing at MLP and looking right. Notice, the existing duct. I will have to rework that duct to squeeze in the Ci200QR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceiling speakers will be slightly more than 8ft from ground as they are installed in bulk heads. The normal ceiling height is 9ft.
> 
> Sanjiv, you had mentioned front height speakers on the front wall. This is an interesting idea aswell, but I don't see dolby recommending this in their 5.1.4 arrangement. I would likely have to buy something like Kef R100 instead of their inceiling speakers to angle the front height towards MLP. There is quiet a bit of pricing difference between a pair of R100 vs pair of Kef CiQ200QR.
> 
> Thanks for your insights. Again very much appreciate it.


You might get away with Goldenear Technology Invisa 650 without having to move that ductwork, a major PITA.

http://www.goldenear.com/products/invisa-series?gktab=2

They are sealed units and would not require any kind of box. $299 each and some GEdealers offer a discount. They are very highly rated.

I do not have them, but almost everything that I have is GE.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> With the caveat that the test tones intended audience may not be the same, it would far better if the tones were well documented so the consumer would know what they were supposed to be hearing and thus be able to compare it to the actual output. Shoot, I'm certainly in the top percentile of "informed" home users and I was surprised about some of the results, and especially perplexed (still am) about the inconsistency with the "snap" apparently not being used on the Top Front signal in the x.x.4 tracks. I still don't have a clear answer as to whether that was intentional or an error, and only accurate documentation can answer that.


This is why everyone would be better off with a S&M Atmos test disc IMO - the use and intent of the disc would be well-documented.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Dude... WTF would you state that I take them for granted? That is way past the line and untrue.
> 
> These disks, even with test tones are a mere pinprick of enjoyment that someone will have with their Atmos system. All other real world and attainable content is much better. It's only because I have got to experience them that I can say that the people who can't get them aren't missing too much. You're making me out to be someone or something that I am not.
> 
> 
> But now I'm an a**hole because I have these disks and they can't? What the hell?


FWIW Scott, I'm with you entirely on this. I too have the disc with the test tones (thank you again to my source) and I agree - it's only when you have the disc that you actually know that those without the disc aren’t missing all that much. Many of the clips are obtainable as downloads and the test tones may not be as useful to most people as they think they might be. There is even disagreement about how the tones have been authored and whether they are even consistent, hence some people finding that if they play the 9.1.6 tones on a 7.1.4 system, and compare them with the 7.1.4 tones, they get two different results. Meanwhile, everyone has access to over 31 Atmos Blu-rays, which are, after all, pretty much the entire point of having Atmos at home.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> Is this a new movie? Looks like a fusion...


Hahaha. Good catch. YKWIM though.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! It's all the same s**t, isn't it?


Haha. Yeah - pretty much. Mind you, in the era of Batman vs Superman and Aliens vs Predators, Transformers vs Ultron could be a winner.


----------



## kbarnes701

DaGamePimp said:


> How did the German magazine obtain distribution rights (I would be shocked if they paid some astronomical fee or even had the resources to do so).


That's something I am curious about as well. There is no way IMO that a magazine would expend legal resources on negotiating with all the various content owners for the distribution of the copyrighted material. Yet the idea that they would pirate it in such a high profile way is unthinkable. So how did they do it? And if they could do it, why not anyone else? 

I do wonder what the market potential for the disk would be, if it were sold at a reasonable price - say $15. Other than a handful of AVS members who want it, would anyone else? I doubt it. So it is never going to be commercially viable to release it. And since Dolby have said they don't intend to release it, any further discussion of it is really about as much use as discussing whether we'd all like the sun to shine for 14 hours a day every day. Well maybe we would... but...


----------



## corradizo

Got my Denon x2200w set up last night. It is capable of 5.1.2 however, when assigning amps to the top speakers, it asks if they are top middle or top fronts. My top speakers are about 4' ahead of the mlp and the mlp is 14' from the screen. Which should I select top middle or top front?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The demo disc has half a dozen movie clips, including Rise of the Guardians and The Croods. Hardly esoteric. Besides, the content people want from the Atmos disc is from Dolby themselves, not from movie studios nor record labels. Don't tell me they can't negotiate a distribution deal for that content.


I'm not telling you. Dolby is telling you. They are saying it isn't going to happen.


----------



## MarkMul1

I guess no one knows what the test tones are for or its top secret?

I do really want to know.


----------



## Selden Ball

MarkMul1 said:


> I guess no one knows what the test tones are for or its top secret?
> 
> I do really want to know.


The problem is that Dolby has not documented their characteristics other than giving them names (like 7.1.4). As a result, one has to puzzle out what they do by which speakers they activate. There's no way to know a-priori whether the speakers which are making noise are supposed to be the ones that are active, or if the Atmos decoder in your equipment is defective and is sending sounds to the wrong speakers or if you've wired them wrong.


----------



## MarkMul1

Selden Ball said:


> The problem is that Dolby has not documented their characteristics other than giving them names (like 7.1.4). As a result, one has to puzzle out what they do by which speakers they activate. There's no way to know a-priori whether the speakers which are making noise are supposed to be the ones that are active, or if the Atmos decoder in your equipment is defective and is sending sounds to the wrong speakers or if you've wired them wrong.


Hmmm

Thank you for replying.


----------



## Lakesideb

sdurani said:


> That was my evil twin Sanjay. With your seating against the back wall, there is no space behind you to do Top Rear speakers, so you'll have to designate them Top Middle. Easier to hear Top Middle speakers if they are mounted slightly forward of the MLP rather than directly above (around 80 degrees elevation instead of 90).
> 
> Your Denon 6200 will not allow you to configure the other pair of heights for an adjacent location (Top Front), so you'll have to designate them Front Height. If you look at the Atmos install guide, it shows the Front Height speaker at 30 degrees elevation high up on the wall rather than the ceiling (though its range is 30-45 degrees).
> 
> You can certainly place the Front Heights at a higher elevation, though I would caution against reducing the gap between both pairs to the point that you end up with no meaningful separation between them. Hence the suggestion to mount them high up on the front wall (plus trying to avoid having the bulkhead obstruct their sound).


Hi Sanjay, apologies for the name mixup. 

Completely agree that the speakers slightly back to the MLP should be designated TM instead of TR. Unfortunately, they will be practically in a hairs distance from the back wall, due to ducting, so perhaps not a good solution. In the Kef thread, a very helpful gentlemen, mentioned to use Polk OWN5 as TM speakers and put them an an appropriate angle pointing downwards instead of going with Kef ci200qr. This makes a lot of sense to me. 

I am surprised you mention Denon 6200 wouldn't allow the other pair of to be designated TF. I guess the worry is that if the two speakers in bulk head have enough separation from the TM speakers. I measured, there is about 10ft difference between the TF and TM pairs. Although, I should check if the MLP is at the 45" angle to the TF speakers in the bulk head. If it isn't its then putting TF in that bulk head would be suboptimal.

If I understand your suggestion correctly Sanjay, it seems you are suggesting its best to put a speaker at an angle looking at the MLP at the corner of front wall and the ceiling. 

Infact I could put Polk OWN5 and corner of backwall and ceiling height, designate them TM, and then a pair at the corner of front wall and ceiling and designate them FH.

any thoughts?


----------



## I WANT MORE

Csbooth said:


> So I guess HBO forgot about seasons 3 & 4 steelbook Atmos editions for GoT? No mention of them in the past 2 months since the first two have released. I wouldn't exactly dub that an "on the heels of" type of release.
> 
> No mention of season 5 having a steelbook Atmos release either, but I suspect they'll double dip on that for holiday 2016,...pity.


I'll probably wait for the 4K UHD versions now.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> The problem is that Dolby has not documented their characteristics other than giving them names (like 7.1.4). As a result, one has to puzzle out what they do by which speakers they activate. There's no way to know a-priori whether the speakers which are making noise are supposed to be the ones that are active, or if the Atmos decoder in your equipment is defective and is sending sounds to the wrong speakers or if you've wired them wrong.


Pretty useful then.


----------



## audioguy

Much more useful than the white/pink/yellow/gray test tones that are on this disc would be a full frequency sweeps of all possible Atmos channels. For my bed channels, that is how I set levels. Use 1/3 octave smoothing and set the trims until each FR overlays each other. Plus I can run with and without the DRC enabled to see how things look.

Since there are no copywrite issues with frequency sweeps, Dobly could make those test signals downloadable and we could terminate the discussion on this topic.


----------



## rontalley

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Rontalley and Sanjiv and others,
> 
> I went to dolby's site and this is their recommendation for 5.1.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So two speakers in front of MLP and two at back. Since the MLP has a wall at the back, I was thinking the rear become mids.
> 
> Take a look at my room layout ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the following,
> 
> There is duct work on the right hand side of MLP. I had another look at the area tonight and think I can rework the duct work such that there is a 12' gap between the back wall and start of duct trunk. I could fit a ceiling speaker (ie TRR or TMR) here. As this is very close to the back wall, I am not sure if this is a good idea. I will then extend this duct all the way across the room (which will house a return). The TRL or TML speaker is situated on left hand side.
> 
> Both TR/M left and right are about 10 feet apart. The bad part is that they are very very close to the back wall.
> 
> There is another bulk head in this area sort of in middle of the room. I could put TFL and TFR in this bulk head, symmetrically opposite TR/M speakers on the back wall. The distance between TF and TR/M speakers is also 10ft.
> 
> What are your thoughts. I am thinking of using Kef Ci200QR here for their wide dispersion. But could also go with ceiling speakers with amiable tweeter such as Speakercraft Aim 7 series 2 and aim the speakers towards MLP. Both I can obtain for similar pricing.
> 
> A picture of the existing duct work in the pic below. I will have to rework some ducts to free up space between back wall and the start of the duct.
> 
> This is pic taken from standing at MLP and looking right. Notice, the existing duct. I will have to rework that duct to squeeze in the Ci200QR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ceiling speakers will be slightly more than 8ft from ground as they are installed in bulk heads.* The normal ceiling height is 9ft.
> 
> Sanjiv, you had mentioned front height speakers on the front wall. This is an interesting idea aswell, but I don't see dolby recommending this in their 5.1.4 arrangement. I would likely have to buy something like Kef R100 instead of their inceiling speakers to angle the front height towards MLP. There is quiet a bit of pricing difference between a pair of R100 vs pair of Kef CiQ200QR.
> 
> Thanks for your insights. Again very much appreciate it.


This is the part where I say that you are over thinking. 7'8" is plenty high for a bulkhead and would give you free liberty to mount the speakers wherever you choose. You are concerned about the duct work but it really is a non factor. I built a drop ceiling in my living room to put my Atmos speakers in which reduced my standard 8' ceiling height by 4-1/2" and nobody thinks the ceiling is low. (check out my signature) Besides, it will be over the couch so it really is a non-factor! Will also give you more creativity with your design. Hell, could even go around the whole room with a soffit, put cool lighting in and have a kickass ceiling! You either overthinking, or not realizing how cool soffits are in HT. 










I would install the in-ceiling, at least 18" off the back wall and then 9' from their to TF. 10' is from left to right is a little too far so bring them in about 6"-8" either way. I think that ~8'-9' would be ideal or in-line with Mains if your Mains are at the recommended 22-30 degrees from MLP. Designate them as TF+TR in your AVR and you will be set. 

Just know that sound that supposed to be directly overhead, will be forward of the MLP if you have your couch on the wall. If you can bring your couch off the wall a little, then even better.

I have been on a crusade trying to get people to try the Micca M-8C from Amazon. They are $40 a speaker and sound freaking awesome. I truly believe that once the word gets out as to how great these speakers are for Atmos Ceiling Speakers, they will either increase in price dramatically or be hard to come by. Only saying that $160 to for 4 speakers vs. $1k, you might want to give them a shot...


----------



## smurraybhm

I WANT MORE said:


> I'll probably wait for the 4K UHD versions now.


Only if you value 4k, personally the only value that I see in 4k is the possibility of more immersive audio being available, as for the picture my 1080P Panny plasma isn't going anywhere for a while. Thanks for popping in to remind us that its coming - again 

Nice break from the demo disk beat downs. For $199 Auro should send me a disk.


----------



## Stoked21

Funny timing for this topic. 

I'm actually replacing my 4 Atmos ICs today and tomorrow with some high-sensitivity, high SPL, compression drivers.
With my current ICs, the line between my TFL/TRL is 2' closer to MLP than the TFR/TRR. This was due to the fact that there were already IC speakers installed by previous owners, which are TM for me now. Ducting, light cans, keeping things in line etc. I just went with it. With Audy and YPAO, the right speakers measured about 1.1-1.2' further away. Imaging and Atmos is spectacular as it is.

Now that I'm going with On-Ceilings, I'm shifting the TRs 6" closer to MLP and pushing the TFL about 16-20" further away from MLP. So I'll now be asymmetrical as I cannot move my TRL.....Part of the push to do so is 1) it puts tops more in line with fronts, 2) visually they will look more centered in the room with the larger, black-painted speakers and 3) My TFL speaker is currently located nearly right on top of my FL FRP. I can't put up a panel to control reflections if the speaker doesn't move.

Furthermore, the larger speakers are likely going to push my TRs from about 120° up to about 115° vs the 125-150° spec.....So....we'll see how it goes and whether I destroy my Atmos bubble.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Stoked21 said:


> Funny timing for this topic.
> 
> I'm actually replacing my 4 Atmos ICs today and tomorrow with some high-sensitivity, high SPL, compression drivers.
> With my current ICs, the line between my TFL/TRL is 2' closer to MLP than the TFR/TRR. This was due to the fact that there were already IC speakers installed by previous owners, which are TM for me now. Ducting, light cans, keeping things in line etc. I just went with it. With Audy and YPAO, the right speakers measured about 1.1-1.2' further away. Imaging and Atmos is spectacular as it is.
> 
> Now that I'm going with On-Ceilings, I'm shifting the TRs 6" closer to MLP and pushing the TFL about 16-20" further away from MLP. So I'll now be asymmetrical as I cannot move my TRL.....Part of the push to do so is 1) it puts tops more in line with fronts, 2) visually they will look more centered in the room with the larger, black-painted speakers and 3) My TFL speaker is currently located nearly right on top of my FL FRP. I can't put up a panel to control reflections if the speaker doesn't move.
> 
> Furthermore, the larger speakers are likely going to push my TRs from about 120° up to about 115° vs the 125-150° spec.....So....we'll see how it goes and whether I destroy my Atmos bubble.


Not enough coffee...what is FL FRP?


----------



## kbarnes701

audioguy said:


> Since there are no copywrite issues with frequency sweeps, Dobly could make those test signals downloadable and we could terminate the discussion on this topic.


They could, but they are not going to. Marc has already explained why not - Dolby don't want to get involved in consumer support. You can imagine how many people will download them and then have numerous questions about how to use them, how to copy them to a disc or USB drive, why the disc or USB doesn’t play with their player when it plays other USB content and so on and on and on.

What could be a good idea is if Marc, or someone, could persuade Dolby to release the test tones into their custody and for them to start a thread here, with all support questions being addressed via AVS. The file could be downloadable directly from the thread and support in the thread wouldn't be a problem. I believe, BCBW, that the AVS video calibration disc is handled in a similar manner.

@FilmMixer - any chance at all, Marc?


----------



## GCS

Ok so I am going Atmos and need a little help with placement of ceiling speakers. I have opted for the Micca 8Cs discussed in this thread.

Room is 24x24x10
Front Speakers Rocket RS1000 (very large towers)
Center - Rocket RSC200
Surround L/R - Rocket X-Series small bookshelf speakers
Surround Back - Rocket X-Series small bookshelf speakers
Subwoofer - SVS (can't recall model  but it is quite large and shakes the room a plenty)
Marantz 7702 and Emotiva Amps

Our first row of seating is about 16' from the screen wall (yes we sit far back).

Second row is behind it (theater seats on a riser) pretty much up against the back wall of the room.


Can someone assist me with where (and how many) ceiling speakers I should put in the room. I was assuming 4 for a 7.1.4 setup (second sub might be added down the road) but with our seating so far back I don't know if I actually should do 4 or just 2.

Thanks in advance for any help you guys care to provide.

Greg


----------



## sdurani

Lakesideb said:


> I am surprised you mention Denon 6200 wouldn't allow the other pair of to be designated TF.


None of the Denon/Marantz gear allows for adjacent height speaker designations.


> If I understand your suggestion correctly Sanjay, it seems you are suggesting its best to put a speaker at an angle looking at the MLP at the corner of front wall and the ceiling.


Yes. Or you can put it at a higher elevation angle, as long as the bulkhead doesn't block its sound.


----------



## Selden Ball

GCS said:


> Can someone assist me with where (and how many) ceiling speakers I should put in the room. I was assuming 4 for a 7.1.4 setup (second sub might be added down the road) but with our seating so far back I don't know if I actually should do 4 or just 2.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help you guys care to provide.
> 
> Greg


Four: Top Front and Top Rear. 

The Top Rear speakers should be as far back as you can put them. Top Front should then be that same distance in front of the front row of seats. That way the people sitting in the front row will get ideal overhead coverage. The rear row's experience won't be as good, but them's the breaks.


----------



## audioguy

kbarnes701 said:


> What could be a good idea is if Marc, or someone, could persuade Dolby to release the test tones into their custody and for them to start a thread here, with all support questions being addressed via AVS. The file could be downloadable directly from the thread and support in the thread wouldn't be a problem. I believe, BCBW, that the AVS video calibration disc is handled in a similar manner.
> 
> @FilmMixer - any chance at all, Marc?


GREAT idea.


----------



## makrelov

Lakesideb said:


> Thanks for the suggestion guys. I could definitely try to get the TFL and TFR to be much closer to the screen wall such that the distance between TR and TF is about 8ft to 10ft. The issue is that there is a bulk head running through this room. The bulk head is rather wide as it has HVAC trunk aswell as two beams running through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I could put the two TF speakers inside the bulk head. The room height is 9ft... but if the speakers are in the bulk head, the TF will be at 8ft height. I could also put TF speaker in the cavity between the screen wall and the start of the bulk head. but I am not sure if this is a good idea.
> 
> The TRR speaker is another issue. There just isn't anyway they can fit at their required optimum place as there is just too much HVAC pipes in the area. I could create a bulk head and place the TRR beside the return duct.
> 
> Take a look at the picture below. Please ignore the two red poles, as they will be relocated.
> 
> 
> 
> So in this situation:
> TFs are in bulk head (at 8ft height) 8 to 9ft apart with each other.
> TRL speaker can be placed between joists at 9ft height.
> TRR speaker will be in a bulk head in front of the return duct. It will be 8ft height.
> 
> What do you guys think about this? Would this be a good compromise?
> 
> Thanks


Hi there,

What about if you put on-ceiling Atmos speakers. All the exercise will be much easier and the TOPS will be placed where they should be, no compromise in location and perception. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## GCS

Selden Ball said:


> Four: Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> The Top Rear speakers should be as far back as you can put them. Top Front should then be that same distance in front of the front row of seats. That way the people sitting in the front row will get ideal overhead coverage. The rear row's experience won't be as good, but them's the breaks.


Ok thanks.

I should be able to put the rears right on the back wall pretty much directly above the seats.

Fronts should be how far in front of the main seating position?

And far in from the side walls?

The back row of seats has the only opening to the room (door) about 6 feet away from it.


----------



## Selden Ball

GCS said:


> Ok thanks.
> 
> I should be able to put the rears right on the back wall pretty much directly above the seats.
> 
> Fronts should be how far in front of the main seating position?


 Measure how far back the rear overhead speakers will be from the front row of seats. I'm guessing that's maybe 6 ft or so depending on the design of the seating. Put the front overheads that same distance in front of the front row of seats.



> And far in from the side walls?


 Dolby recommends that they be in line with the Front Left and Front Right main speakers.


----------



## GCS

Selden Ball said:


> Measure how far back the rear overhead speakers will be from the front row of seats. I'm guessing that's maybe 6 ft or so depending on the design of the seating. Put the front overheads that same distance in front of the front row of seats.
> 
> Dolby recommends that they be in line with the Front Left and Front Right main speakers.



Got it. That will make them probably about 11-12' apart since my mains flank my 135" screen. Should be doable.


Thanks for the help


----------



## Daryl L

@sdurani

Are you the Sanjay from years back that was a Lexicon owner? Also used to hang out on another forum that cater more toward high-end A/V gear discussions (forgot the name of the site)?


----------



## Selden Ball

GCS said:


> Got it. That will make them probably about 11-12' apart since my mains flank my 135" screen. Should be doable.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help


You're very welcome.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

FilmMixer said:


> I know the Atmos mixes are done through S5..... and I believe the "regular" box set for that season will have Atmos.. so we should expect the 3/4 editors soon????


Oh fantastic... so if I pre-order the season 5 regular bluray edition it will indeed be an Atmos mix? 



FilmMixer said:


> I promise you that the Atmos gets better as the seasons go on


That's fantastic... something to look forwards to 

I know you probably couldn't answer this question even if you did know (but might as well ask if there is a chance!)... The Force Awakens bluray... Atmos mix or no? 

I have a feeling if it's Atmos then perhaps only on the UHD version, while the 3D version might be 7.1 just like Disney's other releases as of late? 



Shniks said:


> Seasons 3 and 4 (Atmos) are available for pre-order from Amazon Italy, here and here. The release date is June 15, 2016. The US and UK ones should be coming out shortly.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Do You think that means 3 & 4 won't be available in the U.S. until June then? 



Shniks said:


> I agree - I watched the full Season 1 and half Season 2 (Atmos version) and was a little disappointed with the Atmos authoring. Same for Man from U.N.C.L.E.
> 
> I am not a fan of Transformers - AoE, but man, is the audio on that excellent.
> 
> Cheers,


It's strange... because I remember watching them in their original (7.1?) mixes and thinking the mix was very aggressive for a TV show. I'd have to go back & compare but could it be possible that the Atmos mix is less immersive than the 7.1? 

So far in regards to Atmos mixes San Andreas was the one I really dug (finally a mixer not scared of using overhead speakers!)... though I've read Everest is even better. 

Mad Max is also pretty awesome, & not painful to watch! 

I just got sicario in the mail... I can't wait to check that out even though I've heard it's another subtle mix. 



I WANT MORE said:


> I'll probably wait for the 4K UHD versions now.





smurraybhm said:


> Only if you value 4k, personally the only value that I see in 4k is the possibility of more immersive audio being available, as for the picture my 1080P Panny plasma isn't going anywhere for a while. Thanks for popping in to remind us that its coming - again
> 
> Nice break from the demo disk beat downs. For $199 Auro should send me a disk.


Was GOT filmed in 4k? I'm guessing it was because the image quality is fantastic for 1080p. 

I agree about the Plasma... I go to the Dolby Prime out here & think for the most part the image quality is actually better on my set than what I see on screen... except for the *real* HDR moments that show off what the laser projector is capable of doing. Otherwise HDR seems like a subtle improvement as far as the majority of scenes is concerned. I'm not sure if perhaps HDR would be more dramatic on high end TV sets / HDR OLEDs vs. AMC Prime? 

My plan is to upgrade to a new TV around the year 2020... at that point my set will be 5/6 years old & hopefully the differences in sets at that point in time will be very dramatic. If not I could hold out for longer. The only issue is that I want to upgrade receivers around the same time or earlier so that I can get DTS X (I'm on the X5200W)... but I wonder if a different version of HDMI might be required for the hypothetical receiver? If not then I'll just pick up a used version of whatever 2017/2018 receivers are around that might be an improvement over my 5200W. 

It seems like UHD releases will be including 1080p discs based on the first batch of releases... so hopefully that will allow us folks remaining in 1080p land to stick it out a little longer.


----------



## GCS

Selden Ball said:


> You're very welcome.



One last question (I hope) should I drop the surround backs now?

The reason I ask is that the SBs are mounted on the back wall above the last row of seats which are basically up against the wall.

Once the Atom ceilings are in back there they are going to be pretty close to the surround backs


----------



## Selden Ball

GCS said:


> One last question (I hope) should I drop the surround backs now?
> 
> The reason I ask is that the SBs are mounted on the back wall above the last row of seats which are basically up against the wall.
> 
> Once the Atom ceilings are in back there they are going to be pretty close to the surround backs


The greater the difference in height is between the surrounds and the overheads, the better of a "sound bubble" you'll get. In other words, lower them as much as you can, but not so much that they'll be seriously obstructed by people's heads.


----------



## rontalley

GCS said:


> Got it. That will make them probably about 11-12' apart since my mains flank my 135" screen. Should be doable.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help


Yep 2'2" off the back wall and 11'8" from there should be ideal for your setup. Put you right between the minimum and median requirements.

Your ceiling is 10' high. Ear Height at MLP is probably around 3'2". That means that your Ear Height to ceiling is 6'10". At 45 degrees, that would be the measurement from MLP to TF and/or TR. IMHO, the 45 degrees is more suited for 8' ceilings and the higher the ceiling, the steeper the angle but the minimum angle is 55/125 degrees.

For peace of mind, I've sketched it for you. Now you have to report back on the Miccas!

Good Luck!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Rontalley and Sanjiv and others,
> 
> 
> 
> The ceiling speakers will be slightly more than 8ft from ground as they are installed in bulk heads. The normal ceiling height is 9ft.


I have the Ci200rr's if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them. My ceiling height is about the same I think (I could measure exact) to give you an idea of how good the clarity is with dispersion at different distances. I'd imagine the characteristics between the speakers are similar enough to give you a good idea of what to expect.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> Hmmm.... One of the World's best DJs vs a pretty average pseudo-scifi movie?





kbarnes701 said:


> Give me a break guys. This is relative as you know - one is an obscure performer enjoyed by how many? The other is a movie seen by millions of people, all over the world and earning over $1,000,000,000!
> 
> If this is Auro's claim to fame, no wonder they're dead in the water.


Keith, Tiesto is pretty well known and hardly obscure. In fact, in the electronic music world, I'd consider Tiesto mainstream. The guy is quite prolific.

That being said, his music is meh. I'm a big electronic music fan and his stuff is pretty snooze-worthy. I have to sit through his crap ALL the time in my car cuz satellite radio plays the same crap over and over and over and over. 

Anyway... I guess I'd rather have Ultron...erm, I mean Transformers, instead. At least in that case I can count on seeing some explosions and stuff.


----------



## GCS

rontalley said:


> Yep 2'2" off the back wall and 11'8" from there should be ideal for your setup. Put you right between the minimum and median requirements.
> 
> Your ceiling is 10' high. Ear Height at MLP is probably around 3'2". That means that your Ear Height to ceiling is 6'10". At 45 degrees, that would be the measurement from MLP to TF and/or TR. IMHO, the 45 degrees is more suited for 8' ceilings and the higher the ceiling, the steeper the angle but the minimum angle is 55/125 degrees.
> 
> For peace of mind, I've sketched it for you. Now you have to report back on the Miccas!
> 
> Good Luck!



Thanks for this. All this atmos stuff sure is confusing as hell.

Will definitely report back once I get everything in and set up. It may take a while as I am still short 1 amp as the amps I managed to get are only 2 5 channels.

Appreciate all the help so far though.


----------



## sdurani

Daryl L said:


> @sdurani
> 
> Are you the Sanjay from years back that was a Lexicon owner?


Yup. Are you the Daryl that was a H/K owner back then? (Did my amazing memory just make you spit out your wand?)


> Also used to hang out on another forum that cater more toward high-end A/V gear discussions (forgot the name of the site)?


Are you thinking of SMR Forums? They weren't really high-end, just home of the official Lexicon owners forum (official = participation from Harman reps & techs).


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Give me a break guys. This is relative as you know - one is an obscure performer enjoyed by how many? The other is a movie seen by millions of people, all over the world and earning over $1,000,000,000!
> 
> If this is Auro's claim to fame, no wonder they're dead in the water.


They're dead in the water for movies WRT consumers, agreed, with the possible exception of some Western European oriented BDs. And globally there's no question Atmos has won, to the point that head to head comparisons are just ridiculous.

However, when it comes to music there's still room, at least as a rarified interest, for the Tiestos of the world. Obscure to you and most Americans or Anglos, sure, but that doesn't mean global obscurity. To a niche of EDM fans, Tiesto's a name. 

Hell, I'm 52 and an American, but since I listen to Internet radio stations that play electronic music sometimes, I'd heard of him. And if someone released a Sergent Garcia or Idan Raichel Project album in Auro, I'd get it  .


----------



## DoctorVideo

smurraybhm said:


> Only if you value 4k, personally the only value that I see in 4k is the possibility of more immersive audio being available, as for the picture my 1080P Panny plasma isn't going anywhere for a while. Thanks for popping in to remind us that its coming - again
> 
> Nice break from the demo disk beat downs. For $199 Auro should send me a disk.


I agree that there is little value in upgrading to 4K, at least for the reason of more pixels, but once you have the opportunity to see 4K HDR (Dolby Vision), you are going to want to pull the trigger. We saw "The Force Awakens" in Hollywood last week in Dolby Vision & Atmos, and the higher dynamic range combined with the wider color gamut is really something to behold. Finally, I think digital has surpassed film.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Bang for buck - TM or RH ? 

Assumptions - FH is first two Atmos speaker locations. Smaller room, lower ceilings. TM solution will be a 4.5 feet in front of MLP. 9 feet from FH. (Front Wides kept for DTS: X & future options.)

RH is 4 ft. to MLP. Room size - 14 ft. / 8 inches in length. Reclining chairs (yeah, I know, verboten) for MLP. (Automatic, electric recline, to boot!)


----------



## Jarery

sdurani said:


> None of the Denon/Marantz gear allows for adjacent height speaker designations..


This is good to know now that I'm about to install my 4 heights.
So, since we cant do 7.1.6 setups yet, and 4 is the most height channels, what is the recommended or 'best' sounding group of non adjacent channels? 
1) Front Height & Top Middle
2) Top Front & Top Rear
3) Top Middle & Rear Height
4) Top Front and Rear Height

Has anyone experimented with how well atmos does with the different 4 speaker overhead setups ? Is there a noticeable difference in panning effect of the different sets? How well does the atmos encoding do with different setups?

For my own setup (pic enclosed) the front heights (position A) if I mount above my mains are at 21 degrees so too low for an option.
That leaves B at 45 degrees as Top Front so this is almost a given for one pair.
The second pair I can then mount at either Rear Height (pos E) or Top Rear (Pos D) but D is harder to mount and hide wires.

Would a TF/TR sound any different than TF/RH ?

The other option is if Top Mid/Rear Height sound better then Top Front/Rear Height I could go that layout also.

Since mounting in/on the ceiling doesn't allow the easy experimenting that the ear level plane of speakers has, its causing me a lot more confusion, and just not wanting to pick the wrong choice for best bang for my buck sound wise with 4 overheads.


----------



## Selden Ball

Ricoflashback said:


> Bang for buck - TM or RH ?
> 
> Assumptions - FH is first two Atmos speaker locations. Smaller room, lower ceilings. TM solution will be a 4.5 feet in front of MLP. 9 feet from FH. (Front Wides kept for DTS: X & future options.)
> 
> RH is 4 ft. to MLP. Room size - 14 ft. / 8 inches in length. Reclining chairs (yeah, I know, verboten) for MLP. (Automatic, electric recline, to boot!)


Rear Height. 

Some overhead sounds are designed to be behind the listener. Top Middle is a compromise used by those folks who have their seating right up against the back wall or by those who have splurged invested in the hardware needed for a 9.1.6 speaker configuration.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, Tiesto is pretty well known and hardly obscure. In fact, in the electronic music world, I'd consider Tiesto mainstream. The guy is quite prolific.


It's relative, Scott. One has an audience of - you tell me. Thousands, hundreds of thousands? Maybe even the low millions. And sales to match. The other has a global audience of hundreds of millions and sales of well over $1,000,000,000.



Scott Simonian said:


> That being said, his music is meh. I'm a big electronic music fan and his stuff is pretty snooze-worthy. I have to sit through his crap ALL the time in my car cuz satellite radio plays the same crap over and over and over and over.


Maybe instead of "obscure" then I should have just said "boring". If Auro's great claim to fame is some lift music, well, I rest my case.



Scott Simonian said:


> Anyway... I guess I'd rather have Ultron...erm, I mean Transformers, instead. At least in that case I can count on seeing some explosions and stuff.


Too right. Splosions. Foxy women. Helicopters. Yay!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> They're dead in the water for movies WRT consumers, agreed, with the possible exception of some Western European oriented BDs. And globally there's no question Atmos has won, to the point that head to head comparisons are just ridiculous.
> 
> However, when it comes to music there's still room, at least as a rarified interest, for the Tiestos of the world. Obscure to you and most Americans or Anglos, sure, but that doesn't mean global obscurity. To a niche of EDM fans, Tiesto's a name.
> 
> Hell, I'm 52 and an American, but since I listen to Internet radio stations that play electronic music sometimes, I'd heard of him. And if someone released a Sergent Garcia or Idan Raichel Project album in Auro, I'd get it  .


Yeah, sure. And a few thousand others might join you. That's what I said. Dead in the water


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> Too right. Splosions. Foxy women. Helicopters. Yay!


F**k yeh.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jarery said:


> This is good to know now that I'm about to install my 4 heights.
> So, since we cant do 7.1.6 setups yet, and 4 is the most height channels, what is the recommended or 'best' sounding group of non adjacent channels?
> 1) Front Height & Top Middle
> 2) Top Front & Top Rear
> 3) Top Middle & Rear Height
> 4) Top Front and Rear Height
> 
> Has anyone experimented with how well atmos does with the different 4 speaker overhead setups ? Is there a noticeable difference in panning effect of the different sets? How well does the atmos encoding do with different setups?


I did FH+TM for a long time. Then I swapped to TF+TR (without moving the speakers) and I am sticking with it. I prefer it and find it more involving.


----------



## Jarery

kbarnes701 said:


> I did FH+TM for a long time. Then I swapped to TF+TR (without moving the speakers) and I am sticking with it. I prefer it and find it more involving.


Awesome ! Thanks, thats what i was suspecting, that the sound track will play best if it thinks the person is between the 4 speakers instead of under one pair.

I'll try TF/RH first as I can hide the mounting from the RH fairly easy if it doesn't sound correct, and try TF/TR as a second option.

And I think my RH speakers actually fit within the range of angles for both, just not sure if 8 ft behind me will sound as good as 5 ft behind. I also wonder if the RH sounds will be harder to differentiate from the rear surrounds.


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> Bang for buck - TM or RH ?
> 
> Assumptions - FH is first two Atmos speaker locations. Smaller room, lower ceilings. TM solution will be a 4.5 feet in front of MLP. 9 feet from FH. (Front Wides kept for DTS: X & future options.)
> 
> RH is 4 ft. to MLP. Room size - 14 ft. / 8 inches in length. Reclining chairs (yeah, I know, verboten) for MLP. (Automatic, electric recline, to boot!)





Jarery said:


> This is good to know now that I'm about to install my 4 heights.
> So, since we cant do 7.1.6 setups yet, and 4 is the most height channels, what is the recommended or 'best' sounding group of non adjacent channels?
> 1) Front Height & Top Middle
> 2) Top Front & Top Rear
> 3) Top Middle & Rear Height
> 4) Top Front and Rear Height
> 
> Has anyone experimented with how well atmos does with the different 4 speaker overhead setups ? Is there a noticeable difference in panning effect of the different sets? How well does the atmos encoding do with different setups?
> 
> For my own setup (pic enclosed) the front heights (position A) if I mount above my mains are at 21 degrees so too low for an option.
> That leaves B at 45 degrees as Top Front so this is almost a given for one pair.
> The second pair I can then mount at either Rear Height (pos E) or Top Rear (Pos D) but D is harder to mount and hide wires.
> 
> Would a TF/TR sound any different than TF/RH ?
> 
> The other option is if Top Mid/Rear Height sound better then Top Front/Rear Height I could go that layout also.
> 
> Since mounting in/on the ceiling doesn't allow the easy experimenting that the ear level plane of speakers has, its causing me a lot more confusion, and just not wanting to pick the wrong choice for best bang for my buck sound wise with 4 overheads.


The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_

No matter where the speakers are located, I believe that TF+TR is the best combination that gives the most panning and clarity for top speakers. There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## kbarnes701

Jarery said:


> Awesome ! Thanks, thats what i was suspecting, that the sound track will play best if it thinks the person is between the 4 speakers instead of under one pair.
> 
> I'll try TF/RH first as I can hide the mounting from the RH fairly easy if it doesn't sound correct, and try TF/TR as a second option.
> 
> And I think my RH speakers actually fit within the range of angles for both, just not sure if 8 ft behind me will sound as good as 5 ft behind. I also wonder if the RH sounds will be harder to differentiate from the rear surrounds.


My TR speakers are out of spec placement-wise but I still prefer them to TM in spec. Panning is better, sense of overhead activity is better. I did literally hundreds of different listening tests over several months, going back and forth between FH+TM and TF+TR.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_
> 
> No matter where the speakers are located, I believe that TF+TR is the best combination that gives the most panning and clarity for top speakers. There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## GXMnow

With the current state of the "normal" home Dolby Atmos AVR's, you have a few choices when you go with 4 height speakers.

There are 5 possible locations, and you can choose 2 of them, but they need to skip one positions and not be adjacent.

So, if all 4 speakers are on the ceiling aiming down, you are using "Top front" and "Top rear" and if the angles are a bit off, there is not much you can do.

The other 5 choices are going to use "Front Height" and/or "Rear Height" which would normally mean on the wall at the ceiling, front or back.

You can use the "Front Height" with "Top middle", "Top rear", or "Rear Height".

You can use "Rear Height" with "Top middle", "Top front", or again "Front Height"

That is a total of 6 possible settings for 4 height speakers, but just 1 has all the speakers on the ceiling, the other 5 use high wall speakers at the front and/or back of the room. 

Now that they base the position more on the angle from the listeners than on the actual placement, you can fudge the use a little to suit your room. You may also choose to fib about the true location to fake moving your seating position. Your couch may be against the back wall, but you want the sound to render as if you were in the middle of the room. This is fine, you tell it the speakers about you are really the "top middle" even though they are at the back of the room. But now your front speakers, even if on the ceiling need to be called "Front Height". If you have an unusually long room, you may choose to turn this the other way around. The speakers just in front of the couch could be called "Top Middle" and the pair 5 feet behind the couch are now "Rear Height" even thought the wall is another 10 feet back. 

The 5 positions names determine when a sound will pass that speaker as it pans from the front to the back. Imagine you could use all 5 positions. As a sound moves, it will start at the "Front Height", pan smoothly to "Top Front", then to "Top Middle", on to "Top Rear", etc., you get the idea. When you use just 2 of the pairs, like we have to when limited to only 4 heights, it will still pass the speaker at the same point in the pan. Imagine a sound is panned at 60% back in the room on the ceiling. Using the Top front and Top rear speakers it will be just slightly louder in the rear pair. But if you were using Front Height and Top middle, the front ones will not play anything as the sound has passed the pair behind it. 

I could go on and on with examples, but it seems most on here are very smart people and can extrapolate what is going on. This is what makes "Object Audio" able to adapt to different speaker layouts. Since the sound is tagged with where it should be in the room, once the system knows what speakers you have, and their positions, it will calculate what speakers to play the sound from to put it in the right place in the listening room. In a large cinema with 40+ speakers, it has more choices and resolution to work with, but the technique and the math is basically the same. If you go by the angles recommended in the white paper, it will place the sound as if you are in the ideal MPL of the theatre. If your couch is moved forward or back in the room, you can choose if you want the sound to still be referenced to the couch, or keep the sounds in the same place in the room. Do you like to sit closer to the screen? Then put the top front speakers over your head, and top rear 6 feet behind. This will work just fine. 

On the current main stream AVR's, it is still a bit limited as to where you can tell it your speakers are. The format supports 24 locations around the "ear height" ring of speakers, but in the AVR we can only say if we have "Front Wides", "Side Surrounds", and/or "Back Surrounds" to go with your front Left, Center, and Right. That leaves 15 more possible positions we can't even choose. The diagrams I have seen online seem to indicate that the ring of 24 is all evenly spaced around. This would mean something like 15 degree angle steps around the room. It sure would be nice to be able to pick which side surround position is the angle my speakers are at. It seems they chose 30 degrees to get to left and right from center, so there is actually a render position for 5 screen channels, and the wides they let us pick are probably at the 60 degree point, but this is just a guess. They say match the angle you have from center to the main left and right. So 30 plus 30 again is 60. I think the side surrounds are using the 90 degrees positions. This would make sense as a half way back point. And since they ask for the back surrounds to be the same width as the fronts, they must also be +/- 30 degrees from straight back. This leave 3 positions between the back speakers. This also leaves 3 more 15 degree steps from the side surround to the back surround. You can draw this out if you like. Make a circle with 24 even spaced points. Center at the top, and place Left and Right 2 steps out each side. Two more steps out to the wides. Two more out to the side Surrounds. Then skip 3 to the back surrounds. Sure would be nice to be able to add back corner surrounds at the 120 degree back location. 

The more I look at the way the system renders the sound, I really want my 9 speaker ring. I may have to live with just 2 overhead until they make a true 9.1.4 or more AVR. Even if it just has a 7 or 9 channel power amp, I can deal with powering the others. My old Denon 3805 is waiting to power 6 speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> I did FH+TM for a long time. Then I swapped to TF+TR (without moving the speakers) and I am sticking with it. I prefer it and find it more involving.


You're welcome. That Yammie A5100 and your 2x 88A system is waiting for your go ahead, sir.


----------



## wyattroa

DaGamePimp said:


> I currently have 4 OWM3's in use for Atmos, they are very flexible for mounting and sound great (the drivers/x-overs are very similar to my existing surrounds so I gave them a shot).
> They can be purchased on ebay for $65/pair direct from Polk, refurbished but they are like new and carry the same warranty as new.
> I tested them with 2 channel music and pushed them fairly hard, they are more than enough for Atmos height speakers IMO.
> 
> 
> Best of luck,
> Jason


Alright, so I got the speakers here. I bought a set of OWM3's and OWM5's. Cost of the OWM3's were $69 for the pair shipped, cost for the OWM5's were $141. I got both on recommendations from this thread. I hooked both up to pure direct on the yamaha and it leaves me with the feeling, are the OWM5's really worth $72 a pair more? Thats $144 more for the 5's. I know that is just pocket change to many on here, but it still leaves me wondering, is it worth it? I am going to do a blind sound test with my wife tonight and see which one she likes better. I am not going to let her see the speakers before and to just make a choice by sound only. I know she would say the OWM3's just by size alone so I am going to take that factor out of the equation.


----------



## Daryl L

sdurani said:


> Yup. Are you the Daryl that was a H/K owner back then? (Did my amazing memory just make you spit out your wand?) Are you thinking of SMR Forums? They weren't really high-end, just home of the official Lexicon owners forum (official = participation from Harman reps & techs).


I thought so. I just wanted to make sure because my memory sucks lol. Yes that is me. Originally had the H/K AVR80MKII and then the AVR8000 and I seriously can't believe you remembered that. 

And again yes that was the forum. That was a long time ago. You're right, it was basically Lexicon owners forum.


----------



## rontalley

GXMnow said:


> With the current state of the "normal" home Dolby Atmos AVR's, you have a few choices when you go with 4 height speakers.
> 
> There are 5 possible locations, and you can choose 2 of them, but they need to skip one positions and not be adjacent.
> 
> So, if all 4 speakers are on the ceiling aiming down, you are using "Top front" and "Top rear" and if the angles are a bit off, there is not much you can do.
> 
> The other 5 choices are going to use "Front Height" and/or "Rear Height" which would normally mean on the wall at the ceiling, front or back.
> 
> You can use the "Front Height" with "Top middle", "Top rear", or "Rear Height".
> 
> You can use "Rear Height" with "Top middle", "Top front", or again "Front Height"
> 
> That is a total of 6 possible settings for 4 height speakers, but just 1 has all the speakers on the ceiling, the other 5 use high wall speakers at the front and/or back of the room.
> 
> Now that they base the position more on the angle from the listeners than on the actual placement, you can fudge the use a little to suit your room. You may also choose to fib about the true location to fake moving your seating position. Your couch may be against the back wall, but you want the sound to render as if you were in the middle of the room. This is fine, you tell it the speakers about you are really the "top middle" even though they are at the back of the room. But now your front speakers, even if on the ceiling need to be called "Front Height". If you have an unusually long room, you may choose to turn this the other way around. The speakers just in front of the couch could be called "Top Middle" and the pair 5 feet behind the couch are now "Rear Height" even thought the wall is another 10 feet back.
> 
> The 5 positions names determine when a sound will pass that speaker as it pans from the front to the back. Imagine you could use all 5 positions. As a sound moves, it will start at the "Front Height", pan smoothly to "Top Front", then to "Top Middle", on to "Top Rear", etc., you get the idea. When you use just 2 of the pairs, like we have to when limited to only 4 heights, it will still pass the speaker at the same point in the pan. Imagine a sound is panned at 60% back in the room on the ceiling. Using the Top front and Top rear speakers it will be just slightly louder in the rear pair. But if you were using Front Height and Top middle, the front ones will not play anything as the sound has passed the pair behind it.
> 
> I could go on and on with examples, but it seems most on here are very smart people and can extrapolate what is going on. This is what makes "Object Audio" able to adapt to different speaker layouts. Since the sound is tagged with where it should be in the room, once the system knows what speakers you have, and their positions, it will calculate what speakers to play the sound from to put it in the right place in the listening room. In a large cinema with 40+ speakers, it has more choices and resolution to work with, but the technique and the math is basically the same. If you go by the angles recommended in the white paper, it will place the sound as if you are in the ideal MPL of the theatre. If your couch is moved forward or back in the room, you can choose if you want the sound to still be referenced to the couch, or keep the sounds in the same place in the room. Do you like to sit closer to the screen? Then put the top front speakers over your head, and top rear 6 feet behind. This will work just fine.
> 
> On the current main stream AVR's, it is still a bit limited as to where you can tell it your speakers are. The format supports 24 locations around the "ear height" ring of speakers, but in the AVR we can only say if we have "Front Wides", "Side Surrounds", and/or "Back Surrounds" to go with your front Left, Center, and Right. That leaves 15 more possible positions we can't even choose. The diagrams I have seen online seem to indicate that the ring of 24 is all evenly spaced around. This would mean something like 15 degree angle steps around the room. It sure would be nice to be able to pick which side surround position is the angle my speakers are at. It seems they chose 30 degrees to get to left and right from center, so there is actually a render position for 5 screen channels, and the wides they let us pick are probably at the 60 degree point, but this is just a guess. They say match the angle you have from center to the main left and right. So 30 plus 30 again is 60. I think the side surrounds are using the 90 degrees positions. This would make sense as a half way back point. And since they ask for the back surrounds to be the same width as the fronts, they must also be +/- 30 degrees from straight back. This leave 3 positions between the back speakers. This also leaves 3 more 15 degree steps from the side surround to the back surround. You can draw this out if you like. Make a circle with 24 even spaced points. Center at the top, and place Left and Right 2 steps out each side. Two more steps out to the wides. Two more out to the side Surrounds. Then skip 3 to the back surrounds. Sure would be nice to be able to add back corner surrounds at the 120 degree back location.
> 
> The more I look at the way the system renders the sound, I really want my 9 speaker ring. I may have to live with just 2 overhead until they make a true 9.1.4 or more AVR. Even if it just has a 7 or 9 channel power amp, I can deal with powering the others. My old Denon 3805 is waiting to power 6 speakers.


All that's fine and well spoken however, given the exact same speakers, selecting FH vs TF will sound different "sonically". I would buy all of what you were saying if it was just a positioning things but IMHO, FH and/or RH sounds like ass compared to the same exact speaker being treated as TF and/or TR. So I have to advise people to choose a speaker setting in their AVR that allows their speakers to sound as they should vs. a sound being off by a degree or two. Maybe it will get fixed later on but right now, nope ain't feeling the FH/RH setting. 

Fortunately, I was able to install my speakers ideally where I no longer have to compromise. Almost scared to get the DTS-X update!


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> You're welcome. That Yammie A5100 and your 2x 88A system is waiting for your go ahead, sir.


 You are not wrong.


----------



## Ricoflashback

*RE:* "The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_

No matter where the speakers are located, I believe that TF+TR is the best combination that gives the most panning and clarity for top speakers. There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## jrogers

rontalley said:


> The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_
> 
> No matter where the speakers are located, I believe that TF+TR is the best combination that gives the most panning and clarity for top speakers. There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## kbarnes701

jrogers said:


> Having read these I am definitely going to try the same. Does the change in processing you mention mean it is necessary to rerun Audyssey Setup, or can I simply switch my Height Layout? Thx


You will have to re-run Audyssey since it thinks the speakers have been physically moved.


----------



## Nightlord

Ricoflashback said:


> *RE:* "The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_


Spock is rotating in his grave over that logic. It may be the same sound processed differently that will go to FH/RH and TF/TR, but what you wrote is a logical impossibility. (If processed differently, it cannot be the same). I think you intended to write is correct, but they way you did write it just isn't. (Not a debat, fact  )


----------



## aaranddeeman

rontalley said:


> The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_
> 
> No matter where the speakers are located, I believe that TF+TR is the best combination that gives the most panning and clarity for top speakers. There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## KK in CT

kbarnes701 said:


> You will have to re-run Audyssey since it thinks the speakers have been physically moved.


Good point. I unfortunately did not realize this, so when I switched to TF/TR, I lost Audyssey. Had to wait until the weekend to have an empty house for an hour to re-run Audyssey. I was able to restore my settings, but had to wait until later to set it to TF/TR.


----------



## rontalley

Nightlord said:


> Spock is rotating in his grave over that logic. It may be the same sound processed differently that will go to FH/RH and TF/TR, but what you wrote is a logical impossibility. (If processed differently, it cannot be the same). I think you intended to write is correct, but they way you did write it just isn't. (Not a debat, fact  )


I think what I said made perfect sense, the bird chirp will go in the Top Rear Speaker no matter if you select TR or RH however depending on what you designate your speaker as, the bird chirp might sound different. Maybe I am confuses as to what a bird chirp is.  Maybe after all these years, it's not a sound after all.

I record a kick-drum, snare, hi-hat, tom and a cymbal into my DAW. I have two different engineers mix "process" each individual sound and send those out to pre-determined speakers. 

1. Would they sound the same? 
2. Would they still be the same sounds (object)?
3. If I said mute the kick drum in either of the mixes, would anyone be confused?

Don't know how else to say it. Same objects? Objects beings sounds...or things we hear maybe?


----------



## rontalley

jrogers said:


> Having read these I am definitely going to try the same. Does the change in processing you mention mean it is necessary to rerun Audyssey Setup, or can I simply switch my Height Layout? Thx


If you have access to Audiosphere Demo, then you can easily check for yourself. The sad thing is that people typically can't remember how things sound 10 seconds apart but you will clearly hear and remember how the imaging shrinks with FH+RH vs TF+TR.

Don't listen to the bells but focus on the music that pans from back to front then from front to back.


----------



## jrogers

rontalley said:


> If you have access to Audiosphere Demo, then you can easily check for yourself. The sad thing is that people typically can't remember how things sound 10 seconds apart but you will clearly hear and remember how the imaging shrinks with FH+RH vs TF+TR.
> 
> Don't listen to the bells but focus on the music that pans from back to front then from front to back.


Will do - thanks.


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> Hopefully DTS:X should allow (and behave the same) with TF+TR, so everyone can migrate to TF+TR and leave the worries of FH+RH to (+)Auro folks..


Hopefully but rumors have it that they are advocating for FH+RH with DTS-X...

What I found interesting is how the Encounter Demo pulled off lateral movement from Side Surrounds to Top Ceiling like a rainbow! Wicked!

I wonder will it be possible to phantom a static sound (longer than a split second) in between floor and height like Auro can. If so, then I might just stop dreaming of a 9.x.7(height bed).6(ceilings) setup! You know it's coming and we will get to argue all over again about the proper placement of speakers!


----------



## Ricoflashback

rontalley said:


> Hopefully but rumors have it that they are advocating for FH+RH with DTS-X...
> 
> What I found interesting is how the Encounter Demo pulled off lateral movement from Side Surrounds to Top Ceiling like a rainbow! Wicked!
> 
> I wonder will it be possible to phantom a static sound (longer than a split second) in between floor and height like Auro can. If so, then I might just stop dreaming of a 9.x.7(height bed).6(ceilings) setup! You know it's coming and we will get to argue all over again about the proper placement of speakers!


Wouldn't the ideal setup be 7.X.6 ceiling speakers with FH/TM/RH? I'm sure you could increase the number of variations but this would minimally cover a full pan from front to back to side to side.


----------



## DaGamePimp

wyattroa said:


> Alright, so I got the speakers here. I bought a set of OWM3's and OWM5's. Cost of the OWM3's were $69 for the pair shipped, cost for the OWM5's were $141. I got both on recommendations from this thread. I hooked both up to pure direct on the yamaha and it leaves me with the feeling, are the OWM5's really worth $72 a pair more? Thats $144 more for the 5's. I know that is just pocket change to many on here, but it still leaves me wondering, is it worth it? I am going to do a blind sound test with my wife tonight and see which one she likes better. I am not going to let her see the speakers before and to just make a choice by sound only. I know she would say the OWM3's just by size alone so I am going to take that factor out of the equation.


As I stated previously I auditioned the 3's and 5's at the same time and other than a bit more bass output they sounded almost exactly the same regarding signature and quality of sound (they do share the same drivers after all), there were several of us listening and everyone agreed (including the salesperson). The 5's do offer more output, due to the added 4.5" driver, but that added output being worth the investment can only be determined by each listener. The claims that there is a huge difference between the two models is exaggerated (they are both 2-way), a difference yes but huge, not really. If there had been a huge difference I would have bought the 5's myself. After all they will be crossed-over to a point where their bass output becomes less of an issue (80Hz +).


Best of luck and either way you should certainly enjoy the end result. 
- Jason


----------



## Jrek

Just got done watching goosebumps looks like we have a new atmos demo disc for sure,I have just about everything thats out there in atmos and this is what I've been waiting for,the overhead sounds are awesome and theres alot. Great family movie to, so makes for great demo for all. Precise sounds that match whats happening on screen you'll know what I mean when you watch,and if you have atmos this a must have disc in my opinion!!! Thanks Jim


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I promise you that the Atmos gets better as the seasons go on


Whew! I was getting worried.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## maikeldepotter

Ricoflashback said:


> Wouldn't the ideal setup be 7.X.6 ceiling speakers with FH/TM/RH? I'm sure you could increase the number of variations but this would minimally cover a full pan from front to back to side to side.


Why stop at 7 speakers for the horizontal pane? For the cinema Dolby specifies a minimum of 1 speaker every 30 degrees for optimal Atmos. For an ideal Atmos set-up at home I would therefore at least include wides and 2nd pair of side surrounds.


----------



## batpig

DaGamePimp said:


> As I stated previously I auditioned the 3's and 5's at the same time and other than a bit more bass output they sounded almost exactly the same regarding signature and quality of sound (they do share the same drivers after all), there were several of us listening and everyone agreed (including the salesperson). The 5's do offer more output, due to the added 4.5" driver, but that added output being worth the investment can only be determined by each listener. *The claims that there is a huge difference between the two models is exaggerated (they are both 2-way*), a difference yes but huge, not really. If there had been a huge difference I would have bought the 5's myself. After all they will be crossed-over to a point where their bass output becomes less of an issue (80Hz +).


Was someone claiming "there is a huge difference between the two models"? I know the only reason I've recommended people go with the 5's over the 3's where possibly is exclusively for the extra output and extension.

What you describe is exactly what you'd expect -- the 5's have a bit more bass output and are capable of greater output and power handling. Nobody should have expected them to sound dramatically different at normal volumes given they use the same driver array (just one more woofer in the 5).

Even if you think the 80Hz vs. 100Hz -3dB rating isn't important, that extra driver and larger cabinet adds up if you are buying these with the goal of "keeping up" with a larger speaker setup at floor level. The 5's are rated with a 91dB sensitivity and 150W power handling; the 3's are 89dB and 100W respectively. All told you are picking up ~3-4dB of clean headroom with the 5's vs. the 3's, remember that's like doubling your amplifier power. People pay a lot of money for 3dB of headroom in other areas of the system.

So, not disagreeing at all with your statement, "that added output being worth the investment can only be determined by each listener". But I just wanted to point out that the specific reason you'd go with the 5's over the 3's is NOT sound quality, it's almost entirely about that extra extension and headroom. It's a worthwhile difference if you've got a goal of reaching big SPL and having those speakers keep up with powerful bass layer speakers.


----------



## DaGamePimp

batpig said:


> Was someone claiming "there is a huge difference between the two models"? I know the only reason I've recommended people go with the 5's over the 3's where possibly is exclusively for the extra output and extension.
> 
> What you describe is exactly what you'd expect -- the 5's have a bit more bass output and are capable of greater output and power handling. Nobody should have expected them to sound dramatically different at normal volumes given they use the same driver array (just one more woofer in the 5).
> 
> Even if you think the 80Hz vs. 100Hz -3dB rating isn't important, that extra driver and larger cabinet adds up if you are buying these with the goal of "keeping up" with a larger speaker setup at floor level. The 5's are rated with a 91dB sensitivity and 150W power handling; the 3's are 89dB and 100W respectively. All told you are picking up ~3-4dB of clean headroom with the 5's vs. the 3's, remember that's like doubling your amplifier power. People pay a lot of money for 3dB of headroom in other areas of the system.
> 
> So, not disagreeing at all with your statement, "that added output being worth the investment can only be determined by each listener". But I just wanted to point out that the specific reason you'd go with the 5's over the 3's is NOT sound quality, it's almost entirely about that extra extension and headroom. It's a worthwhile difference if you've got a goal of reaching big SPL and having those speakers keep up with powerful bass layer speakers.


 
I think someone in the thread commented on there being a 'huge' difference, it was not you. 

Absolutely agree with you as well but at the end of the day when comparisons are done the real world difference is actually fairly minimal. The 3's have no problem keeping up with the other speakers in my system at reference but then I am not using horn cabinets or bed speakers capable of insane spl. Obviously if someone has more extreme audio gear then their tops should be more substantial, these are fairly entry level speakers being discussed and both the 3's and 5's are going to be very capable for the vast majority of systems. 

Basically they are capable with great mounting flexibility and as such they make for affordable Atmos additions. 


* For what it's worth... I run Boston Reference VR2 towers and a VR12 center for LCR, they are powered by a B&K 5000 series II 125wpc amplifier (via a Denon X5200 avr). Two of the four OWM3's are running off of the B&K amp and they deliver their intended content at reference volume. Surrounds are BA CR67's x 4. Bass is dual Rythmik 12"s + CV 15".

- Jason


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> Keith, Tiesto is pretty well known and hardly obscure. In fact, in the electronic music world, I'd consider Tiesto mainstream. The guy is quite prolific.





kbarnes701 said:


> It's relative, Scott. One has an audience of - you tell me. Thousands, hundreds of thousands? Maybe even the low millions. And sales to match. The other has a global audience of hundreds of millions and sales of well over $1,000,000,000.




Given, Transformers will definitely reach more people and generate more money, but as mentioned, as far as DJs go, Tiesto is at the top of the heap. He was the third highest paid DJ in 2014 and made 28 million dollars, doing over 300 shows. Only David Guetta (30m) and Calvin Harris (66m !) made more.

2015:
Calvin Harris = $66m
David Guetta = $37m
Tiesto = $36m


----------



## Ricoflashback

maikeldepotter said:


> Why stop at 7 speakers for the horizontal pane? For the cinema Dolby specifies a minimum of 1 speaker every 30 degrees for optimal Atmos. For an ideal Atmos set-up at home I would therefore at least include wides and 2nd pair of side surrounds.


My main point was covering the minimal configuration of Dolby Height speakers for most home theater setups. You could certainly go larger -- I have a set of wide surrounds but am pretty maxed out at 9.1.6 for my ultimate man cave. Maybe in 7 years when I move to the Caribbean or some other place warm -- I can go hog wild. 

I can tell you this after the WAF -- I'm gonna have a separate casa behind the main residence as my home theater and guest space. I'll probably live there 90% of the time. Not that I want to be single but I need a place where I can rock out any time, day or night.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zeus33 said:


> Given, Transformers will definitely reach more people and generate more money, but as mentioned, as far as DJs go, Tiesto is at the top of the heap. He was the third highest paid DJ in 2014 and made 28 million dollars, doing over 300 shows. Only David Guetta (30m) and Calvin Harris (66m !) made more.
> 
> 2015:
> Calvin Harris = $66m
> David Guetta = $37m
> Tiesto = $36m


And they all suck and overrated. Seriously. I like electronic music but all of them? Talk about bland, forgettable "music".


----------



## DaGamePimp

Scott Simonian said:


> And they all suck and *overrated*. Seriously. I like electronic music but all of them? Talk about bland, forgettable "music".


Indeed.


- Jason


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> And they all suck and overrated. Seriously. I like electronic music but all of them? Talk about bland, forgettable "music".



Tell us how you really feel Scott. Share your feelings with the group!


----------



## Scott Simonian

I thought I did?

Anyway... 

Chemical Brothers, The Prodigy, Crystal Method.... three MUCH better choices.


----------



## Csbooth

It might have been mentioned already but Goosebumps being a Sony movie only allows 3D audio on the 2D version. I don't know why they did that with Pixels and it makes little sense here.

I have not watched it yet but I do plan to watch the 2D video presentation with 3D audio first and if it's a fun enough trip, then I will revisit the film to view the 3D video utilizing 2D audio.


----------



## kevon27

Ricoflashback said:


> My main point was covering the minimal configuration of Dolby Height speakers for most home theater setups. You could certainly go larger -- I have a set of wide surrounds but am pretty maxed out at 9.1.6 for my ultimate man cave. Maybe in 7 years when I move to the Caribbean or some other place warm -- I can go hog wild.
> 
> I can tell you this after the WAF -- I'm gonna have a separate casa behind the main residence as my home theater and guest space. I'll probably live there 90% of the time. Not that I want to be single but I need a place where I can rock out any time, day or night.


What processor are you using to do 9.1.6?


----------



## Ricoflashback

kevon27 said:


> What processor are you using to do 9.1.6?


None - talking futures unless you have Trinnov or something similiar. 9.1.6 is the max I can do in my theater regardless of processing capability. I believe the next big leap in Dolby Atmos AVR's will be the the ability to provide a six overhead configuration.


----------



## wyattroa

DaGamePimp said:


> As I stated previously I auditioned the 3's and 5's at the same time and other than a bit more bass output they sounded almost exactly the same regarding signature and quality of sound (they do share the same drivers after all), there were several of us listening and everyone agreed (including the salesperson). The 5's do offer more output, due to the added 4.5" driver, but that added output being worth the investment can only be determined by each listener. The claims that there is a huge difference between the two models is exaggerated (they are both 2-way), a difference yes but huge, not really. If there had been a huge difference I would have bought the 5's myself. After all they will be crossed-over to a point where their bass output becomes less of an issue (80Hz +).
> 
> 
> Best of luck and either way you should certainly enjoy the end result.
> - Jason


I agree with you, I have 2 UXL18's to handle the bass in my room, they will be crossed over at 80+ as well.


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> Wouldn't the ideal setup be 7.X.6 ceiling speakers with FH/TM/RH? I'm sure you could increase the number of variations but this would minimally cover a full pan from front to back to side to side.


Never really thought about that. I can see Lateral on Back on Front Walls but what about sides? 

Brings me back to the question if you can phantom side surround and TM...If so then that would be ideal!

Hmmm, if the same sound was playing out of RH Left and FH Left at equal volumes, where would that sound image if MLP was equal distance from FH and RH? 

Auro 3D and Atmos needs to have a love child and AVR manufactures need to create Extender Units from 6-10 channels of additional processing with or without Amps!


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Does your Yamaha let you designate speaker pairs as FH, TF, TR, RH?


Yeah, for Rear Presence, you can select Rear Height, Overhead or Dolby Enabled. Same for Front Presence. So the speakers that are plugged in the the Rear or Front Presence jacks on the AVR will be treated accordingly.

There is no such thing as "TM"+RH/FH/TF/TR that I am aware of. TM occurs as a phantom image when you have both Front Presence and Rear Presence enabled. Telling the AVR that you do not have Rear Presence sends all of the overhead information to the Front Presence speaker and vice-a-versa and of course that becomes TM as an actual location.


----------



## jpco

The image shrinking with FH and RH makes sense. It's imaging between two speakers to try and draw the sounds more to the middle of the room. I tried it when I had FH and RH placement and found it to be weak. TF and TR sounded much better. 

Now I've moved my rear speakers to overhead just behind the MLP. Rears are better, but I can't tell a difference when setting the fronts as heights or as overhead. Since I have the actual overheads just behind me, maybe it's better to have some of that sound drawn into the room by being sent to the rears. Maybe since I can't really hear the difference I shouldn't obsess over it. Doubtful.


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> Does your Yamaha let you designate speaker pairs as FH, TF, TR, RH?



It allows for those and for Dolby-enabled. The only way to do top middle is with one pair of overheads. The terminology Yamaha uses is Height, Overhead, or Dolby-enabled. The Yamaha DSP modes do not change at all based on these designations.


----------



## sdurani

jpco said:


> The terminology Yamaha uses is Height, Overhead, or Dolby-enabled.





rontalley said:


> Yeah, for Rear Presence, you can select Rear Height, Overhead or Dolby Enabled. Same for Front Presence.


Thanx. So if upfiring modules are not being used, the choices are between "Height" and "Overhead", the latter being for higher elevation (akin to "Height" and "Top" in Denon/Marantz products). 

Don't know if either of you (or any other Yamaha user) have access to the Atmos test tones being discussed recently but, if you play back just a single tone (e.g., Left Top Rear), does it play back differently whether its respective speaker is designated Height or Overhead?


rontalley said:


> There is no such thing as "TM"+RH/FH/TF/TR that I am aware of. TM occurs as a phantom image when you have both Front Presence and Rear Presence enabled. Telling the AVR that you do not have Rear Presence sends all of the overhead information to the Front Presence speaker and vice-a-versa and of course that becomes TM as an actual location.


Not sure I understand, since all five designations (FH, TF, TM, TR, RH) are legitimate speaker locations both in the Atmos install guide and in Denon/Marantz gear. When you say "no such thing", do you mean in the context of the 4-heights limitation of mainstream products or the home Atmos format?


----------



## tom703

I have a situation that I'm sure is now being faced by many people: my AVR (Denon X2200W) being a 7.2 channel set only allows for a 5.2.2 Atmos configuration. I only have one Sub, so have the AVR presently set up 5.1.2. Presently the Atmos configuration is two FH speakers. After reading the recent posts recommending setting the front speakers to FT, I will be trying that tomorrow.

The balance of the setup is the standard 5.1. What I am curious about is what others recommend as the best Atmos configuration when I only have the capability of two overhead speakers.

I previously compared a standard 7.1 configuration to the 5.1.2, and found I much preferred the 5.1.2 as even two overhead speakers had Atmos content. I can't wait to figure out how to hook up four Atmos speakers!

I expect there are many others out there looking for a way to add two more overhead speakers without purchasing a new $2000 to $3000 AVR. Anyone have some insight on this to help us Atmos newbies?


----------



## jpco

sdurani said:


> Thanx. So if upfiring modules are not being used, the choices are between "Height" and "Overhead", the latter being for higher elevation (akin to "Height" and "Top" in Denon/Marantz products).


Correct. 



> Don't know if either of you (or any other Yamaha user) have access to the Atmos test tones being discussed recently but, if you play back just a single tone (e.g., Left Top Rear), does it play back differently whether its respective speaker is designated Height or Overhead? Not sure I understand, since all five designations (FH, TF, TM, TR, RH) are legitimate speaker locations both in the Atmos install guide and in Denon/Marantz gear. When you say "no such thing", do you mean in the context of the 4-heights limitation of mainstream products or the home Atmos format?



According to the Yamaha manual, if you have one pair of overhead speakers, they are to be connected to the front terminals and positioned above the MLP, as TM speakers are in Atmos guidelines. If this position is chosen, they are only seen as top middle if there is not another pair in the height layer. 

I do not have Atmos test tones, but there is a clear difference in the signal depending on whether height or overhead is selected.


----------



## GXMnow

I will try just one more time to explain what is going on when you switch from FH to TF and RH to TR. 

The rendering is not making the image narrower or wrong etc. It is trying to put the sound in the right place with the speakers it has available. If you happen to prefer the sound in the wrong place by telling it the wrong speaker position, that is your choice. 

Let's assume a sound is being panned around the room, just 10% in from the walls. If you designate the height speakers as TF and TR the sound will render to just one speaker when it is in the corners of the room and will pan between each pair as it moves along that wall. This sounds good and seems like the best separation, I get that. But if your speakers are actually on the front wall and back wall, meaning FH and RH, then this is actually wrong, as it is placing the sound too far out. This 10% in from the wall will not be played a little in the opposite wall to bring the sonic image in slightly. This is not wrong ait is just the only thing it can do to put the sound in the right place with just those speaker locations. 

Using the test disk to say it is shrinking the pan is all wrong as well. The test noise signals are panned to the ideal place for the TF and TR on the x.x.4 clips and so it will play from just that speaker as expected when they are set to TF and TR. But if you have FH and RH it will once again have to phantom the image between the front and rear to place the sound where it is panned to. If you had a test signal panned to the front wall, it would then play out of just the FH. If you play a real movie with a pan over the top, the pan will follow the action the best when you choose the speaker locations that actually match where they really are. Telling the AVR the speakers are in a different location will actually make the pan less accurate. But like I said earlier, you may like the less accurate more obvious, or whatever difference you are hearing, but it is going to be different from how it was meant to sound. The "Audiosphere" clip does have sounds moving all around that will hit each single speaker. That seems like it will be a better test to see how well sound pans around the room, but it still can't prove which is more accurate as the visuals are a bit confusing to the sound placements. Changing which speaker positions are chosen will certainly show you the differences in how it renders. As I put together my own home system, I am trying to get it to sound as accurate as possible
to the intended mix.

You could also connect your side surround speakers to the front wide outputs and the back surrounds to the side surround outputs. This will make sounds pan back into the room much further than the mix intended, but some people may actually like that and think it sounds better too. This would be like having your front wides at 90 degrees, and your side surrounds at 140 degrees. Does this make sense?

I have worked on cinema Atmos systems and when we load in the basic layout, the system assumes the speakers are all perfectly evenly spaced. We tell it 9 speakers on a side wall and the program puts them at perfect 10% steps all the way. If we run a smooth pan up the wall and the speakers are not evenly spaced, you can hear the pan speed up across a gap, and slow down where the speakers are closer. On a normal movie clip, it usually sounds just fine, but it is not absolutely correct. 

So then we take out the laser measure, find the exact position of all 9 speakers, and then we enter the numbers into the setup file and the image on the PC screen even shows the new spacing of the speakers in the diagram. We play the same smooth pan, and it is amazing how even and perfect the motion is, even with a big gap in the middle of the room, and 3 much closer speakers in the back. The rendering really works. 

I have no problem with experimenting and seeing what you like, but to say that using FH is somehow doing something wrong is just bad information.

Would you like to chime in Film Mixer?


----------



## sdurani

GXMnow said:


> It sure would be nice to be able to pick which side surround position is the angle my speakers are at.


That would be nice, since I prefer my side surrounds slightly forward of my listening position, but the home version of Atmos has prerequisites. With standard 7.1 layouts, you can only use rear surrounds IF the layout already includes side surrounds. Likewise, with a home Atmos layout, you can only use the side surround positions forward and rearward of the listening position IF the layout already includes the side surrounds that are directly at your sides AND rear surrounds.


----------



## ALtlOff

rontalley said:


> The same sounds will go to FH/RH and TF/TR but they are processed differently. _(Not a debate, fact)_
> 
> No matter where the speakers are located, I believe that TF+TR is the best combination that gives the most panning and clarity for top speakers. There is definitely something going on when you select the various layouts but TF+TR sounds the best. RH and/or FH does not give the full front to back "fade/balance"


----------



## ALtlOff

maikeldepotter said:


> Why stop at 7 speakers for the horizontal pane? For the cinema Dolby specifies a minimum of 1 speaker every 30 degrees for optimal Atmos. For an ideal Atmos set-up at home I would therefore at least include wides and 2nd pair of side surrounds.


Yup, an 11.4.10 layout would be complete coverage for me. 
Honestly, because I know myself, I'm going to end up with an 11.4.8 for sure (basically, wide and narrow Rears), I'm already at 9.4.8 and waiting on processing, but since it's sounding like DTS isn't going to utilize Wides either I may just start hunting for another 3040 to run in tandem and not bother with DTS-X at all. Then I can experiment with my Wide and Surround Heights as far as designation goes, either FH/TF/TR/RH or FH/TM/RH with the Wide and Surround Heights getting the same signal, just like my bed layer speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

GXMnow said:


> I will try just one more time to explain what is going on when you switch from FH to TF and RH to TR.


That is a clear explanation. 

But what about this: 

Imagine a sound intended by the mixer to be right above the center of the screen at FH elevation (30 degrees). If you have a FH overhead pair installed, this sound will be pan-potted right in-between those two. But if you only have TM overhead speakers installed, this same sound will jump to right above your head. The Atmos renderer will not pan-pot this sound between center speaker and TM speakers. That is, if I understand the explanation given by @sdurani a few pages back correctly. Did I?


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> Spock is rotating in his grave over that logic. It may be the same sound processed differently that will go to FH/RH and TF/TR, but what you wrote is a logical impossibility. (If processed differently, it cannot be the same). I think you intended to write is correct, but they way you did write it just isn't. (Not a debat, fact  )


? He is saying that the same sound can be processed in different ways. That makes perfect sense to me. We could have the sound of a bell, for example. Process that sound with reverb, and without reverb. That's the same sound, processed differently.


----------



## kbarnes701

zeus33 said:


> Given, Transformers will definitely reach more people and generate more money, but as mentioned, as far as DJs go, Tiesto is at the top of the heap. He was the third highest paid DJ in 2014 and made 28 million dollars, doing over 300 shows. Only David Guetta (30m) and Calvin Harris (66m !) made more.
> 
> 2015:
> Calvin Harris = $66m
> David Guetta = $37m
> Tiesto = $36m


Relative. 28 million dollars probably paid for the catering on Transformers 4. That movie took over $1 BILLION. I picked the best example that Auro has to offer. And it's still peanuts. My bad - I should have picked the Engine-Earz Experiment as my example


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> And they all suck and overrated. Seriously. I like electronic music but all of them? Talk about bland, forgettable "music".


Yeah, but it's about time that elevators got better music, with some overhead effects isn’t it? Going up ... going down... it'll be a whole new experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I thought I did?
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> Chemical Brothers, The Prodigy, Crystal Method.... three MUCH better choices.


Now you're talking. And Daft Punk, and M8.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Ricoflashback said:


> My main point was covering the minimal configuration of Dolby Height speakers for most home theater setups. You could certainly go larger -- I have a set of wide surrounds but am pretty maxed out at 9.1.6 for my ultimate man cave. Maybe in 7 years when I move to the Caribbean or some other place warm -- I can go hog wild.


Yes. About the height speakers. In your earlier post, you referred to 6 overheads (3 pairs) as being 'ideal', now you call that 'the minimal configuration'. Not the same thing in my book. The minimal configuration is one pair. And for getting the maximum of Atmos at your home, you need all 5 pairs of overheads (at respectively 30, 55, 90, 125, and 150 degrees elevation). Unfortunately, the maximum current (affordable) AVRs/processors allow is only two pairs of overheads.


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> ? He is saying that the same sound can be processed in different ways. That makes perfect sense to me. We could have the sound of a bell, for example. Process that sound with reverb, and without reverb. That's the same sound, processed differently.


The sound is what leaves the speakers, or even what the speakers are told to reproduce even if it's in the electric domain still. If processed differently it won't be the same sound. ( I'm amazed that this needs to be written, it ought to be obvious. )


----------



## Nightlord

kbarnes701 said:


> Relative. 28 million dollars probably paid for the catering on Transformers 4. That movie took over $1 BILLION. I picked the best example that Auro has to offer. And it's still peanuts. My bad - I should have picked the Engine-Earz Experiment as my example


I don't understand why the obsession about money. People should obsess about quality.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> The sound is what leaves the speakers, or even what the speakers are told to reproduce even if it's in the electric domain still. If processed differently it won't be the same sound. ( I'm amazed that this needs to be written, it ought to be obvious. )


ISWYM now. It's a semantic difference. We are both right.


----------



## kbarnes701

Nightlord said:


> I don't understand why the obsession about money. People should obsess about quality.


There's no objective measure of quality in this context. The point I was making was to compare the success of Atmos with the success of Auro. In that definition of success, commercial success is what I was discussing, not the putative comparative quality of the output. And by this definition, in this context, a billion-dollar movie beats some "obscure" music content.

I am not commenting on the 'quality' of the music, or indeed that of the movie - just their commercial success.


----------



## pletwals

zeus33 said:


> Given, Transformers will definitely reach more people and generate more money, but as mentioned, as far as DJs go, Tiesto is at the top of the heap. He was the third highest paid DJ in 2014 and made 28 million dollars, doing over 300 shows. Only David Guetta (30m) and Calvin Harris (66m !) made more.
> 
> 2015:
> Calvin Harris = $66m
> David Guetta = $37m
> Tiesto = $36m





Scott Simonian said:


> And they all suck and overrated. Seriously. I like electronic music but all of them? Talk about bland, forgettable "music".


Couldn't agree more! Talk about inversed proportional... I just don't get it what people love about these Tomorowland deejays.

I like my Kraftwerk and minimal synth though!


----------



## pletwals

maikeldepotter said:


> Why stop at 7 speakers for the horizontal pane? For the cinema Dolby specifies a minimum of 1 speaker every 30 degrees for optimal Atmos. For an ideal Atmos set-up at home I would therefore at least include wides and 2nd pair of side surrounds.


Which amounts to 11 listener level speakers. IMO, for a tipical home set-up, 7.1.4 is very good. 9.1.6 is perfectly adequate for a 2-row HT. After that, the law of diminishing returns kicks in hard! Maybe a pair of screen heights could be a good investement if you have a large projection screen, but for the rest?


----------



## jpco

GXMnow said:


> I will try just one more time to explain what is going on when you switch from FH to TF and RH to TR.
> 
> 
> 
> The rendering is not making the image narrower or wrong etc. It is trying to put the sound in the right place with the speakers it has available. If you happen to prefer the sound in the wrong place by telling it the wrong speaker position, that is your choice.


This is what I am thinking. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

With height speakers set as height, it is making the image narrower than if the speakers were designated as tops; it is also making it more spatially correct. 

It is using the height layer speakers to image sounds in the right location. If the sound is supposed to be in front of the MLP closely related to the top front location with a height setup, the renderer will keep the majority of the sound in the FH and send a portion of the sound to the TR or RH. This will pull the location of the sound into the room and to a more accurate location. 

What also happens, at least as I hear it, is that the overhead sounds are more diffuse and not as direct or powerful.

I started with FH and RH. The Atmos effect was more prevalent when designating the height as tops. Sound object location was off. I now have FH and TR. I switch between designating fronts as heights and tops and don't hear much difference when listening to regular content. I'm probably better off with the fronts set as height to get correct object positioning.


----------



## rontalley

GXMnow said:


> I will try just one more time to explain what is going on when you switch from FH to TF and RH to TR.
> 
> The rendering is not making the image narrower or wrong etc. It is trying to put the sound in the right place with the speakers it has available. If you happen to prefer the sound in the wrong place by telling it the wrong speaker position, that is your choice...
> 
> I have no problem with experimenting and seeing what you like, but to say that using FH is somehow doing something wrong is just bad information...


I get what you are saying. 

Consider: 
Dolby has put out guidelines for Top Speaker placement and their maximum angles for Tops are 30 and 150 degrees from MLP. With an 8' ceiling, the spread from front to back is a maximum of 16'9". I am assuming that anything that is within the 30/150 degree placement would render correctly to overheads? The spread is even further if your ceilings are 10' high then the maximum spread is 23'8".

What if: 
Someone were placing their speakers at traditional height locations because they were not able to put them in/on ceiling but those locations still fell within 30/150 degrees from MLP.
Given this scenario, would the object be better represented by designating the FH/RH speaker _locations_ as TF+TR in the AVR?

Do we know what the correct angle are for FH/RH? 
Seems like if one is using FH/RH then those speakers should be quite far from the MLP?
I understand that their are many people with huge and spacious HT so I can't just generalize. I do apologize for that.

Would it be safe to say that if you have your speakers designated as FH+RH *AND* they fall well within the TF+TR parameters then the image will shrink as the renderer would assume that the speakers are further back than they are?

Just trying to fully understand. Thanks for your input on this subject.












ALtlOff said:


> I wonder if this is speaker/room dependant or receiver dependant, because I've gotten the exact opposite result.
> Using FH/RH settings over TF/TR in my setup gives me a more spacious and esp. extended, soundfield with my 3040.
> But, I am also using just Height mounted speakers and not in-ceiling


I guess it would depend on the mix content. It seems clear now that FH+RH is intended for those who have long rooms. How long is your room?



maikeldepotter said:


> That is a clear explanation.
> 
> But what about this:
> 
> Imagine a sound intended by the mixer to be right above the center of the screen at FH elevation (30 degrees). If you have a FH overhead pair installed, this sound will be pan-potted right in-between those two. But if you only have TM overhead speakers installed, this same sound will jump to right above your head. The Atmos renderer will not pan-pot this sound between center speaker and TM speakers. That is, if I understand the explanation given by @sdurani a few pages back correctly. Did I?


So objects and channels don't phantom? Doesn't seem like it...

OK someone PM me about how to get the damn Test Tones! Arrrrgg.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pletwals said:


> Which amounts to 11 listener level speakers. IMO, for a tipical home set-up, 7.1.4 is very good. 9.1.6 is perfectly adequate for a 2-row HT. After that, the law of diminishing returns kicks in hard! Maybe a pair of screen heights could be a good investement if you have a large projection screen, but for the rest?


With a 7.1.4 lay-out, Atmos only adds height to a standard 7.1 channel bed. If you want to enjoy the increased precision of object based sound playback, you need to have more speakers in the horizontal pane. The benefit of such higher granularity does not depend on the number of seats/rows IMO.


----------



## ALtlOff

rontalley said:


> I guess it would depend on the mix content. It seems clear now that FH+RH is intended for those who have long rooms. How long is your room?


The room is 23x23
That's why I mentioned it, I'm sure, like a lot of things with sound, that the room will still play a part in what settings work best. And like one of the above posts, while it still seems, when using FH/RH that "fly overs" seem to start sooner and last longer using these settings in my room, RH compared to TR has much less of an impact on this as FH compared to TF does for me. But honestly, that may simply be that there's normally so much more going on for sound in the front as opposed to the rear in general.
It's a shame that the 3040 won't allow me to do FH & TM, I'm thinking, that would even be better, but oh well....use what you've got....  
I may experiment with just TM over the weekend, but I'm guessing my room will be too big for just that, plus even with the old PLzII, Front Heights really did work well in my room, I'll probably miss them just as a matter of principle.


----------



## rontalley

ALtlOff said:


> The room is 23x23
> That's why I mentioned it, I'm sure, like a lot of things with sound, that the room will still play a part in what settings work best. And like one of the above posts, while it still seems, when using FH/RH that "fly overs" seem to start sooner and last longer using these settings in my room, RH compared to TR has much less of an impact on this as FH compared to TF does for me. But honestly, that may simply be that there's normally so much more going on for sound in the front as opposed to the rear in general.
> It's a shame that the 3040 won't allow me to do FH & TM, I'm thinking, that would even be better, but oh well....use what you've got....
> I may experiment with just TM over the weekend, but I'm guessing my room will be too big for just that, plus even with the old PLzII, Front Heights really did work well in my room, I'll probably miss them just as a matter of principle.


Seems so interesting that a sound would start sooner and last longer. I would assume that no matter the speaker designation, the sound would start and stop at the exact same time...well of course the small delays caused by distance but the AVR's calibration features should correct all of that. 

I have experienced the sound starting and finishing in different locations based on designation in AVR but never really experienced any delays or shortened lengths. This stuff is soooo interesting!

BTW, your setup is Bananas!! No wonder heights are working for you so well. You have them all over the place!!

Curious about overhead sounds. When I hooked up Heights, the overhead sounds never really sounded overhead but rather higher above. (OCD kicked in one day and I wanted to see for myself.) 

Do you have access to the Encounter Demo? If so can you hear the Arc from side to side? That blew my mind!


----------



## mumps

Once you guys figure out how many speakers you need, where to put them and what levels they should be at, I recommend watching Goosebumps. A fun movie with an EXCELLENT Atmos track. Well placed and fits the screen action perfectly. A hint of what's to come once sound mixers get used to this awesome format.

Chris


----------



## rontalley

mumps said:


> Once you guys figure out how many speakers you need, where to put them and what levels they should be at, I recommend watching Goosebumps. A fun movie with an EXCELLENT Atmos track. Well placed and fits the screen action perfectly. A hint of what's to come once sound mixers get used to this awesome format.
> 
> Chris


Got this one for the family and we watched it last Saturday. Was pleased with the sound track. Movie was funny in parts but I was unfamiliar with the characters.

I probably need to slow down with the buying of BD and figure out how what subscription is best for renting. How can you tell if Atmos movies are available for rental and what's the best way to?


----------



## Roudan

Hi 

I can only see there is only one upcoming atmos bluray which is hunger game part 2. Other than that, atmos release are all UHD blu Ray . Do I miss something else ? What about the revenant?


----------



## Ricoflashback

rontalley said:


> Got this one for the family and we watched it last Saturday. Was pleased with the sound track. Movie was funny in parts but I was unfamiliar with the characters.
> 
> I probably need to slow down with the buying of BD and figure out how what subscription is best for renting. How can you tell if Atmos movies are available for rental and what's the best way to?


Hit and miss. Some Redbox movies have Dolby Atmos (ride along metadata) and others don't. Lionsgate rentals from Redbox have zero Dolby Atmos - conscious decision on their part from what I've heard.

3D Bluray Rental is probably the best rental company for the original Bluray discs with trailers and all added content. $6.99/month, one rental at a time and two rentals max per month. Prices go up from there.


----------



## Lakesideb

rontalley said:


> I would install the in-ceiling, at least 18" off the back wall and then 9' from their to TF. 10' is from left to right is a little too far so bring them in about 6"-8" either way. I think that ~8'-9' would be ideal or in-line with Mains if your Mains are at the recommended 22-30 degrees from MLP. Designate them as TF+TR in your AVR and you will be set.
> 
> Just know that sound that supposed to be directly overhead, will be forward of the MLP if you have your couch on the wall. If you can bring your couch off the wall a little, then even better.


Hi Ron, If the inceiling are 18" off the back wall can they still be designated as TR. They will likely be inline with MLP and maybe even ahead of MLP, if MLP is 12" from back wall. The other option is to do something like this. 





This was based on the suggestion that FH is likely going to be better given the configuration of my room. This way, all 4 speakers are on an edge of the corner angled to point to MLP.

FH is angled to MLP also because the angle betweeen MLP and FH is 21 degree which is too lower than the 30 degree recommendation. Thus i thought angling them would help.

Any thoughts?


----------



## smurraybhm

rontalley said:


> Got this one for the family and we watched it last Saturday. Was pleased with the sound track. Movie was funny in parts but I was unfamiliar with the characters.
> 
> I probably need to slow down with the buying of BD and figure out how what subscription is best for renting. How can you tell if Atmos movies are available for rental and what's the best way to?


Netflix - I have yet to get a movie that has a Atmos mix on it for sale without one from Netflix. Of course with some releases you have to wait a month for them to become available. I've got Pan coming in a few days, curious how it sounds and if its as bad as some of the reviews I can always skip around and send it back  Even with it dropping to $10, I just couldn't be that big of Atmos slut, made that mistake a few times already with some other purchases.
Goosebumps was a blind buy, look forward to checking it out this week too.


----------



## rontalley

Lakesideb said:


> Hi Ron, If the inceiling are 18" off the back wall can they still be designated as TR. They will likely be inline with MLP and maybe even ahead of MLP, if MLP is 12" from back wall. The other option is to do something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was based on the suggestion that FH is likely going to be better given the configuration of my room. This way, all 4 speakers are on an edge of the corner angled to point to MLP.
> 
> FH is angled to MLP also because the angle betweeen MLP and FH is 21 degree which is too lower than the 30 degree recommendation. Thus i thought angling them would help.
> 
> Any thoughts?


I was going to suggest the 45 degree angle but didn't know how you would feel about it. Yes, that would work really nice. Still would designate them as TR. 

Install the TF in-ceiling and in line like we discussed earlier as 14' is alot of ground to cover and you are sitting all the way in the back. Plus, there is nothing stopping you now from install your TF in-ceiling. The Rears were the problem and now you have a solution that both of us like.

Yes, this configuration would shift the TM image forward but with your couch being against the wall, what are you going to do? Would be nice to get that couch off the wall but you have to compromise.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> That is, if I understand the explanation given by @sdurani a few pages back correctly. Did I?


What explanation?


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> Hit and miss. Some Redbox movies have Dolby Atmos (ride along metadata) and others don't. Lionsgate rentals from Redbox have zero Dolby Atmos - conscious decision on their part from what I've heard.
> 
> *3D Bluray Rental* is probably the best rental company for the original Bluray discs with trailers and all added content. $6.99/month, one rental at a time and two rentals max per month. Prices go up from there.


So $3.50 per movie with a max of 2 movies per month. That's very reasonable. Especially since there is not a boatload of Atmos BD movies coming out monthly. Some of these movies I've bought, I probably will never watch again in my life. 



smurraybhm said:


> Netflix - I have yet to get a movie that has a Atmos mix on it for sale without one from Netflix. Of course with some releases you have to wait a month for them to become available. I've got Pan coming in a few days, curious how it sounds and if its as bad as some of the reviews I can always skip around and send it back  Even with it dropping to $10, I just couldn't be that big of Atmos slut, made that mistake a few times already with some other purchases.
> Goosebumps was a blind buy, look forward to checking it out this week too.


I have Roku 2 and Regular Netflix that we use to stream. Probably cheaper to upgrade that subscription where I can get BD than to start a whole new subscription with 3D Bluray?


Thanks Guys. I have 15 Atmos BD now and I am sitting here counting the cash that I have spent on "Immersive Audio", asking myself would I go down this rabbit hole if I new it was a rabbit hole... Answer... Bite me and give me Rabies!! 

But I have to cut back. Getting a little expensive. Now all of this talk about having to upgrade to UHD is just saddening.


----------



## mumps

rontalley said:


> Got this one for the family and we watched it last Saturday. Was pleased with the sound track. Movie was funny in parts but I was unfamiliar with the characters.
> 
> I probably need to slow down with the buying of BD and figure out how what subscription is best for renting. How can you tell if Atmos movies are available for rental and what's the best way to?


I'm the wrong one to ask on this subject. No brick & mortar rental business is left in my city and I don't stream. I am a BD purchaser as well.

Chris


----------



## Jarery

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes. About the height speakers. In your earlier post, you referred to 6 overheads (3 pairs) as being 'ideal', now you call that 'the minimal configuration'. Not the same thing in my book. The minimal configuration is one pair. And for getting the maximum of Atmos at your home, you need all 5 pairs of overheads (at respectively 30, 55, 90, 125, and 150 degrees elevation). Unfortunately, the maximum current (affordable) AVRs/processors allow is only two pairs of overheads.



I agree with you that 1 pair is minimum. And "ideal would be a matrix array of speakers every foot in both directions like a fish net of speakers 

For a 80/20 rule where 80% would find it great, I figure for decent panning we need 3 sets of 2 speakers. 2 in front, 2 near the middle, 2 in back. This gives good mixing and panning from front to back, and side to side. This is the basis for the ground layer. Then to anchor the voices to the screen we add a 7th center speaker, although many use a phantom center and are happy.

For heights, I just see the same scenario, 2 in front, 2 near the middle, 2 in back. So a 7.2.6 system. After that anyone with an upgrade itch just starts filling in gaps between the pairs to lessen the panning jumps between pairs.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> What explanation?


This one:



sdurani said:


> Not noticeably, if at all.
> 
> If you have a single pair of heights above you, then any sounds intended to be heard above the listener will be rendered to those speakers, irrespective of which of the five possible designations you configure them for (the renderer has no other option above the listener).
> 
> Likewise, if you have two pairs of heights, any height sounds intended to be heard forward of the listener will be sent to one pair of speakers and any height sounds intended to be heard rearward of the listener will be sent to the other pair of speakers. To answer your question above: the same information will get sent to the second pair of heights, irrespective of whether you designate them TR or RH (the renderer has no other height option rearward of the listener).
> 
> The only way to hear a difference between TR and RH is by configuring both pairs, so the renderer has two data points rearward of the listener that it can pan between.


----------



## SJHT

Is it more important to have the non ceiling speakers at ear level or at the correct position? For example, my current LR surrounds are close to the ceiling. I can move them down if I place them a couple of feet BEHIND the MLP. Backs would still be further behind and at ear level. Thanks for any feedback. SJ


----------



## GXMnow

maikeldepotter said:


> That is a clear explanation.
> 
> But what about this:
> 
> Imagine a sound intended by the mixer to be right above the center of the screen at FH elevation (30 degrees). If you have a FH overhead pair installed, this sound will be pan-potted right in-between those two. But if you only have TM overhead speakers installed, this same sound will jump to right above your head. The Atmos renderer will not pan-pot this sound between center speaker and TM speakers. That is, if I understand the explanation given by @sdurani a few pages back correctly. Did I?


This will depend on the mode set when they mixed the track. If they set the sound to top only or speaker snap, it will not pan, but if it is set in normal full pan mode, it can pan from wall speakers to top speaker to try to replicate the intended location the best it can on the speakers available. Limiting to wall only or top only is not used very often, and the snap to nearest speaker is mainly used for still objects when they want a solid single source for clarity, like a person talking from off screen. The sound is very clear and direct from a single speaker. If left in the normal default pan mode, a sound at the junction between the wall and ceiling, on any wall, will be rendered as a pan between the closest speakers. In a cinema, assuming the sound is not at any one speaker in any direction, it will be panned between the two nearest wall and two nearest ceiling speakers. I have not been able to test content like this on the home decoder to see how well it holds this, but it should do the same thing. 

They do set limit to tops and speaker snap on demo and test content to place specific sounds in specific speakers for the wow factor. The smooth panning is much less obvious and produces a flowing sound field.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

aaranddeeman said:


> Hopefully DTS:X should allow (and behave the same) with TF+TR, so everyone can migrate to TF+TR and leave the worries of FH+RH to (+)Auro folks..


Not that I'm into Auro... but I'm guessing future versions of Atmos might start including extra channels like height in conjunction with ceiling & hopefully floor speakers for the full 360. Perhaps the Auro folks didn't waste their time installing height speakers.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> This one:


I never said that the _"sound will jump to right above your head"_ or made any other comments about panning from floor speakers to height speakers; just pointed out that configuring a single pair of heights meant that all the height information would be sent to those speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> I never said that the _"sound will jump to right above your head"_


Correct. 

You said [and I interpreted it as]:

"If you have a single pair of heights above you, [me: like a pair of TM speakers at 90 degrees elevation) then any sounds intended to be heard above the listener (me: like a sound intended to be heard in-between a pair of FHs at 30 degrees elevation) will be rendered to those speakers,...[me: will jump to right above your head]"

Anyway, as I understand it now this in fact only happens if a sound is marked by the mixer with a 'snap to the overheads' tag. If no 'snap to' tag is added this sound will be pan-potted between center and TM speakers to perceptually end up at about 30 degrees elevation.

Hope I got it right this time....


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> With a 7.1.4 lay-out, Atmos only adds height to a standard 7.1 channel bed. If you want to enjoy the increased precision of object based sound playback, you need to have more speakers in the horizontal pane. The benefit of such higher granularity does not depend on the number of seats/rows IMO.


You probably make a living out of selling speakers and amps, I presume? 

I agree that more speakers equals more precision. But phantom imaging can be very helpful. Trouble is this doesn't work for a large listening area, hence more speakers will be more beneficial for larger audiences...

Imagine a single listener (or MLP) with the 7 listener level speakers @ 0°; +/-30°; +/- 75° and +/-120°. As you can read in older ITU white papers where they tested this and other multi-speaker set-ups with many people, this is very effective! Almost all the listeners could hear no benefit with more speakers.

I have 9 listener level speakers in my unfinished 2-row HT and when I sit down and look around me, I am completely convinced that this is as good as it can get. The speakers are @ 0°; +/- 35° (wide screen and 24" wide speakers outside); +/-75°; +/-105° and +/-135° with the center of the front row as MLP.

I would not mind the extra expense of a pair of quality surround speakers, but I really see no benefit.


----------



## Franchot

smurraybhm said:


> Netflix - I have yet to get a movie that has a Atmos mix on it for sale without one from Netflix...


Maybe you and I are treated to variations in Netflix's service, but three Dolby Atmos movies I received from them had no Dolby Atmos...  They had 5.1 Dolby Digital.

_John Wick
Age of Adaline
Sicario

_Or maybe we have different taste in movies.


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You probably make a living out of selling speakers and amps, I presume? .


No I don't. Not yet ....  



> I agree that more speakers equals more precision. But phantom imaging can be very helpful..


True, but especially for the sides it cannot deliver the precision that is achieved by using discrete speakers.



> Imagine a single listener (or MLP) with the 7 listener level speakers @ 0°; +/-30°; +/- 75° and +/-120°. As you can read in older ITU white papers where they tested this and other multi-speaker set-ups with many people, this is very effective! Almost all the listeners could hear no benefit with more speakers..


Yes. But that is all related to channel based sound. We have objects now.



> I have 9 listener level speakers in my unfinished 2-row HT and when I sit down and look around me, I am completely convinced that this is as good as it can get. The speakers are @ 0°; +/- 35° (wide screen and 24" wide speakers outside); +/-75°; +/-105° and +/-135° with the center of the front row as MLP.
> 
> I would not mind the extra expense of a pair of quality surround speakers, but I really see no benefit.


With 9 speakers you are already half way from the standard 7 to the optimal/intended/ideal 11. Don't give up! 

Edit: If I remember your theater specifics correctly you have no room for putting the rears further back. With your 9 speakers on average 35 degrees separated from each other, you are already approaching the Dolby Atmos cinema specification of maximum 30 degrees separation between adjacent speakers.


----------



## rontalley

HTOM=


----------



## clipper57

the redbox version of goosebumps has the atmos track.


----------



## anwallac

Need Atmos advice! About to have surround sound system wired into my new home's living room it is a square room 19'8" wide and 18' front to back. Problem: ceiling is 20' TALL (flat and level)!

Front will be floorstanding L/R and dedicated center. Surrounds will be closer to surround back position due to room entrances. So at this point I've already pushed my surrounds more behind the listening position so to make up for it I want to get some ceiling speakers installed - however my installer says installing ceiling speakers in a 20' ceiling is questionable but since atmos is fairly new he's not 100% sure on the effect. He does recommend going 8" in the ceiling if we do install them.

SO what do you think? Will the discrete sounds sent to TOP channel speakers in ATMOS work or is this totally useless? I really want to have a great surround system and wanted to go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. What would you do 5.1.4 or 5.1.2? Clearly with a 5.1.2 I can meet the perfect angle for TML/TMR so am leaning on a 5.1.2.


----------



## tjenkins95

For those that have ordered 4K UHD discs from Foxconnect - the shipping date has been changed from March 1st to February 9th!


----------



## jrogers

anwallac said:


> Need Atmos advice! About to have surround sound system wired into my new home's living room it is a square room 19'8" wide and 18' front to back. Problem: ceiling is 20' TALL (flat and level)!
> 
> Front will be floorstanding L/R and dedicated center. Surrounds will be closer to surround back position due to room entrances. So at this point I've already pushed my surrounds more behind the listening position so to make up for it I want to get some ceiling speakers installed - however my installer says installing ceiling speakers in a 20' ceiling is questionable but since atmos is fairly new he's not 100% sure on the effect. He does recommend going 8" in the ceiling if we do install them.
> 
> SO what do you think? Will the discrete sounds sent to TOP channel speakers in ATMOS work or is this totally useless? I really want to have a great surround system and wanted to go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. What would you do 5.1.4 or 5.1.2? Clearly with a 5.1.2 I can meet the perfect angle for TML/TMR so am leaning on a 5.1.2.


As someone who started out with 5.1.2, and subsequently went to 5.1.4 (and I was surprised by how much of an improvement it made) I would definitely recommend starting out with 5.1.4. It does seem that it would be good if you could get those ceiling speakers down a bit.


----------



## DaGamePimp

clipper57 said:


> the redbox version of goosebumps has the atmos track.





Maybe Dolby can add a clip to the 2017 demo disc that most of us will not be able to obtain, I promise not to complain. 


- Jason


----------



## anwallac

jrogers said:


> As someone who started out with 5.1.2, and subsequently went to 5.1.4 (and I was surprised by how much of an improvement it made) I would definitely recommend starting out with 5.1.4. It does seem that it would be good if you could get those ceiling speakers down a bit.


Unfortunately, due to WAF, could only install in ceiling atmos speakers. So with a 20 foot ceiling it may be totally pointless 

Anyone here done atmos with an abnormally high ceiling


----------



## smurraybhm

Franchot said:


> Maybe you and I are treated to variations in Netflix's service, but three Dolby Atmos movies I received from them had no Dolby Atmos...  They had 5.1 Dolby Digital.
> 
> _John Wick
> Age of Adaline
> Sicario
> 
> _Or maybe we have different taste in movies.


Are you getting blu-rays? I have Age of Adline in my pocession right now and it has Atmos. Not the type of movie I need to own but it's gotten some positive comments on the mix and I can do a chick flick about twice a year . Ordered it along with Pan from Netflix which has Atmos as well, popped them both in to check, will watch them later this week hopefully. As for the other two I own those so I guess our tastes aren't too far off.

We had a rather long discussion about this a few months ago, while Netflix was delivering the real Atmos, Redbox was a crap shoot - Loinsgate being the usual problem child for their rentals.


----------



## ALtlOff

anwallac said:


> Unfortunately, due to WAF, could only install in ceiling atmos speakers. So with a 20 foot ceiling it may be totally pointless
> 
> Anyone here done atmos with an abnormally high ceiling


I haven't done it, but you would think that it won't really hurt at all, most of the issues should be able to be handled by either room correction or manual adjustments, no to mention you're most likely, completely eliminating hot-spotting issues. Look at it this way, commercial cinemas also have very high ceilings and there supposed to be the model we strive after.


----------



## GXMnow

anwallac said:


> Unfortunately, due to WAF, could only install in ceiling atmos speakers. So with a 20 foot ceiling it may be totally pointless
> 
> Anyone here done atmos with an abnormally high ceiling


I have to agree here. Your high ceiling will help, not hurt, but you will need to make sure the speakers can make enough sound level. Your sound distance is about triple a normal 8 foot ceiling. I would also go with 4 and place them at about 1/4 from the front and back and use the "Top Front" and "Top Rear" positions. At that distance, you don't need wide coverage or any aiming as the sound should easily spread enough. The room calibration in the AVR should also deal with the delays to compensate for the distance. Just make sure you have efficient speakers and enough power to make decent sound level.


----------



## corradizo

GXMnow said:


> I have to agree here. Your high ceiling will help, not hurt, but you will need to make sure the speakers can make enough sound level. Your sound distance is about triple a normal 8 foot ceiling. I would also go with 4 and place them at about 1/4 from the front and back and use the "Top Front" and "Top Rear" positions. At that distance, you don't need wide coverage or any aiming as the sound should easily spread enough. The room calibration in the AVR should also deal with the delays to compensate for the distance. Just make sure you have efficient speakers and enough power to make decent sound level.


I bet the diysoundgroup volt-10lx would be a good fit here. High sensitivity, coaxial horn.


----------



## sdurani

anwallac said:


> About to have surround sound system wired into my new home's living room it is a square room 19'8" wide and 18' front to back. Problem: ceiling is 20' TALL (flat and level)!


Mount four speakers in the four corners of the ceiling. Since you're sitting closer to the back of the room, that will make for a Top Middle + Front Height layout. Top Middle will be almost above you, Front Height will be about 45 degrees forward of you; both within their respective speaker placement ranges. Left to right spread will be around 60 degrees overhead; enough to hear stereo separation above you. Should end up sounding nice.


----------



## Franchot

smurraybhm said:


> Are you getting blu-rays? I have Age of Adline in my pocession right now and it has Atmos. Not the type of movie I need to own but it's gotten some positive comments on the mix and I can do a chick flick about twice a year .


Yup. Absolutely. I only rent blu rays. My blu ray rental of _Age of Adaline_ from Netflix was stripped of Atmos as was _John Wick_ and _Sicario_. And I was expecting them to have it. I ended up buying _John Wick_ and _Sicario_, but passed on _Age of Adaline _because, like you, I don't need another chick flick in my collection. 

I got these movies during the first week of their release. Maybe Netflix puts out the better versions after the movies have been in circulation for a while.

(Universal Films are always stripped of extras. Many movies I get from Netflix have "Rental" printed on their label.)


----------



## DaGamePimp

GXMnow said:


> I have to agree here. Your high ceiling will help, not hurt, but you will need to make sure the speakers can make enough sound level. Your sound distance is about triple a normal 8 foot ceiling. I would also go with 4 and place them at about 1/4 from the front and back and use the "Top Front" and "Top Rear" positions. At that distance, you don't need wide coverage or any aiming as the sound should easily spread enough. The room calibration in the AVR should also deal with the delays to compensate for the distance. Just make sure you have efficient speakers and enough power to make decent sound level.




I disagree, it's not within Dolby specification. Helicopter rotors that are meant to be just overhead will seem too high and ruin the entire immersion.


 
- Jason


----------



## NorthSky

From Dolby Atmos own Guidelines (for up-firing Dolby Atmos speakers):

_"For optimal performance, the ceiling should be flat (not angled or vaulted), with a
height of 14 feet (4.27 meters) or less, and made of an acoustically reflective
material (drywall, plaster, hardwood, or another rigid, non–sound-absorbing
material). The ideal ceiling height is between 7.5 and 12 feet (2.3 and 3.66 meters)."_

___________
___________

* With 20-foot high ceiling, I would:
1. Suspend four overhead speakers...with roughly 10-foot long chains. Some speakers are designed to be suspended from high ceilings...enclosed in sphere shaped enclosures. 
2. Or Install those high ceiling thin steel cables dual-parallel used normally for lights...but with speakers instead. ...That could requited long cables in some rooms. 

WAF might be challenging too.


----------



## Selden Ball

anwallac said:


> Unfortunately, due to WAF, could only install in ceiling atmos speakers. So with a 20 foot ceiling it may be totally pointless
> 
> Anyone here done atmos with an abnormally high ceiling


Is she amenable to track lighting, which would be on a support structure well below the ceiling? You could hang pendant speakers from that.


----------



## NorthSky

_"Overhead Speakers
Overhead sound is a vital part of the Dolby Atmos experience. There are a variety of
options for adding this capability to a room.
One solution is to install speakers overhead. Most high-power, full-frequency
conventional overhead speakers with wide dispersion characteristics will work in a
Dolby Atmos home theater.
Characteristics
Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move
around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers
should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities
of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as
closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a
wide dispersion pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system. This will
ensure the closest replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead
speakers are placed high above the listeners.
7
Mounting considerations
If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately
45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to
10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For
speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements
should be angled toward the primary listening position.
Room treatment considerations for use of overhead speakers
For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least two times the
height of the listener’s ear level (this generally applies to on-ceiling speakers, which
may be installed lower than the actual ceiling height).
Sound-absorbing and sound-diffusing treatment for handling reflections from the
walls, floor, and ceiling are recommended to improve sound quality and reduce
unwanted audio reflection."_

__________
__________

Ideas for high ceiling speakers:

• http://rnjelectronics-estore.com/store/page357.html
• https://shop.ges-bo.de/beleuchtungs...teme/bruck-high-line-seilsystem/strahler.html


----------



## ALtlOff

NorthSky said:


> "For optimal performance, the ceiling should be flat (not angled or vaulted), with a
> height of 14 feet (4.27 meters) or less, and made of an acoustically reflective
> material (drywall, plaster, hardwood, or another rigid, non–sound-absorbing
> material). The ideal ceiling height is between 7.5 and 12 feet (2.3 and 3.66 meters)."


Isn't this the guideline for a Dolby Enabled upward firing modules?



NorthSky said:


> "Overhead Speakers.....
> For optimal performance, the overhead speakers should be at least two times the
> height of the listener's ear level.....


No mention of a maximum height.

I would think that if you can get the proper matched volume level 20' will be just fine, no need to go to extra lengths like trusses and suspended speakers.


----------



## audiofan1

Franchot said:


> Maybe you and I are treated to variations in Netflix's service, but three Dolby Atmos movies I received from them had no Dolby Atmos...  They had 5.1 Dolby Digital.
> 
> _John Wick
> Age of Adaline
> Sicario
> 
> _Or maybe we have different taste in movies.





smurraybhm said:


> Are you getting blu-rays? I have Age of Adline in my pocession right now and it has Atmos. Not the type of movie I need to own but it's gotten some positive comments on the mix and I can do a chick flick about twice a year . Ordered it along with Pan from Netflix which has Atmos as well, popped them both in to check, will watch them later this week hopefully. As for the other two I own those so I guess our tastes aren't too far off.
> 
> We had a rather long discussion about this a few months ago, while Netflix was delivering the real Atmos, Redbox was a crap shoot - Loinsgate being the usual problem child for their rentals.


Are you 100 % on Age of Adline better recheck Pan from Netflix Bluray does have Atmos as well as Mission Impossible RN, Pixels, The Gunman,Terminator Gynesis,Minions and The Gallows (which I'd rather forget)


----------



## anwallac

http://www.monoprice.com/mobile/product/details/13687Selden Ball said:


> Is she amenable to track lighting, which would be on a support structure well below the ceiling? You could hang pendant speakers from that.


Unfortunately a no-go due to WAF. The room is like a giant cube (18x19.5x20 - LxWxH). My only other option would be in wall speakers on the front and rear walls about 12-14' height to get a 45 degree angle to MLP for 5.1.4. I'm starting to think this would make more sense than 20' high in ceiling speakers.

Something like this 12-14' high on front and back wall (but maybe a little higher end):
Monoprice Angled in wall speaker


----------



## maikeldepotter

rontalley said:


> HTOM=


Well, let me guess: Home Theater Of M?


----------



## NorthSky

ALtlOff said:


> _"For optimal performance, the ceiling should be flat (not angled or vaulted), with a_
> _height of 14 feet (4.27 meters) or less, and made of an acoustically reflective_
> _material (drywall, plaster, hardwood, or another rigid, non–sound-absorbing_
> _material). The ideal ceiling height is between 7.5 and 12 feet (2.3 and 3.66 meters)."_
> 
> Isn't this the guideline for a Dolby Enabled upward firing modules?



Yes, I realized two minutes after posting it. 



> No mention of a maximum height.
> 
> I would think that if you can get the proper matched volume level 20' will be just fine, no need to go to extra lengths like trusses and suspended speakers.



That's what I was looking for; Dolby Atmos "Height" recommendation. 


♦ His room is 19.5' (W) by 18' (L) and 20' high. I searched for a long time for best Speaker Overheads Height solution.
Depending of the distance from the MLP to all the speakers you have a valid point. 
Ideally you want to be equidistant from all the timbre matching speakers, in a full 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup. IMO (& in the opinion of others too). 


I believe that the less delay you use from a receiver or pre/pro the better it is. ...Or a maximum of 2ms.


----------



## ALtlOff

anwallac said:


> Unfortunately a no-go due to WAF. The room is like a giant cube (18x19.5x20 - LxWxH). My only other option would be in wall speakers on the front and rear walls about 12-14' height to get a 45 degree angle to MLP for 5.1.4. I'm starting to think this would make more sense than 20' high in ceiling speakers.
> 
> Something like this 12-14' high on front and back wall (but maybe a little higher end):
> Monoprice Angled in wall speaker


It's an option for sure, FH & RH are approved positions, all of mine are Heights, no overheads, and I'm really happy with the results, but my room, while being 23x23 only has 9' ceilings, but it certainly would be easier, and yes, IMO get something that matches your other speakers and as full as possible.
Honestly, the only problem I see with this is the shear physical size of your room making it less optimal.


----------



## dkfan9

NorthSky said:


> From Dolby Atmos own Guidelines:
> 
> _"For optimal performance, the ceiling should be flat (not angled or vaulted), with a
> height of 14 feet (4.27 meters) or less, and made of an acoustically reflective
> material (drywall, plaster, hardwood, or another rigid, non–sound-absorbing
> material). The ideal ceiling height is between 7.5 and 12 feet (2.3 and 3.66 meters)."_
> 
> * With 20-foot high ceiling, I would:
> 1. Suspend four overhead speakers...with roughly 10-foot long chains. Some speakers are designed to be suspended from high ceilings...enclosed in sphere shaped enclosures.
> 2. Or Install those high ceiling thin steel cables dual-parallel used normally for lights...but with speakers instead. ...That could requited long cables in some rooms.
> 
> WAF might be challenging too.


Given that it mentions reflective ceilings, I'm about 100% sure that's referring to upfiring speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

dkfan9 said:


> Given that it mentions reflective ceilings, I'm about 100% sure that's referring to upfiring speakers.


Yes, just above (2nd post above): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1249.html#post41046394


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> *I believe that the less delay you use from a receiver or pre/pro the better it is*. ...Or a maximum of 2ms.


I would be interested if you could share what the official source is of the "minimized delay" philosophy. ALL of the delays I have used in my system and others I have calibrated have delays much, much longer than 2ms. That would suggest that all speakers must be within 2 feet of one another from the MLP.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Procella Audio showing off 11.4.11 with Trinnov Altitude*

Their announcement on Facebook:



> See you next month in the RAI in Amsterdam! We are in Hall 5, booth U72! We will demo some cool new 3D audio formats, and 4K and HDR+ video!
> ATMOS 11.4.11, consisting of
> LCR: 3 x Procella P815
> SUB: Procella P18
> Bal SUB: 3 x Procella P12 alt P10
> Surround: 8 x Procella P5
> Ceiling: 11 x Procella P5


And from Trinnov: 



> In booth 5-U72, Artnovion, Image Screens, Procella Audio and Trinnov Audio will be co-exhibiting.
> A 32-channel Altitude32 and two Amplitude8s will be demonstrated as part of an impressive 11.4.11 system.


In the room drawing (see attached thumbnail) all 11 ceiling speakers are shown, including heights for L,C and R speakers. I guess this will enable 11.1.8 and Auro 13.1 maybe? The LCR speakers will probably get some dedicated amplification, leaving the two Amplitude8s for the remaining 8 surrounds and 8 overheads. We will see and hear...

PS

Also presented at ISE, Amsterdam this February:



> The Altitude32 will also be used for decoding, bass management, and loudspeaker/room optimization by Alcons Audio, in booth 6-H152 and Bowers & Wilkins, in booth 10-K114. The Alcons system will have a 7.4.6 configuration, and the Bowers & Wilkins system will have 9.4.6 channels.
> 
> Genelec, in booth 3-A124, and Pro Audio Technology, in booth 1-F41, will each use the Altitude32 to decode immersive formats. Genelec will demonstrate an 11.4.8 system, and Pro Audio Technology's system will be 11.4.6.


Taken from: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0d139cf6cf26d176fa8bf7bd1&id=8868c47a80&e=c9af70004e


----------



## corradizo

Won't the distance settings in your avr ensure the correct delay so that your 20' high speakers are heard at the right time? Movie theater ceilings are more than 20' usually, but also very wide. The trick IMO would be to control early reflections arriving before the direct sound with wall treatments.


----------



## THE DU3C3

audiofan1 said:


> Are you 100 % on Age of Adline better recheck Pan from Netflix Bluray does have Atmos as well as Mission Impossible RN, Pixels, The Gunman,Terminator Gynesis,Minions and The Gallows (which I'd rather forget)





Franchot said:


> Yup. Absolutely. I only rent blu rays. My blu ray rental of _Age of Adaline_ from Netflix was stripped of Atmos as was _John Wick_ and _Sicario_. And I was expecting them to have it. I ended up buying _John Wick_ and _Sicario_, but passed on _Age of Adaline _because, like you, I don't need another chick flick in my collection.
> 
> I got these movies during the first week of their release. Maybe Netflix puts out the better versions after the movies have been in circulation for a while.
> 
> (Universal Films are always stripped of extras. Many movies I get from Netflix have "Rental" printed on their label.)


It's not uncommon for certain studios (I'm looking at you Lionsgate ) to strip the lossless audio track from their rental versions. They've been doing this for some time now.


----------



## markus767

corradizo said:


> Won't the distance settings in your avr ensure the correct delay so that your 20' high speakers are heard at the right time? Movie theater ceilings are more than 20' usually, but also very wide. The trick IMO would be to control early reflections arriving before the direct sound with wall treatments.


Huh? Early reflections arriving before the direct sound? How does that work?


----------



## corradizo

markus767 said:


> Huh? Early reflections arriving before the direct sound? How does that work?


Bad choice of words on my part. Of course the direct sound arrives first. The first reflections need to be controlled as it's likely in new construction that the sound will be bouncing off of dry wall and will not have decayed enough. Better?


----------



## anwallac

ALtlOff said:


> It's an option for sure, FH & RH are approved positions, all of mine are Heights, no overheads, and I'm really happy with the results, but my room, while being 23x23 only has 9' ceilings, but it certainly would be easier, and yes, IMO get something that matches your other speakers and as full as possible.





ALtlOff said:


> Honestly, the only problem I see with this is the shear physical size of your room making it less optimal.


 I am starting to think this is my only solution with 20'x20'x20' room. Honestly, I think I will just have it wired and go for it - what's the worst that can happen? If anything maybe too much echo. I get from dolby the preferred angle from horizontal is 30-55 degrees for TF/TRs from MLP. Having height speakers 13-14' high on wall - fronts would be at 40 degrees and rear would be at 67 degrees (~10 degrees too high but not terrible). Would an in-wall speaker with aimable tweeter suffice - or should I be looking at something like the Speakercraft AIM series to get some aimable woofers/tweeters (only one's I've found that fit in standard wall with 4" studs).


----------



## ALtlOff

anwallac said:


> I am starting to think this is my only solution with 20'x20'x20' room. Honestly, I think I will just have it wired and go for it - what's the worst that can happen? If anything maybe too much echo. I get from dolby the preferred angle from horizontal is 30-55 degrees for TF/TRs from MLP. Having height speakers 13-14' high on wall - fronts would be at 40 degrees and rear would be at 67 degrees (~10 degrees too high but not terrible). Would an in-wall speaker with aimable tweeter suffice - or should I be looking at something like the Speakercraft AIM series to get some aimable woofers/tweeters (only one's I've found that fit in standard wall with 4" studs).


For in-wall I'd definitely look at something that aimed the entire driver array when it comes to Height positions as opposed to an in-ceiling for Tops, esp. with the amount of space your working with.
It may not be "ideal" but with that size room it should definitely be an upgrade over just 5.1 at ear level, no question. Honestly, you'll probably run into the same thing I have, Heights work really well and were an absolute improvement overall, (even over PLIIz) and since I've never had Tops, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.


----------



## dvdwilly3

anwallac said:


> I am starting to think this is my only solution with 20'x20'x20' room. Honestly, I think I will just have it wired and go for it - what's the worst that can happen? If anything maybe too much echo. I get from dolby the preferred angle from horizontal is 30-55 degrees for TF/TRs from MLP. Having height speakers 13-14' high on wall - fronts would be at 40 degrees and rear would be at 67 degrees (~10 degrees too high but not terrible). Would an in-wall speaker with aimable tweeter suffice - or should I be looking at something like the Speakercraft AIM series to get some aimable woofers/tweeters (only one's I've found that fit in standard wall with 4" studs).


Check out the Goldenear Invisa series...


----------



## anwallac

ALtlOff said:


> For in-wall I'd definitely look at something that aimed the entire driver array when it comes to Height positions as opposed to an in-ceiling for Tops, esp. with the amount of space your working with.
> It may not be "ideal" but with that size room it should definitely be an upgrade over just 5.1 at ear level, no question. Honestly, you'll probably run into the same thing I have, Heights work really well and were an absolute improvement overall, (even over PLIIz) and since I've never had Tops, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.



Excellent point thank you. Okay now I noticed I can get my TRs down on the back wall to 12' which would create an angle of 56 degrees - not bad.


The in-wall speakers must fit a wall with 4" studs. Right now my options:
Speakercraft AIM7 MTs (two or three series)
GoldenEar Invisa Line
Any other recommendations?


----------



## tbaucom

smurraybhm said:


> Are you getting blu-rays? I have Age of Adline in my pocession right now and it has Atmos. Not the type of movie I need to own but it's gotten some positive comments on the mix and I can do a chick flick about twice a year . Ordered it along with Pan from Netflix which has Atmos as well, popped them both in to check, will watch them later this week hopefully. As for the other two I own those so I guess our tastes aren't too far off.
> 
> We had a rather long discussion about this a few months ago, while Netflix was delivering the real Atmos, Redbox was a crap shoot - Loinsgate being the usual problem child for their rentals.


I just watched this movie last week from Netflix. It had dolby digital 5.1 only.


----------



## darklord700

I just got my HT (11’x19’x8’) setup for 7.1.4. The 4 celling speakers are Mirage OminiSat mounted upside down from the ceiling and the four surrounds are Paradigm atoms. 

Their placement is according to what Dolby suggested except that the 4 Atoms surrounds are at ceiling height as well ( no chance of getting them at ear level in my room). So I have 4 ceilings and 4 surrounds all at ceiling height but I aim the Atom surrounds downwards and use a good dispersion OminiSat for the ceilings.

My impression comparing to my old 7.1 setup is that you do get more of an enveloping sound stage and louder sound. After watching the entire Dolby Atmos demo disc, I can’t say I am terribly impressed with the Atmos processing. Well you do use 4 more speakers than before so that’s that. I still don’t think it is enveloping enough. 

Like in the rain sequence, I do get some overhead rain sound but it’s just not enveloping enough for me.

I’m not saying Atmos is not better than 7.1 but my jaw didn’t drop. It is almost as if you encode the soundtrack to 11.1, it’ll sound the same as 7.1.4 Atmos. 

I know my four surrounds are not at ear level but I fail to see how that will make much of a difference in my rather small and narrow room.

The upside is Atmos didn’t cost me much, just 4 used OminiSat and some wires.


----------



## maikeldepotter

@soundcheck

Must be. Good find!
I have edited my post.

PS Did you delete your post?


----------



## ALtlOff

anwallac said:


> Excellent point thank you. Okay now I noticed I can get my TRs down on the back wall to 12' which would create an angle of 56 degrees - not bad.
> 
> 
> The in-wall speakers must fit a wall with 4" studs. Right now my options:
> Speakercraft AIM7 MTs (two or three series)
> GoldenEar Invisa Line
> Any other recommendations?


If I remember correctly you're talking about "all" your speakers (just heights should match your surrounds best you can) so my personal choice would be the GoldenEar's, but.... I'm extremely biased since I'm a huge fan of Sandy Gross, their designer.
That being said, the real answer is, which ever you like the sound of best, everyone likes something different, and "you" have to live with your decision.


----------



## jrogers

ALtlOff said:


> If I remember correctly you're talking about "all" your speakers (just heights should match your surrounds best you can) so my personal choice would be the GoldenEar's, but.... I'm extremely biased since I'm a huge fan of Sandy Gross, their designer.
> That being said, the real answer is, which ever you like the sound of best, everyone likes something different, and "you" have to live with your decision.


+1 for GoldenEar


----------



## kbarnes701

darklord700 said:


> So I have 4 ceilings and 4 surrounds all at ceiling height
> 
> After watching the entire Dolby Atmos demo disc, I can’t say I am terribly impressed with the Atmos processing. I still don’t think it is enveloping enough.



The second paragraph follows directly from the first paragraph.


----------



## GXMnow

anwallac said:


> I am starting to think this is my only solution with 20'x20'x20' room. Honestly, I think I will just have it wired and go for it - what's the worst that can happen? If anything maybe too much echo. I get from dolby the preferred angle from horizontal is 30-55 degrees for TF/TRs from MLP. Having height speakers 13-14' high on wall - fronts would be at 40 degrees and rear would be at 67 degrees (~10 degrees too high but not terrible). Would an in-wall speaker with aimable tweeter suffice - or should I be looking at something like the Speakercraft AIM series to get some aimable woofers/tweeters (only one's I've found that fit in standard wall with 4" studs).


For all speakers, it can be very helpful to be able to aim the sound at the listeners and get less sound on the walls. In your 20 foot cube room, you will have very dominant standing waves with all three axis being the same length. You may want to hang some acoustic baffle panels and certainly have some absorbing panels on the walls. There are several companies that make them in standard sizes for reasonable prices. For a little extra cost they can do stock art work on them or even custom print your images if that can help with the WAF. A good 24" x 48" x 2" thick panel in a common cloth should run about $50 - $80 each. I don't want to recommend brands here. Just to a search for "acoustic panels" and I am sure a few companies will come up. 

If you do go with high speakers on the front and back walls instead of top speakers in the high ceiling, I would designate them as Front Height and Rear Height, even if the angles are on the high side. You can certainly try it as tops, but I think the pans will fit the action better with them as heights. If you do try them both ways, I would be curious what you think. Be sure you re-run the room setup if you change the designation as it will think you moved the speakers, not just the name.


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> I just got my HT (11’x19’x8’) setup for 7.1.4. The 4 celling speakers are Mirage OminiSat mounted upside down from the ceiling and the four surrounds are Paradigm atoms.



Yay for more Mirages! I'd love to see some pictures of your room...how you mounted your overheads. 



darklord700 said:


> My impression comparing to my old 7.1 setup is that you do get more of an enveloping sound stage and louder sound. After watching the entire Dolby Atmos demo disc, I can’t say I am terribly impressed with the Atmos processing. Well you do use 4 more speakers than before so that’s that. I still don’t think it is enveloping enough.
> 
> Like in the rain sequence, I do get some overhead rain sound but it’s just not enveloping enough for me.
> 
> I’m not saying Atmos is not better than 7.1 but my jaw didn’t drop. It is almost as if you encode the soundtrack to 11.1, it’ll sound the same as 7.1.4 Atmos.



I suspect something is out of whack...and it's most likely stemming from your surrounds not being lower. Every single person that heard my all Mirage 7.2.4 (well, minus the SVS subs) was completely blown away...one of them went and bought his own system after that. When set up properly, it is very much enveloping and jaw dropping (to everyone else...I'm used to it now). I've since upgraded my front sound stage so I'm not running all Mirage anymore, but I'm very familiar with the sound of Mirage Atmosy Goodness (MAG).



darklord700 said:


> I know my four surrounds are not at ear level but I fail to see how that will make much of a difference in my rather small and narrow room.



It absolutely will make a difference. You need vertical separation between your surrounds and overheads for proper imaging and immersion. If you're running Mirages as your surrounds, then they don't actually need to be at ear height if they're mounted upside down as they will disperse the sound downwards and away due to their design. I think mine are right about 6' now. I had them higher, but on the recommendations here, I moved them lower and it made a difference.

Maybe if you provide more explicit details about your equipment (AVR, specific speakers, etc), height of your surrounds, and room dimensions then the fine folks of this forum can give you options to ponder. There's usually almost always a solution to a problem. Whether or not it's viable in your situation (WAF) is another issue.

Your location is blank in your profile...where are you located?


----------



## rontalley

darklord700 said:


> I just got my HT (11’x19’x8’) setup for 7.1.4. The 4 celling speakers are Mirage OminiSat mounted upside down from the ceiling and the four surrounds are Paradigm atoms.
> 
> Their placement is according to what Dolby suggested except that the 4 Atoms surrounds are at ceiling height as well ( no chance of getting them at ear level in my room). So I have 4 ceilings and 4 surrounds all at ceiling height but I aim the Atom surrounds downwards and use a good dispersion OminiSat for the ceilings.
> 
> My impression comparing to my old 7.1 setup is that you do get more of an enveloping sound stage and louder sound. After watching the entire Dolby Atmos demo disc, I can’t say I am terribly impressed with the Atmos processing. Well you do use 4 more speakers than before so that’s that. I still don’t think it is enveloping enough.
> 
> Like in the rain sequence, I do get some overhead rain sound but it’s just not enveloping enough for me.
> 
> I’m not saying Atmos is not better than 7.1 but my jaw didn’t drop. It is almost as if you encode the soundtrack to 11.1, it’ll sound the same as 7.1.4 Atmos.
> 
> I know my four surrounds are not at ear level but I fail to see how that will make much of a difference in my rather small and narrow room.
> 
> The upside is Atmos didn’t cost me much, just 4 used OminiSat and some wires.


How can you expect for the sound to envelop you when you have your surrounds in the ceiling?

No way that that setup will work correctly. If you follow Dolby's recommendations, you will experience Atmos and the jaw dropping experience that's many have expressed.


----------



## darklord700

stikle said:


> I suspect something is out of whack...and it's most likely stemming from your surrounds not being lower. Your location is blank in your profile...where are you located?





rontalley said:


> How can you expect for the sound to envelop you when you have your surrounds in the ceiling?


stikle, just updated my profile with location. I'll take a photo later tonight how I hung the Omnisat (upside down with the tweeter pointing towards the ground and at the MLP).

rontalley, my setup is not perfect and I can kind of see the potential of Atmos even with that. I will put my four surrounds on stands later and see. Right now I am beat from hanging those 4 Mirage from yesterday and I want to live with this all ceiling setup for a while to better memorise the sound first. So that I can determine later if permanently defacing my lovely HT room is worth the price.


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> stikle, just updated my profile with location. I'll take a photo later tonight how I hung the Omnisat (upside down with the tweeter pointing towards the ground and at the MLP).



Ah Canada. That's where Mirage was based before Klipsch bought them and killed off the line. Too bad you weren't closer, you could drop by for a demo. 



darklord700 said:


> I will put my four surrounds on stands later and see.



THAT will make a night and day difference to you. Make sure that after you put them on stands that you re-run your room correction (Audyssey, MultiEQ, YPAO, etc) with the microphone. Heck, you don't even needs stands if you don't currently have any. Just find something to temporarily set them on. 

I'm still really curious - what are your surround speakers?



darklord700 said:


> So that I can determine later if permanently defacing my lovely HT room is worth the price.



In my opinion, a Home Theater Room is a container for the Audio and Visual experience. If it's a dedicated room, then that should be your primary goal first, then dress it up and make it pretty later. Do you watch movies and TV with all of your lights on? I know I don't...so when I'm sitting there watching something, I don't care what the room actually looks like as long as experience sucks me out of real life into the content I'm watching.

If by "permanently defacing" to you means having visible speaker wire due to lowering the speakers, then there are lots of ways to get around that. If you mean having speakers mounted down lower on the wall so they're more obvious, then see above. 

If you have a wife/girlfriend whose opinion is impacting what you do in your room, then that's a challenge.

Do you want to have a phenomenal auditory experience, or do you want to have a pretty room and a "whatever, who cares" feeling about Atmos?

What do YOU want?


----------



## anwallac

GXMnow said:


> For all speakers, it can be very helpful to be able to aim the sound at the listeners and get less sound on the walls. In your 20 foot cube room, you will have very dominant standing waves with all three axis being the same length. You may want to hang some acoustic baffle panels and certainly have some absorbing panels on the walls. There are several companies that make them in standard sizes for reasonable prices. For a little extra cost they can do stock art work on them or even custom print your images if that can help with the WAF. A good 24" x 48" x 2" thick panel in a common cloth should run about $50 - $80 each. I don't want to recommend brands here. Just to a search for "acoustic panels" and I am sure a few companies will come up.





GXMnow said:


> If you do go with high speakers on the front and back walls instead of top speakers in the high ceiling, I would designate them as Front Height and Rear Height, even if the angles are on the high side. You can certainly try it as tops, but I think the pans will fit the action better with them as heights. If you do try them both ways, I would be curious what you think. Be sure you re-run the room setup if you change the designation as it will think you moved the speakers, not just the name.


 Excellent point, so I've been researching acoustic damping and panels with artwork would be awesome and make the wife happy. I would hang them above my Front/Rear heights to help eliminate the upper void from the room. 

I will definitely experiment with designating them as Height speakers versus Tops and re-run audyssey. It should all come together around June/July timeframe so I will be sure to report back.

FYI, I currently own Infintity Primus for 5.1 so will use that until budget improves. For the height speakers I am leaning towards Speakercraft AIM7 MT threes over Goldenear due to aimability and also overall budget. I still have to buy that 5.1.4 Receiver too


----------



## smurraybhm

tbaucom said:


> I just watched this movie last week from Netflix. It had dolby digital 5.1 only.


Before there's a riot on AVS 
I'll check again when I decide to watch the flick. If I screwed up and missed something at it is indeed stripped it will be returned, I have no desire to watch it without Atmos nor purchase it. Am I the only one who remembers the back and forth debate we had on this within the last 6 months - Netflix v Redbox v Lionsgate. No time to search the thread, work and more work.


----------



## AllenA07

stikle said:


> In my opinion, a Home Theater Room is a container for the Audio and Visual experience. If it's a dedicated room, then that should be your primary goal first, then dress it up and make it pretty later. Do you watch movies and TV with all of your lights on? I know I don't...so when I'm sitting there watching something, I don't care what the room actually looks like as long as experience sucks me out of real life into the content I'm watching.
> 
> If by "permanently defacing" to you means having visible speaker wire due to lowering the speakers, then there are lots of ways to get around that. If you mean having speakers mounted down lower on the wall so they're more obvious, then see above.
> 
> If you have a wife/girlfriend whose opinion is impacting what you do in your room, then that's a challenge.
> 
> Do you want to have a phenomenal auditory experience, or do you want to have a pretty room and a "whatever, who cares" feeling about Atmos?
> 
> What do YOU want?


I've got an ugly home theater, it sounds fantastic but compared to what I generally see on here, my theater isn't going to be winning awards for looks. It sometimes bugs me that I don't have the pretty theater, however the biggest advantage to that is that I've got no reservations about doing what I need to do for the best possible audio. There are some compromises (side surrounds are a little high, and my rear Atmos speakers are mounted approximately a foot lower than my front heights) that need to be made for practical reasons (side speakers are higher otherwise I wouldn't have an aisle) however at no point have I had to worry about ruining the aesthetics of my theater when it comes time to make a change.

It's ugly, but when I shut the lights off who cares!


----------



## cyclones22

AllenA07 said:


> It's ugly, but when I shut the lights off who cares!


That's what she said.


----------



## darklord700

stikle said:


> I'm still really curious - what are your surround speakers?
> 
> Do you want to have a phenomenal auditory experience, or do you want to have a pretty room and a "whatever, who cares" feeling about Atmos?
> 
> What do YOU want?





AllenA07 said:


> It's ugly, but when I shut the lights off who cares!


stikle, my 4 surrounds are the Paradigm Atoms. 

Well you guys got me motivated.  

Now I think of it, moving the 4 surrounds from the ceiling down will require me to remove them from their wall mount, extend four sets of speaker wires from to the ceiling. Probably just a weekend afternoon of work and I'll worry about those damn wires hanging down from the ceiling later.


----------



## kbarnes701

AllenA07 said:


> It's ugly, but when I shut the lights off who cares!


I've known some women that applies to


----------



## NorthSky

> I would be interested if you could share what the official source is of the "minimized delay" philosophy. ALL of the delays I have used in my system and others I have calibrated have delays much, much longer than 2ms. That would suggest that all speakers must be within 2 feet of one another from the MLP.


In an ideal multichannel setup you want all your speakers equidistant from the MLP.
Short of that ideal, if you can position your speakers with no more than two feet separation difference between each other (relative to the MLP)///it's good "sound" philosophy.

I am not certain but I believe it was from an article @ Audioholics. ...Just google it.
And by the way, it's not an official source...it's only a suggestion. I never mentioned "official"...I said "I believe".

Also, check other articles on this subject from the professional audio gurus. ...Not from Audioholics but others like from Genelec, and recommended speaker's positioning by real expert sources...gearslutz etc. ...Equidistant distances is best, if possible. 

* For many people it is impossible, so we all use the automatic delay inside our receivers and pre/pros, to compensate for the less than ideal speaker's positions...like nearer surrounds (side and rear and overheads) as compared to our three front main trio. 
But that 2ms (two feet) maximum delay, if amenable, is still good sounding practice, short of the ideal. 

This is my opinion, not an official statement or an absolute claim...just an opinion. Check over @ Audioholics, you might get lucky and find that article. 
But better yet, check the real pro recommendations, about multichannel music setup, ...and for movies too.


----------



## markus767

A 2ms delay between the left and right speaker will make a sound completely snap into the leading loudspeaker. Delay between speakers has to be 0. The closer to zero the better.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/InterchannelLevelDifferencesAndInterchannelTimeDifferences1.pdf


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> stikle, my 4 surrounds are the Paradigm Atoms.



Ok, so that answers my question. If they were Omnisats also then you wouldn't need to have them as low.



darklord700 said:


> Now I think of it, moving the 4 surrounds from the ceiling down will require me to remove them from their wall mount, extend four sets of speaker wires from to the ceiling. Probably just a weekend afternoon of work and I'll worry about those damn wires hanging down from the ceiling later.



Can you use Fish Tape to pull the wires down through the wall after extending them to the new speaker locations? I did that in my room and it turned out awesome looking.

I promise...I'll get an updated picture soon. Maybe not tonight as I'm off to an eye appointment and eye dilation. Yay.


----------



## darklord700

stikle said:


> Can you use Fish Tape to pull the wires down through the wall after extending them to the new speaker locations? I did that in my room and it turned out awesome looking.
> 
> I promise...I'll get an updated picture soon. Maybe not tonight as I'm off to an eye appointment and eye dilation. Yay.


Unfortunately, my electrician stapled the wire to the stud so I can't fish them out with a longer one. I'm thinking of just use some cord cover at the end to cover them up. 

http://www.homedepot.com/p/CE-TECH-Flat-Screen-TV-Cord-Cover-A31-KW/204412610

Looking forward to seeing your pictures.


----------



## GXMnow

markus767 said:


> A 2ms delay between the left and right speaker will make a sound completely snap into the leading loudspeaker. Delay between speakers has to be 0. The closer to zero the better.


The way distance correction should work is that it takes the furthest speaker and sets that to minimum delay, this could be from 1 to 10 ms depending on the latency of the DSP for Eq etc and D to A conversion. Anything with digital processing can't do true zero delay, but under 2 is very possible.

Sound travels pretty close to one foot per millisecond. So for each foot a speaker is closer to the listener, the delay is increased by a millisecond. Even up to a 10 foot difference is not really a big deal as it is just adding 10 ms to the close speaker. 

When setting up a room, I usually let the auto room correction calculate the distance corrections and I usually find the results are very close, but I will go in and make sure it set the mirror image speakers to the same delay (distance). In my room, it was a foot off on the left and right front and 0.5 foot off on the back surrounds. Those are trivial numbers, it is audible, but not enough to mess it up. At my shop, we messed with an audio delay and a pair of identical speakers. We would close our eyes and move up and back between the speakers to find the center between them. Even with a level error, it was pretty easy to find the point where the arrival times were the same. Once we found what we thought was the acoustic center, we could measure it and the difference in distance was always within a millisecond. We only had the speakers 12 feet apart, so the experiment only worked out to about 8 ms. 

The fun part was when we spread the speakers up and down instead of left and right. The time difference made almost no difference in the apparent sound position. It was all just level that made it pan up and down. Even when the speakers were to our side or behind as well as in front. So it seems level balancing is more important in the vertical direction than it is in the horizontal plane.


----------



## GCS

rontalley said:


> Yep 2'2" off the back wall and 11'8" from there should be ideal for your setup. Put you right between the minimum and median requirements.
> 
> Your ceiling is 10' high. Ear Height at MLP is probably around 3'2". That means that your Ear Height to ceiling is 6'10". At 45 degrees, that would be the measurement from MLP to TF and/or TR. IMHO, the 45 degrees is more suited for 8' ceilings and the higher the ceiling, the steeper the angle but the minimum angle is 55/125 degrees.
> 
> For peace of mind, I've sketched it for you. Now you have to report back on the Miccas!
> 
> Good Luck!




Ok slightly confused on this so I just need clarification.

The back atmos ceiling speakers should be 2 feet 2 inches off the back wall or right at the back wall?

The other pair should be in front of the main seating area but where?


Greg


----------



## Stoked21

Go figure...Paid $80 for Sept 2015 demo disc....After writing an email in German to Video Mag, they sent me the disc for free. Like many others, I didn't even know they read the email. Just sent me the disc for free.....Can't be POTUS as an American army brat born in German, but I can get free demo discs with my German! HA HA. Kind of pointless as I think I have everything on it, but I'll give it a spin.


----------



## audioguy

Do you think this dispersion pattern will work as ceiling mounted Atmos speakers?


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked21 said:


> Go figure...Paid $80 for Sept 2015 demo disc....After writing an email in German to Video Mag, they sent me the disc for free. Like many others, I didn't even know they read the email. Just sent me the disc for free.....Can't be POTUS as an American army brat born in German, but I can get free demo discs with my German! HA HA. Kind of pointless as I think I have everything on it, but I'll give it a spin.


I thought the German "free" disk did not include the test tones.


----------



## Stoked21

smurraybhm said:


> I thought the German "free" disk did not include the test tones.


Doesn't. What's cool is it includes leaf, amaze, unfold and audiosphere plus all the cool audio tracks. So it's kind of like the 2014 and 2015 rolled into one. The only notable exceptions are Conductor Girl and Enrique. The combination of all of those is what I like to use for setup evaluation. PITA to have to switch discs constantly. So, the German disc is kind of the best catch-all......

I know Markus got reamed for putting down the test tones....But seriously, they're not of much value IMO. On a very rare occasion I could maybe see myself checking them with SPL...But honestly, I'd trust Audy and/or Dirac more than I would those test tones with a $40 SPL meter.....


----------



## Csbooth

Just finished Goosebumps... MY PERSONAL NEW FAVORITE Atmos mix in regards to object activity/placement. It's as active as Mad Max and the effects appropriately placed in the "bubble" akin to Gravity, imo of course. It's really just a fun movie as well but I suppose I'm a bit biased concerning the story as I grew up obsessed with the books however lol.

I'm going to watch it in 3D tomorrow, but because Sony is just weird, it'll have to be sans Atmos; the good news is I can compare the up mixing to the real deal.

It's DEFINITELY worth a rental alone for Atmos though.


----------



## tom703

Csbooth said:


> Just finished Goosebumps... MY PERSONAL NEW FAVORITE Atmos mix in regards to object activity/placement. It's as active as Mad Max and the effects appropriately placed in the "bubble" akin to Gravity, imo of course. It's really just a fun movie as well but I suppose I'm a bit biased concerning the story as I grew up obsessed with the books however lol.
> 
> I'm going to watch it in 3D tomorrow, but because Sony is just weird, it'll have to be sans Atmos; the good news is I can compare the up mixing to the real deal.
> 
> It's DEFINITELY worth a rental alone for Atmos though.


Do all versions of Goosebumps have Atmos? I ran into this problem with Gravity when I bought the 3d version and then learned that only one version had the Atmos track - not the version I bought!


----------



## markus767

GXMnow said:


> The way distance correction should work is that it takes the furthest speaker and sets that to minimum delay, this could be from 1 to 10 ms depending on the latency of the DSP for Eq etc and D to A conversion. Anything with digital processing can't do true zero delay, but under 2 is very possible.
> 
> Sound travels pretty close to one foot per millisecond. So for each foot a speaker is closer to the listener, the delay is increased by a millisecond. Even up to a 10 foot difference is not really a big deal as it is just adding 10 ms to the close speaker.
> 
> When setting up a room, I usually let the auto room correction calculate the distance corrections and I usually find the results are very close, but I will go in and make sure it set the mirror image speakers to the same delay (distance). In my room, it was a foot off on the left and right front and 0.5 foot off on the back surrounds. Those are trivial numbers, it is audible, but not enough to mess it up. At my shop, we messed with an audio delay and a pair of identical speakers. We would close our eyes and move up and back between the speakers to find the center between them. Even with a level error, it was pretty easy to find the point where the arrival times were the same. Once we found what we thought was the acoustic center, we could measure it and the difference in distance was always within a millisecond. We only had the speakers 12 feet apart, so the experiment only worked out to about 8 ms.
> 
> The fun part was when we spread the speakers up and down instead of left and right. The time difference made almost no difference in the apparent sound position. It was all just level that made it pan up and down. Even when the speakers were to our side or behind as well as in front. So it seems level balancing is more important in the vertical direction than it is in the horizontal plane.


I was talking about *inter-channel* delay. The overall system delay is meaningless (as long as it's the same in any accompanying video). The goal is to make the sound from each speaker to arrive at the main listening position at the very same time. A delay of 0.5ft is about 0.44ms and will shift a phantom image by about 50%.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-localisationcurves.htm

Summing localization in the vertical plane works completely different from summing localization in the horizontal plane. In the vertical plane no interaural localization cues are generated hence any panning law (e.g. Atmos renderer) based on the assumption that horizontal and vertical localization would work on the same principles is flawed.


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Do you think this dispersion pattern will work as ceiling mounted Atmos speakers?
> 
> [...]


What does the vertical dispersion look like?


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> Summing localization in the vertical plane works completely different from summing localization in the horizontal plane. In the vertical plane no interaural localization cues are generated hence any panning law (e.g. Atmos renderer) based on the assumption that horizontal and vertical localization would work on the same principles is flawed.


AFAIK the Atmos renderer exclusively applies pan-potting ('point panner'), and does not rely on interaural localization cues for the horizontal positioning of object sounds. Did I miss something, or are you implying that the Atmos renderer is flawed?


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> AFAIK the Atmos renderer exclusively applies pan-potting ('point panner'), and does not rely on interaural localization cues for the horizontal positioning of object sounds. Did I miss something, or are you implying that the Atmos renderer is flawed?


All pan pots rely on level panning. There is no pan pot based on inter-channel time differences (although there're recording techniques that produce such inter-channel time differences). But inter-channel level differences translate to phase (i.e. time) differences at the ears (let me know if you're interested in references). This is a unique property of the stereo sound field created by two (or more) loudspeaker in the horizontal plane. This does not apply to vertical sound sources. Here localization is based on monaural cues (HRTF).


----------



## ALtlOff

tom703 said:


> Do all versions of Goosebumps have Atmos? I ran into this problem with Gravity when I bought the 3d version and then learned that only one version had the Atmos track - not the version I bought!


No, same as Gravity, No native Atmos on the 3D version, only True-HD, difference is that at least with Goosebumps if you buy the 3D combo pack you get the 2D Atmos BluRay with it, instead of having to buy both separately like Gravity.
BTW, this is totally a studio decision, they can, they just don't.


----------



## maikeldepotter

markus767 said:


> But inter-channel level differences translate to phase (i.e. time) differences at the ears (let me know if you're interested in references).


That is the part I do not understand. If you want a mono object to be placed exactly in-between L and R speaker, the SPL is the same in both speakers. If you want to move this sound to the left, the SPL in the R speaker goes down, and at the same time and pace goes up in the L speaker. How would this inter-channel level difference have an effect on phase differences at the ear? I would indeed very much appreciate if you could provide me with a reference on this subject. Happy to learn!


----------



## kbarnes701

Good news re Neiral:X in this post from Noah Katz, which you will find here:

_It [a graph - see the thread for details] is a comparison of height channel amplitude time histories of DSU and DTS Neural X from this article http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/DTS-X...-3085326.html; the caption is "Upmixer compared: DTS: X Neural (below) adds the opening scene of "Transformers: Age of Extinction" much more than Dolby effects to DSU as the waveform of the left rear height channel shows."

DTS Neural X was the clear winner, at least for Xformers AOE, where it's even way better than native Atmos:

"Almost a classic for Test all-round sound Upmixern is the opening sequence of "Transformers: Age of Extinction": On the Atmos track prevails here on the height channels silence - although spaceships fly into the picture, the camera standing under a waterfall, Dinosaurierer screech, a spaceship small satellite settles and at the end even from behind the right front flying a plane left.

Dolby Upmixer adds this scene actually only a few altitude effects - for example, when the waterfall can be seen. All in all, the result remains unsatisfactory but: When overflight of spaceships continue to do very little, the plane one hears only a little about the height speakers. Therefore, we were curious to see what DTS Neural: X delivers.

In fact, the DTS Upmixer lays neatly away from the first setting: spaceships and aircraft roar now clearly audible from the ceiling speakers. The sounds are not just louder than the DSU, but also clearer. But above all, like the scene with the waterfall: The roar is not only clearly audible, it also migrates to match the camera movement from the left to the right side. DTS Neural: X and DSU can be distinguished easily in a blind test."

This is really exciting if it's as typically effective for other movies; if I had to choose I'd gladly take a good upmixer over the ability to decode native content._"


----------



## markus767

maikeldepotter said:


> That is the part I do not understand. If you want a mono object to be placed exactly in-between L and R speaker, the SPL is the same in both speakers. If you want to move this sound to the left, the SPL in the R speaker goes down, and at the same time and pace goes up in the L speaker. How would this inter-channel level difference have an effect on phase differences at the ear? I would indeed very much appreciate if you could provide me with a reference on this subject. Happy to learn!


You've got PM!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

What is the cheapest AVR available that will do 7.1.4?


----------



## rontalley

GCS said:


> Ok slightly confused on this so I just need clarification.
> 
> The back atmos ceiling speakers should be 2 feet 2 inches off the back wall or right at the back wall?
> 
> The other pair should be in front of the main seating area but where?
> 
> 
> Greg


The outer angle lines from MLP on the drawing are there for reference. They represent 45 degrees and 135 degrees which are the median (middle) Dolby recommended guidelines. As you can see by the drawings, that would put your TRs too close to the back the wall (not ideal) and your TFs a little too forward. The inner angle lines from MLP represent the minimum Dolby recommended guidelines 55/125. For your room, this would be too close.

The top measurements represent where you should put your speakers. According to calculations, this should be ideal for your setup which will put you right between the minimum and median angle requirements.

Measure 2'2" from the back wall for TR. Then measure 11'8" from TR and that is where your TF will go. 

I can see how it could have been misread. Note to self for future drawings. To be clear, TF will be 13'10" from back wall.


----------



## markus767

jpco said:


> Is this verified?


...and does it matter at all? Right now Atmos for the home does nothing that could not be accomplished with a channel-based delivery.


----------



## jpco

markus767 said:


> ...and does it matter at all? Right now Atmos for the home does nothing that could not be accomplished with a channel-based delivery.



And there's that.


----------



## AllenA07

kbarnes701 said:


> Some stunning news from JD Smoothie here.
> 
> It turns out that DTS:X is channel-based not object based. "Current as well as upcoming DTS:X BDs are being released as 11.1 channel based (ie. with no objects) audio tracks, apparently due to a codec limitation."
> 
> So after all the delays and all the crowing about dialog as a separate object, and rendering to "any speaker layout", DTS:X isn’t giving us object-based audio at all. It's 11.1 channels. Like Auro. Atmos still has the field to itself and seems to be drawing out an ever-lengthening lead over the competition.
> 
> The good news is in this post from Noah Katz, which you will find here:
> 
> _It [a graph - see the thread for details] is a comparison of height channel amplitude time histories of DSU and DTS Neural X from this article http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/DTS-X...-3085326.html; the caption is "Upmixer compared: DTS: X Neural (below) adds the opening scene of "Transformers: Age of Extinction" much more than Dolby effects to DSU as the waveform of the left rear height channel shows."
> 
> DTS Neural X was the clear winner, at least for Xformers AOE, where it's even way better than native Atmos:
> 
> "Almost a classic for Test all-round sound Upmixern is the opening sequence of "Transformers: Age of Extinction": On the Atmos track prevails here on the height channels silence - although spaceships fly into the picture, the camera standing under a waterfall, Dinosaurierer screech, a spaceship small satellite settles and at the end even from behind the right front flying a plane left.
> 
> Dolby Upmixer adds this scene actually only a few altitude effects - for example, when the waterfall can be seen. All in all, the result remains unsatisfactory but: When overflight of spaceships continue to do very little, the plane one hears only a little about the height speakers. Therefore, we were curious to see what DTS Neural: X delivers.
> 
> In fact, the DTS Upmixer lays neatly away from the first setting: spaceships and aircraft roar now clearly audible from the ceiling speakers. The sounds are not just louder than the DSU, but also clearer. But above all, like the scene with the waterfall: The roar is not only clearly audible, it also migrates to match the camera movement from the left to the right side. DTS Neural: X and DSU can be distinguished easily in a blind test."
> 
> This is really exciting if it's as typically effective for other movies; if I had to choose I'd gladly take a good upmixer over the ability to decode native content._"


So in summary DTS:X is basically Auro 3D minus the voice of God channel?


----------



## rontalley

markus767 said:


> ...and does it matter at all? Right now Atmos for the home does nothing that could not be accomplished with a channel-based delivery.


I probably should read before replying but,

A channel-based delivery would not be able to expand speaker count and appropriately place sounds where there is no channel information outside of using some kind a matrix system.

I get that a 7.1 mix can be squished into a 2.0 system with a channel based system. But a 7.1 channel mix can not be expanded to a 24.1.10 mix without the ability of objects. What's the thinking here?


----------



## ALtlOff

AllenA07 said:


> So in summary DTS:X is basically Auro 3D minus the voice of God channel?


To me it sounds more like a better version of Auro3d with a multi-speaker discreet VOG.

This is going to be a very interesting month or so while we learn exactly what is happening here....


----------



## jpco

I think we should slow down. There are reports that it uses wides for native content. That would mean it's either object-based or there's some kind of upmixing happening with native content.


----------



## markus767

rontalley said:


> some kind a matrix system.


You've answered your own question 

Here's an example what clever Mr. Gerzon came up with 25 years ago:
http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisoni...for Multispeaker Stereo (TRIFIELD)_Gerzon.pdf


----------



## desray2k

I dunno what is the exact delivery system in use by DTS for its DTS X sound format...but it is clearly more superior in every respect when compared to Dolby Atmos.


----------



## markus767

desray2k said:


> I dunno what is the exact delivery system in use by DTS for its DTS X sound format...but it is clearly more superior in every respect when compared to Dolby Atmos.


Huh?


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> What does the vertical dispersion look like?


Don't understand.

If this speaker were mounted on the ceiling, would not 0 degrees be the vertical dispersion? If I am reading this correct (not sure, hence the post), then it appears that the dispersion characteristic meet the required 45 degree (both ways, hence 90 degrees) dispersion patter recommended.


----------



## Csbooth

tom703 said:


> Do all versions of Goosebumps have Atmos? I ran into this problem with Gravity when I bought the 3d version and then learned that only one version had the Atmos track - not the version I bought!


Just the 2D version will have 3D audio sadly. Sony did the same thing with Pixels, no idea why.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Csbooth said:


> Just the 2D version will have 3D audio sadly. Sony did the same thing with Pixels, no idea why.


Holding it for UHD? Double, triple, whatever dipping?


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> Don't understand.
> 
> If this speaker were mounted on the ceiling, would not 0 degrees be the vertical dispersion? If I am reading this correct (not sure, hence the post), then it appears that the dispersion characteristic meet the required 45 degree (both ways, hence 90 degrees) dispersion patter recommended.


Depends how many rows you have and how you mount the speaker. The plot just shows one plane.


----------



## smurraybhm

desray2k said:


> I dunno what is the exact delivery system in use by DTS for its DTS X sound format...but it is clearly more superior in every respect when compared to Dolby Atmos.


Stop trolling please - again. We all know that anything DTS is superior to Dolby 

So Keith it sounds as if I can use Auro and enjoy DTS:X then? Simply putting more sound up top doesn't mean it a superior format as I have learned from personal experience, Auro/matic does the same thing. I've read posts since the update rolled out yesterday with some preferring the X and others Atmos - dido on the upmixers. It's not going to be a fun debate since we know that a lot of folks have this thing for DTS (see above), but if its true DTS:X isn't object based then we should all be skeptical of what they claim or put out going forward since that's a pretty big shift from all the PR they've released over the last 18 months. No wonder you can place your speakers anywhere


----------



## audioguy

Basic 3D audio question re:channel based vs objects. Stereo is clearly a channel based methodology but obviously has the ability to place sounds (instruments, voices, objects[?]etc) between (and sometimes outside of) the two speakers. 5.1 and 7.1 also have the ability to place sounds between the speakers - at least in each of the home theaters I have been in.

So if I can hear sounds between speakers in a channel based system, why is that not as good as hearing sounds between speakers in an object based system.

Is it possible (FilmMixer, where are you?) that this whole "object based" technology is nothing more than a much more sophisticated methodology for the mixer to place sound in a 3D space more "automatically" than the other method of trying to figure out where he wants the sound to come from and then using channel trims to get it to appear there?

Just wondering?


----------



## umenon

I played the blu-ray "Black Sea" (5.1 DTS-MA) on my Atmos capable system - it sounded wonderful - though the movie plot is plain silly.


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> So if I can hear sounds between speakers in a channel based system, why is that not as good as hearing sounds between speakers in an object based system.


Who said it wouldn't be as good? It is as good.



audioguy said:


> Is it possible (FilmMixer, where are you?) that this whole "object based" technology is nothing more than a much more sophisticated methodology for the mixer to place sound in a 3D space more "automatically" than the other method of trying to figure out where he wants the sound to come from and then using channel trims to get it to appear there?
> 
> Just wondering?


Not Marc but it isn't any more or less "automatic". That's just a user interface question of the mixing software. Surround panners have been available before Atmos. The difference is how audio and panning data is handled, stored and distributed.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...oring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf


----------



## AllenA07

desray2k said:


> I dunno what is the exact delivery system in use by DTS for its DTS X sound format...but it is clearly more superior in every respect when compared to Dolby Atmos.


That's a bold statement for something that a very small number of people have had for less then 24 hours. Things may play out that way but I'm reserving judgement until I have at least some experience with both.


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> The difference is how audio and panning data is handled, stored and distributed.


I don't know what that means. 

So let me ask this question: If the task were given to an Atmos mixer and a Auro mixer (and a DTS mixer) to create an identical mix (*from the listeners perspective*) is that possible? Let's assume that the ceiling speaker position does not matter.


----------



## darklord700

Mashie Saldana said:


> What is the cheapest AVR available that will do 7.1.4?


The cheapest 11 channel processors are the Denon 6200, Marantz 7010 or 7702MK2 pre-pro. Yamaha, Onkyo and Pioneer all have their 11 channel receiver but they are all between 2000-3000. I bought a used Marantz 7702 for $1K but I will have to live without DTS X and HDCP 2.2.


----------



## rontalley

markus767 said:


> You've answered your own question
> 
> Here's an example what clever Mr. Gerzon came up with 25 years ago:
> http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisoni...for Multispeaker Stereo (TRIFIELD)_Gerzon.pdf


I did didn't I. 

Well clearly matrices work! Hello DSU.

Seems logical now that I think about it, that even with channel based audio, the speaker configuration can be expanded through a matrix technology.

My understanding would be:

On an horizontal plane, a single sound sweeps from Left to Right. With 2 speakers this goes pretty dang smooth. Now same 2 channel mix and add a center via a matrix. Already done and proven to work. Now and a speaker in between center and Left, another matrix process would also seem very logical. This theory can keep going on and an on.

Scott has already set something up similar with his .6 Atmos setup. Now take a surround sound channel bed and flip it on it's side. Channel movement in the vertical plane. Yep, been done. What about overhead? Add another channel layer... 

Regarding the paper, lot's of complex formulas and you owe me 30 minutes of my life trying to understand the paper! 

Interesting stuff. Although I have a good grip on the tech, I am not qualified to pose an argument regarding the mix portion but it sure seems easier to point and object in a direction via a script than to have all of the manual panning going on. I will have to educate myself on channel vs object abilities a little more but I am all in! Love this stuff.


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> I don't know what that means.
> 
> So let me ask this question: If the task were given to an Atmos mixer and a Auro mixer (and a DTS mixer) to create an identical mix (*from the listeners perspective*) is that possible? Let's assume that the ceiling speaker position does not matter.


With the speakers in the same locations, yes, sure.


----------



## audioguy

markus767 said:


> Depends how many rows you have and how you mount the speaker. The plot just shows one plane.


What would the plot need to look like for more than one plane. I have looked at quite a few polar plots and they all look like this.

I have one row and currently have four speakers [Tannoy Di6 DC] placed TF and TR. They work really well but I am looking for something low profile so I can hide them behind my "ceiling cloud" [I am not going to penetrate my double drywall ceiling]. This speaker is only 4 inches deep so I can build an enclosure very shallow. Assume I mount the speaker directly facing DOWN.


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> I bought a used Marantz 7702 for $1K but I will have to live without DTS X and HDCP 2.2.



You can work around the HDCP 2.2 limitation for 4K viewing by purchasing and inserting an HD Fury Integral in your HDMI chain.

Also in regards to your speakers and the wiring being stapled down...I suppose pulling new wire is out of the question?


----------



## markus767

audioguy said:


> What would the plot need to look like for more than one plane. I have looked at quite a few polar plots and they all look like this.


Often only the horizontal plane is shown as this is the plane the speaker is optimized for and the vertical plane doesn't look nearly as good. Audio marketing...

Some independent measurements:
https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity.html



audioguy said:


> I have one row and currently have four speakers [Tannoy Di6 DC] placed TF and TR. They work really well but I am looking for something low profile so I can hide them behind my "ceiling cloud" [I am not going to penetrate my double drywall ceiling]. This speaker is only 4 inches deep so I can build an enclosure very shallow. Assume I mount the speaker directly facing DOWN.


In the case of a coax horizontal and vertical plots will (should) look the same. That's the advantage of coax speakers. What speakers do you want to replace the Tannoys with?


----------



## darklord700

I broke down and lowered all 4 surrounds from the ceiling last night. It does make a lot of difference like you guys said. 

http://imgur.com/3Ifr2eR

I will now say I'm very impressed with Atmos. I will even say for people with dedicated room for this hobby, the Atmos upgrade is essential. You get more of a bubble feel like the sound is coming from a sphere instead of a plane. Watching the opening scene of MI Rogue Nation, when the plan is taking off with Cruise hanging on the side, I can almost feel the gush of air movement. Switching back to 7.1, the bubble disappears but the air moment is roughly there. A few scenes from San Andreas and switching between Atmos and 7.1 reveals the same thing.

Someone mentioned the hair raising experience of hearing and someone appearing at your back, that I have yet to hear. 

So far I would rate Atmos to be the same leap as going from lossy to lossless codec. Atmos is the more impressive technology but it's application is limited to mostly certain types of movie. But lossless codec makes all aspects of audio from every movie better so I call them a tie.

I'll put it this way, if hypothetically speaking, you have to choose between:

a) 7.1 with Lossless codec
b) Atmos but only with lossy codec

I will chose a). The good thing about Atmos is that outside of a new receiver which we generally get once every few years anyway, the extra cost of getting the ceiling speakers is very low; making Atmos a great price to value proposition.


----------



## darklord700

stikle said:


> You can work around the HDCP 2.2 limitation for 4K viewing by purchasing and inserting an HD Fury Integral in your HDMI chain.
> 
> Also in regards to your speakers and the wiring being stapled down...I suppose pulling new wire is out of the question?


Thanks for the fury suggestion, stikle. 

This is my HT with the surrounds lowered.
http://imgur.com/3Ifr2eR

I actually only have dangling wires from the two back surrounds which I think it is easier to just staple the wires by the door frame and edge of the wall. Pulling or fishing new wire is not possible for me.


----------



## thebland

maikeldepotter said:


> With a 7.1.4 lay-out, Atmos only adds height to a standard 7.1 channel bed. If you want to enjoy the increased precision of object based sound playback, you need to have more speakers in the horizontal pane. The benefit of such higher granularity does not depend on the number of seats/rows IMO.


I do wonder the advantage of 6 heights vs 8 (altitude set up) if the main listening area is even better? What is enough?


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> I broke down and lowered all 4 surrounds from the ceiling last night. It does make a lot of difference like you guys said.
> ..
> I will now say I'm very impressed with Atmos.



Great! And you did re-run your room correction, right?

What AVR do you have? Don't forget to enable DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) for your non-Atmos content. It's amazing what it'll do for your non-Atmos content.


----------



## tom703

dvdwilly3 said:


> Holding it for UHD? Double, triple, whatever dipping?


The 3D version should be the premium version with all the best audio tracks like Atmos. Since Sony is one of those companies pushing 3D panel sales, it just makes no business sense to me that they leave Atmos off of their 3D releases.

I believe with the rest of the studios it is simply greed so they can double and triple dip. This reminds me of the printer companies that sell printers just over cost and then gouge the consumer with exorbitant ink and toner prices.


----------



## darklord700

stikle said:


> Great! And you did re-run your room correction, right?
> 
> What AVR do you have? Don't forget to enable DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) for your non-Atmos content. It's amazing what it'll do for your non-Atmos content.


Yes, I reran Audyssey last night and my pre-pro is the Marantz 7702.

Agreed with how good DSU is. Skyfall is only coded in 5.1 and in the opening after Bond is shot, M looks out the window, it is raining and I can hear rain coming down from above me. I said holly smoke how does the computer get the sound so right.


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> I actually only have dangling wires from the two back surrounds which I think it is easier to just staple the wires by the door frame and edge of the wall. Pulling or fishing new wire is not possible for me.



That's too bad. It gives the room a nice finished look. But as long as you are happy with the changes then that's all that matters. I'm glad you experimented with moving your surrounds down and can see the difference. 

Here's my room by the way...it's hard to get it all in one picture:


----------



## dvdwilly3

darklord700 said:


> Thanks for the fury suggestion, stikle.
> 
> This is my HT with the surrounds lowered.
> http://imgur.com/3Ifr2eR
> 
> I actually only have dangling wires from the two back surrounds which I think it is easier to just staple the wires by the door frame and edge of the wall. Pulling or fishing new wire is not possible for me.


If the dangling wire bothers you (or someone else...) you could always use Mono-system raceways to clean up the apperance.

Lowes and others carry it in several configurations. It helped keep the peace in my household.


----------



## GXMnow

audioguy said:


> Basic 3D audio question re:channel based vs objects. Stereo is clearly a channel based methodology but obviously has the ability to place sounds (instruments, voices, objects[?]etc) between (and sometimes outside of) the two speakers. 5.1 and 7.1 also have the ability to place sounds between the speakers - at least in each of the home theaters I have been in.
> 
> So if I can hear sounds between speakers in a channel based system, why is that not as good as hearing sounds between speakers in an object based system.
> 
> Is it possible (FilmMixer, where are you?) that this whole "object based" technology is nothing more than a much more sophisticated methodology for the mixer to place sound in a 3D space more "automatically" than the other method of trying to figure out where he wants the sound to come from and then using channel trims to get it to appear there?
> 
> Just wondering?


Just talking about "Object Based" vs "Channel Based" mixing and playback, nothing to do with the brand here.

On the mixing stage, there should always be a very capable speaker system that will play the content faithfully according to the specs of the format being mixed. In a Channel based system, they make sure the speakers are not only balance and equalized properly, but also in the correct location so as they perform a pan, they know how it will sound. In several rooms I have seen, they even have a few different possible layouts they can select. Both to mix for a different system, such as IMAX vs 5.1 / 7.1 and to check how a track will translate, such as close home theatre type monitoring. If they alter the mix to sound better on a different system, they have to make sure it does not hurt what they wanted as the changes effect how it will play on all systems. For cinema, in many cases, they had to do a separate mix for 5.1 and 7.1 because they did not like what it did to just mix the pairs to single side surrounds. 

When they mix the sound, they hear how it should play in another room that has the speakers setup in the same way. They have to assume the position of the surrounds will hold up and the pans they did will still match the image.

Enter object based mixing.
The mixing stage now has a speaker arrangement that can properly render the sound according to the object location data. It may also have bed and/or array feeds, whatever it takes to faithfully play the source with no loss. The locations and number of speakers around the room are not critical as long as the rendering engine will place sounds correctly from the data and the coverage of the room is done well. If beds / arrays are used, they should be in the correct places as well. Now when they mix live, they hear the sounds pan as they lay down the tracks and can concentrate on putting the sound where they want it without thinking about where the speakers are. In most cases, the system can be selected to play in different channel based modes like 5.1 and 7.1 so they can hear how it will play when rendered into channel based systems. When doing the home version, they usually take it all the way down to 2.0 as well to see how it works in just the TV speakers.

When the track goes out to theatres with the matching object based playback, it will again use the original panning data to locate the sound in the correct place in the room using the speakers that are there. The room could have less or more speakers in any given direction, but it does not matter much as long as it has enough resolution and is calibrated for the same level and Eq (assuming the room does not mess it up with echo etc.). In many cases, the 5.1 and 7.1 versions for channel based playback can just be rendered from the object mix which can save time on a big project.

When it moves down to the home version, there may be some tweaks to the mix because of the much closer speaker layout and typical use of far fewer speakers, but the changes needed should be pretty subtle. When there are 7.1.4 (or less) channels to work with, the rendering will still do the best it can to try to locate sounds in the right place based on the object location data. As in the theatre, the more points it has, the more accurate it can place, but if done correctly, the level and tone of a sound should hold true and the location should still be close to the original intent, even if the position has to lose some accuracy. If you have just 2 or even no top channels, the sound should still be in the correct direction and level, just might not be as high. Being able to render to more speakers is a benefit of object based audio but also being able to reduce the number of speakers is as well. When a mix is done in say 11.1 channels (9.1.2 for example), and then played back on 5.1.4 the only recourse is for it to mix channels together on the ear height ring and try to matrix out the top 2 to 4, but with no data from the original intent, it can't know which sounds should be forward and which should be to the back. 

Let's assume we have a channel based 7.1 mix... Let's say you have front wides in a system, if there is music in the side surround and a person talking out of the left front speaker, how can a system matrix a sound for the front wide speaker that makes any sense at all? Using something like Pro Logic II to make a center channel between them would just mash some of the music with some of the dialog and you would just lose precision. Even with a lot of intelligence in the DSP to try and find correlation of sounds, it will find certain frequency bands that might seem to belong and let those mix to the wides. If you ever listened close to just surrounds in Pro Logic, or the back wall in Pro Logic II x, there are subtle quiet sounds that should not be there, but they have gotten pretty good at masking the flaws of blind matrixing. When there is well correlated sound like music across multiple channels, a matrix can do quite well and DSU and others prove it can sound pleasing, but it is still "Guessing" where the sound should go. 

Using an object based mix, there could be a voice in left channel, and it will stay right there. Music is playing on the side of the room, say it was a car stereo with his windows open. As the car drives into the image on the left, the music can pan into the front wide and not effect the people still talking on the left screen. Now they drive across the screen and that music from the car as well as the engine sounds and the guys firing the gun in the croud follows the action exactly as the content creator intended. No guess where the sound should be. The wides filled in a gap, but if you do not have them, it still pans from the side to the front left the best it can. 

The same is true in every direction around the room. If there are sounds that should be in discrete locations, once they are made into discrete channels, the number of speakers can only be changed by losing the precision of the location. If you make it fore any specific channel layout, it will only play properly in that same layout. Trying to re-upmix it to more will only be guessing where the sound should be. And going to less speakers requires it to mix down which can still cause issues if the sounds are very similar but might have phase differences, it could cause combing effects and such. 

I have been here before, whe 5.1 first came to theatres and was running next to the 2.0 version running on Pro Logic to 4.1 speakers. There were many cases where the 2.0 to Pro Logic had more information in the surrounds due to cross talk in the matrix and some actually liked it better than the discrete 5.1 version. But that did not make it better in any way as it was not the ideal mix the content creator had intended. When mixing in the old 2.0 matrix format, they would monitor it on the mix stage as it went through the matrix from discrete 4.0 (L, C, R, S) down to 2.0, and then Pro Logic decoded back out to 4.1 with a sub woofer. They would make the mix decisions based on how the system handled the mix down and decode out. And the cross talk into the surrounds was something they had to accept. When they started mixing in discrete 5.1, they had a much easier time getting it to sound exactly how they wanted. In the early days, they would usually do a completely separate 2.0 version for the huge number of theatres still playing it like that. Later they would let a Pro Logic encoder do it's best to make the 2.0 from the 5.1 and still have to listen to the result to make sure it was good enough. 

Mixing in Object based makes the whole process translate across different speaker layout far better. A Channel based setup can and should sound just as good when it mixed and played on the same layout. A 7.1 channel mix and an Object mix rendered to the same 7.1 speaker layout should really sound identical. But if you try to fold it down to 5.1 or up mix it to 11.1 the object version will do a much better job of translating the original intent of the mix. 

Just because an up mixer happens to put louder sound into a channel than the original discrete or object mix does not make that up mix better. It means it is not re-creating what was intended by the content maker. Up mixing any legacy 5.1 track (or 2.0 track for that matter) to use height speakers, is by definition doing something the original content created had never intended. But in many cases the results can be very pleasing, and people like to use those new speakers they paid for, so the up mix designers do try very hard to make them sound pleasing without messing up the original intent by too much. I really had to laugh when the one German review said the up mix was better than the native version because the top right back speaker was louder.... WHAT??


----------



## darklord700

stikle said:


> That's too bad. It gives the room a nice finished look. But as long as you are happy with the changes then that's all that matters. I'm glad you experimented with moving your surrounds down and can see the difference.
> 
> Here's my room by the way...it's hard to get it all in one picture:


Thanks for enticing me to lower my surrounds, it's well worth it. Things I learned from this Atmos conversion is that, you can keep fixing your wires but who knows maybe Dolby will tell us to bury speakers in the ground next and we'll have to fix wires again. 

Here's the front of my HT room. 

http://imgur.com/ecpwwRn


----------



## Ricoflashback

audioguy said:


> I don't know what that means.
> 
> So let me ask this question: If the task were given to an Atmos mixer and a Auro mixer (and a DTS mixer) to create an identical mix (*from the listeners perspective*) is that possible? Let's assume that the ceiling speaker position does not matter.


TRANSLATION: I'd concentrate less on the the mechanics of the solution whether it be channel based or "objects" and more on how good it sounds. Granted - - subjective. But after folks have had some time with Dolby Atmos & DTS X, DSU & Neural X - - we'll get a good idea on what the benefits are and who likes what and why. 

Having the option for all formats is preferable. (At least the main two, excluding Auro due to lack of acceptance by the major motion picture studios.) 

At the end of the day - - I do not want to know how to make a watch - - I just want to know what time it is. In other words...."I like the song...I can dance to it." Easy Peasy.


----------



## audioguy

GXMnow said:


> Just talking about "Object Based" vs "Channel Based" mixing and playback, nothing to do with the brand here.
> 
> On the mixing stage, there should always be a very capable speaker system that will play the content faithfully according to the specs of the format being mixed. In a Channel based system, they make sure the speakers are not only balance and equalized properly, but also in the correct location so as they perform a pan, they know how it will sound. In several rooms I have seen, they even have a few different possible layouts they can select. Both to mix for a different system, such as IMAX vs 5.1 / 7.1 and to check how a track will translate, such as close home theatre type monitoring. If they alter the mix to sound better on a different system, they have to make sure it does not hurt what they wanted as the changes effect how it will play on all systems. For cinema, in many cases, they had to do a separate mix for 5.1 and 7.1 because they did not like what it did to just mix the pairs to single side surrounds.
> 
> When they mix the sound, they hear how it should play in another room that has the speakers setup in the same way. They have to assume the position of the surrounds will hold up and the pans they did will still match the image.
> 
> Enter object based mixing.
> The mixing stage now has a speaker arrangement that can properly render the sound according to the object location data. It may also have bed and/or array feeds, whatever it takes to faithfully play the source with no loss. The locations and number of speakers around the room are not critical as long as the rendering engine will place sounds correctly from the data and the coverage of the room is done well. If beds / arrays are used, they should be in the correct places as well. Now when they mix live, they hear the sounds pan as they lay down the tracks and can concentrate on putting the sound where they want it without thinking about where the speakers are. In most cases, the system can be selected to play in different channel based modes like 5.1 and 7.1 so they can hear how it will play when rendered into channel based systems. When doing the home version, they usually take it all the way down to 2.0 as well to see how it works in just the TV speakers.
> 
> When the track goes out to theatres with the matching object based playback, it will again use the original panning data to locate the sound in the correct place in the room using the speakers that are there. The room could have less or more speakers in any given direction, but it does not matter much as long as it has enough resolution and is calibrated for the same level and Eq (assuming the room does not mess it up with echo etc.). In many cases, the 5.1 and 7.1 versions for channel based playback can just be rendered from the object mix which can save time on a big project.
> 
> When it moves down to the home version, there may be some tweaks to the mix because of the much closer speaker layout and typical use of far fewer speakers, but the changes needed should be pretty subtle. When there are 7.1.4 (or less) channels to work with, the rendering will still do the best it can to try to locate sounds in the right place based on the object location data. As in the theatre, the more points it has, the more accurate it can place, but if done correctly, the level and tone of a sound should hold true and the location should still be close to the original intent, even if the position has to lose some accuracy. If you have just 2 or even no top channels, the sound should still be in the correct direction and level, just might not be as high. Being able to render to more speakers is a benefit of object based audio but also being able to reduce the number of speakers is as well. When a mix is done in say 11.1 channels (9.1.2 for example), and then played back on 5.1.4 the only recourse is for it to mix channels together on the ear height ring and try to matrix out the top 2 to 4, but with no data from the original intent, it can't know which sounds should be forward and which should be to the back.
> 
> Let's assume we have a channel based 7.1 mix... Let's say you have front wides in a system, if there is music in the side surround and a person talking out of the left front speaker, how can a system matrix a sound for the front wide speaker that makes any sense at all? Using something like Pro Logic II to make a center channel between them would just mash some of the music with some of the dialog and you would just lose precision. Even with a lot of intelligence in the DSP to try and find correlation of sounds, it will find certain frequency bands that might seem to belong and let those mix to the wides. If you ever listened close to just surrounds in Pro Logic, or the back wall in Pro Logic II x, there are subtle quiet sounds that should not be there, but they have gotten pretty good at masking the flaws of blind matrixing. When there is well correlated sound like music across multiple channels, a matrix can do quite well and DSU and others prove it can sound pleasing, but it is still "Guessing" where the sound should go.
> 
> Using an object based mix, there could be a voice in left channel, and it will stay right there. Music is playing on the side of the room, say it was a car stereo with his windows open. As the car drives into the image on the left, the music can pan into the front wide and not effect the people still talking on the left screen. Now they drive across the screen and that music from the car as well as the engine sounds and the guys firing the gun in the croud follows the action exactly as the content creator intended. No guess where the sound should be. The wides filled in a gap, but if you do not have them, it still pans from the side to the front left the best it can.
> 
> The same is true in every direction around the room. If there are sounds that should be in discrete locations, once they are made into discrete channels, the number of speakers can only be changed by losing the precision of the location. If you make it fore any specific channel layout, it will only play properly in that same layout. Trying to re-upmix it to more will only be guessing where the sound should be. And going to less speakers requires it to mix down which can still cause issues if the sounds are very similar but might have phase differences, it could cause combing effects and such.
> 
> I have been here before, whe 5.1 first came to theatres and was running next to the 2.0 version running on Pro Logic to 4.1 speakers. There were many cases where the 2.0 to Pro Logic had more information in the surrounds due to cross talk in the matrix and some actually liked it better than the discrete 5.1 version. But that did not make it better in any way as it was not the ideal mix the content creator had intended. When mixing in the old 2.0 matrix format, they would monitor it on the mix stage as it went through the matrix from discrete 4.0 (L, C, R, S) down to 2.0, and then Pro Logic decoded back out to 4.1 with a sub woofer. They would make the mix decisions based on how the system handled the mix down and decode out. And the cross talk into the surrounds was something they had to accept. When they started mixing in discrete 5.1, they had a much easier time getting it to sound exactly how they wanted. In the early days, they would usually do a completely separate 2.0 version for the huge number of theatres still playing it like that. Later they would let a Pro Logic encoder do it's best to make the 2.0 from the 5.1 and still have to listen to the result to make sure it was good enough.
> 
> Mixing in Object based makes the whole process translate across different speaker layout far better. A Channel based setup can and should sound just as good when it mixed and played on the same layout. A 7.1 channel mix and an Object mix rendered to the same 7.1 speaker layout should really sound identical. But if you try to fold it down to 5.1 or up mix it to 11.1 the object version will do a much better job of translating the original intent of the mix.
> 
> Just because an up mixer happens to put louder sound into a channel than the original discrete or object mix does not make that up mix better. It means it is not re-creating what was intended by the content maker. Up mixing any legacy 5.1 track (or 2.0 track for that matter) to use height speakers, is by definition doing something the original content created had never intended. But in many cases the results can be very pleasing, and people like to use those new speakers they paid for, so the up mix designers do try very hard to make them sound pleasing without messing up the original intent by too much. I really had to laugh when the one German review said the up mix was better than the native version because the top right back speaker was louder.... WHAT??


Excellent. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I now understand much better.


----------



## darklord700

GXMnow said:


> Just talking about "Object Based" vs "Channel Based" mixing and playback, nothing to do with the brand here.


May I ask you a question as you seem very knowledgeable in this area. Outside of licensing fees, what are the extra costs of producing an object based mix vs the old channel based mix for theatres and blu ray? Thanks.


----------



## vitod

To the folks that have the Audyssey Pro kit and used it. I have it but didn't get a license yet. Did it improve things or not, subtle? Wondering if it made a difference with Atmos. 

Thanks


----------



## Csbooth

dvdwilly3 said:


> Holding it for UHD? Double, triple, whatever dipping?


No idea honestly. Since UHD doesn't support 3D I can't figure out why they would. My guess is that it could take extra time encoding that they don't feel is worth it.


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> Thanks for enticing me to lower my surrounds, it's well worth it. Things I learned from this Atmos conversion is that, you can keep fixing your wires but who knows maybe Dolby will tell us to bury speakers in the ground next and we'll have to fix wires again.


As far as fixing wires...look closely under the TV in my picture. You'll notice the same kind of wire channel hiding the power for the TV, backlight, and HDMI cable. I painted it the same color as the wall, so it blends nicely. I don't notice it anymore unless I look for it. It was going to be a LOT of effort to move the equipment center out to cut a hole down low just to hide the wires for a foot under the TV. I just couldn't justify the effort in this instance when I'm fine with this solution. For the rest of the speaker wiring though, I'm glad I took the time to run them in-ceiling and in-wall.

So yeah, if you wire channel everything and then paint over it, I think the "defacing" will be at a minimum. Good job!


----------



## lujan

stikle said:


> You can work around the HDCP 2.2 limitation for 4K viewing by purchasing and inserting an HD Fury Integral in your HDMI chain.
> 
> Also in regards to your speakers and the wiring being stapled down...I suppose pulling new wire is out of the question?


Can you also wait and get a 4K BD player that has the two HDMI outs one for audio only and the other for Main (TV)? How is the HD Fury different?


----------



## stikle

lujan said:


> *Can you also wait and get a 4K BD player that has the two HDMI outs* one for audio only and the other for Main (TV)? How is the HD Fury different?



That's a good point. 

I believe most UHD BD players are supposed to have two HDMI outs so it can be configured like you suggest. But that requires another HDMI cable in play - one to the AVR and one to the TV. $5 HDMI cable is certainly cheaper than a $250 Integral. I just didn't want another cable in the mix and apparently had the money to burn so I've got the Integral awaiting the arrival of the Samsung UHD.


----------



## tom703

Csbooth said:


> No idea honestly. Since UHD doesn't support 3D I can't figure out why they would. My guess is that it could take extra time encoding that they don't feel is worth it.


I was not aware that UHD doesn't support 3D. That seems strange. There are some 3D UHD test clips out there for streaming. I find it hard to believe it is not supported on the upcoming BD discs, but can believe there will a disc capacity issue for some releases. Also, the first UHD BD players may or may not have support, I don't know. 

Since the market place drives most decisions, if enough consumers want Atmos on 3d releases, eventually the studios will react.


----------



## dvdwilly3

stikle said:


> As far as fixing wires...look closely under the TV in my picture. You'll notice the same kind of wire channel hiding the power for the TV, backlight, and HDMI cable. I painted it the same color as the wall, so it blends nicely. I don't notice it anymore unless I look for it. It was going to be a LOT of effort to move the equipment center out to cut a hole down low just to hide the wires for a foot under the TV. I just couldn't justify the effort in this instance when I'm fine with this solution. For the rest of the speaker wiring though, I'm glad I took the time to run them in-ceiling and in-wall.
> 
> So yeah, if you wire channel everything and then paint over it, I think the "defacing" will be at a minimum. Good job!


Or...you could cut a hole, say, 2" in diameter lower in the wall, 12" to 18" up...in line with your power outlets.
Then, use fishtape and from your top hole to the bottom or vice-versa and pull the wire behind your wall.
Then, on the lower hole, put in a 2" wall or desk grommet.
Take off your upper fittings, and cut a 2" hole...wall grommet.
That would minimize visual impact.
I did the latter, and it gives a very clean appearance.
I even posted with pix earlier...don't know the number...found it...#36994 ...


----------



## pasender91

darklord700 said:


> Thanks for enticing me to lower my surrounds, it's well worth it. Things I learned from this Atmos conversion is that, you can keep fixing your wires but who knows maybe Dolby will tell us to bury speakers in the ground next and we'll have to fix wires again.
> 
> Here's the front of my HT room.
> 
> http://imgur.com/ecpwwRn


Happy to see you were convinced of lowering your surrounds and like the results better. 
Now you're truly part of the Atmos gang 

While we're talking about speaker placement, i would suggest that as an additional step you should really put your center speaker as high as you can until it touches the bottom of your screen and not on the ground 
This will make dialogue sound much better as coming from the screen rather than from the basement


----------



## vitod

stikle said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> I believe most UHD BD players are supposed to have two HDMI outs so it can be configured like you suggest. But that requires another HDMI cable in play - one to the AVR and one to the TV. $5 HDMI cable is certainly cheaper than a $250 Integral. I just didn't want another cable in the mix and apparently had the money to burn so I've got the Integral awaiting the arrival of the Samsung UHD.


Keep in mind that ALL components and displays, need to be HDMI 2.2. The HD Fury is great if you want to keep your current non HDMI 2.2 display. That's what I understand.


----------



## GCS

rontalley said:


> Measure 2'2" from the back wall for TR. Then measure 11'8" from TR and that is where your TF will go.



So this is right based on the fact that my back row of seating sits on the back wall of my room and the main seating area is about 5-6 feet in front of that? And that my ceilings are 10'?

Thanks

Greg


----------



## Scott Simonian

vitod said:


> Keep in mind that ALL components and displays, need to be HDMI 2.2. The HD Fury is great if you want to keep your current non HDMI 2.2 display. That's what I understand.


Right.

It's not 100% confirmed yet if owning mostly HDMI 2.0 HDCP 2.2 compliant hardware save for the main display will yield a picture at all or simply a down-rezzed to 1080p picture.

Many of us are hoping it's the latter.


----------



## darklord700

pasender91 said:


> While we're talking about speaker placement, i would suggest that as an additional step you should really put your center speaker as high as you can until it touches the bottom of your screen and not on the ground


That's actually what I have been trying to do for a while. But I can only accommodate a centre stand that's about 12" tall and no one makes a stand this short. I have been scourging Kijiji for something like that but no luck so far.


----------



## stikle

tom703 said:


> I was not aware that UHD doesn't support 3D. That seems strange.



Correct. 3D is not in the UHD Bluray spec unless something has changed.



dvdwilly3 said:


> Or...you could cut a hole, say, 2" in diameter lower in the wall, 12" to 18" up...in line with your power outlets.



That's a viable option. For me though, I would want to do it all the way and have the top hole behind the TV so it's completely hidden. Then the bottom hole would be ok because it's behind the equipment rack thingie. But to do that I have to take the TV off the wall which is a HUGE deal. I can't do it by myself.

So the wire channel solution works for me. For now. Maybe one day I'll get motorvated and finish it off correctly (in my mind).



vitod said:


> Keep in mind that ALL components and displays, need to be HDMI 2.2. The HD Fury is great if you want to keep your current non HDMI 2.2 display. That's what I understand.



It's not just about the Display. In my situation, my AVR is the non-HDCP 2.2 weak link. My display is 2.2, the UHD BDP will be 2.2. The Integral should fix this issue.

Or just run dual HDMI outs.


----------



## cyclones22

darklord700 said:


> That's actually what I have been trying to do for a while. But I can only accommodate a centre stand that's about 12" tall and no one makes a stand this short. I have been scourging Kijiji for something like that but no luck so far.


Here you go:

http://www.vtimanufacturing.com/product_category/speaker-stand-central-channel-speaker-stands/

Or this:

http://www.amazon.com/Lovan-Center-...?srs=9391412011&ie=UTF8&qid=1454090712&sr=8-2


----------



## stikle

darklord700 said:


> That's actually what I have been trying to do for a while. But I can only accommodate a centre stand that's about 12" tall and no one makes a stand this short. I have been scourging Kijiji for something like that but no luck so far.



Just stick a box or something underneath it to temporarily lift your CC until you find something nice looking. Having the dialog coming from closer to the screen will be another big improvement.

I had my old CC on the first shelf underneath for a while because I had a TV sitting on the stand. The voices were way too low so it sounded like they were talking out of their shoes.

Keep at it, you're doing good!


----------



## GXMnow

darklord700 said:


> May I ask you a question as you seem very knowledgeable in this area. Outside of licensing fees, what are the extra costs of producing an object based mix vs the old channel based mix for theatres and blu ray? Thanks.


This is certainly not a simple one size fits all answer.

If the decision is made early to do an object mix for a feature, it is possible it could take less time and effort to make the mix, but this is very rare. In most cases they still do the pre mix and tests all in a basic 5.1 setup. Some times they have a 5.1 music mix, a 5.1 dialog mix, and a 5.1 effect mix, then maybe a few more tracks for oddball things, then they lay them together for a temp 5.1 for screnings and tests. Then they get old, hey, we are going to do this in object based sound. If they started on a good modern large format mixing system such as a Neve, Harrison, Euphonics or other Pro Tools based system that keeps all the original stems intact, it is not too hard to go back and separate source tracks into objects and have them sent separate with their location data. Even though the object mix can create the 5.1 and 7.1 versions with little to no extra work, there is still a trust factor that makes the mixers want to create their own 5.1 version, and even get that done first to make sure they have that in the can and ready for release. 

If you are curious about the process, Harrison has a few good videos on their web page about how they handle mixing in Dolby Atmos. Here is a link to the page.
http://harrisonconsoles.com/site/objectpanning.html

The Neve and other large consoles work very similar to this and Dolby has worked with them to make the transition to mixing in Dolby Atmos as easy as possible. In most cases, the same panning they have been doing since the early 90's still works, but now they can keep the sound as a separate object and send it along with the location data for rendering in the theatre to the individual speakers instead of embedding into the 5.1 or 7.1 channel base. I am sure the MDA mix tools will work very similar to this, but I have not had my hands on them at all. I did get a chance to pan live sounds around ona Euphonics console setup feeding a Dolby RMU and it was actually very fun and quite cool to just move the sound anywhere you wanted it to go. The level and timbre of the sound held as I whipped it around, over, behind, etc. When mixing in 5.1, you use the same type of panning tools, but you only hear it going out on the 5.1 channels wit the arrays for surrounds, and the motion does not quite follow your movements, especially as you go into the surrounds since it is just left and right groups. The only real learning curve is in deciding what sounds work better as an object or makes more sense spread into the bed arrays. 

In the real world, it does add some time, but it can save time if they will trust it to make the 5.1 and 7.1 versions. The fact that they can better hear where the sounds are going can lead to them being more picky and such, but it is usually worth it as it does seem to make the 5.1 and 7.1 play out better as well. 

So to answer your question... it depends. Most mixing stages have been using a mix console that can support objects already. They just use the data internally to mix to the channels. Update the software and feed the data to the Dolby RMU and you are now mixing in Atmos. Well, after you also setup the speakers and amps for the individual feeds and add the overheads, but that is not part of the mixing, it is the monitoring side so you can hear the mix properly.


----------



## tom703

stikle said:


> Correct. 3D is not in the UHD Bluray spec unless something has changed.


As listed on Amazon the "Samsung Electronics UBD-K8500 3D Wi-Fi 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Player (2016 Model)" indicates this player supports 3d. Of course, this may only be for backwards compatibility, but we can hope this is also an indication that 3D will eventually come to UHD BDs.


----------



## stikle

tom703 said:


> As listed on Amazon the "Samsung Electronics UBD-K8500 3D Wi-Fi 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Player (2016 Model)" indicates this player supports 3d. Of course, this may only be for backwards compatibility, but we can hope this is also an indication that 3D will eventually come to UHD BDs.



Yes, it's backwards compatible with Bluray 3D 1080, but there is no *UHD 3D Bluray* in the spec.

Panasonic Leak 



> However, it also confirms that there will be no support for 3D at 4K resolution. One of the reasons is that no such standard exists, but if the working group really wanted it, it could probably have made it happen. Instead, *3D will only be supported at Full HD resolution like your current Blu-ray players*. This is a hard pill to swallow for fans of 3D who had hoped to see a boost from the higher resolution.


----------



## darklord700

GXMnow said:


> This is certainly not a simple one size fits all answer.


Thanks, GXMnow.


----------



## tom703

stikle said:


> Yes, it's backwards compatible with Bluray 3D 1080, but there is no *UHD 3D Bluray* in the spec.
> 
> Panasonic Leak


Thanks for the info. This kind of got off topic for this thread, as the original discussion was about some studios not putting the Atmos track on the 3D version, making consumers purchase the 2D version to get Atmos, e.g., Gravity and Goosebumps.


----------



## AllenA07

dvdwilly3 said:


> If the dangling wire bothers you (or someone else...) you could always use Mono-system raceways to clean up the apperance.
> 
> Lowes and others carry it in several configurations. It helped keep the peace in my household.


The raceways help, and you can get then on Monoprice. Pretty sure I have enough in my theater to circle the Earth at the equator if laid end to end.


----------



## zeus33

darklord700 said:


> That's actually what I have been trying to do for a while. But I can only accommodate a centre stand that's about 12" tall and no one makes a stand this short. I have been scourging Kijiji for something like that but no luck so far.



http://www.gwizpro.com/stands/proddetail.php?prod=SCStands


----------



## stikle

tom703 said:


> Thanks for the info. This kind of got off topic for this thread, as the original discussion was about some studios not putting the Atmos track on the 3D version, making consumers purchase the 2D version to get Atmos, e.g., Gravity and Goosebumps.


Here's a whole AVS thread on it too if you want more reading.


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> Holding it for UHD? Double, triple, whatever dipping?


This is truly sad from Sony Pictures; to offer Dolby Atmos only on the 2D version and not on the 3D BR disc. 
No good, no good @ all...it should be on both versions.

* http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Goosebumps-3D-Blu-ray/142751/#Review


----------



## rontalley

GCS said:


> So this is right based on the fact that my back row of seating sits on the back wall of my room and the main seating area is about 5-6 feet in front of that? And that my ceilings are 10'?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Greg


The calculations is based off of MLP. By your back seating being on the back wall, the overhead sounds will always be in front of them. If you wanted to go with RH to accommodate the back row, I'd imagine you could do that... Your TF would still be in the same location.

As the drawing suggest, installing the TF and TR at 45 Degrees with 10' ceilings would put your speakers at a spread of 13'8". If your speakers have the dispersion rate to accommodate the spread then you could install the TR at 45 Degrees but remember if you install install the TF at 45 Degrees than that puts the TF even further away from the Back Row. 

Saying all that. If you installed the TF+TR in the suggested locations, the back seat would still get an overhead effect and would be able to distinguish TF and TR however, since the back seat is not the sweet spot then...what-cha-gonna-do? It is what it is.

Us poor folk are stuck with .4 for ceilings for now. I once did not see the need for even .6 but considering that FH and RH will give more lateral movement from ear bed to height bed and satisfy both end points, then I can see how .8 would really kick some serious arse.

RH+TF+TR+RH. No matter where you sat, you would get proper placement in 3D space.


----------



## lujan

NorthSky said:


> This is truly sad from Sony Pictures; to offer Dolby Atmos only on the 2D version and not on the 3D BR disc.
> No good, no good @ all...it should be on both versions.
> 
> * http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Goosebumps-3D-Blu-ray/142751/#Review


It seems like this happens sometimes. Look at the Gravity 3D that didn't have Atmos but the later 2D edition did. Don't know if Gravity was also from Sony?


----------



## NorthSky

lujan said:


> It seems like this happens sometimes. Look at the Gravity 3D that didn't have Atmos but the later 2D edition did.
> *Don't know if Gravity was also from Sony?*


Warner Brothers.

_____

* We might see the same thing in the future with not only Sony/Columbia, but also with FOX and Disney...not putting the Dolby Atmos audio on their 3D Blu-ray discs but only on the UHD 2D Blu-ray one. ...And who knows if they'll keep Dolby Atmos on the 2D Blu-ray (2K - 1080p)? 

Methinks that 3D immersive sound (Dolby Atmos) goes with 3D/2K Blu-ray movies. ...And also with 2D (UHD and 1080p). ...With them all to accommodate all of us. ...And same goes for DTS:X ... of course.


----------



## dvdwilly3

darklord700 said:


> That's actually what I have been trying to do for a while. But I can only accommodate a centre stand that's about 12" tall and no one makes a stand this short. I have been scourging Kijiji for something like that but no luck so far.


How about a unit like this...?

https://www.allmodern.com/Panorama-63-Low-TV-Stand-RO382D-RO382Y-KUI6432.html

14.5" tall

And, there are any number of isolation pads that would provide an up angle to point it to the MLP...

My center channel sits below my projector on a low console sitting on an angled isolation pad...


----------



## maikeldepotter

thebland said:


> I do wonder the advantage of 6 heights vs 8 (altitude set up) if the main listening area is even better? What is enough?


On top of a 11.1 surround layer, I would say 3 pairs of overheads for Atmos is enough (at 30, 60 and 120 degrees Atmos elevation) .... 

....... to be complemented with center height, 2 surround heights (30 degrees above 1st side surrounds) and 1 VOG .....


----------



## NorthSky

tom703 said:


> This kind of got off topic for this thread,
> as *the original discussion was about some studios not putting the Atmos track on the 3D version*,
> making consumers purchase the 2D version to get Atmos, e.g., Gravity and Goosebumps.


Exactly.


----------



## tom703

NorthSky said:


> This is truly sad from Sony Pictures; to offer Dolby Atmos only on the 2D version and not on the 3D BR disc.
> No good, no good @ all...it should be on both versions.
> 
> * http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Goosebumps-3D-Blu-ray/142751/#Review


Sony is not the only one, WB was even worse with Gravity! I bought the 3 disc version. Neither the 3D nor the 2D Blu Ray discs have Atmos, they both have DTS HD MA. You must find some special edition to get Atmos. I have since become more diligent about label reading.


----------



## NorthSky

tom703 said:


> Sony is not the only one, WB was even worse with Gravity! I bought the 3 disc version. Neither the 3D nor the 2D Blu Ray discs have Atmos, they both have DTS HD MA. You must find some special edition to get Atmos. I have since become more diligent about label reading.


And ... http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1253.html#post41094594


----------



## desray2k

AllenA07 said:


> That's a bold statement for something that a very small number of people have had for less then 24 hours. Things may play out that way but I'm reserving judgement until I have at least some experience with both.


Yes... Agreed, maybe too early to make such a statement at this point. But I believed I m entitled to form my own opinions and so are the others. 

As of this point, I'll stick to my comments. Maybe after a few rounds of listening I may think otherwise. If so, I'll report back my findings here. 

Sent from my LG V10 via Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

You do realize you are just judging the MIX, not the delivery system, right?

Actually, I know the answer to that question...


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> You do realize you are just judging the MIX, not the delivery system, right?
> 
> Actually, I know the answer to that question...


...that people will continue to do this til the end of time.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> You do realize you are just judging the MIX, not the delivery system, right?


Brace yourself for more of that to go with this update. We went through the same thing a decade ago, with different soundtracks/mixes from completely separate movies being compared and offered as proof of one lossless codec being audibly better than another lossless codec.


----------



## Zhorik

GXMnow said:


> When mixing in 5.1, you use the same type of panning tools, but you only hear it going out on the 5.1 channels wit the arrays for surrounds, and the motion does not quite follow your movements, especially as you go into the surrounds since it is just left and right groups.


You can still simulate movement across a (side or rear) surround array using doppler plugins (Iosono, Wave, GRM Tools).


----------



## DaGamePimp




----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> Brace yourself for more of that to go with this update. We went through the same thing a decade ago, with different soundtracks/mixes from completely separate movies being compared and offered as proof of one lossless codec being audibly better than another lossless codec.


You remind me of something that I keep meaning to ask, but keep forgetting. On the original (August 2014) Atmos demo disk, at the very top, you can select Dolby Atmos in True HD (lossless) or Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus (lossy). It defaults to True HD, but I did select Digital Plus at one point to see how it might differ. My recollection is that I did not really hear any difference, but that was a while back.

Before I drive myself nuts with this, can you please straighten me out--Atmos is an extension of the 7.1 core (True HD), correct?

So, is what I am listening to when I select Dolby Digital Plus (since Atmos is not an extension of the lossy codec...), actually DSU?

Or, am I thinking about this altogether wrong?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Atmos can use either a TrueHD or DD+ carrier.


----------



## batpig

Yeah the whole point is to demonstrate how Atmos can be delivered faithfully in a DD+ stream -- that's how they do it with Vudu or any future streaming Atmos service.


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> My recollection is that I did not really hear any difference, but that was a while back.


Both Dolby and DTS have hi-rez lossy codecs (DD+ and DTS-HD HRA) that are essentially indistinguishable from lossless.


> Before I drive myself nuts with this, can you please straighten me out--Atmos is an extension of the 7.1 core (True HD), correct?


As Scott mentions, Atmos can be delivered as an extension to TrueHD and DD+ codecs (and eventually their AC-4 codec). Atmos is basically a set of instructions (metadata) that tells the sound (data) where to go. In order to save storage space and/or transmission bandwidth, the sound itself can be stored/transmitted using either lossless packing or lossy compression, the way all current soundtracks are, so nothing new there.


----------



## smurraybhm

Not to disrupt the discussion of which mixer will sound best, but I have to echo a few other posters regarding the Atmos mix on Goosebumps - it is outstanding and dare I say better than Gravity in some ways. When things belong up top they are there and there's no doubt they are there. Very distinct panning as sound moves from front to back, etc based on what is happening in the movie/with the picture.

If this is what we can expect from Sony going forward immersive sound is going to really add a lot to the HT experience. A well mixed disk is all I'm after be it DTS or Dolby, as for what's better it's going to be the quality of the mix and not what code/mixer that decides that. No doubt quality will very.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tom703 said:


> I was not aware that UHD doesn't support 3D. That seems strange. There are some 3D UHD test clips out there for streaming. I find it hard to believe it is not supported on the upcoming BD discs, but can believe there will a disc capacity issue for some releases. Also, the first UHD BD players may or may not have support, I don't know.
> 
> Since the market place drives most decisions, if enough consumers want Atmos on 3d releases, eventually the studios will react.


There is no official 4k 3D format (true 4k for each eye) for the cinemas, so how can there be one for consumer use??? If and when that happens (and it will be a looooooong time coming due to SFX rendering and data storage issues) they can tack on an MVC extension to H.265 for frame packing just like with regular Blu-ray's now.


----------



## Csbooth

After watching the Atmos version of Goosebumps, I took the 3D version for a spin with DSU. Once again, the most important thing is for the MIX ITSELF TO BE GOOD, and that it is.

With that said,... I could hear/not hear so much detail is lost when listening to the 5.1 DTSMA mix. The sound isn't as full-bodied and even the distinction of sounds collapses so far, I thought I was listening to a 2.1 upmixed to 7.1, now I realize that sounds bad, but I mean it more in the sense that the Atmos version was so much better that I couldn't see myself forgoing it ever again, even if I do love 3D personally. Speaking of the 3D; it wasn't bad but it wasn't great either. Nothing special basically.

I'd love to go into more detail but I'm just too tired. All I can say is that this is the first Atmos mix where I felt EVERY SOUND belonged and transitioned exactly as it should. That's a rare thing, and I can't recommend this title more. The movie is actually really good anyways


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> You remind me of something that I keep meaning to ask, but keep forgetting. On the original (August 2014) Atmos demo disk, at the very top, you can select Dolby Atmos in True HD (lossless) or Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus (lossy). It defaults to True HD, but I did select Digital Plus at one point to see how it might differ. My recollection is that I did not really hear any difference, but that was a while back.
> 
> Before I drive myself nuts with this, can you please straighten me out--Atmos is an extension of the 7.1 core (True HD), correct?
> 
> So, is what I am listening to when I select Dolby Digital Plus (since Atmos is not an extension of the lossy codec...), actually DSU?
> 
> Or, am I thinking about this altogether wrong?


One of the clever things Dolby did with Atmos was to enable it to work with a variety of underlying codecs, so it can be carried via TrueHD as well as by DD+. The cleverness of this is that it facilitates the streaming of Atmos from the likes of Vudu etc as well as its use in broadcast, since DD+ has a much lower bandwidth requirement. None of Atmos's competitors figured this out (AFAIK) so they are excluding their immersive formats from these other media. Dolby showed similar awareness of real world conditions with the upfiring speaker concept, facilitating an Atmos setup in homes where speakers on or in the ceiling were not permitted for aesthetic, constructional or marital reasons.


----------



## westmd

Does any current Atmos equiment (except for the Trinnov) support a 5.1.6 setup?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> One of the clever things Dolby did with Atmos was to enable it to work with a variety of underlying codecs, so it can be carried via TrueHD as well as by DD+. The cleverness of this is that it facilitates the streaming of Atmos from the likes of Vudu etc as well as its use in broadcast, since DD+ has a much lower bandwidth requirement. None of Atmos's competitors figured this out (AFAIK) so they are excluding their immersive formats from these other media.


The Auro-3D Octopus codec allows a 9.1 Aurophonic mix and a 5.1 surround sound mix both mixed into one 2-channel (stereo) PCMstream (for broadcast).


----------



## ALtlOff

westmd said:


> Does any current Atmos equiment (except for the Trinnov) support a 5.1.6 setup?


No, at this time nothing but the Trinnov supports more than 4 overhead positions.

But.....

It has been reported that a 7.1.4 setup with elevated Rears, TM and TF/FH (either one), is darn close and gives you very similar coverage.
I know I'd be doing this if my Yamaha offered TM in a 4 speaker configuration.


----------



## thebland

maikeldepotter said:


> On top of a 11.1 surround layer, I would say 3 pairs of overheads for Atmos is enough (at 30, 60 and 120 degrees Atmos elevation) ....
> 
> ....... to be complemented with center height, 2 surround heights (30 degrees above 1st side surrounds) and 1 VOG .....


Center Height and VOG - Assuming for Auro. Atmos does not use a center Height does it?

Is it true DTS-X may have a VOG as well??

30 degrees up - does that tend to give more coherence to a side wall image or top / overhead image?? Or a general sweet spot?

Thanks!!


----------



## maikeldepotter

thebland said:


> Center Height and VOG - Assuming for Auro. Atmos does not use a center Height does it?


Correct. 

Applying top screen speakers (front heights and center height) allows better matching to the on-screen action for sounds that are on or near the screen. With UHD allowing wider viewing angles at home, I hope and expect other immersive formats will eventually start using them as well. 



> Is it true DTS-X may have a VOG as well??


Future DTS:X expansion may include it. I believe it will come, question is when...



> 30 degrees up - does that tend to give more coherence to a side wall image or top / overhead image?? Or a general sweet spot?


Lateral elevated/overhead positioning or panning will benefit from having surround heights not too far above the side surrounds. And to close the gap above MLP, a VOG speaker (about 45-60 degrees separated from surrounds heights) should be enough IMO. Our ability to pinpoint a sound source above our head is relatively bad (errors up to 30 degrees).



> Thanks!!


You're welcome! (all about exchanging ideas and learning)


----------



## sdurani

ALtlOff said:


> No, at this time nothing but the Trinnov supports more than 4 overhead positions.


That's what I thought, until...


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> That's what I thought, until...


So the options are 7.1.4 or 5.1.6 it appears. If one made the rear ceiling speakers near the rear wall (in a 5.1.6 configuration), you might end up with an interesting option.


----------



## maikeldepotter

westmd said:


> Does any current Atmos equiment (except for the Trinnov) support a 5.1.6 setup?


Question answered.
But didn't you own a Datasat RS20i yourself?



sdurani said:


>


----------



## batpig

The problem with 5.1.6 is the surround back signals are going to fold down to the side surrounds. Having the rear heights will pick up some slack for elevated sounds but anything bed level will not be played by a height speaker. I'd rather have 7.1.4 with slightly elevated back surrounds than 5.1.6.


----------



## westmd

audioguy said:


> So the options are 7.1.4 or 5.1.6 it appears. If one made the rear ceiling speakers near the rear wall (in a 5.1.6 configuration), you might end up with an interesting option.


That is what I think as well! Having watched Pixels in native Auro 11.1 so without the rear backs I cant say I missed too much., 

I will definitly try the 5.1.6 option and compare wirh 7.1.4 once my LS10 has been upgraded!


----------



## westmd

maikeldepotter said:


> Question answered.
> But didn't you own a Datasat RS20i yourself?


I own the LS10! Reason I was asking was if there are any models yet (i am still cautious which what the LS10/RS20i can do in the end once released to the final customer)


----------



## ALtlOff

batpig said:


> The problem with 5.1.6 is the surround back signals are going to fold down to the side surrounds. Having the rear heights will pick up some slack for elevated sounds but anything bed level will not be played by a height speaker. I'd rather have 7.1.4 with slightly elevated back surrounds than 5.1.6.


I think I agree also, but it is good to know, just in case I could afford to spend for a sub compact instead of a full size car....


----------



## westmd

I have to say that anyhow (and I wrote that already in the Datasat forum) that I find the 11 channel restriction in the Datasat models quite odd! As is has the power to run 13 channels in parallel for Auro and apparently can run all 6 object based height speakers in parallel why not be able to run the remaining 2 channel based speakers on the rear as well?


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> The problem with 5.1.6 is the surround back signals are going to fold down to the side surrounds. Having the rear heights will pick up some slack for elevated sounds but anything bed level will not be played by a height speaker. I'd rather have 7.1.4 with slightly elevated back surrounds than 5.1.6.


Plus the question how much a TM pair will actually add for MLP (or for a one-row setup) if have your TF and TR already high up at 55 and 125 degrees Atmos elevation.


----------



## sdurani

westmd said:


> I find the 11 channel restriction in the Datasat models quite odd!


IF the DSP chipset they use can only do real-time positional rendering to 11 locations then they are restricted to that number.


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> Lateral elevated/overhead positioning or panning will benefit from having surround heights not too far above the side surrounds. And to close the gap above MLP, a VOG speaker (about 45-60 degrees separated from surrounds heights) should be enough IMO. Our ability to pinpoint a sound source above our head is relatively bad (errors up to 30 degrees).



As I am likely more than a year away from upgrading to a modern immersive system, I'm happy to await a shakeout of evaluations about what constitutes the best (or exact?) height and overhead speaker positions. We are after all still waiting for specifics concerning Dolby AC-4, MPEG-H 3D Audio . . . and, as of CES, Sennheiser Ambeo....



> "_Like previously announced immersive audio formats, such as Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, Ambeo 3D will feature an upmixer that will take native two-channel content and upmix it to an immersive presentation. While those other 3D audio formats are focused on home theater, it appears as though Sennheiser’s 3D audio format will be targeting music, gaming, and augmented reality simulations. *The exact speaker layout supported by Ambeo 3D remains to be seen. However, we do know that Ambeo 3D will be built around 9.1-channel setups.*_"





> _At CES 2016, audio specialist Sennheiser is unveiling a strategic focus on 3D immersive audio, a groundbreaking technology that promises the ultimate in audio capture and reproduction. “3D audio is the new frontier of excellence, set to transform the listening experience for users across a broad range of applications, from virtual reality gaming to audio recording and broadcasting,” announced co-CEOs Daniel Sennheiser and Dr. Andreas Sennheiser.
> 
> *AMBEO 3D Audio Listening Experience*
> Show visitors will experience AMBEO 3D Audio firsthand in the booth’s dedicated 9.1 listening room. Here, Sennheiser’s expert tonmeister Gregor Zielinsky is presenting original 9.1 recordings and remixes of legacy music for the 9.1 format. To bring this experience to every day music listening, visitors are invited to bring their own stereo sound material, have it upmixed via Sennheiser’s proprietary upmix algorithm and replayed in stunning 9.1 sound quality._


_


----------



## jrogers

rontalley said:


> If you have access to Audiosphere Demo, then you can easily check for yourself. The sad thing is that people typically can't remember how things sound 10 seconds apart but you will clearly hear and remember how the imaging shrinks with FH+RH vs TF+TR.
> 
> Don't listen to the bells but focus on the music that pans from back to front then from front to back.


Ok - I was finally able to reconfigure as TF/TR and rerun Audyssey last night and I love it! You're correct that imaging is improved and panning is much improved. Running the .6 test tones before and after showed that with my previous FH/TM config, the top front ceiling signals were being matrixed between the FH and TM speakers, and the TM and TR just from the TM. With the new config TF and TR signals are sent to individual speakers, and TM from both high speakers. Sound is I'm sure shifted a bit forward in the room from mixers intent, but sense of movement is much improved and, given I'm sitting near the back wall, an excellent compromise. Thanks again to all of those who posted their preference for making this change without moving speakers.


----------



## rontalley

jrogers said:


> Ok - I was finally able to reconfigure as TF/TR and rerun Audyssey last night and I love it! You're correct that imaging is improved and panning is much improved. Running the .6 test tones before and after showed that with my previous FH/TM config, the top front ceiling signals were being matrixed between the FH and TM speakers, and the TM and TR just from the TM. With the new config TF and TR signals are sent to individual speakers, and TM from both high speakers. Sound is I'm sure shifted a bit forward in the room from mixers intent, but sense of movement is much improved and, given I'm sitting near the back wall, an excellent compromise. Thanks again to all of those who posted their preference for making this change without moving speakers.


This is so good to "hear" this! I know that I sounded like a broken record but I am a little OCD so I spent hours on hours testing this stuff. I believe that FH and RH will have their place in the future but not now with only the ability to do .4. Once we get to where we will have AVRs that can do .8 then I will definitely be going FH+TF+TR+RH. As for right now, I believe that TF+TR is the best sounding option and gives the most movement (panning) regardless to where your actual speakers are placed.

I do have a crazy idea that I am working on that can be found in this post...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...exactly-front-wide-speakers.html#post41126658

9.1.8 idea including front wides, side surround heights and front surround heights (added to existing 7.1.4) that theoretically can be accomplished by adding a couple of 5.1 AVRs using PLII.


----------



## the7mcs

Can someone who already has a denon avr x4200 help me out please. I am thinking about upgrading to it and I have just a few questions 

Will I be able to use 7.1.4 setup with this receiver if I add an external 4 channel amp?


----------



## Shniks

the7mcs said:


> Can someone who already has a denon avr x4200 help me out please. I am thinking about upgrading to it and I have just a few questions
> 
> Will I be able to use 7.1.4 setup with this receiver if I add an external 4 channel amp?




No you can only do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, using a 2 channel external amp, as it only has 9 processors.


Cheers,


----------



## the7mcs

Shniks said:


> No you can only do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, using a 2 channel external amp, as it only has 9 processors.
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Ahhh I see.... a million thanks to you for clearing that up. So then I would need a receiver with 11 processors


----------



## Inshakoor

I recently built my own home theater with a 9.1.4 speaker setup. I've been waiting for a 13 channel receiver to come out in hopes that it will support 9.1.4 but as of yet I cannot seem to find one. I've found many 9.1.2 receivers but none greater.

Is there a pre/pro separates config that would allow me to achieve this? My budget can handle the cost of a receiver but doing separates will take the cost out of my current range (at least in any kind of desirable timeframe). At this point, I would really appreciate it if anyone could educate me on any current (or future) hardware configurations (individual receiver or separates config) that would allow for 9.1.4? Thanks!!


----------



## jaychatbonneau

Ricoflashback said:


> KB - Re - "Dipoles are similarly not recommended. Dolby recommends monopoles with a wide dispersion characteristic. If I were you, I wouldn't just throw the dipoles away - I would test them in situ and see how they sound to you. If you are getting a highly immersive sound 'dome' then you are golden. If not, then I would replace the dipoles with monopoles."
> 
> I understand your logic and the Dolby specs/recommendation. But I also think you have to consider the room and the $$$ invested in your HT. Example: I still use a pair of Paradigm ADP-590's as my side surrounds. I have no choice - - there is no physical way of lowering them (original 7.1 configuration.) I DID move my rear surrounds to ear level from up high and that has made a great difference in sound quality.
> 
> For my Atmos setup - - I'll have FH & TM. For DTS Neo X & someday DTS: X, I will have "Front Wides," as well. This is the speaker configuration that works the best with my room constraints. (Low ceilings, 1970's house.) Hopefully, it gives me more options based on the soundtrack. So, my main point is that sometimes we can't have everything according to spec - - but we can still enjoy what we have.


Unfortunately, I can't put anything on my ceiling nor can I use up firing speakers due to the acoustic treatment on my ceiling. Is it worthwhile to use front and rear heights with Atmos and DTS X? My ceilings are ten feet high. My room is 12 feet deep. The MLP is four feet and change from the back wall. Should I just stick with 7.1?


----------



## GXMnow

jaychatbonneau said:


> Unfortunately, I can't put anything on my ceiling nor can I use up firing speakers due to the acoustic treatment on my ceiling. Is it worthwhile to use front and rear heights with Atmos and DTS X? My ceilings are ten feet high. My room is 12 feet deep. The MLP is four feet and change from the back wall. Should I just stick with 7.1?


With the description of your room, I would think that "Front Height" and "Rear Height" should work just fine. I wish I had a 10 foot ceiling height to work with, it gives you a lot more space to work with. I will certainly experiment myself, but I still think that should give a better image than using the "Top Front" and "Top Rear" with the speakers at the front and back walls as the pan will be a better match going front to back with the desired position of the sound. 

Here is some rough ascii art, had to use dashes as spaces got removed when I previewed it.
The object position data does is a smooth pan from the very front to the very back.
This is how it should pan from a FH to a RH 

front
---\
----\
-----\
------\
-------\
--------\
back

This should sound correct as any sound between the front andback wall is phantom panned between the two speakers for the entire length of the room.

Telling the processor that the speakers are at TF and TR, it will render the pan like this

front
---|
----\
-----\
------\
-------\
--------|
back

This makes it sound better when the speakers are in from the front and back walls as the sound has to pass the speaker to start panning to the other one. And once it passes the rear speaker it is totally out of the front one. 

And for sake of being complete, here is the same graph using FH and TM designations

front
---\
----\
-----\
------|
------|
------|
back

The sound will start to pan immediately off the front wall, and be completely in the top middle speaker at the half way point, then the sound from the front speaker stops. 

Does that make sense?

I don't have any way to test this yet, but as the sound does pan past the top speaker locations, I do believe it will pan to the wall speakers, unless the object was tagged to be "top only". This would be a question for "Film Mixer" as he has a lot more time on a dub stage, but I think a lot of overhead pans in real content are done in the "Hemisphere" mode where it will pan from the wall, and curve up and over to the ceiling and back down the other side. Instead of just panning around the ceiling, they do it like a dome. In which case, the pan does not really stop when you pass the ceiling speaker location, as it will then pan off that speaker and into the "ear height" speaker(s) in the direction of the pan. The test tones that are restricted to the top only (and maybe with speaker snap on) will not act like a pan from a real movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

the7mcs said:


> Ahhh I see.... a million thanks to you for clearing that up. So then I would need a receiver with 11 processors


Yes - for example the next Denon up from yours, the X6200 can handle 7.1.4 with the addition of a 2ch amp, as can the Marantz SR7010.


----------



## kbarnes701

Inshakoor said:


> I recently built my own home theater with a 9.1.4 speaker setup. I've been waiting for a 13 channel receiver to come out in hopes that it will support 9.1.4 but as of yet I cannot seem to find one. I've found many 9.1.2 receivers but none greater.
> 
> Is there a pre/pro separates config that would allow me to achieve this? My budget can handle the cost of a receiver but doing separates will take the cost out of my current range (at least in any kind of desirable timeframe). At this point, I would really appreciate it if anyone could educate me on any current (or future) hardware configurations (individual receiver or separates config) that would allow for 9.1.4? Thanks!!


Nothing in the 'affordable' price range can currently handle more than 7.1.4. You need to move into the uber-expensive territory for that - eg a Trinnov Altitude. I personally do not think we will see greater than 7.1.4 in affordable units for quite some time. Certainly not in the next round of units to be released in fall this year, and maybe not in the year after. You can of course make use of your wide speakers by selecting an upmixer which makes use of them, eg Neo:X. But you can't do Atmos or DTS:X in 9.1.4 at this time.


----------



## kbarnes701

jaychatbonneau said:


> Unfortunately, I can't put anything on my ceiling nor can I use up firing speakers due to the acoustic treatment on my ceiling. Is it worthwhile to use front and rear heights with Atmos and DTS X? My ceilings are ten feet high. My room is 12 feet deep. The MLP is four feet and change from the back wall. Should I just stick with 7.1?


GXM has given you a great reply. All I'd add is that a FH+RH Atmos arrangement is still going to be way better than 7.1, so go for it! And I envy you those 10 foot ceilings!


----------



## rontalley

jaychatbonneau said:


> Unfortunately, I can't put anything on my ceiling nor can I use up firing speakers due to the acoustic treatment on my ceiling. Is it worthwhile to use front and rear heights with Atmos and DTS X? My ceilings are ten feet high. My room is 12 feet deep. The MLP is four feet and change from the back wall. Should I just stick with 7.1?


7.1.2 is better than 7.1

With your room, you can achieve 7.1.4.

Take a look at Dolby's recommended angles for Top speakers:










Now take a look at your room:










If you come off your front wall 1'8"-2'2", that would be an ideal location for TF as this would put you in between the minimum and recommended angles.

Now look at your back wall, the minimum angle is 125. Your TR would not meet the requirement. However, you could mount RH and aim it *"above"* the MLP. Even though you will be mounting in the RH location, you should still designate the speaker in your AVR as TR.

Now you can see for yourself that 7.1.4 will work in your room without any issues.




GXMnow said:


> With the description of your room, I would think that "Front Height" and "Rear Height" should work just fine. I wish I had a 10 foot ceiling height to work with, it gives you a lot more space to work with. I will certainly experiment myself, but I still think that should give a better image than using the "Top Front" and "Top Rear" with the speakers at the front and back walls as the pan will be a better match going front to back with the desired position of the sound.


I understand that we are all trying to help but I have found that FH and RH should be used if they fall out of the recommended angles for Tops. Given his room, his TF fall well within the recommended angles but his rears wouldn't even meet the minimum for TR let alone RH. You can put the speakers in RH location but you have to consider the angle when designating the speakers in the AVR. In his room, designating FH and/or RH is bad news.



GXMnow said:


> Here is some rough ascii art, had to use dashes as spaces got removed when I previewed it.
> The object position data does is a smooth pan from the very front to the very back.
> This is how it should pan from a FH to a RH
> 
> front
> ---\
> ----\
> -----\
> ------\
> -------\
> --------\
> back


This is the way it would seem to logically work. But but I have found that RH and FH are not working this way. I have yet to find a sound, demo, movie, anything that would suggest you get full panning using FH+RH, I've actually found the opposite. Maybe most sounds are not directed towards FH and RH positions and mixers have been aiming sound towards TF+TR. If the later is true, then FH+RH would only send the sound 1/4 and 3/4 respectively. So if your room is not long enough to accommodate the needed angles for FH+RH, your sound field will shrink.



GXMnow said:


> I don't have any way to test this yet


I do and I have tested and tested and tested and tested. At this point in the Amos game, it is best to use TF+TR in your AVR even if you speakers are at FH and/or RH locations for standard size rooms.

Go up a few post in this thread and the same advice I gave to another user, @jrogers, has proven to be beneficial for him. Others users such as, @kbarnes701, have also chimed in on this and have come to the same conclusion.


----------



## thebland

Great Posts. Is there a PDF or link to recommended angles for all height speakers? Thanks!!


----------



## dvdwilly3

rontalley said:


> 7.1.2 is better than 7.1
> 
> With your room, you can achieve 7.1.4.
> 
> Take a look at Dolby's recommended angles for Top speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now take a look at your room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you come off your front wall 1'8"-2'2", that would be an ideal location for TF as this would put you in between the minimum and recommended angles.
> 
> Now look at your back wall, the minimum angle is 125. Your TR would not meet the requirement. However, you could mount RH and aim it *"above"* the MLP. Even though you will be mounting in the RH location, you should still designate the speaker in your AVR as TR.
> 
> Now you can see for yourself that 7.1.4 will work in your room without any issues.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that we are all trying to help but I have found that FH and RH should be used if they fall out of the recommended angles for Tops. Given his room, his TF fall well within the recommended angles but his rears wouldn't even meet the minimum for TR let alone RH. You can put the speakers in RH location but you have to consider the angle when designating the speakers in the AVR. In his room, designating FH and/or RH is bad news.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the way it would seem to logically work. But but I have found that RH and FH are not working this way. I have yet to find a sound, demo, movie, anything that would suggest you get full panning using FH+RH, I've actually found the opposite. Maybe most sounds are not directed towards FH and RH positions and mixers have been aiming sound towards TF+TR. If the later is true, then FH+RH would only send the sound 1/4 and 3/4 respectively. So if your room is not long enough to accommodate the needed angles for FH+RH, your sound field will shrink.
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have tested and tested and tested and tested. At this point in the Amos game, it is best to use TF+TR in your AVR even if you speakers are at FH and/or RH locations for standard size rooms.
> 
> Go up a few post in this thread and the same advice I gave to another user, @jrogers, has proven to be beneficial for him. Others users such as, @kbarnes701, have also chimed in on this and have come to the same conclusion.


Paragraph starting "Now look at your back wall..." Is the exact situation that I have and I can verify that it does work perfectly.

In fact, I have 2 rows, and the speaker mounted on the rear wall is about 155 degrees for the back row and 125 degrees for the front row. And, I do run them as TR.


----------



## Xaspen80

Hey all,

Just looking for some advice on positioning for atmos and see if anyone had any suggestions. This forum seemed like the best place to go for advice. Mainly my concern is how far in front and behind the main listening position is too close or too far for 9'3" ceiling height. I calculated the distances based on Dolby recommended angles, but if anyone has any feedback based on personal experience that would be great. Also, my side surrounds will be in-ceiling for now and at a later date may try to find an alternative, but if there is any suggestion or recommendation on separation distance for those that would be appreciated as well. I realize it may detract from the atmos experience, but just trying to make the best out of what I can for right now.


----------



## markm75

Can anyone tell me if these speakers would work ok in my setup.. ie: what sort of speaker tech should I be looking at for in-ceiling speakers? My original budget on these was between $200-300 for all 4.. so this set on amazon seems perfect price wise and maybe a match to my Onkyo SKSHT750 speakers i use in the 7.1 setup.

I originally posted a video showing the arrangement of my room in this thread but the general gist is that the best arrangement, staying with in the dolby 7.1.4 guidelines on angles, will have the front two speakers further away from the couch area and the rear two pretty close because the rear 4 surround speakers are not that far from the couch to begin with.. so i have limited space to work with.. i also have a wooden ceiling beam between the couch and the two front atmos, but those are far enough in front of the beam that it shouldnt be an issue.

Any suggestions on in ceiling speaker options or types?


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> I do and I have tested and tested and tested and tested. At this point in the Amos game, it is best to use TF+TR in your AVR even if you speakers are at FH and/or RH locations for standard size rooms.
> 
> Go up a few post in this thread and the same advice I gave to another user, @jrogers, has proven to be beneficial for him. Others users such as, @kbarnes701, have also chimed in on this and have come to the same conclusion.


Yes, I came to the same conclusion a while back. TF+TR seems to be the way to go even if one pair is out of Dolby spec for angle (as my TR pair are). I tested and tested this too, listening to hundreds of movie tracks with the speakers set as FH+TM (on spec for both pairs) and with them set as TF+TR (with only the TF on spec). TF+TR gives a better overall effect, greater separation of sounds, more immersiveness.


----------



## Inshakoor

kbarnes701 said:


> Nothing in the 'affordable' price range can currently handle more than 7.1.4. You need to move into the uber-expensive territory for that - eg a Trinnov Altitude. I personally do not think we will see greater than 7.1.4 in affordable units for quite some time. Certainly not in the next round of units to be released in fall this year, and maybe not in the year after. You can of course make use of your wide speakers by selecting an upmixer which makes use of them, eg Neo:X. But you can't do Atmos or DTS:X in 9.1.4 at this time.


Thanks for the reply, kbarnes. I've been holding off on buying a new receiver until 9.1.4 support is out (I need one badly), but it sounds like the support for it is either too expensive or just non-existent. My question then becomes, once I buy a new receiver (I'm so ready to upgrade), should I run my Atmos in a 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 configuration? Which provides a better experience, wides +2 Atmos speakers or no wides +4 Atmos speakers? I realize this may be subjective but the opinions given on this site are usually pretty sound D) and that's why I posted here.

Let's say I buy a Marantz SR7010 or a Denon AVR-X7200W. Is there any future proofing there for 9.1.4? Adding another amp or some other separate piece of gear? I'm trying not to buy 2 receivers (not worth upgrading to 9.1.4 if I've just invested in a 9.1.2 receiver, even after a year or two) and am looking for a purchasing path that makes sense. I realize that since we don't know what the manufactures release plans are, this question is probably impossible to answer. I'm just looking for other peoples experiences in similar situations. Thanks again!


----------



## batpig

Inshakoor said:


> I recently built my own home theater with a 9.1.4 speaker setup. I've been waiting for a 13 channel receiver to come out in hopes that it will support 9.1.4 but as of yet I cannot seem to find one. I've found many 9.1.2 receivers but none greater.
> 
> Is there a pre/pro separates config that would allow me to achieve this? My budget can handle the cost of a receiver but doing separates will take the cost out of my current range (at least in any kind of desirable timeframe). At this point, I would really appreciate it if anyone could educate me on any current (or future) hardware configurations (individual receiver or separates config) that would allow for 9.1.4? Thanks!!


The only "affordable" way to go to 9.1.4 would be to use two separate receivers. 

One receiver (the main unit) is set to 9.1.2 and you use it to render the floor level speakers. The presence of the (unused) Top Middle speakers ensures elevated objects are subtracted from the ear level speakers. 

The second receiver is configured with a x.x.4 layout (Front + Rear) and handles the heights. Fed with a split or daisy chained HDMI signal. 

If you wanted to get clever (eg for multiple row coverage) you could leave the Top Middle active from the first receiver. Although sounds would "blend" a bit between the two so you'd lose some discreetness but gain more coverage. 

Doing it this way you could have a relatively pure 9.1.4 output for $3-5k in processor cost. (Less if you ignore DTS:X and get 2014 model receivers).


----------



## tom703

Inshakoor said:


> I recently built my own home theater with a 9.1.4 speaker setup. I've been waiting for a 13 channel receiver to come out in hopes that it will support 9.1.4 but as of yet I cannot seem to find one. I've found many 9.1.2 receivers but none greater.
> 
> Is there a pre/pro separates config that would allow me to achieve this? My budget can handle the cost of a receiver but doing separates will take the cost out of my current range (at least in any kind of desirable timeframe). At this point, I would really appreciate it if anyone could educate me on any current (or future) hardware configurations (individual receiver or separates config) that would allow for 9.1.4? Thanks!!


I had these same questions and found discussion at this link:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...io-discussion-thread-atmos-dts-x-auro-95.html

Originally Posted by darklord700 View Post Very smart, you trick unit 1 to doing 7.1.4 but you are using only the the surrounds and 4 ceiling output from it. It is a far cheaper solution than buying the Trinnov. Potentially, this method could work also with buying two entry level 5.1.2 receivers instead of one more expensive 7.1.4 receiver and achieve some cost savings. Exactly Here is how i did it: The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) And pictures: The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version) 
Originally Posted by *darklord700*  
_Very smart, you trick unit 1 to doing 7.1.4 but you are using only the the surrounds and 4 ceiling output from it. It is a far cheaper solution than buying the Trinnov.

Potentially, this method could work also with buying two entry level 5.1.2 receivers instead of one more expensive 7.1.4 receiver and achieve some cost savings._
Exactly 

Here is how i did it:

The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)

And pictures:

The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version)


----------



## ALtlOff

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I came to the same conclusion a while back. TF+TR seems to be the way to go even if one pair is out of Dolby spec for angle (as my TR pair are). I tested and tested this too, listening to hundreds of movie tracks with the speakers set as FH+TM (on spec for both pairs) and with them set as TF+TR (with only the TF on spec). TF+TR gives a better overall effect, greater separation of sounds, more immersiveness.


I'm now I'm agreement with this, keeping in mind my Front and Wide Heights are using the same signal as are my Surround and Rear Heights, I did experimenting early on with all combinations of configurations with the Heights and while I'm still a fan of at least the FH setting (seemed to me there was more of an extension of sound forward) in my setup it only applies to DSU. Once I did the same experiment with multiple True Atmos tracks, your conclusions are spot on, while there seemed to be a "slight" lessening of the forward and rear extension, the immersion of the effects using TF & TR is well worth the trade off. This is really noticeable in the "Goosebumps" film, truly excellent overhead mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Inshakoor said:


> Thanks for the reply, kbarnes. I've been holding off on buying a new receiver until 9.1.4 support is out (I need one badly), but it sounds like the support for it is either too expensive or just non-existent. My question then becomes, once I buy a new receiver (I'm so ready to upgrade), should I run my Atmos in a 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 configuration? Which provides a better experience, wides +2 Atmos speakers or no wides +4 Atmos speakers? I realize this may be subjective but the opinions given on this site are usually pretty sound D) and that's why I posted here.


I’d say 7.1.4 because out of a total of 11 speakers, I'd want a better ratio than 9 around me and only 2 above me. Plus the fact that Atmos itself does wides, but DSU does not, so for most of your collection the wides would be silent anyway. Also with only 2 above you, you lose any front-rear panning effects.



Inshakoor said:


> Let's say I buy a Marantz SR7010 or a Denon AVR-X7200W. Is there any future proofing there for 9.1.4?


No.



Inshakoor said:


> Adding another amp or some other separate piece of gear? I'm trying not to buy 2 receivers (not worth upgrading to 9.1.4 if I've just invested in a 9.1.2 receiver, even after a year or two) and am looking for a purchasing path that makes sense. I realize that since we don't know what the manufactures release plans are, this question is probably impossible to answer. I'm just looking for other peoples experiences in similar situations. Thanks again!


I can tell you categorically that the current AVRs you mention can never be upgradeable to 9.1.4 because they don't have sufficient channels in them, so even with external amplification they won't work. They are limited to 11 channels. So no sort of upgrade would be possible without major internal restructuring. 

The other option is the 'Frankenprocessor' arrangement batpig mentioned but that is way too complex for me to even consider, although I am led to believe it works really well.


----------



## vitod

markm75 said:


> Can anyone tell me if these speakers would work ok in my setup.. ie: what sort of speaker tech should I be looking at for in-ceiling speakers? My original budget on these was between $200-300 for all 4.. so this set on amazon seems perfect price wise and maybe a match to my Onkyo SKSHT750 speakers i use in the 7.1 setup.
> 
> I originally posted a video showing the arrangement of my room in this thread but the general gist is that the best arrangement, staying with in the dolby 7.1.4 guidelines on angles, will have the front two speakers further away from the couch area and the rear two pretty close because the rear 4 surround speakers are not that far from the couch to begin with.. so i have limited space to work with.. i also have a wooden ceiling beam between the couch and the two front atmos, but those are far enough in front of the beam that it shouldnt be an issue.
> 
> Any suggestions on in ceiling speaker options or types?


You can get very good, highly rated Micca-8 for half the price.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Soooo apparently 2 billion wasn't enough & Disney is apparently continuing with it's embargo on Atmos disc releases with the announced specs for The Force Awakens... no 3D? 

So those greedy f***s are gonna quintaple dip:

-1080p 7.1 

-3D 1080p 7.1

-UHD 7.1

-UHD Atmos & 1080p 3D atmos

-UHD 3D Atmos


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Soooo apparently 2 billion wasn't enough & Disney will continue with it's embargo on Atmos disc releases for The Force Awakens... no 3D too? 

So those greedy f***s are gonna quintaple dip:

-1080p 7.1 

-3D 1080p 7.1

-UHD 7.1

-UHD Atmos & 1080p 3D atmos

-UHD 3D Atmos


----------



## darklord700

Aras_Volodka said:


> So those greedy f***s are gonna quintaple dip:



That's bad. No atmos, no buy from me.


----------



## dschulz

Aras_Volodka said:


> -UHD 3D Atmos


There is no UHD 3D...


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> Soooo apparently 2 billion wasn't enough & Disney is apparently continuing with it's embargo on Atmos disc releases with the announced specs for The Force Awakens... no 3D?
> 
> So those greedy f***s are gonna quintaple dip:
> 
> -1080p 7.1
> 
> -3D 1080p 7.1
> 
> -UHD 7.1
> 
> -UHD Atmos & 1080p 3D atmos
> 
> -UHD 3D Atmos


Don't worry, you'll get UHD Atmos of this new trilogy in progress sooner or later....like 2019 or 2020, when there's more a critical mass of UHD TVs and Atmos soundbars in Best Buy America


----------



## NorthSky

> Don't worry, you'll get UHD Atmos of this new trilogy in progress sooner or later....like 2019 or 2020, when there's more a critical mass of UHD TVs and Atmos soundbars in Best Buy America


Yeah, that's pretty much what I figure too...by 2019-2020 ... @ the earliest. 

Look, Sony Pictures with _Goosebumps_ - no Atmos on the 3D Blu-ray disc version. 

I'm a little afraid of the future...from Sony Pictures, Disney, FOX, Lionsgate Films. ...UHD, no Atmos on 3D 1080p, double triple dips, ... it smells greed and lack of support for 3D immersion (picture & sound) all around. 

But that's just my own opinion. I'm sure there's a brighter side somewhere...and that's where I'll be aiming and spending my money...Warner Bros, Universal, Paramount and Criterion. But Criterion is late to the 3D world...picture and audio wise; by the year 2035 they might get into holographic 8K and 16K. And that's perfectly fine by me that they retain the original mono soundtrack of classics, as presented in the theaters back when we were young and happy (the fifties).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

dschulz said:


> There is no UHD 3D...


Due to technical limitations currently is what I thought... but I'd imagine when it's no longer a limitation 3D will be re-implemented. 



sdrucker said:


> Don't worry, you'll get UHD Atmos of this new trilogy in progress sooner or later....like 2019 or 2020, when there's more a critical mass of UHD TVs and Atmos soundbars in Best Buy America


I can live with that... I just hope that if I get the 2D 1080p disc that they don't release the 3D version as a special edition in time for Xmas 2016 or something like that. 



NorthSky said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much what I figure too...by 2019-2020 ... @ the earliest.
> 
> Look, Sony Pictures with _Goosebumps_ - no Atmos on the 3D Blu-ray disc version.
> 
> I'm a little afraid of the future...from Sony Pictures, Disney, FOX, Lionsgate Films. ...UHD, no Atmos on 3D 1080p, double triple dips, ... it smells greed and lack of support for 3D immersion (picture & sound) all around.
> 
> But that's just my own opinion. I'm sure there's a brighter side somewhere...and that's where I'll be aiming and spending my money...Warner Bros, Universal, Paramount and Criterion. But Criterion is late to the 3D world...picture and audio wise; by the year 2035 they might get into holographic 8K and 16K. And that's perfectly fine by me that they retain the original mono soundtrack of classics, as presented in the theaters back when we were young and happy (the fifties).


Criterion has 3D releases?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Aras_Volodka said:


> Soooo apparently 2 billion wasn't enough & Disney will continue with it's embargo on Atmos disc releases for The Force Awakens... no 3D too?
> 
> So those greedy f***s are gonna quintaple dip:
> 
> -1080p 7.1
> 
> -3D 1080p 7.1
> 
> -UHD 7.1
> 
> -UHD Atmos & 1080p 3D atmos
> 
> -UHD 3D Atmos


Well, they don't get my $$ for bluray then. I just cancelled my order on Amazon.
I'll wait for Atmos, thanks...


----------



## whitetrash66

Looking at getting a 7.1.4 Atmos setup. 

I have a 7.1 Polk LSI speaker setup with an XPA5 amp powering the 5 mains. What upfiring modules would be the best for me? 

I've read the Onkyo Atmos speakers are disappointing. I've looked at the Klipsch 140SA, the Atlantic Technology 44DA, and the Pioneer Andrew Jones add ons. I can't do in ceiling speakers, and my ceiling is only 7.5 feet. Any suggestions?


----------



## ALtlOff

dvdwilly3 said:


> Well, they don't get my $$ for bluray then. I just cancelled my order on Amazon.
> I'll wait for Atmos, thanks...


No Atmos on BR at all.....
I'm out too.


----------



## aaranddeeman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Well, they don't get my $$ for bluray then. I just cancelled my order on Amazon.
> I'll wait for Atmos, thanks...


Yeah. But we are such a small population, they will not even see the ding in their revenues.
Sound bar folks are already lining up outside Target, BetsBuy and what not...


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Criterion has 3D releases?


Absolutely not. That's why I said they're late...as I don't see that happening anytime soon. 

As for Dolby Atmos and DTS:X ... I have no idea. It might happen in the far away future...maybe. 

Criterion Collection on Blu-ray is about picture quality, top picture transfer, restoration of classics, black & white films, important films socially, and also to retain the mono soundtrack of those films equipped with. Criterion is for the die-hard fans of films with true content that influenced social movements through cinema history, films of importance, ...and not about CGI effects from Marvel comics, and not about Dolby Atmos tumultuous overhead sound, and not about 3D rendition. 

For what they do nobody else equals them. It's the serious film history stuff. 3D is more like a modern technological adventure. It will take years and years before it is accepted as an important development for human kind. But eventually it will...I'm absolutely convinced...and as the future will reveal with 3D glasses-free. ...And as the 3D cameras and techniques keep evolving. ...Native, and not down-converted. 

Films of tomorrow will be shot with 3D cameras by the best 3D cinematographers who would have mastered the art of moving 3D pictures. 
And the best soundtracks will still have the best music scores. That's what transport our emotions the most...the music ♫


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Absolutely not. That's why I said they're late...as I don't see that happening anytime soon.
> 
> As for Dolby Atmos and DTS:X ... I have no idea. It might happen in the far away future...maybe.
> 
> Criterion Collection on Blu-ray is about picture quality, top picture transfer, restoration of classics, black & white films, important films socially, and also to retain the mono soundtrack of those films equipped with. Criterion is for the die-hard fans of films with true content that influenced social movements through cinema history, films of importance, ...and not about CGI effects from Marvel comics, and not about Dolby Atmos tumultuous overhead sound, and not about 3D rendition.
> 
> For what they do nobody else equals them. It's the serious film history stuff. 3D is more like a modern technological adventure. It will take years and years before it is accepted as an important development for human kind. But eventually it will...I'm absolutely convinced...and as the future will reveal with 3D glasses-free. ...And as the 3D cameras and techniques keep evolving. ...Native, and not down-converted.
> 
> Films of tomorrow will be shot with 3D cameras by the best 3D cinematographers who would have mastered the art of moving 3D pictures.
> And the best soundtracks will still have the best music scores. That's what transport our emotions the most...the music ♫


That could change though assuming Criterion is around another 20 years or so. There's a few "artsy" directors like Rodriguez who did his Frank Miller movie in 3D, & I know Del Toro has a few Criterions under his belt. 3D I'm guessing might be more affordable to content creators now that it's so common? 10 years ago 3D wasn't even a thing really, now it's all over the place... I could see people like Wes Anderson or film makers of that sort going into 3D & making use of Atmos... then eventually making their way to Criterion.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> That could change though assuming Criterion is around another 20 years or so. There's a few "artsy" directors like Rodriguez who did his Frank Miller movie in 3D, & I know Del Toro has a few Criterions under his belt. 3D I'm guessing might be more affordable to content creators now that it's so common? 10 years ago 3D wasn't even a thing really, now it's all over the place... I could see people like Wes Anderson or film makers of that sort going into 3D & making use of Atmos... then eventually making their way to Criterion.


There are some excellent flicks/documentaries in 3D, and Criterion Collection has one...*Pina - 3D* directed by _Wim Wenders._










The music score is also fabulous, as the 3D picture quality...but no Dolby Atmos here. 

___________

The Grand Masters of 3D are James Cameron, Michael Bay (TF4 - Dolby Atmos), Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity - Dolby Atmos), Guillermo del Toro (Crimson Peak - DTS:X), Ang Lee, Baz Luhrmann, ...other directors from Disney 3D PIXAR animations. 

Criterion Collection might see a couple more this year...you never know. Some 3D documentaries are also important ones...about the arts of theater, music, dance, sports...

And I wouldn't be surprised to see one or three Dolby Atmos Criterion Colllection Blu-ray titles in a near future (DTS:X as well). 
Because films/documentaries in 3D picture...some are grant artistic value of importance. And if the sound was mixed in 3D immersive audio, CC will faithfully incorporate it...I'm very sure. And all that before I die, and/or before they die. 

Plus, CC (Criterion Collection) I am certain is thinking UHD (4K Blu-ray). ...They already have few BR titles that were scanned @ 4K and 8K.


----------



## NorthSky

...And speaking of _Miller (George)_ - *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* in (((3D))) and with Dolby Atmos; 
we might see the future preferred Frank Miller's Black & White version...'Silent' Cut (similar to Gravity - Diamond Luxe Edition...the Silent version). 

♠ http://screenrant.com/mad-max-fury-road-bluray-black-white-silent-version/

That would be the perfect project for Criterion Collection (Blu-ray). I would love it, immensely.

_____________

♦ Frank Miller's 300 and Sin City and A Dame to Kill For and Sin City 3 (future)...all masterpieces that would be in the Criterion Collection range...in 3D and with Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X or Auro-3D - don't matter to me @ all).


----------



## dvdwilly3

aaranddeeman said:


> Yeah. But we are such a small population, they will not even see the ding in their revenues.
> Sound bar folks are already lining up outside Target, BetsBuy and what not...


It is not a protest to anybody.

If I can't get it in Atmos, I will wait until I can.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> There are some excellent flicks/documentaries in 3D, and Criterion Collection has one...*Pina - 3D* directed by _Wim Wenders._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The music score is also fabulous, as the 3D picture quality...but no Dolby Atmos here.
> 
> ___________
> 
> The Grand Masters of 3D are James Cameron, Michael Bay (TF4 - Dolby Atmos), Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity - Dolby Atmos), Guillermo del Toro (Crimson Peak - DTS:X), Ang Lee, Baz Luhrmann, ...other directors from Disney 3D PIXAR animations.
> 
> Criterion Collection might see a couple more this year...you never know. Some 3D documentaries are also important ones...about the arts of theater, music, dance, sports...
> 
> And I wouldn't be surprised to see one or three Dolby Atmos Criterion Colllection Blu-ray titles in a near future (DTS:X as well).
> Because films/documentaries in 3D picture...some are grant artistic value of importance. And if the sound was mixed in 3D immersive audio, CC will faithfully incorporate it...I'm very sure. And all that before I die, and/or before they die.
> 
> Plus, CC (Criterion Collection) I am certain is thinking UHD (4K Blu-ray). ...They already have few BR titles that were scanned @ 4K and 8K.


Cave of forgotten dreams also comes to mind... that seems like Criterion material... though it would be cool for Herzog to approve an atmos mix if that was the case


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> Cave of forgotten dreams also comes to mind... that seems like Criterion material... though it would be cool for *Werner Herzog* to approve an atmos mix if that was the case







______

♦ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Forgotten_Dreams

The Master of Documentaries...and in (((3D))) with high quality music (Dolby Atmos remastered audio would be cool too). 
And yes, a perfect project for Criterion Collection working in collaboration with the master himself..._Werner Herzog._


----------



## Kazz063

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Same as your Side Surrounds in your situation. TM slightly ahead of MLP is what the Guidelines say.





batpig said:


> Place them above and a bit in front of the couch.
> 
> How high is your ceiling? In my experience with a lower ceiling having the TM speakers nearly directly overhead is a bit too intense, so I would push them slightly forward so they aren't beating right down on your head. This also helps close the gap above and in front with your main speakers.


 Thanks guys that was pretty much what I was thinking. BP the ceilings are 2.4m (just under 8 feet) high, so not very high.


----------



## Daryl L

NorthSky said:


> ...And speaking of _Miller (George)_ - *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* in (((3D))) and with Dolby Atmos;
> we might see the future preferred Frank Miller's Black & White version...'Silent' Cut (similar to Gravity - Diamond Luxe Edition...the Silent version).
> 
> ♠ http://screenrant.com/mad-max-fury-road-bluray-black-white-silent-version/
> 
> That would be the perfect project for Criterion Collection (Blu-ray). I would love it, immensely.
> 
> _____________
> 
> ♦ Frank Miller's 300 and Sin City and A Dame to Kill For and Sin City 3 (future)...all masterpieces that would be in the Criterion Collection range...in 3D and with Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X or Auro-3D - don't matter to me @ all).


I have not seen the new Mad Max movie yet. I really wasn't in a rush to see it but here in about this black-and-white version included makes me want to see it even more. I think that is going to be a great version to enjoy. Especially due to the fact that I am so sick and tired of these pumped up teal and orange colors in movies they been used in the past few years. It's overkill. Nobody believes in natural realistic coloring anymore in Hollywood.


----------



## stikle

Aras_Volodka said:


> Soooo apparently 2 billion wasn't enough & Disney is apparently continuing with it's embargo on Atmos disc releases with the announced specs for The Force Awakens... no 3D?





Aras_Volodka said:


> Due to technical limitations currently is what I thought... but I'd imagine when it's no longer a limitation 3D will be re-implemented.



The "technical limitation" you may be thinking of is the HDMI bandwidth. There just isn't enough for 3D 4K UHD (if I understand the issue correctly).

And it's not just that...there is NO 3D in the UHD spec. It's not there "until it's fixed", it just isn't part of the equation.

UHD 4K Bluray Format will not support 3D


----------



## vitod

stikle said:


> The "technical limitation" you may be thinking of is the HDMI bandwidth. There just isn't enough for 3D 4K UHD (if I understand the issue correctly).
> 
> And it's not just that...there is NO 3D in the UHD spec. It's not there "until it's fixed", it just isn't part of the equation.


This might be the beginning of the end for 3D?


----------



## ALtlOff

vitod said:


> This might be the beginning of the end for 3D?


Fortunately, from what I've heard, once the full UHD spec is utilized, it gives you close to a 3D image in appearance anyway. For those of us who like 3D at least it's something, plus I'm still thinking that the next Avatar may give us 3D'rs a new lease on the format again.

It's not like we're done seeing innovations. Come on Hologram's.......


----------



## stikle

vitod said:


> This might be the beginning of the end for 3D?



I think the fact that Vizio doesn't have a single 3D capable screen across their entire lineup at this point is more telling. They used to, but dropped it.


----------



## AllenA07

vitod said:


> This might be the beginning of the end for 3D?


I think we've been looking at the beginning of the end of 3D for a while, it just seems to be something that people aren't terribly interested in. I was an early adopter and had a 3D TV within a few months of their initial release. As much as I wanted to love it, I never could bring myself to like it. I will say that switching to a dedicated theater with projection did make me rethink my initial opinions on 3D, and now I will watch the occasional 3D movie. I think a few movies really benefit from the 3D (The Walk, Everest, Gravity to name a few) but I think the nail in that coffin was largely overuse of the format on movies where it didn't add anything.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Pretty pointless looking at 3D on a little tv anyway. Gotta have large projection for good 3D, imho.

Anyway... there is no UHD 3D because there is no 4K 3D workflow in the production of modern Hollywood movies. That and waning interest doesn't help the BDA to want to fit in new 3D specs that might as well go unused anyway.


----------



## GXMnow

*4K in the cinema, and my home Atmos plans.*



stikle said:


> The "technical limitation" you may be thinking of is the HDMI bandwidth. There just isn't enough for 3D 4K UHD (if I understand the issue correctly).
> 
> And it's not just that...there is NO 3D in the UHD spec. It's not there "until it's fixed", it just isn't part of the equation.
> 
> UHD 4K Bluray Format will not support 3D


Since the new HDMI 2.0 spec calls for 4K at 60p, there is plenty of bandwidth to do up to 30p of 4K in 3D, but in the cinema world, 3D is still just 2K in all mainstream setups. Up until IMB (integrated media block) servers put the decoding block inside of the projector, there was not enough bandwidth to do even 2K 3D at 4-4-4. All of the external media blocks used dual link HD-SDI and had to fall to 2K 4-2-2 in 3D. With the IMB, the data has a much bigger path from the decoder to the light engine so it does 2K 3D in 4-4-4 at up to 60p, 4K 2D in 4-4-4 up to 30p which is actually the same amount of data.

Some of the dual projector installs can theoretically do 4K 3D at 60P or higher as they use a separate IMB in each projector, technically doubling the data rate to the light engine(s). The source data rate may start to become the limit. Most servers use a 3 or 4 drive raid 5 array to feed the data to the JPEG 2000 decoder. "The Hobbet" at 2K 48p 3D was running at 450 mega bits per second. HEVC on UHD Blu Ray is a far more efficient codec and will not need anywhere near that much data, but the studios refused to use a codec that did not have every frame stand alone, so, in the cinema, every frame is an "I" frame. All of the data to make the image must be sent for every single frame. Even if the frame is completely identical, it must be sent again, and again, etc. Broadcast, cable, DBS, DVD, and Blu Ray have all used inter frame coding to reduce the bandwidth needed by a huge amount. There are certainly benefits to the frames all being complete with no dependence on the proceeding or following frames, but the cost is much more data needed. The systems that can do 4K 3D are actually sort of cheating. They use a pair of 2D DCP packages. A unique one for left eye and right eye, stored on separate arrays, and feeding the two IMB's independently, with just a cable between the IMB's to keep them in frame sync. 

3D on the laser systems is certainly a huge improvement with the brightness and contrast improvement, and they can use a white screen with the Dolby 3D glasses, so it will be interesting to see if it catches on again, or flounders with just a few movies that use it well. I guess we have to wait for "Avatar 2" to see if 3D get's another boost. 

My Benq projector and LG TV can both do 3D, but I have yet to watch a movie in 3D on either one yet. I do have a few pairs of glasses for the LG as it uses the same cheap passive glasses at Real D in the cinema. But to make that work, it drops to 1/2 vertical resolution, so it is technically 1920 by 540P for each eye. The Benq requires DLP link lcd shutter glasses, and I have not felt enough need to order any yet.

My theatre room is a bit of a mess right now as I plan out exactly where I want to put my speakers for Dolby Atmos. I am dragging my feet a bit longer, hoping for a true 9.1.4 or more AVR for under $5,000 hopefully. My projector was under $800. In the mean time, I just may go 7.1.4, but in a non conventional way. Since my back wall speakers are currently almost at the ceiling, I was thinking of going with 5.1 using my further back side speakers as the side surrounds. But then move my other pair of sides forward to go in the wide position. Use my existing back surrounds for rear height, and then add front tops right between my screen and seating position. 

If the pans are in the hemisphere mode, that should give almost the effect of a 9.1.4 setup. Just playing 7.1 from the Dolby Atmos tracks gives me a surprisingly solid image overhead with my current 6 surrounds all up near the ceiling. Moving them down is going to be a big job. Just watched "Mocking Jay 2" on this setup again and I still feel that is some of the best sound to ever come out of my speakers. The current speaker locations put all of the side surrounds in the space above closet doors and windows. I could hange them down in front of the window without too much trouble, but on the other side of the room, the closet doors could not open without moving the speakers, or moving the closet door. The wall is not load bearing, so I could move the door over and have new clean wall where the speakers should I then also remove the window on the other side and make that a clean wall too? That sure adds to the price of putting in Dolby Atmos. 

The other plan would be to move the side surround forward to wher it misses the closet door on the right, and goes between the 2 windows on the left. This puts the side surrounds at about 3 to 4 feet in front of my ideal veiwing position. But then I would need to keep true rear surrounds due to the gap in the back, so I would have to choose between the 4 on the ceiling or 2 on the ceiling with wides. As cool as dual AVR's looks on paper, I am not ready to go that route to get 9.1.4 in my room. 

Oh well. My crystal ball is all cloudy as I look for what will be on next years new AVR's


----------



## audioguy

AllenA07 said:


> I think we've been looking at the beginning of the end of 3D for a while, it just seems to be something that people aren't terribly interested in. I was an early adopter and had a 3D TV within a few months of their initial release. As much as I wanted to love it, I never could bring myself to like it. I will say that switching to a dedicated theater with projection did make me rethink my initial opinions on 3D, and now I will watch the occasional 3D movie. I think a few movies really benefit from the 3D (The Walk, Everest, Gravity to name a few) but I think the nail in that coffin was largely overuse of the format on movies where it didn't add anything.


It failed the first time (in the 50's) and is failing/will fail this time for the same reasons: Required glasses, improperly done/too gimmicky on too many movies. As you noted, it does work on a few movies, but on others, it appears to be a solution looking for a problem. It may become a niche market (or larger) technology when and if they figure out how to get rid of glasses and do a better job of implementation. I know too many people who have 3D projectors and 3D TV's who NEVER watch 3D (and I am one of those).

For me, it's like when I hear a speaker that has a slightly elevated high end frequency response. It's exciting when I first hear it but grows old and fatiguing rather quickly. That is exactly how I feel about 3D video.

Just my $0.02


----------



## westmd

Aras_Volodka said:


> That could change though assuming Criterion is around another 20 years or so. There's a few "artsy" directors like Rodriguez who did his Frank Miller movie in 3D, & I know Del Toro has a few Criterions under his belt. 3D I'm guessing might be more affordable to content creators now that it's so common? 10 years ago 3D wasn't even a thing really, now it's all over the place... I could see people like Wes Anderson or film makers of that sort going into 3D & making use of Atmos... then eventually making their way to Criterion.


I would say 3D is more or less dead again looking at recent releases!


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty pointless looking at 3D on a little tv anyway. Gotta have large projection for good 3D, imho.


 Don't forget these


----------



## audioguy

westmd said:


> I would say 3D is more or less dead again looking at recent releases!


More "more" than "less".


----------



## NorthSky

> This might be the beginning of the end for 3D?


Interesting you said that; because the future is in 3D sound and picture immersion...they both go together...complementing each other perfectly in higher tandem moving picture/sound experience. 

* UHD 3D is not part of the specs...but 3D/2k (1080p per each eye) is well alive and it'll never die...to the contrary; 
it'll keep expanding to higher 3-dimensional force. 

The techniques to improve 3D picture and sound (Atmos, dts:x, Auro) will keep evolving, and with the people mastering the art. ...With time and experience...more impacting emotionally and more rewarding musically and more soothing visually.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Interesting you said that; because the future is in 3D sound and picture immersion...they both go together...complementing each other perfectly in higher tandem moving picture/sound experience.


I agree but only when 3D is fully utilized. Not this "can only add depth" BS. Proper 3D should have both depth and out-of-screen effects. That's 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

Daryl L said:


> I have not seen the new Mad Max movie yet. I really wasn't in a rush to see it but here in about this black-and-white version included makes me want to see it even more. I think that is going to be a great version to enjoy. Especially due to the fact that I am so sick and tired of these pumped up teal and orange colors in movies they been used in the past few years. It's overkill. Nobody believes in natural realistic coloring anymore in Hollywood.


I'm going to say this: George Miller, the director of _Mad Max: Fury Road_ is a genuine artist philosopher. 
The imagery and dialog he created in his film are a great reflection of the world we live in today.

I only have a small plasma screen and nine speakers, so I don't have the full immersion like some do, but the message I got real clear...visually and auditory and emotionally. 

And the people they all say that it's one of the best Dolby Atmos flick. 

Me I say that it's one of the best flicks of 2015 and it'll get few statuettes...come Oscar's night. 

I highly recommend it. ...On Blu, in 3D (and 2D too), and if you have Atmos above speakers...one plus more reason.

____________

♦ TIP: Remove all colors and hues from your TV's picture adjustments, adjust contrast and brightness...voila...black and white Max.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> I agree but only when 3D is fully utilized. Not this "can only add depth" BS. Proper 3D should have both depth and out-of-screen effects. That's 3D.


I'm with you Scott. ...Real native 3D cameras...only the best...and used by people who know how to use them. 
And it's the same with 3D audio immersion; the best mixes are done by the most experienced people...and it's going to get better...because it's still relatively new.


----------



## Movie78

Is 3D really Dead?



Spoiler


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Pretty pointless looking at 3D on a little tv anyway. Gotta have large projection for good 3D, imho.


Not necessarily; it's like with immersive near-field audio immersion...the closer you are the more there. 



> Anyway... there is no UHD 3D because there is no 4K 3D workflow in the production of modern Hollywood movies. That and waning interest doesn't help the BDA to want to fit in new 3D specs that might as well go unused anyway.


True, but UHD 3D passive TVs and UHD 3D front projectors are giving 3D a big advancement, in 3D 1080p per each eye.


----------



## NorthSky

Atmos-3D...is it going to survive? Where will it be in five-ten years from now?


----------



## rec head

Ok, so there may not be anything in the UHD spec about 3D but is there any reason that a UHD display couldn't play current 1080 3D?

I'm not upgrading soon but would really like to take my 3D blurays with me when I do move up to a UHD TV. If any manufacturers decide to include it.


----------



## MGBPUFF

I think the future is virtual reality for entertainment as well as gaming. Beyond that would be holography (helmetless virtual reality?).


----------



## ALtlOff

As much as I like 3D and yes, the larger the screen the better, I do find myself watching less and less, but honestly it's mostly a convenience issue for me, besides studios not adding immersive audio to all 3D BluRay releases, I really don't see it being widely accepted until the glasses are gone.


----------



## MGBPUFF

rec head said:


> Ok, so there may not be anything in the UHD spec about 3D but is there any reason that a UHD display couldn't play current 1080 3D?
> 
> I'm not upgrading soon but would really like to take my 3D blurays with me when I do move up to a UHD TV. If any manufacturers decide to include it.


My Samsung 65JS8500 SUHD tv does 1080p 3D. The tv must have the necessary circuitry, many do not. The new UHD players should play all previous dvd and bluray formats including 1080p 3D discs.


----------



## darklord700

NorthSky said:


> Atmos-3D...is it going to survive? Where will it be in five-ten years from now?


I think both will survive into the next decade. Atmos adds nothing to cost for the consumers and it'll draw more people to the theatre. 3D will survive because the theatres will jam it down out throat whether we like it or not because the theatres can charge more for 3D.


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> Is 3D really Dead?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlePQTkGhtM


Interesting, thanks for sharing!


----------



## NorthSky

darklord700 said:


> I think both will survive into the next decade. Atmos adds nothing to cost for the consumers and it'll draw more people to the theatre. 3D will survive because the theatres will jam it down out throat whether we like it or not because the theatres can charge more for 3D.


I asked that question in a similar context as people saying that 3D is dead. 

_________

Of course 3D is not dead, many UHD TVs are also 3D compatible...they'll play 3D content from various sources including Blu-ray 1080p 3D titles.
...Passive and/or Active...and many with 1080p per each eye. 

And 3D audio immersion is with us for a very long time as well...it is inescapable. 

_________

Dead or alive it is with us, both technologies (3D sound & image)...and they are not going anywhere but up.
...And financially too...beneficial for the movie studios and the entire moving picture/surround sound industry, including us the customers. 

_________

♦ Bonus: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...erway-denon-avr-x7200w-wa-3.html#post41167249


----------



## thebland

Just give me 3-D sound!!! 

Too bad Star Wars is not mixed in Atmos or DTS-X! Maybe they add a DTS-X track at release. I noticed Amazon only says DTS for the soundtrack where every other release specifies DTS 5.1 or DTS 7.1... There's hope?!


----------



## thebland

Just give me 3-D sound!!! 

Too bad Star Wars is not mixed in Atmos or DTS-X! Maybe they add a DTS-X track at release. I noticed Amazon only says DTS for the soundtrack where every other release specifies DTS 5.1 or DTS 7.1... There's hope?!


----------



## sdurani

thebland said:


> Too bad Star Wars is not mixed in Atmos or DTS-X!


Saw the most recent Star Wars in two immersive audio formats theatrically: Atmos (and HDR) as well as IMAX 12-Track (7 main + 5 heights). Whether Disney releases the Atmos mix on BD and/or UHD remains to be seen. But the movie was mixed in Atmos.


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> Saw the most recent Star Wars in two immersive audio formats theatrically: Atmos (and HDR) as well as IMAX 12-Track (7 main + 5 heights). Whether Disney releases the Atmos mix on BD and/or UHD remains to be seen. But the movie was mixed in Atmos.


Hmmm... Good to know. IF I look at my movie collection, 80% of soundtracks are DTS>

I guess, Atmos or not, that ratio may remain the same...

Thanks!


----------



## audioguy

thebland said:


> Just give me 3-D sound!!!


Me too!!! Much better job at utilizing the ceiling speakers and more Options: DTS, Auro (Just kidding).


----------



## sdurani

thebland said:


> IF I look at my movie collection, 80% of soundtracks are DTS>
> 
> I guess, Atmos or not, that ratio may remain the same...


May remain the same for regular soundtracks, but maybe not for 3D sound. By end of February there will be 4 DTS:X soundtracks on BD. By that time there will be 36 Atmos soundtracks on BD (over 60 if you buy outside Region A).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> Just give me 3-D sound!!!
> 
> Too bad Star Wars is not mixed in Atmos or DTS-X! Maybe they add a DTS-X track at release. I noticed Amazon only says DTS for the soundtrack where every other release specifies DTS 5.1 or DTS 7.1... There's hope?!


Do not even consider taking Amazon's disc specs for anything but placeholders. 

Something tells me we consumers won't be seeing _Star Wars_ in Atmos for a few years. I suspect Disney, if they get off their asses and announce UHD Blu-ray support, won't be including this sequel/re-boot in its first wave of UHD titles (where you will probably see immersive audio included anyway). It's too big a property and they would want a larger UHD player install base first... even though it would drive sales of players and probably even some UHD displays (something Hollywood has yet to figure out).


----------



## audioguy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do not even consider taking Amazon's disc specs for anything but placeholders.
> 
> Something tells me we consumers won't be seeing _Star Wars_ in Atmos for a few years. I suspect Disney, if they get off their asses and announce UHD Blu-ray support, won't be including this sequel/re-boot in its first wave of UHD titles (where you will probably see immersive audio included anyway). It's too big a property and they would want a larger UHD player install base first... even though it would drive sales of players and probably even some UHD displays (something Hollywood has yet to figure out).


I've got it on order and I am comfortable that DSU will make it better than without it. By the time I have interest in watching it again (if I do have that interest), it may be available in UHD and Atmos or DTS-X or maybe even Redbox or streaming or ......


----------



## wyen78

Had some questions about atmos, I've done some research but this sticky has so many pages it's hard for me to find specific info.

I wanted to find more info on how atmos performs in a room with low ceilings. it's my understanding that a ceiling that's low (like mine at 7'6" in my basement) the sound from those speakers will be too localized and at the same time it'd be difficult to get decent coverage due to the dispersion pattern of the speakers. I found this blog. http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/

it shows the difference between angling the speakers a little vs straight down. I'm using monitor audio shadows for my 5.1 I actually have an additional pair of shadow 25's I could use for the height channels. So my questions are

1) Is dolby atmos worth it over 5.1 in a small home theater with such constrained height?(14 x 16ft with 7.5ft ceiling) I think they say 9 feet or so is ideal, too high and you lose localization too low and you have too much localization.

2) anyone know of a good pan and tilt ceiling mount bracket for shadow 25's? They have holes for screws but are meant to be attached directly to the wall not to a bracket.


----------



## wyen78

Had some questions about atmos, I've done some research but this sticky has so many pages it's hard for me to find specific info.

I wanted to find more info on how atmos performs in a room with low ceilings. it's my understanding that a ceiling that's low (like mine at 7'6" in my basement) the sound from those speakers will be too localized and at the same time it'd be difficult to get decent coverage due to the dispersion pattern of the speakers. I found this blog. http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/

it shows the difference between angling the speakers a little vs straight down. I'm using monitor audio shadows for my 5.1 I actually have an additional pair of shadow 25's I could use for the height channels. So my questions are

1) Is dolby atmos worth it over 5.1 in a small home theater with such constrained height?(14 x 16ft with 7.5ft ceiling) I think they say 9 feet or so is ideal, too high and you lose localization too low and you have too much localization.

2) anyone know of a good pan and tilt ceiling mount bracket for shadow 25's? They have holes for screws but are meant to be attached directly to the wall not to a bracket.


----------



## darklord700

wyen78 said:


> 1) Is dolby atmos worth it over 5.1 in a small home theater with such constrained height?(14 x 16ft with 7.5ft ceiling) I think they say 9 feet or so is ideal, too high and you lose localization too low and you have too much localization.


Your HT is not that small and 7.5 ft ceiling is what most people have. My HT is 11X19X8 and I could see the difference Atmos make. The kicker is in installing those ceiling speakers and if you can manage that then there's no reason to avoid Atmos. The ceiling speakers cost very little to buy as pretty much any bookshelf will do.


----------



## rolldog

Ok. I've been waiting for years to upgrade my entire surround sound system, and I think I'm ready to do it. Instead of mounting all of my speakers in the ceiling, I'm going to buy some free standing speakers. For some reason, I felt like having all of my speakers mounted in the ceiling limited me from getting true high quality speakers and the surround not being as enveloped as it was before building my house. Plus, I like being able to bring all my equipment with me when I move. When I sold my house, they asked for my to keep all the speakers there and keep every mounted TV, which was 12. I agreed to leave my speakers, but I took all my TVs, which I've sold many of since. 

So, I'm considering buying the Marantz AV8802a, setup in a 7.2.4 configuration. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good amplifier I could use to handle these channels and will sound good, even if maxed out? In the past, I've always had an A/V receiver with built-in amplification, but this time around, I'm going to put something together using separates. If anyone can make any suggestions or name a couple of brands you trust so I can then look more into what they offer I would really appreciate it.


----------



## batpig

wyen78 said:


> Had some questions about atmos, I've done some research but this sticky has so many pages it's hard for me to find specific info.
> 
> I wanted to find more info on how atmos performs in a room with low ceilings. it's my understanding that a ceiling that's low (like mine at 7'6" in my basement) the sound from those speakers will be too localized and at the same time it'd be difficult to get decent coverage due to the dispersion pattern of the speakers. I found this blog. http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/
> 
> it shows the difference between angling the speakers a little vs straight down. I'm using monitor audio shadows for my 5.1 I actually have an additional pair of shadow 25's I could use for the height channels. So my questions are
> 
> 1) Is dolby atmos worth it over 5.1 in a small home theater with such constrained height?(14 x 16ft with 7.5ft ceiling) I think they say 9 feet or so is ideal, too high and you lose localization too low and you have too much localization.
> 
> 2) anyone know of a good pan and tilt ceiling mount bracket for shadow 25's? They have holes for screws but are meant to be attached directly to the wall not to a bracket.


I'm in agreement that a low ceiling will not prevent you from having a satisfactory Atmos experience. My room also has a


----------



## PeterTHX

stikle said:


> I think the fact that Vizio doesn't have a single 3D capable screen across their entire lineup at this point is more telling. They used to, but dropped it.



Vizio? That's like saying Kia dropped sunroofs from their cars. Wake me when Samsung (Toyota), Sony (Honda), or Panasonic (Nissan) drop 3D.


----------



## tjenkins95

MGBPUFF said:


> My Samsung 65JS8500 SUHD tv does 1080p 3D. The tv must have the necessary circuitry, many do not. The new UHD players should play all previous dvd and bluray formats including 1080p 3D discs.


 
Does your Samsung have HDCP 2.2 support in order to play the new 4K movies on the UHD blu-ray player?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Can someone point me to the correct forum?

In my Atmos home theater, I have two rows of seats. The second row is on an 8" riser.
My fronts are Goldenear Technology Triton Sevens. The speaker height is 39.X" and the tweeter is 31" from the floor.
The front row of seats are overstuffed recliners and the tower tweeter fires right into them.

31" for the first row is not too bad, but for the second row, the tweeter then is effectively at 23"...and firing into the front row of seats.
I experimented with putting the right speaker on a couple of 4" rigid tool boxes.
Running the test tones from either Dolby Atmos or AIX reveals a tonal difference between the left tower (not on the boxes) and the right tower (on the boxes).
The SPF levels for both towers ran right at 70 dB.
The right tower was recognizably...brighter...

Soooo, I am going to make speaker risers about 8" high. That will put the tweeter closer to ear height for the 2nd row.
Parts Exp makes a speaker box of 3/4" MDF (#300-7064) that is an ideal size, External dimensions: 16" H x 8.5" W x 11" D
The tower "base" is 10 1/2" w x 14 1/2" deep, and the speaker body is recessed from that. I do not believe that there will be any diffraction issues.

The speaker box weight 14.7 pounds. I will simply lay it on its side so that 8.5" becomes the height.
If I load it with 50# of play sand, that should provide a nice stable (65 pound, non-resonant) 8" platform for each tower.
Am I ignoring anything here?

On the other hand, I could fill each with 1 pound polyfill. There is an internal brace.


----------



## LowellG

dvdwilly3 said:


> Can someone point me to the correct forum?
> 
> In my Atmos home theater, I have two rows of seats. The second row is on an 8" riser.
> My fronts are Goldenear Technology Triton Sevens. The speaker height is 39.X" and the tweeter is 31" from the floor.
> The front row of seats are overstuffed recliners and the tower tweeter fires right into them.
> 
> 31" for the first row is not too bad, but for the second row, the tweeter then is effectively at 23"...and firing into the front row of seats.
> I experimented with putting the right speaker on a couple of 4" rigid tool boxes.
> Running the test tones from either Dolby Atmos or AIX reveals a tonal difference between the left tower (not on the boxes) and the right tower (on the boxes).
> The SPF levels for both towers ran right at 70 dB.
> The right tower was recognizably...brighter...
> 
> Soooo, I am going to make speaker risers about 8" high. That will put the tweeter closer to ear height for the 2nd row.
> Parts Exp makes a speaker box of 3/4" MDF (#300-7064) that is an ideal size, External dimensions: 16" H x 8.5" W x 11" D
> The tower "base" is 10 1/2" w x 14 1/2" deep, and the speaker body is recessed from that. I do not believe that there will be any diffraction issues.
> 
> The speaker box weight 14.7 pounds. I will simply lay it on its side so that 8.5" becomes the height.
> If I load it with 50# of play sand, that should provide a nice stable (65 pound, non-resonant) 8" platform for each tower.
> Am I ignoring anything here?
> 
> On the other hand, I could fill each with 1 pound polyfill. There is an internal brace.


If you don't want to make your speaker risers would something like this work.http://www.zzounds.com/item--ISOISO...XmOwtASJmRFGRDAE1-KmJDPpPivPvWvPQaAkFR8P8HAQ=


----------



## ALtlOff

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the Invisible Boy and Praying Mantis chase scenes in "Goosebumps" are my new go-to for Atmos overhead effect demos.

Completely freaked my dogs out.....


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

rolldog said:


> Does anyone have any suggestions for a good amplifier I could use to handle these channels and will sound good, even if maxed out?


Several folks have mentioned the Yamaha MX-A5000 (11 channel amp) over in the Yamaha CX-A5100 (Atmos/DTS:X processor) thread.

I can not vouch for the Yamaha amp as I use several Crown and Hafler stereo audio amps.


----------



## vitod

rolldog said:


> So, I'm considering buying the Marantz AV8802a, setup in a 7.2.4 configuration. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good amplifier I could use to handle these channels and will sound good, even if maxed out? In the past, I've always had an A/V receiver with built-in amplification, but this time around, I'm going to put something together using separates. If anyone can make any suggestions or name a couple of brands you trust so I can then look more into what they offer I would really appreciate it.


The 7702MKII is 90% of the 8802a for 1K less. So, if money is no object, the 8802a. For an amp/s, check out pro amps. Sure, most are 2 channel, but pack way more power per dollar and class D amps are light weight. If space is an issue, Emotiva, Parasound, Marantz/Denon, Adcom are great amps.


----------



## MGBPUFF

tjenkins95 said:


> Does your Samsung have HDCP 2.2 support in order to play the new 4K movies on the UHD blu-ray player?


 Yes


----------



## ahmedreda

Watched Goosebumps the other day.. Decent movie and while it may not have as much overhead activity as other movies, there are a few scenes that are extremely well executed. The 3d version does not come with an atmos track but it can be added the same way it was done with gravity. Recommended.


----------



## GXMnow

dvdwilly3 said:


> Can someone point me to the correct forum?
> 
> In my Atmos home theater, I have two rows of seats. The second row is on an 8" riser.
> My fronts are Goldenear Technology Triton Sevens. The speaker height is 39.X" and the tweeter is 31" from the floor.
> The front row of seats are overstuffed recliners and the tower tweeter fires right into them.


Any time you have people next to you, in back of you, and especially, in front of you, you will have to take a look at the audio coverage. You should make sure that every seating position can literally see each speaker. Just like you want to be able to see the screen without a head in the way, having an obstruction in the path of the sound will hurt the performance. Also look at the distances. The ratio is what counts here. If the front row is 1/2 the distance of the back row, that is a 6 db difference in level, if the speakers are aimed right at both. For this reason, it helps to aim the speaker at the further row and have the closer row a bit off axis. The center channel is the biggest issue in most home theatres because if you have a flat screen TV, it ends up going under it and you just can't get good sound to the second row. If you can put it above the screen without it looking bad, you will probably be much happier with the overall sound. I have an acoustically transparent projection screen, so my Left, Center, and Right speakers are all at just under 2/3 up the screen. That puts the center of the HF horn at 63 inches off the floor. Coverage to my two rows of seats is no concern at all. Every seating position can see the screen and speakers. In your case, I would probably go with risers to get the speakers more like 12 inches higher. That is still just 43 inches up for the tweeters. On my couch, my ear height is at 43 inches, and that is without a riser. My back row is behind my couch and will be on a 10 inch riser.


----------



## stikle

PeterTHX said:


> Vizio? That's like saying Kia dropped sunroofs from their cars. Wake me when Samsung (Toyota), Sony (Honda), or Panasonic (Nissan) drop 3D.



I don't happen to agree with your snide opinion. Kia actually makes some quite nice cars now. And Vizio USED to have 3D models, but they've all been dropped. Now why would one of the major TV brands (yes they are) drop a feature that's a selling point? Oh, probably because they weren't selling enough to make it worthwhile to integrate the technology any longer.

That is, of course, my opinion as well. It also has nothing to do with Atmos so I'm not continuing this any longer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ALtlOff said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I think the Invisible Boy and Praying Mantis chase scenes in "Goosebumps" are my new go-to for Atmos overhead effect demos.
> 
> Completely freaked my dogs out.....


If it passed the canine test I'll have to give Goosebumps a rent.


----------



## D Bone

I have Gravity recorded on my DTV HR44 in DD 5.1 and thought I would do a quick test to see how good the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) would sound on my Denon X3200 if I changed the format on my DTV to output PCM 2.0. I used the scene where George releases himself from Sandra and then she makes her way into the space station.

While in DD 5.1 that scene has a lot of George's dialog from the surround channels, and I expected similar results from the DSU while in PCM 2.0, but was surprised/disappointed to hear all of George's dialog that is usually in the surrounds came entirely from the front L/Rs. Not one word from the surrounds. The only surround channel material in that scene while using DSU/PCM 2.0 was simple ambient noise. I knew it would be different but I thought the dialog would still emanate from the surrounds, maybe just not as precise.

Anyway, not really a complaint or an issue, but rather an observation.


----------



## PeterTHX

stikle said:


> I don't happen to agree with your snide opinion. Kia actually makes some quite nice cars now.



Snide in your mind. It wasn't about quality. It was about being a major player. Kia isn't thought of when you think major automakers like Honda, GM, etc.
It's largely seen as a budget brand, just as Vizio largely has been in the TV market. Fact is their budget market customers probably still buys DVDs or streams most of their content...which makes the largest source of 3D at home, 3D-BD, irrelevant.




> That is, of course, my opinion as well. It also has nothing to do with Atmos so I'm not continuing this any longer.



Then why did you comment the first time?


----------



## batpig

I think your views are pretty outdated Peter. While they offer a lower price point, Vizio is a major brand now and likely outsells at least one or two of the other brands you mentioned. Several Vizio models will be found in any list of "Top 10 best selling XXX TV's".

So while they may be viewed by you as a "budget brand", they are very much a major player when it comes to market share.


----------



## markm75

vitod said:


> You can get very good, highly rated Micca-8 for half the price.


Thanks... those are 2 way speakers, vs the yamahas i linked which were 3 way.. is there a difference? Is there a certain kind that i should be looking for when it comes to atmos.. i'm assuming since you mentioned these Micca's, they must fit the bill (they at least have a bigger woofer and tweeter than the yamaha's).

These micas are nice depth too.. 3.6 vs 5" Do i need to do any kind of vibration suppression (or box?) on the backs of these types of speakers, i think i read something about that, not sure if its really needed? (someone mentioned a simple planter box and some bungie chords on the backside for cheap solutions, i've never done this type of install before, ceiling based)


----------



## darklord700

D Bone said:


> While in DD 5.1 that scene has a lot of George's dialog from the surround channels, and I expected similar results from the DSU while in PCM 2.0, but was surprised/disappointed to hear all of George's dialog that is usually in the surrounds came entirely from the front L/Rs.


If you downmix DD 5.1 to PCM 2.0, some information is lost and cannot be recovered by the DSU.


----------



## PeterTHX

batpig said:


> I think your views are pretty outdated Peter. While they offer a lower price point, Vizio is a major brand now and likely outsells at least one or two of the other brands you mentioned. Several Vizio models will be found in any list of "Top 10 best selling XXX TV's".
> 
> So while they may be viewed by you as a "budget brand", they are very much a major player when it comes to market share.


 
Well, you know the old McDonald's "Billions served" argument...


That said, the quality has improved and prices have risen accordingly. Wonder what the sales figures on the upper end are compared to the budget stuff.


----------



## trueimage

Hi,

Is Atmos a yes/no feature or are there different levels?

I was comparing the Denon X3200W and X4200W, and on crutchfield's comparison tool they show the following:

X4200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2,5.1.4,7.2.2

X3200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2

Just want to future proof as I may want to put in 4 overhead speakers instead of just 2... they are both 7 channel anyway so I'm confused.

If I wanted a 5.1.4 setup I'd need an Atmos enabled 9.2 receiver correct?


----------



## batpig

PeterTHX said:


> Well, you know the old McDonald's "Billions served" argument...


And if McDonalds stopped serving French fries it would be pretty noteworthy.


----------



## batpig

trueimage said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is Atmos a yes/no feature or are there different levels?
> 
> I was comparing the Denon X3200W and X4200W, and on crutchfield's comparison tool they show the following:
> 
> X4200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2,5.1.4,7.2.2
> 
> X3200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2
> 
> Just want to future proof as I may want to put in 4 overhead speakers instead of just 2... they are both 7 channel anyway so I'm confused.
> 
> If I wanted a 5.1.4 setup I'd need an Atmos enabled 9.2 receiver correct?


There are "levels" of Atmos in the sense of how many channels the processor supports. 

The 4200 only has 7 amps built in but unlike the 3200 you can add a 2ch amp and go up to 9 channels. So it can run a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 Atmos layout whereas the 3200 is limited to 5.1.2 only.


----------



## shyyour

trueimage said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is Atmos a yes/no feature or are there different levels?
> 
> I was comparing the Denon X3200W and X4200W, and on crutchfield's comparison tool they show the following:
> 
> X4200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2,5.1.4,7.2.2
> 
> X3200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2
> 
> Just want to future proof as I may want to put in 4 overhead speakers instead of just 2... they are both 7 channel anyway so I'm confused.
> 
> If I wanted a 5.1.4 setup I'd need an Atmos enabled 9.2 receiver correct?


The X3200W wont be able to do 4 over head speakers you'll need the X4200W or higher. The X3200W can either do 7.2 ( no atmos ) or 5.2.2 ( 2 overhead speakers) while the X4200W will be able to do 7.2.2 - with an additional 2 channel amp (2 over head channels ) or 5.1.4(4 over head channels).

if you can push your budget get the X6200W- (with an additional 2 channel amp) which will be able to do 7.2.4 (4 over head channels as well as rear surrounds). Most people find that the miss the rear surrounds and eventually move from a 5.1.4 to a 7.1.4.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

D Bone said:


> I have Gravity recorded on my DTV HR44 in DD 5.1 and thought I would do a quick test to see how good the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) would sound on my Denon X3200 if I changed the format on my DTV to output PCM 2.0. I used the scene where George releases himself from Sandra and then she makes her way into the space station.
> 
> While in DD 5.1 that scene has a lot of George's dialog from the surround channels, and I expected similar results from the DSU while in PCM 2.0, but was surprised/disappointed to hear all of George's dialog that is usually in the surrounds came entirely from the front L/Rs. Not one word from the surrounds. The only surround channel material in that scene while using DSU/PCM 2.0 was simple ambient noise. I knew it would be different but I thought the dialog would still emanate from the surrounds, maybe just not as precise.
> 
> Anyway, not really a complaint or an issue, but rather an observation.


Dolby Surround (or any other format of) upmixing is not meant to recreate a soundtrack that happens to have more discrete channels/objects than what you're feeding the decoder, nor can it... it just "expands" and "enhances" what's already there using matrixed steering logic. Sometimes it really gets confused and pulls and steers certain whole sounds to speakers that are basically incorrect.


----------



## trueimage

batpig said:


> There are "levels" of Atmos in the sense of how many channels the processor supports.
> 
> The 4200 only has 7 amps built in but unlike the 3200 you can add a 2ch amp and go up to 9 channels. So it can run a 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 Atmos layout whereas the 3200 is limited to 5.1.2 only.


Thanks for clarifying!



shyyour said:


> The X3200W wont be able to do 4 over head speakers you'll need the X4200W or higher. The X3200W can either do 7.2 ( no atmos ) or 5.2.2 ( 2 overhead speakers) while the X4200W will be able to do 7.2.2 - with an additional 2 channel amp (2 over head channels ) or 5.1.4(4 over head channels).
> 
> if you can push your budget get the X6200W- (with an additional 2 channel amp) which will be able to do 7.2.4 (4 over head channels as well as rear surrounds). Most people find that the miss the rear surrounds and eventually move from a 5.1.4 to a 7.1.4.


The 6200 is a bit out of my price range. I think 5.1.2 is the max I'd be looking at. This is in my apartment and the rear surrounds are going to likely be in-wall directly behind the couch with no separation between the wall and the couch. Due to that seating location the overheads would have to be near the wall as well, which eliminates having 4 (I can't get those angles as shown in the attached diagram) I'd assume (or makes in not worthwhile).

So *maybe* 7.1.2 but likely 5.1.2 it seems...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

trueimage said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is Atmos a yes/no feature or are there different levels?
> 
> I was comparing the Denon X3200W and X4200W, and on crutchfield's comparison tool they show the following:
> 
> X4200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2,5.1.4,7.2.2
> 
> X3200W: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2
> 
> Just want to future proof as I may want to put in 4 overhead speakers instead of just 2... they are both 7 channel anyway so I'm confused.
> 
> If I wanted a 5.1.4 setup I'd need an Atmos enabled 9.2 receiver correct?


You could do a 5.1.4 setup and go with Front Height and Top Middle. 

Check out AV Science for competitive pricing... you might be surprised. I wouldn't go with 5.1.2 unless you were on a really tight budget.


----------



## trueimage

Dan Hitchman said:


> You could do a 5.1.4 setup and go with Front Height and Top Middle.
> 
> Check out AV Science for competitive pricing... you might be surprised. I wouldn't go with 5.1.2 unless you were on a really tight budget.


Hi Dan, thanks for the reply. I think that maybe my room might be the limiting factor? Are front height the "modules" that would sit on top of my L/R (Paradigm Studio 100 v5)? Or angled (down towards listening position) ceiling mount above those? I won't have any walls on the side.



trueimage said:


> Thanks for clarifying!
> 
> 
> 
> The 6200 is a bit out of my price range. I think 5.1.2 is the max I'd be looking at. This is in my apartment and the rear surrounds are going to likely be in-wall directly behind the couch with no separation between the wall and the couch. Due to that seating location the overheads would have to be near the wall as well, which eliminates having 4 (I can't get those angles as shown in the attached diagram) I'd assume (or makes in not worthwhile).
> 
> So *maybe* 7.1.2 but likely 5.1.2 it seems...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

trueimage said:


> Hi Dan, thanks for the reply. I think that maybe my room might be the limiting factor? Are front height the "modules" that would sit on top of my L/R (Paradigm Studio 100 v5)? Or angled (down towards listening position) ceiling mount above those? I won't have any walls on the side.


The Front Heights are attached to the screen wall near the ceiling juncture approx. above the left and right front speakers and aimed towards the listening position. The Top Middles would be in or on ceilings placed just slightly in front of your seating area. Or... you could do Front Height/Rear Height if hanging stuff from the ceiling is verboten in your apartment.


----------



## trueimage

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Front Heights are attached to the wall near the ceiling juncture approx. above the left and right front speakers and aimed towards the listening position. The Top Middles would be in or on ceilings placed just slightly in front of your seating area. Or... you could do Front Height/Rear Height if hanging stuff from the ceiling is verboten in your apartment.


So any of those count as one of the 4 in a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 setup? It is a 2 level condo that I own, and this would be on level 1 so no ceiling restrictions at least


----------



## Dan Hitchman

trueimage said:


> So any of those count as one of the 4 in a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 setup? It is a 2 level condo that I own, and this would be on level 1 so no ceiling restrictions at least


Correct. Front Height/Top Middle, Front Height/Rear Height, Top Front/Top Rear are all configurations that are included in the four total overhead positions of today's consumer Dolby Atmos or DTS: X gear.

You want more? Get a Trinnov and prepare for a serious expenditure.


----------



## trueimage

Dan Hitchman said:


> Correct. Front Height/Top Middle, Front Height/Rear Height, Top Front/Top Rear are all configurations that are included in the four total overhead positions of today's consumer Dolby Atmos or DTS: X gear.
> 
> You want more? Get a Trinnov and prepare for a serious expenditure.


I just googled that and closed the tab pretty quickly  I guess I'll have to do some more research if I want 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 then... as of now I've sold my old gear and only have Paradigm Studio 100 v5 mains and a CC-590 v5 center, and a Vizio M65-c1 4k tv


----------



## trueimage

I see some people opt for a preamp type setup - is that better for future upgrades? Or just more $ than buying/replacing an av receiver


----------



## Scott Simonian

trueimage said:


> I see some people opt for a preamp type setup - is that better for future upgrades? Or just more $ than buying/replacing an av receiver


Depends. But unfortunately most of the time you're paying more for the pre/pro with no real extra features for it being a pre/pro. It's a smaller market so the prices are higher.


----------



## trueimage

Looks like for 5.1.4 with no external amps, I'm looking at:

Denon AVR-X6200W (2599 CAD)
Yamaha RX-A2050 (1999 CAD)

Any others to consider? Or is it worth it to go a bit lower and go the external amp router for the other 2ch?

Also if anyone has a 5.1.2 setup and wants to tell me I don't need .4 I'm all ears


----------



## Schwa

Dan Hitchman said:


> Correct. Front Height/Top Middle, Front Height/Rear Height, Top Front/Top Rear are all configurations that are included in the four total overhead positions of today's consumer Dolby Atmos or DTS: X gear.
> 
> You want more? Get a Trinnov and prepare for a serious expenditure.


FWIW I have not seen Front Height/Top Middle supported in anything other than D+M gear.


----------



## PeterTHX

batpig said:


> And if McDonalds stopped serving French fries it would be pretty noteworthy.


 
If home 3D had been as popular and widespread as McD's french fries then that comparison would make sense.


----------



## jpco

Schwa said:


> FWIW I have not seen Front Height/Top Middle supported in anything other than D+M gear.



It seems to me that top middle is really intended for when there are only two overheads.


----------



## tom703

trueimage said:


> Looks like for 5.1.4 with no external amps, I'm looking at:
> 
> Denon AVR-X6200W (2599 CAD)
> Yamaha RX-A2050 (1999 CAD)
> 
> Any others to consider? Or is it worth it to go a bit lower and go the external amp router for the other 2ch?
> 
> Also if anyone has a 5.1.2 setup and wants to tell me I don't need .4 I'm all ears


I have a 5.1.2 setup and can tell you that you will not be happy until you are able to get the other two speakers and make a 5.1.4 system. You can do the 5.1.2 with a Denon X2200, which is what I did, and that I am now saving for a X6200 and two channel amp as what I really want is a 7.1.4. Well, at least that is what I want this week. Every time I hear something better - I want it! While 5.1.2 sounds really good by providing overhead sound, 5.1.4 is a magnitude better as the overhead sound pans and moves over you. You need to hear it and you will want it!


----------



## blastermaster

As if the sound in Tron: Legacy wasn't already stellar, I went and watched it last night in DSU and had my mind blown. The first scene in the grid where the announcer calls out the combatants...her voice sounded almost omnipresent, but definitely came from above. The music and effects during the first combat scenes and later in the bar were revelatory. I have yet to find a movie that I've played in DSU that hasn't sounded significantly better than its legacy counterpart. This is just awesome!


----------



## trueimage

tom703 said:


> I have a 5.1.2 setup and can tell you that you will not be happy until you are able to get the other two speakers and make a 5.1.4 system. You can do the 5.1.2 with a Denon X2200, which is what I did, and that I am now saving for a X6200 and two channel amp as what I really want is a 7.1.4. Well, at least that is what I want this week. Every time I hear something better - I want it! While 5.1.2 sounds really good by providing overhead sound, 5.1.4 is a magnitude better as the overhead sound pans and moves over you. You need to hear it and you will want it!



Thanks. I really appreciate the feedback!


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> As if the sound in *Tron: Legacy* wasn't already stellar, I went and watched it last night in DSU and had my mind blown. The first scene in the grid where the announcer calls out the combatants...her voice sounded almost omnipresent, but definitely came from above. The music and effects during the first combat scenes and later in the bar were revelatory. I have yet to find a movie that I've played in DSU that hasn't sounded significantly better than its legacy counterpart. This is just awesome!


DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 original audio on the 3D Blu-ray - That must sound awesome too with DTS Neural:X up-mixer!


----------



## Jarery

trueimage said:


> Looks like for 5.1.4 with no external amps, I'm looking at:
> 
> Denon AVR-X6200W (2599 CAD)
> Yamaha RX-A2050 (1999 CAD)
> 
> Any others to consider? Or is it worth it to go a bit lower and go the external amp router for the other 2ch?
> 
> Also if anyone has a 5.1.2 setup and wants to tell me I don't need .4 I'm all ears


I recently purchased the Denon X6200W in Canada for about 2k cdn. I bought in last week of January so perhaps there was still deals to the distributers, but I had multiple places offering prices from the 2600 down to the 2100-2000 price. Eastporters, Even big box store Visions were willing to match or come close.

Buy it, and go with 5.1.4 then next upgrade itch buy a 2 ch amp and increase it to 7.1.4


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Probably old news but Dolby added their Dolby ATMOS Demo disc well a few of the trailers to Vudu so you can test out ATMOS through the Vudu service. Oh and its free.
http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/638505/The-Dolby-Atmos-Experience


----------



## rolldog

vitod said:


> The 7702MKII is 90% of the 8802a for 1K less. So, if money is no object, the 8802a. For an amp/s, check out pro amps. Sure, most are 2 channel, but pack way more power per dollar and class D amps are light weight. If space is an issue, Emotiva, Parasound, Marantz/Denon, Adcom are great amps.


Well, after looking into this a little more, I agree with you. The 7702 has built-in amplification like I'm used to (I've never put together a home theater using separates), and it has most, if not all, the functionality of the 8802. Although, I'll still need an amplifier if I want to use every channel on the 7702 since I think all but 2 are amplified. Let's say all 11.2 channels were utilized, if I'm setting up an Atmos system, where would the additional 2 speakers go, on the sides? My current receiver is old (relatively speaking), and it has 8.1 channels, FR, C, FL, SR, SL, RL, RR, and RC + my sub. I'm just curious how 11 channels can be utilized in at Atmos configuration. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get the KEF R Series Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, but I'm curious to know what kind of speakers I would use to fill in the 2 extra channels that the Marantz offers assuming I bought an amplifier to push the last 2 channels. Any ideas? 

I'm trying to put together a list of everything I "need" for my new Atmos setup, and I've decided not to buy in wall nor in ceiling speakers again. Thanks.


----------



## rolldog

trueimage said:


> I see some people opt for a preamp type setup - is that better for future upgrades? Or just more $ than buying/replacing an av receiver



I went into a Magnolia Store today, and boy was I disappointed. Most, if not all of the boutique home theater stores where I live are either out of business or only do business by appt, which means I couldn't go see and hear what anyone has. When I went into the Magnolia Store, I asked the guy if he had a Marantz 8802 setup so I could hear it. His response was no, he only had the 8802 as a special order, the 7702 has most of the functionality though. So we sat down, he tried pulling up some info on his PC regarding Atmos pre/pros and receivers, but his PC locked up. So, he showed me what was on his screen, which was the 7702.

He went on and on about it, but told me that it's better to buy separates, like the 8802 like I was asking about initially, because as new technology comes out, all I would have to do is swap out the pre/pro instead of everything. I laughed and said yes, it's much better to swap out a $4000 product than a $2500 product (I honestly don't remember the prices because I already knew them online). This guy sat down and told me it's cheaper to swap out a more expensive item for a cheaper item. I don't get it. It's hard to find someone local these days who has access to all the high end equipment unless you're in Dallas, LA, Chicago, NY, or Miami. I just want a new system, and I want some suggestions. I might have to find everything online now and hire some electricians or IT guys to run the cables.


----------



## Steve Goff

rolldog said:


> Well, after looking into this a little more, I agree with you. The 7702 has built-in amplification like I'm used to (I've never put together a home theater using separates), and it has most, if not all, the functionality of the 8802. Although, I'll still need an amplifier if I want to use every channel on the 7702 since I think all but 2 are amplified. Let's say all 11.2 channels were utilized, if I'm setting up an Atmos system, where would the additional 2 speakers go, on the sides? My current receiver is old (relatively speaking), and it has 8.1 channels, FR, C, FL, SR, SL, RL, RR, and RC + my sub. I'm just curious how 11 channels can be utilized in at Atmos configuration. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get the KEF R Series Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, but I'm curious to know what kind of speakers I would use to fill in the 2 extra channels that the Marantz offers assuming I bought an amplifier to push the last 2 channels. Any ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to put together a list of everything I "need" for my new Atmos setup, and I've decided not to buy in wall nor in ceiling speakers again. Thanks.



The AV7702 and AV7702MkII are both preamps, not receivers. Maybe you are thinking about the Denon 7200, which is a receiver.


----------



## GXMnow

rolldog said:


> Well, after looking into this a little more, I agree with you. The 7702 has built-in amplification like I'm used to (I've never put together a home theater using separates), and it has most, if not all, the functionality of the 8802. Although, I'll still need an amplifier if I want to use every channel on the 7702 since I think all but 2 are amplified. Let's say all 11.2 channels were utilized, if I'm setting up an Atmos system, where would the additional 2 speakers go, on the sides? My current receiver is old (relatively speaking), and it has 8.1 channels, FR, C, FL, SR, SL, RL, RR, and RC + my sub. I'm just curious how 11 channels can be utilized in at Atmos configuration. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get the KEF R Series Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, but I'm curious to know what kind of speakers I would use to fill in the 2 extra channels that the Marantz offers assuming I bought an amplifier to push the last 2 channels. Any ideas?
> 
> I'm trying to put together a list of everything I "need" for my new Atmos setup, and I've decided not to buy in wall nor in ceiling speakers again. Thanks.


There are several Dolby Atmos speaker setup guides all over the internet now.
Here is a link to the page at Dolby

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html

The most common 11 channel setup (7.1.4) uses the 3 across the front, Left, Center, and Right. Then left and right side surrounds and left and right back surround, just as you would have in a normal 7.1 system. The .1 is the usual sub woofer. Many of the pre pros are setup to feed 2 sub woofers so you may see a .2 in the middle on some ads and information sheets. The final .4 is height speakers. There are 5 possible places to put a pair and you can choose several combinations depending on your AVR. Most agree that the "Top Front" and "Top Rear" pairs give the best overall sound field and the placement is pretty flexible for that setup. They also allow for "Front Height" and "Rear Height" which would be on the front and back walls, above the 7.1 speakers in those locations. Top middle is a pair in the middle of the room, or above the listening area, but this is usually used with just a 2 speaker overhead setup. Some AVR's will only allow it as a single pair above, whole other will allow it with Front or Rear Height as the second pair. 

The other option that you mentioned is the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers. If you have a flat reflective ceiling between 7 and 14 feet high, these can work very well. The sound is a little different from having a speaker actually above you as it is a bit more diffused, but with a lower ceiling, that can actually help make it sound more Immersive" and less of a point of sound over your shoulder. There are 3 possible places to use DAE up firing speakers. They should always be placed on top of an ear level speaker in your 5.1 or 7.1 ring of speakers. They can sit on top of the Front speakers, side speakers, or rear speakers, and you can use 1 or 2 pairs of these as well. 

You can also mix it up and use one pair of DAE up firing and one pair of Height or Top speakers. 

As you can see, even with what looks like rigid rules for speaker placement, it is actually very flexible. Even if the speakers fall a bit out of the ideal angle ranges, the sound will still be great. The closer you can hold to the ideal angle, the more accurately it will follow the pans as they were intended by the people who created the mix. If your top speakers are a bit too far forward, it will just shift the image a little bit, it is not the end of the world. 

The Dolby Atmos track and the rendering code can support up to 34 full range speakers around the room. The number of sub woofer does not really come into play as far as Atmos is concerned, that is a function of how the AVR maker chooses to handle it. The current mainstream DSP chips in home AVR's are what is holding the limit at 11 full range speakers now. The very high end systems from Trinnov and a few others are using much more processing power to be able to use as many as 32 output channels. In the next year or so, it is very likely the costs will come to the point that mainstream AVR's will be able to do 13, 15, or 17 outputs, but only time will tell. In my opinion, it will depend on the market. There has to be at least an apparent demand for more outputs before companies will spend the money to design these new AVR's. 

As for the Dolby Atmos track on the Blu Ray disk, it codes the moving sounds as a position in space. The DSP in the AVR calculates what speaker(s) it has to feed it to and at what levels to make the sound appear to be where it was intended. More speaker outputs will give it more points to choose from and pan between. with a 5.1.2 it will still try to place the sound in the right place and no sounds will be lost. 

Does that help?


----------



## NorthSky

Good post ↑


----------



## audioguy

rolldog said:


> I went into a Magnolia Store today, and boy was I disappointed. Most, if not all of the boutique home theater stores where I live are either out of business or only do business by appt, which means I couldn't go see and hear what anyone has. When I went into the Magnolia Store, I asked the guy if he had a Marantz 8802 setup so I could hear it. His response was no, he only had the 8802 as a special order, the 7702 has most of the functionality though. So we sat down, he tried pulling up some info on his PC regarding Atmos pre/pros and receivers, but his PC locked up. So, he showed me what was on his screen, which was the 7702.
> 
> He went on and on about it, but told me that it's better to buy separates, like the 8802 like I was asking about initially, because as new technology comes out, all I would have to do is swap out the pre/pro instead of everything. I laughed and said yes, it's much better to swap out a $4000 product than a $2500 product (I honestly don't remember the prices because I already knew them online). This guy sat down and told me it's cheaper to swap out a more expensive item for a cheaper item. I don't get it. It's hard to find someone local these days who has access to all the high end equipment unless you're in Dallas, LA, Chicago, NY, or Miami. I just want a new system, and I want some suggestions. I might have to find everything online now and hire some electricians or IT guys to run the cables.


There are folks in this industry who are ill informed. I had an occasion yesterday to be on the phone with an engineer from a very well known high-end audio company. Lacking knowledge was bad enough, but totally inaccurate is much worse and can lead the person looking for information in the wrong direction. This guy had no concept of the basics of room acoustics but pretended like he did. Very scary!!

And by the way, the 7702 does not have amps built in.


----------



## pasender91

As already mentioned, the 7702 has no amps.
Marantz also does the 7010, which is essentially a 7702 with 9 amps for the same price, it might be a good deal if you have a smaller room (the internal amps are not powerful enough for a bigger room).

You can also add a 2 channel amp to the 7010 and build a hybrid 11 channel Atmos system for 7.2.4 or 9.2.2,
Or you can even power more channels with an added amp and use the 7010 amps on secondary channels only, this is what i did for example, powering the 7 lower channels externally, and use the 7009 (previous model to 7010) to power only the 4 upper channels.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rolldog said:


> I might have to find everything online now and hire some electricians or *IT guys to run the cables*.


WTF.. You think IT guys are for running cables..


----------



## vitod

markm75 said:


> Thanks... those are 2 way speakers, vs the yamahas i linked which were 3 way.. is there a difference? Is there a certain kind that i should be looking for when it comes to atmos.. i'm assuming since you mentioned these Micca's, they must fit the bill (they at least have a bigger woofer and tweeter than the yamaha's).
> 
> These micas are nice depth too.. 3.6 vs 5" Do i need to do any kind of vibration suppression (or box?) on the backs of these types of speakers, i think i read something about that, not sure if its really needed? (someone mentioned a simple planter box and some bungie chords on the backside for cheap solutions, i've never done this type of install before, ceiling based)


I wouldn't worry about a 2 way vs 3 way. The Micca would work fine. A backer box is not required if ceiling mount. Member rontalley has a drop ceiling and didn't use a box and said they sound great. What I do recommend is putting weather stripping on the speaker housing lip to get a good seal between the speaker and ceiling.


----------



## vitod

rolldog said:


> Well, after looking into this a little more, I agree with you. The 7702 has built-in amplification like I'm used to (I've never put together a home theater using separates), and it has most, if not all, the functionality of the 8802. Although, I'll still need an amplifier if I want to use every channel on the 7702 since I think all but 2 are amplified. Let's say all 11.2 channels were utilized, if I'm setting up an Atmos system, where would the additional 2 speakers go, on the sides? My current receiver is old (relatively speaking), and it has 8.1 channels, FR, C, FL, SR, SL, RL, RR, and RC + my sub. I'm just curious how 11 channels can be utilized in at Atmos configuration. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to get the KEF R Series Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, but I'm curious to know what kind of speakers I would use to fill in the 2 extra channels that the Marantz offers assuming I bought an amplifier to push the last 2 channels. Any ideas?
> 
> I'm trying to put together a list of everything I "need" for my new Atmos setup, and I've decided not to buy in wall nor in ceiling speakers again. Thanks.


First, the 7702MKII doesn't have built in amps. It's a processor, just like the 8802. You need external amps to drive the speakers. The other members gave a good explanation what you need for Atmos.


----------



## Molon_Labe

aaranddeeman said:


> WTF.. You think IT guys are for running cables..


That made me chuckle. I remember when I left Worldcom as a Sr Engineer after getting my first CCIE to go and work for an large defense contractor. They were shocked to find out I had zero cable plant experience. I said why would I know how to run the cables? I design, configure, and troubleshoot large IP networks. The field techs and electricians run and pin-out low voltage cables.


----------



## markm75

vitod said:


> I wouldn't worry about a 2 way vs 3 way. The Micca would work fine. A backer box is not required if ceiling mount. Member rontalley has a drop ceiling and didn't use a box and said they sound great. What I do recommend is putting weather stripping on the speaker housing lip to get a good seal between the speaker and ceiling.


Thanks for the tip.. do you or anyone else have any idea if it matters that my rear two in ceilings will be closer to the couch area than the front two (due to the back wall/rear surrounds being not that far away).. i planned on trying to line the 4 in a straight line with the front speakers or maybe a little inward however, keeping within the recommendations (and angle recommendations are also kept, but rears slightly closer).. The rear two atmos will be not that far in front and above of the rear surrounds, maybe 1 foot to 1.5 feet separation (laterally and about 2.5-3 feet from the tops of those rears in the back).


----------



## stikle

rolldog said:


> I went into a Magnolia Store today, and boy was I disappointed.



The same at mine.

15 years ago when I moved to Portland, there was a dedicated Magnolia store with at least two dedicated demo rooms. It was set up rather nicely and the sales guy I talked to seemed knowledgeable.

The last time I went to Magnolia (inside Best Buy now) just to price shop, I knew more than the two guys working there. Things have sure changed. The era of the home theater store is, in my mind, done.

There I go again...OT. Someone needs to come up with something Atmosy to talk about soon.


----------



## Contuzzi

stikle said:


> The last time I went to Magnolia (inside Best Buy now) just to price shop, I knew more than the two guys working there. Things have sure changed. The era of the home theater store is, in my mind, done.


Because the ****ty store inside best buy sucks? Great observation.


----------



## stikle

Contuzzi said:


> Because the ****ty store inside best buy sucks? Great observation.



Great add there buddy. Your contribution is noteworthy.


----------



## AllenA07

stikle said:


> The same at mine.
> 
> 15 years ago when I moved to Portland, there was a dedicated Magnolia store with at least two dedicated demo rooms. It was set up rather nicely and the sales guy I talked to seemed knowledgeable.
> 
> The last time I went to Magnolia (inside Best Buy now) just to price shop, I knew more than the two guys working there. Things have sure changed. The era of the home theater store is, in my mind, done.
> 
> There I go again...OT. Someone needs to come up with something Atmosy to talk about soon.


In Dallas we actually have a few good home theater stores. There is also a Magnolia Design Center nearby that I have gone to a few times. The pricing wasn't great there, however I was impressed by a lot of the stuff they carried and the staff was a lot more knowledgeable. I had gone to a BestBuy near my house so I could let my wife have an Atmos demo. I asked the salesperson about speaker placement and was told that the great thing about Atmos was that Speakers could go anywhere and placement didn't matter at all.

A few days later at the Design Center I ended up talking to a guy about the history of GoldenEar Speakers (a brand they don't carry) and how impressive they are (among other Atmos related topics) for 20+ minutes. Unfortunately the Design Centers are few and far between.

We do have a stand alone store in the area that is pretty popular. Each year (typically a few weeks after CEDIA) they have an expo where they bring in reps from several major manufactures. This year I plan on having Epson and JVC engage in a death match to see which companies projector is going to replace my BenQ w1070. It's honestly a great resource to have once a year, and always ensures I don't end up with too much spare cash in my wallet.


----------



## jrogers

trueimage said:


> Looks like for 5.1.4 with no external amps, I'm looking at:
> 
> Denon AVR-X6200W (2599 CAD)
> Yamaha RX-A2050 (1999 CAD)
> 
> Any others to consider? Or is it worth it to go a bit lower and go the external amp router for the other 2ch?
> 
> Also if anyone has a 5.1.2 setup and wants to tell me I don't need .4 I'm all ears





tom703 said:


> I have a 5.1.2 setup and can tell you that you will not be happy until you are able to get the other two speakers and make a 5.1.4 system. You can do the 5.1.2 with a Denon X2200, which is what I did, and that I am now saving for a X6200 and two channel amp as what I really want is a 7.1.4. Well, at least that is what I want this week. Every time I hear something better - I want it! While 5.1.2 sounds really good by providing overhead sound, 5.1.4 is a magnitude better as the overhead sound pans and moves over you. You need to hear it and you will want it!


A someone who started with a 5.1.2 system, and subsequently added an external amp and upgraded to 5.1.4, I strongly agree with @tom703. If budget is tight right now, I'd at least go with the x4200w so you can add the additional overheads in the future. Also, based on a lot of listening tests from folks here including myself, even if you start out with TM ceiling speakers, when you add the additional heights up front, configure your system as TF/TR (and not FH/TM).


----------



## lujan

stikle said:


> ...
> 
> The last time I went to Magnolia (inside Best Buy now) just to price shop, I knew more than the two guys working there. Things have sure changed. The era of the home theater store is, in my mind, done.
> 
> ...


I think you're right. Luckily we have a locally owned theater store in town that still has all the large screen TVs on display as well as the AVRs, etc. This happens to be where I got my latest LG OLED TV. I could see the difference of the OLED vs. LED right then and there. Ok, now back to Atmos.


----------



## rboster

Looks like the US release of the Tom Hardy Bio about the Kray Brothers called "Legend" will not have an Atmos soundtrack. I was surprised last night when I watched my Region B copy had an Atmos track. As one can imagine, not a wiz bang soundtrack, more just ambient immersive with music getting a fuller soundstage. Not missing a lot, but disappointed it appears not to be included in the US release (at least none of the press release materials listed Atmos.


----------



## smurraybhm

Contuzzi said:


> Because the ****ty store inside best buy sucks? Great observation.


Unfortunately for many of us the xxxxty store inside best buy - by the way not all of them are inside a Best Buy but freestanding - is all that resembles the high-end av dealers of the past in a lot of cities. Closest non-chain storefront av dealer to me is 120 miles away in Atlanta. Living in a MSA with nearly 1 million residents with zero options other than "the chain" is pretty strong validation of the post you ridiculed. We don't even have one of those xxxxty stores inside the chain. No doubt many other members have the same issue, a few guys in town doing custom installs and taking "special orders" only is not the same as the good old days of being able to visit your favorite independent av dealer's showroom. Nice post


----------



## rolldog

Well, once again, this proves my point even more since he told me it had built-in amplification. Thanks everyone for the info, I'm glad forums like this are around so I'm not terribly ill informed. 

I want to run a 7.2.4 setup, and I can't decide if I should go with separates or the receiver. Even if I get the receiver, I'll need to get an amp anyway for the last 2 channels, which the guy at Magnolia said "couldn't be integrated into a home theater setup, they're for running multiple zones."

Right now I'm just trying to put together a list of equipment. I sold my receivers a couple years ago after selling my house instead of holding onto them while they become obsolete, and I gave away all my speakers when I sold my house, which had 36 pairs of Sonance speakers all around the house. So, I'm starting fresh again, I haven't had a decent setup in a couple of years, and I'm looking forward to putting together a new Atmos setup. From what I've already looked into, the Marantz seems to be the way to go. It has more functionality than most other brands, and it doesn't break into that ultra high end component setup that you would see in a $100,000 setup. I'm prepared to spend some money, but not $100,000. You mentioned that the 7010 is the one that actually has amps, but the amps aren't that powerful. If I want to setup a 7.2.4 system, I'm going to need an amp either way, so would I be better off buying a processor and separate amps or the receiver plus a smaller amp?


----------



## darklord700

rolldog said:


> You mentioned that the 7010 is the one that actually has amps, but the amps aren't that powerful. If I want to setup a 7.2.4 system, I'm going to need an amp either way, so would I be better off buying a processor and separate amps or the receiver plus a smaller amp?


If you use 7010, you only need one amp for 7.2.4. If you use 7702, you'll need two amps for 7.2.4.


----------



## stikle

rolldog said:


> Well, once again, this proves my point even more since he told me it had built-in amplification. Thanks everyone for the info, I'm glad forums like this are around so I'm not terribly ill informed.



Seriously. I've learned so much here. Some smart enthusiasts hang out here!



rolldog said:


> I want to run a 7.2.4 setup, and I can't decide if I should go with separates or the receiver. Even if I get the receiver, I'll need to get an amp anyway for the last 2 channels, which the guy at *Magnolia said "couldn't be integrated into a home theater setup, they're for running multiple zones."*



Oh crap, I better go pull my external amp since it's not possible to do what I'm doing with it. 



rolldog said:


> I'm going to need an amp either way, so would I be better off buying a processor and separate amps or the receiver plus a smaller amp?


For me, with my physical space for components, I went with an all-in-one AVR and added on the second amp. I suspect going with a pre/pro and then tacking on 6 more amps would be a more expensive solution (monetarily and physical spacewise). But that's an assumption, I haven't actually checked prices.


----------



## shyyour

rolldog said:


> Well, once again, this proves my point even more since he told me it had built-in amplification. Thanks everyone for the info, I'm glad forums like this are around so I'm not terribly ill informed.
> 
> I want to run a 7.2.4 setup, and I can't decide if I should go with separates or the receiver. Even if I get the receiver, I'll need to get an amp anyway for the last 2 channels, which the guy at Magnolia said "couldn't be integrated into a home theater setup, they're for running multiple zones."
> 
> Right now I'm just trying to put together a list of equipment. I sold my receivers a couple years ago after selling my house instead of holding onto them while they become obsolete, and I gave away all my speakers when I sold my house, which had 36 pairs of Sonance speakers all around the house. So, I'm starting fresh again, I haven't had a decent setup in a couple of years, and I'm looking forward to putting together a new Atmos setup. From what I've already looked into, the Marantz seems to be the way to go. It has more functionality than most other brands, and it doesn't break into that ultra high end component setup that you would see in a $100,000 setup. I'm prepared to spend some money, but not $100,000. You mentioned that the 7010 is the one that actually has amps, but the amps aren't that powerful. If I want to setup a 7.2.4 system, I'm going to need an amp either way, so would I be better off buying a processor and separate amps or the receiver plus a smaller amp?


You could do the 7702 with crown xls amps. They are "cheaper" than the regular HT amps because they are pro amps but you'll need 6 for a 7.2.4 setup. Its what i currently have and works for me. however note that you might get "hiss" from very sensitive speakers if paired with the crown amps (or pro amps).


----------



## westmd

rolldog said:


> Well, once again, this proves my point even more since he told me it had built-in amplification. Thanks everyone for the info, I'm glad forums like this are around so I'm not terribly ill informed.
> 
> I want to run a 7.2.4 setup, and I can't decide if I should go with separates or the receiver. Even if I get the receiver, I'll need to get an amp anyway for the last 2 channels, which the guy at Magnolia said "couldn't be integrated into a home theater setup, they're for running multiple zones."
> 
> Right now I'm just trying to put together a list of equipment. I sold my receivers a couple years ago after selling my house instead of holding onto them while they become obsolete, and I gave away all my speakers when I sold my house, which had 36 pairs of Sonance speakers all around the house. So, I'm starting fresh again, I haven't had a decent setup in a couple of years, and I'm looking forward to putting together a new Atmos setup. From what I've already looked into, the Marantz seems to be the way to go. It has more functionality than most other brands, and it doesn't break into that ultra high end component setup that you would see in a $100,000 setup. I'm prepared to spend some money, but not $100,000. You mentioned that the 7010 is the one that actually has amps, but the amps aren't that powerful. If I want to setup a 7.2.4 system, I'm going to need an amp either way, so would I be better off buying a processor and separate amps or the receiver plus a smaller amp?


The old Parasiund HCA line are gorgeous for pretty good used prices. I am running an 1206 for 16 years and am still happy with it!
I have a Datasat LS10 connected to an HCA 1500 for L/R, an HCA 1206 for the remaining bed channels and an HCA 806 for the 6 heights!

Really love the sound!


----------



## Nightlord

aaranddeeman said:


> WTF.. You think IT guys are for running cables..


Yeah, while the truth is that they are just ruining cables...


----------



## RigorousXChris

I finally moved into my new spot and got all my speakers in position. I will say, dolby atmos is amazing. My GF said "holy ****" when playing the Dolby Atmos demo disc. 

Setup: All Klipsch

C: RP-440c
L/R: RP-260f
Surr: RS-3 II
Rears: RF-62 II
Atmos Front: RP-140sa
Atmos Rear: R-14m [Using rubber wedges to angle them up to the ceiling]
Subwoofer: R-12SW


----------



## stikle

RigorousXChris said:


> Atmos Rear: R-14m [*Using rubber wedges to angle them up to the ceiling*]



Huh? Can you please explain this? Maybe a picture?


----------



## peter-d-w

stikle said:


> Huh? Can you please explain this? Maybe a picture?


 The idea is to have the speakers on their backs at an angle of between 20 and 30 degrees pointing up to the ceiling so the sound will bounce off the ceiling before it gets to your ears. I have used a pair of Cambridge Audio Minx 22s on their desktop stands which I have bent slightly so when laid on their backs the speakers are at the correct angle. I have them positioned on top of my floor standers. You can use any speakers you might already have for this, it is good fun to experiment. You will be blown away with the results!


----------



## Contuzzi

smurraybhm said:


> Unfortunately for many of us the xxxxty store inside best buy - by the way not all of them are inside a Best Buy but freestanding - is all that resembles the high-end av dealers of the past in a lot of cities. Closest non-chain storefront av dealer to me is 120 miles away in Atlanta. Living in a MSA with nearly 1 million residents with zero options other than "the chain" is pretty strong validation of the post you ridiculed. We don't even have one of those xxxxty stores inside the chain. No doubt many other members have the same issue, a few guys in town doing custom installs and taking "special orders" only is not the same as the good old days of being able to visit your favorite independent av dealer's showroom. Nice post


Funny -- you happen to own internet direct speakers, which is a perfect contribution to EXACTLY what you seem to be upset about.


----------



## smurraybhm

Contuzzi said:


> Funny -- you happen to own internet direct speakers, which is a perfect contribution to EXACTLY what you seem to be upset about.


Since you know it all when I bought my Ascends there was no local option to consider buying from, Best Buy and Circuit City excluded.

Forgive me if I don't drive 120 miles when Ascend is well respected ID or not plus provides a no risk in home trial period. My money goes to who I think delivers the best bang for the buck ID or not. 

You did leave out the fact I own PSB speakers as well as a number of Def Tech - more than listed on my sig. In the end I have no where to buy locally ex Best Buy a place that is hard to support, but retailers like AV Science, Crutchfield, AV Advisors, and Cleveland Plasma are great alternatives to consider for those of us without a local AV dealer when considering non ID options.

You win, I'm out :kiss:


----------



## cisco150

aaranddeeman said:


> WTF.. You think IT guys are for running cables..


Lol im an IT Guy and i dont run cable lmfao. (Some times at home i do)


----------



## virtualrain

smurraybhm said:


> Since you know it all when I bought my Ascends there was no local option to consider buying from, Best Buy and Circuit City excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I don't drive 120 miles when Ascend is well respected ID or not plus provides a no risk in home trial period. My money goes to who I think delivers the best bang for the buck ID or not.
> 
> 
> 
> You did leave out the fact I own PSB speakers as well as a number of Def Tech - more than listed on my sig. In the end I have no where to buy locally ex Best Buy a place that is hard to support, but retailers like AV Science, Crutchfield, AV Advisors, and Cleveland Plasma are great alternatives to consider for those of us without a local AV dealer when considering non ID options.
> 
> 
> 
> You win, I'm out :kiss:



I think his point was the irony of the situation... A lot of these complaints about the lack of brick and mortar home theater shops is likely coming from folks that predominantly buy online.


----------



## pasender91

rolldog said:


> Well, once again, this proves my point even more since he told me it had built-in amplification. Thanks everyone for the info, I'm glad forums like this are around so I'm not terribly ill informed.
> 
> I want to run a 7.2.4 setup, and I can't decide if I should go with separates or the receiver. Even if I get the receiver, I'll need to get an amp anyway for the last 2 channels, which the guy at Magnolia said "couldn't be integrated into a home theater setup, they're for running multiple zones."
> 
> Right now I'm just trying to put together a list of equipment. I sold my receivers a couple years ago after selling my house instead of holding onto them while they become obsolete, and I gave away all my speakers when I sold my house, which had 36 pairs of Sonance speakers all around the house. So, I'm starting fresh again, I haven't had a decent setup in a couple of years, and I'm looking forward to putting together a new Atmos setup. From what I've already looked into, the Marantz seems to be the way to go. It has more functionality than most other brands, and it doesn't break into that ultra high end component setup that you would see in a $100,000 setup. I'm prepared to spend some money, but not $100,000. You mentioned that the 7010 is the one that actually has amps, but the amps aren't that powerful. If I want to setup a 7.2.4 system, I'm going to need an amp either way, so would I be better off buying a processor and separate amps or the receiver plus a smaller amp?


There could be other factors that could impact your selection , like the volume you are listening to and the type of speakers you have, but the main factor is the room size.

Smaller room ( 7010 + small 2-channel amp for one of the Top speaker pair
Medium room (300 to 600 sqft) => 7010 + strong 2-channel amp for the main speakers
Larger room (>600 sqft) => 7702 + 11 or 12 channels of amplification (definetely a more expensive solution). Personally i would go with 2 multi-channel amps like a 7-channel + a 5-channel)


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> You could do the 7702 with crown xls amps. They are "cheaper" than the regular HT amps because they are pro amps but you'll need 6 for a 7.2.4 setup. Its what i currently have and works for me. however note that you might get "hiss" from very sensitive speakers if paired with the crown amps (or pro amps).


 @rolldog

If he is going to buy amps anyway, it would be worth considering getting the 7010 and using the preouts. Here in the UK at least, the 7010 is significantly cheaper than the 7702 and appears to be functionally identical (minus the amps).


----------



## kbarnes701

darklord700 said:


> If you use 7010, you only need one amp for 7.2.4. If you use 7702, you'll need two amps for 7.2.4.


? If he uses the 7702 he will need 11 amps for 7.2.4 - the 7702 has no internal amps.


----------



## shyyour

kbarnes701 said:


> ? If he uses the 7702 he will need 11 amps for 7.2.4 - the 7702 has no internal amps.


Maybe what he meant was a combination of amps like a 7 channel and a 5 channel amp. I understand where you're coming from; the statement can be misleading/confusing as the 7702 has no amps and you can use any combination of amps as long as you get 11 channel amplification.


----------



## kbarnes701

shyyour said:


> Maybe what he meant was a combination of amps like a 7 channel and a 5 channel amp. I understand where you're coming from; the statement can be misleading/confusing as the 7702 has no amps and you can use any combination of amps as long as you get 11 channel amplification.


Just wanted to avoid any doubt, following on from the mention of the retailer who apparently didn't know that the 7702 was a processor and not an AVR.


----------



## rolldog

I need to measure the room I'm going to be using, and I would really like to get the KEF R Series with the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers. The house I'm in now has 8' ceilings vs the 14' ceilings at my old house. Actually, the ceiling was probably too high for me to install in-ceiling speakers, but I installed 8 of them anyway. I miss the sound that you can get out of a nice pair of floor standing speakers vs a pair of in-ceiling speakers. Plus, they look cooler.


----------



## stikle

peter-d-w said:


> The idea is to have the speakers on their backs at an angle of between 20 and 30 degrees pointing up to the ceiling so the sound will bounce off the ceiling before it gets to your ears.



I'm fully aware of the concept, I've just never heard of anybody doing that with their REAR overheads.



peter-d-w said:


> You can use any speakers you might already have for this, it is good fun to experiment. You will be blown away with the results!



Not more than I'm blown away by my ceiling mounted overheads. I've heard both. 



virtualrain said:


> I think his point was the irony of the situation... A lot of these complaints about the lack of brick and mortar home theater shops is likely coming from folks that predominantly buy online.



There is a certain amount of irony in that...however when you have NO local stores to buy from, you have no choice but to go online/ID. It becomes less ironic at that point.


----------



## billqs

I've had projector changes and my Atmos AVR in the shop for repairs, so I haven't stayed up to date. Several months ago several of us were discussing ways to add more channels to the mix. One idea was the use 3AVRs, one Atmos, and 2 that are just Prologic. I've noticed that Nallah has implemented a solution using a 7200WA and a 5200W. 

In my situation my back row gets much more immersive sound than my front row. I was thinking of adding FH's on top of my 4 height speakers that are in-ceiling to give better height awareness for the front row. I bought a Speakercraft Amp that can take a high level output and my initial idea was to copy the TF channels and play them also from 2 speakers in the FH positions. 

Would this sound good, or would it be better to use the 3 AVR solution?


----------



## vitod

billqs said:


> I've had projector changes and my Atmos AVR in the shop for repairs, so I haven't stayed up to date. Several months ago several of us were discussing ways to add more channels to the mix. One idea was the use 3AVRs, one Atmos, and 2 that are just Prologic. I've noticed that Nallah has implemented a solution using a 7200WA and a 5200W.
> 
> Would this sound good, or would it be better to use the 3 AVR solution?


I think Scott Simonian did just that. Maybe he can chime in.

Hey Scott!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sup, Vito!


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> Sup, Vito!


Hey bro! I think member billqs wants to do that multi AVR thingy you did. Maybe link him/her your 'how-to' illustration.


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## vitod

Thanks Scott!


----------



## GXMnow

Scott Simonian said:


>


If your 2 added AVR's have discrete 5.1 inputs, and can to Pro Logic IIx to 7.1, what if you fed FH anf RH into the LS and RS inputs? Then the LS out would be the "Front Height", the LB would be "Top Front", the RB would be "Top Rear", and the RS would be "Rear Height" to make 8 tops for 7.2.8 

Have you tried configuring the main AVR for using just wides and back surrounds instead of side surrounds? If it would alow that, maybe you can play that trick to get more along the sides too. Stack up 5 AVR's for 11.2.8


----------



## RigorousXChris

stikle said:


> Huh? Can you please explain this? Maybe a picture?





peter-d-w said:


> The idea is to have the speakers on their backs at an angle of between 20 and 30 degrees pointing up to the ceiling so the sound will bounce off the ceiling before it gets to your ears. I have used a pair of Cambridge Audio Minx 22s on their desktop stands which I have bent slightly so when laid on their backs the speakers are at the correct angle. I have them positioned on top of my floor standers. You can use any speakers you might already have for this, it is good fun to experiment. You will be blown away with the results!


That is exactly what I'm doing. It's a nice cheap way to get Atmos done. It's a little ugly aesthetically, so I'm going to build something more elegant, but this will suffice for now.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

So I gather the above image demonstrates an ATMOS AVR that is capable of x.x.4 to then make x.x.6 atmos system.


----------



## Scott Simonian

GXMnow said:


> If your 2 added AVR's have discrete 5.1 inputs, and can to Pro Logic IIx to 7.1, what if you fed FH anf RH into the LS and RS inputs? Then the LS out would be the "Front Height", the LB would be "Top Front", the RB would be "Top Rear", and the RS would be "Rear Height" to make 8 tops for 7.2.8
> 
> Have you tried configuring the main AVR for using just wides and back surrounds instead of side surrounds? If it would alow that, maybe you can play that trick to get more along the sides too. Stack up 5 AVR's for 11.2.8


Ugh. Now that just sounds mind-numbingly complex.  I don't need that in MY system. No thanks.

First of all, no. They are pre PL2*x*. Only regular PL2 supported on both. They do have 7.1 inputs though but there is no point in using them for this method. We want to decode the stereo signal, not copy anything around. You don't net any extra speaker outputs doing it that way you described. I have no interest in an odd x.x.8 layout. I want front, middle, rear. If not x.x.6 then a full x.x.10 layout with front height, front top, middle, rear top, rear height.

Could you stack up multiples of these? Sure. Just makes the system as a whole even more cobbled together and there is a point where you can't really add more. If you want to do it, go ahead but for myself all I wanted was two more speaker outputs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> So I gather the above image demonstrates an ATMOS AVR that is capable of x.x.4 to then make x.x.6 atmos system.


Correct.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh. Now that just sounds mind-numbingly complex.  I don't need that in MY system. No thanks.
> 
> First of all, no. They are pre PL2*x*. Only regular PL2 supported on both. They do have 7.1 inputs though but there is no point in using them for this method. We want to decode the stereo signal, not copy anything around. You don't net any extra speaker outputs doing it that way you described. I have no interest in an odd x.x.8 layout. I want front, middle, rear. If not x.x.6 then a full x.x.10 layout with front height, front top, middle, rear top, rear height.
> 
> Could you stack up multiples of these? Sure. Just makes the system as a whole even more cobbled together and there is a point where you can't really add more. If you want to do it, go ahead but for myself all I wanted was two more speaker outputs.


Very clear diagram. Just AAMOI, what did you use for the two additional AVRs?

As you were - I checked your HT thread and discovered they are a pair of Harman Kardon AVR-525 A/V Receivers.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Side thought, currently I have the Onkyo 646 picked it up for like $500ish, its capable of ATMOS x.x.2, if I was to pick up a second ATMOS AVR, like an older Onkyo that is also x.x.2 for like $300, that is still fairly less than an ATMOS AVR that can do x.x.4, if I fed both AVR the exact same source Audio and had one handling surrounds and top front and the other cheaper model handling only .2 top rear, would I be getting what you would have in a x.x.4 AVR? or will it not work (sound right) because I would be missing the sound moving from top front to top rear in such a scene?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Daniel Chaves said:


> Side thought, currently I have the Onkyo 646 picked it up for like $500ish, its capable of ATMOS x.x.2, if I was to pick up a second ATMOS AVR, like an older Onkyo that is also x.x.2 for like $300, that is still fairly less than an ATMOS AVR that can do x.x.4, if I fed both AVR the exact same source Audio and had one handling surrounds and top front and the other cheaper model handling only .2 top rear, would I be getting what you would have in a x.x.4 AVR? or will it not work (sound right) because I would be missing the sound moving from top front to top rear in such a scene?


Honestly, I'd just save up and buy a proper 7.1.4 capable receiver and not do any of these alternate methods. These outboard processed methods are for when you want to go beyond what is capable on current hardware. You don't/can't use these methods to "catch up" to higher priced models that can natively do what all hardware is currently limited to at this time such as 7.1.4 layout.

And yes, it would not work and not sound "right" the way you described. Neither 5.1.2 Atmos receiver is aware of each other. You'll get stereo heights but only stereo heights. Never any front/back panning.


----------



## rontalley

GXMnow said:


> If your 2 added AVR's have discrete 5.1 inputs, and can to Pro Logic IIx to 7.1, what if you fed FH anf RH into the LS and RS inputs? Then the LS out would be the "Front Height", the LB would be "Top Front", the RB would be "Top Rear", and the RS would be "Rear Height" to make 8 tops for 7.2.8
> 
> Have you tried configuring the main AVR for using just wides and back surrounds instead of side surrounds? If it would alow that, maybe you can play that trick to get more along the sides too. Stack up 5 AVR's for 11.2.8


My thoughts for 9.1.8

Only Stereo Inputs needed:

Matrix AVR 1
Left Front and Left Surround (Side) Pre out of my 3050 in Left and Right input of Matrix AVR 1 would equal Left Front Wide from Center Output of Matrix AVR 1
Left Surround output of Matrix AVR 1 would Be Left Side Height and Surround Right output of Matrix AVR 1 would be Left Front Wide Height

Matrix AVR 2
Right Front and Right Surround (Side) Pre out of my 3050 in Left and Right input of Matrix AVR 2 would equal Right Front Wide from Center Output of Matrix AVR 2
Left Surround output of Matrix AVR 2 would Be Right Side Height and Surround Right output of Matrix AVR 2 would be Right Front Wide Height

With an Additional 2 AVRs, I am thinking it would be possible to add Left+Right Front Wides, Left+Right Side Surround Heights (or whatever it would be called) and Left+Right Front Wide Heights (or whatever it would be called). Could also output the True Left and Right output of the Side Surrounds using the Matrix AVR1+2 Front Left outputs to take the load off of the 3050 so each Matrix AVR would be outputting to 4 speakers.

Ultimately the result would be 9.1.8. Sorta 

I have tested at least one side but was just hold speakers to my ear and not properly mounted or positioned. I was thinking of doing the Height Speakers aimed down off of my make shift sus-ceiling and changing the layout of my room by 90 degrees but then I watched another movie and decided to leave well enough alone!


----------



## Scott Simonian

No. I could choose to use the two surround outputs *per extra receiver* but that does not make my derived 7.1.6 suddenly 7.1.10 audio. It's still 7.1.6 with extra surrounds playing diffuse out-of-phase information pulled from the stereo height outputs (from the Atmos receiver). This does sound fun and I've thought about it but I don't need any additional complexity in my system. No sir.

Actually, I can do this for free with my bipole/dipole height speakers I'm using now. Annnddd I think I will try that.


----------



## batpig

GXMnow said:


> If your 2 added AVR's have discrete 5.1 inputs, and can to Pro Logic IIx to 7.1, what if you fed FH anf RH into the LS and RS inputs? Then the LS out would be the "Front Height", the LB would be "Top Front", the RB would be "Top Rear", and the RS would be "Rear Height" to make 8 tops for 7.2.8


The problem is that the multich analog inputs of nearly any receiver are NOT digitized, just straight passthrough to the amps, so there is no opportunity to apply any matrix upmix like PLII to the input signal.

Or wait, are you talking about y-splitting the signal into TWO inputs to create arrays?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> The problem is that the multich analog inputs of nearly any receiver are NOT digitized, just straight passthrough to the amps, so there is no opportunity to apply any matrix upmix like PLII to the input signal.


Mine have the option to digitize but it's only used for bass management. There has never, ever, _ever_ been a receiver that can take a MC analog input and then apply surround decoding to it. 

If there ever has been one I'd love to know about it.


----------



## batpig

Daniel Chaves said:


> Side thought, currently I have the Onkyo 646 picked it up for like $500ish, its capable of ATMOS x.x.2, if I was to pick up a second ATMOS AVR, like an older Onkyo that is also x.x.2 for like $300, that is still fairly less than an ATMOS AVR that can do x.x.4, if I fed both AVR the exact same source Audio and had one handling surrounds and top front and the other cheaper model handling only .2 top rear, would I be getting what you would have in a x.x.4 AVR? or will it not work (sound right) because I would be missing the sound moving from top front to top rear in such a scene?


I agree with Scott -- that's a bad idea, and if you want 9-11 channels you should just get the receiver that can handle it. No need for shenanigans until you want to EXCEED the 11 channel limit of current processors.

As he notes, having two processors that can only do 5.1.2 means you will get a ton of overlap in the two outputs, it won't be "discrete" panning.


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> The problem is that the multich analog inputs of nearly any receiver are NOT digitized, just straight passthrough to the amps, so there is no opportunity to apply any matrix upmix like PLII to the input signal.
> 
> Or wait, are you talking about y-splitting the signal into TWO inputs to create arrays?


Right, I see no point in the 5.1 input unless using it for an Amp. (Me Me Me)


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> I agree with Scott -- that's a bad idea, and if you want 9-11 channels you should just get the receiver that can handle it. No need for shenanigans until you want to EXCEED the 11 channel limit of current processors.
> 
> As he notes, having two processors that can only do 5.1.2 means you will get a ton of overlap in the two outputs, it won't be "discrete" panning.


I agree as well. .2 is .2 is .2 is .2. There is nothing to extract because there is only one signal per side. 

Scott's method will get you .6 but then that is all. Nothing you can really do with the surround out stuff...oh wait...hmmm...


----------



## peter-d-w

RigorousXChris said:


> That is exactly what I'm doing. It's a nice cheap way to get Atmos done. It's a little ugly aesthetically, so I'm going to build something more elegant, but this will suffice for now.










Not ideal but In my opinion a little less ugly than some purpose made Atmos speakers.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


----------



## GXMnow

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh. Now that just sounds mind-numbingly complex.  I don't need that in MY system. No thanks.
> 
> First of all, no. They are pre PL2*x*. Only regular PL2 supported on both. They do have 7.1 inputs though but there is no point in using them for this method. We want to decode the stereo signal, not copy anything around. You don't net any extra speaker outputs doing it that way you described. I have no interest in an odd x.x.8 layout. I want front, middle, rear. If not x.x.6 then a full x.x.10 layout with front height, front top, middle, rear top, rear height.
> 
> Could you stack up multiples of these? Sure. Just makes the system as a whole even more cobbled together and there is a point where you can't really add more. If you want to do it, go ahead but for myself all I wanted was two more speaker outputs.


With the add on AVR's being just PL or PL II, you are right, the Left Center Right can just add one more channel between a panned pair. The surrounds would not really be useful at all. With PL IIx though, it used a different matrix that would pan through 2 new channels between the surrounds of 5.1 content to play 7.1 speakers. I had this on my old Denon 3805 and it worked quite well. My current 3312 has PL IIz and it basically does the same thing on a 7.1 speaker layout. The problem with both of these AVR's is that the 7.1 analog input on the 3805 does not go into the DSP so it can't do the PL IIx decoding from that input, and the 3312 does not even have a 7.1 analog input. For this to work, it would have to be higher end PL II x(z) AVR's with a 7.1 analog input, and enough DSP to take those surrounds and do the matrix decoding. Maybe set them to PL II x with a single back speaker, and each additional AVR can do 3 down each side on the L C R and 3 down the ceiling on LS BS RS. Any difference in the matrix between the front and rear will still be symetrical, using LCR for both side walls and the surrounds for both top rows. This still turns 7.1.4 into 9.1.6 with just 3 AVR's. And now you get to use 6 of the power amps in each of the add on AVR's and just the LCR amps in the main Atmos AVR to lighten the load on the power supply. 

Yes, I know this is way goofy, but it can work if someone had the hardware just laying around. I do have a very nice old NEC stand alone PL decoder. Too bad I only have one. You would need one for each set of speakers you wish to add one more between. And then still need power amps.

You will have to make sure you set the distances to the pairs of speakers the same or the time shift will totally mess up the PL decoding.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Scott -- that's a bad idea, and if you want 9-11 channels you should just get the receiver that can handle it. No need for shenanigans until you want to EXCEED the 11 channel limit of current processors.
> 
> As he notes, having two processors that can only do 5.1.2 means you will get a ton of overlap in the two outputs, it won't be "discrete" panning.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree as well. .2 is .2 is .2 is .2. There is nothing to extract because there is only one signal per side.
> 
> Scott's method will get you .6 but then that is all. Nothing you can really do with the surround out stuff...oh wait...hmmm...
Click to expand...

I do think you could do a pretty effective 9.1.6 layout for under $5k in processing if you went the dual AVR route. (Credit to Nalleh) 

One AVR runs 9.1.2 and handles the 9 floor speakers. The other runs 7.1.4 and handles the 4 overheads. Then you've got discrete 9.1.4 with full separation of floor level and height layers. 

You can run the Top Middle pair of the first AVR to go to 9.1.6 with some overlap/redundancy in the signals. Or add two cheap PLII receivers to the output of the second AVR (a la Scott) to get a more discrete 9.1.6.


----------



## Scott Simonian

GXMnow said:


> With the add on AVR's being just PL or PL II, you are right, the Left Center Right can just add one more channel between a panned pair. The surrounds would not really be useful at all. With PL IIx though, it used a different matrix that would pan through 2 new channels between the surrounds of 5.1 content to play 7.1 speakers. I had this on my old Denon 3805 and it worked quite well. My current 3312 has PL IIz and it basically does the same thing on a 7.1 speaker layout. The problem with both of these AVR's is that the 7.1 analog input on the 3805 does not go into the DSP so it can't do the PL IIx decoding from that input, and the 3312 does not even have a 7.1 analog input. For this to work, it would have to be higher end PL II x(z) AVR's with a 7.1 analog input, and enough DSP to take those surrounds and do the matrix decoding. Maybe set them to PL II x with a single back speaker, and each additional AVR can do 3 down each side on the L C R and 3 down the ceiling on LS BS RS. Any difference in the matrix between the front and rear will still be symetrical, using LCR for both side walls and the surrounds for both top rows. This still turns 7.1.4 into 9.1.6 with just 3 AVR's. And now you get to use 6 of the power amps in each of the add on AVR's and just the LCR amps in the main Atmos AVR to lighten the load on the power supply.
> 
> Yes, I know this is way goofy, but it can work if someone had the hardware just laying around. I do have a very nice old NEC stand alone PL decoder. Too bad I only have one. You would need one for each set of speakers you wish to add one more between. And then still need power amps.
> 
> You will have to make sure you set the distances to the pairs of speakers the same or the time shift will totally mess up the PL decoding.



Ugh. My head hurts reading and re-reading this.

First of all. There is no point in using the surround outputs from the auxiliary receivers following the method I am doing. Second, you can not use the MC analog input and use surround processing at the same time. It's one or the other. There is no utility in being PL2*x* or *z* using this method. You only use these extra receivers to extract a common center channel. The surround outputs go unused and if one were using receivers that could do PL2x, they will not be used or help with the processing whatsoever.

If you are using the MC inputs just so you can have an amp....well.... buy a proper amp. Sure you can use an old receiver as an amp but the whole point of my method is that you use receivers and receivers have amps built in. These amps power all the height speakers. The main Atmos receiver will power the ground level speakers just fine and if not, that's what external amps are for.

Stop me if I missed something but I can barely follow this post I quoted.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I do think you could do a pretty effective 9.1.6 layout for under $5k in processing if you went the dual AVR route. (Credit to Nalleh)
> 
> One AVR runs 9.1.2 and handles the 9 floor speakers. The other runs 7.1.4 and handles the 4 overheads. Then you've got discrete 9.1.4 with full separation of floor level and height layers.
> 
> You can run the Top Middle pair of the first AVR to go to 9.1.6 with some overlap/redundancy in the signals. Or add two cheap PLII receivers to the output of the second AVR (a la Scott) to get a more discrete 9.1.6.


I'm waiting for Nalleh to wake up and do just this. Or somebody. C'mon!


----------



## thebland

8 heights vs. 6?? Wonder if the step up to 8 makes for a greater 'cone of sound'!?


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm waiting for Nalleh to wake up and do just this. Or somebody. C'mon!


Huh?? Say what now?

Do what?

What @batpig said IS what i am doing!

Or do you mean i need to add your method on top of mine?!?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Huh?? Say what now?
> 
> Do what?
> 
> What @*batpig* said IS what i am doing!
> 
> Or do you mean i need to add your method on top of mine?!?


Yeah. What batpig said is to do what you're doing and apply the method I'm doing over the 2nd Atmos receiver that is doing just the heights. 

Right now you have one doing 9ch ground level speakers and the other doing four heights for a "true" 9.1.4 system. Apply my center-extraction method (four AVR's in total) and you'll have "discrete" 9.1.6 audio.


Bam!


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> 8 heights vs. 6?? Wonder if the step up to 8 makes for a greater 'cone of sound'!?


Meh. 

A blurred height soundfield, maybe.

When it comes to Atmos decoded height systems.... go straight from six overheads to ten. Never eight unless there is a non-concurrent use of speakers or something.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Nalleh said:


> Huh?? Say what now?
> 
> Do what?
> 
> What @batpig said IS what i am doing!
> 
> Or do you mean i need to add your method on top of mine?!?


Do you have a thread with photos of the setup and configuration and room layout. ^_^


----------



## GXMnow

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh. My head hurts reading and re-reading this.
> 
> First of all. There is no point in using the surround outputs from the auxiliary receivers following the method I am doing. Second, you can not use the MC analog input and use surround processing at the same time. It's one or the other. There is no utility in being PL2*x* or *z* using this method. You only use these extra receivers to extract a common center channel. The surround outputs go unused and if one were using receivers that could do PL2x, they will not be used or help with the processing whatsoever.
> 
> If you are using the MC inputs just so you can have an amp....well.... buy a proper amp. Sure you can use an old receiver as an amp but the whole point of my method is that you use receivers and receivers have amps built in. These amps power all the height speakers. The main Atmos receiver will power the ground level speakers just fine and if not, that's what external amps are for.
> 
> Stop me if I missed something but I can barely follow this post I quoted.


Ok, This will be my very last hit as we beat this dead horse.

You are correct that MOST AVR's did not support much processing from the 5.1 or 7.1 multi channel inputs. Neither of mine do, but several of the high end ones did. I thought the 4310 was one of them, but sadly, I checked the manual, and it still misses the mark. When SACD and Dolby True HD etc. first came out, there were not many AVR's that could accept the signals digitally. So they did use the 5.1 and 7.1 jacks to get the new hi rez audio into the system. On my 3805 model, it could only do bass management, not even eq, so it won't work. But on the high end models that actually included the 8 channel analog to digital converters to get the audio into the DSP, it could then process the audio just as if it came from a Dolby AC3 stream from a DVD. And many of these units could do Dolby Surround EX to create a center back channel. This used virtually the identical processing as the front L, C, R of Dolby Pro Logic decode like you are using. 

Now I do have to rescind being able to get away with just 3 AVR's because as I really think about this, it will either pro logic left and right, OR it could EX decode the back surrounds from a discrete input. Doing both at the same time would me little sense. So even though the brains are in their, it does not have a standard mode to bring that out at the same time. So it has little advantage over using the front decode, unless it is a PL IIx model that can be set to decode from a 5.1 analog input, as that would give the pan across 2 speakers between the original left and right instead of just a single center between. So, you still need 5 AVR's to pull it off. 

Yes, this is way out there and not something I ever expected anyone to try. Your .6 setup using the 2x pro logic across the length is ingenious and I was just trying to take the ball and run with it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So your saying that back about a decade ago there were receivers that could take in a 5.1 analog MC input, digitize it and then actually convert that 5.1 signal to 7.1 using PL2x? Wow! I have never, ever seen or heard of something that can do that. In the days of HDMI and 6ch PCM audio from BD, sure. But back before that? I've never heard of such a thing. Digitize for bass management was basically it. Not that isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. PL2x can and will expand a 6ch signal so it could work. 

I am curious about what products do what you say they did. Or maybe you're mis-remembering.


----------



## batpig

Scott (and all) -- I thought I remember something about older flagship Denons digitizing the EXT IN multich inputs, and it looks like GXM is correct.

For example, I just checked the manual for the AVR-5303, and there is a setting to digitize the multich analog inputs so that DSP can be applied (see attached clip).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh, there is no dispute there. Both my old (~15yr old) HK's doing my six heights both have the ability to digitize the MC analog input. Allows one to do bass management and such. Not that there were many other features on my two HK's. 

The thing GXM was saying that because they had PL2x and could digitize the analog input that those signals could be processed with PL2x and a 5.1 analog signal would output as a full 7.1 signal. That is something I've never heard of ever.

I guess going off the excerpt from the manual (nice find, Batpig) that you can assume it will allow surround processing of the signal. If so, that's pretty cool but by todays standards outdated. Not sure if I would find this feature useful for an Atmos-EX installation. I could just use the stereo signal and process with PL2x and get an extra two surrounds but nobody will use the surround outputs while doing it and even if they were...umm.... I don't see any advantage to doing so. Even using stereo "surrounds" from this process would not seem all that useful unless one were incredibly interested in directing specific in-phase and out-of-phase signals exactly some way. Pretty advanced stuff even for Atmos-EX installs. Sounds like WAY more trouble for it's worth.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I have never, ever seen or heard of something that can do that.


My old Lex did it, as did their receiver, as well as some flagship models from H/K and Denon.


> Digitize for bass management was basically it.


Doesn't make sense. Once you digitize the 5.1 analogue input, it becomes JADS (just another digital source). No different than a digital source coming in from a digital connection. Why would anyone limit the processing of a digital signal to bass management only?


----------



## GXMnow

Scott Simonian said:


> So your saying that back about a decade ago there were receivers that could take in a 5.1 analog MC input, digitize it and then actually convert that 5.1 signal to 7.1 using PL2x? Wow! I have never, ever seen or heard of something that can do that. In the days of HDMI and 6ch PCM audio from BD, sure. But back before that? I've never heard of such a thing. Digitize for bass management was basically it. Not that isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. PL2x can and will expand a 6ch signal so it could work.
> 
> I am curious about what products do what you say they did. Or maybe you're mis-remembering.


I think this beast can do it.
http://assets.denon.com/documentmaster/us/avr5803_productsheet.pdf


----------



## DaGamePimp

I would try 9.2.6 but I do not have anywhere to place FW  and not sure if the TM addition is worth the second dedicated AVR (vs current 7.2.4).

I have an x5200 and x4100 (the x4100 is meant to go into my media room but have not placed it yet).

Maybe I could strip 7.1 from the x5200 zone 2 out and send it to my 4311ci (just sitting here since HDMI board failed) via the analog ext. in...?

I also have a Denon 1712 where the x4100 is meant to go, maybe that could be used in PLII mode.

Either way I'll need to order more speakers first. 

- Jason


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> My old Lex did it, as did their receiver, as well as some flagship models from H/K and Denon. Doesn't make sense. Once you digitize the 5.1 analogue input, it becomes JADS (just another digital source). No different than a digital source coming in from a digital connection. Why would anyone limit the processing of a digital signal to bass management only?


Why limit Dolby Atmos to a lowly 7.1.4 speaker arrangement? Why can't DSU be applied to a decoded DTS:X signal? it's just PCM audio once it's been decoded. Hardware limitations exist in all forms everywhere. Just cuz it seems reasonably achievable does not make it a reality.

That's cool that your MC12 did this but it was also way ahead of the curve and costed nearly $10k when it came out. Not really "normal" hardware to compare but cool nonetheless.


----------



## Scott Simonian

GXMnow said:


> I think this beast can do it.
> http://assets.denon.com/documentmaster/us/avr5803_productsheet.pdf


I would certainly hope so! That thing was a beast!

Not exactly something you can pick up for a couple hundred dollars though even today.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> Very clear diagram.


Thank you..


----------



## Scott Simonian

aaranddeeman said:


> Thank you..


Thank _you_!


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Why limit Dolby Atmos to a lowly 7.1.4 speaker arrangement?


Not worth arguing over. I've used AVRs that have the functionality that GXMnow described. Since you _"have never, ever seen or heard of something that can do that"_ , there's no need to convince you they actually existed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Not worth arguing over. I've used AVRs that have the functionality that GXMnow described. Since you _"have never, ever seen or heard of something that can do that"_ , there's no need to convince you they actually existed.


Lol, okay. Who is arguing? I was interested in you guys informing me of products that do this thing.  I didn't know and wanted to know. Thanks.

It's beside the point, really cuz it's not a useful feature for Atmos-EX. It was interesting to know though so idk you gotta be like that, Sanjay.

So that's new information to me. Two rather expensive flagship products were able to do something I didn't know was done. Neat!


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> It's beside the point, really cuz it's not a useful feature for Atmos-EX.


Feed the two surround inputs a signal that pans from left to right (e.g., mission commander's voice in Mission to Mars). Turn on PLIIx and that sound will pan smoothly across 4 surround speakers. Feed those same surround inputs a FH and RH signal. Turn on PLIIx and that sound will pan smoothly across 4 height speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Feed the two surround inputs a signal that pans from left to right (e.g., mission commander's voice in Mission to Mars). Turn on PLIIx and that sound will pan smoothly across 4 surround speakers. Feed those same surround inputs a FH and RH signal. Turn on PLIIx and that sound will pan smoothly across 4 height speakers.


Hmm... interesting! 

Now the race is on to find cheap 5803's and MC12's on ebay!  


EDIT: So guess in that case, you'd follow the same Atmos-EX block diagram but instead use the analog MC input and then use just the two side surround jacks. Then arrange the eight overheads so that the side surround outputs are the furthest away and the two rear surround outputs would be the two closer, inner heights. That would work and be an "okay" eight height speaker arrangement. 

Nice one, Sanjay and GXM for bringing it up.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah and now I acknowledged that it's kinda cool. Not practical because finding the hardware will be a PITA.


----------



## rolldog

Scott Simonian said:


> So your saying that back about a decade ago there were receivers that could take in a 5.1 analog MC input, digitize it and then actually convert that 5.1 signal to 7.1 using PL2x? Wow! I have never, ever seen or heard of something that can do that. In the days of HDMI and 6ch PCM audio from BD, sure. But back before that? I've never heard of such a thing. Digitize for bass management was basically it. Not that isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. PL2x can and will expand a 6ch signal so it could work.
> 
> I am curious about what products do what you say they did. Or maybe you're mis-remembering.


I have 2 old receivers, or I did, that did this. An old Pioneer Elite AC-3 receiver that I used to watch laserdisks, if anyone remembers those, and and old Yamaha Dolby Digital receiver.


----------



## GXMnow

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm... interesting!
> 
> Now the race is on to find cheap 5803's and MC12's on ebay!
> 
> 
> EDIT: So guess in that case, you'd follow the same Atmos-EX block diagram but instead use the analog MC input and then use just the two side surround jacks. Then arrange the eight overheads so that the side surround outputs are the furthest away and the two rear surround outputs would be the two closer, inner heights. That would work and be an "okay" eight height speaker arrangement.
> 
> Nice one, Sanjay and GXM for bringing it up.


I do not think of this one as an argument at all, for me it was just in fun to blow this up to the silly level. We could start doing the 5 screen channels as well with the Pro Logic between the left and center and right and center. 

The funny thing is, I have not converted my own room to Dolby Atmos yet. I have messed with a lot of the gear and helped setup 3 rooms for other people, and we even did some bench tests on how it pans the different speaker selections. When I do setup my room, I do not want to skimp. The one thing I did not test, because I did not think I would use it, was if I could setup a Denon 6200 for the 3 screen channels and sub-woofer, and then do FW, Side Surrounds, Top Front, and Rear Height. I currently do not have one to test with right now. 

The way my room is setup, That would be a very clean speaker layout without interfering with my windows and closet door. I can get the wides and side surround down to about 5 feet high, leave my rear surrounds at the ceiling, and add top fronts. My only real concern is how it will play out the 7.1 disks that I have. It should push at least some of the discrete back surround information into the rear height speakers. 

If I could find another one of the NEC PL-910 surround decoders, it might be fun to try adding 2 more channels.  I have enough power amps just sitting around here. Most likely, my 3805 will be pressed into service as an amp for the top speakers. It is a solid 120 watts x 7 with a stronger power supply than many of the 9 channel units today. If that is not enough, I have 3 channels of 300 watt JBL pro series amps, a 200 x 2 BGW amp, and I think 3 Hafler DH-220's at 120 x 2 each that are still in working condition. They have been sitting idle since I got the 3805 because the big pro amps just make so much heat, even when sitting idle. I have a tough enough time keeping this place cool in summer.

Well, now I am going to watch "Bridge of Spies" in just plain old 7.1


----------



## ALtlOff

batpig said:


> I do think you could do a pretty effective 9.1.6 layout for under $5k in processing if you went the dual AVR route. (Credit to Nalleh)
> 
> One AVR runs 9.1.2 and handles the 9 floor speakers. The other runs 7.1.4 and handles the 4 overheads. Then you've got discrete 9.1.4 with full separation of floor level and height layers.
> 
> You can run the Top Middle pair of the first AVR to go to 9.1.6 with some overlap/redundancy in the signals. Or add two cheap PLII receivers to the output of the second AVR (a la Scott) to get a more discrete 9.1.6.


Yup, a pair of SR-7010, referbed from A4L, $3400.00




Scott Simonian said:


> I'm waiting for Nalleh to wake up and do just this. Or somebody. C'mon!


I'm going to end up there, just won't be before anyone else, my first 7010 won't be purchased for another two weeks, and the second one until after I sell my 3040.


----------



## rontalley

I'm still curious as to what you guys think the PLIIx or PLII surround(s) output(s) would equal from a Front(Left) and Side(Left) signal fed into the Left and Right input?

Of course the Center Output would equal Wide but what would the Surround(s) outputs equal?

I tested this (only left side) and the wide effect was good enough to consider it an improvement and definately filled the gap between Front and Side. The surround left and right both sounded different. More ambience stuff but were definitely distinguishable from what was going on overhead or any other speaker in the existing 7.2.4 setup. 

The left surround output was more "existing" Side Surround focused (ambient) but completely different from existing Rear Surround of main AVR. The right surround output was more Front Left focused (ambient) but again completely different than any other speaker in existing 7.2.4 setup.

WAF does not allow me to fully experiment with this setup or implement but those have have the ability to, could you give it a try?

With this technique, you will get 6 additional speakers that will aid in the "immersion".., or if nothing else add that 9.x.x for under $300!


----------



## rontalley

I'm still curious as to what you guys think the PLIIx or PLII surround(s) output(s) would equal from a Front(Left) and Side(Left) signal fed into the Left and Right input?

Of course the Center Output would equal Wide but what would the Surround(s) outputs equal?

I tested this (only left side) and the wide effect was good enough to consider it an improvement and definately filled the gap between Front and Side. The surround left and right outputs both sounded different. More ambience stuff but were definitely distinguishable from what was going on overhead or any other speaker in the existing 7.2.4 setup. 

The left surround output was more "existing" Side Left Surround focused (ambient) but completely different from existing Rear Left Surround of main AVR. The right surround output was more Front Left focused (ambient) but again completely different than any other speaker in existing 7.2.4 setup.

WAF does not allow me to fully experiment with this setup or implement but those have have the ability to, could you give it a try?

With this technique, you will get 6 additional speakers that will aid in the "immersion".., or if nothing else add that 9.x.x for under $300!


----------



## robert816

@kokishin


I did not know if you were still maintaining a database of members Dolby Atmos setups, but if you are then I have upgraded to the following:


Home Theatre System
Pioneer Elite SC-99 AVR
Denon AVC-2000 Integrated Amp for powering the two additional Polk 70 Series Monitors for surround back SBL SBR
KEF 2005.3 Black series Eggs as fake Atmos speakers x4
I still have the DefTech center as originally listed and the Polk 70 Series Monitors for FL FR SL SR
Current speaker configuration 7.3.4


Computer System
Pioneer Elite SC-87 AVR
Definitive Technologies ProCenter 2000
Definitive Technologies Studio Monitor 350 for all other channels
KEF 2005.1 Silver series Eggs as fake Atmos speakers
KEF Cube 1 subwoofer
Current speaker configuration 5.1.4


Thank you!


----------



## ALtlOff

Ok, I tried to go back a couple of pages and catch up on the discussion of somehow integrating multiple AVR's and speakers trying to matrix sound using some incarnation of ProLogic to help expand for an Atmos setup. 
(At least I think that's what was going on, my brain started hurting after about 5 min. ..... So if I'm wrong about this, just disregard this post)

Personally I don't see why you'd want to in any way, ProLogic and Atmos are completely different, even in the bed layer, you'll just lose dynamics and even some sounds completely. I don't know if it's the rendering in the AVR or information in the disc itself but there are sounds that you just won't get using ProLogic, even in the bed layer of speakers.

Here's a quote of an experiment I did:


ALtlOff said:


> Well I preformed this test, (the best example I found was one of the final chase scenes in "Man From Uncle" that starts about 1:30) and while most of the information is still in the bed layer while playing an Atmos track with only bed speakers and DD (tried PL & PLIIx) there was some additional sound from the Atmos decoding, especially some low frequency effects that just aren't there at all with DD decoding, plus the Atmos decoding had the sound cleaner, more detailed, focused and more dynamic, at least that's what is was like on my 3040 Yamaha.
> Maybe someone else can try this with a different receiver.


Again, if I miss read the last couple of pages, sorry and to quote a famous news correspondent, "NeverMind"......
E. Latella.


----------



## rontalley

GXMnow said:


> With the add on AVR's being just PL or PL II, you are right, the Left Center Right can just add one more channel between a panned pair. The surrounds would not really be useful at all. With PL IIx though, it used a different matrix that would pan through 2 new channels between the surrounds of 5.1 content to play 7.1 speakers. I had this on my old Denon 3805 and it worked quite well. My current 3312 has PL IIz and it basically does the same thing on a 7.1 speaker layout. The problem with both of these AVR's is that the 7.1 analog input on the 3805 does not go into the DSP so it can't do the PL IIx decoding from that input, and the 3312 does not even have a 7.1 analog input. For this to work, it would have to be higher end PL II x(z) AVR's with a 7.1 analog input, and enough DSP to take those surrounds and do the matrix decoding. Maybe set them to PL II x with a single back speaker, and each additional AVR can do 3 down each side on the L C R and 3 down the ceiling on LS BS RS. Any difference in the matrix between the front and rear will still be symetrical, using LCR for both side walls and the surrounds for both top rows. This still turns 7.1.4 into 9.1.6 with just 3 AVR's. And now you get to use 6 of the power amps in each of the add on AVR's and just the LCR amps in the main Atmos AVR to lighten the load on the power supply.
> 
> Yes, I know this is way goofy, but it can work if someone had the hardware just laying around. I do have a very nice old NEC stand alone PL decoder. Too bad I only have one. You would need one for each set of speakers you wish to add one more between. And then still need power amps.
> 
> You will have to make sure you set the distances to the pairs of speakers the same or the time shift will totally mess up the PL decoding.


OK, Tested this for 4 sets of Overheads.

Kept scratching my head but you are on to something here...

My old AVR had *7.1 output* but only *5.1 analog input*. It would take the analog surround inputs and matrix a signal to the rear surrounds using *PLIIx*.

I fed the Matrix AVR1 the TFL Pre out of Atmos AVR to the Surround Left input of Matrix AVR1 and TRL Pre out of Atmos AVR to the Surround Right of Matrix AVR1.

Results was a smooth pan over all 4 speakers (Left Side) from Back to Front and Front to Back, using the Audiosphere Atmos Demo

Left Surround=FHL
Left Rear Surround=TFL
Right Surround=TRL
Right Rear Surround=RHL

Repeat steps for Right Side!!

Given all credit to @Scott Simonian for first coming up with the concept of matrixing the sounds.
2nd given credit to @Nalleh for being crazy enough for having so many damn speakers hooked up!
3rd given credit to @GXMnow for expanding the concept with theory.

However, can't have my cake and eat it to. Can't get a matrix center from left to right input if you are using 5.1 input...Dammit!!!! Crap!

Even still, how much would 2 basic 5.1 AVRs and 2 basic 7.1 AVRs (with 5.1 input) cost vs. a *17.1 AVR* that did it all?


----------



## rontalley

ALtlOff said:


> Ok, I tried to go back a couple of pages and catch up on the discussion of somehow integrating multiple AVR's and speakers trying to matrix sound using some incarnation of ProLogic to help expand for an Atmos setup.
> (At least I think that's what was going on, my brain started hurting after about 5 min. ..... So if I'm wrong about this, just disregard this post)
> 
> Personally I don't see why you'd want to in any way, ProLogic and Atmos are completely different, even in the bed layer, you'll just lose dynamics and even some sounds completely. I don't know if it's the rendering in the AVR or information in the disc itself but there are sounds that you just won't get using ProLogic, even in the bed layer of speakers.
> 
> Here's a quote of an experiment I did:
> 
> 
> Again, if I miss read the last couple of pages, sorry and to quote a famous news correspondent, "NeverMind"......
> E. Latella.


If an AVR has 5.1 input and can matrix via PLIIx to rear surrounds by extracting (dividing) information from the Surround Input to send evenly between side surround and rear surround output, how would you loose any information?


----------



## vitod

Ok, so what's the bottom line? We don't have to wait for or need to upgrade to 9.x.x pre pros/receivers and just get some PLIIx receivers and call it a day? Because if that's the case, we're talking about saving a lot of money and basically getting the same results?


----------



## stikle

So...Audiosphere.

Is there bass for anyone else? There may not be any to speak of in this particular clip.


----------



## Scott Simonian

vitod said:


> Ok, so what's the bottom line? We don't have to wait for or need to upgrade to 9.x.x pre pros/receivers and just get some PLIIx receivers and call it a day? Because if that's the case, we're talking about saving a lot of money and basically getting the same results?


No, not exactly. The results are not 100% of what it would be if we have full native support for something like 9.1.6 speaker layout. There is still good reason to desire native support for >7.1.4 audio. You can get very close though and for the relatively minimal expense and if you can accept the setup process, might be worth it to the user.

I'll get back to you and a couple other posts about this in a little bit.


----------



## Scott Simonian

stikle said:


> So...Audiosphere.
> 
> Is there bass for anyone else? There may not be any to speak of in this particular clip.


Quite a bit. Mostly in the "startup" of the of clip when you see the Dolby DD wearing headphones. Not much else throughout the rest of the clip where it's really a surround/height demo.


----------



## blastermaster

This is really cool what you guys are doing. I'm still giddy about getting my 7.1.4 receiver, but already I'm thinking about what I can do to get 9.1.4. The amaze clip showed me that there is definitely room for improvement in my setup, as my surrounds are much closer to me than my fronts, as I'm sure is the case for a lot of other HT owners. I can't do x.x.6 as my room just won't accommodate it, but if I could throw in some front wides, it would be interesting to see if it makes much difference. 

So, I've got an extra pair of speakers, I have my old Onkyo 806 with pl2z...how would I set that up for front wides???


----------



## ALtlOff

rontalley said:


> If an AVR has 5.1 input and can matrix via PLIIx to rear surrounds by extracting (dividing) information from the Surround Input to send evenly between side surround and rear surround output, how would you loose any information?


Ok, so your talking about matrixing, post rendering, that makes sense, this is why I didn't know if I was reading everything correctly, I thought it may have been just trying to use PL on one and Atmos on the other, at the same time, not stacking, so to speak.
Rear Wides...here we come.....

Now where an I going to put all these receivers....


----------



## rontalley

blastermaster said:


> This is really cool what you guys are doing. I'm still giddy about getting my 7.1.4 receiver, but already I'm thinking about what I can do to get 9.1.4. The amaze clip showed me that there is definitely room for improvement in my setup, as my surrounds are much closer to me than my fronts, as I'm sure is the case for a lot of other HT owners. I can't do x.x.6 as my room just won't accommodate it, but if I could throw in some front wides, it would be interesting to see if it makes much difference.
> 
> So, I've got an extra pair of speakers, I have my old Onkyo 806 with pl2z...how would I set that up for front wides???


You need another AVR, preferably the same 2 as the wides would come from the Center channel of each.

Atmos FL out---> AVR1 FL in
Atmos SL out---> AVR1 FR in
AVR1 L out--->FL speaker
AVR1 C out--->FLW speaker
AVR1 R out--->SL speaker

Atmos RL out---> AVR2 FL in
Atmos SR out---> AVR2 FR in
AVR2 L out--->FR speaker
AVR2 C out--->RLW speaker
AVR2 R out--->SR speaker


----------



## ALtlOff

rontalley said:


> You need another AVR, preferably the same 2 as the wides would come from the Center channel of each.
> 
> Atmos FL out---> AVR1 FL in
> Atmos SL out---> AVR1 FR in
> AVR1 C out--->FLW speaker
> 
> Atmos RL out---> AVR2 FL in
> Atmos SR out---> AVR2 FR in
> AVR2 C out--->RLW speaker


Only problem is that you forgot to say:

BwaaHaaHaa ....

at the end of this post


----------



## DiscoDuck

which of these 2 in ceiling speakers do you think would work better for atmos? Both are infinity and should have decent tonal match to my non-height speakers. One has a directional tweeter - 15 degrees angle towards listener and the other has a design which will result in wide dispersion mid range but straight down on the tweeter. My ceiling is 8 feet in height, flat and no projections. I own them both and i guess i will just try them and see which i like better and put the other back in the ceiling in another room. 

just wondering what others think on the subject
Thanks





Marantz sr7009
jbl northridge x 9
2x 15" dayton hf on xls1500
av123 mfm15 on 300w bash


----------



## sdurani

ALtlOff said:


> Personally I don't see why you'd want to in any way...


Extracting a centre output between any adjacent pair of channels allows you to place a speaker at a location that would normally rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your soundfield (especially for listeners outside the sweet spot). Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## DiscoDuck

*which in ceiling for atmos of these two?*

which of these 2 in ceiling speakers do you think would work better for atmos? Both are infinity and should have decent tonal match to my non-height speakers. One has a directional tweeter - 15 degrees angle towards listener and the other has a design which will result in wide dispersion mid range but straight down on the tweeter. My ceiling is 8 feet in height, flat and no projections. I own them both and i guess i will just try them and see which i like better and put the other back in the ceiling in another room. 

infinity ers110 and jbl sp6cii

just wondering what others think on the subject
Thanks





Marantz sr7009
jbl northridge x 9
2x 15" dayton hf on xls1500
av123 mfm15 on 300w bash


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> You need another AVR, preferably the same 2 as the wides would come from the Center channel of each.
> 
> Atmos FL out---> AVR1 FL in
> Atmos SL out---> AVR1 FR in
> AVR1 C out--->FLW speaker
> 
> Atmos RL out---> AVR2 FL in
> Atmos SR out---> AVR2 FR in
> AVR2 C out--->RLW speaker


Don't forget that you'd need to use the L&R outputs of AVR1 and AVR2 as those are the new feeds with the new wide content cancelled out from them.


----------



## blastermaster

ALtlOff said:


> Only problem is that you forgot to say:
> 
> BwaaHaaHaa ....
> 
> at the end of this post


Now, now. No need for that. I have another AVR, it's just not as good as my Onkyo. I'll see if I can make it work, but wow, my setup is already cluttered enough.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> I'm still curious as to what you guys think the PLIIx or PLII surround(s) output(s) would equal from a Front(Left) and Side(Left) signal fed into the Left and Right input?
> 
> Of course the Center Output would equal Wide but what would the Surround(s) outputs equal?


Decorrelated (out of phase) info that is mostly ambient and doesn't image anywhere.


----------



## rontalley

ALtlOff said:


> Only problem is that you forgot to say:
> 
> BwaaHaaHaa ....
> 
> at the end of this post


Hilarious!!!! This is how I feel when I look at the guys who have all that equipment in their racks for a 7.1.4 setup!!! I be like. 

So, really, these additional AVRs will serve as additional Amps spreading the load so it's win win.


----------



## Josh Z

ALtlOff said:


> Ok, I tried to go back a couple of pages and catch up on the discussion of somehow integrating multiple AVR's and speakers trying to matrix sound using some incarnation of ProLogic to help expand for an Atmos setup.
> (At least I think that's what was going on, my brain started hurting after about 5 min. ..... So if I'm wrong about this, just disregard this post)
> 
> Personally I don't see why you'd want to in any way, ProLogic and Atmos are completely different, even in the bed layer, you'll just lose dynamics and even some sounds completely. I don't know if it's the rendering in the AVR or information in the disc itself but there are sounds that you just won't get using ProLogic, even in the bed layer of speakers.


I think you're misunderstanding Scott's "Atmos-EX" system. He uses his primary receiver to decode an Atmos track to 7.1.4 using Top Front and Top Rear speakers. Using the pre-outs on that first receiver, the TF and TR channels for the left side of the room are fed into the stereo inputs on a 2nd receiver that processes that signal using ProLogic II to extract a new center channel between them (Top Middle). He then does the same for the TF and TR channels on the right side with a third receiver. This give him 6 height channels: TF, TM, and TR. No sounds are lost. 

I do a variation on this using 2 receivers, which is described in this article:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/customizing-dolby-atmos-more-speakers/


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't forget that you'd need to use the L&R outputs of AVR1 and AVR2 as those are the new feeds with the new wide content cancelled out from them.


I'm assuming that any room correction software would not correct the AVR speakers? If yes, then the AVR speakers have to be manually adjusted for phase and distance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> I'm still curious as to what you guys think the PLIIx or PLII surround(s) output(s) would equal from a Front(Left) and Side(Left) signal fed into the Left and Right input?
> 
> Of course the Center Output would equal Wide but what would the Surround(s) outputs equal?
> 
> I tested this (only left side) and the wide effect was good enough to consider it an improvement and definately filled the gap between Front and Side. The surround left and right outputs both sounded different. More ambience stuff but were definitely distinguishable from what was going on overhead or any other speaker in the existing 7.2.4 setup.
> 
> The left surround output was more "existing" Side Left Surround focused (ambient) but completely different from existing Rear Left Surround of main AVR. The right surround output was more Front Left focused (ambient) but again completely different than any other speaker in existing 7.2.4 setup.
> 
> WAF does not allow me to fully experiment with this setup or implement but those have have the ability to, could you give it a try?
> 
> With this technique, you will get 6 additional speakers that will aid in the "immersion".., or if nothing else add that 9.x.x for under $300!


The basic difference between using PL2x over PL2 is that you can net four surrounds instead of two. However, using this method for your heights, there is little to no reason at all to use the processed surround outputs. We are really doing this for the center extraction but that doesn't mean you can't use the surround outputs.

Prologic 2 and 2x use stereo out-of-phase information (this is the simple explanation of it) from the original stereo signal to generate the new surrounds. So if you want to use this process to extract a common center from the front and side surrounds, you get a front wide speaker. The new "surround" information will be from these two speakers. If you wanted you could mount dual or quad heights above this area from front, wide and sides and these new surround heights will produce stereo content but none of this content was meant to be up above you. It's simply the algorithm doing it's thing and you put the speakers up above. Sounds interesting but this isn't an aspect of this whole process I would recommend. Sure you can go crazy with this sort of thing but in reality you're just going to end up with a sonic mess of sound all over. You might occasionally get a neat effect but it will be hit and miss often. The point of true immersive audio is precision and immersive-ness. This might make things more immersive but you'll begin to lose precision if you start going hap-hazard with it all. Remember, we're trying to capture the cinema event of a film or even what they heard on the mixing stage. They don't do it like this so the further one wants to take this process the further away from the original you get.

Right now there are avenues one can take to get real wides. Buy a Denon or Marantz and they support wides. The limit currently is 9.1.2 so if you want wides, you lose stereo front/rear heights. At that point, you have to do what Nalleh does and use two Atmos receivers. One for ground speakers. The other for heights. Then you can get 9.1.4 audio and at which time you can implement this extra process to get 9.1.6 audio.

If you really wanted even more. I'd suggest one of two things. 10.1.6 audio or 11.1.6 audio. 10.1.6 is easier since you only need one more PL2 device. Extract a common center rear from the two rear surrounds. Or get two more PL2 devices and extract a common center for dual rear surrounds and move the two original rear surrounds closer to make them stereo center rear surrounds.

Oye.  *head explodes*


----------



## Scott Simonian

vitod said:


> I'm assuming that any room correction software would not correct the AVR speakers? If yes, then the AVR speakers have to be manually adjusted for phase and distance.


Actually, yes, they will.

REQ will definitely correct the two outer speakers but there is no mechanism for phantom wide output afaik. Even with systems that do support wides. I would assume it would want to output a discrete signal to an output jack that should be used for a real wide speaker. 

So if you want to do this to make new wides, I believe you would have to manually adjust the derived wide speaker channel somehow.


----------



## rontalley

Scott Simonian said:


> Don't forget that you'd need to use the L&R outputs of AVR1 and AVR2 as those are the new feeds with the new wide content cancelled out from them.


You know what Scott, in all the test I did, I never did that step!  I fixed the above but now I am going to have to test this as well. 

I left the Front and Sides connected to the Atmos AVR and the Wide still had a good sound and panned as expected with the various 360 degree material that I have to check it with. It also sounded good on Gravity. Wonder will it sound better or will the sides and fronts have less impact?

I guess my thinking is, if phantom image=Side+Front then what if you could put only that phantom image right where it should be and leave the other speaker with all the info that should have created the phantom image instead of subtracting those sounds? This will be my test but what are your thoughts?


----------



## vitod

I have an old Denon AVR3000 with just PL. Would this work or it has to be at least PLII?


----------



## kokishin

robert816 said:


> @kokishin
> 
> 
> I did not know if you were still maintaining a database of members Dolby Atmos setups, but if you are then I have upgraded to the following:
> 
> 
> Home Theatre System
> Pioneer Elite SC-99 AVR
> Denon AVC-2000 Integrated Amp for powering the two additional Polk 70 Series Monitors for surround back SBL SBR
> KEF 2005.3 Black series Eggs as fake Atmos speakers x4
> I still have the DefTech center as originally listed and the Polk 70 Series Monitors for FL FR SL SR
> Current speaker configuration 7.3.4
> 
> 
> Computer System
> Pioneer Elite SC-87 AVR
> Definitive Technologies ProCenter 2000
> Definitive Technologies Studio Monitor 350 for all other channels
> KEF 2005.1 Silver series Eggs as fake Atmos speakers
> KEF Cube 1 subwoofer
> Current speaker configuration 5.1.4
> 
> 
> Thank you!


Updated.

You're welcome.


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> You know what Scott, in all the test I did, I never did that step!  I fixed the above but now I am going to have to test this as well.
> 
> I left the Front and Sides connected to the Atmos AVR and the Wide still had a good sound and panned as expected with the various 360 degree material that I have to check it with. It also sounded good on Gravity. Wonder will it sound better or will the sides and fronts have less impact?
> 
> I guess my thinking is, if phantom image=Side+Front then what if you could put only that phantom image right where it should be and leave the other speaker with all the info that should have created the phantom image instead of subtracting those sounds? This will be my test but what are your thoughts?


Yeah, you'll get the wide output but the left and sides are still playing the wide content too. Not good. I guess thinking the way you were it's "okay" but then what's the point? If your previous set up did phantom a proper wide then just stick with that. If you aren't then it will stabilize that imaging which is good but I'd not want three speakers playing the same sound. More harm then good, the way I see it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

vitod said:


> I have an old Denon AVR3000 with just PL. Would this work or it has to be at least PLII?


It will work just as well with PL1.

You will need two extra AVR's for this though. One per new speaker.

The reason why I recommend PL2 is that when you have PL2 you get modes for it. Movie mode and music mode. Movie mode is what you want for center extraction. Music mode is good for a center fill. I like having the choice and have played with both. Sometimes I like music mode over movie mode. Even better is that most AVR's with PL2 let you set variables for the Music mode. One setting that is very important is Center spread and has several levels of it. Could be useful for some people.


----------



## GXMnow

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, yes, they will.
> 
> REQ will definitely correct the two outer speakers but there is no mechanism for phantom wide output afaik. Even with systems that do support wides. I would assume it would want to output a discrete signal to an output jack that should be used for a real wide speaker.
> 
> So if you want to do this to make new wides, I believe you would have to manually adjust the derived wide speaker channel somehow.


Wow, I was a bit shocked to see how far this went over night. I figured this was more of a what if kind of thing, but it seems quite a few people are really interested in this idea of stacking AVR's for more outputs. I guess the demand for more than 11 outputs is bigger than the AVE makers expected. So many people thought no one would even care about more than 5.1 

So, since there is interest, here is my take on how to calibrate this beast.

If the add on AVR has some form of auto room EQ, run that first. This should tune the 3 channels you have coming out of it. This would be the L, C, R outputs, but going to the a front, middle, and a rear speaker in one of the rows. Or if it is one of the PL IIx units, doing 4 speakers from 2 feeds, that would be the 4 Surround outputs, doing a front, mid front, mid rear, and a real location. Once the secondary AVR's are Eq'd, then run the room calibration on the source Dolby Atmos AVR. The speakers should in theory already be tuned to the correct response. So it should just dial in levels. 

As for the time alignment, the processors will have some delay, it will make the measured distances longer. Whatever pair of inputs are feeding a secondary AVR, the delays on those 2 channels must be identical, or it will mess up the PL decoding. I would set them short, and then add a bit in the secondary unit to match up the distances. This could be a tricky task to get it all balanced out nicely.

Now, here are the reasons a native unit with 16 outputs would be better.
Accuracy and channel separation. The Dolby Atmos renderer has all the data to know where to put a sound. Let's say there is a car iding on the left wide, and a motorcycle comes in on the left rear area. Both are engine sounds and will have some frequency range overlap, but the 2 signals are not correlated at all. The Dolby Atmos rendering will be able to treat these two signals completely independently, even if they move and pass through each other. If it was just one of these sounds, panning across the left and right inputs of a PL decoder, it will be able to nicely pan using the center output to fill in the gap, but when the two very different sounds end up on the Lt and Rt inputs of the PL decoder, it will try to make a sum for the center output. So now the 2 separate sounds that should be a single source are now also coming out of the third speaker to some degree. If it was just a mix, that is all that would happen, but the logic part of PL will also try to improve the separation by adjusting the gains based on level and phase difference between the two inputs. This is how it could put voices in center with the left and right being quite low. So as these two different sounds have the phase relationship going all over the place, the logic will get a bit confused and pretty much open all of the outputs. And there will certainly be some sounds and moments where the inputs do go out of phase. That sound information will end up going to the surround outputs, and the level of that sound will be reduced a bit in the L C R outputs. So it is possible, although unlikely, some sounds could get lost with the PL L/R to L-C-R decoding. Going to using the SL-SR inputs of a PL-IIx setup, and the smearing of the discrete sounds across the speakers will likely be more, but the odds of out of phase sound being lost should be way less, as that part of the decoder never did try to remove out of phase sound. So the more I think about it, an EX decode or PL-IIx surround section, is probably the better choice. 

Bottom line, with a single sound panning around, this setup can work great, so for the demo tracks like Audiosphere, it will probably work really well, but I do see the separation dropping as the track get's more complex. It can and probably will still sound great, but it can't compete with the accuracy of a DSP natively decoding the Atmos stream. 

But I do find the experiment fun. I may have to mess with it a bit and see what ends up happening, but I do not have any matching pairs of old gear to make it for real. Each of my PL decoders are a decade apart in technology.


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> It will work just as well with PL1.
> 
> You will need two extra AVR's for this though. One per new speaker.
> 
> The reason why I recommend PL2 is that when you have PL2 you get modes for it. Movie mode and music mode. Movie mode is what you want for center extraction. Music mode is good for a center fill. I like having the choice and have played with both. Sometimes I like music mode over movie mode. Even better is that most AVR's with PL2 let you set variables for the Music mode. One setting that is very important is Center spread and has several levels of it. Could be useful for some people.


Alright! I'll play with the old Denon! Now to look for another one.

This is not over by a long shot. I'm sure there will be much more to understand. But for now, get another AVR!


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Decorrelated (out of phase) info that is mostly ambient and doesn't image anywhere.





Scott Simonian said:


> ... in reality you're just going to end up with a *sonic mess of sound all over*...


Agreed. 

Tested and confirmed. The information you get has no valid meaning and confuses the ear as to what to listen to. Good experiment. Don't know until you try for yourself. Scratch that.

OK.

Expanding a 7.x.*4* setup:
True Wides=Second Atmos AVR that supports wides. Dual volume, possible sync issues and more expensive.
Fake Wides=Cheap and easy to implement. Only need 2XAVRs with 1 stereo input and PLII.
Fake .6=Cheap and easy to implement. Only need 2XAVRs with 1 stereo input and PLII.
Fake .8=Advanced setup and 2XAVRs with 5.1 analog input and 7.1 output and PLIIx.

I am really liking the 9.x.4. idea. Would be a minimal cost to me as I already have 2xHTIB that I could easily use and I would only need two more speakers and stands. $300 max.
Would love to have 9.x.8 but Wife ain't going to go for that *at all*! However, *IF* I had or was building a dedicated room. This is the route i would take. Even if I was buying 4 new quality AVRs, they wouldn't be no more than $1,500. 17 speaker outs for $3,500!  Logically and Sonically "Sound".


----------



## vitod

I think this subject should have it's own thread.


----------



## Scott Simonian

rontalley said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Tested and confirmed. The information you get has no valid meaning and confuses the ear as to what to listen to. Good experiment. Don't know until you try for yourself. Scratch that.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Expanding a 7.x.*4* setup:
> True Wides=Second Atmos AVR that supports wides. Dual volume, possible sync issues and more expensive.
> Fake Wides=Cheap and easy to implement. Only need 2XAVRs with 1 stereo input and PLII.
> Fake .6=Cheap and easy to implement. Only need 2XAVRs with 1 stereo input and PLII.
> Fake .8=Advanced setup and 2XAVRs with 5.1 analog input and 7.1 output and PLIIx.
> 
> I am really liking the 9.x.4. idea. Would be a minimal cost to me as I already have 2xHTIB that I could easily use and I would only need two more speakers and stands. $300 max.
> Would love to have 9.x.8 but Wife ain't going to go for that *at all*! However, *IF* I had or was building a dedicated room. This is the route i would take. Even if I was buying 4 new quality AVRs, they wouldn't be no more than $1,500. 17 speaker outs for $3,500!  Logically and Sonically "Sound".


Well put! Nice outline and I will agree with that list. There are many options. It's up to you as the end user to find which is more appropriate for your system.

I personally like the method I chose because it nets a result I was looking for and was extremely cheap. What Nalleh is doing is probably the more robust option but means a much larger chunk of cash and two volume controls to umm...control. 

Again, there is no wrong choice. 

But one thing we can all agree on is WE WANT 9.1.6 AUDIO!


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> Well put! Nice outline and I will agree with that list. There are many options. It's up to you as the end user to find which is more appropriate for your system.
> 
> But one thing we can all agree on is WE WANT 9.1.6 AUDIO!


Here, here! 

I remembered I have an Onkyo HTIB receiver. Maybe I can add that in too!


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Quite a bit. Mostly in the "startup" of the of clip when you see the Dolby DD wearing headphones. Not much else throughout the rest of the clip where *it's really a surround/height demo*.



Cool, thanks Scott. I kinda figured that was the case, but then I saw the downwards bubble which I kinda thought might indicate LFE, but nada.

But that demo, along with the 7.x.4 tones now has me re-evaluating my surround heights...I'm thinking of dropping them yet another foot now just for even more separation. I HAD thought they were great where they are now...hmm...

Maybe next week I'll tackle it. I needed to get the Spackle and paint out anyway to fill in where the mud/paint fell off one of the sheet rock screws due to bass. 

Hey, thanks for that SVS!


----------



## cyclones22

Demoed Atmos to a visitor yesterday and it was fun to watch him look up at the ceiling during the Audiosphere trailer and see no speakers there. So glad I took the leap to an Atmos supporting set up. That being said, for me it's definitely the type of upgrade you make when you're already happy with your current equipment but are looking for ways to add something new (and awesome!) to it.


----------



## stikle

cyclones22 said:


> Demoed Atmos to a visitor



I love doing that...sharing my theater with people that are used to TV speakers and watching their eyes get wide and their mouths drop. 

It gives me a bit of feeling of pride.


----------



## NorthSky

Good reading stuff recently; on how to expand Dolby Atmos (diy way).  ...Good competition to Trinnov Altitude32.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

stikle said:


> I love doing that...sharing my theater with people that are used to TV speakers and watching their eyes get wide and their mouths drop.
> 
> It gives me a bit of feeling of pride.


Me too! I love their reactions to ATMOS and the buttkickers in the couch. I think I blow their minds when I tell them the price tag and they thought it cost me 5 times that.


----------



## stikle

Daniel Chaves said:


> Me too! I love their reactions to ATMOS and the buttkickers in the couch. I think I blow their minds when I tell them the price tag and they thought it cost me 5 times that.



I blow their minds when I tell them how much I actually HAVE in my theater. It's just money, I'll make more. Haha. One of the best things about my divorce was that I got the house and can do whatever I want to it. Baahahahaha.

Alternately, a friend picked up an Onkyo Atmos HTiB for about $800 and it works surprisingly well in his TV room. So yeah - with the proper setup, components, and room, amazing things can happen for a relatively low cost.

Especially when Bitstreaming is turned on in the BDP.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. What batpig said is to do what you're doing and apply the method I'm doing over the 2nd Atmos receiver that is doing just the heights.
> 
> Right now you have one doing 9ch ground level speakers and the other doing four heights for a "true" 9.1.4 system. Apply my center-extraction method (four AVR's in total) and you'll have "discrete" 9.1.6 audio.
> Bam!



Ok, short version:

7200 Audyssed with 7.1.4 FH+TM + wides. 13 speakers.
5200 Audyssed with 7.1.4 TF+TR + wides. 13 speakers.

In native Atmos, my 7200 is playing 7.1.4, no SB+FW.

My 5200 is playing TF+TR. 
However: since the 7200 has deactivated SB's in this case, and they then are downmixed into the surrounds, I switch the surrounds and surround-backs over to the 5200, via my old AVR(Yama 3067 set up as a multisource(all three zones) active speaker switch).

So the 5200 also plays surrounds and SB's.

="TRUE" 9.1.8 





Daniel Chaves said:


> Do you have a thread with photos of the setup and configuration and room layout. ^_^


Not yet, but more info here

Here is how i did it:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-601.html#post30961698

And pictures:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-37.html#post31169602


----------



## Scott Simonian

Why are you using the heights on the 7200 at all? If you have it doing two sets of heights and the other receiver is doing two sets of heights then you're really only getting x.x.4 with two sets of speakers in different spots and playing similar information. They won't isolate the content to the appropriate pairs of locations. Each receiver (7200 and 5200) will have a front-ish and rear-ish stereo pair of heights with tons of common information emitting between them. Nothing pinpoint or discrete at all.

You've got the hardware to do "true" 9.1.4 audio. No sense trying to impress with listing of 9.1.8 when it's really not 9.1.8 audio. You have 9.1.8 amount of speakers but only 9.1.4 worth of discrete audio.

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in your take on it.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> You've got the hardware to do "true" 9.1.4 audio. No sense trying to impress with listing of 9.1.8 when it's really not 9.1.8 audio. You have *9.1.8 amount of speakers* but only 9.1.4 worth of discrete audio.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in your take on it.


Actually the SPEAKER count is 11.4.10


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh god! 

But seriously.... I'd like to know what you thought about the sound if you were to try configuring your system that way.


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Ok, short version:
> 7200 Audyssed with 7.1.4 FH+TM + wides. 13 speakers.
> 5200 Audyssed with 7.1.4 TF+TR + wides. 13 speakers.
> In native Atmos, my 7200 is playing 7.1.4, no SB+FW.
> My 5200 is playing TF+TR.
> However: since the 7200 has deactivated SB's in this case, and they then are downmixed into the surrounds, I switch the surrounds and surround-backs over to the 5200, via my old AVR(Yama 3067 set up as a multisource(all three zones) active speaker switch).
> So the 5200 also plays surrounds and SB's.
> ="TRUE" 9.1.8
> Not yet, but more info here
> Here is how i did it:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-601.html#post30961698
> And pictures:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ead-home-theater-version-37.html#post31169602


I counted 23 speakers (including the two subs). ...Are there more subs, like one more (used as a side table)?


----------



## asarose247

while digesting all of the above, in as much as I have a few extra AVR's to consider,

Is there a minimum distance / limit of diminished return wrt spacing of TF vs TM vs TR,
currently Tf - TR space is 7ish feet. left right space is also 7ish feet. it fits the dolby angle spec
in my case TM at 90 about 3.5 ft. spacing , centered mol between TF and TR.

for the users of ATMOS-EX and other hybrids, what spacing do you have or tried or rejected or had to settle for?

and if an AVR can do FW and FH then wire it up!

TY


----------



## NorthSky

Nalleh said:


> Actually the SPEAKER count is 11.4.10


Ok, I saw 11.2.10 (I missed two subs - not visible in your pictures). ...Then that's a grand total of 21 speakers plus 4 subwoofers. ...WoW! 

You're my grand daddy surround sound guru. ...Super super cool, totally awesome! 

If somebody gives you trouble, let me know.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh god!
> 
> But seriously.... I'd like to know what you thought about the sound if you were to try configuring your system that way.


I can easy test the differense between 4 and 8 heights: i just mute the 5200. Actually it fills out more with both. When the 7200 tries to place a phantom sound between its FH+TM, here comes the 5200 to the rescue with a actual speaker there. And visa versa. They complement each other. I wouldn't say it "collapses", with just 4 heights, but it get more stable, pronounced with 8. Definately more enjoyable.


NorthSky said:


> I counted 23 speakers (including the two subs). ...Are there more subs, like one more (used as a side table)?


Actually yes. I put the two KEF subs to good use in the rear up near the ceiling, as "rear fill", since i had them from the two sets of 5.1 KEF eggs i got. So there is actually two complete sets of KEF 3005 kits in the ceiling.



NorthSky said:


> Ok, I saw 11.2.10 (I missed two subs - not visible in your pictures). ...Then that's a grand total of 21 speakers plus 4 subwoofers. ...WoW!
> 
> You're my grand daddy surround sound guru. ...Super super cool, totally awesome!
> 
> If somebody gives you trouble, let me know.


Thanks 

Guess what, i forgot about my surround heights. So the speaker count is 11.4.12.

(And 4 buttkickers)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> I can easy test the differense between 4 and 8 heights: i just mute the 5200. Actually it fills out more with both. When the 7200 tries to place a phantom sound between its FH+TM, here comes the 5200 to the rescue with a actual speaker there. And visa versa. They complement each other. I wouldn't say it "collapses", with just 4 heights, but it get more stable, pronounced with 8. Definately more enjoyable.


Eh... muting the 5200 isn't what I'm talking about.

One day if you get bored try this:

7200: set to 7.1+wides 2ch overhead (location is irrelevant) hook up 7.1+wides to the 7200
5200: set to whatever combination as long as there is x.x.4 with front and rear heights or tops

Let the 7200 run only the ground floor speakers (no additional matrixing) 9.1.2 - heights go unused
Let the 5200 run only the four height speakers (no additional matrixing) x.x.4 - all floor speakers go unused

Test to your leisure. I'd be interested in how you liked that configuration.


----------



## NorthSky

So, 11.4.12.4 ...that's like the total speaker's count from a Beverly, Hollywood, California beach mansion...with fourteen bathrooms,...and no water. 

@*Scott*S, are you anxious to upgrade to dts:X ? ...Or are you going to wait for more than just four BR titles?


----------



## vitod

On the PL receivers, how high do you dial the volume?


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Eh... muting the 5200 isn't what I'm talking about.
> 
> One day if you get bored try this:
> 
> 7200: set to 7.1+wides 2ch overhead (location is irrelevant) hook up 7.1+wides to the 7200
> 5200: set to whatever combination as long as there is x.x.4 with front and rear heights or tops
> 
> Let the 7200 run only the ground floor speakers (no additional matrixing) 9.1.2 - heights go unused
> Let the 5200 run only the four height speakers (no additional matrixing) x.x.4 - all floor speakers go unused
> 
> Test to your leisure. I'd be interested in how you liked that configuration.


Sure, thats easy-peasy in my setup 
I'll see if i can try it if i get some free time 

However, the DTS:X update forces me to reconfigure my whole setup. So still thinking about how to get the best setup for all three format now.



NorthSky said:


> So, 11.4.12.4 ...that's like the total speaker's count from a Beverly, Hollywood, California beach mansion...with fourteen bathrooms,...and no water.


LOOOL


----------



## aaranddeeman

kokishin said:


> Updated.
> 
> You're welcome.


Hey Kokishin, you kept on missing me. Can you update my setup.

Speaker config : 7.1.6
AVR : Denon 7200W(A)
Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
Auro 3d Speakers : None
Mounted : On Ceiling
Height Config: TF+(TM)+TR
Other Info : External AVRs for ScAtmos Denon 1603, Denon 1803.


----------



## aaranddeeman

GXMnow said:


> If the add on AVR has some form of auto room EQ, run that first. This should tune the 3 channels you have coming out of it. This would be the L, C, R outputs, but going to the a front, middle, and a rear speaker in one of the rows. Or if it is one of the PL IIx units, doing 4 speakers from 2 feeds, that would be the 4 Surround outputs, doing a front, mid front, mid rear, and a real location. Once the secondary AVR's are Eq'd, then run the room calibration on the source Dolby Atmos AVR. The speakers should in theory already be tuned to the correct response. So it should just dial in levels.


My external AVRs are very basic (Denon 1603 and Denon 1803). They do not have any room EQ.
So here's what I have done

1. Using internal test tones of the AVR, set the LCR levels to 75db.
2. Add of 3 dB to the center. This is to compensate as the extracted center will be bit weaker than the main (height) speakers.
3. Now run Audyssey from main AVR and leaving external AVRs in PL-II mode. Make sure to set the MV on external AVRs to 0.
4. You will see that Audyssey sets fairly long distances (about 22 feet vs actually 6-7 feet) to factor in the delay.
5. Don't alter the distances what Audyssey sets.
6. If you have access to 9.1.6 test tones, when the tones reach the TM, it sounds exactly +3db of other speakers. (e.g. at MV=0 all speakers will be at 85dB while the TM will be 88dB)


----------



## aaranddeeman

vitod said:


> On the PL receivers, how high do you dial the volume?


It's upto the capability of the AVR, such that after you run Audyssey the level on your main AVR should be 0 or below.
Unfortunately the AVRs I have produce a low hiss when I cross MV=0. So I level 0. Having done that the level on 7200 for heights is around +4. But I have to live with that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Sure, thats easy-peasy in my setup
> I'll see if i can try it if i get some free time
> 
> However, the DTS:X update forces me to reconfigure my whole setup. So still thinking about how to get the best setup for all three format now.


Thanks. I'd do it myself but I'd have to buy a nice Denon or something.


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> 4. You will see that Audyssey sets fairly long distances (about 22 feet vs actually 6-7 feet) to factor in the delay.


I noticed this too. And i tried REW with a timing loop to check it. It seems the PLII processing adds 40ms delay?!?

I ran Audyssey with the external amp Yama AVR in multi-ch mode, wich has no processing. Both this mode and in stereo mode the delay was correct, but switching to PLII added the 40ms delay.

In a earlier Audyssey run i had it in PLII mode, and then it added more length at 6,93(22ft) meters, vs the more normal 1.8m(6ft), just as you said.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> @*Scott*S, are you anxious to upgrade to dts:X ? ...Or are you going to wait for more than just four BR titles?


A little bit of both.

There aren't any titles out in the format that I have any interest in. I am interested in Neural X much more. Not sure if I will do the upgrade at all if it loses DSU on DTS titles though. I'll think about it.

However, I have no choice but to wait since Yamaha doesn't release their firmware for another month.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> I noticed this too. And i tried REW with a timing loop to check it. It seems the PLII processing adds 40ms delay?!?
> 
> I ran Audyssey with the external amp Yama AVR in multi-ch mode, wich has no processing. Both this mode and in stereo mode the delay was correct, but switching to PLII added the 40ms delay.
> 
> In a earlier Audyssey run i had it in PLII mode, and then it added more length at 6,93(22ft) meters, vs the more normal 1.8m(6ft), just as you said.


Sounds about right. If I leave PL2 decoding on while running YPAO I get an additional 20ft or so added to the heights.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Sounds about right. If I leave PL2 decoding on while running YPAO I get an additional 20ft or so added to the heights.


Rights, so when you switch to stereo, the delay of all your heights is way off target?


----------



## faulkton

I'm trying to amp my Atmos speakers with the AVR i already own instead of spending a bunch more money on a new pre-pro when i have a Yamaha a2050 thats not even two months old. 

I was told this thread was full of very smart and helpful people who are capable of thinking outside the box. I got no actual help in the Yamaha thread, just insults by people who didnt bother to read or have poor reading comprehension 

So after the official Yamaha thread fail, i posted in the DIY forum thinking people there are accustomed to thinking outside the box. Someone suggested i also ask here. 

So rather than repeat everything in my DIY post and clog this thread up I'm just going to post a link and hope that perhaps a few people might click it and offer some input and advice. Good or bad i would appreciate it and like anyone who bothers to respond 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ed-2050-thread-what-does-diy-crowd-think.html

Thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Rights, so when you switch to stereo, the delay of all your heights is way off target?


I just disable the PL2 processing before running YPAO.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> I just disable the PL2 processing before running YPAO.


Right, but that makes it difficult to compare x.x.4 vs your x.x.6 EX.

If your two PLII AVR's were Yamaha's, then you could save stereo on one pattern and scene, and then PLII on another. And then just swith it all with two scenes buttons.

That's what i did on my VOG matrixed from TM, wich is saved on scene1. And then multi ch with three discrete inputs for Auro on scene2.
But the problem is multi ch bypasses everything, like distance. Even lipsync is disabled.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> A little bit of both.
> 
> There aren't any titles out in the format that I have any interest in. I am interested in Neural X much more. Not sure if I will do the upgrade at all if it loses DSU on DTS titles though. I'll think about it.
> 
> However, I have no choice but to wait since Yamaha doesn't release their firmware for another month.


Yes, DTS Neural:X is the real deal right now...just like DSU is. Because the number of BR titles is just not there yet. 
So I knew that you would say that..._tout a fait naturel et logique._

* Nobody knows yet if Yamaha is going to have an issue of "cross-pollination" between the two audio codecs. 
We've all read before that it might be only a temporary issue with Denon/Marantz only. ...We'll see...in time...next month. 

Have a great weekend Scott.


----------



## ALtlOff

Nalleh said:


> Actually the SPEAKER count is 11.4.10


And I got grief a year ago for my 11.4.8 speaker layout....


Oh how time changes things.


----------



## Opethion

aaranddeeman said:


> 6. If you have access to 9.1.6 test tones, when the tones reach the TM, it sounds exactly +3db of other speakers. (e.g. at MV=0 all speakers will be at 85dB while the TM will be 88dB)


And why should it be like this? I don't get it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Opethion said:


> And why should it be like this? I don't get it.


See #2 in my original post.


----------



## DaGamePimp

So I fired up a dedicated thread for the multi-avr discussion if anyone cares to join in, hopefully those of you that have done this can contribute so we can move the discussion where the information can be easily obtained/searched versus reading through this huge thread that jumps all over the place almost daily.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html

If not, well, at least I tried. 


- Jason


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> 7200: set to 7.1+wides 2ch overhead (location is irrelevant) hook up 7.1+wides to the 7200
> 5200: set to whatever combination as long as there is x.x.4 with front and rear heights or tops
> 
> Let the 7200 run only the ground floor speakers (no additional matrixing) 9.1.2 - heights go unused
> Let the 5200 run only the four height speakers (no additional matrixing) x.x.4 - all floor speakers go unused
> 
> Test to your leisure. I'd be interested in how you liked that configuration.


With only one overhead pair you cannot avoid some leakage of overhead sounds to the ear-level speakers. For example with only TMs, an object sound positioned in front of MLP at 45 degrees elevation (at mid TF position) will be split between TMs and ear-level center speaker.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Csbooth said:


> Just finished Goosebumps... MY PERSONAL NEW FAVORITE Atmos mix in regards to object activity/placement.


 Watched this last night with the kids and I feel the same way - what a blast! The overhead elements are so well integrated into the story and work so well with what's on screen you'd think the shots were composed with Atmos in mind.  NF listed only a lossy soundtrack so I wound up buying it based on the raves here. Well worth the $15 as it'll surely get repeated viewings - kids loved it as well.


----------



## Rileyrott

Jack Gilvey said:


> Watched this last night with the kids and I feel the same way - what a blast! The overhead elements are so well integrated into the story and work so well with what's on screen you'd think the shots were composed with Atmos in mind.  NF listed only a lossy soundtrack so I wound up buying it based on the raves here. Well worth the $15 as it'll surely get repeated viewings - kids loved it as well.


FYI: Just received Goosebumps from Netflix and it has Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> With only one overhead pair you cannot avoid some leakage of overhead sounds to the ear-level speakers. For example with only TMs, an object sound positioned in front of MLP at 45 degrees elevation (at mid TF position) will be split between TMs and ear-level center speaker.


Read it again more carefully.

TWO pairs of overheads for a 9.1.4 layout.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Rileyrott said:


> FYI: Just received Goosebumps from Netflix and it has Dolby Atmos.


 Ahh, strange as they usually use "DTS HD" as code for Atmos.  Would've been a buy anyway - worth it just for the Mantis!


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Read it again more carefully.
> 
> TWO pairs of overheads for a 9.1.4 layout.


Yes, from the 5200, but the 7200 thinks it has one set of heights, and will use ear level in transitions to them.


----------



## Opethion

aaranddeeman said:


> See [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] in my original post.


In #2 you claim that the generated TM channel has to be raised by 3 dB because it is otherwise too weak. But that assumption seems to be wrong since in #6 you write that using 9.1.6 test tones the TM will now be 3 dB louder than TF or TR. So the TM is 3 dB too loud because you raised it by 3 dB. So why raise it by 3 dB at all?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Yes, from the 5200, but the 7200 thinks it has one set of heights, and will use ear level in transitions to them.


Yes, that is what I meant. Thank you.


----------



## gbaby

*I'm Still Not Impressed with ATMOS.*

I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.


----------



## kbarnes701

gbaby said:


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it *is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment.* Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.


 Yeah - it's some sort of mass hysteria. Hundreds of people in this thread, thousands who have seen Atmos theatrically and an entire industry of professional sound mixers have all been deceived. I recommend this important AV accessory.










Fortunately we have conscientious members such as yourself to help us avoid making such costly mistakes in the future.


----------



## Shniks

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah - it's some sort of mass hysteria. Hundreds of people in this thread, thousands who have seen Atmos theatrically and an entire industry of professional sound mixers have all been deceived. I recommend this important AV accessory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately we have conscientious members such as yourself to help us avoid making such costly mistakes in the future.



Can I get 3 of those hats as I converted two of my friends to Atmos too? Maybe these hats will also allows us to get OTA reception and help us cut cable. Win, Win!


Cheers,


----------



## gammanuc

gbaby said:


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.


Oh man, after over a year of hearing Atmos and DSU in my home I thought I would never do without it. But since you have heard it twice and don't like it I will disconnect all my speakers except my center. Yeeeah, I've been tricked!


----------



## thebland

gbaby said:


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.


But we all know the least knowledgeable people are those that work at a sound store... Likely improper setup, etc. But I would bet the same store set up in any knowledgeable members house here would sound more ideal as more care would be taken in set up!

What is the name of the store you listened at?


----------



## audioguy

gbaby said:


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.


Given your experience, I am selling my surround processor, all 4 ceiling speakers and extra amps. I had not idea now crappy ATMOS was until I read your post.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion but given all of the accolades I am sure you have read here on how wonderful DSU and Atmos are, is one possible conclusion that you might come that the demo you heard was flawed? In fact, seriously flawed?


----------



## gbaby

thebland said:


> But we all know the least knowledgeable people are those that work at a sound store... Likely improper setup, etc. But I would bet the same store set up in any knowledgeable members house here would sound more ideal as more care would be taken in set up!
> 
> What is the name of the store you listened at?


I did ask if the system was setup properly so the salesman went to explain how the height speakers were angled 30 degrees toward the listener as well as explaining the height of the ceiling, the distance from the speakers to the seating and the like. I read a little on the ATMOS specs before arriving and I was satisfied it was set up correctly. And, while I did hear some extra immersion, I just was not impressed to the point I would make this kind of investment and spend time tweaking it. Of course had I done so, I would not feel right admitting maybe I made a mistake and I would definitely justify my time and effort. But, ATMOS is not for me to enjoy, but for those to enjoy who made the time and financial sacrifice to get it. I'm just happy to know what it is and to know I don't need it.  However, I would not advise anyone who has the setup to take it down. This info is for those who have not made this investment. I'd say, spend your money on either better electronics or speakers and not ATMOS as its not the quantity of sound, but the quality of it. Sorry for not listing the store, but I respect its owners and do not want them to be put under any unnecessary badgering.


----------



## gammanuc

gbaby said:


> I did ask if the system was setup properly so the salesman went to explain how the height speakers were angled 30 degrees toward the listener as well as explaining the height of the ceiling, the distance from the speakers to the seating and the like. I read a little on the ATMOS specs before arriving and I was satisfied it was set up correctly. And, while I did hear some extra immersion, I just was not impressed to the point I would make this kind of investment and spend time tweaking it. Of course had I done so, I would not feel right admitting maybe I made a mistake and I would definitely justify my time and effort. But, ATMOS is not for me to enjoy, but for those to enjoy who made the time and financial sacrifice to get it. I'm just happy to know what it is and to know I don't need it.  However, I would not advise anyone who has the setup to take it down. This info is for those who have not made this investment. I'd say, spend your money on either better electronics or speakers and not ATMOS as its not the quantity of sound, but the quality of it. Sorry for not listing the store, but I respect its owners and do not want them to be put under any unnecessary badgering.


From what you have said that you are not in any position to advise anyone on Atmos.
I guess you are just trolling.


----------



## Ted99

kokishin said:


> Updated.
> 
> You're welcome.


For your data base, pls see my sig.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Opethion said:


> In #2 you claim that the generated TM channel has to be raised by 3 dB because it is otherwise too weak. But that assumption seems to be wrong since in #6 you write that using 9.1.6 test tones the TM will now be 3 dB louder than TF or TR. So the TM is 3 dB too loud because you raised it by 3 dB. So why raise it by 3 dB at all?


Because in actually any extracted center is approximately 3dB lower than it's corresponding stereo mains.


----------



## aaranddeeman

gbaby said:


> I did ask if the system was setup properly so the salesman went to explain how the height speakers were angled 30 degrees toward the listener as well as explaining the height of the ceiling, the distance from the speakers to the seating and the like. I read a little on the ATMOS specs before arriving and I was satisfied it was set up correctly. And, while I did hear some extra immersion, I just was not impressed to the point I would make this kind of investment and spend time tweaking it. Of course had I done so, I would not feel right admitting maybe I made a mistake and I would definitely justify my time and effort. But, *ATMOS is not for me to enjoy*, but for those to enjoy who made the time and financial sacrifice to get it. I'm just happy to know what it is and to know I don't need it.  However, I would not advise anyone who has the setup to take it down. This info is for those who have not made this investment. I'd say, spend your money on either better electronics or speakers and not ATMOS as its not the quantity of sound, but the quality of it. Sorry for not listing the store, but I respect its owners and do not want them to be put under any unnecessary badgering.


Then what are you doing on "The official Dolby Atmos thread"?


----------



## audioguy

aaranddeeman said:


> Then what are you doing on "The official Dolby Atmos thread"?


+1


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> Then what are you doing on "The official Dolby Atmos thread"?


+2


----------



## Stoked21

+3. I always think some are better than others with an 80/20 bad to good. 

50% of all Atmos installs are probably completely wrong due to people's "creative" improvisation, not following specs and not knowing what they are doing. They perceive they are gaining value due to placebo of additional speakers being active. Especially true of multi-purpose retailers. 

30% are probably decent but lacking and need considerable rework. They do nothing to showcase the technology favorably. 

15% are good and could easily be improved to great with a little time and $ investments (treatments, matching, speaker repositioning, etc). 

4% are great and need very little to excel. Enjoyable as they are. 

1% are amazing. 


I suppose that holds true for all systems of any type, mine included.


----------



## kokishin

aaranddeeman said:


> Hey Kokishin, you kept on missing me. Can you update my setup.
> 
> Speaker config : 7.1.6
> AVR : Denon 7200W(A)
> Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
> Auro 3d Speakers : None
> Mounted : On Ceiling
> Height Config: TF+(TM)+TR
> Other Info : External AVRs for ScAtmos Denon 1603, Denon 1803.


No, I did not miss you. I replied to you on 08-22-2015, 07:57 PM (PT) letting you know I don't include ScAtmos (non-standard) setups on the spreadsheet.


----------



## kokishin

Ted99 said:


> For your data base, pls see my sig.


Please provide the info shown in the spreadsheet in a concise manner and I'll be glad to include you.


----------



## Csbooth

Jack Gilvey said:


> Watched this last night with the kids and I feel the same way - what a blast! The overhead elements are so well integrated into the story and work so well with what's on screen you'd think the shots were composed with Atmos in mind.  NF listed only a lossy soundtrack so I wound up buying it based on the raves here. Well worth the $15 as it'll surely get repeated viewings - kids loved it as well.


I'm so glad to HEAR that


----------



## ALtlOff

Stoked21 said:


> +3. I always think some are better than others with an 80/20 bad to good.
> 
> 50% of all Atmos installs are probably completely wrong due to people's "creative" improvisation, not following specs and not knowing what they are doing. They perceive they are gaining value due to placebo of additional speakers being active. Especially true of multi-purpose retailers.
> 
> 30% are probably decent but lacking and need considerable rework. They do nothing to showcase the technology favorably.
> 
> 15% are good and could easily be improved to great with a little time and $ investments (treatments, matching, speaker repositioning, etc).
> 
> 4% are great and need very little to excel. Enjoyable as they are.
> 
> 1% are amazing.
> 
> 
> I suppose that holds true for all systems of any type, mine included.


+4

And I'm using an improperly set up system of only heights and even some pairs run in tandem with each other, so my layout is not even close to spec.

And Atmos is an exceptional upgrade.

And this is coming from someone who ran the exact same speaker setup using basic 9.2 w/ PLIIz and simply duplicated signals from ear to height level on all but the Front Heights, and I can guarantee it's not just having "sound up there", it is a different, and IMO, better experience.

But again, just my opinion.


----------



## thebland

*+5 (right here)* - I think he like likes Atmos...

Here's my buddy Ash's Atmos theater review.... of his own theater.



Ash Sharma said:


> _My one year journey to pack 30 channels of speakers 12000 watts of power ATMOS came through in December 2015.
> Many thanks to Dennis Erskine my designer for 10 years and the master calibrator Adam Peltz.
> Thanks to Craig - Theatermax for supplying 14 channels of Theta amplification ( Three Theta Prometheus - Two Theta Dreadnaughts one with 6 and one with 5 channels ) and the awesome sounding Aeial 20T's Ribbon based speakers and Kaleidescape system
> The attached poster designed by Nicolas - a forum member tells the story.
> The theater is featured in Electronic House Magazine Feb Edition - I am trying to get a smaller pdf which fits the forum and will post it soon.
> Please fire away at me for the dumb questions - for smart questions fire at Dennis and Adam.
> Being a HT enthusiast for years - this upgrade is way above my head - I get most of it but maybe my age and the technology I will refer to the experts to answer the technical questions.
> The sound is phenomenal - I cannot tell where the speakers are in the room - totally immersive and very sophisticated sound...as I stated in the magazine article instead of being surrounded by the Amazon - you get a sense of being in the Amazon._
> *ATMOS is the real deal folks...*












Read the whole review soon to be in this month's Electronic House Magazine - awesome~!


----------



## cyclones22

Well, I'd bet money it's much easier to detect an Atmos system in a double blind comparison with a non-Atmos system than it would be comparing the "quality" audio components our friend keeps talking about and run of the mill amplifiers and processors. Oh and quantity and quality are not mutually exclusive. See post above mine.


----------



## Nalleh

Daniel Chaves said:


> Do you have a thread with photos of the setup and configuration and room layout. ^_^


Done, i have made a thread 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wh...2-franken-atmos-living-room.html#post41323201


----------



## aaranddeeman

kokishin said:


> No, I did not miss you. I replied to you on 08-22-2015, 07:57 PM (PT) letting you know I don't include ScAtmos (non-standard) setups on the spreadsheet.


Sorry. Looks like I missed your PM.
Let's update it with the actual stuff like below. Let's keep the expansion out of it as you say.

Speaker config : 7.1.4
AVR : Denon 7200W(A)
Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
Auro 3d Speakers : None
Mounted : On Ceiling
Height Config: TF+TR
Other Info : Two external Amps (Crown X1000) for LCR


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Nalleh said:


> Done, i have made a thread
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wh...2-franken-atmos-living-room.html#post41323201


thank you


----------



## tigerhonaker

*



I'm Still Not Impressed with ATMOS.

Click to expand...

*


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.





gbaby said:


> I did ask if the system was setup properly so the salesman went to explain how the height speakers were angled 30 degrees toward the listener as well as explaining the height of the ceiling, the distance from the speakers to the seating and the like. I read a little on the ATMOS specs before arriving and I was satisfied it was set up correctly. And, while I did hear some extra immersion, I just was not impressed to the point I would make this kind of investment and spend time tweaking it. Of course had I done so, I would not feel right admitting maybe I made a mistake and I would definitely justify my time and effort. But, ATMOS is not for me to enjoy, but for those to enjoy who made the time and financial sacrifice to get it. I'm just happy to know what it is and to know I don't need it.  However, I would not advise anyone who has the setup to take it down. This info is for those who have not made this investment. I'd say, spend your money on either better electronics or speakers and not ATMOS as its not the quantity of sound, but the quality of it. Sorry for not listing the store, but I respect its owners and do not want them to be put under any unnecessary badgering.


Thanks for coming on here and saying what you think it is appreciated by me and perhaps others that have not yet purchased Atmos.

Personally I do try to read the post on this thread as time allows.
And in doing so I just saw and read your's.
I have a buddy that also came away with the same opinion as yourself and he was in a very High-End demo room.
He lives in San Antonio, TX. and is a 70 plus year ole fellow.
So is his brother that also attended the same demo and came away with the same exact opinion.
They felt like if you were listening to the Demo Atmos DVDs they did sound "Awesome".
But if you were listening to the other Blu-ray DVDs they were not at all impressed.
Also they both felt like the Music DVDs were worse than the other DVDs they listened to.
So it's nice to every once in awhile to see and hear someone's opinion that is not going along with the Crowd on here.

I also agree that once the majority of people spent their monies they sure are not going to then say anything negative about Atmos.
That's just the way it is ...........

It's no different than people buying a new car ..........
Do you really think they are then going to say anything negative about it.
Not likely in the majority of cases.

I have not gotten the Atmos system yet and have no intention of doing so until it has been around for a few years.
Then we shall see how much material is really readily available with Atmos on it.
Like Streaming is an example of what I am referring to.
Netflix etc.

So for those on this thread that already have spent your monies I'm glad your enjoying Atmos.
And I really doubt I'll be seeing or reading any of you saying anything negative about how it sounds.

Also while I'm thinking about it one does not have to be a *{Troll}* to simply say what one thinks.
So don't be so quick to judge us that say we are not yet convinced on adding Atmos.
Or for those that have said they are not impressed with the Demos they have heard with Atmos or simulated Atmos.

And before any of you wish to jump all over me and my comments don't waste your time or effort.
I'm not going to be posting on this thread frequently in a negative manner and trying to convince people not to add Atmos to their systems.
We are all adults so there should be room for all of us to post here what we think in a friendly manner.

Terry


----------



## GXMnow

aaranddeeman said:


> Because in actually any extracted center is approximately 3dB lower than it's corresponding stereo mains.


Well, that is not correct.

In a standard Dolby Pro Logic encode/decode setup, the encode side has the center channel information reduced by 3 db as it is added to both the left and the right. So if you recorded a signal at 75 db on left only, it would encode at 75 db in the LT output track, and RT would still be silent. Same is true if you record sound on right channel in, it will be at the same level in the RT output track. But if you record a signal at 75 db to the center track into a Pro Logic encoder, it will be encoded into both the LT and RT tracks at just 72 db. If you listen to that over a pair of separate speakers, and not through a decoder, the sounds will add in the air by about +3 db restoring the level you hear back to the original 75 db. When you electronically mix signals together, like the Pro Logic decoder does, it will actually add by 6 db. If you just used a straight mixer, the result would be 78 db, or 3 db too loud. In a proper Dolby Pro Logic decoder, the center channel is again reduced by 3 db in the decoder to have it come out at the correct 75 db. Now the 9.1.6 test tones were not actually encoded for Dolby Pro Logic decoding, but the signal for the TM should be electronically panned to 1/2 way between the TF and TR that is going to the decoder. A normal pan pot setup for audio mixing should also apply the equal level rule. The sound from the TF and TR each should also be 3 db less than when the test tone is on just the TF or TR to acoustically mix and appear to still be 75 db. So, it does once again end up being the correct level. The test tones of the top pro logic AVR should all match, and the TF, TM, TR test tones from the Dolby Atmos demo disk should also then all match. When you balance L, C, R in an old Pro Logic setup, did you dial the internal test tone on center to play 3 db louder?


----------



## CBdicX

*Please stop bashing people that DO NOT LIKE immersive sound.*


To bad that the bashing of people that do not like Atmos is also starting to be a part of this forum 
I did not liked immersive sound, took it down but its up again after missing specific effects.
Its not the Holy Crail, its just an addition to 5 or 7.x
Some people do not think its doing enough to justify putting up 4-6 extra speakers !
I like it now and do think with DTS:X more people will go on this road.
But stop bashing people that say they do not like it (don't worry, i can handle it ).
The Audyssey forum had the same "problem", oh, you do not like it ?
What is wrong with your ears, you setup is wrong, everything is wrong, exept Audyssey.

Hope immersive users will be smarter and stay on track, and keep in mind its not for everyone, and stop bashing people that do not like it.
Not everyone thinks a Rolls Roys is the best car on the planet (well, it is, but you get the point).
I personal like forums that give also the *cons* space to say what they think, it makes a forum stronger and a important source for coming users.
And immersive sound has cons, so do not try to bash that, be honnest about is.
Its ok but.............


----------



## CBdicX

tigerhonaker said:


> *Thanks for coming on here and saying what you think it is appreciated by me and perhaps others that have not yet purchased Atmos.*
> 
> *Personally I do try to read the post on this thread as time allows.*
> *And in doing so I just saw and read your's.*
> *I have a buddy that also came away with the same opinion as yourself and he was in a very High-End demo room.*
> *He lives in San Antonio, TX. and is a 70 plus year ole fellow.*
> *So is his brother that also attended the same demo and came away with the same exact opinion.*
> *They felt like if you were listening to the Demo Atmos DVDs they did sound "Awesome".*
> *But if you were listening to the other Blu-ray DVDs they were not at all impressed.*
> *Also they both felt like the Music DVDs were worse than the other DVDs they listened to.*
> *So it's nice to every once in awhile to see and hear someone's opinion that is not going along with the Crowd on here.*
> 
> *I also agree that once the majority of people spent their monies they sure are not going to then say anything negative about Atmos.*
> *That's just the way it is ...........*
> 
> *It's no different than people buying a new car ..........*
> *Do you really think they are then going to say anything negative about it.*
> *Not likely in the majority of cases.*
> 
> *I have not gotten the Atmos system yet and have no intention of doing so until it has been around for a few years.*
> *Then we shall see how much material is really readily available with Atmos on it.*
> *Like Streaming is an example of what I am referring to.*
> *Netflix etc.*
> 
> *So for those on this thread that already have spent your monies I'm glad your enjoying Atmos.*
> *And I really doubt I'll be seeing or reading any of you saying anything negative about how it sounds.*
> 
> *Also while I'm thinking about it one does not have to be a {Troll} to simply say what one thinks.
> So don't be so quick to judge us that say we are not yet convinced on adding Atmos.
> Or for those that have said they are not impressed with the Demos they have heard with Atmos or simulated Atmos.
> 
> And before any of you wish to jump all over me and my comments don't waste your time or effort.
> I'm not going to be posting on this thread frequently in a negative manner and trying to convince people not to add Atmos to their systems.
> We are all adults so there should be room for all of us to post here what we think in a friendly manner.
> 
> Terry*


*
Had the same feeling about Atmos (immersive sound) and even took it down !
Now i am back on the Atmos train after a few weeks and missed the effect Atmos and DSU gives.
And its absolute not for every source an good addition !!
For music (stereo) Auro 3D is doing a far better job, believe me, i tried.
It not the Holy Crail like some users of this forum want to make everyone believe.
To bad forums like this have users that start bashing the cons, and immersive sound has cons !
Hope when you try it at home, you will like it.
You can allways take it down (like i did) and then experians the differents.


Nice hobby *


----------



## markus767

CBdicX said:


> immersive sound has cons !


If I may ask, what are the "cons" other than practical considerations like having to put up more speakers and investing more money?


----------



## lego1

No one is bashing. If someone doesn't like Atmos, why post in the Dolby atmos thread that has over 1,000 pages saying I tried atmos and it sucks. If you don't like it, then don't install overhead speakers and don't post. 

It's like coming into an Audi or Bmw car forum and saying, hey, I've driven an Audi or Bmw and they suck, and get upset if people don't agree. What's the point?


----------



## CBdicX

markus767 said:


> If I may ask, what are the "cons" other than practical considerations like having to put up more speakers and investing more money?


No working very good for music in stereo, not doing much in a lot of content were surround is working ok and height stays most of the time silent, seems to me to be more pickey about angles, ceiling shapes ect, then other setups.


----------



## CBdicX

lego1 said:


> No one is bashing. If someone doesn't like Atmos, why post in the Dolby atmos thread that has over 1,000 pages saying I tried atmos and it sucks. If you don't like it, then don't install overhead speakers and don't post.
> 
> It's like coming into an Audi or Bmw car forum and saying, hey, I've driven an Audi or Bmw and they suck, and get upset if people don't agree. What's the point?


There we go again.
The point is having a place for BOTH sides and respect both sides, specific the con side !!
So you think posting negatives is not a part of creating a good forum, just the good things are allowed ?
Seems to me an idea that belongs in North Korea......


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> +3. I always think some are better than others with an 80/20 bad to good.
> 
> 50% of all Atmos installs are probably completely wrong due to people's "creative" improvisation, not following specs and not knowing what they are doing. They perceive they are gaining value due to placebo of additional speakers being active. Especially true of multi-purpose retailers.
> 
> 30% are probably decent but lacking and need considerable rework. They do nothing to showcase the technology favorably.
> 
> 15% are good and could easily be improved to great with a little time and $ investments (treatments, matching, speaker repositioning, etc).
> 
> 4% are great and need very little to excel. Enjoyable as they are.
> 
> 1% are amazing.
> 
> 
> I suppose that holds true for all systems of any type, mine included.


I've read that 78.7% of all statistics are made up. 


(J/K. I agree with your basic points. Clearly the setup that our disillusioned friend heard had some problems with it.)


----------



## thebland

CBdicX said:


> There we go again.
> The point is having a place for BOTH sides and respect both sides, specific the con side !!
> So you think posting negatives is not a part of creating a good forum, just the good things are allowed ?
> Seems to me an idea that belongs in North Korea......


I'd be more interested in folks who find it disappointing who have it personally installed in home. 
I do not trust dealer set ups as, these days, they are typically not up to speed on the technology. This has always been my experience locally with 4-5 shops that have had dedicated theater rooms.

That said, Any ATMOS owners here that find it disappointing?


----------



## CBdicX

thebland said:


> I'd be more interested in folks who find it disappointing who have it personally installed in home.
> I do not trust dealer set ups as, these days, they are typically not up to speed on the technology. This has always been my experience locally with 4-5 shops that have had dedicated theater rooms.
> 
> That said, Any ATMOS owners here that find it disappointing?


Did at first, but now i like it enough to accept the 4 extra speakers.
I must say i like it in movies (DSU and Atmos), not so in music or TV.
In music find Auro doing a better job, for TV i use all CH stereo.
Lets see what DTS:X will bring.........


----------



## audioguy

CBdicX said:


> Did at first, but now i like it enough to accept the 4 extra speakers.
> I must say i like it in movies (DSU and Atmos), not so in music or TV.
> In music find Auro doing a better job, for TV i use all CH stereo.
> Lets see what DTS:X will bring.........


DSU for music needs serious adjustments to make it palatable. Surrounds are waaaaay too loud. Even at that, it works better for some music than others.

As for Automatic: Please listen to an AutoMatic upmixed stereo recording with only the ceiling speakers working and tell us what you hear. In case you don't want to go through the effort, you will hear what you heard with only the ear height level speakers - reduced in trim and with some delay. Doesn't mean you won't like it and it clearly adds a sense of spaciousness. Not my cup of tea. There are up mixers that do a better job than both Automatic and DSU (for 2 channel music) but most of the current crop of AVR's/SSP no longer support them.

As for dealer demo's: There are a few HT stores around that really know what they are doing. Many of the rest don't have a clue about the basic principles of acoustics - much less how to properly set up and correctly calibrate a multi-speaker room.


----------



## Gooddoc

thebland said:


> I'd be more interested in folks who find it disappointing who have it personally installed in home.
> I do not trust dealer set ups as, these days, they are typically not up to speed on the technology. This has always been my experience locally with 4-5 shops that have had dedicated theater rooms.
> 
> That said, Any ATMOS owners here that find it disappointing?


Of course, if you want a reason NOT to like something, it's very easy to come up with reasons why. You know, "that back massage sucked", "I don't want to win the lottery because I'd have to pay too much taxes", etc.

Your point I think was that almost universally those that have actually installed ATMOS like it(even horribly executed systems in many instances), and in every properly setup ATMOS system I've ever read the owners LOVE it. Given that fact, any reasonable person would realize that perhaps the brief demo they heard somewhere was not likely representative of how it should sound. That's not to say that there aren't folks that would find it wholly unsatisfying, like native Australian aborigines that might prefer to be in an actual jungle over the simulated ATMOS version.


----------



## Scarriere

thebland said:


> I'd be more interested in folks who find it disappointing who have it personally installed in home.
> I do not trust dealer set ups as, these days, they are typically not up to speed on the technology. This has always been my experience locally with 4-5 shops that have had dedicated theater rooms.
> 
> That said, *Any ATMOS owners here that find it disappointing?*


No, not at all.
I find it comparable to the jump from Dolby Digital to Dolby True. Maybe even just a bit more than that.
I'd never go back. That'd be ridiculous (for me, not speaking of anyone else).


----------



## kbarnes701

thebland said:


> I'd be more interested in folks who find it disappointing who have it personally installed in home.
> I do not trust dealer set ups as, these days, they are typically not up to speed on the technology. This has always been my experience locally with 4-5 shops that have had dedicated theater rooms.
> 
> That said, Any ATMOS owners here that find it disappointing?


Not me for sure. I first heard Atmos at Dolby's London HQ, both in their full-size screening room and then in their HT-style room and, along with a bunch of industry professionals, I was blown away by it. I later heard it again at Dolby with a different HT room setup (better speakers) and was similarly blown away. Then I installed 7.2.4 at home and was blown away all over again. Same experience in the theaters where I have seen Atmos movies too. The additional sense of immersion from the overhead speakers, plus the added precision from the object-based mixes, makes for a truly involving experience, adding considerably to the story unfolding on the screen (in a good mix).

I have also heard Atmos demonstrated in the demo room of a buddy of mine who is a specialist AV retailer and installer, along with other enthusiasts, and the reception has always been the same: "I want it and I want it now". 

What do all these rooms have in common? They have been carefully and properly set up. Anyone is capable of ruining something - we have no way of knowing if the demo this guy heard was properly set up or not. All he has told us is that the overhead speakers were "pointed at a 30° angle", which is no part of the Atmos setup. So if they made a big deal of pointing that out to him, it kinda suggests they have no idea what they are doing anyway. We also don't even know if they had their wiring or amp assignments right.

So, on the basis of hundreds of positive reports and a couple of negative reports, guess which way commonsense tells us to go?


----------



## thebland

Gooddoc said:


> Of course, if you want a reason NOT to like something, it's very easy to come up with reasons why. You know, "that back massage sucked", "I don't want to win the lottery because I'd have to pay too much taxes", etc.
> 
> Your point I think was that almost universally those that have actually installed ATMOS like it(even horribly executed systems in many instances), and in every properly setup ATMOS system I've ever read the owners LOVE it. Given that fact, any reasonable person would realize that perhaps the brief demo they heard somewhere was not likely representative of how it should sound. That's not to say that there aren't folks that would find it wholly unsatisfying, like native Australian aborigines that might prefer to be in an actual jungle over the simulated ATMOS version.



I hear what you're saying but it goes both ways. Likely, the audio store set up incorrectly - and unless you go through the whole set up with the clerk, you'll never know. Your impressions are 100% based on their set up. Good set up... likely a great demo (as many here have discussed). Poor set up, 'Atmos is bad'.

We know from many sources here and Ralph's reviews of Atmos tracks that Atmos does offer some nice improvements. Perhaps the naysayers, simply have varied expectations of immersive sound.

Unfortunately, I am am 6 weeks out for my own immersive sound to get going!


----------



## jpco

thebland said:


> I'd be more interested in folks who find it disappointing who have it personally installed in home.
> 
> I do not trust dealer set ups as, these days, they are typically not up to speed on the technology. This has always been my experience locally with 4-5 shops that have had dedicated theater rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> That said, Any ATMOS owners here that find it disappointing?



Atmos works well as an immersive audio mixing and delivery system. I've not heard anything detrimental in Atmos itself. Satisfaction is dependent on the mix. 

I have been disappointed with inconsistent use of the Atmos height layer in some mixes. There can be long stretches of dead silence overhead, and then when overheads come in, it's somewhat jarring. That's a mixing issue, not an Atmos issue. I would like to see ambient levels in the height layer match that of the base surround layer to keep an atmospheric bubble throughout.

I do not like Dolby Surround upmixing for music at all. I also find with some legacy soundtracks that, while adding ambiance and immersion, it can take away some precision and impact in the surround field. If I only heard upmixing in a demo with A/B comparison with 5/7.1, I probably wouldn't go with it for upmixing only. 

My main goal is to be able to hear mixes as close to intended as possible. Immersive mixes are here. Not preferring Atmos is like not preferring 5.1 over stereo. There are some out there who feel that way, but they are the minority and can set up their systems to match their preferences. 

For those who don't like it, I'd be interested in hearing how an Atmos or DTS:X native mix was somehow less than the same material in 5/7.1. That is not something I've come close to experiencing as of now.


----------



## CBdicX

If audio stores have a hard time instaling Atmos (or Auro) so it will sound good, then this can be seen as a difficult sound addition.
And if the audio stores, who depend on selling the stuff, can not get it right, imagine the difficult layout of the most livingrooms.
In most stores setting up a 5.1 or 7.1 system is no problem, this is why it sells so easy.
A co-worker went yesterday to a Atmos demo in a audio store, and gess what, he is not buying it.
Think its more difficult to get it right then the common 5.1 and 7.1 setups.


----------



## aaranddeeman

GXMnow said:


> Well, that is not correct.
> 
> In a standard Dolby Pro Logic encode/decode setup, the encode side has the center channel information reduced by 3 db as it is added to both the left and the right. So if you recorded a signal at 75 db on left only, it would encode at 75 db in the LT output track, and RT would still be silent. Same is true if you record sound on right channel in, it will be at the same level in the RT output track. But if you record a signal at 75 db to the center track into a Pro Logic encoder, it will be encoded into both the LT and RT tracks at just 72 db. If you listen to that over a pair of separate speakers, and not through a decoder, the sounds will add in the air by about +3 db restoring the level you hear back to the original 75 db. When you electronically mix signals together, like the Pro Logic decoder does, it will actually add by 6 db. If you just used a straight mixer, the result would be 78 db, or 3 db too loud. In a proper Dolby Pro Logic decoder, the center channel is again reduced by 3 db in the decoder to have it come out at the correct 75 db. Now the 9.1.6 test tones were not actually encoded for Dolby Pro Logic decoding, but the signal for the TM should be electronically panned to 1/2 way between the TF and TR that is going to the decoder. A normal pan pot setup for audio mixing should also apply the equal level rule. The sound from the TF and TR each should also be 3 db less than when the test tone is on just the TF or TR to acoustically mix and appear to still be 75 db. So, it does once again end up being the correct level. The test tones of the top pro logic AVR should all match, and the TF, TM, TR test tones from the Dolby Atmos demo disk should also then all match. When you balance L, C, R in an old Pro Logic setup, did you dial the internal test tone on center to play 3 db louder?


Thanks for the details. Now it's very clear.
Yes, I had dialed center to +3dB using internal test tones.
So looks like I should bring it to where it was?


----------



## Molon_Labe

tigerhonaker said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming on here and saying what you think it is appreciated by me and perhaps others that have not yet purchased Atmos.
> 
> Personally I do try to read the post on this thread as time allows.
> And in doing so I just saw and read your's.
> I have a buddy that also came away with the same opinion as yourself and he was in a very High-End demo room.
> He lives in San Antonio, TX. and is a 70 plus year ole fellow.
> So is his brother that also attended the same demo and came away with the same exact opinion.
> They felt like if you were listening to the Demo Atmos DVDs they did sound "Awesome".
> But if you were listening to the other Blu-ray DVDs they were not at all impressed.
> Also they both felt like the Music DVDs were worse than the other DVDs they listened to.
> So it's nice to every once in awhile to see and hear someone's opinion that is not going along with the Crowd on here.
> 
> I also agree that once the majority of people spent their monies they sure are not going to then say anything negative about Atmos.
> That's just the way it is ...........
> 
> It's no different than people buying a new car ..........
> Do you really think they are then going to say anything negative about it.
> Not likely in the majority of cases.
> 
> I have not gotten the Atmos system yet and have no intention of doing so until it has been around for a few years.
> Then we shall see how much material is really readily available with Atmos on it.
> Like Streaming is an example of what I am referring to.
> Netflix etc.
> 
> So for those on this thread that already have spent your monies I'm glad your enjoying Atmos.
> And I really doubt I'll be seeing or reading any of you saying anything negative about how it sounds.
> 
> Also while I'm thinking about it one does not have to be a {Troll} to simply say what one thinks.
> So don't be so quick to judge us that say we are not yet convinced on adding Atmos.
> Or for those that have said they are not impressed with the Demos they have heard with Atmos or simulated Atmos.
> 
> And before any of you wish to jump all over me and my comments don't waste your time or effort.
> I'm not going to be posting on this thread frequently in a negative manner and trying to convince people not to add Atmos to their systems.
> We are all adults so there should be room for all of us to post here what we think in a friendly manner.
> 
> Terry*


*

Terry,

I challenge you to pay attention throughout your daily activities to the sounds you are hearing. I think you will be surprised that 99% (that is just a guess) of sounds come from your front, rear, and/or sides. Sound waves don't come from above simply because unless an object above you generates sound waves, there is not much to hear up there except the distant sounds of the wind, birds, etc unless it is raining, thunder, or an aircraft flies directly overhead. In life, the sounds above are typically natural ambiance. The demo disc intentionally puts a lot of objects in the space above you and as your friend said, it sounds awesome. Movies don't put a lot of material in the Atmos channels because, just as in life, there aren't a lot of sounds coming from the space above us. To do so, would seem unnatural and would draw attention to itself. I know everyone is spending time and money on Atmos speakers and want a perceived ROI for their investment. However, the goal of immersive audio is to replicate a natural environment realistically. When needed, the Atmos speakers are there and perform i.e. demo disc, but to expect them to have material all the time would be unnatural and negate the goal of the technology.*


----------



## aaranddeeman

CBdicX said:


> *Please stop bashing people that DO NOT LIKE immersive sound.*


No bashing here. They have already done their part of bashing Atmos last year around.
Now what's their point in coming back again and repeat the same.
It was okay during the debut of the format, but now, what do they expect here, a red carpet?


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Not me for sure. I first heard Atmos at Dolby's London HQ, both in their full-size screening room and then in their HT-style room and, along with a bunch of industry professionals, I was blown away by it. I later heard it again at Dolby with a different HT room setup (better speakers) and was similarly blown away. Then I installed 7.2.4 at home and was blown away all over again. Same experience in the theaters where I have seen Atmos movies too. The additional sense of immersion from the overhead speakers, plus the added precision from the object-based mixes, makes for a truly involving experience, adding considerably to the story unfolding on the screen (in a good mix).
> 
> I have also heard Atmos demonstrated in the demo room of a buddy of mine who is a specialist AV retailer and installer, along with other enthusiasts, and the reception has always been the same: "I want it and I want it now".
> 
> What do all these rooms have in common? They have been carefully and properly set up. Anyone is capable of ruining something - we have no way of knowing if the demo this guy heard was properly set up or not. All he has told us is that the overhead speakers were "pointed at a 30° angle", which is no part of the Atmos setup. So if they made a big deal of pointing that out to him, it kinda suggests they have no idea what they are doing anyway. We also don't even know if they had their wiring or amp assignments right.
> 
> So, on the basis of hundreds of positive reports and a couple of negative reports, guess which way commonsense tells us to go?


I like sushi...a lot. However, I have some friends who are vegetarian and others who are strictly beef eaters.
But, if we go out to eat we do not go to a sushi restaurant...none of us would enjoy the experience together.
I respect their choices, but I don't invite them to a sushi restaurant so that I can enjoy the sushi.

So, I respect your choice if you do not like Atmos...but, this is an Atmos restaurant so having voiced your opinion, feel free to set up your own "Atmos Sucks!" forum and go there.

Insofar as I am concerned, this is a place that serves Atmos in all of its flavors and is and should be focused on how how to make it taste better...

Do not take up my time and energy trying to tell me that it does not work, you don't like it, ad infinitum. Go to your Atmos Sucks! Forum and wail on...and have fun doing it...


----------



## CBdicX

audioguy said:


> DSU for music needs serious adjustments to make it palatable. Surrounds are waaaaay too loud. Even at that, it works better for some music than others.
> 
> As for Automatic: Please listen to an AutoMatic upmixed stereo recording with only the ceiling speakers working and tell us what you hear. In case you don't want to go through the effort, you will hear what you heard with only the ear height level speakers - reduced in trim and with some delay. Doesn't mean you won't like it and it clearly adds a sense of spaciousness. Not my cup of tea. There are up mixers that do a better job than both Automatic and DSU (for 2 channel music) but most of the current crop of AVR's/SSP no longer support them.
> 
> As for dealer demo's: There are a few HT stores around that really know what they are doing. Many of the rest don't have a clue about the basic principles of acoustics - much less how to properly set up and correctly calibrate a multi-speaker room.


What i like with Auro (Auromatic) is that you can adjust the amount of the Height speakers to work.
(both Auro and Atmos on a Denon X7200)
It would be a good step if Dolby did the same for DSU.
If you set the Heighs louder to have some effect in music, this is to loud for Atmos.
With Auro the setup for Auromatic is indepenable for Auro 3D, so movies will not be as loud, or just the level you like.


----------



## jpco

CBdicX said:


> If audio stores have a hard time instaling Atmos (or Auro) so it will sound good, then this can be seen as a difficult sound addition.
> And if the audio stores, who depend on selling the stuff, can not get it right, imagine the difficult layout of the most livingrooms.
> In most stores setting up a 5.1 or 7.1 system is no problem, this is why it sells so easy.
> A co-worker went yesterday to a Atmos demo in a audio store, and gess what, he is not buying it.
> Think its more difficult to get it right then the common 5.1 and 7.1 setups.



What material are they playing in these demos?

My first exposure was an Amaze demo in a BB Magnolia room. It was not impressive at all, but considering all the variables, I didn't leave thinking I wouldn't install Atmos at home.


----------



## CBdicX

jpco said:


> What material are they playing in these demos?
> 
> My first exposure was an Amaze demo in a BB Magnolia room. It was not impressive at all, but considering all the variables, I didn't leave thinking I wouldn't install Atmos at home.


Sorry, do not know, i was not pressent at this demo.....


----------



## Stoked21

CBdicX said:


> If audio stores have a hard time instaling Atmos (or Auro) so it will sound good, then this can be seen as a difficult sound addition.
> And if the audio stores, who depend on selling the stuff, can not get it right, imagine the difficult layout of the most livingrooms.
> In most stores setting up a 5.1 or 7.1 system is no problem, this is why it sells so easy.
> A co-worker went yesterday to a Atmos demo in a audio store, and gess what, he is not buying it.
> Think its more difficult to get it right then the common 5.1 and 7.1 setups.


I am a firm believer that 80% of the installs essentially are subpar and do not do a lot to showcase the technology. Basically I'm saying they suck and are people just oohing and awe about having Atmos while they're missing 95% of what is in the Atmos mix. They're missing the bubble of sound. Placebo effect. That's Including the users who rave about it here. So I'm really not surprised that people are under whelmed. 

I've had crappy Atmos installs. I've been through countless speakers and countless install locations with countless avr configs. Constantly moving things around and replacing them to get it perfect. It's taking me a year of constant work, buying and selling to get it to sound perfect. So no. I don't think it's as easy as everyone claims. I do think it's a difficult install if you want the best from the technology. I've seen and read about many of the installs and seen the pics. I always think to myself....well that's going to be an inferior install. 

Early on I had people in my room who never noticed the height speakers except for once or twice during a movie. Then it became a flurry of intermittent top activity which was cool but relied heavily on the activity in the mix. 

Now it's just an all encompassing bubble. I can hardly never tell what speakers are on. its just a room full of sound moving anywhere and everywhere. That alone is the goal of Atmos. And accomplishing that is NOT easy.

So I'm not surprised demos suck. I'm not surprised that Atmos is not for everyone. It takes a dedicated enthusiast to make it right.


----------



## jpco

Stoked21 said:


> I am a firm believer that 80% of the installs essentially are subpar and do not do a lot to showcase the technology. Basically I'm saying they suck and are people just oohing and awe about having Atmos while they're missing 95% of what is in the Atmos mix. They're missing the bubble of sound. Placebo effect. That's Including the users who rave about it here. So I'm really not surprised that people are under whelmed.
> 
> 
> 
> I've had crappy Atmos installs. I've been through countless speakers and countless install locations with countless avr configs. Constantly moving things around and replacing them to get it perfect. It's taking me a year of constant work, buying and selling to get it to sound perfect. So no. I don't think it's as easy as everyone claims. I do think it's a difficult install if you want the best from the technology.
> 
> 
> 
> Early on I had people in my room who never noticed the height speakers except for once or twice during a movie. Then it became a flurry of intermittent top activity which was cool but relied heavily on the activity in the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's just an all encompassing bubble. I can hardly never tell what speakers are on. its just a room full of sound moving anywhere and everywhere. That alone is the goal of Atmos. And accomplishing that is NOT easy.



And I thought Dolby said it was hard not to make Atmos work. 

Where does that 80% figure come from? I'm sure it wasn't intended, but this post offends 4 out of every 5 listeners...


----------



## LowellG

dvdwilly3 said:


> I like sushi...a lot. However, I have some friends who are vegetarian and others who are strictly beef eaters.
> But, if we go out to eat we do not go to a sushi restaurant...none of us would enjoy the experience together.
> I respect their choices, but I don't invite them to a sushi restaurant so that I can enjoy the sushi.
> 
> So, I respect your choice if you do not like Atmos...but, this is an Atmos restaurant so having voiced your opinion, feel free to set up your own "Atmos Sucks!" forum and go there.
> 
> Insofar as I am concerned, this is a place that serves Atmos in all of its flavors and is and should be focused on how how to make it taste better...
> 
> Do not take up my time and energy trying to tell me that it does not work, you don't like it, ad infinitum. Go to your Atmos Sucks! Forum and wail on...and have fun doing it...


I think you quoted the wrong guy. In your analogy, it looks like he likes sushi to me.


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> And I thought Dolby said it was hard not to make Atmos work.
> 
> Where does that 80% figure come from? I'm sure it wasn't intended, but this post offends 4 out of every 5 listeners...


No offense was intended. The majority of the installs I've seen are people cobbling things together. Angling book shelf speakers for DAE implementation, even on popcorn or vaulted ceilings. Majorly out of spec install locations. Extremely low-cost ceiling speakers (limited dispersion limited F3) that are doing no justice to the system. Surrounds up high right next to Atmos speakers. People cranking ceiling trims for "improved" Atmos. ...on and on. 

The 80% is my made up figure. But it's the lifelong 80/20 rule and it very much applies. There are a handful of people on here whose systems I would love to hear. But there are an overwhelming majority who are just effortlessly trying to cram in the speakers with no thought to the repercussions. Just so they can say they have Atmos. 

I do believe that well thought out installs with low-cost speakers can deliver Atmos value. I've done it and seen it elsewhere. Dolby Atmos is hard to mess up and yet many people are doing exactly that. What Dolby should say is it's very hard to mess up if one follows recommendations AND it's very difficult to get excellent results.


----------



## dvdwilly3

LowellG said:


> I think you quoted the wrong guy. In your analogy, it looks like he likes sushi to me.


You are right...I should have gone back to the original post.

My apologies to kbarnes!!


----------



## Stoked21

Early on I wanted to be able to localize my Atmos speakers. I cried foul when mixes didn't emphasize them and didn't blatantly put sounds there to utilize my work and investment. The more I've worked and invested in Atmos....the more I can no longer localize them 95% of the time. Sounds are just anywhere and everywhere in the half-sphere around me. Ceiling and walls have disappeared. The only way I know an Atmos mix is weak is if I don't feel like I'm in a bubble or if sounds don't seem to be delivered at varying elevations. 

I think that's very difficult to accomplish with a demo room at a retailer. It's even difficult to accomplish in one's house. Especially if someone just throws speakers of any type willy-nilly anywhere and everywhere and calls them Atmos.


----------



## Molon_Labe

jpco said:


> And I thought Dolby said it was hard not to make Atmos work.
> 
> Where does that 80% figure come from? I'm sure it wasn't intended, but this post offends 4 out of every 5 listeners...


In @*Stoked21* defense, I don't think anyone can give a statistic but I have been following this thread for some time and agree with him. Argument after argument of the following:

*Dolby recommendations don't matter* - Just put any of the speakers where ever you fancy them. Separation is overrated Dolby.

*Dispersion pattern, size/range, timbre match, EQ, room correction, and quality doesn't matter for ceiling speakers.* Logic goes like this - Front speakers are the "most" important don't cheap out. Surrounds are somewhat important but no need to go crazy, while Atmos is just grab whatever you have or whatever is small and cheap and just put them up there. Noooo - They are *all* equally important w/ Atmos and should be treated accordingly if possible. In Atmos, your weakest link will be noticeable. Sadly, I experience this in my system although my Atmos speakers are designed specifically for Atmos. My SCS 8 Atmos speakers don't 100% blend with my 4722s. I only wish I could mount 4722's in my ceiling - I would.

*Dolby Atmos "enabled" speakers* - Bose speakers are demonized on AVS and are considered junk but I should buy Atmos speakers that look just like Bose 601 and its supposed to be "good enough" if you can't install ceiling speakers. Talk about irony.



I agree 100% agree with @*Stoked21* A system should be designed for Atmos. To just "add" Atmos onto a system will not yield the preferred/intended results. 

***No need to refute the points - we have hundreds of pages on that already **** I was just using them as points to my conclusion.


----------



## cyclones22

As others have said, it all depends on your expectations and usage. I do not use DSU for music at all, only for movies and TV. Also, I started at 7.2.2 and it was enjoyable and surely added to the movie experience in a positive way. So in that regard I was happy with my ROI because any time you spend money, you're looking for improvement from the status quo. The Atmos experience went to a completely different level of "Wow!" when I reconfigured to 5.2.4.


----------



## markus767

CBdicX said:


> No working very good for music in stereo, not doing much in a lot of content were surround is working ok and height stays most of the time silent, seems to me to be more pickey about angles, ceiling shapes ect, then other setups.


1. The cons of immersive sound is that recordings mixed in 2 channel stereo aren't "very good"? How could "no working" stereo mix be the fault of an immersive sound format?

2. Immersive sound seems "to be more pickey about angles, ceiling shapes ect, then other setups". What "other setups" are you talking about? All common sound formats are "pickey about" speaker locations. Summing localization is very fragile. Again not the fault of an immersive sound format.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% agree with @*Stoked21* A system should be designed for Atmos. To just "add" Atmos onto a system will not yield the preferred/intended results.


You said it best....You design an entire "system". The system should be designed as an Atmos deployment. An existing system shouldn't be a frankenstein to simply include Atmos....I know we are not advocating an entire rip-and-replace to achieve Atmos....It just needs to be more thought out than most people here do(especially dealers!!!!). 

But on a more important note....The Bose picture.....WTF is the pasta ladle/server doing on the floor beside the speakers??? That's flippin hilarious.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> No offense was intended. The majority of the installs I've seen are people cobbling things together. Angling book shelf speakers for DAE implementation, even on popcorn or vaulted ceilings. Majorly out of spec install locations. Extremely low-cost speakers that are doing no justice to the system. Surrounds up high right next to Atmos speakers. People cranking ceiling trims for "improved" Atmos.


I think my Atmos works well, but I'm sure it isn't perfect. My rear heights are mounted over a foot lower then my front heights. My room has vaulted ceilings which made it necessary to achieve the necessary angles. My bed layer surrounds are also too high. They're not up at the ceiling, but I did have to compromise and mount them 2-3 feet above the MLP. I'm not sure what the effect is on my sound. Atmos still seems to work great in my room but I'm sure it could be better, they're simply were some sacrifices I couldn't avoid.

My biggest concern with the long term viability of Atmos is the fact that the setup is complex. I've yet to hear speaker top modules that I've been impressed with and it seems most people here are going with a ceiling based setup. The times I've heard the speaker toppers I've either had a hard time noticing the effect or I've found the height effect distracting. I would like to hear the toppers properly setup and compare it to a ceiling based setup.

All of us here are weird. We are, generally speaking, willing to put in the research and time necessary to get the best setup possible. I spent a day with push pins, string, duct tape, and a protractor to ensure my speakers were angled properly withing Dolby specifications. I can't imagine most people would take the time. Not to mention that the cost of upgrading my theater to Atmos likely cost more then most people spend (not on this site, I'm talking about the average guy walking into Bestbuy) on their entire setup. I have serious doubts that most people are going to want to invest the necessary time and money into getting a well setup Atmos system.

I think ultimately we see Atmos using ceiling speakers become a very popular niche market among home theater hobbyists. Outside of us, I think you see a lot of cheap HTiB start including Atmos speaker toppers. It can be done cheaply and most people won't even notice that their setup isn't really utilizing the Atmos effect. After all, there are a lot of people out there who don't even have their 5.1 setup properly.  My in laws have all 5 speakers lined up in the front of the room because (according to them) it looks better and sounds great! If you give them Atmos speakers they would be thrown into their pile of speakers and they would tell me it sounds even better.


----------



## Stoked21

Here's a great test I highly recommend for anyone with Atmos. It does involve a $25 spend. Go out and buy something like the below pic from ToolsUSA or Amazon or Home Depot. Grab your ladder. Research the dispersion of your Atmos speakers. If they're 90° then they'll provide 45° off axis....60° then 30° off-axis, etc.

Hold this device at ear level at your MLP. Raise the laser until it hits the midpoint between the drivers of your TF, TM and TR. Record those angles....You now know the angle of your speakers and can compare these to Dolby Atmos spec. You also can determine how much dispersion you are expecting from your Atmos ICs.

*Example: * Let's say that the laser hits the middle point of your top front drivers, from MLP, at 30°. That means your speaker location is in spec (30-55° per Dolby). However, you must subtract that from 90° to determine your required dispersion. You are looking for the opposite angle of the right triangle to determine required off-axis speaker dispersion..In this case, 90-30°=60°.....60°x2=120° speaker dispersion. You require a 120° dispersion speaker to cover the MLP....Doubtful you have it unless you have JBL. 

Another method to determine if the speaker is located correctly in order to cover MLP with it's dispersion...Move the laser out to the half-dispersion of your speaker (90° dispersion, then set it at 45°). Place it at the center of one of your top front drivers. Slowly spin the entire tool in a circle. If the laser fails to cover the entire position of where someone's head would be....Then you have inappropriate dispersion/location for the driver and it's doing an injustice to your Atmos install. Either buy a wider dispersion speaker, an aim-able speaker, an angled baffle on-ceiling speaker, or move the speaker closer to the MLP. Repeat for any height and top speakers. You should still also make sure they are fairly close to Dolby location guidelines.

I can promise you that most people on this thread will fail these tests.....I'm willing to bet these sub-par dealer demos fail these tests....

This still does not take into account these $30 speakers people are putting up....They'll be horrible F3 and horrible dispersion. It does not account for mismatched timbre...Lack of back-box etc.....Again, not advocating spending a butt load of money. I'm am advocating a good quality, larger-sized, wider FR driver that matches your existing speakers as much as possible.


----------



## cyclones22

Allen, I have an up-firing setup and it yields good results. At least to my and visitors ears. That being said, I have a very by the book setup. The layout is almost exactly like the diagram from Dolby for a 5.1.4 Atmos enabled setup and my base layer is at or near ear level and my up-firing modules are above it. And I have a flat non-popcorn ceiling 9.5' ceiling. I don't have any illusions that my setup will "out-perform" in-ceiling or ceiling mounted speakers, but damn it sounds good as is!


----------



## Stoked21

AllenA07 said:


> I think my Atmos works well, but I'm sure it isn't perfect. My rear heights are mounted over a foot lower then my front heights. My room has vaulted ceilings which made it necessary to achieve the necessary angles. My bed layer surrounds are also too high. They're not up at the ceiling, but I did have to compromise and mount them 2-3 feet above the MLP. I'm not sure what the effect is on my sound. Atmos still seems to work great in my room but I'm sure it could be better, they're simply were some sacrifices I couldn't avoid.
> 
> My biggest concern with the long term viability of Atmos is the fact that the setup is complex. I've yet to hear speaker top modules that I've been impressed with and it seems most people here are going with a ceiling based setup. The times I've heard the speaker toppers I've either had a hard time noticing the effect or I've found the height effect distracting. I would like to hear the toppers properly setup and compare it to a ceiling based setup.
> 
> All of us here are weird. We are, generally speaking, willing to put in the research and time necessary to get the best setup possible. I spent a day with push pins, string, duct tape, and a protractor to ensure my speakers were angled properly withing Dolby specifications. I can't imagine most people would take the time. Not to mention that the cost of upgrading my theater to Atmos likely cost more then most people spend (not on this site, I'm talking about the average guy walking into Bestbuy) on their entire setup. I have serious doubts that most people are going to want to invest the necessary time and money into getting a well setup Atmos system.
> 
> I think ultimately we see Atmos using ceiling speakers become a very popular niche market among home theater hobbyists. Outside of us, I think you see a lot of cheap HTiB start including Atmos speaker toppers. It can be done cheaply and most people won't even notice that their setup isn't really utilizing the Atmos effect. After all, there are a lot of people out there who don't even have their 5.1 setup properly.  My in laws have all 5 speakers lined up in the front of the room because (according to them) it looks better and sounds great! If you give them Atmos speakers they would be thrown into their pile of speakers and they would tell me it sounds even better.


I remember your pins and strings....You actually put work in unlike most people!!! I commend that.

I didn't mean to come off as offensive earlier, as my system is far from perfect. However, most people won't put that level of effort in. They literally just slap some speakers up or hear some demo with speakers just slapped up. They come away thinking either 1) say they're blown away (placebo) cus they don't want to feel they wasted their time and money on Atmos or 2) they hear a demo somewhere that's done hastily and think Atmos is negligible. They have no idea what the technology is actually capable of.

No one's room can be perfect and we all have made compromises. Many people don't care if it creates an immersive bubble and they just want to hear some effects from above them once in a while. To each their own. Others want it to be a non-localizable, matched, seamless experience. I am of the later kind of enthusiasts.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Stoked21 said:


> The Bose picture.....WTF is the pasta ladle/server doing on the floor beside the speakers??? .


That's the comb filter...


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 said:


> Not me for sure. I first heard Atmos at Dolby's London HQ, both in their full-size screening room and then in their HT-style room and, along with a bunch of industry professionals, I was blown away by it. I later heard it again at Dolby with a different HT room setup (better speakers) and was similarly blown away. Then I installed 7.2.4 at home and was blown away all over again. Same experience in the theaters where I have seen Atmos movies too. The additional sense of immersion from the overhead speakers, plus the added precision from the object-based mixes, makes for a truly involving experience, adding considerably to the story unfolding on the screen (in a good mix).
> 
> I have also heard Atmos demonstrated in the demo room of a buddy of mine who is a specialist AV retailer and installer, along with other enthusiasts, and the reception has always been the same: "I want it and I want it now".
> 
> What do all these rooms have in common? They have been carefully and properly set up. Anyone is capable of ruining something - we have no way of knowing if the demo this guy heard was properly set up or not. All he has told us is that the overhead speakers were "pointed at a 30° angle", which is no part of the Atmos setup. So if they made a big deal of pointing that out to him, it kinda suggests they have no idea what they are doing anyway. We also don't even know if they had their wiring or amp assignments right.
> 
> So, on the basis of hundreds of positive reports and a couple of negative reports, guess which way commonsense tells us to go?





dvdwilly3 said:


> I like sushi...a lot. However, I have some friends who are vegetarian and others who are strictly beef eaters.
> But, if we go out to eat we do not go to a sushi restaurant...none of us would enjoy the experience together.
> I respect their choices, but I don't invite them to a sushi restaurant so that I can enjoy the sushi.
> 
> So, I respect your choice if you do not like Atmos...but, this is an Atmos restaurant so having voiced your opinion, feel free to set up your own "Atmos Sucks!" forum and go there.
> 
> Insofar as I am concerned, this is a place that serves Atmos in all of its flavors and is and should be focused on how how to make it taste better...
> 
> Do not take up my time and energy trying to tell me that it does not work, you don't like it, ad infinitum. Go to your Atmos Sucks! Forum and wail on...and have fun doing it...


????? You posted that in response to my post????


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> And I thought Dolby said it was hard not to make Atmos work.


They did, and IME and IMO they are right.



jpco said:


> Where does that 80% figure come from? I'm sure it wasn't intended, but this post offends 4 out of every 5 listeners...


78.62% of all statistics are made up.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> You are right...I should have gone back to the original post.
> 
> My apologies to kbarnes!!


No worries  Let's say you owe me a beer and we're even


----------



## GXMnow

lego1 said:


> No one is bashing. If someone doesn't like Atmos, why post in the Dolby atmos thread that has over 1,000 pages saying I tried atmos and it sucks. If you don't like it, then don't install overhead speakers and don't post.
> 
> It's like coming into an Audi or Bmw car forum and saying, hey, I've driven an Audi or Bmw and they suck, and get upset if people don't agree. What's the point?


I do see room for negative talk. If someone drove a BMW and came to their forum and said, "I just don't get all the hype. What am I missing?" That would make complete sense. 

As for me, my first thing to consider is what it does with the native content, and I think most who have heard a system set up right, seem to agree it certainly does add to the experience over 5.1 or 7.1 but the degree to which it adds to a movie is dependent on the mix. Some are ok, some are great. I have not heard a bad mix, just more subtle or more in your face. 

As for DSU, well, since I do not have it in my own room yet, I have very little experience in how it can or will improve a mix. All up mixing from the past and into the future will always be a mixed bag. Since the up mixer has no real information about where any sound should be outside of the native track layout, it has to basically guess based on level, phase, and frequency response over time, to try to see what should be moved above etc. There is no doubt that some material will not work as well as other material. Even if there was a great set of known rules for what triggers a sound to seem overhead, it is very unlikely that every mix will carry those cues. 

Back in Dolby Pro Logic, they came up with some very innovative ways to record in the real world to try and get a natural sounding surround mix, and what ended up working very well was using "MS" mics. This used a cardioid mic aimed straight forward (the "M" or main mic), the direction the camera was shooting, and then a dipole mic, like a ribbon or open condenser mic with the pickup diaphragm surfaces facing left to right (the side or "S" mic). They would then use these signals in a matrix, just like they were the center (M) and surround (S) signals being fed to a Pro Logic encoder, to creat the LT and RT signals. The results were actually very good. The main mic would produce great signals for things directly in front of you and that got recorded to both left and right. The side mic would produce virtually no signal for sounds straight out in front, but as a sound source moved from side to side, it would create the correctly phased wave to make the Pro Logic decoder shift the sound away from center. As sound went further off center, the main mic cardioid patter would drop off in level and the side mic signal would start to dominate to the sound would move further into the surrounds. The only point it failed was for sounds from behind, the level from the S mic would again start to drop. But all of the information was there to make a great stereo and Pro Logic sound stage. The cues in the signals were very clear and the mixers could use tools to bring out more separation or space. 

Once we started mixing in 5.1 and more, things were not so clear. There was no longer a need to keep the proper phasing of a sound field for a decoder to do anything. Sure, when you have a sound pan around the room, it is most likely staying in phase and just using level panning to move and locate the sound. Since it can go to any of the 5 directions and stay in phase, it is not very likely that there will be any phase information to work with in an up mixer. Surround EX and PL IIx made use of putting level and phase between the surrounds to work again. But only EX was mixed while listening to the result of what was going on and had a proper predictable outcome. 

I am sure that the code in DSU is trying to find similar phase cues to find information that looks like it should be above, and from many report, it must do a very good job of it. But I am also sure, there are mixes that will not play nice and give you erroneous signals in the height speakers. 

I also agree that as good as native Dolby Atmos works, you still are better off with at least good speakers than a lot of "not so good" ones. If someone has some fairly crappy 5.1 speakers and wants to spend $500 to improve their system... It may be a better choice to get better 5.1 speakers first. Getting an Atmos AVR and just 2 more crappy speakers is not going to sound better than a decent 5.1 AVR and 5 good speakers. 

My experience with the home Atmos system is still pretty small. I have heard great systems of both the pro and the home versions and I understand how it should all work. I know what I want to do for my own room and it will not be a cheap add on. It is possible for a full Dolby Atmos mix to put quite a bit of sound into the overheads, so I believe the top channel speakers should still be very capable units that can hit at least 95 db without breaking up. I had discounted the up firing Dolby Atmos Enabled (DAE) speakers at first, thinking that they would do well for ambiance, but was not so sure how well they could do a big action soundtrack. Then I got to hear a KEF and a new Klipsch setup and was very impressed with not only the detail and accuracy that the overhead effect could make, but also how much effective power it could put over you. That sure made me look at using them in my room with just an 8 foot ceiling, but my room layout does not work well with the up firing setup. 

In the end, there is certainly room for people to give negative opinions. Not everyone is going to like the results, but if they are coming on here, my guess is they might want to learn more about the system. Let's try to keep this a place to learn and teach about what seems to work and not work and let people decide if they want to go ahead or not. I have clearly made up my mind to upgrade for Atmos, but I am still on the fence as to how I want to do it. I have been testing using coax car audio speakers for surround positions. The results of experiments is what really can add to a forum like this.

I like my current high mounted surrounds for 5.1 and 7.1 but to get a greater sense of space, I will lower my main surruonds to about 5 feet. This is where an in wall speaker will help in my setup. My idea with the car speakers is I am building my own baffle and mount system to sink them into the wall at the desired aim angle, and then have an acoustic panel with an area of just cloth over the speaker. The panels will help with room acoustics, and completely hide the speakers. If I like the results of my test in the normal surround plane, I may do the same in the ceiling as well. Yes, I could use a quality in wall speaker, but since my left side and top speakers are going into a space that is an attic and an exterior wall, I like that car audio speakers are built to handle the harsh environment of being basically outside. And the ones I am using for my initial testing actually beat my current surround speakers on several counts. Mainly they are more efficient, at 92 db at 1 watt, 1 meter. They have a wider frequency response, from 35 hz to 22 khz (the low end depends on the back loading, but on an open baffle they sound very deep already). And they can take some decent power too. 30 watts long term may sound low, but that is the thermal limit, they recommend a 100 watt amp and they can take 300 watts peak without damage, though I am sure they will be well into dynamic compression at that point. So the 120 watts out of a typical AVR seems like a good fit.

I have my fingers crossed that I can find a reasonably priced 9.1.4 AVR by the time I am ready to hack into my walls. I really want to use front wides, but if I don't, it will change where I want my side surrounds.

Keep up the healthy discussion.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> I remember your pins and strings....You actually put work in unlike most people!!! I commend that.
> 
> I didn't mean to come off as offensive earlier, as my system is far from perfect. However, most people won't put that level of effort in. They literally just slap some speakers up or hear some demo with speakers just slapped up. They come away thinking either 1) say they're blown away (placebo) cus they don't want to feel they wasted their time and money on Atmos or 2) they hear a demo somewhere that's done hastily and think Atmos is negligible. They have no idea what the technology is actually capable of.
> 
> No one's room can be perfect and we all have made compromises. Many people don't care if it creates an immersive bubble and they just want to hear some effects from above them once in a while. To each their own. Others want it to be a non-localizable, matched, seamless experience. I am of the later kind of enthusiasts.


None taken, what you said is almost certainly true. That's really at the heart of my concern for the future of this format. Despite Dolby's comments, Atmos is not an easy setup. I can't see average people wanting to spend the time or money on getting it right. 

Done right Atmos is awesome. Everest was the movie that sold me on it. There were scenes where the wind was so powerful that I actually started feeling cold. That, right there, is why I wanted Atmos. That made all the time, effort, and money were worth it for me.


----------



## jpco

Molon_Labe said:


> In @*Stoked21* defense, I don't think anyone can give a statistic but I have been following this thread for some time and agree with him. Argument after argument of the following:
> 
> *Dolby recommendations don't matter* - Just put any of the speakers where ever you fancy them. Separation is overrated Dolby.
> 
> *Dispersion pattern, size/range, timbre match, EQ, room correction, and quality doesn't matter for ceiling speakers.* Logic goes like this - Front speakers are the "most" important don't cheap out. Surrounds are somewhat important but no need to go crazy, while Atmos is just grab whatever you have or whatever is small and cheap and just put them up there. Noooo - They are *all* equally important w/ Atmos and should be treated accordingly if possible. In Atmos, your weakest link will be noticeable. Sadly, I experience this in my system although my Atmos speakers are designed specifically for Atmos. My SCS 8 Atmos speakers don't 100% blend with my 4722s. I only wish I could mount 4722's in my ceiling - I would.
> 
> *Dolby Atmos "enabled" speakers* - Bose speakers are demonized on AVS and are considered junk but I should buy Atmos speakers that look just like Bose 601 and its supposed to be "good enough" if you can't install ceiling speakers. Talk about irony.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% agree with @*Stoked21* A system should be designed for Atmos. To just "add" Atmos onto a system will not yield the preferred/intended results.
> 
> ***No need to refute the points - we have hundreds of pages on that already **** I was just using them as points to my conclusion.


I'm not refuting your points. I actually mostly agree with them regarding setup.

My point is that everyone does what they can within their means. It's not productive to make statements about the inferiority of others' systems when one hasn't heard them and doesn't have the same perspective/experience as others. We really have no understanding of what one's hearing abilities and expectations are when they make qualitative statements about what they hear. 

On a realistic level, decent speakers, decently matched, in relatively correct angles, and set up for appropriate level and delay should deliver a satisfactory experience. If it does not, then immersive audio is not for the home.


----------



## Argyle

GXMnow said:


> I do see room for negative talk. If someone drove a BMW and came to their forum and said, "I just don't get all the hype. What am I missing?" That would make complete sense.


Sure. But the guy who started this particular derail basically said "I know I told you guys before that Atmos sucks, but I wanted to come back in here to tell all of you that I listened to it again and not only does it still suck, all of you are completely delusional."

IMHO that's just trollin'...I don't think there's any place for that here.


----------



## Stoked21

kbarnes701 said:


> They did, and IME and IMO they are right.
> 
> 78.62% of all statistics are made up.


"They did, and IME and IMO they are right"...in regards to making Atmos "work". It is difficult to make it not "work" _if following guidelines._ However, "work" is very subjective. Making it "work" and making it "excellent" are two very different things. I know you know this. 

Yes, my statistics quoted are 100% made up (except for that one!). I always reference 80/20 rule though....80/20 is noticeable in every aspect of life though. It's very much due to human nature.



AllenA07 said:


> None taken, what you said is almost certainly true. That's really at the heart of my concern for the future of this format. Despite Dolby's comments, Atmos is not an easy setup. I can't see average people wanting to spend the time or money on getting it right.


I honestly don't feel very great about the future of Atmos. Soundbars are so prevalent...HTIBs are even outpaced by bars. Look at how much better DVD-Audio and SACD were vs regular CDs...Now we all listen to even more inferior streamed music (for the most part). Formats are constantly dethroned and I can't see how something like 11ch+ Atmos can fair well when 5.1 is even superseded by bars. I think the development of DAE speakers is Dolby's way of trying to gain consumer acceptance for easier but larger installs (though it's debatable as to whether DAE speaker positioning/reflection angles are easier than just cutting a hole in the ceiling). IMO Atmos will always remain a niche market and commercial cinema market. That makes me worry about how long it will be supported on AVRs and BD releases. As long as we have DSU, we will have some improvement though, even if not native.


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> I'm not refuting your points. I actually mostly agree with them regarding setup.
> 
> My point is that everyone does what they can within their means. It's not productive to make statements about the inferiority of others' systems when one hasn't heard them and doesn't have the same perspective/experience as others. We really have no understanding of what one's hearing abilities and expectations are when they make qualitative statements about what they hear.
> 
> On a realistic level, *decent speakers, decently matched, in relatively correct angles, and set up for appropriate level and delay *should deliver a satisfactory experience. If it does not, then immersive audio is not for the home.


 @Molon_Labe and I are not recommending going outside of one's means. Nor are we pointing out inferiority of one's systems. The point we are making is bolded in your statement....Buying $30 speakers vs $100 speakers can be a massive difference that results in better match and better F3 and MUCH better dispersion. One doesn't need to spend $200,500,1000 for each speaker. But more importantly, the correct angles and positioning and again DISPERSION are where most people fail....They don't spend the time to do it right. It's strictly a process and selection point applicable to the technology, not a budget point.

Case and point....My $100 Niles speakers (meticulously placed) resulted in excellent Atmos. Now mind you, they couldn't keep up with the SPL of my beds and got swapped for that reason alone. And that was strictly due to my subjective preference of insane SPL


----------



## jpco

Stoked21 said:


> I honestly don't feel very great about the future of Atmos. Soundbars are so prevalent...HTIBs are even outpaced by bars. Look at how much better DVD-Audio and SACD were vs regular CDs...Now we all listen to even more inferior streamed music (for the most part). Formats are constantly dethroned and I can't see how something like 11ch+ Atmos can fair well when 5.1 is even superseded by bars. I think the development of DAE speakers is Dolby's way of trying to gain consumer acceptance for easier but larger installs (though it's debatable as to whether DAE speaker positioning/reflection angles are easier than just cutting a hole in the ceiling). IMO Atmos will always remain a niche market and commercial cinema market. That makes me worry about how long it will be supported on AVRs and BD releases. As long as we have DSU, we will have some improvement though, even if not native.


I don't have concern for immersive audio mixes in general. I think they are the future for theaters. What I am most concerned about is that studios are treating it as a premium on home releases. We don't pay extra for immersive audio in properly equipped theaters, so it should be included in home releases when available. 

We did not have 5.1 mixes released as stereo or 7.1 mixes released as 5.1 as a point of practice. It's hard to understand what's going on here. Consumers willing to purchase a physical copy of a movie should be valued in this day and age. We can double dip on legacy immersive remixes, but all new releases should include the immersive track.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stoked21 said:


> I honestly don't feel very great about the future of Atmos. Soundbars are so prevalent...HTIBs are even outpaced by bars. Look at how much better DVD-Audio and SACD were vs regular CDs...Now we all listen to even more inferior streamed music (for the most part). Formats are constantly dethroned and I can't see how something like 11ch+ Atmos can fair well when 5.1 is even superseded by bars. I think the development of DAE speakers is Dolby's way of trying to gain consumer acceptance for easier but larger installs (though it's debatable as to whether DAE speaker positioning/reflection angles are easier than just cutting a hole in the ceiling). IMO Atmos will always remain a niche market and commercial cinema market. That makes me worry about how long it will be supported on AVRs and BD releases. As long as we have DSU, we will have some improvement though, even if not native.


A needless worry IMO. This argument could have been applied from the very first stereo hi-fi system. The majority of everyone will never give a rodent's posterior about good sound in the home. 99% of everyone makes do with the speakers in their TV. A few buy a soundbar. It has always been the same, but we have still always had high quality alternatives for the small market who demands them. Niche markets are very profitable because enthusiasts will pay good money for the 'best' and this is true whether it is cars, clothes, watches, wine, food or whatever. Rolex hasn't disappeared because most people buy a cheap battery-operated watch. Ferrari hasn't disappeared because most people choose a Ford or a Toyota. Savile Row hasn't closed down because most people buy their suits in a chain store. And so on.

So don't worry buddy - there will always be someone willing to take your $$$ off you


----------



## audiofan1

gbaby said:


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.





gbaby said:


> I did ask if the system was setup properly so the salesman went to explain how the height speakers were angled 30 degrees toward the listener as well as explaining the height of the ceiling, the distance from the speakers to the seating and the like. I read a little on the ATMOS specs before arriving and I was satisfied it was set up correctly. And, while I did hear some extra immersion, I just was not impressed to the point I would make this kind of investment and spend time tweaking it. Of course had I done so, I would not feel right admitting maybe I made a mistake and I would definitely justify my time and effort. But, ATMOS is not for me to enjoy, but for those to enjoy who made the time and financial sacrifice to get it. I'm just happy to know what it is and to know I don't need it.  However, I would not advise anyone who has the setup to take it down. This info is for those who have not made this investment. I'd say, spend your money on either better electronics or speakers and not ATMOS as its not the quantity of sound, but the quality of it. Sorry for not listing the store, but I respect its owners and do not want them to be put under any unnecessary badgering.





tigerhonaker said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming on here and saying what you think it is appreciated by me and perhaps others that have not yet purchased Atmos.
> 
> Personally I do try to read the post on this thread as time allows.
> And in doing so I just saw and read your's.
> I have a buddy that also came away with the same opinion as yourself and he was in a very High-End demo room.
> He lives in San Antonio, TX. and is a 70 plus year ole fellow.
> So is his brother that also attended the same demo and came away with the same exact opinion.
> They felt like if you were listening to the Demo Atmos DVDs they did sound "Awesome".
> But if you were listening to the other Blu-ray DVDs they were not at all impressed.
> Also they both felt like the Music DVDs were worse than the other DVDs they listened to.
> So it's nice to every once in awhile to see and hear someone's opinion that is not going along with the Crowd on here.
> 
> I also agree that once the majority of people spent their monies they sure are not going to then say anything negative about Atmos.
> That's just the way it is ...........
> 
> It's no different than people buying a new car ..........
> Do you really think they are then going to say anything negative about it.
> Not likely in the majority of cases.
> 
> I have not gotten the Atmos system yet and have no intention of doing so until it has been around for a few years.
> Then we shall see how much material is really readily available with Atmos on it.
> Like Streaming is an example of what I am referring to.
> Netflix etc.
> 
> So for those on this thread that already have spent your monies I'm glad your enjoying Atmos.
> And I really doubt I'll be seeing or reading any of you saying anything negative about how it sounds.
> 
> Also while I'm thinking about it one does not have to be a {Troll} to simply say what one thinks.
> So don't be so quick to judge us that say we are not yet convinced on adding Atmos.
> Or for those that have said they are not impressed with the Demos they have heard with Atmos or simulated Atmos.
> 
> And before any of you wish to jump all over me and my comments don't waste your time or effort.
> I'm not going to be posting on this thread frequently in a negative manner and trying to convince people not to add Atmos to their systems.
> We are all adults so there should be room for all of us to post here what we think in a friendly manner.
> 
> Terry*


*



CBdicX said:



Please stop bashing people that DO NOT LIKE immersive sound.


To bad that the bashing of people that do not like Atmos is also starting to be a part of this forum 
I did not liked immersive sound, took it down but its up again after missing specific effects.
Its not the Holy Crail, its just an addition to 5 or 7.x
Some people do not think its doing enough to justify putting up 4-6 extra speakers !
I like it now and do think with DTS:X more people will go on this road.
But stop bashing people that say they do not like it (don't worry, i can handle it ).
The Audyssey forum had the same "problem", oh, you do not like it ?
What is wrong with your ears, you setup is wrong, everything is wrong, exept Audyssey.

Hope immersive users will be smarter and stay on track, and keep in mind its not for everyone, and stop bashing people that do not like it.
Not everyone thinks a Rolls Roys is the best car on the planet (well, it is, but you get the point).
I personal like forums that give also the cons space to say what they think, it makes a forum stronger and a important source for coming users.
And immersive sound has cons, so do not try to bash that, be honnest about is.
Its ok but.............

Click to expand...




CBdicX said:



Had the same feeling about Atmos (immersive sound) and even took it down !
Now i am back on the Atmos train after a few weeks and missed the effect Atmos and DSU gives.
And its absolute not for every source an good addition !!
For music (stereo) Auro 3D is doing a far better job, believe me, i tried.
It not the Holy Crail like some users of this forum want to make everyone believe.
To bad forums like this have users that start bashing the cons, and immersive sound has cons !
Hope when you try it at home, you will like it.
You can allways take it down (like i did) and then experians the differents.


Nice hobby 

Click to expand...

If you guys expect a negative view of Atmos in thread dedicated to Atmos (which by premise is dedicated to its discussion on how to extract the best from it)then your in the wrong place! Perhaps it would be best that you guys or one of you start a thread based on is Atmos worth it(which I believe there is one already) and post away on your personal take,otherwise don't be surprised when you get crushed by those that have taken the time ,money and effort to push the envelope in immersive audio*


----------



## aaranddeeman

Argyle said:


> Sure. But the guy who started this particular derail basically said "I know I told you guys before that Atmos sucks, but I wanted to come back in here to tell all of you that I listened to it again and not only does it still suck, all of you are completely delusional."
> 
> IMHO that's just trollin'...I don't think there's any place for that here.


Exactly. They had come before when at debut of Atmos. One year later they come again with the same agenda. That is the issue.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Stoked21 said:


> "They did, and IME and IMO they are right"...in regards to making Atmos "work". It is difficult to make it not "work" _if following guidelines._ However, "work" is very subjective. Making it "work" and making it "excellent" are two very different things. I know you know this.


I believe that is true for everything, not just Atmos.
e.g. How many people calibrate their displays? How many people even bother to run Audyssey or any other REQ available to them? 
Also so many are buying 4K displays of size 32 inch 
so, yeah..


----------



## gbaby

Argyle said:


> Sure. But the guy who started this particular derail basically said "I know I told you guys before that Atmos sucks, but I wanted to come back in here to tell all of you that I listened to it again and not only does it still suck, all of you are completely delusional."
> 
> IMHO that's just trollin'...I don't think there's any place for that here.


I cannot believe you get a "like" for a quote from me you cannot find anywhere. This is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## thebland

gbaby said:


> I cannot believe you get a "like" for a quote from me you cannot find anywhere. This is intellectually dishonest.


Agreed. 

Yet, your opinion is based solely on the Atmos set up in an unnamed retail outlet.

As long as folks know that, they can make their own judgments of your impressions of Atmos.


----------



## gbaby

thebland said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Yet, your opinion is based solely on the Atmos set up in an unnamed retail outlet.
> 
> As long as folks know that, they can make their own judgments of your impressions of Atmos.


Not disclosing a dealer's name is no excuse for quoting words that don't exist. However, maybe this is a political thread.


----------



## kbarnes701




----------



## thebland

gbaby said:


> Not disclosing a dealer's name is no excuse for quoting words that don't exist. However, maybe this is a political thread.



Of course it politics!

But since you haven't named the dealer, many (not all) will imply it is simply made up and you're trolling. With the dealer locations, you know the AVS moles will go in and see for themselves!!

Again your opinions, which are fine and valid, are based on someone else's set up - which leaves a lot open for speculation (as you can see)!


----------



## tigerhonaker

CBdicX said:


> If audio stores have a hard time instaling Atmos (or Auro) so it will sound good, then this can be seen as a difficult sound addition.
> And if the audio stores, who depend on selling the stuff, can not get it right, imagine the difficult layout of the most livingrooms.
> In most stores setting up a 5.1 or 7.1 system is no problem, this is why it sells so easy.
> A co-worker went yesterday to a Atmos demo in a audio store, and gess what, he is not buying it.
> Think its more difficult to get it right then the common 5.1 and 7.1 setups.


Well said and that's one of the {Main-Reasons} I'm holding off.
I have serious doubts that my existing A/V Dealer has enough experience to properly set-up Atmos in my dedicated H/T.
And when I talk with other men in my same age group (70 Plus) years old and they come away from demos UN-Impressed that further enforces my concerns.
In my case I would want top of the line speakers, amp/amps, cables, processor etc. when or if I decide to go with Atmos.
As it stands and I keep reading the same exact thing over and over on AVS that even the darn A/V dealers don't have the expertise to set up their own Demo-Rooms !!!
Guys, seriously, if the Dog-Gone A/V Dealers don't have the knowledge to set up their Demo Rooms in Very-High-End Stores ...............
Then why would a fellow like me want to trust them coming into my Home setting up my Atmos ???????????????

That's as I said one of the Main-Reasons I'll wait !!!

And for those that want to say just get a different A/V Dealer to do your set up.
That's simply not going to work men as there are only so many dealers in a given locality !!!
Especially the one's you are already doing business with.

I have a totally awesome sounding 7.1 (actually 4-subs) system right now that sounds GREAT.
I would rather stick with exactly what I have that works perfect than to invest {Thousands} of dollars in Atmos and as so many of you have numerous times pointed out it not set-up correctly.
Sometimes it's simply better and smarter to know when to simply "WAIT" until the dealers get the necessary expertise to set-up a New Widget correctly.
And IMHO (In-My-Honest-Opinion) that time is simply not here yet .............

And what I have said has nothing what so ever with coming on AVS on this Atmos thread and posting NEGATIVE comments.
It's simply me as a 70 year old man trying to discuss all aspects of adding Atmos and does it make sense to do it right now.
My opinion is, WAIT as the dealers are NOT up to par on doing Atmos where I live !!!

Terry


----------



## gbaby

thebland said:


> Of course it politics!
> 
> But since you haven't named the dealer, many (not all) will imply it is simply made up and you're trolling. With the dealer locations, you know the AVS moles will go in and see for themselves!!
> 
> Again your opinions, which are fine and valid, are based on someone else's set up - which leaves a lot open for speculation (as you can see)!


Actually, I went back to the dealer exclusively due to prior posts by kdbarnes and others that perhaps the demo room was not setup correctly. So, I read a little about the ATMOS specs so I could ask the proper questions. ATMOS is not bad, it's just not worth me even considering getting rid of my processor fot it. I just was not blown away although I could hear it.


----------



## aaranddeeman

gbaby said:


> Actually, I went back to the dealer exclusively due to prior posts by kdbarnes and others that perhaps the demo room was not setup correctly. So, I read a little about the ATMOS specs so I could ask the proper questions. ATMOS is not bad, it's just not worth me even considering getting rid of my processor fot it. I just was not blown away although I could hear it.


Then please don't waste your time here.


----------



## thebland

gbaby said:


> Actually, I went back to the dealer exclusively due to prior posts by kdbarnes and others that perhaps the demo room was not setup correctly. So, I read a little about the ATMOS specs so I could ask the proper questions. ATMOS is not bad, it's just not worth me even considering getting rid of my processor fot it. I just was not blown away although I could hear it.


Fair enough!


----------



## bguzman

Molon_Labe said:


> ... Bose speakers are demonized on AVS and are considered junk but I should buy Atmos speakers that look just like *Bose 601* and its supposed to be "good enough" if you can't install ceiling speakers. Talk about irony.


I had a pair of these back in the day and they rocked Rush 2112. I wish I would have never let them go.  They say these were one of their best efforts.



cyclones22 said:


> As others have said, it all depends on your expectations and usage. I do not use DSU for music at all, only for movies and TV. Also, I started at 7.2.2 and it was enjoyable and surely added to the movie experience in a positive way. So in that regard I was happy with my ROI because any time you spend money, you're looking for improvement from the status quo. The Atmos experience went to a completely different level of "Wow!" when I reconfigured to 5.2.4.


I also went from 7.2.2 to 5.2.4 and it was much more immersive in my HT as well.


----------



## CBdicX

audiofan1 said:


> If you guys expect a negative view of Atmos in thread dedicated to Atmos (which by premise is dedicated to its discussion on how to extract the best from it)then your in the wrong place! Perhaps it would be best that you guys or one of you start a thread based on is Atmos worth it(which I believe there is one already) and post away on your personal take,otherwise don't be surprised when you get crushed by those that have taken the time ,money and effort to push the envelope in immersive audio


 
Like i say, its like North Korea here on this forum.
(and other forums seem to work that way also !)
They also do not want to hear or read negatives about there "great country"
Some of you just want to hear how great Atmos is, no room for any negatives.
I told i am back from taking down the Atmos part, and did feel i was missing the effects so i installed the speakers again, and i like it !
*But i do stay at my point that any forum is about the pro's* *and con's, just like any review, pro's and con's.....*


----------



## CBdicX

Originally Posted by *gbaby*  
_Actually, I went back to the dealer exclusively due to prior posts by kdbarnes and others that perhaps the demo room was not setup correctly. So, I read a little about the ATMOS specs so I could ask the proper questions. ATMOS is not bad, it's just not worth me even considering getting rid of my processor fot it. I just was not blown away although I could hear it._




aaranddeeman said:


> Then please don't waste your time here.


Ok, now its clear to me, its all about how good Atmos is, thanks for making that clear...........


----------



## rontalley

tigerhonaker said:


> Well said and that's one of the {Main-Reasons} I'm holding off.
> I have serious doubts that my existing A/V Dealer has enough experience to properly set-up Atmos in my dedicated H/T.
> And when I talk with other men in my same age group (70 Plus) years old and they come away from demos UN-Impressed that further enforces my concerns.
> In my case I would want top of the line speakers, amp/amps, cables, processor etc. when or if I decide to go with Atmos.
> As it stands and I keep reading the same exact thing over and over on AVS that even the darn A/V dealers don't have the expertise to set up their own Demo-Rooms !!!
> Guys, seriously, if the Dog-Gone A/V Dealers don't have the knowledge to set up their Demo Rooms in Very-High-End Stores ...............
> Then why would a fellow like me want to trust them coming into my Home setting up my Atmos ???????????????
> 
> That's as I said one of the Main-Reasons I'll wait !!!
> 
> And for those that want to say just get a different A/V Dealer to do your set up.
> That's simply not going to work men as there are only so many dealers in a given locality !!!
> Especially the one's you are already doing business with.
> 
> I have a totally awesome sounding 7.1 (actually 4-subs) system right now that sounds GREAT.
> I would rather stick with exactly what I have that works perfect than to invest {Thousands} of dollars in Atmos and as so many of you have numerous times pointed out it not set-up correctly.
> Sometimes it's simply better and smarter to know when to simply "WAIT" until the dealers get the necessary expertise to set-up a New Widget correctly.
> And IMHO (In-My-Honest-Opinion) that time is simply not here yet .............
> 
> And what I have said has nothing what so ever with coming on AVS on this Atmos thread and posting NEGATIVE comments.
> It's simply me as a 70 year old man trying to discuss all aspects of adding Atmos and does it make sense to do it right now.
> My opinion is, WAIT as the dealers are NOT up to par on doing Atmos where I live !!!
> 
> Terry


It really is not that difficult at all. The difficulty comes from people who try to go against the grain and do it their way instead of the way Dolby says do it. (Guilty Guilty!)

It really is simple. Measure from your ear to the ceiling, this is your measurement for where you need to install from MLP (front and back). Typical for 8'-9' ceiling.

Only difference between floor layout is speakers are more ear level and rears are more spread. 

Despite me trying to make it work the way *I* wanted to make it work, once I set things up like Dolby Recommended and calibrated... BAM!


----------



## aaranddeeman

CBdicX said:


> Ok, now its clear to me, its all about how good Atmos is, thanks for making that clear...........


My only point was, he has harped once that he did not like Atmos. Ok we get it. But he does that again and again and again. That is not going to change anything. So its's just wasting the time telling us something you have already told .


----------



## smurraybhm

AllenA07 said:


> None taken, what you said is almost certainly true. That's really at the heart of my concern for the future of this format. Despite Dolby's comments, Atmos is not an easy setup. I can't see average people wanting to spend the time or money on getting it right.
> 
> Done right Atmos is awesome. Everest was the movie that sold me on it. There were scenes where the wind was so powerful that I actually started feeling cold. That, right there, is why I wanted Atmos. That made all the time, effort, and money were worth it for me.


Keep in mind Atmos is coming to soundbars - actually it has based on earlier posts by FilmMixer regarding how impressive the one he heard that is made by Yamaha sounded, if Marc said it was quality Atmos I believe him given his experience/background. 

Atmos will succeed not because it gives those of us on this forum 6 or 8 speakers up top or base layers consisting of 9 speakers plus. It's success will be in making soundbars and TVs that offer an "Atmos like experience." Joe Consumer isn't as critical or anal as all of us (see angles, strings and laser pointers), they will buy that Atmos enabled TV from Vizio with a HTIB or a Atmos soundbar by Sony and be happy with the results. "Look/listen Martha, I got a 4K TV with Atmos, ain't it great." Rerun of Maybury RFD is source material. Sort of kidding on that one.

Quality Atmos or any other immersive format requires an investment and attention to detail (see guidelines). That doesn't mean that one can't still enjoy it's benefits (possibly limited) using other products or what we might consider compromised equipment, speaker locations, etc. This is not a new phenomenon either, started with AC-3 going forward. Back to perfection


----------



## audiofan1

CBdicX said:


> Like i say, its like North Korea here on this forum.
> (and other forums seem to work that way also !)
> They also do not want to hear or read negatives about there "great country"
> Some of you just want to hear how great Atmos is, no room for any negatives.
> I told i am back from taking down the Atmos part, and did feel i was missing the effects so i installed the speakers again, and i like it !
> *But i do stay at my point that any forum is about the pro's* *and con's, just like any review, pro's and con's.....*


A dedicated thread is a oneway street! there are no con's only pro's and why a thread dedicated to all things Atmos exists and why it was started , I'm not sure why you and other's feel the need to get your point validated here vs where it will be better suited.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> No worries  Let's say you owe me a beer and we're even


Works for me!


----------



## CBdicX

audiofan1 said:


> A dedicated thread is a oneway street! there are no con's only pro's and why a thread dedicated to all things Atmos exists and why it was started , I'm not sure why you and other's feel the need to get your point validated here vs where it will be better suited.


Thats clear, well not clear, but i see how you think.
*Oneway street *, nice forum, and all newcomers can learn something.
I'm out, thanks..........


----------



## rontalley

gbaby said:


> Actually, I went back to the dealer exclusively due to prior posts by kdbarnes and others that perhaps the demo room was not setup correctly. So, I read a little about the ATMOS specs so I could ask the proper questions. ATMOS is not bad, it's just not worth me even considering getting rid of my processor fot it. I just was not blown away although I could hear it.


I test drove a 535 BMW and was not "blown away" either. Was disappointing because just didn't feel like I got the full experience. That did not deter me from buying one because I knew from reviews and from my own experience with "cars" that it was going to be a substantial upgrade from the car I was currently driving. The next dealer gave me the keys and told me to bring the car back the next day. Whoa!! 

Only you can decide what is worth spending your money on. But a couple of hours at the dealer is not the really the same is it?


----------



## jpco

CBdicX said:


> Like i say, its like North Korea here on this forum.
> (and other forums seem to work that way also !)
> They also do not want to hear or read negatives about there "great country"
> Some of you just want to hear how great Atmos is, no room for any negatives.
> I told i am back from taking down the Atmos part, and did feel i was missing the effects so i installed the speakers again, and i like it !
> *But i do stay at my point that any forum is about the pro's* *and con's, just like any review, pro's and con's.....*


I understand your frustration, but what are the cons? 

Just saying one didn't like it isn't really a con. Did it make the sound muddy? Did it not render as well as the same track in 7.1? Was there an imbalance in the soundfield that detracted from the video?

How is one expected to respond to someone just saying they don't like Atmos in this thread? 

Maybe this thread would be better: What is the Verdict on Atmos?


----------



## Molon_Labe

If anyone is in or visiting the San Antonio area and wants to hear an Atmos demo, feel free to PM me. My room is always open to fellow AVS'ers that may be on the fence. Not saying my setup is the end all be all, far from it, but it will give you a solid feel for what the technology is capable of.

Chris


----------



## tigerhonaker

jpco said:


> I understand your frustration, but what are the cons?
> 
> Just saying one didn't like it isn't really a con. Did it make the sound muddy? Did it not render as well as the same track in 7.1? Was there an imbalance in the soundfield that detracted from the video?
> 
> How is one expected to respond to someone just saying they don't like Atmos in this thread?
> 
> Maybe this thread would be better: What is the Verdict on Atmos?


Thanks for that link I was getting ready to ask for someone what it was.


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> My opinion is, WAIT as the dealers are NOT up to par on doing Atmos where I live !!!
> 
> Terry


You can wait for sure. You can wait for ever. Or you can try it yourself, experiment, and get a very good result, like so many others on this thread. While you are waiting, they are enjoying their Atmos discs and their legacy collection upmixed with DSU. No right and wrong to this - but I am really glad I haven't missed out on all the Atmos and DSU goodness I have enjoyed so much for the past 12 months, while others were just 'waiting'.


----------



## kbarnes701

aaranddeeman said:


> My only point was, he has harped once that he did not like Atmos. Ok we get it. But he does that again and again and again. That is not going to change anything. So its's just wasting the time telling us something you have already told .


Yes, I think we get it now. Maybe he'll tell us another dozen times, just to be sure, and then take another 12 month break.


----------



## tom703

I have been reading this thread regularly, and gleaning a great deal of information. However, I was blown away when I checked the thread this morning and found three pages of redundant discussion on a very subjective subject - whether or not one likes Atmos. Time to move on!

For Atmos, my system is in its infancy, as it only capable of 7.1 or 5.1.2. Atmos itself is in its infancy for home theaters. All of the different setup experiments being reported on this thread illustrate how much is yet to be learned. It has only been the last few months that that we could obtain BD discs with an atmos track. One of the largest variables I have noticed is the quality of the audio on various discs. I see that the "Garbage in, Garbage out" fact is often overlooked on some of the comparisons I read. 

I have tried both and prefer the 5.1.2. My goal is 7.1.4, but that will take some time to accumulate the funds to purchase the better AVR and more speakers. My present speakers are entry level, but they are matched and do a good enough job in my room. 

My opinion: When playing a good atmos disc, like John Wick or Mad Max Fury Road, my 5.1.2 configuration is far superior to the same disc in 7.1. However with other material, I am often only getting 5.1 sound as the height speakers are getting little to no sound directed to them. Some non atmos mixes do put some sound to the two height speakers, which is even more enjoyable. I have experimented with configuring as TF and TH. For my particular setup, it appears to me that I get more sound overhead with the TH setup from non atmos tracks. I cannot tell the difference with an atmos track. Of course when I get 4 overhead speakers I will be doing this evaluation all over again. From what I have read it appears to me that a majority of people prefer the TF - TR setup for atmos.

Bottom line in my opinion: Atmos is here to stay and will only get better. The DTS-X adopters will now be going through all the same evaluations and arguments over on their thread. I hope that it works out that our setups will be mutually compatible.


----------



## tigerhonaker

kbarnes701 said:


> You can wait for sure. You can wait for ever. Or you can try it yourself, experiment, and get a very good result, like so many others on this thread. While you are waiting, they are enjoying their Atmos discs and their legacy collection upmixed with DSU. No right and wrong to this - but I am really glad I haven't missed out on all the Atmos and DSU goodness I have enjoyed so much for the past 12 months, while others were just 'waiting'.


Well I'll "WAIT" and I'm glad you have the expertise to do your installs, I-Don't.

There is simply way to much money (US Dollars) to jump in on Atmos for me where I am located until A/V Local dealers get up to speed.

I don't do things have way so in my case it will be a sizable investment so I'm not guessing on dealers having their game plan down yet.


----------



## gammanuc

CBdicX said:


> Like i say, its like North Korea here on this forum.
> (and other forums seem to work that way also !)
> They also do not want to hear or read negatives about there "great country"
> Some of you just want to hear how great Atmos is, no room for any negatives.
> I told i am back from taking down the Atmos part, and did feel i was missing the effects so i installed the speakers again, and i like it !
> *But i do stay at my point that any forum is about the pro's* *and con's, just like any review, pro's and con's.....*


I guess you haven't been following this thread much because it has not been all hand holding and flowers. Not everyone likes all aspects of Atmos and DSU. But most Atmos complaints are mix related and DSU mostly music related. I myself do not use DSU for music but for movies it is utterly amazing to me. The Atmos movies when done right are superb. For movies, basic 7.1 will never be heard in my home again!


----------



## kbarnes701

tigerhonaker said:


> Well I'll "WAIT" and I'm glad you have the expertise to do your installs, I-Don't.


Waiting is your prerogative sir. It doesn't really require all that much expertise, and all the info anyone needs to make a great Atmos install is in this thread, or will be provided by the regular contributors. It really isn't hard to get a great Atmos system up and running.



tigerhonaker said:


> There is simply way to much money (US Dollars) to jump in on Atmos for me where I am located until A/V Local dealers get up to speed.


Fair enough. I tend to not rely on dealers so I am in a different situation and mindset.



tigerhonaker said:


> I don't do things have way so in my case it will be a sizable investment so I'm not guessing on dealers not having their game plan down pat yet.


Again, fair enough. But really I am fairly confident that the hands-on cumulative and combined expertise in this thread will never be matched by 99% of all dealers anyway. You may be waiting for ever, which would be a pity since you are missing out on an audio experience I am sure you would love.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Well, I made the plunge and purchased an "Open Box," Best Buy Denon x5200 for $650.00 this weekend. I would have liked the x6200 but didn't want to spend the bucks right now. I'll have to do without DTS:X and Neural X, but I've been very used to DTS Neo X (Cinema) mode and this will add Dolby Atmos and DSU to the mix PLUS enabling my Front Wide speakers in conjunction with my Front Height speakers in a 9.1.2 configuration. (Currrent AVR, Pioneer SC-65 cannot play both front and wides at the same time.)

Personally, if you are happy with a soundbar or cannot hear any difference in a properly setup home theater with Dolby Atmos or even DTS Neo X, True HD, etc., then good for you. Save the money. For us home theater fans, having a big screen TV and the sound to enhance a movie or sports is well worth the investment.

I think Dolby Atmos is a bigger "bang for the buck" compared to a 4K TV or HDR. Nothing against those technologies but I'm very happy with my 1080p picture with my Darbee Darblet on my LCD/LED TV and BenQ Projector. So, HDCP 2.2 is not a big concern for me right now or even in the next couple of years. I'm very happy with my Roku 4 and Oppo 103.

As one poster suggested - - there are other threads to diss Dolby Atmos and relate to folks who think it's a waste of money. I'm looking forward to hooking my new Denon x5200 and letting the Atmos vibes takeover.


----------



## tigerhonaker

kbarnes701 said:


> Waiting is your prerogative sir. It doesn't really require all that much expertise, and all the info anyone needs to make a great Atmos install is in this thread, or will be provided by the regular contributors. It really isn't hard to get a great Atmos system up and running.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I tend to not rely on dealers so I am in a different situation and mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, fair enough. But really I am fairly confident that the hands-on cumulative and combined expertise in this thread will never be matched by 99% of all dealers anyway. You may be waiting for ever, which would be a pity since you are missing out on an audio experience I am sure you would love.


I'm not going to wait (Forever) Big-Guy but I'm darn sure going to wait until I feel the A/V dealer I have worked with for years knows about Atmos and correctly setting it up.
As well as which Atmos Speakers, Pre-Amp processor, Amp, cables etc. that should really be used to correctly match my existing system.
I have no intention of being the (Guinea-Pig) for their Atmos experimentation on my system.
And I doubt seriously if you can appreciate what I'm going to say but here goes, I'm not going to miss Atmos simply because I have never-ever heard it.
I'm not going to miss it since I don't actually have a point of reference other than reading about how it sounds.
I'm not trying to be a clown here just trying to get you to possibly appreciate my end of things.
I try to actually stay off this thread as it is obvious my thoughts and comments seem to not be welcome.
As has been pointed out this thread is for the *Positive* Atmos comments and not I guess for a few of us simply saying what our thoughts are on Atmos.

I'm not actually a negative person on Atmos I am actually a guy that simply is on hold until it seems to me things are settled down equipment wise as well as A/V dealers expertise.

Terry


----------



## thebland

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm not going to wait (Forever) Big-Guy but I'm darn sure going to wait until I feel the A/V dealer I have worked with for years knows about Atmos and correctly setting it up.
> As well as which Atmos Speakers, Pre-Amp processor, Amp, cables etc. that should really be used to correctly match my existing system.
> Terry


If your guy doesn't know about Atmos... well, apparently he's not a forward thinker.
I've been around here a number of years and compared to the 5 A/V boutiques in my area, I've never found one salesman that knew as much as myself - and all my knowledge was gleaned here.

If you are waiting for a dealer to learn about Atmos before you move on it, that insight really means nothing in the context of this thread - I mean, who benefits by your point? Your post is like a 'word-salad'. I think folks here, in terms of negative reviews are points, are more interested in actual demoing of Atmos.

Even the poster who went to dealer and was unimpressed, ,though we know little about the set up, makes a claim, that regardless of what other Atmos promoters feel, is hard to argue with.

Your point about waiting for a dealer and something about a guinea pig, does and means nothing. That's why you're getting push back - where's the beef??


----------



## wackid

Also luring and investigating for a 7.2.4 setup. But where are the AV receivers? 
Onkyo NR3030 is the only one but no DTS X. 

Marantz and Denon with an extra amp. But why the hell an extra Amp for the ceiling speakers? 

Very very strange decision. If you need an extra Amp then it should be on the front speakers. So you have a decent stereo Amp. 

Yamaha did it the way it should be. Extra Amp possibility on the fronts... But I don't like Yamaha. 

Let's hope Onkyo comes with a follow up on the NR3030. Rumors goes on the Rz3000. Which has a very sexy look on the RZ800/900.

So I have to be patient.


----------



## darklord700

wackid said:


> Also luring and investigating for a 9.2.4 setup. But where are the AV receivers?
> Onkyo NR3030 is the only one but no DTS X.
> 
> Marantz and Denon with an extra amp. But why the hell an extra Amp for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> Very very strange decisions. If you need an extra Amp then it should be on the front speakers. So you have a decent stereo Amp.
> (


I think this is the hurdle immersive audio faces. They have to accomodate form 7 to 13 channels or perhaps even more. 

I hope we see some dedicated processors coming out with more than 11 channels of processing power. We all have enough preamp and power amp lying around to do more than 11 channels of amplification. But it is the lack of 11+ channel processor not named Trinnow that's the bottle neck in this race.


----------



## NorthSky

I've read few member's impressions between DSU and DTS Neural:X with multichannel music listening (from stereo sources)...Nalleh, Hugo and couple more (3 or 5). 

I am interested in reading more member's comments between those two audio up-mixers with multichannel music...from CDs, SACDs, DVD-Audio and Blu-ray Audio and Blu-ray Video music concerts. ...And it's fine too in comparing with Auro-Matic 2D. 

I'm 50/50 music/movie average. ...Day for music, night for movies.

Thank you.


----------



## AllenA07

wackid said:


> Also luring and investigating for a 9.2.4 setup. But where are the AV receivers?
> Onkyo NR3030 is the only one but no DTS X.
> 
> Marantz and Denon with an extra amp. But why the hell an extra Amp for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> Very very strange decision. If you need an extra Amp then it should be on the front speakers. So you have a decent stereo Amp.
> 
> Yamaha did it the way it should be. Extra Amp possibility on the fronts... But I don't like Yamaha.
> 
> Let's hope Onkyo comes with a follow up on the NR3030. Rumors goes on the Rz3000. Which has a very sexy look on the RZ800/900.
> 
> So I have to be patient.


I've got a Denon x6200 receiver with a Emotive XPA-5 amp. I've got the amp running the fronts and the receiver running the surrounds.


----------



## wackid

darklord700 said:


> I think this is the hurdle immersive audio faces. They have to accomodate form 7 to 13 channels or perhaps even more.
> 
> I hope we see some dedicated processors coming out with more than 11 channels of processing power. We all have enough preamp and power amp lying around to do more than 11 channels of amplification. But it is the lack of 11+ channel processor not named Trinnow that's the bottle neck in this race.


Made a typo. I meant 7.2.4


----------



## Molon_Labe

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm not going to wait (Forever) Big-Guy but I'm darn sure going to wait until I feel the A/V dealer I have worked with for years knows about Atmos and correctly setting it up.
> 
> Terry


Where are you in TN? If you are near Knoxville, you might want to hit up @dgage who owns Deep Sea Sound. I am sure he could help you with your setup and dial your room in. Not sure what his rates or availability is, but he is abreast of current setups and technology.


----------



## wackid

AllenA07 said:


> I've got a Denon x6200 receiver with a Emotive XPA-5 amp. I've got the amp running the fronts and the receiver running the surrounds.


OK? I was looking on the 7200 manual. The diagram was mentioned there. 

So you can assign it manually then? Or just use the RCA's?


----------



## tigerhonaker

Molon_Labe said:


> Where are you in TN? If you are near Knoxville, you might want to hit up @*dgage* who owns Deep Sea Sound. I am sure he could help you with your setup and dial your room in. Not sure what his rates or availability is, but he is abreast of current setups and technology.


I'm 30 miles south of Nashville, TN.
He would be a very long ways from where I live.
It simply would not be a very feasible thing for him or me.
Way to much cost involved in just travel.

Thanks for the heads-up though.

My A/V dealer is A-OK but I don't think enough of his customers have gone to Atmos yet.
That being said IMO he does not yet have enough hands-on expertise that I want him to do mine, yet.

Thanks again,
Terry


----------



## NorthSky

Ricoflashback said:


> Well, I made the plunge and purchased an "Open Box," Best Buy *Denon x5200 for $650.00 this weekend*. I would have liked the x6200 but didn't want to spend the bucks right now. I'll have to do without DTS:X and Neural X, but I've been very used to DTS Neo X (Cinema) mode and this will add Dolby Atmos and DSU to the mix PLUS enabling my Front Wide speakers in conjunction with my Front Height speakers in a 9.1.2 configuration.
> 
> ... I'm looking forward to hooking my new Denon x5200 and letting the Atmos vibes takeover.


Awesome deal! ...Wise move...good line of thinking...congrats!


----------



## NorthSky

Molon_Labe said:


> I won't be upgrading to DTS:X any time soon. The few posts I have followed seem to indicated bugs.


Nalleh has reported very positive results from his listening sessions with DTS:X and DTS Neural:X with both movies and music.
Another six-seven members have also commented on impressive results. 

The only, "maybe", bug (if truly a bug) is with stereo source streaming without centering the image between left and right speaker (bitstreaming and without being able to set it to PCM). This case is one in a hundred...very rare. So for Murray who loves his stereo music I would simply recommend that he listen to them in "stereo". With CDs and other material played from his Blu-ray player, CD player, DVD player he can set the audio output to PCM and dts Neural:X should be just fine. 

Personally, my opinion, I want them all three: Dolby Atmos (DSU), DTS:X (DTS Neural:X) and Auro-3D (Auro-Matic 2D & 3D). 
The more choice for our movies and music the better. 

Again, this is just my opinion and I love you, and everybody else. ...Bugs no bugs.


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm not going to wait (Forever) Big-Guy but I'm darn sure going to wait until I feel the A/V dealer I have worked with for years knows about Atmos and correctly setting it up.
> As well as which Atmos Speakers, Pre-Amp processor, Amp, cables etc. that should really be used to correctly match my existing system.
> I have no intention of being the (Guinea-Pig) for their Atmos experimentation on my system.
> And I doubt seriously if you can appreciate what I'm going to say but here goes, I'm not going to miss Atmos simply because I have never-ever heard it.
> I'm not going to miss it since I don't actually have a point of reference other than reading about how it sounds.
> I'm not trying to be a clown here just trying to get you to possibly appreciate my end of things.
> I try to actually stay off this thread as it is obvious my thoughts and comments seem to not be welcome.
> As has been pointed out this thread is for the *Positive* Atmos comments and not I guess for a few of us simply saying what our thoughts are on Atmos.
> 
> I'm not actually a negative person on Atmos I am actually a guy that simply is on hold until it seems to me things are settled down equipment wise as well as A/V dealers expertise.
> 
> Terry


Hi Terry, good post ↑ - Your thinking is supremely valid...there is no rush.  ...No pressure, and with time things can only get better. 
Right now we are all learning from our compadres (early adopters) who show us all the intricacies (pros & cons) so far with the first and second generation Dolby Atmos products...third generation coming up...

Terry, my own personal view: I am very "extatic" (statically excited) about the 3D sound immersion from the big three. 
And it is 100% official that my next setup will include the three of them in a 7.2.4 configuration...abso!ute. ...No rush, no pressure @ this time in point. 

I just love reading all the positive comments...and since June 2014. We are @ the periphery/threshold of a complete transformation visually and auditory. It won't take long now till all receivers and pre/pros will include their DTS:X firmware upgrade and with the third gen, all of them will include them both already installed inside. 

I've been waiting for this moment all my life (way of speech), and I want it to be just right. 

So, I want to thanks all the members here for sharing their opinion and it's a passionate bunch fo sur. ...Love it all, love you all, nothing's serious...all good time and fun while we're alive and enjoying what we do today; walked the dogs this morning in the mountain's forest, and listening to jazz ♫ music right now on my veranda (warm enough) from the local radio jazz station...Port Angeles/Victoria/Seattle...where jazz rains. ...Cassandra Wilson.


----------



## Selden Ball

wackid said:


> Also luring and investigating for a 7.2.4 setup. But where are the AV receivers?
> Onkyo NR3030 is the only one but no DTS X.
> 
> Marantz and Denon with an extra amp. But why the hell an extra Amp for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> Very very strange decision. If you need an extra Amp then it should be on the front speakers. So you have a decent stereo Amp.


 While it might not be available on the least expensive AVR models from D+M, you can use external amps for the fronts and internal amps for the overheads when using a 2015 6nnn model or higher. This feature wasn't advertised and came as a surprise to many people who are familiar with those AVRs.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> The 5200 is a great receiver and for $650 that is a no brainer. I recently sold mine on Craigslist for more, so I feel fortunate if that is what they have dropped to. I won't be upgrading to DTS:X any time soon. The few posts I have followed seem to indicated bugs. To be honest, if it weren't for Dirac, I would still be rocking the 5200 but I need external amps for Dirac. It is a really nice unit - congrats!


Much thanks. I really had to hunt for this deal. Having the three year warranty was very important to me. I might have to get a remote and maybe a mic but those can be had for a reasonable price. So, this wasn't your ordinary transaction - - I was very lucky to have someone at Best Buy who really knew what they were doing. 

I'm probably state side for another five to six years max - - and then someplace warm in the Caribbean, Costa Rica, Mexico, even Panama. I'd really like to take everything with me but who knows what decisions will be made then. All I know is that snow is not in the future and this AVR should last a solid three to five years.

I've heard good things about DTS:X & Neural X. If it's anything like DTS Neo X, it should be a winner. 

I've also heard great things about Dirac and can understand your getting more amps. 

Best,
Rico


----------



## healthnut

CBdicX said:


> Like i say, its like North Korea here on this forum.
> (and other forums seem to work that way also !)
> They also do not want to hear or read negatives about there "great country"
> Some of you just want to hear how great Atmos is, no room for any negatives.
> I told i am back from taking down the Atmos part, and did feel i was missing the effects so i installed the speakers again, and i like it !
> *But i do stay at my point that any forum is about the pro's* *and con's, just like any review, pro's and con's.....*



There are some individuals that don't even care for surround at all, much less Atmos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ricoflashback

NorthSky said:


> Awesome deal! ...Wise move...good line of thinking...congrats!


Thanks - I'm looking forward to it! Maybe not the latest and greatest AVR but it has Dolby Atmos! I'll be the first in the hood to have it. If I can save enough bucks in the next five years, I'd love to have a warm weather place with a separate shack, out back, that is an office/guest bedroom but PRIMARILY a theater place where I can close the door and rock out to movies and music. 

The WAF always has to be considered in these decisions. But if I can find a way to swing it, it's gonna be done!


----------



## NorthSky

Is Onkyo the only company making eleven integrated/internal power amplifiers inside their top guns (AV receivers)? ...Anthem top gun receiver? ...Yes. 

If Onkyo/Anthem can do it...why can others not do it too? 

* We started with mono amps (the 30s and 40s), then stereo receivers (50s and 60s and 70s), then surround receivers (4 and 5-channel - 80s and 90s), then 5.1 receivers (80s and 90s, DD AC-3 and dts), then 7.1-channel receivers (DD TrueHD & dts-hd Master Audio - 2007), then 9.4-channel AV receivers (Denon, Audyssey DSX, Yamaha, 2000s+, ...), now 7.1.4 (9.1.2) AV receivers (2014, Dolby Atmos/Auro-3D with nine and eleven power amps inside), and yet only Onkyo/Anthem provide all the amps necessary (11) for a 7.2.4 or 9.2.2 full setup. ...And now, with DTS:X (2016) with full 7.2.4 (9.2.2) setup.
If Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, NAD, ...can put nine power amps inside their receivers, why just not add two more in their top models, like Onkyo/Integra and Anthem do? 

It's just an opinion, mine.


----------



## cdelena

wackid said:


> Also luring and investigating for a 7.2.4 setup. But where are the AV receivers?
> Onkyo NR3030 is the only one but no DTS X.
> 
> Marantz and Denon with an extra amp. But why the hell an extra Amp for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> Very very strange decision. If you need an extra Amp then it should be on the front speakers. So you have a decent stereo Amp.
> 
> Yamaha did it the way it should be. Extra Amp possibility on the fronts... But I don't like Yamaha.
> 
> Let's hope Onkyo comes with a follow up on the NR3030. Rumors goes on the Rz3000. Which has a very sexy look on the RZ800/900.
> 
> So I have to be patient.


I have had a 3030 for ten months and think it is great... sure have not missed DTS.X and don't expect I will.

I wanted a one box solution with HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 at a reasonable price and this came in less than $2k.

Have had nothing but positive response from the audience including those with their own setups. My family and I are really pleased with Atmos / DSU.

There is a real brand bias on this as well as other boards that you have to take with a grain of salt.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Ricoflashback said:


> Well, I made the plunge and purchased an "Open Box," Best Buy Denon x5200 for $650.00 this weekend. I would have liked the x6200 but didn't want to spend the bucks right now. I'll have to do without DTS:X and Neural X, but I've been very used to DTS Neo X (Cinema) mode and this will add Dolby Atmos and DSU to the mix PLUS enabling my Front Wide speakers in conjunction with my Front Height speakers in a 9.1.2 configuration. (Currrent AVR, Pioneer SC-65 cannot play both front and wides at the same time.)
> 
> Personally, if you are happy with a soundbar or cannot hear any difference in a properly setup home theater with Dolby Atmos or even DTS Neo X, True HD, etc., then good for you. Save the money. For us home theater fans, having a big screen TV and the sound to enhance a movie or sports is well worth the investment.
> 
> I think Dolby Atmos is a bigger "bang for the buck" compared to a 4K TV or HDR. Nothing against those technologies but I'm very happy with my 1080p picture with my Darbee Darblet on my LCD/LED TV and BenQ Projector. So, HDCP 2.2 is not a big concern for me right now or even in the next couple of years. I'm very happy with my Roku 4 and Oppo 103.
> 
> As one poster suggested - - there are other threads to diss Dolby Atmos and relate to folks who think it's a waste of money. I'm looking forward to hooking my new Denon x5200 and letting the Atmos vibes takeover.


That's one super deal right there. Congrats..


----------



## aaranddeeman

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm not going to wait (Forever) Big-Guy but I'm darn sure going to wait until I feel the A/V dealer I have worked with for years knows about Atmos and correctly setting it up.
> As well as which Atmos Speakers, Pre-Amp processor, Amp, cables etc. that should really be used to correctly match my existing system.
> I have no intention of being the (Guinea-Pig) for their Atmos experimentation on my system.
> And I doubt seriously if you can appreciate what I'm going to say but here goes, *I'm not going to miss Atmos simply because I have never-ever heard it.*
> I'm not going to miss it since I don't actually have a point of reference other than reading about how it sounds.
> I'm not trying to be a clown here just trying to get you to possibly appreciate my end of things.
> I try to actually stay off this thread as it is obvious my thoughts and comments seem to not be welcome.
> As has been pointed out this thread is for the *Positive* Atmos comments and not I guess for a few of us simply saying what our thoughts are on Atmos.
> 
> I'm not actually a negative person on Atmos I am actually a guy that simply is on hold until it seems to me things are settled down equipment wise as well as A/V dealers expertise.
> 
> Terry


It never ceases to amaze me.
If one is not going to miss it, why bother commenting adversely on it.
Just be on the sidelines and enjoy the show till you are ready.


----------



## DaGamePimp

wackid said:


> Also luring and investigating for a 7.2.4 setup. But where are the AV receivers?
> Onkyo NR3030 is the only one but no DTS X.
> 
> Marantz and Denon with an extra amp. But why the hell an extra Amp for the ceiling speakers?
> 
> Very very strange decision. If you need an extra Amp then it should be on the front speakers. So you have a decent stereo Amp.
> 
> Yamaha did it the way it should be. Extra Amp possibility on the fronts... But I don't like Yamaha.
> 
> Let's hope Onkyo comes with a follow up on the NR3030. Rumors goes on the Rz3000. Which has a very sexy look on the RZ800/900.
> 
> So I have to be patient.


 
It's likely more common that people would not do 4 tops and if they wish to do so it is more cost effective to add a small amp (like an Audiosource) to run 2 tops (vs a stout amp for their mains). Obviously it would be ideal if we could all do full amp assign but it is what it is and functionality should progress.

That said, I am running 7.2.4 with a Denon X5200 + 5 channel external amp (amp runs LCR + TR).

Painless setup and works great, very happy with it.

-Jason


----------



## thebland

Ignorance IS bliss!


----------



## wackid

NorthSky said:


> Is Onkyo the only company making eleven integrated/internal power amplifiers inside their top guns (AV receivers)? ...Anthem top gun receiver? ...Yes.
> 
> If Onkyo/Anthem can do it...why can others not do it too?
> 
> * We started with mono amps (the 30s and 40s), then stereo receivers (50s and 60s and 70s), then surround receivers (4 and 5-channel - 80s and 90s), then 5.1 receivers (80s and 90s, DD AC-3 and dts), then 7.1-channel receivers (DD TrueHD & dts-hd Master Audio - 2007), then 9.4-channel AV receivers (Denon, Audyssey DSX, Yamaha, 2000s+, ...), now 7.1.4 (9.1.2) AV receivers (2014, with nine and eleven power amps inside), and yet only Onkyo provides all the amps necessary for a 7.2.4 or 9.2.2 full setup. ...Anthem too (11 power amps).
> If Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, NAD, ...can put nine power amps inside their receivers, why just not add two more in their top models, like Onkyo/Integra and Anthem do?
> 
> It's just an opinion, mine.


I was wondering the same... They are not ready for it yet? 



cdelena said:


> There is a real brand bias on this as well as other boards that you have to take with a grain of salt.


After two Pioneers I am a very satisfied Onkyo owner. Love the sound and fully loaded with extras.


----------



## tigerhonaker

aaranddeeman said:


> It never ceases to amaze me.
> If one is not going to miss it, why bother commenting adversely on it.
> Just be on the sidelines and enjoy the show till you are ready.


How to respond ............

I thought I made it very clear in my posting I'm not in anyway opposed to Atmos and the members here that already have it and totally enjoying it.

I said and I will repeat, until my A/V dealer IMO gets a lot more Atmos systems under their belt I'm not going to be the one they experiment with.

And I will still say since I have not yet heard an excellent Atmos system in a home I can't possibly miss what I have not heard 1st hand.

So if what I say has you totally confused then I think we will have to at this point to, agree to disagree. 

Terry


----------



## wackid

What a discussion here... Took some time to read back. 

The reason why i want 7.1.4 is because I have heard it in several HiFi stores in The Netherlands. And its awesome. And yes it always sounds different at home. 

My wife was with me. So WAF certified to mount four speakers in the ceiling.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Yes, from the 5200, but the 7200 thinks it has one set of heights, and will use ear level in transitions to them.


More reasons why my method is the best.


----------



## thebland

Stoked21 said:


>


Where do I find this?


----------



## HD_Dude

jpco said:


> On a realistic level, decent speakers, decently matched, in relatively correct angles, and set up for appropriate level and delay should deliver a satisfactory experience. If it does not, then immersive audio is not for the home.


Hi, new to this thread, but I've read a lot of it, and learned a lot.

I want to upgrade to Dolby Atmos, but I'm hoping the experts here can provide me some advice.

Right now I have a full Klipsch surround system. Big center, big tower L&R. large-ish multi-dispersion rear surrounds, 12" 400W sub.

It's old. But it sounds flipping beautiful, using an old "in its time it was the state-of-the-art" Denon AVR5700.

I want to upgrade. Receiver first.

So if I do, and add some extra Klipsch bookshelf speakers, on top of the towers and pointed up, and well as some extra Klipsch bookshelfs positioned high...(according to Dolby specs)...will I get the intended results?

Or, is it going to be a great big nothing....unless I ditch all my older speakers and buy new Dolby Atmos certified speakers?

Trying to phase in. Can't afford $6K on a new receiver, and speakers.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Argyle

gbaby said:


> I went back to an audio store with its ATMOS setup and for the second time, I was unimpressed. In fact, sometimes, the mix was comical. I was watching Transformers, and in one of the earlier fights, you could hear bullets flying from the ceiling, but yet, in the picture, the bullets were on the the ground level with the action. Obviously, it was mixed incorrectly or mixed just to use the height speakers. The system speakers were Aerial Acoustics with four B&W height speakers. While I can appreciate the investment in this experiment with ATMOS most folks had with this new surround codec, it is my opinion that you have be deceived by trade puffing and embellishment. Too bad, but its the price we all pay for being early adopters. I feel the limited atmospheric gain from ATMOS is not worth the cost of admission. I walked out of demonstration after having listened for some 45 minutes.










gbaby said:


> I cannot believe you get a "like" for a quote from me you cannot find anywhere. This is intellectually dishonest.


Here, I quoted your original post. Tell me how I misrepresented you again?


----------



## smurraybhm

tigerhonaker said:


> Well I'll "WAIT" and I'm glad you have the expertise to do your installs, I-Don't.
> 
> There is simply way to much money (US Dollars) to jump in on Atmos for me where I am located until A/V Local dealers get up to speed.
> 
> I don't do things have way so in my case it will be a sizable investment so I'm not guessing on dealers having their game plan down yet.


Given your in Tennessee maybe I should come up and help you with an Atmos setup. Meant nicely, it's not rocket science, you seem like a smart guy, have been doing the a/v thing for awhile I would guess, no need for an installer. Just the willingness to invest.

Now if your mentality is like your friend to the north, we could be waiting a while and making a lot of posts until your purchase.


----------



## zeus33

thebland said:


> Where do I find this?




Amazon used to have it, but unfortunately, it's been unavailable for a while now: http://www.amazon.com/ToolUSA-Laser...230&sr=8-1&keywords=Laser+Angle+Finder+Sqaure


----------



## gbaby

Argyle said:


> Here, I quoted your original post. Tell me how I misrepresented you again?


You need to leave this topic alone, but since you insist, below is your original quote misquoting me:

Sure. But the guy who started this particular derail basically said "I know I told you guys before that Atmos sucks, but I wanted to come back in here to tell all of you that I listened to it again and not only does it still suck, all of you are completely delusional."


----------



## dvdwilly3

If you need to point me to another forum, please do. I just pre-ordered the coming Samsung UHD player. Is HDCP 2.2 an issue?

I am not concerned about 4K, but I would like to play UHD disks. My projector is a Sony VPL-VW50.
Will the Samsung upscale the disk? Or, will it play backwards compatible to 1080i/p?

Or, does anyone know?


----------



## blastermaster

Well, I just watched Goosebumps with my kids this afternoon. It's really unfortunate for those who haven't had a good experience with Atmos because watching that movie was sheer audio bliss. And it's only going to get better with future Atmos and DTS:X movies. 

I encourage those on the fence to jump in - it's awesome. More importantly, I encourage you to do your research before jumping in. Do you have popcorn ceilings or vaulted ceilings? Upfiring speakers are probably out for you (I wouldn't suggest upfiring speakers at all, but that's just my not so humble opinion). Do you have direct firing speakers all around? Well, you should have...and at ear height. If possible, get similar speakers all around with wide dispersion capabilities. Don't cheap out on your ceiling speakers because you've heard/read that not much sound comes out of them anyway. If you have to make too many compromises you can't possibly expect to have your mind blown.

I'll admit it was a cluster#$$% to get Atmos set up in my theater and I chose to sell off some beautiful bipole speakers, cut holes in walls/ceilings, etc. I haven't got it perfect, but it's the best I can do. It also sounds significantly better than 7.1. And I'm not saying that because I spent a fair chunk of change to get it up and running. It was worth every penny.


----------



## Argyle

gbaby said:


> You need to leave this topic alone, but since you insist, below is your original quote misquoting me:
> 
> Sure. But the guy who started this particular derail basically said "I know I told you guys before that Atmos sucks, but I wanted to come back in here to tell all of you that I listened to it again and not only does it still suck, all of you are completely delusional."


Last post on this derail. I used the quote marks to summarize your post. If I wanted to quote you directly I would have used the quote feature. Also, isn't that pretty much what you said? If that wasn't your intent, maybe you should choose your words more carefully in the future.


----------



## NorthSky

wackid said:


> I was wondering the same... They are not ready for it yet?


I have no idea why Denon/Marantz and Pioneer can't put eleven amps in their top receivers like Onkyo/Integra and Anthem do.

* Yamaha can certainly put eleven amps in their top guns because they already did in the past; seven mains plus four presences...total eleven internal power amps. 

So for people who love to get the full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup with using only one receiver...they can with Onkyo/Integra and Anthem top receivers.
The others guys they are just short of two...for now. Then we need an external stereo amp (roughly $200), a pair of stereo interconnects and a trigger cable (mono). ...All adds up to few more bucks...and space...of course. 

If they can put nine...I'm sure they can put eleven. ...Look inside a Pioneer receiver...there is room for two more amplified channels, no sweat...Class D. 
And Marantz...they'll have to make their top receivers a little more deeper (I believe that they are the perfect depth for some customers). 
Denon's top receiver? ...Like the 7200. ...Why not...Denon was never afraid to build the meanest, biggest, largest, tallest, heaviest receiver of them all (5805). ...Denon is the leader in everything; Audyssey, loads of features, various settings, best screen displays, best GUIs, four top DSP chips, best DACs, multiple power supplies, big large caps (Marantz too - 56,000uF times two), ...innovations rhyme with Denons. 

Onkyo has four separate transformers in their top receivers. ...Denon older top guns had three, or four. 

Sure we don't see top receivers weighting 97 and 75 and 67 pounds on a scale. ...The heavy weights are from Onkyo/Integra [email protected] around 55 pounds. 

Arcam top receivers I'm not sure...neither AudioControl top receivers. ...NAD? ...Rotel? Do they subscribe to Dolby Atmos? 
Because NAD and Rotel used to make heavy amplifiers, of great power. 
Emotiva too make heavy amplifiers that are affordable. ..But no receivers with Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> Well, I just watched Goosebumps with my kids this afternoon. It's really unfortunate for those who haven't had a good experience with Atmos because watching that movie was sheer audio bliss. And it's only going to get better with future Atmos and DTS:X movies.
> 
> I encourage those on the fence to jump in - it's awesome. More importantly, I encourage you to do your research before jumping in. Do you have popcorn ceilings or vaulted ceilings? Upfiring speakers are probably out for you (I wouldn't suggest upfiring speakers at all, but that's just my not so humble opinion). Do you have direct firing speakers all around? Well, you should have...and at ear height. If possible, get similar speakers all around with wide dispersion capabilities. Don't cheap out on your ceiling speakers because you've heard/read that not much sound comes out of them anyway. If you have to make too many compromises you can't possibly expect to have your mind blown.
> 
> I'll admit it was a cluster#$$% to get Atmos set up in my theater and I chose to sell off some beautiful bipole speakers, cut holes in walls/ceilings, etc. I haven't got it perfect, but it's the best I can do. It also sounds significantly better than 7.1. And I'm not saying that because I spent a fair chunk of change to get it up and running. It was worth every penny.


When will the Anthem 720 receiver get its DTS:X software update?


----------



## cyclones22

For those who have the Audiosphere demo, which overheads were the most active in your setup? For me, it was the rear Atmos. The front Atmos speakers were active for the stars that seemed farther away, either lower left or right on screen. Directly overhead was primarily the rear Atmos speakers. I'm curious what others experienced.


----------



## blastermaster

NorthSky said:


> When will the Anthem 720 receiver get its DTS:X software update?


Apparently summer. No rush for me as DSU does great with DTS: HD and there really aren't any DTS:X titles out anyway (OK, I own one).


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> Apparently summer. No rush for me as DSU does great with DTS: HD and there really aren't any DTS:X titles out anyway (OK, I own one).


Thanks. ...Indeed no rush; it seems that DTS Neural:X introduces distortion and other disagreeable peculiarities/anomalies with stereo music recordings.


----------



## wackid

NorthSky said:


> I have no idea why Denon/Marantz and Pioneer can't put eleven amps in their top receivers like Onkyo/Integra and Anthem do.
> 
> * Yamaha can certainly put eleven amps in their top guns because they already did in the past; seven mains plus four presences...total eleven internal power amps.
> 
> So for people who love to get the full 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup with using only one receiver...they can with Onkyo/Integra and Anthem top receivers.
> The others guys they are just short of two...for now. Then we need an external stereo amp (roughly $200), a pair of stereo interconnects and a trigger cable (mono). ...All adds up to few more bucks...and space...of course.
> 
> If they can put nine...I'm sure they can put eleven. ...Look inside a Pioneer receiver...there is room for two more amplified channels, no sweat...Class D.
> And Marantz...they'll have to make their top receivers a little more deeper (I believe that they are the perfect depth for some customers).
> Denon's top receiver? ...Like the 7200. ...Why not...Denon was never afraid to build the meanest, biggest, largest, tallest, heaviest receiver of them all (5805). ...Denon is the leader in everything; Audyssey, loads of features, various settings, best screen displays, best GUIs, four top DSP chips, best DACs, multiple power supplies, big large caps (Marantz too - 56,000uF times two), ...innovations rhyme with Denons.
> 
> Onkyo has four separate transformers in their top receivers. ...Denon older top guns had three, or four.
> 
> Sure we don't see top receivers weighting 97 and 75 and 67 pounds on a scale. ...The heavy weights are from Onkyo/Integra [email protected] around 55 pounds.
> 
> Arcam top receivers I'm not sure...neither AudioControl top receivers. ...NAD? ...Rotel? Do they subscribe to Dolby Atmos?
> Because NAD and Rotel used to make heavy amplifiers, of great power.
> Emotiva too make heavy amplifiers that are affordable. ..But no receivers with Atmos.


Maybe they don't believe in the setup of four ceiling speakers and that consumers are not willing to upgrade. 

Also due of the majority of people sets up a simple soundbar and they are happy. 

I think they are waiting what the market wants. Before putting money in a development which no one is going to buy. 

Again I hope this spring Onkyo will deliver a 11.2 RZ series (and hope accueq is gone) and its mine.


----------



## GXMnow

HD_Dude said:


> Hi, new to this thread, but I've read a lot of it, and learned a lot.
> 
> I want to upgrade to Dolby Atmos, but I'm hoping the experts here can provide me some advice.
> 
> Right now I have a full Klipsch surround system. Big center, big tower L&R. large-ish multi-dispersion rear surrounds, 12" 400W sub.
> 
> It's old. But it sounds flipping beautiful, using an old "in its time it was the state-of-the-art" Denon AVR5700.
> 
> I want to upgrade. Receiver first.
> 
> So if I do, and add some extra Klipsch bookshelf speakers, on top of the towers and pointed up, and well as some extra Klipsch bookshelfs positioned high...(according to Dolby specs)...will I get the intended results?
> 
> Or, is it going to be a great big nothing....unless I ditch all my older speakers and buy new Dolby Atmos certified speakers?
> 
> Trying to phase in. Can't afford $6K on a new receiver, and speakers.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Your existing Klipsch speakers should work just fine for the main ear level speakers. I have heard a setup using the newer Klipsch Bi Pole surround for both side and rear of the 7.1 part of a Dolby Atmos setup and it worked great. They way they set them up, it is just a wider dispersion speaker all in phase, so not like the Di Poles that were out of phase to spread the sound, these are still point source. Not sure which models you have but I assume they should be similar when you describe them as "multi dispersion surrounds"

As for the added height speakers.... You may get away with using a bookshelf style speaker aimed at your ceiling, but the AVR's are expecting the speaker to have the HRTF (head related transfer function) to help make the sound appear to be more above the listener. If the response dip is inthe target curve, the Audyssey should still try to tune it in, but since Klipsch actually makes a proper up firing add on unit (RP‑140SA) with their horn tweeter and all, why not look into a set of them to add on top of your speakers. For high mounted and aiming down, Klipsch also makes several nice bookshelf speakers at a few different price points. 

At the worst case, you can use the add ons now and in the future, if you really feel the older ones are not cutting it, you culd change them out later, but I really doubt you will fell the need. Any of the mid to higher end Klipsch home speakers from the last 10+ years will keep up well with the modern electronics, as long as they have not been damaged.


----------



## James1981

Hello all. I've been following this thread for a while now and have finaly plucked up the courage to weigh in. My current set up is a Onkyo TX NR 545, this was an upgrade from the Onkyo TX NR 609. I'm wanting to utilise the 609 to introduce more speakers into my atmos setup.


My question is this, I've been reading about utilising the line out on the 545 and connecting this to the 609, using the line out connection. The 609 supports PL IIZ(X), but what could stop me from splitting the HDMI out signal from the 545, pumping this into the 609. I would then have a digital signal supporting upto 7.1 instead of the analouge restricted to 2.0 to be upconverted to PL IIZ(X)?


Many thanks,


James


----------



## dvdwilly3

GXMnow said:


> Your existing Klipsch speakers should work just fine for the main ear level speakers. I have heard a setup using the newer Klipsch Bi Pole surround for both side and rear of the 7.1 part of a Dolby Atmos setup and it worked great. They way they set them up, it is just a wider dispersion speaker all in phase, so not like the Di Poles that were out of phase to spread the sound, these are still point source. Not sure which models you have but I assume they should be similar when you describe them as "multi dispersion surrounds"
> 
> As for the added height speakers.... You may get away with using a bookshelf style speaker aimed at your ceiling, but the AVR's are expecting the speaker to have the HRTF (head related transfer function) to help make the sound appear to be more above the listener. If the response dip is inthe target curve, the Audyssey should still try to tune it in, but since Klipsch actually makes a proper up firing add on unit (RP‑140SA) with their horn tweeter and all, why not look into a set of them to add on top of your speakers. For high mounted and aiming down, Klipsch also makes several nice bookshelf speakers at a few different price points.
> 
> At the worst case, you can use the add ons now and in the future, if you really feel the older ones are not cutting it, you culd change them out later, but I really doubt you will fell the need. Any of the mid to higher end Klipsch home speakers from the last 10+ years will keep up well with the modern electronics, as long as they have not been damaged.


If you are talking about additional bookshelf speakers mounted high for reaf top/high, you could use the RP-140SA, and mount them...providing that you can get the correct angle for your seating position...

http://images.klipsch.com/RP-140SA_-_Up_635713415742408000_medium.jpg

If you like the Klipsch sound, stick with the Klipsch. They are good speakers. Remember that the only one that eeds to be happy with the results is you...and/or your significant other...


----------



## gbaby

Argyle said:


> Last post on this derail. I used the quote marks to summarize your post. If I wanted to quote you directly I would have used the quote feature. Also, isn't that pretty much what you said? If that wasn't your intent, maybe you should choose your words more carefully in the future.


You did use quotes as if it were true and your summary was inaccurate. Folks like you do not give this thread any credibility as comments are not made in good faith.


----------



## aaranddeeman

dvdwilly3 said:


> If you need to point me to another forum, please do. I just pre-ordered the coming Samsung UHD player. Is HDCP 2.2 an issue?
> 
> I am not concerned about 4K, but I would like to play UHD disks. My projector is a Sony VPL-VW50.
> Will the Samsung upscale the disk? Or, will it play backwards compatible to 1080i/p?
> 
> Or, does anyone know?


IMHO, to play 4K all devices in the chain should be HDCP 2.2
Please make sure that they are.


----------



## aaranddeeman

James1981 said:


> Hello all. I've been following this thread for a while now and have finaly plucked up the courage to weigh in. My current set up is a Onkyo TX NR 545, this was an upgrade from the Onkyo TX NR 609. I'm wanting to utilise the 609 to introduce more speakers into my atmos setup.
> 
> 
> My question is this, I've been reading about utilising the line out on the 545 and connecting this to the 609, using the line out connection. The 609 supports PL IIZ(X), but what could stop me from splitting the HDMI out signal from the 545, pumping this into the 609. I would then have a digital signal supporting upto 7.1 instead of the analouge restricted to 2.0 to be upconverted to PL IIZ(X)?
> 
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> 
> James


Please elaborate a bit more as to what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to extend Atmos, then there are limitations based on your actual Atmos receiver capabilities.


----------



## HD_Dude

GXMnow said:


> Your existing Klipsch speakers should work just fine for the main ear level speakers. I have heard a setup using the newer Klipsch Bi Pole surround for both side and rear of the 7.1 part of a Dolby Atmos setup and it worked great. They way they set them up, it is just a wider dispersion speaker all in phase, so not like the Di Poles that were out of phase to spread the sound, these are still point source. Not sure which models you have but I assume they should be similar when you describe them as "multi dispersion surrounds"
> 
> As for the added height speakers.... You may get away with using a bookshelf style speaker aimed at your ceiling, but the AVR's are expecting the speaker to have the HRTF (head related transfer function) to help make the sound appear to be more above the listener. If the response dip is inthe target curve, the Audyssey should still try to tune it in, but since Klipsch actually makes a proper up firing add on unit (RP‑140SA) with their horn tweeter and all, why not look into a set of them to add on top of your speakers. For high mounted and aiming down, Klipsch also makes several nice bookshelf speakers at a few different price points.
> 
> At the worst case, you can use the add ons now and in the future, if you really feel the older ones are not cutting it, you culd change them out later, but I really doubt you will fell the need. Any of the mid to higher end Klipsch home speakers from the last 10+ years will keep up well with the modern electronics, as long as they have not been damaged.





dvdwilly3 said:


> If you are talking about additional bookshelf speakers mounted high for reaf top/high, you could use the RP-140SA, and mount them...providing that you can get the correct angle for your seating position...
> 
> http://images.klipsch.com/RP-140SA_-_Up_635713415742408000_medium.jpg
> 
> If you like the Klipsch sound, stick with the Klipsch. They are good speakers. Remember that the only one that eeds to be happy with the results is you...and/or your significant other...


Very helpful! I appreciate the advice. That provides me a road map for the upgrades, which will happen over time. 

Great thread, on a great subject.

Thanks very much.


----------



## audioguy

gbaby said:


> You did use quotes as if it were true and your summary was inaccurate. Folks like you do not give this thread any credibility as comments are not made in good faith.


Given your repeated dismissal of Atmos, his "summary" seemed perfectly on target to me. More importantly, since you have now stated multiple times now much you do not "get" Atmos, why are you still posting here? You have made your point. And please don't play that "negative posts aren't allowed" on this thread. NONSENSE. It's your repetition of your negative that's annoying. We heard you the first time!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> If you need to point me to another forum, please do. I just pre-ordered the coming Samsung UHD player. Is HDCP 2.2 an issue?
> 
> I am not concerned about 4K, but I would like to play UHD disks. My projector is a Sony VPL-VW50.
> Will the Samsung upscale the disk? Or, will it play backwards compatible to 1080i/p?
> 
> Or, does anyone know?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...-k8500-4k-hdr-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-55.html

2.2 is an issue. You will probably need a HD Fury Integral. See the thread for info.


----------



## Surfdrifter

Hi

I have:

2x SVS Ultra Towers
2x SVS Ultra Bookshelves
1x SVS Ultra Center
1x SVS PB13 Ultra

and I'd like to setup a 7.2.4 system. The room will be sealed with dimensions of 3,50m (W) x 5,50m (L) x 2,50m (H).

I was thinking of getting the Ultra Surrounds for the side surround, which can be configured as either bipole or dipole (there's a third option, but irrelevant to my scenario)

Would that cause issues for an Atmos setup? Should I go monopole instead? They would be wall mounted for sure, but I'm thinking that aesthetically, the wall mounted surrounds would be better than the clunky bookshelves

thanks


----------



## James1981

aaranddeeman said:


> Please elaborate a bit more as to what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to extend Atmos, then there are limitations based on your actual Atmos receiver capabilities.




Hi, thanks for the response. I'm wanting to utilise my second amp to expand my current Atmos setup. I read earlier that this could be done using the line out on the atmos AVR to the second AVR. The sesond AVR would convert the stereo to 5.1 or 7.1 using PL IIX.


My curent setup is Atmos 5.1.2. I'm wanting to add another two ceiling speakers and another 2 sides utilising the second AVR.


Hope that has cleared up what I want.


My main question was instead of using a stereo connection between the two AVR's, could a digital connection be used by using an HDMI splitter. I've done further research and found this doesn't look possible due restrictions on spliters and extractors.


Any further advice welcome though.


----------



## Molon_Labe

gbaby said:


> You did use quotes as if it were true and your summary was inaccurate. Folks like you do not give this thread any credibility as comments are not made in good faith.


Are you done? We are


----------



## smurraybhm

Surfdrifter said:


> Hi
> 
> I have:
> 
> 2x SVS Ultra Towers
> 2x SVS Ultra Bookshelves
> 1x SVS Ultra Center
> 1x SVS PB13 Ultra
> 
> and I'd like to setup a 7.2.4 system. The room will be sealed with dimensions of 3,50m (W) x 5,50m (L) x 2,50m (H).
> 
> I was thinking of getting the Ultra Surrounds for the side surround, which can be configured as either bipole or dipole (there's a third option, but irrelevant to my scenario)
> 
> Would that cause issues for an Atmos setup? Should I go monopole instead? They would be wall mounted for sure, but I'm thinking that aesthetically, the wall mounted surrounds would be better than the clunky bookshelves
> 
> thanks


I would go with some SVS bookshelves or satellites for your rear surrounds - though some of us use dipoles and bipoles - monopoles are recommended. As for your tops keep in mind SVS is coming out with an Atmos speaker soon, it was announced last month in case you missed it. Given all the SVS gear you already have in place it should be easy for you to timber match your immersive system without great expense. I believe the satellites can be wall mounted, so that should help with your aesthetic requirement, but its not hard to find mounts that can lend themselves to having larger speakers look good when wall mounted.


----------



## Stoked21

*Atmos: Should I use Dipole,DAE,Angled-up Bookshelf,Cheap Speakers,Small Drivers, etc?*



HD_Dude said:


> So if I do, and add some extra Klipsch bookshelf speakers, on top of the towers and pointed up, and well as some extra Klipsch bookshelfs positioned high...(according to Dolby specs)...will I get the intended results?





Surfdrifter said:


> I was thinking of getting the Ultra Surrounds for the side surround, which can be configured as either bipole or dipole (there's a third option, but irrelevant to my scenario)


Not picking on these two guys....They are new to Atmos and are asking questions to learn and do it right. So bravo for you guys......But these type of things are actually what I continually read (and see pics) that people have done in their "Atmos" setups. And then they brag about how great their Atmos is, when most of us know for a fact that it is NOT. It exemplifies my point of the 80/20 rule bad-to-good of Atmos. Before I catch grief for this, we've all seen these questions and wondered to ourselves "Why are you even trying to do it that way????". Life is a lot easier if you just try to follow and adhere to the specifications, as written by the company that developed said technology, which you are trying to implement in the first place. One does not have to spend a large amount of money. They just need to use common sense when moving to Atmos. There really needs to be a "rulebook" that summarizes a few key points for Atmos newbies on the first post here....I've evaluated numerous speakers for Atmos....I've personally made many of these mistakes and have worked to improve upon these pitfalls in my own system....So my goal here is to provide a brief, concise FAQ that dispels the most common questions and inferior Atmos sound quality...

*In regards to using DAE speakers/add-ons: * No. Don't do it IMO. If you want sound from above you.....Then put speakers above you.  Period. $100/speaker will get you a nice speaker to mount as height on the walls or even an IC. Paint the speaker cables if you don't want to cut holes in drywall and fish/pull cable. I think it was Sanjay who recommended some super flat "ghost" speaker cable that can make a tidy and invisible install attached to the wall. On ceilings, on-wall heights or in ceilings are going to sound better....And they are going to cost less than buying a decent pair of DAE add-on modules. They are also going to be a more forgiving setup. And you can likely find speakers of the same make/model that will timbre match better. If it's a WAF issue, then we all do what we have to do and compromise---but good luck. It's worth noting that the WAF is typically not an issue with ICs IME. They won't even notice they are there as the speaker grills blend into the ceiling....It's one less ugly boxy speaker in the room if it's a camouflaged grill on the ceiling.
*In regards to using DAE with vaulted or popcorn ceilings:* No. You cannot.
*In regards to using bookshelf as DAE speakers:* No. Don't waste your time.....If that's the only option and you still want to proceed, then ignore my first comment and buy a nice pair of DAE for $500/pair. Bookshelf speakers typically have a narrower dispersion than an IC speaker has and so will be less favorable. They also do not have the filter in the crossover like all DAE specifics modules have. So just don't do it as it will be negligible and sound crappy if the speaker is even heard at all.
*In regards to narrow dispersion speakers:* If a speaker doesn't list it's dispersion....You probably don't want to use it for Atmos. The general rule is, the larger the listening area and/or the lower the ceilings---the wider dispersion you want. My general rule....If it's not 90° dispersion....Don't use it. If you only have one row, you can get by with narrower dispersion like 60°. If they are mounted in top-middle with one row of seating, then narrower dispersion may be okay. But put in the largest dispersion you can...This will help you to future proof your theater if it is reconfigured. Shoot for 90°.
*In regards to going x.x.2 or x.x.4:* I've seen very few rooms that can't support 4 speakers for Atmos. I'm sure there are some that are so small that running top-front and top-rear is very difficult. For future-proof and expandability....I'll tell everyone to plan on running at least 4 speakers for Atmos. Most rooms I would recommend running 6 speakers to support Top-front, -middle, and -rear or their front/rear height derivates. Just run at least 4 speakers. Don't consider two unless your room is extremely, extremely small. And if you're running 4, then run the cabling for 6 to save yourself some time in the coming years. You will likely want 6 in the future.
*In regards to using dipole (or to a lesser degree bipole):* No. Don't do it. Bipole may be more forgiving...But dipole is a 100% no-no. If you need to use your bipole for a while before you replace them with monopole....Then go for it. But all of your speakers should be monopole-direct radiating speakers. There are a few minor exceptions where bipoles can work well with certain rooms and multiple seating rows....But I would probably only recommend bipoles for the more advanced user with a dedicated HT. I've used bipoles for my top fronts and managed to make it sound great. Again, YMMV with bipoles and it likely will change imaging. You can get great Atmos with them though. But most everyone agrees absolutely no dipole anywhere.
*In regards to having surrounds or rear surrounds placed next to Atmos speakers:* No. Don't do it. Separate them as much as possible. Elevated surrounds is subjective. But those who have done it successfully, have provided separation between the speakers. It is worth noting that all surrounds should be at about ear-level per Dolby. I stick hard and fast to this rule and highly recommend following Dolby (the creators of the Atmos technology and algorithms), while others here do not and they prefer it. YMMV with either approach. But separation is always key regardless.
*In regards to using tiny driver for in-ceilings:* No. Don't. Dolby calls for nearly full range. You want a speaker that can at least play down to 80Hz F3.....Don't consider anything less than about a 6" driver. I've swapped to larger and larger drivers for my Atmos ICs several times. I can tell you...There is a LOT of bass that comes out of them! People who say there isn't....well they have smaller drivers and don't know!! 8" drivers that play flat 80hz F3 are amazing. Even my 6" and 7" drivers did great. But when I tried 4.5" drivers....They suck.
*In regards to using cheap Atmos speakers:* Don't! Objects are positioned between drivers....Between top-rear left and surround left for instance to make a sound appear to come from the space between them. If one of the drivers is a cheap, inferior speaker, it's going to collapse the imaging between the two channels for proper object placement. You need speakers that are as good as your surrounds. @Molon_Labe said it best....You are going to be limited by whichever speaker is the weakest link...Equal consideration should be given to ALL speakers in the SYSTEM. Would you expect to get good imaging from a Wal-Mart speaker for your left front and a Polk speaker for your right front? Probably not, so why would you expect that to be okay with your Atmos speakers? Sure, the mixes today don't rely too heavily on the top speakers. But do you really want to have to replace them shortly after putting them up due to degraded/sub-par SQ, as Atmos becomes more and more active? Would you consider using cheap $30-50 speakers for your surrounds? If so, then great do the same with your Atmos speakers and that is completely okay!!...If not, then DO NOT do so with your Atmos speaker selection. Do you really want to degrade the sound quality of your mains and your surrounds with additive "noise" from a cheap and ineffective speaker? They will sound like crap with very poor imaging when paired with your beds. They will fold like cheap lawn-chairs. Guaranteed. Period. So don't sacrifice the cherished sound from your 7.1 and throw any old junk into the ceiling as a "compliment" to them.
*In regards to timbre and matching speaker drivers:* Yes, if you can. It's not as crucial and your REQ will help to compensate. Very seldom do sounds, voices in particular, pan from bed to above you or vice versa. This is when it's noticeable. Matching the drivers themselves is a substantial gain. You don't want some high efficiency, high SPL speaker in the bed and something inferior on the ceiling. When pushed to reference, the lesser Atmos speaker above you will become audibly inferior in an instant. I've done this. You especially don't want mismatched tweeters....Gold domes in the mains and ribbons on the ceiling as an example. Try to stay with the same make/model and if not then at least stay with similar compositions---silk tweeters to silk tweeters for instance.
*In regards to questions such as "Can't I just....":* The answer is likely "It's not recommended". Start by reading the _Dolby Atmos Installation Whitepaper_. If what you are doing is really outside of the ordinary or not captured in the white paper.....Then it's probably not advisable and will only result in a non-standard implementation with degraded sound stage anyway. If your goal is simply to get sound coming out of as many speakers as possible, independently of whether or not it results in a good sounding Atmos image, then by all means just try whatever you want. You are allowed to do so and to try whatever you want. But you are doing something that Dolby does not account for or recommend. Again, there are exceptions with things such as Scott's and other people's implementations of 9.1.4 for example.

As a side note on using DAE speakers....I recently added acoustic panels to my ceiling to cover first reflection points for my LCR. What I found by putting panels up on the FRP points was that my Atmos moved into the next realm of greatness....It stopped the reflections and made the imaging of the top speakers snap into place with an ultra clear image. It was no longer muddied by the main reflections (though it sounded great before the treatments). Curiously enough, since top speakers are suppose to be spread about as far as your L and R....Your first reflection points are typically located very close to where your tops would be installed....But think about DAE speakers. They are typically placed on your L and R or even built in....They are going to "bounce" sound to your ears. And this spot on the ceiling where the DAE reflects--- _IS THE EXACT SAME SPOT AS YOUR L and R first reflection point!_ So why on earth would you want DAEs that reflected desired sound from exactly the same spot where you are getting negative reflections from your mains?????


I know many people don't care if the Atmos sounds good. They are just chasing the placebo of having it, bragging to friends, and occasionally wanting to hear some very direct sound from the ceiling. I think this is the root cause for many people having negative impressions of Atmos...They hear a poor setup and think Atmos or DTS:X is a gimmick. But it doesn't cost anything more to do it correctly.....Just use common sense, avoid certain practices (many of which are laid out in the Dolby white paper) and you will end up with superior Atmos/DTS:X and not necessarily have to spend $0.01 more than doing it half a$$. 

This memorandum is not to say you cannot "enjoy" non-standard configurations. You're free to try whatever your heart desires and hell I hope you get a good result that you love. But you've likely already invested in an expensive Atmos AVR and I imagine you are hoping to get as much out of it's capabilities as possible. So why not just take the time and put up the appropriate speaker in the correct location instead of trying to be a maverick and pioneer something with inferior results? Will it be enjoyable if you break from the norm? Potentially. Will it be jaw-dropping if you do it correctly? Absolutely.


----------



## Surfdrifter

smurraybhm said:


> I would go with some SVS bookshelves or satellites for your rear surrounds - though some of us use dipoles and bipoles - monopoles are recommended. As for your tops keep in mind SVS is coming out with an Atmos speaker soon, it was announced last month in case you missed it. Given all the SVS gear you already have in place it should be easy for you to timber match your immersive system without great expense. I believe the satellites can be wall mounted, so that should help with your aesthetic requirement, but its not hard to find mounts that can lend themselves to having larger speakers look good when wall mounted.



Yes. The Ultra Bookshelves will be the rear surrounds. I'm asking for the side surrounds, whether I should buy the bipoles or the monopoles. 

As for the atmos speakers, I read about the prime elevation speakers which seem to be a trapezoid prime satellite. Very bulky for ceiling, but great for height/presence channels. 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...-k8500-4k-hdr-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-55.html
> 
> 2.2 is an issue. You will probably need a HD Fury Integral. See the thread for info.


Thanks for the reply.

Given that I only have a Sony VPL-VW50 which maxes out at 1080i, I have cabcelled my order.

What I was really after is to make sure that I would be able to get the Atmos version of upcoming releases. My take was that one or more studios were going to limit Atmos to UHD vs bluray.

If the latter is true, then I will simply have to live with DSU...which, while not true Atmos, is better than 7.1...


----------



## dvdwilly3

Surfdrifter said:


> Yes. The Ultra Bookshelves will be the rear surrounds. I'm asking for the side surrounds, whether I should buy the bipoles or the monopoles.
> 
> As for the atmos speakers, I read about the prime elevation speakers which seem to be a trapezoid prime satellite. Very bulky for ceiling, but great for height/presence channels.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you have more than one row of seats, bipole...

I have two rows and I have tried direct and bipole. For me, bipole works better...YMMV...


----------



## Surfdrifter

Stoked21 said:


> Not picking on these two guys....They are new to Atmos and are asking questions to learn and do it right. So bravo for you guys......But these type of things are actually what I continually read (and see pics) that people have done in their "Atmos" setups. And then they brag about how great their Atmos is, when most of us know for a fact that it is NOT. It exemplifies my point of the 80/20 rule bad-to-good of Atmos. There really needs to be a "rulebook" that summarizes a few key points for Atmos newbies on the first post here....
> 
> *In regards to using DAE speakers/add-ons: * No. Don't do it IMO. If you want sound from above you.....Then put speakers above you.  Period. $100/speaker will get you a nice speaker to mount as height on the walls or even an IC. Paint the speaker cables if you don't want to cut holes in drywall and fish/pull cable. I think it was Sanjay who recommended some super flat "ghost" speaker cable that can make a tidy and invisible install attached to the wall. On ceilings or in ceilings are going to sound better....And they are going to cost less than buying a decent pair of DAE add-on modules. They are also going to be a more forgiving setup.
> *In regards to using bookshelf as DAE speakers:* No. Don't waste your time.....If that's the only option and you still want to proceed, then ignore my first comment and buy a nice pair of DAE for $500/pair.
> *In regards to using dipole (or to a lesser degree bipole):* No. Don't do it. Bipole may be more forgiving...But dipole is a 100% no-no. If you need to use your bipole for a while before you replace them with monopole....Then go for it. But all of your speakers should be monopole-direct radiating speakers. There are a few minor exceptions where bipoles can work well with certain rooms and multiple seating rows....But I would probably only recommend bipoles for the more advanced user with a dedicated HT.
> *In regards to having high surrounds or high rear surrounds next to Atmos speakers:* No. Don't do it. Separate them as much as possible.
> 
> 
> As a side note on using DAE speakers....I recently added acoustic panels to my ceiling to cover first reflection points for my LCR. What I found by putting panels up on the FRP points was that my Atmos moved into the next realm of greatness....It stopped the reflections and made the imaging of the top speakers snap into place with an ultra clear image. Curiously enough, since top speakers are suppose to be spread about as far as your L and R....Your first reflection points are typically located very close to where your tops would be installed....But think about DAE speakers. They are typically placed on you L and R or even built in....They are going to "bounce" sound to your ears. And this spot on the ceiling where the DAE reflects--- IS THE EXACT SAME SPOT AS YOUR L and R first reflection point! So why on earth would I want DAEs that reflected desired sound from exactly the same spot where I'm getting negative reflections from my mains?????
> 
> 
> I know many people don't care if the Atmos sounds good. They are just chasing the placebo of having it, bragging to friends, and occasionally hearing some very direct sound from the ceiling. I think this is the root cause for many people having negative impressions of Atmos...They hear a poor setup. But it doesn't cost anything more to do it correctly.....Just use common sense, avoid certain practices (many of which are laid out in the Dolby white paper)....You will end up with superior Atmos and not spend $0.01 more than doing it half a$$



Thanks for the tips. 

The reason I'm asking about bipoles (not dipoles) as surround is because the speakers will be placed about 1,30-1,40 away from each ear and I'm worried about them being very close to my ears( let alone the people next to me. The speaker would be about 50-60cm and I like to listen near reference levels. 

I would gladly try before I buy, but the problem is that I have to know beforehand...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdwilly3 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Given that I only have a Sony VPL-VW50 which maxes out at 1080i, I have cabcelled my order.
> 
> What I was really after is to make sure that I would be able to get the Atmos version of upcoming releases. My take was that one or more studios were going to limit Atmos to UHD vs bluray.
> 
> If the latter is true, then I will simply have to live with DSU...which, while not true Atmos, is better than 7.1...


Atmos is also the reason I am getting the UHD player. My PJ is 1080p and I have no inclination at this time to upgrade to 4K. The HD Fury Integral takes care of the H~DCP 2.2 > 1.4 downconversion and the player itself (we hope) downrezzes 4K > 1080p.


----------



## Stoked21

Surfdrifter said:


> Thanks for the tips.
> 
> The reason I'm asking about bipoles (not dipoles) as surround is because the speakers will be placed about 1,30-1,40 away from each ear and I'm worried about them being very close to my ears( let alone the people next to me. The speaker would be about 50-60cm and I like to listen near reference levels.
> 
> I would gladly try before I buy, but the problem is that I have to know beforehand...


Compromises are inevitable in every room. I have 2 rows of 3 seats. My surround rears are less than 1m from the back of the heads of the people in back row side seats. My side surrounds are about 1m from the heads of the people on the front row sides.....I watch everything AT reference. Sometimes I crank it up higher than reference! Very seldom are all six seats actually utilized. It's normally just me or my wife and I. On weekends we will occasionally have four people in there.

Can these people get hot-spotted due to proximity when the mix utilizes that particular channel heavily? Sure they can. Do I care? Not really. I focus on the best sound at MLP now and my secondary concern is to "try" to provide the most pleasing experience for the side seats. Bipoles can be extremely helpful in the setup I described. However, it WILL result in a compromised Atmos sound stage. That's not debatable. Many are advocates of still elevating the surrounds (especially bipole surrounds) to combat this....Again, IMO it's still a compromised Atmos setup.

I look at it from a 2.1 perspective. And this has been discussed here ad nauseam. If I'm sitting on the left side of a couch while listening to 2.1 source, then the image stage is going to be shifted to the left. There's no avoiding that. But since I'm sitting on the left shouldn't that be how it sounds? I personally find that with modern movie mixes, hot-spotting isn't a major issue IME. Yes, the speakers can be highly localizable at times. But if a car is racing past on the left side of the screen, then shouldn't that car buzz by me at even higher SPL on the left if I'm seated on that side? 

So I say do everything as close to the book as possible. Keep all beds at ear level. Use monopole for everything. Tweak toe-ins and positions a bit to try to minimize hot-spotting. In cases where there is a full-house of people sitting next to the surrounds, try loading a wider EQ pattern in your AVR that accounts for all seats (as opposed to one that emphasizes accuracy at MLP).


----------



## Surfdrifter

Nice! Food for thought! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gbaby

audioguy said:


> Given your repeated dismissal of Atmos, his "summary" seemed perfectly on target to me. More importantly, since you have now stated multiple times now much you do not "get" Atmos, why are you still posting here? You have made your point. And please don't play that "negative posts aren't allowed" on this thread. NONSENSE. It's your repetition of your negative that's annoying. We heard you the first time!!!


You may need to review my posts again as you are reading more in them than what I actually stated. I went back to the audio dealer because kdbarnes and others suggested the ATMOS setup may be incorrect. I gave him and others credibility by doing so, and I was satisfied the dealer had a correct set up. Let me give you the real summary of my experience. If I were starting a new home theater system, and I had a dedicated theater room where I could put speakers in the ceiling, I would get ATMOS. But, if I had a good current home theater, I would not because it is not worth it for the perceived sonic experience. This is not negative, but my personal experience. If you want me to stop posting on this thread, stop making negative comments about posts I make in good faith. Your rudeness does not scare me.


----------



## jmd1982

What is the widely accepted ceiling mounted speaker used for atmos as of right now? 

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

jmd1982 said:


> What is the widely accepted ceiling mounted speaker used for atmos as of right now?
> 
> Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


One which timbre-matches your main speakers, just as your ear-level surround speakers should.

To some extent roomEQ software can make dissimilar speakers sound similar to one another, but that's by-no-means an optimal solution. RoomEQ has enough work to do when compensating for the differences in sound quality caused by simply having speakers placed at different locations in the room.

If you must use dissimilar speaker designs, coaxial speakers are best, like those from Tannoy.


----------



## rontalley

jmd1982 said:


> What is the widely accepted ceiling mounted speaker used for atmos as of right now?
> 
> Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


Check this thread out:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1649609-best-ceiling-speakers-atmos.html

There are many options from very expensive to very cheap that work great. My ceilings do not match my floor speakers and it is not an issue. They actually sound great for the price. However, movies like Gravity, will point out quickly, the flaws of not having timbre matched speakers. But those kinds of movies are few and far between. That is the only movie that I have watched so far, Atmos and DSU combined, that it was noticeable and even then it only bothered "me"


----------



## blastermaster

gbaby said:


> You may need to review my posts again as you are reading more in them than what I actually stated. I went back to the audio dealer because kdbarnes and others suggested the ATMOS setup may be incorrect. I gave him and others credibility by doing so, and I was satisfied the dealer had a correct set up. Let me give you the real summary of my experience. If I were starting a new home theater system, and I had a dedicated theater room where I could put speakers in the ceiling, I would get ATMOS. But, if I had a good current home theater, I would not because it is not worth it for the perceived sonic experience. This is not negative, but my personal experience. If you want me to stop posting on this thread, stop making negative comments about posts I make in good faith. Your rudeness does not scare me.


If it truly was set up correctly, I find it strange that you weren't impressed with it. For myself, I know my theatre very well and could instantly tell the difference - and it was significant. Going into a setup that you're unfamiliar with and hearing Atmos doesn't really give you something valid to compare it to. My wife didn't really notice the difference, but for me it went from sound coming from this speaker or that speaker to the musical score just being "there" but you couldn't pinpoint which speaker it was coming from. In a particular scene in the Goosebumps movie, a character jumps on top of the car and it literally sounded right above me, yet there were no speakers there. 

Did you get a chance to compare the same movie clip in 7.1, then switch to Atmos? At first it may seem subtle, but when you realize that the speakers disappear especially when a musical score kicks in, then you realize the value of having immersive sound. I've said it before, too, it's only going to get better. Currently, Goosebumps, to me, is the best Atmos disc...and it's also the newest. It's only a short matter of time that it gets bumped. 

As for me, I know the value of it and I don't always expect to have overhead sounds coming at me all the time - that's like expecting popout 3D all the time. Popout 3D is great, but don't have it just for the sake of having it (THAT'S gimmicky) - if it enhances the experience of the movie and it fits with a particular scene then by all means include it. I think a lot of people are expecting the Atmos equivalent of popout 3D since it's a new technology. It's just a shame that some discount it when that's not what they get, because the rest of it is equally awesome.


----------



## GXMnow

Surfdrifter said:


> Hi
> 
> I have:
> 
> 2x SVS Ultra Towers
> 2x SVS Ultra Bookshelves
> 1x SVS Ultra Center
> 1x SVS PB13 Ultra
> 
> and I'd like to setup a 7.2.4 system. The room will be sealed with dimensions of 3,50m (W) x 5,50m (L) x 2,50m (H).
> 
> I was thinking of getting the Ultra Surrounds for the side surround, which can be configured as either bipole or dipole (there's a third option, but irrelevant to my scenario)
> 
> Would that cause issues for an Atmos setup? Should I go monopole instead? They would be wall mounted for sure, but I'm thinking that aesthetically, the wall mounted surrounds would be better than the clunky bookshelves
> 
> thanks


Those look like some very nice speakers and should work quite well for the base of a solid Atmos system.

The surrounds running in BI Pole mode, with the 2 sets of drivers in phase, will work great for the surround side or rear in an Atmos system. Running Bi Pole just acts like a single wide dispersion speaker, which is good. 

The Bi Pole setup might also work fine as a ceiling speaker as well. If you find any pictures of the Atmos setup in the El Capitan theatre in Hollywood, you will see they used pairs of speakers aimed outward a bit to get a better spread of the sound. I thought about trying that in my room as well, but I am not to that point yet. 

Most home Atmos systems that use overhead speakers use a single speaker aiming down at each position. One of the bookshelf models from the SVS line would work just fine for this as well. I would recommend aiming them towards the listening area or even across the room a bit so as to not be playing right into the closer listeners head. Top mounted speakers under a low ceiling works best with wide dispersion speakers. If the dispersion is too narrow, the calibration level at the middle of the room could measure low and the room correction would try to compensate by cranking up the gain. This can result in the person closer to the speaker getting a blast into their ear. 

Think about your placement and aiming and you will have a great sounding system.


----------



## vitod

I finally got everything set up, ran Audyssey and played Mad Max...

Holy mother of god, what a sick sound track. I was completely in a sound bubble. The Micca 8 ceiling speakers did a superb job. They blended beautifully and timbre wasn't an issue. Everything sounded the same. So, I say, Paradigm Studios match very well with the Miccas. I want to point out that all my surrounds are bipole/dipole ADP470 v3. They're not high up. 1'5" above ear level and they sounded phenomenal. BUT, I'm open to experiment in switching them to monopoles. I have Studio 20's hanging out, bored waiting for action. So, I'll take a shot with those when I have the time. But, so far, Atmos is the shtz.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sweet!


----------



## jmd1982

Thanks for the reply but that thread is for in ceiling speakers. I can't go with in ceiling speakers because I wouldn't be able to sit up far enough to have them at least 2 feet in back of me. I'm going to have to be going with ceiling mounted speakers which i really diddnt want to do but I guess I have no choice with my room layout. 

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk


----------



## vitod

Scott Simonian said:


> Sweet!


Thanks Scott! My next step is the add-on, extra speakers AVR PLII thingy.


----------



## GXMnow

blastermaster said:


> If it truly was set up correctly, I find it strange that you weren't impressed with it. For myself, I know my theatre very well and could instantly tell the difference - and it was significant. Going into a setup that you're unfamiliar with and hearing Atmos doesn't really give you something valid to compare it to. My wife didn't really notice the difference, but for me it went from sound coming from this speaker or that speaker to the musical score just being "there" but you couldn't pinpoint which speaker it was coming from. In a particular scene in the Goosebumps movie, a character jumps on top of the car and it literally sounded right above me, yet there were no speakers there.
> 
> Did you get a chance to compare the same movie clip in 7.1, then switch to Atmos? At first it may seem subtle, but when you realize that the speakers disappear especially when a musical score kicks in, then you realize the value of having immersive sound. I've said it before, too, it's only going to get better. Currently, Goosebumps, to me, is the best Atmos disc...and it's also the newest. It's only a short matter of time that it gets bumped.
> 
> As for me, I know the value of it and I don't always expect to have overhead sounds coming at me all the time - that's like expecting popout 3D all the time. Popout 3D is great, but don't have it just for the sake of having it (THAT'S gimmicky) - if it enhances the experience of the movie and it fits with a particular scene then by all means include it. I think a lot of people are expecting the Atmos equivalent of popout 3D since it's a new technology. It's just a shame that some discount it when that's not what they get, because the rest of it is equally awesome.


I give this a big +1

Sure, the big loud flyover sounds can be impressive, especially on a short quick demo. In the long term though, the thing that really makes it feel like you are there is the wonderful natural sounding ambience. Going back to "Mocking Jay 2" there are many quiet scenes with just a bunch of little sounds all around the room that totally make it feel like you are there in the scene with the characters. For a 5 minute demo in a noisey store, the big loud fly by is all that will kind of work. Much of the subtle stuff will likely get lost. The Dolby Horizon trailer is all in your face loud stuff, and I think that was really intended to try and show it off in a retail setting. The Amaze is better at the subtle things. "Gravity" is a bit of a crazy track, but it really works and I bet it never would have been mixed like that if it was just a 5.1 or 7.1 mix.

A well equipped and setup Dolby Atmos system does truly bring a new level to what can be reproduced in the home as well as a large movie theatre. The people making the sound tracks now have the freedom to put things where they want them and the system can faithfully carry their vision to the audience.


----------



## rontalley

jmd1982 said:


> thanks for the reply but that thread is for in ceiling speakers. I can't go with in ceiling speakers because i wouldn't be able to sit up far enough to have them at least 2 feet in back of me. I'm going to have to be going with ceiling mounted speakers which i really diddnt want to do but i guess i have no choice with my room layout.
> 
> Sent from my htc one m9 using tapatalk


oic.


----------



## AllenA07

On the subject of using bipoles with Atmos I would generally recommend going with a direct fire speaker. I initially had bipoles in my setup and swapped them out for a pair of SVS Prime Bookshelf speakers. While in my previous 7.2 theater I had really liked the diffuse sound that I got from the bipoles, I found that when going to Atmos the monopoles worked better and really made the entire surround stage sound cleaner. Ultimately I stuck with the SVS speakers and my bipoles got removed.


----------



## jlanzy

TV- much of the use of DSU has been reported with movies, does anyone use it for tv programs and if so, do the top speakers add much to the entertainment value. I suspect that tv programs that would benefit most would be action/scifi/fantasy genres.


----------



## audiofan1

jlanzy said:


> TV- much of the use of DSU has been reported with movies, does anyone use it for tv programs and if so, do the top speakers add much to the entertainment value. I suspect that tv programs that would benefit most would be action/scifi/fantasy genres.


 Sure it does! for regular tv shows its good to great but take something like 'Ash vs. the Evildead" and it stellar


----------



## smurraybhm

vitod said:


> I finally got everything set up, ran Audyssey and played Mad Max...
> 
> Holy mother of god, what a sick sound track. I was completely in a sound bubble. The Micca 8 ceiling speakers did a superb job. They blended beautifully and timbre wasn't an issue. Everything sounded the same. So, I say, Paradigm Studios match very well with the Miccas. I want to point out that all my surrounds are bipole/dipole ADP470 v3. They're not high up. 1'5" above ear level and they sounded phenomenal. BUT, I'm open to experiment in switching them to monopoles. I have Studio 20's hanging out, bored waiting for action. So, I'll take a shot with those when I have the time. But, so far, Atmos is the shtz.


I am sorry to tell you that what you heard was not good or the shtz. Your speakers are not positioned at ear level, using bipoles/dipoles  and not timber matched  - you're out of spec. Please check your hearing 

Couldn't resist the post in jest given the endless discussion of folks telling others that unless it is all perfect or damn close, it can't sound good. If FilmMixer says that Yamaha can make an Atmos soundbar that sounds impressive then surely some can get some great sound out of systems that may vary slightly in regards to speaker placement and/or the famed its got to be timber matched (fronts excluded). * Glad to read your enjoying Atmos*, it is truly the best upgrade to my HT since AC-3.


----------



## cantona72

I have a pair of Klipsch RS-52 speakers for surround,due to atmos specifications I have to lower them at ear level as the main's,this is not a problem.
My question is at what angle should be placed for 5.1.2 top middle set up?Should be straight line with the listening position due to their particularity(bipole or dipole or WDST from Klipsch) or at 90 to 110 degrees? 
I have to mention that I don't have back wall.


----------



## cyclones22

jlanzy said:


> TV- much of the use of DSU has been reported with movies, does anyone use it for tv programs and if so, do the top speakers add much to the entertainment value. I suspect that tv programs that would benefit most would be action/scifi/fantasy genres.


I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I was watching an episode of The Expanse and on a missile launch attack scene, they distinctly flew over my head both on screen and via Atmos speakers, which was cool. I forgot I even had DSU on but it made me rewind the scene to be sure. Good stuff.


----------



## jlanzy

cyclones22 said:


> I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I was watching an episode of The Expanse and on a missile launch attack scene, they distinctly flew over my head both on screen and via Atmos speakers, which was cool. I forgot I even had DSU on but it made me rewind the scene to be sure. Good stuff.



Now that's what I'm talkin' about  


Since we watch mostly tv programs with only one movie a week, and with the dts x upgrade on the D&M limiting its Neural X to dts programs, not the usual dolby encoded found on most TV programs I wanted to be sure that upgrading my avr now I would be able to enjoy immersive sound on what I watch mostly, not just on Saturday movie night.


----------



## electronics craz

question i have a 5.1.2 setup using 2 klipisch surround speakers as my front heights atmos set up.i get some overhead effect with them they are aiming straight out to listening area.would pointing them up at ceiling make a difference with overhead effect even though not dolby atmos enabled speakers?


----------



## billqs

jlanzy said:


> TV- much of the use of DSU has been reported with movies, does anyone use it for tv programs and if so, do the top speakers add much to the entertainment value. I suspect that tv programs that would benefit most would be action/scifi/fantasy genres.


Just to add on to what you have, yes, DSU adds a lot to the shows I watch in my theater. Not just Sci Fi and superhero shows, it even added immersion to Downton Abbey.


----------



## AllenA07

electronics craz said:


> question i have a 5.1.2 setup using 2 klipisch surround speakers as my front heights atmos set up.i get some overhead effect with them they are aiming straight out to listening area.would pointing them up at ceiling make a difference with overhead effect even though not dolby atmos enabled speakers?


I'm a little confused by this, are the speakers ceiling mounted or are you using them as Atmos speaker modules?


----------



## electronics craz

AllenA07 said:


> I'm a little confused by this, are the speakers ceiling mounted or are you using them as Atmos speaker modules?


using them as atmos speakers


----------



## electronics craz

im using them as atmos speakers against front wall about 6 feet high


----------



## smurraybhm

electronics craz said:


> question i have a 5.1.2 setup using 2 klipisch surround speakers as my front heights atmos set up.i get some overhead effect with them they are aiming straight out to listening area.would pointing them up at ceiling make a difference with overhead effect even though not dolby atmos enabled speakers?


Is it possible to relocate them to top middle? Some have done the speaker aimed towards the ceiling - see Batpig early in the beginning of this thread - but TM is going to be a much better location when limited to only 2 up top.


----------



## Stoked21

electronics craz said:


> question i have a 5.1.2 setup using 2 klipisch surround speakers as my front heights atmos set up.i get some overhead effect with them they are aiming straight out to listening area.would pointing them up at ceiling make a difference with overhead effect even though not dolby atmos enabled speakers?


Refer to this.... The answer is no.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1270.html#post41359761


----------



## gbaby

Molon_Labe said:


> The sole reason the ignore list was created. You are free to post and I am free to ignore.


This we can agree on.


----------



## Ricoflashback

billqs said:


> Just to add on to what you have, yes, DSU adds a lot to the shows I watch in my theater. Not just Sci Fi and superhero shows, it even added immersion to Downton Abbey.


Sorry for what might sound like a simple question as I and awaiting delivery of a Denon x5200, but how do you engage DSU for cable? Do you just select "Dolby Surround" and then toggle to DSU or does it automatically apply DSU?


----------



## Selden Ball

Ricoflashback said:


> Sorry for what might sound like a simple question as I and awaiting delivery of a Denon x5200, but how do you engage DSU for cable? Do you just select "Dolby Surround" and then toggle to DSU or does it automatically apply DSU?


While actually watching TV (or any other source material), press the "Movie" (or Music or Game) button on the remote. You'll be provided a menu of different sound processing options, one of which will include Surround. The menu options vary depending on the incoming audio signal. After you've selected one of the options, it'll be remembered for that sound format on that particular input.


----------



## aaranddeeman

James1981 said:


> Hi, thanks for the response. I'm wanting to utilise my second amp to expand my current Atmos setup. I read earlier that this could be done using the line out on the atmos AVR to the second AVR. The sesond AVR would convert the stereo to 5.1 or 7.1 using PL IIX.
> 
> 
> My curent setup is Atmos 5.1.2. I'm wanting to add another two ceiling speakers and another 2 sides utilising the second AVR.
> 
> 
> Hope that has cleared up what I want.
> 
> 
> My main question was instead of using a stereo connection between the two AVR's, could a digital connection be used by using an HDMI splitter. I've done further research and found this doesn't look possible due restrictions on spliters and extractors.
> 
> 
> Any further advice welcome though.


No. You can not do that.
It's not possible to extract anything from just one height speaker (i.e one Left and one right in your case).
You will need a pair of heights (one front and one rear) to extract the middle. And you need two external AVRs not one.


----------



## stikle

Ricoflashback said:


> Sorry for what might sound like a simple question as I and awaiting delivery of a Denon x5200, but how do you engage DSU for cable? *Do you just select "Dolby Surround" and then toggle to DSU* or does it automatically apply DSU?



Not quite. "Dolby Surround" _IS_ DSU. Dolby Surround Upmixer.

There's nothing to toggle after you select Dolby Surround on the Movie button menu.

Also note that you have to do this on every input for Satellite, Bluray, Streaming box, etc. Once you set it, it will remember it going forward.


----------



## AllenA07

electronics craz said:


> im using them as atmos speakers against front wall about 6 feet high


As others have suggested if you can relocate your speakers that would give you the best results.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Atmos is also the reason I am getting the UHD player. My PJ is 1080p and I have no inclination at this time to upgrade to 4K. The HD Fury Integral takes care of the H~DCP 2.2 > 1.4 downconversion and the player itself (we hope) downrezzes 4K > 1080p.


Sorry for un-related quote... I think I remember you saying the Doctor who 3D disc has a very aggressive Atmos mix... would you recommend it? 

I haven't seen doctor who since I was a little kid... so I'm guessing that I'll be completely lost, but if it's an active mix I'd enjoy it just for that most likely


----------



## dvdwilly3

Selden Ball said:


> While actually watching TV (or any other source material), press the "Movie" (or Music or Game) button on the remote. You'll be provided a menu of different sound processing options, one of which will include Surround. The menu options vary depending on the incoming audio signal. After you've selected one of the options, it'll be remembered for that sound format on that particular input.


This is not true for the Onkyo TX-NR1030...and I suspect other Onkyos.

You can do as suggested and by selecting Surround for the incoming signal you will push the incoming signal into DSU.

However, on the 1030, the default setting for Input Source is Last Valid. What that means is that when the 1030 sees that incoming signal the next time from a source that it will NOT activate DSU. Instead, it will revert to whatever the native signal is.

If your AVR is Onkyo, you need to go into Set Up and the Signal Source, and there you can select Surround as the default setting for whichever signal source you want to be DSUed.

You can get to DSU either way...the first way is temporary; the second way is permanent.


----------



## billqs

rontalley said:


> OK, Tested this for 4 sets of Overheads.
> 
> Kept scratching my head but you are on to something here...
> 
> My old AVR had *7.1 output* but only *5.1 analog input*. It would take the analog surround inputs and matrix a signal to the rear surrounds using *PLIIx*.
> 
> I fed the Matrix AVR1 the TFL Pre out of Atmos AVR to the Surround Left input of Matrix AVR1 and TRL Pre out of Atmos AVR to the Surround Right of Matrix AVR1.
> 
> Results was a smooth pan over all 4 speakers (Left Side) from Back to Front and Front to Back, using the Audiosphere Atmos Demo
> 
> Left Surround=FHL
> Left Rear Surround=TFL
> Right Surround=TRL
> Right Rear Surround=RHL
> 
> Repeat steps for Right Side!!
> 
> Given all credit to @Scott Simonian for first coming up with the concept of matrixing the sounds.
> 2nd given credit to @Nalleh for being crazy enough for having so many damn speakers hooked up!
> 3rd given credit to @GXMnow for expanding the concept with theory.
> 
> However, can't have my cake and eat it to. Can't get a matrix center from left to right input if you are using 5.1 input...Dammit!!!! Crap!
> 
> Even still, how much would 2 basic 5.1 AVRs and 2 basic 7.1 AVRs (with 5.1 input) cost vs. a *17.1 AVR* that did it all?


Ron, what was the flaw in the plan? I'm planning on going on Scott's route, but if you can derive 4 channels of information about of the surrounds that would allow me all 4 height positions. I don't quite understand what you felt you were missing. I'd love to have FH TF TR RH, would really help my long but narrow room out.


----------



## rontalley

billqs said:


> Ron, what was the flaw in the plan? I'm planning on going on Scott's route, but if you can derive 4 channels of information about of the surrounds that would allow me all 4 height positions. I don't quite understand what you felt you were missing. I'd love to have FH TF TR RH, would really help my long but narrow room out.


The AVR that this was tested on is an odd ball in the AVR world. You will be hard pressed finding 2 AVRs that can do what I am describing. Most AVRs will not process multi-channel analog inputs. I can't find another one that worked the way my old one does.

A .6 is looking like the route to take.

Sorry, was really promising.


----------



## wackid

Is it correct when i say that DTS neural DSU does a beter job than Atmos DSU? 
Or is it just a matter of taste?


----------



## PeterTHX

wackid said:


> Is it correct when i say that DTS neural DSU does a beter job than Atmos DSU?
> Or is it just a matter of taste?



DSU doesn't convert surround channels to mono based on height speakers settings or send dialogue from Dolby Stereo (2.0 Surround) to the L/R channels instead of the center...


So I'd say no.


----------



## ALtlOff

Ricoflashback said:


> Sorry for what might sound like a simple question as I and awaiting delivery of a Denon x5200, but how do you engage DSU for cable? Do you just select "Dolby Surround" and then toggle to DSU or does it automatically apply DSU?





stikle said:


> Not quite. "Dolby Surround" _IS_ DSU. Dolby Surround Upmixer.
> 
> There's nothing to toggle after you select Dolby Surround on the Movie button menu.
> 
> Also note that you have to do this on every input for Satellite, Bluray, Streaming box, etc. Once you set it, it will remember it going forward.


Rico, also do not forget, Dolby Surround is the correct setting for native Atmos content also, there is no listing in your menu that says *Atmos*, the AVR will automatically choose Atmos or DSU depending on the incoming signal.

Personally, I now use the Dolby Surround setting for everything, the only time I change the settings is for music.


----------



## Ricoflashback

ALtlOff said:


> Rico, also do not forget, Dolby Surround is the correct setting for native Atmos content also, there is no listing in your menu that says *Atmos*, the AVR will automatically choose Atmos or DSU depending on the incoming signal.
> 
> Personally, I now use the Dolby Surround setting for everything, the only time I change the settings is for music.


Much thanks to everyone for the clarification. Dolby Surround it will be. For those with the Denon X5200, is DTS Neo X (Cinema) better for DTS material? Probably worth experimenting. My setup is 9.1.2 (Front Wides and Front Heights) - and I currently use DTS Neo X (Cinema) on everything as it really helps with center channel clarity. (Sports/Movies/TV Shows/Cable/Oppo Player/Roku 4)

Also - it looks like there are four buttons on the remote to memorize settings. Regardless of the input, I'd like to label one "Dolby Surround" and the other "DTS Neo X." Then, probably "Source Direct" for CD's and Multi-channel music. Unless there is another choice for music that is suggested.


----------



## jpco

wackid said:


> Is it correct when i say that DTS neural DSU does a beter job than Atmos DSU?
> Or is it just a matter of taste?



It is a matter of taste. No upmixer is right, so choose the one you like...or none at all.


----------



## stikle

Ricoflashback said:


> Sorry for what might sound like a simple question as I and awaiting delivery of a *Denon x5200, but how do you engage DSU for cable*? Do you just select "Dolby Surround" and then toggle to DSU or does it automatically apply DSU?





Selden Ball said:


> While actually watching TV (or any other source material), press the "Movie" (or Music or Game) button on the remote. You'll be provided a menu of different sound processing options, one of which will include Surround. The menu options vary depending on the incoming audio signal. After you've selected one of the options, it'll be remembered for that sound format on that particular input.





dvdwilly3 said:


> This is not true for the Onkyo TX-NR1030...and I suspect other Onkyos.



Selden was replying to Rico's DENON X5200 question...


----------



## rontalley

ALtlOff said:


> Personally, I now use the Dolby Surround setting for everything, the only time I change the settings is for music.


So far, the only difference between leaving DSU on all the time vs switching to Straight, on Yamaha models at least, is when you want to use the Dialogue Level setting to raise the Dialogue in the Center channel. From my experience, this setting does not work when you allow the AVR to "Auto Switch". So the AVR has to be in Straight Mode in order for it to work correctly.

Regarding Music, I to was not a fan of DSU when listening to music but there is a setting in the DSU settings called Center Spread which allows for the Front Sound Stage to sound natural. This, coupled with the remaining speakers, allows for a much more pleasing music listening experience (2-Track).

Try it out. My ears were just opened yesterday and I am loving it. I tried it on a couple of music clips but I prefer regular DSU for non-Atmos movies (No Center Spread).

Saying all that, like you, my AVR pretty much stays in DSU mode most of the time as well.


----------



## billqs

wackid said:


> Is it correct when i say that DTS neural DSU does a beter job than Atmos DSU?
> Or is it just a matter of taste?


I think it's a matter of taste. I wanted the update for the very small number of DTS:X BD's out there, but I don't see the Neural X upmixer to be head over heels better than DSU. Thre are enough differences to where one might latch on and notice something different, but if you get a receiver with DSU and don't need the 4 titles that have DTS:X, I think you'll be fine with the immersive experience you get from DSU.


----------



## audioguy

ALtlOff said:


> Rico, also do not forget, Dolby Surround is the correct setting for native Atmos content also, there is no listing in your menu that says *Atmos*, the AVR will automatically choose Atmos or DSU depending on the incoming signal.
> 
> Personally, I now use the Dolby Surround setting for everything, the only time I change the settings is for music.


FWIW, I had the Marantz 7702 and it did not always automatically select Atmos on an Atmos movie??


----------



## Ricoflashback

billqs said:


> I think it's a matter of taste. I wanted the update for the very small number of DTS:X BD's out there, but I don't see the Neural X upmixer to be head over heels better than DSU. Thre are enough differences to where one might latch on and notice something different, but if you get a receiver with DSU and don't need the 4 titles that have DTS:X, I think you'll be fine with the immersive experience you get from DSU.


Since I will have the x5200 (No DTS X or Neural X upmixer) - I will be limited to Dolby Atmos, DSU and DTS Neo X. 

My current setup has "Front Heights" and "Front Wides." This will work fine for native Dolby Atmos but not DSU. It will work fine with DTS Neo X - - which I have thoroughly enjoyed (Cinema Mode - great for enhanced center channel listening) and is my "go to" mode for everything from cable sports to cable TV to movies on my current "non Atmos" receiver. 

I'll initially try out Atmos in a 9.1.2 configuration with "Front Wides" and "Front Heights." My "Front Wides" are actually on the side, up high (as high as you can be with a lower 7' - 8" ceiling) as well as my side surrounds (which are Dipoles - Paradigm ADP590's)

I could move my "Front Wides" to the rear as "Rear Heights" but I'm not sure what the bang for the buck will be - - especially since I really enjoy DTS Neo X and would use this for any non Atmos material. 

I could also experiment & run my "Front Wides" as "Top Middle" - - it's close enough to the seating area with a "FH/TM" Dolby Atmos configuration. Maybe I could toggle between both to see what DSU sounds like in a "FH/TM" scenario. 

At any rate, I'm very excited to see how this works out and thanks to everyone's contributions on this forum. I have learned a lot and believe the investment in Dolby Atmos is well worth the time, money and effort. Thanks to all.


----------



## Selden Ball

audioguy said:


> FWIW, I had the Marantz 7702 and it did not always automatically select Atmos on an Atmos movie??


Without knowing the details it's hard to guess why that might have happened.

Which titles were involved and where did you get them? Were you able to get Atmos from them through some manual procedure?

Remember that some rental BDs don't have lossless audio at all, hence no Atmos, even if it's available on purchased copies. Lionsgate is well known for stripping down their rental versions.


----------



## gene4ht

Quick question...I understand that somewhere, among these threads, it was mentioned that a German magazine/publication included/contained the current Dolby Atmos Demo Disc. Can anyone validate this? If so, can you provide further information as to what the publication is and how to order it? Thanks in advance.


----------



## richmagnus

I'm at the ISE in Amsterdam. Speaking to Dolby they have confirmed that the info sent to FH/RH is virtually identical to TF/TR. they described it as indistinguishable. I asked the question if my FH/RH are assigned to TF/TR would it sound any different. NO was Dolbys reply. They do recommend for optimal immersion ceiling speakers but if FH/RH fall into angles then all is good. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Movie78

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry for un-related quote... I think I remember you saying the Doctor who 3D disc has a very aggressive Atmos mix... would you recommend it?
> 
> I haven't seen doctor who since I was a little kid... so I'm guessing that I'll be completely lost, but if it's an active mix I'd enjoy it just for that most likely


+1


----------



## dvdwilly3

stikle said:


> Selden was replying to Rico's DENON X5200 question...


Yep, I am aware of that...hence, my lead in of "This is not true for the Onkyo TX-NR1030...and I suspect other Onkyos."

The Onkyo remote also has very similar buttons in the same layout, "Movie" "Music" "Game" "Pure".
On the Denon, the layout is the same, but I believe that the buttons are "Movie" "Music" "Game" "Direct".

They look very similar, but they do not function the same way.

There are many users in the forum that might take the wrong cue from Selden's advice, which for the Denon (and probably Marantz) is quite correct.

Just trying to help...


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> Regarding Music, I to was not a fan of DSU when listening to music but there is a setting in the DSU settings called Center Spread which allows for the Front Sound Stage to sound natural. This, coupled with the remaining speakers, allows for a much more pleasing music listening experience (2-Track).


Interestingly, I was listening to some music last night and I noticed that my Denon 6200 has explanatory text (see attached screenshot) in the GUI stating that the Center Spread is "optmized for stereo music content". I don't recall this footnote with my previous 5200. 

I've found a nice happy place with DSU music upmixing that involves activating the Center Spread option and then lowering the volume of the surrounds (otherwise I find them a bit overbearing). With the newer D+M's this is very easy to do since there are separate channel level adjustments stored by input, and since all my music is direct streamed (Spotify etc.) I can tweak the levels for the "Online Music" source without mucking with my video sources. I found that dropping the side surrounds 2-3dB and the back surrounds 4-5dB works very nicely.


----------



## markm75

I've been working on installing atomos ceiling speakers.. goal was to get 4 of the same variety.. for 7.1.4 in my living room setup (see this thread for pics).. 

I ran into an issue, where my two rear speakers i was going to put about 2 feet rear of the couch (fronts are about 3 feet forward of couch).. cant be done.. i have some sort of solid hard wood above the plastered ceiling that would involve messing massive cutting.. so now i'm faced with using the MiccaM-8c's in the front and getting some solution for the rear. So now basically ( TF + RH)

Can anyone suggest a rear speaker that would match those fronts (but not overtake my "average" onkyo speakers in the rest of the surround setup)? I'm thinking of going in line with the two fronts on the back wall at the very top of the ceiling.. so these speakers would probably need to be pretty small, maybe 4-6" max in height/width

Edit: best i can see so far might be something like these Polks, but the low end of the range doesnt match the Miccas i dont think (a little tall though, at 10", compared to the 8" front miccas)


----------



## audiofan1

batpig said:


> Interestingly, I was listening to some music last night and I noticed that my Denon 6200 *has explanatory text (see attached screenshot) in the GUI stating that the Center Spread is "optmized for stereo music content". I don't recall this footnote with my previous 5200. *
> 
> I've found a nice happy place with DSU music upmixing that involves activating the Center Spread option and then lowering the volume of the surrounds (otherwise I find them a bit overbearing). With the newer D+M's this is very easy to do since there are separate channel level adjustments stored by input, and since all my music is direct streamed (Spotify etc.) I can tweak the levels for the "Online Music" source without mucking with my video sources. I found that dropping the side surrounds 2-3dB and the back surrounds 4-5dB works very nicely.


 Its a nice feature indeed and has the notation on the 8802's GUI as well


----------



## Dbruce13

*Ceiling Speaker issue and Atmos*

From reading it sounds like there really are no ceiling speakers yet on the market intended for Atmos purposes with a wide dispersion. Would 30 degree ceiling speakers fix that problem as they would focus / reduce the angle required by Atmos ceiling (height) speakers? I have slightly lower ceilings so found some Paradigm 30 degree ceiling speakers that could focus the sound on the seating position to fall within the range required.


----------



## Steve Smith

I picked up a Marantz 8802a and 4 Kef Ci200-RR-THX ceiling speakers to go from 7.1 to 7.1.4 for Atmos and DTS:X. My room is 17'x24'x9' with 2 rows of seating. After reading Dolby's Atmos guide and this thread I'm conflicted on whether to use FH+TM or TF+TR. I want to optimize the sound for the first row. What are the deciding factors to choose one layout over the other?


----------



## DAK4

gene4ht said:


> Quick question...I understand that somewhere, among these threads, it was mentioned that a German magazine/publication included/contained the current Dolby Atmos Demo Disc. Can anyone validate this? If so, can you provide further information as to what the publication is and how to order it? Thanks in advance.





kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/12/11/review-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-video-edition/





DAK4 said:


>


Hopefully this helps


----------



## batpig

Dbruce13 said:


> From reading it sounds like there really are no ceiling speakers yet on the market intended for Atmos purposes with a wide dispersion.


I wouldn't say that. There are several very nice concentric in-ceiling designs from companies like KEF and Tannoy which should have very wide, conical dispersion. And there are many in-ceiling speakers that allow some aiming adjustment, which reduces the dispersion requirements. Plus of course there exist in-ceiling speakers which have a preset angle built into the baffle.

Check out this article: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


----------



## batpig

Steve Smith said:


> I picked up a Marantz 8802a and 4 Kef Ci200-RR-THX ceiling speakers to go from 7.1 to 7.1.4 for Atmos and DTS:X. My room is 17'x24'x9' with 2 rows of seating. After reading Dolby's Atmos guide and this thread I'm conflicted on whether to use FH+TM or TF+TR. I want to optimize the sound for the first row. What are the deciding factors to choose one layout over the other?


I would always use TF+TR when possible. This allows the renderer to have clear front/back and side-to-side separation for overhead panning. The only time I would use FH+TM is if you are forced to by having seats against the rear wall.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Well I send an email to that magazine company to see if I can order it here to the states, fingers crossed... its amazing how difficult dolby is making it to get your hands on a decent demo disc... I know some of the trailers are on Vudu but would like an actual disc... those who happen to be in the right place to get one and turn around and sell it for $50plus dollars is just wrong, and those who actually want the disc to use and show it off which would help dolby cant... ugh ~_~ 

At least DTS is more than happy to send a DTS-X demo disc...


----------



## DAK4

Daniel Chaves said:


> Well I send an email to that magazine company to see if I can order it here to the states, fingers crossed... its amazing how difficult dolby is making it to get your hands on a decent demo disc... I know some of the trailers are on Vudu but would like an actual disc... those who happen to be in the right place to get one and turn around and sell it for $50plus dollars is just wrong, and those who actually want the disc to use and show it off which would help dolby cant... ugh ~_~
> 
> At least DTS is more than happy to send a DTS-X demo disc...


Yeah, They are a little slow to respond (like two or three weeks for me) but they did eventually send it and I'm in the states as well.


----------



## atabea

Folks, is it worth going Atmos if my ceiling height is only 7 feet high? Perhaps someone has tried it with similar height restrictions and can comment on whether or not it's worth the effort.

Thanks.


----------



## Steve Smith

batpig said:


> I would always use TF+TR when possible. This allows the renderer to have clear front/back and side-to-side separation for overhead panning. The only time I would use FH+TM is if you are forced to by having seats against the rear wall.


Ok, that makes sense not to mix layers. The Dolby guidelines are 30-55 degrees for TF and 125-155 for TR. Is there a preference for where in the range to place them? The KEF's have a wide dispersion, I've read 90 degrees conical but haven't seen any actual measurements. 

What about width? The Dolby guidelines recommend in line with front speakers. My speakers are closer to the side walls than optimal due to width of screen. Side surrounds are 5 feet high and rear surrounds are 6 feet high. I can lower the side surrounds but the rears would be a problem due to the second row of seats being on a riser and needing to clear the seat backs in the first row.


----------



## markm75

batpig said:


> I would always use TF+TR when possible. This allows the renderer to have clear front/back and side-to-side separation for overhead panning. The only time I would use FH+TM is if you are forced to by having seats against the rear wall.


In my case i have "Top Heights/ TF" (in ceiling about 3 feet in front of MLP) with MLP 3 feet off back wall.. i'm forced to go without in ceiling for the 2 rear atmos or RH (basically up against the back wall at the ceiling/wall junction on each side?).. i was under the impression that this would be TF + RH.. will this not be ideal given my ceilings are 7'2 and the rest of my surrounds are maybe 2 foot lower, though i could probably get it down to 3 foot if i try hard.

Only other option would be an "on ceiling" type speaker but that might stick out too far compared to putting it at an angle in the very back, unless it was some sort of super low profile that matched my fronts (micca-8's) sound wise.


----------



## Dbruce13

atabea said:


> Folks, is it worth going Atmos if my ceiling height is only 7 feet high? Perhaps someone has tried it with similar height restrictions and can comment on whether or not it's worth the effort.
> 
> Thanks.


Yes still worth it, youll just have to go with a 30 degree cone speaker to take advantage of the angled dispersion


----------



## wackid

Dbruce13 said:


> From reading it sounds like there really are no ceiling speakers yet on the market intended for Atmos purposes with a wide dispersion. Would 30 degree ceiling speakers fix that problem as they would focus / reduce the angle required by Atmos ceiling (height) speakers? I have slightly lower ceilings so found some Paradigm 30 degree ceiling speakers that could focus the sound on the seating position to fall within the range required.


Kef has them. (not Atmos certified ore something) They are very suitable for Atmos environment. The shop told me the have a very wide dispersion with no sweet spot. 


It's the IC series with Q at the end.

This is the road i will go.

http://www.kef.com/html/gb/showroom..._series/speaker/Ci160QS/index.html#filter=390


----------



## markm75

Dbruce13 said:


> Yes still worth it, youll just have to go with a 30 degree cone speaker to take advantage of the angled dispersion


What is meant by this exactly.. for instance.. my Top Front speakers i have so far (3 feet forward) are Micca 8's with adjustable tweeters.. i assumed that was ok for aiming to the rear a bit? (7.1.2 or 7.1.4)


----------



## batpig

Steve Smith said:


> Ok, that makes sense not to mix layers. The Dolby guidelines are 30-55 degrees for TF and 125-155 for TR. Is there a preference for where in the range to place them? The KEF's have a wide dispersion, I've read 90 degrees conical but haven't seen any actual measurements.
> 
> What about width? The Dolby guidelines recommend in line with front speakers. My speakers are closer to the side walls than optimal due to width of screen. Side surrounds are 5 feet high and rear surrounds are 6 feet high. I can lower the side surrounds but the rears would be a problem due to the second row of seats being on a riser and needing to clear the seat backs in the first row.


The ideal is ~45 degrees fore/aft of the listening position. However, if you have elevated surrounds to accommodate two rows, then you can sort of "shift" the overheads forward a bit to maintain angular separation. In other words, if the Top Rear is too far back it will be hard to differentiate from the elevated back surrounds, so you can cheat them a bit forward to create separation.

See this article I linked earlier for discussion of how to handle placement for two rows, that's where I got the concept I describe above: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/

In terms of width, I would ignore the "in line with the fronts" spec that Dolby provides for your situation. In the commercial cinema, with its huge wall-to-wall screen, the overhead arrays are placed in a line with the point in between the center and the left/right channels (narrower than the mains). Again, you want to think about angular separation, but this time from the perspective of something traveling side-to-side over your head. The cinema spec is for the overhead arrays to be elevated at least 45 degrees up from 1/2 the surround elevation (e.g. if the surrounds are elevated 20 degrees, the overhead arrays should be elevated 55 degrees, as seen from the back of the room).


----------



## rontalley

markm75 said:


> In my case i have "Top Heights/ TF" (in ceiling about 3 feet in front of MLP) with MLP 3 feet off back wall.. i'm forced to go without in ceiling for the 2 rear atmos or RH (basically up against the back wall at the ceiling/wall junction on each side?).. i was under the impression that this would be TF + RH.. will this not be ideal given my ceilings are 7'2 and the rest of my surrounds are maybe 2 foot lower, though i could probably get it down to 3 foot if i try hard.
> 
> Only other option would be an "on ceiling" type speaker but that might stick out too far compared to putting it at an angle in the very back, unless it was some sort of super low profile that matched my fronts (micca-8's) sound wise.


Even though your rear speakers can not be in ceiling, they still fall well within range for TR. 

FH and RH are designed for locations that fall out of range of TF and TR. You should still designate them as TR in your AVR.


----------



## rontalley

atabea said:


> Folks, is it worth going Atmos if my ceiling height is only 7 feet high? Perhaps someone has tried it with similar height restrictions and can comment on whether or not it's worth the effort.
> 
> Thanks.


8'-9' is ideal but 7' will work. Go about 3'10" either way from MLP.


----------



## batpig

atabea said:


> Folks, is it worth going Atmos if my ceiling height is only 7 feet high? Perhaps someone has tried it with similar height restrictions and can comment on whether or not it's worth the effort.
> 
> Thanks.


Yes it's still worth it. Many people are doing it with


----------



## atabea

Thanks guys, I am glad that it is possible and worth it to go atmos. My ceiling is flat and untreated but I have the ability to install either in-ceiling or on-ceiling-----would that be optimal? I am contemplating a 7.1.4 configuration.


----------



## Steve Smith

batpig said:


> The ideal is ~45 degrees fore/aft of the listening position. However, if you have elevated surrounds to accommodate two rows, then you can sort of "shift" the overheads forward a bit to maintain angular separation. In other words, if the Top Rear is too far back it will be hard to differentiate from the elevated back surrounds, so you can cheat them a bit forward to create separation.
> 
> See this article I linked earlier for discussion of how to handle placement for two rows, that's where I got the concept I describe above: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


By shifting forward do you mean mount them further towards the front of the room or angle them toward the listening position per the linked article? I believe the KEF's are designed to be pointed straight down and not angled.


----------



## corradizo

Anyone have the latest atmos demo disk?


----------



## gene4ht

DAK4 said:


> Hopefully this helps


Appreciate your quick response! Unfortunately, now that I see its content, it appears most of it is a duplication of the original Aug 2014 demo disc that I already have. I was hoping it was the more recent demo disc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

corradizo said:


> Anyone have the latest atmos demo disk?


Yes. Several.



gene4ht said:


> Appreciate your quick response! Unfortunately, now that I see its content, it appears most of it is a duplication of the original Aug 2014 demo disc that I already have. I was hoping it was the more recent demo disc.


Look again. There are several new additions that are definitely NOT on the August 2014 disc.


----------



## atabea

rontalley said:


> 8'-9' is ideal but 7' will work. Go about 3'10" either way from MLP.


Not sure what 3' 10" from MLP means. Due to the shape of the room and the placement of the sofa, the Left Surround is 4ft away from the sofa while the Right Surround is pretty much right next to the sofa, and slightly behind (sofa is right up against the wall, so no space for speaker at 90 deg. position). This presents a problem as I am unable to achieve equal distance for surround speakers. Also, should I try to place my surround speakers at half the total ceiling height (3' 6") in order to create enough separation from ceiling speakers?

thanks.


----------



## DAK4

gene4ht said:


> Appreciate your quick response! Unfortunately, now that I see its content, it appears most of it is a duplication of the original Aug 2014 demo disc that I already have. I was hoping it was the more recent demo disc.


As Scott said, there are a few new ones on there. It can't hurt to send an email, they sent me and a couple of other people the magazine/disk for free. I offered to pay but they just sent the whole thing for free. It would probably be under $10 anyway if you had to pay for it.


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> Look again. There are several new additions that are definitely NOT on the August 2014 disc.





DAK4 said:


> As Scott said, there are a few new ones on there. It can't hurt to send an email, they sent me and a couple of other people the magazine/disk for free. I offered to pay but they just sent the whole thing for free. It would probably be under $10 anyway if you had to pay for it.


OK guys...I give up! I'll email them and see what happens. Thanks for keeping me on track!


----------



## healthnut

Dbruce13 said:


> From reading it sounds like there really are no ceiling speakers yet on the market intended for Atmos purposes with a wide dispersion. Would 30 degree ceiling speakers fix that problem as they would focus / reduce the angle required by Atmos ceiling (height) speakers? I have slightly lower ceilings so found some Paradigm 30 degree ceiling speakers that could focus the sound on the seating position to fall within the range required.



Actually there are several: RSL, Atlantic Technology and JBL all offer speakers which meet or exceed the requirements for Atmos ceiling speakers. Others have also reported good results with MICCA, and a number of others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigScreen

richmagnus said:


> I'm at the ISE in Amsterdam. Speaking to Dolby they have confirmed that the info sent to FH/RH is virtually identical to TF/TR. they described it as indistinguishable. I asked the question if my FH/RH are assigned to TF/TR would it sound any different. NO was Dolbys reply. They do recommend for optimal immersion ceiling speakers but if FH/RH fall into angles then all is good.


That's interesting news, indeed! But not necessarily surprising, either.

This is an issue that we've discussed off and on since October 2014, when @*kbarnes701* first noticed that there wasn't much of a difference between FH+TM and TF+TR configs. At that time, I theorized that it was because there was little separation between the FH and TR (and likewise, TM and TR) positions in Denon's diagrams.

The issue came up again on December 1, 2015 when we started comparing Yamaha's approach to D+M's approach to overhead speaker placement:


BigScreen said:


> Unless I misunderstand the situation, what Denon/Marantz refers to as "Top Middle" is the position that Dolby recommends for a x.x.2 configuration. The attached image is from Page 20 of the Dolby Atmos Installation Guide. For a x.x.4 configuration, that placement does not exist in Dolby's guidelines, and it isn't an option (IIRC) in D+M configs unless you are specifying the front pair as Front Heights, which essentially mean that what you are indicating are Top Middle are just really Top Rear moved forward. I don't have any direct experience to prove this, but *my guess is that in a x.x.4 configuration, TM and TR are the same thing when using FH, and TM and TF are the same when using Rear Height (RH)*. If I remember correctly, someone here tried TM and TR and found no difference between them some time ago. This would explain why.





BigScreen said:


> There are no "heights" in Dolby's guidelines, only overheads and Dolby-enabled reflecting speakers. See attached figure from the Dolby guidelines.
> 
> The minimum angle for the front overhead speakers is 30°, which corresponds to the D+M diagram for the minimum angle for FH. The maximum angle for the rear overhead speakers is 150°, which corresponds to D+M's diagram for the maximum angle for RH.
> 
> D+M takes the Dolby angles for two overheads and applies them to a position they call Top Middle (TM). While D+M allow for FH and TM to be used in a .4 configuration, that isn't spelled out in Dolby's guidelines. My guess is that in that situation, TM and TR are the same signal. *Likewise if you have TM and RH, where specifying the front speakers as TM is just an aesthetic difference from TF and not a sonic one.*





BigScreen said:


> In my understanding, that leaves us with two options for how D+M have implement Dolby Atmos for the home
> 
> 
> Decoding changes based on whether FH, TF, or TM (and likewise RH, TR, and TM) is chosen. For example, if FH and TM is chosen, the processor decodes for the front-most and middle position in the 10-speaker layout, but if TF and TR are chosen, the processor chooses the second position from the front and back.
> *Decoding is the same for FH, TF, and TM in a x.x.4 configuration where RH or TR positions are chosen for the rear pair. * Regardless if FH or TF is chosen, the processor uses only one of the two front-most positions in the 10-speaker layout for decoding.
> #1 would mean that D+M's implementation of Atmos is more sophisticated than Yamaha's, because of the greater placement resolution. However, given that D+M's angles for FH and TF overlap, I'm not thinking that this is the case, because if you had the front pair at 40°, you could label them as TF and be within D+M guidelines, even though it would likely make more sense to label them as FH.
> 
> #2 would mean that D+M's decoding would be the same as a Yamaha processor. In a x.x.4 configuration, I could place the front pair at 40° and specify them at the Front Overhead Presence position, and the decoding would be the same as if I was using a D+M processor and labeled them as either FH or TF.


The last time this came up was the middle of last month:


BigScreen said:


> If you look at Dolby's guidelines for 5.1.4/7.1.4, (pages 18 and 22) you'll notice that there are only two positions for overhead speakers: Front and Rear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The front overhead speaker can be placed between 30° and 55°. Per Dolby's guidelines, there is no such thing as FH in Atmos for the home in a x.x.4 configuration.
> 
> The oft-referenced Denon speaker configuration (which can be found on page 36 of the Denon AVR-X6200W manual) splits the front overhead speaker placement in Dolby's guideline into two positions, FH (Front Height) and TF (Top Front). The angle for FH is 30°-45° and the angle for TF is 30°-55°.
> 
> As far as I can tell from the Yamaha RX-A3050 manual, Yamaha only refers to the overheads as "Front" and "Rear" (page 25) and very little is said about the placement of the overhead speakers. However, I did find that page 136 does mention that you have the ability to specify Front Height, Overhead, or Dolby Enabled SP as the layout for the Front Presence Speakers, which would appear to mirror what Denon is doing with FH and TF (but no angles are specified by Yamaha).
> 
> All that said, though, since Dolby doesn't differentiate between wall and ceiling, my guess is that as far as Dolby Atmos is concerned, there is no difference between a speaker placed on the wall at 30° and a speaker placed on the ceiling at 55°.
> 
> While it's possible that Denon and Yamaha are differentiating between them and using two front sets of speaker positions in Dolby's 24.1.10 layout (as shown on page 15 of the August 2014 white paper, Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater), comments from people here that have not been able to discern a difference between FH and TF would lead me to believe that there is no difference between how they are being decoded at this time.


Given the personal experiences of those here and the information from Dolby, I think we've finally settled that D+M's FH and TF are one in the same, as are RH and TR. While it wasn't confirmed by Dolby, my guess is that TM is the same as FH/TF when used with RH and it's the same as RH/TR when used with FH.


----------



## AllenA07

corradizo said:


> Anyone have the latest atmos demo disk?


The demo disk is the AVS equivalent of a unicorn.


----------



## smurraybhm

batpig said:


> I would always use TF+TR when possible. This allows the renderer to have clear front/back and side-to-side separation for overhead panning. The only time I would use FH+TM is if you are forced to by having seats against the rear wall.


I guess right when I had it straight I'm confused. Keith and others who were using FH and TM (I believe Keith like me has his TM slightly forward of the MLP, but I could be wrong since he's tweaked the Hobbit over the past year a few times), have been posting for a few weeks to go with TF and TR regardless (DTS:X config requirements excluded).

So why would the location of the MLP matter given the repeated recommendations to use TF/TR? Remember Atmos only, unless I'm mistakenly on that other thread. Thanks.


----------



## billqs

healthnut said:


> Actually there are several: RSL, Atlantic Technology and JBL all offer speakers which meet or exceed the requirements for Atmos ceiling speakers. Others have also reported good results with MICCA, and a number of others.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Tannoy offers a line of Dual Concentric and other point source speakers that have wide dispersion and use similar technology to KEF but may be more reasonable depending on which speakers you choose.


----------



## blastermaster

billqs said:


> Tannoy offers a line of Dual Concentric and other point source speakers that have wide dispersion and use similar technology to KEF but may be more reasonable depending on which speakers you choose.


I concur. They work really, really well. I also have a pair of Di6DC waiting in the wings for if/when I decide to go the Franken-Atmos route and try 9.1.4. That would be perfect for my room.


----------



## blackreign66

corradizo said:


> Anyone have the latest atmos demo disk?


If by latest you mean the September 2015 version then yes I have it.


----------



## ALtlOff

BigScreen said:


> Given the personal experiences of those here and the information from Dolby, I think we've finally settled that D+M's FH and TF are one in the same, as are RH and TR. While it wasn't confirmed by Dolby, my guess is that TM is the same as FH/TF when used with RH and it's the same as RH/TR when used with FH.





smurraybhm said:


> I guess right when I had it straight I'm confused. Keith and others who were using FH and TM (I believe Keith like me has his TM slightly forward of the MLP, but I could be wrong since he's tweaked the Hobbit over the past year a few times), have been posting for a few weeks to go with TF and TR regardless (DTS:X config requirements excluded).
> 
> So why would the location of the MLP matter given the repeated recommendations to use TF/TR? Remember Atmos only, unless I'm mistakenly on that other thread. Thanks.


So, basically unless your planning on matrixing TM as is currently being discussed in the Multi-AVR thread using PLII, even using two immersive capable AVR's, at this time there would be no reason to do any more than x.x.4, esp. not x.x.6.
And x.x.8 can just be done as I am by duplicating my FH & TF with the same signal and TR & RH with the same signal, and adjusting the overhead settings to suit your room.


----------



## rontalley

The difference between FH/TF is *NOT* a Yamaha thing. 

Dolby does specify FH and RH but they *ALWAYS* say in conjunction with TF+TR. The math has been proven and can be easily simulated using 1 or more Atmos Demos.

FH and RH positions assume that your speakers are in a longer room not just because you can't put them in or on ceiling. Speakers that fall into the correct TF or TR parameters should be designated as such even if you are installing them in the FH or RH (traditional) locations.

Atmos Home =TF+TR. Meaning if a sound is played for top rear it is going to play 100% out of the TR Speaker. Mixes are not geared toward FH nor RH but more towards the *"Recommended Dolby Specs"*
If you have your speaker as FH+RH then when a sound is directed to TR, FH is going to play at 25% and RH is going to play at 75% to bring the sound to the TR position. 

As displayed in the Atmos Audiosphere Demo, If you have FH or RH selected in ANY of the AVR that *"properly"* support .4 when the sound pans from Front to Back you will get bleed in either the FH or RH. 

Test it for yourself and leave this RH/FH madness along!

Now, nothing wrong with expanding your 2.1 setup to add a Center for 3.1 is it? That is the same thing that the Multi AVR setup is doing for .6. Either from Front to Back or Side from Side. Users are experimenting with other expansion models but there are several users here that have successfully implemented .6 without much fuss or loosing anything in the process outside of fully discrete channeling.


----------



## rontalley

ALtlOff said:


> So, basically unless your planning on matrixing TM as is currently being discussed in the Multi-AVR thread using PLII, even using two immersive capable AVR's, at this time there would be no reason to do any more than x.x.4, esp. not x.x.6.
> And x.x.8 can just be done as I am by duplicating my FH & TF with the same signal and TR & RH with the same signal, and adjusting the overhead settings to suit your room.


The problem that I am having with the .8 setup using 2 immersive AVRs is that sounds are overlapping big time. When a sound is aimed towards TF, TF from AVR1 will receive 100% of the signal but if you have FH from another AVR, you *"should"* have 3 speakers playing the same sound just at different levels...RH from AVR2 will get 25%, TF from AVR1 will get 100% and FH from AVR2 will get 75%...

I just don't see the point.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rontalley said:


> The difference between FH/TF is *NOT* a Yamaha thing.
> 
> Dolby does specify FH and RH but they *ALWAYS* say in conjunction with TF+TR. The math has been proven and can be easily simulated using 1 or more Atmos Demos.
> 
> FH and RH positions assume that your speakers are in a longer room not just because you can't put them in or on ceiling. Speakers that fall into the correct TF or TR parameters should be designated as such even if you are installing them in the FH or RH (traditional) locations.
> 
> Atmos Home =TF+TR. Meaning if a sound is played for top rear it is going to play 100% out of the TR Speaker. Mixes are not geared toward FH nor RH but more towards the *"Recommended Dolby Specs"*
> If you have your speaker as FH+RH then when a sound is directed to TR, FH is going to play at 25% and RH is going to play at 75% to bring the sound to the TR position.
> 
> As displayed in the Atmos Audiosphere Demo, If you have FH or RH selected in ANY of the AVR that *"properly"* support .4 when the sound pans from Front to Back you will get bleed in either the FH or RH.
> 
> Test it for yourself and leave this RH/FH madness along!
> 
> Now, nothing wrong with expanding your 2.1 setup to add a Center for 3.1 is it? That is the same thing that the Multi AVR setup is doing for .6. Either from Front to Back or Side from Side. Users are experimenting with other expansion models but there are several users here that have successfully implemented .6 without much fuss or loosing anything in the process outside of fully discrete channeling.


That DTS:X bug discovered by FilmMixer about TF+TR is bit concerning. Else TF+TR would be the best to use. Till then those with DTS:X have to re-configure and live with FH+RH bleed..


----------



## ALtlOff

rontalley said:


> The problem that I am having with the .8 setup using 2 immersive AVRs is that sounds are overlapping big time. When a sound is aimed towards TF, TF from AVR1 will receive 100% of the signal but if you have FH from another AVR, you *"should"* have 3 speakers playing the same sound just at different levels...RH from AVR2 will get 25%, TF from AVR1 will get 100% and FH from AVR2 will get 75%...
> 
> I just don't see the point.


Got it, this is just good to know for sure.


----------



## apesterin

aaranddeeman said:


> That DTS:X bug discovered by FilmMixer about TF+TR is bit concerning. Else TF+TR would be the best to use. Till then those with DTS:X have to re-configure and live with FH+RH bleed..


I must have missed FilmMixer's post (no wonder how this thread moves), can someone please point me back in time? 
Also, what are cross compatible configurations for atmos and dts:x on denon? I am currently running FH+TM with a x4200w, which matches my speaker locations as well (Front wall and above mlp). Cannot change physical locations of speakers (mlp against rear wall), but happy to reconfigure AVR setup if needed. If it helps to answer, I think my FH is still within Dolby angles for TF (small room), or just at the edge of it


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> That DTS:X bug discovered by FilmMixer about TF+TR is bit concerning. Else TF+TR would be the best to use. Till then those with DTS:X have to re-configure and live with FH+RH bleed..


Good new, at least with Yamaha AVRs, is that switching the speakers from Height to Top doesn't "appear" to require re-calibration. DTS movie, umm about a handful of them, switch to Height, all others leave as Top. I rather deal with that than have a squashed Overhead experience.


----------



## audioguy

Selden Ball said:


> Without knowing the details it's hard to guess why that might have happened.
> 
> Which titles were involved and where did you get them? Were you able to get Atmos from them through some manual procedure?
> 
> Remember that some rental BDs don't have lossless audio at all, hence no Atmos, even if it's available on purchased copies. Lionsgate is well known for stripping down their rental versions.


I only buy Blurays. You can ALWAYS enable Atmos from the remote if it is an Atmos enabled movie.. There is a button that scrolls through all of the options. I can not tell you which titles did and which did not. I was not keeping track.


----------



## jpco

rontalley said:


> The difference between FH/TF is *NOT* a Yamaha thing.



Those with D+M models are saying height is indistinguishable from top. Definitely not the case with Yamaha. Have you had the chance to test other brands?


----------



## aaranddeeman

apesterin said:


> I must have missed FilmMixer's post (no wonder how this thread moves), can someone please point me back in time?
> Also, what are cross compatible configurations for atmos and dts:x on denon? I am currently running FH+TM with a x4200w, which matches my speaker locations as well (Front wall and above mlp). Cannot change physical locations of speakers (mlp against rear wall), but happy to reconfigure AVR setup if needed. If it helps to answer, I think my FH is still within Dolby angles for TF (small room), or just at the edge of it


See post #9966


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> The difference between FH/TF is *NOT* a Yamaha thing.
> 
> Dolby does specify FH and RH but they *ALWAYS* say in conjunction with TF+TR. The math has been proven and can be easily simulated using 1 or more Atmos Demos.
> 
> FH and RH positions assume that your speakers are in a longer room not just because you can't put them in or on ceiling. Speakers that fall into the correct TF or TR parameters should be designated as such even if you are installing them in the FH or RH (traditional) locations.
> 
> Atmos Home =TF+TR. Meaning if a sound is played for top rear it is going to play 100% out of the TR Speaker. Mixes are not geared toward FH nor RH but more towards the *"Recommended Dolby Specs"*
> If you have your speaker as FH+RH then when a sound is directed to TR, FH is going to play at 25% and RH is going to play at 75% to bring the sound to the TR position.
> 
> As displayed in the Atmos Audiosphere Demo, If you have FH or RH selected in ANY of the AVR that *"properly"* support .4 when the sound pans from Front to Back you will get bleed in either the FH or RH.
> 
> Test it for yourself and leave this RH/FH madness along!
> 
> Now, nothing wrong with expanding your 2.1 setup to add a Center for 3.1 is it? That is the same thing that the Multi AVR setup is doing for .6. Either from Front to Back or Side from Side. Users are experimenting with other expansion models but there are several users here that have successfully implemented .6 without much fuss or loosing anything in the process outside of fully discrete channeling.


Dolby have recently said that in mainstream AVRs, FH+RH and TF+TR are "indistinguishable: from each other. This is also what I have found in extensive testing too. See this post for Dolby's confirmation that there is no audible difference.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Those with D+M models are saying height is indistinguishable from top. Definitely not the case with Yamaha. Have you had the chance to test other brands?


The "indistinguishabilty" which Dolby confirm is only relevant to units which have FH+RH and TF+TR designations. I believe this does not apply to Yamaha who have implemented Atmos differently with 'Height' and 'Overhead' designations which are indeed functionally different.


----------



## robert816

Recently I upgraded my home theatre AVR from the Pioneer SC-87 to the Pioneer SC-99, so that I could go from a 5.3.4 speaker layout to a 7.3.4 speaker configuration.

Except for adding two additional side surround speakers, all other speakers remained in place including the Kef Eggs on top of my Polk's being used as "Atmos Enabled" speakers.

After running the MCACC Pro to calibrate my setup, I was not as pleased with the outcome as I was with the former setup using the SC-87 and the 5.3.4 configuration. I tried various settings to see if I could manipulate the system into sounding the way it had been, but it just wasn't working.

Last night I was on the verge of going back to my original setup when I decided what the hell, lets try something different, after all, others in this group have gone way outside the box to make their systems perform, I'm just kind of pushing the lid open a bit. Also I was thinking about some of the members remarking on how much a difference it made when they went from "Atmos Enabled" speakers to in ceiling speakers. I'm not interested in cutting holes in my ceiling, nor am I enthused about mounting speakers on the ceiling, but I still wondered how it would sound.

Prior to recalibrating last night, I changed my speaker settings from small to large, the biggest change was, I set my Atmos Enabled speaker setting to in ceiling and also set the Atmos speakers to large, then performed the calibration.

I noticed several things upon playing Atmos demos, the sounds are more accurate and localized than before, there does not appear to be an audible "hole" from front to back panning like there was before (it was minute, but noticeable), but the biggest change is how much better the Atmos overheads are. I played Goosebumps and during the scene with the invisible boy climbing on the roof of the Wagoneer, the sound above me made me look up at the ceiling! I watched Spectre with DSU enabled and was just amazed at the sound of the helicopter fight scene shortly after the beginning of the movie, the helicopter blades would sound as though they were above me, below, and all over the place at times. Lastly, I played on the Xbox One and the PS4, aside from needing to bump the levels on my subs due to the loss of setting all speakers to large, I was very pleased with what I heard, my system sounds so much better than before.


----------



## wackid

Does people has experiences with ceiling speakers from Sonance for Atmos usage?


----------



## Dbruce13

markm75 said:


> What is meant by this exactly.. for instance.. my Top Front speakers i have so far (3 feet forward) are Micca 8's with adjustable tweeters.. i assumed that was ok for aiming to the rear a bit? (7.1.2 or 7.1.4)


 
A number of speaker manufactuers make ceiling speakers that have a 30 degree tilt on the cone itself vs just the directional tweeter which probably only gets you about 10 degrees of movement. So like other posters said youll either have to move the front height and rear speakers closer to your seating position to obtain the obtimal dispersion.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> The "indistinguishabilty" which Dolby confirm is only relevant to units which have FH+RH and TF+TR designations. I believe this does not apply to Yamaha who have implemented Atmos differently with 'Height' and 'Overhead' designations which are indeed functionally different.


I have ago long conceded on the "Sonic" differences between the two designations as a Yamaha thing...However, other non-Yamaha users have confirmed the difference in the spread of sound between the two. 

Anyone who has a non-Yamaha AVR can see for themselves. 

However, what I do not understand... IF, Dolby Home claims that it can do .10 then what the Dolby Rep just admitted is that Dolby lied! That means that they can only process .2 or .4. This is a big WTF moment?! I could have sworn that Dolby claimed that the limitations were in the individual manufacturers processor chips and not in the technology itself.


----------



## Selden Ball

rontalley said:


> I have long conceded on the "Sonic" differences between the two designations as a Yamaha thing...However, other non-Yamaha users have confirmed the difference in the spread of sound between the two.
> 
> Anyone who has a non-Yamaha AVR can see for themselves.
> 
> However, what I do not understand... IF, Dolby Home claims that it can do .10 then what the Dolby Rep just admitted is that Dolby lied! That means that they can only process .2 or .4. This is a big WTF moment?! I could have sworn that Dolby claimed that the limitations were in the individual manufacturers processor chips and not in the technology itself.


I think you're trying to be too restrictive in how you read the comment by the Dolby spokesperson. 

With only four overhead speakers, two in front of you and two behind you, there's only so much that phantom imaging can do to help you distinguish the overhead directions. If you have Front Height and Rear Height speakers, they're treated as if they're at the extreme limits of the front-to-back directionality of sound objects in the soundtrack. Sound objects which are at (for example) + 45 degrees in the soundfield (the nominal positions of Top Front speakers) are phantom-imaged between the FH and RH speakers, with most of the sound coming from the Front Heights and just a little from the Rear Heights. If, instead, you have Top Front and Top Rear spakers, there's no need to phantom-image a sound object that's placed at +45 degrees, and only the Top Front speakers will be active. Unless you carefully measure which individual speakers are producing sounds, the results are "indistinguishable".

If you want more than four overhead speakers, you can get a Trinnov Altitude32. It supports a maximum of 32 speakers, including all five overhead pairs.


----------



## rontalley

jpco said:


> Those with D+M models are saying height is indistinguishable from top. Definitely not the case with Yamaha. Have you had the chance to test other brands?





rontalley said:


> I've tested and tested and tested this. FH and TF has always played the same exact sounds. Even setup a mic and recorded it into ProTools and examined the waves...
> 
> Will check when I get home as it may be different with certain mixes then.
> 
> So, in my case, If I change my TF to FH and play the Audiosphere Demo, then it should sound different than having them as TF?
> Also by theory, If FH plays lower then technically speaking, TR should play louder? Meaning more sounds should go to it...If not then those with .4 (most of us peasant folk), and using FH are missing sounds...
> 
> My AVR will not allow me to do TM+anything. Its either TF/FH+TR/RH or just TM.


This is exactly what I believed even with Yamaha Units. You couldn't pay me to believe that FH sounded any different that TF...



rontalley said:


> I had to go home and test this!
> 
> With Audiosphere demo and Yamaha 3050. All 3 settings play the *exact same sounds* but all 3 sound different.


Will have to concede that this is a Yamaha thing (issue).



rontalley said:


> FH sounds like the sound is pushed more towards the front when compared to TF. Sounds that are louder in TF are softer in FH and sounds that are louder in FH are a little softer in TF. This does confirms that there are positional however, FH sounds dull while TF sounds big and punchy.
> 
> Dolby Enabled sounds more "excited" and "exaggerated" even a little harsh on the louder parts.


The positional thing is *NOT* a Yamaha thing. What I was hearing selecting Dolby Enabled is *NOT* a Yamaha thing. The volume differences is *NOT* a Yamaha thing.
Other have confirmed the same findings.



rontalley said:


> Now here comes the kicker!!!
> 
> The damn "bells" are not playing differently from from to back on the right or left side!! I disconnected the left side and stood in the middle of right side and the bells played right over my freaking head.
> Wait, it gets even deeper!!! Selecting TF+TR the music starts all the way in the rear then pans all the way to the front.
> With FH+RH the music starts in *between* RH and TM (1/4) then travels to in *between* TM and FH(3/4)...WTF?


This is *NOT* a Yamaha thing.

Some people just don't hear it until it's pointed out and even then they might not.

All those with D+M and 7.x.4 with TF+TR in the Recommend Positions and can stand in between TF+TR on either side..Roll Call! You have been selected as test dummies.


----------



## GXMnow

rontalley said:


> I have long conceded on the "Sonic" differences between the two designations as a Yamaha thing...However, other non-Yamaha users have confirmed the difference in the spread of sound between the two.
> 
> Anyone who has a non-Yamaha AVR can see for themselves.
> 
> However, what I do not understand... IF, Dolby Home claims that it can do .10 then what the Dolby Rep just admitted is that Dolby lied! That means that they can only process .2 or .4. This is a big WTF moment?! I could have sworn that Dolby claimed that the limitations were in the individual manufacturers processor chips and not in the technology itself.


I have done a bit of listening to a Denon 5200 and tried the different height positions, and you can clearly tell the difference between all 5 top positions. With the test signals on the latest Dolby Atmos demo disk, it is quite obvious what is going on. And it is also what caused some people to think that "Top Front" and "Top rear" are the best. When playing the 9.1.6 test track, with the tops designated as "Front Height" and "Rear Height", all 6 top test signals still play, with complete left to right separation. The top front signal plays at about 75% in the FH and 25 % in the RH. The top middle is 50% in both, and the top rear is 75% RH and 25% FH. This completely makes sense as it is trying to phantom the sounds at the original intended positions of TF, TM, TR between the FH and RH speakers at the ends of the room. Change the speaker designations to TF and TR and when you lay the same track, the TF and TR test signal is now in just the TF or TR speaker at 100% and no longer trying to phantom between as the speaker is in the same place as where the sound is meant to come from. The last test I did was setting the height speakers to FH and TR. This time, the TF signal was again phantomed between the FH and TR speakers, I did not measure the SPL, but they were a little closer in level than the FH RH setup, let's say 60% and 40%. The TM test signal basically reversed this, to 40% front and 60% rear. And the TR signal was just in the rear speaker only. I wanted to test a few more settings, but did not have time. 

Try them for yourself, there is clearly a difference in all 5 locations.


----------



## BigScreen

richmagnus said:


> I'm at the ISE in Amsterdam. Speaking to Dolby they have confirmed that the info sent to FH/RH is virtually identical to TF/TR. they described it as indistinguishable. I asked the question if my FH/RH are assigned to TF/TR would it sound any different. NO was Dolbys reply. They do recommend for optimal immersion ceiling speakers but if FH/RH fall into angles then all is good.





rontalley said:


> However, what I do not understand... IF, Dolby Home claims that it can do .10 then what the Dolby Rep just admitted is that Dolby lied! That means that they can only process .2 or .4. This is a big WTF moment?! I could have sworn that Dolby claimed that the limitations were in the individual manufacturers processor chips and not in the technology itself.


Don't jump off that cliff!  I think both statements can be correct at the same time, even though they appear to be in conflict at first.

The Dolby Atmos at Home technology is capable of 5 overhead pairs, but no mainstream product supports all 5 to be chosen by the user. The Dolby documentation for x.x.4 configurations clearly shows only one forward pair position and one rear pair position, with angles that cover 30-55° and 125-150°, respectively.

My understanding of this is that for the current implementation of Dolby Atmos at Home in mainstream devices, we have "Left and right top front overhead speakers" and "Left and right top rear overhead speakers." (That is the language in the oft-posted Dolby diagrams)

In my opinion, D+M muddied the issue because of their diagram which shows FH, TF, TM, TR, and RH positions. Based on RichMagnus' report from Dolby, there's no difference between FH and TF, and there's no difference between TR and RH. As a result, D+M's positions can be boiled down to FH/TF, TM, and TR/RH. My guess is that TM could also be removed in a x.x.4 configuration because TM is really FH/TF when TR/RH is used, and TR/RH when FH/TR is used.

I have lost track of the testing of Yamaha receivers you and other people have done, so I might be unaware, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that there was no difference between Front Height and Front Overhead (and likewise Rear Height and Rear Overhead) when decoding Dolby Atmos (without any extra DSP effects added).

I see it just as a difference between what the technology is capable of providing and what current implementations are capable of delivering. In my mind, it's a very good thing that the soundtracks have 24.1.10 built-in, as that works well for those with Trinnov budgets and bodes well for the future when more positions are supported by the mainstream hardware.


----------



## kbarnes701

rontalley said:


> However, what I do not understand... IF, Dolby Home claims that it can do .10 then what the Dolby Rep just admitted is that Dolby lied! That means that they can only process .2 or .4. This is a big WTF moment?! I could have sworn that Dolby claimed that the limitations were in the individual manufacturers processor chips and not in the technology itself.


Not at all. What Dolby are saying is that when you are limited _by your AVR_ to two pairs of overhead speakers, whether you set those two pairs as FH+RH or TF+TR makes an "indistinguishable" difference to the sound you hear. If you had 5 pairs of overhead speakers, FH and TF will play different sounds and FH and TF can be used at the same time, together, which is obviously not the case in the AVRs we are discussing. Nothing to do with being able to "only process .2 or .4" at all.


----------



## rontalley

Selden Ball said:


> I think you're trying to be too restrictive in how you read the comment by the Dolby spokesperson.
> 
> With only four overhead speakers, two in front of you and two behind you, there's only so much that phantom imaging can do to help you distinguish the overhead directions. If you have Front Height and Rear Height speakers, they're treated as if they're at the extreme limits of the front-to-back directionality of sound objects in the soundtrack. Sound objects which are at (for example) + 45 degrees in the soundfield (the nominal positions of Top Front speakers) are phantom-imaged between the FH and RH speakers, with most of the sound coming from the Front Heights and just a little from the Rear Heights. If, instead, you have Top Front and Top Rear spakers, there's no need to phantom-image a sound object that's placed at +45 degrees, and only the Top Front speakers will be active. Unless you carefully measure which individual speakers are producing sounds, the results are "indistinguishable".
> 
> If you want more than four overhead speakers, you can get a Trinnov Altitude32. It supports a maximum of 32 speakers, including all five overhead pairs.



I could kiss you right now! This is Exactly what I have been trying to say. You are absolutely correct in your analogy and I believe that this is what is supposed to happen! That's why I keep preaching if you have a long room and TF and or TR is not feasible then by all means tell your AVR that you have FH and or RH but *IF* your room is not long and you have RH and or FH mounted for convenience but still fall in TF and or TR range then same analogy you presented above takes that sound and pushes it out of the 45 degree range and put it more towards the middle of the room. 

The issue (at least now) is mostly everything is gear towards TF+TR position so RH will play at 75% while FH will play at 25% for most material that is aimed towards 45 degree to the Front. 

Now if you have TF+TR selected no matter if the mixer aimed the sound at 45 degrees or 30, TF or your mounted FH (designated as TF) will get all of the signal! 

My argument here is simply, the angles still matter. 

Side note: I can't afford a Trinnov!


----------



## rontalley

GXMnow said:


> I have done a bit of listening to a Denon 5200 and tried the different height positions, and you can clearly tell the difference between all 5 top positions. With the test signals on the latest Dolby Atmos demo disk, it is quite obvious what is going on. And it is also what caused some people to think that "Top Front" and "Top rear" are the best. When playing the 9.1.6 test track, with the tops designated as "Front Height" and "Rear Height", all 6 top test signals still play, with complete left to right separation. The top front signal plays at about 75% in the FH and 25 % in the RH. The top middle is 50% in both, and the top rear is 75% RH and 25% FH. This completely makes sense as it is trying to phantom the sounds at the original intended positions of TF, TM, TR between the FH and RH speakers at the ends of the room. Change the speaker designations to TF and TR and when you lay the same track, the TF and TR test signal is now in just the TF or TR speaker at 100% and no longer trying to phantom between as the speaker is in the same place as where the sound is meant to come from. The last test I did was setting the height speakers to FH and TR. This time, the TF signal was again phantomed between the FH and TR speakers, I did not measure the SPL, but they were a little closer in level than the FH RH setup, let's say 60% and 40%. The TM test signal basically reversed this, to 40% front and 60% rear. And the TR signal was just in the rear speaker only. I wanted to test a few more settings, but did not have time.
> 
> Try them for yourself, there is clearly a difference in all 5 locations.


A big kiss coming your way as well! It's been like telling the people that the world is not flat.

This is exactly how my unit is working and other non-Yamaha users who have also experimented and hears it. I will admit, I did not at first.


----------



## Molon_Labe

rontalley said:


> I could kiss you right now!





rontalley said:


> A big kiss coming your way as well!


I go away for a couple of days and come back to a bunch of man love....lol

I think I might be too nervous to go back and read the last two pages.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kbarnes701 said:


> The "indistinguishabilty" which Dolby confirm is only relevant to units which have FH+RH and TF+TR designations. I believe this does not apply to Yamaha who have implemented Atmos differently with 'Height' and 'Overhead' designations which are indeed functionally different.


Ah. So Denonians have no issue if they setup as TF+TR or FH+RH. Later will help get around with the DTS:X bug. Good to know.
Yamahins looks to have different sound based on designation. 
If that be that be the case, Nallah should dump his dual Denons for Yamahas....


----------



## jpco

GXMnow said:


> I have done a bit of listening to a Denon 5200 and tried the different height positions, and you can clearly tell the difference between all 5 top positions. With the test signals on the latest Dolby Atmos demo disk, it is quite obvious what is going on. And it is also what caused some people to think that "Top Front" and "Top rear" are the best. When playing the 9.1.6 test track, with the tops designated as "Front Height" and "Rear Height", all 6 top test signals still play, with complete left to right separation. The top front signal plays at about 75% in the FH and 25 % in the RH. The top middle is 50% in both, and the top rear is 75% RH and 25% FH. This completely makes sense as it is trying to phantom the sounds at the original intended positions of TF, TM, TR between the FH and RH speakers at the ends of the room. Change the speaker designations to TF and TR and when you lay the same track, the TF and TR test signal is now in just the TF or TR speaker at 100% and no longer trying to phantom between as the speaker is in the same place as where the sound is meant to come from. The last test I did was setting the height speakers to FH and TR. This time, the TF signal was again phantomed between the FH and TR speakers, I did not measure the SPL, but they were a little closer in level than the FH RH setup, let's say 60% and 40%. The TM test signal basically reversed this, to 40% front and 60% rear. And the TR signal was just in the rear speaker only. I wanted to test a few more settings, but did not have time.
> 
> 
> 
> Try them for yourself, there is clearly a difference in all 5 locations.



That is exactly what I hear with Yamaha. For a day here I was believing D+M didn't behave this way. Thanks for testing that out.


----------



## kokishin

aaranddeeman said:


> Sorry. Looks like I missed your PM.
> Let's update it with the actual stuff like below. Let's keep the expansion out of it as you say.
> 
> Speaker config : 7.1.4
> AVR : Denon 7200W(A)
> Atmos Speakers : JBL E10
> Auro 3d Speakers : None
> Mounted : On Ceiling
> Height Config: TF+TR
> Other Info : Two external Amps (Crown X1000) for LCR


Done.


----------



## aaranddeeman

kokishin said:


> Done.


Wohoo. I am at the first row.. Thanks..


----------



## kokishin

aaranddeeman said:


> Wohoo. I am at the first row.. Thanks..


Truly serendipitous.


----------



## batpig

GXMnow said:


> I have done a bit of listening to a Denon 5200 and tried the different height positions, and you can clearly tell the difference between all 5 top positions. With the test signals on the latest Dolby Atmos demo disk, it is quite obvious what is going on. And it is also what caused some people to think that "Top Front" and "Top rear" are the best. When playing the 9.1.6 test track, with the tops designated as "Front Height" and "Rear Height", all 6 top test signals still play, with complete left to right separation. The top front signal plays at about 75% in the FH and 25 % in the RH. The top middle is 50% in both, and the top rear is 75% RH and 25% FH. This completely makes sense as it is trying to phantom the sounds at the original intended positions of TF, TM, TR between the FH and RH speakers at the ends of the room. Change the speaker designations to TF and TR and when you lay the same track, the TF and TR test signal is now in just the TF or TR speaker at 100% and no longer trying to phantom between as the speaker is in the same place as where the sound is meant to come from. The last test I did was setting the height speakers to FH and TR. This time, the TF signal was again phantomed between the FH and TR speakers, I did not measure the SPL, but they were a little closer in level than the FH RH setup, let's say 60% and 40%. The TM test signal basically reversed this, to 40% front and 60% rear. And the TR signal was just in the rear speaker only. I wanted to test a few more settings, but did not have time.
> 
> Try them for yourself, there is clearly a difference in all 5 locations.


This is really weird. I tested this extensively on my Denon and with the 9.1.6 track, regardless of the "top" vs. "front" designation, the tone "snapped" to the closest speaker for the front/rear signals. For example, the "Top Front Left" signal played from the front left overhead regardless of whether it was set to "TFL" or "FHL". The "Top Middle" signal was always split between the two.

The other weird part is that the x.x.4 tones behaved differently, with the same "Top Front Left" signal behaving more as you describe (leaking back to the Height2 speaker on that side) when set to "Height" instead of "Top". The even weirder part is the reverse wasn't true, so the "Top Rear" signal always snapped to the rear (Height2) speaker regardless of Top/Height designation.

Basically, it felt like the "snap to speaker" option had been checked for all the signals except for the Top Front tests on the x.x.4 tracks.

I heard somewhere there were some issues with the first run of that Sep 2015 disc and they were going to re-author it (e.g. to add chapter markers in the test tones to allow easy skipping). Perhaps you have the newer version and they disabled the "snap to speaker" option on all the tones? Does the disc you were using have chapter markers in the test tone section?

Out of curiosity, when you test the "Front Wide" signal on the 9.1.6 track does it snap to the Front speaker only or does it play equally from Front+Surround (to phantom image at ~60 degrees)?


----------



## richmagnus

I'm just conveying the response I got from the Dolby rep. He was still adamant that placing speakers in the TF/TR was more preferable than FH/RH as the sounds would come from above. Having FH/RH locations then assigning them as TF/TR would not make any noticeable difference. 

If you are running FH,TF,TM,TR,RH on say a Trinnov then yes each speaker will receive different info. 

I only asked about D&M products so have no idea if this applies to Yamaha's etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

GXMnow said:


> I have done a bit of listening to a Denon 5200 and tried the different height positions, and you can clearly tell the difference between all 5 top positions. With the test signals on the latest Dolby Atmos demo disk, it is quite obvious what is going on. And it is also what caused some people to think that "Top Front" and "Top rear" are the best. When playing the 9.1.6 test track, with the tops designated as "Front Height" and "Rear Height", all 6 top test signals still play, with complete left to right separation. The top front signal plays at about 75% in the FH and 25 % in the RH. The top middle is 50% in both, and the top rear is 75% RH and 25% FH. This completely makes sense as it is trying to phantom the sounds at the original intended positions of TF, TM, TR between the FH and RH speakers at the ends of the room. Change the speaker designations to TF and TR and when you lay the same track, the TF and TR test signal is now in just the TF or TR speaker at 100% and no longer trying to phantom between as the speaker is in the same place as where the sound is meant to come from. The last test I did was setting the height speakers to FH and TR. This time, the TF signal was again phantomed between the FH and TR speakers, I did not measure the SPL, but they were a little closer in level than the FH RH setup, let's say 60% and 40%. The TM test signal basically reversed this, to 40% front and 60% rear. And the TR signal was just in the rear speaker only. I wanted to test a few more settings, but did not have time.
> 
> Try them for yourself, there is clearly a difference in all 5 locations.


So, in a nutshell:

For x.x.4 using FH/RH -vs- TF/TR will be up to your room and personal preference.

For x.x.6, matrixing your TM, you'd want to set for TF/TR to get the proper separation pre-matrixing.

And don't bother with x.x.8 or x.x.10 unless your using Pro Atmos processing.

Very good to know for me.


----------



## CINERAMAX

ALtlOff said:


> And don't bother with x.x.8 or x.x.10 unless your using Pro Atmos processing.


Unless You are using Trinnov.


----------



## richmagnus

Molon_Labe said:


> Trinnov is considered pro, is it not?



Consumer too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Molon_Labe

richmagnus said:


> Consumer too
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


"Trinnov Audio designs and manufactures preamplifiers and processors featuring exclusive loudspeaker/room optimization and 3D sound technologies for high-end Hi-Fi & Home Theaters, Professional Studios and Movie Theaters."

I guess they do both.


----------



## Lakesideb

Guys, was travelling a bit so couldn't participate further in discussions. 

I think previously I wasn't calculating my angles from MLP correctly. Yesterday night, using a bit of basic trigonometry, I finally had a chance to figure out exactly what length from MLP, the different angles will be. 

I first calculated the distance between MLP ear and the ceiling height. This is about 69 inch. 

So to see at what length from MLP would the speaker need to be installed at to achieve a 45 degree angle. To get this I did 69/(tan 45). In this case, Tan 45 is 1 so to get a perfect 45 degree angle I will have to go 69" in front of MLP, look up and mark the spot in the ceiling and install the speaker there. 

this is what the Dolby recommendation is and what the lengths they translate into

Front Height: 30deg - 45deg : 119' - 69'
Top Front : 30deg - 55deg : 119' - 48.5'
Top Middle: 65deg - 100 deg : 32.2' - (-12')

So given my situation, 69' from MLP will give me the perfect 45 degree angle. Unfortunately, this falls just outside of the bulk head. I was thinking of putting two boxes outside of bulk head (ie flush with bulk head), and installing the Kef Ci200 there in them. I was thinking of designating them either Front Height or Top Front. 



The issue is of the rears. Two issues specifically 
a) The angle it makes with the MLP is 100 degree, which is really a Top Middle. Could I get away with designating it, Top Rear? 

b) Also as its very close to the backwall (an inch or two from the back wall). So I was thinking of angling it at 45". Not sure if this is a good idea. Would you angle it at 45 or leave it flush with ceiling? 

I have a pair of cheap Polk book-shelfs lying around. I will rough-in a speaker wire, so as an option I could install them right on top of the front wall or install them as front wides at ear level. Once the room is constructed, I could experiment if these polks are better situated as front wides or at top of the front wall. 

Right now, I want to figure the precise spots for the 4 inceiling kefs as they would be very diffcult to change, once the construction is finished.

Guys any thoughts on the In-ceiling location?


----------



## ALtlOff

Lol, at this point in time, I consider anything that does true Atmos processing for more than 12 channels (LFE included) Pro.....
Or anything that would make my wallet hemorrhage like that... 

If I bought a Trinnov, not only would I not have a GF anymore, she'd blackball me within the entire gender.


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> *This is really weird. * I tested this extensively on my Denon and with the 9.1.6 track, regardless of the "top" vs. "front" designation, the tone "snapped" to the closest speaker for the front/rear signals. For example, the "Top Front Left" signal played from the front left overhead regardless of whether it was set to "TFL" or "FHL". The "Top Middle" signal was always split between the two.
> 
> The other weird part is that the *x.x.4 tones behaved differently*, with the same "Top Front Left" signal behaving more as you describe (leaking back to the Height2 speaker on that side) when set to "Height" instead of "Top". The even weirder part is the reverse wasn't true, so the "Top Rear" signal always snapped to the rear (Height2) speaker regardless of Top/Height designation.
> 
> Basically, it felt like the "snap to speaker" option had been checked for all the signals except for the Top Front tests on the x.x.4 tracks.
> 
> I heard somewhere there were some issues with the first run of that Sep 2015 disc and they were going to re-author it (e.g. to add chapter markers in the test tones to allow easy skipping). Perhaps you have the newer version and they disabled the "snap to speaker" option on all the tones? Does the disc you were using have chapter markers in the test tone section?
> 
> Out of curiosity, when you test the "Front Wide" signal on the 9.1.6 track does it snap to the Front speaker only or does it play equally from Front+Surround (to phantom image at ~60 degrees)?


This makes total sense to me. .6 would assume 3 sets of speakers so Rear and Front would be further spread apart and the test tone would aim more towards the 30 degree mark which would put the signal *100%* in just one speaker if it is designate Height and/or *"Overhead"*.

.4 would assume only 2 sets of overhead and more of a 45 degree position so if you have Rear or Front Heights designated then it has to phantom between front and back speakers to achieve the 45 degree mark. However if you have *"Overhead"* designated, you will get 100% in just one speaker.

Now here is the kicker, most sound will probably be going to TF+TR positions so those who have FH+RH designated, there speaker will be in "phantom mode" majority of the time.

For those who have couches against the wall and their front speaker are further up, I understand designating the Fronts as Heights (regardless of in/on wall/ceiling ) to push the sound more towards the MLP. Visa-Versa for those who have rear speakers way in the back of MLP. Don't understand the TM+Anything configuration.  Image is already shrunk by 50% selecting FH+RH so there can't be much spread at all with TM+Anything...

Regarding the Wides, Atmos treats wides as objects. Would have to have a way to first split the "object" into the side and front for non Wide AVRs, then for those who do have wides, extract both the side surround and front and send it to the object channel. Seems doable right?


----------



## rontalley

ALtlOff said:


> So, in a nutshell:
> 
> For x.x.4 using FH/RH -vs- TF/TR will be up to your room and personal preference.
> 
> For x.x.6, matrixing your TM, you'd want to set for TF/TR to get the proper separation pre-matrixing.
> 
> And don't bother with x.x.8 or x.x.10 unless your using Pro Atmos processing.
> 
> Very good to know for me.


Pretty much.

I would add that wides can be achieved as well by matrixing the Front and Side Surround.


----------



## ALtlOff

rontalley said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> I would add that wides can be achieved as well by matrixing the Front and Side Surround.


I saw that that was mentioned too, I'm going to see how the matrixing goes with the TM's and decide on Wides after that, since I'm running 2 pairs of surrounds because of the current Yamaha, all I'd have to do is move my Front pair from 75° to 60°, esp. if the ProLogic boxes work out for that price.... hell at that price I may go back to 11 and get rear Wides also.....


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Trinnov is considered pro, is it not?


Professional consumer and decoder ring required.


----------



## blastermaster

ALtlOff said:


> Lol, at this point in time, I consider anything that does true Atmos processing for more than 12 channels (LFE included) Pro.....
> Or anything that would make my wallet hemorrhage like that...
> 
> If I bought a Trinnov, not only would I not have a GF anymore, she'd blackball me within the entire gender.


Lol nice. It's funny because any time my wife and I have friends over I tend to be not too popular with the wives. The guys check out my HT and start talking about it with their wives at dinner and I get the stink eye. How is that fair?


----------



## Ricoflashback

blastermaster said:


> Lol nice. It's funny because any time my wife and I have friends over I tend to be not too popular with the wives. The guys check out my HT and start talking about it with their wives at dinner and I get the stink eye. How is that fair?


Yes, indeed - - just like a couple bros talking at the football game, the WAF and GF factor do not take kindly to their spouses/boyfriends getting all geeked out on guy stuff. Especially "Home Theater" where bucks will be spent that could be more wisely used towards a nice "walk-in closet" - - always number one on my list.

Then, talk of a "Man Cave" starts (always under the guise of "Honey, we can enjoy movies together,") and then all hell breaks loose.

Fair? Hell no, but it ain't supposed to be fair. No crying in "Home Theater," either.....


----------



## dschulz

Molon_Labe said:


> richmagnus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumer too
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> "Trinnov Audio designs and manufactures preamplifiers and processors featuring exclusive loudspeaker/room optimization and 3D sound technologies for high-end Hi-Fi & Home Theaters, Professional Studios and Movie Theaters."
> 
> I guess they do both.
Click to expand...

Trinnov does manufacture pro gear, but for the purposes of this discussion the Altitude 32 is a consumer piece, as it decodes the home theater version of Atmos.

The only hardware that can decode the cinema version of Atmos, playing back off a DCP, is the Dolby CP850 cinema processor.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> This makes total sense to me. .6 would assume 3 sets of speakers so Rear and Front would be further spread apart and the test tone would aim more towards the 30 degree mark which would put the signal *100%* in just one speaker if it is designate Height and/or *"Overhead"*.
> 
> .4 would assume only 2 sets of overhead and more of a 45 degree position so if you have Rear or Front Heights designated then it has to phantom between front and back speakers to achieve the 45 degree mark. However if you have *"Overhead"* designated, you will get 100% in just one speaker.


I see your point and I already considered that exact logic (the front/rear signal in .6 is more "spread" than the .4 tones) when I was first testing and trying to understand what was happening. However, the flaw in the logic is the inconsistency of what happens. 

For example, the phenomenon ONLY occurs with the FRONT height speakers. The REAR height speakers stay "locked" on the signal with no leakage, regardless of .6 vs .4 or "Top" vs "Height" designation. Logically there should be no difference if your theory is accurate, and a signal sent for a location 45 degrees behind you to a speaker assumed to be at 60 degrees behind you should similarly phantom image forward.

Also as I've noted the "Front Wide" signal in the 9.1.6 track snaps to the front speaker (not phantom imaged between surround and front).

We know there is a "snap to speaker" function in the Atmos renderer for objects that forces them to play from only the closest speaker. That's why the conclusion seems to be that they checked this option for most of the signals but "forgot" to do it for the "Top Front" signal in the 9.1.6 tones.


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> I would add that wides can be achieved as well by matrixing the Front and Side Surround.


I wanted to chime in on this a few days ago when people were discussing the PLIIx Atmos-EX stuff and wides vs. heights.

I think it's important to point out that this method will NOT fully simulate what happens if Atmos is allowed to render natively to wide (front surround) speakers.

This method is useful for turning what would be a phantom "center" image between two speakers and extracting it to a physical speaker output (solidifying the image). That's why it works well for creating a "Top Middle" speaker out of front/rear signals since anything supposed to be above you would phantom image there anyway.

Similarly, this method applied to the front+surround output would probably do a great job of extracting and solidifying object pan-throughs that move off screen horizontally into the surround field (e.g. a spaceship flying by on the left side). Which is one important function of those wide speakers (depending on who you ask ).

However, what it will NOT do is reproduce the frequently used effect where the mixer "pulls" the front soundstage wider by placing things like the musical score as objects in those front surround locations. I've noticed this effect frequently with Atmos movies in the commercial cinema -- for example it was obvious that the new Star Wars movie pulls the score out of the screen to those front surround speakers, broadening that front soundstage and providing more focus on the screen action. In the home mix, without wides, I would imagine the score would snap back to the FR/FL speakers as opposed to pushing out to the side surrounds (which really aren't part of the front soundstage). 

So in the instance of a sound object specifically placed in that wide position, which then snaps back to the FR/FL speaker when the wide isn't present as a speaker output, the "phantom center extract" method will not recover the effect. 

The phenomenon I describe above of using those "wide" speakers to broaden the front soundstage is also discussed specifically in this video about the sound mixing in Atmos for "Unbroken" (credit to Sanjay for showing this to me initially):


----------



## Scott Simonian

As long as these "wide" moments are equally between the front and side surrounds, even the matrix process will place them there and quite accurately.

That being said, if you can do _real_ wides then by all means, please do.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Scott Simonian said:


> As long as these "wide" moments are equally between the front and side surrounds, even the matrix process will place them there and quite accurately.
> 
> That being said, if you can do _real_ wides then by all means, please do.


Interesting discussion - the use of "Front Wides." Most of the folks on this forum seem to prefer Dolby Atmos in a TF/TR or a TM layout. If I've read everything correctly - - Dolby Atmos treats the Front Wides as objects - - native Dolby Atmos doesn't matrix anything to them. They will not work with DSU but will with everything else DTS including DTS Neo X. 

For my Home Theater - - the biggest "gap" was at the front side. I already have "Side Surrounds" that are elevated (side walls - Dipole ADP590's) due to the "hot spotting" and close proximity of my main seating position (reclining, I might add) on the left. 

In going to a 9.1 configuration, I added "Front Heights." That has been very nice improvement with DTS Neo X in "Cinema Mode." Very clear dialogue. In moving to a 9.1.2 setup for Dolby Atmos, I added "Front Wides." It was the most logical place for me to add the speakers (again, up high on the side wall, facing down - lower ceilings). 

Now - I could have gone to a "FH/RH" configuration (and still might do so) but my seating is in the back and there would be six speakers in very close proximity to each other (Dolby Atmos RH (2), Surround Back (2) and Side Surrounds (2).

My receiver (Denon x5200) will show up next Monday or Tuesday. I'm very excited to see how it works - - especially active "Front Wides."


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> As long as these "wide" moments are equally between the front and side surrounds, even the matrix process will place them there and quite accurately.


That's my point -- I specifically noted situations where it would NOT be split equally between front and side surrounds (e.g. the mixer decides he doesn't want the score in the side surrounds so it "snaps" to the FR/FL speakers if no wides are present in the output speaker config, to keep it locked to the front soundstage). The matrixed wides will do nothing to "widen" the sounds that are only in the front speakers, whereas with object rendering a specific piece of the front soundstage can be pulled out while leaving the other elements anchored up front. So the "wide moments" won't happen in these cases unless you have a real "front surround" where that object can be placed.

As I said in my post, I'm sure it will do a great job for things that are supposed to phantom image. Which I'm sure is the majority of the usage anyway (especially for pan-through effects). Just pointing out that it won't be quite as good of a simulation of the "real deal" as the ScAtmos-EX system for Top Middle because a center extract can only extract common info.


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> If I've read everything correctly - - Dolby Atmos treats the Front Wides as objects - - native Dolby Atmos doesn't matrix anything to them. They will not work with DSU but will with everything else DTS including DTS Neo X.


Technically, there would never be such a thing as "matrixing" within a native Atmos mix. The output of a given speaker is either going to be bed content or object rendering. In the case of Front Wide, it will ONLY be object rendering because there is no bed content for that speaker output. 

DTS:X seems to be different as it can "matrix" content even with native DTS:X soundtracks, which is a pretty weird thing to have happen with what is supposed to be object-based rendering.



> Most of the folks on this forum seem to prefer Dolby Atmos in a TF/TR or a TM layout.


The problem here is that DSU upmixing won't use the wides, and with the 11ch limit to get wides you have to sacrifice another speaker pair that will be used 100% of the time (Surround Back or Height2). With the extreme paucity of native immersive content, 99% of what we are doing is still upmixed legacy channel based content. So re-jiggering your setup for speakers that won't get used with the upmixer is a bad trade-off. Thus most people stick to the "core" 7.1.4 layout where possible.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> That's my point -- I specifically noted situations where it would NOT be split equally between front and side surrounds (e.g. the mixer decides he doesn't want the score in the side surrounds so it "snaps" to the FR/FL speakers if no wides are present in the output speaker config, to keep it locked to the front soundstage). The matrixed wides will do nothing to "widen" the sounds that are only in the front speakers, whereas with object rendering a specific piece of the front soundstage can be pulled out while leaving the other elements anchored up front. So the "wide moments" won't happen in these cases unless you have a real "front surround" where that object can be placed.
> 
> As I said in my post, I'm sure it will do a great job for things that are supposed to phantom image. Which I'm sure is the majority of the usage anyway (especially for pan-through effects). Just pointing out that it won't be quite as good of a simulation of the "real deal" as the ScAtmos-EX system for Top Middle because a center extract can only extract common info.


Oh, I follow and agree. You can only get so much precision out of a standard matrix algorithm. Ideally one should opt for native playback when ever possible. I doubt anyone would prefer to Atmos-EX when you can get native decoding. One step at a time. Hopefully not too long out.

I am happy that mixer are taking advantage of these vector points. I long for the day I don't have to jump in and say "there is no such thing as wides in a theatrical mix!".  Now... there sorta is.


----------



## batpig

PeterTHX said:


> Vizio? That's like saying Kia dropped sunroofs from their cars. Wake me when Samsung (Toyota), Sony (Honda), or Panasonic (Nissan) drop 3D.


Happy now? 

3D is officially dead, future Samsung and LG TVs won’t even support it


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Happy now?
> 
> 3D is officially dead, future Samsung and LG TVs won’t even support it


Oh Oh. Bob (Northsky) will get drunk (in sadness) to this news..


----------



## Ricoflashback

Batpig - I follow your logic but you are talking about DSU only. Native Dolby Atmos works fine with Front Wides. So does all flavors of DTS as well as DTS Neo X, which is my other option with the Denon x5200.

As I mentioned before, my setup is not optimal for 7.1.4. 9.1.2 with Front Height and Front Wide fits my room the best. I'd be interested in any folks that have had experience with Dolby Atmos with Front Wides and Front Height. 

I get it - maybe not optimal for Dolby Atmos. It's also been drilled into everyone's head that 7.1.4 with TF/TR is the ONLY way to go for maximim immersive Dolby Atmos. Again, check. Got it. 

I'll find out more next week once my x5200 arrives and is set up.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I specifically noted situations where it would NOT be split equally between front and side surrounds (e.g. the mixer decides he doesn't want the score in the side surrounds so it "snaps" to the FR/FL speakers if no wides are present in the output speaker config, to keep it locked to the front soundstage).


The 9.1.6 test tones are a good example of what you describe. If you play that track on set-up with matrix extracted wides, their signal will still come 100% from the front speakers.


----------



## wraunch

I currently have a 5.1 setup with an older Onkyo. I have wired for front heights, rear surrounds, rear back, front wide and overhead speakers. If I want the best Atmos setup for the money which channels should I use and which avr. Budget for ace is


----------



## PeterTHX

batpig said:


> Happy now?
> 
> 3D is officially dead, future Samsung and LG TVs won’t even support it



Sucks, and supposedly LG is still supporting passive 3D on the super high-end.


----------



## NorthSky

(((3D))) @ home is like high-end audio; only for the hardcore audiophiles/videophiles...a niche market. 

And 3D immersive audio might end up like that too.


----------



## NorthSky

aaranddeeman said:


> Oh Oh. Bob (Northsky) will get drunk (in sadness) to this news..


I'm an active member in the main 3D threads, so I was aware already of the situation from previously:
♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1496126-3d-about-dead-84.html#post41404753

My reply: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1496126-3d-about-dead-85.html#post41436337


----------



## audioguy

NorthSky said:


> (((3D))) @ home is like high-end audio; only for the hardcore audiophiles/videophiles...a niche market.
> 
> And 3D immersive audio might end up like that too.


I don't know how small "niche" is but 3D audio will be VERY tiny until such time as technology figures out a way to provide some version of it through a soundbar. 

3D video to ever make serious inroads will need to get rid of the glasses, and insure whatever glass-less technology they come up with doesn't cause headaches!! And even then, I don't see if doing very well. But what do I know. 

The version of 3D in the 50's was fun, gimmicy but got old. Not a lot has changed (except the picture quality is far superior today).


----------



## NorthSky

A niche is a minority...a small section/segment. 

3D Audio is @ its early stage; with UHD Blu-ray it's hard to predict the future. But it sure is the trend today...HDR and expanded color gamut...all in 4K picture resolution.

3D Video goes in tandem with the above...but only in 2D Blu-ray UHD...no 3D. So I don't expect to see 3D audio in future 3D Blu-ray titles. 
...'Gravity', 'Goosebumps'...if any early indication. Plus the 100 UHD BR titles they don't come with 3D Blu-ray version in their packages...only 2D.

IMAX 3D @ the theaters won't be affected though. And there's a bunch of 3D movie titles already announced for 2016, and 2017. 

If UHD Blu-ray takes off, it might accelerate the 3D decadence. And in five and ten years from now all is in the stars of the sky...


----------



## GXMnow

batpig said:


> This is really weird. I tested this extensively on my Denon and with the 9.1.6 track, regardless of the "top" vs. "front" designation, the tone "snapped" to the closest speaker for the front/rear signals. For example, the "Top Front Left" signal played from the front left overhead regardless of whether it was set to "TFL" or "FHL". The "Top Middle" signal was always split between the two.
> 
> The other weird part is that the x.x.4 tones behaved differently, with the same "Top Front Left" signal behaving more as you describe (leaking back to the Height2 speaker on that side) when set to "Height" instead of "Top". The even weirder part is the reverse wasn't true, so the "Top Rear" signal always snapped to the rear (Height2) speaker regardless of Top/Height designation.
> 
> Basically, it felt like the "snap to speaker" option had been checked for all the signals except for the Top Front tests on the x.x.4 tracks.
> 
> I heard somewhere there were some issues with the first run of that Sep 2015 disc and they were going to re-author it (e.g. to add chapter markers in the test tones to allow easy skipping). Perhaps you have the newer version and they disabled the "snap to speaker" option on all the tones? Does the disc you were using have chapter markers in the test tone section?
> 
> Out of curiosity, when you test the "Front Wide" signal on the 9.1.6 track does it snap to the Front speaker only or does it play equally from Front+Surround (to phantom image at ~60 degrees)?


The room I did the test in is not mine and I do not know when I will have access again. We did not mess with the wide tracks to test how they acted.The disk did have chapter breaks at each test signal start. 

True pans going off the screen to the surrounds should always move smoothly through the wides and could matrix fairly well, but matrix decoding between the FL and SL is going to end up with a lot of garbage that a matrix decoder would have no idea what to do with. The bed signals in those tracks will likely not have any signal correlation. Anything that appears out of phase may get lost as it would send it to unused surround outputs. Any speaker distance delay would also need to be matched or the phase will be completely blown away. As much as I feel the matrix between top channels or side and back surround could sort of work, the wide position is a big can of worms.

My room is a bit of a mess right now as I try to decide whereI want my speakers, and I have not ordered a Dolby Atmos AVR yet because I am waiting to see if anyone announces a 13 or 15 channel unit for under $5,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. My 7.1 sounds great playing Atmos mixes, but I do knw what I am missing. Hearing "Mocking Jay" on the x5200 was just wonderful. And I had a pretty good comparison as I dropped it in as soon asI got back to my room. It is still some of the best sound to come out of my 7.1 setup, but the space was noticeably shrunk compared to the 7.1.4 setup. I may have to pickup a lower end unit to have some Atmos fun while I wait for the 13 channel processing. I really want wides and 4 heights.


----------



## SoundChex

audioguy said:


> I don't know how small "niche" is but 3D audio will be VERY tiny until such time as technology figures out a way to provide some version of it through a soundbar.



Both NHK and Fraunhofer have demo'd working concept models of a "speakers on all four sides of the display" _*soundframe*_ technology, but LG (in association with ETRI) has demo'd a "two soundbar" (_over-and-under-the-display_) product which seems like a more flexible ("fits any size display") approach...?!  











_


----------



## virtualrain

wraunch said:


> I currently have a 5.1 setup with an older Onkyo. I have wired for front heights, rear surrounds, rear back, front wide and overhead speakers. If I want the best Atmos setup for the money which channels should I use and which avr. Budget for ace is


----------



## virtualrain

SoundChex said:


> Both NHK and Fraunhofer have demo'd working concept models of a "speakers on all four sides of the display" _*soundframe*_ technology, but LG (in association with ETRI) has demo'd a "two soundbar" (_over-and-under-the-display_) product which seems like a more flexible ("fits any size display") approach...?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



And people complain about comb filtering issues running two Center channels... Look at the driver count on that thing!


----------



## SoundChex

virtualrain said:


> And people complain about comb filtering issues running two Center channels... Look at the driver count on that thing!




I'm guessing it's because the device uses some variation on wavefront synthesis technology...?! 


_


----------



## PeterTHX

audioguy said:


> I don't know how small "niche" is but 3D audio will be VERY tiny until such time as technology figures out a way to provide some version of it through a soundbar.



http://us.creative.com/soniccarrier/


Samsung has a new Atmos soundbar too, although it also has a sub and stereo surround back speakers.


----------



## richmagnus

I heard wides in use at the ISE on a Trinnov/Procella 11.4.11. Wow. For me the wides nailed it. Hadn't realised what they would bring to the party. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

richmagnus said:


> I heard wides in use at the ISE on a Trinnov/Procella 11.4.11. Wow. For me the wides nailed it. Hadn't realised what they would bring to the party.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There in lies the real dilemma....
For an AVR that does Wides and with true Atmos content, and since matrixing Wides won't be the same, it is going to be very room dependant as to whether 7.2.4 w/ Wides is a better experience than 7.2.4 w/ Rears. Just like it was very room dependant when we had to choose between Wides and Heights in PLIIz. (Yes I know you could always do 9.2.2, but I think most of us would rather give up a bed position than an overhead one)


----------



## Molon_Labe

virtualrain said:


> And people complain about comb filtering issues running two Center channels... Look at the driver count on that thing!


Sadly, the people buying those probably listen to all their music via lossy 128k-256k on their phone. Quantity over quality.


----------



## wraunch

I was thinking add the rears and a pair overhead. Then which avr?





virtualrain said:


> wraunch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I currently have a 5.1 setup with an older Onkyo. I have wired for front heights, rear surrounds, rear back, front wide and overhead speakers. If I want the best Atmos setup for the money which channels should I use and which avr. Budget for ace is
Click to expand...


----------



## audioguy

PeterTHX said:


> http://us.creative.com/soniccarrier/
> 
> 
> Samsung has a new Atmos soundbar too, although it also has a sub and stereo surround back speakers.


I rest my case. 3D audio will not be so much of a niche market when that kind of product (also at lower price points) is available.

In addition to our theater, we have a flat screen in the family room. I have no interest in tearing up walls or ceilings to do surrounds or height speakers but if that technology works, I would be all in. For watching movies? No. But for DSU for sports, music and eventually Dolby Atmos broadcast from the cable and satellite providers.

3D video?? Ain't happening on a broad scale!


----------



## smurraybhm

Molon_Labe said:


> Sadly, the people buying those probably listen to all their music via lossy 128k-256k on their phone. Quantity over quality.


Just remember for things to grow immersively we need those who choose quantity over quality.


----------



## rontalley

audioguy said:


> I rest my case. 3D audio will not be so much of a niche market when that kind of product (also at lower price points) is available.
> 
> In addition to our theater, we have a flat screen in the family room. I have no interest in tearing up walls or ceilings to do surrounds or height speakers but if that technology works, I would be all in. For watching movies? No. But for DSU for sports, music and eventually Dolby Atmos broadcast from the cable and satellite providers.
> 
> 3D video?? Ain't happening on a broad scale!


I could be cool with a 5.1.2 Atmos soundbar. 

My family is known to hang out in the kitchen to catch a movie on a regular 3.1 soundbar. Always thought it would have been cool to have wireless rears like the wireless sub. Now that I sit here and think about it, yeah, I can see a huge market in the Atmos soundbar market. At the right price point, I would buy one today.


----------



## pasender91

As a reminder Yamaha also does an Atmos (& DTS:X) soundbar, the YSP 5600

I listened to it on a tradeshow, it is not as good as a proper 7.2.4, but some level of immersion can still be experienced


----------



## bargervais

pasender91 said:


> As a reminder Yamaha also does an Atmos (& DTS:X) soundbar, the YSP 5600
> 
> I listened to it on a tradeshow, it is not as good as a proper 7.2.4, but some level of immersion can still be experienced


agree i can't imagine with speakers that small == "Vertical sound beam speaker array: 1-1/8" x 6 beam drivers x 2 (L / R) Horizontal sound beam speaker array: 1-1/2" x 32 beam drivers Woofer: 4-1/2" x 2 woofers" that it would be that effective.


----------



## audioguy

bargervais said:


> agree i can't imagine with speakers that small == "Vertical sound beam speaker array: 1-1/8" x 6 beam drivers x 2 (L / R) Horizontal sound beam speaker array: 1-1/2" x 32 beam drivers Woofer: 4-1/2" x 2 woofers" that it would be that effective.


Let us not forget that we are a very very very tiny part of the TV owning consumers. If such a product does anything to seriously enhance the TV viewing audio experience, it should be successful.


----------



## cyclones22

My brother-in-law bought the YSP 5600 for his bedroom and it arrived yesterday. I'm totally going to check it out this weekend and bring some Atmos demo files with me.


----------



## Stoked21

cyclones22 said:


> My brother-in-law bought the YSP 5600 for his bedroom and it arrived yesterday. I'm totally going to check it out this weekend and bring some Atmos demo files with me.


I have one of the original Yamaha soundbars...Probably 10 years old. It was the higher end of the two models they had back then and had cost about $1200 or so. I just looked at the YSP5600 yesterday and thought, well an upgrade for our living room would be in order....I did kind of choke on the $1600 price tag and thought, well maybe my old one is just fine for now!

But further investigation also revealed that the YSP5600 isn't even HDCP2.2!!! That's horrible. It will never be able to be hooked up with a UHD HDR setup, unless utilizing a dual-HDMI port player. I can't imagine spending $1600 for something that is obsolete in regards to current IO standards....That instantly made me cross it off my list even though I have no plans of going UHD HDR in the living room. For $1600, I want it to not be obsolete before even purchasing it!

The big kicker is with streaming movies with Atmos...You will require HDCP2.2 throughout the path, so it really defeated the purpose. Maybe less of a concern again if the player has a 2.2 and a 1.4 HDMI port...But not worth the $1600 gamble until the new format is completely settled in.


----------



## cyclones22

Stoked21 said:


> But further investigation also revealed that the YSP5600 isn't even HDCP2.2!!! That's horrible. It will never be able to be hooked up with a UHD HDR setup, unless utilizing a dual-HDMI port player. I can't imagine spending $1600 for something that is obsolete in regards to current IO standards....That instantly made me cross it off my list even though I have no plans of going UHD HDR in the living room. For $1600, I want it to not be obsolete before even purchasing it!
> 
> The big kicker is with streaming movies with Atmos...You will require HDCP2.2 throughout the path, so it really defeated the purpose. Maybe less of a concern again if the player has a 2.2 and a 1.4 HDMI port...But not worth the $1600 gamble until the new format is completely settled in.


Are you sure? The product page says it is HDCP 2.2 compliant. 1 port is, at least.


----------



## Stoked21

I didn't see it listed on the product page. I saw a cut sheet that said it was 1.4a....It could be wrong or outdated.


----------



## cyclones22

Yeah, it's on the product page and it's getting the DTS:X firmware upgrade too, which I found kinda impressive. 6 days until my X4200W gets it! Can't wait.


----------



## blastermaster

So I went and looked at the Dolby Home theatre guidelines for Atmos just for shiggles. I swear the last time I looked at them the max was 7.1.4. Has it always shown a 9.1.4 configuration as a possibility? Time to start saving my pennies, 13 channel processors are just around the corner, I'm sure of it.


----------



## NorthSky

blastermaster said:


> So I went and looked at the Dolby Home theatre guidelines for Atmos just for shiggles. I swear the last time I looked at them the max was 7.1.4. Has it always shown a 9.1.4 configuration as a possibility? Time to start saving my pennies, 13 channel processors are just around the corner, I'm sure of it.


The Dolby Atmos *9.1.4* speaker's configuration has been there for a very long time...since the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines was published. ...Page 26 → http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## audiguy

*configuration question*

Wow, as someone who has spent quite a bit of time getting a stereo and surround to sound great, this stuff is pretty excitingly complicated. (Also as an accomplished car audio competitor I'm thinking car atmos). Let's say I have a pre/pro and amplifier set up that I love (Emotive XMC-1,. Theta Dreadnaught, Theta Intrepid). And I don't see any reasonably priced Atmos receivers that can equal the sound. Can I buy an additional reasonably priced receiver to add x.4. to my set up? The XMC-1 has 2 HDMI outs and a digital out.

Thanks for the help. I think I read this to be the case somewhere in the last 1000 posts or so, but it wasn't clear to me.


----------



## batpig

audiguy said:


> Let's say I have a pre/pro and amplifier set up that I love (Emotive XMC-1,. Theta Dreadnaught, Theta Intrepid). And I don't see any reasonably priced Atmos receivers that can equal the sound. Can I buy an additional reasonably priced receiver to add x.4. to my set up?


No, that won't work. Well, I mean you can DO it but it won't sound right. When the home Atmos renderer reads the metadata for audio objects in the bitstream it removes them from the ear level channels. So if you play a 7.1 mix and then use a second receiver to just run heights, you will get duplication of content.

Better to just find a newer processor that meets your needs if you really want immersive audio. I can't imagine that something like the Marantz 7702 mkII (or 8802 if that's "reasonably priced" for you) would be a disappointment in audio quality.


----------



## asarose247

soooooo . .

Which AVR / pre-pro actually does that?

my 'understanding" , given the extent , range, intensity and unfortunate redundancies of the multiplicity of discussions in this thread at this point, is that ATMOS at home via CE is limited to 7.x.4.

((Scatmos is looking smart and I'm assembling the components to give that a whirl)

always willing to learn

TY


----------



## Selden Ball

asarose247 said:


> soooooo . .
> 
> Which AVR / pre-pro actually does that?


 Does what? Adds Atmos to an existing AVR? None. However, some people have assembled "frankenstein" combos of AVRs to drive additional speakers for Atmos. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html



> my 'understanding" , given the extent , range, intensity and unfortunate redundancies of the multiplicity of discussions in this thread at this point, is that ATMOS at home via CE is limited to 7.x.4.


 The Trinnov Altitude32 is CE, just very expensive. It can drive up to 32 speakers including as many as 10 overhead speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

audiguy said:


> Wow, as someone who has spent quite a bit of time getting a stereo and surround to sound great, this stuff is pretty excitingly complicated. (Also as an accomplished car audio competitor I'm thinking car atmos). Let's say I have a pre/pro and amplifier set up that I love (Emotive XMC-1,. Theta Dreadnaught, Theta Intrepid). And I don't see any reasonably priced Atmos receivers that can equal the sound. Can I buy an additional reasonably priced receiver to add x.4. to my set up? The XMC-1 has 2 HDMI outs and a digital out.
> 
> Thanks for the help. I think I read this to be the case somewhere in the last 1000 posts or so, but it wasn't clear to me.


Have you heard about the "proposed" next Emotiva XMR-1 pre/pro with 16-channel Dirac Live (full version) an with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X? 
=> http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/41511/xmr-1?page=24

* If you have a 40% Emotiva discount card...that could be your next ticket item (approx. $5,000 less 40% discount = $3,000). 
It'll have Dolby Atmos. 

And for your car, check Dolby Atmos's own website: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/brands/dolby-atmos.html → Not sure yet if they have some.


----------



## audiguy

NorthSky said:


> Have you heard about the "proposed" next Emotiva XMR-1 pre/pro with 16-channel Dirac Live (full version) an with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X?
> => http://emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/41511/xmr-1?page=24
> 
> * If you have a 40% Emotiva discount card...that could be your next ticket item (approx. $5,000 less 40% discount = $3,000).
> It'll have Dolby Atmos.
> 
> And for your car, check Dolby Atmos's own website: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/brands/dolby-atmos.html → Not sure yet if they have some.


Sweet answer. Thanks a lot. I'll take it from there.


----------



## rah50

*HELP! 7.1.4 Atmos Room Advice Needed*

I'm just getting ready to start construction on my room and have one speaker location issue. My problem is locating the Rears. If you look on the attached drawing, I have two poor options:

1. Having the Rears at a 9 ft height, a foot off my 10 ft ceiling but with good lateral spacing. Yellow on the drawing.
or
2. Having the Rears at correct ear height, but spaced very close together. Green on the drawing.

I have no idea which would be the better way to go. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated either on this specific problem or any other comments on the room in general would be welcome as well!

Thanks,

Bob

BTW: The system is probably going to be Triton One based speakers and an Anthem AVM 60 pre-pro


----------



## kbarnes701

blastermaster said:


> So I went and looked at the Dolby Home theatre guidelines for Atmos just for shiggles. I swear the last time I looked at them the max was 7.1.4. Has it always shown a 9.1.4 configuration as a possibility? Time to start saving my pennies, *13 channel processors are just around the corner, I'm sure of it*.


i think you'll have plenty of time to save those pennies


----------



## apesterin

rah50 said:


> If you look on the attached drawing, I have two poor options:


Would having them at ear height by the side walls be an option? Just like surround, just a lot more back and properly toed in towards MLP. You can put them on Wall, or stands, or freestanding if towers


----------



## vsorgi

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I came to the same conclusion a while back. TF+TR seems to be the way to go even if one pair is out of Dolby spec for angle (as my TR pair are). I tested and tested this too, listening to hundreds of movie tracks with the speakers set as FH+TM (on spec for both pairs) and with them set as TF+TR (with only the TF on spec). TF+TR gives a better overall effect, greater separation of sounds, more immersiveness.


I'm confused. I thought the renderer in the AVR directs objects based on where the speakers are physically located in the room, not on how they are labeled. I'm going to give this a try, though, since I also currently have FH and TM. Would there be any need to re-calibrate since speaker placement has not changed?


----------



## Selden Ball

vsorgi said:


> I'm confused. I thought the renderer in the AVR directs objects based on where the speakers are physically located in the room, not on how they are labeled. I'm going to give this a try, though, since I also currently have FH and TM. Would there be any need to re-calibrate since speaker placement has not changed?


Unfortunately, the renderer in the AVR has no way to know where the speakers are located except from how you designate them (label them) in the AVR's configuration menus. 

When you change a speaker's designation (e.g. from TM to RH), so far as the AVR is concerned you have added new speakers, so you do have to run another Audyssey calibration even though you didn't physically move the speakers.


----------



## vsorgi

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, the renderer in the AVR has no way to know where the speakers are located except from how you designate them (label them) in the AVR's configuration menus.
> 
> When you change a speaker's designation (e.g. from TM to RH), so far as the AVR is concerned you have added new speakers, so you do have to run another Audyssey calibration even though you didn't physically move the speakers.


Yea, I see what you mean. I was thinking that Audyssey "tells" the renderer where the speakers are in the room, but it only determines their distance from the MLP.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

vsorgi said:


> I'm confused. I thought the renderer in the AVR directs objects based on where the speakers are physically located in the room, not on how they are labeled. I'm going to give this a try, though, since I also currently have FH and TM. Would there be any need to re-calibrate since speaker placement has not changed?




FYI after reading kbarnes' post, I changed my FH/TM to TF/TR and recalibrated. It does sound far better this way. It's worth trying.


----------



## rontalley

Jeremy Anderson said:


> FYI after reading kbarnes' post, I changed my FH/TM to TF/TR and recalibrated. It does sound far better this way. It's worth trying.


Another one has been freed.


----------



## dlca1

*Options (source/players) for streaming Atmos?*

I just setup Atmos receiver + speakers. I'm now trying to figure out the best sources of streaming content/players that support Atmos. I assume things are changing quickly, so am not sure how much of the information I'm reading is already outdated.

1) Do any providers (such as Netflix, Amazon Prime) currently stream Atmos? I think I read Vudu does.

2) What (if any) players (e.g. Apple TV, FireTV, Roku, Tivo, Xbox One, etc) pass through Atmos?

3) What options are there to play BMDV files with Atmos (either through fileshare or USB)? I rarely rent/buy Blu-Ray disks, so am not quite ready to buy the Samsung 4k player yet. I hooked up an old Windows laptop via HDMI to my receiver to test out the Dolby Atmos Demo, but would prefer other options.

Setup In case it matters:
LG 65" EF955
Yamaha 3050
Xbox One of playing Blu-Ray
Tivo Roamio Pro

Thanks in advance


----------



## audiguy

With Atmos processing, do the 5 or 7 channels that typically exist in a normal Dolby Digital arrangement produce the same signal? The reason I ask is, it seems like there should be an add-on module so people can convert their existing set-up to Atmos without replacing all the gear.


----------



## Weird Fishes

Good evening chaps

I have a 5.1.4 (FH/TM) setup, currently using a Marantz 7010 and have my FH high up above my LR angled down slightly and my TM roughly 2ft in front of MLP on ceiling.

I have just been advised I should change my amp setting to TF and TR? is this correct? and also re calibrate?

Thanks


----------



## vsorgi

Jeremy Anderson said:


> FYI after reading kbarnes' post, I changed my FH/TM to TF/TR and recalibrated. It does sound far better this way. It's worth trying.


I just changed to TF/TR and recalibrated. Tried out Mad Max Fury road. Definitely sounds more enveloping. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## vsorgi

dlca1 said:


> I just setup Atmos receiver + speakers. I'm now trying to figure out the best sources of streaming content/players that support Atmos. I assume things are changing quickly, so am not sure how much of the information I'm reading is already outdated.
> 
> 1) Do any providers (such as Netflix, Amazon Prime) currently stream Atmos? I think I read Vudu does.
> 
> 2) What (if any) players (e.g. Apple TV, FireTV, Roku, Tivo, Xbox One, etc) pass through Atmos?
> 
> 3) What options are there to play BMDV files with Atmos (either through fileshare or USB)? I rarely rent/buy Blu-Ray disks, so am not quite ready to buy the Samsung 4k player yet. I hooked up an old Windows laptop via HDMI to my receiver to test out the Dolby Atmos Demo, but would prefer other options.
> 
> Setup In case it matters:
> LG 65" EF955
> Yamaha 3050
> Xbox One of playing Blu-Ray
> Tivo Roamio Pro
> 
> Thanks in advance


Vudu has a few titles in 4K with Atmos and Dolby Vision. I don't have a 4K tv but would love the Atmos mix. I haven't seen a non-4K title that has Atmos...has anyone else?


----------



## kbarnes701

vsorgi said:


> I'm confused. I thought the renderer in the AVR directs objects based on where the speakers are physically located in the room, not on how they are labeled.


Positional rendering is an Atmos feature but has not, so far, been incorporated into any mainstream AVRs. 



vsorgi said:


> I'm going to give this a try, though, since I also currently have FH and TM. Would there be any need to re-calibrate since speaker placement has not changed?


If you have Audyssey you will need to recalibrate if you wish to turn Audyssey on. Although you haven't physically moved the speakers, Audyssey thinks you have.


----------



## alamez

So in a 5.1.4 configuration with one row of seating whats the best way to set up the ceiling speakers? I will be using HTD Hdr-65 for ceiling. TMandTR or ......


----------



## batpig

audiguy said:


> With Atmos processing, do the 5 or 7 channels that typically exist in a normal Dolby Digital arrangement produce the same signal? The reason I ask is, it seems like there should be an add-on module so people can convert their existing set-up to Atmos without replacing all the gear.


I explained this when you asked in the other thread. It doesn't work like that because, if height/overhead speakers are part of the config, then the object metadata is decoded and these "height" sounds are removed from the base layer speakers. If you just had some add on box doing the heights it would be all screwy because the same sounds would be coming from multiple speakers. 

You need a new processor. Bottom line.


----------



## batpig

alamez said:


> So in a 5.1.4 configuration with one row of seating whats the best way to set up the ceiling speakers? I will be using HTD Hdr-65 for ceiling. TMandTR or ......


Regardless of seating, Top Front + Top Rear is the ideal. With only four positions to work with that gives the renderer distinct front/back and left/right zones to work with.


----------



## rolldog

I need a little advice for some new speakers for my Atmos setup. When I sold my house a couple years ago, all 36 pairs of Sonance in-ceiling speakers stayed. Since someone bought my house within 24 hours of listing it, I was caught trying to find a place to go temporarily until I was able to find a house I wanted. I put most of my stuff in storage, and since technology changes so fast, I decided to sell both of my receivers while they were worth something and then buy new equipment after getting settled. Well, that time has come. 

I just purchased a new Marantz 7010 receiver, I'm also going to buy a 2 channel amplifier so I can utilize all the channels in the receiver (I haven't decided yet but it'll probably be the Marantz 7025, unless someone things a different amp would be better), and right now I'm trying to find some nice speakers, relatively speaking. I was considering the KEF Q series for all of my speakers until I saw the price of the KEF R50 Atmos module speaker, which I was going to sit on top of the Q900s. I'd really like to go with floor standing speakers instead of all in-ceiling speakers, so if I sell my house again I can take them with me, and besides, I think floor standing speakers will always sound better than any in-ceiling speaker on the market. 

I stopped by a Magnolia store today to hear the Pioneer Elite Atmos speaker and the Definitive Technology floor standing speakers with their Atmos enabled add on speaker, but when the guy played some B&W 804s, really liked the quality of the sound they put out. So, now I don't know what to do. If the KEF Dolby add on speakers didn't add $5000 to the price, I would probably just buy them, but now, after hearing those speakers today, I can't determine what kind of speakers to get. There are a lot of other speakers that I've read good reviews on, but I really haven't shopped for floor standing speakers in 15 years.

Of course, I'm like everyone else, I want the best quality speaker for the cheapest price, but the bottom line is that I'd like to get all my speakers for a nice sounding Atmos setup using every channel from the Marantz 7010 for $10,000 or less. Are the KEF R50s worth $5000? Would I be better off buying 4 in-ceiling speakers for my heights instead? Or, should I buy the B&W 804s, which were on sale for $4900, and piece together the rest of the speakers? I could use a little advice here. I don't mind paying for good quality speakers because they're going to be around much longer than and receiver, TV, etc, but I don't know if I should try and stick with speakers all from the same line. $4900 for the B&W seem like a deal, but that only helps me with 2 of my speakers. If anyone has any advice, I'd love to hear it. I'm becoming overwhelmed with all the options and am now suffering from "paralysis through analysis."


----------



## Steve Goff

rolldog said:


> I need a little advice for some new speakers for my Atmos setup. When I sold my house a couple years ago, all 36 pairs of Sonance in-ceiling speakers stayed. Since someone bought my house within 24 hours of listing it, I was caught trying to find a place to go temporarily until I was able to find a house I wanted. I put most of my stuff in storage, and since technology changes so fast, I decided to sell both of my receivers while they were worth something and then buy new equipment after getting settled. Well, that time has come.
> 
> I just purchased a new Marantz 7010 receiver, I'm also going to buy a 2 channel amplifier so I can utilize all the channels in the receiver (I haven't decided yet but it'll probably be the Marantz 7025, unless someone things a different amp would be better), and right now I'm trying to find some nice speakers, relatively speaking. I was considering the KEF Q series for all of my speakers until I saw the price of the KEF R50 Atmos module speaker, which I was going to sit on top of the Q900s. I'd really like to go with floor standing speakers instead of all in-ceiling speakers, so if I sell my house again I can take them with me, and besides, I think floor standing speakers will always sound better than any in-ceiling speaker on the market.
> 
> I stopped by a Magnolia store today to hear the Pioneer Elite Atmos speaker and the Definitive Technology floor standing speakers with their Atmos enabled add on speaker, but when the guy played some B&W 804s, really liked the quality of the sound they put out. So, now I don't know what to do. If the KEF Dolby add on speakers didn't add $5000 to the price, I would probably just buy them, but now, after hearing those speakers today, I can't determine what kind of speakers to get. There are a lot of other speakers that I've read good reviews on, but I really haven't shopped for floor standing speakers in 15 years.
> 
> Of course, I'm like everyone else, I want the best quality speaker for the cheapest price, but the bottom line is that I'd like to get all my speakers for a nice sounding Atmos setup using every channel from the Marantz 7010 for $10,000 or less. Are the KEF R50s worth $5000? Would I be better off buying 4 in-ceiling speakers for my heights instead? Or, should I buy the B&W 804s, which were on sale for $4900, and piece together the rest of the speakers? I could use a little advice here. I don't mind paying for good quality speakers because they're going to be around much longer than and receiver, TV, etc, but I don't know if I should try and stick with speakers all from the same line. $4900 for the B&W seem like a deal, but that only helps me with 2 of my speakers. If anyone has any advice, I'd love to hear it. I'm becoming overwhelmed with all the options and am now suffering from "paralysis through analysis."



The R50s list for $1,200 per pair, not per speaker, and sometimes go on sale for much less.


----------



## virtualrain

Jeremy Anderson said:


> FYI after reading kbarnes' post, I changed my FH/TM to TF/TR and recalibrated. It does sound far better this way. It's worth trying.


I'd like to understand why this might be the case... So I'd like to call on everyone who feels this makes a difference (e.g. @kbarnes701) to try and explain it.

From what I know, several popular AVRs (D+M and Yamaha) are trying to accommodate legacy "Heights" or "Presence" speakers which are mounted high on the wall for immersive sound (Atmos and DTS:X)... which is all well and good. 

However, Atmos does not make a distinction between heights and tops. It simply supplies a range of recommended angles (30-deg to 55-deg for front overheads). So I really don't know what D+M is doing differently by distinguishing between heights and tops (or overhead vs presence for Yamaha), because there is no such consideration in the Atmos specs. The overhead speakers are either within the specified angles or not. As far as Atmos is concerned a speaker at 30-deg elevation vs. 45-deg. vs 55-deg are all the same. This is consistent with what Dolby has said recently about heights and tops being treated the same - they don't care what you call it as long as they are within the specified angles. 

Why D+M treats heights differently from tops is a mystery to me. I find it concerning that there's actually a noticeable difference when changing the label of a pair of overheads when playing back an Atmos track. That implies to me, at least, that the AVR is doing something with the sound that it shouldn't. Because as I said earlier, as far as Dolby is concerned, an overhead speaker is an overhead speaker - regardless of what you call it. Anything in that front overhead elevation range will be treated by Dolby as a front overhead speaker regardless whether you label it a height or a top.

EDIT: To clarify... I realize that some people are switching one pair from "Height" to "Top" and another from Top Middle to Top Rear. My dissertation above concerns the change from "Height" to "Top". I guess I would also wonder why anyone would think that a TH and TM might be a good decision in the first place. There is no such configuration technically supported by Atmos. Although an AVR might allow it, you're really at the mercy of what the AVR might do with that because Atmos either wants a pair overheads in front and a pair behind or just one pair directly overhead. I think D+M is enabling options that are of questionable sonic integrity (as they aren't supported by Atmos).


----------



## AllenA07

alamez said:


> So in a 5.1.4 configuration with one row of seating whats the best way to set up the ceiling speakers? I will be using HTD Hdr-65 for ceiling. TMandTR or ......


If at all possible top front and top rear are going to be your best bet. TM seems to be the way to do it if you're only going to be running two overhead speakers.


----------



## apesterin

batpig said:


> Regardless of seating, Top Front + Top Rear is the ideal. With only four positions to work with that gives the renderer distinct front/back and left/right zones to work with.


Just to confirm - does this still apply when seating is up against the back wall. I will try to reconfigure after the dts:x upgrade rolls out next week


----------



## rolldog

Seriously? Thanks for pointing that out. That makes it a little better. 

When setting up the speakers, it lists 6 different configurations for the 4 height speakers: FH & TM, FH & TR, FH & RH, TF & TR, TF & RH, and TM & RH, along with the standard 5.1 setup, SB, & FW. Has anyone tried these multiple configurations for the 4 height speakers? I'm just curious which configuration provides the most separation of sound, or is this something that will be different for everyone because it depends on the room dimensions and where the seating is? 

Lastly, can anyone tell me if having front wide speakers really make a noticeable difference? My old receiver powered left and right front, surround, and rear, along with a front and a rear center speaker, and it could have powered front wide speakers as well, but I never hooked any up. I probably would have tried it out if all my speakers weren't in-ceiling. 

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

rolldog said:


> Seriously? Thanks for pointing that out. That makes it a little better.
> 
> When setting up the speakers, it lists 6 different configurations for the 4 height speakers: FH & TM, FH & TR, FH & RH, TF & TR, TF & RH, and TM & RH, along with the standard 5.1 setup, SB, & FW. Has anyone tried these multiple configurations for the 4 height speakers? I'm just curious which configuration provides the most separation of sound, or is this something that will be different for everyone because it depends on the room dimensions and where the seating is?
> 
> Lastly, can anyone tell me if having front wide speakers really make a noticeable difference? My old receiver powered left and right front, surround, and rear, along with a front and a rear center speaker, and it could have powered front wide speakers as well, but I never hooked any up. I probably would have tried it out if all my speakers weren't in-ceiling.
> 
> Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


From what we're seeing TM is really only working well if your only using 2 overheads, if your using 4, the way it's looking is to either pick TF/TR or FH/RH, but this seems to vary by AVR mfg. so just simply experiment to see which you prefer.... 
Remember, it's your system in your house, what you like best goes....

As far as wides -vs- rears, again it's totally up to you and which works best or you prefer in your room, for example, if you do any gaming, rears can be very important, but in a smaller/shorter room Wides can be very nice, it just all depends.


----------



## batpig

rolldog said:


> I'd really like to go with floor standing speakers instead of all in-ceiling speakers, so if I sell my house again I can take them with me, and besides, I think floor standing speakers will always sound better than any in-ceiling speaker on the market.
> 
> ..., If anyone has any advice, I'd love to hear it. I'm becoming overwhelmed with all the options and am now suffering from "paralysis through analysis."


My advice: I think you are confusing yourself. You would never do ALL in ceiling speakers with Atmos, and the fact that you want nice tower speakers for floor level doesn't obligate you to use up firing Atmos modules for the heights. 

I feel like you are falsely conflating things which aren't necessarily related. 

What you need to understand is that there are two "layers" -- ear level and height -- and the decisions for each (although interelated in some ways) are separate. If you want B&W tower speakers for ear level, you can still use in ceiling speakers for Atmos or choose to use reflected up firing modules. The former is irrelevant to the latter. The decision to use physical in/on ceiling speakers vs reflected comes down to other factors and NOT your choice of floor speakers. 

The most important thing is to first find a set of speakers you are happy with for your 7ch base layer. This is the core, the foundation of good surround sound. And THEN you worry about what speakers will match up well to add the height layer for immersive audio.


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> Jeremy Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI after reading kbarnes' post, I changed my FH/TM to TF/TR and recalibrated. It does sound far better this way. It's worth trying.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to understand why this might be the case... So I'd like to call on everyone who feels this makes a difference (e.g. @kbarnes701) to try and explain it.
> 
> From what I know, several popular AVRs (D+M and Yamaha) are trying to accommodate legacy "Heights" or "Presence" speakers which are mounted high on the wall for immersive sound (Atmos and DTS:X)... which is all well and good.
> 
> However, Atmos does not make a distinction between heights and tops. It simply supplies a range of recommended angles (30-deg to 55-deg for front overheads). So I really don't know what D+M is doing differently by distinguishing between heights and tops (or overhead vs presence for Yamaha), because there is no such consideration in the Atmos specs. The overhead speakers are either within the specified angles or not. As far as Atmos is concerned a speaker at 30-deg elevation vs. 45-deg. vs 55-deg are all the same. This is consistent with what Dolby has said recently about heights and tops being treated the same - they don't care what you call it as long as they are within the specified angles.
> 
> Why D+M treats heights differently from tops is a mystery to me. I find it concerning that there's actually a noticeable difference when changing the label of a pair of overheads when playing back an Atmos track. That implies to me, at least, that the AVR is doing something with the sound that it shouldn't. Because as I said earlier, as far as Dolby is concerned, an overhead speaker is an overhead speaker - regardless of what you call it. Anything in that front overhead elevation range will be treated by Dolby as a front overhead speaker regardless whether you label it a height or a top.
> 
> EDIT: To clarify... I realize that some people are switching one pair from "Height" to "Top" and another from Top Middle to Top Rear. My dissertation above concerns the change from "Height" to "Top". I guess I would also wonder why anyone would think that a TH and TM might be a good decision in the first place. There is no such configuration technically supported by Atmos. Although an AVR might allow it, you're really at the mercy of what the AVR might do with that because Atmos either wants a pair overheads in front and a pair behind or just one pair directly overhead. I think D+M is enabling options that are of questionable sonic integrity (as they aren't supported by Atmos).
Click to expand...

I think you are misreading people's posts. The issue isn't height vs top, which most (including Dolby themselves) have said are indistinguishable as long as you have a front/back pair. (There is speculation that Yamaha does something different due to their proprietary presence speaker processing but I don't recall anyone asserting a significant difference on a D+M unit). 

The close similarity in angular range that you note is the reason why it doesn't make much practical difference. 

The big difference people are talking about isn't height vs top, it's the COMBINATION of a front+middle pair versus a front+rear pair. 

The explanation (speculative mind you) has been provided -- the middle/front combo ends up "squishing" the overhead content so the overhead balance is off (because there is no rear height). 

That said I would disagree with your assertion that Atmos doesn't support this config and that it's some other process in the AVR that you are at the "mercy" of. Atmos for home supports any combination of the five overhead pairs. The issue is how the renderer behaves when you stray from the "ideal" of front+rear. Not some weird proprietary Denon thing (other than them allowing you to access this arrangement). Also when I say "issue" it doesn't imply it's broken. Or wrong. Just less than ideal.


----------



## Flash3d

When I got my x6200w and 8 new Kef speakers (CI160QR), using them as back surround, side surround and tm/fh together with my r500 and r200c. I was underwhelmed by the Atmos experience. Reading here that tr/tf or rh/fh was the preferred configuration I moved my cluster of 4 kef's to the back so they were in spec of tr/tf. Reason for my original tm/fh configuration was the more ideal spread of speakers in my room. 

My couch is about 3 feet from the back wall and I thought with my 7 feet ceiling the separation between the back surround and rear Atmos would be to small. The tr couple is now directly against the back wall. 

Changed designation to tr/tf and redid Audyssey, all I can say: wow. 
This is what all the fuss is about, now it's like sitting in a buble of sound. It seems the individual speakers are dissappearing and the sound is coming from everywhere. 

Happy Atmos user now. 

Extra note:
The ci160qr are doing a great job as surrounds/Atmos and I made (under Kef spec size) enclosures which work great with them. 

Will try to post some pics of them and my ht. 

Thanks to avs and all the knowledgeable people here I came to this result. 
Off course it's also a good place to be with your fellow OCD friends ;-).


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> That said I would disagree with your assertion that Atmos doesn't support this config and that it's some other process in the AVR that you are at the "mercy" of. Atmos for home supports any combination of the five overhead pairs. The issue is how the renderer behaves when you stray from the "ideal" of front+rear. Not some weird proprietary Denon thing (other than them allowing you to access this arrangement). Also when I say "issue" it doesn't imply it's broken. Or wrong. Just less than ideal.



I could very well be uninformed (it's been known to happen), but the Dolby speaker placement guides seem very clear and only support two configurations of overheads that I can see. If you have four overheads, one pair should be placed 30-50 Deg elevation forward, and one pair 120-150 Deg back. There's no recommendation that includes one pair directly overhead unless you ONLY have two overheads, in which case, directly overhead is the only sensible option. 

Thus, based on Dolby's placement guides, D+M support for any combo of four overheads including TM appears to be in contradiction of Dolby's recommendations. Just because D+M allows it, doesn't make it an officially supported placement option. FWIW, Yamaha does not support such a config (4 overheads with 2 directly overhead).


----------



## GXMnow

If you take another look at the actualy Dolby Atmos for home speaker layout, you will see that the rendering in the home AVR does actually know 5 separate locations from front to back in the "height" layer. 

As the pan data moves from front to back, these speaker positions are

very close to the front wall
about 1/4 of the way back
middle of the room
about 3/4 of the way back
very close to the back wall

Now it treats all of these as an upper layer speaker. It does not treat any of them different as they are all full range speaker outputs. But the content of the sound will vary based on where it is in the the room. I think it is odd that Dolby did change from the in room position of the cinema system, to the angle from listener in the home version, but for this setup, it is not a big difference in principle. 

When a mix is made, the sound is placed in the room. I do not know if there is any re-coding of sorts, other than the packing to fit it into the True HD carrier, but once in the home, they are saying those 5 speaker placements are now in these angles, ok, we will go with that. 

Assume a sound starts at the front left speaker, so 0 up angle. Now it pans up and over, doing the full 180 degree arc to straight behind you, (but still just on the left side).

If you don't have any overhead speakers, it does a smooth pan from the left front to the left back surround speaker. 
Add Top Middle, and it will smoothly pan from the front to the top middle left, and then to the back left. 

Does that all make sense now?

So now we can use 4 height speakers, choose any 2 of the 5 locations.
(not right next to each other in the current firmware though)

Let's go ahead and use the most accepted as best TF and TR and see how that would pan.

That same sound object still starts in the left front speaker.
As it pans up, it will start to pan into the TFL speaker, and when the pan gets to about 45 degrees, it will play from just that one speaker. As the pan continues, from 45 to 135, it will smoothly pan to the TRL speaker, and then be just in that one. And the last part of the pan will go from the TRL to the Back Left from the 135 to 180 degree position. 

90 degrees of the pan stays between the 2 tops and gives very good positioning. 

To go to the next most common I see mentioned, let's use FH and TM.
Now as the sound pans up, it will go from the Left Front into the FHL and get there a bit sooner. I think at 30 degrees it will already be fully in this one speaker. As the pan goes further, it will now pan to the TML speaker, and be there completely at the 90 degree point. Then it takes the last 90 degrees to pan from here to the Back Left speaker. In this setup, the sound is only between the two height channels for 60 degrees, and spends 90 degrees between the top middle and the back wall. 

To me, this setup would make sense if the back wall speakers were much further back, like the same distance behind the top speaker as the front speakers are forward. If your main seating point is at the back of the room, then this does not seem like it will render correctly. By setting the speakers right above you as TM even though you are at the back of the room, you are forcing the renderer to move the sound to still place you in the middle, and then the offset of the pans does make sense. 

What I still find a bit odd is that a lot of people are not liking the result of using FH and RH. That would place the sound panning between the 2 top speakers for 120 degrees of the pan. With just 30 out each end down to the front main or back wall speakers. The "loss of separation" is not really less separation, it is the fact that a sound that was at the TF or TR is now in the pan between these further spread speakers. 

What I think the "Dolby Guy" was trying to say about the "indistinguishable difference" between using TF, TR ar FH, RH was that if you have the speakers labeled as the position they are actually in, both setups should result in the same, virtually indistinguishable sound field as objects move around the room. And that is the ideal goal. If the 4 speakers are all closed to evenly spaced, then the TF, TR will be the most correct. The your front height is closer to the front, then call it "Height Front", and if the back height, is closer to the back, call it "Height Rear". And if there is a pair of top speakers in the middle of the room, then they should be TM and the sound will pass them as the 90 degree up half way back in the room point of a pan. 

And if you have the Trinnov, you can use all 5 positions, and it will pan from the Front, to the FH, then the TF, then TM, then TR, onto RH, and finally to the BS. I do not know the exact angles and all, but basically, with all 5, it looks like it could be a speaker at each 30 degrees of the pan. 
So 0=Front, 30=HF, 60=TF, 90=TM, 120=TR, 150=RH, and 180=BS.

All 5 are "treated the same" but render a different portion of the overhead arc.

It seems some of the test tones on the demo disks may or may not have the snap to closest speaker set. And this may even be different on the run of the disks. This will certainly effect where the single non moving sound comes from. Since the sound is an object, if it is not at the true location of a speaker in the system, it will either pan between the nearest ones, or jump directly to the closest single one. I hope snap off becomes the default, because knowing how it will render a panned position seems to be the more important part of the equation.

I will report back if I can get any more test time on the X5200 with that test demo/test disk


----------



## apesterin

Flash3d said:


> Extra note:
> The ci160qr are doing a great job as surrounds/Atmos and I made (under Kef spec size) enclosures which work great with them.


Where did you get the kef enclosure specs? One of my pairs is ci130qr, and I have been struggling to find what kind of enclosure size I can build


----------



## mmoore2

In the April 2015 Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines, 

for 5.1.2 Overhead Speakers (pg 16) and 7.1.2 Overhead Speakers (pg 20) , the overhead speakers are called "Left and right *top middle *overhead speakers".

For 5.1.4 (pg 18) and 7.1.4 (pg 22), the overheads are
"Left and right *top front *overhead speakers"
and "Left and right *top rear *overhead speakers". 

along with appropriate angles, etc

In the older, Sept 2014 doc, they were all only referred to as Overhead Speakers, or Front or Rear Overhead Speakers.


----------



## jpco

batpig said:


> (There is speculation that Yamaha does something different due to their proprietary presence speaker processing but I don't recall anyone asserting a significant difference on a D+M unit).



I have a Yamaha, and reading @GXMnow's posts about his experience with Denon, it seems to me that they're doing things exactly the same with regard to height vs. tops.


----------



## wackid

I have made an incredible deal on some Kef ceiling speakers. It was a bid I couldn't refuse. 

11 pieces some with defect motor some with broken speaker. For 160 euros!! 

Now I was wondering if this system would work on an Atmos setup. Will the angle of the speaker work / benefit? Otherwise I will use the speakers only. And mount it flat. 

They are motorized Kef ceiling speakers. 

http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom...eries/speaker/Ci200.3QT/index.html#filter=186

What are your thoughts?


----------



## anwallac

*Vaulted Ceiling*

Having a new house built with a living room that is quite the acoustic nightmare. The attached drawing is the design that my installer and I came up for a 5.1.4 setup using the equipment listed below.

This design gave us the best dispersion of angles. If I ran all four height speakers in the ceiling they would be too close to the adjoining walls, and the angle would be just outside of the recommended range set by Dolby. Also, TR channels would come from the same direction where I will have my surround channels.

As you can see from the attached drawing, the best compromise for us was FHs with TMs and the surrounds more like SB position. The floorplan does not allow speakers on the floor except for on the front wall. Acoustic dampening panels will be used in the elevated portions of the front and side walls.

9.1.4 setup
Denon AVR-x6200w
FL/FR Paradigm Prestige 75f
Center Paradigm Prestige 45c
FH Speakercraft Aim7 MT Series Three
TM/SR Speakercraft Aim7 Series Three


----------



## rontalley

anwallac said:


> Having a new house built with a living room that is quite the acoustic nightmare. The attached drawing is the design that my installer and I came up for a 9.1.4 setup using the equipment listed below.
> 
> This design gave us the best dispersion of angles. If I ran all four height speakers in the ceiling they would be too close to the adjoining walls, and the angle would be just outside of the recommended range set by Dolby. Also, TR channels would come from the same direction where I will have my surround channels.
> 
> As you can see from the attached drawing, the best compromise for us was FHs with TMs and the surrounds more like SB position. The floorplan does not allow speakers on the floor except for on the front wall. Acoustic dampening panels will be used in the elevated portions of the front and side walls.
> 
> 9.1.4 setup
> Denon AVR-x6200w
> FL/FR Paradigm Prestige 75f
> Center Paradigm Prestige 45c
> FH Speakercraft Aim7 MT Series Three
> TM/SR Speakercraft Aim7 Series Three


1. You can not do a 9.1.4 with your AVR. 7.1.4 max.
2. Take a pic of the room and show us how it looks visually.
3. You are proposing an Atmos nightmare by installing sides, rears and tops, in-ceiling. It will not work as expected.
4. Have you considered in-wall for surrounds?


----------



## anwallac

rontalley said:


> 1. You can not do a 9.1.4 with your AVR. 7.1.4 max.
> 2. Take a pic of the room and show us how it looks visually.
> 3. You are proposing an Atmos nightmare by installing sides, rears and tops, in-ceiling. It will not work as expected.
> 4. Have you considered in-wall for surrounds?


Sorry edited my post I meant 5.1.4........sorry no sides or place for them


----------



## AllenA07

anwallac said:


> Having a new house built with a living room that is quite the acoustic nightmare. The attached drawing is the design that my installer and I came up for a 9.1.4 setup using the equipment listed below.
> 
> This design gave us the best dispersion of angles. If I ran all four height speakers in the ceiling they would be too close to the adjoining walls, and the angle would be just outside of the recommended range set by Dolby. Also, TR channels would come from the same direction where I will have my surround channels.
> 
> As you can see from the attached drawing, the best compromise for us was FHs with TMs and the surrounds more like SB position. The floorplan does not allow speakers on the floor except for on the front wall. Acoustic dampening panels will be used in the elevated portions of the front and side walls.
> 
> 9.1.4 setup
> Denon AVR-x6200w
> FL/FR Paradigm Prestige 75f
> Center Paradigm Prestige 45c
> FH Speakercraft Aim7 MT Series Three
> TM/SR Speakercraft Aim7 Series Three


I had to deal with vaulted ceilings in my Atmos setup. The vaults meant that I either had to have my rear speakers out side of the Dolby recommendations or have them lower then the front heights. Ultimately I decided to mount directly on the vault. My speaked are at the necessary angles but the rears are a little over a foot lower then the front heights. I figured that my AVR would adjust the trims and delays to help mitigate the ptoblem, but knew that the AVR couldn't fix poor angles. 

I've been happy with the results. I wish in the back I had a little more separation between the bed and the height channels, however there really isn't much I can do about it. I'll note that my installation involved on-ceiling speakers not in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## anwallac

rontalley said:


> 2. Take a pic of the room and show us how it looks visually.


Here are some pics of an identical model on which our house will be based


----------



## wackid

apesterin said:


> Where did you get the kef enclosure specs? One of my pairs is ci130qr, and I have been struggling to find what kind of enclosure size I can build


Here you go. 

http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/en/ci_2013/KEF_RNC130R_201207v1.pdf


----------



## rolldog

wackid said:


> I have made an incredible deal on some Kef ceiling speakers. It was a bid I couldn't refuse.
> 
> 11 pieces some with defect motor some with broken speaker. For 160 euros!!
> 
> Now I was wondering if this system would work on an Atmos setup. Will the angle of the speaker work / benefit? Otherwise I will use the speakers only. And mount it flat.
> 
> They are motorized Kef ceiling speakers.
> 
> http://www.kef.com/html/us/showroom...eries/speaker/Ci200.3QT/index.html#filter=186
> 
> What are your thoughts?


I think those speakers are badass. I've never seen anything like that before. Since they're motorized, are they either open or closed (flush with the ceiling or angled) or can you control the angle of the speaker? What would be really cool is if the calibration setup could control the angle of the speaker itself.


----------



## Flash3d

apesterin said:


> Where did you get the kef enclosure specs? One of my pairs is ci130qr, and I have been struggling to find what kind of enclosure size I can build


Here you go:

http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/en/series_pdf/Ci_Minimum_Cabinet_Volume.pdf


----------



## apesterin

wackid said:


> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/en/ci_2013/KEF_RNC130R_201207v1.pdf


Thanks. Looks like it won't fit in the space I have, but I can work out something now that I know the ideal shape and volume


----------



## wackid

rolldog said:


> I think those speakers are badass. I've never seen anything like that before. Since they're motorized, are they either open or closed (flush with the ceiling or angled) or can you control the angle of the speaker? What would be really cool is if the calibration setup could control the angle of the speaker itself.


I don't have them yet. But as far as I can see in the manual.
You can set manual by external ir/or switch or on automatic mode. When there is music from the amp it will open.

It's either open or close. 



apesterin said:


> Thanks. Looks like it won't fit in the space I have, but I can work out something now that I know the ideal shape and volume


It's a small box really... Most of the part is a plate. So it will fit in a ceiling tile.


----------



## HD1ART

*Mix of in ceiling speakers and Dolby Enabled Speakers*

I am currently running Onkyo TX-NR1030 7.1.4. I have asked about configurations of the Atmos speakers in the past but have not asked this question. Does any AVR allow a native Top Front, or Top Middle ceiling speaker along with Dolby Enabled Speaker back? I am currently configuring them at TF and TB because Onkyo will not allow TF and DES Back as a valid configuration. Just wondering if any receiver will allow this. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Selden Ball

HD1ART said:


> I am currently running Onkyo TX-NR1030 7.1.4. I have asked about configurations of the Atmos speakers in the past but have not asked this question. Does any AVR allow a native Top Front, or Top Middle ceiling speaker along with Dolby Enabled Speaker back? I am currently configuring them at TF and TB because Onkyo will not allow TF and DES Back as a valid configuration. Just wondering if any receiver will allow this. Thanks in advance.


Try configuring the "Height 1" speakers as "Front High" and the "Height 2" speakers as "DAE (Rear)". Don't move them, just change the names. Comments from Dolby suggest that you won't be able to hear much, if any, difference in the sound whether they're designated "High" or "Top".

DAE speakers shouldn't be given a "Top" designation since the roomEQ is likely to try to undo the HRTF frequency filters that are in the speakers to help them sound as if they're overhead.


----------



## batpig

Denon/Marantz definitely lets you mix physical with DE speakers.


----------



## HD1ART

Selden Ball said:


> Try configuring the "Height 1" speakers as "Front High" and the "Height 2" speakers as "DAE (Rear)". Don't move them, just change the names. Comments from Dolby suggest that you won't be able to hear much, if any, difference in the sound whether they're designated "High" or "Top".
> 
> DAE speakers shouldn't be given a "Top" designation since the roomEQ is likely to try to undo the HRTF frequency filters that are in the speakers to help them sound as if they're overhead.


Thanks much. I will give that work around a listen.


----------



## HD1ART

Selden Ball said:


> Try configuring the "Height 1" speakers as "Front High" and the "Height 2" speakers as "DAE (Rear)". Don't move them, just change the names. Comments from Dolby suggest that you won't be able to hear much, if any, difference in the sound whether they're designated "High" or "Top".
> 
> DAE speakers shouldn't be given a "Top" designation since the roomEQ is likely to try to undo the HRTF frequency filters that are in the speakers to help them sound as if they're overhead.


Thanks much. I will give that work around a listen.


----------



## HD1ART

batpig said:


> Denon/Marantz definitely lets you mix physical with DE speakers.


Thanks I will be checking into them


----------



## HD1ART

batpig said:


> Denon/Marantz definitely lets you mix physical with DE speakers.


Thanks I will be checking into them


----------



## jpco

batpig said:


> Denon/Marantz definitely lets you mix physical with DE speakers.



As does Yamaha.


----------



## audioguy

For those of you thinking about using ceiling speakers that can't keep up with the mains [appropriate power handling, efficiency, distortion figures] --- don't do it. 

I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!

And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.

The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.


----------



## peter-d-w

audioguy said:


> For those of you thinking about going on the cheap for your ceiling speakers --- don't do it.
> 
> I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!
> 
> And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.
> 
> The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.


Which ceiling speakers do you have/recommend?

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

audioguy said:


> For those of you thinking about going on the cheap for your ceiling speakers --- don't do it.
> 
> I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!
> 
> And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.
> 
> The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.


Preaching to the choir! Cool info and I'd love to see the data. I can HEAR the bass coming from the Atmos speakers and can audibly confirm its heavy spl at times. I don't know why people have nice beds and then throw in $30-40 speakers for ICs. It just destroys everything they're trying to accomplish and degrades the quality of their bed speakers. Foolish move to go cheap on Atmos ICs. Match them with what you have on the floor, caliber and price wise.


----------



## ALtlOff

peter-d-w said:


> Which ceiling speakers do you have/recommend?
> 
> Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


Do your best to match as closely as you can to your surrounds, while having a very capable speaker is a good idea, matching your sound will still be important in not creating distractions from your experience.


----------



## Azekecse

Molon_Labe said:


> I am glad someone finally recognized/validated this. I have been trying to convey that all the speakers should be treated as equals since way, way back in the thread.


That is great advice...Match as closely to the surrounds and don't compromise..buy cheap, buy twice or sometimes thrice...

Peace and blessings,

Azeke


----------



## Scott Simonian

I expect to see some 4722's mounted up high on your ceiling by weeks end, sir.


----------



## AllenA07

audioguy said:


> For those of you thinking about going on the cheap for your ceiling speakers --- don't do it.
> 
> I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!
> 
> And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.
> 
> The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.


Great advice! There have been plenty of times I have tried to go cheap and a year later I'm looking to replace the component. Do it right the first time.


----------



## audioguy

peter-d-w said:


> Which ceiling speakers do you have/recommend?



I am still waiting for the ultimate ceiling speakers as when I implemented Atmos in late 2014, none had the efficiency and dispersion that would also mount in a shallow box that I could cover with my ceiling treatment. But I am using very efficient speakers with an outstanding dispersion pattern - but they are fairly large and unattractive. They are Tannoy Di6 DC's. The have a mounting bracket that makes it very easy to aim at the MLP. As for matching my other speakers - they do close enough for now after room correction. As much as I would like to have an "official" Atmos speaker from Triad, I am still on the fence about their recommendation mostly because I would not be able to easily hide it - which, quite frankly, is 99.5% of the reason I want to change.

So, until the ideal speaker shows up that pushes all of my buttons, I will keep the Tannoys.

I am currently looking at the RSL C34E. Got good reviews, thin enough and good polar response/dispersion.


----------



## audiguy

batpig said:


> I explained this when you asked in the other thread. It doesn't work like that because, if height/overhead speakers are part of the config, then the object metadata is decoded and these "height" sounds are removed from the base layer speakers. If you just had some add on box doing the heights it would be all screwy because the same sounds would be coming from multiple speakers.
> 
> You need a new processor. Bottom line.


Thanks. Good news is that I have not yet bought this new processor.


----------



## Jahjd2000

I recently upgraded my receiver to the Denon x6200. I'm running the bed speakers in my signature with 4 RSL in-ceiling speakers in a TM and TR configuration. Per the suggestion on the forums, I have it configured as TF and TR in Audyssey. 

First Atmos movie I watched was Mad Max: Fury Road. Overall I thought the overhead effects were just ok. It certainly had an immersive effect (sound bubble) but I thought the overhead sound could have been utilized better. 

I then watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes up-mixed via DSU. I was really impressed. I thought DSU did a great job with the overhead effects. It was especially cool during the opening scene with the overhead rain and thunder. Very immersive. 

So far I'm really liking what I'm hearing from Atmos.


----------



## apesterin

wackid said:


> It's a small box really... Most of the part is a plate. So it will fit in a ceiling tile.


My overhead pair is in a coving rather than a ceiling, about 9x4 inch cross section about 7 in below the ceiling surface. The coving only extends about an inch on two sides and depth. The only space I can play with its on the length of coving (without the enclosure, the whole coving behaves like an enclosure - about 20 feet long)


----------



## rontalley

audioguy said:


> For those of you thinking about going on the cheap for your ceiling speakers --- don't do it.
> 
> I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!
> 
> And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.
> 
> The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.


Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...


----------



## vitod

rontalley said:


> Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...


+1


----------



## Daniel Chaves

rontalley said:


> Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...


Im using Onkyo THX Bookshelf soeakers mounted to ceiling mounts, acting as my ceiling channels and they work great


----------



## wackid

Daniel Chaves said:


> Im using Onkyo THX Bookshelf soeakers mounted to ceiling mounts, acting as my ceiling channels and they work great


Looks like you have a dedicated homecinema room, or you don't have a wife. 

I have a WAF signed. Made a presentation on a sheet.  

My plan is to make four round "islands" . With an approx diameter of 40 cm and 15cm deep. And install some ceilingspeakers. I have concrete ceilings so drilling a speaker hole is not possible. 

This way the speakers will have an enclose box so the will sound better. Cover those "islands" with a nice funky color of acoustic cloth.

So I think it will look and sound great.


----------



## rah50

apesterin said:


> Would having them at ear height by the side walls be an option? Just like surround, just a lot more back and properly toed in towards MLP. You can put them on Wall, or stands, or freestanding if towers



Thanks apesterin:

The side wall on the right is really glass doors, so that won't work. But check out the blue locations on the drawing. They are a little asymmetrical and the speaker on the left wall might be a problem with my wife as it can't be flush but it might be a good way to go. The last thing I want to do would be stands as they would never pass the WAF.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

Bob


----------



## audiofan1

Stoked21 said:


> Preaching to the choir! Cool info and I'd love to see the data. I can HEAR the bass coming from the Atmos speakers and can audibly confirm its heavy spl at times. I don't know why people have nice beds and then throw in $30-40 speakers for ICs. It just destroys everything they're trying to accomplish and degrades the quality of their bed speakers. Foolish move to go cheap on Atmos ICs. Match them with what you have on the floor, caliber and price wise.





Molon_Labe said:


> I am glad someone finally recognized/validated this. I have been trying to convey that all the speakers should be treated as equals since way, way back in the thread.


 I've found my ceiling speakers they are 8 inch drivers with the same tweeters as my LCR but I won't get them till later on down the road (few months) but will say the little 4.5's on -ceilings crossed @ 90hz to my subs ain't exactly slumming it even when pushing reference volume I put them there with the intent to be able to tweek final placement as there are no easy take backs cutting wholes that large in the ceiling Now that DTSX has arrived I can proceed to bring them to par with the rest of my setup


----------



## richmagnus

GXMnow said:


> If you take another look at the actualy Dolby Atmos for home speaker layout, you will see that the rendering in the home AVR does actually know 5 separate locations from front to back in the "height" layer.
> 
> As the pan data moves from front to back, these speaker positions are
> 
> very close to the front wall
> about 1/4 of the way back
> middle of the room
> about 3/4 of the way back
> very close to the back wall
> 
> Now it treats all of these as an upper layer speaker. It does not treat any of them different as they are all full range speaker outputs. But the content of the sound will vary based on where it is in the the room. I think it is odd that Dolby did change from the in room position of the cinema system, to the angle from listener in the home version, but for this setup, it is not a big difference in principle.
> 
> When a mix is made, the sound is placed in the room. I do not know if there is any re-coding of sorts, other than the packing to fit it into the True HD carrier, but once in the home, they are saying those 5 speaker placements are now in these angles, ok, we will go with that.
> 
> Assume a sound starts at the front left speaker, so 0 up angle. Now it pans up and over, doing the full 180 degree arc to straight behind you, (but still just on the left side).
> 
> If you don't have any overhead speakers, it does a smooth pan from the left front to the left back surround speaker.
> Add Top Middle, and it will smoothly pan from the front to the top middle left, and then to the back left.
> 
> Does that all make sense now?
> 
> So now we can use 4 height speakers, choose any 2 of the 5 locations.
> (not right next to each other in the current firmware though)
> 
> Let's go ahead and use the most accepted as best TF and TR and see how that would pan.
> 
> That same sound object still starts in the left front speaker.
> As it pans up, it will start to pan into the TFL speaker, and when the pan gets to about 45 degrees, it will play from just that one speaker. As the pan continues, from 45 to 135, it will smoothly pan to the TRL speaker, and then be just in that one. And the last part of the pan will go from the TRL to the Back Left from the 135 to 180 degree position.
> 
> 90 degrees of the pan stays between the 2 tops and gives very good positioning.
> 
> To go to the next most common I see mentioned, let's use FH and TM.
> Now as the sound pans up, it will go from the Left Front into the FHL and get there a bit sooner. I think at 30 degrees it will already be fully in this one speaker. As the pan goes further, it will now pan to the TML speaker, and be there completely at the 90 degree point. Then it takes the last 90 degrees to pan from here to the Back Left speaker. In this setup, the sound is only between the two height channels for 60 degrees, and spends 90 degrees between the top middle and the back wall.
> 
> To me, this setup would make sense if the back wall speakers were much further back, like the same distance behind the top speaker as the front speakers are forward. If your main seating point is at the back of the room, then this does not seem like it will render correctly. By setting the speakers right above you as TM even though you are at the back of the room, you are forcing the renderer to move the sound to still place you in the middle, and then the offset of the pans does make sense.
> 
> What I still find a bit odd is that a lot of people are not liking the result of using FH and RH. That would place the sound panning between the 2 top speakers for 120 degrees of the pan. With just 30 out each end down to the front main or back wall speakers. The "loss of separation" is not really less separation, it is the fact that a sound that was at the TF or TR is now in the pan between these further spread speakers.
> 
> What I think the "Dolby Guy" was trying to say about the "indistinguishable difference" between using TF, TR ar FH, RH was that if you have the speakers labeled as the position they are actually in, both setups should result in the same, virtually indistinguishable sound field as objects move around the room. And that is the ideal goal. If the 4 speakers are all closed to evenly spaced, then the TF, TR will be the most correct. The your front height is closer to the front, then call it "Height Front", and if the back height, is closer to the back, call it "Height Rear". And if there is a pair of top speakers in the middle of the room, then they should be TM and the sound will pass them as the 90 degree up half way back in the room point of a pan.
> 
> And if you have the Trinnov, you can use all 5 positions, and it will pan from the Front, to the FH, then the TF, then TM, then TR, onto RH, and finally to the BS. I do not know the exact angles and all, but basically, with all 5, it looks like it could be a speaker at each 30 degrees of the pan.
> So 0=Front, 30=HF, 60=TF, 90=TM, 120=TR, 150=RH, and 180=BS.
> 
> All 5 are "treated the same" but render a different portion of the overhead arc.
> 
> It seems some of the test tones on the demo disks may or may not have the snap to closest speaker set. And this may even be different on the run of the disks. This will certainly effect where the single non moving sound comes from. Since the sound is an object, if it is not at the true location of a speaker in the system, it will either pan between the nearest ones, or jump directly to the closest single one. I hope snap off becomes the default, because knowing how it will render a panned position seems to be the more important part of the equation.
> 
> I will report back if I can get any more test time on the X5200 with that test demo/test disk



This is exactly what the Dolby guy was explaining to me. Dolby state that TF/TR speakers placed on/in the ceiling are best for the immersive effect. If you have a processor that can accommodate more, then one can add FH/RH for an additional immersive effect. The FH/RH also have to fall into certain angles to work optimally. 
Denon allow for a FH/RH placement. If these are used the info sent to them is not going to sound particularly different to TF/TR as it all falls into the angle spec. It's down to the manufacturer to implement how it works. The info sent to FH/RH and FT/RT will be slightly different, but only marginally, hence virtually indistinguishable at MLP. It will be the position of the speakers that makes the difference.

My FH/RH fall into TF/TR angles but I label as FH/RH to allow for Auro use. I can detect no difference between the two. 

If one used say an Arcam which allows TF/TR designations only and one were to place speakers in FH/RH location within spec it would work too. 

I'd did not ask about TM. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audioguy

rontalley said:


> Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...


Fair enough. What I should have said is the that ceiling speakers must have enough efficiency and power handling to keep up with the mains without distorting. If the speakers you pointed to can do that, then good for you.


----------



## pletwals

audioguy said:


> For those of you thinking about using ceiling speakers that can't keep up with the mains [appropriate power handling, efficiency, distortion figures] --- don't do it.
> 
> I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!


How about the efficiency of the ceiling speakers compared to LCR? If there is a 5 dB difference in favour of the LCR, the ceiling speakers will sound 5 dB less loud with the same amount of output.


----------



## audioguy

pletwals said:


> How about the efficiency of the ceiling speakers compared to LCR? If there is a 5 dB difference in favour of the LCR, the ceiling speakers will sound 5 dB less loud with the same amount of output.


What is important is that (even if the ceiling speakers are less efficient than the efficiency of the LCR's) i they can match or exceed the output capability of the LCR's driven by an appropriate amp with low distortion. If the ceiling amp needs to have more power than the LCR amp, than so be it.

The point I was trying to make was that I was very surprised that the ceiling speakers got the kind of SPL level that they did. PLAN ACCORDINGLY !!!!!!


----------



## Nalleh

*More Atmos testing, this time test tones*

So, i finally got a hold of the sep 2015 Dolby demo disc to test it out.

And i am glad to say the 9.1.6 test tones work as they should in my dual AVR SETUP.

Top front test tone phantomed between my front height an top fronts, 
Top middle test toned phantomed in the middle on both AVR's.
And top rear test tones phantomed between my top rear and rear heights.

I tried two setups:
AVR 1 as FH+TM, AVR2 as TF+TR, or total setup FH+TF+TM+TR.
All heights within Atmos specs.

The other one, in order to have one shared setup for all three formats :
AVR 1 as FH+RH, AVR 2 as TF+TR, or total setup FH+TF+TR+RH.
I did not move any speakers here, just reassigned them, so FH and TF within specs, but TR is at TM position and RH is at TR position.

However both setups worked very well, and had very little difference in content placement.

A couple of strange things about the test tones.
With just one AVR, and it setup as 7.1.4, when playing the 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 test tones, the side surround test tones came from my surround backs, and only from them!! I thought they should come from the side surrounds only?

When disabling surround backs, to gain wides, e.g 7.1.4 no SB+FW, the front wide test tone came frome the correct place=wides.
But the side surround test tones got divided between the wides and side surround!?!
And the surround back test tone this time came from the side surround only, wich is correct.

Regarding the FH+RH vs TF+TR content question, for those who have this demo disc, try the following:
Setup your AVR as 7.1.4 and FH+RH.
Disconnect/ mute your height2 speakers, so only your height1 is playing.
Play the helicopter demo track.
When the sound goes from your left front height, it fades down as it moves to your left rear height, but before it goes silent, you already hear it fading up in your right front height. No pause!

Now change your AVR setup to 7.1.4 and TF+TR, without moving any speakers or anything, and play the same track.
When the sound goes from your left top front, it fades down as it goes to your left top rear. But this time it stays silent for about 5 sec, before it fades up in your right top front.
Clearly a difference in the way it pans, depending on your speaker assigment.
And it confirms what has been said in earlier tests, with your setup as FH+RH, it phantoms to where your "TF+TR should be", while setup as TF+TR, sounds come directly from those speakers.

This means if you assign them as FH+RH, but mount them as TF+TR, the pans will be more narrow, more in between the two speaker sets.


----------



## maikeldepotter

At ISE I attended an Atmos demonstration at the Dolby booth hosted by Craig Eggers, (Senior Director, Home Theater Marketing, Dolby Laboratories). Below are my impressions of the Yamaha Soundbar and the Dolby enabled speakers (PSB Imagine XA). During the demo there was multiple switching between in-ceiling speakers and soundbar or upfiring speakers.

*Yamaha Soundbar + Subwoofer*
In the relatively small Dolby demo room with me sitting at MLP, the first impression was that this combo performed surprisingly well. Especially the side surround imaging was convincing. Sounds meant to be overhead where perceptually clearly elevated, but not really right above me like they were with the in-ceiling speakers (more like they coming from elevated surrounds). Rear imaging (both at ear height and elevated) was virtually absent though.

*Dolby enabled speakers (up-firing)*
For me this was the first time to hear Dolby enabled speakers. First impression: Hey, this really works! Higher pitched overhead sounds (like bird chirping sounds) remained clearly defined and really above you, especially when there was reverb added to them like in the last clip showing bouncing balls making music (this could be a psycho-acoustical effect enforcing the illusion of sound coming from above). With the helicopter flying overhead though, the sound was noticeably less defined and less powerful.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> *More Atmos testing, this time test tones*
> 
> 
> This means if you assign them as FH+RH, but mount them as TF+TR, the pans will be more narrow, more in between the two speaker sets.



But I believe this is only for the sounds that were designated to the TF, TR positions. 

so IMHO
- If the sound were actually panning from FH back to RH, (but your speakers are positioned at TF/TR angles), there should be no issue
- also if your speakers are positioned at FH+RH angles and also designated as FH+RH in AVR, it should give the widest pan as it will fantom for TF+TR
- however if your speakers are designated as TF+TR in AVR (irrespective of their actual angles), you are losing on the sound that is designated for FH+RH as there is no way to fantom that


----------



## Daniel Chaves

wackid said:


> Looks like you have a dedicated homecinema room, or you don't have a wife.
> 
> I have a WAF signed. Made a presentation on a sheet.
> 
> My plan is to make four round "islands" . With an approx diameter of 40 cm and 15cm deep. And install some ceilingspeakers. I have concrete ceilings so drilling a speaker hole is not possible.
> 
> This way the speakers will have an enclose box so the will sound better. Cover those "islands" with a nice funky color of acoustic cloth.
> 
> So I think it will look and sound great.


No wife and semi-dedicated home theater room, but anyone I date there is the condition that no matter what stage of the relationship or it goes into marriage, I will have my home theater, everything else is negotiable lol...


----------



## Nalleh

aaranddeeman said:


> - also if your speakers are positioned at FH+RH angles and also designated as FH+RH in AVR, it should *give the widest pan as it will fantom for TF+TR
> *




This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.


----------



## vitod

pletwals said:


> How about the efficiency of the ceiling speakers compared to LCR? If there is a 5 dB difference in favour of the LCR, the ceiling speakers will sound 5 dB less loud with the same amount of output.


What people should be reminded is that ceiling speakers are usually crossed at 80hz and above. They are for EFFECT. They're not handling the deep, heavy stuff. That's what subs are for. The LCR and all the surrounds are usually set to small anyway. As for efficiency, most IC speakers I've seen are at least 89db. The Miccas are 90db and power handling is 100w. So, it's plenty. In my case, they match the Paradigms perfectly.


----------



## stikle

Well, I found myself with plenty of time to kill this weekend, so just for shiggles (stole that from another post, but it's awesome), I dropped all of my surrounds by another foot. Which is exactly where they're going to stay. I thought my theater sounded great before, but now...wow. The extra separation between the bed & heights made a HUGE difference. Even though the Mirages are wide dispersion and at the proper height and mounted properly, it didn't end up being quite enough.

Who knew that one foot was all it was going to take to catapult my audio experience into Teh Awesome?

It'll be well worth the time to reSpackle, texture, and paint the old speaker wire holes. Easy peasy for a big payoff.


----------



## DLCPhoto

*Finalizing Speaker Placement*

I'm still in the planning stages of converting my current audio-only room to an Atmos audio-visual system.

Room specs:

20' wide x 32' long, with the screen to be on the 20' wall.
Listening position about 15' from that front wall.
Walls about 8 1/2" high at the sides, but with a vaulted ceiling 12' 6" high, running along the length of the room, with 3 horizontal beams across the width, placed at 8', 16', 24' from the front, respectively.

I have a 3D Model using free software from Sweet Home 3D, which is the best way of seeing the room, placement of speakers, etc. The file containing my specs can be downloaded here. This is the best way to visualize the room.

(And on this subject, this is perhaps an ideal way to design and share specs for these rooms, as verbal descriptions, and even 2D drawings can be imprecise and cumbersome.)

I will have Top Front and Top Rear Atmos speakers (most likely Polk OWM5's) mounted from the beam 8' from the front, and the beam 24' from the front (7' in front of the MLP and 9' in back of the MLP), at a height of about 102" from the floor, 60" above the ear position of 42". If my calculations are right, that gives me 30 degree TF (30-55 recommended) and 154 degrees TR (125-150 recommended). Reasonably close to the recommended angles.

I have no flexibility on moving the distance of the speakers from front to back, but can put them anywhere I want on the beams, in terms of the side-to-side dimension.

*First question: is there any recommendation on horizontal placement of the Atmos speakers, relative to other speakers in the base level, or is it just a matter of getting the angles as close as possible to Dolby recommendations?*

For Front Right/Left, I have fairly massive Duntech Sovereigns (with a JBL LSR-308 Powered Studio Monitor for the Center Channel). The horizontal position of these gives me about 28 degrees (recommended is 22 to 30) from MLP.

For the 4 Dolby Surrounds, I have older Wharfedale Diamond II's. The side ones can be readily placed at ear-height (42"), and pretty much at 90 degrees to the MLP.

The Rear Surrounds are more problematic due to room/furniture limitations. I can have them at the same width of the Duntech's, but much higher in in the room (86" from the floor, about 1 foot from the back wall).

Or I can put them at the same 42" ear-height as the sides, and about 2 feet from the back wall, but these would be closer to the center than the Duntech's (6' from the side walls for the surrounds, vs 4' from the walls for the Duntech's. This would give me about 165 degree placement (recommended 135 to 150).

*Second Question: which of these 2 rear Dolby speaker configurations would be preferred: the higher, wider, closer to the back wall option, or the lower, narrower, a little further from the back wall configuration?*

*Third Question: In either case, the Dolby rears are about 15 feet back from the MLP. How much will this impact the overall experience?*

*Any other recommendations on how to achieve a better result is always welcome. Like they say, measure twice cut once.*

Here are some 2D images if you don't want to deal with the 3D application:


----------



## ALtlOff

Nalleh said:


> [/B]
> 
> This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.


This it's what I've been speaking of when saying that it felt like I was getting extra forward and rear extension of overhead panning sounds (flyovers esp.) when using FH/RH as opposed to TF/TR, but TF/TR will tend to give you a more immersive/accurate effect for more stationary overhead sounds.
Honestly this may just be one of those things where it may be beneficial to just switch settings depending on the content.
But... in my case, once I can get a viable solution for TM (multi AVR, x.x.6 setup).then I could see what they would make up for anything that might be lacking for overhead and just stick with with FH/RH for the extension.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Nalleh said:


> This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.


So in a nutshell, it looks like this


In AVR : FH+RH 
Ceiling position : FH+RH 
Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)

In AVR : FH+RH 
Ceiling position : TF+TR 
Result : Narrow Pan

In AVR : TF+TR 
Ceiling position : TF+TR 
Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)

In AVR : TF+TR 
Ceiling position : FH+RH 
Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)


----------



## Nalleh

^^^^ Agreed


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> But I believe this is only for the sounds that were designated to the TF, TR positions.
> 
> so IMHO
> - If the sound were actually panning from FH back to RH, (but your speakers are positioned at TF/TR angles), there should be no issue
> - also if your speakers are positioned at FH+RH angles and also designated as FH+RH in AVR, it should give the widest pan as it will fantom for TF+TR
> - however if your speakers are designated as TF+TR in AVR (irrespective of their actual angles), you are losing on the sound that is designated for FH+RH as there is no way to fantom that


FH and RH designations in AVR are intended for long rooms where the angle from MLP is around 30 degrees or less. So, if you have FH+RH and they fall into the correct angles, they would give the *SAME* separation as TF+TR. Since all sounds that would be aimed at FH or RH would play at 100% for FH+RH *AND* TF+TR. That is why Dolby has always stated that FH+RH can be used in *"Conjunction"* with TF+TR. Having FH+RH in a long room with no Tops will not give you a true overhead experience. At least not compared to TF+TR at the recommended 45 degree angle from MLP.




Nalleh said:


> [/B]
> This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you *mount them in TF+TR positions*. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.


 @Nalleh was the first to test this stuff out. I was initially in the opposing camp but I verified his findings for myself and his test has proven to be valid and accurate.

Again, this is not a Yamaha thing. It has been proven over and over again that if you mount FH or RH, for convenience or you just can't install in/on ceiling, in TF or TR angles then your image will shrink when AVR is playing TF and/or TR sounds. Sounds directed towards TF and/or TR are anywhere from ~>30 degrees and/or ~


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> So in a nutshell, it looks like this
> 
> In AVR : FH+RH
> Ceiling position : FH+RH
> Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)
> 
> In AVR : FH+RH
> Ceiling position : TF+TR
> Result : Narrow Pan
> 
> In AVR : TF+TR
> Ceiling position : TF+TR
> Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
> 
> In AVR : TF+TR
> Ceiling position : FH+RH
> Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)



In AVR : FH+RH 
*(Ceiling or Wall)* position : FH+RH 
Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)
_This assumes a long room where Ceiling or Wall is close to or exceeds the minimum Dolby Recommended Angles._

In AVR : FH+RH 
*(Ceiling or Wall)* position : TF+TR 
Result : Narrow Pan
_Agreed_

In AVR : TF+TR 
*(Ceiling or Wall)* position : TF+TR  
Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
_Depends on your room length. If your TF+TR fall within Dolby Recommended Angles and still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH sounds will play 100% out of TF and/or TR with no loss of sound designation.
_
In AVR : TF+TR 
*(Ceiling or Wall)* position : FH+RH 
Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
_Depends on your room length. If your FH+RH fall within Dolby Recommended Angles for TF+TR but still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH *AND* TF and/or TR sounds will play 100% out of FH and/or RH with no loss of sound designation.
_

It is important to define position because many are getting confused with angles vs position. You can have the position of FH but still can be considered TF because it falls into the correct angle.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rontalley said:


> In AVR : FH+RH
> *(Ceiling or Wall)* position : FH+RH
> Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)
> _This assumes a long room where Ceiling or Wall is close to or exceeds the minimum Dolby Recommended Angles._
> 
> In AVR : FH+RH
> *(Ceiling or Wall)* position : TF+TR
> Result : Narrow Pan
> _Agreed_
> 
> In AVR : TF+TR
> *(Ceiling or Wall)* position : TF+TR
> Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
> _Depends on your room length. If your TF+TR fall within Dolby Recommended Angles and still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH sounds will play 100% out of TF and/or TR with no loss of sound designation.
> _
> In AVR : TF+TR
> *(Ceiling or Wall)* position : FH+RH
> Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
> _Depends on your room length. If your FH+RH fall within Dolby Recommended Angles for TF+TR but still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH *AND* TF and/or TR sounds will play 100% out of FH and/or RH with no loss of sound designation.
> _
> 
> It is important to define position because many are getting confused with angles vs position. You can have the position of FH but still can be considered TF because it falls into the correct angle.




When I designate the position as FH+RH, I have the angles as 36 degree for the fronts and 140 degree for the rears. (And the speakers are on ceiling and not on the wall. Room length being 212 inches and ceiling height 92 inch. Ear height 34 inch)
I was going by the assumption that if I set them FH+RH is AVR, it will
- Play maximum sounds for FH and RH and fantom for TF+TR (and TM)
- Work around the DTS:X bug that causes TF+TR to lose stereo (Yes I know there is no much content at this stage)


----------



## rontalley

aaranddeeman said:


> When I designate the position as FH+RH, I have the angles as 36 degree for the fronts and 140 degree for the rears. (And the speakers are on ceiling and not on the wall. Room length being 212 inches and ceiling height 92 inch. Ear height 34 inch)
> I was going by the assumption that if I set them FH+RH is AVR, it will
> - Play maximum sounds for FH and RH and fantom for TF+TR (and TM)
> - Work around the DTS:X bug that causes TF+TR to lose stereo (Yes I know there is no much content at this stage)


You are one of few that actually have a handle on "why" you would designate FH and RH.

FH+RH will work very well in your room with Scatmos TM! Your angles are right at the borders so in your case, you will receive all 5 positions with no compromise! I might even consider your plan as the perfect solution!


----------



## darklord700

Assuming the ceiling speakers position don't change, do you need to rerun Audyssey if you experiment with FH/RH and TF/TR designation?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaranddeeman

darklord700 said:


> Assuming the ceiling speakers position don't change, do you need to rerun Audyssey if you experiment with FH/RH and TF/TR designation?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


You have to rerun Audyssey the moment you change the speaker designation.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rontalley said:


> You are one of few that actually have a handle on "why" you would designate FH and RH.
> 
> FH+RH will work very well in your room with Scatmos TM! Your angles are right at the borders so in your case, you will receive all 5 positions with no compromise! I might even consider your plan as the perfect solution!


Al righty.. Thanks for confirming my logic.


----------



## GXMnow

Just a little clarification.

I see that people are testing and starting to agree with how I said the panning works when you tell it different speaker locations, and this is all good. If you understand how the system is placing the sound, then your choice can be made with more logic and less guess work.

One of the great things about how Dolby Atmos works is that you will never lose any sound from the original mix. The only thing that can happen is the position might not be as accurate, but all sounds, object, or bed, will be played in the room at the correct level from the speaker(s) the renderer determines it should come from based on the sounds tagged locations, and the AVR's set speaker layout.

So if you have the front ceiling spears tagged as "Top Front" and a sound pans further forward than that location, the sound could either just stop panning and stay in the top front speaker, or it could start to pan to the main front ear level speakers. The difference will depend on if the sound object was tagged to stay ceiling only or not. This is a decision made at the time of the mix. The level of the sound will stay correct and the position will be what the content creator felt was more appropriate. The same will be true for a single overhead pair at "Top Middle" (or any other x.x.2 setup for that matter). If a sound pans in front and behind the height speakers in use, it will most likely pan to the front main or the back surround speakers to convey that motion. Only if it was tagged, "top only", will it just stay in the one overhead pair. 

The Dolby Demo disk may be adding some confusion to all of this. Since most of the demo rooms were using TF and TR, it seems they did mix the sounds to favor those positions. Having the helicopter etc. pan right to each of the 4 top speakers gives the greatest sense of separation between them. But with real world movies, they did not mix with just 4 even spaced top speakers. They probably had 2 rows of at least 6, and they placed the sounds where it fit wit the picture. So most of the top sounds will end up having to be phantom positioned between your tops and even front the tops out to the nearest ear height speaker to try to match the original mix as well as it can with the smaller number of speakers. But no matter where you tell it your speakers are, there will never be a sound lost out of the mix. 

I can not speak at all for what the DTS-X renderer is doing. From what I have seen reported on the test tones on "The Last Witch Hunter", it sort of sounds like a little opposite from how the Atmos test tones were done. Maybe they panned the top noise very close to the walls, so the best separation is occurring when you use the FH and RH and when you use the TF / TR it has to phantom the sounds, but even that does not quite fit right, as it should then phantom it towards the walls. It is far too early to know if the renderer is doing what it really was intended to do from those test signals, or if the signals were in fact encoded a bit off. Without any true known refernce material for checking the pans, I would stick with telling the AVR the true position of your speakers, whatever it may be and see what real movies sound like. The test tones on both the Dolby and DTS-X disks may not be exactly what you think they are. They are not fully documented as to what coordinate the sound should be coming fromt and if any attributes are used such as speaker snap or top lock etc. Making it optimally play a test signal may not be the best way to play the real movie.

I also truly doubt that any of the DTS update code would have had any effect at all on how the Dolby code will function.

The loss of being able to cross use up mixers was not really a change in the Dolby code as I see it. Think of it like this. When the DTS code is running to decompress their codec, it does not offer the resulting PCM data to the Dolby code to work on it. When Dolby is processing the incoming stream to decompress their codec, the DTS code will not accept it the resulting PCM data. 

If this is due to not having both codecs running in the chip at the same time, or whatever, it really does not matter at this point. Any company specific processing is just now limited to either PCM or their own compression or packing codec. 

The only effect that DTS may have on Atmos or DSU playback is if you change your speaker designations to get what you feel is better sound in DTS modes. Then the Dolby side will also render to the new speaker layout settings. If you really feel this is better, then maybe you need to store a copy of the AVR setting which you feel are best for each codec and load that setup, complete with any tuning etc., depending on which codec you are running. So you can use TF/TR for Dolby and FH/RH for DTS. 

I hope DTS-X has the rendering working correctly and you will get the best experience in a real movie by telling it the real speaker positions, just like you do with Dolby Atmos. Phantoming an audio image between real speakers is not a loss of separation, it is the only way to place a sound where you don't have an actual speaker.


----------



## Nalleh

ALtlOff said:


> This it's what I've been speaking of when saying that it felt like I was getting extra forward and rear extension of overhead panning sounds (flyovers esp.) when using FH/RH as opposed to TF/TR, but TF/TR will tend to give you a more immersive/accurate effect for more stationary overhead sounds.





rontalley said:


> That is why Dolby has always stated that FH+RH can be used in *"Conjunction"* with TF+TR.


This is what i am getting with my dual AVR setup. Heights extend the pans forwards/backwards, while tops increase the height/immersiveness.

On the helicopter demo, with just heights, the pans are wide, but not as well placed above.
With just tops, the pans are much narrower, and very nicely placed above.
With heights AND tops, the pans hit the sweetspot. Wide and clearly from above, actually more pronounced and precise.

Altough i have to agree with another poster here regarding the helicopter demo: it is NOT in a perfect circle above you, it is more in a rectangle.



rontalley said:


> @Nalleh was the first to test this stuff out. I was initially in the opposing camp but I verified his findings for myself and his test has proven to be valid and accurate.


Thanks for confirming. Quite telling test, actually.


----------



## stikle

I was just blown away by The Fantastic 4 (4K) with DSU and because I lowered my surrounds.

Just goes to show that even when something might seem perfect, keep an open mind for even better.


----------



## toofast68

GXMnow said:


> Just a little clarification.
> 
> I see that people are testing and starting to agree with how I said the panning works when you tell it different speaker locations, and this is all good. If you understand how the system is placing the sound, then your choice can be made with more logic and less guess work.....
> 
> So if you have the front ceiling spears tagged as "Top Front" and a sound pans further forward than that location, the sound could either just stop panning and stay in the top front speaker, or it could start to pan to the main front ear level speakers. The difference will depend on if the sound object was tagged to stay ceiling only or not. This is a decision made at the time of the mix. The level of the sound will stay correct and the position will be what the content creator felt was more appropriate. The same will be true for a single overhead pair at "Top Middle" (or any other x.x.2 setup for that matter). If a sound pans in front and behind the height speakers in use, it will most likely pan to the front main or the back surround speakers to convey that motion. Only if it was tagged, "top only", will it just stay in the one overhead pair.
> 
> The Dolby Demo disk may be adding some confusion to all of this. Since most of the demo rooms were using TF and TR, it seems they did mix the sounds to favor those positions. Having the helicopter etc. pan right to each of the 4 top speakers gives the greatest sense of separation between them. But with real world movies, they did not mix with just 4 even spaced top speakers. They probably had 2 rows of at least 6, and they placed the sounds where it fit wit the picture. So most of the top sounds will end up having to be phantom positioned between your tops and even front the tops out to the nearest ear height speaker to try to match the original mix as well as it can with the smaller number of speakers. But no matter where you tell it your speakers are, there will never be a sound lost out of the mix.
> 
> The only effect that DTS may have on Atmos or DSU playback is if you change your speaker designations to get what you feel is better sound in DTS modes. Then the Dolby side will also render to the new speaker layout settings. If you really feel this is better, then maybe you need to store a copy of the AVR setting which you feel are best for each codec and load that setup, complete with any tuning etc., depending on which codec you are running. So you can use TF/TR for Dolby and FH/RH for DTS.
> 
> I hope DTS-X has the rendering working correctly and you will get the best experience in a real movie by telling it the real speaker positions, just like you do with Dolby Atmos. Phantoming an audio image between real speakers is not a loss of separation, it is the only way to place a sound where you don't have an actual speaker.


So if you've been on the DTS:X thread, I am getting the cold shoulder because I am challenging that by Dolby and now DTS:X saying that you can have the physical speakers installed in TF and TR, yet you MUST have the AVR setup to FH and FR...simply means that none of this new technology can be OBJECT based if everything works perfectly with speakers physically located differently than what we tell the AVR.

Your understanding is what I was lead to believe from the get go, but now I am a doubter...


----------



## GXMnow

toofast68 said:


> So if you've been on the DTS:X thread, I am getting the cold shoulder because I am challenging that by Dolby and now DTS:X saying that you can have the physical speakers installed in TF and TR, yet you MUST have the AVR setup to FH and FR...simply means that none of this new technology can be OBJECT based if everything works perfectly with speakers physically located differently than what we tell the AVR.
> 
> Your understanding is what I was lead to believe from the get go, but now I am a doubter...


Like I said in my long post... Dolby Atmos does work the way we expect it to and you can (and should) use the designation for where your speakers really are for the most accurate pans. It is true object based and works. If you prefer how it sound by fibbing a little to get a more pronounced effect, that is personal taste.

BUT.....
Is DTS-X working this way too? 
By their description, it should also render to give the right sound field with the different speaker designations, but it seems there is something off with the available test tones. If I had the gear and time, I would suggest listening to the real movie tracks with the different speaker layouts and see which gives the best imaging. 

Except for Auro using a fixed speaker position setup, any of the other layout options should work fine in both Dolby Atmos and DTS-X. The DTS-X firmware is just out and I can't give any insight there. I would always start by setting the speakers in the AVR as they are really located in the room. And then listen to a real movie and see if the sound fits with the action on screen. Is it doing anything wrong? Does the sound move with the action on screen? Just becaue a test tone track on a movie seems to have cross talk does not mean it is not working correctly with real content. Object audio is much more complex and making test tracks are tricky because you have no idea where the speakers will be in any given setup, so they just pan them to where they feel they should be. 

In my room, it is looking like I will end up running "top front" and "rear height". Instead ofmoving my high mounted back surrounds down, I will put new in wall speakers below them for the back surround position. My front pair of side speakers will move to the ceiling to be the front height. And my further back side speaker will move a little forward and down to side surround "ear height", which will be about 5 feet up in my case. This setup will miss all of my windows and closet door for a 7.x.4 setup. And then when I can do 9.x.4, I can add wides later.

Probably a Denon 6200 running
Left, Center, Right, and Back Surround L/R

LFE 15 inch sub and 600 watt amp. (maybe a second sub?)

My old Denon 3805 powering LS/RS, TFL/TFR, HRL/HRR using the 7.1 inputs.

This way the old AVR is running 6 easy 8 ohm loads. And the new AVR only has to deal with 5 speakers, but they are the main loads, and the new back surrounds are 4 ohm.

Time to save up the budget and order an AVR.


----------



## toofast68

^^ except you can't run TF and RH....with DTS:X

only option is FH and RH.

unless you only stick with Atmos

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Spanglo

Anyone have an answer why the surround levels are so different? First pic is the result after level matching speakers using avr tones, and the second pic leveling using the demo disc test tones. Rather large discrepancy in surround levels... 











Leveling using avr tones sounds great when using DSU but the sound is off when playing the atmos demo disc.

Leveling using the demo disc test tones, the atmos demos sound spot on, but then DSU is terrible because the surrounds are too quiet.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Spanglo said:


> Anyone have an answer why the surround levels are so different? First pic is the result after level matching speakers using avr tones, and the second pic leveling using the demo disc test tones. Rather large discrepancy in surround levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leveling using avr tones sounds great when using DSU but the sound off when playing the atmos demo disc.
> 
> Leveling using the demo disc test tones, the atmos demos sound spot on, but then DSU is terrible because the surrounds are too quiet.


AVR tones do not use the Audyssey filters.
Demo disk or any such thing will include Audyssey (and any other preferential) processing.
And hence you see the difference.
If you have run the Audyssey, you will not need to change the level when checking with demo disk. They are spot on.


----------



## Spanglo

aaranddeeman said:


> AVR tones do not use the Audyssey filters.
> Demo disk or any such thing will include Audyssey (and any other preferential) processing.
> And hence you see the difference.
> If you have run the Audyssey, you will not need to change the level when checking with demo disk. They are spot on.


I don't think so. The mains leveled the same for the avr tones and disc tones. I know Audyssey is heavily filtering the mains because I've run before and after REW measurements, so why aren't the mains affected? 

I've ran audyssey several times recently after changing speaker designations, and each time I've seen the same discrepancy when level matching using the demo disc test tones. Really strange. What audyssey sets level-wise is very close to what the avr tones are producing, but the demo disc is very different.


----------



## Selden Ball

Spanglo said:


> I don't think so. The mains leveled the same for the avr tones and disc tones. I know Audyssey is heavily filtering the mains because I've run before and after REW measurements, so why aren't the mains affected?
> 
> I've ran audyssey several times recently after changing speaker designations, and each time I've seen the same discrepancy when level matching using the demo disc test tones. Really strange. What audyssey sets level-wise is very close to what the avr tones are producing, but the demo disc is very different.


Make sure you have Dynamic EQ turned off when measuring levels.

There's no documentation about what the individual speakers are supposed to be doing when playing the Atmos speaker demos, so I wouldn't trust them. Each one does something different: some obviously have "snap to speaker" enabled while others just as obviously use phantom imaging.


----------



## Spanglo

Selden Ball said:


> Make sure you have Dynamic EQ turned off when measuring levels.
> 
> There's no documentation about what the individual speakers are supposed to be doing when playing the Atmos speaker demos, so I wouldn't trust them. Each one does something different: some obviously have "snap to speaker" enabled while others just as obviously use phantom imaging.


I did have Dyn EQ on, so I'll test without.

The disc test tones play white noise out of each speaker just like the avr tones, and there's no phantom imaging going on if select the appropriate speaker layout. Not sure if "snap to speaker"comes into play when I leveling individual speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

toofast68 said:


> ^^ except you can't run TF and RH....with DTS:X
> 
> only option is FH and RH.
> 
> unless you only stick with Atmos
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


If you were to hear Dolby Atmos on a Trinnov based system, you would know it was object based. It is.


----------



## sdurani

Spanglo said:


> I did have Dyn EQ on...


Your surrounds are likely being boosted.


> Not sure if "snap to speaker"comes into play when I leveling individual speakers.


Play the 9.1.6 track and see if the wides signal phantom images between your fronts & sides or snaps to your front speakers.


----------



## Spanglo

Selden Ball said:


> Make sure you have Dynamic EQ turned off when measuring levels.
> 
> There's no documentation about what the individual speakers are supposed to be doing when playing the Atmos speaker demos, so I wouldn't trust them. Each one does something different: some obviously have "snap to speaker" enabled while others just as obviously use phantom imaging.


Dynamic EQ really messes with the levels. According to the disc tones, with DEQ on it raises the levels of side surrounds and TR speakers 5-6dB over the avr tones, and the rear surrounds by +3dB! But, the TF speakers are 5dB lower for some reason 

And with DEQ off all the speakers were close to the same level using the tones off the demo disc compared to the avr tones, except the TF speakers which remained -5dB lower. What the hell?


----------



## Spanglo

sdurani said:


> Your surrounds are likely being boosted. Play the 9.1.6 track and see if the wides signal phantom images between your fronts & sides or snaps to your front speakers.


Wides signal played thru fronts only.

DEQ really boosted levels, some more than others, but what's up with the TF speakers playing so much lower spl?


----------



## sdurani

Spanglo said:


> Wides signal played thru fronts only.


That's an example of an object with "speaker snap" encoding. It won't phantom image at the intended speaker location (wides).


----------



## Spanglo

sdurani said:


> That's an example of an object with "speaker snap" encoding. It won't phantom image at the intended speaker location (wides).


Roger that.

Any idea why my TF speakers are playing 5dB lower than the rest of speakers according to the demo disc, regardless if DEQ is on or not?


----------



## showmak

I think the time has come to upgrade my setup from 5.1 to Atmos 5.1.4. I did preliminary sketches for your info and comments. The yellow circles represent in-ceiling atmos speakers.

All the angles are based on the official Dolby speakers guides.

Am I good to go? Please refer to the sketches and advise your comments. If more info is required, please let me know.

Thanks


----------



## Norixone

*Dialogue level in Atmos movies*

Has anyone noticed that dialogue in Atmos movies is a little muffed up? I watched Mad Max Fury Road yesterday evening and it was quite difficult to clearly hear the (very few) dialogues. Watching any other movie in DD or DTS (any flavour of both) works well.


----------



## kbarnes701

GXMnow said:


> Just a little clarification.
> 
> I see that people are testing and starting to agree with how I said the panning works when you tell it different speaker locations, and this is all good. If you understand how the system is placing the sound, then your choice can be made with more logic and less guess work.


There is just a single fly in the ointment and you have not commented on it.

The prescribed Dolby angles for TF are 30-55°. For FH they are 30-45°. For TR they are 125-150° and for RH they are 135-150°.

So for anyone who mounts their foremost pair and their rearmost pair in the ranges 30-45° and 135-150° they are on spec for either a FH+RH or a TF+TR setup, regardless of how they designate them in the AVR. These are huge ranges of potential locations and indicate that the precision which you are describing does not in fact exist. If my foremost pair are anywhere in the range of 30-45° and my rearmost pair anywhere in the range of 135-150°, then I have the choice of designating them as FH+RH or TF+TR and being totally within spec. And if I do that, Dolby are telling me that the results will be "indistinguishable" regardless of which designation I use.

There is way too much overthinking going on. Given the huge range of permitted, on spec angles, one can be certain that Dolby know what they are talking about when they say that FH+RH and TF+TR are "indistinguishable" in any system limited to two overhead speaker pairs.


----------



## kbarnes701

toofast68 said:


> So if you've been on the DTS:X thread, I am getting the cold shoulder because I am challenging that by Dolby and now DTS:X saying that you can have the physical speakers installed in TF and TR, yet you MUST have the AVR setup to FH and FR.


You say this as though there is one position for FH and RH and one position for TF and TR. That isn't the case. See my post just above and you will see that there is a considerable overlap between the different designations for physical speaker placement. If you have the foremost speaker pair at 40° and the rearmost pair at 130°, what do you designate them as? TF+TR is correct. And so is FH+RH. 

And none of it has anything to do with home Atmos not being object-based. It is.


----------



## kbarnes701

toofast68 said:


> ^^ except you can't run TF and RH....with DTS:X
> 
> *only option is FH and RH.
> *
> unless you only stick with Atmos
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Until the bug is fixed. You do realise it's a DTS bug that is currently limiting the designation to FH+RH? But if you are within that fairly considerable spread of angles I just referenced, you can use either FH+RH or TF+TR and be in spec for either.


----------



## kbarnes701

Norixone said:


> Has anyone noticed that dialogue in Atmos movies is a little muffed up? I watched Mad Max Fury Road yesterday evening and it was quite difficult to clearly hear the (very few) dialogues. Watching any other movie in DD or DTS (any flavour of both) works well.


No. No muffling at all on MMFR or any of the 30 Atmos movies I have. Seems you may have a setup problem.


----------



## richmagnus

What Keith says above. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## A.Bell

Norixone said:


> Has anyone noticed that dialogue in Atmos movies is a little muffed up? I watched Mad Max Fury Road yesterday evening and it was quite difficult to clearly hear the (very few) dialogues. Watching any other movie in DD or DTS (any flavour of both) works well.


I just watched this last night at a friends house last night. He has a ATMOS setup and I found the dialogue tough to understand. I believe it's just the movie itself. Most everyone in the movie has an accent that is sometimes hard to understand.


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> There is just a single fly in the ointment and you have not commented on it.
> 
> 
> 
> The prescribed Dolby angles for TF are 30-55°. For FH they are 30-45°. For TR they are 125-150° and for RH they are 135-150°.
> 
> 
> 
> So for anyone who mounts their foremost pair and their rearmost pair in the ranges 30-45° and 135-150° they are on spec for either a FH+RH or a TF+TR setup, regardless of how they designate them in the AVR. These are huge ranges of potential locations and indicate that the precision which you are describing does not in fact exist. If my foremost pair are anywhere in the range of 30-45° and my rearmost pair anywhere in the range of 135-150°, then I have the choice of designating them as FH+RH or TF+TR and being totally within spec. And if I do that, Dolby are telling me that the results will be "indistinguishable" regardless of which designation I use.
> 
> 
> 
> There is way too much overthinking going on. Given the huge range of permitted, on spec angles, one can be certain that Dolby know what they are talking about when they say that FH+RH and TF+TR are "indistinguishable" in any system limited to two overhead speaker pairs.



What you say about angles is true, but since there are only two front height level positions available, the designation of the speaker does make a difference as to the signal delivered, regardless of actual speaker angle.

It doesn't make sense to tell someone who hears a difference, and the test tones make the difference exceptionally obvious, that they're overthinking it because a rep said it's indistinguishable. The Dolby rep may have said that is the case, but it's not.


----------



## DLCPhoto

With all the attention on TF/RF, FH/RH, this more basic post may have been overlooked.

Still interested in advice on speaker placement as I finalize my plans.

Thanks!

Don



DLCPhoto said:


> I'm still in the planning stages of converting my current audio-only room to an Atmos audio-visual system.
> 
> Room specs:
> 
> 20' wide x 32' long, with the screen to be on the 20' wall.
> Listening position about 15' from that front wall.
> Walls about 8 1/2" high at the sides, but with a vaulted ceiling 12' 6" high, running along the length of the room, with 3 horizontal beams across the width, placed at 8', 16', 24' from the front, respectively.
> 
> I have a 3D Model using free software from Sweet Home 3D, which is the best way of seeing the room, placement of speakers, etc. The file containing my specs can be downloaded here. This is the best way to visualize the room.
> 
> (And on this subject, this is perhaps an ideal way to design and share specs for these rooms, as verbal descriptions, and even 2D drawings can be imprecise and cumbersome.)
> 
> I will have Top Front and Top Rear Atmos speakers (most likely Polk OWM5's) mounted from the beam 8' from the front, and the beam 24' from the front (7' in front of the MLP and 9' in back of the MLP), at a height of about 102" from the floor, 60" above the ear position of 42". If my calculations are right, that gives me 30 degree TF (30-55 recommended) and 154 degrees TR (125-150 recommended). Reasonably close to the recommended angles.
> 
> I have no flexibility on moving the distance of the speakers from front to back, but can put them anywhere I want on the beams, in terms of the side-to-side dimension.
> 
> *First question: is there any recommendation on horizontal placement of the Atmos speakers, relative to other speakers in the base level, or is it just a matter of getting the angles as close as possible to Dolby recommendations?*
> 
> For Front Right/Left, I have fairly massive Duntech Sovereigns (with a JBL LSR-308 Powered Studio Monitor for the Center Channel). The horizontal position of these gives me about 28 degrees (recommended is 22 to 30) from MLP.
> 
> For the 4 Dolby Surrounds, I have older Wharfedale Diamond II's. The side ones can be readily placed at ear-height (42"), and pretty much at 90 degrees to the MLP.
> 
> The Rear Surrounds are more problematic due to room/furniture limitations. I can have them at the same width of the Duntech's, but much higher in in the room (86" from the floor, about 1 foot from the back wall).
> 
> Or I can put them at the same 42" ear-height as the sides, and about 2 feet from the back wall, but these would be closer to the center than the Duntech's (6' from the side walls for the surrounds, vs 4' from the walls for the Duntech's. This would give me about 165 degree placement (recommended 135 to 150).
> 
> *Second Question: which of these 2 rear Dolby speaker configurations would be preferred: the higher, wider, closer to the back wall option, or the lower, narrower, a little further from the back wall configuration?*
> 
> *Third Question: In either case, the Dolby rears are about 15 feet back from the MLP. How much will this impact the overall experience?*
> 
> *Any other recommendations on how to achieve a better result is always welcome. Like they say, measure twice cut once.*
> 
> Here are some 2D images if you don't want to deal with the 3D application:


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> What you say about angles is true, but since there are only two front height level positions available, the designation of the speaker does make a difference as to the signal delivered, regardless of actual speaker angle.


Not saying there is no difference in the signal delivered. Saying that the difference is inaudible, or as Dolby called it "indistinguishable'.



jpco said:


> It doesn't make sense to tell someone who hears a difference, and the test tones make the difference exceptionally obvious, that they're overthinking it because a rep said it's indistinguishable. The Dolby rep may have said that is the case, but it's not.


It doesn’t make sense to tell someone who doesn't hear a difference, and the test tones make the lack of difference exceptionally obvious, that they are wrong.

I tested FH+RH and TF+TR for over an hour here (before richmagnus advised what Dolby were saying) and detected no difference. Of course, each and every setup is different and there may be some circumstances in which speaker placement, speaker type, etc etc do result in some differences. In my setup, and I have said that my rearmost speaker set are out of spec for FH or TR, there is no discernible difference, just like Dolby say. I always do tend to think that Dolby will know more about Atmos than people on the Internet, but that's just me


----------



## Selden Ball

DLCPhoto said:


> *First question: is there any recommendation on horizontal placement of the Atmos speakers, relative to other speakers in the base level, or is it just a matter of getting the angles as close as possible to Dolby recommendations?*


 One of Dolby's recommendations is that home installations have the overheads in line with the front main speakers.


> *Second Question: which of these 2 rear Dolby speaker configurations would be preferred: the higher, wider, closer to the back wall option, or the lower, narrower, a little further from the back wall configuration?*


 Either should work reasonably well. Dolby recommends the maximum vertical separation possible between overheads and ear-level speakers in order to make the difference more easily audible.


> *Third Question: In either case, the Dolby rears are about 15 feet back from the MLP. How much will this impact the overall experience?*


 So long as the amp can provide enough power to produce an adequate sound level at the MLP, they should be fine. It's the direction toward the speakers which matters. People near them might sometimes be a little annoyed.


----------



## Norixone

kbarnes701 said:


> No. No muffling at all on MMFR or any of the 30 Atmos movies I have. Seems you may have a setup problem.


Thanks kbarnes, but I think I figured out the problem

QUOTE: Dialogue isn't always intelligible, particularly whenever the War Boys attack Furiosa's rig or gunfire erupts, but it also wasn't designed to be UNQUOTE
It's from bluray.com

I've also watched MI Rogue Nation in Atmos and had no issue, but I re-did my autoeq since then so I thought as well that something may not have been right although the centre chanel was boosted by 5.5 dB


----------



## Norixone

A.Bell said:


> I just watched this last night at a friends house last night. He has a ATMOS setup and I found the dialogue tough to understand. I believe it's just the movie itself. Most everyone in the movie has an accent that is sometimes hard to understand.


Seems they did it on purpose not to distract you from the action. Nevertheless, there wasn't much talking going on anyhow and what they had to say was not that important. On the other hand everyone at home was impressed with the sound and personally, in 20 years with HT I have never experienced so much subwoofer mayhem...


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> Not saying there is no difference in the signal delivered. Saying that the difference is inaudible, or as Dolby called it "indistinguishable'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t make sense to tell someone who doesn't hear a difference, and the test tones make the lack of difference exceptionally obvious, that they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I tested FH+RH and TF+TR for over an hour here (before richmagnus advised what Dolby were saying) and detected no difference. Of course, each and every setup is different and there may be some circumstances in which speaker placement, speaker type, etc etc do result in some differences. In my setup, and I have said that my rearmost speaker set are out of spec for FH or TR, there is no discernible difference, just like Dolby say. I always do tend to think that Dolby will know more about Atmos than people on the Internet, but that's just me



Honestly, you're doing the exact same thing, just in reverse. Because you don't hear it, you're telling others it's indistinguishable and making it sound like fact. 

I don't care what an unidentified Dolby rep said. I know what I hear (Yamaha). Without prompting, others with Denon and Onkyo have reported the same thing. Not only is there a difference, there should be a difference. That's the point of the designation in the first place.


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> In my setup, and I have said that my rearmost speaker set are out of spec for FH or TR, there is no discernible difference, just like Dolby say. I always do tend to think that Dolby will know more about Atmos than people on the Internet, but that's just me



I don't see Dolby official saying anywhere that having speakers overhead designated as heights is indistinguishable from designating them as tops. I only see people on the internet saying that.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> Honestly, you're doing the exact same thing, just in reverse. Because you don't hear it, you're telling others it's indistinguishable and making it sound like fact.


Not me. Dolby are telling you it's indistinguishable. That’s a fact  I am also saying the same thing, but I can only report what I hear, just like you. The interesting thing is that you hear something different.



jpco said:


> I don't care what an unidentified Dolby rep said. I know what I hear (Yamaha). Without prompting, others with Denon and Onkyo have reported the same thing. Not only is there a difference, there should be a difference. That's the point of the designation in the first place.


We don't know why there are these different designations in D&M equipment. What we do know is that there is definitely a difference between what is sent to the speakers when the designation is changed. Dolby did not say that they were identical, they said they were indistinguishable, which is very different. In systems that can play several pairs of overheads all at once, eg Trinnov, then I am sure that audible differences will be heard. What Dolby are saying is that when you have only two pairs, the sounds they make are indistinguishable whether you use FH+RH or TF+TR.

It may work differently on a Yamaha, I don't know. But Dolby were pretty clear. Have you tried testing it with the Audiosphere trailer and the floor level speakers turned off? I did this extensively and could hear no difference between FH+RH and TF+TR, confirming what Dolby said. If you could do the same test and report what differences you hear, that would be very helpful.


----------



## kbarnes701

jpco said:


> I don't see Dolby official saying anywhere that having speakers overhead designated as heights is indistinguishable from designating them as tops. I only see people on the internet saying that.


So you are basically saying that richmagnus is lying when he was told that by Dolby?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

kbarnes701 said:


> So you are basically saying that richmagnus is lying when he was told that by Dolby?


Can't the dolby guy be wrong?

Wouldn't be the first time someone in a technical company is wrong or misunderstood.

Indistinguishable for him depends on his level of tolerance...


----------



## Stoked21

jpco said:


> Not only is there a difference, there should be a difference. That's the point of the designation in the first place.


Honestly I don't think there should be a difference in most rooms since the angles are the same. I do however agree with you that since there are two different designations, one would THINK that this is for a reason. If the spec read that FH is 15-30° and TF was 25-50°, then it would seem to call out two distinct speaker locations. They could even allow a bit of overlap, as I listed, just for install flexibility. But when the specs are right on top of each, it doesn't make sense that these would be two mutually exclusive entities. 

If my room was 30' long, then I could run FH at 30°, TF at 45°, TM 90°, etc......But with my 16' long room putting all 10 speakers in would literally leave them about 1' spaced. Are we trying to build a line array on the ceiling??? I just don't think all speakers can be accommodated in a typical length room. Keep in mind that these are the "home" specs and not the cinema specs. Most rooms just can't run all 10. But I also don't think we would hear the granularity of 10 speakers all spaced by 1' on the ceiling varying by 10° each or so.....


----------



## dvdwilly3

SteveTheGeek said:


> Can't the dolby guy be wrong?
> 
> Wouldn't be the first time someone in a technical company is wrong or misunderstood.
> 
> Indistinguishable for him depends on his level of tolerance...


If you stop and think about it...maybe the Dolby guy said that the signal sent to the speakers was indistinguishable...and accept that it is a true fact.

The same signal (identical, indistinguishable, whatever...) at 2 different speaker locations will not sound the same to the listener...room acoustics, boundary effects, standing waves, even the shape of the listener's ear comes into play...

Same signal, different sound...


----------



## sdurani

Spanglo said:


> Any idea why my TF speakers are playing 5dB lower than the rest of speakers according to the demo disc, regardless if DEQ is on or not?


Are they different speakers than the others? Powered by a different amp? If you connect those speakers to other channels, are they still 5dB lower or do they suddenly become the same level as other speakers?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Saying that the difference is inaudible, or as Dolby called it "indistinguishable'.


The rep might have been thinking general consumer, not home theatre enthusiasts that have gotten used to noticing subtler differences.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The rep might have been thinking general consumer, not home theatre enthusiasts that have gotten used to noticing subtler differences.


It's possible, although a 'normal consumer' wouldn't presumably be attending the trade show where the comment was made. But I am an 'enthusiast' I guess, and I had already come to the conclusion that, here, FH+RH and TF+TR are indistinguishable, based on extensive listening with the floor speakers off, and using the Atmos trailers as content because they put tons into the overheads, making the differences, if any, easier to hear.

I'll (briefly) run the tests again just to make sure but I doubt it will change anything. To me at least, these two designations are interchangeable for now.


----------



## kbarnes701

SteveTheGeek said:


> Can't the dolby guy be wrong?
> 
> Wouldn't be the first time someone in a technical company is wrong or misunderstood.
> 
> Indistinguishable for him depends on his level of tolerance...


Same can apply to 'guys on the Internet'. At some point we have to decide who and what we believe to be correct or true. If the only way we can make sense of this is to assume the Dolby guy was wrong, or lacking in discriminatory ability, then that in itself makes no sense to me.

I have no problems with all this because I know that, here, FH+RH and TF+TR are truly indistinguishable. You could come here, I could turn off the floor level speakers and play the Audiosphere trailer and swap between FH+RH and TF+TR and ask you to tell me which was which and you wouldn't be able to. And my HT is not some cheap thing thrown together willy-nilly - the sound quality is terrific, so it is a fair test.

What would be more interesting than going around in circles with some guys saying they hear clear differences and others saying they don't, would be to try to get to the bottom of why some are hearing differences that don't exist for others.


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> So you are basically saying that richmagnus is lying when he was told that by Dolby?


Not at all, and I'm offended that you would go there. 

I'm saying the Dolby guy may have said what he said. I'm saying that was conveyed on the internet. I'm saying that there was not an official Dolby statement to this effect. Dolby clearly recommends top speakers for home implementation, preferable to height. That is what I read from them officially.


----------



## dvdwilly3

kbarnes701 said:


> Same can apply to 'guys on the Internet'. At some point we have to decide who and what we believe to be correct or true. If the only way we can make sense of this is to assume the Dolby guy was wrong, or lacking in discriminatory ability, then that in itself makes no sense to me.
> 
> I have no problems with all this because I know that, here, FH+RH and TF+TR are truly indistinguishable. You could come here, I could turn off the floor level speakers and play the Audiosphere trailer and swap between FH+RH and TF+TR and ask you to tell me which was which and you wouldn't be able to. And my HT is not some cheap thing thrown together willy-nilly - the sound quality is terrific, so it is a fair test.
> 
> What would be more interesting than going around in circles with some guys saying they hear clear differences and others saying they don't, would be to try to get to the bottom of why some are hearing differences that don't exist for others.


We all travel to the beat of a different drum, and do quite literally hear things differently.

I have always found the field of psychoacoustics fascinating and am a long-time fan of Diana Deutsch...

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=201

The acoustic illusions and paradoxes that she has demonstrated repeatedly are intriguing. In some...I have not studied all of them that closely...left-handers and right-handers differ in their tonal and musical perceptions.

It would surprise me if some that were not at work here...


----------



## bargervais

dvdwilly3 said:


> If you stop and think about it...maybe the Dolby guy said that the signal sent to the speakers was indistinguishable...and accept that it is a true fact.
> 
> The same signal (identical, indistinguishable, whatever...) at 2 different speaker locations will not sound the same to the listener...room acoustics, boundary effects, standing waves, even the shape of the listener's ear comes into play...
> 
> Same signal, different sound...


well said  that's my thinking the room and listeners ears come into play


----------



## jpco

kbarnes701 said:


> Same can apply to 'guys on the Internet'. At some point we have to decide who and what we believe to be correct or true. If the only way we can make sense of this is to assume the Dolby guy was wrong, or lacking in discriminatory ability, then that in itself makes no sense to me.


We don't have to decide who and what we believe to be correct or true. All we have to do is listen.


----------



## Spanglo

sdurani said:


> Are they different speakers than the others? Powered by a different amp? If you connect those speakers to other channels, are they still 5dB lower or do they suddenly become the same level as other speakers?


Powered by the avr, same manufacture of speakers, different models with similar sensitivity.

I'll do some more testing and report back.


----------



## GXMnow

From the listening that I have done, I think Dolby is a bit loose on the angle ranges, and I would venture to guess that was done to make sure it will have a position for any room shape. It does seem very odd that TF would completely hold the range for HF. I would expect overlap but that is a bit much. 

As far as the "indistinguishable" comment, we do not have the entire context of the conversation to really put it into perspective. 

If you have 2 different rooms. Room (A) has front heights at 8 feet up on the front wall, and they fall at about 35 degrees up. Room (B) has ceiling speakers 5 feet in front of the MLP, but still 4 feet or so from the front wall. They fall at say 40 degrees. If you set A to FH and B to TF and listen to the same movie clip, they should then sound "indistinguishable" as the renderer is trying to place the sound properly. 

In your case kbarnes you did not move your speakers, you just changed the designation and listened. Depending on the content, they will be very similar. And if the objects were tagged as top only, it likely will be almost identical, with the the placement over time being a little different, and on something moving fast, that would be near impossible to pick up. 

From the very start, people were stressed over (where do I put the speakers to get it right?) so I think they did a lot of testing and decided the wider allowed placement angles would make people more comfortable with getting the speakers not only where they will sound good, but also be able to be installed, and also look good with ones room decor.

Over those huge allowed angle ranges it still sound good and does not seem to lace the sound wrong with respect to picture, so the spec does work. But it is also true that the renderer does in fact have 5 possible overhead pair locations and most of the AVR's are giving you access to all of them in some form of combination. 

In my room, if I put FH speakers in the little space above my screen, the angle up from my ears would only be about 18 degrees. Such is the cost of a long room with an 8 foot ceiling. To get up to 30 degrees, I need to have my speaker 5.5 feet back from the screen. Yet this is clearly a top speaker in the ceiling and not a front height, so I can see how the speck came about. In a small space, it does become about the angles of separation between channels, but small distances and room shape can warp the angles fast. In the cinema system, they place the sound in a location in the room using x,y,z coordinates. Each speaker is given it's true place, not an angle from a given spot. There are listeners all over and the same speaker will be 30 degrees in front of one listener or 40 degrees behind another. By using angles in the home, it is trying to place you in the ideal seat in the theatre. In a 12 foot long room, even have just 2 rows of seats, the angles are very different between them. This does not make it wrong, it just means one row is maybe 1/3 back in a movie theatre while the other is 2/3 back. A sound that pans to or has a fixed location at 1/2 back will be behind one listener and in front of the other. 

This brings up the question about small rooms and the couch on the back wall. If you sit against the back wall in a movie theatre, obviously, the pans will not go behind you. Even the back wall surrounds could be at say 96 degrees since they are 15 feet above and just 2 feet behind you. Can we truly expect to make this sound like the middle of the room at home? By placing back surrounds just a foot behind your head, you are likely not going to like them beaming right at you, even if delayed to match distance. You can certainly make this situation sound good, or even great, but an object pan is likely to fall in front of you and not go behind very often. That does not make it wrong. If you designate the speakers right above the couch as top middle, it will pan there sooner than if they were labeled TR or RH which will bring you a bit closer to the action. And let's just say your ear is 1 foot in front of the back wall, and the speakers is in the corner of an 8 foot ceiling at the extreme back of the room. Ear height of 43 inches, 12 inches back, 53 inches up. That works out to 103 degrees. Still basically top middle, at just 3 degrees too far back, but not a rear by any stretch, that starts at 125. That happens to be the largest gap where there is not a speaker choice? Odd for sure. There is a 10 degree gap from TF to TM and a 25 degree gap from TM to TR. 

I found this version of the Dolby Atmos speaker placement guide at Pioneer.eu
http://www.pioneer.eu/files/dolby_a...tmos-Home-Theater-Installation-Guidelines.pdf

And pages 34 to 36 talk about "Height" speakers instead of "Top". And for the first time I see a mention of distance from the wall. 



> If the left rear height and right
> rear height speakers must be mounted overhead, they should be placed no more
> than one-eighth the distance to the middle of the room, approximately 135 degrees
> vertical from the center-front reference.


It seems they converted the distance to an approximate angle here. 

As far as I can tell, from listening as well as reading, TF/TR will allow things to pan around the top speakers, and likely into the ear height to pull it towards the walls if needed. FH/RH will keep the front to rear pans between the speakers, which is why they want them close to the front and back walls. In most mixes, with just 2 rows of height speakers, the differences is likely to be very small indeed. But they are rendered different.


----------



## richmagnus

Wow. Wish I hadn't posted anything. 
Firstly to be clear I asked the rep who may or may not be wrong is the information sent to FH/RH different to the information that is sent to TF/TR. He replied that it is more or less the same but not identical. He did not go into specifics. I then asked if I have FH and switched to TF would I notice an audible difference. He replied not really it would be indistinguishable. He did state categorically that in/on ceiling speakers would give the better sense of immersion for sounds coming from above. He spoke to me not as an enthusiast but as the owner of a home cinema business. 
Maybe he was the cleaner at Dolby?

I have a FH/RH 5.2.4 system with the FH mounted high on wall at about 40 degrees and RH mounted high on rear wall at about 100 degrees as MLP against back wall. I have tried switching between both FH/RH and TF/TR on familiar movie scenes. I can detect no discernible difference. I have not tried with any test discs. 

One of the best Atmos based systems I have ever heard runs FH/TM in a 7.4.4 configuration. Also a Steinway Lyngdorf system running FH and SH in a 6.2.4 configuration. 

I was also more impressed with the use of wides as used in the Trinnov/Procella system at the ISE than anything else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tbaucom

richmagnus said:


> Wow. Wish I hadn't posted anything.
> Firstly to be clear I asked the rep who may or may not be wrong is the information sent to FH/RH different to the information that is sent to TF/TR. He replied that it is more or less the same but not identical. He did not go into specifics. I then asked if I have FH and TF and could switch between the two would I notice an audible difference. He replied not really it would be indistinguishable. He did state categorically that in/on ceiling speakers would give the better sense of immersion for sounds coming from above. He spoke to me not as an enthusiast but as the owner of a home cinema business.
> Maybe he was the cleaner at Dolby?
> 
> I have a FH/RH 5.2.4 system with the FH mounted high on wall at about 40 degrees and RH mounted high on rear wall at about 100 degrees as MLP against back wall. I have tried switching between both FH/RH and TF/TR on familiar movie scenes. I can detect no discernible difference. I have not tried with any test discs.
> 
> One of the best Atmos based systems I have ever heard runs FH/TM in a 7.4.4 configuration. Also a Steinway Lyngdorf system running FH and SH in a 6.2.4 configuration.
> 
> I was also more impressed with the use of wides as used in the Trinnov/Procella system at the ISE than anything else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This makes complete sense but is not the same thing as saying FH and TF are interchangeable for the same physical speakers. If you had both, they would be in different locations in the room.


----------



## richmagnus

tbaucom said:


> This makes complete sense but is not the same thing as saying FH and TF are interchangeable for the same physical speakers. If you had both, they would be in different locations in the room.



My bad. I have edited my post. I asked about switching FH to TF without physically moving the speaker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tbaucom

richmagnus said:


> Wow. Wish I hadn't posted anything.
> Firstly to be clear I asked the rep who may or may not be wrong is the information sent to FH/RH different to the information that is sent to TF/TR. He replied that it is more or less the same but not identical. He did not go into specifics. I then asked if I have FH and switched to TF would I notice an audible difference. He replied not really it would be indistinguishable. He did state categorically that in/on ceiling speakers would give the better sense of immersion for sounds coming from above. He spoke to me not as an enthusiast but as the owner of a home cinema business.
> Maybe he was the cleaner at Dolby?
> 
> I have a FH/RH 5.2.4 system with the FH mounted high on wall at about 40 degrees and RH mounted high on rear wall at about 100 degrees as MLP against back wall. I have tried switching between both FH/RH and TF/TR on familiar movie scenes. I can detect no discernible difference. I have not tried with any test discs.
> 
> One of the best Atmos based systems I have ever heard runs FH/TM in a 7.4.4 configuration. Also a Steinway Lyngdorf system running FH and SH in a 6.2.4 configuration.
> 
> I was also more impressed with the use of wides as used in the Trinnov/Procella system at the ISE than anything else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for this information and I am glad to have it. Not to be picky, but are you sure he understood that "switch" meant simply changing the amp assign and not moving the speakers?


----------



## markm75

Curious for a Pioneer 1130k.. should the front of the unit light up Dolby Atmos when atmos is in play? Perhaps this differs if the source (HTPC via Kodi) is PCM? I'm only seeing 7.1 channels and the 7.1 diagram on the left on the lcd.. however if i go from auto surround to []Surround, my top middle's work, but it doesnt say dolby atmos, i think its just emulated? In my htpc, i have it set to 7.1 channels in the windows sound properties, hence PCM.. there is an option for passthrough in the kodi settings, rather than pcm


----------



## Stoked21

tbaucom said:


> This makes complete sense but is not the same thing as saying FH and TF are interchangeable for the same physical speakers. If you had both, they would be in different locations in the room.


No not really. If you had 5 pairs up top, they would just be more compressed in the same ceiling space, as your room ceiling height can't change! The angles overlay each other. So you could choose to push them all into the narrowest limits. This would result in more granularity of direct drivers, but the imaging would still all fall in the 30-150 degree space.


----------



## richmagnus

tbaucom said:


> Thanks for this information and I am glad to have it. Not to be picky, but are you sure he understood that "switch" meant simply changing the amp assign and not moving the speakers?



I presume so as I explained why i was asking due to the comments about switching between FH/RH and TF/RT in amp assign 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tbaucom

Stoked21 said:


> No not really. If you had 5 pairs up top, they would just be more compressed in the same ceiling space, as your room ceiling height can't change! The angles overlay each other. So you could choose to push them all into the narrowest limits. This would result in more granularity of direct drivers, but the imaging would still all fall in the 30-150 degree space.


IMO, people are to concerned with angles. atmos home decoder does not know the exact location of your speakers but I think it is reasonable to assume that it thinks heights are at very front and back regardless of the angle. If you have room A with FH/Rh with the speakers in very front and very rear of room and assign FH/RH it should sound the same as having speakers 1/4 or so into the room and using TF/TR because of the way the speakers image with each other. If you have speakers 1/4 into the room but tell the decoder in the avr they at very front and rear the imaging changes. Whether this is noticeable with actual content is debatable.

The overhead speakers do not play in a vacuum. they should work with each other and the lower level speakers. that is the point of object decoding. To work with what speakers you have to place sounds where most appropriate. It would seem likely the renderer treats this as FH(very front of room), TF(around 1/4 way in), TM(around half way in), TR(3/4 in, and RH(end of the room). The imaging between both overhead speakers and lower level speakers should change depending on how the the upper speakers are setup in the AVR. I would think home atmos renderer is trying to place sounds at positions in your room not exact angles since it doesn't actually know the exact angle of your speakers.


----------



## tbaucom

richmagnus said:


> I presume so as I explained why i was asking due to the comments about switching between FH/RH and TF/RT in amp assign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you.


----------



## NorthSky

jpco said:


> We don't have to decide who and what we believe to be correct or true. All we have to do is listen.


That ↑


----------



## Selden Ball

markm75 said:


> Curious for a Pioneer 1130k.. should the front of the unit light up Dolby Atmos when atmos is in play? Perhaps this differs if the source (HTPC via Kodi) is PCM?


 If the PC is sending PCM to the receiver, then you cannot get Atmos sound. The player software in the computer has to "bitstream" the soundtrack so that the receiver gets a Dolby TrueHD signal when playing an Atmos soundtrack. Then the receiver will see the Atmos metadata and will turn on the Atmos indication.



> I'm only seeing 7.1 channels and the 7.1 diagram on the left on the lcd.. however if i go from auto surround to []Surround, my top middle's work, but it doesnt say dolby atmos, i think its just emulated? In my htpc, i have it set to 7.1 channels in the windows sound properties, hence PCM.. there is an option for passthrough in the kodi settings, rather than pcm


You have to configure Kodi to bitstream the audio. My instructions below assume you're running Kodi v16 (Jarvis). The menus are somewhat different when running v15 (Isengard).

In the receiver, select the HDMI input that your computer's connected to and make sure the display device (TV or projector) is turned on. (The HDMI audio device has to be active so the computer's software can see it and configure its settings.)

Go to Kodi's System menu. Select Settings then select System. Click on the Settings Level at the lower left until it says Expert. (Otherwise some settings are not shown.)

In the Audio menu, select WASAPI: HDMI as the audio output device, not DirectSound.

At the bottom, enable "Passthrough".

See the framegrab below.


----------



## GXMnow

markm75 said:


> Curious for a Pioneer 1130k.. should the front of the unit light up Dolby Atmos when atmos is in play? Perhaps this differs if the source (HTPC via Kodi) is PCM? I'm only seeing 7.1 channels and the 7.1 diagram on the left on the lcd.. however if i go from auto surround to []Surround, my top middle's work, but it doesnt say dolby atmos, i think its just emulated? In my htpc, i have it set to 7.1 channels in the windows sound properties, hence PCM.. there is an option for passthrough in the kodi settings, rather than pcm


This does sound as if the HTPC is decoding the core 7.1 out of the Dolby True HD stream. This will remove the extra data needed to decode Dolby Atmos. What you are hearing when you turn on Dolby Surround is the DSU up mixer. Yu need to have the original bit stream of Dolby True HD to get to the AVR to be able to truly decode the native Atmos stream. On most Blu Ray players, the choice is (PCM) or (bitstream) for audio over HDMI. Since you are using an HTPC, the wording seems to be different. I would try "Bypass" and see if that will pass the bitstream to the HDMI output. Instead of 7.1 in the display, it should say "Dolby Atmos" when it is decoding the stream.


----------



## GXMnow

DLCPhoto said:


> With all the attention on TF/RF, FH/RH, this more basic post may have been overlooked.
> 
> Still interested in advice on speaker placement as I finalize my plans.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Don


Sorry your question got sort of pushed aside.

I wish I had a room like that to work with. You have a lot of potential there.

Using the front and rear beams to hole the overhead speakers looks just about perfect for "Top Front" and "Top Rear" speakers. Your rear surrounds are quite far back, but should not pose a problem. Try to keep them about 5 feet off the ground, yes this is a little above ear level, but at that distance, we are not talking about any real up angle, this will just help get the sound over the back of the couch. 

All of the Dolby diagrams recommend the width of the overhead and back speakers should match the width of your front left and right main speakers. Of cuorse, this is not absolute, and having them in 1 to 3 feet further in a room your size will not hurt the imaging. 

If you want a more idea movie experience, the one thing I might look into with that long of a room is to shorten the area used to watch movies. By this, I mean putting your back wall surrounds just a few feet behind the further back overhead beam. They could be on stands or a bookcase, etc. Just bring them in more to the audience. But if the room decor is such that it is one large open room, leaving them at the far wall is not bad. 

If you have some freedom on the side surrounds, I would also say to have them about 2 feet in front of your main listening positions and maybe a little elevated as well. How high is the center tweeter in the Duntec speakers? Matching that height, or even ramping upward to the back surrounds is good. 

The only bad thing about a room this large is you have a huge side wall with just one speaker there. With just a 7.x.4 processor, you can't add more real pan through speakers, but maybe having a pair of speakers on each side running the same side surround signal, just might fill in the large space. My 7.1 setup has 2 speakers on each side for better coverage. True wides would be better, but unless you have the Trinnov budget, you would have to give up a pair of height speakers.

Hope that helps and didn't just make more questions.


----------



## sdrucker

richmagnus said:


> I was also more impressed with the use of wides as used in the Trinnov/Procella system at the ISE than anything else.


 
+1 on this. The use of the wides to pull out objects with native Atmos content from bed channels is possibly the #1 benefit of an Atmos setup, once you get beyond the "oh wow" factor of having objects panning above you. I thought the same thing with the CEDIA Trinnov/Procella demo back in 2014. Having that pair of wides anchoring the space between the mains and the side surrounds really made a difference on the Star Trek: Into Darkness and the Dolby demos.....

Not to rub salt in any wounds, but I'm doing a 9.2.6 room in my dedicated HT room in our condo...however, I'm using either Triad or PSB Dolby AE speakers for Atmos given that we're in a hi-rise and have 9' concrete ceilings, but I'm on hold waiting to get some stuff in our new in order before I can get fully set up, for anyone that wondered where I've been. AFAIK there's only one other guy (Ash Sharma) that's done Dolby AE speakers with Trinnov, but whatever...should be interesting to see what doing TF/TM/TR will do for precision with the Dolby speakers  . 

No DTS:X official release for us Trinnov guys yet so the focus is just Atmos for me at this point.


----------



## Stoked21

tbaucom said:


> IMO, people are to concerned with angles. atmos home decoder does not know the exact location of your speakers but I think it is reasonable to assume that it thinks heights are at very front and back regardless of the angle. If you have room A with FH/FR with the speakers in very front and very rear of room and assign FH/RH it should sound the same as having speakers 1/4 or so into the room and using TF/TR because of the way the speakers image with each other. If you have speakers 1/4 into the room but tell the decoder in the avr they at very front and rear the imaging changes. Whether this is noticeable with actual content is debatable.
> 
> The overhead speakers do not play in a vacuum. they should work with each other and the lower level speakers. that is the point of object decoding. To work with what speakers you have to place sounds where most appropriate. It would seem likely the renderer treats this as FH(very front of room), TF(around 1/4 way in), TM(around half way in), TR(3/4 in, and RH(end of the room). The imaging between both overhead speakers and lower level speakers should change depending on how the the upper speakers are setup in the AVR. I would think home atmos renderer is trying to place sounds at positions in your room not exact angles since it doesn't actually know the exact angle of your speakers.


I have to respectfully disagree for a number of reasons. First off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth when I bring up points that you've never eluded to or mentioned. I'm sure you will agree with some of these finer details. 

1) When it comes to people being hung up on angles...You're right and wrong. I do think people sweat the angles too much to a minor extent. IMO if they're within spec or close, fit for the room and seating positions, and fit the speaker type, then go with it. 
2) I've ran numerous types of speakers in numerous amp assigns in numerous positions. They will sound better in certain spots with certain rooms and speaker types. I'm one of those that was hung up with meticulous angle calculations...and it paid off by delivering Atmos to 2 rows while staying in spec (5° out of spec on TR). It guaranteed I got the most coverage and the best SQ from my speakers with 2 different installs now with my given room.
3) Speakers have specified dispersion. Most people ignore this and just place the speaker in Dolby spec and think it's great. If you place a 90° dispersion speaker at 40° TF position relative to MLP, then you are out of the dispersion axis of the speaker! Most people don't consider this. Furthermore, this axial dispersion is relative to where you place them laterally as well. Too far to the right, and you are more than 45° off-axis of the 90° conical speaker. And many speakers dispersion is closer to 60°. Speakers with this dispersion would have to be mounted at 60° from MLP vs the max spec of 55° for TF. That means they cannot be mounted within Dolby spec and provide on-axis dispersion regardless. People mount them and don't realize they are out of the sweet spot of the speaker. Case and point, my new Atmos speakers are 90° dispersion and I mounted the TF at 30° to MLP (outside of the speakers dispersion, so technically I'm asking them to be 120° dispersion). However, they have a 30° baffle which compensates for this and points them directly at MLP. Furthermore, they are toed in at 30° towards MLP to compensate for the lateral spread. So I'm directly in the sweet spot at MLP. 
4) Multi row HTs....I also place a laser angle finder, set at 45°, on all driver locations and circle it around to ensure that ALL seats are encompassed by the laser for the desired mounting position. Therefore, they are all in direct dispersion pattern of all Atmos speakers whether front left seat, back right seat, or back middle MLP. What point is it to just mount them and disregard all seats? If you can compensate and cover all seats, while still focusing on MLP, then why wouldn't you?
5) Ceiling height....Most rooms have a 7.5' ceiling. Most ears are 40" when seated. This means you have 50" from ear to ceiling in a typical 7.5' tall room. Using TF/FH at shallowest 30° as example...TF/FH maximum distance form MLP is 86". FH min distance is 50" @ 45°. TF min distance from MLP is 35" @ 55° in this scenario. A typical IC or OC is going to be ~12" wide or diameter minimum. So if you are mounting FH at min spec and TF at max spec, you are literally leaving about 2' between them... Carry this example out for all 5 pairs at min to max Dolby specs and you are literally trying to fit 5' of speakers in a 14' length on the ceiling. Can you really imagine having a row of 5 speakers on a 14' stretch above your head? And most people's rooms are not that long anyway! Only 2' between each speaker on any given side? That's pretty damn cramped. I'm not saying it won't sound great and provide insane granularity to imaging. But my point is that most rooms are never going to have both TF and FH, unless they have very tall ceilings.
6) Based on the above exercise, the Dolby angle specs are crucial. People cannot just blatantly dismiss angles as being over-rated. The numbers above show that basically any speaker in TF or FH location are _one and the same speaker_. The difference in location between them is at most 50"@45°----35"@55° in a typical 7.5' room. Is that 15" above your head really going to create some significant fundamental shift in the way your ears hear and process the speaker above you??? Is that small distance really going to be perceived as Front Height vs Top Front? I think not. The processing on the other hand, can change how that's perceived. Whether that should or shouldn't, I'm torn. I stand by FH and TF being the same speaker in 90% of all rooms, irrespective of how the DSP handles them.
7) Based on this, I really call BS to the perception that a FH is at the front of the theater and a RH is at the back wall of the theater. That math just doesn't work unless you only have an 8' long room or extremely high ceilings. The specs on a standard TOP deployment with 7.5' ceilings will still cover a 14' long room and not necessitate a HEIGHT designation.


----------



## tbaucom

Stoked21 said:


> I have to respectfully disagree for a number of reasons. First off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth when I bring up points that you've never eluded to or mentioned. I'm sure you will agree with some of these finer details.
> 
> 1) When it comes to people being hung up on angles...You're right and wrong. I do think people sweat the angles too much to a minor extent. IMO if they're within spec or close, fit for the room and seating positions, and fit the speaker type, then go with it.
> 2) I've ran numerous types of speakers in numerous amp assigns in numerous positions. They will sound better in certain spots with certain rooms and speaker types. I'm one of those that was hung up with meticulous angle calculations...and it paid off by delivering Atmos to 2 rows while staying in spec (5° out of spec on TR). It guaranteed I got the most coverage and the best SQ from my speakers with 2 different installs now with my given room.
> 3) Speakers have specified dispersion. Most people ignore this and just place the speaker in Dolby spec and think it's great. If you place a 90° dispersion speaker at 40° TF position relative to MLP, then you are out of the dispersion axis of the speaker! Most people don't consider this. Furthermore, this axial dispersion is relative to where you place them laterally as well. Too far to the right, and you are more than 45° off-axis of the 90° conical speaker. And many speakers dispersion is closer to 60°. Speakers with this dispersion would have to be mounted at 60° from MLP vs the max spec of 55° for TF. That means they cannot be mounted within Dolby spec and provide on-axis dispersion regardless. People mount them and don't realize they are out of the sweet spot of the speaker. Case and point, my new Atmos speakers are 90° dispersion and I mounted the TF at 30° to MLP (outside of the speakers dispersion, so technically I'm asking them to be 120° dispersion). However, they have a 30° baffle which compensates for this and points them directly at MLP. Furthermore, they are toed in at 30° towards MLP to compensate for the lateral spread. So I'm directly in the sweet spot at MLP.
> 4) Multi row HTs....I also place a laser angle finder, set at 45°, on all driver locations and circle it around to ensure that ALL seats are encompassed by the laser for the desired mounting position. Therefore, they are all in direct dispersion pattern of all Atmos speakers whether front left seat, back right seat, or back middle MLP. What point is it to just mount them and disregard all seats? If you can compensate and cover all seats, while still focusing on MLP, then why wouldn't you?
> 5) Ceiling height....Most rooms have a 7.5' ceiling. Most ears are 40" when seated. This means you have 50" from ear to ceiling in a typical 7.5' tall room. Using TF/FH at shallowest 30° as example...TF/FH maximum distance form MLP is 86". FH min distance is 50" @ 45°. TF min distance from MLP is 35" @ 55° in this scenario. A typical IC or OC is going to be ~12" wide or diameter minimum. So if you are mounting FH at min spec and TF at max spec, you are literally leaving about 2' between them... Carry this example out for all 5 pairs at min to max Dolby specs and you are literally trying to fit 5' of speakers in a 14' length on the ceiling. Can you really imagine having a row of 5 speakers on a 14' stretch above your head? And most people's rooms are not that long anyway! Only 2' between each speaker on any given side? That's pretty damn cramped. I'm not saying it won't sound great and provide insane granularity to imaging. But my point is that most rooms are never going to have both TF and FH, unless they have very tall ceilings.
> 6) Based on the above exercise, the Dolby angle specs are crucial. People cannot just blatantly dismiss angles as being over-rated. The numbers above show that basically any speaker in TF or FH location are _one and the same speaker_. The difference in location between them is at most 50"@45°----35"@55° in a typical 7.5' room. Is that 15" above your head really going to create some significant fundamental shift in the way your ears hear and process the speaker above you??? Is that small distance really going to be perceived as Front Height vs Top Front? I think not. The processing on the other hand, can change how that's perceived. Whether that should or shouldn't, I'm torn. I stand by FH and TF being the same speaker in 90% of all rooms, irrespective of how the DSP handles them.
> 7) Based on this, I really call BS to the perception that a FH is at the front of the theater and a RH is at the back wall of the theater. That math just doesn't work unless you only have an 8' long room or extremely high ceilings. The specs on a standard TOP deployment with 7.5' ceilings will still cover a 14' long room and not necessitate a HEIGHT designation.


If you don't think there is any difference in the way they are rendered, what is your reasoning for the home atmos spec containing five pairs of over heads? I don't think there is too great of a real difference in the way sound would be perceived if they were sent the same signal but I don't think they are sent the same signal.


----------



## Stoked21

tbaucom said:


> If you don't think there is any difference in the way they are rendered, what is your reasoning for the home atmos spec containing five pairs of over heads? I don't think there is too great of a real difference in the way sound would be perceived if they were sent the same signal but I don't think they are sent the same signal.


Not saying there isn't any difference in the rendering. And I understand why both designations exist as some people could have 10-12' ceilings that easily accommodate 4-5 pairs. But in the overwhelming majority of rooms, the front speaker is going to fall into both the height and top specifications. Same for the rear. My argument is simply they are going to be the same speaker location in most everyone's room. So they should be processed identically. I know the goal is to allow support for .10 hence the different rendering as well. 

So that brings up the issue of which is the correct designation and WHY would they render differently in a typical sized room. It seems like there should be a correct designation ...I know we are all going in circles here.


----------



## tbaucom

Stoked21 said:


> Not saying there isn't any difference in the rendering. And I understand why both designations exist as some people could have 10-12' ceilings that easily accommodate 4-5 pairs. But in the overwhelming majority of rooms, the front speaker is going to fall into both the height and top specifications. Same for the rear. My argument is simply they are going to be the same speaker location in most everyone's room. So they should be processed identically. I know the goal is to allow support for .10 hence the different rendering as well.
> 
> So that brings up the issue of which is the correct designation and WHY would they render differently in a typical sized room. It seems like there should be a correct designation ...I know we are all going in circles here.


IMO, I don't think the designations have as much to do with the height of one's ceiling as they do the length of one room. From reading the Dolby white paper, height designations are intended as either extra speakers if one already has tops and a long room or as compromise if one is not willing to put speakers on or in ceiling. 

Remember, sounds move across the length of your room from front to back and vice versa. The renderer would have to assume some things about where your speakers are in your room in order for this to work as smoothly as possible. The only way I would find it logical for the overhead designations to do nothing, would be if the render works in a completely different fashion with 2 pairs of overheads than it does with 5. I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that this is the case. 

I am just trying to use some logic and have heard a difference with 7.1.4 test tones. 

Let me ask you this. If you had a processor that could play all 5 pairs of overhead speakers and you went in to the amp assign and changed the pair closest to the front of the room to TF and changed the pair at the second position in the room to FH do you think there would be a difference? Why or why not?


----------



## Stoked21

tbaucom said:


> IMO, I don't think the designations have as much to do with the height of one's ceiling as they do the length of one room. From reading the Dolby white paper, height designations are intended as either extra speakers if one already has tops and a long room or as compromise if one is not willing to put speakers on or in ceiling.
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this. If you had a processor that could play all 5 pairs of overhead speakers and you went in to the amp assign and changed the pair closest to the front of the room to TF and changed the pair at the second position in the room to FH do you think there would be a difference? Why or why not?


I've been doing Atmos for a year and am extremely versed in what is taking place and why, as an MSEE with years of DSP expertise. I could probably recite the Atmos papers from heart. But the statement above emphasizes my previous point that angles are crucial and directly proportional to room height. The height of the room dictates the location of the speakers and hence the imaging results. It is directly related to the length of the room as well, but height is by far the driving factor and significantly more important than length. They are not however mutually exclusive. The angles are very crucial otherwise images don't get spread out and/or speakers can be in locations that result in poor imaging. 

Just to be dramatic. One could have a 20' long room with 2' above their ears when seated. All of the speakers will fall within about 2-3' above the head (to the front and to the back) of the listener despite the long room. All of the speakers would be clustered directly above the MLP head causing an extremely narrow Atmos stage with little to no panning. One could also have an 8' long room with high 16' above ears of MLP. In this case, all of the speakers would end up at the front corner and the back corner of the room to stay within angular spec. In this case, the front and rears wouldn't image image as well due to the distance between them and proximity to the room boundaries. 

The angular specs are fairly wide, but if they are abused or ignored, imaging will suffer dramatically. But my point is this is "home" Atmos specs. Most rooms don't have anything higher than 10' ceilings and are not longer than say 20'....So having 5 pairs is highly impractical, although I do want it! On the other hand, if the angular specifications were relaxed and the FH and RH were expected to be at a much shallower angle, then we all would have 5 pairs of Atmos. This would also result in a room-filling panning effect from front-back, vice vera with extremely discrete object placement. But this isn't how it is, so it's really a moot point. Regardless, the angles and room heights are significant factors for successful Atmos. 

As for the question if I had a Trinnov that supported .10 and ceilings higher than my 8.5', well I think I answered that above. Of course I would expect them to render differently. Here's the rub. My TR are up against the wall/ceiling junction. But my TF are at the shallowest 30° spec...And they are a good 7' away from the screen front. I could easily put another pair of Atmos speakers in the ceiling or above the screen, but they would be in the 15-20° range due to ceiling height. Which we know is out of spec for FH......

I know this keeps coming back to angles. But seriously, how is one to differentiate between H and T when the specs are the same? I ripped my IC cans out a few weeks ago and mounted matching speakers on-ceiling....They're on the ceiling and not bookshelves mounted from the wall as pictured in many diagrams....So are they height or top? In my mind they are at Top angles (and Height angles too), they are mounted from the ceiling, so they are tops not heights....To my ears, Yamaha in Height mode resulted in lack-luster Atmos effect but Top designation was mind-boggling....I'll be testing it with Marantz in the next couple of weeks. But in the meantime, I'm a huge advocate for the top designations...


----------



## DLCPhoto

GXMnow said:


> Sorry your question got sort of pushed aside.
> 
> I wish I had a room like that to work with. You have a lot of potential there.
> 
> Using the front and rear beams to hole the overhead speakers looks just about perfect for "Top Front" and "Top Rear" speakers. Your rear surrounds are quite far back, but should not pose a problem. Try to keep them about 5 feet off the ground, yes this is a little above ear level, but at that distance, we are not talking about any real up angle, this will just help get the sound over the back of the couch.
> 
> All of the Dolby diagrams recommend the width of the overhead and back speakers should match the width of your front left and right main speakers. Of cuorse, this is not absolute, and having them in 1 to 3 feet further in a room your size will not hurt the imaging.
> 
> If you want a more idea movie experience, the one thing I might look into with that long of a room is to shorten the area used to watch movies. By this, I mean putting your back wall surrounds just a few feet behind the further back overhead beam. They could be on stands or a bookcase, etc. Just bring them in more to the audience. But if the room decor is such that it is one large open room, leaving them at the far wall is not bad.
> 
> If you have some freedom on the side surrounds, I would also say to have them about 2 feet in front of your main listening positions and maybe a little elevated as well. How high is the center tweeter in the Duntec speakers? Matching that height, or even ramping upward to the back surrounds is good.
> 
> The only bad thing about a room this large is you have a huge side wall with just one speaker there. With just a 7.x.4 processor, you can't add more real pan through speakers, but maybe having a pair of speakers on each side running the same side surround signal, just might fill in the large space. My 7.1 setup has 2 speakers on each side for better coverage. True wides would be better, but unless you have the Trinnov budget, you would have to give up a pair of height speakers.
> 
> Hope that helps and didn't just make more questions.


I appreciate the reply and suggestions. Better to ask and answer questions now, than after decisions are made and it's harder and costlier to implement changes.

A few specifics to your points:


The couch is actually only about 31" high, so there isn't much height to clear.
The center tweeter of the Duntech's is at 39" from the floor.
There isn't any way to place the rear surrounds any closer in without being completely in the way, as it is an open space, as I think you suspected.

Given these specifics, do you still think the rears (and sides), should be 5' up? It is do-able, and I'd probably attach them to the sides of book-cases that are in the right position, rather than having freestanding speaker stands.

Or would having them all at ear-level be preferrable?

I've thought about true wides, but as you point out, this takes this project to yet another level, that I'm not sure I'm prepared for at this time.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Stoked21 said:


> I've been doing Atmos for a year and am extremely versed in what is taking place and why, as an MSEE with years of DSP expertise. I could probably recite the Atmos papers from heart. But the statement above emphasizes my previous point that angles are crucial and directly proportional to room height. The height of the room dictates the location of the speakers and hence the imaging results. It is directly related to the length of the room as well, but height is by far the driving factor and significantly more important than length. They are not however mutually exclusive. The angles are very crucial otherwise images don't get spread out and/or speakers can be in locations that result in poor imaging.
> 
> Just to be dramatic. One could have a 20' long room with 2' above their ears when seated. All of the speakers will fall within about 2-3' above the head (to the front and to the back) of the listener despite the long room. All of the speakers would be clustered directly above the MLP head causing an extremely narrow Atmos stage with little to no panning. One could also have an 8' long room with high 16' above ears of MLP. In this case, all of the speakers would end up at the front corner and the back corner of the room to stay within angular spec. In this case, the front and rears wouldn't image image as well due to the distance between them and proximity to the room boundaries.
> 
> The angular specs are fairly wide, but if they are abused or ignored, imaging will suffer dramatically. But my point is this is "home" Atmos specs. Most rooms don't have anything higher than 10' ceilings and are not longer than say 20'....So having 5 pairs is highly impractical, although I do want it! On the other hand, if the angular specifications were relaxed and the FH and RH were expected to be at a much shallower angle, then we all would have 5 pairs of Atmos. This would also result in a room-filling panning effect from front-back, vice vera with extremely discrete object placement. But this isn't how it is, so it's really a moot point. Regardless, the angles and room heights are significant factors for successful Atmos.
> 
> As for the question if I had a Trinnov that supported .10 and ceilings higher than my 8.5', well I think I answered that above. Of course I would expect them to render differently. Here's the rub. My TR are up against the wall/ceiling junction. But my TF are at the shallowest 30° spec...And they are a good 7' away from the screen front. I could easily put another pair of Atmos speakers in the ceiling or above the screen, but they would be in the 15-20° range due to ceiling height. Which we know is out of spec for FH......
> 
> I know this keeps coming back to angles. But seriously, how is one to differentiate between H and T when the specs are the same? I ripped my IC cans out a few weeks ago and mounted matching speakers on-ceiling....They're on the ceiling and not bookshelves mounted from the wall as pictured in many diagrams....So are they height or top? In my mind they are at Top angles (and Height angles too), they are mounted from the ceiling, so they are tops not heights....To my ears, Yamaha in Height mode resulted in lack-luster Atmos effect but Top designation was mind-boggling....I'll be testing it with Marantz in the next couple of weeks. But in the meantime, I'm a huge advocate for the top designations...


Glad to read your last 2 para in particular as this describes my speaker relative locations almost identically.

I already have my TR on the rear wall near the ceiling. I am moving my TF from stands as upfiring to on-ceiling.

I have two rows of seats and just about bracket the Dolby angular specs at each end of the range at each row for both TF and TR. 

Was that clear...or not?


----------



## tbaucom

Stoked21 said:


> I've been doing Atmos for a year and am extremely versed in what is taking place and why, as an MSEE with years of DSP expertise. I could probably recite the Atmos papers from heart. But the statement above emphasizes my previous point that angles are crucial and directly proportional to room height. The height of the room dictates the location of the speakers and hence the imaging results. It is directly related to the length of the room as well, but height is by far the driving factor and significantly more important than length. They are not however mutually exclusive. The angles are very crucial otherwise images don't get spread out and/or speakers can be in locations that result in poor imaging.
> 
> Just to be dramatic. One could have a 20' long room with 2' above their ears when seated. All of the speakers will fall within about 2-3' above the head (to the front and to the back) of the listener despite the long room. All of the speakers would be clustered directly above the MLP head causing an extremely narrow Atmos stage with little to no panning. One could also have an 8' long room with high 16' above ears of MLP. In this case, all of the speakers would end up at the front corner and the back corner of the room to stay within angular spec. In this case, the front and rears wouldn't image image as well due to the distance between them and proximity to the room boundaries.
> 
> The angular specs are fairly wide, but if they are abused or ignored, imaging will suffer dramatically. But my point is this is "home" Atmos specs. Most rooms don't have anything higher than 10' ceilings and are not longer than say 20'....So having 5 pairs is highly impractical, although I do want it! On the other hand, if the angular specifications were relaxed and the FH and RH were expected to be at a much shallower angle, then we all would have 5 pairs of Atmos. This would also result in a room-filling panning effect from front-back, vice vera with extremely discrete object placement. But this isn't how it is, so it's really a moot point. Regardless, the angles and room heights are significant factors for successful Atmos.
> 
> As for the question if I had a Trinnov that supported .10 and ceilings higher than my 8.5', well I think I answered that above. Of course I would expect them to render differently. Here's the rub. My TR are up against the wall/ceiling junction. But my TF are at the shallowest 30° spec...And they are a good 7' away from the screen front. I could easily put another pair of Atmos speakers in the ceiling or above the screen, but they would be in the 15-20° range due to ceiling height. Which we know is out of spec for FH......
> 
> I know this keeps coming back to angles. But seriously, how is one to differentiate between H and T when the specs are the same? I ripped my IC cans out a few weeks ago and mounted matching speakers on-ceiling....They're on the ceiling and not bookshelves mounted from the wall as pictured in many diagrams....So are they height or top? In my mind they are at Top angles (and Height angles too), they are mounted from the ceiling, so they are tops not heights....To my ears, Yamaha in Height mode resulted in lack-luster Atmos effect but Top designation was mind-boggling....I'll be testing it with Marantz in the next couple of weeks. But in the meantime, I'm a huge advocate for the top designations...


ok. I'm confused. I thought your contention was that TH and TF were the same. How can they be if you think the TF designation sounds better no matter the location? This tells me you agree that they are rendered differently so I'm not sure what we are discussing.

I would always call something mounted on the ceiling a top speaker regardless of the angle. Dolby doesn't recommend heights on the ceiling. That is in their white paper. If it were me, I would try both designations even if speakers were mounted high on front and rear walls and see which designation I prefer. From what I hear, they are rendered differently as I have been saying. I believe height designation is not as discreet as top and relies more on phantom imaging when there are no tops present. The more discreet sounds from the top designation may sound better to people.

What I have been trying to do is make sense of Dolby's statement because to my ears tops and heights are not interchangeable.


----------



## markm75

GXMnow said:


> This does sound as if the HTPC is decoding the core 7.1 out of the Dolby True HD stream. This will remove the extra data needed to decode Dolby Atmos. What you are hearing when you turn on Dolby Surround is the DSU up mixer. Yu need to have the original bit stream of Dolby True HD to get to the AVR to be able to truly decode the native Atmos stream. On most Blu Ray players, the choice is (PCM) or (bitstream) for audio over HDMI. Since you are using an HTPC, the wording seems to be different. I would try "Bypass" and see if that will pass the bitstream to the HDMI output. Instead of 7.1 in the display, it should say "Dolby Atmos" when it is decoding the stream.





Selden Ball said:


> If the PC is sending PCM to the receiver, then you cannot get Atmos sound. The player software in the computer has to "bitstream" the soundtrack so that the receiver gets a Dolby TrueHD signal when playing an Atmos soundtrack. Then the receiver will see the Atmos metadata and will turn on the Atmos indication.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to configure Kodi to bitstream the audio. My instructions below assume you're running Kodi v16 (Jarvis). The menus are somewhat different when running v15 (Isengard).
> 
> In the receiver, select the HDMI input that your computer's connected to and make sure the display device (TV or projector) is turned on. (The HDMI audio device has to be active so the computer's software can see it and configure its settings.)
> 
> Go to Kodi's System menu. Select Settings then select System. Click on the Settings Level at the lower left until it says Expert. (Otherwise some settings are not shown.)
> 
> In the Audio menu, select WASAPI: HDMI as the audio output device, not DirectSound.
> 
> At the bottom, enable "Passthrough".
> 
> See the framegrab below.



Thanks, this was the ticket.. avoiding PCM.
Mad max sounded great even with just my TF speakers in play..

Is there any reason to use the []Surround Option.. i think i've read in this thread that the emulated surround for non atmos isnt accurate or realistic, or is it more a matter of preference?

I guess now that i have pcm off and dolby atmos is working on the display, would choosing the []surround option rather than auto, enable simulated back two speakers which get removed as part of the 5.1.2? Or again, not realistic i guess?


----------



## Stoked21

tbaucom said:


> ok. I'm confused. I thought your contention was that TH and TF were the same. How can they be if you think the TF designation sounds better no matter the location? This tells me you agree that they are rendered differently so I'm not sure what we are discussing.


I do believe that physical location of FH and TF are identical in essentially all installations for modern home theaters. But I do believe the rendering to be different.

While you have the right intentions, the statement that they would be two different speakers is incorrect. Implying that angles are irrelevant or stating that people sweat them too much, is extremely wrong. And lastly, disputing room length is more crucial than ceiling height is completely off-base. 

While we are agreeing that rendering is different and that the designations serve different purposes, I think you are missing the finer points of immersive audio implementation.


----------



## Selden Ball

markm75 said:


> Thanks, this was the ticket.. avoiding PCM.
> Mad max sounded great even with just my TF speakers in play..
> 
> Is there any reason to use the []Surround Option.. i think i've read in this thread that the emulated surround for non atmos isnt accurate or realistic, or is it more a matter of preference?
> 
> I guess now that i have pcm off and dolby atmos is working on the display, would choosing the []surround option rather than auto, enable simulated back two speakers which get removed as part of the 5.1.2? Or again, not realistic i guess?


The use of Dolby Surround upmixing is very much a personal preference. I enjoy upmixed CDs a lot. Other people don't.


----------



## tbaucom

Stoked21 said:


> I do believe that physical location of FH and TF are identical in essentially all installations for modern home theaters. But I do believe the rendering to be different.
> 
> While you have the right intentions, the statement that they would be two different speakers is incorrect. Implying that angles are irrelevant or stating that people sweat them too much, is extremely wrong. And lastly, disputing room length is more crucial than ceiling height is completely off-base.
> 
> While we are agreeing that rendering is different and that the designations serve different purposes, I think you are missing the finer points of immersive audio implementation.



I think we pretty much agree. Top and height speakers placement ranges overlap. I never said they didn't. In most instances the overheads should be assigned as tops and not heights. Again, i haven't disputed that.

As I have said all along, I think the rendering is different and the atmos preferred config for a .4 setup is with top speakers not heights. 

Nice home theater room by the way.


----------



## rontalley

I shared this in another thread. Thought it might be helpful here as well. I believe the angles and speaker dispersion rate are the _*most important factors*_ to consider.

Three Ceiling Heights are presented below 8', 10' and 12'. 
Top Middle Measurement for each is the distance between speakers if they were at 45 degrees. (Speaker with a 90° dispersion rate)
Top Left Measurement is there for a recommended position for speakers with a lower dispersion rate.
The bottom measurements for each: On the right side is from over MLP to minimum. On the left side is from over MLP to where you "should" designate as "Height" in AVR. 
The Grey area is personal choice.
The Tan area is where you "should" designate as "Top/Overhead" 
The Red area is reaching where you should consider just .2 for 8' ceiling unless you have speakers with a low dispersion rate. Past the red for 10'-12'.

There is no front or back. Height and Top/Overhead could be on/in-wall or on/in ceiling. These are only suggestions. Adjust accordingly

I hope this helps someone.


----------



## showmak

@rontalley do you recommend in-ceiling speakers or ceiling mounted speakers angled towards MLP? I can do both ways within the specified angles, but need to know which one is better sounding for both Atmos and DTS:X.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> What I have been trying to do is make sense of Dolby's statement because to my ears tops and heights are not interchangeable.


Might have been the Dolby rep's way of stating what you said earlier:


tbaucom said:


> Whether this is noticeable with actual content is debatable.


----------



## rontalley

Showmak said:


> @rontalley do you recommend in-ceiling speakers or ceiling mounted speakers angled towards MLP? I can do both ways within the specified angles, but need to know which one is better sounding for both Atmos and DTS:X.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


I consider myself well versed in Atmos but I have not acquired enough knowledge regarding DTS:X to make such a recommendation. 

With Atmos, there are many amazing sounding and looking setups with both on and in. Matter of personal choice.


----------



## DoctorVideo

I just received the Atmos Demo Disc with the German Video magazine, and I can confirm that it is not the Sept. 2015 version. It does not contain the movie and TV clips, the music clips or the test tones. Bummer!


----------



## dholmes54

I have a Yamaha 2050 and use height spks for atmos,would I benefit by moving them more toward my listening area,they are JBL 820 and can't hang them above me because of projector,I can move them appx 2 ft foward


----------



## murphy2112

rontalley said:


> I shared this in another thread. Thought it might be helpful here as well. I believe the angles and speaker dispersion rate are the _*most important factors*_ to consider.
> 
> Three Ceiling Heights are presented below 8', 10' and 12'.
> Top Middle Measurement for each is the distance between speakers if they were at 45 degrees. (Speaker with a 90° dispersion rate)
> Top Left Measurement is there for a recommended position for speakers with a lower dispersion rate.
> The bottom measurements for each: On the right side is from over MLP to minimum. On the left side is from over MLP to where you "should" designate as "Height" in AVR.
> The Grey area is personal choice.
> The Tan area is where you "should" designate as "Top/Overhead"
> The Red area is reaching where you should consider just .2 for 8' ceiling unless you have speakers with a low dispersion rate. Past the red for 10'-12'.
> 
> There is no front or back. Height and Top/Overhead could be on/in-wall or on/in ceiling. These are only suggestions. Adjust accordingly
> 
> I hope this helps someone.



This is so awesome I can't even tell you. However, I have 6.75' ceilings, so any chance you can add 7' in there? And I'd imagine other folks will have ceilings in the 11-14' range as well.


----------



## jrogers

dholmes54 said:


> I have a Yamaha 2050 and use height spks for atmos,would I benefit by moving them more toward my listening area,they are JBL 820 and can't hang them above me because of projector,I can move them appx 2 ft foward


If you have only two height speakers, I would think for Atmos you would benefit somewhat from the move - but results always vary room-to-room. There does seem to be consensus that, if you have 4 height speakers, they should be configured as either TF/TR or FH/RH and not FH/TM regardless of position. Also, if you don't have 4 height speakers, I strongly recommend it


----------



## dholmes54

Thx


----------



## aaranddeeman

Does the Redbox Everest carry Atmos track?


----------



## kokishin

Stoked21 said:


>


Love the rich Corinthian, polyethylene furniture covers. Simply sublime!


----------



## Stoked21

kokishin said:


> Love the rich Corinthian, polyethylene furniture covers. Simply sublime!


Yeah, my grandma came to visit and got me those for Xmas...HA HA

Nah, I think you're joking and know they're tarps to prevent drywall dust and paint splatters from the install....But just making sure!!


----------



## kokishin

Stoked21 said:


> Yeah, my grandma came to visit and got me those for Xmas...HA HA
> 
> Nah, I think you're joking and know they're tarps to prevent drywall dust and paint splatters from the install....But just making sure!!


Your thinking is correct. 

I've seen pics of your HT (sans tarps) and it looks elegant!


----------



## ALtlOff

kokishin said:


> Your thinking is correct.
> 
> I've seen pics of your HT (sans tarps) and it looks elegant!


Ooooooo, Rack -O- Amps.....

Nice!


----------



## Tyrindor

So I moved my sofa a couple feet back to get a better blend with the surround backs (they were 14ft behind the sofa), and now my Atmos speakers are a bit off center. I'm not sure how much it matters, haven't re-done calibration yet. There's no easy way to move them because it'd leave 8 inch holes in the ceiling, and would require patching the drywall.

Does it really matter that much? I'm basically running an "ideal" 7.2.2 setup now, and I'm wondering if I'd actually get better results if I disable the ones in the front so all sound goes to the 2 above the sofa. I'm guessing more is still better, even when placed too far ahead. The speakers can be easily angled, so they still face the MLP.

Picture to show what I mean. "Recommended" setup, vs how I currently am.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Yeah, my grandma came to visit and got me those for Xmas...HA HA
> 
> Nah, I think you're joking and know they're tarps to prevent drywall dust and paint splatters from the install....But just making sure!!


Wow, really nice! Is this a converted "Ballroom?"

For those of you who are too young to remember, the term "Rich Corinthian Leather" was actually a marketing ploy by Chrysler in the 70's as there is no such thing as "Corinthian Leather." It sure rolls off the tongue nice as easy, though. 

Lastly, the plastic reminds me of my Italian grandmother's friend who had tight plastic covers on their sofas. After 20 years, they still looked brand new. Then again, no one sat on them very long as they were really uncomfortable. Kinda like McDonald's furniture today.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Hi people,

Im going to build a new house and I think we like this design. However I dont know how I will setup up Atmos in it. In my signature you can see the components I have to use. But I need some help selecting a Atmos enabled AVR and the 4 ceiling speakers. Also another big problem is positioning the surround backs. My access doors will be off centre from the back of the room and potentially open up and hit the right back speaker. Can I have it higher up and hang it from the roof or maybe mount it right at the back tucked in off the back right wall?

Here is my Theater build thread.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...9-aussie-building-new-house-dedicated-ht.html

The Theatre room is 5.8m long x 4.85m wide x 2.7m high. 19' x 16' x 9'.



Here are some photos from the display home. I have extended the width and length by a metre in each direction so its bigger than in the photos.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Update - I'm a Dolby Atmos virgin no longer. 

I picked up a Denon x5200 (Open Box) from Best Buy and installed everything yesterday. 9.1.2 configuration with "Front Wides" and "Front Heights," which work best for my smaller man cave. 

WOW - Dolby Atmos is a game changer! The best way I can explain the difference in sound versus straight Dolby or DTS is a much more seamless integration, if that makes sense. In watching a couple battle scenes from "Unbroken" - - sounds moved across the room from left to right, right to left, front to back, back to front and above you, all effortlessly with smooth transition. Much more "cohesion" - - again, if that makes sense. I'm very impressed. 

I'm also happy to see that Redbox provides rentals with Dolby Atmos encoding. 

Quick question - - I know that the metadata rides along with the Dolby track but is this confined to 7.1? In other words, if you had a Dolby 5.1 soundtrack - - is it capable of Dolby Atmos? And Dolby Digital Plus? I stream a lot with Amazon Prime that they use DD+.


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> Update - I'm a Dolby Atmos virgin no longer.
> 
> I picked up a Denon x5200 (Open Box) from Best Buy and installed everything yesterday. 9.1.2 configuration with "Front Wides" and "Front Heights," which work best for my smaller man cave.
> 
> WOW - Dolby Atmos is a game changer! The best way I can explain the difference in sound versus straight Dolby or DTS is a much more seamless integration, if that makes sense. In watching a couple battle scenes from "Unbroken" - - sounds moved across the room from left to right, right to left, front to back, back to front and above you, all effortlessly with smooth transition. Much more "cohesion" - - again, if that makes sense. I'm very impressed.
> 
> I'm also happy to see that Redbox provides rentals with Dolby Atmos encoding.
> 
> Quick question - - I know that the metadata rides along with the Dolby track but is this confined to 7.1? In other words, if you had a Dolby 5.1 soundtrack - - is it capable of Dolby Atmos? And Dolby Digital Plus? I stream a lot with Amazon Prime that they use DD+.


The only Atmos capable track is one that is Atmos. As for Atmos and streaming it is already happening - see Vudu. For those other Dolby formats like DD+ found on Netflix, you will find they sound very good using DSU (as does a well mixed DTS track). If you want an example to listen to try Season 1 of Daredevil on Netlix. Welcome to the immersive club.


----------



## rontalley

Ricoflashback said:


> Update - I'm a Dolby Atmos virgin no longer.
> 
> I picked up a Denon x5200 (Open Box) from Best Buy and installed everything yesterday. 9.1.2 configuration with "Front Wides" and "Front Heights," which work best for my smaller man cave.
> 
> WOW - Dolby Atmos is a game changer! The best way I can explain the difference in sound versus straight Dolby or DTS is a much more seamless integration, if that makes sense. In watching a couple battle scenes from "Unbroken" - - sounds moved across the room from left to right, right to left, front to back, back to front and above you, all effortlessly with smooth transition. Much more "cohesion" - - again, if that makes sense. I'm very impressed.
> 
> I'm also happy to see that Redbox provides rentals with Dolby Atmos encoding.
> 
> Quick question - - I know that the metadata rides along with the Dolby track but is this confined to 7.1? In other words, if you had a Dolby 5.1 soundtrack - - is it capable of Dolby Atmos? And Dolby Digital Plus? I stream a lot with Amazon Prime that they use DD+.


I have experimented with extending .2 to .4 with an additional 5.1 AVR. Let me know if your interested.

Welcome to the club!


----------



## Tyrindor

http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-in-ceiling-speakers#cdt-3800-c-ii

I have four of these. A noticeable buzz can be heard with the receiver set to 0db and nothing playing. I can hear it from each speaker from the listening position (~8 feet away). They sound fine while playing heavily demanding atmos tracks though. My other speakers don't do this. 2 of them are connected up to an Emotiva amp, and the other 2 up to the Denon receiver, so I doubt it's some type of wiring/grounding issue because all 4 do it.

It seems after watching something loud, the buzz gets a lot louder (but again need to pause the movie to hear it).

I'm afraid i'm going to blow these, but at $350 a pop there's no way these shouldn't be able to handle reference volume (Audyssey XT32 calibrated, 0DB on receiver).

Thoughts?


----------



## sfuva21

*In Ceiling for Atmos - Polk vs. Yamaha vs. ...?*

I'm trying to decide on in-ceiling speakers for my Atmos 5.2.2 set-up. Any thoughts between the Polk Audio RC80i vs the Yamaha NS-IC800? Or maybe (but probably not) Yamaha NS-IW480C? Or something else in this price range? (I'm finding them online for around $150 per pair, which is way less than MSRP, especially for the Polks - hell, Polks MSRP is $320 per pair, I'm finding them $140 per pair shipped from a reliable site).

A few observations:

1. I'm running the Pioneer Andrew Jones 5.0 system, two Dayton Audio subs, and Pioneer VSX-1130K receiver. So, it's a well-researched, high bang-for-buck system, but it's still a budget system. The ceiling channels shouldn't cost more than the other speakers. $200 is most I'd like to spend on the pair.

2. I know that 90 degree dispersion is ideal for Atmos. But, see 1 above. Also, my ceilings are super low, like 8 feet, and its usually just my wife and I watching on the couch. So I would think that pointable speakers will be good enough - I'm not trying to fill 4 rows of stadium seats. Let me know if you think I'm wrong about this.

3. Right now I'm running two Energy Take Classic satellites mounted on-ceiling and pointed down at an angle from corners of wall/ceiling for my ceilings. Sounds good enough, but wife hates the look. So, I want my new purchase to sound at least that good - bonus points if it sounds even better.

4. The Polks have a higher MSRP than the Yamaha, which is often a nice approximation of quality. The Yamahas have better specs, and I realize that (as with Dayton Audio subs) sometimes a low price belies high quality/value. I also like the magnetic grill on the IC800 since I can more easily tweak the positioning of the pointable tweeter. 

Thanks!


----------



## Tyrindor

sfuva21 said:


> I'm trying to decide on in-ceiling speakers for my Atmos 5.2.2 set-up. Any thoughts between the Polk Audio RC80i vs the Yamaha NS-IC800? Or maybe (but probably not) Yamaha NS-IW480C? Or something else in this price range? (I'm finding them online for around $150 per pair, which is way less than MSRP, especially for the Polks - hell, Polks MSRP is $320 per pair, I'm finding them $140 per pair shipped from a reliable site).
> 
> A few observations:
> 
> 1. I'm running the Pioneer Andrew Jones 5.0 system, two Dayton Audio subs, and Pioneer VSX-1130K receiver. So, it's a well-researched, high bang-for-buck system, but it's still a budget system. The ceiling channels shouldn't cost more than the other speakers. $200 is most I'd like to spend on the pair.
> 
> 2. I know that 90 degree dispersion is ideal for Atmos. But, see 1 above. Also, my ceilings are super low, like 8 feet, and its usually just my wife and I watching on the couch. So I would think that pointable speakers will be good enough - I'm not trying to fill 4 rows of stadium seats. Let me know if you think I'm wrong about this.
> 
> 3. Right now I'm running two Energy Take Classic satellites mounted on-ceiling and pointed down at an angle from corners of wall/ceiling for my ceilings. Sounds good enough, but wife hates the look. So, I want my new purchase to sound at least that good - bonus points if it sounds even better.
> 
> 4. The Polks have a higher MSRP than the Yamaha, which is often a nice approximation of quality. The Yamahas have better specs, and I realize that (as with Dayton Audio subs) sometimes a low price belies high quality/value. I also like the magnetic grill on the IC800 since I can more easily tweak the positioning of the pointable tweeter.
> 
> Thanks!


8 feet ceilings are the norm (at least here in the USA), definitely not super low!

My ceilings are 6' 10", and Atmos is still very noticeable. I linked the speakers I have above, they angle/tilt, and I have them 10 feet apart. $350 retail, though I paid $800 for the 4 via Sound Distributors. Still is able to make it sound like there's something directly above me even though there's no speaker there. I think these are rated at 100 degree dispersion? With 8 foot ceilings, should be even easier.

Not sure why they Buzz though, i'm thinking they are interfering with the electrical line because I have lights in my ceiling too.


----------



## cyclones22

Tyrindor said:


> http://www.klipsch.com/products/reference-in-ceiling-speakers#cdt-3800-c-ii
> 
> I have four of these. A noticeable buzz can be heard with the receiver set to 0db and nothing playing. I can hear it from each speaker from the listening position (~8 feet away). They sound fine while playing heavily demanding atmos tracks though. My other speakers don't do this. 2 of them are connected up to an Emotiva amp, and the other 2 up to the Denon receiver, so I doubt it's some type of wiring/grounding issue because all 4 do it.
> 
> It seems after watching something loud, the buzz gets a lot louder (but again need to pause the movie to hear it).
> 
> I'm afraid i'm going to blow these, but at $350 a pop there's no way these shouldn't be able to handle reference volume (Audyssey XT32 calibrated, 0DB on receiver).
> 
> Thoughts?


What are your crossovers set to? Maybe they're set too low?


----------



## Tyrindor

cyclones22 said:


> What are your crossovers set to? Maybe they're set too low?


Audyssey sets them to 80hz.


----------



## showmak

Ricoflashback said:


> Update - I'm a Dolby Atmos virgin no longer.
> 
> I picked up a Denon x5200 (Open Box) from Best Buy and installed everything yesterday. 9.1.2 configuration with "Front Wides" and "Front Heights," which work best for my smaller man cave.
> 
> WOW - Dolby Atmos is a game changer! The best way I can explain the difference in sound versus straight Dolby or DTS is a much more seamless integration, if that makes sense. In watching a couple battle scenes from "Unbroken" - - sounds moved across the room from left to right, right to left, front to back, back to front and above you, all effortlessly with smooth transition. Much more "cohesion" - - again, if that makes sense. I'm very impressed.
> 
> I'm also happy to see that Redbox provides rentals with Dolby Atmos encoding.
> 
> Quick question - - I know that the metadata rides along with the Dolby track but is this confined to 7.1? In other words, if you had a Dolby 5.1 soundtrack - - is it capable of Dolby Atmos? And Dolby Digital Plus? I stream a lot with Amazon Prime that they use DD+.


What is your physical speakers configuration?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Showmak said:


> What is your physical speakers configuration?


9.1.2 - "Front Wide" with "Front Height." 

L/R - Paradigm Studio 60's, V.2
C - Paradigm C-690, V.5
Side Surrounds - Paradigm ADP590's, V.5
Rear Back Surrounds - Paradigm Millenia One 
Front Wide - Cornered Audio C2
Front Height - Cornered Audio C3
Velodyne Sub


----------



## cyclones22

Tyrindor said:


> Audyssey sets them to 80hz.


I don't think it would hurt to bump them up to 100 or 120 even and see what happens. My 140SAs are set to 150 and the built-in modules of the 280FAs are set to 80. That being said, that's what the manuals for each specifically recommend. Audyssey set the 140SAs to 90 and the manual says damage can be caused by going lower than the recommendation, so that was quite a bit below recommended spec.


----------



## Dbruce13

Ricoflashback said:


> 9.1.2 - "Front Wide" with "Front Height."
> 
> L/R - Paradigm Studio 60's, V.2
> C - Paradigm C-690, V.5
> Side Surrounds - Paradigm ADP590's, V.5
> Rear Back Surrounds - Paradigm Millenia One
> Front Wide - Cornered Audio C2
> Front Height - Cornered Audio C3
> Velodyne Sub


Out of curiosity why didnt you go with Paradigm ceiling speakers for your heights, seeing as you have all paradigm speakers? I have roughly the same speakers and was looking into "Atmosing" myself but wanted to avoid any matching timbre issues


----------



## sfuva21

Tyrindor said:


> 8 feet ceilings are the norm (at least here in the USA), definitely not super low!
> 
> My ceilings are 6' 10", and Atmos is still very noticeable. I linked the speakers I have above, they angle/tilt, and I have them 10 feet apart. $350 retail, though I paid $800 for the 4 via Sound Distributors. Still is able to make it sound like there's something directly above me even though there's no speaker there. I think these are rated at 100 degree dispersion? With 8 foot ceilings, should be even easier.
> 
> Not sure why they Buzz though, i'm thinking they are interfering with the electrical line because I have lights in my ceiling too.


Yea, I just went downstairs (was being lazy before), my ceilings are actually about 6'10" also (maybe even 6'8"). So, what do you think that means if I buy speakers that are pointable, but that aren't specially engineered for broad dispersion? Do you think it will sound good as an overhead channel for 2 people sitting side-by-side? (Trying to understand if the secret sauce of your speakers is being pointable/angled, or the 100 degree dispersion).

Yours look like a good buy at 4, but I only need 2, and even at $200 a piece these would cost more than my other speakers. 

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Tyrindor

I found out what is causing the buzzing. It's interference, it happens even with the amps off. If I turn my ceiling lights off (LED fixtures), the buzzing goes away. I'm using 12 gauge monoprice speaker wire, it's not in-wall rated. What should be my route to fix this buzzing? Would replacing with in-wall rated speaker wire fix it?

It's possible it's not even the speaker wire causing it, if I pull the speaker down out of the ceiling, the buzzing goes away too. This makes me think the speaker isn't shielded and can't be remotely close to any electrical wiring, it's 2 1/2 feet away from the light fixture which should be plenty, but there's also (shielded) electrical wire about 6 inches from it.

Not sure what to do. I think they make boxes that can help shield them?



sfuva21 said:


> Yea, I just went downstairs (was being lazy before), my ceilings are actually about 6'10" also (maybe even 6'8"). So, what do you think that means if I buy speakers that are pointable, but that aren't specially engineered for broad dispersion? Do you think it will sound good as an overhead channel for 2 people sitting side-by-side? (Trying to understand if the secret sauce of your speakers is being pointable/angled, or the 100 degree dispersion).
> 
> Yours look like a good buy at 4, but I only need 2, and even at $200 a piece these would cost more than my other speakers.
> 
> Thanks for the input.


You could get the lower end models. I went with the highest end model because it's what Klipsch recommended me for pairing with my RF-7s and RS-62s, which is their highest end reference lineup. If your speakers are worse, you should definitely be able to get away with the 6" versions or something. I think they are still 100 degree dispersion and can be aimed.

I think with a 6' 10" ceiling, wide dispersion will be very important otherwise your going to be able to isolate where the sound is coming.


----------



## batpig

sfuva21 said:


> Tyrindor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 feet ceilings are the norm (at least here in the USA), definitely not super low!
> 
> My ceilings are 6' 10", and Atmos is still very noticeable. I linked the speakers I have above, they angle/tilt, and I have them 10 feet apart. $350 retail, though I paid $800 for the 4 via Sound Distributors. Still is able to make it sound like there's something directly above me even though there's no speaker there. I think these are rated at 100 degree dispersion? With 8 foot ceilings, should be even easier.
> 
> Not sure why they Buzz though, i'm thinking they are interfering with the electrical line because I have lights in my ceiling too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I just went downstairs (was being lazy before), my ceilings are actually about 6'10" also (maybe even 6'8"). So, what do you think that means if I buy speakers that are pointable, but that aren't specially engineered for broad dispersion? Do you think it will sound good as an overhead channel for 2 people sitting side-by-side? (Trying to understand if the secret sauce of your speakers is being pointable/angled, or the 100 degree dispersion).
> 
> Yours look like a good buy at 4, but I only need 2, and even at $200 a piece these would cost more than my other speakers.
> 
> Thanks for the input.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the Niles DS7FX which can be had around $180/pair. I use these and Stokes21 did as well. 

They have good power handling and solid bass with 7" woofers and dual tweeters provide broad dispersion. And the entire driver assembly can pivot to help aim the speaker. 

You can also add a rear enclosure which Niles sells if you want to beef up the bass more. 

They aren't as high fidelity as my Triad front speakers but they sound very good and have no trouble cranking at high volumes.


----------



## clipper57

aaranddeeman said:


> Does the Redbox Everest carry Atmos track?


@ aaranddeeman yes the redbox version of Everest has the atmos track.


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> Take a look at the Niles DS7FX which can be had around $180/pair. I use these and Stokes21 did as well.
> 
> They have good power handling and solid bass with 7" woofers and dual tweeters provide broad dispersion. And the entire driver assembly can pivot to help aim the speaker.
> 
> You can also add a rear enclosure which Niles sells if you want to beef up the bass more.
> 
> They aren't as high fidelity as my Triad front speakers but they sound very good and have no trouble cranking at high volumes.


+1 Agreed, they were great speakers. They worked really well, sounded great and the aiming capabilities were VERY handy. And they're inexpensive to boot!! I really did like these speakers a lot. I ran two with the back box and two without.

I only changed cus I wanted matching drivers. If you try to run them to 0dbFS or even into the positives, during heavy action scenes they can distort a bit. It's difficult for them to hang with high SPL, high sensitivity speakers. I was driving everything into the 115-120db SPL arena and that's just not fair to the Niles which I think are rated at 107db max. But those little bastards hung in there and took it like a man! They never buckled or fried or anything and I over drove them hard for probably 6months plus!! Honestly, I think they're higher than 107db and are under rated, but they are definitely not 120db. That says something about them right there! 

Then again, most people probably wouldn't have tried to blow them like I did!  But I'm not most people!


----------



## batpig

Zowie. Yeah they aren't meant for reference plus SPL in a big room. But I max out at -10 and they handle that with ease. I'm surprised at the quality for the price and they are super easy to install also. 

Did you compare with and without the rear wave backbox enclosure? I've been curious about getting them. But I'm also waffling because I think about replacing them with something better eventually and don't want to invest more in them if so.


----------



## sfuva21

batpig said:


> Take a look at the Niles DS7FX which can be had around $180/pair. I use these and Stokes21 did as well.
> 
> They have good power handling and solid bass with 7" woofers and dual tweeters provide broad dispersion. And the entire driver assembly can pivot to help aim the speaker.
> 
> You can also add a rear enclosure which Niles sells if you want to beef up the bass more.
> 
> They aren't as high fidelity as my Triad front speakers but they sound very good and have no trouble cranking at high volumes.


Wow, thanks for the suggestion, I would have never stumbled upon those Niles if I hadn't posted. Love this forum. Quick follow-up: any thoughts on the DS7FX vs the CM7FX at $50 bucks less? I gather that the Directed Soundfield thing probably has to do with dispersion (and so is what I need for my low ceilings), but reading the specs side by side they seem pretty darn similar - dual tweeters pointing opposite directions, etc. Also, where are you finding the DS7FX for 180? I'm finding them for $213 a pair from a couple questionable retailers, after which it jumps up near 400-plus per pair. 

Thanks!


----------



## sfuva21

Stoked21 said:


> +1 Agreed, they were great speakers. They worked really well, sounded great and the aiming capabilities were VERY handy. And they're inexpensive to boot!! I really did like these speakers a lot. I ran two with the back box and two without.
> 
> I only changed cus I wanted matching drivers. If you try to run them to 0dbFS or even into the positives, during heavy action scenes they can distort a bit. It's difficult for them to hang with high SPL, high sensitivity speakers. I was driving everything into the 115-120db SPL arena and that's just not fair to the Niles which I think are rated at 107db max. But those little bastards hung in there and took it like a man! They never buckled or fried or anything and I over drove them hard for probably 6months plus!! Honestly, I think they're higher than 107db and are under rated, but they are definitely not 120db. That says something about them right there!
> 
> Then again, most people probably wouldn't have tried to blow them like I did!  But I'm not most people!


Wow, thanks for the suggestion, I would have never stumbled upon those Niles if I hadn't posted. Love this forum. Quick follow-up: any thoughts on the DS7FX vs the CM7FX at $50 bucks less? I gather that the Directed Soundfield thing probably has to do with dispersion (and so is what I need for my low ceilings), but reading the specs side by side they seem pretty darn similar - dual tweeters pointing opposite directions, etc. Also, where are you finding the DS7FX for 180? I'm finding them for $213 a pair from a couple questionable retailers, after which it jumps up near 400-plus per pair. 

Thanks!


----------



## Stoked21

batpig said:


> Zowie. Yeah they aren't meant for reference plus SPL in a big room. But I max out at -10 and they handle that with ease. I'm surprised at the quality for the price and they are super easy to install also.
> 
> Did you compare with and without the rear wave backbox enclosure? I've been curious about getting them. But I'm also waffling because I think about replacing them with something better eventually and don't want to invest more in them if so.


I never run REW on anything other than subs and LCR....Haven't had much reason to. So I can't comment on the magnitude response of with vs without Niles back "tube".

What I can tell you is that when I was using Audy, the Niles without the back box xo at 40hz. With back cans Audy set the xo at 80hz. But I always raised the xo to 80Hz on both pairs.

The top rear speakers were DS7MP without cans. The top front units that had the cans were DS7FX. That combined with proximity to back row MLP placing the listener/mic very close to top rears. The top rears without the back boxes always seemed louder (despite Audy setting trim) but they also seemed to have more LF. I suppose that could also have been due to duct work in the ceiling "amplifying" the bass of the top rears.

So take that for what it's worth since there were a lot of variables involved.....

I've thought about selling them all, but I'm not sure it's worth my time to find boxes and try to safely package them. Not to mention they are all covered with dry wall dust from install and removal!


----------



## Stoked21

sfuva21 said:


> Wow, thanks for the suggestion, I would have never stumbled upon those Niles if I hadn't posted. Love this forum. Quick follow-up: any thoughts on the DS7FX vs the CM7FX at $50 bucks less? I gather that the Directed Soundfield thing probably has to do with dispersion (and so is what I need for my low ceilings), but reading the specs side by side they seem pretty darn similar - dual tweeters pointing opposite directions, etc. Also, where are you finding the DS7FX for 180? I'm finding them for $213 a pair from a couple questionable retailers, after which it jumps up near 400-plus per pair.
> 
> Thanks!


I bought them all through Amazon and paid about $213 or so for a pair. I will say they are likely from unauthorized distributor at that price....But for the savings, why not. You can replace them once and you'd still pay less than a pair for authorized. But I had no issues with amazon non-authorized purchase. If I recall correctly, the CM isn't aimable like the DS. I favor the aiming variety which is more forgiving of install variance and room changes....I highly recommend the back cans cus the drywall and duct noise and sound transfer can be atrocious without them.....


----------



## aaranddeeman

clipper57 said:


> @ aaranddeeman yes the redbox version of Everest has the atmos track.


TU...


----------



## batpig

sfuva21 said:


> Wow, thanks for the suggestion, I would have never stumbled upon those Niles if I hadn't posted. Love this forum. Quick follow-up: any thoughts on the DS7FX vs the CM7FX at $50 bucks less? I gather that the Directed Soundfield thing probably has to do with dispersion (and so is what I need for my low ceilings), but reading the specs side by side they seem pretty darn similar - dual tweeters pointing opposite directions, etc. Also, where are you finding the DS7FX for 180? I'm finding them for $213 a pair from a couple questionable retailers, after which it jumps up near 400-plus per pair.
> 
> Thanks!


The ONLY difference between the CM and DS series is that the DS (Directed Soundfield) allows the entire woofer basket assembly to pivot. The tweeters (which sit on a "bridge") can also pivot independently in both versions. So with the CM series, the woofer will always fire straight down and then you get a little bit of wiggle room to pivot the tweeter and aim it. With the DS model, the entire driver array can pivot 15 degrees in any direction. So the CM version will have maybe 15 degrees of aiming latitute (just the tweeter) whereas the DS will let you aim up to 30 degrees (woofer basket pivot plus tweeter pivoting independently). 

In all other respects they are identical (woofers, tweeters, crossovers, power handling specs, etc). Oh wait, the DS requires a couple of inches of extra mounting depth to accommodate the pivoting mechanism, but it is still relatively shallow for a ceiling speaker. But performance wise they are identical.

In terms of pricing, yeah it looks like it's $213 now on Amazon. Last I checked was a while ago and there must have been a temporary price reduction from a specific seller or something. I just checked eBay and OneCall (authorized dealer) has an open box pair for $180 shipped, they claim it comes with full warranty.

Also a couple more good thing about these speakers (especially considering the price point) -- in addition to install being very easy, the grills are magnetic and very thin, which makes it a snap (literally) to put the grill on unlike many in-ceilings which require stuffing it in with a friction fit (which is then a PITA to take off without damaging the grill!). Plus the bipole/dipole selector switch is on the front baffle (some IC speakers put the switches on the back so you have to remove them from the ceiling to change the setting!) so, combined with the magnetic grill, it takes literally seconds to adjust the aim or flip the bipole/dipole switch and then replace the grill and go back to listening.

They aren't the best speakers in the world of course and if I had a bigger budget I'd do something different, but for the $200/pair price point IMO they are pretty hard to beat given the quality design, solid performance and ease of installation.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dbruce13 said:


> Out of curiosity why didnt you go with Paradigm ceiling speakers for your heights, seeing as you have all paradigm speakers? I have roughly the same speakers and was looking into "Atmosing" myself but wanted to avoid any matching timbre issues


I would have loved to install ceiling speakers but my older house and basement can't withstand the tearing out of the ceiling as it was finished after the house was built. Lots of insulation and other junk that accompanied the basement finish. 

I chose Cornered Audio speakers from Denmark as they fit nicely on corners and are a 90 degree design that are angled to the MLP. Good bass response, as well.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Tyrindor said:


> I found out what is causing the buzzing. It's interference, it happens even with the amps off. If I turn my ceiling lights off (LED fixtures), the buzzing goes away. I'm using 12 gauge monoprice speaker wire, it's not in-wall rated. What should be my route to fix this buzzing? Would replacing with in-wall rated speaker wire fix it?
> 
> It's possible it's not even the speaker wire causing it, if I pull the speaker down out of the ceiling, the buzzing goes away too. This makes me think the speaker isn't shielded and can't be remotely close to any electrical wiring, it's 2 1/2 feet away from the light fixture which should be plenty, but there's also (shielded) electrical wire about 6 inches from it.
> 
> Not sure what to do. I think they make boxes that can help shield them?
> 
> 
> 
> You could get the lower end models. I went with the highest end model because it's what Klipsch recommended me for pairing with my RF-7s and RS-62s, which is their highest end reference lineup. If your speakers are worse, you should definitely be able to get away with the 6" versions or something. I think they are still 100 degree dispersion and can be aimed.
> 
> I think with a 6' 10" ceiling, wide dispersion will be very important otherwise your going to be able to isolate where the sound is coming.


Replace the LED lights...only partly facietious...

LED lights are a known source of RFI (radiofrequency intereference...).

I would suspect that it may be worse with some brands than others.

But, when you are watching a movie don't you turn them off?

If not, there is your answer...and, FWIW, if they are dimmable, I would be willing to bet that the RFI is worse when you dim them...


----------



## Game Fan

clipper57 said:


> @ aaranddeeman yes the redbox version of Everest has the atmos track.


Great info. Is there a list of Redbox Blurays that have atmos?


----------



## asarose247

@dvdwiily3

If not, there is your answer...and, FWIW, if they are dimmable, I would be willing to bet that the RFI is worse when you dim them...

I have a pair that I leave on at night , front of the living room, those dimmers are like $30, and about 4 am one morning, I'm up and "What's that noise.?"

of course they are off when viewing. but max dim is max buzz


----------



## Tyrindor

dvdwilly3 said:


> Replace the LED lights...only partly facietious...
> 
> LED lights are a known source of RFI (radiofrequency intereference...).
> 
> I would suspect that it may be worse with some brands than others.
> 
> But, when you are watching a movie don't you turn them off?
> 
> If not, there is your answer...and, FWIW, if they are dimmable, I would be willing to bet that the RFI is worse when you dim them...


I do watch movies with them off. 

I'd only be worried about it damaging the speakers, which I don't know if that's even possible. The buzz definitely doesn't sound healthy.

I assume buying in-wall speaker cable won't fix/reduce this issue?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Game Fan said:


> Great info. Is there a list of Redbox Blurays that have atmos?


Yeah. That's the problem. If only redbox could post the Audio (and hoping it would be accurate).
But anything not Lions Gate is 99% not an issue.


----------



## GXMnow

Tyrindor said:


> I do watch movies with them off.
> 
> I'd only be worried about it damaging the speakers, which I don't know if that's even possible. The buzz definitely doesn't sound healthy.
> 
> I assume buying in-wall speaker cable won't fix/reduce this issue?


For the buzz to induce into a wire or speaker strong enough to be audible at distance, that must be a lot of RFI going on there. How hard is it to look around in the ceiling through the speaker openings? 

Here are the steps I would take.
Make sure the buzz is really only coming out of the speakers. It could be the wires or the light fixtures, and the open holes now are letting you hear it more. 

If you hear noise from the speaker holes with the speakers removed, you need to investigate where it is coming from and either isolate or restrain the wires or fixture parts from being able to vibrate and transfer noise into the room. 

If the sound is coming out of the speaker, even with the amp turned off, then it is induced into the wiring or speaker itself. Can you move the power wiring to the LED fixtures so it is further from the speaker wires and and speakers? If the wires must cross, have them cross at a 90 degree angle, do not run power and audio wires parallel as that will increase the coupling between them. And can the speaker wires be routed to not go past the lighting power wires?

If you are using a decent quality dimmer, just try old ordinary incandescent filament bulbs and see if the noise is gone at full brightness, and see if it comes back as you dim them. Some better dimmers have better RFI filtering with larger chokes and such to reduce the RFI noise they emit. Cheap dimmers sometimes do not have any filter chokes at all. Is the dimmer rated for use with LED lighting? Most decent LED lights now seem to be dimmable units that work fairly well with most better dimmers, but some can get unstable with no resistive load on them. I find my dimmer works much better with a pair of small conventional filament bulbs, and then the rest are LED units from Sylvania and Feit. If I put LED's in the last 2 spots, they tend to pulse a bit and even flicker once in a while. But I still have not had issues with them putting noise in my speakers, and my wiring does run fairly close in my attic. But I did stick to crossing at 90 degrees and parallel runs at least a foot apart. 

In reality, it si virtually impossible for any RFI induced into a speaker to carry enough power to ever hurt it, but a buzz can certainly be very annoying. 

You may also want to try changing around how you have your external amp powered. The unbalanced line level connections from the AVR to the amp are 100 times more likely to pickup RFI hash and amplify it into the room. Keep the amp close to the AVR and use a very good sheilded interconnect cable. RCA line level interconnects is one place where a cheap cable can really hurt performance. You don't need a $300 monster cable, but something with a 2 layer shield can really help, and make sure that cable is not near any A/C power cables at all. 

How are you turning the external amp on and off? If it is signal sensing, the buzz may be enough to wake it up. 

Hope this helps. I have spent many hours chasing hum and buzz issues in some large and complex systems. 

I have seen a few others mention hearing some hiss and/or hum when no signal is playing. I did notice on my Denon AVR, that when the Blu Ray player changes modes, such as when the menu on the disk is 1080i 30 and it goes to 1080p 24 for the actual movie, the AVR loses the digital audio for a few seconds and I hear the hiss. I assume it is not producing a valid digital audio stream at that moment and my AVR switches to the analog inputs. If I am up close to ref level, I can easily hear some hiss from my speakers, but once the digital PCM or bitstream signal is valid, the noise drops to inaudible from my listening position. I need to set the fall back so it does not go to open analog inputs.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> The only Atmos capable track is one that is Atmos. As for Atmos and streaming it is already happening - see Vudu. For those other Dolby formats like DD+ found on Netflix, you will find they sound very good using DSU (as does a well mixed DTS track). If you want an example to listen to try Season 1 of Daredevil on Netlix. Welcome to the immersive club.


Thanks. Let me rephrase my question. I rent from RedBox. So far, Dolby Atmos tracks ride along as metadata and show up on my Oppo 103 as Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and as Dolby Atmos onmy Denon x5200. I was curious if Dolby Atmos rides along a 5.1 or even DD+ soundtrack. Is Amazon Prime streaming Dolby Atmos on any free movies? (With their Amazon Prime membership.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks. Let me rephrase my question. I rent from RedBox. So far, Dolby Atmos tracks ride along as metadata and show up on my Oppo 103 as Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and as Dolby Atmos onmy Denon x5200. I was curious if Dolby Atmos rides along a 5.1 or even DD+ soundtrack. Is Amazon Prime streaming Dolby Atmos on any free movies? (With their Amazon Prime membership.)


Amazon and Netflix have not come to the Atmos party. They sometimes even have stereo tracks that are 5.1 on Blu-ray or 5.1 when the Blu-ray has 7.1. They're not big on audio quality, but that's not surprising because they barely care about picture quality. Netflix is going about re-encoding their library with even lower bitrates as we speak!

There was even an interview with one of Netflix's executives that said people are not into Atmos or immersive audio in general at the moment, so they aren't either. 

Dolby Digital Plus lossy can contain Atmos encoding, but only a few streaming companies, like Vudu, are adding Atmos when given the tracks by the studios.


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks. Let me rephrase my question. I rent from RedBox. So far, Dolby Atmos tracks ride along as metadata and show up on my Oppo 103 as Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and as Dolby Atmos onmy Denon x5200. I was curious if Dolby Atmos rides along a 5.1 or even DD+ soundtrack. Is Amazon Prime streaming Dolby Atmos on any free movies? (With their Amazon Prime membership.)


OK, two answers:

1. Atmos can be carried over TrueHD or DD+. Obviously the DD+ application would be for streaming services, but right now AFAIK only VUDU is supporting it.

2. Atmos will never "ride along" on a 5.1 signal. Never ever. If it's an Atmos encoded soundtrack, that means it ALWAYS has a 7.1ch bed + objects. If your AVP doesn't support Atmos decoding, it will see it as a 7.1 TrueHD/DD+ track.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> OK, two answers:
> 
> 1. Atmos can be carried over TrueHD or DD+. Obviously the DD+ application would be for streaming services, but right now AFAIK only VUDU is supporting it.
> 
> 2. Atmos will never "ride along" on a 5.1 signal. Never ever. If it's an Atmos encoded soundtrack, that means it ALWAYS has a 7.1ch bed + objects. If your AVP doesn't support Atmos decoding, it will see it as a 7.1 TrueHD/DD+ track.


Thanks to both you and Dan. I do not think many Bluray players display an Atmos track designation. The AVR shows Atmos and the Denon x5200 does a nice job of showing what's active with "Info" button. 

So - if Dolby Atmos can ride along with a DD+ signal, will Amazon Prime ever include it? I stream primarily from Amazon Prime (free content) and if there isn't a bandwidth issue, it would be great to stream Atmos from Amazon Prime. Is it a question of content or no interest by Amazon to provide Atmos tracks?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks to both you and Dan. I do not think many Bluray players display an Atmos track designation. The AVR shows Atmos and the Denon x5200 does a nice job of showing what's active with "Info" button.
> 
> So - if Dolby Atmos can ride along with a DD+ signal, will Amazon Prime ever include it? I stream primarily from Amazon Prime (free content) and if there isn't a bandwidth issue, it would be great to stream Atmos from Amazon Prime. Is it a question of content or no interest by Amazon to provide Atmos tracks?


Only when they think there is profit in offering it.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> Amazon and Netflix have not come to the Atmos party. They sometimes even have stereo tracks that are 5.1 on Blu-ray or 5.1 when the Blu-ray has 7.1. They're not big on audio quality, but that's not surprising because they barely care about picture quality. Netflix is going about re-encoding their library with even lower bitrates as we speak!
> 
> There was even an interview with one of Netflix's executives that said people are not into Atmos or immersive audio in general at the moment, so they aren't either.
> 
> Dolby Digital Plus lossy can contain Atmos encoding, but only a few streaming companies, like Vudu, are adding Atmos when given the tracks by the studios.


Thanks Dan. FYI - I've been streaming Amazom Prime (1080p) via my Roku 4 and the video quality is outstanding. Good enough for me to watch a movie with my projector on a 100 inch screen -- which I only did with Bluray before. And, it's mostly DD+ on the audio track.


----------



## jcp2

I have a noob question. I have a 7.1 system installed. The rear surrounds are 4 feet behind me, so I can only do 2 ceiling speakers in front of MLP for a 7.1.2 configuration. My 3 front mains are 12 feet from MLP. My question is; how far in front of MLP should I place the ceiling speakers for best overhead effects? Ceiling is 9 feet high. Thank you for your help and not flaming me.


----------



## batpig

jcp2 said:


> I have a noob question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 7.1 system installed. The rear surrounds are 4 feet behind me, so I can only do 2 ceiling speakers in front of MLP for a 7.1.2 configuration. My 3 front mains are 12 feet from MLP. My question is; how far in front of MLP should I place the ceiling speakers for best overhead effects? Ceiling is 9 feet high. Thank you for your help and not flaming me.


I wouldn't necessarily rule out 7.1.4 just because your back surrounds are only 4ft behind you. Unless they are in ceiling. 

You could easily place a pair above and a foot or two back and call them "Top Rear" and then be able to have front to back overhead movement in addition to side to side. So they'd only be 10-20 degrees back, think of it like sitting slightly towards the back of the theater. It will still sound good. 

That said, if you can only do 2 then the most important spot is the gap above and in front of you. If there's any chance you will eventually add a rear pair then I'd put them in the Top Front position, about half way between you and the front speakers. Still call them Top Middle for now but then you can maintain angular separation with a future pair of speakers further back. If you will for sure never ever ever have more than 2, they should be closer to you to bring the sound more directly overhead.


----------



## sfuva21

Stoked21 said:


> I've thought about selling them all, but I'm not sure it's worth my time to find boxes and try to safely package them. Not to mention they are all covered with dry wall dust from install and removal!


I'd definitely be interested in buying the back enclosures for your Niles surrounds. (Possibly your DS7FXs also, though it sounds like they've taken some abuse so I may be a little hesitant.) Curious what you'd sell them for? 

Thank you so much (and you, batpig), for all the info on these!


----------



## jcp2

Thank you so much for your help Batpig, much appreciated.


----------



## Ricoflashback

aaranddeeman said:


> Does the Redbox Everest carry Atmos track?


Yes, Dolby Atmos for Everest. Confirmed as of yesterday. As long as you obtain the 7.1 Bluray disc - - you're good to go. My RedBox is in the greater Denver, Colorado area.


----------



## fjendra

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes, Dolby Atmos for Everest. Confirmed as of yesterday. As long as you obtain the 7.1 Bluray disc - - you're good to go. My RedBox is in the greater Denver, Colorado area.


My Netflix rental had Atmos, I was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## dvdwilly3

jcp2 said:


> I have a noob question. I have a 7.1 system installed. The rear surrounds are 4 feet behind me, so I can only do 2 ceiling speakers in front of MLP for a 7.1.2 configuration. My 3 front mains are 12 feet from MLP. My question is; how far in front of MLP should I place the ceiling speakers for best overhead effects? Ceiling is 9 feet high. Thank you for your help and not flaming me.


You can do 7.1.4...

Your physical configuration sounds similar to mine...I have my rear heights as Top Rear, and they are about 4' behind me...with distance up the wall, they are about 5' or so. Most importantly, the angles work for the Dolby suggestions.

Look at the Dolby suggestions here...
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html

in particular, the side view. You are looking for the angles that would result frpm the placement of your front height speakers.

Figure out the angles for your MLP and put your Top Front speakers there...


----------



## wackid

dvdwilly3 said:


> You can do 7.1.4...
> 
> Your physical configuration sounds similar to mine...I have my rear heights as Top Rear, and they are about 4' behind me...with distance up the wall, they are about 5' or so. Most importantly, the angles work for the Dolby suggestions.
> 
> Look at the Dolby suggestions here...
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> in particular, the side view. You are looking for the angles that would result frpm the placement of your front height speakers.
> 
> Figure out the angles for your MLP and put your Top Front speakers there...


Interesting... I have a similar situation. Currently a 7.2 setup. With the backwall at 5 feet at MLP and my rear surrounds are at 6 feet high. With a ceiling of 9 feet. 

But what happens when you play a 7.1 movie and with atmos? In your setup. I think you will be missing out the rear surrounds?

Why you can't mount the Top rear on the ceiling with that distance? Because surround rear and top rear are to close to each other?


----------



## dvdwilly3

wackid said:


> Interesting... I have a similar situation. Currently a 7.2 setup. With the backwall at 5 feet at MLP and my rear surrounds are at 6 feet high. With a ceiling of 9 feet.
> 
> But what happens when you play a 7.1 movie and with atmos? In your setup. I think you will be missing out the rear surrounds?
> 
> Why you can't mount the Top rear on the ceiling with that distance? Because surround rear and top rear are to close to each other?


Drop your rear surrounds to ear level...around 38" to 40".

Put your Top Rear on the ceiling, or as I have done, at the top of the rear wall just under the ceiling junction.

I could not mount the Top Rear on the ceiling because of wiring issues, but on the wall just under the ceiling works.

And, my rear surrounds work just fine. I went thru 5.1.2 and then 5.1.4, but the backfield was not distinct enough. After some experimentation with 7.1.2, I went that way, and very quickly on to 7.1.4.

Now I am happy! Because of the size of my home theater (as well as $$$) this is where I will stop...


----------



## wackid

dvdwilly3 said:


> Drop your rear surrounds to ear level...around 38" to 40".
> 
> Put your Top Rear on the ceiling, or as I have done, at the top of the rear wall just under the ceiling junction.
> 
> I could not mount the Top Rear on the ceiling because of wiring issues, but on the wall just under the ceiling works.
> 
> And, my rear surrounds work just fine. I went thru 5.1.2 and then 5.1.4, but the backfield was not distinct enough. After some experimentation with 7.1.2, I went that way, and very quickly on to 7.1.4.
> 
> Now I am happy! Because of the size of my home theater (as well as $$$) this is where I will stop...


Owww ok so you have four speakers on the back wall. Now I understand. 

For me it's not possible to drop the rear surrounds at 38" my back surrounds are angled to MLP. 

Will it not work when I mount the top rear at 30 degrees angle on the ceiling? And yes it will be very close to surround back.


----------



## dvdwilly3

wackid said:


> Owww ok so you have four speakers on the back wall. Now I understand.
> 
> For me it's not possible to drop the rear surrounds at 38" my back surrounds are angled to MLP.
> 
> Will it not work when I mount the top rear at 30 degrees angle on the ceiling? And yes it will be very close to surround back.


It should work, but the more separation that can get between the two, the better.

In particular, anything that would pan from one to the other...if they are only a couple of feet apart, the illusion would not be as strong...

Do you have any pix of your back wall?


----------



## wackid

@dvdwilly3

This the back wall. And current situation. 

Just a relative simple living room situation.


----------



## Dbruce13

wackid said:


> Owww ok so you have four speakers on the back wall. Now I understand.
> 
> For me it's not possible to drop the rear surrounds at 38" my back surrounds are angled to MLP.
> 
> Will it not work when I mount the top rear at 30 degrees angle on the ceiling? And yes it will be very close to surround back.


From my understanding the main key is to get seperation from the surrounds and height speakers otherwise the "atmos" effect is diminished. If ceiling mount height speakers wount work in your room pic above just make your current rear speakers your rear heights (if the angles work) and add rear surrounds at slightly above ear level.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> Amazon and Netflix have not come to the Atmos party. They sometimes even have stereo tracks that are 5.1 on Blu-ray or 5.1 when the Blu-ray has 7.1. They're not big on audio quality, but that's not surprising because they barely care about picture quality. Netflix is going about re-encoding their library with even lower bitrates as we speak!
> 
> There was even an interview with one of Netflix's executives that said people are not into Atmos or immersive audio in general at the moment, so they aren't either.
> 
> Dolby Digital Plus lossy can contain Atmos encoding, but only a few streaming companies, like Vudu, are adding Atmos when given the tracks by the studios.


Vudu Has joined the party, I bought three UHD movies with Atmos Man of Steel, Into the Storm, And Live Die Repeat. no HDR at this time


----------



## dvdwilly3

Dbruce13 said:


> From my understanding the main key is to get seperation from the surrounds and height speakers otherwise the "atmos" effect is diminished. If ceiling mount height speakers wount work in your room pic above just make your current rear speakers your rear heights (if the angles work) and add rear surrounds at slightly above ear level.


You are perfectly correct...you need separation between the two...

That is exactly where I was going to go with it...that is, use currently installed speakers as Top Rear and install another set at ear level as rear surrounds.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon and Netflix have not come to the Atmos party. They sometimes even have stereo tracks that are 5.1 on Blu-ray or 5.1 when the Blu-ray has 7.1. They're not big on audio quality, but that's not surprising because they barely care about picture quality. Netflix is going about re-encoding their library with even lower bitrates as we speak!
> 
> There was even an interview with one of Netflix's executives that said people are not into Atmos or immersive audio in general at the moment, so they aren't either.
> 
> Dolby Digital Plus lossy can contain Atmos encoding, but only a few streaming companies, like Vudu, are adding Atmos when given the tracks by the studios.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dan. FYI - I've been streaming Amazom Prime (1080p) via my Roku 4 and the video quality is outstanding. Good enough for me to watch a movie with my projector on a 100 inch screen -- which I only did with Bluray before. And, it's mostly DD+ on the audio track.
Click to expand...

I've rented a couple of films from Amazon and I've always noticed banding and macroblocking... On a 55" UHD Tv. It's still not as good as Blu-ray.


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> Vudu Has joined the party, I bought three UHD movies with Atmos Man of Steel, Into the Storm, And Live Die Repeat. no HDR at this time


These have been available for at least 3 months now. They were available when I got my Roku 4 in October.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> These have been available for at least 3 months now. They were available when I got my Roku 4 in October.


yes they were!!! same here when i bought my Roku 4


----------



## sfuva21

Stoked21 said:


> I favor the aiming variety which is more forgiving of install variance and room changes....I highly recommend the back cans cus the drywall and duct noise and sound transfer can be atrocious without them.....


So, I just measured how much ceiling depth I have to work with. It seems I'd have JUST enough room for the DS7FX, but not nearly enough room for it plus the can. So, in light of that, it seems my choices are (1) go with the DS7FX, gain the extra point-ability of the woofer, but be forced to deal with whatever drywall/duct noise may come, or (2) go with the CM7FX, lose the ability to point the woofer (and hope that proper placement plus tweeter point-ability gets me there), but gain an extra two inches of space that I can use to wrap the thing in Styrofoam or some other makeshift sound insulator. (I don't want to do major ceiling surgery, so I'm going to be working with a hole no bigger than the speaker hole).

What would you say Stoked 21 and batpig? 

I think the second choice is probably better? Recall that ceilings are 6'9", give or take, so being able to locate the sound is definitely a concern. I'm hoping the dual/offsetting tweeters go a long way towards fixing that, a big part of why I'm going with the Niles. But does the low ceiling make it extra noticeable if the woofers aren't pointed in quite the right direction?

Thanks yet again.


----------



## dvdwilly3

sfuva21 said:


> So, I just measured how much ceiling depth I have to work with. It seems I'd have JUST enough room for the DS7FX, but not nearly enough room for it plus the can. So, in light of that, it seems my choices are (1) go with the DS7FX, gain the extra point-ability of the woofer, but be forced to deal with whatever drywall/duct noise may come, or (2) go with the CM7FX, lose the ability to point the woofer (and hope that proper placement plus tweeter point-ability gets me there), but gain an extra two inches of space that I can use to wrap the thing in Styrofoam or some other makeshift sound insulator. (I don't want to do major ceiling surgery, so I'm going to be working with a hole no bigger than the speaker hole).
> 
> What would you say Stoked 21 and batpig?
> 
> I think the second choice is probably better? Recall that ceilings are 6'9", give or take, so being able to locate the sound is definitely a concern. I'm hoping the dual/offsetting tweeters go a long way towards fixing that, a big part of why I'm going with the Niles. But does the low ceiling make it extra noticeable if the woofers aren't pointed in quite the right direction?
> 
> Thanks yet again.


Not Stoked 21 or batpig, but have you considered Goldenear Technology 650...6 1/2" speaker with aimable tweeter...?

They are sealed units and would not need a can and mounting depth is less than 4"...

http://www.goldenear.com/images/manuals/Invisa_525_650_Manual.pdf


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Everest* last night. There are problems with its pacing IMO. The first act is very slow. The idea is to build up rapport with the characters and to fill in their backgrounds, but most of that doesn't matter as the character arcs aren't very well developed in the movie anyway. I'd have preferred to see the movie start with some of the "disaster" scenes from later on, then go to flashback for the bulk of the movie. Knowing what is coming up for the characters would make us pay more attention to their backgrounds etc. And it wouldn't be a spoiler since the movie is fact-based anyway.
> 
> However, having said that, when it gets going, it gets going and as tale of human endurance against overwhelming circumstances, it plays pretty well. My fear that the "mountain would be a significant character" was groundless, and in fact there isn't enough made of the brutal, uncaring aspect of Mother Nature's personality and our puny inability to combat it. I’d have liked to see the mountain play _more_ as a character.
> 
> The visuals are stunning, as one would hope given their setting. And the sound is very good. There are numerous scenes where the overheads are given a good workout and especially so in one helicopter rescue scene close to the end of the movie. In the storms, we frequently hear the wind whistling overhead, along with some deep thunderclaps. Bass is very strong throughout the movie, especially in the storm sequences and, of course, the various avalanches.
> 
> Overall, I enjoyed this movie.
> 
> A few pages ago I was having a discussion with @*Jeremy Anderson* where he was defending the mixer's lack of use of the overhead speakers in the opening scenes of *San Andreas*, where a woman is rescued by a helicopter. Jeremy put forward a very strong case for why the mixer chose not to put helicopter sounds in the overhead speakers.
> 
> However, contrast this with a similar helicopter rescue scene in *Everest*, where you will fear your ceiling is about to collapse in one instance and where, in another instance, the sound of rotor blades whips across and around the ceiling, adding considerable drama to the whole scene. I cannot see how there is much difference between the two scenes, artistically, yet we have, in the one instance, no sounds from overhead at all, and in the other, considerable sounds from overhead. If the argument was that the mixer on *San Andreas* didn't use the overheads for fear of bringing us out of the movie, then why does it work so effectively in *Everest*?
> 
> In general, wrt to the use of Atmos in movies, here is another conundrum. In *Everest*, there are numerous scenes which take place in severe weather conditions. Yet the use of the overhead speakers in these scenes seems almost random to me. Some scenes feature the overheads extensively, with wind whipping back and forth and side to side over our heads, yet in other almost identical scenes, the overheads are totally silent. In one such scene I muted my floor level speakers, expecting to hear a lot of wind and ice and snow etc above me, and I was rewarded with total silence. No audio output whatsoever until the floor speakers were re-engaged. What is the explanation for this? Why do we have considerable 'storm noise' above us in one scene and totally absent in another almost identical scene?


I'm a little late to the party but I didn't get my Dolby Atmos receiver (x5200) until earlier this week. 

And, I just happened to watch the Everest movie. I thought it was very enjoyable. It might be slow for some people and maybe not as much character development as people want but I think there is enough there to tell the story. It's more of a slow burn that gets quite hot as the film progresses.

This really is a movie to be seen on the big screen. I watched it via my BenQ projector and 100" screen. The visuals are stunning. I agree about the Atmos mix - - even though I have only two height speakers (with Front Wides) - - many times, nothing was engaged. When it was, especially the howling wind all around you and from side to side - - it really immersed you into the film. The Front Wides sounded great with pans and it increased the soundstage appreciably. 

I've only watched a couple of Atmos flicks so far, but the immersive nature is seamless and enveloping. Instead of ping ponging sounds from various channels, everything seems more integrated and smooth - - much more cohesion. I'm not noticing speaker locations as much as sound is swirling around me. (I'm sure Audyssey has something to do with that.)

Everything is always dependent on the mix and I agree that certain scenes lend themselves to a more active use of the height channels, but I guess that is in the eye of the beholder (or Director/Sound Engineer).

Still - - a very worthwhile investment and thoroughly entertaining.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've rented a couple of films from Amazon and I've always noticed banding and macroblocking... On a 55" UHD Tv. It's still not as good as Blu-ray.


Well, nothing is as good as Bluray, IMHO, but the quality of the stream via my Roku 4 is outstanding. No comparison to a Sony Bluray player that I was using before. I upgraded my Internet speed to 160 mbps downstream, so that might have something to do with my excellent picture. Virtually indistinguishable from a Bluray on my 65" LCD/LED with Justified Season 6 from Amazon Prime. 

As I said before - - I can even watch an Amazon Prime movie streamed via my projector - - so I know the Roku 4 has a lot to do with the 1080p picture. That being said - - I know everyone's experience can be different.


----------



## Stoked21

sfuva21 said:


> So, I just measured how much ceiling depth I have to work with. It seems I'd have JUST enough room for the DS7FX, but not nearly enough room for it plus the can. So, in light of that, it seems my choices are (1) go with the DS7FX, gain the extra point-ability of the woofer, but be forced to deal with whatever drywall/duct noise may come, or (2) go with the CM7FX, lose the ability to point the woofer (and hope that proper placement plus tweeter point-ability gets me there), but gain an extra two inches of space that I can use to wrap the thing in Styrofoam or some other makeshift sound insulator. (I don't want to do major ceiling surgery, so I'm going to be working with a hole no bigger than the speaker hole).
> 
> What would you say Stoked 21 and batpig?
> 
> I think the second choice is probably better? Recall that ceilings are 6'9", give or take, so being able to locate the sound is definitely a concern. I'm hoping the dual/offsetting tweeters go a long way towards fixing that, a big part of why I'm going with the Niles. But does the low ceiling make it extra noticeable if the woofers aren't pointed in quite the right direction?
> 
> Thanks yet again.


I had a lot of duct noise and it really bothered me. In the untreated room, it wasn't as noticeable. But as soon as I started to quiet the room itself and improve the stage, then the duct noise become highly apparent to me at high SPL. Now keep in mind that my ducts were literally above my TRs. So it could be a lesser concern in other installs. But it also caused a LOT of transfer to the kitchen and main level above the HT. It's still loud as hell in the kitchen, but less noise travels through the ducts now. Primarily just LF which can't be contained.

Keep in mind that the DS7FX only pivots 15°. The woofer pivots with the dual tweeter assembly together. The single tweeter models allow the 15° on the woofer +15° on the tweeter for 30° pivot total on the tweeter. I can't comment on the CM series as I've never owned. My personal bet is that the pivot woofer isn't as crucial. Bass isn't as directional as HF, plus you likely are going to cross them at 80hz+ anyway. The benefit with the pivoting woofer was to be able to get the full 30° of aiming from the tweeter as mentioned above. With careful placement, you don't necessarily need that though but it sure adds a lot of flexibility and forgiveness.

I've not tested or heard the Golden Ear though I did consider them. I've read favorable views about them but cannot fairly comment. There are numerous companies out there with aimable tweeters. But I've not seen very many, if any, other than Niles that offers the combo woofer/tweeter pivoting and/or the pivoting dual tweeter assemblies.

I don't think you can go wrong with CM or DS. But my preference for my room was to remove any room/building material noise....


----------



## bargervais

Ricoflashback said:


> Well, nothing is as good as Bluray, IMHO, but the quality of the stream via my Roku 4 is outstanding. No comparison to a Sony Bluray player that I was using before. I upgraded my Internet speed to 160 mbps downstream, so that might have something to do with my excellent picture. Virtually indistinguishable from a Bluray on my 65" LCD/LED with Justified Season 6 from Amazon Prime.
> 
> As I said before - - I can even watch an Amazon Prime movie streamed via my projector - - so I know the Roku 4 has a lot to do with the 1080p picture. That being said - - I know everyone's experience can be different.


i wouldn't go as far as saying indistinguishable from a Blu-Ray but close. My down speed is 200 mbs and I must say watching with my Roku 4 IMHO is way better then my Directv feed. plus i'm able to get Atmos and DD +


----------



## ALtlOff

dvdwilly3 said:


> You are perfectly correct...you need separation between the two...
> 
> That is exactly where I was going to go with it...that is, use currently installed speakers as Top Rear and install another set at ear level as rear surrounds.


Correct, 
The amount of separation will determine the best setup option for the individual.
Example: (standard 8' ceilings with decent 7.1 rear speaker placement)
- If your current 7.1 Rear speaker placement is 5-6' high, and you can raise them to ceiling height, then do so, add ear level, and call your "high" Rears either TR or RH (which ever sounds best in your room) 

*BUT....* 

"Only" if you can add either TF or FH. 

If the only other speakers you can add are TM (location spec wise), your better off leaving your current rears at the mid-point up the wall and do a 7.x.2 setup, with the elevated Rears for your 7 channel bed.

The only reason I say this, is because of what we're seeing when it comes to actual separation of sound between the overhead positions, and if you "can't" do some type of forward located speaker, you're most likely to get a better effect with all the elevated sounds above you in a more centered location.

At least that's my take on it, RH & TM configurations aren't really working as well as we were hoping, and if you "can't" do some type of forward located speaker, you're most likely to get a better effect with all the elevated sounds above you in a more centered location.

At least that's my take on it.


----------



## sfuva21

Thanks dvdwilly3 for the speaker suggestions, but at $600 per pair, those would cost more than my entire Andrew Jones main 5 speakers. I'll file that away for the next upgrade.

Thanks Stoke21 for the input, I agree that 30 degrees would be better than 15, but sounds like I may be able to get away with the CM7FX if I can place it properly. 

I guess the next question is, does anybody have any suggestions for a make-shift, jury-rigged solution for sound isolation, that will fit in the 2 inches I will have between the back of speaker and the top of the ceiling cavity, and that can be installed/retrofit without making the hole any bigger than the speaker cavity? I'm not a very handy guy, so I'm picturing styrofoam and duct tape/rubber bands right now - I suspect somebody has a better solution  I think I saw somebody on a different thread post that they used salad bowls - would something like that work!? 

Cheers.


----------



## corradizo

sfuva21 said:


> Thanks dvdwilly3 for the speaker suggestions, but at $600 per pair, those would cost more than my entire Andrew Jones main 5 speakers. I'll file that away for the next upgrade.
> 
> Thanks Stoke21 for the input, I agree that 30 degrees would be better than 15, but sounds like I may be able to get away with the CM7FX if I can place it properly.
> 
> I guess the next question is, does anybody have any suggestions for a make-shift, jury-rigged solution for sound isolation, that will fit in the 2 inches I will have between the back of speaker and the top of the ceiling cavity, and that can be installed/retrofit without making the hole any bigger than the speaker cavity? I'm not a very handy guy, so I'm picturing styrofoam and duct tape/rubber bands right now - I suspect somebody has a better solution  I think I saw somebody on a different thread post that they used salad bowls - would something like that work!?
> 
> Cheers.


You could try the stuff the car guys use called dynamat and then fill the remainder with r13 pink fluffy insulation, just don't let it touch the cone. I have mostly tile on the first floor and had my basement ceiling insulated with r13 before the drywall went up and get very little bleed through. It's not green glue, clip hing drywall or anything etc but it's good enough for me (and by me, I mean my wife).


----------



## jcp2

*need advice for setup*

Need advice.. Here is my room setup. I am using 4 bipoles for my sides and rears. ( hold overs from dolby surround days) Paradigms that I've had for 10+years. As you can see, I have a huge opening on the left, so I had to mount the side speaker high. I mounted the opposite side high as well. Figured it would sound better if it was the same height. I have a pair of in ceiling speakers that I'll be installing soon. I know that bipoles are probably a no-no for atmos, but I just spent my limit on a new epson 5030ub and denon 6200w and SVS PC13 ultra. No money left to replace speakers for a while. I would greatly appreciate some constructive advice on the best way to configure the speakers for 7.1.2 atmos. TIA
edit.. I could possibly run new wire behind the baseboards and move the rear surrounds onto stands between the windows. I could then get another pair of ceiling speakers to connect to the wires in the ceiling that the rears are using now. Thoughts? Suggestions?
John


----------



## murphy2112

sfuva21 said:


> Thanks dvdwilly3 for the speaker suggestions, but at $600 per pair, those would cost more than my entire Andrew Jones main 5 speakers. I'll file that away for the next upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Stoke21 for the input, I agree that 30 degrees would be better than 15, but sounds like I may be able to get away with the CM7FX if I can place it properly.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the next question is, does anybody have any suggestions for a make-shift, jury-rigged solution for sound isolation, that will fit in the 2 inches I will have between the back of speaker and the top of the ceiling cavity, and that can be installed/retrofit without making the hole any bigger than the speaker cavity? I'm not a very handy guy, so I'm picturing styrofoam and duct tape/rubber bands right now - I suspect somebody has a better solution  I think I saw somebody on a different thread post that they used salad bowls - would something like that work!?
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers.



Check out the DIY forum. Like many, I used mattress topper from Wal-Mart stapled to the sides of the cabinet on my DIY subwoofer boxes. I would think that would help in your case. Dynomat is another good choice, albeit more expansive.


----------



## dvdwilly3

jcp2 said:


> Need advice.. Here is my room setup. I am using 4 bipoles for my sides and rears. ( hold overs from dolby surround days) Paradigms that I've had for 10+years. As you can see, I have a huge opening on the left, so I had to mount the side speaker high. I mounted the opposite side high as well. Figured it would sound better if it was the same height. I have a pair of in ceiling speakers that I'll be installing soon. I know that bipoles are probably a no-no for atmos, but I just spent my limit on a new epson 5030ub and denon 6200w and SVS PC13 ultra. No money left to replace speakers for a while. I would greatly appreciate some constructive advice on the best way to configure the speakers for 7.1.2 atmos. TIA
> edit.. I could possibly run new wire behind the baseboards and move the rear surrounds onto stands between the windows. I could then get another pair of ceiling speakers to connect to the wires in the ceiling that the rears are using now. Thoughts? Suggestions?
> John


I think that you are on the right track...drop the rear surrounds onto stands.

Insofar as the side surrounds, given that they are dipole and more diffuse, they shoold be somewhat less sensitive to placement than direct-firing so you might use that to your advantage.

If I were doing it, I would take the one side surround where the large opening is, and put in on the narrow wall where the light switch is. For the other side, I would drop that one onto the wall beside the fireplace.

Then, use Audyssey to try to get the best calibration that you can.

For 7.1.2, what is recommended most often is Top Middle. I cannot tell from the photos what, if any option you might have for installing a pair on or in the ceiling forward of your row of seats.


----------



## jcp2

dvdwilly3 said:


> I think that you are on the right track...drop the rear surrounds onto stands.
> 
> Insofar as the side surrounds, given that they are dipole and more diffuse, they shoold be somewhat less sensitive to placement than direct-firing so you might use that to your advantage.
> 
> If I were doing it, I would take the one side surround where the large opening is, and put in on the narrow wall where the light switch is. For the other side, I would drop that one onto the wall beside the fireplace.
> 
> Then, use Audyssey to try to get the best calibration that you can.
> 
> For 7.1.2, what is recommended most often is Top Middle. I cannot tell from the photos what, if any option you might have for installing a pair on or in the ceiling forward of your row of seats.


I would be able to put 1 set of ceiling speakers anywhere from 12 feet in front of the seats to right overhead, and if I use the pre outs to my old onkyo, I can add a 2nd pair of ceiling speakers about 2 feet behind the seats. I just got the go ahead to lower the sides down to where you suggested  Plus I can mount the rears to the pillars separating the 4 bay windows (on the insides of the two out most windows) So that will save me a hundred dollars in stands.


----------



## batpig

I'll also endorse this plan. Drop the surround above the opening to the wall on the right of the opening, drop the opposite surround to match near the fireplace. Drop the back surrounds, and you can even spread them wider (outside the windows?) since the side surrounds will now be a bit forward of the seating. No need for stands anywhere. 

Now you open up the rear overhead space for Top Rear in ceilings. You are on the happy highway to 7.1.4


----------



## jcp2

batpig said:


> I'll also endorse this plan. Drop the surround above the opening to the wall on the right of the opening, drop the opposite surround to match near the fireplace. Drop the back surrounds, and you can even spread them wider (outside the windows?) since the side surrounds will now be a bit forward of the seating. No need for stands anywhere.
> 
> Now you open up the rear overhead space for Top Rear in ceilings. You are on the happy highway to 7.1.4


Thank you both for your help with this. I appreciate all your help, and input. I guess my weekend is all planned out for me now.  I just have one more week of sleepless nights until my Denon arrives and I can't wait to try it out.


----------



## dvdwilly3

jcp2 said:


> I would be able to put 1 set of ceiling speakers anywhere from 12 feet in front of the seats to right overhead, and if I use the pre outs to my old onkyo, I can add a 2nd pair of ceiling speakers about 2 feet behind the seats. I just got the go ahead to lower the sides down to where you suggested  Plus I can mount the rears to the pillars separating the 4 bay windows (on the insides of the two out most windows) So that will save me a hundred dollars in stands.


For your Top Front speakers, check out the Dolby speaker placement guidelines for Atmos 7.1.4.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html

Scroll down to the Side View. Look at their side view and you should be able to figure out the placement angle relative to your MLP.

Put the Top Fronts there...

Your sleepless nights have only begun. 

You will be watching new movies and rewatching older movies. 
It is amazing what DSU can do for non-Atmos movies.


----------



## jcp2

dvdwilly3 said:


> For your Top Front speakers, check out the Dolby speaker placement guidelines for Atmos 7.1.4.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> Scroll down to the Side View. Look at their side view and you should be able to figure out the placement angle relative to your MLP.
> 
> Put the Top Fronts there...
> 
> Your sleepless nights have only begun.
> 
> You will be watching new movies and rewatching older movies.
> It is amazing what DSU can do for non-Atmos movies.


Thank you very much dvdwilly3. I have my nephew coming over, so he can crawl through the attic for me. :wink: I'll teach him how to cut holes and run wire through walls.


----------



## j3cwill

I have attached the Dolby 7.1.4 layout as reference to illustrate my room.

I currently run side surrounds as in the diagram, but I do not have rear surrounds because my seating is against the back wall.

Is it possible to run 5.1.4 with side surrounds and move the top speakers forward in the diagram (dividing the room into thirds)? They would essentially be located at TF and TM.

I realize that you would have to either assign them as FH/TM or TF/TR in the receiver, but is anyone successfully running this scenario with both ceiling sets in front of the surrounds?


----------



## mobileES

jcp2 said:


> Need advice.. Here is my room setup. I am using 4 bipoles for my sides and rears. ( hold overs from dolby surround days) Paradigms that I've had for 10+years. As you can see, I have a huge opening on the left, so I had to mount the side speaker high. I mounted the opposite side high as well. Figured it would sound better if it was the same height. I have a pair of in ceiling speakers that I'll be installing soon. *I know that bipoles are probably a no-no for atmos*, but I just spent my limit on a new epson 5030ub and denon 6200w and SVS PC13 ultra. No money left to replace speakers for a while. I would greatly appreciate some constructive advice on the best way to configure the speakers for 7.1.2 atmos. TIA
> edit.. I could possibly run new wire behind the baseboards and move the rear surrounds onto stands between the windows. I could then get another pair of ceiling speakers to connect to the wires in the ceiling that the rears are using now. Thoughts? Suggestions?
> John


Very curious on the bolded part, I currently have a 7.1 setup, my side and back surrounds are bipoles. Planning on purchasing an Atmos receiver within the next few days, I already have 2 pairs of the Onkyo atmos-enabled speakers.


----------



## Mac7eod

mobileES said:


> Very curious on the bolded part, I currently have a 7.1 setup, my side and back surrounds are bipoles. Planning on purchasing an Atmos receiver within the next few days, I already have 2 pairs of the Onkyo atmos-enabled speakers.


I've been wavering on whether or not to replace the Def Tech bipolar speakers in my 7.2.4 set-up. They are original surround speakers from about 10 years ago (when they were more popular) and I use them currently as my Front Height and Surround Back speakers. The consensus seems to be that they are not effective with today's object based sound processing. I use them with a Denon 7200WA and movies sound very good but, I suspect, could be better.


----------



## jcp2

mobileES said:


> Very curious on the bolded part, I currently have a 7.1 setup, my side and back surrounds are bipoles. Planning on purchasing an Atmos receiver within the next few days, I already have 2 pairs of the Onkyo atmos-enabled speakers.


I just googled using bipoles for atmos, and most of the articles said not to. However, I am going to try them out and see for myself. I am learning in my older age that sometimes ignorance is bliss, and seeing how none of my friends even have a home theatre, I'm pretty blissful.


----------



## dormie1360

Somethings amiss with this thread, is @kbarnes701 under the weather or did he forget to pay his internet bill?


----------



## ALtlOff

jcp2 said:


> I just googled using bipoles for atmos, and most of the articles said not to. However, I am going to try them out and see for myself. I am learning in my older age that sometimes ignorance is bliss, and seeing how none of my friends even have a home theatre, I'm pretty blissful.


I use bi-poles for all my Bed Layer, to me it sounds just as good as it always did, I can see not using them for overheads (except maybe in a x.x.2 setup), but for the ear level, if they worked for you before immersive, you'll probably never realise that they're not supposed to work for you now.


----------



## richmagnus

jcp2 said:


> I just googled using bipoles for atmos, and most of the articles said not to. However, I am going to try them out and see for myself. I am learning in my older age that sometimes ignorance is bliss, and seeing how none of my friends even have a home theatre, I'm pretty blissful.



Bipole and tripole speakers work fantastically well in an object based system. Period. I've installed many home cinemas utilising tripoles for surrounds and heights. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audiguy

I appreciate all the great information on this thread. I have a question about the height speakers as I plan on expanding to an Atmos setup. Basically whether to go with conventional speakers or in-ceiling, and how important is the quality. I have very great sounding Amphions for the L, C, R and I can't match those because they are no longer available. I am flexible on my surrounds and height speakers. My ceiling is a drop ceiling so in-ceiling is certainly easy and would look better, but if I choose conventional then those 10 or so speakers could match. As far as price points and such, the front stereo set up is very high end and the best I have ever heard. For the rears and heights, I want great stuff and don't want to spend any more than I have to. Right now I have a set of Vandersteen VSM-1s as surrounds and could get another set of those for the rears. But I'm happy to sell them and start over. I'll need to get a receiver, like the Denon AVR-X6200. The room is 17 x 24 with 12 seats. Ceilings around 9' high.

So, in short, ceiling and conventional and have 3 different speakers, or all conventional and have two. And how good do the height speakers need to be? How about 10 of the SVS Prime Sats?


----------



## Selden Ball

audiguy said:


> I appreciate all the great information on this thread. I have a question about the height speakers as I plan on expanding to an Atmos setup. Basically whether to go with conventional speakers or in-ceiling, and how important is the quality. I have very great sounding Amphions for the L, C, R and I can't match those because they are no longer available. I am flexible on my surrounds and height speakers. My ceiling is a drop ceiling so in-ceiling is certainly easy and would look better, but if I choose conventional then those 10 or so speakers could match. As far as price points and such, the front stereo set up is very high end and the best I have ever heard. For the rears and heights, I want great stuff and don't want to spend any more than I have to. Right now I have a set of Vandersteen VSM-1s as surrounds and could get another set of those for the rears. But I'm happy to sell them and start over. I'll need to get a receiver, like the Denon AVR-X6200. The room is 17 x 24 with 12 seats. Ceilings around 9' high.
> 
> So, in short, ceiling and conventional and have 3 different speakers, or all conventional and have two. And how good do the height speakers need to be? How about 10 of the SVS Prime Sats?


It's best to match the acoustic designs of all of your surrounds and overheads to the front speakers as best you can. Some movies (like _Gravity_) have voices moving all around the room, so it's distracting if they sound different depending on which speaker they're coming from. Modern roomEQ software can compensate to some extent, but it's not perfect. If you can afford them, I'd suggest getting more Vandersteen VSM1 speakers, although they are somewhat expensive.


----------



## cyclones22

So after all this time, I finally tried DSU for music the other day after my AVR updated to support DTS:X and let me say, it is sooo much better at upmixing 2 channel music than previous versions of Dolby and DTS music processing. I was shocked at how much I like it. I typically go through phases of preferring 2 channel, 2 channel + subs and multi-channel stereo. Now I've got another option to suit my mood. I didn't like any previous multi-channel upmixing processing prior to this one. I haven't bothered with Neural yet after reading about 2 channel source bugs when using it. We'll see how that goes once it gets ironed out.


----------



## audiguy

Selden Ball said:


> It's best to match the acoustic designs of all of your surrounds and overheads to the front speakers as best you can. Some movies (like _Gravity_) have voices moving all around the room, so it's distracting if they sound different depending on which speaker they're coming from. Modern roomEQ software can compensate to some extent, but it's not perfect. If you can afford them, I'd suggest getting more Vandersteen VSM1 speakers, although they are somewhat expensive.



Thanks for the advice. Are you also recommending the Vandy's for the height speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

dormie1360 said:


> Somethings amiss with this thread, is @kbarnes701 under the weather or did he forget to pay his internet bill?


Thank you for noticing, John. No problems at all, but I am taking a leave of absence for a while so I won't be posting for the foreseeable. A friend told me of your post, which is why I am here right now  Enjoy your Atmos, y'all!


----------



## Selden Ball

audiguy said:


> Thanks for the advice. Are you also recommending the Vandy's for the height speakers?


If you like them, and their timbre is similar to your main speakers, yes. Otherwise, you might consider auditioning other speaker models or brands. I haven't heard either of them myself, so I can't recommend any specific models that'd match better. Some people like the concentric designs made by Tannoy since they have wide, even dispersion.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> Thank you for noticing, John. No problems at all, but I am taking a leave of absence for a while so I won't be posting for the foreseeable. A friend told me of your post, which is why I am here right now  Enjoy your Atmos, y'all!


Gee, KB. Is it something we said? I always enjoy my morning coffee here in Colorado and reading your posts due to the time difference. Your contributions will be missed, temporarily, I hope. Especially now since I have Dolby Atmos!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> All that could be said about Atmos has been said. There really isn't a stone that hasn't been left un-turned in this thread. For those new, it is just a matter of searching and reading the thread. Time to move on to UHD players, content, and waiting until native 4k projectors to become mainstream and affordable. Until then, it is time to enjoy movies and games on your system versus posting


Oh, O.K. Shall the thread be closed based on your observations?

P.S. - Personally, I have zero interest in UHD, 4K, UHD Players and native 4K projectors that will become mainstream and affordable. You might as well take the next three years off as there will be very little 4K content (especially via broadcast or cable/satellite) or an affordable 4K projector. IMHO.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> Oh, O.K. Shall the thread be closed based on your observations?
> 
> P.S. - Personally, I have zero interest in UHD, 4K, UHD Players and native 4K projectors that will become mainstream and affordable. You might as well take the next three years off as there will be very little 4K content (especially via broadcast or cable/satellite) or an affordable 4K projector. IMHO.


Well you're missing the point Rick. It does depend on definition of affordable. $3-4k will land an eshift 4K HDR pj. But more importantly as applicable to Atmos....you better be interested in UHD as streaming services such as Vudu only offer Atmos in the UHD format. And companies such as Disney and others are only going to be adding immersive audio to UHD titles as well. So no UHD support...no Atmos. (Limited availability at least and studio specific)


----------



## radamo

bargervais said:


> Vudu Has joined the party, I bought three UHD movies with Atmos Man of Steel, Into the Storm, And Live Die Repeat. no HDR at this time


But it appears that Vudu only includes the ATMOS track on UHD rentals. That is not really helpful to me.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

radamo said:


> But it appears that Vudu only includes the ATMOS track on UHD rentals. That is not really helpful to me.


Yeah isnt that a kick in the pants... they have the ATMOS test trailers for free which are HDX with ATMOS so they could easily offer ATMOS on any HDX track that had it but noooo they are limiting it to UHD probably to make those absurd prices look more reasonable... ~_~


----------



## Ricoflashback

Stoked21 said:


> Well you're missing the point Rick. It does depend on definition of affordable. $3-4k will land an eshift 4K HDR pj. But more importantly as applicable to Atmos....you better be interested in UHD as streaming services such as Vudu only offer Atmos in the UHD format. And companies such as Disney and others are only going to be adding immersive audio to UHD titles as well. So no UHD support...no Atmos. (Limited availability at least and studio specific)


We all have opinions and I respect yours. A $3K to $4K "4K Projector" has very little interest to me, personally. I guess that's affordable for you and maybe to a lot of the other posters on the AVS Forums but for me, not worth the bang for the buck (visual improvement let alone serious problems of content availability). 

$2K or under would work for me for an affordable 4K projector but again, you're talking about a significant investment with very little return in terms of content. 

I only stream Amazon Prime. I do not like to overpay for streaming services plus the quality is inferior to Bluray (but much better with my Roku 4 for 1080p.) Bluray discs with Atmos are very affordable for me via RedBox with the average rental with all incentives and promotions being around $1.00 to $1.25 per movie. 

And forget Disney if they are only going to add Atmos or DTS to "UHD" only offerings. Or any other studio that foolishly makes this choice. A sure bet for a loss in sales. Do you have any idea how long it will take for UHD to become mainstream, if EVER? You're talking five years, at minimum.

Dolby Atmos can be delivered cheaply (even via DD+ stream) and represents a much bigger "bang for the buck," IMHO. 

I believe you and everyone else is missing the point if you believe UHD and 4K and $3K to $4K projectors is going to win mainstream acceptance or success. Not going to happen. It is a financial model that does not work economically as well as the dearth of content available (price point) let alone the bandwidth issues involved with UHD/4K.

Sure - 4K TV's are what's being built more and more these days. But there is very little 4K content and it will be that way for a long time to come. HDR? An ever bigger pipe dream.


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> We all have opinions and I respect yours. A $3K to $4K "4K Projector" has very little interest to me, personally. I guess that's affordable for you and maybe to a lot of the other posters on the AVS Forums but for me, not worth the bang for the buck (visual improvement let alone serious problems of content availability).
> 
> $2K or under would work for me for an affordable 4K projector but again, you're talking about a significant investment with very little return in terms of content.
> 
> I only stream Amazon Prime. I do not like to overpay for streaming services plus the quality is inferior to Bluray (but much better with my Roku 4 for 1080p.) Bluray discs with Atmos are very affordable for me via RedBox with the average rental with all incentives and promotions being around $1.00 to $1.25 per movie.
> 
> And forget Disney if they are only going to add Atmos or DTS to "UHD" only offerings. Or any other studio that foolishly makes this choice. A sure bet for a loss in sales. Do you have any idea how long it will take for UHD to become mainstream, if EVER? You're talking five years, at minimum.
> 
> Dolby Atmos can be delivered cheaply (even via DD+ stream) and represents a much bigger "bang for the buck," IMHO.
> 
> I believe you and everyone else is missing the point if you believe UHD and 4K and $3K to $4K projectors is going to win mainstream acceptance. Not going to happen. It is a financial model that does not work economically as well as the dearth of content available (price point) let alone the bandwidth issues involved with UHD & 4K.


Not arguing the point on "affordable" nor arguing the acceptance of UHD time frame....But studios are not going to care if a few thousand Atmos junkies don't buy their discs cus no immersive audio. I know it will be Disney with all Marvel and Star Wars etc that hold out on Atmos for UHD. I can't remember the other major studio that released a press release as well.
Same with streaming companies....Go ahead and rent the HD titles and use DSU vs native Atmos. It won't even make a blip in their revenue with such a niche Atmos following. So your argument of UHD taking 5 years to be accepted? Well, Atmos will never be mainstream accepted. People are more likely to buy a UHD TV than they are to place 9-11 speakers through their room and in/on their ceiling....


----------



## radamo

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yeah isnt that a kick in the pants... they have the ATMOS test trailers for free which are HDX with ATMOS so they could easily offer ATMOS on any HDX track that had it but noooo they are limiting it to UHD probably to make those absurd prices look more reasonable... ~_~


Exactly right... lame price justification.


----------



## lujan

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yeah isnt that a kick in the pants... they have the ATMOS test trailers for free which are HDX with ATMOS so they could easily offer ATMOS on any HDX track that had it but noooo they are limiting it to UHD probably to make those absurd prices look more reasonable... ~_~


I agree, if the Atmos track is available on the blu-ray disc copy, it should also be available on the HDX streaming copy.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Not at all, you can continue to talk about Atmos to your heart's content. New people have questions and you have answers based on your experience. I pop in on occasion but the frequency is less and less since there really isn't anything further to discuss. Keith is a friend of mine, and I was speculating why he might not be posting for awhile, although I haven't spoken with him directly on the matter other than speaking with him on why I don't frequent the forums as much as I used to. I know he is interested in UHD content and 4k projectors becoming mainstream and those are the "newer" things on the horizon, that is why I mentioned it. There comes a time when one tires of discussing the same stuff ad nauseam. That is my sentiment, not his.
> 
> You might want to reconsider the whole UHD topic though. If immersive audio is your thing, then UHD should be on your road map. Get an HD Fury and enjoy the audio it will provide while holding on 4k dispaly upgrades. That is my plan anyways.
> 
> I didn't intend my comment to be insulting. Sorry if you took it that way.


No insults taken. And I really do appreciate your posts and have learned a lot about my HT setup from your observations. 

Part of this is me getting mad at Studios dictating what you have to buy and when. I finally got aboard the Dolby Atmos bandwagon and have enjoyed it immensely. To not have this availability via my "El Cheapo" Redbox source would be a big disappointment. I could always go to "3D Bluray Rental" to get my fix, assuming that Dolby Atmos could still be played on my OPPO 103.

I'm not ready to spend a "Ga-Zillion" dollars on every new Bluray player, AVR, Projector and everything else required to get to UHD/HDR/Immersive Sound formats. 

So - that's my beef. I'm very content with my 1080p Projector/LCD/LED setup with Dolby Atmos via the Denon x5200 right now. Not bleeding edge - - but sure enjoyable for me. That's why I'd like to have Atmos availability as it is currently. I know things might change.


----------



## hatlesschimp

So, I've changed the new house plan to this one attached. 

I've done a rough layout of where I think the gear goes. Now once again the rear speakers are giving me grief!!! The problem isn't the height or horizontal placement but the amount the Q300 speakers will extrude into the walkway. It will be used often as its the most direct route to the kitchen from the front door and garage and vice versa. I dont think it will be too much of a problem because I will probably put the Blu ray shelf their between them and it will be roughly sticking out the same amount. Or I can go in wall speakers there too. I think everything else should be right. I think I will leave the big window on north side for resale value and just use heavy curtains. Another thing is the door ways. Should I get big noise cancelling doors put in but have them hinged open all the time when not watching a movie? Also obviously rockwall in the walls where I can. Do you think the media rack will work where it is. The room is going to be a study area and not a media room as stated in the plans. (If that was the media room I'd cry LOL.) As for speaker cabling I guess I just get conduit installed from roof to height required with draw string. Also the rack is pretty close to the Projector which is nice for HDMI cabling. 

What do you think?


----------



## Stoked21

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm not ready to spend a "Ga-Zillion" dollars on every new Bluray player, AVR, Projector and everything else required to get to UHD/HDR/Immersive Sound formats.
> 
> So - that's my beef. I'm very content with my 1080p Projector/LCD/LED setup with Dolby Atmos via the Denon x5200 right now. Not bleeding edge - - but sure enjoyable for me. That's why I'd like to have Atmos availability as it is currently. I know things might change.





Molon_Labe said:


> Agree 100%. I wanted immersive audio only and have no drive or incentive to upgrade to 4k. Hell, my Sony projector is only 6 months old. I would not consider replacing it for at least 3 years. I bought the HDFury as a poor man alternative to the format push being shoved down my throat. The fact that they are trying to shut down HDFury is proof alone this is a mandated top down push. It pisses me off too my friend.


I still monitor this thread occasionally. I'll continue monitoring the X thread for a few more weeks until I have my FW upgrade and everything sorted out. But I've moved on to improved REQ, more linear LF magnitude response, and UHD.

UHD really needs to be on every immersive audio fan's radar. It does require spending money, but it doesn't require replacing your TV, your PJ, your AVR and everything else. We all agree that restricting X and Atmos to UHD streaming content and even UHD discs is asinine. But they are marketing teams at the studios, making decisions, which impact their shareholders positively or negatively. Just the world of biz and it's bad for the consumer unfortunately.

Chris has the right idea. Don't replace your AVR and PJ. Go out and buy an HD Fury for $250. Go out and buy a UHD player for $400. And be done. Start buying, renting, and streaming 4K content downconverted to 1080p (with HDCP2.2 to 1.4 conversion via Fury). You should be able to maintain Atmos with minimal spend. Still too much spend, we all agree, but we can't change that. I'd highly suggest all immersive audio fans start taking this serious and developing their game plan, in order to maintain the value of their immersive audio investment. Either that or just live with being restricted to DSU and Neural X for a lot, the majority, of content.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Molon_Labe said:


> Projectors aren't the issue. Lets face it, projectors are a niche product that aren't on anyone's primary radar. How many suburbs have projectors in their homes? How many have flat panel TVs? The 4k flat panels will continue to drop and drop in price and people will adopt them in droves. UHD will become the new standard. The issue you may face with holding on UHD is that Atmos and DTS:X may very well likely be "held" on Blu-ray releases and only released on UHD versions. This model provides double incentive for the premium price of the UHD version vs the standard Blu-ray release - Atmos/DTS:X audio and 4k visuals. I hope I am wrong, but it proves for ideal marketing to propel a new format.


4K and other video enhancements I do not care about.

Immersive audio I do care about. If I am reading all of the projections and guesstimates correctly, UHD is where that is going. You can wail about the greed etc. of everyone in the supply chain for all the good that it will do. But, in this instance, $$ makes the world go round.

Which brings me to:

I will stick with my Sony Pearl projector (1080i) and 92" screen until the Sony dies, so, no interest in 4K per se. However, I need UHD to get Atmos. So, if I buy a UHD player, what can I do?

It seems to me that with the dual output on several models that I can feed the audio stream to my Onkyo TX-NR 1030 with no strain...happy Atmos!

But, to feed any kind of video stream that I will need something like HD Fury. Reason being that my Onkyo will pass a HDCP 2.2 signal on the HDMI 3 input, but my Sony VPL-VW50 will choke on the HDCP 2.2, and display nothing picture-wise.

Did I get that right?

Oh, yeah--has anyone started an Official UHD forum yet?


----------



## hatlesschimp

Just found these KEF Ci200RR-THX 8" In-Ceiling Speakers. Well I had seen them mentioned before in various threads but never seen them. 
How the hell do you mount these bad boys in the ceiling without having one fall out and kill your Mother in-law?






Well they are officially on my shopping list for when the house is finished. Pretty sure my wife is going to divorce me and take the house!


----------



## audiofan1

" Goosebumps" delivered an Atmos demo disc like experience and will put an end to the is the question"is the upgrade to immersive audio worth it" Good movie to boot with excellent PQ as well!

We have arrived


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Agreed, it was a great mix and good move too.


Hey Molon_Labe ! you'd be proud as I'm taking my next step towards larger speakers. I'm doing the rear surrounds first before my ceilings and taking a step up from a 4.5 to a 5 1/4. JK its mostly do to the new ones having the same tweeter as my mains and better power handling over the one's I put there simply because I had them on hand


----------



## Molon_Labe

audiofan1 said:


> Hey Molon_Labe ! you'd be proud as I'm taking my next step towards larger speakers. I'm doing the rear surrounds first before my ceilings and taking a step up from a 4.5 to a 5 1/4. JK its mostly do to the new ones having the same tweeter as my mains and better power handling over the one's I put there simply because I had them on hand


Nice - the matching tweeter should really make a difference. Seamless is the name of the game. But then again, every 1/4 inch helps too 

I am hoping to close a deal on (4) JBL AM6215s this week to replace my SCS 8 Atmos speakers. This is about as close as I can get to matching my mains/surrounds. Wish me luck buddy


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Nice - the matching tweeter should really make a difference. Seamless is the name of the game. But then again, every 1/4 inch helps too
> 
> I am hoping to close a deal on (4) JBL AM6215s this week to replace my SCS 8 Atmos speakers. This is about as close as I can get to matching my mains/surrounds. Wish me luck buddy


 Sounds great! good luck


----------



## dvdwilly3

Molon_Labe said:


> Well said buddy. People should not delay on getting the HDFury as there is a real potential for them to be shut down in the future. As the old Southern saying goes, "Get while the gettin's good."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the HDFury will allow the HDCP 2.2 to negotiate the encryption for the entire path acting as a proxy for your current non-compliant display. It will then hand-off the video to your display at 1080P. I bought one but it is still in the package. I don't have a UHD player yet, but I am hopefully ready for when that day comes.


Molon_Labe, thanks for the confirmation.

Well, I jumped off and ordered the HD Fury Integral. Please tell me that I ordered the correct one...

Dang! Now, I have to buy a UHD player just to know that the thing works.

Oh, too bad!


----------



## virtualrain

Molon_Labe said:


> All that could be said about Atmos has been said. There really isn't a stone that hasn't been left un-turned in this thread. For those new, it is just a matter of searching and reading the thread. Time to move on to UHD players, content, and waiting until native 4k projectors to become mainstream and affordable. Until then, it is time to enjoy movies and games on your system versus posting


Can you recommend some good threads to follow on these subjects?


----------



## sprins

dvdwilly3 said:


> 4K and other video enhancements I do not care about.


The resolution doesn't tickle my fancy either. But the HDR and Dolby Vision dynamic range possibilities sure do. When that goes mainstream I'll take the higher resolution as a bonus and I'll expect the immersive audio as a given.


----------



## vsorgi

Stoked21 said:


> I still monitor this thread occasionally. I'll continue monitoring the X thread for a few more weeks until I have my FW upgrade and everything sorted out. But I've moved on to improved REQ, more linear LF magnitude response, and UHD.
> 
> UHD really needs to be on every immersive audio fan's radar. It does require spending money, but it doesn't require replacing your TV, your PJ, your AVR and everything else. We all agree that restricting X and Atmos to UHD streaming content and even UHD discs is asinine. But they are marketing teams at the studios, making decisions, which impact their shareholders positively or negatively. Just the world of biz and it's bad for the consumer unfortunately.
> 
> Chris has the right idea. Don't replace your AVR and PJ. Go out and buy an HD Fury for $250. Go out and buy a UHD player for $400. And be done. Start buying, renting, and streaming 4K content downconverted to 1080p (with HDCP2.2 to 1.4 conversion via Fury). You should be able to maintain Atmos with minimal spend. Still too much spend, we all agree, but we can't change that. I'd highly suggest all immersive audio fans start taking this serious and developing their game plan, in order to maintain the value of their immersive audio investment. Either that or just live with being restricted to DSU and Neural X for a lot, the majority, of content.


Where does the HDFury go in the Blu Ray--->AVR--->Display chain?


----------



## vsorgi

Stoked21 said:


> I still monitor this thread occasionally. I'll continue monitoring the X thread for a few more weeks until I have my FW upgrade and everything sorted out. But I've moved on to improved REQ, more linear LF magnitude response, and UHD.
> 
> UHD really needs to be on every immersive audio fan's radar. It does require spending money, but it doesn't require replacing your TV, your PJ, your AVR and everything else. We all agree that restricting X and Atmos to UHD streaming content and even UHD discs is asinine. But they are marketing teams at the studios, making decisions, which impact their shareholders positively or negatively. Just the world of biz and it's bad for the consumer unfortunately.
> 
> Chris has the right idea. Don't replace your AVR and PJ. Go out and buy an HD Fury for $250. Go out and buy a UHD player for $400. And be done. Start buying, renting, and streaming 4K content downconverted to 1080p (with HDCP2.2 to 1.4 conversion via Fury). You should be able to maintain Atmos with minimal spend. Still too much spend, we all agree, but we can't change that. I'd highly suggest all immersive audio fans start taking this serious and developing their game plan, in order to maintain the value of their immersive audio investment. Either that or just live with being restricted to DSU and Neural X for a lot, the majority, of content.


Where does the HDFury go in the Blu Ray--->AVR--->Display chain? I use my Blu Ray player to stream Vudu and Netflix.


----------



## audioguy

Stoked21 said:


> People are more likely to buy a UHD TV than they are to place 9-11 speakers through their room and in/on their ceiling....


100% agree!!! And it won't be 6 or 8 speakers either. Multi speaker playback systems (more than 2) are such a minuscule part of the buying public that it won't affect revenue other than a small blip. 

I would say less than 1% of every person I know has more than 2 speakers and not many even have 2. We are smaller than a small niche!!!! Most are perfectly happy with the sound from the TV and a few fringe listeners have sound bars!l


----------



## aaranddeeman

audioguy said:


> 100% agree!!! And it won't be 6 or 8 speakers either. Multi speaker playback systems (more than 2) are such a minuscule part of the buying public that it won't affect revenue other than a small blip.
> 
> I would say less than 1% of every person I know has more than 2 speakers and not many even have 2. We are smaller than a small niche!!!! Most are perfectly happy with the sound from the TV and a few fringe listeners have sound bars!l


Yeah. UHD TV with ****ty soundbar will be a common site..


----------



## NorthSky

dvdwilly3 said:


> Molon_Labe, thanks for the confirmation.
> 
> Well, I jumped off and ordered the HD Fury Integral. Please tell me that I ordered the correct one...
> 
> Dang! Now, I have to buy a UHD player just to know that the thing works.
> 
> Oh, too bad!





vsorgi said:


> Where does the HDFury go in the Blu Ray--->AVR--->Display chain? I use my Blu Ray player to stream Vudu and Netflix.


♦ https://www.hdfury.com/shop/splitters/integral-4k60-444-600mhz/
♦♦ https://hdfury.com/docs/HDfuryIntegral.pdf
♦♦♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/37-video-processors/2171745-hdfury-integral.html#post38135897


----------



## Selden Ball

vsorgi said:


> Where does the HDFury go in the Blu Ray--->AVR--->Display chain? I use my Blu Ray player to stream Vudu and Netflix.


4K UHD BDP -> Fury -> 4K AVR -> 4K Display
or
4K UHD BDP -> Fury -> 4K Display

The Fury is primarily useful when the 4K UHD BDP refuses to provide a 4K HDR signal to a 4K display, which happens when connecting the Samsung player to some 4K displays.

The current Samsung 4K UBDP player readily downconverts 4k UHD video from 4K to 1080p for use with a 1080p display without needing HDCP v2.2 and without the need for a Fury. Supposedly the studios can configure 4K discs to refuse to output a 1080p signal, but Fox doesn't.


----------



## vsorgi

Selden Ball said:


> 4K UHD BDP -> Fury -> 4K AVR -> 4K Display
> or
> 4K UHD BDP -> Fury -> 4K Display
> 
> The Fury is primarily useful when the 4K UHD BDP refuses to provide a 4K HDR signal to a 4K display, which happens when connecting the Samsung player to some 4K displays.
> 
> The current Samsung 4K UBDP player readily downconverts 4k UHD video from 4K to 1080p for use with a 1080p display without needing HDCP v2.2 and without the need for a Fury. Supposedly the studios can configure 4K discs to refuse to output a 1080p signal, but Fox doesn't.


Thanks for the reply, Selden. I have a 1080p display but want to stream 4K titles on Vudu for the Atmos. Is this what I need: HD Fury Splitter 4K UHD/PRO - 4K HDMI Splitter https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0191EUEQK/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_4LUYwb2WZYM2B


----------



## Selden Ball

vsorgi said:


> Thanks for the reply, Selden. I have a 1080p display but want to stream 4K titles on Vudu for the Atmos. Is this what I need: HD Fury Splitter 4K UHD/PRO - 4K HDMI Splitter https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0191EUEQK/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_4LUYwb2WZYM2B


I believe so.

This device is the one people usually write about: https://www.hdfury.com/shop/splitters/integral-4k60-444-600mhz/


----------



## rontalley

hatlesschimp said:


> So, I've changed the new house plan to this one attached.
> 
> I've done a rough layout of where I think the gear goes. Now once again the rear speakers are giving me grief!!! The problem isn't the height or horizontal placement but the amount the Q300 speakers will extrude into the walkway. It will be used often as its the most direct route to the kitchen from the front door and garage and vice versa. I dont think it will be too much of a problem because I will probably put the Blu ray shelf their between them and it will be roughly sticking out the same amount. Or I can go in wall speakers there too. I think everything else should be right. I think I will leave the big window on north side for resale value and just use heavy curtains. Another thing is the door ways. Should I get big noise cancelling doors put in but have them hinged open all the time when not watching a movie? Also obviously rockwall in the walls where I can. Do you think the media rack will work where it is. The room is going to be a study area and not a media room as stated in the plans. (If that was the media room I'd cry LOL.) As for speaker cabling I guess I just get conduit installed from roof to height required with draw string. Also the rack is pretty close to the Projector which is nice for HDMI cabling.
> 
> What do you think?


What's stopping you from moving your Top Rear speakers further out? Why settle on TF and (close to)TM position when you can do a proper TF and TR?


----------



## Dbruce13

*Ceiling height speaker placement....please help!*

My seating position is 10 feet from the screen and my ceiling height is 8 feet. For Dolby atmos it is recommended that they speakers be placed between 30 - 55 degrees to front and 120 - 145 behind (assuming a 3 feet ear height). Anyone have a calculator or method for easily determining the distance in feet from my seating position based on those angles? Yes my geometry stinks....


----------



## jkasanic

Dbruce13 said:


> My seating position is 10 feet from the screen and my ceiling height is 8 feet. For Dolby atmos it is recommended that they speakers be placed between 30 - 55 degrees to front and 120 - 145 behind (assuming a 3 feet ear height). Anyone have a calculator or method for easily determining the distance in feet from my seating position based on those angles? Yes my geometry stinks....


45 degrees (and 135 for rears) would put your fronts and rears 5ft in front and behind your MLP respectively. If you don't have 5ft behind you then you can calculate the angle based on the distance you do have. It's the arctan of the distance you have behind you divided by 5ft (8ft ceiling - 3ft MLP).


----------



## Daniel Chaves

In my situation I dont have enough space behind be for Top Rears as Im basically 1ft from the rear wall, and sitting 10ft away from the screen so I have my ceiling speakers mounted and configured to be Top Middle as they are almost over my head. Do you think I am loosing some of the ATMOS sensation? should I move the speakers more forward closer to the screen and set them up as Top Front instead?

I think what I will probably do is run some of the ATMOS demo content and listen to it as Top Middle and change the speaker config and listen to it again as Top Front and see how much of a difference I really sense.


----------



## Dbruce13

jkasanic said:


> 45 degrees (and 135 for rears) would put your fronts and rears 5ft in front and behind your MLP respectively. If you don't have 5ft behind you then you can calculate the angle based on the distance you do have. It's the arctan of the distance you have behind you divided by 5ft (8ft ceiling - 3ft MLP).


Thanks! Is it imperative that the height speakers be placed equidistant from the seating position?


----------



## batpig

Dbruce13 said:


> My seating position is 10 feet from the screen and my ceiling height is 8 feet. For Dolby atmos it is recommended that they speakers be placed between 30 - 55 degrees to front and 120 - 145 behind (assuming a 3 feet ear height). Anyone have a calculator or method for easily determining the distance in feet from my seating position based on those angles? Yes my geometry stinks....





Dbruce13 said:


> Thanks! Is it imperative that the height speakers be placed equidistant from the seating position?


It doesn't have to be THAT precise really. The good news is a 45 degree triangle has equal length legs, so that means it's super easy to figure out without any fancy geometry or calculation. Just take the distance from your ears to the ceiling and then go forward/backward by the same amount. That puts you in the ballpark, and then you let your receiver's auto calibration accounts for distance/level differences. So if there's an obstruction (joist, canned lights, whatever) that prevent them from being EXACTLY at the same distance it's no big deal. 

All that really matters is getting speakers above you, and having a front pair and a rear pair, so that sounds can move side to side and front to back. As long as you aren't WAY out of spec (e.g. speakers so far forward backward that it's only ~20-25 degrees elevation) it will sound great. 

If you want to go a little deeper, more important than the precise positioning is the speaker dispersion vs. your ability to aim them and how many seats you are trying to cover. So having them at 38 or 53 degrees elevation instead of 45 isn't going to ruin anything, but if you're using standard in-ceiling speakers pointed straight down you have to consider how far off axis you are going to be vs. the capability of the speaker.


----------



## batpig

Daniel Chaves said:


> In my situation I dont have enough space behind be for Top Rears as Im basically 1ft from the rear wall, and sitting 10ft away from the screen so I have my ceiling speakers mounted and configured to be Top Middle as they are almost over my head. Do you think I am loosing some of the ATMOS sensation? should I move the speakers more forward closer to the screen and set them up as Top Front instead?
> 
> I think what I will probably do is run some of the ATMOS demo content and listen to it as Top Middle and change the speaker config and listen to it again as Top Front and see how much of a difference I really sense.


Do you only have 2 speakers above? Or 4 (2 pairs)? If there's only 2, leave them as "Top Middle" even if you move them forward a bit to keep them from blasting right down on your head.


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> 4K UHD BDP -> Fury -> 4K AVR -> 4K Display
> or
> 4K UHD BDP -> Fury -> 4K Display


Assuming you have a 2015 model AVR with HDCP 2.2, wouldn't you put the Fury in between the AVR and the display?


----------



## Daniel Chaves

batpig said:


> Do you only have 2 speakers above? Or 4 (2 pairs)? If there's only 2, leave them as "Top Middle" even if you move them forward a bit to keep them from blasting right down on your head.


Yeah I only have a .2 setup for ATMOS, currently if you took a line and went straight up from the listener position to the ceiling, those two speakers are about 18inches in front of the listener angled towards the listener, hopefully that makes sense. ^^;;


----------



## batpig

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yeah I only have a .2 setup for ATMOS, currently if you took a line and went straight up from the listener position to the ceiling, those two speakers are about 18inches in front of the listener angled towards the listener, hopefully that makes sense. ^^;;


That makes sense. The question then is if you feel there's a problem currently? If you find the TM speakers a bit overbearing firing down on you, or you perceive some sense of a "gap" above and in front of you, then I would consider moving them forward a bit farther. I wouldn't go TOO far forward since you'll start to lose the OVER your head effect, but nothing wrong with cheating them forward a bit to help connect them more tightly with the front soundstage.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

batpig said:


> That makes sense. The question then is if you feel there's a problem currently? If you find the TM speakers a bit overbearing firing down on you, or you perceive some sense of a "gap" above and in front of you, then I would consider moving them forward a bit farther. I wouldn't go TOO far forward since you'll start to lose the OVER your head effect, but nothing wrong with cheating them forward a bit to help connect them more tightly with the front soundstage.


Thank you for your input.


----------



## showmak

Dbruce13 said:


> My seating position is 10 feet from the screen and my ceiling height is 8 feet. For Dolby atmos it is recommended that they speakers be placed between 30 - 55 degrees to front and 120 - 145 behind (assuming a 3 feet ear height). Anyone have a calculator or method for easily determining the distance in feet from my seating position based on those angles? Yes my geometry stinks....



Someone in the forum in his/her signature has an excel sheet attached which is very useful. It calculates the distances you need by entering the ceiling height and ear height. I don't remember his/her name though! 


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

batpig said:


> Assuming you have a 2015 model AVR with HDCP 2.2, wouldn't you put the Fury in between the AVR and the display?


That'd probably work. However, most people don't have one of those AVRs. My impression from reading too many of the 4K threads (so I've probably confused something) is that you need to use the Fury to out-smart the player device. Apparently many AVRs are unreliable at letting the player interact with the display's EDID, and the Fury fixes that by providing its own EDID.


----------



## NorthSky

Showmak said:


> Someone in the forum in his/her signature has an excel sheet attached which is very useful.
> It calculates the distances you need by entering the ceiling height and ear height. I don't remember his/her name though!


♠ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1283.html#post41712793


----------



## dlca1

Daniel Chaves said:


> Yeah I only have a .2 setup for ATMOS, currently if you took a line and went straight up from the listener position to the ceiling, those two speakers are about 18inches in front of the listener angled towards the listener, hopefully that makes sense. ^^;;


How big of an improvement is 5.1.2 to 5.1.4? I posted a question about my 5.1.2 setup and somebody recommended upgrading to 5.1.4.

How important is the quality of the atmos speakers? With surround speakers, I seem to commonly see advice that something basic is fine. Does the same advice apply for atmos?

I have a nice set of ascend Sierra 2 for LCR. 
Using some leftover NHT super ones for surrounds.
Using the ceiling speakers that builder installed. (Proficient c620)
Am trying to decide if 

1. Stick with what I have (5.1.2). Adding on the extra .2 is only a marginal/small improvement
2. Move proficient c620 that are unused from another room and install them as front ceiling heights. 
3. Buy atmos add-ons (I saw some Andrew Jones atmos add ons on sale at Amazon) 
4. Buy better ceiling speakers

In case it matters, the main sofa is along the back wall. 
Current ceiling speakers are a few feet in front of sofa. 
Front wall/tv is about 12 feet away. 9 foot ceilings.
Specs for the c620 below.

Thanks for any tips

Proficient Audio C620 6.5-Inch. Specs here:
Main Features
· Ceiling speakers with 6 1/2" polypropylene woofers and 1" silk pivoting tweeters.
All Features
· Power Handling: 100 watts
· Frequency Response: 36Hz - 20 kHz
· Impedance: 8 ohms
· Sensitivity: 91dB 1W/1m
· Diameter x Depth: 9 1/4" x 3 5/8"
· Ceiling Cut Out: 8 1/4"


----------



## dvdwilly3

dlca1 said:


> How big of an improvement is 5.1.2 to 5.1.4? I posted a question about my 5.1.2 setup and somebody recommended upgrading to 5.1.4.
> 
> How important is the quality of the atmos speakers? With surround speakers, I seem to commonly see advice that something basic is fine. Does the same advice apply for atmos?
> 
> I have a nice set of ascend Sierra 2 for LCR.
> Using some leftover NHT super ones for surrounds.
> Using the ceiling speakers that builder installed. (Proficient c620)
> Am trying to decide if
> 
> 1. Stick with what I have (5.1.2). Adding on the extra .2 is only a marginal/small improvement
> 2. Move proficient c620 that are unused from another room and install them as front ceiling heights.
> 3. Buy atmos add-ons (I saw some Andrew Jones atmos add ons on sale at Amazon)
> 4. Buy better ceiling speakers
> 
> In case it matters, the main sofa is along the back wall.
> Current ceiling speakers are a few feet in front of sofa.
> Front wall/tv is about 12 feet away. 9 foot ceilings.
> Specs for the c620 below.
> 
> Thanks for any tips
> 
> Proficient Audio C620 6.5-Inch. Specs here:
> Main Features
> · Ceiling speakers with 6 1/2" polypropylene woofers and 1" silk pivoting tweeters.
> All Features
> · Power Handling: 100 watts
> · Frequency Response: 36Hz - 20 kHz
> · Impedance: 8 ohms
> · Sensitivity: 91dB 1W/1m
> · Diameter x Depth: 9 1/4" x 3 5/8"
> · Ceiling Cut Out: 8 1/4"


I have been thru every configuration from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 to 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 using along the line upfiring and now on ceiling.

My opinion for you would be option 2, that is move the Proficients from the other room for 5.1.4. I would describe the difference as going from sound above you to sound above you that will pan from front to back and vice versa.

Having the height speakers match in timbre is a good thing. And, I think that you will like the results better than the upfirers. Most of them have less than ideal construction until you start spending $500 a pair.

As always, YMMV...


----------



## lego1

Is it still true that TF and TR still sounds best regardless of physical speaker placement? Mine are in the TF and TM location due to my couch being against the rear wall. I remember kbarnes had a similar layout and said Having TF and TR in the amp assign sounded best compared to FH and TM. Is this still the case? Thanks.


----------



## showmak

Dbruce13 said:


> My seating position is 10 feet from the screen and my ceiling height is 8 feet. For Dolby atmos it is recommended that they speakers be placed between 30 - 55 degrees to front and 120 - 145 behind (assuming a 3 feet ear height). Anyone have a calculator or method for easily determining the distance in feet from my seating position based on those angles? Yes my geometry stinks....


Search for the name @aaranddeeman and you can find a useful speaker placement calculator in his/her signature. Good luck.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dbruce13 said:


> My seating position is 10 feet from the screen and my ceiling height is 8 feet. For Dolby atmos it is recommended that they speakers be placed between 30 - 55 degrees to front and 120 - 145 behind (assuming a 3 feet ear height). Anyone have a calculator or method for easily determining the distance in feet from my seating position based on those angles? Yes my geometry stinks....





Showmak said:


> Search for the name @aaranddeeman and you can find a useful speaker placement calculator in his/her signature. Good luck.


Thanks @Showmak
@Dbruce13, please see my signature below.


----------



## Xaspen80

So from experience would you recommend for a 5.1.4 setup placement of overhead in-ceiling speakers from the mlp? Just looking for some opinions as my 45 degree distance on a 9'3" ceiling is 5'11", but I have a joist right there, so I can only install at 5' or 6'2". My gut says 6'2" as it is closer to the ideal 45?, but I just wanted to hear from experience what seems to be better as far as separation. What should I be listening for to see what is better? Having my girlfriend act as a temporary speaker mount holding up one speaker and playing audio through a speaker at each position did not seem to help me any. The 5ft obviously just felt closer to me. Just scratching my head here since I dont know what to listen for. Although that probably means I will be happy with either. Just curious what everyone thinks.

Edit:
Forgot to mention I went with the micca m-8c.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> In the end, I think either would work fine but if it were me I would go with the 5' since these are in-ceiling speakers which typically don't have very good off axis response. If the dispersion pattern is good then the 6'2" would work fine too.


Agreed - I think a foot difference isn't going to be a huge difference either way, and the big variable is the aiming/dispersion capability of the speaker.


----------



## batpig

lego1 said:


> Is it still true that TF and TR still sounds best regardless of physical speaker placement? Mine are in the TF and TM location due to my couch being against the rear wall. I remember kbarnes had a similar layout and said Having TF and TR in the amp assign sounded best compared to FH and TM. Is this still the case? Thanks.


Basically, TF+TR will be more "balanced" as the processor will think there's a front and rear pair, and then use those four speakers fairly equally to move stuff around over you.

With FH+TM, the TM will be used more heavily as the processor things there is no rear overhead pair, so any sound that would be positioned in the middle or back would come from those speakers. So instead of the front/rear pair getting a 50/50 split of content, the TM/FH split will be more like 70/30 (making up numbers to illustrate the point).

The FH+TM designation will therefore give more dramatic "over your head" effect, but it "compresses" the overhead content forward somewhat. It's not a major difference and it might depend on your room and preferences so try it both ways, it's not that hard to compare (just change designations in the processor and re-run Audyssey).


----------



## CMRA

*Little help please...*

OK, I took the atmos plunge and I'm impressed.


But, how much better can I do? 


Before I lock in on 7.2 (5.1.2) what am I missing?


Anyone in the San Diego area open to showing me the "higher side"?


----------



## bucknuts07

Need some advice . Hoping I didn't make a mistake . Yesterday I took plunge and upgraded to Yamaha 2050. It's really my first high end receiver . My room is a walkout basement . It's 14 ft wide by 40 feet long . I have a Sony hw40 and 112 inch screen up front . My ceiling height is 7 ft . Currently I have energy rc-50 for front , energy vs surrounds to side , and a rc-lcr for center . Currently I have one sub in basement , svs 25-31. I have another sub I have thought about putting in basement as well , an outlaw lfm-1. Anyway , now I read that 7 ft ceilings might be an issue . I do have a pair of energy rc-10s coming , so at very worst I could upgrade to 7.1. In trying to read this monstrous thread , would I be better to mount my rc-10 on front wall high in corners ? Then get some modules to place in the rear . I sit 12 ft from my screen ? I have pleanty of room behind the couches , behind me , but mounting at back wall would be too far . As mentioned , I'm totally new to atmos , so if anyone can provide some solid direction , I would be grateful .


----------



## murphy2112

bucknuts07 said:


> Need some advice . Hoping I didn't make a mistake . Yesterday I took plunge and upgraded to Yamaha 2050. It's really my first high end receiver . My room is a walkout basement . It's 14 ft wide by 40 feet long . I have a Sony hw40 and 112 inch screen up front . My ceiling height is 7 ft . Currently I have energy rc-50 for front , energy vs surrounds to side , and a rc-lcr for center . Currently I have one sub in basement , svs 25-31. I have another sub I have thought about putting in basement as well , an outlaw lfm-1. Anyway , now I read that 7 ft ceilings might be an issue . I do have a pair of energy rc-10s coming , so at very worst I could upgrade to 7.1. In trying to read this monstrous thread , would I be better to mount my rc-10 on front wall high in corners ? Then get some modules to place in the rear . I sit 12 ft from my screen ? I have pleanty of room behind the couches , behind me , but mounting at back wall would be too far . As mentioned , I'm totally new to atmos , so if anyone can provide some solid direction , I would be grateful .



I have low ceilings too and doing in-ceiling speakers for Atmos. Have you considered in-ceiling?


----------



## batpig

12 ft from screen with 7ft ceilings means there is no way you will get enough elevation with mounting speakers high on front wall. Even if you have a low couch and your ears are only 3ft off the floor, that leaves only 4ft up to the ceiling, so a 12ft distance works out to less than 20 degrees elevation to the ceiling. 

I would strongly recommend using the RC-10's for surround backs instead, and go with a pair of in/on-ceiling speakers for Top Middle (7.1.2) so you can get them up above you. Elevation to the speakers is really the key to separating the lower level and elevated layers and getting the sensation of that 3D bubble.


----------



## SoundChex

From *TVTechnology* (*link*):


> "_*Korea to Launch ATSC 3.0 Broadcasts in 2017
> LG, Korean broadcasters conduct first live end to end broadcast of next-gen standard
> February 24, 2016 By Tom Butts
> 
> SEOUL*—Several Korean broadcasters announced this week that they will begin transmitting ATSC 3.0 OTA broadcasts starting in February 2017. The news comes after the two broadcast networks, SBS and MBC—in conjunction with LG Electronics, ETRI and several equipment vendors—announced the first successful live end-to-end ATSC 3.0 broadcast in the country, and represents perhaps the best confirmation yet that the ATSC 3.0 next generation broadcast standard is on schedule to be completed within the next 12 months._"



Presumably this also means the Dolby AC-4 [improved] immersive audio streaming protocol will be ratified and available to be rolled-out|integrated with AVR|AVP Dolby Atmos decoders starting in the next year or so...?!  


_


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Okay... this week, I tear down my existing Atmos setup and move it to a new house. Going to do in-ceiling TF/TR instead of my current FH/TM setup. I have no head for numbers, so maybe someone can confirm my general notion of where I'm putting the speakers. Room measures 13' W x 21' L x 8' H. My screen will be on the 13' wall, which will put my mains out pretty far because my towers won't quite fit under the screen in this new space (and I have a SVS 20-39CS+ that will have to go in the corner more than I'd like because of this change). 

I have no drawing skills, so forgive the potato-quality drawing I've attached... but you can at least see my logic. I'm also attaching pics of the empty room. My mains and center will be about 12-18" off the front wall. Projector will be mounted at about 14-15' from the screen. Side surrounds will be at just over 11' from the screen, so roughly the middle of the room where the first row of seating will be. Rears will be on either side of the back doorway (which I'm planning on using thick cloth room divider curtains to control a bit). For my in-ceiling speakers, putting them in-line with the mains is probably not possible because of the wide spacing due to the screen... so I was thinking of having them in-line with the rear speakers. And was thinking the overheads would be placed basically half-way between the mains/side surrounds and half-way between the side surrounds and back of the room for the best coverage. I haven't measured, but those angles seem pretty good to me based on the Atmos specs. I will have a second couch behind the first row where my 2-seater recliner and stand-alone recliner will be, but I'm not super concerned about the sound at the second couch. I think I'll still get pretty decent overhead at that position anyway.

Any thoughts? I'm moving everything on Saturday, so the process of hooking it all up will begin next week. Also, I was thinking of just using speaker stands for all 4 surrounds so I can fiddle with placement a bit after the fact. The right surround will have to be on a stand anyway because of a big window on that side. I'll be using older Polk RTi28s for my surrounds (and probably getting Polk RC60i for the in-ceilings, since they match my other Polks). Any advice on stands would be appreciated.


----------



## Spanglo

CMRA said:


> OK, I took the atmos plunge and I'm impressed.
> 
> 
> But, how much better can I do?
> 
> 
> Before I lock in on 7.2 (5.1.2) what am I missing?
> 
> 
> Anyone in the San Diego area open to showing me the "higher side"?


I'm in San Diego and you're welcomed to a demo.

However, you really should test out the extra channels in your own room and make a decision based on that listening test. 

I doubt our systems sound anything alike, so you'll likely be underwhelmed or impressed depending on who has the better sounding system regardless of channels.

No question though, 7.1.x > 5.1.x all day.


----------



## healthnut

bucknuts07 said:


> Need some advice . Hoping I didn't make a mistake . Yesterday I took plunge and upgraded to Yamaha 2050. It's really my first high end receiver . My room is a walkout basement . It's 14 ft wide by 40 feet long . I have a Sony hw40 and 112 inch screen up front . My ceiling height is 7 ft . Currently I have energy rc-50 for front , energy vs surrounds to side , and a rc-lcr for center . Currently I have one sub in basement , svs 25-31. I have another sub I have thought about putting in basement as well , an outlaw lfm-1. Anyway , now I read that 7 ft ceilings might be an issue . I do have a pair of energy rc-10s coming , so at very worst I could upgrade to 7.1. In trying to read this monstrous thread , would I be better to mount my rc-10 on front wall high in corners ? Then get some modules to place in the rear . I sit 12 ft from my screen ? I have pleanty of room behind the couches , behind me , but mounting at back wall would be too far . As mentioned , I'm totally new to atmos , so if anyone can provide some solid direction , I would be grateful .



I think you can make it work, provided you select a wide dispersion ceiling speaker. The JBL control has a claimed dispersion of 120 degrees, that could mitigate to a large extent the low ceilings. Also, a number of people have gotten good results with ceilings as low as yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LowellG

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Okay... this week, I tear down my existing Atmos setup and move it to a new house. Going to do in-ceiling TF/TR instead of my current FH/TM setup. I have no head for numbers, so maybe someone can confirm my general notion of where I'm putting the speakers. Room measures 13' W x 21' L x 8' H. My screen will be on the 13' wall, which will put my mains out pretty far because my towers won't quite fit under the screen in this new space (and I have a SVS 20-39CS+ that will have to go in the corner more than I'd like because of this change).
> 
> I have no drawing skills, so forgive the potato-quality drawing I've attached... but you can at least see my logic. I'm also attaching pics of the empty room. My mains and center will be about 12-18" off the front wall. Projector will be mounted at about 14-15' from the screen. Side surrounds will be at just over 11' from the screen, so roughly the middle of the room where the first row of seating will be. Rears will be on either side of the back doorway (which I'm planning on using thick cloth room divider curtains to control a bit). For my in-ceiling speakers, putting them in-line with the mains is probably not possible because of the wide spacing due to the screen... so I was thinking of having them in-line with the rear speakers. And was thinking the overheads would be placed basically half-way between the mains/side surrounds and half-way between the side surrounds and back of the room for the best coverage. I haven't measured, but those angles seem pretty good to me based on the Atmos specs. I will have a second couch behind the first row where my 2-seater recliner and stand-alone recliner will be, but I'm not super concerned about the sound at the second couch. I think I'll still get pretty decent overhead at that position anyway.
> 
> Any thoughts? I'm moving everything on Saturday, so the process of hooking it all up will begin next week. Also, I was thinking of just using speaker stands for all 4 surrounds so I can fiddle with placement a bit after the fact. The right surround will have to be on a stand anyway because of a big window on that side. I'll be using older Polk RTi28s for my surrounds (and probably getting Polk RC60i for the in-ceilings, since they match my other Polks). Any advice on stands would be appreciated.


My room is very similar to yours, 21x12.5x9. I have attached my layout for Atmos. You can click the link in my sig to see pics.


----------



## CMRA

Spanglo said:


> I'm in San Diego and you're welcomed to a demo.
> 
> However, you really should test out the extra channels in your own room and make a decision based on that listening test.
> 
> I doubt our systems sound anything alike, so you'll likely be underwhelmed or impressed depending on who has the better sounding system regardless of channels.
> 
> No question though, 7.1.x > 5.1.x all day.



Thanks Spanglo.


I'm already impressed with my 5.1.2 setup. But, you know us AVS types, we never settle.
I'm super curious what a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 would sound like. Would there be enough benefit to upgrade?


I'll PM you or vice versa. Perhaps we can get together and share notes?


----------



## hatlesschimp

Well I guess I'm committed to the Atmos build for the new house. I just bought two KEF Ci200RR-THX in-Ceiling speakers from USA for $750 AUD each delivered. 

Here in Australia they are $1,250 LOL. 

It basically buy 2 get 1 free from the USA when compared to Australian pricing lol.

The new house is still to be finalized but the theater room looks set to be 4550mm W X 5700mm L x 2550 H.

Now I need to sort out how I go with the AMP, AVR, Processor???


----------



## whitetrash66

bucknuts07 said:


> Need some advice . Hoping I didn't make a mistake . Yesterday I took plunge and upgraded to Yamaha 2050. It's really my first high end receiver . My room is a walkout basement . It's 14 ft wide by 40 feet long . I have a Sony hw40 and 112 inch screen up front . My ceiling height is 7 ft . Currently I have energy rc-50 for front , energy vs surrounds to side , and a rc-lcr for center . Currently I have one sub in basement , svs 25-31. I have another sub I have thought about putting in basement as well , an outlaw lfm-1. Anyway , now I read that 7 ft ceilings might be an issue . I do have a pair of energy rc-10s coming , so at very worst I could upgrade to 7.1. In trying to read this monstrous thread , would I be better to mount my rc-10 on front wall high in corners ? Then get some modules to place in the rear . I sit 12 ft from my screen ? I have pleanty of room behind the couches , behind me , but mounting at back wall would be too far . As mentioned , I'm totally new to atmos , so if anyone can provide some solid direction , I would be grateful .



Hello! I also have a 7 foot ceiling in my basement. I have a set of polk LSI15s for fronts, and my rear surround speakers are some energy towers. I'm running a 7.1.4 setup.

I have 4 of the Atlantic Tech DA-44 speakers and they work very well! My seating position is about 11 feet from the screen, and I love the atmos enabled speakers I have. To get the best effect, I disabled all of the other speakers except the Dolby Enabled, and watched several scenes while messing with angle. The only thing I can recommend is that I would highly go towards the Atlantic Tech speakers. They have an adjustable tweeter that you can angle higher or lower, allowing an easy adjustment of the elevation audio. I also recommend running the DE speakers about 5-6 decibels hot. I find the effect is much improved.

After running several test scenes, I found my best angle and I'm very happy with them IMO. The only thing was that to get the back Dolby Enabled speakers giving the best audio, I used some cheap door wedges to give me a slightly different angle. My seating is 11 feet from the screen, and 13 feet from the rear of the room.


----------



## thebland

healthnut said:


> I think you can make it work, provided you select a wide dispersion ceiling speaker. The JBL control has a claimed dispersion of 120 degrees, that could mitigate to a large extent the low ceilings. Also, a number of people have gotten good results with ceilings as low as yours.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


OR simply point speakers to main listening position...


----------



## hatlesschimp

What do people think I should do with my setup?

I want to run 7.1.4

I just bought two KEF Ci200RR-THX in-ceiling speakers and I will buy another 2 soon to make 4 for the ceiling.

I have the 7 floor speakers already - 4x KEF Q900, 1x KEF Q600c, 2x KEF Q300.

Where it starts getting messy is I have a Rotel RMB 1585 - 200 Watts x 5ch. Its great and has never missed a beat! But I need to power 11 Channels. I need either a AVR with power or a AV processor and get more amps to cover the rest of the speakers. I see Yamaha have the Aventage 3050 and MX a5000 combo but will that power all my speakers sufficiently? Its hard to see a cheaper 11ch amp out perform the Rotel RMB 1585 amp which is only 5ch. I know when I bought the Rotel RMB 1585 it added life to my Q900's. hmm 

Would love some help guys, cheers!


----------



## dlca1

*.4 layout*

I'm planning to upgrade from 5.1.2 to (5.1.4 or 7.1.4)

My sofa is against one wall, TV mounted on the other wall. (16' wide, 9' high). I already have one pair of ceiling speakers installed. They are 4' from the back, just slightly in front of the MLP.

1) x.1.2 -> x.1.4 when Sofa is back of room. 
Is it still as worthwhile to upgrade to a .4, if both speakers will physically be in front of the MLP? Are front-ceiling speakers still the recommended option in my scenario (vs. upfiring or front-heights)? As might be expected, I've read conflicting advice. Some suggest sticking with 5.1.2. Another thread suggested front-heights.

2) 5.1.x->7.1.x: 
I have an extra pair of decent speakers. I was considering buying a sofa-table to place between the sofa and back wall. I would put the extra speakers on the sofa-table for my rear backs. Would I see much additional benefit with this type of layout? Since it is just for ambient sound, would adding just one speaker back there be almost as good? Note: This comes at a cost, since it eats into the play-area for my little ones and would be less aesthetically pleasing.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## GXMnow

hatlesschimp said:


> What do people think I should do with my setup?
> 
> I want to run 7.1.4
> 
> I just bought two KEF Ci200RR-THX in-ceiling speakers and I will buy another 2 soon to make 4 for the ceiling.
> 
> I have the 7 floor speakers already - 4x KEF Q900, 1x KEF Q600c, 2x KEF Q300.
> 
> Where it starts getting messy is I have a Rotel RMB 1585 - 200 Watts x 5ch. Its great and has never missed a beat! But I need to power 11 Channels. I need either a AVR with power or a AV processor and get more amps to cover the rest of the speakers. I see Yamaha have the Aventage 3050 and MX a5000 combo but will that power all my speakers sufficiently? Its hard to see a cheaper 11ch amp out perform the Rotel RMB 1585 amp which is only 5ch. I know when I bought the Rotel RMB 1585 it added life to my Q900's. hmm
> 
> Would love some help guys, cheers!


It is a tough call there, the Rotel amp is a great piece. Depending on your budget....
Choice 1
Get a Marantz AV7702MKII pre-pro and 6 more channels of power amp. Too bad that Rotel does not make a 6 channel unit. But they do have a 100x8 you could use for all the surrounds. but that is a step down in power. 

Choice 2
Get a Denon AVR-X6200W and use your Rotel amp to run the screen channels and another pair. I would go with which pair is further from you, side or back. Then the internal amps only have to drive 6 speakers and the power supply will have less load and sound great. 

Of course there are many more choices, but those are the first two that come to my mind.

I don't have a Rotel amp laying around, but I do have an older Denon 3805 which I am planning on putting to use as my 6 surround speaker amp. So then the AVR-X6200W internal amps only have to run 5 speakers. In my case, I just might use the 3805 for all 7 lower speakers, it depends on which amp actually sounds better under load. In your case, the Rotel really should blow away the internal amps. In my case, the older Denon has a much heavier power supply, and may actually crank out more current.

Have fun, I can't wait to get my Atmos up and running.


----------



## hatlesschimp

dlca1 said:


> I'm planning to upgrade from 5.1.2 to (5.1.4 or 7.1.4)
> 
> My sofa is against one wall, TV mounted on the other wall. (16' wide, 9' high). I already have one pair of ceiling speakers installed. They are 4' from the back, just slightly in front of the MLP.
> 
> 1) x.1.2 -> x.1.4 when Sofa is back of room.
> Is it still as worthwhile to upgrade to a .4, if both speakers will physically be in front of the MLP? Are front-ceiling speakers still the recommended option in my scenario (vs. upfiring or front-heights)? As might be expected, I've read conflicting advice. Some suggest sticking with 5.1.2. Another thread suggested front-heights.
> 
> 2) 5.1.x->7.1.x:
> I have an extra pair of decent speakers. I was considering buying a sofa-table to place between the sofa and back wall. I would put the extra speakers on the sofa-table for my rear backs. Would I see much additional benefit with this type of layout? Since it is just for ambient sound, would adding just one speaker back there be almost as good? Note: This comes at a cost, since it eats into the play-area for my little ones and would be less aesthetically pleasing.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice.


I've never tried Front heights but I have tried 9.1 with Front wides and it made a huge difference having them extra speakers in between the front and surrounds. Especially for movies like Super 8. Biggest thing I noticed was when I recently took out my surround backs because they were the Q300's on stands because I have a 16 month old running around trying to grab things. They wont see anymore action no till I move into my new house where I can shut and basically lock the door. But taking the rears out was a massive difference. I'm going Atmos with 4 ceiling speakers in the new house and I've read having front heights and rear speakers too high can affect the quality of the ceiling atmos speakers and how they are perceived. I cant tell you how accurate this is by experience.


----------



## hatlesschimp

GXMnow said:


> It is a tough call there, the Rotel amp is a great piece. Depending on your budget....
> Choice 1
> Get a Marantz AV7702MKII pre-pro and 6 more channels of power amp. Too bad that Rotel does not make a 6 channel unit. But they do have a 100x8 you could use for all the surrounds. but that is a step down in power.
> 
> Choice 2
> Get a Denon AVR-X6200W and use your Rotel amp to run the screen channels and another pair. I would go with which pair is further from you, side or back. Then the internal amps only have to drive 6 speakers and the power supply will have less load and sound great.
> 
> Of course there are many more choices, but those are the first two that come to my mind.
> 
> I don't have a Rotel amp laying around, but I do have an older Denon 3805 which I am planning on putting to use as my 6 surround speaker amp. So then the AVR-X6200W internal amps only have to run 5 speakers. In my case, I just might use the 3805 for all 7 lower speakers, it depends on which amp actually sounds better under load. In your case, the Rotel really should blow away the internal amps. In my case, the older Denon has a much heavier power supply, and may actually crank out more current.
> 
> Have fun, I can't wait to get my Atmos up and running.


Thanks mate!

I basically had my local sales man try and sell me the Yamaha 3050 + a5000 combo. But I love my Rotel and its a beast. I think the Denon X6200 will do the trick and if I need to I can always buy another amp. hmmm. Its great that amps are just amps because the technology never gets old. A speaker will always need power and as long as you look after it and not turn it on, off, on, off all the time it should hang in there for a long time.


----------



## vitod

hatlesschimp, one major upgrade would be in subs. If you can DIY or get flat packs with a driver, you'll drop being a SVS fanboy. I know, I was one.


----------



## hatlesschimp

vitod said:


> hatlesschimp, one major upgrade would be in subs. If you can DIY or get flat packs with a driver, you'll drop being a SVS fanboy. I know, I was one.


Hey, I'm a KEF fan boy too!!! LOL

The first real sub I bought was my SVS PC13-Ultra. Man I did not expect what I got from that bad boy!!! ANd that when the love started. Also its funny to have friends ask what the hell is that thing and I tell its a cat scratching poll and playground. 

I'm building a new house and I have told my wife I'm having a dedicated theater. I put the foot down! LOL Anyways I can do what I want to this room and even change the shape at the moment as its still to have its final draft done. at the moment its...

14.7' Wide x 18.7' Long x 8.5' High or in normal measurements 4.5m x 5.7m x 2.55m. 

I still have to get that second sub but I can also go making a custom box or somthing like that. I was looking at in wall kef speakers but they were too expensive and I love my Q series. But I would love not having to spend another 2.7k on a single sub. SO I'm all ears to suggestions and would love to hear your ideas in more detail. Thanks!!!


----------



## bucknuts07

whitetrash66 said:


> Hello! I also have a 7 foot ceiling in my basement. I have a set of polk LSI15s for fronts, and my rear surround speakers are some energy towers. I'm running a 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> I have 4 of the Atlantic Tech DA-44 speakers and they work very well! My seating position is about 11 feet from the screen, and I love the atmos enabled speakers I have. To get the best effect, I disabled all of the other speakers except the Dolby Enabled, and watched several scenes while messing with angle. The only thing I can recommend is that I would highly go towards the Atlantic Tech speakers. They have an adjustable tweeter that you can angle higher or lower, allowing an easy adjustment of the elevation audio. I also recommend running the DE speakers about 5-6 decibels hot. I find the effect is much improved.
> 
> After running several test scenes, I found my best angle and I'm very happy with them IMO. The only thing was that to get the back Dolby Enabled speakers giving the best audio, I used some cheap door wedges to give me a slightly different angle. My seating is 11 feet from the screen, and 13 feet from the rear of the room.


So you place these on top of your fronts and rears ? Not sure if that will work for me, as I need to mention that I visited the "once you go black thread hear at Avs, and my screenwall, ceiling and sidewalls, for the first 5 feet out, are royalty black velvet . If I go 7.1.2, can i place upfiring speakers on the rear rc-10s, angled to in front of listening position ? I was looking at my trusses yesterday, as half my basement is unfinished, they all run across the room, so in ceiling may work, but i may of hit an obstacle, it seems about 4 or 5 feet down the trusses, there is a cross truss, not sure how i would get thru that to run speaker wire to overheads ?


----------



## dlca1

hatlesschimp said:


> I've never tried Front heights but I have tried 9.1 with Front wides and it made a huge difference having them extra speakers in between the front and surrounds. Especially for movies like Super 8. Biggest thing I noticed was when I recently took out my surround backs because they were the Q300's on stands because I have a 16 month old running around trying to grab things. They wont see anymore action no till I move into my new house where I can shut and basically lock the door. But taking the rears out was a massive difference. I'm going Atmos with 4 ceiling speakers in the new house and I've read having front heights and rear speakers too high can affect the quality of the ceiling atmos speakers and how they are perceived. I cant tell you how accurate this is by experience.


Thanks hatlesschimp. (Cool handle =)

Would love to hear advice from the experts on if it is worthwhile to add the second pair of ceiling/height speakers if all 4 will be in front of the MLP.


----------



## showmak

Hi guys,

I didn't post it here maybe to avoid making distraction to the main thread...

I really appreciate your valuable recommendation. Please share your experience with me in my thread...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2345265-upgrading-5-1-4-a.html


----------



## hatlesschimp

I think its two in front and two behind is how it should be. Its how I'm going to roll. 

I'm going to get my sparky to do my dirty work and run all the cables, conduit and install my speakers. Its a bit hard because when the house is near completion I will be recovering from a shoulder reco. Ha, Just realized no moving boxes for me when we move in! LOL. My wife will be soooo happy with me!!!


----------



## vitod

hatlesschimp said:


> SO I'm all ears to suggestions and would love to hear your ideas in more detail. Thanks!!!


Be warned, you're about to enter the _*Dark Side! 

*_I highly suggest you shoot over the DIY speaker and subs forum and post your room size and wants. The minimum I suggest are two sealed 18" subs. I don't want to go into more details because this is not the right forum for it. So, get over there!


----------



## hatlesschimp

vitod said:


> Be warned, you're about to enter the _*Dark Side!
> 
> *_I highly suggest you shoot over the DIY speaker and subs forum and post your room size and wants. The minimum I suggest are two sealed 18" subs. I don't want to go into more details because this is not the right forum for it. So, get over there!


Thanks!

Will I see you over there too? Can it be a date?  Sweet I will head there now, i'm like really excited because I love making things!! I also love planing things!!


----------



## vitod

hatlesschimp said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Will I see you over there too? Can it be a date?  Sweet I will head there now, i'm like really excited because I love making things!! I also love planing things!!


I post there many times! TONS of great folks there! So many options, your head explode! :devil:


----------



## batpig

bucknuts07 said:


> whitetrash66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello! I also have a 7 foot ceiling in my basement. I have a set of polk LSI15s for fronts, and my rear surround speakers are some energy towers. I'm running a 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> I have 4 of the Atlantic Tech DA-44 speakers and they work very well! My seating position is about 11 feet from the screen, and I love the atmos enabled speakers I have. To get the best effect, I disabled all of the other speakers except the Dolby Enabled, and watched several scenes while messing with angle. The only thing I can recommend is that I would highly go towards the Atlantic Tech speakers. They have an adjustable tweeter that you can angle higher or lower, allowing an easy adjustment of the elevation audio. I also recommend running the DE speakers about 5-6 decibels hot. I find the effect is much improved.
> 
> After running several test scenes, I found my best angle and I'm very happy with them IMO. The only thing was that to get the back Dolby Enabled speakers giving the best audio, I used some cheap door wedges to give me a slightly different angle. My seating is 11 feet from the screen, and 13 feet from the rear of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> So you place these on top of your fronts and rears ? Not sure if that will work for me, as I need to mention that I visited the "once you go black thread hear at Avs, and my screenwall, ceiling and sidewalls, for the first 5 feet out, are royalty black velvet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . If I go 7.1.2, can i place upfiring speakers on the rear rc-10s, angled to in front of listening position ? I was looking at my trusses yesterday, as half my basement is unfinished, they all run across the room, so in ceiling may work, but i may of hit an obstacle, it seems about 4 or 5 feet down the trusses, there is a cross truss, not sure how i would get thru that to run speaker wire to overheads ?
Click to expand...

One nice thing about in ceiling is that you get to cut two big holes into the drywall ceiling that you don't have to repair! If things work out well you can use the two holes you cut for the speakers to fish wire without having to do more damage that you have to patch later. And the holes are big enough to stick your arm and a drill into 

If the speaker holes are relatively close to the cross brace you can just drill a hole through it and fish the wire through.


----------



## scrowe

hatlesschimp said:


> What do people think I should do with my setup?
> 
> I want to run 7.1.4
> 
> I just bought two KEF Ci200RR-THX in-ceiling speakers and I will buy another 2 soon to make 4 for the ceiling.
> 
> I have the 7 floor speakers already - 4x KEF Q900, 1x KEF Q600c, 2x KEF Q300.
> 
> Where it starts getting messy is I have a Rotel RMB 1585 - 200 Watts x 5ch. Its great and has never missed a beat! But I need to power 11 Channels. I need either a AVR with power or a AV processor and get more amps to cover the rest of the speakers. I see Yamaha have the Aventage 3050 and MX a5000 combo but will that power all my speakers sufficiently? Its hard to see a cheaper 11ch amp out perform the Rotel RMB 1585 amp which is only 5ch. I know when I bought the Rotel RMB 1585 it added life to my Q900's. hmm
> 
> Would love some help guys, cheers!


I have Kef R-Series with 2x R700, R600, R800ds rears, 2xR400b and 4xCi200RR-THX in-ceiling, so 5.2.4 Atmos. I run a Yamaha RX-3050. In a week I am bringing in 2xR500 as side surrounds, retaining R800ds as rear surrounds (and yes I know dipoles are not ideal) but I already have them and they fit the room as rears great, down at ear-height on back wall behind sofa. To power this 7.2.4 setup, I have the Rotel RMB-1575 ready to bi-amp the R700 fronts and the R600, leaving the Yamaha receiver to power rears and heights.

So this is what I'll have setup in about a week, so illustrates one possible way to go.


----------



## muriwai

hatlesschimp said:


> Well I guess I'm committed to the Atmos build for the new house. I just bought two KEF Ci200RR-THX in-Ceiling speakers from USA for $750 AUD each delivered.
> 
> Here in Australia they are $1,250 LOL.
> 
> It basically buy 2 get 1 free from the USA when compared to Australian pricing lol.
> 
> The new house is still to be finalized but the theater room looks set to be 4550mm W X 5700mm L x 2550
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Hatless chimp,could you pls email me at [email protected] ,I'm Melbourne and would like to discuss these speakers further regards Dean


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Look what arrived today... AWESOME!!!! Finally have a legit ATMOS demo disc... instead of my downloaded ISO lol.


----------



## Tnedator

Daniel Chaves said:


> Look what arrived today... AWESOME!!!! Finally have a legit AMOS demo disc... instead of my downloaded ISO lol.


How did you get it? I wss in Germany on Monday and didn't know to look for one.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Tnedator said:


> How did you get it? I wss in Germany on Monday and didn't know to look for one.


I contacted their customer support and requested to buy that issue, my only issue is I got the bill and it of course isnt in English, all I understood was $7 euros, so I have to figure out how to fill it out so I can pay for it lol.


----------



## Tnedator

Daniel Chaves said:


> I contacted their customer support and requested to buy that issue, my only issue is I got the bill and it of course isnt in English, all I understood was $7 euros, so I have to figure out how to fill it out so I can pay for it lol.


Any idea if the trailers will be in English or dubbed?


----------



## dvdwilly3

scrowe said:


> I have Kef R-Series with 2x R700, R600, R800ds rears, 2xR400b and 4xCi200RR-THX in-ceiling, so 5.2.4 Atmos. I run a Yamaha RX-3050. In a week I am bringing in 2xR500 as side surrounds, retaining R800ds as rear surrounds (and yes I know dipoles are not ideal) but I already have them and they fit the room as rears great, down at ear-height on back wall behind sofa. To power this 7.2.4 setup, I have the Rotel RMB-1575 ready to bi-amp the R700 fronts and the R600, leaving the Yamaha receiver to power rears and heights.
> 
> So this is what I'll have setup in about a week, so illustrates one possible way to go.


I have dipoles also, but I run them as side surrounds instead of rear. 

In my case, I have two rows of seats and I get better coverage with dipoles rather than direct fire. 

I did have direct fire and changed to dipole. If I did not have two rows, I would still run them that way. It sort gives the effect of having wides...at least in my room.

As always YMMV...


----------



## hatlesschimp

I just bought my new Kef Ci200RR-THX speakers and I was informed by someone that I may actually be making my home fire insurance void if I install the speakers into a wall or ceiling with out a backing housing hood or fire hood canape. 

Can anyone confirm or deny this? I live in Australia too. Cheers


----------



## aaranddeeman

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have dipoles also, but I run them as side surrounds instead of rear.
> 
> In my case, I have two rows of seats and I get better coverage with dipoles rather than direct fire.
> 
> I did have direct fire and changed to dipole. If I did not have two rows, I would still run them that way. It sort gives the effect of having wides...at least in my room.
> 
> As always YMMV...


Dipoles are a big no in the Atmos setup. I know that is 100% true for heights, but I believe it is recommended to not use them even as bed surrounds. This is again for precision of object placement.
But I may be wrong.


----------



## dvdwilly3

aaranddeeman said:


> Dipoles are a big no in the Atmos setup. I know that is 100% true for heights, but I believe it is recommended to not use them even as bed surrounds. This is again for precision of object placement.
> But I may be wrong.


For heights, I would agree, I don't think they would work well.

And, to honest, the Monitor Audio Silver RX is a bit of a different animal. It features a 6" driver on the face of it so it really is diect fire with twin tweeters on the angled sides, toward the front and the back, respectively. So, you get direct sound and dispersed sound out of the same unit.

So, it really is sort of a hybrid, but it works exceedingly well in my room.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Playing the Dolby Atmos demo disk on my current system, the thunder in Amaze and the 747 Take Off both peak at 100 dB(C) at MLP measured with my digital RadioShack meter pointed upwards. It sounds loud, but natural and airy with no audible distortion whatsoever. How far off am I from playing at true reference level? Just checking if I got all my SPL calibration right...


----------



## Selden Ball

hatlesschimp said:


> I just bought my new Kef Ci200RR-THX speakers and I was informed by someone that I may actually be making my home fire insurance void if I install the speakers into a wall or ceiling with out a backing housing hood or fire hood canape.
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this? I live in Australia too. Cheers


Unfortunately, "fire code" is unique to each political jurisdiction and insurance companies might be even stricter. You'll have to consult with your insurance agent to find out for sure.

Speaker cables can have spikes of up to the power supply voltage, typically maxing out at around 90 Volts AC, with 100 to 200 Watts or more potentially being delivered to each speaker. That's certainly going to be considered a fire hazard in many jurisdictions. That's why, for example, in the US one has to use "plenum rated" speaker cables when they're inside a wall.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Tnedator said:


> Any idea if the trailers will be in English or dubbed?


The entire Bluray is in English including the slip it comes in, the only thing that wasnt in English was the Magazine lol... which when you think about it is odd but ehh whatever lol.


----------



## GXMnow

aaranddeeman said:


> Dipoles are a big no in the Atmos setup. I know that is 100% true for heights, but I believe it is recommended to not use them even as bed surrounds. This is again for precision of object placement.
> But I may be wrong.


There is a very big difference between Di pol and Bi pole.

A Di Pole speaker has sound coming out in 2 directions, typically, to the front and back of the room, and the sound out the two sides are sent out of phase. The idea of this was to make very diffuse sound to try and simulate the array of speakers in a typical movie theatre from just a single location. They did work well for that purpose. They are not ideal for Dolby Atmos because they do not project sound from a specific location, they excite a broad spread. So I agree, Di pole speakers are not a good idea for Atmos.

Now a Bi pole speaker (or even a lot of Di Poles that have a Bi pole mode switch) does also have drivers aimed away from each other, but they play in phase. With the two sources of sound coming out in phase, the wave fronts will cleanly add together to make a single point source still. It is no different than having dual woofers on the low end. On the high end with dual tweeters, the effect is a little different. The idea being to make for wider dispersion. At very high frequencies, many tweeters become very narrow. The two wave fronts may hardly cross at all, and the effect is just wider coverage angles. At lower frequencies from the tweeters, there is a chance there could be some interaction of the two wave fronts, but most of it will be addition unless the angle is such that the distance difference between the two drivers and the listener becomes more than 1/4 wavelength of the sound. They do try to aim them far enough apart to make this unlikely inthe normal listening area in front of the speakers. 

The old straight forward and back Di pole is a bad idea for Atmos, but even those, if they can be switched to all drivers in phase, will not be BAD, just not quite ideal. A Bi pole or even Tri pole with the drivers all in phase, and aimed more or less into the room, will work just fine. Check out some of the new surrounds from Klipsch. They are using two woofers and two horns splayed about 40 degrees forward and back. The idea is to get good surrounds from the side of the room without blasting the person on the end of the couch. I heard them in 2 different Dolby Atmos demo rooms and they work great. It is also the same idea with the Niles audio in ceiling speakers with the dual and quad tweeter bars. 

If you look at some of the other Atmos threads, check out the pictures of the overhead speakers in the Dolby Theatre and the El Capitan. In both cases they used multiple speakers to get wider coverage and more sound pressure capability without blasting straight down. 

Bi pole and Tri pole are just fine, but Di pole out of phase drivers are not a good idea.


----------



## healthnut

GXMnow said:


> There is a very big difference between Di pol and Bi pole.
> 
> 
> 
> A Di Pole speaker has sound coming out in 2 directions, typically, to the front and back of the room, and the sound out the two sides are sent out of phase. The idea of this was to make very diffuse sound to try and simulate the array of speakers in a typical movie theatre from just a single location. They did work well for that purpose. They are not ideal for Dolby Atmos because they do not project sound from a specific location, they excite a broad spread. So I agree, Di pole speakers are not a good idea for Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Now a Bi pole speaker (or even a lot of Di Poles that have a Bi pole mode switch) does also have drivers aimed away from each other, but they play in phase. With the two sources of sound coming out in phase, the wave fronts will cleanly add together to make a single point source still. It is no different than having dual woofers on the low end. On the high end with dual tweeters, the effect is a little different. The idea being to make for wider dispersion. At very high frequencies, many tweeters become very narrow. The two wave fronts may hardly cross at all, and the effect is just wider coverage angles. At lower frequencies from the tweeters, there is a chance there could be some interaction of the two wave fronts, but most of it will be addition unless the angle is such that the distance difference between the two drivers and the listener becomes more than 1/4 wavelength of the sound. They do try to aim them far enough apart to make this unlikely inthe normal listening area in front of the speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> The old straight forward and back Di pole is a bad idea for Atmos, but even those, if they can be switched to all drivers in phase, will not be BAD, just not quite ideal. A Bi pole or even Tri pole with the drivers all in phase, and aimed more or less into the room, will work just fine. Check out some of the new surrounds from Klipsch. They are using two woofers and two horns splayed about 40 degrees forward and back. The idea is to get good surrounds from the side of the room without blasting the person on the end of the couch. I heard them in 2 different Dolby Atmos demo rooms and they work great. It is also the same idea with the Niles audio in ceiling speakers with the dual and quad tweeter bars.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at some of the other Atmos threads, check out the pictures of the overhead speakers in the Dolby Theatre and the El Capitan. In both cases they used multiple speakers to get wider coverage and more sound pressure capability without blasting straight down.
> 
> 
> 
> Bi pole and Tri pole are just fine, but Di pole out of phase drivers are not a good idea.



What would you say about the Axiom Qs8 Quadrapoles?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

GXMnow said:


> There is a very big difference between Di pol and Bi pole.
> 
> A Di Pole speaker has sound coming out in 2 directions, typically, to the front and back of the room, and the sound out the two sides are sent out of phase. The idea of this was to make very diffuse sound to try and simulate the array of speakers in a typical movie theatre from just a single location. They did work well for that purpose. They are not ideal for Dolby Atmos because they do not project sound from a specific location, they excite a broad spread. So I agree, Di pole speakers are not a good idea for Atmos.
> 
> Now a Bi pole speaker (or even a lot of Di Poles that have a Bi pole mode switch) does also have drivers aimed away from each other, but they play in phase. With the two sources of sound coming out in phase, the wave fronts will cleanly add together to make a single point source still. It is no different than having dual woofers on the low end. On the high end with dual tweeters, the effect is a little different. The idea being to make for wider dispersion. At very high frequencies, many tweeters become very narrow. The two wave fronts may hardly cross at all, and the effect is just wider coverage angles. At lower frequencies from the tweeters, there is a chance there could be some interaction of the two wave fronts, but most of it will be addition unless the angle is such that the distance difference between the two drivers and the listener becomes more than 1/4 wavelength of the sound. They do try to aim them far enough apart to make this unlikely inthe normal listening area in front of the speakers.
> 
> The old straight forward and back Di pole is a bad idea for Atmos, but even those, if they can be switched to all drivers in phase, will not be BAD, just not quite ideal. A Bi pole or even Tri pole with the drivers all in phase, and aimed more or less into the room, will work just fine. Check out some of the new surrounds from Klipsch. They are using two woofers and two horns splayed about 40 degrees forward and back. The idea is to get good surrounds from the side of the room without blasting the person on the end of the couch. I heard them in 2 different Dolby Atmos demo rooms and they work great. It is also the same idea with the Niles audio in ceiling speakers with the dual and quad tweeter bars.
> 
> If you look at some of the other Atmos threads, check out the pictures of the overhead speakers in the Dolby Theatre and the El Capitan. In both cases they used multiple speakers to get wider coverage and more sound pressure capability without blasting straight down.
> 
> Bi pole and Tri pole are just fine, but Di pole out of phase drivers are not a good idea.


You know...I really need to have coffee before I start responding...

I do NOT have dipoles, and I would NOT recommend dipoles in an Atmos setup.

The Monitor Audio Silver RX can be run in dipole mode, but I am not doing that I am running it in bipole mode, and it works very, very well.










But, even at that I would never attempt to use them as height speakers.

My apologies for the confusion that I added to the discussion...


----------



## hatlesschimp

I had a pair of Kef Q800DS Dipoles at one stage as surround backs and you could not pic where the speaker was in a blind test. Pretty cool how they work.


----------



## fjerina

FINALLY getting my ELAC Atmos add-on speakers delivered today from Amazon. Anxious to see if they will make a difference. Anyone else have them out there?


----------



## markm75

Selden Ball said:


> The use of Dolby Surround upmixing is very much a personal preference. I enjoy upmixed CDs a lot. Other people don't.


I now realize that I can use this to emulate Dolby Atmos for non atmos sources (thanks).. however, i'm curious.. the []Surround or DSurround option for normal TrueHD tracks on a pioneer 1130k receiver.. what does it do if the original is already 7.1 TrueHD.. i've tried toggling back and forth and i'm not sure there is a difference (or why would there be).. so to just leave it on []Surround permanently (except for atmos sources where i'd want auto), ok to do i wonder.


----------



## bucknuts07

GXMnow said:


> There is a very big difference between Di pol and Bi pole.
> 
> A Di Pole speaker has sound coming out in 2 directions, typically, to the front and back of the room, and the sound out the two sides are sent out of phase. The idea of this was to make very diffuse sound to try and simulate the array of speakers in a typical movie theatre from just a single location. They did work well for that purpose. They are not ideal for Dolby Atmos because they do not project sound from a specific location, they excite a broad spread. So I agree, Di pole speakers are not a good idea for Atmos.
> 
> Now a Bi pole speaker (or even a lot of Di Poles that have a Bi pole mode switch) does also have drivers aimed away from each other, but they play in phase. With the two sources of sound coming out in phase, the wave fronts will cleanly add together to make a single point source still. It is no different than having dual woofers on the low end. On the high end with dual tweeters, the effect is a little different. The idea being to make for wider dispersion. At very high frequencies, many tweeters become very narrow. The two wave fronts may hardly cross at all, and the effect is just wider coverage angles. At lower frequencies from the tweeters, there is a chance there could be some interaction of the two wave fronts, but most of it will be addition unless the angle is such that the distance difference between the two drivers and the listener becomes more than 1/4 wavelength of the sound. They do try to aim them far enough apart to make this unlikely inthe normal listening area in front of the speakers.
> 
> The old straight forward and back Di pole is a bad idea for Atmos, but even those, if they can be switched to all drivers in phase, will not be BAD, just not quite ideal. A Bi pole or even Tri pole with the drivers all in phase, and aimed more or less into the room, will work just fine. Check out some of the new surrounds from Klipsch. They are using two woofers and two horns splayed about 40 degrees forward and back. The idea is to get good surrounds from the side of the room without blasting the person on the end of the couch. I heard them in 2 different Dolby Atmos demo rooms and they work great. It is also the same idea with the Niles audio in ceiling speakers with the dual and quad tweeter bars.
> 
> If you look at some of the other Atmos threads, check out the pictures of the overhead speakers in the Dolby Theatre and the El Capitan. In both cases they used multiple speakers to get wider coverage and more sound pressure capability without blasting straight down.
> 
> Bi pole and Tri pole are just fine, but Di pole out of phase drivers are not a good idea.


Man , this mimics a conversation I had with Batpig a few days ago. I have Energy VS surrounds on my side, which are classified as bipoles/dipoles, but they have a direct firing speaker, a switch, and a dial where u can adjust . Sounds like the Energy Vs Surrounds would be ok for atmos after all, as he said.


----------



## WiscoNYC

Are there any good downloadable test clips for Atmos?

I'm hooking up my first attempt at a 5.1.2 Atmos setup this weekend. I'm initially going with front upfiring modules. If I don't like the result, I'm gonna go in-ceiling instead, but I was hoping to find some good material for helping me dial in the angle of the speakers to get the best result from upfiring that I can. I bought a couple of blurays that have Atmos soundtracks (San Andreas and Mad Max) but I haven't seen either yet, so I'd prefer to not use them as the source for the initial testing.


----------



## Selden Ball

markm75 said:


> I now realize that I can use this to emulate Dolby Atmos for non atmos sources (thanks).. however, i'm curious.. the []Surround or DSurround option for normal TrueHD tracks on a pioneer 1130k receiver.. what does it do if the original is already 7.1 TrueHD.. i've tried toggling back and forth and i'm not sure there is a difference (or why would there be).. so to just leave it on []Surround permanently (except for atmos sources where i'd want auto), ok to do i wonder.


Having Dolby Surround enabled for everything is what I do. If you have a "traditional" 7.1 speaker configuration (i.e. you have Rear Surrounds instead of Front Wides), and you play a 7.1 soundtrack, then Dolby Surround does nothing: all of your speakers are already occupied. If you play a 5.1 or 2.0 soundtrack, though, Dolby Surround will expand it to fill all of your speakers. If it's a monaural soundtrack, though, the sound will "collapse", using just the center speaker. This happened on my system when I was watching some retrospective Extras on a Dr Who disc. Whenever they played an excerpt from the first season, suddenly only the center speaker was used. It was quite disconcerting at first.


----------



## markm75

Selden Ball said:


> Having Dolby Surround enabled for everything is what I do. If you have a "traditional" 7.1 speaker configuration (i.e. you have Rear Surrounds instead of Front Wides), and you play a 7.1 soundtrack, then Dolby Surround does nothing: all of your speakers are already occupied. If you play a 5.1 or 2.0 soundtrack, though, Dolby Surround will expand it to fill all of your speakers. If it's a monaural soundtrack, though, the sound will "collapse", using just the center speaker. This happened on my system when I was watching some retrospective Extras on a Dr Who disc. Whenever they played an excerpt from the first season, suddenly only the center speaker was used. It was quite disconcerting at first.


Yep, thats what i have full 7.1 ( i have 4 atmos too, but with the 1130k for now only 2 in play). Thanks for confirming that, makes it easier, though now for an atmos source ill have to remember to switch to auto for that.


----------



## pmeintel

Why hello all. I'm new to the Atmos thread and I'm looking to upgrade my current 5.2 set up to a 5.2.4 configuration utilizing in ceiling speakers. My question is has anyone utilized or does anyone have any opinion on using 4 Polk Audio - RC60i 6-1/2" In-Ceiling Speakers for the TF and TR sound? I've recently spent a large chunk of change on a new Pioneer Elite SC-95 and my better half is lets just say scowling at the thought of spending more on "My Hobby" (I tell you; some people ) I currently can pick up 4 of the RC60's for around $260. Any help is greatly appreciated.


----------



## pasender91

@Selden Ball, 
in this case you can turn Center Spread ON, then it will not collapse all the mono signal to the center speaker, and it will keep your front speakers alive 

@markm75, 
As you do have top or height speakers, Dolby Surround will also try to isolate elevated sounds (wind, rain, planes) and redirect them on your top speakers . Always keep Dolby Surround ON, Atmos will take precedence anyway ...
@pmeintel,
You should choose your top speakers as to be as near as possible to the sound of your surrounds. What sort of speakers do you have there ?


----------



## batpig

WiscoNYC said:


> Are there any good downloadable test clips for Atmos?
> 
> I'm hooking up my first attempt at a 5.1.2 Atmos setup this weekend. I'm initially going with front upfiring modules. If I don't like the result, I'm gonna go in-ceiling instead, but I was hoping to find some good material for helping me dial in the angle of the speakers to get the best result from upfiring that I can. I bought a couple of blurays that have Atmos soundtracks (San Andreas and Mad Max) but I haven't seen either yet, so I'd prefer to not use them as the source for the initial testing.


There are free Atmos trailers available to stream from VUDU (which is free to sign up for). So that's the easiest way.

If you're handy with computers and have a device that can bitstream HD audio from a USB drive, you can also download trailers from online sites.

Or you can buy a demo disc off eBay.

I would definitely use the trailers / test clips for the tests you discuss, actual movie content (especially when you haven't seen the movies) is going to be hard to know what you SHOULD be hearing in a given scene. A lot of Atmos movies do not use the overheads when you think they would so it's hard to tell if it's "right" or "wrong".

The Atmos trailers on the other hand -- especially "Amaze", "Leaf", "Unfold", "Audiosphere", "Encounter", etc. -- are deliberately going to have a lot of overhead action to show off the technology.


----------



## markm75

pasender91 said:


> @markm75,
> As you do have top or height speakers, Dolby Surround will also try to isolate elevated sounds (wind, rain, planes) and redirect them on your top speakers . Always keep Dolby Surround ON, Atmos will take precedence anyway ...


Yeah I have TF (for now just TF, RH active later).. so your saying even for atmos original sources i can just leave it on Dolby Surround rather than switching back to Auto.. i was under the impression it had to be on Auto for original atmos but maybe not, certainly less fuss if it can just stay set like this 24/7.. (and it upmixes the non atmos stuff which seems good to me, but of course you lose the back two speakers from 5.1 sources over the 7.1, but i think ill take the above atmos speakers over the back two, rather than no atmos at all vs 7.1.0).


----------



## batpig

bucknuts07 said:


> Man , this mimics a conversation I had with Batpig a few days ago. I have Energy VS surrounds on my side, which are classified as bipoles/dipoles, but they have a direct firing speaker, a switch, and a dial where u can adjust . Sounds like the Energy Vs Surrounds would be ok for atmos after all, as he said.


I told you man  

The V-S surrounds are even more "direct" than the Monitor Audio RX that dvdwilly is using. The MA RX speakers have a direct firing woofer and side firing tweeters, so no high frequency content is beaming straight at you. The Energy design (used in the V-S, RC-R, V2.0R, etc) has a front firing woofer AND tweeter, with side firing mids for dispersion. When you put it in "bipole" mode (in phase) it's really more of a "Tripole" speaker than a Bipole/Dipole, basically a direct-firing speaker with adjustable dispersion.


----------



## Theheadsn

pmeintel said:


> Why hello all. I'm new to the Atmos thread and I'm looking to upgrade my current 5.2 set up to a 5.2.4 configuration utilizing in ceiling speakers. My question is has anyone utilized or does anyone have any opinion on using 4 Polk Audio - RC60i 6-1/2" In-Ceiling Speakers for the TF and TR sound? I've recently spent a large chunk of change on a new Pioneer Elite SC-95 and my better half is lets just say scowling at the thought of spending more on "My Hobby" (I tell you; some people ) I currently can pick up 4 of the RC60's for around $260. Any help is greatly appreciated.


Dont be afraid to check out Polk's eBay store. GREAT deal on in ceiling speakers.


----------



## Tnedator

WiscoNYC said:


> Are there any good downloadable test clips for Atmos?
> 
> I'm hooking up my first attempt at a 5.1.2 Atmos setup this weekend. I'm initially going with front upfiring modules. If I don't like the result, I'm gonna go in-ceiling instead, but I was hoping to find some good material for helping me dial in the angle of the speakers to get the best result from upfiring that I can. I bought a couple of blurays that have Atmos soundtracks (San Andreas and Mad Max) but I haven't seen either yet, so I'd prefer to not use them as the source for the initial testing.


If you have a Roku or bluray with Vudu then you can get four Atmos demo tracks from them. Leaf, Amaze and two others.


----------



## batpig

GXMnow said:


> There is a very big difference between Di pol and Bi pole.
> ...
> Bi pole and Tri pole are just fine, but Di pole out of phase drivers are not a good idea.


Well said, and I agree completely. Too many people read the Atmos guidelines and were too quick too knee-jerk dismiss anything but a direct firing speaker no matter the situation.

In actual rooms at home with the compromises they entail -- e.g. narrow width putting the side surrounds close to the listeners, trying to cover two rows with only one pair of side surrounds -- there can be good reasons to use a sort-of-direct-but-wide-dispersion design like a bipole/tripole.

I struggle with this myself as I'm using KEF satellites with dual concentric drivers as my surrounds. In theory these are perfect little Atmos speakers, being direct firing, point source dual concentrics with wide conical dispersion. However, with the surrounds directly to the sides, maybe 1ft above ear level and 1ft forward, I still notice times where they "jump out" a bit too much with strong surround effects and break the "seamless" feel that I'm going for.


----------



## KennyLSU

Along the lines of using a bipole speaker as an on-ceiling speaker. If you're running a 5.1.2 system, I could see benefit in using a bipole speaker if you have people sitting in front of the MLP. I have two bookshelves with decent dispersion point directly at the MLP and if I sit in front (to allow others on the sofa), I lose some of the effect. I'd be interested in trying a budget set of bipoles to see how it sounds, just have to find some.


----------



## WiscoNYC

batpig said:


> There are free Atmos trailers available to stream from VUDU (which is free to sign up for). So that's the easiest way.
> 
> If you're handy with computers and have a device that can bitstream HD audio from a USB drive, you can also download trailers from online sites.
> 
> Or you can buy a demo disc off eBay.
> 
> I would definitely use the trailers / test clips for the tests you discuss, actual movie content (especially when you haven't seen the movies) is going to be hard to know what you SHOULD be hearing in a given scene. A lot of Atmos movies do not use the overheads when you think they would so it's hard to tell if it's "right" or "wrong".
> 
> The Atmos trailers on the other hand -- especially "Amaze", "Leaf", "Unfold", "Audiosphere", "Encounter", etc. -- are deliberately going to have a lot of overhead action to show off the technology.


Thanks. I'll check out the VUDU stuff. Also, I'm assuming I can bitstream from the Samsung external hard drive, right?


----------



## virtualrain

I use a set of Klipsch bipoles for my overhead speakers. I find they provide a great combination enabling precise object identification (e.g. helicopter demo) while also providing very wide dispersion for ambient effects (e.g. rain). They offer great efficiency and flat frequency response (with a bit of EQ - they are a bit heavy on the low end and have a bit of a null near the cross-over). With the grills on, their semi-circular form factor also looks a lot better than bolting a box to the ceiling. For someone that doesn't want to or can't drill holes in their ceiling, these are a great option.

They are mounted to the ceiling beams as you can see in these photos taken from the rear right corner of the room...

5DM30784 by VirtualRain, on Flickr

5DM30786 by VirtualRain, on Flickr


----------



## virtualrain

maikeldepotter said:


> Playing the Dolby Atmos demo disk on my current system, the thunder in Amaze and the 747 Take Off both peak at 100 dB(C) at MLP measured with my digital RadioShack meter pointed upwards. It sounds loud, but natural and airy with no audible distortion whatsoever. How far off am I from playing at true reference level? Just checking if I got all my SPL calibration right...


Ref. levels should have peaks of 105dB (115dB for subs) with input at full-scale. So crank it another 5dB


----------



## pmeintel

pasender91 said:


> @Selden Ball,
> in this case you can turn Center Spread ON, then it will not collapse all the mono signal to the center speaker, and it will keep your front speakers alive
> 
> @markm75,
> As you do have top or height speakers, Dolby Surround will also try to isolate elevated sounds (wind, rain, planes) and redirect them on your top speakers . Always keep Dolby Surround ON, Atmos will take precedence anyway ...
> 
> @pmeintel,
> You should choose your top speakers as to be as near as possible to the sound of your surrounds. What sort of speakers do you have there ?


I'm using Definitive Technology's SR-8040BP.


----------



## batpig

virtualrain said:


> I use a set of Klipsch bipoles for my overhead speakers.


That looks great! Although I have to ask about the left side overheads, they are really close to the wall aren't they? Did you consider bringing the overhead arrays in a bit more narrow to give them some breathing room from the wall? Or is your setup just so asymmetrical in the room that it's the way it's gonna be?


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> Playing the Dolby Atmos demo disk on my current system, the thunder in Amaze and the 747 Take Off both peak at 100 dB(C) at MLP measured with my digital RadioShack meter pointed upwards. It sounds loud, but natural and airy with no audible distortion whatsoever. How far off am I from playing at true reference level? Just checking if I got all my SPL calibration right...





virtualrain said:


> Ref. levels should have peaks of 105dB (115dB for subs) with input at full-scale. So crank it another 5dB


It might even be more than 5dB.... if he's using an SPL meter to measure MAX SPL the peak bass in something like "Amaze" is probably closer to 115dB (or more) at full reference.

For example, with my SPL meter set to C-weighted, Slow, and MAX on movies like "Cloverfield" I've recorded max SPL of 105-108dB with the volume at -12dB in some of the insane bass sequencies -- or in other words 117-120dB if it was at full reference (assuming my gear could do that... which it can't!). 

The LFE peak reference is technically 115dB but that's with a pink noise calibration... momentary big peaks when combined with summed bass from other channels redirected to the sub can exceed 115dB easily at full reference. 

So the answer for Maikel shouldn't be to measure program content, it should be to measure pink noise test tones recorded at a specific known level to determine how far he is from "reference". A peak scene in a movie isn't necessarily an accurate reference -- but a -30dBfs would be.


----------



## dvdwilly3

KennyLSU said:


> Along the lines of using a bipole speaker as an on-ceiling speaker. If you're running a 5.1.2 system, I could see benefit in using a bipole speaker if you have people sitting in front of the MLP. I have two bookshelves with decent dispersion point directly at the MLP and if I sit in front (to allow others on the sofa), I lose some of the effect. I'd be interested in trying a budget set of bipoles to see how it sounds, just have to find some.


About the best deal that I know of is the Def Tech 8040SR on eBay.

From bajawaverunner (Def Tech outlet), they are $105 each (refurbished) with free shipping.

I have bought a number of things from them, and every single one has been like new.

So, $210 for pair...


----------



## thebland

FINALLY~~~ 

Have my *Atmos* card from DATASAT and will get to finally try it out!! Stay tuned!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> FINALLY~~~
> 
> Have my *Atmos* card from DATASAT and will get to finally try it out!! Stay tuned!!


"Finally!" is right! 

Go have fun!


----------



## tjenkins95

Daniel Chaves said:


> I contacted their customer support and requested to buy that issue, my only issue is I got the bill and it of course isnt in English, all I understood was $7 euros, so I have to figure out how to fill it out so I can pay for it lol.


 
Do you still have a link to where you can purchase the magazine with the ATMOS disc?


Thanks.


Ray


----------



## virtualrain

batpig said:


> That looks great! Although I have to ask about the left side overheads, they are really close to the wall aren't they? Did you consider bringing the overhead arrays in a bit more narrow to give them some breathing room from the wall? Or is your setup just so asymmetrical in the room that it's the way it's gonna be?


Yes... good point.  It's not ideal, but the MLP is centered between the overheads the way it is. Due to the doorways (not visible) on the the front and right wall, there's no way to shift the MLP to the right. So the choices were to keep the overheads equidistant from MLP and in-line with the mains, but have the left side up against the wall, OR move them away from the wall, and tighten the overhead rectangle. I opted for this as you can see, to stick as closely as possible to the placement guidelines.

Looking at the pink noise spectrum on the RTA from the overheads, the ones on the left (near the wall) get reinforcement from that so I had to trim the level down about 1dB overall on that side, plus the bass frequencies were more pronounced so I had to trim them about 3dB more using the PEQ. They sound pretty indistinguishable now.


----------



## Daniel Chaves

tjenkins95 said:


> Do you still have a link to where you can purchase the magazine with the ATMOS disc?
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Ray


Okay I included the email response, I better get likes for this  lol 



Spoiler



Dear Mr Chaves,

thank you for your mail and interesting.

We are glad to offer you as follow

- single edition Video 1/2016 price Euro 5,50 + Euro 2,50 freight cost total Euro 8,00

- payment by invoice( attached by delivery ) or by credit card Visa or Master



You can send us your order by mail to [email protected] with full address. Thank you

best regards

Leserservice WEKA MEDIA PUBLISHING


----------



## KennyLSU

dvdwilly3 said:


> KennyLSU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Along the lines of using a bipole speaker as an on-ceiling speaker. If you're running a 5.1.2 system, I could see benefit in using a bipole speaker if you have people sitting in front of the MLP. I have two bookshelves with decent dispersion point directly at the MLP and if I sit in front (to allow others on the sofa), I lose some of the effect. I'd be interested in trying a budget set of bipoles to see how it sounds, just have to find some.
> 
> 
> 
> About the best deal that I know of is the Def Tech 8040SR on eBay.
> 
> From bajawaverunner (Def Tech outlet), they are $105 each (refurbished) with free shipping.
> 
> I have bought a number of things from them, and every single one has been like new.
> 
> So, $210 for pair...
Click to expand...

Thanks fot the suggestion. I will look into them. Any thoughts on if my theory holds water?


----------



## Stoked21

*Not Saying I told you so....But I am saying I warned you!*

So many people pushed back on me last year when I was very vocal about not buying a non-HDCP2.2 AVR and cautioning people to strongly not buy old models without 2.2 compliance....Most people said I was wrong and that the studios would never release Atmos just on UHD discs..And then studios such as Disney and Fox released statements saying they were reserving immersive audio for UHD....No different than Vudu only puts Atmos on their UHD rentals (which also require HDCP2.2).

Well as of today, I now have 4K UHD discs in hand of: Ender's Game, Salt, Amazing Spiderman 2, Hancock, Smurfs 2, Pineapple Express, Lego Movie and Chappie all with Dolby Atmos. These packs also contain regular BD. However, the regular BD are just DD+ or Dolby TrueHD. That's a total of 8 new Atmos movies released today....And all only available on UHD with HDCP2.2.....I know these are not the best movies per say, but they are new titles in Atmos sound format. And there are another couple hundred slated to come throughout the year with UHD Atmos updates. But only on the UHD discs and the regular BD will not include it. The regular BD are just pressings of the original movie release. 

Sure, some studios will continue to put Atmos on the regular BD for new releases (Hunger Games, Heart of the Sea, etc), but you likely won't see re-releases of older movies with Atmos except on UHD.

As an FYI, other UHD discs with Atmos that are in stores: San Andreas, Sicario, Expendables 3, Pan, Mad Max:Fury. And UHD with DTS:X Last WitchHunter. I picked up Mad Max and Witch Hunter while I was at it for UHD Atmos and X demo material. These ones, being newer releases, all have immersive audio on the regular BD though.

I'm really not trying to say I told you so for those few naysayers who were out there. I am strongly suggesting that those who have not bought their AVR yet, do not consider a non-2.2 model. For those who have bought their AVR, you should really consider an upgrade or a lower cost alternative such as the HD Fury Integral. I've been recommending the Fury for some time, but have no first hand experience with it since I'm all 2.2.

In a nut shell, my Atmos collection just went from about 20 discs to 28 discs in one day of new releases....


----------



## dvdwilly3

KennyLSU said:


> Thanks fot the suggestion. I will look into them. Any thoughts on if my theory holds water?


Yep...if you are running 2 rows of seats and doing only 5.1.2 and mount the dipoles so that you are covering both rows, it makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Stoked21

Quick thing to point out....

It's taken nearly a year for 20 Atmos discs to be released in the US. I already own 20 UHD discs in just the 2 weeks since the first player started selling. That demonstrates how prolific UHD will be versus immersive audio. I think we all knew that UHD will gain more foot-hold as people typically don't want to install countless speakers in their room to support immersive audio.

I personally am holding out on re-buying any UHD discs that do NOT contain immersive audio. I'm a huge Atmos junkie. If the studios won't put Atmos on the disc, then there's a very slim chance I'll buy it....As a matter of fact, 98% of all discs I buy have to be Atmos or X....Otherwise I'll just stream them via rental on Vudu....

On the other hand, I'm also not buying regular BD that have Atmos either (unless it's a killer movie). I'm seeing some lesser movies like "In the heart of the sea" that are being released in a few weeks with Atmos. But if I hold out for 2 months, I can get the UHD version with Atmos....Might as well wait and eliminate any potential double dipping. I'd rather have discs with new video format and with Atmos as opposed to legacy BD with Atmos....

I'm also seeing that DeadPool is going to be released in UHD with Atmos.....Seeing as Marvel's rights are with Fox, that means the regular BD will not have Atmos....


----------



## NorthSky

thebland said:


> FINALLY~~~
> 
> Have my *Atmos* card from DATASAT and will get to finally try it out!! Stay tuned!!


Jeff, that is good news. I've been waiting for this for a long time; can't wait to read your first impressions.


----------



## NorthSky

> ....
> I'm also seeing that DeadPool is going to be released in UHD with Atmos.....Seeing as Marvel's rights are with Fox, that means the regular BD will not have Atmos....


Time to switch over; hello UHD Blu-ray...bye bye regular Blu.  ...There is BR 3D too, but Atmos-less too I'm afraid...such a harsh world to live in. 

It's sad because 3D immersive audio truly goes with 3D picture. (((3D))) picture & sound. 

But what the heck; UHD BR ... with Dolby Atmos (May 2016).


----------



## ALtlOff

NorthSky said:


> Time to switch over; hello UHD Blu-ray...bye bye regular Blu.  ...There is BR 3D too, but Atmos-less too I'm afraid...such a harsh world to live in.
> 
> It's sad because 3D immersive audio truly goes with 3D picture. (((3D))) picture & sound.
> 
> But what the heck; UHD BR ... with Dolby Atmos (May 2016).


This just *SUX* that the trend may be to limit Atmos to UHD copy but not the BR.
I've been waiting to finish up a non-AV project to by an Oppo-103 for the up-conversion, for my extensive DVD & LD collection....now I'll just have to put it off longer to by a UHD player first to have my Atmos.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Stoked21 said:


> So many people pushed back on me last year when I was very vocal about not buying a non-HDCP2.2 AVR and cautioning people to strongly not buy old models without 2.2 compliance....Most people said I was wrong and that the studios would never release Atmos just on UHD discs..And then studios such as Disney and Fox released statements saying they were reserving immersive audio for UHD....No different than Vudu only puts Atmos on their UHD rentals (which also require HDCP2.2).
> 
> Well as of today, I now have 4K UHD discs in hand of: Ender's Game, Salt, Amazing Spiderman 2, Hancock, Smurfs 2, Pineapple Express, Lego Movie and Chappie all with Dolby Atmos. These packs also contain regular BD. However, the regular BD are just DD+ or Dolby TrueHD. That's a total of 8 new Atmos movies released today....And all only available on UHD with HDCP2.2.....I know these are not the best movies per say, but they are new titles in Atmos sound format. And there are another couple hundred slated to come throughout the year with UHD Atmos updates. But only on the UHD discs and the regular BD will not include it. The regular BD are just pressings of the original movie release.
> 
> Sure, some studios will continue to put Atmos on the regular BD for new releases (Hunger Games, Heart of the Sea, etc), but you likely won't see re-releases of older movies with Atmos except on UHD.
> 
> As an FYI, other UHD discs with Atmos that are in stores: San Andreas, Sicario, Expendables 3, Pan, Mad Max:Fury. And UHD with DTS:X Last WitchHunter. I picked up Mad Max and Witch Hunter while I was at it for UHD Atmos and X demo material. These ones, being newer releases, all have immersive audio on the regular BD though.
> 
> I'm really not trying to say I told you so for those few naysayers who were out there. I am strongly suggesting that those who have not bought their AVR yet, do not consider a non-2.2 model. For those who have bought their AVR, you should really consider an upgrade or a lower cost alternative such as the HD Fury Integral. I've been recommending the Fury for some time, but have no first hand experience with it since I'm all 2.2.
> 
> In a nut shell, my Atmos collection just went from about 20 discs to 28 discs in one day of new releases....


I have the "Salt" UHD blu-ray (I'm going to start calling them black-rays), and it looks fabulous on my all 1080p system with Integral.

However, I can bypass the Integral and run input 1 of the 8500 direct into my Denon 5200 and get 1080p video and Atmos audio. It appears the need for the Integral may be Studio dependant if one wants to continue playing black-rays on an all 1080p system.

The Integral is transparent as far as I can see, so it stays inline here. Between the color regrading for the 4K scan and my Darbee Darblet, "Salt" on UHD disc, downrezzed to lowly 1080p looked and sounded great. Lots of pop and deep blacks. The Blu-ray looked a bit washed out in comparison.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@Stoked21

Does the UHD player output 1080p picture to a 1080p display device with UHD playback? 

Locked out completely or do you get a 1080p picture?

Thanks.


----------



## KennyLSU

Thanks. Technically I only have one row, but the couch can be reconfigured to a couch plus two singles with ottomans. When I do this, the two singles are a little in front of my ceiling speakers. I may try the bipoles and see what happens.


----------



## Stoked21

Enders Game (UHD Atmos):

Top 3 Atmos tracks of all time. It has the eerie effects like Mad Max opening and Dracula in numerous places throughout the movie. Lots of ambient effects like in Stokers Dracula. Environmental effects such as in Leaf, Amaze and MMFR. Shooting scenes with subtlety like in Wick. Space scenes are there but a little weak. Orchestral arrangements moving into the tops as well. The scenes where Ender is playing the iPad like games are great. All in all there are no long scenes that just blow you away with intense, long Atmos immersion. But there are numerous parts that just showcase the excellence of the technology peppered throughout the films entirety. Countless places where the ULF just shakes the room. And a great story too IMO. Something about the story always reminds me of an Orwell work like Animal Farm. 

If you are looking for mind blowing Atmos such as in Gravity, are an Atmos noob and still looking for constant Top usage, have a mediocre Atmos installation, or can't accept subtle tasteful Atmos activity with areas of increased intensity, then this one may not showcase for you real well. But I place it as second best Atmos mix yet....


----------



## Stoked21

Scott Simonian said:


> @Stoked21
> 
> Does the UHD player output 1080p picture to a 1080p display device with UHD playback?
> 
> Locked out completely or do you get a 1080p picture?
> 
> Thanks.


I tried one Fox title a few weeks ago and they didn't disable down Rez when I hooked it up to a 1080p panel. So it worked, but each studio can opt to disable that. I've heard some people claim not to be getting Atmos when hooked to 1080 though. Some have also had issues with Atmos when trying to run audio out of the 1.4 port on the player too. But that could be user error with pcm or something. I haven't tried the WB or Sony movies on a 1080. Others have reported great success with the Fury Integral for both Atmos and 1080 panels/pj. Many of them are getting 2.2 errors with no video output without the Fury. So it's a mixed bag of feedback. 

Again take it all with a grain of salt Cus there are a lot of owners who really don't seem to understand much of anything, if I say it bluntly but nicely. I'm not gong to go crazy testing things as my system is all 2.2 and works great (other than awaiting HDR update from Matantz). Call me selfish but it ain't broke so I'm not disconnecting things and moving them through the house academically. 

Even if studios don't prevent down rezz, clearly a UHD player is still needed regardless.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> @Stoked21
> 
> You running the Samsung player?
> 
> Thanks Derek
> 
> Chris


Yeah I got mine 3 weeks ago with 4-5 flicks. I picked up another 12 flicks today. All from my local BB and most with Atmos. I have another 3-4 being delivered early next week. I get pseudo-4K with jvc eshift which is really great. My HDR doesn't work quite right due to 7702mk2. Pj and prepro report 444 ycbcr 10-bit HDR but I'm calling BS as Marsntz supposedly "requires" fw update to pass HDR...pj claims its receiving the metadata though. Colors look a little better but not as intense as the HDR demos I've seen. I'll know more next Thursday once the X/HDR fw is installed. Until them I'm enjoying the 4K with Atmos...


----------



## hatlesschimp

I need to buy a new AVR that is Atmos enabled. However I can wait till about September/October. Do you think there will be any new high-end Atmos AVR's released between now and then? I have a fair soft spot for Denon and the 7200. Are there any new features that may come out in the next version? I need to basically be able to power the bottom 7 speakers from the AVR and I can use my 5 channel Rotel to power the 4 in ceiling speakers. I did see somewhere that there may be 9.1.4 in the future.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Stoked21 said:


> So many people pushed back on me last year when I was very vocal about not buying a non-HDCP2.2 AVR and cautioning people to strongly not buy old models without 2.2 compliance....Most people said I was wrong and that the studios would never release Atmos just on UHD discs..And then studios such as Disney and Fox released statements saying they were reserving immersive audio for UHD....No different than Vudu only puts Atmos on their UHD rentals (which also require HDCP2.2).
> 
> Well as of today, I now have 4K UHD discs in hand of: Ender's Game, Salt, Amazing Spiderman 2, Hancock, Smurfs 2, Pineapple Express, Lego Movie and Chappie all with Dolby Atmos. These packs also contain regular BD. However, the regular BD are just DD+ or Dolby TrueHD. That's a total of 8 new Atmos movies released today....And all only available on UHD with HDCP2.2.....I know these are not the best movies per say, but they are new titles in Atmos sound format. And there are another couple hundred slated to come throughout the year with UHD Atmos updates. But only on the UHD discs and the regular BD will not include it. The regular BD are just pressings of the original movie release.
> 
> Sure, some studios will continue to put Atmos on the regular BD for new releases (Hunger Games, Heart of the Sea, etc), but you likely won't see re-releases of older movies with Atmos except on UHD.
> 
> As an FYI, other UHD discs with Atmos that are in stores: San Andreas, Sicario, Expendables 3, Pan, Mad Max:Fury. And UHD with DTS:X Last WitchHunter. I picked up Mad Max and Witch Hunter while I was at it for UHD Atmos and X demo material. These ones, being newer releases, all have immersive audio on the regular BD though.
> 
> I'm really not trying to say I told you so for those few naysayers who were out there. I am strongly suggesting that those who have not bought their AVR yet, do not consider a non-2.2 model. For those who have bought their AVR, you should really consider an upgrade or a lower cost alternative such as the HD Fury Integral. I've been recommending the Fury for some time, but have no first hand experience with it since I'm all 2.2.
> 
> In a nut shell, my Atmos collection just went from about 20 discs to 28 discs in one day of new releases....


I am in the midst of plans for upgrading an audio-only room to an Atmos audio-visual room, and this may significantly impact my plans.

Video will be supplied by a Vivitek Projector, 1080P, so I have been ignoring 4K for all practical purposes. Connected with this, my plan includes the Marantz 7702 Pre/Pro, *not* the Mark II, as once again 4K is not in the foreseeable future for this system.

But as I do definitely want a good Atmos experience, based on what you're saying, apparently I need to pay attention to this. A few specific questions:

1. Can I get a UHD Blu-Ray Player that will output 1080P and Atmos audio, and if so, which one? If this works, then I don't need to change any plans other than the Blu-Ray Player.

2. Are UHD Discs available for rental, and/or are they likely to be available for rental in the future? I don't really care to spend a lot of money on Discs, and in the past, have enjoyed just renting and watching Blu-Rays - much more cost-effective.

3. If the only way I can get the 'true' Atmos experience is to buy UHD Discs, which I'd rather not do, and have to rely on watching conventional Blu-Ray (which will only occasionally have actual Atmos, based on what I've read here), utilizing DSU to gain any kind of simulated Atmos experience, *is it even worthwhile adding Atmos to begin with???*

Thanks!


----------



## hatlesschimp

So what happens if you have to buy only UHD disks for full Atmos and you only have a 1080p projector? Damn I just realised my Denon 103D might not play Atmos. Please, someone tell me that it works!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Are UHD discs for rent? That's a great question. I haven't bought a Blu-ray Disc in years. I rent via Redbox. And will continue to do so as long as they are open for business. I could augment this with 3D Bluray Rental which mails the full version of each movie out - complete with trailers. 

Since I have no 4K TV in my man cave, I have no interest in UHD discs except for the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. 

On to whether Dolby Atmos is worth it. To me, the ability to gain 11 active speakers in my home theater with an older, non HDCP 2.0/2.2 AVR is worth the investment with my Denon x5200. If the audio signal is not Atmos native, I listen to everything in DTS Neo X - a personal preference with emphasis on the center channel in Cinema mode. I do not have DTS X or Neural X but I can use DSU for Dolby (non native Atmos) or DTS soundtracks. 

As mentioned, the HD Fury is one solution but I have not heard if it has been confirmed that with a UHD player and disc -- that you get 1080p video with the native Atmos track. Why wouldn't the studios have a player that could recognize that you do not have a 4K TV but still allow the Atmos or DTS X soundtrack with a 1080p? You could still sell new UHD players and UHD discs this way. 

Since I do not buy Blu-ray Discs, period, I'll just have to see how this shakes out. Fifteen or twenty bucks for a movie I'll never watch again isn't a good investment. But that's me -- many other folks will go all in for a new TV, UHD Player and UHD discs. I just ain't one of them. It's all whatever floats your boat with this hobby.


----------



## dude32986

I have a Denon avr e400 that I'm running as a 6.1. Klipsch kf-28's for front L/R. Klipsch kc-25 for my center. klipsch ks-14 for my left, right and rear surround and klipsch r12-sw for my sub. (trust me I want a 7.1 but I just barely don't have the wall space I checked) anyway, I want to know if I can run Dolby Atmos with a 6.1 system if and when I decide to buy an atmos enabled receiver and install the ceiling speakers. another question is, I don't think I like Denon's sound processing, if I don't like denon what receiver would I like. (im not sold on onkyo either) I want brighter and clearer sounds. any info would be good. thanks in advance


----------



## scarabaeus

Ricoflashback said:


> Are UHD discs for rent?


The 3D rental website has them, don't have the URL handy right now.

-EDIT- Here you go: http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/


----------



## scarabaeus

Stoked21 said:


> ... However, the regular BD are just DD+ or Dolby TrueHD.


Thanks for the report. I was not planning to buy an UHD player until there is one with Dolby Vision support, but I might have to recant on that.

Say, the regular Blu-ray that came with the Lego Movie, it's not 3D, is it?


----------



## leedesert

Please clarify for me, I have an Atmos setup, 5.1.2, with a Sony 3500 BD player. Can I purchase a UHD disc that has Atmos and watch it even though my TV is 1080P?

Also, if the BD says Atmos 7.1.4, will my AVR break that down to 5.1.2?

I've been looking to buy Enders Game as a reference for Atmos but I can't find a BD that says it has Atmos. I see the different formats (4k, DVD, BD) but I can't see which one has the Atmos.

Sorry for the newb questions.


----------



## lujan

leedesert said:


> Please clarify for me, I have an Atmos setup, 5.1.2, with a Sony 3500 BD player. Can I purchase a UHD disc that has Atmos and watch it even though my TV is 1080P?
> 
> Also, if the BD says Atmos 7.1.4, will my AVR break that down to 5.1.2?
> 
> I've been looking to buy Enders Game as a reference for Atmos but I can't find a BD that says it has Atmos. I see the different formats (4k, DVD, BD) but I can't see which one has the Atmos.
> 
> Sorry for the newb questions.


It's not the BD that has Atmos, it's the UHD version that has it:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/enders-game-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-disc/4881704.p?id=2890679&skuId=4881704

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01AJWTHBQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00


----------



## dude32986

leedesert said:


> Please clarify for me, I have an Atmos setup, 5.1.2, with a Sony 3500 BD player. Can I purchase a UHD disc that has Atmos and watch it even though my TV is 1080P?
> 
> Also, if the BD says Atmos 7.1.4, will my AVR break that down to 5.1.2?
> 
> I've been looking to buy Enders Game as a reference for Atmos but I can't find a BD that says it has Atmos. I see the different formats (4k, DVD, BD) but I can't see which one has the Atmos.
> 
> Sorry for the newb questions.


I believe it does break it down or "down scale" to 5.1.2. most anything that is mastered higher that 5.1 will downscale. i.e. if you have a 7.1 decoded movie and only a 5.1 setup it downscales. hope that helps a little.


----------



## leedesert

lujan said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify for me, I have an Atmos setup, 5.1.2, with a Sony 3500 BD player. Can I purchase a UHD disc that has Atmos and watch it even though my TV is 1080P?
> 
> Also, if the BD says Atmos 7.1.4, will my AVR break that down to 5.1.2?
> 
> I've been looking to buy Enders Game as a reference for Atmos but I can't find a BD that says it has Atmos. I see the different formats (4k, DVD, BD) but I can't see which one has the Atmos.
> 
> Sorry for the newb questions.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the BD that has Atmos, it's the UHD version that has it:
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/enders-game-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-disc/4881704.p?id=2890679&skuId=4881704
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01AJWTHBQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I found it on Amazon already but it doesn't say atmos on it. Wasn't sure. Will this play as 1080p and if so will the atmos still be there.


----------



## scarabaeus

leedesert said:


> Also, if the BD says Atmos 7.1.4, will my AVR break that down to 5.1.2?


There is no "Atmos 7.1.4", it's just "Atmos". Some studios are mis-labeling that on the back of their discs.


----------



## Selden Ball

leedesert said:


> Thanks for the links. I found it on Amazon already but it doesn't say atmos on it. Wasn't sure. Will this play as 1080p and if so will the atmos still be there.


Samsung's UBD-K8500 4K player can downcovert UHD discs to 1080p and provides Atmos.

UHD BD (4K) discs will *not* play on a standard Blu-ray player, not even on those which can up-convert 1080p to 4K. They will not play on any current Oppo player. You must get a UHD disc player. At the moment, the only UHD BD player that's shipping is the Samsung UBD-K8500 (list ~$400), and it's in very short supply. The Panasonic DMP-UB900 is expected to ship within a couple of months with a much higher price. Most 4K players aren't expected to be available until the fall when MediaTek's 4K chipset will be available.


----------



## dude32986

Well that brings me to my question , will "Atmos" support a 6.1.2 setup?


----------



## leedesert

leedesert said:


> Please clarify for me, I have an Atmos setup, 5.1.2, with a Sony 3500 BD player. Can I purchase a UHD disc that has Atmos and watch it even though my TV is 1080P?
> 
> Also, if the BD says Atmos 7.1.4, will my AVR break that down to 5.1.2?
> 
> I've been looking to buy Enders Game as a reference for Atmos but I can't find a BD that says it has Atmos. I see the different formats (4k, DVD, BD) but I can't see which one has the Atmos.
> 
> Sorry for the newb questions.


So since I don't have a UHD BD player I can't watch movies encoded with atmos?


----------



## lujan

leedesert said:


> So since I don't have a UHD BD player I can't watch movies encoded with atmos?


Only if the BD version has Atmos. There are plenty of BDs out there that have Atmos:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


----------



## Dan Hitchman

leedesert said:


> So since I don't have a UHD BD player I can't watch movies encoded with atmos?


Only those titles encoded with immersive audio that are exclusive to UHD Blu-ray, you can't. Some studios may be using Dolby Atmos and DTS: X as a premium feature.


----------



## batpig

dude32986 said:


> Well that brings me to my question , will "Atmos" support a 6.1.2 setup?


Yes Atmos supports a single SB although a stereo pair is really ideal. However when I tested this on my Denon the DSU upmixer does NOT output to the single SB (ie upmix would be only 5.1.2). 

Also note you'd need a 9ch receiver. A standard 7ch model couldn't do more than 5.1.2 anyway. 

And once you get a 9ch receiver I would strongly consider 5.1.4 would probably be better than the single SB.


----------



## Stoked21

Chappie UHD Atmos....pass on it. Disappointing 

Amazing Spider-Man 2 UHD Atmos....30 minutes into it and it's incredible. Opening airplane scene is excellent. Jamie Foxx hallucinating puts all these eerie whispers circling around the room. Metronome like music pans like Helicopter demo on Atmos demo disc resulting in this immersive edgy feeling. Lots of computer voices centered in room like a VOG channel. Tons of bed to top panning and vice versa. Those with matched speakers are going to be happy. much like with Gravity voices pan top to bottom and vice versa. It would be highly distracting not to have matched drivers with this one....I'm barely into this one and can already attest it's a winner. PQ is outstanding as well. Best I've seen yet in UHD. 


Edit: Chapter 7 is maybe the best Atmos clip I've ever heard in a movie....chapter 14 is an Atmos benchmark. 

Sony has these UHD Atmos releases figured out! This one and Enders Game are both phenomenal!!!


----------



## Molon_Labe

Stoked21 said:


> Chappie UHD Atmos....pass on it. Disappointing
> 
> Amazing Spider-Man 2 UHD Atmos....30 minutes into it and it's incredible. Opening airplane scene is excellent. Jamie Foxx hallucinating puts all these eerie whispers circling around the room. Metronome like music pans like Helicopter demo on Atmos demo disc resulting in this immersive edgy feeling. Lots of computer voices centered in room like a VOG channel. Tons of bed to top panning and vice versa. Those with matched speakers are going to be happy. much like with Gravity voices pan top to bottom and vice versa. It would be highly distracting not to have matched drivers with this one....I'm barely into this one and can already attest it's a winner. PQ is outstanding as well. Best I've seen yet in UHD.
> 
> 
> Edit: Chapter 7 is maybe the best Atmos clip I've ever heard in a movie....
> 
> Sony has these UHD Atmos releases figured out! This one and Enders Game are both phenomenal!!!


Dude stop costing me money


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> Chappie UHD Atmos....pass on it. Disappointing
> 
> Amazing Spider-Man 2 UHD Atmos....30 minutes into it and it's incredible. Opening airplane scene is excellent. Jamie Foxx hallucinating puts all these eerie whispers circling around the room. Metronome like music pans like Helicopter demo on Atmos demo disc resulting in this immersive edgy feeling. Lots of computer voices centered in room like a VOG channel. Tons of bed to top panning and vice versa. Those with matched speakers are going to be happy. much like with Gravity voices pan top to bottom and vice versa. It would be highly distracting not to have matched drivers with this one....I'm barely into this one and can already attest it's a winner. PQ is outstanding as well. Best I've seen yet in UHD.
> 
> 
> Edit: Chapter 7 is maybe the best Atmos clip I've ever heard in a movie....
> 
> Sony has these UHD Atmos releases figured out! This one and Enders Game are both phenomenal!!!


I would much rather have Sam Raimi's Spider Man 1 and 2 (with 2.5 included) in UHD from the OCN's with upconverted SFX, and including fresh, high quality Dolby Atmos mixes. I could not get into this latest reboot (which is about to get retconned _again_)... I find them as irritating as Spider-Man 3.


----------



## Charles R

Stoked21 said:


> Chappie UHD Atmos....pass on it. Disappointing
> 
> Amazing Spider-Man 2 UHD Atmos....30 minutes into it and it's incredible.


These posts better suited for a software thread?..


----------



## Stoked21

Charles R said:


> These posts better suited for a software thread?..


Geez Charles, lighten up....Not sure if I offended you or what? I'm sorry my two posts about UHD Atmos releases has irritated you...I'm sure you can block me or report to a moderator...I'm not sure how my two posts about new Atmos disc releases, which are excellent for demonstration and evaluation of the "official Atmos" technology, are not fit for an "Official Atmos" thread....

While we are at it, we should probably remove all Atmos demo disc discussions and have them in their own thread. And remove the plethora of Atmos AVR questions to the specific AVR model threads. There has been countless other Atmos movie discussions here that need removed as well. And let's not forget about the enormous amount of Atmos speaker installation questions that should be removed and placed in a speaker thread. Test tone discussions and firmware upgrades have no right being here either so we really need to strike those. And lastly, let's make sure all Atmos streaming discussions are nixed to be thorough.

I'm not sure what, if anything, would be left in this thread other than a link to the white papers. Maybe some comparisons between X and Atmos would remain, but I'm guessing those should be in the immersive general thread. Readers will sure have a hard time putting together all the pieces of Atmos in it's complexity.......


----------



## Ricoflashback

Selden Ball said:


> Samsung's UBD-K8500 4K player can downcovert UHD discs to 1080p and provides Atmos.
> 
> UHD BD (4K) discs will *not* play on a standard Blu-ray player, not even on those which can up-convert 1080p to 4K. They will not play on any current Oppo player. You must get a UHD disc player. At the moment, the only UHD BD player that's shipping is the Samsung UBD-K8500 (list ~$400), and it's in very short supply. The Panasonic DMP-UB900 is expected to ship within a couple of months with a much higher price. Most 4K players aren't expected to be available until the fall when MediaTek's 4K chipset will be available.


Seiden - so will we have three types of discs out there for the foreseeable future? DVD, Bluray and UHD? Is the studio's goal to get rid of plain old Bluray and just leave the two standing? And, to punish the public by only offering immersive audio in UHD format? 

What about Netflix and Redbox? I do not forsee the proliferation of UHD discs anytime soon at my local Redbox\McDonald's location. 

I take it that the UHD player will be backward compatible but not able to down convert a UHD disc to 1080p with a Dolby Atmos track?

What a mess. I have no plans on retiring my OPPO 103 player. I guess I'll just have to live with whatever the studios decide us peons are worthy of. 

Me and my Egg McMuffin and whatever audio soundtrack comes out of my Redbox machine.


----------



## Charles R

Molon_Labe said:


> No, the old timers in the thread have been discussing various Atmos mixes here for a long time.


I understand however nowadays with it being mainstream (for AVS) they could certainly stand on their own. I find the signal-to-noise ratio so high at times people end up in the ignore list even if they have a point from time to time. Just not worth weeding through...


----------



## Selden Ball

Ricoflashback said:


> Seiden - so will we have three types of discs out there for the foreseeable future? DVD, Bluray and UHD? Is the studio's goal to get rid of plain old Bluray and just leave the two standing? And, to punish the public by only offering immersive audio in UHD format?


 They aren't punishing us. They're helping UHD to survive by including as many unique fancy features as possible. It's standard BD that's being "punished."



> What about Netflix and Redbox? I do not forsee the proliferation of UHD discs anytime soon at my local Redbox\McDonald's location.


 It's unlikely that Netflix or Redbox will provide UHD discs, but not impossible. However, there is at least one source of rental UHD discs.... Of course, I don't recall the company's name. Someone else will, I'm sure.



> I take it that the UHD player will be backward compatible but not able to down convert a UHD disc to 1080p with a Dolby Atmos track?


Sorry, I thought I was clear: it is backwarc compatible (BD, DVD, CD), and *does* downconvert UHD to 1080p.



> What a mess. I have no plans on retiring my OPPO 103 player. I guess I'll just have to live with whatever the studios decide us peons are worthy of.


 Supposedly Oppo will be providing a UHD player before the end of 2016.



> Me and my Egg McMuffin and whatever audio soundtrack comes out of my Redbox machine.


 That's up to you, of course.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> I agree that UHD could stand on its own. Once the players hit, there will be a clear delineation between BD and UHD topics to include displays, players, media, and reviews. It is a major industry shift that warrants dedicated threads imho. However, @*Stoked21* has contributed a lot to the thread. I hope he isn't on anyone's ignore list because he is a solid contributor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you gotta lay off those Egg McMuffins. I agree with you that Redbox probably won't have UHD much longer. Speaking of which, I am still surprised I have to check, "I understand this is a Blu Ray and requires a special player" when I rent from them. With BD players being available for $60 new, I don't understand the studios still supporting the format. They need to move forward and drop it. I may be wrong, but I don't recall VHS still being offered eight years after DVD's had been released. BD came around in 2008 right? So your not going to go with an HDFury and a UHD player?


The Egg McMuffin was more of a joke - - especially if you eat too much food at McDuck's. I'll always remember the documentary where the one guy ate nothing but McDonald's for breakfast lunch and dinner for a month. Damn near killed him. Uh oh, here comes the "McBarf!" I digress.

It's looking like the HDFury will be the only option for me. I'd hate to retire my perfectly running and pristine OPPO 103. I'd have to find a way to fit both of them on my already squeezed rack. I'm sure I could free up some space in my cabinet where my beastly Paradigm Center - CC690 rests (on top). 

Another consideration - - I'm not sure that Redbox will carry UHD discs. Think about it - - their bread and butter customer is a mix of older DVD technology and Bluray. The DVD folks are just catching up to Bluray with players so cheap right now. If you add UHD to the mix and unless it can be played on a regular Bluray player (which I am told is incorrect and I've also seen conflicting information that there would be a UHD player that is backwards compatible) - - they will be hurting their customer base.

There is a limit to the amount of fabulous material (joking) that Redbox can hold in their high tech "Red Boxes." Another disc variation doesn't help matters. Unless, as I mentioned before, the goal is to phase out all Bluray together or phase out DVD - - one of them has to go. There is no room for three different formats in dat box.

Hey - does this scenario work for the HD Fury? 

Roku 4
Vudu "4K" Streaming Movie

From Roku 4 to HDFury (HDCP 2.2) / from HDFury (HDMI 1.4) out, to Dolby Atmos AVR and then 1080p to TV. Would the Dolby Atmos soundtrack accompany the Vudu 4K movie? 

Same scenario - - except for a UHD Bluray player. Will you receive the Dolby Atmos or DTS X soundtrack?


----------



## BigScreen

Stoked21 said:


> So many people pushed back on me last year when I was very vocal about not buying a non-HDCP2.2 AVR and cautioning people to strongly not buy old models without 2.2 compliance....Most people said I was wrong and that the studios would never release Atmos just on UHD discs..And then studios such as Disney and Fox released statements saying they were reserving immersive audio for UHD....No different than Vudu only puts Atmos on their UHD rentals (which also require HDCP2.2).
> 
> Well as of today, I now have 4K UHD discs in hand of: Ender's Game, Salt, Amazing Spiderman 2, Hancock, Smurfs 2, Pineapple Express, Lego Movie and Chappie all with Dolby Atmos. These packs also contain regular BD. However, the regular BD are just DD+ or Dolby TrueHD. That's a total of 8 new Atmos movies released today....And all only available on UHD with HDCP2.2.....I know these are not the best movies per say, but they are new titles in Atmos sound format. And there are another couple hundred slated to come throughout the year with UHD Atmos updates. But only on the UHD discs and the regular BD will not include it. The regular BD are just pressings of the original movie release.
> 
> Sure, some studios will continue to put Atmos on the regular BD for new releases (Hunger Games, Heart of the Sea, etc), but you likely won't see re-releases of older movies with Atmos except on UHD.


For what it's worth, all of the Sony UHD Blu-ray releases are catalog titles and not new releases, and they are all Atmos remixes. I'm still not keen on the idea of remixing the sound just to check the Atmos box, but some here have given good marks to the other remixes, so maybe they're doing more than just what could be done with DSU. It'll be interesting to hear the reports on those titles.

You mention The Lego Movie as one of the Atmos remix titles for UHD Blu-ray. Could you double-check that title to see if it has Atmos? This message shows a photo of the back of the package, and it was DTS-HD MA. Here it is, zoomed in:


----------



## Stoked21

BigScreen said:


> For what it's worth, all of the Sony UHD Blu-ray releases are catalog titles and not new releases, and they are all Atmos remixes. I'm still not keen on the idea of remixing the sound just to check the Atmos box, but some here have given good marks to the other remixes, so maybe they're doing more than just what could be done with DSU. It'll be interesting to hear the reports on those titles.
> 
> You mention The Lego Movie as one of the Atmos remix titles for UHD Blu-ray. Could you double-check that title to see if it has Atmos? This message shows a photo of the back of the package, and it was DTS-HD MA. Here it is, zoomed in:


Yes, I'm aware the the movies are re-mixes and not originally in Atmos. When I said the "new releases" from Sony, I was referring to them being new UHD releases. It was in that post or a different one I referred to them as re-releases. Most of the movies are probably 2014. Dracula and Fifth Element are probably two of the best Atmos releases. So I'm not judging them by whether it was originally done in Atmos versus being remixed. Amazing Spider Man 2 in particular demonstrates, even better than those, how great a re-mix can be. It's astounding.

Lego is one I returned as my kids didn't want to watch it again.. I also took back a big stack of them cus they were not Atmos (Fox titles) and Hancock and Pineapple Express (both Atmos) cus the video quality is getting really bad reports. If I already owned them on regular BD without Atmos, why own them again in 4K without Atmos? It just seemed wasteful unless it was an amazing caliber movie. So unfortunately, I can't double check Lego for you.


----------



## Ricoflashback

*Quote:* "They aren't punishing us. They're helping UHD to survive by including as many unique fancy features as possible. It's standard BD that's being "punished."

*Comment:* "BD dies....UHD lives." Or better yet - - cramming a standard down everyone's throat regardless if you want UHD or not. Case in point - - withholding Atmos soundtracks by some studios for only UHD discs. Obviously, the real goal here is to sell more. I understand that. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. I do not think you are going to get a lot of people to jump on the UHD bandwagon outside of aficionados like here on AVS Forum. Certainly, for many of the Redbox crowd, no one has any idea on what we're talking about. That's the beauty of Dolby Atmos ride along metadata. Ease of delivery. Time will tell on mainstream UHD adoption. 

*Quote:* "Sorry, I thought I was clear: it is backward compatible (BD, DVD, CD), and *does* downconvert UHD to 1080p." 

*Comment:* Does this include the Dolby Atmos or DTS X soundtrack? If so, then there might be a UHD player in my future. If not, here come da HD Fury as long as the Fury can pass a Dolby Atmos track with 1080p. 

I'm at least three years away from any new TV consideration. Probably five. My projector only has 650 lamp hours. 1080p, of course, with the Darbee Darblet. Maybe other folks are in the same boat.

One last comment on Dolby Atmos and even DTS Neo X - - great use of the front wides. Just finished an older movie - Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The sound effects are great - - front wides used for explosions panning from left to right. My Denon x5200, while not the top of the line, does a really nice job of providing that immersive bubble. Especially with Audyssey calibrations.


----------



## dude32986

batpig said:


> Yes Atmos supports a single SB although a stereo pair is really ideal. However when I tested this on my Denon the DSU upmixer does NOT output to the single SB (ie upmix would be only 5.1.2).
> 
> Also note you'd need a 9ch receiver. A standard 7ch model couldn't do more than 5.1.2 anyway.
> 
> And once you get a 9ch receiver I would strongly consider 5.1.4 would probably be better than the single SB.


i agree with everything about your post. i have a 3/4 wall that doesnt allow me to have the 7 and the room is just small enough that 4 ceiling speakers would be overkill (if there is such a thing) believe me i wanted the 7 but since my surround back is a klipsch ks-14 it's really difficult to tell the difference anyway. just ,y opinion on that matter. thanks for the info though. i believe i want to get the onkyo tx-nr1030.

im currently running
denon avr e400
klipsch kf-28 L/R
klipsch kc-25 center
klipsch ks-14 surround left, right, and rear
klipsch r-12sw subwoofer.
away from my wife when i buy the onkyo! lol


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Full disclaimer - I havent used it yet because I can't find the Samsung player in stock anywhere until March.
> 
> This is the reply I got from @*HDfury* who is a member on the board who represents them and answers questions.
> 
> _"if both receiver and source are HDCP2.2 and only display HDCP1.4
> 
> you can use any of the following:
> 
> 1. SOURCE > INTEGRAL > RECEIVER > DISPLAY
> 2. SOURCE > RECEIVER > INTEGRAL > DISPLAY
> 3. SOURCE > INTEGRAL > RECEIVER on BOTTOM OUT, DISPLAY ON TOP OUT."
> _
> With you having a non 2.2 receiver, I would assume #3 would be the way yours would connect. I would PM or email them to find out for sure.
> 
> You should receive Atmos and DTS 7.1 which your Denon 5200 would upmix via DSU.
> 
> Chris


Thank you. Very much appreciated. As long as i can find Atmos rental content -- the HDFury looks like a great solution.

Also - why wouldn't it be 4K source "In" - 4K60/600 MHz - HDMI 2.0a and plain old out to my Denon x5200 AVR - "Out" 4K60/600 Mhz - HDCP 1.4" - - which is downscaled to 1080p? (And just use a different HDMI "Input" on my AVR - like "Game" or "Media Player?" 

Lastly - this statement on HD's website is confusing as you need to be able to extract 7.1 for Atmos: 



*







HDMI Audio Extracting*
 
 HDfury Integral can extract HDMI audio up to 5.1 and pass-thru any sound format including Atmos via HDMI, it have a simultaneous output of analog L/R stereo and optical S/PDIF via 3.5mm combo jack connector.


Best - Rico


----------



## virtualrain

Selden Ball said:


> They aren't punishing us. They're helping UHD to survive by including as many unique fancy features as possible. It's standard BD that's being "punished."


I think the studios are punishing themselves.  They ought to be making it as easy as possible for people to buy their product in the format that best suits them. If a customer has a 1080p BR Atmos system, they should be making it easy for them to consume their content and offer a great customer experience so these customers keep coming back for more. Artificial tiers in a world where physical media is declining is not going to help it stabilize or recover. This strategy is more likely going to turn an increasing number of previous BD consumers into streaming consumers rather than UHD BR disc consumers. Maybe that's what the studios want? 

I think UHD BR is the last physical media format we'll ever see and I personally would not bet money on it lasting all that long. Almost everyone I know is watching Netflix and has no intention of ever buying media.


----------



## scarabaeus

Molon_Labe said:


> _1. SOURCE > INTEGRAL > RECEIVER > DISPLAY
> 2. SOURCE > RECEIVER > INTEGRAL > DISPLAY
> 3. SOURCE > INTEGRAL > RECEIVER on BOTTOM OUT, DISPLAY ON TOP OUT."
> _
> With you having a non 2.2 receiver, I would assume [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] would be the way yours would connect. I would PM or email them to find out for sure.


#1 is best if you have multiple sources connected to your non-2.2 AVR, so you can still use the AVR for source switching. You can connect two independent UHD 2.2 sources to two of your AVRs inputs in the integral's "matrix" mode.

#2 is best if you have a 2.2 AVR.

#3 is a bit of a pain, because you need to switch between two of the TV's HDMI inputs depending on the AVR's source. Espeacially if you have along HDMI run between your AVR and TV (needs two calbles) or you don't have a good programmable remote.


----------



## leedesert

lujan said:


> Only if the BD version has Atmos. There are plenty of BDs out there that have Atmos:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


How did you initiate that search for BD with atmos?


----------



## Stoked21

Avoid Salt with Angelina in Atmos....laughable. They literally mix in the music to the tops. A few weak helicopter fly overs that sounded all wrong. That was all. And just after I said the Sony Atmos releases on UHD were really great...


----------



## leedesert

Stoked21 said:


> Avoid Salt with Angelina in Atmos....laughable. They literally mix in the music to the tops. A few weak helicopter fly overs that sounded all wrong. That was all. And just after I said the Sony Atmos releases on UHD were really great...


I ordered the BD of Ender's Game and San Andreas, both in Atmos. Looking forward hearing my new system stretch her legs a bit.


----------



## DragonSixGolf

leedesert said:


> How did you initiate that search for BD with atmos?


On the left side menu database/search movies just put atmos in the audio field.


----------



## aaranddeeman

leedesert said:


> How did you initiate that search for BD with atmos?


Jump here


----------



## GXMnow

Here is a decent list of the BLu Ray disks with Dolby Atmos sound. I see a few are labeled (UHD) which I think means that Atmos is only on the UHD version.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

I don't know how often they update this list.


----------



## NorthSky

*All Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Titles (Worldwide) | Including UHD BR - 4K*



leedesert said:


> How did you initiate that search for BD with atmos?





DragonSixGolf said:


> (((•))) *On the left side menu database/search movies just put atmos in the audio field.*





aaranddeeman said:


> Jump here





GXMnow said:


> Here is a decent list of the BLu Ray disks with Dolby Atmos sound. I see a few are labeled (UHD) which I think means that Atmos is only on the UHD version.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
> 
> I don't know how often they update this list.


______

♦ http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php

Database
Search movies

And → http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


----------



## dvdwilly3

BB just changed the status on the Sammy from "Unavailable for shipping" to "Available for shipping; receive by March 2" so I pulled the trigger on it.

I have the HD Fury and The Martian in both bluray and UHD. I also got a Kabeldirect HDMI cable whci seems to work with 4K in most cases.

So, I intend to dedicate Thursday, March 3, to doing some A/B comparisons. I know that the TX-NR1030 has a certified HCPD input on HDMI 3. IIRC there is some kind of "But" associated with it, but I don't remember what it is. 

We will see...I hope.

Hmmm, I expect to get Atmos one way or the other. Is there an Official UHD thread yet where I should put my first impressions?


----------



## Stoked21

leedesert said:


> I ordered the BD of Ender's Game and San Andreas, both in Atmos. Looking forward hearing my new system stretch her legs a bit.


You understand the bd of Enders Game is not Atmos right? You had a whole conversation about this with us 1 page ago. Of course you can watch it with DSU. 

If u do know this then ignore. If u don't then go back and read the last 2-3 pages of this thread (when you were asking about UHD)


----------



## leedesert

Stoked21 said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ordered the BD of Ender's Game and San Andreas, both in Atmos. Looking forward hearing my new system stretch her legs a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> You understand the bd of Enders Game is not Atmos right? You had a whole conversation about this with us 1 page ago. Of course you can watch it with DSU.
> 
> If u do know this then ignore. If u don't then go back and read the last 2-3 pages of this thread (when you were asking about UHD)
Click to expand...

I understood about not being able to watch UHD yet but this copy of enders comes with both a UHD disc and a BD disc.


----------



## showmak

I prefer on-wall height speakers on in-ceiling speakers for Atmos installation for my 5.1.4 system upgrade. Doing that I will not cut 4 big holes in the ceiling, but again not sure about the Atmos effect.

What do you think of 4 on wall height speakers angled at MLP spaced at 45 degree front and back as shown on the attached?

and

What do you think of the position of the in-ceiling speakers as shown on the attached?


----------



## Stoked21

leedesert said:


> I understood about not being able to watch UHD yet but this copy of enders comes with both a UHD disc and a BD disc.


Correct. Most UHD if not all come with the ORIGINAL bd as well. But go back 3 pages and re read everything. The BD of the 8 or so I've tested are just DD+ or TrueHD. It's just the original movie with original mix---not the Atmos remix made for the UHD rerelease. If you want Atmos on those you have to play the UHD.


----------



## leedesert

Stoked21 said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understood about not being able to watch UHD yet but this copy of enders comes with both a UHD disc and a BD disc.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Most UHD if not all come with the ORIGINAL bd as well. But go back 3 pages and re read everything. The BD of the 8 or so I've tested are just DD+ or TrueHD. It's just the original movie with original mix---not the Atmos remix made for the UHD rerelease. If you want Atmos on those you have to play the UHD.
Click to expand...

Aahh, I see. Well if that's the case I have it for when I upgrade my player.


----------



## Stoked21

leedesert said:


> I understood about not being able to watch UHD yet but this copy of enders comes with both a UHD disc and a BD disc.


Repeating myself from 3 pages ago. There have been about 30 Atmos bd releases in the US. All obviously on new titles. I like this page:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132

Most of the 30 or so UHD movies are a year to several years old. They are not yet new releases other than Witch Hunter. They have been re released to show the technology. In doing so they are adding immersive audio remix as a value add. This will likely be a trend for older movies. In doing so they are not adding the remix to the BD they are just including the original BD with whatever native audio format it originally had. 

However, new movies will likely continue to have the sameAtmos mix on both the BD and UHD. I speculate....such as In the Heart of the Sea, Witch Hunter, New Hunger Games etc


----------



## leedesert

Stoked21 said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understood about not being able to watch UHD yet but this copy of enders comes with both a UHD disc and a BD disc.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating myself from 3 pages ago. There have been about 30 Atmos bd releases in the US. All obviously on new titles. I like this page:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> Most of the 30 or so UHD movies are a year to several years old. They are not yet new releases other than Witch Hunter. They have been re released to show the technology. In doing so they are adding immersive audio remix as a value add. This will likely be a trend for older movies. In doing so they are not adding the remix to the BD they are just including the original BD with whatever native audio format it originally had.
> 
> However, new movies will likely continue to have the sameAtmos mix on both the BD and UHD. I speculate....
Click to expand...

Oh well, I assumed since it had both discs , and they do put atmos on BD, that the Atmos would be on both discs. Like I said, it's a good disc to have anyway, thanks for the info


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> However, new movies will likely continue to have the sameAtmos mix on both the BD and UHD. I speculate....such as In the Heart of the Sea, Witch Hunter, New Hunger Games etc


This is good news for those of us that aren't jumping on the UHD bus right away. I'm planning on making the jump later this year and was hoping that I wouldn't be shut out on immersive audio for the year. 

I'll be interesting seeing how UHD does when do much of the market has become streaming. Personally, I love the idea of streaming and would be happy to go that direction when there is a service that has both a full selection of releases as well as the quality and features of UHD. We still aren't there so I'll be staying tied to discs a while longer.


----------



## Ricoflashback

scarabaeus said:


> #1 is best if you have multiple sources connected to your non-2.2 AVR, so you can still use the AVR for source switching. You can connect two independent UHD 2.2 sources to two of your AVRs inputs in the integral's "matrix" mode.
> 
> #2 is best if you have a 2.2 AVR.
> 
> #3 is a bit of a pain, because you need to switch between two of the TV's HDMI inputs depending on the AVR's source. Espeacially if you have along HDMI run between your AVR and TV (needs two calbles) or you don't have a good programmable remote.


To the Fury Integral - why wouldn't it be 4K source "In" - 4K60/600 MHz - HDMI 2.0a and plain old out to my Denon x5200 AVR - "Out" 4K60/600 Mhz - HDCP 1.4" - - which is downscaled to 1080p? (And just use a different HDMI "Input" on my AVR - like "Game" or "Media Player?" Then, at a simple touch of a button on my Denon remote - - I'm at the right input. This assumes that you have on ONE 4K source - - which would be my case if I were to pickup a UHD player.

Lastly - this statement on HD's website is confusing as you need to be able to extract 7.1 for Atmos: 




*







HDMI Audio Extracting*
 
 HDfury Integral can extract HDMI audio up to 5.1 and pass-thru any sound format including Atmos via HDMI, it have a simultaneous output of analog L/R stereo and optical S/PDIF via 3.5mm combo jack connector.

P.S. - sorry if this is turning into an HD Fury Integral question as I'm trying to find out all options if ALL the studios start withholding Atmos soundtracks from regular BD's. (Which will be around, still, for some time, IMHO.)


----------



## GXMnow

So many people have accepted digital compression artifacts as "normal" now days. 

I am old enough to remember what it was like before there was any digital audio. All of the people who were into sound, worked pretty hard to reduce noise and distortion to get the music as close to the original as we could get it. And when video got popular, we tried our best there too, but NTSC on VHS or Beta was a pain to make look good at all. 

The first digital audio I heard was actually a pro 16 bit 48 Khz setup. I think it was from Yamaha. They were comparing it to a 1/4 inch reel to reel tape running at 7.5 inches per second, but I think it had no noise reduction on it, so it was wild to hear the hiss just go away. I can't remember what the original source was coming from. We just assumed it was not the limiting factor. 2 years later, when the CD was announced, I was happy they did go 16 bit, but wondered why they dropped the sample rate to 44.1 khz. For most music, it still seemed like enough, and compared to audio cassette, it was certainly a big improvement, but I did notice the loss of details compared to a well pressed LP. The big issue I noticed was that the D to A converters in the reasonably priced CD players back then were really bad. The high end had ringing and harshness that could get irritating on a lot of music. In 1985, I actually built an outboard D to A converter for my Sony CD player from a kit using a much better pair of chips that did digital filtering at 4 times sample rate. This really cleaned up the high end and started my buying of CD's in place of LP's.

Fast forward into the 90's and everyone is buying (or downloading/copying) MP3 files. With a good SoundBlaster Live card in my PC, I played some music and the harsh high end, wierd ringing and twangs, and even some odd distortion made it so I was not interested at all. I did try decoding some back to PCM and burning it to a CD to play through my good D to A converter, and it was a little better, than the SoundBlaster from the PC, but it was still not "CD Quality" Many of those early MP3 files were at 128 kbps or less, and that was a big part of the problem. Of course, I did not have any internet connection faster than 44 kbps available, so it took 4 times as long to download a song than it would play for. 

AAC was a big improvement. At the same data rate, the artifacts were far less, and when it did miss track, it did not twang like MP3. As internet speed grew, so did file sizes, and the quality got better, but still getting to just CD quality, was not easy. FLAC finally got us to lossless 16 bit 44.1 again. It turns out, the SoundBlaster D to A section was actually pretty close to what my outboard DAC could do. 

Thanks to the capacity of disks and even faster internet speeds, we got to taste 24 bit audio at 48K, and even 96K and a few 192 K files. Some in Lossless FLAC etc. and things were sounding great. A current Blu Ray disk has 30 Mega bps available for picture with AVC coding, and that can make a wonderful picture, toss in another 8 Mbps for the audio stream and we do have a great source now. UHD disk bumps those numbers even higher and HEVC coding is even more efficient on 4K imagas, so we should keep this trend going. 

BUT NO.... People want to stream, it is cheaper. Streaming is the MP3 of the video world.
Let's get the bit rate down to where it can go over the internet to watch in real time!!
I have a rock solid 25 Mbps connection that will consistently top 50 Mbps with no problems. I just ran a test with Speakeasy Speed Test and got 59 Mbps. I have NetFlicks and I have streamed several movies in 1080 P and with this data rate, it does look pretty good, but there is always a few break ups and blocking issues, and once in a while, some twangs in the sound. To my ears and eyes, Streaming is not even up to Blu Ray quality. At 1080 P using the H.265 HEVC codec, we can get close to Blu Ray, but then they use DD+ for the sound. Yes, it can do Atmos, but it is not lossless. A 1080P picture at 30 Mbps AVC is probably going to look better than a 4K image at 20 MBS of HEVC coding used for streaming. The demos sure look good, but they all "cheat" with nice slow moving pans across a highly detailed image. This is the exact image, that HEVC loves, as it can just copy and move data from frame to frame and just code the changes. Toss is some cuts and camera shake and the quality falls fast, or the data rate has to climb as it can't use as much of the previous frame data.

I know convenience is winning out over quality with the masses. This has happened over and over. But I can only hope that a physical media that can support the data rate needed for quality will remain around. I also hope they do not throw out 1080P too fast. Most feature films are still released at 2K resolution. Code a 2K image at a higher bit rate HEVC and we can have near cinema quality data going to the display. If you have a 4K panel, let the TV do the upscale from 1080 to 2160 lines. Why upscale it then compress 4 times as many pixels?? That just seams dumb. If a feature is in true 4K, then certainly, let's code that and send this to the home as well. 

As for audio "up mixing" to Dolby Atmos or DTS:X....
This really depends a lot on how it was mixed originally and if they still have the original sessions to work from. Thanks to Pro Tools, Harrison, Neve, and Euphonics the original sessions still have all of the source tracks intact. There could be hundreds or even thousands of pieces of audio that get mixed together to make a final movie soundtrack. To bring a 5.1 mix into Dolby Atmos, they can take the sounds that they panned and pull them out and place them on a separate obect track, and even the pan data is still there. They can then listen to it on an Atmos speaker setup through a Dolby RMU and maybe adjust the pans a bit if needed. Then the RMU makes a new Atmos master with the now separate objects that can pan through instead of being mixed into the beds. The number of sounds they pull out into objects will depend on the time and money they want to spend back on the dub stage, and how much they feel will enhance the presentation. It sees more and more movies are being native mixed in Atmos, so I don't see too many more having to be "up mixed" for Blu ray or UHD now. Some of the older movies, it makes sense, and they have done great with ones like "The Fifth Element" and "Chicago", but I don't see the value of doing this with a lot of movies. 

Until we can stream at data rates close to a Blu Ray disk, I will be buying physical media for movies I care about.


----------



## dschulz

Are we all certain that an HDFury is needed to play back UHD on legacy systems? Scanning through the owner's forum for the Samsung UHD player, it seems it behaves just fine down-rezzing to 1080P for display on 1080P/HDMI 1.4 displays.

What I've not seen tested yet is connecting a UHD player to an AVR and a 1080P/HDMI 1.4 display, and getting both 1080P picture and properly decoding Atmos. But I don't see why that wouldn't work.


----------



## maikeldepotter

virtualrain said:


> Ref. levels should have peaks of 105dB (115dB for subs) with input at full-scale. So crank it another 5dB


The pink noise on the AIX Audio Calibration Disk produces 80 dB in each of my speakers. These are all set at full scale, and crossed over to subs at 100 Hz by external bass manager (Outlaw ICBM). 

So assuming the AIX pink noise is at -20 dBfs, you are actually spot on: Turning up the volume with 5 dB (about 40% increase in perceptual loudness IIAC) will get me at true reference. Let's see how my tweeters will hold at that volume...



batpig said:


> It might even be more than 5dB.... if he's using an SPL meter to measure MAX SPL the peak bass in something like "Amaze" is probably closer to 115dB (or more) at full reference.


The RS meter was only set at 'fast'. I will try and see what the MAX setting adds, but I doubt it will be more than a couple of dBs.



> or example, with my SPL meter set to C-weighted, Slow, and MAX on movies like "Cloverfield" I've recorded max SPL of 105-108dB with the volume at -12dB in some of the insane bass sequencies -- or in other words 117-120dB if it was at full reference (assuming my gear could do that... which it can't!). The LFE peak reference is technically 115dB but that's with a pink noise calibration... momentary big peaks when combined with summed bass from other channels redirected to the sub can exceed 115dB easily at full reference.


Yes, I too have experienced louder scenes, but with your volume set at -12 those Atmos demo examples might max out at 95 dB.



> So the answer for Maikel shouldn't be to measure program content, it should be to measure pink noise test tones recorded at a specific known level to determine how far he is from "reference". A peak scene in a movie isn't necessarily an accurate reference -- but a -30dBfs would be.


So that's what I did. 

Now I have to wait till both wife and next door neighbors are out, so I can in all ease and tranquility do the final TRUE REFERENCE SPL checks....


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Are we all certain that an HDFury is needed to play back UHD on legacy systems?


Was never needed, since there has never been a disc format that couldn't play back on lower rez legacy displays. Ever.


> Scanning through the owner's forum for the Samsung UHD player, it seems it behaves just fine down-rezzing to 1080P for display on 1080P/HDMI 1.4 displays.


Just as BD players behaved just fine down-rezzing to 720 and 480 displays. No reason to expect UHD to behave otherwise. 

From the High-Def Digest review of the Samsung player:


> Setting up the Samsung UBD-K8500 is simple and fast. Proverbially plug and play.
> 
> Default is Auto, but you can specify 2160p, 1080p, 1080i, 720p, and 480p.
> 
> As noted in Set Up, the K8500 can output various resolutions from 2160p all the way down to 480p. After testing Ultra HD (2160p), I hooked the K8500 to my Panasonic VT50 Series 1080p plasma -- one of the best reviewed televisions of its model year.
> 
> In looking at Ultra HD Blu-ray and Blu-ray in 1080p, there's virtually no difference in image quality, save that the grading on the Ultra HD Blu-ray seems a little hotter and eats detail in bright areas (cloud texture in a grey London sky). As such, I don't really see a need for HD display owners to sprint out and upgrade.


http://hdgear.highdefdigest.com/30386/samsungubdk8500.html

Samsung would have been setting themselves up for a tech support/customer service nightmare had they released a player that defaulted to a blank screen when playing UHD titles on legacy displays. Was never going to happen.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Was never needed, since there has never been a disc format that couldn't play back on lower rez legacy displays. Ever. Just as BD players behaved just fine down-rezzing to 720 and 480 displays. No reason to expect UHD to behave otherwise.
> 
> From the High-Def Digest review of the Samsung player: http://hdgear.highdefdigest.com/30386/samsungubdk8500.html
> 
> Samsung would have been setting themselves up for a tech support/customer service nightmare had they released a player that defaulted to a blank screen when playing UHD titles on legacy displays. Was never going to happen.



Not entirely correct. If one wants to stream a UHD show (which typically are the only ones that include Atmos) then the Integrel is necessary. 

Additionally, it's not Samsungs decision as to what can or cannot be down-Rez. That's a function of HDCP and the disc itself. While the Fox titles are allowing down Rez, that is not guaranteed to be the case for all studios and all titles. Hdcp spec specifically calls out that allowing this is optional. And for now it appears that option is being exercised in the few UHD discs that are out. This is also why Blu-Ray discs are included in packs. So it's very likely that certain released and certain studios will not work at some point in the future, thus also necessitating the Integral. Lastly, while allowing video down conversion, they can also restrict audio and remove metadata if they so desire.


----------



## scarabaeus

Ricoflashback said:


> To the Fury Integral - why wouldn't it be 4K source "In" - 4K60/600 MHz - HDMI 2.0a and plain old out to my Denon x5200 AVR - "Out" 4K60/600 Mhz - HDCP 1.4" - - which is downscaled to 1080p? (And just use a different HDMI "Input" on my AVR - like "Game" or "Media Player?" Then, at a simple touch of a button on my Denon remote - - I'm at the right input. This assumes that you have on ONE 4K source - - which would be my case if I were to pickup a UHD player.


If I understand you correctly, that would be a UHD Blu-ray player, outputting 1080p HDCP 1.4 towards your Denon. Yes, that will work, even without the Integral. However, this will only work as long as no studio is using the flag that prohibits downscaling, or if you are not planning to use a Roku 4 etc. for Atmos audio from VUDU. In both cases you'll need to output a 2160p HDCP 2.2 signal from your player to get Atmos, and your Denon can only accept 2160p HDCP 1.4. The Integral does not do 2160p to 1080p downscaling, by the way.



Ricoflashback said:


> Lastly - this statement on HD's website is confusing as you need to be able to extract 7.1 for Atmos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HDMI Audio Extracting*
> 
> HDfury Integral can extract HDMI audio up to 5.1 and pass-thru any sound format including Atmos via HDMI, it have a simultaneous output of analog L/R stereo and optical S/PDIF via 3.5mm combo jack connector.


That 5.1 limitation is about the optical SPDIF output of the Integral. It passes through any audio via HDMI.



Ricoflashback said:


> P.S. - sorry if this is turning into an HD Fury Integral question as I'm trying to find out all options if ALL the studios start withholding Atmos soundtracks from regular BD's. (Which will be around, still, for some time, IMHO.)


I don't think this is off-topic. A lot of us have the Denon 5200, and the lack of HDCP 2.2 support clashes with UHD and Atmos availablity.


----------



## Stoked21

^^^^

Well said


----------



## Tnedator

AllenA07 said:


> This is good news for those of us that aren't jumping on the UHD bus right away. I'm planning on making the jump later this year and was hoping that I wouldn't be shut out on immersive audio for the year.
> 
> I'll be interesting seeing how UHD does when do much of the market has become streaming. Personally, I love the idea of streaming and would be happy to go that direction when there is a service that has both a full selection of releases as well as the quality and features of UHD. We still aren't there so I'll be staying tied to discs a while longer.


And enough monthly bandwidth to stream UHD regularly.


----------



## Stoked21

sdurani said:


> Was never needed, since there has never been a disc format that couldn't play back on lower rez legacy displays. Ever. Just as BD players behaved just fine down-rezzing to 720 and 480 displays. No reason to expect UHD to behave otherwise.





scarabaeus said:


> If I understand you correctly, that would be a UHD Blu-ray player, outputting 1080p HDCP 1.4 towards your Denon. Yes, that will work, even without the Integral. However, this will only work as long as no studio is using the flag that prohibits downscaling, or if you are not planning to use a Roku 4 etc. for Atmos audio from VUDU. In both cases you'll need to output a 2160p HDCP 2.2 signal from your player to get Atmos, and your Denon can only accept 2160p HDCP 1.4. The Integral does not do 2160p to 1080p downscaling, by the way.





dschulz said:


> Are we all certain that an HDFury is needed to play back UHD on legacy systems? Scanning through the owner's forum for the Samsung UHD player, it seems it behaves just fine down-rezzing to 1080P for display on 1080P/HDMI 1.4 displays.
> 
> What I've not seen tested yet is connecting a UHD player to an AVR and a 1080P/HDMI 1.4 display, and getting both 1080P picture and properly decoding Atmos. But I don't see why that wouldn't work.


Something that all the Atmos junkies here are avoiding completely, as it's off top but needs to be said.
You can output video down-rez on *current* UHD discs and you may potentially be able to continue doing so for who knows how long (Studio and Title dependent)....And you will likely be able to get Atmos out.

Keep in mind that the standard 1080p SDR BD is going to be rec709. UHD HDR disc are going to be mastered using rec2020 with WCG....So you are going to likely have crappy PQ and likely will be changing and completely modifying your display settings as it will be unnaturally dark and crushed. Even then, you still may not get it to look correct. I saw this when I had the player hooked up to my 1080p TV on the day I brought it home....Even an HD Fury isn't going to solve this. My point is that you may end up with Atmos but you may also end up with a horrible viewing experience....


----------



## GXMnow

Stoked21 said:


> Something that all the Atmos junkies here are avoiding completely, as it's off top but needs to be said.
> You can output video down-rez on *current* UHD discs and you may potentially be able to continue doing so for who knows how long (Studio and Title dependent)....And you will likely be able to get Atmos out.
> 
> Keep in mind that the standard 1080p SDR BD is going to be rec709. UHD HDR disc are going to be mastered using rec2020 with WCG....So you are going to likely have crappy PQ and likely will be changing and completely modifying your display settings as it will be unnaturally dark and crushed. Even then, you still may not get it to look correct. I saw this when I had the player hooked up to my 1080p TV on the day I brought it home....Even an HD Fury isn't going to solve this. My point is that you may end up with Atmos but you may also end up with a horrible viewing experience....


As I understand it, the base layer on UHD is still a REC 709 image. Then there is either an HDR-10 or Dolby Vision layer that can be added for increased color or dynamic range. The Dolby Vision layer does also include HDR-10 for compatibility, and any Dolby Vision display will also play HDR-10 layer. If the display does not report either of these, it will revert to the Rec 709 layer.

I did a lot of reading about the HDCP and the only thing I have been able to find is that if a display is only HDCP 1.4, the content can force it to down rez to 1080. I did not see anywhere that it would not play yet. I have been searching the web trying to find the options for the flags in HDCP 2.2 but they are being quiet about it at this time. 

It seems, all the people that sell gear are trying to use the scare tactic. "You need a new AVR and Display or you get NOTHING!!!" But that does not seem to be the case at all. From all I have been able to find, it seems the worst case is that a UHD disc will end up playing out the same as a current Blu Ray disk in 1080P. I am trying to find more information on what the "High Value" flag does when a player sees an HDCP 1.4 sink device. 

Back when Blu Ray players first came out, there were flags to limit what output they would allow over component video. And they would drop to 540P resolution. This is half rez, just like 1080 would be from a 2160 source. But this time, it is better, since it is the native rez of so many devices, and not some odd ball between 480 and 720.

The only real problem I see at this time is if you want a true 4K image on a system that is not HDCP 2.2 This is where the HD Fury may come in. 

As for the Visio R series, this was grabbed from the manual of the 65 inch set.



> WHAT IS HDMI 2.0 AND HDCP 2.2?
> 
> Your R-Series TV supports the latest HDMI standards. This allows
> next-gen cable and satellite receivers, Blu-Ray players, game
> consoles, and more to deliver Ultra HD content.
> 
> In addition, the TV supports HDCP 2.2 technology which allows you
> to play protected content from Ultra HD players and next-gen video
> game consoles. The R-Series is built to be future proof where it will
> allow users to view Ultra HD content as it becomes readily available.
> 
> Remember:
> 
> HDMI ports 1,2, and 5 support HDCP 2.2 technology.
> HDMI ports 1 through 4 support Ultra HD inputs at
> up to 30Hz, while HDMI port 5 can support Ultra HD
> inputs of up to 60Hz. For best performance with HDMI
> port 5, only connect high-performance devices that are
> capable of outputting 1080p or higher resolution.


SO....
Use inputs 1 and 2 for most services that will never exceed 30 hz frame rate, and input 5 will take anything you can throw at it. All in full HDCP 2.2


----------



## scarabaeus

GXMnow said:


> I did a lot of reading about the HDCP and the only thing I have been able to find is that if a display is only HDCP 1.4, the content can force it to down rez to 1080. I did not see anywhere that it would not play yet. I have been searching the web trying to find the options for the flags in HDCP 2.2 but they are being quiet about it at this time.
> 
> It seems, all the people that sell gear are trying to use the scare tactic. "You need a new AVR and Display or you get NOTHING!!!" But that does not seem to be the case at all. From all I have been able to find, it seems the worst case is that a UHD disc will end up playing out the same as a current Blu Ray disk in 1080P. I am trying to find more information on what the "High Value" flag does when a player sees an HDCP 1.4 sink device.
> 
> Back when Blu Ray players first came out, there were flags to limit what output they would allow over component video. And they would drop to 540P resolution. This is half rez, just like 1080 would be from a 2160 source. But this time, it is better, since it is the native rez of so many devices, and not some odd ball between 480 and 720.


That flag, AFAIK, is defined in the UHD BD specification, and not in HDCP. And, yes, it is similar to the "Constrained Image" flag that was defined in the original BD spec, which requires analog outputs to display no more than 960x540 real pixels. This was, to my knowledge, never used on publicly available disks. I can't be sure, but I'm guessing this "downrez inhibit" (or whatever it might be called) flag will also never be used.


----------



## virtualrain

Congrats to the mixing team on Mad Max Fury Road... by far the best damn mix I've ever heard. Those guys deserved the win! That mix made all my upgrades worthwhile.










*EQUALS...*


----------



## leedesert

virtualrain said:


> Congrats to the mixing team on Mad Max Fury Road... by far the best damn mix I've ever heard. Those guys deserved the win! That mix made all my upgrades worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EQUALS...*


I ordered the BD last night and I'm happy to see the 4k and BD disc both have Atmos. I'm hoping the Enders Game I ordered is the same since I don't have a UHD player yet.


----------



## Molon_Labe

PioManiac said:


> I know 11 speakers and 4 subs is likely overkill for such a modest sized room but I LIKE IT!


This is AVS baby - Overkill is accepted and encouraged. Modesty and sound reasoning need not apply.


----------



## dude32986

Should I match my ceiling speakers to the rest by brand? Klipsch icon series set.


----------



## stikle

Stoked21 said:


> I am strongly suggesting that those who have not bought their AVR yet, do not consider a non-2.2 model. For those who have bought their AVR, you should really consider an upgrade or a *lower cost alternative such as the HD Fury Integral*. I've been recommending the Fury for some time, but have no first hand experience with it since I'm all 2.2.





GXMnow said:


> The only real problem I see at this time is if you want a true 4K image on a system that is not HDCP 2.2 *This is where the HD Fury may come in.*




It is, and it does work. $250 "fix" vs replacing a receiver that I paid $2K for...I was totally happy to pay it and have it work.


----------



## batpig

leedesert said:


> virtualrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats to the mixing team on Mad Max Fury Road... by far the best damn mix I've ever heard. Those guys deserved the win! That mix made all my upgrades worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EQUALS...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ordered the BD last night and I'm happy to see the 4k and BD disc both have Atmos. I'm hoping the Enders Game I ordered is the same since I don't have a UHD player yet.
Click to expand...

You should read back a few pages. It's been already reported that films like Enders Game which didn't have Atmos on the original BD release are only including Atmos on the UHD disc in the combo pack. Films like MMFR which already have Atmos on the BD come with Atmos on both. 

Basically the studios aren't going to spend money making a new BD. They are going to drop the existing disc into the combo pack.


----------



## leedesert

batpig said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> virtualrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats to the mixing team on Mad Max Fury Road... by far the best damn mix I've ever heard. Those guys deserved the win! That mix made all my upgrades worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EQUALS...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ordered the BD last night and I'm happy to see the 4k and BD disc both have Atmos. I'm hoping the Enders Game I ordered is the same since I don't have a UHD player yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read back a few pages. It's been already reported that films like Enders Game which didn't have Atmos on the original BD release are only including Atmos on the UHD disc in the combo pack. Films like MMFR which already have Atmos on the BD come with Atmos on both.
> 
> Basically the studios aren't going to spend money making a new BD. They are going to drop the existing disc into the combo pack.
Click to expand...


It wasn't a big deal. I was just hoping there was a chance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PioManiac said:


> I know 11 speakers and 4 subs is likely overkill for such a modest sized room but I LIKE IT!


Adorable.


----------



## Tnedator

dude32986 said:


> Should I match my ceiling speakers to the rest by brand? Klipsch icon series set.


Dolby would say yes, they should all be timbre matched. Based on what I've read on AVS, I would say it's the exception, rather than rule, when people are using the same brand and timbre matched speakers. 

If there is no downside to getting timbre matched, you are probably safer going that route, rather than hoping that Audissey or whatever you are using for room calibration takes care of any differences. 

That said, mine are different. I have Klipsch THX Ultra II's all around and Triad's in the ceiling.


----------



## dude32986

I'll likely be getting the onkyo tx-nr1030 it has thx ultra plus2. So if I just got a pair of klipsch ceiling speakers( reference or similar) they don't need to be from the icon series? (icon doesn't have ceiling speakers:-( ) im mostly asking if the timbre will match.

Klipsch kf-28 L/R
Klipsch kc-25 center
Klipsch ks-14 surround Left, right, and rear(single......I already know 7 is better, 3/4 length wall......don't have the room lol) 
Klipsch r-12sw sub.....

Thoughts?


----------



## dude32986

Tnedator said:


> dude32986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I match my ceiling speakers to the rest by brand? Klipsch icon series set.
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby would say yes, they should all be timbre matched. Based on what I've read on AVS, I would say it's the exception, rather than rule, when people are using the same brand and timbre matched speakers.
> 
> If there is no downside to getting timbre matched, you are probably safer going that route, rather than hoping that Audissey or whatever you are using for room calibration takes care of any differences.
> 
> That said, mine are different. I have Klipsch THX Ultra II's all around and Triad's in the ceiling.
Click to expand...

I'll likely be getting the onkyo tx-nr1030 it has thx ultra plus2. So if I just got a pair of klipsch ceiling speakers( reference or similar) they don't need to be from the icon series? (icon doesn't have ceiling speakers:-( ) im mostly asking if the timbre will match. Klipsch kf-28 L/R Klipsch kc-25 center Klipsch ks-14 surround Left, right, and rear(single......I already know 7 is better, 3/4 length wall......don't have the room lol) Klipsch r-12sw sub..... Thoughts?


----------



## leedesert

dude32986 said:


> Should I match my ceiling speakers to the rest by brand? Klipsch icon series set.


Ideally yes but it's not necessary. I have Klipsch for my 3.1 and then added Polk ceiling speakers with amiable tweeters for my front height and rear surround. Sounds great.


----------



## Tnedator

batpig said:


> It might even be more than 5dB.... if he's using an SPL meter to measure MAX SPL the peak bass in something like "Amaze" is probably closer to 115dB (or more) at full reference.
> 
> For example, with my SPL meter set to C-weighted, Slow, and MAX on movies like "Cloverfield" I've recorded max SPL of 105-108dB with the volume at -12dB in some of the insane bass sequencies -- or in other words 117-120dB if it was at full reference (assuming my gear could do that... which it can't!).
> 
> The LFE peak reference is technically 115dB but that's with a pink noise calibration... momentary big peaks when combined with summed bass from other channels redirected to the sub can exceed 115dB easily at full reference.
> 
> So the answer for Maikel shouldn't be to measure program content, it should be to measure pink noise test tones recorded at a specific known level to determine how far he is from "reference". A peak scene in a movie isn't necessarily an accurate reference -- but a -30dBfs would be.


Ok, so I've read some of these posts about reference, but I'm still a little confused on the best way to figure out where on my dial is reference. I have a Marantz 8802 with separate amps, so I have no idea how my volume (I have it set to absolute value) relates to actual DB. 

Is playing pink noise of some kind the way to check, or is it listening to something like the demo with a meter? 

In addition to radioshack digital meter, I also have an Omnimic with its software.


----------



## virtualrain

Tnedator said:


> Ok, so I've read some of these posts about reference, but I'm still a little confused on the best way to figure out where on my dial is reference. I have a Marantz 8802 with separate amps, so I have no idea how my volume (I have it set to absolute value) relates to actual DB.
> 
> 
> 
> Is playing pink noise of some kind the way to check, or is it listening to something like the demo with a meter?
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to radioshack digital meter, I also have an Omnimic with its software.



I believe most room correction systems like YPAO on my Yamaha or Audessey on your Marantz use pink noise test tones at -30dBFS (below maximum) to set SPL levels to 75dB at zero on the main volume dial. Thus a full scale peak signal would produce 105dB peaks in SPL at zero on the main volume dial. The AVR will set these levels regardless of the amplifiers in the chain. Thus to listen at reference levels usually implies setting main volume to zero.


----------



## Tnedator

virtualrain said:


> I believe most room correction systems like YPAO on my Yamaha or Audessey on your Marantz use pink noise test tones at -30dBFS (below maximum) to set SPL levels to 75dB at zero on the main volume dial. Thus a full scale peak signal would produce 105dB peaks in SPL at zero on the main volume dial. The AVR will set these levels regardless of the amplifiers in the chain. Thus to listen at reference levels usually implies setting main volume to zero.


My room was calibrated by hand using QSC DSP gear by a calibrator. I'm not sure if he adhered to that standard. I've got an email in to him if there is a standard he uses, or if I'm going to need to test to find out.


----------



## batpig

Tnedator said:


> Ok, so I've read some of these posts about reference, but I'm still a little confused on the best way to figure out where on my dial is reference. I have a Marantz 8802 with separate amps, so I have no idea how my volume (I have it set to absolute value) relates to actual DB.
> 
> Is playing pink noise of some kind the way to check, or is it listening to something like the demo with a meter?
> 
> In addition to radioshack digital meter, I also have an Omnimic with its software.


If you use Audyssey XT32 on your Marantz then it's already set for you -- the calibration sets Master Volume of 0.0dB (or 80 if you use the absolute scale) as "reference level".

So if you are watching a movie at -15dB (65) on the Master Volume, you are 15dB below reference.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dude32986 said:


> I'll likely be getting the onkyo tx-nr1030 it has thx ultra plus2. So if I just got a pair of klipsch ceiling speakers( reference or similar) they don't need to be from the icon series? (icon doesn't have ceiling speakers:-( ) im mostly asking if the timbre will match.
> 
> Klipsch kf-28 L/R
> Klipsch kc-25 center
> Klipsch ks-14 surround Left, right, and rear(single......I already know 7 is better, 3/4 length wall......don't have the room lol)
> Klipsch r-12sw sub.....
> 
> Thoughts?


Reference series is higher than the Icon series IIRC, so you should be good to go...

Have fun!


----------



## Tnedator

batpig said:


> If you use Audyssey XT32 on your Marantz then it's already set for you -- the calibration sets Master Volume of 0.0dB (or 80 if you use the absolute scale) as "reference level".
> 
> So if you are watching a movie at -15dB (65) on the Master Volume, you are 15dB below reference.


See my post above yours. No Audyssey, it was hand calibrated with QSC DSP gear.


----------



## virtualrain

Tnedator said:


> See my post above yours. No Audyssey, it was hand calibrated with QSC DSP gear.



I'm not familiar with Marantz, but you should be able to get your AVR to spit out some pink noise test tones. If so, measure those at 0 on the main volume knob and see what you get on your SPL meter. The PN should be at -30dBFS. If you get 75dB on your SPL, you're calibrated to reference.


----------



## nickbuol

Quick speaker question for Atmos.

My L/R fronts each have a 1" tweeter, a 5.25" woofer, and two 6.5" woofers...
My center channel has two 1" tweeters, two 5.25" woofers, and two 6.5" woofers...
My surround speakers each have a 1" tweeter and a 6.5" woofer...

Looking to get ceiling speakers for a 7.1.4 setup.

Without going into the details (mainly the pain in the butt it would be to cut into my ceiling to make sound reducing backer boxes for inceiling speakers), but I am going to go with "on-wall" speakers for my ceiling.

Since they will be visible, the speaker with the 5.25" woofer is a bit smaller than the one with the 6.5" woofer. 
11.5" x 8.3" x 3.6" vs. 13.6" x 9.6" x 3.6" 
so 2.1" shorter one dimension, 1.3" less another. Both are just 3.6" thick.

Should I be going with speakers that all have the same 1" tweeter and a 5.25" woofer or a 6.5" woofer? Or would I be good with the 5.25" woofer, or better off with the larger 6.5" for a speaker just used for height information? Pricing is about the same ($880 vs $996) with about a 12% difference. My concern is more about sound quality.

All speakers are from the same manufacturer.

Thoughts on ceiling speaker size (5.25" vs 6.5" woofer)?

Thanks.


----------



## batpig

Tnedator said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you use Audyssey XT32 on your Marantz then it's already set for you -- the calibration sets Master Volume of 0.0dB (or 80 if you use the absolute scale) as "reference level".
> 
> So if you are watching a movie at -15dB (65) on the Master Volume, you are 15dB below reference.
> 
> 
> 
> See my post above yours. No Audyssey, it was hand calibrated with QSC DSP gear.
Click to expand...

Ok then yeah, as the next post says you need some specific reference tone and an SPL meter to check levels. Or ask the calibrator what he did.


----------



## batpig

nickbuol said:


> Quick speaker question for Atmos.
> 
> My L/R fronts each have a 1" tweeter, a 5.25" woofer, and two 6.5" woofers...
> My center channel has two 1" tweeters, two 5.25" woofers, and two 6.5" woofers...
> My surround speakers each have a 1" tweeter and a 6.5" woofer...
> 
> Looking to get ceiling speakers for a 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> Without going into the details (mainly the pain in the butt it would be to cut into my ceiling to make sound reducing backer boxes for inceiling speakers), but I am going to go with "on-wall" speakers for my ceiling.
> 
> Since they will be visible, the speaker with the 5.25" woofer is a bit smaller than the one with the 6.5" woofer.
> 11.5" x 8.3" x 3.6" vs. 13.6" x 9.6" x 3.6"
> so 2.1" shorter one dimension, 1.3" less another. Both are just 3.6" thick.
> 
> Should I be going with speakers that all have the same 1" tweeter and a 5.25" woofer or a 6.5" woofer? Or would I be good with the 5.25" woofer, or better off with the larger 6.5" for a speaker just used for height information? Pricing is about the same ($880 vs $996) with about a 12% difference. My concern is more about sound quality.
> 
> All speakers are from the same manufacturer.
> 
> Thoughts on ceiling speaker size (5.25" vs 6.5" woofer)?
> 
> Thanks.


My thought is that it depends on your SPL requirements. The larger woofer will play louder with less distortion. 

If your goal is clean reference than bigger is better. Or just be prepared to use a higher crossover on the ceiling speakers (eg 120hz instead of 80hz) to take some load off. 

If you don't go above -10 or so then the smaller speaker is probably fine. But bigger will be safer.


----------



## Tnedator

virtualrain said:


> I'm not familiar with Marantz, but you should be able to get your AVR to spit out some pink noise test tones. If so, measure those at 0 on the main volume knob and see what you get on your SPL meter. The PN should be at -30dBFS. If you get 75dB on your SPL, you're calibrated to reference.





batpig said:


> Ok then yeah, as the next post says you need some specific reference tone and an SPL meter to check levels. Or ask the calibrator what he did.


I've got an email in to him, and hopefully he either does it to a standard or has specific notes.

I'll also look at measuring. It sounds like AVRs typically have their test tones at -30dbfs, so I should just be able to run the test tone from each speaker and check that way and also posted in the Omnimic thread to see if someone can tell me how to test with that, which should be more accurate than the test tones, I would assume.


----------



## nickbuol

batpig said:


> My thought is that it depends on your SPL requirements. The larger woofer will play louder with less distortion.
> 
> If your goal is clean reference than bigger is better. Or just be prepared to use a higher crossover on the ceiling speakers (eg 120hz instead of 80hz) to take some load off.
> 
> If you don't go above -10 or so then the smaller speaker is probably fine. But bigger will be safer.


Yeah. I figured someone would say that... 

Of the 3 choices for overhead Atmos duty SPL numbers in 1w/1m
"on-wall" with 1" tweeter and 5.25" woofer = in room 90dB, anechoic 86dB
"on-wall" with 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer= in room 91dB, anechoic 87dB
in-ceiling with 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer- in room 92dB, anechoic 88dB

Both 6.5" versions can go down about 10Hz deeper at 70Hz vs 80Hz (response +/- 3db).

Boy do I hate the idea of cutting holes in the ceiling. Off to measure things up and map out the joists and see if I have photos or video of where I put the hat channel to see if the in-ceiling locations will work without hitting something.


----------



## ALtlOff

nickbuol said:


> Yeah. I figured someone would say that...
> 
> Of the 3 choices for overhead Atmos duty SPL numbers in 1w/1m
> "on-wall" with 1" tweeter and 5.25" woofer = in room 90dB, anechoic 86dB
> "on-wall" with 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer= in room 91dB, anechoic 87dB
> in-ceiling with 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer- in room 92dB, anechoic 88dB
> 
> Both 6.5" versions can go down about 10Hz deeper at 70Hz vs 80Hz (response +/- 3db).
> 
> Boy do I hate the idea of cutting holes in the ceiling. Off to measure things up and map out the joists and see if I have photos or video of where I put the hat channel to see if the in-ceiling locations will work without hitting something.


IMO, go with one of the 6.5's and simply never worry about having enough.
Even with what I'm using (fairly large 6.5" bookshelves, on-wall) I notice a difference in my room even when bumping the crossover a little too high.


----------



## Tnedator

batpig said:


> If you use Audyssey XT32 on your Marantz then it's already set for you -- the calibration sets Master Volume of 0.0dB (or 80 if you use the absolute scale) as "reference level".
> 
> So if you are watching a movie at -15dB (65) on the Master Volume, you are 15dB below reference.





virtualrain said:


> I believe most room correction systems like YPAO on my Yamaha or Audessey on your Marantz use pink noise test tones at -30dBFS (below maximum) to set SPL levels to 75dB at zero on the main volume dial. Thus a full scale peak signal would produce 105dB peaks in SPL at zero on the main volume dial. The AVR will set these levels regardless of the amplifiers in the chain. Thus to listen at reference levels usually implies setting main volume to zero.


Thanks for the help guys. 

I just checked using the test tone on the Marantz. Looks like he calibrated it so the absolute volume value on the Marantz matches the SPL. Meaning, I got the 75db on my SPL meter at -5 or 75 (checked it both ways) rather than 0 and 80. 

So, I've been playing movies at 60, which is 15 db below. Next time I'm home during the day and think most of the neighbors are gone, I'll try working my way up towards -5/75 and see how things sound. I have no doubt I wouldn't want to listen at that level routinely, but am curious.


----------



## Jive Turkey

dschulz said:


> Are we all certain that an HDFury is needed to play back UHD on legacy systems? Scanning through the owner's forum for the Samsung UHD player, it seems it behaves just fine down-rezzing to 1080P for display on 1080P/HDMI 1.4 displays.
> 
> What I've not seen tested yet is connecting a UHD player to an AVR and a 1080P/HDMI 1.4 display, and getting both 1080P picture and properly decoding Atmos. But I don't see why that wouldn't work.


I have played the Black-rays of "Salt" and "Scicario" with and without the HD Fury Integral inline. Single cable out from Input 1 on the Samsung player in both instances on my all 1080p Atmos system.

BTW, both UHD discs had better colors than the Blu-ray's. "Salt" moreso than "Scicario".


----------



## shyyour

ALtlOff said:


> Yup, a pair of SR-7010, referbed from A4L, $3400.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to end up there, just won't be before anyone else, my first 7010 won't be purchased for another two weeks, and the second one until after I sell my 3040.





Jive Turkey said:


> I have played the Black-rays of "Salt" and "Scicario" with and without the HD Fury Integral inline. Single cable out from Input 1 on the Samsung player in both instances on my all 1080p Atmos system.
> 
> BTW, both UHD discs had better colors than the Blu-ray's. "Salt" moreso than "Scicario".


Just to clarify do you mean you plugged a hdmi cable from the samsung player (Main out) into an input on a non hdcp 2.2 avr/pre-pro and you were able to get both video and sound ?


----------



## cxr369

I'm finally ready to start building my theater after two years of being in my house. Would rather it be a man cave / movie theatre. The question I have is other than the RC-6C/8Cs, which ceiling speakers are the best match for the Energy RC line. I have all NIB 4 RC 70s, a pair of RC10s, two pairs of RC-Rs, and an RC-LCR. I placed a speaker in the middle of the room and blasted it, the music could be heard throught all 3,000 sqft of the house. An even bigger issue is that the baby's room is located above the room. I need to soundproof the room. Just don't know the average cost of doing so. I have a friend who can do the work to help cut down on labor cost. The room is 25x16x9, I would like to fit a bar and possibly a pool table in the room too, but definitely a bar in the back, the three car garage is next to the wall. I would like to set it up for 13.1.4 to future poof it for next gen avr.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Hi Guys,

So i had purchased an Onkyo 646 AVR and set it up with 2 up firing Onkyo Atmos Speakers, placed on top of the front speakers. However, unfortunately, whatever i tried it just didn't work for me, i always use DSU, however i really couldn't tell when atomos was being used as opposed to not used. I even tried turning the atoms speakers volume level up a few notches, higher then the other speakers, but then the sound mostly came from the front area where the speakers were placed. I hardly ever hear sound from the top.

Could this just be because of the up firing speakers? Are they crap? I am thinking of upgrading some of the sound in my room. Hence, i am considering going for 5.1.4 and buying a Marantz AVR. However, I'm not so sure if the 4 atmos speakers are worth it! 

So that is my question to you guys, is it definitely a must have? Is it a great and much better movie experience when you can have 4 ceiling speakers? My impression on the 2 up firing speakers was disasterous, and not worth it. They didn't add anything. But I'm hoping that 4 ceiling speakers would add the extra immersion. But i guess if you have it installed and used it for a while, then only you would be able to tell me if its worth it or not?

thanks


----------



## leedesert

Killer_Nads said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> So i had purchased an Onkyo 646 AVR and set it up with 2 up firing Onkyo Atmos Speakers, placed on top of the front speakers. However, unfortunately, whatever i tried it just didn't work for me, i always use DSU, however i really couldn't tell when atomos was being used as opposed to not used. I even tried turning the atoms speakers volume level up a few notches, higher then the other speakers, but then the sound mostly came from the front area where the speakers were placed. I hardly ever hear sound from the top.
> 
> Could this just be because of the up firing speakers? Are they crap? I am thinking of upgrading some of the sound in my room. Hence, i am considering going for 5.1.4 and buying a Marantz AVR. However, I'm not so sure if the 4 atmos speakers are worth it!
> 
> So that is my question to you guys, is it definitely a must have? Is it a great and much better movie experience when you can have 4 ceiling speakers? My impression on the 2 up firing speakers was disasterous, and not worth it. They didn't add anything. But I'm hoping that 4 ceiling speakers would add the extra immersion. But i guess if you have it installed and used it for a while, then only you would be able to tell me if its worth it or not?
> 
> thanks


I'm running a 5.1.2 and love it. I added two Polk Rc80i ceiling speakers mounted half way between the fronts and listening position. They have rotating tweeters so I have those turned toward the couch. 
My surrounds are the same ceiling mount speakers about 6' behind the couch with tweeters turned toward the couch.

I can hear mine working but its not like a surround where you can pinpoint the noises coming from the left, right, front, center. It's more of a continuation of the sound field that completes the bubble over and around you. They lift the sound field up to where you're not aware of the speakers anymore, just that you're in the environment the movie is creating.

I did it because I didn't want my living room to look like a recording studio but according to Atmos its the preferred speaker location for the height speakers. The add ons you can place on your speakers to bounce off the ceiling were meant as an option.

My future plan is to get a 9ch AVR, probably the Onkyo TX-NR1030, and add two ear level speakers on stands for surrounds that match my fronts. Then I can turn my rear ceilings into back heights and make it a 5.1.4


----------



## Tnedator

Killer_Nads said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> So i had purchased an Onkyo 646 AVR and set it up with 2 up firing Onkyo Atmos Speakers, placed on top of the front speakers. However, unfortunately, whatever i tried it just didn't work for me, i always use DSU, however i really couldn't tell when atomos was being used as opposed to not used. I even tried turning the atoms speakers volume level up a few notches, higher then the other speakers, but then the sound mostly came from the front area where the speakers were placed. I hardly ever hear sound from the top.
> 
> Could this just be because of the up firing speakers? Are they crap? I am thinking of upgrading some of the sound in my room. Hence, i am considering going for 5.1.4 and buying a Marantz AVR. However, I'm not so sure if the 4 atmos speakers are worth it!
> 
> So that is my question to you guys, is it definitely a must have? Is it a great and much better movie experience when you can have 4 ceiling speakers? My impression on the 2 up firing speakers was disasterous, and not worth it. They didn't add anything. But I'm hoping that 4 ceiling speakers would add the extra immersion. But i guess if you have it installed and used it for a while, then only you would be able to tell me if its worth it or not?
> 
> thanks


You say you always use DSU. Are you playing non Atmos tracks and having it upmixed, or have you played Atmos tracks? Do you have a streaming player that can get Vudu? If so, stream the free Dolby Atmo demo tracks, like Amaze. Make sure you are feeding it a good Atmos signal and see what you hear.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Tnedator said:


> You say you always use DSU. Are you playing non Atmos tracks and having it upmixed, or have you played Atmos tracks? Do you have a streaming player that can get Vudu? If so, stream the free Dolby Atmo demo tracks, like Amaze. Make sure you are feeding it a good Atmos signal and see what you hear.


I always have DSU on, but what i meant is that i have played atmos tracks swell for example, things like Jupiter Ascending, The Gunman, Max Max, Scicario plus many others that i can't remember right now.

I have also tried the Atmos Demo disk, streaming into Kodi from my NAS server.

The films that i tried were both from blurays swell as streaming from my nas. I also have Amazon Prime and Netflix but have not tried atmos films on those, i don't think they even support it anyways. Ive never heard of Vudu before


----------



## Tnedator

Killer_Nads said:


> I always have DSU on, but what i meant is that i have played atmos tracks swell for example, things like Jupiter Ascending, The Gunman, Max Max, Scicario plus many others that i can't remember right now.
> 
> I have also tried the Atmos Demo disk, streaming into Kodi from my NAS server.
> 
> The films that i tried were both from blurays swell as streaming from my nas. I also have Amazon Prime and Netflix but have not tried atmos films on those, i don't think they even support it anyways. Ive never heard of Vudu before


Vudu is one of the largest online streamers, owned by Walmart now. 

It wasn't clear you had listened to real Atmos tracks. Some of them, like Mad Max, should give you clear overhead (not sure exactly what you hear with only two overhead, but I'm still thinking quite a bit). Just the opening to Max there is the kid talking and the news reports which should be coming from the overhead/upfiring speakers. 

I assume you've run audissey or whatever the calibration suite is for your receiver. when you check the receiver's test tones, do you hear them overhead? 

Considering how people have raved about upfiring modules, in some rooms saying they sound better than in ceiling (I have in ceiling), it's hard to imagine you are getting nothing, unless there is a configuration problem. 

How tall is your ceiling? Is it flat?


----------



## Tnedator

Killer_Nads said:


> I always have DSU on, but what i meant is that i have played atmos tracks swell for example, things like Jupiter Ascending, The Gunman, Max Max, Scicario plus many others that i can't remember right now.
> 
> I have also tried the Atmos Demo disk, streaming into Kodi from my NAS server.
> 
> The films that i tried were both from blurays swell as streaming from my nas. I also have Amazon Prime and Netflix but have not tried atmos films on those, i don't think they even support it anyways. Ive never heard of Vudu before


Also, my Marantz has a display button that when you are watching a movie will show what signals the receiver is receiving (if it's an Atmos track, it just says Atmos, but if it's something like DD+, it shows the individual channels being sent) and then shows which speakers it's sending sound do. Does the Onkyo either have that on the LCD display or on screen if you hit a display/option button or similar? Can you confirm what the receiver thinks it's getting and what the receiver thinks it's sending?


----------



## Killer_Nads

Yep i have run Audessy, i also get the sound coming from the upfiring speakers during the test. However the sound doesn't seem to come from the ceiling firing down on me, instead it seems to just come from where the up firing speakers are placed ie. at the front on top of my floor standing B&W Speakers.

The Onkyo receiver, also has the same option as displaying on the LCD what the source and output is etc... It shows Dolby Atmos when the track is selected.

On playing the track, i can also go up to the speakers and place my ear near the up firing speakers and i do notice sound coming out of it. I just think that when I'm watching a film, i can hear the sound coming out from the front instead of bouncing down from the ceiling. Because of this the sound gets muddled up with the front L/R speakers.

Another factor that doesn't help probably is that my Surround speakers (to the side of our seating, is placed half way up the wall to the ceiling, although they are pointing diagonally down towards the seats.

My ceiling is flat, although with a large light in the centre, which is under almost a flat light case anyway. However, the ceiling is quite high up. It is about 13 Feet (4meters) high. This is what i thought the problem probably was, and is also the reason why i thought having 4 in ceiling speakers would help solve my problem?


----------



## leedesert

Killer_Nads said:


> Yep i have run Audessy, i also get the sound coming from the upfiring speakers during the test. However the sound doesn't seem to come from the ceiling firing down on me, instead it seems to just come from where the up firing speakers are placed ie. at the front on top of my floor standing B&W Speakers.
> 
> The Onkyo receiver, also has the same option as displaying on the LCD what the source and output is etc... It shows Dolby Atmos when the track is selected.
> 
> On playing the track, i can also go up to the speakers and place my ear near the up firing speakers and i do notice sound coming out of it. I just think that when I'm watching a film, i can hear the sound coming out from the front instead of bouncing down from the ceiling. Because of this the sound gets muddled up with the front L/R speakers.
> 
> Another factor that doesn't help probably is that my Surround speakers (to the side of our seating, is placed half way up the wall to the ceiling, although they are pointing diagonally down towards the seats.
> 
> My ceiling is flat, although with a large light in the centre, which is under almost a flat light case anyway. However, the ceiling is quite high up. It is about 13 Feet (4meters) high. This is what i thought the problem probably was, and is also the reason why i thought having 4 in ceiling speakers would help solve my problem?


That sounds like it the room acoustics. From what I've read 13' is on the high end of what they recommend for those speakers. I like the way Klipsch does their atmos front towers. They recess the atmos speaker into the tower so there is no line of site path to the listeners ear. It's going out the top to the ceiling at an angle.

I'm curious. When AccuEQ aligned the speakers how many feet did it think the atmos speakers were. If it's close to the same distance as the fronts it looks like it's hearing them directly to the mic rather than bouncing off the ceiling.
Also, at 13' the AVR probably had to turn them up more to compensate for the height of the ceiling. If they are louder it will increase your ability to hear them directly as opposed from the ceiling.

Just my speculation.


----------



## Tnedator

Killer_Nads said:


> Yep i have run Audessy, i also get the sound coming from the upfiring speakers during the test. However the sound doesn't seem to come from the ceiling firing down on me, instead it seems to just come from where the up firing speakers are placed ie. at the front on top of my floor standing B&W Speakers.
> 
> The Onkyo receiver, also has the same option as displaying on the LCD what the source and output is etc... It shows Dolby Atmos when the track is selected.
> 
> On playing the track, i can also go up to the speakers and place my ear near the up firing speakers and i do notice sound coming out of it. I just think that when I'm watching a film, i can hear the sound coming out from the front instead of bouncing down from the ceiling. Because of this the sound gets muddled up with the front L/R speakers.
> 
> Another factor that doesn't help probably is that my Surround speakers (to the side of our seating, is placed half way up the wall to the ceiling, although they are pointing diagonally down towards the seats.
> 
> My ceiling is flat, although with a large light in the centre, which is under almost a flat light case anyway. However, the ceiling is quite high up. It is about 13 Feet (4meters) high. This is what i thought the problem probably was, and is also the reason why i thought having 4 in ceiling speakers would help solve my problem?


I'm not sure if it varies per module (I doubt it), but the 13' puts you near the top of the range. I seem to recall 7-14' was the range given for the upfiring modules. It's possible the light messing up the sound. That said, having a 13' ceiling is great for ceiling mounted speakers if you are willing to go that route. Most people's ceilings are too low to be ideal for ceiling mounted speakers, but 13' is great, to make sure that they don't overpower the seating position by being to close and overly localized. 

Since I don't have modules, I can't be much help in troubleshooting with placement or the like. I wonder if aiming them more towards the sides of the ceiling, away from the light, would be worthful just for a test, to see if you then hear overhead sound when on the sides of the room. 

Another thing you can try, just for trouble shooting, is to disconnect the high mounted surrounds, just to make sure that they aren't drowning out the modules (and could in theory drown out/muddy in ceilings.


----------



## Killer_Nads

leedesert said:


> That sounds like it the room acoustics. From what I've read 13' is on the high end of what they recommend for those speakers. I like the way Klipsch does their atmos front towers. They recess the atmos speaker into the tower so there is no line of site path to the listeners ear. It's going out the top to the ceiling at an angle.
> 
> I'm curious. When AccuEQ aligned the speakers how many feet did it think the atmos speakers were. If it's close to the same distance as the fronts it looks like it's hearing them directly to the mic rather than bouncing off the ceiling.
> Also, at 13' the AVR probably had to turn them up more to compensate for the height of the ceiling. If they are louder it will increase your ability to hear them directly as opposed from the ceiling.
> 
> Just my speculation.


I can't remember what AccuEQ showed as the distance. I will see if i get a chance again and maybe measure it soon. But i think that it was roughly the same as the fronts.

Yes that was a mistake i made, as i couldn't hear them from the AccuEq setup, i manually turned them up quite a bit, however after this i could definitely not hear anything from the ceiling and instead from the front only where the speakers are placed.

I think the height is probably the reason as to the lack of hearing for atmos. Hopefully 4 in ceiling speakers would fix this!


----------



## Killer_Nads

Tnedator said:


> I'm not sure if it varies per module (I doubt it), but the 13' puts you near the top of the range. I seem to recall 7-14' was the range given for the upfiring modules. It's possible the light messing up the sound. That said, having a 13' ceiling is great for ceiling mounted speakers if you are willing to go that route. Most people's ceilings are too low to be ideal for ceiling mounted speakers, but 13' is great, to make sure that they don't overpower the seating position by being to close and overly localized.
> 
> Since I don't have modules, I can't be much help in troubleshooting with placement or the like. I wonder if aiming them more towards the sides of the ceiling, away from the light, would be worthful just for a test, to see if you then hear overhead sound when on the sides of the room.
> 
> Another thing you can try, just for trouble shooting, is to disconnect the high mounted surrounds, just to make sure that they aren't drowning out the modules (and could in theory drown out/muddy in ceilings.


One thing that i seemed to recall is that when i tested out the atmos demos clips, i remember i heard one much better when i stood up from my sofa, the sound was reaching me so much better, it was much clearer and i could hear the atmos. I think that was the case, but it was almost 7 months ago so hard to remember, i never really went further in experimenting with it after this time. I just put the level volume of the atmos speakers to higher instead, which i realised now resulted in the sound being heard straight from the speaker itself and not the rebounding sound.

I think having the 4 in ceiling speakers will probably work much better for me, thanks to the high ceiling, however, is 4 speakers overkill and i should stick to 2 or should definitely go for 4 atmos ones?

im also not currently sure where i would be placing these as my sofa is almost at the back wall, probably about 10inches away from the wall. I heard for the best position you should have 2 atmos speakers in front of the seating area and then 2 atmos speakers behind you.

But the problem is that i can do the 2 in front no problem, but for the back atmos ones it will be more like straight on top of my seats, maybe a little behind but then it will be almost touching the back wall and i guess the atmos sound coming from these will travel straight down the back wall instead of having a wider angle?! i wonder if that would work well or not!


----------



## maikeldepotter

maikeldepotter said:


> Ihave to wait till both wife and next door neighbors are out, so I can in all ease and tranquility do the final TRUE REFERENCE SPL checks....


And here are the results (highest SLP with digital Radioshack meter at dBC fast and MAX, all channels calibrated at 83-85 dBC, sub at 80 dBC, with pink noise from AIX test BR):

Amaze 106
Leaf 100
Horizon 106
Shattered 99
Audiosphere 100
Silent 102
Unfold 106
747 take off 107
Helicopter 92
Rainstorm 99
Santeria 91
The encounter 106


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> One thing that i seemed to recall is that when i tested out the atmos demos clips, i remember i heard one much better when i stood up from my sofa, the sound was reaching me so much better, it was much clearer and i could hear the atmos. I think that was the case, but it was almost 7 months ago so hard to remember, i never really went further in experimenting with it after this time. I just put the level volume of the atmos speakers to higher instead, which i realised now resulted in the sound being heard straight from the speaker itself and not the rebounding sound.
> 
> I think having the 4 in ceiling speakers will probably work much better for me, thanks to the high ceiling, however, is 4 speakers overkill and i should stick to 2 or should definitely go for 4 atmos ones?
> 
> im also not currently sure where i would be placing these as my sofa is almost at the back wall, probably about 10inches away from the wall. I heard for the best position you should have 2 atmos speakers in front of the seating area and then 2 atmos speakers behind you.
> 
> But the problem is that i can do the 2 in front no problem, but for the back atmos ones it will be more like straight on top of my seats, maybe a little behind but then it will be almost touching the back wall and i guess the atmos sound coming from these will travel straight down the back wall instead of having a wider angle?! i wonder if that would work well or not!


I think that room acoustics are definitely a problem for you. In that case ceiling vs upfiring will be an improvement. Remember that you can do on ciling as opposed to in ceiling if you can find appropriate speakers.

My top rear speakers are mounted at the top of my rear wall just under the ceiling. But, they are about 3' behind my sofa.

One thing that you really have to do if you want Atmos to work is to get those side surrounds down around ear level. With them as high as you have them there is very little separation from your heights and your ears will not perceive them as different so the sound gets all muddled together.

I started with 5.1.2 using Upfiring front & back. I went to 5.1.4 w/upfiring to 7.1.2 w/upfiring to 7.1.2 w/upfiring to 7.1.4 w/upfiring to 7.1.4 w/rear on wall near ceiling & front upfiring to 7.1.4 w/front on ceiling & rear on wall. 

Each of these was an incremental improvement in the sound. Any time that you are dealing with odd room acoustics, on or in ceiling is better than upfiring.

Can you pull that sofa out any?


----------



## Killer_Nads

dvdwilly3 said:


> I think that room acoustics are definitely a problem for you. In that case ceiling vs upfiring will be an improvement. Remember that you can do on ciling as opposed to in ceiling if you can find appropriate speakers.
> 
> My top rear speakers are mounted at the top of my rear wall just under the ceiling. But, they are about 3' behind my sofa.
> 
> One thing that you really have to do if you want Atmos to work is to get those side surrounds down around ear level. With them as high as you have them there is very little separation from your heights and your ears will not perceive them as different so the sound gets all muddled together.
> 
> I started with 5.1.2 using Upfiring front & back. I went to 5.1.4 w/upfiring to 7.1.2 w/upfiring to 7.1.2 w/upfiring to 7.1.4 w/upfiring to 7.1.4 w/rear on wall near ceiling & front upfiring to 7.1.4 w/front on ceiling & rear on wall.
> 
> Each of these was an incremental improvement in the sound. Any time that you are dealing with odd room acoustics, on or in ceiling is better than upfiring.
> 
> Can you pull that sofa out any?


Im probably going to go for in ceiling and just get it done properly. My only worry is that with my setup would it be worth getting 4 in ceiling or is that too excessive and i should get 2 only. Im a bit unsure, but maybe 4 is my best option for future proofing also, especially since if someone will be installing these for me it will only ever happen once and i won't get a chance to do it again.

I am also actually getting DBOX seats installed in the room, hence that is why i am moving the seats forward to allow for the dbox motion and recline of the seat. Ive been told that i need to move it about 10inches forward from the back wall. My room (apart from the ceiling) is not that big, which is why I'm restricted in moving the seats too forward.

My original plan was to install 7.1.4 but the cinema guy who's going to do the installation told me that for 7 channels surround, i need 2 speaks to either side of me and 2 speakers behind me, i can't have in front of me. He said it won't be worth it really and that i should stick with 5.1.4. I really really wish that i could bring the 2 back speakers down to ear level like my fronts but the problem is that they would be too close to my ears if i put them on the back wall, also if i try to put them on the side walls either side of the sofas, then its not possible either, as there is a door right there on the right side of the sofa, hence i don't know where i would put the speaker.

Unfortunately i don't really have the luxury for incremental improvements, i will have to get the best i can at the go (installations taking place in april) and keep it like that for a long long time. So fingers crossed that we can get it right first time!


----------



## Utopianemo

Hey guys,
I posted a separate post but I guess this is probably the best place for it:

So I have the day off and I'm pulling cable for my in-wall and in-ceiling speakers to finally get my Atmos setup up and running. Fine time to realize I hadn't settled on surround speaker height. 

The Atmos guidlines I've read suggest that your rear surrounds should be at ear level/the same level as your mains. However, I've recently read that THX did Atmos testing and said the best elevation for the surrounds should be something like 24" above ear level. I believe this does a better job of creating that "hemisphere of sound".

So what elevation is optimal? I'd like to get those in-walls cut in before the wife browbeats me into submission!


----------



## batpig

Killer_Nads said:


> One thing that i seemed to recall is that when i tested out the atmos demos clips, i remember i heard one much better when i stood up from my sofa, the sound was reaching me so much better, it was much clearer and i could hear the atmos. I think that was the case, but it was almost 7 months ago so hard to remember, i never really went further in experimenting with it after this time. I just put the level volume of the atmos speakers to higher instead, which i realised now resulted in the sound being heard straight from the speaker itself and not the rebounding sound.
> 
> I think having the 4 in ceiling speakers will probably work much better for me, thanks to the high ceiling, however, is 4 speakers overkill and i should stick to 2 or should definitely go for 4 atmos ones?
> 
> im also not currently sure where i would be placing these as my sofa is almost at the back wall, probably about 10inches away from the wall. I heard for the best position you should have 2 atmos speakers in front of the seating area and then 2 atmos speakers behind you.
> 
> But the problem is that i can do the 2 in front no problem, but for the back atmos ones it will be more like straight on top of my seats, maybe a little behind but then it will be almost touching the back wall and i guess the atmos sound coming from these will travel straight down the back wall instead of having a wider angle?! i wonder if that would work well or not!


Unfortunately, as you've found, you've got a bad situation for Atmos up-firing modules. Not only is your ceiling really high, lessening the SPL and diffusing the sound of of the bounce with the extra distance it has to travel, but your seating is all the way against the opposite wall so you are probably far from the direct bounce reflection. I'm willing to bet if you stood a few feet forward of the couch you'd hear a bit more overhead effect, but the bottom line is you have the luxury of high ceilings so getting physical speakers up there is clearly the best option. 

Can you describe the room dimensions and speaker layout a bit more clearly (maybe even provide a rough diagram)? We know you are 10 inches from the back wall but how deep is the room?

As to your question, 4 ceiling speakers is definitely NOT overkill at all. The good news is, although you can't get the rear overheads far behind you, that 13ft ceiling afford you some distance that will prevent the speaker from "hot spotting" too much. I would mount a pair of rear overheads high up on the rear wall, close to the ceiling, firing down and across the couch. They'll only be about 10 degrees behind you but that will still effectively provide the sense of "stuff up there" behind you. Then the forward overheads go about 45 degrees in front of you.


----------



## Tnedator

Killer_Nads said:


> I can't remember what AccuEQ showed as the distance. I will see if i get a chance again and maybe measure it soon. But i think that it was roughly the same as the fronts.
> 
> Yes that was a mistake i made, as i couldn't hear them from the AccuEq setup, i manually turned them up quite a bit, however after this i could definitely not hear anything from the ceiling and instead from the front only where the speakers are placed.
> 
> I think the height is probably the reason as to the lack of hearing for atmos. Hopefully 4 in ceiling speakers would fix this!


Any chance you can raise them up, rather than sitting directly on your mains. Obviously you would want to test before mounting a shelf or something.


----------



## makrelov

Nightlord said:


> Hmmm.... One of the World's best DJs vs a pretty average pseudo-scifi movie?





Killer_Nads said:


> Im probably going to go for in ceiling and just get it done properly. My only worry is that with my setup would it be worth getting 4 in ceiling or is that too excessive and i should get 2 only. Im a bit unsure, but maybe 4 is my best option for future proofing also, especially since if someone will be installing these for me it will only ever happen once and i won't get a chance to do it again.
> 
> I am also actually getting DBOX seats installed in the room, hence that is why i am moving the seats forward to allow for the dbox motion and recline of the seat. Ive been told that i need to move it about 10inches forward from the back wall. My room (apart from the ceiling) is not that big, which is why I'm restricted in moving the seats too forward.
> 
> My original plan was to install 7.1.4 but the cinema guy who's going to do the installation told me that for 7 channels surround, i need 2 speaks to either side of me and 2 speakers behind me, i can't have in front of me. He said it won't be worth it really and that i should stick with 5.1.4. I really really wish that i could bring the 2 back speakers down to ear level like my fronts but the problem is that they would be too close to my ears if i put them on the back wall, also if i try to put them on the side walls either side of the sofas, then its not possible either, as there is a door right there on the right side of the sofa, hence i don't know where i would put the speaker.
> 
> Unfortunately i don't really have the luxury for incremental improvements, i will have to get the best i can at the go (installations taking place in april) and keep it like that for a long long time. So fingers crossed that we can get it right first time!


Hi there,

I would like to ask you - have you connected the 2 upfiring modules to the correct AVR Speaker terminals? When there are only two Atmos speakers in use most AVRs' manuals recommend connecting to Rear Presence Speaker terminals - that is for sure the case with Yamaha Aventage xx40. Also how are these modules placed? If you post some pics of your room and speaker placement+connection maybe we will be of greater help and save you some trouble and money.


----------



## batpig

Utopianemo said:


> Hey guys,
> I posted a separate post but I guess this is probably the best place for it:
> 
> So I have the day off and I'm pulling cable for my in-wall and in-ceiling speakers to finally get my Atmos setup up and running. Fine time to realize I hadn't settled on surround speaker height.
> 
> The Atmos guidlines I've read suggest that your rear surrounds should be at ear level/the same level as your mains. However, I've recently read that THX did Atmos testing and said the best elevation for the surrounds should be something like 24" above ear level. I believe this does a better job of creating that "hemisphere of sound".
> 
> So what elevation is optimal? I'd like to get those in-walls cut in before the wife browbeats me into submission!


This article may be useful: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/

Personally, I would NOT follow blindly the "ear level" recommendation. You really want to consider your room needs -- how many seats are you trying to cover? multiple rows? how wide is the room?

The basic rule of thumb IMO is NOT ear level, but rather "as low as they can go without introducing other issues" as discussed in the link above. 

One issue for example is the speaker being blocked from "line of sight" to all seats. If you've get a second row on a riser than the back surrounds need to be high enough to clear their heads so the front row can hear them clearly. If your room is narrow and the speakers are going to be directly to the sides then you also have to consider "hot spotting" for the outer seats where the surround is firing right into the end listener's ear. 

Some folks disagree vehemently and say "ear level is ideal and anything else is a compromise". Personally, I feel like that compromise can be worth it if it mitigates other issues.

Note that the reference is the screen channel speakers (LCR) not ear level per se -- so if you looked at a side view of the room and drew a line from the back surrounds to the front speakers, the side surrounds should basically be on that line (e.g. this commercial theater image below). What you want in terms of the entire "ear level" bed of 7 speakers is a contiguous "ring" of speakers so that things panning around you do not noticeably jump up and down in height. That "ring" can be tilted upwards in the rear to accommodate some of the issues noted above. You can see in the image below that the "ring" of surrounds rises as it goes further back, obviously to accommodate the rise in height of the stadium seating. And in a commercial theater they are higher than ideal at home due to other considerations (the screen channels already are high up, plus you need even coverage across a huge seating area, etc) but it gives you a sense of what to shoot for.


----------



## gammanuc

Utopianemo said:


> Hey guys,
> I posted a separate post but I guess this is probably the best place for it:
> 
> So I have the day off and I'm pulling cable for my in-wall and in-ceiling speakers to finally get my Atmos setup up and running. Fine time to realize I hadn't settled on surround speaker height.
> 
> The Atmos guidlines I've read suggest that your rear surrounds should be at ear level/the same level as your mains. However, I've recently read that THX did Atmos testing and said the best elevation for the surrounds should be something like 24" above ear level. I believe this does a better job of creating that "hemisphere of sound".
> 
> So what elevation is optimal? I'd like to get those in-walls cut in before the wife browbeats me into submission!


Surrounds as close to ear level as possible without blocking them seems to be what the majority of people have done. It will provide the best immersion.


----------



## Tnedator

Killer_Nads said:


> Im probably going to go for in ceiling and just get it done properly. My only worry is that with my setup would it be worth getting 4 in ceiling or is that too excessive and i should get 2 only. Im a bit unsure, but maybe 4 is my best option for future proofing also, especially since if someone will be installing these for me it will only ever happen once and i won't get a chance to do it again.
> 
> I am also actually getting DBOX seats installed in the room, hence that is why i am moving the seats forward to allow for the dbox motion and recline of the seat. Ive been told that i need to move it about 10inches forward from the back wall. My room (apart from the ceiling) is not that big, which is why I'm restricted in moving the seats too forward.
> 
> My original plan was to install 7.1.4 but the cinema guy who's going to do the installation told me that for 7 channels surround, i need 2 speaks to either side of me and 2 speakers behind me, i can't have in front of me. He said it won't be worth it really and that i should stick with 5.1.4. I really really wish that i could bring the 2 back speakers down to ear level like my fronts but the problem is that they would be too close to my ears if i put them on the back wall, also if i try to put them on the side walls either side of the sofas, then its not possible either, as there is a door right there on the right side of the sofa, hence i don't know where i would put the speaker.
> 
> Unfortunately i don't really have the luxury for incremental improvements, i will have to get the best i can at the go (installations taking place in april) and keep it like that for a long long time. So fingers crossed that we can get it right first time!



Go with four. If you can do it, no question. You want those overheads in front and behind MLP to properly hear the audio object placement - to hear a hovercraft flying overhead from back to front, to hear you all around. If you aren't going to upgrade again for a while, do four.


----------



## batpig

cxr369 said:


> I'm finally ready to start building my theater after two years of being in my house. Would rather it be a man cave / movie theatre. The question I have is other than the RC-6C/8Cs, which ceiling speakers are the best match for the Energy RC line. I have all NIB 4 RC 70s, a pair of RC10s, two pairs of RC-Rs, and an RC-LCR. I placed a speaker in the middle of the room and blasted it, the music could be heard throught all 3,000 sqft of the house. An even bigger issue is that the baby's room is located above the room. I need to soundproof the room. Just don't know the average cost of doing so. I have a friend who can do the work to help cut down on labor cost. The room is 25x16x9, I would like to fit a bar and possibly a pool table in the room too, but definitely a bar in the back, the three car garage is next to the wall. I would like to set it up for 13.1.4 to future poof it for next gen avr.


OK, before you worry about Atmos you have to consider soundproofing -- I hate to break it to you but that is NOT a cheap or easy proposition. I also have small kids (and a wife!) and it can be a major impediment to happy HT enjoyment.

Soundproofing isn't really within the scope of this thread, but just to let you know if you REALLY want to make a significant enough impact to allow you to play it loud while the baby is sleeping right above you, it's going to take some major work. The "correct" way to do it unfortunately is to tear the room down to the studs and then re-build it with a contractor who knows how to do it right. You are probably going to want to install resilient channels on the current studs and then mount a double layer of drywall, with Green Glue sandwiched in between the layers, to basically create a new internal "shell" that is damped and isolated from the studs/joists around the room. You'll probably also want to upgrade the doors and do some sealing around the edges to prevent leakage through the openings. The biggest enemy is the low freq bass -- those frequencies will couple to the structure of the house and conduct along the joists/studs and will be felt elsewhere in the house. Attacking that problem requires serious construction efforts. You may also if possible want to beef up the baby room, e.g. adding a heavy pad under the carpet and adding a second layer of drywall with Green Glue.

With respect to speakers, if you then cut holes in the ceiling for in-ceiling speakers you are going to work against the soundproofing. I would consider using your RC-R's as ON ceiling speakers instead, they have wide dispersion so they can work well especially if you can engineer a mount that angles them a bit so they aim more at the listening zone.


----------



## Jive Turkey

shyyour said:


> Just to clarify do you mean you plugged a hdmi cable from the samsung player (Main out) into an input on a non hdcp 2.2 avr/pre-pro and you were able to get both video and sound ?


That is correct. With these two titles it works fine. I don't know if they all will.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> Im probably going to go for in ceiling and just get it done properly. My only worry is that with my setup would it be worth getting 4 in ceiling or is that too excessive and i should get 2 only. Im a bit unsure, but maybe 4 is my best option for future proofing also, especially since if someone will be installing these for me it will only ever happen once and i won't get a chance to do it again.
> 
> I am also actually getting DBOX seats installed in the room, hence that is why i am moving the seats forward to allow for the dbox motion and recline of the seat. Ive been told that i need to move it about 10inches forward from the back wall. My room (apart from the ceiling) is not that big, which is why I'm restricted in moving the seats too forward.
> 
> My original plan was to install 7.1.4 but the cinema guy who's going to do the installation told me that for 7 channels surround, i need 2 speaks to either side of me and 2 speakers behind me, i can't have in front of me. He said it won't be worth it really and that i should stick with 5.1.4. I really really wish that i could bring the 2 back speakers down to ear level like my fronts but the problem is that they would be too close to my ears if i put them on the back wall, also if i try to put them on the side walls either side of the sofas, then its not possible either, as there is a door right there on the right side of the sofa, hence i don't know where i would put the speaker.
> 
> Unfortunately i don't really have the luxury for incremental improvements, i will have to get the best i can at the go (installations taking place in april) and keep it like that for a long long time. So fingers crossed that we can get it right first time!


Did you post pix of your space?


----------



## Tnedator

cxr369 said:


> I'm finally ready to start building my theater after two years of being in my house. Would rather it be a man cave / movie theatre. The question I have is other than the RC-6C/8Cs, which ceiling speakers are the best match for the Energy RC line. I have all NIB 4 RC 70s, a pair of RC10s, two pairs of RC-Rs, and an RC-LCR. I placed a speaker in the middle of the room and blasted it, the music could be heard throught all 3,000 sqft of the house. An even bigger issue is that the baby's room is located above the room. I need to soundproof the room. Just don't know the average cost of doing so. I have a friend who can do the work to help cut down on labor cost. The room is 25x16x9, I would like to fit a bar and possibly a pool table in the room too, but definitely a bar in the back, the three car garage is next to the wall. I would like to set it up for 13.1.4 to future poof it for next gen avr.


That may seem like a big space, but after you peel off 14' x 17' needed for an 8' pool table (1' less if you are willing to use short sticks) that's leaving you 11' x 16' for your bar and home theater, which can be done if you aren't worried about the sound by having one side of your "theater area" open to the pool table area, and have that theater area in the 11' wide by 16' deep section. 

If you lose the pool table, then you are good shape size wise for the speaker config you want, but as batpig mentioned, sound proofing, especially with the baby room above, is not going to be a simple task. Even going the double drywall, whisper clip approach that Bat mentions you are going to struggle to keep bass out of the rest of the house, and especially the baby room. It's not undoable, but it is a serious undertaking. There are a lot of threads on here where people have built the rooms that you can use as a guide.


----------



## kokishin

Killer_Nads said:


> One thing that i seemed to recall is that when i tested out the atmos demos clips, i remember i heard one much better when i stood up from my sofa, the sound was reaching me so much better, it was much clearer and i could hear the atmos. I think that was the case, but it was almost 7 months ago so hard to remember, i never really went further in experimenting with it after this time. I just put the level volume of the atmos speakers to higher instead, which i realised now resulted in the sound being heard straight from the speaker itself and not the rebounding sound.
> 
> *I think having the 4 in ceiling speakers will probably work much better for me, thanks to the high ceiling, however, is 4 speakers overkill and i should stick to 2 or should definitely go for 4 atmos ones?
> *
> im also not currently sure where i would be placing these as my sofa is almost at the back wall, probably about 10inches away from the wall. I heard for the best position you should have 2 atmos speakers in front of the seating area and then 2 atmos speakers behind you.
> 
> But the problem is that i can do the 2 in front no problem, but for the back atmos ones it will be more like straight on top of my seats, maybe a little behind but then it will be almost touching the back wall and i guess the atmos sound coming from these will travel straight down the back wall instead of having a wider angle?! i wonder if that would work well or not!


Onkyo 646 only supports two height speakers.

Marantz SR6010 is their lowest cost offering which will support four height speakers if you add a two channel amp for the rear heights.


----------



## shyyour

Jive Turkey said:


> That is correct. With these two titles it works fine. I don't know if they all will.


Thanks a lot. It really clears things up


----------



## GXMnow

With the 14 foot high ceiling, I would certainly look at top speakers as you seem to have decided on, but you could do a few experiments first.

Just take your up firing units, raise them up to 8 feet off the floor, aimed at the ceiling so the bounce will hit your listening spot, and re-run the room correction, see how that sounds.

Raise them up even more, but then turn them to aim right at the listening area, change their designation to Front Height, and then re-run the room correction. The speakers should have the HRTF filter in them, and when used as up-firing, the room correction, will dial that curve in. When you name them height or top, the room correction should then target flat response, and it will eq out the HRTF filter. Try that for a movie.

You could also try using them as rear height high on the back wall. This could work well with your seat near the back wall. These are all valid setups for Atmos. It is very flexible.

These experiments just cost a little time and running temporary speaker wires around the room. Find what you like the sound of and then make it look nice or use better speakers for the position you like. You don't have to spend a fortune to see what you like best. I built a pair of boxes for some car speakers that I have been trying all around my room. They are very low profile and sound very good. Right now, I think I am going to go with Top Front and Rear Height for my upper speakers. But I still want to keep my ring of 9. Still not reasonably priced 13 channel AVR's on the horizon though. My side speakers are probably going to stay 2 in parallel on each side.


----------



## leedesert

Killer_Nads said:


> Im probably going to go for in ceiling and just get it done properly. My only worry is that with my setup would it be worth getting 4 in ceiling or is that too excessive and i should get 2 only. Im a bit unsure, but maybe 4 is my best option for future proofing also, especially since if someone will be installing these for me it will only ever happen once and i won't get a chance to do it again.
> 
> I am also actually getting DBOX seats installed in the room, hence that is why i am moving the seats forward to allow for the dbox motion and recline of the seat. Ive been told that i need to move it about 10inches forward from the back wall. My room (apart from the ceiling) is not that big, which is why I'm restricted in moving the seats too forward.
> 
> My original plan was to install 7.1.4 but the cinema guy who's going to do the installation told me that for 7 channels surround, i need 2 speaks to either side of me and 2 speakers behind me, i can't have in front of me. He said it won't be worth it really and that i should stick with 5.1.4. I really really wish that i could bring the 2 back speakers down to ear level like my fronts but the problem is that they would be too close to my ears if i put them on the back wall, also if i try to put them on the side walls either side of the sofas, then its not possible either, as there is a door right there on the right side of the sofa, hence i don't know where i would put the speaker.
> 
> Unfortunately i don't really have the luxury for incremental improvements, i will have to get the best i can at the go (installations taking place in april) and keep it like that for a long long time. So fingers crossed that we can get it right first time!


It sounds like your better off with a set up like mine. I have two ceiling speakers for my atmos heights between the front and listening position and a rear set of matching ceiling mounts for my surrounds. I have those about 6' behind the listening position. 

Is this ideal on paper, no. Does it still sound good, yes.

It's a 5.1.2 setup and if something changes in the future and you add ear level surrounds you can re-assign the rear ceilings as back height speakers. The only drawback is having to pull cable through the attic but if you have a second floor that can been even more difficult. If your doing this during the home build run the cables anyway, even if you don't plan on using them now. Have speaker cable in two ceiling locations and run two more in the place you think a surround might work. Leave extra length coiled up and tack it to the stud. Measure the location of the cable so once it's sheet rocked you can always use the measurement to locate. The extra length coiled up will give you room to move it if you change your mind. A cheap toner kit will help you locate the cables behind the sheet rock if you don't measure.

One thing to consider is I know with the Onkyo's you can tell it if your seating is in the back of the room. It takes that under consideration when it starts the AccuEQ alignment.

The bottom line is wire for each likely scenario now because its a pain in the ass to do it later. Better to have and never need then to need and not have.


----------



## Killer_Nads

kokishin said:


> Onkyo 646 only supports two height speakers.
> 
> Marantz SR6010 is their lowest cost offering which will support four height speakers if you add a two channel amp for the rear heights.


Yep i am know about the 646, I'm actually looking at getting something with more power anyway for improvement in sound. 

Marantz was my choice although i have not decided which one to go for, ideally i would want one that can do 7.1.4 without having to add any extra amps etc...



Also i think i will get together some pics diagrams of the room over the next few days to make it easier for everyone to visualise my room and then decide what to go for. Ideally, id like to go for 7.1.4, but lets see if that will be possible or not cause of the space.

One question, if i install 4 speakers in the ceiling that is on ground floor, will the noise from here speakers be heard in the bedroom above the ceiling? Im not sure, as i know they are pointing downwards and that not much sound comes out of the atmos speakers anyway, but this could be a potential problem when someone is asleep at night upstairs?


----------



## Selden Ball

Killer_Nads said:


> Yep i am know about the 646, I'm actually looking at getting something with more power anyway for improvement in sound.
> 
> Marantz was my choice although i have not decided which one to go for, ideally i would want one that can do 7.1.4 without having to add any extra amps etc...


 Unfortunately, no D+M receivers have more than 9 internal amps. You'll have to get at least an external stereo amp (or repurpose an existing receiver).


> Also i think i will get together some pics diagrams of the room over the next few days to make it easier for everyone to visualise my room and then decide what to go for. Ideally, id like to go for 7.1.4, but lets see if that will be possible or not cause of the space.
> 
> One question, if i install 4 speakers in the ceiling that is on ground floor, will the noise from here speakers be heard in the bedroom above the ceiling? Im not sure, as i know they are pointing downwards and that not much sound comes out of the atmos speakers anyway, but this could be a potential problem when someone is asleep at night upstairs?


 Yes, unless you do a lot of extra work to add soundproofing, they'll leak up into the room overhead. Low bass frequencies from the subwoofer will be heard throughout the house, too. Unfortunately, I'll have to redirect you to the home theater construction forum for details in how best to add soundproofing for both. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/

(Batpig posted a summary of the necessary work not too long ago, but I can't easily find it.  )


----------



## leedesert

I'll be honest, while I'm no expert in sound distribution in a home, there is no level of sound proofing that will prevent bass from getting into the above room if the home is built like a traditional home. You may reduce it but it will still be quite noticeable in the above room, no way to avoid that at a price that would be reasonable.


----------



## sprins

leedesert said:


> I'll be honest, while I'm no expert in sound distribution in a home, there is no level of sound proofing that will prevent bass from getting into the above room if the home is built like a traditional home. You may reduce it but it will still be quite noticeable in the above room, no way to avoid that at a price that would be reasonable.


Box in box built wouldn't cut it? Inner box completely (acoustically) detached from the rest of the house?


----------



## leedesert

sprins said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be honest, while I'm no expert in sound distribution in a home, there is no level of sound proofing that will prevent bass from getting into the above room if the home is built like a traditional home. You may reduce it but it will still be quite noticeable in the above room, no way to avoid that at a price that would be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Box in box built wouldn't cut it? Inner box completely (acoustically) detached from the rest of the house?
Click to expand...

That's why I included " at a price that would be reasonable".


----------



## zimmo

Onkyo tx-nr3030 have 11 discret truly channels.


----------



## ALtlOff

"Only to be used in a *cool* dry place"... 

(Sorry, couldn't help it.)


----------



## Killer_Nads

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, no D+M receivers have more than 9 internal amps. You'll have to get at least an external stereo amp (or repurpose an existing receiver).
> Yes, unless you do a lot of extra work to add soundproofing, they'll leak up into the room overhead. Low bass frequencies from the subwoofer will be heard throughout the house, too. Unfortunately, I'll have to redirect you to the home theater construction forum for details in how best to add soundproofing for both. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/
> 
> (Batpig posted a summary of the necessary work not too long ago, but I can't easily find it.  )


Do you mean the base leak will happen to room above because of the in ceiling speakers? or do you mean that the base will leak as it normally does through the walls and ceiling?


----------



## batpig

Just in general -- ultra low bass frequencies will physically couple with and resonate through the structure of the home. It's very difficult to contain. I'm sure you've heard how when a big truck rumbles by you can hear the deep rumble inside the house. Or in a big multiplex when you can hear the thuds and rumbles from the next theater over. 

The holes for in ceiling speakers are more of an issue for higher frequency leakage. This can be mitigated if you use ICs with an integral sealed rigid enclosure like Triad.


----------



## zapper

pmeintel said:


> Why hello all. I'm new to the Atmos thread and I'm looking to upgrade my current 5.2 set up to a 5.2.4 configuration utilizing in ceiling speakers. My question is has anyone utilized or does anyone have any opinion on using 4 Polk Audio - RC60i 6-1/2" In-Ceiling Speakers for the TF and TR sound? I've recently spent a large chunk of change on a new Pioneer Elite SC-95 and my better half is lets just say scowling at the thought of spending more on "My Hobby" (I tell you; some people ) I currently can pick up 4 of the RC60's for around $260. Any help is greatly appreciated.


Have the Polk RC80I as my ceiling speakers and no problem they sound great, just remember that if you have a drop ceiling tiles that you have to reinforce them with plywood, I just used 1/2 of the plywood for each speakers.


----------



## nickbuol

Agreed, low frequency bass is REALLY hard to fully contain. Someone once measured what it would take and it basically was something crazy like a 4 foot thick concrete bunker that was over 10 feet underground. The test was done back in the late 90's in a "Mythbusters" style experiment before Mythbusters even existed. 

In the home, the best you can realistically do is reduce the LFE and bass as much as possible within your budget.

For me, our theater is directly below the master bedroom, so I really wanted to hold in as much sound as possible (and keep sounds outside of the room out).

We have found what works best for us at our price point, and it really is amazingly good and for just a couple hundred bucks more than not doing it. Does it block all sound? Nope. Does it allow you to watch an action movie at a reasonable level and allows someone to still sleep upstairs easily? Yes.

Basically, and just talking about the ceiling since that is a key part but also really requires attention to all surfaces and structures that make up the room to prevent flanking sound moving from say a wall to the ceiling where they touch, we did this... We added Whisper clips and hat channel to the ceiling joists. Put nice thick batts of insulation up there (still leaving an air gap which is important too), and then attached two layers of 5/8" drywall with the max load of GreenGlue between the two layers. The mass of the drywall with the effectiveness of the GreenGlue coupled with (pun intended) the decoupling as best as possible with the hat channel and Whisper Clips really does hold a lot of the energy in the room.

Again, you still have to do something to keep sound in and out from your walls and if possible "decouple" the walls from the ceiling to greatly reduce the sound traveling up the wall and into the ceiling joists.

As for ceiling speakers, I just went through the debate of in-ceiling or "on-ceiling" speakers myself. I couldn't bring myself to cut 4 good sized holes into my "soundproofed" ceiling, and making large enough backer boxes for my round speaker holes would be quite the challenge, so I went with "on-ceiling" speakers (actually on-wall speakers that I am making my own mount to put them at the angle I want and to secure them to the ceiling). There is enough sound energy coming out of them for Atmos or DTS:X that I wouldn't want the sound unobstructed from upstairs. Now if you have just a plain drywall ceiling, it may not make much difference since the on-ceiling speakers will resonate through the drywall and up through the ceiling joists into the bedroom upstairs.


----------



## Kazz063

Daniel Chaves said:


> Look what arrived today... AWESOME!!!! Finally have a legit ATMOS demo disc... instead of my downloaded ISO lol.


Hi Daniel, how did you pay for yours?
Mine arrived today but I can't quite work out how to pay it.


----------



## pmeintel

zapper said:


> Have the Polk RC80I as my ceiling speakers and no problem they sound great, just remember that if you have a drop ceiling tiles that you have to reinforce them with plywood, I just used 1/2 of the plywood for each speakers.


Thanks for the advice. After looking at it a little further I think I might step down a little to the RC60I due to size of the listening area. I've also been looking at the Yamaha NS-IC600. Do you have any opinions on these? (Isn't our hobby great


----------



## Daniel Chaves

Kazz063 said:


> Hi Daniel, how did you pay for yours?
> Mine arrived today but I can't quite work out how to pay it.


When you figure that out let me know because I have no idea lol.... Im probably going to have to google translate the entire bill lol...


----------



## zimmo

PMEINTEL


This speaker is very good (Yamaha ns-ic 600)I keep one year ,but I change for more strong because my ceilling have just 6feet-9inch,that why I change for earthquake ss82 but it very expensif .you need more strong they Yamaha is-ic800 is good to.


----------



## Killer_Nads

OK thanks everyone for input about the LFE leak. I understand, its probably going to be the same amount of leak that i am currently getting, i was a bit worried that the in ceiling speakers was going to leak a lot more sound to the bedroom upstairs but if its roughly going to be the same then its not too much to worry about, however ofcourse i do want to try to reduce the total volume and bass going upstairs anyway but that is a different story. At the moment i am having to have my finder on the volume button constantly.

Anyway going back to getting the 7.1.4 installed in my room. Yesterday i took some picture of my room and also created a rough diagram sketch (nothing has actual correct measurement), to give you guys an idea of how my room is setup. The Sketch i have done includes the new DBOX seats that i will be installing next month and that there placement is going to be a bit forward from where my current sofa sits (as in the photos).

Please let me know if you need any further info, or if i need to post pictures of anything else?

Thanks.


----------



## leedesert

I would aim the two surrounds you currently have downward toward the couch. If you can't I would lower them by about a foot and turn them in, facing each other. They are close to the listening position but your AVR auto tuning feature will dial them back a bit and adjust there timing.

I would put two ceiling mounts between the front speakers and the couch to forma triangle with the front speakers, ceiling speakers, and couch being the apexes. 

That will give you a 5.1.2.

Going to a 7.1.4 is a bit much in that room. The sound fields will be overlapping each other to much.


----------



## pmeintel

zimmo said:


> PMEINTEL
> 
> 
> This speaker is very good (Yamaha ns-ic 600)I keep one year ,but I change for more strong because my ceilling have just 6feet-9inch,that why I change for earthquake ss82 but it very expensif .you need more strong they Yamaha is-ic800 is good to.


Thanks for the advice. Now I just need to talk the wife into letting me cut holes in the ceiling.


----------



## Rich Davis

*So just how do I know if I have an Atmos signal proper?*

I have my computer hooked up to my Marantz sr6010. I went to my vudu account and found the Atmos demo. When running it, I saw this as an option- "multi-channel + Dolby Digital" When looking at the info screen the input didn't show the atmos front speakers on, but it did in my output.

What does this mean? Am I getting Atmos or not? Nothing labeled "atmos" appeared.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> OK thanks everyone for input about the LFE leak. I understand, its probably going to be the same amount of leak that i am currently getting, i was a bit worried that the in ceiling speakers was going to leak a lot more sound to the bedroom upstairs but if its roughly going to be the same then its not too much to worry about, however ofcourse i do want to try to reduce the total volume and bass going upstairs anyway but that is a different story. At the moment i am having to have my finder on the volume button constantly.
> 
> Anyway going back to getting the 7.1.4 installed in my room. Yesterday i took some picture of my room and also created a rough diagram sketch (nothing has actual correct measurement), to give you guys an idea of how my room is setup. The Sketch i have done includes the new DBOX seats that i will be installing next month and that there placement is going to be a bit forward from where my current sofa sits (as in the photos).
> 
> Please let me know if you need any further info, or if i need to post pictures of anything else?
> 
> Thanks.


If you really want to do 7.x.x, I think that you could put a side surround on that narrow wall by the fireplace where the thermostat? is. On the wall opposit, forward of that door in a mirror image position, you could put the other side surround.

You could go with them on stands or on wall. I oersonally would not do in-wall for those...unless you need to. I don't know all of your parameters, such as WAF or other...small children?


----------



## Killer_Nads

dvdwilly3 said:


> Killer_Nads said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK thanks everyone for input about the LFE leak. I understand, its probably going to be the same amount of leak that i am currently getting, i was a bit worried that the in ceiling speakers was going to leak a lot more sound to the bedroom upstairs but if its roughly going to be the same then its not too much to worry about, however ofcourse i do want to try to reduce the total volume and bass going upstairs anyway but that is a different story. At the moment i am having to have my finder on the volume button constantly.
> 
> Anyway going back to getting the 7.1.4 installed in my room. Yesterday i took some picture of my room and also created a rough diagram sketch (nothing has actual correct measurement), to give you guys an idea of how my room is setup. The Sketch i have done includes the new DBOX seats that i will be installing next month and that there placement is going to be a bit forward from where my current sofa sits (as in the photos).
> 
> Please let me know if you need any further info, or if i need to post pictures of anything else?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to do 7.x.x, I think that you could put a side surround on that narrow wall by the fireplace where the thermostat? is. On the wall opposit, forward of that door in a mirror image position, you could put the other side surround.
> 
> You could go with them on stands or on wall. I oersonally would not do in-wall for those...unless you need to. I don't know all of your parameters, such as WAF or other...small children?
Click to expand...

Hi,

I am more so inclined to go all out for 7.1.4!

But i understand that maybe 7 channels will not be worth it in the size room i have. If that is the case then i would be happy to still go with 5.1.4. But i do want the best which is why im inclined for 7 channels.

Im thinking for atmos to just have two in ceiling speakers in front of my couch around the light area and then have two atmos speakers in the ceiling just behind the couch, slightly away from touching the back wall.

What i am not sure about is the side surrounds and back surrounds. Youve seen where my current two back surrounds are placed. Should i leave these two there? My only issue is that they are not ear level. Which might not be as good as if they were down to ear level.

For the side sureounds, yes the place you mentioned next to fireplace is good, however to do a direct mirror on opposite side would mean on the door! Maybe if i move them more towards the front, ie make it sit on the fireplace shelf and wall mount the other on the wall opposite, however even with this i would be afraid of the door openeing and banging straight into this causeing potential damage!

The back surrounds im currently using are quite big. I wont have the same sort of space for the side surrounds, would it be okay to use something much smaller in size for the sides?

Yes i do have kids (5 & 3) but they wouldnt really mess with my stuff if i tell them to not touch anything they wont :blush:


----------



## JaremyP

Hello all.

I've been considering building a separate media room in my newer home (2.5 yo new construction), but it's likely not in the cards right now. So I want to improve my existing living room setup. See the attached pic.

I currently have the following 7.2 setup:

LCR: Triad Silver 6 LCR in-wall
SR/SL/SBR/SBL: Triad Silver 4 Surround
Subs: 2 x Triad Bronze 6 with rack amps
Preamp: Denon X4000
Amps: Emotiva Gen 1 XPA 3 and 5

You can see the room has some challenges. My LCRs are angled down and it works well. It doesn't sound like audio is coming from up above. The surround backs though are already very close to and above the listening position.

I'm thinking I could drop in another pair of Silver 4 speakers in front of the couch in the ceiling. Then swap to a 5.2.4 configuration. 

I suspect that putting another pair of Silver 4 speakers between the light cans above the couch and the surround back speakers is a waste. They will be very close together and coming from the ceiling together. There's no real separation there.

I pretty much only have the ceiling to work with in this room. I'd welcome any feedback folks experienced with immersive audio might offer.

Thanks!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am more so inclined to go all out for 7.1.4!
> 
> But i understand that maybe 7 channels will not be worth it in the size room i have. If that is the case then i would be happy to still go with 5.1.4. But i do want the best which is why im inclined for 7 channels.
> 
> Im thinking for atmos to just have two in ceiling speakers in front of my couch around the light area and then have two atmos speakers in the ceiling just behind the couch, slightly away from touching the back wall.
> 
> What i am not sure about is the side surrounds and back surrounds. Youve seen where my current two back surrounds are placed. Should i leave these two there? My only issue is that they are not ear level. Which might not be as good as if they were down to ear level.
> 
> For the side sureounds, yes the place you mentioned next to fireplace is good, however to do a direct mirror on opposite side would mean on the door! Maybe if i move them more towards the front, ie make it sit on the fireplace shelf and wall mount the other on the wall opposite, however even with this i would be afraid of the door openeing and banging straight into this causeing potential damage!
> 
> The back surrounds im currently using are quite big. I wont have the same sort of space for the side surrounds, would it be okay to use something much smaller in size for the sides?
> 
> Yes i do have kids (5 & 3) but they wouldnt really mess with my stuff if i tell them to not touch anything they wont :blush:


Hey! Good on the kids...

You could move your surrounds slight forward and aim them back to the MLP. Dolby shows side surrounds at 90 degrees...directly to the side to 110 degrees...slightly behind your MLP.

THX or somebody specifies something like 80 degrees for side surrounds, which would be slightly forward of MLP, to 110 degrees. If you think about it carefully, you might be able to use dipoles in the side surround position which would fire back toward the MLP.

What are your back surrounds? And, what are you considering for your side surrounds?

I went back and looked at your pix again...I see what you mean about side surrounds. Consider this...if you moved some people aside you could put a surround on the fireplace wall on a stand in front of the fireplace IF and only if you used a sealed unit like some the Goldenear (and other) units. 

If you tried to do it with a speaker with a rear port, you could not get away with it. You could probably even get away with a front ported speaker.

And, get those back surrounds as close to ear level as you can...some who know more than I do say that within a foot or so of ear level is good.

I had 5.1.4 and there is a substantial difference between 5.anything and 7.anything. I applaud your determination to get to 7.1.4.


----------



## virtualrain

Killer_Nads said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am more so inclined to go all out for 7.1.4!
> 
> But i understand that maybe 7 channels will not be worth it in the size room i have. If that is the case then i would be happy to still go with 5.1.4. But i do want the best which is why im inclined for 7 channels.
> 
> Im thinking for atmos to just have two in ceiling speakers in front of my couch around the light area and then have two atmos speakers in the ceiling just behind the couch, slightly away from touching the back wall.
> 
> What i am not sure about is the side surrounds and back surrounds. Youve seen where my current two back surrounds are placed. Should i leave these two there? My only issue is that they are not ear level. Which might not be as good as if they were down to ear level.
> 
> For the side sureounds, yes the place you mentioned next to fireplace is good, however to do a direct mirror on opposite side would mean on the door! Maybe if i move them more towards the front, ie make it sit on the fireplace shelf and wall mount the other on the wall opposite, however even with this i would be afraid of the door openeing and banging straight into this causeing potential damage!
> 
> The back surrounds im currently using are quite big. I wont have the same sort of space for the side surrounds, would it be okay to use something much smaller in size for the sides?
> 
> Yes i do have kids (5 & 3) but they wouldnt really mess with my stuff if i tell them to not touch anything they wont :blush:



In your room I would just go 5.1.4 and move your surrounds down to ear level or slightly above. I run a 5.2.4 setup with surrounds just behind and off to the side of the couch and it works well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Looks like_ *The Peanuts Movie *_UHD Blu-ray will contain a Dolby Atmos track according to the specs on the back of the case. _Not_ the regular Blu-ray as Fox Home Video had warned. 

Odds are better that Fox's next UHD Blu-ray, The Revenant, may include Atmos as well.


----------



## rolldog

Ok, I'm a little new to burning Blu ray disks, but I downloaded the Atmos and the DTS:X test disks so how can I burn them onto a blu ray disk to try out? All disks I've burned in the past were in an ISO format, or something similar, but this has multiple directories and stuff. Is there a specific way I can burn this to disk and test my system?


----------



## Killer_Nads

dvdwilly3 said:


> Hey! Good on the kids...
> 
> You could move your surrounds slight forward and aim them back to the MLP. Dolby shows side surrounds at 90 degrees...directly to the side to 110 degrees...slightly behind your MLP.
> 
> THX or somebody specifies something like 80 degrees for side surrounds, which would be slightly forward of MLP, to 110 degrees. If you think about it carefully, you might be able to use dipoles in the side surround position which would fire back toward the MLP.
> 
> What are your back surrounds? And, what are you considering for your side surrounds?
> 
> I went back and looked at your pix again...I see what you mean about side surrounds. Consider this...if you moved some people aside you could put a surround on the fireplace wall on a stand in front of the fireplace IF and only if you used a sealed unit like some the Goldenear (and other) units.
> 
> If you tried to do it with a speaker with a rear port, you could not get away with it. You could probably even get away with a front ported speaker.
> 
> And, get those back surrounds as close to ear level as you can...some who know more than I do say that within a foot or so of ear level is good.
> 
> I had 5.1.4 and there is a substantial difference between 5.anything and 7.anything. I applaud your determination to get to 7.1.4.


Right, oddly i had exactly the same idea as you just like 10mins ago while i was sitting quietly in the room just observing where to put stuff!! 

I will redraw another diagram tomorrow at work and put it here to see what you feel, but i basically had the same idea about adding 2 surround side speakers on stands, to the left of the seats it would be at ear level on a stand, just standing onto of the fireplace black plate. The other one would be mirrored to the opposite wall just behind the side of the sofa (also if anyone opens door it won't damage the speakers as door would hit the sofa), they would both face each other. I guess i would just need to find something small though, i don't think i can fit any big speakers here, so i would need something small but as powerful i guess as the other speakers. Does it matter if these side surrounds are a different make and size to the others?

As for the back surrounds, i will try to move them first more inwards (towards each other) and then down to just a small bit above ear level. I think that would be the perfect placements, i know the speakers would be all pretty close to me though but hopefully it would still give me a much better experience, especially with the extra channels and the atmos speakers!

The speakers that i currently have are:

A pair of B&W 603 S1's Floor standers

A pair of B&W 601 S1's Rears

A B&W CC6 S2 Centre

A B&W ASW1000 Sub Woofer


I know some people have recommended me to go for 5.1.4 instead of 7.1.4, but Im already spending (Wasting! according to the wife) so much money on seats/projector/avr that i thought that i might as well go the extra mile and just get it all at once, since i won't be making any further changes. I don't want to leave something out only to then later curse myself and say why didn't i just spend an extra £200-300 or so and get the best option available. 

I have always wanted 7 channel surround also, so yes there is a personal bias towards that as well  but in all seriousness i am hoping that it will provide me with better sound immersion (would be great thing to have with the dbox seats), especially since the AVR will also be much more powerful!


----------



## PioManiac

Don't forget to pick up an external amp if you want 7.1.4,

I don't think any of the Flagship AVRs from Yamaha, Denon or Marantz can do it alone,
They can all process 11 channels but you need to use the pre-outs to an external 2 channel amp for 7.1.4

(Even the very Top Y, D+M 11 channel AVR's only have 9 internal amps)


----------



## sshearer

PioManiac said:


> Don't forget to pick up an external amp if you want 7.1.4,
> 
> I don't think any of the Flagship AVRs from Yamaha, Denon or Marantz can do it alone,
> They can all process 11 channels but you need to use the pre-outs to an external 2 channel amp for 7.1.4
> 
> (Even the very Top Y, D+M 11 channel AVR's only have 9 internal amps)


The Anthem MRX 1120 has 11 internal amps built-in. It has been getting some good positive reviews from early users. In the interest of full disclosure, I am also looking seriously at getting this AVR receiver as it has ARC sound processing setup and full 4K capability (HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2). Some users have said they like the sound from the Anthem better than the Marantz and the Yamaha.


----------



## batpig

JaremyP said:


> Hello all.
> 
> I've been considering building a separate media room in my newer home (2.5 yo new construction), but it's likely not in the cards right now. So I want to improve my existing living room setup. See the attached pic.
> 
> I currently have the following 7.2 setup:
> 
> LCR: Triad Silver 6 LCR in-wall
> SR/SL/SBR/SBL: Triad Silver 4 Surround
> Subs: 2 x Triad Bronze 6 with rack amps
> Preamp: Denon X4000
> Amps: Emotiva Gen 1 XPA 3 and 5
> 
> You can see the room has some challenges. My LCRs are angled down and it works well. It doesn't sound like audio is coming from up above. The surround backs though are already very close to and above the listening position.
> 
> I'm thinking I could drop in another pair of Silver 4 speakers in front of the couch in the ceiling. Then swap to a 5.2.4 configuration.
> 
> I suspect that putting another pair of Silver 4 speakers between the light cans above the couch and the surround back speakers is a waste. They will be very close together and coming from the ceiling together. There's no real separation there.
> 
> I pretty much only have the ceiling to work with in this room. I'd welcome any feedback folks experienced with immersive audio might offer.
> 
> Thanks!


I agree that there is no point in squeezing in speakers in between the light cans and the current back surrounds. And that the clear "gap" in coverage is the area in front and above you (around half-way between the two rows of light cans). Although I might consider a pair of the direct-firing angled IC's (e.g. InCeiling Silver/6 SAT) rather than the Silver 4 surrounds, just to make sure that "front height" sound is clear and distinct from the front 3 LCR's. I'm concerned that another pair of bipole Silver 4 surrounds up there would just get lost in the mush given that your speakers are all already high up.

The only way you could feasibly go all the way to 7.2.4 would be to add a new pair of back surrounds sitting in the bookshelf in the rear of the room. And then the old back surrounds would become the rear overheads.


----------



## batpig

sshearer said:


> The Anthem MRX 1120 has 11 internal amps built-in. It has been getting some good positive reviews from early users. In the interest of full disclosure, I am also looking seriously at getting this AVR receiver as it has ARC sound processing setup and full 4K capability (HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2). Some users have said they like the sound from the Anthem better than the Marantz and the Yamaha.


Even though it's $3,499 msrp, it seems like a good value for someone who wants the simplicity of the "all in one box" form factor. And the cost vs. something like the Denon 7200 isn't that great when you factor in the extra amps. 

My only concern is the raw guts of the receiver's amp section if you have a demanding load (e.g. huge room, insensitive speakers). The 4 overhead amps are only rated at 60W/ch, so you're hailing back to the early days of Pro Logic surround sound where the surround amps were weaker than the front amps. And despite having 11 amps in the box, the receiver only weighs 32 lbs. I just can't imagine how much power it can crank out to 11 channels with all guns blazing. For a typical small home theater with reasonably efficient speakers though it should be fine, especially if you don't listen above -10dB.


----------



## PioManiac

sshearer said:


> The Anthem MRX 1120 has 11 internal amps built-in. It has been getting some good positive reviews from early users. In the interest of full disclosure, I am also looking seriously at getting this AVR receiver as it has ARC sound processing setup and full 4K capability (HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2). Some users have said they like the sound from the Anthem better than the Marantz and the Yamaha.


I'm sure the Anthem MRX 1120 is a fine product,
BUT at $3600 can$ ??? I could almost buy two Yamaha RX-A3050's for that 

I paid $2000 Can$...(around $1450 US$) for a new RX-A3050 just a couple weeks ago,
and could have bought a crap load of 5 x 200 external power for well under $1000.

...but my room is fairly small, efficient speakers, and 4 powered subs ...So I really don't need all that wattage
So instead I chose to set up my 8 year old RX-V3900 as an external amp using the Multi-channel inputs 
to power my 4 height channels in my 7.4.4 setup.

Anthem my sound good to some, but is it almost twice as good to match the price?


----------



## batpig

PioManiac said:


> I'm sure the Anthem MRX 1120 is a fine product,
> BUT at $3600 can$ ??? I could almost buy two Yamaha RX-A3050's for that


The reasons to spend extra would be (1) you believe the ARC room correction and any other proprietary Anthem "audiophile heritage" quality will deliver superior sound quality, and/or (2) you really want the one-box solution.

It's definitely not the path I would take but I'm a budget scraper


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> Right, oddly i had exactly the same idea as you just like 10mins ago while i was sitting quietly in the room just observing where to put stuff!!
> 
> I will redraw another diagram tomorrow at work and put it here to see what you feel, but i basically had the same idea about adding 2 surround side speakers on stands, to the left of the seats it would be at ear level on a stand, just standing onto of the fireplace black plate. The other one would be mirrored to the opposite wall just behind the side of the sofa (also if anyone opens door it won't damage the speakers as door would hit the sofa), they would both face each other. I guess i would just need to find something small though, i don't think i can fit any big speakers here, so i would need something small but as powerful i guess as the other speakers. Does it matter if these side surrounds are a different make and size to the others?
> 
> As for the back surrounds, i will try to move them first more inwards (towards each other) and then down to just a small bit above ear level. I think that would be the perfect placements, i know the speakers would be all pretty close to me though but hopefully it would still give me a much better experience, especially with the extra channels and the atmos speakers!
> 
> The speakers that i currently have are:
> 
> A pair of B&W 603 S1's Floor standers
> 
> A pair of B&W 601 S1's Rears
> 
> A B&W CC6 S2 Centre
> 
> A B&W ASW1000 Sub Woofer
> 
> 
> I know some people have recommended me to go for 5.1.4 instead of 7.1.4, but Im already spending (Wasting! according to the wife) so much money on seats/projector/avr that i thought that i might as well go the extra mile and just get it all at once, since i won't be making any further changes. I don't want to leave something out only to then later curse myself and say why didn't i just spend an extra £200-300 or so and get the best option available.
> 
> I have always wanted 7 channel surround also, so yes there is a personal bias towards that as well  but in all seriousness i am hoping that it will provide me with better sound immersion (would be great thing to have with the dbox seats), especially since the AVR will also be much more powerful!


Okay, for your situation, this would be my shortlist...

Monitor Audio Silver FX, $850 a pair...

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_893SLVRFXW/Monitor-Audio-Silver-FX-Walnut.html, (they also come in black oak, same price), or

Goldenear Technology, Aon 2, $399 each ($800 a pair)...

While I am a real Goldenear fan (obviously...), to be honest about it, I would favor the Monitor's. 
They are not all that big, but their sound is pristine...
Their woofer is a proprietary 6 1/2" rigid driver which matches your 601s...
And, they are sealed units and a true bipole...you can run them dipole, but I would not.

Put them on stands, and smile...

I am sure that others can make still other recommendations...


----------



## nickbuol

PioManiac said:


> I'm sure the Anthem MRX 1120 is a fine product,
> BUT at $3600 can$ ??? I could almost buy two Yamaha RX-A3050's for that
> 
> I paid $2000 Can$...(around $1450 US$) for a new RX-A3050 just a couple weeks ago,
> and could have bought a crap load of 5 x 200 external power for well under $1000.
> 
> ...but my room is fairly small, efficient speakers, and 4 powered subs ...So I really don't need all that wattage
> So instead I chose to set up my 8 year old RX-V3900 as an external amp using the Multi-channel inputs
> to power my 4 height channels in my 7.4.4 setup.
> 
> Anthem my sound good to some, but is it almost twice as good to match the price?


A lot of people told me "Once you go Anthem, you never go back." ARC is supposed to be on a whole new level over any other mainstream room correction too. Also, you shouldn't be paying MSRP anyway. I picked mine up from an authorized reseller (in Canada) even though I live in the US. I am getting it after customs tax (which I just found out I *might* not have to pay under NAFTA) and shipping for about 29% less than US MSRP. 

Hopefully I am right as it IS still a heavy cost for a receiver. At least for someone who paid $200 for his first receiver and $800 for his current on (until the Anthem arrives)...


----------



## wrathloki

So I noticed that the Sicario UHD Blu-Ray has only a Dolby Atmos track. My receiver decodes Atmos but I have a 7.1 setup. Will it still work like it would with Dolby True HD? Will I get the increased directional effects of Atmos (sans height sound of course) even with the 7.1 setup?

Another somewhat unrelated question. What sounds better? 7.1 or 5.1.2? Would a ceiling fan in the middle of the room mess with the reflected sound of dolby enabled speakers?


----------



## ALtlOff

wrathloki said:


> So I noticed that the Sicario UHD Blu-Ray has only a Dolby Atmos track. My receiver decodes Atmos but I have a 7.1 setup. Will it still work like it would with Dolby True HD? Will I get the increased directional effects of Atmos (sans height sound of course) even with the 7.1 setup?
> 
> Another somewhat unrelated question. What sounds better? 7.1 or 5.1.2? Would a ceiling fan in the middle of the room mess with the reflected sound of dolby enabled speakers?


It depends on the mix that's encoded into the disc, *the 7.1 track will always be there*, (think of it as 7.1 + Atmos, not just Atmos, if that helps) but Atmos metadata can reflect objects anywhere in the space from the lower level to the heights, plus I've noticed extra LFE in some Atmos tracks that isn't in the 7.1 mix (when using DD). It all depends on how that films mixer/engineer decided to encode the disc. All you can do is experiment with it to see if the mixes sound different to you or not.

Personally I would prefer 5.1.2, but it's a very room and speaker dependant issue. The ceiling fan thing might, it would probably depend most on speaker reflection points.


----------



## nickbuol

I had a "7.1" Atmos setup for about 3 days (long story). It was just a temporary receiver while my Onkyo was getting repaired. I still watched some things in Atmos even without overhead sound, and it DID sound better to me, but still not what the full 7.1.4 configuration would be. 

Now my Anthem MRX-1120 shipped today, and my new overhead speakers should be just a few days behind that due to a custom finish I am having put on them. Can't wait to have my family hear what I've been talking about since CEDIA 2014...


----------



## ALtlOff

nickbuol said:


> I had a "7.1" Atmos setup for about 3 days (long story). It was just a temporary receiver while my Onkyo was getting repaired. I still watched some things in Atmos even without overhead sound, and it DID sound better to me, but still not what the full 7.1.4 configuration would be.
> 
> Now my Anthem MRX-1120 shipped today, and my new overhead speakers should be just a few days behind that due to a custom finish I am having put on them. Can't wait to have my family hear what I've been talking about since CEDIA 2014...


You're not the only one, I experimented by turning my height speakers off at the amps, and found many Atmos mixes to be more precise and defined, esp. with music introduced into scenes, plus as I mentioned, there was extra LFE in the "Man From U.N.C.L.E" Atmos mix, that wasn't there when using DD.


----------



## PeterTHX

*The Peanuts Movie* UHD-BD is Dolby Atmos!


Fox is finally in!


----------



## hatlesschimp

PioManiac said:


> Don't forget to pick up an external amp if you want 7.1.4,
> 
> I don't think any of the Flagship AVRs from Yamaha, Denon or Marantz can do it alone,
> They can all process 11 channels but you need to use the pre-outs to an external 2 channel amp for 7.1.4
> 
> (Even the very Top Y, D+M 11 channel AVR's only have 9 internal amps)


Im going 7.1.4 myself and people and research has told me the 11ch amp is fine for smaller speakers but forget about it if some are floorstanding and difficult. But the yamaha is the cheapest here in australia and atleast having some power there and the 11ch amp would allow some bi amping. 

Im going yamaha rxa3050 + 2x rotel 1585.


----------



## showmak

pmeintel said:


> Thanks for the advice. After looking at it a little further I think I might step down a little to the RC60I due to size of the listening area. I've also been looking at the Yamaha NS-IC600. Do you have any opinions on these? (Isn't our hobby great



Here is Yamaha reply regarding NS-IC800

"Thanks for contacting Yamaha. The dispersion angle on those, and all other in-ceiling speakers, is about 45 degrees. On this particular model, you can swivel the tweeter 15 degrees in any direction, so it can be pointed at the listening position for more directed audio.

Let us know if you need further assistance."


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

rolldog said:


> Ok, I'm a little new to burning Blu ray disks, but I downloaded the Atmos and the DTS:X test disks so how can I burn them onto a blu ray disk to try out? All disks I've burned in the past were in an ISO format, or something similar, but this has multiple directories and stuff. Is there a specific way I can burn this to disk and test my system?



I use Imageburn...

http://www.imgburn.com/


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## pasender91

@Killer_Nads,

What i would do in your case, given you have a relatively small room ...

1) Install surround speakers on stands, with the location you defined earlier (used B&W 601 or B&W 686)
2) Install back surrounds on stands or furniture, same height as surrounds (used B&W 601 or B&W 686), but do not set them up too much inside the room, you want to have them as far away as you can from your listening position.
3) Reuse your current B&W 601 as Top Rear Atmos, but you should aim the speakers down towards your sofa !
4) Get a pair of in-ceilings, place them about halfway , and designate them as Atmos Top Front.

Voila, 7.1.4


----------



## Killer_Nads

dvdwilly3 said:


> Okay, for your situation, this would be my shortlist...
> 
> Monitor Audio Silver FX, $850 a pair...
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_893SLVRFXW/Monitor-Audio-Silver-FX-Walnut.html, (they also come in black oak, same price), or
> 
> Goldenear Technology, Aon 2, $399 each ($800 a pair)...
> 
> While I am a real Goldenear fan (obviously...), to be honest about it, I would favor the Monitor's.
> They are not all that big, but their sound is pristine...
> Their woofer is a proprietary 6 1/2" rigid driver which matches your 601s...
> And, they are sealed units and a true bipole...you can run them dipole, but I would not.
> 
> Put them on stands, and smile...
> 
> I am sure that others can make still other recommendations...


The Goldenear Technology, Aon 2 are really expensive here in UK, almost £900 for the pair! The Monitors are i see the same ones you are using for your side surrounds also! Thats great, they look a nice small size too and i like the shape of them. 

Someone else in last post recommended me the B&W 646 for the side surrounds, but if they are like my current 601 Back speakers then they will also be huge and a bit to big for the space I'm trying to fit them in! 

So i have the Monitor Audio Silver FX Gloss Black chosen now for the sides most likely!

I could possibly even wall mount the right side speaker that is going behind the sofa/door and then put the left one near the fireplace on a stand.

By the way what sort of stand would i need for this speaker? Can you also tell me what you mean by a sealed unit?


----------



## jqmn

If you have an Atmos processor playing Atmos content but no tops, heights or upfiring speakers, does the processor redirect the overhead content to the surrounds or front to surrounds in some fashion?

Separately, if you have top middle only, does the processor put all overhead info into those speakers or, except for snaps, does it remap some of the content to the front mains and rear surrounds or side to side as the case may be?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> The Goldenear Technology, Aon 2 are really expensive here in UK, almost £900 for the pair! The Monitors are i see the same ones you are using for your side surrounds also! Thats great, they look a nice small size too and i like the shape of them.
> 
> Someone else in last post recommended me the B&W 646 for the side surrounds, but if they are like my current 601 Back speakers then they will also be huge and a bit to big for the space I'm trying to fit them in!
> 
> So i have the Monitor Audio Silver FX Gloss Black chosen now for the sides most likely!
> 
> I could possibly even wall mount the right side speaker that is going behind the sofa/door and then put the left one near the fireplace on a stand.
> 
> By the way what sort of stand would i need for this speaker? Can you also tell me what you mean by a sealed unit?


For stands, there are any number of makers and designs that would work, but stable. I have a couple of sets of these...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005JTV358?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage

in my HT. They are a little industrial looking, but solid as a rock with locking pins and holes every 4" (6"?) or so. I also use mounting putty under each corner of stand mounted speakers to make them less susceptible of getting knocked off or out of position. They can be pushed up against a wall so that there is only about 6" between the back of the speaker and the wall.

Re sealed (acoustic suspension) vs ported speakers...most speakers these days are rear ported. That is, they have a hole in the box to let trapped air out of the box. That makes them a bit more picky about placement, as in, you cannot flush mount them on a wall without compromising their performance. Sealed units, on the other hand can be placed directly on the wall without affecting their performance.

Having said all of that, there is probably some boundary effect resulting from the plane of the wall such that you might notice a difference between mounting the same speaker on the wall vs on a stand.

Given that the only way that you are probably going to find speaker stands is in pairs, I would just stand mount both of them. If appearance is a factor for stands, Sanus (and others) make some reasonably priced more furniture looking stands.


----------



## pmeintel

showmak said:


> Here is Yamaha reply regarding NS-IC800
> 
> "Thanks for contacting Yamaha. The dispersion angle on those, and all other in-ceiling speakers, is about 45 degrees. On this particular model, you can swivel the tweeter 15 degrees in any direction, so it can be pointed at the listening position for more directed audio.
> 
> Let us know if you need further assistance."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


Not to come across to clueless yet for the NS-IC800 make it agood option for an Atmos application?


----------



## Killer_Nads

Please see my new Speaker placements on the attached image.

Let me know of things that are majorly wrong here and/or what should be changed to be improved. The backs and sides i have put down to just above ear level which obviously you are not able to see in the image. 

Before this my backs were UP about three quarters of the way to the ceiling and in the corners of the back wall.


----------



## Killer_Nads

pasender91 said:


> @Killer_Nads,
> 
> What i would do in your case, given you have a relatively small room ...
> 
> 1) Install surround speakers on stands, with the location you defined earlier (used B&W 601 or B&W 686)
> 2) Install back surrounds on stands or furniture, same height as surrounds (used B&W 601 or B&W 686), but do not set them up too much inside the room, you want to have them as far away as you can from your listening position.
> 3) Reuse your current B&W 601 as Top Rear Atmos, but you should aim the speakers down towards your sofa !
> 4) Get a pair of in-ceilings, place them about halfway , and designate them as Atmos Top Front.
> 
> Voila, 7.1.4


Hmm, that might be a clever use of my current Rear back surround speakers! Okay so what you are saying is that: 

- i keep my current back ones in the same location where they currently sit but use them for back atmos speakers instead.

- Buy new side surround speakers (i think the Monitor Audio Silver FX is a perfect size for my sides).

- Install 2 atmos front speakers in the ceiling.

- Buy and set up 2 Rear Back surround speakers.

All that sounds good as i wouldn't have to move my current backs (less work) plus i also would only need to install 2 in ceiling speakers (also less work and holes). It sounds good on paper, but would the atmos perform just as good in this sort of configuration instead of the 4 in-ceiling ones?

Also from this i would have to work out how/where and what to install for my Rear Back speakers!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> Hmm, that might be a clever use of my current Rear back surround speakers! Okay so what you are saying is that:
> 
> - i keep my current back ones in the same location where they currently sit but use them for back atmos speakers instead.
> 
> - Buy new side surround speakers (i think the Monitor Audio Silver FX is a perfect size for my sides).
> 
> - Install 2 atmos front speakers in the ceiling.
> 
> - Buy and set up 2 Rear Back surround speakers.
> 
> All that sounds good as i wouldn't have to move my current backs (less work) plus i also would only need to install 2 in ceiling speakers (also less work and holes). It sounds good on paper, but would the atmos perform just as good in this sort of configuration instead of the 4 in-ceiling ones?
> 
> Also from this i would have to work out how/where and what to install for my Rear Back speakers!


I would think that Atmos would work in this configuration just about as well as your other proposed configuration. And, the other consideration, less work, is always appealing.
The only hitch might be (depending upon the AVR...) you would have to run them as Top Rear as opposed to Rear High. But, I still think that they would work...

I would suggest that if you go that route, consider Monitor Audio Silver 1s for your rear surrounds ($875 pair at Crutchfield and most other retailers state-side. They would be a timbre match with the Monitor Audio FX side surrounds.

Sounds like a plan!


----------



## Selden Ball

jqmn said:


> If you have an Atmos processor playing Atmos content but no tops, heights or upfiring speakers, does the processor redirect the overhead content to the surrounds or front to surrounds in some fashion?


 All of the overhead sounds are included in the 7.1 ear-level speaker channels. If you have overhead speakers, the Atmos decoder moves the appropriate sounds from the ear-level speakers to the overheads.



> Separately, if you have top middle only, does the processor put all overhead info into those speakers or, except for snaps, does it remap some of the content to the front mains and rear surrounds or side to side as the case may be?


 Overhead audio usually maps entirely to whichever overhead speakers you have. The person who mixed the soundtrack will have decided whether or not there should be any phantom-imaging between the overheads and the ear-level speakers.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would think that Atmos would work in this configuration just about as well as your other proposed configuration. And, the other consideration, less work, is always appealing.
> The only hitch might be (depending upon the AVR...) you would have to run them as Top Rear as opposed to Rear High. But, I still think that they would work...
> 
> I would suggest that if you go that route, consider Monitor Audio Silver 1s for your rear surrounds ($875 pair at Crutchfield and most other retailers state-side. They would be a timbre match with the Monitor Audio FX side surrounds.
> 
> Sounds like a plan!


IF you do not already have the Atmos front pair, you might consider...

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_893CPCT260/Monitor-Audio-CP-CT260.html

I do not have them, have not heard them, but they should work well with your setup.

Monitor Audio makes a number of in-wall models both larger and smaller and in
slightly different configurations. I like the models that incorporate a back box
so that you do not have to worry about that issue.


----------



## Killer_Nads

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would think that Atmos would work in this configuration just about as well as your other proposed configuration. And, the other consideration, less work, is always appealing.
> The only hitch might be (depending upon the AVR...) you would have to run them as Top Rear as opposed to Rear High. But, I still think that they would work...
> 
> I would suggest that if you go that route, consider Monitor Audio Silver 1s for your rear surrounds ($875 pair at Crutchfield and most other retailers state-side. They would be a timbre match with the Monitor Audio FX side surrounds.
> 
> Sounds like a plan!


Plan is definitely starting to come togather thats for sure!! 

To be honest the work was not too bad as a builder/worker is going to be installing them anyway, so i won't need to do much apart from order him around and make sure he is doing things correctly  Which is why I'm still looking for the best solution, but you say that this should work just the same, lets see if anyone else has any suggestions! 

Im most likely going to go with the Marantz receiver, the one that can do 11 channels (with an extra stereo amp i guess). If we go this route, as those current speakers would be used instead the second pair of in ceiling atmos speakers then YES i would have them as TOP REAR (is this what the atmos speakers location is called?) instead of BACK REAR. 

If you see my pics of my room from my post 1-2 days ago on here, do you think the positions of those current backs are perfect or do they need to be changed in anyway?

Those Monitor Audio Silver 1s look good, thanks for that suggestion, is that the best ones that you think i should go for? Anyone else with any other recommendations? These cost £500 in UK which are affordable. But i want the best solution, but also need to take into consideration i guess that the speakers need to match my current B&W's.


Also any suggestions for the in ceiling speakers? Do they need to point straight down or can the angle be twisted inside the speaker grill to point them to the coach from which ever location i install them in front of the Seats.

Thanks


----------



## bucknuts07

I know this has probably been asked a multitude of times in this thread, but I know that each room has different dynamics. If my room is 14 feet wide, by lets say 40 feet long, my sitting area is 12 feet from the screen. Would I be better off running a 5.1.4 setup, or a 7.1.2 ? My ceiling is 7ft 2 inches tall. Also, I have energy rc-50s, energy rc-lcr, and rc-10 for surrounds, what would be a similar match for ceiling speakers ?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> Plan is definitely starting to come togather thats for sure!!
> 
> To be honest the work was not too bad as a builder/worker is going to be installing them anyway, so i won't need to do much apart from order him around and make sure he is doing things correctly  Which is why I'm still looking for the best solution, but you say that this should work just the same, lets see if anyone else has any suggestions!
> 
> Im most likely going to go with the Marantz receiver, the one that can do 11 channels (with an extra stereo amp i guess). If we go this route, as those current speakers would be used instead the second pair of in ceiling atmos speakers then YES i would have them as TOP REAR (is this what the atmos speakers location is called?) instead of BACK REAR.
> 
> If you see my pics of my room from my post 1-2 days ago on here, do you think the positions of those current backs are perfect or do they need to be changed in anyway?
> 
> Those Monitor Audio Silver 1s look good, thanks for that suggestion, is that the best ones that you think i should go for? Anyone else with any other recommendations? These cost £500 in UK which are affordable. But i want the best solution, but also need to take into consideration i guess that the speakers need to match my current B&W's.
> 
> 
> Also any suggestions for the in ceiling speakers? Do they need to point straight down or can the angle be twisted inside the speaker grill to point them to the coach from which ever location i install them in front of the Seats.
> 
> Thanks


In re...

"If you see my pics of my room from my post 1-2 days ago on here, do you think the positions of those current backs are perfect or do they need to be changed in anyway?"

I would suggest (as someone else already suggested...) that you point them closer to the seating position rather than straight out into the room as they appear to be now.
You may need to play with that to avoid "hot spotting" of the Top Rear speakers.
But, yes, I think that this would work.


----------



## jgallagh

nickbuol said:


> A lot of people told me "Once you go Anthem, you never go back." ARC is supposed to be on a whole new level over any other mainstream room correction too. Also, you shouldn't be paying MSRP anyway. I picked mine up from an authorized reseller (in Canada) even though I live in the US. I am getting it after customs tax (which I just found out I *might* not have to pay under NAFTA) and shipping for about 29% less than US MSRP.
> 
> Hopefully I am right as it IS still a heavy cost for a receiver. At least for someone who paid $200 for his first receiver and $800 for his current on (until the Anthem arrives)...


Can I ask which re-seller you went through? Website?
And how/when will you know about the customs tax?
I work in MI - about 3.5hrs from Mississauga - and have wondered if somehow driving over the border can get me a better deal. I am trying to make the 1120 happen sometime this year and your post peaked my interest


----------



## jrogers

I guess I'll have to get my Front-Wides installed before watching The Force Awakens... at around 28 sec in he talks about pulling the music out of just the front L+R to widen the front sound stage. "Atmos takes it to another level" 

Sound of Symphony in Dolby Atmos
https://vimeo.com/156994297


----------



## kokishin

Rich Davis said:


> I have my computer hooked up to my Marantz sr6010. I went to my vudu account and found the Atmos demo. When running it, I saw this as an option- "multi-channel + Dolby Digital" When looking at the info screen the input didn't show the atmos front speakers on, but it did in my output.
> 
> What does this mean? Am I getting Atmos or not? Nothing labeled "atmos" appeared.


I have a Tivo Roamio Pro connected via HDMI to a Denon 6200 with a 5.1.4 config using Atmos Enabled speakers. Playing any one of the five Atmos demos on Vudu, the 6200 INFO screen reports:

Sound: Dolby Atmos
Signal: Dolby Atmos/Digital +

Input Signal: Dolby Atmos

Active Speakers: FL, C, FR, SL, SR, FDL, FDR, SDL, SDR, SW

I have a green Movie button on my remote. Pressing it reveals different sound options. I set mine for Dolby Atmos/Surround.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I thought you were getting a Yamaha, brah?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrogers said:


> I guess I'll have to get my Front-Wides installed before watching The Force Awakens... at around 28 sec in he talks about pulling the music out of just the front L+R to widen the front sound stage. "Atmos takes it to another level"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound of Symphony in Dolby Atmos
> https://vimeo.com/156994297


The trouble is that Disney won't release it in Atmos until UHD Blu-ray... And they won't be releasing those discs any time soon.


----------



## Rich Davis

kokishin said:


> I have a Tivo Roamio Pro connected via HDMI to a Denon 6200 with a 5.1.4 config using Atmos Enabled speakers. Playing any one of the five Atmos demos on Vudu, the 6200 INFO screen reports:
> 
> Sound: Dolby Atmos
> Signal: Dolby Atmos/Digital +
> 
> Input Signal: Dolby Atmos
> 
> Active Speakers: FL, C, FR, SL, SR, FDL, FDR, SDL, SDR, SW
> 
> I have a green Movie button on my remote. Pressing it reveals different sound options. I set mine for Dolby Atmos/Surround.


I learned something today. When I go to Netflix on my PC there is no receiver option for Atmos, but if I use the app on my Sony BDP-s5500 it's there. Now I have no idea why one means would have options the other doesn't but at least I know nothing is broken or improperly connected.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rich Davis said:


> I learned something today. When I go to Netflix on my PC there is no receiver option for Atmos, but if I use the app on my Sony BDP-s5500 it's there. Now I have no idea why one means would have options the other doesn't but at least I know nothing is broken or improperly connected.


The PC app is limited. They don't think their customers have HDR monitors and Dolby Atmos receivers attached to their computers.


----------



## jrogers

Dan Hitchman said:


> The trouble is that Disney won't release it in Atmos until UHD Blu-ray... And they won't be releasing those discs any time soon.


That's a bummer - I just assumed the Blu-ray would be Atmos as well  I guess I'll be holding out for the UHD.


----------



## PioManiac




----------



## metalsaber

PioManiac said:


>



Barf.


----------



## nickbuol

jgallagh said:


> Can I ask which re-seller you went through? Website?
> And how/when will you know about the customs tax?
> I work in MI - about 3.5hrs from Mississauga - and have wondered if somehow driving over the border can get me a better deal. I am trying to make the 1120 happen sometime this year and your post peaked my interest


PM sent


----------



## blastermaster

PioManiac said:


>


That does kinda suck, but honestly, I'd imagine that the movie would also sound pretty phenomenal in DSU, would it not? Double dip once it comes out on UHD. Personally, I can wait, but for those who can't or won't I still think it will sound great.


----------



## ALtlOff

blastermaster said:


> That does kinda suck, but honestly, I'd imagine that the movie would also sound pretty phenomenal in DSU, would it not? Double dip once it comes out on UHD. Personally, I can wait, but for those who can't or won't I still think it will sound great.


Will it sound better with DSU than DD, probably, IMO most everything does, including the first 6, but if what I've just experienced with the Atmos version of "Lucy", it has the distinct possibility of not even coming close, but as always, it will depend on the mix.

And yes, you all read that right, received the Atmos version of "Lucy" in the mail yesterday, *WOW* did we get screwed in the states. Check out the Lucy BluRay review thread if your interested in where I found it and my thoughts.


----------



## PeterTHX

PeterTHX said:


> *The Peanuts Movie* UHD-BD is Dolby Atmos!
> Fox is finally in!


 

Hm. You'd think people here would be a little more excited about confirmation Fox is finally going to release movies on UHD-BD in Atmos, rather than umpteen more postings about speaker positions and DSU comments.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah but.... it's friggin' Charlie Brown in Atmos.

lolwtf


----------



## PerryH

Sorry if this is not the right thread to ask this... if there is a better one let me know and I'll head there.

Given a clean slate, which I have, is a 45 degree angle forward and backward from the main listening position optimal for the 4 atmos ceiling speakers? (This appears to be what is suggested by the Dolby diagrams.

What if that position interferes with an ceiling joist? Better to bring the speakers to next nearest gap in the joists or the next furthest... that is, if 45 degrees is not possible, it is better to make the angle greater or less than 45 degrees?


----------



## ALtlOff

PerryH said:


> Sorry if this is not the right thread to ask this... if there is a better one let me know and I'll head there.
> 
> Given a clean slate, which I have, is a 45 degree angle forward and backward from the main listening position optimal for the 4 atmos ceiling speakers? (This appears to be what is suggested by the Dolby diagrams.
> 
> What if that position interferes with an ceiling joist? Better to bring the speakers to next nearest gap in the joists or the next furthest... that is, if 45 degrees is not possible, it is better to make the angle greater or less than 45 degrees?


Personally, unless it's a lot greater, I would say greater, if for no other reason that you're then getting into the "height" zone, and can play with setup options.
But either way, depending on the receiver, you'll be in an "option" zone for tweaking.


----------



## PerryH

It's not a long way... just to the other side of the interfering ceiling joist so less than 16 inches.


----------



## aboroth00

Looking for advice on the setup of a 5.1.4 system. 5.1 makes the most sense for the living room as there isn't much space behind the main LP which is a couch. I'm able to mount speakers on the ceiling behind the couch to give myself "top rears." The speakers are Infinity Modulus satellites which I have angled to the main LP. I currently have the same satellites sitting on top of the front L R functioning as "Dolby Enabled" speakers even though they weren't designed for the task. I would like to move these speakers to a more ideal location. I was wondering what the ideal setup for implementing Atmos and other immersive audio formats in the future. The front L R speakers are approximately 10 feet away. i have the option of either mounting the front height speakers on the front wall or mounting the speakers overhead for Top fronts. Aesthetically the speakers would look better on the front wall but if there's a consensus that top fronts are way better then I might be able to swing it. I can post some pictures of my room when I get a chance.


----------



## kokishin

PeterTHX said:


> *The Peanuts Movie* UHD-BD is Dolby Atmos!
> 
> 
> Fox is finally in!


Hmmm...


----------



## showmak

ALtlOff said:


> Personally, unless it's a lot greater, I would say greater, if for no other reason that you're then getting into the "height" zone, and can play with setup options.
> 
> But either way, depending on the receiver, you'll be in an "option" zone for tweaking.



Greater degree means closer to MLP and the opposite. Am I right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

showmak said:


> Greater degree means closer to MLP and the opposite. Am I right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Holy Carp, your right, I'm thinking from center line/MLP not from floor, (my brain automatically went to greater= farther) thanks for the catch.
Fortunately he's not taking about a lot.

Man I hope I don't have to go patch drywall holes....
I'm already busy this weekend.


----------



## showmak

ALtlOff said:


> Holy Carp, your right, I'm thinking from center line/MLP not from floor, (my brain automatically went to greater= farther) thanks for the catch.
> 
> Fortunately he's not taking about a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Man I hope I don't have to go patch drywall holes....
> 
> I'm already busy this weekend.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SteveTheGeek

PeterTHX said:


> Hm. You'd think people here would be a little more excited about confirmation Fox is finally going to release movies on UHD-BD in Atmos, rather than umpteen more postings about speaker positions and DSU comments.


I am! But I'm also sad to see The Revenant will not have Atmos if we are to believe the press release.

One step forward, two steps backward...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> I am! But I'm also sad to see The Revenant will not have Atmos if we are to believe the press release.
> 
> One step forward, two steps backward...


But _The Peanuts Movie_ was not expected to have Atmos either.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Dan Hitchman said:


> But _The Peanuts Movie_ was not expected to have Atmos either.


Yeah I know, that's why I said "if we are to believe the press release", there's still a glimmer of hope...


----------



## ALtlOff

Dan Hitchman said:


> The trouble is that Disney won't release it in Atmos until UHD Blu-ray... And they won't be releasing those discs any time soon.


Lol, and you know there's someone I'm a room somewhere conjuring up an idea of re-releasing the first 6 with remastered immersive immersive audio, so we have to re-buy those again too.

I'm in a cynical mood today so I'll go ahead and say it....
Within a few years we'll all have 10 different versions of each film and no idea how it ended up that way....lol


----------



## dude32986

I up loaded a crappy picture i made of my living room set-up. I currently have the onkyo tx-nr1030 coming and id like to know where i should put my atmos speakers. im only going to be using two ceiling to begain with so id like to know where 4 would go but only be using 2 for starters? feedback is welcome.........but not criticism of my drawing lol


----------



## ALtlOff

If you're sure you are going to end up with 4, I'd go directly above your couch, then add Top Fronts Later.

But if you think you may stay with only 2, about 1.5' in front of the couch.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dude32986 said:


> I up loaded a crappy picture i made of my living room set-up. I currently have the onkyo tx-nr1030 coming and id like to know where i should put my atmos speakers. im only going to be using two ceiling to begain with so id like to know where 4 would go but only be using 2 for starters? feedback is welcome.........but not criticism of my drawing lol


Just to be sure of what we are looking at...flat panel TV over the fireplace.

And, the unit behind the sofa...single channel back surround, subwoofer, other?

If the unit behind the sofa is not a subwoofer, are you running a subwoofer?


----------



## jgallagh

nickbuol said:


> PM sent


Nick, got your PM. Typed up a response but unable to send due to not enough postings - fairly new member.
Thank you. May go with your information


----------



## aboroth00

aboroth00 said:


> Looking for advice on the setup of a 5.1.4 system. 5.1 makes the most sense for the living room as there isn't much space behind the main LP which is a couch. I'm able to mount speakers on the ceiling behind the couch to give myself "top rears." The speakers are Infinity Modulus satellites which I have angled to the main LP. I currently have the same satellites sitting on top of the front L R functioning as "Dolby Enabled" speakers even though they weren't designed for the task. I would like to move these speakers to a more ideal location. I was wondering what the ideal setup for implementing Atmos and other immersive audio formats in the future. The front L R speakers are approximately 10 feet away. i have the option of either mounting the front height speakers on the front wall or mounting the speakers overhead for Top fronts. Aesthetically the speakers would look better on the front wall but if there's a consensus that top fronts are way better then I might be able to swing it. I can post some pictures of my room when I get a chance.


Pictures! Front height or top fronts?! Gonna switch out the speaker wire to some white ones to better hide them


----------



## dude32986

dvdwilly3 said:


> dude32986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I up loaded a crappy picture i made of my living room set-up. I currently have the onkyo tx-nr1030 coming and id like to know where i should put my atmos speakers. im only going to be using two ceiling to begain with so id like to know where 4 would go but only be using 2 for starters? feedback is welcome.........but not criticism of my drawing lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be sure of what we are looking at...flat panel TV over the fireplace.
> 
> And, the unit behind the sofa...single channel back surround, subwoofer, other?
> 
> If the unit behind the sofa is not a subwoofer, are you running a subwoofer?
Click to expand...

I have a 100" acoustically transparent motorized screen that drops in front of the fire place and an Optima hd141x projector. 
My speakers:
Klipsch kf-28 L/R
Klipsch kc-25 center
Klipsch ks-14 sur L/R/Rear Center........(I have a 3/4 wall in the back so I can't use 7) 
Klipsch r-12sw subwoofer. Its between the fireplace and front right.......I didn't have room in my crummy picture lol

My viewing distance is about 10-12 ft
I want to know distance in from the surrounds and distance from the sofa. The room is 14.5' wide


----------



## dvdwilly3

dude32986 said:


> I have a 100" acoustically transparent motorized screen that drops in front of the fire place and an Optima hd141x projector.
> My speakers:
> Klipsch kf-28 L/R
> Klipsch kc-25 center
> Klipsch ks-14 sur L/R/Rear Center........(I have a 3/4 wall in the back so I can't use 7)
> Klipsch r-12sw subwoofer. Its between the fireplace and front right.......I didn't have room in my crummy picture lol
> 
> My viewing distance is about 10-12 ft
> I want to know distance in from the surrounds and distance from the sofa. The room is 14.5' wide


I think that I would put a pair in/on ceiling about midway between the sofa and the screen, maybe more toward the screen and pointed back to MLP and run them as Top Middle. And, I would I would put them inline with your leftmost and rightmost seating positions.

Then, once you go with 4 overhead, I would change those first 2 to Top Front. I would put the additional 2 behind the sofa either in/on ceiling or at the top of the rear wall and pointed toward the MLP and run those as Top Rear. And, I would line them up from the side with the front pair.

Those are the approximate positions that I would use, but adjusted as necessary for light fixtures, AC vents, etc.

But, that is just me...


----------



## dude32986

dvdwilly3 said:


> dude32986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 100" acoustically transparent motorized screen that drops in front of the fire place and an Optima hd141x projector.
> My speakers:
> Klipsch kf-28 L/R
> Klipsch kc-25 center
> Klipsch ks-14 sur L/R/Rear Center........(I have a 3/4 wall in the back so I can't use 7)
> Klipsch r-12sw subwoofer. Its between the fireplace and front right.......I didn't have room in my crummy picture lol
> 
> My viewing distance is about 10-12 ft
> I want to know distance in from the surrounds and distance from the sofa. The room is 14.5' wide
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I would put a pair in/on ceiling about midway between the sofa and the screen, maybe more toward the screen and pointed back to MLP and run them as Top Middle. And, I would I would put them inline with your leftmost and rightmost seating positions.
> 
> Then, once you go with 4 overhead, I would change those first 2 to Top Front. I would put the additional 2 behind the sofa either in/on ceiling or at the top of the rear wall and pointed toward the MLP and run those as Top Rear. And, I would line them up from the side with the front pair.
> 
> Those are the approximate positions that I would use, but adjusted as necessary for light fixtures, AC vents, etc.
> 
> But, that is just me...
Click to expand...

When I decide to go with 4, put the last 2 being the sofa? Would that mess with the direction of sound i.e. sound hits the over head speakers before the surrounds? I'm slightly confused.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dude32986 said:


> When I decide to go with 4, put the last 2 being the sofa? Would that mess with the direction of sound i.e. sound hits the over head speakers before the surrounds? I'm slightly confused.


It will not...

Take a look at the Dolby recommendations for 7.1.4 with overhead speakers...

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html

You know your space better than anyone else including me.

How close can you get to the recommended layout?


----------



## dude32986

dvdwilly3 said:


> dude32986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I decide to go with 4, put the last 2 being the sofa? Would that mess with the direction of sound i.e. sound hits the over head speakers before the surrounds? I'm slightly confused.
> 
> 
> 
> It will not...
> 
> Take a look at the Dolby recommendations for 7.1.4 with overhead speakers...
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> You know your space better than anyone else including me.
> 
> How close can you get to the recommended layout?
Click to expand...

Actually very close. I'm currently running a 6.1 and since the onkyo tx-nr1030 is a 9.1 receiver I can't do a 7.1.4 I can however do a 5.1.4 I'll just lose my rear center. The only other thing I could do is do a pre-out for the rear center???? But idk how to go about that.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dude32986 said:


> Actually very close. I'm currently running a 6.1 and since the onkyo tx-nr1030 is a 9.1 receiver I can't do a 7.1.4 I can however do a 5.1.4 I'll just lose my rear center. The only other thing I could do is do a pre-out for the rear center???? But idk how to go about that.


You could run the rear surround as a one-channel surround...the 1030 provides for that.

Then, get an external amp to run your Top Rear. The 1030 will do 11 channels (7.1.4) using a pre-out...look at the manual. That is what I am doing.


----------



## SoundChex

A "leaked" slide from the February 2016 HPA Technology Retreat in Indian Wells, California, appears to show that the ATSC choice to be the forthcoming ATSC 3.0 Audio standard will be "both" rather than just one or the other of Dolby AC-4 and MPEG-H 3D Audio . . . leaving specific national|regional implementation decisions about what that actually means unresolved?!












_


----------



## Molon_Labe

aboroth00 said:


> Pictures! Front height or top fronts?! Gonna switch out the speaker wire to some white ones to better hide them


A disco ball? 



Do those floor tiles light up too? 

Don't lie, you move those couches and throw down don't you?


----------



## aboroth00

Obviously you're not familiar with diffraction. .. disco ball creates a diffuse sound in the front sound stage


----------



## dschulz

SoundChex said:


> A "leaked" slide from the February 2016 HPA Technology Retreat in Indian Wells, California, appears to show that the ATSC choice to be the forthcoming ATSC 3.0 Audio standard will be "both" rather than just one or the other of Dolby AC-4 and MPEG-H 3D Audio . . . leaving specific national|regional implementation decisions about what that actually means unresolved?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Interesting. I'd be pretty irritated if I was a CE manufacturer, as now I need to license *both* codecs if I want to serve a worldwide market...


----------



## hatlesschimp

SoundChex said:


> A "leaked" slide from the February 2016 HPA Technology Retreat in Indian Wells, California, appears to show that the ATSC choice to be the forthcoming ATSC 3.0 Audio standard will be "both" rather than just one or the other of Dolby AC-4 and MPEG-H 3D Audio . . . leaving specific national|regional implementation decisions about what that actually means unresolved?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Is this another one of those things that makes everyone have to upgrade BD players and Recievers? LOL


----------



## aboroth00

Why do you think the disco ball is angled the way it is and positioned to the left. ..


----------



## Molon_Labe

aboroth00 said:


> Why do you think the disco ball is angled the way it is and positioned to the left. ..


Wow, I thought you were joking with sarcasm. Seriously?


----------



## Tony_Montana

hello guys!

which is the cheapest AVR that supports dolby atmos - 5.1.2 (even with external amp)?


----------



## SoundChex

hatlesschimp said:


> SoundChex said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "leaked" slide from the February 2016 HPA Technology Retreat in Indian Wells, California, appears to show that the ATSC choice to be the forthcoming ATSC 3.0 Audio standard will be "both" rather than just one or the other of Dolby AC-4 and MPEG-H 3D Audio . . . leaving specific national|regional implementation decisions about what that actually means unresolved?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this another one of those things that makes everyone have to upgrade BD players and Receivers? LOL
Click to expand...


There will likely be official announcements regarding the *ATSC 3.0* recommendations at the forthcoming *NAB SHOW 2016* (Las Vegas, April 16 - 21) . . . followed by several years of heated discussions concerning the consequences and costs to US consumers of ATSC 3.0 adoption!    


_


----------



## aboroth00

Molon_Labe said:


> Wow, I thought you were joking with sarcasm. Seriously?


Just pulling your leg... The disco ball was there when I moved in and there it stayed. Now back to the more pertinent question. Front height vs. top fronts?!


----------



## leedesert

I would go with Top Front Heights about mid way between front speakers and back couch. This would be about middle room but the reference is to the listening position not room. This will lift your sound field up more and would require in ceiling speakers. 
I think because its a small room, having to many speakers on the same plane will begin to overlap the sound field to were it's just one big mix of all the effects. You have everything from the front bouncing off the rear walls and vice versa with the rears. I wouldn't do a 5.1.4 in your set up because I think it's to much. I'm not in the "you can never have to much camp". I've been in set ups similar to yours built in man caves and it was exactly that, too much. Sound waves are bouncing all over the place and its just one big mess of sound. 
The only way to offset that is to turn the sound down so there less overpowering reflections but then that's not what you want when your watching an action based movie.

That's why I think a simple 5.1.2 set up is good for your room. Since you already have the set up for a 5.1.4 I would move the speakers you have on top of your mains to the same point I suggested for in ceiling speakers. It won't look good (matter of opinion) but since this is a designated home theater area it's acceptable. If you decide to keep them on the front wall I would mount them just about to the ceiling and slightly wider than your mains. Designate those as Front Height speakers as opposed to the Top Height speakers I spoke of.

If you draw a straight line from each speaker to your ear level you will see that front heights (mounted almost to ceiling) and your mains hit your ears with very little spacing or at an angle that very close at maybe 30°. Do the same line draw with ceiling mount position and you have nearly a 70-80° of separation. Much easier for your brain to spatially hear that difference.


Looking at the back of your room I would consider raising the surrounds up by about 6" so they are not right in your ear. The speakers you have on the rear ceiling I would designate as Top Rears since they're right at the ceiling.

What is that speaker I see on top of what appears to be a rear sub behind the couch?


----------



## lujan

Tony_Montana said:


> hello guys!
> 
> which is the cheapest AVR that supports dolby atmos - 5.1.2 (even with external amp)?


Probably the Onkyo 646. That's the one I use for 5.1.2. Supposed to support DTS:X as well but they still haven't released the update for it yet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tony_Montana said:


> hello guys!
> 
> which is the cheapest AVR that supports dolby atmos - 5.1.2 (even with external amp)?


Buying the cheapest product doesn't always pay off in the long run. If you choose to add four overhead speakers (which is superior to two for object movement in space), then you'll have to re-buy a mid level receiver with 5.1.4 processing.

Nowadays, you also need HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 support. I would also look for DTS: X upgradeability. Who knows which immersive format each studio will finally decide upon.


----------



## sdurani

Tony_Montana said:


> which is the cheapest AVR that supports dolby atmos - 5.1.2 (even with external amp)?


For Atmos and DTS:X, cheapest is Onkyo 646. For just Atmos, it's the Onkyo 444. http://amzn.com/B00WSECTYQ You can get one used (like new) for a couple hundred.


----------



## lujan

Dan Hitchman said:


> Buying the cheapest product doesn't always pay off in the long run. If you choose to add four overhead speakers (which is superior to two for object movement in space), then you'll have to re-buy a mid level receiver with 5.1.4 processing.
> 
> Nowadays, you also need HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2 support. I would also look for DTS: X upgradeability. Who knows which immersive format each studio will finally decide upon.


It does since I already have the Denon X5200W and because I didn't get the top of the line 7200, I don't get DTS:X or more importantly HDCP 2.2 which allows for 4k support. I was not about to buy another expensive AVR just for these items so the next best thing was the 646.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> It does since *I already have the Denon X5200W* and because I didn't get the top of the line 7200, I don't get DTS:X or more importantly HDCP 2.2 which allows for 4k support. I was not about to buy another expensive AVR just for these to items so the next best thing was the 646.


Ouch! Good luck with the new receiver.


----------



## Contuzzi

There is a new low budget animation movie called Capture the Flag that has Atmos. It's pretty terrible though, and no crazy atmos demo scenes either.


----------



## PeterTHX

Contuzzi said:


> There is a new low budget animation movie called Capture the Flag that has Atmos. It's pretty terrible though, and no crazy atmos demo scenes either.


 
Well, no surprise there. Most movies based on videogames are pretty bad.


----------



## johnnyquest1426

Looking at this atmo thread: Are all the new movies being released from here on end going to be atmos? Looking to see if i am going to upgrade.


----------



## wired1

I just finished my home theater and went with a 5.1.4 setup. After 4 months, I added two "side" channels for 7.1.4 and I have been posting in relevant threads about just how much more incredible it is to have 7.1.4. BEST decision I made. The side channels add depth, discrete sounds, impact,... I am floored. SO happy right now 

Gravity was watched both in 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 as was Mad Max... a whole different experience from TWO extra speakers. SO cool!


----------



## ingramba

*ATMOS Setup*

Hi, I just ran the ATMOS 5.1.4 setup on my Denon 7200WA and all speakers were set to 60 & 80 htz except my Front Ceiling Speakers which were set to 120htz, this correct? I changed all other speakers to 80htz. Other than that, 4K Atmos discs soung good!


----------



## batpig

ingramba said:


> Hi, I just ran the ATMOS 5.1.4 setup on my Denon 7200WA and all speakers were set to 60 & 80 htz except my Front Ceiling Speakers which were set to 120htz, this correct? I changed all other speakers to 80htz. Other than that, 4K Atmos discs soung good!


Impossible to say if it's "correct" since it depends on your specific speakers and room acoustics but 80hz on all base layer speakers and 120hz on heights sounds perfectly reasonable. I would trust Audyssey's measurements.


----------



## ingramba

batpig said:


> Impossible to say if it's "correct" since it depends on your specific speakers and room acoustics but 80hz on all base layer speakers and 120hz on heights sounds perfectly reasonable. I would trust Audyssey's measurements.


Thx batpig! I just thought it was odd it set the front to 120hz & the rear to 60hz. Both sets of ceiling speakers are 6.5" Klipsch coaxials with the rears having a movable tweeter & woofer design. I'll let them be and enjoy!


----------



## leedesert

ingramba said:


> Thx batpig! I just thought it was odd it set the front to 120hz & the rear to 60hz. Both sets of ceiling speakers are 6.5" Klipsch coaxials with the rears having a movable tweeter & woofer design. I'll let them be and enjoy!


When I ran AccuEQ it set my speakers up at 100-110hz. I'm not sure why it did that but my speakers are all good to about 60hz so I changed that to the THX standard of 80hz. I'm not comfortable with 1oohz or more going to my sub because once you get up over 100hz the sound is easier to localize, otherwise you can tell where its coming from. 80hz and below it's just bass that fills the room.


----------



## raymen

will changing the crossover ,effect audessey in a way, or is there no effect


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Broke down my whole 7.1.4 setup at my old house two weeks ago, which was heartbreaking! Moved into my new house last weekend and did a quick setup of my bed level speakers this past weekend with some adjustable monitor stands. I raised the surrounds slightly after these pics, but other than that, this is gonna be my setup. Gonna do TF/TR with some Polk V60 Slims when I get the projector mounted in the next few weeks, so I threw a spare Vizio in there in the meantime. Didn't have everything I needed when the electricians were here, but since they were doing other work anyway, I had them run dedicated lines for my gear.

My 120" screen just fits over that mural on the wall with about 1.75' on either side of it, so my mains are going to have to be widely spaced and toed-in... and my subwoofer is basically stuck in that corner. May have to sell off my trusty old SVS 20-39CS+ and get an equivalent box sub to make things fit better. I have a couple of acoustic panels that I was thinking of mounting on the small bits of wall to left and right of the screen (side walls, not front). Not sure if it will serve much purpose audio-wise, but I have them... and figure it will darken up the reflected light from the projector screen. Still ruminating over proper placement of my Atmos channels, some of which will depend on where the ceiling joists are, but I should be able to easily hit the prescribed angles for TF/TR and put my projector overhead roughly between the two rows of seating. The ceiling is old 1" thick acoustic paneling, so that's gonna be fun to cut into. Gonna climb up in the attic to see if we're dealing with blown insulation or sheet.

Next steps after that will be addressing that window for both light and audio purposes (because you can hear a bit too well outside the house when I crank it up and I'm not quite sure what to do about that yet) and addressing the two open doorways so I can try to cut down the sound transferred to the rest of the house. And maybe painting the ceiling black or some other color that won't reflect light off the screen as much. Any suggestions would be appreciated. It may not end up as fancy as some of the rooms I see here, but I think it's going to turn out pretty slick and more importantly, sound better than my previous FH/TM setup did.


----------



## batpig

ingramba said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible to say if it's "correct" since it depends on your specific speakers and room acoustics but 80hz on all base layer speakers and 120hz on heights sounds perfectly reasonable. I would trust Audyssey's measurements.
> 
> 
> 
> Thx batpig! I just thought it was odd it set the front to 120hz & the rear to 60hz. Both sets of ceiling speakers are 6.5" Klipsch coaxials with the rears having a movable tweeter & woofer design. I'll let them be and enjoy!
Click to expand...

In ceiling speakers are subject to the acoustics of the cavity they are installed in. Plus they are in different physical positions in the room.


----------



## batpig

raymen said:


> will changing the crossover ,effect audessey in a way, or is there no effect


Straying off topic from Atmos, but with Audyssey its fine to raise crossovers but generally not to lower them.


----------



## leedesert

raymen said:


> will changing the crossover ,effect audessey in a way, or is there no effect


It should only effect the crossover points. Al the other EQ features, distance, speaker equalization, and level should not be effected.

http://onkyo-accueq.strikingly.com/


----------



## Selden Ball

raymen said:


> will changing the crossover ,effect audessey in a way, or is there no effect


If you haven't already done so, please take a look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ, especially section C. Crossover Settings


----------



## blastermaster

batpig said:


> In ceiling speakers are subject to the acoustics of the cavity they are installed in. Plus they are in different physical positions in the room.


This is why it's a good idea to get ones with a backer box or build one yourself. You also get a better bass response that way. I got ones with a backer also because my wife is annoyed enough at the sound coming from the basement - having the ceiling speakers just open into the joists would make the sound even more annoying on the main floor.


----------



## aboroth00

leedesert said:


> I would go with Top Front Heights about mid way between front speakers and back couch. This would be about middle room but the reference is to the listening position not room. This will lift your sound field up more and would require in ceiling speakers.
> I think because its a small room, having to many speakers on the same plane will begin to overlap the sound field to were it's just one big mix of all the effects. You have everything from the front bouncing off the rear walls and vice versa with the rears. I wouldn't do a 5.1.4 in your set up because I think it's to much. I'm not in the "you can never have to much camp". I've been in set ups similar to yours built in man caves and it was exactly that, too much. Sound waves are bouncing all over the place and its just one big mess of sound.
> The only way to offset that is to turn the sound down so there less overpowering reflections but then that's not what you want when your watching an action based movie.
> 
> That's why I think a simple 5.1.2 set up is good for your room. Since you already have the set up for a 5.1.4 I would move the speakers you have on top of your mains to the same point I suggested for in ceiling speakers. It won't look good (matter of opinion) but since this is a designated home theater area it's acceptable. If you decide to keep them on the front wall I would mount them just about to the ceiling and slightly wider than your mains. Designate those as Front Height speakers as opposed to the Top Height speakers I spoke of.
> 
> If you draw a straight line from each speaker to your ear level you will see that front heights (mounted almost to ceiling) and your mains hit your ears with very little spacing or at an angle that very close at maybe 30°. Do the same line draw with ceiling mount position and you have nearly a 70-80° of separation. Much easier for your brain to spatially hear that difference.
> 
> 
> Looking at the back of your room I would consider raising the surrounds up by about 6" so they are not right in your ear. The speakers you have on the rear ceiling I would designate as Top Rears since they're right at the ceiling.
> 
> What is that speaker I see on top of what appears to be a rear sub behind the couch?


I've played around with two vs four height speakers and the difference between the two is definitely perceptible. The panning effects front to back are much more realistic than having just one set in my setup. Aesthetics aren't as much as a concern because it is a dedicated area and running cables for a more permanent solution will be done once the final setup is realized. I don't believe the L R degree separation will make a large difference between the heights and the mains are too important if the height speakers purpose is to create a height effect and not a further separation of L and R. I'll probably follow the Dolby atmos recommendation and mount them at a 45 degree angle wrt vertical on the ceiling. I believe it would be better if they are more in line so the height speakers can blend into the mains more seemlessly so there isn't a panning effect left and right when sound is moving through from the mains to the heights. I've been running Dirac as well so I'm not sure whether its taming reflections or not but I haven't had any concerns about a mass of sound that isn't delineated. 

The recommendation to elevate the surrounds is well taken. I'll probably add a cinderblock or something onto the stands to see whether it makes a large difference. The speaker in the back is a rear surround I was playing around with. It probably won't stay there. Just an extra speaker I had around.


----------



## leedesert

aboroth00 said:


> I've played around with two vs four height speakers and the difference between the two is definitely perceptible. The panning effects front to back are much more realistic than having just one set in my setup. Aesthetics aren't as much as a concern because it is a dedicated area and running cables for a more permanent solution will be done once the final setup is realized. I don't believe the L R degree separation will make a large difference between the heights and the mains are too important if the height speakers purpose is to create a height effect and not a further separation of L and R. I'll probably follow the Dolby atmos recommendation and mount them at a 45 degree angle wrt vertical on the ceiling. I believe it would be better if they are more in line so the height speakers can blend into the mains more seemlessly so there isn't a panning effect left and right when sound is moving through from the mains to the heights. I've been running Dirac as well so I'm not sure whether its taming reflections or not but I haven't had any concerns about a mass of sound that isn't delineated.
> 
> The recommendation to elevate the surrounds is well taken. I'll probably add a cinderblock or something onto the stands to see whether it makes a large difference. The speaker in the back is a rear surround I was playing around with. It probably won't stay there. Just an extra speaker I had around.


I suggested the ceiling mount because the height speakers nomenclature is kind of deceiving. It's not just to create height but to actually envelope you. Otherwise, if something passes over head its hard to create that effect when the sound has to jump from the front wall to the back wall. When you have a ceiling mounted speaker that sound can actually travel over you without being simulated. That's why the primary atmos set up is with ceiling speakers, or speakers that reflect off the ceiling.

From the manual:

Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for
maximizing effects in Dolby Atmos or
Dolby Surround listening mode. Install Top
Front speakers so that they are positioned
at a point between directly above the
listening position and directly above the
front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers
so they are directly above the listening
position. Install Top Rear speakers so
they are positioned at a point between
directly above the listening position and
directly above the back speakers.

●● Dolby Laboratories recommends
placing the speakers as described in
"Installing speakers in ceiling" to obtain
the best Dolby Atmos effect.
A Dolby Enabled Speaker is specially
designed to be used as a height speaker.
There are two types of Dolby Enabled
Speakers; one type is designed to be
placed on top of other speakers such as
front speakers and surround speakers,
and the other type is designed to be integrated with normal
speakers. Dolby Enabled Speakers placed with their
diaphragms facing toward the ceiling create higher effect
in the Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround listening modes
by providing sounds echoing off the ceiling.


----------



## aboroth00

leedesert said:


> I suggested the ceiling mount because the height speakers nomenclature is kind of deceiving. It's not just to create height but to actually envelope you. Otherwise, if something passes over head its hard to create that effect when the sound has to jump from the front wall to the back wall. When you have a ceiling mounted speaker that sound can actually travel over you without being simulated. That's why the primary atmos set up is with ceiling speakers, or speakers that reflect off the ceiling.
> 
> From the manual:
> 
> Ceiling speakers, etc. are used for
> maximizing effects in Dolby Atmos or
> Dolby Surround listening mode. Install Top
> Front speakers so that they are positioned
> at a point between directly above the
> listening position and directly above the
> front speakers. Install Top Middle speakers
> so they are directly above the listening
> position. Install Top Rear speakers so
> they are positioned at a point between
> directly above the listening position and
> directly above the back speakers.
> 
> ●● Dolby Laboratories recommends
> placing the speakers as described in
> "Installing speakers in ceiling" to obtain
> the best Dolby Atmos effect.
> A Dolby Enabled Speaker is specially
> designed to be used as a height speaker.
> There are two types of Dolby Enabled
> Speakers; one type is designed to be
> placed on top of other speakers such as
> front speakers and surround speakers,
> and the other type is designed to be integrated with normal
> speakers. Dolby Enabled Speakers placed with their
> diaphragms facing toward the ceiling create higher effect
> in the Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround listening modes
> by providing sounds echoing off the ceiling.


Gotcha. I will be using "ceiling speakers" to create a sense of height. Not front height speakers on the front wall. I think we were just confused by the nomenclature.


----------



## Stoked21

Lee, You have to slow down on some of these and not disseminate false info....I hate to call you out, but I've seen a lot of erroneous things going by over the last several days. Not trying to insult, but trying to help you here so please don't take the wrong way....



leedesert said:


> When I ran AccuEQ it set my speakers up at 100-110hz. I'm not sure why it did that but my speakers are all good to about 60hz so I changed that to the THX standard of 80hz. I'm not comfortable with 1oohz or more going to my sub because once you get up over 100hz the sound is easier to localize, otherwise you can tell where its coming from. 80hz and below it's just bass that fills the room.


If you check your AVR, it likely has 120Hz LPF on the LFE channel. Nothing above that will go to your sub....
As for the XO statement....Audy will set the levels higher on your bed and height speakers sometimes due to room problems and in order to obtain the most linear magnitude response it can.



leedesert said:


> It should only effect the crossover points. Al the other EQ features, distance, speaker equalization, and level should not be effected.


You shouldn't lower XO points in Audy. Once Audy determines the desired XO for a speaker, it performs no EQ whatsoever below that value (say 100-110Hz in your example). By lowering it to 80Hz, then everything below that 110Hz down to 80Hz will be completely non-EQ'd. This likely could lead to single note mid-bass problems and extremely non-linear results....



leedesert said:


> I suggested the ceiling mount because the height speakers nomenclature is kind of deceiving. It's not just to create height but to actually envelope you. Otherwise, if something passes over head its hard to create that effect when the sound has to jump from the front wall to the back wall. When you have a ceiling mounted speaker that sound can actually travel over you without being simulated. That's why the primary atmos set up is with ceiling speakers, or speakers that reflect off the ceiling.


Height speakers are used in DTS:X as well. Keep in mind that nothing is being "simulated" per say. It's object rendering based on assigned speaker locations. Plus "Top" and "Height" essentially have the same angles. So theoretically, there should not be any difference as long as the speakers are located within spec (30-55° and 125-150° for example).


----------



## AllenA07

johnnyquest1426 said:


> Looking at this atmo thread: Are all the new movies being released from here on end going to be atmos? Looking to see if i am going to upgrade.


At this point the vast majority of movies are being released with a standard 7.1 track. I'm hopeful that with UHD we start seeing more Atmos/DTS:X titles hitting the market.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Stoked21 said:


> If you check your AVR, it likely has 120Hz LPF on the LFE channel. Nothing above that will go to your sub....


Just wanted to be clear on something here: *The LPF of LFE control only affects sound from the LFE channel itself, not managed bass from the other channels as dictated by the per-channel crossovers.* For instance, if you have LPF of LFE set to 120 (as you should, always - no exceptions) and your other speakers crossed over at 160Hz, your subwoofer IS receiving bass above 120Hz for those channels. Those filters (LPF of LFE and the LPF applied to each channel based on each channel's defined crossover point) do not overlap as they are applied to those individual channels before they are summed into a single subwoofer output. The LPF of LFE control only affects the LFE channel's audio... which is typically brick-wall filtered at 120Hz during authoring anyway.

Also keep in mind that a 100Hz crossover isn't going to be as localizable to the subwoofer as you might think in all cases. The crossover point you're setting is the point where the speaker and sub are creating the sound at roughly equal amounts, and that transition is more gradual than most realize (dependent upon the slope of the two filters, though it's pretty standard). So if a speaker's anechoic -3dB point is 60Hz, that doesn't necessarily mean that you should cross it over at 60Hz to your sub... because that -3dB point indicates the speaker's natural rolloff. Setting the system crossover too close to the natural rolloff can cause a gap in frequency response or cause you to be hearing too much energy from the speaker as it starts to become muddied at the limit of its range. I tend to leave at least a half-octave of transition. So if a speaker's rated anechoic response is 50Hz, I set the crossover as close as possible to 75Hz. Doing this will give a smoother transition without the speaker's natural rolloff cascading with the filter applied by your AVR. Your speaker's in-room response will tend to be lower than the rated anechoic spec, which should aid in this transition.

If your AVR shows rough graphs of Audyssey's filters, you can use those to find the ideal crossover point. Look at the graph and you will typically see a point in the 20-100Hz range where the correction being applied goes from boost to cut (i.e. above the graph to below the graph). That will show you where Audyssey is detecting that it needs to start boosting that speaker, which tends to be where your speaker is starting to fall off naturally in your room. Crossing over at that point will work nicely for you because Audyssey's boost below that will level out the transition to the sub well before the true extension limits of the speaker itself.

Most importantly, if you have a particular set of speakers that you know are rated better and Audyssey is crossing them over abnormally high, try re-running it with closer attention to your mic positioning. Many times, things in the room itself can affect the way the mic capsule "hears" the sound from those channels, and some careful mic placement during Audyssey can give it a more accurate picture of what's going on in the room. Above and beyond that, if you have a set of speakers that always detect significantly off from what you know they should be capable of, you may have to address it with in-room treatments. No room EQ can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


----------



## Stoked21

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Just wanted to be clear on something here: *The LPF of LFE control only affects sound from the LFE channel itself, not managed bass from the other channels as dictated by the per-channel crossovers.* For instance, if you have LPF of LFE set to 120 (as you should, always - no exceptions) and your other speakers crossed over at 160Hz, your subwoofer IS receiving bass above 120Hz for those channels. .


Great clarification on bass mgmt Jeremy...Since he identified Audy crossing his beds at 100-110Hz, I ignored that part since we are off top anyway!


----------



## leedesert

Stoked21 said:


> Lee, You have to slow down on some of these and not disseminate false info....I hate to call you out, but I've seen a lot of erroneous things going by over the last several days. Not trying to insult, but trying to help you here so please don't take the wrong way....
> 
> 
> If you check your AVR, it likely has 120Hz LPF on the LFE channel. Nothing above that will go to your sub....
> As for the XO statement....Audy will set the levels higher on your bed and height speakers sometimes due to room problems and in order to obtain the most linear magnitude response it can.
> 
> 
> You shouldn't lower XO points in Audy. Once Audy determines the desired XO for a speaker, it performs no EQ whatsoever below that value (say 100-110Hz in your example). By lowering it to 80Hz, then everything below that 110Hz down to 80Hz will be completely non-EQ'd. This likely could lead to single note mid-bass problems and extremely non-linear results....
> 
> 
> 
> Height speakers are used in DTS:X as well. Keep in mind that nothing is being "simulated" per say. It's object rendering based on assigned speaker locations. Plus "Top" and "Height" essentially have the same angles. So theoretically, there should not be any difference as long as the speakers are located within spec (30-55° and 125-150° for example).


Dolby Atmos recommends ceiling speakers because effectively, not theoretically that's not true. It's much easier and does not require special mixing to create an over head sound when the speaker is actually overhead. The wider the seam is between the speakers the less believable the sound is as it passes from one speaker to the next. To create an overhead sound it requires a mix between the front height and rear height to fool your ears into thinking its overhead. If you have an actual top height speaker on the ceiling the transition is audibly much shorter and more realistic. The distance between the speakers (the seam) is shorter so much closer to seamless.

Using height speakers only on the opposing walls is a set up of necessity because of room limitations. If your able to mount ceiling speakers it is always more desirable when it comes to Atmos.


----------



## Flinthead

Hey guys... I finally finished my basement build. Marantz 7010 with Sony 40es and 7.2.4 setup. It's freaking awesome!!! Mad Max Fury Road was amazing in Atmos. I have one question from you guys, hopefully you have ran into this before. I purchased Game of Thrones S1, the steelbox version with Dolby Atmos, and when i play it and select "Dolby Atmos" as the audio it will only play as "Doly DTS + Dolby Surround". It still sounds good but shouldn't it show "Dolby Atmos" on the Marantz AVR like the Mad Max movie did??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Flinthead said:


> Hey guys... I finally finished my basement build. Marantz 7010 with Sony 40es and 7.2.4 setup. It's freaking awesome!!! Mad Max Fury Road was amazing in Atmos. I have one question from you guys, hopefully you have ran into this before. I purchased Game of Thrones S1, the steelbox version with Dolby Atmos, and when i play it and select "Dolby Atmos" as the audio it will only play as "Doly DTS + Dolby Surround". It still sounds good but shouldn't it show "Dolby Atmos" on the Marantz AVR like the Mad Max movie did??


Which player are you using?


----------



## batpig

Flinthead said:


> Hey guys... I finally finished my basement build. Marantz 7010 with Sony 40es and 7.2.4 setup. It's freaking awesome!!! Mad Max Fury Road was amazing in Atmos. I have one question from you guys, hopefully you have ran into this before. I purchased Game of Thrones S1, the steelbox version with Dolby Atmos, and when i play it and select "Dolby Atmos" as the audio it will only play as "Doly DTS + Dolby Surround". It still sounds good but shouldn't it show "Dolby Atmos" on the Marantz AVR like the Mad Max movie did??


I'll bet anything it's the secondary audio setting on your BDP.


----------



## Flinthead

It's a Sony BDPS6500. I ran through all the settings on it, could have missed something??


----------



## Stoked21

leedesert said:


> Dolby Atmos recommends ceiling speakers because effectively, not theoretically that's not true. It's much easier and does not require special mixing to create an over head sound when the speaker is actually overhead. The wider the seam is between the speakers the less believable the sound is as it passes from one speaker to the next. To create an overhead sound it requires a mix between the front height and rear height to fool your ears into thinking its overhead. If you have an actual top height speaker on the ceiling the transition is audibly much shorter and more realistic. The distance between the speakers (the seam) is shorter so much closer to seamless.
> 
> Using height speakers only on the opposing walls is a set up of necessity because of room limitations. If your able to mount ceiling speakers it is always more desirable when it comes to Atmos.


This is one of the common misconceptions of those newer to Atmos. It's a misunderstanding of the geometry and the prevailing importance of ceiling height. There fundamentally is zero _physical_ difference between a "top" and a "height" speaker. The speakers are one and the same in 99.9% of all home theaters. In rooms with tall ceilings, this may not be the case.

This so called "seam" that you've created is referring to the space between front and rear speakers it sounds like. Let's assume you have a 10' deep room with 8' tall ceilings, which is fairly close to a standard non-dedicated room. The front top/height speakers will be 56" in front of you and the rear top/height speakers will be 56" behind you if you shoot for 45° and 135° respectively....That equates to ~10' spread between front and rears, or the exact depth of the room. So the speakers could be in-ceiling at the wall/ceiling junction or they could be on the wall....Physically they are in the exact same location within just a few inches based on mounting method. Placing them further apart (or increasing the "seam") simply results in your speakers being at the edge or even outside of specifications. In this example if your room is deeper, it does not mean that you can just throw the speakers on the wall and call them FH/RH. Specs must still be maintained. 

_The thing you are not understanding is that the angles for tops and heights are essentially identical._ This means that most rooms cannot accommodate all 5 pairs of top speakers. Even in my 16' deep room with 7.5-8.5' tall ceilings, each of the 5 pairs would only be separated by about 18" due to the ceiling height, the critical determining factor. I've even gone so far as to try to figure out how to install FH/RH pairs to maximize speaker count, and it's physically impossibly to place them in spec as they would be right on top of my TF/TR or require all pairs to be installed nearly touching each other or installed out of spec. Simply put, the angles are identical and therefore the spacing (or seam as you call it) between proposed heights and tops is identical. You may not believe this despite angle specifications being identical. Spend a few hours drawing and measuring everything in your room. Break out tape measures and create spreadsheets with arcsin, arctan, arccos formulas. Or even grab a laser angle finder. You can validate this in a multitude of ways, all of which I have done extensively for over a year.

Furthermore on the "seam"...Currently my top front and top rear speakers have about a 12' spread between them. I actually run my speakers to the extreme angles of spec to achieve the largest spacing between pairs. You seem to be indicating that this large "seam" is unfavorable. But this allows for a better distribution of TF, TM, TR and results in a much more spacious Atmos panning effect. It also helps to accommodate 2 row seating areas. This wide "seam" is actually a wonderful thing and results in extremely large sound stage. Imagine placing your FL and FR speaker right next to each other to minimize the "seam" and you will immediately comprehend this, as left-right panning will be extremely minimized and the stage extremely compressed. The majority of the sounds I hear are perfectly phantom imaged between the front and rear pairs (where my unconnected TM speakers are installed). Most people think they are on and being used, but for now they are just bare speaker wire hanging in the AV closet until 13 or 15 ch prepros exist. When installed correctly, this "seam" does not even exist. It's a seamless panning from the front to back of the room, and in between.

Now on the processing of the height vs top speaker layout, that's a completely different story. Nearly anyone can reassign their tops as heights and vice versa. Again this is due to the fact that the speakers have the same angle specifications. And within any given room the ceiling height is going to dictate where those speakers can be installed. 99% of the time, the speakers can be labeled as either/or. You will see that most people have done just this and have swapped between height/top designations due to the recent release of DTS:X; all without physically moving the speakers. Many of us prefer to use "top" amp assigns vs "height" amp assigns and think the processing sounds better. We all also realize that while the speakers are physically the same, the processing is different. 

I can easily prove this to you with dimensions of your room. But at the end of the day, I'm telling you that this "seam" is non-existent and that height/top speakers are the same physical speaker in most every home theater. If you want to debate the processing, well that's another story that we can't even really dive into since we don't know HOW the processing is being affected in any great level of detail (since Dolby hasn't released that information).


----------



## korkster

I've finally ordered a Marantz 8802a to upgrade my home theater to Dolby Atmos/dts:X, so now that its time to seriously consider where to cut the holes for ceiling speakers, I want to confirm their location. I believe that from the MLP, the TF's should be located the same distance forward as the distance from your ears to the ceiling while seated, correct? And the TR's would be the same distance from the MLP, but in the other direction (towards the back of the room)? I've got two rows of seating, but I'm giving up on trying to make it work well for both seating locations as 90% of the time, I'm in the theater by myself, sitting in the MLP.


What about side to side? According to the Dolby diagram, it looks like they are supposed to line up directly with the FL and FR speakers away from the side walls. Is that correct? I have 6" deep soffits around the perimeter of the room that are about 2' wide. If I follow this direction, it places the ceiling speakers right up against the edge of the soffit. Is that a problem?


Boy, I have a lot of questions.


----------



## leedesert

Stoked21 said:


> This is one of the common misconceptions of those newer to Atmos. It's a misunderstanding of the geometry and the prevailing importance of ceiling height. There fundamentally is zero _physical_ difference between a "top" and a "height" speaker. The speakers are one and the same in 99.9% of all home theaters. In rooms with tall ceilings, this may not be the case.
> 
> This so called "seam" that you've created is referring to the space between front and rear speakers it sounds like. Let's assume you have a 10' deep room with 8' tall ceilings, which is fairly close to a standard non-dedicated room. The front top/height speakers will be 56" in front of you and the rear top/height speakers will be 56" behind you if you shoot for 45° and 135° respectively....That equates to ~10' spread between front and rears, or the exact depth of the room. So the speakers could be in-ceiling at the wall/ceiling junction or they could be on the wall....Physically they are in the exact same location within just a few inches based on mounting method. Placing them further apart (or increasing the "seam") simply results in your speakers being at the edge or even outside of specifications. In this example if your room is deeper, it does not mean that you can just throw the speakers on the wall and call them FH/RH. Specs must still be maintained.
> 
> _The thing you are not understanding is that the angles for tops and heights are essentially identical._ This means that most rooms cannot accommodate all 5 pairs of top speakers. Even in my 16' deep room with 7.5-8.5' tall ceilings, each of the 5 pairs would only be separated by about 18" due to the ceiling height, the critical determining factor. I've even gone so far as to try to figure out how to install FH/RH pairs to maximize speaker count, and it's physically impossibly to place them in spec as they would be right on top of my TF/TR or require all pairs to be installed nearly touching each other or installed out of spec. Simply put, the angles are identical and therefore the spacing (or seam as you call it) between proposed heights and tops is identical. You may not believe this despite angle specifications being identical. Spend a few hours drawing and measuring everything in your room. Break out tape measures and create spreadsheets with arcsin, arctan, arccos formulas. Or even grab a laser angle finder. You can validate this in a multitude of ways, all of which I have done extensively for over a year.
> 
> Furthermore on the "seam"...Currently my top front and top rear speakers have about a 12' spread between them. I actually run my speakers to the extreme angles of spec to achieve the largest spacing between pairs. You seem to be indicating that this large "seam" is unfavorable. But this allows for a better distribution of TF, TM, TR and results in a much more spacious Atmos panning effect. It also helps to accommodate 2 row seating areas. This wide "seam" is actually a wonderful thing and results in extremely large sound stage. Imagine placing your FL and FR speaker right next to each other to minimize the "seam" and you will immediately comprehend this, as left-right panning will be extremely minimized and the stage extremely compressed. The majority of the sounds I hear are perfectly phantom imaged between the front and rear pairs (where my unconnected TM speakers are installed). Most people think they are on and being used, but for now they are just bare speaker wire hanging in the AV closet until 13 or 15 ch prepros exist. When installed correctly, this "seam" does not even exist. It's a seamless panning from the front to back of the room, and in between.
> 
> Now on the processing of the height vs top speaker layout, that's a completely different story. Nearly anyone can reassign their tops as heights and vice versa. Again this is due to the fact that the speakers have the same angle specifications. And within any given room the ceiling height is going to dictate where those speakers can be installed. 99% of the time, the speakers can be labeled as either/or. You will see that most people have done just this and have swapped between height/top designations due to the recent release of DTS:X; all without physically moving the speakers. Many of us prefer to use "top" amp assigns vs "height" amp assigns and think the processing sounds better. We all also realize that while the speakers are physically the same, the processing is different.
> 
> I can easily prove this to you with dimensions of your room. But at the end of the day, I'm telling you that this "seam" is non-existent and that height/top speakers are the same physical speaker in most every home theater. If you want to debate the processing, well that's another story that we can't even really dive into since we don't know HOW the processing is being affected in any great level of detail (since Dolby hasn't released that information).


I applaud your ability to take a simple concept of physics and turn it into something that sounds so complicated.

They basic fact is that if your room is 20' long and you have height speakers on the front and back wall they are simply 20' apart. In order to create an object that is moving overhead from one side to the other the effect has to be done completely by processing and fooling your ears into thinking there is actual sound coming from over head. ATMOS uses sound that is either coming from or bouncing off the ceiling. Other than the processing used to place the object overhead, the actual sound is coming from the general area it's moving through, not by tricking your ears that sound is coming from a place where there are no speakers.

All the formulas and angles are great if you want to play with numbers all day and over think simple concepts. The fact remains that if sound is suppose to be coming from point A, a speaker at or near point A is much more believable by the brain than if you take a combination of speakers at points B and C and use them to create the effect of sound coming from point A.

This is made clear in every Atmos write up and demonstration out there.

Of course, all of this is subject to your room dimensions and the limitations presented by your walls and ceiling but in the end the same goal remains, to come as close as possible to the Atmos design layout for speaker distribution.


----------



## leedesert

korkster said:


> I've finally ordered a Marantz 8802a to upgrade my home theater to Dolby Atmos/dts:X, so now that its time to seriously consider where to cut the holes for ceiling speakers, I want to confirm their location. I believe that from the MLP, the TF's should be located the same distance forward as the distance from your ears to the ceiling while seated, correct? And the TR's would be the same distance from the MLP, but in the other direction (towards the back of the room)? I've got two rows of seating, but I'm giving up on trying to make it work well for both seating locations as 90% of the time, I'm in the theater by myself, sitting in the MLP.
> 
> 
> What about side to side? According to the Dolby diagram, it looks like they are supposed to line up directly with the FL and FR speakers away from the side walls. Is that correct? I have 6" deep soffits around the perimeter of the room that are about 2' wide. If I follow this direction, it places the ceiling speakers right up against the edge of the soffit. Is that a problem?
> 
> 
> Boy, I have a lot of questions.


The first part seems correct but where are your front speakers positioned? Are they all the way in the corners of the wall?


----------



## Flinthead

Dan Hitchman said:


> Which player are you using?


It's a Sony BDPS6500. I ran through all the settings on it, could have missed something??


----------



## batpig

Flinthead said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which player are you using?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a Sony BDPS6500. I ran through all the settings on it, could have missed something??
Click to expand...

On Sony BDP you need to ensure the BD Mix setting is off. That disables secondary audio.


----------



## Flinthead

batpig said:


> On Sony BDP you need to ensure the BD Mix setting is off. That disables secondary audio.


Thanks! I'll give that a shot this evening!


----------



## korkster

leedesert said:


> The first part seems correct but where are your front speakers positioned? Are they all the way in the corners of the wall?


 
The front speakers sit behind a acoustically transparent screen, about two feet in from the side walls. There are 2'x2' floor to ceiling bass traps in each corner, also behind the screen, and the speakers sit alongside of them. I'm going to try to attach a picture of the front of the room, although you don't see the speakers as they are behind the screen.


----------



## Stoked21

leedesert said:


> I applaud your ability to *take a simple concept of physics and turn it into something that sounds so complicated*.


LOL....Is that an oxymoron? BTW, It's not physics, it's geometry. 



leedesert said:


> They basic fact is that if your room is 20' long and you have height speakers on the front and back wall they are simply 20' apart.


You're making my point here....If your room is 20' long and your MLP is in the center of the room....You can only mount speakers as FH on walls 1) at 45° if your ceiling are 13.5' tall or 2) at 30° if your ceilings are 9.5' tall. If your MLP is more towards the back of the room, you can only mount FH speakers as your ceilings slowly grow towards 20' high! So if you just slap them up on the wall in that scenario, then of course they'll sound bad _cus they are out of spec_. I don't know of anyone who has ceiling height greater than 10'. The average room is going to be 7-8' tall. This hypothetical 20' long room is likely going to mandate TOP/IC speakers due to it's limited ceiling height and long depth. It is a simple concept, but you are failing to grasp the Atmos geometry here. 



leedesert said:


> In order to create an object that is moving overhead from one side to the other the effect has to be done completely by processing and fooling your ears into thinking there is actual sound coming from over head. ATMOS uses sound that is either coming from or bouncing off the ceiling. Other than the processing used to place the object overhead, the actual sound is coming from the general area it's moving through, not by tricking your ears that sound is coming from a place where there are no speakers.


Again, you are missing the geometry here. There is no "fooling" here. A speaker mounted on a wall at 45° to MLP or mounted on the ceiling at 45° to MLP is still always 45° above your ears. You will not hear the difference if the processing applied is the same on both (there is the matter of being on or off axis and the dispersion). The speaker is always above the listener and the sound will always come from and be perceived as above the listener.....It's the same angle above you and the same distance from you, period. You are also thinking of sound as if it's a narrow, directional light beam, like shining a laser pointer. It's not.....



leedesert said:


> All the formulas and angles are great if you want to play with numbers all day and over think simple concepts. The fact remains that if sound is suppose to be coming from point A, a speaker at or near point A is much more believable by the brain than if you take a combination of speakers at points B and C and use them to create the effect of sound coming from point A.


It's not a matter of overthinking simple concepts. It's a matter of grasping the basic concepts. The angle specifications are essentially identical and therefore the speakers will be in the same location. The length of the room, and installation preference, may determine whether they are on the wall or on the ceiling. If you are making a point that having a TM speaker is preferable to having phantom image between TF and TR, then I agree. This is part of the whole premise of having a center channel speaker for dialogue. Object rendering can also be more precise by having additional speakers. However, many of us who have great Atmos setups will tell you that the phantom image between TF/TR or FH/RH is phenomenal and nearly indiscernible from having a dedicated TM (though we all long for 6 up top for improved granularity and object positioning).

I'm just trying to help you clear up your Atmos misconceptions here.....You're right, you don't need to overthink it. But you do need to grasp the geometry as opposed to refuting the use of FH/RH. For all intents and purposes they can be identical, and audibly perceived identically, to TF/TR deployments.


----------



## batpig

korkster said:


> I've finally ordered a Marantz 8802a to upgrade my home theater to Dolby Atmos/dts:X, so now that its time to seriously consider where to cut the holes for ceiling speakers, I want to confirm their location. I believe that from the MLP, the TF's should be located the same distance forward as the distance from your ears to the ceiling while seated, correct? And the TR's would be the same distance from the MLP, but in the other direction (towards the back of the room)? I've got two rows of seating, but I'm giving up on trying to make it work well for both seating locations as 90% of the time, I'm in the theater by myself, sitting in the MLP.
> 
> What about side to side? According to the Dolby diagram, it looks like they are supposed to line up directly with the FL and FR speakers away from the side walls. Is that correct? I have 6" deep soffits around the perimeter of the room that are about 2' wide. If I follow this direction, it places the ceiling speakers right up against the edge of the soffit. Is that a problem?
> 
> Boy, I have a lot of questions.


I would read this article by pro intaller Nyal Mellor (who also posts in these forums) about ceiling speaker placement and how that relates to dispersion for two rows: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/

The bottom line is that, as you know, with only two pairs of overheads you can't make it perfect for both rows. So what you want to do is optimize for that MLP (which I assume is first row) while still accommodating the second row. I think most people have ended up doing what's recommended in this article -- one pair between the rows and one pair in front of the first row, which become Top Front + Top Rear as referenced from the front row MLP. If you are careful with considerations of angle and dispersion the rear row should still get a good experience (just like sitting in the back of a theater). The higher the ceiling is, the easier it is to cover both rows with more consistent SPL.

Note that with what I assume are elevated rear surrounds in a 2-row environment, the rear overhead speakers can "cheat" forward a bit to create more separation from the back surrounds. So those TR speakers may not be a full 45-60 degrees back, but maybe 20-30 degrees behind. 

I take a more common sense view of things -- you are trying to enable front-to-back and side-to-side panning of stuff overhead, and also to "fill the gaps" in the dome of sound as things travel around the bed layer. A good rule of thumb is to have the rear overheads split the gap between the side and back surrounds, and the front overheads closing the gap between side surrounds and screen speakers. 

In terms of side-to-side spacing of the overhead arrays, the Dolby home documents recommend lining them up with your L/R main channels but in the commercial cinema they are narrower than that (splitting the gap between L/R and C channels). Since you have a nice dedicated room with a big screen, you can cheat more towards the commercial spec. As above with elevated back surrounds impacting the spacing from rear overheads, the elevation of the side surrounds may dictate you place the overhead arrays a bit narrower to create that angular spacing. Again, the idea being to evenly cover the gaps front-to-back, and side-to-side.

I would also point out that it's not THAT sensitive so don't become overly precise. If the overheads end up 1ft narrower or 1ft forward of some theoretical "ideal" you probably won't hear a difference.


----------



## sdurani

leedesert said:


> To create an overhead sound it requires a mix between the front height and rear height to fool your ears into thinking its overhead.


Sure, because Heights and Tops have different rendering assumptions. Heights are assumed to be farther out or lower in elevation (whichever way you want to think about it). This is consistent across both formats. 

If you set your overhead speakers to Heights and play the Atmos test tones, they will phantom image inward to give the impression of Tops. If you set the overheads to Tops and play the DTS:X channel checks, they will phantom image downward to give the impression of Heights.


> If you have an actual top height speaker on the ceiling the transition is audibly much shorter and more realistic. The distance between the speakers (the seam) is shorter so much closer to seamless.


Agreed, but that's true for any pair of speakers: the closer they are to each other, the more seamless the imaging and soundstage between them.


----------



## sprins

korkster said:


> The front speakers sit behind a *acoustically transparent screen*, about two feet in from the side walls. [...] I'm going to try to attach a picture of the front of the room, although you don't see the speakers as they are behind the screen.


This is very high on my wish list. To have all 'bed' speakers on the same height all around. Looks awesome too.


----------



## richwoy

*Tx-nr646/ps3*

Posted this in the blu-ray player section, but maybe it belongs here...


I'm hoping to get some help on settings to pass un-decoded audio to my AVR from a PS3. I'm not seeing Dolby Atmos options on my AVR when watching an Atmos recorded movie such as Fury Road.

Here are my PS3 options:
1. BD/DVD Cinema Conversion - Automatic
2. BD/DVD Upscaler - Normal
3. BD/DVD video output format (HDMI) - Automatic
4. 1080p 24hz output (HDMI) - Automatic
5. BD/DVD dynamic range control - Automatic
6. BD/DVD audio output format (HDMI) - bitstream
7. BD - audio output format (optical digital) - bitstream direct

Here are my connections:
1. HDMI from PS3 to BD/DVD port on AVR
2. HDMI from TV to Main Out on AVR
3. HDMI from Fios box to TV
4. optical audio cable from Fios box to AVR.


Anyone have suggestions? I can't figure out what the heck I'm doing wrong.


----------



## smurraybhm

richwoy said:


> Posted this in the blu-ray player section, but maybe it belongs here...
> 
> 
> I'm hoping to get some help on settings to pass un-decoded audio to my AVR from a PS3. I'm not seeing Dolby Atmos options on my AVR when watching an Atmos recorded movie such as Fury Road.
> Anyone have suggestions? I can't figure out what the heck I'm doing wrong.


Fat or slim?


----------



## richwoy

smurraybhm said:


> Fat or slim?



Fattie version.


----------



## batpig

richwoy said:


> Fattie version.


That's the problem -- no bitstream of HD audio on the fat PS3.


----------



## richwoy

batpig said:


> That's the problem -- no bitstream of HD audio on the fat PS3.



Oh **** - how did I not know this! Guess it's time for a Slim or PS4. Damn.


----------



## korkster

batpig said:


> I would read this article by pro intaller Nyal Mellor (who also posts in these forums) about ceiling speaker placement and how that relates to dispersion for two rows: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/
> 
> The bottom line is that, as you know, with only two pairs of overheads you can't make it perfect for both rows. So what you want to do is optimize for that MLP (which I assume is first row) while still accommodating the second row. I think most people have ended up doing what's recommended in this article -- one pair between the rows and one pair in front of the first row, which become Top Front + Top Rear as referenced from the front row MLP. If you are careful with considerations of angle and dispersion the rear row should still get a good experience (just like sitting in the back of a theater). The higher the ceiling is, the easier it is to cover both rows with more consistent SPL.
> 
> Note that with what I assume are elevated rear surrounds in a 2-row environment, the rear overhead speakers can "cheat" forward a bit to create more separation from the back surrounds. So those TR speakers may not be a full 45-60 degrees back, but maybe 20-30 degrees behind.
> 
> I take a more common sense view of things -- you are trying to enable front-to-back and side-to-side panning of stuff overhead, and also to "fill the gaps" in the dome of sound as things travel around the bed layer. A good rule of thumb is to have the rear overheads split the gap between the side and back surrounds, and the front overheads closing the gap between side surrounds and screen speakers.
> 
> In terms of side-to-side spacing of the overhead arrays, the Dolby home documents recommend lining them up with your L/R main channels but in the commercial cinema they are narrower than that (splitting the gap between L/R and C channels). Since you have a nice dedicated room with a big screen, you can cheat more towards the commercial spec. As above with elevated back surrounds impacting the spacing from rear overheads, the elevation of the side surrounds may dictate you place the overhead arrays a bit narrower to create that angular spacing. Again, the idea being to evenly cover the gaps front-to-back, and side-to-side.
> 
> I would also point out that it's not THAT sensitive so don't become overly precise. If the overheads end up 1ft narrower or 1ft forward of some theoretical "ideal" you probably won't hear a difference.



Thanks, very much for your thoughts, and the link to the Mellor article. My biggest drawback is that my ceiling is only 7'2", that puts my second row pretty close to the ceiling. So I have a bit of a challenge, but I'm confident we can make it work, at least for the front row.


----------



## korkster

sprins said:


> This is very high on my wish list. To have all 'bed' speakers on the same height all around. Looks awesome too.


Thanks. It is nice having the bed speakers at similar height, but the big advantage to having the speakers behind the screen, is that all three front speakers, l/c/r, are identical, full range, tower speakers (Axiom M-80 v3's).


----------



## sprins

richwoy said:


> Oh **** - how did I not know this! Guess it's time for a Slim or PS4. Damn.


Get a PS4 and keep the fatty for PS3 compatibility. Just a thought.


----------



## richwoy

sprins said:


> Get a PS4 and keep the fatty for PS3 compatibility. Just a thought.



Definitely keeping the fatty. Debating between PS4 and a dedicated player like a Panny DMP-BDT460 or something along those lines. I won't do any gaming on the PS4... I'll stick with the PS3 for those needs.


----------



## PioManiac

richwoy said:


> Definitely keeping the fatty. Debating between PS4 and a dedicated player like a Panny DMP-BDT460 or something along those lines. I won't do any gaming on the PS4... I'll stick with the PS3 for those needs.


Don't Get a PS4 just for Bluray playback!

I have a PS3 Fatty too, then picked up a Sony BDP*-*S5100 Bluray player for under $150 almost 3 years ago
Just so I could Bit Stream my Audio for DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD.

Last November I finally caved in ( Black Friday) and bought a PS4, tried it a few times for Bluray but went back to the old S5100
...using the PS4 game controller sucks as a remote and the darn bright blue light never shuts off.

I then bought the PS4 universal remote (because the one I had for the PS3 doesn't work on the PS4 )
...and its a total turd too, half the size and weight of the PS3 version (for 2x the price) it shuts down on its own and loses connection within about 10 minutes.

To get it re-synced to the PS4 you have to hit the PS button and wait several seconds before you can pause your movie.


----------



## jrogers

Wondering if anyone with a 7.1.4 setup with front-wides instead of rear surrounds (7w.1.4) has come across any particularly good Atmos demo material for showcasing front-wides. This review indicates Minions is a good choice:

(http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/top-5-dolby-atmos-demos-in-minions/28222)
"While height objects are generally reserved for a few key sequences, this Dolby Atmos mix takes special care in panning all the Minion character voices -- particularly Kevin, Stuart, and Bob -- as they run on and off screen, from right to left or left to right. Outside of 2.0 stereo mixes, I don't think we've ever heard a sound design that so heavily relied on front L and front R placement, which expands even further with the addition of front wide speakers."​Wondering if folks here concur, and if there are other movies folks would recommend.


----------



## shyyour

Has anyone seen "In the Heart of the Sea" on Bluray? How was the atmos effect ?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

shyyour said:


> Has anyone seen "In the Heart of the Sea" on Bluray? How was the atmos effect ?


watched it last night....outstanding ATMOS in this one


----------



## Ricoflashback

jrogers said:


> Wondering if anyone with a 7.1.4 setup with front-wides instead of rear surrounds (7w.1.4) has come across any particularly good Atmos demo material for showcasing front-wides. This review indicates Minions is a good choice:
> (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/top-5-dolby-atmos-demos-in-minions/28222)
> "While height objects are generally reserved for a few key sequences, this Dolby Atmos mix takes special care in panning all the Minion character voices -- particularly Kevin, Stuart, and Bob -- as they run on and off screen, from right to left or left to right. Outside of 2.0 stereo mixes, I don't think we've ever heard a sound design that so heavily relied on front L and front R placement, which expands even further with the addition of front wide speakers."​Wondering if folks here concur, and if there are other movies folks would recommend.


I have front wides but in a 9.1.2 Atmos configuration. It's all personal preference and dependent on your room and ability to mount ceiling speakers. Most folks on this thread go with a 7.1.4 or x.x.4 Atmos setup. 

I find the front wides fill in a gap that sound great with Atmos soundtracks. The wind whipping around in Everest is a good example. I do not have DTS X so anything that isn't an Atmos track (mostly everything from movies to cable) is listened to in DTS Neo X where all 11 speakers are active. (Cinema Mode - clarity of dialog and emphasis on the center channel.)


----------



## hatlesschimp

The openning scene of Spectre with the helicopter was good for panning on my traditional 7.1 with my Yamaha 3050. 

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## shyyour

Brian Fineberg said:


> watched it last night....outstanding ATMOS in this one


Thanks for That


----------



## smurraybhm

hatlesschimp said:


> The openning scene of Spectre with the helicopter was good for panning on my traditional 7.1 with my Yamaha 3050.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


Try it with 7.x.4 using DSU - truly immersive


----------



## hatlesschimp

Ohhh my god! I cant wait!!!!!!!!!! My house should be built by Xmas. 

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## Dyx

*So far I have compared Dolby Atmos DSU with DTS:Neural with following result*s:

AV receiver: Marantz SR7010 I was testing and comparing sound on movies after update to DTS:X:

On any movie material (except native DTS:X and/or native Dolby Atmos) when I compare DSU vs. DTS:Neural the *DSU *by far beats the *Neural*, why??

Dynamics and frequency range is audibly far better from DSU compared when I switch to Neural, With Neural immideately the bass sounds get much weaker, sound is more FLAT etc.
To be hones I am pretty disapointed with Neural so far since I can compare to DSU.

I am still not sure if I have to pay for the Auro 3D upgrade as soon it will be available...


----------



## stikle

lujan said:


> It does since I already have the *Denon X5200W* and because I didn't get the top of the line 7200, I don't get DTS:X or *more importantly HDCP 2.2 which allows for 4k support*. I was not about to buy another expensive AVR just for these items so the next best thing was the 646.



The $250 HDFury Integral would have worked around the HDCP 2.2 issue. I'm running 4K just fine utilizing my 5200. 

No, no DTS:X, but I'm not sweating over not being able to hear all 3 DTS:X authored discs in their native format at this time.



Dyx said:


> I am still not sure if I have to pay for the Auro 3D upgrade as soon it will be available...



It's been available for like a year. However, from my understanding, it's pretty much a waste of money unless you are a big music listener. Apparently it does quite well with two channel music.


----------



## batpig

shyyour said:


> Has anyone seen "In the Heart of the Sea" on Bluray? How was the atmos effect ?





Brian Fineberg said:


> watched it last night....outstanding ATMOS in this one


I saw this movie in the premium Atmos theater in Chicago with fellow AVS'ers sdrucker and Aras_volodka, and the Atmos audio was pretty awesome. They really took advantage of the overhead speaker for effects of water and whales swooshing over you during some of the hunting scenes and the storm effects during the bad weather. One of the better Atmos mixes I've heard in terms of actually using the overhead speakers to immerse you in the environment of the movie. I'm really glad the Atmos track made it to the BD version and can't wait to hear it again.


----------



## murphy2112

korkster said:


> I've finally ordered a Marantz 8802a to upgrade my home theater to Dolby Atmos/dts:X, so now that its time to seriously consider where to cut the holes for ceiling speakers, I want to confirm their location. I believe that from the MLP, the TF's should be located the same distance forward as the distance from your ears to the ceiling while seated, correct? And the TR's would be the same distance from the MLP, but in the other direction (towards the back of the room)? I've got two rows of seating, but I'm giving up on trying to make it work well for both seating locations as 90% of the time, I'm in the theater by myself, sitting in the MLP.
> 
> 
> What about side to side? According to the Dolby diagram, it looks like they are supposed to line up directly with the FL and FR speakers away from the side walls. Is that correct? I have 6" deep soffits around the perimeter of the room that are about 2' wide. If I follow this direction, it places the ceiling speakers right up against the edge of the soffit. Is that a problem?
> 
> 
> Boy, I have a lot of questions.



You are correct on all counts. I ended up bringing my ceiling speakers a few inches inward of the mains also due to a soffit on one side. However they are still wide enough to cover the couch, my main listening position. As long as your ceiling speakers have wide dispersion m you should be OK.


----------



## Nutdotnet

Question for you Atmos gurus.

I'm in the process of turning my living room 3.1 system to a 5.1.X system. I'll be purchasing either the Denon X4200 or Yamaha 2050.

Eventually I'll probably go to a .4 setup but initially I'm thinking about sticking w a .2. Going from a 3.1 to a 5.1.2 is going to be significant as it is.

The Atmos guidelines show to do a TM when going 5.1.2. Of course it'll be easier to add TR speakers if I can do the initial .2 with a TF placement.

Will this compromise the "bubble" too much? Should I stick with the Top Middle placement guidelines and if I go to .4 reposition the TM speakers as TF (of course it'll be easier to only have to install the TR vs. installing those and reinstalling the TM to TF).


----------



## smurraybhm

stikle said:


> It's been available for like a year. However, from my understanding, it's pretty much a waste of money unless you are a big music listener. Apparently it does quite well with two channel music.


Try using the center spread setting with 2 channel when selecting DSU. The music advantage of Auro disappears. After reading a few other comments by members who had discovered or utilized this setting I gave it a try and take back my comments about DSU and music. Also remember that FilmMixer actually preferred DSU for 2 channel, I don't know if he was using center spread or not. Buying an Auro upgrade at this point would be foolish IMO, I suspect it will be disappearing from the D&M product line soon as no other manufacturer ex the uber expensive processors have offered it. Besides the money not spent for the upgrade can go towards the purchase of an HD Fury. I've got mine ready to go when I need it.


----------



## batpig

Nutdotnet said:


> Question for you Atmos gurus.
> 
> I'm in the process of turning my living room 3.1 system to a 5.1.X system. I'll be purchasing either the Denon X4200 or Yamaha 2050.
> 
> Eventually I'll probably go to a .4 setup but initially I'm thinking about sticking w a .2. Going from a 3.1 to a 5.1.2 is going to be significant as it is.
> 
> The Atmos guidelines show to do a TM when going 5.1.2. Of course it'll be easier to add TR speakers if I can do the initial .2 with a TF placement.
> 
> Will this compromise the "bubble" too much? Should I stick with the Top Middle placement guidelines and if I go to .4 reposition the TM speakers as TF (of course it'll be easier to only have to install the TR vs. installing those and reinstalling the TM to TF).


If the eventual goal is to do a .4 setup then place the first two speakers in a TF position, even if you call them TM. You'll get the sense of sound above you and the frontal hemisphere is more important anyway. 

That's assuming it's not a huge PITA to move the speakers. If it isn't then you can experiment more.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I ordered both the Samsung K8500 and the HD Fury to be sure that I would get a picture and Atmos (if the movie soundtrack were Atmos...). I really don’t know what I was thinking. My projector is a Sony VPL-VW50 which is 1080i. I think that I got it into my head that upscaling to at least 2160 by the Samsung and HDCP 2.2 magic provided by the HD Fury would ensure that I got the best possible picture.


Here is the reality...1080i is just that...1080i. The advanced processing capabilities of an UHD player might provide a better color palette, but that is it. And, as a result of my experience, I believe that even causes a problem.


So, I am returning the Samsung K8500. 



And, I will offer the HD Fury for $225 including shipping (I paid $250 two weeks ago and it will cost me about $30 to ship it back). I will even thrown in the UHD of The Martian and a Kabeldirect 4K 6’ cable.


PM me if you are interested.


More later...


----------



## Nutdotnet

batpig said:


> If the eventual goal is to do a .4 setup then place the first two speakers in a TF position, even if you call them TM. You'll get the sense of sound above you and the frontal hemisphere is more important anyway.
> 
> That's assuming it's not a huge PITA to move the speakers. If it isn't then you can experiment more.


Thanks Mr. Pig.

Not a huge PITA but something I'd rather avoid.


----------



## dvdwilly3

This is my "More later..."


I got the Samsung K8500 and the HD Fury and hooked up both my current bluray player, Sony BDP-S7200 and the Samsung to the Onkyo TX-NR1030. The Sony was in a standard HDMI input and the Samsung was in the HDMI Input 3, which is 2.2. capable.
The Onkyo HDMI Main Out then went to the Fury HD Fury. The HD Fury passed both signals to the projector without any drama. I have The Martian in bluray and had bought it in UHD. So, I teed both of them up and ran to a few scenes that I thought might tell me something.
After doing that briefly, it dawned on me that the Onkyo was probably applying processing of its on to the different HDMI inputs, so I disconnected both the bluray and the UHD. Then, I hooked up the bluray to the HD Fury HDCP 1.4 input and the Samsung to the HDCP 2.2 input. Then, went back and looked at scenes without sound so that there was no distraction.
I was accompanied in this experiment by a friend who was very interested in the Samsung as well just so someone else was either seeing or not seeing what I saw.
My original intent was driven by information on the forum on a couple of issues. The first is that some studios will likely provide Atmos on the UHD disks only and leave the bluray at whatever native sound format was used in the theaters. And, secondly, that studios may manipulate the UHD disks such that some would not play at all on systems that were not pure HDCP 2.2 from start to finish.
I want(ed) my Atmos!
Well, then reality sets in. Running the two players side by side showed me several things. The Samsung K8500 on my system exhibits a black crush and distinct red push regardless of how I manipulated the projector settings.
I found that I consistently preferred the picture from the Sony with the bluray disk over the UHD disk in the Samsung. In the pictures that I am attaching, in each series, it is bluray disk on Sony on the left, then UHD disk on Samsung in the middle, then bluray disk on Samsung on the right.
I will offer this observation—part of the issue with the images are not the fault of the Samsung, but the mastering of the UHD disk itself. The reason that I say this is that if you compare the leftmost image (bluray on Sony) with the rightmost image (bluray on Samsung), either is preferable to the middle image (UHD disk on Samsung). Arguably, the bluray disk on the Samsung may be preferable to the bluray on the Sony for some...maybe.
And, a guess...that black crush that I observe might be due to the expanded color space of the Samsung trying to get crammed into the color space of the Sony resulting in loss of something. But, it is a guess only. The red push, I have no clue.
Bottom line—while I want my Atmos, I am not willing to sacrifice my picture to get it. The DSU of Atmos does such an excellent job that I can live with it.
So, I am returning the Samsung to BB. And, I am either selling the HD Fury Integral here (see in other post) or returning it to Legendsky for a refund.
The HD Fury seems to function flawlessly. However, it is basically for people who have purchased an HD/4K/whatever high def TV set or projector that is NOT HDCP 2.2 compliant. Otherwise, I am not sure how much benefit you will derive.


----------



## Jstrick5

nickbuol said:


> PM sent


Hey Nick, any chance you can PM me the canadian reps contact info as well? Have been searching for details the last two evenings and am not coming up with anything.


----------



## Ricoflashback

To dvdwilly3 - 

Just to make sure I understand your posts - - is your setup (TV wise) a projector, 1080i? No 4K TV that you used with the Samsung K8500 & a UHD disc? (HD Fury, as well).

From the picture you painted, it sounds like you tried to get the Dolby Atmos soundtrack with a non 4K TV (or projector) with a UHD disc via the Samsung K8500 & the HD Fury. And, the video problems were not worth it. If that's the case, then I see no reason to pick up a UHD Bluray Player since I do not have a 4K TV and also use a projector. 

I do not know if this has been confirmed with other users but if it has been, then that means the HD Fury is not the solution for non 4K TV's in trying to get their Dolby Atmos fix via a UHD disc (especially if the regular Bluray does NOT have the Atmos soundtrack.) 

Not encouraging. If I'm interpreting this wrong, please let me know.


----------



## TheBrandon

I posted this in the KEF Owners thread but thought I may get some answers based on those currently running this. 

I have 5 KEF Ci200QL in my 5.2 channel setup that I love. My plan was to add 4 CI200QR for the ceiling but I've been told it's overkill. My dedicated theater room is 8 foot drop ceiling, 15 foot long 16 foot wide. 

Originally I planned for 4 Ci200QR. 8 inch driver Freq. response 35Hz - 34kHz
KEF has introduced the ER series, the Ci160ER. 6.5 inch Freq. response 52Hz-20kHz. Also, there's the Ci200ER 8 inch driver Freq. response 45Hz - 20kHz. The ER series is half the price. 

Will it matter running Q series and E since E would be for heights only concerning sound signature, I guess meaning will they match? What should I do? I have no issues spending double if it makes sense but the height are strictly for Atmos/DTSX. Thank you!!!


----------



## ALtlOff

If I'm not mistaken, most of us who run larger more capable Heights/Tops really think they add to the immersion and create less of a chance for the sound to be off and distracting instead of feeling natural, overhead sound (not Atmos enabled) are still full range.
My best advise would be to find what closely matches the rest of your surrounds, and go at least that big/full.
Personally, I'd go for the Q's because the rest of your system that you already love, plus you go for them, you'll never wonder "should I have".


----------



## TheBrandon

ALtlOff said:


> If I'm not mistaken, most of us who run larger more capable Heights/Tops really think they add to the immersion and create less of a chance for the sound to be off and distracting instead of feeling natural, overhead sound (not Atmos enabled) are still full range.
> My best advise would be to find what closely matches the rest of your surrounds, and go at least that big/full.
> Personally, I'd go for the Q's because the rest of your system that you already love, plus you go for them, you'll never wonder "should I have".


Historically I wouldn't have even considered this but KEF claims the Ci are timber matched across the entire series. 



 I haven't had a chance to hear Atmos in an awesome setting so I wasn't sure how aggressive the heights are. Sounds like they are aggressive enough to cause concern regardless of KEF's claims?


----------



## ALtlOff

Honestly, this is going to fall in line with the idea of matching your surrounds with your mains, do you have to...no, would it sound better... most likely.

The whole idea is unfortunately very personal, if "you" don't notice a difference or don't get distracted by a sound not matching exactly, then by all means, save the money and don't worry about it. But if you're the person who does notice small details like that, then your best off doing it right in the first place.

And yes, early on, the guidelines say that you don't "need" as capable of a speaker, and they are just for ambiance and occasional sound, but as soundtracks get better and more of us do actual listening experiments in our rooms, we're finding that overhead and heights are just as important as your regular surrounds when it comes to the overall experience.

At least that's what I've found.


----------



## TheBrandon

ALtlOff said:


> Honestly, this is going to fall in line with the idea of matching your surrounds with your mains, do you have to...no, would it sound better... most likely.
> 
> The whole idea is unfortunately very personal, if "you" don't notice a difference or don't get distracted by a sound not matching exactly, then by all means, save the money and don't worry about it. But if you're the person who does notice small details like that, then your best off doing it right in the first place.
> 
> And yes, early on, the guidelines say that you don't "need" as capable of a speaker, and they are just for ambiance and occasional sound, but as soundtracks get better and more of is do actual listening experiments in our rooms, we're finding that overhead and heights are just as important as your regular surrounds when it comes to the overall experience.
> 
> At least that's what I've found.



Better safe than sorry. 👍.


----------



## tbrown187

Hi all. I got the clearance from the wife to pursue a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup with in ceiling speakers. Before I can land on either 5.1.2 or 5.1.4, I was hoping to get some advice on if my proposed 5.1.4 configuration would work. If anyone of you have a couple minutes to check out my original post, it would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Ricoflashback said:


> To dvdwilly3 -
> 
> Just to make sure I understand your posts - - is your setup (TV wise) a projector, 1080i? No 4K TV that you used with the Samsung K8500 & a UHD disc? (HD Fury, as well).
> 
> From the picture you painted, it sounds like you tried to get the Dolby Atmos soundtrack with a non 4K TV (or projector) with a UHD disc via the Samsung K8500 & the HD Fury. And, the video problems were not worth it. If that's the case, then I see no reason to pick up a UHD Bluray Player since I do not have a 4K TV and also use a projector.
> 
> I do not know if this has been confirmed with other users but if it has been, then that means the HD Fury is not the solution for non 4K TV's in trying to get their Dolby Atmos fix via a UHD disc (especially if the regular Bluray does NOT have the Atmos soundtrack.)
> 
> Not encouraging. If I'm interpreting this wrong, please let me know.


Tried to post this numerous times last night and repeatedly got "Token has expired...yada, yada, yada...". I finally just gave up.

Just to make sure I understand your posts - - is your setup (TV wise) a projector, 1080i? No 4K TV that you used with the Samsung K8500 & a UHD disc? (HD Fury, as well).

*My projector is a Sony VPL-VW50, a 1080i projector. It puts up a very good PQ.*
*I used the HD Fury with a Samsung UHD player with a UHD disk with that projector.*
*I did NOT attempt to use that combination with a 4K display of any kind.*
*I would expect the results to be markedly different.*

From the picture you painted, it sounds like you tried to get the Dolby Atmos soundtrack with a non 4K TV (or projector) with a UHD disc via the Samsung K8500 & the HD Fury. And, the video problems were not worth it. If that's the case, then I see no reason to pick up a UHD Bluray Player since I do not have a 4K TV and also use a projector. 

*I wanted the HD Fury, UHD player, UHD disk combination to ensure that I could get an Atmos soundtrack for upcoming releases. And, that combination would ensure that I could accomplish that.*

*However, using that combination with a 1080i projector yielded (to me) less than acceptable images. For that reason, I choose to forgo UHD disks altogether so that I will still have (to me) a better picture.*
*Others may look at my examples and find that the image resulting from the UHD disk on the UHD player is acceptable.*
*I do not find it acceptable. It is my choice.*

I do not know if this has been confirmed with other users but if it has been, then that means the HD Fury is not the solution for non 4K TV's in trying to get their Dolby Atmos fix via a UHD disc (especially if the regular Bluray does NOT have the Atmos soundtrack.) 

*I disagree with the previous statement. The HD Fury is the only solution to ensure that you can get an Atmos soundtrack combined with a non-4K (specifically non-HDCP 2.2 compliant) display. Otherwise, you may not be able to get any image at all (variable studio by studio).*

*I could not find a way to get an acceptable image from this approach. Others may.*

Not encouraging. If I'm interpreting this wrong, please let me know.


----------



## Charles R

dvdwilly3 said:


> I could not find a way to get an acceptable image from this approach. Others may.


From what I read in the Samsung K8500 thread it has a _ton_ of configuration options. So I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss its image quality... without working through them. Especially something like video levels should be able to be configured to match the rest of the chain. Also looking at the HD Fury thread it has almost as many or more itself...


----------



## dvdwilly3

Charles R said:


> From what I read in the Samsung K8500 thread it has a _ton_ of configuration options. So I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss its image quality... without working through them. Especially something like video levels should be able to be configured to match the rest of the chain. Also looking at the HD Fury thread it has almost as many or more itself...


I know that the K8500 has many configuration opyions...however, Most are not relevant to the video when you are dealing with a limited display, for example, a 1080i display.

You can set the Format to match your format, in this case, 1080i. That is not relevant here. If I had it set the Samsung to 2160, I would not have gotten a picture at all. The Samsung is very capable, but it cannot split pixels on the display that it is feeding signal to.

You can also set the Samsung to output HDR or not depending upon whether you have a HDR capable display. Again, my display is NOT HDR capable so that setting is irrelevant.

The principal limitation that we are talking about is my display, not the Samsung. But, for the Sony VPL-VW50 projector, the Samsung cannot make it better...simple physics. And, I do think that the extended color space of the Samsung exceeds that of the Sony projector, and that results in what I described as "black crush".

What I want to convey are two things...

First, the HD Fury, Samsung UHD player, and UHD disk combination are the only solution for ensuring that you can get an Atmos soundtrack from UHD when you are using a display that is NOT HDCP 2.2 compliant.

Second, IF you choose this path, it will not necessarily result in an improved image. And, one reason outside of the Samsung or the HD Fury, is the authoring of the UHD disk itself. But, it will give you the Atmos soundtrack (IF the UHD disk, in fact, has the Atmos soundtrack).

Each person has to make that decision themselves. I simply do not want people to have unrealistic expectations...


----------



## dschulz

dvdwilly3 said:


> What I want to convey are two things...
> 
> First, the HD Fury, Samsung UHD player, and UHD disk combination are the only solution for ensuring that you can get an Atmos soundtrack from UHD when you are using a display that is NOT HDCP 2.2 compliant.


Disappointing to hear about the picture quality of UHD playback via the Samsung on your 1080 setup. However I want to point out two things:

1) The HD Fury is not critical to this setup. So far none of the UHD content produced requires this workaround - the Samsung player will output 1080i just fine, and I don't believe any studios will produce discs that will be broken on 1080 displays.

2) There is one good reason to invest in a UHD player even if you have a 1080 display, which is to start building a library of UHD movies now, against the day the you upgrade to a UHD display or projector. This is now my plan - I have a fantastic 1080p plasma TV and am willing to wait a couple of years to upgrade to UHD when my options are better/cheaper - but I'm not going to buy any more movies on Blu Ray, I'll pick them up on UHD with all the advantages that offers (Atmos, HDR, more pixels, etc)

Did you try running the Samsung straight to your projector without the HD Fury in line? It probably won't change anything, but it would be interesting to see how a Blu Ray disc compares to the same content on a UHD disc through the Samsung by itself.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dschulz said:


> Disappointing to hear about the picture quality of UHD playback via the Samsung on your 1080 setup. However I want to point out two things:
> 
> 1) The HD Fury is not critical to this setup. So far none of the UHD content produced requires this workaround - the Samsung player will output 1080i just fine, and I don't believe any studios will produce discs that will be broken on 1080 displays.
> 
> 2) There is one good reason to invest in a UHD player even if you have a 1080 display, which is to start building a library of UHD movies now, against the day the you upgrade to a UHD display or projector. This is now my plan - I have a fantastic 1080p plasma TV and am willing to wait a couple of years to upgrade to UHD when my options are better/cheaper - but I'm not going to buy any more movies on Blu Ray, I'll pick them up on UHD with all the advantages that offers (Atmos, HDR, more pixels, etc)
> 
> Did you try running the Samsung straight to your projector without the HD Fury in line? It probably won't change anything, but it would be interesting to see how a Blu Ray disc compares to the same content on a UHD disc through the Samsung by itself.


Re the last para...

Yes, I did run both the Bluray and the Samsung directly to the projector...no change...

And, if you go back and look at the pictures, the image on the right is the bluray disk on the Samsung...

As I said before, some may actually prefer that image. There is still some increase in black, but most of the red push has gone.

I was most taken aback with the UHD disk itself. But, after reading a bit about HDR, it seems that HDR is not necessarilly HDR. That is, implementation at the source may differ, and, in particular, implementation at the display itself will differ.

There seem to be two distinctly different approaches, one which works better at the white end and the other which works better at the black end (to put it simply...). At this point, there does not seem to be an approach that covers the entire spectrum...

http://www.lightillusion.com/uhdtv.html


----------



## batpig

TheBrandon said:


> I posted this in the KEF Owners thread but thought I may get some answers based on those currently running this.
> 
> I have 5 KEF Ci200QL in my 5.2 channel setup that I love. My plan was to add 4 CI200QR for the ceiling but I've been told it's overkill. My dedicated theater room is 8 foot drop ceiling, 15 foot long 16 foot wide.
> 
> Originally I planned for 4 Ci200QR. 8 inch driver Freq. response 35Hz - 34kHz
> KEF has introduced the ER series, the Ci160ER. 6.5 inch Freq. response 52Hz-20kHz. Also, there's the Ci200ER 8 inch driver Freq. response 45Hz - 20kHz. The ER series is half the price.
> 
> Will it matter running Q series and E since E would be for heights only concerning sound signature, I guess meaning will they match? What should I do? I have no issues spending double if it makes sense but the height are strictly for Atmos/DTSX. Thank you!!!


It seems like this isn't a binary choice though. If you're happy with the Q series but thing the 200's are too big with their 8" woofer, there is also the 160QR which is the 6.5" woofer version. Barely more expensive than the E (looks like $400/pr instead of $300/pr). That saves you some money vs the 200's and keeps you in the same family with the larger Uni-Q tweeter and waveguide. The Q version is a bit beefier, more power handling etc.


----------



## TheBrandon

batpig said:


> It seems like this isn't a binary choice though. If you're happy with the Q series but thing the 200's are too big with their 8" woofer, there is also the 160QR which is the 6.5" woofer version. Barely more expensive than the E (looks like $400/pr instead of $300/pr). That saves you some money vs the 200's and keeps you in the same family with the larger Uni-Q tweeter and waveguide. The Q version is a bit beefier, more power handling etc.


Again, KEF's claim of timbre match across the entire line is what spurred this. If heights are not utilized like fronts for example in terms of range, and activity, then why go as big? This is also why I shared the freq. response as I'm not really sure what Atmos suggest. Additionally, the QR series is per speaker, not a pair. I will grab the QR because the last thing you mentioned.


----------



## Nabs17

dvdwilly3 said:


> *My projector is a Sony VPL-VW50, a 1080i projector. It puts up a very good PQ.*


 
The VPL-VW50 is also a 1080p/60 and 1080p/24 projector. I have this same projector.


----------



## helvetica bold

I have my eye on Sony's new STR ZA5000ES receiver. It's Sony's flagship Atmos/DTSX receiver. This will be a major upgrade coming from Sony's 1040 AVR which I really like. I do want to consider another option any suggestions? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pasender91

helvetica bold said:


> I have my eye on Sony's new STR ZA5000ES receiver. It's Sony's flagship Atmos/DTSX receiver. This will be a major upgrade coming from Sony's 1040 AVR which I really like. I do want to consider another option any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, there always are the usual suspects, Yamaha (3050), Denon (7200), Marantz (7010), Pioneer (SC99).
It's nice to see sony finally getting in the dance


----------



## smurraybhm

helvetica bold said:


> I have my eye on Sony's new STR ZA5000ES receiver. It's Sony's flagship Atmos/DTSX receiver. This will be a major upgrade coming from Sony's 1040 AVR which I really like. I do want to consider another option any suggestions?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I doubt you'll get much love for Sony given how they haven't put much effort into their receivers (ex the lower level being a decent bargain) the past few years. I would be looking at something with a decent room correction system, given that D&M have made the upgrades available for DTS:X (with a few kinks, but still working) I would be looking at their receivers, plus they offer a better room correction system, especially for your sub(s). Other quality receivers are Yamaha and Pioneer, would look at both before Sony (sorry after a few dead Onkyos they don't rate anymore). Just my humble opinion, but I do like Sony's TVs 

P.S. I'd give JD a call at AV Science for some advice and pricing.


----------



## vitod

helvetica bold said:


> I have my eye on Sony's new STR ZA5000ES receiver. It's Sony's flagship Atmos/DTSX receiver. This will be a major upgrade coming from Sony's 1040 AVR which I really like. I do want to consider another option any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sony has been so irrelevant that I'm surprised that they even have an ATMOS receiver. You're way better off with Yamaha, Denon and Marantz.


----------



## leedesert

vitod said:


> Sony has been so irrelevant that I'm surprised that they even have an ATMOS receiver. You're way better off with Yamaha, Denon and Marantz.


I would have to see Sony develop a little reputation before I invested in any audio products they're starting to put out.


----------



## sdurani

vitod said:


> Sony has been so irrelevant that I'm surprised that they even have an ATMOS receiver.


When Sony (studios) decided to release Atmos titles on home video, Sony (electronics) had to license the decoder. Went hand in hand. Can't have your BDs and UHDs driving consumers to other brands of receivers to fully decode the soundtrack.


----------



## Frankos1988

Hi everyone just joined in at the avs forum.
Here's is my current project dolby atmos klipsch speakers.


Now at the moment:
2x 280F
1x 115SW
Bose center speaker.


I want to expand it to a 5.1.4 setup dolby atmos setup.
Currently thinking about the 2x 280FA for the front and switch the 280F to the back.
For a receiver i want to go for the Marantz 7010.
What do you guys think i have to go for with the missing components, is there cheaper way to go?




What do you guys think?


----------



## leedesert

Frankos1988 said:


> Hi everyone just joined in at the avs forum.
> Here's is my current project dolby atmos klipsch speakers.
> 
> 
> Now at the moment:
> 2x 280F
> 1x 115SW
> Bose center speaker.
> 
> 
> I want to expand it to a 5.1.4 setup dolby atmos setup.
> Currently thinking about the 2x 280FA for the front and switch the 280F to the back.
> For a receiver i want to go for the Marantz 7010.
> What do you guys think i have to go for with the missing components, is there cheaper way to go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you guys think?


Bigger screen, you need


----------



## Killer_Nads

Hi again Guys,

Hopefully you guys still remember me when i was asking for help last week with regards to my plan and upgrading my room to 7.1.4 from my current 5.1.2. 

I have thought about this a bit more and also got advice from retailers/dealers in UK (where i live), i just wanted to share it with you and know your thoughts on the plan:

Firstly the ceiling atmos speakers, how do the following ones compare against the B&W CCM 683:
Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA

For the back surrounds i am thinking of ditching (selling) my current back bookshelf B&W speakers and wall mounting something flat at ear level and a few feet behind the seats, something like these, please tell me what you think of them:
DALI OPTICON LCR

And for the side surrounds maybe get something like this:
Dali Fazon SAT


Let me know what your thoughts are on this and how these speakers compare against what i currently have, obviously I'm wanting to go forward into getting something atleast equal to if not better then my current back surround B&W bookshelf speakers. These are too big and i don't think i can reuse them either as surround backs or sides when down to ear level.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.


PS: Forgot to add, for the AV Receiver I'm thinking of going for either an Anthem (either 11 channel one or 7 channel one with a 4 channel power amp) or the Arcam (again 7 channel with a 4 channel power amp).


----------



## showmak

Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2 in Atmos, are they worth it?


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

showmak said:


> Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2 in Atmos, are they worth it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


If you do not own the first two seasons, then you might as well buy the steelbook Atmos versions.

If you do... then wait for Seasons 3 & 4 before picking up the Atmos sets. They're supposed to have better immersive mixes. 

Seasons 1& 2 had issues with the sound elements that prevented them from having effective remixes created.


----------



## Stoked21

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you do not own the first two seasons, then you might as well buy the steelbook Atmos versions.
> 
> If you do... then wait for Seasons 3 & 4 before picking up the Atmos sets. They're supposed to have better immersive mixes.
> 
> Seasons 1& 2 had issues with the sound elements that prevented them from having effective remixes created.


You're being nice about it.....

They suck. 
In all actuality, the TrueHD version probably sounds as good as the Atmos mix. There's just so little Atmos in them, but they do sound decent in the beds IMO. Several times during the viewing you will hear some nice ambience and maybe once or twice you hear some direct overhead object....But that's during the course of 20 hours. They're just not worth it unless you are an avid GoT fan. I have also heard season 3 and 4 are going to be significantly better Atmos...But it's impossible for them to be worse.


----------



## Dbruce13

*Someone Please Help!!!*

Tell me Im missing something, but all of the supposed Blu ray releases that contain Dolby Atmos encoding are no where to be found for purchase (at least on Amazon). I searched for Gravity version and I assume that only the Diamond Luxe version has Atmos correct? Which is currently back ordered. Mad Max Fury Road no where to be found. Or is it that Amason is simply not denoting the sound formats in the descriptions?


----------



## showmak

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you do not own the first two seasons, then you might as well buy the steelbook Atmos versions.
> 
> If you do... then wait for Seasons 3 & 4 before picking up the Atmos sets. They're supposed to have better immersive mixes.
> 
> Seasons 1& 2 had issues with the sound elements that prevented them from having effective remixes created.






Stoked21 said:


> You're being nice about it.....
> 
> 
> 
> They suck.
> 
> In all actuality, the TrueHD version probably sounds as good as the Atmos mix. There's just so little Atmos in them, but they do sound decent in the beds IMO. Several times during the viewing you will hear some nice ambience and maybe once or twice you hear some direct overhead object....But that's during the course of 20 hours. They're just not worth it unless you are an avid GoT fan. I have also heard season 3 and 4 are going to be significantly better Atmos...But it's impossible for them to be worse.



No I am not a fan of GoT but I thought I will give it a try. Anyhow, thank you for letting me know.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Peterc613

batpig said:


> I take a more common sense view of things -- you are trying to enable front-to-back and side-to-side panning of stuff overhead, and also to "fill the gaps" in the dome of sound as things travel around the bed layer. A good rule of thumb is to have the rear overheads split the gap between the side and back surrounds, and the front overheads closing the gap between side surrounds and screen speakers.
> 
> Again, the idea being to evenly cover the gaps front-to-back, and side-to-side.
> 
> I would also point out that it's not THAT sensitive so don't become overly precise.




Need advise on plan for adding Atmos, AURO, DTS-X height speakers and placements. Below is a diagram of our open floor plan showing the theater with existing speakers (colored in red) along with some pictures of the current setup. The only height speakers I have in use now are at the front for DTS-X. All speakers are all Martin Logan electrostats with four JTR captivators for subs. I also have a Danley DTS-10 but am thinking of selling that to build a media cabinet in the same location. We currently have a 12.4 system (11 channels plus the center rear from a SMART 3X Digital Sound Decoder). For electronics we have an Oppo BDP 93, Marantz AV8801 preamp, and seven Adcom GFA 555II amplifiers (the mains are biamped).






























































































The plan is to upgrade the Marantz processor to a newer unit that will accommodate multiple Atmos/Auro Height channels. Sitting in my garage from other systems, I have two Adcom GFA 5006 amplifiers (175w bridged x 6 @ 8 ohms), an Emotiva XPA-5 gen 1 amplifier (200w x 5 @ 8 ohms), and eight Gallo Strada I speakers. Below is the layout that we were planning to use with the Auro/Atmos height channels colored in light blue. I would prefer to use the Gallo Stradas for the side, rear and overhead speakers so that the timber is matched, but my wife wants in ceiling speakers for the four overhead channels. 

Some of the in-ceiling speakers I've looked at are the Kef CI-200RR THX, Golden Ear INVISA HTR-7000, Martin Logan Electro Motion R, Triad InCeiling Silver OpenRounds, Tannoy CVS6 and JBL Control 328C. Some might suggest that we use the ML Electro Motion speakers for all the side/rear/overhead channels because they're supposed to match our current speakers, but I would prefer to listen to a couple of these before making a final decision (this is a discussion best left to the "Best Dolby Atmos speakers" thread.

I can't afford the Datasat, Trinnov or JVC processors that will do multiple height channels in the software domain at this early adopter point in the roll out of immersive audio. I have considered upgrading to an Marantz AV8802 but would prefer to wait until the second generation of chip sets comes out that will accommodate 4 or more height channels with a 9.1 base (probably some time next year) . In the mean time I'm planning to mount and wire my ceiling speakers and use a miniDSP 4x10 HD to run them off existing channels with some minimal time delay to create a sense of ambiance. 

Below is a diagram of our theater area with proposed locations for Atmos/Auro height speakers (colored in blue). Mostly, it follows the Dolby Atmos guidelines with the addition of the side heighth channels for Auro processing. Even though there are almost no Auro movie titles and think Atmos will come to dominate the market, I still wanted to wire for Auro for use with music using "Auromatic" (see below AVS quote) I hope to get some feedback from other AVS'ers on the placement locations in my plan before cutting drywall and running wire.























gurkey said:


> When Auro 3D appeared first, it was the "King on the Street", several movies where presented with Auro 3D sound tracks. This has been in 2014.
> Afterwards when Dolby Atmos had been finally announced and delivered, "suddenly" not much new content was showing up for movies in Auro 3D anymore but some CDs where advertised using this sound format.
> 2015 was not such a good year for Auro 3D. Just Sony had some titles announced in Europe (actually switched from DTS:X) because the DTS:X format did not show up in time as expected.
> 2016 will get even worse for Auro 3D, because no new titles (movies) are coming or have been advertised, the studios decided almost unanimously to either use Dolby Atmos or DTS:X.
> My opinion: The dawn of Auro 3D has already happened. Fortunately they got an upmixer (Auromatic), which still can be used on all sorts of material, so not everything is lost. Music recordings might be the only resource left for Auro.
> 
> What is on the table ? The upmixer "Auromatic", which competes now with D(olby) S(urround) U(pmixer) and DTS Neural:X Upmixer.
> Pick your personal favorite, because opinions are split about what's best for what source material among those.
> On the manufacturers side only D & M decided to provide an Auro 3D upgrade as an option, which has to be paid for seperately. None of the other manufacturers chimed in. Thus the audience is rather "limited", because no one really knows, how many licenses habe been sold this way and what the actual market share is.


----------



## ahro

I would really like to get an Atmos AVR. How much of a pain is it to wire and set up? Right now I have an Onkyo 636 (coupled with the Samsung K-8500 4K player and Samsung 78HU9000 4K TV).

Does anyone know someone who does it professionally?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dbruce13 said:


> Tell me Im missing something, but all of the supposed Blu ray releases that contain Dolby Atmos encoding are no where to be found for purchase (at least on Amazon). I searched for Gravity version and I assume that only the Diamond Luxe version has Atmos correct? Which is currently back ordered. Mad Max Fury Road no where to be found. Or is it that Amason is simply not denoting the sound formats in the descriptions?


Amazon is the last place you want to look for A/V specs. Blu-ray.com has a database that is pretty accurate.

The Gravity Diamond Luxe edition is the one with Dolby Atmos, but it's getting harder to find. There was a French steelbook special edition bundle that included the Atmos track as well with much better packaging, though that would need to be imported.

I would imagine WB is prepping a UHD Blu-ray with HDR and Atmos as we speak.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeez, Peter... with the huge photos...


Actually, you have it fairly right on. But first... those "heights" above your tv. Those are useless, imo for immersive audio. Your diagram with the overhead inceiling speakers is the best bet. Install speakers in those locations, set to front/rear TOP and enjoy. Easy.


----------



## wackid

leedesert said:


> Bigger screen, you need


----------



## PioManiac

Dbruce13 said:


> Tell me Im missing something, but all of the supposed Blu ray releases that contain Dolby Atmos encoding are no where to be found for purchase (at least on Amazon). I searched for Gravity version and I assume that only the Diamond Luxe version has Atmos correct? Which is currently back ordered. Mad Max Fury Road no where to be found. Or is it that Amason is simply not denoting the sound formats in the descriptions?


Yes Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition is the one with Dolby Atmos (7.1)
I picked mine up on Amazon.ca (Canada) for $19.99 when I went to play my standard bluray only to find it only had DTS-MA 5.1


I was just posting a few screen shots the other day in the Yamaha thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...yamaha-1050-2050-3050-owner-s-thread-177.html
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...age-rx-a1020-rx-a2020-rx-a3020-thread-67.html 
...amazon.ca also has Mad Max Fury Road cheap










When stock is low, I've seen the prices on both Amazon sites (.com and .ca) range from some gouging vendors $45-$55


----------



## Killer_Nads

Killer_Nads said:


> Hi again Guys,
> 
> Hopefully you guys still remember me when i was asking for help last week with regards to my plan and upgrading my room to 7.1.4 from my current 5.1.2.
> 
> I have thought about this a bit more and also got advice from retailers/dealers in UK (where i live), i just wanted to share it with you and know your thoughts on the plan:
> 
> Firstly the ceiling atmos speakers, how do the following ones compare against the B&W CCM 683:
> Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA
> 
> For the back surrounds i am thinking of ditching (selling) my current back bookshelf B&W speakers and wall mounting something flat at ear level and a few feet behind the seats, something like these, please tell me what you think of them:
> DALI OPTICON LCR
> 
> And for the side surrounds maybe get something like this:
> Dali Fazon SAT
> 
> 
> Let me know what your thoughts are on this and how these speakers compare against what i currently have, obviously I'm wanting to go forward into getting something atleast equal to if not better then my current back surround B&W bookshelf speakers. These are too big and i don't think i can reuse them either as surround backs or sides when down to ear level.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> PS: Forgot to add, for the AV Receiver I'm thinking of going for either an Anthem (either 11 channel one or 7 channel one with a 4 channel power amp) or the Arcam (again 7 channel with a 4 channel power amp).


Any help with this please? Are these good options or anything better that i could choose instead?


----------



## Stoked21

Peterc613 said:


> Need advise on plan for adding Atmos, AURO, DTS-X height speakers and placements. Below is a diagram of our open floor plan showing the theater with existing speakers (colored in red) along with some pictures of the current setup. The only height speakers I have in use now are at the front for DTS-X. All speakers are all Martin Logan electrostats with four JTR captivators for subs. I also have a Danley DTS-10 but am thinking of selling that to build a media cabinet in the same location. We currently have a 12.4 system (11 channels plus the center rear from a SMART 3X Digital Sound Decoder). For electronics we have an Oppo BDP 93, Marantz AV8801 preamp, and seven Adcom GFA 555II amplifiers (the mains are biamped).
> 
> .......
> 
> Some of the in-ceiling speakers I've looked at are the Kef CI-200RR THX, Golden Ear INVISA HTR-7000, Martin Logan Electro Motion R, Triad InCeiling Silver OpenRounds, Tannoy CVS6 and JBL Control 328C. Some might suggest that we use the ML Electro Motion speakers for all the side/rear/overhead channels because they're supposed to match our current speakers, but I would prefer to listen to a couple of these before making a final decision (this is a discussion best left to the "Best Dolby Atmos speakers" thread.


Wow Peter....I'm really intrigued. I'm a major electrostat fan and have done work/design/thesis on electrostats (you can probably guess based on my location). I've since moved to compression drivers for movie dynamics and headroom and not to mention budget with the high speaker count. Previously I was a CLS2 owner years ago in college (Literally the size of doors). You cannot get better imaging and staging with any other type of driver IMO. What I wouldn't give to be near Van Nuys to hear that. Gorgeous room too by the way. I LOVE the look of those stators around the room!!!! Topping it off with 4 Caps??? Insane.

You probably don't want to hear this....But I'd personally stick with electrostat for the rest of your tops. The timbre mismatch will be fairly significant if you go with a CD or dome. At the very least I'd go with some ML ribbons. I'm pretty confident when I say I don't think you will like the mismatch if you go any other route. Given, you may not notice it with too many movie mixes due to the lack of bed-top panning and vice versa. Most movies don't move voice between tops and beds, which will make the timbre mismatch more noticeable. But some movies do, such as Gravity. It will probably become more common as immersive audio matures though. Using more elctrostats probably won't pass the WAF, but just my 2 cents.


----------



## bucknuts07

Ive been debating between a 7.1.2 and a 5.1.4 for a couple weeks now. My basement is 14 feet wide (finished side) by probably 40 feet long. Ceilings are 7ft 2 inches high. Main couch is 13 feet away. My question, it seems many prefer a 5.1.4 for atmos over a 7.1.2, but which is more accurate ? I understand many people would prefer the overhead sound stage with 4 speakers, since they spent the time and effort installing ceiling speakers, which isnt easy in most homes. But most movies now, are releasing in 7.1. So will I be missing part of the soundtrack. Or hearing things, not intended to hear from the overhead rear speakers ? I guess I should have bought a yamaha 3050, rather than a 2050, so I wouldnt be limited in my choice. But Im over my 14 day return period at Avs now. How does sports sound with a 5.1.4 configuration ? Guess since Ive never heard Atmos, I have these questions. Thanks...


----------



## PioManiac

bucknuts07 said:


> How does sports sound with a 5.1.4 configuration ? Guess since Ive never heard Atmos, I have these questions. Thanks...



Network Broadcast of major sporting events are 5.1 DD at best 
So unless you have a "Sports" bluray with an Atmos audio track with object height information
.....its the same as regular 5.1 dolby digital 

Sure you "could" upmix using DSU (Dolby Surround UpMixer)
... to get some ambient sounds in the upper speakers, its just not Atmos.


----------



## jrogers

bucknuts07 said:


> Ive been debating between a 7.1.2 and a 5.1.4 for a couple weeks now. My basement is 14 feet wide (finished side) by probably 40 feet long. Ceilings are 7ft 2 inches high. Main couch is 13 feet away. My question, it seems many prefer a 5.1.4 for atmos over a 7.1.2, but which is more accurate ? I understand many people would prefer the overhead sound stage with 4 speakers, since they spent the time and effort installing ceiling speakers, which isnt easy in most homes. But most movies now, are releasing in 7.1. So will I be missing part of the soundtrack. Or hearing things, not intended to hear from the overhead rear speakers ? I guess I should have bought a yamaha 3050, rather than a 2050, so I wouldnt be limited in my choice. But Im over my 14 day return period at Avs now. How does sports sound with a 5.1.4 configuration ? Guess since Ive never heard Atmos, I have these questions. Thanks...


I believe the general consensus would be to fill out the bed channels (viz. 7.1) before adding height assuming your room supports it (which is sounds like yours does). That said, for Atmos and DTS:X in particular, having 4 overhead speakers is going to give a much better result than 2. So - my advice as someone who started with 5.1.2 and moved to 7.1.4, is to design for 7.1.4, but if need be, start out with 7.1.2.


----------



## Kris Deering

Just FYI, Best Buy is having a 3 Blu-rays for $20 sale online today. They have all three of the Sony mastered in 4K releases of Fifth Element, Leon and Dracula that feature Atmos soundtracks included (just not the special packaging). Ends up less than $7 each! 


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/offer/1...D=1&siteID=TnL5HPStwNw-axARvE.DjMM7fxcJlS5xsQ


----------



## Dbruce13

PioManiac said:


> Yes Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition is the one with Dolby Atmos (7.1)
> I picked mine up on Amazon.ca (Canada) for $19.99 when I went to play my standard bluray only to find it only had DTS-MA 5.1
> 
> 
> I was just posting a few screen shots the other day in the Yamaha thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...yamaha-1050-2050-3050-owner-s-thread-177.html
> 
> ...amazon.ca also has Mad Max Fury Road cheap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When stock is low, I've seen the prices on both Amazon sites (.com and .ca) range from some gouging vendors $45-$55


Yes did some more digging and sadly I just ordered the $50 Gravity blu ray....only because I just installed my new Atmos set up and need to impress the wife with something...lol. Would be helpful if Amazon actually listed the audio sourcing on the listings vs me taking out a magnifying glass scanning over the back jpeg of the blu ray case.


----------



## mobileES

ahro said:


> I would really like to get an Atmos AVR. How much of a pain is it to wire and set up? Right now I have an Onkyo 636 (coupled with the Samsung K-8500 4K player and Samsung 78HU9000 4K TV).
> 
> Does anyone know someone who does it professionally?


It depends on what you already have setup and the type of Atmos speakers you want to use and how many. I had my place already wired and running 7.1, I had to run 2 sets of wires to my back surround speaker locations to use Onkyo SKH-410 Atmos-enabled speakers which sit on top of my back surrounds. The front Onkyo SKH-410 Atmos-enabled speakers sit on top of my main left and right speakers, so it was just a matter of running wires to those.


----------



## thebland

*MY ATMOS REVIEW... Finally*

I spent about an hour today with Atmos on my Datasat RS-20i... I tried various configurations 7.1.4, 5.1.6 and substituting Top Front for Front Height, Top Rear for Rear Heights, etc.. Currently, I have 3 pair of heights. Will likely use the middle pair for Auro (VOG).

At first I preferred the 5.1.6 as the ceiling effects were a bit more even but the lack of rears made rear pans noticeably missing something. I ended up Top Fronts and Top Rears for my configuration. That said, 7.1.4 offers excellent coverage in my room and the pans are practically seamless and I can finally differentiate the very high pans from the ones at ear height. I can see the benefit now of moving surrounds to ear level and I will be doing so.

I noticed certainly more precision in all the Atmos clips I watched and re-watched. I also prefer Auro upmixing vs Atmos decoding for the music video on the Atmos disc (Enrique Iglesias = Atmos Test Disc). Glad I have Auro - seems like it has its place. The sense of envelopment is a whole new thing... as well as various surround effects able to better localized relative to height. The layering of the heights vs the bed speakers really is the big plus. With 7.1, effects that are supposed to be over your head are just that... generically, over your head with little relative sense of space or layers.

I will start to watch some movies this week and get more insight but all and all a great addition to my system. That said, in running the 6 heights, you can see that more speakers give for a more seamless environment - even more so if you have multiple rows of seating like I do.

The Datasat had no hiccups and I found the switching between speakers configs fast and easy. What an awesome piece of gear!! Atmos dialog and bass seemed better, tighter relative to True HD and Auro upmixing... But not a lot.

This is a fantastic upgrade!! The sound is so crisp, almost clinical in nature. Tight. But these were clips made on a computer (Atmos disc). Can't wait for a movie. Highly recommended... but more playing around is in store!


----------



## PioManiac

If I may make a suggestion for a good Atmos flick: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...iews/2351433-heart-sea-3d-blu-ray-review.html
an incredible mix from creaking timbers overhead when the crew is below deck,
to rain and wind in the squalls when on deck and the flapping of sails and waves crashing over the hull...incredible!

The eerie ambiance in the underwater scenes envelop you in well placed echoes from the wales perspective 
that travel all around you to every corner of your room. Demo material for sure!


----------



## lujan

PioManiac said:


> If I may make a suggestion for a good Atmos flick: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...iews/2351433-heart-sea-3d-blu-ray-review.html
> an incredible mix from creaking timbers overhead when the crew is below deck,
> to rain and wind in the squalls when on deck and the flapping of sails and waves crashing over the hull...incredible!
> 
> The eerie ambiance in the underwater scenes envelop you in well placed echoes from the wales perspective
> that travel all around you to every corner of your room. Demo material for sure!


How is the movie itself? I had considered it but changed my mind when I read all the terrible reviews.


----------



## PioManiac

lujan said:


> How is the movie itself? I had considered it but changed my mind when I read all the terrible reviews.


It was no blockbuster by any stretch, so I went in with very low expectations too,
and as it turned out it was a pleasant surprise to me, with replay value.

on the downside , it is in 1.85:1 format though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PioManiac said:


> If I may make a suggestion for a good Atmos flick: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...iews/2351433-heart-sea-3d-blu-ray-review.html
> an incredible mix from creaking timbers overhead when the crew is below deck,
> to rain and wind in the squalls when on deck and the flapping of sails and waves crashing over the hull...incredible!
> 
> The eerie ambiance in the underwater scenes envelop you in well placed echoes from the wales perspective
> that travel all around you to every corner of your room. Demo material for sure!


_Master And Commander_ would be a FANTASTIC title to remix in full Dolby Atmos and it's a better nautical themed movie anyway. A real shame there was no follow up sequel as planned.


----------



## PioManiac

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Master And Commander_ would be a FANTASTIC title to remix in full Dolby Atmos and its a better nautical themed movie anyway. A real shame there was no follow up sequel as planned.


Agreed!

It would be nice to see a re-mastered "Master and Commander" with Atmos, or the more likely DTS:X
I remember the LFE was somewhat lacking in the bluray release compared to it's DVD counterpart.

You had to choose between DTS-MA lossless audio and HD video on Bluray with a 30Hz filter on the Bass
 or superior full range LFE levels on the standard definition DVD with lossy DTS 5.1 audio

found the thread here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=141907&page=2


----------



## rontalley

Peterc613 said:


> Need advise on plan for adding Atmos, AURO, DTS-X height speakers and placements. Below is a diagram of our open floor plan showing the theater with existing speakers (colored in red) along with some pictures of the current setup. The only height speakers I have in use now are at the front for DTS-X. All speakers are all Martin Logan electrostats with four JTR captivators for subs. I also have a Danley DTS-10 but am thinking of selling that to build a media cabinet in the same location. We currently have a 12.4 system (11 channels plus the center rear from a SMART 3X Digital Sound Decoder). For electronics we have an Oppo BDP 93, Marantz AV8801 preamp, and seven Adcom GFA 555II amplifiers (the mains are biamped).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plan is to upgrade the Marantz processor to a newer unit that will accommodate multiple Atmos/Auro Height channels. Sitting in my garage from other systems, I have two Adcom GFA 5006 amplifiers (175w bridged x 6 @ 8 ohms), an Emotiva XPA-5 gen 1 amplifier (200w x 5 @ 8 ohms), and eight Gallo Strada I speakers. Below is the layout that we were planning to use with the Auro/Atmos height channels colored in light blue. I would prefer to use the Gallo Stradas for the side, rear and overhead speakers so that the timber is matched, but my wife wants in ceiling speakers for the four overhead channels.
> 
> Some of the in-ceiling speakers I've looked at are the Kef CI-200RR THX, Golden Ear INVISA HTR-7000, Martin Logan Electro Motion R, Triad InCeiling Silver OpenRounds, Tannoy CVS6 and JBL Control 328C. Some might suggest that we use the ML Electro Motion speakers for all the side/rear/overhead channels because they're supposed to match our current speakers, but I would prefer to listen to a couple of these before making a final decision (this is a discussion best left to the "Best Dolby Atmos speakers" thread.
> 
> I can't afford the Datasat, Trinnov or JVC processors that will do multiple height channels in the software domain at this early adopter point in the roll out of immersive audio. I have considered upgrading to an Marantz AV8802 but would prefer to wait until the second generation of chip sets comes out that will accommodate 4 or more height channels with a 9.1 base (probably some time next year) . In the mean time I'm planning to mount and wire my ceiling speakers and use a miniDSP 4x10 HD to run them off existing channels with some minimal time delay to create a sense of ambiance.
> 
> Below is a diagram of our theater area with proposed locations for Atmos/Auro height speakers (colored in blue). Mostly, it follows the Dolby Atmos guidelines with the addition of the side heighth channels for Auro processing. Even though there are almost no Auro movie titles and think Atmos will come to dominate the market, I still wanted to wire for Auro for use with music using "Auromatic" (see below AVS quote) I hope to get some feedback from other AVS'ers on the placement locations in my plan before cutting drywall and running wire.




What the hell am I doing wrong in life?...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PioManiac said:


> Agreed!
> 
> It would be nice to see a re-mastered "Master and Commander" with Atmos, or the more likely DTS:X
> I remember the LFE was somewhat lacking in the bluray release compared to it's DVD counterpart.
> 
> You had to choose between DTS-MA lossless audio and HD video on Bluray with a 25Hz filter on the Bass
> or superior the full range LFE levels on the standard definition DVD with lossy DTS 5.1 audio



I would rather have Atmos than DTS: X. DTS still needs to work out the kinks and add more features to the consumer version, especially on the rendering front, to make it comparable with consumer Atmos. Right now it's 7.1.4 vs 24.1.10.


----------



## AllenA07

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Master And Commander_ would be a FANTASTIC title to remix in full Dolby Atmos and it's a better nautical themed movie anyway. A real shame there was no follow up sequel as planned.


I wasn't aware there was ever a planned sequel for Master and Commander. The movie is already such a great sounding film, an Atmos mix of it would be great.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

AllenA07 said:


> I wasn't aware there was ever a planned sequel for Master and Commander. The movie is already such a great sounding film, an Atmos mix of it would be great.


Since the novels were a big hit, the filmmakers were planning a small series of adventure films with Russell Crowe. The first movie combined a couple novels together. 

But M&C didn't do as well as they had hoped given the major technical challenges of filming on the open sea with photo-realistic special effects added as enhancements rather than the majority of the action shots. Heart of the Sea had really obvious CGI... M&C did not.


----------



## thebland

rontalley said:


> What the hell am I doing wrong in life?...


There's no way he has kids... or even, possibly, a wife either!! Nice!


----------



## badboi

thebland said:


> There's no way he has kids... or even, possibly, a wife either!! Nice!


Or a cat. 

Seriously. If that were me, I'd be out on the front lawn, with all that stuff thrown all over the place, looking at a locked front door. 

But hey, if it works for him, that's all that matters.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> What the hell am I doing wrong in life?...


Quoting long posts in their entirety just for a one sentence reply.


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Quoting long posts in their entirety just for a one sentence reply.


Short ones too!  While at work!


----------



## meli

Do any of the Atmos Blu-ray discs have a "Audio Check" feature with channel identification? Where the voiceover says "This is the Top Rear Right speaker", or white noise emanates from the speaker highlighted on the video graphic?

Or is such a file available to download?

Thanks.


----------



## batpig

meli said:


> Do any of the Atmos Blu-ray discs have a "Audio Check" feature with channel identification? Where the voiceover says "This is the Top Rear Right speaker", or white noise emanates from the speaker highlighted on the video graphic?
> 
> Or is such a file available to download?
> 
> Thanks.


This exists on the most recent (Sep 2015) Atmos demo disc.


----------



## Kressilac

@Peterc613 

My first thought on that post was how did that get past the WAF. There's so many speakers.... Part of me thinks it is overkill for the room size. I'm not sure you will get better imaging from that many speakers versus say 9.2.4 or 7.2.6. Four subs is huge or each of them is pretty small. I don't even want to think about the amps required to utilize 9.4.10 speakers. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure anything but a dedicated surround processor can output to that many. 13 speakers seems to be the upper limit for $3K AVRs these days. Then again, you purchased all those speakers so there has to be money for the amps.

And I thought I was going crazy with a 7.2.4 setup requiring Denon's flagship plus a second amp. Kudos. You officially have the HT disease. I'd say it was a bug and not a disease but I'd be understating the magnitude of your current condition.


----------



## sprins

Dbruce13 said:


> Yes did some more digging and sadly I just ordered the $50 Gravity blu ray....only because I just installed my new Atmos set up and need to impress the wife with something...lol.


$50 is outrageous of course. But take comfort from the fact that Gravity with Atmos is a great (if not the best) Atmos demo there is at the moment. And a very nice movie to boot.

IMHO anyway.


----------



## hatlesschimp

This thread started a terrible chain reaction for me. I wont go into it but here is a couple photos of my new Atmos Ceiling speakers.


----------



## aaranddeeman

rontalley said:


> What the hell am I doing wrong in life?...


You either got/getting married or have a girlfriend..


----------



## Killer_Nads

Hi Guys,

After being nothing but disappointed with the Onkyo up firing speakers (possibly due to my high ceiling) i am going with 4 in-ceiling speakers, 2 in front of my MLP and 2 in the back.

There are mainly 2 brands that i am looking at (although i did look at B&W ceiling ones initially also - as the brand matched my fronts) and these are the: 
Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA (Object Based Audio)

and the

Dali E-60's

Does anyone have any thoughts on these two speaker sets? The Dali's come roughly to £600 for 4 where as the Atlantic are almost double that around 1k for 4. Do you think the cost jump in the Atlantic would be worth it or are they most likely to give me the exact same quality sound and experience for dolby atmos and dts:x?

I will be powering these with a new Arcam AVR550 and a 4 channel power amp to get 11 channels.

Any thoughts and advice would be recommended! 

Thanks.


----------



## Dbruce13

meli said:


> Do any of the Atmos Blu-ray discs have a "Audio Check" feature with channel identification? Where the voiceover says "This is the Top Rear Right speaker", or white noise emanates from the speaker highlighted on the video graphic?
> 
> Or is such a file available to download?
> 
> Thanks.


Your Audyessy EQ manual setup or automated will provide that feature (channel test) if that's what you meant. At least mine does the standard channel identification with a ping and actual visual on the set up screen identifying each channel including the 4 height speakers for Atmos


----------



## Dbruce13

bucknuts07 said:


> Ive been debating between a 7.1.2 and a 5.1.4 for a couple weeks now. My basement is 14 feet wide (finished side) by probably 40 feet long. Ceilings are 7ft 2 inches high. Main couch is 13 feet away. My question, it seems many prefer a 5.1.4 for atmos over a 7.1.2, but which is more accurate ? I understand many people would prefer the overhead sound stage with 4 speakers, since they spent the time and effort installing ceiling speakers, which isnt easy in most homes. But most movies now, are releasing in 7.1. So will I be missing part of the soundtrack. Or hearing things, not intended to hear from the overhead rear speakers ? I guess I should have bought a yamaha 3050, rather than a 2050, so I wouldnt be limited in my choice. But Im over my 14 day return period at Avs now. How does sports sound with a 5.1.4 configuration ? Guess since Ive never heard Atmos, I have these questions. Thanks...


Main thing to take into consideration is that no receivers out there (or least 99% of them) have more than 9 amped channels. The balance of speakers will need a separate powered amp to run the additional channels. Like you I made the decision to go with 5.2.4 for atmos as you really need 4 speakers to get the full effect. So if your cool with spending the extra money on a powered amp then go for 7.1.4 but otherwise I would go with 5.1.4


----------



## Josh Z

dvdwilly3 said:


> *My projector is a , a 1080i projector. *


The Sony VPL-VW50 is a 1080p projector. You don't need to undervalue your own equipment.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Josh Z said:


> The Sony VPL-VW50 is a 1080p projector. You don't need to undervalue your own equipment.


Thank you. I have laboring under false info all this time.

What I think this started with was a comparison years ago with the Sony VPL-VW100. The VW50 was about $4 K. The VW100 was around $9 K. Someone ar that time had told me that the VW50 was 1080i and the VW100 was 1080p.

That erroneous info has stuck with me all this time. Does anyone know what made the cost difference between the two?

Just the Xenon bulb (400 w.) in the VW100 vs the 200 w. Bulb in the VW50?

Surely there was more than that...


----------



## mr stroke

Are there any 5.1.4 Atmos receivers under 1k? I can't seem to find any, some are listed as so on Amazon but don't show enough rear ports for 5.1.4


Am I better off with a 5.1.2 receiver with a separate stereo amp?


----------



## batpig

mr stroke said:


> Are there any 5.1.4 Atmos receivers under 1k? I can't seem to find any, some are listed as so on Amazon but don't show enough rear ports for 5.1.4
> 
> Am I better off with a 5.1.2 receiver with a separate stereo amp?


Just to be clear, there are three basic types of Atmos/DTS:X receivers:

- Entry level 7ch models that cannot be expanded (i.e. 5.1.2 max)
- Mid level 7ch models that can expand to 9ch with an external amp (i.e. 5.1.2 max with internal amps, 7.1.2/5.1.4 max with an extra stereo amp)
- Higher level 9ch models that can expand to 11ch with an external amp

At the $1K price point, unless you are OK with a 2014 model (e.g. Denon AVR-X5200W) that lacks DTS:X and HDCP 2.2, you need to be aiming for the second category. The 2015 models with 9 amps built in are all well above $1K.

So your target would be the Yamaha 2050, Denon 4200, or Marantz 6010. These three models support up to 9ch playback (with extra amps), have the newest HDCP 2.2 hardware for full 4K support, and are DTS:X capable as well. They are all priced in the ~$1,500 range at msrp, but you should be able to find one of them at $1K or less by looking for deals (especially if you go refurb and/or wait for the 2016 models to start coming out and then grab one at a closeout discount).

EDIT: It appears the Yamaha 2050 actually has 9 amps built in, so no external amp needed to do 7.1.2/5.1.4 ... however, it cannot expand to 11ch like the step-up 3050 model.


----------



## mixo

When does Yamaha refresh its models?

My house doesn't get finished till may\june.

mixo


----------



## leedesert

mr stroke said:


> Are there any 5.1.4 Atmos receivers under 1k? I can't seem to find any, some are listed as so on Amazon but don't show enough rear ports for 5.1.4
> 
> 
> Am I better off with a 5.1.2 receiver with a separate stereo amp?


There are a few that are below or near $1k but you are usually giving something up at that price range. The better 9ch AVR are starting at about $1600.

In the link below there is a Denon 5200 that is a scratch and dent. It probably has a minor scratch but I would call them to get a price.

This direct link doesn't take you there but on Crutchfield go to Home Theater Receivers and then once there select the filters on the left for 9 channels.

http://www.crutchfield.com/g_10420/Home-Theater-Receivers.html#&nvpair=FFNumber_Of_Channels|[rank009.00]9


----------



## meli

Dbruce13 said:


> Yes did some more digging and sadly I just ordered the $50 Gravity blu ray....only because I just installed my new Atmos set up and need to impress the wife with something...lol. Would be helpful if Amazon actually listed the audio sourcing on the listings vs me taking out a magnifying glass scanning over the back jpeg of the blu ray case.


I rented "Gravity" from here:
http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/

Netflix carries rental versions of some Blu-rays which replace the Atmos soundtracks with a 5.1 mix. I think it's Liongate who is notorious for this. In those cases, I rent the movie from 3D Blu-ray rental.

I'm waiting to purchase "Gravity" since I assume they will release a UHD Blu-ray version with Atmos.


----------



## Ricoflashback

leedesert said:


> There are a few that are below or near $1k but you are usually giving something up at that price range. The better 9ch AVR are starting at about $1600.
> 
> In the link below there is a Denon 5200 that is a scratch and dent. It probably has a minor scratch but I would call them to get a price.
> 
> This direct link doesn't take you there but on Crutchfield go to Home Theater Receivers and then once there select the filters on the left for 9 channels.
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/g_10420/Home-Theater-Receivers.html#&nvpair=FFNumber_Of_Channels|[rank009.00]9


The biggest issue you will have in trying to keep to your $1K budget or under is the lack of HDCP 2.2 and UHD/4K capability plus no DTS: X with the Denon x5200. If you do not have a 4K TV or you do not plan on purchasing a UHD Bluray player - - then it is not as important a consideration for you. 

Keep in mind that many of the studios have chosen to limit Dolby Atmos soundtracks to UHD/4K Bluray releases. I'll live with that as long as I can get a solid 7.1 soundtrack and use DTS Neo X to engage all my speakers. If you go with a 7.1.4 setup, then DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) can work wonders for you on both Dolby and DTS soundtracks. 

That being said, I have the Denon x5200 and have been thrilled with its performance. In addition to Dolby Atmos, I use DTS Neo X exclusively in a 9.1.2 setup (Front Wide/Front Height) configuration. I know I'm missing DTS: X (object based liked Dolby Atmos) but I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between Neural X and DTS Neo X.

Warranty wise, three years is standard on a new x5200. Whoever you talk to, make sure they explain the warranty period. Refurbished equipment (versus scratch & dent or "Open Box,) usually has only one year of warranty. Denon provides extended warranty on their site, as well. All considerations to ensure what you buy will last you as long as it can and protect you from any failures. 

You might want to wait to see what the fall brings in terms of new Atmos/DTS receivers but that is no guarantee as I see that Amazon still has a high price on the Denon x5200 ($1,329.95) I imagine that the supply is getting shorter on these units. You would think that the price would drop on some of the 9 channel amp AVR's (11channels with an extra amplifier) - but that seems to be hit and miss these days.


----------



## PioManiac

Ricoflashback said:


> *Keep in mind that many of the studios have chosen to limit Dolby Atmos soundtracks to UHD/4K Bluray releases.* I'll live with that as long as I can get a solid 7.1 soundtrack and use DTS Neo X to engage all my speakers. If you go with a 7.1.4 setup, then DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) can work wonders for you on both Dolby and DTS soundtracks.


I'm sure this has been discussed already somewhere but I cant find it and would like to know if its fact or speculation?

From the current list of titles available in Dolby Atmos here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
I see only 4 titles on 4K UHD bluray, and every one of those also have a 1080p bluray with Atmos ( and I have them )

Expendables 3
Mad Max Fury Road
San Andreas
Sicario

I've also looked into new releases expected over the next 3 months
to see whats coming down the pipe, and all I could find with Atmos on UHD exclusively was Chappie.???

Looks like the 4K UHD of Star Wars (TFA) and The Revenant
(the only two that interest me for new titles) will both be DTS-MA 7.1


----------



## leedesert

PioManiac said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed already somewhere but I cant find it and would like to know if its fact or speculation?
> 
> From the current list of titles available in Dolby Atmos here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> I see only 4 titles on 4K UHD bluray, and every one of those also have 1080p bluray with Atmos ( and I have them )
> 
> Expendables 3
> Mad Max Fury Road
> San Andreas
> Sicario
> 
> I've also looked into new releases expected over the next 3 months
> to see whats coming down the pipe, and all I could find with Atmos on UHD exclusively was Chappie.???
> 
> Looks like the 4K UHD of Star Wars (TFA) and The Revenant
> (the only two that interest me for new titles) will both be DTS-MA 7.1


I've noticed this as well. Some had suggested that Atmos on 1080P would be harder to find but I'm seeing the opposite. The exception is older movies that are being re-mixed to Atmos, most of them are only 4k.


----------



## PioManiac

leedesert said:


> I've noticed this as well. Some had suggested that Atmos on 1080P would be harder to find but I'm seeing the opposite. * The exception is older movies that are being re-mixed to Atmos, most of them are only 4k.*


Well I'm certainly not going to double dip for non-blockbuster titles like Hancock or Independence Day
...I'll just re-watch my 1080p version with DSU or DTS Neural.

Maybe if Star Wars, LOTR and the Hobbit were re-released in Atmos/DTS:X on 4K UHD I would consider it.


----------



## scarabaeus

PioManiac said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed already somewhere but I cant find it and would like to know if its fact or speculation?
> 
> From the current list of titles available in Dolby Atmos here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> I see only 4 titles on 4K UHD bluray, and every one of those also have a 1080p bluray with Atmos ( and I have them )
> 
> Expendables 3
> Mad Max Fury Road
> San Andreas
> Sicario
> 
> I've also looked into new releases expected over the next 3 months
> to see whats coming down the pipe, and all I could find with Atmos on UHD exclusively was Chappie.???
> 
> Looks like the 4K UHD of Star Wars (TFA) and The Revenant
> (the only two that interest me for new titles) will both be DTS-MA 7.1





leedesert said:


> I've noticed this as well. Some had suggested that Atmos on 1080P would be harder to find but I'm seeing the opposite. The exception is older movies that are being re-mixed to Atmos, most of them are only 4k.


That list on blu-ray.com is 1080p only, they discuss that somewhere in the last few pages of comments. As for UHD, all of the Sony current and future releases are Atmos, and I think so are the Warner and Lionsgate (short of "The Last Witch Hunter", which is in DTS:X, I believe).

Fox has surprised us with the "Peanuts" movie in Atmos, their first ever optical disc release with a Dolby codec that is more than the mandated Dolby Digital. This might also mean that "The Revenant" and other future Fox first-release titles could be in Atmos, even if not announced that way.

Disney have stated before that they'll wait for UHD Blu-ray with their Atmos. And then stated that it'll probably be next year or so...

Our own "HDR Master List" here on AVS is currently being extended to indicate Atmos:


ray0414 said:


> within the next couple hours, ill add atmos to the 4k disc list on the 1st page. i pretty much know which ones are atmos by heart anyways.


----------



## mypepper

I just ordered my new Anthem 1120 av receiver along with 2 KEF R50 Atoms speakers, which I'm having a professional av installer come out on April 1st to setup my system. 

Since my front living room is on the smaller side, I'll start off with 2 KEF R50's at first and see how the atmos effect sounds. Luckily, I have a flat smooth ceiling, with carpeting, which my installer said, after he runs the Anthem ARC calibration and tweets the settings , my new system should sound amazing. I originally wanted ceiling speakers for my atmos system, but the wife said, no holes in the ceiling. In the end, I'll be running a 7.1.2 atmos system with my very reliable BIC of America speakers, which actually sound excellent for the money I paid for them. Sure, I could plunk down another 5 or 6 thousand dollars for better speakers, but with my up coming foundation work at our house, there goes any chance for new speakers for now. 

Currently, I have my trusty Onkyo TX SR 805, which has served me very well and will be actually missed. Once I get my new Anthem receiver up and running, I'll probably post my Onkyo receiver for free as long as the shipping cost is paid for.

In closing, I hope my new Anthem 1120 AV receiver is worth all the hype it is supposed to be. 

Thanks,
Randy


----------



## Stoked21

PioManiac said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed already somewhere but I cant find it and would like to know if its fact or speculation?
> 
> From the current list of titles available in Dolby Atmos here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> I see only 4 titles on 4K UHD bluray, and every one of those also have a 1080p bluray with Atmos ( and I have them (


No it's not rumor. Same goes for Amazon and Vudu...No 4K HDR, then you don't get the Atmos or X either (without workarounds or watching movies in the wrong color space with inferior PQ).

Keep in mind UHD has only been officially released for 16 days now and 25 discs are already in stores. More than half of them have Atmos with only Fox and Disney failing to jump in to immersive yet. In that time the following discs (7) were released as 4K exclusively with Atmos: _Ender's Game, Pinapple Express, Hancock, Chappie, Salt, Amazing Spiderman 2, Smurf 2_. Curiously enough, Ender's and Spidey 2 are two of the best Atmos mixes I've yet to hear. Also keep in mind something like 350 new UHD discs will be released this year alone. Most of those will all have immersive audio exclusive to UHD.....Here are just a few old catalog titles that are rumored and confirmed to be UHD and likely with immersive:

Fury, Captain Phillips, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, The Fifth Element, Bad Boys, The Da Vinci Code, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Leon: The Professional, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Guns of Navarone, Taxi Driver, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Divergent Series, Matrix Trilogy, Apocalypse Now, Star Treks, The Godfather, Transformers films, Mission: Impossible films, Gladiator, Braveheart, and Top Gun and many others....No, I'm not making these up.....

Keep in mind the studios want us to double dip. They are going to throw Atmos on nearly all of these discs as an upsell feature. Sony has already confirmed all of their's will be Atmos. 

The real question is will studios start to put Atmos on UHD only for new release titles? Fox and Disney issued press releases stating as much, but we won't see these discs until late 2016/early 2017 anyway. Will other studios stop putting the immersive mix on the BD too? Who knows. The fact is that the classic catalog releases have not been receiving immersive upmixes. All of the BDs that come in the UHD packs are just the original DTS or DD mixes.....



leedesert said:


> I've noticed this as well. Some had suggested that Atmos on 1080P would be harder to find but I'm seeing the opposite. The exception is older movies that are being re-mixed to Atmos, most of them are only 4k.


On the contrary, no one said that. What several people told you was that many major new releases contain Atmos on BD, and that there were already over 30 for sale in the US. But several of us informed you that catalog re-releases only contain Atmos on the UHD. Your confusion kept centering around the BD of Ender's Game being Atmos, which everyone clearly stated it was UHD specific. Also, that Vudu and other streaming companies are only putting Atmos on the UHD versions. And that Disney and Fox have stated they will not put Atmos on discs until UHD.....


----------



## tezster

How many people have implemented a 4-speaker Atmos setup in a living-room environment where your seating is directly against the rear wall?

I'm interested in hearing what your thoughts are, in terms of how you determined speaker placement/layout, and how much improvement you noticed when watching movies? I'm trying to decide if the upgrade to a 9-channel Atmos receiver (which are quite pricey) would be worthwhile in my situation.


----------



## PioManiac

scarabaeus said:


> That list on blu-ray.com is 1080p only,


So these Black Box labelled 4K UHD blurays, I've highlighted in Orange,
From the link I provided,.....are only 1080p Titles ???? 




























Please clarify your 1080p statement because either you or bluray.com is mistaken.



Sorry, I like Atmos...
But I have yet to see any 4K UHD Atmos exclusive titles 
enticing me to upgrade my $150 BD player for a $600 4K player (in Canada) 
or a native 4K Projector for $10k+

...and then pay another $10+ per bluray...just for Atmos


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I didn't think The Lego Movie on UHD Blu-ray had an Atmos track. Is the back cover in error?


----------



## Stoked21

Dan Hitchman said:


> I didn't think The Lego Movie on UHD Blu-ray had an Atmos track. Is the back cover in error?


I probably screwed up and listed that one as I don't own it. I think you are correct it is not....So maybe it's 7 Atmos exclusive to UHD and not 8.


----------



## Stoked21

PioManiac said:


> So these Black Box labelled 4K UHD blurays, I've highlighted in Orange,
> From the link I provided,.....are only 1080p Titles ????
> 
> 
> Please clarify your 1080p statement because either you or bluray.com is mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I like Atmos...
> But I have yet to see any 4K UHD Atmos exclusive titles
> enticing me to upgrade my $150 BD player for a $600 4K player (in Canada)
> or a native 4K Projector for $10k+
> 
> ...and then pay another $10+ per bluray...just for Atmos


Yes the website you listed is wrong. There are 13 total UHD Atmos titles (14 including X). That's quite a few in essentially 2 weeks since official release dates of 3/1/2016. Wrong in regards to them listing only 4 UHD discs with Atmos when it's really 13....

Immersive is exclusive to 4K titles I listed above (7 not 8 as I may have erroneously included Lego). There are also UHD releases with Atmos on San Andreas, Peanuts, Mad Max, Sicario, Pan, Expendables 3, and for DTS:X Witch Hunter....But these were all Atmos and X prior to the UHD releases so no one lists them as immersive exclusive to 4K. BD has the immersive as well.....

So all in all there are 14 of the 25 UHD movies that include immersive audio. That's close to 60% and if it were not for Fox being stubborn, then 100% would be immersive.

It's also interesting to note that it's taken us nearly 1.5 years to get 30 Atmos BDs....It's taken us two weeks to get 13 UHD with Atmos...The catalog re-releases of classics will cause UHD Atmos to quickly outpace BD with Atmos. By the middle of this year, that will quickly be the case.


----------



## scarabaeus

PioManiac said:


> So these Black Box labelled 4K UHD blurays, I've highlighted in Orange,
> From the link I provided,.....are only 1080p Titles ????
> 
> Please clarify your 1080p statement because either you or bluray.com is mistaken.


Those are UHD-Blu-rays that contain a 1080p Blu-ray copy with Atmos.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=11812581&postcount=1279


----------



## scarabaeus

Stoked21 said:


> Yes the website you listed is wrong.


Not wrong, just categorized differently than you guys thought.



Stoked21 said:


> Immersive is exclusive to 4K titles I listed above (7 not 8 as I may have erroneously included Lego). There are also UHD releases with Atmos on San Andreas, Peanuts, Mad Max, Sicario, Pan, Expendables 3, and for DTS:X Witch Hunter....But these were all Atmos and X prior to the UHD releases so no one lists them as immersive exclusive to 4K. BD has the immersive as well.....


Peanuts and Pan did not, and still do not, have Atmos on the 1080p Blu-ray. Only on the 2160p UHD Blu-ray.


----------



## jrogers

tezster said:


> How many people have implemented a 4-speaker Atmos setup in a living-room environment where your seating is directly against the rear wall?
> 
> I'm interested in hearing what your thoughts are, in terms of how you determined speaker placement/layout, and how much improvement you noticed when watching movies? I'm trying to decide if the upgrade to a 9-channel Atmos receiver (which are quite pricey) would be worthwhile in my situation.


My seating is nearly against the rear wall, and would definitely say that going to 5.1.4 is worthwhile. I started out with a 5.1.2 system with height speakers positioned Top-Middle and found it to be a great improvement over just 5.1 (and even preferred it to a 7.1 system I have upstairs) In fact, I was liking what DSU was doing for existing movies so much that I added an amp and two more height speakers (in the Front-Height) position to get to my current 5.1.4 system, which sounds great. One suggestion, in case you didn't read through the entire thread, is to configure your height speakers as TF+TR or FH+RH regardless of actual angles (in my case FH+TM) - sounds are shifted forward in the room from original intent, but panning and effect is much better. One other suggestion, if it works in your room, is to add acoustic panels behind the couch at ear level. I recently increased my absorption on the back wall, and it made a significant improvement in clarity.

p.s. I'm actually planning to upgrade to a DTS:X compatible receiver this spring, and will likely go with the x6200w so I can add some front-wides to the mix  IOW, don't let that relatively poor seating position stop you from adding speakers


----------



## Stoked21

scarabaeus said:


> Not wrong, just categorized differently than you guys thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Peanuts and Pan did not, and still do not, have Atmos on the 1080p Blu-ray. Only on the 2160p UHD Blu-ray.



I can't comment on Peanuts as I don't own. I can tell you that the Pan 1080p is indeed Atmos though.


----------



## scarabaeus

Stoked21 said:


> I can't comment on Peanuts as I don't own. I can tell you that the Pan 1080p is indeed Atmos though.


Oh, that's great, I did not know that. You should let HDGoofnut on blu-ray.com know, so he can add it to the list.

Don't know about the movie itself, but I've seen a few scenes of it in Dolby Vision (VUDU on Vizio R65), and it looks spectacular.


----------



## kokishin

Stoked21 said:


> I can't comment on Peanuts as I don't own. I can tell you that the Pan 1080p is indeed Atmos though.





scarabaeus said:


> Oh, that's great, I did not know that. You should let HDGoofnut on blu-ray.com know, so he can add it to the list.
> 
> Don't know about the movie itself, but I've seen a few scenes of it in Dolby Vision (VUDU on Vizio R65), and it looks spectacular.


HD Goofnut has had 1080p "Pan" on his Atmos list for a while. I check it almost everyday.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

i know its been asked...but if I buy a UHD bluray player...and only have a 1080p display...can i watch the UHD BR on it so i can get ATMOS?


----------



## scarabaeus

Stoked21 said:


> I can't comment on Peanuts as I don't own.


The UHD is Atmos all the way, even the release logo (when the disc starts up) and the menu. The 1080p is DTS-HD MA 7.1 only.


----------



## tezster

jrogers said:


> My seating is nearly against the rear wall, and would definitely say that going to 5.1.4 is worthwhile. I started out with a 5.1.2 system with height speakers positioned Top-Middle and found it to be a great improvement over just 5.1 (and even preferred it to a 7.1 system I have upstairs) In fact, I was liking what DSU was doing for existing movies so much that I added an amp and two more height speakers (in the Front-Height) position to get to my current 5.1.4 system, which sounds great. One suggestion, in case you didn't read through the entire thread, is to configure your height speakers as TF+TR or FH+RH regardless of actual angles (in my case FH+TM) - sounds are shifted forward in the room from original intent, but panning and effect is much better. One other suggestion, if it works in your room, is to add acoustic panels behind the couch at ear level. I recently increased my absorption on the back wall, and it made a significant improvement in clarity.
> 
> p.s. I'm actually planning to upgrade to a DTS:X compatible receiver this spring, and will likely go with the x6200w so I can add some front-wides to the mix  IOW, don't let that relatively poor seating position stop you from adding speakers


Thanks for the very helpful feedback!

Atmos is definitely on my radar - now it's just a matter of budgeting


----------



## scarabaeus

Brian Fineberg said:


> i know its been asked...but if I buy a UHD bluray player...and only have a 1080p display...can i watch the UHD BR on it so i can get ATMOS?


With the releases so far, that seems to be the case. Though 1080p is not the deciding factor, but HDCP 2.2 capability. There seems to be a flag that can be set during authoring, that would prohibit any downgrade due to missing HDCP 2.2, and would only output a black screen without audio. As far as I know, there are just as many UHDs with that flag, as there have been Blu-rays with the CI token: none commercially available.


----------



## Ricoflashback

scarabaeus said:


> The UHD is Atmos all the way, even the release logo (when the disc starts up) and the menu. The 1080p is DTS-HD MA 7.1 only.


If it's DTS - it's DTS X, not Dolby Atmos IF their is an immersive soundtrack available. Another consideration on the purchase of a Dolby Atmos AVR that is not HDCP 2.2 & does not have DTS X or Neural X (2014 models mostly.)


----------



## Stoked21

scarabaeus said:


> The UHD is Atmos all the way, even the release logo (when the disc starts up) and the menu. The 1080p is DTS-HD MA 7.1 only.


I knew the UHD Peanuts was Atmos. That's guaranteed. I just didn't know about the 1080p and really had thought it was Atmos too. I picked up a BD package at Target or some place a few days ago and thought it said Atmos, maybe not.....Not really my cup of tea to watch, so it was irrelevant to my tastes. But then again, Fox is pretty hardcore about no Atmos on BD, so it makes sense that it would be DTSHD


----------



## dvdwilly3

Brian Fineberg said:


> i know its been asked...but if I buy a UHD bluray player...and only have a 1080p display...can i watch the UHD BR on it so i can get ATMOS?


Yes, you can...but...

Go here http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1300.html#post42267665

for my detailed summary of my experience, including pictures... 

To me it was not worth it...

I am sticking with bluray and, if necessary, just DSU...as noted by somebody, batpig?, the UHD uses a somewhat different color space, and I did not like the results...

YMMV...


----------



## KennyLSU

Stoked21 said:


> I knew the UHD Peanuts was Atmos. That's guaranteed. I just didn't know about the 1080p and really had thought it was Atmos too. I picked up a BD package at Target or some place a few days ago and thought it said Atmos, maybe not.....Not really my cup of tea to watch, so it was irrelevant to my tastes. *But then again, Fox is pretty hardcore about no Atmos on BD, so it makes sense that it would be DTSHD*


Which really sucks because Deadpool in Atmos would be awesome.


----------



## nickbuol

mypepper said:


> In closing, I hope my new Anthem 1120 AV receiver is worth all the hype it is supposed to be.


I went from an Onkyo 709 to the Anthem MRX-1120 and it is SOOO much better. You will love it.


----------



## wackid

nickbuol said:


> I went from an Onkyo 709 to the Anthem MRX-1120 and it is SOOO much better. You will love it.


But you need to place it in a closed cabinet.


----------



## nickbuol

wackid said:


> But you need to place it in a closed cabinet.


The 1120 likes to breathe... manual states 8 inches on each side and above it for airflow. Not sure how many people have that wide of shelves for a receiver.


----------



## wackid

nickbuol said:


> The 1120 likes to breathe... manual states 8 inches on each side and above it for airflow. Not sure how many people have that wide of shelves for a receiver.


It was a bit of a cynical statement. 
I bet the receiver may sound great. But what an ugly machine it is. 
And I know, the higher end it gets, the more money you pay. And (most of the time) the uglier the design....


----------



## nickbuol

wackid said:


> It was a bit of a cynical statement.
> I bet the receiver may sound great. But what an ugly machine it is.
> And I know, the higher end it gets, the more money you pay. And (most of the time) the uglier the design....


Looks like a receiver to me, so all receivers are ugly I guess...  To each their own. 

Wait, you have/had an Onkyo 709, and the Anthem 1120 is no more "ugly" than that is.


----------



## gurkey

meli said:


> Do any of the Atmos Blu-ray discs have a "Audio Check" feature with channel identification? Where the voiceover says "This is the Top Rear Right speaker", or white noise emanates from the speaker highlighted on the video graphic?
> 
> Or is such a file available to download?
> 
> Thanks.


Don't most AVRs have this feature already on board even with graphical representation ?
When i start my AVRs (pink noise ?) test signal cycling from speaker to speaker, it will display in parallel, which speaker is been adressed currently.


----------



## BrandonH

I setup my theater with Atmos just a few short months ago. I love it, sounds great! I loved it so much I just upgraded from a 5.2.2 setup to 7.2.4 already. Don't make the same mistake I did installing the original speakers in the top middle position if you think you might get upgrade-itis like me. Now I've had to patch two holes in my ceiling that was just finished a few months ago. Here's one before repainting, hopefully after painting it will look fine lol.


----------



## batpig

gurkey said:


> Don't most AVRs have this feature already on board even with graphical representation ?
> When i start my AVRs (pink noise ?) test signal cycling from speaker to speaker, it will display in parallel, which speaker is been adressed currently.


Yes, the AVR internal test tones will do this. But I believe he was looking for an external test tone check with which to verify proper Atmos rendering.


----------



## meli

gurkey said:


> Don't most AVRs have this feature already on board even with graphical representation ?
> When i start my AVRs (pink noise ?) test signal cycling from speaker to speaker, it will display in parallel, which speaker is been adressed currently.


Thanks, my Marantz 6010 receiver has that function. But I was mostly interested in how the Dolby upmixer handled audio signals, so the built-in signals wouldn't work since they don't go thru the upmixer. But I was able to test it using the Atmos demo disc and this has led me to another question.

I have a 5.1.4 system with 2 Top Front and 2 Top Rear speakers (and no Surround Back speakers). When using the Atmos demo disc and playing the 5.1.4 speaker identification video, all my speakers are mapped correctly. When playing the 7.1.4 speaker identification video, the sound for the Surround Back speakers comes solely out of the Surround speakers. I would have expected some of the sound to also come out of the Top Rear speakers, since the Surround Back sound object is somewhat behind the listening position. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

When playing the 5.1.6 test, both the Top Front and Top Rears speakers play at the same time when fed a Top Center signal. Just as both Front Left & Right speakers play at the same time when fed a Center Channel signal when using a phantom center. So when using the speaker identification video, it is possible for the upmixer to send one signal to multiple speakers at the same time.

So why doesn't the Top Rear speaker and Side Surround speaker both play when fed a Surround Back signal?


----------



## batpig

meli said:


> T
> I have a 5.1.4 system with 2 Top Front and 2 Top Rear speakers (and no Surround Back speakers). When using the Atmos demo disc and playing the 5.1.4 speaker identification video, all my speakers are mapped correctly. When playing the 7.1.4 speaker identification video, the sound for the Surround Back speakers comes solely out of the Surround speakers. I would have expected some of the sound to also come out of the Top Rear speakers, since the Surround Back sound object is somewhat behind the listening position. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
> 
> When playing the 5.1.6 test, both the Top Front and Top Rears speakers play at the same time when fed a Top Center signal. Just as both Front Left & Right speakers play at the same time when fed a Center Channel signal when using a phantom center. So when using the speaker identification video, it is possible for the upmixer to send one signal to multiple speakers at the same time.
> 
> So why doesn't the Top Rear speaker and Side Surround speaker both play when fed a Surround Back signal?


Well first of all the "upmixer" is not involved at all here -- those test tones are native Atmos. It depends on how the channel tones are encoded and then rendered based on the encoding.

With respect to the Surround Back tone, the base layer speakers are at ear level (elevation = 0) according to the Atmos renderer. It will not use elevated speakers to attempt to reproduce a non-elevated sound. So Surround Back signals downmix the same as in any 7.1>5.1 conversion, getting folded into the Surround channels. 

There is also an option in Atmos encoding called "snap to speaker" which forces an object to only be reproduced by one speaker. For example, if you play the 9.1.6 tones the "Front Wide" signal will collapse 100% to the Front speaker, as opposed to being split between Front and Surround to phantom image the "wide" in between.


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> I knew the UHD Peanuts was Atmos. That's guaranteed. I just didn't know about the 1080p and really had thought it was Atmos too. I picked up a BD package at Target or some place a few days ago and thought it said Atmos, maybe not.....Not really my cup of tea to watch, so it was irrelevant to my tastes. But then again, Fox is pretty hardcore about no Atmos on BD, so it makes sense that it would be DTSHD


why is it that Fox is so hard core about no Atmos on Blu-Rays or UHD Blu-Rays


----------



## Stoked21

bargervais said:


> why is it that Fox is so hard core about no Atmos on Blu-Rays or UHD Blu-Rays


They issued a press release some time ago stating that Atmos would only be on UHD titles same as Disney. So it was a surprise that Peanuts ended up having Atmos. But then come to find out, I guess Atmos is only on the UHD and not on the BD so this coincides with their press release. But since that press release, they've released about 10-12 UHD discs of which only one has immersive audio (approximate numbers). 

My point is just that Fox and Disney are missing out by not pushing immersive as an upsell. Sony is one of the few that's got it right by making it more or less standard on all UHD releases.....Wish more studios would follow suit.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bargervais said:


> why is it that Fox is so hard core about no Atmos on Blu-Rays or UHD Blu-Rays


They're hardcore about no Atmos on _1080p_ Blu-ray. The first few releases were, I guess, a fluke.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> They issued a press release some time ago stating that Atmos would only be on UHD titles same as Disney. So it was as surprise that Peanuts ended up having Atmos. But then come to find out, I guess the Atmos is only on the UHD and not on the BD. But since that press release, they've released about 10-12 UHD discs of which only one has immersive audio (approximate numbers).
> 
> My point is just that Fox and Disney are missing out by not pushing immersive as an upsell. Sony is one of the few that's got it right by making it more or less standard on all UHD releases.....Wish more studios would follow suit.


A couple of Fox's UHD titles were never released with Atmos theatrically. One of them, _Joy_, was only mixed in 5.1 and is a dialog driven drama that doesn't lend itself to Atmos.


----------



## bargervais

Stoked21 said:


> They issued a press release some time ago stating that Atmos would only be on UHD titles same as Disney. So it was as surprise that Peanuts ended up having Atmos. But then come to find out, I guess the Atmos is only on the UHD and not on the BD. But since that press release, they've released about 10-12 UHD discs of which only one has immersive audio (approximate numbers).
> 
> My point is just that Fox and Disney are missing out by not pushing immersive as an upsell. Sony is one of the few that's got it right by making it more or less standard on all UHD releases.....Wish more studios would follow suit.


the only reason i buy Blu-Ray is for the Atmos. so yes they are missing the upsell in my books.


----------



## bargervais

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're hardcore about no Atmos on _1080p_ Blu-ray. The first few releases were, I guess, a fluke.


i won't be buying Peanuts even if it has Atmos


----------



## lujan

bargervais said:


> i won't be buying Peanuts even if it has Atmos


Especially at current prices. I'm waiting until prices are as low as the first Fox UHD disks with the 30% off coupon. Until then, I'm content with the UHD disks and digital UHD movies I currently have.


----------



## mr stroke

Ricoflashback said:


> The biggest issue you will have in trying to keep to your $1K budget or under is the lack of HDCP 2.2 and UHD/4K capability plus no DTS: X with the Denon x5200. If you do not have a 4K TV or you do not plan on purchasing a UHD Bluray player - - then it is not as important a consideration for you.
> 
> Keep in mind that many of the studios have chosen to limit Dolby Atmos soundtracks to UHD/4K Bluray releases. I'll live with that as long as I can get a solid 7.1 soundtrack and use DTS Neo X to engage all my speakers. If you go with a 7.1.4 setup, then DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) can work wonders for you on both Dolby and DTS soundtracks.
> 
> That being said, I have the Denon x5200 and have been thrilled with its performance. In addition to Dolby Atmos, I use DTS Neo X exclusively in a 9.1.2 setup (Front Wide/Front Height) configuration. I know I'm missing DTS: X (object based liked Dolby Atmos) but I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between Neural X and DTS Neo X.
> 
> Warranty wise, three years is standard on a new x5200. Whoever you talk to, make sure they explain the warranty period. Refurbished equipment (versus scratch & dent or "Open Box,) usually has only one year of warranty. Denon provides extended warranty on their site, as well. All considerations to ensure what you buy will last you as long as it can and protect you from any failures.
> 
> You might want to wait to see what the fall brings in terms of new Atmos/DTS receivers but that is no guarantee as I see that Amazon still has a high price on the Denon x5200 ($1,329.95) I imagine that the supply is getting shorter on these units. You would think that the price would drop on some of the 9 channel amp AVR's (11channels with an extra amplifier) - but that seems to be hit and miss these days.


Actually trying to put together this Atmos set up for a pure gaming/PC set up(mostly using Atmos upmixing), so I am trying to keep it somewhat cheap. It sounds like trying to find an 5.1.4 Atmos receiver under 1k is impossible. 

Any suggestions on what kind of separate amp I could use in conjunction with a cheaper 5.1.2 $500 amp to achieve Atmos ?
?


----------



## smurraybhm

mr stroke said:


> Actually trying to put together this Atmos set up for a pure gaming/PC set up(mostly using Atmos upmixing), so I am trying to keep it somewhat cheap. It sounds like trying to find an 5.1.4 Atmos receiver under 1k is impossible.
> 
> Any suggestions on what kind of separate amp I could use in conjunction with a cheaper 5.1.2 $500 amp to achieve Atmos ?
> ?


What's wrong with a refurb @ $999? All the latest greatest along with 5.x.4:

http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...d-a/v-receiver-wi-fi/bluetooth/airplay/1.html


----------



## Ricoflashback

mr stroke said:


> Actually trying to put together this Atmos set up for a pure gaming/PC set up(mostly using Atmos upmixing), so I am trying to keep it somewhat cheap. It sounds like trying to find an 5.1.4 Atmos receiver under 1k is impossible.
> 
> Any suggestions on what kind of separate amp I could use in conjunction with a cheaper 5.1.2 $500 amp to achieve Atmos ?
> ?


Unless you find a deal from your local Craigslist or as one other poster suggested from Accesories4Less - - you'll be hard pressed to find what you need for under $1K. I thought the prices would go down on a lot of Atmos AVR's but that, apparently, isn't the case. With the advent of DTS X functionality, the price has gone up on many AVR's. 

So - check Craigslist or Accessories4Less or even Amazon if/when someone sells something used. Ebay's an option but that is a little trickier compared to someone local or a reputable retail/online outlet.


----------



## korsjs

Looking for opinions on Atoms and DTS X for my budget home set up. Credit card reward points are enough to allow me to upgrade to a new receiver in the 700 - 800 price range but would prefer to stay 600 or lower. 

Pics two and three show my back four surround speakers and the height of my ceilings. I understand the room is less than ideal for sound but when I am able to turn up the volume up it does sound pretty good. Pic one shows my viewing position and the front three speakers. All pictures are from the main viewing seat and there is no zoom when taking the pictures.

Question is - would I be able to benefit at all if I upgrade my 7.1 non Atoms/DTS X receiver to one that contains both Atoms/DTS X without moving the back speakers. I have a little wiggle room to point any of the back speakers towards the ceiling. With the height of my ceilings, I just can't pull the trigger without hearing opinions from some of the experts.

Any advice would be welcomed and appreciated. And yes I know the place is a mess. I am in the process of spring cleaning.


----------



## batpig

korsjs said:


> Looking for opinions on Atoms and DTS X for my budget home set up. Credit card reward points are enough to allow me to upgrade to a new receiver in the 700 - 800 price range but would prefer to stay 600 or lower.
> 
> Pics two and three show my back four surround speakers and the height of my ceilings. I understand the room is less than ideal for sound but when I am able to turn up the volume up it does sound pretty good. Pic one shows my viewing position and the front three speakers. All pictures are from the main viewing seat and there is no zoom when taking the pictures.
> 
> Question is - would I be able to benefit at all if I upgrade my 7.1 non Atoms/DTS X receiver to one that contains both Atoms/DTS X without moving the back speakers. I have a little wiggle room to point any of the back speakers towards the ceiling. With the height of my ceilings, I just can't pull the trigger without hearing opinions from some of the experts.


Honest advice -- unless you're willing to go to a 9ch setup and relocate some speakers, I wouldn't bother with immersive audio given your setup. Two major issues in your way:

1. You already have a 7.1 setup, so moving to immersive without ponying up for 9+ ch receiver means you have to sacrifice your back surrounds and drop down to 5.1.2
2. Your surrounds are really high up AND you have a high ceiling... this means you are already getting both elevated (direct) sound and a bunch of reflections/reverberation above that. 

Pointing your back surrounds at the ceiling will be pointless, there is just too much room up there and it will turn to mush. Better to just keep them as back surrounds. 

And if you add two more overhead speakers without lowering your surrounds a bit, they will also just get lost in the mush of all that sound bouncing around up there.

So, IMO, if you are serious about moving to an immersive audio rig in that room, you should only do it if you're willing to get a 9ch receiver (so you can run 7.1.2 or 5.1.4), add two more speakers, and move some stuff around. That would mean inching the receiver budget up to around $1K which puts you in range of Marantz 6010 / Denon 4200 or Yamaha 2050.

If you do that, then you'd have two paths to immersive audio:

option 1: lower all four surrounds slightly, place another pair of speakers high on the front wall (assuming you can't get up to the ceiling) and run 7.1.2 with front height
option 2: lower the side surrounds only, add a pair of front heights and call the current back surrounds "rear heights" and run 5.1.4

Failing that, just enjoy your 7.1 setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

korsjs said:


> Looking for opinions on Atmos and DTS X for my budget home set up. Credit card reward points are enough to allow me to upgrade to a new receiver in the 700 - 800 price range but would prefer to stay 600 or lower.
> 
> Pics two and three show my back four surround speakers and the height of my ceilings. I understand the room is less than ideal for sound but when I am able to turn up the volume up it does sound pretty good. Pic one shows my viewing position and the front three speakers. All pictures are from the main viewing seat and there is no zoom when taking the pictures.
> 
> Question is - would I be able to benefit at all if I upgrade my 7.1 non Atmos/DTS X receiver to one that contains both Atmos/DTS X without moving the back speakers. I have a little wiggle room to point any of the back speakers towards the ceiling. With the height of my ceilings, I just can't pull the trigger without hearing opinions from some of the experts.
> 
> Any advice would be welcomed and appreciated. And yes I know the place is a mess. I am in the process of spring cleaning.



Your surrounds are pretty high up already. The only thing I can think of is if you use the rear surrounds as rear heights aimed down towards the MLP and then move the side surrounds to the front of the room and use them as front heights way above your front left and right speakers also aimed at the MLP. Make sure you place the height surrounds within Dolby's recommended angles. 

Then you need another pair of speakers down on the main level for the side surrounds around the same location plane as your left, center, and right front speakers. This would give you 5.1.4, but then you need a receiver that handles that. An Accessories 4 Less refurbed Denon 4200 would set you back just under $1,000. 

Your budget is _really, really_ low, so I don't know how you get away with an effective immersive sound system at the $600 level. 

If you're willing to save up... go for it... if not, I'd say forget it.


----------



## korsjs

@Dan Hitchman and @batpig . Thank you for the fast responses. Both of you have confirmed what I thought. Will keep saving the reward points until OLED goes down in price. Thanks again.


----------



## Kain

Check out the awesome audio and video in this commercial. The car is nice too.


----------



## Kain

Almost 24 hours and not a single new post.


----------



## sprins

Kain said:


> Almost 24 hours and not a single new post.


That's it. Atmos is dead.


----------



## vitod

sprins said:


> That's it. Atmos is dead.


Good thing I still have the Integra 80.2. Time to sell the Marantz.


----------



## ALtlOff

sprins said:


> That's it. Atmos is dead.


Great.....

It going to take me a week to take these gazillion speakers down.


----------



## BigScreen

PioManiac said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed already somewhere but I cant find it and would like to know if its fact or speculation?


We have a thread for this: Is Atmos becoming UHD exclusive?

To my knowledge, we have four movies in which non-remixed immersive audio is exclusive to the UHD Blu-ray release:



BigScreen said:


> I just received confirmation from Sony today that the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray release of Concussion will have Atmos (which we knew from the press release), and that the Blu-ray included in that package as well as the standalone Blu-ray release will have DTS-HD MA 5.1.
> 
> That latter fact was reported by blu-ray.com and a few other sources, but given the misinformation that has occurred in the past, I wanted to find out first-hand.
> 
> That makes Concussion the fourth non-remixed title to provide Atmos/DTS:X exclusively on the Ultra HD Blu-ray release:
> 
> 
> 
> The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Sony)
> Concussion (Sony)
> Enders Game (Summit/Lionsgate)
> The Peanuts Movie (Fox)


I've been keeping track of confirmed U.S. releases on Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray with Atmos and DTS:X. You can find links to the respective lists in my sig.

(By confirmed, I mean by seeing the back of the box as it sits on the shelf or information direct from the studio. I do not take someone posting on here or on Blu-ray.com to be a confirmation of anything unless they can cite their source and that source can be determined to be valid.)


----------



## kokishin

sprins said:


> That's it. Atmos is dead.


Au contraire, vous douteur!

From the _Dr Who_ TV series, season 401, episode 5: _The Sontaran Stratagem_:

_Martha Jones summons the Doctor back to modern-day Earth, but an old enemy lies in wait. With the mysterious ATMOS devices spreading across the world, Donna discovers that even her own family is not safe from the alien threat - but is it too late to save them?_

http://www.amazon.com/Sontaran-Stratagem-Part/dp/B003JUGQ38/ref=sr_1_3?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1458521964&sr=1-3&keywords=atmos

Joking aside, I think Dolby has done a pretty good job of ramping up the Atmos ecosystem. I've been purchasing Atmos BD titles (and recently DTS:X BD titles). If a BD is not in Atmos (or DTS:X), then I typically rent from Redbox or stream from Amazon. My infinitesimally small way of letting the studios know that I will invest in Atmos (and DTS:X).


----------



## tbrown187

mr stroke said:


> Actually trying to put together this Atmos set up for a pure gaming/PC set up(mostly using Atmos upmixing), so I am trying to keep it somewhat cheap. It sounds like trying to find an 5.1.4 Atmos receiver under 1k is impossible.
> 
> Any suggestions on what kind of separate amp I could use in conjunction with a cheaper 5.1.2 $500 amp to achieve Atmos ?
> ?


FWIW, I'm new to the thread and not sure if someone has mentioned it, but Fry's just had the X4200 on sale for $900 ($600 off) on the 14th. It's a 7.2 receiver that amps for 7, but can process 9 channels. Throw in an inexpensive amp, like an iNuke 1000, and you'd have your 5.x.4 setup for roughly $1050 (that's exactly what I did.)

Now, the Fry's deal is over, but they've been known to cycle back through items, so it may come back around if you have some time to wait it out.


----------



## leedesert

I find it funny how possessed we can get over the latest surround upgrade, in this case Atmos. It's like prior to Atmos we were all listening to movie on a single speaker we made from an old car speaker mounted in an old wooden box we had sitting around. 

I watched a few movies last week that didn't have Atmos, gasp!!, and found the surround experience just as enjoyable.


----------



## pasender91

leedesert said:


> I find it funny how possessed we can get over the latest surround upgrade, in this case Atmos. It's like prior to Atmos we were all listening to movie on a single speaker we made from an old car speaker mounted in an old wooden box we had sitting around.
> 
> I watched a few movies last week that didn't have Atmos, gasp!!, and found the surround experience just as enjoyable.


Maybe you had Dolby Surround Upmixer ON 
On my side, i regularly test 5.1 by turning it off, and my reaction is always , it confirms that to me at least there is no way back to life without Atmos & DSU


----------



## leedesert

Can someone point me to a test disc that can output tones for the Atmos speaker layout?

Also, can someone point me to a source that explains how to set up your AVR for reference levels.
I'm unclear on adjusting my levels using an SPL meter. I understand the 75dbm level but when using a test disc (not the internal pink noise) do I set my master volume for 0db and then adjust my speaker trims to reach 75db. That's the part I don't understand.


----------



## mathlete

Dyx said:


> *So far I have compared Dolby Atmos DSU with DTS:Neural with following result*s:
> 
> AV receiver: Marantz SR7010 I was testing and comparing sound on movies after update to DTS:X:
> 
> On any movie material (except native DTS:X and/or native Dolby Atmos) when I compare DSU vs. DTS:Neural the *DSU *by far beats the *Neural*, why??
> 
> Dynamics and frequency range is audibly far better from DSU compared when I switch to Neural, With Neural immideately the bass sounds get much weaker, sound is more FLAT etc.
> To be hones I am pretty disapointed with Neural so far since I can compare to DSU.
> 
> I am still not sure if I have to pay for the Auro 3D upgrade as soon it will be available...


Interesting - I've had the opposite experience.

Denon x6200

The Fifth Element (atmos) - limited use of atmos speakers
Iron Man (DSU) - moderate
Man of Steel, Guardians of the Galaxy (DTS Neural) - AWESOME. I'm still impressed at how well it created overhead effects.

Even Fight Club (DTS Neural) seemed to take better advantage of the Atmos speakers than an actually Atmos movie.


----------



## DaGamePimp

mr stroke said:


> Actually trying to put together this Atmos set up for a pure gaming/PC set up(mostly using Atmos upmixing), so I am trying to keep it somewhat cheap. It sounds like trying to find an 5.1.4 Atmos receiver under 1k is impossible.
> 
> Any suggestions on what kind of separate amp I could use in conjunction with a cheaper 5.1.2 $500 amp to achieve Atmos ?
> ?



The Denon x4100 can process 9 channels for 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 with the addition of an external 2 channel amp (like the Audiosource amp100, can often be found for under $100).


Accessories4Less has the x4100 right now for $700 (Denon refurbished).
http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...rplay/1.html?gclid=CKO5ypPt0csCFVFcfgodilkAnA


Unless you find one used or an open-box still floating around at Best Buy you're not likely to get it done for any less.
Best of luck,
Jason


----------



## batpig

leedesert said:


> Can someone point me to a test disc that can output tones for the Atmos speaker layout?
> 
> Also, can someone point me to a source that explains how to set up your AVR for reference levels.
> I'm unclear on adjusting my levels using an SPL meter. I understand the 75dbm level but when using a test disc (not the internal pink noise) do I set my master volume for 0db and then adjust my speaker trims to reach 75db. That's the part I don't understand.


In theory, your receiver's auto calibration should do it for you. But if you REALLY want to check and make sure that your receiver's volume dial is calibrated so that 0dB MV is "reference", then you need two things: test tone signals with a known level, and an accurate SPL meter.

For example, the internal test tones of the receiver are recorded at -30dbfs (decibels below "full scale"). Full scale is 105dB per channel, so 30dB down from that is 75dB. If you are using an external disc with test tones, you just need to know what level they were recorded at (most will be -30dbfs as well but some are -20). 

Then you play the tones, set the receiver's MV to 0dB, and put the SPL meter approximately where your ears are, pointing up to the ceiling, with C-weighting and "slow" response. Cycle through the tones and adjust levels until they all ready 75dB. 

The only source of external tones for the Atmos speakers is the Sep 2015 Atmos demo disc.


----------



## jrogers

batpig said:


> In theory, your receiver's auto calibration should do it for you. But if you REALLY want to check and make sure that your receiver's volume dial is calibrated so that 0dB MV is "reference", then you need two things: test tone signals with a known level, and an accurate SPL meter.
> 
> For example, the internal test tones of the receiver are recorded at -30dbfs (decibels below "full scale"). Full scale is 105dB per channel, so 30dB down from that is 75dB. If you are using an external disc with test tones, you just need to know what level they were recorded at (most will be -30dbfs as well but some are -20).
> 
> Then you play the tones, set the receiver's MV to 0dB, and put the SPL meter approximately where your ears are, pointing up to the ceiling, with C-weighting and "slow" response. Cycle through the tones and adjust levels until they all ready 75dB.
> 
> The only source of external tones for the Atmos speakers is the Sep 2015 Atmos demo disc.


Hi @batpig, just wondering if you've tried this and if you can confirm that the Atmos disc test tones were recorded at -30dbfs?


----------



## batpig

To be honest, I have yet to whip out the SPL meter with the Atmos demo disc tones.


----------



## leedesert

batpig said:


> In theory, your receiver's auto calibration should do it for you. But if you REALLY want to check and make sure that your receiver's volume dial is calibrated so that 0dB MV is "reference", then you need two things: test tone signals with a known level, and an accurate SPL meter.
> 
> For example, the internal test tones of the receiver are recorded at -30dbfs (decibels below "full scale"). Full scale is 105dB per channel, so 30dB down from that is 75dB. If you are using an external disc with test tones, you just need to know what level they were recorded at (most will be -30dbfs as well but some are -20).
> 
> Then you play the tones, set the receiver's MV to 0dB, and put the SPL meter approximately where your ears are, pointing up to the ceiling, with C-weighting and "slow" response. Cycle through the tones and adjust levels until they all ready 75dB.
> 
> The only source of external tones for the Atmos speakers is the Sep 2015 Atmos demo disc.


Thank you for clarifying that. Now I just need to find a disc that will playback tones for an atmos setup.


----------



## leedesert

batpig said:


> To be honest, I have yet to whip out the SPL meter with the Atmos demo disc tones.


Where do you get an Atmos demo disc


----------



## Charles R

leedesert said:


> I watched a few movies last week that didn't have Atmos, gasp!!, and found the surround experience just as enjoyable.


I have lost _interest_ as well... if Atmos makes the experience the experience wasn't all that much to begin with is my thinking. I'm guessing a lot of the cheerleaders have headed over to the DTS:X threads. That's the latest and greatest... now how do I get back all of the time I spent listening to Amaze.


----------



## ALtlOff

leedesert said:


> Thank you for clarifying that. Now I just need to find a disc that will playback tones for an atmos setup.


There a thread here about downloading one (your personal feelings on downloading it may come into play) but when I listened to them the other day off the test disc, to my ear, the test tones were perfectly even all the way around, except the Sub tone was slightly lower, and I my setup with the AVR test tones.
If that tells you anything.


----------



## timc1475

AFAIK the only AVR that has 11ch amps built in is the flagship Onkyo & Integra. The 70.6 is due for an upgrade (70.7 possibly?) with 384 DACs & Atmos & DTS-X etc. hopefully in a few short months. I considered separates but after reading about the pops & extra box count dramma decided to wait for these upcoming AVR's.

Hopefully since Atmos & DTS-X 11ch processing appears to becoming more popular Denon & Marantz & others may add to their lineups a 11ch & 11 amps AVR in one box count too. That would offer a good price point above their current lineup, but under the separate high end processors & amps.


----------



## DaGamePimp

timc1475 said:


> AFAIK the only AVR that has 11ch amps built in is the flagship Onkyo & Integra. The 70.6 is due for an upgrade (70.7 possibly?) with 384 DACs & Atmos & DTS-X etc. hopefully in a few short months. I considered separates but after reading about the pops & extra box count dramma decided to wait for these upcoming AVR's.
> 
> Hopefully since Atmos & DTS-X 11ch processing appears to becoming more popular Denon & Marantz & others may add to their lineups a 11ch & 11 amps AVR in one box count too. That would offer a good price point above their current lineup, but under the separate high end processors & amps.




Anthem mrx1120 has 11 channel amplification. 


- Jason


----------



## leedesert

ALtlOff said:


> There a thread here about downloading one (your personal feelings on downloading it may come into play) but when I listened to them the other day off the test disc, to my ear, the test tones were perfectly even all the way around, except the Sub tone was slightly lower, and I my setup with the AVR test tones.
> If that tells you anything.


If its the one available on Vudu I'm familiar. I wasn't sure if there was another source. Will streaming it from Vudu work or does that change or attenuate the levels?


----------



## ALtlOff

leedesert said:


> If its the one available on Vudu I'm familiar. I wasn't sure if there was another source. Will streaming it from Vudu work or does that change or attenuate the levels?


With streaming I really don't know, an AVR's test tones are set for calibration associated to reference, so I don't know if streaming, or even a disc will change that because of the signal chain, thats why I really wasn't concerned with the specific levels when checking my system with the disc, I was just looking for consistency across the channels.
If the test tones in the disc in some way effected setup because of placement like we first heard about the possibilities of DTS-X's speaker placement, then a setup disc may really have it's value, but for general setup, I'd still just use the AVR for its accuracy in relation to reference.


----------



## mypepper

nickbuol said:


> I went from an Onkyo 709 to the Anthem MRX-1120 and it is SOOO much better. You will love it.


Hello Nick,

Thanks so much for giving me your honest opinion on the Anthem 1120 receiver. The more that I have researched the 1120, I feel better about spending the money. I have always believe, if you buy quality products, you save yourself a lot of grief in the long run. 

Thanks again,
Randy


----------



## Utopianemo

ALtlOff said:


> With streaming I really don't know, an AVR's test tones are set for calibration associated to reference, so I don't know if streaming, or even a disc will change that because of the signal chain, thats why I really wasn't concerned with the specific levels when checking my system with the disc, I was just looking for consistency across the channels.
> If the test tones in the disc in some way effected setup because of placement like we first heard about the possibilities of DTS-X's speaker placement, then a setup disc may really have it's value, but for general setup, I'd still just use the AVR for its accuracy in relation to reference.


incidentally, when I play the VUDU Atmos clips, it takes a while for it to lock on to the Atmos signal. Is there any way to mitigate that? The clips are short; I'd love to be able to watch the whole thing without it switching over 10 seconds in.


----------



## Utopianemo

ALtlOff said:


> With streaming I really don't know, an AVR's test tones are set for calibration associated to reference, so I don't know if streaming, or even a disc will change that because of the signal chain, thats why I really wasn't concerned with the specific levels when checking my system with the disc, I was just looking for consistency across the channels.
> If the test tones in the disc in some way effected setup because of placement like we first heard about the possibilities of DTS-X's speaker placement, then a setup disc may really have it's value, but for general setup, I'd still just use the AVR for its accuracy in relation to reference.


incidentally, when I play the VUDU Atmos clips, it takes a while for it to lock on to the Atmos signal. Is there any way to mitigate that? The clips are short; I'd love to be able to watch the whole thing without it switching over 10 seconds in.


----------



## ic3m4n

Hey guys,
since i'm about to choose my avr for my atmos setup, how would you categorize different receivers in regard of sound quality and room correction?
I have three(four) from which i wold choose as of now, Marantz/Denon, Arcam or Anthem. Sadly cannot afford the likes of Trinnov 

Apart from this i'm not sure if 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 is possible in my room (have a thread with measurements in Dedicated Theatre Design subforum named Need Advice how to build/place my HT/Music room... can't post links yet )


----------



## PerryH

Sorry if this has been discussed before (but it is hard to read through 39,000 posts.)

I have ceiling speakers in hand and have cut one set of holes in my ceiling for the front height speakers.

I have spots marked for the RHL and RHR speakers based on the recommended Dolby 45 degrees as shown in their diagrams.... but I am looking over my shoulder at them from my couch and I am worried that I will not hear them - at least not as well as intended.

The Dolby diagrams show a guy sitting in a very unrealistic seat... it is essentially a stool.  There is hardly any back to it. If I sit in my main listening position and put my feet up my ears are below the back of my couch. As a result, I am considering moving the position of the rear height speakers forward, closer to the listening position. I can't really out different speaker positions in any effective way before I cut the holes.

Is there any forum wisdom that can be shared on the position of the rear heights in this regard?


----------



## jimmyaz

Utopianemo said:


> incidentally, when I play the VUDU Atmos clips, it takes a while for it to lock on to the Atmos signal. Is there any way to mitigate that? The clips are short; I'd love to be able to watch the whole thing without it switching over 10 seconds in.


You can download the entire 2014 disc and burn it to a bluray disc and play it.  That's the best way.... I couldn't get VuDu to output Atmos using my PS3 as the player... wouldn't work.


----------



## ALtlOff

PerryH said:


> Sorry if this has been discussed before (but it is hard to read through 39,000 posts.)
> 
> I have ceiling speakers in hand and have cut one set of holes in my ceiling for the front height speakers.
> 
> I have spots marked for the RHL and RHR speakers based on the recommended Dolby 45 degrees as shown in their diagrams.... but I am looking over my shoulder at them from my couch and I am worried that I will not hear them - at least not as well as intended.
> 
> The Dolby diagrams show a guy sitting in a very unrealistic seat... it is essentially a stool. There is hardly any back to it. If I sit in my main listening position and put my feet up my ears are below the back of my couch. As a result, I am considering moving the position of the rear height speakers forward, closer to the listening position. I can't really out different speaker positions in any effective way before I cut the holes.
> 
> Is there any forum wisdom that can be shared on the position of the rear heights in this regard?


Honestly, a foot or so in either direction isn't going to hurt anything at all, as the listener, you'll never know the difference if you're not spot on.


----------



## timc1475

DaGamePimp said:


> Anthem mrx1120 has 11 channel amplification.
> 
> 
> - Jason


Interesting, thanks! I did not know about this unit all in one AVR. AFAIK with preliminary observations it will run 500 - 800 or so buks more than the upcoming 70.7 Integra. But the Integra will have HDbaseT weighing in at *47.4 pounds and 135 watt x 11ch* & Dimensions (W X H X D)	17 1/8" x 7 13/16" x 17 5/16". 

Whereas the *32 pound MRX 1120 has 140 x 5ch and the other 4ch (height) at 60 watts*. Dimensions (W X H X D) 17 1/4: x 14 3/4" x 6 1/2".

A further more comprehensive comparison will have to wait until the new model 70.7 is released hopefully in a month or two. 

Both have an excellent 3 year warranty.

On the Integra site you can see the 50.7 new model features. I would assume the upcoming flagship 70.7 (if they call it that btw) with 11ch power will have all the same feature sets the lesser model has but of course with those 11 self powered channels we need thanks to all the mad scientists who cooked up a new _must have_ sound format called Atmos / DTS-X etc. arrrgggg...


----------



## jqmn

Before I set up my system I asked and didn't get any takers; the system is up now so maybe someone knows. I use the Frankenstein two AVR (7702MKII) setup with one AVR being 9.1.2 and the other being 7.1.4 with all the speakers except the .4 being non-existent (except when I calibrated I moved the connects over) in the one AVR. The HDMI goes from one AVR to the other; all works well for 9.1.6. The question is-- where does Atmos steer overhead stuff when speakers aren't in the setup? For example, I can see from my amps the .2 being silent when the other AVR .4 is working and then later both .2 and .4 are working. I would have thought that if sound goes into the overheads and you only have two speakers, all the sound would go into those overheads. Is there steering that is pulling overhead data down into the surrounds? The example I am using is Ender's Game in the intro to the battle room. My top fronts and rears are lighting up and the middles are silent. Then as the scene unfolds all six overhead speakers start to light up. Just wondering.


----------



## ahro

I just bought the ONKYO NR-646. Having trouble at first getting audio using my Samsung 78HU9000 4K curved TV. I'm now getting audio using HDMI 4 on the HU9000, which is the ARC input. Still I don't think it's working correctly, and shows 'no input' when I try to get my Roku 4.

Fortunately, I'm getting Atmos audio from my Sammy K-8500 BRP, but the effect seems weak to me with my 5.1.2 setup. *Can someone point me toward the best Atmos audio track on the new 4K discs, or even a regular Blu Ray* that has an Atmos track. Thanks.


----------



## leedesert

ahro said:


> I just bought the ONKYO NR-646. Having trouble at first getting audio using my Samsung 78HU9000 4K curved TV. I'm now getting audio using HDMI 4 on the HU9000, which is the ARC input. Still I don't think it's working correctly, and shows 'no input' when I try to get my Roku 4.
> 
> Fortunately, I'm getting Atmos audio from my Sammy K-8500 BRP, but the effect seems weak to me with my 5.1.2 setup. *Can someone point me toward the best Atmos audio track on the new 4K discs, or even a regular Blu Ray* that has an Atmos track. Thanks.


You may want to ask this in the Onkyo section.


----------



## leedesert

jimmyaz said:


> You can download the entire 2014 disc and burn it to a bluray disc and play it.  That's the best way.... I couldn't get VuDu to output Atmos using my PS3 as the player... wouldn't work.


Yeah, it's not working streaming from my Sony 3500 BD player either. I have everything set correctly and get atmos when playing a BD but not streaming.


----------



## murphy2112

ALtlOff said:


> Honestly, a foot or so in either direction isn't going to hurt anything at all, as the listener, you'll never know the difference if you're not spot on.



I agree with this. However, the main issue is your couch. I have the same issue. A regular couch may not always be the best seat for a home theater. If I really want to hear my rears in the back, I have to sit up straight. I may replace the couch someday with something more suitable for a better home theater experience.


----------



## lujan

ahro said:


> I just bought the ONKYO NR-646. Having trouble at first getting audio using my Samsung 78HU9000 4K curved TV. I'm now getting audio using HDMI 4 on the HU9000, which is the ARC input. Still I don't think it's working correctly, and shows 'no input' when I try to get my Roku 4.
> 
> Fortunately, I'm getting Atmos audio from my Sammy K-8500 BRP, but the effect seems weak to me with my 5.1.2 setup. *Can someone point me toward the best Atmos audio track on the new 4K discs, or even a regular Blu Ray* that has an Atmos track. Thanks.


I have the Onkyo 646 and using the K-8500 with it as well. You can try the San Andreas UHD or BD Atmos disk for testing as I though it sounded great on my 5.1.2 setup using Atmos enabled speakers.


----------



## batpig

jqmn said:


> Before I set up my system I asked and didn't get any takers; the system is up now so maybe someone knows. I use the Frankenstein two AVR (7702MKII) setup with one AVR being 9.1.2 and the other being 7.1.4 with all the speakers except the .4 being non-existent (except when I calibrated I moved the connects over) in the one AVR. The HDMI goes from one AVR to the other; all works well for 9.1.6. The question is-- where does Atmos steer overhead stuff when speakers aren't in the setup? For example, I can see from my amps the .2 being silent when the other AVR .4 is working and then later both .2 and .4 are working. I would have thought that if sound goes into the overheads and you only have two speakers, all the sound would go into those overheads. Is there steering that is pulling overhead data down into the surrounds? The example I am using is Ender's Game in the intro to the battle room. My top fronts and rears are lighting up and the middles are silent. Then as the scene unfolds all six overhead speakers start to light up. Just wondering.


I think the answer is "it depends". We don't know how those objects were encoded -- there are options in Atmos such as "snap to speaker" which forces an object to snap to the nearest speaker. So you could theoretically have a sound that's supposed to be up front, to the left, and slightly elevated. If you had a Top Front speaker, it would snap there... but without the TF speaker present, it may snap down to the Front Left speaker. 

Similarly, user GXMnow (who appears to be an industry pro) has referred to a "heights only" option that a mixer can tag an object so it is forced into the height speakers regardless of specific layout. There are also sounds that would have been part of the overhead beds -- in theatrical Atmos there is a 9.1 bed with stereo height channels, in home delivery it's a 7.1 bed, so any height bed content would become "static objects" reproduced by the full array of height speakers.

So what you are hearing is just a consequence of the Franken-processor setup, it won't be 100% perfect all the time. The price you pay for a mad scientist brewed 9.1.6 setup


----------



## PerryH

murphy2112 said:


> I agree with this. However, the main issue is your couch. I have the same issue. A regular couch may not always be the best seat for a home theater. If I really want to hear my rears in the back, I have to sit up straight. I may replace the couch someday with something more suitable for a better home theater experience.


I think some reclining theater seats are in my future, but the 45 degree distance (same distance behind me as from my ear to the ceiling - just under 3 feet) still looks like it is a quite a long way behind me. The tweeters are aimable.

I hooked up the front ones last night to see what I thought just using the DSU on 5.1 material in a 5.1.2 setup and I can definitely tell a positive difference. I had to disconnect my surround rears to try this. I have a Denon X3200 so that is all I can actually hook up right now. I plan on buying an X7200WA or a Yamaha 3050 in the coming weeks. I am waffling on that decision.


----------



## murphy2112

PerryH said:


> I think some reclining theater seats are in my future, but the 45 degree distance (same distance behind me as from my ear to the ceiling - just under 3 feet) still looks like it is a quite a long way behind me. The tweeters are aimable.
> 
> I hooked up the front ones last night to see what I thought just using the DSU on 5.1 material in a 5.1.2 setup and I can definitely tell a positive difference. I had to disconnect my surround rears to try this. I have a Denon X3200 so that is all I can actually hook up right now. I plan on buying an X7200WA or a Yamaha 3050 in the coming weeks. I am waffling on that decision.


It may appear like it's quite a long distance, but it's the same distance as the fronts. I would aim the tweeters as well.

Did you check out the Marantz SR7010? Arguably 95% as good as the Denon and possibly 5% better for music, but at $800 less money. It's what I have and love it. 2015 AVR of the year according to Sound and Vision.


----------



## PerryH

I did. I initially dismissed it (the 7010) as I don't find the portal design all that attractive. But I have reconsidered more recently after actually putting hands on one. I like the build quality. It seemed nicer than the Denon 6200 that was nearby, but I don't get the portal thing with the larger display behind the door. This was at a Best Buy Magnolia store. They did not have a Denon 7200 on display.

Unfortunately they did not have any of the Yamaha Aventage line on display either. I am going to have to go to a Brandsmart USA to see one of those and I hate that store. My plan was to purchase from AccessoriesforLess. I have had very good luck with factory refurbs in general.

I have had Yamahas over the years and gotten used to having the various soundfields available. I don't use them all of the time, but occasionally I will run into a program (usually sports) that sounds sort of flat/dull and I will put a DSP on it. I miss that ability with the Denon.


----------



## sprins

murphy2112 said:


> I agree with this. However, the main issue is your couch. I have the same issue. A regular couch may not always be the best seat for a home theater. If I really want to hear my rears in the back, I have to sit up straight. I may replace the couch someday with something more suitable for a better home theater experience.


I'd rather mount the surround back speakers higher to overcome this issue (which is an issue indeed) than sit up straight. One of the main attractions of my own cinema is that I can recline like a zombie teenager on my own couch while watching a movie


----------



## ahro

lujan said:


> I have the Onkyo 646 and using the K-8500 with it as well. You can try the San Andreas UHD or BD Atmos disk for testing as I though it sounded great on my 5.1.2 setup using Atmos enabled speakers.


The Atmos track on my 4K San Andreas is dead. Nothing coming out of the height speakers. All my others are fine. Possibly a bad disc? Watching Spidy 4K now and the height speakers are used frequently and are really alive. Any other ideas for a good Atmos track on blu ray or 4K?


----------



## ALtlOff

ahro said:


> The Atmos track on my 4K San Andreas is dead. Nothing coming out of the height speakers. All my others are fine. Possibly a bad disc? Watching Spidy 4K now and the height speakers are used frequently and are really alive. Any other ideas for a good Atmos track on blu ray or 4K?


Yes, possibly a bad or mis-labeled disc.

So far my favorites for overall best use of Atmos have been:
Gravity (Diamond Lux Atmos version)
Goosebumps
Roger Waters The Wall (2015 Atmos version)
Lucy (Honk Kong release Atmos version)


----------



## sprins

ahro said:


> Any other ideas for a good Atmos track on blu ray or 4K?


Gravity wih the Atmos mix. Don't know if it's available in UHD, but the special edition bluray with Atmos for me is still the definitive Atmos demo.


----------



## ahro

sprins said:


> Gravity wih the Atmos mix. Don't know if it's available in UHD, but the special edition bluray with Atmos for me is still the definitive Atmos demo.


Is that the Diamond version? Amazon wants $55 for it, unless I'm looking at the wrong edition of Gravity.

Really disappointed that no Atmos on my San Andreas disc, but I'm not going to buy another disc of it.


----------



## sprins

ahro said:


> Is that the Diamond version? Amazon wants $55 for it, unless I'm looking at the wrong edition of Gravity.


Yes I believe so, as @ALtlOff also says. Perhaps there is a 4K disk with Atmos available for less? $55 is outrageous for a bluray...



ahro said:


> Really disappointed that no Atmos on my San Andreas disc, but I'm not going to buy another disc of it.


Weird indeed. Does your receivers display say "Atmos" or just "TrueHD" when playing?


----------



## ahro

sprins said:


> Yes I believe so, as @ALtlOff also says. Perhaps there is a 4K disk with Atmos available for less? $55 is outrageous for a bluray...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird indeed. Does your receivers display say "Atmos" or just "TrueHD" when playing?


It says Atmos, tried a few times. Thought it might be a hiccup on the 8500. All my other discs with Atmos play fine. Sacario, Spidy, Pan, etc, even the plain blu ray of 5th Element.


----------



## ALtlOff

ahro said:


> It says Atmos, tried a few times. Thought it might be a hiccup on the 8500. All my other discs with Atmos play fine. Sacario, Spidy, Pan, etc, even the plain blu ray of 5th Element.


I got my Diamond Lux edition from e-bay, brand new $26.00 shipped.
I only paid $37.00 shipped from Asia for my Hong Kong version of Lucy.

For me, Gravity, The Wall and Lucy had the best spacial effects and Goosebumps had the best overhead discrete sound placement. Glad you mentioned The Fifth Element, it's right up there also.


----------



## jpco

ahro said:


> It says Atmos, tried a few times. Thought it might be a hiccup on the 8500. All my other discs with Atmos play fine. Sacario, Spidy, Pan, etc, even the plain blu ray of 5th Element.



There is not a peep from the heights until about 15 minutes into the movie, and even then, it's sporadic. Not until later in the movie is there more frequent use of heights. When they're not in use for objects, they are dead silent.


----------



## ahro

jpco said:


> There is not a peep from the heights until about 15 minutes into the movie, and even then, it's sporadic. Not until later in the movie is there more frequent use of heights. When they're not in use for objects, they are dead silent.


Well that's interesting. I'll try it again, but I can't imagine they wouldn't take use of those helicopter sounds in the beginning of the movie.

Unrelated, do dialog sounds come out of the heights speakers in movies, or just sounds?


----------



## leedesert

ahro said:


> Well that's interesting. I'll try it again, but I can't imagine they wouldn't take use of those helicopter sounds in the beginning of the movie.
> 
> Unrelated, do dialog sounds come out of the heights speakers in movies, or just sounds?


You'll have to carefully listen to the speakers because in many scenarios the Atmos speakers are very quietly adding ambiance. They aren't necessarily playing full volume helicopters. I know the atmos speakers are working hard in Mad Max Fury.


----------



## leedesert

ahro said:


> It says Atmos, tried a few times. Thought it might be a hiccup on the 8500. All my other discs with Atmos play fine. Sacario, Spidy, Pan, etc, even the plain blu ray of 5th Element.


I'm curious, does the 605 let you bring up the input/output information while it's playing? I know my 747 and previous 545 would do this when I hit the "display" button at the bottom of the remote. I say this because it may be getting Atmos in but converting it to another format to your speakers. 

For instance, on mine it will say

Input: Atmos 7.1.4 (coming from my BD player)

Output: Atmos 5.1.4 (going to speakers)

My AVR converts it to the Atmos 5.1.2 set up because that's what I have.


----------



## ahro

leedesert said:


> I'm curious, does the 605 let you bring up the input/output information while it's playing? I know my 747 and previous 545 would do this when I hit the "display" button at the bottom of the remote. I say this because it may be getting Atmos in but converting it to another format to your speakers.
> 
> For instance, on mine it will say
> 
> Input: Atmos 7.1.4 (coming from my BD player)
> 
> Output: Atmos 5.1.4 (going to speakers)
> 
> My AVR converts it to the Atmos 5.1.2 set up because that's what I have.


I've never seen Atmos 7.1.4 on my intput. I think it says:

Input: Dolby Atmos/TrueHD

and output:

Dolby Atmos: 5.1.2

FYI, the video on the output says: premium content


----------



## jpco

ahro said:


> Well that's interesting. I'll try it again, but I can't imagine they wouldn't take use of those helicopter sounds in the beginning of the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated, do dialog sounds come out of the heights speakers in movies, or just sounds?



I was surprised as well. It was my first home Atmos movie. I verified it by turning off the amps to the base level speakers. No helicopters, nothing in the car rescue scene, and nothing until a rattle of a light at the start of the quake at the dam scene. The restaurant quake scene has good use of heights. 

Anything can come out of heights as long as it's mixed there. Some movies bleed the music soundtrack to the heights to create a larger sound.


----------



## ahro

jpco said:


> There is not a peep from the heights until about 15 minutes into the movie, and even then, it's sporadic. Not until later in the movie is there more frequent use of heights. When they're not in use for objects, they are dead silent.



Right you are!!! The heights start really activating after the restaurant quake scene. I'm ambivalent about this because I'm relieved that I don't have a bad disc, but really disappointed the helicopter et al scenes in the beginning have no height audio. Thanks for picking that up.


----------



## lujan

ahro said:


> Right you are!!! The heights start really activating after the restaurant quake scene. I'm ambivalent about this because I'm relieved that I don't have a bad disc, but really disappointed the helicopter et al scenes in the beginning have no height audio. Thanks for picking that up.


Since I have Atmos enabled speakers right on top of the surround speakers in that room I don't usually listen for any specific sound from those speakers just know that it sounds great with all of them put together.


----------



## DoctorVideo

jpco said:


> There is not a peep from the heights until about 15 minutes into the movie, and even then, it's sporadic. Not until later in the movie is there more frequent use of heights. When they're not in use for objects, they are dead silent.


I can confirm this, In spite of the fact that Ralph Potts, in his review of the film on this forum, gave the Atmos soundtrack a glowing review. He says, "The opening sequence features a helicopter rescue precipitated by a vehicle that crashed down an embankment. This segment contains a wealth of effects beginning with the visceral, rumbling tumbling falling vehicle that literally places you within the compartment." He must be imagining things.

I played that sequence while placing my ear right next to my right front height speaker, and confirmed that absolutely nothing happens until the scene at Hoover Dam, and then it's just a little tinkle here and there. At least that's the case on my 5.1.2 system. I have other discs with plenty of Atmos action, so I know my system is working correctly.


----------



## multit

DoctorVideo said:


> I can confirm this, In spite of the fact that Ralph Potts, in his review of the film on this forum, gave the Atmos soundtrack a glowing review. He says, "The opening sequence features a helicopter rescue precipitated by a vehicle that crashed down an embankment. This segment contains a wealth of effects beginning with the visceral, rumbling tumbling falling vehicle that literally places you within the compartment." He must be imagining things.
> I played that sequence while placing my ear right next to my right front height speaker, and confirmed that absolutely nothing happens until the scene at Hoover Dam, and then it's just a little tinkle here and there. At least that's the case on my 5.1.2 system. I have other discs with plenty of Atmos action, so I know my system is working correctly.


Ralph seems a bit stubborn about that, because I already mentioned it in the review thread and got no response... and mostly he responds.
San Andreas is a great movie to show off the Dolby Atmos capabilities, but you have to know exactly when.
So it can't be considered as 100 points or perfect or whatever, because it lacks about consistence and it's also limited regarding general sound ambience supported by the height speaker.
The new Mockingjay/pt.2 Blu-ray is also not perfect from the Dolby Atmos point of view, but at least it contains both effects and general ambience... which I like more.


----------



## DoctorVideo

multit said:


> Ralph seems a bit stubborn about that, because I already mentioned it in the review thread and got no response... and mostly he responds.
> San Andreas is a great movie to show off the Dolby Atmos capabilities, but you have to know exactly when.
> So it can't be considered as 100 points or perfect or whatever, because it lacks about consistence and it's also limited regarding general sound ambience supported by the height speaker.
> The new Mockingjay/pt.2 Blu-ray is also not perfect from the Dolby Atmos point of view, but at least it contains both effects and general ambience... which I like more.


I'm not knocking the audio in San Andreas. It contains great immersive sound throughout, including the opening sequence. It just cannot be attributed to Atmos, that's all.


----------



## multit

DoctorVideo said:


> I'm not knocking the audio in San Andreas. It contains great immersive sound throughout, including the opening sequence. It just cannot be attributed to Atmos, that's all.


Yes, that's the reason, why I don't understand, he is rating in particular "Dolby Atmos" in San Andreas with 100 points = maximum... that's my only complaint.
The soundtrack itself is great, but the temporarily lack of heights involvement is noticeable in more than one scene.


----------



## bkeeler10

leedesert said:


> I'm curious, does the 605 let you bring up the input/output information while it's playing? I know my 747 and previous 545 would do this when I hit the "display" button at the bottom of the remote. I say this because it may be getting Atmos in but converting it to another format to your speakers.
> 
> For instance, on mine it will say
> 
> Input: Atmos 7.1.4 (coming from my BD player)
> 
> Output: Atmos 5.1.4 (going to speakers)
> 
> My AVR converts it to the Atmos 5.1.2 set up because that's what I have.


I wouldn't think that any Atmos AVR should display the input as 7.1.4. That would be disingenuous and inaccurate, since the blu ray disc does not contain 7.1.4 channels, or 5.1.2 channels, or even 24.1.10 channels for that matter. It contains 7.1 channels, and then it contains object sounds and associated metadata saying where in space these sound should be placed. Those object sounds aren't meant for a specific channel but a specific location. Which channel(s) those sounds play out of is determined by the decoder within the AVR, based on its knowledge of your speaker layout. 

So, it makes sense for an Atmos AVR to say that the input is Atmos and the output is 5.1.4, or 7.1.4, or 5.1.2 etc. It does not make sense to say the input is 7.1.4 channels.


----------



## SoundChex

bkeeler10 said:


> I wouldn't think that any Atmos AVR should display the input as 7.1.4. That would be disingenuous and inaccurate, since the blu ray disc does not contain 7.1.4 channels, or 5.1.2 channels, or even 24.1.10 channels for that matter. It contains 7.1 channels, and then it contains object sounds and associated metadata saying where in space these sound should be placed. Those object sounds aren't meant for a specific channel but a specific location. Which channel(s) those sounds play out of is determined by the decoder within the AVR, based on its knowledge of your speaker layout. So, it makes sense for an Atmos AVR to say that the input is Atmos and the output is 5.1.4, or 7.1.4, or 5.1.2 etc. It does not make sense to say the input is 7.1.4 channels.



The issue gets a little more complicated if the Atmos display code already includes logic to support features from the next gen integrated Dolby Atmos|AC-4 decoder; 'standard' AC-4 can apparently carry up to 9.1.4 channels plus objects.










_________________________________________________________________________
_Source_ *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*).



_


----------



## leedesert

bkeeler10 said:


> I wouldn't think that any Atmos AVR should display the input as 7.1.4. That would be disingenuous and inaccurate, since the blu ray disc does not contain 7.1.4 channels, or 5.1.2 channels, or even 24.1.10 channels for that matter. It contains 7.1 channels, and then it contains object sounds and associated metadata saying where in space these sound should be placed. Those object sounds aren't meant for a specific channel but a specific location. Which channel(s) those sounds play out of is determined by the decoder within the AVR, based on its knowledge of your speaker layout.
> 
> So, it makes sense for an Atmos AVR to say that the input is Atmos and the output is 5.1.4, or 7.1.4, or 5.1.2 etc. It does not make sense to say the input is 7.1.4 channels.


This was my bad. I'm not sure why I thought it said that. It actually says

Input: Dolby Atmos/Tue HD

Output: Dolby Atmos 5.1.2


----------



## ahro

BB has Gravity Diamond Atmos track Blu Ray for under $$20, but it's back ordered.


----------



## leedesert

ahro said:


> BB has Gravity Diamond Atmos track Blu Ray for under $$20, but it's back ordered.


I had it on order with them and they cancelled the backorder because they had no clear date on when it would finally become available.


----------



## ahro

leedesert said:


> I had it on order with them and they cancelled the backorder because they had no clear date on when it would finally become available.


My email confirmation said around 4/5.


----------



## mathlete

ahro said:


> Right you are!!! The heights start really activating after the restaurant quake scene. I'm ambivalent about this because I'm relieved that I don't have a bad disc, but really disappointed the helicopter et al scenes in the beginning have no height audio. Thanks for picking that up.


Call me a philistine, but I'm beginning to think that sound designers are too conservative with Atmos tracks. I'm enjoying upmixed movies MUCH more, where the heights get used a majority of the time.


----------



## jimmyaz

Dolby said they can't make the entire sound track as agressive as the Demo video, otherwise you would go crazy and keep turning your head 360 to follow the sound and probably not watching the movies. 

Have you guys try Transformer 4? seem to get a lot of overhead to me, helicopters, things getting suck up at the end.


----------



## leedesert

multit said:


> Yes, that's the reason, why I don't understand, he is rating in particular "Dolby Atmos" in San Andreas with 100 points = maximum... that's my only complaint.
> The soundtrack itself is great, but the temporarily lack of heights involvement is noticeable in more than one scene.


This prompted me to check this myself and its true. The only time I heard the top speakers kick in was during the helicopter scene when he's rescuing is ex wife. Even then it was so quick I almost missed it. You hear a split second of the flame from an explosion and then another noise a few seconds later...that's it.

I agree though that you would think that in the opening scene, with the helicopter hovering over head, you probably couldn't pick a better time for the top atmos speakers to do their thing. The surround track is excellent but atmos, not so much. Mad Max has much more activity.


----------



## Scott Simonian

DoctorVideo said:


> I can confirm this, In spite of the fact that Ralph Potts, in his review of the film on this forum, gave the Atmos soundtrack a glowing review. He says, "The opening sequence features a helicopter rescue precipitated by a vehicle that crashed down an embankment. This segment contains a wealth of effects beginning with the visceral, rumbling tumbling falling vehicle that literally places you within the compartment." He must be imagining things.
> 
> I played that sequence while placing my ear right next to my right front height speaker, and confirmed that absolutely nothing happens until the scene at Hoover Dam, and then it's just a little tinkle here and there. At least that's the case on my 5.1.2 system. I have other discs with plenty of Atmos action, so I know my system is working correctly.


Yep. I can confirm. 

Watched the entire first 15mins of the movie with just the overheads (all other speakers muted) and it was 100% silence for the entire sequence. Actually watched a lot more than that but just saying about the opening. 

San Andreas is a great example of non-immersive Atmos mix. The 7.1 layer is pretty dang good but there isn't much going in the heights through out. The overhead speakers are used for 'dry' sound effects. Akin to old 5.1 mixes where mixer thought to put a couple of ricochet sounds in the surrounds and then go silent otherwise. Instead of intuitively adding natural ambience, reverberation or otherwise sounds that _should_ be above you no matter what (airplane flyover, helicopter roters, birds, wind, etc) we get Atmos "effects channels" where every so often the mixers through a cute zing or crumbling dirt and dust sound then goes silent for minutes on end meanwhile the rest of the speakers/subs are reproducing a cacophony of sonic events.

SA is far from a 100/100 Atmos mix. More like 20/100.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Watched the entire first 15mins of the movie with just the overheads (all other speakers muted) and it was 100% silence for the entire sequence. Actually watched a lot more than that but just saying about the opening.
> 
> San Andreas is a great example of non-immersive Atmos mix. The 7.1 layer is pretty dang good but there isn't much going in the heights through out. The overhead speakers are used for 'dry' sound effects. Akin to old 5.1 mixes where mixer thought to put a couple of ricochet sounds in the surrounds and then go silent otherwise. Instead of intuitively adding natural ambience, reverberation or otherwise sounds that _should_ be above you no matter what (airplane flyover, helicopter roters, birds, wind, etc) we get Atmos "effects channels" where every so often the mixers through a cute zing or crumbling dirt and dust sound then goes silent for minutes on end meanwhile the rest of the speakers/subs are reproducing a cacophony of sonic events.


Sounds a lot like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Atmos track, then. That movie also had a very distracting scene where the sound of a helicopter only came from the ground speakers while the heights were silent.


----------



## Charles R

mathlete said:


> I'm enjoying upmixed movies MUCH more, where the heights get used a majority of the time.


I can't say I'd enjoy them more however this is pretty much my thinking. At this point the speakers are there and are going to be used one way or another... after a few disks Atmos stopped being a driving force.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mathlete said:


> Call me a philistine, but I'm beginning to think that sound designers are too conservative with Atmos tracks. I'm enjoying upmixed movies MUCH more, where the heights get used a majority of the time.


They _are _too conservative, especially in regards to the overheads. It actually takes me out of an immersively mixed action or other genre movie more frequently, when under certain circumstances, you know something would be emanating sounds from above, but the overheads are silent.


----------



## ALtlOff

Lol, sounds like we'll have to start picking our movies by who's name is in the mixing credits....

Now there's a sticky list I'd follow....


----------



## ahro

Why am I watching such crap? Just saw the 4K disc of Expendables 3 on the K-8500 ugghh! Still searching for the *best 4K disc that has the best HDR AND ATMOS TRACK* for the Sammy HU9000. Any suggestions?


----------



## multit

ahro said:


> Why am I watching such crap? Just saw the 4K disc of Expendables 3 on the K-8500 ugghh! Still searching for the *best 4K disc that has the best HDR AND ATMOS TRACK* for the Sammy HU9000. Any suggestions?


I don't know if Mad Max is with HDR, but even the Blu-ray was very impressive regarding picture and Dolby Atmos sound... it's still No. 1 for me.


----------



## scarabaeus

Hi Guys, I started a thread for Atmos in DD+ over ARC, please visit:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-ne...olby-digital-plus-dd-atmos-over-hdmi-arc.html

Trying to list all devices that support this.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

multit said:


> I don't know if Mad Max is with HDR, but even the Blu-ray was very impressive regarding picture and Dolby Atmos sound... it's still No. 1 for me.


The UHD Blu-ray has HDR10 expanded grading. There is no HDR capability with regular discs.


----------



## multit

Dan Hitchman said:


> The UHD Blu-ray has HDR10 expanded grading. There is no HDR capability with regular discs.


Dan, I know, that regular Blu-rays have no HDR  But neither all UHD Blu-rays have HDR!
I was just referring to Ahro, who is looking for a movie with HDR and best Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

multit said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UHD Blu-ray has HDR10 expanded grading. There is no HDR capability with regular discs.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan, I know, that regular Blu-rays have no HDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But neither all UHD Blu-rays have HDR!
> I was just referring to Ahro, who is looking for a movie with HDR and best Atmos.
Click to expand...

Then he should get Mad Max on UHD blu, but it's still a pretty silly action movie. It's no Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or Predator, that's for sure!


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's no Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or Predator, that's for sure!



ARE YOU LISTENING FOX?!!! GIVE US ATMOS CONTENT!

Oh wait...no they're not listening. They're too busy.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or Predator, that's for sure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU LISTENING FOX?!!! GIVE US ATMOS CONTENT!
> 
> Oh wait...no they're not listening. They're too busy.
Click to expand...

Why God why?????????? !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's all your fault, Dan.

You can't help but hate on every new movie. They're just bringing what they thought you wanted. More of the same.




It's sorta true.


----------



## NorthSky

Batman versus Superman is supposed to be pretty good; is it in Dolby Atmos?


----------



## bkeeler10

^ Yep

http://www.avsforum.com/batman-v-superman-in-dolby-vision-hdr-and-atmos-sound/


----------



## smurraybhm

NorthSky said:


> Batman versus Superman is supposed to be pretty good; is it in Dolby Atmos?


Bob - Google is your friend. Then you have dummies like me who enable the behavior 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/technical

Yes.


----------



## dschulz

I am amazed at the sheer number of formats Batman vs Superman is releasing in. Conventional 2D, conventional 3D, standard digital IMAX, IMAX Laser with an IMAX 12-channel sound mix, IMAX 15/70 film, Dolby Vision HDR, a Dolby Atmos mix for cinemas so equipped, 5/70mm with Datasat sound, probably 35mm as well. I've never seen a movie with such a dizzying array of release formats!


----------



## stikle

Batman vs. Superman

 RottenTomatoes.com - Only 29% on the Tomatometer.

Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 235
Fresh: 69
Rotten: 166


From a Rotten Tomatoes radio interview this morning:



> I've watched episodes of Judge Judy more compelling than Batman vs. Superman.


and



> Worse than Batman Forever.



and a few of my favorites from their site:



> Bam! CGI defeats 'Batman v Superman.'


and



> There's no joy here, no wonder or spectacle, just a relentlessly grim and intense grind that can't stop reminding you how grim and intense it is.


and



> It's like putting your head in a beehive for two and a half hours.


and



> Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have your head driven through solid rock and glass and brick walls for two and a half hours, blinding flashes of lights unceasingly forcing your eyes shut? Would you like to have this experience accompanied by a blaring, schizophrenic musical score?


Ecetera, ecetera, ecetera. (bonus points for quote source)

I guess if you go and see it while stoned (Bob) it might be entertaining. My $12 will be going elsewhere.


----------



## Kain

I don't know. I just saw it in 3D Atmos and enjoyed the movie. Going to be a good demo disc for sure.


----------



## lujan

stikle said:


> Batman vs. Superman
> 
> RottenTomatoes.com - Only 29% on the Tomatometer.
> 
> Average Rating: 5/10
> Reviews Counted: 235
> Fresh: 69
> Rotten: 166
> 
> From a Rotten Tomatoes radio interview this morning:
> ...


I think it's true of a lot of recent movies where I've liked the previous ones better than the latest ones. Some of them are:

Star Wars The Force Awakens
Spectre
The Hunger Games MockingJay Pt. 2


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm expecting 2.5hrs of CGI characters being thrown through walls. And brooding.


----------



## stikle

I do believe it will fit the bill Scott.

Note that I tend to ignore most reviews since I set the bar pretty low.

I have high hopes for 






in two weeks though. 

Looks like my cup'o tea.

Edit: Trailer 2 with some different footage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup! Looks like fun!


----------



## stikle

Also has some moments reminiscent of the original Duke Nuke'm 3D PC game way back when.

Jolly good!


----------



## showmak

Which movie or clip is a benchmark for Atmos? I just want to make sure that my system sounds perfect when it's done.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

Any of the clips from Dolby (Amaze, Leaf, Horizon, Shatter, etc) which I believe are on Vudu.


----------



## showmak

I have all of them, but I needed to know the best movie or clip to compare when I watch an Atmos material.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## tbrown187

Kain said:


> I don't know. I just saw it in 3D Atmos and enjoyed the movie. Going to be a good demo disc for sure.


No doubt. Thankfully, Warner Bros releases Atmos UHD BDs. Unlike Fox, who isn't releasing The Revenant in Atmos even though it was Atmos in theaters.


----------



## sdurani

showmak said:


> I needed to know the best movie or clip to compare when I watch an Atmos material.


It's not like you can whip out a RadioShack hand-held Atmos meter and measure which movie clip pegs the needle on the Atmos scale. There is no objectively "best" movie clip. Just pick the one you like the most.


----------



## showmak

There are definitely good movies with better mixes, I just need a recommendation from those who watched a variety of Atmos movies.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

The Fifth Element from October 2015
John Wick
Mad Max
Gravity: Diamond Luxe Atmos edition


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> *It's not like you can whip out a RadioShack hand-held Atmos meter* and measure which movie clip pegs the needle on the Atmos scale. There is no objectively "best" movie clip. Just pick the one you like the most.



Now now Sanjay...usually you are a fount of reliable factual information.

Don't stop now.


----------



## Csbooth

showmak said:


> There are definitely good movies with better mixes, I just need a recommendation from those who watched a variety of Atmos movies.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


Goosebumps: Invisible Boy on top of the car and any of the praying mantis scenes.


----------



## ALtlOff

stikle said:


> The Fifth Element from October 2015
> John Wick
> Mad Max
> Gravity: Diamond Luxe Atmos edition


Excellent for overall Atmos effect and soundtrack mix.
Also in this category:
Roger Waters The Wall
The Atmos mix of "Lucy"



Csbooth said:


> Goosebumps: Invisible Boy on top of the car and any of the praying mantis scenes.


Possibly the best distinct use of overhead effects so far.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

showmak said:


> There are definitely good movies with better mixes, I just need a recommendation from those who watched a variety of Atmos movies.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


I also thought the Atmos remix for Bram Stoker's Dracula was pretty effective where it counted.

Gravity (from the Diamond Luxe edition) is probably one of the best uses of immersive surround currently out.


----------



## stikle

Originally Posted by Csbooth 


> Goosebumps: Invisible Boy on top of the car and any of the praying mantis scenes.





ALtlOff said:


> Possibly the best distinct use of overhead effects so far.



I still haven't seen that and have repeatedly heard good things. So...just ran over to Best Buy. The Bluray is on sale right now for $17.99 - same price as Amazon.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Originally Posted by Csbooth
> 
> 
> 
> Goosebumps: Invisible Boy on top of the car and any of the praying mantis scenes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALtlOff said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the best distinct use of overhead effects so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still haven't seen that and have repeatedly heard good things. So...just ran over to Best Buy. The Bluray is on sale right now for $17.99 - same price as Amazon.
Click to expand...

And if you give it a little time, this will be around $10, which is about what it's worth.


----------



## RealCheetahz

I have a 7.2.4 atmos setup in my theater at the moment. I also have a 3 row theater.. my room is long but very narrow so there barely 3ft on each side in the middle row and less even for front and back row. My ceilings are only 7ft high. My .4 are 2 in front of front row and 2 just in back of the back row. 

Originally for 4 years i had 5.1 so it was easy to place the surround on side wall in back of last row, but now i am having trouble with the 2 extra speakers in the 7.1. The side surrounds, can Easily be located by the middle row as i have them slightly behind it. 

Should i try and have 2 side surrounds on each side to lessen the locarion effect? Thanks

Room is 30×10×7ft

I have 10 seats total, they are made up of authentic movie seats from a 1960's theater. The back row being closest to the ceiling surprisingly with the back atmos speakers works well.


----------



## ALtlOff

RealCheetahz said:


> I have a 7.2.4 atmos setup in my theater at the moment. I also have a 3 row theater.. my room is long but very narrow so there barely 3ft on each side in the middle row and less even for front and back row. My ceilings are only 7ft high. My .4 are 2 in front of front row and 2 just in back of the back row.
> 
> Originally for 4 years i had 5.1 so it was easy to place the surround on side wall in back of last row, but now i am having trouble with the 2 extra speakers in the 7.1. The side surrounds, can Easily be located by the middle row as i have them slightly behind it.
> 
> Should i try and have 2 side surrounds on each side to lessen the locarion effect? Thanks
> 
> Room is 30×10×7ft
> 
> I have 10 seats total, they are made up of authentic movie seats from a 1960's theater. The back row being closest to the ceiling surprisingly with the back atmos speakers works well.


Question are they bookshelves? If so just get some boxes and play with different setups temporarily. I personally don't have a problem with multiple surrounds, but that setup can truly be room dependant. If you like having two sets of surrounds just make sure they are set up correctly, it wouldn't be 7.2.4 it would be 5.2.4 just with duplicated surrounds. * And wire them in series to be safe.* Plus if you do like it that way, you can still add Rears to get you back to 7.2.4.
That what my setup is, a 7.2.4 configuration but with a 9.4.8 speaker layout, works great in my room.


----------



## korkster

As luck would have it, there is a ceiling joist dead center of where my TF speakers should go, based on a 45 degree placement. Better to go forward of that 5" or closer to seating 5"? My ceiling is 7'2" high which ideally puts my TF speakers forward of the MLP about 48". Or doesn't it really matter?


----------



## smurraybhm

C - doesn't really matter. You're in for an audio treat once you get things up and running.


----------



## steviekfc

Reading about everyone's epic installations makes me sad


----------



## RealCheetahz

ALtlOff said:


> Question are they bookshelves? If so just get some boxes and play with different setups temporarily. I personally don't have a problem with multiple surrounds, but that setup can truly be room dependant. If you like having two sets of surrounds just make sure they are set up correctly, it wouldn't be 7.2.4 it would be 5.2.4 just with duplicated surrounds. * And wire them in series to be safe.* Plus if you do like it that way, you can still add Rears to get you back to 7.2.4.
> That what my setup is, a 7.2.4 configuration but with a 9.4.8 speaker layout, works great in my room.


Yea, they are bookshelf ones atm, my current is the 7.2.4, so if i extra added a pair of side surrounds it would be 9.2.4, but actually like u said a 7.2.4 setup.. would i need yet another amp/avr for the extra pair if sides? I already have sc-95, and another amp/avr to power the backs for my 7.2.4...

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## RealCheetahz

ALtlOff said:


> Question are they bookshelves? If so just get some boxes and play with different setups temporarily. I personally don't have a problem with multiple surrounds, but that setup can truly be room dependant. If you like having two sets of surrounds just make sure they are set up correctly, it wouldn't be 7.2.4 it would be 5.2.4 just with duplicated surrounds. * And wire them in series to be safe.* Plus if you do like it that way, you can still add Rears to get you back to 7.2.4.
> That what my setup is, a 7.2.4 configuration but with a 9.4.8 speaker layout, works great in my room.


How did u do a 9.4.8..my goodness.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

RealCheetahz said:


> How did u do a 9.4.8..my goodness.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


It's just simply channel duplication, I'm running 2 pairs of surrounds since my Yamaha doesn't do wides, and duplicating my TF and TR's also.
I personally have an amp channel for each speaker, but you really don't have to. If you just want to experiment with duplicating your surrounds you don't have to get an amp, you can simply wire them in series, this way it will create a 16ohm load on that amp channel and be perfectly safe, then later of you like it and decide to add and amp for them you can, but honestly you won't have to, because of the 16ohm speaker load.
The only time you would "have"to add an amp is with additional discrete channels/locations or as in commercial cinemas where there is a whole row of surrounds, which don't forget, is how they cover large spaces.


----------



## RealCheetahz

ALtlOff said:


> It's just simply channel duplication, I'm running 2 pairs of surrounds since my Yamaha doesn't do wides, and duplicating my TF and TR's also.
> I personally have an amp channel for each speaker, but you really don't have to. If you just want to experiment with duplicating your surrounds you don't have to get an amp, you can simply wire them in series, this way it will create a 16ohm load on that amp channel and be perfectly safe, then later of you like it and decide to add and amp for them you can, but honestly you won't have to, because of the 16ohm speaker load.
> The only time you would "have"to add an amp is with additional discrete channels/locations or as in commercial cinemas where there is a whole row of surrounds, which don't forget, is how they cover large spaces.


Thanks that helps. Will do that

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## tbrown187

So I am getting ready to switch my 5.1.2 setup with up firing speakers to a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers. Before I start cutting holes, I was hoping to get some quick advice on height speaker placement of the two options I include here. I am not sure if it would be better to create a wider sound stage, or have them line up with the front mains, like in Dolby's diagrams.

Any advice appreciated.


----------



## yanks1

I followed Dolby's instructions for lining the overheads with my fronts. But my fronts are ~ 10 feet apart so they are outside our MLP which is similar to your 2nd pix. Our MLP is a 2 person loveseat that is only 6 feet wide. Good luck


----------



## jrogers

tbrown187 said:


> So I am getting ready to switch my 5.1.2 setup with up firing speakers to a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers. Before I start cutting holes, I was hoping to get some quick advice on height speaker placement of the two options I include here. I am not sure if it would be better to create a wider sound stage, or have them line up with the front mains, like in Dolby's diagrams.
> 
> Any advice appreciated.


I think you'll be fine either way. Due to room constraints, my fronts are closer in to the screen than I'd like, so I ended up mounting my heights wider than my fronts and I think it sounds great - but had my fronts been closer to 30 degrees I would have lined them up. Also, if youre interested in widening the sound stage, you might want to consider adding some wides  I just did and, while I miss having rear surrounds (my room won't accommodate them), both Atmos and DTS:X material sounds fantastic with the wides.


----------



## makrelov

tbrown187 said:


> So I am getting ready to switch my 5.1.2 setup with up firing speakers to a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers. Before I start cutting holes, I was hoping to get some quick advice on height speaker placement of the two options I include here. I am not sure if it would be better to create a wider sound stage, or have them line up with the front mains, like in Dolby's diagrams.
> 
> Any advice appreciated.


And why don't you widen your front right/left speakers and give more space between them. This way you will cover wider space in MLP and hear more separated sound. And, what is more important, you will have your ceilings in line with fronts (as on pic 2). Of course, if you do not have any obstacles or restraints to do that with your fronts.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## tbrown187

jrogers said:


> I think you'll be fine either way. Due to room constraints, my fronts are closer in to the screen than I'd like, so I ended up mounting my heights wider than my fronts and I think it sounds great - but had my fronts been closer to 30 degrees I would have lined them up. Also, if youre interested in widening the sound stage, you might want to consider adding some wides  I just did and, while I miss having rear surrounds (my room won't accommodate them), both Atmos and DTS:X material sounds fantastic with the wides.





yanks1 said:


> I followed Dolby's instructions for lining the overheads with my fronts. But my fronts are ~ 10 feet apart so they are outside our MLP which is similar to your 2nd pix. Our MLP is a 2 person loveseat that is only 6 feet wide. Good luck





makrelov said:


> And why don't you widen your front right/left speakers and give more space between them. This way you will cover wider space in MLP and hear more separated sound. And, what is more important, you will have your ceilings in line with fronts (as on pic 2). Of course, if you do not have any obstacles or restraints to do that with your fronts.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


Thanks for the feedback guys. I went ahead and cut out the first two holes in line with the fronts, but I moved them out a few inches more. The problem is I have a door in the top right corner of that room and have furniture to deal with on the top left side, so I can't spread them out too much. I am already drawing a bit of wife aggro with holes in the ceiling, so I can't press it. 

One more question - do any of you have moveable tweeters in your ceiling speakers? If so, where do you aim them? Down, or at the primary listening area?


----------



## GXMnow

tbrown187 said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys. I went ahead and cut out the first two holes in line with the fronts, but I moved them out a few inches more. The problem is I have a door in the top right corner of that room and have furniture to deal with on the top left side, so I can't spread them out too much. I am already drawing a bit of wife aggro with holes in the ceiling, so I can't press it.
> 
> One more question - do any of you have moveable tweeters in your ceiling speakers? If so, where do you aim them? Down, or at the primary listening area?


In all the rooms I have listened to top mounted height speakers, I find it best to have them aimed across the room to the furthest listening position. 

Think of it like this.
The closer you are to a speaker, the louder it will sound.
The more in line with the aim of the speaker, the louder it will sound.

If you aim them straight down, or even just to the closer seat, you have both issues adding up. The person on the right, will hear the right speaker much louder. If you aim for the far seat, as you move right, you go off axis as you go closer. The gain from getting closer is offset to some degree by going off axis to the speaker. In most cases, the height, possible angle, and dispersion will not make it possible to totally offset the level increase as you get closer to the speaker, but the further you can aim across the room seems to be the best.


----------



## jrogers

tbrown187 said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys. I went ahead and cut out the first two holes in line with the fronts, but I moved them out a few inches more. The problem is I have a door in the top right corner of that room and have furniture to deal with on the top left side, so I can't spread them out too much. I am already drawing a bit of wife aggro with holes in the ceiling, so I can't press it.
> 
> One more question - do any of you have moveable tweeters in your ceiling speakers? If so, where do you aim them? Down, or at the primary listening area?


I have limited ability to direct the tweeters in my GoldenEar Invisa ceiling speakers but, like @GXMnow, do angle them in toward the listening position.


----------



## caseyparsons

What's the least expensive option for receiver/amp to do 7.1.4?


----------



## smurraybhm

caseyparsons said:


> What's the least expensive option for receiver/amp to do 7.1.4?


Just Atmos or do you need X, HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 and any other features? Personally I would give JD of AV Science a call. Great prices and knowledge of the products that would meet your requirement.


----------



## AllenA07

caseyparsons said:


> What's the least expensive option for receiver/amp to do 7.1.4?


I've got the Denon x6200 and have been very happy with it. As others have said it would definitely be a good idea to contact JD for pricing.


----------



## crnmd

*Atmos question for existing theater*

I currently have a paradigm bookshelf L/R and center channel with in-ceiling paradigm surround (over seating and rear of seating) 7.1 setup. I want to upgrade to an Atmos capable receiver and use my existing set up if possible. I understand that true atmos in ceiling are more dispersed but can I use this set up and get reasonable capabilities and do I need a 7/1/2 or 7/1/4 receiver? Thanks


----------



## Ricoflashback

caseyparsons said:


> What's the least expensive option for receiver/amp to do 7.1.4?


Dependent on your need for UHD/HDR & DTS X. As others have suggested - - check with JD. 

Also - - "Open Box" specials from Best Buy - - if you can find one in your area. Great deals - - they come with full manufacturer's warranty.

Denon x5200 - Dolby Atmos but no HDCP 2.2. No DTS X. Can be had from $650 up (Open Box - again if you can find from Best Buy)

Denon x6200 - Dolby Atmos, DTS X, HDCP 2.2. Lowest price I've seen is around $1,599.99 from Accessories4Less - when they have them in stock. Usually refurbished which means only one year of warranty. You can check with Denon, direct, for an extended warranty if they cover refurbished products. Brand New - $2,199 from Amazon. See if JD can beat.


----------



## caseyparsons

Ricoflashback said:


> Dependent on your need for UHD/HDR & DTS X. As others have suggested - - check with JD.
> 
> Also - - "Open Box" specials from Best Buy - - if you can find one in your area. Great deals - - they come with full manufacturer's warranty.
> 
> Denon x5200 - Dolby Atmos but no HDCP 2.2. No DTS X. Can be had from $650 up (Open Box - again if you can find from Best Buy)
> 
> Denon x6200 - Dolby Atmos, DTS X, HDCP 2.2. Lowest price I've seen is around $1,599.99 from Accessories4Less - when they have them in stock. Usually refurbished which means only one year of warranty. You can check with Denon, direct, for an extended warranty if they cover refurbished products. Brand New - $2,199 from Amazon. See if JD can beat.


Thanks for the great suggestions! Yes, I would like to have DTS:X for movies encoded that way, and UHD support would be nice for someday when I upgrade to a 4k PJ, though just 1080p now. But wow, $1600+ is a lot of cash. Maybe I should wait for prices to come down...


----------



## Dbruce13

What power amps are you 7.4 guys running for Dolby Atmos. Need to get a 2 channel power amp but dont want to break the bank. Any recommendations?


----------



## stikle

Technically it's 7.x.4 by the way. 7.4 would be 7 bed layer channels and four subwoofers. Scott would approve, but that's neither here nor there.

The AudioSource AMP-100 is one of the more common ones used.

I run the Onkyo M-5010 in my set up.

Any 2 channel stereo amp will do it...even an older receiver can be used.


----------



## caseyparsons

stikle said:


> Technically it's 7.x.4 by the way. 7.4 would be 7 bed layer channels and four subwoofers. Scott would approve, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> The AudioSource AMP-100 is one of the more common ones used.
> 
> I run the Onkyo M-5010 in my set up.
> 
> Any 2 channel stereo amp will do it...even an older receiver can be used.


So how would one hook up an older receiver to work with a newer one? And the main receiver still needs to "process" 11 channels?


----------



## stikle

caseyparsons said:


> So how would one hook up an older receiver to work with a newer one? And the main receiver still needs to "process" 11 channels?



Use THIS DIAGRAM as a reference.

You just have to use the right pre-outs to the right inputs...and out again.


----------



## jrogers

Dbruce13 said:


> What power amps are you 7.4 guys running for Dolby Atmos. Need to get a 2 channel power amp but dont want to break the bank. Any recommendations?


I looked at the AudioSource AMP100 but ended getting a good deal on the AudioSource AMP102 which has a 12V trigger input.


----------



## JamesE

steviekfc said:


> Reading about everyone's epic installations makes me sad


You can read about mine and cheer up. I had fun building it. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2285146-imaginarium.html


----------



## kokishin

JamesE said:


> You can read about mine and cheer up. I had fun building it. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2285146-imaginarium.html


Wowza! When I saw this pic, I thought you had built your own IMAX HT. Buckminster Fuller would be proud of you!


----------



## JamesE

That is my favorite picture of the place.


----------



## tbrown187

You guys weren't lying. I watched Goosebumps with my boys last night and the sound was amazing with Atmos. Particularly the invisible boy, the praying mantis, and the bees. Awesome stuff!


----------



## Frank714

showmak said:


> Which movie or clip is a benchmark for Atmos? I just want to make sure that my system sounds perfect when it's done.



_Chicago_ remastered in Dolby Atmos, but currently only available as an import from Japan.


----------



## Stoked21

Intersting to see that Concussion UHD is Atmos. But the BD is DTS-HD.

Same with Point Break. UHD is Atmos but BD is DTS-HD.

Looks like some studios are starting to push immersive exclusively to UHD even on new releases as well as catalog re-releases.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> Intersting to see that Concussion UHD is Atmos. But the BD is DTS-HD.
> 
> Same with Point Break. UHD is Atmos but BD is DTS-HD.
> 
> Looks like some studios are starting to push immersive exclusively to UHD even on new releases as well as catalog re-releases.


This unfortunately isn't really that surprising. A new video format of course needs a new audio format to go with it, despite the fact that immersive audio doesn't have anything to do with UHD. I'm in that group that thinks that in the not so distant future we aren't seeing Atmos mixes on any Blu-Ray releases. It's disappointing to be sure, especially knowing that the only reason Blu-Rays aren't going to be included is for what amounts to marketing reasons. If the decision is to hold Atmos off of Blu-Ray that certainly isn't going to do any favors for those on the fence about an immersive setup.


----------



## Dbruce13

tbrown187 said:


> So I am getting ready to switch my 5.1.2 setup with up firing speakers to a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers. Before I start cutting holes, I was hoping to get some quick advice on height speaker placement of the two options I include here. I am not sure if it would be better to create a wider sound stage, or have them line up with the front mains, like in Dolby's diagrams.
> 
> Any advice appreciated.


Dolby recommends having them inline with your fronts and assuming your ear height is about 36" you'll want to place the front heights 5 feet in front and back


----------



## Dbruce13

Frank714 said:


> _Chicago_ remastered in Dolby Atmos, but currently only available as an import from Japan.


Gravity does a good job also of demonstrating Atmos. Also hate to admit it but if you truly want to see if your new atmos system is "working" play the Transformers movie. Its sound overkill but impressive.


----------



## stikle

Dbruce13 said:


> Also hate to admit it but if you truly want to see if your new atmos system is "working" play the Transformers movie. Its sound overkill but impressive.



I disagree. You shouldn't recommend this mix. It was one of the earlier Atmos mixes and while busy and "overkill", it isn't actually one of the better Atmos demos to properly showcase the technology.

Gravity Diamond Luxe edition, yes. Transformers, no. John Wick, yes. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles NO.


----------



## deano86

Dbruce13 said:


> What power amps are you 7.4 guys running for Dolby Atmos. Need to get a 2 channel power amp but dont want to break the bank. Any recommendations?


Keep an eye on Ebay for a good deal on either the Onkyo M-282 2 channel amp or its Integra sister, the ADM 2.1 Both have 100 watts /channel with options for both a 12V trigger or Auto detect input.. .in addition, they feature input signal pass through if needed.. 

If you are not in a hurry, you can typically snag one for just over $100 - $120 shipped..sometimes less.. I have used both models over the years and they work great..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dbruce13 said:


> Frank714 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Chicago_ remastered in Dolby Atmos, but currently only available as an import from Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity does a good job also of demonstrating Atmos. Also hate to admit it but if you truly want to see if your new atmos system is "working" play the Transformers movie. Its sound overkill but impressive.
Click to expand...

Only impressive to those with Trinnov processors and more base layer surround speakers than four. It has little to no overhead activity.

Goosebumps and Gravity (being the winner) are much better as there is quite a lot more up top.

The opening of Unbroken also is demo material.


----------



## Defcon

What is the suggested upgrade path for those of us on 7.1? I just upgraded from 5.1 to 7.1 and I like what I hear, its a much more enveloping soundfield all around me. 

Is 5.1.2 Atmos is a better option than 7.1? Does Dolby advise that? Moving to 7.1.2/5.1.4/7.1.4 is a massive and expensive upgrade because you need a much more expensive AVR, very few even have pre-outs.


----------



## tbrown187

Dbruce13 said:


> Dolby recommends having them inline with your fronts and assuming your ear height is about 36" you'll want to place the front heights 5 feet in front and back


Yeah, I lined from my heights up with the front speakers and the results are great so far. 

Since I only have 1.5 feet or so from the back wall in my setup, I am debating whether or not two more atmos speakers just behind my ears are worth it (as shown in my earlier pic.)


----------



## jrogers

Defcon said:


> What is the suggested upgrade path for those of us on 7.1? I just upgraded from 5.1 to 7.1 and I like what I hear, its a much more enveloping soundfield all around me.
> 
> Is 5.1.2 Atmos is a better option than 7.1? Does Dolby advise that? Moving to 7.1.2/5.1.4/7.1.4 is a massive and expensive upgrade because you need a much more expensive AVR, very few even have pre-outs.


I think the consensus answer even in this thread might be no, with a preference ranking something like: 5.1 -> 7.1 -> 7.1.2 -> 7.1.4 -> 9.1.4 -> 9.1.6 -> ... (and 2 subs if possible) room permitting. For me, however, given my theater constraints, I went from 5.1 -> 5.1.2 -> 5.1.4 -> 7w.1.4 (and only one sub). Also, in my case, the 5.1.4 (now 7w.1.4) theater actually sounds better/more immersive for movies than the 7.1 living room upstairs, but it is also acoustically treated.

Had I to do it over again, I would have skipped .2 and gone right to .4 as it made a big difference. Adding the front-wides was also a nice improvement for native DTS:X and Atmos content - but had I been able to have rear surrounds, I wouldn't have wides (at least until "mainstream" receivers support rear surrounds with wides and 4 height channels)


----------



## zapper

*Have a Denon 6200 receiver*

Greeting: 

Have a Atmos receiver and some Atmos Blu Ray movies, just wondering what the forum thinks what are the top 3 Atmos movies that are currently out as of now.


----------



## Dbruce13

tbrown187 said:


> Yeah, I lined from my heights up with the front speakers and the results are great so far.
> 
> Since I only have 1.5 feet or so from the back wall in my setup, I am debating whether or not two more atmos speakers just behind my ears are worth it (as shown in my earlier pic.)


I would still recommend adding them as your audyessy will minimize the proximity issue to your listening position to some degree. Others may have a different opinion but with Atmos / DTS-X and Aurora 3D the name of the game is "enveloping" sound primarily driven from the height aspect. You may end up kicking yourself later if you only add 2. Just me though


----------



## prerich

I believe that some movie companies are releasing Atmos only in UHD BD to take advantage of HDCP 2.2


----------



## jrogers

Dbruce13 said:


> I would still recommend adding them as your audyessy will minimize the proximity issue to your listening position to some degree. Others may have a different opinion but with Atmos / DTS-X and Aurora 3D the name of the game is "enveloping" sound primarily driven from the height aspect. You may end up kicking yourself later if you only add 2. Just me though


As someone who started with 5.1.2 and upgraded to 5.1.4 (and more recently 7w.1.4) I would definitely agree with @Dbruce13 and start out with .4 - it is a much better experience.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

prerich said:


> I believe that some movie companies are releasing Atmos only in UHD BD to take advantage of HDCP 2.2


That's not the reason. Dolby Atmos and DTS: X are being looked at as another premium feature hook, an enticement to get people to upgrade.


----------



## asarose247

@jrogers 

I must concur
given the golden opportunity to go from 7.1 to 7.x.4 by Sanjay no less visiting/sittingdirecting in my living room / HT layout 
and without any WAF or (unreasonable) budget limitations

totally


----------



## meli

zapper said:


> Have a Atmos receiver and some Atmos Blu Ray movies, just wondering what the forum thinks what are the top 3 Atmos movies that are currently out as of now.


I haven't seen them all, but I'd say

John Wick
Gravity
Mad Max

IMHO, John Wick is the best. Really incredible production quality, both audio and video. But the film was too violent for my taste. It was recently on Amazon for under ten dollars. I almost bought it, but I don't think I could watch it again.

Not a movie, but the September 2015 Atmos demo disc is worth downloading.


----------



## alamez

asarose247 said:


> @jrogers
> 
> 
> 
> I must concur
> 
> given the golden opportunity to go from 7.1 to 7.x.4 by Sanjay no less visiting/sittingdirecting in my living room / HT layout
> 
> and without any WAF or (unreasonable) budget limitations
> 
> 
> 
> totally



What about going from 5.14 and adding front wides instead of rear surrounds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Defcon

The other issue is from everything I've read, upfiring modules leave a lot to be desired compared to ceiling speakers, yes? And ceiling speakers won't be an option for the vast majority, even in the extreme enthusiast AVS crowd.


----------



## PioManiac

Another must see or should I say "Hear" Atmos Bluray...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/2351433-heart-sea-3d-blu-ray-review.html

The Atmos was done extremely well,
one of my top picks after my first three ...

1) Mad Max Fury Road 
2) Roger Waters The Wall
3) Gravity (Diamond Luxe Edition)

 all in glorious 7.4.4


----------



## ALtlOff

alamez said:


> What about going from 5.14 and adding front wides instead of rear surrounds
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Won't get near as much use as Rears, DSU doesn't use them at all and Atmos only uses them for object placement.
DTS-X and Neural-X will use them, but I would still bet not as much as Rears, since DSU replaced PLIIx, the Rears are used with 5.1 DD content also, I'm not sure about more often or not, but they're definitely more discrete than before, some content has even reminded me of discrete 7.1 audio it's been so good.


----------



## ALtlOff

Defcon said:


> The other issue is from everything I've read, upfiring modules leave a lot to be desired compared to ceiling speakers, yes? And ceiling speakers won't be an option for the vast majority, even in the extreme enthusiast AVS crowd.


But there are always height speakers as another alternative, not as good as in-ceiling, but a very close second, and IMO considerably better than upfiring modules, unless you have an absolutely prefect setup and room, and even then I think they would give the modules a run for their money, esp since height speakers aren't restricted to the frequency limiting of the upfiring modules or the Dolby Enabled signal. 
As many of us have found, the fuller the speaker the better, up to matching your surrounds.
Plus they're not hard to incorporate into most rooms, therefore it mostly ends up a WAF issue more than anything.


----------



## ALtlOff

Frank714 said:


> _Chicago_ remastered in Dolby Atmos, but currently only available as an import from Japan.


I'll have to find that, why not, ordered I'm my Hong Kong version of "Lucy" and I already owned the regular copy of it, I don't have "Chicago" at all.


----------



## the3dwizard

zapper said:


> Greeting:
> 
> Have a Atmos receiver and some Atmos Blu Ray movies, just wondering what the forum thinks what are the top 3 Atmos movies that are currently out as of now.


I have some but have not gotten around to watching them all. San Andreas, it was fun hearing all the stuff fall around you during the earthquakes, (oops, spoiler alert LOL)


----------



## asarose247

^

what he said

and @Defcon: And ceiling speakers won't be an option for the vast majority, even in the extreme enthusiast AVS crowd.

this may qualify as "extreme" Scatmos .6 set up in about a 7 ft square with 36 ft^2 of 5 1/2" broadband clouds. . .
immersive

total cost about $1K, not counting older AVR's just sitting around

would never trade even the .4 for FW or FH, even tho the AVR can do the FW's i have hooked up, (because they were there)

the on ceiling overheads rule . . .


----------



## Cyberathlete

Man that's bad news. Seems like the investment in Denon X5200 is now ok at best. Since companies are moving away from Atmos on Blu-Ray and keeping it on the UHD format, that really makes the investment almost irrelevant. So even if I do end up getting a UHD player, 1) My projector doesn't do 4k, so not sure if that is an issue for comatiblilty 2) I have to run a second HDMI cable from the projector to the blu-ray player. sigh.


And here I was about to ask which upcoming blu-rays support Atmos and how many titles we can anticipate this year, and next.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Cyberathlete said:


> Man that's bad news. Seems like the investment in Denon X5200 is now ok at best. Since companies are moving away from Atmos on Blu-Ray and keeping it on the UHD format, that really makes the investment almost irrelevant. So even if I do end up getting a UHD player, 1) My projector doesn't do 4k, so not sure if that is an issue for comatiblilty 2) I have to run a second HDMI cable from the projector to the blu-ray player. sigh.
> 
> 
> And here I was about to ask which upcoming blu-rays support Atmos and how many titles we can anticipate this year, and next.


I am in a similar position as you. I have a Sony VPL-VW50 which is 1080p. I have a 7.1.4 setup and I do not regret it in the least. DSU is so effective that it makes even non-Atmos movies better, for me, significantly so.

I even tried UHD with the Samsung K8500. I returned it for several reasons. It gave a very detailed image, but a higher contrast level that I could not get corrected and a distinct red push. It was due in part to the player, and in part due to the UHD disk itself.

So, I am willing to live happily with the limitations of what I have. It is worlds better than the 5.1 that I started with. I went thru 5.1.2; then 5.1.4; then 7.1.2; and quickly to 7.1.4.

I am still an Atmos fan! 

And, my TF and TR speakers are on ceiling, not in ceiling...


----------



## prerich

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's not the reason. Dolby Atmos and DTS: X are being looked at as another premium feature hook, an enticement to get people to upgrade.


I agree with you here, however - by packaging Atmos with UHD (and some only doing it with UHD), puts that upgrade pressure on consumers. You'd need a new receiver, a UHD BD player and a 4K TV or projector, that are all HDCP 2.2 compatible. 

HDCP 2.2 also helps keep the "rippers" at bay. Industry is now designed to keep a person dependent on the supplier. Apple locks a person in, Microsoft seems to want to get rid of the independent builder, etc....

If you can keep a consumer locked in - you guarantee a continued money stream.


----------



## Dbruce13

*Anyone know if Netflix sends out downgraded Blu-rays?*

Rented Mockingjay part 2 Blu-ray from Netlix and it was only in straight Dolby 5.1 and not Dolby Atmos? My understanding was that the blu-ray only came in Dolby 7.1 as well as Dolby Atmos and didn't know there was a crap version. Anyone know if Netflix gets different copies than the standard consumer Blu ray release?


----------



## AllenA07

prerich said:


> I agree with you here, however - by packaging Atmos with UHD (and some only doing it with UHD), puts that upgrade pressure on consumers. You'd need a new receiver, a UHD BD player and a 4K TV or projector, that are all HDCP 2.2 compatible.
> 
> HDCP 2.2 also helps keep the "rippers" at bay. Industry is now designed to keep a person dependent on the supplier. Apple locks a person in, Microsoft seems to want to get rid of the independent builder, etc....
> 
> If you can keep a consumer locked in - you guarantee a continued money stream.


Connecting UHD to Atmos isn't going to help Atmos with gaining a mass audience. I would be curious to know how many people who are on this site (even in this thread) are completely setup to the point where they can watch a UHD right now? I'm close, but as of this moment I can't raise my hand. Limiting Atmos to only UHD is going to take a technology that I think was going to have a hard time as is getting mass adoption and further narrow the group that can actually benefit from it.


----------



## AllenA07

Dbruce13 said:


> Rented Mockingjay part 2 Blu-ray from Netlix and it was only in straight Dolby 5.1 and not Dolby Atmos? My understanding was that the blu-ray only came in Dolby 7.1 as well as Dolby Atmos and didn't know there was a crap version. Anyone know if Netflix gets different copies than the standard consumer Blu ray release?


Lionsgate doesn't send lossless versions of movies to Redbox. Recently I've noticed that Universal no longer is even sending Blu-Rays to Redbox.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dbruce13 said:


> Rented Mockingjay part 2 Blu-ray from Netlix and it was only in straight Dolby 5.1 and not Dolby Atmos? My understanding was that the blu-ray only came in Dolby 7.1 as well as Dolby Atmos and didn't know there was a crap version. Anyone know if Netflix gets different copies than the standard consumer Blu ray release?


Lionsgate dumbs their rental copies down.


----------



## deano86

Dbruce13 said:


> Rented Mockingjay part 2 Blu-ray from Netlix and it was only in straight Dolby 5.1 and not Dolby Atmos? My understanding was that the blu-ray only came with Dolby Atmos and didn't no there was a crap version. Anyone know if Netflix gets different copies than the standard consumer Blu ray release?


It is not a Netflix or Redbox issue, it a decision by Lionsgate to purposely only provide "watered down" copies of their movies to rental outlets... which includes taking away the lossless audio tracks... really a crap move on their part, but probably effective for us home theater buffs that will want the best soundtrack unfortunately...


----------



## Dbruce13

deano86 said:


> It is not a Netflix or Redbox issue, it a decision by Lionsgate to purposely only provide "watered down" copies of their movies to rental outlets... which includes taking away the lossless audio tracks... really a crap move on their part, but probably effective for us home theater buffs that will want the best soundtrack unfortunately...


That is ridiculous...but gives me a little comfort knowing something wasn't wrong with my new system. The whole switching your output from PCM to bitstream for Dolby Atmos kinda drives me nuts especially when going back and forth between DTS-X titles and Atmos titles. Would be nice if the AVR's could just process any audio input format.


----------



## prerich

AllenA07 said:


> Connecting UHD to Atmos isn't going to help Atmos with gaining a mass audience. I would be curious to know how many people who are on this site (even in this thread) are completely setup to the point where they can watch a UHD right now? I'm close, but as of this moment I can't raise my hand. Limiting Atmos to only UHD is going to take a technology that I think was going to have a hard time as is getting mass adoption and further narrow the group that can actually benefit from it.


Once again...I agree...here's part 2 of the conspiracy theory that I have:

As UHD and Atmos are linked (with all the constraints tied to it) - it would make it a niche product. However that's just the bait......

Here's the switch....Do you know that Atmos can be carried on a Dolby Digital Plus signal as well? Who does that bode well for....Studios and streaming. Getting back to making the consumer dependent on the suppliers content. 

I may be wrong - but I believe Atmos going to be used as a tool to dumb down audio bitrate, but offer the immersive/object base sound as a trade off. Many people will go for that trade (I for one - I don't like it). 

Mass adoption will come from streaming (and I'm a BD fan)! That's what the studios want, pay per play. That's what they wanted with Divx, and several other things. This may be the tool used to get mass adoption of streaming!! Just a conspiracy theory that's all


----------



## prerich

Dbruce13 said:


> Rented Mockingjay part 2 Blu-ray from Netlix and it was only in straight Dolby 5.1 and not Dolby Atmos? My understanding was that the blu-ray only came in Dolby 7.1 as well as Dolby Atmos and didn't know there was a crap version. Anyone know if Netflix gets different copies than the standard consumer Blu ray release?


Yep, all Netflix BDs from Lionsgate are dumbed down. I remember renting the Expendables and wondered why I couldn't get 7.1 DTS-HD Master audio. Discovered that they have dumbed down all of their BD's to only do lossy audio.


----------



## Defcon

prerich said:


> Once again...I agree...here's part 2 of the conspiracy theory that I have:
> 
> As UHD and Atmos are linked (with all the constraints tied to it) - it would make it a niche product. However that's just the bait......
> 
> Here's the switch....Do you know that Atmos can be carried on a Dolby Digital Plus signal as well? Who does that bode well for....Studios and streaming. Getting back to making the consumer dependent on the suppliers content.
> 
> I may be wrong - but I believe Atmos going to be used as a tool to dumb down audio bitrate, but offer the immersive/object base sound as a trade off. Many people will go for that trade (I for one - I don't like it).
> 
> Mass adoption will come from streaming (and I'm a BD fan)! That's what the studios want, pay per play. That's what they wanted with Divx, and several other things. This may be the tool used to get mass adoption of streaming!! Just a conspiracy theory that's all


This only works if Atmos sounds significantly better and if people have the extra speakers to take advantage of it.


----------



## dschulz

prerich said:


> Mass adoption will come from streaming (and I'm a BD fan)! That's what the studios want, pay per play. That's what they wanted with Divx, and several other things. This may be the tool used to get mass adoption of streaming!! Just a conspiracy theory that's all


I don't think there needs to be any conspiracy to drive mass adoption of streaming - that's already happened, driven by consumer desires. Just take a look at where the physical media retail/rental business is compared to a few short years ago.

Given that more and more people are watching content via streaming, I think the fact that Atmos can be delivered on Dolby Digital Plus is Dolby's ace in the hole over their competitors.


----------



## prerich

Defcon said:


> This only works if Atmos sounds significantly better and if people have the extra speakers to take advantage of it.


Correct again.


----------



## prerich

dschulz said:


> I don't think there needs to be any conspiracy to drive mass adoption of streaming - that's already happened, driven by consumer desires. Just take a look at where the physical media retail/rental business is compared to a few short years ago.
> 
> Given that more and more people are watching content via streaming, I think the fact that Atmos can be delivered on Dolby Digital Plus is Dolby's ace in the hole over their competitors.


True, but many enthusiast have avoided streaming like the plague for the very same reason. Dolby Digital + is a step down from where we are currently at. What I see as part of the scheme is for UHD W/Atmos to be a niche format and possibly the final physical format - streaming w/DD+ and imbedded Atmos (because the objects take up little space) to become the new default format. 

This will do several things 

1. Enthusiast will buy the required gear....all of it. 

2. Masses will be greatful and buy the bare minimum (but they will sell a lot of it).

3. Streaming will become so strong that studios will claim that they see no profit in making physical media anymore. 

4. This will force enthusiast back to the Theater if they don't want to watch a streamed and audio dumbed down version. 

5. It becomes a win/win for the studios - they will control all content. Stream it, or go to the theater to see and hear the real deal. 

Remember these are all just theories - it is striking up good conversation though (I could be totally wrong).


----------



## dannycruz23

i have the marantz sr7010 , already i have it set up as 7.1.2, i need to add another set of dolby atmos speakers, i see that in here some advice to get the audio source amp100 pa, (that a 50 watts per channel) to use it to add that extra pair of dolby. how many watts i need for the dolby atmos? the marantz push 125 watts at 2 channel driven, so i don't know how much it push for the dolby atmos. when i call marantz they told me to get the pa with most watts the better. but i don't want to have one set with more power than the other set. what should i buy? i have seen russound with a 90 watts per channel pa, and now i see an onkyo with a 75 watts per channel (on amazon) which one you think will work better with the marantz 7010? i have seen also the audiosource pa that here they recommend a lot. (i am on a budget so i need one that not be so expensive due is only for dolby atmos speakers) the dolby atmos speakers are 100 watts at 8 ohms.


----------



## PioManiac

dannycruz23 said:


> i have the marantz sr7010 , already i have it set up as 7.1.2, i need to add another set of dolby atmos speakers, i see that in here some advice to get the audio source amp100 pa, (that a 50 watts per channel) to use it to add that extra pair of dolby. how many watts i need for the dolby atmos? the marantz push 125 watts at 2 channel driven, so i don't know how much it push for the dolby atmos. when i call marantz they told me to get the pa with most watts the better. but i don't want to have one set with more power than the other set. what should i buy? i have seen russound with a 90 watts per chanel pa, and now i see an onkyo with a 75 watts per channel (on amazon) which one you think will work better with the marantz 7010? i have seen also the audiosource pa that here they recommend a lot. (i am on a budget so i need one that not beso expensive due is only for dolby atmos speakers)


I don't suppose you have an older Marantz AVR sitting around with multi-channel inputs?
Doesnt need to be Atmos or even HDMI, just needs analogue inputs

I had an older spare Yamaha AVR that has about the same output level as my new RX-A3050
So I'm using my RX-V3900 to power my 4 Height Speakers, leaving the 3050 to just power the 7 ear level speakers. (7.4.4)

(both AVR's rated ~150/140wpc)


----------



## batpig

dannycruz23 said:


> i have the marantz sr7010 , already i have it set up as 7.1.2, i need to add another set of dolby atmos speakers, i see that in here some advice to get the audio source amp100 pa, (that a 50 watts per channel) to use it to add that extra pair of dolby. how many watts i need for the dolby atmos? the marantz push 125 watts at 2 channel driven, so i don't know how much it push for the dolby atmos. when i call marantz they told me to get the pa with most watts the better. but i don't want to have one set with more power than the other set. what should i buy? i have seen russound with a 90 watts per channel pa, and now i see an onkyo with a 75 watts per channel (on amazon) which one you think will work better with the marantz 7010? i have seen also the audiosource pa that here they recommend a lot. (i am on a budget so i need one that not be so expensive due is only for dolby atmos speakers) the dolby atmos speakers are 100 watts at 8 ohms.


It's less about "matching" the internal amps then making sure you have enough power for the application.

If you aren't going to listen at reference levels, and you have a typical 8-ohm, 89dB sensitivity type of in/on ceiling speaker for the rear Atmos channel, 50 watts is probably plenty. It's impossible to make a blanket statement about what is "enough" without knowing the specifics. Also remember that although your Marantz is spec'd at 125 w/ch, when running 9 channels simultaneously at full blast it's not going to put out more than 70-80 w/ch at best due to the shared power supply. So a 50-75 w/ch external amp might not be that far off, especially since not as much power is needed for the overhead channels which are mostly effects.

If you are concerned, then spending the extra to get something slightly beefier (e.g. the Onkyo M-5010) might give you some extra piece of mind.

The ultra budget option is to get an inexpensive used receiver with multich analog inputs, and repurpose it as an external amp. You can often find fairly beefy older receiver rated at 100+ w/ch for $100-150 pretty easily, and then you could even run all 4 overheads off the 2nd receiver meaning the Marantz only is running 7 speakers (leaving more power for them).


----------



## jrogers

alamez said:


> What about going from 5.14 and adding front wides instead of rear surrounds


I've only had the front-wides for about a week now, but so far am really happy with them, and do think they add considerably to the immersiveness in my room (which is very wide) - although a much more subtle change than going from 5.1 to 5.1.4 certainly. It's a bummer that the DSU doesn't use them, but when watching native Atmos and DTS:X content (including the various demos/test tracks as well as scenes from Unbroken, Gravity, Crimson Peak, John Wick, TLWH, Minions, etc.) or using Neural:X I've really liked the improved sound stage they provide. Plus, I hate that I can't fit rear surrounds in my theater like so many of the contributors here, so this at least helps compensate 

Bottom line, if you have the budget and can't for whatever reason implement rear-surrounds, I'd definitely recommend going with a 7w.1.4 configuration!


----------



## robert ham

*50 watts*



batpig said:


> It's less about "matching" the internal amps then making sure you have enough power for the application.
> 
> If you aren't going to listen at reference levels, and you have a typical 8-ohm, 89dB sensitivity type of in/on ceiling speaker for the rear Atmos channel, 50 watts is probably plenty. It's impossible to make a blanket statement about what is "enough" without knowing the specifics. Also remember that although your Marantz is spec'd at 125 w/ch, when running 9 channels simultaneously at full blast it's not going to put out more than 70-80 w/ch at best due to the shared power supply. So a 50-75 w/ch external amp might not be that far off, especially since not as much power is needed for the overhead channels which are mostly effects.
> 
> If you are concerned, then spending the extra to get something slightly beefier (e.g. the Onkyo M-5010) might give you some extra piece of mind.
> 
> The ultra budget option is to get an inexpensive used receiver with multich analog inputs, and repurpose it as an external amp. You can often find fairly beefy older receiver rated at 100+ w/ch for $100-150 pretty easily, and then you could even run all 4 overheads off the 2nd receiver meaning the Marantz only is running 7 speakers (leaving more power for them).


My rear presence speakers are capable of 125 watts, but my external amp is 50 watts per channel into 8 ohms, and it is more than capable to drive the speakers,, I have the amp set at 70% volume, auto turn on, and with YPAO it all worked perfectly.. :nerd:


----------



## Defcon

DTS won the Bluray war rather convincingly, I wonder how and when DD+ became the preferred streaming audio format and whether its even audibly better? When I watch Netflix on my tv's app (which doesn't support DD+) vs Chromecast, I can't tell a difference and I have a pretty good audio setup.


----------



## meli

deano86 said:


> It is not a Netflix or Redbox issue, it a decision by Lionsgate to purposely only provide "watered down" copies of their movies to rental outlets... which includes taking away the lossless audio tracks... really a crap move on their part, but probably effective for us home theater buffs that will want the best soundtrack unfortunately...


Though I guess Netflix and Redbox have the option to rent the more expensive retail version of the discs (which include Atmos or lossless audio). I assume that's what 3d-blurayrental.com does.


----------



## Kain

Can you guys tell what sounds are channel-based vs. object-based on your home Atmos setup? If so, what gives each away?


----------



## ALtlOff

dannycruz23 said:


> i have the marantz sr7010 , already i have it set up as 7.1.2, i need to add another set of dolby atmos speakers, i see that in here some advice to get the audio source amp100 pa, (that a 50 watts per channel) to use it to add that extra pair of dolby. how many watts i need for the dolby atmos? the marantz push 125 watts at 2 channel driven, so i don't know how much it push for the dolby atmos. when i call marantz they told me to get the pa with most watts the better. but i don't want to have one set with more power than the other set. what should i buy? i have seen russound with a 90 watts per channel pa, and now i see an onkyo with a 75 watts per channel (on amazon) which one you think will work better with the marantz 7010? i have seen also the audiosource pa that here they recommend a lot. (i am on a budget so i need one that not be so expensive due is only for dolby atmos speakers) the dolby atmos speakers are 100 watts at 8 ohms.





batpig said:


> It's less about "matching" the internal amps then making sure you have enough power for the application.
> 
> If you aren't going to listen at reference levels, and you have a typical 8-ohm, 89dB sensitivity type of in/on ceiling speaker for the rear Atmos channel, 50 watts is probably plenty. It's impossible to make a blanket statement about what is "enough" without knowing the specifics. Also remember that although your Marantz is spec'd at 125 w/ch, when running 9 channels simultaneously at full blast it's not going to put out more than 70-80 w/ch at best due to the shared power supply. So a 50-75 w/ch external amp might not be that far off, especially since not as much power is needed for the overhead channels which are mostly effects.
> 
> If you are concerned, then spending the extra to get something slightly beefier (e.g. the Onkyo M-5010) might give you some extra piece of mind.
> 
> The ultra budget option is to get an inexpensive used receiver with multich analog inputs, and repurpose it as an external amp. You can often find fairly beefy older receiver rated at 100+ w/ch for $100-150 pretty easily, and then you could even run all 4 overheads off the 2nd receiver meaning the Marantz only is running 7 speakers (leaving more power for them).


^^This^^

Remember, amps don't push power, speakers draw power.
As long as there is enough power available so the speaker can perform in the manner you've requested (how loud you want it to be) then it doesn't matter what the variation in the different amps power ratings, it only comes into play is when there's not enough available power for that given application.
Under normal circumstances, Overheads and Rears shouldn't require that much.


----------



## dannycruz23

batpig said:


> It's less about "matching" the internal amps then making sure you have enough power for the application.
> 
> If you aren't going to listen at reference levels, and you have a typical 8-ohm, 89dB sensitivity type of in/on ceiling speaker for the rear Atmos channel, 50 watts is probably plenty. It's impossible to make a blanket statement about what is "enough" without knowing the specifics. Also remember that although your Marantz is spec'd at 125 w/ch, when running 9 channels simultaneously at full blast it's not going to put out more than 70-80 w/ch at best due to the shared power supply. So a 50-75 w/ch external amp might not be that far off, especially since not as much power is needed for the overhead channels which are mostly effects.
> 
> If you are concerned, then spending the extra to get something slightly beefier (e.g. the Onkyo M-5010) might give you some extra piece of mind.
> 
> The ultra budget option is to get an inexpensive used receiver with multich analog inputs, and repurpose it as an external amp. You can often find fairly beefy older receiver rated at 100+ w/ch for $100-150 pretty easily, and then you could even run all 4 overheads off the 2nd receiver meaning the Marantz only is running 7 speakers (leaving more power for them).


 ok so a 60 watts will do the work for a set of dolby atmos speakers that are rated 100 watts. i already have one set on the sr7010 and the other set i will put on a 60 watts power amplifier. ( i had seen one of 75 watts, and another of 90 watts) but due your advise i will go with the 60 watts because it will be enough. (marantz advise me to get the one with more watts, i don't know why) then in the future for example if i decide to get like the outlaw 5000 which is 120 watts per channel (all channel driven) i could put 4 of my 4 surround speakers or my 4 dolby atmos speakers on the outlaw and keep the rest on the sr7010. i know other will say to put the center and the 2 fronts on the outlaw and the rest on the sr7010, but i have read that marantz is a warmer pa, and the outlaw is more a cooler pa.


----------



## ALtlOff

dannycruz23 said:


> ok so a 60 watts will do the work for a set of dolby atmos speakers that are rated 100 watts. i already have one set on the sr7010 and the other set i will put on a 60 watts power amplifier. ( i had seen one of 75 watts, and another of 90 watts) but due your advise i will go with the 60 watts because it will be enough. (marantz advise me to get the one with more watts, i don't know why) then in the future for example if i decide to get like the outlaw 5000 which is 120 watts per channel (all channel driven) i could put 4 of my 4 surround speakers or my 4 dolby atmos speakers on the outlaw and keep the rest on the sr7010. i know other will say to put the center and the 2 fronts on the outlaw and the rest on the sr7010, but i have read that marantz is a warmer pa, and the outlaw is more a cooler pa.


Yup, or you can just experiment and see if you notice a difference or not, you'll have plenty of combinations to try since the amp assignments in the 7010 are user configurable.


----------



## tbrown187

Dbruce13 said:


> I would still recommend adding them as your audyessy will minimize the proximity issue to your listening position to some degree. Others may have a different opinion but with Atmos / DTS-X and Aurora 3D the name of the game is "enveloping" sound primarily driven from the height aspect. You may end up kicking yourself later if you only add 2. Just me though


Ok, I've attached am updated pic of my setup. The listener positioning is accurate (18" from the back wall), and the front heights are already installed (4.25' in front of and 5' up from the LP.) I just want to make sure getting those back 2 height speakers (only a few inches behind the listeners ears) is worth adding.

Second question, is there an Atmos processing difference between setting the heights as TF/TR versus TM/RH?


----------



## Ricoflashback

meli said:


> Though I guess Netflix and Redbox have the option to rent the more expensive retail version of the discs (which include Atmos or lossless audio). I assume that's what 3d-blurayrental.com does.


I use Redbox a lot and you occasionally get a Dolby Atmos track but as mentioned by another poster, it's really up to the studios and what the rental companies have negotiated. Lyinsgate, like others, dumb down the audio. 

With the push for UHD sales, many studios have decided to withhold any immersive track and keep it solely on the UHD release. Even if you bought the UHD disc that comes with a regular Bluray movie, I believe Dolby Atmos or DTS X is NOT on the plain old Bluray.

So - even if you rent through companies like 3D Bluray Rental, you are not guaranteed an immersive soundtrack on regular Bluray discs. I believe this strategy will greatly slow down the growth of Dolby Atmos & DTS X (at least on the consumer side) as many people, including myself, do not want to upgrade all their equipment to HDCP 2.2 and buy a new UHD player PLUS try to find content that you can rent as opposed to buying.

Streaming Dolby Atmos with DD+ is a great solution and I hope that Amazon Prime will provide this service in the future. Especially for "free content" as I am not a streamer outside of the free content available from Amazon Prime.

I've made the decision to live with upmixing (DTS Neo X) and the occasional Dolby Atmos soundtrack that I can find via Redbox.


----------



## Dbruce13

tbrown187 said:


> Ok, I've attached am updated pic of my setup. The listener positioning is accurate (18" from the back wall), and the front heights are already installed (4.25' in front of and 5' up from the LP.) I just want to make sure getting those back 2 height speakers (only a few inches behind the listeners ears) is worth adding.
> 
> Second question, is there an Atmos processing difference between setting the heights as TF/TR versus TM/RH?


I would definitely still add the rears based on your diagram (yes they are in close proximity to your listening position but can be corrected). You'll get the panning needed. As for your second question to my knowledge yes different "sound" objects are sent to each location. During your set up / speaker identification the receiver will place those sound objects based on your existing set up whether you have 2, 4 or 6 height speakers etc (front, mid and rear etc).


----------



## Dbruce13

Ricoflashback said:


> I use Redbox a lot and you occasionally get a Dolby Atmos track but as mentioned by another poster, it's really up to the studios and what the rental companies have negotiated. Lyinsgate, like others, dumb down the audio.
> 
> With the push for UHD sales, many studios have decided to withhold any immersive track and keep it solely on the UHD release. Even if you bought the UHD disc that comes with a regular Bluray movie, I believe Dolby Atmos or DTS X is NOT on the plain old Bluray.
> 
> So - even if you rent through companies like 3D Bluray Rental, you are not guaranteed an immersive soundtrack on regular Bluray discs. I believe this strategy will greatly slow down the growth of Dolby Atmos & DTS X (at least on the consumer side) as many people, including myself, do not want to upgrade all their equipment to HDCP 2.2 and buy a new UHD player PLUS try to find content that you can rent as opposed to buying.
> 
> Streaming Dolby Atmos with DD+ is a great solution and I hope that Amazon Prime will provide this service in the future. Especially for "free content" as I am not a streamer outside of the free content available from Amazon Prime.
> 
> I've made the decision to live with upmixing (DTS Neo X) and the occasional Dolby Atmos soundtrack that I can find via Redbox.



Agree that it is a very bad decision to only release Atmos / DTS-X coding linked only to UHD versions. Limiting your market place for a start up is short sighted. I heard through the grap vine that VUDU will only be pushing out Dolby Atmos streaming on UHD versions only. So even blu rays that have coding in Dolby Atmos will still only be streamed in 5.1....stupid.


----------



## lujan

Dbruce13 said:


> Agree that it is a very bad decision to only release Atmos / DTS-X coding linked only to UHD versions. Limiting your market place for a start up is short sighted. I heard through the grap vine that VUDU will only be pushing out Dolby Atmos streaming on UHD versions only. So even blu rays that have coding in Dolby Atmos will still only be streamed in 5.1....stupid.


That's not true, if you go over to Vudu and check out their UHD movies, there are several UHD titles that don't have an Atmos audio track. I own one of them... Vacation.


----------



## robert ham

*Ypao*



Dbruce13 said:


> I would definitely still add the rears based on your diagram (yes they are in close proximity to your listening position but can be corrected). You'll get the panning needed. As for your second question to my knowledge yes different "sound" objects are sent to each location. During your set up / speaker identification the receiver will place those sound objects based on your existing set up whether you have 2, 4 or 6 height speakers etc (front, mid and rear etc).


My Rear speakers are close to where I sit, I mean withing 3 feet, but I place my 3D Microphone where my head is and let YPAO do the rest of the calibration.. It makes everything sound perfect! The 1.77 software has made my entire home audio system sound so much better.. As I mentioned before, I re-calibrated my system with a new YPAO auto calibration after the software update... I played the Superman Man Of Steel, 7.1 True HD and had the receiver set for DTS-X... The spacial presence of the sound was nothing like I have experienced before...

Next on the list will be a new 930D Sony 65" TV set...


----------



## Dbruce13

lujan said:


> That's not true, if you go over to Vudu and check out their UHD movies, there are several UHD titles that don't have an Atmos audio track. I own one of them... Vacation.


Only certain movie titles are released in Dolby Atmos. Vacation is not one of them. Vudu's announcement pertained only to titles released with Dolby Atmos for which it would only stream for UHD titles and not the Blu-ray counterpart. Only these Dolby Atmos titles are in their library (_Mad Max: Fury Road, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Gallows, San Andreas, American Sniper, Man of Steel, Jupiter Ascending, Edge of Tomorrow, _and_ Into the Storm. )_


----------



## jrogers

tbrown187 said:


> Ok, I've attached am updated pic of my setup. The listener positioning is accurate (18" from the back wall), and the front heights are already installed (4.25' in front of and 5' up from the LP.) I just want to make sure getting those back 2 height speakers (only a few inches behind the listeners ears) is worth adding.
> 
> Second question, is there an Atmos processing difference between setting the heights as TF/TR versus TM/RH?


Looking at your diagram, you'll definitely want to go with TF/TR. I have a similar setup, and had originally configured my rear ceiling speakers as Top-Middle based on their angle to MLP; but based on suggestions in this forum changed the config to TF/TR (without moving the speakers) and reran room-correction, and Atmos sound _dramatically_ improved


----------



## smurraybhm

jrogers said:


> Looking at your diagram, you'll definitely want to go with TF/TR. I have a similar setup, and had originally configured my rear ceiling speakers as Top-Middle based on their angle to MLP; but based on suggestions in this forum changed the config to TF/TR (without moving the speakers) and reran room-correction, and Atmos sound _dramatically_ improved


This 200% - I did the same thing going from FH/TM to TF/TR with my "rear" speaker actually in the TM position - TF/TR is a substantial improvement in the sound department. I was skeptical at first, but if you are lucky enough to have the Dolby 2015 disk with the test tones, it is easy to tell why that configuration works well along with some of the demos.


----------



## stikle

AllenA07 said:


> I would be curious to know how many people who are on this site (even in this thread) are completely setup to the point where they can watch a UHD right now?



I am - 100%. The only thing I'm lacking is an HDR enabled display, but I'm ok with that. For this year.


----------



## AllenA07

stikle said:


> I am - 100%. The only thing I'm lacking is an HDR enabled display, but I'm ok with that. For this year.


I know there are a few others, but it's certainly the minority. Personally I'm pretty close, I'm just missing the UHD player. I'm not sold on the Samsung model and am waiting until there is something else on the market. I would still guess though the the vast majority of people around aren't anywhere near close to a UHD setup.


----------



## stikle

AllenA07 said:


> I'm not sold on the Samsung model and am waiting until there is something else on the market. I would still guess though the the vast majority of people around aren't anywhere near close to a UHD setup.



I would guess so as well. I'll probably upgrade to an Oppo when it's released and sell the Samsung. It's certainly a no-frills player, but it does indeed work.


----------



## tbrown187

AllenA07 said:


> I know there are a few others, but it's certainly the minority. Personally I'm pretty close, I'm just missing the UHD player. I'm not sold on the Samsung model and am waiting until there is something else on the market. I would still guess though the the vast majority of people around aren't anywhere near close to a UHD setup.


I am 100% UHD now and agree it's not the norm. But HDR is a game changer, IMO, and I will do my part to help the format succeed. Those titles that combine good HDR with good Atmos, like Mad Max, are gems. That's why it bums me out when companies like Fox do UHD without Atmos (even when it's Atmos in the theater), like The Revenant.

On the player, I follow the K8500 threads and I won't lie - they are just painful to sift through. BUT my player has performed really well so far and I have no complaints. The new UB900 Panasonic will be out in Europe next month, with hopefully a US arrival shortly thereafter, so there's another option coming soon.


----------



## AllenA07

tbrown187 said:


> I am 100% UHD now and agree it's not the norm. But HDR is a game changer, IMO, and I will do my part to help the format succeed. Those titles that combine good HDR with good Atmos, like Mad Max, are gems. That's why it bums me out when companies like Fox do UHD without Atmos (even when it's Atmos in the theater), like The Revenant.
> 
> On the player, I follow the K8500 threads and I won't lie - they are just painful to sift through. BUT my player has performed really well so far and I have no complaints. The new UB900 Panasonic will be out in Europe next month, with hopefully a US arrival shortly thereafter, so there's another option coming soon.


Those threads haven't exactly made me anxious to go spend the money, not to mention I've never been a fan of other Samsung Blu-Ray players I've owned. I'm very interested in the Panasonic and wouldn't mind considering the upgrade to the Oppo at this point.


----------



## jrogers

AllenA07 said:


> Connecting UHD to Atmos isn't going to help Atmos with gaining a mass audience. I would be curious to know how many people who are on this site (even in this thread) are completely setup to the point where they can watch a UHD right now? I'm close, but as of this moment I can't raise my hand. Limiting Atmos to only UHD is going to take a technology that I think was going to have a hard time as is getting mass adoption and further narrow the group that can actually benefit from it.


I too am close, can watch UHD from the TV apps, and UHD/HDR from TV-connected storage, but then of course have to live without Atmos/DTS:X  My upgraded display can do "limited" HDR, so looking forward to a UHD Blu-ray player, but waiting to purchase until there is more than one choice and/or they sort out software issues with the Samsung. If they upgrade the apps on the UBD-K8500 to support HDR (with my display) I'll probably pull the trigger, at which point I'll raise my hand


----------



## Randy Bessinger

I am watching the last witch hunter and input is showing DTS:X MA 7.1.4. I have now selected Adventure..am I overlaying that over the DTS input? I really love that effect if so. Also, do I now have Yamaha's dialog and lift available as an option?

By the way, I think the DSP selections are very old for some of the Yamaha modes. I had a DSP1 and this was in the early days of surround..Lexicon and believe it or not JVC. One of the best early surround processors. I thought it was way better than lexicon..so did Summerwerk (sp) in Stereophile. Man, i am old.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Randy Bessinger said:


> I am watching the last witch hunter and input is showing DTS:X MA 7.1.4. I have now selected Adventure..am I overlaying that over the DTS input? I really love that affect if so. Also, do I now have Yamaha's dialog and lift available as an option?
> 
> By the way, I think the DSP selections are very old for some of the Yamaha modes. I had a DSP1 and this was in the early days of surround..Lexicon and believe it or not JVC. One of the best early surround processors. I thought it was way better than lexicon..so did Summerwerk (sp) in Stereophile. Man, i am old.


I was about 12 or 13 when the DSPA1 came out and I lusted over it for the rest of my childhood. My first surround sound receiver was a Yamaha. Makes me feel good that I finally was able to come full circle with this 5100. 

If you own the 5100 pre/pro then you can apply CinemaDSP over both native Atmos and DTS:X. I have listened to just the heights while doing so and you can hear the soundfield generated but the content that is supposed to be in the height speakers is unaffected by the DSP mode.

Not sure or not if dialog lift feature continues to work with Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## howard68

Hi 
So some UHD disc are getting a unique Dolby Atmos track IE point break 
If I get a Uhd disc player will it down convert to 1080p and give me the Dolby atmos track 
Any one true this?


----------



## AllenA07

howard68 said:


> Hi
> So some UHD disc are getting a unique Dolby Atmos track IE point break
> If I get a Uhd disc player will it down convert to 1080p and give me the Dolby atmos track
> Any one true this?


You would need an HDfury to get past the HDCP 2.2 issue.


----------



## howard68

AllenA07 said:


> You would need an HDfury to get past the HDCP 2.2 issue.


Hi so it is the copy protection that screws up things 
So it a case of getting a new tv at the same time 
Still trying to put off getting a new uhd tv until you can get dolby vision and hdr 10 on same set 
Thanks for the info 

Howard


----------



## dannycruz23

i have already a set of dolby atmos speakers definitive technology a60 that i can't return back. could i use them as dolby back and get the klispch for the front? do all 4 dolby atmos speakers need to be of the same brand? right now i have the a60 on the front but i will like to get the klispch now for the front and move this to the back. i can't afford 2 sets of klispch just one.


----------



## jrogers

howard68 said:


> Hi
> So some UHD disc are getting a unique Dolby Atmos track IE point break
> If I get a Uhd disc player will it down convert to 1080p and give me the Dolby atmos track
> Any one true this?





AllenA07 said:


> You would need an HDfury to get past the HDCP 2.2 issue.


From what I've been reading on the UBD-K8500 (Samsung UHD Blu-ray player) thread, I think you won't have an issue with HDCP if the player is configured to output 1080p, so I think this would actually work fine.


----------



## Selden Ball

howard68 said:


> Hi
> So some UHD disc are getting a unique Dolby Atmos track IE point break
> If I get a Uhd disc player will it down convert to 1080p and give me the Dolby atmos track
> Any one true this?


 The Samsung player does downconvert the video if you connect it to a 1080p display. Some people have reported that it doesn't do a very good job of it, though.



AllenA07 said:


> You would need an HDfury to get past the HDCP 2.2 issue.


No, you do not need an HDFury, at least not yet.

Currently HDCP v2.2 is used only to protect the 4K video signal, not the downconverted 1080p signal. Apparently requiring it for the 1080p signal is an option which could be specified by the studios when a UHD BD is created, but none of them are using it.


----------



## Holiday121

Is it possible to use wireless adapters for ceiling speakers for atmos?


----------



## kokishin

*Leslie Speakers?*

I'm planning on setting up an Atmos/DTS:X immersive HT. I'm planning on attaching four Leslie speakers to my ceiling to have the ultimate in immersiveness/dispersion. Any thoughts?


----------



## stikle

Holiday121 said:


> Is it possible to use wireless adapters for ceiling speakers for atmos?



Random musing: I have never understood the draw to "wireless" speakers. You still have to power them some way, so you're going to be plugging the wireless receiver in...so your wireless speaker is not wireless. I guess maybe it's just on way to try and get out of long runs of cable. 

I don't know of any house that has power receptacles on the walls where each surround speaker and overhead would go...so you'd be running power anyway. So you're paying for the wireless transceiver and the receiver and speaker for each location.

Just seems like a waste of money to me. Maybe there's something I'm not considering.


----------



## nickbuol

Quick opinion question.

I own Gravity on blu-ray. Is it worth $20-$25 to buy the Diamond Luxe version for the native Atmos soundtrack, or will DSU get me "close enough" to save the $$$ on a movie that will only be watched a couple more times (realistically) tops?

I know DSU does NOT equal native Atmos, but am having a hard time justifying a re-buy of Gravity to get the native Atmos.

Thanks.


----------



## stikle

nickbuol said:


> Is it worth $20-$25 to buy the Diamond Luxe version for the native Atmos soundtrack



$20-25? Where?

Try again... and again....


----------



## nickbuol

stikle said:


> $20-25? Where?
> 
> Try again... and again....



No need for me to "try again" wise guy... Geez

Sitting in my cart, in stock, at a major US retailer's website for $19.99 plus $1.20 tax...

Just looking for an answer to my actual question... Is the native Atmos THAT much better than the DSU of the non-Atmos version to justify the $21.19 purchase of a movie that I already own (I am not a movie "collector" like the people that buy multiple versions of the same movie just to get all of the special cases and extras)... Sorry if there is a touch of negative tone in my response, but the "try again" comment is demeaning and doesn't address what I asked.


----------



## PioManiac

My first purchase of Gravity (non-atmos) was a few months ago, $10 Wally World

Last month I found the Diamond Luxe Edition on Amazon.ca (Canada) for $19 

...no brainer even for a double dip totaling under $30


----------



## nickbuol

Thanks PioManiac. That wasn't where I was looking, but I just ordered it. Looks like I might have gotten the last one as the website now says backordered AFTER I made my purchase. 

I figured that if the pricing was that high elsewhere, that I could buy it, and either re-sell it easily enough, or just take it back to the brick and mortar store for a refund.

Still was wondering if it was worth the purchase or not, but you seem to think so... 

Looking at Amazon.ca, it would have been $23.69 (USD - no tax, but add shipping).

Both sources (I was looking at BestBuy.com) under $25...


----------



## stikle

Well, I didn't mean it as demeaning...and thanks for answering MY question as to "where". 

But you're right, there was no answer so let's move on and I'll make more of a meangful response.

Gravity in Atmos is one of the better examples of sound mixes, in my opinion, that showcase what an Atmos system can do. I think most here will agree.

So yes, for that price get it. Then sell your old one on eBay, give it away, or something. I hate double dipping as well, but every once in a while (Fifth Element triple dip) it needs to happen. I look at it as it's ONLY $20...4 days of Starbucks I can do without.

Note that it also comes with the "Silent Space" edition, which is a cool concept...but not in Atmos.



> Starlight Theatre V4... *'Almost Done' since 2011*



I don't think truer words have been spoken in my experience with this hobby.


----------



## PioManiac

stikle said:


> Gravity in Atmos is one of the better examples of sound mixes, in my opinion, that showcase what an Atmos system can do. I think most here will agree.
> 
> So yes, for that price get it. Then sell your old one on eBay, give it away, or something. I hate double dipping as well, but every once in a while* (Fifth Element triple dip)* it needs to happen. I look at it as it's ONLY $20...4 days of Starbucks I can do without.


It's well worth the price!

and yes, I picked up the new Atmos/4K master of The Fifth Element for $19 too
but mainly because my only other was the very first one (2006?) that only came with PCM 5.1 audio

My build just needs the ceiling now...started in 2008


----------



## nickbuol

stikle said:


> Well, I didn't mean it as demeaning...and thanks for answering MY question as to "where".
> 
> But you're right, there was no answer so let's move on and I'll make more of a meangful response.
> 
> Gravity in Atmos is one of the better examples of sound mixes, in my opinion, that showcase what an Atmos system can do. I think most here will agree.
> 
> So yes, for that price get it. Then sell your old one on eBay, give it away, or something. I hate double dipping as well, but every once in a while (Fifth Element triple dip) it needs to happen. I look at it as it's ONLY $20...4 days of Starbucks I can do without.
> 
> Note that it also comes with the "Silent Space" edition, which is a cool concept...but not in Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think truer words have been spoken in my experience with this hobby.



Thank you sir. Now to see if they really have it in stock like it said (order status does not say backordered or pre-order or anything) or if I am on a waiting list. LOL


----------



## stikle

Oh, and now that you've ordered it (or are trying to), please reply back here with your impressions at some point of the Luxe Atmos vs. Standard you already have comparison.


----------



## ALtlOff

PioManiac said:


> It's well worth the price!
> 
> and yes, I picked up the new Atmos/4K master of The Fifth Element for $19 too
> but mainly because my only other was the very first one (2006?) that only came with PCM 5.1 audio
> 
> My build just needs the ceiling now...started in 2008


Ditto, I'm so glad I double dipped on "Gravity" (3D version and Atmos version) it truly is one of the best overall Atmos mixes to date.

Personally, I had to buy the updated "5th Element" if for nothing else than for nostalgia sake, it was my very first DVD purchase. The Atmos was just icing...


----------



## nickbuol

stikle said:


> Oh, and now that you've ordered it (or are trying to), please reply back here with your impressions at some point of the Luxe Atmos vs. Standard you already have comparison.


Will do.


----------



## batpig

Gravity is, by nearly all accounts, one of the "reference" Atmos mixes that takes full advantage of the format. Any time someone asks, "what's some of the the best Atmos BD's to demo my system?" you can be sure Gravity will be on most people's lists. 

So, yeah, it's worth it


----------



## tbrown187

nickbuol said:


> Thank you sir. Now to see if they really have it in stock like it said (order status does not say backordered or pre-order or anything) or if I am on a waiting list. LOL


Did you end up getting it? I "bought" mine form Fry's last week only to find out about the "no eta" backorder. Same thing with Best Buy.

I'd love to pick this up!!


----------



## meli

I'm assuming that "Gravity" will be released on UHD Blu-ray with an Atmos mix. I'm waiting for that version (even though I don't yet have a compatible player or monitor).

My purchasing habits may be changing; if I think there will be an imminent UHD Blu-ray release of a movie, and the movie is of sufficient production quality that I believe there will be a visible difference between the standard Blu-ray and the UHD Blu-ray, then I won't buy the standard Blu-ray.


----------



## ALtlOff

I won't triple-dip in Gravity since I have the 3D & Atmos versions, and honestly the only UHD re-releases I would double-dip on to get an Atmos version would be, "Oblivion", "Edge of Tomorrow". "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Ant Man" and "Kingsman: The Secret Service" (which already looks like a no-go). The only reason I'll double dip on the new "Star Wars" is to keep my steel book collection going, otherwise I'll just wait and go straight to UHD if there's no BR option.


----------



## nickbuol

Yeah, I am in the same boat as some others... I want the Atmos soundtrack, but don't want to upgrade my projector to 4K or something that can do HDCP 2.2 due to cost... UHD seems like the possible primary source of Atmos content, but even if I got some version of a HDFury type device, I would still need a $400ish player, and I would then have the player (discs) for the UHD and the HTPC (no discs) for the blu-ray collection...


----------



## ALtlOff

I'm going to hold off until I see what Oppo offers as far as players, I've been thinking about a 103 because of the upscaling for my LD collection, so I figure once the UHD players come out I'll have some decent options. Either the UHD player will also offer there same or better upscaling options and I'll get it, or I'll wait to get a used 103 from someone who's looking to upgrade to the UHD player, either way...win...win.


----------



## smurraybhm

ALtlOff said:


> I'm going to hold off until I see what Oppo offers as far as players, I've been thinking about a 103 because of the upscaling for my LD collection, so I figure once the UHD players come out I'll have some decent options. Either the UHD player will also offer there same or better upscaling options and I'll get it, or I'll wait to get a used 103 from someone who's looking to upgrade to the UHD player, either way...win...win.


The other thing to remember is there will be a number of Samsung UHD players up for sale once Oppo releases there player(s). No hurry here to spend a bunch of money either. First I want to make sure that the UHD releases keep coming with immersive mixes on them, second the whole HDR thing becomes clearer since not everyone is supporting Dolby's version, then there is the streaming plus DTV angles to work out. Finally, picking a new display which is tied to the HDR spec issue plus I love my plasma so it's got to be better then that, and bigger.

I am surprised at how content I've become just using DSU when an Atmos version isn't available. My HD Fury is still boxed in case it's needed down the road. For once I have no urge to be an early adopter.


----------



## AllenA07

I think I'm joining the group on the sidelines until Oppo comes out with their UHD player. I've got everything else ready for UHD. I don't think I'm going to double dip much with UHD, Blu Ray still looks great, and honestly I'm just finishing up (years later) replacing my DVD's with Blu Rays. 

My movie buying habits have slowed however as I'm now largely holding out for UHD releases.


----------



## Stoked21

I completely ripped and replaced my HT only 3 months after completing it. Deciding for PJ instead of 65" HDR TV, deciding DL instead of Audy, deciding for all matched drivers, deciding for a prepro with amp separates etc etc. So I ended up going 100% HDMI2.0A, HDCP2.2. 

With as much money as we all spend in this hobby, some more than others, it just always seems petty to me to argue about buying a $300-400 item that will greatly improve your audio and video experience. Anyone with a completed theater, whom enjoys Atmos should just buy the Sammy now. In 9-12 months when the Oppo is out, sell the Sammy for $200 on eBay. Yeah, you lose money, but you enjoy the best of the best for that year in the interim.
You can plug in non-2.0a receivers through the auxiliary audio output. For now, the disc will down convert to 1080p and you will have the Atmos even with a non-HDR TV. Albeit, many have reported that color space issues are extremely abundant in doing so which may require the HD Fury to perform the color space correction. Otherwise PQ is really bad.

It's all easy for me to say, since I was building a new HT anyway.....I like DSU, but I'd be sorely disappointed if I could only use DSU and had to buy BD vs UHD.....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Can you guys tell what sounds are channel-based vs. object-based on your home Atmos setup? If so, what gives each away?


It's easier to tell with a Trinnov processor and more speakers than the normal home theater. Anything above you is made up of objects, anything in the front wides is an object, anything zinging around multiple speakers and not tied to the base 7 speakers is an object.


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's easier to tell with a Trinnov processor and more speakers than the normal home theater. Anything above you is made up of objects, anything in the front wides is an object, anything zinging around multiple speakers and not tied to the base 7 speakers is an object.


Yep, I thought that would be the case. I should have mentioned a 7.1.4 setup with this question. With a 7.1.4 setup, I assume it would be impossible to tell?


----------



## Ricoflashback

ALtlOff said:


> I won't triple-dip in Gravity since I have the 3D & Atmos versions, and honestly the only UHD re-releases I would double-dip on to get an Atmos version would be, "Oblivion", "Edge of Tomorrow". "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Ant Man" and "Kingsman: The Secret Service" (which already looks like a no-go). The only reason I'll double dip on the new "Star Wars" is to keep my steel book collection going, otherwise I'll just wait and go straight to UHD if there's no BR option.


Gee...that's what the studios want you to do! 

How about versions in 4K/UHD/8K/Dolby Vision/Bluray/DVD/Online & Permanent Cloud Storage just to make sure that you're covered. 

To do it right, you need to buy a UHD Player, a 4K TV, an AVR that is HDCP 2.2 Compliant, a 4K Projector, a 4K Screen and have a super fast Internet connection to really enjoy the home theater experience.

It's a no brainer!


----------



## AllenA07

Kain said:


> Yep, I thought that would be the case. I should have mentioned a 7.1.4 setup with this question. With a 7.1.4 setup, I assume it would be impossible to tell?


I can tell with my 7.2.4 setup, if a movie has an active overhead sound track it's going to be noticeable.


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> With as much money as we all spend in this hobby, some more than others, it just always seems petty to me to argue about buying a $300-400 item that will greatly improve your audio and video experience. Anyone with a completed theater, whom enjoys Atmos should just buy the Sammy now. In 9-12 months when the Oppo is out, sell the Sammy for $200 on eBay. Yeah, you lose money, but you enjoy the best of the best for that year in the interim.


I'm torn on this exact issue, and ultimately will hold out for the Oppo. They being said, it's hard to remain on the sidelines knowing the player is all I'm missing. A few weeks ago when I replaced my projector I bought it at an event where numerous manufacturers come out to answer questions on their products. It shocked both me (and more importantly) and my wife just how much the poor Samsung UHD player was getting complained about. So after years of not saying a word, my wife is making her stand on me not getting the Samsung.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Yep, I thought that would be the case. I should have mentioned a 7.1.4 setup with this question. With a 7.1.4 setup, I assume it would be impossible to tell?


Still not impossible. The two front wides are strictly object positions as are the four overheads. The theatrical version's two overhead bed channels (for a total of 9.1) are encoded as fixed stereo objects (I would assume with the object snap-to-speaker feature engaged) since consumer Atmos must be compatible with current Dolby TrueHD codec specs. with a maximum of 7.1 allowable channels.


----------



## Stoked21

AllenA07 said:


> It shocked both me (and more importantly) and my wife just how much the poor Samsung UHD player was getting complained about. So after years of not saying a word, my wife is making her stand on me not getting the Samsung.


I hate to defend Samsung here and I hate to go off topic. This is a new technology. There will be growing pains. Even a year from now with Oppo, most of these problems are going to exist. Biggest issue is educating the consumer and sorting out cable problems. Samsung cannot really be blamed on these and all other companies will face the same problems when they release theirs. 

*Samsung K8500 Problems/Fixes*
*Remote SUCKS: * Yes it does. Use a $50 for a low-cost Harmony
*4K/60 Menu rez/rate cannot be modified:* Not a problem if cables support 18Gbps. If not, then play a disc first and it dumbs down to 4K/24 or 1080p based on your display and settings. Hopefully selectable in future FW release.
*Apps menu not configurable:* No fix now, but likely with future FW upgrade. 
*Handshake issues:* Likely due to uneducated users without HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2 support or bad cables. I've never had these issues.
*Cable issues:* Not Samsung's fault. All players will exhibit this at 4k/60 on limited bandwidth cables or long runs. Poor industry practice of labeling cables at 18Gbps High-Speed when they really are not.
*Discs read error:* Maybe a disc issue, again not necessarily Samsung's fault though it could be bad unit. I've never seen this error.
*Inconsistent/dark image:* HDR grading inconsistencies cross studios. Likely not Samsung's fault. If they do play a part, FW will fix in April and in May. FW to my PJ and FW to my prepro has alleviated most of this.
*No sound:* Uneducated users. Never had this problem.
*No Amazon or Vudu UHD HDR:* Not Samsung's issue. The streaming companies won't support it yet.
*Player reports HDCP2.2 issues but plays in 4K:* Uneducated users or other faulty equip/FW. I've never had this problem.
*Won't bitstream for X or Atmos:* Uneducated users. I've never had this problem.
*Flashing red light at first power-on:* Uneducated users. They have bad cables in signal path.
*Bad out of box:* Hey, it happens with everything. Even my first Marantz AV7702mk2. But then again, could be uneducated users connecting things wrong and/or with bad cables. See above red flashing light issue.
*Stops working after a few days/weeks/months:* See above.
*Grainy pictures or banding issues:* Check with your TV/PJ manuf, cus I've never seen these. Common theme is Samsung TV owners.
*Poor/uneducated customer service:* Check. Absolutely.
*HDMI 2.0/2.0a issues:* Uh, 2.0a is FW people. Ontop of 2.0 HW. If your AVR or display does not have the 2.0a upgrade, then it's your problem Check with your equip manuf as Samsung cannot fix that for you. This creates the overwhelming majority of people's PQ and handshake issues.
*Lack of decent documentation:* Yep. But still they cannot trouble shoot everything with people's equipment and cables. They cannot document the standards for the user. If they did no one would read them and yet people will still blame them for issues they are themselves creating.
*Fugly Player: * Oh yeah.....Like a dog turd.
*Poor availability:* Check. And due to people placing 3-4 orders with every vendor. And then whining for weeks on end about not being able to receive it. Poor Best Buy order mgmt. Poor Amazon customer service. Buying through blackmarket resellers to save $20 and then complaining about having to wait 2 months.
*Price:* $400??? Seriously the Oppo will probably be 3-4x that. Not many are going to buy a $1000-1500 player. I personally will sell the Samsung for a couple hundred and buy the Oppo in the future.
*A small handful of people with Samsung TVs being absolutely obnoxious and flicking every setting possible even if it's known not to be applicable to UHD HDR and is causing most of their PQ issues and subsequently they create all sorts of FUD and issues with the player (nice run-on!):*  Check.

See a common theme here? The overwhelming majority of the problems are due to uneducated owners who won't leave well enough alone. These few people are the ones who ***** and gripe the most and draw the most attention with berating thread posts. The ones that are enjoying it....Are doing just that.

*The Samsung player works great for me. Only issue I've ever had was cables and that's not due to Samsung. I enjoy HDR even if dark at times. And being back on topic, I enjoy my additional native Atmos content. *


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> *The Samsung player works great for me. Only issue I've ever had was cables and that's not due to Samsung. I enjoy HDR even if dark at times. And being back on topic, I enjoy my additional native Atmos content. *


I think you hit the nail on the head for a lot of the problems. Poor consumer education is a problem that is going to plague UHD and, now that their futures seem somewhat intertwined, Atmos. I don't think the average consumer has any clue that they're going to have HDMI and HDCP problems if they add a UHD player. The same applies to Atmos, there are a lot of people who plain just don't understand the technology or what is required to make it work. The problem is, when buying online or at a Best Buy, there is typically little to no hint that you may have a problem with your existing setup. I suspect that leads a lot of people to wrongly assume there has been equipment failure. 

I think the biggest problem still comes back to the fact that a lot of people are moving away from a traditional home theater setup, and onto a personal device based viewing experience. I'll admit for music Sonos and Spotify have totally taken over my house. The same is being done to movies. My in-laws have a 5.1 setup in their house, with all 5 speakers lined up nicely under the TV. For years they have told me it is setup properly because it sounds great to them. I think that they probably are a lot more common then people like us when it comes to this stuff. If UHD and Atmos are going to become mainstream that's the group that is going to have to be willing to buy in. Unfortunately something tells me that I would never be able to explain how two identical looking HDMI cables could be so different to them. 

Long term I think both UHD and immersive audio may end up being niche products, and frankly that may not be the worst thing.


----------



## tbrown187

Stoked21 said:


> I hate to defend Samsung here and I hate to go off topic. This is a new technology. There will be growing pains. Even a year from now with Oppo, most of these problems are going to exist. Biggest issue is educating the consumer and sorting out cable problems. Samsung cannot really be blamed on these and all other companies will face the same problems when they release theirs.
> 
> *Samsung K8500 Problems/Fixes*
> *Remote SUCKS: * Yes it does. Use a $50 for a low-cost Harmony
> *4K/60 Menu rez/rate cannot be modified:* Not a problem if cables support 18Gbps. If not, then play a disc first and it dumbs down to 4K/24 or 1080p based on your display and settings. Hopefully selectable in future FW release.
> *Apps menu not configurable:* No fix now, but likely with future FW upgrade.
> *Handshake issues:* Likely due to uneducated users without HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2 support or bad cables. I've never had these issues.
> *Cable issues:* Not Samsung's fault. All players will exhibit this at 4k/60 on limited bandwidth cables or long runs. Poor industry practice of labeling cables at 18Gbps High-Speed when they really are not.
> *Discs read error:* Maybe a disc issue, again not necessarily Samsung's fault though it could be bad unit. I've never seen this error.
> *Inconsistent/dark image:* HDR grading inconsistencies cross studios. Likely not Samsung's fault. If they do play a part, FW will fix in April and in May. FW to my PJ and FW to my prepro has alleviated most of this.
> *No sound:* Uneducated users. Never had this problem.
> *No Amazon or Vudu UHD HDR:* Not Samsung's issue. The streaming companies won't support it yet.
> *Player reports HDCP2.2 issues but plays in 4K:* Uneducated users or other faulty equip/FW. I've never had this problem.
> *Won't bitstream for X or Atmos:* Uneducated users. I've never had this problem.
> *Flashing red light at first power-on:* Uneducated users. They have bad cables in signal path.
> *Bad out of box:* Hey, it happens with everything. Even my first Marantz AV7702mk2. But then again, could be uneducated users connecting things wrong and/or with bad cables. See above red flashing light issue.
> *Stops working after a few days/weeks/months:* See above.
> *Grainy pictures or banding issues:* Check with your TV/PJ manuf, cus I've never seen these. Common theme is Samsung TV owners.
> *Poor/uneducated customer service:* Check. Absolutely.
> *HDMI 2.0/2.0a issues:* Uh, 2.0a is FW people. Ontop of 2.0 HW. If your AVR or display does not have the 2.0a upgrade, then it's your problem Check with your equip manuf as Samsung cannot fix that for you. This creates the overwhelming majority of people's PQ and handshake issues.
> *Lack of decent documentation:* Yep. But still they cannot trouble shoot everything with people's equipment and cables. They cannot document the standards for the user. If they did no one would read them and yet people will still blame them for issues they are themselves creating.
> *Fugly Player: * Oh yeah.....Like a dog turd.
> *Poor availability:* Check. And due to people placing 3-4 orders with every vendor. And then whining for weeks on end about not being able to receive it. Poor Best Buy order mgmt. Poor Amazon customer service. Buying through blackmarket resellers to save $20 and then complaining about having to wait 2 months.
> *Price:* $400??? Seriously the Oppo will probably be 3-4x that. Not many are going to buy a $1000-1500 player. I personally will sell the Samsung for a couple hundred and buy the Oppo in the future.
> *A small handful of people with Samsung TVs being absolutely obnoxious and flicking every setting possible even if it's known not to be applicable to UHD HDR and is causing most of their PQ issues and subsequently they create all sorts of FUD and issues with the player (nice run-on!):*  Check.
> 
> See a common theme here? The overwhelming majority of the problems are due to uneducated owners who won't leave well enough alone. These few people are the ones who ***** and gripe the most and draw the most attention with berating thread posts. The ones that are enjoying it....Are doing just that.
> 
> *The Samsung player works great for me. Only issue I've ever had was cables and that's not due to Samsung. I enjoy HDR even if dark at times. And being back on topic, I enjoy my additional native Atmos content. *


^^ This.

If people want to wait until Christmas 2016 to get the best of breed UHD BD players, hey, more power to you. But do not let those abominations known as the K8500 threads deter you if that's what is holding you back. 

I have have not had a single issue with with the K8500 outside of making sure my TV is powered on before the player for proper HDMI handshake. And I now cannot imagine HT life without HDR (and Atmos.)


----------



## lujan

tbrown187 said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> If people want to wait until Christmas 2016 to get the best of breed UHD BD players, hey, more power to you. But do not let those abominations known as the K8500 threads deter you if that's what is holding you back.
> 
> I have have not had a single issue with with the K8500 outside of making sure my TV is powered on before the player for proper HDMI handshake. And I now cannot imagine HT life without HDR (and Atmos.)


For the most part, I haven't had issues with the K8500 either. However, there was one movie (Hancock 4k) where the movie just froze and the only thing I could do was unplug the power cord and then plug it back and re-start the movie.


----------



## Utopianemo

Hey guys,
What's the most reliable way to determine if a particular VERSION of a Blu-Ray title has Atmos? I just bought Interstellar(again) because it said "Dolby Atmos" on the back of the box, where my deluxe version only said "Dolby Surround". I pop the movie in and it's nowhere, just the DTS-MA track, along with some multilingual lossy Dolby tracks. I hate visiting stores for no reason, Amazon and the like have inconsistent product labeling with regards to Atmos.....


----------



## aaranddeeman

Utopianemo said:


> Hey guys,
> What's the most reliable way to determine if a particular VERSION of a Blu-Ray title has Atmos? I just bought Interstellar(again) because it said "Dolby Atmos" on the back of the box, where my deluxe version only said "Dolby Surround". I pop the movie in and it's nowhere, just the DTS-MA track, along with some multilingual lossy Dolby tracks. I hate visiting stores for no reason, Amazon and the like have inconsistent product labeling with regards to Atmos.....


Interstellar was never in Atmos. If the back cover says that, then I even doubt the genuinity of that disk.

Edit : This has most accurate listing.


----------



## scarabaeus

Utopianemo said:


> Hey guys,
> What's the most reliable way to determine if a particular VERSION of a Blu-Ray title has Atmos?


This is the most accurate list:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132



Utopianemo said:


> I just bought Interstellar(again) because it said "Dolby Atmos" on the back of the box, where my deluxe version only said "Dolby Surround". I pop the movie in and it's nowhere, just the DTS-MA track, along with some multilingual lossy Dolby tracks. I hate visiting stores for no reason, Amazon and the like have inconsistent product labeling with regards to Atmos.....


We went over that when it first came out. Nolan would have made the movie in mono, if the studio had let him. He barely uses 5.1, and dialog is beyond itelligible. So, no atmos, ever. There was a mis-print by the studio, they re-used a graphic (probably from 'American Sniper'), on accident.

PS: aarandeeman: Jinx! You edited your post while I was digging up that same link.


----------



## ahro

Do people use *front height* or *front dolby* for those that don't have their height speakers mounted in the ceiling. Thanks, answer would be much appreciated.


----------



## ALtlOff

ahro said:


> Do people use *front height* or *front dolby* for those that don't have their height speakers mounted in the ceiling. Thanks, answer would be much appreciated.


It would be Top Front not Front Dolby, Front Dolby is for upfiring modules.
I use Top Front, it seems more precise than Front Heights.


----------



## Utopianemo

aaranddeeman said:


> Interstellar was never in Atmos. If the back cover says that, then I even doubt the genuinity of that disk.
> 
> Edit : This has most accurate listing.


I bought it at Best Buy. It's genuine, albeit wrong.


----------



## ahro

ALtlOff said:


> It would be Top Front not Front Dolby, Front Dolby is for upfiring modules.
> I use Top Front, it seems more precise than Front Heights.


I *have* upfiring speakers (dolby SKH-410), not ceiling speakers. Does it make sense to use Front Dolby then?


----------



## aaranddeeman

Utopianemo said:


> I bought it at Best Buy. It's genuine, albeit wrong.


Can you post the picture of the back cover. I cannot believe the misinformation can go that length.


----------



## ALtlOff

ahro said:


> I *have* upfiring speakers (dolby SKH-410), not ceiling speakers. Does it make sense to use Front Dolby then?


Yes, the timing of the sound is different, as is the frequencies, Dolby upfiring modules and the Dolby option in setup is frequency limited to help aid in reflection


----------



## SteveTheGeek

aaranddeeman said:


> Can you post the picture of the back cover. I cannot believe the misinformation can go that length.


This mistake was indeed reported on other forums too... It's a misprint and lack of quality assurance...


----------



## ahro

ALtlOff said:


> Yes, the timing of the sound is different, as is the frequencies, Dolby upfiring modules and the Dolby option in setup is frequency limited to help aid in reflection


Sorry, I don't understand. Should I be using the Dolby option or not?


----------



## Utopianemo

aaranddeeman said:


> Can you post the picture of the back cover. I cannot believe the misinformation can go that length.


You're kidding, right? Is it still April 1st where you live?


----------



## ahro

Could someone PLEASE help me. I have the 646 5.1.2. with upfiring speakers.

I'd really like to know for the best Atmos experience should I use the Top Front mode or the Front Dolby mode. I would really appreciate putting it in simple terms for a non-techie like me. 

Do I use Top Front mode or the Front Dolby mode? An answer would be much appreciated.


----------



## ALtlOff

ahro said:


> Sorry, I don't understand. Should I be using the Dolby option or not?


Sorry, yes, if you're using upfiring modules the "Dolby Front" option is correct.


----------



## ahro

ALtlOff said:


> Sorry, yes, if you're using upfiring modules the "Dolby Front" option is correct.


Thanks very much! I was confused when talked about limiting frequencies, which sounded not good to me. Thanks again for the simplified answer.


----------



## highmr

*front ceiling speakers position vs. LR speakers*

I was intending to set up 4 Atmos speaker positions using ceiling speakers. Measuring with a laser and a protractor, the rear ceiling positions look alright at 135 degrees, but the front ceiling positions look strange to me at 45 degrees. They are almost directly over the front speakers. The ceiling is flat and 12 feet high. This looks rather like front height position. Looking at recommended angles for front height and top front overhead there is quite a bit of overlap. Is this an issue at all, and if you choose this position, would you call them front height or top front overhead? Or would you move them within the allowable angle range to allow them to be more distinctly top front overhead?


----------



## Kain

AllenA07 said:


> I can tell with my 7.2.4 setup, if a movie has an active overhead sound track it's going to be noticeable.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Still not impossible. The two front wides are strictly object positions as are the four overheads. The theatrical version's two overhead bed channels (for a total of 9.1) are encoded as fixed stereo objects (I would assume with the object snap-to-speaker feature engaged) since consumer Atmos must be compatible with current Dolby TrueHD codec specs. with a maximum of 7.1 allowable channels.


Thanks.

I actually wanted to know if you can tell the difference between channel-based sounds and object-based sounds in speakers that are used for the bed channels.


----------



## nrs111

In the process of upgrading my HT and so far I've upgraded the audio portion only because my receiver died. I have an Atmos capable AV receiver and speakers but a HDTV and a standard BluRay. If I play a UHD BR disk w/Dolby Atmos will the downscaling effect the audio as well as the video?


----------



## petetherock

Mates:
Any idea where I can get my hands on a demo disc with test tones? 
Either for DTS-X or Atmos?
Thanks


----------



## aaranddeeman

Utopianemo said:


> You're kidding, right? Is it still April 1st where you live?


You asked the question and I was trying to provide some info. If that was not your intent, then enjoy..


----------



## Selden Ball

nrs111 said:


> In the process of upgrading my HT and so far I've upgraded the audio portion only because my receiver died. I have an Atmos capable AV receiver and speakers but a HDTV and a standard BluRay. If I play a UHD BR disk w/Dolby Atmos will the downscaling effect the audio as well as the video?


You need to get a UHD BD player. Standard Blu-ray players cannot play UHD discs. At best, they can only upscale standard BDs to 4K. When playing a UHD disc to a 1080p display, the UHD player will downgrade the video to 1080p. People have complained about color-space problems with the downscaling provided in Samsung UHD players, though. 

Bitstreaming the audio is separate. Full bandwidth Atmos is provided even when the video is being downscaled.


----------



## Selden Ball

petetherock said:


> Mates:
> Any idea where I can get my hands on a demo disc with test tones?
> Either for DTS-X or Atmos?
> Thanks


E-bay for Dolby Atmos. You'll need their January, 2016, demo disc. Unfortunately, Dolby doesn't provide their demo discs to the public. You have to be in the business or attend one of the industry meetings like CEDIA or CES to get one for free. So far, no Atmos Blu-ray has included any Atmos audio test soundtracks.

However, _The Last Witchhunter_ does include a DTS:X speaker test.

Bear in mind that these soundtracks aren't appropriate for setting sound levels, just for testing that the decoder works and determining how the sounds get distributed among the speakers. Calibration soundtracks from Spears&Munsil and other vendors probably won't be available for quite some time.


----------



## petetherock

Thanks mate, I look forward to a real test disc in the near future.. I can't see myself paying USD 35 for a disc on ebay.. especially since it was free to begin with.. cheers.


----------



## ALtlOff

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I actually wanted to know if you can tell the difference between channel-based sounds and object-based sounds in speakers that are used for the bed channels.


No, not at all, the object based sounds are still full range sounds and are indistinguishable from what is in the bed channel mix.
The only time object based sounds "may" be distinguishable (by their sound, not location) is the frequency limited sound from Atmos enabled speakers or modules. 
This is the reason that many of us suggest doing the best you can to match your overheads to your surrounds, this way there's the least chance of a noticeable difference that shouldn't be there.


----------



## ultraflexed

bargervais said:


> why is it that Fox is so hard core about no Atmos on Blu-Rays or UHD Blu-Rays


The uhd version of peanuts is in atmos so theirs a chance deadpool is atmos also


----------



## Zhorik

ALtlOff said:


> No, not at all, the object based sounds are still full range sounds and are indistinguishable from what is in the bed channel mix.
> The only time object based sounds "may" be distinguishable (by their sound, not location) is the frequency limited sound from Atmos enabled speakers or modules.


Aren't objects for Atmos dry? I don't know if this is same for X.


----------



## jleroy68

I got mine off of eBay for Atmos, took a few weeks but man as it worth it.


----------



## jleroy68

petetherock said:


> Mates:
> Any idea where I can get my hands on a demo disc with test tones?
> Either for DTS-X or Atmos?
> Thanks


I got mine a few days ago thru eBay from a seller in Germany. Brand new unused. He's still got them for Atmos, just checked, here's the link http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dolby-Atmos...3a1126&pid=100011&rk=1&rkt=10&sd=131754249683


----------



## Carter D

petetherock said:


> Mates:
> Any idea where I can get my hands on a demo disc with test tones?
> Either for DTS-X or Atmos?
> Thanks


The Last Witch Hunter. DTSX. In the audio setup menu there is a DTSX sound check. That will issue sounds to each of your speakers.
Carter


----------



## Carter D

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I actually wanted to know if you can tell the difference between channel-based sounds and object-based sounds in speakers that are used for the bed channels.


Good morning. Was wondering if anyone could shed some light on Neural X for me.
What does it do differently than other surround codecs?
Thanks,
Carter


----------



## petetherock

Carter D said:


> The Last Witch Hunter. DTSX. In the audio setup menu there is a DTSX sound check. That will issue sounds to each of your speakers.
> Carter


Thanks, I guess I am waiting for one with test tones, and perhaps a better movie - might consider getting this during Black Friday.. cheers


----------



## healthnut

Carter D said:


> Good morning. Was wondering if anyone could shed some light on Neural X for me.
> 
> What does it do differently than other surround codecs?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carter




I believe Neural X is the DTS equivalent to DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) which will synthesize content from non-DTS:X into the overheads (or heights, as DTS refers to them). Hope this is helpful.


----------



## nrs111

Selden Ball said:


> You need to get a UHD BD player. Standard Blu-ray players cannot play UHD discs. At best, they can only upscale standard BDs to 4K. When playing a UHD disc to a 1080p display, the UHD player will downgrade the video to 1080p. People have complained about color-space problems with the downscaling provided in Samsung UHD players, though.
> 
> Bitstreaming the audio is separate. Full bandwidth Atmos is provided even when the video is being downscaled.


Thanks. Yeah, I knew the video would only play @ 1080 with my equipment. I was just trying to test Atmos on my new audio equipment, Yamaha A-2050 & Klipsch Atmos speakers. Put the AV surround decode on Dolby Surround but I'm not getting Atmos with the UHD disk.


----------



## smurraybhm

petetherock said:


> Thanks mate, I look forward to a real test disc in the near future.. I can't see myself paying USD 35 for a disc on ebay.. especially since it was free to begin with.. cheers.


If you have a relationship with a A/V dealer down under, they can get you a disk for free by requesting one from Dolby. Maybe a decent bottle of Shiraz to help seal the deal?


----------



## petetherock

Ha yeah, if only I knew I could pass a bottle of Wolf Blass to... 
I will await the first DTS / Atmos test / calibration disc..


----------



## hatlesschimp

Now I wait on the house/theatre room to be completed.  





















Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## Carter D

healthnut said:


> I believe Neural X is the DTS equivalent to DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) which will synthesize content from non-DTS:X into the overheads (or heights, as DTS refers to them). Hope this is helpful.


Thanks Health Nut!


----------



## jrogers

petetherock said:


> Thanks, I guess I am waiting for one with test tones, and perhaps a better movie - might consider getting this during Black Friday.. cheers


You can also download the same DTS:X test from Demo World. Just save it on a USB and plug it into your blu-ray player.


----------



## batpig

Carter D said:


> Good morning. Was wondering if anyone could shed some light on Neural X for me.
> What does it do differently than other surround codecs?
> Thanks,
> Carter





healthnut said:


> I believe Neural X is the DTS equivalent to DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) which will synthesize content from non-DTS:X into the overheads (or heights, as DTS refers to them). Hope this is helpful.





Carter D said:


> Thanks Health Nut!


Important thing here -- Neural:X is NOT a surround codec. It's an upmixer. Not the same thing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

healthnut said:


> Carter D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning. Was wondering if anyone could shed some light on Neural X for me.
> 
> What does it do differently than other surround codecs?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Neural X is the DTS equivalent to DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) which will synthesize content from non-DTS:X into the overheads (or heights, as DTS refers to them). Hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...

It will also send audio to the Front Wides, unlike DSU.


----------



## robert ham

*Question*



Dan Hitchman said:


> It will also send audio to the Front Wides, unlike DSU.



So if you have a Movie that is DTS-X, like the Witch Hunter, what setting do you use? STRAIGHT???


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert ham said:


> So if you have a Movie that is DTS-X, like the Witch Hunter, what setting do you use? STRAIGHT???



I have Front Wides, so I engaged DTS Neural: X upmixing with DTS: X tracks to send some matrixed audio into those speakers (can only be accessed in the receiver's setup menu when playing a DTS: X soundtrack). It appears that DTS: X immersive audio (the real thing, not the upmixer) doesn't render discrete objects to the Front Wides like Dolby Atmos and so must supplement additional speakers outside the normal 7.1.4 layout with Neural: X.

The only overhead speaker layout that seems to work with DTS: X is Front and Rear Heights. It was reported that other overhead speaker choices messed up object rendering in that plane. That designation shouldn't hurt Dolby Atmos, however, and you can leave the receivers or pre-amps on Front and Rear Heights after the switch. You will need to re-run Audyssey if you switch overhead designations.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> It appears that DTS: X immersive audio (the real thing, not the upmixer) doesn't render discrete objects to the Front Wides like Dolby Atmos and so must supplement additional speakers outside the normal 7.1.4 layout with Neural: X.


Do we know that yet? I think, more accurately, it's not that DTS:X doesn't render discrete objects to the wides... rather, it's that there AREN'T discrete objects in these initial DTS:X blu-ray mixes. 

This was speculated before but now the Yamaha receivers that have received the DTS:X update actually display the incoming channel/object mix in the info display. Every title that's been checked has been a 7.1.4 channel based mix, with the exception of a few tracks on the 2016 DTS demo disc which have a single object for dialogue control.

In the absence of these discrete objects, then the only option is to use a matrix upscaler (Neural:X) to pull a center extract for the wide speakers just like Neo:X did.

So don't really know yet how DTS:X will handle a mix with actual discrete objects zooming around like with Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that DTS: X immersive audio (the real thing, not the upmixer) doesn't render discrete objects to the Front Wides like Dolby Atmos and so must supplement additional speakers outside the normal 7.1.4 layout with Neural: X.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we know that yet? I think, more accurately, it's not that DTS:X doesn't render discrete objects to the wides... rather, it's that there AREN'T discrete objects in these initial DTS:X blu-ray mixes.
> 
> This was speculated before but now the Yamaha receivers that have received the DTS:X update actually display the incoming channel/object mix in the info display. Every title that's been checked has been a 7.1.4 channel based mix, with the exception of a few tracks on the 2016 DTS demo disc which have a single object for dialogue control.
> 
> In the absence of these discrete objects, then the only option is to use a matrix upscaler (Neural:X) to pull a center extract for the wide speakers just like Neo:X did.
> 
> So don't really know yet how DTS:X will handle a mix with actual discrete objects zooming around like with Atmos.
Click to expand...

I had heard something similar that these first DTS X titles and most of the X theatrical mixes don't have panned objects included, just fixed. I wonder if we'll actually see a mix with a more Atmos like design or if consumer DTS X is even capable of such a feat.

They're really behind Dolby, that's for sure.


----------



## sdurani

Apparently the immersive soundtrack on the _'Ip Man 3'_ Blu-ray uses all 16 waveforms that the initial version of DTS:X is capable of:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Apparently the immersive soundtrack on the _'Ip Man 3'_ Blu-ray uses all 16 waveforms that the initial version of DTS:X is capable of:


But are they "free floating" objects or snapped to specific speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'd be very interested in finding out how Ip Man 3 plays on a system with DTS:X and wides.

That and how things turn out both with Neural:X (the DTS:X related parameter) on or off.


----------



## batpig

Neat, thanks Sanjay. Is that from a Yamaha thread?

Do you know what the "P" stands for in "FPR", "FPL", etc. (I figured out the F/R and L/R parts )


----------



## Scott Simonian

Presence.

That is what Yamaha has always called their "height" speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> But are they "free floating" objects or snapped to specific speakers?


Don't know. Probably doesn't matter much. More important that DTS has finally gotten object encoding working (IF the Yamaha info screen is to be believed). 

Best part is going back a couple months and reading posts from the initial DTS:X update, specifically the comments about how much more precisely DTS:X places objects compared to Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But are they "free floating" objects or snapped to specific speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know. Probably doesn't matter much. More important that DTS has finally gotten object encoding working (IF the Yamaha info screen is to be believed).
> 
> 
> Best part is going back a couple months and reading posts from the initial DTS:X update, specifically the comments about how much more precisely DTS:X places objects compared to Atmos.
Click to expand...

It matters if you're a Trinnov owner or want to step up to something more capable than 11.1 processing any time in the near future. 

Then you're hoping most releases are mixed in Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Don't know. Probably doesn't matter much. More important that DTS has finally gotten object encoding working (IF the Yamaha info screen is to be believed).


Should be as I proved to you that the DTS dialog control was functioning as it should. IE: objects.

Erm...well, to give you credit. Those aren't regular movie BD's.



sdurani said:


> Best part is going back a couple months and reading posts from the initial DTS:X update, specifically the comments about how much more precisely DTS:X places objects compared to Atmos.


Lol seriously? I don't remember that being a thing. Must not have caught on.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Is that from a Yamaha thread?


Yes, due to Scott having the wherewithal to ask for a pic. 

Post # 6091: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...050-3050-owner-s-thread-204.html#post42878346


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It matters if you're a Trinnov owner...


Let them eat cake.


> ...or want to step up to something more capable than 11.1 processing any time in the near future.


Matrix extracted Wides aren't the end of the world. When listening to those speakers in the midst of 9 other speakers making noise, who'll be able to discern which of those sounds are discrete objects and which were pulled from adjacent channels? Same with extracted Top Middles.


> Then you're hoping most releases are mixed in Atmos.


Hoping for more releases of immersive mixes, irrespective of format (they're all capable of sounding excellent).


----------



## ALtlOff

Zhorik said:


> Aren't objects for Atmos dry? I don't know if this is same for X.


Dry?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Zhorik said:


> Aren't objects for Atmos dry? I don't know if this is same for X.


Depends on the mix.

I've heard (usually the bad ones) where there is the occasional 'dry' sfx in the heights and that's it. Silence.

Others are very good and have all sorts of realistic reflections, ambience and sfx in the height channels.

Just depends.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't remember that being a thing.


Not in the Yamaha threads, but think back to some initial comments in the Denon 7200 thread.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Let them eat cake. Matrix extracted Wides aren't the end of the world. When listening to those speakers in the midst of 9 other speakers making noise, who'll be able to discern which of those sounds are discrete objects and which were pulled from adjacent channels? Same with extracted Top Middles. Hoping for more releases of immersive mixes, irrespective of format (they're all capable of sounding excellent).


It's about innovation and being closer to the theatrical immersive version in a consumer format _not_ about whether or not the Trinnov or something similar is affordable to mere mortals. I'd love to be able to afford something like that... it sounds spectacular. I'd be happy with something more "reasonable" that does 16 or so speaker outputs, but we need soundtracks that are _actually_ capable of utilizing those positions. DTS: X, at present, may not be able to deliver the goods. 

And just because_ you_ may not utilize wides, _doesn't_ mean others don't... like me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Not in the Yamaha threads, but think back to some initial comments in the Denon 7200 thread.


Ah, okay. Thanks. I don't follow the Denon thread (I barely keep up with the Yamaha ones, only just recently posting a lot) and never saw such kinds of mention in the main DTS:X threads.

Not too surprised that such comments are made. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's about innovation and being closer to the theatrical immersive version in a consumer format _not_ about whether or not the Trinnov or something similar is affordable to mere mortals. I'd love to be able to afford something like that... it sounds spectacular. I'd be happy with something more "reasonable" that does 16 or so speaker outputs, but we need soundtracks that are _actually_ capable of utilizing those positions. DTS: X, at present, may not be able to deliver the goods.
> 
> And just because_ you_ may not utilize wides, _doesn't_ mean others don't... like me.


Oh boy.

Dan. You just need to get a Trinnov Altitude32* already. 

* @*sdrucker* endorses this message. 

Until then, you'll never be happy with the state of immersive audio on the consumer end. Just a guess.

7.1.4 sounds wickedly awesome. I don't ever think I need so many more vector points for audio playback when I watch movies in my HT system. This has nothing to do with wides anymore.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah, okay. Thanks. I don't follow the Denon thread (I barely keep up with the Yamaha ones, only just recently posting a lot) and never saw such kinds of mention in the main DTS:X threads.
> 
> Not too surprised that such comments are made.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy.
> 
> Dan. You just need to get a Trinnov Altitude32* already.
> 
> * @*sdrucker* endorses this message.
> 
> Until then, you'll never be happy with the state of immersive audio on the consumer end. Just a guess.
> 
> 7.1.4 sounds wickedly awesome. I don't ever think I need so many more vector points for audio playback when I watch movies in my HT system. This has nothing to do with wides anymore.


Scott, if you want to start a Trinnov Altitude32 charity drive for little ol' me, go right ahead. I won't stop you.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's about innovation and being closer to the theatrical immersive version in a consumer format _not_ about whether or not the Trinnov or something similar is affordable to mere mortals.


For me it's about using whatever is needed (channels, objects, matrix extraction) to get the intended results for the home version of the mix. If sounds were going to phantom image between the Fronts and Sides, then I have no problem extracting those sounds and sending them to Wides. Or converting those sounds to objects placed at the Wides locations. Or some other technique that gives the intended results.


> And just because_ you_ may not utilize wides, _doesn't_ mean others don't... like me.


If you heard a bunch of sounds coming from the Wides, would you be able to tell which specific sounds were discrete objects and which ones were pulled from adjacent channels?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Scott, if you want to start a Trinnov Altitude32 charity drive for little ol' me, go right ahead. I won't stop you.


I'll send you $5 to start you off.


----------



## Carter D

batpig said:


> Neat, thanks Sanjay. Is that from a Yamaha thread?
> 
> Do you know what the "P" stands for in "FPR", "FPL", etc. (I figured out the F/R and L/R parts )


I think it stands for Presence Bat.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

On the content side, it's a good day for Atmos and UltraHD Blu-ray : Ghostbusters 1 and 2 will both feature remixes in Atmos while Paramount is joining UHD Blu-ray with Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness both in Atmos, the first one being a remix of course as it was out before Atmos came out in theaters. Into Darkness was mixed in Atmos in theaters.

Am I the only one feeling DTS must not be feeling too good about their current presence on Ultra HD Blu-ray for object based audio ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SteveTheGeek said:


> On the content side, it's a good day for Atmos and UltraHD Blu-ray : Ghostbusters 1 and 2 will both feature remixes in Atmos while Paramount is joining UHD Blu-ray with Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness both in Atmos, the first one being a remix of course as it was out before Atmos came out in theaters. Into Darkness was mixed in Atmos in theaters.
> 
> Am I the only one feeling DTS must not be feeling too good about their current presence on Ultra HD Blu-ray for object based audio ?


I'll take the original cast Star Treks fully restored in 4k (theatrical and director's cuts) and completely remixed in Atmos rather than those cruddy JJ Abrams reboots (all about the same quality as Star Trek V IMHO... yes even the original films had to have a real turkey in the mix - though it was hampered by studio tampering and a low budget), but of course Paramount has to have a tie in with the next flick.


----------



## batpig

Wait.... WHOAH.... SLOW DOWN. Dan prefers the old Star Trek movies to the newer reboots??? STOP THE PRESSES!!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Wait.... WHOAH.... SLOW DOWN. Dan prefers the old Star Trek movies to the newer reboots??? STOP THE PRESSES!!!!


Yup. I can't stand the juvenile scripts and the fact that _Mr._ _Spock_, of all characters, is the most emotional of all the bunch! Lame, man, lame.


----------



## batpig

Yawn.... I stopped listening when you said "Mad Max" wasn't good either.... I guess there hasn't been a good movie made since, well, 1989 or so?


----------



## Defcon

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yup. I can't stand the juvenile scripts and the fact that _Mr._ _Spock_, of all characters, is the most emotional of all the characters! Lame, man, lame.


I agree with this, JJ doesn't get the Star Trek or Wars universes, has admitted as much, and proceeded to destroy both with terrible plots and story telling. There is nothing Trek about his movies if you take out the character and ship names, its just another blockbuster.

So is it fair to say Disney is waiting a few months before they make us double dip for the Atmos and DTS:X release of TFA?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Yawn.... I stopped listening when you said "Mad Max" wasn't good either.... I guess there hasn't been a good movie made since, well, 1989 or so?


It's my opinion, man. If you liked _Mad Max_ more power to you. It would have been cool if they had stuck with practical stunts like its predecessors (it was loaded with CGI enhancements... it's amazing at how many there were) and didn't have a plot that just consisted of driving one way in the desert... and then reversing. Rinse, repeat. Gotta have more to the action than that. 

In my opinion.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Yawn.... I stopped listening when you said "Mad Max" wasn't good either.... I guess there hasn't been a good movie made since, well, 1989 or so?


As long as all those movies have 100% of their content mixed to the "wides".

Cuz can't be bothered to move the left and right sorta further out into the room for dat 'wider soundstage'. MOAR SPEAKERS!!!



Wouldn't be funny if it wasn't true.


----------



## KMFDMvsEnya

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/04/st...-paramounts-first-4k-blu-rays-coming-june-14/

NuTrek in coming with HDR - UHD with Atmos mixes. Hopefully quality remixes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Defcon said:


> I agree with this, JJ doesn't get the Star Trek or Wars universes, has admitted as much, and proceeded to destroy both with terrible plots and story telling. There is nothing Trek about his movies if you take out the character and ship names, its just another blockbuster.
> 
> So is it fair to say Disney is waiting a few months before they make us double dip for the Atmos and DTS:X release of TFA?



Everyone seems to think Disney is waiting to put their toe in the UHD waters before releasing immersive audio tracks. Maybe this Christmas... or early next year.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> I'll send you $5 to start you off.


At that rate he'll just afford a DB-25->XLR cable to use with the Altitude by CEDIA  ....that's cruel and unusual punishment LOL.

In all seriousness, I'm FINALLY getting out of home purchase/remodel gridlock and moving on to at least a 9.2.4 system in about a month. That and waiting for a few minor things like a specific set of speakers for heights and a second amp kept me from having more than just a placeholder configuration since I got the Altitude last summer. And then there's wiring and having to get the electrician to bump up the HT area to a dedicated pair of 20A circuits. And so on.....not to mention working for a living. Just having a Trinnov is only part of the equation, unfortunately.

One thing I'm going to do is set up a bunch of Atmos presets to look at some of these issues that have been raised. For instance, I'll set up a 7.2.4 preset to compare to a 9.2.2 on selected content, or 9.2.4 vs. 9.2.6, and something similar for DTS:X to see what the center extraction of wides ("front side surrounds") brings to the table in a 9.1.2 setup or whatver is supported in the future.

If there's specific content where you'd want to look at wides getting objects, or to compare DTS:X with and without wides with a native DTS:X mix (I'm throwing this out to the group) if that's supported ala Denon, I'm all ears when the time comes.

With 24 channels and what could be a wider rather than longer room in my case, I might also look into adding more resolution (maybe a set of left and right center speakers, for example) with a pair of bookshelves to see whether there's much Atmos object use there.

I will say that now that ST: Into Darkness is coming out in UHD/Atmos, a Samnsug or Panny UHD player is going to be in the future sooner rather than later, even if it's short-term until Oppo has theirs out.

And after all those CEDIA demos with the opening scene of that Trek, that's going to be a great reference disc for testing out some of those object passthroughs....there's some things I remember from the Procella demo in 2014 that I've got to see if I can reproduce at home.


----------



## petetherock

jrogers said:


> You can also download the same DTS:X test from Demo World. Just save it on a USB and plug it into your blu-ray player.


I must be a real goofball, but I can't find a link to download the item? I got to the website, but all the clicking doesn't lead me to a download page


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> ...and something similar for DTS:X to see what the center extraction of wides ("front side surrounds") brings to the table.


The Trinnov can matrix extract Wides with DTS:X soundtracks?


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> The Trinnov can matrix extract Wides with DTS:X soundtracks?



I'm speculating toward the future, since DTS:X itself is awaiting the next software update, and AFAIK there's still going to be the 11 channel limit just like anyone else. Only the upmixer is available right now at up to 7.1.4.


----------



## robert ham

*Something Wrong???*



jrogers said:


> You can also download the same DTS:X test* from Demo World. * Just save it on a USB and plug it into your blu-ray player.


 I went to the site, but dont see any indications I can download a particular Disk. I recall seeing the download before but now I don't.. Do they limit what you can do each day or???


----------



## robert ham

*Me To*



petetherock said:


> I must be a real goofball, but I can't find a link to download the item? I got to the website, but all the clicking doesn't lead me to a download page


 I notice the same thing, but I recall having the ability when I looked at the site a few hours ago.. They may be working on or adding new content so they removed this capability right now... It is early morning Tuesday in the UK, so they may be doing backups or something?


----------



## Defcon

http://www.demo-world.eu/download-2...g_lossless-DWEU.mkv&pic=dts_listen_x_long.jpg

Works for me


----------



## Poepsnor

Same here. Just click on the picture and "save as".
Also thanks Defcon for the link, I didn't have this one yet.


----------



## HT-Eman

Just finished watching Capture The Flag. This animated dolby atmos movie has lot of overhead action in the ceiling speakers.


----------



## wuther

Defcon said:


> I agree with this, JJ doesn't get the Star Trek or Wars universes, has admitted as much, and proceeded to destroy both with terrible plots and story telling. There is nothing Trek about his movies if you take out the character and ship names, its just another blockbuster.


Might be due to JJ's supposed 'Not a fan' statement which is Hollywood speak for 'I hate it'.


----------



## ultraflexed

I thought "into darkness" was good and great 3d, jj did a solid job with it.


----------



## sbalasu3s

Really need some help here, please!. I got the Polk OWM5 for the Atmos setup which was recommended a lot in this thread.
Couple of questions:
1. For those that use these speakers for Atmos - did you mount them as heights on the wall or went with mounted on the ceiling?.
2. What kind of mount did you use. I see polk website suggests the Omnimount 10.0 - cant determine if they would fit the atmos angle requirements and also hold the weight. What did you folks end up using/doing?.
3. Can you please share some pictures on your OMW5 mounting layout?.

I am doing the 7.2.4 layout.


----------



## the3dwizard

I am using four OWM5's and IMHO they are working very well. I didn't want to go with in ceiling speakers as I wasn't sure upon the final configuration and since I already had Polk speakers I decided to go with these. I first started with 7.2.2 but wasn't happy with the results. So I added another pair and I am now in the configuration shown in the picture. I used the bracket that comes with the speaker and just mounted them to the joists in the ceiling. The good thing about the bracket is it sets your angle to 45 deg. So it you are wanting to point the speaker at the MLP and using the angles outlined by Dolby then your are set. However, it you want to point them straight down you almost have to go with the Omnimount. 

Since mine are aligned with the joists they are pointed down but not at the MLP. I may try to rotate them around at some point so they are pointing to the MLP and see if there is any difference. I can do this by leaving one side attached to the joist and using a dry wall anchor bolt for the other end. Please excuse the wiring in the photo, I haven't yet moved the wiring from the middle position. Just wanted to get it set up so I can try it out.

So how does it sound, in one word awesome! In the Dolby Amaze demo you can hear the bird fly AROUND the room. The falling rain is seamless all around. Using the Audiosphere demo it is easy to locate the sounds. In the Amaze demo the space ships are virtually seamless from front to back.

One note, when I first installed the 4 speakers I had not installed my acoustic treatment. I then also treated the first reflections for the Atmos speakers which greatly helped the staging. Before when the bird flew around the room in the demo there were holes in the sound particularly in front. After I installed the treatment it became more seamless. My next step will be to toe in the speakers toward the MLP to see if things get even better. But for now I am going to enjoy it as is.

Cheers!


----------



## sbalasu3s

the3dwizard said:


> I am using four OWM5's and IMHO they are working very well.
> Cheers!


Thanks for the info and pictures. I didn't even realize the provided bracket can be this useful. I was looking at this mount as an option - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E5VZFE/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Not sure if it can hold the weight and Atmos angles.

Edit: Read the reviews in Amazon and folks reported success with OWM5/3 mounting. This reviewer has posted photos of OWM5 mounted in ceiling - http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-r...=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001E5VZFE

Anyone here used these mounts?.


----------



## nickbuol

Yeah, I had a hard time finding good brackets for my overheads as well. Ended up with some "Full Metal Brackets" from another Canadian company, Axiom Audio. The adjustment points have "teeth" so that they lock into place at whatever angle you want, and they are, as the name suggests, made of 100% metal and it is pretty thick metal too. Zero sag, zero slipping... They aren't cheap though. Something like $45 each...


----------



## the3dwizard

sbalasu3s said:


> Edit: Read the reviews in Amazon and folks reported success with OWM5/3 mounting. This reviewer has posted photos of OWM5 mounted in ceiling - http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-r...=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001E5VZFE
> 
> Anyone here used these mounts?.


Those look like the might work. Certianly would make it easier to play with oriention. I really like these: http://www.amazon.com/Arlington-DVF...psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00

It looks like they could be mount in these boxes if someone doesn't want to surface mount the bracket. Plus they wouldn't hang down as far.


----------



## AllenA07

I don't know what the back of the speaker looks like, but for speakers using keyhole mounts I'm using the Videosecu mounting brackets. They work well with the keyhole mount (they were suggested to me by the guys at SVS) and despite being a ball mount I haven't seen any evidence of slippage. The only thing I really did differently with them was replace the little wall anchor that was included and went with toggle bolts instead. My speakers (SVS Prime Satellites) only weigh about 7 pounds, so it's not a tremendous amount of weight.

http://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Uni...&qid=1459962782&sr=1-2&keywords=speaker+mount


----------



## makrelov

And why don't you try these ones: heavy duty speaker brackets. I am using them and I am very glad to have them. Easy to mount, 360 degrees horizontal, 180 degrees vertical allignment. 

You can see how they look like in my signature.


----------



## hatlesschimp

I tried Home Atmos for the first time yesterday. It was a simple setup. But had nice effects. All the demo bits went for 30 minutes. I cant wait to get mine all setup

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## ahro

*HELP*! I have the Onkyo 646 receiver and the Klipcsh Dolby Atmos speakers. It is capable of rendering simulated Atmos on non-atmos discs using Dolby surround.

When I'm playing a non-atmos disc and I want simulated Atmos, I put it on dolby surround. The input reads master audio and the output reads dolby surround 5.1.2,which is activating the height channels. 

But am I getting master audio AND dolby surround, or am I losing the loseless master audio and just getting DD .5.1.2 dolby surround, but not getting it in lossless audio? I hope I'm making sense with my question.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

ahro said:


> But am I getting master audio AND dolby surround, or am I losing the loseless master audio and just getting DD .5.1.2 dolby surround, but not getting it in lossless audio? I hope I'm making sense with my question.


You are getting lossless audio plus the upmix to your two height channels. Not Dolby Digital if you input Master Audio.


----------



## vid53

ahro said:


> *HELP*! I have the Onkyo 646 receiver and the Klipcsh Dolby Atmos speakers. It is capable of rendering simulated Atmos on non-atmos discs using Dolby surround.
> 
> When I'm playing a non-atmos disc and I want simulated Atmos, I put it on dolby surround. The input reads master audio and the output reads dolby surround 5.1.2,which is activating the height channels.
> 
> But am I getting master audio AND dolby surround, or am I losing the loseless master audio and just getting DD .5.1.2 dolby surround, but not getting it in lossless audio? I hope I'm making sense with my question.


So i am going to do the 7.1.4 Atmos setup with the Pioneer SC-95. Are all the speakers used when i watch Directv shows or are the Atmos ceiling speakers only used during playback of Atmos blue rays? I am more into video files for all my movies. Are there videos files for Atmos movies. Hope someone can explain this to a novice.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

vid53 said:


> So i am going to do the 7.1.4 Atmos setup with the Pioneer SC-95. Are all the speakers used when i watch Directv shows or are the Atmos ceiling speakers only used during playback of Atmos blue rays? I am more into video files for all my movies. Are there videos files for Atmos movies. Hope someone can explain this to a novice.


Atmos receivers come with an upmixer called Dolby Surround, this will allow you to upmix traditional content, including DirectTV shows, to 7.1.4, so your ceiling speakers will be active if you want.

Regarding video files, Atmos is embedded into the regular TrueHD tracks, so yes it can be read from files with a working player than can provide TrueHD bitstream to the receiver.


----------



## ahro

SteveTheGeek said:


> You are getting lossless audio plus the upmix to your two height channels. Not Dolby Digital if you input Master Audio.


Thanks -- the input reads master audio and then I press the movie modes button until I get DOLBY SURROUND, so you're saying I'm getting master audio AND dolby surround.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

ahro said:


> Thanks -- the input reads master audio and then I press the movie modes button until I get DOLBY SURROUND, so you're saying I'm getting master audio AND dolby surround.


Yes, Dolby Surround is the name of the upmixer, nothing to do with the old audio format.


----------



## ahro

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yes, Dolby Surround is the name of the upmixer, nothing to do with the old audio format.


Thanks, greatly appreciated, Steve.:kiss:


----------



## vid53

SteveTheGeek said:


> Atmos receivers come with an upmixer called Dolby Surround, this will allow you to upmix traditional content, including DirectTV shows, to 7.1.4, so your ceiling speakers will be active if you want.
> 
> Regarding video files, Atmos is embedded into the regular TrueHD tracks, so yes it can be read from files with a working player than can provide TrueHD bitstream to the receiver.


When you say a working player does that mean using Plex??


----------



## SteveTheGeek

vid53 said:


> When you say a working player does that mean using Plex??


I can't tell on this side, I don't use an HTPC or similar device, I'm all disc based


----------



## makrelov

ahro said:


> *HELP*! I have the Onkyo 646 receiver and the Klipcsh Dolby Atmos speakers. It is capable of rendering simulated Atmos on non-atmos discs using Dolby surround.
> 
> When I'm playing a non-atmos disc and I want simulated Atmos, I put it on dolby surround. The input reads master audio and the output reads dolby surround 5.1.2,which is activating the height channels.
> 
> But am I getting master audio AND dolby surround, or am I losing the loseless master audio and just getting DD .5.1.2 dolby surround, but not getting it in lossless audio? I hope I'm making sense with my question.


It really doesn't matter as you *can not* hear the difference. Unless you have some supa-dupa-allien-excelent hearing and 100 000 +$ sound system and special treated room. Most of the sound formats - lossy and lossless carry the same end user perception, but we all think if something is lossless it is better. Yes, it is, but not for the sound we hear rather than the psychological effects we expect.
It is the same as you are sold a receiver which can play up to 100 000 Hz sound frequency. Most of us, over 30 years old, can hear at best up to 17 000-sh Hz (what an optimist I am). So, what benefit do you get if your receiver can play up to 100 000 Hz frequency. *None. Just marketing b****its.*

That is my opinion and experience. Do not get me wrong - I don't want to loose my HD Audio formats as I want their most liked benefit - *the bass output*. And I am not sure if that depends on the lossless audio or the better subwoofer I have. Most of the time I cannot tell any difference at all. For example *Daredevil* has one of the best soundracks I've ever heard and it is just 5.1 Lossy DD. Not to mention *The Pacific*.


----------



## lujan

SteveTheGeek said:


> Yes, Dolby Surround is the name of the upmixer, nothing to do with the old audio format.


I've found that using the upmixer with 2-channels doesn't sound very good so I had to change it.


----------



## ahro

makrelov said:


> It really doesn't matter as you *can not* hear the difference. Unless you have some supa-dupa-allien-excelent hearing and 100 000 +$ sound system and special treated room. Most of the sound formats - lossy and lossless carry the same end user perception, but we all think if something is lossless it is better. Yes, it is, but not for the sound we hear rather than the psychological effects we expect.
> It is the same as you are sold a receiver which can play up to 100 000 Hz sound frequency. Most of us, over 30 years old, can hear at best up to 17 000-sh Hz (what an optimist I am). So, what benefit do you get if your receiver can play up to 100 000 Hz frequency. *None. Just marketing b****its.*
> 
> That is my opinion and experience. Do not get me wrong - I don't want to loose my HD Audio formats as I want their most liked benefit - the bass output. And I am not sure if that depends on the lossless audio or the better subwoofer I have. Most of the time I cannot tell any difference at all. For example Daredevil has one of the best soundracks I've ever heard and it is just 5.1 Lossy DD. Not to mention The Pacific.


Actually, I don't care what you *think* I spoke to an engineer at Klipsch today to make sure if I use Dolby surround that I wouldn't loose the ceiling effect if my input was Master audio or True HD (on a non-Atmos track) and my output was Dolby surround 5.1.2. He verified that that was correct, I recognize I'm not going to get he same effect as a true Atmos track, but I wanted to make sure it came close. I want to get the best out of the sound system I have, and it doesn't matter to me if it's psychological or not. Why do some posters butt in just to display their so-called 'superior' knowledge instead of just leaving it alone. It's a waste of time, and a waste of my time to have to respond.


----------



## makrelov

ahro said:


> Actually, I don't care what you *think* I spoke to an engineer at Klipsch today to make sure if I use Dolby surround that I wouldn't loose the ceiling effect if my input was Master audio or True HD (on a non-Atmos track) and my output was Dolby surround 5.1.2. He verified that that was correct, I recognize I'm not going to get he same effect as a true Atmos track, but I wanted to make sure it came close. I want to get the best out of the sound system I have, and it doesn't matter to me if it's psychological or not. Why do some posters butt in just to display their so-called 'superior' knowledge instead of just leaving it alone. It's a waste of time, and a waste of my time to have to respond.


Actually, I was trying to help you with your question and make you understand that it really doesn't matter if you get DTS HD MA / Dolby TrueHD when you upmix, because that won't affect in no way to your audio perception and satisfaction. Let's put it that way - upmixers upgrade, don't downgrade. So what you upmix stays as a format/decoder/sound codec and upmixer just adds sound to the additional speakers in order to use the full potential of your system.

If you felt offended in any way that was not my intention at all.

I do not pretend to have any superior knowledge, nor does my post. All I know and trying to share is based on reading firstly *user-manuals*, and than comes the self-experience, reading tech literature and magazines, participating in forums. But most of my knowledge comes from the cycle *testing-mistake-testing-mistake-testing-satisfaction*. That's all. And that is how everyone should proceed with their own home theatres, as everybody has a totally different environment, equipment, speakers, placement, cables, obstacles, power supplies, furniture, perceptions, etc., which affect the sound in thousands of different ways. 

Have a nice day, enjoy your HT with many movie hours with Atmos/DTS: X and DSU / N: X. Peace.:wink:

Regards,
Hristo


----------



## smurraybhm

On a lighter note I watch the latest Star Wars last night using the outdated tech provided by Dolby, also called DSU 
It sounded great and DSU did a good job again placing the sound where it belonged. Very immersive and it will be watched again this weekend.
I thought we were supposed to have fun with this hobby, not get so uptight.


----------



## mobileES

DSU has me going through my entire blu-ray library.......... so far I love it. The only movie I found that sounded a bit low was Avengers: Age Of Ultron, almost like I had to turn up the volume to get a level out of my system.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

mobileES said:


> DSU has me going through my entire blu-ray library.......... so far I love it. The only movie I found that sounded a bit low was Avengers: Age Of Ultron, almost like I had to turn up the volume to get a level out of my system.


Yeah this mix has been identified by problematic by multiple reviews. It's a source problem, not DSU or your system.


----------



## ahro

makrelov said:


> Actually, I was trying to help you with your question and make you understand that it really doesn't matter if you get DTS HD MA / Dolby TrueHD when you upmix, because that won't affect in no way to your audio perception and satisfaction. Let's put it that way - upmixers upgrade, don't downgrade. So what you upmix stays as a format/decoder/sound codec and upmixer just adds sound to the additional speakers in order to use the full potential of your system.
> 
> If you felt offended in any way that was not my intention at all.
> 
> I do not pretend to have any superior knowledge, nor does my post. All I know and trying to share is based on reading firstly *user-manuals*, and than comes the self-experience, reading tech literature and magazines, participating in forums. But most of my knowledge comes from the cycle *testing-mistake-testing-mistake-testing-satisfaction*. That's all. And that is how everyone should proceed with their own home theatres, as everybody has a totally different environment, equipment, speakers, placement, cables, obstacles, power supplies, furniture, perceptions, etc., which affect the sound in thousands of different ways.
> 
> Have a nice day, enjoy your HT with many movie hours with Atmos/DTS: X and DSU / N: X. Peace.:wink:
> 
> Regards,
> Hristo



Well, if that was your intent then I apologize. It was tone of your post that got me, I guess.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> On a lighter note I watch the latest Star Wars last night using the outdated tech provided by Dolby, also called DSU
> It sounded great and DSU did a good job again placing the sound where it belonged. Very immersive and it will be watched again this weekend.
> I thought we were supposed to have fun with this hobby, not get so uptight.


For the most part, I believe "upmixers" enhance our listening experience - - especially with 7.1 encoded material.

I have an older Denon (x5200) - I tremendously enjoy DTS Neo X (not Neural X as with the x6200/x7200) since it does a great job with my front wides in a 9.1.2 configuration. Of course, the better the soundtrack, the better the upmix. Even with 5.1 material - - it sounds better upmixed compared to the "native" channel setting. 

I find that DTS Neo X does a great job with two channel mixes, as well. Sometimes, you can get a real funky sound out of older two channel movies that makes you wonder where & why the sound is coming out like it does! But again, for the most part - - always an enhancement with an upmixer - IMHO. Having the center channel emphasized (DTS Neo X - Cinema Mode) helps with clear dialog on all sorts of audio - Bluray movies or cable TV. Of course, Atmos is a real killer - - when I can get it!


----------



## dvdwilly3

FWIW, I am running 7.1.4 Atmos with Top Front and Top Rear. I have set the default output for the earlier DTS files formats to be Dolby Surround so that DSU takes over the duties. It does quite a nice job of it.

However, I bought The Last Witchhunter (yeah, I know...) to get my hands on DTS:X test tones.

When I ran them, I found that the DTS front height mapped to my front main speakers. And, that the DTS:X rear height mapped to my rear surround speakers.

I even went back to my speaker configuration in setup and changed my speakers to Front High and Rear High, respectively. The results were the same.

So, my speculation is that either the test tones somehow bypass DSU or the Onkyo implementation of DTS:X does not handle the DTS:X heights correctly.

I thought that DTS:X was supposed to be speaker layout agnostic. If that is the case, then the DTS:X heights should map to the Atmos heights in one way or another. Am I missing something?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> I thought that DTS:X was supposed to be speaker layout agnostic. If that is the case, then the DTS:X heights should map to the Atmos heights in one way or another. Am I missing something?


Don't believe the marketing BS. What you describe seems to be the exact opposite problem as D+M's coding of DTS: X where anything outside of the Front/Rear Height overhead setting screws up the rendering of objects.

Edit: I just realized that the 1030 does not have DTS: X decoding_ at all._ Never mind.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> FWIW, I am running 7.1.4 Atmos with Top Front and Top Rear. I have set the default output for the earlier DTS files formats to be Dolby Surround so that DSU takes over the duties. It does quite a nice job of it.
> 
> However, I bought The Last Witchhunter (yeah, I know...) to get my hands on DTS:X test tones.
> 
> When I ran them, I found that the DTS front height mapped to my front main speakers. And, that the DTS:X rear height mapped to my rear surround speakers.
> 
> I even went back to my speaker configuration in setup and changed my speakers to Front High and Rear High, respectively. The results were the same.
> 
> So, my speculation is that either the test tones somehow bypass DSU or the Onkyo implementation of DTS:X does not handle the DTS:X heights correctly.
> 
> I thought that DTS:X was supposed to be speaker layout agnostic. If that is the case, then the DTS:X heights should map to the Atmos heights in one way or another. Am I missing something?


Well there is no DTS:X implementation from Onkyo yet, so what is happening is you are applying DSU to the core 7.1 track of the test tones. I have no idea how DTS:X handled those as it's not really relevant for them, the way you described it is that those sound are included in the core track in the main and rear.

Atmos/DSU don't read any of the meta data linked to DTS:X so you can't expect it to be working.


----------



## ChiWestSider

I have tried and tried review that would tell me if purchasing the Klipsch RP-140SA was a good idea to purchase. I have seen reviews but none described if the actual sound is coming from the above. I bought a pair of RP140-SA in Mid February, and I could only faintly perceive some effect. The effect was so suttle that I had to constantly ask different people if they could hear the overhead effect. I used to make excuses saying that its probably so faint because the Atmos wasn't complete, and that we will be able to 'really' hear the difference when I got the rear Atmos speakers. This week I got the last 2 Atmos speakers to complete my 7.2.4 system. 1 day earlier I received a Ultra BD player.

I hooked up the system and put in a Mad Max Fury UBD. I was listened to 3 different scenes known for good Atmos sound. While the system sounded better, this could have been due to the Hi Res audio. I watched Spiderman on UBD and I was starting to really feel the height in the audio. I was watching the Lego Movie and there was a scene in the beginning when every is singing (for 5 hours!) and when the construction back hoe's are swinging to the beat a helicopter flies over head. I jumped out of my seat to grab my lady. I was like sit here and listen. "Did ya hear it, Did ya hear it?" When she confirmed that she heard it fly buy overheard, I was sweet joy! Today I found a brief moment on a disk where rain is coming from overhead. Its hard to localize the sound ONLY coming from the ceiling, but the rain was definitely coming down!
Klipsch RP-140SA Atmos enabled speakers does an Excellent of reflecting sound of the ceiling! It took 4 Klipsch Atmos speakers to see the difference, but its defintely there!


----------



## dvdwilly3

SteveTheGeek said:


> Well there is no DTS:X implementation from Onkyo yet, so what is happening is you are applying DSU to the core 7.1 track of the test tones. I have no idea how DTS:X handled those as it's not really relevant for them, the way you described it is that those sound are included in the core track in the main and rear.
> 
> Atmos/DSU don't read any of the meta data linked to DTS:X so you can't expect it to be working.


Yeah, I know that there is no DTS:X implementation for the Onkyo TX-NR1030 and there is not likely to be.

But, I thought that DSU would at least handle DTS:X in the same way that it handles DTS-MA HD...
If you go to Oblivion, for instance, overhead sounds seem to come from overhead.
TBH I did not go back to Oblivion and isolate the height speakers so that I know for sure that is where
the sound is coming from.

Is DTS:X different enough that DSU handles it differently from DTS earlier formats. I had thought that I 
would at least get heights to heights when using DSU...


----------



## SteveTheGeek

dvdwilly3 said:


> Yeah, I know that there is no DTS:X implementation for the Onkyo TX-NR1030 and there is not likely to be.
> 
> But, I thought that DSU would at least handle DTS:X in the same way that it handles DTS-MA HD...
> If you go to Oblivion, for instance, overhead sounds seem to come from overhead.
> TBH I did not go back to Oblivion and isolate the height speakers so that I know for sure that is where
> the sound is coming from.
> 
> Is DTS:X different enough that DSU handles it differently from DTS earlier formats. I had thought that I
> would at least get heights to heights when using DSU...


DTS:X tracks are seen by your Onkyo as DTS HD Master, so DSU analyzes the 7.1 channels and upmix that to 7.1.4. It's an upmixing algorithm, so it's not exact science. 

The fact that it does not steer the test tracks to height is normal, they are not analyzed as "height material" by the upmixer.

But if you watch the movie with they DTS:X track you will hear action in the overheads. But of course not the same action as playing the track with a DTS:X receiver as DSU is algorithm based, irlt's educated guesswork to what goes in height.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Being Warner, it should, but just to confirm if "In the heart of the sea" redbox rental has Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

aaranddeeman said:


> Being Warner, it should, but just to confirm if "In the heart of the sea" redbox rental has Atmos?


Yes, it does. Only Lionsgate/Summit dumbs down their rental discs.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, it does. Only Lionsgate/Summit dumbs down their rental discs.


Thanks..


----------



## thebland

*Update*... Sold my Datasat, Altitude in house and room two weeks from completed construction. The final configuration is: *11.6.8* (LCRs, Side Fronts, 2 sets Side Surrounds, Back Surrounds, Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Middle, Top Rear, Six Seaton Submersives). I should be able to provide advice on any conceivable 7.1.4 system with any height configuration. I can set up the Altitude to run a number of 7.1.4 systems using any of the 8 heights (e.g. Top fronts and rears, Front Heigh and Top Rear, etc).


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> *Update*... Sold my Datasat, Altitude in house and room two weeks from completed construction. The final configuration is: *11.6.8* (LCRs, Side Fronts, 2 sets Side Surrounds, Back Surrounds, Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Middle, Top Rear, Six Seaton Submersives). I should be able to provide advice on any conceivable 7.1.4 system with any height configuration. I can set up the Altitude to run a number of 7.1.4 systems using any of the 8 heights (e.g. Top fronts and rears, Front Heigh and Top Rear, etc).


 
Impressive, Jeff! How big is your room, and how much separation is there between your L/R mains and the L/R fronts? I was thinking of doing either wides/fronts (at approximately 45 degrees) or a L/R center in the 20ish degree range in my room depending on how widely spread my mains wind up physically for the Atmos configuration compared to the recommended +/- 30 degrees (and whether I go with a longer 19x14 vs. a wider 14x19 room after we plan out the dedicated space in the next couple of months). This would primarily be for Atmos object passthrough, so the improvement is really about "nice to have" resolution IMO rather than something that's essential to do, so whether it's worth going to > 9 floor channels is judgment, even in Trinnov land. 


Although with the Altitude's presets, it might possibly be useful to have a speaker array TBD for a specifically DSU or Neural:X (or Auromatic, in your case) oriented preset. That's more useful in your room with multiple rows of seats than in a room with a single row of three seats, though. Still, it's nice to have choices  .

Also, are you using the same model of Questeds for the L/R fronts as for the two pairs of side surrounds?


----------



## thebland

sdrucker said:


> Impressive, Jeff! How big is your room, and how much separation is there between your L/R mains and the L/R fronts? I was thinking of doing either wides/fronts (at approximately 45 degrees) or a L/R center in the 20ish degree range in my room depending on how widely spread my mains wind up physically for the Atmos configuration compared to the recommended +/- 30 degrees (and whether I go with a longer 19x14 vs. a wider 14x19 room after we plan out the dedicated space in the next couple of months). This would primarily be for Atmos object passthrough, so the improvement is really about "nice to have" resolution IMO rather than something that's essential to do, so whether it's worth going to > 9 floor channels is judgment, even in Trinnov land.
> 
> 
> Although with the Altitude's presets, it might possibly be useful to have a speaker array TBD for a specifically DSU or Neural:X (or Auromatic, in your case) oriented preset. That's more useful in your room with multiple rows of seats than in a room with a single row of three seats, though. Still, it's nice to have choices  .
> 
> Also, are you using the same model of Questeds for the L/R fronts as for the two pairs of side surrounds?


Hi,

I don't recall the angle of the Wides... But 45 - 55 could be correct. The Side Fronts are equidistant from my L and R Fronts and Side Surrounds (~10').

My Room is 17 X 28 X 9.5.

My LCRs are a different model Quested... they are far larger and heavier and would not fit the columns. Would be overkill for such, too! I will be running the LCRs actively as well - using all 24 channels in the Trinnov (the 6 subs are spread out over 2 channels.

Things are moving ... albeit it slowly.

For my room, adding the extra set of Side Surrounds and the Front Wides was purely to fill in large gaps between speakers. I wanted to create a 'cone of sound' all around. For example, the space between my L and R Fronts and Side surrounds was ~ 15 ft. Adding the Side Fronts filled that space perfectly by putting a set right in between, cutting the space in half. My Side Surrounds always sat in columns just forward of my main seating (not an ideal position - want them just behind)... Adding the second set which is just behind the main seating row (2nd row), will give me a better effect. 

These issues have always bothered me in my room and with the extra speaker count, I can address them. Moreover, the Questeds do not have the desirable, large dispersion characteristics with the high freq drivers. They are incredible sonically, clean and dynamic, but you pick your poison. So adding more speakers will help fill these dispersion gaps - though most all speakers have an orientation pointing towards the main listening position...

More to come...


----------



## jleroy68

smurraybhm said:


> On a lighter note I watch the latest Star Wars last night using the outdated tech provided by Dolby, also called DSU
> It sounded great and DSU did a good job again placing the sound where it belonged. Very immersive and it will be watched again this weekend.
> I thought we were supposed to have fun with this hobby, not get so uptight.


Yeah, some of these guys think this is life or death brain surgery, or they have not a clue and are simply trying the old "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull sh-- ahem, puckee. I'm a 62 year old cancer survivor, and Vietnam Vet that understands what's important and what's not. I, we're just trying to keep up with the latest, it's just folks, helping other folks understand. If they're too ignorant, or aloof for that then they can just go suck an egg (look it up). Maybe the old phrase "take a pill" should be resurrected and a required preface to answers to these questions. Speaking of the new, have you read this article yet: 

SEATTLE—With the holiday shopping season officially under way, millions of consumers proceeded to their nearest commercial centers this week in hopes of acquiring the latest, and therefore most desirable, personal device.
"The new device is an improvement over the old device, making it more attractive for purchase by all Americans," said Thomas Wakefield, a spokesperson for the large conglomerate that manufactures the new device. "The old device is no longer sufficient. Consumers should no longer have any use or longing for the old device."
Added Wakefield, "The new device will retail for $975."
Able to remain operational for longer periods of time and occupy a demonstrably smaller three-dimensional space, the new device is so advanced when compared to the old device that it makes the old device appear much older than it actually is. However, the new device is reportedly not so radically different as to cause confusion or unwanted anxiety among those familiar with the feel of the old device.
"Its higher price indicates to me that it is superior, and that not everyone will be able to afford it, which only makes me want to possess it more," said Tim Sturges, owner of the old device, which he obtained 18 months ago when it was still the new device. "I feel a strong urge to purchase the new device. Owning the new device will please me and improve my daily life."
"It's difficult to remember how I ever found enjoyment in my old device," Sturges continued. "It is no longer appealing to the eye."
In addition to aesthetic and technological enhancements, manufacturers claim the new device comes equipped with a wide range of desirable features, including fewer buttons for pressing down and holding; a new wire for connecting to larger, less-portable devices; and fewer device-related errors and frustrations.
The new device will also be available in blue.
"Not only will I be able to perform tasks faster than before, but my new device will also inform those around me that I am a successful individual who is up on the latest trends," said Rebecca Hodge, whose executive job allowed her to line up for several hours in the middle of the day in order to obtain the previously unavailable item. "Its attractiveness and considerable value are, by extension, my attractiveness and considerable value."
Consumer Robert Larson agreed.
"I'm going to take my new device wherever I go," said Larson, holding the expensive item directly in the eyeline of several reporters. "That way no one on the street, inside the elevator, or at my place of business will ever mistake me for the sort of individual who does not own the new device."
Added Larson, "The new device brings me satisfaction."
Despite the visible excitement among most consumers, some claimed to be exercising caution, choosing instead to sit back and wait for a newer version of the new device to be released before making a purchase.
"True, it appeals to my most basic insecurities, but this new device will ultimately be replaced by a newer device, rendering it completely undesirable and utterly repellent to my personal tastes," device-enthusiast Ryan Janosch said. "Also, I should start saving my money for the next latest device, which will replace the newer new device a couple months after that."


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE; *Update*... Sold my Datasat, Altitude in house and room two weeks from completed construction. The final configuration is: *11.6.8* (LCRs, Side Fronts, 2 sets Side Surrounds, Back Surrounds, Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Middle, Top Rear, Six Seaton Submersives). I should be able to provide advice on any conceivable 7.1.4 system with any height configuration. I can set up the Altitude to run a number of 7.1.4 systems using any of the 8 heights (e.g. Top fronts and rears, Front Heigh and Top Rear, etc).

(Wonderful pics excluded)

Wow, what beautiful home theater. I would expect nothing but the best from someone who drinks $60 Clos Martinet Tinto at a bargain price of $60/bottle.

Just messin with ya - - as a Michigander who is living in Colorado can do. 

Really - - absolutely beautiful setup from decor to functionality. I wanna party with you, Cowboy. How about some Bob Seger on the big screen with the sound system cranked up? :>)


----------



## nucky

Cross platform, future update.
http://denon-uk.custhelp.com/app/an...e-dts:x-update-for-avr-x7200w-and-avr-x7200wa


----------



## vid53

I have the Pioneer SC-95 and i am using the 7.1.4 setup. I am using Plex to play all my Video files through the Amazon Fire TV to the AVR. How do i actually know if i am playing Dolby Atmos content? When i play a demo Atmos file which is Dolby HD 7.1 the AVR shows PCM on the display.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nucky said:


> Cross platform, future update.
> http://denon-uk.custhelp.com/app/an...e-dts:x-update-for-avr-x7200w-and-avr-x7200wa


So, that confirms what D+M was saying at CEDIA: after the DTS X update dropped they would be working on the cross format upmixer problem.

Yeah!


----------



## sbalasu3s

nucky said:


> Cross platform, future update.
> http://denon-uk.custhelp.com/app/an...e-dts:x-update-for-avr-x7200w-and-avr-x7200wa


Is this restricted to 7200WA only? or Is 6200W also part of the fun?.


----------



## smurraybhm

sbalasu3s said:


> Is this restricted to 7200WA only? or Is 6200W also part of the fun?.


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-60.html#post43150530


----------



## Evolvo

Hello. I'm just wondering can u use a in ceiling front speaker and place it as a ceiling speaker. Specifically for an atmos system and specifically a klipsch 3650w instead of a cdt 3650-cII. Would it effect anything. Are they made to sound different. 

Thanks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> *Update*... Sold my Datasat, Altitude in house



Good. Great to hear! 

Was always thinking that it was the logical choice for you and your system.


----------



## Evolvo

*In Wall Fronts For In Ceiling Atmos Speakers*

Hello. I'm just wondering can u use a in ceiling front speaker and place it as a ceiling speaker. Specifically for an atmos system and specifically a klipsch 3650w instead of a cdt 3650-cII. Would it effect anything. Are they somehow different. 

Thanks.


----------



## thebland

Ricoflashback said:


> RE; *Update*... Sold my Datasat, Altitude in house and room two weeks from completed construction. The final configuration is: *11.6.8* (LCRs, Side Fronts, 2 sets Side Surrounds, Back Surrounds, Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Middle, Top Rear, Six Seaton Submersives). I should be able to provide advice on any conceivable 7.1.4 system with any height configuration. I can set up the Altitude to run a number of 7.1.4 systems using any of the 8 heights (e.g. Top fronts and rears, Front Heigh and Top Rear, etc).
> 
> (Wonderful pics excluded)
> 
> Wow, what beautiful home theater. I would expect nothing but the best from someone who drinks $60 Clos Martinet Tinto at a bargain price of $60/bottle.
> 
> Just messin with ya - - as a Michigander who is living in Colorado can do.
> 
> Really - - absolutely beautiful setup from decor to functionality. I wanna party with you, Cowboy. How about some Bob Seger on the big screen with the sound system cranked up? :>)


I'm just 'running _against the wind_.... Seger is the man around here (as you know).... Thanks! Appreciate the kind words.

Cheers! (and a good red)!


----------



## Movie78

Why are all the new ATMOS releases, released only on UHD?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Movie78 said:


> Why are all the new ATMOS releases, released only on UHD?


Not all, but most

Three reasons - money, money money. 

The movie studios want you to buy the new, more expensive UHD format and eveything else that goes with it. You can either bow down and obey or be an enlightened early adaptor who embraces the change. Depends on your point of view.


----------



## asarose247

XT32 and ATMOS

while re-doing XT32 , and seeing that my TOPS were set to a distance of 25+ feet, with gains in the 10+ region, 

the tops are closer than any other speakers and the mike is pretty much pointed at them even in a minor cross fire co-angulation, so that distance is delay factor

just took me a while to put it together . . . 

if the spl's check out ok and it sounds "ok" then it may be all good

so for the time being, wrt REQ and ATMOS, this maybe as good at it gets for awhile?
It would seem that even an 88A would end up setting a delay like that . . . as a proximity factor.

anybody have any data wrt to just using dolby modules and how XT32 adjusts them?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Movie78 said:


> Why are all the new ATMOS releases, released only on UHD?


To help sell a new format/product.


----------



## Movie78

That's a damn shame! ATMOS on Blu-ray was selling just fine,not everyone is in a rush to get UHD.


----------



## KBMAN

HEY, at least I got the SEP '15 ATMOS DEMO DISC


----------



## Ricoflashback

thebland said:


> I'm just 'running _against the wind_.... Seger is the man around here (as you know).... Thanks! Appreciate the kind words.
> 
> Cheers! (and a good red)!


You'll have to show pics of your home theater when it is finished. I would expect a picture of an usher, in full uniform, just like a high end theater, posted at the door of your HT. :>) 

Yes - from what a friend tells me, Mr. Seger is building a big house on the lakes in Michigan. He still tours and I was lucky enough to see him with Joe Walsh a year or so ago here in Denver.

Quick story about Seger - the album "Night Moves" was recorded in Detroit and Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The folks at Muscle Shoals commented that Seger was one of the few artists that they had met who had absolutely "zero" ego. Cool dude.


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Scott Simonian said:


> To help sell a new format/product.


they got me hook line and sinker too


----------



## Movie78

Brian Fineberg said:


> they got me hook line and sinker too


No, you didn't [ You bought the Samsung K8500 4k UHD BDP]


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Movie78 said:


> No, you didn't [ You bought the Samsung K8500 4k UHD BDP]


right...BECAUSE they started releasing ATMOS exclusively on UHD


----------



## Movie78

Brian Fineberg said:


> right...BECAUSE they started releasing ATMOS exclusively on UHD


Nice!!!
So you are pairing it with Panasonic AE8000 and what UHD ATMOS movie have you watched?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Movie78 said:


> Nice!!!
> So you are pairing it with Panasonic AE8000 and what UHD ATMOS movie have you watched?


yessir

concussion and Hancock


----------



## dvdwilly3

Molon_Labe said:


> I was thinking of picking up a UHD player but after watching Creed via Neural:X this weekend, I may hold off. That DTS upmix was phenomenal and better than many native Atmos mixes (to my ears) that I have heard on my system. Once Denon releases the cross pollination bug fix later this year, and assuming Neural:X and DSU continue to provide quality immersive mixes, I think I am holding fast for a couple of years until UHD players, projectors, and media drop in price.


Which Denon do you have?


----------



## Movie78

Brian Fineberg said:


> yessir
> 
> concussion and Hancock


Almost bought Hancock, coming to find out the include Bluray version doesn't have ATMOS

How is the upscale quality from the UHD Bluray player to the PJ?


----------



## Brian Fineberg

Movie78 said:


> Almost bought Hancock, coming to find out the include Bluray version doesn't have ATMOS
> 
> How is the upscale quality from the UHD Bluray player to the PJ?


on par with regular BR


----------



## Movie78

Brian Fineberg said:


> on par with regular BR


Thanks!

I guess $400 for UHD player is better than $200 for Auro 3D upgrade, just check their site only 2 movies with Auro 3D


----------



## Garrett Adams

Ricoflashback said:


> ... I would expect a picture of an usher, in full uniform, just like a high end theater, posted at the door of your HT. :>)


Plus he must be calling for Philip Morris.


----------



## Jive Turkey

Brian Fineberg said:


> yessir
> 
> concussion and Hancock


I suggest trying "Chappie", "Salt", and "Sicario". They all look and sound great on my all 1080p Atmos system.


----------



## SpreadingWings

till date i only found Dolby Atmos disc and Gravity tracks the best atmos soundtrack mix. Anyone else have different opinion?


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> I was thinking of picking up a UHD player but after watching Creed via Neural:X this weekend, I may hold off. That DTS upmix was phenomenal and better than many native Atmos mixes (to my ears) that I have heard on my system. Once Denon releases the cross pollination bug fix later this year, and assuming Neural:X and DSU continue to provide quality immersive mixes, I think I am holding fast for a couple of years until UHD players, projectors, and media drop in price.


 You should hug your 8802


----------



## mures1

Is it possible to get wireless ceiling speakers for atmos sound? I have 5.1 set up in my living room, but can't stop thinking about atmos. Love it since I heard it for first time at BB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JS9000


----------



## stikle

mures1 said:


> Is it possible to get wireless ceiling speakers for atmos sound?



No. Think about that question for a moment...what is going to power your speakers? Are you going to get up on a ladder every couple of weeks and change out a bunch of D Cell batteries or whatever (if that's even a possibility)? Even wireless subwoofers are not wireless - they still have to plug into the wall for power.

So you would have to have power at each speaker location for Atmos. If you're going to run power, you might as well just run speaker wires.


----------



## prophcy0

SpreadingWings said:


> till date i only found Dolby Atmos disc and Gravity tracks the best atmos soundtrack mix. Anyone else have different opinion?


I haven't watch Gravity in Atmos yet. I have watched Mad Max, parts of The Fifth Element, John Wick, and Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. Honestly, MI had the most noticeable use of the overheads. There's one scene where a helicopter passes overhead and lands, then takes off and flies overhead again and off into the distance. I could clearly track the helicopter's position via audio the entire time.

I need to watch Mad Max again now that I have my system more dialed in.


----------



## ahro

SpreadingWings said:


> till date i only found Dolby Atmos disc and Gravity tracks the best atmos soundtrack mix. Anyone else have different opinion?


Goosebumps by far for overhead sounds. Amazing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SpreadingWings said:


> till date i only found Dolby Atmos disc and Gravity tracks the best atmos soundtrack mix. Anyone else have different opinion?


It's the all around best mix so far. There are some titles with really good _sequences,_ but Gravity has an aggressive mix throughout.


----------



## robert ham

*San Andrea's ATMOS*



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's the all around best mix so far. There are some titles with really good _sequences,_ but Gravity has an aggressive mix throughout.


I picked up San Andreas in 3D and noticed that my Upper Back speakers do not come on with the San Andreas soundtrack? My RX-A3050 does show ATMOS but nothing is produced... My two rear upper speakers are powered by a stand alone amplifier that turns on automatically when it senses audio from the Yamaha.. The system is working properly as other ATMOS movies, like expendable III all produce upper rear sound.. I can only conclude that ATMOS does not automatically mean front and rear uppers will have sound??? Is that correct?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert ham said:


> I picked up San Andreas in 3D and noticed that my Upper Back speakers do not come on with the San Andreas soundtrack? My RX-A3050 does show ATMOS but nothing is produced... My two rear upper speakers are powered by a stand alone amplifier that turns on automatically when it senses audio from the Yamaha.. The system is working properly as other ATMOS movies, like expendable III all produce upper rear sound.. I can only conclude that ATMOS does not automatically mean front and rear uppers will have sound??? Is that correct?


That is one of those Atmos tracks, like Transformers 4, where there is more lateral object movement than anything going on above you. Unfortunately, you really need something like a Trinnov Altitude processor and more main level speakers than seven to notice that kind of ground level object activity.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's up to the sound mixer to use what ever speakers are at their disposal. 

San Andreas uses both front and rear overhead speakers. Check your settings.


----------



## mures1

stikle said:


> No. Think about that question for a moment...what is going to power your speakers? Are you going to get up on a ladder every couple of weeks and change out a bunch of D Cell batteries or whatever (if that's even a possibility)? Even wireless subwoofers are not wireless - they still have to plug into the wall for power.
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have to have power at each speaker location for Atmos. If you're going to run power, you might as well just run speaker wires.




Ha. I totally forgot about that
Thanks


----------



## ahro

prophcy0 said:


> MI had the most noticeable use of the overheads. There's one scene where a helicopter passes overhead and lands, then takes off and flies overhead again and off into the distance. I could clearly track the helicopter's position via audio the entire time.
> 
> I need to watch Mad Max again now that I have my system more dialed in.


Do you have a time bar number for the helicopter scene?

EDIT: There's a short helicopter scene about :54; really not much. In fact, the whole Atmos track is really lacking.


----------



## deano86

robert ham said:


> I picked up San Andreas in 3D and noticed that my Upper Back speakers do not come on with the San Andreas soundtrack? My RX-A3050 does show ATMOS but nothing is produced... My two rear upper speakers are powered by a stand alone amplifier that turns on automatically when it senses audio from the Yamaha.. The system is working properly as other ATMOS movies, like expendable III all produce upper rear sound.. I can only conclude that ATMOS does not automatically mean front and rear uppers will have sound??? Is that correct?


There is something to note with the Atmos track on that particular title though.... the whole opening scene of the movie does not use the height speakers....at all! Very strange considering what is happening in the movie during this scene.... But, that is not to say that the sound isn't still fantastic during it though! For the remainder of the movie though, the heights seem to kick in at the expected times... I suspect that is what you are noticing with your lack of sound from your "uppers?" when watching the beginning of San Andreas...


----------



## robert ham

*Helicopter or ????*



deano86 said:


> There is something to note with the Atmos track on that particular title though.... the whole opening scene of the movie does not use the height speakers....at all! Very strange considering what is happening in the movie during this scene.... But, that is not to say that the sound isn't still fantastic during it though! For the remainder of the movie though, the heights seem to kick in at the expected times... I suspect that is what you are noticing with your lack of sound from your "uppers?" when watching the beginning of San Andreas...


You would think when they are down at the car and the helicopter is above you, that would be a perfect opportunity to put that above you,,, *BUT WAIT!!!! *Their may be another explanation!!! It could have been the helicopter from Blue Thunder and it was in Whisper Mode???


----------



## stikle

Blue Thunder...the very first rated R VHS I was allowed to rent. Conan was the first R rated movie I was (officially) allowed to see in the theater.

Now back to your regular slow Atmos thread.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Redbox Bluray rental "In The Heart Of The Sea" has Dolby Atmos - - a pleasant surprise. This is a Warner Bros. release. 

I'm not sure if there is a separate thread for Bluray Dolby Atmos, only, (NOT UHD!!!) by major film studio - but I have used Blu-ray.com to search for Dolby Atmos releases before. I was able to filter on 50 GB disc size and Dolby Atmos audio. 

Of all the major U.S. film studios, I believe Lyinsgate (Lions Gate Entertainment) is one of studios that ONLY releases Dolby Atmos (or potentially other immersive audio soundtracks) in UHD. Maybe Sony, as well.

Anyway - - since I use Redbox all the time - - it would be nice to keep track of Redbox Bluray rentals that have Dolby Atmos. Maybe a new thread if one doesn't exist.

And, movies can come and go, quickly (there are only so many slots in dem Red Boxes...) - so keeping it current would be important.


----------



## Josh Z

Ricoflashback said:


> Of all the major U.S. film studios, I believe Lyinsgate (Lions Gate Entertainment) is one of studios that ONLY releases Dolby Atmos (or potentially other immersive audio soundtracks) in UHD. Maybe Sony, as well.


Both Lionsgate and Sony have released a number of Atmos tracks on regular Blu-ray: John Wick, Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1 & 2, Fifth Element, Bram Stoker's Dracula, etc. 

However, the rental copies that Lionsgate supplies to Redbox only have lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Josh Z said:


> Both Lionsgate and Sony have released a number of Atmos tracks on regular Blu-ray: John Wick, Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1 & 2, Fifth Element, Bram Stoker's Dracula, etc.
> 
> However, the rental copies that Lionsgate supplies to Redbox only have lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio.


Yes, I am well aware of Lionsgate's practice with Redbox releases. 

I stumbled on the "In The Heart Of the Sea" from an AVS Forum poster's mention of it. My main interest is keeping abreast of Redbox Bluray releases in Dolby Atmos. I guess I'll keep on using Blu-ray.com to research Dolby Atmos releases and see if the Redbox version has immersive audio. Thanks.


----------



## Cal68

Josh Z said:


> Both Lionsgate and Sony have released a number of Atmos tracks on regular Blu-ray: John Wick, Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1 & 2, Fifth Element, Bram Stoker's Dracula, etc.



What I'm interested in seeing is whether the studios will continue to release Atmos soundtracks on regular BluRays in addition to UHD discs. Based upon what we are seeing now (I admit the numbers are small so it is hard to generalize now), it appears that when a movie is released in UHD and BluRay at the same time, the UHD version is the one that gets the Atmos soundtrack and BluRay is stuck with the non-Atmos sound track. Not encouraging for folks like me that are not yet ready to enter the UHD universe!


----------



## SoundChex

Dolby Press Release Apr 14, 2016: "*Dolby Announces Samsung Commitment to Bring Dolby AC-4 Enabled Televisions to Market*" (*link*) . . . to begin shipping in 2017.



> *Dolby Announces Samsung Commitment to Bring Dolby AC-4 Enabled Televisions to Market*
> 
> Apr 14, 2016. Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSELB), the developer of the AC-4 standard, today announced a collaboration with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to adopt Dolby® AC-4 in select television models that are scheduled to begin shipping in 2017.
> 
> A powerful new audio format in the Dolby Audio™ family, Dolby AC-4 is built on decades of broadcast audio experience and solves for the current challenges broadcasters face—such as more-efficient delivery of high-quality experiences, alternate language versions, and services for hearing-impaired and visually impaired audiences—while also providing a platform for new experiences from broadcast and Internet OTT services.
> 
> Dolby will work closely with Samsung, broadcasters, and streaming services to advance the industry's experience with next-generation audio and drive consumer awareness of next-generation audio entertainment experiences delivered in Dolby AC-4.
> 
> "We are thrilled that an industry leader in television manufacturing will support Dolby AC-4, and believe that Samsung's commitment demonstrates that this next-gen audio technology is the best solution for the industry," said Giles Baker, Senior Vice President, Broadcast Business Group, Dolby. "Adding Samsung to the growing list of CE manufacturers, SOC providers, and professional partners that support Dolby AC-4 brings Dolby one step closer to offering consumers revolutionary personalized and immersive broadcast audio experiences."
> 
> "With its excellent feature set and ease of implementation, it was logical to include Dolby AC-4 in our products now to ensure our customers have this new technology to support the upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard and other standards worldwide," said the Samsung Visual Display R&D Team. "The home entertainment landscape is ever-evolving, and we are excited to offer Dolby AC-4 as a next-generation audio solution for our customers."
> 
> As television evolves from 5.1-channel audio to new paradigms that include more personal and immersive experiences, the object-based audio capabilities of Dolby AC-4 will be essential to realizing this next generation of television entertainment. With proven experience in creating next-generation experiences for the cinema, mobile, and home with Dolby Atmos®, Dolby is well equipped to apply that same proficiency to create the best-quality broadcast audio experience for consumers.



Now we just have to hope that streaming services start using Dolby AC-4 in advance of its formal adoption|roll-out as part of ATSC 3.0...?!  


_


----------



## Zhorik

^ What does vudu uhd use as its carrier for Atmos?


----------



## WayneJoy

My guess would be DD+


----------



## batpig

Correct, Dolby Digital +

The codec is already standard for most streaming services (Vudu, Netflix, etc) with 5.1 content.


----------



## bdraw

Zhorik said:


> ^ What does vudu uhd use as its carrier for Atmos?


There are about 6 free short Atmos clips on Vudu, they sound great. Just wish the movies actually had Atmos sound tracks (other than the 4k titles).


----------



## czav

Dan Hitchman said:


> That is one of those Atmos tracks, like Transformers 4, where there is more lateral object movement than anything going on above you. Unfortunately, you really need something like a Trinnov Altitude processor and more main level speakers than seven to notice that kind of ground level object activity.


Hi guys

I've just finished my HT room and popped in my first atmos blu ray. Mission Impossible Rouge Nation. I have a Yamaha 3050 and an LG BD player. 7.1.4 speaker setup. Anybody know why I can't get the rear surrounds to fire or why the display on the AVR won't say "Atmos"?


----------



## czav

Dan Hitchman said:


> That is one of those Atmos tracks, like Transformers 4, where there is more lateral object movement than anything going on above you. Unfortunately, you really need something like a Trinnov Altitude processor and more main level speakers than seven to notice that kind of ground level object activity.


Hi guys

I've just finished my HT room and popped in my first atmos blu ray. Mission Impossible Rouge Nation. I have a Yamaha 3050 and an LG BD player. 7.1.4 speaker setup. Anybody know why I can't get the rear surrounds to fire or why the display on the AVR won't say "Atmos"?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

czav said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of those Atmos tracks, like Transformers 4, where there is more lateral object movement than anything going on above you. Unfortunately, you really need something like a Trinnov Altitude processor and more main level speakers than seven to notice that kind of ground level object activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys
> 
> I've just finished my HT room and popped in my first atmos blu ray. Mission Impossible Rouge Nation. I have a Yamaha 3050 and an LG BD player. 7.1.4 speaker setup. Anybody know why I can't get the rear surrounds to fire or why the display on the AVR won't say "Atmos"?
Click to expand...

The player must be set to bitstream DTS and Dolby audio via HDMI and secondary audio must be left off.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman said:


> czav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of those Atmos tracks, like Transformers 4, where there is more lateral object movement than anything going on above you. Unfortunately, you really need something like a Trinnov Altitude processor and more main level speakers than seven to notice that kind of ground level object activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys
> 
> I've just finished my HT room and popped in my first atmos blu ray. Mission Impossible Rouge Nation. I have a Yamaha 3050 and an LG BD player. 7.1.4 speaker setup. Anybody know why I can't get the rear surrounds to fire or why the display on the AVR won't say "Atmos"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The player must be set to bitstream DTS and Dolby audio via HDMI and secondary audio must be left off.
Click to expand...


----------



## tbrown187

Man, you all weren't lying about Gravity's Atmos mix. In the beginning where it's mostly dialog between Bullock and Clooney, I could hear their voices flowing around in all of my 9 speakers. It was just incredible.

The downside to my new 5.1.4 setup is that Atmos has made me want to upgrade my speakers to immerse me even more!


----------



## ALtlOff

tbrown187 said:


> Man, you all weren't lying about Gravity's Atmos mix. In the beginning where it's mostly dialog between Bullock and Clooney, I could hear their voices flowing around in all of my 9 speakers. It was just incredible.
> 
> The downside to my new 5.1.4 setup is that Atmos has made me want to upgrade my speakers to immerse me even more!


Yup, that is one of the downfalls to "good" Atmos films.
For My Money, to date, it is still one of the Premium Atmos experiences, in fact I went on a little rant about it and a couple other films in regard to Atmos demos I'm this thread:

Is Dolby Atmos with it?




ALtlOff said:


> _
> 
> 
> Zorba922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went out and listened to a $10K Atmos setup a few weeks ago, with proper in-ceiling speakers and all the goodies. Heard the opening scenes of "Mad Max Fury Road," "Guardians of the Galaxy," and the whole Dolby Atmos demo BR disk. Was very underwhelmed....just seemed incredibly trivial and gimmicky to me compared to a normal high quality 5.1 or 7.1 setup...all that trouble just to add a vertical dimension to the sound effects? ZZZZZZZZZZZ!
> 
> And the content issue is always there...lack of native content, plus lack of QUALITY native content---sure it's great to have "state of the art" sound but if the actual MOVIE is a brain-dead formula flick you can predict from the first 5 minutes designed to pander to the scintillating intellect of 13 year old boys, what's the point? (This is a general Hollywood problem not the fault of the technology, of course.)
> 
> I think Atmos is just another way for the audio industry to squeeze more money out of consumers---make them buy more speakers, upgrade their receivers and even their media, etc. Always better to approach these things with a healthy amount of skepticism and a wait-and-see attitude, otherwise one is easily suckered into the hamster-wheel of endless upgrading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Personally you've hit on some of my biggest problems with Atmos and Atmos demos.
> 
> First... Content... It's all over the map right now (and yes it's absolutely Hollywood's fault) there's good content, bad content, and worse if all NO content when it comes to the home market, all we can do is hope that this changes with time, and when we do get it, it's done properly.
> 
> Second... Demos... Whether it's in a retail outlet (probably the worst atmosphere for a good demo), a home theatre or even a Dolby trade demo, everyone always tries to push the "Grand" effect... listen to things flying around your head, and around the room...oooooh how cool is this....
> That's all good and well, but the nature of a demo itself is completely detrimental to the format, it's just not enough time for anyone to truly grasp what can be done, besides all the "Whizz-Bang" stuff.
> 
> To me, anyone who really wants to experience what Atmos can do, should absolutely not judge it from the current standard "demo" material that everyone and their brother uses. It's perfectly fine to experience that stuff, no problem, just don't stop there and form your opinion.
> 
> If you really want to hear what Atmos capable of, you need to take the time to watch a film for a decent amount of time (preferably all the way through) and to me, you need to look at, and "compare" these titles:
> 
> (By compare I mean, watch the films in their entirety first with standard 5.1 or 7.1 master audio, then in Atmos)
> 
> 1. Gravity
> 2. Roger Waters The Wall
> 3. Lucy (Hong Kong Atmos version)
> All of these films not only have an overall improvement in audio quality and discreet clarity in their Atmos mixes, they absolutely give you a sense of "Grand Space" around you, and an envelopement that can actually give you a sense of how small you are against the scheme of what is happening around you.
> 4. Man From U.N.C.L.E
> The Atmos track of this film not only is cleaner, it adds extra LFE content to the mix, and the discrete nature and clarity brings the musical score to an entirely different level over the standard audio mix.
> 
> Again, while Mad Max, John Wick, Unbroken and others have their merits, I tend to cringe when those are the only examples mentioned to people as "good" examples of Atmos films.


----------



## gbaby

robert ham said:


> I picked up San Andreas in 3D and noticed that my Upper Back speakers do not come on with the San Andreas soundtrack? My RX-A3050 does show ATMOS but nothing is produced... My two rear upper speakers are powered by a stand alone amplifier that turns on automatically when it senses audio from the Yamaha.. The system is working properly as other ATMOS movies, like expendable III all produce upper rear sound.. I can only conclude that ATMOS does not automatically mean front and rear uppers will have sound??? Is that correct?





Dan Hitchman said:


> That is one of those Atmos tracks, like Transformers 4, where there is more lateral object movement than anything going on above you. Unfortunately, you really need something like a Trinnov Altitude processor and more main level speakers than seven to notice that kind of ground level object activity.


I made the same observation about not being impressed with ATMOS using Transformers 4 as a demo and almost got crucified on this site as if my opinion was taken personally.  At least I know from your confirmation that there is nothing wrong with my ears.


----------



## gbaby

thebland said:


> *Update*... Sold my Datasat, Altitude in house and room two weeks from completed construction. The final configuration is: *11.6.8* (LCRs, Side Fronts, 2 sets Side Surrounds, Back Surrounds, Front Heights, Top Fronts, Top Middle, Top Rear, Six Seaton Submersives). I should be able to provide advice on any conceivable 7.1.4 system with any height configuration. I can set up the Altitude to run a number of 7.1.4 systems using any of the 8 heights (e.g. Top fronts and rears, Front Heigh and Top Rear, etc).


Jeff, this is impressive. I believe you have owned every credible processor on the market at one point or another. I take my hat off to you. Wow.


----------



## Stoked21

Atmos fans w/o UHD....

13 hours Bengazi is coming out on 6/7 in Atmos on regular BD. Saw it in the theater and it was pretty action packed. I'd think this should be an excellent Atmos demo.
Great test of ULF.....


----------



## thebland

gbaby said:


> Jeff, this is impressive. I believe you have owned every credible processor on the market at one point or another. I take my hat off to you. Wow.


I have... and I need help!!

Here's the latest (ignore the top and middle Heights - they will be shuffled around next week)!


----------



## thebland

gbaby said:


> Jeff, this is impressive. I believe you have owned every credible processor on the market at one point or another. I take my hat off to you. Wow.


I have... and I need help!!

Here's the latest (ignore the top and middle Heights - they will be shuffled around next week)!


----------



## Stoked21

thebland said:


> I have... and I need help!!
> 
> Here's the latest (ignore the top and middle Heights - they will be shuffled around next week)!


Seriously. Aesthetically my favorite theater I've ever seen on AVS. Running Datasat or Trinnov at that. Wow. Wish I could hear that many chs....


----------



## thebland

Stoked21 said:


> Seriously. Aesthetically my favorite theater I've ever seen on AVS. Running Datasat or Trinnov at that. Wow. Wish I could hear that many chs....


Thanks so much!

IF you're ever near Detroit, PM me!


----------



## AllenA07

Stoked21 said:


> Atmos fans w/o UHD....
> 
> 13 hours Bengazi is coming out on 6/7 in Atmos on regular BD. Saw it in the theater and it was pretty action packed. I'd think this should be an excellent Atmos demo.
> Great test of ULF.....


I'm pleased to see some more content coming out.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> Correct, Dolby Digital +
> 
> The codec is already standard for most streaming services (Vudu, Netflix, etc) with 5.1 content.


Does anybody know if Amazon Prime has streamed any movies in Dolby Atmos via DD+?

How about free Amazon Prime movies? If I were Amazon (listening Bezos?) -- I'd offer free Dolby Atmos streaming movies (where available) as an incentive to sell Amazon Prime memberships.


----------



## gbaby

thebland said:


> I have... and I need help!!
> 
> Here's the latest (ignore the top and middle Heights - they will be shuffled around next week)!


I wish I could help, but all I can do is watch on the sidelines and wait for your comments after you finish.


----------



## sonofsoren

Ricoflashback said:


> Does anybody know if Amazon Prime has streamed any movies in Dolby Atmos via DD+?
> 
> How about free Amazon Prime movies? If I were Amazon (listening Bezos?) -- I'd offer free Dolby Atmos streaming movies (where available) as an incentive to sell Amazon Prime memberships.


I could have sworn that we got Dolby Atmos when we streamed the Hunger Games Mocking Jay part 2 through the new Amazon Fire TV, but of course we paid for the download. I don't know if any of the free movies on Amazon Prime are streamed in Dolby Atmos but since most are older movies I would doubt it.


----------



## Peterc613

Ted99 said:


> Waiting for the next generation pre-pro to have 9.1.6 capability. With the advent of the new USB-sized processor from Intel, I have hope that Emo's next-generation pre-pro will be able to do 14 discrete signals. If they can do 15 (center rear?, VOG?, Front Center?), I have a spare amp in the XPA-5. For the time being, I purchased the Denon X3200W at the half-off Fry's sale just so I could have "something" while waiting. Anthem's new Pre-pro is announced and it doesn't go beyond 11 discrete signals. If EMO's upcoming pre-pro doesn't take that step, I'm pretty sure that the next generation of D/M in 2017 will. In the meanwhile, I've got all the overheads slaved together to the Top Middle, the Rear surrounds slaved to the Side surrounds and the Front Wides slaved to the Front Left and Right. I'm the King of Y connectors. LOL.



Does anyone have an idea when *9.1.4* will become avalaible from a mid priced $2k - $4k processor (i.e. Marrantz AV8803)?

I keep reading posts here on AVS and over at HTS about new chipsets from TI or Intel that support more channels than 11.1 for the next generation of Atmos AVR's and Preamps. Last year D&M had a 9.1.6 track on an Atmos disc they were using for demo material at a show and indicated Denon or Marrantz might have something out by CEDIA 2016.

Mid priced processors like the $3,999 Marrantz AV8802 have XLR outputs for 13.2 channels but their chipsets will only actively process 11.1 channels at a time (i.e. 7.1.4 or 9.1.2).

High priced processors like the $10k Datasat LS10 or $20k RS20i, Trinnov $28k Altitude-16, $33k Altitude-24 or $37k Altitude-36 are fine if you can afford it. But for me (and I suppose more than a few others) 9.1.4 or even 9.1.6 with a price under $4,000 is the Holy Grail and will be the multi-channels/performance sweet spot for our theaters.

*What have you guys heard about the new chipsets?*


----------



## Ted99

CEDIA being this Oct, I have high hopes that 2017 models will be announced, for Dec+ availability. I expect there will be some advanced Front Projectors, also; which will make what are now high mid-line (Like JVC RS 500) lower in cost. TI is expected to have a full 4K DLP and full 4K from LCOS may migrate from Sony-only SXRD. While HDR is currently available in lamp-based Front Projectors, it's "lite" compared to what may be available with non-phosphor Laser illumination; but that's going to be in the $20K + range.

I saw a hint on a thread relatively recently (can't remember which one) that "bottom" L, C, R add a lot to DTS:X. Perhaps that could be the best use of "extra" objects added to 9.1.4 or .6. If there is a little processing power left over, I'd like to see a .3 in lieu of .2, to accomodate two Subs on one wall with a third on another, for when the subs are not all identical.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ted99 said:


> CEDIA being this Oct, I have high hopes that 2017 models will be announced, for Dec+ availability. I expect there will be some advanced Front Projectors, also; which will make what are now high mid-line (Like JVC RS 500) lower in cost. TI is expected to have a full 4K DLP and full 4K from LCOS may migrate from Sony-only SXRD. While HDR is currently available in lamp-based Front Projectors, it's "lite" compared to what may be available with non-phosphor Laser illumination; but that's going to be in the $20K + range.
> 
> I saw a hint on a thread relatively recently (can't remember which one) that "bottom" L, C, R add a lot to DTS:X. Perhaps that could be the best use of "extra" objects added to 9.1.4 or .6. If there is a little processing power left over, I'd like to see a .3 in lieu of .2, to accomodate two Subs on one wall with a third on another, for when the subs are not all identical.


I wouldn't expect all those "extra" DTS: X rendered object speaker positions any time soon. Right now, many of the DTS: X tracks seem to have been using "channel-like" fixed objects in a 7.1.4 configuration and so far even the Trinnov is only allowed 11.1 rendering. 

Right now, I'm hoping Dolby Atmos is the primary go-to immersive codec for Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray. At least, so far, these soundtracks have been able to do 34 speaker object positioning. I will change my tune once it's been shown that DTS: X is at least as capable of object based delivery. DTS has stumbled out of the gate.


----------



## Ted99

@ Dan Hitchman Appreciate your knowledge. No allegiance on my part to DTS:X vs. Atmos. Only have Atmos right now on my interim receiver waiting for DTS: X upgrade (will be really nice, as all the Netflix Blu-rays I've gotten so far are DTS and DSU won't kick in). If it's Atmos objects that the next gen mid-level processors use to go above 11, GREAT; so long as I can use DSU on DTS, as there are a lot of legacy discs with DTS--no matter what the future brings on this format war I'm waiting with lots of extra speakers and Amp channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ted99 said:


> @ Dan Hitchman Appreciate your knowledge. No allegiance on my part to DTS:X vs. Atmos. Only have Atmos right now on my interim receiver waiting for DTS: X upgrade (will be really nice, as all the Netflix Blu-rays I've gotten so far are DTS and DSU won't kick in). If it's Atmos objects that the next gen mid-level processors use to go above 11, GREAT; so long as I can use DSU on DTS, as there are a lot of legacy discs with DTS--no matter what the future brings on this format war I'm waiting with lots of extra speakers and Amp channels.


Denon/Marantz are working on the cross format upmixing issue now. Perhaps by the time the 3200 gets its DTS: X update they'll have re-coded their DSP's to allow Dolby on Neural: X and DTS on DSU and pushed out the promised fix. It seemed to be an issue due to the fact DTS wasn't ready with their new codec pack by the time the 2015 models were being prepped for delivery. 

IMHO, DTS:X still isn't quite ready for prime time for various reasons... and this is coming from someone who has the latest DTS: X/Neural: X firmware.


----------



## sprins

DSU needs to support wides (like Audissey DSX) too. Perhaps they can hack that into the cross pollination fix as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sprins said:


> DSU needs to support wides (like Audissey DSX) too. Perhaps they can hack that into the cross pollination fix as well.


Dolby doesn't allow for wides with DSU because they say it messes with the front sound stage. However, there are far more speaker positions supported with the Trinnov, so other gap filling speaker positions are acceptable using Dolby Surround upmixing. We lowly poor people get second fiddle.


----------



## tbrown187

Ok, so before I post in the general audio area, I figured I would check here, straight from other Atmos aficionados. What are some recommended in-ceiling speaker brand/models specifically for movie based Atmos .4 layouts?

I have Yamaha IC600s (I'm limited to 8"-8.5" wide cutouts unfortunately.) They sound good overall, but lack in comparative sound with the rest of my system (nothing fancy, just some DT Mythos.) I was eyeing several brands/models: Speakercraft Aim7's because I liked the idea of having control over the angle of the sound, Polk RT-90 because it looked to provide a full overall sound, DT DI 6.5Rs since I have all DT speakers, and a few other of the usual suspects. But I didn't know if any of these were total overkill (above my Yamahas) since these speakers are dedicated to Atmos?

Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.


----------



## dvdwilly3

tbrown187 said:


> Ok, so before I post in the general audio area, I figured I would check here, straight from other Atmos aficionados. What are some recommended in-ceiling speaker brand/models specifically for movie based Atmos .4 layouts?
> 
> I have Yamaha IC600s (I'm limited to 8"-8.5" wide cutouts unfortunately.) They sound good overall, but lack in comparative sound with the rest of my system (nothing fancy, just some DT Mythos.) I was eyeing several brands/models: Speakercraft Aim7's because I liked the idea of having control over the angle of the sound, Polk RT-90 because it looked to provide a full overall sound, DT DI 6.5Rs since I have all DT speakers, and a few other of the usual suspects. But I didn't know if any of these were total overkill (above my Yamahas) since these speakers are dedicated to Atmos?
> 
> Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.


Well, both Def Tech and Goldenear make highly rated in-ceiling models. The Goldenear Invisa are sealed units so you do not have to build a box for them.

If you are not dead set on in-ceiling, you could try on-ceiling. I have Supersat 3s for Top Front and Top Rear. The fronts are mounted with Pinpoint
AM-25 mounts, so that with a little ingenuity, I could drop the mounting slightly to use them vertically and aim them at the seats. The Top Rear are 
actually mounted at the top of the rear wall with DefTech Promount 90's so that I can swivel them however I need them, but functioning as Top Rear.

I have two rows of seats with the rear row on an 8" riser. The Supersats mounted vertically with the tweeter hitting just about the middle of the space
between the 2 rows of seats. That makes for a driver that fires, more or less, directly at each row of seats.

They work very, very well...

If you are intereseted, PM me and I will send some pics...


----------



## rolldog

ChiWestSider said:


> I have tried and tried review that would tell me if purchasing the Klipsch RP-140SA was a good idea to purchase. I have seen reviews but none described if the actual sound is coming from the above. I bought a pair of RP140-SA in Mid February, and I could only faintly perceive some effect. The effect was so suttle that I had to constantly ask different people if they could hear the overhead effect. I used to make excuses saying that its probably so faint because the Atmos wasn't complete, and that we will be able to 'really' hear the difference when I got the rear Atmos speakers. This week I got the last 2 Atmos speakers to complete my 7.2.4 system. 1 day earlier I received a Ultra BD player.
> 
> I hooked up the system and put in a Mad Max Fury UBD. I was listened to 3 different scenes known for good Atmos sound. While the system sounded better, this could have been due to the Hi Res audio. I watched Spiderman on UBD and I was starting to really feel the height in the audio. I was watching the Lego Movie and there was a scene in the beginning when every is singing (for 5 hours!) and when the construction back hoe's are swinging to the beat a helicopter flies over head. I jumped out of my seat to grab my lady. I was like sit here and listen. "Did ya hear it, Did ya hear it?" When she confirmed that she heard it fly buy overheard, I was sweet joy! Today I found a brief moment on a disk where rain is coming from overhead. Its hard to localize the sound ONLY coming from the ceiling, but the rain was definitely coming down!
> Klipsch RP-140SA Atmos enabled speakers does an Excellent of reflecting sound of the ceiling! It took 4 Klipsch Atmos speakers to see the difference, but its defintely there!


I'm using Klipsch RP speakers, but I bought the Atmos add-on modules. I got the add-ons because I wanted to experience Atmos without installing in-ceiling speakers because I'm about to start remodeling, which is going to include raising the ceilings throughout the house by 2 feet, plus add a second story. Once that's complete, I'll probably install some in-ceiling speakers. For the time being, the add-ons work pretty well, especially with the low ceilings I have right now. You should get a copy of the Dolby Atmos test DVD. It has quite a few things to test, one of which is a helicopter flying overhead and around the room. My setup is 7.2.4 as well. I couldn't think of ever going back to a 5.1 system, but I do remember getting the same feeling when listening to AC-3 content, which was a long time ago. A lot of people are skeptical about using Dolby enabled speakers and bouncing the sound off the ceiling, but I'm impressed with it. However, if I was still in the same house I sold 2 years ago, which had 14' ceilings, I don't think these Dolby add-ons would sound as good as these lower ceilings. 

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## rolldog

asarose247 said:


> XT32 and ATMOS
> 
> while re-doing XT32 , and seeing that my TOPS were set to a distance of 25+ feet, with gains in the 10+ region,
> 
> the tops are closer than any other speakers and the mike is pretty much pointed at them even in a minor cross fire co-angulation, so that distance is delay factor
> 
> just took me a while to put it together . . .
> 
> if the spl's check out ok and it sounds "ok" then it may be all good
> 
> so for the time being, wrt REQ and ATMOS, this maybe as good at it gets for awhile?
> It would seem that even an 88A would end up setting a delay like that . . . as a proximity factor.
> 
> anybody have any data wrt to just using dolby modules and how XT32 adjusts them?


Running XT32 on my 7.2.4 setup with the microphone in all 8 positions (using a Marantz SR7010 and an Outlaw 5000), not even one of my speakers are correct as far as distance/delay/gains, so I set everything up manually. My 4 height speakers are Atmos add-ons, but the biggest difference in with my subs and surrounds. XT32 set my surrounds and my subs at 25', when they're actually only about 6'. So, I ended up manually setting everything up with the distances and used the test tones for each speaker to set the level of each speaker to what I thought sounds the best. I'm not sure if the volume has to be set at a certain level before running XT32, but I've tried setting everything up using XT32 at least a half a dozen times, and it's never even been close to being accurate. 

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## smurraybhm

rolldog said:


> Running XT32 on my 7.2.4 setup with the microphone in all 8 positions (using a Marantz SR7010 and an Outlaw 5000), not even one of my speakers are correct as far as distance/delay/gains, so I set everything up manually. My 4 height speakers are Atmos add-ons, but the biggest difference in with my subs and surrounds. XT32 set my surrounds and my subs at 25', when they're actually only about 6'. So, I ended up manually setting everything up with the distances and used the test tones for each speaker to set the level of each speaker to what I thought sounds the best. I'm not sure if the volume has to be set at a certain level before running XT32, but I've tried setting everything up using XT32 at least a half a dozen times, and it's never even been close to being accurate.
> 
> Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


If your distances are off for your speakers (sub excluded) then you are not doing something correctly or you have an issue with your mic. The subs will not be set at the same distance - see link below for the reason why. I suggest doing your reading hear

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-faq-post-51779-a-191.html#post14456895

not in the A/V's manual. A mic boom stand willhelp too, a small investment which can be used for other things (like REW). I can see why some folks will raise the levels of their speakers (which is not recommended), but the distances should never be an issue. Remember that the mic that comes with your receiver is a lot more accurate then a sound meter from someone like Radio Shack. Again, another well discussed topic via the link above.


----------



## AllenA07

dvdwilly3 said:


> If you are not dead set on in-ceiling, you could try on-ceiling. I have Supersat 3s for Top Front and Top Rear. The fronts are mounted with Pinpoint
> AM-25 mounts, so that with a little ingenuity, I could drop the mounting slightly to use them vertically and aim them at the seats. The Top Rear are
> actually mounted at the top of the rear wall with DefTech Promount 90's so that I can swivel them however I need them, but functioning as Top Rear.


I'm using on-ceiling speakers so I'll go ahead and second that advice. While not as pretty as in-ceiling, on-ceiling is a good way to save a little bit of money, and have a lot more speakers at your disposal. I ended up using 4 SVS Prime Satellites as my Atmos speakers. 



rolldog said:


> Running XT32 on my 7.2.4 setup with the microphone in all 8 positions (using a Marantz SR7010 and an Outlaw 5000), not even one of my speakers are correct as far as distance/delay/gains, so I set everything up manually. My 4 height speakers are Atmos add-ons, but the biggest difference in with my subs and surrounds. XT32 set my surrounds and my subs at 25', when they're actually only about 6'. So, I ended up manually setting everything up with the distances and used the test tones for each speaker to set the level of each speaker to what I thought sounds the best. I'm not sure if the volume has to be set at a certain level before running XT32, but I've tried setting everything up using XT32 at least a half a dozen times, and it's never even been close to being accurate.


Don't worry about the sub distance, however the other distance settings being wrong is a sign that something isn't working right. What I typically do is run Audyssey in a single position and calculate. I check the levels, distances, speaker size and assuming everything is within the correct ranges, I go ahead and run it again in all 8 positions. I would try rerunning and see if you get the same results. Ideally you don't want to be changing what Audyssey sets for you. If you're still having the problem with the extreme distances, head over to the Audyssey thread and see if they can help you.


----------



## Selden Ball

rolldog said:


> XT32 set my surrounds and my subs at 25', when they're actually only about 6'.


Are you using wireless speakers, by any chance?

The delay going through the wireless transceivers is substantial and typically is the equivalent of about 20 ft.


----------



## blur510

I am about to setup a 5.1.4 system in a small room, how important is the quality of the top speakers, they are only going to be producing sound effects right? thanks


----------



## Stoked21

blur510 said:


> I am about to setup a 5.1.4 system in a small room, how important is the quality of the top speakers, they are only going to be producing sound effects right? thanks


Not picking on you blur510....So please don't take the wrong way. This question comes up a lot. To turn the question into a metaphor: How important is it to put quality tires on a Ferrari? I mean it's only going to be driving 30-40mph through city streets right?

Your system is only as good as the weakest link. Speakers for Atmos should be as good as the rest of your speakers. Keep in mind that they will be imaging with all of your other speakers. So if the tops are inferior, it will result in degrading the sound quality of your LCR or any other speakers with which they are working in conjunction. Now it's true they are currently used less frequently and have less "sound" encoded to them. But the immersive bubble is easily corrupted and collapsed, even if a decent room EQ is used. It's like making Michael Jordan play BB while wearing flip-flops; it may be decent but will never live up to it's full capabilities.

As much as some of us would like to, I'm not advocating full range speakers on the ceiling which rival the quality of your center channel. Nor am I advocating spending $$$ on them. But they should be comparable to the rest of your surround speakers and capable of producing down to at least 80Hz in order to achieve the most immersive experience. Whether you paid $100 or $1000 for a surround, then buy something equitable. Personally, I would never consider anything less than a 6" woofer, preferably 8". I'm also a big advocate of attempting to timbre match by buying speakers with similar drivers, though this is difficult at times. 

There are a lot of great choices out there starting in the $100-200/speaker range IMO. Do it right the first time and save yourself time and money. I've heard several Atmos installs that actually resulted in inferior sound compared to 7.1, cus of inappropriate Atmos speaker selection and placement. People just get the placebo of "more speakers and Atmos" when they've really destroyed the great 7.1 they previously had.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

On a related note to what Stoked was saying, matching the top speakers to the rest of your system is a definite consideration, even if you're on a budget. I just moved from a house where I had a 7.1.4 setup using on-ceiling top mids and on-wall front heights. In the new house, I was able to do in-ceilings, so since all of my other speakers are older Polk Audio, I found 4 Polk V60 Slim speakers on eBay on the cheap. Thanks to a friend who is an electrician, I got them installed Saturday and heard my first 7.1.4 setup with top front/top rear with just about perfect speaker placement all the way around (surrounds on stands about a foot above ear level).

I now totally get the "bubble of sound" reference people here keep making. When you have a fully matched setup with things as close to ideal as possible, Atmos is absolutely stunning. I thought my previous setup was really good, but in this room? WOW. I re-watched Gravity, The Age Of Adaline, and Roger Waters: The Wall after I got it all calibrated. Sounds insanely good! And thanks to having two rows of seating in this new house, I was able to put my Buttkicker back under my MLP as well.

So I would say Stoked is correct. Don't assume that you can half-ass the top speakers because they don't play as much content. Consider that a lot of the sound you will hear will be reproduced by multiple speakers at once, so any mismatch can throw things off. But when your speakers are all of the same quality and timbre, the result will be a very cohesive and realistic soundfield that you will love.

As for my still-in-the-works theater setup, the attached pic is how my in-ceiling Polk V60 Slim install turned out. I have a curtain rod to hang those blackout drapes correctly and a few more aesthetic things to contend with... and will probably paint the ceiling black. But for now, the sound is SO GOOD! It's coming together piece by piece. And I'm glad I got ceiling speakers that match the rest of my system.


----------



## blur510

Stoked21 said:


> Not picking on you blur510....So please don't take the wrong way. This question comes up a lot. To turn the question into a metaphor: How important is it to put quality tires on a Ferrari? I mean it's only going to be driving 30-40mph through city streets right?
> 
> Your system is only as good as the weakest link. Speakers for Atmos should be as good as the rest of your speakers. Keep in mind that they will be imaging with all of your other speakers. So if the tops are inferior, it will result in degrading the sound quality of your LCR or any other speakers with which they are working in conjunction. Now it's true they are currently used less frequently and have less "sound" encoded to them. But the immersive bubble is easily corrupted and collapsed, even if a decent room EQ is used. It's like making Michael Jordan play BB while wearing flip-flops; it may be decent but will never live up to it's full capabilities.
> 
> As much as some of us would like to, I'm not advocating full range speakers on the ceiling which rival the quality of your center channel. Nor am I advocating spending $$$ on them. But they should be comparable to the rest of your surround speakers and capable of producing down to at least 80Hz in order to achieve the most immersive experience. Whether you paid $100 or $1000 for a surround, then buy something equitable. Personally, I would never consider anything less than a 6" woofer, preferably 8". I'm also a big advocate of attempting to timbre match by buying speakers with similar drivers, though this is difficult at times.
> 
> There are a lot of great choices out there starting in the $100-200/speaker range IMO. Do it right the first time and save yourself time and money. I've heard several Atmos installs that actually resulted in inferior sound compared to 7.1, cus of inappropriate Atmos speaker selection and placement. People just get the placebo of "more speakers and Atmos" when they've really destroyed the great 7.1 they previously had.


I don't think you are picking on me at all, I asked a question and your answer is definitely appreciated. I am building a small HT room and I want to do it right or as well as I can. And I want to do it right the first time. I just got a pre-pro (Marantz AV7702 Mk2) and a 7 channel amp (Outlaw 7700) I have B&W 805 D3 for the front and I will be picking up a B&W HTM2 D3 for the center. I am now considering which surround speakers I will be using, and since the will not have to be installed I can use the Klipsch that I have till I figure out what surrounds speakers I will end up getting. The in-ceilings, since they will have to be installed by someone, I want to get right the first time, that is why I am asking the question. And as there is diminishing return on everything, I want to make sure I get the most optimal speaker (balance between price and performance) Thanks for the input it really helps. If you have any suggestions for the ceiling speakers it would be great.





Molon_Labe said:


> I have what many deem respectable Atmos speakers (JBL SCS8) but they are a weak link in my system compared to my other speakers (JBL 4722). The mismatch bothers me to the point that I may revert back to a non-Atmos system. I love immersive audio, but I love all matching more. Just giving you a perspective that is inline with ^^^ Derek's comments above. When something pans to my ceiling, I hear the mismatch and it draws attention to itself, which is not what should happen. Sadly, the timbre matched speakers to my floor speakers are just too big for my room. I am looking for alternatives but it isn't looking promising. I know my perspective is the minority, so I don't want this to turn into a flame Chris post  Just giving my honest perspective.


Wow, I wasn't expecting it to be that important, I don't really even understand tonal balance, I have not really tried to test different speakers to tell the differences. The only place I can really listen to different speakers is the Magnolia store and their system isn't really optimally placed. If you have any suggestions for the ceiling speakers it would be great.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> On a related note to what Stoked was saying, matching the top speakers to the rest of your system is a definite consideration, even if you're on a budget. I just moved from a house where I had a 7.1.4 setup using on-ceiling top mids and on-wall front heights. In the new house, I was able to do in-ceilings, so since all of my other speakers are older Polk Audio, I found 4 Polk V60 Slim speakers on eBay on the cheap. Thanks to a friend who is an electrician, I got them installed Saturday and heard my first 7.1.4 setup with top front/top rear with just about perfect speaker placement all the way around (surrounds on stands about a foot above ear level).
> 
> I now totally get the "bubble of sound" reference people here keep making. When you have a fully matched setup with things as close to ideal as possible, Atmos is absolutely stunning. I thought my previous setup was really good, but in this room? WOW. I re-watched Gravity, The Age Of Adaline, and Roger Waters: The Wall after I got it all calibrated. Sounds insanely good! And thanks to having two rows of seating in this new house, I was able to put my Buttkicker back under my MLP as well.
> 
> So I would say Stoked is correct. Don't assume that you can half-ass the top speakers because they don't play as much content. Consider that a lot of the sound you will hear will be reproduced by multiple speakers at once, so any mismatch can throw things off. But when your speakers are all of the same quality and timbre, the result will be a very cohesive and realistic soundfield that you will love.
> 
> As for my still-in-the-works theater setup, the attached pic is how my in-ceiling Polk V60 Slim install turned out. I have a curtain rod to hang those blackout drapes correctly and a few more aesthetic things to contend with... and will probably paint the ceiling black. But for now, the sound is SO GOOD! It's coming together piece by piece. And I'm glad I got ceiling speakers that match the rest of my system.



Would it be safe to assume that if I have B&W fronts that I should get B&W ceiling speakers? they have a bunch of different models. thanks!!


----------



## rolldog

smurraybhm said:


> If your distances are off for your speakers (sub excluded) then you are not doing something correctly or you have an issue with your mic. The subs will not be set at the same distance - see link below for the reason why. I suggest doing your reading hear
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-faq-post-51779-a-191.html#post14456895
> 
> not in the A/V's manual. A mic boom stand willhelp too, a small investment which can be used for other things (like REW). I can see why some folks will raise the levels of their speakers (which is not recommended), but the distances should never be an issue. Remember that the mic that comes with your receiver is a lot more accurate then a sound meter from someone like Radio Shack. Again, another well discussed topic via the link above.


Awesome, thanks! I never even knew this thread existed.


----------



## Stoked21

Molon_Labe said:


> I have what many deem respectable Atmos speakers (JBL SCS8) but they are a weak link in my system compared to my other speakers (JBL 4722). The mismatch bothers me to the point that I may revert back to a non-Atmos system. I love immersive audio, but I love all matching more. Just giving you a perspective that is inline with ^^^ Derek's comments above. When something pans to my ceiling, I hear the mismatch and it draws attention to itself, which is not what should happen. Sadly, the timbre matched speakers to my floor speakers are just too big for my room. I am looking for alternatives but it isn't looking promising. I know my perspective is the minority, so I don't want this to turn into a flame Chris post  Just giving my honest perspective.


OHH! A roast Chris post? Can I go first!?!?! 

Seriously though, I'm really surprised that the SCS8 don't match that well to the 4722. Then again, maybe they match really well but just not close enough for your tastes and preferences? Don't want to turn this into a JBL thread, but I would think they would have similar or identical components and construction? When I was running Niles ICs (trying to match silk tweeters IC with gold dome tweeter LCR and silk tweeter surrounds) I noticed the mismatch big time. Most noticeably up top. No one else ever noticed it. 

Right now my entire 7.x.4 is matching compression drivers (11) with matching 8's (14) all the way around and above. I've been debating swapping to a massive LCR trio up front. Same brand, similar drivers but from 2-way to 3-way and from 8's up to 10s.....As much as I think it would help in the LF region, I'm really concerned about deviating from my perfect match....Especially since it would cost me more $$$!!! Frustrating.

So indeed we are a fickle bunch that is picky as hell, with perfection coursing through or veins, and unrealistic expectations deeply seated!! But to ditch Atmos entirely? Chris I'm ashamed of you!


----------



## rolldog

Selden Ball said:


> Are you using wireless speakers, by any chance?
> 
> The delay going through the wireless transceivers is substantial and typically is the equivalent of about 20 ft.


Yes I am. My subs came with the wireless connections, which I wasn't going to use, but I ended up moving both subs to the back of the room. The installers haven't come out yet to make the cable drops for my side surrounds rear surrounds, and the rest Atmos add-ons, so should I have them run cables for the subs instead of using these wireless things? Right now everything looks ghetto since the speaker cables are visible running to all the speakers. I just couldn't wait for the installer to come out before hooking up my speakers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

blur510 said:


> Would it be safe to assume that if I have B&W fronts that I should get B&W ceiling speakers? they have a bunch of different models. thanks!!


I think most would say yes. Not that you can't find a reasonably close match outside of their product line (or mitigate it somewhat with room EQ products like Audyssey MultEQ XT32, etc.), but each speaker company tends to have a particular sound. Timbre-matching within the same brand (and model line, if possible) normally gives you the best chance at a cohesive sound between speakers... which Atmos is pretty heavily dependent upon. For instance, if the mixer intends a sound to image from a partially elevated position to one side of the room, you're likely going to have that sound coming from 3 or more speakers so that it images in the right location. If any of those speakers don't have the same sound, it can shift the placement or just make the transition sound odd. It's far more noticeable with objects that pan across speakers.

For instance, in my setup before this, I was using all of the same line speakers from Polk except my top mids, which were their OWM-5 on-ceiling speakers. They sounded good for that application... but you could definitely tell a difference in the sound. Now that I have the V60 ceiling speakers, they're more of a match for the timbre of my bed-level speakers, and you can immediately tell.


----------



## tbrown187

rolldog said:


> Yes I am. My subs came with the wireless connections, which I wasn't going to use, but I ended up moving both subs to the back of the room. The installers haven't come out yet to make the cable drops for my side surrounds rear surrounds, and the rest Atmos add-ons, so should I have them run cables for the subs instead of using these wireless things? Right now everything looks ghetto since the speaker cables are visible running to all the speakers. I just couldn't wait for the installer to come out before hooking up my speakers.


I have my sub using a wireless setup because I have no choice in my room. Audessey detects it as being 26 feet away and and uses that setting to control sound delivery. It blends in perfectly with my system and sounds pretty fantastic. Wired is going to be better. But, IMO, if you have a good tx/rx system, you can still get good, blended bass.


----------



## ALtlOff

tbrown187 said:


> Ok, so before I post in the general audio area, I figured I would check here, straight from other Atmos aficionados. What are some recommended in-ceiling speaker brand/models specifically for movie based Atmos .4 layouts?
> 
> I have Yamaha IC600s (I'm limited to 8"-8.5" wide cutouts unfortunately.) They sound good overall, but lack in comparative sound with the rest of my system (nothing fancy, just some DT Mythos.) I was eyeing several brands/models: Speakercraft Aim7's because I liked the idea of having control over the angle of the sound, Polk RT-90 because it looked to provide a full overall sound, DT DI 6.5Rs since I have all DT speakers, and a few other of the usual suspects. But I didn't know if any of these were total overkill (above my Yamahas) since these speakers are dedicated to Atmos?
> 
> Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.


I'll add to some of the other posts and say, since your running a DefTech Mythos system I think I'd go ahead and timbre match your Tops, all of DefTech's speakers timbre match, no matter which line, so for in-ceiling I'd use DI5.5's (since none of the Mythos line uses any larger than a 5.25 driver, you wouldn't really "need" to go any larger) or for on-wall or on-ceiling of look at some mythos Gems (not the XL's they really don't give you enough extra sound for the extra cost)


----------



## Kwikas

Molon_Labe said:


> @*Peterc613*
> 
> I dont think we will see any channel expansions beyond 7.1.4 until at least 2017.


9.1.6 would be great. But please give it to me as a preamp. I'll take care of the external amplification myself.


----------



## lunnar

tbrown187 said:


> Ok, so before I post in the general audio area, I figured I would check here, straight from other Atmos aficionados. What are some recommended in-ceiling speaker brand/models specifically for movie based Atmos .4 layouts?
> 
> I have Yamaha IC600s (I'm limited to 8"-8.5" wide cutouts unfortunately.) They sound good overall, but lack in comparative sound with the rest of my system (nothing fancy, just some DT Mythos.) I was eyeing several brands/models: Speakercraft Aim7's because I liked the idea of having control over the angle of the sound, Polk RT-90 because it looked to provide a full overall sound, DT DI 6.5Rs since I have all DT speakers, and a few other of the usual suspects. But I didn't know if any of these were total overkill (above my Yamahas) since these speakers are dedicated to Atmos?
> 
> Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.


I've just upgraded my HT room to 7.1.4(fairly small room, 11'X17'X8') and placed 4 M3 in-celing speakers from Axiom Audio. Great speakers ,they have aiming tweeters, I have a full set of axiom speakers so they blend nicely, but I must see the Atmos exeperience with those 4 new speakers is incredible. of course my new receiver(anthem mrx-1120) might also be a part of the reason my sound is so amazing now.


----------



## AllenA07

Kwikas said:


> 9.1.6 would be great. But please give it to me as a preamp. I'll take care of the external amplification myself.


I imagine for the average home space 9.1.6 is going to be the end game when it comes to Atmos. In my room for instance, I think that 6 overheads would be the most logical number, with fronts, middle, and rears. It'll be interesting seeing how long it takes for reasonably priced AVR's to hit the market that are capable of processing that many channels.

In a bit of future proofing, bought an Emotive XPA-5 because I wanted the extra two channels of amplification for future growth. Not sure if I'll ever use them, but the price wasn't that much more and it gives me the ability for some expansion.


----------



## Peterc613

Kwikas said:


> 9.1.6 would be great. But please give it to me as a preamp. I'll take care of the external amplification myself.





AllenA07 said:


> I imagine for the average home space 9.1.6 is going to be the end game when it comes to Atmos. In my room for instance, I think that 6 overheads would be the most logical number, with fronts, middle, and rears. It'll be interesting seeing how long it takes for reasonably priced AVR's to hit the market that are capable of processing that many channels.


I totally agree. From what I've seen of people's systems when doing installs, the market sort of separates into four loose groups.

(1) People with 5.1 or sometimes 7.1 systems in a multipurpose room with no intention (or WAF) of ever using more speakers than that. Sometimes its about budget, mostly it's about available space and simplicity. This category also includes audiophiles trying to have their 2 channel rig and theater rig in the same setup using higher end premium electronics. I believe this category is the largest group of all.

(2) People with 5.1 or 7.1 systems multipurpose or separate media room that want Atmos and plan to install 4 height in-ceiling speakers. For this group, the current crop of Atmos enabled AVR's and processors that are firmly lodged in the current 11.1 active channel format will be more than sufficient. This group is smaller than group 1 but still sizable, and includes people that are happy with 7.1 but want an AVR that's capable of future expansion should they wish.

(3) Enthusiast like many of the members on AVS with 7.1, 9.1, 11.1 or more channels, often with multichannel external amplifiers, that consider audio/video a hobby or passion and want as many channels as the pocketbook, wife acceptance and available space will permit. A large number have DIY home theaters, but the majority try to integrate their systems into game rooms, home gyms and family entertainment rooms. We live vicariously on the exploits of others posting about their purchases and build threads until conditions permit us to upgrade our own system ad-infinitum. This is a much smaller, but very active group of consumers.

(4) Lastly are the people with the budget to hire professionals to design and install high end Home Theater's between $50k and $250k. This is the smallest group of all, but the most lucrative market for professional integrators. Sadly, many of these systems are used lightly or are in the owner's second or third property hardly used at all. A month ago we bid on a theater install for a $12 million house in Brentwood in a very exclusive gated community. Their budget was $90,000 for the Home theater, distributed audio and whole house automation. The owner was the finance minister of a east european country and this was his fourth house for when he visited Beverly Hills. We lost the bid to a much larger integrator who came in at a mere $75,000. 

I agree that for most of us in group 3, that a theater system with 9.1.6 with high front, top and rear speakers will be the perfect balance between performance and complexity. I already have the extra amplifiers and am already prewired for up to 9.1.8. Maybe we should start an email campaign to D&M to encourage them to invest the money in actually producing the next generation Atmos processors.


----------



## zimmo

I think we have the dreamer here,the people we have 7.2.4 is very rare ,in 2104 and 2015 not to mutch people we have receiver avr whit 11 .2 chanels ,MARRANTZ AND DENON never make receiver whit 11.2 chanels ,I dont think in 2017 any company make receiver whit 9.2.6 or over ,maybe 9.2.4 that sall this my opinion .


----------



## zigzag666

Anyone know if Dolby/Atmos and or DTS/X supports 6.1.2? Yes I mean 6.1 not 5.1 or 7.1.x My Marantz 7702mk2 supports a single rear surround and I was thinking of adding that channel. My room is a very difficult shape and with the furniture layout, etc only a single "centered" rear would make sense. While my current 5.1.2 has incredible front/surround and top, it seems to lack that "rear" effect.

I don't want to add this unless Dolby and DTS will utilize that "1" rear speaker. If so, how would 5.1 ad 7.1 tracks use this (or would they)?


----------



## alamez

zigzag666 said:


> Anyone know if Dolby/Atmos and or DTS/X supports 6.1.2? Yes I mean 6.1 not 5.1 or 7.1.x My Marantz 7702mk2 supports a single rear surround and I was thinking of adding that channel. My room is a very difficult shape and with the furniture layout, etc only a single "centered" rear would make sense. While my current 5.1.2 has incredible front/surround and top, it seems to lack that "rear" effect.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to add this unless Dolby and DTS will utilize that "1" rear speaker. If so, how would 5.1 ad 7.1 tracks use this (or would they)?




Im in the same boat.


----------



## dvdwilly3

zigzag666 said:


> Anyone know if Dolby/Atmos and or DTS/X supports 6.1.2? Yes I mean 6.1 not 5.1 or 7.1.x My Marantz 7702mk2 supports a single rear surround and I was thinking of adding that channel. My room is a very difficult shape and with the furniture layout, etc only a single "centered" rear would make sense. While my current 5.1.2 has incredible front/surround and top, it seems to lack that "rear" effect.
> 
> I don't want to add this unless Dolby and DTS will utilize that "1" rear speaker. If so, how would 5.1 ad 7.1 tracks use this (or would they)?


I don't know about other AVRs, but my TX-NR1030, which has 9 amplifiers, but will do 11 channels using the preouts and an external amplifier, has in the Speaker Configuration section of the Setup...

Back Channel 2ch *Select the number of channels of the connected
surround back speaker.*
"1ch": When one speaker is connected (Connect to
the BACK L terminal)
"2ch": When two speakers are connected
 The setting cannot be changed if "Back" is set to
"None".

What would happen is that you would get both left and right into the single rear speaker. Whether you could decipher any kind of side to side panning, I have no idea.

But, yes, you could run a single rear speaker...


----------



## zigzag666

dvdwilly3 said:


> I don't know about other AVRs, but my TX-NR1030, which has 9 amplifiers, but will do 11 channels using the preouts and an external amplifier, has in the Speaker Configuration section of the Setup...
> 
> Back Channel 2ch *Select the number of channels of the connected
> surround back speaker.*
> "1ch": When one speaker is connected (Connect to
> the BACK L terminal)
> "2ch": When two speakers are connected
>  The setting cannot be changed if "Back" is set to
> "None".
> 
> What would happen is that you would get both left and right into the single rear speaker. Whether you could decipher any kind of side to side panning, I have no idea.
> 
> But, yes, you could run a single rear speaker...


But, the question still is whether that is a valid dolby Atmos or DTS X configuration. If yes, then I would expect the l/r to get merged as you say. Maybe.... if a 7.1 soundtrack.

SO what about 5.1 soundtracks? Do they even use the additional "rear" 1 or 2 channels? Perhaps DSU is the key to making these channels work with non-atmos material. But since there is no DSU with Atmos, what happens in with Atmos tracks that are not 7.1? Same Q with DTS.


----------



## batpig

Native Atmos will work with a single Surr Back speaker, but DSU will NOT upmix to that speaker.

One option you could look at is a dual-input speaker where it's one cabinet but twin faces that can be wired with separate inputs and operate as two channels. Or just place two speakers very close together?


----------



## systemlayers

Am I going to 'gain' anything if I wait a year or two on atmos? It's pretty unlikely any 7.2.2 or 7.2.4 capable receivers come down in price in say 2017 or 2018 right? I really want to hear atmos and everything I've heard is that it's great but it's kind of a pain since I paid big money only 3.5 years ago for my Onkyo 3010.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

As to the question of consumer products with more than 7.1.4 configurations...

At CEDIA there was mention by the higher ups of 2016 upper tier models that may support 9.1.4 given the fact that the new DSP chips being used by *Denon/Marantz* could handle two more rendered speaker outputs. Given that their higher end models have 13.2 outputs already, this seems like a likely scenario. 9.1.6 would be great, but I doubt that will happen until all the chips have improved horsepower, greater channel flexibility, and the chassis designs are updated to allow for greater speaker counts.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> As to the question of consumer products with more than 7.1.4 configurations...
> 
> At CEDIA there was mention by the higher ups of 2016 upper tier models that may support 9.1.4 given the fact that the new DSP chips being used by *Denon/Marantz* could handle two more rendered speaker outputs. Given that their higher end models have 13.2 outputs already, this seems like a likely scenario. 9.1.6 would be great, but I doubt that will happen until all the chips have improved horsepower, greater channel flexibility, and the chassis designs are updated to allow for greater speaker counts.


9.1.4 would be a good 'sweet spot' to capture objects just 'off screen' in a wide or front side surround configuration, and mean not giving up a pair of height speakers for mainstream processor owners.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> 9.1.4 would be a good 'sweet spot' to capture objects just 'off screen' in a wide or front side surround configuration....


Absolutely! That's what happens already as I'm using Front Wides currently (really noticeable on _Gravity_ as the dialog tracks off screen a lot), but I have to sacrifice the rear surrounds in the process. I chose to do that in order to get four overheads.


----------



## bdraw

systemlayers said:


> Am I going to 'gain' anything if I wait a year or two on atmos? It's pretty unlikely any 7.2.2 or 7.2.4 capable receivers come down in price in say 2017 or 2018 right? I really want to hear atmos and everything I've heard is that it's great but it's kind of a pain since I paid big money only 3.5 years ago for my Onkyo 3010.


I doubt you'll gain anything price wise, as high end AVRs have cost N of $1k for years, but I personally believe that object based audio like Atmos will evolve over the next few years. Right now its hard to find an AVR with more than a 9 channel amp or ones that will drive more than 11 channels via external amps. I suspect we'll see this number go higher and newer sound processors should be able to do a better job optimizing the objects for your specific speaker layout -- IE, most receivers only measure distance and not height or angle, and even if they do, they don't necessarily use that info when rendering Atmos (like the RX-a3050).


----------



## jrogers

sdrucker said:


> 9.1.4 would be a good 'sweet spot' to capture objects just 'off screen' in a wide or front side surround configuration, and mean not giving up a pair of height speakers for mainstream processor owners.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Absolutely! That's what happens already as I'm using Front Wides currently (really noticeable on _Gravity_ as the dialog tracks off screen a lot), but I have to sacrifice the rear surrounds in the process. I chose to do that in order to get four overheads.


I don't have the option of rear surrounds, but having now installed and heard my front wides with both native Atmos and DTS:X (and Neural:X) I think that once folks here have the ability to move to 9.1.4, they will be really impressed by how much of an improvement it makes. 

Dan - it makes me feel better about my room limitations that someone is actually choosing to forego rear surrounds for front wides


----------



## SoundChex

sdrucker said:


> 9.1.4 would be a good 'sweet spot' to capture objects just 'off screen' in a wide or front side surround configuration, and mean not giving up a pair of height speakers for mainstream processor owners.



It seems likely that "next year" the Dolby decoder in AVRs will decode both Atmos and AC-4 bitsream content. Note that the AC-4 codec spec contains separately identified "wide" (Lw|Rw) and "edge of screen" (Lscr|Rscr) speaker pair locations...?!  










_________________________________________________________________________
_Source_ *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*).



_


----------



## TheBrandon

For those running 5.2.4 configurations and have PS4, are you choosing 5.1 or 7.1 in the audio options on PS4 for games? I realize bitstream option for movies both in audio options and then in the audio options in the Blu Ray playback audio options and finally Atmos track in movie but I was curious what folks are running for best processing of Atmos channels or dsp for games.


----------



## Peterc613

zimmo said:


> I think we have the dreamer here,the people we have 7.2.4 is very rare ,in 2104 and 2015 not to mutch people we have receiver avr whit 11 .2 chanels ,MARRANTZ AND DENON never make receiver whit 11.2 chanels ,I dont think in 2017 any company make receiver whit 9.2.6 or over ,maybe 9.2.4 that sall this my opinion .


I agree that in a AV Receiver with built in amplification, more than 9.1 or even 11.2 will be the maximum for some time. There is not enough demand in the AVR market for more than 7.1.4 and it's too expensive to add two more channels of processing and amplification with the attendant larger power supply. 

However in separates, I have to believe that 9.2.4 in seperate preamps or processors are right around the corner. The Marrantz AV8802 already has 13 HDAM op-amp modules and 15 XLR's outputs, but it's four DSP's don't have the processing horsepower to actively drive more than 11.1 of those outputs. It would not be a huge change in form factor to add 2 more HDAM modules, another DSP on the HDMI motherboard, or use more efficient 2'nd generation ATMOS processing software to activate those two additional channels already on the back panel.

Frankly, there's a huge gap in price between $3,999 for 13.2 channels on the AV8802 and $10,000 - $24,000 for the next step up from Datasat or Trinnov. An earlier post said that Marrantz is selling the AV8802 as fast as they can make them. That makes sense because there is a demand for separate processors with more than 11.1 and very few people can afford the $10-$24k higher price point. It's inevitable that competitors like Emotiva or Onkyo/Integra will try to catch up, thereby putting even more pressure on D&M to up their game to 9.2.4 and stay on top of the market.

Marantz released the AV8802 on the 18th of December 2014, so CEDIA in September 2016 or CES in January 2017 would match their 2 year product cycle.


----------



## Selden Ball

Peterc613 said:


> Marantz released the AV8802 on the 18th of December 2014, so CEDIA in September 2016 or CES in January 2017 would match their 2 year product cycle.


Unfortunately, JDSmoothie has already reported that he's been informed by Denon/Marantz that the follow-on flagship receiver and pre/pro won't be available until winter of 2017/2018. They're skipping a year.


----------



## Stoked21

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, JDSmoothie has already reported that he's been informed by Denon/Marantz that the follow-on flagship receiver and pre/pro won't be available until winter of 2017/2018. They're skipping a year.


Yeah but my bet is that Onkyo/Integra might. I'm not an Onkyo hater, so don't misconstrue this. Their flagship lines are outdated compared to D&M and Yamaha. The 3030 is old, doesn't have X or HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2. Quiet frankly I'm not sure why anyway would have bought Onkyo in the last 12 months. They need a new high channel count model. If I were a betting man, they'll obviously release something new late this year. As to whether it's 13 channels.....Well we'll see but I would be really surprised if they didn't. After all, they were the first with 11 channels when the 3030 came out and 11 amps at that.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

Stoked21 said:


> Yeah but my bet is that Onkyo/Integra might.


I have a Onkyo PR-SC5508P and asked (Facebook) when they plan to update the PR-SC5530. They replied they had no plans for any new pre-amps. IMHO, they are getting out of the pre-amp business and doing receivers only.


----------



## vodil

*7.1.4 vs. 5.1.6?*

Currently I have a 7.2 system but will be upgrading my AVR to ATMOS (and DTS:X) soon and will add some ceiling speakers.
My current rear (dipole) surrounds are wall-mounted high and almost on top of the favored seating and cannot domestically be moved.
So if I add 4 ceiling speakers is it better to call it 7.2.4 or 5.2.6?


----------



## Stoked21

vodil said:


> Currently I have a 7.2 system but will be upgrading my AVR to ATMOS (and DTS:X) soon and will add some ceiling speakers.
> My current rear (dipole) surrounds are wall-mounted high and almost on top of the favored seating and cannot domestically be moved.
> So if I add 4 ceiling speakers is it better to call it 7.2.4 or 5.2.6?


You probably won't like this answer. Plus people who have implemented Atmos incorrectly will yell and scream. Bottom line is if you want it done right, do it right.

First off, if your rear surrounds are up high, they should be lowered to about ear level if you really want a 7.1.4. However, since your's can't be moved then simply re-designate them as rear heights. In this configuration you would have 5.2.4 and it would be correctly laid out per Dolby's and DTS specs and recommendations (for the technologies they pioneered and working the way they intended for it to work/sound). You would end up with correct object positioning by doing this.

Secondly, you shouldn't use dipoles for your rear heights (or per recommendations use them anywhere with immersive) so would probably want to entertain swapping them out.

Third, and finally, nothing supports x.x.6 unless you're looking at spending $10K plus for a Trinnov or something. Maybe 10-24 months before anything does.

I'm really thinking your best bet is to go 5.1.4 if you are unwilling to lower your rear surrounds. Having bed speakers up high in the Atmos "field" is going to destroy your imaging and immersiveness.


----------



## ALtlOff

vodil said:


> Currently I have a 7.2 system but will be upgrading my AVR to ATMOS (and DTS:X) soon and will add some ceiling speakers.
> My current rear (dipole) surrounds are wall-mounted high and almost on top of the favored seating and cannot domestically be moved.
> So if I add 4 ceiling speakers is it better to call it 7.2.4 or 5.2.6?


As pointed out above it won't be prefect, but hey, if you have to you have to...

But...also as pointed out, the di-poles are not recommended at all, you really should replace them or at least look into a re-wire to make them bi-poles.

And yes, you can only call it 7.1.4, your rear surrounds would just be up high (of all the positions at ear level, rears would give you the least problems/noticability, if they're up high)

I would suggest you make sure that the receiver you choose will give you the option of having TM with a x.x.4 setup (my Yamaha doesn't, only TM designation available is with a x.x.2 setup) then set the positioning for your rear "overheads" in the TM location.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

On the subject of surround height... In my new (and still evolving) room, I have my side and rear surrounds on adjustable stands. Initially, I set them up at the same height as my mains as per the guidelines, directly to the sides of my first row of seating. I know that's supposed to be how you do it, but honestly, it just sounded off that way. Just way too direct. It basically put listeners in the front row about 3 feet from those speakers, which just didn't sound good to me no matter how I tweaked (and didn't work well for the second row at all).

Tried raising them up a foot or so, which puts them at roughly half the room height and maybe a foot above the mains, and they're more indirect but not nearly as "in your face" and distracting, though I still get the directionality you'd expect. I still have about 4 feet from the top of the speaker to the ceiling and my ceiling speakers are installed a bit further into the room than in-line with the mains (because the mains are widely spaced due to my projector screen). And I still seem to get the bubble of sound effect this way. I've calibrated both ways and I just can't agree with the ear height surrounds that Dolby recommends. If the goal is to make it sound like a theater does (which is kinda' my goal - don't know about anyone else here), having them slightly elevated does a much better job of conveying the sound that speaker arrays in the theater give you. I mean, I guess the argument would be one of precision here... but certainly, I can't be the only one who has tried both and opted for slightly elevated surrounds despite the specified setup guidelines.


----------



## vodil

ALtlOff said:


> As pointed out above it won't be prefect, but hey, if you have to you have to...
> 
> But...also as pointed out, the di-poles are not recommended at all, you really should replace them or at least look into a re-wire to make them bi-poles.


I use Polk Fxi speakers for surrounds and they can be in bi-pole or dipole mode. I will switch them to bi-pole.
Thanks


----------



## vodil

*Rear Height instead of Rear surround*



Stoked21 said:


> You probably won't like this answer. Plus people who have implemented Atmos incorrectly will yell and scream. Bottom line is if you want it done right, do it right.
> 
> First off, if your rear surrounds are up high, they should be lowered to about ear level if you really want a 7.1.4. However, since your's can't be moved then simply re-designate them as rear heights. In this configuration you would have 5.2.4 and it would be correctly laid out per Dolby's and DTS specs and recommendations (for the technologies they pioneered and working the way they intended for it to work/sound). You would end up with correct object positioning by doing this.
> ... and finally, nothing supports x.x.6 unless you're looking at spending $10K plus for a Trinnov or something. Maybe 10-24 months before anything does.


I have 11.2 of speakers and was planning on an ANTHEM mrx1120. I thought it would do 5.2.6 (i.e. rear heights instead of rear surround), but if not then it is 7.2.4 and some poor immersion. Have to make do within limits.

Thanks.


----------



## Stoked21

vodil said:


> I have 11.2 of speakers and was planning on an ANTHEM mrx1120. I thought it would do 5.2.6 (i.e. rear heights instead of rear surround), but if not then it is 7.2.4 and some poor immersion. Have to make do within limits.
> 
> Thanks.


Not to my knowledge though I've never owned Anthem. I'm pretty certain this isn't the case. I don't think anything is doing 3 pairs up top except for Trinnov, Datasat, or rolling your own with multiple AVRs via Scatmos....

I'd love to use my middle pair. Honestly though I and many who have heard my HT question what would be gained. They image so well between top front and top rear that it's really not necessary. Yes it would add more granularity and a real speaker would be better than phantom imaging. Regardless, I wouldn't call it "poor immersion" or a compromise by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## tunegoon

*Polk rc80i for atmos*

I finished installing the last two Polk RC80i in ceiling speakers today for a 9.2.4 system. Should I break in atmos speakers by running music through them first? Does it make a big difference?


----------



## sprins

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In my new (and still evolving) room, I have my side and rear surrounds on adjustable stands.


Me too. I even think I'll keep it that way, who cares since it's dark when watching a movie anyway. Makes experimenting so much easier. 

I'm going to move to a new place soon (with new man-cave possibilities) and I'm even thinking of placing the heights on a movable construction (simple truss setup).


----------



## meegwell

tbrown187 said:


> Ok, so before I post in the general audio area, I figured I would check here, straight from other Atmos aficionados. What are some recommended in-ceiling speaker brand/models specifically for movie based Atmos .4 layouts?
> 
> I have Yamaha IC600s (I'm limited to 8"-8.5" wide cutouts unfortunately.) They sound good overall, but lack in comparative sound with the rest of my system (nothing fancy, just some DT Mythos.) I was eyeing several brands/models: Speakercraft Aim7's because I liked the idea of having control over the angle of the sound, Polk RT-90 because it looked to provide a full overall sound, DT DI 6.5Rs since I have all DT speakers, and a few other of the usual suspects. But I didn't know if any of these were total overkill (above my Yamahas) since these speakers are dedicated to Atmos?
> 
> Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.



FWIW I've had a basement setup with Speakercraft AIM Wide Three as the surround and rear surround in a 7.1 setup for about 5 years now. They are matched with Speakercraft Cinema Wide Three and the matching center. The whole thing has been delivering incredible performance over the years and for the AIMs in the ceiling I particularly like the way they diffuse sound enough so you can't easily point to the exact speaker location but sound movement is very distinct for a given scene where appropriate. 

For example, when it is raining in a scene I hear clear dynamic range of drops everywhere in the ~20x15' room, and it sounds like there is a speaker at every square foot of ceiling. But when a chopper zooms by, it's traveling path is very discrete.


----------



## ALtlOff

sprins said:


> Me too. I even think I'll keep it that way, who cares since it's dark when watching a movie anyway. Makes experimenting so much easier.
> 
> I'm going to move to a new place soon (with new man-cave possibilities) and I'm even thinking of placing the heights on a movable construction (simple truss setup).


Boxes with painter's tape to hold them to the walls....


----------



## dvdwilly3

vodil said:


> Currently I have a 7.2 system but will be upgrading my AVR to ATMOS (and DTS:X) soon and will add some ceiling speakers.
> My current rear (dipole) surrounds are wall-mounted high and almost on top of the favored seating and cannot domestically be moved.
> So if I add 4 ceiling speakers is it better to call it 7.2.4 or 5.2.6?


Is the domestic objection that she does not want a hole left if you move them, does not want an additional set of speakers (at ear level), or just no additional speakers...or, none of the above?


----------



## vodil

dvdwilly3 said:


> Is the domestic objection that she does not want a hole left if you move them, does not want an additional set of speakers (at ear level), or just no additional speakers...or, none of the above?


Primary viewing position must be against back wall of room. Rear speakers must be above stanging eye level. Sort of like back row of a theater.


----------



## dvdwilly3

vodil said:


> Primary viewing position must be against back wall of room. Rear speakers must be above stanging eye level. Sort of like back row of a theater.


Okay. What are your dipole/bipole speakers?


----------



## vodil

dvdwilly3 said:


> Okay. What are your dipole/bipole speakers?


Polk F/XiA6


----------



## gene4ht

Stoked21 said:


> Yeah but *my bet is that Onkyo/Integra might.* I'm not an Onkyo hater, so don't misconstrue this. Their flagship lines are outdated compared to D&M and Yamaha. The 3030 is old, doesn't have X or HDMI2.0a/HDCP2.2. Quiet frankly I'm not sure why anyway would have bought Onkyo in the last 12 months. They need a new high channel count model. If I were a betting man, they'll obviously release something new late this year. As to whether it's 13 channels.....Well we'll see but I would be really surprised if they didn't. After all, they were the first with 11 channels when the 3030 came out and 11 amps at that.


This has been rumored in European (French & German) publications since December 2015 and only recently confirmed in the U.S. per Onkyo's press release on 3.28.2016...so done deal! Also, someone in these threads mentioned that Yamaha's upcoming 3060 would have 11 channel capability. If true, this would appear to leave D+M lagging a bit...provided the information being provided to JD is accurate..

Later this year, Onkyo will unveil details for its advanced 9.2 and 11.2 channel RZ series offerings, including the 9.2 channel TX-RZ1100 network receiver, the 11.2 channel TX-RZ3100 network receiver and 11.2 channel PR-RZ5100 network pre-processor.

See complete press release...

http://www.onkyousa.com/Info/pressreleases.php


----------



## dvdwilly3

vodil said:


> Polk F/XiA6


So, if you got a pair of Pinpoint AM-25 speaker mounts...

http://www.pinpointmounts.com/AM-25_Universal_Speaker_Ceiling_Mount_Black.html

and used the lower keyhole slot on the back your bipoles, you would get about a 5+" standoff from the wall. It looks like that bottom keyhole slot on the speakers is about 10" from the bottom of the speaker.

That would permit you to mount your dipoles so that you could get ~30+ degree angle pointed toward down your seating position. That should increase the immersion provided by your surrounds...and make them less likely to interfere with the sound field from your overheads.

The mounts are rated at 12 pounds, but they are very sturdy and rigid, and could handle more weight. Your Polks only weigh 13. I am using them for my on-ceiling Top Front speakers, Goldenear Supersat 3s, and they work very well.

They come with a variety of mounting plates and adapters...where there is a will, there is a way...


----------



## sprins

ALtlOff said:


> Boxes with painter's tape to hold them to the walls....


I don't know. At 15 lb a pop I better be using duct tape.


----------



## thebland

WOW! Congrats! These Sony's are popping up everywhere?

Reminds me of the Qualia release!!


----------



## tbaucom

vodil said:


> Primary viewing position must be against back wall of room. Rear speakers must be above stanging eye level. Sort of like back row of a theater.


My advice, get rid of the rear speakers. Your seating is against the back wall. All you are doing is muddying the sound stage if you can't position them properly. I would use a different set of speakers where you have the current rears surrounds and make them either rear heights or top middle. You can then add front heights and have a proper 5.1.4 atmos setup. 

This will better represent the sound mix as intended. If you want more floor level speakers, use wides to get to 7.1.4 if you can position them properly.


----------



## pmeintel

tunegoon said:


> I finished installing the last two Polk RC80i in ceiling speakers today for a 9.2.4 system. Should I break in atmos speakers by running music through them first? Does it make a big difference?


I've been looking at these same speakers to use as X.X.4 as well. What other brand speakers are they being used with? Let us know your thoughts and opinions on their performance. At around $150.00 a pair they seem like a great option.


----------



## gene4ht

tunegoon said:


> I finished installing the last two Polk RC80i in ceiling speakers today for a 9.2.4 system. *Should I break in atmos speakers by running music through them first? Does it make a big difference?*


Not necessary...



pmeintel said:


> *I've been looking at these same speakers to use as X.X.4* as well. What other brand speakers are they being used with?* Let us know your thoughts and opinions on their performance.* At around $150.00 a pair they seem like a great option.


Just an FYI...AVS'ers tested a few entry level 8" IC speakers three years ago...long before Atmos.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...erence-series-speakers-price-drop-amazon.html


----------



## Holiday121

So I'm getting the atmos itch again.

I have Martin Logan Esl front with Martin Logan fx2 as rears.


I cannot do in ceiling speakers so was looking for something close that would do well for atmos. 

Any suggestions ?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I'm guessing this has been hashed out to death on the forums already (I've been away for a while again). What's going on with the UHD atmos releases that include a 1080p disc? I've heard only a few have atmos on the 1080p disc? Anyone know which companies are screwing consumers over by doing that? So obnoxious! Do they at least tell you which codec is on which disc? 

I'm hoping to at least pick up the Star Trek UHD with 1080p releases in the hopes of getting atmos on the 1080p version. 

Interesting that Disney still has an Atmos embargo on all their disc releases so far


----------



## meli

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm guessing this has been hashed out to death on the forums already (I've been away for a while again). What's going on with the UHD atmos releases that include a 1080p disc?....(



I'm not up to date on that, either. I know it was being discussed in this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-blu-ray-software/2297090-atmos-becoming-uhd-exclusive.html

What is the most recently released Blu-ray with Atmos? I'm not sure, but it seems like it's been awhile. Has there been anything since January?


----------



## djc11369

meli said:


> What is the most recently released Blu-ray with Atmos? I'm not sure, but it seems like it's been awhile. Has there been anything since January?


The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2, Game of Thrones season 5 and In the Heart of the Sea. 13 Hours and Game of Thrones season 4 are the next scheduled in June according to blu-ray.com


----------



## meli

djc11369 said:


> The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2, Game of Thrones season 5 and In the Heart of the Sea. 13 Hours and Game of Thrones season 4 are the next scheduled in June according to blu-ray.com


Cool. Thanks. Is there a website that lists Atmos Blu-Rays by release date? So I can check what's most current?


----------



## djc11369

Use Blu-ray.com. Select Blu-ray at the top of the homepage then select search movies under the Database heading on the left side. Enter Atmos under audio, select 1080p under video resolution and 2016 under release year. After hitting the search button select to sort by release date.


----------



## meli

djc11369 said:


> Use Blu-ray.com. Select Blu-ray at the top of the homepage then select search movies under the Database heading on the left side. Enter Atmos under audio, select 1080p under video resolution and 2016 under release year. After hitting the search button select to sort by release date.


Perfect. Thanks.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

meli said:


> I'm not up to date on that, either. I know it was being discussed in this thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-blu-ray-software/2297090-atmos-becoming-uhd-exclusive.html
> 
> What is the most recently released Blu-ray with Atmos? I'm not sure, but it seems like it's been awhile. Has there been anything since January?


Ty... it does seem we are in a drought either way... theatrical releases in Atmos are slowing down & by extension so are discs  

I did just spot the Jungle book is playing in laser 3D @ dolby cinema... good excuse to see an Atmos flick with my step daughter. I wonder if any new legacy content will be released in Atmos soon? Dracula & 5th elemeent were surprises


----------



## LNEWoLF

Brand new latest technology atmos enabled speakers with built in speaker stands make setup easy. 

http://www.sandermulder.com/woofers.html


----------



## Pac1012

Hey guys was looking for a little advice. I did give a cursory look at the thread to try and get an answer but 1300 pages just too much to sift through.

I'm not interested in getting in ceiling speakers but I guess an alternative is to place a couple speakers above your listening position and point down? As you can see in this pic I have a wall directly above the primary listening position that gives me about 8.5 inches. Wanted to know if anyone has a recommendation on mounts and small speakers that I can point down over the 2 seats. I'm obviously trying to keep them as small as possible as there's not of surface area. 

I did some googling and saw Onkyo and D techs offerings but they seem to made as upward firing, correct?


----------



## zigzag666

Might take a look at the Boston Acoustics Soundware and/or Soundware XS. Not full range, but incredibly powerful for their size. S/B fine for Atmos and are current contenders for my on-cieling if I choose to forego IC. I have the XS in a 5.1 on our Motorcoach and they are awesome little performers when mated with a good sub.

J



Pac1012 said:


> Hey guys was looking for a little advice. I did give a cursory look at the thread to try and get an answer but 1300 pages just too much to sift through.
> 
> I'm not interested in getting in ceiling speakers but I guess an alternative is to place a couple speakers above your listening position and point down? As you can see in this pic I have a wall directly above the primary listening position that gives me about 8.5 inches. Wanted to know if anyone has a recommendation on mounts and small speakers that I can point down over the 2 seats. I'm obviously trying to keep them as small as possible as there's not of surface area.
> 
> I did some googling and saw Onkyo and D techs offerings but they seem to made as upward firing, correct?


----------



## Pac1012

zigzag666 said:


> Might take a look at the Boston Acoustics Soundware and/or Soundware XS. Not full range, but incredibly powerful for their size. S/B fine for Atmos and are current contenders for my on-cieling if I choose to forego IC. I have the XS in a 5.1 on our Motorcoach and they are awesome little performers when mated with a good sub.
> 
> J


That's pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. Novice question but do the speakers need to be pointed directly down above your head or will facing out at a 45 degree angle work? I only ask because it doesn't look like the mounts allow for them to be pointed directly down at a 90 degree angle.


----------



## audiofan1

Pac1012 said:


> That's pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. Novice question but do the speakers need to be pointed directly down above your head or will facing out at a 45 degree angle work? I only ask because it doesn't look like the mounts allow for them to be pointed directly down at a 90 degree angle.


I'm using them and have them firing straight down, there extremely versatile speakers and sound incredible for overheads


----------



## NorthSky

LNEWoLF said:


> Brand new latest technology atmos enabled speakers with built in speaker stands make setup easy.
> 
> http://www.sandermulder.com/woofers.html


:grin:

________

*39* BR titles so far (here in America) → http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html


----------



## kokishin

LNEWoLF said:


> Brand new latest technology atmos enabled speakers with built in speaker stands make setup easy.
> 
> http://www.sandermulder.com/woofers.html



Morticia Addams would approve.


----------



## Ian c2

Peterc613 said:


>



Can anybody offer advice on my room please ?










We sit on a sofa each , at the corners closet to one another .

I have a full B&O active 5.1 system at the moment (you can just about see the rear sides behind the sofas ) but I'm looking for a new pre/pro-receiver and it seems it might be a good time to add atmos .

All the current speakers fall within the Dolby degree positioning for a 5.1 system .

I have a couple of spare beolab 3500 stereo sound bar things , and I was thinking I could add one lowdown pointing up (or at ear-height as a compromise) to do rear surround , and the other on the wall up high above that vent thing , either pointing strait down , out into the room , or angled downwards , doing rear atmos .

The sound bars are around 4 feet long , so the speaker sets are really too close together according to the pictures quoted .

I want to know if this rear setup will work before I even start to persuade her I have to cut speakers into the ceiling for the front atmos


----------



## petetherock

I am assuming that moving that couch forward is out of the question?
You may want to use a 5.1.2 setup instead, with one or two sets of overheads.. ideally one since they will be pretty close to being right on top of your couch.

But once you are open to moving your couch forward, the options open up - literally, and a 7.1.4 might be possible.


----------



## ahro

Did I read somewhere on this thread that Atmos is fading? I love Atmos, and I think it's the best thing to come along since HDR on the video side. 

I want MORE Atmos, not less. And why the heck is Fox not using Atmos tracks? The Revenant would be really great with an Atmos track and it escapes me why Fox is not using Atmos.

Once you hear something like Goosebumps, your jaw will drop permanently!


----------



## Selden Ball

ahro said:


> Did I read somewhere on this thread that Atmos is fading? I love Atmos, and I think it's the best thing to come along since HDR on the video side.
> 
> I want MORE Atmos, not less.


 Several studios have decided to provide Atmos and DTS:X audio only on their 4K video releases. Whether others will follow suit is not yet obvious.


> And why the heck is Fox not using Atmos tracks? The Revenant would be really great with an Atmos track and it escapes me why Fox is not using Atmos.


 At least one Fox 4K release, _Peanuts_, has been announced to have Atmos. Presumably more will follow.


> Once you hear something like Goosebumps, your jaw will drop permanently!


 All the more reason for them to use it as an incentive for you to pay additional for their more expensive products.


----------



## Ian c2

petetherock said:


> I am assuming that moving that couch forward is out of the question?
> You may want to use a 5.1.2 setup instead, with one or two sets of overheads.. ideally one since they will be pretty close to being right on top of your couch.
> 
> But once you are open to moving your couch forward, the options open up - literally, and a 7.1.4 might be possible.


I don't have a say in furniture placement .
I just come home and notice things have moved 

If I'm to do this it must be with minimum disruption .

I can make the degrees upwards using the "rear" limits , but to use what I have the speakers are moved in to where the red dots are on the picture below .

Will they be too close together ?


----------



## petetherock

If you can move your couch just a tad forward, it will do wonders... do read about boundary issues..
Just say that the room looks nice with a low level bookshelf at the back 

If the overhead speakers around that position, but slightly further apart, it will be fine. And 5.1.2 is pretty immersive too. Cheers


----------



## williamwallace

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ty... it does seem we are in a drought either way... theatrical releases in Atmos are slowing down & by extension so are discs
> 
> I did just spot the Jungle book is playing in laser 3D @ dolby cinema... good excuse to see an Atmos flick with my step daughter. I wonder if any new legacy content will be released in Atmos soon? Dracula & 5th elemeent were surprises


And not all movies that are Atmos in the theater are Atmos on UHD. The Revenant being one such example. Although I am sure it's the studio's master plan to get us all to double dip and buy the "Special Edition" that comes out in 6 months with Atmos.


----------



## checker9

kbarnes701 said:


> You may, like me, not want UHD yet for the video side of the HT equation. But consider that the immersive audio releases may come thick and fast on UHD discs, so there is something to be said for having a UHD player even if you don't yet want 4k video.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't buy another expensive player until early next year when the UHD picture will be more clear (good pun, not intended). I bought a cheap (50 bucks off ebay) Sony BD player to get around the seamless branching thing and it works brilliantly. S470 model.


What settings do you use for the S470 to get Atmos?


----------



## Ian c2

petetherock said:


> If you can move your couch just a tad forward, it will do wonders... do read about boundary issues..
> Just say that the room looks nice with a low level bookshelf at the back
> 
> If the overhead speakers around that position, but slightly further apart, it will be fine. And 5.1.2 is pretty immersive too. Cheers




Thanks for the advice .

Would adding high fronts hold any advantage over a 5.1.2 ?


----------



## jrogers

Ian c2 said:


> Thanks for the advice .
> 
> Would adding high fronts hold any advantage over a 5.1.2 ?


Definitely - if you can get to 5.1.4 (whether as Front-Height or Top-Front) it makes for a vast improvement over 5.1.2.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Ian c2 said:


> Thanks for the advice .
> 
> Would adding high fronts hold any advantage over a 5.1.2 ?


Are you going on-ceiling? Or, in-ceiling?


----------



## petetherock

Ian c2 said:


> Thanks for the advice .
> 
> Would adding high fronts hold any advantage over a 5.1.2 ?


If you are asking if Front Heights speakers will work better than a Top Middle position, then the answer is no.
Unless you intend to use Front Heights AND something else later.

(BTW - it's best that you read up on the nomenclature, so you are clear as to what speaker positions we are talking about... )

Cheers


----------



## Ian c2

I cannot mount on ceiling or in ceiling .

My only options are the front wall and rear wall .

The rear wall option gets me just at the limits of the atmos speaker position in a 5.1.2. Set up due to the seating position being that close to the rear wall .

I just had another quick look through the Dolby paper and this is what I found regarding front heights .


----------



## Ian c2

Photo problems


----------



## petetherock

Mate:
If you cannot use a Top Middle position, then the previous discussion is moot.
A Front Height AND a Rear Height position giving you a 5.1.4 setup will give the immersion.

Using ONLY Front or Rears isn't the same.. cheers


----------



## Ian c2

I think we have a short !!! 

When I'm talking about front hieghts , I'm talking about speakers high up on the front wall (like Dolby discuss in the screenshots I posted) .

I can just about use the rear wall to get a 5.1.2 atmos system to Dolby specs .
But I was wondering if adding the front atmos channels to speakers high on the front wall to give an out-of-spec 5.1.4 system would be worth it ?

I know this is an atmos thread , but front hieghts were around before atmos and I guess the name transferred over to ceiling mounted front atmos speakers ?


----------



## Killer_Nads

im in the middle of doing a whole overhaul of my cinema room. 

I had 5.1.2 before (with 2 onkyo up firing speakers) and was using a onkyo avr 646 receiver.

I have now upgraded to 7.1.4 (with 4 in-ceiling speakers), Arcam avr550 (with a 4 channel power amp), and a laser epson ls1000 projector. 

I have used a mix and match for my speakers actually this time (before i had all b&w speakers), now i have gone for the same b&w speakers for the front 3 and subwoofer, but have used Dali speakers for the back and surrounds. For the atmos speakers i have used Atlantic Technology (Object Based Audio) speakers (these were the best i could find, or so i was told). 

My whole room is almost ready now, but i am still missing the surround and back speakers (should be with me in the next day or two and then installed). I also still need the cinema expert to run the Dilac calibration on the Audio and also calibrate the projector image (which will both be done when the final speakers arrive).

As you can imagine I'm very excited to test the system out, honestly i can't wait. Earlier in my 5.1.2 system, my surround backs were too high up and the up firing dolby atmos speakers were non-existent. Now i have brought all the surrounds down to head height, moved my sofa forward (away from the back wall by about 15 inches) and paced one row of atmos in front of the sofa and one in the back.

Yes, the back atmos is not ideal as its not to far away from the back wall, but that couldn't be helped. Also the back surrounds (flat on wall Dali speakers) are quite close to the sofa (about 10 inches away or so) but again this is the best we could do to fit everything in.

I also have crowsons transducers on my sofas, and my dbox seats should be arriving in 2-3 weeks. Once they arrive i will be using the crowsons with the dbox.

I have gone all out this time, spent a huge amount of money and time to try and get the best and not leave anything out, just because i am a cinemeholic and use my home cinema daily for games, films and tv shows. 

Fingers crossed when all is put together, i will have an extraordinary experience!


----------



## dvdwilly3

The last thing that you might consider is bass traps for the 4 corners of the room. While many recommend acoustic treatment in other locations within the room, it can become obtrusive. But, all experts recommend that the place to start are the 4 corners.

It can help keep it from being boomy. It really cleans up the bottom end. That is the only room treatment that I have.


----------



## Toxic teletubby

Why are di-poles not recommended for rear's? I'm currently running a set of Fluance dp's as rear (replaced a set of jbl's) and rather enjoy the sound. As of right now I'm running the dp's in standard horizontal position but am considering running them sideways to see if the dp's can take advantage of "upward and downward" firing instead of horizontal. I have a Marantz SR6010 on the way (thanks jdsmoothie) and will put the Audyssey to test this weekend.


----------



## Selden Ball

Toxic teletubby said:


> Why are di-poles not recommended for rear's? I'm currently running a set of Fluance dp's as rear (replaced a set of jbl's) and rather enjoy the sound. As of right now I'm running the dp's in standard horizontal position but am considering running them sideways to see if the dp's can take advantage of "upward and downward" firing instead of horizontal. I have a Marantz SR6010 on the way (thanks jdsmoothie) and will put the Audyssey to test this weekend.


Dipoles tend to be discouraged because they are designed to spread out the sound they produce by reflecting if off of adjacent walls. They are optimized to produce an "ambient" soundfield. As a result, sounds produced by them are hard to localize and usually don't seem to come from a specific direction. Those types of speakers are designed for use with movies which primarily have ambient sounds in their surround channels. In contrast, Atmos soundtracks are designed to have the sounds in their surround and overhead channels come from specific directions. As a result, they work best with "point source" speakers like concentric monopoles.


----------



## mukerjea

*Denon AVR-X7200WA 13.1 Channels Dolby Atmos Setup*

Hi,

I am using Denon AVR-X7200WA. 

I already have set up Atmos 11.1 channels speakers with using one stereo Power Amp.

On page 235 of the owners manual (https://usa.denon.com/us/downloads/manuals-and-downloads), it says that it is possible to use 13.1 channels for Atmos. But there is no mention of it in the manual, how to achieve that.

Can someone please advise me as to which pre-out outputs to use for this additional pair of speakers?

For reference, I have attached an image which will help you understand my need better.

Looking forward to your advice,

Ash


----------



## petetherock

You have 13 output options, but only 11 can be used at one time. Not 13...


----------



## Selden Ball

mukerjea said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am using Denon AVR-X7200WA.
> 
> I already have set up Atmos 11.1 channels speakers with using one stereo Power Amp.
> 
> On page 235 of the owners manual (https://usa.denon.com/us/downloads/manuals-and-downloads), it says that it is possible to use 13.1 channels for Atmos. But there is no mention of it in the manual, how to achieve that.
> 
> Can someone please advise me as to which pre-out outputs to use for this additional pair of speakers?
> 
> For reference, I have attached an image which will help you understand my need better.
> 
> Looking forward to your advice,
> 
> Ash


While D+M equipment provides for a maximum configuration of 13 speaker channels, it's in a 9.2.4 configuration: 9 channels at "ear level", 2 subwoofers and 4 overhead speaker channels. Which 11 of those 13 channels are active depends on which sound mode you select. No single mainstream A/V device provides more than 4 overhead audio channels.

If you want to have more than 4 overhead speakers active simultaneously, you'll either have to get a Trinnov32 pre/pro (at a cost of $10K-$30K) or you'll have to do some kind of external decoding to drive the additional overhead speakers. Several people have done this by using two or more receivers in tandem. See the threads http://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-wh...785-my-11-4-12-franken-atmos-living-room.html and http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## asarose247

fOR MORE SPEAKERS . . .active overhead simultaneously

I got lucky with my SCATMOS implementation, using 2 AVR's ala the Scott Simonian layout ( and a Zero WA/SO factor),

the dolby atmos demo disc using the 9.1.4 test tones, plays the 7 channel bed, the front wides and ALL 6 ATMOS tops, TF, TM, TR , as it cycles thru
sifting thru the outboard AVR's menus to get the hybrid TM's to make nice with the rest of everything else was a bit of an obviously needed, if little discussed necessity in-depth if ever so mild PITA, my problem being that both avr's are onkyo and if i didn't turn one off, the remote "adjusted" them both at the same time, even more "interesting" as regards xo, distance, MV, level using a spl metere, etc. etc. etc. . Both on on a smart strip.

as was started for me mid 2014 at the intro of ATMOS ,TY to Sanjay, in about the last 18 months, not counting the 2 idle avr's, the "budget"(there was none) for the whole scatmos, speakers and clouds, trestle work, nuts, bolts , etc. close to


----------



## NorthSky

Selden Ball said:


> Several studios have decided to provide Atmos and DTS:X audio only on their 4K video releases. Whether others will follow suit is not yet obvious. *At least one Fox 4K release, Peanuts, has been announced to have Atmos*. Presumably more will follow. All the more reason for them to use it as an incentive for you to pay additional for their more expensive products.


The Blu-ray 4K version is definitely in Dolby Atmos, but very very unfortunately the regular and the 3D BR versions are not.  ...That's the one I bought; the 3D (with the 2D regular BR 2K). 

Atmos should be on all versions to accommodate all movie customers. Doing this FOX is discriminating the 3D and 2K Blu-ray lovers who buy FOX Bluy-ray movies. It's like deja vu with *Avatar 3D* from FOX only available for a long period of time to strictly Panasonic 3D TV and 3D BR player purchasers. That was a sick deal that wasn't promoting 3D @ all. Now 3D is on its way to extinction with no more 3D TVs but only the most expensive ones. 

It's like promoting 4K without giving you the choice, but forcing you to switch to the dark side. 

It's very unfortunate; they should adopt a winning financial strategy/recipe by putting Dolby Atmos on all three BR versions.

_"The Peanuts Movie 4K has a wonderfully fun, even goofy, sounding Dolby Atmos track, one which (again) clearly improves on the 1080p Blu-ray's already impressive DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 track. Right off the bat, there are clear overhead placements of sound effects as Woodstock flits through the snowy air, and later equally clear overhead panning takes place during elements like Snoopy's doghouse "flights" and even scenes like the early baseball sequence. What struck me even more in this audio presentation than in the 1080p Blu-ray offering was the quicksilver panning of silly sound effects when (to cite one example) Woodstock zings from one side of the frame to the other. Immersion is often quite subtle on this track, but it's fairly consistent, with regular engagement of all the surround (and now the Atmos) channels. Fidelity is spot on, offering excellent support of all the sound effects, dialogue and the Vince Guaraldi inflected score."_ 

_________

I feel to email FOX studios and Bruce Willis and start petitioning.


----------



## Toxic teletubby

Selden Ball said:


> Dipoles tend to be discouraged because they are designed to spread out the sound they produce by reflecting if off of adjacent walls. They are optimized to produce an "ambient" soundfield. As a result, sounds produced by them are hard to localize and usually don't seem to come from a specific direction. Those types of speakers are designed for use with movies which primarily have ambient sounds in their surround channels. In contrast, Atmos soundtracks are designed to have the sounds in their surround and overhead channels come from specific directions. As a result, they work best with "point source" speakers like concentric monopoles.


Thanks SB. I'm only running 5.1.2 and picked up the Fluance di-poles on a whim and, although the sound is interesting from the Fluance, you are correct in that they are not as positional. I have a Marantz 6010 on the way and will play with speaker placement (using the Audyssey). I'm considering placing the Fluance as overheads and using my JBL 4406 as rears. In my way of thinking the overheads should be filler and not as directional as the rears. Correct??


----------



## thebland

Well I don't own a 4K profane off but sounds like I may need a 4K player to get Atmos with 4K discs. 

I assume you'll get Atmos with a 4K disc down res'd to 1080P??


----------



## Toxic teletubby

thebland said:


> Well I don't own a 4K profane off but sounds like I may need a 4K player to get Atmos with 4K discs.
> 
> I assume you'll get Atmos with a 4K disc down res'd to 1080P??


Atmos has nothing to do with 4k, it's an audio codec that is included with many standard BD and UHD BD discs. In order to hear atmos, you will need a receiver that is atmos capable, plus height speakers.


----------



## thebland

Toxic teletubby said:


> Atmos has nothing to do with 4k, it's an audio codec that is included with many standard BD and UHD BD discs. In order to hear atmos, you will need a receiver that is atmos capable, plus height speakers.


I'm aware of that. I have an Atmos set up (almost complete).

I was suggesting that the trend of putting Atmos tracks on only 4K Blu Rays, I was lamenting the need to buy a 4K player, so as to get the Atmos tracks! (Even though I have a 1080P PJ).


----------



## Toxic teletubby

thebland said:


> I'm aware of that. I have an Atmos set up (almost complete).
> 
> I was suggesting that the trend of putting Atmos tracks on only 4K Blu Rays, I was lamenting the need to buy a 4K player, so as to get the Atmos tracks! (Even though I have a 1080P PJ).


Understand your pain. It has just occurred to me that of all my 4k discs that I have bought (that have atmos), I have never checked the included BD to see if the atmos track is on them also. And it's to late since I give all the BD's away.


----------



## tjenkins95

Toxic teletubby said:


> Understand your pain. It has just occurred to me that of all my 4k discs that I have bought (that have atmos), I have never checked the included BD to see if the atmos track is on them also. And it's to late since I give all the BD's away.


 
If you are referring to the new 4K UHD 'combo' packages, you didn't miss anything since only the 4K UHD copy contains the Atmos or DTS:X sound track. The 1080p BD copies don't contain the immersive sound tracks.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Toxic teletubby said:


> Thanks SB. I'm only running 5.1.2 and picked up the Fluance di-poles on a whim and, although the sound is interesting from the Fluance, you are correct in that they are not as positional. I have a Marantz 6010 on the way and will play with speaker placement (using the Audyssey). I'm considering placing the Fluance as overheads and using my JBL 4406 as rears. In my way of thinking the overheads should be filler and not as directional as the rears. Correct??


If I read the material correctly on the Fluance website, your surround speakers are bipole, and not dipole. 

If I were you, I would move them to side surrounds.

In particular, if you have more than one row of seats, the dipoles would work nicely as side surrounds...


----------



## ALtlOff

thebland said:


> Well I don't own a 4K profane off but sounds like I may need a 4K player to get Atmos with 4K discs.
> 
> I assume you'll get Atmos with a 4K disc down res'd to 1080P??


Sux, but yes it's what we may have to do.
So far UHD players do down-convert to 1080p, but it's not something that they "have" to do, so make sure the one you choose, does. (I know there's only 2 right now, in just waiting to see what other offerings will be out there)

And yes, it's s real shame that the studios didn't take into account, or care, that a majority of people with Atmos setups have dedicated theatre areas, and are using projectors, for which 4k units are still out of reach, price wise.


----------



## smurraybhm

ALtlOff said:


> Sux, but yes it's what we may have to do.
> So far UHD players do down-convert to 1080p, but it's not something that they "have" to do, so make sure the one you choose, does. (I know there's only 2 right now, in just waiting to see what other offerings will be out there)
> 
> And yes, it's s real shame that the studios didn't take into account, or care, that a majority of people with Atmos setups have dedicated theatre areas, and are using projectors, for which 4k units are still out of reach, price wise.


I'm all for immersive mixes being included on the "regular" disk, but find it humorous that one forum member who doesn't even own a Atmos capable system is up in arms about it - not you buy the way. Curious why you think that the majority of Atmos systems involve projectors. I respectfully disagree, but without a formal survey I suspect we have to agree to disagree 

Jeff - as mentioned above the players on the market today will down convert the 4k disk to 1080P. This is verified for the only two available for purchase made by Samsung and Panasonic (the later not yet available in the States). Given two of the largest makers of blu-ray players have chosen to add this feature, why would Sony or LG do otherwise? I am waiting on Oppo's new player to come out before jumping into the fray. At least that's my stance today.


----------



## Toxic teletubby

dvdwilly3 said:


> If I read the material correctly on the Fluance website, your surround speakers are bipole, and not dipole.
> 
> If I were you, I would move them to side surrounds.
> 
> In particular, if you have more than one row of seats, the dipoles would work nicely as side surrounds...


By george you are correct, they are Bipole. I'm going to play with them this weekend and mount them vertical vs horizontal and see how that works out. Have a Marantz SR6010 arriving tomorrow so the XT32 will be put to the test this weekend. I'm thinking if I mount them as side surrounds I'll have to pick up a two channel amp to feed off the Marantz to power them all.


----------



## Stoked21

ALtlOff said:


> Sux, but yes it's what we may have to do.
> So far UHD players do down-convert to 1080p, but it's not something that they "have" to do, so make sure the one you choose, does. (I know there's only 2 right now, in just waiting to see what other offerings will be out there)
> 
> .





smurraybhm said:


> Jeff - as mentioned above the players on the market today will down convert the 4k disk to 1080P. This is verified for the only two available for purchase made by Samsung and Panasonic (the later not yet available in the States). Given two of the largest makers of blu-ray players have chosen to add this feature, why would Sony or LG do otherwise? I am waiting on Oppo's new player to come out before jumping into the fray. At least that's my stance today.


It's not a question of whether the player will downrez 4K to 1080p. It is highly highly highly unlikely any UHD player manuf would ever choose not to support that in their GUI. 

However, The studios can choose to NOT allow the disc to be downrez unless all devices are HDCP2.2 compliant. It is in the HDCP specs and has yet to be enforced. It seems that you guys are convoluting the two. So you may get Star Wars TFA and it downrezs. And in 12 months when you get Star Wars Rogue One, the disc could have flags preventing that exact same thing if the entire system isn't 2.2. It will be studio to studio and disc to disc dependent. For now though, I have not seen any reports that prevent it but that could (likely will) change.

EDIT: Then again, I've never taken my K8500 to a non-4K TV to test it except for the first day received. And I'm betting very few people have purchased the Samsung if they don't have a 4K or at least 2.2 compliant display. So who knows, maybe some disc already won't down-res.


----------



## smurraybhm

Stoked - I thought that's where the HD Fury became part of the chain 

No confusion on my part. I am well aware of the standards, which can give someone paralysis on when to buy new gear. Right now I'm happy with what I have, but as I suspect you know as well as I do, that can change quickly for someone involved in our hobby.


----------



## Stoked21

smurraybhm said:


> Stoked - I thought that's where the HD Fury became part of the chain
> 
> No confusion on my part. I am well aware of the standards, which can give someone paralysis on when to buy new gear. Right now I'm happy with what I have, but as I suspect you know as well as I do, that can change quickly for someone involved in our hobby.


HD Fury......Yep. Then required. Sorry, didn't know you had one but good catch due to me omitting that accidentally.....


----------



## Pac1012

Pac1012 said:


> Hey guys was looking for a little advice. I did give a cursory look at the thread to try and get an answer but 1300 pages just too much to sift through.
> 
> I'm not interested in getting in ceiling speakers but I guess an alternative is to place a couple speakers above your listening position and point down? As you can see in this pic I have a wall directly above the primary listening position that gives me about 8.5 inches. Wanted to know if anyone has a recommendation on mounts and small speakers that I can point down over the 2 seats. I'm obviously trying to keep them as small as possible as there's not of surface area.
> 
> I did some googling and saw Onkyo and D techs offerings but they seem to made as upward firing, correct?



******************************************

First off, yes... I'm quoting myself.

Secondly at the risk of getting an answer of "duh" I'll go ahead and ask. I wound up ordering the boston acoustic soundwares for the overheads speakers above. Originally I was going to stop at 5.1.2 but wondered if anyone had an opinion about using mounted ceiling speakers for the back and upward firing for the front for a 5.1.4.

Was thinking about putting some deftech A60's here _on either side of the center, not on top of my studio 55's_.










It seems like a solid plan to me but wondered if I should try and keep the fronts high since the backs will be mounted on ceiling? Or does it not really matter? Ceiling height in the man cave is only 7.5 feet. 

I'd probably hear more whining than I'm willing to take about adding heights to the front from the wife which is why I'm thinking about this as a work around.

Has anyone made the transition from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 and noticed dramatic improvement?

I'm not locked in on the Def Techs as I've seen uneven reviews so if not them any other recommendations that would work?

maybe 1 of these?

http://www.amazon.com/Debut-Concentric-Dolby-Speakers-Andrew/dp/B014GSEQCY

http://www.amazon.com/NHT-Atmos-Mini-Speaker-Single/dp/B019C5LYJY


----------



## petetherock

I know some mates who did a hybrid, just because they had too... so if that's all you can manage, just do it!
But if you are planning to run some speaker cables, IMO, go for the ceiling option for both. Cheers


----------



## dvdwilly3

Pac1012 said:


> ******************************************
> 
> First off, yes... I'm quoting myself.
> 
> Secondly at the risk of getting an answer of "duh" I'll go ahead and ask. I wound up ordering the boston acoustic soundwares for the overheads speakers above. Originally I was going to stop at 5.1.2 but wondered if anyone had an opinion about using mounted ceiling speakers for the back and upward firing for the front for a 5.1.4.
> 
> Was thinking about putting some deftech A60's here _on either side of the center, not on top of my studio 55's_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like a solid plan to me but wondered if I should try and keep the fronts high since the backs will be mounted on ceiling? Or does it not really matter? Ceiling height in the man cave is only 7.5 feet.
> 
> I'd probably hear more whining than I'm willing to take about adding heights to the front from the wife which is why I'm thinking about this as a work around.
> 
> Has anyone made the transition from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 and noticed dramatic improvement?
> 
> I'm not locked in on the Def Techs as I've seen uneven reviews so if not them any other recommendations that would work?
> 
> maybe 1 of these?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Debut-Concentric-Dolby-Speakers-Andrew/dp/B014GSEQCY
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/NHT-Atmos-Mini-Speaker-Single/dp/B019C5LYJY


Several things...

I went thru the following over the course since around October 2014...

5.1 to 5.1.2 (with Def Tech A60's on top of Def Tech 8060's as Top Middle to 
5.1.2 with Goldenear Tech Supersat 3s (upfiring) on the 8060's to
5.1.2 with Supersat 3's on stands beside the 8060's to
5.1.2 with GE Triton Sevens replacing the 8060's, completely replacing the Def Tech set up with GE to
5.1.4 with Supersat 3's on stands at the rear with the front set as Top Middle & rear as Top Rear to 
7.1.4 adding Monitor Audio Silver RX (bipoles) as Side Surrounds to 
7.1.4 moving the rear SS3's from stands to the very top of the rear wall as Top Rear to
7.1.4 moving the front SS3's from stands to the ceilings...

There were some other changes as well, but this sticks with the basic buildout. There was an incremental, but identifiable improvement in sound with each of these steps.

If you can reasonably do 5.1.4 instead of 5.1.2, do it. Insofar as the fronts, it seems that you may need to stick with upfiring. Do not get the A60's. They look nice, and they are well constructed, but they cheaped out on the drivers. I would go with the Elac's and play with placement and settings.

Insofar as upfiring vs direct (on ceiling or in ceiling) at the front, you will find people in both camps. I have had it both ways in the same space and I will tell you that if you can do direct firing, do it.

The discussion runs along the lines of upfiring creating a less discrete sound field vs a discrete sound field with identifiable placement of sounds. It reminds me of the debates with early Dolby surround sound as it transitioned from the use of surround for ambient sounds such as rainfall, wind, crickets, etc. to the use of sound effects that could be discretely placed from side to side.

With Atmos it is often being used for ambient sound, but the whole purpose is to use discrete sound objects. For that you want to be able to place the sound discretely where it would logically be. That argues for direct firing over upfiring. I believe that be will be even more true as sound editors and mixers more fully utilize Atmos in the soundtracks.

It is all an illusion...you just want the illusion to be as real as possible within reason. Meaning, I will not be buying. Trinnov Altitude along with 15 or 20 speakers any time soon...make that ever. It would not be a practical application in my room (~15' x 20' x 8.5').

All that and I haven't even had coffee yet...LOL!

Do what you can within reason...and enjoy it. Have fun!

If you need help with wiring, PM me. I had to be very creative and was successful...as in, my wife does not yell at me, and is happy with what I have done.


----------



## Pac1012

Thanks for the replies. 

Reason I'm sticking with upfiring is because I dread the thought of going through the trouble of wiring and mounting heights in the front, being giddy with what's to come, then have the wife saunter in, look at the set up with a look of discontent, and say something like "was this necessary"?

My blood is beginning to boil even thinking about it lol.

Meanwhile shes dropped thousands trying to transform the decidedly mediocre area behind our house into Mr. Myagi's backyard.

but I digress..

so yeah.. Up firing and the A4's sound like the plan then. I have a Pioneer Elite 95 en route so I suppose if I'm not happy with MCACC's results I can always boost the A4's a few db's and see what happens.

If anyone thinks coupling the upfiring with the ceiling mounted sats above me would be a waste of $ or yield negligible results please let me know.


----------



## Roudan

Hi


We watched stars war 6 the return of Jedi . I used neural X but why only 5.1 speakers were engaged? No sound from both overhead and back surround. Thanks


----------



## ALtlOff

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> We watched stars war 6 the return of Jedi . I used neural X but why only 5.1 speakers were engaged? No sound from both overhead and back surround. Thanks


You may want to ask this in the DTS-X thread also, I know with my Atmos only receiver, no matter what the input format (Dolby / DTS / 2.0 / 5.1 / 7.1) DSU always uses the entire speaker array.


----------



## sprins

ALtlOff said:


> You may want to ask this in the DTS-X thread also, I know with my Atmos only receiver, no matter what the input format (Dolby / DTS / 2.0 / 5.1 / 7.1) DSU always uses the entire speaker array.


Unless you have a 6.1 configuration. Then DSU won't upmix 5.1 to the sixth in the back.


----------



## checker9

How frequently, during a typical movie or Atmos movie, do you notice material, impactful discrete overhead sounds?

I recently added 2 front height speakers to a 5.1 system. I have watched a Atmos movie (Goosebumps) and a DTS:X movie (Crimson peak) and a few other regular movies via DSU. It seems my height speakers are adding depth/height to the over sound all the time, but besides a couple of times per movies, I am not getting discrete overhead sound that is impactful (makes me lookup and go wow.) An example of what I mean by the latter was an example from Goosebumps when the dummy is running on top of a car - it sounded like I was under some kind of a roof and the dummy was running right above me on top of it and there were one or two other scenes in Goosebump that made me look up. I do hear more frequent trace/diffused sounds above me.

I am wondering if that is normal (should I be hearing more) or if my set-up is just sub-optimal.


----------



## Charles R

checker9 said:


> I am wondering if that is normal (just a few really material, discrete overhead sounds per movie) or if my set-up is just sub-optimal.


Some will say it's your installation, speakers, source or whatnot but ultimately I believe it's "normal" Not unlike using rear surrounds Atmos enhances the environment it doesn't define it.


----------



## checker9

Charles R said:


> Some will say it's your installation, speakers, source or whatnot but ultimately I believe it's "normal" Not unlike using rear surrounds Atmos enhances the environment it doesn't define it.


That is my initial guess. Take normal Surrounds speakers for an example. They are typically producing sounds all throughout a movie enhancing the overall envelope of sound while occasionally producing truly discrete, directional impactful sounds (bullets firing to side in typical action movies for example.) Perhaps that is what I am experiencing with the height speakers; movies just have less discrete overhead impacts than is mixed for normal surround speakers so I am not hearing those impacts with much frequency but still benefitting from the diffused ambience above me. Also, if my height speaker setup is producing impactful overhead, discrete sounds a few times per movie, it seems they could do it all the time if the content was there.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

The acoustic properties of the room are also a key factor. Less than optimal acoustics will result in a more blurry sound. Adding more speakers will not enhance things.


----------



## kanerator

Hi, I need some advice and info from the knowledge pool here. 

I have a Pioneer SC-85 AV receiver set up for 7.2 surround sound. I have been wanting to move into Dolby Atmos.

My Pioneer can accept the firmware download. My understanding is that once you have installed the firmware, you cannot go back to the previous level.

I presume once the firmware is installed, if an Atmos enabled disc is inserted into a player it will default to the Atmos encode. 

My questions are: is it the case that if the receiver doesn’t detect atmos speakers it will default to 7.2 surround in my set-up? 

Secondly, can I choose a different sound source (TrueHD, stereo, action, Neo music) even if it is an Atmos encoded disc? 
Before anyone asks the obvious, “Why would you want to?”, let me say that I just want to know that if I do the firmware update and decide that I don’t want to do Atmos at this time, will I still have complete control over the source choices even if I can’t return to the previous firmware level.

Thirdly, with the SC-85, I could do 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Which do you think is the better choice?

Lastly, can you set the receiver to the Atmos source setting even on a disc that is not encoded in Atmos? And would it change the sound of the disc in the same way that switching a disc encoded in True HD to Neo X or or another surround setting does? Can you listen to music in Atmos? Does it change the sound in any significant way?
These questions have probably already been addressed in this thread, but with over 1300 pages it is hard to sift through all the info.

Thanks, Kanerator.


----------



## Kain

I know Atmos is quite new at this point but I was wondering about when we might see an update or successor to Atmos? How could they improve upon Atmos?


----------



## thebland

Kain said:


> I know Atmos is quite new at this point but I was wondering about when we might see an update or successor to Atmos? How could they improve upon Atmos?


Kidding?? This the new and updated codec!!

I expect to have a 24 ch version up and running next week, not looking for the next best thing!


----------



## Toxic teletubby

kanerator said:


> Hi, I need some advice and info from the knowledge pool here.
> 
> I have a Pioneer SC-85 AV receiver set up for 7.2 surround sound. I have been wanting to move into Dolby Atmos.
> 
> My Pioneer can accept the firmware download. My understanding is that once you have installed the firmware, you cannot go back to the previous level.
> 
> I presume once the firmware is installed, if an Atmos enabled disc is inserted into a player it will default to the Atmos encode.
> 
> My questions are: is it the case that if the receiver doesn’t detect atmos speakers it will default to 7.2 surround in my set-up?
> 
> Secondly, can I choose a different sound source (TrueHD, stereo, action, Neo music) even if it is an Atmos encoded disc?
> Before anyone asks the obvious, “Why would you want to?”, let me say that I just want to know that if I do the firmware update and decide that I don’t want to do Atmos at this time, will I still have complete control over the source choices even if I can’t return to the previous firmware level.
> 
> Thirdly, with the SC-85, I could do 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Which do you think is the better choice?
> 
> Lastly, can you set the receiver to the Atmos source setting even on a disc that is not encoded in Atmos? And would it change the sound of the disc in the same way that switching a disc encoded in True HD to Neo X or or another surround setting does? Can you listen to music in Atmos? Does it change the sound in any significant way?
> These questions have probably already been addressed in this thread, but with over 1300 pages it is hard to sift through all the info.
> 
> Thanks, Kanerator.


Depending on your room - 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 - again, this would be dependant on your room or seating, but my preference would be the 5.2.4
If it was my choice, by all means I would upgrade the FW. And yes, If you play a disc that contains atmos, you can chose any of the lesser codecs with the exception of the PLIIz which has basically been wrapped into Atmos (at least to my understanding).


----------



## bdraw

kanerator said:


> Hi, I need some advice and info from the knowledge pool here.
> 
> I have a Pioneer SC-85 AV receiver set up for 7.2 surround sound. I have been wanting to move into Dolby Atmos.


Most of your questions are specific to the SC-85, so I'd post in the thread dedicated to it.

As for Atmos selection, it varies by source. For example, on the GoT S5 Blu-ray set, it defaults to Dobly Digital and you have to select Atmos in the setup menu. It is delivered via TrueHD, so when you select it, on my AVR I can set it to only play it as 5.1.

As for 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2, I went with 7.1.2 because the layout of my room enabled a true 7.1 setup and I have far more content with 7.1, then with Atmos or DTS:x. I opted to put the ceiling speakers a bit forward instead of right overhead (as recommended) so that later I could add two more speakers for a 7.1.4.


----------



## bdraw

Kain said:


> I know Atmos is quite new at this point but I was wondering about when we might see an update or successor to Atmos? How could they improve upon Atmos?


There is plenty of room for improvement on Atmos, right now it is more channel based then object based. I would hope in the future for it to go completely object based so that it would scale to any number of speakers your AVR can drive.


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the replies.

By the way, I love this Dolby Cinema trailer. Is it possible to get an Atmos version of it?


----------



## thebland

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> By the way, I love this Dolby Cinema trailer. Is it possible to get an Atmos version of it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GqRclsQbQ


HA! Nice trailer... Where's the Atmos version?!?!


----------



## lujan

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> By the way, I love this Dolby Cinema trailer. Is it possible to get an Atmos version of it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GqRclsQbQ


It would be nice to have this one in 4k and Atmos to use as demo material...


----------



## AllenA07

bdraw said:


> There is plenty of room for improvement on Atmos, right now it is more channel based then object based. I would hope in the future for it to go completely object based so that it would scale to any number of speakers your AVR can drive.


This is one of the most interesting question, in my opinion, when it comes to Atmos. I'll be interested to see how Atmos scales up in a home theater environment. Unless you have a huge room, I do have a difficult time seeing many people with a full 24.1.10 theater.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ahro said:


> Did I read somewhere on this thread that Atmos is fading? I love Atmos, and I think it's the best thing to come along since HDR on the video side.
> 
> I want MORE Atmos, not less. And why the heck is Fox not using Atmos tracks? The Revenant would be really great with an Atmos track and it escapes me why Fox is not using Atmos.
> 
> Once you hear something like Goosebumps, your jaw will drop permanently!


If you want ID4's new 4k restoration, as an example, with an immersive track... you have to step up to UHD Blu-ray. As has been mentioned, Fox only releases immersive tracks with UHD. Sony only released immersive audio for Concussion on UHD Blu-ray too. 

It may be that Sony's upcoming Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II will only include Dolby Atmos on the UHD disc as it appears the bundled 1080p disc might be the older Mastered in 4k pressing sans immersive audio. It's possibly the same scenario with Paramount's Star Trek UHD discs.

It has been hinted that Disney will follow suit with Atmos or DTS: X only appearing on UHD media. 

You see where this is heading...


----------



## SoundChex

Kain said:


> I know Atmos is quite new at this point but I was wondering about when we might see an update or successor to Atmos? How could they improve upon Atmos?



*#1 Delivery of audio essence (broadcast|streamed|download|package delivery):* In the conversion from 'Theatrical' to 'Home Theater' format, it is suggested that some of the detail (data reduction) losses present when the number of objects is reduced for HT delivery bandwidth might be mitigated by replacing non-interactive object|channel elements in the theatrical mix with Higher Order Ambisonics (HOA) coded elements in the HT mix . . . and delivering audio essence in a hybrid channel-|object-|scene-based content format.

*#2 Playback:* Additional metadata in the delivery bitstream might 'prompt' for the use of newer technologies to improve positioning of sounds, larger audience sweet spot, or better sound image stability . . . to suggest only a few possibilities. We have yet to see mass market HT application of, e.g., Wave Field Synthesis (WFS), sound beaming, audience zoning (think AuroMax), and (from VR) the kind of speaker content pre-delivery DSP processing it looks like Sennheiser uses for Ambeo . . . and there are probably many more I've never seen reported...?!


_


----------



## Pac1012

bdraw said:


> I opted to put the ceiling speakers a bit forward instead of right overhead (as recommended) so that later I could add two more speakers for a 7.1.4.


Is that a bit forward but facing you at like a 45 degree angle or straight down? And I'd imagine you're talking about a foot or so forward from listening position?


----------



## bdraw

Pac1012 said:


> Is that a bit forward but facing you at like a 45 degree angle or straight down? And I'd imagine you're talking about a foot or so forward from listening position?


I put two ceiling speakers where the two fronts of a four ceiling Atmos setup would be, facing the listener (Aim8 with adjustable tweeters). Then when I'm able to get an 11 channel AVR, I can add two more ceiling speakers to finish out 7.1.4.

I'm very happy with the current results of my 7.1.2 system.


----------



## sdurani

ahro said:


> Did I read somewhere on this thread that Atmos is fading?


Shifting to UHD (5-6 Atmos titles due in May, 4 Atmos titles announced so far for June).


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> I know Atmos is quite new at this point but I was wondering about when we might see an update or successor to Atmos?
> How could they improve upon Atmos?


I think Atmos is all about the art of mastering sounds to enhance the movie experience, and as an object based audio surround codec it's high with the times we live in. ...The future additions to it will probably come as adjustable parameters to our own preference, from both the end of the Dolby Atmos encoding machines and the fine tuning adjustments in the decoding side of our receivers and pre/pros, few improvements software chip wise, and most importantly the experience gained from the movie sound recording/mixing engineers.

What will be the next step after Dolby Atmos? ...Speakers in the floor? ...Who knows, and when. 
But yes, new refinements will surely be added to it every couple years or less. ...And, 9.1.4 future receivers for the masses. 
...Then 9.1.6 ... in the year 2022 or around that corner. 

We need more and better 4K Blu-ray movies with Dolby Atmos. ...And get the movie directors into it too...like The Hateful Eight with Tarantino, The Revenant with Inarritu, and Spectre with Mendes. ...As few examples. By the way, only The Revenant is avail on BR 4K, and none on 3D.


----------



## David Susilo

Dolby Atmos may be the last frontier. The idea beyond 5.1 have been around since 2005 when a 22.2 surround channels were introduced by Prof Hamasaki during an expo in Japan. 

We are currently only scratching the surface with 4 in ceilings. (Yes I know Trinnov can do a total of 32 channels and the commercial theatres can do 64 channels)


----------



## NorthSky

Kain said:


> By the way, I love this Dolby Cinema trailer. Is it possible to get an Atmos version of it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GqRclsQbQ


It's a cool trailer. Maybe if it was in 4K it would have Dolby Atmos...like the new 4K Blu-ray movies exclusivity? 
Ok, not everyone is a fan of The peanuts Movie like I am, and of that same movie in 3D...no problemo. 
But to give the exclusive Dolby Atmos treatment to its BR 4K version is like forcing us to abandon the old and to buy the new, without a smooth transition of adaptation. Maybe those are the real times we live in as advanced consumers? ...Sure sounds like it, and smells too, plus improved 4K looks of course. And, why play plain Jane Blu-rays on our 4K TVs, when we can now play 4K ones and stream 4K? It's like playing DVDs on our 1080p TVs.


----------



## NorthSky

David Susilo said:


> Dolby Atmos may be the last frontier. The idea beyond 5.1 have been around since 2005 when a 22.2 surround channels were introduced by Prof Hamasaki during an expo in Japan.
> 
> We are currently only scratching the surface with 4 in ceilings. (Yes I know Trinnov can do a total of 32 channels and the commercial theatres can do 64 channels)


• 128 → http://www.iosono-sound.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/2015_BARCO_-_IOSONO_CORE_specs.pdf
- http://www.iosono-sound.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/IOSONO_CORE-specifications.pdf

• 378 → http://www.deutsche-telekom-laborat...ES128_Tutorial_Spatial_Audio_Reproduction.pdf
- http://www.deutsche-telekom-laborat...Tutorial_Spatial_Audio_Reproduction_Part1.pdf


----------



## David Susilo

I heard about Iosono back in 2010/2011. How is it? Any adopters for that system? Because that will be the ultimate as no phantom sonic reproduction is needed.


----------



## SoundChex

David Susilo said:


> I heard about Iosono back in 2010/2011. How is it? Any adopters for that system? Because that will be the ultimate as no phantom sonic reproduction is needed.



I'm under the impression that *IOSONO* was acquired and became *Barco Audio Technologies (IOSONO)*. It sounds like IOSONO's WFS technology plays some part in the Barco AuroMax feature that manages sound stability in each of the multiple audience zones into which AuroMax divides the auditorium...?!  


Suggested reading for additional confusion: *Auro-3D® AuroMax® White Paper* (*link*)


_


----------



## murphy2112

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I love this Dolby Cinema trailer. Is it possible to get an Atmos version of it?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GqRclsQbQ




Whoa - that is really awesome.


----------



## SoundChex

David Susilo said:


> Dolby Atmos may be the last frontier. The idea beyond 5.1 have been around since 2005 when a 22.2 surround channels were introduced by Prof Hamasaki during an expo in Japan. We are currently only scratching the surface with 4 in ceilings. (Yes I know Trinnov can do a total of 32 channels and the commercial theatres can do 64 channels)



And given the potential size of the Japanese tv audio decoder marketplace, it is unsurprising that both the *Dolby AC-4* and the *[MPEGHAA] MPEG-H Audio* codecs have included support for Hamasaki 22.2 audio.  





















_


----------



## krholmberg

I'm preparing for a 9.2.4 layout and I have two rows of seating. What is the preferred angles to the lower channels given that there are two rows instead of one? I would think 90' from the center rear seat for the surrounds and maybe 70' from the center front seat (so on the side walls but a little in front of the front row) for the front wides. Is there a more definitive recommendation when there are two rows? I've seen several recommendations for one row but not two rows. TIA.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

krholmberg said:


> I'm preparing for a 9.2.4 layout and I have two rows of seating. What is the preferred angles to the lower channels given that there are two rows instead of one? I would think 90' from the center rear seat for the surrounds and maybe 70' from the center front seat (so on the side walls but a little in front of the front row) for the front wides. Is there a more definitive recommendation when there are two rows? I've seen several recommendations for one row but not two rows. TIA.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


That seems about right, I've always went with 95-100° from MLP for surrounds and 65-70° for wides.


----------



## Steven James 2

Pac1012 said:


> Hey guys was looking for a little advice. I did give a cursory look at the thread to try and get an answer but 1300 pages just too much to sift through.
> 
> I'm not interested in getting in ceiling speakers but I guess an alternative is to place a couple speakers above your listening position and point down? As you can see in this pic I have a wall directly above the primary listening position that gives me about 8.5 inches. Wanted to know if anyone has a recommendation on mounts and small speakers that I can point down over the 2 seats. I'm obviously trying to keep them as small as possible as there's not of surface area.
> 
> I did some googling and saw Onkyo and D techs offerings but they seem to made as upward firing, correct?




Maybe check out the polk audio owm series as well. They have many mounting options. Ive been using mine for overheads and couldnt be happier! Good luck!


----------



## checker9

I am trying speakers mounted on the top of my front wall. When I had them firing straight out from the top of the wall, I had them as "front height" in my Denon receiver. Now I am trying them angled up toward the ceiling so that the sound hits the ceiling a few feet closer to the listening position and then bounces down to listening position. The spot on the ceiling where I have the sound angled would be the typical mounting for "front top" so I changed the amp assignment for them to "front top." 

Is that correct? Or leave them as "front height"?


----------



## Ian c2

SoundChex said:


> I'm under the impression that *IOSONO* was acquired and became *Barco Audio Technologies (IOSONO)*. It sounds like IOSONO's WFS technology plays some part in the Barco AuroMax feature that manages sound stability in each of the multiple audience zones into which AuroMax divides the auditorium...?!
> 
> 
> Suggested reading for additional confusion: *Auro-3D® AuroMax® White Paper* (*link*)
> 
> 
> _


I am still researching speaker placement for the angled ceiling in my room , and came across this just last night !!

http://az877327.vo.msecnd.net/~/media/Downloads/Spec sheets/2013/AP24-3D spec sheet.pdf?v=1

No sign of prices for this unit or the extra channel unit that goes with it , but they had one in the "barely used" section for 5k , but it couldn't be added to basket ...

http://www.barco.com/en/Products/3D-sound/Cinema-sound/Spatial-audio-processor.aspx


----------



## Ted99

krholmberg said:


> I'm preparing for a 9.2.4 layout and I have two rows of seating. What is the preferred angles to the lower channels given that there are two rows instead of one? I would think 90' from the center rear seat for the surrounds and maybe 70' from the center front seat (so on the side walls but a little in front of the front row) for the front wides. Is there a more definitive recommendation when there are two rows? I've seen several recommendations for one row but not two rows. TIA.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


In a previous dedicated home theater with 2 rows of seating with a Yamaha RX Z-11, I put a pair of side surround speakers on each side 90 degrees from each row. My current arrangement is a smaller room with only one row and Dolby Atmos, so one side surround is fine for me, now.


----------



## Sipos88

Hi guys. Did anyone do a measurement on the Rz800 or rz900 to the pre/out voltage by any chance? Onkyo says its 1.2V.. But I was wondering if anyone has a more specific result. Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

checker9 said:


> I am trying speakers mounted on the top of my front wall. When I had them firing straight out from the top of the wall, I had them as "front height" in my Denon receiver. Now I am trying them angled up toward the ceiling so that the sound hits the ceiling a few feet closer to the listening position and then bounces down to listening position. The spot on the ceiling where I have the sound angled would be the typical mounting for "front top" so I changed the amp assignment for them to "front top."
> 
> Is that correct? Or leave them as "front height"?


Honestly, it's up to you, esp. since your using a non-traditional setup, and it's also very room dependant.
For me, I started.with FH & RH settings and ended up switching to TF & TR settings because it sounded slightly more discrete to me.


----------



## checker9

ALtlOff said:


> Honestly, it's up to you, esp. since your using a non-traditional setup, and it's also very room dependant.
> For me, I started.with FH & RH settings and ended up switching to TF & TR settings because it sounded slightly more discrete to me.


If in the same physical placement, do you need to recalibrate after changing the assignment from front height to front top or back?


----------



## dvdwilly3

checker9 said:


> If in the same physical placement, do you need to recalibrate after changing the assignment from front height to front top or back?


Yes...any time that you switch physical speaker positions or the designations, re-run calibration...always!


----------



## johnnymacIII

krholmberg said:


> I'm preparing for a 9.2.4 layout and I have two rows of seating. What is the preferred angles to the lower channels given that there are two rows instead of one? I would think 90' from the center rear seat for the surrounds and maybe 70' from the center front seat (so on the side walls but a little in front of the front row) for the front wides. Is there a more definitive recommendation when there are two rows? I've seen several recommendations for one row but not two rows. TIA.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


That depends. Is your second row rarely going to be used? Or do you do a lot of family movie nights where that second row gets used regularly?

If it's rarely used, I would optimize the main row. go 60 for the wides, 90 for the side surrounds, and 150 for the rears.

If it's used often, I think you are on the right track. I would do some calculations to fit the wides in the range where both seats get somewhere in the 50-70 degrees. It's probably going to be more like 70 for the front row and 50 for the second or something close to that. Then for the sides fit them in the 90-110 range for both seats, but do not go back more than 110 from the first row or the side surrounds will begin to blend into the rear surrounds and you will begin to notice a hole in your side surround field for that first row (even with the wides at 70 degrees).

This will also impact your fronts. I would definitely recommend making sure that front RL are 30 degrees off axis with that first row if possible.


----------



## krholmberg

johnnymacIII said:


> That depends. Is your second row rarely going to be used? Or do you do a lot of family movie nights where that second row gets used regularly?
> 
> If it's rarely used, I would optimize the main row. go 60 for the wides, 90 for the side surrounds, and 150 for the rears.
> 
> If it's used often, I think you are on the right track. I would do some calculations to fit the wides in the range where both seats get somewhere in the 50-70 degrees. It's probably going to be more like 70 for the front row and 50 for the second or something close to that. Then for the sides fit them in the 90-110 range for both seats, but do not go back more than 110 from the first row or the side surrounds will begin to blend into the rear surrounds and you will begin to notice a hole in your side surround field for that first row (even with the wides at 70 degrees).
> 
> This will also impact your fronts. I would definitely recommend making sure that front RL are 30 degrees off axis with that first row if possible.


Thank you very much. I really appreciate the detailed response  . Both rows are used frequently. 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## TKNice

thebland said:


> HA! Nice trailer... Where's the Atmos version?!?!


I can't even find a 6 channel version of it!


----------



## jimmyaz

Watched In the Heart of the Sea last night with my 7.1.2 , while it killed it for me because all the video pretty much is CGI... But the Audio was amazing. I felt like I was on the ship getting smashed by the waves.


----------



## pclausen

I'm in the process of upgrading my viewing room with 4 Atmos in-ceiling speakers.

Here's a quick sketch I did of the room:










Unfortunately the side surrounds are further back than the 110 degree max recommended by Dolby, but I don't have much choice since there's a large 10' opening from main living room into the viewing room.

Given this, I'm not sure if it is even worth it to install rear surrounds as well. What do you guys think? If I do, they would be flanking the glass door that goes out to a rear deck as seen in the above sketch.

My main question is if the 4 round circles representing the location of the in-ceiling Atmos speakers are about right? Would they change if I drop the rear surrounds?

Was also curious about the front Atmos speakers. Should I install them directly above the mains, or bring them back towards the listening position as per the sketch? I guess it depends on them being configured as front heights or not?

Room is 12' 6" wide by 24' long and has a flat 9' ceiling.

Equipment list as follows:

AVR Denon X6200W
Mains Klipsch KLC-30
Center Klipsch KSP-C6
Side and Rear surrounds Klipsch Forte
Atmos ceiling speakers Micca M-8C
Sub PSA s3600i

I have had the Klipsch speakers since the beginning of time it seems, the 4 Forte speakers are from my college days and the KLF-30s I have had since 2000 I think. Now, if I was buying new speakers today, I would go in a different direction for sure, given how bright they are, but I have gotten used to them over the years I suppose. I got the Micca speakers because they are dirt cheap. I'm open to upgrading those down the road if it will make a difference.

So for now, I'd like to get things setup as optimally as I can given the equipment on hand.

Thanks


----------



## showmak

pclausen said:


> My main question is if the 4 round circles representing the location of the in-ceiling Atmos speakers are about right? Would they change if I drop the rear surrounds?
> 
> Was also curious about the front Atmos speakers. Should I install them directly above the mains, or bring them back towards the listening position as per the sketch? I guess it depends on them being configured as front heights or not?
> 
> Room is 12' 6" wide by 24' long and has a flat 9' ceiling.


I assume you have your bed speakers laid out already, and your ear height at 3', here is my humble assistance to your request for the ceiling speakers placement as per Dolby Guidelines.

*Dolby 7.1.4 Speaker Config...*










*Dolby Atmos Angles..*










*Your measurements...*










You can also use the attached Excel file for a quick speaker distance measurements.

Note that the speakers distances will be changed if the ear height or ceiling height are changed...


----------



## pclausen

Thank you so much, your info is awesome! 

So my Atmos speakers, being 6 feet in front and behind the MLP with 9' ceilings are right at the 45 degree mark, so I should be good to go!

I downloaded the spreadsheet, but it is password protected. What's the password? Looks like a really handy spreadsheet!

So my only major compromise is that my side surrounds are well past the recommended 110 degrees. The only way I can correct that would be to move the MLP further away from the screen, but with a viewing distance that is already 12' away from the display, that is probably not worth it. The display is a 84" 4k LCD display (LG 84UB9800).

Yes, my bed speakers are all large floor standing speakers. The fronts stand 47" tall with the height to between the midrange and tweeter at about 36", while the 4 surrounds stand 36" tall and the height to between the midrange and tweeter at about 30".

One last question, should I do anything different regarding the placement of my 4 ceiling speakers if I also want to enjoy DTS:X titles? I do have additional Klipsch "bookshelf" speakers that I can mount as front height speakers if needed.

Thanks again!


----------



## sdurani

pclausen said:


> I don't have much choice since there's a large 10' opening from main living room into the viewing room.


Consider putting a 10' wide swath of broadband absorption directly across from the opening in order to maintain a symmetrical sound field.


> I'm not sure if it is even worth it to install rear surrounds as well.


Considering how far back your Side speakers are, seems a waste of resources to have Rears back there as well. Instead, I would re-purpose those speakers as Wides to fill the huge gap between your Fronts and Surrounds. 

Also, the midpoint of room length is an acoustically bad location, because that's where you'll find the largest peaks & nulls. 










If you can move your seating a couple feet back (to about 3/5ths room length), the frequency response will be a little smoother, giving the room correction in your receiver a head start.


----------



## johnnymacIII

pclausen said:


> I'm in the process of upgrading my viewing room with 4 Atmos in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Here's a quick sketch I did of the room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the side surrounds are further back than the 110 degree max recommended by Dolby, but I don't have much choice since there's a large 10' opening from main living room into the viewing room.
> 
> Given this, I'm not sure if it is even worth it to install rear surrounds as well. What do you guys think? If I do, they would be flanking the glass door that goes out to a rear deck as seen in the above sketch.
> 
> My main question is if the 4 round circles representing the location of the in-ceiling Atmos speakers are about right? Would they change if I drop the rear surrounds?
> 
> Was also curious about the front Atmos speakers. Should I install them directly above the mains, or bring them back towards the listening position as per the sketch? I guess it depends on them being configured as front heights or not?
> 
> Room is 12' 6" wide by 24' long and has a flat 9' ceiling.
> 
> Equipment list as follows:
> 
> AVR Denon X6200W
> Mains Klipsch KLC-30
> Center Klipsch KSP-C6
> Side and Rear surrounds Klipsch Forte
> Atmos ceiling speakers Micca M-8C
> Sub PSA s3600i
> 
> I have had the Klipsch speakers since the beginning of time it seems, the 4 Forte speakers are from my college days and the KLF-30s I have had since 2000 I think. Now, if I was buying new speakers today, I would go in a different direction for sure, given how bright they are, but I have gotten used to them over the years I suppose. I got the Micca speakers because they are dirt cheap. I'm open to upgrading those down the road if it will make a difference.
> 
> So for now, I'd like to get things setup as optimally as I can given the equipment on hand.
> 
> Thanks


I would stick with the 7.1.4 system in the sketch with a slight change.

I would move the couch back to 55% from the front wall. Right now it looks like your seating position is smack dab in the middle of the room (50%) where you will encounter some bad nulls. This will also decrease the angle of your side surrounds closer to 110 degrees.

Then recalculate your Atmos ceiling speaker positions using this guide. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## SteveFred

I am just about finished with my 2nd theater and about to mount the 4 wall & 4 ceiling speakers http://www.powersoundaudio.com/products/mt-110sr





OK, wow tons of reading on this thread. OK just to recap, I have them(heights) set at about 45 degs from the MLP and I want them all firing straight down? I will be mounting them with 100mx100m wall brackets. Should I angle them on the ceiling toward the MLP or have the fronts facing back and the backs facing front. Meaning mount them flat to the ceiling, but since they are made with an angle built in, which way should I be facing them?


----------



## sdurani

SteveFred said:


> Should I angle them on the ceiling toward the MLP or have the fronts facing back and the backs facing front.


IF your other speakers are angled towards the listening area, then why wouldn't you do the same with these speakers?


----------



## SteveFred

sdurani said:


> IF your other speakers are angled towards the listening area, then why wouldn't you do the same with these speakers?



I agree, only reason I am asking, is you see most demos are (on the dolby site) firing straight down. I will go ahead and just turn them inward a little toward the sweet spot then.


----------



## pclausen

sdurani said:


> Consider putting a 10' wide swath of broadband absorption directly across from the opening in order to maintain a symmetrical sound field.


The long wall is full of windows so a swath of broadband absorption would not go over well with the wife, at all... 












> Considering how far back your Side speakers are, seems a waste of resources to have Rears back there as well. Instead, I would re-purpose those speakers as Wides to fill the huge gap between your Fronts and Surrounds.


So stand them in front of the MLP, between it and the mains?



> If you can move your seating a couple feet back (to about 3/5ths room length), the frequency response will be a little smoother, giving the room correction in your receiver a head start.


Ok, that I think I can do. You graphs looks pretty convincing that would be a good thing to do!

Btw, here's the overall layout of the 1st floor (ignore the green squares). I really wish the wife would let me setup the theater in the main living room instead of in the sunroom.


----------



## robert ham

*My Setup...*



SteveFred said:


> I agree, only reason I am asking, is you see most demos are (on the dolby site) firing straight down. I will go ahead and just turn them inward a little toward the sweet spot then.


I sit more towards the back of the room, so my Front Height speakers are mounted up high on the wall and fire downward towards my position, however my Rear Height sit about 6 feet off the ground on the rear wall and fire STRAIGHT UP!! That way the sound goes up and reflects back down to where I am siting,, If they were angled, the sound wave would reflect back towards the center of the room.. What is nice is YAPO will calibrate the reflected sound based on where the Microphone is located, so it works out great... Just watched the movie 2012, and when the helicopters are flying over in China, well I was looking up to see if I could grab it!!! 

I was using Neutral-X on the 3050,, But also awesome was The Last Witch Hunter,, DTS-X,,, After I did the YAPO calibration, I used the DTS Test Setting on the Last Witch Hunter Disk audio menu to see how it sounded on the front and rear Height speakers.. And it was right on using Straight Setting... 

BTW, when you go into the setting menu for the Rear Height you have 3 choices, Height, Ceiling and one more I think called Surround or something, can't recall, use the Surround setting for speakers pointing up.. It has a visual Graphic showing the speaker mounted on Top Of your normal rear surround..

Hope this was useful, others on this site are very knowledgeable, more than me, but are always willing to help out!

BTW,, I had 4 of these speakers, and I wanted to use them, the reason speakers are not mounted in the ceiling..

http://www.energy-speakers.com/products/reference-connoisseur/?sku=RC-MICRO-5-1


----------



## pclausen

johnnymacIII said:


> I would stick with the 7.1.4 system in the sketch with a slight change.
> 
> I would move the couch back to 55% from the front wall. Right now it looks like your seating position is smack dab in the middle of the room (50%) where you will encounter some bad nulls. This will also decrease the angle of your side surrounds closer to 110 degrees.


Yes, moving the couch back a little seems to be the way to go. Good thing I didn't get out the drywall saw just yet for the ceiling speakers. 

Got a mic boom stand on its way. Sure will make placing that Audyssey mic for the measurements a whole lot easier going forward!


----------



## sdurani

SteveFred said:


> I agree, only reason I am asking, is you see most demos are (on the dolby site) firing straight down.


I would suggest you trust your own common sense over those diagrams.


> I will go ahead and just turn them inward a little toward the sweet spot then.


That's what I would do as well.


----------



## SteveFred

sdurani said:


> I would suggest you trust your own common sense over those diagrams. That's what I would do as well.





Exactly! Common sense  Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

pclausen said:


> The long wall is full of windows so a swath of broadband absorption would not go over well with the wife, at all...


How about thick, pleated curtains?


> So stand them in front of the MLP, between it and the mains?


You can stand-mount the Wides or mount them on the wall. Just as you have the Surrounds near the rear edge of the opening, likewise put Wides near the front edge of the opening.


> I really wish the wife would let me setup the theater in the main living room instead of in the sunroom.


That would be nice, but those skylights might interfere with overhead speaker placement. Personally, if I were doing your sunroom, I'd flip the set-up 90 degrees and place the TV on the window wall, with a pair of surrounds mounted just above ear height in the back corners of the room and black-out curtains covering the opening. [I prioritize symmetry more than most people do.]


----------



## RyanNI

*Some Advice Please*

Hi folks. Im just to about purchase a X2200W and Monitor Audio Mass 10 5.1 speaker kit. I am also purchasing 2 additional mass speakers to go onto the ceiling and act as Atoms speakers for a 5.1.2 Atmos set up. Can anyone see any problems here? Will these 2 additional Mass speakers work as Atmos ceiling speakers?

Also will I be able to use them with 7.1 enabled Blu-ray Discs? For example say I pop on a movie that has 7.1 will it play it? Basically I'm asking if this set up will switch between 7.1 and 5.1.2 Atmos? 

Thanks


----------



## ALtlOff

RyanNI said:


> Hi folks. Im just to about purchase a X2200W and Monitor Audio Mass 10 5.1 speaker kit. I am also purchasing 2 additional mass speakers to go onto the ceiling and act as Atoms speakers for a 5.1.2 Atmos set up. Can anyone see any problems here? Will these 2 additional Mass speakers work as Atmos ceiling speakers?
> 
> Also will I be able to use them with 7.1 enabled Blu-ray Discs? For example say I pop on a movie that has 7.1 will it play it? Basically I'm asking if this set up will switch between 7.1 and 5.1.2 Atmos?
> 
> Thanks


As far as your second question, yes you will have the option of playing a native non-Atmos BluRay or any content, with either standard Dolby Digital or DTS in your 5 lower speakers -or- over your 5.1.2 setup with the Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural-X Upmixer (I don't remember if the 2200 gets the DTS-X upgrade or not) Just choose the surround format you want.


----------



## RyanNI

ALtlOff said:


> As far as your second question, yes you will have the option of playing a native non-Atmos BluRay or any content, with either standard Dolby Digital or DTS in your 5 lower speakers -or- over your 5.1.2 setup with the Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural-X Upmixer (I don't remember if the 2200 gets the DTS-X upgrade or not) Just choose the surround format you want.


The 2200 does have DTS-X via firmware update. So the DSU will utilise the Atmos height speakers then? 

Thanks


----------



## pclausen

Ok, I have re-arranged things somewhat and done a new sketch. I moved the MLP back 2 feet and that helped with the angles. This is what it looks like now:










So the side surrounds are now at 130 degrees and the rear surrounds are at 175 degrees. Not ideal, but a lot better than before. The fronts are at 23 degrees, which is within the recommended range.

The ceiling Atmos speakers are 20" out from the side walls, which is about inline with the center of the mains. Their are also 6' in front and behind the MLP, which gives the 45 degree angle.

The sub has been moved to in front of the MLP, flanking the left wall.

On the bed speakers, the point between the midrange and tweeter is at 40" above the floor as seen here:










The same point for the surround bed speakers is 30" as seen here:










Should I get some 10" feet (or build 10" bases) for the surround speakers to make all the bed speakers the same height?

Couple of pics of the re-arranged sunroom. Still working on cleaning up the girls play area and I also still need to drag the other pair of surround speakers out of the basement (when the wife is not home). The "side surrounds" you see in the first pic below will be removed. I have a 2nd pair of those Klipsch KSB 3.1s. Maybe I'll use them for front and rear heights down the road...




























I'll probably make a run to Ikea and look at some storage solutions to the kid toys.


----------



## pclausen

sdurani said:


> How about thick, pleated curtains?


That's not a bad idea! Will certainly help with the light situation as well during daytime viewing!



> You can stand-mount the Wides or mount them on the wall. Just as you have the Surrounds near the rear edge of the opening, likewise put Wides near the front edge of the opening.


Let me see how things sound with the revised layout and go from there. One issue I'll have is that my Denon X6200W will only support 11.2 channels at any one time.



> Personally, if I were doing your sunroom, I'd flip the set-up 90 degrees and place the TV on the window wall, with a pair of surrounds mounted just above ear height in the back corners of the room and black-out curtains covering the opening. [I prioritize symmetry more than most people do.]


That's an interesting idea, but would be a lot of work. As you can see from the above pics I posted, the 84" LCD is mounted on the wall and I also have conduit coming up through the floor at that location with all my network cables and speaker cables for the rear surrounds, and I have already started a new conduit in the wall to feed the Atmos ceiling speakers, so moving the TV is, unfortunately, pretty much out of the question.


----------



## dvdwilly3

pclausen said:


> Ok, I have re-arranged things somewhat and done a new sketch. I moved the MLP back 2 feet and that helped with the angles. This is what it looks like now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the side surrounds are now at 130 degrees and the rear surrounds are at 175 degrees. Not ideal, but a lot better than before. The fronts are at 23 degrees, which is within the recommended range.
> 
> The ceiling Atmos speakers are 20" out from the side walls, which is about inline with the center of the mains. Their are also 6' in front and behind the MLP, which gives the 45 degree angle.
> 
> The sub has been moved to in front of the MLP, flanking the left wall.
> 
> On the bed speakers, the point between the midrange and tweeter is at 40" above the floor as seen here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same point for the surround bed speakers is 30" as seen here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I get some 10" feet (or build 10" bases) for the surround speakers to make all the bed speakers the same height?
> 
> Couple of pics of the re-arranged sunroom. Still working on cleaning up the girls play area and I also still need to drag the other pair of surround speakers out of the basement (when the wife is not home). The "side surrounds" you see in the first pic below will be removed. I have a 2nd pair of those Klipsch KSB 3.1s. Maybe I'll use them for front and rear heights down the road...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll probably make a run to Ikea and look at some storage solutions to the kid toys.


I would recommend bases for the surrounds. Having the tweeters at the same height insofar as ear level can make a significant difference in terms of clarity.

In fact, during my my trial and error to make stands for my fronts I bought and assembled two of these...
http://www.parts-express.com/denovo...056-cu-ft-bookshelf-speaker-cabinet--300-7064

I started trying to spray paint one of them and realized that it was not going to work in my enclosed workshop. So, one is partially painted and the other is bare MDF. If you are interested in them, PM me. You can have them for the price of shipping...UPS. They are about 16 pounds each, so I think UPS between Haymarket and Charlottesville would probably be about $20 each.

Or, you could drive up and get them, see my HT, and have a beer. Laid on the side, you would have an 8.5" riser that would be 11" deep by 16" wide. The front baffle is chamferred so the flat part front to back is actually about 10" deep.


----------



## sdurani

pclausen said:


> One issue I'll have is that my Denon X6200W will only support 11.2 channels at any one time.


Trading Rears for Wides will still keep the speaker count at 11. One of the main reasons to go 7.1 is to have rear-vs-side separation in the surround field. You're not going to get that with all 4 surrounds well behind the listening position. With the Fronts at 23° and the Surrounds at 130°, there is a huge 100-degree gap that could be bridged with a pair of Wides, so that you have at least some lateral imaging. Something to consider.


----------



## pclausen

Ah, that's a good point Sanjay. I'll set it up that way initially. Will be easier to wire as well since the wides will be much closer to the AVR. 

Is best practice for wides to be as close as possible in tonal quality as the mains and surrounds? Instead of using my 2nd pair of those relatively large floor standing Klipsch Forte's, I'm wondering if I can get away with using those KSB 3.1s? (they are rated 45 Hz - 20Khz +/- 3dB and have an 8" ported woofer).

Guess I'll experiment with them some.
@Willy, thank's for the offer on the Parts Express units! If I make that run up to Ikea in Woodbridge in the near future, I'll ping you.


----------



## sdurani

pclausen said:


> Is best practice for wides to be as close as possible in tonal quality as the mains and surrounds? Instead of using my 2nd pair of those relatively large floor standing Klipsch Forte's, I'm wondering if I can get away with using those KSB 3.1s? (they are rated 45 Hz - 20Khz +/- 3dB and have an 8" ported woofer).


Of the speakers you currently have that are not serving L/C/R duty, find the pair that is the closest tonal match to your Front L/R speakers and use them for Wides. Those are the speakers that will be blending with the Fronts to pull the soundstage off the front wall and into the room. As such, they should sound as similar as possible to the Fronts. Doesn't have to be perfect, just attempting to keep the sound consistent.


----------



## pclausen

Ok thanks I'll play around with things to see what sounds good.

Ran into an issue with my Denon 6200 that just showed up. When I configure it as follows:

Assign Mode: 11.1
Floor 
- Layout: 5ch & FW
Height 
– Height Sp: 4ch
- Layout: Front Height + Rear Height
- Pre-out: FW or Top Rear

I'm not allowed to assign the pre-outs to the fronts, only FW or Top Rear is allowed. It will only let me assign the pre-outs to the fronts with a bed layout of 5ch & SB. That kinda blows as I was hoping to use an external amp to drive the main speakers.


----------



## ALtlOff

RyanNI said:


> The 2200 does have DTS-X via firmware update. So the DSU will utilise the Atmos height speakers then?
> 
> Thanks


Yes, either upmixer will make use of the height speakers, from non Atmos or DTS-X content, no matter if it's 2, 5 or 7 channel.

Here's the only difference you'll encounter when it comes to upmixing:
For sources that come in using bitstream. (Normally your BluRay player will be the only source with a bitstream option)
You'll have to choose the format associated upmixer.
Ex. If your disc is in Dolby, you'll have to use DSU, if it's a DTS disc, you'll have to use Neural-X.
But if your source is in PCM, (BluRay player, cable or satellite, streaming.....) You should be able to choose the upmixer you prefer the sound of.

And intuitively you'd think... "I'll just set the BluRay player to output PCM and be able to choose any time", only problem with that is that native Atmos and DTS-X will only play over bitstream... so if not being able to choose your preferred upmixer bothers you, just be prepared to switch your output formats when needed (not difficult, just a PITA) if not choosing didn't bother you then no-big-deal, set your BluRay player to bitstream and forget it.

Hope I didn't confuse you more, but it's just something we have to deal with for now on Denon and Marantz AVR's.


----------



## Selden Ball

pclausen said:


> Ok thanks I'll play around with things to see what sounds good.
> 
> Ran into an issue with my Denon 6200 that just showed up. When I configure it as follows:
> 
> Assign Mode: 11.1
> Floor
> - Layout: 5ch & FW
> Height
> – Height Sp: 4ch
> - Layout: Front Height + Rear Height
> - Pre-out: FW or Top Rear
> 
> I'm not allowed to assign the pre-outs to the fronts, only FW or Top Rear is allowed. It will only let me assign the pre-outs to the fronts with a bed layout of 5ch & SB. That kinda blows as I was hoping to use an external amp to drive the main speakers.


All of the preamp outputs are always hot, so you can always hook up an amplifier to any of them.


----------



## pclausen

Yeah, I've only had the 6200 for a couple of hours, so I'm still trying to figure everything out. 

The issue is that the WF and Height 2 speakers share the same physical speaker terminals, so if I want to run that configuration AND POWER THE MAINs from a more powerful amp, I'd need a 2nd external stereo amp for the WF or H2 speakers. So I'm probably just going to use the internal amps for the mains.

Cutting out the holes in the ceiling now for the Atmos speakers. I hope to be up and running later tonight. Can't wait to check out some of my Atmos Blu-ray titles!


----------



## Carrick

*Do I have to timbre match my Atmos speakers?*

Currently have 5 Martin Logan LX16 speakers + 4 Energy Take 5 sats for Atmos but they are out-performed by the ML. Can someone tell me if I have to get timbre matched MLs for Atmos sound effects or can I get something else?

Any 35-45° angled Atmos speaker brand suggestions?

Budget is $150 per speaker, and bang for buck is important. Thanks


----------



## Stoked21

Carrick said:


> Currently have 5 Martin Logan LX16 speakers + 4 Energy Take 5 sats for Atmos but they are out-performed by the ML. Can someone tell me if I have to get timbre matched MLs for Atmos sound effects or can I get something else?
> 
> Any 35-45° angled Atmos speaker brand suggestions?
> 
> Budget is $150 per speaker, and bang for buck is important. Thanks


It's really ideal. Is it necessary? No. Will it help prevent that itch to eleminate future improvements? Yes. Will it sound better and eleminate mismatch on more involved mixes? Yes. 

Is price always an issue to do so? Yep.


----------



## Carrick

Stoked21 said:


> It's really ideal. Is it necessary? No. Will it help prevent that itch to eleminate future improvements? Yes. Will it sound better and eleminate mismatch on more involved mixes? Yes.
> 
> Is price always an issue to do so? Yep.



Reason I asked is that the sales rep at Crutchfield told me the ML LX-16 cannot be used for Atmos and he recommended the ML AFX instead. 

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_839MAFX/MartinLogan-Motion-AFX.html?search=afx&skipvs=T

When I mentioned my ceiling is vaulted from left (8 ft) to right (10 ft), he said Audyssey can take care of it. I seriously doubt it can, maybe front to back but not L-to-R, what do you think?

I will call a ML seller and see what they have if the LX16 is not right for the job. Thanks


----------



## dvdwilly3

Carrick said:


> Currently have 5 Martin Logan LX16 speakers + 4 Energy Take 5 sats for Atmos but they are out-performed by the ML. Can someone tell me if I have to get timbre matched MLs for Atmos sound effects or can I get something else?
> 
> Any 35-45° angled Atmos speaker brand suggestions?
> 
> Budget is $150 per speaker, and bang for buck is important. Thanks


I would NOT go with the recommended ML upfiring speakers...

I have had both upfiring and direct firing (mounted on ceiling, not in ceiling...).

For your situation and budget, you might look at the SVS Satellite speakers. They would be a definite step up in quality and performance IMO...


----------



## ykjones

Just had my dream home theater installed and I am blown away having Atmos in my home now as I've been addicted ever since I heard my first Atmos movie. I've looked online for some really cool Atmos posters or wall plaques for my theater room. I wanted to see if anyone has found and has some links to some really nice Atmos posters and/or wall plaques. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Carrick

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would NOT go with the recommended ML upfiring speakers...
> 
> I have had both upfiring and direct firing (mounted on ceiling, not in ceiling...).
> 
> For your situation and budget, you might look at the SVS Satellite speakers. They would be a definite step up in quality and performance IMO...


Thanks Willy, anything will be a step up and hoping to find a good deal for 6.5" or 8" coaxial speakers that i could make a DIY enclosure or get one from DIYSG.



ykjones said:


> Just had my dream home theater installed and I am blown away having Atmos in my home now as I've been addicted ever since I heard my first Atmos movie. I've looked online for some really cool Atmos posters or wall plaques for my theater room. I wanted to see if anyone has found and has some links to some really nice Atmos posters and/or wall plaques. Thanks in advance.


I read in here somewhere that the OP gets the prints and then just staples them onto the frame. It's probably a good bet you will find an Atmos print.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...inted-movie-poster-acoustic-panels-cheap.html


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Forgive me if this has already been answered elsewhere:

Has anyone tried installing wide heights on the wall but angled down, and then configuring them as top middle Atmos speakers in the receiver? If so, how well does it work?

In-ceiling would be a problem for me but front heights or wide heights I could do. However, I don't want to install front heights due to placement issues for my projector image, and just general aesthetics. 

So that leaves me with the options of installing these bookshelf speakers hanging down from the ceiling which would be problematic with my ceiling height, or else installing them on the side walls near the ceiling and angling them down. Room is narrow, only about 11 feet so the speakers would almost be overhead.

My receiver is the Marantz SR5010.
Speakers are Paradigm Studio 60 and Studio CC in front, Paradigm Titan for surrounds, and probably Paradigm Atom for Atmos. Sub is SVS PB13-Ultra.


----------



## nickbuol

ykjones said:


> Just had my dream home theater installed and I am blown away having Atmos in my home now as I've been addicted ever since I heard my first Atmos movie. I've looked online for some really cool Atmos posters or wall plaques for my theater room. I wanted to see if anyone has found and has some links to some really nice Atmos posters and/or wall plaques. Thanks in advance.





Carrick said:


> I read in here somewhere that the OP gets the prints and then just staples them onto the frame. It's probably a good bet you will find an Atmos print.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...inted-movie-poster-acoustic-panels-cheap.html


 @ykjones If you need any help with prints linked above, let me know. A lot has changed (for the better) in that thread, but there is a lot to digest. Just post any questions over there and either I or someone else will answer them.


----------



## stikle

Carrick said:


> When I mentioned my ceiling is vaulted from left (8 ft) to right (10 ft), he said *Audyssey can take care of it*. I seriously doubt it can, maybe front to back but not L-to-R, what do you think?



It most certainly can and will. My vaulted ceiling is similar and sounds fabulous. Run the entire Audyssey calibration sequence. Distances and levels will be set, rendering the 2' difference inconsequential.


----------



## ALtlOff

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Forgive me if this has already been answered elsewhere:
> 
> Has anyone tried installing wide heights on the wall but angled down, and then configuring them as top middle Atmos speakers in the receiver? If so, how well does it work?
> 
> In-ceiling would be a problem for me but front heights or wide heights I could do. However, I don't want to install front heights due to placement issues for my projector image, and just general aesthetics.
> 
> So that leaves me with the options of installing these bookshelf speakers hanging down from the ceiling which would be problematic with my ceiling height, or else installing them on the side walls near the ceiling and angling them down. Room is narrow, only about 11 feet so the speakers would almost be overhead.
> 
> My receiver is the Marantz SR5010.
> Speakers are Paradigm Studio 60 and Studio CC in front, Paradigm Titan for surrounds, and probably Paradigm Atom for Atmos. Sub is SVS PB13-Ultra.


Here's a quote from this thread about height speakers:

please-share-pictures-your-atmos-height-set-ups




ALtlOff said:


> "I'm using nothing but Height speakers mounted right at the ceiling, and the effect is Very good, I've only found very few times where I've thought that an overhead sound would have been better "directly" above me instead of above and "around" me, plus with the movies I suggested for "proper" Atmos demos, the ambient/spacial overhead sound is excellent "around" you.
> 
> IMO, using Atmos processing, upfiring modules in a less than perfect environment will get you a 30-40% increase in experience, in a perfect environment 60-70%, Well Placed Height speakers 90%, properly placed in ceiling 100%'
> But that's just with what I've heard."


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

ALtlOff said:


> Here's a quote from this thread about height speakers:
> 
> please-share-pictures-your-atmos-height-set-ups


OK great. Thanks! I will also try them facing more horizontal. In retrospect, that does make some sense. In any case, the mount I bought can be angled as I choose (although with a 1-dozen lb speaker I'm told it can be a two-person job to get the mount tightened in place at the chosen angle). I am thinking I will have to angle it a bit more than you though since there is a bulkhead in the way. I need to clear the bulkhead, but I won't angle it all the way toward the seating. Somewhere in between.

With wide heights like that I think the room setup will look better than with front heights. One of the problems is the locations of the support studs. Not too convenient on my front wall.

I will tell my receiver they are top middle speakers. I have no option for wide height speakers anyway in my Marantz SR5010's setup menu. (It's a mid-range Atmos receiver.)


----------



## ALtlOff

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> OK great. Thanks! I will also try them facing more horizontal. In retrospect, that does make some sense. In any case, the mount I bought can be angled as I choose (although with a 1-dozen lb speaker I'm told it can be a two-person job to get the mount tightened in place at the chosen angle). I am thinking I will have to angle it a bit more than you though since there is a bulkhead in the way. I need to clear the bulkhead, but I won't angle it all the way toward the seating. Somewhere in between.
> 
> With wide heights like that I think the room setup will look better than with front heights. One of the problems is the locations of the support studs. Not too convenient on my front wall.
> 
> I will tell my receiver they are top middle speakers. I have no option for wide height speakers anyway in my Marantz SR5010's setup menu. (It's a mid-range Atmos receiver.)


Just play with the designations until you're happy with it, my FH & WH are duplicated as TF and my SH & RH are duplicated as TR and it still sounds excellent.


----------



## Carrick

stikle said:


> It most certainly can and will. My vaulted ceiling is similar and sounds fabulous. Run the entire Audyssey calibration sequence. Distances and levels will be set, rendering the 2' difference inconsequential.


Please see photo taken today, this is what I am working with. I currently have tiny Energy sats up top and my ML LX16 speakers are wall mounted as shown at the bottom of the photo. How can anything reflect off my slanted ceiling so that it will sound like it's coming from above & my right side? It seems to defy physics trajectory calculations.


----------



## stikle

Carrick said:


> How can anything reflect off my slanted ceiling so that it will sound like it's coming from above & my right side? It seems to defy physics trajectory calculations.



Ummm... Please disregard my previous reply. You are correct.

I somehow missed the fact you were asking about upfiring speakers. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. 

In/On-ceiling speakers, however, will work perfectly fine with a vaulted ceiling.


----------



## AllenA07

SteveFred said:


> I agree, only reason I am asking, is you see most demos are (on the dolby site) firing straight down. I will go ahead and just turn them inward a little toward the sweet spot then.


My speakers are angled towards me. I tried it with them firing straight down and I tried it with them pointed at the MLP. I did notice some degree of improvement when I pointed the speakers towards my seating position. That being said I've got a very small 2 seat theater. If I was working with multiple rows my advice may well be different.


----------



## ramcharger1979

Do you guys think the Boston Acoustic VR MX surround speakers would work as atmos speakers if mounted on the ceiling? 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

ramcharger1979 said:


> Do you guys think the Boston Acoustic VR MX surround speakers would work as atmos speakers if mounted on the ceiling?
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


What are you using for side surrounds and rear surrounds?


----------



## ramcharger1979

dvdwilly3 said:


> What are you using for side surrounds and rear surrounds?


It's all Boston Acoustic. VR 40s front VR M60 rear VR MC center I don't have sides. I am running 5.1.2

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

ramcharger1979 said:


> It's all Boston Acoustic. VR 40s front VR M60 rear VR MC center I don't have sides. I am running 5.1.2
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


I would be inclined to use the MX as surrounds in the rear. I was going to suggest using them as surrounds and using the 60s for the Atmos.

I see why you are thinking of the MXs for Atmos...8 pounds vs 16 pounds (for the 60s).

How large are the 40s? I could not find any specs on them...

Are those floor-standing?


----------



## ramcharger1979

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would be inclined to use the MX as surrounds in the rear. I was going to suggest using them as surrounds and using the 60s for the Atmos.
> 
> I see why you are thinking of the MXs for Atmos...8 pounds vs 16 pounds (for the 60s).
> 
> How large are the 40s? I could not find any specs on them...
> 
> Are those floor-standing?


I was thinking the MX for height / Atmos because the are lighter and have build in mounting brackets. Yes the 40s are floor standing. 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would be inclined to use the MX as surrounds in the rear. I was going to suggest using them as surrounds and using the 60s for the Atmos.
> 
> I see why you are thinking of the MXs for Atmos...8 pounds vs 16 pounds (for the 60s).
> 
> How large are the 40s? I could not find any specs on them...
> 
> Are those floor-standing?


Okay... I think that I would try to find a pair of BA Bravo 20s someplace like eBay and use those for Atmos. That should give you a fairly decent match for the other BAs.

I would still think about the MXs for the rear surrounds...

I know, you still have the 60s...7.1.4 will get expensive...


----------



## Deejay Freddy

I apologize if this has been asked before but I searched and couldn't really find an opinion.

Would you prefer ceiling speakers for your dolby atmos set up or small bookshelves mounted on your ceiling? why?


----------



## ramcharger1979

dvdwilly3 said:


> Okay... I think that I would try to find a pair of BA Bravo 20s someplace like eBay and use those for Atmos. That should give you a fairly decent match for the other BAs.
> 
> I would still think about the MXs for the rear surrounds...
> 
> I know, you still have the 60s...7.1.4 will get expensive...


Yeah it's already been fairly spendy. But hey that's half the fun!?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

Ain't it the truth?

Okay...7.1.4...VR40 at front, VR MX at side, VR60 rear surrounds, and 4 Bravo 20's for Atmos...mounted on ceiling...

Do you have, or are you getting an Atmos receiver?


----------



## ramcharger1979

dvdwilly3 said:


> Ain't it the truth?
> 
> Okay...7.1.4...VR40 at front, VR MX at side, VR60 rear surrounds, and 4 Bravo 20's for Atmos...mounted on ceiling...
> 
> Do you have, or are you getting an Atmos receiver?


I have the Onkyo RZ-800 it only supports up to 5.1.2 with out an additional power amp. I currently have some SVS bookshelfs mounted on the wall as the Atmos speakers but it seems like I can barely tell that they are doing anything. That was why my thought was to ceiling mount those MXs 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

ramcharger1979 said:


> I have the Onkyo RZ-800 it only supports up to 5.1.2 with out an additional power amp. I currently have some SVS bookshelfs mounted on the wall as the Atmos speakers but it seems like I can barely tell that they are doing anything. That was why my thought was to ceiling mount those MXs
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


This is getting specific. I will take it to P.M.


----------



## RigorousXChris

What's the best way to try and determine the sweet spot for upward firing modules?


----------



## smurraybhm

Trial and hopefully not too much error. While you can try to compute angles, etc., nothing is going to be better than placing them in a location and then seeing how they sound - good or not - when seated in the MLP. Most folks start out by placing them on top of wherever their fronts or surrounds are located unless you have some ceiling challenges.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi Guys does anybody have experience with rental Blu rays ?
I signed back up to love film to try a few new blu rays with the atmos mix on,
after sitting down to watch Regression it seems the only audio option available is DTS.

If i remember correctly Rentals dvds used to remove special features etc
but i have not heard this with Blu ray discs removing audio mix.

Would all rentals remove atmos ?


----------



## ramcharger1979

zebidou81 said:


> Hi Guys does anybody have experience with rental Blu rays ?
> I signed back up to love film to try a few new blu rays with the atmos mix on,
> after sitting down to watch Regression it seems the only audio option available is DTS.
> 
> If i remember correctly Rentals dvds used to remove special features etc
> but i have not heard this with Blu ray discs removing audio mix.
> 
> Would all rentals remove atmos ?


Most all of them do. They might have higher end rental places that still carry the better sound mix. In my experience the rentals are as cheap as possible. 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## zebidou81

RigorousXChris said:


> What's the best way to try and determine the sweet spot for upward firing modules?


t 

I used to position the upward firing modules on the wall at eye level roughly (if not wall mounted position where best ie on top of speakers) using a laser pen place on the angled edge of speakers or using a square edge at 45 degrees shine the laser at the ceiling and using a very small shiny metal/mirror like 2"x 2" stick on ceiling with blu tac where the laser was hitting ceiling this will then reflect laser back to where the sound will bounce to the move speakers up or down to change angle when needed.

I got my upward firing speakers sounding good this way before installing ceiling speakers


----------



## zebidou81

ramcharger1979 said:


> Most all of them do. They might have higher end rental places that still carry the better sound mix. In my experience the rentals are as cheap as possible.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


Thanks I might try another Atmos title and if that is the same I will cancel Lovefilm and stick to buying the few Atmos blurays i dont own, I see why the studios remove the mix to make you buy the film.


----------



## ALtlOff

Deejay Freddy said:


> I apologize if this has been asked before but I searched and couldn't really find an opinion.
> 
> Would you prefer ceiling speakers for your dolby atmos set up or small bookshelves mounted on your ceiling? why?


If your asking about strictly in-ceiling -vs- on-ceiling, form factor really isn't what decides it, distance to the listener, range of the speaker and the match to the rest of your system, has so far seemed to have the biggest impact in the experience.

If you mean, in-ceiling -vs- Height speakers, a few posts back (post #39751) has my thoughts on that.


----------



## RigorousXChris

zebidou81 said:


> t
> 
> I used to position the upward firing modules on the wall at eye level roughly (if not wall mounted position where best ie on top of speakers) using a laser pen place on the angled edge of speakers or using a square edge at 45 degrees shine the laser at the ceiling and using a very small shiny metal/mirror like 2"x 2" stick on ceiling with blu tac where the laser was hitting ceiling this will then reflect laser back to where the sound will bounce to the move speakers up or down to change angle when needed.
> 
> I got my upward firing speakers sounding good this way before installing ceiling speakers


Omg this is genius. Thanks


----------



## meli

zebidou81 said:


> Hi Guys does anybody have experience with rental Blu rays?
> ...Would all rentals remove atmos ?


3D Blu-Ray Rental rents retail versions of discs (not the rental versions). If the disc you can buy from Amazon has Atmos, the disc they rent should also have Atmos.
http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com

I also have a Netflix subscription, but for these titles Netflix did not have the Atmos version and 3D Blu-ray did:
*John Wick*
*Gravity*
*Sicario*

3D Rental also has some more obscure titles that Netflix doesn't. Check out the Blu-ray of *The Art of Flight*.


----------



## zeus33

zebidou81 said:


> Hi Guys does anybody have experience with rental Blu rays ?
> I signed back up to love film to try a few new blu rays with the atmos mix on,
> after sitting down to watch Regression it seems the only audio option available is DTS.
> 
> If i remember correctly Rentals dvds used to remove special features etc
> but i have not heard this with Blu ray discs removing audio mix.
> 
> Would all rentals remove atmos ?



I don't know about Love Film, but Netflix does have discs with Atmos. Lionsgate, however, is known for limiting the audio on their rental discs.


----------



## pclausen

I finally got all my Ceiling speakers installed and ended up connecting both Front Wides and Rear Surrounds for a 13.1 setup, configured exactly as per the below:










Atmos speakers:










It was a bit of a pain to run the wires, especially installing the conduit down through an external wall filled with insulation:










View of one of the Micca's from above:










Lots of speaker wires  You can just make out the Audio Source AMP100VS power amp on the lower shelf.










Here's a shot showing the mains and front wides:










Side and rear surrounds. Yes, I still need to raise the front wides and side surrounds about 10".










And a side shot:










When playing Atmos tracks, the default is for the side and rear surrounds to be active and the front wides to be silent. I have to go into Speaker Configuration on the Denon and switch the floor from "5.1 + FW + RS" to "5.1 + FW" in order to enable the front wides. I guess this is expected behavior. I have yet to find any material that will use the front wides by default.

I'm very impressed with the bed level sound, even before raising the side and rear surrounds. The effect of the ceiling speakers is much more subtle, even on the 2014 Atmos demo disc. I don't know if that is due to it being the Micca's which likely have a completely different tonal balance compared to the rest of my system? I did aim the tweeters towards the MLP in then, but the adjustment range was very limited, so the tweets are probably aimed about 3 feet short of the MLP for all 4 ceiling speakers.

I got them from Amazon, so I can still return them if I decide to upgrade to something else. But maybe the effect is supposed to be very subtle. I watched San Andreas in its entirety, and I must say that in the various helicopter scenes, I did not really hear the sound much from above at all. Will have to try some other movies in Atmos I suppose, before making a final judgement.


----------



## pclausen

Spent quite a bit of time looking at possible upgrades to the Micca speakers, and I kept coming back to the Klipsch KS-7502-THX Ultra2's. 

They list for $1000 each, which I know is crazy expensive, but it turns out NewEgg is running a shell shocker price on them of "just" $349.99 with free shipping right now. I stared at the screen for what seems like an eternity and finally caved and 4 of those suckers are on the way. I'll be sure to report of how they sound compared to the Micca's.

My wallet is really hurting right now. I'm going to step away from Amazon and eBay for a while now I think...


----------



## checker9

Not sure where to ask this (sorry if wrong place.)

I am finding it hit or miss in getting Atmos and DTS:X blurays from Netflix. I added a bunch of movies that are listed as blurays that have Atmos or DTS:X to my queue but only about half of them, so far, actually have had it. For example Goosebump had Atmos, but Hunger Games Mocking Jay part 2 did not. Crimson Peak had DTS:X but America Ultra and The Last Witch Hunter did not. 

On the ones that have worked, my AVR actually listed Atmos or DTS:X as the source, so I do not have a set-up problem.

Are there different versions of blurays and perhaps some rental disc do not have it or are the bluray lists for Atmos and DTS:x, like http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html wrong on some listings?


----------



## aaranddeeman

checker9 said:


> Not sure where to ask this (sorry if wrong place.)
> 
> I am finding it hit or miss in getting Atmos and DTS:X blurays from Netflix. I added a bunch of movies that are listed as blurays that have Atmos or DTS:X to my queue but only about half of them, so far, actually have had it. For example Goosebump had Atmos, but Hunger Games Mocking Jay part 2 did not. Crimson Peak had DTS:X but America Ultra and The Last Witch Hunter did not.
> 
> On the ones that have worked, my AVR actually listed Atmos or DTS:X as the source, so I do not have a set-up problem.
> 
> Are there different versions of blurays or are the bluray lists for Atmos and DTS:x, like http://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html wrong?


If the studio is Lions Gate then no lossless audio on rentals.
So yes, rentals are different than retail for some studios..


----------



## checker9

aaranddeeman said:


> If the studio is Lions Gate then no lossless audio on rentals.
> So yes, rentals are different than retail for some studios..


Thanks. Do you know of any lists that break it down to which studios would or would not have it in the rental discs?


----------



## DCMlover

What do you guys think is the best bang for the buck receiver for atmos right now? 7.1.4 powering only the ceiling speakers off the receiver and using outboard amps for all others. Using mostly for movies in a dedicated room. 


I have been looking at the yamaha a3050, but open to other ideas.


----------



## lujan

pclausen said:


>


I always connect the hard way from the exposed wire. Can someone point me to where I can get the banana plugs?


----------



## PioManiac

lujan said:


> I always connect the hard way from the exposed wire. Can someone point me to where I can get the banana plugs?


http://www.monoprice.com/search/index?keyword=banana

https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-deadbolt-banana-plugs-12-pair


----------



## pclausen

Here's a link lujan:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/290892882009?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT


----------



## AllenA07

lujan said:


> I always connect the hard way from the exposed wire. Can someone point me to where I can get the banana plugs?


I use the Monoprice ones and they work fine.


----------



## lujan

PioManiac said:


> http://www.monoprice.com/search/index?keyword=banana
> 
> https://sewelldirect.com/sewell-deadbolt-banana-plugs-12-pair





pclausen said:


> Here's a link lujan:
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/290892882009?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT





AllenA07 said:


> I use the Monoprice ones and they work fine.


Thanks, looks like lots of options. This will make it tons easier in the future to connect the speakers to the AVR. I always hate doing it when I change receivers.


----------



## bargervais

lujan said:


> Thanks, looks like lots of options. This will make it tons easier in the future to connect the speakers to the AVR. I always hate doing it when I change receivers.


Deadbolt Banana Plugs by Sewell are the ones I've used and they work really well for me


----------



## kokishin

lujan said:


> I always connect the hard way from the exposed wire. Can someone point me to where I can get the banana plugs?


I use these BFA banana plugs: 

12 pairs:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CL4JQ6W?keywords=Eastone%C2%AE%20EB534AE&qid=1456760329&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

7 pairs: 
http://www.amazon.com/Eastone%C2%AE-EB534AE-Quality-Banana-Connector/dp/B00CL4KB3O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1456760809&sr=8-2&keywords=Eastone%C2%AE+EB534AE%2C

They have plastic handles so a dangler can't short, they won't become loose in the socket like some banana plugs, they're easy to install, they ship quickly, and their very cost effective. Also, the plastic handles are a smaller diameter than some other plugs, making them easier to grip among a whole line of them on the rear of the avr.

I have no association with the company other than as a customer.


----------



## zebidou81

zeus33 said:


> I don't know about Love Film, but Netflix does have discs with Atmos. Lionsgate, however, is known for limiting the audio on their rental discs.


Thanks 

I am with Netflix also for movie streaming but In the UK we do not have Netflix movies by post only Online streaming


----------



## Stoked21

The award for:

1) BEST BASS
2) BEST ATMOS
3) BEST UHD HDR
.....

100% goes to DeadPool...


Even the opening credits have insane Atmos! The drywall is flaking off the ceiling! I'm only 10 minutes in and the PQ and SQ are phenomenal!
Forget about Gravity for Atmos and Life or Pi (or worse yet Revenant) for HDR.....Clear winner right here!

Before anyone even asks. No I have not checked the BD to see if it's Atmos.


----------



## dvdwilly3

pclausen said:


> Spent quite a bit of time looking at possible upgrades to the Micca speakers, and I kept coming back to the Klipsch KS-7502-THX Ultra2's.
> 
> They list for $1000 each, which I know is crazy expensive, but it turns out NewEgg is running a shell shocker price on them of "just" $349.99 with free shipping right now. I stared at the screen for what seems like an eternity and finally caved and 4 of those suckers are on the way. I'll be sure to report of how they sound compared to the Micca's.
> 
> My wallet is really hurting right now. I'm going to step away from Amazon and eBay for a while now I think...


I think you done a good thing...


----------



## aaranddeeman

Stoked21 said:


> The award for:
> 
> 1) BEST BASS
> 2) BEST ATMOS
> 3) BEST UHD HDR
> .....
> 
> 100% goes to DeadPool...
> 
> 
> Even the opening credits have insane Atmos! The drywall is flaking off the ceiling! I'm only 10 minutes in and the PQ and SQ are phenomenal!
> Forget about Gravity for Atmos and Life or Pi (or worse yet Revenant) for HDR.....Clear winner right here!
> 
> Before anyone even asks. No I have not checked the BD to see if it's Atmos.


Ah. Good to know.
Does it's Blu ray version has Atmos?


----------



## Darren Heal

Can anyone recommend an Atmos encoded BluRay movie to test out my new Marantz 7010 and 7.2.4 setup?
Preferably action or good sci-fi and one I can get at Bestbuy?
Thanks.


----------



## meli

Darren Heal said:


> Can anyone recommend an Atmos encoded BluRay movie to test out my new Marantz 7010 and 7.2.4 setup?
> Preferably action or good sci-fi and one I can get at Bestbuy?


John Wick
Mad Max Fury Road 
Roger Waters The Wall
People here say that "In The Heart of the Sea" has a good Atmos mix. The movie itself got pretty mediocre reviews, though.

You can rent the Atmos version of Gravity from 3D Blu-Ray Rental. It's called the Diamond Luxe Edition.
http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com


----------



## vsorgi

Darren Heal said:


> Can anyone recommend an Atmos encoded BluRay movie to test out my new Marantz 7010 and 7.2.4 setup?
> Preferably action or good sci-fi and one I can get at Bestbuy?
> Thanks.




Mad Max Fury Road -have not seen one that tops this for overall Atmos effect

Goosebumps - best for height effects


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Darren Heal said:


> Can anyone recommend an Atmos encoded BluRay movie to test out my new Marantz 7010 and 7.2.4 setup?
> Preferably action or good sci-fi and one I can get at Bestbuy?
> Thanks.


It sounds like Deadpool is an Atmos winner, but only the UHD Blu-ray has an immersive track. 

I'll echo Goosebumps and, of course, Gravity... Gravity (in the now hard to find Diamond Luxe pack) definitely is one that should be used for any friend or family demo. If they can't tell it's in Atmos, they are deaf. It also utilizes the Front Wides to great effect with off-screen dialog placement as well. If you fail in your quest for the Gravity SE, then I'm sure Warner Brothers is prepping a re-release for UHD Blu-ray with Atmos.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Darren Heal said:


> Can anyone recommend an Atmos encoded BluRay movie to test out my new Marantz 7010 and 7.2.4 setup?
> Preferably action or good sci-fi and one I can get at Bestbuy?
> Thanks.


Another one is Unbroken...when they are on the initial bombing run, as they move around and inside of the plane, it sounds like you are actually there.

And, when the flak starts and Japanese Zeros begin attacking it is intense...


----------



## petetherock

Can anyone confirm this:
If we have a 4k disc, played in a 4k HT system sans a 4k display, I will still enjoy the same sound quality, Atmos and all?
That may be one incentive to get in on the 4k scene, even though I don't have a 4k display yet.. there seems to be a push to equip only the 4k discs with Atmos / DTS-X.
Cheers


----------



## dvdwilly3

petetherock said:


> Can anyone confirm this:
> If we have a 4k disc, played in a 4k HT system sans a 4k display, I will still enjoy the same sound quality, Atmos and all?
> That may be one incentive to get in on the 4k scene, even though I don't have a 4k display yet.. there seems to be a push to equip only the 4k discs with Atmos / DTS-X.
> Cheers


Pete, the short answer is, "Yes."

The K8500 will put Atmos out over either of the HDMI outputs. I believe that will be true of the other UHD players as well.

You just need to be prepared for a different color space on your 1080 display.

I had the K8500 and did not care for it. I found that there was a black crush that I could not get corrected.

As always, YMMV...


----------



## AllenA07

petetherock said:


> Can anyone confirm this:
> If we have a 4k disc, played in a 4k HT system sans a 4k display, I will still enjoy the same sound quality, Atmos and all?
> That may be one incentive to get in on the 4k scene, even though I don't have a 4k display yet.. there seems to be a push to equip only the 4k discs with Atmos / DTS-X.
> Cheers


My understanding is yes, however the studios have the ability to prevent there from being playback. I expect they will exercise that power in the future when there is wider adoption of 4K displays.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Stoked21 said:


> The award for:
> 
> 1) BEST BASS
> 2) BEST ATMOS
> 3) BEST UHD HDR
> .....
> 
> 100% goes to DeadPool...
> 
> 
> Even the opening credits have insane Atmos! The drywall is flaking off the ceiling! I'm only 10 minutes in and the PQ and SQ are phenomenal!
> Forget about Gravity for Atmos and Life or Pi (or worse yet Revenant) for HDR.....Clear winner right here!
> 
> Before anyone even asks. No I have not checked the BD to see if it's Atmos.


Wow, you are early to the races, it doesn't even hit the shelves here until May 10th in 4K!


----------



## urbeenjammin

Darren Heal said:


> Can anyone recommend an Atmos encoded BluRay movie to test out my new Marantz 7010 and 7.2.4 setup?
> Preferably action or good sci-fi and one I can get at Bestbuy?
> Thanks.


Lucy absolutely is in the top 3 atmos tracks available and it includes 4 atmos trailers to boot.You will be blown away guaranteed!


----------



## NorthSky

...And the movie (*Lucy*) is super cool. 

But it's an import from Hong Kong → http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/128360/

♦ http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html


----------



## lujan

urbeenjammin said:


> Lucy absolutely is in the top 3 atmos tracks available and it includes 4 atmos trailers to boot.You will be blown away guaranteed!





NorthSky said:


> ...And the movie (*Lucy*) is super cool.
> 
> But it's an import from Hong Kong → http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/128360/
> 
> ♦ http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html


I agree, I paid more for this title since it's an import but didn't regret it one bit because the Atmos track is so good.


----------



## dschulz

AllenA07 said:


> My understanding is yes, however the studios have the ability to prevent there from being playback. I expect they will exercise that power in the future when there is wider adoption of 4K displays.


Why would they? It limits sales. No one ever implemented the flag that prevented Blu Ray from being down-rezzed for output to an SD display.


----------



## thebland

Stoked21 said:


> The award for:
> 
> 1) BEST BASS
> 2) BEST ATMOS
> 3) BEST UHD HDR
> .....
> 
> 100% goes to DeadPool...
> 
> 
> Even the opening credits have insane Atmos! The drywall is flaking off the ceiling! I'm only 10 minutes in and the PQ and SQ are phenomenal!
> Forget about Gravity for Atmos and Life or Pi (or worse yet Revenant) for HDR.....Clear winner right here!
> 
> Before anyone even asks. No I have not checked the BD to see if it's Atmos.


Ha! Good to know!... the calibrator just left and I am all set up for 11.6.8 Atmos with Trinnov Altitude. Have not watched an Atmos movie yet... this looks to be #1!


----------



## aaranddeeman

Everest (Atmos) and Crimson Peak (DTS:X) is on sale at Best Buy for $9.99 each if someone wants to grab a copy.


----------



## jimmyaz

pclausen said:


> Spent quite a bit of time looking at possible upgrades to the Micca speakers, and I kept coming back to the Klipsch KS-7502-THX Ultra2's.
> 
> They list for $1000 each, which I know is crazy expensive, but it turns out NewEgg is running a shell shocker price on them of "just" $349.99 with free shipping right now. I stared at the screen for what seems like an eternity and finally caved and 4 of those suckers are on the way. I'll be sure to report of how they sound compared to the Micca's.
> 
> My wallet is really hurting right now. I'm going to step away from Amazon and eBay for a while now I think...


Oh my.... why did I have to see this.... this is killing me inside out. Well, maybe I'll have to use the excused that I just sprayed a extra 20" of cellulose over my ceiling speaker, it would be to much of a hassle to switch them out.  But that price is shocking.


----------



## Al Sherwood

lujan said:


> I agree, I paid more for this title since it's an import but didn't regret it one bit because the Atmos track is so good.


Great, so I look at my copy of Lucy and Atmos is nowhere to be seen (heard)... I never understood the premise behind this release process, drive me nut!!!


----------



## Selden Ball

Al Sherwood said:


> Great, so I look at my copy of Lucy and Atmos is nowhere to be seen (heard)... I never understood the premise behind this release process, drive me nut!!!


Atmos is only available on the Asian version


----------



## lujan

Al Sherwood said:


> Great, so I look at my copy of Lucy and Atmos is nowhere to be seen (heard)... I never understood the premise behind this release process, drive me nut!!!


Didn't you look at the post right before mine? You have to buy it from here:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/128360/


----------



## Al Sherwood

lujan said:


> Didn't you look at the post right before mine? You have to buy it from here:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/128360/


Lujan, thanks for the link, unfortunately I bought it almost a year ago... still in the shrink warp though, no Atmos setup ready anyway.


----------



## nickbuol

Al Sherwood said:


> Great, so I look at my copy of Lucy and Atmos is nowhere to be seen (heard)... I never understood the premise behind this release process, drive me nut!!!





lujan said:


> Didn't you look at the post right before mine? You have to buy it from here:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/128360/


Actually, this other link is what they want (courtesy of NorthSky): http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html $32.99 USD (plus shipping I would assume). Too steep for me for the Atmos mix since I already own it (US version) and have seen it probably 3 times, and it isn't on my radar to jump out and watch again soon.


----------



## KennyLSU

aaranddeeman said:


> Everest (Atmos) and Crimson Peak (DTS:X) is on sale at Best Buy for $9.99 each if someone wants to grab a copy.


Everest is definitely worth the price for Atmos.


----------



## ALtlOff

nickbuol said:


> Actually, this other link is what they want (courtesy of NorthSky): http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html $32.99 USD (plus shipping I would assume). Too steep for me for the Atmos mix since I already own it (US version) and have seen it probably 3 times, and it isn't on my radar to jump out and watch again soon.


IMO, this is one release that is absolutely worth a double-dip, the quality of the Atmos mix is so good it truly changes the feel of the entire experience.


----------



## lujan

ALtlOff said:


> IMO, this is one release that is absolutely worth a double-dip, the quality of the Atmos mix is so good it truly changes the feel of the entire experience.


Yes, exactly like the difference on "The Fifth Element" with the Atmos track.


----------



## nickbuol

ALtlOff said:


> IMO, this is one release that is absolutely worth a double-dip, the quality of the Atmos mix is so good it truly changes the feel of the entire experience.


Yeah, if I had only seen it once at this point, I would be more enticed to do so, but again for me (personally) it just would be a "once-and-done" watch of a $33 (plus shipping) movie since I am way behind on watching a growing number of purchased movies lately.

Don't let *my* opinion/situation deter anyone else from grabbing this.


----------



## Al Sherwood

ALtlOff said:


> IMO, this is one release that is absolutely worth a double-dip, the quality of the Atmos mix is so good it truly changes the feel of the entire experience.





lujan said:


> Yes, exactly like the difference on "The Fifth Element" with the Atmos track.





nickbuol said:


> Yeah, if I had only seen it once at this point, I would be more enticed to do so, but again for me (personally) it just would be a "once-and-done" watch of a $33 (plus shipping) movie since I am way behind on watching a growing number of purchased movies lately.
> 
> Don't let *my* opinion/situation deter anyone else from grabbing this.


OK, OK... Lucy stays in the wrapper and I wait until I have an Atmos copy and setup to watch this one!


----------



## bigdogaxis

ALtlOff said:


> IMO [...] the quality of the Atmos mix is so good it truly changes the feel of the entire experience.


YES! Immersive audio should be an experience, not a gimmick. Good to hear The Fifth Element was done well.


----------



## AllenA07

aaranddeeman said:


> Everest (Atmos) and Crimson Peak (DTS:X) is on sale at Best Buy for $9.99 each if someone wants to grab a copy.


Everest is a good grab. Not only is it a good movie, but the Atmos track on it is fantastic.


----------



## meli

Al Sherwood said:


> OK, OK... Lucy stays in the wrapper and I wait until I have an Atmos copy and setup to watch this one!


3D Blu-Ray Rental says they accept requests for movies. Maybe I'll send them an email requesting they stock the import version of Lucy with Atmos.


----------



## ALtlOff

Al Sherwood said:


> OK, OK... Lucy stays in the wrapper and I wait until I have an Atmos copy and setup to watch this one!


Just make sure you watch both versions at some time, this will give you a real appreciation of what Atmos, used properly, can "really" do.
To me, being able to change the entire feel of a film, the way it did with "Lucy", is the real break out, when it comes to the possibilities of the technology.

LOL... Just one step closer to a Holodeck ....


----------



## TheSynergy

What does Dolby Atmos do with a 7.1 channel setup. I'm watching Mad Max Fury road on my new Denon S720W and X940D. I have the Samsung UHD player Bitstream ingie to the receiver and see "Dolby Atmos" and the rear channels are far more active then I've ever heard. Does 7.1 become 5.1.2? Basically my rears act as "object" speakers and assist in surround pans? I have the amp assign mode on my Denon set to "surround back". I see an option for "surround dolby" which also says in a note at the bottom "support format dolby atmos", other options would be Front height. Anyways, looking for clarification on these things.


----------



## TheSynergy

TheSynergy said:


> What does Dolby Atmos do with a 7.1 channel setup. I'm watching Mad Max Fury road on my new Denon S720W and X940D. I have the Samsung UHD player Bitstream ingie to the receiver and see "Dolby Atmos" and the rear channels are far more active then I've ever heard. Does 7.1 become 5.1.2? Basically my rears act as "object" speakers and assist in surround pans? I have the amp assign mode on my Denon set to "surround back". I see an option for "surround dolby" which also says in a note at the bottom "support format dolby atmos", other options would be Front height. Anyways, looking for clarification on these things.


Looks like demons manual has a partial answer, I can turn my rear wall mounted satellites into "surround dolby" which turns my 7.1 into 5.1.2. Assuming I understand correctly. Next question would be, if I left the amp assignment this way, what happens to 7.1 content?


----------



## smurraybhm

TheSynergy said:


> Looks like demons manual has a partial answer, I can turn my rear wall mounted satellites into "surround dolby" which turns my 7.1 into 5.1.2. Assuming I understand correctly. Next question would be, if I left the amp assignment this way, what happens to 7.1 content?


Any content would be processed using DSU (so you get 5 channels of sound on the base/2 channels up top) unless you go a different path (don't use DSU and since X isn't available on your unit yet) which would result in a 5.1 mix and those rear speakers assigned as "heights" will be silent. To return to 7.1 you would be required to change your speaker config from 5.x.2 and re-run Audyssey each time unless you save its results to a USB drive, then you'd have to re-load each time you switch speaker config - unless you don't use Audyssey. Not that familiar with the lower level Denon's, so I'm assuming the save option is available for those as it is for the XT32 receivers.

More importantly if you have rear speakers mounted behind don't configure your system for Atmos. I can't think of a single reason why someone would want the only set of height speakers behind them. If you can move them forward to FH or TM then go for it, otherwise I would recommend sticking with 7.1.


----------



## TheSynergy

I've never really trusted the auto mic setup so not worried about audessey, as I measured everything and manually set up. 

I guess I figured when watching an Atmos track, turning my "ceiling" like speakers into surround dolbys could be kinda cool. They are technically behind listening position BUT are at ceiling height aimed downward towards listening. I guess I was hoping to not miss out on the new processing with object channels and be stuck with "bed" channels. If your telling me 7.1 would still be better I suppose I'll have to change it back.


----------



## bdraw

checker9 said:


> Thanks. Do you know of any lists that break it down to which studios would or would not have it in the rental discs?


I use a combination of the audio details listed on the Netflix movie page and Blu-ray.com. Netflix makes it easy to see if it's a Lionsgate movie with only Dolby Digital 5.1, but there is no mention of Atmos or DTS:X. For that I go to Blu-ray.com.


----------



## dvdwilly3

TheSynergy said:


> I've never really trusted the auto mic setup so not worried about audessey, as I measured everything and manually set up.
> 
> I guess I figured when watching an Atmos track, turning my "ceiling" like speakers into surround dolbys could be kinda cool. They are technically behind listening position BUT are at ceiling height aimed downward towards listening. I guess I was hoping to not miss out on the new processing with object channels and be stuck with "bed" channels. If your telling me 7.1 would still be better I suppose I'll have to change it back.


I would try them as Rear High or Top Rear and not do Dolby Enabled.

Bottom line, experiment. Run them all those ways and see which you prefer.

It is your system and whatever works for you works for you.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

I know, it's not really next door, but if you happen to be in Paris on June 2nd, there is a one of a kind Dolby Atmos_Trinnov Altitude 32 demo in Dolby's private Atmos show room in Paris, organized with HCFR :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/demonstration-dolby-atmos-trinnov-hcfr-le-2-juin-a-paris/

Hugo


----------



## meli

meli said:


> 3D Blu-Ray Rental says they accept requests for movies. Maybe I'll send them an email requesting they stock the import version of Lucy with Atmos.


I wrote 3D Blu-Ray Rental yesterday and they already responded that they will acquire the Atmos version of "Lucy". I'll post again once I see they've acquired it (and maybe after I've had a chance to rent it).


----------



## jimmyaz

This sucks. I just pick up Deadpool bluray disc from best buy.... DOES NOT have Atmos.

 Is Atmos sound track only available on UHD disc? or is there another version?


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

jimmyaz said:


> This sucks. I just pick up Deadpool bluray disc from best buy.... DOES NOT have Atmos.
> 
> Is Atmos sound track only available on UHD disc? or is there another version?


Only the UHD. The included 1080p Blu-ray in the UHD package doesn't include Atmos either. Only way to get Atmos Deadpool on a 1080p system is to buy a 4K UHD player and down-rez the UHD disc to 1080p.

Stupid but true.


----------



## Josh Z

jimmyaz said:


> This sucks. I just pick up Deadpool bluray disc from best buy.... DOES NOT have Atmos.
> 
> Is Atmos sound track only available on UHD disc? or is there another version?


Deadpool is a Fox title. Fox has decided that immersive audio will be exclusive to UHD, not standard Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Only the UHD. The included 1080p Blu-ray in the UHD package doesn't include Atmos either. Only way to get Atmos Deadpool on a 1080p system is to buy a 4K UHD player and down-rez the UHD disc to 1080p.
> 
> Stupid but true.


This is so unfortunate!  ...From FOX studios. ...Who gave us *Avatar 3D* in the past, @ the beginning and for a very long time, only from an exclusive deal with Panasonic TVs and BR players and James Cameron. It took a very long time to make this BR 3D title available to the masses. 
And they were trying to promote 3D!!!

Now, they are trying to promote Dolby Atmos exclusivity with only 4K!!! ...Or what!!! 

Better picture better sound, only in 4K.  ..Lol  ...Just like *Deadpool*

And why isn't _Deadpool_ in 3D? That flick would have been the perfect candidate for FOX studios who have a bunch of cool 3D BR movie titles already. Was it in 3D in some theaters? Or can we expect a double dip in the future for the remaining 3D TV and 3D front projector owners? 
About 4K front projectors for couple grands...more or less? 

Anyway, tonight is *Deadpool* night in 2D, and in 1080p, and without Dolby Atmos...for most of us...the vast majority (99%+). 
What were they thinking...FOX movie executives?!?


----------



## metalsaber

NorthSky said:


> This is so unfortunate!  ...From FOX studios. ...Who gave us *Avatar 3D* in the past, @ the beginning and for a very long time, only from an exclusive deal with Panasonic TVs and BR players and James Cameron. It took a very long time to make this BR 3D title available to the masses.
> And they were trying to promote 3D!!!
> 
> Now, they are trying to promote Dolby Atmos exclusivity with only 4K!!! ...Or what!!!
> 
> Better picture better sound, only in 4K.  ..Lol  ...Just like *Deadpool*
> 
> And why isn't _Deadpool_ in 3D? That flick would have been the perfect candidate for FOX studios who have a bunch of cool 3D BR movie titles already. Was it in 3D in some theaters? Or can we expect a double dip in the future for the remaining 3D TV and 3D front projector owners?
> About 4K front projectors for couple grands...more or less?
> 
> Anyway, tonight is *Deadpool* night in 2D, and in 1080p, and without Dolby Atmos...for most of us...the vast majority (99%+).
> What were they thinking...FOX movie executives?!?



That its time to upgrade your equipment?


----------



## PioManiac

I'm fine with DeadPool in 2D 1080p 
with DTS-HD 7.1 audio up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.4.4 in my system,
on my 120" screen from a 10 foot viewing distance.

I'm not paying $600 for a 4K Samsung player (in Canada)
and then paying $35 for 4k UHD BD's 
until someone can make an affordable true 4K projector
...and even then I'll be waiting for a cheaper 4K player...the current $$$ is an outright monopoly/gouging


----------



## Kain

I think this question has been asked before but I just wanted it clarified. The minimum required setup for Atmos is 5.1.2 but what is the fewest number of floor speakers an Atmos movie can be encoded with? For Atmos at home, is the minimum number of bed channels 5 (LCR + side surrounds) or 7 (LCR + side surrounds + back surrounds) (i.e. 5.x.x or 7.x.x)? If 5.x.x in the minimum encode and you have a 7.x.x setup, do the back surrounds get used for only objects?


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Josh Z said:


> Deadpool is a Fox title. Fox has decided that immersive audio will be exclusive to UHD, not standard Blu-ray.


I was at Best Buy today. Looked at both the UHD and regular Blu-ray release of Deadpool. Decided to buy neither. I was just too irritated. 

I mean I'm sure the DTS 7.1 track is good, but these days I don't buy a lot of discs, and considering I just got an Atmos receiver, I want some Atmos demo stuff for my new system. Deadpool seemed like the perfect choice since it was a new release and an Atmos track was mastered for it, but nope.

BTW, I went to pick up Gravity Atmos and nobody locally actually had it. They only carry stock of the older Gravity version. So I guess I'll have to go with Amazon or whatever. I knew the brick & mortar stores have really scaled back for disc sales, but it's getting to the point where it's a total waste of time to go to a brick & mortar store for movie discs.


----------



## sdrucker

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> I know, it's not really next door, but if you happen to be in Paris on June 2nd, there is a one of a kind Dolby Atmos_Trinnov Altitude 32 demo in Dolby's private Atmos show room in Paris, organized with HCFR :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/demonstration-dolby-atmos-trinnov-hcfr-le-2-juin-a-paris/
> 
> Hugo


Are you going? Please give us a report if you are...


----------



## jimmyaz

PioManiac said:


> I'm fine with DeadPool in 2D 1080p
> with DTS-HD 7.1 audio up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.4.4 in my system,
> on my 120" screen from a 10 foot viewing distance.
> 
> I'm not paying $600 for a 4K Samsung player (in Canada)
> and then paying $35 for 4k UHD BD's
> until someone can make an affordable true 4K projector
> ...and even then I'll be waiting for a cheaper 4K player...the current $$$ is an outright monopoly/gouging


I completely agree with this. I don't see why 4K is such a big deal over 1080p. My friend bought a 75" 4k TV, but didn't want to spend to buy a 4k player and only want to do streaming. I still prefer my 100" Projector 1080p over his TV. 

On the side note, isn't the PS4 can play UHD disc ? If I am right, you can get a PS4 for 300.00


----------



## PioManiac

No, the PS4 is only 1080p


----------



## Natrix1973

10 Cloverfield Lane will be on Blu Ray WITH Atmos!



> Paramount Home Media Distribution has announced the Blu-ray release of producer J.J. Abrams and up-and-coming director Dan Trachtenberg's 10 Cloverfield Lane, which stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman and John Gallagher, Jr. The spiritual sequel/spin-off to Cloverfield (2008) arrives on Blu-ray combo pack on June 14th.
> 
> After a catastrophic car crash, a young woman (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) wakes up in a survivalist's (John Goodman, Argo) underground bunker. He claims to have saved her from an apocalyptic attack that has left the outside world uninhabitable. His theories are supported by a mysterious stranger who is in the bunker with them (John Gallagher, Jr., The Newsroom), but as his increasingly suspicious actions lead her to question his motives, she'll have to escape in order to discover the truth.
> 
> 10 Cloverfield Lane is presented in 1080p with Dolby Atmos surround. For a limited time only, fans will receive a bonus Digital HD copy of the original Cloverfield with their purchase of the 10 Cloverfield Lane Blu-ray Combo Pack. Special features include:
> 
> Commentary by director Dan Trachtenberg and producer J.J. Abrams
> Over 30 minutes of Behind-The-Scenes Footage: Take an extensive look behind-the-scenes with Abrams and the cast as they revisit the legacy of 2008's Cloverfield, and discuss how 10 Cloverfield Lane went from script to production. Continue with a tour of the ominous bunker, see how the costume designer was challenged to create a homemade Hazmat suit, follow the production team and sound designers as they work on the movie's epic finale, and hear the unique scores composed for each character.


----------



## lujan

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> ...
> 
> BTW, I went to pick up Gravity Atmos and nobody locally actually had it. They only carry stock of the older Gravity version. So I guess I'll have to go with Amazon or whatever. I knew the brick & mortar stores have really scaled back for disc sales, but it's getting to the point where it's a total waste of time to go to a brick & mortar store for movie discs.


I know, the only store left in my town to even look at BDs is my BB and every time I go it seems they've made less and less aisles available for movies. My local Walmart hardly has any BDs at the store and they tell me because their clientele only buys DVDs and to check Target. My Target store doesn't even have any UHDs and I've had to order online to get those at Target.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> I think this question has been asked before but I just wanted it clarified. The minimum required setup for Atmos is 5.1.2 but what is the fewest number of floor speakers an Atmos movie can be encoded with? For Atmos at home, is the minimum number of bed channels 5 (LCR + side surrounds) or 7 (LCR + side surrounds + back surrounds) (i.e. 5.x.x or 7.x.x)? If 5.x.x in the minimum encode and you have a 7.x.x setup, do the back surrounds get used for only objects?


ALL native Atmos encodes are 7.1 bed + objects. 

For the theatrical mix they do a 9.1 bed (there is a stereo overhead bed as well) but since Dolby TrueHD supports 7.1+metadata they turn any overhead bed info into "static objects" for the home release.

So the question is sort of meaningless as there would never be a "minimum encode". They are ALWAYS encoded as 7.1+objects metadata in the TrueHD / DD+ stream. 

Now, that said, DTS:X is a bit different as it can be any combination of channels+objects up to a maximum of 16 total "waveforms" (not including LFE). So you could theoretically have a DTS:X track that is 2.0 + objects, or 7.1.4 with no objects (which is what they've been doing so far with early BD releases), or anything in between.


----------



## stikle

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> BTW, I went to pick up Gravity Atmos and nobody locally actually had it.



Make sure you get the Diamond Luxe Edition....there are some on eBay...but you're going to be paying through the nose now if/when you find one.


----------



## batpig

jimmyaz said:


> I completely agree with this. I don't see why 4K is such a big deal over 1080p. My friend bought a 75" 4k TV, but didn't want to spend to buy a 4k player and only want to do streaming. I still prefer my 100" Projector 1080p over his TV.
> 
> On the side note, isn't the PS4 can play UHD disc ? If I am right, you can get a PS4 for 300.00


The only reason it's really a big deal here is that certain studios have made it the ONLY way you can get immersive audio content with new releases. So people are buying the UHD players just to get the Atmos/DTS:X tracks. 

There are of course some who have upgraded the display to 4K as well.

The PS4 can't play UHD BD. There are rumors of a 4K update (dubbed "PS4.5") but it's unclear if that will just do 4K rez for gaming or if it will also have HDCP 2.2 to play 4K BD.


----------



## PioManiac

stikle said:


> Make sure you get the Diamond Luxe Edition....there are some on eBay...but you're going to be paying through the nose now if/when you find one.


I got mine back in late February at amazon.ca (Canadian site) for $19.99

...just checked and its still selling for that today









For some reason its still $52 on amazon.com (U.S. site)


----------



## ddawg1130

batpig said:


> The only reason it's really a big deal here is that certain studios have made it the ONLY way you can get immersive audio content with new releases. So people are buying the UHD players just to get the Atmos/DTS:X tracks.
> 
> There are of course some who have upgraded the display to 4K as well.
> 
> The PS4 can't play UHD BD. There are rumors of a 4K update (dubbed "PS4.5") but it's unclear if that will just do 4K rez for gaming or if it will also have HDCP 2.2 to play 4K BD.


This is what has brought me to this thread today. I am curious if I buy a UHD blu-ray player if I will be able to play the content on a 1080p screen (panasonic tc-p60vt60) through my denon AVR-x5200w and have Atmos work properly? 

I don't see any option for many upcoming atmos blu-ray releases on just blu-ray and not UHD (which is f*cking bullsh*t).


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

stikle said:


> Make sure you get the Diamond Luxe Edition....there are some on eBay...but you're going to be paying through the nose now if/when you find one.





PioManiac said:


> I got mine back in late February at amazon.ca (Canadian site) for $19.99
> 
> ...just checked and its still selling for that today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason its still $52 on amazon.com (U.S. site)


Strange. I too had just been going by the Canadian pricing, which is $20 for Amazon.ca, BestBuy.ca, and Walmart.ca for this edition (although Amazon mistakenly calls it the Special Edition). That works out to US$15, as opposed to the US$52 pricing. What gives.

I guess I'll order it soon, just in case Canadian retailers decide to jack up the price too.


----------



## sdurani

Natrix1973 said:


> 10 Cloverfield Lane will be on Blu Ray WITH Atmos!


Nice find. The most recent Divergent Series movie, Allegiant, was also just announced for BD and UHD release (July 14), BOTH with Atmos.


----------



## batpig

ddawg1130 said:


> This is what has brought me to this thread today. I am curious if I buy a UHD blu-ray player if I will be able to play the content on a 1080p screen (panasonic tc-p60vt60) through my denon atmos AVR-x5200w?


The bottom line is YES, people have been able to play UHD BD and have it downrezz to a 1080p display while still getting the bitstream hi rez audio. So you can get a UHD BDP and play the 4K BD, sending 1080p video to your Panny plasma.

Because your X5200W doesn't have HDCP 2.2, you may have to use a dual cable solution with the video going straight to the TV and the audio going separately to the receiver. But not sure about that since you are not going to pass the 4K video, but rather the 1080p downrez.


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> ALL native Atmos encodes are 7.1 bed + objects.
> 
> For the theatrical mix they do a 9.1 bed (there is a stereo overhead bed as well) but since Dolby TrueHD supports 7.1+metadata they turn any overhead bed info into "static objects" for the home release.
> 
> So the question is sort of meaningless as there would never be a "minimum encode". They are ALWAYS encoded as 7.1+objects metadata in the TrueHD / DD+ stream.
> 
> Now, that said, DTS:X is a bit different as it can be any combination of channels+objects up to a maximum of 16 total "waveforms" (not including LFE). So you could theoretically have a DTS:X track that is 2.0 + objects, or 7.1.4 with no objects (which is what they've been doing so far with early BD releases), or anything in between.


Thanks.


----------



## thebland

sdrucker said:


> Are you going? Please give us a report if you are...


Ha! I'll report from my own room... 11.6.8 Atmos up and running!!!


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> Ha! I'll report from my own room... 11.6.8 Atmos up and running!!!



Finally! Congratulations... That's beating me by one week in my 9.1.4 setup, since I just got my Dolby height speakers from PSB and won't have the time to set them up until later this week. Yay.


----------



## thebland

sdrucker said:


> Finally! Congratulations... That's beating me by one week in my 9.1.4 setup, since I just got my Dolby height speakers from PSB and won't have the time to set them up until later this week. Yay.


Everest is going to be the opening film. Very excited. Long process... Speakers (LCRs) are running actively. Honestly, that is a huge improvement from the passive crossover in my LCRs (Quested LT-10s).

Thanks!


----------



## kjenkins

*1080p projector & UHD?*



ddawg1130 said:


> This is what has brought me to this thread today. I am curious if I buy a UHD blu-ray player if I will be able to play the content on a 1080p screen (panasonic tc-p60vt60) through my denon AVR-x5200w and have Atmos work properly?
> 
> I don't see any option for many upcoming atmos blu-ray releases on just blu-ray and not UHD (which is f*cking bullsh*t).



Same here. I've been away from AVS for awhile and was trying to get back on track with finishing the home theatre which I built with atoms/dts:x in mind. I had decided to spend the money there as a 4k projector doesn't seem to be anywhere in my future (the depreciation of retail pricing strategy on 4k projection seems to be running at 1/10th the speed of panels which I'm sure correlates to an absorption scale somewhere) and it was a bummer to see they were going to push to force me in the UHD direction. 

I hate the crap they stick to the enthusiasts but what else do they have? the rest of the world only wants to stream the content and thinks a plastic and cardboard box of speakers ..... errrr I mean soundbar .... sounds great !

Is anyone here using the down rez approach using a 1080p projector? It seems like HDCP 2.2 could still be trouble?


----------



## ddawg1130

batpig said:


> The bottom line is YES, people have been able to play UHD BD and have it downrezz to a 1080p display while still getting the bitstream hi rez audio. So you can get a UHD BDP and play the 4K BD, sending 1080p video to your Panny plasma.
> 
> Because your X5200W doesn't have HDCP 2.2, you may have to use a dual cable solution with the video going straight to the TV and the audio going separately to the receiver. But not sure about that since you are not going to pass the 4K video, but rather the 1080p downrez.


Arghh,

Forgot about hdcp 2.2. I didn't care at the time because I have no desire to switch to 4k. OLED at some point sure, and if it's 4k cause that's the only option, then fine. But dammit, I have no issues feeding a 4k OLED a 1080p signal, not like it would make any difference. 

Though for the price of this avr they really should allow an hdcp 2.2 upgrade like with the 7200w.


----------



## NorthSky

metalsaber said:


> That its time to upgrade your equipment?


That guy below, PioManiac, he just answered your question. 
And FOX sucks.  



PioManiac said:


> I'm fine with DeadPool in 2D 1080p
> with DTS-HD 7.1 audio up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.4.4 in my system,
> on my 120" screen from a 10 foot viewing distance.
> 
> I'm not paying $600 for a 4K Samsung player (in Canada)
> and then paying $35 for 4k UHD BD's
> until someone can make an affordable true 4K projector
> ...and even then I'll be waiting for a cheaper 4K player...the current $$$ is an outright monopoly/gouging


I just couldn't believe it; when I saw that ugly cheaply made Samsung 4K Blu-ray player's price...$599.99 Cdn @ my local Best Buy (worst price) store.
That'll be the day! 

Walmart Canada, they want $45 (with Cdn tax) for their 4K BR titles, most newer releases!  ...Are they kidding me nut! 

* Smart thinking; DTS Neural:X with the regular 2K *Deadpool* BR.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi again,



sdrucker said:


> Are you going? Please give us a report if you are...


Sure I'll be there... as I'm involved in the organization (HCFR side)... 

And OK, I'll try to find the necessary time and write a report here, singularly as should be present some Dolby officials and a couple of engineers from the Trinnov Altitude 32 development team.

Now and for the Atmos fun of it (link in French) , we just finished watching :



















Lucy BRD HD upscaled in UHD SRD/REC709 4:4:4 12bits by the new Panasonic UB900 BRD UHD player + JVC X5000/RS400 (photos iPhone 6S, image in motion). 

Hugo


----------



## NorthSky

No release date yet.


----------



## Jive Turkey

kjenkins said:


> Same here. I've been away from AVS for awhile and was trying to get back on track with finishing the home theatre which I built with atoms/dts:x in mind. I had decided to spend the money there as a 4k projector doesn't seem to be anywhere in my future (the depreciation of retail pricing strategy on 4k projection seems to be running at 1/10th the speed of panels which I'm sure correlates to an absorption scale somewhere) and it was a bummer to see they were going to push to force me in the UHD direction.
> 
> I hate the crap they stick to the enthusiasts but what else do they have? the rest of the world only wants to stream the content and thinks a plastic and cardboard box of speakers ..... errrr I mean soundbar .... sounds great !
> 
> Is anyone here using the down rez approach using a 1080p projector? It seems like HDCP 2.2 could still be trouble?


I have the Samsung player and a 1080p system beyond (Denon 5200 and Sony 55es), and the four UHD's I have will all play at 1080p as required, with or without the HDfury Integral inline. That may change in the future, studio dependent, and then the Integral should earn it's keep.

Three out of four UHD's (Sicario, Salt, and Chappie) have nicer color saturation than do their Bluray counterparts, and look a bit less washed out in comparison. "The Revenant" looks similar either way, but the movie is filmed with a somewhat muted color pallet to start with.

Overall I'm buying UHD's more for Atmos (and future proofing, I suppose) than anything else. A nicer picture is gravy. I plan on staying 1080p with the projection system for quite a while.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> I was at Best Buy today. Looked at both the UHD and regular Blu-ray release of Deadpool. Decided to buy neither. I was just too irritated.
> 
> I mean I'm sure the DTS 7.1 track is good, but these days I don't buy a lot of discs, and considering I just got an Atmos receiver, I want some Atmos demo stuff for my new system. Deadpool seemed like the perfect choice since it was a new release and an Atmos track was mastered for it, but nope.
> 
> BTW, I went to pick up Gravity Atmos and nobody locally actually had it. They only carry stock of the older Gravity version. So I guess I'll have to go with Amazon or whatever. I knew the brick & mortar stores have really scaled back for disc sales, but it's getting to the point where it's a total waste of time to go to a brick & mortar store for movie discs.


If you get really desperate you can always borrow my copy if you promise to ship it back. I'm actually wondering why more of us aren't doing that to begin with given the premium price tag of atmos discs. 

P.S. F*** Fox & whatever other distributors are only doing UHD exclusive atmos discs. So much for the flood gates


----------



## Aras_Volodka

(by borrow I meant my copy of gravity with atmos)


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Aras_Volodka said:


> (by borrow I meant my copy of gravity with atmos)


Thanks, that's really generous of you but I already ordered the Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition online. It's only CAD$20 here in Canada, which is just over US$15.

(The regular version is CAD$10.)


----------



## hatlesschimp

Just wondering if i have a mix of speaker brands and speaker type will it be bad or not noticeable? 7.1.4 setup.

My lcr speakers at this stage are kef ci5160 in wall and my surrounds are Krix on wall paper cone with compression driver and then kef in ceiling ci200rr-thx.


----------



## Selden Ball

hatlesschimp said:


> Just wondering if i have a mix of speaker brands and speaker type will it be bad or not noticeable? 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> My lcr speakers at this stage are kef ci5160 in wall and my surrounds are Krix on wall paper cone with compression driver and then kef in ceiling ci200rr-thx.


Room EQ (like Audyssey) attempt to produce a flat (accurate) audio output from all speakers. To the extent that they manage to do that, different speaker designs will tend to sound reasonably similar. They aren't perfect, of course. You'll have to decide for yourself if the slight remaining differences are too distracting.


----------



## petetherock

hatlesschimp said:


> Just wondering if i have a mix of speaker brands and speaker type will it be bad or not noticeable? 7.1.4 setup.
> 
> My lcr speakers at this stage are kef ci5160 in wall and my surrounds are Krix on wall paper cone with compression driver and then kef in ceiling ci200rr-thx.


No issue mate.. in fact I choose MA Silver FX side surround speakers for their diffuse sound.. you can see the rest of my setup in my signature, cheers.


----------



## pclausen

Got my KS7502 speakers today. They are rather substantial next to the Miccas:



















I mounted them "toed in" towards the MLP so that one tweeter points directly at my face.










Zoomed in from the MLP:










Now they do have a 2nd tweeter pointing in the opposite direction. I'll let Audyssey do it's thing later tonight and then check out what, if any, difference it made. I also build stands for my 4 Klipsch Forte bed surround speakers to bring the tweeters in-line with the mains. And added a rug to the bare hardwood floor between the TV and MLP.

I have the following Atmos titles in my collection, so it might be a long night. 

Gravity
Everest
Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation
Pan
Unbroken
The Man from U.N.C.L.E
Minions
Terminator Genisys
Pixels
San Andreas
Jupiter Ascending
In the Heart of the Sea
American Sniper
The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Part 2
John Wick
Transformers - Age of Extinction
Lucy


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Is there is a list of Atmos 1080p Blu-ray titles somewhere? Not the UHD versions.


----------



## batpig

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Is there is a list of Atmos 1080p Blu-ray titles somewhere? Not the UHD versions.


here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## batpig

So I was just browsing that link above to see if there was anything cool that I wasn't aware of, and I noticed that the movie "Labyrinth" is on it! Looks like a 30th Anniversary re-release slated for Sep 2016 will have a new Atmos track.


----------



## williamwallace

pclausen said:


> Got my KS7502 speakers today. They are rather substantial next to the Miccas:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mounted them "toed in" towards the MLP so that one tweeter points directly at my face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoomed in from the MLP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now they do have a 2nd tweeter pointing in the opposite direction. I'll let Audyssey do it's thing later tonight and then check out what, if any, difference it made. I also build stands for my 4 Klipsch Forte bed surround speakers to bring the tweeters in-line with the mains. And added a rug to the bare hardwood floor between the TV and MLP.
> 
> I have the following Atmos titles in my collection, so it might be a long night.
> 
> Gravity
> Everest
> Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation
> Pan
> Unbroken
> The Man from U.N.C.L.E
> Minions
> Terminator Genisys
> Pixels
> San Andreas
> Jupiter Ascending
> In the Heart of the Sea
> American Sniper
> The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Part 2
> John Wick
> Transformers - Age of Extinction
> Lucy


I won't lie, those look beautiful!


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

batpig said:


> here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


Thanks man. I just ordered John Wick, The Fifth Element, and The Professional.

Strangely enough, even though it's the second time I've gotten The Fifth Element and the second time I've gotten The Professional, I've never owned those two on Blu-ray yet. I got the Fifth Element way back in the 90s on DVD as a demo for that awesome new DVD technology, and then never ended up getting it again.

It looks like I picked a good time to buy... now as a demo for that awesome new Atmos technology. 

And now I'm going downstairs to mount those Atmos speakers! I might get lost in Mad Max for a while afterwards...


----------



## sojodave

I am currently running a 7.2 system with a Denon 1913. I want to upgrade to either a Denon x4200w or a Yamaha 2050. Please let me know if I can run a 5.2.4 using the rear speakers and adding two more just in front of my back row. Or, would I be better off running a 7.2.2 with my layout. 

Here is my home theater layout.


----------



## NorthSky

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Is there is a list of Atmos 1080p Blu-ray titles somewhere? Not the UHD versions.


• There is also the list from Dolby's own website (North America): http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html

• And this one with the trailers included (but not the full list...about 50% - January 23, 2016): http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-movies/


----------



## Selden Ball

sojodave said:


> I am currently running a 7.2 system with a Denon 1913. I want to upgrade to either a Denon x4200w or a Yamaha 2050. Please let me know if I can run a 5.2.4 using the rear speakers and adding two more just in front of my back row. Or, would I be better off running a 7.2.2 with my layout.
> 
> Here is my home theater layout.


If you can, I'd suggest a 5.2.4 configuration placing the new overhead speakers in front of your main listening position. That'd provide a better experience for both rows, since both would hear overhead sounds going from front to back. While having them at about a 45 degree angle would be best, in the ceiling between your front speakers and the front row, as high up as possible on the front wall would be an acceptable alternative.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

So, I have left and right wide height speakers configured as top middle and Atmos 5.1.2 works pretty well this way. I am pleased. 



NorthSky said:


> • There is also the list from Dolby's own website (North America): http://www.dolby.com/in/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
> 
> • And this one with the trailers included (but not the full list...about 50% - January 23, 2016): http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-movies/


Thanks. I think the Dolby one is only listing the most expensive versions of the Atmos releases. Or at least I hope so. I ordered the 2015 releases of The Professional and The Fifth Element but not the clear case special editions, etc. I believe both the regular 2015 release and the special editions have Atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Page 34 of the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Guidelines reads: "If the left front height and right front height speakers must be mounted on the ceiling, *they should be placed no more than one-eighth the distance to the middle of the room*, approximately 45 degrees vertical from the center-front reference."

The part in bold, what does it mean? I believe I understood it some while ago, but I just can't figure it out anymore....


----------



## smurraybhm

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> So, I have left and right wide height speakers configured as top middle and Atmos 5.1.2 works pretty well this way. I am pleased.
> 
> 
> Thanks. I think the Dolby one is only listing the most expensive versions of the Atmos releases. Or at least I hope so. I ordered the 2015 releases of The Professional and The Fifth Element but not the clear case special editions, etc. I believe both the regular 2015 release and the special editions have Atmos.


You are correct - an easy way to save some $ and still enjoy a really well done re-mix on the Fifth Element. Nothing like owning 3 copies of the same movie


----------



## pasender91

maikeldepotter said:


> Page 34 of the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Guidelines reads: "If the left front height and right front height speakers must be mounted on the ceiling, *they should be placed no more than one-eighth the distance to the middle of the room*, approximately 45 degrees vertical from the center-front reference."
> 
> The part in bold, what does it mean? I believe I understood it some while ago, but I just can't figure it out anymore....


I read it as the speaker should not be located more than 1/8 of the room mid-length from the front wall, so for example if your room is 8m long, then the middle is at 4m and the speakers should not be further than 0.5m from the front wall.
In other words 1/8th to the middle means 1/16th of the room length 
That's not a lot for people with smaller rooms, on a personal basis i installed my Front heights right at the intersection of the front wall and the ceiling, it works well there ...


----------



## ddawg1130

I'm more curious what "approximately 45 degrees vertical from the center-front reference" means. Is there a difference between 45 degrees vertical and 45 degrees horizontal? lol

But in what world would that place the speaker anywhere near the "1/16th" room length location? 

I thought I had seen in setup guides that the speakers should be in line with the front left/front right channels, and mounted at a 45 degree angle from the main listening position? Is their own guide wrong?

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


----------



## maikeldepotter

ddawg1130 said:


> I'm more curious what "approximately 45 degrees vertical from the center-front reference" means. Is there a difference between 45 degrees vertical and 45 degrees horizontal? lol


It refers to the typical Atmos elevation which for wall mounted front heights should be between 30 and 45 degrees, and for ceiling mounted front heights apparently close to 45 degrees.


----------



## BigScreen

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Is there is a list of Atmos 1080p Blu-ray titles somewhere? Not the UHD versions.


I keep a list updated of U.S. releases (both Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray) on our Dolby Atmos Resources page:

http://www.bigscreen.com/about/help.php?id=63


----------



## Gates

kjenkins said:


> Same here. I've been away from AVS for awhile and was trying to get back on track with finishing the home theatre which I built with atoms/dts:x in mind. I had decided to spend the money there as a 4k projector doesn't seem to be anywhere in my future (the depreciation of retail pricing strategy on 4k projection seems to be running at 1/10th the speed of panels which I'm sure correlates to an absorption scale somewhere) and it was a bummer to see they were going to push to force me in the UHD direction.
> 
> I hate the crap they stick to the enthusiasts but what else do they have? the rest of the world only wants to stream the content and thinks a plastic and cardboard box of speakers ..... errrr I mean soundbar .... sounds great !
> 
> Is anyone here using the down rez approach using a 1080p projector? It seems like HDCP 2.2 could still be trouble?





Jive Turkey said:


> I have the Samsung player and a 1080p system beyond (Denon 5200 and Sony 55es), and the four UHD's I have will all play at 1080p as required, with or without the HDfury Integral inline. That may change in the future, studio dependent, and then the Integral should earn it's keep.
> 
> Three out of four UHD's (Sicario, Salt, and Chappie) have nicer color saturation than do their Bluray counterparts, and look a bit less washed out in comparison. "The Revenant" looks similar either way, but the movie is filmed with a somewhat muted color pallet to start with.
> 
> Overall I'm buying UHD's more for Atmos (and future proofing, I suppose) than anything else. A nicer picture is gravy. I plan on staying 1080p with the projection system for quite a while.


I also play it on my 1080p PJ and it looks awesome. I noticed a bit of a difference from normal Blu to UHD nonetheless as well. I will say that the ATMOS track on Deadpool wipes the floor with the 7.1 on the regular Blu though.


----------



## PioManiac

Gates said:


> I also play it on my 1080p PJ and it looks awesome. I noticed a bit of a difference from normal Blu to UHD nonetheless as well. I will say that the ATMOS track on Deadpool *wipes the floor* with the 7.1 on the regular Blu though.


Just curious are you comparing Atmos 7.1.4 to 7.1 DTS-HD
or 7.1 DTS-HD up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.1.4?

Wipes the floor? 

...because I've heard there's not any difference with lower frequencies (


----------



## sdurani

ddawg1130 said:


> I'm more curious what "approximately 45 degrees vertical from the center-front reference" means.


Means 45 degrees elevated above your centre speaker (probably assumes centre speaker at roughly ear height).


> Is there a difference between 45 degrees vertical and 45 degrees horizontal? lol


lol The difference between elevation and azimuth. lol.


----------



## Gates

PioManiac said:


> Just curious are you comparing Atmos 7.1.4 Atmos to 7.1 DTS-HD
> or 7.1 DTS-HD up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.1.4?
> 
> Wipes the floor?
> 
> ...because I've heard there's not any difference with lower frequencies (


----------



## ultraflexed

PioManiac said:


> I'm fine with DeadPool in 2D 1080p
> with DTS-HD 7.1 audio up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.4.4 in my system,
> on my 120" screen from a 10 foot viewing distance.
> 
> I'm not paying $600 for a 4K Samsung player (in Canada)
> and then paying $35 for 4k UHD BD's
> until someone can make an affordable true 4K projector
> ...and even then I'll be waiting for a cheaper 4K player...the current $$$ is an outright monopoly/gouging



I paid 399 for my Samsung blue-ray player
2750 for my jvc dla-x500r 4k e shift projector 
Bought deadpool uhd for 24.99 at bestbuy, have yet to see a blue-ray uhd disk over 29 bucks and I own 5 uhd...
Also have a klipsch rp atmos set-up

If I paid all that for a projector, surround sound as set up and receiver I wouldn't let 25 bucks stand in the way of top quality picture and sound.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

ultraflexed said:


> I paid 399 for my Samsung blue-ray player
> 2750 for my jvc dla-x500r 4k e shift projector
> Bought deadpool uhd for 24.99 at bestbuy, have yet to see a blue-ray uhd disk over 29 bucks and I own 5 uhd...
> Also have a klipsch rp atmos set-up
> 
> If I paid all that for a projector, surround sound as set up and receiver I wouldn't let 25 bucks stand in the way of top quality picture and sound.


Uh, he said he is in Canada where the player is indeed CAD$600, and he said he wouldn't spend that money, esp. considering he doesn't have a 4K display anyway. And BTW, the Deadpool UHD in Canada is CAD$35.

So, to summarize:

He says he doesn't have a 4K display and doesn't have a 4K player, so he's not about to spend CAD$600 + CAD$35 to play Deadpool in downrezzed 1080p with Atmos.

You respond by saying you already have a 4K display and a 4K player, so it's not a big deal to spend the US$25 for the disc.

How does your argument make any sense here?


----------



## PioManiac

ultraflexed said:


> I paid 399 for my Samsung blue-ray player
> 2750 for my jvc dla-x500r 4k e shift projector
> Bought deadpool uhd for 24.99 at bestbuy, have yet to see a blue-ray uhd disk over 29 bucks and I own 5 uhd...
> Also have a klipsch rp atmos set-up
> 
> If I paid all that for a projector, surround sound as set up and receiver I wouldn't let 25 bucks stand in the way of top quality picture and sound.


We are not so fortunate in Canada, 
So I'll wait it out another year until there are more 4K players to choose from,
for "hopefully" reasonable prices instead of paying a premium to be an early adopter.

BB.ca prices:




















I already have my price quote from Eastporters for a Fake 4k (aka Faux-K) E-Shift JVC
...the RS400/DLA-X550 start at $4000 in Canada.  

So 1080p Bluray will have to tide me over for a while yet, unless I sell a kidney 

Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning, my 7.4.4 Atmos/DTS:X audio setup
still works perfectly fine for my 20+ 1080 Blurays with Non-UHD exclusive Atmos audio
and another 6 non-exclusive titles with DTS:X audio. 

Sony and Fox are most certainly not the only studios in town. 
...so for the handful of "Atmos" exclusive to UHD offerings that mildly interest me,
I can live with watching in 1080p with 7.1 up-mixed with Neural:X to 7.4.4


----------



## rontalley

pclausen said:


> Got my KS7502 speakers today. They are rather substantial next to the Miccas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mounted them "toed in" towards the MLP so that one tweeter points directly at my face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoomed in from the MLP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now they do have a 2nd tweeter pointing in the opposite direction. I'll let Audyssey do it's thing later tonight and then check out what, if any, difference it made. I also build stands for my 4 Klipsch Forte bed surround speakers to bring the tweeters in-line with the mains. And added a rug to the bare hardwood floor between the TV and MLP.
> 
> I have the following Atmos titles in my collection, so it might be a long night.
> 
> Gravity
> Everest
> Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation
> Pan
> Unbroken
> The Man from U.N.C.L.E
> Minions
> Terminator Genisys
> Pixels
> San Andreas
> Jupiter Ascending
> In the Heart of the Sea
> American Sniper
> The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Part 2
> John Wick
> Transformers - Age of Extinction
> Lucy


What does the rest of your space look like?


----------



## ddawg1130

maikeldepotter said:


> It refers to the lateral elevation.
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing to do with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Front heights can be between 30 and 45 degrees elevation.


I must not understand the definition to "lateral" cause I'm not quite sure what "lateral elevation" could even mean. 



sdurani said:


> Means 45 degrees elevated above your centre speaker (probably assumes centre speaker at roughly ear height). lol The difference between elevation and azimuth. lol.


45 degrees above ear level makes sense. 45 degrees relative to vertical would be identical as 45 degrees relative to horizontal (as vertical is 90 degrees from horizontal). So just no to the azimuth comparison, as that requires a fixed vector in the horizontal plane.


----------



## sdurani

ddawg1130 said:


> So just no to the azimuth comparison, as that requires a fixed vector in the horizontal plane.


There is a fixed vector, which Dolby refers to as "center-front" (a line from your main listening position to your centre speaker, assuming the centre speaker is roughly at ear height). Telling users to place a speaker 45 degrees from this line could mean 45 degrees out (azimuth) or 45 degrees up (elevation). To clarify that they meant the latter, Dolby used the term "45 degrees vertical". Don't see why this would be a source of confusion.


----------



## ultraflexed

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Uh, he said he is in Canada where the player is indeed CAD$600, and he said he wouldn't spend that money, esp. considering he doesn't have a 4K display anyway. And BTW, the Deadpool UHD in Canada is CAD$35.
> 
> So, to summarize:
> 
> He says he doesn't have a 4K display and doesn't have a 4K player, so he's not about to spend CAD$600 + CAD$35 to play Deadpool in downrezzed 1080p with Atmos.
> 
> You respond by saying you already have a 4K display and a 4K player, so it's not a big deal to spend the US$25 for the disc.
> 
> How does your argument make any sense here?


Try importing, when prices get ridiculous in the US I import, I missed the part where he said he was in canada.


----------



## ddawg1130

sdurani said:


> There is a fixed vector, which Dolby refers to as "center-front" (a line from your main listening position to your centre speaker, assuming the centre speaker is roughly at ear height). Telling users to place a speaker 45 degrees from this line could mean 45 degrees out (azimuth) or 45 degrees up (elevation). To clarify that they meant the latter, Dolby used the term "45 degrees vertical". Don't see why this would be a source of confusion.


ah that makes sense. thanks!

Though I still don't get the reasoning behind the 1/8th distance to the middle of the room if placed along a ceiling/ Wouldn't angles be more important? Which do you choose if angles and distance don't line up like that?

(sorry, I was in a pissy mood before about having to buy a UHD player to play some new movies in atmos. Still pissing me off. Didn't understand that "center-front" reference. So I'll shut up now).


----------



## PioManiac

ultraflexed said:


> Try importing, when prices get ridiculous in the US I import, I missed the part where he said he was in canada.


LOL!

Importing is even more of nightmare
First I would have to pay the US$/CAN$ exchange rate 
(it would cost me $35 dollars Canadian to buy $25 US$)

Then add International Shipping Charges 
Then customs/brokerage fees to cross the border + local taxes
it can often end up being double the price, plus a two week delay 

...and Electronics are an even bigger issue
if not purchased in Canada you have to ship 
your US purchased product both ways on your dime for a warranty claim.


----------



## sdurani

ddawg1130 said:


> I still don't get the reasoning behind the 1/8th distance to the middle of the room if placed along a ceiling/


That's Dolby's way of discouraging placement away from the front & back walls. The Atmos install guide separates "Top" speaker locations from "Height" speaker locations. Tops are meant to be more overhead on the ceiling while Heights are meant to go high up on the front & back walls. Since there is plenty of overlap in their placement ranges, Height speakers could end up on the ceiling at locations better suited for Top speakers. To discourage that, Dolby mentions the 1/8th distance rule, which will keep Height speakers closer to the front & back wall rather than above the listener.


----------



## bdraw

Blu-ray isn't the only format with the UHD Atmos exclusives problem, Vudu does the same thing. The only content I can find with Atmos on there that isn't 4k is the free demo material. Has anyone with a Roku 4 watched an Atmos movie on Vudu?


----------



## lujan

bdraw said:


> Blu-ray isn't the only format with the UHD Atmos exclusives problem, Vudu does the same thing. The only content I can find with Atmos on there that isn't 4k is the free demo material. Has anyone with a Roku 4 watched an Atmos movie on Vudu?


I believe that my digital copy of San Andreas on Vudu is Atmos but I haven't watched it there because I have the UHD disk.


----------



## bargervais

bdraw said:


> Blu-ray isn't the only format with the UHD Atmos exclusives problem, Vudu does the same thing. The only content I can find with Atmos on there that isn't 4k is the free demo material. Has anyone with a Roku 4 watched an Atmos movie on Vudu?


Yes I bought Into the Storm, Live Die Repeat, Superman Man of Steel, you need to rent or buy the UHD version to get Atmos. If you buy the Warner brothers UHD Blu-Ray when you redeem the UV code you get Atmos for those titles. I bought the UHD Blu-Ray of Mad Max now my copy of Mad Max in my Vudu library has atmos. I think San Andreas and Pan also does the same thing.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

bargervais said:


> Yes I bought Into the Storm, Live Die Repeat, Superman Man of Steel, you need to rent or buy the UHD version to get Atmos. If you buy the Warner brothers UHD Blu-Ray when you redeem the UV code you get Atmos for those titles. I bought the UHD Blu-Ray of Mad Max now my copy of Mad Max in my Vudu library has atmos. I think San Andreas and Pan also does the same thing.


Mad Max has Atmos on the 1080p Blu-ray.


----------



## pclausen

rontalley said:


> What does the rest of your space look like?


Side and rear surrounds, now raised to bring the tweets in the same plane as the mains. You can of course also see the rear ceiling speakers in this pic.










View into the room from the main living area. You can see that the angle from the MLP to the ceiling speakers is right at 45 degrees.










Shot from behind the MLP.










I'm extremely satisfied with the upgrade to the Klipsch ceiling speakers as the overall timbre now matches much better and objects sounds much more "fluid" moving around in the 3D space.

Klipsch got back to me today regarding how I should rotate those KS7502s in the ceiling. Instead of aiming one of the tweeters directly at the MLP, their suggestions was as follows:

--- cut ---
In this instance, I would align the tweeters on the front pair of speakers so that they're parallel with the front wall, or the screen of your system. This will provide left to right panning and movement in atmos based information. I would then look at having the back pair of speakers set to be perpendicular to the front/back wall to give front to back depth in Atmos based information.
--- cut ---

So I'll give that a shot.

Btw, I watched Lucy (Atmos version) last night and it was truly amazing! Ditto on Gravity from the night before. I had watched that title previously with the Micca's, and with the 7502s, it was a whole new experience. The Micca's weren't bad mind you, but the 7502s just made the sound of the voices moving around in 3D so much more balanced and seamless.

The 7502s are also much more sensitive than the Micca's so my Audyssey corrected levels were much closer than before:










I still don't like that the mains are maxed out at - 12.0 dB. I wish Audyssey would bring all the levels up a little so that the mains were at say - 10 dB or something.


----------



## rontalley

@pclausen

Cool space! You are in the situation that I am currently in, window, window, window! I do most of my watching at night so it's not much of an issue. 

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## dvdwilly3

pclausen said:


> Side and rear surrounds, now raised to bring the tweets in the same plane as the mains. You can of course also see the rear ceiling speakers in this pic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View into the room from the main living area. You can see that the angle from the MLP to the ceiling speakers is right at 45 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shot from behind the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm extremely satisfied with the upgrade to the Klipsch ceiling speakers as the overall timbre now matches much better and objects sounds much more "fluid" moving around in the 3D space.
> 
> Klipsch got back to me today regarding how I should rotate those KS7502s in the ceiling. Instead of aiming one of the tweeters directly at the MLP, their suggestions was as follows:
> 
> --- cut ---
> In this instance, I would align the tweeters on the front pair of speakers so that they're parallel with the front wall, or the screen of your system. This will provide left to right panning and movement in atmos based information. I would then look at having the back pair of speakers set to be perpendicular to the front/back wall to give front to back depth in Atmos based information.
> --- cut ---
> 
> So I'll give that a shot.
> 
> Btw, I watched Lucy (Atmos version) last night and it was truly amazing! Ditto on Gravity from the night before. I had watched that title previously with the Micca's, and with the 7502s, it was a whole new experience. The Micca's weren't bad mind you, but the 7502s just made the sound of the voices moving around in 3D so much more balanced and seamless.
> 
> The 7502s are also much more sensitive than the Micca's so my Audyssey corrected levels were much closer than before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't like that the mains are maxed out at - 12.0 dB. I wish Audyssey would bring all the levels up a little so that the mains were at say - 10 dB or something.


You can always just bump the mains up to -10 dB yourself...

I believe that Audyssey will continue to EQ the system with those changed settings...somebody who knows better can correct me.

Or, did you just want the whole thing up by -2 dB?


----------



## sonofsoren

dvdwilly3 said:


> pclausen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Side and rear surrounds, now raised to bring the tweets in the same plane as the mains. You can of course also see the rear ceiling speakers in this pic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View into the room from the main living area. You can see that the angle from the MLP to the ceiling speakers is right at 45 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shot from behind the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm extremely satisfied with the upgrade to the Klipsch ceiling speakers as the overall timbre now matches much better and objects sounds much more "fluid" moving around in the 3D space.
> 
> Klipsch got back to me today regarding how I should rotate those KS7502s in the ceiling. Instead of aiming one of the tweeters directly at the MLP, their suggestions was as follows:
> 
> --- cut ---
> In this instance, I would align the tweeters on the front pair of speakers so that they're parallel with the front wall, or the screen of your system. This will provide left to right panning and movement in atmos based information. I would then look at having the back pair of speakers set to be perpendicular to the front/back wall to give front to back depth in Atmos based information.
> --- cut ---
> 
> So I'll give that a shot.
> 
> Btw, I watched Lucy (Atmos version) last night and it was truly amazing! Ditto on Gravity from the night before. I had watched that title previously with the Micca's, and with the 7502s, it was a whole new experience. The Micca's weren't bad mind you, but the 7502s just made the sound of the voices moving around in 3D so much more balanced and seamless.
> 
> The 7502s are also much more sensitive than the Micca's so my Audyssey corrected levels were much closer than before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't like that the mains are maxed out at - 12.0 dB. I wish Audyssey would bring all the levels up a little so that the mains were at say - 10 dB or something.
> 
> 
> 
> You can always just bump the mains up to -10 dB yourself...
> 
> I believe that Audyssey will continue to EQ the system with those changed settings...somebody who knows better can correct me.
> 
> Or, did you just want the whole thing up by -2 dB?
Click to expand...

I had the same problem with Audyssey maxing out my system at -12.0 dB on my Marantz 8802A with Parasound Halo amps. I ended up putting in -10dB attenuators that solved my problem. They are available through Parts Express.


----------



## bargervais

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Mad Max has Atmos on the 1080p Blu-ray.


yes i thought you were talking about streaming a title from your Vudu Library yes the Blu-Ray has Atmos but in order to stream Atmos from your Vudu Library you need access to the UHD version in Vudu.


----------



## williamwallace

I know a lot of people are lamenting that some recent Atmos titles are being grouped with UHD BD; but man Deadpool's Atmos is amazing. The action sequences are the very definition of an immersive sound bubble.


----------



## bdraw

I just checked all the titles mentioned in this thread on Vudu by playing the 2 min demo and all were just DD+ while I am able to listen to the Atmos sound tracks on the demo material via the Vudu app on my TiVo Roamio -- no 4k Vudu player to try.


----------



## NorthSky

Vudu = compressed Atmos.
Blu-ray 4K = full hi-res Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Thanks. I think the Dolby one is only listing the most expensive versions of the Atmos releases. Or at least I hope so.
> *I ordered the 2015 releases of The Professional and The Fifth Element but not the clear case special editions, etc.*
> I believe both the regular 2015 release and the special editions have Atmos.


Ten bucks each for the regular 4K Remastered Cinema Series with Dolby Atmos (In Canada, only eight bucks - The Fifth Element). 
Many Blu-ray titles now with Dolby Atmos are only ten bucks on Amazon. ...Everest, ...
UHD BRs with Atmos are more money, because this's the new trend, the new wave, the new 4K real pic, the new money for the movie studios.
3D? ...Going the way of the dodo, for the niche 3-dimensional videophile crowd; people like I. 

One, we need more Atmos (and dts X) Blu-ray movie titles. ...I expect another couple years.
Two, we need more smart audio mixes; I have no clue if time and money will be available. I think it's the exception the movie studios who take the time and support the investments. We cannot blame the 3D audio mixers if time is not given to them. And we all know that in this industry money is real tight, and profits are highly anticipated...Batman vs Superman! ...CGI is the trend, and $25 million salary to actors/actresses per film for a few months job, is laughable @ best. But they sell their images in this Hollywood Beverly Hills industry of Hill Billies.  And the public, us, we just love it, and we pay to go to the movies and see our favorite Star War heroes, and Marvel and DC comic super heroes; even Deadpool and Kick-Ass. It's in our genes, it's America, from North, to Central to South, and even across the oceans on other continents.
China is huge on 3D, and dead on Deadpool. It's just the way it works in the movies for some theaters with some film censors in other countries.
Don't blame the audience, blame the people denying access to them. As if movies were not entertainment but real facts of reality. 

I wish I was good looking with some good chops.  ...Dolby Atmos or not. This is a very lucrative type of work for the lucky ones. ...Actors and actresses...good lookin' and convincin'. ...Rock stars too (music). 
_R.I.P. Prince_


----------



## amairphoto

Quick question here guys....
The Marantz SR7010 has 11 speaker inputs sp for atmos would that i have it set up as 7.1.4?


----------



## NorthSky

williamwallace said:


> I know a lot of people are lamenting that some recent Atmos titles are being grouped with UHD BD; but man Deadpool's Atmos is amazing. The action sequences are the very definition of an immersive sound bubble.


I am so proud of FOX studios. Beats me man! Das cool, das cool (Tarantino's language style). 
Some day, maybe if UHD survives, more people will have the opportunity in advancing towards FOX's direction, with their 4K UHD BR Atmos exclusivity.

Why "deadpool" can they simply put it also on the 2K BR version! ...Atmos audio.


----------



## NorthSky

amairphoto said:


> Quick question here guys....
> The Marantz SR7010 has 11 speaker inputs sp for atmos would that i have it set up as 7.1.4?


It has nine internal amplifiers; you would need to add an external stereo amplifier for a 7.1.4 audio immersive setup.
...Meaning using two of the preouts (as recommended in the manual as to which ones best to use for your situation).
Yes the rear has eleven sets of speaker's binding posts, but only nine of them can run simultaneously; that last pair is for connectivity facility, depending on your own setup. Eg,; for the Rear Height (Top Rear), you would use the pair of preouts Height 2. I think.
The extra pair of binding posts can facilitate some switching speaker's positioning, or running a pair in another room. But only nine pairs can be output @ the same time from them binding posts. 










Check this out: http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7010/NA/EN/DRDZSYsgujcobf.php#DRDZMLfhtkhddn


----------



## amairphoto

NorthSky said:


> It has nine internal amplifiers; you would need to add an external stereo amplifier for a 7.1.4 audio immersive setup.
> ...Meaning using two of the preouts (as recommended in the manual as to which ones best to use for your situation).
> Yes the rear has eleven sets of speaker's binding posts, but only nine of them can run simultaneously; that last pair is for connectivity facility, depending on your own setup. Eg,; for the Rear Height (Top Rear), you would use the pair of preouts Height 2. I think.
> The extra pair of binding posts can facilitate some switching speaker's positioning, or running a pair in another room. But only nine pairs can be output @ the same time from them binding posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out: http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7010/NA/EN/DRDZSYsgujcobf.php#DRDZMLfhtkhddn


Hmm, thank you for the response. I need to do a bit mroe research then into amps. Dont really want to have to purchase two amps. Is this pretty much the standard at the moment for in home atmos?


----------



## petetherock

Onkyo makes 11 channel AVRs, but you lose Audyssey.. 
It doesn't make a lot of economical sense for companies to put 11 amps in - the 11 channel users are in the minority. It drives up costs, makes the amp less attractive to most users..

Where I am, the SR 7010 is lot cheaper than the Denon / Pioneer / Anthem / Onkyo offerings with 11 channel processing.. adding an extra external amp for two channels is a cheaper option.


----------



## Sanjay

ultraflexed said:


> 2750 for my jvc dla-x500r 4k e shift projector


Where did you get it for that price?


----------



## ultraflexed

Sanjay said:


> Where did you get it for that price?


Bestbuy open box. I bought a new bulb for 200 for still a great price....because most bestbuy's are going to start to demo x550. There going to sell the previous demoed x500r for discount, just keep checking in with the home theater department


----------



## amairphoto

petetherock said:


> Onkyo makes 11 channel AVRs, but you lose Audyssey..
> It doesn't make a lot of economical sense for companies to put 11 amps in - the 11 channel users are in the minority. It drives up costs, makes the amp less attractive to most users..
> 
> Where I am, the SR 7010 is lot cheaper than the Denon / Pioneer / Anthem / Onkyo offerings with 11 channel processing.. adding an extra external amp for two channels is a cheaper option.


Thanks for the reply. so with additional amplification i could get more channels, is there a guide on that anywhere here?


----------



## petetherock

Guide ?
Sure mate.. It's called the manual 
The setup guide is quite good on a marantz too. But please RTM..


----------



## jimmyaz

Is it me? Is it Captain America? Or is it the Atmos theater I went to?

I have 7.1.2 dolby atmos for about 4 months for my HT now and I love it. Today, I finally pick up my lazy butt and went to a Atmos theater and watch Captain America. It's a BIG theater... While the movie was great, but I wasn't as impress with the sound like I was hoping... I was expecting to be blown away... I felt that the theater was too big and the effect didn't scatter far enough... I was a couple of seats off center and 2/3 back..... Even the Dolby Demo clip wasn't great.... Can't explain it.

What's wrong with me, there's no way that their system is not as good as mine... their is 40,000watts.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jimmyaz said:


> Is it me? Is it Captain America? Or is it the Atmos theater I went to?
> 
> I have 7.1.2 dolby atmos for about 4 months for my HT now and I love it. Today, I finally pick up my lazy butt and went to a Atmos theater and watch Captain America. It's a BIG theater... While the movie was great, but I wasn't as impress with the sound like I was hoping... I was expecting to be blown away... I felt that the theater was too big and the effect didn't scatter far enough... I was a couple of seats off center and 2/3 back..... Even the Dolby Demo clip wasn't great.... Can't explain it.
> 
> What's wrong with me, there's no way that their system is not as good as mine... their is 40,000watts.


Lots of times it's these large auditoriums. The subtle effects that are noticeable at home in an intimate setting are lost in these cavernous spaces.


----------



## ramcharger1979

Yeah I always thing my system at home sounds better than the theatre

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ramcharger1979 said:


> Yeah I always thing my system at home sounds better than the theatre
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


You would have wet yourself in excitement if you had heard the JBL Synthesis (Trinnov based) Dolby Atmos demos at CEDIA last year. Holy crap!! Better than any theatrical Atmos experience I've been to except _Gravity_. Of course, that was one Blu-ray they didn't demo. The immersive music clips were frickin' bananas.

Combine that with the Barco 4k laser projector I saw at another demo and you would NEVER go to the cinema again. Or go outside, for that matter.


----------



## PeterTHX

dvdwilly3 said:


> You can always just bump the mains up to -10 dB yourself...
> 
> I believe that Audyssey will continue to EQ the system with those changed settings...somebody who knows better can correct me.
> 
> Or, did you just want the whole thing up by -2 dB?





sonofsoren said:


> I had the same problem with Audyssey maxing out my system at -12.0 dB on my Marantz 8802A with Parasound Halo amps. I ended up putting in -10dB attenuators that solved my problem. They are available through Parts Express.



Guys, can you please spoiler or delete repeat images?


----------



## AllenA07

My experience has been that Atmos is much better in the home then in a theater. I suspect that has to do with the sheer number of seats. Beyond Atmos I would wager almost all of us in this thread have have considerably more bass capability in our home theaters then commercial theaters have. The average theater can only get down to about 30hz, whereas I'm betting a lot of us here can play below 20hz.


----------



## brahman12

Here in NYC we have one awesome atmos capable theater and one excellent atmos theater. The AMC Prime theater has atmos and Dolby vision....awesome awesome movie watching experience....bass is powerful and vocals are super-crisp clear. Directionality is top notch as well. Just a level or so below but still awesome is the regal e-walk theater. Both theaters are on 42nd street between seventh and eighth ave. right across the street from one another. They are both great experiences that are worth getting out of the house for IMO. 
Best Regards AVS


----------



## spike9876

Hi... I am thinking about going to dolby atmos... Is it worth it ?

Checking ceiling speakers, I am currently looking at Polk Audio Blackstone TL2
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107TL2W/Polk-Audio-Blackstone-TL2-White.html?tp=186

Any other suggestions ?

Also should the speakers be facing down or towards listening position ?


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

spike9876 said:


> Hi... I am thinking about going to dolby atmos... Is it worth it ?


Yes!

It is the biggest jump in surround sound audio since the jump from Dolby Pro Logic to Dolby Digital 5.1 IMHO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

spike9876 said:


> Hi... I am thinking about going to dolby atmos... Is it worth it ?
> 
> Checking ceiling speakers, I am currently looking at Polk Audio Blackstone TL2
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107TL2W/Polk-Audio-Blackstone-TL2-White.html?tp=186
> 
> Any other suggestions ?
> 
> Also should the speakers be facing down or towards listening position ?


One of the big no-no's with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X is skimping on the overhead speakers thinking they'll only ever get light ambiance, which couldn't be further from the truth. I would look at something a bit more substantial. 

Oh, yes, it's worth it.


----------



## spike9876

Dan Hitchman said:


> One of the big no-no's with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X is skimping on the overhead speakers thinking they'll only ever get light ambiance, which couldn't be further from the truth. I would look at something a bit more substantial.
> 
> Oh, yes, it's worth it.


I looked at Polk Audio Blackstone TL2, because there is a bracket i can purchase for this speaker and hang from ceiling.

Can you make some speaker suggestions that i can mount on ceiling...

Thanks..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

spike9876 said:


> I looked at Polk Audio Blackstone TL2, because there is a bracket i can purchase for this speaker and hang from ceiling.
> 
> Can you make some speaker suggestions that i can mount on ceiling...
> 
> Thanks..


The SVS Prime Satellite speakers with ceiling brackets would be great. Just aim them at the main listening position.


----------



## spike9876

Dan Hitchman said:


> The SVS Prime Satellite speakers with ceiling brackets would be great. Just aim them at the main listening position.


OK... will check these out. Thanks.


----------



## nickbuol

OK Atmos-ites... I upgraded my Onkyo 709 to an Anthem MRX-1120 about 4-6 weeks ago and I added ceiling speakers based off of the following diagram and website talking about speaker placement for home theaters with 1) lower ceiling heights, and 2) two rows of seats...

NOTE:This is only a rough approximation of my space. It is a crudely modified version of a room layout from the website linked below the diagram. It was based more off of the DTS:X thread talks for front overhead placement being a little more "forward" or closer to the screen, but also has the "rear" overheads placed in locations that the website I keep talking about recommends for 2 rows of seats. Measurements are somewhat approximate and are going from my memory as I am not at home right now. The soffit goes around the outer 20 inches(ish) around the outside of the room. (Note: The overhead speakers are NOT inside the soffit. That is the trouble with 2D images. I will post a photo later from the back of the room.)










And here is the website that mentions the rear overshead speaker placement to be where it is above (just behind the front row and pointing slightly rearward):
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


Anyway, I went with this model as the base for my setup, but was told over at the DTS:X thread to push the front overheads closer to the screen, but still within guidelines (which actually are pretty wide in the range of acceptance). 

Anyway, I've tried Top Front/Top Middle as well as Front Height/Top Middle, and while things do sound really quite nice, I am not "blown away" like I think I should be. Maybe I am expecting too much but the Dolby Demo Discs sound great and are clearly showing off the system, but you know how those are, they over exaggerate the effects for the sake of making sounds come from overhead, etc. But when I fire up an Atmos movie, it does sound good, and sounds are coming out of the overhead speakers, and the receiver does show that it is playing back Dolby Atmos, but it isn't overwhelmingly THAT much better.

For example, Mad Max: Fury Road. The opening sequence with the whispering voices sounds great when done in Atmos, but it sounds great in 7.1 as well. Gravity is the same. It sounds really good when playing back in Atmos, but it also sounds great in 7.1...

What setting should I be looking at? Should I be changing the speakers right behind the front row to be "rear" instead of "middle"? that doesn't seem to make sense to me because they are still quite a bit in front of the rear surrounds, but who knows.

Should I scrap this idea and rerun the rear overheads back towards the rear of the room despite the web site information I linked?

Again, it sounds really good, but so does regular 7.1 in the theater.

Thanks for any tips or tricks. I've got a few people wanting to come over to hear Atmos, and I just want to make sure that I am attacking this thing correctly since all of the official documents from Dolby are based around a single row of seats vs. the information I linked being for 2 rows of seats.


----------



## NorthSky

*Just some alternate design ideas for two rows of seats ... Atmos overheads*


----------



## maikeldepotter

nickbuol said:


> Anyway, I've tried Top Front/Top Middle as well as Front Height/Top Middle, and while things do sound really quite nice, I am not "blown away" like I think I should be. Maybe I am expecting too much but the Dolby Demo Discs sound great and are clearly showing off the system, but you know how those are, they over exaggerate the effects for the sake of making sounds come from overhead, etc. But when I fire up an Atmos movie, it does sound good, and sounds are coming out of the overhead speakers, and the receiver does show that it is playing back Dolby Atmos, but it isn't overwhelmingly THAT much better.
> 
> For example, Mad Max: Fury Road. The opening sequence with the whispering voices sounds great when done in Atmos, but it sounds great in 7.1 as well. Gravity is the same. It sounds really good when playing back in Atmos, but it also sounds great in 7.1...


The reason 7.1 already sounds relatively good to you on Atmos mixed tracks, could be related to having your surrounds elevated. Lowering them to ear level - as per Atmos specs - will probably bring the seeked after BIG difference.

Then the key question becomes, how important it is to you to keep the ability to listen to optimal legacy 7.1 sound without needing an upmixer to restore the elevated ambience.


----------



## nickbuol

maikeldepotter said:


> The reason 7.1 already sounds relatively good to you on Atmos mixed tracks, could be related to having your surrounds elevated. Lowering them to ear level - as per Atmos specs - will probably bring the seeked after BIG difference.
> 
> Then the key question becomes, how important it is to you to keep the ability to listen to optimal legacy 7.1 sound without needing an upmixer to restore the elevated ambience.


I've updated my post with a crudely updated version of the sample room layout to make it look more indicative of my actual space. The base diagram that I had was taken from the web site that I linked to show overhead speaker placement suggestions from someone who "knows his stuff" so to speak and was referenced somewhere here in AVS in the past for layouts using 2 rows of seats.

With that said, my rear speakers ARE higher than my side surrounds like you stated, but that is just to get them firing over the elevated rear seats, but they aren't as "high" as the original diagram would have suggested (again, it has been updated to be closer to my reality now).


----------



## nickbuol

NorthSky said:


>


What are the sources of these diagrams? My room doesn't have that much space behind the rear row of seats, but I know that the angles should still be within specs. I just wondered if these were people's rooms and what they did, planned to do, tired and liked, etc... Oh, and my ceiling is about 7'9". These look like a lot taller ceilings. Thanks.


----------



## dvdwilly3

nickbuol said:


> OK Atmos-ites... I upgraded my Onkyo 709 to an Anthem MRX-1120 about 4-6 weeks ago and I added ceiling speakers based off of the following diagram and website talking about speaker placement for home theaters with 1) lower ceiling heights, and 2) two rows of seats...
> 
> NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY DIAGRAM AND NOT A COMPLETE REPRESENTATION OF MY ROOM. THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE LINKED SITE BELOW THE DIAGRAM JUST TO SHOW SOME OVERHEAD SPEAKER PLACEMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/
> 
> 
> Anyway, I went with this model as the base for my setup, but was told over at the DTS:X thread to push the front overheads closer to the screen, but still within guidelines (which actually are pretty wide in the range of acceptance).
> 
> Anyway, I've tried Top Front/Top Middle as well as Front Height/Top Middle, and while things do sound really quite nice, I am not "blown away" like I think I should be. Maybe I am expecting too much but the Dolby Demo Discs sound great and are clearly showing off the system, but you know how those are, they over exaggerate the effects for the sake of making sounds come from overhead, etc. But when I fire up an Atmos movie, it does sound good, and sounds are coming out of the overhead speakers, and the receiver does show that it is playing back Dolby Atmos, but it isn't overwhelmingly THAT much better.
> 
> For example, Mad Max: Fury Road. The opening sequence with the whispering voices sounds great when done in Atmos, but it sounds great in 7.1 as well. Gravity is the same. It sounds really good when playing back in Atmos, but it also sounds great in 7.1...
> 
> What setting should I be looking at? Should I be changing the speakers right behind the front row to be "rear" instead of "middle"? that doesn't seem to make sense to me because they are still quite a bit in front of the rear surrounds, but who knows.
> 
> Should I scrap this idea and rerun the rear overheads back towards the rear of the room despite the web site information I linked?
> 
> Again, it sounds really good, but so does regular 7.1 in the theater.
> 
> Thanks for any tips or tricks. I've got a few people wanting to come over to hear Atmos, and I just want to make sure that I am attacking this thing correctly since all of the official documents from Dolby are based around a single row of seats vs. the information I linked being for 2 rows of seats.
> 
> (Hmmmm.... I should have waited 1 more post and been #1000 on this topic.)


I have a similar seating with 2 rows of seats, second row being on an 8" riser. What you have set up going to make everything sound as though it is Top Middle and you will get little front to back panning.

You could mount you rear set either on the ceiling just forward of the ceiling/rear wall joint, or on the rear wall just under the ceiling/rear wall joint. I would go with whichever gives you the best angle.

Keep your forward set about where they are. If you can, pull those back seats forward away from the back wall, even a couple of feet. What I did was mount my rear speakers just below the rear wall/ceiling joint with them pointed toward the space between the two rows.

The Supersats are set up in a D'appolito array with a 4 1/2" mid/bass driver on each side of a folded ribbon tweeter. They are oriented vertically so that the tweeter hits that mid-space between the rows and each of the two mid-woofers is really firing more directly toward each respective row.

Run your sets as Top Front and Top Rear.

I have been tweaking this since September 2014 and I have never heard a better theater soundfield anywhere. In Atmos, it sings.

If you want more details, pics, wiring discussion, PM me so that we do not bore everyone to tears.


----------



## nickbuol

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have a similar seating with 2 rows of seats, second row being on an 8" riser. What you have set up going to make everything sound as though it is Top Middle and you will get little front to back panning.
> 
> You could mount you rear set either on the ceiling just forward of the ceiling/rear wall joint, or on the rear wall just under the ceiling/rear wall joint. I would go with whichever gives you the best angle.
> 
> Keep your forward set about where they are. If you can, pull those back seats forward away from the back wall, even a couple of feet. What I did was mount my rear speakers just below the rear wall/ceiling joint with them pointed toward the space between the two rows.
> 
> The Supersats are set up in a D'appolito array with a 4 1/2" mid/bass driver on each side of a folded ribbon tweeter. They are oriented vertically so that the tweeter hits that mid-space between the rows and each of the two mid-woofers is really firing more directly toward each respective row.
> 
> Run your sets as Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> I have been tweaking this since September 2014 and I have never heard a better theater soundfield anywhere. In Atmos, it sings.
> 
> If you want more details, pics, wiring discussion, PM me so that we do not bore everyone to tears.



I did a quick update of that diagram as the original was NOT my room, and I should have been more clear. Oh, and no, my overheads are not in the soffits. See my photo during overhead installation to show their locations relative to the soffits themselves.










I have about 2.5 feet between the back of my rear seats and the rear wall, but there is also a soffit all around the room that takes up about 20 inches of ceiling width around the room. I would have to place rear overheads just inside that space, pretty much directly over the backs of the rear seats...

I was only including that original diagram to show what information was being shared at the link I provided (where the rear Atmos were just behind the front row, firing slightly backwards) but I wasn't very clear in my original post that it wasn't my room. Sorry.

UPDATE: Here is a photo that I took right after finishing mounting the ceiling speakers (acoustical treatments removed to keep them clean from drywall dust ) Again, just look at the ceiling speakers and their placement due to soffit locations. They are painted to match the ceiling color and have black grills, so they are a little harder to see in the image (which is great in person).


----------



## Selden Ball

nickbuol said:


> What setting should I be looking at? Should I be changing the speakers right behind the front row to be "rear" instead of "middle"? that doesn't seem to make sense to me because they are still quite a bit in front of the rear surrounds, but who knows.


The rear-most overhead speakers should be designated Top Rear or Rear Height. That improves the separation of the sounds sent to them by the receiver. (FWIW, Front Height and Rear Height designations seem to work the best for DTS:X and Auro3D,and work fine for Atmos). Their placement relative to the main listening position usually matters more than their placement relative to the rear seating: make it as good as possible for those who'll be experiencing it most often. The rear overhead speakers also should be pointed directly down or perhaps even tilted slightly forward, not tilted toward the back. Tweeters have a relatively limited dispersion (i.e. their sounds are "beamed"), so by tilting them toward the back, you're short-changing the audience in the front row of seats. Even the speakers with the broadest dispersion typically have only about a 90 degree beam-width.



> Should I scrap this idea and rerun the rear overheads back towards the rear of the room despite the web site information I linked?


For the best immersive experience, both front-to-back overhead and ear-level-to-overhead separations need be optimized. One rough rule of thumb would be to have the same amount of angular separation between each pair of speakers relative to the main listening position so their sounds tend to fill-in equally in all directions. 

I hope these comments help a little.


----------



## nickbuol

Selden Ball said:


> The rear-most overhead speakers should be designated Top Rear or Rear Height. That improves the separation of the sounds sent to them by the receiver. (FWIW, Front Height and Rear Height designations seem to work the best for DTS:X and Auro3D,and work fine for Atmos). Their placement relative to the main listening position usually matters more than their placement relative to the rear seating: make it as good as possible for those who'll be experiencing it most often. The rear overhead speakers also should be pointed directly down or perhaps even tilted slightly forward, not tilted toward the back. Tweeters have a relatively limited dispersion (i.e. their sounds are "beamed"), so by tilting them toward the back, you're short-changing the audience in the front row of seats. Even the speakers with the broadest dispersion typically have only about a 90 degree beam-width.


I took the "rear" overheads, and even though the diagram may not reflect it well, the front row is still within the dispersion "range" of those rear speakers. The way that I tested it was I made my wife stand on a chair and adjust the angles so that even sitting upright (not reclined) we found where the sound makes that "change" to where you are outside of the, as you put it, "beam" of sound, and then made it so that I could even be leaning forward a little bit and I am still in that "beam". They are barely angled at all in reality.

Again, this was all based off of that other website. There seems to be some good logic behind it, but maybe it just isn't for my setup.


----------



## nickbuol

Or should I go more traditional with something like this (again, sorry for the "less than accurate" diagram" as I only have access to MS Paint at work. LOL

I just bumped the rear speakers back towards the rear to a more "traditional" layout, within the limits created by the soffit.


----------



## NorthSky

nickbuol said:


> What are the sources of these diagrams? My room doesn't have that much space behind the rear row of seats, but I know that the angles should still be within specs. I just wondered if these were people's rooms and what they did, planned to do, tired and liked, etc... Oh, and my ceiling is about 7'9". These look like a lot taller ceilings. Thanks.


• Picture number one: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-659.html#post31979153
• Picture number two: 





• Picture number three: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-513.html#post29670938
________

My previous post's title was saying that those were alternate ideas, on where possible is to put the four Dolby Atmos overhead speakers in a room with two rows of seats. Of course each room is different, and the dimensions, and the ceiling height, and the distance from the second row to the rear wall, and the distance from the first row to the front wall, etc. But in general the overheads are pretty much within the angular quadrant for optimal performance. ...Within Dolby Atmos own's guideline frame.

Cheers,


----------



## NorthSky

Personally, just from my readings on other's installations, and more...I like your last graph more than the previous one; on the positioning of the four Atmos overheads.
_______


----------



## thebland

Doesn't get simpler than that!


----------



## nickbuol

NorthSky said:


> Personally, just from my readings on other's installations, and more...I like your last graph more than the previous one; on the positioning of the four Atmos overheads.


Yeah, it is really going to suck re-running those speaker wires.


----------



## NorthSky

nickbuol said:


> Yeah, it is really going to suck re-running those speaker wires.


Lol 

I don't think you have to; you are within the sweet spot, as in Roger Dressler's own graph.
_______


----------



## checker9

NorthSky said:


>



How would you assign a pair of speakers with placement at 110 degrees (20 degrees behind the listening position)? Dolby sets 100 degrees (10 degrees behind) as cutoff for "top middle" and as that chart shows top rear does not start until 125 degrees (35 degrees behind the listening position.) So no official assignment from 101 to 124 degrees. 

Right now I have a pair of speakers at the top of my front wall at 30 degrees from listening position, which is within specifications for "front height." I plan to add a pair in back. My listening position is a little over 2 feet from the back wall. The top of the back wall, per my measurements, would make height speakers at its top be 110 degrees (20 degrees behind the listening position) which would be between the specifications for "top middle and "top rear." 

Which one, "top middle" or "top rear" should I assign to that 110 degree pair?


----------



## NorthSky

Do you also have a DTS:X audio decoder in your unit?


----------



## checker9

NorthSky said:


> Do you also have a DTS:X audio decoder in your unit?


Yes.


----------



## nickbuol

NorthSky said:


> Lol
> 
> I don't think you have to; you are within the sweet spot, as in Roger Dressler's own graph.
> _______
> 
> View attachment 1442082
> View attachment 1442090


Just point the "rears" straight down or slightly forward (instead of backwards)?


----------



## thebland

Perhaps the next generation of receivers will allow for more overhead speakers - making placement decisions less compromising.

I have Front Heights, Front Tops, Middle Tops and Rear Tops. Though only the middle row gets direct sound from all heights. The two other rows can't get all heights as some out of the dispersion (but it still works very well).

I have presets in my Trinnov that allow me to switch between 7.1.4, 11.1.4 and 11.1.8. So, I have a great opportunity to compare many layouts.

From my previous 7.1.4 Atmos set up - Top Fronts and Top Rears worked well - set up closer together than in the Onkyo video.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Wow, nice rooms. Also, I feel the pain others are having with limited placement options. I'm stuck which a much smaller room, with only a 8 foot ceiling', and I think it's only around 11 feet or so wide. It's basically a converted single car garage.

I have the second row on a riser so the surrounds are even higher (with their tweeters about a foot and a half above the second row's ear height) so that their dispersion pattern can clear the seat back of the rear row to target the front row. As for my "ceiling" speakers, I don't have any. I have wide height speakers a couple of inches from the ceiling.

However, what this means then is that my height speakers (which are 7/8ths up the wall) are less than a couple of feet higher than my surrounds (which are 5/8ths up the wall).

As such, as the other poster said, the 3D effect is not as great as it could be.

BTW, I plan on pointing the surrounds downward somewhat, but I'm not sure how much to angle them. Trial and error I guess, but I'm looking for a starting point. Right now the surround speakers are pointed exactly forwards. I'm thinking of angling them down, so that the angle is about the halfway point between horizontal and the angle where the rear seats ears would be. What do you think? I note that several websites advise pointing not-Atmos surrounds straight ahead, with the tweeters at about 2 feet above ear height.

What I really need is a wider room and a taller ceiling. I'm thinking a 20 foot wide room with a 10 foot ceiling would be fine. 

Setup is 5.1.2.

Rear row ear height is around 48" (since it's a couch on a riser).

Surrounds are a couple of feet behind the 2nd row and just off to the side, with tweeter height about 65" off the floor.

Wide height speakers are directly over the first row, but are pointed in between the first and second row. These are configured as top middle ceiling speakers in the receiver.










However, they are pointing more horizontal than down. Someone else here said they work better that way in his estimation in this non-standard configuration.


----------



## dvdwilly3

nickbuol said:


> Or should I go more traditional with something like this (again, sorry for the "less than accurate" diagram" as I only have access to MS Paint at work. LOL
> 
> I just bumped the rear speakers back towards the rear to a more "traditional" layout, within the limits created by the soffit.


Nick, I would aim those rear speakers more toward the "aisle" between the front row of seats and the rear row.
With them aimed directly at the rear row, you will get "hot spotting" on some Atmos tracks where they are being used for direct sound rather than simply ambient sounds.
It should give you a bit more spacious effect in the rear row.

It should also give you a bit better sound in the front row.

I probably missed it somewhere--what are your Atmos units?


----------



## nickbuol

dvdwilly3 said:


> Nick, I would aim those rear speakers more toward the "aisle" between the front row of seats and the rear row.
> With them aimed directly at the rear row, you will get "hot spotting" on some Atmos tracks where they are being used for direct sound rather than simply ambient sounds.
> It should give you a bit more spacious effect in the rear row.
> 
> It should also give you a bit better sound in the front row.
> 
> I probably missed it somewhere--what are your Atmos units?


Yeah, limits of MS Paint. LOL The plan would be a greater angle. I probably should have just copied and then "flipped into a mirror image" the front overhead speakers.

I am an Axiom setup with "on-wall" M3s that I have mounted as "on-ceiling".


----------



## checker9

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Wow, nice rooms. Also, I feel the pain others are having with limited placement options. I'm stuck which a much smaller room, with only a 8 foot ceiling', and I think it's only around 11 feet or so wide. It's basically a converted single car garage.
> 
> I have the second row on a riser so the surrounds are even higher (with their tweeters about a foot and a half above the second row's ear height) so that their dispersion pattern can clear the seat back of the rear row to target the front row. As for my "ceiling" speakers, I don't have any. I have wide height speakers a couple of inches from the ceiling.
> 
> However, what this means then is that my height speakers (which are 7/8ths up the wall) are less than a couple of feet higher than my surrounds (which are 5/8ths up the wall).
> 
> As such, as the other poster said, the 3D effect is not as great as it could be.
> 
> BTW, I plan on pointing the surrounds downward somewhat, but I'm not sure how much to angle them. Trial and error I guess, but I'm looking for a starting point. Right now the surround speakers are pointed exactly forwards. I'm thinking of angling them down, so that the angle is about the halfway point between horizontal and the angle where the rear seats ears would be. What do you think? I note that several websites advise pointing not-Atmos surrounds straight ahead, with the tweeters at about 2 feet above ear height.
> 
> What I really need is a wider room and a taller ceiling. I'm thinking a 20 foot wide room with a 10 foot ceiling would be fine.
> 
> Setup is 5.1.2.
> 
> Rear row ear height is around 48" (since it's a couch on a riser).
> 
> Surrounds are a couple of feet behind the 2nd row and just off to the side, with tweeter height about 65" off the floor.
> 
> Wide height speakers are directly over the first row, but are pointed in between the first and second row. These are configured as top middle ceiling speakers in the receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, they are pointing more horizontal than down. Someone else here said they work better that way in his estimation in this non-standard configuration.


Have you tried them as front height instead of side?


----------



## NorthSky

checker9 said:


> How would you assign a pair of speakers with placement at 110 degrees (20 degrees behind the listening position)? Dolby sets 100 degrees (10 degrees behind) as cutoff for "top middle" and as that chart shows top rear does not start until 125 degrees (35 degrees behind the listening position.) So no official assignment from 101 to 124 degrees.
> 
> Right now I have a pair of speakers at the top of my front wall at 30 degrees from listening position, which is within specifications for "front height." I plan to add a pair in back. My listening position is a little over 2 feet from the back wall. The top of the back wall, per my measurements, would make height speakers at its top be 110 degrees (20 degrees behind the listening position) which would be between the specifications for "top middle and "top rear."
> 
> Which one, "top middle" or "top rear" should I assign to that 110 degree pair?


Ask others to confirm if Top Rear would be the appropriate name's assign that can accommodate both Dolby Atmos and dts:X.
Before the arrival of dts:X speaker's assignment was pretty much straight forward with Dolby Atmos setup. 



nickbuol said:


> Just point the "rears" straight down or slightly forward (instead of backwards)?


Roger's graph is a good indicator, if the MLP in your room is like in his room, in the first row of seats. 
Try that, and experiment also with other aiming angles. I would optimize the sound for the first row, if it is the one with the money seat (MLP).


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

checker9 said:


> Have you tried them as front height instead of side?


Do you mean installing them as front heights? If so, then no.

If you mean configuring them in the receiver as front heights, no to that too, but I could try that. Or top front too. Except they're located right above the first row of seating.


----------



## jkasanic

nickbuol said:


> Just point the "rears" straight down or slightly forward (instead of backwards)?


I would say straight down is a good compromise with your layout. Also, I may have missed it but did you try Selden's recommendation of using rear height instead of top middle as your "rear" speaker designation? Several users with a 2 row setup similar to yours as well as those with only one row but close to the back wall reported a big improvement with Atmos when using TF/TR or even FH/RH (preferred with DTS:X). Of course, with the current implementations of Atmos and DTS:X, you might want to use the latter in a somewhat compromised layout especially if you use both upmixers.


----------



## bdraw

NorthSky said:


> Vudu = compressed Atmos.
> Blu-ray 4K = full hi-res Atmos.


I rent more movies than I buy so my choice is compressed Atmos via Vudu or compressed AC3 on Blu-ray via Netflix (Lionsgate). So yeah, Atmos via DD+ is easily preferred to plain old DD.


----------



## bdraw

jimmyaz said:


> Is it me? Is it Captain America? Or is it the Atmos theater I went to?
> 
> I have 7.1.2 dolby atmos for about 4 months for my HT now and I love it. Today, I finally pick up my lazy butt and went to a Atmos theater and watch Captain America. It's a BIG theater... While the movie was great, but I wasn't as impress with the sound like I was hoping... I was expecting to be blown away... I felt that the theater was too big and the effect didn't scatter far enough... I was a couple of seats off center and 2/3 back..... Even the Dolby Demo clip wasn't great.... Can't explain it.
> 
> What's wrong with me, there's no way that their system is not as good as mine... their is 40,000watts.


I felt the same way. Honestly the Regal RPX theater with Atmos I saw Civil War it barely appeared to have surround sound. All the sound was in front of me, and there was bass to speak of. Not going back to that theater and it's the only Atmos theater in the Tampa Bay Area.


----------



## nathan_h

Given the position of my rear surround speakers high on the wall in the corner behind me, would i be better off calling them top rear speakers rather than rear surrounds?

Will dts-x and dolby surround upmixing in my marantz sr6010 make better use of them that way than as rear surrounds? Limited testing leaves me with the impression that upmixing 7.1 tracks doesn't make use of the top rear position at all. But dts-x and atmos tracks seem to use them.


----------



## nickbuol

jkasanic said:


> I would say straight down is a good compromise with your layout. Also, I may have missed it but did you try Selden's recommendation of using rear height instead of top middle as your "rear" speaker designation? Several users with a 2 row setup similar to yours as well as those with only one row but close to the back wall reported a big improvement with Atmos when using TF/TR or even FH/RH (preferred with DTS:X). Of course, with the current implementations of Atmos and DTS:X, you might want to use the latter in a somewhat compromised layout especially if you use both upmixers.


I did play with setting them up as "rear" (top and then height) and the change was negligible. I have not pointed them straight down yet to try that as a last ditch effort before relocating them. Probably won't happen anytime real soon as my oldest is getting married in 2.5 weeks and there is so much wedding stuff happening that if I even think about spending some time in the theater my wife would kill me.


----------



## dvdwilly3

nathan_h said:


> Given the position of my rear surround speakers high on the wall in the corner behind me, would i be better off calling them top rear speakers rather than rear surrounds?
> 
> Will dts-x and dolby surround upmixing in my marantz sr6010 make better use of them that way than as rear surrounds? Limited testing leaves me with the impression that upmixing 7.1 tracks doesn't make use of the top rear position at all. But dts-x and atmos tracks seem to use them.


Any possibility that you could drop them to, say, 4' and keep them as Rear Surround, and put a second set of on-ceiling for Top Rear?


----------



## gbaby

nickbuol said:


> Anyway, I've tried Top Front/Top Middle as well as Front Height/Top Middle, and while things do sound really quite nice, I am not "blown away" like I think I should be. Maybe I am expecting too much but the Dolby Demo Discs sound great and are clearly showing off the system, but you know how those are, they over exaggerate the effects for the sake of making sounds come from overhead, etc. But when I fire up an Atmos movie, it does sound good, and sounds are coming out of the overhead speakers, and the receiver does show that it is playing back Dolby Atmos, but it isn't overwhelmingly THAT much better.
> 
> For example, Mad Max: Fury Road. The opening sequence with the whispering voices sounds great when done in Atmos, but it sounds great in 7.1 as well. Gravity is the same. It sounds really good when playing back in Atmos, but it also sounds great in 7.1...
> 
> Again, it sounds really good, but so does regular 7.1 in the theater.
> 
> Thanks for any tips or tricks. I've got a few people wanting to come over to hear Atmos, and I just want to make sure that I am attacking this thing correctly since all of the official documents from Dolby are based around a single row of seats vs. the information I linked being for 2 rows of seats.


You could be like me as I was not "blown away" by Atmos either.


----------



## nathan_h

dvdwilly3 said:


> Any possibility that you could drop them to, say, 4' and keep them as Rear Surround, and put a second set of on-ceiling for Top Rear?


By design, they are angled down for placement high in a corner. So moving them lower is problematic.

I could choose to just replace them with some inwall back surround speakers at some point.

But my whole system is limited to 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 so if i designate some surround back speakers, i don't get rear heights or top rears.


----------



## HarpNinja

After some reading, I am thinking of going from 5.1 to 7.1.2.

Attached is a pic of my current (rough) 5.1 layout where the rear surrounds are in ceiling (and the left is not ideally placed). I put an "X" where I would be roughly placing 4 additional speakers.

The in ceiling would be the x.x.2. The rear speakers would be on stands and the side would be in wall or attached to the wall. *Does this seem like a decent plan? * While I can measure exact placements, the pic does show the inherent issues I have.

1. The left in ceiling is about 2' too far from the wall and not in line with the L. I can't fix it - it was poorly placed when the house was finished as they had the speakers centered to the wall and not where my screen is.

2. The sectional isn't centered in the room, nor can it be because we need a walk way, so the rears on speaker stands would be placed at either corner. So the R rear speaker would be inside the R and R in ceiling.

3. The R side speaker would also be further from the sectional than the L side.

My biggest concerns are that while I can get the right angles of the speakers, they are not symmetrical. I was thinking of the Yamaha 3050 or a 9.2 late model Denon.

Thanks!


----------



## AllenA07

bdraw said:


> I felt the same way. Honestly the Regal RPX theater with Atmos I saw Civil War it barely appeared to have surround sound. All the sound was in front of me, and there was bass to speak of. Not going back to that theater and it's the only Atmos theater in the Tampa Bay Area.


I've seen two Atmos movies in theaters and in both cases I left disappointed. In both cases I hardly noticed any surround effect, let alone Atmos. I've been far more impressed with Atmos at home then I have been with my (admittedly limited) experience with theater based Atmos. At this point I don't know if I would spend the extra money to see a movie in a theater with Atmos.


----------



## dvdwilly3

nathan_h said:


> By design, they are angled down for placement high in a corner. So moving them lower is problematic.
> 
> I could choose to just replace them with some inwall back surround speakers at some point.
> 
> But my whole system is limited to 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 so if i designate some surround back speakers, i don't get rear heights or top rears.


Understand...for now you have to pick...
Certainly, at this point, there are more movies in 7.1, than there are in Atmos. Unless Atmos makes real inroads that may continue...

Soooo, with 7.1, you will get sound clearly to your side and behind you, but your Atmos will only be Top Middle. You will hear the appropriate overhead sounds, but they will not pan from front to back very clearly.

With 5.1.4, you will get sound at the sides in your current setup (both the side surround sounds and rear surround sounds...), but you will get Atmos that will pan clearly from front to back. Many/most 5.1 setups put the side surrounds in the rear corners so you kind of split the difference for side sounds and rear sounds. To my ears, most of the surround sounds come from the sides and not as much the back.

I think that in your situation, I would go for the 5.1.4. However, if you possibly could, I would move those Top Rear Speakers even higher on the wall...unless you get into dry wall work... My wife says, "No more lumpy walls!"

Even if you cannot move them higher, Audyssey should lower the volume on those rears so that you are not "hot spotting".

But, whatever you do, make sure that you rerun Audyssey every single time that you make a change...


----------



## nathan_h

dvdwilly3 said:


> Understand...for now you have to pick...
> Certainly, at this point, there are more movies in 7.1, than there are in Atmos. Unless Atmos makes real inroads that may continue...
> 
> Soooo, with 7.1, you will get sound clearly to your side and behind you, but your Atmos will only be Top Middle. You will hear the appropriate overhead sounds, but they will not pan from front to back very clearly.
> 
> With 5.1.4, you will get sound at the sides in your current setup (both the side surround sounds and rear surround sounds...), but you will get Atmos that will pan clearly from front to back. Many/most 5.1 setups put the side surrounds in the rear corners so you kind of split the difference for side sounds and rear sounds. To my ears, most of the surround sounds come from the sides and not as much the back.
> 
> I think that in your situation, I would go for the 5.1.4. However, if you possibly could, I would move those Top Rear Speakers even higher on the wall...unless you get into dry wall work... My wife says, "No more lumpy walls!"
> 
> Even if you cannot move them higher, Audyssey should lower the volume on those rears so that you are not "hot spotting".
> 
> But, whatever you do, make sure that you rerun Audyssey every single time that you make a change...


Interesting. Well, the rear surround in the corners are within a foot of the ceiling. In fact, maybe six inches, so moving the higher is not possible.

But maybe they are high enough to call the rear heights or top rears, and keep the "bed" at 5 speakers.


----------



## dvdwilly3

nathan_h said:


> Interesting. Well, the rear surround in the corners are within a foot of the ceiling. In fact, maybe six inches, so moving the higher is not possible.
> 
> But maybe they are high enough to call the rear heights or top rears, and keep the "bed" at 5 speakers.


I would run them as Top Rear, tho you could play with Rear Height and see which you like.

You will find that most on the forum prefer Top Rear over Rear Height, but as with everything
else in life, it should be what floats your boat.

Have fun!


----------



## nathan_h

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would run them as Top Rear, tho you could play with Rear Height and see which you like.
> 
> You will find that most on the forum prefer Top Rear over Rear Height, but as with everything
> else in life, it should be what floats your boat.
> 
> Have fun!


Thanks for the perspective. Couple of questions:


When playing back DD 5.1, I assume the Dolby Surround upmixer will place sound in rear heights or top rears, just like rear surrounds, no problem.... but perhaps better optimized for the location of my physical speakers high in the corners? 

On the other hand, I know that some speaker locations, like Front Wides, get ignored by some up-mixers. Will any of these (top rear or rear height or rear surround) get ignored by upmixers?

When playing back DTS-X, or Dolby Atmos, will either IGNORE rear height or top rear speakers?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Nathan, when playing back DD 5.1, the sounds should map appropriately...that is, if they are in the ground plane, whether side or rear, they should go to your side speakers.
If they are sounds that are higher then they should map to your Rear Height or Top Rear appropriately.

Keep in mind that Front Wides are not (insofar as I know...) a part of the Dolby 7.1 configuration. I believe that those are picked up in a 9.1 configuration.
I believe that Atmos is currently based upon only 7.1...so the DSU ignores front wides...it has no place to put them in a standard 7.1 configuration.

Another insofar as I know, I do not believe that there is any movie soundtrack on bluray in 9.1...someone can correct me on that.

I bought The Last Witch Hunter so that I could get at DTS:X test tones. Running the test tones, my recollection is that high test tones folded into the
appropriate front speakers or rear speakers.

However, I believe that the test tones bypass the DSU. When I have played movies with DTS-HD MA (7.1) soundtracks, everything seemed to be mapped
by the DSU appropriately, that is, in the Atmos speakers for height information.

Did I make it better...or worse?


----------



## jimmyaz

AllenA07 said:


> I've seen two Atmos movies in theaters and in both cases I left disappointed. In both cases I hardly noticed any surround effect, let alone Atmos. I've been far more impressed with Atmos at home then I have been with my (admittedly limited) experience with theater based Atmos. At this point I don't know if I would spend the extra money to see a movie in a theater with Atmos.


That's even worse if you have to spend extra... the Harkins Theatres here in Arizona, price is the same, Atmos or not. 

I know different movie have different sound track and some with more, some with less. But the Amaze demo video is what I was comparing to.... I guess at home I am much closer to the surround sound which make it louder and more noticeable. In the real theater if they make it perfect for the center seating, the people on the edge probably go deaf. Also, their ceiling speaker is probably 40-50ft high, my HT is only 8ft.


----------



## nathan_h

dvdwilly3 said:


> Nathan, when playing back DD 5.1, the sounds should map appropriately...that is, if they are in the ground plane, whether side or rear, they should go to your side speakers.
> If they are sounds that are higher then they should map to your Rear Height or Top Rear appropriately.
> 
> Keep in mind that Front Wides are not (insofar as I know...) a part of the Dolby 7.1 configuration. I believe that those are picked up in a 9.1 configuration.
> I believe that Atmos is currently based upon only 7.1...so the DSU ignores front wides...it has no place to put them in a standard 7.1 configuration.
> 
> Another insofar as I know, I do not believe that there is any movie soundtrack on bluray in 9.1...someone can correct me on that.
> 
> I bought The Last Witch Hunter so that I could get at DTS:X test tones. Running the test tones, my recollection is that high test tones folded into the
> appropriate front speakers or rear speakers.
> 
> However, I believe that the test tones bypass the DSU. When I have played movies with DTS-HD MA (7.1) soundtracks, everything seemed to be mapped
> by the DSU appropriately, that is, in the Atmos speakers for height information.
> 
> Did I make it better...or worse?


Well, i thhink that is helpful.

In summary: the upmixer will upmix as best it can into any ceiling or height speakers you tell it you have. It will also upmix into surround backs, because those are legal positions. BUT the upmixers will not upmix into faux positions like Front Wides. Yes?



Seperately, i dont want to buy a mediocre movie for a set of test tones but maybe i have to. Are there any test tones i can buy online or on a test patterns disk? That would help me see which setup is positioning sounds the best in my room.


----------



## nickbuol

gbaby said:


> You could be like me as I was not "blown away" by Atmos either.


Yeah, I have been a HUGE fan of the technology since CEDIA 2014, and things like the leaf demo, or the Atmos "Unfold" trailer, etc all sound quite impressive. I just get into actual movies and go "meh." Yes, the soundspace is filled with more ambient sounds and such, and yes, I am sure that the Atmos demos at CEDIA and available on the Dolby discs are using the most of the technology (Mad Max demo, where the voices at the beginning are coming from all over the place is cool) whereas regular movies themselves are a bit more "subtle"...

So far, and don't laugh at me, the movie that I notice the most change (that I have experienced) is Pixels. Seems like everything is in 7.1 until the aliens appear, and then BAM, the sound goes to the next level and seems more "Atmos demo-like" which, as mentioned above, it pretty cool. Then it goes back to what seems like 7.1 when the aliens go away, and so on. I am not saying that there is nothing coming out of the overheads during the "7.1" part of the movie as I didn't check, but I am just saying that it gets "amped up" a bit during those certain sequences.


----------



## dvdwilly3

nathan_h said:


> Well, i thhink that is helpful.
> 
> In summary: the upmixer will upmix as best it can into any ceiling or height speakers you tell it you have. It will also upmix into surround backs, because those are legal positions. BUT the upmixers will not upmix into faux positions like Front Wides. Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Seperately, i dont want to buy a mediocre movie for a set of test tones but maybe i have to. Are there any test tones i can buy online or on a test patterns disk? That would help me see which setup is positioning sounds the best in my room.


Re faux positions...correct. That is not to say that you cannot do it. Sdurani and others have...but, it takes some doing... Dolby will probably get around to more channels in a future implementation, but 
who knows when that will be.

For some, The Last Witchhunter might be a good movie. To me it is very lame. I actually thought that I would watch it since I bought it anyway, but I could not get past about 10 minutes or so...when they get to Vin Diesel's apartment.

Insofar as DTX, none that I know of. Insofar as Dolby Atmos, if you buy the Asian version of Lucy (at yesasia), about 4 of the Dolby demo tracks are on the disk...including Amaze, Leaf, Shatter, and one other.
And, if violence and bloodshed do not bother you, Lucy has an excellent Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## Molon_Labe

nickbuol said:


> Yeah, I have been a HUGE fan of the technology since CEDIA 2014, and things like the leaf demo, or the Atmos "Unfold" trailer, etc all sound quite impressive. I just get into actual movies and go "meh." Yes, the soundspace is filled with more ambient sounds and such, and yes, I am sure that the Atmos demos at CEDIA and available on the Dolby discs are using the most of the technology (Mad Max demo, where the voices at the beginning are coming from all over the place is cool) whereas regular movies themselves are a bit more "subtle"...
> 
> So far, and don't laugh at me, the movie that I notice the most change (that I have experienced) is Pixels. Seems like everything is in 7.1 until the aliens appear, and then BAM, the sound goes to the next level and seems more "Atmos demo-like" which, as mentioned above, it pretty cool. Then it goes back to what seems like 7.1 when the aliens go away, and so on. I am not saying that there is nothing coming out of the overheads during the "7.1" part of the movie as I didn't check, but I am just saying that it gets "amped up" a bit during those certain sequences.


My thoughts exactly. I love the technology based on the Dolby demo but I really haven't heard any movie mixes that wow'd me like the demo disc. I am hopeful it will get better in time.


----------



## nickbuol

For those looking for a "DTS:X channel check" and don't want to buy The Last Witchhunter, a new AVS member demo disc was just released this morning and has it as the last track. I haven't downloaded this yet, but wanted to mention it.

Reelwood Demo Disc 2016 (Atmos & DTS:X)


----------



## nickbuol

Molon_Labe said:


> My thoughts exactly. I love the technology based on the Dolby demo but I really haven't heard any movie mixes that wow'd me like the demo disc. I am hopeful it will get better in time.


I've got a few people coming over about a week after the above mentioned wedding and they want to hear what Atmos sounds like. I am concerned that we will be limited to demo disc material until we watch a movie and they will respond, "You paid how much for that?" followed by "it sounded great, but I couldn't tell if it was any better than 7.1"

Not a pride thing, just that I want others to experience what I know can sound great. 

Maybe I am stuck in the initial "wow" factor that 3D does from time to time. Remember early 3D movies (or current bad ones) where they always had those points in the movie were something would poke at you, or fly out the the screen, or some other gimmick effect that just reminds you that you are watching 3D? Then movies like Avatar came out and the 3D effect was much more subtle and dare I say "natural" for a CGI movie. You got sucked into the movie more vs. the over-the-top, in your face 3D effects of things that should be reserved for theme parks (like the old "Honey I Shrunk the Audience"). Maybe that is what we are getting with sound on the demo discs, and we want to prove to ourselves that the money and time is worth it so we want over-the-top audio effects, when in actuality, we should be wanting the better experience without being "in your face"...

Still makes it hard to justify to most a single $250 overhead speaker, let alone 4, and a new receiver/processor (I got the Anthem MRX-1120 so not cheap)... 

Maybe I should just keep telling myself that I want the "Avatar 3D" experience of audio instead of "Honey I Shrunk the Audience."


----------



## dvdwilly3

nickbuol said:


> Yeah, I have been a HUGE fan of the technology since CEDIA 2014, and things like the leaf demo, or the Atmos "Unfold" trailer, etc all sound quite impressive. I just get into actual movies and go "meh." Yes, the soundspace is filled with more ambient sounds and such, and yes, I am sure that the Atmos demos at CEDIA and available on the Dolby discs are using the most of the technology (Mad Max demo, where the voices at the beginning are coming from all over the place is cool) whereas regular movies themselves are a bit more "subtle"...
> 
> So far, and don't laugh at me, the movie that I notice the most change (that I have experienced) is Pixels. Seems like everything is in 7.1 until the aliens appear, and then BAM, the sound goes to the next level and seems more "Atmos demo-like" which, as mentioned above, it pretty cool. Then it goes back to what seems like 7.1 when the aliens go away, and so on. I am not saying that there is nothing coming out of the overheads during the "7.1" part of the movie as I didn't check, but I am just saying that it gets "amped up" a bit during those certain sequences.


Try Unbroken, in particular, during the opening bombing run...


----------



## LNEWoLF

nickbuol said:


> I've got a few people coming over about a week after the above mentioned wedding and they want to hear what Atmos sounds like. I am concerned that we will be limited to demo disc material until we watch a movie and they will respond, "You paid how much for that?" followed by "it sounded great, but I couldn't tell if it was any better than 7.1"
> 
> Not a pride thing, just that I want others to experience what I know can sound great.
> 
> Maybe I am stuck in the initial "wow" factor that 3D does from time to time. Remember early 3D movies (or current bad ones) where they always had those points in the movie were something would poke at you, or fly out the the screen, or some other gimmick effect that just reminds you that you are watching 3D? Then movies like Avatar came out and the 3D effect was much more subtle and dare I say "natural" for a CGI movie. You got sucked into the movie more vs. the over-the-top, in your face 3D effects of things that should be reserved for theme parks (like the old "Honey I Shrunk the Audience"). Maybe that is what we are getting with sound on the demo discs, and we want to prove to ourselves that the money and time is worth it so we want over-the-top audio effects, when in actuality, we should be wanting the better experience without being "in your face"...
> 
> Still makes it hard to justify to most a single $250 overhead speaker, let alone 4, and a new receiver/processor (I got the Anthem MRX-1120 so not cheap)...
> 
> Maybe I should just keep telling myself that I want the "Avatar 3D" experience of audio instead of "Honey I Shrunk the Audience."


Unbroken had some VERY notable atmos audio effect scenes. 

Watched Everest a couple nights ago. VERY good example of atmos audio effects.


----------



## bdraw

nathan_h said:


> By design, they are angled down for placement high in a corner. So moving them lower is problematic.
> 
> I could choose to just replace them with some inwall back surround speakers at some point.
> 
> But my whole system is limited to 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 so if i designate some surround back speakers, i don't get rear heights or top rears.


You can probably use both, just not at the same time. Many AVRs make it easy to switch between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4. So you'd wire up 7.1.4 and then switch your speaker configuration based on the source (7.1.2 for unmixed and 5.1.4 for native atmos).


----------



## nickbuol

dvdwilly3 said:


> Try Unbroken, in particular, during the opening bombing run...





LNEWoLF said:


> Unbroken had some VERY notable atmos audio effect scenes.
> 
> Watched Everest a couple nights ago. VERY good example of atmos audio effects.


I own Unbroken and Everest, but have not watched either yet. Maybe I will see if I can sneak a few minutes tonight and at least watch the opening bombing run.


----------



## AllenA07

LNEWoLF said:


> Unbroken had some VERY notable atmos audio effect scenes.
> 
> Watched Everest a couple nights ago. VERY good example of atmos audio effects.


I'll echo this! The opening to Unbroken is impressive, and should give you some of the wow factor that you're looking for. The remainder of the movie is much more subdued when it comes to Atmos, but the opening is awesome.

Everest is my favorite that I've heard so far. It's not that it has that wow factor as much as it manages to make the movie so immersive. The storm is everywhere around you in Everest, it makes for a very cool effect.

When I took the leap and upgraded to Atmos I was somewhat surprised at what I got. I was very much expecting the "in your face" audio with things flying all over the place. What I have found in reality is that Atmos tends to be a much more subtle effect. What really did impress me however was how much bigger my room sounded after I put Atmos in. 

I'm disappointed the the Deadpool blu-ray doesn't have Atmos. I've heard very good things about that soundtrack as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@nickbuol

Pick up the Atmos version of The Fifth Element. One of the best mixes out right now and a catalog re-mix at that.


----------



## nickbuol

Thanks everyone for all of the tips on movies to check out and use to show off during the upcoming movie night.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

In The Heart Of The Sea is up there with Everest. Absolutely phenomenal Atmos track!


----------



## nickbuol

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In The Heart Of The Sea is up there with Everest. Absolutely phenomenal Atmos track!


I actually DID watch In the Heart of the Sea. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Lots of "ambient" subtleties.


----------



## stikle

AllenA07 said:


> Everest is my favorite that I've heard so far. It's not that it has that wow factor as much as it manages to make the movie so immersive. The storm is everywhere around you in Everest, it makes for a very cool effect.



Everest was excellent. I watched it last weekend and felt like I was ON the mountain. Very well done.



AllenA07 said:


> I'm disappointed the the Deadpool blu-ray doesn't have Atmos. I've heard very good things about that soundtrack as well.



I watched this in UHD last weekend as well. Great soundtrack too.


----------



## gbaby

nickbuol said:


> Yeah, I have been a HUGE fan of the technology since CEDIA 2014, and things like the leaf demo, or the Atmos "Unfold" trailer, etc all sound quite impressive. I just get into actual movies and go "meh." Yes, the soundspace is filled with more ambient sounds and such, and yes, I am sure that the Atmos demos at CEDIA and available on the Dolby discs are using the most of the technology (Mad Max demo, where the voices at the beginning are coming from all over the place is cool) whereas regular movies themselves are a bit more "subtle"...
> 
> So far, and don't laugh at me, the movie that I notice the most change (that I have experienced) is Pixels. Seems like everything is in 7.1 until the aliens appear, and then BAM, the sound goes to the next level and seems more "Atmos demo-like" which, as mentioned above, it pretty cool. Then it goes back to what seems like 7.1 when the aliens go away, and so on. I am not saying that there is nothing coming out of the overheads during the "7.1" part of the movie as I didn't check, but I am just saying that it gets "amped up" a bit during those certain sequences.


Nothing wrong with Pixels. I do think, however, you need to try the recommended reference ATMOS titles like Everest and the new Fifth Element. I'd be interested in your thoughts as I heard Atmos twice and left the audio store underwhelmed. I have always thought that atmosphere is built into the original sound track and additional "atmosphere" would be coloration of some sort that does not comport to real life. I remember owning Sony ES products with different sound fields that gave that extra pseudo atmosphere but when you cranked it up, you heard distortion.


----------



## audiofan1

gbaby said:


> Nothing wrong with Pixels. I do think, however, you need to try the recommended reference ATMOS titles like Everest and the new Fifth Element. I'd be interested in your thoughts as I heard Atmos twice and left the audio store underwhelmed. *I have always thought that atmosphere is built into the original sound track and additional "atmosphere" would be coloration of some sort that does not comport to real life.* I remember owning Sony ES products with different sound fields that gave that extra pseudo atmosphere but when you cranked it up, you heard distortion.


 Atmosphere exist all around us! It's not a coloration by a long shot as the information from a native sound track is discrete and taken a step further as its object based. As some one who even skipped 7.1 and went right from 5.1 to a full blown 7.1.4 setup I can tell you my eyes have never been more transfixed into the movie than it is now, I'm a huge proponent of not being distracted by wizz bang effects at the expense of loosing out on what's on the screen. Once the film starts with the addition of Atmos(DSU) DTS:X (Neural:X) the full blown true immersive audio experience begins a new and sometimes staggering level


----------



## nathan_h

dvdwilly3 said:


> Re faux positions...correct. That is not to say that you cannot do it. Sdurani and others have...but, it takes some doing... Dolby will probably get around to more channels in a future implementation, but
> who knows when that will be.
> 
> For some, The Last Witchhunter might be a good movie. To me it is very lame. I actually thought that I would watch it since I bought it anyway, but I could not get past about 10 minutes or so...when they get to Vin Diesel's apartment.
> 
> Insofar as DTX, none that I know of. Insofar as Dolby Atmos, if you buy the Asian version of Lucy (at yesasia), about 4 of the Dolby demo tracks are on the disk...including Amaze, Leaf, Shatter, and one other.
> And, if violence and bloodshed do not bother you, Lucy has an excellent Atmos soundtrack.


I enjoyed Lucy, and already bought it -- but not that version  It's not so good that I will double dip....

I watched all of Witchhunter. I'm not above watching such a movie! Just wouldn't want to buy it, especially since the only thing I would buy it for is:



nickbuol said:


> For those looking for a "DTS:X channel check" and don't want to buy The Last Witchhunter, a new AVS member demo disc was just released this morning and has it as the last track. I haven't downloaded this yet, but wanted to mention it.
> 
> Reelwood Demo Disc 2016 (Atmos & DTS:X)


Awesome! Thanks for pointing this out. 



bdraw said:


> You can probably use both, just not at the same time. Many AVRs make it easy to switch between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4. So you'd wire up 7.1.4 and then switch your speaker configuration based on the source (7.1.2 for unmixed and 5.1.4 for native atmos).


This is not a crazy idea EXCEPT with Audyssey gear, you have to re-run Audyssey when making such a change.

That said, I am almost to the point of using miniDSP for my EQ solution, instead of Audyssey, which would solve that dilemma.


----------



## ALtlOff

@nickbuol, another thing to try, besides having the proper content, when your demoing your system is the old trick of "revert back instead of go forward".
When you demo material, changes are much less noticeable when you go from old to new because of how the brain adapts, for example, watch a 720p picture for about 15 min, then watch the same scene in 1080p, sure it looks better but the difference seems sort of subtle, but then go back and re-watch out in 720p again, the difference will seem more drastic, it's just the way we work, once you get used to something, it's just more noticeable when it's gone. So of you're doing a comparison, start with Atmos then re-play the same scene in 7.1, the Atmos difference should be more noticeable in reverse.


----------



## bdraw

nathan_h said:


> This is not a crazy idea EXCEPT with Audyssey gear, you have to re-run Audyssey when making such a change.
> 
> That said, I am almost to the point of using miniDSP for my EQ solution, instead of Audyssey, which would solve that dilemma.


Don't have Audyssey in my Yamaha, but it has it's own calibration setup. So what I do is get it setup as 7.1 and then save it as a scene, then go into speaker setup and change it and run the calibration again, save it as the second scene and then I can switch back and forth between the two.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gbaby said:


> Nothing wrong with Pixels. I do think, however, you need to try the recommended reference ATMOS titles like Everest and the new Fifth Element. I'd be interested in your thoughts as I heard Atmos twice and left the audio store underwhelmed. *I have always thought that atmosphere is built into the original sound track and additional "atmosphere" would be coloration of some sort that does not comport to real life. I remember owning Sony ES products with different sound fields that gave that extra pseudo atmosphere but when you cranked it up, you heard distortion. *



Wait, wait, wait, wait....

Is what you think is happening with Atmos?


----------



## ALtlOff

nathan_h said:


> I enjoyed Lucy, and already bought it -- but not that version  It's not so good that I will double dip...


It may be because I enjoyed the movie anyway, but personally I feel that the Atmos version completely transformed the film, it is that good, and was totally worth the double dip and the extra cost. 
I know that when it finally got to DirecTV I only revisited it once our twice, but I've revisited the Atmos version 4 or 5 times now.


----------



## stikle

Scott Simonian said:


> Wait, wait, wait, wait....
> 
> Is what you think is happening with Atmos?



Explains a lot, no?


----------



## gbaby

Scott Simonian said:


> Wait, wait, wait, wait....
> 
> Is what you think is happening with Atmos?


I think this is what happens to probably all codecs; the embellishment of the sound of real life. By way of example, Gravity. It starts off saying in space, no one can hear you scream. There is no sound in space because there is no atmosphere. But, in Gravity, you hear all kinds of explosions, but it is entertaining to hear.


----------



## gbaby

audiofan1 said:


> Atmosphere exist all around us! It's not a coloration by a long shot as the information from a native sound track is discrete and taken a step further as its object based. As some one who even skipped 7.1 and went right from 5.1 to a full blown 7.1.4 setup I can tell you my eyes have never been more transfixed into the movie than it is now, I'm a huge proponent of not being distracted by wizz bang effects at the expense of loosing out on what's on the screen. Once the film starts with the addition of Atmos(DSU) DTS:X (Neural:X) the full blown true immersive audio experience begins a new and sometimes staggering level


I get sufficient atmosphere with my current rig using the legacy or should I say post legacy surround codec. Its really source dependent. Just like ATMOS, some have immersion some don't.


----------



## nickbuol

Atmos does not mean atmosphere... I can see why someone would think that by name, but that is where the similarity stops. Yes, Atmos can reproduce a much more detailed and enveloping "atmosphere" in a sound track, but it can also pin-point audio throughout the listening space.


----------



## gbaby

nickbuol said:


> ?...but it can also pin-point audio throughout the listening space.


I don't hear pin point audio in real life that is presented in Atmos. In real life, at least for me, most sound can be directional but I can't "pinpoint" its actual location. But I could with Atmos, but it did not impress me. For me, gimmicky.


----------



## nickbuol

So if you went to a park on a spring day and closed your eyes, with birds up in the trees, you wouldn't be able to tell which tree they were in, or know that the kid playing with their dog was down on the ground and not up in the tree with the birds? Now agreed that human hearing isn't that precise for sounds behind you, but in front or even to the sides you should be able to detect distance, elevation, as well as relationship right to left from straight in front of your nose. Otherwise you might as well have bi/di/quad pole speakers for your LCR speakers as well.

ok, that was a bit extreme, but we do hear pinpoint audio all of the time. The trip trick is in the mix and our ability to reproduce that mix into a believable experience. It sounds like you haven't experienced that.


----------



## gbaby

nickbuol said:


> ok, that was a bit extreme, but we do hear pinpoint audio all of the time. The trip trick is in the mix and our ability to reproduce that mix into a believable experience. It sounds like you haven't experienced that.


I have experienced a mix with a believable experience in my current system although at times the sound is bigger than life. I guess that's why we like home theater. Atmos is bigger than life and it has its merits; just not enough for me to want it. It's not compelling especially after listening to my SP3.


----------



## ultraflexed

There is a thread here where we review blue-ray's with DSU an atmos.


I'm using upfiring speakers for 5.1.4 atmos with klipsch reference premiere line speakers.

Atmos has been at home for almost 2 years starting towards the end of 2014.

An still the best atmos soundtrack far and away, if your having company and want to show off your atmos just play transformers 4 age of extinction the atmos is mind blowing and still almost 2 years a later nothing is close to it.......unfortunately the whoever is mixing the current crop of action movie is not getting the most out of atmos.


----------



## aaranddeeman

gbaby said:


> I don't hear pin point audio in real life that is presented in Atmos. In real life, at least for me, most sound can be directional but I can't "pinpoint" its actual location. But I could with Atmos, but it did not impress me. For me, gimmicky.


Do you wake up every few months just to puke..


----------



## gbaby

aaranddeeman said:


> Do you wake up every few months just to puke..


Do you have a personal issue that would cause you to ask such a base question?


----------



## aaranddeeman

gbaby said:


> Do you have a personal issue that would cause you to ask such a base question?


Nope. But it makes me wonder (and we have heard you the first time long time ago), how you don't give up stating what you already did and keep visiting the thread you should most likely hate.


----------



## gbaby

aaranddeeman said:


> Nope. But it makes me wonder (and we have heard you the first time long time ago), how you don't give up stating what you already did and keep visiting the thread you should most likely hate.


Your problem is misguided vanity. I am only responding to individual posters not a group.


----------



## lujan

nickbuol said:


> I actually DID watch In the Heart of the Sea. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Lots of "ambient" subtleties.


I didn't care for In the Heart of the Sea. I thought it was too dark throughout and hard to understand the dialog.


----------



## nickbuol

Wasn't dark on my setup and the dialog was perfectly good. Odd that your experience was so much different...


----------



## TRINADS

Other than carefully reading the back of a Bluray cover, how do you know if it has Dolby atmos? I mean do some titles get released in atmos and non-atmos? I heard deadpool has atmos, I ordered the Bluray from amazon and no where does it say atmos that I can see. Same with game of thrones season 1&2. Supposed to have atmos right? So not all blurays are the same within the same title? Or maybe it's written somewhere and I'm not seeing it.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

TRINADS said:


> Other than carefully reading the back of a Bluray cover, how do you know if it has Dolby atmos? I mean do some titles get released in atmos and non-atmos? I heard deadpool has atmos, I ordered the Bluray from amazon and no where does it say atmos that I can see. Same with game of thrones season 1&2. Supposed to have atmos right? So not all blurays are the same within the same title? Or maybe it's written somewhere and I'm not seeing it.


Deadpool Blu-ray does not have Atmos on it, which is why I didn't buy it. 

The audio specs are listed on the back cover. This makes it hard to know since most stores including Amazon don't show the back cover.


----------



## Sanjay

TRINADS said:


> Other than carefully reading the back of a Bluray cover, how do you know if it has Dolby atmos? I mean do some titles get released in atmos and non-atmos? I heard deadpool has atmos, I ordered the Bluray from amazon and no where does it say atmos that I can see. Same with game of thrones season 1&2. Supposed to have atmos right? So not all blurays are the same within the same title? Or maybe it's written somewhere and I'm not seeing it.


Only the UHD of 'Deadpool' has Dolby Atmos. 'Game of Thrones Season 1 & 2' were originally released on Blu-ray with DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1. Only the recently re-released versions of the 'Game Of Thrones Season 1 & 2 & 3 & 4' Blu-rays have Dolby Atmos. 'Game Of Thrones Season 5' has been released originally with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

gbaby said:


> I don't hear pin point audio in real life that is presented in Atmos. In real life, at least for me, most sound can be directional but I can't "pinpoint" its actual location. But I could with Atmos, but it did not impress me. For me, gimmicky.


You're wrong on both of your latest statements:

Gravity and how sound cannot be heard in space => sound needs air to travel, and most of the movie is in the space stations, and so WITH air, and so WITH sound. There is one scene where the capsule loses air and sounds actually vanishes until complete silence, even as explosions are happening all around, so on this account the movie is well done.

Cannot pinpoint audio sources in real life ? Please go visit an "audio doctor" (don't know the exact name, sorry english is not my native tongue)
Right now i seat in my office, i can hear colleague 1 at 200°, colleague 2 at 130°, the printer at 70°, cars passing by at -50°, ....
So of course we can locate discrete sounds within 10° error margin, so having a system that can accurately place those sounds can be beneficial.

I can think about at least 2 scenes in Atmos movies where this makes a LOT of sense:
1) Gravity again, several times the voices are coming from a precise location in space, only Atmos can render it accurately.
2) Lucy, when she listens to multiple phone lines in the street coming from many directions simulteanously, this is a kickass example, i listened to it in Atmos at the theater and it rocked. For sure a very very degraded scene in 5.1 ... 
I am sure we could give many more examples of movies scenes that can only be done correctly in Atmos and degraded significantly when played in 5.1.


----------



## smurraybhm

gbaby likes to pop in every few months as pointed out above and post their dislike of Atmos and I assume X since it provides for those fake pseudo sound effects as well. The most important thing to keep in mind the opinion is based off hearing a few demos at a audio shop. Glad we are getting this out of the way, then back to normal for a few months. Whatever makes you happy, no one is forcing anyone to make the jump to any immersive format around here, some folks on AVS seem to forget that point.

Meanwhile, Deadpool sounded great using DSU and I would imagine equally well with DTS:X. Look forward to watching it again and then the likely double dip once I feel compelled to jump to 4K.


----------



## diyking

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Deadpool Blu-ray does not have Atmos on it, which is why I didn't buy it.
> 
> The audio specs are listed on the back cover. This makes it hard to know since most stores including Amazon don't show the back cover.


Deadpool does have a Bluray version with Atmos. I own it, and it is awesome!


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

diyking said:


> Deadpool does have a Bluray version with Atmos. I own it, and it is awesome!


UHD Blu-ray Deadpool is Atmos. Regular 1080p Blu-ray does not. This is true both for the regular BD release and for the BD that's included with the UHD version. 

How do I know? I checked in-store the covers of both.


----------



## diyking

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> UHD Blu-ray Deadpool is Atmos. Regular 1080p Blu-ray does not. This is true both for the regular BD release and for the BD that's included with the UHD version.
> 
> How do I know? I checked in-store the covers of both.


I stand corrected! I purchased the 4k UHD and Blu-ray combo and didn't read the fine print enough! I still stand by the original statement though that the movie is awesome!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TRINADS said:


> Other than carefully reading the back of a Bluray cover, how do you know if it has Dolby atmos? I mean do some titles get released in atmos and non-atmos? I heard deadpool has atmos, I ordered the Bluray from amazon and no where does it say atmos that I can see. Same with game of thrones season 1&2. Supposed to have atmos right? So not all blurays are the same within the same title? Or maybe it's written somewhere and I'm not seeing it.


Blu-ray.com has an Atmos/X listing under their 4k UHD Blu-ray disc thread and separate Atmos and X listings in their regular Blu-ray disc thread. Those are probably the most accurate listings so far. 

As stated by others, the UHD Blu-ray of Deadpool has Atmos and the regular Blu-ray does not. The Game of Thrones limited edition steel books of Seasons 1-4 have Dolby Atmos tracks and the regular Season 5 pack has Atmos as well. A couple people are saying the limited price reduced packs in minimal packaging of the first two seasons had the Dolby Atmos discs from the steel books in the packs even though the case said DTS 5.1. Though, don't take that as gospel.


----------



## gbaby

smurraybhm said:


> gbaby likes to pop in every few months as pointed out above and post their dislike of Atmos and I assume X since it provides for those fake pseudo sound effects as well. The most important thing to keep in mind the opinion is based off hearing a few demos at a audio shop. Glad we are getting this out of the way, then back to normal for a few months. Whatever makes you happy, no one is forcing anyone to make the jump to any immersive format around here, some folks on AVS seem to forget that point.


Dislike is a little strong. I think unimpressed or not compelling is more accurate.  One thing for sure is that Atmos does enhance surround audio for movies for those impressed with it.  I will be revisiting the Atmos audio store in Raleigh with my own Atmos movies to give in another try.


----------



## tigerhonaker

gbaby said:


> Dislike is a little strong. I think unimpressed or not compelling is more accurate.  One thing for sure is that Atmos does enhance surround audio for movies for those impressed with it.  I will be revisiting the Atmos audio store in Raleigh with my own Atmos movies to give in another try.


I hope I don't miss your next review after this next visit to the audio dealer.

Terry


----------



## gbaby

tigerhonaker said:


> I hope I don't miss your next review after this next visit to the audio dealer.
> 
> Terry


----------



## TRINADS

Dan Hitchman said:


> Blu-ray.com has an Atmos/X listing under their 4k UHD Blu-ray disc thread and separate Atmos and X listings in their regular Blu-ray disc thread. Those are probably the most accurate listings so far.
> 
> As stated by others, the UHD Blu-ray of Deadpool has Atmos and the regular Blu-ray does not. The Game of Thrones limited edition steel books of Seasons 1-4 have Dolby Atmos tracks and the regular Season 5 pack has Atmos as well. A couple people are saying the limited price reduced packs in minimal packaging of the first two seasons had the Dolby Atmos discs from the steel books in the packs even though the case said DTS 5.1. Though, don't take that as gospel.


Thank you. I really hope they don't release atmos exclusively for UHD discs. It already sucks that it's offered on a lot of UHD and not the Bluray counterpart. I just spent thousands for my pio elite sc95, and Elite atmos speakers. I plan on getting 4K HDR & UHD player next year when there's more options and prices start to fall. In the meantime it would be nice if all blurays had atmos.


----------



## deano86

TRINADS said:


> Thank you. I really hope they don't release atmos exclusively for UHD discs. It already sucks that it's offered on a lot of UHD and not the Bluray counterpart. I just spent thousands for my pio elite sc95, and Elite atmos speakers. I plan on getting 4K HDR & UHD player next year when there's more options and prices start to fall. In the meantime it would be nice if all blurays had atmos.


I agree, I think it sucks that we are seeing UHD discs with Atmos and the regular blu rays without... And, I think it is due to typical short sighted marketing thinking.... it is not so much that they want to penalize current blu ray consumers, it's just that they want to create an additional "enticement" to spend a bit more and buy the UHD disc combo instead... Make it more "worth it" to buy the more expensive UHD upgrade... But, they are mixing up their selling points... People are buying 4K sets and players for the upgrade in visuals... and that's it. The movie studios are missing out on a lot of regular blu ray sales by not including the Atmos and DTS-X codecs in those regular combo packs.... because more than likely, we will be back for a double dip to buy the UHD version when we do upgrade to 4K setups!...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TRINADS said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blu-ray.com has an Atmos/X listing under their 4k UHD Blu-ray disc thread and separate Atmos and X listings in their regular Blu-ray disc thread. Those are probably the most accurate listings so far.
> 
> As stated by others, the UHD Blu-ray of Deadpool has Atmos and the regular Blu-ray does not. The Game of Thrones limited edition steel books of Seasons 1-4 have Dolby Atmos tracks and the regular Season 5 pack has Atmos as well. A couple people are saying the limited price reduced packs in minimal packaging of the first two seasons had the Dolby Atmos discs from the steel books in the packs even though the case said DTS 5.1. Though, don't take that as gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I really hope they don't release atmos exclusively for UHD discs. It already sucks that it's offered on a lot of UHD and not the Bluray counterpart. I just spent thousands for my pio elite sc95, and Elite atmos speakers. I plan on getting 4K HDR & UHD player next year when there's more options and prices start to fall. In the meantime it would be nice if all blurays had atmos.
Click to expand...

Some studio marketeers believe immersive audio should be considered a premium feature like HDR. HDR is only available on UHD Blu-ray, so...


----------



## BigScreen

TRINADS said:


> Other than carefully reading the back of a Bluray cover, how do you know if it has Dolby atmos? I mean do some titles get released in atmos and non-atmos? I heard deadpool has atmos, I ordered the Bluray from amazon and no where does it say atmos that I can see. Same with game of thrones season 1&2. Supposed to have atmos right? So not all blurays are the same within the same title? Or maybe it's written somewhere and I'm not seeing it.


The disc details pages on blu-ray.com are a place to go, but be careful of titles that haven't been released yet, as they have prematurely listed Atmos for some titles in the past. The review page for Deadpool on Blu-ray is an example of how they list the sound format.

The reviews and release information on highdefdigest.com, especially the reviews, are good for sound details as well. Their review of Deadpool on Blu-ray lists the video and sound information (scroll to the bottom for the technical details).

I also keep lists of movie titles that have Atmos and DTS:X on Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray. It only covers U.S. releases and only movies (so, no Game of Thrones, concerts, etc.). I make every effort to confirm the information through multiple sources, using press releases from the studios, actual reviews (such as the ones on highdefdigest.com and here on AVS), or personal observations. I link both lists in my signature, but in case you don't have viewing signatures on:


Dolby Atmos Resources - Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Titles

DTS:X Resources - DTS:X Blu-ray Titles
(My apologies for the redundancy to those seeing signatures.)


----------



## ultraflexed

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> UHD Blu-ray Deadpool is Atmos. Regular 1080p Blu-ray does not. This is true both for the regular BD release and for the BD that's included with the UHD version.
> 
> How do I know? I checked in-store the covers of both.



I have the uhd deadpool it comes with the 1080p version that does not have atmos


----------



## jrogers

pasender91 said:


> You're wrong on both of your latest statements:
> 
> Gravity and how sound cannot be heard in space => sound needs air to travel, and most of the movie is in the space stations, and so WITH air, and so WITH sound. There is one scene where the capsule loses air and sounds actually vanishes until complete silence, even as explosions are happening all around, so on this account the movie is well done.
> 
> Cannot pinpoint audio sources in real life ? Please go visit an "audio doctor" (don't know the exact name, sorry english is not my native tongue)
> Right now i seat in my office, i can hear colleague 1 at 200°, colleague 2 at 130°, the printer at 70°, cars passing by at -50°, ....
> So of course we can locate discrete sounds within 10° error margin, so having a system that can accurately place those sounds can be beneficial.
> 
> I can think about at least 2 scenes in Atmos movies where this makes a LOT of sense:
> 1) Gravity again, several times the voices are coming from a precise location in space, only Atmos can render it accurately.
> 2) Lucy, when she listens to multiple phone lines in the street coming from many directions simulteanously, this is a kickass example, i listened to it in Atmos at the theater and it rocked. For sure a very very degraded scene in 5.1 ...
> I am sure we could give many more examples of movies scenes that can only be done correctly in Atmos and degraded significantly when played in 5.1.


fwiw, I actually think lateral localization accuracy for mid-range frequencies is closer to 1-3 degrees for sources in front of the listener, and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. Humans can discern interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or less


----------



## NorthSky

Regarding Dolby Atmos exclusivity on UHD BR from FOX studios:

I understand the _mecontentement_ of the many many people who still love regular Blu-ray movies (99%+) and with a new Atmos setup in their room. 
FOX is not losing money doing this, I am quite certain, to the contrary I bet it is more profitable financially for the studios. 

People who want 'Deadpool' on Blu; nothing is going to stop them to purchase it, Atmos or not (they still have DSU and DTS Neural:X), so FOX isn't going to lose revenues.
But by offering Dolby Atmos only on their UHD Blus, they'll gain more revenues, no doubt in my mind. UHD Blus cost more money than regular Blus, so ...

Financially they are adapting a good strategy. It's just that they aren't expanding it all across the board to the satisfaction of all their supportive customers, us the lovers of movie watching in all the glory that Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray have to offer. 

Are they saving money by not including Dolby Atmos on the separate regular Blu-ray? Anyone knows for sure the answer to that question?


----------



## TRINADS

Well, whether the companies make more money or not, people like myself spent thousands just to have Dolby atmos. Now I'm expected to spend thousands more for the 4K HDR tv & UHD player just to experience all atmos content. When does it end? I will end up upgrading my tv and Bluray, but not for another year or so. Til then I suffer with the few titles that will have atmos on Bluray. 

On a side note I wanted some hi-Rez music so I ordered "Roger Walters: The Wall" on Bluray. I didn't know when I ordered it but it happened to be encoded with Atmos. And it sounds truly amazing. If your a Pink Floyd fan, you will love this. The sound effects with the atmos, it's worth the experience.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TRINADS said:


> Well, whether the companies make more money or not, people like myself spent thousands just to have Dolby atmos. Now I'm expected to spend thousands more for the 4K HDR tv & UHD player just to experience all atmos content. When does it end? I will end up upgrading my tv and Bluray, but not for another year or so. Til then I suffer with the few titles that will have atmos on Bluray.
> 
> On a side note I wanted some hi-Rez music so I ordered "Roger Walters: The Wall" on Bluray. I didn't know when I ordered it but it happened to be encoded with Atmos. And it sounds truly amazing. If your a Pink Floyd fan, you will love this. The sound effects with the atmos, it's worth the experience.


I would pick up the titles you want on UHD Blu-ray just to future proof if they happen to have exclusive immersive soundtracks. Those won't be getting immersive tracks on regular Blu anyway, and at least they come with a standard disc until you can get a player.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would pick up the titles you want on UHD Blu-ray just to future proof if they happen to have exclusive immersive soundtracks. Those won't be getting immersive tracks on regular Blu anyway, and at least they come with a standard disc until you can get a player.


Just buy the Sammy 4K player. Buy the UHD discs and listen to the ATMOS tracks...

err... ay least, that is my solution as I havea HDMI1.4 SSP and HDMI 1.4 projector.


----------



## adrenalin

Has anyone installed ceiling speakers in a sloped ceiling? My options are limited in this room.


----------



## gonzlobo

Well, I'm going to give up on atmos. Of all the atmos speaker upgrades I considered I'm just going to upgrade my 5.1 to a 5.2 or 7.1.

Congrats on the really cool advancements to sound technology, dolby, but the studios can go f themselves.


----------



## Carlucci

I went ahead and picked up the UBD-K8500The Samsung UHD player, and put it head to head against my Oppo BDP-103. So, an entry level UHD player against arguably the best BD player on the market. Sounds like a fair fight.

The Samsung works as expected, and delivers the Atmos from the UHD disk while down-converting the video to 1080p. I watched scenes from San Andreas in both, and then watched Deadpool on the Sammy only. 

Preliminary thoughts on A/B comparison of UHD downconvert to 1080p, versus Bluray on the Oppo. This is with no video calibration done on either player, both going through the AVR with no processing, and using the REF (reference) setting on the Sony VPL-HW40ES Projector (Oppo pics are the ones with the "pause" indicator in the upper left):

UHD in 1080p:









BD:
















































I don't see any dramatic difference in detail for either, but definitely the Samsung UHD was darker and and had a little less definition than the Oppo BD. You guys have much better eyes for this sort of thing, so what do you see? I think with some tweaking of the settings (brightness, sharpness), they could be made to look nearly identical. I plan on doing some calibrations with the Disney WOW tool this weekend. I'll have to RTFM for the projector to see if I can save more than one custom setting per input, but if not, I can always run another HDMI and use the 2nd input on the projector.

Video in motion. Nothing noticeable to these eyes. Maybe a bit more blur on the Samsung. It took around 15 seconds to switch from one source to the other by the time I paused, pressed the right button to switch sources, and waited for the video to appear after the handshake, and by then I'd forgotten what I'd just seen. LOL! But nothing jarring. The end credits of Deadpool on the Samsung had some weird little glowing effect as they scrolled. I'll need to see if that's in the BD too. 

Playback wise, I did have one problem when initially loading Deadpool. The menu audio started, but the screen said that my TV was not HDCP 2.2 compliant. I just hit the Home button, and reloaded the disc, and it resolved itself. 

I loved how the UHD went straight to the menu for San Andreas, while the BD made me skip through 5 or 6 previews. That's almost worth the $400 right there! The Samsung comes with a tiny remote, and the player itself is small, reminiscent of the light, $30 cheapo BD players. It fits nicely right on top of the Oppo. I used up the last of my switch's ethernet connections for it. Geez, I though 8 ports would be plenty! I updated its firmware immediately, before playing the first movie. 

IMO, it's worth it for the Atmos. Deadpool's BD doesn't provide the Atmos track, and there was definitely a lot of overhead action throughout the movie that sounded absolutely amazing via the UHD's Atmos. So, it's a keeper for when I can only get Atmos via the UHD. At $400, it's a tough pill to swallow, but it would be tougher to live with knowing there's better, but inaccessible, audio to be had, especially after I already made such a heavy investment in speakers and amp to play Atmos. 

My Yamaha 3050's DTS:Neural-X and DSU soundfield up-conversion surround modes are a fallback option for getting the height speakers in play for non-atmos, non DTS-X encoded movies, but I haven't tried that yet. It may be a perfectly viable way to enjoy Atmos-like sound from a 5.1 or 7.1 source, but if I'm being honest, I'm still going to want true Atmos or DTS-X if I know its available in that format.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Carlucci said:


> I went ahead and picked up the UBD-K8500The Samsung UHD player, and put it head to head against my Oppo BDP-103. So, an entry level UHD player against arguably the best BD player on the market. Sounds like a fair fight.
> 
> The Samsung works as expected, and delivers the Atmos from the UHD disk while down-converting the video to 1080p. I watched scenes from San Andreas in both, and then watched Deadpool on the Sammy only.
> 
> Preliminary thoughts on A/B comparison of UHD downconvert to 1080p, versus Bluray on the Oppo. This is with no video calibration done on either player, both going through the AVR with no processing, and using the REF (reference) setting on the Sony VPL-HW40ES Projector (Oppo pics are the ones with the "pause" indicator in the upper left):
> 
> UHD in 1080p:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any dramatic difference in detail for either, but definitely the Samsung UHD was darker and and had a little less definition than the Oppo BD. You guys have much better eyes for this sort of thing, so what do you see? I think with some tweaking of the settings (brightness, sharpness), they could be made to look nearly identical. I plan on doing some calibrations with the Disney WOW tool this weekend. I'll have to RTFM for the projector to see if I can save more than one custom setting per input, but if not, I can always run another HDMI and use the 2nd input on the projector.
> 
> Video in motion. Nothing noticeable to these eyes. Maybe a bit more blur on the Samsung. It took around 15 seconds to switch from one source to the other by the time I paused, pressed the right button to switch sources, and waited for the video to appear after the handshake, and by then I'd forgotten what I'd just seen. LOL! But nothing jarring. The end credits of Deadpool on the Samsung had some weird little glowing effect as they scrolled. I'll need to see if that's in the BD too.
> 
> Playback wise, I did have one problem when initially loading Deadpool. The menu audio started, but the screen said that my TV was not HDCP 2.2 compliant. I just hit the Home button, and reloaded the disc, and it resolved itself.
> 
> I loved how the UHD went straight to the menu for San Andreas, while the BD made me skip through 5 or 6 previews. That's almost worth the $400 right there! The Samsung comes with a tiny remote, and the player itself is small, reminiscent of the light, $30 cheapo BD players. It fits nicely right on top of the Oppo. I used up the last of my switch's ethernet connections for it. Geez, I though 8 ports would be plenty! I updated its firmware immediately, before playing the first movie.
> 
> IMO, it's worth it for the Atmos. Deadpool's BD doesn't provide the Atmos track, and there was definitely a lot of overhead action throughout the movie that sounded absolutely amazing via the UHD's Atmos. So, it's a keeper for when I can only get Atmos via the UHD. At $400, it's a tough pill to swallow, but it would be tougher to live with knowing there's better, but inaccessible, audio to be had, especially after I already made such a heavy investment in speakers and amp to play Atmos.
> 
> My Yamaha 3050's DTS:Neural-X and DSU soundfield up-conversion surround modes are a fallback option for getting the height speakers in play for non-atmos, non DTS-X encoded movies, but I haven't tried that yet. It may be a perfectly viable way to enjoy Atmos-like sound from a 5.1 or 7.1 source, but if I'm being honest, I'm still going to want true Atmos or DTS-X if I know its available in that format.


I am running a Sony VPL-VW50. There are 3 custom video setting profiles that can be saved. I would expect that you would have at least that, if not more.

I bought the Sammy and then returned it. The HDR does not map exactly to the SDR color space on the Sony, and I saw a black crush similar to what you see. I was not willing to put up with a degraded picture to get Atmos.

From a couple of reviews, it appears that the Panasonic UHD player does have software that remaps the HDR color space to the limitations of the SDR color space, so a better picture should result.

But, the price...I may have to wait a while...


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE:

I also keep lists of movie titles that have Atmos and DTS:X on Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray. It only covers U.S. releases and only movies (so, no Game of Thrones, concerts, etc.). I make every effort to confirm the information through multiple sources, using press releases from the studios, actual reviews (such as the ones on highdefdigest.com and here on AVS), or personal observations. I link both lists in my signature, but in case you don't have viewing signatures on:


Dolby Atmos Resources - Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Titles

DTS:X Resources - DTS:X Blu-ray Titles
(My apologies for the redundancy to those seeing signatures.)[/QUOTE]

Very nice. Also - - Comcast is providing Dolby Atmos on a limited basis with their X1 Infinity Box. There is a free episode of "Black Sails" that folks with Comcast can watch for free. Very cool and I hope that Comcast provides more Dolby Atmos soundtracks. 

If they ever lowered their price of movies, I'd look at streaming premium content as I live in a "1080P" world and do not anticipate moving to 4K/UHD/HDR for many years to come.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Very nice. Also - - Comcast is providing Dolby Atmos on a limited basis with their X1 Infinity Box. There is a free episode of "Black Sails" that folks with Comcast can watch for free. Very cool and I hope that Comcast provides more Dolby Atmos soundtracks.
> 
> If they ever lowered their price of movies, I'd look at streaming premium content as I live in a "1080P" world and do not anticipate moving to 4K/UHD/HDR for many years to come.


Trouble is that their streaming video quality isn't that great. I'm not paying that kind of bank for subpar video and lossy audio.


----------



## Ricoflashback

For all of those who dislike the absence of Dolby Atmos on regular Bluray discs (as I do) and the purposeful inclusion of immersive soundtracks ONLY on new UHD discs - - a decision has to be made. 

In my case, I live in a "1080P" world with a combo projector/lcd/led TV. I do not buy Bluray discs. I rent from Redbox as it is very cheap and close to my house.

I've made the decision to forgo 4K/UHD/HDR and will not be buying a UHD Bluray player for a long time. I'll live with what I can find, Dolby Atmos wise, and use DTS Neo X (11.1.2 setup with "Front Wides.") since I have an older Denon x5200 that I purchased for a very low price. 

Instead of getting mad, I've just decided to live with what I have and try to find Dolby Atmos content where I can. I'll save money buy not having to buy a new UHD Bluray player (my OPPO 103 does a great job) and for those of you who are going "all in" with the new formats - - good for you.

I don't think Redbox will have UHD/4K titles for many, many moons (years), if EVER. Only if the studios stop manufacturing the DVD & Bluray format will Redbox have to change. But again, that ain't happening within the next five years, if at all. 

Enjoy what you can enjoy and don't worry about what you cannot control. We'll see how successful UHD Bluray is in the upcoming years.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> Trouble is that their streaming video quality isn't that great. I'm not paying that kind of bank for subpar video and lossy audio.


I don't know about you but I get excellent streaming video and audio quality from Comcast. I have a high speed connection - 180 MBPS Down and 25 up. (I also have a Roku 4 that is superb for Amazon Video. So much so that I can stream Amazon to my 100" screen and the quality is good enough (not Bluray, mind you) that it is very watchable with my projector which was not the case when I had a lower speed via Century Link - 20 mpbs down, max.) 

The Dolby Atmos freebie that I streamed from Comcast yesterday (episode of Black Sails) was very pristine with great audio via DD+ (Dolby Atmos.)

So - I guess it depends on your connection and experience. Again, Comcast's movies are priced too high and I do not purchase any movies from them. I use Amazon Prime Video (again, all free content with their annual subscription for purchasing goods) and until the streaming companies make it worthwhile, price wise (vis-a-vis Redbox - $2.00/Bluray rental or cheaper) - - I won't be streaming premium content, either.

But the fact that Comcast can deliver Dolby Atmos soundtracks via my existing X1 Box AND the picture looks great - - is a real win in my book. Mileage may vary for other folks.


----------



## jrogers

Ricoflashback said:


> I don't know about you but I get excellent streaming video and audio quality from Comcast. I have a high speed connection - 180 MBPS Down and 25 up. (I also have a Roku 4 that is superb for Amazon Video. So much so that I can stream Amazon to my 100" screen and the quality is good enough (not Bluray, mind you) that it is very watchable with my projector which was not the case when I had a lower speed via Century Link - 20 mpbs down, max.)
> 
> The Dolby Atmos freebie that I streamed from Comcast yesterday (episode of Black Sails) was very pristine with great audio via DD+ (Dolby Atmos.)
> 
> So - I guess it depends on your connection and experience. Again, Comcast's movies are priced too high and I do not purchase any movies from them. I use Amazon Prime Video (again, all free content with their annual subscription for purchasing goods) and until the streaming companies make it worthwhile, price wise (vis-a-vis Redbox - $2.00/Bluray rental or cheaper) - - I won't be streaming premium content, either.
> 
> But the fact that Comcast can deliver Dolby Atmos soundtracks via my existing X1 Box AND the picture looks great - - is a real win in my book. Mileage may vary for other folks.


Is there some indication of which shows are available in DD+ and/or Atmos? Searching I couldn't find anything about Atmos actually being available now.


----------



## Ricoflashback

jrogers said:


> Is there some indication of which shows are available in DD+ and/or Atmos? Searching I couldn't find anything about Atmos actually being available now.


The only way I found the "Atmos" episode of "Black Sails" was to use the search function with my Comcast remote and I typed in "Atmos." Then, I scrolled down to find "Black Sails" and it said "Atmos" with the information. 

Then, when I played the episode, it showed up on my Denon x5200 as "CAB/SAT Dolby Atmos" and when you press "Info" on your Denon remote - - you will see the signal as DD+ & Dolby Atmos. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## jrogers

Ricoflashback said:


> The only way I found the "Atmos" episode of "Black Sails" was to use the search function with my Comcast remote and I typed in "Atmos." Then, I scrolled down to find "Black Sails" and it said "Atmos" with the information.
> 
> Then, when I played the episode, it showed up on my Denon x5200 as "CAB/SAT Dolby Atmos" and when you press "Info" on your Denon remote - - you will see the signal as DD+ & Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thanks @Ricoflashback - look forward to giving it a try this weekend.


----------



## mobileES

Carlucci said:


> I went ahead and picked up the UBD-K8500The Samsung UHD player, and put it head to head against my Oppo BDP-103. So, an entry level UHD player against arguably the best BD player on the market. Sounds like a fair fight.
> 
> The Samsung works as expected, and delivers the Atmos from the UHD disk while down-converting the video to 1080p. I watched scenes from San Andreas in both, and then watched Deadpool on the Sammy only.
> 
> Preliminary thoughts on A/B comparison of UHD downconvert to 1080p, versus Bluray on the Oppo. This is with no video calibration done on either player, both going through the AVR with no processing, and using the REF (reference) setting on the Sony VPL-HW40ES Projector (Oppo pics are the ones with the "pause" indicator in the upper left):
> 
> UHD in 1080p:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any dramatic difference in detail for either, but definitely the Samsung UHD was darker and and had a little less definition than the Oppo BD. You guys have much better eyes for this sort of thing, so what do you see? I think with some tweaking of the settings (brightness, sharpness), they could be made to look nearly identical. I plan on doing some calibrations with the Disney WOW tool this weekend. I'll have to RTFM for the projector to see if I can save more than one custom setting per input, but if not, I can always run another HDMI and use the 2nd input on the projector.
> 
> Video in motion. Nothing noticeable to these eyes. Maybe a bit more blur on the Samsung. It took around 15 seconds to switch from one source to the other by the time I paused, pressed the right button to switch sources, and waited for the video to appear after the handshake, and by then I'd forgotten what I'd just seen. LOL! But nothing jarring. The end credits of Deadpool on the Samsung had some weird little glowing effect as they scrolled. I'll need to see if that's in the BD too.
> 
> Playback wise, I did have one problem when initially loading Deadpool. The menu audio started, but the screen said that my TV was not HDCP 2.2 compliant. I just hit the Home button, and reloaded the disc, and it resolved itself.
> 
> I loved how the UHD went straight to the menu for San Andreas, while the BD made me skip through 5 or 6 previews. That's almost worth the $400 right there! The Samsung comes with a tiny remote, and the player itself is small, reminiscent of the light, $30 cheapo BD players. It fits nicely right on top of the Oppo. I used up the last of my switch's ethernet connections for it. Geez, I though 8 ports would be plenty! I updated its firmware immediately, before playing the first movie.
> 
> *IMO, it's worth it for the Atmos. Deadpool's BD doesn't provide the Atmos track, and there was definitely a lot of overhead action throughout the movie that sounded absolutely amazing via the UHD's Atmos. So, it's a keeper for when I can only get Atmos via the UHD. At $400, it's a tough pill to swallow, but it would be tougher to live with knowing there's better, but inaccessible, audio to be had, especially after I already made such a heavy investment in speakers and amp to play Atmos. *
> 
> My Yamaha 3050's DTS:Neural-X and DSU soundfield up-conversion surround modes are a fallback option for getting the height speakers in play for non-atmos, non DTS-X encoded movies, but I haven't tried that yet. It may be a perfectly viable way to enjoy Atmos-like sound from a 5.1 or 7.1 source, but if I'm being honest, I'm still going to want true Atmos or DTS-X if I know its available in that format.


This is my thinking exactly, I've already invested the money into an Atmos receiver and 7.1.4 speaker setup, might at well go to UHD, the discs are only a few dollars more than standard blu's. The player is a bit expensive but I have never known any new tech in this industry to be cheap out of the gate. I have the Sammy UHD unit coming myself, very excited to hear the 4K titles I have collected in Atmos........


----------



## adrenalin

Stop quoting with pictures ffs. Scrolling on a phone is annoying af.

Thanks!


----------



## vsorgi

Ricoflashback said:


> RE:
> 
> I also keep lists of movie titles that have Atmos and DTS:X on Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray. It only covers U.S. releases and only movies (so, no Game of Thrones, concerts, etc.). I make every effort to confirm the information through multiple sources, using press releases from the studios, actual reviews (such as the ones on highdefdigest.com and here on AVS), or personal observations. I link both lists in my signature, but in case you don't have viewing signatures on:
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos Resources - Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Titles
> 
> DTS:X Resources - DTS:X Blu-ray Titles
> (My apologies for the redundancy to those seeing signatures.)


Very nice. Also - - Comcast is providing Dolby Atmos on a limited basis with their X1 Infinity Box. There is a free episode of "Black Sails" that folks with Comcast can watch for free. Very cool and I hope that Comcast provides more Dolby Atmos soundtracks. 

If they ever lowered their price of movies, I'd look at streaming premium content as I live in a "1080P" world and do not anticipate moving to 4K/UHD/HDR for many years to come.[/QUOTE]
These are great links. Thanks for posting. According to Next Gen Home Theater, The Allegiant BluRay being released 6/12 is supposed to have Atmos also.


----------



## vsorgi

Carlucci said:


> I went ahead and picked up the UBD-K8500The Samsung UHD player, and put it head to head against my Oppo BDP-103. So, an entry level UHD player against arguably the best BD player on the market. Sounds like a fair fight.
> 
> The Samsung works as expected, and delivers the Atmos from the UHD disk while down-converting the video to 1080p. I watched scenes from San Andreas in both, and then watched Deadpool on the Sammy only.
> 
> Preliminary thoughts on A/B comparison of UHD downconvert to 1080p, versus Bluray on the Oppo. This is with no video calibration done on either player, both going through the AVR with no processing, and using the REF (reference) setting on the Sony VPL-HW40ES Projector (Oppo pics are the ones with the "pause" indicator in the upper left):
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any dramatic difference in detail for either, but definitely the Samsung UHD was darker and and had a little less definition than the Oppo BD. You guys have much better eyes for this sort of thing, so what do you see? I think with some tweaking of the settings (brightness, sharpness), they could be made to look nearly identical. I plan on doing some calibrations with the Disney WOW tool this weekend. I'll have to RTFM for the projector to see if I can save more than one custom setting per input, but if not, I can always run another HDMI and use the 2nd input on the projector.
> 
> Video in motion. Nothing noticeable to these eyes. Maybe a bit more blur on the Samsung. It took around 15 seconds to switch from one source to the other by the time I paused, pressed the right button to switch sources, and waited for the video to appear after the handshake, and by then I'd forgotten what I'd just seen. LOL! But nothing jarring. The end credits of Deadpool on the Samsung had some weird little glowing effect as they scrolled. I'll need to see if that's in the BD too.
> 
> Playback wise, I did have one problem when initially loading Deadpool. The menu audio started, but the screen said that my TV was not HDCP 2.2 compliant. I just hit the Home button, and reloaded the disc, and it resolved itself.
> 
> I loved how the UHD went straight to the menu for San Andreas, while the BD made me skip through 5 or 6 previews. That's almost worth the $400 right there! The Samsung comes with a tiny remote, and the player itself is small, reminiscent of the light, $30 cheapo BD players. It fits nicely right on top of the Oppo. I used up the last of my switch's ethernet connections for it. Geez, I though 8 ports would be plenty! I updated its firmware immediately, before playing the first movie.
> 
> IMO, it's worth it for the Atmos. Deadpool's BD doesn't provide the Atmos track, and there was definitely a lot of overhead action throughout the movie that sounded absolutely amazing via the UHD's Atmos. So, it's a keeper for when I can only get Atmos via the UHD. At $400, it's a tough pill to swallow, but it would be tougher to live with knowing there's better, but inaccessible, audio to be had, especially after I already made such a heavy investment in speakers and amp to play Atmos.
> 
> My Yamaha 3050's DTS:Neural-X and DSU soundfield up-conversion surround modes are a fallback option for getting the height speakers in play for non-atmos, non DTS-X encoded movies, but I haven't tried that yet. It may be a perfectly viable way to enjoy Atmos-like sound from a 5.1 or 7.1 source, but if I'm being honest, I'm still going to want true Atmos or DTS-X if I know its available in that format.


I have the BDP-103 also and from what I see I'm not ready to drop $400 on the Sammy and get a worse picture just to get Atmos. I appreciate the time you took to do this and I'll be interested to see if your tweaking gets the Sammy picture closer to the Oppo's. Keep us posted.


----------



## PioManiac

vsorgi said:


> I have the BDP-103 also and from what I see I'm not ready to drop $400 on the Sammy and get a worse picture just to get Atmos. I appreciate the time you took to do this and I'll be interested to see if your tweaking gets the Sammy picture closer to the Oppo's. Keep us posted.


Is the difference really the player(s)
or is it due to a vastly different color space on 4K material?
Rec. 2020 UHD vs rec. 709 for HDTV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020

If so, will your display(s) need two separate calibrations for 4K vs 1080 source material?

I may not be quite ready to make a 4K jump just yet, 

I like Atmos/DTS:X but I don't think I would give up PQ to get it on 4K UHD exclusive releases
especially if I can up-mix using DSU/N:X and simulate 7.2.4 from a regular 1080p BD.


----------



## ALtlOff

I'm still, and will for a while, be using a 1080p projector, so it's the opposite for me, I'd rather have the Atmos... But for now, I'll just start buying everything "new" in the UHD combo pack and simply bite my lip until the Oppo UHD's are available.


----------



## williamwallace

Carlucci said:


> I went ahead and picked up the UBD-K8500The Samsung UHD player, and put it head to head against my Oppo BDP-103. So, an entry level UHD player against arguably the best BD player on the market. Sounds like a fair fight.
> 
> The Samsung works as expected, and delivers the Atmos from the UHD disk while down-converting the video to 1080p. I watched scenes from San Andreas in both, and then watched Deadpool on the Sammy only.
> 
> Preliminary thoughts on A/B comparison of UHD downconvert to 1080p, versus Bluray on the Oppo. This is with no video calibration done on either player, both going through the AVR with no processing, and using the REF (reference) setting on the Sony VPL-HW40ES Projector (Oppo pics are the ones with the "pause" indicator in the upper left):
> 
> I don't see any dramatic difference in detail for either, but definitely the Samsung UHD was darker and and had a little less definition than the Oppo BD. You guys have much better eyes for this sort of thing, so what do you see? I think with some tweaking of the settings (brightness, sharpness), they could be made to look nearly identical. I plan on doing some calibrations with the Disney WOW tool this weekend. I'll have to RTFM for the projector to see if I can save more than one custom setting per input, but if not, I can always run another HDMI and use the 2nd input on the projector.
> 
> Video in motion. Nothing noticeable to these eyes. Maybe a bit more blur on the Samsung. It took around 15 seconds to switch from one source to the other by the time I paused, pressed the right button to switch sources, and waited for the video to appear after the handshake, and by then I'd forgotten what I'd just seen. LOL! But nothing jarring. The end credits of Deadpool on the Samsung had some weird little glowing effect as they scrolled. I'll need to see if that's in the BD too.
> 
> Playback wise, I did have one problem when initially loading Deadpool. The menu audio started, but the screen said that my TV was not HDCP 2.2 compliant. I just hit the Home button, and reloaded the disc, and it resolved itself.
> 
> I loved how the UHD went straight to the menu for San Andreas, while the BD made me skip through 5 or 6 previews. That's almost worth the $400 right there! The Samsung comes with a tiny remote, and the player itself is small, reminiscent of the light, $30 cheapo BD players. It fits nicely right on top of the Oppo. I used up the last of my switch's ethernet connections for it. Geez, I though 8 ports would be plenty! I updated its firmware immediately, before playing the first movie.
> 
> IMO, it's worth it for the Atmos. Deadpool's BD doesn't provide the Atmos track, and there was definitely a lot of overhead action throughout the movie that sounded absolutely amazing via the UHD's Atmos. So, it's a keeper for when I can only get Atmos via the UHD. At $400, it's a tough pill to swallow, but it would be tougher to live with knowing there's better, but inaccessible, audio to be had, especially after I already made such a heavy investment in speakers and amp to play Atmos.
> 
> My Yamaha 3050's DTS:Neural-X and DSU soundfield up-conversion surround modes are a fallback option for getting the height speakers in play for non-atmos, non DTS-X encoded movies, but I haven't tried that yet. It may be a perfectly viable way to enjoy Atmos-like sound from a 5.1 or 7.1 source, but if I'm being honest, I'm still going to want true Atmos or DTS-X if I know its available in that format.


Glad you're liking the player. I got one of the first ones Best Buy delivered and have no regrets. Definitely play around with the picture settings on the K8500. A few folks in the K8500 owner's thread bump up sharpness and brightness to help with the picture and prefer it to the Oppo PQ.


----------



## nickbuol

PioManiac said:


> Is the difference really the player(s)
> or is it due to a vastly different color space on 4K material?
> Rec. 2020 UHD vs rec. 709 for HDTV
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
> 
> If so, will your display(s) need two separate calibrations for 4K vs 1080 source material?
> 
> I may not be quite ready to make a 4K jump just yet,
> 
> I like Atmos/DTS:X but I don't think I would give up PQ to get it on 4K UHD exclusive releases
> especially if I can up-mix using DSU/N:X and simulate 7.2.4 from a regular 1080p BD.


There are numerous reports, including one with pictures just above this a bit, that playing back Rec 2020 (used with UHD/4K) on a Rec 709 (1080p) display where there is black crush and overall a loss of detail in the dark areas as well. Rumor has it that the soon to be released Panasonic player handles this "conversion" better than the currently available Samsung and doesn't kill the dark areas.

Not sure how much of that can be corrected at the display with an alternate set of settings, but that is an interesting idea (setting up 2 calibrated settings).


----------



## williamwallace

Ricoflashback said:


> For all of those who dislike the absence of Dolby Atmos on regular Bluray discs (as I do) and the purposeful inclusion of immersive soundtracks ONLY on new UHD discs - - a decision has to be made.
> 
> In my case, I live in a "1080P" world with a combo projector/lcd/led TV. I do not buy Bluray discs. I rent from Redbox as it is very cheap and close to my house.
> 
> I've made the decision to forgo 4K/UHD/HDR and will not be buying a UHD Bluray player for a long time. I'll live with what I can find, Dolby Atmos wise, and use DTS Neo X (11.1.2 setup with "Front Wides.") since I have an older Denon x5200 that I purchased for a very low price.
> 
> Instead of getting mad, I've just decided to live with what I have and try to find Dolby Atmos content where I can. I'll save money buy not having to buy a new UHD Bluray player (my OPPO 103 does a great job) and for those of you who are going "all in" with the new formats - - good for you.
> 
> I don't think Redbox will have UHD/4K titles for many, many moons (years), if EVER. Only if the studios stop manufacturing the DVD & Bluray format will Redbox have to change. But again, that ain't happening within the next five years, if at all.
> 
> Enjoy what you can enjoy and don't worry about what you cannot control. We'll see how successful UHD Bluray is in the upcoming years.


Good thoughts.

For me, spending $400 on top of the $3500+ I've invested in my Atmos system was a no brainer. Only time will tell if the format will be long term successful. But by all early reports, the demand has exceeded both Samsung and the studios expectations, so I'm hoping it will be.


----------



## nickbuol

williamwallace said:


> Good thoughts.
> 
> For me, spending $400 on top of the $3500+ I've invested in my Atmos system was a no brainer. Only time will tell if the format will be long term successful. But by all early reports, the demand has exceeded both Samsung and the studios expectations, so I'm hoping it will be.


Same boat here with the $3500 upgrade for Atmos, and the more I think about it it seems to make more and more sense to pull the trigger on UHD even though I don't have a 4K projector. I just want to wait for more player options to come out since the Samsung has the reports of black crush when displaying 1080p, plus I've fallen into that "Gen 1" HD-DVD and Blu-Ray trap years ago where Gen 2 players were so much better (and cheaper). Throw in that my daughter is getting married in 2 weeks (wow is a wedding expensive) and even $400 is tough.


----------



## PioManiac

The Samsung 4K 8500 player in Canada is $600

and I have more reservations over that 
then upgrading my 8 y/o Epson projector to a new Faux-K JVC RS400.

I'm totally torn on which direction to go at the moment.

I have my 4K AVR (RX-A3050) for 7.4.4 Atmos/DTS:X audio in place already
but the price/performance of the sammy up here has a strangle hold on me
..plus 4K UHD's are $36 in Canada 

So far I love the 20+ 1080p BD's I have with Atmos/DTS:X
and no issues with my DSU/Neural:X up-mixers on older BD's


----------



## gene4ht

nickbuol said:


> I own Unbroken and Everest, but have not watched either yet. Maybe I will see if I can sneak a few minutes tonight and at least watch the opening bombing run.


Agree that the 'bombing run" in Unbroken is excellent Atmos demo material...note that the scene/clip is also included in the @pjvader Reelwood 2016 demo disc you previously mentioned.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...eelwood-demo-disc-2016-dolby-atmos-dts-x.html


----------



## nickbuol

gene4ht said:


> Agree that the 'bombing run" in Unbroken is excellent Atmos demo material...note that the scene/clip is also included in the @*pjvader* Reelwood 2016 demo disc you previously mentioned.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...eelwood-demo-disc-2016-dolby-atmos-dts-x.html


Yeah, I was one of the first downloaders and seeders of the 2016 Reelwood (I even posted a link about it here in post 39981).  Lots of nice demo material. Thanks for mentioning that though as it could be helpful to others that are looking for demo material.


----------



## TRINADS

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would pick up the titles you want on UHD Blu-ray just to future proof if they happen to have exclusive immersive soundtracks. Those won't be getting immersive tracks on regular Blu anyway, and at least they come with a standard disc until you can get a player.


That's a great idea. Do all UHD discs come with a UHD disc AND Blu-ray Disc? Or do UHD discs work in a regular Bluray player but without the 4K? Might b a dumb question but I don't know the answer.


----------



## petetherock

Right now in the infancy of UHD, all of them include a regular BR disc. That is likely to change in future. 
The UHD disc won't play in your regular BR player, sorry.


----------



## Selden Ball

TRINADS said:


> That's a great idea. Do all UHD discs come with a UHD disc AND Blu-ray Disc?


So far, yes, although, depending on the studio, the Blu-ray usually does not include Atmos.


> Or do UHD discs work in a regular Bluray player but without the 4K? Might b a dumb question but I don't know the answer.


 No, you can't play a 4K UHD disc in a non-UHD player, although a UHD player can be used to downscale and show a 4K movie on a 1080p display.


----------



## Ricoflashback

nickbuol said:


> Same boat here with the $3500 upgrade for Atmos, and the more I think about it it seems to make more and more sense to pull the trigger on UHD even though I don't have a 4K projector. I just want to wait for more player options to come out since the Samsung has the reports of black crush when displaying 1080p, plus I've fallen into that "Gen 1" HD-DVD and Blu-Ray trap years ago where Gen 2 players were so much better (and cheaper). Throw in that my daughter is getting married in 2 weeks (wow is a wedding expensive) and even $400 is tough.


Yeah, but think of all that video that you can shoot in 4K/UHD/HDR for the wedding! It will be preserved for all time and will enable you to justify the purchase of a new videocam, 4K UHD player and a large screen 4K/UHD/HDR!

I have the beginnings of your loan application filled out. Go ahead and PM me and we'll get the ball rolling. Just kidding - enjoy the wedding!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TRINADS said:


> That's a great idea. Do all UHD discs come with a UHD disc AND Blu-ray Disc? Or do UHD discs work in a regular Bluray player but without the 4K? Might b a dumb question but I don't know the answer.


Yes. Except in France where it looks like Sony, at least, will only be packaging UHD Blu-ray discs and not bundling a regular Blu together.

No, UHD Blu-ray only works in a UHD Blu-ray player.


----------



## krayziejman

*5.1.4 rear speaker distance from MLP*

Hi everybody - I'm hoping somebody can help with some Atmos 5.1.4 advice.

I am confused as to how far back I should put my surround speakers from my main listening position?

My front speakers are about 12 feet away from MLP, and my 4 Atmos in-ceiling speakers are all at 45 degrees from the MLP.

Ideally, I want to mount my rear speakers about 6 feet off the ground, 8 feet behind my MLP, but the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 diagrams all show the rear speakers very close to the MLP, and positioned just slightly behind the rear ceiling speakers. 

Any advice? I'm getting ready to put drywall up in my basement, but I just can't figure out where to run the wire for the rears.


----------



## ultraflexed

krayziejman said:


> Hi everybody - I'm hoping somebody can help with some Atmos 5.1.4 advice.
> 
> I am confused as to how far back I should put my surround speakers from my main listening position?
> 
> My front speakers are about 12 feet away from MLP, and my 4 Atmos in-ceiling speakers are all at 45 degrees from the MLP.
> 
> Ideally, I want to mount my rear speakers about 6 feet off the ground, 8 feet behind my MLP, but the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 diagrams all show the rear speakers very close to the MLP, and positioned just slightly behind the rear ceiling speakers.
> 
> Any advice? I'm getting ready to put drywall up in my basement, but I just can't figure out where to run the wire for the rears.


Mine are 4 feet away from mlp


----------



## sdurani

krayziejman said:


> Ideally, I want to mount my rear speakers about 6 feet off the ground, 8 feet behind my MLP, but the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 diagrams all show the rear speakers very close to the MLP, and positioned just slightly behind the rear ceiling speakers.


Not sure where you got those numbers from but, when using only 2 surround speakers, you want them on the side walls, slightly rearward of the MLP and slightly above ear level (for clear line of sight to all listeners). Distance to the MLP doesn't matter because it will be compensated for during initial calibration (when setting speaker delays and levels).


----------



## PioManiac

Its all about the angles, not distances











surround back speakers are for 7.1 systems










and all should be near ear level for Atmos


----------



## Selden Ball

And note the big gaping holes between the Front main L&R and the Side Surrounds. As a result, some people like to put Front Wides there to fill in the holes in the soundfield. They work well with Atmos soundtracks, but the Dolby Surround upmixer doesn't use them.  As a result, some people put the Side Surrounds closer to the front speakers.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Well, that didn't work...

My surround speakers were put with the tweeters about 18-22" above ear level as per many recommendations, prior to my setting up Atmos. The main problem with this is that my room's ceiling is not high, and they're only a bit lower than my wide height speakers.

To lower the surround speakers I'd have to get different stands, platforms for them, which isn't convenient right now. So, I saw on the net that many people run studio speakers upside down for recording purposes and it works fine, and better than sideways for bookshelf speakers.

So, I turned my surrounds upside which lowered their tweeters dramatically and re-ran Audyssey. Unfortunately, it just doesn't sound right. It's hard to tease out sometimes, but it just sounds like the mids are missing. The highs are more localizable at near ear level now, but the mid-range doesn't sound good. It's like it's way too bright for the volume, but the volume is too low for the mid-range so that the volume of the highs are OK. I turned them back over again and they sounded better. I noticed this the most when listening to the end music in Gravity Atmos.

I suspect it's because the surrounds are so close to the MLP, at about 5 feet away. Perhaps if they were further away it'd be better, but they aren't.

Next I will try tilting the surrounds down slightly, and then rerunning Audyssey yet again. Note, this is with MultiEQ XT, not XT32.


----------



## TKNice

Finally finished my .4 installation and I certainly made it hard for myself but did figure out how to flush-mount these (on wall) speakers into the ceiling! In the end, I'm happy with how they turned out and now its time to do some serious listening!! My impression of DSU so far is pretty positive. If you've heard PLIIx matrix out the back channels, this is basically the same thing for the ceiling. It adds mostly an ambient type of sound but definitely fills up the room for that immersive feeling!

I have separate amps for the LC R, side and back surrounds, and top speakers, so it's very easy to listen to groups of channels by themselves. This has been great fun and quite eye opening because you really get a good sense of which tracks are mixed better than others. 

I have 5 immersive movies currently to test with which are Fury Road, Sicario, The Heart of the Sea, Goosebumps, and Mockingjay 2. Of all these, Goosebumps seemed to have the most discrete height info throughout the movie. I'm not talking about some whispy, ambient stuff either. If you haven't heard Atmos before, they are mixing very clear and distinct sounds up there like birds chirping or in the case of Goosebumps, lots of monster activity. I watched the giant preying mantis scene three times with different channels active and they basically put his screeching monster sounds right in the ceiling speakers clear as can be. It is quite something!

Here are a few pics of the new speakers:


----------



## adrenalin

Has anyone installed atmos speakers in a sloped ceiling? My options are limited in that room.


----------



## KanosWRX

Regarding Dolby True HD decoding and Atoms decoding. If you have a receiver that supports True HD but not Atmos, when listening to the 7.1 track, would it sound any different then listening to it on an Atmos equipped receiver? I know Atmos is supposed to be object based sound, but I wonder does that apply to the normal first 7 channels as well? So listening to a movie that was encoded for Atmos, but is then played on a older receiver that has only normal TrueHD 7.1 decoding capabilities, vs listening to the same movie with a receiver that would process the actual TrueHD Atmos soundtrack and process it accordingly. Would they sound different. Would that Atmos equipped receiver provide better spacial sound?

The reason I ask is, I have a Denon X4000 right now. If I were to start putting together my Atmos setup by buying a new receiver today that supports Atmos, would I see any immediate benefit with my current 7.2 setup? Or is it only once you add the heights you would get any benefit at all.


----------



## sdurani

KanosWRX said:


> If you have a receiver that supports True HD but not Atmos, when listening to the 7.1 track, would it sound any different then listening to it on an Atmos equipped receiver?


No, it would sound the same (in both cases, you'd be listening to the backwards compatible 7.1-channel mix).


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

KanosWRX said:


> Regarding Dolby True HD decoding and Atoms decoding. If you have a receiver that supports True HD but not Atmos, when listening to the 7.1 track, would it sound any different then listening to it on an Atmos equipped receiver? I know Atmos is supposed to be object based sound, but I wonder does that apply to the normal first 7 channels as well? So listening to a movie that was encoded for Atmos, but is then played on a older receiver that has only normal TrueHD 7.1 decoding capabilities, vs listening to the same movie with a receiver that would process the actual TrueHD Atmos soundtrack and process it accordingly. Would they sound different. Would that Atmos equipped receiver provide better spacial sound?
> 
> The reason I ask is, I have a Denon X4000 right now. If I were to start putting together my Atmos setup by buying a new receiver today that supports Atmos, would I see any immediate benefit with my current 7.2 setup? Or is it only once you add the heights you would get any benefit at all.


It would sound different with a new Atmos receiver. How different depends on the track and the setup.

EDIT: Disregard. I misread your post.


----------



## KanosWRX

sdurani said:


> No, it would sound the same (in both cases, you'd be listening to the backwards compatible 7.1-channel mix).


So Atmos provides no benefit over TrueHD in a 7.1 scenario. The actual encoding of the soundtrack with their object based methods will decode and play the exact same whether you have Atmos or not.

Got two different answers now


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Sorry, I misread your post. Yeah, if you don't rearrange your speakers for Atmos or get new Atmos speakers, there would be no difference.

However, I think 5.1.2 is better than 7.1.


----------



## PioManiac

KanosWRX said:


> So Atmos provides no benefit over TrueHD in a 7.1 scenario. The actual encoding of the soundtrack with their object based methods will decode and play the exact same whether you have Atmos or not.
> 
> Got two different answers now


Atmos is the TrueHD audio track with height/object meta data added to the stream,
when there are height speakers configured in an Atmos enabled AVR, the height info is extracted.

If the height channels are removed the core TrueHD plays as normal 7.1


----------



## Selden Ball

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> It would sound different with a new Atmos receiver. How different depends on the track and the setup.


Only if you add overhead speakers. 

When using a traditional "ear level" speaker configuration, the same sounds will be sent to the same speakers by any receiver capable of decoding Dolby TrueHD. All of the Atmos audio objects would have been downmixed into the 7.1 ear-level channels when the soundtrack was recorded. Those 7.1 channels then get decoded with the same Dolby TrueHD algorithms. Of course, if you have a non-traditional 7.1 speaker configuration without Rear Surrounds (having Front Wides or Front Heights instead), then all bets are off.


----------



## sdurani

KanosWRX said:


> The actual encoding of the soundtrack with their object based methods will decode and play the exact same whether you have Atmos or not.


It will until the number of speakers exceeds the number of channels. If you add Wides and/or Heights to your set-up, the legacy 7.1 mix won't have channels to cover those speaker locations, at which point the Atmos decoder will activate to render the object-based mix to your speaker layout.


----------



## thebland

Subjectively, I am liking Neural X over Atmos upmixing.


----------



## checker9

thebland said:


> Subjectively, I am liking Neural X over Atmos upmixing.


Does it only work for PCM and DTS or can you configure it for Dolby Digital and TrueHD?


----------



## PioManiac

thebland said:


> Subjectively, I am liking Neural X over Atmos upmixing.


Me too!



checker9 said:


> Does it only work for PCM and DTS or can you configure it for Dolby Digital and TrueHD?


Yamaha AVR's can use any up-mixer they want on any content


----------



## Ricoflashback

Selden Ball said:


> And note the big gaping holes between the Front main L&R and the Side Surrounds. As a result, some people like to put Front Wides there to fill in the holes in the soundfield. They work well with Atmos soundtracks, but the Dolby Surround upmixer doesn't use them.  As a result, some people put the Side Surrounds closer to the front speakers.


I have "Front Wides" in a 11.1.2 configuration but no DTS X (older Denon x5200). Consequently, for everything except for Dolby Atmos, I use DTS Neo X. It's worked out very well for my smaller man cave - - especially with the emphasis on the center channel (Neo X Cinema) As you say, it fills in the holes quite nicely for an immersive environment. 

Does the DTS X upmixer incorporate "Front Wides?"


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Does the DTS _Neural_ X upmixer incorporate "Front Wides?"


Yes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PioManiac said:


> Yamaha AVR's can use any up-mixer they want on any content


Denon and Marantz gear are supposed to be receiving new firmware to address the cross format upmixing issue. If DTS had their X codec pack ready to go when these products launched, this would not have been a problem.


----------



## thebland

checker9 said:


> Does it only work for PCM and DTS or can you configure it for Dolby Digital and TrueHD?





PioManiac said:


> Me too!
> 
> 
> 
> Yamaha AVR's can use any up-mixer they want on any content


As does Trinnov. Mix and match Auro, Neural X and DSU.


----------



## Al Sherwood

thebland said:


> As does Trinnov. Mix and match Auro, Neural X and DSU.


The Trinnov certainly is a flexible beast! Every time I visit their site I am overwhelmed with the choices... one day I will figure out 'if' that might be the route to go. I doubt that I will need 32 channels but would love to have more then the current AVR's can deal with.


----------



## thebland

Al Sherwood said:


> The Trinnov certainly is a flexible beast! Every time I visit their site I am overwhelmed with the choices... one day I will figure out 'if' that might be the route to go. I doubt that I will need 32 channels but would love to have more then the current AVR's can deal with.


Me, too... I am using 24 channels on my rig.

It is incredibly flexible but a nice feature is that there are no superfluous surround modes (or Dolby or DTS spin offs - eg Stadium, Concert hall, Music, etc). 

When it is a native Dolby track, you play Dolby, DTS native track, DTS. Up-mixers are by choice and any can be set as defaults for any input.

I do have a 'Music' mode but it was programmed in the EQ portion to cut the LFE, etc... It is global - no DTS Music, Dolby Music, etc

There's a lot of technology but the user experience is very intuitive and simple.


----------



## Kain

I know this has been discussed in this thread before, but I wanted to get a "dedicated" discussion on what most people think about having the side surround speakers (when used in conjunction with back surround speakers; i.e. 7.1.x) slightly in front of the main listening position. It is a route I'll most likely have to take due to the layout of my room.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...eakers-slightly-front-listening-position.html


----------



## thebland

It's fine. Just not ideal. If you can't move them, so be it.


----------



## Al Sherwood

thebland said:


> Me, too... I am using 24 channels on my rig.
> 
> It is incredibly flexible but a nice feature is that there are no superfluous surround modes (or Dolby or DTS spin offs - eg Stadium, Concert hall, Music, etc).
> 
> When it is a native Dolby track, you play Dolby, DTS native track, DTS. Up-mixers are by choice and any can be set as defaults for any input.
> 
> I do have a 'Music' mode but it was programmed in the EQ portion to cut the LFE, etc... It is global - no DTS Music, Dolby Music, etc
> 
> There's a lot of technology but the user experience is very intuitive and simple.


Hmmmm, I have looked at your HT thread before, but don't see the upgrade to what you mentioned here:



> AV Electronics
> 
> Datasat RS20i surround processor with Auro 3D; Atmos update coming 2015


Jeff, we can continue in this thread or if you like in your HT of the month thread... Thanks!


----------



## sojodave

When Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Goes Wrong...










My stud finder found the edges of the beams, but they didn't see the duct underneath. Of course, I did it again, and found a second duct. Third time was the charm. DOH!!! Mrs. Sojodave was not amused.


----------



## Ash Sharma

sojodave said:


> When Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Goes Wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My stud finder found the edges of the beams, but they didn't see the duct underneath. Of course, I did it again, and found a second duct. Third time was the charm. DOH!!! Mrs. Sojodave was not amused.


Mama must be so mad...


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

sojodave said:


> When Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Goes Wrong...


Folks may want to use something like this before cutting large holes in the ceiling. Little hole = easier to patch


----------



## Al Sherwood

sojodave said:


> When Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Goes Wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My stud finder found the edges of the beams, but they didn't see the duct underneath. Of course, I did it again, and found a second duct. Third time was the charm. DOH!!! Mrs. Sojodave was not amused.


You should have warned me about this story! 

I had my morning coffee coming out my nose I was laughing so hard!


----------



## gene4ht

sojodave said:


> When Dolby Atmos Speaker Installation Goes Wrong...
> 
> My stud finder found the edges of the beams, but they didn't see the duct underneath. Of course, I did it again, and found a second duct. Third time was the charm. DOH!!! Mrs. Sojodave was not amused.


For those of you who did not have a "scope," the repair is actually not that bad...especially if you've saved the circular cutout. YouTube is your friend...and there are many examples. I've done several of these for various projects (kids kicking wall, repair plumbing, leaking foundation wall, etc.)...the skill develops quickly.


----------



## sdurani

One of the manufacturers of Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers needs to license that pic for their ads.


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> one of the manufacturers of atmos-enabled upfiring speakers needs to license that pic for their ads.


lol!!!


----------



## PeterTHX

PioManiac said:


> Atmos is the TrueHD audio track with height/object meta data added to the stream,
> when there are height speakers configured in an Atmos enabled AVR, the height info is extracted.
> 
> If the height channels are removed the core TrueHD plays as normal 7.1



Keep in mind objects go to *all channels*, not just height.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

gene4ht said:


> For those of you who did not have a "scope," the repair is actually not that bad...especially if you've saved the circular cutout. YouTube is your friend...and there are many examples. I've done several of these for various projects (kids kicking wall, repair plumbing, leaking foundation wall, etc.)...the skill develops quickly.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K37G2j0K8BA


The problem though is that ceiling is textured. He'll lose the texturing with the repair.

Another option is to put a speaker grill over each hole... without a speaker underneath.


----------



## gene4ht

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> The problem though is that ceiling is textured. He'll lose the texturing with the repair.
> 
> Another option is to put a speaker grill over each hole... without a speaker underneath.


Not really a problem...just becomes a two step process. The basic repair still has to be done...then the texture reapplied over the repair. The issue is finding the right or similar patterned applicator (sponge or molded pattern). The local HD/Lowes or professional painter should be able to point the OP in the right direction. Then again, he could follow your suggestion or if the Mrs insists, he can have it professionally repaired.


----------



## jlanzy

Dan Hitchman said:


> The SVS Prime Satellite speakers with ceiling brackets would be great. Just aim them at the main listening position.



I just got the Wharfendale Diamond 10.1 to put up for the top rears with a short ceiling bracket, a bit bigger but they get fairly good reviews. I have a 7' 10" ceiling with top front speakers of another brand, now extinct, for dts neo x and a front projector. I may get another pair for the top fronts if they don't block the pj light path, room is only 14' wide. I've placed the current top front bookshelf speaker sideways aiming towards the MLP for the dts neo x, and might have to do the same to keep the light path clear if I change the top fronts to Wharfendales.


----------



## jrogers

Ricoflashback said:


> The only way I found the "Atmos" episode of "Black Sails" was to use the search function with my Comcast remote and I typed in "Atmos." Then, I scrolled down to find "Black Sails" and it said "Atmos" with the information.
> 
> Then, when I played the episode, it showed up on my Denon x5200 as "CAB/SAT Dolby Atmos" and when you press "Info" on your Denon remote - - you will see the signal as DD+ & Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Well - no luck for me. Tried on my X1 DVR box and I just get Dolby Digital on those titles, then tried on my X1 "anyroom" box, and no sound at all. I'm guessing I need updated X1 hardware - both boxes only let me choose between Stereo and Dolby Digital for audio settings. Would you mind telling me what X1 box you have? The one in my theater is a SA PR150BNCD. Thx.


----------



## asarose247

ATMOS Demo disc question

I tried a search but nothing seemed to pop up, 

The Helicopter demo, does it make a full 360 degree sweep/movement thru the tops/

I get plenty of top action, that's to be expected, but it seems to sweep primarily from TFL around back and then to TFR and then back again and again. very very nice

It never goes to to directly overhead centered in front between TFL and TFR

could the SCATMOS TM's be creating a rearward/not enough front tops bias.

DUH! I can pull the banana plugs on the TM's myself, and start all over again, gseeeesssshh!

OTOH Leaf demo goes crazy all over the place, same for audiosphere . . 

your experience/knowledge appreciated,


----------



## asarose247

FTR

unpluggd the TM's

re-did aiming of TF's, i had them too much cross fired 

definitely a more decidedly noticable transition from TFR to TFL, so

back to the drawing board


----------



## AllenA07

Kain said:


> I know this has been discussed in this thread before, but I wanted to get a "dedicated" discussion on what most people think about having the side surround speakers (when used in conjunction with back surround speakers; i.e. 7.1.x) slightly in front of the main listening position. It is a route I'll most likely have to take due to the layout of my room.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...eakers-slightly-front-listening-position.html


Dolby gives you a range from 90-110 degrees. So if they really are just slightly in front of you there is a chance that you're still going to fall within Dolby's own recommendations. If not I wouldn't stress it too much. In my old theater my side surrounds weren't even perfectly symmetrical (one speaker was nearly 8 inches further forward then the other side) and I survived. Room correction will set delays which should go a long way towards solving your problem.


----------



## sojodave

AllenA07 said:


> Dolby gives you a range from 90-110 degrees. So if they really are just slightly in front of you there is a chance that you're still going to fall within Dolby's own recommendations. If not I wouldn't stress it too much. In my old theater my side surrounds weren't even perfectly symmetrical (one speaker was nearly 8 inches further forward then the other side) and I survived. Room correction will set delays which should go a long way towards solving your problem.


I have two rows of seating and my side speaker is between the two rows. Because of the position, I am running a 7.2.2 and it sounds amazing. Unfortunately, if I ran a 5.2.4, my rear speakers would actually be slightly in front of the back row.


----------



## jrogers

Ricoflashback said:


> The only way I found the "Atmos" episode of "Black Sails" was to use the search function with my Comcast remote and I typed in "Atmos." Then, I scrolled down to find "Black Sails" and it said "Atmos" with the information.
> 
> Then, when I played the episode, it showed up on my Denon x5200 as "CAB/SAT Dolby Atmos" and when you press "Info" on your Denon remote - - you will see the signal as DD+ & Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Couldn't get it working so talked with Comcast and here is the reason, "As per checking you are using older version of X1 which is RNG150. Our new X1 Xg2 supports Dolby Digital Plus. You can go for xg2 hd equipment." I plan to swap out my box soon.


----------



## checker9

Dolby's specification for top middle speakers is 65 to 100 degrees. I am fixing to mount over head speakers. Per my measurements I can do 105 degrees fairly easily and while I can do 100 degrees it would present more difficult mounting. 

Since 100 degrees was upper limit, do you think 100 degrees versus 105 degrees would make a material sound difference - would 105 degrees hamper the sound?


----------



## lovingdvd

NorthSky said:


>



That first one was created by me, seemingly a year or so ago. I built it off of Doby's recommended Atmos speaker layouts. I wound up going with an AT screen.


----------



## petetherock

checker9 said:


> Dolby's specification for top middle speakers is 65 to 100 degrees. I am fixing to mount over head speakers. Per my measurements I can do 105 degrees fairly easily and while I can do 100 degrees it would present more difficult mounting.
> 
> Since 100 degrees was upper limit, do you think 100 degrees versus 105 degrees would make a material sound difference - would 105 degrees hamper the sound?


IMO a guide is what it is - a guide... no worries


----------



## NorthSky

lovingdvd said:


> That first one was created by me, seemingly a year or so ago. I built it off of Doby's recommended Atmos speaker layouts. I wound up going with an AT screen.


Only missing are the two back surrounds (ear level)...the two doors entrance...for an 11.2.8 Dolby Atmos setup.


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> Only missing are the two back surrounds (ear level)...the two doors entrance...


Or rather a pair of 2nd surrounds at 120 degrees I would say.


----------



## Selden Ball

checker9 said:


> Dolby's specification for top middle speakers is 65 to 100 degrees. I am fixing to mount over head speakers. Per my measurements I can do 105 degrees fairly easily and while I can do 100 degrees it would present more difficult mounting.
> 
> Since 100 degrees was upper limit, do you think 100 degrees versus 105 degrees would make a material sound difference - would 105 degrees hamper the sound?


People have reported that Top Middle sounds best if the speakers are slightly in front of the seating rather than behind.


----------



## smurraybhm

Selden Ball said:


> People have reported that Top Middle sounds best if the speakers are slightly in front of the seating rather than behind.


I second that as someone who is doing exactly what Selden Ball recommends above and experimented with a number of placements before settling on the slightly in front of the MLP. The other thing to mention is if you are running Atmos only with a Denon receiver use TF/TR for the speaker config regardless if those speakers are in the TM location. After reading more than a few folks who had tested the various configs, then getting the Dolby Demo Disk with the test tones, I can vouch that TF/TR is best given the Denon/Atmos only limitation.


----------



## Ricoflashback

jrogers said:


> Couldn't get it working so talked with Comcast and here is the reason, "As per checking you are using older version of X1 which is RNG150. Our new X1 Xg2 supports Dolby Digital Plus. You can go for xg2 hd equipment." I plan to swap out my box soon.


Glad you figured it out. I wasn't sure what type of equipment I had but my Comcast Account says it's the MO MX011ANM. I'm not sure if that's the latest "box" or not. But it does work with DD+ and Dolby Atmos. I had Comcast installed in July, 2015. 

X1 DVRs:
MO MX011ANM 
PC PX013ANM
???


----------



## nickbuol

smurraybhm said:


> I second that as someone who is doing exactly what Selden Ball recommends above and experimented with a number of placements before settling on the slightly in front of the MLP. The other thing to mention is if you are running Atmos only with a Denon receiver use TF/TR for the speaker config regardless if those speakers are in the TM location. After reading more than a few folks who had tested the various configs, then getting the Dolby Demo Disk with the test tones, I can vouch that TF/TR is best given the Denon/Atmos only limitation.


Sorry, hopefully you can clarify this for me (just to make sure that I am following you)...

4 ceiling speakers:
2 out in front a bit like normal (TF location with TF setting in the receiver)
2 just in front of the MLP (TM location with TR setting in the receiver)

I mean, it sounds like that is what you are saying, but I just wanted to make sure. I've got 2 rows of seats, and my TM placed speakers (TR setting on my Anthem receiver) is just behind my MLP in the front row, and I am not getting the effect desired out of that pair. I want to relocate them and was thinking about putting them in a "traditional" location just behind the 2nd row, but when I get time, I want to experiment more with placement of that pair, and have been gathering notes of what others are liking so that I can try something else. What you describe is something that I would have never thought of (assuming I have your assessment correct), so I just wanted to double check.

Thanks.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> I second that as someone who is doing exactly what Selden Ball recommends above and experimented with a number of placements before settling on the slightly in front of the MLP. The other thing to mention is if you are running Atmos only with a Denon receiver use TF/TR for the speaker config regardless if those speakers are in the TM location. After reading more than a few folks who had tested the various configs, then getting the Dolby Demo Disk with the test tones, I can vouch that TF/TR is best given the Denon/Atmos only limitation.


Selden knows his stuff. I don't know if there is any way to test an Atmos configuration (Ceiling Speakers) without cutting into the drywall and installing everything. And...depending on your room, you might get different results. 

Unfortunately for my setup, I could not install ceiling speakers as my man cave is in the basement of an older 1970's house. The basement is already finished and I just couldn't find an economical way to get through all the beams and insulation. 

So, I went with "Front Wides" and "Front Heights" which has worked out very well in my narrower HT.

Kudos to the poster, though, who made the comment as I was deciding what best to do (installation wise) that "One of our AVS members, Ricoflashback, recently succumbed to Mesothelioma after tearing through his basement ceiling during his Atmos installation." 

You can always count on AVS Members for great support and feedback.


----------



## krayziejman

sdurani said:


> Not sure where you got those numbers from but, when using only 2 surround speakers, you want them on the side walls, slightly rearward of the MLP and slightly above ear level (for clear line of sight to all listeners). Distance to the MLP doesn't matter because it will be compensated for during initial calibration (when setting speaker delays and levels).


Thanks - another question. Is it ok if the rear ceiling Atmos speakers are father back from the MLP than the position of the surround speakers?

My rear ceiling Atmos speakers are about 4.5 feet back from the MLP, but the best place for me to put the surround speakers is about 3 feet back and to the sides of the MLP.


----------



## sdurani

krayziejman said:


> Is it ok if the rear ceiling Atmos speakers are father back from the MLP than the position of the surround speakers?


Sure, stick with roughly 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of the MLP for height speakers, irrespective of surround placement.


----------



## checker9

smurraybhm said:


> The other thing to mention is if you are running Atmos only with a Denon receiver use TF/TR for the speaker config regardless if those speakers are in the TM location. After reading more than a few folks who had tested the various configs, then getting the Dolby Demo Disk with the test tones, I can vouch that TF/TR is best given the Denon/Atmos only limitation.



What do you mean by Atmos 

I have a 5.1.2 set-up now. Depending on content, I use DSU, Atmos, DTS:X, or DTS: Neural. I plan to either add two more speakers or first, trying my speakers on top, firing down, slightly behind me 10 degrees or so. If I move my two height speakers to top, firing down, slightly behind me, to what setting should I set them. Not top middle? With only 2 speakers wouldn't I miss out on content if I set them to top rear?


----------



## ALtlOff

checker9 said:


> What do you mean by Atmos
> 
> I have a 5.1.2 set-up now. Depending on content, I use DSU, Atmos, DTS:X, or DTS: Neural. I plan to either add two more speakers or first, trying my speakers on top, firing down, slightly behind me 10 degrees or so. If I move my two height speakers to top, firing down, slightly behind me, to what setting should I set them. Not top middle? With only 2 speakers wouldn't I miss out on content if I set them to top rear?


I believe what he's referring to is in a x.x.4 setup with an Atmos "only" receiver. (Basically you're better off using TF & TR as opposed to FH & TM, even if your layout suggests that TM is correct) I also agree with this.
I think I would only use a TM designation with a x.x.2 system in most cases.


----------



## dvdwilly3

krayziejman said:


> Thanks - another question. Is it ok if the rear ceiling Atmos speakers are father back from the MLP than the position of the surround speakers?
> 
> My rear ceiling Atmos speakers are about 4.5 feet back from the MLP, but the best place for me to put the surround speakers is about 3 feet back and to the sides of the MLP.


That is just about the same as my configuration and it works just fine.

Check your angles relative to your MLP. I find that influences perception as much or more than distances (within limits...).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Looks like the new game Overwatch is getting (or had) Dolby Atmos support on the PC.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...et-to-enable-dolby-atmos-for-headphones/32262

From the article, it sounds like it is a headphone only feature? This and Star Wars:Battlefront are the only two games out that support Dolby Atmos and both for their PC version only.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Or rather a pair of 2nd surrounds at 120 degrees I would say.


And that too...13.2.8 Dolby Atmos setup. ...For larger rooms with two rows of seats. * Not avail in receivers and inexpensive pre/pros. 

The main interest was the design, and the options. ...Say for a 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup, and still with two rows of seats.
I like the design, and the experimentation side of it, with various speaker's positioning. ...To give members their own Atmos exploration...in particular with the addition of DTS:X which is now included in the majority of the newer receivers and pre/pros. ...Plus Auro-3D in some of the Denon/Marantz units.


----------



## checker9

ALtlOff said:


> I believe what he's referring to is in a x.x.4 setup with an Atmos "only" receiver. (Basically you're better off using TF & TR as opposed to FH & TM, even if your layout suggests that TM is correct) I also agree with this.
> I think I would only use a TM designation with a x.x.2 system in most cases.


I might try moving my single pair to ~10 degrees behind (100 from listening position) but at top firing down, which is within the Dolby specifications of 65 to 100 for top middle, so while not optimal like 80-90 degrees would be, I assume it should work okay. Has anyone tried that? For a single pair of height speakers, should that be better than front height at 30 degrees, which is what I have now?

I do get added effects from my front height speakers now, and I like the added height sound they provide but it just does not seem as much discrete content, even in Atmos and DTS:X movies, as I thought I would get. I am not sure if it is my set-up or if height content is just sparse.


----------



## zorax2

*ATMOS 5.1.4 Overhead Rear Speaker and Quality of Speaker Needed*

I'm looking at upgrading my Denon X4000 to something with ATMOS and DTS X. I've already got front heights (wall mounted). I cannot add rear heights though I can add in ceiling speakers (9 feet high ceiling) - therefore front heights with top rears. The only problem is that my seating for the main listening position is nearly against the back wall. This means that the rear ATMOS speaker in the ceiling would only be about 6" to 10" behind me - nearly straight above my head at about 100 degrees rather than the preferred 125 to 150 degrees. Will the surround formats still sound okay like this making it worthwhile to install and provide amplification for these rear ceiling speakers?

Second question - I run Kef Reference speakers for mains, center and surrounds (203, 202c, 201). Kef has a CI series (custom install) for ceiling speakers. They offer an in ceiling THX speaker that essentially matches my mains for $799 each retail. They have a lesser "Q" series speaker, which still has matching timbre, for $349 retail. Is it worth the money to spend over double for the THX speakers? I'm thinking there isn't a ton of overhead sound and the "Q" series is likely good enough. What do all of you think based on your experience?


----------



## kanerator

Hi, Brains Trust. Quick question. I have the Pioneer SC-85 and am trying to update the firmware to make it Dolby Atmos capable. I downloaded the Pioneer update file from their site (version 1-295-008-518-124) onto my Mac OS X 10.10.5 computer and put the file onto a Strontium 8 GB USB stick. I went through the update procedure on the amp, but it just keeps saying there is no update file on the stick. Any idea what's going on or what I'm doing wrong? I thought maybe I hadn't unzipped it or something, but doesn't it unzip once I've opened it from my download folder? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, kanerator.


----------



## dannybee

kanerator said:


> Hi, Brains Trust. Quick question. I have the Pioneer SC-85 and am trying to update the firmware to make it Dolby Atmos capable. I downloaded the Pioneer update file from their site (version 1-295-008-518-124) onto my Mac OS X 10.10.5 computer and put the file onto a Strontium 8 GB USB stick. I went through the update procedure on the amp, but it just keeps saying there is no update file on the stick. Any idea what's going on or what I'm doing wrong? I thought maybe I hadn't unzipped it or something, but doesn't it unzip once I've opened it from my download folder? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, kanerator.


Any firmware downloads I do I just copy file to usb then right click on folder and select extract files here and works with out any worries.


----------



## Selden Ball

kanerator said:


> Hi, Brains Trust. Quick question. I have the Pioneer SC-85 and am trying to update the firmware to make it Dolby Atmos capable. I downloaded the Pioneer update file from their site (version 1-295-008-518-124) onto my Mac OS X 10.10.5 computer and put the file onto a Strontium 8 GB USB stick. I went through the update procedure on the amp, but it just keeps saying there is no update file on the stick. Any idea what's going on or what I'm doing wrong? I thought maybe I hadn't unzipped it or something, but doesn't it unzip once I've opened it from my download folder? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, kanerator.


Make sure the thumb drive is formatted with FAT or FAT32, not with HFS.


----------



## pasender91

zorax2 said:


> I'm looking at upgrading my Denon X4000 to something with ATMOS and DTS X. I've already got front heights (wall mounted). I cannot add rear heights though I can add in ceiling speakers (9 feet high ceiling) - therefore front heights with top rears. The only problem is that my seating for the main listening position is nearly against the back wall. This means that the rear ATMOS speaker in the ceiling would only be about 6" to 10" behind me - nearly straight above my head at about 100 degrees rather than the preferred 125 to 150 degrees. Will the surround formats still sound okay like this making it worthwhile to install and provide amplification for these rear ceiling speakers?
> 
> Second question - I run Kef Reference speakers for mains, center and surrounds (203, 202c, 201). Kef has a CI series (custom install) for ceiling speakers. They offer an in ceiling THX speaker that essentially matches my mains for $799 each retail. They have a lesser "Q" series speaker, which still has matching timbre, for $349 retail. Is it worth the money to spend over double for the THX speakers? I'm thinking there isn't a ton of overhead sound and the "Q" series is likely good enough. What do all of you think based on your experience?


For question 1), your positioning is not perfect, it only means you will have to setup your rear speakers as TM (Top Middle), and you will have a FH+TM configuration, not ideal but it will still work, should be worth it.

For question 2), you should install the matching ceiling speaker. I know its easy to say as it is not my cash , but there are at least 2 valid reasons: a) it will be a better sonic match, and b) Atmos soundtracks are getting more and more aggressive on objects, so actually demanding, like for example with Mad Max or Everest.


----------



## zorax2

pasender91 said:


> For question 1), your positioning is not perfect, it only means you will have to setup your rear speakers as TM (Top Middle), and you will have a FH+TM configuration, not ideal but it will still work, should be worth it.


 
I'm likely to purchase a Denon 4200W, 6200W or 7200Wa. According to JD Smoothie of AV Science, if you want both ATMOS and DTS X to work on the current Denon models, you must set the speakers to Front Height and Rear Height. Given this limitation, will the directly overhead in-ceiling speaker still sound good in an ATMOS configuration? I hate the thought of cutting holes in the ceiling and spending $1,500+ for speakers only to have it not sound good.




pasender91 said:


> For question 2), you should install the matching ceiling speaker. *I know its easy to say as it is not my cash *, but there are at least 2 valid reasons: a) it will be a better sonic match, and b) Atmos soundtracks are getting more and more aggressive on objects, so actually demanding, like for example with Mad Max or Everest.


 
After recently purchasing two PSA S3600 subs and a JTR Orbit Shifter LFU, my wallet is screaming for relief. Thanks for the painful, yet probably true, answer to this question. I didn't realize that those channels would have demanding material.


----------



## Selden Ball

zorax2 said:


> I'm likely to purchase a Denon 4200W, 6200W or 7200Wa. According to JD Smoothie of AV Science, if you want both ATMOS and DTS X to work on the current Denon models, you must set the speakers to Front Height and Rear Height. Given this limitation, will the directly overhead in-ceiling speaker still sound good in an ATMOS configuration? I hate the thought of cutting holes in the ceiling and spending $1,500+ for speakers only to have it not sound good.


 Put the rear-most speakers as far to the rear as you can. If that's almost directly overhead, well, that's the breaks. I've seen reports that specifying a speaker designation of Top Rear or Rear Height works quite well, even if they aren't as far back as would be ideal You can change the designations to find out which sounds best to you. While changing the actual physical locations of the speakers can be rather expensive, changing their designations is relatively easy, although it's annoying to have to redo the Audyssey calibration.


> After recently purchasing two PSA S3600 subs and a JTR Orbit Shifter LFU, my wallet is screaming for relief. Thanks for the painful, yet probably true, answer to this question. I didn't realize that those channels would have demanding material.


 Yup. It isn't just ambience like in the olden days when surround-sound was first introduced.


----------



## sojodave

kanerator said:


> Hi, Brains Trust. Quick question. I have the Pioneer SC-85 and am trying to update the firmware to make it Dolby Atmos capable. I downloaded the Pioneer update file from their site (version 1-295-008-518-124) onto my Mac OS X 10.10.5 computer and put the file onto a Strontium 8 GB USB stick. I went through the update procedure on the amp, but it just keeps saying there is no update file on the stick. Any idea what's going on or what I'm doing wrong? I thought maybe I hadn't unzipped it or something, but doesn't it unzip once I've opened it from my download folder? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, kanerator.


1. Hit status on your remote
2. Type the url into your browser
3. Select Network
4. Update the firmware through the browser

I had the same problem and this is how I fixed it.


----------



## Kain

Is there any reason to go with more than four ceiling speakers if you only have one row of seating?


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> Is there any reason to go with more than four ceiling speakers if you only have one row of seating?


Adding a Top Middle certainly can't hurt. Some argue "Mo Speakers, Mo Better", especially when the spacing between speakers is large.

Don't forget that "mainstream" AVRs only support 4 overhead speakers. You have to get a Trinnov Altitude 32 or similar high-end product to get direct support for more than 4 overhead speaker channels. Some people have combined two or more AVRs to do it, though.


----------



## Kain

Selden Ball said:


> Adding a Top Middle certainly can't hurt. Some argue "Mo Speakers, Mo Better", especially when the spacing between speakers is large.
> 
> Don't forget that "mainstream" AVRs only support 4 overhead speakers. You have to get a Trinnov Altitude 32 or similar high-end product to get direct support for more than 4 overhead speaker channels. Some people have combined two or more AVRs to do it, though.


Thanks.

If I go with six ceiling speakers, should they be positioned according to the room's dimensions (i.e. top-front in the front of the room, top-middle in the middle of the room, and top-rear at the rear of the room) or should the top-middle be right over the seating position and the top-front and top-rear somewhere in relation to that?


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> If I go with six ceiling speakers, should they be positioned according to the room's dimensions (i.e. top-front in the front of the room, top-middle in the middle of the room, and top-rear at the rear of the room) or should the top-middle be right over the seating position and the top-front and top-rear somewhere in relation to that?


The positions are relative to the seating. Dolby has guidelines for the positions. See http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## duckymomo

I have a 5.2.4(TF + TR) setup in a small 11x14 room. Do you think it's worth it to plan for eventually adding front heights if/when it's supported? I don't have room for wides or another pair of overheads.


----------



## Selden Ball

duckymomo said:


> I have a 5.2.4(TF + TR) setup in a small 11x14 room. Do you think it's worth it to plan for eventually adding front heights if/when it's supported? I don't have room for wides or another pair of overheads.


 The designations don't matter so much as where the speakers are located: a pair in front, a pair overhead and a pair behind the main listening position seems to be the most recommended configuration for 6 overheads.


----------



## petetherock

Kain said:


> Is there any reason to go with more than four ceiling speakers if you only have one row of seating?


Bragging rights? 
Nah, four is plenty..


----------



## kanerator

sojodave said:


> 1. Hit status on your remote
> 2. Type the url into your browser
> 3. Select Network
> 4. Update the firmware through the browser
> 
> I had the same problem and this is how I fixed it.


Hi. Sojodave. According to the Pioneer website I downloaded the firmware update from this version cannot be updated from the internet, only USB. Also I don't have an internet connection in our garage home cinema.


----------



## Kain

Does DSU use two or four ceiling speakers individually like native Atmos or does it use all your ceiling speakers as an array or "single speaker?"


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Does DSU use two or four ceiling speakers individually like native Atmos or does it use all your ceiling speakers as an array or "single speaker?"


The audio extracted from the channels is separated out to all four overheads individually depending on the frequency cues in the original channel based mix. It works pretty well, though sometimes its "guess" is a little off.


----------



## duckymomo

Selden Ball said:


> The designations don't matter so much as where the speakers are located: a pair in front, a pair overhead and a pair behind the main listening position seems to be the most recommended configuration for 6 overheads.


I was think of the front heights as part of a 9.1.4. But I guess anything near the ceiling would now be part of the Atmos speakers and the rest would be bed channels.


----------



## sdurani

duckymomo said:


> I was think of the front heights as part of a 9.1.4.


Can be, depending on how the .4 speakers are designated (Front Heights or Top Fronts). The 9. part is the lower layer of speakers (7.1 plus Wides).


----------



## HT-Eman

Kicked off my Memorial Day weekend watching 13 hours : The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi in dolby atmos. You would think that with all the weapon fight scenes that they would use atmos better with the rpg's and bullets flying around. The movie stays on high tension but the atmos effects wasn't that good to me. Maybe I was to into the movie IDK ! But still a very good movie , and sad at the same time for what happened.


----------



## Mrjmc99

HT-Eman said:


> Kicked off my Memorial Day weekend watching 13 hours : The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi in dolby atmos. You would think that with all the weapon fight scenes that they would use atmos better with the rpg's and bullets flying around. The movie stays on high tension but the atmos effects wasn't that good to me. Maybe I was to into the movie IDK ! But still a very good movie , and sad at the same time for what happened.


I watched 13 hours yesterday in atmos and I thought that the mix was great. I have a Denon S910W running 5.1.2. I thought that the room was full of sound, and the effects were accurate. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## HT-Eman

Mrjmc99 said:


> I watched 13 hours yesterday in atmos and I thought that the mix was great. I have a Denon S910W running 5.1.2. I thought that the room was full of sound, and the effects were accurate.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


Yes it did sound great . I was just expecting more .


----------



## dvdwilly3

Seeking more agile minds than mine...

Sooo, I am running a Dolby Atmos set up 7.1.4 with an Onkyo TX-NR 1030 handling primary duties and a Denon X1200W handling the extra 2 speakers.

I want to have my cake and eat it too. I got the Denon when BB had put it on sale for cheap (relatively speaking...) and I had BB gift cards to burn.

I keep trying to think of some way to invert my setup so that the Denon would be at the front end giving me DTS:X as well as Audyssey.

Obviously, the Denon is limited to 7.1.2, but it just seems like that there should be some way that I am overlooking...

Any ideas? Or, should I just be happy with what I have...which I am, but...


----------



## Selden Ball

dvdwilly3 said:


> Seeking more agile minds than mine...
> 
> Sooo, I am running a Dolby Atmos set up 7.1.4 with an Onkyo TX-NR 1030 handling primary duties and a Denon X1200W handling the extra 2 speakers.
> 
> I want to have my cake and eat it too. I got the Denon when BB had put it on sale for cheap (relatively speaking...) and I had BB gift cards to burn.
> 
> I keep trying to think of some way to invert my setup so that the Denon would be at the front end giving me DTS:X as well as Audyssey.
> 
> Obviously, the Denon is limited to 7.1.2, but it just seems like that there should be some way that I am overlooking...
> 
> Any ideas? Or, should I just be happy with what I have...which I am, but...


You just need an HDMI splitter.

The Denon AVR-X1200W is limited to a maximum of 7 total speaker channels, so on its own, it could only provide DTS:X in a 5.1.2 configuration. However, if you never use it to drive the lower speakers (except during the Audyssey calibration), that wouldn't matter.

In principle, an HDMI splitter could provide the DTS:X soundtrack to both AVRs simultaneously. When playing a DTS:X soundtrack, the Denon could drive two of the overheads (presumably the same two as now) while the Onkyo drives the ear-level speakers. However, the lower speakers would always get both the "bed" audio and the overhead audio, since the Onkyo wouldn't be able to to delete the overhead audio from the lower speaker channels. In other words, the results wouldn't be as good as doing all of the decoding in a single AVR. You'd just have to change the Denon from the analog input that you're using now to the HDMI input coming from the switch. You'd probably have to change playback options in the Onkyo for best results.


----------



## the3dwizard

HT-Eman said:


> Kicked off my Memorial Day weekend watching 13 hours : The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi in dolby atmos. You would think that with all the weapon fight scenes that they would use atmos better with the rpg's and bullets flying around. The movie stays on high tension but the atmos effects wasn't that good to me. Maybe I was to into the movie IDK ! But still a very good movie , and sad at the same time for what happened.


Opening scene of Unbroken makes use of all that including changing position of the engines of the plane as the camera pans around. My new goto Atmos demo scene. Atmos effects are sprinkled throughout but the opening is the standout. There is a scene near the end where bombers fly overhead from one side to the other and the sound travels with them. It would be a good demo for 5.1.2 systems.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Selden Ball said:


> You just need an HDMI splitter.
> 
> The Denon AVR-X1200W is limited to a maximum of 7 total speaker channels, so on its own, it could only provide DTS:X in a 5.1.2 configuration. However, if you never use it to drive the lower speakers (except during the Audyssey calibration), that wouldn't matter.
> 
> In principle, an HDMI splitter could provide the DTS:X soundtrack to both AVRs simultaneously. When playing a DTS:X soundtrack, the Denon could drive two of the overheads (presumably the same two as now) while the Onkyo drives the ear-level speakers. However, the lower speakers would always get both the "bed" audio and the overhead audio, since the Onkyo wouldn't be able to to delete the overhead audio from the lower speaker channels. In other words, the results wouldn't be as good as doing all of the decoding in a single AVR. You'd just have to change the Denon from the analog input that you're using now to the HDMI input coming from the switch. You'd probably have to change playback options in the Onkyo for best results.


Okay, but I am not sure what that gets me. I still would not get Audyssey calibration on my grond level...

And, the only correct DTS:X signal that I would get would be to the 2nd height speakers which are running off the Denon. The 1st height speakers would still be running off the Onkyo and would get the DSU mapping of the DTS:X feed...right?

Alternatively, I could sell the Onkyo and the current Denon and buy a Denon X6200 and get a second amp/AVR to run the second set of heights. Then, I would be running the whole thing nstively, could run Audyssey, and have DTS:X...plus dialog control.

Did I get that right?


----------



## Selden Ball

dvdwilly3 said:


> Okay, but I am not sure what that gets me. I still would not get Audyssey calibration on my grond level...
> 
> And, the only correct DTS:X signal that I would get would be to the 2nd height speakers which are running off the Denon. The 1st height speakers would still be running off the Onkyo and would get the DSU mapping of the DTS:X feed...right?
> 
> Alternatively, I could sell the Onkyo and the current Denon and buy a Denon X6200 and get a second amp/AVR to run the second set of heights. Then, I would be running the whole thing nstively, could run Audyssey, and have DTS:X...plus dialog control.
> 
> Did I get that right?


Close enough.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Selden Ball said:


> Close enough.


Any downside to the X6200 route?

I am not planning on going 4 K/HDR in my home theater so HDCP 2.2 is not an issue...again, I think. Or, does the X6200 have a 2.2 HDMI input, at least one?

If I go with an UHD player in the future am I headed for trouble with that approach?

And, thanks for the help, Selden.


----------



## Selden Ball

dvdwilly3 said:


> Any downside to the X6200 route?
> 
> I am not planning on going 4 K/HDR in my home theater so HDCP 2.2 is not an issue...again, I think. Or, does the X6200 have a 2.2 HDMI input, at least one?


 All of the HDMI inputs on the 6200 are compliant with HDMI v2.0 and HDCP v2.2, which are needed for 4K input and output. They also can handle HDCP v2.0a (needed for HDR), if not out of the box, then after the DTS:X firmware update.


> If I go with an UHD player in the future am I headed for trouble with that approach?


 The 6200 should work fine with any 4K player and 4K TV, BUT you do have to have cables capable of transmitting 600MHz. Many cables supposedly able to transport 4K UHD signals are marginal at best. If you don't have a 4K UHD TV, 4K players downscale their output to 1080p, in which case the previous versions of HDMI and HDCP are sufficient.


> And, thanks for the help, Selden.


 You're very welcome.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Selden Ball said:


> All of the HDMI inputs on the 6200 are compliant with HDMI v2.0 and HDCP v2.2, which are needed for 4K input and output. They also can handle HDCP v2.0a (needed for HDR), if not out of the box, then after the DTS:X firmware update.
> The 6200 should work fine with any 4K player and 4K TV, BUT you do have to have cables capable of transmitting 600MHz. Many cables supposedly able to transport 4K UHD signals are marginal at best. If you don't have a 4K UHD TV, 4K players downscale their output to 1080p, in which case the previous versions of HDMI and HDCP are sufficient.
> You're very welcome.


JD Smoothie?


----------



## HT-Eman

Mrjmc99 said:


> I watched 13 hours yesterday in atmos and I thought that the mix was great. I have a Denon S910W running 5.1.2. I thought that the room was full of sound, and the effects were accurate.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk





the3dwizard said:


> Opening scene of Unbroken makes use of all that including changing position of the engines of the plane as the camera pans around. My new goto Atmos demo scene. Atmos effects are sprinkled throughout but the opening is the standout. There is a scene near the end where bombers fly overhead from one side to the other and the sound travels with them. It would be a good demo for 5.1.2 systems.


So I come to find out why I wasn't " really " hearing the upper atmos effects . With my receiver the Anthem mrx 1120 , when dolby volume is turned on the ceiling speakers are not engaged . There is no sound coming from my TF/TR speakers. I turned off dolby volume and now I can hear bullets zip pass , shell droppings , and whatever else the mixer put in there.


----------



## makado

I have an Onkyo TXNR-838 Atmos capable receiver running 5.1 to Def Tech speakers. I was thinking of buying Def Tech A60 Atmos modules. Will I be getting the Atmos effect only on Atmos enabled source or will I hear any sound from the Atmos speakers from the regular 5.1 sources too?


----------



## Selden Ball

makado said:


> I have an Onkyo TXNR-838 Atmos capable receiver running 5.1 to Def Tech speakers. I was thinking of buying Def Tech A60 Atmos modules. Will I be getting the Atmos effect only on Atmos enabled source or will I hear any sound from the Atmos speakers from the regular 5.1 sources too?


The new upmixers "Dolby Surround" and "DTS Neural:X" expand existing soundtracks to make use of the speakers which provide sound from overhead, including the upfiring"Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers. Unfortunately, DefTech's upfiring speakers aren't as good as they could be. You might want to consider speakers from Pioneer instead.

.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Selden Ball said:


> The new upmixers "Dolby Surround" and "DTS Neural:X" expand existing soundtracks to make use of the speakers which provide sound from overhead, including the upfiring"Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers. Unfortunately, DefTech's upfiring speakers aren't as good as they could be. You might want to consider speakers from Pioneer instead.
> 
> .


Second that on the Pioneers, or even the Elac A4s.

I had the Def Tech A60s and there are better performing units for the same or less money.


----------



## ultraflexed

dvdwilly3 said:


> Second that on the Pioneers, or even the Elac A4s.
> 
> I had the Def Tech A60s and there are better performing units for the same or less money.


I had the pioneer elites and I thought the atmos was good until I bought the klipsch rp 140's took atmos to a while new level


----------



## makado

Thank you for the response, guys.


----------



## dvdwilly3

ultraflexed said:


> I had the pioneer elites and I thought the atmos was good until I bought the klipsch rp 140's took atmos to a while new level


I have not heard the Klipsch, but I would expect that to be the case...


----------



## termite

New to Atmos here and hoping to soon upgrade to the new Yamaha RX-A2060 or equivalent to have a 5.1.4
setup. My current setup is 5.1 with Yamaha RX-A2000 and got some questions ..


Looking at the new Yamaha manual my understanding is that I'll need to use the F.Presence (L/R) & R.Presence (L/R)
for the new .4 speakers to get Atmos. Yamaha shows these as 2 height speakers towards the front wall and
2 towards the back wall. However my "multi-purpose" room only allows me to install on the left & right walls
high up near the ceiling as down-firing. (2 on the left wall & 2 on the right wall).
This will be similar to the setup shown on the following thread (see post #27 by Oledurt). 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...share-pictures-your-atmos-height-set-ups.html


My question is will that still work with the Yamaha receiver utilizing the "Presence" speaker hookup?
I guess I maybe missing some basic understanding of how speakers are being recognized by the receiver as 
intended for Atmos?? Appreciate some clarification on this ..


----------



## mypepper

HT-Eman said:


> So I come to find out why I wasn't " really " hearing the upper atmos effects . With my receiver the Anthem mrx 1120 , when dolby volume is turned on the ceiling speakers are not engaged . There is no sound coming from my TF/TR speakers. I turned off dolby volume and now I can hear bullets zip pass , shell droppings , and whatever else the mixer put in there.


HT- Eman,

I also have the Anthem MRX 1120, which how do you turn off the dolby volume on this receiver? I thought when the receiver is running on Atmos mode, the receiver goes in auto mode and assigns all the speakers. Currently I'm using the KEF R50 for my front up-firing speakers and the overhead special effect sounds are good, but maybe the receiver is not sending 100% of the mixer Atmos sound tracks to my up-firing speakers.

By the way the Anthem MRX -1120 is one excellent piece of sound equipment. 

Thanks,
Randy


----------



## sojodave

kanerator said:


> Hi. Sojodave. According to the Pioneer website I downloaded the firmware update from this version cannot be updated from the internet, only USB. Also I don't have an internet connection in our garage home cinema.


The manual is referring to updating using internet through the menu system. The browser is like a manual update and it was the only way I could update my receiver.


----------



## HarpNinja

I am a few days out from 5.1.2 (which will eventually move to 5.2.4). Has anyone up mixed Ghostbusters? Was it awesome? That's the only move I care about, lol. I do have some Blu Rays with Atmos like TMNT and Age of Extinction.


----------



## williamwallace

I know not everyone will like hearing this, but it it looks like The Martian Extended Edition UHD coming out next Tuesday will include Atmos. I hope it's reference level!


----------



## Gabre

Where do you see Atmos?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sweet! @Gabre says right in the UHD specs.

Too bad I have to watch an extended version of this movie to get the Atmos sound but....

...it's more Atmos and from a movie I liked and in 7.1 form was already reference quality. Hopefully the Atmos simply improves upon that further.


Good lord, Atmos releases are ramping up big time this year.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Also announced: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=19122

Oblivion in Dolby Atmos! Yes!

It's UHD only (I think) but who cares. 

Also Lucy gets a domestic Atmos release (also UHD).


----------



## sdurani

Gabre said:


> Where do you see Atmos?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dolby _and_ the Dolby Atmos. 


And hey.... what's with this "Scott Free" Dolby Atmos?!??

I very much will have my Atmos, thank you very much!


I guess there are a few people around here who wouldn't mind 'A Scott Free Dolby Atmos Christmas' title in their stocking this holiday season.


----------



## Killer_Nads

So nice to see so many atmos releases coming out, but at the same time so sad to see them only being reserved for UHD releases  

Good thing is i guess (although its piracy but i guess it can be okay if you own the original bluray right?) that people are doing rips of bluray movies with the atmos tracks from the UHD. Ive seen a few available now.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Killer_Nads said:


> So nice to see so many atmos releases coming out, but at the same time so sad to see them only being reserved for UHD releases
> 
> Good thing is i guess (although its piracy but i guess it can be okay if you own the original bluray right?) that people are doing rips of bluray movies with the atmos tracks from the UHD. Ive seen a few available now.


Are you sure AACS 2.0 is cracked as that is the only way Atmos will be possible to be extracted from a UHD disc?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Mashie Saldana said:


> Are you sure AACS 2.0 is cracked as that is the only way Atmos will be possible to be extracted from a UHD disc?


I have seen them also...it is always just a matter of time.

FWIW, a friend of mine says that he has seen cracked a few DTS:X files also...


----------



## Killer_Nads

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have seen them also...it is always just a matter of time.
> 
> FWIW, a friend of mine says that he has seen cracked a few DTS:X files also...


Yep that is also true.

God of Egypt just recently released and was ripped for 3D bluray with DTS:X audio.

Its a bit more difficult with 3d releases I've seen, because the 3D files have to be limited to Half SBS or OV, only then the High Def audio can be attached to these. 

If looking for full sequential 3D or bluray iso rips then these have to be limited to whats on the bluray disc which would not have atmos or dts:x!!

So in these sort of cases, you would have to sacrifice either to have lower res 3d video with High def Audio or have high res video with lower res audio! 

Anyway its great to see multiple choices for people, so they can go with what they prefer!


----------



## dvdwilly3

Killer_Nads said:


> Yep that is also true.
> 
> God of Egypt just recently released and was ripped for 3D bluray with DTS:X audio.
> 
> Its a bit more difficult with 3d releases I've seen, because the 3D files have to be limited to Half SBS or OV, only then the High Def audio can be attached to these.
> 
> If looking for full sequential 3D or bluray iso rips then these have to be limited to whats on the bluray disc which would not have atmos or dts:x!!
> 
> So in these sort of cases, you would have to sacrifice either to have lower res 3d video with High def Audio or have high res video with lower res audio!
> 
> Anyway its great to see multiple choices for people, so they can go with what they prefer!


Years ago I played on a county league softballl team...I don't even remember our team name.

But, a team from the U.S. Geological Survey called themselves the NADS (National Association of Disturbed Scientists).

And, on their team ballcaps and t-shirts they had "Go NADS!".

To this day it still cracks me up...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have seen them also...it is always just a matter of time.
> 
> FWIW, a friend of mine says that he has seen cracked a few DTS:X files also...


Got any examples for UHD exclusive Atmos titles that are floating around as Atmos enabled Blu-Rays?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Mashie Saldana said:


> Got any examples for UHD exclusive Atmos titles that are floating around as Atmos enabled Blu-Rays?


I don't know that they were UHD...he just said that he was beginning to to see a few cracked DTS:X files floating around "out there"...


----------



## showmak

These movies in DTS:X are already cracked...

































































Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

showmak said:


> These movies in DTS:X are already cracked...


They are and have been since day one as they are standard Blu-Ray's, however it was the comment from Killer_Nads about Dolby Atmos tracks from UHD exclusive releases being extracted and added to the non-Atmos Blu-Ray's that I was questioning:



Killer_Nads said:


> So nice to see so many atmos releases coming out, but at the same time so sad to see them only being reserved for UHD releases
> 
> Good thing is i guess (although its piracy but i guess it can be okay if you own the original bluray right?) that people are doing rips of bluray movies with the atmos tracks from the UHD. Ive seen a few available now.


----------



## showmak

@Mashie Saldana got it now 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## humbland

TRINADS said:


> Well, whether the companies make more money or not, people like myself spent thousands just to have Dolby atmos. Now I'm expected to spend thousands more for the 4K HDR tv & UHD player just to experience all atmos content. When does it end? I will end up upgrading my tv and Bluray, but not for another year or so. Til then I suffer with the few titles that will have atmos on Bluray.
> 
> On a side note I wanted some hi-Rez music so I ordered "Roger Walters: The Wall" on Bluray. I didn't know when I ordered it but it happened to be encoded with Atmos. And it sounds truly amazing. If your a Pink Floyd fan, you will love this. The sound effects with the atmos, it's worth the experience.


I just got set up for Atmos with a Pioneer SC-97. I'm also bummed that there are not more Atmos BR titles available, especially from Netflix...
I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan. After reading your post, I went to Amazon and tried to order the "Roger Waters: The Wall" on Bluray. 
https://www.amazon.com/Roger-Waters...784179&sr=8-1&keywords=Roger+Waters:+The+Wall
The cover shows the DD symbol, but I could see no reference to "Atmos"?
Can anyone confirm that it indeed does have Atmos?
Thanks.


----------



## smurraybhm

humbland said:


> I just got set up for Atmos with a Pioneer SC-97. I'm also bummed that there are not more Atmos BR titles available, especially from Netflix...
> I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan. After reading your post, I went to Amazon and tried to order the "Roger Waters: The Wall" on Bluray.
> https://www.amazon.com/Roger-Waters...784179&sr=8-1&keywords=Roger+Waters:+The+Wall
> The cover shows the DD symbol, but I could see no reference to "Atmos"?
> Can anyone confirm that it indeed does have Atmos?
> Thanks.


I couldn't get your link to work, but I can confirm that this one does - it is a great mix IMO and a must for any Pink Floyd fan 

https://www.amazon.com/Roger-Waters...786117&sr=1-1&keywords=roger+walters+the+wall


----------



## PioManiac

Just AWESOME in 7.4.4 Atmos, and sitting 10 ft away from a 9 ft wide screen


----------



## ramcharger1979

My copy of Rodger Waters the wall does indeed have Atmos and it is wonderful. I also highly recommend this blu ray! 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

ramcharger1979 said:


> My copy of Rodger Waters the wall does indeed have Atmos and it is wonderful. I also highly recommend this blu ray!
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk


It is a bit of a shame it is all intermixed with talking and not just the concert end to end. Good sound though if you like the music style.


----------



## humbland

Just ordered it.
Thanks.
On a similar front; is there any list of Atmos or DTS:X BR titles available for rent on Netflix? There can not be many, but I'm guessing there should be a few...hopefully.


----------



## Carlucci

humbland said:


> Just ordered it.
> Thanks.
> On a similar front; is there any list of Atmos or DTS:X BR titles available for rent on Netflix? There can not be many, but I'm guessing there should be a few...hopefully.


Not a list, but I can confirm that the RENTAL (stripped down) versions of both Teminator:Genysis and In the Heart of the Sea, which I got from Redbox, have the Atmos tracks included. The sound in Terminator:Genysis was superb in Atmos.


----------



## Movie78

dvdwilly3 said:


> I don't know that they were UHD...he just said that he was beginning to to see a few cracked DTS:X files floating around "out there"...


If AACS 2.0 is not cracked, I don't think there will any UHD release.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Ralf posted the review of *13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi*

100 for Audio
96 for Atmos


Yes!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Scott Simonian said:


> It's UHD only (I think) but who cares.


Me  Well not in Oblivion's case but other features I would have liked to have in Atmos on 1080p. 



Killer_Nads said:


> So nice to see so many atmos releases coming out, but at the same time so sad to see them only being reserved for UHD releases
> 
> Good thing is i guess (although its piracy but i guess it can be okay if you own the original bluray right?) that people are doing rips of bluray movies with the atmos tracks from the UHD. Ive seen a few available now.


So in other words the industry is forcing people into piracy? (haha). I'm seriously interested in that alternative though if it's a possibility. Where do you find those? 

I can't upgrade to UHD, way out of my price league to replace the quality of equipment I have now (65" Plasma). Later this year, my plan is to potentially sell my X5200W as it seems they are holding their value somewhat well and purchasing an HDCP 2.2 compliant receiver with DTS X & Atmos... & get the 4k bluray player. I'm wondering if that would work with my Plasma set though? 

I definitely want to wait it out until the HDR standards are really set, and give UHD some time to gel/ see what happens with the sets (by that I mean... OLED quality blacks with the brightness of other pixel types without having to spend more than a few thousand). 



showmak said:


> These movies in DTS:X are already cracked...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


By cracked what does that mean exactly?


----------



## PioManiac

Molon_Labe said:


> Ralf posted the review of *13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi*
> 
> 100 for Audio
> 96 for Atmos
> 
> 
> Yes!!!!!!!!!


and available on regular bluray with Atmos ...for $19.99 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/13-Hours-The-Secret-Soldiers-of-Benghazi-Blu-ray/147975/


----------



## richmond5

We definitely need more BRay disc with atmosphere


----------



## Mike Butny

I currently have 2 height speakers on the front wall near the ceiling facing toward the MLP. I was using a 9.2 config with an Onkyo 818 receiver and I would use DTS:NeoX, well I just got a Marantz 7009 last week and I would like to move the height speakers closer to the MLP, would top middle be considered 1-2 feet in front of the MLP? I would like to have 4 speakers on the ceiling, 2 in front and 2 in back of the MLP by 1-2 feet. Is this the best stop for height/top speaker placement? I would think having top front and top rear speakers placed close to the front and rear speakers would make it hard to distinguish were the sound is coming from. Whats better speaker placement, having top/height speakers facing directly down or having the speakers on an angle facing the MLP?


----------



## richmagnus

zorax2 said:


> I'm looking at upgrading my Denon X4000 to something with ATMOS and DTS X. I've already got front heights (wall mounted). I cannot add rear heights though I can add in ceiling speakers (9 feet high ceiling) - therefore front heights with top rears. The only problem is that my seating for the main listening position is nearly against the back wall. This means that the rear ATMOS speaker in the ceiling would only be about 6" to 10" behind me - nearly straight above my head at about 100 degrees rather than the preferred 125 to 150 degrees. Will the surround formats still sound okay like this making it worthwhile to install and provide amplification for these rear ceiling speakers?
> 
> Second question - I run Kef Reference speakers for mains, center and surrounds (203, 202c, 201). Kef has a CI series (custom install) for ceiling speakers. They offer an in ceiling THX speaker that essentially matches my mains for $799 each retail. They have a lesser "Q" series speaker, which still has matching timbre, for $349 retail. Is it worth the money to spend over double for the THX speakers? I'm thinking there isn't a ton of overhead sound and the "Q" series is likely good enough. What do all of you think based on your experience?




Your in ceiling speakers designated as either rear height or top rear will work absolutely fine in that configuration in relation to the MLP. 

It will be worth the investment and we all have to work with the rooms we have. 

Invest in decent height channels. Too many folk skimp in this area. Each channel is capable of receiving full fat info. It's not about how low the speakers can play as in a bass managed system this is of less importance but it's the quality that is important. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

@Aras_Volodka cracked means ripped...


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## murlidher

*nice*

nice thread, many of my queries were solved by going through this


----------



## Selden Ball

Mike Butny said:


> I currently have 2 height speakers on the front wall near the ceiling facing toward the MLP. I was using a 9.2 config with an Onkyo 818 receiver and I would use DTS:NeoX, well I just got a Marantz 7009 last week and I would like to move the height speakers closer to the MLP, would top middle be considered 1-2 feet in front of the MLP? I would like to have 4 speakers on the ceiling, 2 in front and 2 in back of the MLP by 1-2 feet. Is this the best stop for height/top speaker placement? I would think having top front and top rear speakers placed close to the front and rear speakers would make it hard to distinguish were the sound is coming from. Whats better speaker placement, having top/height speakers facing directly down or having the speakers on an angle facing the MLP?


What matters is the angular directions toward the speakers, not the distances. The distances have to be different depending on the dimensions of your room. In most cases, the overhead speakers should be at a 45 degree angle to your main listening position. For example, the front overhead speakers should be forward of your seating by the same distance as the distance from your ears (when you're seated) to the ceiling. That ear-to-ceiling distance (and thus the directly-overhead-to-speaker distance) typically is approximately the height of your ceiling minus about 3 or 3.5 feet.

See Dolby's placement recommendation in their document http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Killer_Nads

HT-Eman said:


> So I come to find out why I wasn't " really " hearing the upper atmos effects . With my receiver the Anthem mrx 1120 , when dolby volume is turned on the ceiling speakers are not engaged . There is no sound coming from my TF/TR speakers. I turned off dolby volume and now I can hear bullets zip pass , shell droppings , and whatever else the mixer put in there.


Can you please elaborate? Where is this dolby volume you are referring ti??

I have an Arcam AVR.


----------



## Mike Butny

Selden Ball said:


> What matters is the angular directions toward the speakers, not the distances. The distances have to be different depending on the dimensions of your room. In most cases, the overhead speakers should be at a 45 degree angle to your main listening position. For example, the front overhead speakers should be forward of your seating by the same distance as the distance from your ears (when you're seated) to the ceiling. That ear-to-ceiling distance (and thus the directly-overhead-to-speaker distance) typically is approximately the height of your ceiling minus about 3 or 3.5 feet.
> 
> See Dolby's placement recommendation in their document http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


I measured 46.5 inches from my ears to the ceiling, so I would place 2 speakers 46.5 inches in front of the MLP and 2 more speakers 46.5 inched behind the MLP? At first I will just be using 2 speakers so I would assume I would put them 46.5 inches in front of the MLP, correct? What ceiling speaker mounts does everyone recommend? Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## smurraybhm

Killer_Nads said:


> Can you please elaborate? Where is this dolby volume you are referring ti??
> 
> I have an Arcam AVR.


It's a feature found on the Anthem and other receivers - used to keep volume at a constant level, tv show v. commercial. If its on the Arcam you'll find it listed under the "features" for your unit.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-volume.html


----------



## Mike Butny

Killer_Nads said:


> Can you please elaborate? Where is this dolby volume you are referring ti??
> 
> I have an Arcam AVR.


I don't have an Arcam receiver but this may help:http://www.arcam.co.uk/ugc/tor/sr250/User Manual/AVR850550250_MANUAL_SH275_E-F-D-N-ES-IT-R-SC_2.pdf See page E-34


----------



## sdurani

Mike Butny said:


> I measured 46.5 inches from my ears to the ceiling, so I would place 2 speakers 46.5 inches in front of the MLP and 2 more speakers 46.5 inched behind the MLP?


Round it off to 4 feet forward and rearward (doesn't have to be super precise).


> At first I will just be using 2 speakers so I would assume I would put them 46.5 inches in front of the MLP, correct?


For a set-up with a single pair of overhead speakers, Dolby's recommendation is around 80 degrees elevation, in your case a little less than a foot forward of your listening position). For two speakers it is 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of your listening position. IF you do not want to move the first pair of overheads when you eventually install the second pair, then you can start with the first pair at 45 degrees elevation. Not optimal, but will still give the impression of sounds above you.


----------



## ALtlOff

Sooooo....
Ghostbusters in UHD & Atmos....
Dammit, another Double Dip... they got me again....

My Son is going to end up with a killer BR collection by the time this is over.


----------



## Mike Butny

sdurani said:


> Round it off to 4 feet forward and rearward (doesn't have to be super precise). For a set-up with a single pair of overhead speakers, Dolby's recommendation is around 80 degrees elevation, in your case a little less than a foot forward of your listening position). For two speakers it is 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of your listening position. IF you do not want to move the first pair of overheads when you eventually install the second pair, then you can start with the first pair at 45 degrees elevation. Not optimal, but will still give the impression of sounds above you.


Thanks for the feedback. Does the overhead speakers line up with the front left and right speakers, looks like that here:http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
?


----------



## williamwallace

ALtlOff said:


> Sooooo....
> Ghostbusters in UHD & Atmos....
> Dammit, either Double Dip... they got me again....
> 
> My Son is going to end up with a killer BR collection by the time this is over.




Don't forget the Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness UHD versions coming out this month too; those will both have Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Mike Butny said:


> Does the overhead speakers line up with the front left and right speakers, looks like that here:http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf?


That's Dolby's recommendation, though I prefer a slightly narrower spread.


----------



## Movie78

And all we get in ATMOS and Bluray are Bollywood movies


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

williamwallace said:


> I know not everyone will like hearing this, but it it looks like The Martian Extended Edition UHD coming out next Tuesday will include Atmos. I hope it's reference level!


Nice it's getting Atmos, but it's lame the Blu-ray version included with the UHD still doesn't. I'd pay more for the UHD version if the Blu-ray one came with Atmos, since I don't have a UHD player as I don't have any UHD displays. In fact, I just ordered a new 2016 projector, but it is 1080p.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Nice it's getting Atmos, but it's lame the Blu-ray version included with the UHD still doesn't. I'd pay more for the UHD version if the Blu-ray one came with Atmos, since I don't have a UHD player as I don't have any UHD displays. In fact, I just ordered a new 2016 projector, but it is 1080p.


Some people are getting a UHD Blu-ray player so they can continue to enjoy immersive soundtracks even if they currently don't have a UHD display. Fox (and probably Disney) will more than likely never release 3D audio on regular Blu-ray. There are a few Sony UHD discs that are exclusive as well.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Some people are getting a UHD Blu-ray player so they can continue to enjoy immersive soundtracks even if they currently don't have a UHD display. Fox (and probably Disney) will more than likely never release 3D audio on regular Blu-ray.


Yeah I know. 

I passed on Deadpool specifically for this reason. I would have bought it sight unseen otherwise, and yes I would have paid for the UHD version had the included BD included Atmos. But it doesn't, so I didn't. And I didn't get the regular BD version either.

I may get the regular BD for The Martian eventually, but no rush. If the BD included with the UHD had Atmos, I'd buy that package on release day, and would be willing to pay much more for that UHD+BD package.

To put it another way, at least in my case, the studios are losing sales from me because they refuse to put Atmos on any version of their BDs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Yeah I know.
> 
> I passed on Deadpool specifically for this reason. I would have bought it sight unseen otherwise, and yes I would have paid for the UHD version had the included BD included Atmos. But it doesn't, so I didn't. And I didn't get the regular BD version either.
> 
> I may get the regular BD for The Martian eventually, but no rush. If the BD included with the UHD had Atmos, I'd buy that package tomorrow if I could, and would be willing to pay much more for the title.
> 
> To put it another way, at least in my case, the studios are losing sales from me because they refuse to put Atmos on any version of their BDs.


But you're probably in the minority. An honorable position... but one that will probably yield no fruit. 

I'm getting a UHD player. I needs my Atmos damnit!!


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

Dan Hitchman said:


> But you're probably in the minority. An honorable position... but one that will probably yield no fruit.
> 
> I'm getting a UHD player. I needs my Atmos damnit!!


I'm not going to buy a UHD player until they get better and the prices drop. It seems foolish to pay CAD$600 for the Samsung player (which is criticized for its HDR->SDR conversion) during the middle of an HDR format war when I don't even own a 4K display and don't plan on getting one for years.

I know it's sacrilege in this thread, but I'll do without Atmos for those titles.  Or I may do without those titles completely.


----------



## vollans

Have to admit that it's Atmos that drove my move to UHD rather than the picture. But I also have to admit the picture is gorgeous.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

vollans said:


> Have to admit that it's Atmos that drove my move to UHD rather than the picture. But I also have to admit the picture is gorgeous.


I was strongly considering getting a 75" UHD display with both HDR10 and Dolby Vision, but the cost was prohibitive, and the downsizing from a much bigger projector image was a hard pill to swallow.

In the end I decided to just get another projector, a 1080p model to replace my existing 720p model. Real 4K HDR projectors, esp. non-DLP ones, are cost prohibitive too and will likely remain so for quite some time. Maybe I'll get one in 4-5 years, unless my Sony VPL-HW45ES that I just ordered dies prematurely or something.

I suspect I will get a UHD player sooner rather than later, and before I get a 4K display, but that means probably 2017-2018 and likely not this year. I want to see what happens with the HDR war, and I want cheaper pricing with improved models.


----------



## GreySkies

vollans said:


> Have to admit that it's Atmos that drove my move to UHD rather than the picture. But I also have to admit the picture is gorgeous.


That'll be the same here, although I won't even contemplate the move until Oppo comes out with their player.


----------



## shyyour

I was planning to wait till the Samsung player dropped significantly but i eventually just gave in.
It's annoying, frustrating and expensive but if you want atmos (more than whats trickling to BR's) then you'll have to get a UHD player.

There are a number of atmos exclusive UHD's (7) coming out that i am planning on getting not counting the 3 discs i already bought. If Atmos UHD's keep coming out at this rate i will soon forget the bitter $400 pill i had to swallow to get the player.

I have no interest in 4k or HDR (at least not till 4k projectors become affordable), i just want atmos.


----------



## rontalley

I am not upgrading. I spent the money on Atmos. I "enjoyed" Atmos. But, I also enjoy, *almost equally*, DSU and DTSN for non immersive mixes. I *refuse* to spend the "extra" money on a player, then display then the damn disc just to get the Atmos or DTS:X track....at least for now...

They are also loosing money from me. I was buying all the BD with Atmos tracks that I could get my hands on...now...there are hardly any left to buy.


----------



## Ricoflashback

To UHD Bluray Discs + Player Or Not - is really dependent on your personal preference AND if you have invested in a 4K or 4K/HDR display. 

To a lesser extent - your need for Dolby Atmos or DTS X even if you still live in a 1080P world. Even then, UHD Bluray discs have some issues converting and playing on a 1080P display.

Streaming has always been too expensive, IMHO, and unless it can be brought down to a Redbox like cost ($2.00/$3.00 max per movie) - it doesn't make sense to me. I still prefer the quality of a plain old Bluray at a cheap rental cost.

The real kicker is DD+ which can deliver Dolby Atmos soundtracks very efficiently and with existing technology. If streaming movies (1080P) were available in Dolby Atmos at a reasonable price, it would put my Redbox account out of business. I'm not sure if there is any comparable technology to deliver DTS X like there is with DD+ and Dolby Atmos. Since I have an older Dolby Receiver (Denon x5200) without DTS X (plus the lack of movies in DTS X format) - - it isn't a big priority right now.

HDR? Still two to three years away for me. By then, they will have, hopefully, ironed out the kinks, standards wise, and more content will be available. But that will require a new AVR, UHD Player and new TV. Gee, maybe it's more like 4 or 5 years out!


----------



## Don Draper

Hi folks. I've tasted the atmos cool-aid and I like the taste enough to fully commit. My small theater is a converted bedroom on the second floor. The seating and viewing area is ~12x12 (8ft ceilings), not including the closet which was repurposed for the equipment , dvd display, and PJ which I was able to just eek out a 120" image in this small space (the viewing angle is excellent @ ~10ft). The room was built 2+ years ago, and for its size with a single seating row against the back wall I settled on 5.1 + front heights. I actually ran wire for a single rear center, but decided against using it. Surrounds are in the back corners (in walls) at ~90 deg and ~ 2ft above ear level. 

Then I noticed atmos on most of my recent BR purchases and started doing some research . I was intrigued. My onkyo 3009 was still going strong , so I started looking at what they had to offer. No audyssey, no thanks. So in the space of 2 weeks I went from a denon x1200 to x3200 to x4200. Im currently running 5.1.4 with my legacy FH and TM (in ceilings) 2ft in front of MLP. I have a few atmos titles but last night I got Everest in 3d and man did I feel like I was in the movie. 

That said I don't feel like the FH is adding much to the experience and I think im leaving a little bit of immersion on the table). Even though I will have some patch work to do I have the itch to do this (need to know if its worth it):

-Relocate surrounds 6-12 inches above ear level
-Decommission front heights
-Move seats 12 inches off the back wall 
-Mount TR in this newly acquired 12" space pointing straight down
-Mount TF 2-3ft from MLP
-Patch Wall
-Patch ceiling

This is quite a bit of work which is all anchored by moving seats 12 inches forward. Is it worth it?


----------



## jrogers

Ricoflashback said:


> Glad you figured it out. I wasn't sure what type of equipment I had but my Comcast Account says it's the MO MX011ANM. I'm not sure if that's the latest "box" or not. But it does work with DD+ and Dolby Atmos. I had Comcast installed in July, 2015.
> 
> X1 DVRs:
> MO MX011ANM
> PC PX013ANM
> ???


Confirmed latest Xfinity DVR box will ouptut DD+/Atmos. Unfortunately, latest XiD (Xi3) companion boxes do not - which is what I have in my theater  But, since there now appears to be only one Atmos demo available OnDemand (searching Atmos used to turn up 3 titles, now only the Amaze demo shows up) - I guess I'm not missing much at the moment. Presumably new 4k companion boxes will be out sometime this year - hopefully they'll be smart enough to include DD+ in them.


----------



## Ricoflashback

jrogers said:


> Confirmed latest Xfinity DVR box will ouptut DD+/Atmos. Unfortunately, latest XiD (Xi3) companion boxes do not - which is what I have in my theater  But, since there now appears to be only one Atmos demo available OnDemand (searching Atmos used to turn up 3 titles, now only the Amaze demo shows up) - I guess I'm not missing much at the moment. Presumably new 4k companion boxes will be out sometime this year - hopefully they'll be smart enough to include DD+ in them.


Right you are. I was able to search "Atmos" before and the Black Sails episode was available. Now, just like you said, one Atmos demo. In fact, if it wasn't for the AVS Forum, I would have never known that the Black Sails episode was free and in Dolby Atmos.

That being said - - I do not know why Comcast is not promoting Dolby Atmos more - - and providing more content. It doesn't make any sense to me. Promoting Dolby Atmos would encourage more subscribers and if provided on movies, more streaming. (Even though Comcast prices are way too high, IMHO.)

What do I know. I'm only looking for ways to sell more and find more Atmos content.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Don Draper said:


> Hi folks. I've tasted the atmos cool-aid and I like the taste enough to fully commit. My small theater is a converted bedroom on the second floor. The seating and viewing area is ~12x12 (8ft ceilings), not including the closet which was repurposed for the equipment , dvd display, and PJ which I was able to just eek out a 120" image in this small space (the viewing angle is excellent @ ~10ft). The room was built 2+ years ago, and for its size with a single seating row against the back wall I settled on 5.1 + front heights. I actually ran wire for a single rear center, but decided against using it. Surrounds are in the back corners (in walls) at ~90 deg and ~ 2ft above ear level.
> 
> Then I noticed atmos on most of my recent BR purchases and started doing some research . I was intrigued. My onkyo 3009 was still going strong , so I started looking at what they had to offer. No audyssey, no thanks. So in the space of 2 weeks I went from a denon x1200 to x3200 to x4200. Im currently running 5.1.4 with my legacy FH and TM (in ceilings) 2ft in front of MLP. I have a few atmos titles but last night I got Everest in 3d and man did I feel like I was in the movie.
> 
> That said I don't feel like the FH is adding much to the experience and I think im leaving a little bit of immersion on the table). Even though I will have some patch work to do I have the itch to do this (need to know if its worth it):
> 
> -Relocate surrounds 6-12 inches above ear level
> -Decommission front heights
> -Move seats 12 inches off the back wall
> -Mount TR in this newly acquired 12" space pointing straight down
> -Mount TF 2-3ft from MLP
> -Patch Wall
> -Patch ceiling
> 
> This is quite a bit of work which is all anchored by moving seats 12 inches forward. Is it worth it?


You are on the right track...what you are after is angular separation between the variou speakers so that they do not interfer with one another...

Drop the surrounds as you suggest...preferably the tweeter should come as close to firing at your ear as possible. Of course, you may need to raise it a bit over that to clear adjacent seats.

Go with Top Front and Top Rear (as you have suggested the Top Rear). 

I cannot tell from your descriptions exactly where your FH and TM are physically located. Depending upon your angles relative to your MLP, you might get away with redesignating your TM as TF. With an 8' ceiling it might work. Atmos is not terribly picky. In particular, if your tweeters are aimable, you might get away with it.

To put it another way, ditch the TM. If the FH are on the front wall, yeah, ditch those altogether.

And, as always, re-run the calibration every time that you change the configuration before making any judgements.

Have fun!


----------



## Don Draper

dvdwilly3 said:


> You are on the right track...what you are after is angular separation between the variou speakers so that they do not interfer with one another...
> 
> Drop the surrounds as you suggest...preferably the tweeter should come as close to firing at your ear as possible. Of course, you may need to raise it a bit over that to clear adjacent seats.
> 
> Go with Top Front and Top Rear (as you have suggested the Top Rear).
> 
> I cannot tell from your descriptions exactly where your FH and TM are physically located. Depending upon your angles relative to your MLP, you might get away with redesignating your TM as TF. With an 8' ceiling it might work. Atmos is not terribly picky. In particular, if your tweeters are aimable, you might get away with it.
> 
> To put it another way, ditch the TM. If the FH are on the front wall, yeah, ditch those altogether.
> 
> And, as always, re-run the calibration every time that you change the configuration before making any judgements.
> 
> Have fun!


My FH are high on front wall up to the ceiling with tweeters aimed at listening position. My TMs are about 65-70 deg in front of mlp and 2ft from back wall. Moving the seat 12" inches forward will tighten to about 80 degrees. If I re-designate TM to TF in current location and install top rears in ceiling at rear wall. this buts TF and TR within 2ft of each other . Is this enough separation or should should TF be pushed out further?


----------



## dvdwilly3

Don Draper said:


> My FH are high on front wall up to the ceiling with tweeters aimed at listening position. My TMs are about 65-70 deg in front of mlp and 2ft from back wall. Moving the seat 12" inches forward will tighten to about 80 degrees. If I re-designate TM to TF in current location and install top rears in ceiling at rear wall. this buts TF and TR within 2ft of each other . Is this enough separation or should should TF be pushed out further?


I would move them a bit farther away from the MLP.

Take a look at the side view in the Dolby website for proper placement...

I would use whichever of your FH or TM is the highest quality for Top Front. 

Early on Atmos is often being used for ambient effects. As they go on, it will be used more for steering of discrete sounds. You want Atmos speakers that are capable of keeping up with your mains.

You should be able to get distinct panning of overhead sound from front to back and vice versa in your 5.1.4 setup. 5.1.4 was one of my intermediate steps and it made a clear improvement over 5.1.2.


----------



## ALtlOff

GreySkies said:


> That'll be the same here, although I won't even contemplate the move until Oppo comes out with their player.


I'm waiting for the Oppo myself (hoping it will be a Christmas gift for myself) even though it will be even longer on the display while I wait for projector prices to come down, but in the meantime I'm buying the UHD packages to have them on hand, and simply enjoying the compromised BluRays for now.


----------



## Suii

I have maybe a crazy/stupid question.

Could "my friend" setup a 5.1.4 system with the 5 being a soundbar and the 4 being properly setup speakers in the ceiling.... And if "my friend" was to do a setup like this obviously it would not be as optimal as a true 5.1.4 setup with the 2 surrounds being at ear level behind the seating position but would it be that bad, or has anyone else done something similar?

"my friend" says thanks lol...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Suii said:


> I have maybe a crazy/stupid question.
> 
> Could "my friend" setup a 5.1.4 system with the 5 being a soundbar and the 4 being properly setup speakers in the ceiling.... And if "my friend" was to do a setup like this obviously it would not be as optimal as a true 5.1.4 setup with the 2 surrounds being at ear level behind the seating position but would it be that bad, or has anyone else done something similar?
> 
> "my friend" says thanks lol...


I think your "friend" should consider a Dolby Atmos enabled soundbar to start with.


----------



## peter-d-w

Suii said:


> I have maybe a crazy/stupid question.
> 
> Could "my friend" setup a 5.1.4 system with the 5 being a soundbar and the 4 being properly setup speakers in the ceiling.... And if "my friend" was to do a setup like this obviously it would not be as optimal as a true 5.1.4 setup with the 2 surrounds being at ear level behind the seating position but would it be that bad, or has anyone else done something similar?
> 
> "my friend" says thanks lol...


How would your friend be intending to drive the 4 speakers in the ceiling? 

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


----------



## radamo

rontalley said:


> I am not upgrading. I spent the money on Atmos. I "enjoyed" Atmos. But, I also enjoy, *almost equally*, DSU and DTSN for non immersive mixes. I *refuse* to spend the "extra" money on a player, then display then the damn disc just to get the Atmos or DTS:X track....at least for now...
> 
> They are also loosing money from me. I was buying all the BD with Atmos tracks that I could get my hands on...now...there are hardly any left to buy.


I have an LG OLED 1080P set and I am not upgrading (nor do I have any desire to) anytime soon for UHD or 4K. The studios are in fact losing my $ also since I won't buy any of these discs. If the regular BD had Atmos I would most certainly pick it up. But I will just use Redbox and spend $2 rather than $20 or more.


----------



## awblackmon

I am not going to spend money chasing a audio format that should and could be included on a blu-ray disc. I will not spend my retirement funds on a expensive player and discs just to get Atmos. I will rent Blu-ray and do DSU or DTS immersive up mixing if I have to. The studios have to know a lot of us just can't or won't play the game. I am hoping maybe DTS-X will be seen on a lot of Blu-ray releases. If not I am not rewarding any studios for this garbage they seem to be wanting to pull on us.


----------



## howard68

I have started to get the 4k combo disc pack 
I don't have a 4 k screen yet or 4 k player 
I plan to wait until a player will do Dolby Vision and downconvert to 1080p
And replace my Kuro when I think the time has come
It is a real pain to have a full Atmos and Dts x set up and not have access to the right audio track


----------



## thebland

awblackmon said:


> I am not going to spend money chasing a audio format that should and could be included on a blu-ray disc. I will not spend my retirement funds on a expensive player and discs just to get Atmos. I will rent Blu-ray and do DSU or DTS immersive up mixing if I have to. The studios have to know a lot of us just can't or won't play the game. I am hoping maybe DTS-X will be seen on a lot of Blu-ray releases. If not I am not rewarding any studios for this garbage they seem to be wanting to pull on us.


Well the reality is if you want the maximum number of Atmos selections, you have a source to get them (4K UHD). 'Should've' and 'Could've' mindsets won't put the Atmos tracks in your system today.

I'm playing the game as staying out of Atmos doesn't really further the movie experience at home!! Not that I'm happy about it, but it is the reality of the state of Atmos tracks today.


----------



## GreySkies

awblackmon said:


> I am not going to spend money chasing a audio format that should and could be included on a blu-ray disc. I will not spend my retirement funds on a expensive player and discs just to get Atmos. I will rent Blu-ray and do DSU or DTS immersive up mixing if I have to. The studios have to know a lot of us just can't or won't play the game. I am hoping maybe DTS-X will be seen on a lot of Blu-ray releases. If not I am not rewarding any studios for this garbage they seem to be wanting to pull on us.


It seems I say the same thing quite often, but in the end, I always end up upgrading. Always.


----------



## Suii

peter-d-w said:


> How would your friend be intending to drive the 4 speakers in the ceiling?
> 
> Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


Any 9 channel receiver will be all that is required to run a 5.1.4 setup and the the 4 speakers in the ceiling are already in there and the cables all running to the old receiver as it is, its just finding a good passive 5.1 soundbar to get it done.


----------



## Don Draper

dvdwilly3 said:


> I would move them a bit farther away from the MLP.
> 
> Take a look at the side view in the Dolby website for proper placement...
> 
> I would use whichever of your FH or TM is the highest quality for Top Front.
> 
> Early on Atmos is often being used for ambient effects. As they go on, it will be used more for steering of discrete sounds. You want Atmos speakers that are capable of keeping up with your mains.
> 
> You should be able to get distinct panning of overhead sound from front to back and vice versa in your 5.1.4 setup. 5.1.4 was one of my intermediate steps and it made a clear improvement over 5.1.2.


so Okay I decided to tackle in steps , starting with the ceiling relocate. Went smoothly especially since the new cutout plugged the old ones right up - doesn't get any better than that. I hope the same goes for my surrounds because im really apprehensive about cutting into my green glue sandwich. 

The angles really are very important to the ceiling layout, and mere inches do make a difference. All in all it has been a success so far but I will still end up with a slight compromise. Moving the seats 12 inches off the wall and mounting TRs firing straight down with tweeters toed in worked perfectly. I originally spec'd TF for 55 deg but ended up around 40 due to ceiling joists. I popped in my new favorite demo Everest (it really is a sleeper of an atmos demo). Queue the scene when the storm hits and the overhead wind chimes come alive - I literally yelled "holy @#$%!!" The raging storm is insane , and just like that my hunch was right FH and TM leave quite a bit on the table. If I only had TM I don't think it leaves anything on the table over a FH+TM setup. I'll go so far to say Dolby specs it because of all the folks including myself that had a legacy height arrangement , especially since they touted llz. Then again my heights were pointed straight ahead with tweeter bouncing off the ceiling so not exactly atmos spec. Overhead is definitely where its at. Never felt this way about a sound format since I first heard 5.1. 

So now my issue. Inches do make a difference and in my small space this is never more true. All of a sudden the space looked and felt really cramped. My monstrous DIY dual subs weren't doing much to help this either. But most importantly my eyes started to dart around the 120" image as the viewing angle was now more aggressive. I moved the seats back to the wall and reran the calibration. It worked but was definitely sub-optimal (though I think it may have been better than a TM arranged but I cant be sure - maybe different is a more fitting description) . I lost the sense of decay behind me and gained much more abrupt effects . If I never heard the system with the seats pulled out , I may have been fine with this. But I did and I wasn't. I decided to split the distance and relocated the seats 6 inches off the wall (and reran calibration) . Though not as good as 12 inches out it was a marked improvement and something I can definitively live with. 

Now to drop the surrounds. Here we go again! When am I gonna actually get to watch some movies??


----------



## dvdwilly3

Suii said:


> Any 9 channel receiver will be all that is required to run a 5.1.4 setup and the the 4 speakers in the ceiling are already in there and the cables all running to the old receiver as it is, its just finding a good passive 5.1 soundbar to get it done.


The Def Tech series SSA-42; SSA-5; SSA-50...should work...passive w/5 channels...


----------



## peter-d-w

Suii said:


> Any 9 channel receiver will be all that is required to run a 5.1.4 setup and the the 4 speakers in the ceiling are already in there and the cables all running to the old receiver as it is, its just finding a good passive 5.1 soundbar to get it done.


In that case it should work fine. It will be essential to use an Atmos enabled receiver though of course for the 4 ceiling speakers. 

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk


----------



## Don Draper

Does anyone else find neutral x to be really aggressive (see exaggerated) compared to DSU? I'm not digging it so far. The only DTS X film Ive seen so far (ex machina) I wasn't impressed with at all. Jury is still out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Don Draper said:


> Does anyone else find neutral x to be really aggressive (see exaggerated) compared to DSU? I'm not digging it so far. The only DTS X film Ive seen so far (ex machina) I wasn't impressed with at all. Jury is still out.


Don't judge based on Ex Machina. It wasn't supposed to be an aggressive mix.


----------



## thebland

Don Draper said:


> Does anyone else find neutral x to be really aggressive (see exaggerated) compared to DSU? I'm not digging it so far. The only DTS X film Ive seen so far (ex machina) I wasn't impressed with at all. Jury is still out.


I have found just the opposite. Neural X seems to be ideally suited as an up-mixer in the films I have watched. DSU seems a bit dead and light in the height speakers. I use Neural X whenever I can and have found it balanced and best mimicking a native DTS-X / Atmos sound track.


----------



## humbland

thebland said:


> I have found just the opposite. Neural X seems to be ideally suited as an up-mixer in the films I have watched. DSU seems a bit dead and light in the height speakers. I use Neural X whenever I can and have found it balanced and best mimicking a native DTS-X / Atmos sound track.


We have a Pioneer SC-97. Awaiting the DTS:X firmware upgrade. In the mean time, I want to add the overhead speakers to as much content as possible. Until now, I have been adding "Dolby Surround". After reading your post, I thought perhaps I should experiment more. The SC-97 does not have "Neural X" processing as an option. However, it does have "DTS Neo:X". (several flavors). Are those the same, similar or related?


----------



## pasender91

humbland said:


> We have a Pioneer SC-97. Awaiting the DTS:X firmware upgrade. In the mean time, I want to add the overhead speakers to as much content as possible. Until now, I have been adding "Dolby Surround". After reading your post, I thought perhaps I should experiment more. The SC-97 does not have "Neural X" processing as an option. However, it does have "DTS Neo:X". (several flavors). Are those the same, similar or related?


Neo:X is an older upmixer that doesn't support overhead channels. Your only option for now is Dolby Surround, until you can test Neural X.


----------



## humbland

pasender91 said:


> Neo:X is an older upmixer that doesn't support overhead channels. Your only option for now is Dolby Surround, until you can test Neural X.


Thanks for the info. 
If/when Pioneer adds the DTS:X firmware update, will it include the Neural X upmixer?


----------



## thebland

humbland said:


> Thanks for the info.
> If/when Pioneer adds the DTS:X firmware update, will it include the Neural X upmixer?


Likely Yes.


----------



## Ricoflashback

pasender91 said:


> Neo:X is an older upmixer that doesn't support overhead channels. Your only option for now is Dolby Surround, until you can test Neural X.


Not exactly. I have an older Denon x5200 in a 11.1.2 setup (see below) with "Front Heights" and "Front Wides." The Denon x5200 has Dolby Atmos but not DTS X - only DTS Neo X. While DTS Neo X is NOT object rendered, like DTS X or Dolby Atmos, it does provide a very engaging immersive sound field, IMHO. It is my "Go To" setting for everything except for Dolby Atmos. I prefer the "Movie - Cinema Mode" in DTS Neo X that provides extra emphasis on the center channel for dialog clarity. 

With my Home Theater - - I purposely decided on "Front Wides" versus "Rear Heights" and using the DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) since it works better for my room. So - - you can still install "Front Heights" and "Rear Heights" and use Dolby Atmos and DTS Neo X - - and be ready for the DTS X upgrade. (Down the road, I'd like to have 11.1.4 setup with "Rear Heights" in addition to my "Front Heights.") 

Older info on DTS Neo X: 


"In what appears to be a response to Dolby's ProLogic IIz and Audyssey's DSX surround sound formats, DTS unveiled an 11.1 channel surround sound format that they have labeled DTS Neo:X. DTS Neo X does not require studios to mix soundtracks specifically for the 11.1 channel soundfield, however, they do have the ability to do so, if desired, which delivers a more accurate result.


However, DTS Neo:X is able to look for cues already present in stereo, 5.1 or 7.1 channel soundtracks and places those cues within front height and wide channels that are distributed to added front height and rear height speakers, enabling a more enveloping "3D" sound listening environment."


"In a full 11.1 DTS Neo:X setup, the speakers are arranged as follows: Front Left, Front Left Height, Front Center, Front Right, Front Right Height, Wide Left, Wide Right, Surround Height Left, Surround Right Height, Surround Left, and Surround Right. An alternate speaker setup would remove the Surround Left and Right Height speakers and, instead, incorporate additional Left and Right speakers between the Left and Right Front and Left and Right Wide speakers.


This type of speaker layout allows for the expansion of the surround sound field that fills in the gaps between the surround and front speakers, as well as adding a larger front soundstage with the addition of height channels placed above the front left and right front speakers, and additional sound coming from the rear via back surround height speakers."


----------



## Don Draper

thebland said:


> I have found just the opposite. Neural X seems to be ideally suited as an up-mixer in the films I have watched. DSU seems a bit dead and light in the height speakers. I use Neural X whenever I can and have found it balanced and best mimicking a native DTS-X / Atmos sound track.


Interesting - I've actually found DSU to be more balanced. What is your configuration? My sample size is small though since I've been listening to to mostly native material. In fact my only DTS up-mix has been Straight out of Compton. Very aggressive , but perhaps meant to be . I guess a good test may be to to listen to the same mix with both up-mixers but then I wonder what effect cross formatting may have - like perhaps Dolby doesn't handle the DTS mix as effectively as its own? 

Im going to to pull up some DTS HD titles im well familiar with and give them go.


----------



## williamwallace

Don Draper said:


> Does anyone else find neutral x to be really aggressive (see exaggerated) compared to DSU? I'm not digging it so far. The only DTS X film Ive seen so far (ex machina) I wasn't impressed with at all. Jury is still out.


DTS:X in Gods of Egypt was actually pretty good. And I am looking forward to the UHD of Independence Day tomorrow, as it is also DTS:X.

As far as Neural:X, I think it depends on the mix. I've heard it where it sounded like it was "trying too hard", but on a movie like The Revenant, I thought it did a fantastic job and made me feel like I was there.


----------



## Don Draper

williamwallace said:


> DTS:X in Gods of Egypt was actually pretty good. And I am looking forward to the UHD of Independence Day tomorrow, as it is also DTS:X.
> 
> As far as Neural:X, I think it depends on the mix. I've heard it where it sounded like it was "trying too hard", but on a movie like The Revenant, I thought it did a fantastic job and made me feel like I was there.


I'll probably pop in the revenant tonight. One thing is for sure , the whole library is alive again. I even popped in the matrix on DVD (yes DVD) last night for a few scenes.


----------



## thebland

Don Draper said:


> Interesting - I've actually found DSU to be more balanced. What is your configuration? My sample size is small though since I've been listening to to mostly native material. In fact my only DTS up-mix has been Straight out of Compton. Very aggressive , but perhaps meant to be . I guess a good test may be to to listen to the same mix with both up-mixers but then I wonder what effect cross formatting may have - like perhaps Dolby doesn't handle the DTS mix as effectively as its own?
> 
> Im going to to pull up some DTS HD titles im well familiar with and give them go.


11.6.8 set up with Trinnov Altitude.

I have watched a few films and keep coming back to that upmixing mode.


----------



## Don Draper

thebland said:


> 11.6.8 set up with Trinnov Altitude.
> 
> I have watched a few films and keep coming back to that upmixing mode.


Maybe the perception has to do with the size and layout of our rooms.. 

Is it necessary to output lpcm in order to overlay DTS on dolby?


----------



## thebland

Don Draper said:


> Maybe the perception has to do with the size and layout of our rooms..
> 
> Is it necessary to output lpcm in order to overlay DTS on dolby?


No... you can mix and match bitstreams between Auromatic, Neural X and DSU. My room is 17 X 28 X 9.5.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

thebland said:


> No... you can mix and match bitstreams between Auromatic, Neural X and DSU. My room is 17 X 28 X 9.5.


That is true for the Trinnov, on D&M a bug is preventing cross upmixing for the time being.


----------



## Don Draper

thebland said:


> No... you can mix and match bitstreams between Auromatic, Neural X and DSU. My room is 17 X 28 X 9.5.



Yep - my 12x12x8 just a tad smaller than yours .


----------



## Don Draper

thebland said:


> No... you can mix and match bitstreams between Auromatic, Neural X and DSU. My room is 17 X 28 X 9.5.



Yep - my 12x12x8 just a tad smaller than yours .



Mashie Saldana said:


> That is true for the Trinnov, on D&M a bug is preventing cross upmixing for the time being.


Ive got D&M


----------



## Stoked21

Haven't posted in a while. 


Watching HDR DTS:X Independence Day. 

Dear God it's amazing. Better than any Atmos mix or anything I've watched in the last 2 years. 

Tons of overhead effects and very objectional. 

On video front there's very little film grain unlike the BS Ghostbusters releases (who's atmos was nonexistent and HDR was trash).


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Don Draper said:


> Yep - my 12x12x8 just a tad smaller than yours .
> Ive got D&M


Then you will have to use the LPCM workaround until the cross upmixing patch is released later this year.


----------



## Don Draper

Whats HDR?


----------



## WilliamG

Mashie Saldana said:


> Then you will have to use the LPCM workaround until the cross upmixing patch is released later this year.


Oh hey, just found this thread exists! YAY!

Wanted to share my first experience with Atmos!

This is with my new Denon X4200W, - I got my Atmos speakers today! I'm taking it easy on the Atmos purchases since my room is really small (14x10). I got the Klipsch RP-140SA to sit on my front towers - for a 5.1.2 system.

I must admit, I fired up Gravity, apparently a revelation in Atmos, and was... for lack of a better word... disappointed. 

However, it occurred to me after doing some A->B instant comparisons - shutting off Atmos and just using the TrueHD track (easily done by just hitting the "Movie" button on the Denon remote), that it's not what you GAIN by using Atmos over TrueHD etc, - it's what you LOSE by NOT using Atmos. 

Honestly? Just... wow. For example, (no spoilers), in Gravity, at 10:15, Ed Harris is speaking, and with the regular TrueHD track his voice just sounds like it's coming from all speakers. It's not nuanced at all, and it's almost odd sounding, to be honest, after hearing the Atmos track, where Ed Harris's voice comes from... well... somewhere in the sky to the top right of the image, almost ethereal sounding. The music bounces around all the speakers in the subsequent scene, and it's really, REALLY involving.

Another example of odd TrueHD audio "fixed" by Atmos? John Wick. Again, no spoilers, but John Wick pulls a gun to shoot a few times at 50:46. When he shoots, there's far too much rear surround channel action, - bizarrely so. With the Atmos track, it echoes around the front heights, and sounds infinitely better, and the rear surrounds don't sound overpoweringly loud because of the more natural sound progression involving the heights. Club music has height and depth to it, and overall greatly improves the experience. Great stuff.

One of my favorite demos, though, is a REALLY simple one. Again, no spoilers, but right at the very start of Unbroken, some planes fly overhead right after the credits. It's the first thing you see in the movie. With TrueHD, it's SO flat sounding. There's no height to the experience. With Atmos? Wow. Just... wow. The crackle of planes hits above you, and then the roar completely bowls you over from all directions. Sensational.

Overall, very impressed, and the X4200W is working flawlessly so far. No complaints, even with my 5.1.2 setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stoked21 said:


> Haven't posted in a while.
> 
> 
> Watching HDR DTS:X Independence Day.
> 
> Dear God it's amazing. Better than any Atmos mix or anything I've watched in the last 2 years.
> 
> Tons of overhead effects and very objectional.
> 
> On video front there's very little film grain unlike the BS Ghostbusters releases (who's atmos was nonexistent and HDR was trash).


It will be interesting to see if this DTS: X mix actually has positional/pannable rendered objects rather than fixed 7.1.4. Those with Trinnov Altitudes or Trinnov based processors will have to step up here and give us a report. *cough* *thebland* *cough* 

As for the grain, _Ghostbusters_ was mostly filmed on high speed film stock and so it will inherently be more grainy.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> It will be interesting to see if this DTS: X mix actually has positional/pannable rendered objects rather than fixed 7.1.4. Those with Trinnov or Trinnov based processors will have to step up here and give us a report. *cough* thebland *cough*
> 
> As for the grain, _Ghostbusters_ was mostly filmed on high speed film stock and so it will inherently be more grainy.


I'll help... but do I really have to sit through Independence Day and Will Smith?

Unfortunately, DTS is way behind Atmos and is only 7.1.4 (currently) in the Altitude... With Atmos, I am getting all 11.2.8 discrete channels!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> I'll help... but do I really have to sit through Independence Day and Will Smith?
> 
> Unfortunately, DTS is way behind Atmos and is only 7.1.4 (currently) in the Altitude... With Atmos, I am getting all 11.2.8 discrete channels!!


So, even if DTS: X tracks get a bit more sophisticated, the mighty Altitude is still running on the gimped DTS: X software? *Crikey*!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup.

Even with the all-mighty Trinnov... you're still stuck with 7.1.4 (with DTS:X) for now. Bummer.


Dolby Atmos is fully supported though.


----------



## thebland

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup.
> 
> Even with the all-mighty Trinnov... you're still stuck with 7.1.4 (with DTS:X) for now. Bummer.
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos is fully supported though.


Yep... DTS is wayyy behind. I can upmix DTS-X though to 23 channels using the other channels in an array fashion - very, very good. Neural X is almost like a discrete format.


----------



## Stoked21

Sit through Will Smith. Best audio I've ever heard.


----------



## PeterTHX

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, even if DTS: X tracks get a bit more sophisticated, the mighty Altitude is still running on the gimped DTS: X software? *Crikey*!



If it's hard coded to 7.1.4 the decoder isn't going to give you more than that without processing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, even if DTS: X tracks get a bit more sophisticated, the mighty Altitude is still running on the gimped DTS: X software? *Crikey*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's hard coded to 7.1.4 the decoder isn't going to give you more than that without processing.
Click to expand...

I understand that part, but the catch-22 is that no one will be able to know if DTS: X tracks ever get past 7.1.4 to something akin to Atmos since even the Altitude is limited in its DTS software.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Just thought that i would add 10 Cloverfield Lane Bluray is out and seems to have Dolby Atmos included!


----------



## shyyour

Killer_Nads said:


> Just thought that i would add 10 Cloverfield Lane Bluray is out and seems to have Dolby Atmos included!


Isn't it out on the 14th ?

Where did you get yours?


----------



## Selden Ball

Don Draper said:


> Whats HDR?


High Dynamic Range.

It's a video feature which extends the color gamut so that there's more detail in shadows and highlights.


----------



## j.s.woods

I have a 5.2 setup with a marat receiver. My current surround channels are in cleiling speakers. My wall height is 10 ft. I have a marantz sr7010 avr. I have no place to position the surrounds at ear level.

Can I add more in ceiling speakers at different locations to enable atmos? Or will the physical location of the surrounds not provide enough separation. Thanks


----------



## Mashie Saldana

j.s.woods said:


> I have a 5.2 setup with a marat receiver. My current surround channels are in cleiling speakers. My wall height is 10 ft. I have a marantz sr7010 avr. I have no place to position the surrounds at ear level.
> 
> Can I add more in ceiling speakers at different locations to enable atmos? Or will the physical location of the surrounds not provide enough separation. Thanks


You can't have Atmos with all speakers in the ceiling, you need much bigger angular separation than that will offer.


----------



## j.s.woods

Fortunately my front 3 are not in ceiling, only my left/right surround channels are...


----------



## Killer_Nads

shyyour said:


> Isn't it out on the 14th ?
> 
> Where did you get yours?


I don't have it yet, but just wanted to point out the good news that the bluray seems to have the dolby atmos track included and isn't just saved for the UHD!


----------



## thebland

Killer_Nads said:


> Just thought that i would add 10 Cloverfield Lane Bluray is out and seems to have Dolby Atmos included!


As an Atmos owner, I will avoid this. I saw this in the theater and it was the worst movie I have seen in a decade!


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> I understand that part, but the catch-22 is that no one will be able to know if DTS: X tracks ever get past 7.1.4 to something akin to Atmos since even the Altitude is limited in its DTS software.


When DTS completes its DTS-X implementation to [hopefully] 24.1.10 (like Atmos), it will be a simple update for Altitude owners. We will know about it as it'll be all over the Altitude thread.


----------



## Killer_Nads

thebland said:


> As an Atmos owner, I will avoid this. I saw this in the theater and it was the worst movie I have seen in a decade!


According to everyone else its quite the opposite actually!! People have nothing but good things to say about the film. I have not seen it yet but can not wait to. All the reviews are very positive.

Plus i think its the perfect film for atmos! Im sure there is going to be quite a few sounds coming from above.


----------



## shyyour

thebland said:


> As an Atmos owner, I will avoid this. I saw this in the theater and it was the worst movie I have seen in a decade!


Wow that bad it was on my list of Br purchases. 

At least 13 hours seems to have good Atmos reviews


----------



## thebland

Killer_Nads said:


> According to everyone else its quite the opposite actually!! People have nothing but good things to say about the film. I have not seen it yet but can not wait to. All the reviews are very positive.
> 
> Plus i think its the perfect film for atmos! Im sure there is going to be quite a few sounds coming from above.


Must be the pre-teens that liked it! It was a dull, idiotic money grab (that did poorly at the box office).


----------



## Killer_Nads

thebland said:


> Must be the pre-teens that liked it! It was a dull, idiotic money grab (that did poorly at the box office).


Again dude you are seriously wrong.

Critic reviews:

A twisty tale of a woman who wakes up in a bunker with two men, one of whom claims to have saved her from a catastrophe. 
Mark Kermode·The Guardian

A sensationally effective semi-sequel that bears virtually no narrative or stylistic resemblance to its predecessor. 
Justin Chang·Variety

And here I am about to tell you about a movie that you shouldn't let anyone tell you about.
Peter Travers·Rolling Stone

10 Cloverfield Lane, though no more than a kissing cousin to its namesake, is smartly chilling and finally spectacular.
Jeannette Catsoulis·New York Times

10 Cloverfield Lane has little in common with Cloverfield but is, nevertheless, a clever, thrilling, and downright fun movie experience.
Ben Kendrick·Screen Rant

Is Howard a psychopath holding Michelle captive toward his own degenerate ends? Or has he truly saved her from a global Armageddon? Or maybe … both? 
Christopher Orr·The Atlantic

Concise, suspenseful, yet still playful and smartly orchestrated, 10 Cloverfield Lane leaves behind the secrecy surrounding its release to not just match but even outdo its predecessor.
Gregory Wakeman·Cinemablend

And it's a better movie than its predecessor, one that at least has a sense of humor about itself and its genre.
Stephanie Zacharek·Time

Going into “10 Cloverfield Lane” knowing virtually nothing about what awaits is the nature of the beast for a J.J. Abrams-produced movie.
Ethan Sacks·New York Daily News

This is a horror movie, both intimate and sprawling in scope. And as a horror movie, it works. It works too well, perhaps.
Paul Asay·Plugged In

*The movie is sitting with an amazing score of 90% on rotten tomatoes and has an average of 7.4 on IMDB which is a TOP SCORE!*

I enjoyed the original, this one is nothing like the original but supposed to be a much better film then it.


----------



## Don Draper

Cloverfield lanew is 90% on rotten tomatoes. That's wOrth a watch.


----------



## thebland

It was still incredibly stupid. Mind numbingly bad. Myself and my 21 year old daughter were bored stiff. 

I don't know any of the above critics or their credentials. Was there a NYTIMES review, AO Scott, etc or the likes??


----------



## Don Draper

Ah Got beat to it.


----------



## shyyour

Has anyone seen "Now You See Me" in atmos (4K)? 
How was the mix?


----------



## Don Draper

3 stars from ebert for 10 cl . Maybe worth a rental unless the presentation is excellent.


----------



## AllenA07

j.s.woods said:


> I have a 5.2 setup with a marat receiver. My current surround channels are in cleiling speakers. My wall height is 10 ft. I have a marantz sr7010 avr. I have no place to position the surrounds at ear level.
> 
> Can I add more in ceiling speakers at different locations to enable atmos? Or will the physical location of the surrounds not provide enough separation. Thanks


Would it be possible to do in wall surrounds lower down? As said above, you're not going to be able to do Atmos if all your speakers are on the ceiling. You need to have a separate bed and height layer.


----------



## ramcharger1979

shyyour said:


> Has anyone seen "Now You See Me" in atmos (4K)?
> How was the mix?


I thought it was pretty awesome. 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## shyyour

ramcharger1979 said:


> I thought it was pretty awesome.
> 
> Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


Thanks


----------



## jqmn

thebland said:


> Unfortunately, DTS is way behind Atmos and is only 7.1.4 (currently) in the Altitude... With Atmos, I am getting all 11.2.8 discrete channels!!


Are the current Atmos mixes really putting out 11.2.8 discrete or are they basic 7.1.4 beds with objects moving through the other channels if you have them? If the beds are really 11.8 (or really, even if they are 7.4) where do they fold to in a 5.2 system (or are they dropped)? For example, isn't it the case that the rear surrounds in a DDTHD 7.1 will fold to the sides for 5.1? For Atmos, folding in this fashion would seem to really change the sound. With x.6 or more a helicopter starting in the top fronts and progressing to the rears is pretty different from the sound being all folded into the top center in a x.2 or even changing to start in the front L,C or R and moving up to the top centers and stopping with the trailing sound happening to the sides. (And of course the "snap to" is a whole other conversation....) I am sure all this might be dependent on what the sound guys do with their tools. Has FilmMixer or someone else given us any insight here?


----------



## dvdwilly3

j.s.woods said:


> I have a 5.2 setup with a marat receiver. My current surround channels are in cleiling speakers. My wall height is 10 ft. I have a marantz sr7010 avr. I have no place to position the surrounds at ear level.
> 
> Can I add more in ceiling speakers at different locations to enable atmos? Or will the physical location of the surrounds not provide enough separation. Thanks


Could you install in-wall speakers for surrounds and re-purpose your current in-ceiling speakers as Atmos?


----------



## Don Draper

So I gave the Revenant a go last night. My initial feeling is the same that neutral X it is more aggressive than DSU - but it may not necessarily be a bad thing (which is a change from my initial take). I may just need to get used to the presentation. So while I think theBland and I share the same observation in terms of which upmixer is more aggressive, I'm not yet sold that DTS is the more balanced - but it is exciting/entertaining. You can demo the opening scene of the initial hunt when the camera moves low along the water, drop the mic, and instantly have your audience sold on the benefits of this tech. You hear the brook all around you and for the whole scene it goes on never letting you forget where you are. The more aggressive nature of DTS really suits the revenant because of the camera work (very lengthy single camera scenes, that move all over the environment). It literally put you in the middle of the action. When this gets re-released in DTS X, I'm all over it. There were some scenes that did trip up the presentation but as an upmixer that is to be expected.

Its a good time for cinema sound right now. I hope the studios stop mucking about with these limited feature releases though.


----------



## rckrzy1

After owning an ATMOS AVR for a few months I finally found a movie where I actually could tell it was ATMOS, the Cinema version of 5th element. I could actually hear the bullets etc traveling over head.

I have a ONKYO 737 with Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers sitting a top my pioneer AJ speakers up front.


----------



## Ash Sharma

Immersive sound is about ambience... it fills the room with sound ....ATMOS will be refined and as the director intended..
Auro upmix for example is too aggressive such that it sounds good for music but I personally don't care for it at all.
DTS has to show something for immersive sound as it is losing the battle with ATMOS - so I feel they will get very aggressive with the DTS X mixes and Nueral will be a more aggressive implementation too..does not mean it will be refined or correct but if it makes movie magic for someone then it is all good for that person ..
The thing about immersive codecs is that most rooms will sound different from each other depending on how many speakers etc etc...
But once you hear immersive sound - even in music concerts - Metallica Through The Never In Immersive Setup... awesome.


----------



## Selden Ball

j.s.woods said:


> I have a 5.2 setup with a marat receiver. My current surround channels are in cleiling speakers. My wall height is 10 ft. I have a marantz sr7010 avr. I have no place to position the surrounds at ear level.
> 
> Can I add more in ceiling speakers at different locations to enable atmos? Or will the physical location of the surrounds not provide enough separation. Thanks


You might want to consider floor-standing speakers for the surrounds. Of course, being able to use them depends on the people sharing your home.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that part, but the catch-22 is that no one will be able to know if DTS: X tracks ever get past 7.1.4 to something akin to Atmos since even the Altitude is limited in its DTS software.
> 
> 
> 
> When DTS completes its DTS-X implementation to [hopefully] 24.1.10 (like Atmos), it will be a simple update for Altitude owners. We will know about it as it'll be all over the Altitude thread.
Click to expand...

The last I heard is that a full implementation of consumer DTS: X would entail 32 positions. However, some are optional sub effects channels and a few locations are zoned and not fully discrete like Atmos. 

Maybe it will change... who knows at this point.


----------



## thebland

jqmn said:


> Are the current Atmos mixes really putting out 11.2.8 discrete or are they basic 7.1.4 beds with objects moving through the other channels if you have them? If the beds are really 11.8 (or really, even if they are 7.4) where do they fold to in a 5.2 system (or are they dropped)? For example, isn't it the case that the rear surrounds in a DDTHD 7.1 will fold to the sides for 5.1? For Atmos, folding in this fashion would seem to really change the sound. With x.6 or more a helicopter starting in the top fronts and progressing to the rears is pretty different from the sound being all folded into the top center in a x.2 or even changing to start in the front L,C or R and moving up to the top centers and stopping with the trailing sound happening to the sides. (And of course the "snap to" is a whole other conversation....) I am sure all this might be dependent on what the sound guys do with their tools. Has FilmMixer or someone else given us any insight here?


The Altitude has a separate arrangement with Dolby. It can discretely process 24.1.10. The Dolby software allows for discrete channels in any speaker count up to 24.1.10. DTS-X is capped at 7.1.4 for all consumer SSPs. That will change in the near future for Altitude owners and should mimic Dolby at 24.1.10.

The Altitude can upmix up to 24.1.10 as well depending on the mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jqmn said:


> thebland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, DTS is way behind Atmos and is only 7.1.4 (currently) in the Altitude... With Atmos, I am getting all 11.2.8 discrete channels!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the current Atmos mixes really putting out 11.2.8 discrete or are they basic 7.1.4 beds with objects moving through the other channels if you have them? If the beds are really 11.8 (or really, even if they are 7.4) where do they fold to in a 5.2 system (or are they dropped)? For example, isn't it the case that the rear surrounds in a DDTHD 7.1 will fold to the sides for 5.1? For Atmos, folding in this fashion would seem to really change the sound. With x.6 or more a helicopter starting in the top fronts and progressing to the rears is pretty different from the sound being all folded into the top center in a x.2 or even changing to start in the front L,C or R and moving up to the top centers and stopping with the trailing sound happening to the sides. (And of course the "snap to" is a whole other conversation....) I am sure all this might be dependent on what the sound guys do with their tools. Has FilmMixer or someone else given us any insight here?
Click to expand...

Dolby Atmos and DTS: X for the home normally start with a 7.1 channel bed for backwards compatibility with current Blu-ray audio specs.

Since cinema Dolby Atmos has a 9.1channel bed, two objects of the maximum of 20 in the home version are allotted as surrogate overhead channel beds.

Home Atmos can render to 24.1.10 using those remaining positional 3D (x y z axis) objects right now.

DTS: X for the home has up to 9 additional objects and at some point may be able to handle 32 positions. Right now software and media, and hardware are fixed at 7.1 and four immovable objects for the overheads.


----------



## sdurani

jqmn said:


> Are the current Atmos mixes really putting out 11.2.8 discrete or are they basic 7.1.4 beds with objects moving through the other channels if you have them?


Some of the sound in an Atmos soundtrack is not in channels. Instead, those sounds are assigned x,y,z coordinates in 3D space. Which means they're not tied to a specific number of speakers. The Atmos decoder simply renders those sounds to their intended locations as best it can using the number of speakers in your set-up. With this sort of approach, the same soundtrack can be played back over everything from a 5.1.2 set-up to a 24.1.10 set-up (max rendering locations for home Atmos).


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> Some of the sound in an Atmos soundtrack is not in channels. Instead, those sounds are assigned x,y,z coordinates in 3D space. Which means they're not tied to a specific number of speakers. The Atmos decoder simply renders those sounds to their intended locations as best it can using the number of speakers in your set-up. With this sort of approach, the same soundtrack can be played back over everything from a 5.1.2 set-up to a 24.1.10 set-up (max rendering locations for home Atmos).


Correct. For example, my second set of side surrounds are object channels as mentioned above. Very little sound comes out until needed whereas the primary side surrounds are almost always making sound.


----------



## sdurani

Don Draper said:


> So I gave the Revenant a go last night. My initial feeling is the same that neutral X it is more aggressive than DSU - but it may not necessarily be a bad thing (which is a change from my initial take).


The best demonstration I've ever heard that lets you hear the differences between DSU and Neural:X involved using only the height speakers playing (floor speakers unplugged) and the scene from The Revenant where the captain at the fort goes upstairs to get money out of the safe. Playing that scene with both upmixers is an ear opener. Neural:X puts a lot more sound up there, but doesn't reproduce any of the subtle ambience and background atmosphere that DSU does.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the sound in an Atmos soundtrack is not in channels. Instead, those sounds are assigned x,y,z coordinates in 3D space. Which means they're not tied to a specific number of speakers. The Atmos decoder simply renders those sounds to their intended locations as best it can using the number of speakers in your set-up. With this sort of approach, the same soundtrack can be played back over everything from a 5.1.2 set-up to a 24.1.10 set-up (max rendering locations for home Atmos).
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. For example, my second set of side surrounds are object channels as mentioned above. Very little sound comes out until needed whereas the primary side surrounds are almost always making sound.
Click to expand...

That's supposedly because the current implementation of Home Atmos does not array the side and rear surround bed channels like at the cinema. 

It's weird that Dolby didn't include their 850 cinema processor's workaround for consumer Blu-ray Atmos tracks that allows for bed arraying.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman said:


> thebland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the sound in an Atmos soundtrack is not in channels. Instead, those sounds are assigned x,y,z coordinates in 3D space. Which means they're not tied to a specific number of speakers. The Atmos decoder simply renders those sounds to their intended locations as best it can using the number of speakers in your set-up. With this sort of approach, the same soundtrack can be played back over everything from a 5.1.2 set-up to a 24.1.10 set-up (max rendering locations for home Atmos).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. For example, my second set of side surrounds are object channels as mentioned above. Very little sound comes out until needed whereas the primary side surrounds are almost always making sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's supposedly because the current implementation of Home Atmos does not array the side and rear surround bed channels like at the cinema.
> 
> It's weird that Dolby didn't include their 850 cinema processor's workaround for consumer Blu-ray Atmos tracks that allows for bed arraying to Trinnov's custom software renderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Don Draper

sdurani said:


> The best demonstration I've ever heard that lets you hear the differences between DSU and Neural:X involved using only the height speakers playing (floor speakers unplugged) and the scene from The Revenant where the captain at the fort goes upstairs to get money out of the safe. Playing that scene with both upmixers is an ear opener. Neural:X puts a lot more sound up there, but doesn't reproduce any of the subtle ambience and background atmosphere that DSU does.


Neutral X definitely lets you know you've got some speakers up there. I suppose its a could thing that they bring different attributes to the table.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's supposedly because the current implementation of Home Atmos does not array the side and rear surround bed channels like at the cinema.
> 
> It's weird that Dolby didn't include their 850 cinema processor's workaround for consumer Blu-ray Atmos tracks that allows for bed arraying.


Word is this is going to come in a future update - as they work it out with Dolby. Subjectively, I haven't noticed an issue.


----------



## tjenkins95

williamwallace said:


> DTS:X in Gods of Egypt was actually pretty good. And I am looking forward to the UHD of Independence Day tomorrow, as it is also DTS:X.
> 
> As far as Neural:X, I think it depends on the mix. I've heard it where it sounded like it was "trying too hard", but on a movie like The Revenant, I thought it did a fantastic job and made me feel like I was there.


 
I thought the DTS:X was amazing when watching Gods of Egypt - my couch never vibrated so much for such long periods of time! Also looking forward to Independence Day! 


Ray


----------



## SherazNJ

Hi guys,
I'm in the middle of acoustically treating my room. One of the issue I am facing is the placement of Surround Back. I need to place defusers on back wall. My ceiling is 8' tall and currently I have surround back mounted just above to where the seat top ends. Because of this placement, I can't mount the diffuser. Someone (from acoustic company) told me that I should be mounting the back wall speakers at 6 or 6 1/2 feet high. I told him that I have ceiling speakers and the advice on AVS is that all the floor speakers should have at least 4 feet of distance from ceiling speaker. 

So you see my dilemma. What is correct? Should the surround back be 6 1/2 feet high on back wall or they should be at least 4 feet below the ceiling speaker? Since my ceiling is ~ 8', putting ceiling speakers 6' leaves them only 1 foot away from ceiling speakers.

Please advice.


----------



## Lando_pr

dianebrat said:


> No, on is fine, it's the location, I was able to get away with 2 up on top of high bookcases pointed down at the MLP and they're not perfect, but they're certainly close enough.
> 
> Granted it's not for purists, but you can fudge a lot and still get decent results.


So you would say you can tell the difference between 5.1 or 7.1 and Atmos with front heights? I would like to know more about personal experiences with Atmos using front heights instead of ceiling speakers.


----------



## dvdwilly3

SherazNJ said:


> Hi guys,
> I'm in the middle of acoustically treating my room. One of the issue I am facing is the placement of Surround Back. I need to place defusers on back wall. My ceiling is 8' tall and currently I have surround back mounted just above to where the seat top ends. Because of this placement, I can't mount the diffuser. Someone (from acoustic company) told me that I should be mounting the back wall speakers at 6 or 6 1/2 feet high. I told him that I have ceiling speakers and the advice on AVS is that all the floor speakers should have at least 4 feet of distance from ceiling speaker.
> 
> So you see my dilemma. What is correct? Should the surround back be 6 1/2 feet high on back wall or they should be at least 4 feet below the ceiling speaker? Since my ceiling is ~ 8', putting ceiling speakers 6' leaves them only 1 foot away from ceiling speakers.
> 
> Please advice.


Keep the surrounds lower...if you raise them they will start interfering with each other...

FWIW...the most important acoustic treatment is for the 4 corners of the room...my opinion, but the are a number of consultants that will tell you the same thing.

It can clean up the sound with a minimum visual impact...


----------



## SherazNJ

dvdwilly3 said:


> Keep the surrounds lower...if you raise them they will start interfering with each other...


Just as I thought.


> FWIW...the most important acoustic treatment is for the 4 corners of the room...my opinion, but the are a number of consultants that will tell you the same thing.
> 
> It can clean up the sound with a minimum visual impact...


I believe corner room treatment is for low frequencies. My situation is that I am sitting 5 feet from back wall and I installed 1" Linaccoustics on the back wall and also the side wall that is b/w MLP and back wall. After that, I feel like that sound is not as large as it used to be. May be I should get rid of the Linaccoustics from back wall and add diffuser on the side wall that is b/w MLP and back wall.


One more question related to surround speaker. Unfortunately my room is only 12' wide. After putting three couches, it takes up enough space that putting a surround speaker at 90 degrees from MLP gets in the way. Anyone who has to walk through has to be careful and basically walk side way to make sure they don't knock down my surround speaker. I do have a stand that can bring the surround high enough to bring them above couch height. Would it be ok to move them back enough to clear the way? This will make surround to be placed around 130 degrees from MLP.


----------



## meli

urbeenjammin said:


> Lucy absolutely is in the top 3 atmos tracks available and it includes 4 atmos trailers to boot.You will be blown away guaranteed!





Selden Ball said:


> Atmos is only available on the Asian version



3D Blu-Ray Rental has the imported Atmos version of "Lucy" to rent for $8.99. I watched it a couple nights ago and was impressed. It's a good action film to boot.

Here's the link: http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/product-p/lucyda12-14.htm


----------



## Don Draper

I used to have fh and top middle . The fh to me did not impact the sound. They were set up for pllz and neox so not angled down but the tweeters were. Switching to tf/tr was borderline night and day.


----------



## Don Draper

Careful not to place treatment willy nilly. Reflection points should be mapped specifically or you will get strange results.


----------



## studlygoorite

New to Atmos here and have just installed my 4 ceiling speakers but I fear I may have made a mistake. Watching the page one video on this thread it shows the front ceiling speakers close to the front speakers whereas the pic I attached has them closer to the seating position, which is correct or does it matter?


----------



## williamwallace

tjenkins95 said:


> I thought the DTS:X was amazing when watching Gods of Egypt - my couch never vibrated so much for such long periods of time! Also looking forward to Independence Day!
> 
> 
> Ray


Believe the hype. I am half way through Independence Day, and there is a massive amount of overhead sound. From the overwhelming alien arrival to subtle dogs barking and insects. It's impressive.


----------



## ALtlOff

studlygoorite said:


> New to Atmos here and have just installed my 4 ceiling speakers but I fear I may have made a mistake. Watching the page one video on this thread it shows the front ceiling speakers close to the front speakers whereas the pic I attached has them closer to the seating position, which is correct or does it matter?


IMO, that diagram is off some, for one thing the Rears should be on the same line as the Fronts and Overheads/Tops, the rear overheads are about right for TR, but to me the front overheads seem more like a cross between TF & TM.
If it were me I'd say that to get TM you'd pull those front overheads back to the front edge of the couch and for TF, I'd move them the same distance, only forward.


----------



## ALtlOff

williamwallace said:


> Believe the hype. I am half way through Independence Day, and there is a massive amount of overhead sound. From the overwhelming alien arrival to subtle dogs barking and insects. It's impressive.


Oblivion
Independence Day
Ghostbusters

They're making it more and more difficult to hold off for Oppo's UHD player.


----------



## ALtlOff

Lando_pr said:


> So you would say you can tell the difference between 5.1 or 7.1 and Atmos with front heights? I would like to know more about personal experiences with Atmos using front heights instead of ceiling speakers.


I use nothing but heights, and comparing PLIIz w/ Heights and Atmos with Heights, to me there are 2 distinct differences:
1. The sound being sent to the FH speakers are more discrete and fluid in their panning whether it be side to side or diagonal.
2. For me, Atmos soundtracks in general have been cleaner, more discrete and just basically have sounded better, even in the bed layer of speakers alone.

Don't forget, the Atmos metadata for objects can place them "anywhere" in the 360° bubble, not just in the overhead speakers, it's up to the sound mixer to decide whether to add those sounds into the channel mix or not, and I feel that when they are, they just don't seem to be as clean or accurate as when they are in the Atmos mix I'm general.


----------



## Mrjmc99

rckrzy1 said:


> After owning an ATMOS AVR for a few months I finally found a movie where I actually could tell it was ATMOS, the Cinema version of 5th element. I could actually hear the bullets etc traveling over head.
> 
> I have a ONKYO 737 with Pioneer AJ Atmos speakers sitting a top my pioneer AJ speakers up front.


Agreed, 5th element atmos was excellent!

Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


----------



## WilliamG

Please could someone explain something..., because I'm confused about this. My understanding is that e.g. Atmos 7.1 is TrueHD 7.1 with the additional object-related channels enabled, so 7.1.2, or 7.1.4 etc... So - Atmos = TrueHD + extra bytes of data for the extra height speakers.

However, and I'll quote my first experience with Atmos:

_"Another example of odd TrueHD audio "fixed" by Atmos? John Wick. Again, no spoilers, but John Wick pulls a gun to shoot a few times at 50:46. When he shoots, there's far too much rear surround channel action, - bizarrely so. With the Atmos track, it echoes around the front heights, and sounds infinitely better, and the rear surrounds don't sound overpoweringly loud because of the more natural sound progression involving the heights. Club music has height and depth to it, and overall greatly improves the experience. Great stuff."_

If Atmos just ADDS those extra objects through the height speakers, why does the Atmos track change the rear surrounds (from a standard 5.1 setup) so massively from the regular TrueHD track. The difference in the above sequence is huge between TrueHD and Atmos. The rear surrounds are not used as loudly as far as I can tell in the Atmos, whereas they're overwhelmingly (in a bad way) loud in the TrueHD track.

Cheers.


----------



## PeterTHX

Don Draper said:


> Neutral X definitely lets you know you've got some speakers up there. I suppose its a could thing that they bring different attributes to the table.



To me that's the audio equivalent of having your TV set to VIVID.


"Wow! What brightness! What color! What sharpness!"


----------



## dvdwilly3

SherazNJ said:


> Just as I thought.
> 
> I believe corner room treatment is for low frequencies. My situation is that I am sitting 5 feet from back wall and I installed 1" Linaccoustics on the back wall and also the side wall that is b/w MLP and back wall. After that, I feel like that sound is not as large as it used to be. May be I should get rid of the Linaccoustics from back wall and add diffuser on the side wall that is b/w MLP and back wall.
> 
> 
> One more question related to surround speaker. Unfortunately my room is only 12' wide. After putting three couches, it takes up enough space that putting a surround speaker at 90 degrees from MLP gets in the way. Anyone who has to walk through has to be careful and basically walk side way to make sure they don't knock down my surround speaker. I do have a stand that can bring the surround high enough to bring them above couch height. Would it be ok to move them back enough to clear the way? This will make surround to be placed around 130 degrees from MLP.


Corner treatment is the most effective way to treat for lower frequencies, but it can be effective for other frequencies as well.

Re "...sound is not as large as it used to be...", that is one effect of the wall treatment. You have reduced some of the refected sound so that there is literally less sound in the space, but what is there should sound somewhat clearer.

Re surround...are you talking about side surround or back surround? If back surround, then 130 degrees from MLP should not be a problem.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-2-setups.html

Are you running 7.1.2? Or, 7.1.4? Or, other?


----------



## Selden Ball

WilliamG said:


> Please could someone explain something..., because I'm confused about this. My understanding is that e.g. Atmos 7.1 is TrueHD 7.1 with the additional object-related channels enabled, so 7.1.2, or 7.1.4 etc... So - Atmos = TrueHD + extra bytes of data for the extra height speakers.


Not quite. The person mixing the soundtrack places sounds anywhere in xyz space. When the base-level 7.1 TrueHD channels are recorded, those sounds which have been placed overhead are mixed into the 7.1 ear-level channels. The Atmos metadata describes which sounds those are and how high up they're supposed to be. When the 7.1 soundtrack is played on a system with an Atmos decoder, the sounds which are supposed to be above ear level are partially or fully deleted (depending on their heights) from the ear-level speaker channels and positioned among the overhead speakers.


> However, and I'll quote my first experience with Atmos:
> 
> _"Another example of odd TrueHD audio "fixed" by Atmos? John Wick. Again, no spoilers, but John Wick pulls a gun to shoot a few times at 50:46. When he shoots, there's far too much rear surround channel action, - bizarrely so. With the Atmos track, it echoes around the front heights, and sounds infinitely better, and the rear surrounds don't sound overpoweringly loud because of the more natural sound progression involving the heights. Club music has height and depth to it, and overall greatly improves the experience. Great stuff."_
> 
> If Atmos just ADDS those extra objects through the height speakers, why does the Atmos track change the rear surrounds (from a standard 5.1 setup) so massively from the regular TrueHD track. The difference in the above sequence is huge between TrueHD and Atmos. The rear surrounds are not used as loudly as far as I can tell in the Atmos, whereas they're overwhelmingly (in a bad way) loud in the TrueHD track.
> 
> Cheers.


 As I've described above, sounds which are supposed to be overhead have been included in the 7.1 channel soundtrack, they're not in addition to it.

Also, if you have an Atmos-capable device with Audyssey (i.e. one from Denon, Marantz, or NAD or the McIntosh MX121), Audyssey's Dynamic EQ algorithm significantly boosts the Rear Surround speaker channels. You might be hearing that effect. Like bass and treble, they're boosted more relative to other speaker channels as you turn down the volume. You can turn off or reduce DynEQ to hear the difference.


----------



## WilliamG

Selden Ball said:


> Not quite. The person mixing the soundtrack places sounds anywhere in xyz space. When the base-level 7.1 TrueHD channels are recorded, those sounds which have been placed overhead are mixed into the 7.1 ear-level channels. The Atmos metadata describes which sounds those are and how high up they're supposed to be. When the 7.1 soundtrack is played on a system with an Atmos decoder, the sounds which are supposed to be above ear level are partially or fully deleted (depending on their heights) from the ear-level speaker channels and positioned among the overhead speakers. As I've described above, sounds which are supposed to be overhead have been included in the 7.1 channel soundtrack, they're not in addition to it.
> 
> Also, if you have an Atmos-capable device with Audyssey (i.e. one from Denon, Marantz, or NAD or the McIntosh MX121), Audyssey's Dynamic EQ algorithm significantly boosts the Rear Surround speaker channels. You might be hearing that effect. Like bass and treble, they're boosted more relative to other speaker channels as you turn down the volume. You can turn off or reduce DynEQ to hear the difference.


Great explanation, thank you! So Atmos really does address the deficiencies in the regular TrueHD stream. My above example has really bothered me because it always felt..."broken" by comparison to Atmos. 

FYI I have a Denon AVR-X4200W, with DynEQ OFF. The difference maker is Atmos. Want. All. Movies. In. Atmos!


----------



## Don Draper

PeterTHX said:


> Don Draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neutral X definitely lets you know you've got some speakers up there. I suppose its a could thing that they bring different attributes to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me that's the audio equivalent of having your TV set to VIVID.
> 
> 
> "Wow! What brightness! What color! What sharpness!"
Click to expand...

 Haha. FunniIy enough I drew the same comparison, bu
t used dynamic.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don Draper*  
_Neutral X definitely lets you know you've got some speakers up there. I suppose its a could thing that they bring different attributes to the table._


(PeterTHX)
To me that's the audio equivalent of having your TV set to VIVID. "Wow! What brightness! What color! What sharpness!"

Wanting more "overhead" sounds out of a soundtrack isn't a sin. (Well, maybe in some purists minds.) Many posters have commented about the lack of immersive Dolby Atmos qualities on certain movies where it's obvious that more "height" sounds should be present based on the nature of the content. 

I don't believe it's the equivalent of "having your TV set to VIVID." If anyone has ever tried that setting on 99% of TV's - - they quickly turn it off. I do not have Neural X as an upmixer - - only DTS Neo X which I've been very happy with. (In addition to Dolby Atmos with the older Denon x5200)

Maybe Neural X is a more aggressive upmixer than DSU. It could also be the specific content one was watching. At any rate - - no need to denigrate or "Novenas" needed.


----------



## Killer_Nads

Okay couldn't wait any longer , so watched 10 Cloverfield Lane last night in Atmos.

The film was excellent, had a true sense of suspense right throughout the film. Kept us guessing and on the edge of our seats. Had a really great time watching this thriller.

If you are expecting a horror film then you will most likely be disappointed. Its not a horror film, like the first one was. Well apart from the climax 

Now for the Atmos (7.1.4), there really isn't a lot to talk about. Barring maybe 2 or 3 scenes which had a heavy use of the above speakers the above speakers are hardly used throughout the rest of the film. But in the scenes where they are used, they work really well and definitely you can pinpoint the sounds coming from above!

Its hard to say if i would recommend the film as an atmos release (its decent enough but not the best), but i would definitely recommend the film if you like thrillers.


----------



## Don Draper

Ricoflashback said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Draper*
> _Neutral X definitely lets you know you've got some speakers up there. I suppose its a could thing that they bring different attributes to the table._
> 
> 
> (PeterTHX)
> To me that's the audio equivalent of having your TV set to VIVID. "Wow! What brightness! What color! What sharpness!"
> 
> Wanting more "overhead" sounds out of a soundtrack isn't a sin. (Well, maybe in some purists minds.) Many posters have commented about the lack of immersive Dolby Atmos qualities on certain movies where it's obvious that more "height" sounds should be present based on the nature of the content.
> 
> I don't believe it's the equivalent of "having your TV set to VIVID." If anyone has ever tried that setting on 99% of TV's - - they quickly turn it off. I do not have Neural X as an upmixer - - only DTS Neo X which I've been very happy with. (In addition to Dolby Atmos with the older Denon x5200)
> 
> Maybe Neural X is a more aggressive upmixer than DSU. It could also be the specific content one was watching. At any rate - - no need to denigrate or "Novenas" needed.


Define "more" sound. Curious that you have an opinion on something you don't use (or did I misunderstand).


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> So Atmos really does address the deficiencies in the regular TrueHD stream.


No it doesn't, because there's nothing to fix. TrueHD is a lossless data packing algorithm. It is not responsible for how an immersive mix is folded down to a single layer. It would be like someone e-mailing you a zipped file containing a summary of a document, but you end up not liking how the original document was summarized in certain parts, so you blame it on deficiencies in the zipping program. 

If a gunshot echo in John Wick was mixed into the heights such that it drops down into the rear speakers in the 7.1 downmix, then that is the responsibility of the recording engineer. At that point in the workflow (checking the backwards compatible downmix), the mix hasn't yet been packed using TrueHD. So it doesn't make sense for you to blame a lossless data packing algorithm (that will be used in a subsequent step) for a certain sound changing direction. Audio compression cannot do that.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> No it doesn't, because there's nothing to fix. TrueHD is a lossless data packing algorithm. It is not responsible for how an immersive mix is folded down to a single layer. It would be like someone e-mailing you a zipped file containing a summary of a document, but you end up not liking how the original document was summarized in certain parts, so you blame it on deficiencies in the zipping program.
> 
> If a gunshot echo in John Wick was mixed into the heights such that it drops down into the rear speakers in the 7.1 downmix, then that is the responsibility of the recording engineer. At that point in the workflow (checking the backwards compatible downmix), the mix hasn't yet been packed using TrueHD. So it doesn't make sense for you to blame a lossless data packing algorithm (that will be used in a subsequent step) for a certain sound changing direction. Audio compression cannot do that.


I'm not sure I buy the analogy. The bottom line is that the TrueHD mix of John Wick doesn't sound right in a few parts, but it does with Atmos. 

If I quote you here:

_"If a gunshot echo in John Wick was mixed into the heights such that it drops down into the rear speakers in the 7.1 downmix, then that is the responsibility of the recording engineer."
_
The recording engineer can't create height where there are no speakers to create height for. It doesn't particularly interest me whose responsibility it is. The Atmos track DOES still "fix" the deficiency in the TrueHD track, - the deficiency being that the best that can be done is putting gunfire in the rear surrounds when really it should be up above - a la Atmos. That's all I'm saying.

I guess you can say that TrueHD is just "limited" compared to Atmos, and that whomever is creating the mix has to work with a limited number of speakers. That definitely causes oddities in which sound, sound location etc is conveyed in TrueHD. I guess I've wanted Atmos for a long time.


----------



## lujan

williamwallace said:


> Believe the hype. I am half way through Independence Day, and there is a massive amount of overhead sound. From the overwhelming alien arrival to subtle dogs barking and insects. It's impressive.


I know this is the Atmos thread but what did you think about the video quality? I wasn't impressed but I viewed it from the FandangoNow Vidity UHD file.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> I guess you can say that TrueHD is just "limited" compared to Atmos, and that whomever is creating the mix has to work with a limited number of speakers.


That doesn't make sense. TrueHD is a lossless data packing algorithm. As such, it is not limited to any number of channels. The Atmos mix of John Wick was losslessly packed to take up less space on the disc. The packing algorithm used was TrueHD. When you're listening to the Atmos mix, you're hearing TrueHD.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> That doesn't make sense. TrueHD is a lossless data packing algorithm. As such, it is not limited to any number of channels. The Atmos mix of John Wick was losslessly packed to take up less space on the disc. The packing algorithm used was TrueHD. When you're listening to the Atmos mix, you're hearing TrueHD.


I don't know what to tell you. I cited one example where you're more than welcome to compare just how different the audio is.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> I cited one example where you're more than welcome to compare just how different the audio is.


I have, and it's not that different (didn't bother me to the extent that it apparently bothered you). My only point is to make clear to other readers that lossless data packing cannot re-mix the sound, irrespective of your claim otherwise. The technology is simply not capable of making sounds in a mix change direction.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> I have, and it's not that different (didn't bother me to the extent that it apparently bothered you). My only point is to make clear to other readers that lossless data packing cannot re-mix the sound, irrespective of your claim otherwise. The technology is simply not capable of making sounds in a mix change direction.


Maybe I misunderstood your original reply...? 

What you're saying is the ORIGINAL mix is Atmos, and then it gets downmixed into TrueHD, yes? I'm not sure how that invalidates my findings? In the downmix to TrueHD, gunfire is placed in those rear surrounds, when they don't belong there (in my mind).


----------



## Dturner04

Posted this in the speaker section didn't get any replys so I'll ask here. I'm doing an atmos set up and looking for some nice but buget friendly in ceiling speakers for atmos. What would be a good match with Klipsch reference premier? I know klipsch makes them but from what I've seen They are $250-300 a piece and I really don't want to spend more than $100 a piece. Would the Miccas be ok or a bad match?
Also do I'm ceiling speakers sound fine just mounted in the dry wall without enclosures? Thanks


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> What you're saying is the ORIGINAL mix is Atmos, and then it gets downmixed into TrueHD, yes?


No. An Atmos soundtrack contains two things: data (sound) and metadata (instructions on where to place the sound). The metadata doesn't take up much space. The data takes up lots of space. To save space on the disc, the data (all the sound) is zipped using TrueHD. Just like zipping a file to take up less space before e-mailing it. TrueHD is not downmixing, it's just lossless data packing. 

The 7.1-channel downmix has nothing to do with any of the above. It is created by the mixer in the studio and is at the core of an Atmos track, for backwards compatibility (for folks that don't have Atmos decoding at home). Again, a backwards compatible core has nothing to do with a data packing algorithm (TrueHD). 

You're calling a zipping program "broken" because you don't like the contents of the zipped file.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> No. An Atmos soundtrack contains two things: data (sound) and metadata (instructions on where to place the sound). The metadata doesn't take up much space. The data takes up lots of space. To save space on the disc, the data (all the sound) is zipped using TrueHD. Just like zipping a file to take up less space before e-mailing it. TrueHD is not downmixing, it's just lossless data packing.
> 
> The 7.1-channel downmix has nothing to do with any of the above. It is created by the mixer in the studio and is at the core of an Atmos track, for backwards compatibility (for folks that don't have Atmos decoding at home). Again, a backwards compatible core has nothing to do with a data packing algorithm (TrueHD).
> 
> You're calling a zipping program "broken" because you don't like the contents of the zipped file.


I'm still not following you, I'm afraid. And that's OK. I don't deny what you're saying is true (because it's a little out of my pay grade), but I do know what sounds "right" and what doesn't. At the end of the day, Atmos fixed an issue I had with the John Wick soundtrack in (my case) 5.1 TrueHD by using 5.1.2 Atmos.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Don Draper said:


> Define "more" sound. Curious that you have an opinion on something you don't use (or did I misunderstand).


You misunderstood. I have Dolby Atmos and DTS Neo X - - not Neural X. I have DSU but never use it as DTS Neo X provides a better immersive experience for my 11.1.2 setup with "Front Wides & Front Heights" for everything except for native Dolby Atmos.

More sound = more use of overheads in a Dolby Atmos, DTS X, DSU or Neural X soundtrack. Or, more effective use of overheads when the content warrants it - plane, helicopter overhead, shots whizzing by, sound movement from the ground upward, etc.

Commenting that Neural X (or ANY upmixer) is like the "VIVID" setting on your TV implies that you like fake sounds for the sake of it. Any upmixer is obviously subjective as to whether you can hear it, like it or not.


----------



## jpco

WilliamG said:


> I'm still not following you, I'm afraid. And that's OK. I don't deny what you're saying is true (because it's a little out of my pay grade), but I do know what sounds "right" and what doesn't. At the end of the day, Atmos fixed an issue I had with the John Wick soundtrack in (my case) 5.1 TrueHD by using 5.1.2 Atmos.


You prefer the Atmos mix to the 5.1 (or 7.1) mix. The 7.1 mix would be the same if it were PCM or DTS HD-MA. It is not a Dolby mix. His point is that it has nothing to do with deficiencies in TrueHD, which is only a delivery mechanism.


----------



## WilliamG

jpco said:


> You prefer the Atmos mix to the 5.1 (or 7.1) mix. The 7.1 mix would be the same if it were PCM or DTS HD-MA. It is not a Dolby mix. His point is that it has nothing to do with deficiencies in TrueHD, which is only a delivery mechanism.


I recognize it would make no difference if it were PCM, TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Regardless, bottom line for the end user, though is that - to me - the TrueHD 5.1 sounds NOT good, and the Atmos 5.1 sounds GOOD (in my limited time with Atmos - and in regards John Wick).


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> to me - the TrueHD 5.1 sounds NOT good, and the Atmos 5.1 sounds GOOD


The Atmos mix is TrueHD. And there is no such thing as "Atmos 5.1".


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> The Atmos mix is TrueHD. And there is no such thing as "Atmos 5.1".


Oh good grief. I don't get why this is such a bugbear. There are two different outputs of sound based on the same TrueHD track. I don't care if the TrueHD is called "Track 1" and the TrueHD+Atmos is called "Track 2." OR, if you call one "Apples," and the other, "Oranges." Oranges sounds a lot better! That's the bottom line, surely? How else would you like me to describe it, since you seem to just disagree with everything I say? 

And yes, I made a typo. I meant Atmos 5.1.2.

In addition, the reading I've done on Atmos seems to contradict what you're saying. With Atmos, the receiver decides in real-time where to send audio based on the number of Atmos-dedicated speakers you have, - a spatially-coded substream.

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/06/dolby-atmos-home-theaters-questions-answered/

_"The Dolby Atmos system, whether in the cinema or a home theater, has the intelligence to determine what speakers to use to precisely recreate the child’s movement in the way the filmmakers intend."_

This would make sense given the examples I've stated and how Atmos improves upon "regular" TrueHD, no?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. I can hear an obvious difference in how my "regular" rear surrounds are being used when watching e.g. John Wick in TrueHD 5.1 versus Atmos 5.1.2. End of story.


----------



## hd_newbie

15 X 15 open room. I am debating between 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. My installer is suspicious I will get benefit from additional 2 speakers in my room, but from everything I read adding 2 additional speakers make placement more flexible if anything in Atmos set up. Am I missing something? Also he wants to use my existing speakers for height. He is saying his engineers told him it can be done by changing aiming of speakers. Do I not need upward shooting atmos speakers for this? Sorry for noob questions. I am familiar with general HT but atmos is totally new.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Good grief, is right. After a response like that, why bother anymore @sdurani ?


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> There are two different mixes.


It's the different mix that's responsible for the change in sound, not TrueHD (since the 7.1 downmix AND the Atmos mix are BOTH losslessly packed using TrueHD).


> Oh good grief. I don't get why this is such a bugbear.


Don't mean to get you upset. At this point, my replies aren't for you, but to remind other readers that a lossless packing codec isn't "broken" or has "deficiencies" just because you personally don't like the downmix on one movie.


> How else would you like me to describe it, since you seem to just disagree with everything I say?


Like saying you have a "broken" Blu-ray disc because you didn't like a movie you saw. When others explain that the Blu-ray disc is just a delivery medium and has nothing to do with the content on the disc, you get upset and ask what else to call it if not a Blu-ray disc.


----------



## sdurani

hd_newbie said:


> My installer is suspicious I will get benefit from additional 2 speakers in my room, but from everything I read adding 2 additional speakers make placement more flexible if anything in Atmos set up.


2 height speakers will let you hear left to right movement overhead. 4 height speakers will let you hear left to right AND front to back movement overhead. Can't do that with a single pair of height speakers.


----------



## Shniks

Scott Simonian said:


> Good grief, is right. After a response like that, why bother anymore @sdurani ?



Seriously - talk about being snarky. Jeez! 



Cheers,


----------



## hd_newbie

sdurani said:


> 2 height speakers will let you hear left to right movement overhead. 4 height speakers will let you hear left to right AND front to back movement overhead. Can't do that with a single pair of height speakers.


 so i was right then? They provide better effects as well as placement flexibility? Can I achieve this with regular speakers or do they need to be firing up (not using in ceiling)?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

jpco said:


> You prefer the Atmos mix to the 5.1 (or 7.1) mix. The 7.1 mix would be the same if it were PCM or DTS HD-MA. It is not a Dolby mix. His point is that it has nothing to do with deficiencies in TrueHD, which is only a delivery mechanism.


I think what William is on about is that some height sounds are folded down to the wrong base layer speakers and with Atmos enabled the sound is no longer coming out the wrong speakers.


----------



## Shniks

hd_newbie said:


> 15 X 15 open room. I am debating between 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. My installer is suspicious I will get benefit from additional 2 speakers in my room, but from everything I read adding 2 additional speakers make placement more flexible if anything in Atmos set up. Am I missing something? Also he wants to use my existing speakers for height. He is saying his engineers told him it can be done by changing aiming of speakers. Do I not need upward shooting atmos speakers for this? Sorry for noob questions. I am familiar with general HT but atmos is totally new.



As Sanjay mentioned, 4 speakers will serve you better - especially in scenes where there is left to right AND front to back panning. Having two speakers will limit that experience. There is a helicopter audio demo on one of the demo discs. If you listen to with the 2 overhead speakers, you will only hear the helicopter going from left to right. However, if you have 4 overhead speakers, then the helicopter pans all over the ceiling, which is more immersive. 


Cheers,


----------



## SherazNJ

dvdwilly3 said:


> Re surround...are you talking about side surround or back surround? If back surround, then 130 degrees from MLP should not be a problem.


its the surround speakers. If surrounds don't fit on couch side, the only option left is to either bring it higher or bring it further back or front of the seat. But when moved further back or front, it needs to be back enough that one can pass through it. This brings the speaker to around 130 degrees if moved back or 60 degrees if moved front.


----------



## sdurani

hd_newbie said:


> so i was right then?


Yes, you understood it better than your installer did (he should be paying you).


> Can I achieve this with regular speakers or do they need to be firing up (not using in ceiling)?


Type of speaker and number of speakers are unrelated in this case. Whether using upfiring speakers or in-ceiling speakers or even small speakers mounted on the ceiling, 4 of them will be better than 2, for the reason mentioned earlier.


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> I think what William is on about is that some height sounds are folded down to the wrong base layer speakers and with Atmos enabled the sound is no longer coming out the wrong speakers.


I don't think anyone is taking issue with him not liking the downmix (that's his prerogative), just his equating it with a lossless audio codec being broken or deficient.


----------



## panelexpertuhd

lujan said:


> I know this is the Atmos thread but what did you think about the video quality? I wasn't impressed but I viewed it from the FandangoNow Vidity UHD file.


That's completely irrelevant as you were listening to Dolby digital


----------



## Don Draper

Ricoflashback said:


> You misunderstood. I have Dolby Atmos and DTS Neo X - - not Neural X. I have DSU but never use it as DTS Neo X provides a better immersive experience for my 11.1.2 setup with "Front Wides & Front Heights" for everything except for native Dolby Atmos.
> 
> More sound = more use of overheads in a Dolby Atmos, DTS X, DSU or Neural X soundtrack. Or, more effective use of overheads when the content warrants it - plane, helicopter overhead, shots whizzing by, sound movement from the ground upward, etc.
> 
> Commenting that Neural X (or ANY upmixer) is like the "VIVID" setting on your TV implies that you like fake sounds for the sake of it. Any upmixer is obviously subjective as to whether you can hear it, like it or not.


Gotcha. More use is fine but balance is equally if not more important. I think your statement puts too many eggs in the basket that shouldn't be compared against each other. My initial comments were in regards to the upmixers only (not the native encoding), so I believe all the comments to follow were related specifically to DSU vs Neutral X. That said, I don't think that Neo x belongs in the argument. Because I do agree with you about configuration affecting the sound, and because I have experience with both Heights and Overhead , any comment I make in regards to Neutral X attributes vs DSU would strictly be in regards to an overhead configuration. 



Ricoflashback said:


> Commenting that Neural X (or ANY upmixer) is like the "VIVID" setting on your TV implies that you like fake sounds for the sake of it. Any upmixer is obviously subjective as to whether you can hear it, like it or not.


This seems to be a bit of a double standard. The up-mixer technically is "fake" sound. Its not a knock to anyone that enjoys it (that's why its good that you overlay the less aggressive DSU, or as you do (neo X) because thats your preference - or run native for the purists among us. I'm a videophile through and through but always watch 3D in dynamic mode because what the hell, its a spectacle, might as well go all in - its more enjoyable to me for that medium. 

DSU is less aggressive but I wouldn't call it dead. I would be curious to know the consensus on this in relation to speaker config.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> I don't think anyone is taking issue with him not liking the downmix (that's his prerogative), just his equating it with a lossless audio codec being broken or deficient.


No worries, I'll crawl back under my rock again.


----------



## scarabaeus

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby Atmos and DTS: X for the home normally start with a 7.1 channel bed for backwards compatibility with current Blu-ray audio specs.
> 
> Since cinema Dolby Atmos has a 9.1channel bed, two objects of the maximum of 20 in the home version are allotted as surrogate overhead channel beds.
> 
> Home Atmos can render to 24.1.10 using those remaining positional 3D (x y z axis) objects right now.
> 
> DTS: X for the home has up to 9 additional objects and at some point may be able to handle 32 positions. Right now software and media, and hardware are fixed at 7.1 and four immovable objects for the overheads.


I think that's worth repeating: DTS:X is *not* object based in its current form (content as well as renderer), and instead channel based 7.1.4. DTS apparently could not get the dynamic rendering to work on consumer AVRs, and instead has to do it when creating the mix. Short of upmixing, current DTS:X discs will never play on more than 7.1.4 speakers.

Atmos makes use of dynamic objects (moving in space), which are rendered in the consumer's device. The current Dolby renderer is limited to 24.1.10 (which is plenty), but a future renderer could get even more speaker positions out of the existing consumer atmos discs.


----------



## Lando_pr

ALtlOff said:


> I use nothing but heights, and comparing PLIIz w/ Heights and Atmos with Heights, to me there are 2 distinct differences:
> 1. The sound being sent to the FH speakers are more discrete and fluid in their panning whether it be side to side or diagonal.
> 2. For me, Atmos soundtracks in general have been cleaner, more discrete and just basically have sounded better, even in the bed layer of speakers alone.
> 
> Don't forget, the Atmos metadata for objects can place them "anywhere" in the 360° bubble, not just in the overhead speakers, it's up to the sound mixer to decide whether to add those sounds into the channel mix or not, and I feel that when they are, they just don't seem to be as clean or accurate as when they are in the Atmos mix I'm general.


Hey thanks for the feedback. So basically you would say they work as a discrete dplIIz of some sort. Where the soundstage grows taller but panning from front to rear is not improved whatsoever. I'll think about it. I just find it hard to place On-Ceiling Speakers on my concrete ceiling with popcorn. Great input. Sounds like you enjoy Atmos though. That great to hear.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> I don't think anyone is taking issue with him not liking the downmix (that's his prerogative), just his equating it with a lossless audio codec being broken or deficient.


It is deficient, in that it doesn't sound as good as Atmos! I seriously have no idea why some huge fight erupted here. 



Mashie Saldana said:


> I think what William is on about is that some height sounds are folded down to the wrong base layer speakers and with Atmos enabled the sound is no longer coming out the wrong speakers.


That's EXACTLY what I'm saying!


----------



## lujan

panelexpertuhd said:


> That's completely irrelevant as you were listening to Dolby digital


I know but I was still interested in what others thought of the video quality on the 4k Independence Day.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> It is deficient, in that it doesn't sound as good as Atmos!


That's like calling Blu-ray deficient because you didn't like the movie on it.


----------



## rontalley

scarabaeus said:


> I think that's worth repeating: DTS:X is *not* object based in its current form (content as well as renderer), and instead channel based 7.1.4. DTS apparently could not get the dynamic rendering to work on consumer AVRs, and instead has to do it when creating the mix. Short of upmixing, current DTS:X discs will never play on more than 7.1.4 speakers.
> 
> Atmos makes use of dynamic objects (moving in space), which are rendered in the consumer's device. The current Dolby renderer is limited to 24.1.10 (which is plenty), but a future renderer could get even more speaker positions out of the existing consumer atmos discs.


Been away from this thread for a while (enjoying movies) and missed that bit about DTS:X being on channel based. I wonder why height vs overhead matters?


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> That's like calling Blu-ray deficient because you didn't like the movie on it.


Um, no it's not. That's a completely faulty analogy. It's actually like calling a Blu-ray deficient because it only came with Dolby Stereo instead of 5.1.


----------



## ALtlOff

Lando_pr said:


> Hey thanks for the feedback. So basically you would say they work as a discrete dplIIz of some sort. Where the soundstage grows taller but panning from front to rear is not improved whatsoever. I'll think about it. I just find it hard to place On-Ceiling Speakers on my concrete ceiling with popcorn. Great input. Sounds like you enjoy Atmos though. That great to hear.


Honestly, I feel that "all heights" is barely a compromise at all, simply place them in the walls (front/rear/side) in the same spot/line as you would an overhead, and that's it. I still feel like it's far superior to a "best case scenario" Atmos enabled system.

And while I feel Atmos w/ FH is just a better quality experience than PLIIz w/ FH, if you can only do a x.x.2 system, Surround Heights set as TM would be better than FH.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> It's actually like calling a Blu-ray deficient because it only came with Dolby Stereo instead of 5.1.


Exactly. The content creators put a stereo track on the disc and you call the disc itself deficient (as though the delivery medium made that decision).


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> I think that's worth repeating: DTS:X is *not* object based in its current form (content as well as renderer), and instead channel based 7.1.4. DTS apparently could not get the dynamic rendering to work on consumer AVRs, and instead has to do it when creating the mix.


There is at least one DTS:X title on BD that has objects: _'Ip Man 3'_ uses all 16 waveforms that the format offers (11 channels + 5 objects).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

scarabaeus said:


> I think that's worth repeating: DTS:X is *not* object based in its current form (content as well as renderer), and instead channel based 7.1.4. DTS apparently could not get the dynamic rendering to work on consumer AVRs, and instead has to do it when creating the mix. Short of upmixing, current DTS:X discs will never play on more than 7.1.4 speakers.
> 
> Atmos makes use of dynamic objects (moving in space), which are rendered in the consumer's device. The current Dolby renderer is limited to 24.1.10 (which is plenty), but a future renderer could get even more speaker positions out of the existing consumer atmos discs.


The four objects in the extension file of today's limited consumer DTS: X are basically given snap-to metadata commands locking them to four specific height targets in the lookup table. They can then act like channels. Dolby Atmos also has this same capability of "snapping" objects to fixed speaker positions. 

I do recall hearing that they were having trouble with their rendering software. Hopefully, it gets fixed because I would want the same flexibility allowed via Atmos.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> Exactly. The content creators put a stereo track on the disc and you call the disc itself deficient (as though the delivery medium made that decision).


What... on... earth are you talking about? Who said the disc itself is deficient?  

Fine, Atmos isn't better than the regular TrueHD 7.1 track. You win. I must have been mistaken.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> Who said the disc itself is deficient?


You did:


WilliamG said:


> It's actually like calling a Blu-ray deficient because it only came with Dolby Stereo instead of 5.1.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> You did:


Right, and we're talking about the mastering of the MOVIE itself, not the DISC ITSELF. Obviously! The fact that you think I'm blaming the MEDIUM for the audio issues is just beyond insanity. What next? Blaming my hard drives because I didn't like the iTunes song I downloaded onto it?

Can we be done now? I'm very sorry that I voiced an opinion that the Atmos audio is better than the regular TrueHD audio in John Wick.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> Right, and we're talking about the mastering of the MOVIE itself, not the DISC ITSELF.


IF you can understand the difference between a movie and a disc, why can't you understand the same difference between a downmix and a compression codec? The fact that a movie has a stereo soundtrack doesn't make the Blu-ray defective. The fact that you don't like a downmix doesn't make TrueHD broken.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> IF you can understand the difference between a movie and a disc, why can't you understand the same difference between a downmix and a compression codec? The fact that a movie has a stereo soundtrack doesn't make the Blu-ray defective. The fact that you don't like a downmix doesn't make TrueHD broken.


I absolutely understand the difference. And the downmix does indeed sound broken to me. I'm entitled to have that opinion, and I've backed that up with a specific scene that absolutely sounds "wrong" on several HT setups in TrueHD 5.1. Again, it's not that it's missing those height channels in regular TrueHD, it's that some audio is mixed into rear channels too loudly that simply should be tone down. With Atmos, it no longer sounds "wrong."

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> scarabaeus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's worth repeating: DTS:X is *not* object based in its current form (content as well as renderer), and instead channel based 7.1.4. DTS apparently could not get the dynamic rendering to work on consumer AVRs, and instead has to do it when creating the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> There is at least one DTS:X title on BD that has objects: _'Ip Man 3'_ uses all 16 waveforms.....
Click to expand...

I believe that is also the case for the UHD DTS:X track on ID4...


----------



## scarabaeus

FilmMixer said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is at least one DTS:X title on BD that has objects: _'Ip Man 3'_ uses all 16 waveforms that the format offers (11 channels + 5 objects).
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that is also the case for the UHD DTS:X track on ID4...
Click to expand...

OK, so there are some moving objects then, and they are supported by the DTS:X renderer. Good to know.

Why have all other X releases been done as fixed 7.1.4 channel based then? And, what are the implications of those early releases when DTS:X starts supporting more speakers in the furture?


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> And the *downmix* does indeed sound broken to me. That's all I'm saying.


No one is taking issue with that. But that's different than your original comments about *TrueHD* being deficient and broken. The Atmos mix and the 7.1 downmix are both encoded in TrueHD (they're both TrueHD bitstreams). That's all _I'm_ saying.


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> No one is taking issue with that. But that's different than your original comments about *TrueHD* being deficient and broken. The Atmos mix and the 7.1 downmix are both encoded in TrueHD (they're both TrueHD bitstreams). That's all _I'm_ saying.


OK, well that in that case I'll ask you to not be so pedantic. It's obvious to any reasonable person when I say "I prefer the Atmos audio to the regular TrueHD audio" what I'm talking about. What's next? Commenting on my typos? 

Normally I'm appreciative of the assistance that I have received on these messageboards, but this is just one of those occasions when I just have to shake my head.


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> It's obvious to any reasonable person when I say "I prefer the Atmos audio to the regular TrueHD audio" what I'm talking about.


That's my point: Atmos *is* TrueHD audio. Why such reluctance to call a downmix what it is?


----------



## WilliamG

sdurani said:


> That's my point: Atmos *is* TrueHD audio. Why such reluctance to call a downmix what it is?


Fine. Just for you, I'll say this: I prefer the TrueHD to the TrueHD. Does that make you happy now? I'm done here. Thanks, and I'm outa here!


----------



## sdurani

WilliamG said:


> Just for you, I'll say this: I prefer the TrueHD to the TrueHD.


That perfectly demonstrates my point about not wanting to call a downmix what it is and instead insisting on using the name of a compression codec. Why deliberately conflate those terms, especially when you claim to know the difference?


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> Why have all other X releases been done as fixed 7.1.4 channel based then?


Probably were made when they were trying to get object encoding working. I'd heard that ID4 was supposed to be the first release with objects; apparently Ip Man beat them to it.


> And, what are the implications of those early releases when DTS:X starts supporting more speakers in the furture?


DTS:X has Neural:X upmixing built-in as part of the decoding process (separate from the Neural:X upmixer that you find your receiver's selection of surround modes). The channel-based part of the soundtrack gets scaled to your speaker layout; decoded objects are layered on top. This matrix extraction is one of the ways that D&M products feed Wides when playing back DTS:X soundtracks, which hints at how current 11.1-channel soundtracks will scale to larger speaker layouts in the future.


----------



## desray2k

sdurani said:


> That perfectly demonstrates my point about not wanting to call a downmix what it is and instead insisting on using the name of a compression codec. Why deliberately conflate those terms, especially when you claim to know the difference?


Guys, life is too short to waste one moment over such minor issues. At the end of the day, u didn't really gain not lose anything...Let us simmer down and move on. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

SherazNJ said:


> its the surround speakers. If surrounds don't fit on couch side, the only option left is to either bring it higher or bring it further back or front of the seat. But when moved further back or front, it needs to be back enough that one can pass through it. This brings the speaker to around 130 degrees if moved back or 60 degrees if moved front.


Well...Dolby suggests 90-110 degrees for surrounds in a 5.1.2 configuration...without back surrounds.

Since the Dolby recommendation starts directly to the side and ends at somewhat to the rear, I would probably opt for the 130 position.

That is, if they have to stay there. 
Could you leave them at the 130 position when no one is using the theater, and then move them forward to the 110 position when you are using the theater?


----------



## PeterTHX

Ricoflashback said:


> You misunderstood. I have Dolby Atmos and DTS Neo X - - not Neural X. I have DSU but never use it as DTS Neo X provides a better immersive experience for my 11.1.2 setup with "Front Wides & Front Heights" for everything except for native Dolby Atmos.
> 
> More sound = more use of overheads in a Dolby Atmos, DTS X, DSU or Neural X soundtrack. Or, more effective use of overheads when the content warrants it - plane, helicopter overhead, shots whizzing by, sound movement from the ground upward, etc.
> 
> Commenting that Neural X (or ANY upmixer) is like the "VIVID" setting on your TV implies that you like fake sounds for the sake of it. Any upmixer is obviously subjective as to whether you can hear it, like it or not.


 
It does have a more aggressive nature and seems aimed at the folks who like sound coming from all speakers -"I paid for this upgrade and dammit, I want to hear it" - whether it sounds natural or not (hence the "VIVID" comparison for video).


There is also a question on things like music - does it introduce a distortion? Are vocals muddied and/or sounding "ghostly" rather than firmly anchored in the front soundstage? DSU doesn't do that.


You ask any soundmixer worth their salt (like Filmmixer here) - a good sound mix doesn't call attention to itself, it complements the material. If the overheads are doing that then with Neural X then it's against the creators' intent.


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> There is at least one DTS:X title on BD that has objects: _'Ip Man 3'_ uses all 16 waveforms that the format offers (11 channels + 5 objects).


What product gives that OSD? 

Also, is there a dialog level adjustment available for DTS-X tracks (seen in the screen shot)? 

Thanks


----------



## jpco

thebland said:


> What product gives that OSD?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, is there a dialog level adjustment available for DTS-X tracks (seen in the screen shot)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks




Yamaha receivers and processor. Dialogue adjustment is available but must be activated in the mix in order for it to work. Don't know of any material that has dialogue adjustment as an option.


----------



## sdurani

thebland said:


> What product gives that OSD?


Yamaha. Displays channel configuration and number of objects when playing DTS:X sources.


> Also, is there a dialog level adjustment available for DTS-X tracks (seen in the screen shot)?


There are a couple of tracks on the 2016 DTS demo disc that have dialogue/vocals (one of them is a music track) encoded as a separate object whose volume level can be adjusted independently of the rest of the track. 

Also, if you have 'Last Witch Hunter' on BD, in the bonus features is a DTS:X speaker call-out track with a female voice going from speaker to speaker, identifying all 11 speaker locations: "Left Front Height, Right Front Height, Left Rear Height...", etc. Her voice is mixed against a background of sound but, if you raise the dialogue level, you can hear just her voice get up to 6dB louder without the rest of the sound being affected.


----------



## TheNecromancer

Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos. 

A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.

Thanks!


----------



## gene4ht

Dturner04 said:


> Posted this in the speaker section didn't get any replys so I'll ask here. I'm doing an atmos set up and looking for some nice but buget friendly in ceiling speakers for atmos. What would be a good match with Klipsch reference premier? I know klipsch makes them but from what I've seen They are $250-300 a piece and I really don't want to spend more than $100 a piece. Would the Miccas be ok or a bad match?
> Also do I'm ceiling speakers sound fine just mounted in the dry wall without enclosures? Thanks


I asked these same questions 18-24 months ago. At that time, the majority of responses received were conventional wisdom guidelines for non-Atmos configurations...i.e. 2.X, 3.X, 5.X, and 7.X systems. As expected, most respondents felt it was important to "match" the front stage to ensure timbre matching or at least "match" the front stage to ensure comparable quality. During this Atmos infancy period, there did not appear to be an abundance of experience or information for the home...there were more questions than answers...as witnessed by so many "What is the best speaker for Atmos?" threads. At that time, no one or no speaker manufacturer had identified what the necessary speaker characteristics/specifications were necessary for Atmos performance. So then...how could one identify the "best" speaker for Atmos?
About the same time, I had visited AVS's ceiling speaker threads where enthusiasts were looking for reasonably priced ceiling speakers with decent quality. It was after visiting this thread that I decided on my approach.

Like yourself, I had no desire to spend hundreds on ceiling speakers without knowing what I needed. After reading in the above thread and to my surprise, the overall recommended speaker was a relatively inexpensive ceiling speaker: a MICCA M-8C for $40 each. At this price, I could experiment without risk and determine for myself in my environment what works and what doesn't. My initial thoughts were to play with these and then mostly likely upgrade to more upscale speakers...well worth $80 or $160 to find out what this Atmos fuss is about. Utilizing Dolby Atmos placement guidelines, I experimented with various ceiling locations and angles over a couple of weeks. Ultimately, I found/concluded that room configuration, acoustics, constraints, ceiling heights, and speaker location were overall more important than the speaker itself. A speaker with a wide dispersion spec would be the exception especially with low (< 8') ceilings. Otherwise, speaker placements with respect to seating positions are the most important considerations. It's necessary to experiment in your own environment. Dolby's guidelines are just that...variance from these guidelines are almost always necessary for most homes...don't get hung up on this...let your ears tell you what sounds right/good for your taste/preference. Also, be aware Dolby's guidelines are for single row seating...haven't seen recommendations for multiple rows yet.

It's been 18 months since installing the MICCA's. I fully expected to upgrade to Klipsch CDT-5800-C-II's ($400) to "match" my front stage. I have 30+ Atmos BD's and have listened to both Dolby Demo Discs. I can honestly say the MICCA's perform very well for current content Atmos duties and I don't yet find any compelling reason to upgrade to the 5800's. I'm not promoting MICCA's in any way...just sharing my experience. In the past 18 months, I've noted that others also found speakers under $100 that also performed well for their Atmos application. And still others justify spending considerably more...IMO, there are diminishing returns...YMMV!

Lastly, although I did initially install the MICCA's in a 2 cu ft box for experimentation purposes, I did not build a backer box for the ceiling installation. I did, however, box the speakers in with blanket insulation as recommended by MICCA...helped with reducing sound transmission throughout the house.


----------



## Soupy1970

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


I say go for Atmos. Your friend is half right, higher ceilings are better, but I have the minimum ceiling height recommended by Atmos which is 7 1/2 feet. I think maximum is 14 feet. I love my Atmos setup. Just make sure all the floor level speakers are positioned ear height, and not above ear level.


----------



## gene4ht

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


Unequivocally yes! Your friend is going to be jealous!


----------



## Dturner04

gene4ht said:


> I asked these same questions 18-24 months ago. At that time, the majority of responses received were conventional wisdom guidelines for non-Atmos configurations...i.e. 2.X, 3.X, 5.X, and 7.X systems. As expected, most respondents felt it was important to "match" the front stage to ensure timbre matching or at least "match" the front stage to ensure comparable quality. During this Atmos infancy period, there did not appear to be an abundance of experience or information for the home...there were more questions than answers...as witnessed by so many "What is the best speaker for Atmos?" threads. At that time, no one or no speaker manufacturer had identified what the necessary speaker characteristics/specifications were necessary for Atmos performance. So then...how could one identify the "best" speaker for Atmos?
> About the same time, I had visited AVS's ceiling speaker threads where enthusiasts were looking for reasonably priced ceiling speakers with decent quality. It was after visiting this thread that I decided on my approach.
> 
> Like yourself, I had no desire to spend hundreds on ceiling speakers without knowing what I needed. After reading in the above thread and to my surprise, the overall recommended speaker was a relatively inexpensive ceiling speaker: a MICCA M-8C for $40 each. At this price, I could experiment without risk and determine for myself in my environment what works and what doesn't. My initial thoughts were to play with these and then mostly likely upgrade to more upscale speakers...well worth $80 or $160 to find out what this Atmos fuss is about. Utilizing Dolby Atmos placement guidelines, I experimented with various ceiling locations and angles over a couple of weeks. Ultimately, I found/concluded that room configuration, acoustics, constraints, ceiling heights, and speaker location were overall more important than the speaker itself. A speaker with a wide dispersion spec would be the exception especially with low (< 8') ceilings. Otherwise, speaker placements with respect to seating positions are the most important considerations. It's necessary to experiment in your own environment. Dolby's guidelines are just that...variance from these guidelines are almost always necessary for most homes...don't get hung up on this...let your ears tell you what sounds right/good for your taste/preference. Also, be aware Dolby's guidelines are for single row seating...haven't seen recommendations for multiple rows yet.
> 
> It's been 18 months since installing the MICCA's. I fully expected to upgrade to Klipsch CDT-5800-C-II's ($400) to "match" my front stage. I have 30+ Atmos BD's and have listened to both Dolby Demo Discs. I can honestly say the MICCA's perform very well for current content Atmos duties and I don't yet find any compelling reason to upgrade to the 5800's. I'm not promoting MICCA's in any way...just sharing my experience. In the past 18 months, I've noted that others also found speakers under $100 that also performed well for their Atmos application. And still others justify spending considerably more...IMO, there are diminishing returns...YMMV!
> 
> Lastly, although I did initially install the MICCA's in a 2 cu ft box for experimentation purposes, I did not build a backer box for the ceiling installation. I did, however, box the speakers in with blanket insulation as recommended by MICCA...helped with reducing sound transmission throughout the house.


Thank you so much. Those were actually the ones I was leaning towards. Was just unsure how they would blend but sounds like theyd be good enough for me. I was wondering about insulation as well. Sounds like it's woundnt hurt to add


----------



## gene4ht

Dturner04 said:


> Thank you so much. Those were actually the ones I was leaning towards. Was just *unsure how they would blend* but sounds like theyd be good enough for me. I was wondering about insulation as well. Sounds like it's woundnt hurt to add


The MICCA's perform very well with my RF-7 II's and should be fine with your Premiere's. As I mentioned, with current content (wind, rain, birds, bees, flies, gunshots, aircraft, etc,) Atmos is not that demanding. Even at volumes to -10, the MICCA's acquit themselves well...even with concert material...ie. Roger Waters The Wall. If you elect the the minimal expense path, upgrading is always an option with no regrets. Good luck with your search!


----------



## dvdwilly3

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


Go for Atmos!

My HT is 14.5' x 19.5' x 8.5'. I am running 7.1.4 and the sound is exceptional. I am using on-ceiling speakers for Top Front and Top Rear.

I would argue that your home theater can exceed the sound quality of commercial theaters. That is my opinion only.

Consider...my HT is roughly 2,500 cubic feet. A commerical theater may be anywhere fro 30 to 100 times that size.

Before somebody starts beating me up over relative sizes of theaters, stick with the issue...the acoustic space of the home theater is much more readily controlled that that of the commercial theater.

We are dealing with a much smaller physical space and limited seating to address. The theater operator is dealing with a massively larger space, and say 200 seats...multiple rows and tiers and throw in a sloped floor...curtains, exits, fire codes, lobby doors, and on and on.

I argue that for all of those reasons, we have an easier chore to deal with.

So, yeah, go do Atmos in whatever configuration you can...


----------



## Brian Fineberg

my room is smaller than yours! and I have had ATMOS since its release....(11x16x7.5) and its a HUGE upgrade...do it!


----------



## Ricoflashback

PeterTHX said:


> It does have a more aggressive nature and seems aimed at the folks who like sound coming from all speakers -"I paid for this upgrade and dammit, I want to hear it" - whether it sounds natural or not (hence the "VIVID" comparison for video).
> 
> 
> There is also a question on things like music - does it introduce a distortion? Are vocals muddied and/or sounding "ghostly" rather than firmly anchored in the front soundstage? DSU doesn't do that.
> 
> 
> You ask any soundmixer worth their salt (like Filmmixer here) - a good sound mix doesn't call attention to itself, it complements the material. If the overheads are doing that then with Neural X then it's against the creators' intent.


Ah, against the creator's intent. Against how the director intends you to see the movie. Where have we heard that before?

My main point has always been that the use of an upmixer or even the sound of a specific Dolby Atmos track is very subjective to the listener. A good sound mix is subjective as well. This is an evolving technology. 

Many posters have commented on Dolby Atmos soundtracks that do not have noticeable use of the overheads. With your argument, the sound mixer is 100% right because he or she knows better than anyone else. There's no such thing as a "bad mix" or perceived under use of immersive technology because the sound mixer always knows best or the fail safe - that's how the sound mixer/director INTENDED you to hear the movie. 

I'm not advocating sound fireworks for the sake of it. But when I watch a movie and a scene has obvious "height" content and there is no use of the overheads -- I wonder about the mix. 

Not call attention to yourself? Easy - label everything Dolby Atmos and buyers who complain about the mix not being immersive enough can be referred to the statement "That's how the director/sound mixer intended you to hear the movie." Can't lose with that supposition. 

It's obvious that there are good mixes and better mixes that deliver a more effective use of the overhead or height speakers.


----------



## GreySkies

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


My room is 12'2" x 16'6" x 8'7", and I'm running 7.2.4. Worth it? Oh heck yeah!


----------



## Don Draper

sdurani said:


> There is at least one DTS:X title on BD that has objects: _'Ip Man 3'_ uses all 16 waveforms that the format offers (11 channels + 5 objects).


What does "5 objects" designate in this context?


----------



## Selden Ball

Don Draper said:


> What does "5 objects" designate in this context?


5 objects are 5 sets of sounds which are specified by the person mixing the soundtrack to be at positions which do not necessarily correspond to the traditional 7.1 speaker locations. They might be moving around, they might be overhead or one of them might consist of dialog.


----------



## Don Draper

Selden Ball said:


> 5 objects are 5 sets of sounds which are specified by the person mixing the soundtrack to be at positions which do not necessarily correspond to the traditional 7.1 speaker locations. They might be moving around, they might be overhead or one of them might consist of dialog.


5 sets of sounds at any one time, or 5 sets/categories of predetermined behavior for sound?


----------



## sdurani

Don Draper said:


> 5 sets of sounds at any one time, or 5 sets/categories of predetermined behavior for sound?


5 sets of sound. Think of audio objects as containers. If a piece of dialogue or a sound effect is supposed to move around the room, you can either pan that sound from channel to channel OR you can put it into a container and move it in 3D space.


----------



## Don Draper

sdurani said:


> 5 sets of sound. Think of audio objects as containers. If a piece of dialogue or a sound effect is supposed to move around the room, you can either pan that sound from channel to channel OR you can put it into a container and move it in 3D space.


Ah - So you can simultaneously have 5 sets of sounds are are being juggled from speaker to speaker , based on config and object based decoding , while simultaneously playing sounds that are hard-coded to specific speakers?


----------



## Andrey Gorodnov

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


Have you ever heard the Atmos (non-theatrical version) in action? If not, then I'd say "go have some listening first!", after that the decision will pop up by itself, none would be able to stop you from there and your limit will be your own budget.


----------



## Don Draper

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


12x12 with 5.2.4. Best upgrade to my space since I got into the DIY subwoofer game. If you are a home theater enthusiast - you want this.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Don Draper said:


> Ah - So you can simultaneously have 5 sets of sounds are are being juggled from speaker to speaker , based on config and object based decoding , while simultaneously playing sounds that are hard-coded to specific speakers?


There are 7 speaker channels and a sub channel that are the "bed" of the immersive soundtrack. Then objects can be added to the bed that can either be steered around the room in 3D space or can be "snapped" to a specific target location and act like fixed channels. You can have both dynamic and snapped-to objects in the same mix. That's for Dolby Atmos. 

However, there have been mixed reports about DTS: X and whether or not DTS is now adding dynamic objects to their mixes. 

I heard one thing that ID4 is also 11.1, but FilmMixer has stated that it might be otherwise.


----------



## sdurani

Don Draper said:


> Ah - So you can simultaneously have 5 sets of sounds are are being juggled from speaker to speaker , based on config and object based decoding , while simultaneously playing sounds that are hard-coded to specific speakers?


The DTS:X format currently uses 16 waveforms (plus 2 LFE channels). Those 16 waveforms can be all channels, all objects, or any combination thereof (it's completely flexible). 'Ip Man 3' is an example of where most of the sound was mixed into 11.1 channels (hard coded as 7.1.4) and some of the sounds were assigned locations in 3D space (the 5 objects). Add those numbers up and you'll see that all 16 waveforms were used (plus one of the LFE channels).


----------



## Don Draper

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are 7 speaker channels and a sub channel that are the "bed" of the immersive soundtrack. Then objects can be added to the bed that can either be steered around the room in 3D space or can be "snapped" to a specific target location and act like fixed channels. You can have both dynamic and snapped-to objects in the same mix. That's for Dolby Atmos.
> 
> However, there have been mixed reports about DTS: X and whether or not DTS is now adding dynamic objects to their mixes.
> 
> I heard one thing that ID4 is also 11.1, but FilmMixer has stated that it might be otherwise.






sdurani said:


> The DTS:X format currently uses 16 waveforms (plus 2 LFE channels). Those 16 waveforms can be all channels, all objects, or any combination thereof (it's completely flexible). 'Ip Man 3' is an example of where most of the sound was mixed into 11.1 channels (hard coded as 7.1.4) and some of the sounds were assigned locations in 3D space (the 5 objects). Add those numbers up and you'll see that all 16 waveforms were used (plus one of the LFE channels).


got it . thanks guys. I'm new to this whole 3d sound thing. Been under a rock the last year with a home reno. In fact upon first learning of it I thought it was a gimmick. Less than two weeks ago , I started looking for a replacement for my trusty onkyo 3009 because I felt I had buggy audyssey. In that time I have upgraded 3 receivers and put and patched a bunch of holes in my ceiling. Its great!


----------



## farmersagent046

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


11 1/2 x 15 - 9 ft Ceiling, Klipsch - 7.2.4 in ceiling, Denon X5200W. I can not live without Atmos. HUGE difference in sound. Listening to planes fly over my head and bullets whiz by, birds fly around the room, thunder lightning and rain above me... I hate every day that I have to go to work.

You will love it.

Also Soupy1970 was exactly right. Follow the Dolby Atmos Install Guidelines. Side and Back Surrounds should be at ear height.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


----------



## mobileES

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


Yes!!! I have a 21ft x 11.5 living room with 7.5ft ceiling height and a 7.1.4 Atmos setup, I love it and it sounds awesome. I would definitely say go for it. I bought some wall/ceiling mounting brackets and put 4 satellites on the ceiling, the effect is definitely there.


----------



## steve1971

Just a heads up for Atmos owners. Last night I was playing around with my Comcast DVR and I came upon some Atmos trailers and they have a Black Sails Atmos episode. Even though I dont have an Atmos setup but a modest 7.1 setup the sound coming from my system was incredible! It looks as though Comcast might be living up to their promise of having Atmos sound going through their set top boxes for Atmos owners. Right now its just a few trailers and one episode of Black Sails but if Comcast fully implements Atmos for surround sound then I'm upgrading my surround sound system ASAP!!!!


----------



## SJHT

Soupy1970 said:


> I say go for Atmos. Your friend is half right, higher ceilings are better, but I have the minimum ceiling height recommended by Atmos which is 7 1/2 feet. I think maximum is 14 feet. I love my Atmos setup. Just make sure all the floor level speakers are positioned ear height, and not above ear level.


The best information on this thread was what he states. Getting the floor level speakers positioned correctly was a pain to do in my theater, but totally worth it. SJ


----------



## TheNecromancer

farmersagent046 said:


> 11 1/2 x 15 - 9 ft Ceiling, Klipsch - 7.2.4 in ceiling, Denon X5200W. I can not live without Atmos. HUGE difference in sound. Listening to planes fly over my head and bullets whiz by, birds fly around the room, thunder lightning and rain above me... I hate every day that I have to go to work.
> 
> You will love it.
> 
> Also Soupy1970 was exactly right. Follow the Dolby Atmos Install Guidelines. Side and Back Surrounds should be at ear height.
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html



OK, sounds like this is a must! Unanimously from many members. I appreciate the feedback, thank you.

Question: I don't need a receiver right at the moment but will need the 4 overhead speakers pretty soon as sheetrock will be going in soon and if I'm doing overhead speakers I will need to wire and have mounting locations picked.

Best Buy is wanting to sell me a Denon X7200 and 4 Martin Logan Motion IC's. They quoted $2999 for the receiver and $400 each on the IC's. They did say that the speakers can be aimed at the seats as needed, (adjustable) is that accurate? In my head I'm imagining a speaker similar to my sofit can lights. 

I see in only a short few posts that the Micca is a much more affordable option. Although likely not adjustable directionally?

Any other speaker options? Maybe something between $49 and $400?

Thanks guys!


----------



## Brian Fineberg

DIYSOUNDGROUP Volt6,8 or 10

they are very cheap..and HIGH performers...and if you want in ceiling they can be used with out a box...


----------



## WilliamG

TheNecromancer said:


> Hey guys, without having read back 40,000 posts, would you say Dolby Atmos is worth spending the extra coin in a small home theater? My room is 13'6 x 18' with 8'5 high ceiling. It's new construction and I currently have a Klipsch 7.1 system. I'm going to need to buy a new receiver and that's where I stumbled on to Atmos.
> 
> A friend told me it really only benefits a room with higher ceilings. Not sure if he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Thanks!


My room is 14' deep, by 10' wide, by 8' high, and even with a 5.1.2 Atmos setup, it's absolutely superb. The acoustic field is so tight, that even with a simple setup like that the difference is massive. Well. Worth. It.


----------



## PeterTHX

Ricoflashback said:


> Ah, against the creator's intent. Against how the director intends you to see the movie. Where have we heard that before?



Sooo, then you're one of those people who want 2.40 movies either cropped or opened up to "fill their screen"?



> It's obvious that there are good mixes and better mixes that deliver a more effective use of the overhead or height speakers.



We aren't talking about the merits of Atmos mixes themselves. We're talking about unnecessarily noisy upmixers.


----------



## Selden Ball

TheNecromancer said:


> Best Buy is wanting to sell me a Denon X7200 and 4 Martin Logan Motion IC's. They quoted $2999 for the receiver....


That's the MSRP which is all that D+M allows to be published publicly. However, if you call an authorized dealer on the phone you'll be quoted a much lower price.


----------



## Soupy1970

TheNecromancer said:


> OK, sounds like this is a must! Unanimously from many members. I appreciate the feedback, thank you.
> 
> Question: I don't need a receiver right at the moment but will need the 4 overhead speakers pretty soon as sheetrock will be going in soon and if I'm doing overhead speakers I will need to wire and have mounting locations picked.
> 
> Best Buy is wanting to sell me a Denon X7200 and 4 Martin Logan Motion IC's. They quoted $2999 for the receiver and $400 each on the IC's. They did say that the speakers can be aimed at the seats as needed, (adjustable) is that accurate? In my head I'm imagining a speaker similar to my sofit can lights.
> 
> I see in only a short few posts that the Micca is a much more affordable option. Although likely not adjustable directionally?
> 
> Any other speaker options? Maybe something between $49 and $400?
> 
> Thanks guys!


What speakers do you use for the rest of your system? When you wire for your ceiling speakers, it will be helpful to know where your main listening seat will be positioned. That way you can located the speakers 45% front/back of that seat. For 8.5 foot ceiling I would guess that would be roughly 5 foot forward/back. Position them in line with your front left/right speakers, or slightly in, if you fronts will be wide toward side walls toed in. 

Also, I think you can do much better on that X7200 price. A couple months ago I paid $1375 less than that for my X6200. Call 1onecall, and other dealers to get best price, they advertise MSRP, but they quote much lower when called.


----------



## dvdwilly3

TheNecromancer said:


> OK, sounds like this is a must! Unanimously from many members. I appreciate the feedback, thank you.
> 
> Question: I don't need a receiver right at the moment but will need the 4 overhead speakers pretty soon as sheetrock will be going in soon and if I'm doing overhead speakers I will need to wire and have mounting locations picked.
> 
> Best Buy is wanting to sell me a Denon X7200 and 4 Martin Logan Motion IC's. They quoted $2999 for the receiver and $400 each on the IC's. They did say that the speakers can be aimed at the seats as needed, (adjustable) is that accurate? In my head I'm imagining a speaker similar to my sofit can lights.
> 
> I see in only a short few posts that the Micca is a much more affordable option. Although likely not adjustable directionally?
> 
> Any other speaker options? Maybe something between $49 and $400?
> 
> Thanks guys!


Get the X6200...most of the bells and whistles with a $2199 MSRP.

Call jdsmoothie for a price...


----------



## gene4ht

dvdwilly3 said:


> Get the X6200...most of the bells and whistles with a $2199 MSRP.
> 
> Call jdsmoothie for a price...


+1

Unless you have a ton of BB gift or reward certificates...shopping carefully at authorized ID companies will get you 20%-30% discounts...and agree that @*jdsmoothie* should be one of your first stops.

Also @TheNecromancer, if you feel the need/desire for upscale, adjustable ceiling speakers...Klipsch CDT-5800's offer both adjustable woofers and tweeters for $400 MSRP ($200 street) each. However, from my experience, speaker location/placement is paramount rendering adjustable speakers unnecessary except for unusual room constraints.


----------



## HarpNinja

I recently went to 5.1.2 on a budget for a not totally complete family room with a 120" projection screen. I have several Atmos Blu Ray and have watched a couple movies with DSU. I am really enjoying the set up and, when money permits, will move to 5.2.4 for sure! My room wouldn't work great for 7.1.4.

I am sharing this amateur HT room perspective as I know not everyone has a dedicated room or more than 7 speakers.


----------



## TheNecromancer

Soupy1970 said:


> What speakers do you use for the rest of your system? When you wire for your ceiling speakers, it will be helpful to know where your main listening seat will be positioned. That way you can located the speakers 45% front/back of that seat. For 8.5 foot ceiling I would guess that would be roughly 5 foot forward/back. Position them in line with your front left/right speakers, or slightly in, if you fronts will be wide toward side walls toed in.
> 
> Also, I think you can do much better on that X7200 price. A couple months ago I paid $1375 less than that for my X6200. Call 1onecall, and other dealers to get best price, they advertise MSRP, but they quote much lower when called.


The speakers I currently have are Klipsch Reference RF-82's for left and right, RC-62 center and 4 surround RS-42's.

In regards to placement, how do you figure for two rows of seats? At present we are only at the framing stage so everything is subject to change but the plan is the first row will sit at 9 - 10 (using the seated person head for measurement) feet and the second row at 14 - 15 feet. This leaves only 4 - 5 feet behind the rear row.

Now to complicate it even further, the rear row will be sitting on a 1 foot riser and the room has a 2 foot wide perimeter sofit which measures at exactly 8'. So the rear seats are only under a 7 1/2 foot ceiling. This confuses me more as I know the surrounds (wall) should be at seated ear height (3.9 feet) so do I split the difference between the rows and raise the side speakers 6" and lower the rears 6" so they are level, or stagger them per the different seat row heights?

Wanted also to add that roughly 70% of the time my wife and I (no kids) will be seated alone in the front row. 



dvdwilly3 said:


> Get the X6200...most of the bells and whistles with a $2199 MSRP.
> 
> Call jdsmoothie for a price...


What are the main things between the 6200 and 7200? The rep at Best Buy Magnolia said the 7200 had the 4k pass thru and that's the one I had to have. 



gene4ht said:


> +1
> 
> Unless you have a ton of BB gift or reward certificates...shopping carefully at authorized ID companies will get you 20%-30% discounts...and agree that @*jdsmoothie* should be one of your first stops.
> 
> Also @*TheNecromancer* , if you feel the need/desire for upscale, adjustable ceiling speakers...Klipsch CDT-5800's offer both adjustable woofers and tweeters for $400 MSRP ($200 street) each. However, from my experience, speaker location/placement is paramount rendering adjustable speakers unnecessary except for unusual room constraints.


Thanks for the tip!


----------



## farmersagent046

Soupy1970 said:


> When you wire for your ceiling speakers, it will be helpful to know where your main listening seat will be positioned. That way you can located the speakers 45% front/back of that seat. For 8.5 foot ceiling I would guess that would be roughly 5 foot forward/back. Position them in line with your front left/right speakers, or slightly in, if you fronts will be wide toward side walls toed in.


Hey TheNecromancer, I used a Klipsch in ceiling speaker. They made a pre-construction kit for it. Measured out my room when we framed it and put in the pre-construction kit exactly as Soupy explained above and ran cable just before sheetrock went up. Putting the speakers into the kit after construction was completely finished was super easy. Whatever speaker you choose, look to see if you can find a construction kit for it. 

Also agree with gene4ht - "However, from my experience, speaker location/placement is paramount rendering adjustable speakers unnecessary except for unusual room constraints." Adjustable speakers just not necessary unless you just really want them.


----------



## farmersagent046

TheNecromancer said:


> In regards to placement, how do you figure for two rows of seats?
> 
> 
> What are the main things between the 6200 and 7200?


My original plan was for two rows. I searched high and low for a good two row solution - never could find one. In the end we ended up scaling the room back for one row anyway to add space for a pool table in the room next door so for me, problem solved. For you, I think it is just build for the center seat of row 1 to be the sweet spot and sit there. Let the visitors have the sweet spot and take row 2 for yourself the 30% of the time you need to if you're generous or want to make em jealous. If not, it's your room - enjoy your chair!

The X6200w has HDCP2.2 and full 4-k pass through. It should do everything you want it to.


----------



## TheNecromancer

farmersagent046 said:


> Hey TheNecromancer, I used a Klipsch in ceiling speaker. They made a pre-construction kit for it. Measured out my room when we framed it and put in the pre-construction kit exactly as Soupy explained above and ran cable just before sheetrock went up. Putting the speakers into the kit after construction was completely finished was super easy. Whatever speaker you choose, look to see if you can find a construction kit for it.
> 
> Also agree with gene4ht - "However, from my experience, speaker location/placement is paramount rendering adjustable speakers unnecessary except for unusual room constraints." Adjustable speakers just not necessary unless you just really want them.


Do you recall what model Klipsch? 

The construction kit sounds like a good idea.


----------



## dvdwilly3

TheNecromancer said:


> The speakers I currently have are Klipsch Reference RF-82's for left and right, RC-62 center and 4 surround RS-42's.
> 
> In regards to placement, how do you figure for two rows of seats? At present we are only at the framing stage so everything is subject to change but the plan is the first row will sit at 9 - 10 (using the seated person head for measurement) feet and the second row at 14 - 15 feet. This leaves only 4 - 5 feet behind the rear row.
> 
> Now to complicate it even further, the rear row will be sitting on a 1 foot riser and the room has a 2 foot wide perimeter sofit which measures at exactly 8'. So the rear seats are only under a 7 1/2 foot ceiling. This confuses me more as I know the surrounds (wall) should be at seated ear height (3.9 feet) so do I split the difference between the rows and raise the side speakers 6" and lower the rears 6" so they are level, or stagger them per the different seat row heights?
> 
> Wanted also to add that roughly 70% of the time my wife and I (no kids) will be seated alone in the front row.
> 
> 
> 
> What are the main things between the 6200 and 7200? The rep at Best Buy Magnolia said the 7200 had the 4k pass thru and that's the one I had to have.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tip!


I have a HT space that is very similar to yours...two rows of seats; the back row on an 8" riser; a 1' soffit that runs along 1/3 of the room length-wise (facing the front of the theater); and more. However, a detailed description and pictures are probably overkill for most on the forum. It took over a year of tweaking to get everything right, but the results are worth it.

If you are interested in the details and pictures of my solutions, just PM me. It will get lengthy...

Re the X6200 pass-through of 4K...below is from the Denon USA website... FWIW, the HDR and BT.2020 are probably more important...

"Equipped with 8 HDMI inputs, including 1 conveniently located on the front panel, along with three HDMI outputs, the AVR-X6200W incorporates an advanced video processor that features support for 4K Ultra HD 60 Hz full rate video, 4:4:4 Pure Color subsampling and 21:9 video pass-through, along with support for 3D content, HDR and BT.2020. The AVR-X6200W also features HDCP 2.2 compatibility on all HDMI inputs, a requirement for 4K Ultra HD copy-protected content. And, the video processor can also upscale analogue and digital SD and HD video to 4K Ultra HD. Certified by the Imaging Science Foundation, the AVR-X6200W features a full suite of video calibration controls (for use by an ISF technician), along with ISF Day and ISF Night video modes."


----------



## AllenA07

TheNecromancer said:


> What are the main things between the 6200 and 7200? The rep at Best Buy Magnolia said the 7200 had the 4k pass thru and that's the one I had to have.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tip!


The difference is minimal. The 6200 has everything you need for UHD including HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0a. Both have 9 channels amplified with 11 channel processing. Both also have the highest version of Audyssey. The x7200 has a little more power then the 6200 and I believe more legacy connections. I have a Denon x6200 and have loved it. It's by far the best reciever I've ever owned.


----------



## Soupy1970

TheNecromancer said:


> The speakers I currently have are Klipsch Reference RF-82's for left and right, RC-62 center and 4 surround RS-42's.
> 
> In regards to placement, how do you figure for two rows of seats? At present we are only at the framing stage so everything is subject to change but the plan is the first row will sit at 9 - 10 (using the seated person head for measurement) feet and the second row at 14 - 15 feet. This leaves only 4 - 5 feet behind the rear row.
> 
> Now to complicate it even further, the rear row will be sitting on a 1 foot riser and the room has a 2 foot wide perimeter sofit which measures at exactly 8'. So the rear seats are only under a 7 1/2 foot ceiling. This confuses me more as I know the surrounds (wall) should be at seated ear height (3.9 feet) so do I split the difference between the rows and raise the side speakers 6" and lower the rears 6" so they are level, or stagger them per the different seat row heights?
> 
> Wanted also to add that roughly 70% of the time my wife and I (no kids) will be seated alone in the front row.
> 
> 
> 
> What are the main things between the 6200 and 7200? The rep at Best Buy Magnolia said the 7200 had the 4k pass thru and that's the one I had to have.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tip!


After buying the X6200 I couldn't spring for the Klipsh CDT-5800-C II (which is what I wanted), so I went on the hunt for something reasonable to hold me over until my wallet rebounded. My main concern was it had to have a Titanium tweeter to hopefully blend with my Klipsch systen which has Titanium tweets. I found OSD ACE850 for $150 a pair. Surprisenly they blend great, and now I'm not sure I will ever upgrade them. If you have the coin though, I suggest getting the Klipsh CDT-5800-C II. If you call around you will find them for $199 each (not the $400 MSRP listed). 

I also recommend The X6200. I called around and ended up at OneCall and it cost me $1375 less then your X7200 quote. That will buy you a lot of other goodies for your room.  

I would set your room up for front row, and not worry about back row getting optimum sound. The way you figure your 45% angle is to measure your ear height at seating position. In my case that is 35 inches. Deduct what ever you come up with from your total ceiling height. Let's use 35" for example and 8'6" ceiling height. 102" (ceiling height) - 35" (ear height) = 67". You mark the ceiling directly above your head, then position ceiling speakers 67" forward, and 67" back.


----------



## Soupy1970

By the way, an easy way to tell if your speakers blend together is during Audyssey setup. If your ceiling speakers sound totally different when being pinged, then they most likely are not blending. For most it's not a concern, but I want the object flying over my head that starts at the front, and ends at the back to sound the same all the way across.


----------



## TheNecromancer

Soupy1970 said:


> ... If you have the coin though, I suggest getting the Klipsh CDT-5800-C II. If you call around you will find them for $199 each (not the $400 MSRP listed).
> 
> I also recommend The X6200. I called around and ended up at OneCall and it cost me $1375 less then your X7200 quote. That will buy you a lot of other goodies for your room.
> .


Yes, sounds like the 6200 will work just fine. I think because I bought an 85" TV from this store, they figure to sell me the highest model of everything I'm inquiring of.

Question regarding the in ceiling Klipsch, do they need to be fit into an enclosure or just cut the drywall and fit them in like a recessed can light?


----------



## Soupy1970

TheNecromancer said:


> Yes, sounds like the 6200 will work just fine. I think because I bought an 85" TV from this store, they figure to sell me the highest model of everything I'm inquiring of.
> 
> Question regarding the in ceiling Klipsch, do they need to be fit into an enclosure or just cut the drywall and fit them in like a recessed can light?


Either way on the Klipsch. They do sell a enclosure which a quick search shows them $75 each. Most just cut a hole and push about 2 foot of pink insulation in the hole then mount speaker. Then again most of us were not in construction stage.

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_714ME8...=67218192563&awdv=c&awkw=me800c&awmt=p&awnw=g


----------



## Ricoflashback

PeterTHX said:


> Sooo, then you're one of those people who want 2.40 movies either cropped or opened up to "fill their screen"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about the merits of Atmos mixes themselves. We're talking about unnecessarily noisy upmixers.


No - original movie format is fine for me. 

Unnecessary noisy upmixes is subjective as well but not in your mind. The point is the same whether it's Dolby Atmos/DTS X or upmixers - DSU or Neural X - there are varying opinions on the use of the technology or in your mind, what is necessary or not. 

Denigrating users who like an active upmix (in your mind defined as unnecessary) is your opinion and is held by many purists. 

You never win with purists. They always tell everybody what is right and wrong.


----------



## Ricoflashback

steve1971 said:


> Just a heads up for Atmos owners. Last night I was playing around with my Comcast DVR and I came upon some Atmos trailers and they have a Black Sails Atmos episode. Even though I dont have an Atmos setup but a modest 7.1 setup the sound coming from my system was incredible! It looks as though Comcast might be living up to their promise of having Atmos sound going through their set top boxes for Atmos owners. Right now its just a few trailers and one episode of Black Sails but if Comcast fully implements Atmos for surround sound then I'm upgrading my surround sound system ASAP!!!!


There is another AVS Forum thread on this subject and it is receiving responses from a Comcast employee who has inside info. The "Black Sails" episode was on, off and now apparently on again, availability wise. You can also search "Atmos" and find the trailers, as well. 

The Black Sails episode sounds great! I haven't heard anything more about additional Dolby Atmos content from Comcast - either free or with their streaming services. A definite game changer if Comcast can provide Dolby Atmos soundtracks for movies that only have the immersive track on a UHD format. Especially for those who still live in the 1080P world and have not switched over to 4K & a UHD player.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I wonder if they will release Black Sails with Atmos on Blu-Ray? Would be extremely nice since it is my favourite TV series.


----------



## dvdwilly3

TheNecromancer said:


> Yes, sounds like the 6200 will work just fine. I think because I bought an 85" TV from this store, they figure to sell me the highest model of everything I'm inquiring of.
> 
> Question regarding the in ceiling Klipsch, do they need to be fit into an enclosure or just cut the drywall and fit them in like a recessed can light?


You might also consider the Goldenear Technology Invisa series. They are sealed units and do not require an enclosure.

http://www.goldenear.com/products/invisa-series

you can usually get them at 10% or so off...


----------



## PeterTHX

Ricoflashback said:


> Denigrating users who like an active upmix (in your mind defined as unnecessary) is your opinion and is held by many purists.
> 
> You never win with purists. They always tell everybody what is right and wrong.


----------



## Ricoflashback

PeterTHX 
AVS Special Member


----------



## Don Draper

So I got my second DTS X native presentation under my belt (The big short) and i'm of the opinion the it shares the same traits with the upmixer. The surround mix was much more than aggressive , it was harsh and borderline annoying. I hope this isn't a pattern.


----------



## Dbruce13

TheNecromancer said:


> OK, sounds like this is a must! Unanimously from many members. I appreciate the feedback, thank you.
> 
> Question: I don't need a receiver right at the moment but will need the 4 overhead speakers pretty soon as sheetrock will be going in soon and if I'm doing overhead speakers I will need to wire and have mounting locations picked.
> 
> Best Buy is wanting to sell me a Denon X7200 and 4 Martin Logan Motion IC's. They quoted $2999 for the receiver and $400 each on the IC's. They did say that the speakers can be aimed at the seats as needed, (adjustable) is that accurate? In my head I'm imagining a speaker similar to my sofit can lights.
> 
> I see in only a short few posts that the Micca is a much more affordable option. Although likely not adjustable directionally?
> 
> Any other speaker options? Maybe something between $49 and $400?
> 
> Thanks guys!


If your going with a Denon "JD" has great prices on them....much less than your big box stores


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dbruce13 said:


> If your going with a Denon "JD" has great prices on them....much less than your big box stores


If you can find an "Open Box" Best Buy Denon, there can be considerable savings. You also retain the full, original manufacturer's warranty. Might be worth a couple calls if you have more than one Best Buy in your area. 

Otherwise, JD Smoothie from AVS Forum will provide a very competitive price as well as being the "Go To" person for info on all things Denon.


----------



## cdelena

Soupy1970 said:


> ...
> I would set your room up for front row, and not worry about back row getting optimum sound.
> ...


I did and found that the back row sound was different but good. In fact with 7.2.4 a friend was so impressed he spent the time to audition a portion of several movies from every seat and came to the conclusion that there is no longer a bad seat. Immersive sound is forgiving in some ways.


----------



## dvdwilly3

Ricoflashback said:


> If you can find an "Open Box" Best Buy Denon, there can be considerable savings. You also retain the full, original manufacturer's warranty. Might be worth a couple calls if you have more than one Best Buy in your area.
> 
> Otherwise, JD Smoothie from AVS Forum will provide a very competitive price as well as being the "Go To" person for info on all things Denon.


Careful with "Open Box" @ BB and others... I used to buy them, then...

About a year ago I bought an open box Klipsch sub from BB. I forget why I called Klipsch about registering it, but I was told by the Klipsch rep that an open box item would get a 90 day warranty from Klipsch instead of the 3 or 5 year (I forget which now...) that Klipsch normally provided with new products.

I do not know if other manufacturers follow this practice or not, but I do not want to find out the hard way.

I no longer buy "open box" items. You could get around the warranty issue by buying an extended warranty from BB, but what would be the point? You would just eat up any savings...


----------



## Ricoflashback

dvdwilly3 said:


> Careful with "Open Box" @ BB and others... I used to buy them, then...
> 
> About a year ago I bought an open box Klipsch sub from BB. I forget why I called Klipsch about registering it, but I was told by the Klipsch rep that an open box item would get a 90 day warranty from Klipsch instead of the 3 or 5 year (I forget which now...) that Klipsch normally provided with new products.
> 
> I do not know if other manufacturers follow this practice or not, but I do not want to find out the hard way.
> 
> I no longer buy "open box" items. You could get around the warranty issue by buying an extended warranty from BB, but what would be the point? You would just eat up any savings...


**Not the case with Denon through Best Buy. Verified through Denon and Best Buy. My open box Denon x5200 was registered with Denon with the full three year warranty. You can also buy an extended warranty from Denon directly - - which makes a lot of sense. 

Refurbished Denon AVR's, however, only have a one year warranty. And, I do not believe they are eligible for an extended warranty - - at least from Denon. 

I agree that you always need to check this information up front based on the manufacturer's policy. I saved $550 off the list price back in February, 2016, of $1,200. Worth a couple calls to see if there are any discounts to be had at any of the local Best Buys in your area.


----------



## Soupy1970

I called all the usual recommended Denon dealers when shopping for my X6200. OneCall, and Sound Distributors had best price. They were $200 cheaper than the others. Just a few more dollars than a Refurb price. Whatever you do, don't buy off eBay, as you may not get a warranty at all. Below is link to Authorized dealers page on Denon's site. 

https://usa.denon.com/us/wheretobuy/online-retailers


----------



## gonzlobo

Ricoflashback said:


> You never win with purists. They always tell everybody what is right and wrong.


That is incorrect!


----------



## hd_newbie

Has anyone tried Klipsch Atmos enabled system for this? Towers with upfire. My understanding is when I use the tower it also functions as height channel, which saves me from speaker clutter hence why I liked the idea. However, I am hearing conflicting inputs about the success of their implementation. I tried searching but too many hits. Sorry if it was asked.


----------



## yanks1

ok all.. great thread

I'm expanding our upstairs Bonus room setup-up in our vacation home from 5.1.2 to Atmos 5.1.4. Have a refurb. Yamaha A2050 in transit from AC4L and just purchased one pair of RSL C34E in-ceiling speakers. If happy after testing, I will order 2nd pair.

My question is our rear surrounds for the traditional 5.1.2 set-up are 6 ft high on rear wall to left & right of MLP. MLP is 3 ft from rear wall, room is 25 ft long and 17 ft wide. I hear with 5.1.4 rear surrounds s/b at or near ear level and not near ceiling. What is the official recommendation... perhaps 1 ft above seated ear level??

thanks, because I need to move the 2 rears down on our next trip & fish the existing speaker wires and make 2 new holes in the sheetrock, ugh. So want to ensure I place in best position... thanks a lot


----------



## Selden Ball

hd_newbie said:


> Has anyone tried Klipsch Atmos enabled system for this? Towers with upfire. My understanding is when I use the tower it also functions as height channel, which saves me from speaker clutter hence why I liked the idea. However, I am hearing conflicting inputs about the success of their implementation. I tried searching but too many hits. Sorry if it was asked.


One problem with having the upfiring speakers built into floor-standing speakers is that many of them do not allow you to adjust their firing angle. Often the upfiring "Dolby Enabled" speakers need to be tilted more or less in order to get the best sound at the main listening position.


----------



## Don Draper

hd_newbie said:


> Has anyone tried Klipsch Atmos enabled system for this? Towers with upfire. My understanding is when I use the tower it also functions as height channel, which saves me from speaker clutter hence why I liked the idea. However, I am hearing conflicting inputs about the success of their implementation. I tried searching but too many hits. Sorry if it was asked.


I would look at atmos enabled speakers as a last resort - if there are absolutely no other options available. Too many variables to affect their performance.


----------



## hd_newbie

Don Draper said:


> I would look at atmos enabled speakers as a last resort - if there are absolutely no other options available. Too many variables to affect their performance.


 What other options are there? I thought it had to be in-ceiling or atmos enabled. I can't have in-ceiling ones for the moment. Do you have other recommendations?


----------



## Don Draper

hd_newbie said:


> What other options are there? I thought it had to be in-ceiling or atmos enabled. I can't have in-ceiling ones for the moment. Do you have other recommendations?


I you cant go in ceiling, then go on- ceiling. If you cant or don't want to do that then run heights( I have no experience with a height only setup specifically for atmos). If that's a no go, you my friend are at a last resort.


----------



## hd_newbie

Don Draper said:


> I you cant go in ceiling, then go on- ceiling. If you cant or don't want to do that then run heights( I have no experience with a height only setup specifically for atmos). If that's a no go, you my friend are at a last resort.


 What is height-only set up? I never heard it. Do you mean using 2 or 4 separate elevated speakers mounted on walls?


----------



## Don Draper

hd_newbie said:


> What is height-only set up? I never heard it. Do you mean using 2 or 4 separate elevated speakers mounted on walls?


Yep . Front heights and/or rear heights.


----------



## ALtlOff

hd_newbie said:


> What other options are there? I thought it had to be in-ceiling or atmos enabled. I can't have in-ceiling ones for the moment. Do you have other recommendations?





Don Draper said:


> I you cant go in ceiling, then go on- ceiling. If you cant or don't want to do that then run heights( I have no experience with a height only setup specifically for atmos). If that's a no go, you my friend are at a last resort.


I have all heights and they are a "very" minimal compromise, and only under circumstances where overhead sound are supposed to be directly above you, above and around you they may actually be better. But like ask of this, it can be room dependant, but no matter, they will still be superior to enabled.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

hd_newbie said:


> Has anyone tried Klipsch Atmos enabled system for this? Towers with upfire. My understanding is when I use the tower it also functions as height channel, which saves me from speaker clutter hence why I liked the idea. However, I am hearing conflicting inputs about the success of their implementation. I tried searching but too many hits. Sorry if it was asked.


Enabled speakers as mentioned, should be be a _last _resort option. Top/ceiling speakers are the best, followed by height locations.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> Enabled speakers as mentioned, should be be a _last _resort option. Top/ceiling speakers are the best, followed by height locations.


I disagree. If you have suitable conditions for using Atmos-enabled speakers (flat ceiling in the recommended height range, unobstructed by fans or other things), then I think enabled speakers can work better than heights. I'd still prefer in or on-ceiling, but at least with the enabled speakers sound is coming distinctly from *above* rather than from the front and back walls.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> I disagree. If you have suitable conditions for using Atmos-enabled speakers (flat ceiling in the recommended height range, unobstructed by fans or other things), then I think enabled speakers can work better than heights. I'd still prefer in or on-ceiling, but at least with the enabled speakers sound is coming distinctly from *above* rather than from the front and back walls.


I'm coming from what I've heard of both and my own system. Enabled speakers sound more like a DSP audio enhancement mode plus you have to place them and yourself _precisely_ to get the intended effect.


----------



## SherazNJ

dvdwilly3 said:


> Well...Dolby suggests 90-110 degrees for surrounds in a 5.1.2 configuration...without back surrounds.
> 
> Since the Dolby recommendation starts directly to the side and ends at somewhat to the rear, I would probably opt for the 130 position.
> 
> That is, if they have to stay there.
> Could you leave them at the 130 position when no one is using the theater, and then move them forward to the 110 position when you are using the theater?


Oh well I guess I'll leave them at 90 degrees. 95% of times its my wife and I and she and I are ok with it. So I don't really need to make changes for 5% if its not optimum


----------



## AllenA07

dschulz said:


> I disagree. If you have suitable conditions for using Atmos-enabled speakers (flat ceiling in the recommended height range, unobstructed by fans or other things), then I think enabled speakers can work better than heights. I'd still prefer in or on-ceiling, but at least with the enabled speakers sound is coming distinctly from *above* rather than from the front and back walls.


While I openly admit that my experiences with Atmos is limited, I have yet to hear Atmos enabled speakers that even are in the ballpark of my heights. I don't doubt that a lot of that may come from my theater being better setup then what you hear as demos, however I just can't imagine a situation where bouncing sound off the ceiling will out preforms dedicated height channels. 

I see the Atmos enabled speakers as a way to attempt mass market introduction of immersive audio. For those people who want immersive audio, but simply aren't in a situation to install height channels. I would be curious to hear a perfectly setup theater with Atmos enabled speakers.


----------



## ALtlOff

Don Draper said:


> Yep . Front heights and/or rear heights.


Or Surround Heights in a TM capacity for some 5.1.4 setups or even for 7.1.4 with Rears that are elevated more than normal.





dschulz said:


> I disagree. If you have suitable conditions for using Atmos-enabled speakers (flat ceiling in the recommended height range, unobstructed by fans or other things), then I think enabled speakers can work better than heights. I'd still prefer in or on-ceiling, but at least with the enabled speakers sound is coming distinctly from *above* rather than from the front and back walls.


But this also depends on your room, the speakers and their angle, mine are angled so that the first reflection off the ceiling mixed with the direct sound gives the illusion that the sound is about 2' or so, out into the ceiling. And with the direct sound to reinforce the reflection instead of the entire sound being reflected, it just seems to be a little more dynamic, at least, to me, and compared to the enabled demonstrations I've heard.


----------



## Don Draper

dschulz said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enabled speakers as mentioned, should be be a _last _resort option. Top/ceiling speakers are the best, followed by height locations.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If you have suitable conditions for using Atmos-enabled speakers (flat ceiling in the recommended height range, unobstructed by fans or other things), then I think enabled speakers can work better than heights. I'd still prefer in or on-ceiling, but at least with the enabled speakers sound is coming distinctly from *above* rather than from the front and back walls.
Click to expand...

Well you just pointed out all the stuff that can go wrong. Can be better than in ceiling? Please. That's like saying a soundbar can be better than 5.1.

Edit: oops. You said better than heights. My bad.


----------



## audiofan1

For those that crave overhead sensations and full out assaults 13 Hours is your 'Huckle berry" this is a very,very well done Atmos mix allowing one to get simply engrossed on what I consider a great film, I was simply pinned to my chair and loved every minute of it.

If not mentioned already I found it a surprise that my rental was Atmos and didn't even know till viewing


----------



## tjenkins95

*Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers*

If you have a flat, reflective ceiling - i.e. no absorbent ceiling panels - up-firing speakers work fine if you buy a good brand. I have a set of the Pioneer Atmos-enabled speakers and they sound great! 


Ray


----------



## DLCPhoto

*Atmos Movies available by Netflix or Amazon Streaming?*

I am in the process of getting my Atmos system set up. Not quite there yet, waiting to run speaker wire, but want to be ready to test it out.

I have the Marantz SR7010 Receiver, and to start with, will be using a Roku Stick to stream Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, etc.

Does anybody know for sure if any of these streams do in fact include the Atmos soundtrack, and if so, which services, which movies, which devices, etc.?

Even though I'm not yet hooked up, I think the Marantz should show the specifications of what it's receiving from the Roku Stick, regardless of what it will be outputting.

And if it is in Atmos, what should the SR7010 show regarding the input its receiving, to confirm that it is in fact seeing Atmos info?

Thanks.


----------



## smurraybhm

If you haven't bought 13 Days it just got a nice markdown via Amazon. Very immersive Atmos mix IMO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> I am in the process of getting my Atmos system set up. Not quite there yet, waiting to run speaker wire, but want to be ready to test it out.
> 
> I have the Marantz SR7010 Receiver, and to start with, will be using a Roku Stick to stream Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, etc.
> 
> Does anybody know for sure if any of these streams do in fact include the Atmos soundtrack, and if so, which services, which movies, which devices, etc.?
> 
> Even though I'm not yet hooked up, I think the Marantz should show the specifications of what it's receiving from the Roku Stick, regardless of what it will be outputting.
> 
> And if it is in Atmos, what should the SR7010 show regarding the input its receiving, to confirm that it is in fact seeing Atmos info?
> 
> Thanks.


Vudu has a few Atmos encoded movies, but only attached to their 4k streams and you must have an HDCP 2.2 compliant 4k display and very high speed internet or you won't get that selection of 4k streams. And for _that,_ you need the *Roku 4*, not the stick, though it has a few bugs. 

If the Marantz "sees" a Dolby Atmos encoded track it will say Dolby Atmos in its display. However, you have to have designated height, overhead, and/or enabled positions in the speaker setup menu. Otherwise, you'll only get the 7.1 core.

I would highly recommend getting a UHD Blu-ray player in the near future, so you can continue to enjoy lossless Dolby Atmos as well as DTS: X tracks from all the studios supporting immersive audio. Some are making these formats exclusive to UHD Blu-ray.

As you can see, you must have all your ducks in a row before you can really enjoy immersive audio from all the various sources. Just having a receiver isn't enough.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Dan Hitchman said:


> Vudu has a few Atmos encoded movies, but only attached to their 4k streams and you must have an HDCP 2.2 compliant 4k display and very high speed internet or you won't get that 4k stream. And for that, you need the Roku 4, though it has a few bugs.
> 
> If the Marantz "sees" a Dolby Atmos encoded track it will say Dolby Atmos in its display. However, you have to have designated height, overhead, or enabled positions in the speaker setup menu. Otherwise, you'll only get the 7.1 core.
> 
> I would highly recommend getting a UHD Blu-ray player in the near future, so you can continue to enjoy lossless Dolby Atmos as well as DTS: X tracks from all the studios supporting immersive audio. Some are making these formats exclusive to UHD Blu-ray.


Thanks for the reply. I did a chat with Netflix, and they said no Atmos (although I'm not always confident the reps know what they're talking about).

I'll check some out on Amazon Prime, and see if the Marantz detects Atmos on any of them. I don't think I can really designate the appropriate speakers in setup yet, since they're not physically connected. But will see what I can find.

And I do plan on getting a UHD BD Player in the not too distant future, but would like to have more than 1 to choose from! Given the various difficulties that have been seen with the Samsung, I'm hoping that perhaps the Philips will be a viable alternative.

I've thought about the Roku 4, but if would become irrelevant for me when I would get the UHD BD player, so I may just wait on that.

(And I have the JVC RS400, so I'm set on 4K compatible display.)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> Thanks for the reply. I did a chat with Netflix, and they said no Atmos (although I'm not always confident the reps know what they're talking about).
> 
> I'll check some out on Amazon Prime, and see if the Marantz detects Atmos on any of them. I don't think I can really designate the appropriate speakers in setup yet, since they're not physically connected. But will see what I can find.
> 
> And I do plan on getting a UHD BD Player in the not too distant future, but would like to have more than 1 to choose from! Given the various difficulties that have been seen with the Samsung, I'm hoping that perhaps the Philips will be a viable alternative.
> 
> I've thought about the Roku 4, but if would become irrelevant for me when I would get the UHD BD player, so I may just wait on that.
> 
> (And I have the JVC RS400, so I'm set on 4K compatible display.)


Do you at least have a basic Blu-ray player, so you can listen to a few Blu-ray Atmos and DTS: X tracks? And the receiver can show Dolby Atmos if you "lie" to it and say you have the speakers hooked up, though you won't be able to enjoy the immersive experience.

No, Netflix doesn't seem to have audio high on the list of their priorities. They're the McDonald's of streaming services.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you at least have a basic Blu-ray player, so you can listen to a few Blu-ray Atmos and DTS: X tracks? And the receiver can show Dolby Atmos if you "lie" to it and say you have the speakers hooked up, though you won't be able to enjoy the immersive experience.
> 
> No, Netflix doesn't seem to have audio high on the list of their features. They're the McDonald's of streaming services.


Yes, I have a Sony BD Player, and would be able to buy a BluRay or two for this purpose. There is the confusion and uncertainty about which 'versions' of the BluRays do in fact have Atmos. Looking at Amazon, for example, for discs that are 'supposed' to have Atmos, it doesn't say one way or the other in the description.

And I don't want to spend too much on BluRays since I'll probably be wanting to get UHD versions in the not too distant future. That's why I was hoping to 'test' it out without spending too much on discs that aren't UHD.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> Yes, I have a Sony BD Player, and would be able to buy a BluRay or two for this purpose. There is the confusion and uncertainty about which 'versions' of the BluRays do in fact have Atmos. Looking at Amazon, for example, for discs that are 'supposed' to have Atmos, it doesn't say one way or the other in the description.
> 
> And I don't want to spend too much on BluRays since I'll probably be wanting to get UHD versions in the not too distant future. That's why I was hoping to 'test' it out without spending too much on discs that aren't UHD.


Which titles are you looking at? Blu-ray.com has a good list of Atmos and DTS: X encoded Blu-ray's on their site. 

Never trust Amazon's specs. page. They're notoriously wrong.

Just remember, a lot of classics and deep catalog titles may never see the light of day on UHD Blu-ray. Regular Blu-ray's and sadly only DVD will be it for them.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Dan Hitchman said:


> Which titles are you looking at? Blu-ray.com has a good list of Atmos and DTS: X encoded Blu-ray's on their site.
> 
> Never trust Amazon's specs. page. They're notoriously wrong.
> 
> Just remember, a lot of classics and deep catalog titles may never see the light of day on UHD Blu-ray. Regular Blu-ray's will be it for them.


I'm considering some like Hunger Games, or Action type movies for this purpose (also to test out my newly acquired subwoofer (DIY made by an AVS-er, with 4 15" woofers, powered by an iNuke 6000).

I'll check out blu-ray.com.

Ironic that as you point out, some of the older ones with Atmos won't see UHD versions, while some current releases require the UHD in order to get Atmos! Can't win for losing!


----------



## jrod9707

DLCPhoto said:


> Thanks for the reply. I did a chat with Netflix, and they said no Atmos (although I'm not always confident the reps know what they're talking about).
> 
> I'll check some out on Amazon Prime, and see if the Marantz detects Atmos on any of them. I don't think I can really designate the appropriate speakers in setup yet, since they're not physically connected. But will see what I can find.
> 
> And I do plan on getting a UHD BD Player in the not too distant future, but would like to have more than 1 to choose from! Given the various difficulties that have been seen with the Samsung, I'm hoping that perhaps the Philips will be a viable alternative.
> 
> I've thought about the Roku 4, but if would become irrelevant for me when I would get the UHD BD player, so I may just wait on that.
> 
> (And I have the JVC RS400, so I'm set on 4K compatible display.)


I would recommend holding off on buying a 4K player until we hear more from Sony and their new PS4k game system. Much like the PS3 this unit will stay up to date whereas if you buy a regular 4K player any bugs may not get fixed and or updated after a year or so.
Just something to watch out for if you don't "need" to upgrade right away.


----------



## DLCPhoto

jrod9707 said:


> I would recommend holding off on buying a 4K player until we hear more from Sony and their new PS4k game system. Much like the PS3 this unit will stay up to date whereas if you buy a regular 4K player any bugs may not get fixed and or updated after a year or so.
> Just something to watch out for if you don't "need" to upgrade right away.


Agreed. I can wait, and would prefer more choices than the Samsung. But I was reading that the PS4K might not be available until the end of the year. Not sure I can wait *that* long!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> I'm considering some like Hunger Games, or Action type movies for this purpose (also to test out my newly acquired subwoofer (DIY made by an AVS-er, with 4 15" woofers, powered by an iNuke 6000).
> 
> I'll check out blu-ray.com.
> 
> Ironic that as you point out, some of the older ones with Atmos won't see UHD versions, while some current releases require the UHD in order to get Atmos! Can't win for losing!


_Independence Day_, as an example, only has a DTS: X track on UHD Blu-ray. The "normal" Anniversary Blu edition is not even from that very demo-worthy immersive remix; just the original 5.1 track. Fox is one of the studios that does not release immersive audio to regular Blu-ray. Paramount and Sony are starting to slowly follow suit. Disney will be another studio like Fox. In fact, Paramount, when touting their new Atmos tracks of JJ Abrams' Star Trek films for UHD Blu-ray made a whopper of a statement that immersive audio is only really possible on UHD Blu-ray.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Dan Hitchman said:


> _Independence Day_, as an example, only has a DTS: X track on UHD Blu-ray. The "normal" Anniversary Blu edition is not even from that very demo-worthy immersive remix; just the original 5.1 track. Fox is one of the studios that does not release immersive audio to regular Blu-ray. Paramount and Sony are starting to slowly follow suit. Disney will be another studio like Fox.


Exactly. This variability is what makes me hesitate to buy anything, being unsure what I'll actually be receiving!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> Exactly. This variability is what makes me hesitate to buy anything, being unsure what I'll actually be receiving!


That's why if you buy the UHD Blu-ray version rather than double dipping you're at least future proofing your collection. You may not get to hear the immersive track just yet, but it will be a treat when you can!


----------



## DLCPhoto

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's why if you buy the UHD Blu-ray version rather than double dipping you're at least future proofing your collection. You may not get to hear the immersive track just yet, but it will be a treat when you can!


Yeah good point. Will give this some thought.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> Yeah good point. Will give this some thought.


I normally act on impulse.  That's why I was able to snag the _Ghostbusters II_ UHD Blu-ray for $9 when Target screwed up and sold it online at that bargain basement price (but wasn't actually selling any for that price).  Sometimes Best Buy's price matching really works in our favor!

Now, I'm just waiting on my less than perfect Samsung UHD player to get delivered to hear the few UHD discs I have in my collection.


----------



## jrod9707

Dan Hitchman said:


> I normally act on impulse.  That's why I was able to snag the _Ghostbusters II_ UHD Blu-ray for $9 when Target screwed up and sold it online at that bargain basement price (but wasn't actually selling any for that price).  Sometimes Best Buy's price matching really works in our favor!
> 
> Now, I'm just waiting on my less than perfect Samsung UHD player to get delivered to hear the few UHD discs I have in my collection.


Quick question if you use a 4K player but have a 1080p projector. When the uhd Bly ray downgrades do you still get Atmos surround or does it revert to dd/dts lossless?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrod9707 said:


> Quick question if you use a 4K player but have a 1080p projector. When the uhd Blu ray downgrades do you still get Atmos surround or does it revert to dd/dts lossless?


You still get the Dolby Atmos and DTS: X tracks.


----------



## jrod9707

Dan Hitchman said:


> You still get the Dolby Atmos and DTS: X tracks.


Guess it's 4K only from here on out. Other than animation 3D flicks. Is Zootopia 3D Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrod9707 said:


> Guess it's 4K only from here on out. Other than animation 3D flicks. Is Zootopia 3D Atmos?


Disney will be adding immersive audio on UHD Blu-ray only, if and when they do start releasing 4k discs.


----------



## williamwallace

As Dan stated, it's clear the studios are either all-in on immersive being exclusive to UHD, or moving that way. I've always been a proponent of getting a UHD player, even without 4k setups, if you want to experience the best immersive audio available and forthcoming, if budget allows.

The Samsung player is interesting because it looks like the earlier ones were the most stable. Myself and several others who've had them since release in Feb have had zero issues, and that's with watching 5+ movies per week for me; but there are certainly those with a lot of issues. I'd have no problem recommending picking one up at a return friendly place, in case you get one that acts up.

Luckily, Philips should be out soon (supposedly this month; although it looks like an apple tv, haha), Panasonic is on the way to this continent late summer, and late 2016/2017 should up the game with a new Oppo, and both the updated consoles offering 4k players (great bang for the buck there.) You just have to decide if you can wait or not.


----------



## asere

I noticed yesterday while watching San Andreas and toggling back and forth from Atmos to Standard that the Atmos track had more bass. Is this usually the case with Atmos?


----------



## PeterTHX

Dan Hitchman said:


> In fact, Paramount, when touting their new Atmos tracks of JJ Abrams' Star Trek films for UHD Blu-ray made a whopper of a statement that immersive audio is only really possible on UHD Blu-ray.


Where did you see that?


----------



## PeterTHX

asere said:


> I noticed yesterday while watching San Andreas and toggling back and forth from Atmos to Standard that the Atmos track had more bass. Is this usually the case with Atmos?


Atmos theatrical spec requires full range speakers for all outputs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> Where did you see that?


Broadcasting & Cable article:

Hoxsie said the studio had previously considered doing Atmos tracks for its standard Blu-ray releases, _but didn’t believe the technology was ready yet._ “[UHD Blu-rays] are perfect for Atmos. Since we’re doing HDR, we needed to bring up the audio with it,” he said.

---

Tell _that_ to Warner Brothers, Lionsgate, and Sony.


----------



## Lesmor

Just to clarify will a 4K UHD (HDR) discs play on 1080P display?


----------



## gonzlobo

smurraybhm said:


> If you haven't bought 13 Days it just got a nice markdown via Amazon. Very immersive Atmos mix IMO.


I rented the '13 hours' redbox BR yesterday. It had atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lesmor said:


> Just to clarify will a 4K UHD (HDR) discs play on 1080P display?


Unless you get a random handshake error, they should downconvert to 1080p.


----------



## smurraybhm

gonzlobo said:


> I rented the '13 hours' redbox BR yesterday. It had atmos.


Thanks, that was posted a few pages earlier. Some of us like to own movies, especially if they are entertaining and contain a very good immersive mix, $12.99 isn't a bad deal. 13 Hours fits that category for those who are interested, otherwise its a cheap rental  or Netflix option.


----------



## Selden Ball

Lesmor said:


> Just to clarify will a 4K UHD (HDR) discs play on 1080P display?


4K UHD disc players can downscale 4K discs to 1080p. Some people have reported that the Samsung UHD player does a relatively poor job of converting the colors, though. Supposedly the Panasonic UHD player does a better job of that, but it's not yet available in the U.S.

You can not play 4K UHD discs in a standard Blu-ray player, not even those which can upscale 1080p discs to 4K.


----------



## hd_newbie

Dan Hitchman said:


> Enabled speakers as mentioned, should be be a _last _resort option. Top/ceiling speakers are the best, followed by height locations.


If I choose to go with all height set up, am I going to need special atmos speakers? Can I use my spare rear speakers from my previous 7.1 for height?


----------



## Lesmor

Thanks for the replies Gents
Looking more and more like Dolby Atmos is dead on normal BR
Got to question my decision in the time investment and inconvenience I have gone through only to have the rug pulled from under my feet.
Certainly didn't see that one coming.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for the replies Gents
> Looking more and more like Dolby Atmos is dead on normal BR
> Got to question my decision in the time investment and inconvenience I have gone through only to have the rug pulled from under my feet.
> Certainly didn't see that one coming.


It was inevitable. Studios always do this in order to up-sell us on the latest and greatest gear and media.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

hd_newbie said:


> If I choose to go with all height set up, am I going to need special atmos speakers? Can I use my spare rear speakers from my previous 7.1 for height?


You don't need special speakers per se, just speakers that can be easily mounted up right near the ceiling and aimed toward the main listening position (MLP, for short) if you are going with front and rear heights rather than overheads. The better the bass handling capabilities, the better, however, since immersive audio can be full range all around. The less bass having to go to the subwoofer from the surrounds, the more seamless the sound.

The base layer speakers should be at or very near ear level while seated. The side and rear surround speaker height is now recommended to be _just_ above seated head level, so no one's head blocks sound from any other viewers, but really no higher if possible. Gotta have good separation between layers.


----------



## zeus33

smurraybhm said:


> Thanks, that was posted a few pages earlier. Some of us like to own movies, especially if they are entertaining and contain a very good immersive mix, $12.99 isn't a bad deal. 13 Hours fits that category for those who are interested, otherwise its a cheap rental  *or Netflix option*.



Which also has the Atmos track.


----------



## PeterTHX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Broadcasting & Cable article:
> 
> Hoxsie said the studio had previously considered doing Atmos tracks for its standard Blu-ray releases, _but didn’t believe the technology was ready yet._ “[UHD Blu-rays] are perfect for Atmos. Since we’re doing HDR, we needed to bring up the audio with it,” he said.



He was talking about when_* Star Trek Into Darkness*_ first came out on disc.


You forget Paramount was the first to support Atmos with *Transformers: Age of Extinction *and their current support is very good, they haven't missed any theatrical Atmos releases on standard Blu-ray in 2015 & 2016 AFAIK.

He's also talking about the authoring packages for UHD-BD being Atmos ready from the get go, plus the extra bandwidth and storage space.


----------



## Soupy1970

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for the replies Gents
> Looking more and more like Dolby Atmos is dead on normal BR
> Got to question my decision in the time investment and inconvenience I have gone through only to have the rug pulled from under my feet.
> Certainly didn't see that one coming.


It does suck for us that don't have 4K yet. I'll probably be waiting even longer to upgrade since I have a dedicated room with a projector. With that said, I think Atmos is still worth the upgrade since the upmixer sounds great on non-atmos movies.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soupy1970 said:


> It does suck for us that don't have 4K yet. I'll probably be waiting even longer to upgrade since I have a dedicated room with a projector. With that said, I think Atmos is still worth the upgrade since the upmixer sounds great on non-atmos movies.


You can still downsample UHD Blu-ray's to 1080p until you can upgrade to a 4k projector and retain the Atmos or X immersive mix. That looks like your best bet if you want to continue enjoying 3D audio.


----------



## williamwallace

As we've just been talking about UHD players, the Xbox One S was announced today. You get the full next gen gaming console, a 4K BD player that supports UHD/HDR for both movies and games, available in August for $399 (2TB version), and then a $300 version after that.


----------



## gbaby

radamo said:


> I have an LG OLED 1080P set and I am not upgrading (nor do I have any desire to) anytime soon for UHD or 4K. The studios are in fact losing my $ also since I won't buy any of these discs. If the regular BD had Atmos I would most certainly pick it up. But I will just use Redbox and spend $2 rather than $20 or more.


In case most folks have not gotten the memo, 4k is more hype and marketing than anything else. The biggest spec improvement for television is HDR or High Dynamic Range. I have two old Sony XBRs, the 46XBR8 and the 55HX929, and both look appreciably better than my friend's 65" Samsung 4K television. I have true blacks and he has true grays.


----------



## DLCPhoto

williamwallace said:


> As we've just been talking about UHD players, the Xbox One S was announced today. You get the full next gen gaming console, a 4K BD player that supports UHD/HDR for both movies and games, available in August for $399 (2TB version), and then a $300 version after that.


Interesting. As a total non-gamer, I don't care about that aspect of the Xbox, and I'm assuming the storage provided is purely game related, right?

But getting a $300 UHD BD Player, which will also provide 4K via Netflix and Amazon (and hopefully UltraFlix as well), is quite appealing, especially considering the more expensive competition.

Is there anything that the Xbox lacks that a more traditional UHD BD Player like the Samsung, Philips, Panasonic, etc., would provide?

And while we're on the subject (sorry for the thread-jack!), I assume any of these players would also be capable of playing regular audio CD's, so no need for a separate player (my old Sony is getting a little glitchy at times)??


----------



## thebland

DLCPhoto said:


> Interesting. As a total non-gamer, I don't care about that aspect of the Xbox, and I'm assuming the storage provided is purely game related, right?
> 
> But getting a $300 UHD BD Player, which will also provide 4K via Netflix and Amazon (and hopefully UltraFlix as well), is quite appealing, especially considering the more expensive competition.
> 
> Is there anything that the Xbox lacks that a more traditional UHD BD Player like the Samsung, Philips, Panasonic, etc., would provide?
> 
> And while we're on the subject (sorry for the thread-jack!), I assume any of these players would also be capable of playing regular audio CD's, so no need for a separate player (my old Sony is getting a little glitchy at times)??


I assume no RS-232, IP control for the XBOX - just IR?


----------



## Luke M

DLCPhoto said:


> And while we're on the subject (sorry for the thread-jack!), I assume any of these players would also be capable of playing regular audio CD's, so no need for a separate player (my old Sony is getting a little glitchy at times)??


The PS4 doesn't. Can't take it for granted these days.

http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps4/videos/videodisc.html

Playback of the following types of discs is not supported.

CD


----------



## gonzlobo

zeus33 said:


> Which also has the Atmos track.


The online '13 hours' has atmos?


----------



## zeus33

gonzlobo said:


> The online '13 hours' has atmos?



Netflix doesn't stream new releases. It's on the blu-ray through their disc mail service.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Luke M said:


> The PS4 doesn't. Can't take it for granted these days.
> 
> http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps4/videos/videodisc.html
> 
> Playback of the following types of discs is not supported.
> 
> CD


Thanks for finding this. Not a deal-breaker, but it would be convenient to have one player to handle it all.

Apparently the Xbox One currently does play CD's; not sure about the upcoming One S. Checked some pages on it, but don't see it mentioned one way or the other.


----------



## Suii

Anybody give me a few places I can go and stream/download some Atmos videos to my Vizio P75 and see how awesome it sounds on my new system.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

The bigger problem with the Xbox One S as a UHD player is that we don't know if it bitstreams audio. The current hardware doesn't for Blu-ray, so it has me concerned. I asked on Twitter and they haven't answered me.


----------



## PioManiac

DLCPhoto said:


> Thanks for finding this. Not a deal-breaker, but it would be convenient to have one player to handle it all.
> 
> Apparently the Xbox One currently does play CD's; not sure about the upcoming One S. Checked some pages on it, but don't see it mentioned one way or the other.


Probably worth mentioning, the current XBOX ONE cannot Bitstream bluray HD audio,
It can only send audio by converting to pcm, which means no Atmos/DTS:X.
...that requires a True HD/DTS-HD bitstream.

I hope they plan on fixing that on the new xbox for 4K bluray playback.

I currently have an XBOX 360, XBOX One, PS3, PS4 and the only player I use for bluray
...a 3 year old Sony bdp s5100 ($130) that plays everything. CD, SACD, DVD, BD
AND Bitstream all bluray audio formats without issue...

Yamaha RX-A3050 7.4.4 Atmos/DTS:X setup.


----------



## DLCPhoto

PioManiac said:


> Probably worth mentioning, the current XBOX ONE cannot Bitstream bluray HD audio,
> It can only send audio by converting to pcm, which means no Atmos/DTS:X.
> ...that requires a True HD/DTS-HD bitstream.
> 
> I hope they plan on fixing that on the new xbox for 4K bluray playback.
> 
> I currently have an XBOX 360, XBOX One, PS3, PS4 and the only player I use for bluray
> ...a 3 year old Sony bdp s5100 ($130) that plays everything. CD, SACD, DVD, BD
> AND Bitstream all bluray audio formats without issue...
> 
> Yamaha RX-A3050 7.4.4 Atmos/DTS:X setup.


Thanks. I have a Sony BDP-S5500; small enough that it's no big deal to keep it around if need be.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DLCPhoto said:


> Thanks. I have a Sony BDP-S5500; small enough that it's no big deal to keep it around if need be.


If the new Xbox is designed like the present Blu-ray enabled model and cannot bitstream, it's equally worthless as a UHD Blu-ray player.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the new Xbox is designed like the present Blu-ray enabled model and cannot bitstream, it's equally worthless as a UHD Blu-ray player.


Yeah, that's probably right. Maybe the Philips will be available soon, and get the job done with minimal quirks. One can only hope...


----------



## nickbuol

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the new Xbox is designed like the present Blu-ray enabled model and cannot bitstream, it's equally worthless as a UHD Blu-ray player.


Yeah, it boasts 4K and HDR, but I too am a bit leery as to what it will actually be "lacking" from a UHD player perspective. If it checks all of the key boxes audio and video wise, it would be a nice upgrade from my XBox 360 (yeah, I know its old, but I am a PC gamer first) and be priced at or $100 less (depending on hard drive size) than the Samsung UHD player. It is that fact alone that has me skeptical though...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nickbuol said:


> Yeah, it boasts 4K and HDR, but I too am a bit leery as to what it will actually be "lacking" from a UHD player perspective. If it checks all of the key boxes audio and video wise, it would be a nice upgrade from my XBox 360 (yeah, I know its old, but I am a PC gamer first) and be priced at or $100 less (depending on hard drive size) than the Samsung UHD player. It is that fact alone that has me skeptical though...


And to top it off that they would skimp on something a $50 Blu-ray player can and always has been able to do... and then if they do it yet again.


----------



## jrod9707

Since this is the official thread for Atmos I figure theres no better people than you guys to assist me in speaker placement for one of the worst theatre rooms ever. I have cathedral ceilings along with white walls(wife factor). I have the Sony 55ES coupled with a Stewart Cinegray so the picture is pretty good but blacks could be better, but of course they can always be better!

Now everything is in a rough stage, projector is not ceiling mounted and the Definitive Technology SSA50 has speakers wires showing. Everything is just in mockup till I can make sure it is perfect before hiding all the wires.

Im going to have Def Tech SR 8040's on the back wall where the projector is and probably a foot or 2 above ear level.

NOW is where y'all come in is for my 2 sets of Def tech pro monitor 800's I need to know how I should mount them. 

-For the front I could place them as "heights" and angled towards the chairs OR I place them on the side wall at the front but have them down firing as if they were in a flat ceiling(pitched 90 degrees downward).

-Now the rear Atmos speakers I was thinking the same thing to have them on the side walls but down firing vs. mounted on the side and angle at the sitting position.
- With the rear atmos how far in front of the seats should they be?

Please give me your opinions on what you would do if you were in my shoes. I know its not ideal so I'm looking for some best advice/ideas as I prefer not to drill a bunch of holes and deal with patchwork on top of this PIA install


----------



## ALtlOff

jrod9707 said:


> Since this is the official thread for Atmos I figure theres no better people than you guys to assist me in speaker placement for one of the worst theatre rooms ever. I have cathedral ceilings along with white walls(wife factor). I have the Sony 55ES coupled with a Stewart Cinegray so the picture is pretty good but blacks could be better, but of course they can always be better!
> 
> Now everything is in a rough stage, projector is not ceiling mounted and the Definitive Technology SSA50 has speakers wires showing. Everything is just in mockup till I can make sure it is perfect before hiding all the wires.
> 
> Im going to have Def Tech SR 8040's on the back wall where the projector is and probably a foot or 2 above ear level.
> 
> NOW is where y'all come in is for my 2 sets of Def tech pro monitor 800's I need to know how I should mount them.
> 
> -For the front I could place them as "heights" and angled towards the chairs OR I place them on the side wall at the front but have them down firing as if they were in a flat ceiling(pitched 90 degrees downward).
> 
> -Now the rear Atmos speakers I was thinking the same thing to have them on the side walls but down firing vs. mounted on the side and angle at the sitting position.
> - With the rear atmos how far in front of the seats should they be?
> 
> Please give me your opinions on what you would do if you were in my shoes. I know its not ideal so I'm looking for some best advice/ideas as I prefer not to drill a bunch of holes and deal with patchwork on top of this PIA install


In that room, 5.1.4 w/ FH & RH, fire them almost straight out, then just experiment with which labeling sounds best (FH & RH or TF & TR or any combination of) call it a day.


----------



## showmak

gbaby said:


> In case most folks have not gotten the memo, 4k is more hype and marketing than anything else. The biggest spec improvement for television is HDR or High Dynamic Range. I have two old Sony XBRs, the 46XBR8 and the 55HX929, and both look appreciably better than my friend's 65" Samsung 4K television. I have true blacks and he has true grays.



I agree with you regarding the true black of Sony 55HX929, I'm still in love with it since 2011.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

Suii said:


> Anybody give me a few places I can go and stream/download some Atmos videos to my Vizio P75 and see how awesome it sounds on my new system.



Here you go...

http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## farmersagent046

Suii said:


> Anybody give me a few places I can go and stream/download some Atmos videos to my Vizio P75 and see how awesome it sounds on my new system.


Vudu has the dolby atmos demo http://www.vudu.com/movies/#search/dolby atmos If you don't already have the disk, the demo has 4 cool shorts on it that sound great.


----------



## nickbuol

Quick opinion question. I am reworking my rear overhead Atmos speakers, and I have a buddy coming over later this week to watch something in Atmos. He wants to watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. How does it sound in Atmos? 

Ralph Potts' review gave it a 96 for Atmos and states: "In listening to the Dolby Atmos surround mix I found it to be of the active variety that makes effective use of the platform. Its use of audio objects placed above is a mix of atmospherics, discrete effects and music accompaniment. This is done to very excellent effect, creating a tangible level of immersion that coincides with the onscreen events in an involving, and sometime visceral fashion."

Is this a good movie to use to show off Atmos without being something like "Goosebumps?" I feel like I should just trust Ralph, but wanted a couple opinions from some of you who are more "Atmos-centric."

Thanks.


----------



## rckrzy1

So are these new SVS prime elevation speakers going to be good ATMOS speakers ? It seems SVS does not mention them being used for ATMOS at all, I assume if they did they would have to pay the licensing fee to ATMOS/Dolby. 

I have the pioneer sit on top of my towers now for ATMOS but think a direct audio shot using these new primes would be better. Thinking of getting some and mounting at the ceiling above my Towers.


----------



## audiofan1

nickbuol said:


> Quick opinion question. I am reworking my rear overhead Atmos speakers, and I have a buddy coming over later this week to watch something in Atmos. He wants to watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. How does it sound in Atmos?
> 
> Ralph Potts' review gave it a 96 for Atmos and states: "In listening to the Dolby Atmos surround mix I found it to be of the active variety that makes effective use of the platform. Its use of audio objects placed above is a mix of atmospherics, discrete effects and music accompaniment. This is done to very excellent effect, creating a tangible level of immersion that coincides with the onscreen events in an involving, and sometime visceral fashion."
> 
> Is this a good movie to use to show off Atmos without being something like "Goosebumps?" I feel like I should just trust Ralph, but wanted a couple opinions from some of you who are more "Atmos-centric."
> 
> Thanks.


 I posted on this a few pages back and agree with Ralph's assessment 100%, I'd even give the mix higher than 96 as it's top three for me

In short, yes! perfect Atmos demo movie


----------



## PioManiac

nickbuol said:


> Quick opinion question. I am reworking my rear overhead Atmos speakers, and I have a buddy coming over later this week to watch something in Atmos. He wants to watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. How does it sound in Atmos?
> 
> Ralph Potts' review gave it a 96 for Atmos and states: "In listening to the Dolby Atmos surround mix I found it to be of the active variety that makes effective use of the platform. Its use of audio objects placed above is a mix of atmospherics, discrete effects and music accompaniment. This is done to very excellent effect, creating a tangible level of immersion that coincides with the onscreen events in an involving, and sometime visceral fashion."
> 
> Is this a good movie to use to show off Atmos without being something like "Goosebumps?" I feel like I should just trust Ralph, but wanted a couple opinions from some of you who are more "Atmos-centric."
> 
> Thanks.


The audio in 13 Hours was amazing, but more so in the lower frequency ranges.
Lots of fantastic unfiltered LFE/ULF in the music/ambiance and effects, 
an incredibly wide range of bass from the smallest fire arms to the largest mortar shells and everything in between.
No two guns sounded the same and all had incredible impact on the experience.

Although there was plenty of overhead Atmos activity,
it did not stand out among the rest of the surrounds and the subs as discretely "height" only audio.
..maybe that's a good thing to some purists.

Don't get me wrong, 13 Hours is my new favorite Atmos title (unseating last years Mad Max Fury Road (YMMV)
for an all out un-filtered bass-fest with Atmos filling in the tops (bullets wizzing by etc.)

If you want a really great Atmos demo, where the audio moves all around you instead of hitting you from every angle at once,
Check out "In the Heart of The Sea", Ralph scored with an Atmos rating of 100, and I agree 100%
(Atmos track available on both Bluray and 4K discs)

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...474921-heart-sea-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html


----------



## ALtlOff

rckrzy1 said:


> So are these new SVS prime elevation speakers going to be good ATMOS speakers ? It seems SVS does not mention them being used for ATMOS at all, I assume if they did they would have to pay the licensing fee to ATMOS/Dolby.
> 
> I have the pioneer sit on top of my towers now for ATMOS but think a direct audio shot using these new primes would be better. Thinking of getting some and mounting at the ceiling above my Towers.


Correct, and to call them Atmos modules of any kind, they would also had to adhere to Dolby's design spec for the driver's and crossovers, which one the limiting factors of Atmos modules.


----------



## asere

When using standard DD you can definitely hear exactly were the Fronts are but when on Atmos do you feel some of the sound leaves the Front speakers and it feels more like a bubble of sound all around you?


----------



## dvdwilly3

nickbuol said:


> Quick opinion question. I am reworking my rear overhead Atmos speakers, and I have a buddy coming over later this week to watch something in Atmos. He wants to watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. How does it sound in Atmos?
> 
> Ralph Potts' review gave it a 96 for Atmos and states: "In listening to the Dolby Atmos surround mix I found it to be of the active variety that makes effective use of the platform. Its use of audio objects placed above is a mix of atmospherics, discrete effects and music accompaniment. This is done to very excellent effect, creating a tangible level of immersion that coincides with the onscreen events in an involving, and sometime visceral fashion."
> 
> Is this a good movie to use to show off Atmos without being something like "Goosebumps?" I feel like I should just trust Ralph, but wanted a couple opinions from some of you who are more "Atmos-centric."
> 
> Thanks.


I watched it in my 7.1.4...very active and I would say accurate...

Tonally, it reminded me of Blackhawk Down and somewhat of Zero Dark Thirty...

Well worth watching...


----------



## Mrjmc99

Not sure if I have seen it mentioned here, but I wanted to share my experiences with atmos and star wars battlefront. 

By far battlefront on pc with atmos enabled is probably the best atmos demo/implementation I have come across. It is pretty amazing to hear overhead effects in realtime. I really hope that more games start using atmos, however I am not aware of any consoles supporting atmos yet. I know that only the PC version of battlefront supports atmos.

If the consoles start supporting 3d sound formats that should push this technology to the next level.

Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


----------



## dvdwilly3

nickbuol said:


> Quick opinion question. I am reworking my rear overhead Atmos speakers, and I have a buddy coming over later this week to watch something in Atmos. He wants to watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. How does it sound in Atmos?
> 
> Ralph Potts' review gave it a 96 for Atmos and states: "In listening to the Dolby Atmos surround mix I found it to be of the active variety that makes effective use of the platform. Its use of audio objects placed above is a mix of atmospherics, discrete effects and music accompaniment. This is done to very excellent effect, creating a tangible level of immersion that coincides with the onscreen events in an involving, and sometime visceral fashion."
> 
> Is this a good movie to use to show off Atmos without being something like "Goosebumps?" I feel like I should just trust Ralph, but wanted a couple opinions from some of you who are more "Atmos-centric."
> 
> Thanks.


Also, try Unbroken...the opening bombing run puts you around and in the bomber...excellent!


----------



## williamwallace

I just picked up the new UHD Star Treks, which are both Atmos. I'll report back after I watch them, but curious if anyone else has watched them already and can comment on them?


----------



## nickbuol

Thanks guys for the comments about 13 Hours.... I think that we will make that the movie to watch, and I can put in a couple of scenes from the other flicks courtesy of either demo discs, or the movies themselves.


----------



## jrod9707

ALtlOff said:


> In that room, 5.1.4 w/ FH & RH, fire them almost straight out, then just experiment with which labeling sounds best (FH & RH or TF & TR or any combination of) call it a day.


With the RH where would the best placement in feet be to place them. What I mean is 2 feet in front of seating right or right above seating?


----------



## ALtlOff

jrod9707 said:


> With the RH where would the best placement in feet be to place them. What I mean is 2 feet in front of seating right or right above seating?


On the back wall, right at the ceiling, in line with the Fronts and FH's.
This way, you would be able to experiment with them labeled as RH - TR - or even TM, if you move them up on the ceiling and father forward, your going to limit yourself to a TM designation only and just hoping that it sounds good.


----------



## Kain

Off-topic, but anyone here have any experience with QSC speakers? Specifically the QSC SC-2150 for home use?


----------



## Suii

So I tried to watch the Dolby Atmos Experience on Vudu through my Vizio P75 but when I click the watch it for free it is not doing anything to stream or cast it to my TV. I tested streaming one of my movies from Vudu and it works instantly but no dice with the Dolby Atmos Experience. I have my 5.1.4 system all setup and configured (I think) and wanted to test it to see if its working.

Where do I go from here or how can I test it.

I do own Mad Max on VUDU which I have read is in Dolby Atmos. Can anyone direct me to when in the movie is the best time to really here the Atmos working and I will just skip to that time and test it.

Better question but maybe not answerable why can't I download the Dolby Atmos Experience from VUDU am I missing something?

Thanks,

B


----------



## Soupy1970

Suii said:


> So I tried to watch the Dolby Atmos Experience on Vudu through my Vizio P75 but when I click the watch it for free it is not doing anything to stream or cast it to my TV. I tested streaming one of my movies from Vudu and it works instantly but no dice with the Dolby Atmos Experience. I have my 5.1.4 system all setup and configured (I think) and wanted to test it to see if its working.
> 
> Where do I go from here or how can I test it.
> 
> I do own Mad Max on VUDU which I have read is in Dolby Atmos. Can anyone direct me to when in the movie is the best time to really here the Atmos working and I will just skip to that time and test it.
> 
> Better question but maybe not answerable why can't I download the Dolby Atmos Experience from VUDU am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> B



If you have a torrent downloading program such as uTorrent, then go to link and download the torrent file, then open it and it should start downloading. https://mega.nz/#!LFJ2VKRB!WdZVTINTisoxJb6Ae3UvC7jQW8vbbtjcWZhxEyr J1Pw


----------



## williamwallace

The two Star Trek UHDs are Atmos winners. I was impressed with the first one, but Into Darkness might be my favorite Atmos movie to date. A ton of overhead sound and it all fits in the movie perfectly. Definitely recommended!


----------



## Suii

My post here sums up my Dolby Atmos problems, for anyone that does not frequent that specific thread because they do not have a Pioneer receiver here it is.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...vr-s-sc-95-sc-97-sc-99-a-94.html#post44744281


Any feedback or suggestions I am all ears and thanks everyone.

B


----------



## murlidher

I am going to drill my ceiling to place my jbl control one as TM to my Marantz NR1606. Please advise if just front of MLP top of lap on the ceiling is the ideal position for 5.1.2 atmos setup. Please note my MLP is close to rear wall

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## Soupy1970

Suii said:


> My post here sums up my Dolby Atmos problems, for anyone that does not frequent that specific thread because they do not have a Pioneer receiver here it is.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...vr-s-sc-95-sc-97-sc-99-a-94.html#post44744281
> 
> 
> Any feedback or suggestions I am all ears and thanks everyone.
> 
> B


Do you have your player set to Bitstream audio?


----------



## westmd

Did anybody ever compare diffuse ceiling speakers vs. direct aiming ceiling speakers in the front and back position?


----------



## dvdwilly3

westmd said:


> Did anybody ever compare diffuse ceiling speakers vs. direct aiming ceiling speakers in the front and back position?


I did in a way. I started with 5.1.2 with upfiring and worked my way up thru 7.1.4 with onceiling.

Those in the camp that say that up-firing are just as effective as direct firing for ambient effects are correct.

But, when the soundtrack uses discrete objects that are moved around in sound field, the direct firing are more distinct in the placement and clarity of the sound within the sound field.

Having immserive sound with up-firing is better than not having immersive sound. And arguably they are equal, perhaps even giving the edge to up-firing for ambient effects, but immersive sound is about more than rainfall.

If you want the full effect of what immersive sound con do, go with direct firing speakers, either in or on-ceiling. And, if you,want full panning in the immersive field, go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4...or more, if you do it and have the space for it.


----------



## lunnar

Mrjmc99 said:


> Not sure if I have seen it mentioned here, but I wanted to share my experiences with atmos and star wars battlefront.
> 
> By far battlefront on pc with atmos enabled is probably the best atmos demo/implementation I have come across. It is pretty amazing to hear overhead effects in realtime. I really hope that more games start using atmos, however I am not aware of any consoles supporting atmos yet. I know that only the PC version of battlefront supports atmos.
> 
> If the consoles start supporting 3d sound formats that should push this technology to the next level.
> 
> Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


Yea I've been playing it in Atmos for the past couple of months and I agree that it is great demo material. I am not a big fan of the game as I will have prefered a solo campain mode but from an audio and visual experience, this game is incredible. For those who are curious about it, you can see a 5 minutes demo on the september 2015 Dolby atmos demo disk, what you ear in this demo is exacly how it goes when you play it, very cool.


----------



## deano86

Suii said:


> So I tried to watch the Dolby Atmos Experience on Vudu through my Vizio P75 but when I click the watch it for free it is not doing anything to stream or cast it to my TV. I tested streaming one of my movies from Vudu and it works instantly but no dice with the Dolby Atmos Experience. I have my 5.1.4 system all setup and configured (I think) and wanted to test it to see if its working.
> 
> Where do I go from here or how can I test it.
> 
> I do own Mad Max on VUDU which I have read is in Dolby Atmos. Can anyone direct me to when in the movie is the best time to really here the Atmos working and I will just skip to that time and test it.
> 
> Better question but maybe not answerable why can't I download the Dolby Atmos Experience from VUDU am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> B


So, your source for Vudu is streaming through your TV app? .... how are you going to get the Dolby Digital Plus or True HD soundtrack to your receiver anyway then? Will your model of TV pass higher resolution soundtracks through ARC to your receiver? Many of them down convert to 2 channel audio or standard Dolby Digital at best...


----------



## humbland

nickbuol said:


> Thanks guys for the comments about 13 Hours.... I think that we will make that the movie to watch, and I can put in a couple of scenes from the other flicks courtesy of either demo discs, or the movies themselves.


Does anyone know whether or not the Netflix rental Blu-ray Disc of "13 Hours" has the Atmos encoded?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

humbland said:


> nickbuol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks guys for the comments about 13 Hours.... I think that we will make that the movie to watch, and I can put in a couple of scenes from the other flicks courtesy of either demo discs, or the movies themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know whether or not the Netflix rental Blu-ray Disc of "13 Hours" has the Atmos encoded?
Click to expand...

Yes it does.


----------



## westmd

dvdwilly3 said:


> I did in a way. I started with 5.1.2 with upfiring and worked my way up thru 7.1.4 with onceiling.
> 
> Those in the camp that say that up-firing are just as effective as direct firing for ambient effects are correct.
> 
> But, when the soundtrack uses discrete objects that are moved around in sound field, the direct firing are more distinct in the placement and clarity of the sound within the sound field.
> 
> Having immserive sound with up-firing is better than not having immersive sound. And arguably they are equal, perhaps even giving the edge to up-firing for ambient effects, but immersive sound is about more than rainfall.
> 
> If you want the full effect of what immersive sound con do, go with direct firing speakers, either in or on-ceiling. And, if you,want full panning in the immersive field, go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4...or more, if you do it and have the space for it.


Thanks, but maybe my question was not clear. I did not mean upfiring vs on or in ceiling but celing speakers in ceiling which are aimable vs in ceiling speakers which are diffuse so fully point downwards.


----------



## dvdwilly3

westmd said:


> Thanks, but maybe my question was not clear. I did not mean upfiring vs on or in ceiling but celing speakers in ceiling which are aimable vs in ceiling speakers which are diffuse so fully point downwards.


Sorry, I missed the distinction...

Aimable, for a number of reasons. Mainly, it can provide more flexibility in placement of the speaker, or it can provide a greater range of seating relative to the speaker.

Similarly, a speaker with wider dispersion provides greater flexibility than one with narrow dispersion.

So, by all means, aimable... It will probably be a bit more expensive, but the added latitude in providing the best sound experience is worth it...in my opinion.


----------



## westmd

dvdwilly3 said:


> Sorry, I missed the distinction...
> 
> Aimable, for a number of reasons. Mainly, it can provide more flexibility in placement of the speaker, or it can provide a greater range of seating relative to the speaker.
> 
> Similarly, a speaker with wider dispersion provides greater flexibility than one with narrow dispersion.
> 
> So, by all means, aimable... It will probably be a bit more expensive, but the added latitude in providing the best sound experience is worth it...in my opinion.


Thanks! I have aimable ones already as I implemented Auro 1.5 years ago. As I currently getting my processor upgraded to Atmos I was wondering if it would make sense to exchange existing speakers but according to your statement I will be even better off with aimable ones!


----------



## Suii

deano86 said:


> So, your source for Vudu is streaming through your TV app? .... how are you going to get the Dolby Digital Plus or True HD soundtrack to your receiver anyway then? Will your model of TV pass higher resolution soundtracks through ARC to your receiver? Many of them down convert to 2 channel audio or standard Dolby Digital at best...



I own the new Vizio P series and it is my understanding from all the reading I have done that it can do just that yes. I just can't seem to get the stars aligned to verify that its all working the way its supposed to.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Suii said:


> I own the new Vizio P series and it is my understanding from all the reading I have done that it can do just that yes. I just can't seem to get the stars aligned to verify that its all working the way its supposed to.


If you don't even have a regular Blu-ray player... get one (they're very, very inexpensive) and an Atmos disc. _Unbroken _was going for $4.99 for a while and it has an amazing Atmos sequence at the beginning (a cheap demo for the friends and family). Then you will know for sure.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you don't even have a regular Blu-ray player... get one (they're very, very inexpensive) and an Atmos disc. _Unbroken _was going for $4.99 for a while and it has an amazing Atmos sequence at the beginning (a cheap demo for the friends and family). Then you will know for sure.


Absolutely right on - the Unbroken early bombing run scene is an excellent example of Dolby Atmos capability. The movie is also very well done as well as inspiring.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> Absolutely right on - the Unbroken early bombing run scene is an excellent example of Dolby Atmos capability. The movie is also very well done as well as inspiring.


They played this Blu-ray clip at the JBL Synthesis CEDIA demo last year. Holy f--k! It was amazing with all those speakers!!! I believe it was a 13.1.10 configuration for Dolby Atmos. The LFE channel was split to a bunch of subs along with the bass managed signal from the other speakers. Thunderous and intense.

7.1.4 is absolutely _inadequate_ at conveying what Dolby Atmos and a great mix can _really_ do.


----------



## murlidher

murlidher said:


> I am going to drill my ceiling to place my jbl control one as TM to my Marantz NR1606. Please advise if just front of MLP top of lap on the ceiling is the ideal position for 5.1.2 atmos setup. Please note my MLP is close to rear wall
> 
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


Any advice please. TM or rear height facing MLP in rear wall?

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

murlidher said:


> Any advice please. TM or rear height facing MLP in rear wall?
> 
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


For x.x.2, TM is the best location, and yes about 1-2' in front of MLP (head) would be right.


----------



## asere

Just saw 10 Cloverfield Lane. Awesome movie by the way. 
I was switching back and forth from TrueHD and Atmos and boy the Atmos was more dynamic and loaded with bass. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

asere said:


> Just saw 10 Cloverfield Lane. Awesome movie by the way.
> I was switching back and forth from TrueHD and Atmos and boy the Atmos was more dynamic and loaded with bass.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Dynamics and bass should not change when switching to TrueHD. With 7 base layer speakers (no wides), all that Atmos playback can add is height.


----------



## asere

maikeldepotter said:


> Dynamics and bass should not change when switching to TrueHD. With 7 base layer speakers (no wides), all that Atmos playback can add is height.


Not necessarily. Atmos is mixed differently than TrueHD. There are graphs that compare this over on the Official Movie list of bass thread here.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

asere said:


> Not necessarily. Atmos is mixed differently than TrueHD. There are graphs that compare this over on the Official Movie list of bass thread here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



Atmos IS the TrueHD mix with Height meta data mixed into the bitstream, to be extracted by the AVR and directed to Height speakers.
The LFE levels would be identical unless you are applying some post processing or DSP when switching audio.
How exactly are you changing from Atmos to TrueHD and what AVR are you using?

...also, I frequent the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...er-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts-836.html Thread
and no such comparisons exist, can you please post the two graphs that back up your statements?


----------



## asere

PioManiac said:


> Atmos IS the TrueHD mix with Height meta data mixed into the bitstream, to be extracted by the AVR and directed to Height speakers.
> The LFE levels would be identical unless you are applying some post processing or DSP when switching audio.
> How exactly are you changing from Atmos to TrueHD and what AVR are you using?
> 
> ...also, I frequent the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...er-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts-836.html Thread
> and no such comparisons exist, can you please post the two graphs that back up your statements?


I am using the Pioneer SC95. I have no sub boost as I did MCACC Pro do its thing and then I calibrated using an spl meter to 75db. 
Here is the link but in case it does not take you directly to the graphs I've seen its on *page 834 post 25013 and 25015.*
*http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...er-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts-834.html*


----------



## asere

PioManiac said:


> Atmos IS the TrueHD mix with Height meta data mixed into the bitstream, to be extracted by the AVR and directed to Height speakers.
> The LFE levels would be identical unless you are applying some post processing or DSP when switching audio.
> How exactly are you changing from Atmos to TrueHD and what AVR are you using?
> 
> ...also, I frequent the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...er-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts-836.html Thread
> and no such comparisons exist, can you please post the two graphs that back up your statements?


Actually giving the graph that I sent you on the bass thread a better look they are all Atmos my bad. I thought that I'd seen some months back comparing but that thread is too long.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

asere said:


> I am using the Pioneer SC95. I have no sub boost as I did MCACC Pro do its thing and then I calibrated using an spl meter to 75db.
> Here is the link but in case it does not take you directly to the graphs I've seen its on *page 834 post 25013 and 25015.*
> *http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...er-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts-834.html*


You are confused

post 25013 is MY post comparing *13 Hours* to *Mad Max Fury Road*
link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...movies-frequency-charts-834.html#post44615433

post 25015 is My post showing the chart for Terminator Genisys
link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...movies-frequency-charts-834.html#post44626561


absolutely no mention of 10 Cloverfield Lane in either post.


----------



## asere

PioManiac said:


> You are confused
> 
> post 25013 is MY post comparing *13 Hours* to *Mad Max Fury Road*
> link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...movies-frequency-charts-834.html#post44615433
> 
> post 25015 is My post showing the chart for Terminator Genisys
> link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...movies-frequency-charts-834.html#post44626561
> 
> 
> absolutely no mention of 10 Cloverfield Lane in either post.


Yes after I sent you the link I realised it was all Atmos and no comparison. I was trying to send you anyone for comparison but not 10 cloverfield.
I was referring to any chart from any movie to compare. I thought I've seen compassion with movies here but thread is too long.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

asere said:


> Yes after I sent you the link I realised it was all Atmos and no comparison. I was trying to send you anyone for comparison but not 10 cloverfield.
> I was referring to any chart from any movie to compare. I thought I've seen compassion with movies here but thread is too long.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


There's no comparison because there is no difference in the LFE
They are NOT separate audio tracks.

Atmos is simply a TrueHD audio track with object based meta data embedded into the same bitstream,
The height info is then extracted and moved to the upper level speakers by an Atmos enabled AVR.

If there are no height speakers enabled, or the AVR is not Atmos capable, the core TrueHD track plays
and the height meta data is left in the bed layer channels. The Bass/LFE is not different, despite what your ears tell you.


----------



## asere

PioManiac said:


> There's no comparison because there is no difference in the LFE
> 
> Atmos is simply a TrueHD audio track with object based meta data embedded into the same bitstream,
> The height info is then moved to the upper level speakers by an Atmos enabled AVR.
> 
> If there are no height speakers enabled, or the AVR is not Atmos capable, the core TrueHD track plays
> and the height meta data is left in the bed layer channels.


Then that explains why when Atmos is on you can hear separation from the mains and top speakers vs just having DD coming from the mains you mainly hear it from the mains, yes?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac




----------



## asere

Well Pio what I was trying to say earlier is not that I don't understand how Atmos works but I was just making an observation that when Atmos is on it seems like some of the sound from the mains disappears vs OFF it seems like all is coming only from the mains. Is this what you also observe? I want to make sure all is good with my avr before I possibly return it.


----------



## maikeldepotter

asere said:


> Well Pio what I was trying to say earlier is not that I don't understand how Atmos works but I was just making an observation that when Atmos is on it seems like some of the sound from the mains disappears vs OFF it seems like all is coming only from the mains. Is this what you also observe? I want to make sure all is good with my avr before I possibly return it.


In that case, maybe you should first check if your receiver is downmixing to stereo when playing legacy content.


----------



## asere

maikeldepotter said:


> In that case, maybe you should first check if your receiver is downmixing to stereo when playing legacy content.


No it says dtd master or truehd.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## williamwallace

PioManiac said:


> There's no comparison because there is no difference in the LFE
> They are NOT separate audio tracks.
> 
> Atmos is simply a TrueHD audio track with object based meta data embedded into the same bitstream,
> The height info is then extracted and moved to the upper level speakers by an Atmos enabled AVR.
> 
> If there are no height speakers enabled, or the AVR is not Atmos capable, the core TrueHD track plays
> and the height meta data is left in the bed layer channels. The Bass/LFE is not different, despite what your ears tell you.


Noob here. But an Atmos mix can still output more bass depending on the receiver configuration, right? I know on my Denon, Audyssey set the crossovers of my Atmos overhead speakers at 120hz/150hz versus my mains and surrounds at 80hz (all "small"). So when the receiver mixes in the low range signal, my subs would effectively produce more bass for overhead sounds than would have otherwise been more limited going to my surrounds, right?


----------



## Lando_pr

williamwallace said:


> Noob here. But an Atmos mix can still output more bass depending on the receiver configuration, right? I know on my Denon, Audyssey set the crossovers of my Atmos overhead speakers at 120hz/150hz versus my mains and surrounds at 80hz (all "small"). So when the receiver mixes in the low range signal, my subs would effectively produce more bass for overhead sounds than would have otherwise been more limited going to my surrounds, right?


I honestly doubt much bass info is sent into the height channels anyway to make a noticeable difference in the subs after the x-over.


----------



## PeterTHX

maikeldepotter said:


> Dynamics and bass should not change when switching to TrueHD. With 7 base layer speakers (no wides), all that Atmos playback can add is height.





PioManiac said:


> Atmos IS the TrueHD mix with Height meta data mixed into the bitstream, to be extracted by the AVR and directed to Height speakers.
> The LFE levels would be identical unless you are applying some post processing or DSP when switching audio.
> How exactly are you changing from Atmos to TrueHD and what AVR are you using?
> 
> ...also, I frequent the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...er-list-bass-movies-frequency-charts-836.html Thread
> and no such comparisons exist, can you please post the two graphs that back up your statements?


 
AGAIN:


*Atmos objects can go to ALL channels/speakers once it's engaged. Not just the heights.* 


LFE can be an object.


7.1 is just the base layer.


----------



## maikeldepotter

PeterTHX said:


> AGAIN:
> 
> Atmos objects can go to ALL channels/speakers once it's engaged. Not just the heights.


Yes. And (again): Playing Atmos without overhead speakers engaged on a 7.1 speaker lay-out, is 100% identical to playing the TrueHD 7.1 legacy track.


----------



## PeterTHX

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes. And (again): Playing Atmos without overhead speakers engaged on a 7.1 speaker lay-out, is 100% identical to playing the TrueHD 7.1 legacy track.


No, because then it wouldn't be Atmos, it would be Dolby TrueHD 7.1


----------



## maikeldepotter

PeterTHX said:


> No, because then it wouldn't be Atmos, it would be Dolby TrueHD 7.1


Either way, Atmos adds height to the 7.1 TrueHD, not dynamic range or bass extension.


----------



## PeterTHX

maikeldepotter said:


> Either way, Atmos adds height to the 7.1 TrueHD, not dynamic range or bass extension.



Yes it does, *because the objects (groups of sounds) can go to the base 7.1 configuration*, not just the overheads.


Those objects can duplicate sounds in those channels and have far greater range (bass).


----------



## sdurani

williamwallace said:


> So when the receiver mixes in the low range signal, my subs would effectively produce more bass for overhead sounds than would have otherwise been more limited going to my surrounds, right?


When overhead speakers are not configured, sounds that were meant to be in the height layer above you end up remaining in the base layer around you. However much bass those particular sounds had doesn't change depending on direction. 

The amount of bass filtered by the crossover and routed to your subwoofer should remain the same whether those sounds are above you or around you (or somewhere in between). The sounds themselves (and their bass content) didn't change just because they moved, otherwise panning a sound around the room would result in audibly inconsistent bass response. 

Now, if you're setting different crossovers for different speaker groups (fronts vs surrounds vs heights), then that's a different story. In that case, hearing less or more bass has to do with changes in bass management and nothing to do with Atmos decoding.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PioManiac said:


> There's no comparison because there is no difference in the LFE
> They are NOT separate audio tracks.
> 
> Atmos is simply a TrueHD audio track with object based meta data embedded into the same bitstream,
> The height info is then extracted and moved to the upper level speakers by an Atmos enabled AVR.


It's even more complicated than that. The sounds that are duplicated by objects in the 7.1 backwards compatible track are reverse-phased out and the separate objects + metadata from the extension file are added to the newly "created" 7.1 bed track at the same time as the audio cancellation.


----------



## FilmMixer

PeterTHX said:


> LFE can be an object.


Actually thats not true.







its always a channel and always part of the 7 1 bed..

Same goes for the cinema..... 

Objects can get to the subs via bass management, or when mixing by being sent via a feed to the LFE channel...


----------



## ALtlOff

I've experimented with it myself, without reconfiguring anything but the surround format, and by simply switching off my amps to my height speakers... 
There "can" be a difference depending on the specific film and mix....

And also yes, object metadata "can" give you sound positioning on the entire 360° bubble, "not just in the height channels" it again depends on the mixers decision have those sounds in the bed mix or have them as objects only.

Play the off-road chase scene from "Man From U.N.C.L.E" in both playback formats and wait for the crash/splash into the lake, there is no doubt that there is extra LFE sound in the Atmos soundtrack.

"Man From U.N.C.L.E" is the best example of all of this that I own, the Atmos soundtrack has obvious extra LFE and far more clean and discrete sound in the musical score.


----------



## asere

ALtlOff said:


> Play the off-road chase scene from "Man From U.N.C.L.E" in both playback formats and wait for the crash/splash into the lake, there is no doubt that there is extra LFE sound in the Atmos soundtrack.


 Yup, that is what I experienced last night with 10 Cloverfield Lane and San Andreas.


----------



## Lando_pr

sdurani said:


> When overhead speakers are not configured, sounds that were meant to be in the height layer above you end up remaining in the base layer around you. However much bass those particular sounds had doesn't change depending on direction.
> 
> The amount of bass filtered by the crossover and routed to your subwoofer should remain the same whether those sounds are above you or around you (or somewhere in between). The sounds themselves (and their bass content) didn't change just because they moved, otherwise panning a sound around the room would result in audibly inconsistent bass response.
> 
> Now, if you're setting different crossovers for different speaker groups (fronts vs surrounds vs heights), then that's a different story. In that case, hearing less or more bass has to do with changes in bass management and nothing to do with Atmos decoding.


So, even without the height channels wired to my Denon S910W, I would still get some extra sound information out of an Atmos BD, but through the base 5.1 or 7.1 setup?


----------



## ALtlOff

Lando_pr said:


> So, even without the height channels wired to my Denon S910W, I would still get some extra sound information out of an Atmos BD, but through the base 5.1 or 7.1 setup?


It's not that you "would", it's that you "may", it entirely depends on the films mixer and how he chooses to use the format.


----------



## ALtlOff

asere said:


> Yup, that is what I experienced last night with 10 Cloverfield Lane and San Andreas.


Lol, respect.... I've never made it through more than 30 min. of "San Andreas" before I just couldn't do it, anymore....


----------



## sdurani

Lando_pr said:


> So, even without the height channels wired to my Denon S910W, I would still get some extra sound information out of an Atmos BD, but through the base 5.1 or 7.1 setup?


Changing speaker configurations doesn't give you extra sound information or less sound information. The soundtrack is the soundtrack. It doesn't change. Which means that ALL the sound information in the soundtrack is sent to however many speakers you have, whether that includes heights or no heights; or even just the two speakers on your TV. Same soundtrack, just played back over more or fewer speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ALtlOff said:


> Play the off-road chase scene from "Man From U.N.C.L.E" in both playback formats and wait for the crash/splash into the lake, there is no doubt that there is extra LFE sound in the Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> "Man From U.N.C.L.E" is the best example of all of this that I own, the Atmos soundtrack has obvious extra LFE and far more clean and discrete sound in the musical score.



Are you using bass management or are you running all of your speakers full range?


----------



## ALtlOff

Scott Simonian said:


> Are you using bass management or are you running all of your speakers full range?


Hmmm, that's something I didn't even think of, I do run everything full range and use my Subs for LFE only, I had just assumed that the extra low bass was from the LFE since it was so low and so powerful (it will actually feel as if it's trying to change the pressure in your lungs, it's so low and strong) and with my speakers, it could possibly be the powered 15's in my fronts, wides and surrounds.
I'll experiment with that later when I get home by turning off my subs and then my powered woofers to see where it is.

Good thought Scott.


----------



## PeterTHX

FilmMixer said:


> Actually thats not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its always a channel and always part of the 7 1 bed..
> 
> Same goes for the cinema.....
> 
> Objects can get to the subs via bass management, or when mixing by being sent via a feed to the LFE channel...



I was thinking not the LFE channel per se, but as Low Frequency Effects - full range with low bass.


Like the Atmos track for _*Star Trek Into Darkness*_ - during the death spiral into Earth's atmosphere the entire room shuddered. 
Heavy duty bass in the overheads with things crashing all around you. It was like when a C-5 aircraft went over my head while I was in the USAF.


----------



## FilmMixer

PeterTHX said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually thats not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its always a channel and always part of the 7 1 bed..
> 
> Same goes for the cinema.....
> 
> Objects can get to the subs via bass management, or when mixing by being sent via a feed to the LFE channel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking not the LFE channel per se, but as Low Frequency Effects - full range with low bass.
> 
> 
> Like the Atmos track for _*Star Trek Into Darkness*_ - during the death spiral into Earth's atmosphere the entire room shuddered.
> Heavy duty bass in the overheads with things crashing all around you. It was like when a C-5 aircraft went over my head while I was in the USAF.
Click to expand...

LFE = Low Freqeuncy Effecrs. You can't use that descriptor to describe redirected bass from bass manangement, or deep and heavy low end content in an object or a channel. .

Fill range is full range... its not full range plus soemrhing ese. 

Its semantics. And a bjt of a nit pick. But an object connot contain the .1 information of a mix... 

Since you can't count on bass management in every playback system, its important to put sounds you want to come out the sub only into the .1/LFE channel.


----------



## Lando_pr

I thought that the avr could "see" the speaker configuration and send info to the additional speakers only if they were connected but, what you say makes more sense and make me realize that was a stupid question. Thanks for clearing that out. Have to build the enclosures now for my in-ceilings to install them on-ceiling and enjoy Atmos.


----------



## Soupy1970

williamwallace said:


> Noob here. But an Atmos mix can still output more bass depending on the receiver configuration, right? I know on my Denon, Audyssey set the crossovers of my Atmos overhead speakers at 120hz/150hz versus my mains and surrounds at 80hz (all "small"). So when the receiver mixes in the low range signal, my subs would effectively produce more bass for overhead sounds than would have otherwise been more limited going to my surrounds, right?


It's not outputting more Low Frequencies (bass), but with your Overhead X-over, yes more bass could be directed to your subwoofer 



Lando_pr said:


> I honestly doubt much bass info is sent into the height channels anyway to make a noticeable difference in the subs after the x-over.


I imagine just as much low frequencies are sent to height channels as any other channel. Helicopters, and Thunder come to mind. Atmos does recommend full range ceiling speakers as capable as your floor speakers.


----------



## FilmMixer

Good news for Atmos..

 Lionsgate Will Deliver Dolby Vision High Dynamic Range Format to the Home



> These titles will additionally be mixed in the Dolby Atmos immersive sound format; the studio didn’t provide further details or specific titles,


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Good news for Atmos..
> 
> Lionsgate Will Deliver Dolby Vision High Dynamic Range Format to the Home


Any idea if this is describing streaming, UHD discs, or both? 

Thank you for your continued insights!


----------



## maikeldepotter

PeterTHX said:


> Yes it does, *because the objects (groups of sounds) can go to the base 7.1 configuration*, not just the overheads.


Those very same sounds are ALWAYS embedded in the 7.1 channel bed down-mix. You do in fact not need an Atmos receiver to play them back. What makes them different to other sounds, is that they carry metadata by which an Atmos playback renderer of an Atmos enabled AVR/processor recognizes them as objects. These metadata contain positional data with which the renderer can direct the sound to any (combination of) 24+10 speaker positions. While doing this, the corresponding sound in the channel bed is removed by electric cancellation. 

Now here is the catch: If you only have a standard 7.1 speaker lay-out, an Atmos enabled processor will still recognize that is it playing an Atmos track. However, since it makes no sense to place back object labeled sounds in the same channel bed positions that they were removed from, there is no rendition and the standard 7.1 TrueHD track is used. 

Alternatively, suppose an re-recording engineer decides to not use any of the overhead positions for the Atmos object sounds. In that case, with a 7.1.4 Atmos set-up there will will be no audible difference in playing back that soundtrack through an non-Atmos versus an Atmos enabled AVR/processor.


----------



## jqmn

maikeldepotter said:


> Those very same sounds are ALWAYS embedded in the 7.1 channel bed down-mix. You do in fact not need an Atmos receiver to play them back. What makes them different to other sounds, is that they carry metadata by which an Atmos playback renderer of an Atmos enabled AVR/processor recognizes them as objects. These metadata contain positional data with which the renderer can direct the sound to any (combination of) 24+10 speaker positions. While doing this, the corresponding sound in the channel bed is removed by electric cancellation.
> 
> Now here is the catch: If you only have a standard 7.1 speaker lay-out, an Atmos enabled processor will still recognize that is it playing an Atmos track. However, since it makes no sense to place back object labeled sounds in the same channel bed positions that they were removed from, there is no rendition and the standard 7.1 TrueHD track is used.


This is very helpful. I tried to ask this the other day and didn't do a very good job. If a sound object is supposed to go in the rear most tops ( at this time .5 & .6) and you don't have them does the object drop down to the bed rear surrounds in a 7.1.2 (middle) system or are they brought forward to the top middles. Further, if you don't have rear surrounds but do have top middles are top rear objects dropped in your 5.1.2 system or put somewhere else and if so where?


----------



## sdurani

jqmn said:


> If a sound object is supposed to go in the rear most tops ( at this time .5 & .6) and you don't have them does the object drop down to the bed rear surrounds in a 7.1.2 (middle) system or are they brought forward to the top middles.


The latter. Sounds intended for the height layer stay in the height layer (as long as there is at least one pair speakers configured above you).


----------



## jqmn

Thanks Sanjay. This could be pretty weird then. If a helicopter or other sound is supposed to be behind you but you have configured for top front for whatever reason (opposed to top middle in my previous example) the helicopter would now be in front of you. That is why I was asking if it dropped down to the rear surrounds.


----------



## PioManiac

ALtlOff said:


> I've experimented with it myself, without reconfiguring anything but the surround format, and by simply switching off my amps to my height speakers...
> There "can" be a difference depending on the specific film and mix....
> 
> And also yes, object metadata "can" give you sound positioning on the entire 360° bubble, "not just in the height channels" it again depends on the mixers decision have those sounds in the bed mix or have them as objects only.
> 
> Play the off-road chase scene from "Man From U.N.C.L.E" in both playback formats and wait for the crash/splash into the lake, there is no doubt that there is extra LFE sound in the Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> "Man From U.N.C.L.E" is the best example of all of this that I own, the Atmos soundtrack has obvious extra LFE and far more clean and discrete sound in the musical score.



I have separate amplification for my 4 height speakers as well,
But turning that amp source off for an Atmos bluray does not change the speaker/amp assignments in the AVR
and as a result the audio does not revert back to TrueHD 7.1, it remains in Atmos playback mode but the height information is completely lost.

So I'm not sure how anyone can effectively and quickly toggle from 7.1.4 Atmos to 7.1 TrueHD for comparison.

I tried to replicate what *asere* was laying claim to and loaded up San Andreas and 10 Cloverfield Lane.
As Many already know there are no separate audio tracks on the disc, Both Atmos and TrueHD are one in the same bitstream sent to the AVR. 
Most of BD's have you simply select "English" for both... and only the AVR makes the playback designation.











10 Cloverfield Lane










The audio selection screen on Pixels...










The only way I could effectively disable Atmos playback and play TrueHD instead was to reconfigure my Yamaha RX-A3050's amp/speaker assignment
and save each layout into the two available speaker pattern memory slots (one pattern for 7.1.4 and one for 7.1) then save each to a scene button on the remote.
The other option would be to engage a DSP mode or surround decoder (DSU/Neural:X) but that may distort the test results.

...a lot of work for nothing because the LFE output level and extension on both were indistinguishable from each other,
I even used my SPL meter to make sure my ears were not being fooled, and it confirmed the levels were exactly the same.

For the record, I utilize Bass Management and use 4 powered subs to handle all frequencies below 80Hz
My Front speakers are L/R towers, but all 9 others in my 7.4.4 system are matched bookshelf speakers
..even the height/presence speakers that are tilted toward the MLP. All speakers set to small.


----------



## nickbuol

OK. Small topic derail here. 

To those of you that recommended watching 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi for last night's "showing off Atmos using a good movie" event at my house after reworking my rear overheads, THANK YOU! 

We really enjoyed the movie itself, and the room was filled with great sound. A really solid Atmos mix and a movie that was very un-Michael Bay-ish (meaning it was good and not like a lot of his other works).

Solid recommendation. Great clear dialog, solid LFE when needed, all around you effects during scenes that called for it. Not gimicky, but right when it was needed type of sounds, and wow were those battle scenes full of sound.


----------



## asere

PioManiac said:


> So I'm not sure how anyone can effectively and quickly toggle from 7.1.4 Atmos to 7.1 TrueHD for comparison.
> 
> I tried to replicate what *asere* was laying claim to and loaded up San Andreas and 10 Cloverfield Lane.
> As Many already know there are no separate audio tracks on the disc, Both Atmos and TrueHD are one in the same bitstream sent to the AVR.
> Most of BD's have you simply select "English" for both... and only the AVR makes the playback designation.


 I just played Atmos and then toggled the audio format to TrueHD on the avr. Now I did say I noticed that Atmos and TrueHD sounded different and that Atmos seemed to have more bass. What I notice is that my Pioneer SC95 has ALC (Auto Level Control) anytime you select DD, TRUEHD, MASTER. (The ALC is present with any format but Atmos)
That ALC regulates the volume and that could be the reason why I notice a difference in bass between Atmos and TrueHD for example. I need to find a way to disengage that feature. I am sure once disengaged Atmos and TrueHD will sound the same in the dynamic and bass department.


----------



## showmak

nickbuol said:


> OK. Small topic derail here.
> 
> To those of you that recommended watching 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi for last night's "showing off Atmos using a good movie" event at my house after reworking my rear overheads, THANK YOU!
> 
> We really enjoyed the movie itself, and the room was filled with great sound. A really solid Atmos mix and a movie that was very un-Michael Bay-ish (meaning it was good and not like a lot of his other works).
> 
> Solid recommendation. Great clear dialog, solid LFE when needed, all around you effects during scenes that called for it. Not gimicky, but right when it was needed type of sounds, and wow were those battle scenes full of sound.




I agree with you


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

nickbuol said:


> OK. Small topic derail here.
> 
> To those of you that recommended watching 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi for last night's "showing off Atmos using a good movie" event at my house after reworking my rear overheads, THANK YOU!
> 
> We really enjoyed the movie itself, and the room was filled with great sound. A really solid Atmos mix and a movie that was very un-Michael Bay-ish (meaning it was good and not like a lot of his other works).
> 
> Solid recommendation. Great clear dialog, solid LFE when needed, all around you effects during scenes that called for it. Not gimicky, but right when it was needed type of sounds, and wow were those battle scenes full of sound.


Before you play it again for a second viewing,
Make sure to watch the bonus disc material and meet some of the real soldiers behind the story who contributed to the production.
I have a new respect for the guys, the story, the movie and Michael Bay.


----------



## asere

Ok to summarize my comparison with Atmos and TruHD. I had said that there is a difference in the Bass and Dynamics but I am wrong. My receiver SC 95 caused confusion with so many features. When using Auto surround it plays the Atmos track and when I go and press ALC it takes me to TrueHD but with the ALC (Auto Level Control) and that is where I noticed night and day sound. 
I just got off the phone with Pioneer and was told to just keep it on Auto Surround to play Atmos and if I want TrueHD or whatever the secondary audio is to just change it on the disc and play that secondary audio under Auto surround. With another receiver I would of thought of that but with this ALC thing showing a secondary format and limiting the audio it confused me.


----------



## asere

PioManiac said:


> Before you play it again for a second viewing,
> Make sure to watch the bonus disc material and meet some of the real soldiers behind the story who contributed to the production.
> I have a new respect for the guys, story the movie and Micheal Bay.


Yup, wife and I went to the premier and saw the movie in Arlington. We got to see Michael Bay and the cast along with the soldiers that where there and they gave a speech. True heroes indeed.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

jqmn said:


> This could be pretty weird then. If a helicopter or other sound is supposed to be behind you but you have configured for top front for whatever reason (opposed to top middle in my previous example) the helicopter would now be in front of you.


No so weird. Suppose you're listening to a regular 7.1 soundtrack and a car is supposed to disappear behind you. If you're watching it using your TV speakers, then that sound effect will come from in front of you, the exact opposite direction as intended. Happens more often that most folks realize.


----------



## jqmn

Yes, I thought I had read that with a regular 7.1 or 5.1 but had wondered whether things had changed with Atmos. Really reinforces that we need a lower cost processor with the outs for (in my case) four more speakers. Hope one comes sooner rather than later.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jqmn said:


> Yes, I thought I had read that with a regular 7.1 or 5.1 but had wondered whether things had changed with Atmos. Really reinforces that we need a lower cost processor with the outs for (in my case) four more speakers. Hope one comes sooner rather than later.


As long as there are cost and model tiers set up for processors, you'll probably only have 5.1.2 rendering in the low cost line of products.


----------



## ALtlOff

PioManiac said:


> I have separate amplification for my 4 height speakers as well,
> But turning that amp source off for an Atmos bluray does not change the speaker/amp assignments in the AVR
> and as a result the audio does not revert back to TrueHD 7.1, it remains in Atmos playback mode but the height information is completely lost.
> 
> So I'm not sure how anyone can effectively and quickly toggle from 7.1.4 Atmos to 7.1 TrueHD for comparison.
> 
> I tried to replicate what *asere* was laying claim to and loaded up San Andreas and 10 Cloverfield Lane.
> As Many already know there are no separate audio tracks on the disc, Both Atmos and TrueHD are one in the same bitstream sent to the AVR.
> Most of BD's have you simply select "English" for both... and only the AVR makes the playback designation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Cloverfield Lane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The audio selection screen on Pixels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way I could effectively disable Atmos playback and play TrueHD instead was to reconfigure my Yamaha RX-A3050's amp/speaker assignment
> and save each layout into the two available speaker pattern memory slots (one pattern for 7.1.4 and one for 7.1) then save each to a scene button on the remote.
> The other option would be to engage a DSP mode or surround decoder (DSU/Neural:X) but that may distort the test results.
> 
> ...a lot of work for nothing because the LFE output level and extension on both were indistinguishable from each other,
> I even used my SPL meter to make sure my ears were not being fooled, and it confirmed the levels were exactly the same.
> 
> For the record, I utilize Bass Management and use 4 powered subs to handle all frequencies below 80Hz
> My Front speakers are L/R towers, but all 9 others in my 7.4.4 system are matched bookshelf speakers
> ..even the height/presence speakers that are tilted toward the MLP. All speakers set to small.


I did not have a chance to re-test this last night, but the way I did it prior was somewhat as you described, I simply turned off the inputs for the height speakers at my amps (simply toggled from unbalanced to balanced) effectively giving me 7.1 Atmos playback, then simply switched between surround modes on the AVR.


----------



## jqmn

Dan Hitchman said:


> As long as there are cost and model tiers set up for processors, you'll probably only have 5.1.2 rendering in the low cost line of products.


I was thinking more along the lines that there is quite a bit of room between a Trinnov and a Marantz MKII but I haven't really looked at Trinnov so I might be mistaken. In my case, 9.2.6 is really all I want.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jqmn said:


> I was thinking more along the lines that there is quite a bit of room between a Trinnov and a Marantz MKII but I haven't really looked at Trinnov so I might be mistaken. In my case, 9.2.6 is really all I want.


Yeah, 9.2.6 or 11.2.4 (thinking about the fact that most mixes don't use the overheads as much as the base layer speakers) rendering would be very, very cool in something around the $3,000-$3,500 mark.

Emotiva was touting a reasonable pre-amp with 16 speaker outputs, but, of course, that never materialized. Always over promising and under delivering.


----------



## ALtlOff

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, 9.2.6 or 11.2.4 (thinking about the fact that most mixes don't use the overheads as much as the base layer speakers) rendering would be very, very cool in something around the $3,000-$3,500 mark.
> 
> Emotiva was touting a reasonable pre-amp with 16 speaker outputs, but, of course, that never materialized. Always over promising and under delivering.


Supposedly it's still in the works, but I'm not holding my breath anymore, esp. since most of 2017 for them, and processors, will probably be dedicated to the XMC-1 upgrade and XMC-2 launch.


----------



## Scott Simonian

After actually _living_ with 7.1.4 surround sound....

I really don't care or not when we get more than that anymore. 

When it does, cool. But for now, I'm pretty damn happy.


----------



## ndabunka

*Design Guidance for ATMOS*

I have probably missed the details in all the reading I have done on ATMOS so I am seeking this groups expertise. I don't see whether "diffused" sides are desireable or detrimental to ATMOS tuning?

I do NOT I currently have diffused sides but rather have a 7.1 system with SIX "aim-able" in-wall speakers with standalone center and sub. I am planning on changing to a 7.1.2 ATMOS design. 

Based on the ATMOS spec, I have to lower all the in-wall speakers & add the two in-ceiling speakers. Adding the 2 ceiling speakers is super easy. My side & rear speakers are low-end so this may be an opportunity to replace those with the B&W DS6's easily (perhaps even changing from 7.1.2 to 5.1.2) but...

ARE diffused sides a GOOD thing for ATMOS?

One of the reasons I didn't use the B&W DS6's in the first place was due to those promoting 7.1 as working better with directional speakers. That same theme appears to be the case with ATMOS as well so I am thinking that may be why many are selling their DS6's as diffused sides may be problematic with ATMOS.

The fronts will be in-wall Signature 7's, the ceiling speakers will be CCM 65's. I actually have FOUR CCM 65's so in theory I could do a 7.1.4 system.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Depends on if you like the diffused sound or not. 

People will probably say something about immersive audio being "better" with monopole speakers and that isn't necessarily true. Use the best speakers for your system and to get the sound YOU want.

Try it out for yourself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ndabunka said:


> I have probably missed the details in all the reading I have done on ATMOS so I am seeking this groups expertise. I don't see whether "diffused" sides are desireable or detrimental to ATMOS tuning?
> 
> I do NOT I currently have diffused sides but rather have a 7.1 system with SIX "aim-able" in-wall speakers with standalone center and sub. I am planning on changing to a 7.1.2 ATMOS design.
> 
> Based on the ATMOS spec, I have to lower all the in-wall speakers & add the two in-ceiling speakers. Adding the 2 ceiling speakers is super easy. My side & rear speakers are low-end so this may be an opportunity to replace those with the B&W DS6's easily (perhaps even changing from 7.1.2 to 5.1.2) but...
> 
> ARE diffused sides a GOOD thing for ATMOS?
> 
> One of the reasons I didn't use the B&W DS6's in the first place was due to those promoting 7.1 as working better with directional speakers. That same theme appears to be the case with ATMOS as well so I am thinking that may be why many are selling their DS6's as diffused sides may be problematic with ATMOS.
> 
> The fronts will be in-wall Signature 7's, the ceiling speakers will be CCM 65's. I actually have FOUR CCM 65's so in theory I could do a 7.1.4 system.



Stay with direct radiating surrounds and go with a 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ndabunka said:


> ARE diffused sides a GOOD thing for ATMOS?


This is a prickly question, so you'll see both sides of it here. On a technical level, Atmos relies on placement between point sources to represent sounds in 3-D space. This is akin to phantom imaging between your main speakers. So if the mixer places an audio object at a certain XYZ coordinate in the theoretical theater space, the renderer may put 25% of that sound in the side surround, 25% of that sound in the rear surround, and 50% of that sound in the overheads... depending on your particular configuration. If these are individual point sources (direct radiating), then the sound should image precisely between those channels.

Now, consider if one of those channels was diffuse rather than direct radiating. Would it affect the imaging between the two types of channels? Yes. Would it do so enough to destroy the general placement of sound? Eh... maybe. Would it be less precise at placing sounds in your space? Yes. But on the same note, you may just prefer the surrounds to be more diffuse, especially if you have multiple rows of seating. In my case, I have a bunch of spare speakers, so I've tried my setup with dipole/bipoles on the side and direct radiators. For 5.1/7.1, I preferred bipoles on the sides. For Atmos, the precision that I get from direct radiators is pretty nice, so I prefer that. For 5.1/7.1 material using DSU on my 7.1.4 setup, DSU seems to lend it a little more diffusion, even if that's not the intent, by putting some of the surround data in the heights in many cases. So for my needs, I go along with Dolby's recommendations and understand why they've made them.

Conceptually, where theatrical sound and home theater sound differ for this discussion is that the arrays of speakers in the theaters still phantom image between each individual speaker pair... It's just that with objects, they can be individually addressed rather than all play the same content. Diffuse speakers in the home tend to be meant to mimic the broad sound of a theatrical array... whereas placement between direct point sources would be how Atmos is mimicking the movement of sound across the smaller number of speakers in your home compared to moving it across an array of speakers in a theater.

So now that you know the reasoning behind Dolby's direct-radiator suggestion, you're armed with knowledge. But you still may prefer the sound of diffuse surrounds, and if that's right for you, then that's fine. If you don't already have them, would I go out of my way to add them? No. If you already have direct-firing speakers at the bed level, stick with that and see what you think. If you feel like it's lacking somehow, then you can address it as needed.


----------



## ndabunka

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on if you like the diffused sound or not.
> 
> People will probably say something about immersive audio being "better" with monopole speakers and that isn't necessarily true. Use the best speakers for your system and to get the sound YOU want.
> 
> Try it out for yourself.


I appreciate the comments but there is no way to "try it out for myself" as I don't currently own a pair of DS6s nor am I likely to buy a pair simply to do so.

Based on your response, it appears that I was not clear in my original question so let me try again. The design parameters for ATMOS state that it utilizes "object locality" meaning that the ATMOS system has the ablity to place sounds in specific locations within a room. So, in theory, you will hear a helicopter in front of you by 20 feet, then in front of you by 10 feet, then directly overhead, then 10 feet behind you and then 20 feet behind you as it fly's over the viewer in a scene. To me, that means that you needs speakers that can do a very precise job of LOCALIZING the sound stage. To me, this is basically the OPPOSITE of what you would get from a DIFFUSED sound stage that dipoles would normally give you so, to me, they seem to be counter to what ATMOS is design for but didn't see any guidance to avoid them in the design specifications nor in people's post on these threads and thus... the reason for the question.


----------



## showmak

I just watched 10 Cloverfield, as a movie it's really thrilling, I enjoyed every minute, waiting to see how it will end.

Anybody agrees with me about Atmos not being impressive? Very little effects from the hight speakers!


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## ndabunka

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is a prickly question, so you'll see both sides of it here. On a technical level, Atmos relies on placement between point sources to represent sounds in 3-D space. This is akin to phantom imaging between your main speakers. So if the mixer places an audio object at a certain XYZ coordinate in the theoretical theater space, the renderer may put 25% of that sound in the side surround, 25% of that sound in the rear surround, and 50% of that sound in the overheads... depending on your particular configuration. If these are individual point sources (direct radiating), then the sound should image precisely between those channels.
> 
> Now, consider if one of those channels was diffuse rather than direct radiating. Would it affect the imaging between the two types of channels? Yes. Would it do so enough to destroy the general placement of sound? Eh... maybe. Would it be less precise at placing sounds in your space? Yes. But on the same note, you may just prefer the surrounds to be more diffuse, especially if you have multiple rows of seating. In my case, I have a bunch of spare speakers, so I've tried my setup with dipole/bipoles on the side and direct radiators. For 5.1/7.1, I preferred bipoles on the sides. For Atmos, the precision that I get from direct radiators is pretty nice, so I prefer that. For 5.1/7.1 material using DSU on my 7.1.4 setup, DSU seems to lend it a little more diffusion, even if that's not the intent, by putting some of the surround data in the heights in many cases. So for my needs, I go along with Dolby's recommendations and understand why they've made them.
> 
> Conceptually, where theatrical sound and home theater sound differ for this discussion is that the arrays of speakers in the theaters still phantom image between each individual speaker pair... It's just that with objects, they can be individually addressed rather than all play the same content. Diffuse speakers in the home tend to be meant to mimic the broad sound of a theatrical array... whereas placement between direct point sources would be how Atmos is mimicking the movement of sound across the smaller number of speakers in your home compared to moving it across an array of speakers in a theater.
> 
> So now that you know the reasoning behind Dolby's direct-radiator suggestion, you're armed with knowledge. But you still may prefer the sound of diffuse surrounds, and if that's right for you, then that's fine. If you don't already have them, would I go out of my way to add them? No. If you already have direct-firing speakers at the bed level, stick with that and see what you think. If you feel like it's lacking somehow, then you can address it as needed.


Excellent post. Thank you.
One thing you stated that I was not aware of until your post was that Dolby actually RECOMMENDS direct-radiating spekaers for ATMOS. I was actually looking for that DOLBY directive but never saw a explicit statement. 

What I did read is where alot of people were using diffused sides even with ATMOS. I guess they were simply continuing to use gear they already had.

Your commentary has helped out a great deal as you pointed out that many have "gotten use" to that diffused sound stage and may well feel that it sounds better...to them. I can't argue with that as I have never had diffused sides. 

I had pretty much stopped using my HT for the past few years and am now looking to start enjoying it once more so moving to ATMOS seems like the current thing. I will stay with the direct-radiating sides and rears. Thanks!


----------



## Scott Simonian

ndabunka said:


> I appreciate the comments but there is no way to "try it out for myself" as I don't currently own a pair of DS6s nor am I likely to buy a pair simply to do so.
> 
> Based on your response, it appears that I was not clear in my original question so let me try again. The design parameters for ATMOS state that it utilizes "object locality" meaning that the ATMOS system has the ablity to place sounds in specific locations within a room. So, in theory, you will hear a helicopter in front of you by 20 feet, then in front of you by 10 feet, then directly overhead, then 10 feet behind you and then 20 feet behind you as it fly's over the viewer in a scene. To me, that means that you needs speakers that can do a very precise job of LOCALIZING the sound stage. To me, this is basically the OPPOSITE of what you would get from a DIFFUSED sound stage that dipoles would normally give you so, to me, they seem to be counter to what ATMOS is design for but didn't see any guidance to avoid them in the design specifications nor in people's post on these threads and thus... the reason for the question.


Thanks but I understand ATMOS fully. 

Immersive audio formats like to tout that they are more precise and all that jazz but really they are no more "precise" than 7.1 audio as the home version of Atmos IS just 7.1 audio but now with four discrete height speakers. So my point is to find the sound YOU want. Do you want diffuse sound? Then get diffuse sounding surrounds. Do you want pinpoint precision? Then use monopoles.

Since you can't "try it yourself" to confirm with yourself which is the one you like, go with monopoles.

There is nothing special about ATMOS that then requires one to take down their diffuse surrounds speakers. Nothing. There is, however, a change in philosophy in mixing surround mixes and diffuse speakers is counter to that philosophy, yes.


----------



## ndabunka

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks but I understand ATMOS fully.
> 
> Immersive audio formats like to tout that they are more precise and all that jazz but really they are no more "precise" than 7.1 audio as the home version of Atmos IS just 7.1 audio but now with four discrete height speakers. So my point is to find the sound YOU want. Do you want diffuse sound? Then get diffuse sounding surrounds. Do you want pinpoint precision? Then use monopoles.
> 
> Since you can't "try it yourself" to confirm with yourself which is the one you like, go with monopoles.
> 
> There is nothing special about ATMOS that then requires one to take down their diffuse surrounds speakers. Nothing. There is, however, a change in philosophy in mixing surround mixes and diffuse speakers is counter to that philosophy, yes.


Scott,
I wasn't questioning your knowledge of ATMOS. I was concerned that my description of my inquiry was insufficient. Having never owned diffused speakers, I wasn't certain if I needed to ADD them in order to completely enjoy ATMOS. I now understand that is not the case. Therefore, no need for me to run out and buy diffused side speakers so thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

There are some circumstances where it isn't a bad idea but your posts do not suggest that you should go that way if you don't already own some.

Good luck!


----------



## asere

showmak said:


> I just watched 10 Cloverfield, as a movie it's really thrilling, I enjoyed every minute, waiting to see how it will end.
> 
> Anybody agrees with me about Atmos not being impressive? Very little effects from the hight speakers!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


I think 10 Cloverfield is one of the few Atmos movies that uses the heights a lot. Really loved it. 
You don't hear the bubble of sound?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

@asere

The only noticeable scene was ******. Any specific scene with a heavy use of the heights?


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

showmak said:


> I just watched 10 Cloverfield, as a movie it's really thrilling, I enjoyed every minute, waiting to see how it will end.
> 
> Anybody agrees with me about Atmos not being impressive? Very little effects from the hight speakers!


On the contrary, I loved what they did with the sound design. Most of the movie was just sporadic ambient sound from the heights, but the contrast between those moments and the moments where heights were used a lot (no spoilers - opening car wreck, "helicopter" buzzing overhead, shed at the end) made them really stand out. The "helicopter" scene in particular has some of the best bass panning between height channels of any of my Atmos titles thus far.

Bear in mind that I look at this as an artistic choice for mixers to make. I don't need Atmos titles to constantly use heights any more than I need 7.1 movies to constantly use the rear surrounds. Sound should service the movie, and I feel like the sound in 10 Cloverfield Lane did that very well.


----------



## asere

showmak said:


> @asere
> 
> The only noticeable scene was towards the end of the movie when the Alien was attacking the car. Any specific scene with a heavy use of the heights?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


The end scene for sure like you noticed but it's not so much hearing exactly what comes out of the overheads. It's the mix that places you in a bubble. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

I think I may need to re watch it...


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

showmak said:


> @asere
> 
> The only noticeable scene was towards the end of the movie when the ***** was attacking the ***. Any specific scene with a heavy use of the heights?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


SPOILER TAGS PLEASE

You just killed the Major plot twist for those who have not seen it yet.


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> SPOILER TAGS PLEASE
> 
> 
> 
> You just killed the Major plot twist for those who have not seen it yet.



I am one of the those who read about it and watched it later... I was always waiting for panning sounds back to front left to right and vise versa, and forgot about the immersive effects. That's why I am reconsidering watching it again.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

showmak said:


> I am one of the those who read about it and watched it later... I was always waiting for panning sounds back to front left to right and vise versa, and forgot about the immersive effects. That's why I am reconsidering watching it again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


Do you not understand the context of my post,
You gave away the ending of a new release that many have not seen yet.

Edit your post and place the information in spoiler tags!


----------



## desray2k

showmak said:


> I just watched 10 Cloverfield, as a movie it's really thrilling, I enjoyed every minute, waiting to see how it will end.
> 
> Anybody agrees with me about Atmos not being impressive? Very little effects from the hight speakers!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


That's because there isn't many scenes in the movie that can utilize the height speakers... But awesome atmos effects did appear where it matters especially the last act


Spoiler



where the female lead trying to escape from the alien monster.



The thing about atmos is as the name implies 'atmospheric' in nature... It shouldn't call for unnecessary attention when the scene itself doesn't require it. Of course, we can argue that the sound mixer clearly doesn't know how to properly mix the atmos track but that is a topic for another day. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

desray2k said:


> That's because there isn't many scenes in the movie that can utilize the height speakers... But awesome atmos effects did appear where it matters especially the last act where ******.
> 
> The thing a atmos is as the name implies 'atmospheric' in nature... It shouldn't call for unnecessary attention when the scene itself doesn't require it. Of course, we can argue that the sound mixer clearly doesn't know how to properly mix the atmos track buy that is a topic for another day.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Exactly


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac




----------



## desray2k

PioManiac said:


>


Added the spoiler tag... Sorry. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

lol


----------



## PioManiac

Too late, multiple posts with multiple quotes just spoiled the movie.

Can a mod please clean this cluster **** up?


----------



## desray2k

Guess we get too carry away... Anyway the bluray already out...so even though it is still quite a relatively new release. I wouldn't say it is too over the board... But I do agree that spoiler tag should be included whenever possible for new releases. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## desray2k

showmak said:


> Exactly
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


Bro, can edit the quote in my post so as to make PioManiac's day a brighter one? I believed we should be considerate in our insensitive action. Thanks. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

desray2k said:


> Bro, can edit the quote in my post so as to make PioManiac's day a brighter one? I believed we should be considerate in our insensitive action. Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Bro, I didn't know how to do it as I'm on Tapatalk mobile app, however I used asterisks instead. 


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> SPOILER TAGS PLEASE
> 
> 
> 
> You just killed the Major plot twist for those who have not seen it yet.



You are one of the those who I truly respect and appreciate your participations in this forum. I learnt a lot from you and the other members, and still learning.

But to be honest I didn't know what you meant exactly, however, I edited the previous posts. And ya, sometimes you never know who is joking and who is serious.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## desray2k

showmak said:


> Bro, I didn't know how to do it as I'm on Tapatalk mobile app, however I used asterisks instead.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


Thanks bro... I m also using Tapatalk. What u can do is to manually insert


Spoiler



tag in between the sentences that u wanna hide from public view. 

As u can see, I m trying to appease "someone" who is clearly mad at us. Don't want to ruffled any feathers just because I mentioned something in the final act... If u know what I mean... LoL

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

desray2k said:


> Thanks bro... I m also using Tapatalk. What u can do is to manually insert
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> tag in between the sentences that u wanna hide from public view.
> 
> As u can see, I m trying to appease "someone" who is clearly mad at us. Don't want to ruffled any feathers just because I mentioned something in the final act... If u know what I mean... LoL
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk





Spoiler



Don't put that sh!t on me "Bro".
I'm not mad at anyone, just disappointed that you two have both been around long enough to know better.

I was lucky enough to have watched 10 Cloverfield Lane last night.
...but I usually wait for the weekend, and Knowing what I know now,
I would have been pissed!

My post was out of concern for those who have not seen it yet.

Spoiler tags exist for a reason, unless you're a noob, there's no excuse for being disrespectful.


----------



## desray2k

PioManiac said:


> Don't put that sh!t on me "Bro".
> I'm not mad at anyone, just disappointed that you two have both been around long enough to know better.
> 
> I was lucky enough to have watched 10 Cloverfield Lane last night.
> ...but I usually wait for the weekend, and Knowing what I know now,
> I would have been pissed!
> 
> My post was out of concern for those who have not seen it yet.
> 
> Spoiler tags exist for a reason, unless you're a noob, there's no excuse for being disrespectful.


OK I m sorry... Pls dun be mad at me. I apologized unreservedly. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

Still learning, "Spoiler Tags" for future posts.

Me and wife just finished watching San Andreas, in one word, Breathtaking! Very intense Atmos sound.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## awblackmon

I watched 10 Cloverfield Lane tonight. I did like it over all. The Atmos track was very good. Not in your face at all. When the effects occured you are very aware of them. The effects don't get lost in all the sound coming at you and you cannot really discern much except there is a lot of sound. The quiet effects let you hear the overhead mix and you can enjoy them really well. I think it was mixed well. I was listening with 5.2.4. 

As to the ending. Come on people it was a sci/fi invasion horror flick. Enjoy it.


----------



## asere

showmak said:


> Still learning, "Spoiler Tags" for future posts.
> 
> Me and wife just finished watching San Andreas, in one word, Breathtaking! Very intense Atmos sound.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


Yeah wife and I did enjoy San Andreas too. In fact when family or friends come over they watch it with us.
10 Cloverfield Lane is going to be the movie we will recommend from now on. 
It's really good and excellent Atmos track.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

ndabunka said:


> Scott,
> I wasn't questioning your knowledge of ATMOS. I was concerned that my description of my inquiry was insufficient. Having never owned diffused speakers, I wasn't certain if I needed to ADD them in order to completely enjoy ATMOS. I now understand that is not the case. Therefore, no need for me to run out and buy diffused side speakers so thanks


My apologies if I jumped on your response to Scott, but I was trying to find your ladt and I think it is this one...I am trying to clarify what I have seen in several responses...that "diffuse" surround speakers should not be used in Atmos setups.

Diffuse often gets used in a broad sense that includes dipole and bipole.

If you are talking about dipoles, such as the B&W DS6, then I agree 100%.

If, on the other hand, you are taliking about bipole, that is different, and it depends on your space and seating. I have two rows of seats in my HT and I have used both direct radiating and bipole. In fact, I started with bipole, changed to direct, and then went back to bipole.

I am using Monitor Audio Silver FX as side surrounds.
http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/products/silver/silver-fx

They are situated such that the forward facing mid/woofer faces into the space between the two rows, and each of the two tweeter faces fire into the first row and the second row, respectively.

In my room, and my seating layout, bipoles work far more effectively as side surrounds than direct radiating do. So, bipole...it depends. Dipole, not so much...

And, as in all cases...YMMV...


----------



## Ricoflashback

Is the 10 Cloverfield Lane rental from Redbox in Dolby Atmos? (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 versus Dolby Digital 5.1). 

Much thanks.


----------



## missyman

Ricoflashback said:


> Is the 10 Cloverfield Lane rental from Redbox in Dolby Atmos? (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 versus Dolby Digital 5.1).
> 
> Much thanks.


Yes. The blue ray rental is in Dolby atmos.


----------



## awblackmon

Ricoflashback said:


> Is the 10 Cloverfield Lane rental from Redbox in Dolby Atmos? (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 versus Dolby Digital 5.1).
> 
> Much thanks.


I rented my copy from Redox. Dolby Atmos was stamped on the disc. Played back in Atmos on my 8802a just fine. Great sound track.


----------



## AllenA07

Ricoflashback said:


> Is the 10 Cloverfield Lane rental from Redbox in Dolby Atmos? (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 versus Dolby Digital 5.1).
> 
> Much thanks.


The Redbox rental has Atmos. It was a good movie however, with the exception of a single scene near the beginning, its Atmos presentation was lacking.


----------



## John Budny

For those of you running a 7.2.4 Atmos configuration with separates, what kind of power did you have to run to your equipment? Are two separate 20 amp circuits required/sufficient to run all of the equipment (two amps, processor, subs, TV etc)? Recently moved into a new home and have a great space in a finished basement for a media room but am dismayed to see that all of the outlets are on the same 10 amp circuit. Guessing that breaker would flip the second I hit power "ON".


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah, you'll want more than a measly 10amp circuit. Especially if everything else is riding the same breaker. Yeck!

However.... you really don't need a ton of power. A single 15amp is adequate for the vast majority of conventional 'family room' full surround sound systems. Depends on what kind of gear you will have and how hard you push it all.


----------



## audiofan1

John Budny said:


> For those of you running a 7.2.4 Atmos configuration with separates, what kind of power did you have to run to your equipment? Are two separate 20 amp circuits required/sufficient to run all of the equipment (two amps, processor, subs, TV etc)? Recently moved into a new home and have a great space in a finished basement for a media room but am dismayed to see that all of the outlets are on the same 10 amp circuit. Guessing that breaker would flip the second I hit power "ON".


10amp circuit I thought the lowest was 15amp for residential but I'm no electrician . I do however have (2) 20 amp circuits one with 10awg and one with 12awg and run all my gear on them my, 8802, disc player, 2 ch &3 ch amps along with my display. the other handles dual subs and an 8 ch amp. If had had to recommend and since you may have an electrian out i would do 3 20 amp lines, 2 up front and 1 in the back or better yet 4


----------



## Selden Ball

audiofan1 said:


> 10amp circuit I thought the lowest was 15amp for residential but I'm no electrician . I do however have (2) 20 amp circuits one with 10awg and one with 12awg and run all my gear on them my, 8802, disc player, 2 ch &3 ch amps along with my display. the other handles dual subs and an 8 ch amp. If had had to recommend and since you may have an electrian out i would do 3 20 amp lines, 2 up front and 1 in the back or better yet 4


In general, unless you have Class A amps, which draw the maximum amount of power at all times, or extremely inefficient speakers in a very large room, a single 15 Amp circuit is more than adequate.


----------



## John Budny

Thanks for the input guys. Sounds like 2 20 amp circuits would future proof me pretty well. If I'm going to open the walls to run 12 gauge I might as well error I the side of caution and over supply the room with juice.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I currently have a SVS PB12 Plus sub in the front lefthand corner (facing the screen) of my home theater. It is 19.5' long x 14.5' wide. The ceiling is 8' tall along the right-hand 1/3 of the room. It is 9' tall along the left-hand side of the room.

The PB12 does well in the room, but I have a sneaking hunch that runnig dual subs might give a more even response.

I am thinking of getting a SVS PB-1000 and putting it in the front right-hand corner.

I know that the best approach would be to mirror the current sub, but I don't have a spare $1400 at the moment. So, $449 (outlet), I can manage.

Would it be worth it? I know that this is subjective, but all that I am asking for is an opinion from someone more knowledgable than me.


----------



## TKNice

dvdwilly3 said:


> I currently have a SVS PB12 Plus sub in the front lefthand corner (facing the screen) of my home theater. It is 19.5' long x 14.5' wide. The ceiling is 8' tall along the right-hand 1/3 of the room. It is 9' tall along the left-hand side of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> The PB12 does well in the room, but I have a sneaking hunch that runnig dual subs might give a more even response.
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking of getting a SVS PB-1000 and putting it in the front right-hand corner.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the best approach would be to mirror the current sub, but I don't have a spare $1400 at the moment. So, $449 (outlet), I can manage.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be worth it? I know that this is subjective, but all that I am asking for is an opinion from someone more knowledgable than me.




I think it will be worth it. How many seats do you have and is there a big difference in bass quality at each seat? Is there a way you could push for an outlet SB2000? I think that would be great for your room size and should even things out substantially.


----------



## audiofan1

Selden Ball said:


> In general, unless you have Class A amps, which draw the maximum amount of power at all times, or extremely inefficient speakers in a very large room, a single 15 Amp circuit is more than adequate.


While true indeed, when going from that single 15amp to duals I noted above, the difference with even a modest setup it was enough to more than notice. I have only one amp that runs in class 2/ch A A/B the other is 3/ch A/B while the 8/ch is class D with speakers ranging from 87-92db sensitivity in a 20X21x8 room and yes I like to get down @ reference volume from time to time and no flickering lights or sags on the line are wanted 



John Budny said:


> Thanks for the input guys. Sounds like 2 20 amp circuits would future proof me pretty well. If I'm going to open the walls to run 12 gauge I might as well error I the side of caution and over supply the room with juice.


Yup! wish I had the insight to do four 20amp and all 10awg


----------



## maikeldepotter

audiofan1 said:


> While true indeed, when going from that single 15amp to duals I noted above, the difference with even a modest setup it was enough to more than notice. I have only one amp that runs in class 2/ch A A/B the other is 3/ch A/B while the 8/ch is class D with speakers ranging from 87-92db sensitivity in a 20X21x8 room and yes I like to get down @ reference volume from time to time and no flickering lights or sags on the line are wanted
> 
> Yup! wish I had the insight to do four 20amp and all 10awg


Having access to 220-240V alleviates a lot of such power issues


----------



## ALtlOff

dvdwilly3 said:


> I currently have a SVS PB12 Plus sub in the front lefthand corner (facing the screen) of my home theater. It is 19.5' long x 14.5' wide. The ceiling is 8' tall along the right-hand 1/3 of the room. It is 9' tall along the left-hand side of the room.
> 
> The PB12 does well in the room, but I have a sneaking hunch that runnig dual subs might give a more even response.
> 
> I am thinking of getting a SVS PB-1000 and putting it in the front right-hand corner.
> 
> I know that the best approach would be to mirror the current sub, but I don't have a spare $1400 at the moment. So, $449 (outlet), I can manage.
> 
> Would it be worth it? I know that this is subjective, but all that I am asking for is an opinion from someone more knowledgable than me.


Ditto @TKNice, save a little longer and go with one of the 2000 series, it will be more appropriate for your room size.
And yes, a second good sub is a major upgrade in the entire experience.


----------



## ndabunka

dvdwilly3 said:


> I currently have a SVS PB12 Plus sub in the front lefthand corner (facing the screen) of my home theater. It is 19.5' long x 14.5' wide. The ceiling is 8' tall along the right-hand 1/3 of the room. It is 9' tall along the left-hand side of the room.
> 
> The PB12 does well in the room, but I have a sneaking hunch that runnig dual subs might give a more even response.
> 
> I am thinking of getting a SVS PB-1000 and putting it in the front right-hand corner.
> 
> I know that the best approach would be to mirror the current sub, but I don't have a spare $1400 at the moment. So, $449 (outlet), I can manage.
> 
> Would it be worth it? I know that this is subjective, but all that I am asking for is an opinion from someone more knowledgable than me.


Not certain if a second sub will buy you as much as you think. My HT is VERY close in size to yours (18'9" x 13'9") but my ceiling is a constant 9 feet. I have 2 identical PhaeTech Octave 1.0 subs that I have literally owned longer than my 20 year old son. One give me aroud 103dB. Adding the second pumps it up about 3dB. One of these 15" puppies is fine so I moved the second into my office with it's 5.1 system


----------



## dvdwilly3

ndabunka said:


> Not certain if a second sub will buy you as much as you think. My HT is VERY close in size to yours (18'9" x 13'9") but my ceiling is a constant 9 feet. I have 2 identical PhaeTech Octave 1.0 subs that I have literally owned longer than my 20 year old son. One give me aroud 103dB. Adding the second pumps it up about 3dB. One of these 15" puppies is fine so I moved the second into my office with it's 5.1 system


After my original post, it dawned on me that I am running an SB-1000 in our family room.

Tomorrow I will unplug it and hook it up downstairs and see if I can tell any difference. If it is just 'meh' then I can save some $$.

If I can tell a difference, then I will continue trying to figure out what to do.

Thanks to all...

I will report back my findings...


----------



## petetherock

maikeldepotter said:


> Having access to 220-240V alleviates a lot of such power issues


How would you hook up this 110V only amp to a 220V power system?


----------



## shyyour

petetherock said:


> How would you hook up this 110V only amp to a 220V power system?


By using a step-down transformer. It'll step-down the voltage from 220/240 to 110/120v. I plug a power strip/extension cord to mine so that i can plug multiple 110v appliances (just makes sure the sum watt total of all the appliances doesn't exceed the watt rating of the step-down transformer).

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

petetherock said:


> How would you hook up this 110V only amp to a 220V power system?


http://www.voltageconverters.com/voltage_converters.html


----------



## shyyour

maikeldepotter said:


> http://www.voltageconverters.com/voltage_converters.html


Yeap any one of those will do the job

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

audiofan1 said:


> While true indeed, when going from that single 15amp to duals I noted above, the difference with even a modest setup it was enough to more than notice. I have only one amp that runs in class 2/ch A A/B the other is 3/ch A/B while the 8/ch is class D with speakers ranging from 87-92db sensitivity in a 20X21x8 room and yes I like to get down @ reference volume from time to time and no flickering lights or sags on the line are wanted
> 
> Yup! wish I had the insight to do four 20amp and all 10awg


I did two 20 amp circuits in my HT room recently for my current 9.2.4 room. That will power two HSU ULS-15, two 7 channel Class D amps, possibly two Crown 1502s if needed, and a PJ probably later this fall. Right now my Altitude and sources are there, but I upgraded a closet to house them outside the room with another 20 amp circuit last year.

To be fair, we moved last winter and I started with Class D (NAD M27, then a Wyred4Sound MMC-7 a few months ago) specifically due to the power requirements. I didn't want to pop a fuse if I added two extra subs down the road, or more speakers.


----------



## Kain




----------



## nickbuol

Kain said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acxz3N8FRUo



Interesting. Dolby Atmos effects with just 2 stereo speakers...

Hmmm.... not sure I believe that, but I don't have this game.


----------



## ex_directory

Read a few pages but not wanting to read 1356 pages for speaker recommendations... is there some recommendations here for ceiling speakers (more budget end of the scale) for 5.1.2? Happy to be pointed at a page number!!

The speakers I have found so far are
Polk RC60i or 80i
B&W CCM665 
B&W CCM664 (with directional tweeter)
Dali Phantom E50 or E60


----------



## Dan Hitchman

nickbuol said:


> Interesting. Dolby Atmos effects with just 2 stereo speakers...


Sounds more like binaural Ambisonics.


----------



## Soupy1970

I'm posting this here, since it's related to Atmos and might interest someone here. Can anyone that knows REW tell me if I did this correct? I was curious as to how much low frequencies get sent to Height channels. I unplugged all speakers but the 4 ceiling speakers. I then played each demo and recorded it with RTA. I have never used RTA before though.


----------



## nickbuol

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sounds more like binaural Ambisonics.


Nice! 

Just seems odd to me, but like I said, I don't have the game so I don't know how they can get it to work outside of some of the gaming audio that had existed for a long time but just not well utilized.


----------



## Soupy1970

ex_directory said:


> Read a few pages but not wanting to read 1356 pages for speaker recommendations... is there some recommendations here for ceiling speakers (more budget end of the scale) for 5.1.2? Happy to be pointed at a page number!!
> 
> The speakers I have found so far are
> Polk RC60i or 80i
> B&W CCM665
> B&W CCM664 (with directional tweeter)
> Dali Phantom E50 or E60


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1649609-best-ceiling-speakers-atmos.html


----------



## ALtlOff

Soupy1970 said:


> I'm posting this here, since it's related to Atmos and might interest someone here. Can anyone that knows REW tell me if I did this correct? I was curious as to how much low frequencies get sent to Height channels. I unplugged all speakers but the 4 ceiling speakers. I then played each demo and recorded it with RTA. I have never used RTA before though.


Height Channels get a Full Range Signal same as the others, limiting is only applied by your AVR's crossover.

But...Atmos enabled speakers or modules will get a frequency limited signal as set by Dolby. This is supposed to aide in reflection.


----------



## Ricoflashback

dvdwilly3 said:


> My apologies if I jumped on your response to Scott, but I was trying to find your ladt and I think it is this one...I am trying to clarify what I have seen in several responses...that "diffuse" surround speakers should not be used in Atmos setups.
> 
> Diffuse often gets used in a broad sense that includes dipole and bipole.
> 
> If you are talking about dipoles, such as the B&W DS6, then I agree 100%.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you are taliking about bipole, that is different, and it depends on your space and seating. I have two rows of seats in my HT and I have used both direct radiating and bipole. In fact, I started with bipole, changed to direct, and then went back to bipole.
> 
> I am using Monitor Audio Silver FX as side surrounds.
> http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/products/silver/silver-fx
> 
> They are situated such that the forward facing mid/woofer faces into the space between the two rows, and each of the two tweeter faces fire into the first row and the second row, respectively.
> 
> In my room, and my seating layout, bipoles work far more effectively as side surrounds than direct radiating do. So, bipole...it depends. Dipole, not so much...
> 
> And, as in all cases...YMMV...


Yes, indeed -- YMMV and your room configuration has a lot to do with it. In my case, I have a very tight configuration. My side surrounds were initially direct radiating speakers and they just were too close to the main listening position on each side. 

They were too noticeable and really didn't blend in with the rest of the speakers. It was like someone was firing a gun from that position every time discrete sounds came from my side surrounds. 

I switched to a pair of Paradigm ADP 590's. They have worked beautifully ever since. Now, when switching over to Dolby Atmos, I kept on reading that Dipoles were a no no, configuration wise. Since I couldn't install ceiling speakers, I went with Front Wides and Front Heights in a 9.1.2 setup. (Both Direct radiating speakers)

It sounds great, immersive wise, and I've kept the Dipoles and don't plan on changing them out. As one poster commented -- Dolby Atmos is somewhat forgiving and it is pretty difficult to totally mess up your setup and not obtain the immersive benefits of this technology. 

As always, it's about getting the most out of your system within your budget and room configuration. There are a lot of solutions that will work, immersive wise.


----------



## Ted99

shyyour said:


> By using a step-down transformer. It'll step-down the voltage from 220/240 to 110/120v. I plug a power strip/extension cord to mine so that i can plug multiple 110v appliances (just makes sure the sum watt total of all the appliances doesn't exceed the watt rating of the step-down transformer).
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Every step down transformer I have ever used had audible hum. I once hooked up a 4KW GE 220/110 transformer at my breaker box and fed the 110v HT circuits from it. It was intended to isolate the HT from any line noise--it may have done that, but I was really glad the transformer was in the Garage as it hummed a mighty tune. Same problem with GE 500w step down transformers I used in Australia--Hummmmmm. I looked high and low for a torroidal step down transformer to eliminate hum, with no success.


----------



## shyyour

Ted99 said:


> Every step down transformer I have ever used had audible hum. I once hooked up a 4KW GE 220/110 transformer at my breaker box and fed the 110v HT circuits from it. It was intended to isolate the HT from any line noise--it may have done that, but I was really glad the transformer was in the Garage as it hummed a mighty tune. Same problem with GE 500w step down transformers I used in Australia--Hummmmmm. I looked high and low for a torroidal step down transformer to eliminate hum, with no success.


Seems i'm lucky then. I have about 4 of them and only one has a hum (just started).

I tend to use multiple lower rated step downs (200w, 300w & 500w) connect to power strips with my HT gear. 

Have you tried changing the brand ?


----------



## Ted99

^^^ Don't need them any more. I've used GE and Westinghouse, only in the .5KW and up sizes--at least 25 years old. Newer may be better. Users should be aware of potential problem.


----------



## lavakv

About to mount top middle speakers in a 5.2.2 setup in my new basement and am looking for input regarding front to back placement due to low ceiling height (~7ft). Yes, I know low ceilings are not ideal.

Dolby's published guidelines recommend a 65-100° angle from line of sight which would place the speakers from ~20" in front of MLP to ~7.5" behind MLP. I cannot place the speakers very far behind MLP if at all without some effort due to ductwork.

I'm leaning towards pushing them towards the 20" forward to put some more distance between ears and speakers to reduce localization. Mounting the speakers at 90° would place them ~3.5ft above my head. Anyone have opinions/experience/preferences with front/back placement with a low ceiling?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

lavakv said:


> About to mount top middle speakers in a 5.2.2 setup in my new basement and am looking for input regarding front to back placement due to low ceiling height (~7ft). Yes, I know low ceilings are not ideal.
> 
> Dolby's published guidelines recommend a 65-100° angle from line of sight which would place the speakers from ~20" in front of MLP to ~7.5" behind MLP. I cannot place the speakers very far behind MLP if at all without some effort due to ductwork.
> 
> I'm leaning towards pushing them towards the 20" forward to put some more distance between ears and speakers to reduce localization. Mounting the speakers at 90° would place them ~3.5ft above my head. Anyone have opinions/experience/preferences with front/back placement with a low ceiling?


I think the consensus around here is to have the TM position in front of MLP so you will be fine.


----------



## healthnut

lavakv said:


> About to mount top middle speakers in a 5.2.2 setup in my new basement and am looking for input regarding front to back placement due to low ceiling height (~7ft). Yes, I know low ceilings are not ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby's published guidelines recommend a 65-100° angle from line of sight which would place the speakers from ~20" in front of MLP to ~7.5" behind MLP. I cannot place the speakers very far behind MLP if at all without some effort due to ductwork.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm leaning towards pushing them towards the 20" forward to put some more distance between ears and speakers to reduce localization. Mounting the speakers at 90° would place them ~3.5ft above my head. Anyone have opinions/experience/preferences with front/back placement with a low ceiling?




I had a similar issue with ductwork and rerouted it with insulated flexible duct. Time consuming but worthwhile 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alanlee

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, you'll want more than a measly 10amp circuit. Especially if everything else is riding the same breaker. Yeck!
> 
> However.... you really don't need a ton of power. A single 15amp is adequate for the vast majority of conventional 'family room' full surround sound systems. Depends on what kind of gear you will have and how hard you push it all.


New topic - I have had my Atmos system for about five months now and I am reasonably happy with it. One area for improvment would be the volume of the ceiling speakers. Part of this issue is the volume level of the surrounds which are drowning out the ceiling and rear surrounds. I am working on finding a lower volume level for the surrounds. As one can see in the pix I have attached, I can't move them further away. I also replaced the Klipsch Academys (surround) in the pix with Klipsch Kg 1.5's (smaller).

In addition to configuring the surrounds, I am going to add two more ceiling speakers directly above the listening post. I already have the extra speakers, and the ceiling has been pre-wired for two more ceiling speakers. I'm guessing the new speakers will be top middle top rear. The top front will be silent until I am able to afford a receiver or pre-pro that will handle six ceiling speakers. I actually have enough speakers and amps to run an eight ceiling speaker system.

So what do you think of my ramblings?


----------



## howard68

Just got out of Best Buy in CA in usa 

They told me they will not be stocking the Philips uhd player 

So I am off to order it from Amazion


----------



## PioManiac

howard68 said:


> Just got out of Best Buy in CA
> They told me they will not be stocking the Philips uhd player
> So I am off to order it from Amazion


CA as in California or Canada ?
(or Central America?  )

We have them in stock in Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) at BestBuy.ca for $50 less than the Sammy K8500...










Philips: http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/philips-philips-4k-uhd-wi-fi-blu-ray-player-bdp7501-f7-bdp7501-f7/10418142.aspx?path=ca773ab8746b51064c4e7640ce0841fcen02

Samsung http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product...spx?path=e5f7b82b37c565efac7aea3bc0f4c9f9en02


----------



## Craig Peer

Alanlee said:


> New topic - I have had my Atmos system for about five months now and I am reasonably happy with it. One area for improvment would be the volume of the ceiling speakers. Part of this issue is the volume level of the surrounds which are drowning out the ceiling and rear surrounds. I am working on finding a lower volume level for the surrounds. As one can see in the pix I have attached, I can't move them further away. I also replaced the Klipsch Academys (surround) in the pix with Klipsch Kg 1.5's (smaller).
> 
> In addition to configuring the surrounds, I am going to add two more ceiling speakers directly above the listening post. I already have the extra speakers, and the ceiling has been pre-wired for two more ceiling speakers. I'm guessing the new speakers will be top middle top rear. The top front will be silent until I am able to afford a receiver or pre-pro that will handle six ceiling speakers. I actually have enough speakers and amps to run an eight ceiling speaker system.
> 
> So what do you think of my ramblings?


Can't you adjust the volume of the surrounds? What receiver / pre pro are you using ?


----------



## Craig Peer

PioManiac said:


> CA as in California or Canada ?
> (or Central America?  )
> 
> We have them in stock in Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) at BestBuy.ca for $50 less than the Sammy K8500...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philips: http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/philips-philips-4k-uhd-wi-fi-blu-ray-player-bdp7501-f7-bdp7501-f7/10418142.aspx?path=ca773ab8746b51064c4e7640ce0841fcen02
> 
> Samsung http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product...spx?path=e5f7b82b37c565efac7aea3bc0f4c9f9en02


Has anyone seen a review on this player yet ?


----------



## Alanlee

Craig Peer said:


> Can't you adjust the volume of the surrounds? What receiver / pre pro are you using ?


Thanks for your response Craig. I have a Denon 5200

I can adjust the surrounds, but I may have them placed too close to my ears. I can't move them further away as you can see in the pix (attached), but I have adjusted the volume down somewhat. I am still not hearing the ceiling speakers as I think I should even though when adjusting audyssey the ceiling speakers are loud enough.

When I play John Wick for instance, the receiver registers the movie as Dolby Atmos, so I think I have the receiver and the oppo DVD are set correctly. Still I have to stand on a ladder to make sure the ceiling speakers are operating.

So I propose to put in two more speakers directly over the listening post (couch) and directly above the surrounds (front). The additional speakers will be pointed straight down and might be easier perceived. I have the speakers and have pre-wired for six speakers, hence I will not be going to too much extra work.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Move the rear surrounds. They are WAY too close, imo. I'd push them out to the corners (where that lamp is). Push your side surrounds 1-2ft forward. Idk if you are really using those wides but they don't seem reasonable "wide" out. Might as well remove them. And is that two speaker for a center channel? 

All sorts of wrong placement to me in there, sorry to say.

Heights look fine. I'd stick to four and not further complicate things right now by adding more. Hey, that rhymed! 

Might need to fiddle with your levels some more.


----------



## Alanlee

Scott Simonian said:


> Move the rear surrounds. They are WAY too close, imo. I'd push them out to the corners (where that lamp is). Push your side surrounds 1-2ft forward. Idk if you are really using those wides but they don't seem reasonable "wide" out. Might as well remove them. And is that two speaker for a center channel?
> 
> All sorts of wrong placement to me in there, sorry to say.
> 
> Heights look fine. I'd stick to four and not further complicate things right now by adding more. Hey, that rhymed!
> 
> Might need to fiddle with your levels some more.


Yes thank you I can move both sets of surrounds. I am not using the wides. They are now the front surrounds. The two Heresys are indeed the center channel. The Cornwalls overpowered every other speaker/speakers I tried, so I took the advice of a Klipsch technician I talked to and put in the two Heresys. I am not sure about the protocol, but the center channel is good now.

I will move the surrounds, fiddle with the levels and see if that makes a difference with the sound of the ceiling speakers.

thanks


----------



## audiofan1

Alanlee said:


> Yes thank you I can move both sets of surrounds. I am not using the wides. They are now the front surrounds. The two Heresys are indeed the center channel. The Cornwalls overpowered every other speaker/speakers I tried, so I took the advice of a Klipsch technician I talked to and put in the two Heresys. I am not sure about the protocol, but the center channel is good now.
> 
> I will move the surrounds, fiddle with the levels and see if that makes a difference with the sound of the ceiling speakers.
> 
> thanks


Also try aiming the ceiling speakers straight down


----------



## Alanlee

audiofan1 said:


> Also try aiming the ceiling speakers straight down


Ok - thanks


----------



## stef2

Will any current AVR allow me to use two front wides and two atmos ceiling speakers at the same time? Last time I checked (a year ago) the answer was no, but I thought maybe now it is different? I would really like to keep my front wides and benefit from atmos at the same time...


----------



## Scott Simonian

stef2 said:


> Will any current AVR allow me to use two front wides and two atmos ceiling speakers at the same time? Last time I checked (a year ago) the answer was no, but I thought maybe now it is different? I would really like to keep my front wides and benefit from atmos at the same time...


IIRC, the Denon 7200 allows for this configuration.


----------



## ALtlOff

stef2 said:


> Will any current AVR allow me to use two front wides and two atmos ceiling speakers at the same time? Last time I checked (a year ago) the answer was no, but I thought maybe now it is different? I would really like to keep my front wides and benefit from atmos at the same time...


Yes, the Denon and Marantz for sure, Yamaha doesn't use wides at all, not sure about the others.
As long as your only using a 7.2.2 setup, with 7.2.4 you must choose between Wides or Rears.


----------



## stef2

ALtlOff said:


> Yes, the Denon and Marantz for sure, Yamaha doesn't use wides at all, not sure about the others.
> As long as your only using a 7.2.2 setup, with 7.2.4 you must choose between Wides or Rears.


You mean I could run (at the same time) 11 channels plus sub:

7 "base" surround channels plus two overhead atmos channels plus two front wides channels, all processed and playing at the same time? (I know this would require an external amp though). I thought the use of the front wides was not compatible with the use (at the same time) of any atmos top channels? If so, I am happy to be wrong...


----------



## dschulz

stef2 said:


> You mean I could run (at the same time) 11 channels plus sub:
> 
> 7 "base" surround channels plus two overhead atmos channels plus two front wides channels, all processed and playing at the same time? (I know this would require an external amp though). I thought the use of the front wides was not compatible with the use (at the same time) of any atmos top channels? If so, I am happy to be wrong...


Yes, what you are describing is a supported Atmos configuration:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/9-1-2-setups.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stef2 said:


> You mean I could run (at the same time) 11 channels plus sub:
> 
> 7 "base" surround channels plus two overhead atmos channels plus two front wides channels, all processed and playing at the same time? (I know this would require an external amp though). I thought the use of the front wides was not compatible with the use (at the same time) of any atmos top channels? If so, I am happy to be wrong...


You can also, on Denon/Marantz 7.1.4 gear, do 7.1.4 with Front Wides (rather than rear surrounds) and four overheads. That's what my configuration is. The FW's are engaged on everything except Dolby Surround upmixing. Yes, objects pass through or are locked to the Front Wides when engaged during Dolby Atmos material. They are constantly playing information even when the overheads are silent.


----------



## stef2

I greatly appreciate your replies.

So 9.1.2 (including front wides) is possible.

Then, what sound do the front wides play? I really like what my front wides do with DTS NEO:X (no atmos for now) when watching movies: my front stage gets wider, fuller. The front wides make my FR and FL seem further apart. What role do the front wides play in a 9.1.2 atmos setup? (I would really like to keep the front stage "widening" effect I get with NEO:X...is it what you mean by saying they are constantly playing information?)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stef2 said:


> I greatly appreciate your replies.
> 
> So 9.1.2 (including front wides) is possible.
> 
> Then, what sound do the front wides play? I really like what my front wides do with DTS NEO:X (no atmos for now) when watching movies: my front stage gets wider, fuller. The front wides make my FR and FL seem further apart. What role do the front wides play in a 9.1.2 atmos setup? (I would really like to keep the front stage "widening" effect I get with NEO:X...is it what you mean by saying they are constantly playing information?)


Is your room conducive to rear surrounds? Having just two overheads lumps all the overhead activity together. You don't get 360 degree pans or front to back/back to front object action above you. 

If you really like what the Front Wides (or now really Front Surrounds for Atmos) do to your soundstage, you will get constant sonic activity if playing Dolby Atmos, DTS: X, and using the DTS Neural: X upmixer for non immersive soundtracks. 

The FW's help fill in the gap between the front stage speakers and the side surrounds. In Dolby Atmos, for instance, objects containing sound effects will pan through on their way frontwards or backwards in the room, music will be spread out from the front screen speakers, and dialog may track off-screen depending on how aggressive the sound mix is (take, for instance, the movie _Gravity_). 

We're really not sure what audio data is being sent to the FW's with DTS: X. Some X encoded movies are locked at only 7.1.4 and utilize Neural: X upmixing to spread out the sound to the FW's. However, there are two DTS: X tracks (Ip Man 3 and ID4 on UHD Blu-ray) that now have additional objects. I don't know if these added objects get positionally rendered to the Front Wides or not like with Dolby Atmos. 

You will need a Denon or Marantz 2015 or 2016 product with 7.1.4 capabilities for this kind of special 7.1.4 configuration plus DTS: X / Neural: X. 

Hope this is at least clear as mud. 










Here's a diagram of the base layer in a Front Wide sans rear surrounds configuration.


----------



## stef2

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is your room conducive to rear surrounds? Having just two overheads lumps all the overhead activity together. You don't get 360 degree pans or front to back/back to front object action above you.
> 
> If you really like what the Front Wides (or now really Front Surrounds for Atmos) do to your soundstage, you will get constant sonic activity if playing Dolby Atmos, DTS: X, and using the DTS Neural: X upmixer for non immersive soundtracks.
> 
> The FW's help fill in the gap between the front stage speakers and the side surrounds. In Dolby Atmos, for instance, objects containing sound effects will pan through on their way frontwards or backwards in the room, music will be spread out from the front screen speakers, and dialog may track off-screen depending on how aggressive the sound mix is (take, for instance, the movie _Gravity_).
> 
> We're really not sure what audio data is being sent to the FW's with DTS: X. Some X encoded movies are locked at only 7.1.4 and utilize Neural: X upmixing to spread out the sound to the FW's. However, there are two DTS: X tracks (Ip Man 3 and ID4 on UHD Blu-ray) that now have additional objects. I don't know if these added objects get positionally rendered to the Front Wides or not like with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> You will need a Denon or Marantz 2015 or 2016 product with 7.1.4 capabilities for this kind of special 7.1.4 configuration plus DTS: X / Neural: X.
> 
> Hope this is at least clear as mud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a diagram of the base layer in a Front Wide sans rear surrounds configuration.


Thanks! yes, your answer helps me a lot. And no, my two surround back speakers never seem to express themselves a lot, even with 7.1 soundtracks, so I would not mind replacing them with two overhead channels...but I really want to keep th effect my front wides give me, and it is this very effect you seem to describe...


----------



## dschulz

stef2 said:


> I greatly appreciate your replies.
> 
> So 9.1.2 (including front wides) is possible.
> 
> Then, what sound do the front wides play? I really like what my front wides do with DTS NEO:X (no atmos for now) when watching movies: my front stage gets wider, fuller. The front wides make my FR and FL seem further apart. What role do the front wides play in a 9.1.2 atmos setup? (I would really like to keep the front stage "widening" effect I get with NEO:X...is it what you mean by saying they are constantly playing information?)


DTS is replacing Neo:X with Neural:X, which will use your front wides in the same way that you are using them now. And of course native DTS:X material will use them as well.

Dolby is taking a slightly different approach: the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) does *not* utilize the front wides, as Dolby doesn't want to muck about so much with the front sound stage. 

Native Dolby Atmos content, however, *will* use the Front Wides, for objects to pan about in the room as intended by the mixers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stef2 said:


> Thanks! yes, your answer helps me a lot. And no, my two surround back speakers never seem to express themselves a lot, even with 7.1 soundtracks, so I would not mind replacing them with two overhead channels...but I really want to keep th effect my front wides give me, and it is this very effect you seem to describe...


Look at the 9.1.2 diagram for Front Wide positioning guidelines, and look at the 5.1.4 diagram for all the other positions. The lower diagram shows the overhead positions (top front and top rear are best)


----------



## stef2

Thanks guys. So it is going to be a 9.1.2 setup for me. I am getting rid of my two surround back speakers (for now) and will keep my front wides! I was waiting for AVRs to process more than 11 channels before upgrading to Atmos, but waiting (at least) one more year is getting too long...but I will certainly upgrade my AVR as soon as more than 11 channels become available (and affordable...).


What AVR would allow me to run those 11 channels with DTS:X on board for the lowest possible price since I would be upgrading it in a year or so? I already have external amps and a DDRc-88A for Dirac Live processing. I will be doing my homework for sure, but any input is greatly appreciated. Used or new I wouldn't mind, the brand I wouldn't mind, as long as it is available before the end of this year...


----------



## smurraybhm

stef2 said:


> Thanks guys. So it is going to be a 9.1.2 setup for me. I am getting rid of my two surround back speakers (for now) and will keep my front wides! I was waiting for AVRs to process more than 11 channels before upgrading to Atmos, but waiting (at least) one more year is getting too long...but I will certainly upgrade my AVR as soon as more than 11 channels become available (and affordable...).
> 
> 
> What AVR would allow me to run those 11 channels with DTS:X on board for the lowest possible price since I would be upgrading it in a year or so? I already have external amps and a DDRc-88A for Dirac Live processing. I will be doing my homework for sure, but any input is greatly appreciated. Used or new I wouldn't mind, the brand I wouldn't mind, as long as it is available before the end of this year...


Either a Denon 6200 or a Marantz 7010. Suggest you give JD of AV Science a call for pricing. Enjoy!

P.S. Forgot the Marantz pre amp (sorry) - 7702 mkll


----------



## Sonimax

*Denon AVR-X3200W in Atmos?*

Good morning.
I have a question concerning the Denon AVR-X3200W. If I use only a 5.1 speakers setup, with no ceilings speakers, and I listen to a movie in Dolby Atmos, will I use the Atmos decoder inside the Denon or only the regular Dolby TrueHD decoder?


----------



## dschulz

Sonimax said:


> Good morning.
> I have a question concerning the Denon AVR-X3200W. If I use only a 5.1 speakers setup, with no ceilings speakers, and I listen to a movie in Dolby Atmos, will I use the Atmos decoder inside the Denon or only the regular Dolby TrueHD decoder?


In that scenario you'll be listening to the Dolby TrueHD track, either native 5.1 or a native 7.1 down-mixed to 5.1. The Atmos process isn't engaged until you've added at least 2 height or top speakers.


----------



## Sonimax

dschulz said:


> In that scenario you'll be listening to the Dolby TrueHD track, either native 5.1 or a native 7.1 down-mixed to 5.1. The Atmos process isn't engaged until you've added at least 2 height or top speakers.


Thank's. So there's no way to benefit from objects based audio without additional speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sonimax said:


> Thank's. So there's no way to benefit from objects based audio without additional speakers?


Correct.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stef2 said:


> Thanks guys. So it is going to be a 9.1.2 setup for me. I am getting rid of my two surround back speakers (for now) and will keep my front wides! I was waiting for AVRs to process more than 11 channels before upgrading to Atmos, but waiting (at least) one more year is getting too long...but I will certainly upgrade my AVR as soon as more than 11 channels become available (and affordable...).
> 
> 
> What AVR would allow me to run those 11 channels with DTS:X on board for the lowest possible price since I would be upgrading it in a year or so? I already have external amps and a DDRc-88A for Dirac Live processing. I will be doing my homework for sure, but any input is greatly appreciated. Used or new I wouldn't mind, the brand I wouldn't mind, as long as it is available before the end of this year...


Any particular reason why you don't want to or cannot use four overheads? As mentioned before, if you're not as enamored with the rear speakers, but want wides and four overheads, certain Denon and Marantz products will allow for this 7.1.4 configuration.


----------



## Ted99

stef2 said:


> Thanks guys. So it is going to be a 9.1.2 setup for me. I am getting rid of my two surround back speakers (for now) and will keep my front wides! I was waiting for AVRs to process more than 11 channels before upgrading to Atmos, but waiting (at least) one more year is getting too long...but I will certainly upgrade my AVR as soon as more than 11 channels become available (and affordable...).
> 
> 
> What AVR would allow me to run those 11 channels with DTS:X on board for the lowest possible price since I would be upgrading it in a year or so? I already have external amps and a DDRc-88A for Dirac Live processing. I will be doing my homework for sure, but any input is greatly appreciated. Used or new I wouldn't mind, the brand I wouldn't mind, as long as it is available before the end of this year...


I remember reading once that if you have rear dolby speakers, and no rear surrounds, whatever rear surround information there was will be mixed with the rear dolby speakers. This made using front wides, in lieu of rear surrounds, a no-brainer, as I have never heard much from the rear surround channels in 7.1


----------



## stef2

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any particular reason why you don't want to or cannot use four overheads? As mentioned before, if you're not as enamored with the rear speakers, but want wides and four overheads, certain Denon and Marantz products will allow for this 7.1.4 configuration.


My mistake...I will be running 7.1.4 indeed: 4 overheads and two front wides instead of the surround backs. Just like you do!


----------



## thebland

stef2 said:


> My mistake...I will be running 7.1.4 indeed: 4 overheads and two front wides instead of the surround backs. Just like you do!


I tried that configuration with my Datasat when setting up. I too had the option of eliminating the back surrounds. In the end, I chose a conventional 7.1.4 set up. It sounded best in my room.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Sonimax said:


> Thank's. So there's no way to benefit from objects based audio without additional speakers?


Yes, you can still benefit from object based audio without Dolby Atmos enabled speakers or Dolby Atmos ceiling soeakers.

Pioneer Elite SC-97 has an option to choose the rendering mode between either object or legacy.

I leave the rendering mode set to object for all 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 

The rendering mode option is available while using the Pioneer AV5 app.

Example a DTS Master HD 7.1 bluray.

I can listen to the DTS Master HD 7.1 in it's native audio. then choose the rendering mode between either object or legacy.

Or I can choose to use a DSP mode like Neo X. Then choose the rendering mode between either object or legacy.

Denon may have a similar setting or option.


----------



## missyman

Alanlee said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you'll want more than a measly 10amp circuit. Especially if everything else is riding the same breaker. Yeck!
> 
> However.... you really don't need a ton of power. A single 15amp is adequate for the vast majority of conventional 'family room' full surround sound systems. Depends on what kind of gear you will have and how hard you push it all.
> 
> 
> 
> New topic - I have had my Atmos system for about five months now and I am reasonably happy with it. One area for improvment would be the volume of the ceiling speakers. Part of this issue is the volume level of the surrounds which are drowning out the ceiling and rear surrounds. I am working on finding a lower volume level for the surrounds. As one can see in the pix I have attached, I can't move them further away. I also replaced the Klipsch Academys (surround) in the pix with Klipsch Kg 1.5's (smaller).
> 
> In addition to configuring the surrounds, I am going to add two more ceiling speakers directly above the listening post. I already have the extra speakers, and the ceiling has been pre-wired for two more ceiling speakers. I'm guessing the new speakers will be top middle top rear. The top front will be silent until I am able to afford a receiver or pre-pro that will handle six ceiling speakers. I actually have enough speakers and amps to run an eight ceiling speaker system.
> 
> So what do you think of my ramblings?
Click to expand...

What kind of speakers are those white speakers? I just showed my wife and got her "blessings " on putting those on my ceilings! You know,white without having to damage the ceiling much. I'm sure they will sound better than my onkyo up firing speakers. How do they sound too?


----------



## Soupy1970

missyman said:


> What kind of speakers are those white speakers? I just showed my wife and got her "blessings " on putting those on my ceilings! You know,white without having to damage the ceiling much. I'm sure they will sound better than my onkyo up firing speakers. How do they sound too?


Alanlee, can confirm, but they look like Klipsch AW-650, or AW525. I had a set and they sound great, unfortunately I felt my 7.5 foot ceiling was to low for the hanging speaker so they went back. http://www.klipsch.com/products/outdoor-speakers#aw-650


----------



## mp5475

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any particular reason why you don't want to or cannot use four overheads? As mentioned before, if you're not as enamored with the rear speakers, but want wides and four overheads, certain Denon and Marantz products will allow for this 7.1.4 configuration.


Hi. I have been out of it for a while, but I didn't realize you can do this. I just checked my Denon 5200 but didn't see how I can run 7.2.4 and wides instead of backs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mp5475 said:


> Hi. I have been out of it for a while, but I didn't realize you can do this. I just checked my Denon 5200 but didn't see how I can run 7.2.4 and wides instead of backs.


Hmmm... I wonder if you have to use the FW pre-amp outs along with the height 2 pre-amp outs? 

Looking through the manual, it doesn't seem to list that particular configuration. Perhaps it was not a feature of the 5200 being a 2014 model.


----------



## mp5475

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hmmm... I wonder if you have to use the FW pre-amp outs along with the height 2 pre-amp outs?
> 
> Looking through the manual, it doesn't seem to list that particular configuration. Perhaps it was not a feature of the 5200 being a 2014 model.


Must not be. Which model does this?


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> Hi. I have been out of it for a while, but I didn't realize you can do this. I just checked my Denon 5200 but didn't see how I can run 7.2.4 and wides instead of backs.


Yup. Possible.

*Amp Assign*: 11.1
*Height Speakers*: 4 Height Speakers
*Height Layout*: TF + TR 
*Wide/HT 2*: Top Rear
*Pre-out*: Front Wide


----------



## mp5475

jdsmoothie said:


> Yup. Possible.
> 
> *Amp Assign*: 11.1
> *Height Speakers*: 4 Height Speakers
> *Height Layout*: TF + TR
> *Wide/HT 2*: Top Rear
> *Pre-out*: Front Wide


Thanks ! So do I need to disconnect the back speakers?


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> Thanks ! So do I need to disconnect the back speakers?


Nope. The AVR can EQ up to 13 speakers, however, can operate only 11 at one time depending on the surround mode selected. You would simply deselect the Surround Back if you want the Front Wide to be active when playing an Atmos BD. However, as the Dolby Surround upmixer cannot simulate to Front Wide speakers, no setting change is required when not playing an Atmos BD, as the AVR will simulate to the SB instead of the Front Wide.


----------



## mp5475

jdsmoothie said:


> Nope. The AVR can EQ up to 13 speakers, however, can operate only 11 at one time depending on the surround mode selected. You would simply deselect the Surround Back if you want the Front Wide to be active when playing an Atmos BD. However, as the Dolby Surround upmixer cannot simulate to Front Wide speakers, no setting change is required when not playing an Atmos BD, as the AVR will simulate to the SB instead of the Front Wide.


Ok. I remember now. The Dolby surround doesn't use wides. That is why I didn't do it the first time around. Any news when receivers will be able to do 13.2.4?


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> Ok. I remember now. The Dolby surround doesn't use wides. That is why I didn't do it the first time around. Any news when receivers will be able to do 13.2.4?


2020 perhaps.


----------



## mp5475

jdsmoothie said:


> 2020 perhaps.


:crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:


----------



## mp5475

jdsmoothie said:


> Nope. The AVR can EQ up to 13 speakers, however, can operate only 11 at one time depending on the surround mode selected. You would simply deselect the Surround Back if you want the Front Wide to be active when playing an Atmos BD. However, as the Dolby Surround upmixer cannot simulate to Front Wide speakers, no setting change is required when not playing an Atmos BD, as the AVR will simulate to the SB instead of the Front Wide.


How do I deselect the backs when playing atmos bluray?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mp5475 said:


> Must not be. Which model does this?


It's hard to find in the manuals. I do know for sure that the Marantz 7702 mk II pre-amp has this feature. I'm using it right now. Sounds like the 5200 can do it, thanks to the deep knowledge of JD.


----------



## ALtlOff

Sonimax said:


> Thank's. So there's no way to benefit from objects based audio without additional speakers?


Yes you can, objects can be placed anywhere in the 360° bubble, and in some soundtracks you will still benefit, but it is entirely up to the mixer and will be film dependant, some you will notice a difference, some you won't.
But of course to get the full effect you need some kind of overhead, height or upfiring speaker.


----------



## dschulz

ALtlOff said:


> Yes you can, objects can be placed anywhere in the 360° bubble, and in some soundtracks you will still benefit, but it is entirely up to the mixer and will be film dependant, some you will notice a difference, some you won't.
> But of course to get the full effect you need some kind of overhead, height or upfiring speaker.


Right, but an Atmos or DTS:X mix which has been packaged as a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream will play back the same in a 5.1 or 7.1 system irrespective of whether you have a newer AVR that supports Atmos or DTS:X. The additional creative possibilities are baked into the mix. You don't garner any advantage to having Atmos/DTS:X processing until you add the additional speakers.


----------



## dschulz

LNEWoLF said:


> Pioneer Elite SC-97 has an option to choose the rendering mode between either object or legacy.
> 
> I leave the rendering mode set to object for all 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1
> 
> The rendering mode option is available while using the Pioneer AV5 app.
> 
> Example a DTS Master HD 7.1 bluray.
> 
> I can listen to the DTS Master HD 7.1 in it's native audio. then choose the rendering mode between either object or legacy.
> 
> Or I can choose to use a DSP mode like Neo X. Then choose the rendering mode between either object or legacy.
> 
> Denon may have a similar setting or option.


This is confusing nomenclature. Is Pioneer referring to applying the DSU or Neural:X up-mixers as "object mode?"

An Atmos Blu-Ray played on a 7.1 system is just playing back in 7.1. Ditto for DTS:X. You can of course use DSU or Neural:X to upmix 2.0 or 5.1 content to 7.1.


----------



## ndabunka

Alanlee said:


> New topic - I have had my Atmos system for about five months now and I am reasonably happy with it. One area for improvment would be the volume of the ceiling speakers. Part of this issue is the volume level of the surrounds which are drowning out the ceiling and rear surrounds. I am working on finding a lower volume level for the surrounds. As one can see in the pix I have attached, I can't move them further away. I also replaced the Klipsch Academys (surround) in the pix with Klipsch Kg 1.5's (smaller).
> 
> In addition to configuring the surrounds, I am going to add two more ceiling speakers directly above the listening post. I already have the extra speakers, and the ceiling has been pre-wired for two more ceiling speakers. I'm guessing the new speakers will be top middle top rear. The top front will be silent until I am able to afford a receiver or pre-pro that will handle six ceiling speakers. I actually have enough speakers and amps to run an eight ceiling speaker system.
> 
> So what do you think of my ramblings?


Reminds me of Aladdin - BIG sound... itty, bitty space.
IMHO there is no point/benefit in adding ANY more ceiling mounted speakers to that set up.


----------



## Alanlee

missyman said:


> What kind of speakers are those white speakers? I just showed my wife and got her "blessings " on putting those on my ceilings! You know,white without having to damage the ceiling much. I'm sure they will sound better than my onkyo up firing speakers. How do they sound too?


Yeah - they are Klipsch SA-2 outdoor speakers. The present equivalent are 650's. Two of the SA-2's came used from Ebay. They sound good when testing Audyssey: not so good when listening to Dolby Atmos material. I think the problem lies with my configuration, not the speakers. I have used these speakers on my patio, and they fill the space very well.


----------



## Alanlee

ndabunka said:


> Reminds me of Aladdin - BIG sound... itty, bitty space.
> IMHO there is no point/benefit in adding ANY more ceiling mounted speakers to that set up.


Thanks for your imput

You are indeed correct - there is probably no rational need to add more ceiling speakers in a 14X20 space. Nevertheless, I operate under the assumption that a man can never have enough speakers (LOL). By the way - I am not always right. Ok Ok Ok - I am very seldom right.

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## ndabunka

Alanlee said:


> Thanks for your imput
> 
> You are indeed correct - there is probably no rational need to add more ceiling speakers in a 14X20 space. Nevertheless, I operate under the assumption that a man can never have enough speakers (LOL). By the way - I am not always right. Ok Ok Ok - I am very seldom right.
> 
> Regards
> Alanlee


LOL - In the picture I saw it looked like there were only a few feet between the speakers and the edges of the ceiling fan blades which is why I made that remark. It certainly didn't "look" to be anywhere near 14' or much less 20' wide. Looked more like about 8 feet from the front speakers to the rear which is what invoked my, admittedly poor, attempt at humor.


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> how do i deselect the backs when playing atmos bluray?



setup - speakers - manual setup - speaker config - surround back - none


----------



## Alanlee

ndabunka said:


> LOL - In the picture I saw it looked like there were only a few feet between the speakers and the edges of the ceiling fan blades which is why I made that remark. It certainly didn't "look" to be anywhere near 14' or much less 20' wide. Looked more like about 8 feet from the front speakers to the rear which is what invoked my, admittedly poor, attempt at humor.


You are not far off. It's about 12 feet from front high to rear high. No offense taken. I think you were giving me good advice. Humor is good. I appreciate the time you spent helping me solve a problem.


----------



## asarose247

@Alanlee

If you can, give SCATMOS extracted TM's a try, even if it seems "too close", it is nonetheless "more speakers"

this SCATMOS square is 7 feet, so yes, the TM's are only


----------



## Alanlee

asarose247 said:


> @*Alanlee*
> 
> If you can, give SCATMOS extracted TM's a try, even if it seems "too close", it is nonetheless "more speakers"
> 
> this SCATMOS square is 7 feet, so yes, the TM's are only


----------



## Alanlee

asarose247 said:


> @*Alanlee*
> 
> If you can, give SCATMOS extracted TM's a try, even if it seems "too close", it is nonetheless "more speakers"
> 
> this SCATMOS square is 7 feet, so yes, the TM's are only


----------



## Scott Simonian

Really would not suggest doing SCATMOS until you have completely figured out your 'conventional' 7.1.4 layout first.

After you've mastered that.... then maybe try SCATMOS.


----------



## asarose247

FTR: "clouds absorption factor wrt off axis/ceiling directed sound" 

this is simple room treatment principles applied to the speakers on the ceiling, first reflection points, that sort of HT work, for improved clarity

but as above, get ATMOS working first . . 

but room treatments are always an equal factor in the HT equation


----------



## mp5475

So DSU doesn't use wides. does the DTS:Neural X use wides so I can use 7.2.4 using wides instead of backs?


----------



## jdsmoothie

mp5475 said:


> So DSU doesn't use wides. does the DTS:Neural X use wides so I can use 7.2.4 using wides instead of backs?


Yes. 

That is what I use in my own setup in lieu of Surround Back speakers.


----------



## mp5475

jdsmoothie said:


> Yes.


Sweet! I will be in touch. I just stated to read DTS:X thread


----------



## WayneJoy

I'm finally getting into atmos by ordering a refurbished X3200W from Amazon. It should arrive on Wednesday.


----------



## kgveteran

Any body compare larger speakers to smaller for atmos. What bandwidth do they need to be ? As capable as the surrounds and rears, LCR ?


The SVS Prime satilites look pretty affordable and small enough.......


----------



## gene4ht

kgveteran said:


> Any body compare larger speakers to smaller for atmos. What bandwidth do they need to be ? As capable as the surrounds and rears, LCR ?
> 
> 
> The SVS Prime satilites look pretty affordable and small enough.......


Mark Henninger's review provides some perspective...

http://www.avsforum.com/svs-prime-5-1-4-atmos-speaker-system-review/


----------



## ALtlOff

kgveteran said:


> Any body compare larger speakers to smaller for atmos. What bandwidth do they need to be ? As capable as the surrounds and rears, LCR ?
> 
> 
> The SVS Prime satilites look pretty affordable and small enough.......


I can't help you with the Prime Sats, but I use a fairly large speaker and their was a noticeable difference when I was experimenting with matrixing my overheads and being forced to use a 110hz crossover. Did not like it near as much.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kgveteran said:


> Any body compare larger speakers to smaller for atmos. What bandwidth do they need to be ? As capable as the surrounds and rears, LCR ?
> 
> 
> The SVS Prime satilites look pretty affordable and small enough.......


Yes. They should be just as capable as any other speaker in the surround sound system.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ALtlOff said:


> I can't help you with the Prime Sats, but I use a fairly large speaker and their was a noticeable difference when I was experimenting with matrixing my overheads and being forced to use a 110hz crossover. Did not like it near as much.


How low do the surround and overhead speakers need to go / what minimum crossover point is needed to still being audibly preferred above proper bass management: -3dB at 20, 40, 60 / cross-over at respectively 60, 80, 100 Hz?

In their Atmos Cinema Guidelines, Dolby mentions 100 Hz under which bass from left and right surrounds and overheads should be directed to subs located left and right in back third of the auditorium.


----------



## batpig

kgveteran said:


> Any body compare larger speakers to smaller for atmos. What bandwidth do they need to be ? As capable as the surrounds and rears, LCR ?
> 
> The SVS Prime satilites look pretty affordable and small enough.......





Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. They should be just as capable as any other speaker in the surround sound system.


Scott's point is important -- you have to consider context in the equation. With immersive audio full range sounds can go anywhere in the room, so your height speakers should be approximately as capable as your surround speakers if you want consistent performance.

So if you have a living room setup with smaller satellites and are happy with the sound, then smaller satellites will be an effective pairing for the overhead speakers. If you have a large dedicated HT with 12" woofers in your front speakers and 8" woofers in the surrounds and your expectation/goal is clean performance at reference level, then small satellites will not be a good idea. 

Now, bass management exists, and in general overhead speakers get less content than the ear level layer, so if you're going to skimp somewhere (due to budget or other constraints) then, yeah, you can get away with a lesser speaker up there. But in a perfect world you'd match them up in terms of capability to your surrounds. And the overhead speakers should at least be able to play cleanly to the levels you desire with what they are tasked to handle above the xover.


----------



## tezster

Does anyone foresee a price reduction in 9-channel, Atmos-capable receivers? The marked increase in price going from a 7-channel to a 9-channel AVR is my biggest roadblock upgrading to a 5.1.4 setup.


----------



## batpig

tezster said:


> Does anyone foresee a price reduction in 9-channel, Atmos-capable receivers? The marked increase in price going from a 7-channel to a 9-channel AVR is my biggest roadblock upgrading to a 5.1.4 setup.


IMO, your best value play is to snag a model from last year (e.g. Yamaha 2050, Denon X4200W, Marantz SR6010) when they start getting steep discounts as their replacements come out.

There is very little change between 2015 and 2016 models -- the 2015 models mentioned above all have 9ch capability, DTS:X + Atmos, and HDCP 2.2 / HDMI 2.0a support for 4K/UHD. 

Last year was a different story as you had to sacrifice HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X if you took the cheap route and went with the 2014 model. But the major feature evolution has already happened, so that puts you in a good place to snag the outgoing model at a discount. I'd be willing to bet you can find one of the three models I mentioned above for a great price ($600-800) if you are a smart shopper and monitor the landscape in the coming months.


----------



## asarose247

if it works

A Grimani T.H.E. vid from last year wrt challenges of optimizing your never perfect room, etc. 

very interesting


----------



## ALtlOff

maikeldepotter said:


> How low do the surround and overhead speakers need to go / what minimum crossover point is needed to still being audibly preferred above proper bass management: -3dB at 20, 40, 60 / cross-over at respectively 60, 80, 100 Hz?
> 
> In their Atmos Cinema Guidelines, Dolby mentions 100 Hz under which bass from left and right surrounds and overheads should be directed to subs located left and right in back third of the auditorium.


 @batpig 's post right after yours is an exceptional one, and makes for a good rule-of-thumb.
The most favorable results have been to test them as you would any other surround speaker.


----------



## Alanlee

asarose247 said:


> @*Alanlee*
> 
> If you can, give SCATMOS extracted TM's a try, even if it seems "too close", it is nonetheless "more speakers"
> 
> this SCATMOS square is 7 feet, so yes, the TM's are only


----------



## asarose247

those tiles are clouds 40 sq ft , 5" thick, 2" 703 and 3" of roxul on top, covered in an AT materiel for fiber control
I can post more pictures if you like, it's all my own "brain storm', I tried for about one sheet of 703 for each speaker this is what worked out for the space I have

originally Sanjay suggested maybe 16 sq ft of clouds but then Scott birthed "Scatmos" and my on ceiling speaker trestle system started whispering to me . . . "what if . . .?"

and it all went "downhill" from there, 
as many here at AVS will attest, more is better . . . YMMV
as Scott posted earlier, let XT32 do it's thing, then get into the OSD for the 2 extra AVR's and tweak away 
my 2 are on a smart strip, makes for simplicity once you make your adjustments
2 months ago @sdurani visited to check it out,
the dolby demo disc pinged all 6 tops

DSU mostly and the clarity is great.

what else would you like to know?


----------



## asarose247

When I saw that diagram I managed to lock onto in post 40760, and all that reflected sound, not all of which has the same acoustic power,
I had to laugh,

room treatments
I've built over 150 sq ft of varying types in the last 6-8 months

it is the most labor intensive DIY part of HT, especially for fitting good stuff into your space, so it's somewhat standard but then there is the custom fit problem
I don't have a WAF
so whatever I can dream up from the info can get done and implemented

but that picture is priceless, the green is direct sound, all the rest, red, reflected and it's only shown for 1 speaker

now draw that out for all of your speakers . . . chaos . .


----------



## vantage78

Hi all. Shooting for a 7.2.4 setup. I will have 23'x14' room. How far away from the side walls should the overhead Atmos speakers be? I have currently drafted my Atmos setup at 1.75' from the side walls, with the speakers forming a 45 degree (front) and 135 degree (rear) setup from the MLP.


----------



## sdurani

asarose247 said:


> 2 months ago @*sdurani* visited to check it out, the dolby demo disc pinged all 6 tops


Indeed, even though matrix extraction was being used, the 9.1.6 test tone track on the Atmos demo disc lit up each overhead speaker with no leakage audible from any other speaker. For all intents and purposes, it sounded like x.x.6 native Atmos decoding.


----------



## Alanlee

asarose247 said:


> those tiles are clouds 40 sq ft , 5" thick, 2" 703 and 3" of roxul on top, covered in an AT materiel for fiber control
> I can post more pictures if you like, it's all my own "brain storm', I tried for about one sheet of 703 for each speaker this is what worked out for the space I have
> 
> originally Sanjay suggested maybe 16 sq ft of clouds but then Scott birthed "Scatmos" and my on ceiling speaker trestle system started whispering to me . . . "what if . . .?"
> 
> and it all went "downhill" from there,
> as many here at AVS will attest, more is better . . . YMMV
> as Scott posted earlier, let XT32 do it's thing, then get into the OSD for the 2 extra AVR's and tweak away
> my 2 are on a smart strip, makes for simplicity once you make your adjustments
> 2 months ago @*sdurani* visited to check it out,
> the dolby demo disc pinged all 6 tops
> 
> DSU mostly and the clarity is great.
> 
> what else would you like to know?


Let's concentrate on the ceiling tiles. Yes I would appreciate more and bigger pix. If there is somewhere you have already posted the pix, give me a link please. I fund the roxul online. I have laid a lot of floor tile at my home. I guess I would have to develop a Michelangelo/Sistene Chapel state of mind. I have moved my front surround speakers as Scott suggested. The rear surrounds are going to be a little work, since the shelves for them are screwed in the wall; in addition, I cut holes in the sheet rock to hide the wires , so I will have to cover up holes as I go (must keep the wife happy).


----------



## asarose247

@Alanlee

I pm'd you wrt D: All of the above.

some here may know of a better ceiling cloud suspension system that doesn't involve a full sized industrial scale adult erector set, 

but It was a lot of fun wrt being a good puzzle wrapped a unique opportunity


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Indeed, even though matrix extraction was being used, the 9.1.6 test tone track on the Atmos demo disc lit up each overhead speaker with no leakage audible from any other speaker. For all intents and purposes, it sounded like x.x.6 native Atmos decoding.


Sure does.


----------



## asarose247

^ 

can Y'all give the brotha a AMEN ?


----------



## AllenA07

kgveteran said:


> Any body compare larger speakers to smaller for atmos. What bandwidth do they need to be ? As capable as the surrounds and rears, LCR ?
> 
> 
> The SVS Prime satilites look pretty affordable and small enough.......


I have ceiling mounted SVS Prime Satellites as my rear surrounds and Atmos speakers. I have SVS Prime Bookshelf speakers as my side satellites, and the EMP Impression towers (and center) in the front. I've been happy with the Prime Satellites on the ceiling, they were fairly simple to mount (some minor cursing may have taken place) and in generally are very impressive speakers for their size. Having gone and demo'd several in ceiling speakers, I always liked the sound better on the Satellites, plus that made the entire project much easier. While I'm not 100% sold on timbre matching the entire system (though I see more reason to do it with Atmos then without) at a minimum your surrounds should all be similar.


----------



## ALtlOff

vantage78 said:


> Hi all. Shooting for a 7.2.4 setup. I will have 23'x14' room. How far away from the side walls should the overhead Atmos speakers be? I have currently drafted my Atmos setup at 1.75' from the side walls, with the speakers forming a 45 degree (front) and 135 degree (rear) setup from the MLP.


There is no set distance from the side walls, overhead speakers should be in line with your Fronts.

Ideally in a 7.x.x system, you should be able to draw imaginary parallel lines from your Fronts - over your head - to your Rears, place your overheads on that line at the appropriate angle from the MLP.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ALtlOff said:


> @batpig 's post right after yours is an exceptional one, and makes for a good rule-of-thumb.
> The most favorable results have been to test them as you would any other surround speaker.


I am 100% with you and @baptig on the importance/benefits of matching surrounds and overheads (you could even include LCR for that matter, leading to a slighty different discussion, but still...). But my question here was about how low the bass extension of those surrounds/overheads should be to still produce audible improvements over proper bass management of those lower frequencies.


----------



## Lesmor

maikeldepotter said:


> I am 100% with you and @baptig on the importance/benefits of matching surrounds and overheads (you could even include LCR for that matter, leading to a slighty different discussion, but still...). But my question here was about how low the bass extension of those surrounds/overheads should be to still produce audible improvements over proper bass management of those lower frequencies.


If I remember correctly it was suggested that ceiling speakers should be good down to 60Hz


----------



## Mattcc22

My living room is my main system. Approx dims are 20x18. Ceilings are 21ft high. Has anyone tried putting Atmos speakers up that high in a room this size and shape? I would assume being that far away I could get away with only using two speakers and I don't see 4 being any better.


----------



## vantage78

ALtlOff said:


> There is no set distance from the side walls, overhead speakers should be in line with your Fronts.
> 
> Ideally in a 7.x.x system, you should be able to draw imaginary parallel lines from your Fronts - over your head - to your Rears, place your overheads on that line at the appropriate angle from the MLP.


Cheers. I designed it similar to your recommendation; Atmos speakers in line from the Fronts to Rears, equidistant from the MLP for a 45 degree (front overhead) and 135 degree (rear overhead) placement.

What about if you have 2 row seating with the MLP in the front row? Better to setup for the MLP than compromise?


----------



## sdurani

Mattcc22 said:


> Ceilings are 21ft high. Has anyone tried putting Atmos speakers up that high in a room this size and shape? I would assume being that far away I could get away with only using two speakers and I don't see 4 being any better.


4 speakers will allow sounds to pan from left to right AND front to back above you. 2 speakers can pan the sound left to right, but how will they replicate movement from front to back above you?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Could be done semi-effectively using both ground level and a single pair of stereo overheads.


----------



## ALtlOff

maikeldepotter said:


> I am 100% with you and @baptig on the importance/benefits of matching surrounds and overheads (you could even include LCR for that matter, leading to a slighty different discussion, but still...). But my question here was about how low the bass extension of those surrounds/overheads should be to still produce audible improvements over proper bass management of those lower frequencies.


My comment was meant to include frequency handling as well.
Since ideal matching is to promote peak performance, and overhead signals cover the exact frequency range as all the other channels, an exact or closely matching speaker will have the same or very similar roll-off characteristics when crossed over, which in turn will create the optimal level in sound cohesion between the layers.


----------



## ALtlOff

vantage78 said:


> Cheers. I designed it similar to your recommendation; Atmos speakers in line from the Fronts to Rears, equidistant from the MLP for a 45 degree (front overhead) and 135 degree (rear overhead) placement.
> 
> What about if you have 2 row seating with the MLP in the front row? Better to setup for the MLP than compromise?


Basically, always consider your angles and locations for your MLP, you can tweak the angles to include multiple rows of seating, but you don't want to compromise too much. Remember, speaker locations are to help the renderer to place and steer sound to its desired location in the room using multiple speakers at the same time, not about hearing sound coming from a specific speaker.


----------



## AlexBen

*Are there processors that allow this option?*

I'm designing a room that will have two rows of seating. For the most part it seems ATMOS installs are at most .4 other than Trinnov and possibly some other very expensive routes.

So, given that 90% use will be front row seats only, but occasionally I'd like to still provide a good ATMOS experience to the back row, I had in mind to install 6 pair of speakers in ceiling, middle pair centered between rows, and front and rear pair more or less equally in front and behind the rows of seats.

The idea would be to always use the front pair of speakers, use the middle to flesh out 4 if only front row is eating in play, and instead use the rear row speakers if both rows of seats were in play.

The question is, are there SS processors that can store 2 Audessey maps, one for each of these two configurations?

Wouldn't this be a creative way to get ATMOS .4 optimized for 1 vs 2 row seating?

I know I would need some switching of amp outputs or extra amps and line level switching... But you get the idea...

Alex Lipowich


----------



## Soupy1970

AlexBen said:


> I'm designing a room that will have two rows of seating. For the most part it seems ATMOS installs are at most .4 other than Trinnov and possibly some other very expensive routes.
> 
> So, given that 90% use will be front row seats only, but occasionally I'd like to still provide a good ATMOS experience to the back row, I had in mind to install 6 pair of speakers in ceiling, middle pair centered between rows, and front and rear pair more or less equally in front and behind the rows of seats.
> 
> The idea would be to always use the front pair of speakers, use the middle to flesh out 4 if only front row is eating in play, and instead use the rear row speakers if both rows of seats were in play.
> 
> The question is, are there SS processors that can store 2 Audessey maps, one for each of these two configurations?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't this be a creative way to get ATMOS .4 optimized for 1 vs 2 row seating?
> 
> I know I would need some switching of amp outputs or extra amps and line level switching... But you get the idea...
> 
> Alex Lipowich


You might be able to use back up files of Audyssey to switch between configurations. Save one for each config, then swap between them. It wouldn't be on the fly, but it would get you there if you didn't need to change often.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ALtlOff said:


> My comment was meant to include frequency handling as well.
> Since ideal matching is to promote peak performance, and overhead signals cover *the exact frequency range* as all the other channels, an exact or closely matching speaker will have the same or very *similar roll-off characteristics* when crossed over, which in turn will create the optimal level in sound cohesion between the layers.


Yes, and what would in your opinion be this same ideal frequency range / roll-off characteristic? How low should all speakers be able to go to still make an actual audible difference in the overall sound presentation: 40, 60, 80, 100 Hz? I am asking since it seems that you and others have experienced that (close to) 100 Hz (which BTW is the value Dolby mentions in their Atmos Cinema guidelines) is actually too high to be (sonically) optimal for our home theaters?


----------



## ALtlOff

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, and what would in your opinion be this same ideal frequency range / roll-off characteristic? How low should all speakers be able to go to still make an actual audible difference in the overall sound presentation: 40, 60, 80, 100 Hz? I am asking since it seems that you and others have experienced that (close to) 100 Hz (which BTW is the value Dolby mentions in their Atmos Cinema guidelines) is actually too high to be (sonically) optimal for our home theaters?


I'll agree with one of the above posts, a speaker that could play clean down to 60hz would be a good choice. That way you'll have a good coverage to the standard 80hz crossover with a little room to spare before the speaker naturally starts to roll off on its own.


----------



## CBdicX

*How is this done by Dolby ?*

When i set my receiver to Stereo (2.x.0) and run a Atmos movie or Atmos test files, i get a "normal" amount of bass.
But when i activate the Height speakers (2.x.2) even i do not have them now, i get like twice the bass amount.
So what is Dolby doing when i activate Height speakers to the bass (amount).

Is it doing stuff like Audyssey Dynamic EQ or Loudness ?
And why only when i activate the Height speakers ?


----------



## maikeldepotter

ALtlOff said:


> I'll agree with one of the above posts, a speaker that could play clean down to 60hz would be a good choice. That way you'll have a good coverage to the standard 80hz crossover with a little room to spare before the speaker naturally starts to roll off on its own.


This crossover of 80 Hz is a kind of pre-ATMOS standard as far as surrounds are concerned. 

ATMOS assumes full-range side/rear/top surrounds which means 40-16k Hz, +3/-6dB. For less capable surround speakers (Frequency Response +/-3dB however not lower than 90 Hz) bass management is allowed for a crossover frequency not higher than 100 Hz, and only in combination with special surround subwoofers. Those surround subwoofers (minimum of two, FR: 40-120 Hz +3/-6dB) are an addition to the screen subwoofer(s), and are positioned on the left and right side walls (back 1/3 of the room) reproducing the low frequencies of surrounds on the same side.

Since in our homes we cannot easily individually feed such left and right positioned surround subwoofers (not even with the versatile Trinnov Altitude!), the -6 dB point of our surrounds and overheads should not be lower than 40 Hz. That is of course, if you wish to fully comply to the Dolby Atmos Specifications _(EDIT: Specified for commercial cinema that is. AFAIK, for home theater there are no guidelines/recommendations on this subject published by Dolby)_

This comes surprisingly close to the recommendation derived from listening experiments by members of this forum to have surrounds/overheads that can play clean down to 60 Hz.


----------



## ndabunka

maikeldepotter said:


> ATMOS assumes full-range side/rear/top surrounds which means 40-16k Hz, +3/-6dB...Since in our homes we cannot easily individually feed left and right positioned surround subwoofers ... the -6 dB point of our surrounds and overheads should not be lower than 40 Hz. That is of course, if you wish to fully comply to the Dolby Atmos Specifications.


Good information in your post so thanks for that in advacne. I am seeking a bit of clairifcation to the portion of your above reply that appears applicable to my concerns. I am upfitting an exiting 7.1 and planning on deploying surrounds and rears that have 49Hz-28kHz. As I was considering saving $ on the rears, a salesperson was trying to tell me that the rears were only used for background in an ATMOS & that a shorter range speaker would be fine.

I specifically stated that I thought that was different in ATMOS and it appears that you are confiming my concerns so as I might loose some of the coverage with 60Hz rears or am I "spliting hairs" at those points?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ndabunka said:


> Good information in your post so thanks for that in advance. I am seeking a bit of clairifcation to the portion of your above reply that appears applicable to my concerns. I am upfitting an exiting 7.1 and planning on deploying surrounds and rears that have 49Hz-28kHz. As I was considering saving $ on the rears, a salesperson was trying to tell me that the rears were only used for background in an ATMOS so I might as well go with higher Hz rears. I specifically stated that I thought that was different in ATMOS and it appears that you are confirming my concerns so down to 49 (B&W7.5s) should then be fine but if I went to the CWM652 (54Hz) I might loose some of the coverage in the rears or am I "splitting hairs" at those points?



The greater the usable bass response for the surround speakers, the better, especially now with Atmos.


----------



## asarose247

^^^^
FTR in my set-up

XT32 sets the "small" mains, Fusion 15's , the surrounds, F4Q4's and RS, Klipsch F-3 Towers, also small, all xo'd @ 40,
the C, an 88 special is 100, IIRC.

discussions like the above are great reading


----------



## sdurani

ndabunka said:


> As I was considering saving $ on the rears, a salesperson was trying to tell me that the rears were only used for background in an ATMOS & that a shorter range speaker would be fine.


That's never ever been the case, even in the pre-Atmos days of 7.1-channel soundtracks. The rears, like all other channels, have always been full range and can contain any content (including dialogue, like in the movie Gravity). The only thing that has changed with Atmos is the addition of audio objects and overhead speakers.


----------



## ndabunka

sdurani said:


> That's never ever been the case, even in the pre-Atmos days of 7.1-channel soundtracks. The rears, like all other channels, have always been full range and can contain any content (including dialogue, like in the movie Gravity). The only thing that has changed with Atmos is the addition of audio objects and overhead speakers.


Thanks to all for the replies. The Speakercraft MT One's that I have been using as sides and rears, although cheap, do extend to 50Hz so almost down to the recommended range & that has been good enough for us (to this point).

This existing range paired well with the B&W CWM7.5's (49Hz-28kHz) but @ a $600each retail price point putting in four of those would be a $2,400 retail whereas four CWM652's are $1,100.

The salesman was actually an owner of a high end integrator so perhaps he was trying to leverage stetchy/bad info in an effort to retain a sale?

Note - I will have inwall Sig 7's in the fronts and CCM65's in the ceiling in this final ATMOS design.


----------



## dschulz

maikeldepotter said:


> This crossover of 80 Hz is a kind of pre-ATMOS standard as far as surrounds are concerned.
> 
> ATMOS assumes full-range side/rear/top surrounds which means 40-16k Hz, +3/-6dB. For less capable surround speakers (Frequency Response +/-3dB however not lower than 90 Hz) bass management is allowed for a crossover frequency not higher than 100 Hz, and only in combination with special surround subwoofers. Those surround subwoofers (minimum of two, FR: 40-120 Hz +3/-6dB) are an addition to the screen subwoofer(s), and are positioned on the left and right side walls (back 1/3 of the room) reproducing the low frequencies of surrounds on the same side.


You are conflating the theatrical Atmos specifications with the home theater version. Home theaters have been using bass management, for both the front mains and the surrounds, since forever. The addition of bass-managed surrounds in theatrical Atmos is a welcome development, since mixers can now mix full-range to the surrounds, whereas in the past they tended not to dip too low - since cinemas lacked bass management, and surround arrays tended to use not-full-range speakers.

I agree with you, though, that the general guideline should be to use speakers for both surrounds and ceilings that are as large and dig deep as is practical, and then set your crossovers accordingly. I think the 80Hz guideline is still a really good place to start.


----------



## Josh Z

AlexBen said:


> I'm designing a room that will have two rows of seating. For the most part it seems ATMOS installs are at most .4 other than Trinnov and possibly some other very expensive routes.
> 
> So, given that 90% use will be front row seats only, but occasionally I'd like to still provide a good ATMOS experience to the back row, I had in mind to install 6 pair of speakers in ceiling, middle pair centered between rows, and front and rear pair more or less equally in front and behind the rows of seats.
> 
> The idea would be to always use the front pair of speakers, use the middle to flesh out 4 if only front row is eating in play, and instead use the rear row speakers if both rows of seats were in play.
> 
> The question is, are there SS processors that can store 2 Audessey maps, one for each of these two configurations?
> 
> Wouldn't this be a creative way to get ATMOS .4 optimized for 1 vs 2 row seating?
> 
> I know I would need some switching of amp outputs or extra amps and line level switching... But you get the idea...


This seems needlessly complicated. Consider instead wiring your middle pair of speakers together with the rear pair to clone the same signal. This will make the "Top Rear" audio signal more disperse to cover both your front row and back row of seats without having to change any settings.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> You are conflating the theatrical Atmos specifications with the home theater version.


What I meant to do - and could have been more clear on_ (edited my post)_ - is translating theatrical specifications into recommendations for the home, since Dolby's Atmos Home Theater Guidelines do not provide any such information.



> I think the 80Hz guideline is still a really good place to start.


Agreed. And 40Hz is a really good place to stop.


----------



## ALtlOff

maikeldepotter said:


> Agreed. And 40Hz is a really good place to stop.


That's actually close to where mine are, but I tend to have to tailor many of my thoughts to account for the idea that most people can't go to the lengths that I have. Plus I'm stubborn....lol, and still have my own system set to old school thoughts and tech, which isn't the "most accurate" way of doing things..... I still do my setups manually, and still prefer the sound of Full Range, since I have the speakers for it, take my heights, they'll play clean down to 35hz and while I've tried many crossover settings for them I simply prefer them set as large and letting the speakers natural roll-off do the job, not the right way, but what I prefer.


----------



## maikeldepotter

I do not know about all legacy content, but an Atmos track mixed by a re-recording engineer who followed Dolby's specs will never send frequencies below 40 Hz to your surrounds or overheads. So if they go down to that level, setting them as large and staying away from bass management ís the right way to do.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> What I meant to do - and could have been more clear on_ (edited my post)_ - is translating theatrical specifications into recommendations for the home, since Dolby's Atmos Home Theater Guidelines do not provide any such information.


The reason they don't provide any such information is because bass management in consumer gear hasn't changed since the introduction of Atmos. Sounds below the crossover point are still re-routed to the subwoofer output. 

For the theatrical version of Atmos, L/C/R/LFE remain without bass management. No change there. Bass management was introduced only for the surround field, where sounds below the crossover point for the sides/rears/tops in each half of the auditorium are sent to their respective subwoofer.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> The reason they don't provide any such information is because bass management in consumer gear hasn't changed since the introduction of Atmos. Sounds below the crossover point are still re-routed to the subwoofer output.
> 
> For the theatrical version of Atmos, L/C/R/LFE remain without bass management. No change there. Bass management was introduced only for the surround field, where sounds below the crossover point for the sides/rears/tops in each half of the auditorium are sent to their respective subwoofer.


Yes, Atmos introduced bass management for surrounds into the commercial theaters, something we already had in our homes. But with that came a feature consumer gear does not support: directing sounds below the crossover point (say around 80Hz) to the corresponding left or right side of the room. 

Is this something the average ATMOS equipped consumer should be concerned about? No, of course not. Just consider this discussion as hair splitting, and stick to the recommendation to aim at a 80 Hz crossover. You will be more than OK.

Is it relevant for those who are willing to go through lengths to come as close as possible to the intended sound effects and sense of immersion? IMHO: Absolutely! Since especially for larger rooms, keeping those lower frequencies at their intended side of the room (just like in the cinema) will most likely noticeably improve the sound field and sense of immersion. 

I can think of two ways to achieve this: 
1. Finding a way to implement the cinematic left/right type of bass management. This you might expect being a feature of an ultra high-end processor like the Trinnov Altitude (not yet implemented however);
2. Applying surround/overhead speakers with enough bass extension (say at least -3dB point around 50 Hz) to (either largely or completely) exclude them from bass management. This is only feasible in rooms large and high enough to accommodate such full-range surrounds and overheads.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> But with that came a feature consumer gear does not support: directing sounds below the crossover point (say around 80Hz) to the corresponding left or right side of the room.


That's true, though there have been occasional AVRs and pre-pros over the years that did left/right stereo bass (sometimes even front/back separated bass).


> Since especially for larger rooms, keeping those lower frequencies at their intended side of the room (just like in the cinema) will most likely noticeably improve the sound field and sense of immersion.


I'm not as convinced as you that listeners can reliably detect left-vs-right directionality at 80Hz and below. This might be one aspect of theatrical Atmos that would be pointless to reproduce at home if the effect was inaudible.


----------



## ndabunka

Needing this groups guidance on my re-design from 7.1 to as much as a 9.1.2 Atmos system.

In my original 7.1 design done some 12 years ago I placed all six in-wall speakers at the same 60" height that was the recommendations at that time for our nine foot tall HT walls. I have already lowered the front speakers in my re-design to the Atmos recommended "sitting ear height" which in my room is right at 36".

The Dolby Atmos site states...
"You'll get the best sound when the front and surround speakers are at or slightly above your ear level when you're seated. Wall-mounted surrounds can be higher, but no speakers—especially Dolby Atmos enabled modules—should be higher than half the height of your wall"

Ideally, I would like to re-use the existing surround & rear speaker locations for Atmos. This plan appears, on the surface to be on the "edge" of meeting the above guidance as the sides and rears will be essentially slightly over the 50% wall height 108/2 = 54 vs 60). As you can see, I am will be using in-ceiling dot 2's so there is no concern of needing any "dolby-enabled modules"/upwardly-firing speaker in this design. Is this viable or is it folly? Note that I am good with 75% viable.

To complicate things, I had to literally "flip" the room around in the process (long story not worthy of repeating here). The singular benefit in that "flipping" is that the prior sides that were EXACTLY 90-degrees from the seating position are now aligned where I would need speakers for the front-sides of a 9.1.2 system so if they can be left there, then 50% of my potential work is already done as only the in-ceiling speakers would then need to be added. Remember, the TOP of my front three inwall speakers are now 36" from the floor on a 108" tall wall and this would put the six other in-wall speakers at about slightly over twice as high on the sides and rear walls


----------



## Soupy1970

ndabunka said:


> Needing this groups guidance on my re-design from 7.1 to as much as a 9.1.2 Atmos system.
> 
> In my original 7.1 design done some 12 years ago I placed all six in-wall speakers at the same 60" height that was the recommendations at that time for our nine foot tall HT walls. I have already lowered the front speakers in my re-design to the Atmos recommended "sitting ear height" which in my room is right at 36".
> 
> The Dolby Atmost site states...
> "You'll get the best sound when the front and surround speakers are at or slightly above your ear level when you're seated. Wall-mounted surrounds can be higher, but no speakers—especially Dolby Atmos enabled modules—should be higher than half the height of your wall"
> 
> Ideally, I would like to re-use the existing surround & rear speaker locations for Atmos. This plan appears, on the surface to be on the "edge" of meeting the above guidance as the sides and rears will be essentially slightly over the 50% wall height 108/2 = 54 vs 60). As you can see, I am will be using in-ceiling dot 2's so there is no concern of needing any "dolby-enabled modules"/upwardly-firing speaker in this design. Is this viable or is it folly? Note that I am good with 75% viable.
> 
> To complicate things, I had to literally "flip" the room around in the process (long story not worthy of repeating here). The singular benefit in that "flipping" is that the prior sides that were EXACTLY 90-degrees from the seating position are now aligned where I would need speakers for the front-sides of a 9.1.2 system so if they can be left there, then 50% of my potential work is already done as only the in-ceiling speakers would then need to be added. Remember, the TOP of my front three inwall speakers are now 36" from the floor on a 108" tall wall and this would put the six other in-wall speakers at about slightly over twice as high on the sides and rear walls


Best you can do is try it as is and see if it works. I suspect you will end up lowering them though. You should be measuring the height to the tweeter, not the bottom of the speaker.


----------



## ndabunka

Soupy1970 said:


> Best you can do is try it as is and see if it works. I suspect you will end up lowering them though. You should be measuring the height to the tweeter, not the bottom of the speaker.


The reason I am asking now is because these are all in-wall speakers. I am replacing some older, cheaper speakercraft inwalls with better performing, modern B&W in-walls and am in the stages of re-painting the room. If this won't work for a technical reason like "terrible design, don't do it bud" kinda thing, then I'll patch the existing holes, re-mud, sand, mud, sand again until super smooth so that you can't see the patchwork and then simply cut holes in the new locations*.

Note: The Speakercraft speakers were "flipped over" so the tweeter was essentially @ around 63" from the floor. The Speakercraft MT 6.1s also had the ability to "point" the tweeter downward which also may have helped that design. I have the space in the walls both above and below but not certain if I can invert the B&W CWM7.5's in that same fashion or if I would even want too... runs off to take more measurements

* I really, REALLY don't want to do any additional drywall work as I recently discovered while doing my front wall that can be a LOT of work to get it right. I burned up about a week and a half just for the front speakers and the in-wall cable runs that were needed there & it still doesn't look flawless (e.g. un-even areas stand out once painted dark. The wife thinks my prior drywall work is SO bad, that she has even agreed to spending unplanned $'s to add some type of acoustic wall treatments across the 14-foot wide, 9-foot tall front wall to totally cover it up. I did get better with a drywall project in the garage that you can hardly see but that was re-ppainted white so the flaws aren't as obvious as they would be in a charcoal grey home theater room. Such wall treatments would not be viable down each of the 19-foot side walls.


----------



## ndabunka

ndabunka said:


> ... runs off to take more measurements


I had never thought about inverting these particular B&W's as they are new and not designed to be inverted but the concept appears to be viable as there is plenty of space in the wall above the speakers to hold the recommended optional resonance box. Doing so would place the tweeters at a 62.75" height. The tweeters on my original Signature 7's which are located at the top would be at 43.50" from the floor. Maybe more viable?


----------



## Selden Ball

ndabunka said:


> The reason I am asking now is because these are all in-wall speakers. I am replacing some older, cheaper speakercraft inwalls with better performing, modern B&W in-walls and am in the stages of re-painting the room. If this won't work for a technical reason like "terrible design, don't do it bud" kinda thing, then I'll patch the existing holes, re-mud, sand, mud, sand again until super smooth so that you can't see the patchwork and then simply cut holes in the new locations*.
> 
> Note: The Speakercraft speakers were "flipped over" so the tweeter was essentially @ around 63" from the floor. The Speakercraft MT 6.1s also had the ability to "point" the tweeter downward which also may have helped that design. I have the space in the walls both above and below but not certain if I can invert the B&W CWM7.5's in that same fashion or if I would even want too... runs off to take more measurements
> 
> * I really, REALLY don't want to do any additional drywall work as I recently discovered while doing my front wall that can be a LOT of work to get it right. I burned up about a week and a half just for the front speakers and the in-wall cable runs that were needed there & it still doesn't look flawless (e.g. un-even areas stand out once painted dark. The wife thinks my prior drywall work is SO bad, that she has even agreed to spending unplanned $'s to add some type of acoustic wall treatments across the 14-foot wide, 9-foot tall front wall to totally cover it up. I did get better with a drywall project in the garage that you can hardly see but that was re-ppainted white so the flaws aren't as obvious as they would be in a charcoal grey home theater room. Such wall treatments would not be viable down each of the 19-foot side walls.


As you've already mentioned, Dolby recommends that the side and rear surrounds be as low as possible, but high enough that they're not obstructed by people's heads, seating or the like. The modern immersive audio formats work best if you can maximize the difference in height between the "ear level" speakers and the overhead speakers. If you're stuck with your current holes-in-the-walls, though, then you're stuck with them. Reducing their apparent height by putting the tweeters at the bottom of the hole, as you've also mentioned, is one way to maximize the height difference.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> That's true, though there have been occasional AVRs and pre-pros over the years that did left/right stereo bass (sometimes even front/back separated bass).


I believe the current DataSat RS20i (and maybe also the LS10) also allows left and right bass management, but probably also limited to the front left and right (stereo) channels.



> I'm not as convinced as you that listeners can reliably detect left-vs-right directionality at 80Hz and below. This might be one aspect of theatrical Atmos that would be pointless to reproduce at home if the effect was inaudible.


I agree that inaudible equals pointless in this case. But I can't imagine that Dolby has enabled this feature for theatrical Atmos without a valid reason. And for the larger home cinemas approaching the smaller commercial auditoria (e.g 30' in length), I can't see why such reason would not equally apply. 

That is why IMO brands targeting this pro-user market (e.g.DataSat and Trinnov) should include such (relatively easy to implement) capability in their ultra high-end processors.


----------



## Dturner04

Has anyone tried mounting a couple pairs of the Klipsch RP atmos modules (or something similar) on side walls at ceiling height for atmos? I read an article from SVS about this and wondering if anyone had tried it. I was thinking about trying that instead of In ceiling speakers since mine is only about 8 feet


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I can't imagine that Dolby has enabled this feature for theatrical Atmos without a valid reason. And for the larger home cinemas approaching the smaller commercial auditoria (e.g 30' in length), I can't see why such reason would not equally apply.


In order for me to consider the stereo bass approach valid or invalid, I'd have to know the actual reason rather than simply accept it on faith, that too based on an appeal to authority (Dolby _must_ have had a good reason; after all, they're Dolby). Until then, I think a better use of multiple subs in a home theatre is to deploy them with small room acoustics in mind instead of following what Dolby did in commercial cinemas.


> That is why IMO brands targeting this pro-user market (e.g.DataSat and Trinnov) should include such (relatively easy to implement) capability in their ultra high-end processors.


No disagreement there: if the manufacturer can offer stereo bass capability, then no harm including it as an option.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> In order for me to consider the stereo bass approach valid or invalid, I'd have to know the actual reason rather than simply accept it on faith, that too based on an appeal to authority (Dolby _must_ have had a good reason; after all, they're Dolby). Until then, I think a better use of multiple subs in a home theatre is to deploy them with small room acoustics in mind instead of following what Dolby did in commercial cinemas.


I agree with your "until then" scenario as the most sensible approach for all our room sizes. With Dolby's actual reason undisclosed, even carrying out a verifying test will be premature in that sense.



> No disagreement there: if the manufacturer can offer stereo bass capability, then no harm including it as an option.


And make it easier to verify its possible effect in our rooms...


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> With Dolby's actual reason undisclosed...


I'm going to hazard a guess that those small subs I usually see in the back corners of local Atmos theatres are not so much subwoofers as they are the common woofers of the side, rear & top surrounds, allowing those small speakers to extend down to around 40Hz (like the L/C/R speakers). Sorta the way the passive bass module in a Bose system is the common woofer for all those tiny satellites rather than what we typically think of as a subwoofer. IF those woofers in Atmos theatres are being crossed over high enough (100Hz, 120Hz) to be localizable, then it makes sense to place each one in the same general direction as the sides, rears & tops that they are supporting.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The ones at the AMC Prime are definitely "subwoofers". At least in the context of cinema sound.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess that those small subs I usually see in the back corners of local Atmos theatres are not so much subwoofers as they are the common woofers of the side, rear & top surrounds, allowing those small speakers to extend down to around 40Hz (like the L/C/R speakers). Sorta the way the passive bass module in a Bose system is the common woofer for all those tiny satellites rather than what we typically think of as a subwoofer. IF those woofers in Atmos theatres are being crossed over high enough (100Hz, 120Hz) to be localizable, then it makes sense to place each one in the same general direction as the sides, rears & tops that they are supporting.


Exactly my thinking. Especially since those side-subs are allowed to have their low extension -6 dB point as high as 40 Hz, which assumes an even higher crossing-over frequency (e.g. 80 Hz) to the LFE channel applied at the mixing stage.


----------



## BigScreen

sdurani said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess that those small subs I usually see in the back corners of local Atmos theatres are not so much subwoofers as they are the common woofers of the side, rear & top surrounds, allowing those small speakers to extend down to around 40Hz (like the L/C/R speakers). Sorta the way the passive bass module in a Bose system is the common woofer for all those tiny satellites rather than what we typically think of as a subwoofer. IF those woofers in Atmos theatres are being crossed over high enough (100Hz, 120Hz) to be localizable, then it makes sense to place each one in the same general direction as the sides, rears & tops that they are supporting.


If a theater uses them, the surround subwoofers "must have a frequency response of 40–120 Hz, +3/–6 dB." In that situation, the surround speakers must still be able to extend down to 90 Hz (±3 dB) and then the crossover between them should be set appropriately. If not using bass management, the surround speakers must extend down to 40 Hz (+3/–6 dB).

So either way, the surrounds in a commercial Dolby Atmos installation will handle down to ~40 Hz.

I would say it would be very unlikely that the surround subwoofers would ever be outputting frequencies as high as 120 Hz.

_Source: Dolby ® Atmos ® Specifications Issue 2_


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> The ones at the AMC Prime are definitely "subwoofers". At least in the context of cinema sound.


They could play a double role: serving both as side subwoofers and also playing LFE content as part of a multi-sub config. Or only the latter, in case the surrounds and overheads reach down to 40 Hz.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> They could play a double role: serving both as side subwoofers and also playing LFE content as part of a multi-sub config.


L, C, R and LFE channels are each sent to a dedicated speaker behind the screen. No multi-sub config for the LFE channel.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> L, C, R and LFE channels are each sent to a dedicated speaker behind the screen. No multi-sub config for the LFE channel.


In cinemas there are often multiple subs used for LFE reproduction. You're right though, in that they are usually located behind the screen.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> In cinemas there are often multiple subs used for LFE reproduction. You're right though, in that they are usually located behind the screen.


I should have clarified that I was using the term multi-sub in the way we do for home theatre (spreading them around the room in an attempt to achieve specific acoustical results), not a LFE subwoofer made up of multiple drivers and/or cabinets.


----------



## ALtlOff

The last few posts are one of the reasons I have chosen to use the speakers I do and run them as Large, technically incorrect or not.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ALtlOff said:


> The last few posts are one of the reasons I have chosen to use the speakers I do and run them as Large, technically incorrect or not.


Following Dolby Atmos specs, any surround or overhead speaker speaker with a -6dB roll-off at 40 Hz (or better) qualifies as full range (Large), and consequently does not need to be bass managed. So your case: Technically fully correct!


----------



## maikeldepotter

BigScreen said:


> So either way, the surrounds in a commercial Dolby Atmos installation will handle down to ~40 Hz.


In terms of improving the sound, Dolby's introduction of left/right subwoofers seems rather pointless. 

Since with a 'bass managed' high pass of 100Hz max, and a 'mixed to LFE' low pass probably around 80 Hz, it seems unlikely that the addition of those L/R subwoofers to help smaller surrounds to become 'full-range', will make an audible difference compared to just using the existing sub(s) behind the screen for this task.

There must be another reason ...


----------



## ndabunka

maikeldepotter said:


> Following Dolby Atmos specs, any surround or overhead speaker speaker with a -6dB roll-off at 40 Hz (or better) qualifies as full range (Large), and consequently does not need to be bass managed. So your case: Technically fully correct!


I have bought new B&W CWM7.5 inwall surrounds that I am adding for Atmos. I have mounted one already & the three other's should be here either tomorrow or Friday.

Does the fact that these only extend down to 49Hz mean that they won't perform as intended or rather as Atmos design recommends? Can I still simply list them as large in the configuration and then let the receiver handle the roll off of everything below 50Hz to the sub? May not be reference but then again, likely "close enough", right?


----------



## Selden Ball

ndabunka said:


> I have bought new B&W CWM7.5 inwall surrounds that I am adding for Atmos. I have mounted one already & the three other's should be here either tomorrow or Friday.
> 
> Does the fact that these only extend down to 49Hz mean that they won't perform as intended or rather as Atmos design recommends?


They'll work fine, so long as you enable bass management.


> Can I still simply list them as large in the configuration and then let the receiver handle the roll off of everything below 50Hz to the sub?


 You must configure them as Small, not Large. Small enables bass management. Large disables it. Bass management needs to be enabled in order for any frequencies to be redirected ("rolled off" as you wrote) from your in-wall speakers to your subwoofer(s). If you don't enable bass management, you'll lose those low frequencies which cannot be reproduced by your in-wall speakers. Also, the lowest frequencies that your in-wall speakers do manage to generate will be distorted.


> May not be reference but then again, likely "close enough", right?


 I'm not sure what you mean by "reference" in this context. Dolby recommends a "full-range" speaker system. Some Atmos (and non-Atmos, too, of course) soundtracks provide extremely high amplitude low frequencies in all speaker channels and/or objects. Bass management redirects those low frequencies from the speakers which can't handle them to the subwoofers which (hopefully) can. 

Note that some of the discussions above have been about the speaker configurations in commercial movie theaters, which have quite different acoustic properties from most home theaters. The speaker systems in many (most?) commercial theaters simply don't have the ability to produce the low bass and infrasonic frequencies that so many people enjoy experiencing at home.


----------



## jqmn

Is there a handy download (e.g., m2ts) that can spit out atmos speaker call-outs similar to what appears on the Sept. 2015 demo disc? I see the references to the disc itself (buy or torrent) but all I am looking for are the call-outs. I don't need the entire disc and since I am using a multi-avr setup my preference is one file (or several individual files depending on the speaker setup) just like what is on the demo disc. Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Since with a 'bass managed' high pass of 100Hz max, and a 'mixed to LFE' low pass probably around 80 Hz, it seems unlikely that the addition of those L/R subwoofers to help smaller surrounds to become 'full-range', will make an audible difference compared to just using the existing sub(s) behind the screen for this task.


Since none of the channels behind the screen (L, C, R, LFE) are bass managed, the existing sub(s) behind the screen could not be used for bass management, hence needing to add L/R surround subs when introducing bass management to commercial cinema sound.


----------



## sdrucker

Selden Ball said:


> If you don't enable bass management, you'll lose those low frequencies which cannot be reproduced by your in-wall speakers. Also, the lowest frequencies that your in-wall speakers do manage to generate will be distorted. I'm not sure what you mean by "reference" in this context. Dolby recommends a "full-range" speaker system. Some Atmos (and non-Atmos, too, of course) soundtracks provide extremely high amplitude low frequencies in all speaker channels and/or objects. Bass management redirects those low frequencies from the speakers which can't handle them to the subwoofers which (hopefully) can.
> 
> Note that some of the discussions above have been about the speaker configurations in commercial movie theaters, which have quite different acoustic properties from most home theaters. The speaker systems in many (most?) commercial theaters simply don't have the ability to produce the low bass and infrasonic frequencies that so many people enjoy experiencing at home.



Not just that, even if one has capable speakers that can go to 40 Hz (or lower) at -6 db, why would you want to play those speakers at the limits of their capabilities when you can redirect that bass to a subwoofer that's easily capable of that performance and better? I'd want the comfort of knowing that my mains and surrounds can hit a low frequency level with at least an octave of range to spare. 


I'd feel different as a two-channel music listener, potentially. But since we're HT consumers and this is a home Atmos thread, I don't feel that I need to follow the Dolby Atmos theatrical specs to the letter no how matter how cinema-like I might want my dedicated HT room to be.


----------



## ndabunka

Selden Ball said:


> They'll work fine, so long as you enable bass management. You must configure them as Small, not Large. Small enables bass management. Large disables it. Bass management needs to be enabled in order for any frequencies to be redirected ("rolled off" as you wrote) from your in-wall speakers to your subwoofer(s). If you don't enable bass management, you'll lose those low frequencies which cannot be reproduced by your in-wall speakers. Also, the lowest frequencies that your in-wall speakers do manage to generate will be distorted. I'm not sure what you mean by "reference" in this context. Dolby recommends a "full-range" speaker system. Some Atmos (and non-Atmos, too, of course) soundtracks provide extremely high amplitude low frequencies in all speaker channels and/or objects. Bass management redirects those low frequencies from the speakers which can't handle them to the subwoofers which (hopefully) can.
> 
> Note that some of the discussions above have been about the speaker configurations in commercial movie theaters, which have quite different acoustic properties from most home theaters. The speaker systems in many (most?) commercial theaters simply don't have the ability to produce the low bass and infrasonic frequencies that so many people enjoy experiencing at home.


Thanks for the response. I am in sync with the commercial discussions in this thread and how they are different from my interest. No issue there. BY reference, I had thought that there might be specs that were applicable to home systems like my receiver is listed as THX but I guess that is more of a certification than a reference target.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ndabunka said:


> I have bought new B&W CWM7.5 inwall surrounds that I am adding for Atmos. One is in the wall and the three other's should be here either tomorrow or Friday.
> 
> Does the fact that these only extend to 49Hz mean that they won't perform as intended or can I simply list them as large in the configuration and then let the receiver handle the roll off of everything below 50Hz to the sub?


For this speaker the -6dB point lies at 49Hz, while following Dolby Atmos Cinema(!) specs this should be 40Hz or lower. So even if the distribution of low frequencies on the BR soundtrack resembles that of the theatrical mix (of which we cannot be sure according to one of the posts above) you should use the standard 80Hz crossover for this particular speaker.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Since none of the channels behind the screen (L, C, R, LFE) are bass managed, the existing sub(s) behind the screen could not be used for bass management, hence needing to add L/R surround subs when introducing bass management to commercial cinema sound.


Yes, that could be. With the left/right division being a nice (marketing?) add-on, but likely without any audible benefits (?).


----------



## ndabunka

maikeldepotter said:


> For this speaker the -6dB point lies at 49Hz, while following Dolby Atmos Cinema(!) specs this should be 40Hz or lower. So even if the distribution of low frequencies on the BR soundtrack resembles that of the theatrical mix (of which we cannot be sure according to one of the posts above) you should use the standard 80Hz crossover for this particular speaker.


My front Sig 7's are 
40Hz - 20kHz ± 3dB on reference axis
Should I have a lower cross over for those? Perhaps I should have just used the older Sig 7's all the way around instead of the newer offerings?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> With the left/right division being a nice (marketing?) add-on, but likely without any audible benefits (?).


Since the crossover can be as high as 100Hz, doesn't hurt (might even benefit) to have the sub in the same general direction as the speakers it is supporting. It's different for small consumer spaces, where subwoofer placement is optimized for bass response rather than proximity to any speaker.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> Some Atmos (and non-Atmos, too, of course) soundtracks provide extremely high amplitude low frequencies in all speaker channels and/or objects.


That would imply that re-mixing a theatrical soundtrack for BR involves redirecting part of the LFE content back to surrounds and overheads. Why would a re-recording engineer do such thing?


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> That would imply that re-mixing a theatrical soundtrack for BR involves redirecting part of the LFE content back to surrounds and overheads. Why would a re-recording engineer do such thing?


No. It "implies" that there is high amplitude content low frequency content in that "channel".

The LFE channel isn't the only one getting high amplitude effects in it. What Selden described has nothing to do with "remixing" LFE content to other speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> No. It "implies" that there is high amplitude content low frequency content in that "channel".
> 
> The LFE channel isn't the only one getting high amplitude effects in it. What Selden described has nothing to do with "remixing" LFE content to other speakers.


The Dolby Atmos specifications for commercial cinemas allow full range surrounds a roll-off producing -6dB at 40Hz. I assumed that such specification would have a direct relation with the way low frequencies are distributed to the various channels (and objects) at the mixing stage. Because: Why would high amplitude sub 40Hz sound be mixed into surround channels if the surround speakers can hardly reproduce it, and consequently cannot be fully heard at the dub stage which (I assume) conforms to Dolby Atmos specs? What am I missing here?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Probably because the mixers had a fairly good idea that there will be surround subwoofers in cinemas equipped with them.

I'd sure hope that mixers would fully utilize these systems to modern standards of surround sound.



Surrounds have always been full range since surround sound went digital in the early 90's, @maikeldepotter . It's only now that cinemas have caught on to a well known feature we home users have called 'bass management'. Now with cinemas equipped with surround subwoofers.... all more reason to put full bandwidth, high amplitude effects in these speaker locations.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Did you look at Dolby's specs for those side subwoofers: -6dB at 40Hz allowed. Only the specs for the LFE sub go lower.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Did you look at Dolby's specs for those side subwoofers: -6dB at 40Hz allowed. Only the specs for the LFE sub go lower.


Atmos surround subs are intended to match the low frequency response (and SPL) of the L/C/R speakers, NOT the LFE subwoofer. That's why I said earlier that they're more akin to a common woofer for those arrays than a sub-woofer.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It doesn't say you can't go lower.

Are our current standards to cater only to the lowest common denominator? I should hope not.


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> It doesn't say you can't go lower.
> 
> Are our current standards to cater only to the lowest common denominator? I should hope not.


I should hope so! The lower the better!  (The lower the frequency limit, I mean.)

I think it's outrageous that someone would try to call -6dB at 40Hz "full range". In a home environment, that's barely acceptable for music, let alone movie soundtracks. I can understand how that'd be hard to reach in large commercial movie theaters, though.


----------



## batpig

Most commercial theaters drop off a cliff below 30Hz. That doesn't stop mixers from putting heavy infrasonic content into modern movie mixes for bassheads like Scott 

I think as others have pointed out above the -6dB at 40Hz is just a more forgiving commercial "minimum standard" spec which makes it easier to implement for a commercial theater. It doesn't mean you should stop there.


----------



## ALtlOff

sdurani said:


> Atmos surround subs are intended to match the low frequency response (and SPL) of the L/C/R speakers, NOT the LFE subwoofer. That's why I said earlier that they're more akin to a common woofer for those arrays than a sub-woofer.


And to this day people still p**p on the benefit of having a speaker with a powered woofer/sub because of bass management, this is exactly why I bought small subs for my surrounds and ran them with the full range channel signal, before I upgraded my surrounds to the "big-uns'".

It's a real shame some of us don't live closer to each other, so that we could go around and sample some of the, what have to be incredible systems that are being used. It would be a real kick to swap movie nights.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Surrounds have always been full range since surround sound went digital in the early 90's, @maikeldepotter . It's only now that cinemas have caught on to a well known feature we home users have called 'bass management'. Now with cinemas equipped with surround subwoofers.... all more reason to put full bandwidth, high amplitude effects in these speaker locations.


NOPE, and that's why the Atmos spec is a marked difference.

From the advent of digital sound for 35mm up through the D-Cinema era, the spec for surround arrays had them good down to 80Hz. 

For Atmos, Dolby specified that the surrounds be full-range ("full-range" being defined as good down to 40Hz), which is achieved using bass management *for the surrounds*. Not to be confused with home theater bass management, which redirects *all* bass below the designated crossover point to a subwoofer array. 

I've heard from mixers that quite apart from the object-oriented goodness, one of the reasons they love Atmos so much is that now they can go below 80Hz in their surrounds.


----------



## ndabunka

maikeldepotter said:


> For this speaker the -6dB point lies at 49Hz, while following Dolby Atmos Cinema(!) specs this should be 40Hz or lower. So... you should use the standard 80Hz crossover for this particular speaker.


I guess I don't understand the logic. If Atmos can now drive audio lower than 80Hz to a surround and my surround can accomodate that signal, why not take advantage of that and use what's available rather than blindly implementing the "legacy" 80Hz default? If the AVR can't accomodate that parameter, that is another thing and since I have to buy a new AVR anyway, I would then focus on ones that give me the flexibility to tune my channels rather than any that might be "handcuffed" by older defaults.

Note: I do acknowledge that the CWM7.5's don't go all the way down to the 40Hz spec but it appears that a 50Hz cross over setting should be obtainable. My Sig 7 mains will go all the way down to the 40Hz spec so no issue there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> NOPE, and that's why the Atmos spec is a marked difference.
> 
> From the advent of digital sound for 35mm up through the D-Cinema era, the spec for surround arrays had them good down to 80Hz.
> 
> For Atmos, Dolby specified that the surrounds be full-range ("full-range" being defined as good down to 40Hz), which is achieved using bass management *for the surrounds*. Not to be confused with home theater bass management, which redirects *all* bass below the designated crossover point to a subwoofer array.
> 
> I've heard from mixers that quite apart from the object-oriented goodness, one of the reasons they love Atmos so much is that now they can go below 80Hz in their surrounds.


That's not the fault of the format. It's a change in the mentality of cinema sound and how to "handle" all that damn bass.

It's absolutely no different than "home" bass management. I can choose to set my LCR's to large and then cross my surrounds at 40hz (or even to their own subwoofer system if need be). All the same methods used.


Dan, I'm talking about the actual format. Not how systems have been set up. Two different things.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> I've heard from mixers that quite apart from the object-oriented goodness, one of the reasons they love Atmos so much is that now they can go below 80Hz in their surrounds.


But the portion below 40Hz still remains the exclusive domain for the LFE channel. Correct?


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> But the portion below 40Hz still remains the exclusive domain for the LFE channel. Correct?


Why are you so concerned about


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Why are you so concerned about


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Dan, I'm talking about the actual format. Not how systems have been set up. Two different things.


Right, I'm just clarifying that until Atmos, best practice for theatrical mixes didn't put anything below 80Hz in the surround arrays.



maikeldepotter said:


> But the portion below 40Hz still remains the exclusive domain for the LFE channel. Correct?


The L,C,R channels are supposed to be able to play back from 20hz to 20kHz.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ndabunka said:


> I guess I don't understand the logic. If Atmos can now drive audio lower than 80Hz to a surround and my surround can accomodate that signal, why not take advantage of that and use what's available rather than blindly implementing the "legacy" 80Hz default? If the AVR can't accomodate that parameter, that is another thing and since I have to buy a new AVR anyway, I would then focus on ones that give me the flexibility to tune my channels rather than any that might be "handcuffed" by older defaults.
> 
> Note: I do acknowledge that the CWM7.5's don't go all the way down to the 40Hz spec but it appears that a 50Hz cross over setting should be obtainable. My Sig 7 mains will go all the way down to the 40Hz spec so no issue there.


Best thing is to try and listen what works best for you. Personally, I would try and set the crossover for your surrounds even higher than 80Hz, to take away some low frequency stress for them to better perform at the higher frequencies. 50 Hz is really too low for speakers that can only do -6dB at 49Hz. But again, try and listen.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> The L,C,R channels are supposed to be able to play back from 20hz to 20kHz.


Which specs are that?


----------



## ndabunka

maikeldepotter said:


> Best thing is to try and listen what works best for you. Personally, I would try and set the crossover for your surrounds even higher than 80Hz, to take away some low frequency stress for them to better perform at the higher frequencies. 50 Hz is really too low for speakers that can only do -6dB at 49Hz. But again, try and listen.


I will listen to these first but I could always put in Sig 7's (40Hz - 20kHz ± 3dB on reference axis) in the surrounds as well as in the mains and simply re-appropriate the lower spec'd speakers elsewhere.


----------



## dschulz

maikeldepotter said:


> Which specs are that?


They were in the DTS Post Production Guide, which I re-wrote around 2002; but they mirror industry practice from Dolby, THX and SMPTE.

Speaking of DTS, the DTS Digital Sound format for film playback explicitly only supported surrounds down to 80Hz. If there was any surround material in the mix below 80Hz it was filtered off prior to DTS encoding.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> They were in the DTS Post Production Guide, which I re-wrote around 2002; but they mirror industry practice from Dolby, THX and SMPTE.


So I understand this 20-20k Hz frequency range was an A-chain specification, which apparently has not been translated to the B-chain specifications, since the frequency responses found at the typical dub stage (where the intended sound is being created) are significantly narrower and more in-line with the afore mentioned Dolby Atmos Specs for commercial Cinemas.



> Speaking of DTS, the DTS Digital Sound format for film playback explicitly only supported surrounds down to 80Hz. If there was any surround material in the mix below 80Hz it was filtered off prior to DTS encoding.


That is IMO a very sensible approach, since it prevents unintended (including accidental) low frequency material to be reproduced by speakers with a bass extension that goes deeper than the sound engineer and his movie director were able to hear and act upon at their dub stage.


----------



## showmak

I think The A-Team movie has to be remastered in Atmos or DTS:X, do you agree? A lot of overhead and surround actions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0429493/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

ndabunka said:


> If Atmos can now drive audio lower than 80Hz to a surround and my surround can accomodate that signal, why not take advantage of that and use what's available rather than blindly implementing the "legacy" 80Hz default?


Bass management isn't used solely to relieve small speakers of the stress of low frequency reproduction; it is also used to improve bass response. Even if your surround speaker was flat down to 15Hz, its location in the room might not be the best spot to reproduce the bass in that channel. Instead, you'd be better off filtering the low frequencies to a dedicated subwoofer and placing it where bass sounds best in the room. It's rare that the best locations for soundstage & imaging also turn out to be the best locations for bass reproduction. So why not take advantage of whatever bass management is available rather than blindly sending each channel to a "full range" speaker?


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Really would not suggest doing SCATMOS until you have completely figured out your 'conventional' 7.1.4 layout first.
> 
> After you've mastered that.... then maybe try SCATMOS.


Did I miss a post or two on this "SCATMOS"? 

Please explain or provide a link...


----------



## ndabunka

sdurani said:


> Bass management isn't used solely to relieve small speakers of the stress of low frequency reproduction; it is also used to improve bass response. Even if your surround speaker was flat down to 15Hz, its location in the room might not be the best spot to reproduce the bass in that channel. Instead, you'd be better off filtering the low frequencies to a dedicated subwoofer and placing it where bass sounds best in the room. It's rare that the best locations for soundstage & imaging also turn out to be the best locations for bass reproduction. So why not take advantage of whatever bass management is available rather than blindly sending each channel to a "full range" speaker?


I agree that low bass needs to be correctly positioned (corner sub for example) but IMHO that is basically anything in the 30's or lower and (I guess) I had identfied that as being what the Atmos specification always aligns with. Localization from 39Hz downward is not realistic as the wavelength is so long. But sounds at the 40Hz - 80Hz are also shorter wavelengths and therefore bass can be better localized so that the listener receives the bass from the direction of origin at least in theaters. Not certain that bass from 40Hz to 80Hz being directional in a 19 x 14 x 9 HT room would benefit. I "had been" looking forward to finding out but now it appears that I might as well just leave my existing 7.1 system in place rather than even bothering with the expense of Atmos. Nobody in my family or neighborhood or even @ work would give a rats arse about Atmos as long as the HT still sounded good ...to them and it always has up to this point. 

The geek in me wants Atmos at home. "The realist furion in me hope's you won't listen..." LoL


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Bass management isn't used solely to relieve small speakers of the stress of low frequency reproduction; it is also used to improve bass response. Even if your surround speaker was flat down to 15Hz, its location in the room might not be the best spot to reproduce the bass in that channel. Instead, you'd be better off filtering the low frequencies to a dedicated subwoofer and placing it where bass sounds best in the room. It's rare that the best locations for soundstage & imaging also turn out to be the best locations for bass reproduction. So why not take advantage of whatever bass management is available rather than blindly sending each channel to a "full range" speaker?


Cuz that sounds f**king boring!  And you can't brag about full range speakers when you do this. Pfft! 



Al Sherwood said:


> Did I miss a post or two on this "SCATMOS"?
> 
> Please explain or provide a link...


Uhhh.... ummm...

Start here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html

Add two pro logic 2 receivers to the system. Have each one do the front and rear heights. One extra receiver per side, left and right. Decode with PL2 movie mode. This method extracts a common center for a "middle" height speaker location.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Scott Simonian said:


> Cuz that sounds f**king boring!  And you can't brag about full range speakers when you do this. Pfft!
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh.... ummm...
> 
> Start here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html
> 
> Add two pro logic 2 receivers to the system. Have each one do the front and rear heights. One extra receiver per side, left and right. Decode with PL2 movie mode. This method extracts a common center for a "middle" height speaker location.


Thanks for the link, a few pages there to read... I figured it might be along these lines... "I'll be back!"


----------



## sdurani

ndabunka said:


> Not certain that bass from 40Hz to 80Hz being directional in a 19 x 14 x 9 HT room would benefit.


Not certain that bass from 40Hz to 80Hz is directional. Don't know where you got the _"39Hz downward"_ number for non-localizable bass; it is typically an octave higher for our human hearing. And the size of the room doesn't matter, since it is the size of your head (distance between ears) that determines which frequencies are localizable. This is what allows us to take advantage of bass managed systems to improve playback. Just because a channel contains full range sound, it doesn't make it optimal to reproduce ALL that sound from the same location in the room.


----------



## batpig

ndabunka said:


> Localization from 39Hz downward is not realistic as the wavelength is so long. But sounds at the 40Hz - 80Hz are also shorter wavelengths and therefore bass can be better localized so that the listener receives the bass from the direction of origin at least in theaters. Not certain that bass from 40Hz to 80Hz being directional in a 19 x 14 x 9 HT room would benefit.


There's a couple of things....

First, as a general point, I think your assumption about 40-80Hz being localizable is incorrect, especially in a small room acoustics situation. There is a major difference in the acoustics of bass in large cinemas vs smaller residential rooms. That's what Sanjay was discussing above with respect to the other benefits of bass management. There is a reason that bass managing all channels to a mono subwoofer system (preferably with multiple subs) is the best practice in home theater, you get better bass without any real downside unless the xover goes too high.

The reason the 80Hz recommendation for THX crossovers existed was because it was a good compromise, a point low enough where bass wasn't localizable but also high enough that it isn't difficult to get a speaker to reproduce it. I honestly don't think you gain much benefit from aspiring to have your surrounds crossed over at 40Hz or 60Hz vs. 80Hz.

Second, in your *specific* case, I think you are somewhat misguided if you think that the B&W CWM7.5's can perform better with a crossover lower than 80Hz. They are rated to 49Hz -6dB on paper -- this means they are already rolling off well above 50Hz, so at a minimum a 60Hz crossover is the lowest you should go. Plus these are in-wall speakers, which means that the low end response is going to be pretty variable depending on how they are installed so you may not even achieve that spec in your room. Moreover, these speakers have a 5" woofer, and a relatively low 86dB sensitivity. Do you really think they can produce the powerful, deep bass in the 40-60Hz region (this is some of the most important "slam" in big effects) better than your subwoofers when the volume is really cranking?

Raising the crossover to 80Hz means that the speakers won't work as hard, they will be able to play louder and cleaner once relieved of that stress, and your subwoofers will do a better job of reproducing that range anyway. And there really isn't any downside.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Downside of bass management is when you overload a single output (subwoofer out) with 6, 8 or more channels worth of full bandwidth, high amplitude signals. It is possible to overload and clip that output. It can and does happen, rather often unfortunately.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Downside of bass management is when you overload a single output (subwoofer out) with 6, 8 or more channels worth of full bandwidth, high amplitude signals. It is possible to overload and clip that output. It can and does happen, rather often unfortunately.


That's true, no doubt, but I'm also speaking in the context of someone using surrounds with 5" woofers..... I think for most "typical" HT setups the benefits outweigh that downside.

That clipping is also really only a risk if the SW level is too high AND you are cranking the volume to near reference levels, right?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sure. You're right about that but let's not pretend that multi-sub and bass managed is the end-all be-all solution for every system or person's needs.

Like everything else in this world, it is all a balance of compromise.


And yes, some people like high SPL and lots of bass. 

What I have brought up is not an issue for the people listening no louder than 85dB.


----------



## ndabunka

Scott Simonian said:


> Cuz that sounds f**king boring!  And you can't brag about full range speakers when you do this. Pfft!
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh.... ummm...
> 
> Start here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html
> 
> Add two pro logic 2 receivers to the system. Have each one do the front and rear heights. One extra receiver per side, left and right. Decode with PL2 movie mode. This method extracts a common center for a "middle" height speaker location.


 Aw crap!
Just when I thought I was out they PULLED me back in! LOL
Once this is all said and done I will have two PL2 receiver simply sitting around gather dust. I was considering selling them on eBay for basically the seller fess (it often appears to turn out) but this looks like a FAR better use for my creative efforts...


----------



## ndabunka

batpig said:


> There's a couple of things....
> 
> First, as a general point, I think your assumption about 40-80Hz being localizable is incorrect, especially in a small room acoustics situation. There is a major difference in the acoustics of bass in large cinemas vs smaller residential rooms. That's what Sanjay was discussing above with respect to the other benefits of bass management. There is a reason that bass managing all channels to a mono subwoofer system (preferably with multiple subs) is the best practice in home theater, you get better bass without any real downside unless the xover goes too high.
> 
> The reason the 80Hz recommendation for THX crossovers existed was because it was a good compromise, a point low enough where bass wasn't localizable but also high enough that it isn't difficult to get a speaker to reproduce it. I honestly don't think you gain much benefit from aspiring to have your surrounds crossed over at 40Hz or 60Hz vs. 80Hz.
> 
> Second, in your *specific* case, I think you are somewhat misguided if you think that the B&W CWM7.5's can perform better with a crossover lower than 80Hz. They are rated to 49Hz -6dB on paper -- this means they are already rolling off well above 50Hz, so at a minimum a 60Hz crossover is the lowest you should go. Plus these are in-wall speakers, which means that the low end response is going to be pretty variable depending on how they are installed so you may not even achieve that spec in your room. Moreover, these speakers have a 5" woofer, and a relatively low 86dB sensitivity. Do you really think they can produce the powerful, deep bass in the 40-60Hz region (this is some of the most important "slam" in big effects) better than your subwoofers when the volume is really cranking?
> 
> Raising the crossover to 80Hz means that the speakers won't work as hard, they will be able to play louder and cleaner once relieved of that stress, and your subwoofers will do a better job of reproducing that range anyway. And there really isn't any downside.


Greatly appreciate the guidance. Unfortunate it is. The CWM7.5's may be inwall speakers BUT they aren't simply just another inwall. The have their own INTEGRATED backboxes and also have an additional rensonace chamber. Based on what I now know I doubt if I will be using anything other than the existing 80Hz crossover that is supported by the existing non-Atmos standards. I still have not yet heard these in my home yet but they rocked (for their size) when I listened to them in the brick & mortar storefront.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ndabunka said:


> Greatly appreciate the guidance. Unfortunate it is. The CWM7.5's may be inwall speakers BUT they aren't simply just another inwall. The have their own INTEGRATED backboxes and also have an additional renasonce chamber.


That just means it has an enclosure and is ported. Wooo.

It's still a single 5" driver and will not produce much loud/deep bass at all. It's no different than every other small, dinky bookshelf speaker out there. Cross high, like 80hz or higher and use a proper subwoofer system.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> Speaking of DTS, the DTS Digital Sound format for film playback explicitly only supported surrounds down to 80Hz. If there was any surround material in the mix below 80Hz it was filtered off prior to DTS encoding.


That was in order to use the space


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> That was in order to use the space


----------



## ndabunka

Scott Simonian said:


> That just means it has an enclosure and is ported. Wooo.
> 
> It's still a single 5" driver and will not produce much loud/deep bass at all. It's no different than every other small, dinky bookshelf speaker out there. Cross high, like 80hz or higher and use a proper subwoofer system.


Scott - Thanks for the frank response. I do have an option of using inwall Signature 7's all the way around rather than simply in the fronts (I have an extra pair and a pair of used ones for the rear channel can be picked up on the used market around the $500/pair mark which is actually a lot cheaper than the CWM7.5s retail). The woofer's on those is still only 7 inches so not a whole lot larger but having the 800-series internal components gives them the 40Hz - 20kHz ± 3dB on reference axis & a 88dB spl (2.83V 1m) sensitivity. Would you still retain the 80Hz cross over with those in the mix instead of the CWM7.5s?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yes. It's still a very small speaker and crossing over to proper subwoofer system will likely yield better sound quality and response at the seat(s).


----------



## ndabunka

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. It's still a very small speaker and crossing over to proper subwoofer system will likely yield better sound quality and response at the seat(s).


Point taken. I will continue using the 80Hz cross over to my two 15" 800watt subs and not complicate it by trying to find the mounting brackets for the older Sig 7s.


----------



## dschulz

maikeldepotter said:


> So I understand this 20-20k Hz frequency range was an A-chain specification, which apparently has not been translated to the B-chain specifications, since the frequency responses found at the typical dub stage (where the intended sound is being created) are significantly narrower and more in-line with the afore mentioned Dolby Atmos Specs for commercial Cinemas.


You are correct, and I mis-spoke when I so confidently claimed the stage channels should reproduce cleanly from 20Hz - 20kHz. I'm digging around for the SMPTE standards to see if I can confirm actual documentation for how low the L,C,R are expected to dig.



Roger Dressler said:


> That was in order to use the space


----------



## Dan Hitchman

showmak said:


> I think The A-Team movie has to be remastered in Atmos or DTS:X, do you agree? A lot of overhead and surround actions.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0429493/
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I would rather have the Lord of the Rings Extended Trilogy in cinema-quality Dolby Atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> You are correct, and I mis-spoke when I so confidently claimed the stage channels should reproduce cleanly from 20Hz - 20kHz. I'm digging around for the SMPTE standards to see if I can confirm actual documentation for how low the L,C,R are expected to dig.


This 2014 SMPTE report provides some relevant information, like chapter 12.4 _Comparison of Frequency Responses of Cinema and Dubbing Stages._


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> I'm digging around for the SMPTE standards to see if I can confirm actual documentation for how low the L,C,R are expected to dig.


SMPTE ST 202:2012 shows the acoustic frequency response target as below. Specifies -2 dB at 31.5 Hz, with the upper end following the X-curve to 16 kHz. 












> Well, the 80Hz filter trick was used by DTS to fit 5.1 channels into a 5.0 carrier, but the 80Hz crossover point was chosen based on the capabilities of surround arrays and what was considered to be best practice at the time in the mixing community.


Yes. It was understood that there was no expectation of reproducing much bass via the cinema's surround speakers. But the mix was not rolled off during production -- that was done during the printmaster step IIRC.



> Do you know what Dolby's recommendations for SRD printmasters were back in the 90s? I'm curious to know if they also band-limited the surrounds.


I am not aware of any required bandlimiting applied to the surrounds in Dolby Digital printmasters. However, it is my understanding that to save time, studios sometimes used the same printmaster for the various 35mm digital formats (DTS, Dolby, SDDS 5.1), and that meant the bass rolloff used for DTS appeared on all of them. 



> As to the D-Cinema era, I don't think the capabilities of surround arrays really changed that much from the digital sound era of DTS/SRD, until Dolby Atmos introduced bass-managed surrounds.


I agree. My comment about D-Cinema was in reference to having a dedicated LFE channel, so there was no longer any need to filter surround bass for the DTS format. 



> It would be interesting to know if mixers are assuming full-range surrounds for 7.1 mixes today, or if they still roll them off as a matter of course.


Mixers assume the delivery pipe is full range, but still exercise caution when mixing bass in the surrounds. I doubt that mixers routinely rolled off the surround bass while mixing 5.1 or 7.1. That was a printmaster operation, as opposed to being done on the dub stage, a) so the source masters remained capable of carrying full range material, and b) to make sure it was done as required.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> SMPTE ST 202:2012 shows the acoustic frequency response target as below. Specifies -2 dB at 31.5 Hz, with the upper end following the X-curve to 16 kHz.


I assume that those specs are for the screen speakers, including LFE subwoofer(s).


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I assume that those specs are for the screen speakers, including LFE subwoofer(s).


No subwoofers in that graph. Their response target is flat from 25 Hz to 120 Hz within ±3 dB.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> No subwoofers in that graph. Their response target is flat from 25 Hz to 120 Hz within ±3 dB.


Then the Dolby Atmos Specification are stepping down from that, with a LCR frequency response of 80-16k Hz(+3dB/-6dB) for the screen loudspeakers, and 31.5-120 Hz (+/- 3dB) for the screen subwoofer(s). That is remarkable, the more since they are referring to same (albeit an older version) standard: SMPTE ST 202:2010.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Then the Dolby Atmos Specification are stepping down from that, with a LCR frequency response of 80-16k Hz(+3dB/-6dB) for the screen loudspeakers, and 31.5-120 Hz (+/- 3dB) for the screen subwoofer(s). That is remarkable, the more since they are referring to same (albeit an older version) standard: SMPTE ST 202:2010.


We're mixing two different things. The plot I posted is a target curve. The target rolls of 2 dB at 31.5 Hz. In another diagram, there are tolerances shown. Looks more like this:










It has been slightly updated in 2010. 

Dolby states:
"2.3 Frequency Range: 40 Hz to 16 kHz, +3/–6 dB"
"2.4 Frequency Response: 80 Hz to 16 kHz, ±3 dB" 

Both of those fit perfectly into the SMPTE limits. There is no disparity between ST 202:2012 and the Atmos specs.


----------



## Kain

Any idea if Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix?


----------



## gonzlobo

I'd like Act Of Valor (extraction scene) remastered and atmos released. Yep.


----------



## caseyparsons

Kain said:


> Any idea if Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix?


Oh man, Saving Private Ryan would be so good remastered in Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Any idea if Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan will get an Atmos or DTS:X remix?


I wish! Maybe one day...


----------



## John Budny

Recently moved and have a finished room in the lower level I plan to utilize as a media room. In looking at the room I'm struggling to envision how I'm going to setup seven grounds level channels (four ceiling channels will be in wall). The back of the room is open so there is no wall to mount speakers to or simple way to run speaker wire. I'm afraid that rear surrounds would have to be towers or stand mounted bookshelves and would stick out like a sore thumb when walking into the room. 

For those of you at home that have experienced 5.2.4 AND 7.2.4, was there a significant improvement in stepping up to seven channels? Anyone have any thoughts or experience in dealing with rear surrounds in an open ended room?


----------



## awblackmon

John Budny said:


> Recently moved and have a finished room in the lower level I plan to utilize as a media room. In looking at the room I'm struggling to envision how I'm going to setup seven grounds level channels (four ceiling channels will be in wall). The back of the room is open so there is no wall to mount speakers to or simple way to run speaker wire. I'm afraid that rear surrounds would have to be towers or stand mounted bookshelves and would stick out like a sore thumb when walking into the room.
> 
> For those of you at home that have experienced 5.2.4 AND 7.2.4, was there a significant improvement in stepping up to seven channels? Anyone have any thoughts or experience in dealing with rear surrounds in an open ended room?


I cannot answer your question as it is referenced here. I can tell you I was doing 7.2.4 but wanted to get front wide channels into the mix. I had to give up back surrounds to do it. So now I have 5.2.4 with added front wides. I don't really miss the back surrounds when listening to the few DTSX discs that I have bought or rented because for me the front wides bring so much more to the table. Also other discs using DTS MA and up mixed with DTS neural X uses the wides. Of course others may not agree but that is what I have done. I am processing with the Marantz 8802a.


----------



## John Budny

awblackmon said:


> I cannot answer your question as it is referenced here. I can tell you I was doing 7.2.4 but wanted to get front wide channels into the mix. I had to give up back surrounds to do it. So now I have 5.2.4 with added front wides. I don't really miss the back surrounds when listening to the few DTSX discs that I have bought or rented because for me the front wides bring so much more to the table. Also other discs using DTS MA and up mixed with DTS neural X uses the wides. Of course others may not agree but that is what I have done. I am processing with the Marantz 8802a.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Front wides would be a possibility for me and something I've actually not considered. Is setting up the 8802a as 7.2.4 with wides vs back surrounds simple to do? (I also have the 8802a).


----------



## LNEWoLF

John Budny said:


> Recently moved and have a finished room in the lower level I plan to utilize as a media room. In looking at the room I'm struggling to envision how I'm going to setup seven grounds level channels (four ceiling channels will be in wall). The back of the room is open so there is no wall to mount speakers to or simple way to run speaker wire. I'm afraid that rear surrounds would have to be towers or stand mounted bookshelves and would stick out like a sore thumb when walking into the room.
> 
> For those of you at home that have experienced 5.2.4 AND 7.2.4, was there a significant improvement in stepping up to seven channels? Anyone have any thoughts or experience in dealing with rear surrounds in an open ended room?


A picture of the entire room from various locations would be VERY helpful in answering some of your questions.

IMHO, I experienced a significant and noticable experience at each speaker layout change going from 5.1 to 7.1 to 7.1.2

The change from 5.1 to 7.1 required a slightly different mlp configuration. Moving the mlp forward apoximately 10' from against the back wall.

Using the recomended guidlines for viewing distance to the screen. Has also GREATLY enhanced the viewing experiece. While watching a film. I now experience being drawn into the film when the camera zooms in or out.

Providing pictures you will get allot more ideas on your layout. 

While using the recomended guidelines will give you the best overall experience. 

Good luck


----------



## healthnut

awblackmon said:


> I cannot answer your question as it is referenced here. I can tell you I was doing 7.2.4 but wanted to get front wide channels into the mix. I had to give up back surrounds to do it. So now I have 5.2.4 with added front wides. I don't really miss the back surrounds when listening to the few DTSX discs that I have bought or rented because for me the front wides bring so much more to the table. Also other discs using DTS MA and up mixed with DTS neural X uses the wides. Of course others may not agree but that is what I have done. I am processing with the Marantz 8802a.




Is your experience with Dolby Atmos mixes similar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thebland

I tried the 5.1.6 and 7.1.4 and intiially thought the extra heights seemed 'better' but the lack of rear surrounds really ended up hurting things. The rear sound stage simply collapsed and it became annoying. As good as wides are, in my opinion, the backs are far more important to a balanced sound. In DSU you don't even get wides. That said, if your seating is against a rear wall or close to the rear wall, I can see the reasoning to leave the back surrounds out - but not if you have a typical seating and the rear wall is a ways away from the main listening position. 

I sold my Datasat and now I have an 11.2.8 set up (with wides). More so now, since I have both back surrounds and wides, Id disconnect the wides if I had to choose. I expect at some point manufacturers will allow for more channels so you don't have to make this compromise.


----------



## LNEWoLF

thebland said:


> I tried the 5.1.6 and 7.1.4 and intiially thought the extra heights seemed 'better' but the lack of rear surrounds really ended up hurting things. The rear sound stage simply collapsed and it became annoying. As good as wides are, in my opinion, the backs are far more important to a balanced sound. In DSU you don't even get wides. That said, if your seating is against a rear wall or close to the rear wall, I can see the reasoning to leave the back surrounds out - but not if you have a typical seating and the rear wall is a ways away from the main listening position.


I agree, I was amazed when I fired up my 7.1 for the 1st time. Why did I not do this sooner. 

Fills the room with sound. Add's so much to the listening enjoyment for movies and music. Listening to BB King with a HuGe grin.......

I've enjoyed reading many of your posts through out the years. You have an AWESOME setup. 

Enjoying a movie with your rig must be off the charts and require a signed waiver and seat belt just for admission.


----------



## thebland

LNEWoLF said:


> I agree, I was amazed when I fired up my 7.1 for the 1st time. Why did I not do this sooner.
> 
> Fills the room with sound. Add's so much to the listening enjoyment for movies and music. Listening to BB King with a HuGe grin.......
> 
> I've enjoyed reading many of your posts through out the years. You have an AWESOME setup.
> 
> Enjoying a movie with your rig must be off the charts and require a signed waiver and seat belt just for admission.


Thanks! Very kind of you. It's been a labor of love and expense, but sonically, it's a treat every time. I'm full enjoying it. 

Anytime your in Detroit, stop on by!


----------



## LNEWoLF

thebland said:


> Thanks! Very kind of you. It's been a labor of love and expense, but sonically, it's a treat every time. I'm full enjoying it.
> 
> Anytime your in Detroit, stop on by!


Amen brother, ain't no $uch thang as FREE LoVE 

Thanks for the invite.......


----------



## awblackmon

John Budny said:


> Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Front wides would be a possibility for me and something I've actually not considered. Is setting up the 8802a as 7.2.4 with wides vs back surrounds simple to do? (I also have the 8802a).


It is pretty easy. I connected the speakers wire to the appropriate outputs on the back and ran Audessy. It changed from back surround to front wides without a problem.


----------



## awblackmon

healthnut said:


> Is your experience with Dolby Atmos mixes similar?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As you may know Dolby Atmos and DSU does not use front wides. So in that case my system is running 5.2.4. Oh well. Considering most Blurays are DTS MA I have opted for the wide channels. When I am watching Directv and only have the Dolby option I just enjoy the show anyway.


----------



## sdurani

awblackmon said:


> Dolby Atmos and DSU does not use front wides.


While true that DSU does not upmix to front wides, Dolby Atmos does render objects to wides.


----------



## Scott Simonian

awblackmon said:


> As you may know Dolby Atmos and DSU does not use front wides. So in that case my system is running 5.2.4. Oh well. Considering most Blurays are DTS MA I have opted for the wide channels. When I am watching Directv and only have the Dolby option I just enjoy the show anyway.


Dolby Atmos does in fact use wides (objects only) but DSU does not use wides at all.




EDIT: Ninja'd by teh Durani.


----------



## Kain

Just reconfirming here (I've probably asked this question a million times but keep forgetting the answer ), but does DSU use all speakers expect the front wides? What about in the case of the Altitude32 where you can have a bazillion speakers? All speakers will be used expect the front wides?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Correct.

But in the case of a full-bore Trinnov Altitude32 system, the left and right screen center channels and a center rear surround will also not get any use with Dolby Surround mode.


----------



## batpig

Minor point to add, but since this is a pedantic question from the start.... I will point out that a single back surround (i.e. a 6.1 floor speaker layout) will not get use with DSU even in non-Trinnov world. So if you had a 6.1.4 system the single back surround would be silent with DSU upmix from a 5.1 (or less) source.


----------



## Kain

Thanks.


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> While true that DSU does not upmix to front wides, Dolby Atmos does render objects to wides.


I have a hazy recollection of reading that when wides are being used in lieu of back surrounds, the back surround channels will be mixed with rear height. ????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ted99 said:


> I have a hazy recollection of reading that when wides are being used in lieu of back surrounds, the back surround channels will be mixed with rear height. ????


The back surrounds are blended with the side surrounds.


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> I have a hazy recollection of reading that when wides are being used in lieu of back surrounds, the back surround channels will be mixed with rear height. ????


Sounds in the base layer stay in the base layer; they don't get downmixed to the height layer. So when back surround speakers are not configured, side channels and rear channels are downmixed to a single pair of surround speakers. BTW, wides and back surrounds can be used together, like in a 9.1.2 set-up.


----------



## ndabunka

sdurani said:


> Sounds in the base layer stay in the base layer; they don't get downmixed to the height layer. So when back surround speakers are not configured, side channels and rear channels are downmixed to a single pair of surround speakers. BTW, wides and back surrounds can be used together, like in a 9.1.2 set-up.


In such a 9.1.2 set-up, where are the heights placed? I am trying to determine if they go slightly in front of the MLP or aft of it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

ndabunka said:


> In such a 9.1.2 set-up, where are the heights placed? I am trying to determine if they go slightly in front of the MLP or aft of it.


Yes. Right overhead of the listening area. Also yes, slightly in front of the MLP is the best solution for a single pair of overheads.


----------



## sdurani

ndabunka said:


> In such a 9.1.2 set-up, where are the heights placed?


Up to you, some people still like to place them high up on the front wall but typically it's overhead of the listening area.


> I am trying to determine if they go slightly in front of the MLP or aft of it.


I would pick the former (around 80 degrees elevation), since our human hearing is better in front.


----------



## batpig

Based on personal experience, I might get them even more forward than 80 degrees if the ceilings aren't that high (e.g. 8ft or less like a typical residential room). 

If you've only got 4-5ft to the ceiling, 80deg elevation puts the speakers only less than a foot in front of the LP, so still basically directly overhead. It's hard to get even dispersion / SPL coverage across the seating and prevent hot-spotting (especially for seats to the sides that are directly under the respective speaker) and the feeling of them really drilling down on top of you. One of the disadvantages of the lower ceilings of residential spaces. You just aren't that far away from the TM speakers if they are right above you which presents some issues IMO.

With higher ceilings not as much of a concern, but in a typical 7-8ft residential ceiling room I'd probably cheat them more like 2ft in front giving some more separation from the LP and better flexibility to toe-in and get more even coverage, put the closest seats a bit more off-axis.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yep. I'd likely do the same if limited to more standard size ceiling height. I'm sure this has to do very much with hotspotting and the like.

At least in close proximity, I don't enjoy speakers directly on-axis or in line with my ears. Even overhead as it turns out. Just too distracting and not natural at all.


----------



## DAK4

Anyone know if Allegiant from Redbox has Atmos? It's Lionsgate so probably not but just checking, maybe get lucky.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DAK4 said:


> Anyone know if Allegiant from Redbox has Atmos? It's Lionsgate so probably not but just checking, maybe get lucky.


You already know the answer to that.


----------



## DAK4

Dan Hitchman said:


> You already know the answer to that.


Yeah, it's too bad, because I'm darn sure not going to buy it and darn sure I'm not going to rent it unless they lost their minds (or came to their senses) and put Atmos on it.


----------



## ndabunka

batpig said:


> Based on personal experience, I might get them even more forward than 80 degrees if the ceilings aren't that high (e.g. 8ft or less like a typical residential room).
> 
> If you've only got 4-5ft to the ceiling, 80deg elevation puts the speakers only less than a foot in front of the LP, so still basically directly overhead. It's hard to get even dispersion / SPL coverage across the seating and prevent hot-spotting (especially for seats to the sides that are directly under the respective speaker) and the feeling of them really drilling down on top of you. One of the disadvantages of the lower ceilings of residential spaces. You just aren't that far away from the TM speakers if they are right above you which presents some issues IMO.
> 
> With higher ceilings not as much of a concern, but in a typical 7-8ft residential ceiling room I'd probably cheat them more like 2ft in front giving some more separation from the LP and better flexibility to toe-in and get more even coverage, put the closest seats a bit more off-axis.


Just the typical 9ft tall ceiling in mine. No raised seats either so that places the speakers 6 feet above the MLP ears. My in-ceiling heights are B&W CCM65's so the tweeters themselves do adjust somewhat. I could also re-use a pair of SpeakerCraft AIM FOURs that pivot not only the tweeters but the woofers as well but I am trying to change this HT into a 100% B&W design and am therefore liquidating the Speakercraft stuff.


----------



## aaranddeeman

DAK4 said:


> Yeah, it's too bad, because I'm darn sure not going to buy it and darn sure I'm not going to rent it unless they lost their minds (or came to their senses) and put Atmos on it.


Good luck with that...
or for the goodwill you can spend your $2 and let all of us know..


----------



## aaranddeeman

batpig said:


> Based on personal experience, I might get them even more forward than 80 degrees if the ceilings aren't that high (e.g. 8ft or less like a typical residential room).
> 
> If you've only got 4-5ft to the ceiling, 80deg elevation puts the speakers only less than a foot in front of the LP, so still basically directly overhead. It's hard to get even dispersion / SPL coverage across the seating and prevent hot-spotting (especially for seats to the sides that are directly under the respective speaker) and the feeling of them really drilling down on top of you. One of the disadvantages of the lower ceilings of residential spaces. You just aren't that far away from the TM speakers if they are right above you which presents some issues IMO.
> 
> With higher ceilings not as much of a concern, but in a typical 7-8ft residential ceiling room I'd probably cheat them more like 2ft in front giving some more separation from the LP and better flexibility to toe-in and get more even coverage, put the closest seats a bit more off-axis.


Talking of speaker (re)positioning again, my ceiling is the usual 92" (in basement). Currently I have my front heights at 77" from MLP and rear height at 69" fro MLP. If I have to move both closer, then the next possible positions are 53" and 43" respectively. To me that seems a little bit too close w.r.t. MLP and also with each other. I am pondering if I leave them at their current locations (77" and 69") or only move the fronts at 53" and leave rears at 69". or don't change anything. Damn.. 
Any opinions.


----------



## Al Sherwood

aaranddeeman said:


> Talking of speaker (re)positioning again, my ceiling is the usual 92" (in basement). Currently I have my front heights at 77" from MLP and rear height at 69" fro MLP. If I have to move both closer, then the next possible positions are 53" and 43" respectively. To me that seems a little bit too close w.r.t. MLP and also with each other. I am pondering if I leave them at their current locations (77" and 69") or only move the fronts at 53" and leave rears at 69". or don't change anything. Damn..
> Any opinions.


I think that my overhead speakers will be mounted on a rail system so they can be fine tuned wrt the distance from the MLP... hmmmm


----------



## asarose247

.02


Some "unistrut" from HD, a few lag bolts into the ceiling,
the right hanger/ angulation configuration and your speakers can be adjustable (wrt dolby angle specs), etc.


----------



## awblackmon

Al Sherwood said:


> I think that my overhead speakers will be mounted on a rail system so they can be fine tuned wrt the distance from the MLP... hmmmm


I did a rail system. Built the rails out of 1x2. Stained and finished the wood. Hung it from my ceiling and now if I need or want I can move the speakers forward or back. The speakers I hung were some older Minimus 7W speakers from back in the day. Small, light, sounds pretty good. Hung them using fishing line to hang from rails. Connected the fishing line with screws into the back of the speakers.


----------



## awblackmon

sdurani said:


> While true that DSU does not upmix to front wides, Dolby Atmos does render objects to wides.


I guess I forgot I heard that. Now that you remind me of it I recall hearing it. I will have to listen for it in future Atmos movies. Maybe, just maybe, I should experiment with 9.2.2


----------



## Jonas2

*Speaker Placement*

Need advice before I start cutting holes in my ceiling! I think I've at least identified the speakers I'm getting for my X.X.2 install. 

8' foot ceiling, sheetrock, with super-easy access to the to attic space - running wires will be easy, though I haven't mapped out exactly where all the studs run, so final speaker placement is TBD, plus my room is asymmetric, and dimensionally challenged on the left-right axis. I have an 80" couch, I guess technically the MLP is dead-center on that couch, but the reality is that for most viewing, I'm sitting on either end of the couch. From the several recent posts, I think the front-back positioning, no problem - but question is - can I install the speakers literally dead overhead of the two "secondary" listening positions - or does this just put the speakers way to close to each other?

I've got not much play on the right side of the couch as the couch edge is about 18"-20" from a side wall (I've got no choice really) and I don't want to get the speaker too close the wall. (hopefully stud won't rain on my parade...) - but am I better off trying to get the speakers more outboard of the listening positions rather than being so close together (guessing they'd be about 5' apart if I mounted directly above the two outer seats of the couch.....)


----------



## HarpNinja

I have a very modest 5.1.2 set up. My side surrounds are on stands until we make a final decision on furniture and its placement (then I am hanging them on the side walls). I have a Denon 2200, so I can't "upgrade" to 5.1.4 at this point - and I am still waiting on a UHD player.

Being that my projector is not UHD, I am looking at upgrading my receiver at some point. Am I right that the cheapest option with room correction (really liking Audyssey) is still around $1,000? The Denon 4200 can do 5.1.4 with an external amp, which would drive the cost up for me.


----------



## GreySkies

HarpNinja said:


> The Denon 4200 can do 5.1.4 with an external amp, which would drive the cost up for me.


You can always use an old AVR to power the extra speakers, if you have one laying around.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HarpNinja said:


> I have a very modest 5.1.2 set up. My side surrounds are on stands until we make a final decision on furniture and its placement (then I am hanging them on the side walls). I have a Denon 2200, so I can't "upgrade" to 5.1.4 at this point - and I am still waiting on a UHD player.
> 
> Being that my projector is not UHD, I am looking at upgrading my receiver at some point. Am I right that the cheapest option with room correction (really liking Audyssey) is still around $1,000? The Denon 4200 can do 5.1.4 with an external amp, which would drive the cost up for me.


Try AV Science. I'm not sure if they've started moving inventory for the 2016 models yet. You might get an even better price.


----------



## HarpNinja

GreySkies said:


> You can always use an old AVR to power the extra speakers, if you have one laying around.


I suppose I could repurpose the 2200 to do that?


----------



## GreySkies

HarpNinja said:


> I suppose I could repurpose the 2200 to do that?


Yep. I've got a beefy fifteen year old 6.1 AVR that I use as a six-channel amp via the DVD analog inputs.


----------



## HarpNinja

Being that I am stuck at 5.1.2 at least for now, is it better to use top middles that are placed a little behind MLP (perfect for 5.1.4) or fronts? I bought a pair of the Pioneer upward firing on Prime day for $99. I know that is a compromise, but the wife said no to additional in ceiling or top fronts.


----------



## a_bob36

Another Atmos beginner here. Will be moving into a new home and wife has approved AV upgrades including TV and AVR. I currently have Athena AS-F2.2 fronts, AS-C1.2 center and an Athena Point 5 system. I was thinking of going 5.1.2 using 2 of the S.5 speakers for surrounds and 2 for the high speakers. What would be the best location to mount them? Also as I have a center speaker from the Point 5 system, should I try 6.1.2? Is that even possible?


----------



## sikclown

ok I have had an Atmos setup (7.1.4) for quite some time that i am very Happy with but now I also have a dilemma. I have all Klipsch Reference setup and use 4 RS-52ii for my Top Middle and Top Rear on my ceiling (I built mounts to angle them to MLP). My current ceilings are just under 15ft which is why I went with such big speakers for the Atmos speakers.

In comes my dilemma; I bought a house that has a very unique wood panel pyramid ceiling. I have no idea what to do for my Atmos speakers and any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. Here is the room in question:


















I can easily just mount the RS-52iis where the wall meets the ceiling but i think they would be overkill for the room. Maybe i should just mount some Klipsch Elevation speakers as Front and rear heights? Find some pendant speakers and drill small holes in the ceiling wood? No clue but any ideas would be awesome. Thanks!


----------



## fracchia23

Hi guys i have a 5.1.4 klipsch Ht. I would know the exactly crossover cut for my Ht
Rp-280fa
Rp-450c
P-150m(surrounds 90 degreese)
Rp-140sa (on the surrounds)
R-115sw

Many thx for your help.


----------



## batpig

sikclown said:


> In comes my dilemma; I bought a house that has a very unique wood panel pyramid ceiling. I have no idea what to do for my Atmos speakers and any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.


Wow, what a stunning room and what a gorgeous ceiling! Congrats, that is beautiful! But a tricky situation for Atmos....

IMO a lot of this comes down to how willing you are to F up that ceiling. Mounting speakers up there will inherently inflict damage even if it's a few small holes to lag some mount bolts in there. 

If it were ME, given that room, I would mount front+rear heights along the white trim just below where the wood panels start. I can't tell what material it is but it looks like it would be easier to patch holes and paint to mask any install related damage, and it also looks like it would be easy to discretely run white-jacketed speaker wire along the edge of the trim for a low impact / low visibility wiring run. I'd probably prefer a small direct-firing bookshelf type speaker in that application rather than the bipole surround style speakers you currently have.

If the visual impact of black bookshelf speakers hanging off the wall up there is too much, you could go with white Polk OWM5 which would blend in visually quite well with that trim moulding. 

Radical idea.... is there another room in the house that could become a dedicated HT? Then you could use a more lightweight 5.1 type system for that living room and move the heavy gear into the dedicated room where aesthetics are less of a concern?


----------



## batpig

fracchia23 said:


> Hi guys i have a 5.1.4 klipsch Ht. I would know the exactly crossover cut for my Ht
> Rp-280fa
> Rp-450c
> P-150m(surrounds 90 degreese)
> Rp-140sa (on the surrounds)
> R-115sw
> 
> Many thx for your help.


Presumably your Atmos-enabled receiver has an auto room EQ setup program, so run that and it will set most of the basics for you. 

After calibration, I would double check the crossovers. It's likely that the towers will be set to "large / full range" with no crossover. I would enable bass management on them (small) and cross them over at 60-80Hz, and then the center and surrounds no lower than 80Hz. The auto EQ will probably set the center/surrounds to 60Hz or so but that's too low for 5.25" woofers if you want to play super loud. The up-firing modules will likely require a high crossover so I'd probably leave them as set by auto EQ.


----------



## batpig

a_bob36 said:


> Another Atmos beginner here. Will be moving into a new home and wife has approved AV upgrades including TV and AVR. I currently have Athena AS-F2.2 fronts, AS-C1.2 center and an Athena Point 5 system. I was thinking of going 5.1.2 using 2 of the S.5 speakers for surrounds and 2 for the high speakers. What would be the best location to mount them? Also as I have a center speaker from the Point 5 system, should I try 6.1.2? Is that even possible?


If you're going to stick with your current speaker setup then yeah, the little Point 5 satellites will be perfect for surrounds and heights to go with your LCR. In that case ideally you'd want the heights mounted directly above and a bit in front of the listening position (LP), designated as "Top Middle" overheads.

The alternate option if mounting them overhead is a problem, is to put them high on the front wall or near the wall/ceiling junction and call them "Front Height". But with only 2 height speakers placing them up front won't give as much overhead immersion as Top Middle.

You could theoretically do a 6.1.2 setup... however, that is 8 channels, which means you need a step-up receiver which can handle more than 7 channels (all entry and mid level models will be 7ch units which max out at 7.1 / 5.1.2). And if you have that receiver, then you can do 9 channels and might as well go with the full 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 setup.


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> Wow, what a stunning room and what a gorgeous ceiling! Congrats, that is beautiful! But a tricky situation for Atmos....
> 
> IMO a lot of this comes down to how willing you are to F up that ceiling. Mounting speakers up there will inherently inflict damage even if it's a few small holes to lag some mount bolts in there.
> 
> If it were ME, given that room, I would mount front+rear heights along the white trim just below where the wood panels start. I can't tell what material it is but it looks like it would be easier to patch holes and paint to mask any install related damage, and it also looks like it would be easy to discretely run white-jacketed speaker wire along the edge of the trim for a low impact / low visibility wiring run. I'd probably prefer a small direct-firing bookshelf type speaker in that application rather than the bipole surround style speakers you currently have.
> 
> If the visual impact of black bookshelf speakers hanging off the wall up there is too much, you could go with white Polk OWM5 which would blend in visually quite well with that trim moulding.
> 
> Radical idea.... is there another room in the house that could become a dedicated HT? Then you could use a more lightweight 5.1 type system for that living room and move the heavy gear into the dedicated room where aesthetics are less of a concern?


Thanks, Batpig! Yeah as soon as we walked into the house we fell in love... I am a sucker for Mid Century Modern. Unfortunately no other room in the house works for a theater room; My gut was to do exactly as you said which is to mount speakers as Front and Rear heights. I wanted to stick with Klipsch but I guess I can look elsewhere. I could always mount the Elevation Speakers Klipsch has as FH and RH. 

Anyone want to buy some Klipsch surrounds? lol


----------



## fracchia23

batpig said:


> Presumably your Atmos-enabled receiver has an auto room EQ setup program, so run that and it will set most of the basics for you.
> 
> After calibration, I would double check the crossovers. It's likely that the towers will be set to "large / full range" with no crossover. I would enable bass management on them (small) and cross them over at 60-80Hz, and then the center and surrounds no lower than 80Hz. The auto EQ will probably set the center/surrounds to 60Hz or so but that's too low for 5.25" woofers if you want to play super loud. The up-firing modules will likely require a high crossover so I'd probably leave them as set by auto EQ.



wow my denon 6200 did exactly what u said... TOWERS and CENTER and dolby atmos at 60hz set to LARGE....here is the report:

-FRONT LEFT - 7.5DB
-FRONT RIGHT - 8.5DB
-CENTER - 9.0DB
-SUBWOOFER - 4.5DB
-DOLBY FRONT LEFT - 3.5DB
-DOLBY FRONT RIGHT - 5.0DB

i can't play loud i live in apartment normally i use to play at -14/-12db

so what is your suggestion?


----------



## Soupy1970

sikclown said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a stunning room and what a gorgeous ceiling! Congrats, that is beautiful! But a tricky situation for Atmos....
> 
> IMO a lot of this comes down to how willing you are to F up that ceiling. Mounting speakers up there will inherently inflict damage even if it's a few small holes to lag some mount bolts in there.
> 
> If it were ME, given that room, I would mount front+rear heights along the white trim just below where the wood panels start. I can't tell what material it is but it looks like it would be easier to patch holes and paint to mask any install related damage, and it also looks like it would be easy to discretely run white-jacketed speaker wire along the edge of the trim for a low impact / low visibility wiring run. I'd probably prefer a small direct-firing bookshelf type speaker in that application rather than the bipole surround style speakers you currently have.
> 
> If the visual impact of black bookshelf speakers hanging off the wall up there is too much, you could go with white Polk OWM5 which would blend in visually quite well with that trim moulding.
> 
> Radical idea.... is there another room in the house that could become a dedicated HT? Then you could use a more lightweight 5.1 type system for that living room and move the heavy gear into the dedicated room where aesthetics are less of a concern?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Batpig! Yeah as soon as we walked into the house we fell in love... I am a sucker for Mid Century Modern. Unfortunately no other room in the house works for a theater room; My gut was to do exactly as you said which is to mount speakers as Front and Rear heights. I wanted to stick with Klipsch but I guess I can look elsewhere. I could always mount the Elevation Speakers Klipsch has as FH and RH.
> 
> Anyone want to buy some Klipsch surrounds? lol
Click to expand...

Check out the Klipsch AW-650, or 525. They come in White, or Black. They should blend great with the rest of your Klipsch.


----------



## Kain

Can DSU upmix mono tracks as well?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nope. There are no vectors in a mono signal to upmix from. Maybe a surround processor can extract some ambience from a mono signal but the entire presentation will still be mono.

Wouldn't recommend. 

A good stereo signal is always your best bet to start from.


----------



## fracchia23

fracchia23 said:


> wow my denon 6200 did exactly what u said... TOWERS and CENTER and dolby atmos at 60hz set to LARGE....here is the report:
> 
> -FRONT LEFT - 7.5DB
> -FRONT RIGHT - 8.5DB
> -CENTER - 9.0DB
> -SUBWOOFER - 4.5DB
> -DOLBY FRONT LEFT - 3.5DB
> -DOLBY FRONT RIGHT - 5.0DB
> 
> i can't play loud i live in apartment normally i use to play at -14/-12db
> 
> so what is your suggestion?


up


----------



## Selden Ball

fracchia23 said:


> wow my denon 6200 did exactly what u said... TOWERS and CENTER and dolby atmos at 60hz set to LARGE....here is the report:
> 
> -FRONT LEFT - 7.5DB
> -FRONT RIGHT - 8.5DB
> -CENTER - 9.0DB
> -SUBWOOFER - 4.5DB
> -DOLBY FRONT LEFT - 3.5DB
> -DOLBY FRONT RIGHT - 5.0DB
> 
> i can't play loud i live in apartment normally i use to play at -14/-12db
> 
> so what is your suggestion?


80 Hz crossover is the standard recommendation. 

If you haven't already, please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ. It answers these and many other questions that you haven't thought of yet.


----------



## fracchia23

Selden Ball said:


> 80 Hz crossover is the standard recommendation.
> 
> If you haven't already, please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ. It answers these and many other questions that you haven't thought of yet.


yes ok but if my front speakers are able to sound at 60hz because i don't use to play so loud, is this better to leave at 60 or have to set to 80 as you say?


----------



## Selden Ball

fracchia23 said:


> yes ok but if my front speakers are able to sound at 60hz because i don't use to play so loud, is this better to leave at 60 or have to set to 80 as you say?


If your speakers sound fine with the crossover at 60 Hz, then you can leave it that way if you want.

There are several reasons why a 80 Hz crossover usually is recommended:

It offloads the lowest, most power-hungry frequencies from the receiver's amplifiers to the subwoofer, providing more headroom for the higher frequencies.
The subwoofer is designed to do a better job of reproducing the low frequencies than the woofers in the main speakers.
Low frequencies interact with the room differently than high frequencies do. The best position for a subwoofer usually is not the best position for the main speakers.


----------



## curtishd

I was thinking about this for a 5.1.4 (future 7.1.4) atmos set up. I am unable to put ceiling speakers for the top back speakers so I was thinking about getting the klipsch atmos rp-140a speakers and mounting them on the side walls against the ceiling above the surrounds. What do you all think?


----------



## Soupy1970

curtishd said:


> I was thinking about this for a 5.1.4 (future 7.1.4) atmos set up. I am unable to put ceiling speakers for the top back speakers so I was thinking about getting the klipsch atmos rp-140a speakers and mounting them on the side walls against the ceiling above the surrounds. What do you all think?


Most reflective speakers have a high cross-over. What floor speakers do you use? IMHO, there are probably better alternatives. I'm sure they work great as a reflective speaker though.


----------



## curtishd

Soupy1970 said:


> Most reflective speakers have a high cross-over. What floor speakers do you use? IMHO, there are probably better alternatives. I'm sure they work great as a reflective speaker though.


Thanks for the reply. I'll probably get something like Klipsch rp260 for fronts and the rp240s for surrounds.


----------



## Soupy1970

curtishd said:


> Thanks for the reply. I'll probably get something like Klipsch rp260 for fronts and the rp240s for surrounds.


For Atmos and 7.1.4 I thing the RP-160M would go nicely with the RP-280's. If you can't go with in ceiling, maybe the Klipsch AW-650, or 525 would work nicely. 

I use the older Klipsch 6" Bookshelf (RB-61) for my rear surrounds and they are nice speakers. I think the directional speakers will work a little better for you in Atmos, unless you have multiple rows of seating that require sound spreading out in multiple directions.


----------



## Gillietalls

*Dolby Atmos for Small Area*

Hello all. I'm shamefully behind in the sound department of AV. I love good looking screens, and have now been convinced by friends and Best Buy employees that I'm only getting half of the cake. They say I need sounds and the best sounds to get is a Dolby Atmos setup. I'm still kind of skeptical about all this, so what's my cheapest but decent option for a small 5.1.2 configuration? Thanks for any suggestion....


----------



## gbaby

sikclown said:


> ok I have had an Atmos setup (7.1.4) for quite some time that i am very Happy with but now I also have a dilemma. I have all Klipsch Reference setup and use 4 RS-52ii for my Top Middle and Top Rear on my ceiling (I built mounts to angle them to MLP). My current ceilings are just under 15ft which is why I went with such big speakers for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> In comes my dilemma; I bought a house that has a very unique wood panel pyramid ceiling. I have no idea what to do for my Atmos speakers and any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. Here is the room in question:
> 
> View attachment 1547033
> 
> 
> View attachment 1547041
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily just mount the RS-52iis where the wall meets the ceiling but i think they would be overkill for the room. Maybe i should just mount some Klipsch Elevation speakers as Front and rear heights? Find some pendant speakers and drill small holes in the ceiling wood? No clue but any ideas would be awesome. Thanks!



You need your butt kicked for even thinking about ruining that beautiful ceiling for ATMOS.


----------



## GreySkies

gbaby said:


> You need your butt kicked for even thinking about ruining that beautiful ceiling for ATMOS.


I love Atmos, but I gotta agree with @gbaby on this one.


----------



## sikclown

gbaby said:


> You need your butt kicked for even thinking about ruining that beautiful ceiling for ATMOS.


My ceiling, my choice. I am trying to find the happy medium between sound nirvana and respecting my Mid Century Modern. I will do nothing to ruin the ceiling though. In fact I am having prior damage (previous owners) repaired as we speak.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gbaby said:


> You need your butt kicked for even thinking about ruining that beautiful ceiling for ATMOS.


Yeah yeah yeah. We got it. You don't like Atmos.


----------



## gbaby

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah yeah yeah. We got it. You don't like Atmos.


Please don't read more into my comments than what is stated.


----------



## ndabunka

Gillietalls said:


> Hello all. I'm shamefully behind in the sound department of AV. I love good looking screens, and have now been convinced by friends and Best Buy employees that I'm only getting half of the cake. They say I need sounds and the best sounds to get is a Dolby Atmos setup. I'm still kind of skeptical about all this, so what's my cheapest but decent option for a small 5.1.2 configuration? Thanks for any suggestion....


What is the SIZE of the room? What do YOU consider "cheap"?


----------



## ALtlOff

sikclown said:


> My ceiling, my choice. I am trying to find the happy medium between sound nirvana and respecting my Mid Century Modern. I will do nothing to ruin the ceiling though. In fact I am having prior damage (previous owners) repaired as we speak.


Have you considered heights mounted on that line where the vent is?


----------



## sikclown

ALtlOff said:


> Have you considered heights mounted on that line where the vent is?


Yeah that is what I am going to do. My gut was to do that but I was throwing it out there to get some other ideas. My current RS-52ii will be way too big and overkill for my setup so I am moving them to my rear and side surroungs , selling my current rear and side surrounds, and then mounting 4 Klipsch RP-140sa as Front and Rear Heights. I talked to another guy about his setup using the same and he is very happy with it. Worst case scenario I return the RP-140sa and try a few of the other suggestions.

Thankfully no one has to attempt to kick my butt


----------



## dmarcink

sikclown said:


> ok I have had an Atmos setup (7.1.4) for quite some time that i am very Happy with but now I also have a dilemma. I have all Klipsch Reference setup and use 4 RS-52ii for my Top Middle and Top Rear on my ceiling (I built mounts to angle them to MLP). My current ceilings are just under 15ft which is why I went with such big speakers for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> In comes my dilemma; I bought a house that has a very unique wood panel pyramid ceiling. I have no idea what to do for my Atmos speakers and any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. Here is the room in question:
> 
> View attachment 1547033
> 
> 
> View attachment 1547041
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily just mount the RS-52iis where the wall meets the ceiling but i think they would be overkill for the room. Maybe i should just mount some Klipsch Elevation speakers as Front and rear heights? Find some pendant speakers and drill small holes in the ceiling wood? No clue but any ideas would be awesome. Thanks!


 
Beautiful room. Consider drop ceiling mounts with some very small bookshelf speakers in a real wood finish that closely matches your décor: 

http://www.standsandmounts.com/peerlessdropdownceilingmount-lcc.aspx


----------



## GreySkies

sikclown said:


> My ceiling, my choice. I am trying to find the happy medium between sound nirvana and respecting my Mid Century Modern. I will do nothing to ruin the ceiling though. In fact I am having prior damage (previous owners) repaired as we speak.


Fair enough. Beautiful room, BTW—I'm a sucker for mid-century stuff. 

Are those gaps in between the planks? I'm thinking brackets might be fabricated that could mount in the gaps, to which different overheads could be mounted; I don't think your current Klipschs are going to work for overheads.

That ceiling might also provide some acoustic challenges as well.


----------



## Soupy1970

sikclown said:


> Yeah that is what I am going to do. My gut was to do that but I was throwing it out there to get some other ideas. My current RS-52ii will be way too big and overkill for my setup so I am moving them to my rear and side surroungs , selling my current rear and side surrounds, and then mounting 4 Klipsch RP-140sa as Front and Rear Heights. I talked to another guy about his setup using the same and he is very happy with it. Worst case scenario I return the RP-140sa and try a few of the other suggestions.
> 
> Thankfully no one has to attempt to kick my butt


Is the RP-140sa going to be able to keep up with the rest of your system? I can't find specs them, probably because they are designed to be a reflective speaker.


----------



## sikclown

Soupy1970 said:


> Is the RP-140sa going to be able to keep up with the rest of your system? I can't find specs them, probably because they are designed to be a reflective speaker.


For the room size and the application I think the RP-140sa will be just fine but I definitely have some concerns with them. Kilpsch says they were designed as reflectives but also as surrounds that should work like bookshelf speakers. A handful of people on various forums are using them as surrounds and love them but I usually take that stuff with a grain of salt. The Klispch dealer I spoke with has a great return policy so not too big of a risk there either. I will keep everyone posted on how they turn out and I really appreciate the help!


----------



## sikclown

dmarcink said:


> Beautiful room. Consider drop ceiling mounts with some very small bookshelf speakers in a real wood finish that closely matches your décor:
> 
> http://www.standsandmounts.com/peerlessdropdownceilingmount-lcc.aspx


Thanks! Yeah I looked at similar mounts but they would be too damaging to the ceiling itself. The least damaging would be to drop some pendant speakers (Like Tannoy) but drilling those holes would break my heart. It may end up happening down the line but for now I am just going to mount in the dry wall.


----------



## sikclown

GreySkies said:


> Fair enough. Beautiful room, BTW—I'm a sucker for mid-century stuff.
> 
> Are those gaps in between the planks? I'm thinking brackets might be fabricated that could mount in the gaps, to which different overheads could be mounted; I don't think your current Klipschs are going to work for overheads.
> 
> That ceiling might also provide some acoustic challenges as well.


Thanks, me too! 

It might be possible to fabricate brackets to mount in between the planks but I would be very worried about overall stress to the planks themselves. For now I am going FH/RH mounted to the drywall which I can patch later.

Interestingly the guy I have repairing a few of the planks just sent me a link for Sonance architectural series. He just worked with an install guy doing something similar in another location. Starting at like 3 grand though, I will stick with my FH/RH and leave the ceiling being beautiful.


----------



## batpig

Gillietalls said:


> Hello all. I'm shamefully behind in the sound department of AV. I love good looking screens, and have now been convinced by friends and Best Buy employees that I'm only getting half of the cake. They say I need sounds and the best sounds to get is a Dolby Atmos setup. I'm still kind of skeptical about all this, so what's my cheapest but decent option for a small 5.1.2 configuration? Thanks for any suggestion....


It really depends on what "cheap" and "decent" mean to you, but considering that it sounds like you are listening using the TV speakers then nearly any decent surround setup will blow you away in sound quality.

Big question - are you willing to mount speaker on or in the ceiling? If yes, the options open up a bit, if no, then you have to use reflective "Atmos enabled' up-firing modules to bounce sound off the ceiling.

These days you can get a decent entry-level Atmos receiver for $300 or less, as the feature has trickled down and the Atmos decoders are now standard on all but the cheapest receivers released last year and this. The other immersive format, DTS:X, hasn't yet made it to the cheaper models although they are supposed to enable it with a firmware update later this summer (at least for Denon/Marantz, not sure about timing with Yamaha or other brands).

Since you're budget conscious, I would look for a 2015 model receiver on closeout pricing (or refurb / open box) since there aren't many big changes with the newer 2016 models that are coming out now. Something like a Denon S710W ($269 as a certified refurb with 1-year warranty) which is the cheapest model I could find with 7ch support, Atmos and DTS:X coming via firmware. You might want to ask your Best Buy guys if there are any good deals on open box as the new inventory comes in.

So let's assume $300 for the receiver. Then the question becomes speaker budget. I'm going to assume based on your comments that you'd prefer small, unobtrusive satellite speakers.

If the budget is super restricted, I would scrape around for a good deal on a small satellite speaker system with good reviews like the Energy Take Classic, Mirage Nanosat, Definitive Technology ProCinema, etc. You can often find complete 5.1 sets for $200 or less which will give you the basics you need to get up and running. Then add a couple more satellites or inexpensive in-ceiling speakers to complete the 5.1.2 Atmos setup, although there's nothing wrong with starting with 5.1 for now and then worrying about the rest later. There are plenty of decent in-ceiling speakers for $100/pair.

So for under $500 you could easily have a very nice little 5.1 setup. And then take it from there.


----------



## heavyharmonies

sikclown said:


> For the room size and the application I think the RP-140sa will be just fine but I definitely have some concerns with them. Kilpsch says they were designed as reflectives but also as surrounds that should work like bookshelf speakers. A handful of people on various forums are using them as surrounds and love them but I usually take that stuff with a grain of salt.


My room is much smaller than yours, but I just went through a similar process this weekend. On Friday, I received two pairs Klipsch RP-140SA to test against two pairs of Elac A4 Atmos modules in a 5.2.4 configuration. I initially set up the Klipsch the same way I had the Elac A4s set up: sitting on top of my fronts and surrounds, operating as upfiring Atmos modules, configured as Front Height and Rear Height in my AVR.

Instant improvement over the Elac A4. Going through the 2015 Dolby Atmos demo disc (download and burn to a BD-R; see instructions elsewhere on the forum), I immediately started getting much of the vertical height effects. With the Elacs, while Atmos provided a deeper and more immersive experience than without height speakers, I hadn't been getting the true overhead effects.

On Saturday, my project was to take the Klipsch speakers and temporarily mount them on the wall at ceiling level as height speakers, to see how that experience compared with using them as upfiring modules. I've got them roughly 5 inches from the ceiling (8 foot ceilings).

Both good and bad compared to upward firing. The height effects are taller and more pronounced than when used as upward firing. The downside is that since the drivers are directed at the listener, some sounds are now more localized, whereas when upward firing everything was diffuse.

For logistical purposes, I am going to keep them wall mounted and live with the periodic localization. Regardless of how you implement them, you will most definitely get a very tall soundstage and height effects with the 140SA. Simple to mount, with a keyhole in the back of each speaker. I just sunk a single screw for each speaker sticking out of the wall about a half inch, and done.

My setup is too ghetto for me to post pics, but this image from elsewhere on the forum shows approximately what I'm doing. Mine are not quite as close to the ceiling as the ones in this picture.


----------



## tezster

sikclown said:


> Thanks, Batpig! Yeah as soon as we walked into the house we fell in love... I am a sucker for Mid Century Modern. Unfortunately no other room in the house works for a theater room; My gut was to do exactly as you said which is to mount speakers as Front and Rear heights. I wanted to stick with Klipsch but I guess I can look elsewhere. I could always mount the Elevation Speakers Klipsch has as FH and RH.
> 
> Anyone want to buy some Klipsch surrounds? lol


I agree with BP - height speakers along the white trim would be the most unobtrusive way to add Atmos in that room. If you can get white speakers that you can flush-mount, that would be ideal. Maybe check out the SVS Prime Elevation speakers; they're supposed to be released later this summer.


----------



## Soupy1970

Gillietalls said:


> Hello all. I'm shamefully behind in the sound department of AV. I love good looking screens, and have now been convinced by friends and Best Buy employees that I'm only getting half of the cake. They say I need sounds and the best sounds to get is a Dolby Atmos setup. I'm still kind of skeptical about all this, so what's my cheapest but decent option for a small 5.1.2 configuration? Thanks for any suggestion....


I would grab the AVR batpig suggested. I bought this speaker package for a second room as an upgrade to a Onkyo home theater in a box setup. I'm happy with them. http://www.parts-express.com/51-home-theater-bundle-12-powered-subwoofer--300-696


----------



## ALtlOff

sikclown said:


> Yeah that is what I am going to do. My gut was to do that but I was throwing it out there to get some other ideas. My current RS-52ii will be way too big and overkill for my setup so I am moving them to my rear and side surroungs , selling my current rear and side surrounds, and then mounting 4 Klipsch RP-140sa as Front and Rear Heights. I talked to another guy about his setup using the same and he is very happy with it. Worst case scenario I return the RP-140sa and try a few of the other suggestions.
> 
> Thankfully no one has to attempt to kick my butt


Lol....
Don't forget to play with your settings once it's up and running, my heights sound better set as Top's.


----------



## Anthony1

I haven't read this thread and I'm pretty clueless about Dolby Atmos overall, but can this technology work with headphones ? Just using a regular PC and headphones ? I thought it would require some specific Dolby Atmos type hardware to make it happen.. But this article is talking about Virtual Reality experiences using the power of Dolby Atmos and they mention just using regular headphones:

http://www.ce-pro.eu/article/jaunts-vr-app-gets-dolby-atmos-content


Is this just a bunch of marketing bullcrap ?


----------



## davehale

sikclown said:


> ok I have had an Atmos setup (7.1.4) for quite some time that i am very Happy with but now I also have a dilemma. I have all Klipsch Reference setup and use 4 RS-52ii for my Top Middle and Top Rear on my ceiling (I built mounts to angle them to MLP). My current ceilings are just under 15ft which is why I went with such big speakers for the Atmos speakers.
> 
> In comes my dilemma; I bought a house that has a very unique wood panel pyramid ceiling. I have no idea what to do for my Atmos speakers and any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. Here is the room in question:
> 
> View attachment 1547033
> 
> 
> View attachment 1547041
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily just mount the RS-52iis where the wall meets the ceiling but i think they would be overkill for the room. Maybe i should just mount some Klipsch Elevation speakers as Front and rear heights? Find some pendant speakers and drill small holes in the ceiling wood? No clue but any ideas would be awesome. Thanks!


May I ask if that black chair can swivel 180? if so, where to buy? Thanks for the photos.


----------



## sikclown

davehale said:


> May I ask if that black chair can swivel 180? if so, where to buy? Thanks for the photos.


It does swivel but it isn't my furniture. Sorry the picture is from the listing and we haven't moved in yet but I will shoot the seller an email and find out the info for you.


----------



## sikclown

heavyharmonies said:


> My room is much smaller than yours, but I just went through a similar process this weekend. On Friday, I received two pairs Klipsch RP-140SA to test against two pairs of Elac A4 Atmos modules in a 5.2.4 configuration. I initially set up the Klipsch the same way I had the Elac A4s set up: sitting on top of my fronts and surrounds, operating as upfiring Atmos modules, configured as Front Height and Rear Height in my AVR.
> 
> Instant improvement over the Elac A4. Going through the 2015 Dolby Atmos demo disc (download and burn to a BD-R; see instructions elsewhere on the forum), I immediately started getting much of the vertical height effects. With the Elacs, while Atmos provided a deeper and more immersive experience than without height speakers, I hadn't been getting the true overhead effects.
> 
> On Saturday, my project was to take the Klipsch speakers and temporarily mount them on the wall at ceiling level as height speakers, to see how that experience compared with using them as upfiring modules. I've got them roughly 5 inches from the ceiling (8 foot ceilings).
> 
> Both good and bad compared to upward firing. The height effects are taller and more pronounced than when used as upward firing. The downside is that since the drivers are directed at the listener, some sounds are now more localized, whereas when upward firing everything was diffuse.
> 
> For logistical purposes, I am going to keep them wall mounted and live with the periodic localization. Regardless of how you implement them, you will most definitely get a very tall soundstage and height effects with the 140SA. Simple to mount, with a keyhole in the back of each speaker. I just sunk a single screw for each speaker sticking out of the wall about a half inch, and done.
> 
> My setup is too ghetto for me to post pics, but this image from elsewhere on the forum shows approximately what I'm doing. Mine are not quite as close to the ceiling as the ones in this picture.



Thanks for that, I was worried about the localization but I can deal with it I think.


----------



## healthnut

Would anyone care to comment about the benefit of rear surrounds? I can save $500 on a new receiver if I forego them. Has anyone tested Atmos with and without rear surrounds and discerned a meaningful difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vollans

I started off with a Denon AVR-X2200, so ran 5.1.2. It sounded good, I was really happy with it. I really noticed the overheads. 

Last week, I moved to a Yamaha RX-A2050, also 5.1.2, and it sounded better than the Denon, and the overheads a bit more controlled and blended in. You know the overheads are there and work for atmosphere as intended, but they weren't as punchy as they were with Denon. I consider that a good thing. My understanding of Atmos is that it should be atmosphere rather than slap you around the chops. 

This weekend, I splashed out and installed a pair of rear presence as well, so now it's 5.1.4, with the same Yamaha amp. It is definitely worth installing the extra pair. Steering of sounds is a lot more distinct and feels more natural. It now feels like a complete sound stage rather than several distinct speakers.


----------



## Witchboard

I think he's meaning the difference between 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 as he indicated rear surrounds, but I could be wrong.


----------



## ALtlOff

healthnut said:


> Would anyone care to comment about the benefit of rear surrounds? I can save $500 on a new receiver if I forego them. Has anyone tested Atmos with and without rear surrounds and discerned a meaningful difference?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It really depends on your space, the rear surround signals are mixed into the surrounds in a 5 speaker bed layer, so it's not as if the sounds are just lost.
And in most cases, the general consensus with Atmos is that a 5.1.4 will be slightly better than a 7.1.2, but again your room and the amount of space behind you would be the biggest factor, besides whether 7.1 is just more appealing to you than 5.1 in general. (Some people just don't think it matters that much, some do)


----------



## healthnut

vollans said:


> I started off with a Denon AVR-X2200, so ran 5.1.2. It sounded good, I was really happy with it. I really noticed the overheads.
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, I moved to a Yamaha RX-A2050, also 5.1.2, and it sounded better than the Denon, and the overheads a bit more controlled and blended in. You know the overheads are there and work for atmosphere as intended, but they weren't as punchy as they were with Denon. I consider that a good thing. My understanding of Atmos is that it should be atmosphere rather than slap you around the chops.
> 
> 
> 
> This weekend, I splashed out and installed a pair of rear presence as well, so now it's 5.1.4, with the same Yamaha amp. It is definitely worth installing the extra pair. Steering of sounds is a lot more distinct and feels more natural. It now feels like a complete sound stage rather than several distinct speakers.




Glad to hear of your experience, but I'm already sold on 2 pairs of overheads. My question concerned the value of rear surrounds, not tops or heights. Would anyone be willing to play a movie with and without rear surrounds and report the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Are you just wanting to save a buck or can you not fit rear surrounds? 

I would give up all my overhead speakers before I gave up my rear surrounds.


----------



## batpig

I'm one of the "7.1.2 before 5.1.4" types. Yes, from a strictly "Atmos" perspective, I can see the argument that 5.1.4 is better since sounds can move more precisely above you... but the vast majority of content is still not immersive and won't be for years. And even with immersive content we all know they don't use the overheads that much. I'd rather have a rock solid, well positioned 7ch bed as my foundation for surround sound, and then consider everything else gravy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Same.


----------



## healthnut

Opinion here and elsewhere taken together is fairly evenly divided, though so far, I haven't been able to get anyone to try a movie (or even a scene) with and without the rears engaged and report the difference (or lack of one)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> I'm one of the "7.1.2 before 5.1.4" types. Yes, from a strictly "Atmos" perspective, I can see the argument that 5.1.4 is better since sounds can move more precisely above you... but the vast majority of content is still not immersive and won't be for years. And even with immersive content we all know they don't use the overheads that much. I'd rather have a rock solid, well positioned 7ch bed as my foundation for surround sound, and then consider everything else gravy.


 
Literally speaking you're right, from a fundamentals POV. But how much do you really notice your rear surrounds on upmixed two channel or 5.1 content? Given the choices I'd rather have upmixing to my wides with Neural:X than rear surrounds because our hearing's front-centered. And if you've got, say, only three feet behind MLP or a room where it's difficult to have good separation between heights and surround speakers, those rear surrounds become a luxury. I'd feel even more so if I were more of a music guy than a HT guy. That's also where I notice the "cap of sound" effect with DSU, and the upmixing on top of 5.1 content to the heights with Neural:X.


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> I'm one of the "7.1.2 before 5.1.4" types. Yes, from a strictly "Atmos" perspective, I can see the argument that 5.1.4 is better since sounds can move more precisely above you... but the vast majority of content is still not immersive and won't be for years. And even with immersive content we all know they don't use the overheads that much. I'd rather have a rock solid, well positioned 7ch bed as my foundation for surround sound, and then consider everything else gravy.


Agreed. If it weren't for the Atmos demo disc, I would probably be upset about the monies and time spent for Atmos/DTS:X. Hopefully, we will get to a day when the overheads are properly used but for now it just isn't there. It reminds me of the early days of Dolby surround. A bit of ambiance and music splashed in here or there. Don't get me wrong, the demo disc is incredible and really shows the potential of the technology. Outside of that, what we are getting in movies is just meh. Just agreeing that a solid seven channel should be paramount first.


----------



## batpig

healthnut said:


> Opinion here and elsewhere taken together is fairly evenly divided, though so far, I haven't been able to get anyone to try a movie (or even a scene) with and without the rears engaged and report the difference (or lack of one)


I'll try to give it a shot for you. I've played with it before and I do notice them missing, although in the interim I've since relocated my side surrounds a bit further back (they were nearly directly to the sides before, about 80-85 degrees azimuth, now they are at ~110 degrees).

There's a lot of variables that impact this though, such as room dimensions and speaker placement. For someone like Scott who has his side surrounds forward of the listening position, losing the rear surrounds would be a massive problem as he'd completely lose any sense of rear envelopment. But someone who has to have their couch 2-3 feet from the back wall and also has the side surrounds behind the LP (e.g. back corners of the room) there won't be as dramatic of a difference because you'll already get some solid rear hemisphere imaging. 

I'd rather have a really good 5.1 base layer than a poorly implemented 7.1, but if you have the room to do 7.1 right then it's really worth it.


----------



## healthnut

batpig said:


> I'll try to give it a shot for you. I've played with it before and I do notice them missing, although in the interim I've since relocated my side surrounds a bit further back (they were nearly directly to the sides before, about 80-85 degrees azimuth, now they are at ~110 degrees).
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of variables that impact this though, such as room dimensions and speaker placement. For someone like Scott who has his side surrounds forward of the listening position, losing the rear surrounds would be a massive problem as he'd completely lose any sense of rear envelopment. But someone who has to have their couch 2-3 feet from the back wall and also has the side surrounds behind the LP (e.g. back corners of the room) there won't be as dramatic of a difference because you'll already get some solid rear hemisphere imaging.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have a really good 5.1 base layer than a poorly implemented 7.1, but if you have the room to do 7.1 right then it's really worth it.




Thanks for the thoughtful response. I only have around 3 feet behind me, so I don't really think it's worth it for me. I may place the surrounds slightly back of 90 degrees to partially compensate for this, based on your post. Thanks again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gillietalls

ndabunka said:


> What is the SIZE of the room? What do YOU consider "cheap"?


It's a relatively small room. It's a loft area that is 15 long by 12 feet wide. And trying to stay under $1500....


----------



## Gillietalls

batpig said:


> It really depends on what "cheap" and "decent" mean to you, but considering that it sounds like you are listening using the TV speakers then nearly any decent surround setup will blow you away in sound quality.
> 
> Big question - are you willing to mount speaker on or in the ceiling? If yes, the options open up a bit, if no, then you have to use reflective "Atmos enabled' up-firing modules to bounce sound off the ceiling.
> 
> These days you can get a decent entry-level Atmos receiver for $300 or less, as the feature has trickled down and the Atmos decoders are now standard on all but the cheapest receivers released last year and this. The other immersive format, DTS:X, hasn't yet made it to the cheaper models although they are supposed to enable it with a firmware update later this summer (at least for Denon/Marantz, not sure about timing with Yamaha or other brands).
> 
> Since you're budget conscious, I would look for a 2015 model receiver on closeout pricing (or refurb / open box) since there aren't many big changes with the newer 2016 models that are coming out now. Something like a Denon S710W ($269 as a certified refurb with 1-year warranty) which is the cheapest model I could find with 7ch support, Atmos and DTS:X coming via firmware. You might want to ask your Best Buy guys if there are any good deals on open box as the new inventory comes in.
> 
> So let's assume $300 for the receiver. Then the question becomes speaker budget. I'm going to assume based on your comments that you'd prefer small, unobtrusive satellite speakers.
> 
> If the budget is super restricted, I would scrape around for a good deal on a small satellite speaker system with good reviews like the Energy Take Classic, Mirage Nanosat, Definitive Technology ProCinema, etc. You can often find complete 5.1 sets for $200 or less which will give you the basics you need to get up and running. Then add a couple more satellites or inexpensive in-ceiling speakers to complete the 5.1.2 Atmos setup, although there's nothing wrong with starting with 5.1 for now and then worrying about the rest later. There are plenty of decent in-ceiling speakers for $100/pair.
> 
> So for under $500 you could easily have a very nice little 5.1 setup. And then take it from there.


Thanks. Trying not to spend more than $1500 and have no issue with mounting in the ceiling. My ceiling is about 9 feet tall in the room I wish to install it in....


----------



## ndabunka

Gillietalls said:


> It's a relatively small room. It's a loft area that is 15 long by 12 feet wide. And trying to stay under $1500....


So, you need an Atmos receiver & 5.1.2 speakers for $1,500 then? There are a few $500 Atmos receivers that (I think) can do that but not certain what you need regarding speakers. A decent 300w sub can be bought for $350 used which doesn't leave you a lot for the other speakers but others on here have posted a few options. Heck, some say that with the right sub you can even use the cheapo BOSE HTIB stuff so it's possible.


----------



## dvdwilly3

*On-ceiling?*



Gillietalls said:


> Thanks. Trying not to spend more than $1500 and have no issue with mounting in the ceiling. My ceiling is about 9 feet tall in the room I wish to install it in....


SVS Prime 5.1 (includes SB-1000) for $1,000, plus 2 satellites at $135 each plus refurb Denon...$1550 for 5.1.2...

That would be, of course, on ceiling instead of in-ceiling, but it works just as well, if not better. I would argue that it gives you more aim-ability...yeah, I think that I just made that up...


----------



## Soupy1970

ndabunka said:


> So, you need an Atmos receiver & 5.1.2 speakers for $1,500 then? There are a few $500 Atmos receivers that (I think) can do that but not certain what you need regarding speakers. A decent 300w sub can be bought for $350 used which doesn't leave you a lot for the other speakers but others on here have posted a few options. Heck, some say that with the right sub you can even use the cheapo BOSE HTIB stuff so it's possible.


Yeah, that Dayton set I posted is cheap and surprisingly that sub is pretty descent. It doesn't dig real low, but sure does put out the Mid Bass. It's a good starter set for sure. If he hangs around here very long, he will get upgraditis anyway, no matter what he starts off with.


----------



## sikclown

I will be selling a 5.1.2 or 7.1 system pretty soon. All Klipsch: 2 RB-61ii, 1 RC-62ii, 2 RS-62ii, 2 rs-42ii and a Bic Acoustech PL-200 sub (basically giving the sub away) but it would eat through your 1500 pretty quickly. not much left over for an AVR.


----------



## Gillietalls

Thank you all for the suggestions and the help. I've got a lot to think about. Just want to make sure I'm getting the best out of all these 4K blu rays I've been buying. Most if not all of them have dolby atmos so I want to see what this sound is all about. Thanks again to everyone who has replied and/or commented.


----------



## ozkarah

*Need advice on Atmos+DTS:X TopMiddle/TopRear speaker placement*

Hi guys. I need your help and advice about Atmos/DTS:X speaker placement. 

Could you please check this thread ?

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-general-home-theater-media-game-rooms/2520441-need-advice-atmos-dts-x-topmiddle-toprear-speaker-placement.html#post45445569



Thank you very much


----------



## Antonsen

I just ordered four XTZ s2 atoms speakers, and I think I have to place them with an 57 degree angle from my ears - anyone thinks thats gonna be OK or is this i a real bad idea? I´d hate to move them because that will make my cables show... any thoughts?


----------



## batpig

Gillietalls said:


> Thanks. Trying not to spend more than $1500 and have no issue with mounting in the ceiling. My ceiling is about 9 feet tall in the room I wish to install it in....


Ah, if are willing to spend $1500 that really opens things up. Lots of options.

If you want to keep it easy the SVS Prime 5.1 setup noted above is a great option -- a fantastic package for $999 to your door with a 45-day free in home trial. http://www.svsound.com/products/prime-satellite-5-1

That setup will blow you away if you're used to TV speakers and/or soundbars. Add a $300 receiver and a pair of in ceiling speakers and you are rocking. SVS doesn't make in ceiling speakers but these are a nice design and only $250/pair from a very reputable company: https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/


----------



## batpig

Antonsen said:


> I just ordered four XTZ s2 atoms speakers, and I think I have to place them with an 57 degree angle from my ears - anyone thinks thats gonna be OK or is this i a real bad idea? I´d hate to move them because that will make my cables show... any thoughts?


I'm not really understanding the question. What does "57 degree angle from my ears" mean? Perhaps a photo of the setup would help?


----------



## batpig

ozkarah said:


> Hi guys. I need your help and advice about Atmos/DTS:X speaker placement.
> 
> Could you please check this thread ?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-general-home-theater-media-game-rooms/2520441-need-advice-atmos-dts-x-topmiddle-toprear-speaker-placement.html#post45445569
> 
> Thank you very much


I think your option B will be fine, makes the wife happy and I can't see a huge difference between the two to justify pissing her off 

I'm curious about how mismatched your speaker setup is. I understand that things happen, but why when you haven't installed your in-ceilings are you intentionally using two different pairs of Polk speakers for the two locations? The 80-F/X are dual tweeter bipole/dipole designs, and the V60 is a more traditional 2-way "tweeter on a bridge" design from a different Polk series. I would recommend four identical speakers or at least speakers from the same line. I'm also worried that in that room the fronts will be a bit too diffuse using a multi-tweeter speakers spraying sound around.


----------



## gwsat

I post for the first time and incredibly late to this incredibly long thread. During the course of upgrading my home theater system, my AV contractor told me that 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers (Focal ICW8s) in my new 4K HDR enabled system would do wonders for me. He has never let me down yet, so I have drunk his Kool Aid and am adding the 4 new speakers to my existing Hsu 7.1 speaker setup. I am upgrading my receiver to a Yamaha RX-A3060. I have had and loved a Yamaha RX-V3900 for seven years but it can't handle 4K so it needs to be retired. Apparently, the 3060 will be able to drive a 7.1.4 speaker array with aplomb. My new system is scheduled to be installed on August 1st and 2d. I will report how Atmos enabled content sounds after my new system is installed and I have had a chance to shake it down. In the meantime, I will continue to read the thread and learn more about this fascinating topic.

P.S. I found this thread by having read the _Audioholics_ reports that threw Dolby Atmos under the bus and, later, made excuses for having done so.


----------



## Soupy1970

gwsat said:


> I post for the first time and incredibly late to this incredibly long thread. During the course of upgrading my home theater system, my AV contractor told me that 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers (Focal ICW8s) in my new 4K HDR enabled system would do wonders for me. He has never let me down yet, so I have drunk his Kool Aid and am adding the 4 new speakers to my existing Hsu 7.1 speaker setup. I am upgrading my receiver to a Yamaha RX-A3060. I have had and loved a Yamaha RX-V3900 for seven years but it can't handle 4K so it needs to be retired. Apparently, the 3060 will be able to drive a 7.1.4 speaker array with aplomb. My new system is scheduled to be installed on August 1st and 2d. I will report how Atmos enabled content sounds after my new system is installed and I have had a chance to shake it down. In the meantime, I will continue to read the thread and learn more about this fascinating topic.
> 
> P.S. I found this thread by having read the _Audioholics_ reports that threw Dolby Atmos under the bus and, later, made excuses for having done so.


Nice! I'm sure you will love it!
You will need an external 2 channel amp, or use your RX-V3900 to power top rears in 7.1.4.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> I post for the first time and incredibly late to this incredibly long thread. During the course of upgrading my home theater system, my AV contractor told me that 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers (Focal ICW8s) in my new 4K HDR enabled system would do wonders for me. He has never let me down yet, so I have drunk his Kool Aid and am adding the 4 new speakers to my existing Hsu 7.1 speaker setup. I am upgrading my receiver to a Yamaha RX-A3060. I have had and loved a Yamaha RX-V3900 for seven years but it can't handle 4K so it needs to be retired. Apparently, the 3060 will be able to drive a 7.1.4 speaker array with aplomb. My new system is scheduled to be installed on August 1st and 2d. I will report how Atmos enabled content sounds after my new system is installed and I have had a chance to shake it down. In the meantime, I will continue to read the thread and learn more about this fascinating topic.
> 
> P.S. I found this thread by having read the _Audioholics_ reports that threw Dolby Atmos under the bus and, later, made excuses for having done so.


Better late than never. 

Welcome aboard.


----------



## Gynoid

*Will this work? Will it sound good?*

Okay, Attached is the proposed layout for my HT room. The front should be perfect, my concern is the surrounds and surround backs. The surrounds would have to be mounted at the intersection of the ceiling and wall as the top foot of the wall is drywall but everything below is like french doors that do not open. I chose the Klipsch Atmos angled speaker modules as they would at least aim towards the front of the listening position and they are perfect size. I was also thinking of using the same 2 speakers for the rear surrounds but they could be half way up the back wall instead of all the way at the top. Do you think that it will sound good and I would get a surround effect even though those speakers are mounted high? If so I will buy the 2 pairs of Klipsch Atmos and wire it up tomorrow. Any suggestions would be appreciated as I only want to do this once and keep the wife happy.


----------



## gwsat

Soupy1970 said:


> Nice! I'm sure you will love it!
> You will need an external 2 channel amp, or use your RX-V3900 to power top rears in 7.1.4.


Looks like you are right. After I saw your post and did a little research, I sent my AV contractor a text and asked him to check it all out. Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> Looks like you are right. After I saw your post and did a little research, I sent my AV contractor a text and asked him to check it all out. Thanks for the heads up!


The Yamaha RX-A3060 can decode 11 channels of audio but can only amplify 9 of them itself. An external 2-channel amplifier should not be a great expense or difficulty to add. The Audiosource AMP100 (or AMP100VS currently) is a popular choice for powering height speakers and is only ~$130 on Amazon.

Alternately, as Soupy1970 suggests, you can use your old receiver as an amp. Just connect the analog pre-outs for two of the height channels from the new AVR to the old AVR's analog stereo inputs. Set the old AVR for 0dB reference volume and turn off any and all room correction or other processing (the first AVR will do all that).

If both receivers are the same brand, you might wind up with a difficulty of remote commands from one affecting both. If you're able to change the remote codes on one, that should fix that problem. Or just put a piece of electrical tape over the old AVR's IR sensor to prevent it from receiving the remote signals.


----------



## Soupy1970

^ What he said. If using old AVR, just set MV to 0 and set it to direct mode (no processing).


----------



## Antonsen

batpig said:


> I'm not really understanding the question. What does "57 degree angle from my ears" mean? Perhaps a photo of the setup would help?



Hehe, my English isn't so good I´m afraid.

According to the "dolby atoms setup guide" the celling speakers should be centered at 45´while in my rom the connection is at 57´. that is almost 15 inches closer to sweetspot.


----------



## gwsat

I have asked my AV guy to quote a price on an appropriate 2 channel power amp for me. His stuff is so grand, God knows what he will charge. Still, this has turned into a big enough job, I've about decided to pay what it takes to produce the best system possible. Will post what I finally decide to do when I hear back from my guy. And I thought buying an automobile was a complex process.


----------



## gwsat

Just texted with my AV contractor and agreed to buy a Sonamp 2-100 power amp. It should work well and, better yet, should be easy to install unobtrusively. Thanks to all for your good advice!


----------



## Soupy1970

gwsat said:


> I have asked my AV guy to quote a price on an appropriate 2 channel power amp for me. His stuff is so grand, God knows what he will charge. Still, this has turned into a big enough job, I've about decided to pay what it takes to produce the best system possible. Will post what I finally decide to do when I hear back from my guy. And I thought buying an automobile was a complex process.


I wonder why your AV guy didn't have this all factored in already (pre-install)? Maybe he was just planning on re-purposing your old AVR, but I would think this should have all been discussed by now.


----------



## gwsat

Soupy1970 said:


> I wonder why your AV guy didn't have this all factored in already (pre-install)? Maybe he was just planning on re-purposing your old AVR, but I would think this should have all been discussed by now.


My AV contractor didn't know about the need for an additional 2 channel power amp because the 3060 didn't start shipping until the last few days. He learned about the problem at almost the same time I did when he had lunch with his Yamaha rep today. Anyway, it was not a huge deal and got solved neatly. My guy has been in business in Tulsa for 15 years and has an excellent reputation for high quality products and great customer service. What can I say? His track record inclines me to trust him.


----------



## Gillietalls

batpig said:


> Ah, if are willing to spend $1500 that really opens things up. Lots of options.
> 
> If you want to keep it easy the SVS Prime 5.1 setup noted above is a great option -- a fantastic package for $999 to your door with a 45-day free in home trial. http://www.svsound.com/products/prime-satellite-5-1
> 
> That setup will blow you away if you're used to TV speakers and/or soundbars. Add a $300 receiver and a pair of in ceiling speakers and you are rocking. SVS doesn't make in ceiling speakers but these are a nice design and only $250/pair from a very reputable company: https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/


Sweet. Thanks for the suggestion. I found this setup on Amazon. Would this work? I figured I could take two of the speakers and mount them to the ceiling for my 5.1.2 setup.


----------



## Chopin_Guy

Looking for some input on Atmos in my room. This space is narrow 16' deep x 11' wide, and a portion of the attic above is finished to support storage and my home's two water heaters. As such it means I don't have access to the ceiling above for running speaker wire. Would it be feasible to install four ceiling speakers as outlined in the photo below? Room is tricky with seating on back wall -- rear heights would be above/behind seating with mid heights being only slightly in front of the seating. This would mid heights about 5'-6' apart from the rears. Would this work?


----------



## Gillietalls

Forgot to add the link in my last post. How would this setup work if I wanted to take 2 of the speakers and mount them to the ceiling for a 5.1.2 setup?

https://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-HT-S97...F8&qid=1469022579&sr=8-9&keywords=dolby+atmos


----------



## samsagaz

Hey guys, i was searching some cheap processor that support atmos. I noticed that processor cost like 5-10 times what an receiver cost. :/

Exist some not overpriced armos processor? I dont want to purchase a complete receiver. so want to know if exist some processor that can connect my mono amps.

Thanks in advance


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> My AV contractor didn't know about the need for an additional 2 channel power amp because the 3060 didn't start shipping until the last few days. He learned about the problem at almost the same time I did when he had lunch with his Yamaha rep today. Anyway, it was not a huge deal and got solved neatly. My guy has been in business in Tulsa for 15 years and has an excellent reputation for high quality products and great customer service. What can I say? His track record inclines me to trust him.


You should do what you feel comfortable with, but $700 for a 100W 2-channel amp is... I would say "overkill" at the very least. You are extremely unlikely to need anywhere near 100W to power height speakers. And even if you did, there are many much less expensive options.

(Also, as noted, you can easily repurpose your existing old AVR for this and not spend a dime.)


----------



## petetherock

samsagaz said:


> Hey guys, i was searching some cheap processor that support atmos. I noticed that processor cost like 5-10 times what an receiver cost. :/
> 
> Exist some not overpriced armos processor? I dont want to purchase a complete receiver. so want to know if exist some processor that can connect my mono amps.
> 
> Thanks in advance


You must be looking at some exotic processors mate.. a 7702 is quite cheap for you guys stateside, and if you go for the run out MK I, it's even cheaper. Anyways, you can always get a receiver with pre-outs and that will work fine with your power amps too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@gwsat

Use the extra amp to power your front LCR's than power the surrounds. Center channel gets the most demand of any other channel in a surround sound system (movie playback).


----------



## AllenA07

Gillietalls said:


> Thanks. Trying not to spend more than $1500 and have no issue with mounting in the ceiling. My ceiling is about 9 feet tall in the room I wish to install it in....





dvdwilly3 said:


> SVS Prime 5.1 (includes SB-1000) for $1,000, plus 2 satellites at $135 each plus refurb Denon...$1550 for 5.1.2...
> 
> That would be, of course, on ceiling instead of in-ceiling, but it works just as well, if not better. I would argue that it gives you more aim-ability...yeah, I think that I just made that up...


I figured I would chime in on this, as that makes up a good part of my setup. The SVS Prime Satellites make up my 4 Atmos channels and I've been very happy with them. I've put a link below to the mounting brackets that I used. The only thing I would suggest is using a toggle bolt over the supplied drywall anchors. I've had my speakers mounted for about 7 months now and haven't noticed any problem. This, for me, was a much cheaper way to get to Atmos without having to go though the work of installing in ceiling speakers. Honestly I've become a big fan of the on-ceiling speaker over the in-ceiling speaker just because the latter requires much more effort (and cost) to install.

https://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Un...&qid=1469032232&sr=8-4&keywords=Speaker+mount

I believe SVS actually sells mounting brackets from the Prime Satellites now for this very reason, you might check on their website.

I would also say if you chose to go with the SVS package, if you would prefer the ported sub give them a call. It seems that they are normally happily to work with you on that.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> You should do what you feel comfortable with, but $700 for a 100W 2-channel amp is... I would say "overkill" at the very least. You are extremely unlikely to need anywhere near 100W to power height speakers. And even if you did, there are many much less expensive options.
> 
> (Also, as noted, you can easily repurpose your existing old AVR for this and not spend a dime.)


Josh -- First, it's nice to see you here. Heretofore, our exchanges seem to have been about movies and TV shows.

This time for the first time, my goal in upgrading was to buy a top of the line system with top of the line customer support, both without getting my hands dirty. Fortunately, a nearby dealer was able to fulfill my needs. 

I bought my first components from an audio store on Campus Corner in Norman, OK in 1964 and installed them myself. Later, I designed my own systems, bought nearly every new component over the phone and, later still, on the Web. This time, I decided that I didn't want to do that anymore and resolved to pay what it took to get what I wanted. Fortunately, I can afford it.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> @gwsat
> 
> Use the extra amp to power your front LCR's than power the surrounds. Center channel gets the most demand of any other channel in a surround sound system (movie playback).


Scott -- Thanks, I'll ask my contractor about it.


----------



## dvdwilly3

AllenA07 said:


> I figured I would chime in on this, as that makes up a good part of my setup. The SVS Prime Satellites make up my 4 Atmos channels and I've been very happy with them. I've put a link below to the mounting brackets that I used. The only thing I would suggest is using a toggle bolt over the supplied drywall anchors. I've had my speakers mounted for about 7 months now and haven't noticed any problem. This, for me, was a much cheaper way to get to Atmos without having to go though the work of installing in ceiling speakers. Honestly I've become a big fan of the on-ceiling speaker over the in-ceiling speaker just because the latter requires much more effort (and cost) to install.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Un...&qid=1469032232&sr=8-4&keywords=Speaker+mount
> 
> I believe SVS actually sells mounting brackets from the Prime Satellites now for this very reason, you might check on their website.
> 
> I would also say if you chose to go with the SVS package, if you would prefer the ported sub give them a call. It seems that they are normally happily to work with you on that.


I had the mounts that AllenA07 mentions, but I returned them and got these...

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001I755RC/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

By creative use of some of their pieces, I was able to get about a 6" offset from the ceiling which gave me more latitude in aiming.


----------



## samsagaz

petetherock said:


> You must be looking at some exotic processors mate.. a 7702 is quite cheap for you guys stateside, and if you go for the run out MK I, it's even cheaper. Anyways, you can always get a receiver with pre-outs and that will work fine with your power amps too.


Thanks!


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> Josh -- First, it's nice to see you here. Heretofore, our exchanges seem to have been about movies and TV shows.
> 
> This time for the first time, my goal in upgrading was to buy a top of the line system with top of the line customer support, both without getting my hands dirty. Fortunately, a nearby dealer was able to fulfill my needs.
> 
> I bought my first components from an audio store on Campus Corner in Norman, OK in 1964 and installed them myself. Later, I designed my own systems, bought nearly every new component over the phone and, later still, on the Web. This time, I decided that I didn't want to do that anymore and resolved to pay what it took to get what I wanted. Fortunately, I can afford it.


Nothing wrong with that. Enjoy! 

I second Scott's recommendation to use the external amp to power your front left and right mains. They'll make better use of it, which will free up two of your AVR's internal amps to deal with the extra height speakers.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> Nothing wrong with that. Enjoy!
> 
> I second Scott's recommendation to use the external amp to power your front left and right mains. They'll make better use of it, which will free up two of your AVR's internal amps to deal with the extra height speakers.


Josh -- Thanks. I just texted my AV guy and passed along yours and Scott's recommendation re how to deploy the 2 channel amp. Will post how he decides to handle it when I hear from him.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> Josh -- Thanks. I just texted my AV guy and passed along yours and Scott's recommendation re how to deploy the 2 channel amp. Will post how he decides to handle it when I hear from him.


The Yamaha has several 'AMP ASSIGN' settings so you can use the amplifiers in the receiver to power _just_ the surrounds, no problem. That's what I did when I had my 3050 last year as my front LCR's are active.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> The Yamaha has several 'AMP ASSIGN' settings so you can use the amplifiers in the receiver to power _just_ the surrounds, no problem. That's what I did when I had my 3050 last year as my front LCR's are active.


Scott -- Except for the subwoofer, all of my speakers are passive so your earlier advice should work for me. I will be interested to hear what my contractor decides to do and will report his solution.


----------



## ramzy

I'm in a 12x11 room. I want to install on-wall front and rear height speakers. I am leaning toward the SVS satellites, but I'm open to suggestions...spending no more than $200 per speaker. 


My left and right front speakers are about 7.5ft apart. Would I align the front heights speakers with the fronts, the front corners of the room, or some other position?


Same question for rears, where along the width of the back wall should they be?


I'm going to use a Denon 6200 or Marantz 7010 and need an external amp. Thinking about going cheap on the amp like the Onkyo M-5010 and using that to power the front heights. My thinking is that my room is small enough that I don't need a lot of power. I'm not sure how much I would benefit from a higher quality amp to power the front speakers instead of using a cheap amp to power the heights. Audyssey sets all of my speakers at -6 to -9 dbs. Is my thinking correct or am I missing something?


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> Scott -- Except for the subwoofer, all of my speakers are passive so your earlier advice should work for me. I will be interested to hear what my contractor decides to do and will report his solution.


Well... if you're going to buy an amp anyway (and an expensive one, it sounds) might as well use them the speakers that need it the most.


----------



## Josh Z

ramzy said:


> I'm going to use a Denon 6200 or Marantz 7010 and need an external amp. Thinking about going cheap on the amp like the Onkyo M-5010 and using that to power the front heights. My thinking is that my room is small enough that I don't need a lot of power. I'm not sure how much I would benefit from a higher quality amp. Audyssey calibrates most of my speakers at -6 to -9 dbs. Is my thinking correct or am I missing something?


If you're going to use the amp to power height channels, your thinking is correct. However, the Audiosource AMP100VS will work equally as well and is about $100 less expensive.

https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/

If you were to use the amp to power your front mains so that your AVR can power the heights, I'd probably go with something better than either of these two models.

Basically, the Onkyo M-5010 falls into an uncomfortable middle ground where it's overpowered for the height speakers and underpowered for the front mains. Given the price, I'd go with the cheaper Audiosource amp for the heights and let your AVR power everything else.


----------



## ramzy

Josh Z said:


> If you're going to use the amp to power height channels, your thinking is correct. However, the Audiosource AMP100VS will work equally as well and is about $100 less expensive.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/
> 
> If you were to use the amp to power your front mains so that your AVR can power the heights, I'd probably go with something better than either of these two models.
> 
> Basically, the Onkyo M-5010 falls into an uncomfortable middle ground where it's overpowered for the height speakers and underpowered for the front mains. Given the price, I'd go with the cheaper Audiosource amp for the heights and let your AVR power everything else.


Great, thanks. 


Would it be worthwhile to use an Outlaw or Emotiva to power the fronts and use the receiver to power the height in such a small room?


----------



## Davidave

I just bought a Marantz 7010, planning to set it up this weekend. Any suggestions on where to get Atmos content without 4k? I looked at ordering the Gravity Luxe version but it's about $70 on Amazon.


----------



## Selden Ball

Davidave said:


> I just bought a Marantz 7010, planning to set it up this weekend. Any suggestions on where to get Atmos content without 4k? I looked at ordering the Gravity Luxe version but it's about $70 on Amazon.


Go to http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php and select Audio: Dolby Atmos, then filter. It returns 84 entries, which includes each of the different formats when a title is available in several.


----------



## bargervais

Davidave said:


> I just bought a Marantz 7010, planning to set it up this weekend. Any suggestions on where to get Atmos content without 4k? I looked at ordering the Gravity Luxe version but it's about $70 on Amazon.


Get Mad Max $13.00 
https://www.amazon.com/Mad-Max-Fury...inkCode=xm2&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=bluray-022-20


----------



## Davidave

Selden Ball said:


> Go to http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php and select Audio: Dolby Atmos, then filter. It returns 84 entries, which includes each of the different formats when a title is available in several.


I'll check it out. Thank you!


----------



## heavyharmonies

ramzy said:


> I'm in a 12x11 room. I want to install on-wall front and rear height speakers. I am leaning toward the SVS satellites, but I'm open to suggestions...spending no more than $200 per speaker.


The Klipsch KP-140SA are right at that budget limit. Can use them either as upward firing Atmos modules or wall-mounted height speakers. I've tried both configurations.

Random installed picture courtesy of Google:

(Personally, I think the two outer Klipsch surrounds are too high on the wall, whereas the 140SA in the center are at a good height.)


----------



## ramzy

heavyharmonies said:


> The Klipsch KP-140SA are right at that budget limit. Can use them either as upward firing Atmos modules or wall-mounted height speakers. I've tried both configurations.
> 
> Random installed picture courtesy of Google:
> 
> (Personally, I think the two outer Klipsch surrounds are too high on the wall, whereas the 140SA in the center are at a good height.)


My front speakers have angled top caps, so add-ons aren't feasible. 

I like the cleaner look of these. No speaker mounts needed. However, I'd be at the mercy of my studs. The SVS speaker mounts allow you to tilt and swivel. I'm not educated enough to know how flexible atmos is on placement. Any opinions?


----------



## heavyharmonies

ramzy said:


> My front speakers have angled top caps, so add-ons aren't feasible.
> 
> I like the cleaner look of these. No speaker mounts needed. However, I'd be at the mercy of my studs. The SVS speaker mounts allow you to tilt and swivel. I'm not educated enough to know how flexible atmos is on placement. Any opinions?


I'm a relative newb when it comes to Atmos, so can't really help there. Are your studs 24" or 36" apart? If the former, I dont't think it would make a huge difference if the alignment of the Atmos speakers to your surrounds or fronts wasn't exactly on target.

I don't know how heavy the SVS speakers are, but the Klipsch are only 7.6 pounds, so depending on your wall material, you may be able to get away with not mounting to studs. You only need a single screw sunk in the wall, since the speaker mounts via simple keyhole.


----------



## Josh Z

ramzy said:


> Would it be worthwhile to use an Outlaw or Emotiva to power the fronts and use the receiver to power the height in such a small room?


You're likely to get different opinions from different people on this. Both of the AVRs you're looking at (Denon 6200 and Marantz 7010) are pretty capable models. In a small room, I think they'll be plenty sufficient to power your mains, and adding an inexpensive small amp to power the heights is the most sensible option. 

You can always start with that option and, if you're not satisfied, add a more powerful amp for the mains later.


----------



## petetherock

I just updated the FW on my AVR, did a re-cal and I tried the year's flagship demo disc: 13 hours.


I just want to share the wonderful scenes which can be used to showcase your Atmos system and see if the speaker placement is nicely done. 


I think most of us will be familiar with the second assault scene, beginning with the shepherd slinging his weapon and the car that appears with someone attempting to throw a home made bomb - Chap 15.


In the build up of tension towards the free for all fight, you can hear ambient sounds from all the surrounds, with the subs adding a low growl of bass that adds to the mood.


During this fight, one of the DS guys is seen running towards the wall, when a "Tango" tosses a bomb over the wall, and you can trace the flight of bomb/grenade from the left surround moving up between the Top Front and Top Rears, progressing towards the centre of the ceiling then dropping down onto the centre speaker. A nice blast follows, but it's the flight path that is amazing.


Then "Oz" cops one round on his helmet and you can trace the bullet flying across, from left to right, utilising the side surrounds, across the centre. 


With each round from the M5 and M60, there's a nice thud, and when the "Tangoes" fire their RPGs, the rounds go off with a solid thump that hits your chest and quakes your sofa.


Nice stuff


----------



## tezster

Selden Ball said:


> Go to http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php and select Audio: Dolby Atmos, then filter. It returns 84 entries, which includes each of the different formats when a title is available in several.


I've been looking for a killer Atmos demo for a flat panel TV. According to that site, there are a grand total of 3 titles that fit the following criteria:

Atmos
3D
1.85:1 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio

In the Heart of the Sea
Journey to Space
Minions

Slim pickings...


----------



## petetherock

tezster said:


> I've been looking for a killer Atmos demo for a flat panel TV. According to that site, there are a grand total of 3 titles that fit the following criteria:
> 
> Atmos
> 3D
> 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio
> 
> In the Heart of the Sea
> Journey to Space
> Minions
> 
> Slim pickings...


If you are willing to drop 3D, the sky is open - literally )

13 hours for example is superb. Then you can add Mad Max and if you want to do a little DSU, Battlefield LA is awesome despite being 'only' 5.1. Add Serenity for some nice bass, action and ambience and you have a find collection. My personal demo fav for a solid story and a good surround is Band of Brothers. Yes it's DTS-MA, but using LPCM, you can add DSU and see the wonders of a well recorded 5.1 track. Take Episode Two, and listen to the scene when a German tosses a grenade and trace the path from the rear to the top and onto the front where it lands and gives a solid thump, whilst sparing Toy's nuts... then listen to the whizzing bullets as Winters assaults the 105mm guns. Nothing else sounds like that.


----------



## gwsat

petetherock said:


> If you are willing to drop 3D, the sky is open - literally )
> 
> 13 hours for example is superb. Then you can add Mad Max and if you want to do a little DSU, Battlefield LA is awesome despite being 'only' 5.1. Add Serenity for some nice bass, action and ambience and you have a find collection. My personal demo fav for a solid story and a good surround is Band of Brothers. Yes it's DTS-MA, but using LPCM, you can add DSU and see the wonders of a well recorded 5.1 track. Take Episode Two, and listen to the scene when a German tosses a grenade and trace the path from the rear to the top and onto the front where it lands and gives a solid thump, whilst sparing Toy's nuts... then listen to the whizzing bullets as Winters assaults the 105mm guns. Nothing else sounds like that.


The problem with 3D these days is that a lot of videophiles have turned their backs on the process. Thus, there are fewer and fewer fans who want to watch it. There is some indication that 3D works so well on OLED displays, that OLED owners now love 3D. For the rest of us, though, the 3D process seems to be treading water. I wear glasses so I have always found 3D glasses more of an irritant than an enhancement. It's a personal thing, though. Different strokes for different folks and all that.


----------



## batpig

tezster said:


> I've been looking for a killer Atmos demo for a flat panel TV. According to that site, there are a grand total of 3 titles that fit the following criteria:
> 
> Atmos
> 3D
> 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio
> 
> In the Heart of the Sea
> Journey to Space
> Minions
> 
> Slim pickings...


of those clearly "In the Heart of the Sea" is the one for a demo. Minions is noted for having almost no overhead activity (so only worthwhile as a demo if you are going 9.1.2 with wides), whereas ItHoS has some awesome overhead effects with the storms and battles with the whales at sea.

Leaving aside the 3D issue, most big blockbuster flicks are going to be wide aspect ratio (e.g. 2.35:1).


----------



## DragonSixGolf

Josh Z said:


> .... Just connect the analog pre-outs for two of the height channels from the new AVR to the old AVR's analog stereo inputs...


Is there any reason to (not to) put all 4 overheads on teh same amp? Will it lessen the load on the 9 ch? Balance the overheads or will room correction take care of it all (assuming all processing is disabled on the slave amp? i was thinking for non atmos content, i wouldn't even turn the overheads on.


----------



## Josh Z

DragonSixGolf said:


> Is there any reason to (not to) put all 4 overheads on teh same amp?


Well, if you're using an old AVR, you need to make sure that you have one with 5.1 analog inputs rather than just stereo. Not all do. Otherwise, there's nothing prohibiting this.

If you're using a dedicated external amp, it needs to have at least 4 channels, which will be more expensive than a 2-channel model.



> Will it lessen the load on the 9 ch?


Depends on the primary AVR.


----------



## batpig

DragonSixGolf said:


> Is there any reason to (not to) put all 4 overheads on teh same amp? Will it lessen the load on the 9 ch? Balance the overheads or will room correction take care of it all (assuming all processing is disabled on the slave amp? i was thinking for non atmos content, i wouldn't even turn the overheads on.


Well you can't put them on the SAME amp because they are independent channels, you need 4 channels of amplification for 4 channels. If you have 4 channels of amplification then sure, you can do that. And fewer channels for the receiver to run on its own. 

I think the problem is that many receivers only have stereo analog inputs, not multich, so even if there are 5 or 7 amps inside you may only be able to feed a discrete signal to 2 of them.


----------



## DragonSixGolf

batpig said:


> Well you can't put them on the SAME amp because they are independent channels, you need 4 channels of amplification for 4 channels. If you have 4 channels of amplification then sure, you can do that. And fewer channels for the receiver to run on its own.
> 
> I think the problem is that many receivers only have stereo analog inputs, not multich, so even if there are 5 or 7 amps inside you may only be able to feed a discrete signal to 2 of them.


It's a Yamaha 667 (they are known for having the HDMI boards go out.) but as long as it will just pass analog in--->out with no processing, I think it will work. Volume control from the pres might be tricky - another reason to run all 4 overheads of the 2nd AVR.

Don't have a 2050 or 3050 yet, trying to decide if 7.1.4 and 2 AVRs, remotes (sync volume) over a simple 5.1.4 is worth it. First I've heard of the 3060 was kinda hoping it would just be 11 integrated amps. I'll have to read more about it but if anyone is running dual avrs (I've seen the frankenstein 9.2.6 thread) i'm curious if it was worth it.


----------



## Soupy1970

I run my top rear off of a old Yamaha RX-V557 from 2007 I had laying around. My main AVR is the Denon X6200 so I have no remote problems. Yamaha is in Direct Stereo mode with MV 0db.


----------



## badboi

gwsat said:


> The problem with 3D these days is that a lot of videophiles have turned their backs on the process. Thus, there are fewer and fewer fans who want to watch it. There is some indication that 3D works so well on OLED displays, that OLED owners now love 3D. For the rest of us, though, the 3D process seems to be treading water. I wear glasses so I have always found 3D glasses more of an irritant than an enhancement. It's a personal thing, though. Different strokes for different folks and all that.


I felt the same way about 3D until I bought a good pair of 3D glasses. I wear glasses also and the pair I bought fit right over the others. And the difference is night and day compared to the cheap stuff that comes with a set today. I threw those out.


----------



## CFX

Hello,
I'm looking to create a dolby atmos theater in my family room. I currently have Def Tech BP7000sc and CLR3000 as my left, right, and center. My wife did not approve of the Def Tech surrounds so for years I've gone only with a 3 channel system.

My wife has recently approved of in-wall and in-ceiling speakers for surrounds. I started small wanting to put 2 in-ceiling speakers behind my couch for 5.1, and things have spiraled out of control a bit after learning about dolby atmos. Now I'd like to install (8) in-ceiling/wall speakers to have a 7.1.4 setup. This won't be a traditional atmos recommended setup as the surrounds wouldn't be at ear level but much higher. 

The in-ceiling/wall speakers would all be Yamaha NSIC800WH, an 8-inch in-ceiling speaker.

So knowing this is a bastardized design of a dolby atmos theater, I still want to proceed. I'd like to have surround left and right be in-wall, surround back left and right be in ceiling, and the 4 height speakers be in ceiling. The ceiling is vaulted and about 14 ft at max height. The wall speakers would be at about 11ft.

I'm not too happy with the receiver choices out there. I'd really like an 11 channel amplifier to avoid another external amp but those are slim pickings. I was thinking of the Marantz SR7010 with a 2-channel external amp because I definitely want to take advantage of the Audyssey room correction and it seems Marantz/Denon have the best offerings on this front. Other than that I think my choices are the Onkyo TX-NR3030 and the Integra DTR-70.6.

Any comments on this design idea? I would appreciate any feedback.

Thanks!
CFX


----------



## sdurani

CFX said:


> I'd really like an 11 channel amplifier to avoid another external amp but those are slim pickings. I was thinking of the Marantz SR7010 with a 2-channel external amp because I definitely want to take advantage of the Audyssey room correction and it seems Marantz/Denon have the best offerings on this front.


The upcoming Denon 6300 will have 11 amp channels built in.


----------



## CFX

sdurani said:


> The upcoming Denon 6300 will have 11 amp channels built in.


Awesome, thank you. I will keep an eye out for it.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has an Atmos setup with all surround and height speakers being in wall/ceiling and above listening position. Curious how much of the Atmos effect will I lose? And hopefully how much can be recouped by good eq?


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> The upcoming Denon 6300 will have 11 amp channels built in.


+1 due out in Sept I believe and should have Audyssey. The Onkyo TX-RZ3100, also due out shortly, will have 11 onboard amps with likely AccuEQ rather than Audyssey.


----------



## sdurani

CFX said:


> Curious how much of the Atmos effect will I lose?


One of the reasons for going Atmos is to have separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. With your surrounds being 11 feet up, there will be no meaningful separation between the surround layer and height layer.


> And hopefully how much can be recouped by good eq?


Equalization cannot change the direction sounds come from. Surround speakers high above you will sound like they're high above you. 7.1.4 will sound like 3.1.8.


----------



## Josh Z

CFX said:


> So knowing this is a bastardized design of a dolby atmos theater, I still want to proceed. I'd like to have surround left and right be in-wall, surround back left and right be in ceiling, and the 4 height speakers be in ceiling. The ceiling is vaulted and about 14 ft at max height. The wall speakers would be at about 11ft.


I concur with Sanjay. You'll get virtually no appreciable benefit to installing Atmos if both your surround speakers and your height speakers are above you. With no meaningful separation between them, it will sound like everything (both ground-level information and height-level information) is all coming from the same place. It will sound virtually indistinguishable from, if not possibly worse than, a traditional 7.1 layout. You might as well just do 7.1.



> I'm not too happy with the receiver choices out there. I'd really like an 11 channel amplifier to avoid another external amp but those are slim pickings.


Keep in mind that when receivers add extra amplification channels, they're still drawing from the same "pool" of available power. It just divides it up to a greater number of speakers, so that now each of them takes a hit and has less power available.


----------



## CFX

sdurani said:


> One of the reasons for going Atmos is to have separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. With your surrounds being 11 feet up, there will be no meaningful separation between the surround layer and height layer. Equalization cannot change the direction sounds come from. Surround speakers high above you will sound like they're high above you. 7.1.4 will sound like 3.1.8.





Josh Z said:


> I concur with Sanjay. You'll get virtually no appreciable benefit to installing Atmos if both your surround speakers and your height speakers are above you. With no meaningful separation between them, it will sound like everything (both ground-level information and height-level information) is all coming from the same place. It will sound virtually indistinguishable from, if not possibly worse than, a traditional 7.1 layout. You might as well just do 7.1.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that when receivers add extra amplification channels, they're still drawing from the same "pool" of available power. It just divides it up to a greater number of speakers, so that now each of them takes a hit and has less power available.


Thanks for your feedback, very eloquently stated. I'm still thinking that its something worth doing. 

Many 5.1 and 7.1 setups I've heard and enjoyed have in-ceiling or in-wall surrounds. Seeing as its usually surround effects going to these speakers I don't think I'd lose much of the sonic experience with those being a bit higher. 

My surround left and surround right would be in-wall which is about 3-4 feet lower than the ceiling. Really the surround back left and right would be at the same level as ceiling but my thinking is not much is sent to those channels anyway. If I'm compromising the 2 rear channels to achieve a faux 7.1.4 is it worth it? I don't mind buying the speakers and running the wire if I'm already going to be doing that with the height channels. 

Otherwise perhaps a 5.1.4 with the surrounds in the wall and the 4 in-ceiling speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh man.

Yeah. Go with that last suggestion. 5.1.4 with your in ceiling speakers being the four heights.


----------



## CFX

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh man.
> 
> Yeah. Go with that last suggestion. 5.1.4 with your in ceiling speakers being the four heights.


So let me ask, would the system sound worse if I decided to step up from 5.1.4 to add 2 rear surrounds at heigh level for a kinda-sorta 7.1.4?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I can't imagine you'll net a fully cohesive soundfield, no.

You can do it, I just wouldn't go in with expectations that it will sound "all that".

How much experience with immersive audio do you have? You might end up wondering what all the fuss was about.


----------



## CFX

Scott Simonian said:


> I can't imagine you'll net a fully cohesive soundfield, no.
> 
> You can do it, I just wouldn't go in with expectations that it will sound "all that".
> 
> How much experience with immersive audio do you have? You might end up wondering what all the fuss was about.


Looking at your system, no where near that much experience. I enjoy Atmos in the theaters along with all other types of surround. Other than that I haven't had a chance to listen to surround consistently in a home environment since moving out of my bachelor pad a few years ago. I think I'd be very happy with a basic 5.1 system which is what I had before. Now that the wife approves and I have the funds to add surround, I'd like to go all out so I don't have regrets about not adding additional channels later.

I understand that I won't get the full effect, I understand the physics of sound and no EQ is going to make my speakers sound like they are 6ft below where they are. I understand my listening environment is less than ideal. 

I'm just trying to maximize my audio enjoyment while keeping it as wifely acceptable as possible. 7.1.4 at the moment seems to be the best possible scenario so I'm starting there and working my way down if it makes sense. Whatever I do will sound better than the 3 channels I have now.

Thanks again for your input!


----------



## sdurani

CFX said:


> Seeing as its usually surround effects going to these speakers I don't think I'd lose much of the sonic experience with those being a bit higher.


You can use that same logic to justify placing your side speakers and rear speakers right next to each other. Yes, technically you'd have a 7.1-speaker layout, but you wouldn't have any of the side-vs-rear separation in the surround field that differentiates 7.1 set-ups from 5.1 set-ups. Same goes for a 7.1.4-speaker layout where the surround layer and height layer have no meaningful separation. IF you're determined to shoe-horn 11 speakers into your room, then go for it...with the understanding that it will sound like a 3.1.8 set-up.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> You can use that same logic to justify placing your side speakers and rear speakers right next to each other. Yes, technically you'd have a 7.1-speaker layout, but you wouldn't have any of the side-vs-rear separation in the surround field that differentiates 7.1 set-ups from 5.1 set-ups. Same goes for a 7.1.4-speaker layout where the surround layer and height layer have no meaningful separation. IF you're determined to shoe-horn 11 speakers into your room, then go for it...with the understanding that it will sound like a 3.1.8 set-up.



Sanjay, at one point a few years back I'd had the PSB Imagine S running in "dual mono" mode in my setup. That's their implementation where you have side and rear firing drivers firing in opposite directions. You're right - you do get more immersive sound than you'd have without with just monopole direct firing side surrounds, but there's nothing like real side/rear separation that you'd have from separate pairs of speakers in the proper placement locations. And the rear surrounds are effectively just giving you reflective sound. Ultimately that design was even a worse idea than Dolby AE speakers, if you follow.


----------



## CFX

sdurani said:


> You can use that same logic to justify placing your side speakers and rear speakers right next to each other. Yes, technically you'd have a 7.1-speaker layout, but you wouldn't have any of the side-vs-rear separation in the surround field that differentiates 7.1 set-ups from 5.1 set-ups. Same goes for a 7.1.4-speaker layout where the surround layer and height layer have no meaningful separation. IF you're determined to shoe-horn 11 speakers into your room, then go for it...with the understanding that it will sound like a 3.1.8 set-up.


Thanks for your feedback. From the perspective of the listener the angle of the surround and rear speakers will be correct according to atmos, only the height level is not the recommendation. After measuring, the fronts are at about 4.5ft, the surrounds would be at 7ft, and the height and/or rear surrounds would be at about 12-13ft. 

I think I could do more justice to a 5.1.4 setup as Scott mentioned. For a 7.1.4 setup I don't think you are too far off in your characterization, I would consider it closer to a 5.1.6 than a 3.1.8 given the differences in height and space between each speaker. 

I have a kitchen island immediately behind the listening position which would be perfect for rear surround. When it's time for the kitchen reno I'll definitely have to find a way to hide some speakers in there


----------



## Jonas2

CFX said:


> Awesome, thank you. I will keep an eye out for it.


Anthem MRX1120 as well, and you have ARC. Pricey receiver though.


----------



## Soupy1970

CFX said:


> I think I could do more justice to a 5.1.4 setup as Josh Z mentioned. For a 7.1.4 setup I don't think you are too far off in your characterization, I would consider it closer to a 5.1.6 than a 3.1.8 given the differences in height and space between each speaker.


All the speakers will still be firing from above your ears.


----------



## CFX

Jonas2 said:


> Anthem MRX1120 as well, and you have ARC. Pricey receiver though.


Thank you sir! I will add it to my list.


----------



## healthnut

CFX said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking to create a dolby atmos theater in my family room. I currently have Def Tech BP7000sc and CLR3000 as my left, right, and center. My wife did not approve of the Def Tech surrounds so for years I've gone only with a 3 channel system.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife has recently approved of in-wall and in-ceiling speakers for surrounds. I started small wanting to put 2 in-ceiling speakers behind my couch for 5.1, and things have spiraled out of control a bit after learning about dolby atmos. Now I'd like to install (8) in-ceiling/wall speakers to have a 7.1.4 setup. This won't be a traditional atmos recommended setup as the surrounds wouldn't be at ear level but much higher.
> 
> 
> 
> The in-ceiling/wall speakers would all be Yamaha NSIC800WH, an 8-inch in-ceiling speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> So knowing this is a bastardized design of a dolby atmos theater, I still want to proceed. I'd like to have surround left and right be in-wall, surround back left and right be in ceiling, and the 4 height speakers be in ceiling. The ceiling is vaulted and about 14 ft at max height. The wall speakers would be at about 11ft.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not too happy with the receiver choices out there. I'd really like an 11 channel amplifier to avoid another external amp but those are slim pickings. I was thinking of the Marantz SR7010 with a 2-channel external amp because I definitely want to take advantage of the Audyssey room correction and it seems Marantz/Denon have the best offerings on this front. Other than that I think my choices are the Onkyo TX-NR3030 and the Integra DTR-70.6.
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments on this design idea? I would appreciate any feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> CFX




I believe Anthem's top of the line receiver covers amplification for all channels, but it's pricey. As far as your proposed Atmos configuration, a lot will depend on the dispersion characteristics of your speakers and how they interact in your space. It may not be optimal, but it might sound better than not doing it. All the best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

DragonSixGolf said:


> It's a Yamaha 667 (they are known for having the HDMI boards go out.) but as long as it will just pass analog in--->out with no processing, I think it will work. Volume control from the pres might be tricky - another reason to run all 4 overheads of the 2nd AVR.


so looks like you're covered as there are 7.1ch multich analog inputs. So you can easily turn this into a 4ch amp for the 4 height speakers. The multich inputs are actually the best option as by design they bypass all processing. 

No need to worry about volume control, just set the Yammy 667 to "0" (reference) level and then the primary receiver will handle the levels and volume control. Once you plug stuff into the old Yammy just don't touch it anymore, leave it as a static unit that is simply amplifying the incoming signal. (I believe channel level adjustments will apply so make sure to zero those out).


----------



## CFX

healthnut said:


> I believe Anthem's top of the line receiver covers amplification for all channels, but it's pricey. As far as your proposed Atmos configuration, a lot will depend on the dispersion characteristics of your speakers and how they interact in your space. It may not be optimal, but it might sound better than not doing it. All the best
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for your feedback.

Let me hit the reset button on my line of thinking then. Knowing that I can't have ear level speakers besides my fronts, what speaker layout recommendation would be ideal for me? I know I'd have to photograph my listening space for an accurate recommendation. I can say that the lowest I can install the surrounds in my walls (left and right of the listening position) would about 7-8ft high. My ceiling is 14ft max sloping down to about 11ft. 

I have no problems at all throwing 4 speakers into the ceiling for the height effect, I think I have that covered. It seems based on the comments here that it's not worth it to add additional channels at the same height as the height channel due to channel separation, which is completely logically and understandable, but does that imply that I shouldn't try to move beyond a 3.1.4 type system?


----------



## healthnut

CFX said:


> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me hit the reset button on my line of thinking then. Knowing that I can't have ear level speakers besides my fronts, what speaker layout recommendation would be ideal for me? I know I'd have to photograph my listening space for an accurate recommendation. I can say that the lowest I can install the surrounds in my walls (left and right of the listening position) would about 7-8ft high. My ceiling is 14ft max sloping down to about 11ft.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems at all throwing 4 speakers into the ceiling for the height effect, I think I have that covered. It seems based on the comments here that it's not worth it to add additional channels at the same height as the height channel due to channel separation, which is completely logically and understandable, but does that imply that I shouldn't try to move beyond a 3.1.4 type system?




I've heard the Golden Ear Invisia ceiling speakers tend to disappear in a room, and aren't localizable at all. They're not cheap, but if it were my room, I'd check them out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CFX

healthnut said:


> I've heard the Golden Ear Invisia ceiling speakers tend to disappear in a room, and aren't localizable at all. They're not cheap, but if it were my room, I'd check them out.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks! Those do look like interesting speakers. I'll see if I can demo them.

Below are some pics of the listening space.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Jonas2 said:


> Anthem MRX1120 as well, and you have ARC. Pricey receiver though.





healthnut said:


> I believe Anthem's top of the line receiver covers amplification for all channels, but it's pricey. As far as your proposed Atmos configuration, a lot will depend on the dispersion characteristics of your speakers and how they interact in your space. It may not be optimal, but it might sound better than not doing it. All the best
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As for Anthem MRX1120 price ($3600 Can), it might not be so different up here in Canada, I will be surprised if the Onkyo TX-RZ3100 doesn't MSRP out at about the same, the TX-NR3030 is $3200... 

For Comparison the Denon AVRX7200WA is also about $3600 here and it is 9.2 channels / 11.2 channel processing.


----------



## batpig

CFX said:


> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> Let me hit the reset button on my line of thinking then. Knowing that I can't have ear level speakers besides my fronts, what speaker layout recommendation would be ideal for me? I know I'd have to photograph my listening space for an accurate recommendation. I can say that the lowest I can install the surrounds in my walls (left and right of the listening position) would about 7-8ft high. My ceiling is 14ft max sloping down to about 11ft.
> 
> I have no problems at all throwing 4 speakers into the ceiling for the height effect, I think I have that covered. It seems based on the comments here that it's not worth it to add additional channels at the same height as the height channel due to channel separation, which is completely logically and understandable, but does that imply that I shouldn't try to move beyond a 3.1.4 type system?


Well you can't do a 3.1.4 -- you need a 5.1 base layer to do all 4 height speakers (you can do a 3.1.2 without surrounds though).

That said, if you can get side surrounds at 7-8ft height that will provide sufficient (if not ideal) separation from the height speakers, especially considering the high ceilings. So I would definitely do a 5.1.4 at a minimum. 

The question of whether back surrounds are feasible or not is hard to say, it would help to see the photos of the room. But as others have said a good 5.1.4 is nothing to be sad about and better than a poorly implemented 7.1.4 layout.

A 5.1.4 layout also has the advantage of opening up your receiver options if you don't want an external amp. You can get a 9ch model on discount (Denon 6200, Marantz 7010, Yamaha 2050) when the new models come out in the next few months.


----------



## batpig

CFX said:


> Thanks! Those do look like interesting speakers. I'll see if I can demo them.
> 
> Below are some pics of the listening space.


Yeah, looks like it's going to be tough to do 7ch base layer with the open kitchen right behind the listening area. 

Where would the left side surround go? Above the windows? Or on the wall behind the windows? Or are you thinking of the column in between the windows (which would be forward of the couch)?


----------



## CFX

batpig said:


> Yeah, looks like it's going to be tough to do 7ch base layer with the open kitchen right behind the listening area.
> 
> 
> 
> Where would the left side surround go? Above the windows? Or on the wall behind the windows? Or are you thinking of the column in between the windows (which would be forward of the couch)?




To be consistent across both sides of the couch, it would have to be above the bay window which is 8ft. The speakers have tweeters which can be repositioned. 

I thought of the space between the bay window and sliding glass door but it is definitely forward and has less of a WAF factor. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

CFX said:


> Thanks! Those do look like interesting speakers. I'll see if I can demo them.
> 
> Below are some pics of the listening space.



Ah! Awesome. Was just going to ask you for some pictures.

Please bear with my crude drawings but I circled some locations for you that could work for a full 7.1.4 system. (well, the 7.1 part anyway)


My first suggestion for rear surrounds:











My suggestion for side surrounds and rear:












Placement for the left side surround. Obviously line that up to the right side.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So if you like that layout and it would work...

Place the rear pair of overhead speakers in the space directly between the back of the couch and the kitchen island/counter. Likewise, place the front overhead just ahead of the side surrounds but not too far forward. Anywhere between the side surrounds and front mains should be good.

A worthy alternative is to not do a full 7.1.4 but simple 7.1.2 and have the single pair of overheads just overhead but slightly forward of directly overhead.


----------



## CFX

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah! Awesome. Was just going to ask you for some pictures.
> 
> Please bear with my crude drawings but I circled some locations for you that could work for a full 7.1.4 system. (well, the 7.1 part anyway)
> 
> 
> My first suggestion for rear surrounds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion for side surrounds and rear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placement for the left side surround. Obviously line that up to the right side.




Excellent, thanks for the mock up!

For the rear surrounds, do you think an in wall speaker will be sufficient? I can picture on wall speakers pointed to the listening position but I know the wife won't approve, especially for the one that would be placed in the entry way to the kitchen. The one above the cabinet is a great idea though. 

Regarding surround left and right, is it better to have them forward from the listening position for the benefit of being lower, or on axis with the listening position and higher? Here again I don't think the wife will approve of the more forward and lower setup. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yes. I was considering this whole setup (for surrounds) as all inwall speakers. I don't see why it wouldn't work.

However, with this solution, I highly recommend purchasing inwall speakers that have some ability to pivot and such. Especially the two rear surrounds as those will be further off angle than the two side surrounds but I would get the same speakers for all four-to-eight locations.

Yes. I love the sound of side surrounds slightly ahead of me. Most are quite apprehensive to do so or even try because most people have an out-dated mindset of "surrounds" needing to be behind them (old 5.1 days...). This is no longer the case with 7.1 surround sound. With a layout as such, everybody will be in the surroundfield and you'll find that the experience is greatly expansive with excellent wrap-around effects. Highly recommended. This is actually a pretty decent room. You have an excellent choice for placement already and the sound would be excellent, I'm sure.

Honestly, if I had your living room... this is exactly what I'd do and I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with my available choice(s).

Mock it up with some tape or whatever and take a look in person. Give you some idea of the layout without cutting holes in the wall.


----------



## Scott Simonian

With regards to the height of them.... if you really want good Atmos sound... go as low as you can (within reason). For your system, maybe 6ft off the ground. You don't want any speaker firing right into anybody's ears. That's annoying and will ruin the effect.

I would try best to NOT put them above the windows and sliding glass door. The further up they go, the less separation between ground level speakers and your supposed overheads. The further up the surrounds go, the less of an impression an immersive audio system will leave. Will just sound "all the same".


----------



## batpig

If the WAF won't work for the forward/lower side surrounds, then I would just go with 5.1.4 with the side speakers above the door on the right side and above the bay window on the right. Not optimal at all but you'll have surround sound. Given that, honestly the only other place I can think of for back surrounds is on top of the kitchen cabinets where the potted plants are. See how WAF works with that 

Again given how high your ceilings are you'll still have decent separation. I would compensate somewhat for the more elevated surrounds by placing the overheads a bit narrower, i.e. they should be lined up inside of the front towers.

I'd also be remiss by not pointing out that you can clearly fit a bigger TV in between those bookshelves!


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I'd also be remiss by not pointing out that you can clearly fit a bigger TV in between those bookshelves!



F**kin' aye, bubba.

By the time we are done with this guy, he'll have a +100" front projection system and at least quad 18 subs. To start, at least...


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> F**kin' aye, bubba.
> 
> By the time we are done with this guy, he'll have a +100" front projection system and at least quad 18 subs. To start, at least...


Shhhhh. I'm just about to get started on acoustic treatment....


----------



## Scott Simonian

That comes with the front projection system! 

After that comes the high efficiency mains. 

Muhahahaha!


----------



## LNEWoLF

CFX said:


> Below are some pics of the listening space.


Just an ideia, [email protected]@king at your room pics.

For me, i would [email protected]@k thru the yellow pages and find a VERY nice spa. Then send the wife off for part of the day at the spa.

I would purchase 4 tower speakers.

Roll up your sleeves, I would rotate your entire living room setup 90 degrees.

Placing the side surrounds at 90 to the couch (mlp) 

The back surrounds could be placed in the back corners at a 45 deg angled toward the mlp. 

When the wife gets home it will all be arranged. Giving her the best visual impression. The speaker wires can be run later. Allowing for any intial tweeks.

After your wife has time to accumulate to her new living room 

That would now provide you with good positioning for all the base channels. As they would all be at/near ear level.

For the atmos speakers. I would try the dolby enabled add on speakers. Those could be placed on top of the front and rear speakers. 

From the pictures. Its difficult to completely interput how the speakers will all line up in regard to placement.


----------



## Jonas2

healthnut said:


> I've heard the Golden Ear Invisia ceiling speakers tend to disappear in a room, and aren't localizable at all. They're not cheap, but if it were my room, I'd check them out.


I have heard Invisias at my local dealer, and they are actually pretty good. I wouldn't even say the demo room was optimized for them, but I really enjoyed them. They were the [email protected] ones, can't recall the model #.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That sounds....awful. 

But it IS a suggestion and to that I respect your idea. Don't think it would work for the guy but... let's see what he thinks of your alternative layout.


----------



## batpig

LNEWoLF said:


> For the atmos speakers. I would try the dolby enabled add on speakers. Those could be placed on top of the front and rear speakers.


I have to point out that Dolby-enabled up-firing speakers will be a disaster in this room. The ceiling height and angle will ruin the effectiveness of the up-firing modules. At best he will get some sense of elevated mush up there. If he's willing and able to mount actual in ceiling speakers (the one component of his current plan that is actually pretty ideal) why discourage him from that?


----------



## sdurani

CFX said:


> I think I could do more justice to a 5.1.4 setup as Scott mentioned.


That's what I would do. Find symmetrical locations on the side walls that are a little rearward of the couch. Is there any wall area (enough for an in-wall speaker) between the large window and the kitchen? Or does the window end right where the kitchen cabinets begin? Can't see that in the pics.


----------



## CFX

Whoa, thanks for all the suggestions!

LNEWoLF - I have contemplated moving the system in the way you described. There is one major problem that I can't get past, and that is glare in the television. I'm rocking one of the Pioneer Elite 60" Kuro from the glory days of plasma which has a glass screen. I use to live in a place where there was a sliding glass door directly in front of a television and it had really bad glare even with the curtains pulled. I've been turned off to those configurations ever since.

Scott/Batpig - thanks very much for your recommendations as well. I will start putting post it notes in the locations you suggested to see how it goes. Regarding the surround placement in front of the couch, the wife layethed the smack down on that idea. She doesn't want to see the speakers and prefers everything above eye level. 

For now I think I'll have to make do with the surrounds above the bay window. I do want to look into the in-wall pivoting speakers for the rear surrounds on the walls to see how that would work. I already purchased (4) of the Yamaha in-ceiling speakers for the heights, I guess I could return them to make sure I get matching speakers if I find decent in wall ones. 

I also like the idea of surrounds by the plants, I think I can actually get away with it. But the only reason I can is the same reason why it's a not an ideal location - its high and out of the way. I have started looking to see how I could potentially hide some speakers into the kitchen island but I don't think I'll find a good solution.

As for the TV and projection screen, I've definitely dreamt that dream. Maybe if I move into another house I can make it happen. However, I'm still super satisfied with my Kuro some 7 years after I purchased it and don't really feel the need to upgrade. I do love those OLED LGs and that will likely be my next TV. Those deep inky blacks are seducing. 

Thanks all again for your feedback, very much appreciated!


----------



## CFX

sdurani said:


> That's what I would do. Find symmetrical locations on the side walls that are a little rearward of the couch. Is there any wall area (enough for an in-wall speaker) between the large window and the kitchen? Or does the window end right where the kitchen cabinets begin? Can't see that in the pics.


Unfortunately the kitchen window ends where the cabinet begins :-(

One big take away from all this is that I will need a separate home theater budget and design conscious when approaching the kitchen reno.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> That comes with the front projection system!
> 
> After that comes the high efficiency mains.
> 
> Muhahahaha!


Nothing that he couldn't do in a room within a room. Then he'd have complete freedom to design the space as needed.....how big is his family room?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Suggestion:

For the side surrounds, since wifey says no deal at the proposed location: they would be inwall speakers first of all. What would you and her think about putting an acoustically transparent piece of artwork over them?

You'd get the location and sound with no speaker in sight.

Something like this but without the fiberglass (would be empty): http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-artpanel-acoustic-panels/


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Nothing that he couldn't do in a room within a room. Then he'd have complete freedom to design the space as needed.....how big is his family room?


Haha, nice but that would probably be a lot more work and expense and loss of square footage which I bet the wifey would not approve of.


----------



## sdurani

CFX said:


> Unfortunately the kitchen window ends where the cabinet begins :-(


In that case, the surrounds can go just above the window and a mirror location on the opposite wall. 8 feet up for the surrounds is better than the "about 11ft" high mentioned in your initial post.


----------



## CFX

Scott Simonian said:


> Suggestion:
> 
> For the side surrounds, since wifey says no deal at the proposed location: they would be inwall speakers first of all. What would you and her think about putting an acoustically transparent piece of artwork over them?
> 
> You'd get the location and sound with no speaker in sight.
> 
> Something like this but without the fiberglass (would be empty): http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-artpanel-acoustic-panels/


I love this idea. I showed my wife and she shot it down. I'm going to keep working on her to see if she'll budge.



sdurani said:


> In that case, the surrounds can go just above the window and a mirror location on the opposite wall. 8 feet up for the surrounds is better than the "about 11ft" high mentioned in your initial post.


Yes, I guesstimated initially so apologies for this misinformation. 

At this point I'm guessing a 5.1.4 setup would be most ideal. It also provides more amplifier choices which is good. I'm still thinking of the rear surrounds up by the potted plants or in the kitchen area with a pivot to the listening position. I just question if its worth it, will it degrade the sound to stretch the sound field higher and longer into the room just to get 7 channels? Or better to have those rear sounds sent to the surrounds.


----------



## Scott Simonian

CFX said:


> I love this idea. I showed my wife and she shot it down. I'm going to keep working on her to see if she'll budge.


Dude. What is up with her? Can her man _not_ get something? It's not like you get to take over the garage or build a dedicated HT out in the back...

Yeesh. 

I thought the artwork covered speakers was an exceptional compromise that keeps both parties happy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

CFX said:


> At this point I'm guessing a 5.1.4 setup would be most ideal. It also provides more amplifier choices which is good. I'm still thinking of the rear surrounds up by the potted plants or in the kitchen area with a pivot to the listening position. I just question if its worth it, will it degrade the sound to stretch the sound field higher and longer into the room just to get 7 channels? Or better to have those rear sounds sent to the surrounds.


Yes, it will be rather compromised, imho.

First of all... there will be a HUGE angle of separation from surrounds to fronts if you put them way back there. Second, they will sound far away. Ugh. And put lots of strain on (probably) really small speakers.

Plus, you don't even have the same stretch of area in that spot anyway. One speaker will be sorta close to the wall, the other will be several feet away. I can't imagine it would sound like a solid rear surround image. Pfft, I'd just get a soundbar. Why bother at this point?

Too many compromises.


----------



## CFX

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, it will be rather compromised, imho.
> 
> First of all... there will be a HUGE angle of separation from surrounds to fronts if you put them way back there. Second, they will sound far away. Ugh. And put lots of strain on (probably) really small speakers.
> 
> Plus, you don't even have the same stretch of area in that spot anyway. One speaker will be sorta close to the wall, the other will be several feet away. I can't imagine it would sound like a solid rear surround image. Pfft, I'd just get a soundbar. Why bother at this point?
> 
> Too many compromises.


Please...no...not a soundbar. 

It sounds like a I should compromise with a 5.1.4 with the surrounds a few feet higher than normal than to try and stretch out a 7.1.4. I can live with that until the kids are in college, maybe by then Dolby Stratosphere will be out with holographic speaker sound-projection technology or have my own holodeck 

Thanks again to everyone for their input!


----------



## helvetica bold

Just saw Star Trek Beyond in a Dolby Cinema. Whoa, excellent showcase for Atmos. Really blow away by the PQ and Audio. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oledurt

After going round and round with atmos I have finally got it properly set up in my dedicated HT. I tried everything modules, speakers attached to ceiling with brackets, and height speakers on side walls.

I have never installed ceiling speakers before or fished wire. My basement is finished so I was concerned with breaking stuff.

Well, last night I purchased 4 Klipsch CDT 5800 C II ceiling speakers to go with my Klipsch Reference Premier speakers. I was going to pay $300 to have them installed. At the last minute I decided to go for it, and attempt the install myself.

I got home grabbed a beer put on some pearl jam, and went to work. I got the holes cut easy enough then came the fun part. I tried fishing wire to the back of the room as I knew this would be the hardest. I have duct work above my ceiling so I had to get over that.

After hours of trying this I realized I could not fish wire over the studs the length of the room. I had to do it with the studs the width of the room. This was much easier to accomplish. 

after some improvising I had the wire fished. Hooked everything up, and ran my auto setup. It was 2:30 am when I finished. Covered in drywall, and with a sore back I fired up the atmos trailers.

A very big smile went across my face as if I was hearing atmos for the first time. It was stunningly realistic. So I tried something new, and pulled it off. I saved $300, and learned some things in the process. Best of all I have an amazing Theater capable of stunning realism thanks to Dolby Atmos.











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dolphinc

Oledurt said:


> After going round and round with atmos I have finally got it properly set up in my dedicated HT. I tried everything modules, speakers attached to ceiling with brackets, and height speakers on side walls.
> 
> I have never installed ceiling speakers before or fished wire. My basement is finished so I was concerned with breaking stuff.
> 
> Well, last night I purchased 4 Klipsch CDT 5800 C II ceiling speakers to go with my Klipsch Reference Premier speakers. I was going to pay $300 to have them installed. At the last minute I decided to go for it, and attempt the install myself.
> 
> I got home grabbed a beer put on some pearl jam, and went to work. I got the holes cut easy enough then came the fun part. I tried fishing wire to the back of the room as I knew this would be the hardest. I have duct work above my ceiling so I had to get over that.
> 
> After hours of trying this I realized I could not fish wire over the studs the length of the room. I had to do it with the studs the width of the room. This was much easier to accomplish.
> 
> after some improvising I had the wire fished. Hooked everything up, and ran my auto setup. It was 2:30 am when I finished. Covered in drywall, and with a sore back I fired up the atmos trailers.
> 
> A very big smile went across my face as if I was hearing atmos for the first time. It was stunningly realistic. So I tried something new, and pulled it off. I saved $300, and learned some things in the process. Best of all I have an amazing Theater capable of stunning realism thanks to Dolby Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Nice job! I did the same thing about a month ago. I have no experience as a carpenter but though I would give it shot and I was surprised it wasn't as hard as I was thinking it might be. Atmos makes a huge difference with the right setup. Enjoy it!


----------



## Oledurt

Thanks. I will be fixing some other cables I have running out of my projector now that I know how to do it. I love the Klipsch CDT 5800 C II because you can aim the tweeters which I have done.

I have them toed toward the seats. Just finished Everest pretty amazing!

Anyone on the fence about installing ceiling speakers do some research, and give it a try you will be glad you did!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BrendanH

Apologies if this is a dumb question. Right now I have a simple 5.1 system crammed into my very space-restricted man cave. They are being driven by a failing Marantz NR1501. I need to replace that receiver but before I can decide on that , I need to know what features I should be looking for. I will be mostly viewing streaming 4K content and some UHD BluRays.

So.... should things like Atmos and DTS-X even be on my radar for a 5.1 configuration? What should I be looking for outside of that?

Thanks a lot for your help!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BrendanH said:


> Apologies if this is a dumb question. Right now I have a simple 5.1 system crammed into my very space-restricted man cave. They are being driven by a failing Marantz NR1501. I need to replace that receiver but before I can decide on that , I need to know what features I should be looking for. I will be mostly viewing streaming 4K content and some UHD BluRays.
> 
> So.... should things like Atmos and DTS-X even be on my radar for a 5.1 configuration? What should I be looking for outside of that?
> 
> Thanks a lot for your help!


Yes, you can add a receiver that does Atmos and X rendering in a* 5.1.4* configuration. All you need are four overheads or four heights in addition to the 5.1 base layer (the former is the prescribed installation setup, but the latter, heights, can be used if that becomes an issue).

Be sure to lower your side surrounds, if necessary, to just above seated ear level in order to gain separation between the base and upper layers of speakers, but not so low as to have sound blocked because someone's head is in the way of the drivers.

Check out AV Science and talk to JD. Perhaps a 2015 model Denon or Marantz will fit the bill. They may start coming down in price thanks to the new 2016 models being released with fewer incentives to upgrade.


----------



## Methodical_1

Chopin_Guy said:


> Looking for some input on Atmos in my room. This space is narrow 16' deep x 11' wide, and a portion of the attic above is finished to support storage and my home's two water heaters. As such it means I don't have access to the ceiling above for running speaker wire. Would it be feasible to install four ceiling speakers as outlined in the photo below? Room is tricky with seating on back wall -- rear heights would be above/behind seating with mid heights being only slightly in front of the seating. This would mid heights about 5'-6' apart from the rears. Would this work?


Nice seats. Who are the makers?

Thanks


----------



## Chopin_Guy

Methodical_1 said:


> Nice seats. Who are the makers?
> 
> Thanks


They're the southampton seats from HT Market...


----------



## pngasius

How low do the Hz need to be able to go for an atmos on ceiling or in ceiling speaker?


----------



## Soupy1970

pngasius said:


> How low do the Hz need to be able to go for an atmos on ceiling or in ceiling speaker?


Ideally as low as the rest of your system (LF/RF Crossovers).


----------



## BrendanH

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, you can add a receiver that does Atmos and X rendering in a* 5.1.4* configuration. All you need are four overheads or four heights in addition to the 5.1 base layer (the former is the prescribed installation setup, but the latter, heights, can be used if that becomes an issue).
> 
> Be sure to lower your side surrounds, if necessary, to just above seated ear level in order to gain separation between the base and upper layers of speakers, but not so low as to have sound blocked because someone's head is in the way of the drivers.
> 
> Check out AV Science and talk to JD. Perhaps a 2015 model Denon or Marantz will fit the bill. They may start coming down in price thanks to the new 2016 models being released with fewer incentives to upgrade.


Thanks Dan. I would love to add more speakers but I'm afraid I'm stuck with 5.1 for now. With that in mind, is Atmos/DTS:X relevant to me at all? I guess for future proofing it would be wise but I'm trying to get a handle on what I really need to get the best out of what I have at the moment.


----------



## Sekosche

Question: if using the front wall to mount and angle down atmos speakers, should I place them as high as possible and should I keep them vertically aligned with the front L/R speakers?

I'm adding a pair of height/atmos speakers to the front wall of a 5.1 system (can't wire in ceiling and upfiring speakers didn't work with my 15' vaulted ceiling). Due to the angled ceiling, I have the option of placing the speakers 10' to 12' high; however, if I go higher than 10 feet I'd have to reduce the horizontal distance between them a little (because of the angled ceiling), but I'm afraid this would shrink the soundfield.

Thanks!
Attached a pic of the front stage


----------



## Dan Hitchman

BrendanH said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can add a receiver that does Atmos and X rendering in a* 5.1.4* configuration. All you need are four overheads or four heights in addition to the 5.1 base layer (the former is the prescribed installation setup, but the latter, heights, can be used if that becomes an issue).
> 
> Be sure to lower your side surrounds, if necessary, to just above seated ear level in order to gain separation between the base and upper layers of speakers, but not so low as to have sound blocked because someone's head is in the way of the drivers.
> 
> Check out AV Science and talk to JD. Perhaps a 2015 model Denon or Marantz will fit the bill. They may start coming down in price thanks to the new 2016 models being released with fewer incentives to upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dan. I would love to add more speakers but I'm afraid I'm stuck with 5.1 for now. With that in mind, is Atmos/DTS:X relevant to me at all? I guess for future proofing it would be wise but I'm trying to get a handle on what I really need to get the best out of what I have at the moment.
Click to expand...

Since you are about to be without a receiver, I would get a 2015 model with both immersive audio formats as you will also get the newest HDMI ports as a bonus. Receivers have these formats included anyway except for the most basic models. For future expansion, I would get one that allows for four overheads rather than just two - better object placement.


----------



## petetherock

pngasius said:


> How low do the Hz need to be able to go for an atmos on ceiling or in ceiling speaker?


IMO, it doesn't matter, my AG A'divas crossover at 110Hz, and they sound lovely on my ceiling.


----------



## maikeldepotter

pngasius said:


> How low do the Hz need to be able to go for an atmos on ceiling or in ceiling speaker?


For commercial theatres Dolby specifies: _"If bass management is used, the surround loudspeakers _[red.: this includes overheads]_ frequency response (+/- 3 dB) must extend to 90 Hz or lower. The crossover frequency should be set based on the capabilities of the loudspeaker, but must not be higher than 100 Hz."_


----------



## jkasanic

Sekosche said:


> Question: if using the front wall to mount and angle down atmos speakers, should I place them as high as possible and should I keep them vertically aligned with the front L/R speakers?
> 
> I'm adding a pair of height/atmos speakers to the front wall of a 5.1 system (can't wire in ceiling and upfiring speakers didn't work with my 15' vaulted ceiling). Due to the angled ceiling, I have the option of placing the speakers 10' to 12' high; however, if I go higher than 10 feet I'd have to reduce the horizontal distance between them a little (because of the angled ceiling), but I'm afraid this would shrink the soundfield.
> 
> Thanks!
> Attached a pic of the front stage


I'm sure others will chime in but I believe the best experience will be had when you have "enough" separation between your height and base layer. In your case, I don't imagine you'll have any issue with separation in either location but if your surrounds are elevated (to clear obstructions) then you might consider the additional separation. Of course, this might also depend on the size of your overhead speakers (i.e. 2 extra ft to the MLP might have an impact on the power required to drive them). Rather than focusing on the height, check the angles to your MLP seated position and see at which height you can fit in the middle of the prescribed guidelines for heights/overheads (30-45 or 30-55 degrees respectively).


----------



## gene4ht

pngasius said:


> How low do the Hz need to be able to go for an atmos on ceiling or in ceiling speaker?


IMO, there is no definitive correct answer at this time. To put things in perspective: (1) 3D sound for the "home" is still in its infancy stage, (2) content mixers are still learning and experimenting with the boundaries of creative possibilities and (3) speakers purposefully designed for 3D sound are just now coming to market.

Thus far, the Atmos content in recent movie releases consists of birds, insects, wind, rain, voices, rustling leaves...not very challenging. The more dramatic LFE sounds of aircraft, explosions, thunder, etc. are directed to the sub(s) and are non directional anyway.

Conventional wisdom crosses the mains at 80Hz while others have good results at 100Hz. So as others have already commented, 80Hz to 100Hz low end capability should be fine for Atmos speakers. Everything below that is the domain of the sub(s).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gene4ht said:


> pngasius said:
> 
> 
> 
> How low do the Hz need to be able to go for an atmos on ceiling or in ceiling speaker?
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, there is no definitive correct answer at this time. To put things in perspective: (1) 3D sound for the "home" is still in its infancy stage, (2) content mixers are still learning and experimenting with the boundaries of creative possibilities and (3) speakers purposefully designed for 3D sound are just now coming to market.
> 
> Thus far, the Atmos content in recent movie releases consists of birds, insects, wind, rain, voices, rustling leaves...not very challenging. The more dramatic LFE sounds of aircraft, explosions, thunder, etc. are directed to the sub(s) and are non directional anyway.
> 
> Conventional wisdom crosses the mains at 80Hz while others have good results at 100Hz. So as others have already commented, 80Hz to 100Hz low end capability should be fine for Atmos speakers. Everything below that is the domain of the sub(s).
Click to expand...

 I would opine that the lower your mains, surrounds, and overheads can go, the better (given room and budget constraints, of course). Subs should mainly be for non-directional bass frequencies and heavy, sustained bass specific effects. 

Take for instance with the storm effects placed in the overheads during the movie Everest.


----------



## ALtlOff

Sekosche said:


> Question: if using the front wall to mount and angle down atmos speakers, should I place them as high as possible and should I keep them vertically aligned with the front L/R speakers?
> 
> I'm adding a pair of height/atmos speakers to the front wall of a 5.1 system (can't wire in ceiling and upfiring speakers didn't work with my 15' vaulted ceiling). Due to the angled ceiling, I have the option of placing the speakers 10' to 12' high; however, if I go higher than 10 feet I'd have to reduce the horizontal distance between them a little (because of the angled ceiling), but I'm afraid this would shrink the soundfield.
> 
> Thanks!
> Attached a pic of the front stage





jkasanic said:


> I'm sure others will chime in but I believe the best experience will be had when you have "enough" separation between your height and base layer. In your case, I don't imagine you'll have any issue with separation in either location but if your surrounds are elevated (to clear obstructions) then you might consider the additional separation. Of course, this might also depend on the size of your overhead speakers (i.e. 2 extra ft to the MLP might have an impact on the power required to drive them). Rather than focusing on the height, check the angles to your MLP seated position and see at which height you can fit in the middle of the prescribed guidelines for heights/overheads (30-45 or 30-55 degrees respectively).


Besides all of this, also reconsider aiming the speakers at the MLP, with the Dolby spec, the speakers should actually be aimed straight out to lesson the chance of them being too localised and to help them blend/work better with the other speakers while sounds are panned and mixed with the other speakers. Don't forget sound placement involves many speakers at once 99% of the time, not just one.


----------



## Ashsrighthand

Didn't think of myself as a newbie but maybe you guys will after my post. I am certainly a newbie when it comes to Atmos tho. 

Ok so here is it: went from a Marantz 1605 (no Atmos) + Energy Veritas V6.3 to a Denon S720W + Elite SP-EBS73-LR Dolby Atmos enabled Concentric Compact speakers setup over the weekend. My main sources of content are: PS4 and Apple TV 4th gen. 

It also happens that I have a Samsung Ultra HD BD player to test for a few more weeks but this one will be going back to the store (it's a loaner).

So far, I have ONLY been able to get Atmos signal from the UHD player (by switching to Bitstream - Un-processed in the settings of the player). Thank god I had that to test because I never would have been able to see the Atmos name on the display of the Denon AVR!

Even switching to Bitstream on the PS4 still seems to produce a processed signal that is NOT decoded by the AVR and so is not Atmos. I'm totally bummed after spending so much cash and replacing a good system. Any of you can help me get Atmos from either the Apple TV (using Plex, for example) or the PS4? 

Any help appreciated.


----------



## ndabunka

ALtlOff said:


> Besides all of this, also reconsider aiming the speakers at the MLP, with the Dolby spec, the speakers should actually be aimed straight out to lesson the chance of them being too localised and to help them blend/work better with the other speakers while sounds are panned and mixed with the other speakers. Don't forget sound placement involves many speakers at once 99% of the time, not just one.


Are you saying that your should NOT "point/aim" the speakers TOWARDS the MLP with Atmos but rather that we should now simply point the speakers straight out of the wall 90-degrees? I ask because previously I had been using "aimable" inwall speakers (Speakercraft mounted about 2/3rd the way up (66") the side & rear walls but pointed at the MLP) which are now being changed out to non-directional B&W in-walls (also lowering the sides & rears to 1/3rd the way up the walls - 36")

I do still have one pair of the speakercraft in place until I can decide EXACTLY which pair of speakers I will be using for my rears with the new system.


----------



## Ashsrighthand

Ashsrighthand said:


> Didn't think of myself as a newbie but maybe you guys will after my post. I am certainly a newbie when it comes to Atmos tho.
> 
> Ok so here is it: went from a Marantz 1605 (no Atmos) + Energy Veritas V6.3 to a Denon S720W + Elite SP-EBS73-LR Dolby Atmos enabled Concentric Compact speakers setup over the weekend. My main sources of content are: PS4 and Apple TV 4th gen.
> 
> It also happens that I have a Samsung Ultra HD BD player to test for a few more weeks but this one will be going back to the store (it's a loaner).
> 
> So far, I have ONLY been able to get Atmos signal from the UHD player (by switching to Bitstream - Un-processed in the settings of the player). Thank god I had that to test because I never would have been able to see the Atmos name on the display of the Denon AVR!
> 
> Even switching to Bitstream on the PS4 still seems to produce a processed signal that is NOT decoded by the AVR and so is not Atmos. I'm totally bummed after spending so much cash and replacing a good system. Any of you can help me get Atmos from either the Apple TV (using Plex, for example) or the PS4?
> 
> Any help appreciated.


Answered my own question I guess: you have to choose Bitstream Direct on the PS4 but WHILE the movie is playing. How stupid is that? But at least it's a workaround. There seems to be no hope for the Apple TV unless they enable it in a later update.


----------



## ramzy

*Atmos core 7.1 vs DTS Master 7.1 Man of Steel UHD/BD*

I just compared the UHD 7.1 TrueHD mix to the BD DTS 7.1 mix. I assumed they would be the same, however I thought the TrueHD mix sounded better in terms of bass extension and dynamics. Not a lot better, but noticeable. 

Perhaps I'm mistaken about how Atmos works, but I thought the Atmos was layered on top of the TrueHD mix, which means there wouldn't be any upgrade to the core 7.1. Is that correct?


----------



## ALtlOff

ndabunka said:


> Are you saying that your should NOT "point/aim" the speakers TOWARDS the MLP with Atmos but rather that we should now simply point the speakers straight out of the wall 90-degrees? I ask because previously I had been using "aimable" inwall speakers (Speakercraft mounted about 2/3rd the way up (66") the side & rear walls but pointed at the MLP) which are now being changed out to non-directional B&W in-walls (also lowering the sides & rears to 1/3rd the way up the walls - 36")
> 
> I do still have one pair of the speakercraft in place until I can decide EXACTLY which pair of speakers I will be using for my rears with the new system.


Correct, same applies to in-ceiling, this is why Dolby specs wide dispersion speakers aimed straight down.
The Atmos renderer and algorithm is such that it uses multiple speakers to try and place a sound "anywhere" in the 360° bubble, by aiming a speaker toward you it may throw the placement off and pull the sound more toward a specific speaker than a specific location.


----------



## Sekosche

ALtlOff said:


> Sekosche said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: if using the front wall to mount and angle down atmos speakers, should I place them as high as possible and should I keep them vertically aligned with the front L/R speakers?
> 
> I'm adding a pair of height/atmos speakers to the front wall of a 5.1 system (can't wire in ceiling and upfiring speakers didn't work with my 15' vaulted ceiling). Due to the angled ceiling, I have the option of placing the speakers 10' to 12' high; however, if I go higher than 10 feet I'd have to reduce the horizontal distance between them a little (because of the angled ceiling), but I'm afraid this would shrink the soundfield.
> 
> Thanks!
> Attached a pic of the front stage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jkasanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure others will chime in but I believe the best experience will be had when you have "enough" separation between your height and base layer. In your case, I don't imagine you'll have any issue with separation in either location but if your surrounds are elevated (to clear obstructions) then you might consider the additional separation. Of course, this might also depend on the size of your overhead speakers (i.e. 2 extra ft to the MLP might have an impact on the power required to drive them). Rather than focusing on the height, check the angles to your MLP seated position and see at which height you can fit in the middle of the prescribed guidelines for heights/overheads (30-45 or 30-55 degrees respectively).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides all of this, also reconsider aiming the speakers at the MLP, with the Dolby spec, the speakers should actually be aimed straight out to lesson the chance of them being too localised and to help them blend/work better with the other speakers while sounds are panned and mixed with the other speakers. Don't forget sound placement involves many speakers at once 99% of the time, not just one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice! They'll be on articulating brackets so the speaker angle and direction will be flexible, but the height not so much, especially if I'm fishing wire up the wall. I did just get some matching paint to patch a few drywall holes, so I guess what's a few more if I don't like it...think I'll stick with 10 feet high to start. 

Adding two more Atmos speakers to the back wall is a whole different mess, as I'll have to remount lower the large surround speakers I have 6' high. Thanks again.


----------



## thebland

ALtlOff said:


> Correct, same applies to in-ceiling, this is why Dolby specs wide dispersion speakers aimed straight down.
> The Atmos renderer and algorithm is such that it uses multiple speakers to try and place a sound "anywhere" in the 360° bubble, by aiming a speaker toward you it may throw the placement off and pull the sound more toward a specific speaker than a specific location.


The face down part of the Atmos spec really allows for the Atmos effects to be more evenly spread through out the room. For many, face down, even with wide dispersion speakers will still be too far off axis and they'll lose the high frequencies - particularly in rooms with low ceilings. Most top designers recommend aiming the speakers towards the MLP. Yes, it may hurt peripheral listening areas but it will ensure a good effect at the main listening position.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So instead of aiming at the MLP, aim at opposite sides of the MLP.

Energy trading.

The front left height will aim at the right-most seat. The front right height will aim at the left-most seat. Repeat for rears. Repeat for all surround speakers too.


----------



## Oledurt

ALtlOff said:


> Correct, same applies to in-ceiling, this is why Dolby specs wide dispersion speakers aimed straight down.
> 
> The Atmos renderer and algorithm is such that it uses multiple speakers to try and place a sound "anywhere" in the 360° bubble, by aiming a speaker toward you it may throw the placement off and pull the sound more toward a specific speaker than a specific location.




This all depends on the room ceiling height angles from ceiling speaker to mlp etc...

My ceiling speakers Klipsch 5800 CDT C II's have aimable woofers and tweeters. They need to be aimed to sound right, and in the Dolby Atmos paper it states if you have these type of ceilling speakers they should be aimed or pointed at the mlp.

I agree that if you do not aim your speakers properly you can mess up the placement of audio objects causing some hot spotting of the atmos speaker instead of the audio object. 

It takes a good amount of experimenting to get the angles and toe in correct.

If you don't have enough dispersion you will get sort of a dead or weak sounding spot directly overhead which you do not want. Too much toe in or aiming can cause an object that is supposed to exist in the space in front of you to appear directly overhead.

Also wide dispersion speakers in ceiling for atmos in a home theater with 8 ft ceilings may also not be the end all be all. The reason is that you will have sound reflecting off of side walls and everywhere, and this can cause a bit of brain confusion where you cannot accurately hear the placement of the audio objects in the 3d space.

Similar to the diffuse generalized sound of bipole speakers.

I prefer my Klipsch ceiling speakers because they have controlled dispersion that can be aimed for accurate reproduction AND distinct placement of the audio objects in the 3d space.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## acefr

ramzy said:


> I just compared the UHD 7.1 TrueHD mix to the BD DTS 7.1 mix. I assumed they would be the same, however I thought the TrueHD mix sounded better in terms of bass extension and dynamics. Not a lot better, but noticeable.
> 
> Perhaps I'm mistaken about how Atmos works, but I thought the Atmos was layered on top of the TrueHD mix, which means there wouldn't be any upgrade to the core 7.1. Is that correct?


Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD 7.1 are channel based audio. The same discreet sound always come from each 7.1 channel regardless your room set up and speaker configuration. ATMOS (and DTS:X) is object orientated audio, with the metadata layered on top of Dolby TrueHD. The ATMOS processor will decode the metadata and try to place a sound object in an x-y-z coordinate in a hemisphere sound dome based on your particular speaker set up, be it 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, etc, so the sound placement will be more precise compared to the regular Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD 7.1 surround.


----------



## sdurani

ramzy said:


> I thought the Atmos was layered on top of the TrueHD mix, which means there wouldn't be any upgrade to the core 7.1. Is that correct?


Correct. An Atmos track rendered to a traditional 7.1-speaker layout should sound identical to the 7.1-channel downmix that is at the core of the Atmos track. However, there's no guarantee that the 4K UHD of Man of Steel didn't go through some sort of re-mastering for this release. In which case, the 7.1 core on the UHD will sound a little different from the 7.1 track on the original BD release, irrespective of lossless packing codec used (TrueHD or DTS-HD MA).


----------



## ramzy

acefr said:


> Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD 7.1 are channel based audio. The same discreet sound always come from each 7.1 channel regardless your room set up and speaker configuration. ATMOS (and DTS:X) is object orientated audio, with the metadata layered on top of Dolby TrueHD. The ATMOS processor will decode the metadata and try to place a sound object in an x-y-z coordinate in a hemisphere sound dome based on your particular speaker set up, be it 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 or 7.1.2, etc, so the sound placement will be more precise compared to the regular Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD 7.1 surround.


I don't have Atmos yet (hopefully this weekend). I was just comparing the separate 7.1 mixes. The UHD now an Atmos mix, which I assumed the 7.1 core would sound identical to the BD 7.1 DTS mix.


----------



## ramzy

sdurani said:


> Correct. An Atmos track rendered to a traditional 7.1-speaker layout should sound identical to the 7.1-channel downmix that is at the core of the Atmos track. However, there's no guarantee that the 4K UHD of Man of Steel didn't go through some sort of re-mastering for this release. In which case, the 7.1 core on the UHD will sound a little different from the 7.1 track on the original BD release, irrespective of lossless packing codec used (TrueHD or DTS-HD MA).


I just assumed they'd add the Atmos on top of the existing 7.1 that had been done previously, in which case the 7.1 would sound identical. I think you are correct in when they created the Atmos soundtrack, they must have updated the core 7.1 as well.


----------



## acefr

ramzy said:


> I don't have Atmos yet (hopefully this weekend). I was just comparing the separate 7.1 mixes. The UHD now an Atmos mix, which I assumed the 7.1 core would sound identical to the BD 7.1 DTS mix.


The Atmos will have more accurate sound placement. Without an Atmos AVR, the AVR will just ignore the metadata and decode the regular Dolby TrueHD. The DTS-HD may sound better than the Dolby TrueHD. DTS often have more noticeable sound effects than Dolby.


----------



## fishcracker23

Hi guys, a newbie here.

I was initially interested in getting the yamaha 5600, but realized that Id be better off getting an avr and speakers.
Can anybody suggest an avr and speaker set-up which would have atmos and dts:x? The wife would only allow a 5.1 base setup so either a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 would be the only routes. I would appreciate any inputs. Budget is 2k max. Thanks!


----------



## maintech

I'm thinking that the AVR settings for speaker characteristics & location using the AVR's built-in room calibration system [eg. for the Onkyo TX-NR3030 it's the AccuEQ] and the DSP control of the software from the audio source will have as much effect as speaker type and aiming accuracy on the sounds and their apparent location. Has anyone identified how well these inter-related processes actually behave in a real-world home theater? 
My understanding is that during the initial set-up sequence by the AccuEQ program, the speaker's primary characteristics are identified by feedback via a calibrated microphone, how efficient it is, it's cross over frequency, room location and the actual distance to the location of the microphone is identified, then room character is checked and then that info is written to the surround processor core. Each time a sound track encoded with either matrix surround sound and/or Atmos meta data is received, the algorithm is applied and the appropiate result is sent to the various channels. If any part of the chain is missing or incorrect, the sound will not be as intended. If the sound processing is by programs like Audessy or Trinnov, then most users will have confidence in the result, but with new processors, what will we get!?
Do current programs measure the actual location of each ceiling speaker relative to a specific reference point, or is this a function of the installer, and how can this be checked?

If there is either post or a document detailing this, I must have overlooked it, so apologies for duplication.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fishcracker23 said:


> Hi guys, a newbie here.
> 
> I was initially interested in getting the yamaha 5600, but realized that Id be better off getting an avr and speakers.
> Can anybody suggest an avr and speaker set-up which would have atmos and dts:x? The wife would only allow a 5.1 base setup so either a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 would be the only routes. I would appreciate any inputs. Budget is 2k max. Thanks!


Denon 4200 or Marantz 6010. 

Check out AV Science and talk to JD.


----------



## PeterTHX

acefr said:


> The DTS-HD may sound better than the Dolby TrueHD. DTS often have more noticeable sound effects than Dolby.



No, that is not correct.


----------



## thebland

maintech said:


> Do current programs measure the actual location of each ceiling speaker relative to a specific reference point, or is this a function of the installer, and how can this be checked?


Trinnov software and mic can map the speaker locations. 

_Trinnov’s sophisticated algorithms not only rely on very accurate acoustic measurements but also on the ability to localize speakers positions and to detect early reflection provenance.
Trinnov’s 3D measurement microphone is the result of our extensive research in 3D sound. We invested a significant amount of time in order to design a tailored measurement system that could gather very precise information regarding spatial position of the sources. This is called triangulation. Each of the 4 omnidirectionnal capsules are placed at the exact same distance from each other, forming a tetrahedric pattern. This allows us to localize each speaker’s placement on both horizontal and vertical planes._


----------



## dolphinc

fishcracker23 said:


> Hi guys, a newbie here.
> 
> I was initially interested in getting the yamaha 5600, but realized that Id be better off getting an avr and speakers.
> Can anybody suggest an avr and speaker set-up which would have atmos and dts:x? The wife would only allow a 5.1 base setup so either a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 would be the only routes. I would appreciate any inputs. Budget is 2k max. Thanks!





Dan Hitchman said:


> Denon 4200 or Marantz 6010.
> 
> Check out AV Science and talk to JD.


I think if your total budget for AVR and speakers is 2k then then Denon might be the better cost effective choice, it will give you a 5.1.4 setup. If you went with a 5.1.2 setup there are several great receivers sub 1k.


----------



## heavyharmonies

dolphinc said:


> Denon might be the better cost effective choice, it will give you a 5.1.4 setup.


Keep in mind, you can only do 5.1.4 with the x4200w if you add an external 2-channel amp. Out of the box it only supports 5.1.2.

Still, having that expandability is worth it, even if you don't implement it immediately.


----------



## maintech

thebland said:


> Trinnov software and mic can map the speaker locations.
> 
> _Trinnov’s sophisticated algorithms not only rely on very accurate acoustic measurements but also on the ability to localize speakers positions and to detect early reflection provenance.
> Trinnov’s 3D measurement microphone is the result of our extensive research in 3D sound. We invested a significant amount of time in order to design a tailored measurement system that could gather very precise information regarding spatial position of the sources. This is called triangulation. Each of the 4 omnidirectionnal capsules are placed at the exact same distance from each other, forming a tetrahedric pattern. This allows us to localize each speaker’s placement on both horizontal and vertical planes._


Thanks, is this location information used by Atmos, or does the AVR processor simply pass on the sound regardless, assuming the speaker is in the location recommended by Dolby?


----------



## sdurani

ramzy said:


> I just assumed they'd add the Atmos on top of the existing 7.1 that had been done previously, in which case the 7.1 would sound identical.


Other way 'round. The 7.1 core is a downmix of the Atmos track. It's possible that the 7.1 track on the previous release was not the Atmos downmix but instead a dedicated 7.1 mix that the studio had done (along with separate 5.1 and 2.0 mixes). That might explain why the previous 7.1 track sounds slightly different than the 7.1 core on the Atmos track.


----------



## sdurani

maintech said:


> Thanks, is this location information used by Atmos, or does the AVR processor simply pass on the sound regardless, assuming the speaker is in the location recommended by Dolby?


The latter. The Atmos decoder uses its rendering assumptions and doesn't know the physical locations of the speakers.


----------



## ramzy

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. The 7.1 core is a downmix of the Atmos track. It's possible that the 7.1 track on the previous release was not the Atmos downmix but instead a dedicated 7.1 mix that the studio had done (along with separate 5.1 and 2.0 mixes). That might explain why the previous 7.1 track sounds slightly different than the 7.1 core on the Atmos track.


Thank you for clarifying. The previous release was a 7.1 DTS track. I didn't expect any difference between the UHD 7.1 and the BD 7.1. It appears that a downmix of Atmos sounds better then a traditional 7.1 mix.


----------



## batpig

fishcracker23 said:


> Hi guys, a newbie here.
> 
> I was initially interested in getting the yamaha 5600, but realized that Id be better off getting an avr and speakers.
> Can anybody suggest an avr and speaker set-up which would have atmos and dts:x? The wife would only allow a 5.1 base setup so either a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 would be the only routes. I would appreciate any inputs. Budget is 2k max. Thanks!





Dan Hitchman said:


> Denon 4200 or Marantz 6010.
> 
> Check out AV Science and talk to JD.


Dan - note his TOTAL budget is $2k. So those receivers will be a tight squeeze unless he really skimps on the speakers/subs.

@fishcracker23 - implementing a full 5.1.4 setup will take some creativity to squeeze into your budget, because you're looking at $800+ minimum for just the AVR (and then more $$ for an extra 2ch amp). You basically have three paths you can take IMO:

1. Get an entry-level 7ch Atmos/DTS:X receiver (e.g. Denon S910W) for $300 or less, and invest more heavily in the speaker setup. That will limit you to a 5.1.2 setup for now, but you will have better speakers and then can expand to 5.1.4 down the road with a receiver upgrade. If you are doing in/on-ceiling speakers, go ahead and run the wire for both pairs of overheads even if you can only use one pair initially (will save a lot of future hassle).

2. Go for the full 5.1.4 setup right away. This will require around $1k investment for receiver+amps... either the Marantz 6010 ($799 refurb from accessories4less) which will require an extra 2ch amp, or the Yamaha 2050 ($999 refurb) which has 9 amps built in. That leaves only $1k total for 9 speakers and at least one subwoofer, which will be a tight squeeze, but is doable.

3. A hybrid approach... you get the Marantz 6010 for $800, but start with a 5.1.2 setup for now which means you have $1,200 left but only need 7 speakers and at least one subwoofer. So you can get a bit more quality in the speaker setup, and then later on add the second pair of overheads (again as above make sure you pre-wire the first time) and an external amplifier.

Option 1 will likely yield the best long-term sound quality, as the speakers are the most important part, and will last through many processor upgrades. But it really depends on what your appetite is for investing more into the setup down the road.

In terms of speaker/sub selection, it's important to know some variables... how big is the room? How loud do you want to play? Do you have any limitations on what speakers you can get (e.g. do you need small speakers to make the wife happy)?


----------



## dolphinc

batpig said:


> Dan - note his TOTAL budget is $2k. So those receivers will be a tight squeeze unless he really skimps on the speakers/subs.
> 
> @fishcracker23 - implementing a full 5.1.4 setup will take some creativity to squeeze into your budget, because you're looking at $800+ minimum for just the AVR (and then more $$ for an extra 2ch amp). You basically have three paths you can take IMO:
> 
> 1. Get an entry-level 7ch Atmos/DTS:X receiver (e.g. Denon S910W) for $300 or less, and invest more heavily in the speaker setup. That will limit you to a 5.1.2 setup for now, but you will have better speakers and then can expand to 5.1.4 down the road with a receiver upgrade. If you are doing in/on-ceiling speakers, go ahead and run the wire for both pairs of overheads even if you can only use one pair initially (will save a lot of future hassle).
> 
> 2. Go for the full 5.1.4 setup right away. This will require around $1k investment for receiver+amps... either the Marantz 6010 ($799 refurb from accessories4less) which will require an extra 2ch amp, or the Yamaha 2050 ($999 refurb) which has 9 amps built in. That leaves only $1k total for 9 speakers and at least one subwoofer, which will be a tight squeeze, but is doable.
> 
> 3. A hybrid approach... you get the Marantz 6010 for $800, but start with a 5.1.2 setup for now which means you have $1,200 left but only need 7 speakers and at least one subwoofer. So you can get a bit more quality in the speaker setup, and then later on add the second pair of overheads (again as above make sure you pre-wire the first time) and an external amplifier.
> 
> Option 1 will likely yield the best long-term sound quality, as the speakers are the most important part, and will last through many processor upgrades. But it really depends on what your appetite is for investing more into the setup down the road.
> 
> In terms of speaker/sub selection, it's important to know some variables... how big is the room? How loud do you want to play? Do you have any limitations on what speakers you can get (e.g. do you need small speakers to make the wife happy)?


Nice job breaking it down, I agree that option one is best way to go on a 2k budget. Good speakers can last for multiple years even a decade or more where as AVR's are usually replaced after 3-5 years due to changes in technology. 

I have a 5.1.2 setup for now but have all the wiring in place for a 5.2.4 setup. I'll replace my AVR next year to support the better layout.


----------



## fishcracker23

I appreciate all your input guys. If I go with option 1, any suggestion regarding the speakers? This will be installed in the living room so Im not really going full blast yet. Room is about 20 x 16 but is an open concept on the left side. Being in the living room, the wife wont let any ceiling or wall installations so Ill just hide the wires as much as I can.

I would also appreciate any speaker suggestions if I go with option 2 or option 3. Thanks guys!



batpig said:


> Dan - note his TOTAL budget is $2k. So those receivers will be a tight squeeze unless he really skimps on the speakers/subs.
> 
> @fishcracker23 - implementing a full 5.1.4 setup will take some creativity to squeeze into your budget, because you're looking at $800+ minimum for just the AVR (and then more $$ for an extra 2ch amp). You basically have three paths you can take IMO:
> 
> 1. Get an entry-level 7ch Atmos/DTS:X receiver (e.g. Denon S910W) for $300 or less, and invest more heavily in the speaker setup. That will limit you to a 5.1.2 setup for now, but you will have better speakers and then can expand to 5.1.4 down the road with a receiver upgrade. If you are doing in/on-ceiling speakers, go ahead and run the wire for both pairs of overheads even if you can only use one pair initially (will save a lot of future hassle).
> 
> 2. Go for the full 5.1.4 setup right away. This will require around $1k investment for receiver+amps... either the Marantz 6010 ($799 refurb from accessories4less) which will require an extra 2ch amp, or the Yamaha 2050 ($999 refurb) which has 9 amps built in. That leaves only $1k total for 9 speakers and at least one subwoofer, which will be a tight squeeze, but is doable.
> 
> 3. A hybrid approach... you get the Marantz 6010 for $800, but start with a 5.1.2 setup for now which means you have $1,200 left but only need 7 speakers and at least one subwoofer. So you can get a bit more quality in the speaker setup, and then later on add the second pair of overheads (again as above make sure you pre-wire the first time) and an external amplifier.
> 
> Option 1 will likely yield the best long-term sound quality, as the speakers are the most important part, and will last through many processor upgrades. But it really depends on what your appetite is for investing more into the setup down the road.
> 
> In terms of speaker/sub selection, it's important to know some variables... how big is the room? How loud do you want to play? Do you have any limitations on what speakers you can get (e.g. do you need small speakers to make the wife happy)?


----------



## batpig

No ceiling or wall installations... so does that mean you are planning to use up-firing Atmos reflective modules? Be aware that this can drive up system cost (you can get a decent pair of in ceiling speakers a lot cheaper than really good Atmos modules) and also potentially produce inferior results. 

Are in ceiling speakers totally a non starter? They are actually a very clean solution as there is nothing protruding. 

What's the ceiling height? And is it flat or angled/vaulted?


----------



## petetherock

Don't forget about the cabling costs for a Atmos setup and mounting costs


----------



## dolphinc

petetherock said:


> Don't forget about the cabling costs for a Atmos setup and mounting costs


+1, make sure its pure copper. I use 12 gauge but I think 14 is ok as well as long it's not some cheap metal or copper clad.


----------



## fishcracker23

11 ft ceilings, completely flat.



batpig said:


> No ceiling or wall installations... so does that mean you are planning to use up-firing Atmos reflective modules? Be aware that this can drive up system cost (you can get a decent pair of in ceiling speakers a lot cheaper than really good Atmos modules) and also potentially produce inferior results.
> 
> Are in ceiling speakers totally a non starter? They are actually a very clean solution as there is nothing protruding.
> 
> What's the ceiling height? And is it flat or angled/vaulted?


----------



## Sekosche

fishcracker23 said:


> I appreciate all your input guys. If I go with option 1, any suggestion regarding the speakers? This will be installed in the living room so Im not really going full blast yet. Room is about 20 x 16 but is an open concept on the left side. Being in the living room, the wife wont let any ceiling or wall installations so Ill just hide the wires as much as I can.
> 
> I would also appreciate any speaker suggestions if I go with option 2 or option 3. Thanks guys!


I know it's hard to picture, but you'd be surprised how easily wall mounted speakers that are 7-8' or higher will blend into a room. I have a 15' vaulted ceiling shared space, and I originally mounted my large PSA rear surrounds up almost 7' high/out of line of sight, for a WAF compromise. Unfortunately, this is far from an optimal height and makes for a poor atmos setup, due to less separation between channels, without lowering the rear surrounds. 

Guess what I'm doing this week? Lowering and remounting the surrounds (which is a pain), and adding 4 satellites for atmos. One pair will be wall mounted overhead about 10' high just behind the couch and angled down, and the other pair will be mounted on the front wall up 10-12' high. In my vaulted room, after even trying upfiring speakers as a second to last resort, this is the best option and honestly one I was hoping to avoid for WAF (she doesn't get why we need "more speakers")...it'll be worth it. :smiley: 

This week I've already had to fish speaker wire, patch/paint a few holes, move mounting brackets, and research like crazy, etc., but with the helpful advice from AVS, I think I'll get some awesome sounding Atmos in my room. 

Clearly you care about home theater, so use my cautionary tale, and try and plan/wire your layout as close to optimal as you can or you'll likely regret it. This is really a form of entertainment/hobby that requires more trust from the objecting party before blindly shooting down ideas (even if ceiling or wall mounted speakers sound silly), because I think that in time, nearly everyone grows accustomed to their A/V gear and it melts away into the room (higher WAF), blending with the decor and provides enjoyment for everyone. And who could be mad at you for trying to provide and share an awesome A/V experience with your loved ones? 

Best of luck! Attached a pic after lowering one surround 2'


----------



## sikclown

Does anyone have any ideas on how to maybe install some Klipsch in wall speakers as front and rear heights angled down towards mlp? I have been looking for some sort of angled install box but I guess I would have to build something?


----------



## gene4ht

sikclown said:


> Does anyone have any ideas on how to maybe install some Klipsch in wall speakers as front and rear heights angled down towards mlp? I have been looking for some sort of angled install box but I guess I would have to build something?


Have you considered using Klipsch's reference series in ceiling speakers with pivoting woofers?


----------



## ndabunka

Sekosche said:


> I know it's hard to picture, but you'd be surprised how easily wall mounted speakers that are 7-8' or higher will blend into a room....Best of luck! Attached a pic after lowering one surround 2'


HUGE LOL!
Your definition and everyone elses if VERY different about "blending into a room". You might as well put huge STOP signs on the walls in those places because it provides the same affect. Now in-walls CAN "blend into" a room to the point that most people don't even know they are there until the sound starts.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tomparis said:


> Hi fellows
> 
> I did it and ran 160ft of speaker wire to the ceiling, where now my new RS-42 II are mounted.
> Can say it was an insane amount of work, but it finally looks, how I imagined it.
> Hope it sounds as good as well, since there are no Atmos AVRs available in Germany at the moment.
> If this speaker configuration even works with Auro3D will be seen, since there isn't even one affordable AVR announced today. But I will jump it, should it be available some day.
> Attached some pictures. Fell free to comment.


If you don't mind me asking, how did you attach your Klipsch surrounds securely to the ceiling? I'm using some keyhole wall mount surrounds right now for heights and want to get them on the ceiling without them falling on my head. 

Thanks!


----------



## sikclown

gene4ht said:


> Have you considered using Klipsch's reference series in ceiling speakers with pivoting woofers?


For in wall? Sorry I should have added that I cannot install in ceiling speakers due to a very unique "pyramid" ceiling that I don't want to ruin. I posted about it a couple weeks ago but basically the best options for my setup are to mount FH and RH just below the ceiling line. Would in ceiling work for in wall FH and RH at around 8.5 feet above the floor?


----------



## Sekosche

ndabunka said:


> Sekosche said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's hard to picture, but you'd be surprised how easily wall mounted speakers that are 7-8' or higher will blend into a room....Best of luck! Attached a pic after lowering one surround 2'
> 
> 
> 
> HUGE LOL!
> Your definition and everyone elses if VERY different about "blending into a room". You might as well put huge STOP signs on the walls in those places because it provides the same affect. Now in-walls CAN "blend into" a room to the point that most people don't even know they are there until the sound starts.
Click to expand...

Lol, well I didn't necessarily mean my gear would look quaint to most people, but in the way that my dual 18" subs, 40" tall cylinder, or 65lb center channel look much smaller now than the day I got them. As your brain adusts to a space, and incorporates the objects around it, the original visual impact of newer items in our surroundings gradually fades from memory. How aesthetically pleasing those speakers are is subjective and when the quest for great audio often derails (WAF).

It's also all relative to your setup/room, just as the size increase moving from a small HTIB, to larger bookshelves, to full tower, to professional grade cinema speakers can all equally have the same visual impact initially that wanes over time.

Great audio often requires compromise due to its general function tied inherently to form. Show someone a pro grade finished home theater with truly massive high sensitivity speakers and then show them the average 5.1 household speaker system...there's always room in between for compromise. :smiley:


----------



## 1forsnow

sikclown said:


> For in wall? Sorry I should have added that I cannot install in ceiling speakers due to a very unique "pyramid" ceiling that I don't want to ruin. I posted about it a couple weeks ago but basically the best options for my setup are to mount FH and RH just below the ceiling line. Would in ceiling work for in wall FH and RH at around 8.5 feet above the floor?
> 
> View attachment 1567905


Have you ever considered using a hanging pendant style speaker that would hang down via a small wire from the ceiling? Those type of speakers are typically used in atriums in commercial buildings. They come in various styles and I am sure you can paint the housing to match the ceiling so they blend right in. 

My .02


----------



## E. Palpatine

Scott Simonian said:


> So instead of aiming at the MLP, aim at opposite sides of the MLP.
> 
> Energy trading.
> 
> The front left height will aim at the right-most seat. The front right height will aim at the left-most seat. Repeat for rears. Repeat for all surround speakers too.


Interesting suggestion. Given my low 7.5' ceiling height, I am already not in an optimal circumstance for Atmos, since I imagine it will better than not having ceiling speakers.. I can't install ceiling speakers. I am mounting bookshelf speakers that match my front towers and surrounds on the ceiling, and necessarily assumed the should be aimed at the MLP. They can't be aimed straight down due to issues of vertical dispersion, and if they were not aimed at the MLP, I assume there would be degraded dispersion. 


I will try to "over"-aim them and see if that assists with hot-spotting.


----------



## sikclown

1forsnow said:


> Have you ever considered using a hanging pendant style speaker that would hang down via a small wire from the ceiling? Those type of speakers are typically used in atriums in commercial buildings. They come in various styles and I am sure you can paint the housing to match the ceiling so they blend right in.
> 
> My .02


Yeah I have looked into those and may well still do that but I can't find any users who have used them for Atmos.


----------



## gene4ht

sikclown said:


> For in wall? Sorry I should have added that I cannot install in ceiling speakers due to a very unique "pyramid" ceiling that I don't want to ruin. I posted about it a couple weeks ago but basically the best options for my setup are to mount FH and RH just below the ceiling line. Would in ceiling work for in wall FH and RH at around 8.5 feet above the floor?
> 
> View attachment 1567905


Yes...in ceilings in place of in walls. If your walls can accommodate in walls, they would also be able to accommodate in ceilings. I recall someone in this or the Klipsch thread doing exactly this for Atmos and with very good results due to the pivoting woofer and aimable tweeter. They were designated as front heights and installed in the wall at the ceiling juncture. I don't recall if a backer box was used/built or just "boxed in" with blanket insulation. I just wanted to pass on a possible solution in case you had not considered it.

BTW: I did see your earlier post...beautiful room and ceiling!


----------



## sikclown

gene4ht said:


> Yes...in ceilings in place of in walls. If your walls can accommodate in walls, they would also be able to accommodate in ceilings. I recall someone in this or the Klipsch thread doing exactly this for Atmos and with very good results due to the pivoting woofer and aimable tweeter. They were designated as front heights and installed in the wall at the ceiling juncture. I don't recall if a backer box was used/built or just "boxed in" with blanket insulation. I just wanted to pass on a possible solution in case you had not considered it.
> 
> BTW: I did see your earlier post...beautiful room and ceiling!



Thank! And thanks for the idea. I had not considered in ceilings to be used that way but I definitely am now!


----------



## DJ Lushious

Is it a general consensus that the atmos add-on speakers that go atop towers are YMMV? I purchased the Pioneer atmos add-ons and I really couldn't tell much of a difference, if any. I've been reading as much of this long thread as I can and that's what I think I've gotten from some of the posts. "Go ceiling, or go home."


----------



## Scott Simonian

Their performance depends SO much on the dimensions of the room, speaker placement, main listening postion, etc.

They are capable of sounding good and immersive but it often requires their own set of compromises (to setup) compared to actual in/on ceiling speakers.

Use them if you are desperate. I'd only use actual speakers mounted overhead for my own system. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## batpig

DJ Lushious said:


> Is it a general consensus that the atmos add-on speakers that go atop towers are YMMV? I purchased the Pioneer atmos add-ons and I really couldn't tell much of a difference, if any. I've been reading as much of this long thread as I can and that's what I think I've gotten from some of the posts. "Go ceiling, or go home."


Yes, pretty much. The problem with a "virtual" speaker vs. a physical speaker is that it is inherently less stable and predictable. 

If conditions are ideal, you can get a very good simulation of overhead sound effects (although a reflection will never be able to deliver powerful bass due to the directivity of lower frequencies). Many who attended Dolby demos actually preferred the reflected sound as it was more diffuse and enveloping than the direct, pinpoint sound of physical overhead speakers. But of course these were carefully set up professional demos, so the conditions were as close to ideal as could be expected. The further you stray from the perfect ideal, the less well they will work, the more diffuse and mushed the sound will get until eventually you will barely be able to hear it. Especially if you have really nice floor level speakers which severely outclass the Atmos up-firing modules (if you were willing to plop thousands on the KEF reference modules or the Triad modules, you might have a better experience).

Whereas if you physically have a speaker high up somewhere, even if it's not ideally placed or aimed or whatever, it will still sound like sound is coming from up there. Because it is.

That said, you still may be able to coax more performance out of the add-ons you got by spending some time working on positioning, aim, etc. My favorite test is to hook them up as front L/R mains, and play some stereo music through them bounced off the ceiling. If they aren't placed well, you'll perceive the sound as coming from the speakers, just kind of smeared upwards. Now move around, e.g. sit on the floor a few feet in front of the couch, move your head around... if you get the sweet spot, you'll find that it starts to sound like a pair of diffuse ceiling speakers, with your brain clearly being fooled into perceiving the overhead sound as the dominant signal. That's the goal, then you can experiment with positioning them a bit closer, a bit higher, angling them a bit, etc. to try and hit that target at the actual listening position.


----------



## DJ Lushious

batpig said:


> That said, you still may be able to coax more performance out of the add-ons you got by spending some time working on positioning, aim, etc. My favorite test is to hook them up as front L/R mains, and play some stereo music through them bounced off the ceiling. If they aren't placed well, you'll perceive the sound as coming from the speakers, just kind of smeared upwards. Now move around, e.g. sit on the floor a few feet in front of the couch, move your head around... if you get the sweet spot, you'll find that it starts to sound like a pair of diffuse ceiling speakers, with your brain clearly being fooled into perceiving the overhead sound as the dominant signal. That's the goal, then you can experiment with positioning them a bit closer, a bit higher, angling them a bit, etc. to try and hit that target at the actual listening position.


That's a fantastic suggestion! I never would have thought of that. I have a ceiling fan in my living room and I can only imagine that's going to make the reflection even more difficult, on or off.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Their performance depends SO much on the dimensions of the room, speaker placement, main listening postion, etc.
> 
> They are capable of sounding good and immersive but it often requires their own set of compromises (to setup) compared to actual in/on ceiling speakers.
> 
> Use them if you are desperate. I'd only use actual speakers mounted overhead for my own system. But that's just my opinion.



IIRC you'd based that on the Atlantic Tech 44-DAs, which were FirstGen Dolby bounce speakers.



batpig said:


> Yes, pretty much. The problem with a "virtual" speaker vs. a physical speaker is that it is inherently less stable and predictable.


I respectfully disagree that the Dolby add-ons are useless, though. While in the AVS court of popular opinion Dolby AE speakers are generally a second or even a third class option, you still have respectable AVSers (not newbies but serious hobbyists like Markus or David Suslio, if memory serves, and in one case even Filmmixer, an industry professional) using them. 

Having said that, they have to be used carefully, and I'd have at least two pairs with plenty of room in front and behind you to get the "bounce" effect. If you don't have an 8'+ flat ceiling, and the flexibility to have separate add-ons to position for best effect, as opposed to built-in top-firing drivers within an otherwise front-firing speaker cabinet in front or rear surround speakers, and aren't willing to play with their placement for optimal "virtual" effect, you're wasting your time.

However, if you have the Triad Silver or Bronze height separates with their 2x2 concentric array, or speakers with the proper foam guard to focus the content for the reflected sound, and the proper Dolby angle for speaker positioning built into the add-on design, given the proper ceiling and very careful placement of any ceiling-level acoustic treatments, the Dolby AE speakers can work for you as a "proof of concept".

I have two pairs of PSB Imagine XAs in my setup, and you get the illusion of above the ceiling movement for native Dolby Atmos content, and believable front to back and left to right movement on the Atmos demo or content like ST: Into Darkness or Gravity. However, to be blunt they're useless for DSU upmixing, especially with two-channel music content. And if I had a multi-row rather than a single three-seat sofa, I wouldn't do it unless I had a room packed with them in some fancy array setting (which is Trinnov/Datasat territory).

They do a slightly more believable job for upmixed multichannel BDs than for music, while the Neural:X upmixer has a slightly more believable overhead effect on multichannel music in my experience. I would describe what the XAs are doing more as lifting the stage upward with upmixing rather than provide specific overhead content on non-Atmos content. Probably less effective for DTS:X than Atmos, at least based on Independence Day, where the stage felt a bit squashed overhead when I defined the Dolby AEs as "top front" and "top rear". Think effects generating from the top of the screen horizontally vs. heading above the user for, say, Randy Quaid's biplane flyover scene. 

Some may regard this as flawed, and I'm not sure I'd disagree. But depending on your needs and willingness to focus on the native Atmos content. you can live with them. I agree it's a "no other choice" option, though. 



> If conditions are ideal, you can get a very good simulation of overhead sound effects (although a reflection will never be able to deliver powerful bass due to the directivity of lower frequencies). Many who attended Dolby demos actually preferred the reflected sound as it was more diffuse and enveloping than the direct, pinpoint sound of physical overhead speakers. But of course these were carefully set up professional demos, so the conditions were as close to ideal as could be expected. The further you stray from the perfect ideal, the less well they will work, the more diffuse and mushed the sound will get until eventually you will barely be able to hear it. Especially if you have really nice floor level speakers which severely outclass the Atmos up-firing modules (if you were willing to plop thousands on the KEF reference modules or the Triad modules, you might have a better experience).


 
I'd agree with all of that, and hearing several demos with the Pioneer Andrew Jones or Triads, I'd thought of the Atmos effect as more of an alternative presentation than fundamentally flawed. But keep in mind that was at trade shows, not real world use, where the experience of AVSers is probably more important than what hearing a demo at the Pioneer booth might show.


In my case the components are all timbre matched from the same manufacturer with the same 1" tweeter and woofer or midrange components, and are designed to work together, to the extent that you can say that about PSB's Imagine vs. Imagine X. But you can forget about having realistic bass overhead unless you want it to be directional/direct. I've measured my XAs down to about 70 Hz at -6 db but I certainly wouldn't cross them at less than 120 Hz.




> My favorite test is to hook them up as front L/R mains, and play some stereo music through them bounced off the ceiling. If they aren't placed well, you'll perceive the sound as coming from the speakers, just kind of smeared upwards. Now move around, e.g. sit on the floor a few feet in front of the couch, move your head around... if you get the sweet spot, you'll find that it starts to sound like a pair of diffuse ceiling speakers, with your brain clearly being fooled into perceiving the overhead sound as the dominant signal. That's the goal, then you can experiment with positioning them a bit closer, a bit higher, angling them a bit, etc. to try and hit that target at the actual listening position.


 
I knew I'd gotten that idea somewhere - actually what I did, testing the pairs of top and rears separately. But for other reasons, no matter how well they work, I might eventually give in and do at least physical front/rear heights to best leverage the overall Trinnov technology.


----------



## heavyharmonies

DJ Lushious said:


> Is it a general consensus that the atmos add-on speakers that go atop towers are YMMV? I purchased the Pioneer atmos add-ons and I really couldn't tell much of a difference, if any.


Even beyond the Atmos vs. in-ceiling arguments, there is considerable variance *between* Atmos modules. Just because one type doesn't work for you doesn't necessarily mean that they all won't work. It becomes a question of how much experimentation you are willing to do (or can do... at least with Atmos add-ons, you're not drilling holes in ceilings or walls).

Personally, I started with four Elac A4 modules on top of my fronts and surrounds. No matter what angles I propped them at to maximize the accuracy of the bounce angle, I never got true overhead effects. I then replaced them with four Klipsch 140SA modules in the exact same postions, reran Audyssey, and voila! Like night and day. The Klipsch provided the effect I was looking for.

I then took those same Klipsch and mounted them at ceiling level as height speakers, and even better results as far as height effects, but some sounds more localized... a tradeoff.

With height, considerably more so than surround (in my opinion), the results are very much YMMV and there are no inherently right or wrong solutions, as our listening environments vary so widely. We're now working in 3 dimensions rather than just 2.

Sadly, this also makes taking other people's recommendations even more risky. You literally have to be willing to experiment yourself in your own room... which gives me the heeby-jeebies about considering in-ceiling or in-wall options. Those aren't temporary and what if they sound like bovine excrement?

Not for the faint of heart (or the demanding of WAF).


----------



## sdrucker

heavyharmonies said:


> Personally, I started with four Elac A4 modules on top of my fronts and surrounds. No matter what angles I propped them at to maximize the accuracy of the bounce angle, I never got true overhead effects. I then replaced them with four Klipsch 140SA modules in the exact same postions, reran Audyssey, and voila! Like night and day. The Klipsch provided the effect I was looking for.


 
I think Klipsch did a design paradigm similar to my PSBs, but I'm not 100% on that.




> I then took those same Klipsch and mounted them at ceiling level as height speakers, and even better results as far as height effects, but some sounds more localized... a tradeoff.


 
Sure, because you're not aiming them at a (flat) ceiling and the designed bounce effect, but downward. And aren't the speakers designed to work in conjunction with room correction (e.g. the Dolby patent curve accounted for by your target curve with a filter as well as the physical speaker design, as is done automatically by Audyssey, at least if you believe Chris K. in his 2014 interview)? I'm not saying it can't work for you according to taste, but if you're going to use Dolby AE speakers, you might as well use them as intended (aimed at the ceiling, either on a speaker, a stand or wall-mounted but still angled at the ceiling) or get real physical speakers.



> Not for the faint of heart (or the demanding of WAF).


 So's a lot of things in our hobby  .


----------



## heavyharmonies

sdrucker said:


> Sure, because you're not aiming them at a (flat) ceiling and the designed bounce effect, but downward. And aren't the speakers designed to work in conjunction with room correction (e.g. the Dolby patent curve accounted for by your target curve with a filter as well as the physical speaker design, as is done automatically by Audyssey, at least if you believe Chris K. in his 2014 interview)? I'm not saying it can't work for you according to taste, but if you're going to use Dolby AE speakers, you might as well use them as intended (aimed at the ceiling, either on a speaker, a stand or wall-mounted but still angled at the ceiling) or get real physical speakers.


Actually, Klipsch designed these to be used as either Atmos upfiring modules or as wall-mounted height speakers, hence the keyhole in the back for easy wall mounting. They are a dual-purpose speaker.

I tried them both ways (and with the appropriate AVR settings: "height" when mounted to the wall and "Dolby" when firing upward), and prefer the results as wall-mounted heights.

Not sure I understand the "get real physical speakers" reference, unless you mean full-range. I know people have had good results mounting bookshelf speakers at ceiling level as heights, but I would think these actually work better, since the drivers are aimed downward at the MLP rather than across the ceiling...


----------



## bkeeler10

1forsnow said:


> Have you ever considered using a hanging pendant style speaker that would hang down via a small wire from the ceiling? Those type of speakers are typically used in atriums in commercial buildings. They come in various styles and I am sure you can paint the housing to match the ceiling so they blend right in.
> 
> My .02





sikclown said:


> Yeah I have looked into those and may well still do that but I can't find any users who have used them for Atmos.


If you're looking for good pendants, might I suggest the SoundTube RS500i or RS600i. They're pretty high fidelity speakers in the commercial audio world. I work for SoundTube and have quite a bit of experience with them. Dispersion averages about 100 degrees, which will keep the listening position pretty well covered if installed at around 45 degrees wrt the listening position.

Another company that makes pretty good pendants is JBL. Although they only started making them two or three years ago. SoundTube invented the pendant 15 years ago


----------



## gwsat

Sadia Mohi -- I have two questions: (1) What do your six posts in six minutes have to do with this thread? (2) Are you trying to sell something here? I would expect to hear more before before attributing bad faith to you but I think others would agree that it looks bad on the surface.

On to Atmos. I am really glad that my HT contractor recommended and I bought in-ceiling Focal Atmos speakers. The more I read here, the more I am convinced that in-ceiling is the way to go for Atmos if it's at all possible. My Atmos speakers, along with the other upgrades to my HT system, are to be installed on Monday and Tuesday. I will report my impressions after I have had a chance to shake things down.


----------



## sdrucker

heavyharmonies said:


> Actually, Klipsch designed these to be used as either Atmos upfiring modules or as wall-mounted height speakers, hence the keyhole in the back for easy wall mounting. They are a dual-purpose speaker.



Hmmm...I don't have them so I'll take your word for that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> IIRC you'd based that on the Atlantic Tech 44-DAs, which were FirstGen Dolby bounce speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree that the Dolby add-ons are useless, though. While in the AVS court of popular opinion Dolby AE speakers are generally a second or even a third class option, you still have respectable AVSers (not newbies but serious hobbyists like Markus or David Suslio, if memory serves, and in one case even Filmmixer, an industry professional) using them.


Stuart, I don't know why you are putting out-of-context words in my mouth but... whatever.

If I have ever talked about the AT 44's it was in reference to my thoughts of them being AWFUL for their intended purpose. One only has to have a basic understanding of how a speaker system works to know that these would be a poor choice for their intended purpose but that's a whole other discussion. I've never even heard the 44's nor do I want.

I didn't say that these installations were "worthless" just not very good if not set up correctly. You must not know this but I actually own and operate a 5.1.4 Atmos system in another room using the Pioneer Andrew Jones speakers. Same ones @*FilmMixer* has had. I've heard several demos using these upfiring speakers. Once at a special Dolby meeting in Burbank with @*Rayjr* @*FilmMixer* and @*sdurani* . Another time was the first time we met outside the Pioneer Andrew Jones demo at CEDIA a couple years back. When the four of us left the Burbank demo, we all loved the sound of the upfiring speakers. When I left the demo at CEDIA, I thought then too that they sounded great.

So what do those two demos have in common? Well... they were professionally set up by the manufacturer (or Dolby) in a well treated demo room environment. NOT an actual living home...like in real life.

At my house, I HATE the sound of the upfiring speakers and I have an ideal room for them. There is never a good sense of overhead sound whatsoever. All the sound that is supposed to sound above me just sounds like it's coming from the speaker it's attached to. Same thing at Marc's house. The sound quality is good but there is no appreciable overhead effect at all.

*The point is that it takes great set up and configuration to get good sound from the upfiring speakers. Probably more so than actual speakers up above.
*
The upfiring technique is not as turn-key as it may seem.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Stuart, I don't know why you are putting out-of-context words in my mouth but... whatever.
> 
> If I have ever talked about the AT 44's it was in reference to my thoughts of them being AWFUL for their intended purpose. One only has to have a basic understanding of how a speaker system works to know that these would be a poor choice for their intended purpose but that's a whole other discussion. I've never even heard the 44's nor do I want.
> 
> I didn't say that these installations were "worthless" just not very good if not set up correctly.


Point taken - I extrapolated what I'd remembered you saying about your opinion of the AT 44s and post that BP quoted further you'd meant to intend. I take the "worthless" attribution back. You didn't say it and didn't mean it. Fair enough. 



> You must not know this but I actually own and operate a 5.1.4 Atmos system in another room using the Pioneer Andrew Jones speakers.


 
Actually, no, I didn't. Probably lost somewhere in the volume of AVS posts, and I haven't read the AJ speakers thread in well over a year. I'd thought you just had your room with the wall of infinite bass.



> Same ones @*FilmMixer* has had. I've heard several demos using these upfiring speakers. Once at a special Dolby meeting in Burbank with @*Rayjr* @*FilmMixer* and @*sdurani* . Another time was the first time we met outside the Pioneer Andrew Jones demo at CEDIA a couple years back. When the four of us left the Burbank demo, we all loved the sound of the upfiring speakers. When I left the demo at CEDIA, I thought then too that they sounded great.


 Same here - I caught the same CEDIA demo as you in 2014, but I don't remember if it was the same time. They did sound great, but yes, it was in a professional setup. I've also heard good results with Triad height modules at AXPONA, but AFAIK there's only one AVSer that uses them in his place, and he had a professionally designed theater by Dennis Erskine.



> So what do those two demos have in common? Well... they were professionally set up by the manufacturer (or Dolby) in a well treated demo room environment. NOT an actual living home...like in real life.
> 
> At my house, I HATE the sound of the upfiring speakers and I have an ideal room for them. There is never a good sense of overhead sound whatsoever. All the sound that is supposed to sound above me just sounds like it's coming from the speaker it's attached to. Same thing at Marc's house. The sound quality is good but there is no appreciable overhead effect at all.


 So, do you mean just direct sound from the speakers and no overhead (reflected) effects? Tell me - do you think you'd have gotten appreciably better results if you'd had stand-alone height modules like the Klipsch, KEF, Triad etc. and could adjust their location and angle to better aim at a first reflection point off the ceiling?

*



The point is that it takes great set up and configuration to get good sound from the upfiring speakers. Probably more so than actual speakers up above.

Click to expand...

*It's certainly not set and forget, which means that unless you're lucky with the right module in your room, have professional advice or setup for the room design and/or aren't discriminating, they don't work as intended for a casual HT user. 

Anecdotally on the Dolby Atmos upfiring thread, there's a lot of variability about which modules "work". Meaning you'd have some guy for whom the AT 44-DAs work out but someone else would trade them in for the Klipsch. The same with the ELACs.

I've heard the ATs once, by the way. One time at an AVSer's house, with a LT 8' ceiling and an open room behind the rear surround where the rear modules were located (hence not ideal locations). I thought they were giving effective but uneven and diffuse sound above from the front of the room, but that front to back panning was poor. I bought his speakers to try the tech, but before I could set them u I wound up trading them in toward for my PSBs once they were available because I thought it a better design with the waveguide grill and the foam built into the inside of the grill that would isolate the direct sound and focus on the reflected (if you believe the manufacturer).


Like I said, for me they work, but only in the most obvious way (native Atmos and maybe DTS:X, and there could be other contributing factors like the mixes I've tried) and I actually want to get some peer opinion about the sound in the room before I decide whether to live with the tradeoffs or bite the bullet and do the (carefully placed) ceiling speaker route like the majority here.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Point taken - I extrapolated what I'd remembered you saying about your opinion of the AT 44s and the "desperate" comment further than you'd meant to intend. I take the "worthless" attribution back. You didn't say it and didn't mean it. Fair enough.









sdrucker said:


> Actually, no, I didn't. Probably lost somewhere in the volume of AVS posts, and I don't read the AJ speakers thread.


Nor do I read ANY speaker related thread here. I have little to no interest in most pre-made speakers anymore. JTR, Danley and Seaton is about all I'd ever touch and I don't read those threads either.

But to be fair, I'm not sure I've mentioned that I own this other system much. Maybe once or twice and probably related to these reoccurring "are AE speakers okay?" type discussions.





sdrucker said:


> Same here - I caught the same CEDIA demo as you in 2014, but I don't remember if it was the same time. They did sound great, but yes, it was in a professional setup. I've also heard good results with Triad height modules at AXPONA, but AFAIK there's only one AVSer that uses them, and he had a professionally designed theater by Dennis Erskine.


Maybe not the same exact time but it's the same room with the same setup and demos. If you went inside and got a demo, we heard the same thing. Sure won my father over as he was foaming at the mouth for Atmos after that demo.

But again, you heard a convincing demo _where_? Yep... a trade show demo. Properly set up.





sdrucker said:


> So, do you mean just direct sound from the speakers and no overhead (reflected) effects? Tell me - do you think you'd have gotten appreciably better results if you'd had stand-alone height modules like the Klipsch, KEF, Triad etc. and could adjust their location to aim at a first reflection point off the ceiling?


Yes. No overhead sound really at all. Same results in a room with 10ft ceilings, same results at Marc's place where had 7-8ft ceilings. Same speakers, same 5.1.4 configuration, same "lame" overhead effect. And by "lame" I mean, not convincing at all. At this point, maybe I'll just try the Yamaha with the presence speakers virtualized. 

Ehhh... not sure. Can't say really as I have not tried it or intend on doing so. I would believe that having some adjustability is better than none. But that's not the same thing as what I was talking about earlier. Just makes my point that proper set up is required and proves that one would require good "tweaking" of things to get good overhead sound at all from upfiring speakers.


On a related note: I had the same receiver in my room and it took a while to get the right sound out of my actual overhead speakers too. Still, I'm firmly in the camp of "rather not" use upfiring speakers at all whatsoever in any system I'd ever have. I would only use them out of desperation. I'd rather have those cute little Bose Lifestyle speakers on my ceiling than something reflective. Not at all because I don't believe in the premise. I think and know it can work. It's just not what I would do...ever. These methods were born out of the sense that Dolby wanted to get Atmos into ANY room and I applaud them for doing so. It only helps get immersive audio out there.

But for myself? No way.


----------



## studlygoorite

Hello, I would like to separate my rear surrounds from my back height speakers a little more. Would anyone with more experience than myself care to comment on the location of the surrounds? The side surrounds are the same height as the rears, should I go ear level or lower even though the chair would block direct line or should I lower the surrounds just to the top of the chair? 
I guess there is a third option, to leave them where they are....

John


----------



## toddn149

I have a question and I can't seem to find the answer to both of these in the same thread. I can't put in ceiling speakers and, just based on how the room is set up with no access to the ceiling. I'd like to do the standalone a Atmos speakers but have heard this really isn't a good option, based in the mixed reviews I've seen on this thread. I have def tech 8060s and the A60 option they make was the route I was going to do, but the reviews on them are very poor. That led me to the Elac A4 option and while it won't fit on top of the front speakers as well, the reviews seem to be pretty good. Ceiling is 9 feet, flat ceiling as well so wondering is this a good route to go or should I just keep a 5.1 set up? The way the room is set up I cannot do 7.1 as I have no ability to put behind seating speakers and the room is longer and broken into 2 sections for use. Hope this helps for now to direct me on if I should consider these type of Atmos speakers


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Stuart, I don't know why you are putting out-of-context words in my mouth but... whatever.
> 
> If I have ever talked about the AT 44's it was in reference to my thoughts of them being AWFUL for their intended purpose. One only has to have a basic understanding of how a speaker system works to know that these would be a poor choice for their intended purpose but that's a whole other discussion. I've never even heard the 44's nor do I want.
> 
> I didn't say that these installations were "worthless" just not very good if not set up correctly. You must not know this but I actually own and operate a 5.1.4 Atmos system in another room using the Pioneer Andrew Jones speakers. Same ones @*FilmMixer* has had. I've heard several demos using these upfiring speakers. Once at a special Dolby meeting in Burbank with @*Rayjr* @*FilmMixer* and @*sdurani* . Another time was the first time we met outside the Pioneer Andrew Jones demo at CEDIA a couple years back. When the four of us left the Burbank demo, we all loved the sound of the upfiring speakers. When I left the demo at CEDIA, I thought then too that they sounded great.
> 
> So what do those two demos have in common? Well... they were professionally set up by the manufacturer (or Dolby) in a well treated demo room environment. NOT an actual living home...like in real life.
> 
> At my house, I HATE the sound of the upfiring speakers and I have an ideal room for them. There is never a good sense of overhead sound whatsoever. All the sound that is supposed to sound above me just sounds like it's coming from the speaker it's attached to. Same thing at Marc's house. The sound quality is good but there is no appreciable overhead effect at all.
> 
> *The point is that it takes great set up and configuration to get good sound from the upfiring speakers. Probably more so than actual speakers up above.
> *
> The upfiring technique is not as turn-key as it may seem.


I have both the AT-44's and the Pioneer upfiring in a TM setup where I cannot do ceiling-mounted. I noticed the same problem with the AT-44's--too much sound from the front of the speaker. The 30 degree angle of the speaker seems to exacerbate this. I wrapped some acoustic foam around the front of the speaker sticking up about an inch above the grill and the problem went away (could have been case-conducted sound, as well). The Pio's didn't have the problem, possibly because the speakers are at a 20 degree angle. The sweet spot was better using the top of my side surrounds for the Pio's, because they are closer to the MLP. For the At-44's, I had to use the top of the front wides to get in the sweet spot. Nevertheless, the Dolby upfiring do not perform as well as the direct-firing FH and RH. I wouldn't use them if I didn't have to.


----------



## AllenA07

studlygoorite said:


> Hello, I would like to separate my rear surrounds from my back height speakers a little more. Would anyone with more experience than myself care to comment on the location of the surrounds? The side surrounds are the same height as the rears, should I go ear level or lower even though the chair would block direct line or should I lower the surrounds just to the top of the chair?
> I guess there is a third option, to leave them where they are....
> 
> John


Can you move you seating forward at all?


----------



## murlidher

My jbl control one installed in ceiling reported 90hz cross over, will it be beneficial if I increase to 120 as I have a dedicated sub? Also audyssey reported -6.5 db for my top middle speakers, how about increasing to -3.5 db to have a more feel of atmos?

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

studlygoorite said:


> Hello, I would like to separate my rear surrounds from my back height speakers a little more. Would anyone with more experience than myself care to comment on the location of the surrounds? The side surrounds are the same height as the rears, should I go ear level or lower even though the chair would block direct line or should I lower the surrounds just to the top of the chair?
> I guess there is a third option, to leave them where they are....
> 
> John


Honestly, not sure if you can feasibly lower them with those high backed chairs -- it looks like they barely clear the top of the seatback as it is. 

If your back surrounds were WAY up there then it would be one thing, but they look to be in a fairly optimal position honestly and it's just a situation (which many have) where the seating is only a few feet off the back wall, so back surrounds and rear tops/heights will inherently be physically close to each other. 

That said it seems like you have decent separation in an angular sense, plus you have acoustic panels placed in between. I think you've actually got it about as good as it can be. 

The thing is, human hearing isn't particularly sensitive to sounds from the rear (especially elevated sounds in the rear) and even in a perfect setup your ability to discriminate between a sound that is directly behind vs. behind and a bit elevated isn't that great anyway. I have been fooled MANY times when I thought I heard a neat overhead effect, and then when I went and listened more carefully I realized the effect was actually isolated in the surround speakers and not the overheads. And I have my rears in more of a Top Middle orientation so they are directly overhead, with plenty of separation from the back surrounds.


----------



## batpig

murlidher said:


> My jbl control one installed in ceiling reported 90hz cross over, will it be beneficial if I increase to 120 as I have a dedicated sub? Also audyssey reported -6.5 db for my top middle speakers, how about increasing to -3.5 db to have a more feel of atmos?
> 
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


It looks like those JBL's only have 4" woofers, so yeah I would probably raise the crossover. Unless your speakers are really beefy, I think it's generally advisable not to set the crossover at the lowest available point unless you are not going to play super loud. 

What Audyssey is measuring is the low end roll-off of the speaker, and then reporting that to the AVR which sets the crossover at the next available setting up from that. So your speakers may have measured with a -3dB point of 85Hz or something, and then 90Hz is the next one up from there. That means you asking the speaker to reach as low as it can really go.

The issue here is that Audyssey is only sweeping the speakers at 75dB, so while the speaker may legitimately be flat to 80-90Hz as per the spec when measured at 75dB, that little 4" woofer is NOT going to stay linear at its extreme lower limit as the volume increases towards higher output levels. If you listen at -10dB for example, peak amplitude will be around 95dB at the listening position, which means the speaker is likely being asked to put out 100dB+ at the driver. That means you will lose dynamics and clarity with high amplitude effects.

So, yeah, I would raise the crossover a bit if you plan to play really loud, just to make the small speaker's job a bit easier and give it a bit more headroom.


----------



## Selden Ball

murlidher said:


> My jbl control one installed in ceiling reported 90hz cross over, will it be beneficial if I increase to 120 as I have a dedicated sub?


 If the speaker does a poor job of reproducing sounds at that low a frequency, raising the crossover often can help.

In general, however, a crossover frequency in the vicinity of 80Hz is recommended because it's hard to determine where frequecies that low are coming from. When the crossover frequency is higher, sometimes you can tell that sounds are coming from the direction of the subwoofer, which can be distracting. 


> Also audyssey reported -6.5 db for my top middle speakers, how about increasing to -3.5 db to have a more feel of atmos?


 In general, the automatic calibration done by the receiver will result in balanced sound levels coming from all of your speakers, so that you'll hear those sounds at the levels intended by a movie's sound editor. However, that type of top-to-bottom sound level difference is very much a personal preference. You should feel free to adjust them to produce the levels that you enjoy the most.


----------



## studlygoorite

AllenA07 said:


> Can you move you seating forward at all?


I can


----------



## studlygoorite

batpig said:


> Honestly, not sure if you can feasibly lower them with those high backed chairs -- it looks like they barely clear the top of the seatback as it is.
> 
> If your back surrounds were WAY up there then it would be one thing, but they look to be in a fairly optimal position honestly and it's just a situation (which many have) where the seating is only a few feet off the back wall, so back surrounds and rear tops/heights will inherently be physically close to each other.
> 
> That said it seems like you have decent separation in an angular sense, plus you have acoustic panels placed in between. I think you've actually got it about as good as it can be.
> 
> The thing is, human hearing isn't particularly sensitive to sounds from the rear (especially elevated sounds in the rear) and even in a perfect setup your ability to discriminate between a sound that is directly behind vs. behind and a bit elevated isn't that great anyway. I have been fooled MANY times when I thought I heard a neat overhead effect, and then when I went and listened more carefully I realized the effect was actually isolated in the surround speakers and not the overheads. And I have my rears in more of a Top Middle orientation so they are directly overhead, with plenty of separation from the back surrounds.


Thank you for your time.


----------



## Chris 0119

Is it possible to use 2 subs for Atmos?
I keep reading that only one LFE channel signal is active.
Now does that mean if I am running 2 subs, only one will be active during Atmos encoded playback, or will the LFE channel just be disbursed through both subs simultaneously like any other audio encoded format?
I keep seeing 5.1.2, 5.1.4 etc., but I would like to go 5.2.2.
I guess what I am trying to say, is will both my subs be active during playback even though Atmos encoded tracks only have one actual LFE signal...?


----------



## petetherock

Sure you can


----------



## Chris 0119

So the LFE signal is disbursed through my receiver in a .2 format, it doesn't effectively limit to .1 in a literal sense?


----------



## dschulz

Chris 0119 said:


> So the LFE signal is disbursed through my receiver in a .2 format, it doesn't effectively limit to .1 in a literal sense?


Both of your subs will be active. The Atmos soundtrack (just like all 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks) contains a single, mono LFE channel. Your AVR will combine that LFE channel with all of the sound below the crossover point of the rest of your speakers (assuming you are using bass management) and distribute more-or-less equally to your two subwoofers. They won't get an identical signal, as the AVR during calibration should take into account their distance from MLP and position to tweak them to achieve a balanced, uniform bass sound for the listener.


----------



## Chris 0119

dschulz said:


> Chris 0119 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the LFE signal is disbursed through my receiver in a .2 format, it doesn't effectively limit to .1 in a literal sense?
> 
> 
> 
> Both of your subs will be active. The Atmos soundtrack (just like all 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks) contains a single, mono LFE channel. Your AVR will combine that LFE channel with all of the sound below the crossover point of the rest of your speakers (assuming you are using bass management) and distribute more-or-less equally to your two subwoofers. They won't get an identical signal, as the AVR during calibration should take into account their distance from MLP and position to tweak them to achieve a balanced, uniform bass sound for the listener.
Click to expand...

Answers my question perfectly - thank you!!


----------



## williamwallace

Chris 0119 said:


> Is it possible to use 2 subs for Atmos?
> I keep reading that only one LFE channel signal is active.
> Now does that mean if I am running 2 subs, only one will be active during Atmos encoded playback, or will the LFE channel just be disbursed through both subs simultaneously like any other audio encoded format?
> I keep seeing 5.1.2, 5.1.4 etc., but I would like to go 5.2.2.
> I guess what I am trying to say, is will both my subs be active during playback even though Atmos encoded tracks only have one actual LFE signal...?


Absolutely. Multiple subs is the only way to go! 

Worst case, you can run a splitter into multiple subs. In fact, some receivers with a Sub 1 and Sub 2 output, actually just run a splitter internally. The one caveat here is if you run a splitter and the subs are in different spots in the room, you'll have different acoustics and sound delays, so the subs may not sound optimal.

But on a nicer receiver with good room correction software, it will detect any acoustic and delay differences between the subs and adjust them to create a singular sub "voice." It's truly awesome.


----------



## nickbuol

Has there been a general consensus on the actual downward firing angle of overhead speakers for a room with just under 8foot ceilings?

By that I mean, pointing straight down, or angled towards the MLP, or even angled "beyond" the MLP?

I have 2 rows of seats, but mainly want to focus on the front row. I have "on-wall" speakers mounted "on ceiling" so there is a bit more flexibility for me to play with, but I've already had the fronts in 3 different locations, and the rear overheads in 2.

When I last moved then a little while back, I had a pretty good angle on the front overheads to point to the MLP, and a slightly less angle on the rear overheads (due partially to the inability to get them behind the rear row). Then I read just recently that some suggestions were to point them all straight down.

Or is it still "up in the air" on what to do. I can somewhat easily adjust the front overhead speakers as they are on really nice mounts that I can easily adjust (although for testing it the bracket itself will start to impact how far down the speaker "hangs" from the already 7foot 9inch ceiling).

Thanks everyone.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

murlidher said:


> Also audyssey reported -6.5 db for my top middle speakers, how about increasing to -3.5 db to have a more feel of atmos?


I'm gonna' add a caveat to the advice Selden gave you on this. Can you increase the level? Absolutely... It's your system, do what sounds good to you. That said, SHOULD YOU? Well, that requires a little thought. I'll explain...

Consider a stereo setup. If the two speakers are at the same levels, you get phantom imaging directly between the two speakers. Now consider that in a 7.1 setup, you calibrate all channels to the same level for much the same reason - both to maintain the proper balance that the mixer intended and so that phantom imaging between each channel appears to image roughly between those two channels.

Now take that concept of stereo imaging and add a Z-axis to it. So you're now imaging between 3 or more point sources to place a sound. All things (and levels) being equal, that sound would phantom image at the junction point between those three speakers (for example, left main, left surround and top left). Atmos mixes are done so that the mixer can place an audio object at any point in a 3-D modeled version of the listening room. So say I'm mixing a soundtrack and want a sound to appear to come from half the room height in the direction of the left main... I place that object at that point in the room on the screen. The Atmos renderer then takes that XYZ positional data, gauges what speakers it has available to reproduce it in the space, and outputs that sound at the appropriate levels in each speaker so that - assuming all channels are level-matched per the reference that the mixer's soundstage was during the mix - it images at roughly that point in space in your room. So a sound placed between left main and top left will image between those two speakers just as it would with left main/right main.

Let's go back to the stereo imaging example. What would happen if you bumped your left main up by 3dB? Sound that is meant to image between the two speakers would then effectively collapse to the left speaker. So consider a pan of a sound that goes in a path from the right main to the left main in a stereo setup. If the levels are matched, that pan will move smoothly across the front soundstage as the levels in each speaker vary with the pan. If, however, the left main is up by 3dB, that sound would start at the right level in the right main, then as it moved to the left, the 3dB boost in the left main would make it sound like it was quickly moving to the left speaker rather than the smooth pan it should be. *Now apply that same logic to your overhead speakers.* The mixer takes a sound and places it at half the room height in the 3-D model. The renderer outputs the appropriate sound to each channel... but because you've added a 3dB boost to the overheads, that sound will collapse upward to the overheads rather than imaging at half your room's height as it should.

Bearing that in mind, yes... you will get more of a "things are happening overhead" feel to the sound. The problem is that since Atmos depends on placement between speakers to place sounds in 3-D space, you are essentially throwing off the work its renderer is trying to do to place those audio objects in 3-D space, effectively making any sound that's meant to be above the bed channels shift upward to the overheads more than it was meant to. So if the mixer has a sound that should be at about 10% above the bed channels, your 3dB boost would effectively shift the placement of that sound up well above that. More sound would appear to be over your head... but more of it will be sound that wasn't meant to be up that high in the room.

Now add to that consideration that any sounds placed at 100% room height will now play back 3dB higher than in your bed channels, meaning a pan from bed to 100% Z-axis would appear to increase in level as it went over your head. Yes, it would make your overheads stand out more to listeners, but... IMHO, you would be doing so at the expense of the precise placement that Atmos offers in the room. A good example would be the recent Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition. Several times in the movie, Superman takes off into the sky and the sound starts at bed level and then shoots quickly up into the overheads. With a 3dB boost to the overheads, you may well hear so much of that sound in the overheads that you don't notice that it started at bed-level and panned up there.

All that said, it's ultimately your system. There's no "right and wrong" here - just reference vs. preference. But at least now, I feel like you're going into it armed with the knowledge of just what you're doing to the intended sound by altering the levels that way. Not every Atmos movie is meant to have constant overhead effects, and for my money, my goal is to hear the sounds placed roughly at the point where the mixer intended them to be in the room. Alterations from reference levels throw off that between-channel balance just as much as boosting one speaker in a stereo setup would throw off stereo imaging. I would say that if you have access to the Leaf Atmos demo from Dolby, put it on a loop and try it with the levels untouched and with a 3dB boost. If you're hearing what you're supposed to, you will not only hear wind sounds that go above your head, you will also hear the sound of things move THROUGH the space of the room. Play it again with a boost to the overheads applied and those sounds that moved through the middle of the room will now move overhead instead. You decide which you prefer.


----------



## richlife

Nice description, Jeremy Anderson! This jives with sort of what I might expect from Atmos, but never having actually heard an Atmos setup or playback, I wasn't sure if my expectation might be accurate. I will be trying to get an immersive setup in my current 7.2 room with my my new AVR, and now I better know what I should be expecting. Thanks!


----------



## tyler webb

does anyone have the link to the Dolby Atmos Bluray Demo disk? I would like to purchase the disc. Thanks


----------



## petetherock

Quite a few folks like to over cook the ceiling speakers. It a personal preference but again like food, too much seasoning detracts from the taste of the meat or fish. 
Apply sparingly to get the real flavor the chef wishes to convey. Cheers


----------



## Soupy1970

nickbuol said:


> Has there been a general consensus on the actual downward firing angle of overhead speakers for a room with just under 8foot ceilings?
> 
> By that I mean, pointing straight down, or angled towards the MLP, or even angled "beyond" the MLP?
> 
> I have 2 rows of seats, but mainly want to focus on the front row. I have "on-wall" speakers mounted "on ceiling" so there is a bit more flexibility for me to play with, but I've already had the fronts in 3 different locations, and the rear overheads in 2.
> 
> When I last moved then a little while back, I had a pretty good angle on the front overheads to point to the MLP, and a slightly less angle on the rear overheads (due partially to the inability to get them behind the rear row). Then I read just recently that some suggestions were to point them all straight down.
> 
> Or is it still "up in the air" on what to do. I can somewhat easily adjust the front overhead speakers as they are on really nice mounts that I can easily adjust (although for testing it the bracket itself will start to impact how far down the speaker "hangs" from the already 7foot 9inch ceiling).
> 
> Thanks everyone.


My ceiling is under 8ft and I point mine toward MLP. I think the lower the ceiling the more they need pointed toward MLP. The higher the speaker the more it disperses.


----------



## nickbuol

Soupy1970 said:


> My ceiling is under 8ft and I point mine toward MLP. I think the lower the ceiling the more they need pointed toward MLP. The higher the speaker the more it disperses.


Hey Soupy, yeah, that is what my research was telling me for the months leading up to me jumping (finally) into Atmos back in March. There just seems to be a continued "trial and error" process that others are doing and some are reporting back positive results that contradict what may have been the "norm" just 9 months ago. I have some "down time" right now due to a surgery, so I thought that I would ask. 

So I am currently doing what you are talking about too, and so far so good, but I just wonder what the "next tweak" will be.

Then again, since the surgery was just yesterday, my wife is getting on my case about being up and about, so maybe I should just sit back and worry about it another day. LOL


----------



## richlife

nickbuol said:


> ...
> 
> So I am currently doing what you are talking about too, and so far so good, but I just wonder what the "next tweak" will be.
> 
> Then again, since the surgery was just yesterday, my wife is getting on my case about being up and about, so maybe I should just sit back and worry about it another day. LOL


Been in that boat too much, Nick. Sit back, etc... Good idea! --- between times you jump up and tweak something. 

Enjoy what you can...


----------



## AllenA07

studlygoorite said:


> I can


I would go ahead and move the seating forward if you can, I think you would end up with better surround and probably would help with bass as well. Now as far as getting more separation, unless the picture is giving me the wrong impression, the situation there doesn't look that bad. There seems to be decent separation between the height and rear channel. Plus, as previously mentioned, with this high back chairs I don't think you have much ability to lower the rear surrounds without running into problems with your chairs getting in the way.


----------



## studlygoorite

AllenA07 said:


> I would go ahead and move the seating forward if you can, I think you would end up with better surround and probably would help with bass as well. Now as far as getting more separation, unless the picture is giving me the wrong impression, the situation there doesn't look that bad. There seems to be decent separation between the height and rear channel. Plus, as previously mentioned, with this high back chairs I don't think you have much ability to lower the rear surrounds without running into problems with your chairs getting in the way.


Thanks for your time, it does sound very good and I have since moved my main seat forward a bit more.


----------



## DustinF

heavyharmonies said:


> Actually, Klipsch designed these to be used as either Atmos upfiring modules or as wall-mounted height speakers, hence the keyhole in the back for easy wall mounting. They are a dual-purpose speaker.
> 
> I tried them both ways (and with the appropriate AVR settings: "height" when mounted to the wall and "Dolby" when firing upward), and prefer the results as wall-mounted heights.
> 
> Not sure I understand the "get real physical speakers" reference, unless you mean full-range. I know people have had good results mounting bookshelf speakers at ceiling level as heights, but I would think these actually work better, since the drivers are aimed downward at the MLP rather than across the ceiling...





Soupy1970 said:


> My ceiling is under 8ft and I point mine toward MLP. I think the lower the ceiling the more they need pointed toward MLP. The higher the speaker the more it disperses.


I agree. 
My ceiling is just under 8 ft.

I have the ability to move seating position and plenty of room behind me for testing. 
With the Klipsch 140sa on top of speakers there was definitely a good effect with Atmos, but I had to angle them forward when sitting about 10ft back. At 5-6 ft their natural angle was fine.
The best improvement though was raising them another 1.5ft above the towers. 
I think people testing elevation Atmos speakers need to consider the angle and height depending on seating distance.

I've sense temporarily put them on the ceiling and switched receiver to overheads.
I found that having them point about a foot in front and a foot behind worked best.
Note the speakers are already angled so they sit about 45 degrees forward and 135 degrees back, not physically a foot in front and behind.
I REALLY enjoy the sound now!

I wanted to mount them in the ceiling instead of hanging from ceiling, but I think the baffle diffraction will screw it up. I like the wide dispersion of the Klipsch so I may get the R-3650-W II in wall and put those in the ceiling instead.


----------



## richlife

If there is an obvious answer, then perhaps this is a foolish question -- but I haven't found an answer yet.

Is there a clear way when buying a BluRay Disc online, to determine whether it is an Atmos disc? When searching on Amazon for "Atmos Bluray movie", I get a limited list of more recently released discs, but only one of those ("John Wick") clearly states that it is Atmos -- and that in the movie description. None the others like "Gravity", "Intersteller", "Everest" and "Mad Max: Fury Road" which I know are supposed to have been released with Atmos soundtracks, actually say anywhere that I can find, that they are Atmos. These movies all show a list of 3 to 20 or even 30 different releases, but none actually say "Atmos". 

I already have several Bluray discs that were released in the past few years including "Gravity", "The Martian", "Avatar", and "The Lone Ranger". All of these play and show DTS HD or DTS HD MA, but none indicate that there is an Atmos track. (Keep in mind, that right now, I don't have my A3060 configured for Atmos -- that will come right after I finish this post.  ) The copy of "Gravity" that I have is 3D (I do have a 3D capable TV) with a separate non-3D BRD. An Amazon review says the 3D version is not Atmos and the other BRD is Atmos, but again, there is nothing displayed on my A3060 that verifies that -- nor does the disc packaging. 

My family has always been good about feeding my music and movie habit once I provide the equipment. So I have a list I want to share with them, but I have no knowledge of which discs on Amazon are actually Atmos. BTW, I find the same issue in searching for DTS:X discs.


----------



## petetherock

Iirc Fury , Martian or gravity 3D aren't atmos equipped. Fury Road Mad Max says its atmos on the tin. 
Websites like Blu Ray . Com will help you choose the right discs.
Gravity was a special release with Atmos. Unless you bought that one it won't have atmos.


----------



## Witchboard

Gravity does but the Diamond Luxe Edition is the only one with an Atmos track. Pretty sure The Martian only has Atmos on UHD. I don't know about Fury.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fury Road does have Atmos in 3D and 2D.

Gravity is 3D only with 5.1 DTS-MA audio. Atmos version is 2D only

The Martian is available in Atmos only on UHD Extended Cut.


----------



## richlife

Ok, thanks for the info.

But my question, how can I determine whether a bluray disc has an Atmos soundtrack when I'm buying online (such as Amazon)? Where is that information identified? 

With your input plus searching the detail on several BRD at Amazon, I've found this (attached) on the back of John Wick. Similar on the Mad Max: Fury Road UHD. As I said, John Wick says it is Atmos in the product description. Mad Max: Fury Road UHD does not. 

From what I can tell bluray dot com was not helpful at all. I have yet to find an explicit list or location where Atmos movies are identified except as occasionally posted in some forum.

(With luck my screenshot will upload. :


----------



## Scott Simonian

There are lists maintained here and there on the net. If you can keep up with the discussions here, most titles are posted about in this thread.

Try Blu-ray stats: http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php

NEVER EVER trust Amazon for their technical stats on movies. They are rarely accurate. Definitely purchase from them but not depend on their technical listing for titles.


----------



## Witchboard

Scott Simonian said:


> Fury Road does have Atmos in 3D and 2D.
> 
> Gravity is 3D only with 5.1 DTS-MA audio. Atmos version is 2D only
> 
> The Martian is available in Atmos only on UHD Extended Cut.


Oh, Fury Road, I thought you guys were talking about Fury, the tank movie.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fury only has a 5.1 mix. No 7.1 and no Atmos.


----------



## gene4ht

richlife said:


> If there is an obvious answer, then perhaps this is a foolish question -- but I haven't found an answer yet.
> 
> Is there a clear way when buying a BluRay Disc online, to determine whether it is an Atmos disc? When searching on Amazon for "Atmos Bluray movie", I get a limited list of more recently released discs, but only one of those ("John Wick") clearly states that it is Atmos -- and that in the movie description. None the others like "Gravity", "Intersteller", "Everest" and "Mad Max: Fury Road" which I know are supposed to have been released with Atmos soundtracks, actually say anywhere that I can find, that they are Atmos. These movies all show a list of 3 to 20 or even 30 different releases, but none actually say "Atmos".
> 
> I already have several Bluray discs that were released in the past few years including "Gravity", "The Martian", "Avatar", and "The Lone Ranger". All of these play and show DTS HD or DTS HD MA, but none indicate that there is an Atmos track. (Keep in mind, that right now, I don't have my A3060 configured for Atmos -- that will come right after I finish this post.  ) The copy of "Gravity" that I have is 3D (I do have a 3D capable TV) with a separate non-3D BRD. An Amazon review says the 3D version is not Atmos and the other BRD is Atmos, but again, there is nothing displayed on my A3060 that verifies that -- nor does the disc packaging.
> 
> My family has always been good about feeding my music and movie habit once I provide the equipment. So I have a list I want to share with them, but I have no knowledge of which discs on Amazon are actually Atmos. BTW, I find the same issue in searching for DTS:X discs.


 
At the current time and in my experience..NO! This is no doubt due to the fact that 3D sound (Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro) is currently far from mainstream. In my experience, retailers...internet or otherwise...and Blu-ray front cover packaging rarely reflect 3D sound encoding. However, the back of the packaging almost always indicate 3D sound content. But, as you indicated, this does not help us when ordering online. I can only offer that my knowledge is gleaned from reading the Blu-ray reviews/threads here and occasional visits to sites like Blu-ray.com.


I will also add here, that I also rent from both Redbox and Family Video. Family Video's rental's "typically" are Atmos encoded whereas it's hit and miss with Redbox...presumably due to additional studio fees. Also, be aware that Lionsgate titles from rentals are usually "neutered"...i.e. no Atmos.


----------



## Witchboard

Maybe the best way would be visiting a brick and mortar store, verifying and then using the ISBN online rather than the title?


----------



## richlife

Witchboard said:


> Maybe the best way would be visiting a brick and mortar store, verifying and then using the ISBN online rather than the title?


Amen! As Scott said, you can't trust the Amazon spec. In general, I don't think you can trust Amazon to send the right BRD even if the one you order has the Atmos cover info. 

Scott, Fury Road UHD does say Atmos on the back cover. Looks like a lot of the UHD will have Atmos. But since I don't (yet) have a UHD player, it would be a matter of stocking discs (as I did with CDs back before I had a player :


----------



## LNEWoLF

richlife said:


> Ok, thanks for the info.
> 
> 
> From what I can tell bluray dot com was not helpful at all. I have yet to find an explicit list or location where Atmos movies are identified except as occasionally posted in some forum.
> 
> Bluray.com
> 
> Select movies on top menu
> 
> Select database on the left colum serch movies
> 
> Audio parameter window type atmos hit enter
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php?keyword=&studioid=&videocodec=&disc=&yearfrom=&yearto=&regioncoding=&aspectratio=&aspectratio_original=&releaseyear=&synopsis=&retailerexclusive=&mpaa=&runtimemin=&runtimemax=&audio=Atmos&videoresolutionid=&subtitles=&upc=&ean=&asin=&casingid=&slipcoverfront=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search
> 
> You have to research from their, [email protected]@k at back covers for atmos. Verify the product code with amazon priduct code to see if they match.
> 
> Good luck


----------



## richlife

gene4ht said:


> ...
> 
> I will also add here, that I also rent from both Redbox and Family Video. Family Video's rental's "typically" are Atmos encoded whereas it's hit and miss with Redbox...presumably due to additional studio fees. Also, be aware that Lionsgate titles from rentals are usually "neutered"...i.e. no Atmos.


Thanks for that tidbit. No help to me unfortunately -- about an hour to the nearest Family Video.


----------



## richlife

LNEWoLF said:


> richlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks for the info
> 
> From what I can tell bluray dot com was not helpful at all. I have yet to find an explicit list or location where Atmos movies are identified except as occasionally posted in some forum.
> 
> Bluray.com
> 
> Select movies on top menu
> 
> Select database on the left colum serch movies
> 
> Audio parameter window type atmos hit enter
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search
> 
> You have to research from their, [email protected]@k at back covers for atmos. Verify the product code with amazon priduct code to see if they match.
> 
> Good luck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mui bueno! Muchas gracias!
Click to expand...


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> From what I can tell bluray dot com was not helpful at all. I have yet to find an explicit list or location where Atmos movies are identified except as occasionally posted in some forum.


Blu-ray dot com maintains the most complete AND up-to-date list of Atmos titles on home video. 

Atmos on Blu-ray: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132 

DTS:X on Blu-ray: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742

Atmos & DTS:X on 4K UHD: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065 

Worth bookmarking those links for future reference.


----------



## richlife

Thanks for the update on blu-ray dot com, guys. They had some trouble getting me in -- appeared to think I was already a member. I much appreciate the advise on how to find the discs I'm interested in. Sucking on a fire hose here and loving every minute!


----------



## petetherock

richlife said:


> Thanks for the update on blu-ray dot com, guys. They had some trouble getting me in -- appeared to think I was already a member. I much appreciate the advise on how to find the discs I'm interested in. Sucking on a fire hose here and loving every minute!


Actually you don't need to be a member to view the info.. a search for Atmos / DTS BR lists will give you quite a few such lists on the net, cheers.


----------



## dicksop

*PSB Speakers including Imagine XA ATMOS*

Hi all,
I am setting up a home theatre with PSB speakers and a Denon AVR 4100 W.
My intentions are to have Alpha C speakers for the front center, left and right, Alpha B speakers for the side and back surrounds and Imagine XA Atmos speakers in the front on top of the Alpha C left and rights.
First of all, opinions please on this setup. My home theatre is NOT VERY BIG (9' WIDE AND 19' LONG WITH 7 FOOT CEILINGS.)
Also my intentions are to hook the atmos speakers to the left and right height speaker hookups on the 4100 amp. (the 4100 only has one set of height speakers) Is this correct?
Any help or suggestions would be great!


----------



## Josh Z

richlife said:


> None the others like "Gravity", "Intersteller", "Everest" and "Mad Max: Fury Road" which I know are supposed to have been released with Atmos soundtracks, actually say anywhere that I can find, that they are Atmos.
> 
> I already have several Bluray discs that were released in the past few years including "Gravity", "The Martian", "Avatar", and "The Lone Ranger". All of these play and show DTS HD or DTS HD MA, but none indicate that there is an Atmos track.


Gravity - Only the 2D "Diamond Luxe" Blu-ray (now out of print) had Atmos. The standard Blu-ray and the 3D version are DTS-HD MA 5.1.

Interstellar - This movie never had Atmos. Not in theaters, not on video. A Blu-ray reissue recently had a misprint on the packaging claiming an Atmos soundtrack, but the actual audio on the disc was DTS-HD MA 5.1.

Everest - All Blu-ray editions of this movie (2D or 3D) have Atmos.

Mad Max: Fury Road - All Blu-ray editions (2D or 3D) and UHD (2D only) have Atmos.

The Martian - All Blu-ray editions of this movie (2D or 3D, theatrical cut or Extended Edition) are DTS-HD MA 7.1. The initial UHD release of the theatrical cut is also DTS-HD MA 7.1. Only the UHD release of the Extended Edition has Atmos.

Avatar - This movie never had Atmos. Not in theaters, not on home video. All Blu-ray editions are DTS-HD MA 5.1.

The Lone Ranger - This movie never had Atmos. The Blu-ray is DTS-HD MA 7.1.


----------



## batpig

dicksop said:


> Hi all,
> I am setting up a home theatre with PSB speakers and a Denon AVR 4100 W.
> My intentions are to have Alpha C speakers for the front center, left and right, Alpha B speakers for the side and back surrounds and Imagine XA Atmos speakers in the front on top of the Alpha C left and rights.
> First of all, opinions please on this setup. My home theatre is NOT VERY BIG (9' WIDE AND 19' LONG WITH 7 FOOT CEILINGS.)
> Also my intentions are to hook the atmos speakers to the left and right height speaker hookups on the 4100 amp. (the 4100 only has one set of height speakers) Is this correct?
> Any help or suggestions would be great!


How far will you be sitting from the front speakers? Considering the room is long and has low 7' ceilings, I have a serious concern about the reflection bounce of the up-firing speakers being so far away as to render them inaudible. Also with room only 9' wide, I would consider using bipole side surrounds. 

Any chance you could do in-ceiling speakers? PSB has many affordable in-ceiling options that would provide a better result since you could locate them closer to the listening position. Alternately, if you can only do up-firing, maybe try setting them as "Surround Dolby" instead of "Front Dolby" and placing them to the sides, angled in, so they bounce in more of a directly overhead "top middle" location. 

With respect to the receiver hookup, note that the X4100 only has 7 amps built in. It sounds like you are doing a 7.1.2 setup, so be aware you will have to add a 2ch external amp (at least) to power all 9 speakers.


----------



## richlife

Josh Z, thank you! I appreciate the extra time to clarify so well the specific movies I mentioned. I'll follow the lead of the others that posted and use the resources they identified, but getting a full-short-but-sweet-answer is great! The chance to turn away from the fire hose is nice...


----------



## ALtlOff

richlife said:


> Thanks for the update on blu-ray dot com, guys. They had some trouble getting me in -- appeared to think I was already a member. I much appreciate the advise on how to find the discs I'm interested in. Sucking on a fire hose here and loving every minute!


Also, check here to see if Ralph has done a review, and look at the cover art (this goes for any source) most BR that was released with different versions will have different cover art for the Atmos version.


----------



## richlife

ALtlOff said:


> Also, check here to see if Ralph has done a review, and look at the cover art (this goes for any source) most BR that was released with different versions will have different cover art for the Atmos version.


Did you mean to include a url link? re: Ralph?


----------



## ALtlOff

richlife said:


> Did you mean to include a url link? re: Ralph?


Ralph Potts, our reviewer here on the forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


----------



## DJ Lushious

Would this thread be a good place to get advice on ceiling speaker placement? I tried Pioneer's Atmos add-on speakers and they may as well have not even existed. So, as is commonly repeated here, I'm going to plunge into ceiling speakers. I'm having a hard time figuring out where to place them, particularly because I am only 6" away from my TV and there's a ceiling fan to the left of the MLP.


----------



## richlife

ALtlOff said:


> Ralph Potts, our reviewer here on the forum:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


...AAHHHH!!! The "fire hose" ! So many resources, so little time... 

... and all through this I've been trying to get into dealing with my Atmos setup.


----------



## LNEWoLF

richlife said:


> LNEWoLF said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mui bueno! Muchas gracias!
> 
> 
> 
> Your welcome, if you create a free account on bluray.com they have a really nice app.
> 
> That you can catalog your entire movie collection. By simply adding each movie by a simple barcode scan.
> 
> You can keep track of when you last watched a movie in your collection. I like to add details in the comments section of the app of which DSP MODE I used and at what volume level I enjoyed A particular movie at.
> 
> Also can search your movie collection by various parameters. Example atmos, 7.1
> 
> Although I hope they will eventually update the app to allow you to select a particular language for audio searches i don't need to see all the available languages. If anyone from the site is listening. Thank you for the VERY nice free app.........
Click to expand...


----------



## batpig

DJ Lushious said:


> Would this thread be a good place to get advice on ceiling speaker placement? I tried Pioneer's Atmos add-on speakers and they may as well have not even existed. So, as is commonly repeated here, I'm going to plunge into ceiling speakers. I'm having a hard time figuring out where to place them, particularly *because I am only 6" away from my TV* and there's a ceiling fan to the left of the MLP.


My first suggestion would be to move back from the TV   

Some photos and/or diagrams of the room would be helpful if you want specific advice for ceiling speakers. 

But honestly I wouldn't overthink it.... assuming you're doing 2 pairs, you've got a front overhead "zone" and a read overhead zone. Try to fill the gaps (both length and width). Place them so they are no wider than the front L/R mains, and have the front pair be sort of in between the front soundstage and you, and the rear pair behind you between the side and rear surrounds. 

You'll see lots of people obsessing about angles but it's really not that hard -- a pair in front, a pair in back. That lets things pan front to back... and left to right. 

If you're only doing one pair then it's even easier, just put them right above, again no wider than the L/R mains, and maybe 2 feet in front of the listening position.


----------



## dicksop

batpig said:


> How far will you be sitting from the front speakers? Considering the room is long and has low 7' ceilings, I have a serious concern about the reflection bounce of the up-firing speakers being so far away as to render them inaudible. Also with room only 9' wide, I would consider using bipole side surrounds.
> 
> Any chance you could do in-ceiling speakers? PSB has many affordable in-ceiling options that would provide a better result since you could locate them closer to the listening position. Alternately, if you can only do up-firing, maybe try setting them as "Surround Dolby" instead of "Front Dolby" and placing them to the sides, angled in, so they bounce in more of a directly overhead "top middle" location.
> 
> With respect to the receiver hookup, note that the X4100 only has 7 amps built in. It sounds like you are doing a 7.1.2 setup, so be aware you will have to add a 2ch external amp (at least) to power all 9 speakers.


I will be sitting (front row of two rows of home theatre seating) 9 feet from the screen.
Yes, the front speakers will be angled in a bit. I do not have the resources for the ceiling mounted speakers so that is why I went with the "on top" reflecting atmos speakers.
The amp has hook ups for front left, front right, center , side left, side right, and back left and right speakers as well as left and right height speakers....so the amp must be able to handle them?


----------



## gene4ht

DJ Lushious said:


> Would this thread be a good place to get advice on ceiling speaker placement? I tried Pioneer's Atmos add-on speakers and they may as well have not even existed. So, as is commonly repeated here, *I'm going to plunge into ceiling speakers. I'm having a hard time figuring out where to place them,* particularly because I am only 6" away from my TV and there's a ceiling fan to the left of the MLP.





batpig said:


> My first suggestion would be to move back from the TV
> 
> Some photos and/or diagrams of the room would be helpful if you want specific advice for ceiling speakers.
> 
> But honestly* I wouldn't overthink it.*... assuming you're doing 2 pairs, you've got a front overhead "zone" and a read overhead zone. Try to fill the gaps (both length and width). Place them so they are no wider than the front L/R mains, and have the front pair be sort of in between the front soundstage and you, and the rear pair behind you between the side and rear surrounds.
> 
> *You'll see lots of people obsessing about angles but it's really not that hard *-- a pair in front, a pair in back. That lets things pan front to back... and left to right.
> 
> If you're only doing one pair then it's even easier, just put them right above, again no wider than the L/R mains, and maybe 2 feet in front of the listening position.


Take a quick look at Dolby's recommendations...then follow batpig's advice.


----------



## sdrucker

dicksop said:


> I will be sitting (front row of two rows of home theatre seating) 9 feet from the screen.
> Yes, the front speakers will be angled in a bit. I do not have the resources for the ceiling mounted speakers so that is why I went with the "on top" reflecting atmos speakers.
> The amp has hook ups for front left, front right, center , side left, side right, and back left and right speakers as well as left and right height speakers....so the amp must be able to handle them?


Dick,
I have the Imagine XAs myself (two pairs, top front and top rear designation, but I've also played around with front/rear height designation in my processor). Personally I'd agree with Batpig that if you're limited to a single pair of height speakers, I'd do the ceiling speakers, not Dolby AEs. Even though the PSBs are one of the better engineered Dolby bounce speakers IMO, if you can only do a pair of heights, you'll want the precision that ceiling speakers can give you. The Dolby AEs aren't really intended for a multi-row setting due to the fragility of the phantom/reflected height effect short of professional HT design and placement of at least two pairs. 

Having said that, for a multi-row theater, four height speakers are sometimes barely sufficient to avoid hot spotting, let alone what you'd get with just two. However, if you've the budget, I'd look at upgrading to a processor that supports both front and rear heights (maybe the X6200W - if those are getting refreshed this year, your might be able to get it on closeout). Then you can look at two pairs of the Dolby speakers, and have both front to back and left to right panning above you. You also mentioned having PSB Alpha speakers (C for L/C/R?, B1 for bookshelves). Have you considered upgrading to the Imagine X line? You could do a package of the bookshelf XBs and the XC and have a nice improvement in power handling (150 vs. 90 watts for the bookshelves), better matched components (the XAs were designed for the Imagine X line and above), and a more capable overall performance with lower bass extension and a larger tweeter than the entry-level Alphas. In fact I'd consider the upgrade of the Alphas ahead of moving to an Atmos setup with multiple rows. Of course, here on AVS spending other people's money is a pastime so what you can do has practical limits  .

Regardless, that 7' ceiling will be an issue, even if it's flat and reflective in the area where the XAs will reflect off of them. IMO you really need a ceiling that's at least a foot higher from the floor. I have an almost 9' ceiling, but have also heard a different brand of Dolby speakers in a roughly 7' room. The effect will work, but it take hands-on placement and you'll be at risk of hearing more direct than indirect sound with the lower ceiling.


----------



## sdrucker

DJ Lushious said:


> Would this thread be a good place to get advice on ceiling speaker placement? I tried Pioneer's Atmos add-on speakers and they may as well have not even existed. So, as is commonly repeated here, I'm going to plunge into ceiling speakers. I'm having a hard time figuring out where to place them, particularly because I am only 6" away from my TV and there's a ceiling fan to the left of the MLP.


Just out of curiosity, which Pioneer Atmos add-ons? The original Andrew Jones speakers with the top-firing element built into regular speakers, or the separate add-ons that you can you can place separately? The performance of many of the Atmos speakers seems to be hit and miss...some people have luck with them, with careful placement, the right ceiling, and seating that works to maximize the bounce effect. But they're not really an out of the box solution by themselves.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> In fact I'd consider the upgrade of the Alphas ahead of moving to an Atmos setup with multiple rows.


+1 ... I would rather spend a bit more and get a better 7.1 setup as a starting point and then worry about Atmos later. Especially since your Atmos system is almost certainly going to be compromised by the room issues. 

The PSB XA up-firing speakers are $500/pair, so that closes a lot of the budget gap. The Imagines are quite a bit better than the Alphas, I would bet quite a bit that a 7ch system with the Imagines would sound much better than a 7.1.2 system with the Alphas and pair of suboptimally placed up-firing speakers.

If you have two rows you should definitely do bipole side surrounds IMO (between the two rows and elevated a bit). There is no way a direct firing bookshelf speaker will be able to sound good across 2 rows in a 9' wide room.

Also +1 to the idea that a single pair of up-firing speakers isn't going to do much for a 2-row environment. They might be audible in the front row but they will do nothing for the 2nd row.


----------



## batpig

dicksop said:


> The amp has hook ups for front left, front right, center , side left, side right, and back left and right speakers as well as left and right height speakers....so the amp must be able to handle them?


No, the Denon X4100 has 7 amplified channels. It can run up to 9, but requires at least 2 channels of external amplification to do it.

The extra speaker posts are there for convenience, so you can hook up extra speakers and switch between different configs based on the surround mode.


----------



## richlife

LNEWoLF said:


> Your welcome, if you create a free account on bluray.com they have a really nice app.
> 
> That you can catalog your entire movie collection. By simply adding each movie by a simple barcode scan.
> ...
> 
> Although I hope they will eventually update the app to allow you to select a particular language for audio searches i don't need to see all the available languages. If anyone from the site is listening. Thank you for the VERY nice free app.........


Thanks again! While I had some difficulty assessing the bulk of what was being provided at blu ray . com, as I got more info, it kept looking better. This app looks good to along with the info on individual discs. 

I finally go my Atmos setup done today (x.x.2 only at this point). Now I'm starting on evaluating it with manipulating the parms on my Yamaha A3060. Meanwhile, info keep flooding in to keep me bemused on what to do next. Let's see, should I run YPAO or watch a movie? Or maybe fix the new grate for my wife's grill? GUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Not the least is just trying to keep up with ya'll here on AVS Forums! I haven't even finished reading the blasted manual!)


----------



## Kazz063

batpig said:


> The thing is, human hearing isn't particularly sensitive to sounds from the rear (especially elevated sounds in the rear) and even in a perfect setup your ability to discriminate between a sound that is directly behind vs. behind and a bit elevated isn't that great anyway. I have been fooled MANY times when I thought I heard a neat overhead effect, and then when I went and listened more carefully I realized the effect was actually isolated in the surround speakers and not the overheads. *And I have my rears in more of a Top Middle orientation so they are directly overhead, with plenty of separation from the back surrounds.*


Reading this makes me feel a whole lot better as I will need to have the Top Rears almost directly overhead as well.


----------



## dicksop

batpig said:


> No, the Denon X4100 has 7 amplified channels. It can run up to 9, but requires at least 2 channels of external amplification to do it.
> 
> The extra speaker posts are there for convenience, so you can hook up extra speakers and switch between different configs based on the surround mode.


Ok can I use a AVR-3802 receiver (I have one already so it is cost effective) as the amp to power the additional speakers.?


----------



## aaranddeeman

dicksop said:


> Ok can I use a AVR-3802 receiver (I have one already so it is cost effective) as the amp to power the additional speakers.?


Any AVR with "Ext. In" should work.
If the AVR does not have "Ext. In", you can use it just for 2 channels by using any of the analog device inputs (like CD, DVD etc.). Make sure to disable the surround mode though. (Use "Direct")


----------



## batpig

Yes the AVR 3802 will work just dandy as an external amp. The only issue is that it may respond to the volume commands since it's the same brand as your main AVR. So you might have to cover the IR sensor with some tape or something.

You'll want to use the EXT IN inputs as noted above, reset all channel levels / distances to default (so they are zeroed out) and then turn the volume way up (0.0dB) and calibrate with Audyssey.


----------



## duckymomo

Does anyone know if the DSU uses metadata from the DD stream as part of the up-mixing? If it doesn't, then would the results be exactly the same if PCM was the incoming audio format instead?


----------



## audio.hobby

richlife said:


> If there is an obvious answer, then perhaps this is a foolish question -- but I haven't found an answer yet.
> 
> Is there a clear way when buying a BluRay Disc online, to determine whether it is an Atmos disc? When searching on Amazon for "Atmos Bluray movie", I get a limited list of more recently released discs, but only one of those ("John Wick") clearly states that it is Atmos -- and that in the movie description. None the others like "Gravity", "Intersteller", "Everest" and "Mad Max: Fury Road" which I know are supposed to have been released with Atmos soundtracks, actually say anywhere that I can find, that they are Atmos. These movies all show a list of 3 to 20 or even 30 different releases, but none actually say "Atmos".
> 
> I already have several Bluray discs that were released in the past few years including "Gravity", "The Martian", "Avatar", and "The Lone Ranger". All of these play and show DTS HD or DTS HD MA, but none indicate that there is an Atmos track. (Keep in mind, that right now, I don't have my A3060 configured for Atmos -- that will come right after I finish this post.  ) The copy of "Gravity" that I have is 3D (I do have a 3D capable TV) with a separate non-3D BRD. An Amazon review says the 3D version is not Atmos and the other BRD is Atmos, but again, there is nothing displayed on my A3060 that verifies that -- nor does the disc packaging.
> 
> My family has always been good about feeding my music and movie habit once I provide the equipment. So I have a list I want to share with them, but I have no knowledge of which discs on Amazon are actually Atmos. BTW, I find the same issue in searching for DTS:X discs.


I just recently purchased the Roger Waters the Wall Blu-ray on Amazon and the only way I knew it had Atmos was: A) it was the most expensive of the 3 choices at $30 and B) It was in "Multi-Format" as opposed to just Blu-ray. Not an exact science though and don't even attempt to call them as they are useless. 

I also purchased Terminator Genysis a couple of months back and I purchased the Blu-ray one for $15 and to my surprise it had a second disc that I only found 2 weeks ago that had Atmos on it. I thought that I was losing it because it said Atmos on the jacket but I could not find it in any menu. Then I found it on the left side under a flyer. Once I found that I immediately ran out and bought a Yamaha 3050 and hooked it up (I have had 7.1.4 speaker set up for 2 years anyway.....it was time). Well I played it and thought that it sounded pretty good, but I believe mainly due to the fact that I upgraded from a Denon X4000. Then I started to read some posts about not seeing Dolby Atmos on the the Yamaha. I then found out, thanks to JD Smoothie, that I did not have my Sony Blu-ray player set up correctly. Now its a world of difference.

By the way I guess I will see you over at the 3060 forum as I had to have the latest and greatest. The DSP overlay (Nobody does it like Yamaha) and the refreshed YPAO was too much to pass on.


----------



## sdurani

duckymomo said:


> Does anyone know if the DSU uses metadata from the DD stream as part of the up-mixing?


It doesn't. Like all surround processing, DSU is a blind upmixer.


> If it doesn't, then would the results be exactly the same if PCM was the incoming audio format instead?


Yes it would. In fact, a DD bitstream has to be converted to PCM in order to apply surround processing (or bass management, or time alignment, or room correction, or... well, you get the idea). You can't do anything with the soundtrack while it's compressed (any more than you can edit a document while it's zipped). So DSU always sees a PCM signal.


----------



## richlife

audio.hobby said:


> I just recently purchased the Roger Waters the Wall Blu-ray on Amazon and the only way I knew it had Atmos was: A) it was the most expensive of the 3 choices at $30 and B) It was in "Multi-Format" as opposed to just Blu-ray. Not an exact science though and don't even attempt to call them as they are useless.
> 
> I also purchased Terminator Genysis a couple of months back and I purchased the Blu-ray one for $15 and to my surprise it had a second disc that I only found 2 weeks ago that had Atmos on it. I thought that I was losing it because it said Atmos on the jacket but I could not find it in any menu. Then I found it on the left side under a flyer. Once I found that I immediately ran out and bought a Yamaha 3050 and hooked it up (I have had 7.1.4 speaker set up for 2 years anyway.....it was time). Well I played it and thought that it sounded pretty good, but I believe mainly due to the fact that I upgraded from a Denon X4000. Then I started to read some posts about not seeing Dolby Atmos on the the Yamaha. I then found out, thanks to JD Smoothie, that I did not have my Sony Blu-ray player set up correctly. Now its a world of difference.
> 
> By the way I guess I will see you over at the 3060 forum as I had to have the latest and greatest. The DSP overlay (Nobody does it like Yamaha) and the refreshed YPAO was too much to pass on.


Well, the good news is you got what you wanted. But... Look at the first attachment -- it shows the Amazon $15.99 Bluray as being Atmos just as the second Special Edition does. Now we all know that Amazon can make mistakes, but the "John Wick" I just received had the same Atmos specification on the back in the Amazon listing. It's certainly worth looking at. I was also told that you can look it up on blu ray dot com and compare the IBSN with the Amazon listing. 

And again, you really do have a "good news" story... Just may have to look for it. 

From that earlier post you quoted, "(Keep in mind, that right now, I don't have my A3060 configured for Atmos -- that will come right after I finish this post. ) " I did do just that and today got to watch "John Wick" which just arrived and found out what all the fuss is about with Atmos. I still have only 7.2.2 and still have some experimenting with placement and tweaking to do, but that bullet smack over me and behind my head where there is no speaker was remarkably convincing!


----------



## richlife

ALtlOff said:


> Ralph Potts, our reviewer here on the forum:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


Got it -- found it and love the resource. To keep it in the same thread, could someone duck over there to the last post in that link and see if you can answer my question about "Twister"? That thread gets sporadic attention it seems. thanks...


----------



## petetherock

IMO, going 'blind' to the shops, and not knowing which titles are Atmos equipped, is a bit random. A little search, a little homework will pay a lot of dividends and avoid the wrong buys.


----------



## DJ Lushious

batpig said:


> My first suggestion would be to move back from the TV
> 
> Some photos and/or diagrams of the room would be helpful if you want specific advice for ceiling speakers.
> 
> But honestly I wouldn't overthink it.... assuming you're doing 2 pairs, you've got a front overhead "zone" and a read overhead zone. Try to fill the gaps (both length and width). Place them so they are no wider than the front L/R mains, and have the front pair be sort of in between the front soundstage and you, and the rear pair behind you between the side and rear surrounds.
> 
> You'll see lots of people obsessing about angles but it's really not that hard -- a pair in front, a pair in back. That lets things pan front to back... and left to right.
> 
> If you're only doing one pair then it's even easier, just put them right above, again no wider than the L/R mains, and maybe 2 feet in front of the listening position.


I'll try to get pictures here by the weekend, which should help visualize my working space.

So, I've been prospecting a position for the one pair. Should I have them placed between the Fronts and the Center? Should I go as wide as each Front? 

Going about a foot or two in front of the MLP would put them just about halfway between the MLP and the front soundstage.

All of my speakers are Infinity, so I was looking at these speakers, just to timbre match as best as I can. They don't have an aimable tweeter, though. Is this something I am over-thinking, or is better to direct towards the MLP.

I'm trying to put as much thought into this as I can, since I'll be cutting holes in my ceiling (completely ignoring your overthinking advice.  ). I don't want to be in a situation where I have to do-over. 



sdrucker said:


> Just out of curiosity, which Pioneer Atmos add-ons? The original Andrew Jones speakers with the top-firing element built into regular speakers, or the separate add-ons that you can you can place separately? The performance of many of the Atmos speakers seems to be hit and miss...some people have luck with them, with careful placement, the right ceiling, and seating that works to maximize the bounce effect. But they're not really an out of the box solution by themselves.


The separate add-ons that can be placed separately.

Yeah, I've come to find out that it's best to do Atmos "right" and just spring for the ceiling speakers.


----------



## duckymomo

sdurani said:


> It doesn't. Like all surround processing, DSU is a blind upmixer. Yes it would. In fact, a DD bitstream has to be converted to PCM in order to apply surround processing (or bass management, or time alignment, or room correction, or... well, you get the idea). You can't do anything with the soundtrack while it's compressed (any more than you can edit a document while it's zipped). So DSU always sees a PCM signal.


Thanks for the info. Got another one: Does the DSU get "more information" to work with if the source is 7.1 PCM vs 5.1 PCM and the system is 5.1.4? Say the sound intended for the rear surround channels is more likely to go correctly to the rear tops behind the MLP etc..


----------



## richlife

petetherock said:


> IMO, going 'blind' to the shops, and not knowing which titles are Atmos equipped, is a bit random. A little search, a little homework will pay a lot of dividends and avoid the wrong buys.


Honestly, Pete, I don't know why you wouldn't want to comb through probably several hundred thousand blurays looking for that tiny print "Atmos"...


----------



## petetherock

richlife said:


> Honestly, Pete, I don't know why you wouldn't want to comb through probably several hundred thousand blurays looking for that tiny print "Atmos"...


Well that's why some homework will save you a lot of effort mate..
There are members here who make it a point to own every single release on Atmos, as Edmund Hillary once said... "because it's there"... if you want to look for Atmos titles, there's no rocket science. Forums like this, plus online search portals, and blu ray dot com make it very simple. Effortless mate.. Simply find it on bluray.com, click on buy, add it to amazon and it will be at your home quicker than two shakes of a lamb's tail


----------



## sdurani

duckymomo said:


> Does the DSU get "more information" to work with if the source is 7.1 PCM vs 5.1 PCM and the system is 5.1.4?


When applied to multi-channel sources (4.0, 5.1, 7.1), DSU works on pairs of channels. For example: the content in the front L/R channels is split into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds; the direct part stays in the base layer while the diffuse part is routed to the height layer. Same with the direct & diffuse sounds in the side channels and rear channels. The processing (separating direct and diffuse) is always done to pairs of channels (fronts, sides, rears). 

Whether the source is 5.1 or 7.1 doesn't change how DSU extracts heights; it just does the same thing to every pair of channels it finds. The only time the processing works differently is when 5.1 channels are being played back on 7.1 speakers: in addition to extracting heights, DSU will also extract rears.


> Say the sound intended for the rear surround channels is more likely to go correctly to the rear tops behind the MLP etc..


Depends on the number of height speakers. If you have a single pair above you, then diffuse sounds from fronts and sides and rears will be combined and sent to the single pair of heights. If you have two pairs of heights, then the diffuse sounds from the fronts goes to one pair of heights and the diffuse sounds from the surrounds (sides & rears combined) goes to the other pair of heights. In the future, if mass market products allow for three pairs of heights, then diffuse sounds from each pair of channels will go to their respective height speakers (no combining of extracted height info).


----------



## Shniks

sdurani said:


> When applied to multi-channel sources (4.0, 5.1, 7.1), DSU works on pairs of channels. For example: the content in the front L/R channels is split into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds; the direct part stays in the base layer while the diffuse part is routed to the height layer. Same with the direct & diffuse sounds in the side channels and rear channels. The processing (separating direct and diffuse) is always done to pairs of channels (fronts, sides, rears).



Very interesting Sanjay! I am not clear on one aspect - what constitutes "direct" and "diffuse" sounds in the content passing through, say the L and R channels? In other words, how does DSU know which content is "direct" and which is "diffuse"?


Thanks much,


----------



## bkeeler10

richlife said:


> Well, the good news is you got what you wanted. But... Look at the first attachment -- it shows the Amazon $15.99 Bluray as being Atmos just as the second Special Edition does. Now we all know that Amazon can make mistakes, but the "John Wick" I just received had the same Atmos specification on the back in the Amazon listing. It's certainly worth looking at. I was also told that you can look it up on blu ray dot com and compare the IBSN with the Amazon listing.


Why do both of these titles say "Atmos Dolby TrueHD 5.1" I am near certain that all Atmos tracks have a 7-speaker base layer, so if they're going to call it x.1, shouldn't they be saying 7.1?


----------



## sdurani

Shniks said:


> I am not clear on one aspect - what constitutes "direct" and "diffuse" sounds in the content passing through, say the L and R channels? In other words, how does DSU know which content is "direct" and which is "diffuse"?


There's more than one approach. Typically the first instance of any sound is considered direct while any repetition of that sound (either as reverb or early reflections in the recording) is considered diffuse. Also, when comparing the contents of a pair of channels, any sound that is decorrelated (out of phase) is also considered diffuse (since it won't image at any specific location). Separating the sounds into two buckets/files allows the processing to keep the direct sounds in the speakers that are in the intended direction while spreading the diffuse sound to speakers in all other directions. When listening to 2-channel music, for example, vocalists & musicians are kept in the L/C/R speakers while reverb & ambience are spread to all the surrounds and heights.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> There's more than one approach. Typically the first instance of any sound is considered direct while any repetition of that sound (either as reverb or early reflections in the recording) is considered diffuse. Also, when comparing the contents of a pair of channels, any sound that is decorrelated (out of phase) is also considered diffuse (since it won't image at any specific location). Separating the sounds into two buckets/files allows the processing to keep the direct sounds in the speakers that are in the intended direction while spreading the diffuse sound to speakers in all other directions. When listening to 2-channel music, for example, vocalists & musicians are kept in the L/C/R speakers while reverb & ambience are spread to all the surrounds and heights.


Also to add to this, DSU is frequency dependent. From what I understand, it does its analysis independently on separate frequency bands, as opposed to the entire bandwidth of each pair. So it can keep low freq sounds anchored while moving higher freq diffuse content.


----------



## batpig

DJ Lushious said:


> I'll try to get pictures here by the weekend, which should help visualize my working space.
> 
> So, I've been prospecting a position for the one pair. Should I have them placed between the Fronts and the Center? Should I go as wide as each Front?
> 
> Going about a foot or two in front of the MLP would put them just about halfway between the MLP and the front soundstage.
> 
> All of my speakers are Infinity, so I was looking at these speakers, just to timbre match as best as I can. They don't have an aimable tweeter, though. Is this something I am over-thinking, or is better to direct towards the MLP.
> 
> I'm trying to put as much thought into this as I can, since I'll be cutting holes in my ceiling (completely ignoring your overthinking advice.  ). I don't want to be in a situation where I have to do-over.


Ha! Well, I don't literally mean to not think about it. Yes, you should put thought into it, my point is not to do so to the point of obsession and let "the perfect become the enemy of the good". It's easy to over-obsess over minute differences that aren't really that important.

If you're only doing a pair of speakers, then you want "Top Middle" position with the speakers nearly directly above. Dolby guidelines for home recommend placing the height arrays in line with the front L/R mains, whereas in the commercial cinema they are half-way in between the fronts and center. People who have dedicated rooms with big projector screens probably stray closer to the cinema spec, but if you are the guy with the two tower speakers flanking a TV then placing them in line with the fronts makes more sense since they aren't going to be that wide to begin with. So basically no wider than the fronts, but you can cheat them in a bit more narrow if your fronts are especially wide. 

Another reason to place them narrower is to increase angular separation in the horizontal plane from elevated surrounds. For example it's not uncommon in a residential environment for the room to be not that wide and the front L/R mains are only a couple of feet in from the side walls. If your surrounds are 2-3 feet above ear level, and you place the overheads in line with the fronts, then they will be physically very close to the surrounds. So pulling the overhead array in narrower separates them from those side surrounds. 

So why place them a bit forward instead of directly overhead? The biggest thing is with a typical residential height ceiling, directly overhead means the speakers will be only 4-5 feet away firing straight down on you. This will exacerbate hot spotting and be distracting in my experience. Plus our hearing is more sensitive from the front so having them a bit forward helps them be a bit more seamless with the front soundstage, put them in your frontal hemisphere, and increases the distance from ears-to-speaker while putting you a bit off axis to reduce hot-spotting.

For a Top Middle application like this I wouldn't worry about aimable tweeters at that budget level, you'll still be close enough to on-axis to make them work well IMO.

Long story short: two speakers directly up, slightly narrower than the fronts, and slightly in front of the couch.


----------



## DJ Lushious

batpig said:


> Ha! Well, I don't literally mean to not think about it. Yes, you should put thought into it, my point is not to do so to the point of obsession and let "the perfect become the enemy of the good". It's easy to over-obsess over minute differences that aren't really that important.
> 
> If you're only doing a pair of speakers, then you want "Top Middle" position with the speakers nearly directly above. Dolby guidelines for home recommend placing the height arrays in line with the front L/R mains, whereas in the commercial cinema they are half-way in between the fronts and center. People who have dedicated rooms with big projector screens probably stray closer to the cinema spec, but if you are the guy with the two tower speakers flanking a TV then placing them in line with the fronts makes more sense since they aren't going to be that wide to begin with. So basically no wider than the fronts, but you can cheat them in a bit more narrow if your fronts are especially wide.
> 
> Another reason to place them narrower is to increase angular separation in the horizontal plane from elevated surrounds. For example it's not uncommon in a residential environment for the room to be not that wide and the front L/R mains are only a couple of feet in from the side walls. If your surrounds are 2-3 feet above ear level, and you place the overheads in line with the fronts, then they will be physically very close to the surrounds. So pulling the overhead array in narrower separates them from those side surrounds.
> 
> So why place them a bit forward instead of directly overhead? The biggest thing is with a typical residential height ceiling, directly overhead means the speakers will be only 4-5 feet away firing straight down on you. This will exacerbate hot spotting and be distracting in my experience. Plus our hearing is more sensitive from the front so having them a bit forward helps them be a bit more seamless with the front soundstage, put them in your frontal hemisphere, and increases the distance from ears-to-speaker while putting you a bit off axis to reduce hot-spotting.
> 
> For a Top Middle application like this I wouldn't worry about aimable tweeters at that budget level, you'll still be close enough to on-axis to make them work well IMO.
> 
> Long story short: two speakers directly up, slightly narrower than the fronts, and slightly in front of the couch.


Thanks for the detailed and well-thought out post.

All of it is great advice! If I decide to do four ceiling speakers, then I would assume I follow Dolby's Atmos home guide from their website; TopFr a little forward of the MLP and TopBa a little behind the MLP.


----------



## Josh Z

bkeeler10 said:


> Why do both of these titles say "Atmos Dolby TrueHD 5.1"


Because the intern in the marketing department who typed the specs on the case art doesn't have any technical knowledge of these formats.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> There's more than one approach. Typically the first instance of any sound is considered direct while any repetition of that sound (either as reverb or early reflections in the recording) is considered diffuse. Also, when comparing the contents of a pair of channels, any sound that is decorrelated (out of phase) is also considered diffuse (since it won't image at any specific location). Separating the sounds into two buckets/files allows the processing to keep the direct sounds in the speakers that are in the intended direction while spreading the diffuse sound to speakers in all other directions. When listening to 2-channel music, for example, vocalists & musicians are kept in the L/C/R speakers while reverb & ambience are spread to all the surrounds and heights.


What about helicopter and airplane sounds, Sanjay? DSU does a pretty good job of directing those to the height speakers. I rewatched the opening scene in Spectre (DTS-MA 7.1) the other night, and the helicopter buzzed back and forth across the ceiling of the room.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> What about helicopter and airplane sounds, Sanjay? DSU does a pretty good job of directing those to the height speakers. I rewatched the opening scene in Spectre (DTS-MA 7.1) the other night, and the helicopter buzzed back and forth across the ceiling of the room.


I would bet you're hearing the diffuse reverb of the sounds in the overheads whereas the primary direct component is still in the listener level speakers. So you get a good impression of the "overheadness" but it's not 100% moving the entire sound to the overheads.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> What about helicopter and airplane sounds, Sanjay? DSU does a pretty good job of directing those to the height speakers. I rewatched the opening scene in Spectre (DTS-MA 7.1) the other night, and the helicopter buzzed back and forth across the ceiling of the room.


There's no mechanism in any of the blind upmixers to know what sounds belong overhead, let alone being able to discern the difference between the sound of a helicopter vs the sound of an egg beater. DSU simply routes diffuse content to the heights; expectation bias in our human hearing does the rest.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> I would bet you're hearing the diffuse reverb of the sounds in the overheads whereas the primary direct component is still in the listener level speakers. So you get a good impression of the "overheadness" but it's not 100% moving the entire sound to the overheads.


I would have to disconnect the height speakers and try again, but the helicopter sure seemed to be entirely overhead, and very clearly panned from one side to the other.

I also recall a scene in Wreck-It Ralph where DSU impressively put the sound of fireworks in the height speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> I also recall a scene in Wreck-It Ralph where DSU impressively put the sound of fireworks in the height speakers.


Helicopters, airplanes, fireworks...which direction were you expecting to hear those sounds from?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> I would have to disconnect the height speakers and try again, but the helicopter sure seemed to be entirely overhead, and very clearly panned from one side to the other.
> 
> I also recall a scene in Wreck-It Ralph where DSU impressively put the sound of fireworks in the height speakers.


You should do that. Mute all the floor speakers and actually listen to what DSU (or Neural...or Atmos...or DTS:X) puts in the overhead speakers.

I found it quite eye ear opening ....no that doesn't sound right. It was quite interesting how much no...how little there is sound from the overhead speakers and how much more is coming out of the surrounds.

Tricky tricky.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Josh Z said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also recall a scene in Wreck-It Ralph where DSU impressively put the sound of fireworks in the height speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters, airplanes, fireworks...which direction were you expecting to hear those sounds from?
Click to expand...

Being that the sound mixes are 5.1 or 7.1, the sides.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Agreed. I was demoing the Atmos disc for a guy and forgot to turn the ceiling amp on. He was still impressed and it was a bit of a shocker for me as it really wasn't as apparent as I would have thought.


Yeah. I kind of felt a bit ashamed after listening to some, what I thought were "good", Atmos mixes but turns out there was all the sound coming from the surrounds. Agh!

But it is interesting to hear how the upmixers work. 


Nice avatar. Fitting.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Being that the sound mixes are 5.1 or 7.1, the sides.


Heh, maybe intellectually, but your automatic reflex expected those sounds from above, which is what you heard.


----------



## dvdwilly3

sdurani said:


> When applied to multi-channel sources (4.0, 5.1, 7.1), DSU works on pairs of channels. For example: the content in the front L/R channels is split into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds; the direct part stays in the base layer while the diffuse part is routed to the height layer. Same with the direct & diffuse sounds in the side channels and rear channels. The processing (separating direct and diffuse) is always done to pairs of channels (fronts, sides, rears).
> 
> Whether the source is 5.1 or 7.1 doesn't change how DSU extracts heights; it just does the same thing to every pair of channels it finds. The only time the processing works differently is when 5.1 channels are being played back on 7.1 speakers: in addition to extracting heights, DSU will also extract rears. Depends on the number of height speakers. If you have a single pair above you, then diffuse sounds from fronts and sides and rears will be combined and sent to the single pair of heights. If you have two pairs of heights, then the diffuse sounds from the fronts goes to one pair of heights and the diffuse sounds from the surrounds (sides & rears combined) goes to the other pair of heights. In the future, if mass market products allow for three pairs of heights, then diffuse sounds from each pair of channels will go to their respective height speakers (no combining of extracted height info).


Sanjay, this is an excellent description, but I have a question...

"For example: the content in the front L/R channels is split into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds; the direct part stays in the base layer while the diffuse part is routed to the height layer. "

You do not mention the center channel. Does that mean that the upmixers ignore, that is, do not differentiate between direct and diffuse for the center channel?

Or, am I reading something into it that you did not intend?


----------



## gwsat

I now have _Gravity_ with Atmos audio. Can hardly wait to see the film again and hear the Atmos audio, which from all reports is sensational.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Gravity has a top notch Atmos mix that all other films should aspire to sound like.

Good choice. Set the bar as high as it can go!


----------



## sdurani

dvdwilly3 said:


> You do not mention the center channel. Does that mean that the upmixers ignore, that is, do not differentiate between direct and diffuse for the center channel?


As a rule, yes, upmixing avoids touching any of the content in the centre channel. However, movie mixers are getting bolder in their use of panned dialogue these days, and the more aggressive upmixers will sometimes steer dialogue to overhead speakers (because it was not in the centre channel). Kinda distracting when it happens.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> As a rule, yes, upmixing avoids touching any of the content in the centre channel. However, movie mixers are getting bolder in their use of panned dialogue these days, and the more aggressive upmixers will sometimes steer dialogue to overhead speakers (because it was not in the centre channel). Kinda distracting when it happens.


I could see it working well in a 'voice of god' type thing or something like it.

Works well with computer voice, intercom, overhead PA situations too.


----------



## petetherock

gwsat said:


> I now have _Gravity_ with Atmos audio. Can hardly wait to see the film again and hear the Atmos audio, which from all reports is sensational.


Love to hear your comments on good it is compare to the plain vanilla one..


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> You should do that. Mute all the floor speakers and actually listen to what DSU (or Neural...or Atmos...or  DTS:X) puts in the overhead speakers.
> 
> I found it quite eye ear opening ....no that doesn't sound right. It was quite interesting how much no...how little there is sound from the overhead speakers and how much more is coming out of the surrounds.
> 
> Tricky tricky.





sdurani said:


> Heh, maybe intellectually, but your automatic reflex expected those sounds from above, which is what you heard.


OK, so, interesting results.

Spectre Blu-ray
DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack
Dolby Surround Upmixer active
Time codes ~09:30 - 11:00

Listened three times:
1) All speakers active
2) Height speakers disconnected, only ground speakers active
3) Ground speakers disconnected, only height speakers active

It seems that most of the helicopter noises indeed remain in the ground channels. They image _very_ effectively, to the point that it sounds like the helicopter is circling above me. (And note that I keep these speakers at ear level, not raised higher.)

There are _some_ helicopter noises in the heights, much lower in volume. I can believe that this is all or mostly reverb. The height speakers also pull in a lot of sounds of crowds cheering or screaming. Although the people in those crowds are on the ground and, logically, the sound should probably stay at ground level, the noise is diffuse and it still sounds "right" to my ears to hear it coming from everywhere.

Once the musical score kicks in at the end of the scene, _a lot_ of music is audible in the height speakers. 

The net effect of the combination of ground-level speaker imaging and additional reverb in the heights from DSU is a very convincing sense of the helicopter flying around overhead. Honestly, I'm still more inclined to demo this scene than some genuine Atmos mixes.


----------



## murlidher

Many of my Dolby encoded movies that I try to listen from DSU, I see very less active sound from heights though as another member here said, the effect is so well done that it feels as if sound might be coming from top.

I am waiting for DTSX firmware update to actually wait and see if I get more audible height effect sound which would definitely excite me more.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

Maybe it also depends on the mixer's preferences or setup?


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Gravity has a top notch Atmos mix that all other films should aspire to sound like.
> 
> Good choice. Set the bar as high as it can go!





petetherock said:


> Love to hear your comments on good it is compare to the plain vanilla one..


I've never seen the "vanilla" version of _Gravity._ Saw it first run in the theater with my daughter and both of us thought it was akin to a religious experience. Saw it again on one of the pay cable channels but that was with lossy audio. For obvious reasons, I really want to hear the lossless Atmos audio on my Kscape copy of the film, as well as to see this wonderful film again. 

Suddenly I have an embarrassment of riches. I already have more stuff in my Kscape library than I can watch very soon. It's a nice problem to have.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> The height speakers also pull in a lot of sounds of crowds cheering or screaming. Although the people in those crowds are on the ground and, logically, the sound should probably stay at ground level, the noise is diffuse and it still sounds "right" to my ears to hear it coming from everywhere.


When you had watched this scene prior to doing this experiment, did it sound like the crowds were overhead, the way the helicopter was?


> The net effect of the combination of ground-level speaker imaging and additional reverb in the heights from DSU is a very convincing sense of the helicopter flying around overhead.


Just to be clear, the reverb in the heights isn't from DSU. DSU doesn't add reverb, the way Auro-Matic or Audyssey DSX does, it only extracts/steers sounds already in the recording.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

sdurani said:


> DSU doesn't add reverb, the way Auro-Matic or Audyssey DSX does, it only extracts/steers sounds already in the recording.


I believe he is talking about reverberant sounds that are in the sound track itself.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> DSU doesn't add reverb, the way Auro-Matic or Audyssey DSX does, ...





> ...it only extracts/steers sounds already in the recording.


Which may include putting reverberant cues in the overheads, while leaving the associated direct sounds in the base layer.


----------



## sdurani

Wendell R. Breland said:


> I believe he is talking about reverberant sounds that are in the sound track itself.


I was just clarifying because he described it as "additional reverb".


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Which may include putting reverberant cues in the overheads, while leaving the associated direct sounds in the base layer.


Yup, that's what I posted yesterday:


sdurani said:


> For example: the content in the front L/R channels is split into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds; the direct part stays in the base layer while the diffuse part is routed to the height layer.





sdurani said:


> Typically the first instance of any sound is considered direct while any repetition of that sound (either as reverb or early reflections in the recording) is considered diffuse.


----------



## maikeldepotter

You are right. I saw your earlier post later than I wrote my redundant one...


----------



## gwsat

I just installed a Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver. Can someone tell me which of the 3060's digital sound processing choices comes closest to simulating Atmos?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dolby Surround and/or Neural:X


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Surround and/or Neural:X


Thanks. Am looking at the DSP choices for the 3060 on the Yamaha AV app. There is one for "Surround Decoder" but I don't see a Neural:X choice. Am I missing something?


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> Thanks. Am looking at the DSP choices for the 3060 on the Yamaha AV app. There is one for "Surround Decoder" but I don't see a Neural:X choice. Am I missing something?


Yes. These are available choice for the surround decoder function.

I believe PL2x was removed from the 2016 models. So your choices should be: Dolby Surround and Neural:X (probably Neo:6 too but who wants to use that).


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. These are available choice for the surround decoder function.
> 
> I believe PL2x was removed from the 2016 models. So your choices should be: Dolby Surround and Neural:X (probably Neo:6 too but who wants to use that).


Thanks. When I selected "Surround Decode" from the on screen menu, it showed me that it was Dolby Surround. Now all is well, although I have found the "Straight" setting to usually be best with lossless audio tracks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Depending on your speaker count and channel count of the signal, STRAIGHT will either do nothing or upmix slightly to your full channel count (not including overhead speakers).

Well that's how it worked for my 3050 and how it works on my 5100 pre/pro. A 5.1 signal using STRAIGHT would net 7.1 sound.


----------



## SoundChex

Just a reminder that it's important not to see Atmos as the end point of Dolby's home immersive audio evolution...











... from a *March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE* (*link-to-pdf*)


_


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Depending on your speaker count and channel count of the signal, STRAIGHT will either do nothing or upmix slightly to your full channel count (not including overhead speakers).
> 
> Well that's how it worked for my 3050 and how it works on my 5100 pre/pro. A 5.1 signal using STRAIGHT would net 7.1 sound.


My AV guy's tech is here configuring my system. We discovered that the Dolby Surround DSP had to be chosen before the Yamaha RX-A3060 could decode the Atmos audio track on the _Gravity BD._ I guess that makes sense because Dolby TrueHD Atmos is a proprietary process. Anyway, straight won't get it. The Atmos ceiling speakers are not activated if the straight setting. is used, on my 3060 at least.


----------



## blackangst

gwsat said:


> My AV guy's tech is here configuring my system. We discovered that the Dolby Surround DSP had to be chosen before the Yamaha RX-A3060 could decode the Atmos audio track on the _Gravity BD._ I guess that makes sense because Dolby TrueHD Atmos is a proprietary process. Anyway, straight won't get it. The Atmos ceiling speakers are not activated if the straight setting. is used, on my 3060 at least.


Yeah I think you just need Dolby Surround.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yes. If you have selected anything other than Dolby Surround and activate the SURR DECODE mode, it will not decode Dolby Atmos. Using STRAIGHT should guarantee proper decoding of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X when those signals are present.

I found (with the Yamaha) is that if Dolby Surround is selected as the surround decoder, it will ignore using DSU and simply decode Dolby Atmos. However, if there were a DTS:X signal present and DSU were used, it would decode the core 7.1 layer and then apply Neural:X upmixer.

It is reversed when Neural:X is chosen as the surround decoder.

When a DTS:X signal is sensed and SURR DECODE is chosen, it will decode the DTS:X signal. If an Atmos signal were present and Neural:X is activated, the core 7.1 layer of the Atmos track would be upmixed with Neural:X.


This is why it is a good idea to use the STRAIGHT mode for both Atmos and DTS:X to make sure you don't accidentally upmix these signals.


----------



## gwsat

blackangst said:


> Yeah I think you just need Dolby Surround.


Yeah, that's definitely it. Once I turned on Dolby Surround the in ceiling speakers started to work and the sound of the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on my copy of _Gravity_ was sensational. Now I need to buy more movies with Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

gwsat said:


> Yeah, that's definitely it. Once I turned on Dolby Surround the in ceiling speakers started to work and the sound of the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on my copy of _Gravity_ was sensational. Now I need to buy more movies with Atmos soundtracks.




You did get the Luxe Edition of Gravity, right? Because the regular blu-ray is only 5.1.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Starting to wonder if that is what he got instead of the actual Dolby Atmos verison.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Starting to wonder if that is what he got instead of the actual Dolby Atmos verison.


Yeah, I am satisfied that my copy of _Gravity_ has Dolby TrueHD Atmos audio. I have a Kaleidescape Strato and bought the digital copy from the Kscape Store. The store has digital copies of the films it sells in either BD quality or 4K quality. Both have lossless audio, some with Atmos or DTS:X. Because of the large size of each such file, Kscape downloads a copy of each file a customer buys to the customer's server, in my case a Strato. Don't know exactly why Yamaha receivers are setup so that they can decode a TrueHD Atmos track only with the aid of its Dolby Surround DSP but there it is.

Here is what Kscape's info page has to say about its file of _Gravity_:

GenresDramaSci-FiThriller
CastSandra BullockGeorge ClooneyEd HarrisOrto IgnatiussenPhaldut Sharma
DirectorAlfonso Cuarón
Shorts
Show 2 Shorts
Kaleidescape Scenes
Show 6 Scenes
Special Features
Show 20 Special Features
*Audio
English (Dolby TrueHD Atmos)*
Described Video - English (Dolby Digital 5.1)
French (Quebéc) (Dolby Digital 5.1)
French (Dolby Digital 5.1)
German (Dolby Digital 5.1)
Italian (Dolby Digital 5.1)
Spanish (Castilian) (Dolby Digital 5.1)
Spanish (Dolby Digital 5.1)
Portuguese (Dolby Digital 5.1)
Subtitles
French
Spanish (Castilian)
Spanish
Portuguese
Size
56.9 GB	Blu-ray Quality
11.5 GB	DVD Quality
Disc to DigitalAvailable
StudioWarner Bros.


----------



## Scott Simonian

They aren't. You can select STRAIGHT and it will decode Atmos just fine.


Bring up your onscreen display while watching Gravity.

Does it say TrueHD/Atmos or does it say DTS-MA?


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> They aren't. You can select STRAIGHT and it will decode Atmos just fine.
> 
> 
> Bring up your onscreen display while watching Gravity.
> 
> Does it say TrueHD/Atmos or does it say DTS-MA?


My 3060 appears not to operate that way. It only displays "Straight" if it is selected or the name of the DSP selected, in my case "SUR. DECODE." I should add that under the menu selection for audio on the Strato, the top format listed, the one I selected, is "English (Dolby TrueHD Atmos)." I don't know why my receiver acts as it does but I am about as sure as I can be that the file I downloaded is encoded with a Dolby TrueHD audiotrack.


----------



## gwsat

Further investigation convinces me that Scott is right and that my copy of _Gravity_ doesn't have Atmos audio. As an experiment, I played a 7.1 BD, _Into the Woods,_ and, sure enough,, when I set my receiver to Straight, the graphic displayed the 7 channels in a 7.1 setup. The _Gravity_ file, though displays only the 5 speakers in a 5.1 setup. I'll call Kaleidescape on Monday and see what they have to say.


----------



## gwsat

The mystery deepens as to why my copy of _Gravity_ doesn't have TrueHD Atmos sound. Kaleidescape identifies the file it sold to me as "Blu-ray quality Diamond Luxe Edition." Go figure. As Jeremy Anderson pointed out in an earlier post, this is the edition that does have Atmos, or so they say.  Will report when and if I find out anything definitive about all of this.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> The mystery deepens as to why my copy of _Gravity_ doesn't have TrueHD Atmos sound. Kaleidescape identifies the file it sold to me as "Blu-ray quality Diamond Luxe Edition." Go figure. As Jeremy Anderson pointed out in an earlier post,* this is the edition that does have Atmos, or so they say.*  Will report when and if I find out anything definitive about all of this.


That version _definitely_ has Dolby Atmos. Will be interested in what the Kaleidescape people tell you.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> I was just clarifying because he described it as "additional reverb".


To my knowledge there are 4 or 5 main mechanisms by which reverberant cues can end up being (re)produced by overhead/height speakers, or any other speaker not being part of the legacy channel bed (from mono to 7.1). 3D up mixing or matrixing-type technologies can apply one, or any combination, of those:

1. Copying total sounds (including reverberant) from base layer speakers.
2. As 1. but with some additional processing, like adding delay or frequency filtering
3. Copying only the out-of-phase (OOP) information from base layer stereo pairs.
4. Extracting (taking-out) and relocate this OOP information from base layer speakers.
5. Generating artificial reverberant cues, which are not part of the original recoding.


----------



## helvetica bold

The Suicide Squad Dolby Atoms mix is amazing. There's a ton of music in the track and it all sounded fantastic. Try to catch it in the theater if possible. The first half of the film was great then it slowly goes downhill from there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott MS

I was watching the Olympics last night in 4K, which was also supposed to be Dolby Atmos. Watching on DirecTV with the sound format only Dolby Digital. Doesn't appear that DirecTV isn't carrying the Atmos sound.


Can anybody else confirm?


----------



## richlife

Scott MS said:


> I was watching the Olympics last night in 4K, which was also supposed to be Dolby Atmos. Watching on DirecTV with the sound format only Dolby Digital. Doesn't appear that DirecTV isn't carrying the Atmos sound.
> 
> 
> Can anybody else confirm?


I don't think Directv ever claimed to support Atmos. I would expect that if they do, they will make a production of it. They sure made a point to push their 4K support. For me, it's just too bad that they limited it to "certified DIRECTV Ready" tvs which my Vizio 4K is not. (Sure, I can blow another $100 on a redundant 4K mini. After 22 years with Directv, they should give me the device.)


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> That version The Diamond Luxe Edition of _Gravity] _ _definitely_ has Dolby Atmos. Will be interested in what the Kaleidescape people tell you.


I checked the Kscape Knowledge Base earlier today and it left me thinking it likely that the configuration of my Kscape Strato movie server's HDMI connection to my Yamaha receiver is the culprit, which keeps the receiver from playing TrueHD Atmos in its native format. I texted my AV guy about it and asked him to check it out. As currently configured, the receiver shows the Strato's audio output to be PCM on every film, although every film on the Strato really has either TrueHD or DTS MA audio. I should know something on Monday. When and if I get to the bottom of it I will report how it went down.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> I checked the Kscape Knowledge Base earlier today and it left me thinking it likely that the configuration of my Kscape Strato movie server's HDMI connection to my Yamaha receiver is the culprit, which keeps the receiver from playing TrueHD Atmos in its native format. I texted my AV guy about it and asked him to check it out. As currently configured, the receiver shows the Strato's audio output to be PCM on every film, although every film on the Strato really has either TrueHD or DTS MA audio. I should know something on Monday. When and if I get to the bottom of it I will report how it went down.


So your K-scape system was outputting as PCM? That would definitely knock out any Atmos or DTS:X capabilities. 

Switch the output to bitstream. It is required for immersive audio playback.


----------



## gwsat

Scott -- Your recommendation that the Strato's HDMI connection to the receiver be changed to bitstream is just what the Kscape Knowledge Base article I read said. I hope my AV can get that done. Have appreciated your input on this issue.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> Scott -- Your recommendation that the Strato's HDMI connection to the receiver be changed to bitstream is just what the Kscape Knowledge Base article I read said. I hope my AV can get that done. Have appreciated your input on this issue.


Doesn't the K-scape have a setup menu? If it doesn't it should (unless they want a service tech having to babysit you for a profit). That is what has to be set to bitstream rather than converted PCM output via HDMI and not your receiver.


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> Doesn't the K-scape have a setup menu? If it doesn't it should (unless they want a service tech having to babysit you for a profit). That is what has to be set to bitstream rather than converted PCM output via HDMI and not your receiver.


According to the Kscape Knowledge Base article I read, the Strato does have a configuration menu. Unfortunately I couldn't figure out how to get to it so I am going to let my AV guy's techs do the dirty work.


----------



## gwsat

After I made my last post I did a little more research and found the Web based HDMI audio settings for my Kaliedescape Strato. Weirdly, the default setting passes only 7.1 channel PCM to the audio receiver. I changed the setting to Bitstream and my receiver immediately started showing that the audio it was receiving from the copy of _Gravity_ on my Strato was “Dolby Atmos/TrueHD.” Thank God that’s over!


----------



## AllenA07

Scott MS said:


> I was watching the Olympics last night in 4K, which was also supposed to be Dolby Atmos. Watching on DirecTV with the sound format only Dolby Digital. Doesn't appear that DirecTV isn't carrying the Atmos sound.
> 
> 
> Can anybody else confirm?


I was curious about this and it seems that while NBC is shooting some events in 4K with Atmos, Directv isn't broadcasting the footage with Atmos.


----------



## leedesert

AllenA07 said:


> Scott MS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching the Olympics last night in 4K, which was also supposed to be Dolby Atmos. Watching on DirecTV with the sound format only Dolby Digital. Doesn't appear that DirecTV isn't carrying the Atmos sound.
> 
> 
> Can anybody else confirm?
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious about this and it seems that while NBC is shooting some events in 4K with Atmos, Directv isn't broadcasting the footage with Atmos.
Click to expand...

I don't think that any of the carriers put out anything higher than 5.1 Dolby Digital.


----------



## Scott MS

leedesert said:


> I don't think that any of the carriers put out anything higher than 5.1 Dolby Digital.




After I posted my original question, I did some further research and learned that DirecTV is only broadcasting a max of 5.1 "Dolby Digital". You are correct. 


"Dolby Digital Plus" is required for 7.1 or Atmos. This is not being broadcast by DirecTV. Dolby Atmos can be sent in either a "Dolby Digital Plus" or "Dolby TrueHD" stream.


----------



## FilmMixer

Scott MS said:


> leedesert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any of the carriers put out anything higher than 5.1 Dolby Digital.
> 
> 
> 
> After I posted my original question, I did some further research and learned that DirecTV is only broadcasting a max of 5.1 "Dolby Digital". You are correct.
> 
> 
> "Dolby Digital Plus" is required for 7.1 or Atmos. This is not being broadcast by DirecTV. Dolby Atmos can be sent in either a "Dolby Digital Plus" or "Dolby TrueHD" stream.
Click to expand...

When DTV started testing and broadcasting in 4k, they were doing so in DD+... 

All of the free VOD 4k clips were in DD+... as were the test footage loops (I verified this with the C61k I had....)

If thats changed I don't know (we dont have DTV anymore...) 

But they can and do support DD+....


----------



## gwsat

The last time I checked no cable or streaming service had the capability of transmitting lossless audio, such as DTS Master Audio or TrueHD. The only way to get it was either via a disc or a file containing the same information that is on the disc. Have no idea whether that is still the case.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> The last time I checked no cable or streaming service had the capability of transmitting lossless audio, such as DTS Master Audio or TrueHD. The only way to get it was either via a disc or a file containing the same information that is on the disc. Have no idea whether that is still the case.


They can still transmit a lossy Dolby Digital Plus signal and that can also contain Atmos audio data.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> The last time I checked no cable or streaming service had the capability of transmitting lossless audio, such as DTS Master Audio or TrueHD. The only way to get it was either via a disc or a file containing the same information that is on the disc. Have no idea whether that is still the case.


Dolby Atmos does not require "lossless" audio for transmission. It IS the preferred carrier on Blu-ray, that's correct. 

However, Atmos also is supported by DD+ so it can be streamed or used over cable/satellite.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos does not require "lossless" audio for transmission. It IS the preferred carrier on Blu-ray, that's correct.
> 
> However, Atmos also is supported by DD+ so it can be streamed or used over cable/satellite.


Scott -- Thanks! So DD+ can provide a variety of Atmos but it's lossy. I learn something new every day, if not every hour.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> Scott -- Thanks! So DD+ can provide a variety of Atmos but it's lossy. I learn something new every day, if not every hour.


Yes. A "lossy" version of Atmos but it is equally as capable as the Atmos you get on Blu-ray.

Dolby wanted Atmos to be available to everyone everywhere. In the near future you'll see plenty of broadcasting and streaming in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. A "lossy" version of Atmos but it is equally as capable as the Atmos you get on Blu-ray.
> 
> Dolby wanted Atmos to be available to everyone everywhere. In the near future you'll see plenty of broadcasting and streaming in Dolby Atmos.


That's exciting!. Do you know of any current cable programming that has Atmos audio?


----------



## sdurani

gwsat said:


> So DD+ can provide a variety of Atmos but it's lossy.


Atmos soundtracks are made up of two things: sound (data) and instructions on where to place the sound (metadata). Some of the sound is in traditional channels while other pieces of sound are given x,y,z coordinates for locations in your room (those are called audio objects). As such, Atmos is a hybrid format, using channels and objects. 

The running list of instructions doesn't take up much space. But the sound itself takes up lots of space. On Blu-ray discs, there is enough space to allow the sound to be losslessly packed (using TrueHD). But when broadcasting or streaming, there is relatively little bandwidth, so lossy compression (DD+) has to be used. The instructions (on where to place the sound) stays the same in both cases. It's basically the sound that is encoded either with lossless packing or lossy compression, depending on the available space/bandwidth. 

BTW, this difference isn't just limited to Atmos. Even with 2-channel music, disc-based delivery (CD, DVD-A, SACD) is lossless while streaming is usually lossy (MP3, AAC).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> That's exciting!. Do you know of any current cable programming that has Atmos audio?


HBO's Game of Thrones is now natively mixed in Atmos, but I believe it only shows up on the Blu-ray release. It's not being broadcast that way as far as I'm aware. They're future proofing. 

If anyone else knows of other broadcast or streaming TV shows that are also using Atmos, please feel free to speak up.


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> HBO's Game of Thrones is now natively mixed in Atmos, but I believe it only shows up on the Blu-ray release. It's not being broadcast that way as far as I'm aware.


 Perhaps before its all over Comcast which currently can do Atmos will do so


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audiofan1 said:


> Perhaps before its all over Comcast which currently can do Atmos will do so


Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that GOT is only going to be around for one more season (especially with the economic turmoil in Europe and the UK screwing up their budgeting and tax breaks), so they'll have to hurry up.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ Uh! Oh!
Although I'm sure if they tapped the viewers alone it could make it for two more


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> gwsat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exciting!. Do you know of any current cable programming that has Atmos audio?
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone else knows of other broadcast or streaming TV shows that are also using Atmos, please feel free to speak up.
Click to expand...

The Olympic opening ceremonies were broadcast on Comcast XFinity in UHD with HDR, and Atmos.


----------



## gwsat

audiofan1 said:


> Perhaps before its all over Comcast which currently can do Atmos will do so


Given the track record of my cable company, Cox, they'll probably the last one to carry Atmos audio.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Comcast has some ATMOS content available for little while now...........

Within the thread are two comcast reps that are reponsible for the ATMOS box and its rollout.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...comcast-atmos-set-top-box-rack-mountable.html


----------



## williamwallace

Some thoughts and recently released Atmos content:

* Oblivion UHD - subtle but nice; good ambient sound and use of object speakers in action sequences, drone sequences, etc.
* Lucy UHD - I haven't heard the Hong Kong version, but I assume its the same? Regardless, it's amazing. One of the best Atmos soundtracks I've heard to date.


----------



## badboi

Dan Hitchman said:


> HBO's Game of Thrones is now natively mixed in Atmos, but I believe it only shows up on the Blu-ray release. It's not being broadcast that way as far as I'm aware. They're future proofing.
> 
> If anyone else knows of other broadcast or streaming TV shows that are also using Atmos, please feel free to speak up.


The final series of Penny Dreadful had the Dolby Atmos logo on the ending credits. Not sure if it was broadcast that way or not. Charter isn't known for their cutting edge technology in these parts.


----------



## smurraybhm

FYI - Pioneer Dolby Atmos speaker modules for only $74 (pair) via Meh.com. You could afford to not like the upfiring modules at that price


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fitting .com address.


----------



## brianmlamb

Atmos setup Question for you guys. Could I use in ceiling speakers for the fronts and atmos up firing modules for the rears? Or is that asking for too many issues? Using a Pioneer SC-95. Trying to figure out how I want to implement the height layer at the moment. 

2nd question is should I just go with a 5.2.2 setup if my seating position is ~2ft from the back wall? I've already foregone the rear speakers because it's too close, but I wasn't sure if I could effectively do the .4 atmos or DTSX setup with my seating position. Can I do top fronts and top middles? Or just put the top rears as close to the back wall as possible and get speakers without any angle tilt to them?

Room layout attached, any advice on where I should put the atmos speakers would be appreciated. I need to use in ceiling for the front as my towers aren't flat on top for modules and on wall heights don't pass the WAF. Rears I could put some modules on top of the surrounds or go in ceiling as well.

Thanks


----------



## batpig

You CAN mix in-ceiling and up-firing on most receivers that I'm aware of (certainly can with Denon/Marantz models for sure).

And I do think you can do 5.1.4 in the room you have, go with either in ceiling (top rear) or speakers high up on the wall behind your head (rear height). Many people have their seating close to the back wall and are able to implement rear overheads/heights effectively. Your 10 foot ceilings give you an edge here as you don't have to worry as much about the speaker beating down on your head because you'll be able to maintain 6ft+ distance to the speakers even if they're directly above, although I'd try to get them behind you as much as possible.


----------



## brianmlamb

batpig said:


> You CAN mix in-ceiling and up-firing on most receivers that I'm aware of (certainly can with Denon/Marantz models for sure).
> 
> And I do think you can do 5.1.4 in the room you have, go with either in ceiling (top rear) or speakers high up on the wall behind your head (rear height). Many people have their seating close to the back wall and are able to implement rear overheads/heights effectively. Your 10 foot ceilings give you an edge here as you don't have to worry as much about the speaker beating down on your head because you'll be able to maintain 6ft+ distance to the speakers even if they're directly above, although I'd try to get them behind you as much as possible.


Thank you, appreciate the input!

Do you think having the rears as close to the back wall in ceiling as possible would create issues with reflections off the back wall, or would that actually be desirable to increase the effect of the sound coming from behind? I guess I could get a speaker with a rotatable tweeter to help point away from the wall a bit toward the MLP, though it'll still only be 2 ft behind. I know the heights would be easier to implement but they've been pretty much vetoed by my wife in favor of the in ceilings since it's in our living room not a dedicated theater.


----------



## ALtlOff

williamwallace said:


> Some thoughts and recently released Atmos content:
> 
> * Lucy UHD - I haven't heard the Hong Kong version, but I assume its the same? Regardless, it's amazing. One of the best Atmos soundtracks I've heard to date.


This is why those of us with the Hong Kong version were such PITA's about pushing people to get it, and yes I'm sure it's probably the same mix, this is one I'll end up triple dipping on, (although I gave my son the regular BR, lucky kid is going to end up with all my double dip BR's). This soundtrack completely transforms the film, and shows what Atmos really is capable of. I was so happy to see them put the mix on this, to give other a chance to hear it.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that GOT is only going to be around for one more season (especially with the economic turmoil in Europe and the UK screwing up their budgeting and tax breaks), so they'll have to hurry up.


Game of Thrones is confirmed to have two more seasons, though each will be shorter than previous years. 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/30/game-thrones

http://www.eonline.com/news/776497/...sons-7-and-8-will-be-shorter-than-ever-before


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> When you had watched this scene prior to doing this experiment, did it sound like the crowds were overhead, the way the helicopter was?


The crowd noises are harder to localize. They seem more diffuse. The helicopter has more of a sense of panning overhead.



> Just to be clear, the reverb in the heights isn't from DSU. DSU doesn't add reverb, the way Auro-Matic or Audyssey DSX does, it only extracts/steers sounds already in the recording.


Poor wording on my part. I meant that the reverb had been moved to the heights, not that DSU had created reverb.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Game of Thrones is confirmed to have two more seasons, though each will be shorter than previous years.
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/30/game-thrones
> 
> http://www.eonline.com/news/776497/...sons-7-and-8-will-be-shorter-than-ever-before


Yup. One season split into two shorter parts. There were a number of speculations swirling around about how Brexit and Eurozone financial turmoil might affect shows that rely heavily on overseas tax breaks such as GoT. They could have moved the production to film friendly Canada and Albuquerque, NM (for forest and desert landscapes) and saved enough dough to continue a little longer, but I guess not. Most of the background plates were heavily modified with CGI anyway, so sets could have been extended digitally and you wouldn't miss the exotic locales.


----------



## _voyager_

Hello to all, this is my neewbie question. 

I am planning 5.1.2 speaker system based on MA Bronze AV 5 with additional and Yamaha RX-A860 for room which is 4.0x4.7 meters. My basic questions are:
A) Is 5.1.2 system enough considering room size? Or let's say in other way, would 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 be to much for this room size?
B) If source device bitstream Dolby Atmos 7.1 source to AV receiver. Does AV recever downmix surround chanels to two speakers instead to four or I loose some of audio information?

C) If I succeed to find TV which could send DD+ from Netflix app through HDMI ARC is that enough to get also Dolby Atmos if it is available on that stream or TV need to have explicit Dolby Atmos support?


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> It seems that most of the helicopter noises indeed remain in the ground channels. They image _very_ effectively, to the point that it sounds like the helicopter is circling above me. (And note that I keep these speakers at ear level, not raised higher.)
> 
> There are _some_ helicopter noises in the heights, much lower in volume. I can believe that this is all or mostly reverb. The height speakers also pull in a lot of sounds of crowds cheering or screaming. Although the people in those crowds are on the ground and, logically, the sound should probably stay at ground level, the noise is diffuse and it still sounds "right" to my ears to hear it coming from everywhere.





sdurani said:


> When you had watched this scene prior to doing this experiment, did it sound like the crowds were overhead, the way the helicopter was?





Josh Z said:


> The crowd noises are harder to localize. They seem more diffuse. The helicopter has more of a sense of panning overhead.


So most of the helicopter sound is in the floor speakers while a lot of the crowd sounds are pulled to the heights. Yet you clearly hear the helicopter overhead but not the crowds. Just pointing out how much expectation bias plays into what we hear. You hear the helicopter where you expect it to be, not where most of its sound actually is.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> So most of the helicopter sound is in the floor speakers while a lot of the crowd sounds are pulled to the heights. Yet you clearly hear the helicopter overhead but not the crowds. Just pointing out how much expectation bias plays into what we hear. You hear the helicopter where you expect it to be, not where most of its sound actually is.


I hear what you're saying (no pun intended). I will just add that the helicopter has more direct sounds that image between the left and right surround speakers - in other words, precisely at my seat. Combined with some diffuse noises and reverb moved to the heights, the effect is a perception of the sound being elevated above me.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Josh Z said:


> I hear what you're saying (no pun intended). I will just add that the helicopter has more direct sounds that image between the left and right surround speakers - in other words, precisely at my seat. Combined with some diffuse noises and reverb moved to the heights, the effect is a perception of the sound being elevated above me.


Psychoacoustics Magic


----------



## batpig

_voyager_ said:


> Hello to all, this is my neewbie question.
> 
> I am planning 5.1.2 speaker system based on MA Bronze AV 5 with additional and Yamaha RX-A860 for room which is 4.0x4.7 meters. My basic questions are:
> A) Is 5.1.2 system enough considering room size? Or let's say in other way, would 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 be to much for this room size?
> B) If source device bitstream Dolby Atmos 7.1 source to AV receiver. Does AV recever downmix surround chanels to two speakers instead to four or I loose some of audio information?
> 
> C) If I succeed to find TV which could send DD+ from Netflix app through HDMI ARC is that enough to get also Dolby Atmos if it is available on that stream or TV need to have explicit Dolby Atmos support?


A) 5.1.2 is "enough" in the sense that it will still sound really good (after all a good 5.1 system would blow most people away!), but you can definitely do 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 in a room that size if you really wanted to. Others have done it in smaller rooms. The big question is whether you can get the back surrounds in there with enough room behind you from where you sit. If your seating is very close to the back wall then stick to a 5ch base layer.

Either way though you can easily do 2 pairs of heights in that room.

B) The back surround info will get mixed down to the primary surrounds in a 5.1 base layer, just like it would without Atmos (7.1 played on a 5.1 system).

C) Well, Netflix doesn't support Atmos yet, and I don't know of any TV's that do DD+ over ARC (although I could be wrong, many just do regular DD 5.1). But, yes, since the Atmos container "appears" no different to the source device than any other DD+ stream, in theory you could do it. That said, I would strongly recommend a cheap streaming device for Netflix like Roku, the interface will be much better and you can connect directly to AVR with HDMI.


----------



## Josh Z

LNEWoLF said:


> Psychoacoustics Magic


No doubt.


----------



## 4KHDR

Okay...so I got my new 5.1.4 system all set-up using 4 of the pioneer "add on" speakers for the Atmos up firing fronts and backs. 

Using the Dolby Atmos demo disc I'm getting pretty good results and a bit of an overhead experience...

Now, here's my question. Does anyone know if I was to swap out the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR add ons for the Pioneer Elite SP-EBS73 book shelf speakers will I hear a difference? Worth the upgrade?

Thanks for any input.


----------



## Dave-T

I am in the process of getting a new processor. I am either going to get the marantz 7703 when it comes out or get the marantz 8802a. My setup is only used for movies and watching tv, no music. i would like to do 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 but may have to settle for 5.1.4. My surrounds are currently on the ceiling and because of the layout of my room I have no place to put surrounds on the wall, on the floor is not an option because of our baby. If I was going to do a 5.1.4 i would move the current surrounds forward and place to more behind the couch. Is there way of making a 7.1.4 or 7.1.4 work. Also I am not sure if the surround backs are to high up, I was told they needed to be that high because of the distance from the MLP to the back wall is about 11feet. Attached are some pics of my place and another pic of the floor plans of my place. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

dave-t


----------



## John Budny

Dave-T said:


> I am in the process of getting a new processor. I am either going to get the marantz 7703 when it comes out or get the marantz 8802a. My setup is only used for movies and watching tv, no music. i would like to do 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 but may have to settle for 5.1.4. My surrounds are currently on the ceiling and because of the layout of my room I have no place to put surrounds on the wall, on the floor is not an option because of our baby. If I was going to do a 5.1.4 i would move the current surrounds forward and place to more behind the couch. Is there way of making a 7.1.4 or 7.1.4 work. Also I am not sure if the surround backs are to high up, I was told they needed to be that high because of the distance from the MLP to the back wall is about 11feet. Attached are some pics of my place and another pic of the floor plans of my place. Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> dave-t


Dave,

According to the Atmos set up guide you want all of the lower surrounds at ear level to give separation between what's coming from above and below. Looking at your pictures however, it doesn't look like you have that option. It's not ideal having them that high and you'll have to weigh that against having those two rear surrounds or losing them and sticking with 5. 

I've owned both the Marantz 7702 and now currently the 8802a. The latter is a more robust and better sounding processor, especially with hd music. Having heard both with cinema, which is your primary use, I'd recommend going with a used 7702mkII and saving a bundle over the 8802a. Put that money into better speakers as that is where you'll get the greatest return on your money. It is my opinion that if you don't use the 8802a for at least a little music you are letting a good chunk of its $4000 price go to waste and would be very happy with the performance of the 7702/3.


----------



## HarpNinja

4KHDR said:


> Okay...so I got my new 5.1.4 system all set-up using 4 of the pioneer "add on" speakers for the Atmos up firing fronts and backs.
> 
> Using the Dolby Atmos demo disc I'm getting pretty good results and a bit of an overhead experience...
> 
> Now, here's my question. Does anyone know if I was to swap out the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR add ons for the Pioneer Elite SP-EBS73 book shelf speakers will I hear a difference? Worth the upgrade?
> 
> Thanks for any input.


So maybe not helpful, but I had two inceiling speakers originally used for 5.1.2 as top middles. I moved my seating up to 36 degrees and felt they were too far back for top middles. I then added the Pioneer add ons and unplugged the ceiling speakers. I am VERY pleased with the add ons. Not only did I watch Atmos movies, but I played the demos through Vudu.

I felt that they were more than enough for a good effect. They sounded better than I would have thought. I will repurpose the in ceiling speakers for a 5.1.4 sometime down the road (would need to upgrade my receiver). That is low on the priority list as I am really itching for some acoustic panels.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> So most of the helicopter sound is in the floor speakers while a lot of the crowd sounds are pulled to the heights. Yet you clearly hear the helicopter overhead but not the crowds. Just pointing out how much expectation bias plays into what we hear. You hear the helicopter where you expect it to be, not where most of its sound actually is.


My understanding is that there's more to it than just "expectation bias". Apparently we tend to associate an event's direction with the direction of the first sound that arrives at our ears. 

(My guess is that since real reflections arrive later, they would give the wrong impression of where the lion is coming from. Those individuals who couldn't make that distinction would get eaten, removing themselves from the gene pool. Of course, it's hard to know exactly what's happening with the audio of artificially created sounds.)


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that there's more to it than just "expectation bias". Apparently we tend to associate an event's direction with the direction of the first sound that arrives at our ears.


Do you think DSU was extracting the diffuse component of the helicopter sound from the Spectre soundtrack, sending it Josh's overhead speakers, then delaying the direct sound that was still in his surround speakers so that the overhead sound arrived at his ears first in order to give him the impression of the helicopter being in that direction?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Do you think DSU was extracting the diffuse component of the helicopter sound from the Spectre soundtrack, sending it Josh's overhead speakers, then delaying the direct sound that was still in his surround speakers so that the overhead sound arrived at his ears first in order to give him the impression of the helicopter being in that direction?


I have not the slightest idea, just that, in principle, it would be possible.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> I have not the slightest idea, just that, in principle, it would be possible.


There is nothing in the processing that delays the original sound in relation to the extracted sound (would be like making a reflection arrive before the direct sound).


----------



## mr.b1000

How dose the Sony STR-ZA5000ES compare to the Marantz 7010, Pioneer SC-99 and the Yamaha 3060?


----------



## smurraybhm

^ you would be better of starting a thread on that one. Number of ES Sony owners seems to have dropped dramatically once Sony went dealer only which jacked up their cost and they failed to keep up with others - like being late to the Atmos and DTS:X party. Not a fan of their RC either.

I owned a ES a number of years ago, but would never buy one again given all the good options available - see your list - at better prices.


----------



## duckymomo

Has anyone confirmed the Atmos demo disc test tones are sent at -30dbfs? And the sub channel should then be -20dbfs?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I have not but I would not recommend using that disc to calibrate your system.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> I have not but I would not recommend using that disc to calibrate your system.




Any particular reason? Just curious.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Anyone know if the star wars the force awakens 4 Disc BluRay 3d pack will contain atmos? I saw a dolby emblem on of of the pictures. I didn't see atmos listed anywhere, but I'm hopeful it's got atmos included, I know it was atmos in theaters.

Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Any particular reason? Just curious.


I didn't feel it was reliable enough for settings levels. Good for channel checks but not for proper calibration. 

Just my thoughts on it.


----------



## MacFreibier

Hi,

I am currently using a 6.2 setup with a back surround just in the middle behind my seating area.
I am sitting approx. 80cm away from this speaker.

I am now heading towards a new Atmos setup and have already ordered the Marantz SR7010 and two pairs of KEF T101 for front and rear top speaker.

I can drive a 5.2.4 setup with the Marantz only but I would like to keep my surround back speaker, so basically looking for a 6.2.4 setup.
In order to to so I would need a separate amplifier (because the Marantz can only power 9 speakers) and my plan is to keep my Denon AVR 3808 for this purpose and drive the surround back through the Denon by using the Pre-Outs of the Marantz.

Do you guys think this will work (Atmos supported config?) and is worth doing? Or should I even go further for a 7.2.4 setup?


----------



## dschulz

Mrjmc99 said:


> Anyone know if the star wars the force awakens 4 Disc BluRay 3d pack will contain atmos? I saw a dolby emblem on of of the pictures. I didn't see atmos listed anywhere, but I'm hopeful it's got atmos included, I know it was atmos in theaters.
> 
> Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


I am not 100% sure, but I do not believe that it does. Disney doesn't seem to be on the Atmos bandwagon for home video just yet. Hopefully they'll make an announcement soon about supporting UHD and Atmos.


----------



## oldsteve

MacFreibier said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am currently using a 6.2 setup with a back surround just in the middle behind my seating area.
> I am sitting approx. 80cm away from this speaker.
> 
> I am now heading towards a new Atmos setup and have already ordered the Marantz SR7010 and two pairs of KEF T101 for front and rear top speaker.
> 
> I can drive a 5.2.4 setup with the Marantz only but I would like to keep my surround back speaker, so basically looking for a 6.2.4 setup.
> In order to to so I would need a separate amplifier (because the Marantz can only power 9 speakers) and my plan is to keep my Denon AVR 3808 for this purpose and drive the surround back through the Denon by using the Pre-Outs of the Marantz.
> 
> Do you guys think this will work (Atmos supported config?) and is worth doing? Or should I even go further for a 7.2.4 setup?


I am using a 6.1.4 setup for Dolby Atmos and it sounds fine to me. I first had two small bookshelf speakers for the back surrounds but I decided to tryout a spare center channel speaker I wasn't using. I liked the sound with the single speaker much better. Part of this might be the higher quality of the center channel speaker. It has 5 1/2" drivers and a 1" tweeter where the little bookshelves are 3 1/2" x 3/4". I'm sitting about 100cm from the back speaker and it's slightly above ear level. I like it. I did what you're planning on doing. I used a spare receiver to power the back surrounds. You should have no problem getting up and running when you get your new gear. Hopefully your new Marantz will come with the Dts-x update already installed!


----------



## batpig

Just be aware that DSU doesn't send anything to a single back surround when upmixing. Not sure about Neural:X.


----------



## lujan

batpig said:


> Just be aware that DSU doesn't send anything to a single back surround when upmixing. Not sure about Neural:X.


Then why does it indicate that all speakers are active when looking at the audio information screen?


----------



## ndabunka

gwsat said:


> The mystery deepens as to why my copy of _Gravity_ doesn't have TrueHD Atmos sound. Kaleidescape identifies the file it sold to me as "Blu-ray quality Diamond Luxe Edition." Go figure. As Jeremy Anderson pointed out in an earlier post, this is the edition that does have Atmos, or so they say.  Will report when and if I find out anything definitive about all of this.


Sounds like Kaleidescape screwed up and sent you the wrong version


----------



## gwsat

ndabunka said:


> Sounds like Kaleidescape screwed up and sent you the wrong version


Read the posts to the thread that followed the one of mine you quoted and all will be explained. All of the details are in the later posts. For the moment, suffice it to say that the Strato's default setting for the audio HDMI connection prevented my receiver from reproducing the film's TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. Once I changed the setting to bitstream, everything was all right. In other words, there wasn't a thing wrong with the _Gravity_ file I downloaded to the Strato from the Kscape Movie Store.


----------



## sprins

lujan said:


> Then why does it indicate that all speakers are active when looking at the audio information screen?


If I'm correct DSU will not upmix to the rear surrounds with 5.1 content. It will use the 6th (single surround back) speaker when upmixing 7.1 with DSU. 

Perhaps you were working with a 7.1 track?


----------



## ndabunka

gwsat said:


> Read the posts to the thread that followed the one of mine you quoted and all will be explained. All of the details are in the later posts. For the moment, suffice it to say that the Strato's default setting for the audio HDMI connection prevented my receiver from reproducing the film's TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. Once I changed the setting to bitstream, everything was all right. In other words, there wasn't a thing wrong with the _Gravity_ file I downloaded to the Strato from the Kscape Movie Store.


Thanks for the clairification. I must have missed those follow ups


----------



## dyst0pia

Just got my new sound system set up (still quite new to having a reasonable sound setup; upgrading from a Logitech Z-5500 I got a decade ago). Got a question for you gurus here; just want to know if what I'm hearing is expected, or if I messed up my settings in some way.

I'm running an Onkyo TX-NR757 with some upward-firing speakers for 5.1.2. When enabling the Dolby Surround upmixing, there is significant reverb coming out of the upward-firing speakers. The dialog gets it too, and makes everything sound like it's in some cathedral or other huge empty space. Usually not a problem, but it's not great when the scene is, for example, two people talking in a small office or something like that. Is this expected? Any hints on how to tone that down a bit?

I haven't tested an actual Atmos-mixed movie yet. My copy of Gravity is in shipment, so I'll have that to try out soon.


----------



## Skylinestar

dschulz said:


> I am not 100% sure, but I do not believe that it does. Disney doesn't seem to be on the Atmos bandwagon for home video just yet. Hopefully they'll make an announcement soon about supporting UHD and Atmos.


The Jungle Book Bluray

Language: English (DTS-HD High Res Audio), French (Dolby Digital 5.1), Spanish (Dolby Digital 5.1)

Sigh... It's 2016 but no Atmos / DTS:x


----------



## TheCoolDoc

Skylinestar said:


> The Jungle Book Bluray
> 
> Language: English (DTS-HD High Res Audio), French (Dolby Digital 5.1), Spanish (Dolby Digital 5.1)
> 
> Sigh... It's 2016 but no Atmos / DTS:x


Sigh its 2016 and no DTS:X. Period.


----------



## MacFreibier

sprins said:


> If I'm correct DSU will not upmix to the rear surrounds with 5.1 content. It will use the 6th (single surround back) speaker when upmixing 7.1 with DSU.
> 
> Perhaps you were working with a 7.1 track?


Would DSU upmix in a 7.1.4 setup to both back surrounds with 5.1 content or are the back sourrounds (7. and 6.) not being used at all?


----------



## Sanjay

dschulz said:


> I am not 100% sure, but I do not believe that it does. Disney doesn't seem to be on the Atmos bandwagon for home video just yet. Hopefully they'll make an announcement soon about supporting UHD and Atmos.


Disney has always been laggards in adopting new technology. They have never helped grow any new format. But they have always tried to pretend as if they own the new format, once it becomes popular. I personally get quite irritated by their 'Own it on Disney DVD' promos. As if they own the DVD format. And this, after they were the last major studio to release DVDs. It was the same story with Blu-ray too. Also, how can one forget the massive obstructions, legal and otherwise, that Disney created for the Home Video market when VHS first came out. Bottom line, Disney sucks big time. Period.


----------



## bdraw

Sanjay said:


> Disney has always been laggards in adopting new technology. They have never helped grow any new format.


I agree in regard to physical, but they are one of the only studios that let you play your digital copies on both Apple and UV. They were also the first that I recall with an HD title on iTunes.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

Sanjay said:


> Also, how can one forget the massive obstructions, legal and otherwise, that Disney created for the Home Video market when *VHS* first came out. Bottom line, Disney sucks big time. Period.


Actually it was βetamax (Sony Corp. of America) that Universal Studios and the Walt Disney Company filed a lawsuit against.


----------



## deano86

MacFreibier said:


> Would DSU upmix in a 7.1.4 setup to both back surrounds with 5.1 content or are the back sourrounds (7. and 6.) not being used at all?


I think you are getting confused on what what was being discussed... one member has a single back surround... (6.1) setup instead of 7.1 That is where using DSU with 5.1 soundtracks could end up not sending sound to that single back surround channel.. not sure though.... But, your setup is fine!


----------



## AllenA07

Skylinestar said:


> The Jungle Book Bluray
> 
> Language: English (DTS-HD High Res Audio), French (Dolby Digital 5.1), Spanish (Dolby Digital 5.1)
> 
> Sigh... It's 2016 but no Atmos / DTS:x


That's disappointing but not surprising. My guess is when Disney decides to accept that UHD is a thing, is when we will begin seeing Disney release immersive mixes on their discs.


----------



## Sanjay

bdraw said:


> Sanjay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney has always been laggards in adopting new technology. They have never helped grow any new format.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I agree in regard to physical, but they are one of the only studios that let you play your digital copies on both Apple and UV. They were also the first that I recall with an HD title on iTunes.
Click to expand...

Fox, Lionsgate, Paramount, Universal all support both Ultraviolet & iTunes. If I'm not mistaken, it's only Sony & Warner that don't support iTunes. Personally I would think it would be a problem only if a studio supported just the proprietary iTunes. Considering that Ultraviolet is non proprietary & universally compatible, it ought to be the universal standard anyhow. Support for an entirely proprietary iTunes is not what I would consider in the larger interest of the consumer. Which is exactly what Disney initially did, i.e. they only supported iTunes and refused to join Ultraviolet. It is only after Ultraviolet became more popular than iTunes that Disney started supporting it. By the way, I hope you are aware that Disney CEO Bob Iger is also on the board of directors for Apple and of the special relationship that Disney shares with Apple. It is for this reason that Disney provides support for iTunes and not for any great concern for the consumer or as an endeavour to promote a format.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb452056-9dee-11e3-95fe-00144feab7de.html#axzz4HPEfWGZu

PS: I forgot to mention in the original post, that the only time Disney actually tried to promote a format, it was 'DIVX', the totally anti consumer format, that Disney tried to promote instead of DVD.


----------



## Sanjay

Wendell R. Breland said:


> Sanjay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, how can one forget the massive obstructions, legal and otherwise, that Disney created for the Home Video market when VHS first came out. Bottom line, Disney sucks big time. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Actually it was βetamax (Sony Corp. of America) that Universal Studios and the Walt Disney Company filed a lawsuit against.
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting that. But the overall point remains, that Disney created the most hurdles at the advent of Home Video.


----------



## sdurani

TheCoolDoc said:


> Sigh its 2016 and no DTS:X. Period.


12 BD, 7 UHDs.


----------



## PeterTHX

Sanjay said:


> It is only after Ultraviolet became more popular than iTunes that Disney started supporting it.




AFAIK Disney still doesn't support UV. They have "Disney Movies Everywhere" which play on services associated with UV (like Vudu - which is how I play mine).


Stuff like UV sharing doesn't work with their titles either.


----------



## bdraw

Sanjay said:


> Fox, Lionsgate, Paramount, Universal all support both Ultraviolet & iTunes.


Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that Disney connects with Vudu, so I can watch any Disney movie I ever bought via iTunes, on Vudu too.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

PeterTHX said:


> AFAIK Disney still doesn't support UV. They have "Disney Movies Everywhere" which play on services associated with UV (like Vudu - which is how I play mine).


Correct. Disney nor Apple are members of the DECE (UV).


----------



## batpig

MacFreibier said:


> Would DSU upmix in a 7.1.4 setup to both back surrounds with 5.1 content or are the back sourrounds (7. and 6.) not being used at all?





deano86 said:


> I think you are getting confused on what what was being discussed... one member has a single back surround... (6.1) setup instead of 7.1 That is where using DSU with 5.1 soundtracks could end up not sending sound to that single back surround channel.. not sure though.... But, your setup is fine!


Yes, people are getting confused -- I'm only referring to a SINGLE back surround (i.e. 6.1 base layer). 

DSU works with stereo pairs for upmixing. 7.1 is a better solution overall than 6.1 anyway if you can swing it.


----------



## PeterTHX

bdraw said:


> Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was that Disney connects with Vudu, so I can watch any Disney movie I ever bought via iTunes, on Vudu too.




Not all of them. My iTunes of _*Dick Tracy*_ didn't carry over.


----------



## sprins

MacFreibier said:


> Would DSU upmix in a 7.1.4 setup to both back surrounds with 5.1 content or are the back sourrounds (7. and 6.) not being used at all?


Indeed I'm confusing things. DSU will upmix 5.1 to rear surrounds in a 7.1.x setup, but not the (single) rear surround in a 6.1.x setup. 

Dolby PLII used to upmix to 6.1 fine so I was disappointed to find out DSU didn't


----------



## Scott Simonian

7.1 > 6.1

Gotta get with the times.


----------



## Sanjay

PeterTHX said:


> AFAIK Disney still doesn't support UV. They have "Disney Movies Everywhere" which play on services associated with UV (like Vudu - which is how I play mine).
> 
> 
> Stuff like UV sharing doesn't work with their titles either.


Thanks for correcting that. I hadn't actually realized that Disney does not support Ultraviolet and that their titles are only available for viewing via Vudu. Like I said, "Disney sucks big time".


----------



## MacFreibier

sprins said:


> Indeed I'm confusing things. DSU will upmix 5.1 to rear surrounds in a 7.1.x setup, but not the (single) rear surround in a 6.1.x setup.
> 
> Dolby PLII used to upmix to 6.1 fine so I was disappointed to find out DSU didn't


Got it now. So this would be a powerfull reason to upgrade from 6.1 to 7.1. Wonder what DTS Neural:X is doing?


----------



## PeterTHX

Sanjay said:


> Thanks for correcting that. I hadn't actually realized that Disney does not support Ultraviolet and that their titles are only available for viewing via Vudu. Like I said, "Disney sucks big time".



You can also connect Microsoft, Google Play, and Amazon Video accounts in addition to Vudu and iTunes.


Again, not as good as UV but not quite as limited as before.


PS: There are Disney titles on Vudu with some of the few DD+ 7.1 movies available.


----------



## cisco1982

*Atmos problem*

Hi!

I just bought Onkyo RZ900. Everything is fine but this one:

My system:
- Onkyo reciever (rz900)
- 5.1 speaker setup (without any additional speaker - high or rear)
- Media player and BD player - both connected with HDMI and bitstream audio output.

When I played Dolby Atmos soundtrack with the configuration 5.1 speaker setup (I choose this in onkyo's menu) I get the following on screen display:

Input
Dolby TrueHD
7.1 ch B

Output:
Dolby TrueHD
5.1 ch

When I set my speaker setup to 6.1 or 7.1 in the reciever menu - *nothing else* - I get dolby atmos working very well (both input and output said Dolby Atmos and the little blue light on on the reciever etc), but when I changed the speaker settings back to 5.1 I only get Dolby TrueHD sound. So i guess this is a software bug, and it is very big dissapointment for me, that I cannot enjoy my new hardware as I should be.

Of course I updated the reciever firmware with the newest one, but nothing changed.

*Please confirm, that with 5.1 speaker setup, Dolby Atmos should work as with 6.1 for example*. 

Thank you for your help!


----------



## Selden Ball

cisco1982 said:


> Hi!
> 
> I just bought Onkyo RZ900. Everything is fine but this one:
> 
> My system:
> - Onkyo reciever (rz900)
> - 5.1 speaker setup (without any additional speaker - high or rear)
> - Media player and BD player - both connected with HDMI and bitstream audio output.
> 
> When I played Dolby Atmos soundtrack with the configuration 5.1 speaker setup (I choose this in onkyo's menu) I get the following on screen display:
> 
> Input
> Dolby TrueHD
> 7.1 ch B
> 
> Output:
> Dolby TrueHD
> 5.1 ch
> 
> When I set my speaker setup to 6.1 or 7.1 in the reciever menu - *nothing else* - I get dolby atmos working very well (both input and output said Dolby Atmos and the little blue light on on the reciever etc), but when I changed the speaker settings back to 5.1 I only get Dolby TrueHD sound. So i guess this is a software bug, and it is very big dissapointment for me, that I cannot enjoy my new hardware as I should be.
> 
> Of course I updated the reciever firmware with the newest one, but nothing changed.
> 
> *Please confirm, that with 5.1 speaker setup, Dolby Atmos should work as with 6.1 for example*.
> 
> Thank you for your help!


You haven't said what you're doing about the overhead speakers. Atmos requires overheads, at least a 5.1.2 speaker configuration. A 5.1 configuration does not include any overheads, so Atmos is not available.


----------



## cisco1982

Selden Ball said:


> You haven't said what you're doing about the overhead speakers. Atmos requires overheads, at least a 5.1.2 speaker configuration. A 5.1 configuration does not include any overheads, so Atmos is not available.


I know 5.1 is not full atmos neither does 6.1, but than it still does work with 6.1 without overhead speaker but not 5.1 without overhead speaker. That is my problem. If it only works with x.y.z format then it's ok, but when it works with x.y format but not all...it is a contradiction.


----------



## richlife

cisco1982 said:


> I know 5.1 is not full atmos neither does 6.1, but than it still does work with 6.1 without overhead speaker but not 5.1 without overhead speaker. That is my problem. If it only works with x.y.z format then it's ok, but when it works with x.y format but not all...it is a contradiction.


Regardless of what you see on the display, if you don't have the x.x.2 as a minimum, then you are not getting Atmos results. So it appears that what you are saying is that the Atmos decoder is down-mixing to 6.1 but not down-mixing to 5.1. I don't have an answer for you, but you may get better replies if you are more accurate in your question. 

As a pure guess, it appears that the Atmos decoder is confused by your 6.1 config option and claims to be outputting Atmos which it actually cannot do. In your shoes, I would try to hear what differences there are when the Onkyo is set in "Straight" mode (or whatever you can select) versus how it sounds in "Atmos" mode. (Also add a couple of "height" speakers just for fun.)


----------



## Selden Ball

cisco1982 said:


> I know 5.1 is not full atmos neither does 6.1, but than it still does work with 6.1 without overhead speaker but not 5.1 without overhead speaker. That is my problem. If it only works with x.y.z format then it's ok, but when it works with x.y format but not all...it is a contradiction.


It seems to me that the Atmos indicator of your Onkyo is buggy. You should consider reporting it to Onkyo.

If you don't have overhead speakers, then there's nothing an Atmos decoder can do for you. The base-level 7.1 speaker channels are all provided by the 7.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. No Atmos decoding is required in order to make use of all of the 7.1 speakers.

I'm assuming that the two speakers in the 7.1 configuration which are in addition to the base 5.1 configuration are Rear Surround speakers. Those are the two speaker channels which are included in native 7.1 channel soundtracks. Logically, if two of your 7.1 speakers are designated as Front Wides (which are not provided among the on-disc soundtrack channels), then Atmos could use them for appropriate sound objects, but I don't know of any receiver which does that if you don't also have overheads.


----------



## sdurani

cisco1982 said:


> I know 5.1 is not full atmos neither does 6.1, but than it still does work with 6.1 without overhead speaker but not 5.1 without overhead speaker. That is my problem. If it only works with x.y.z format then it's ok, but when it works with x.y format but not all...it is a contradiction.


Atmos soundtracks are a combination of traditional channels (7.1) plus audio objects (sounds that are not mixed into any of the channels but instead given x,y,z coordinates in 3D space). When you configure a speaker for which there is no channel, the Atmos decoder has to turn on and unpack the objects in the soundtrack to feed that speaker, since there isn't a channel that can be routed to that speaker. 

So, for example, if you configure a single Surround-Back speaker, then Atmos decoding will turn on. Since there is no mono Surround-Back channel in an Atmos soundtrack, that speaker has to be fed with objects. Likewise, if you configure a pair of Wides, then Atmos will turn on. There are no such things as Wide channels, so the decoder has to unpack audio objects to feed the Wides. Same for when you configure heights. 

That's why 5.1 and 7.1 speaker layouts can use the channel-based downmix but a 6.1 speaker layout activates Atmos decoding.


----------



## cisco1982

sdurani said:


> Atmos soundtracks are a combination of traditional channels (7.1) plus audio objects (sounds that are not mixed into any of the channels but instead given x,y,z coordinates in 3D space).
> 
> That's why 5.1 and 7.1 speaker layouts can use the channel-based downmix but a 6.1 speaker layout activates Atmos decoding.


Okay... Let see...

I talked to lot of people, but they cannot explain what i see when i use my receiver, they only say i need height speakers...

When i played Transformers 4 Atmos track for example i get:

*Speaker config - Sound input - Sound output (based on reciever info)*
5.1 - TrueHD - TrueHD
6.1 - Atmos - Atmos
7.1 - Atmos - Atmos
5.1.2 - Atmos - Atmos

richlife: So Atmos decoder is confused, that's true but i don't know which direction. Only x.y.z config get atmos or all config get atmos.

Selden Ball: I reported this stuff to Onkyo, but I don't get answer. 

Selden Ball & sdurani: You say 2 different thing. If the object sounds are not mixed in the Truehd 7.1, then atmos can do a lot with 5.1,6.1 and 7.1 config to mix them in the Truehd.
What i hear, is if speaker config is 6.1 and atmos is On, the sound is much harder and better, then the normal 5.1 with TrueHD.


----------



## sdurani

cisco1982 said:


> When i played Transformers 4 Atmos track for example i get:
> 
> *Speaker config - Sound input - Sound output (based on reciever info)*
> 5.1 - TrueHD - TrueHD
> 6.1 - Atmos - Atmos
> 7.1 - Atmos - Atmos
> 5.1.2 - Atmos - Atmos


Surprised you get Atmos decoding with a 7.1 layout, since every Atmos track includes a 7.1 downmix. The other three examples make sense.


> If the object sounds are not mixed in the Truehd 7.1, then atmos can do a lot with 5.1,6.1 and 7.1 config to mix them in the Truehd.


ALL sounds are in the 7.1 downmix. When the Atmos decoder is activated, it separates those sounds into channels and objects. But it's not like those sounds are missing if you're listening with 5.1 speakers or even just 2 speakers (like on a TV).


----------



## GreySkies

cisco1982 said:


> Hi!
> *Please confirm, that with 5.1 speaker setup, Dolby Atmos should work as with 6.1 for example*.





cisco1982 said:


> *Speaker config - Sound input - Sound output (based on reciever info)*
> 5.1 - TrueHD - TrueHD
> 6.1 - Atmos - Atmos
> 7.1 - Atmos - Atmos
> 5.1.2 - Atmos - Atmos


When playing an Atmos soundtrack through a 5.1 system, there is no reason for the Atmos decoder to decode. The object sounds are already mixed in the 5.1 soundtrack, so through 5.1, whether the Atmos icon lights up or not, won't change what you're hearing in the room. That is, if the Atmos decoder were to decode an Atmos soundtrack to 5.1, it'd be the same sound as the TrueHD 5.1 soundtrack.

For your other configurations, your Atmos decoder is cancelling Atmos object sounds from the TrueHD soundtrack, then playing them back based on object positioning data in the Atmos metadata, which may be in your mono back surround (for 6.1), or in either or both of your stereo back surrounds (for 7.1), or in your overheads and/or surrounds (for 5.1.2).

At least that's my understanding of how Atmos works.


----------



## cisco1982

GreySkies said:


> At least that's my understanding of how Atmos works.


I wrote to Dolby, so we will found out soon


----------



## smurraybhm

cisco1982 said:


> I wrote to Dolby, so we will found out soon


Or you could have saved some time and accepted the EXPERT response you received from Sanjay 

Welcome to AVS by the way, you were being helped by someone who has a great deal of knowledge regarding immersive sound codes. If you ever can read through the extensive threads on this subject you will see what I'm talking about.

P.S. Sanjay = sdurani


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hmmm....

Some random dude on the internet or DOLBY....


----------



## richlife

smurraybhm said:


> Or you could have saved some time and accepted the EXPERT response you received from Sanjay
> 
> Welcome to AVS by the way, you were being helped by someone who has a great deal of knowledge regarding immersive sound codes. If you ever can read through the extensive threads on this subject you will see what I'm talking about.
> 
> P.S. Sanjay = sdurani


I've only recently gotten my Atmos capable Yamaha, and so have only recently noticed Sanjay's posts. But when I saw that he had responded in this discussion, I figured you were taken care of cisco1982. 

And I wouldn't get your hopes up with Dolby. If you get an answer, they can still only take guesses about what you are hearing since you don't have an Atmos setup. IF they know your Onkyo, they might have some idea... I still say the best thing you can do is put ANY pair of speakers in an Atmos position and listen to what you get. It may not be perfect, but at least you know what sounds Atmos is supposed to be putting in the various positions. That's what I did with a set of cheap Yamaha's and I may not ever change them. (But I probably will.. )

Scott S.: Random internet dude or random Dolby dude.


----------



## GreySkies

richlife said:


> ... or random Dolby dude.


Who's probably an intern getting scant info from a disinterested entry-level marketing drone.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well... my joke makes more sense if one had participated in these discussions from the beginning and especially attending certain events.


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> Well... my joke makes more sense if one had participated in these discussions from the beginning and especially attending certain events.


Hey -- it works even for the ignorant.


----------



## sdurani

smurraybhm said:


> Or you could have saved some time and accepted the EXPERT response you received from Sanjay


Thanx, but one of my assumptions appears to be conflicting with reality. Configuring for a traditional 7.1 layout should use the 7.1 downmix, not activate Atmos decoding. Unless this is something unique to Onkyo. 

When consumer Atmos first showed up in 2014, I perused a couple of the Onkyo instruction manuals. They indicated that merely going beyond 5.1 speakers activated Atmos decoding. So if you had a 5.1 layout and added a pair of Heights or Wides or Rears, then Atmos decoding turned on. Since none of the other receiver manufacturers implemented Atmos this way, I thought the Onkyo manual might have been mistaken. But maybe not.


----------



## gwsat

The more experience I have with my 7.1.4 system.the more I like it. Today I watched _Mission:Impossible Rogue Nation_ on Amazon Prime and was blown away. The audio, which accompanied the movie was only DD+. No matter, though. When I matrixed it to my 7.1.4 array, I heard a wonderfully immersive sound. I used the CinemaDSP HD3 builtin to my Yamaha RX-A3060 to achieve the effect. Don’t get me wrong, the M:I audio wasn’t quite in a class with a lossless TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, such as that which is on the _Gravity_ BD, but it was still wonderful.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Which CinemaDSP program did you use?


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Which CinemaDSP program did you use?


I used the Enhanced DSP. It has become my default.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> I used the Enhanced DSP. It has become my default.


Cool. Yamaha just made that program for this years models. I'm envious.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Cool. Yamaha just made that program for this years models. I'm envious.


It's really slick. Better yet, it is disabled when the 3060 detects a TrueHD Atmos input. Don't know what happens when a DTS:X input is received.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Your 3060 (and my 5100) have the ability to use Atmos/DTS:X with CinemaDSP. 

The new ENHANCED dsp program is made from the ground up for immersive audio speaker layouts. I'm not sure all what changed as Yamaha never states what all is really going on with these programs.

It shouldn't disable. They are not mutually exclusive. They do two different things. Atmos and DTS:X are encode/decode system where as CinemaDSP is a room simulation algorithm.

I can't say for sure with the xx60's but until them, Yamaha applied ProLogic2x to any 2-6ch signal to get a 7.1 bottom layer and then simulate from there. What is known is that the xx60's dropped PL2x entirely. I wonder what is used when listening to CinemaDSP now. I would think it would be either DSU or Neural:X which were NOT available at all to use when listening to CinemaDSP on any older products that are not from this year.

On my system (5100 pre/pro) I can enable any dsp program with any signal. I can not use DSU or Neural:X and CinemaDSP at the same time though.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Your 3060 (and my 5100) have the ability to use Atmos/DTS:X with CinemaDSP.
> 
> The new ENHANCED dsp program is made from the ground up for immersive audio speaker layouts. I'm not sure all what changed as Yamaha never states what all is really going on with these programs.
> 
> It shouldn't disable. They are not mutually exclusive. They do two different things. Atmos and DTS:X are encode/decode system where as CinemaDSP is a room simulation algorithm.
> 
> I can't say for sure with the xx60's but until them, Yamaha applied ProLogic2x to any 2-6ch signal to get a 7.1 bottom layer and then simulate from there. What is known is that the xx60's dropped PL2x entirely. I wonder what is used when listening to CinemaDSP now. I would think it would be either DSU or Neural:X which were NOT available at all to use when listening to CinemaDSP on any older products that are not from this year.
> 
> On my system (5100 pre/pro) I can enable any dsp program with any signal. I can not use DSU or Neural:X and CinemaDSP at the same time though.


Scott -- I was parroting something I read in the 3060 manual. I don't think CinemaDSP HD3 is turned off but the HD3 part of the DSP is disabled in the presence of an Atmos signal. I could have misread it though. Will try to check it out later and will report what I find.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The way it works with Atmos/DTS:X signals on last years models is that CinemaDSP does it's thing but sorta ignores the content that is native to the height speakers. If you listen to just the overhead speakers with the rest muted. You can hear the sounds from the native Atmos/DTS:X signal come through clear but then you can also hear the added reverb/delay and what-not from the lower layer up above as well.

I never noticed if HD3 processing was disabled in the presence of either Atmos or DTS:X. I'd have to go check.


----------



## dvdwilly3

This is an interesting bluray stats website that was posted on Sound and Vision...

http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php

Pretty cool...I had not seen this before...


----------



## lovingdvd

Hey guys - is there a general conensus for what the top 3 Atmos action movies (UHD/Blu-ray) are that also look great. Basically looking for the top 3 to debut for a new Atmos theater launch night. Also please list your favorite movies for DSU as well.

I am keeping a running total based on responses, updating this post as they come in. Results so far:

(Vote count) Title
==========


*NATIVE ATMOS:*

(9) Everest
(7) Gravity
(4) Batman v Superman
(4) Mad Max
(4) Unbroken
(3) Lucy in Atmos
(3) Fifth Element (latest version with Atmos)
(2) 13 Hours
(1) John Wick
(1) Star Trek: Into Darkness
(1) The Wave
(1) Sicario
(1) Deadpool
(1) 10 Cloverfield lane


*DSU or Neural:X*

(4) Master and Commander
(3) The Thing (1982)
(3) Edge of Tomorrow (with a vote for Neural:X)
(2) Guardians of the Galaxy
(2) Blade Runner
(2) Prometheus
(1) Lone Surivor (Neural:X)
(1) Denzel's Equaliser
(1) Jurassic Park 4
(1) Into the Woods
(1) Terminator Salvation (Neural:X)
(1) Band of Brothers
(1) The Equalizer
(1) Le Mans (7.1 DTS-MA BluRay)
(1) Stranger Things (Netflix)

*DSU for TV*

(2) Daredevil - Netflix
(1) Ash vs Evil Dead
(1) Maze Runner


*Music*

(1) Roger Waters The Wall
(1) Man From U.N.C.L.E


----------



## petetherock

IMO try
John Wick
Mad Max
Fifth Element - make sure you get the latest version with Atmos
Lucy in Atmos - if you have the HKG or 4k disc

For DSU - try Denzel's Equaliser and Jurassic Park 4


----------



## williamwallace

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - is there a general conensus for what the top 3 Atmos action movies are that also look great. Basically looking for the top 3 to debut for a new Atmos theater launch night. Thanks!


Are you UHD capable? I'd put Lucy and Star Trek: Into Darkness into that list.


----------



## lovingdvd

Thanks guys - I'm keeping a running tally of the votes in my original post above.


----------



## cisco1982

smurraybhm said:


> Or you could have saved some time and accepted the EXPERT response you received from Sanjay
> 
> Welcome to AVS by the way, you were being helped by someone who has a great deal of knowledge regarding immersive sound codes. If you ever can read through the extensive threads on this subject you will see what I'm talking about.
> 
> P.S. Sanjay = sdurani


Of course Thank for your help! Don't mean to be rude, but as sdurani said there is a little conflict and I try to find out how it really works with Onkyo's recievers.

On the other hand i spoke a few guys who has Marantz processor with 5.1 speaker config, and they get Atmos too, when they play the proper soundtrack.

I know that the real Atmos is with height speakers. I heard a few Atmos system and they were amazing. I am at the point just understand my new reciever, but i don't have the chance to put 2 speakers on the ceiling where i live nowdays. My plan is when i move to my own flat i put speakers on ceiling in a year or so. 

Nowdays there is only 30-40 movie with atmos, and from that pack i only like 5-6 movie. For 5-6 movie i don't have the feeling i have to buy new speaker right now. 

I bought this new reciever just to replace the old onkyo sr806 and I chose this one to be a little bit future proof with 4k60p hdmi2.0 and atmos/dts:x. 

So if I get 5.1 speaker setup what i have to with or without atmos then it's fine. If i'll have ceiling speakers then i get atmos i know.

So thanks again for your kind help


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Thanx, but one of my assumptions appears to be conflicting with reality. Configuring for a traditional 7.1 layout should use the 7.1 downmix, not activate Atmos decoding. Unless this is something unique to Onkyo.
> 
> When consumer Atmos first showed up in 2014, I perused a couple of the Onkyo instruction manuals. They indicated that merely going beyond 5.1 speakers activated Atmos decoding. So if you had a 5.1 layout and added a pair of Heights or Wides or Rears, then Atmos decoding turned on. Since none of the other receiver manufacturers implemented Atmos this way, I thought the Onkyo manual might have been mistaken. But maybe not.




It would go with the information I got (from a Dolby guy), that Atmos (object decoding) kicks in with a minimum 7.1 configuration. Then I said that here and there was an avalanche of "nope". 


Needless to say, more confused than ever.


----------



## maikeldepotter

PeterTHX said:


> It would go with the information I got (from a Dolby guy), that Atmos (object decoding) kicks in with a minimum 7.1 configuration. Then I said that here and there was an avalanche of "nope".
> 
> Needless to say, more confused than ever.


If on a legacy 7.1 set-up you can hear no difference in sound between sending PCM (no Atmos decoding) or bitstream (possibly Atmos decoding) from your player to your Atmos enabled receiver/processor (what I would expect), this whole question becomes moot.


----------



## GreySkies

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - is there a general conensus for what the top 3 Atmos action movies (UHD/Blu-ray) are that also look great. Basically looking for the top 3 to debut for a new Atmos theater launch night. Also please list your favorite movies for DSU as well.
> 
> Thanks!


My favorites to demo—

Native Atmos
Mad Max 3D
The Fifth Element 

DSU
The Thing
Blade Runner


----------



## rontalley

Popping in here...Purchased a new home so my 7.2.4 went into the box and has been there for 3 months now. 

Had a plan to convert the bonus room to dedicated HT but for now it's being used as a bedroom until my youngest daughter goes off to college.

Have a den, stories, with a vaulted ceiling which is all open to the rest of the house, upstairs and downstairs....ARRRRGGGG!!!! 

3.1 is my current setup. 

I can't even sit down and watch a movie...it's just all bad. No 110" projector just a 65" LCD... NO NO NO NO NO!

I miss my Atmos and DTS-X so so so so so so so bad.

Enjoy it Fellaz.

Any ideas for this room?










This is where I was going to go originally but still don't like it.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> It would go with the information I got (from a Dolby guy), that Atmos (object decoding) kicks in with a minimum 7.1 configuration.


I've been told the opposite from Dolby reps, who have explained the pointlessness of doing a full Atmos decode (objects and all), only to then do a 7.1-channel downmix, when that downmix already exists in the track. Hence the explanation that Atmos decoding kicks in when you configure speakers for which there are no channels (i.e., have to be fed by objects). BTW, the current minimum Atmos layout is 2.0.2, revised from the original 5.1.2 requirement in order to accommodate soundbars and minimalist systems.


----------



## Molon_Labe

rontalley said:


> Any ideas for this room?


Soundbar? 


Beautiful house though - look at the bright side.


----------



## lujan

williamwallace said:


> Are you UHD capable? I'd put Lucy and Star Trek: Into Darkness into that list.


Yeah, I'm going to watch Star Trek: Into Darkness in Atmos tonight, can't wait!


----------



## petetherock

rontalley said:


> Popping in here...Purchased a new home so my 7.2.4 went into the box and has been there for 3 months now.
> 
> Had a plan to convert the bonus room to dedicated HT but for now it's being used as a bedroom until my youngest daughter goes off to college.
> 
> Have a den, stories, with a vaulted ceiling which is all open to the rest of the house, upstairs and downstairs....ARRRRGGGG!!!!
> 
> 3.1 is my current setup.
> 
> I can't even sit down and watch a movie...it's just all bad. No 110" projector just a 65" LCD... NO NO NO NO NO!
> 
> I miss my Atmos and DTS-X so so so so so so so bad.
> 
> Enjoy it Fellaz.
> 
> Any ideas for this room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I was going to go originally but still don't like it.


Given the slated ceiling, may I suggest looking at using Front And Rear HEIGHT positions, i.e. speakers fixed on the front and rear walls?
Lovely room, lots of potential despite the ceiling.
Of course if you can, adding a flat false ceiling will solve the issue too.. cheers


----------



## richlife

cisco1982 said:


> Of course Thank for your help! Don't mean to be rude, but as sdurani said there is a little conflict and I try to find out how it really works with Onkyo's recievers.
> 
> On the other hand i spoke a few guys who has Marantz processor with 5.1 speaker config, and they get Atmos too, when they play the proper soundtrack.
> 
> I know that the real Atmos is with height speakers. I heard a few Atmos system and they were amazing. I am at the point just understand my new reciever, but i don't have the chance to put 2 speakers on the ceiling where i live nowdays. My plan is when i move to my own flat i put speakers on ceiling in a year or so.
> 
> Nowdays there is only 30-40 movie with atmos, and from that pack i only like 5-6 movie. For 5-6 movie i don't have the feeling i have to buy new speaker right now.
> 
> I bought this new reciever just to replace the old onkyo sr806 and I chose this one to be a little bit future proof with 4k60p hdmi2.0 and atmos/dts:x.
> 
> So if I get 5.1 speaker setup what i have to with or without atmos then it's fine. If i'll have ceiling speakers then i get atmos i know.
> 
> So thanks again for your kind help


Just for you and me (and all the others facing a not necessarily perfect Atmos environment, while searching this morning I came upon this article (notice it's from AVS Forum): http://www.avsforum.com/ask-the-editors-are-dolby-atmos-enabled-speakers-special/ . Just what I was looking for and showed me that I'm on the right track. With the suggestions included, a few small tweaks may help me.

lovingdvd, the DSU part of your work is already done -- try this link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...w-do-your-favorite-legacy-blu-rays-sound.html .


----------



## rontalley

petetherock said:


> Given the slated ceiling, may I suggest looking at using Front And Rear HEIGHT positions, i.e. speakers fixed on the front and rear walls?
> Lovely room, lots of potential despite the ceiling.
> Of course if you can, adding a flat false ceiling will solve the issue too.. cheers


Yeah, 

I am more than likely going to buy 4 more matching surrounds and stick them up on the walls as heights for now... 

Build a couple of 18" Subs and call it wonderful until the wife officially gives me the dinning room then I'll have a good space for a HT!

This is the other side of the room:


















This is the dining room (maybe future HT):
Its about 20'x 18' with columns separating it from the formal living room.









Formal living room next to dining:









Unfortunately, it's all painting now and looks pretty damn good and things are looking bad for the HT...


----------



## petetherock

IMO, you don't need the whole area. In fact cordoning off a certain segment gives you a more immersive experience.
You also take less wattage to fill up the space, the surrounds and Atmos speakers can be placed at the right spots to give you the right spatial cues.
Too big a place and there will be gaps in the transition of sound from speaker to speaker..

Your HT room looks bigger than my home! You Yanks get really nice large spaces mate..


----------



## richlife

rontalley said:


> Yeah,
> 
> I am more than likely going to buy 4 more matching surrounds and stick them up on the walls as heights for now...
> 
> Build a couple of 18" Subs and call it wonderful until the wife officially gives me the dinning room then I'll have a good space for a HT!
> 
> ...
> 
> Unfortunately, it's all painting now and looks pretty damn good and things are looking bad for the HT...


Yeah, that vaulted room has lots to try and overcome! The biggest problem is most likely the huge opening to the rest of the house with a wall opposite. I've had to deal with two vaulted listening rooms (including my current space). In both cases, the best approach was to have the vaulted ceiling lift from in front to in back. You can actually set front height/presence speakers to reflect off of the angled ceiling to your listening position. (You're on your own for the rear heights.) To offset the big open space on the right (with the suggested orientation), you could mount some temporary heavy curtains on the left wall (maybe over the open space side too??) for damping factor. Otherwise, I can tell you that open space will suck sound. In my instance there is a door to my right which I must close or else my right front gets absorbed into that room. And that is just a door! Sound going out the back up those stairs makes for a huge open space which affects subwoofer impact, but probably won't hurt your overall sound quality all that badly.


----------



## sdurani

rontalley said:


> Any ideas for this room?


Centre the screen and speakers on the front wall, despite the off-set fireplace. First column on the right side looks like a good place for a Side speaker; copy placement on opposite wall. Carpet or heavy rugs in front of the L/C/R speakers. Pendant speakers overhead to even out height. Maybe hang a cloud (absorption and/or diffusion) to make reflections symmetrical across the front soundstage.


----------



## rontalley

petetherock said:


> IMO, you don't need the whole area. In fact cordoning off a certain segment gives you a more immersive experience.
> You also take less wattage to fill up the space, the surrounds and Atmos speakers can be placed at the right spots to give you the right spatial cues.
> Too big a place and there will be gaps in the transition of sound from speaker to speaker..
> 
> Your HT room looks bigger than my home! You Yanks get really nice large spaces mate..


I really don't wan't all the space for the HT!! The spiral stairs are a great way to save space and was thinking of building a wall off of them to enclose them 3/4 all the way around. However, this does not sit nicely with Wife! Might still consider it.

The double french doors to the day room are also in the room which causes another problem.

Pic of the day room:









Going to have to play with it in sketchup. Might consider putting in a loft above the den which would give me more sq.ft. in the house and a lower "flat and false ceiling in the den...

Either way, once you go Atmos, it's hard to except anything less!


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> Centre the screen and speakers on the front wall, despite the off-set fireplace. First column on the right side looks like a good place for a Side speaker; copy placement on opposite wall. Carpet or heavy rugs in front of the L/C/R speakers. Pendant speakers overhead to even out height. Maybe hang a cloud (absorption and/or diffusion) to make reflections symmetrical across the front soundstage.


You know what? I never even considered putting the screen on the fireplace wall! I've been planning for an angled slightly in the corner setup or on the wall with the spiral stairs...Hmmm

Screen just seemed like it would be too high over the fireplace and I know for the love of God, that my wife wouldn't allow me to cover it! Unless.....I do a motorized screen that only comes down for movie time and still have the TV angled slight in the corner with a soundbar or something...

You guys are freaking awesome!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rontalley said:


> You know what? I never even considered putting the screen on the fireplace wall! I've been planning for an angled slightly in the corner setup or on the wall with the spiral stairs...Hmmm
> 
> Screen just seemed like it would be too high over the fireplace and I know for the love of God, that my wife wouldn't allow me to cover it! Unless.....I do a motorized screen that only comes down for movie time and still have the TV angled slight in the corner with a soundbar or something...
> 
> You guys are freaking awesome!


Do you not have a basement?


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Your 3060 (and my 5100) have the ability to use Atmos/DTS:X with CinemaDSP.
> 
> The new ENHANCED dsp program is made from the ground up for immersive audio speaker layouts. I'm not sure all what changed as Yamaha never states what all is really going on with these programs.
> 
> It shouldn't disable. They are not mutually exclusive. They do two different things. Atmos and DTS:X are encode/decode system where as CinemaDSP is a room simulation algorithm.
> 
> I can't say for sure with the xx60's but until them, Yamaha applied ProLogic2x to any 2-6ch signal to get a 7.1 bottom layer and then simulate from there. What is known is that the xx60's dropped PL2x entirely. I wonder what is used when listening to CinemaDSP now. I would think it would be either DSU or Neural:X which were NOT available at all to use when listening to CinemaDSP on any older products that are not from this year.
> 
> On my system (5100 pre/pro) I can enable any dsp program with any signal. I can not use DSU or Neural:X and CinemaDSP at the same time though.





gwsat said:


> Scott -- I was parroting something I read in the 3060 manual. I don't think CinemaDSP HD3 is turned off but the HD3 part of the DSP is disabled in the presence of an Atmos signal. I could have misread it though. Will try to check it out later and will report what I find.


Scott -- Here is what the 3060 manual says about DSPs when native Atmos is being received: 

"*• (RX-A3060only)*
When the Dolby Atmos decoder is working, virtual surround processing (such as Virtual CINEMA FRONT) (p.80) does not work."

Have no idea whether that includes CinemaDSP HD3 or means that just that any front presence speakers present are disabled. ???

Here is what the 3060 manual has to say about CinemaDSP HD3:

"*CINEMA DSP HD3 (RX-A3060 only)*
“CINEMA DSP HD3” is Yamaha’s flagship 3D sound field playback technology that takes full advantage of the massive amount of acoustic reflection data included in the sound field data. With support for rear presence speaker output, it delivers more than twice as much capability for generating acoustic reflections as conventional CINEMA DSP 3D, in addition to high-frequency playback capability, delivering an utterly natural and powerful spatial sound field."

Alas, there is lot of hype but not too much information there.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It is saying that Virtual CINEMA FRONT (place five speakers all up front) is disabled. You are not using this function.

Basically it is saying that only your 3060 has HD3 processing as the 1060 and 2060 only have HD processing for CinemaDSP.


You can very much use CinemaDSP on top of Atmos and DTS:X with your 3060.


----------



## rontalley

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you not have a basement?


I wish!

In Indiana, majority of the home have basements but here in NC, they are not so popular. Looked and looked and looked for a suitable home with a basement and just couldn't check all of the boxes. If I had a basement, I would be the happiest man in the world! 3200 sq.ft. but still can't fit a pool table and struggling to find acceptable space for HT.


----------



## termite

Scott Simonian said:


> It is saying that Virtual CINEMA FRONT (place five speakers all up front) is disabled. You are not using this function.
> 
> Basically it is saying that only your 3060 has HD3 processing as the 1060 and 2060 only have HD processing for CinemaDSP.
> 
> 
> You can very much use CinemaDSP on top of Atmos and DTS:X with your 3060.




That's what I see on my 3060. Need to experiment more to see what sounds better though ..


----------



## sdurani

Seems Lionsgate is still doing immersive mixes specifically for home video. Their BD release of 'Swiss Army Man' was just announced with an Atmos track, even though the theatrical release didn't.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> It is saying that Virtual CINEMA FRONT (place five speakers all up front) is disabled. You are not using this function.
> 
> Basically it is saying that only your 3060 has HD3 processing as the 1060 and 2060 only have HD processing for CinemaDSP.
> 
> 
> You can very much use CinemaDSP on top of Atmos and DTS:X with your 3060.


Scott -- Thanks for you explanation. As noted earlier, I needed the help.



sdurani said:


> Seems Lionsgate is still doing immersive mixes specifically for home video. Their BD release of 'Swiss Army Man' was just announced with an Atmos track, even though the theatrical release didn't.


Sanjay -- That's good news indeed. When I bought in to the 7.1.4 world, I had no idea where it would go. Hope your report means that we might be getting more Atmos titles soon.


----------



## sdurani

gwsat said:


> Hope your report means that we might be getting more Atmos titles soon.


Atmos titles finally appear to be on a roll: 5 BD and 7 UHD releases next month alone.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> Seems Lionsgate is still doing immersive mixes specifically for home video. Their BD release of 'Swiss Army Man' was just announced with an Atmos track, even though the theatrical release didn't.




The farting is mixed to the overheads.


----------



## catonic

gwsat said:


> Scott -- Thanks for you explanation. As noted earlier, I needed the help.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanjay -- That's good news indeed. When I bought in to the 7.1.4 world, I had no idea where it would go. Hope your report means that we might be getting more Atmos titles soon.


Just need to add 2-3 more subs and you will really be cooking. 
Seriously, speaking from experience, adding some extra subs in different positions, after you have done a sub crawl, does make a huge improvement to the immersive experience.
Scott is onto something.


----------



## Scott Simonian




----------



## williamwallace

^^^ LOL! That is pretty much me when the wife let's me crank my Atmos system to -10db on a good sounding movie


----------



## showmak

GreySkies said:


> My favorites to demo—
> 
> 
> 
> Native Atmos
> 
> Mad Max 3D
> 
> The Fifth Element
> 
> 
> 
> DSU
> 
> The Thing
> 
> Blade Runner




Which "The Thing" 1982 or 2011?


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## GreySkies

showmak said:


> Which "The Thing" 1982 or 2011?


1982 - The opening helicopter scene was great with the DSU.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Native atmos: 13 hours. So far still my favorite atmos mix I've heard.

Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


----------



## Sekosche

Mrjmc99 said:


> Native atmos: 13 hours. So far still my favorite atmos mix I've heard.
> 
> Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV


How did I not notice the 13 Hours bluray had atmos? I guess because I installed my overheads after I watched it twice...great audio and powerful bass! I'll have to give this a 3peat.

It's a shame how many atmos theatrical releases never make it to the bluray. In the last couple months alone, I've purchased Hardcore Henry, Batman vs Superman, Deadpool, Kung Fu Panda 3, The Revenant, Star Was TFA, and more...sigh. All of these already have great audio tracks but getting the intended atmos experience should be expected for the money spent, no?


----------



## sdurani

Batman v Superman has Atmos (UHD & BD) and so does Deadpool (UHD).


----------



## AllenA07

sdurani said:


> Batman v Superman has Atmos (UHD & BD) and so does Deadpool (UHD).


Batman v Superman has a scene at the beginning of the movie that is probably the best example I've seen to date of what Atmos can do. Even my wife admitted being uncomfortable being surrounded by bats. It's one of those things where I think something would absolutely be lost without Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Pfft!

Atmos is just a gimmick and a ploy derived from speaker companies to sell you more speakers.


----------



## TheCoolDoc

AllenA07 said:


> Batman v Superman has a scene at the beginning of the movie that is probably the best example I've seen to date of what Atmos can do. Even my wife admitted being uncomfortable being surrounded by bats. It's one of those things where I think something would absolutely be lost without Atmos.


To me, the thunderous battle scene was pretty great. The choir-epic-evil music with thunder and rain everywhere and of course hell breaking loose was very immersive.

Atmos/DTS:X are more about immersion than "directional wows"


----------



## dolphinc

TheCoolDoc said:


> To me, the thunderous battle scene was pretty great. The choir-epic-evil music with thunder and rain everywhere and of course hell breaking loose was very immersive.
> 
> Atmos/DTS:X are more about immersion than "directional wows"


The scene


Spoiler



after Batman and Superman stop fighting and Bats takes off to save Martha, when he leaves in the Batjet, the overheads sound amazing.



Also The Wave has a really good Atmos track, my daughter and I were watching it and the scene


Spoiler



in the hotel after the wave came through when he is looking for his family, the building is making creeking sounds that come from the overheads


 my daughter and I both instinctively looked up.


----------



## nickbuol

Scott Simonian said:


> Pfft!
> 
> Atmos is just a gimmick and a ploy derived from speaker companies to sell you more speakers.


You sound like Gene (last name left out intentionally) with that comment.


----------



## lujan

dolphinc said:


> The scene
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> after Batman and Superman stop fighting and Bats takes off to save Martha, when he leaves in the Batjet, the overheads sound amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> Also The Wave has a really good Atmos track, my daughter and I were watching it and the scene
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> in the hotel after the wave came through when he is looking for his family, the building is making creeking sounds that come from the overheads
> 
> 
> my daughter and I both instinctively looked up.


Yes, I believe you're right as the audio was definitely better than the video on the 4k disc.


----------



## mobileES

Atmos drove me to 4K, I saw there were some studios that were putting the Atmos mix on the 4K movies only soooooooo I bought a few 4K titles 1st, then bought the UHD player, now just picked up the 65" Samsung. I think I'm done for now.....

The sound is really immersive, once you get a taste, that's it.


----------



## GreySkies

mobileES said:


> I think I'm done for now.....


HA! Yeah, right!


----------



## cisco1982

Next chapter 

This reciever has serious problem managing speakers at different speaker config.

Here you can follow. http://forum.eu.onkyo.com/viewtopic...71&sid=afbcd278bb5fb70902be38a38c573b81#p2871

I created a video too. When I set my speker config to 6.1, I lost my center based on the speaker leds on the reciever.


----------



## stikle

Onkyo is not the company they once were. I've owned three of them, and the last one, the flagship TX-NR929 had issues that were never resolved. I switched to Denon and will never go back. Everything just works.


----------



## lujan

stikle said:


> Onkyo is not the company they once were. I've owned three of them, and the last one, the flagship TX-NR929 had issues that were never resolved. I switched to Denon and will never go back. Everything just works.


I agree Denon is definitely better than Onkyo and especially the customer support from Denon.


----------



## cisco1982

stikle said:


> Onkyo is not the company they once were. I've owned three of them, and the last one, the flagship TX-NR929 had issues that were never resolved. I switched to Denon and will never go back. Everything just works.


I believe you, but Denon sounds different and i like how onkyo sounds. The other option is Pioneer but now they are the same...

I still hope they solve it with a fw upgrade, if not I will spend a lot of time to write my story and publish it everywhere I can. 

"Celebraiting 70 years" will be the title 

Surpisingly nobody wrote about this problem, or at least I cannot find it.


----------



## dolphinc

cisco1982 said:


> Next chapter
> 
> This reciever has serious problem managing speakers at different speaker config.
> 
> Here you can follow. http://forum.eu.onkyo.com/viewtopic...71&sid=afbcd278bb5fb70902be38a38c573b81#p2871
> 
> I created a video too. When I set my speker config to 6.1, I lost my center based on the speaker leds on the reciever.


Thats too bad. I recently purchased the Onkyo NX-757 and it has worked great and sounds fantastic. Could you just have a defective unit?


----------



## cisco1982

dolphinc said:


> Thats too bad. I recently purchased the Onkyo NX-757 and it has worked great and sounds fantastic. Could you just have a defective unit?


Onkyo is strange! When I look at the manual, I realise that at speakers led on the unit, there is no led for 6. channel in the middle, so maybe that is why it shows this, but it is so cheap...

It's not a bad unit phisically, because every channel works, but it's a defect of the firmware...I guess, but that's why I wrote to Onkyo


----------



## lovingdvd

GreySkies said:


> My favorites to demo—
> 
> Native Atmos
> Mad Max 3D
> The Fifth Element
> 
> DSU
> The Thing
> Blade Runner





GreySkies said:


> 1982 - The opening helicopter scene was great with the DSU.





Mrjmc99 said:


> Native atmos: 13 hours. So far still my favorite atmos mix I've heard.
> 
> Posted with my BlackBerry PRIV





AllenA07 said:


> Batman v Superman has a scene at the beginning of the movie that is probably the best example I've seen to date of what Atmos can do. Even my wife admitted being uncomfortable being surrounded by bats. It's one of those things where I think something would absolutely be lost without Atmos.





dolphinc said:


> The scene
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> after Batman and Superman stop fighting and Bats takes off to save Martha, when he leaves in the Batjet, the overheads sound amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> Also The Wave has a really good Atmos track, my daughter and I were watching it and the scene
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> in the hotel after the wave came through when he is looking for his family, the building is making creeking sounds that come from the overheads
> 
> 
> my daughter and I both instinctively looked up.


Thanks for the votes guys. The tallies have been updated here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761 

For those who haven't voted yet, please reply here and list your favorite native Atmos and/or DSU titles! Please @ mention me to make it easier for me to track.


----------



## usc1995

Hey LovingDVD,

In my opinion the best Atmos title I have heard is Everest. I swear the temperature in my room dropped below freezing when the winds kicked up in that movie. I also really enjoyed Gravity (Luxe Edition) and for DSU I thought Master and Commander sounded great. Have fun!


----------



## dvdwilly3

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the votes guys. The tallies have been updated here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761
> 
> For those who haven't voted yet, please reply here and list your favorite native Atmos and/or DSU titles! Please @ mention me to make it easier for me to track.


Native Atmos

Unbroken--the opening bombing run, in particular, ..."Flak! I hate flak!", but I love it!
Mad Max--all of it
Sicario--all of it
Gravity, of course
13 Hours
Deadpool, not for everyone, but the use of Atmos was excellent

DSU
Prometheus--all of it
Edge of Tomorrow--all of it
Blade Runner--all of it
The Thing (1982)--all of it, opening helicopter run in particular

I know that there are others that I have just not gotten around to re-watching...


----------



## gwsat

dvdwilly3 said:


> Native Atmos
> 
> Unbroken--the opening bombing run, in particular, ..."Flak! I hate flak!", but I love it!
> Mad Max--all of it
> Sicario--all of it
> Gravity, of course
> 13 Hours
> Deadpool, not for everyone, but the use of Atmos was excellent
> 
> DSU
> Prometheus--all of it
> Edge of Tomorrow--all of it
> Blade Runner--all of it
> The Thing (1982)--all of it, opening helicopter run in particular
> 
> I know that there are others that I have just not gotten around to re-watching...


I couldn't agree more about _Unbroken._ I watched my copy last night and the opening scene, with the B-24s flying overhead was sensational. Who says Atmos doesn’t make a difference?  

I will watch my copy of _Blade Runner_ again soon and see how it sounds with its native TrueHD 5.1 audio, matrixed with my Yamaha RX-V3060’s Enhanced CinemaDSP HD3 DSP. Let me add another title to the matrixing list: _The Hunger Games_. Its native DTS-HD MA 7.1 audiotrack provided a convincing Atmos effect when it was matrixed with my 3060's Enhanced CinemaDSP HD3 DSP.


----------



## Josh Z

dvdwilly3 said:


> DSU
> Edge of Tomorrow--all of it


The first big combat scene, with the aerial assault and the helicopters dropping out of the sky, is amazeballs with DSU.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> The first big combat scene, with the aerial assault and the helicopters dropping out of the sky, is amazeballs with DSU.


Josh — Thanks for the tip! I like _Edge of Tomorrow_ a lot. Now that I have my Atmos speakers and Yamaha RX-V3060, I may buy it and see how its DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio sounds when it is matrixed with my 3060’s Enhanced CinemaDSP HD3 DSP.


----------



## oldsteve

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the votes guys. The tallies have been updated here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761
> 
> For those who haven't voted yet, please reply here and list your favorite native Atmos and/or DSU titles! Please @ mention me to make it easier for me to track.


After looking at usc1995's favorites list I threw in the "Master and Commander Bluray". I was blown away by all the things going on at once. DSU definitely can make an impression!


----------



## Scott Simonian

EoT sounds even better in Neural:X, imho.

Sounded like a real 11.1ch mix...almost.


----------



## cdelena

It may not be type of movie most here like but the best DSU performance I have heard is from 'Into the Woods'.


----------



## showmak

GreySkies said:


> 1982 - The opening helicopter scene was great with the DSU.



I also found the opening scene of Terminator Salvation in N:X has some cool actions.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

A left field suggestion:

Band of Brothers has an amazing soundtrack.. it's 'only' DTS-MA 5.1 but what a soundtrack! Be it DSU or Neural X, you will want to watch all ten episodes again, even the last poignant, non action one. Each bullet flies and is traced in many speakers, you will swear that it was DTS-X or Atmos!

Enjoy and relive the WWII movie of our generation.


----------



## lovingdvd

usc1995 said:


> Hey LovingDVD,
> 
> In my opinion the best Atmos title I have heard is Everest. I swear the temperature in my room dropped below freezing when the winds kicked up in that movie. I also really enjoyed Gravity (Luxe Edition) and for DSU I thought Master and Commander sounded great. Have fun!





dvdwilly3 said:


> Native Atmos
> 
> Unbroken--the opening bombing run, in particular, ..."Flak! I hate flak!", but I love it!
> Mad Max--all of it
> Sicario--all of it
> Gravity, of course
> 13 Hours
> Deadpool, not for everyone, but the use of Atmos was excellent
> 
> DSU
> Prometheus--all of it
> Edge of Tomorrow--all of it
> Blade Runner--all of it
> The Thing (1982)--all of it, opening helicopter run in particular
> 
> I know that there are others that I have just not gotten around to re-watching...





gwsat said:


> I couldn't agree more about _Unbroken._ I watched my copy last night and the opening scene, with the B-24s flying overhead was sensational. Who says Atmos doesn’t make a difference?
> 
> I will watch my copy of _Blade Runner_ again soon and see how it sounds with its native TrueHD 5.1 audio, matrixed with my Yamaha RX-V3060’s Enhanced CinemaDSP HD3 DSP. Let me add another title to the matrixing list: _The Hunger Games_. Its native DTS-HD MA 7.1 audiotrack provided a convincing Atmos effect when it was matrixed with my 3060's Enhanced CinemaDSP HD3 DSP.





Josh Z said:


> The first big combat scene, with the aerial assault and the helicopters dropping out of the sky, is amazeballs with DSU.





oldsteve said:


> After looking at usc1995's favorites list I threw in the "Master and Commander Bluray". I was blown away by all the things going on at once. DSU definitely can make an impression!





Scott Simonian said:


> EoT sounds even better in Neural:X, imho.
> 
> Sounded like a real 11.1ch mix...almost.





cdelena said:


> It may not be type of movie most here like but the best DSU performance I have heard is from 'Into the Woods'.





showmak said:


> I also found the opening scene of Terminator Salvation in N:X has some cool actions.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk





petetherock said:


> A left field suggestion:
> 
> Band of Brothers has an amazing soundtrack.. it's 'only' DTS-MA 5.1 but what a soundtrack! Be it DSU or Neural X, you will want to watch all ten episodes again, even the last poignant, non action one. Each bullet flies and is traced in many speakers, you will swear that it was DTS-X or Atmos!
> 
> Enjoy and relive the WWII movie of our generation.


Thanks for the additional votes guys. The latest results have been updated here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761.

Guys if you have not voted please do so by replying here and listing your top favorite native and DSU/N:X upmixes.

Regarding Everest - I haven't seen this at home yet (system still a few weeks from completion) but I did see it in Atmos in the theater and it was the best Atmos presentation I've experienced yet (out of 5 or so). When I saw this movie I thought to myself man I sure hope this comes out on Blu-ray in Atmos one day so I can watch it at home. Glad to hear its available.


----------



## farmersagent046

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the additional votes guys. The latest results have been updated here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761.
> 
> Guys if you have not voted please do so by replying here and listing your top favorite native and DSU/N:X upmixes.
> 
> Regarding Everest - I haven't seen this at home yet (system still a few weeks from completion) but I did see it in Atmos in the theater and it was the best Atmos presentation I've experienced yet (out of 5 or so). When I saw this movie I thought to myself man I sure hope this comes out on Blu-ray in Atmos one day so I can watch it at home. Glad to hear its available.


Everest should definitely be one of your show off your system movies. It is TOTALLY immersive. With the wind whipping, snow flying, thunder roaring you get battered on all sides relentlessly. Had my Mom over one evening to watch it and at one point she jerked her legs up off the floor and made me stop the movie to ask me if I had speakers UNDER the sofa because she thought she heard snow crunching under her feet when someone was walking in the movie. I said no Mom, no speakers under the sofa, just 7.2.4 Atmos at your service!


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> Batman v Superman has Atmos (UHD & BD) .


Being "Warner" (and not Lions "for"gate) , I presume the redbox rental BD should have Atmos as well.


----------



## gonzlobo

sdurani said:


> Batman v Superman has Atmos (UHD & BD) and so does Deadpool (UHD).


Rented the BR disk from Redbox (it has atmos).


----------



## aaranddeeman

gonzlobo said:


> Rented the BR disk from Redbox (it has atmos).


Thanks for confirming.


----------



## showmak

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the votes guys. The tallies have been updated here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761
> 
> 
> 
> For those who haven't voted yet, please reply here and list your favorite native Atmos and/or DSU titles! Please @ mention me to make it easier for me to track.



Oh, you need to add to the top of the List, The Lone Survivor in N:X. Amazing up mixing.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

@lovingdvd

Atmos (overall effect)
-Lucy
-Gravity
-The Fifth Element
(Haven't gotten Everest or Batman -v- Superman yet)

Atmos (for music)
-Roger Waters The Wall
-Man From U.N.C.L.E

DSU (for BluRay)
-The Equalizer
-Edge of Tomorrow
-Prometheus
-Le Mans (7.1 DTS-MA BluRay)
(I shared my thoughts here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/1846121-dolby-surround-how-do-your-favorite-legacy-blu-rays-sound-9.html#post41969585)

DSU for TV (DirecTV 5.1 DD)
-Ash vs Evil Dead


----------



## PeterTHX

Looks like the new Onkyo RZ3100 doesn't support DSU for DTS formats.


----------



## leedesert

I'm hearing a lot of reviews stating how good the Atmos sounds but no one is verifying the movie is actually using Atmos to create that sound. I listened to several of the top Atmos BD's and while they do sound great there is very little Atmos (height) sound coming from the height speakers. When I say very little I mean maybe 30 seconds of height effects in the whole movie.

I would like to see some reviews that actually test the height speaker content.


----------



## davehale

leedesert said:


> I'm hearing a lot of reviews stating how good the Atmos sounds but no one is verifying the movie is actually using Atmos to create that sound. I listened to several of the top Atmos BD's and while they do sound great there is very little Atmos (height) sound coming from the height speakers. When I say very little I mean maybe 30 seconds of height effects in the whole movie.
> 
> I would like to see some reviews that actually test the height speaker content.


Not sure which sites you are using but maybe this will help
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...u-ray-has-come-avs-forum-blu-ray-reviews.html


----------



## leedesert

davehale said:


> Not sure which sites you are using but maybe this will help
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...u-ray-has-come-avs-forum-blu-ray-reviews.html


No, its the same as the rest. I know they evaluate atmos and other codecs but none of them actually measure the use of the height speakers, which is what makes atmos.

An example is San Andrea's. Everyone who reviewed this movie raved on the atmos sound track. When you actually listen to the atmos speakers there was no more than 15 seconds of actual speaker use. The ears can be fooled to associate a sounds direction by where the eyes tell them the sound should be. My point is how much of this is actual atmos content vs. a really good surround track.


----------



## deano86

leedesert said:


> No, its the same as the rest. I know they evaluate atmos and other codecs but none of them actually measure the use of the height speakers, which is what makes atmos.
> 
> An example is San Andrea's. Everyone who reviewed this movie raved on the atmos sound track. When you actually listen to the atmos speakers there was no more than 15 seconds of actual speaker use. The ears can be fooled to associate a sounds direction by where the eyes tell them the sound should be. My point is how much of this is actual atmos content vs. a really good surround track.


I think you are missing the point of Atmos soundtracks... they have the ability to "place" sounds in the surround field with the help of height speakers... It's not just about hearing a bunch of sound from the heights all the time... Sounds can be placed anywhere using the other speakers as well... Yes, I agree.... the opening scene in San Andreas is strangely absent of much activity directly from the height speakers.... especially when what is happening on screen would seem to call for it. But, from that scene on, they are used quite effectively by placing the sound objects throughout the surround field.. Some Atmos mixes have more activity than others coming from the heights and not all Atmos mixes are a home run... but I don't think you can purely evaluate it based on how much your attention is drawn upwards to your height or top speakers.


----------



## leedesert

deano86 said:


> I think you are missing the point of Atmos soundtracks... they have the ability to "place" sounds in the surround field with the help of height speakers... It's not just about hearing a bunch of sound from the heights all the time... Sounds can be placed anywhere using the other speakers as well... Yes, I agree.... the opening scene in San Andreas is strangely absent of much activity directly from the height speakers.... especially when what is happening on screen would seem to call for it. But, from that scene on, they are used quite effectively by placing the sound objects throughout the surround field.. Some Atmos mixes have more activity than others coming from the heights and not all Atmos mixes are a home run... but I don't think you can purely evaluate it based on how much your attention is drawn upwards to your height or top speakers.



What I'm saying is I'd like to see evaluations that not only evaluate the surround experience but how much of the sound field is actually being created by the channels. For instance, when a helicopter flys overhead is the atmos height speakers creating the sound effect or is it trickery by the surround timing.
Using San Andreas as an example, the total time the atmos speakers were active is less than 15 seconds. I listened to the height speakers through the whole movie and the only time the really came to life was during glass breaking toward the end of the movie. The other obvious places you would expect the height speakers to place sound overhead the height speakers were silent. To me, what may be a great surround movie is realistically a bad atmos movie.

I enjoy the atmos movies either way but I think if a movie is actually encoded in Atmos we should evaluate it differently than a normal surround track.


----------



## audiofan1

leedesert said:


> What I'm saying is I'd like to see evaluations that not only evaluate the surround experience but how much of the sound field is actually being created by the channels. For instance, when a helicopter flys overhead is the atmos height speakers creating the sound effect or is it trickery by the surround timing.
> Using San Andreas as an example, the total time the atmos speakers were active is less than 15 seconds. I listened to the height speakers through the whole movie and the only time the really came to life was during glass breaking toward the end of the movie. The other obvious places you would expect the height speakers to place sound overhead the height speakers were silent. To me, what may be a great surround movie is realistically a bad atmos movie.
> 
> I enjoy the atmos movies either way but I think if a movie is actually encoded in Atmos we should evaluate it differently than a normal surround track.


Not sure why it should be evaluated differently as its about the cinematic experience above all else. I came from 5.1 to 7.1.4 and skipped over 6.1 and 7.1 due to feeling my surround field was covered due to good di/bi-pole placement. When you consider even in the days of legacy codec's one could argue about the lite use of surround channels as well and even more noise came from the 7.1 camp. I've seen just about every Atmos disc to date and I went in with the expectation of better placement of effects (better termed objects now) with in the sound field and I'm still enjoying the honeymoon as my cinematic experience is far better than I anticipated. If you want to hear some good use of the height channels with in a mix,two recent standouts would be Batman Vs. Superman and 10 Clover field Lane

Check out some of Ralph Potts reviews of movies with Atmos/DTS :X content as he does include them when available

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


----------



## lovingdvd

farmersagent046 said:


> Everest should definitely be one of your show off your system movies. It is TOTALLY immersive. With the wind whipping, snow flying, thunder roaring you get battered on all sides relentlessly. Had my Mom over one evening to watch it and at one point she jerked her legs up off the floor and made me stop the movie to ask me if I had speakers UNDER the sofa because she thought she heard snow crunching under her feet when someone was walking in the movie. I said no Mom, no speakers under the sofa, just 7.2.4 Atmos at your service!





showmak said:


> Oh, you need to add to the top of the List, The Lone Survivor in N:X. Amazing up mixing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk





ALtlOff said:


> @lovingdvd
> 
> Atmos (overall effect)
> -Lucy
> -Gravity
> -The Fifth Element
> (Haven't gotten Everest or Batman -v- Superman yet)
> 
> Atmos (for music)
> -Roger Waters The Wall
> -Man From U.N.C.L.E
> 
> DSU (for BluRay)
> -The Equalizer
> -Edge of Tomorrow
> -Prometheus
> -Le Mans (7.1 DTS-MA BluRay)
> (I shared my thoughts here:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/1846121-dolby-surround-how-do-your-favorite-legacy-blu-rays-sound-9.html#post41969585)
> 
> DSU for TV (DirecTV 5.1 DD)
> -Ash vs Evil Dead


Thanks guys. I really like the addition of the TV and music categories. If you haven't voted, please reply here to do so. Also let's get some more votes in for TV shows and music! Updated voting results here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761


----------



## shyyour

audiofan1 said:


> Not sure why it should be evaluated differently as its about the cinematic experience above all else. I came from 5.1 to 7.1.4 and skipped over 6.1 and 7.1 due to feeling my surround field was covered due to good di/bi-pole placement. When you consider even in the days of legacy codec's one could argue about the lite use of surround channels as well and even more noise came from the 7.1 camp. I've seen just about every Atmos disc to date and I went in with the expectation of better placement of effects (better termed objects now) with in the sound field and I'm still enjoying the honeymoon as my cinematic experience is far better than I anticipated. If you want to hear some good use of the height channels with in a mix,two recent standouts would be Batman Vs. Superman and 10 Clover field Lane
> 
> Check out some of Ralph Potts reviews of movies with Atmos/DTS :X content as he does include them when available
> 
> http://http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


+1 for Batman Vs. Superman & 10 Cloverfield lane. I jumped during some of the last scenes on 10 Cloverfield lane


----------



## shortspecialbus

I recently upgraded from a 5.2.2 setup running on a Denon AVR-S710W to a 7.2.4 setup powered (mostly) by a Marantz SR6011, with the Denon on temporary rear ceiling speaker duty until I can get a 2 channel amp and sell the Denon since it's wasted on that.

Holy cow, is it a ton better! I have the Klipsch Upward-Firing Atmos speakers on top of my towers, and they were nice, but often didn't really sound like they were making noise above me. Adding the rear ceiling speakers has made a HUGE difference. Not to mention having Surround Back speakers again.

To anyone underwhelmed by Atmos, it really does help to have a ton of speakers, and I suspect ceiling-mounting speakers is going to sound better even with only 2 versus the front dolby speakers.

Extremely happy with this upgrade.


----------



## helvetica bold

The Marantz SR6011 is the newest 9 channels AVR, correct? Sounds like you're happy with it? I'm keeping an eye on that system. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shortspecialbus

rontalley said:


> You know what? I never even considered putting the screen on the fireplace wall! I've been planning for an angled slightly in the corner setup or on the wall with the spiral stairs...Hmmm
> 
> Screen just seemed like it would be too high over the fireplace and I know for the love of God, that my wife wouldn't allow me to cover it! Unless.....I do a motorized screen that only comes down for movie time and still have the TV angled slight in the corner with a soundbar or something...
> 
> You guys are freaking awesome!


I had my screen over a fireplace at my old apartment before we bought a house and I was given the basement. It wasn't bad when you got used to it, which took about a week. It was actually really disconcerting when after 2 years of that I had my TV at a normal height again - I had to consciously look down (again, for about a week.)

It can be mildly awkward but if you have a decent couch it won't kill your neck. Angle it slightly downward. A word of warning - the studs around the fireplace were incredibly whack and not normal spacing for me. You may have a similar situation - be sure to check very carefully for studs at the exact spots you wanted to drill. I don't know what they had going on in the wall but it wasn't spaced normal and many of the studs didn't go the full length. I had to be creative.


----------



## shortspecialbus

helvetica bold said:


> The Marantz SR6011 is the newest 9 channels AVR, correct? Sounds like you're happy with it? I'm keeping an eye on that system.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's 9.2 but supports 11.2 via preamp outputs. I'm powering 9 with the Marantz and 2 temporarily with a Denon until I sell it and replace it with a 2 channel amp. I'm very happy with it (at least over the first 5 days or whatever) and would definitely recommend it.


----------



## Josh Z

deano86 said:


> Some Atmos mixes have more activity than others coming from the heights and not all Atmos mixes are a home run... but I don't think you can purely evaluate it based on how much your attention is drawn upwards to your height or top speakers.


I also don't think he should cast judgment on the entire Atmos format based on listening to just one poor Atmos mix.


----------



## Scott Simonian

leedesert said:


> What I'm saying is I'd like to see evaluations that not only evaluate the surround experience but how much of the sound field is actually being created by the channels. For instance, when a helicopter flys overhead is the atmos height speakers creating the sound effect or is it trickery by the surround timing.
> Using San Andreas as an example, the total time the atmos speakers were active is less than 15 seconds. I listened to the height speakers through the whole movie and the only time the really came to life was during glass breaking toward the end of the movie. The other obvious places you would expect the height speakers to place sound overhead the height speakers were silent. To me, what may be a great surround movie is realistically a bad atmos movie.
> 
> I enjoy the atmos movies either way but I think if a movie is actually encoded in Atmos we should evaluate it differently than a normal surround track.


I do this at home. I'll watch all (or most) of a new Atmos movie with just the overhead speakers playing with everything else muted.


----------



## zeus33

gwsat said:


> I have a Kaleidescape Strato and bought the digital copy from the Kscape Store.



Bad news for those of you using Kaleidescape: 

*Kaleidescape's high-end movie player business shuts down*


----------



## Scott Simonian

I still can't believe that happened.


----------



## lujan

zeus33 said:


> Bad news for those of you using Kaleidescape:
> 
> *Kaleidescape's high-end movie player business shuts down*


I think that the same thing will happen to Vidity of which I bought several movies because you download those as well. I'm also not sure how long Ultraflix will be in business because of the lack of support with that company.


----------



## gwsat

zeus33 said:


> Bad news for those of you using Kaleidescape:
> 
> *Kaleidescape's high-end movie player business shuts down*





Scott Simonian said:


> I still can't believe that happened.


It's real all right. We Kscape owners learned the bad news on Saturday. Ever since I learned of the company's failure, I have been downloading as many films as possible from the Kscape Movie Store but in the last few minutes even my downloads have stopped. We are a sad bunch, to say the least.


----------



## KennyLSU

Spoiler






lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - is there a general conensus for what the top 3 Atmos action movies (UHD/Blu-ray) are that also look great. Basically looking for the top 3 to debut for a new Atmos theater launch night. Also please list your favorite movies for DSU as well.
> 
> I am keeping a running total based on responses, updating this post as they come in. Results so far:
> 
> (Vote count) Title
> ==========
> 
> 
> *NATIVE ATMOS:*
> 
> (3) Everest
> (3) Batman v Superman
> (3) Mad Max
> (3) Lucy in Atmos
> (3) Fifth Element (latest version with Atmos)
> (3) Gravity
> (2) 13 Hours
> (2) Unbroken
> (1) John Wick
> (1) Star Trek: Into Darkness
> (1) The Wave
> (1) Sicario
> (1) Deadpool
> 
> 
> *DSU or Neural:X*
> 
> (3) The Thing (1982)
> (3) Edge of Tomorrow (with a vote for Neural:X)
> (2) Blade Runner
> (2) Master and Commander
> (2) Prometheus
> (1) Lone Surivor (Neural:X)
> (1) Denzel's Equaliser
> (1) Jurassic Park 4
> (1) Into the Woods
> (1) Terminator Salvation (Neural:X)
> (1) Band of Brothers
> (1) The Equalizer
> (1) Le Mans (7.1 DTS-MA BluRay)
> 
> 
> *DSU for TV*
> 
> (1) Ash vs Evil Dead
> 
> 
> *Music*
> 
> (1) Roger Waters The Wall
> (1) Man From U.N.C.L.E






My votes:
Atmos
Mad Max - All of it
Everest - Storm 
Gravity - Opening Scene

DSU
Jurassic World
Master and Commander - DVD
Guardians of the Galaxy

DSU - TV
Daredevil - Netflix


----------



## oldsteve

KennyLSU said:


> My votes:
> Atmos
> Mad Max - All of it
> Everest - Storm
> Gravity - Opening Scene
> 
> DSU
> Jurassic World
> Master and Commander - DVD
> Guardians of the Galaxy
> 
> DSU - TV
> Daredevil - Netflix


I forgot all about Guardians of the Galaxy using DSU. It has a very active sound track.


----------



## humbland

audiofan1 said:


> Not sure why it should be evaluated differently as its about the cinematic experience above all else. I came from 5.1 to 7.1.4 and skipped over 6.1 and 7.1 due to feeling my surround field was covered due to good di/bi-pole placement. When you consider even in the days of legacy codec's one could argue about the lite use of surround channels as well and even more noise came from the 7.1 camp. I've seen just about every Atmos disc to date and I went in with the expectation of better placement of effects (better termed objects now) with in the sound field and I'm still enjoying the honeymoon as my cinematic experience is far better than I anticipated. If you want to hear some good use of the height channels with in a mix,two recent standouts would be Batman Vs. Superman and 10 Clover field Lane
> 
> Check out some of Ralph Potts reviews of movies with Atmos/DTS :X content as he does include them when available
> 
> http://http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


Bad link to the Ralph Potts reviews. Can someone please re-post it?

Also, I posted this question in another thread, it might be more appropriate here.
Please excuse if it's been asked before:

We have a Pioneer SC-97. No DTS-X decoding (yet).
What happens when you apply DSU upmixing to a DTS-MA codex? 
Is it as if you had a DTS-X soundfield? Are all 7.1.4 speakers active?
Thanks


----------



## batpig

The same thing that happens when you apply DSU to any 5.1 or 7.1 signal. It upmixes extra channels. DTS is just a "container" for the soundtrack, it's not going to turn our differently than if it used an equivalent Dolby container (ie TrueHD).


----------



## tcramer

If any of you Atmos experts have a few minutes to spare, I'd greatly appreciate some input on this thread I created.

I'm wondering if Atmos is feasible in this space or if I'm crazy for even thinking about it. See post 3 for a possible solution...or maybe that would simply be a waste.

Thanks!


----------



## audiofan1

humbland said:


> Bad link to the Ralph Potts reviews. Can someone please re-post it?
> 
> Also, I posted this question in another thread, it might be more appropriate here.
> Please excuse if it's been asked before:
> 
> We have a Pioneer SC-97. No DTS-X decoding (yet).
> What happens when you apply DSU upmixing to a DTS-MA codex?
> Is it as if you had a DTS-X soundfield? Are all 7.1.4 speakers active?
> Thanks


 Link fixed on my original post but just in case

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/


----------



## lovingdvd

shyyour said:


> +1 for Batman Vs. Superman & 10 Cloverfield lane. I jumped during some of the last scenes on 10 Cloverfield lane





KennyLSU said:


> My votes:
> Atmos
> Mad Max - All of it
> Everest - Storm
> Gravity - Opening Scene
> 
> DSU
> Jurassic World
> Master and Commander - DVD
> Guardians of the Galaxy
> 
> DSU - TV
> Daredevil - Netflix


Thanks for the votes guys. I really enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy in the theaters. Glad to hear it sounds great with DSU. Look forward to trying that out.

Latest voting results are here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761 . If you haven't already voted please do so by replying here.


----------



## smurraybhm

KennyLSU said:


> DSU - TV
> Daredevil - Netflix


I would second Kenny's nomination for Daredevil - especially Season 1 which was mixed by our very own FilmMixer. I was going to stay out of the voting, personally I think it would be easier to vote on movies that don't sound better. I can find value in every Atmos mix I own and DSU has enhanced my listening experience with everything except for music. 

DSU movies - Maze Runner - you may not like the movie but DSU does an excellent job with the sound. A recent Netflix release that I blew through quickly last week that I would add to the DSU TV list - Stranger Things. Great show if you haven't watched it. The night time scenes will test how well your display handles black/shadow details.


----------



## Josh Z

humbland said:


> What happens when you apply DSU upmixing to a DTS-MA codex?
> Is it as if you had a DTS-X soundfield? Are all 7.1.4 speakers active?
> Thanks





batpig said:


> The same thing that happens when you apply DSU to any 5.1 or 7.1 signal. It upmixes extra channels. DTS is just a "container" for the soundtrack, it's not going to turn our differently than if it used an equivalent Dolby container (ie TrueHD).


I might clarify here that some receiver models may still suffer from the "No cross-pollination" issue, where they don't allow DSU to be applied to DTS codecs and don't allow Neural:X to be applied to Dolby codecs. If that's the case, the workaround is to switch the audio output on the Blu-ray player to PCM decoding until the manufacturer issues a firmware update to resolve this programming error.


----------



## Ted99

I remember reading an earlier post regarding using atmos speakers with folded ribbon tweeters. How suitable are these for height vs. top atmos speakers?


----------



## jrogers

Ted99 said:


> I remember reading an earlier post regarding using atmos speakers with folded ribbon tweeters. How suitable are these for height vs. top atmos speakers?


In my experience, as someone using high velocity folded ribbon tweeters in both top and height speakers, they work great for both.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ted99 said:


> I remember reading an earlier post regarding using atmos speakers with folded ribbon tweeters. How suitable are these for height vs. top atmos speakers?


Depends on the ultimate design of both the speaker in whole and the "ribbon" tweeter.

By their nature, ribbon tweeters have poor vertical dispersion. They tend to have a very wide horizontal dispersion but a laser-like vertical dispersion. This can be a good thing in certain circumstances and/or setup. However, for overhead speakers, I don't think they will have the best coverage over a broad listening area. 

If you're like most of us with a small room and a small listening area, you'll probably be just fine. Otherwise, I'd avoid and use speaker systems with uniform dispersion for the best coverage over a wide seating area.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> I might clarify here that some receiver models may still suffer from the "No cross-pollination" issue, where they don't allow DSU to be applied to DTS codecs and don't allow Neural:X to be applied to Dolby codecs. If that's the case, the workaround is to switch the audio output on the Blu-ray player to PCM decoding until the manufacturer issues a firmware update to resolve this programming error.


True, but note that this may soon be a moot point as D+M has started rolling out a fix for the cross-pollination restriction. Some models have already received it and within a few months the whole lineup will be done.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> True, but note that this may soon be a moot point as D+M has started rolling out a fix for the cross-pollination restriction. Some models have already received it and within a few months the whole lineup will be done.


Oh cool! So now there are some Denon (and Marantz?) products that no longer have that problem? If so, that's great news!


----------



## batpig

Yes, they're rolling out firmware (started last week) that adds DTS:X / Neural:X to the lower level models that haven't received it, correcting the cross-pollination upmix thing, and also fixing a broken Pandora thing. They are first tackling the lower level models which don't have any DTS:X, and then in Nov/Dec they are going to address the higher level models which already have DTS:X (and only need the cross-upmix patch). So hopefully by end of 2016 all D+M models that support it will have DTS:X and be able to cross-upmix.


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on the ultimate design of both the speaker in whole and the "ribbon" tweeter.
> 
> By their nature, ribbon tweeters have poor vertical dispersion. They tend to have a very wide horizontal dispersion but a laser-like vertical dispersion. This can be a good thing in certain circumstances and/or setup. However, for overhead speakers, I don't think they will have the best coverage over a broad listening area.
> 
> If you're like most of us with a small room and a small listening area, you'll probably be just fine. Otherwise, I'd avoid and use speaker systems with uniform dispersion for the best coverage over a wide seating area.


Thanks. So, with my 12' x 15'(deep) room, using FH and RH at the 9' ceiling/wall joint and pointing the speakers at the 2-seat MLP, the new Emotiva folded tweeter surround speakers will have a good horizontal dispersion to the two seats and the narrow vertical dispersion is acceptable because of the single row? The laser-like vertical dispersion should be very helpful in minimizing stray room reflections since they will be aimed at soft chairs and bodies (lol).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well, it will contain the vertical dispersion which would be ceiling and floor. Those are helpful reflections for an overhead speaker, imo. The speaker will still splash the whole room side to side with sound. Imho, not ideal but workable.

I'm sure you'd be okay. Just not the most optimal choice, I think.


----------



## humbland

batpig said:


> Yes, they're rolling out firmware (started last week) that adds DTS:X / Neural:X to the lower level models that haven't received it, correcting the cross-pollination upmix thing, and also fixing a broken Pandora thing. They are first tackling the lower level models which don't have any DTS:X, and then in Nov/Dec they are going to address the higher level models which already have DTS:X (and only need the cross-upmix patch). So hopefully by end of 2016 all D+M models that support it will have DTS:X and be able to cross-upmix.


What about Pioneer? We have an SC-97. Is there any way clear way to tell if DSU is working on the DTS tracks?


----------



## batpig

humbland said:


> What about Pioneer? We have an SC-97. Is there any way clear way to tell if DSU is working on the DTS tracks?


Sorry, don't know much about the intricacies of Pioneer AVR's. Any modern receiver however should have info/status screens that will clearly display the input signal and surround format output).


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Well, it will contain the vertical dispersion which would be ceiling and floor. Those are helpful reflections for an overhead speaker, imo. The speaker will still splash the whole room side to side with sound. Imho, not ideal but workable.
> 
> I'm sure you'd be okay. Just not the most optimal choice, I think.


OK. So I should just stick with the 5" cones and 1" soft dome tweeters aimed at the MLP at -45 degrees altitude and +/- 30 degrees toe in I have now.


----------



## usc1995

humbland said:


> What about Pioneer? We have an SC-97. Is there any way clear way to tell if DSU is working on the DTS tracks?


I have an SC-95. The Pioneer works great applying DSU to DTS tracks. Just hit the surround button until it shows Dolby Surround in the window and you are good to go.


----------



## howard68

Hi I have just thought the UHD version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and cannot get it to play the Dolby Atmos track I am using a Philips UHD player has anybody has had any issues


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ted99 said:


> OK. So I should just stick with the 5" cones and 1" soft dome tweeters aimed at the MLP at -45 degrees altitude and +/- 30 degrees toe in I have now.


Oh... use whatever you like. I was just commenting how how and why ribbon tweeter based speakers for heights maybe isn't the best choice.

Use them if you like and let us know! Or maybe you can get what you have for surrounds now and use the same speakers for your overheads. Possible?


----------



## Selden Ball

howard68 said:


> Hi I have just thought the UHD version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and cannot get it to play the Dolby Atmos track I am using a Philips UHD player has anybody has had any issues


Make sure that you have the audio feature "secondary audio mix" disabled. It's on by default and defeats bitstreaming, preventing Atmos metadata from getting through. On the Philips player, that's called Digital Audio Output -> BD-Video Secondary Audio. By default it's On. You must turn it Off. See page 39 of the Philips UHD player's owner's manual.


----------



## humbland

usc1995 said:


> I have an SC-95. The Pioneer works great applying DSU to DTS tracks. Just hit the surround button until it shows Dolby Surround in the window and you are good to go.


Thanks


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Oh... use whatever you like. I was just commenting how how and why ribbon tweeter based speakers for heights maybe isn't the best choice.
> 
> Use them if you like and let us know! Or maybe you can get what you have for surrounds now and use the same speakers for your overheads. Possible?


I have Polks all around, now,with speakers in place for a 9.3.6 setup. I'm slaving wides (60 deg) to the side surrounds (120 deg) and TM to the FH until more channels/objects are available in a pre-pro. But, my FH and RH speakers are very low end (see sig) and I was curious about the new Emotiva surrounds with folded tweeters as a substitute.


----------



## ggsantafe

Ted99 said:


> I have Polks all around, now,with speakers in place for a 9.3.6 setup. I'm slaving wides (60 deg) to the side surrounds (120 deg) and TM to the FH until more channels/objects are available in a pre-pro. But, my FH and RH speakers are very low end (see sig) and I was curious about the new Emotiva surrounds with folded tweeters as a substitute.


I'm also using the Polk T-15 for TF & RB and they seem to do a very good job as overhead Atmos speakers. Last night we were watching "Stranger Things" on Netflix and during a thunderstorm scene my wife asked if the storm was outside or on the screen.


----------



## dolphinc

Ted99 said:


> I have Polks all around, now,with *speakers in place for a 9.3.6 setup*. I'm slaving wides (60 deg) to the side surrounds (120 deg) and TM to the FH until more channels/objects are available in a pre-pro. But, my FH and RH speakers are very low end (see sig) and I was curious about the new Emotiva surrounds with folded tweeters as a substitute.


I bow to you sir.


----------



## Ted99

ggsantafe said:


> I'm also using the Polk T-15 for TF & RB and they seem to do a very good job as overhead Atmos speakers. Last night we were watching "Stranger Things" on Netflix and during a thunderstorm scene my wife asked if the storm was outside or on the screen.


Same here and same show. I am not dissatisfied with the T-15 or the CS-1 centers I used for the TF, just always looking for something to upgrade--it's a disease! The centers solved a problem with a narrow space between the ceiling and the screen edge.


----------



## scarabaeus

Hey @Scott Simonian

Did you see the shout-out you got from Josh Zyber?

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-beyond-7-1-4-part-1/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Haha! Nice. 

Btw, I didn't coin the name 'Scatmos'. I believe that was coined by @*aaranddeeman* .

I much preferred Atmos-EX (play on DD-EX which is this 2x for the overheads) but nobody else would say it and Scatmos stuck. 


I look forward to part 2.


----------



## aaranddeeman

scott simonian said:


> haha! Nice.
> 
> btw, i didn't coin the name 'scatmos'. I believe that was coined by @*aaranddeeman* .
> 
> I much preferred atmos-ex (play on dd-ex which is this 2x for the overheads) but nobody else would say it and scatmos stuck.
> 
> 
> i look forward to part 2.


Ha Ha..


----------



## Witchboard

Scott Simonian said:


> Btw, I didn't coin the name 'Scatmos'. I believe that was coined by @*aaranddeeman* .


When I first saw that term on this forum, I thought it was a negative connotation towards Atmos, meaning it sounded like ****.


----------



## Josh Z

Witchboard said:


> When I first saw that term on this forum, I thought it was a negative connotation towards Atmos, meaning it sounded like ****.


I thought Scott was just a really big fan of Cab Calloway. Skeetle-at-de-op-de-day… Skeep-beep de bop-bop beep bop bo-dope…


----------



## Scott Simonian

More like:


----------



## batpig

Witchboard said:


> When I first saw that term on this forum, I thought it was a negative connotation towards Atmos, meaning it sounded like ****.


Pretty sure that would be "Shatmos"


----------



## dvdwilly3

Some time back, I had posted that I thought that I preferred the sound of DTS:X Neural over DSU for upmixing. I think that I probably did not express it well enough. It led into an extended discussion as to how they could not sound different--that they are both lossless and will sound the same. Eventually, someone (Sanjay?) got around to what the real distinction is they are both lossless and the sound is the same, but Atmos and DSU use top placement for elevated sounds and DTS:X and Neural use height for placement of elevated sounds. My apologies to Sanjay if I have corrupted what he originally said.

For me, that explains why I perceive that they "sound different". It does make a difference in how well the sound matches the visual image that you are seeing on the screen...and why I in many cases, prefer DTS:X or Neural.

In a more recent discussion about favorite movies for immersive audio, I had listed Edge of Tomorrow as a favorite with DSU. Someone (Scott, I believe) said that it was even better in DTS:X Neural. When I had watched EOT before, I still had an Onkyo, and I was watching it with DSU. Now, I have a Denon...so I went back and watched it again. And, no surprise, Scott was absolutely right...DTS:X was better than DSU.

So, I tried to figure out why. The placement of the sound better matches what is going on in the scene. There were 2 occasions, maybe 3, where one of the flying battleship/cruiser/things fly across the screen diagonally about mid-screen. With DTS:X Neural, it sounded like the thing was moving thru the room. So, why would it be different with DSU?

It gets back to the difference between the Dolby algorithm placing elevated sounds above, and the DTS algorithm placing elevated sounds high, but not above. In the scenes that I cited above, with Neural, the placement of the sound matched the visual. With DSU, the sound was actually above the object rather than moving with it.

Of course, I cannot verify this at the moment. I cannot go back to DSU for DTS:HD MA. Once cross-mixing is available, I will go back and try to verity the difference in my perception.

Given that maybe 80 percent of the blurays that I own are a DTS soundtrack of one flavor or another, and IF my explanation above holds, then I would expect Neural to provide better upmixing then DSU...at least for scenes as described above.

I think my original proposition was that DSU would do a better job with Dolby Digital (I think that I may have said Atmos...which got everyone off on the wrong track...) and that Neural would do a better job with DTS flavors.

IF Neural upmixing is consistent with the intended sound placement of the DTS master track and elevated sounds are placed at height, instead of top, then I would still expect that Neural would render DTS better. Why? Because DSU would render the elevated sounds on top instead of at height. 

That is, the resulting sound would more appropriately match what you are seeing on screen and what the movie maker originally intended.

Has anyone who has a Denon that will crossmix played with it at all?


----------



## Scott Simonian

There is a lot of mis-matched terminology in there, willy. 

And hence, quite a bit of confusion. 

Dolby Atmos and DTS:X are encode/decode algorithms. They are packaged in a "lossless" carrier. Dolby with TrueHD and DTS with DTS-HD Master Audio. These are the "lossless" packages that hold the signals for Dolby Atmos and DTS:X respectively.

Dolby Surround Upmixer and DTS Neural:X are "blind" upmixers. They are a programed algorithm that analyzes an 8ch PCM signal and processes it into the 12ch sound we end up playing back. Neither of these are formats or "lossless". They are input a PCM signal and output a PCM signal. They do work differently as noted by myself and every one who has used them. 

Willy, you have confused upmixers with codecs in that post. 

Imho, neither is "better" than one another. That's like saying vanilla is better than chocolate. They are different and some like one more over another.

Neither upmixer can see what the signal is, either Dolby or DTS. It is highly unlikely that either is programed to favor one signal over another. What you hear is one mix played compared to another mix played. Doesn't matter if it is Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio. To the upmixer, it's all the same.


----------



## batpig

dvdwilly3 said:


> With DTS:X Neural, it sounded like the thing was moving thru the room. So, why would it be different with DSU?
> 
> It gets back to the difference between the Dolby algorithm placing elevated sounds above, and the DTS algorithm placing elevated sounds high, but not above.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think my original proposition was that DSU would do a better job with Dolby Digital (I think that I may have said Atmos...which got everyone off on the wrong track...) and that Neural would do a better job with DTS flavors.
> 
> IF Neural upmixing is consistent with the intended sound placement of the DTS master track and elevated sounds are placed at height, instead of top, then I would still expect that Neural would render DTS better. Why? Because DSU would render the elevated sounds on top instead of at height.


You're still not getting it. You are now conflating differences in the native immersive audio tracks (Atmos vs. DTS:X) with the upmixers. 

The height vs. top thing is just a simple nomenclature problem -- the speakers physically supposed to be in the same place, approximately 45 deg elevation front/rear, but DTS decided to use the "Height" label vs. the "Top" label that Atmos uses. 

All of that is irrelevant to the original point that you still don't seem to be getting -- Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD/Master are just CONTAINERS. If you take the exact same soundtrack and encode it in each container, when it's decoded they will still be EXACTLY THE SAME.

The very idea that an upmixer would "prefer" a DTS codec to a Dolby codec is simply nonsensical. 

The upmixers are different because they work differently. That's why they sound different, because they are different. It has NOTHING to do with the codec used to smush the soundtrack onto the Blu-ray so it takes up less space.


----------



## batpig

great minds....


----------



## Scott Simonian

And I think our roles were reversed for this one. 

Boy...sure piled on the poor guy. 

_Take that!

aaaaannnnnndddd THAT!_



But seriously, dvdwilly3....you're WAY off but I applaud your interest.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dvdwilly3 said:


> Some time back, I had posted that I thought that I preferred the sound of DTS:X Neural over DSU for upmixing. I think that I probably did not express it well enough. It led into an extended discussion as to how they could not sound different--that they are both lossless and will sound the same. Eventually, someone (Sanjay?) got around to what the real distinction is they are both lossless and the sound is the same, but Atmos and DSU use top placement for elevated sounds and DTS:X and Neural use height for placement of elevated sounds. My apologies to Sanjay if I have corrupted what he originally said.
> 
> *Yep. You're off. DTS:X and Neural:X are two different things. You're also confusing TOP and HEIGHT settings (comparing Dolby to DTS) and conflating them to some sort of 'ideal' that each brand has. Both Atmos and DTS:X image their sound above at a 45 degree angle. Unfortunately, they are mixed up as the naming is different. Not the actual location.
> 
> Also you keep using DTS:X and Neural:X interchangeably. That's like saying that an iPhone is the same as iTunes.
> 
> Apologize to Sanjay, NOW!
> *
> For me, that explains why I perceive that they "sound different". It does make a difference in how well the sound matches the visual image that you are seeing on the screen...and why I in many cases, prefer DTS:X or Neural.
> 
> *They sound different because each upmixer IS different. Dolby Surround works by extracting decorrelated or out-of-phase parts of the audio (in chunks of front, side and rear) and places that content into the overhead speakers yielding a pleasant and natural diffuse overhead sound. DTS uses correlated information in much the same way so you get very direct sounds above. This can sound really cool sometimes, yes but it can also go too far and put things that shouldn't be above you...above you. Whether you like it or not is a wholly different discussion.*
> 
> In a more recent discussion about favorite movies for immersive audio, I had listed Edge of Tomorrow as a favorite with DSU. Someone (Scott, I believe) said that it was even better in DTS:X Neural. When I had watched EOT before, I still had an Onkyo, and I was watching it with DSU. Now, I have a Denon...so I went back and watched it again. And, no surprise, Scott was absolutely right...DTS:X was better than DSU.
> 
> So, I tried to figure out why. The placement of the sound better matches what is going on in the scene. There were 2 occasions, maybe 3, where one of the flying battleship/cruiser/things fly across the screen diagonally about mid-screen. With DTS:X Neural, it sounded like the thing was moving thru the room. So, why would it be different with DSU?
> 
> *Because the upmixers extract information differently from one another. They are NOT the same.*
> 
> It gets back to the difference between the Dolby algorithm placing elevated sounds above, and the DTS algorithm placing elevated sounds high, but not above. In the scenes that I cited above, with Neural, the placement of the sound matched the visual. With DSU, the sound was actually above the object rather than moving with it.
> 
> *No.*
> 
> Of course, I cannot verify this at the moment. I cannot go back to DSU for DTS:HD MA. Once cross-mixing is available, I will go back and try to verity the difference in my perception.
> 
> *Being in Dolby or DTS has absolutely nothing to do with how each respective upmixer sounds. Had EoT been in Dolby TrueHD 7.1 it would have sounded 100% identical using Neural:X as it would being encoded in DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 sound.*
> 
> Given that maybe 80 percent of the blurays that I own are a DTS soundtrack of one flavor or another, and IF my explanation above holds, then I would expect Neural to provide better upmixing then DSU...at least for scenes as described above.
> 
> I think my original proposition was that DSU would do a better job with Dolby Digital (I think that I may have said Atmos...which got everyone off on the wrong track...) and that Neural would do a better job with DTS flavors.
> 
> *Nope. Just different.*
> 
> IF Neural upmixing is consistent with the intended sound placement of the DTS master track and elevated sounds are placed at height, instead of top, then I would still expect that Neural would render DTS better. Why? Because DSU would render the elevated sounds on top instead of at height.
> 
> *Nope. Same location, different name. Quote from DTS about this: "Uh oh! Spaghetti-O!"*
> 
> That is, the resulting sound would more appropriately match what you are seeing on screen and what the movie maker originally intended.
> 
> *Matter of opinion.*
> 
> Has anyone who has a Denon that will crossmix played with it at all?


I have with my Yamaha.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dvdwilly3 said:


> Some time back, I had posted that I thought that I preferred the sound of DTS:X Neural over DSU for upmixing. I think that I probably did not express it well enough. It led into an extended discussion as to how they could not sound different--that they are both lossless and will sound the same. Eventually, someone (Sanjay?) got around to what the real distinction is they are both lossless and the sound is the same, but Atmos and DSU use top placement for elevated sounds and DTS:X and Neural use height for placement of elevated sounds. My apologies to Sanjay if I have corrupted what he originally said.
> 
> For me, that explains why I perceive that they "sound different". It does make a difference in how well the sound matches the visual image that you are seeing on the screen...and why I in many cases, prefer DTS:X or Neural.
> 
> In a more recent discussion about favorite movies for immersive audio, I had listed Edge of Tomorrow as a favorite with DSU. Someone (Scott, I believe) said that it was even better in DTS:X Neural. When I had watched EOT before, I still had an Onkyo, and I was watching it with DSU. Now, I have a Denon...so I went back and watched it again. And, no surprise, Scott was absolutely right...DTS:X was better than DSU.
> 
> So, I tried to figure out why. The placement of the sound better matches what is going on in the scene. There were 2 occasions, maybe 3, where one of the flying battleship/cruiser/things fly across the screen diagonally about mid-screen. With DTS:X Neural, it sounded like the thing was moving thru the room. So, why would it be different with DSU?
> 
> It gets back to the difference between the Dolby algorithm placing elevated sounds above, and the DTS algorithm placing elevated sounds high, but not above. In the scenes that I cited above, with Neural, the placement of the sound matched the visual. With DSU, the sound was actually above the object rather than moving with it.
> 
> Of course, I cannot verify this at the moment. I cannot go back to DSU for DTS:HD MA. Once cross-mixing is available, I will go back and try to verity the difference in my perception.
> 
> Given that maybe 80 percent of the blurays that I own are a DTS soundtrack of one flavor or another, and IF my explanation above holds, then I would expect Neural to provide better upmixing then DSU...at least for scenes as described above.
> 
> I think my original proposition was that DSU would do a better job with Dolby Digital (I think that I may have said Atmos...which got everyone off on the wrong track...) and that Neural would do a better job with DTS flavors.
> 
> IF Neural upmixing is consistent with the intended sound placement of the DTS master track and elevated sounds are placed at height, instead of top, then I would still expect that Neural would render DTS better. Why? Because DSU would render the elevated sounds on top instead of at height.
> 
> That is, the resulting sound would more appropriately match what you are seeing on screen and what the movie maker originally intended.
> 
> Has anyone who has a Denon that will crossmix played with it at all?


Most of us 2015 model year Denon/Marantz owners won't be getting cross platform support for the two upmixers until the staggered release September/October/November time frame in a firmware update. I don't know if this will affect 2016 models as well or if the fix was already applied.

However, whether a PCM track is encoded as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, they should create the same base quality of soundtrack (one codec or another should not affect the original PCM track positively or negatively if they're doing their job correctly). So, it will be up to user testing and ultimately user preference as to which upmixer, Dolby Surround or DTS: Neural X sounds best on any given non immersive soundtrack. 

So much of it will be mix dependent.


----------



## nickbuol




----------



## Dan Hitchman

nickbuol said:


> Spoiler


Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!!


----------



## nickbuol

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!!


Ha. So true...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Was there an unnecessary sequel to Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Was there an unnecessary sequel to Dolby Atmos?


No. To the discussion of upmixing formats.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Right over your head, Dan.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Right over your head, Dan.


Just like objects in an Atmos track.


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> Was there an unnecessary sequel to Dolby Atmos?



Is this perhaps some subtle reference to *Dolby AC-4*...?  










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



_


----------



## murlidher

*suggestion please*

In my 5.1.2 set up, my main listening position is close to walls. Need you suggestion which is ideal placement for surround speakers from following pic:

Surround B - more of Dolby recommendation but very close to MLP. (Because of other objects kept, I cannot further move the speaker position here)

Surround A - give little distance from MLP but almost close to atmos ceiling position in a straight line. I can move the speakers position close or further away freely.


Note: MLP position cannot be moved ahead as it will be too close to the screen. 

Please suggest.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## nickbuol

Scott Simonian said:


> Was there an unnecessary sequel to Dolby Atmos?


LOL. No. Sorry. Next time I will remove the "2" first. hehehe


----------



## Josh Z

dvdwilly3 said:


> Eventually, someone (Sanjay?) got around to what the real distinction is they are both lossless and the sound is the same, but Atmos and DSU use top placement for elevated sounds and DTS:X and Neural use height for placement of elevated sounds.
> 
> It gets back to the difference between the Dolby algorithm placing elevated sounds above, and the DTS algorithm placing elevated sounds high, but not above. In the scenes that I cited above, with Neural, the placement of the sound matched the visual. With DSU, the sound was actually above the object rather than moving with it.


I really don't mean to pile-on here, Willy, but your post is honestly kind of baffling.

Let's just focus on this one aspect of your argument - that Atmos/DSU (which are not the same thing, BTW) place sounds in "Top" while DTS:X/Neural:X (also not the same thing) place sounds in "Height."

Where are your speakers located, Willy? Do you have two sets of speakers mounted, one set on the ceiling you use only for Dolby and a separate set on the walls you use only for DTS? Because if you only have one set of speakers you use for both, how is the DTS decoder going to move sounds someplace in your room where there are no speakers?


----------



## lovingdvd

smurraybhm said:


> I would second Kenny's nomination for Daredevil - especially Season 1 which was mixed by our very own FilmMixer. I was going to stay out of the voting, personally I think it would be easier to vote on movies that don't sound better. I can find value in every Atmos mix I own and DSU has enhanced my listening experience with everything except for music.
> 
> DSU movies - Maze Runner - you may not like the movie but DSU does an excellent job with the sound. A recent Netflix release that I blew through quickly last week that I would add to the DSU TV list - Stranger Things. Great show if you haven't watched it. The night time scenes will test how well your display handles black/shadow details.


Thanks for the votes. The latest results are available here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761 . If you haven't voted for your favorite 3D audio movies, TV shows and or music please do so by replying here and letting us know your favorites!


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> Was there an unnecessary sequel to Dolby Atmos?


----------



## batpig

SoundChex said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there an unnecessary sequel to Dolby Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this perhaps some subtle reference to *Dolby AC-4*...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> _Source:_ *March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE* (*link-to-pdf*)
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, for you everything is a subtle reference to AC-4


----------



## sikclown

Well I finally moved in to the new house and got everything all set up for Atmos. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions; For now I just went with 4 RP-140SA as Front and Rear Heights rather than doing anything to my unique ceiling. So far I think the system is pretty darn good; I may end up putting the RP-140SAs on mounts to angle them toward MLP but still testing. Thankfully I am getting just enough separation from my rears and fronts so the sounds seem to envelop us as we watch Atmos content. Here are a couple pics of my setup (my camera phone doesn't do the room justice):


----------



## NorthSky

Nice place ↑


----------



## Scott Simonian

sikclown said:


> Well I finally moved in to the new house and got everything all set up for Atmos. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions; For now I just went with 4 RP-140SA as Front and Rear Heights rather than doing anything to my unique ceiling. So far I think the system is pretty darn good; I may end up putting the RP-140SAs on mounts to angle them toward MLP but still testing. Thankfully I am getting just enough separation from my rears and fronts so the sounds seem to envelop us as we watch Atmos content. Here are a couple pics of my setup (my camera phone doesn't do the room justice):
> 
> View attachment 1624241
> 
> View attachment 1624249
> 
> View attachment 1624257
> 
> View attachment 1624265



I'd be tempted to rotate the two pairs of height speakers 180 degrees so that they point up to the ceiling.


----------



## sikclown

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd be tempted to rotate the two pairs of height speakers 180 degrees so that they point up to the ceiling.


Hmmmmm.... Why?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sikclown said:


> Hmmmmm.... Why?


Hopefully to get a better sense of sound above you than where they are mounted now. 

It's costs nothing to try.


----------



## BigScreen

At long last, I am to the point of mounting height speakers for Atmos and DTS:X. It's been quite some time since we've had a speaker placement discussion, so I thought I'd ask for opinions. (I know this is the Atmos thread, but I figure that most people that hang out on the DTS:X thread are also here, and the combined immersive audio thread has withered.)

Here is the relevant information:

Room Dimensions: 241.5" x 181" x 88.5" (L x W x H)

MLP is 150.5" from front wall (91" from rear surrounds), centered in the room. Ear level is 40.5".

Front L/R speakers are located at ear level, 203" apart (19" from side walls).
Side surrounds (believed to be bipolar) mounted at 90°, 67" from floor (16.5" above ear level), wall-mounted, beneath soffits that are 9.75" down from the ceiling.
Rear surrounds (dipolar) mounted at 165° and 195°, 67" from floor (16.5" above ear level), wall-mounted (no soffits).

I'm very happy with the sound in the room for 7.1 playback, so I have no desire to relocate these speakers at this time.

The height speakers I am going to use are Boston Acoustics Bravos. They have a 4.5" woofer and a 1" high frequency tweeter, with a rated FR of 80-20k.

Their wedge-shaped cabinets and the mounting hardware allows them to be mounted perpendicular to the wall or at a 45° angle, which provides some mounting flexibility. It seems that quite a few people have found that aiming the drivers perpendicular and not at the MLP has worked well, so my thought is to mount them that way.

Based on the location of recessed lighting and for convenience of mounting these 5 lb speakers into a ceiling joist for strength, I have found some possible mounting locations that I wanted to get everyone's feedback on.

Front Height 
- Option 1: 68" forward of MLP (54.8°)
- Option 2: 54.5" forward of MLP (48.6°)

Rear Height:
- Option 1: 43.5" behind MLP (42.2°)
- Option 2: 59" behind MLP (50.9°)

I'm considering placing the speakers approximately 117" apart, which would put the tweeters at about 59" to the left and right of the MLP. I'm flexible on the actual azimuth. Before finding actual positions on the ceiling and dealing with obstructions, I was aiming for 45° altitude and azimuth for all four height speakers. 

RH #1 comes very close to 45°. However, the two FH positions are greater than that. Given that our rearward positioning capability is less capable than forward, I'm thinking that the RH are less critical, and I'm not sure that they need to match. RH #1 also comes closest to splitting the distance between the MLP and rear surround speakers, so I'm leaning toward this option.

FH #2 comes closest to 45°, but visually, #1 actually looks better as it's just a little further away from a recessed light so as not to be as visible. #1 also comes closer to splitting the difference between the MLP and front speakers, so if I'm looking at "filling the gaps," that would do it.

Thoughts?


----------



## Scott Simonian

All options are pretty close to 45 degrees. I wouldn't sweat it over a handful of degrees here or there. As long as there are no obstructions from speaker to ear at any position....go with the locations that work the best for you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


>


I said sequel, not clone. 

This isn't Dante's Peak versus Volcano or Deep Impact versus Armageddon.

No, more like Transformers and Transmorphers.


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> I said sequel, not clone.
> 
> This isn't Dante's Peak versus Volcano or Deep Impact versus Armageddon.
> 
> No, more like Transformers and Transmorphers.



Clones have the same exact performance. _Transmorphers_ is a misleading rip off, not a clone of _Transformers._


Come to think of it... :devil:


----------



## Scott Simonian

Took a second, huh?


----------



## dolphinc

Finally got around to watching Everest. Good movie, incredible soundtrack. Best Atmos film I have experienced so far. If you haven't seen/heard it yet I highly suggest it!


----------



## gonzlobo

My ascent to Everest would've ended at the rope bridge.


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> Front Height
> - Option 2: 54.5" forward of MLP (48.6°)
> 
> Rear Height:
> - Option 1: 43.5" behind MLP (42.2°)


Those are the options I would pick. Our human hearing's ability to discern differences in height behind us flatlines above 45° elevation.


----------



## murlidher

murlidher said:


> In my 5.1.2 set up, my main listening position is close to walls. Need you suggestion which is ideal placement for surround speakers from following pic:
> 
> Surround B - more of Dolby recommendation but very close to MLP. (Because of other objects kept, I cannot further move the speaker position here)
> 
> Surround A - give little distance from MLP but almost close to atmos ceiling position in a straight line. I can move the speakers position close or further away freely.
> 
> 
> Note: MLP position cannot be moved ahead as it will be too close to the screen.
> 
> Please suggest.
> 
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


Kindly suggest, looking for solution.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## BigScreen

Scott Simonian said:


> All options are pretty close to 45 degrees. I wouldn't sweat it over a handful of degrees here or there. As long as there are no obstructions from speaker to ear at any position....go with the locations that work the best for you.


Looking at the positions on the ceiling, it seems like there should be more of a difference, but yeah, when I was looking at the angles, there's just not that much difference there. I figured it would be worth putting it out there before I started mounting, which I hope to do this weekend.

If I end up having to shift things around, it won't be that difficult to patch a few screw holes here and there. That's why I went with these speakers instead of in-ceiling, which is what I'll probably end up with later on down the line.


----------



## BigScreen

sdurani said:


> Those are the options I would pick. Our human hearing's ability to discern differences in height behind us flatlines above 45° elevation.


Those are interesting graphs; I've not seen them before. They affirm my theory that I don't want to go too far back in the rears.

Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

BigScreen said:


> Those are interesting graphs; I've not seen them before.


Came from the last couple pages of this paper: 
https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0025-2.pdf


> They affirm my theory that I don't want to go too far back in the rears.


Rear height placement can be tricky. You don't want them too high up, otherwise it becomes harder to discern differences in vertical panning of sound. You don't want them too low, because then they won't have enough separation from the Surround-Back speakers (which are already elevated above ear height, especially if you have a second row on a riser). With all that in mind, around 45° elevation behind the main listening position seems the best compromise.


----------



## lovingdvd

dolphinc said:


> Finally got around to watching Everest. Good movie, incredible soundtrack. Best Atmos film I have experienced so far. If you haven't seen/heard it yet I highly suggest it!


Great - I have counted your vote: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761


----------



## oldsteve

lovingdvd said:


> Great - I have counted your vote: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761


You can add an another vote for Everest. Watched it yesterday. Best Atmos sound so far!


----------



## jamin

BigScreen said:


> Front Height
> - Option 1: 68" forward of MLP (54.8°)
> - Option 2: 54.5" forward of MLP (48.6°)
> 
> Rear Height:
> - Option 1: 43.5" behind MLP (42.2°)
> - Option 2: 59" behind MLP (50.9°)


I agree with Sanjay's advice but did want to point out something for your potential benefit. I believe the angles you listed are the compliments of the intended angles. When the ceiling is parallel to the floor, the further from MLP the ceiling speaker is, the lower the angle. Using your ceiling height, distances, and ear height indeed the angles listed are the compliments of the ones we want. 

These then, in your same order, are, um, the compliments of the compliments, hah. 

[35.22, 41.37, 47.82, 39.13]


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> Came from the last couple pages of this paper:
> https://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0025-2.pdf Rear height placement can be tricky. You don't want them too high up, otherwise it becomes harder to discern differences in vertical panning of sound. You don't want them too low, because then they won't have enough separation from the Surround-Back speakers (which are already elevated above ear height, especially if you have a second row on a riser). With all that in mind, around 45° elevation behind the main listening position seems the best compromise.


This is interesting. Did not see it before.
As for my setup, my fronts are at 47° in front of MLP and rears at 38° behind MLP (or 128° per standard angle measurement).
The rear is bit too close but based on these graphs, looks like it should be good.
Thanks Sanjay for sharing that.


----------



## sdurani

jamin said:


> I believe the angles you listed are the compliments of the intended angles. When the ceiling is parallel to the floor, the further from MLP the ceiling speaker is, the lower the angle. Using your ceiling height, distances, and ear height indeed the angles listed are the compliments of the ones we want.


Ooooh, good catch! Wasn't paying attention to the distances listed, just the angle numbers. You're right: the further away from MLP the speakers, the lower their elevation angle should be. The opposite of what was posted.


----------



## sdurani

A must-watch video about the Atmos mix for 'Swiss Army Man'. Notice the mention of Wides. 
https://vimeo.com/172149885


----------



## batpig

Unfortunately looks like front wide support for home users is looking grim. The new Denon/Marantz models have dropped support.


----------



## DAK4

batpig said:


> Unfortunately looks like front wide support for home users is looking grim. The new Denon/Marantz models have dropped support.


Yeah, it looks like the new Onkyos TX-RZ1100 and TX-RZ3100 have dropped it as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> A must-watch video about the Atmos mix for 'Swiss Army Man'. *Notice the mention of Wides. *
> https://vimeo.com/172149885





batpig said:


> Unfortunately looks like front wide support for home users is looking grim. The new Denon/Marantz models have dropped support.





DAK4 said:


> Yeah, it looks like the new Onkyos TX-RZ1100 and TX-RZ3100 have dropped it as well.


----------



## Cal68

dolphinc said:


> Finally got around to watching Everest. Good movie, incredible soundtrack. Best Atmos film I have experienced so far. If you haven't seen/heard it yet I highly suggest it!





oldsteve said:


> You can add an another vote for Everest. Watched it yesterday. Best Atmos sound so far!


I really enjoyed Atmos on Everest as well. One of the best Atmos mixes that I have enjoyed to date.

Cal68


----------



## ALtlOff

batpig said:


> Unfortunately looks like front wide support for home users is looking grim. The new Denon/Marantz models have dropped support.





DAK4 said:


> Yeah, it looks like the new Onkyos TX-RZ1100 and TX-RZ3100 have dropped it as well.





Scott Simonian said:


>


I wonder they're opening up room in their processors for x.x.6 support?


I know, I know....

But crazy internet rumors have to start somewhere....


----------



## AllenA07

I'm actually wondering if x.x.6 is something we see on the next Devon flagship. My gut is telling me that we have a few more years before x.x.6 becomes a reality on anything costing less then a moderately priced new car. 



ALtlOff said:


> I wonder they're opening up room in their processors for x.x.6 support?
> 
> 
> I would know, I know....
> 
> But crazy internet rumors have to start somewhere....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Where is this rumor coming from that new Denon / Marantz 7.1.4 processors are dumping Front Wide support? All I heard at the last CEDIA is the new chips being used had enough horsepower to employ two _additional _speaker outputs on top of 7.1.4 not that they would be deleting some (13.1 rather than 11.1 processing). It's just that they didn't implement the change this time around.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where is this rumor coming from that new Denon / Marantz 7.1.4 processors are dumping Front Wide support? All I heard at the last CEDIA is the new chips being used had enough horsepower to employ two _additional _speaker outputs on top of 7.1.4 not that they would be deleting some (13.1 rather than 11.1 processing). It's just that they didn't implement the change this time around.


It's not a rumor. Look at the back panel photos of the new models (eg 6300) and you'll notice the label no longer says "Wide/Height2" but just "Height2". Recently manuals have become available which confirm it to be the case. 

7.1.4 is now semi officially the standard.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> It's not a rumor. Look at the back panel photos of the new models (eg 6300) and you'll notice the label no longer says "Wide/Height2" but just "Height2". Recently manuals have become available which confirm it to be the case.
> 
> 7.1.4 is now semi officially the standard.


It's amazing that they would drop the Atmos rendering of wides (even if you gave up the back surrounds). They are _far_ more active (on the mixes I have there's something coming out of them - music and SFX - all the time) than the overheads as those are, sadly, rarely used. I'm still running four overheads.

Perhaps they're saving the wides for their 2017 flagship models (they decided to go to three year intervals) with the addition of an extra set of rendered outputs (13.1 instead of 11.1 processing).As I mentioned before it was stated by one of their engineers at last year's CEDIA that the new DSP chips they started using in 2015 could handle two more rendered Atmos speaker outputs besides the basic 7.1.4 configuration.

For now, I'm glad I stuck with the 7702 mk II pre-amp. This better be just a temporary setback. The whole idea behind immersive audio is scalability with greater immersion the more speakers you have to work with (given a certain size room). They should not be eliminating speaker positions, they should be adding them!


----------



## lovingdvd

dolphinc said:


> Finally got around to watching Everest. Good movie, incredible soundtrack. Best Atmos film I have experienced so far. If you haven't seen/heard it yet I highly suggest it!





oldsteve said:


> You can add an another vote for Everest. Watched it yesterday. Best Atmos sound so far!





Cal68 said:


> I really enjoyed Atmos on Everest as well. One of the best Atmos mixes that I have enjoyed to date.
> 
> Cal68


Thanks guys. I have updated the latest results here http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761 to include your votes. Everest is now in the lead.

I've seen about a half dozen movies in Atmos at the cinema. Everest has by far been the most enjoyable. When I saw it I thought man I can't wait to hear this at home. Glad to hear that the experience from the theater translates well to the home setup.


----------



## lujan

I loved the Atmos track on Everest as well but there were some points where I had to turn on subtitles so I could understand what the dialog was.


----------



## thebland

The Atmos track on _Gravity_ (Diamond Edition), is pretty amazing as well - and powerful.


----------



## dolphinc

lujan said:


> I loved the Atmos track on Everest as well but there were some points where I had to turn on subtitles so I could understand what the dialog was.


I didn't experience that at all, center pushed the dialog out great. 



thebland said:


> The Atmos track on _Gravity_ (Diamond Edition), is pretty amazing as well - and powerful.


Tried to find that but it's like $80 on Amazon, I think I will wait.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dolphinc said:


> I didn't experience that at all, center pushed the dialog out great.
> 
> 
> 
> Tried to find that but it's like $80 on Amazon, I think I will wait.


I'm sure a UHD Blu-ray will be forthcoming.


----------



## thebland

dolphinc said:


> I didn't experience that at all, center pushed the dialog out great.
> 
> 
> 
> Tried to find that but it's like $80 on Amazon, I think I will wait.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm sure a UHD Blu-ray will be forthcoming.


I paid $23 shipped from Amazon Canada.

Smart!


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's amazing that they would drop the Atmos rendering of wides (even if you gave up the back surrounds).


Keep in mind that Onkyo has also dropped Wides for their 2016 models. And Yamaha never supported Wides to begin with. Apparently not a popular speaker location.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that Onkyo has also dropped Wides for their 2016 models. And Yamaha never supported Wides to begin with. Apparently not a popular speaker location.


And yet Atmos uses them... to great effect (better than the overheads, sadly, right now). I don't really think the regular consumer A/V manufacturers, except Steinway/Lyngdorf and Trinnov of course, actually understand immersive audio. To them it's just another shiny widget to sell. 

The only other thing I can think of is that they're keeping the Front Wides for their new upcoming flagship receiver and pre-amp models (along with, perhaps, rear surrounds - 9.1.4). That would be in keeping with what was discussed at the prior CEDIA expo D+M booth about possibly adding two more speaker positions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> I paid $23 shipped from Amazon Canada.
> 
> Smart!


No longer available.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> No longer available.



Not!! The soundtrack is truly a marvel to behold...


----------



## humbland

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks guys. I have updated the latest results here http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761 to include your votes. Everest is now in the lead.
> 
> I've seen about a half dozen movies in Atmos at the cinema. Everest has by far been the most enjoyable. When I saw it I thought man I can't wait to hear this at home. Glad to hear that the experience from the theater translates well to the home setup.


I have tried to find an Everest BR with the Atmos track. Netflix has it in DTS-MA. The Amazon BR looks to be DD, but I can not be sure. Can anyone link to the BR disc with a confirmed Atmos soundtrack?
FWIW, I have a BB credit burning a hole in my pocket, but no way to tell if their Everest BR is Atmos...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> Not!! The soundtrack is truly a marvel to behold...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



When you get that "Ships in 2 to 4 weeks" message on Amazon that normally means it's no longer available through their distributors (unless it's a pre-order for a yet to be released item).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

humbland said:


> I have tried to find an Everest BR with the Atmos track. Netflix has it in DTS-MA. The Amazon BR looks to be DD, but I can not be sure. Can anyone link to the BR disc with a confirmed Atmos soundtrack?
> FWIW, I have a BB credit burning a hole in my pocket, but no way to tell if their Everest BR is Atmos...


Both the retail U.S. version of Everest on Blu-ray and upcoming world-wide, region free UHD Blu-ray have Atmos tracks.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> When you get that "Ships in 2 to 4 weeks" message on Amazon that normally means it's no longer available through their distributors (unless it's a pre-order for a yet to be released item).


Then order it. They don't charge you until it ships.. Nothing to lose.

This second retailer can get it to you for a few dollars more...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

thebland said:


> Then order it. They don't charge you until it ships.. Nothing to lose.


I'll keep looking around. It's out just about everywhere. Even the French steelbook is a hot commodity.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't really think the regular consumer A/V manufacturers, except Steinway/Lyngdorf and Trinnov of course, actually understand immersive audio.


Why, because they don't support Wides any more?


> The only other thing I can think of is that they're keeping the Front Wides for their new upcoming flagship receiver and pre-amp models (along with, perhaps, rear surrounds - 9.1.4). That would be in keeping with what was discussed at the prior CEDIA expo D+M booth about possibly adding two more speaker positions.


That might explain D&M's reason, but what about Onkyo? Strange coincidence that Wides are suddenly no longer supported by any mainstream AVR manufacturer.


----------



## thebland

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll keep looking around. It's out just about everywhere. Even the French steelbook is a hot commodity.



$21.89 shipped to arrive after Labor day - deal!


----------



## aaranddeeman

sdurani said:


> Why, because they don't support Wides any more? That might explain D&M's reason, but what about Onkyo? Strange coincidence that Wides are suddenly no longer supported by any mainstream AVR manufacturer.


May be the rational to remove wide support may be as below. Just my opinion

1. Most rooms are longer than wider (especially the dedicated HT)
2. With the 4K in the picture and even otherwise, people would like to get largest possible display and now that covers almost all width of the room.
3. Not all codecs supporting wide
4. If the setup is right, the phantom wide still works best


----------



## thebland

aaranddeeman said:


> May be the rational to remove wide support may be as below. Just my opinion
> 
> 1. Most rooms are longer than wider (especially the dedicated HT)
> 2. With the 4K in the picture and even otherwise, people would like to get largest possible display and now that covers almost all width of the room.
> 3. Not all codecs supporting wide
> 4. If the setup is right, the phantom wide still works best



Actually most of the reasons you listed are why wides would be an asset... Many rooms are longer than wide. In my own room, my MLP is 16.5' back from screen - my LCRS are behind the screen and my Side Surrounds are on either side of the MLP - the wides bridge that long 16.5' gap at 8' and fill in the space nicely - more so than a phantom image on a 16.5' gap between speakers. Most would find an improvement to have a speaker between their LCRs and side surrounds if the gap is substantial enough. This great expands the sound stage and creates a more cohesive link between the fronts and the surrounds.

Not all codecs support wides... yet. I would bet DTS-X will if they get their act together.


----------



## sdurani

aaranddeeman said:


> 1. Most rooms are longer than wider (especially the dedicated HT)
> 2. With the 4K in the picture and even otherwise, people would like to get largest possible display and now that covers almost all width of the room.


True on both counts, though Wides typically go on the side walls (not front wall), plugging the gap between the Fronts and Sides.


> 3. Not all codecs supporting wide


True, Auro doesn't; but Atmos and DTS:X do (though each in a different way).


> 4. If the setup is right, the phantom wide still works best


Hard sources beat phantom sources when it comes to imaging stability, which is why the movie industry uses a hard centre instead of a phantom centre. Also, in the relatively few titles I've tested, Atmos Wides don't phantom, instead they snap to the Fronts (when Wides aren't configured). 

All of the above reasons might have figured into the decision to no longer support Wides, along with other reasons (maybe consumers just weren't using them). It just seems kinda sudden, especially when two manufacturers (responsible for four brands) do it simultaneously.


----------



## Tnedator

Cal68 said:


> I really enjoyed Atmos on Everest as well. One of the best Atmos mixes that I have enjoyed to date.
> 
> Cal68


Ditto. I put Everest at the top of Atmos tracks I've heard in my theater.


----------



## sdurani

thebland said:


> Not all codecs support wides... yet. I would bet DTS-X will if they get their act together.


DTS:X already supports Wides, that too in two ways: 1) with audio objects whose locations happen to be where the Wides are; and 2) with matrix extraction of the channel-based part of a DTS:X soundtrack. 

So suppose you had an 11-speaker layout: 5.1 + Wides + 4 Heights. If you play a DTS:X soundtrack, the DTS:X decoder will send two things to the Wides: objects tagged for that location AND any sounds that are the same in the Front channels and Side channels (those sounds would have phantom imaged where the Wides are anyway).


----------



## audiofan1

humbland said:


> I have tried to find an Everest BR with the Atmos track. Netflix has it in DTS-MA. The Amazon BR looks to be DD, but I can not be sure. Can anyone link to the BR disc with a confirmed Atmos soundtrack?
> FWIW, I have a BB credit burning a hole in my pocket, but no way to tell if their Everest BR is Atmos...


 That Netflix rental disc is pure Atmos ! You better move it to the top of your Que quickly before others read this


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't really think the regular consumer A/V manufacturers, except Steinway/Lyngdorf and Trinnov of course, actually understand immersive audio.


Ugh.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh.


What's "ugh" about that, Scott? Most large consumer manufacturers are run by their marketing departments, not their engineers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> DTS:X already supports Wides, that too in two ways: 1) with audio objects whose locations happen to be where the Wides are; and 2) with matrix extraction of the channel-based part of a DTS:X soundtrack.
> 
> So suppose you had an 11-speaker layout: 5.1 + Wides + 4 Heights. If you play a DTS:X soundtrack, the DTS:X decoder will send two things to the Wides: objects tagged for that location AND any sounds that are the same in the Front channels and Side channels (those sounds would have phantom imaged where the Wides are anyway).


Are we sure DTS: X can position objects in the wide positions? Last I checked, X was still limited to 7.1.4 rendering. And that Neural: X is used to simulate wides for now. If something changed, that's great. Do you know for certain? Just asking.

And theatrical Atmos mixes use the Front Surrounds (aka Front Wides) quite a bit: for expansion of the music score, place off-screen dialog and sound effects, and as a means for more seamless object pan-through's. 

I would hope Front Wides and other speaker positions keep showing up, not eliminated. That would be going backward.


----------



## gwsat

thebland said:


> Not!! The soundtrack is truly a marvel to behold...


I agree that the _Gravity_ Diamond Luxe Edition BD's TrueHD Atmos audio track is a marvel, especially the opening scene. Along with the opening scene of _Unbroken_, with a huge formation of B-24s flying overhead, it’s the best Atmos effect I’ve heard. There is some confusion about the _Gravity_ BD because there are two editions. The standard edition lacks Atmos audio, only the Diamond Luxe Edition has it.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> And yet Atmos uses them... to great effect (better than the overheads, sadly, right now). I don't really think the regular consumer A/V manufacturers, except Steinway/Lyngdorf and Trinnov of course, actually understand immersive audio. To them it's just another shiny widget to sell.
> 
> The only other thing I can think of is that they're keeping the Front Wides for their new upcoming flagship receiver and pre-amp models (along with, perhaps, rear surrounds - 9.1.4). That would be in keeping with what was discussed at the prior CEDIA expo D+M booth about possibly adding two more speaker positions.


We will see - are you going, Dan? I am.

To your point, moving to Trinnov is really the only logical choice for an A/V enthusiast wanting 9.x.6 and maximum flexibility in a dedicated HT room. I wish they had a financing arm or subscription+downpayment option so that the Altitude could be the pre-pro of choice on AVS, if you don't mind financing the equivalent of a boat or a nice new car.


----------



## heavyharmonies

sikclown said:


> Well I finally moved in to the new house and got everything all set up for Atmos. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions; For now I just went with 4 RP-140SA as Front and Rear Heights rather than doing anything to my unique ceiling. So far I think the system is pretty darn good; I may end up putting the RP-140SAs on mounts to angle them toward MLP but still testing. Thankfully I am getting just enough separation from my rears and fronts so the sounds seem to envelop us as we watch Atmos content. Here are a couple pics of my setup (my camera phone doesn't do the room justice):


Looks fab. That's exactly how I have my 4 RP-140SA mounted (although my room is downright ghetto in comparison), and they perform wonderfully. Also, by wall-mounting them rather than using them as upward-firing modules, you avoid having to deal with the cavernous nature of the room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> We will see - are you going, Dan? I am.
> 
> To your point, moving to Trinnov is really the only logical choice for an A/V enthusiast wanting 9.x.6 and maximum flexibility in a dedicated HT room. I wish they had a financing arm or subscription+downpayment option so that the Altitude could be the pre-pro of choice on AVS, if you don't mind financing the equivalent of a boat or a nice new car.


Yeah, I wish I could go to CEDIA _and_ put a down payment on a Trinnov, but alas neither option is in the cards this time around.  It would have been feasible if they had moved the event back to Denver. There was much grumbling on the floor last year that it was going to be held in Dallas again. I was one of those grumblers. 

Hope you have a great time!


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh.





Dan Hitchman said:


> What's "ugh" about that, Scott? Most large consumer manufacturers are run by their marketing departments, not their engineers.


 I'm not sure how one can figure "Most large consumer manufactures don't understand immersive audio " with the end results thus far being enjoyment by the large majority of end users (self included). Speaking of D&M in my case shows they have a firm handle on things as the support for my Flagship 8802 has been nothing short of incredible in regards to immersive audio and other matters as well (only expected as much from say Oppo) It should also be noted their not as large as one might believe but when compared to the smaller upper echelon I can see were most draw that conclusion.At the end of the day, for now at least, the defacto maximum Home immersive audio standard is 7.1.4 regardless how how many post processing channels can be rendered (derived ) from that 7.1.4 and as far as I can tell those marketers  seem to have a good handle on the situation


----------



## nickbuol

Dan Hitchman said:


> What's "ugh" about that, Scott? Most large consumer manufacturers are run by their marketing departments, not their engineers.


While there might be some truth there (I don't know one way or the other, so I am not arguing against your statement or for it.) I was pretty impressed with D&M's booth at CEDIA last year. At least the guy in the room from D&M when I went through really seemed to know his technical bits about Atmos and DTS:X (when nobody else really seemed to). He impressed me so much that I almost went with the Denon or Marantz receiver to replace my Onkyo when I made the jump to immersive. I ended up going a completely different route with an Anthem MRX-1120, but was impressed with D&M for at least putting forth some good effort at CEDIA. 

For those that want to jump in and say, "You are crazy, that guy didn't know anything. ________ knew more last year." I will add to my statements that I only had 1 day at CEDIA last year, and I couldn't visit every vendor and see every demo. Heck, even the massively popular JBL demo sounded terribly "blah" to me, but that was because I hit the room right as they experienced some technical difficulties and shut down the demo for an hour or so. I never had time to get back in to hear that one again, and I missed other vendors for sure.

My point is that I got a nice technical demo from someone besides Steinway Lyngdorf (I loved their Atmos demo in 2014), and anyone using the Trinnov processing. 

Dan, you need to find a way to get down to Dallas. I'd buy you a beer (and I don't even drink).


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are we sure DTS: X can position objects in the wide positions? Last I checked, X was still limited to 7.1.4 rendering. And that Neural: X is used to simulate wides for now. If something changed, that's great. Do you know for certain? Just asking.


There are a couple of DTS:X mixes for home video which contain objects. Is there something about a rendering location at 60° azimuth and 0° elevation that is off limits to those objects?


> I would hope Front Wides and other speaker positions keep showing up, not eliminated. That would be going backward.


But that's what seems to have just happened. There are no 2016 models from mainstream AVR manufacturers that support Wides any more.


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> DTS:X already supports Wides, that too in two ways: 1) with audio objects whose locations happen to be where the Wides are; and 2) with matrix extraction of the channel-based part of a DTS:X soundtrack.
> 
> So suppose you had an 11-speaker layout: 5.1 + Wides + 4 Heights. If you play a DTS:X soundtrack, the DTS:X decoder will send two things to the Wides: objects tagged for that location AND any sounds that are the same in the Front channels and Side channels (those sounds would have phantom imaged where the Wides are anyway).


I should've been more clear. Even on the Trinnov, if you employ Wides, it comes at a cost of discrete Rear Surrounds - You'd send the Side Surrounds signal to the Rear Surrounds in an array fashion so as to employ Wides.. I didn't like this when I tried it.

If DTS gets beyond 7.1.4 like Dolby has then we can have both Wides and Rear Surrounds (and many others employed).


----------



## aaranddeeman

Tnedator said:


> Ditto. I put Everest at the top of Atmos tracks I've heard in my theater.


I have found the opening scene of Unbroken to be the best.


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> I should've been more clear. Even on the Trinnov, if you employ Wides, it comes at a cost of discrete Rear Surrounds - You'd send the Side Surrounds signal to the Rear Surrounds in an array fashion so as to employ Wides.. I didn't like this when I tried it.
> 
> If DTS gets beyond 7.1.4 like Dolby has then we can have both Wides and Rear Surrounds (and many others employed).


For Neural:X I can live with the wides but losing the discrete RS, with the duped side into rears, but since this is an upmixer and I mostly use it with music, big deal. For native DTS:X (really just the demo BD and Independence Day are all I care about as of today), the standard 7.x.4 is good enough for me, with the discrete side and rears.


----------



## sikclown

heavyharmonies said:


> Looks fab. That's exactly how I have my 4 RP-140SA mounted (although my room is downright ghetto in comparison), and they perform wonderfully. Also, by wall-mounting them rather than using them as upward-firing modules, you avoid having to deal with the cavernous nature of the room.


Thanks! Yes, so far I am pretty impressed with the RP-140SA and not getting nearly the localization i was expecting with the direct firing nature of them.


----------



## humbland

audiofan1 said:


> That Netflix rental disc is pure Atmos ! You better move it to the top of your Que quickly before others read this


How do you know this?
Here is the description copied directly from the Netflix description:

"English: DTS-HD Master Audio, English: DVS - Descriptive Video Service, Spanish (Neutral): Dolby Digital 5.1, French: Dolby Digital 5.1"

It clearly says DTS-MA....


----------



## MrUPC

thebland said:


> $21.89 shipped to arrive after Labor day - deal!


damn i ordered mine 1.5 weeks ago and it arrived in 3 days =/


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> There are a couple of DTS:X mixes for home video which contain objects. Is there something about a rendering location at 60° azimuth and 0° elevation that is off limits to those objects? But that's what seems to have just happened. There are no 2016 models from mainstream AVR manufacturers that support Wides any more.


My understanding is that although the AVR manufacturers can pick a DSP chipset, they're stuck with whatever decoding firmware is provided for that particular DSP chipset by the chipset's manufacturer -- hence the DTS:X fiasco. Could it be that D+M and Onkyo just happen to have gotten a deal they couldn't refuse for a particular new chipset which happens to have firmware with limited functionality?

I guess we might find out more when companies like Anthem announce their next generation of equipment.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Could it be that D+M and Onkyo just happen to have gotten a deal they couldn't refuse for a particular new chipset which happens to have firmware with limited functionality?


That's possible, assuming those two manufacturers (Denon/Marantz and Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer) are using the same chipsets. What feels weird to me is the simultaneous nature of this decision, across multiple manufacturers. Guess I should just chalk it up to coincidence.


----------



## nickbuol

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that although the AVR manufacturers can pick a DSP chipset, they're stuck with whatever decoding firmware is provided for that particular DSP chipset by the chipset's manufacturer -- hence the DTS:X fiasco. Could it be that D+M and Onkyo just happen to have gotten a deal they couldn't refuse for a particular new chipset which happens to have firmware with limited functionality?
> 
> I guess we might find out more when companies like Anthem announce their next generation of equipment.


I was told that the current Anthem line was some "super duper quad-core" processor that is taking longer. Not sure which chipset is what for decoding, but if it is so super duper, then it sure stinks that it hasn't been released for it yet.


----------



## noah katz

thebland said:


> Even on the Trinnov, if you employ Wides, it comes at a cost of discrete Rear Surrounds - You'd send the Side Surrounds signal to the Rear Surrounds in an array fashion so as to employ Wides.. I didn't like this when I tried it.


Did you try keeping the rears and letting remapping generate signals for the Wides?


----------



## audiofan1

humbland said:


> How do you know this?
> Here is the description copied directly from the Netflix description:
> 
> "English: DTS-HD Master Audio, English: DVS - Descriptive Video Service, Spanish (Neutral): Dolby Digital 5.1, French: Dolby Digital 5.1"
> 
> It clearly says DTS-MA....


 I got the disc from Netflix and yes it has the Atmos track.


----------



## otranto300

*Which Blu-Ray players works with ATMOS?*

Will this work? SAMSUNG bd-j6300

For a 1080p OLED TV. Has to have "Seamless branching", as ATMOS requires it.

http://www.samsung.com/us/televisio...-players/bd-j6300-blu-ray-player-bd-j6300-za/


----------



## thebland

noah katz said:


> Did you try keeping the rears and letting remapping generate signals for the Wides?


No. I don't use the remapping as my speakers are pretty ideally located.


----------



## Scott Simonian

thebland said:


> No. I don't use the remapping as my speakers are pretty ideally located.


The point Noah is making is that you can use ALL of your speakers and set the layout to 7.1.4 for DTS:X and let the Trinnov re-mapping function generate the wide speaker location. Not ideal but it allows you to listen in 7.1.4 and have extracted wides. Not true wides but wides nonetheless.


----------



## thebland

Scott Simonian said:


> The point Noah is making is that you can use ALL of your speakers and set the layout to 7.1.4 for DTS:X and let the Trinnov re-mapping function generate the wide speaker location. Not ideal but it allows you to listen in 7.1.4 and have extracted wides. Not true wides but wides nonetheless.


Honestly, it is my understanding that the Altitude cannot generate, via remapping, a single pair of speakers (without effecting others). 

I'd have to ask my installer but I have not employed remapping at all as it can have deleterious effects on Atmos / hi channel count recordings - this has been my long understanding (I could be wrong).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sure thing. I have no idea fully how that thing works.


----------



## sdurani

thebland said:


> I have not employed remapping at all as it can have deleterious effects on Atmos / hi channel count recordings - this has been my long understanding (I could be wrong).


Turn re-mapping on, IF you don't like how it sounds, turn it off. Not like you're going to damage anything by taking a listen.


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> Turn re-mapping on, IF you don't like how it sounds, turn it off. Not like you're going to damage anything by taking a listen.


I certainly can - up until this conversation, I never thought to try it. My installer suggested not to use it when performing my calibration (20 hours). Sonically, things are fantastic the way I am set up.

But, what the heck!?


----------



## otranto300

otranto300 said:


> Will this work? SAMSUNG bd-j6300. For a 1080p OLED TV. Has to have "Seamless branching", as ATMOS requires it.
> http://www.samsung.com/us/televisio...-players/bd-j6300-blu-ray-player-bd-j6300-za/


Nevermind, PS4 does NOT pass ATMOS blurays:
http://developer.dolby.com/News/Enabling_Dolby_Bitstream_Pass-Through_on_Playstation.aspx


----------



## richlife

thebland said:


> I certainly can - up until this conversation, I never thought to try it. My installer suggested not to use it when performing my calibration (20 hours). Sonically, things are fantastic the way I am set up.
> 
> But, what the heck!?


 This is the foreboding thought many have with this expensive equipment "I certainly can...". And truly, screw up connections, make a poor decision while updating firmware, and so on and you can create an expensive brick. But most software settings are NOT going to break it (I'll say "most" because I haven't found one). (I am immensely distracted while writing this -- the Valkyries are charging through my living room. My wife went shopping so I turned it up to concert levels. Oh my, my, my!) 

You may note in several posts I have given the advice to try it out to see if you like it. My mother always used to tell me she was afraid to press keys on her laptop because she might break it. Trouble is, you never quite figure out what this baby is capable of. So try re-mapping. Try going into your YPAO results and and tweaking ALL the various options. You can always switch back or you can redo YPAO. Go for it! You paid a bunch for this toy -- make it work for you! (But don't wake the baby up...)


----------



## thebland

sdurani said:


> Turn re-mapping on, IF you don't like how it sounds, turn it off. Not like you're going to damage anything by taking a listen.


I certainly can - up until this conversation, I never thought to try it. My installer suggested not to use it when performing my calibration (20 hours). Sonically, things are fantastic the way I am set up.

But, what the heck!?


----------



## LNEWoLF

Dan Hitchman said:


> When you get that "Ships in 2 to 4 weeks" message on Amazon that normally means it's no longer available through their distributors (unless it's a pre-order for a yet to be released item).


Ordered Gravity Diamond Deluxe Edition ATMOS bluray 2 disc with bonus "silent" film version without the music score.

Ordered a couple days ago, shipped and received all in 6 days total.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LNEWoLF said:


> Ordered Gravity Diamond Deluxe Edition ATMOS bluray 2 disc with bonus "silent" film version without the music score.
> 
> Ordered a couple days ago, shipped and received all in 6 days total.


Where from? If Amazon, which Amazon?


----------



## LNEWoLF

thebland said:


> Honestly, it is my understanding that the Altitude cannot generate, via remapping, a single pair of speakers (without effecting others).
> 
> I'd have to ask my installer but I have not employed remapping at all as it can have deleterious effects on Atmos / hi channel count recordings - this has been my long understanding (I could be wrong).




Just to add maybe related. 

On my Pioneer Elite SC97 when playing an Atmos movie it will turn off the phantom/virtual wides mode.

On non ATMOS content it is quite convincing. As many times I have heard sounds coming from the wall where there is no speaker placement. Directly located in the middle between the front speaker and the side surround speaker.


----------



## lovingdvd

lujan said:


> I loved the Atmos track on Everest as well but there were some points where I had to turn on subtitles so I could understand what the dialog was.





thebland said:


> The Atmos track on _Gravity_ (Diamond Edition), is pretty amazing as well - and powerful.





dolphinc said:


> I didn't experience that at all, center pushed the dialog out great.
> 
> 
> 
> Tnedator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto. I put Everest at the top of Atmos tracks I've heard in my theater.
> 
> 
> 
> _Unbroken_, with a huge formation of B-24s flying overhead, it’s the best Atmos effect I’ve heard. There is some confusion about the _Gravity_ BD because there are two editions. The standard edition lacks Atmos audio, only the Diamond Luxe Edition has it.
Click to expand...




gwsat said:


> I agree that the _Gravity_ Diamond Luxe Edition BD's TrueHD Atmos audio track is a marvel, especially the opening scene. Along with the opening scene of
> 
> 
> aaranddeeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have found the opening scene of Unbroken to be the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the votes guys. Everest and Gravity really pulling away from the pack. latest poll results are here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1381.html#post46107761
> 
> Tried to find that but it's like $80 on Amazon, I think I will wait.
Click to expand...

So odd. I bought my copy a year ago from Amazon US for like $15. Yes it is the diamond deluxe. Why did the price go up so much? 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Both the retail U.S. version of Everest on Blu-ray and upcoming world-wide, region free UHD Blu-ray have Atmos tracks.


Is the 3D version in Atmos as well?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Apparently, the Diamond Deluxe version is already OOP. Or something. Wtf?

Everybody _should_ have bought it when it came out last year. Anybody who gives a damn about immersive audio, anyway. It is THE disc to own, still.

The 3D version is only 5.1 DTS-HD MA.


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> Apparently, the Diamond Deluxe version is already OOP. Or something. Wtf?
> 
> Everybody _should_ have bought it when it came out last year. Anybody who gives a damn about immersive audio, anyway. It is THE disc to own, still.
> 
> The 3D version is only 5.1 DTS-HD MA.


Yes I bought it last year but I'm sure they'll soon be a 4k version with Atmos which will make me have to triple dip. 

I tried to do the merge with the 3D version and the Atmos version to one file but it didn't work at all so I gave up.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Eh. I wouldn't bother with a 4K version of Gravity. The entirety of the movie is mastered at 2K and the only shot that was 4K (or higher) was the very, very end when she pops out of the lake. One scene.

If you ever get the 3D version with Atmos working, let me know.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Eh. I wouldn't bother with a 4K version of Gravity. The entirety of the movie is mastered at 2K and the only shot that was 4K (or higher) was the very, very end when she pops out of the lake. One scene.


There are other things to look for besides detail in these UHD Blu-rays. It would be great if they were all true 4k, but alas... 

However, I would ONLY be getting it for the demo Atmos track, so if I can find the Diamond Luxe version somewhere and it isn't an arm and a leg, I'd snatch that one.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> Is the 3D version in Atmos as well?


The 3D version of Everest does have Dolby Atmos, but I've seen demos of the 4k upconvert on a 4k display... and I'd say that's the one to get when it comes out shortly.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Scott Simonian said:


> Apparently, the Diamond Deluxe version is already OOP. Or something. Wtf?
> 
> Everybody _should_ have bought it when it came out last year. Anybody who gives a damn about immersive audio, anyway. It is THE disc to own, still.
> 
> The 3D version is only 5.1 DTS-HD MA.


They were gone shortly after they were released. Most didn't recognise that the Diamond Deluxe edition contained ATMOS. when they did it was too late.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-forum-blu-ray-disc-reviews/1938209-gravity-special-edition-blu-ray-official-avs-forum-review-7.html#footer

As previosly posted by thebland. Get em while there hot........got mine in a week. @ Amazon.ca


----------



## LNEWoLF

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where from? If Amazon, which Amazon?


Amazon.ca


----------



## Scott Simonian

LNEWoLF said:


> They were gone shortly after they were released. Most didn't recognise that the Diamond Deluxe edition contained ATMOS. when they did it was too late.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...u-ray-official-avs-forum-review-7.html#footer
> 
> As previosly posted by thebland. Get em while there hot........got mine in a week. @ Amazon.ca



As it goes...

_You snooze, you lose._


----------



## noah katz

thebland said:


> My installer suggested not to use it when performing my calibration (20 hours).


Remapping is not an option during cal, it's post processing.



thebland said:


> Honestly, it is my understanding that the Altitude cannot generate, via remapping, a single pair of speakers (without effecting others).


Perhaps, but by most accounts I've read, the result can be magical.

There was even one fellow who had remapping on with a Stereo setup (i.e. Trinnov setup for reproduction of stereo sources, not surround sound), and said it was the best stereo he'd ever heard from his system.

Re remapping for wides, I believe that if w/o Wides a sound phantom images at their locations, then turning on remapping will result in the Wides reproducing that signal w/minimal output from the other speakers, assuming they're in ideal locations that don't need remapping to correct.



thebland said:


> I'd have to ask my installer but I have not employed remapping at all as it can have deleterious effects on Atmos / hi channel count recordings - this has been my long understanding (I could be wrong).


First I've heard of that, but I believe all you have to do to find out is go into the menus and turn remapping on.

I'm going to cut/paste from here into the Trinnov thread for further discussion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LNEWoLF said:


> Amazon.ca


Even if they were able to procure more stock, the price with shipping makes it about the same as getting the eventual UHD Blu-ray. I think I'll wait. Thanks, though.


----------



## lujan

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 3D version of Everest does have Dolby Atmos, but I've seen demos of the 4k upconvert on a 4k display... and I'd say that's the one to get when it comes out shortly.


I've already watched the 4k version of Everest (Atmos as well) on Vudu where I purchased it. It is on my top 5 for both video and audio quality but Vudu pulled it after I reported that once you turn on subtitles on this title, the audio would mute. There were some parts of this movie where I couldn't understand the dialog because of the immersive audio so I tried to turn on subtitles.


----------



## cannga

noah katz said:


> There was even one fellow who had remapping on with a Stereo setup (i.e. Trinnov setup for reproduction of stereo sources, not surround sound), and said it was the best stereo he'd ever heard from his system.


Yes, *one*, and there are others who turn off remapping, looking at this as an unnecessary "solution" for a non-existing problem (stereo speakers already in correct position). 

If you turn on remap with your stereo speakers in the *correct* position, and other speakers start making sound, then this points to the imperfection of the algorithm, regardless of how it may sound different or better, or even magical.

If other speakers go off during remapping and you do prefer the sound, that would be a side effect, not the intended purpose. The role of remapping is strictly to reproduce image in the intended position for speakers in compromised position.


----------



## noah katz

cannga said:


> If you turn on remap with your stereo speakers in the *correct* position, and other speakers start making sound, then this points to the imperfection of the algorithm, regardless of how it may sound different or better, or even magical.


That may or may not be true, since no algorithm is perfect, but the much more likely situation is that the speakers and the room, both individually and in combination, are generating phase and time domain anomalies.

Trinnov can improve both.


----------



## cannga

noah katz said:


> That may or may not be true, since no algorithm is perfect, but the much more likely situation is that the speakers and *the room*, both individually and in combination, are generating *phase and time domain anomalies*.
> 
> Trinnov can improve both.


Above is the function of room correction algorithm (Trinnov Optimizer, Dirac, etc.), NOT remapping. 

Remapping strictly deals with trying to render image in intended position; it's not room correction, nor ambient/surround sound generation, etc. Trinnov website somewhere mentions the word "compromised speaker position," and IMHO this is the best way to think of what it should do. Not necessarily a good idea to turn it on when your speaker positions are correct. 

As mentioned, that other surround speakers "make sound" during Stereo listening with main LR speakers in "correct" position, while maybe pleasant (and there's nothing wrong with this preference), points to the imperfection of the algorithm more than anything else. I recall a couple owners in Trinnov thread mentioned specifically that they turn it off.


----------



## noah katz

cannga said:


> Above is the function of room correction algorithm (Trinnov Optimizer, Dirac, etc.), NOT remapping.


OK, that's true.

Do you know for a fact that remapping doesn't also use other speakers to correct anomalies of the main speakers?


----------



## tcramer

Has anyone experimented with a 6.1.2/4 Atmos system?

My room layout sucks and the more I think about it, the more having a single rear speaker makes sense for this space.


----------



## lovingdvd

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 3D version of Everest does have Dolby Atmos, but I've seen demos of the 4k upconvert on a 4k display... and I'd say that's the one to get when it comes out shortly.


Is the 4k upconvert you are talking about a UHD disc? I think I read that UHD does not support 3D?



lujan said:


> I've already watched the 4k version of Everest (Atmos as well) on Vudu where I purchased it. It is on my top 5 for both video and audio quality but Vudu pulled it after I reported that once you turn on subtitles on this title, the audio would mute. There were some parts of this movie where I couldn't understand the dialog because of the immersive audio so I tried to turn on subtitles.


Is this the version: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/696301/Everest ? That has Atmos for sure? It doesn't say on the information provided on their website. What are you using to play back Vudo? What would be a good choice for someone that has a projector (aka not a smart tv) for a Vudo playback device that would support Atmos? Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> Is the 4k upconvert you are talking about a UHD disc? I think I read that UHD does not support 3D?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the version: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/696301/Everest ? That has Atmos for sure? It doesn't say on the information provided on their website. What are you using to play back Vudo? What would be a good choice for someone that has a projector (aka not a smart tv) for a Vudo playback device that would support Atmos? Thanks!


UHD does not support 3D, correct. I'm talking about the 2D UHD Blu-ray disc with HDR that Universal is releasing quite soon. The regular 2D and 3D Blu-ray discs do have an Atmos track too.

However, the subtitles work unlike the Vudu version. Heavy streaming compression kills a lot of the fine detail found in the better UHD video masters plus the audio is lossy rather than lossless. Disc based media is usually still the best choice.

12 bit Dolby Vision on disc will be the cat's meow.


----------



## lovingdvd

Dan Hitchman said:


> UHD does not support 3D, correct. I'm talking about the 2D UHD Blu-ray disc with HDR that Universal is releasing quite soon. The regular 2D and 3D Blu-ray discs do have an Atmos track too.
> 
> However, the subtitles work unlike the Vudu version. Heavy streaming compression kills a lot of the fine detail found in the better UHD video masters plus the audio is lossy rather than lossless. Disc based media is usually still the best choice.
> 
> 12 bit Dolby Vision on disc will be the cat's meow.


I don't have a 4K HDR projector, yet - but from what I understand HDR isn't all that its cracked up to be *for projectors* (but can be amazing for other types of displays). I'm not sure I would want to give up the 3D just for the slight increase in detail that may come from the UHD disc vs the Blu-ray...?


----------



## lujan

lovingdvd said:


> Is the 4k upconvert you are talking about a UHD disc? I think I read that UHD does not support 3D?
> 
> Is this the version: http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/696301/Everest ? That has Atmos for sure? It doesn't say on the information provided on their website. What are you using to play back Vudo? What would be a good choice for someone that has a projector (aka not a smart tv) for a Vudo playback device that would support Atmos? Thanks!


I'm using a Vizio "P" Series TV where you cast the Vudu content. It provides Atmos and 4k Dolby Vision for audio/video. I haven't played it back in a while since I first purchased it. Vudu pulled the 4k version where it's no longer for sale because it had an issue where the audio would mute when selecting subtitles. My copy still indicates UHD and I will test it again soon:


----------



## hatlesschimp

Just pre wiring my house now. Was only going go 7.1.4 but now running wires for 9.1.4. The extra two speakers are for front wides. Does everything look correct? I think I should be fine.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I'm finally at the stage where I will decide where to put my on ceiling speakers in my square 12'x12' room. 

Ceiling:
Top Front 45 degrees
Top Middle 85 degrees (matrixed)
Top Rear 125 degrees (can't do 135 due to wall/window) 

Base layer:
Front 30 degrees
Front Wide 65 degrees (to be added in the future)
Side 100 degrees
Rear 150 degrees

So all in all it should be a pretty decent separation in angle between all speakers. 

Any suggestions before I commit?


----------



## Hany Kabeel

Hello to all and thank you so much for sharing your experience with the rest of us.

As a new member in the forum and having very little experience compared to some of the professionals in this forum, I would like to seek your advice on my current ongoing setup. 

I currently have paradigm S6 V.3 front, C5 V.3 center, Signature SUB 1 and I just received ADP3 for the surround. I haven't received the ceiling speakers yet (SIG 1.5R) and the S8’s v3 as well.
Currently the front and center plus sub are connected to Onkyo AV receiver TX-NR5010 but I've recently ordered two Onkyo amplifiers PA-MC5501 9 channels (150 W/C 8 Ω) to connect it to my new preamp Marantz 8802A in a 7.1.4 setup.

My plan is to use one amp for the high / mid and ceiling speakers and the second amp for the law by bi-amp the front S8’s, C5 and the Surround Back S6’s.… Please let me know your thoughts on this configuration!!!!

My second concern is how is the paradigm adaptable dipole ADP3 with Dolby ATMOS and DTS X materials??? ….. As I have been reading online that Dolby ATMOS and DTS X recommend direct monopole speakers not dipole or bipolar for the surround and back surround as well!! 

By the way, the ADP3 are fantastic speakers and they produce dynamics and details than more the S6 when I connected the S6’s as surrounds.

So What do you think…!!! Shall I return the ADP3 and have 5.1.4 setup OR keep the ADP3 for the side surrounds and have 7.1.4 setup…!!! or is the dipole is a big no no!!!

I would love to hear your comments if you are currently using the ADP3 in Dolby ATMOS setup and is the difference noticeable as I can't hear the difference by myself yet.

I've attached a picture of my current setup which is not complete yet as I did not connect the preamp and the amplifiers yet as well as my new 79 inch LG UHD 9500 HDR TV.

Please advise and I am thanking you in advance.


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> Top Front 45 degrees
> Top Middle 85 degrees (matrixed)


I would move these a few degrees forward.


> Front Wide 65 degrees (to be added in the future)
> Side 100 degrees


Would move these at least 10 degrees forward.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm finally at the stage where I will decide where to put my on ceiling speakers in my square 12'x12' room.
> 
> Ceiling:
> Top Front 45 degrees
> Top Middle 85 degrees (matrixed)
> Top Rear 125 degrees (can't do 135 due to wall/window)
> 
> Base layer:
> Front 30 degrees
> Front Wide 65 degrees (to be added in the future)
> Side 100 degrees
> Rear 150 degrees
> 
> So all in all it should be a pretty decent separation in angle between all speakers.
> 
> Any suggestions before I commit?


As excited as I know you are... I probably would just stick to 7.1.4 in that room. A middle pair of overheads will be awfully close and will hotspot. To me, it looks like you can accommodate rear overheads at the ~135 degree angle just fine unless I'm missing something.

Small room. I'd keep it simple. Just my $.02 on that. Good luck!


----------



## gundam83

I just purchased a new home, however the living room isn't ideal for Atmos. Or even 5.1 in general. The area behind the sofas is completely open and I'm not sure if I'm able to run rear surrounds. Approval from the significant other is definitely in play here, so I can't just plop a set of surrounds anywhere I want. Here is essentially my only option, and I'm not even sure if its doable because of the extreme angle differences of the rear surrounds. I was hoping I could put an inwall speaker on the side wall as the left rear surround, and then another inwall speaker a little further back on that small sliver of wall I have as the right rear surround. As you can see the angles are completely different. What do you guys think? 

Red = Screen
Orange = Sofa and Loveseat
Green = Proposed speaker placements
Yellow = Atmos Speakers


----------



## batpig

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm finally at the stage where I will decide where to put my on ceiling speakers in my square 12'x12' room.


I count 9.1.6 speakers. Are you getting a Trinnov or just planning for the future? 

Like Scott I would question the utility of all those speakers in such a small room. Especially considering the industry trend is consolidating at 7.1.4 being the gold standard unless you are willing to spend megabucks. For example, I would bet that you will be just fine using two pairs of overheads (front and rear), there's going to be so little physical separation between them and a pair of TM speakers and (unless your ceiling are really high which I doubt in such a small room) the TM speakers will be beating down right on top you. In my experience (having slightly lower than 8' ceilings) I have TM speakers installed around 85deg and find them a bit overbearing and they drown out the front overheads. I'm planning to reconfigure to more of a front+rear configuration.



sdurani said:


> Would move these at least 10 degrees forward.


I know you said "at least" but I would also caution against surrounds being directly to the sides in such a small room. With only 12' of width direct-firing surrounds to the sides (even slightly forward at 80-85 degrees) will be firing right into your ear holes, and will hot-spot terribly for anyone sitting to either side of the central position. I would either scrap the wides and put the surrounds further forward so they can be more off-axis (if you must place them in front), or stick with the ~100 deg plan which will put them slightly behind and at less danger of being overbearing. Again, from personal experience where I have found direct-firing surrounds behind the listener to be more pleasurable than my former position around 80-85 deg azimuth.


----------



## batpig

Hany Kabeel said:


> So What do you think…!!! Shall I return the ADP3 and have 5.1.4 setup OR keep the ADP3 for the side surrounds and have 7.1.4 setup…!!! or is the dipole is a big no no!!!


From what I can tell of your room from the photos, it looks like you've got seating right up against the side walls, which somewhat necessitates an on-wall or in-wall solution for side surrounds. In this context, I think the ADP are an appropriate choice, and will mitigate "hot-spotting" with speakers being so close to the seating while splashing the side walls with sound to create the desired immersion.

Yes, Dolby recommends against non-direct-firing speakers for immersive audio, and in a perfect world you wouldn't, but no room is perfect and I think what you've chosen is an appropriate application for the situation. Remember also that 90%+ of what you listen to will NOT be immersive audio mixes, but "legacy" channel based content, for a long time to come.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Reason why I did the whole Scatmos thing was because I was convinced I was not going to get (and didn't actually get...at first) good "that's right over my head" overhead sound with front and rear "heights". In my room, my front pair is a bit too far forward and needs to come closer to the MLP and at a higher angle. Eventually I got this to work just as well as x.x.6 system so I disabled Scatmos.

I believe in your room, Mashie, you can get the same effect without have to complicate the system layout with Scatmos. Now...preparing for a 9.1.6 system is a good idea. Wire up for wides and a middle overhead for a future layout. But I wouldn't worry about >7.1.4 right now.


Also, I would recommend side surrounds in the 70-80 degree angle from MLP than 100 degrees. Have them slightly ahead and slightly above ear level.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Eventually I got this to work just as well as x.x.6 system so I disabled Scatmos.


Interesting, didn't know you had disabled ScAtmos. So did you end up relocating the front/rear overheads?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Interesting, didn't know you had disabled ScAtmos. So did you end up relocating the front/rear overheads?


Yes. Disabled for a while now. Mentioned it a few times.  Really did it to get ready to replace the two receivers with a 4ch amp but never did that cuz...I'm broke. 

Been using only the two pairs still. I get the effect I want with out the hotspotting.

No, I did not relocate any of the speakers but I will move the front pair if I can. Involves some light construction I did not want to do. So when I feel like doing that, I will move them and chronicle it so you and others can see what I've done.


----------



## cannga

noah katz said:


> OK, that's true.
> 
> Do you know for a fact that remapping doesn't also use other speakers to correct anomalies of the main speakers?


Yes until you could find an expert to refute me : it does use all speakers but the only anomaly corrected is image position, not time/phase/frequencies/etc. 

If your speakers are in correct position, and yet all speakers make sound while listening to stereo, what you are hearing is an upmixing (a result of the Trinnov remapping matrix - it uses ALL speakers to *try* to recreate what it *thinks* is the correct image position, key words being "try" and "thinks"). If it sounds "magical," well that's because you are comparing apples (stereo) and oranges (upmixing). Nothing wrong with liking it, but to be properly evaluated, it should be compared against other upmixing algorithms, like Dolby & DTS upmixers, etc. 

The remapping process is rendering correction even when we know it should not, that's why to me it points to the side effect, or even imperfection, of the remixing process more than anything else. 

PS Interesting discussion, especially regarding the concept of using OTHER speakers to modify response of main speakers: isn't DIRAC UNISON the one that's doing this now in time/frequency domain, for sub 500 hz signal?


----------



## Josh Z

tcramer said:


> Has anyone experimented with a 6.1.2/4 Atmos system?
> 
> My room layout sucks and the more I think about it, the more having a single rear speaker makes sense for this space.


I don't believe either Atmos or DSU support a 6.1 configuration for the ground-level channels with a single back speaker. The options are either 5.1 or 7.1. Using a single Surround Back speaker is problematic because it causes image reversal, where your brain perceives sounds directly behind your head as coming from in front of you instead. 

Even back in the Dolby Digital-EX days before they could support true 7.1, Dolby always advised splitting the sixth channel between two Surround Back speakers.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> I would move these a few degrees forward.


Like 40/82.5 or more? The 45 degrees will work out nicely for the soffit I have planned. If I drop them down to 30 degrees then they will be on the front wall below the soffit.



sdurani said:


> Would move these at least 10 degrees forward.


I would move the Front Wide locations further forward if it wasn't for the doorway at the top of the staircase being in the way.



Scott Simonian said:


> As excited as I know you are... I probably would just stick to 7.1.4 in that room. A middle pair of overheads will be awfully close and will hotspot. To me, it looks like you can accommodate rear overheads at the ~135 degree angle just fine unless I'm missing something.
> 
> Small room. I'd keep it simple. Just my $.02 on that. Good luck!


I'm sure 7.1.4 will be great but since I already got the speakers and the AVRs for scatmos I will give it a go. Worst case scenario I will just unplug the TM ones until the future AVRs have support.
The seat is not in the middle of the room, it is 38% from the rear wall and as such the 135 degree ends up where I have a window. It doesn't help that I have windows in all four directions as you can see in th elink in my signature.



batpig said:


> I count 9.1.6 speakers. Are you getting a Trinnov or just planning for the future?
> 
> Like Scott I would question the utility of all those speakers in such a small room. Especially considering the industry trend is consolidating at 7.1.4 being the gold standard unless you are willing to spend megabucks. For example, I would bet that you will be just fine using two pairs of overheads (front and rear), there's going to be so little physical separation between them and a pair of TM speakers and (unless your ceiling are really high which I doubt in such a small room) the TM speakers will be beating down right on top you. In my experience (having slightly lower than 8' ceilings) I have TM speakers installed around 85deg and find them a bit overbearing and they drown out the front overheads. I'm planning to reconfigure to more of a front+rear configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you said "at least" but I would also caution against surrounds being directly to the sides in such a small room. With only 12' of width direct-firing surrounds to the sides (even slightly forward at 80-85 degrees) will be firing right into your ear holes, and will hot-spot terribly for anyone sitting to either side of the central position. I would either scrap the wides and put the surrounds further forward so they can be more off-axis (if you must place them in front), or stick with the ~100 deg plan which will put them slightly behind and at less danger of being overbearing. Again, from personal experience where I have found direct-firing surrounds behind the listener to be more pleasurable than my former position around 80-85 deg azimuth.


If I could afford a Trinnov it would have been the smallest room in history with 20.4.8.  No, the idea is to do 7.1.6 using sctamos and if I find a good deal on a Marants SR-6010 I will make that 9.1.6, using the 7010 to drive the 9.1.x, the 6010 drive the x.x.4 feeding the scatmos AVRs for the tops.

The 7.1 base layer is actually unchanged from the old setup and worked quite well, I only have two seats so unfortunately no luck enjoying the sweetspot but that also means it is 4' to the nearest speaker. Any guests will end up in subpar positions but they are all used to 2.0 systems so still a great experience for them. The base layer is built as a 6 degree slope so sides are 5" and the rears are 10" above ear level. The room height is just over 8'2".



Scott Simonian said:


> Also, I would recommend side surrounds in the 70-80 degree angle from MLP than 100 degrees. Have them slightly ahead and slightly above ear level.


Since I already got the kit and have been quite active in the other thread I will give it a go to see how it works out. Worst case scenario I will go back to basic but what is the fun in that? 
The 70 degree position is already reserved for the front wides. The current 100 degrees worked really well in the 7.1.


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> The 45 degrees will work out nicely for the soffit I have planned.


Then leave that pair as close to the soffit as possible and move the middle pair to about 80 degrees elevation.


> I would move the Front Wide locations further forward if it wasn't for the doorway at the top of the staircase being in the way.


In that case, I would forego the Wides and move the Sides to around 80-75 degrees from centre.


> The 70 degree position is already reserved for the front wides.


 Just to give you some reference, Atmos Wides are the speakers just outside the screen, not very far from the L/R speakers that are just inside the borders of the screen. In typical Atmos movie theatres, if you're sitting at the sweet spot (mix location in a typical dubbing stage) about 2/3rds room length back, the Front L/R speakers have a 40-45 degree spread and the Wides have a roughly 60 degree spread. Compare that to the 140 degree spread you're planning on for your Wides. Your room, your decision; just wanted to point out that those sounds are going to be way off their intended location.


----------



## quinn4528

Someone please confirm; the only way to ensure I can play all future Atmos discs is to purchase a 4k UHD BD player since most of the Atmos movies will be on the 4k version of the disc and not the 1080p version.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Like Scott I would question the utility of all those speakers in such a small room. Especially considering the industry trend is consolidating at 7.1.4 being the gold standard unless you are willing to spend megabucks.


That raises a question - why should mixers of Atmos for the home use objects that would be a bit off-screen (and might go to wides) or be rendered to left/right screen speakers that only several hundred Trinnov users would have? I wonder if the industry "consolidation" will make having a 11.x.6 or greater system with Trinnov of limited value in the future as a result, and create time and financial pressures to do mixes quickly aimed at the 7.x.4 world? Yes, it's possible to scale up Atmos rendering of objects to support the number of speakers actually available among the 24.1.10 by a user, but if in practice since that's going to be constrained by DSP implementation of 3D audio for 99% of the world to 11 specific locations to work with, what's the point, especially since the conventional wisdom is that Atmos is all about the heights, which is what will sell BDs and UHDs....and we already "know" that DTS:X is a 7.x.4 codec for at least the near term.

Having said that, I'd be thrilled if the next Denon flagship supported 9.x.6 at a price less than a Trinnov or Datasat, but I"ll believe it when we see it.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> Then leave that pair as close to the soffit as possible and move the middle pair to about 80 degrees elevation. In that case, I would forego the Wides and move the Sides to around 80-75 degrees from centre. Just to give you some reference, Atmos Wides are the speakers just outside the screen, not very far from the L/R speakers that are just inside the borders of the screen. In typical Atmos movie theatres, if you're sitting at the sweet spot (mix location in a typical dubbing stage) about 2/3rds room length back, the Front L/R speakers have a 40-45 degree spread and the Wides have a roughly 60 degree spread. Compare that to the 140 degree spread you're planning on for your Wides. Your room, your decision; just wanted to point out that those sounds are going to be way off their intended location.


I'm just looking at the Dolby recommendations and that doesn't match up with their locations. I could fit the wides at 45 degrees and move the L/R to 25 degrees. With the sides at 80 degrees, what angle would you put the rears at then?

This feels like a very front centered setup though.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> That raises a question - why should mixers of Atmos for the home use objects that would be a bit off-screen (and might go to wides) or be rendered to left/right screen speakers that only several hundred Trinnov users would have?


The somewhat ironic part is that everyone who has tried wides with Atmos report that there is near constant activity, and in several behind-the-scenes videos about Atmos soundtracks the mixers have talked about how much they love those "just off the screen" speakers for pulling out the musical score, expanding effects, etc. So it seems like the mixers are just mixing how they like and not concerning themselves as much with how listeners are actually setting up their speakers at home.

FilmMixer can probably speak to this in more detail and accuracy, but it's probably best to separate "wide content" into two buckets: (1) moving objects that depart the screen laterally and thus must pan through the wide speaker location, and (2) more static objects that are intentionally placed in that "just off the screen" position (like pulling out the musical score to leave the screen channels focused on action/dialogue).

In the first bucket, the mixer doesn't have to do anything "intentional" to utilize the wides. The object is zooming through that spot regardless, so either it will phantom image (if you don't have wides) or be reproduced by the hard speaker (if you do). These objects should be unaffected by this "conundrum" because the shiz flying around in that direction is going there one way or another.

The second bucket is the more interesting one IMO. It's an effect that I've clearly heard utilized in cinematic Atmos, but doesn't translate into the home environment at all unless you have those hard speakers sitting just outside the screen width. Sanjay has confirmed in his testing what many suspected, that these objects are not left to phantom image in the wide position but rather collapse into the FR/FL screen channels, so the effect of that "increased stage width" is lost entirely without the wide speakers. Still, it doesn't necessarily need to change the mixer's workflow or intentions, because the objects will be flagged appropriately and they will either come out of the wides (as ideally intended) or collapse to the FR/FL mains if no wides are present. So they can still mix it how they want it and let the decoder handle the rendering.


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> I could fit the wides at 45 degrees and move the L/R to 25 degrees.


That's closer to how those soundtracks were mixed. But I wouldn't make that change until you activated the Wides. No sense shrinking the soundstage until you have additional speakers to widen it again.


> With the sides at 80 degrees, what angle would you put the rears at then?


Still between 135-150 degrees. During the mix, that channel is played back through an array of speakers covering half the back wall, so there is no precise angle for that location. That's why the Atmos install guide makes placement recommendations in such large ranges.


> This feels like a very front centered setup though.


If you're uncomfortable with those changes, then leave your current 7.1 set-up the way it is (the way YOU like it) and just add speakers above you. I don't have to live with your system; you do. It should reflect your personal preferences.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> The 70 degree position is already reserved for the front wides.


What front wides?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> That's closer to how those soundtracks were mixed. But I wouldn't make that change until you activated the Wides. No sense shrinking the soundstage until you have additional speakers to widen it again.


If I'm going for this approach, should the ceiling speakers be based on the 30 or 25 degree position of the fronts or something completely different?



sdurani said:


> If you're uncomfortable with those changes, then leave your current 7.1 set-up the way it is (the way YOU like it) and just add speakers above you. I don't have to live with your system; you do. It should reflect your personal preferences.


I was just surprised at this revelation since I have not seen a single setup around here with the fronts/wides that narrow, nor in any of the Dolby Atmos documentation. Pushing the wides forward would make the placement/cabling easier for sure as they would be on the other side of the door.



Scott Simonian said:


> What front wides?


The ones I originally were planning to cable up for 65 degrees.


----------



## Scott Simonian

So _no_ wides then.


----------



## batpig

Mashie Saldana said:


> I was just surprised at this revelation since I have not seen a single setup around here with the fronts/wides that narrow, nor in any of the Dolby Atmos documentation.


The distinction here is between the "Atmos for home" documentation vs. trying to hew more closely to the cinematic approach. Somebody with a true dedicated HT with speakers behind an a huge AT screen probably want to emulate the cinematic approach more than the guy with a pair of tower speakers flanking a 60" flat panel.

I think you'd be surprised actually how many people have the mains that narrow, probably most people who have them hidden behind an AT screen. That description fits my room, all three of my LCR speakers are behind an AT screen and the L/R are probably about 45 degrees apart. The typical viewing angle people shoot for is in the 40-50 degree range, so if the mains are all behind the screen they inherently won't be at the +/-30 deg angles that many shoot for with 2ch music. Some people (especially those with a 16:9 format screen) probably place the mains outside the screen edges to gain a little stage width.

This also relates to the question about width of the overhead arrays. For home, Dolby recommends in their whitepaper to have the overheads in line with the fronts. However, in the commercial cinema they are in line with the spot in between the front L/R and the center. The guy with the PJ shooting an image onto a giant screen probably will want to go closer to the cinema spec (overhead arrays narrower than the FR/FL mains) whereas the guy with the tower speakers flanking the 60" flat panel probably would be closer to the "for home" rec, otherwise the overheads would be too narrow.

The overall point Sanjay is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can make conscious decisions to diverge from the "Dolby spec" in order to more closely align with cinema standards, or just personal preference. The recommendations aren't gospel.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> The somewhat ironic part is that everyone who has tried wides with Atmos report that there is near constant activity, and in several behind-the-scenes videos about Atmos soundtracks the mixers have talked about how much they love those "just off the screen" speakers for pulling out the musical score, expanding effects, etc. So it seems like the mixers are just mixing how they like and not concerning themselves as much with how listeners are actually setting up their speakers at home.


I wouldn't quite call it "constant activity" (the impact was subtle at best on, say, Oblivion, when I was watching my I/O meters), but the effect is certainly noticeable when you have the wides in the system. I hope that the mixers keep thinking this way, rather than get lazy and just use the front L/R speakers for front stage effects .



> FilmMixer can probably speak to this in more detail and accuracy, but it's probably best to separate "wide content" into two buckets: (1) moving objects that depart the screen laterally and thus must pan through the wide speaker location, and (2) more static objects that are intentionally placed in that "just off the screen" position (like pulling out the musical score to leave the screen channels focused on action/dialogue).


Agreed - depending on the mix the impact of the latter really expands out the soundstage and helps to recreate the cinema experience more accurately.
...


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> If I'm going for this approach, should the ceiling speakers be based on the 30 or 25 degree position of the fronts or something completely different?


A little inward of the L/R speakers.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The overall point Sanjay is making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can make conscious decisions to diverge from the "Dolby spec" in order to more closely align with cinema standards, or just personal preference. * The recommendations aren't gospel.*


Exactly my point. When the Atmos install guide offers a range anywhere from 65° elevation to 100° elevation for the Top Middle speakers (35 friggin' degrees!), it's obvious they deliberately built in a lot of wiggle room. Whether that flexibility means aligning more closely with the cinema standards or personal preference is up to individual users.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Exactly my point. When the Atmos install guide offers a range anywhere from 65° elevation to 100° elevation for the Top Middle speakers (35 friggin' degrees!), it's obvious they deliberately built in a lot of wiggle room. Whether that flexibility means aligning more closely with the cinema standards or personal preference is up to individual users.


I need someone else to tell me where to put my speakers though. Where do they go?












Where _exactly_ do they go?


----------



## noah katz

cannga, we continued with the Trinnov discussion in its dedicated thread.


----------



## otranto300

*why BluRay ATMOS has low vol music?*

On ATMOS BluRay - where the background music score, in EXPENDABLES 3 is at a lower volume as compared to connecting the bluray into the TV directly.

Same happens on Transformers 4 - last fight scene.


----------



## tcramer

Josh Z said:


> I don't believe either Atmos or DSU support a 6.1 configuration for the ground-level channels with a single back speaker. The options are either 5.1 or 7.1. Using a single Surround Back speaker is problematic because it causes image reversal, where your brain perceives sounds directly behind your head as coming from in front of you instead.
> 
> Even back in the Dolby Digital-EX days before they could support true 7.1, Dolby always advised splitting the sixth channel between two Surround Back speakers.



Thanks for the advice. So in short, better to have 2 rear speakers even if they are next to each other versus having a single one.


----------



## Gates

quinn4528 said:


> Someone please confirm; the only way to ensure I can play all future Atmos discs is to purchase a 4k UHD BD player since most of the Atmos movies will be on the 4k version of the disc and not the 1080p version.


Can't really confirm since some studios are still releasing BD's with ATMOS...but some other studios are UHD only for ATMOS. It's all over the place right now.


----------



## quinn4528

Gates said:


> Can't really confirm since some studios are still releasing BD's with ATMOS...but some other studios are UHD only for ATMOS. It's all over the place right now.


OK so buying a UHD Player that will play both HD and UHD will allow me to play any Atmos movie regardless of the studio.


----------



## Gates

quinn4528 said:


> OK so buying a UHD Player that will play both HD and UHD will allow me to play any Atmos movie regardless of the studio.


Correct


----------



## lovingdvd

hatlesschimp said:


> Just pre wiring my house now. Was only going go 7.1.4 but now running wires for 9.1.4. The extra two speakers are for front wides. Does everything look correct? I think I should be fine.


Have you considered going with an acoustically transparent screen that's also wider and putting your Ci5160's in there, and moving your center channel up and mounting it vertically like the L/R? There are other benefits besides no comb filerng for having the center channel up inside the screen, such as having the audio seemingly coming out of the actors mouths as opposed to coming from below them. Do you have the KEF speakers yet? I think you are going to enjoy them a lot.


----------



## Lukemac

Hi All,
Seeking some advice around powering my new speakers and how to finish my setup.
Currently I have 5.1 setup with Paradigm 85F fronts, 55C center and Studio ADP590 rears.
I looking to buy a Yamaha A3060 receiver and either set up 5.1.4 or 5.1.2.

My Movie room is small approx. 16 x 12 x 8.5 feet.
My rears are setup around 6 foot high or about 3 feet above listening height when seated.


In a smaller room would 5.1.4 be much of an improvement over 5.1.2?

Thanks for reading and responding.

Luke


----------



## MacFreibier

tcramer said:


> Has anyone experimented with a 6.1.2/4 Atmos system?
> 
> My room layout sucks and the more I think about it, the more having a single rear speaker makes sense for this space.


Yes I have and I am happy with it but I do not have comparison to a 7. setup in my room.
Nevertheless I have noticed, that the DSP programs from my Yamaha receiver seem not to include the back surround whereas the upmixers (DSU, DTS Neural X) do.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Exactly my point. When the Atmos install guide offers a range anywhere from 65° elevation to 100° elevation for the Top Middle speakers (35 friggin' degrees!), it's obvious they deliberately built in a lot of wiggle room. Whether that flexibility means aligning more closely with the cinema standards or personal preference is up to individual users.


Unfortunately, Dolby does not provide a similar amount of 'wiggle room' for the wides. For the home theater they offer a range of 50-70 degrees instead of e.g. 40-70 degrees, which obviously would allow better alignment with cinema standards.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> Unfortunately, Dolby does not provide a similar amount of 'wiggle room' for the wides. For the home theater they offer a range of 50-70 degrees instead of e.g. 40-70 degrees, which obviously would allow better alignment with cinema standards.


Another question is what speaker angles are the HT processors actually rendering the objects to? As per the Dolby spec or as per the cinema spec?

Say a sound engineer is placing a sound at 40 degrees to the left just outside the theatre screen which is right between the angles covered by the Dolby HT spec for front and front wide. On the HT rendering will that be phantomed between Front and Front Wide or will it stick to the Front Wide only even though it isn't supposed to cover that angle?


----------



## Selden Ball

Mashie Saldana said:


> Another question is what speaker angles are the HT processors actually rendering the objects to? As per the Dolby spec or as per the cinema spec?
> 
> Say a sound engineer is placing a sound at 40 degrees to the left just outside the theatre screen which is right between the angles covered by the Dolby HT spec for front and front wide. On the HT rendering will that be phantomed between Front and Front Wide or will it stick to the Front Wide only even though it isn't supposed to cover that angle?


That's entirely up to the director and/or person responsible for mixing the sound. My understanding is that the Atmos encoding software includes an optional "snap-to-speaker" feature. I dunno if DTS:X does.


----------



## Josh Z

tcramer said:


> Thanks for the advice. So in short, better to have 2 rear speakers even if they are next to each other versus having a single one.


If the two speakers being right next to each other means that both are still directly behind your head, that won't help any. The speakers should flank your head on both sides in order to avoid image reversal.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Dolby does not provide a similar amount of 'wiggle room' for the wides.


Right, my point wasn't that all the speakers have the same exact number of degrees of in their placement ranges but the fact that Dolby's placement recommendation IS a range to begin with, indicating that hyper precise placement isn't a priority. I was trying to point out the broad picture: the recommendations in the install guide are a starting point, not a binding limitation.


----------



## westbergjoakim

I have a room that is 20m2 big. Going for a 7.2.4-setup. Is it enough with 6" speakers or is it much better with 8" inceiling? I can't audition so I have no clue about the difference. Thanks!

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## Schmeits1979

For all who have doubts about Atmos: dont d doubt. Buy  I have tested a 7.1.2 setup which already sounded great. But with 5.1.4 I was even more impressed. 

I use a teufel lt5 5.1 set, 4 klipsch rp140 atmos speakers, denon avr 4100w avr and harman kardon hk3700 power amp.


----------



## batpig

westbergjoakim said:


> I have a room that is 20m2 big. Going for a 7.2.4-setup. Is it enough with 6" speakers or is it much better with 8" inceiling?


Assuming all things are equal (they often aren't though), the larger driver will play louder and lower with less effort (lower distortion). If you aren't going to listen very loud then it probably won't matter much.... but if you intend to play it really loud, bigger speakers will have an inherent advantage. You can mitigate this somewhat by setting a higher crossover (e.g. a 6" speaker crossed over at 100Hz vs 80Hz for the 8") but the bigger speaker will still be able to go louder, easier (again, assuming they are otherwise equal in quality/performance).


----------



## Scott Simonian

Did he say his room was 20 *meters* by 20 *meters*? 

Umm...yeah. Get the big ones. Get even_ bigger_ ones, please.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Did he say his room was 20 *meters* by 20 *meters*?
> 
> Umm...yeah. Get the big ones. Get even_ bigger_ ones, please.


I'm assuming he's referring to square footage as square meters (how they refer to it on the other side of the pond), i.e. 20 sq meters is a bit over 200 sq ft.

A "square meter" is about 10 sq feet, a bit over 3x3 feet in dimension.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Heh, yeah. You're probably right. 

I read it as 20m^2, or 20m X 20m which is .....big.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Heh, yeah. You're probably right.
> 
> I read it as 20m^2, or 20m X 20m which is .....big.


Scott -- That was my interpretation too, in other words, a room that is 65.6 feet by 65.6 feet. That is indeed big.


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> Scott -- That was my interpretation too, in other words, a room that is 65.6 feet by 65.6 feet. That is indeed big.


Umm, yes. Hence the appreciation of your comment: "Umm...yeah. Get the big ones. Get even bigger ones, please." PLEASE!


----------



## westbergjoakim

batpig said:


> Assuming all things are equal (they often aren't though), the larger driver will play louder and lower with less effort (lower distortion). If you aren't going to listen very loud then it probably won't matter much.... but if you intend to play it really loud, bigger speakers will have an inherent advantage. You can mitigate this somewhat by setting a higher crossover (e.g. a 6" speaker crossed over at 100Hz vs 80Hz for the 8") but the bigger speaker will still be able to go louder, easier (again, assuming they are otherwise equal in quality/performance).


 Thanks! Then I'll go with 8" ☺

Hehe, as batpig said, over here in Sweden we write it in m2.

20m2 is 215 sq ft2.

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> Another question is what speaker angles are the HT processors actually rendering the objects to? As per the Dolby spec or as per the cinema spec?
> 
> Say a sound engineer is placing a sound at 40 degrees to the left just outside the theatre screen which is right between the angles covered by the Dolby HT spec for front and front wide. On the HT rendering will that be phantomed between Front and Front Wide or will it stick to the Front Wide only even though it isn't supposed to cover that angle?


The commercial and consumer versions of Atmos are more alike than different, so examining how cinema Atmos operates can provide clues about home Atmos. A quick Google search yielded a couple of helpful pics. 

Below is a screen-shot of what Dolby's RMU (rendering/mastering unit) displays during an Atmos mix. The wire-frame 3D diagram on the right shows audio objects (of varying size) positioned in 3D space. Above it, you can see level meters for the 10 bed channels or channel beds or whatever you want to call them. 

The 2D diagram on the left is a crude representation of the mix environment viewed from above. The 2 yellow dots in the top corners represent the left/right bass-managed subwoofer outputs for the surrounds & heights while the off-center dot near the middle represents the LFE channel. Below them, 5 dots represent the 5 screen speakers, followed by front surrounds (wides); notice that they're adjacent to the L/R speakers. This is followed by the side arrays and 6 dots at the bottom of the rectangle representing the rear arrays. The height arrays split the gap between the L/C/R speakers. 










Note: no mention of a listening position, not even an indicator of where the mix console might be. What are the chances that, when these mixes are transferred to home video, they're suddenly keyed of a main listening position? 

The pic below is a screen grab of the Pro Tools panner for Atmos. Again, it is a crude representation, using small rectangles to indicate 9 bed channels (LFE channel doesn't have a location). The light blue sphere represents an audio object, whose location is indicated by the x,y,z coordinates seen below the render box. 










Once more, not mention of a listening position or any speaker angles. So your question about speaker angles (Dolby spec vs cinema spec) might be moot; especially since objects appear to be encoded & rendered using Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. What are the chances that, when these mixes are transferred to home video, the object rendering is changed to polar (azimuth, elevation) angles? 

The Atmos install guide looks like it was designed to give consumers and installers a solid starting point for speaker placement. But let's not confuse that with a description of the Atmos decoding/rendering engine.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> So your question about speaker angles (Dolby spec vs cinema spec) might be moot; especially since objects appear to be encoded & rendered using Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. What are the chances that, when these mixes are transferred to home video, the object rendering is changed to polar (azimuth, elevation) angles?
> 
> The Atmos install guide looks like it was designed to give consumers and installers a solid starting point for speaker placement. But let's not confuse that with a description of the Atmos decoding/rendering engine.


+1

I recently came to a similar preliminary conclusion on the Altitude thread:



maikeldepotter said:


> So after all, the home-Atmos implementation turns out to be room-referenced (like cinema-Atmos) instead of mixer-referenced.... ? (see 2014 posts from Roger and Markus below)
> 
> That would mean the object renderer in our Atmos-enabled receivers/processors does not use default angular positions at all (I can put my quest for finding those to rest), but assumes certain specific locations in the room described by parameters like: halfway, 1/8th, in the middle of, side wall, front wall, ceiling, etcetera.
> 
> In retrospect, this explains in part the (much critiqued and debated) ambivalent way Dolby has chosen to put together their home-Atmos guidelines.


----------



## maikeldepotter

westbergjoakim said:


> Thanks! Then I'll go with 8" ☺
> 
> Hehe, as batpig said, over here in Sweden we write it in m2.
> 
> 20m2 is 215 sq ft2.
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


But your room is not big, it is small.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> The commercial and consumer versions of Atmos are more alike than different, so examining how cinema Atmos operates can provide clues about home Atmos. A quick Google search yielded a couple of helpful pics.
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> Once more, not mention of a listening position or any speaker angles. So your question about speaker angles (Dolby spec vs cinema spec) might be moot; especially since objects appear to be encoded & rendered using Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. What are the chances that, when these mixes are transferred to home video, the object rendering is changed to polar (azimuth, elevation) angles?
> 
> The Atmos install guide looks like it was designed to give consumers and installers a solid starting point for speaker placement. But let's not confuse that with a description of the Atmos decoding/rendering engine.


Thanks for a great explanation, makes sense. Isn't it the front three on each side the wides arrays in the cinema layout?

Just a side note with regards to front wides in general, it seems Denon has dropped them in their 2016 AVRs so no more 9.1.2 options to play with there.


----------



## westbergjoakim

maikeldepotter said:


> But your room is not big, it is small.


Okej? So that means what?


----------



## maikeldepotter

westbergjoakim said:


> Okej? So that means what?


That in your room the additional power of 8 inchers could give you marginal or no noticeable improvement in sound over equal quality 6 inchers, assuming proper bass management.


----------



## batpig

Great post Sanjay. Between what you wrote and Maikel's post, it seems logical that Atmos rendering is indeed more "room centric" than "listener centric" which, as Maikel wrote, "explains the ambivalence" in the guidelines.

Makes me happy to think of it this way as I've always been a proponent of a more "common sense" approach of filling the gaps and providing directional coverage vs obsessing over fractional differences in angles. (fist pump)


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Makes me happy to think of it this way as I've always been a proponent of a more "common sense" approach of filling the gaps and providing directional coverage vs obsessing over fractional differences in angles. (fist pump)


Same here, even with the Trinnov. If I had a multi-row master of the universe palace I'd want exact planning, but I like having speakers approximately where they'd fill sound gaps rather than worrying that they're at 70 degrees or 80 degrees. That means if you can do it, add wides (Scatmos or otherwise extracted or rendered) and a second pair of side surrounds (ditto) if your room is long enough.

We won't know until next year, but I just hope that the flagship Denon/Marantz of 2017, or at least the likes of Arcam or (shudder) Emotiva have the flexibility to go to 9.x.2 or 9.x.4 so that 99% of AVSers won't have to pay for the equivalent of a nice car to have independently extracted wides in a post-2015 processor.

On the bright side, those Denon/Marantz units from the last generation may appreciate in value if they turn out to be the last batch of mainstream processors to have wides support.


----------



## westbergjoakim

maikeldepotter said:


> That in your room the additional power of 8 inchers could give you marginal or no noticeable improvement in sound over equal quality 6 inchers, assuming proper bass management.


Okej, so much better to go with 6 inch then, now when I have 2 subs aswell?

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> Isn't it the front three on each side the wides arrays in the cinema layout?


In that RMU graphic, yes. In in actual theatre, it is however many speakers (2, 3, 4) needed to fill the gap between the Fronts L/R and the start of the Side arrays. 

On the home version of Atmos, those 'front surrounds' are represented by a single speaker location: Wides. In the graphic below, the Wides are the speakers next to the Front L/R. The next 3 rendering locations are the Sides. 











> Just a side note with regards to front wides in general, it seems Denon has dropped them in their 2016 AVRs so no more 9.1.2 options to play with there.


Yup, Denon/Marantz and Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer have all dropped Wides in their 2016 models. Yamaha never supported Wides to begin with. So if you're thinking of doing 9.1.6 using a pair of receivers at a later date...


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Between what you wrote and Maikel's post, it seems logical that Atmos rendering is indeed more "room centric" than "listener centric" which, as Maikel wrote, "explains the ambivalence" in the guidelines.


Those differences in rendering actually have names: http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/?page_id=308 

And just to be clear, that's a separate difference than what I mentioned earlier about Cartesian coordinates vs polar coordinates. Rendering approach is separate from the navigation (numbering system) used. For example: room-centric rendering can use polar coordinates (azimuth & elevation angles can be centered in the middle of the room) while listener-centric rendering can use Cartesian coordinates (the 0,0,0 location can be the listener's head). Of course, Atmos and DTS:X have used the opposite combination of approach and navigation. 

Considering both those differences AND the differences in number/placement of overhead speakers, it is lucky that 4 overhead locations ended up being 'common enough' that a single 7.1.4 layout can satisfy both formats.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Considering both those differences AND the differences in number/placement of overhead speakers, it is lucky that 4 overhead locations ended up being 'common enough' that a single 7.1.4 layout can satisfy both formats.


They should have listened to Wilfried Van Baelen, "can't we all just get along?!"


----------



## sdurani

^^^^ Priceless.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> They should have listened to Wilfried Van Baelen, "can't we all just get along?!"


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> ...objects appear to be encoded & rendered using Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. What are the chances that, when these mixes are transferred to home video, the object rendering is changed to polar (azimuth, elevation) angles?


Are you seriously suggesting they're so boneheaded that they don't do a units conversion?


----------



## petetherock

westbergjoakim said:


> I have a room that is 20m2 big. Going for a 7.2.4-setup. Is it enough with 6" speakers or is it much better with 8" inceiling? I can't audition so I have no clue about the difference. Thanks!
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


IMO, the ceiling speakers are not handling big bass, so the smaller cones will do fine. And they may be able to handle the higher frequencies better. I use the AG A'Divas. Full range speakers which act as a point source. That's more important than bass handling if you ask me.. cheers


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Are you seriously suggesting they're so boneheaded that they don't do a units conversion?


When converting object location metadata from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates, what would they use as a reference point for azimuth and elevation angles?


----------



## goldmastaflexx

Noob question: I just got atmos speakers and realized that the Xbox One S doesnt support Atmos yet  

What devices are you guys using to play your atmos content? I am guessing I am going to have buy something that supports 4k and ATMOS.

My current apple tv, fire stick, xbox and chromebox are all doomed! 

Thanks and apologies if this has already been asked.


----------



## Scott Simonian

petetherock said:


> IMO, the ceiling speakers are not handling big bass, so the smaller cones will do fine. And they may be able to handle the higher frequencies better. I use the AG A'Divas. Full range speakers which act as a point source. That's more important than bass handling if you ask me.. cheers


The "ceiling speakers" have the same requirements as all other speakers in the system. There are many movies that have high intensity and full range effects in these speaker locations. I wouldn't compromise the capability of these speaker locations arbitrarily as such. Treat them like any other speaker and should be as large and capable as possible.



goldmastaflexx said:


> Noob question: I just got atmos speakers and realized that the Xbox One S doesnt support Atmos yet
> 
> What devices are you guys using to play your atmos content? I am guessing I am going to have buy something that supports 4k and ATMOS.
> 
> My current apple tv, fire stick, xbox and chromebox are all doomed!
> 
> Thanks and apologies if this has already been asked.


A blu-ray player that can bitstream lossless TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio is all that is required for immersive audio playback.

I use an OPPO 103d blu-ray player.


----------



## petetherock

Scott Simonian said:


> The "ceiling speakers" have the same requirements as all other speakers in the system. There are many movies that have high intensity and full range effects in these speaker locations. I wouldn't compromise the capability of these speaker locations arbitrarily as such. Treat them like any other speaker and should be as large and capable as possible.


That would be a nice ideal Scott, but over here, most of us live in apartments that aren't even a quarter the size of your HT room so we live within our tiny means. It isn't the budget, it's more about the room and of course what the missus thinks she can accept.. 
Having a massive speaker hanging overhead is a sure way of getting an invite to sleep on the couch mate


----------



## hatlesschimp

Hi guys,
I'm just wiring up my house at the moment and I've wired for 9.2.4 (LCR, FWL/R, SL/R, SBL/R + 4 Atmos). 

I have a Yamaha 3050. What Atmos setup would you go for or recommend? At the moment I have access to the studs and can put wire where ever I want. I've never tried front or rear heights and the only Atmos I have tried was 7.1.4 with your standard floor 7 speakers used in LCR, Surrounds and rear surrounds. I like the idea of front wides because not everything is encoded in Atmos.

Thanks


----------



## nickbuol

goldmastaflexx said:


> Noob question: I just got atmos speakers and realized that the Xbox One S doesnt support Atmos yet
> 
> What devices are you guys using to play your atmos content? I am guessing I am going to have buy something that supports 4k and ATMOS.
> 
> My current apple tv, fire stick, xbox and chromebox are all doomed!
> 
> Thanks and apologies if this has already been asked.


I use my HTPC and on rare occasions an actual blu-ray player.


----------



## dvdwilly3

hatlesschimp said:


> Hi guys,
> I'm just wiring up my house at the moment and I've wired for 9.2.4 (LCR, FWL/R, SL/R, SBL/R + 4 Atmos).
> 
> I have a Yamaha 3050. What Atmos setup would you go for or recommend? At the moment I have access to the studs and can put wire where ever I want. I've never tried front or rear heights and the only Atmos I have tried was 7.1.4 with your standard floor 7 speakers used in LCR, Surrounds and rear surrounds. I like the idea of front wides because not everything is encoded in Atmos.
> 
> Thanks


Wire for the max that you think that you ever might get to... If you don't use the extra wires...no harm done.

If, on the other hand, you wire for what you have right now, wiring after the drywall is up will be a major pain!

Been there; done that; won't do it again...


----------



## hatlesschimp

dvdwilly3 said:


> Wire for the max that you think that you ever might get to... If you don't use the extra wires...no harm done.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you wire for what you have right now, wiring after the drywall is up will be a major pain!
> 
> Been there; done that; won't do it again...


What would you wire in then? Im confused now because all the speaker placements are different between denon my last avr and my new yamaha 3050.


----------



## cdelena

petetherock said:


> That would be a nice ideal Scott, but over here, most of us live in apartments that aren't even a quarter the size of your HT room so we live within our tiny means. It isn't the budget, it's more about the room and of course what the missus thinks she can accept..
> Having a massive speaker hanging overhead is a sure way of getting an invite to sleep on the couch mate


Each will have to use a plan and implementation that suits their room but the guideline from Scott ('Treat them like any other speaker and should be as large and capable as possible.') is certainly valid. What works in a small room that requires external mounts is a data point but not a useful guide for many to use. 

I experimented with various speakers and found the larger drivers handled output better in many cases. But I eventually did what works in my room; All speakers are mounted flush in the ceiling, the fronts are 8" and the rear (because of obstructions) are 6.5".


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> IMO, the ceiling speakers are not handling big bass, so the smaller cones will do fine.


That can be said about any speaker in a bass managed system. There's no difference in requirement for ceiling speakers compared to any other speakers in an Atmos set-up.


----------



## hatlesschimp

sdrucker said:


> Same here, even with the Trinnov. If I had a multi-row master of the universe palace I'd want exact planning, but I like having speakers approximately where they'd fill sound gaps rather than worrying that they're at 70 degrees or 80 degrees. That means if you can do it, add wides (Scatmos or otherwise extracted or rendered) and a second pair of side surrounds (ditto) if your room is long enough.
> 
> We won't know until next year, but I just hope that the flagship Denon/Marantz of 2017, or at least the likes of Arcam or (shudder) Emotiva have the flexibility to go to 9.x.2 or 9.x.4 so that 99% of AVSers won't have to pay for the equivalent of a nice car to have independently extracted wides in a post-2015 processor.
> 
> On the bright side, those Denon/Marantz units from the last generation may appreciate in value if they turn out to be the last batch of mainstream processors to have wides support.


I loved the wides on my old Denon x4000! They will add it in next year as something special!


----------



## dvdwilly3

hatlesschimp said:


> What would you wire in then? Im confused now because all the speaker placements are different between denon my last avr and my new yamaha 3050.


If you were not using front or rear heights, then you were not running Atmos. Yet, you say that you have 4 Atmos speakers.

Are you referring to upfiring?

I would wire for wides, if I were you. That is what you said that you were thinking about.

And, the speaker positions should be suggested by Dolby guidelines, and not Denon or Yamaha...
If you are talking about what the AVR provides in the way of speaker terminals and assignments, that is different...


----------



## Scott Simonian

petetherock said:


> That would be a nice ideal Scott, but over here, most of us live in apartments that aren't even a quarter the size of your HT room so we live within our tiny means.


We live in small apartments too. Probably not the best location for a fully-fledged 7.1.4 HT system...ya know.




petetherock said:


> It isn't the budget, it's more about the room and of course what the missus thinks she can accept..
> Having a massive speaker hanging overhead is a sure way of getting an invite to sleep on the couch mate


Ahh. I see.

Yeah, that happens here too when the wifey dictates what gear goes in her husbands HT room.  



So anyway... always get the largest, most capable speaker in each location *you can accommodate*....which is pretty much what I said before.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> When converting object location metadata from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates, what would they use as a reference point for azimuth and elevation angles?


That's their problem.

But to think they'd use the same Cartesian numbers in in./cm and let them be used as deg/rad is beyond the pale, if that's what you meant.





Scott Simonian said:


> The "ceiling speakers" have the same requirements as all other speakers in the system. There are many movies that have high intensity and full range effects in these speaker locations. I wouldn't compromise the capability of these speaker locations arbitrarily as such. Treat them like any other speaker and should be as large and capable as possible.


In many cases the heights will be much closer to the listeners, greatly reducing their SPL requirements compared to the mains.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That _really_ depends, yes. You can say the same thing about any speaker location that is closer than another.

Again. I would not arbitrarily diminish the capability of these speaker locations simply because they are "ceiling speakers".


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> That's their problem.


Your problem, not theirs (they aren't the ones wanting to convert from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates for no reason).


> But to think they'd use the same Cartesian numbers in in./cm and let them be used as deg/rad is beyond the pale, if that's what you meant.


They're using x,y,z coordinates for object locations in the room. You called them "boneheaded" for not changing those coordinates to azimuth & elevation angles when that same soundtrack comes to home video. I'll ask again: what location in the room should they use as a reference point for azimuth and elevation angles?


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Your problem, not theirs (they aren't the ones wanting to convert from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates for no reason). They're using x,y,z coordinates for object locations in the room. You called them "boneheaded" for not changing those coordinates to azimuth & elevation angles when that same soundtrack comes to home video. I'll ask again: what location in the room should they use as a reference point for azimuth and elevation angles?


My mistake, I read back and it's Mashie's problem


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sound goes here. Sound goes there.

Just try and enjoy yourselves.


----------



## Selden Ball

goldmastaflexx said:


> Noob question: I just got atmos speakers and realized that the Xbox One S doesnt support Atmos yet
> 
> What devices are you guys using to play your atmos content? I am guessing I am going to have buy something that supports 4k and ATMOS.
> 
> My current apple tv, fire stick, xbox and chromebox are all doomed!
> 
> Thanks and apologies if this has already been asked.


Since you mention 4K support (which other respondents seem to have overlooked), you probably should investigate the Philips BDP7501 UHD 4K Blu-ray disc player. It seems to be the most cost effective of the three UHD disc players currently available. The other two are the Samsung UBD-K8500 and Panasonic DMP-UB900. Models from other manufacturers aren't expected to be available for a few more months when MediaTek's UHD chipset becomes available.


----------



## richlife

Ok, I've been reading this and numerous other threads and keep seeing mention of "scatmos" -- including the fact that at least once both Scott S and Josh Z have "dropped" it (or some such). But my searches have not come up with a simple definition of what "scatmos" refers to -- configuration, methodology, what? Can anyone help? I'd be happy a pointer to more reading, but simple closure here would also be fine. I just don't like have "technical" terms that have no meaning for me.

Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> My mistake, I read back and it's Mashie's problem


No, it's not. 

Just so everyone is clear about the way Atmos does its rendering: if an audio object is located at 2/5ths room length in a commercial Atmos cinema, then that same object will be rendered at 2/5ths room length in Mashie's home theatre. Same location. Doesn't matter which Atmos cinema or whose home theatre. 2/5ths room length = 2/5ths room length.


----------



## Josh Z

sdrucker said:


> That means if you can do it, add wides (Scatmos or otherwise extracted or rendered)


As Sanjay has mentioned previously, you actually can't extract wides via the Scatmos method (using extra ProLogic II receivers in between the fronts and surrounds). If the primary AVR is not set up to decode wides (or can't, because the new models drop that feature), it will "snap" those sounds to the front mains. PLII extraction only works if the sounds are phantomed between two channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

richlife said:


> Ok, I've been reading this and numerous other threads and keep seeing mention of "scatmos" -- including the fact that at least once both Scott S and Josh Z have "dropped" it (or some such). But my searches have not come up with a simple definition of what "scatmos" refers to -- configuration, methodology, what? Can anyone help? I'd be happy a pointer to more reading, but simple closure here would also be fine. I just don't like have "technical" terms that have no meaning for me.
> 
> Thanks!


The method is using additional receivers and their Prologic2 processing to "extract" a common center between pairs of channels. In use with Scatmos, extracting two middle overhead speakers in addition to the front and rear pairs. 7.1.4 turns into 7.1.6 audio.


----------



## Josh Z

richlife said:


> Ok, I've been reading this and numerous other threads and keep seeing mention of "scatmos" -- including the fact that at least once both Scott S and Josh Z have "dropped" it (or some such). But my searches have not come up with a simple definition of what "scatmos" refers to -- configuration, methodology, what? Can anyone help? I'd be happy a pointer to more reading, but simple closure here would also be fine. I just don't like have "technical" terms that have no meaning for me.


The Beyond 7.1.4 thread has the full details. That's up to 15 pages currently. 

For a much briefer summary of the concept, see this article I wrote:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-beyond-7-1-4-part-1/

I will have a follow-up Part 2 article hopefully next week.


----------



## Scott Simonian

And for the record.... I didn't choose to remove this processing because I didn't like it or that it yielded poor results. Actually, it works very well.

No, I chose to remove it because I wanted to simplify and already super complicated HT system. That and I dislike some of the noises the chassis of my two extra receivers make. And the extra heat that they pump into the room. Ugh.

In a different room I'd do it again.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

noah katz said:


> My mistake, I read back and it's Mashie's problem


OI!

To be fair I really don't care how the coordinates are calculated, I just tried to figure out how the processors will try to render the sounds into the room "bubble" and at what resolution those claculations are done at. Considering how large the acceptable placement positions are for each speaker I can only assume that the rendering, at least on consumer grade kit, is at a very low resolution. 

Looking at the screenshot sdurani posted earlier I would say they use a 200x200x200 grid for the authoring but that doesn't mean it is rendered in that resolution.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie, as we have it now in HT surround sound technology: front stereo imaging (with hard center), side wall stereo imaging, rear wall stereo imaging and front and rear height/overhead stereo imaging.

Don't worry about the exact resolution or worry so much about angle. Just get those 'zones' properly addressed. With good set up, you should have filled any holes or gaps in soundstage. If not, reconsider physical set up or rely on more advanced (and expensive) technology that is semi-available.


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> The method is using additional receivers and their Prologic2 processing to "extract" a common center between pairs of channels. In use with Scatmos, extracting two middle overhead speakers in addition to the front and rear pairs. 7.1.4 turns into 7.1.6 audio.


Very helpful, thanks. Since getting my A3060 leaves my A820 still sitting waiting for a task (or potentially sold), that suggests one more option. But I will keep reading as I note scatmos appears to be more of an experiment than a permanent solution. 

Always willing to be corrected.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It was an experiment but no reason it can not be permanent.

If having >7.1.4 audio is important to you, it IS the only reasonable solution for most people...who can't afford a Trinnov.


----------



## SoundChex

sdurani said:


> When converting object location metadata from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates, what would they use as a reference point for azimuth and elevation angles?



IIRC, the Cartesian *mix|mastering* coordinates are delivered based on a virtual cuboid "sides 1,1,2" shaped room; so the first step should be to scale separately those height, width, length Cartesian coordinates for use in the (actual room) *playback space*. If the object rendering technology uses VBAP, it would seem reasonable that each object's polar coordinates will be computed next, and relative to the MLP using its playback space Cartesian coordinates.

A good starting point might be *Figure 12: Object position coordinate system* (_below_) from *page 163* of *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*), authored by Dolby, and supposedly an evolution including what Dolby learned from both Theatrical and Home Atmos.












_


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> As Sanjay has mentioned previously, you actually can't extract wides via the Scatmos method (using extra ProLogic II receivers in between the fronts and surrounds). If the primary AVR is not set up to decode wides (or can't, because the new models drop that feature), it will "snap" those sounds to the front mains. PLII extraction only works if the sounds are phantomed between two channels.


I don't need to use this method so thanks for the clarification. Your explanation makes sense.


----------



## goldmastaflexx

Thanks! Didnt really want another device, but I guess it has to be done. Will have a look at the Philips. 

Apparently the XBOX One S will eventually allow bit-stream which should enable ATMOS, but who know how long that will be 




Selden Ball said:


> Since you mention 4K support (which other respondents seem to have overlooked), you probably should investigate the Philips BDP7501 UHD 4K Blu-ray disc player. It seems to be the most cost effective of the three UHD disc players currently available. The other two are the Samsung UBD-K8500 and Panasonic DMP-UB900. Models from other manufacturers aren't expected to be available for a few more months when MediaTek's UHD chipset becomes available.


----------



## Scott Simonian

goldmastaflexx said:


> Thanks! Didnt really want another device, but I guess it has to be done. Will have a look at the Philips.
> 
> Apparently the XBOX One S will eventually allow bit-stream which should enable ATMOS, but who know how long that will be


Hopefully the Scorpio releasing next year will be more fully featured.


----------



## sdurani

SoundChex said:


> A good starting point might be *Figure 12: Object position coordinate system* (_below_) from *page 163* of *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*), authored by Dolby, and supposedly an evolution including what Dolby learned from both Theatrical and Home Atmos.


Since that diagram is for Dolby AC-4, it also applies to home Atmos. Except the numbers represent speaker locations, not the corners of the room. If the decoder has to render an object as far left as possible, it will send it to the left speaker; that's all it can do since it doesn't know where the actual left corner or left wall of the physical room is.


----------



## sdurani

All 4 Hunger Games movies just announced for 4K UHD release on November 8th, all with Atmos mixes. The last 2 had theatrical Atmos mixes; Lionsgate went back re-mixed the first 2 in Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> All 4 Hunger Games movies just announced for 4K UHD release on November 8th, all with Atmos mixes. The last 2 had theatrical Atmos mixes; Lionsgate went back re-mixed the first 2 in Atmos.


Awesome - that should help propel the format with the holiday season coming up shortly thereafter. I hope there's a flood of UHD content coming up with Atmos mixes in time for Black Friday....


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Awesome - that should help propel the format with the holiday season coming up shortly thereafter. I hope there's a flood of UHD content coming up with Atmos mixes in time for Black Friday....


Forgot to mention: the first 3 movies have a list price of $22.95 (street price will be lower). Finally, sane pricing.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Forgot to mention: the first 3 movies have a list price of $22.95 (street price will be lower). Finally, sane pricing.


Now we just need the Star Wars box set (including last year's film) in UHD/Atmos and life will truly be wonderful. LOL.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Now we just need the Star Wars box set (including last year's film) in UHD/Atmos and life will truly be wonderful. LOL.


That's the funny thing: Lionsgate is releasing all 4 Hunger Games movies the same day, but not as a single package or a boxed set, just individually.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> No, it's not.


I only said it was his problem because when he mentioned rendering to angles, you replied with the coordinate conversion conundrum, but let's let that lie.




sdurani said:


> Just so everyone is clear about the way Atmos does its rendering: if an audio object is located at 2/5ths room length in a commercial Atmos cinema, then that same object will be rendered at 2/5ths room length in Mashie's home theatre. Same location. Doesn't matter which Atmos cinema or whose home theatre. 2/5ths room length = 2/5ths room length.


What processors are able to determine room dimensions?

Even Trinnov only measures speaker positions.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> Mashie, as we have it now in HT surround sound technology: front stereo imaging (with hard center), side wall stereo imaging, rear wall stereo imaging and front and rear height/overhead stereo imaging.
> 
> Don't worry about the exact resolution or worry so much about angle. Just get those 'zones' properly addressed. With good set up, you should have filled any holes or gaps in soundstage. If not, reconsider physical set up or rely on more advanced (and expensive) technology that is semi-available.


It's just my engineering mind that wants to disassemble the technology behind it, nothing else.

I will give it a try with both the wides options, 25/50 as well as 30/65 degrees. Thankfully the SR7010 can do 7.1.4 using front wides instead of rears so should be easy to test. I am a little surprised this option actually works as I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the DSP based Atmos processors couldn't handle three pairs of Atmos speakers, hence maxing out at 7.1.4/9.1.2.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> It's just my engineering mind that wants to disassemble the technology behind it, nothing else.
> 
> I will give it a try with both the wides options, 25/50 as well as 30/65 degrees. Thankfully the SR7010 can do 7.1.4 using front wides instead of rears so should be easy to test. I am a little surprised this option actually works as I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the DSP based Atmos processors couldn't handle three pairs of Atmos speakers, hence maxing out at 7.1.4/9.1.2.


Why does it surprise you? It is still only two pairs of "Atmos speakers" *shudder* as you gave up the rear pair for wides.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> What processors are able to determine room dimensions?
> 
> Even Trinnov only measures speaker positions.


Then speaker locations are all they can go by. Since commercial cinemas and home theatres tend to have speakers at room boundaries, describing the rendering as room-centric is not unreasonable (for all but the tragically technical). Half way between Mashie's front and rear walls is likely to be half way between his Front and Rear speakers. The same will be true for his local Atmos cinema.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> Why does it surprise you? It is still only two pairs of "Atmos speakers" *shudder* as you gave up the rear pair for wides.


It originates from a question I raised elsewhere on the forums a while ago about why we don't have 5.1.6 in addition to 7.1.4 and 9.1.2. I was told that the current DSP based AVR's/Processors couldn't handle more than two pairs of "Atmos speakers"/speakers with rendered sound only. Well a 7.1.4 wide setup actually has three pairs of speakers that only contains rendered sound so 5.1.6 should in theory have been a viable option.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ah. Yes, it IS odd how there is not much (none) for a 5.1.6 layout. 

I mean, what's the difference between 12ch and 12ch? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just shows the lack of versatile programming on these DSP chips. Odd but...semi-reasonable. We like to clamor on about how we'd like this or that. It'll come in time. I'm not too concerned about D&M and Onkyo dropping wides this year. I doubt that will be a permanent situation. Just more reason to enjoy what we have now and that works really, really well. 

7.1.4


----------



## grtuck

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah. Yes, it IS odd how there is not much (none) for a 5.1.6 layout.
> 
> I mean, what's the difference between 12ch and 12ch? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Just shows the lack of versatile programming on these DSP chips. Odd but...semi-reasonable. We like to clamor on about how we'd like this or that. It'll come in time. I'm not too concerned about D&M and Onkyo dropping wides this year. I doubt that will be a permanent situation. Just more reason to enjoy what we have now and that works really, really well.
> 
> 7.1.4


I believe the Datasat RS20i can do both variations, and it is DSP based.

See the discussion here.


----------



## richlife

Josh Z said:


> The Beyond 7.1.4 thread has the full details. That's up to 15 pages currently.
> 
> For a much briefer summary of the concept, see this article I wrote:
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-beyond-7-1-4-part-1/
> 
> I will have a follow-up Part 2 article hopefully next week.


Thank you, Josh. I stumbled on the "beyond 7.1.4" thread on my own first trying to get an answer, but as you said -- 15 pages. After a break today, I look up your article. Only just started, but definitely MUST reading. 

And yes, Trinnov is not in my league either, Scott. The rest of this may not be because of my odd room with vaulted ceiling, but the reading and ideas look to be fascinating.


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> The commercial and consumer versions of Atmos are more alike than different, so examining how cinema Atmos operates can provide clues about home Atmos. A quick Google search yielded a couple of helpful pics. ... Below them, 5 dots represent the 5 screen speakers, followed by front surrounds (wides); notice that they're adjacent to the L/R speakers. This is followed by the side arrays and 6 dots at the bottom of the rectangle representing the rear arrays. The *height arrays split the gap between the L/C/R speakers*.


Thanks for the nice explanation. I *think* I now might have a vague notion  of what room-centric means. 

1. It seems the speakers define the borders of the room, or the space that sound would be placed. A sound object meant to be in the middle of the room would be equally loud between front and corresponding rear?

2. I am aware that the speaker placement guide is meant to be a general rec, but still... tighter approximation is a better approximation, so: the height arrays are much closer together in commercial Atmos (split LR speakers) than home recommendation (heights lining up with LR speakers). Is it better to get rid of this discrepancy, by squeezing home heights closer together? TIA


----------



## Scott Simonian

grtuck said:


> I believe the Datasat RS20i can do both variations, and it is DSP based.
> 
> See the discussion here.



Thanks but not exactly reasonably priced.


----------



## Gates

sdurani said:


> Forgot to mention: the first 3 movies have a list price of $22.95 (street price will be lower). Finally, sane pricing.


$23.81 CDN for the first 3 and $31.59 CDN for the last one, on Amazon.ca. Nice to see cheaper prices in Canada for once!


----------



## deepak5

I am in the process of upgrading my media room and switching to Yamaha RXA3060 from Yamaha RXA1020. Mine is a 16x16 media room with only one row of seating (~14 foot away from the screen) and 7.1 currently. 

For this setup I am thinking of going for 2 Atmos in-ceiling speakers (Klipsch CDT 5650 c ii). Wondering if 7.1.2 would be good enough for my setup, any advise? TIA.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Man...go for 7.1.4 if you can. Sounds like you could. It's worth it.

Any particular reason you are so far back from the screen? I'd move the listening position forward.


----------



## sdurani

cannga said:


> A sound object meant to be in the middle of the room would be equally loud between front and corresponding rear?


Or between the two Side speakers. However the decoder chooses to render it.


> Is it better to get rid of this discrepancy, by squeezing home heights closer together?


Depends on if it sounds better to you. If you squeeze the heights closer together only to discover that it is now more difficult to discern left-to-right pans overhead, then better to have left them wider apart.


----------



## grtuck

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks but not exactly reasonably priced.


I apologize, I must have missed a post about financial considerations. 

I thought there was a question about current DSP's having the possibility of doing 5.1.6, which it seems the Datasat can do.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Then speaker locations are all they can go by. Since commercial cinemas and home theatres tend to have speakers at room boundaries, describing the rendering as room-centric is not unreasonable (for all but the tragically technical). Half way between Mashie's front and rear walls is likely to be half way between his Front and Rear speakers. The same will be true for his local Atmos cinema.


Fair enough; it's where the speakers are that matters.

Though I believe only Trinnov and Yamaha determine that.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> All 4 Hunger Games movies just announced for 4K UHD release on November 8th, all with Atmos mixes. The last 2 had theatrical Atmos mixes; Lionsgate went back re-mixed the first 2 in Atmos.



_*Catching Fire*_ was also in Atmos.


----------



## deepak5

Scott Simonian said:


> Man...go for 7.1.4 if you can. Sounds like you could. It's worth it.
> 
> Any particular reason you are so far back from the screen? I'd move the listening position forward.



I am also upgrading the screen to 135" from 110" so put my seating at ~13' away and configuring the room accordingly.

If I do 7.1.4 I need to add an external amp. So wondering if it's worth spending money on external amp and two more CDT 5650 speakers when I only have one row of seating. 

7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating?


----------



## farmersagent046

deepak5 said:


> I am also upgrading the screen to 135" from 110" so put my seating at ~13' away and configuring the room accordingly.
> 
> If I do 7.1.4 I need to add an external amp. So wondering if it's worth spending money on external amp and two more CDT 5650 speakers when I only have one row of seating.
> 
> 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating?


It makes a huge difference even with one row seating. If you have the space for it 2 speakers and an amp are all it takes to go from good to great.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Fair enough; it's where the speakers are that matters.


Posted as much, in reply to SoundChex:


sdurani said:


> Since that diagram is for Dolby AC-4, it also applies to home Atmos. Except the numbers represent speaker locations, not the corners of the room. If the decoder has to render an object as far left as possible, it will send it to the left speaker; that's all it can do since it doesn't know where the actual left corner or left wall of the physical room is.





> Though I believe only Trinnov and Yamaha determine that.


Doesn't really matter, since none of that positional information is fed to the Atmos (or DTS:X) decoder.


----------



## farmersagent046

Molon_Labe said:


> I found just the opposite. I went from 7.1.4 to 5.1.4. I really don't notice much, if any, difference. My surrounds are JBL 4722, so they throw a huge sound-stage which helps tremendously. It might be more perceivable with smaller surrounds.


I may have misunderstood deepak but I thinking he was asking about height speakers, going from x.x.2 to x.x.4. Molon seems to be talking about going from 5.x.x to 7.x.x on side surrounds. My comment was that even with one row seating having the height speakers in front and back of the MLP with proper separation over the side and rear surrounds adds a lot of area for placement of discrete sounds in the 360 space and also for increasing the level of immersion in ambient noise. Made a huge difference in my room for sure. No way would I take down 2 of my height speakers - I would definitely notice a difference.


----------



## sdurani

deepak5 said:


> I am also upgrading the screen to 135" from 110" so put my seating at ~13' away and configuring the room accordingly.


Too bad, since that puts your seating almost in a null. Consider moving a couple feet forward for smoother frequency response.


> 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating?


2 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving from left-to-right above you. 4 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving left-to-right AND front-to-back above you. IF you can tell the difference between sounds in front of you vs sounds behind you, then 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating.


----------



## deepak5

sdurani said:


> Too bad, since that puts your seating almost in a null. Consider moving a couple feet forward for smoother frequency response. 2 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving from left-to-right above you. 4 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving left-to-right AND front-to-back above you. IF you can tell the difference between sounds in front of you vs sounds behind you, then 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating.


Sanjay, thanks for the response and it's very informative on 7.1.4. That helps me in understanding why I should go for 7.1.4 and which I am willing to go for sure . Also, any idea on which external amp should I go for? Frankly speaking, I don't want to spend much on the external amp. 

But if I move the seating couple of feet forward wouldn't that to be too close to the screen considering my new screen size is 135"?


----------



## sdurani

deepak5 said:


> But if I move the seating couple of feet forward wouldn't that to be too close to the screen considering my new screen size is 135"?


IF you've already bought the 135" screen, then you're stuck at an acoustically bad seating location (always choose screen size based on seating location, don't let seating location be dictated by screen size). If you haven't bought the screen yet, then your 110" screen will give you the exact same viewing angle (image size) if you move your seating to 1/3rd room length from the back wall. That location will give you much smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) AND provide excellent rear-vs-side separation in the surround field.


----------



## dschulz

Mashie Saldana said:


> It originates from a question I raised elsewhere on the forums a while ago about why we don't have 5.1.6 in addition to 7.1.4 and 9.1.2. I was told that the current DSP based AVR's/Processors couldn't handle more than two pairs of "Atmos speakers"/speakers with rendered sound only. Well a 7.1.4 wide setup actually has three pairs of speakers that only contains rendered sound so 5.1.6 should in theory have been a viable option.


I know it's at a radically higher price point, but the Datasat RS20i supports 5.1.6, despite being a DSP-based solution. So this is possible, though there may be practical cost constraints for the mass market AVR manufacturers to implement more flexible rendering.


----------



## deepak5

sdurani said:


> IF you've already bought the 135" screen, then you're stuck at an acoustically bad seating location (always choose screen size based on seating location, don't let seating location be dictated by screen size). If you haven't bought the screen yet, then your 110" screen will give you the exact same viewing angle (image size) if you move your seating to 1/3rd room length from the back wall. That location will give you much smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) AND provide excellent rear-vs-side separation in the surround field.


Thank you, will check it out today.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> I found just the opposite. I went from 7.1.4 to 5.1.4. I really don't notice much, if any, difference. My surrounds are JBL 4722, so they throw a huge sound-stage which helps tremendously. It might be more perceivable with smaller surrounds.


Pfft.

Things one says to justify the downsizing. 


On a serious note. Having good speakers that image well is good but that doesn't mean that they replace having more vector points in a surround sound system for sound to be positioned within that soundstage. 

5.1.4 is always worse than 7.1.4 audio. The reason for having a "better" 5.1.4 system than 7.1.4 is if that the room layout or other choices lead to a compromised system layout compared to a smaller number speaker system.





deepak5 said:


> I am also upgrading the screen to 135" from 110" so put my seating at ~13' away* and configuring the room accordingly.*


Ehhhh.... 


deepak5 said:


> 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating?


Yes!



sdurani said:


> Too bad, since that puts your seating almost in a null. Consider moving a couple feet forward for smoother frequency response. 2 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving from left-to-right above you. 4 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving left-to-right AND front-to-back above you. IF you can tell the difference between sounds in front of you vs sounds behind you, then 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating.





sdurani said:


> IF you've already bought the 135" screen, then you're stuck at an acoustically bad seating location (always choose screen size based on seating location, don't let seating location be dictated by screen size). If you haven't bought the screen yet, then your 110" screen will give you the exact same viewing angle (image size) if you move your seating to 1/3rd room length from the back wall. That location will give you much smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) AND provide excellent rear-vs-side separation in the surround field.


And that's why I love you, Sanjay. :kiss:


----------



## Mashie Saldana

dschulz said:


> I know it's at a radically higher price point, but the Datasat RS20i supports 5.1.6, despite being a DSP-based solution. So this is possible, though there may be practical cost constraints for the mass market AVR manufacturers to implement more flexible rendering.


It is a shame, would have been very easy to pull off a 9.1.6 had 5.1.6 been an option on the mass market kit.


----------



## jrogers

Scott Simonian said:


> Ah. Yes, it IS odd how there is not much (none) for a 5.1.6 layout.
> 
> I mean, what's the difference between 12ch and 12ch? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Just shows the lack of versatile programming on these DSP chips. Odd but...semi-reasonable. We like to clamor on about how we'd like this or that. It'll come in time. I'm not too concerned about D&M and Onkyo dropping wides this year. I doubt that will be a permanent situation. Just more reason to enjoy what we have now and that works really, really well.
> 
> 7.1.4


Just curious, but do the new Yamaha AVRs (still) support wides in place of rears? As someone who is currently making use of this layout, I am a bit concerned if mfg consensus becomes not to support it going forward.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jrogers said:


> Just curious, but do the new Yamaha AVRs (still) support wides in place of rears? As someone who is currently making use of this layout, I am a bit concerned if mfg consensus becomes not to support it going forward.


The manufacturers are not supporting wides instead of rears in 2016 products. Baffling! 

I made the speculation that they may be holding out on us until the new flagship pre-amps and receivers show up next year. Perhaps wides will come back and maybe we'll get 9.1.4 as well.


----------



## batpig

jrogers said:


> Just curious, but do the new Yamaha AVRs (still) support wides in place of rears? As someone who is currently making use of this layout, I am a bit concerned if mfg consensus becomes not to support it going forward.


AFAIK no Yamaha has ever supported wides. It started with Audyssey partner mfgrs (Onkyo and Denon/Marantz) because of the introduction of Audyssey DSX upmix, and then Pioneer supported it in response, but IIRC Yamaha never did.


----------



## Scott Simonian

jrogers said:


> Just curious, but do the new Yamaha AVRs (still) support wides in place of rears? As someone who is currently making use of this layout, I am a bit concerned if mfg consensus becomes not to support it going forward.





batpig said:


> AFAIK no Yamaha has ever supported wides. It started with Audyssey partner mfgrs (Onkyo and Denon/Marantz) because of the introduction of Audyssey DSX upmix, and then Pioneer supported it in response, but IIRC Yamaha never did.


Yes. This is correct. No Yamaha product has ever supported wides.

At least not yet.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Fair enough.

I'm glad you're happy with your current system.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I'm glad you're happy with your current system.


Don't think I am not agreeing with you buddy - I am. Your right, 7.1.4 is better. I was just pleasantly surprised at how well the codec adapted to the topology change. I wasn't expecting it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Don't think I am not agreeing with you buddy - I am. Your right, 7.1.4 is better. I was just pleasantly surprised at how well the codec adapted to the topology change. I wasn't expecting it.


Heheh.

I know what you mean. 5.1 can sound pretty damn good which is why it's the most common. Plus it's cheaper and easier and all that but still very effective.

Just....not something I would live with if I had the choice. *shudders*


----------



## gwsat

deepak5 said:


> I am in the process of upgrading my media room and switching to Yamaha RXA3060 from Yamaha RXA1020. Mine is a 16x16 media room with only one row of seating (~14 foot away from the screen) and 7.1 currently.
> 
> For this setup I am thinking of going for 2 Atmos in-ceiling speakers (Klipsch CDT 5650 c ii). Wondering if 7.1.2 would be good enough for my setup, any advise? TIA.


I recently upgraded to a Yamaha RX-A3060 too. I had been using an RX-V3900 for years but wanted to upgrade from 7.1 to 7.1.4. I added four Focal in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos effect, as well as a two channel amp to drive two of the in-ceiling speakers. 

I have been very happy with my new setup. Because there is so little native Atmos material available so far, I have found Yamaha's "Enhanced" DSP, aka "CinemaDSP HD3," extremely useful. This DSP matrixes conventional 5.1 and 7.1 input to 7.1.4. I have found the height effects it provides to be extremely convincing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Try both Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X some time, @gwsat


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Try both Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X some time, @gwsat


Scott -- I have used and liked Dolby Surround. Just now experimented with DTS Neural:X and liked it too. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## deepak5

Molon_Labe said:


> Sorry, I misread it. Yes, 4 overheads are much better than 2 - absolutely.


No worries and thank you.


----------



## deepak5

gwsat said:


> I recently upgraded to a Yamaha RX-A3060 too. I had been using an RX-V3900 for years but wanted to upgrade from 7.1 to 7.1.4. I added four Focal in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos effect, as well as a two channel amp to drive two of the in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> I have been very happy with my new setup. Because there is so little native Atmos material available so far, I have found Yamaha's "Enhanced" DSP, aka "CinemaDSP HD3," extremely useful. This DSP matrixes conventional 5.1 and 7.1 input to 7.1.4. I have found the height effects it provides to be extremely convincing.


Awesome! Thank you for the details!


----------



## batpig

The last HT Geeks podcast was all about mixing Atmos, both for home and commercial cinema. Great stuff. 

The mixer in the video did the Atmos BD mix for John Wick, which is of course still known as one of the best. Also did the DTS:X mix for Ex Machina. 

Link: https://youtu.be/v8Xto_1AjQs


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> Scott Simonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> I'm glad you're happy with your current system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think I am not agreeing with you buddy - I am. Your right, 7.1.4 is better. I was just pleasantly surprised at how well the codec adapted to the topology change. I wasn't expecting it.
Click to expand...

One row of seating or two?


----------



## Csbooth

I have a few queries directed @SoundChex

You speak quite a bit in regards to ATSC 3.0 utilizing the Dolby AC-4 standard, I believe? I'm a COMPLETE novice on all of this stuff so I'll probably have more inaccurate statements/questions than accurate lol. I've read a little bit about it but I guess I need someone to spell it out for me and what it all means.

Is all of that you speak about in relation to getting immersive audio (Atmos) to my cable STB? That's of course what I get my broadcasted content from, not an antenna or anything like that (although I'm not sure if those even have anything to do with it?) Do you think even 10% of our TV shows will actually support immersive audio in the next 5-10 years?, if not I guess it's all a moot point right?

My follow up question would be this; My STB says DD+ on the face of the device, and of course I've never seen DD+ actually show up on my AVRs display on any content, even paid VOD. I've read that it's not even sent out over cable/satellite content for whatever reasons? 

Anyways, since DD+ can transmit Atmos (albeit at a compressed rate, but we are used to that right? Lol) in that container, and even over ARC no less on some selected displays, namely the newly released Sony Z9D, what do we need AC-4 for exactly?, If my previous notion that it's for immersive audio only is even right haha. Couldn't these broadcast companies begin delivering us immersive audio using the aforementioned DD+ container instead of all these ATSC 3.0/AC-4 standards?

EDIT: Just read that AC-4 is much better bandwidth wise than DD+, so I'm guessing that's the reason? Does that mean we will start seeing Dolby AC-4 on Netflix, for example, streams instead of DD+ in the future?

PLEASE enlighten me if you have the time, as I'm generally curious if my 2015 SR7010 might not be able to accept immersive audio via its HDMI input that any future STB I might own that uses AC-4 would be connected to and sending it.

Thank you, and for anyone else that might chime in, I appreciate it!


----------



## jqmn

Molon_Labe said:


> Don't think I am not agreeing with you buddy - I am. Your right, 7.1.4 is better. I was just pleasantly surprised at how well the codec adapted to the topology change. I wasn't expecting it.


What is the thinking on topology for upmixed content (single row)? I can run 9.1.2 (TM) or 9.1.4 (TF & TR) and have been listening to everything upmixed to x.4. Then last night on a lark I watched something upmixed using only TM and it sounded terrific; extremely immersive and tight. Obviously using Atmos content there is a large difference (i.e., helicopter demo going around the room instead of back and forth in a side to side overhead fashion) so I will keep 9.1.4 for that. Maybe too much diffusion in 4 upmixed overheads vs 2? Anyone else try this and get a different result?


----------



## mantaraydesign

Looking to get a Dolby Atmos receiver and was wondering if there really is a difference in the sound quality? Right now, I have 5 speakers and 2 subwoofers. I will need to buy 4 bookshelf speakers to put on the ceiling and a Dolby Atmos receiver.

Just wanted to ask if it is worth spending more money on Dolby Atmos sound quality.

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jqmn said:


> What is the thinking on topology for upmixed content (single row)? I can run 9.1.2 (TM) or 9.1.4 (TF & TR) and have been listening to everything upmixed to x.4. Then last night on a lark I watched something upmixed using only TM and it sounded terrific; extremely immersive and tight. Obviously using Atmos content there is a large difference (i.e., helicopter demo going around the room instead of back and forth in a side to side overhead fashion) so I will keep 9.1.4 for that. Maybe too much diffusion in 4 upmixed overheads vs 2? Anyone else try this and get a different result?


What are you using that is giving you 9.1.4? A Trinnov?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mantaraydesign said:


> Looking to get a Dolby Atmos receiver and was wondering if there really is a difference in the sound quality? Right now, I have 5 speakers and 2 subwoofers. I will need to buy 4 bookshelf speakers to put on the ceiling and a Dolby Atmos receiver.
> 
> Just wanted to ask if it is worth spending more money on Dolby Atmos sound quality.
> 
> Thanks!


Yes. A big difference. You could do in-ceiling overheads unless it's a huge imposition. 

Which receiver are you considering?


----------



## mantaraydesign

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes. A big difference. You could do in-ceiling overheads unless it's a huge imposition.
> 
> Which receiver are you considering?


I was looking at the Denon AVR-X6200W. I was thinking of waiting for a few more years to get a Dolby Atmos receiver because there are not very many bluray movies with Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Right now, I have about 4 bluray movies with Dolby Atmos soundtrack.

I am wondering if we will see all the current release bluray movies turn into Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## jqmn

Dan Hitchman said:


> What are you using that is giving you 9.1.4? A Trinnov?


No...two 7702MKII-- 9.1.2 (inactive .2) ===> zone 2 ===> 7.1.4 (only .4). So I can use both to get me 9.1.4 and if I turn the second one off I get 9.1.2. Works correctly. I keep meaning to reconfigure the first AVR as 9.1.4 and see if that works with real material. As you know you can configure it as 9.2.4 in the setup. I asked Marantz why it allowed this set up even though it is a max 11 speaker output. They told me that it will put out to 13 speakers. So I called B.S. on this and they went out of their way to call me back, they pulled speakers to the product, told me they tested it, and said it definitely puts out to 13 speakers in that config as long as only 11 are playing at any one time. I asked them how the s/w knew which speakers to kill or what happened to the signal (i.e., how does it fold down) if all 13 are actually called out in the soundtrack at the same time. They said they didn't know but in their test with real material they were getting sound out of all 13 speakers. The guy I talked to was extremely pleasant and helpful and I was very, very impressed/surprised that they went out of their way to call me back with this info. They could have not called me back or fed me the usual tech support stuff you get from some companies.

Anyways, that is how I was playing around with .2 vs .4 on upmixed stuff last night and was interested in whether anyone else had an opinion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mantaraydesign said:


> I was looking at the Denon AVR-X6200W. I was thinking of waiting for a few more years to get a Dolby Atmos receiver because there are not very many bluray movies with Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Right now, I have about 4 bluray movies with Dolby Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> I am wondering if we will see all the current release bluray movies turn into Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


The 6200 is a good unit, so is the Marantz 7010. The edge might go to the Marantz sound wise. You also have the upmixers for non-Atmos and DTS: X tracks to use. 

If you move over to UHD Blu-ray you have more choices in terms of immersive audio (just don't buy the Xbox One S or you won't get immersive audio at all). Some studios are only putting Dolby Atmos or DTS: X on UHD Blu-ray discs, so there is that. 

Plus, if you get two more matching speakers for your 5.1 setup, the Denon and Marantz units (from 2015 only) with 7.1.4 processing will allow you to choose 5.1.4 plus Front Wides if your room is more conducive to this layout than having rear surrounds.


----------



## SoundChex

Csbooth said:


> I have a few queries directed @SoundChex You speak quite a bit in regards to ATSC 3.0 utilizing the Dolby AC-4 standard, I believe? [...] I've read a little bit about it but I guess I need someone to spell it out for me and what it all means. [...] Is all of that you speak about in relation to getting immersive audio (Atmos) to my cable STB? [...]



AC-4 is an _immersive-and-interactive_ Digital Audio Compression codec *designed|documented* by Dolby, and *codified* by ETSI in publications *ETSI TS 103 190 V1.1.1 (2014-04) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard* and *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio*.

In 2015, Dolby *implemented|promised to implement* _a subset(?) of_, and _some extensions(?) to_ the standard as a candidate for the proposed *ATSC 3.0 Audio System*. One of the ATSC requirements was that the codec support a 5.1 downmix from an immersive signal for playback on a non-immersive audio system. Dolby seems to have chosen to do this by providing for a [legacy] AC-3|DD5.1 delivery mechanism. Beyond that, internet scuttlebutt is that the DDP legacy mechanism will also be capable of delivering an immersive Atmos downmix to support owners of AVRs equipped with an Atmos decoder but not a combo Atmos|AC-4 decoder (the latter might appear in early 2017 AVRs together with the first ATSC 3.0 TVs).

However, I'm not clear what if any authority the FCC exerts over cable, so you should probably expect that your cable provider will do whatever it wants to maximize revenue.  


_


----------



## Csbooth

SoundChex said:


> AC-4 is an _immersive-and-interactive_ Digital Audio Compression codec *designed|documented* by Dolby, and *codified* by ETSI in publications *ETSI TS 103 190 V1.1.1 (2014-04) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard* and *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio*.
> 
> In 2015, Dolby *implemented|promised to implement* _a subset(?) of_, and _some extensions(?) to_ the standard as a candidate for the proposed *ATSC 3.0 Audio System*. One of the ATSC requirements was that the codec support a 5.1 downmix from an immersive signal for playback on a non-immersive audio system. Dolby seems to have chosen to do this by providing for a [legacy] AC-3|DD5.1 delivery mechanism. Beyond that, internet scuttlebutt is that the DDP legacy mechanism will also be capable of delivering an immersive Atmos downmix to support owners of AVRs equipped with an Atmos decoder but not a combo Atmos|AC-4 decoder (the latter might appear in early 2017 AVRs together with the first ATSC 3.0 TVs).
> 
> However, I'm not clear what if any authority the FCC exerts over cable, so you should probably expect that your cable provider will do whatever it wants to maximize revenue.
> 
> 
> _


Thank you!


----------



## No_Towel_Lint

I know in-ceiling speakers for Atmos made by the same manufacturer as the front and surrounds are ideal, but I'm considering SVS for the low 7 and since they don't make in-ceiling speakers I'm deciding between another brand for the ceiling speakers (Polk RC80i) or get SVS prime satellites for the top 4 and mount them where the wall and ceiling meet. What are your thoughts as to which approach will yield better results? (The room is 12.5' x 23.5' x 7.5' with 2 rows of seating)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

No_Towel_Lint said:


> I know in-ceiling speakers for Atmos made by the same manufacturer as the front and surrounds are ideal, but I'm considering SVS for the low 7 and since they don't make in-ceiling speakers I'm deciding between another brand for the ceiling speakers (Polk RC80i) or get SVS prime satellites for the top 4 and mount them where the wall and ceiling meet. What are your thoughts as to which approach will yield better results? (The room is 12.5' x 23.5' x 7.5' with 2 rows of seating)


I'd try these. https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/ if budgeting is a concern. They've received decent reviews as Atmos overheads. Plus they're angled, so you can aim them toward the MLP since they're not wide dispersion speakers (hard to come by anyway at the budget level).

What SVS's are you considering?


----------



## No_Towel_Lint

Dan Hitchman said:


> What SVS's are you considering?


My current plan is SVS Ultra Bookshelves and Center for the front and Prime Bookshelves for the 4 surrounds.

Thanks for the suggestion on the RSLs, I'll look into them.


----------



## oldsteve

No_Towel_Lint said:


> My current plan is SVS Ultra Bookshelves and Center for the front and Prime Bookshelves for the 4 surrounds.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion on the RSLs, I'll look into them.


You might want to read the review Mark Henninger wrote last September on using the SVS speakers in an Atmos configuration. It sounds like He was impressed.
http://www.avsforum.com/svs-prime-5-1-4-atmos-speaker-system-review/


----------



## batpig

The problem here is the room is 23.5' long with only 7.5 ceilings and 2 rows of seating to cover. That means heights mounted front/rear at the wall/ceiling junction will hardly have any elevation. Well below 20 degrees. The front heights may as well not exist for row 2, and vice versa for row 1 where the rear heights will have no meaningful separation from surround backs (which will probably be elevated to clear the heads of row 2). 

IMO in a room of these dimensions ceiling speakers with angled baffles are basically mandatory to provide proper coverage of two rows and separation from the base layer. 

Check out this useful article by pro Nyal Mellor: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


----------



## deepak5

sdurani said:


> deepak5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also upgrading the screen to 135" from 110" so put my seating at ~13' away and configuring the room accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad, since that puts your seating almost in a null. Consider moving a couple feet forward for smoother frequency response.
> 
> 
> 
> 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving from left-to-right above you. 4 overhead speakers let you hear sound moving left-to-right AND front-to-back above you. IF you can tell the difference between sounds in front of you vs sounds behind you, then 7.1.4 makes a huge difference even with one row of seating.
Click to expand...

Hi Sanjay, can you help me pick 4 in ceiling speakers for the Atmos setup? I am thinking of buying Klipsch CDT 5650 C II as I have Klipsch reference setup (2 RF62, 1 RC62, 4 RS42II). 

Do you think 5650s would be good choice or I can save some money by buying some cheap speakers like Silver Ticket 82s?

I would save around $100 a piece but trying to figure out if it's worth saving that money and going for cheaper stuff.


----------



## sdurani

Considering you have a Klipsch Reference set-up, I would stick to the same brand for heights.


----------



## healthnut

No_Towel_Lint said:


> My current plan is SVS Ultra Bookshelves and Center for the front and Prime Bookshelves for the 4 surrounds.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion on the RSLs, I'll look into them.




Also check out the "Best Speakers for Atmos" thread regarding the RSL's. Good buzz on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

No_Towel_Lint said:


> My current plan is SVS Ultra Bookshelves and Center for the front and Prime Bookshelves for the 4 surrounds.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion on the RSLs, I'll look into them.


If you're looking for sound quality along with the ability to play loudly with far less cone breakup and distortion at an affordable price, I would suggest looking at purchasing three GoldenEar Aon 3 bookshelf speakers across the front and SuperSat 3 or 50's for the surrounds. Then possibly go for broke and chooe the Invisa HTR 7000 in-ceiling speakers for overheads for timbre matching. If that's just too much to stomach, then try the RSL in-ceilings instead. Both in-ceiling models have angled baffles for your shorter ceiling.

Check out HSU Research and Rythmik subs for great bang vs. buck.

I would also suggest an acoustically transparent screen and place the Aon 3's behind it (they're side ported, not rear ported, so you wouldn't need to eat up a lot of room length in building a false wall). And they don't have to be priced at $4,000 either. Check the projection screen thread.


----------



## AllenA07

No_Towel_Lint said:


> I know in-ceiling speakers for Atmos made by the same manufacturer as the front and surrounds are ideal, but I'm considering SVS for the low 7 and since they don't make in-ceiling speakers I'm deciding between another brand for the ceiling speakers (Polk RC80i) or get SVS prime satellites for the top 4 and mount them where the wall and ceiling meet. What are your thoughts as to which approach will yield better results? (The room is 12.5' x 23.5' x 7.5' with 2 rows of seating)


My theater is similar, thought slightly smaller. I'm using EMP speakers in the front and SVS speakers for all the surrounds, including the Atmos speakers. Right now I'm using SVS Prime Bookshelf speakers for my sides, and Prime Satellites for the rear surrounds and the four ceiling mounted speakers. I've been very happy with the performance, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend the same setup for somebody not wanting to install in-ceiling speakers. The mounting was a minor pain, but the speakers are light enough that 8 months after mounting them I see no sign of movement.


----------



## HBAngel

*Atmos Upgrade - Advice Needed*

Hi Everyone - I am looking to expand my setup to 7.2.4 Atmos soon. Have done a lot of forum research and wanted some advice from the experts. My current setup is this:




Definitive Tech 7.2 speakers. Looking to add 4 Definitive DI 6.5R as my front overhead and rear overhead which will be in-ceiling mounts
Denon AVR 3311ci
Running all 7 speakers off external amps. The amps are older equipment but still work well
120" screen. JVC RS-40 (slated for upgrade)


Im curious on receiver recommendations given the setup and equipment I already have. Would prefer to stick with Denon since I am familiar with their product, but am open to other alternatives. My research is pointing me toward the Denon X4300H which I believe is capable of 7.2.4 if I utilize my existing two channel amp. The X6300H would obviously work as well, but at a higher price point. That said, I am bristling at spending $1,500-$2,100 on a receiver that I will only be using 4 channels of amplification on. Given that the external amps currently powering my mains, center and surrounds are older, I could power everything off the receiver internal channels and use the 2 channel amp for the Atmos rears. Would certainly help save space, but not sure if it would give me different performance.

Also, is there a list of all Atmos content available on the forums - specifically BD/UHD and Vudu?

Thanks in advance. Would be lost in this hobby without the AVS community!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HBAngel said:


> Hi Everyone - I am looking to expand my setup to 7.2.4 Atmos soon. Have done a lot of forum research and wanted some advice from the experts. My current setup is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitive Tech 7.2 speakers. Looking to add 4 Definitive DI 6.5R as my front overhead and rear overhead which will be in-ceiling mounts
> Denon AVR 3311ci
> Running all 7 speakers off external amps. The amps are older equipment but still work well
> 120" screen. JVC RS-40 (slated for upgrade)
> 
> 
> Im curious on receiver recommendations given the setup and equipment I already have. Would prefer to stick with Denon since I am familiar with their product, but am open to other alternatives. My research is pointing me toward the Denon X4300H which I believe is capable of 7.2.4 if I utilize my existing two channel amp. The X6300H would obviously work as well, but at a higher price point. That said, I am bristling at spending $1,500-$2,100 on a receiver that I will only be using 4 channels of amplification on. Given that the external amps currently powering my mains, center and surrounds are older, I could power everything off the receiver internal channels and use the 2 channel amp for the Atmos rears. Would certainly help save space, but not sure if it would give me different performance.
> 
> Also, is there a list of all Atmos content available on the forums - specifically BD/UHD and Vudu?
> 
> Thanks in advance. Would be lost in this hobby without the AVS community!


Get a *2015* Marantz 7702 mkII pre-amp and save yourself some money (at AV Science... hint, hint!). That's what I have - it works and sounds great (and runs much cooler than a receiver with no wasted heat generation)! You also have the option with *2015 *Denon/Marantz (they're sister companies) 7.1.4 models _only_ to have front wides rather than rear surrounds and four overheads to experiment with and choose which 7.1.4 layout sounds best in your room.

You already have most of the power amps already. Just get either a couple inexpensive stereo amps or a basic five channel multi-channel amp for the overheads and you won't be under powering those speakers. 

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/5000.html

Go to blu-ray.com. Their forum has lists of all available and upcoming Dolby Atmos/DTS: X titles on both disc formats. Pretty accurate too.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=atmos

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742&highlight=dts+x

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065

And yes, 2015 Denon and Marantz gear is getting a firmware update in a few months to allow both immersive upmixers to work with Dolby _and_ DTS codecs.


----------



## HBAngel

Dan Hitchman said:


> Get a *2015* Marantz 7702 mkII pre-amp and save yourself some money (at AV Science... hint, hint!). That's what I have - it works and sounds great (and runs much cooler than a receiver with no wasted heat generation)! You also have the option with *2015 *Denon/Marantz (they're sister companies) 7.1.4 models _only_ to have front wides rather than rear surrounds and four overheads to experiment with and choose which 7.1.4 layout sounds best in your room.
> 
> You already have most of the power amps already. Just get either a couple inexpensive stereo amps or a basic five channel multi-channel amp for the overheads and you won't be under powering those speakers.
> 
> http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/5000.html
> 
> Go to blu-ray.com. Their forum has lists of all available and upcoming Dolby Atmos/DTS: X titles on both disc formats. Pretty accurate too.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132&highlight=atmos
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742&highlight=dts+x
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065
> 
> And yes, 2015 Denon and Marantz gear is getting a firmware update in a few months to allow both immersive upmixers to work with Dolby _and_ DTS codecs.


Thanks for the great advice! Will definitely check all those out. Curious if you power all your channels off external amps or use some of the receiver internals. I have used external amps forever, but not sure if it makes a huge difference...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

HBAngel said:


> Thanks for the great advice! Will definitely check all those out. Curious if you power all your channels off external amps or use some of the receiver internals. I have used external amps forever, but not sure if it makes a huge difference...


If your old receiver has 7 channel analog inputs, turn off all processing, configure which speaker outputs you want to use, set them to LARGE, (run in PURE mode) and use that as a dumb amplifier to power your overheads for now and let the Marantz processor set everything else.

Since the Marantz 7702 mk II is a pre-amp/processor I _have_ to run off external amps (it has no internal amps - hence its cooler running temperature and longer life span). It sounds much cleaner than a receiver (and I've used receivers before) doing all the heavy lifting. The Marantz has a very good pre-amp stage and quality DAC's for all outputs. And the big plus is that I can mix and match power amps that balance quality-wise and power-wise with the speakers I have... or upgrade them over time if I upgrade my speakers at a later date. Can't do that with a receiver!


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> Check out HSU Research and Rythmik subs for great bang vs. buck.


Dan -- Couldn't agree more about Hsu subs. I have been running them since the '90s, when Dr Hsu still personally answered the phone and took orders. I have used a Hsu VTF-3 MK3 Turbo subwoofer since 2008 and still love it. In 2009 I bought 6 Hsu HB-1 bookshelf speakers plus an HC-1 center channel speaker to go with my sub. I have happily used this setup ever since. Now that I have added four Focal in-ceiling height speakers to enable 7.1.4 Atmos playback, my system sounds better still. Bottom line: you can't go wrong with Hsu for either value or quality.


----------



## stef2

jqmn said:


> No...two 7702MKII-- 9.1.2 (inactive .2) ===> zone 2 ===> 7.1.4 (only .4). So I can use both to get me 9.1.4 and if I turn the second one off I get 9.1.2. Works correctly. I keep meaning to reconfigure the first AVR as 9.1.4 and see if that works with real material. As you know you can configure it as 9.2.4 in the setup. I asked Marantz why it allowed this set up even though it is a max 11 speaker output. They told me that it will put out to 13 speakers. So I called B.S. on this and they went out of their way to call me back, they pulled speakers to the product, told me they tested it, and said it definitely puts out to 13 speakers in that config as long as only 11 are playing at any one time. I asked them how the s/w knew which speakers to kill or what happened to the signal (i.e., how does it fold down) if all 13 are actually called out in the soundtrack at the same time. They said they didn't know but in their test with real material they were getting sound out of all 13 speakers. The guy I talked to was extremely pleasant and helpful and I was very, very impressed/surprised that they went out of their way to call me back with this info. They could have not called me back or fed me the usual tech support stuff you get from some companies.
> 
> Anyways, that is how I was playing around with .2 vs .4 on upmixed stuff last night and was interested in whether anyone else had an opinion.



Mmmh...very interesting.
I might try this to get 9.X.4 if no receiver does it directly by the end of 2016...so, with two amps, you get 13 speakers to play at the same time? how do you deal with the volume control? and how do you time align every speaker?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

stef2 said:


> Mmmh...very interesting.
> I might try this to get 9.X.4 if no receiver does it directly by the end of 2016...so, with two amps, you get 13 speakers to play at the same time? how do you deal with the volume control? and how do you time align every speaker?


We have a nice long thread about it here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can't do that with a receiver!




If the receiver has preouts then it can do all the same things a pre/pro can do.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> If the receiver has preouts then it can do all the same things a pre/pro can do.


Yes, but not as cleanly and it gets hotter than it needs to be. The OP already has power amps.


----------



## deano86

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, but not as cleanly and it gets hotter than it needs to be. The OP already has power amps.


In my experiences with receivers, the vast majority of heat created is from the Audio and Video processing chips... The amps themselves in normal operation do not create much heat unless they are really being pushed to high volumes or running more difficult low impedance speakers...


----------



## jqmn

stef2 said:


> Mmmh...very interesting.
> I might try this to get 9.X.4 if no receiver does it directly by the end of 2016...so, with two amps, you get 13 speakers to play at the same time? how do you deal with the volume control? and how do you time align every speaker?


This avr is a pre-pro so you need to supply amps or powered speakers. As I said I have tested using the setup and could get test tones correctly from all speakers but haven't used real content. Marantz did that and said it works for 9.1.4. For the way I am doing it (two 7702) there is no need to time align anything different than you would do in a normal calibration. For volume control before or immediately upon disc start aiming the remote will adjust them at the same time given they are initially set to the same volume level. If I want to adjust during playback I either use the web app and change from one avr to the next or I have to get up and shoot around my screen wall where the equipment is. You could easily use some ir or wifi extender. I don't think there is a master/slave supported by the equipment.


----------



## stef2

Mashie Saldana said:


> We have a nice long thread about it here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


I have already read all of that thread...I just thought that someone had magically found a way to simplify the way you can play 9.1.4 using multiple amps. Guess I am still dreaming about 9.1.4 becoming a reality for me...


----------



## No_Towel_Lint

batpig said:


> IMO in a room of these dimensions ceiling speakers with angled baffles are basically mandatory to provide proper coverage of two rows and separation from the base layer.
> 
> Check out this useful article by pro Nyal Mellor: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


Thanks for the article link. It makes a pretty strong case for ceiling speakers with angled baffles in my situation (7.5' ceiling). That narrows things down quite a bit. The article shows the rear row of ceiling speakers between the seating rows and angled toward the second row of seats. Wouldn't this negatively impact the experience for the MLP (first row)? I'm thinking maybe I'd angle the rear ceiling speakers toward the first row to maximize the experience there and let the second row suffer (second row will be used on only rare occasions).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

No_Towel_Lint said:


> Thanks for the article link. It makes a pretty strong case for ceiling speakers with angled baffles in my situation (7.5' ceiling). That narrows things down quite a bit. The article shows the rear row of ceiling speakers between the seating rows and angled toward the second row of seats. Wouldn't this negatively impact the experience for the MLP (first row)? I'm thinking maybe I'd angle the rear ceiling speakers toward the first row to maximize the experience there and let the second row suffer (second row will be used on only rare occasions).


Unless you have a Trinnov processor, you really do have to give one seating area the love and attention it deserves.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

stef2 said:


> I have already read all of that thread...I just thought that someone had magically found a way to simplify the way you can play 9.1.4 using multiple amps. Guess I am still dreaming about 9.1.4 becoming a reality for me...


The easy option is the Trinnow Altitude 16. With the mainstream processors dropping the wides in 2016 it might take a while before anything more exciting than 7.1.4 is available.


----------



## Tom899

*5.1.4 or 7.1.2 with existing ceiling speakers.*

I have (4) ceiling speakers that I have been using for a 7.1 system. I've ordered (2) normal height surround speakers to be mounted on the side walls (now I will have (5) low speakers). So now I have to decide how to configure the ceiling speakers. 

I was thinking of leaving the most rearward ceiling as back surround and making the old ceiling surround to atmos (7.1.2)
Or, making all (4) ceiling to atmos (5.1.4) 

I've included a picture of the (4) ceiling speaker locations. Would the locations even be ideal for atmos?
What should I do?
Thanks for all suggestions. By the way, I have a Denon x4200W and external amp capability.
-Tom


----------



## jkasanic

Tom899 said:


> I have (4) ceiling speakers that I have been using for a 7.1 system. I've ordered (2) normal height surround speakers to be mounted on the side walls (now I will have (5) low speakers). So now I have to decide how to configure the ceiling speakers.
> 
> I was thinking of leaving the most rearward ceiling as back surround and making the old ceiling surround to atmos (7.1.2)
> Or, making all (4) ceiling to atmos (5.1.4)
> 
> I've included a picture of the (4) ceiling speaker locations. Would the locations even be ideal for atmos?
> What should I do?
> Thanks for all suggestions. By the way, I have a Denon x4200W and external amp capability.
> -Tom


FWIW, I was in the same boat and went with 5.1.4. The funny part about having surrounds above me for so long is that I got used to that effect so when I went Atmos and added rear surrounds to the base layer, that was the biggest adjustment! Anyway, if you can experiment with the location of the new surrounds (i.e. from say 80-110 degrees from your MLP) then you could try both formats. For me, I was cutting holes in the wall so that made it a little easier to decide!


----------



## Tom899

jkasanic said:


> FWIW, I was in the same boat and went with 5.1.4. The funny part about having surrounds above me for so long is that I got used to that effect so when I went Atmos and added rear surrounds to the base layer, that was the biggest adjustment! Anyway, if you can experiment with the location of the new surrounds (i.e. from say 80-110 degrees from your MLP) then you could try both formats. For me, I was cutting holes in the wall so that made it a little easier to decide!


Thanks for your input, I will try 5.1.4


----------



## heavyharmonies

LNEWoLF said:


> They were gone shortly after they were released. Most didn't recognise that the Diamond Deluxe edition contained ATMOS. when they did it was too late.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=251369
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...u-ray-official-avs-forum-review-7.html#footer
> 
> As previosly posted by thebland. Get em while there hot........got mine in a week. @ Amazon.ca


Back in stock at CDN$17.99:

https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...00PTGEUZQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8


----------



## Dan Hitchman

heavyharmonies said:


> Back in stock at CDN$17.99:
> 
> https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...00PTGEUZQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8


Uh... nope. Ships in 2 to 3 weeks. That's not in stock.


----------



## heavyharmonies

Then status has changed since earlier today. Also, I received a credit card charged notification today from the order I placed on Aug. 28 and status has gone to "preparing for shipment". So only about 1.5 weeks from order date. Not bad.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

heavyharmonies said:


> Then status has changed since earlier today. Also, I received a credit card charged notification today from the order I placed on Aug. 28 and status has gone to "preparing for shipment". So only about 1.5 weeks from order date. Not bad.


I hope you get, man, I hope you do. It's a kick ass mix.


----------



## Micker99

I have a basement home theater room. It's a rectangle shape, 21' long x 15' wide, 7' high drop ceiling. I want to do a 5.1.2, and was wondering where to place my surround speakers. I will need to do either 90? on each side of the mlp, or on the back wall at like 130?. Both can be just above ear level. Can't really do anything in between. I have them directly behind me now up high and I guess that's wrong lol. Also wondering where to put the in ceiling, should it be directly above or in front or back of my mlp?? Thanks, driving me nuts trying to make a decision.


----------



## batpig

Micker99 said:


> I have a basement home theater room. It's a rectangle shape, 21' long x 15' wide, 7' high drop ceiling. I want to do a 5.1.2, and was wondering where to place my surround speakers. I will need to do either 90? on each side of the mlp, or on the back wall at like 130?. Both can be just above ear level. Can't really do anything in between. I have them directly behind me now up high and I guess that's wrong lol. Also wondering where to put the in ceiling, should it be directly above or in front or back of my mlp?? Thanks, driving me nuts trying to make a decision.


With so much depth why not do a 7ch base layer? You will have plenty of room behind for back surrounds. 

If you will only ever do two ceiling speakers you want a top middle designation, but with such low ceilings you don't want the speakers directly above, they will be too close to your ears. So cheat them a few feet forward. That also allows you add a rear overhead pair later if you want.


----------



## CinemaAndy

This is the longest running thread in the history of AVSForm.


----------



## zeus33

CinemaAndy said:


> This is the longest running thread in the history of AVSForm.



Not even close. The Audyssey thread was started in '07. Part 1 has almost 80k replies and 6.5 million views. Part 2 has another 1100 replies. 

By comparison, this thread started in 2014 and has almost 42k replies.


----------



## Micker99

The receiver I'm getting, denon x2300w, only has connections for 5.1.2 I believe . Not sure what I would need to add more speakers. I'll have an extra pioneer 1121 receiver I'm replacing, if I could use that.


----------



## von bek

I recently purchased the samsung k950 for my lg 65 c6p. This may have been answered already, would like to know since the 2016 lg oleds do not support atmos natively, has anyone reached out to LG to see if some type of firmware update will mitigate this shortcoming?
Thanks


----------



## LNEWoLF

Dan Hitchman said:


> Uh... nope. Ships in 2 to 3 weeks. That's not in stock.


When I intially ordered mine. 

It stated 2 to 3 months...........

A day later it stated prepairing for shipment..........

That night it stated shipped...........

A week later I was holding it in my hands...........



If you prefer it to state in "stock"..............

You can order here.......

https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Blu-ray-Sandra-Bullock/dp/B00PGHUJOO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473260306&sr=8-1&keywords=gravity+diamond+luxe+edition

For 74.99 plus 4.99 shipping. Only 2 left in "stock."


----------



## Scott Simonian

CinemaAndy said:


> This is the longest running thread in the history of AVSForm.


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-movies-concerts-music-discussion/124118-time-machine.html


----------



## tezster

How does (Denon's) Dynamic EQ treat Atmos channels? 

There's been a fair amount of discussion in the recent past regarding Dynamic EQ in terms of how much it boosts the LFE and surround channels when listening at volume levels significantly below reference (I think I've even seen some frequency graphs based on someone's tests); does Dynamic EQ apply the same amount of boost to the height and top channels?


----------



## craiggerz

I'm putting a sound system in my basement. My plan was for 5.0 with 2 in ceiling speakers for surround. If I was to do 5.0.2, where should I located the 4 ceiling speakers? I've done my best to google but cannot find anything, if you can reference me something to read that would be great.


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-movies-concerts-music-discussion/124118-time-machine.html


Probably right, but I like zeus33's response in post #41867 above.


----------



## LNEWoLF

craiggerz said:


> I'm putting a sound system in my basement. My plan was for 5.0 with 2 in ceiling speakers for surround. If I was to do 5.0.2, where should I located the 4 ceiling speakers? I've done my best to google but cannot find anything, if you can reference me something to read that would be great.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html


----------



## craiggerz

LNEWoLF said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html


I appreciate the response, but none of these examples show a 5.1.2 system using 4 in ceiling speakers. Unless of course I can simply replace the surround with in ceiling in the same location.


----------



## Scott Simonian

richlife said:


> Probably right, but I like zeus33's response in post #41867 above.


Mkay...


----------



## craiggerz

Another question, the majority of our tv watching is streaming/downloads... are the 2 additional atmos speakers going to make a difference for us? Since this is a new setup I don't even know if most of the stuff we stream yet is available in 5.1.


----------



## Scott Simonian

craiggerz said:


> Another question, the majority of our tv watching is streaming/downloads... are the 2 additional atmos speakers going to make a difference for us? Since this is a new setup I don't even know if most of the stuff we stream yet is available in 5.1.


Yes.


----------



## batpig

tezster said:


> How does (Denon's) Dynamic EQ treat Atmos channels?
> 
> There's been a fair amount of discussion in the recent past regarding Dynamic EQ in terms of how much it boosts the LFE and surround channels when listening at volume levels significantly below reference (I think I've even seen some frequency graphs based on someone's tests); does Dynamic EQ apply the same amount of boost to the height and top channels?


No, DEQ does NOT boost the heights at all. Just the surrounds. I asked Chris Kyriakakis (founder of Audyssey) about this directly back when Atmos was first coming out and he confirmed this.


----------



## batpig

craiggerz said:


> Another question, the majority of our tv watching is streaming/downloads... are the 2 additional atmos speakers going to make a difference for us? Since this is a new setup I don't even know if most of the stuff we stream yet is available in 5.1.


The vast majority of content most people listen to is NOT going to be Atmos. That's why there's upmixing -- the extra speakers definitely make a difference, you'll get a greater sense of immersion from having the extra speakers on the ceiling and you'll be prepared for any native immersive content.


----------



## trp3383

Looking for some insight on speaker location. I recently built a house and ran lines in the ceiling for atmos, but the room arrangement changed and now I'm stuck. Current setup is a vsx-90 which is limited to 5.1.2 and 3 bookshelf speakers for LCR. I planned on putting 2 in ceilings for the rear surround above the couch, 1 to the right of the couch and one above the chair. The red lines show the route I ran the extra wires in the ceiling. Any advice on this? Thanks


----------



## deano86

batpig said:


> No, DEQ does NOT boost the heights at all. Just the surrounds. I asked Chris Kyriakakis (founder of Audyssey) about this directly back when Atmos was first coming out and he confirmed this.


Hmmm, that is very interesting! That could probably at least partially explain the dissatisfaction many people have when they are clamoring to "hear" their new height speakers at lower volume levels... their standard surround and base level speakers using DEQ are being boosted at the typical lower volume levels, while the heights are at their normal calibrated levels yet..... effectively drowning out the heights to some degree?


----------



## Foundation42

Originally Posted by *batpig*  
_No, DEQ does NOT boost the heights at all. Just the surrounds. I asked Chris Kyriakakis (founder of Audyssey) about this directly back when Atmos was first coming out and he confirmed this._



deano86 said:


> Hmmm, that is very interesting! That could probably at least partially explain the dissatisfaction many people have when they are clamoring to "hear" their new height speakers at lower volume levels... their standard surround and base level speakers using DEQ are being boosted at the typical lower volume levels, while the heights are at their normal calibrated levels yet..... effectively drowning out the heights to some degree?


I was just thinking the same thing. I remember when Atmos was first coming out hearing people saying they were boosting the output of their Atmos speakers in order to hear more activity from them. That seemed less than ideal to me at the time, given that they were calibrated with the other speakers by Audyssey, but this may explain some of what was going on. Now I'm curious to go play a bit...


----------



## batpig

I honestly think the more likely explanation is that people WANT more action from their heights and most Atmos mixes don't really have much up there... and DSU just throws mostly ambiance and overtones so people want more of that "in your face" (or would that be "on your head") impact from those extra speakers they went to the trouble of installing.


----------



## batpig

craiggerz said:


> I'm putting a sound system in my basement. My plan was for 5.0 with 2 in ceiling speakers for surround. If I was to do 5.0.2, where should I located the 4 ceiling speakers? I've done my best to google but cannot find anything, if you can reference me something to read that would be great.





LNEWoLF said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html





craiggerz said:


> I appreciate the response, but none of these examples show a 5.1.2 system using 4 in ceiling speakers. Unless of course I can simply replace the surround with in ceiling in the same location.


I'm a little confused, a 5.1.2 system has 2 in-ceiling speakers, what do you mean by a "5.1.2 system using 4 in ceiling speakers"? Do you mean you are going to array them (i.e. duplicate signal two two pairs of speakers)?

Regardless, with four in ceiling speakers it's pretty simple: a pair in front, and a pair in back.


----------



## batpig

trp3383 said:


> Looking for some insight on speaker location. I recently built a house and ran lines in the ceiling for atmos, but the room arrangement changed and now I'm stuck. Current setup is a vsx-90 which is limited to 5.1.2 and 3 bookshelf speakers for LCR. I planned on putting 2 in ceilings for the rear surround above the couch, 1 to the right of the couch and one above the chair. The red lines show the route I ran the extra wires in the ceiling. Any advice on this? Thanks


whatever you are doing with your image is not working, I can't see it. I even tried copy/pasting the URL directly into a browser window and got an error symbol.


----------



## trp3383

batpig said:


> trp3383 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking for some insight on speaker location. I recently built a house and ran lines in the ceiling for atmos, but the room arrangement changed and now I'm stuck. Current setup is a vsx-90 which is limited to 5.1.2 and 3 bookshelf speakers for LCR. I planned on putting 2 in ceilings for the rear surround above the couch, 1 to the right of the couch and one above the chair. The red lines show the route I ran the extra wires in the ceiling. Any advice on this? Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> whatever you are doing with your image is not working, I can't see it. I even tried copy/pasting the URL directly into a browser window and got an error symbol.
Click to expand...

 How about now


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I'm a little confused, a 5.1.2 system has 2 in-ceiling speakers, what do you mean by a "5.1.2 system using 4 in ceiling speakers"?


I think he's looking for placement advice when the surrounds and heights are all going to be in-ceiling.


----------



## sdurani

trp3383 said:


> I planned on putting 2 in ceilings for the rear surround above the couch, 1 to the right of the couch and one above the chair.


I would start by keeping things symmetrical. Draw a line back from the middle of the TV to the couch. Measure how far the (in-ceiling) right surround speaker will be from the centre line and install the left surround speaker the same distance away (even if it means it doesn't end up above the chair). Since you'll have speakers at/near the front and back walls, I would put the (in-ceiling) heights mid way between, to fill that gap.


----------



## sdurani

craiggerz said:


> I'm putting a sound system in my basement. My plan was for 5.0 with 2 in ceiling speakers for surround. If I was to do 5.0.2, where should I located the 4 ceiling speakers?


Can you post a diagram/floorplan of the room?


----------



## trp3383

sdurani said:


> I would start by keeping things symmetrical. Draw a line back from the middle of the TV to the couch. Measure how far the (in-ceiling) right surround speaker will be from the centre line and install the left surround speaker the same distance away (even if it means it doesn't end up above the chair). Since you'll have speakers at/near the front and back walls, I would put the (in-ceiling) heights mid way between, to fill that gap.


I can't put speakers in the middle, the room is complete. Only option I guess is surrounds in ceiling and atmos bookshelfs?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

trp3383 said:


> I can't put speakers in the middle, the room is complete.


If you're limited to where the red lines are, then put them in the ceiling up front (since your surrounds are at the back of the room).


> Only option I guess is surrounds in ceiling and atmos bookshelfs?


Other way 'round: if you can do bookshelf speakers below ceiling height, then those should be your surrounds.


----------



## craiggerz

batpig said:


> I'm a little confused, a 5.1.2 system has 2 in-ceiling speakers, what do you mean by a "5.1.2 system using 4 in ceiling speakers"? Do you mean you are going to array them (i.e. duplicate signal two two pairs of speakers)?
> 
> Regardless, with four in ceiling speakers it's pretty simple: a pair in front, and a pair in back.





sdurani said:


> I think he's looking for placement advice when the surrounds and heights are all going to be in-ceiling.


Yes that's correct. I will have floor standing fronts + center and 2 in ceiling surrounds. I'm debating whether to add 2 additional in ceiling speakers for atmos.



sdurani said:


> Can you post a diagram/floorplan of the room?


Yup sure, see the following sketchups I made:

















And with measurements:









Thanks for the help!


----------



## sdurani

craiggerz said:


> I will have floor standing fronts + center and 2 in ceiling surrounds. I'm debating whether to add 2 additional in ceiling speakers for atmos.


Based on the diagram, I would put the surrounds slightly behind the main listening position, spread as wide apart as symmetrically possible (relative to the MLP). Heights would be a few feet forward of the listening area, spread the same distance apart as your front L/R speakers (or slightly less). Any chance of rotating your set-up 90 degrees, so the display is above the fireplace?


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> Mkay...



I'm special! 

I think your thread takes the cake though. That is an old one! I didn't even search, but the Audyssey thread was a few threads away, so it stood out.


----------



## craiggerz

sdurani said:


> craiggerz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have floor standing fronts + center and 2 in ceiling surrounds. I'm debating whether to add 2 additional in ceiling speakers for atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the diagram, I would put the surrounds slightly behind the main listening position, spread as wide apart as symmetrically possible (relative to the MLP). Heights would be a few feet forward of the listening area, spread the same distance apart as your front L/R speakers (or slightly less). Any chance of rotating your set-up 90 degrees, so the display is above the fireplace?
Click to expand...

Can't rotate, it's a wood burning fireplace. 

Thanks!


----------



## petetherock

zeus33 said:


> Not even close. The Audyssey thread was started in '07. Part 1 has almost 80k replies and 6.5 million views. Part 2 has another 1100 replies.
> 
> By comparison, this thread started in 2014 and has almost 42k replies.


IMO, that's not a good thing, especially for newbies..
Sometimes important info is buried somewhere, and cross senior members give curt replies which don't really help.
Personally I would suggest starting a new thread every 1000 posts and link the older thread to the new one, and add important info to the front page, ala the Denon / Marantz threads.. those are nicely maintained.


----------



## murlidher

batpig said:


> I honestly think the more likely explanation is that people WANT more action from their heights and most Atmos mixes don't really have much up there... and DSU just throws mostly ambiance and overtones so people want more of that "in your face" (or would that be "on your head") impact from those extra speakers they went to the trouble of installing.


Watching neutral dtsx mix yesterday, the surround was so aggressive that I could not hear much from ceiling.

Probably have to experiment watching with dynamic EQ off to tone down the surrounds. As someone suggested, the pain i took to install ceilings i prefer to listen more sound from it 

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

In case you're not aware, there is a "Reference Level Offset" setting (RLO) for Dynamic EQ which will significantly tone down the aggressiveness of its boosting (both freq response and surround boost). IMO the surround boost at default is way too much, so I always have the RLO set to 10dB, which makes the surrounds less overbearing, and then bump the subs a few dB to restore the feel of the bass a bit. I also trim down the surrounds slightly (1-2dB), using certain clips like the bird in the "Amaze" Atmos demo to try and make sure that 360 degree panning around me stays fairly stable. People for years and years have been hoping that Audyssey would separate the loudness comp portion of DEQ from the surround boost, but what are ya gonna do?


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> but what are ya gonna do?


Not use ANY dynamic EQ features.


----------



## batpig

easy to say when you don't have any volume restrictions


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sure I do. It's called reference level.


----------



## batpig

you're limited by reference level? obviously you don't have enough subwoofers.....


----------



## Scott Simonian

Heh. On a serious note, I usually listen from -15dB to -5dB with varying levels of bass. *check sig for details*

I can go WELL above reference level with this system and sometimes do but I just don't like listening that loud all the time. Sometimes but not always.

Either way, I don't want my levels constantly variable with volume level. Ugh. I understand and get the appeal of such a feature but...not for me. No thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Either way, I don't want my levels constantly variable with volume level. Ugh. I understand and get the appeal of such a feature but...not for me. No thanks.


Human hearing is not linear in all directions at different volume levels. The lower you turn your master volume, your ability to hear surround information or bass drops off quicker than your ability to hear the front main channels. Hence the need to normalize the levels at every volume. 

If you calibrated your system for a "reference volume" of, say, 60 dB, your levels in the surrounds and sub would be higher than they are now.

(I'm sure you knew this, Scott. I'm just stating it for others.)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah....I got it.

None of the studies about how our hearing works speak much about how annoying dynamic EQ is. 

Also, our "inability to hear" low bass isn't as bad when you listen at above average levels. We don't really need to have an active EQ system doing it's thing at these adequate levels. It's only when we listen at 'night time' like levels does bass need a bump and I'll argue at those times bass _shouldn't_ be bumped up. Most people, myself included, have a house curve to mitigate these effects as well.

Again. I get it. I just don't like it. No bueno.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> The lower you turn your master volume, your ability to hear surround information or bass drops off quicker than your ability to hear the front main channels.


Bass yes, surrounds no. Audyssey DEQ starts from the mistaken premise that sounds around us drop off quicker than sounds in front of us, even though there's no research to support that. 

Audyssey arrived at that notion by having movie mixers listen to soundtracks they'd mixed and re-adjust individual speaker trims as they lowered the master volume. Problem is, the surround channels of a typical soundtrack aren't as loud as the front channels. Quieter sounds drop off faster (disappear into the noise floor sooner) than louder sounds. 

IF Audyssey had played level matched signals from all 5 speakers as they lowered the master volume, they would have found that sounds around us drop off at the same rate as sounds in front of us. If you look at how Dolby Volume works, they boost quiet sounds to compensate for the master volume being lowered, irrespective of channel.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Bass yes, surrounds no. Audyssey DEQ starts from the mistaken premise that sounds around us drop off quicker than sounds in front of us, even though there's no research to support that.
> 
> Audyssey arrived at that notion by having movie mixers listen to soundtracks they'd mixed and re-adjust individual speaker trims as they lowered the master volume. Problem is, the surround channels of a typical soundtrack aren't as loud as the front channels. Quieter sounds drop off faster (disappear into the noise floor sooner) than louder sounds.
> 
> IF Audyssey had played level matched signals from all 5 speakers as they lowered the master volume, they would have found that sounds around us drop off at the same rate as sounds in front of us. If you look at how Dolby Volume works, they boost quiet sounds to compensate for the master volume being lowered, irrespective of channel.


Interesting. Thanks for the correction. 

Even so, doesn't the fact that the movie mixers raised the trims to the surround channels suggest that they want those sounds to be audible even at lower playback levels? 



Scott Simonian said:


> Also, our "inability to hear" low bass isn't as bad when you listen at above average levels. We don't really need to have an active EQ system doing it's thing at these adequate levels. It's only when we listen at 'night time' like levels does bass need a bump and I'll argue at those times bass _shouldn't_ be bumped up.


Sanjay or someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that Dynamic EQ doesn't do much at "above average" volume levels close to reference. It works non-linearly, so that it has more effect the lower your turn your volume.


----------



## smurraybhm

^ Josh - I have the same understanding of DynEQ, the more you increase the sound the less it comes into play. Personally I find it helpful, like Batpig I have to watch the volume - most of the time.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Even so, doesn't the fact that the movie mixers raised the trims to the surround channels suggest that they want those sounds to be audible even at lower playback levels?


Yes, you want those sounds, NOT those entire channels, to be raised back to audibility. 

Imagine you had a mono recording of a vocalist singing in a night club, with subtle room ambience in the background. As you start lowering the master volume, the room ambience disappears while you still hear the vocalist. The recording deliberately had reverb mixed in to give the impression of a live venue. With the ambience gone, it now sounds like a dry recording studio. Merely lowering the master volume can change the intent of the recording. 

So there is a need for compensation to boost quiet sounds. But it has nothing to do with front channels or surround channels, mono recordings or multi-channel mixes. Whenever sounds reach the threshold of falling into inaudibility, those sounds should be boosted back to a level where they're audible again. Irrespective of which channel (or object) those sounds are in. 

BTW, there were complaints in the Audyssey thread and other threads about DEQ overdoing the surround boost (lower the volume enough and the surrounds overwhelm the fronts). To address that problem, Audyssey introduced Reference Level Offset, which tricks DEQ into kicking in later (up to 15dB later) by giving it an incorrect (offset) reference level. The unfortunate side effect of starting from a mistaken premise.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> Sanjay or someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that Dynamic EQ doesn't do much at "above average" volume levels close to reference. It works non-linearly, so that it has more effect the lower your turn your volume.


Yes, this is true which is why I said these features are less necessary when we listen at "adequate" levels to begin with. 

Same thing. 

I don't like having some algorithm constantly try and change things on the fly. Audio or video. I always disable that auto-iris crap on my projectors. Don't like dynamic electronic contrast boosters or whatever. Don't like dynamic EQ. Yamaha has a feature that is called Adaptive DSP which is very similar to Dynamic EQ where it will ramp up (or down) the effect of the DSP modes with volume level. ECK!!! 

Think about it this way, would you want the "effect" of DSU to be variable with volume? F**k that.


----------



## Bilious72

I have to mount my Atmos speakers on the walls because I have vaulted ceilings that do not run parallel to the listening area. I can mount them anywhere from directly above my front left and right to directly above my screen at any height. I have a pair of Klipsch R14S for that duty. In the rear, I have a pair of Klipsch R14Ms that I can mount along the back wall 5 feet behind the MLP from 8 to 10 feet high either as wide as or slightly wider than the rear surrounds. 

Do I need to angle downward the fronts or rears for the best Atmos effect? What is the best mounting height and width relative to the other speakers? Will the more diffuse Klipsch R14S work in best in front? I'm having someone else who is better at running cables mount them and run the speaker wire.

Thank you so much for the advice. I'm really new to Atmos.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's amazing that they would drop the Atmos rendering of wides (even if you gave up the back surrounds). They are _far_ more active (on the mixes I have there's something coming out of them - music and SFX - all the time) than the overheads as those are, sadly, rarely used. I'm still running four overheads.
> 
> Perhaps they're saving the wides for their 2017 flagship models (*they decided to go to three year intervals*) with the addition of an extra set of rendered outputs (13.1 instead of 11.1 processing).As I mentioned before it was stated by one of their engineers at last year's CEDIA that the new DSP chips they started using in 2015 could handle two more rendered Atmos speaker outputs besides the basic 7.1.4 configuration.
> 
> For now, I'm glad I stuck with the 7702 mk II pre-amp. This better be just a temporary setback. The whole idea behind immersive audio is scalability with greater immersion the more speakers you have to work with (given a certain size room). They should not be eliminating speaker positions, they should be adding them!



Just to clarify ... D+M didn't decide to go to 3 year intervals, rather simply there was no real significant upgrade this year to warrant the release of new "flagship" models, so apparently the decision was made to let their release slip 1 year this time around.


----------



## PeterTHX

smurraybhm said:


> ^ Josh - I have the same understanding of DynEQ, the more you increase the sound the less it comes into play. Personally I find it helpful, like Batpig I have to watch the volume - most of the time.


You mean (gasp!) it adjust itself_* dynamically *_according to playback level???


----------



## cisco1982

cisco1982 said:


> Next chapter
> 
> This reciever has serious problem managing speakers at different speaker config.
> 
> Here you can follow. http://forum.eu.onkyo.com/viewtopic...71&sid=afbcd278bb5fb70902be38a38c573b81#p2871
> 
> I created a video too. When I set my speker config to 6.1, I lost my center based on the speaker leds on the reciever.


fyi: They forward my problem to Japan, for 2-3 weeks now, but there is no answer. But at this point, they admit, that this is a problem, because they (European support) don't have a solution.


----------



## Selden Ball

Bilious72 said:


> I have to mount my Atmos speakers on the walls because I have vaulted ceilings that do not run parallel to the listening area. I can mount them anywhere from directly above my front left and right to directly above my screen at any height. I have a pair of Klipsch R14S for that duty. In the rear, I have a pair of Klipsch R14Ms that I can mount along the back wall 5 feet behind the MLP from 8 to 10 feet high either as wide as or slightly wider than the rear surrounds.


 You might want to take the time to read Dolby's document 
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolo...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Briefly, you might consider positioning the speakers as Front Height and Rear Height: put them as high up on the front and back walls as you can, in line with the front main speakers.


> Do I need to angle downward the fronts or rears for the best Atmos effect?


That depends on the design of the speakers. In general, they probably will sound best if they point down toward the opposite side of the seating. For example, the right speaker is likely to sound best if it points down toward the left end of the seating.


> What is the best mounting height and width relative to the other speakers?


 See above.


> Will the more diffuse Klipsch R14S work in best in front?


Maybe. You'll have to listen to find out which you prefer.


> I'm having someone else who is better at running cables mount them and run the speaker wire.
> 
> Thank you so much for the advice. I'm really new to Atmos.
Click to expand...


----------



## hatlesschimp

I think its great they waited a year to release new models because of no significant upgrades! You wouldnt see a company named after a fruit do that.


----------



## dschulz

cisco1982 said:


> fyi: They forward my problem to Japan, for 2-3 weeks now, but there is no answer. But at this point, they admit, that this is a problem, because they (European support) don't have a solution.


As was discussed earlier in this thread, your 5.1 setup is behaving as it should - there is no Atmos decoding to be done if you are playing back in 5.1, as the file on the Blu Ray disc is a 7.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, with Atmos metadata that does not come into play if you have a 5.1 system.

Do you actually have a 6.1 speaker setup, and if so which output on the AVR is your back surround speaker connected to?


----------



## tommypolo

*Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Enabled Speakers*

I have a pair of Onkyo SKH-410 speakers that are designed to be placed on top of the front channel LR speakers. Is there any reason I cannot mount these above the LR speakers where the wall meets the ceiling? They are designed to reflect sound off the ceiling but would they be satisfactory to project sound down from the wall/ceiling location instead?


----------



## cannga

Scott Simonian said:


> ....
> None of the studies about how our hearing works speak much about how annoying dynamic EQ is.
> Also, our "inability to hear" low bass isn't as bad when you...


"Witty" . Thanks for the chuckle.

Other auto-dynamic functions that drive me nuts: auto dim of cell phone and Windows 10 laptops, auto shift of BMW dual clutch. Somehow these auto functions tend to be unsettling, especially when they are not well designed and over compensate.


----------



## batpig

tommypolo said:


> I have a pair of Onkyo SKH-410 speakers that are designed to be placed on top of the front channel LR speakers. Is there any reason I cannot mount these above the LR speakers where the wall meets the ceiling? They are designed to reflect sound off the ceiling but would they be satisfactory to project sound down from the wall/ceiling location instead?


Will they make sound? Yes. Will they sound good? No. They are crappy speakers. If you're going to mount speakers high up and point them down you are much better off using normal speakers which will sound a zillion times better and don't cost extra money for the "Dolby enabled" certification. Plenty of great little inexpensive satellites out there like Def Tech ProMonitor that are easy to mount and aim.


----------



## mures1

Hi, I finally convinced myself to do the atmos 5.2.4 and I have a question. What's the best placement of 4 height speakers. I checked Internet pictures and it's all over the place and hard to really see the best placement. 
Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JS9000


----------



## mures1

Hi,
What is the best placement for 4 height speakers? I checked Internet pics and they are all different.
Thanks;(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JS9000


----------



## healthnut

mures1 said:


> Hi,
> What is the best placement for 4 height speakers? I checked Internet pics and they are all different.
> Thanks;(
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> JS9000




Height is more of a DTS:X term, if your referring to the overhead ceiling speakers for Atmos, then the Dolby recommendations are to have a pair at 45 degrees in front of the main listening position and 45 degrees to the rear. They should be on the same plane as the front mains (same distance from the sidewalls). The 45 degree angle can be easily calculated by measuring the distance from your seated head to the ceiling and placing the overheads that distance in front and behind. There is some discretion with placement, so don't stress out of you can't meet these specs on the number, this is a guideline only. Good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## meli

mures1 said:


> Hi, I finally convinced myself to do the atmos 5.2.4 and I have a question. What's the best placement of 4 height speakers. I checked Internet pictures and it's all over the place and hard to really see the best placement.\


http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html


----------



## Dan Hitchman

There are four new 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos encoded music Blu-ray's for your consideration from 2L Norway:










www.2L.no/pages/album/123.html










www.2L.no/pages/album/124.html










www.2L.no/pages/album/125.html










www.2L.no/pages/album/126.html


----------



## dvdwilly3

meli said:


> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html


The best answer to your open-ended question is, "It depends."

That is one reason that you have not gotten any real responses.

Without knowing the layout and configuration of your room/space, nobody has a clue where to start.

If you want a complete answer, you need to provide at the least a description, and better yet, a few pictures or a diagram.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are four new 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos encoded music Blu-ray's for your consideration from 2L Norway:


Not to be pedantic, but there's not really such a thing as a "7.1.4 encoded soundtrack." The mix may well have been monitored on a 7.1.4 system, but the Atmos encode is agnostic with respect to the final playback system - could be anything from 5.1.2 up to 24.1.10.

These releases also include Auro-3D 9.1 mixes. Not that there are many home theaters properly configured for both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos, but if someone did have one it would be really interesting to compare the two mixes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Not to be pedantic, but


And not to be annoying but Dolby Atmos doesn't work with music.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> Not to be pedantic, but there's not really such a thing as a "7.1.4 encoded soundtrack." The mix may well have been monitored on a 7.1.4 system, but the Atmos encode is agnostic with respect to the final playback system - could be anything from 5.1.2 up to 24.1.10.
> 
> These releases also include Auro-3D 9.1 mixes. Not that there are many home theaters properly configured for both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos, but if someone did have one it would be really interesting to compare the two mixes.


You can be pedantic if you want , but according to an e-mail from Morten Lindberg these Atmos mixes have a 7.1 channel bed with four snapped objects for the overheads (containing hall ambiance). They were recorded with an 11 mic surround array (a modular Grace Design surround tree to be specific - I have one too). Hence it is a fixed 7.1.4 soundtrack. 

These are live field recordings and not synthetic studio music mixes and there are no sound effects or instruments zipping around in 3D space, so I can see why the objects were locked off to specific speaker locations.

The Auro3D version a folded 9.1 mix rather than 11.1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> And not to be annoying but Dolby Atmos doesn't work with music.



It sure does.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> You can be pedantic if you want , but according to an e-mail from Morten Lindberg these Atmos mixes have a 7.1 channel bed with four snapped objects for the overheads (containing hall ambiance). They were recorded with an 11 mic surround array (a modular Grace Design surround tree to be specific - I have one too). Hence it is a fixed 7.1.4 soundtrack.
> 
> These are live field recordings and not synthetic studio music mixes and there are no sound effects or instruments zipping around in 3D space, so I can see why the objects were locked off to specific speaker locations.


I stand corrected, and thanks for clarifying!

I wonder how the renderer handles this scenario if playback is not 7.1.4. If the objects are snapped to TF and TR speaker locations, but my room is 5.1.2, or 7.1.4 with FH and RH, what happens to those overhead objects? 

I wonder if they just pushed the Auro height channels into the overhead locations for Atmos, or if they tweaked the mix to account for the disparate channel locations?


----------



## lujan

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are four new 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos encoded music Blu-ray's for your consideration from 2L Norway:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.2L.no/pages/album/123.html
> 
> ...


I had to look twice when I saw the name of the first one.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lujan said:


> I had to look twice when I saw the name of the first one.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> I stand corrected, and thanks for clarifying!
> 
> I wonder how the renderer handles this scenario if playback is not 7.1.4. If the objects are snapped to TF and TR speaker locations, but my room is 5.1.2, or 7.1.4 with FH and RH, what happens to those overhead objects?
> 
> I wonder if they just pushed the Auro height channels into the overhead locations for Atmos, or if they tweaked the mix to account for the disparate channel locations?


From what I remember, the four overheads would be down mixed/folded to the Top Middle position in a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 layout. 

The rear channels get mixed into the side channel locations. 

I believe that 2L tweaks each mix for the specific surround tracks contained on the discs.

Here's a look at the mic tree.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I remember, the four overheads would be down mixed/folded to the Top Middle position in a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 layout.
> 
> The rear channels get mixed into the side channel locations.
> 
> I believe that 2L tweaks each mix for the specific surround tracks contained on the disc.


Multichannnel 5.1 SACD, 5.1 DTS at 192 kHz, Auro 9.1 and Dolby Atmos. Not my usual musical taste but I'm ordering. This is going to really give the Altitude a workout  ....both for processing at the native sample rate and in the use of remapping...

Also proof that Atmos is making inroads into the Auro die-hard camp, considering that 2L was an early adaptor of Auro for their BD Pure Audio discs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Multichannnel 5.1 SACD, 5.1 DTS at 192 kHz, Auro 9.1 and Dolby Atmos. Not my usual musical taste but I'm ordering. This is going to really give the Atltitude a workout  ....both for processing at the native sample rate and in the use of remapping...
> 
> Also proof that Atmos is making inroads into the Auro die-hard camp, considering that 2L was an early adaptor of Auro for their BD Pure Audio discs.


I guess 2L was originally going to release their immersive mixes in Dolby Atmos, but there were some issues that 2L was having with the Atmos software or their initial Auro3D releases would have had Dolby Atmos as well. They worked with Dolby Labs to get them rectified and now they're back at it. 

This is a really good Atmos music release too:










https://www.amazon.com/1615-Gabriel...watch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1473623394&sr=8-26


----------



## Dan Hitchman

*^^^*

I have not listened to the SA-CD on the title listed above, just the Blu-ray Audio track in Dolby Atmos as that's why I bought it, so I cannot comment on any mix errors with the SA-CD. The Atmos track plays correctly, however.

And this is the version I bought. It is a two pack with Pure Blu-ray Audio disc included.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> *^^^*
> 
> I have not listened to the SA-CD on the title listed above, just the Blu-ray Audio track in Dolby Atmos as that's why I bought it, so I cannot comment on any mix errors with the SA-CD. The Atmos track plays correctly, however.
> 
> And this is the version I bought. It is a two pack with Pure Blu-ray Audio disc included.


That was in the Amazon link--a reviewer mentions that the multichannel SACD mix apparently had one of the surround channels completely mute. This would be pretty annoying....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> That was in the Amazon link--a reviewer mentions that the multichannel SACD mix apparently had one of the surround channels completely mute. This would be pretty annoying....


I'll have to take a listen when I have a chance.


----------



## SoundChex

To my mind, the essential metric for an immersive audio BD of a live concert is how accurately playback of the disc replicates the live event [in an ideal playback theater]. For Atmos that issue needs to be clear for all of 5|7|9.x.2 and 5|7.x.4 speaker configurations, and when using any|all legal height speaker combinations. Most homes will not meet the same audio setup standards as professional sound stages, so the robustness of the recording and technology in less-than-ideal situations is probably equally important. If we cannot depend on the immersive BD recording to deliver an accurate reproduction of the original concert, there would seem to be little value in purchasing more than a 2.0 or 5.1 recording...?!

Comparing the results obtained for both Atmos and Auro3D BD recording playback of the same concert would also be valuable...



_


----------



## grtuck

Dan Hitchman said:


> There are four new 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos encoded music Blu-ray's for your consideration from 2L Norway:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.2L.no/pages/album/123.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.2L.no/pages/album/124.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.2L.no/pages/album/125.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.2L.no/pages/album/126.html


Thank you for the heads up, just purchased them now, and looking forward to hearing them. 
Sadly, it says they will ship in 2 weeks...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

grtuck said:


> Thank you for the heads up, just purchased them now, and looking forward to hearing them.
> Sadly, it says they will ship in 2 weeks...


Small labels usually hold little stock in inventory, so it doesn't surprise me. Going from past 2L recordings, they'll be well worth the wait.


----------



## grtuck

Dan Hitchman said:


> Small labels usually hold little stock in inventory, so it doesn't surprise me. Going from past 2L recordings, they'll be well worth the wait.


Ya, I have some of their stuff already, they do a wonderful job.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos doesn't work with music.


Thanx for the reminder Wilfried.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I wonder how the renderer handles this scenario if playback is not 7.1.4. If the objects are snapped to TF and TR speaker locations, but my room is 5.1.2, or 7.1.4 with FH and RH, what happens to those overhead objects?


Standard downmixing for fewer than 7.1.4 speakers. If you have more speakers, then only 11 of them will light up. IF the overhead objects were snapped to TF+TR locations (instead of FH+RH locations), then a FH+RH speaker layout will attempt to phantom those sounds inward to their intended TF+TR locations.


> I wonder if they just pushed the Auro height channels into the overhead locations for Atmos, or if they tweaked the mix to account for the disparate channel locations?


The number of recorded channels seems to vary (And Sing = 9.1, Himmerland = 11.1, Reflections = 12.1). All the upper layer mics in the microphone tree appear to be pointing out at the walls rather than up at the ceiling. 

Each albums has their own Facebook page, with pics & diagrams of the recording sessions: 
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153478202334319.1073741857.659934318&type=1&l=f3e2d3f4e6 
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153149770379319.1073741849.659934318&type=1&l=7f02539dd2 
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153326428429319.1073741852.659934318&type=1&l=da88cc58c9 
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10154363929239319.1073741861.659934318&type=1&l=5de3901a0d


----------



## noah katz

SoundChex said:


> If we cannot depend on the immersive BD recording to deliver an accurate reproduction of the original concert, there would seem to be little value in purchasing more than a 2.0 or 5.1 recording...?!


Unduly stringent IMO.

Personally, I don't care if it sounds like the original, as long as it's some nice-sounding venue that's not my living room.


----------



## heavyharmonies

SoundChex said:


> If we cannot depend on the immersive BD recording to deliver an accurate reproduction of the original concert, there would seem to be little value in purchasing more than a 2.0 or 5.1 recording...?!


Then you might as well stop purchasing music in ANY format, as you will never be able to 100% replicate the acoustics of the studio/theatre/stadium where the content was recorded, in your home living room.

No offense, but you are setting the bar WAAAAAAAAY too high.


----------



## petetherock

Hmm... checked out the contents, are folks buying any contents that says "Atmos" on the cover just so they can say they have everything Atmos or are they really into such music?
You won't need torture camps - just play this stuff and all their secrets will be divulged


----------



## sdrucker

petetherock said:


> Hmm... checked out the contents, are folks buying any contents that says "Atmos" on the cover just so they can say they have everything Atmos or are they really into such music?
> You won't need torture camps - just play this stuff and all their secrets will be divulged


My taste is pretty eclectic: everything from Gogol Bordello to EDM to Bruce Springsteen, with a fair dose of world music (particularly Mediterranean with some Latin). However, I also like the likes of John Zorn and am open to well-recorded music that captures a live performance in high-res multichannel. And new music tastes are fun to experience...otherwise I'd never have bought the outstanding Ramsay Lewis Legends of Jazz Vol. II after hearing it demo'd at CEDIA 2014.

So, in the interests of science I'm buying the organ or chamber orchestra BD .


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> Hmm... checked out the contents, are folks buying any contents that says "Atmos" on the cover just so they can say they have everything Atmos or are they really into such music?


You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos? 








petetherock said:


> You won't need torture camps - just play this stuff and all their secrets will be divulged


I see what you mean.​


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> 
> https://youtu.be/FO9gOCv3fCU
> I see what you mean.​


This vocalizing style should be illegal under the Geneva Convention. Yikes


----------



## Shniks

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> 
> ​






Cheers,


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> ​


----------



## Markitron

I have a quick question, if y'all don't mind.

I am currently using a Denon X2200W, and just upgraded my speakers to the ELAC Debut series with the F6 floorstanders. I'm thinking about upgrading my receiver to provide a little more power and I have seen a good deal on the 4200W.

One of the mian reasons for the change would be upgrading to a 5.1.4 set up, but it seems this receiver requires an external amplifier. I have no knowledge of these whatsoever and was wondering roughly how much they cost, would I be better waiting and getting an AVR that does out this configuration out of the box?

Many thanks.


----------



## petetherock

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> 
> https://youtu.be/FO9gOCv3fCU
> I see what you mean.​


That sounds like something you can use in a new Twilight Zone movie mate


----------



## Tom899

Markitron said:


> I have a quick question, if y'all don't mind.
> 
> I am currently using a Denon X2200W, and just upgraded my speakers to the ELAC Debut series with the F6 floorstanders. I'm thinking about upgrading my receiver to provide a little more power and I have seen a good deal on the 4200W.
> 
> One of the mian reasons for the change would be upgrading to a 5.1.4 set up, but it seems this receiver requires an external amplifier. I have no knowledge of these whatsoever and was wondering roughly how much they cost, would I be better waiting and getting an AVR that does out this configuration out of the box?
> 
> Many thanks.



I just upgraded to a X4200W myself and added a 2ch amp. jdsmoothie suggested an Audio Source AMP100VS 2 Channel Amplifier currently going for $133.98 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZSEFU94/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I hooked it up yesterday and works very well!


----------



## Markitron

Tom899 said:


> I just upgraded to a X4200W myself and added a 2ch amp. jdsmoothie suggested an Audio Source AMP100VS 2 Channel Amplifier currently going for $133.98 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZSEFU94/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> I hooked it up yesterday and works very well!


Thank you very much, I'll look into it.


----------



## heavyharmonies

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> 
> https://youtu.be/FO9gOCv3fCU
> I see what you mean.​


WTF was THAT? This is what passes for music today?... Good grief.


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

heavyharmonies said:


> WTF was THAT? This is what passes for music today?... Good grief.


I hear kids in Walmart that sound just like this “singer”. I am convinced that the average person is hard of hearing. They are willing to put up with loud pagers, barking dogs, screaming kids, loud restaurants, etc.


----------



## bbutler123

Hi guys,

Long time lurker... blah blah blah..


I apologize if this has been answered before or this is the wrong thread..


I am starting to look in to upgrading my 7.1 system to Atmos 7.2.2/4 or 5.2.2/4. What I thought was going to be simple has caused my head to hurt. I went to 2 different BestBuy Magnolia stores only to find their Atmos setup was broken!.. Then to discover all atmos receivers are not much better that 5.1 systems...

My Room:

I have a dedicated budget 18x18 media room. 3 speakers in front, 4 in ceiling (just behind 1st Row seat and 2 behind back row/ room). Have a single 7.1 receiver driving it. I think this would be a Left,Right,Center, Top Middle L/R, Top Back L/R, Sub)

I watch TV (70%) and movies (30%) in room.. Rarely (2x year) listen to music, never classical guitar/jazz. I am not looking to create a Sound studio.. I would like to have good sound that moves around the room. 

I am NOT looking to spend more that about $1000-2000 on this upgrade so please -- not looking for an Macintosh system. 

General Questions:

Q1: Is it worth it? Without hearing it, it seems like the bigest thing in HT sound in years?

Q1.5: too soon?

Speaker Placement questions

Q2: For x.x.4 system. Do I need to relocate Top Middle speaker to Top Front? Meaning I would have to leave 2 hole or fix sheet rock.. 

Q3: or should I go with For x.x.2 system and wire TopMiddle &TopBack in parallel (4ohm) and buy receiver that can run it? 

Q4: Assuming a 9.x Receiver, should I do 5.2.4 or 7.2.2?

Q5: Speakers I was planning installing at ear level Back Speakers (5.x.x) and middle speakers (7.x.x) basic in wall speakers (nothing fancy). ok?

Receiver

Q6: HDMI 2.2? I DONT have a 4K projector but probably in my future in next couple years, once they become


----------



## cannga

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> 
> https://youtu.be/FO9gOCv3fCU
> I see what you mean.​


 Almost "spilled" my coffee.


----------



## sdurani

bbutler123 said:


> Is it worth it?


Yes, IF you can separate sounds around you from sounds above you. Meaning your surround speakers and height speakers can't ALL be in/on the ceiling. Surrounds should be slightly above ear height, so that all listeners have clear line of sight to those speakers.


> For x.x.4 system. Do I need to relocate Top Middle speaker to Top Front?


Depends on whether your main listening position: is it in the front row or back row?


> Assuming a 9.x Receiver, should I do 5.2.4 or 7.2.2?


You can get a 7.1.4 receiver, like the upcoming Denon 4300, for well within your budget. You'll have to add a stereo amp (not expensive) since the Denon can process 11 channels but has only 9 amps built-in.


----------



## bbutler123

Thank you for answer! Would love to hear other opinion and answers to other q's



sdurani said:


> bbutler123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For x.x.4 system. Do I need to relocate Top Middle speaker to Top Front?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on whether your main listening position: is it in the front row or back row?
Click to expand...

*Main listening position is Front row right seat. I would Really like to Not have to move speakers but will if a must.. Difference between x.x.2 and x.x.4 a big deal?*


----------



## heavyharmonies

sdurani said:


> You can get a 7.1.4 receiver, like the upcoming Denon 4300, for well within your budget. You'll have to add a stereo amp (not expensive) since the Denon can process 11 channels but has only 9 amps built-in.


The x4300h will likely remain at ~$1,499 for some time, whereas last year's x4200w is being clearanced at $799 by several authorized retailers. Not sure what the 4300h brings to the table over the 4200w that would be worth almost double the cost in his scenario. The 4200w would be the bang-for-the-buck option, especially if he is wanting to run 7.2.2 or 5.2.4 (obviously 7.2.4 needs a higher level, but not sure he needs it...)

I'm running 5.2.4 with the x4200w using an old Carver 2-channel amp to drive the fronts, and it is wonderful for Atmos.


----------



## batpig

heavyharmonies said:


> Not sure what the 4300h brings to the table over the 4200w that would be worth almost double the cost in his scenario.


The big things are (1) the 4300 has 9 amps built in in stead of 7, (2) the 4300 can expand to 7.1.4 whereas the 4200 is limited to 9 channels, (3) the 4300 has HEOS built in for better streaming and multiroom music integration, and (4) the 4300 will be able to use the new Audyssey app.

No question the 4200 is better bang for the buck at current discount pricing. If #3 and #4 above aren't interesting to you, but you really want a full 11ch setup, then the outgoing X6200W will become a great value once it gets closeout pricing.


----------



## sdurani

bbutler123 said:


> Main listening position is Front row right seat. I would Really like to Not have to move speakers but will if a must..


Since both pairs of ceiling speakers are rearward of that location, you just need to move one pair of speakers forward of that row. Then add surround speakers to your walls.


> Difference between x.x.2 and x.x.4 a big deal?


2 overhead speakers let you hear movement from left to right. 4 overhead speakers let you hear panning from left to right AND front to back. Since you already have a 7.1 set-up, you know what it's like to have side vs rear panning in the surround field. Up to you to decide whether that's a big deal in the height plane.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?


This is a real thing? It's not a parody? Holy s***...


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> This is a real thing? It's not a parody?


Do a search for her on YouTube. Make sure you haven't eaten first.


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> This is a real thing? It's not a parody? Holy s***...


She's a serious artist in the new music/experimental world. She doesn't do songs, she performs interpretations using musical instruments and her voice of the natural world and how she perceives the environment (to loosely paraphrase an article about her style I found on Facebook). Obvious not for the casual listener and not meant for entertainment, it's what I'd call music by artists for artists. I'd never heard of her, but John Zorn's Tsadik label (someone I have heard of and saw a couples of times with Naked City and his neo-klezmer instrumental ensemble over the years) has supported artists like this.

From her bio:
"Maja Solveig Kjelstrup Ratkje, composer and performer (born Dec. 29th 1973 in Trondheim, Norway), finished composition studies at the Norwegian State Academy of Music in Oslo in 2000. Her music is performed worldwide by performers such as Ensemble Intercontemporain, Klangforum Wien, Oslo Sinfonietta, The Norwegian Radio Orchestra, BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, Fretwork, TM+, Cikada, Mivos and Bozzini string quartets, Quatuor Renoir, crashEnsemble, Pearls for Swine Experience, Torben Snekkestad, Marianne Beate Kielland, SPUNK, Frode Haltli, POING and many more. Portrait concerts with her music has been heard in Toronto and Vienna, she has been composer in residence at festivals like Other Minds in San Francisco, Trondheim Chamber Music Festival, Nordland Music Festival in Bodø, Avanti! Summer Festival in Finland, Båstad Chamber Music Festival and Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival.

Ratkje has received awards such as the International Rostrum of Composers in Paris for composers below 30 years of age, the Norwegian Edvard prize (work of the year) twice, second prize at the Russolo Foundation, and in 2001 she was the first composer ever to receive the Norwegian Arne Nordheim prize. Her solo album Voice, made in collaboration with Jazzkammer, got a Distinction Award at Prix Ars Electronica in 2003. In 2013 she was nominated for the Nordic Council Music Prize for her vocal work".

http://ratkje.no/

It's certainly thought provoking  , if you consider Bjork to be pop music. Here's what might be a more "accessible" version of Ratkje's approach (starting about two minutes into the video). Maybe not 100% strange as an Atmos release:


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Thanks for that link! One of the most interesting posts in ages on this thread. Not much news happening, unless I missed something?

BTW, the above is not what you hear on FM when traveling in Sweden. You don't even hear Bjork or Robin. Only rubbish. When I was there in July, the iPod in the car was malfunctioning and we had to put up whit hearing some idiotic Spanish tune every hour. In the end, I bought some CD's...


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Thanks for that link! One of the most interesting posts in ages on this thread. Not much news happening, unless I missed something?


We're a few days from CEDIA, so I imagine there will be more equipment news and stuff about 4K coming out from those of us that are going to Dallas.

Otherwise glad to help. Since Sanjay dug up that YouTube video with the cat yowls and what-not, I Googled her and found not only the bio, but the 40 minute show from Punkt. If you just leave that clip on it's pretty ethereal and kind of soothing in its way. Say what you will, but I'd probably buy that kind of electronic music for the 3D audio immersion, which I wouldn't for the other clip with the yowling.



> BTW, the above is not what you hear on FM when traveling in Sweden. You don't even hear Bjork or Robin. Only rubbish. When I was there in July, the iPod in the car was malfunctioning and we had to put up whit hearing some idiotic Spanish tune every hour. In the end, I bought some CD's...


Norway, but whatever. Figures that they just play Euro-pop.


----------



## gwsat

I guess I lack taste or have insufficient intellectual curiosity about "New Music" but if Ms. Ratkje's performances were all there had been to demonstrate Atmos, I would have saved a lot of money. No criticism of those who find that sort of thing interesting is intended but it's not for me.


----------



## sdrucker

gwsat said:


> I guess I lack taste or have insufficient intellectual curiosity about "New Music" but if Ms. Ratkje's performances were all there had been to demonstrate Atmos, I would have saved a lot of money. No criticism of those who find that sort of thing interesting is intended but it's not for me.


It could be worse - Ratkje is apparently the poster child for jumping all over the place. Good thing Sanjay didn't post her Insomnia clip, which is in the Lou Reed Metal Machine Music genre from the little bit I could tolerate. Her "music" is demo material I could learn to like in a limited way, but not something that you're going to listen to for fun. Still, it's good to be open to new styles even if they're mood music.

You raise a valid point, though, that you need variety and a broad range of music for music 3D audio discs to have any traction. Auro hasn't done much in that area, with the Tiesto releases and Ozark Henry as close to mass appeal as most else that's been released.

On the other hand, Dolby played a couple of demo clips of Bay Area electronica, if I remember correctly, that were mixed into Atmos at the CEDIA 2014 event for AVSers. The 2L discs aren't of general interest to anyone except for the uber-high brow and the Euros that like sacred/organ/classical music, but you're going to need the type of discs that Steve Wilson remasters into multichannel to even begin to reach a broader audience. Stuff like Jethro Tull's Aqualung, the Talking Heads Brick set that was in DVD Audio, or the usual suspects in the Pink Floyd catalog, for example.

Then there's DTS:X. Ume and Black Stone, anyone?


----------



## lorjam

I thought it was the scream of someone caught in the conveyor at a busy Amazon warehouse.


----------



## heavyharmonies

Music only in the loosest sense of the term. Then again, I don't consider rap to be music either.


----------



## richlife

sdrucker said:


> It could be worse - Ratkje is apparently the poster child for jumping all over the place. Good thing Sanjay didn't post her Insomnia clip, which is in the Lou Reed Metal Machine Music genre from the little bit I could tolerate. Her "music" is demo material I could learn to like in a limited way, but not something that you're going to listen to for fun. Still, it's good to be open to new styles even if they're mood music.
> 
> You raise a valid point, though, that you need variety and a broad range of music for music 3D audio discs to have any traction. Auro hasn't done much in that area, with the Tiesto releases and Ozark Henry as close to mass appeal as most else that's been released.
> 
> On the other hand, Dolby played a couple of demo clips of Bay Area electronica, if I remember correctly, that were mixed into Atmos at the CEDIA 2014 event for AVSers. The 2L discs aren't of general interest to anyone except for the uber-high brow and the Euros that like sacred/organ/classical music, but you're going to need the type of discs that Steve Wilson remasters into multichannel to even begin to reach a broader audience. Stuff like Jethro Tull's Aqualung, the Talking Heads Brick set that was in DVD Audio, or the usual suspects in the Pink Floyd catalog, for example.
> 
> Then there's DTS:X. Ume and Black Stone, anyone?


I'm completely with you here. I typically let my family provide the music I like via my Wishlist. (Mostly) reasonable cost for almost anyone. (And always something special like a new UHD Bluray player as "wishful" thinking.  )

For example, if Eric Clapton's latest "Clapton at 70" had been released in Atmos or DTS:X instead of "just" DTS HD MA, I think it would have done a lot to advance the cause of immersive audio. (I KNOW it would be in my library instead of on a Wishlist.) I think the labels need to think about who actually buys DVDs today. It's probably less of the Millennials than it is us boomers and Gen Xers who grew up with "hardcopy" audio, are financially stable, often have the equipment, are jumping on this "immersive" bandwagon, and are willing to sit and watch/listen to our favorite artists.

I like your list and would add so many like Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler, Emmylou Harris -- man, we could fill a Forum!


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdrucker said:


> She's a serious artist in the new music/experimental world. She doesn't do songs, she performs interpretations using musical instruments and her voice of the natural world and how she perceives the environment (to loosely paraphrase an article about her style I found on Facebook). Obvious not for the casual listener and not meant for entertainment, it's what I'd call music by artists for artists. I'd never heard of her, but John Zorn's Tsadik label (someone I have heard of and saw a couples of times with Naked City and his neo-klezmer instrumental ensemble over the years) has supported artists like this.
> 
> From her bio:
> "Maja Solveig Kjelstrup Ratkje, composer and performer (born Dec. 29th 1973 in Trondheim, Norway), finished composition studies at the Norwegian State Academy of Music in Oslo in 2000. Her music is performed worldwide by performers such as Ensemble Intercontemporain, Klangforum Wien, Oslo Sinfonietta, The Norwegian Radio Orchestra, BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, Fretwork, TM+, Cikada, Mivos and Bozzini string quartets, Quatuor Renoir, crashEnsemble, Pearls for Swine Experience, Torben Snekkestad, Marianne Beate Kielland, SPUNK, Frode Haltli, POING and many more. Portrait concerts with her music has been heard in Toronto and Vienna, she has been composer in residence at festivals like Other Minds in San Francisco, Trondheim Chamber Music Festival, Nordland Music Festival in Bodø, Avanti! Summer Festival in Finland, Båstad Chamber Music Festival and Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival.
> 
> Ratkje has received awards such as the International Rostrum of Composers in Paris for composers below 30 years of age, the Norwegian Edvard prize (work of the year) twice, second prize at the Russolo Foundation, and in 2001 she was the first composer ever to receive the Norwegian Arne Nordheim prize. Her solo album Voice, made in collaboration with Jazzkammer, got a Distinction Award at Prix Ars Electronica in 2003. In 2013 she was nominated for the Nordic Council Music Prize for her vocal work".
> 
> http://ratkje.no/
> 
> It's certainly thought provoking  , if you consider Bjork to be pop music. Here's what might be a more "accessible" version of Ratkje's approach (starting about two minutes into the video). Maybe not 100% strange as an Atmos release:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VDc0ac6PLg



Kind of like Ravi Shankar - 

The first five minutes - - wow, this is really different. This is cool!

The second five minutes - - what a minute, what's going on here?

The last five minutes - - I'm going postal. I'm gonna hurt someone unless I turn this sh*$ off!


----------



## SoundChex

sdrucker said:


> It could be worse - Ratkje is apparently the poster child for jumping all over the place. Good thing Sanjay didn't post her Insomnia clip, which is in the Lou Reed Metal Machine Music genre from the little bit I could tolerate. Her "music" is demo material I could learn to like in a limited way, but not something that you're going to listen to for fun. Still, it's good to be open to new styles even if they're mood music.
> 
> You raise a valid point, though, that you need variety and a broad range of music for music 3D audio discs to have any traction. Auro hasn't done much in that area, with the Tiesto releases and Ozark Henry as close to mass appeal as most else that's been released.
> 
> On the other hand, Dolby played a couple of demo clips of Bay Area electronica, if I remember correctly, that were mixed into Atmos at the CEDIA 2014 event for AVSers. The 2L discs aren't of general interest to anyone except for the uber-high brow and the Euros that like sacred/organ/classical music, but you're going to need the type of discs that Steve Wilson remasters into multichannel to even begin to reach a broader audience. Stuff like Jethro Tull's Aqualung, the Talking Heads Brick set that was in DVD Audio, or the usual suspects in the Pink Floyd catalog, for example.
> 
> Then there's DTS:X. Ume and Black Stone, anyone?



I can't guess the present size of the installed base of consumers interested in buying native-mixed immersive music--but I'd guess 'small'. Perhaps this accounts for the predominance of boutique recording labels . . . whose niche markets might go some way to explain the odd mix of music styles offered?!  

When Sennheiser rolled out ["hyped"] Ambeo 3D in 2015, their promotional materials aggressively suggested they expected immersive music to be adopted first for use with headphones, and for home theater acceptance to follow 'later'.  

_


----------



## gwsat

I watched _Batman v. Superman_ tonight and was simply blown away by its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. It's the best I have heard yet. It was a pretty good film too, filled with great visuals and exciting action. There is something to be said for going in with low expectations.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> You don't think the lilting vocal stylings of Maja Ratkje will sound melodious in Atmos?
> 
> https://youtu.be/FO9gOCv3fCU
> I see what you mean.​


I probably won't be getting this particular disc, no. 

Sounds a bit like whales humping or other seismic anomaly.


----------



## audiofan1

gwsat said:


> I watched _Batman v. Superman_ tonight and was simply blown away by its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. It's the best I have heard yet. It was a pretty good film too, filled with great visuals and exciting action. There is something to be said for going in with low expectations.


I agree! The nay Sayers can say what they want , this was a fantastic movie


----------



## TheCoolDoc

gwsat said:


> I watched _Batman v. Superman_ tonight and was simply blown away by its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. It's the best I have heard yet. It was a pretty good film too, filled with great visuals and exciting action. There is something to be said for going in with low expectations.


The thunders during the fight scene! Along with the creepy phantom of the opera like music!


----------



## nickbuol

audiofan1 said:


> I agree! The nay Sayers can say what they want , this was a fantastic movie


The blu-ray version "fixed" a lot of my gripes with the story line, but couldn't fix 2 key pieces that come to mind (I won't post any spoilers, but basically the start of the title based fight, and the cause for its end). It was still enjoyable, better than at the movie theater, and the soundtrack was very nice.


----------



## grendelrt

Hopefully this is the right place to ask this question. If you are installing a ceiling speaker that is pre pointed like the Golden Ear Htr7000, which I read is at a 30 degree angle, would you change the placement based on the Dolby specs to account for that 30 degrees or still stay at Dolby spec? Would love to hear some experiences with similar speakers, thanks! 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> I watched _Batman v. Superman_ tonight and was simply blown away by its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. It's the best I have heard yet. It was a pretty good film too, filled with great visuals and exciting action. There is something to be said for going in with low expectations.


Agreed - - one of the best examples of "Object" versus "Speaker" rendering for a Dolby Atmos soundtrack that I've heard to date.

Incredible use of panning and sounds that shift above and around you. Totally enveloping. This is what Dolby Atmos is all about!


----------



## batpig

grendelrt said:


> Hopefully this is the right place to ask this question. If you are installing a ceiling speaker that is pre pointed like the Golden Ear Htr7000, which I read is at a 30 degree angle, would you change the placement based on the Dolby specs to account for that 30 degrees or still stay at Dolby spec? Would love to hear some experiences with similar speakers, thanks!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


No, you still want the sound to come from the right direction. The aimed baffle is about directing the sound where you want it to go. 

Also note that in the Dolby specs they say to aim the speaker if doesn't have super wide dispersion.


----------



## shyyour

audiofan1 said:


> I agree! The nay Sayers can say what they want , this was a fantastic movie


i also thought the movie was going to be bad based on all the reviews but iit was really really Good


----------



## grendelrt

batpig said:


> No, you still want the sound to come from the right direction. The aimed baffle is about directing the sound where you want it to go.
> 
> Also note that in the Dolby specs they say to aim the speaker if doesn't have super wide dispersion.


Thanks!


----------



## jgourlie

Need some help here with my system.

I currently am using Energy cr-10 surround speakers in my Atmos system.










As you can see there is an upfiring tweeter. Currently my system is only 5.1.2 and has been working good with these speakers in the surround position, but I am now going to 5.1.4 with Top Rear Speakers and now I am worried about this top firing tweeter messing with the object based sound with the top rear speakers.

Is there anyway to block the sound from this tweeter?? tape would only muffle would it not?? 

I don't really want to cut the internal wires if I don't have too....

Could I cover the tweeter with pink insulation and tape would that be enough and then put the speaker grill back over it.

Any help is appreciated,


----------



## sdurani

jgourlie said:


> Currently my system is only 5.1.2 and has been working good with these speakers in the surround position, but I am now going to 5.1.4 with Top Rear Speakers and now I am worried about this top firing tweeter messing with the object based sound with the top rear speakers.


Turn them sideways and use them as bipoles. If you mount them along your sides, say around 110° from centre, the additional tweeter will be pointing at the back wall instead of the ceiling.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Or leave it top firing.

All four of my overheads are firing up and down. I get direct sounds and some lighting up the ceiling directly above them. If anything, it makes the soundstage for the overhead larger.


----------



## Alanlee

jgourlie said:


> Need some help here with my system.
> 
> Could I cover the tweeter with pink insulation and tape would that be enough and then put the speaker grill back over it.
> 
> Any help is appreciated,


I think you have two good solutions above, but if you really want to unhook the speaker. Take out the screws that are holding the speaker, and pull it up to see if the wires will just unplug from the speaker. Follow the wires and see if they will unplug on the other end. They may be hooked to the crossover or the other speaker. If unplugging the speaker and the wires does not disable the other speakers, you can screw the tweeter back in and you will not have to look at whatever you had planned to cover the tweeter.


----------



## richlife

Keep in mind that Atmos is primarily about using your speakers, including Presence, to appropriately place sound in your audio field. It really doesn't matter whether your speakers are directed in an non-forward (or whatever) position. The speakers wherever they sit are going to manipulate the audio based on their L, R, Presence, Surround or whatever position. My Mirage Omnis don't all have drivers pointing at me, but the Atmos effect is spectacular. Even the surround dipoles. I would leave them as they are unless you think sounds are muddy or not being place properly. (I know -- how can you tell? If the imaging is good and the sound fits the movie, you are probably good.) So I'm agreeing with Sanjay and Scott also.


----------



## jgourlie

Thanks for all the suggestions. I think I will just leave it and see how it goes!


----------



## tcramer

In general, if you can't get the Atmos speakers perfectly inline with the front L/R, would it be preferred to place them narrower or wider? Or does that depend on the room?

I'm going to add Atmos to my room that is far from ideal but am a bit limited on the placement due to what's in the joists and soffit. For the fronts, I have one joist space they can go, it's just a matter of how wide. I'm more concerned about the back where I have 2 possible joists. One row is up further, but wider than the fronts. The other row is back further, but narrower than the fronts. I know neither is good, but am trying to figure out which would be the best.

As of now, I'm leaning towards the ones that are more inside for both (but further back for the TRs) to ensure there is enough separation from the surrounds. I could be totally wrong with that thinking though so any advice is appreciated.


----------



## richlife

tcramer said:


> In general, if you can't get the Atmos speakers perfectly inline with the front L/R, would it be preferred to place them narrower or wider? Or does that depend on the room?
> 
> I'm going to add Atmos to my room that is far from ideal but am a bit limited on the placement due to what's in the joists and soffit. For the fronts, I have one joist space they can go, it's just a matter of how wide. I'm more concerned about the back where I have 2 possible joists. One row is up further, but wider than the fronts. The other row is back further, but narrower than the fronts. I know neither is good, but am trying to figure out which would be the best.
> 
> As of now, I'm leaning towards the ones that are more inside for both (but further back for the TRs) to ensure there is enough separation from the surrounds. I could be totally wrong with that thinking though so any advice is appreciated.


I thought I remembered the Dolby Atmos Guidelines suggesting an inside position if they can't line up, but I can't find that right now. I have mine inside and the effect is outstanding.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tcramer said:


> In general, if you can't get the Atmos speakers perfectly inline with the front L/R, would it be preferred to place them narrower or wider? Or does that depend on the room?



Ideally a nice set up will have all the ground level speakers as the furthest out (think of a dome) so it makes sense to me to have the overheads narrower than the L/R if you can't line them up.

Mine are narrower. Plenty of stereo imaging between both pairs, front and back.


----------



## richlife

There is a great new thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...olby-atmos-enabled-speakers.html#post46755833 with video and really good information about the Dolby Atmos enable speaker design. 

My thanks to LNEWolf to pointing me to it.


----------



## thebland

I'm at CEDIA. The Acurus demo was 7.3.6 native. Sounded great. The difference between 4 vs 6 heights makes this piece truly unique for $8500. Nice looking peice.










Jeff


----------



## Scott Simonian

Excellent @thebland


----------



## isabuschina

tcramer said:


> In general, if you can't get the Atmos speakers perfectly inline with the front L/R, would it be preferred to place them narrower or wider? Or does that depend on the room?
> 
> I'm going to add Atmos to my room that is far from ideal but am a bit limited on the placement due to what's in the joists and soffit. For the fronts, I have one joist space they can go, it's just a matter of how wide. I'm more concerned about the back where I have 2 possible joists. One row is up further, but wider than the fronts. The other row is back further, but narrower than the fronts. I know neither is good, but am trying to figure out which would be the best.
> 
> As of now, I'm leaning towards the ones that are more inside for both (but further back for the TRs) to ensure there is enough separation from the surrounds. I could be totally wrong with that thinking though so any advice is appreciated.


I feel that for most situations the inside position is best. Reasons include getting the speakers clear of wall, better dispersion when listening from less off axis horizontally, and the generally accepted notion on the forums that the Atmos sound field should form a bubble or dome shape.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

isabuschina said:


> I feel that for most situations the inside position is best. Reasons include getting the speakers clear of wall, better dispersion when listening from less off axis horizontally, and the generally accepted notion on the forums that the Atmos sound field should form a bubble or dome shape.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk


Agreed.

Imho, the 'ideal' layout (in a 7.1.4 world) would look just like this:


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Imho, the 'ideal' layout (in a 7.1.4 world) would look just like this:


I can see a bunch of new posts/threads coming -- lots of circular ("bubbular"?) rooms being built... :laugh:

I know a guy with a geodesic dome house... 

More practically speaking, this is a good model and I appreciate you posting it again Scott. Nice to be reminded of what we could do if. And what we should do since we can't. My room and setup will never be "bubbular" -- more like a bent, bulbous slug. (Get THAT image fixed in your head.) But while I'm still adding to the hardware, it's good to have a model to think about.

Edit: It gives trying to pivot those new A4s toward the MLP seem more likely to produce a good result.


----------



## batpig

Also remember that theatrically the overhead arrays are inside of the L/R main speakers. So if you're going to err, err on the side of placing them narrower than the mains, not wider. 

Not that I think it's an error, BTW. Just in context of the "Atmos for home" whitepaper recs.


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> I'm at CEDIA. The Acurus demo was 7.3.6 native. Sounded great. The difference between 4 vs 6 heights makes this piece truly unique for $8500. Nice looking peice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff


I saw it too, and the rep played test tones from the 9.1.6 Dolby demo's test tones, as well as a few clips and a helicopter 360 degrees panning. All 13 speakers + subs were playing with Dolby Atmos enabled, with discrete test tones from the three pairs of heights. They're running a TI DSP chip as per their rep.

Note that 7.x.6 can't be swapped for 9.x.4, but they support 9.x.2. And no Dirac or other brand EQ, but they offer PEQ.


----------



## Scott Simonian

richlife said:


> I can see a bunch of new posts/threads coming -- lots of circular ("bubbular"?) rooms being built... :laugh:
> 
> I know a guy with a geodesic dome house...
> 
> More practically speaking, this is a good model and I appreciate you posting it again Scott. Nice to be reminded of what we could do if. And what we should do since we can't. My room and setup will never be "bubbular" -- more like a bent, bulbous slug. (Get THAT image fixed in your head.) But while I'm still adding to the hardware, it's good to have a model to think about.
> 
> Edit: It gives trying to pivot those new A4s toward the MLP seem more likely to produce a good result.


Haha! I didn't mean literally a circular room. Just the overall layout and the picture was to punctuate what I was saying about the overhead "array" being more inside and following the shape of a dome. People don't actually have to put their speakers in a circle BUT a system where ALL the speakers are equidistant from the MLP is a very, very good thing to strive for.


----------



## tcramer

richlife said:


> I thought I remembered the Dolby Atmos Guidelines suggesting an inside position if they can't line up, but I can't find that right now. I have mine inside and the effect is outstanding.





Scott Simonian said:


> Ideally a nice set up will have all the ground level speakers as the furthest out (think of a dome) so it makes sense to me to have the overheads narrower than the L/R if you can't line them up.
> 
> Mine are narrower. Plenty of stereo imaging between both pairs, front and back.





isabuschina said:


> I feel that for most situations the inside position is best. Reasons include getting the speakers clear of wall, better dispersion when listening from less off axis horizontally, and the generally accepted notion on the forums that the Atmos sound field should form a bubble or dome shape.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk





Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Imho, the 'ideal' layout (in a 7.1.4 world) would look just like this:





batpig said:


> Also remember that theatrically the overhead arrays are inside of the L/R main speakers. So if you're going to err, err on the side of placing them narrower than the mains, not wider.
> 
> Not that I think it's an error, BTW. Just in context of the "Atmos for home" whitepaper recs.



Thanks all of you for the advice. That confirms the way I was leaning so I will go that route.

Just ordered 4 RSL C34Es as I need the shallow mounting depth. That combined with the angled drivers and tweeter and wide dispersion made those ideal for my low ceiling height. Now I just need to update my Denon to either the x4300, x6300 (or x6200) and I'll be all set!


----------



## ALtlOff

thebland said:


> I'm at CEDIA. The Acurus demo was 7.3.6 native. Sounded great. The difference between 4 vs 6 heights makes this piece truly unique for $8500. Nice looking peice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff


Well [email protected]!t, now I have to pull back on the reigns even harder hoping for 7.1.6 adoption from the avg consumer level mfg's for late 2017. But at least things are pointing that way.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Imho, the 'ideal' layout (in a 7.1.4 world) would look just like this:


The only good thing with a square room is that you can do a circularish layout:

Angles are 0, 25, 50, 100, 144.










And here the angles are 45, 80, 125. The sloping line is just the line the base layer speakers will be on.









The circles are representing heads.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> The only good thing with a square room is that you can do a circularish layout:
> 
> Angles are 0, 25, 50, 110, 144.
> 
> 
> 
> And here the angles are 45, 80, 125. The sloping line is just the line the base layer speakers will be on.
> 
> 
> The circles are representing heads.



Hmm. Not bad!


----------



## stef2

thebland said:


> I'm at CEDIA. The Acurus demo was 7.3.6 native. Sounded great. The difference between 4 vs 6 heights makes this piece truly unique for $8500. Nice looking peice.
> Jeff


That is good news...now, bring me 9.1.6 for that price, and I am a buyer! I want to keep my front wides.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> rep played test tones from the 9.1.6 Dolby demo's test tones...with discrete test tones from the three pairs of heights


You can get the same results with a ScAtmos set-up, where each of the 6 overhead speakers will play their respective test tone with no audible leakage from the other 5 speakers.


> Note that 7.x.6 can't be swapped for 9.x.4, but they support 9.x.2.


Why does 13-channel decoding disappear when Wides are activated?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> You can get the same results with a ScAtmos set-up, where each of the 6 overhead speakers will play their respective test tone with no audible leakage from the other 5 speakers.


Yes, correct.



sdurani said:


> Why does 13-channel decoding disappear when Wides are activated?


Really!


----------



## Scott Simonian

I do like that super cute interface on the Acurus though. Neat and simple!


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Really!


Really.


----------



## richlife

tcramer said:


> Thanks all of you for the advice. That confirms the way I was leaning so I will go that route.
> 
> Just ordered 4 RSL C34Es as I need the shallow mounting depth. That combined with the angled drivers and tweeter and wide dispersion made those ideal for my low ceiling height. Now I just need to update my Denon to either the x4300, x6300 (or x6200) and I'll be all set!


I have 2 C34Es coming tomorrow. Depth wasn't a concern, but the design and company rep sold me. These will be my RP to go with the FP ELAC A4s I just installed. The ELACs are great with my Mirage setup -- hoping the C34Es will do even half as well. Two totally different speakers because my room requires different approaches for each end. Luck to both of us, please.


----------



## kingwiggi

stef2 said:


> That is good news...now, bring me 9.1.6 for that price, and I am a buyer! *I want to keep my front wides.*


+1


----------



## nickbuol

thebland said:


> I'm at CEDIA. The Acurus demo was 7.3.6 native. Sounded great. The difference between 4 vs 6 heights makes this piece truly unique for $8500. Nice looking peice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff


Did you get to JBL's "26 channels of discrete Atmos" demo? They also did 7.1.4 DTS:X with the "extra" speakers put into arrays, but the Atmos demo was very impressive.


----------



## lovingdvd

stef2 said:


> That is good news...now, bring me 9.1.6 for that price, and I am a buyer! I want to keep my front wides.


Was their any word at CEDIA regarding the front wides and whether they are still being supported?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lovingdvd said:


> Was their any word at CEDIA regarding the front wides and whether they are still being supported?


All 2016 products have dropped the wides. That has already been confirmed. I don't know if anyone asked about Marantz's 2017 flagship products, however.


----------



## dschulz

thebland said:


> I'm at CEDIA. The Acurus demo was 7.3.6 native. Sounded great. The difference between 4 vs 6 heights makes this piece truly unique for $8500. Nice looking peice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff


_EDIT - I see Acurus is bragging via Facebook that the additional 2 channels are a late-breaking addition. Great news, and hopefully other DSP chipsets and other manufacturers will be moving to 13 channels soon!_

Is the CEDIA demo using a prototype of a new box? I ask because the ACT 4 info on the Acurus website clearly shows only 7.3.4 outputs.


----------



## thebland

nickbuol said:


> Did you get to JBL's "26 channels of discrete Atmos" demo? They also did 7.1.4 DTS:X with the "extra" speakers put into arrays, but the Atmos demo was very impressive.


Yes. Outstanding. They demo'd Oblivion wirh AUROMATIC - Auro is back!!

But 13 Hours in Benghazi (Atmos) was incredible. 

At Wisdom audio now.


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> Yes. Outstanding. They demo'd Oblivion wirh AUROMATIC - Auro is back!!
> 
> But 13 Hours in Benghazi (Atmos) was incredible.
> 
> At Wisdom audio now.


I caught that too. Surprised they didn't demo the Oblivion UHD with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack if you were going to do the Oblivion clip (not the best example of consumer Atmos, though). And Benghazi as intense... BTW good to meet you and your wife last night at the CINERAMAX party


----------



## thebland

I loved the 'winking' amps in Peter's 21 channel ribbon set up featuring Atmos and DTS-X.. and deadmau5. Dinner was great with 36 AVS members at the steak house. Great time with the AVS group!

https://vimeo.com/183155713


Jeff


----------



## nickbuol

thebland said:


> I loved the 'winking' amps in Peter's 21 channel ribbon set up featuring Atmos and DTS-X.. and deadmau5. Dinner was great with 36 AVS members at the steak house. Great time with the AVS group!
> 
> Jeff



Which steakhouse did you go to?


----------



## sdrucker

nickbuol said:


> Which steakhouse did you go to?


Nick and Sam's last (Friday) night. It was quite fun.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdrucker said:


> I saw it too, and the rep played test tones from the 9.1.6 Dolby demo's test tones, as well as a few clips and a helicopter 360 degrees panning. All 13 speakers + subs were playing with Dolby Atmos enabled, with discrete test tones from the three pairs of heights. They're running a TI DSP chip as per their rep.
> 
> Note that 7.x.6 can't be swapped for 9.x.4, but they support 9.x.2. And no Dirac or other brand EQ, but they offer PEQ.


Why no 9.3.4?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Why no 9.3.4?


The only reason I can see how they can offer 7.3.6 but not 9.3.4 is if the top middle speakers are internally matrixed scatmos style and not actually Atmos rendered.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mashie Saldana said:


> The only reason I can see how they can offer 7.3.6 but not 9.3.4 is if the top middle speakers are internally matrixed scatmos style and not actually Atmos rendered.


If they can do that, they can also create wides. IMO that is what they should have done first: 7.3.4 -> 9.3.4 -> 9.3.6.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> If they can do that, they can also create wides. IMO that is what they should have done first: 7.3.4 -> 9.3.4 -> 9.3.6.


Except it doesn't work on an Atmos 7 speakers base. After quite a few guys attempting this it turns out the objects put in the wide positions will snap to the fronts if the wides are unavailable and as a result no sounds to matrix.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

9.3.2 is definitely not my choice. 7.3.6 would be sweet and to be honest very close to 9.3.6 in my HT for the front row. That's because my Fronts are very wide apart, hence Wides are a smaller bonus than in most setups. 

Still would prefer 9.3.6 obviously. Better for the 2nd row.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mashie Saldana said:


> Angles are 0, 25, 50, 100, 144.
> 
> 
> And here the angles are 45, 80, 125. The sloping line is just the line the base layer speakers will be on.
> 
> 
> The circles are representing heads.


That is very similar to the room I am currently setting up. This one consists of 21 main speaker positions: 19 physical, plus 2 rear surround positions remapped by an Altitude processor from either the surround height speakers (for Atmos), or from the side surrounds speakers at 110 degrees (for all other formats using rears). This lay-out enables 12.x.6 Atmos, 13.1 Auro3D, 7.x.4 DTS:X and legacy 5.x and 7.x.

Red boxes: 10 wall mounted base layer speakers
Purple boxes: 2 remapped rear surround positions
Blue boxes: 9 ceiling mounted height and top speakers

Green circle: 35 degrees elevation (MLP reference)
Yellow circle: 55 degrees elevation (MLP reference)
Blue lines: tapered Atmos overhead arrays

*Angles (azimuth) are 0, 25, 50, 85, 110, 145*









*And here the (Atmos) elevation angles are 40, 70, 120. *

All base layer speakers (including LCR)are wall mounted at about the same height (seating is placed on a 0.2 meter high riser, lifiting listeners' height to 1.2 meter).


----------



## Tnedator

I might have missed it, but were any non $10k plus receivers announced that would do six overhead Atmos speakers, like 7.2.6?


----------



## thebland

Tnedator said:


> I might have missed it, but were any non $10k plus receivers announced that would do six overhead Atmos speakers, like 7.2.6?


None. It appears there will be small, incremental steps over some time before this ever happens. If you want the future now, the Trinnov looks to be the big winner for years to come.


----------



## gene4ht

Tnedator said:


> I might have missed it, but were any non $10k plus receivers announced that would do six overhead Atmos speakers, like 7.2.6?


The better question to ask is likely...How many homes have two or more rows of seating? Jeff's probably right...the market will dictate when this is likely to happen.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> That is very similar to the room I am currently setting up. This one consists of 21 main speaker positions: 19 physical, plus 2 rear surround positions remapped by an Altitude processor from either the surround height speakers (for Atmos), or from the side surrounds speakers at 110 degrees (for all other formats using rears). This lay-out enables 12.x.6 Atmos, 13.1 Auro3D, 7.x.4 DTS:X and legacy 5.x and 7.x.
> 
> Red boxes: 10 wall mounted base layer speakers
> Purple boxes: 2 remapped rear surround positions
> Blue boxes: 9 ceiling mounted height and top speakers
> 
> Green circle: 35 degrees elevation (MLP reference)
> Yellow circle: 55 degrees elevation (MLP reference)
> Blue lines: tapered Atmos overhead arrays
> 
> *Angles (azimuth) are 0, 25, 50, 85, 110, 145*
> 
> View attachment 1667105
> 
> 
> *And here the (Atmos) elevation angles are 40, 70, 120. *
> 
> All base layer speakers (including LCR)are wall mounted at about the same height (seating is placed on a 0.2 meter high riser, lifiting listeners' height to 1.2 meter).
> 
> View attachment 1667161


Nice, what is the rationale behind the tapered Atmos overhead speakers?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mashie Saldana said:


> Nice, what is the rationale behind the tapered Atmos overhead speakers?


1. Atmos: Compensating for the overly increased separation angle in-between overhead pairs at higher elevation (MLP reference), caused by the relatively low ceiling *Edit:* This reason does not hold, since it turns out that the room dimension ratio's (viewing distance : L/R speaker distance : ceiling height from MLP) are currently very much in line with those presented in the diagrams found in the Dolby Atmos specifications for commercial theaters (being about 1:1:0.5).
2. DTS:X: Allowing 2-speaker matrixing for the 4 heights, creating a phantom images at the ideal 45 degrees elevation (between 35 and 55 degrees)
3. Auro3D: Allowing a 4 speaker matrixed Top Speaker for Auro3D, with TMs and TRs equidistant and all at 55 degrees elevation


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Except it doesn't work on an Atmos 7 speakers base. After quite a few guys attempting this it turns out the objects put in the wide positions will snap to the fronts if the wides are unavailable and as a result no sounds to matrix.


It _does_ work. It just doesn't see the objects as a separate entity. So yes, in instances where the "snap to" function is used, you lose the proper wide speaker positioning. But only for those circumstances.


----------



## grendelrt

Weird question, when measuring my forward distance from ear position to place my height speakers. Should I measure in a straight line back to the seating (red line) or angled to the primary listening position (blue line). My ceiling is 8ft , my ear level is 40inches, so say I want to 48inches from MLP to get 49 degrees, which line would I use.


----------



## batpig

grendelrt said:


> Weird question, when measuring my forward distance from ear position to place my height speakers. Should I measure in a straight line back to the seating (red line) or angled to the primary listening position (blue line). My ceiling is 8ft , my ear level is 40inches, so say I want to 48inches from MLP to get 49 degrees, which line would I use.


Atmos would be the red line. 

DTS:X would the blue line. 

Clears it all up right?


----------



## grendelrt

batpig said:


> Atmos would be the red line.
> 
> DTS:X would the blue line.
> 
> Clears it all up right?


Seriously? Oh man that sucks lol


----------



## dholmes54

Does anyone still use height spks for atmos? I have 6 JBL L820 for surrounds and heights,they are made to be hung on the wall but can't figure how to mount them on the ceiling above my seating area.Currently I've got the heights 7 ft away from my seat which sounds good, would it sound better above my seat? Thx PS they can't be mounted on the ceiling according to JBL


----------



## richlife

dholmes54 said:


> Does anyone still use height spks for atmos? I have 6 JBL L820 for surrounds and heights,they are made to be hung on the wall but can't figure how to mount them on the ceiling above my seating area.Currently I've got the heights 7 ft away from my seat which sounds good, would it sound better above my seat? Thx


What is your config with the JBLs? 5.1.2 or .4, or 7.1.2 or 4, or x.x.what? From your question, it would be hard to know how to reply (ideal positioning of .2 is differenct than .4).


----------



## dholmes54

Thx,I've got 2 back,and 2 side surrounds and 2 subs,like I said in my edited post they are not for ceiling mounting.The only way I can figure to mount them. Is in front of me hanging straight down from the ceiling with a bracket and maybe I could point them a little toward me.


----------



## Selden Ball

dholmes54 said:


> Thx,I've got 2 back,and 2 side surrounds and 2 subs,like I said in my edited post they are not for ceiling mounting.The only way I can figure to mount them. Is in front of me hanging straight down from the ceiling with a bracket and maybe I could point them a little toward me.


If you're mounting only two overhead speakers, the optimal position would be just slightly in front of the main listening position and they should be configured in the receiver as Top Middle. The best soundfield usually is obtained by pointing the speakers toward the opposite end of the seatting. For example, the left Top Middle speaker would point toward the right side of the couch and the right one would point toward the left side of the couch.

An alternative placement is to mount them on the front wall as high as possible, directly above the front main speakers. In that case, you'd configure them as Front Height. This results in a somewhat "front-centric" soundfield, but many like it.


----------



## pacman9270

I use front and rear heights for Atmos and so far so good. I have a vaulted ceiling, so mounting would be extra difficult. All of my heights are angled to the center of my seating. 


PS, I didn't know to angle them all the way across the seating. Will have to try that and see what it does for me.


----------



## ALtlOff

pacman9270 said:


> I use front and rear heights for Atmos and so far so good. I have a vaulted ceiling, so mounting would be extra difficult. All of my heights are angled to the center of my seating.
> 
> 
> PS, I didn't know to angle them all the way across the seating. Will have to try that and see what it does for me.


Ditto what @Selden Ball said, find what would be correct for TM positioning on your ceiling and follow that line to the side walls, then mount at ceiling height with a slight angle. I actually prefer mine with just a slight angle than aimed"cross seating", but the angle has a lot to do with personal taste and ceiling reflections in you room, experimentation is key to optimal performance, esp when going off spec.


----------



## dholmes54

Thx selden


----------



## richlife

ALtlOff said:


> Ditto what [MENTION=3627]... experimentation is key to optimal performance, esp when going off spec.


Definitely! I also have a vaulted ceiling and also needed to buy new speakers for heights (presence). I chose the Dolby Atmos Enabled ELAC A4s because I like the design concept and because it would make it easier to manage the placement (and experimentation -- it was difficult enough even so.) I tried six or seven or eight (or something) different positions/angles with several YPAO redos before deciding on the "right" set. In doing so, I was propping the speaker at the back to compensate for the ceiling angle. I finally resorted to measuring the distance from the base that the speakers sat on and the back edge of the speaker so that I could repeat and also reasonably determine differences between "tests". 

Also, dholmes54, remember that if mounted on the wall over your fronts, moving them in a bit from the front locations is better than moving out. I found it helpful to imagine the "bubble" I was trying to create in order to get effective sound radiation. Finally, if your fronts (like mine) are sitting out from the wall 2 - 3 feet, you may find an inward shift in the wall mounted speakers is actually helpful to get the "bubble". Dolby recommendations for presence/height are for a higher placement than 8 feet (but lower than 14) if possible.


----------



## j3cwill

Selden Ball said:


> If you're mounting only two overhead speakers, the optimal position would be just slightly in front of the main listening position and they should be configured in the receiver as Top Middle. The best soundfield usually is obtained by pointing the speakers toward the opposite end of the seatting. For example, the left Top Middle speaker would point toward the right side of the couch and the right one would point toward the left side of the couch.
> 
> An alternative placement is to mount them on the front wall as high as possible, directly above the front main speakers. In that case, you'd configure them as Front Height. This results in a somewhat "front-centric" soundfield, but many like it.


I just ordered in-ceiling speakers to move to a TF/TR configuration (MLP is against the back wall, so TM placement for TR pair)

I am curious what most have found to work best for aiming tweeters for in-ceiling configurations?

Most of what I have read suggests aiming at the MLP, but is that straight back or is it toward the opposite end of seating as mentioned above?


----------



## dholmes54

Atmos SPK placement can be a little confusing,I thought the best place to place atmos spks where a couple of feet in front of your seat and about 4-6 ft apart am I wrong?


----------



## batpig

dholmes54 said:


> Atmos SPK placement can be a little confusing,I thought the best place to place atmos spks where a couple of feet in front of your seat and about 4-6 ft apart am I wrong?


Well that "depends". You can't get that specific without context (how big is the room, how many seats are you trying to cover, how many speakers total 5.1.2 to 7.1.4?).


----------



## richlife

batpig said:


> Well that "depends". You can't get that specific without context (how big is the room, how many seats are you trying to cover, how many speakers total 5.1.2 to 7.1.4?).


Which is why I asked my question to start. With x.x.2, a more central, in front of MLP is called for. With x.x.4, two sets about 45* angle (at least several feet) in front and in back are recommended. 

If, like @j3cwill, your MLP is against the back wall, my thought would be to FIRST try to move MLP away from that wall. Get closer to the screen and leave aural space behind. Then get the speaker back in the upper corners (properly separated) as high as possible or even use in-wall speakers high on that wall. Getting sound perspective is/would be best. 

Again, experimentation and adjustment to the requirements of a given room is a good idea if you can't meet the Atmos "ideals". You you might find that an x.x.2 setup provides better results than x.x.4 if you are pinned to a back wall. (I make no claim this is correct -- I don't "know". Experiment first.)


----------



## dholmes54

batpig said:


> Well that "depends". You can't get that specific without context (how big is the room, how many seats are you trying to cover, how many speakers total 5.1.2 to 7.1.4?).


Thx I have just 3 seats,the room is 11.5ft x 23,I have 2 side & 2 back 2 subs and 3 fronts,also I wanted to know how far apart to place the ceiling spks if I decide to move them,the guide shows where to place them slightly forward or directly overhead but not how far apart


----------



## maintech

*Dolby Height speakers*

Just a suggestion. If you have older, unused speakers you could flush mount them between the ceiling rafters. It might mean threading the cable carefully to keep it inside the ceiling drywall, and then making small openings in the wall with a circle saw bit and fishing the cable to your source. I was fortunate to have my contractor install plastic conduit with string pull throughs before adding drywall, terminating at the Dolby recommended locations. All my speakers are now flush mounted, except the two subs so WAF (Wife aceptance factor) is high!
I'm going to cannibalize my retired Wharfedale surrounds (they each came with 2 woofers & 2 tweeters) as height speakers. Their pyramid shape and size prevent me from using them as assembled in a flush mounted arrangement, my ceiling is not deep enough. 
I will make a new infinite baffle and use 2 @ 4" woofers D'Appolito style with the 2 tweeters as shown in pic.1. Each tweeter will be aimed in the general direction of the primary seating left and right. The Polk 65i surrounds are flush mount, infinite baffle, and their tweeter is eyeball mounted to be aimed. They sound as good as the Wharfedale surrounds did, although they have only one woofer & one tweeter per speaker. 
The 'Speaker Shop' http://www.thespeakershop.ca/store/c1/Featured_Products.html sell white ceiling colored grill cloth and providing your woodworking is reasonable, a neat installation is not difficult.


Home theater system.

Sharp Aquos 80"
Onkyo TXNR3030 7.2.4
Wharfedale Diamond 8's F/C/L
Polk 65I L/R/LR/RR
Infinity Interlude 10" & 12" subs.
Wharfedale Diamond Surrounds rebuilt FLH/FRH & RLH/RRH.


----------



## dholmes54

Thx can't do much now,I fell a few weeks ago and fractured my elbow & shoulder and I found out my aortic valve needed replacing with a pig valve,that surgery was a lot of fun,still recovering that,not been my year, we all have them!I'm lucky to be above ground!


----------



## smurraybhm

dholmes54 said:


> Thx can't do much now,I fell a few weeks ago and fractured my elbow & shoulder and I found out my aortic valve needed replacing with a pig valve,that surgery was a lot of fun,still recovering that,not been my year, we all have them!I'm lucky to be above ground!


At least you've gotten a lifetime of medical events out of the way in one year  Get well and then immersive.


----------



## richlife

dholmes54 said:


> Thx can't do much now,I fell a few weeks ago and fractured my elbow & shoulder and I found out my aortic valve needed replacing with a pig valve,that surgery was a lot of fun,still recovering that,not been my year, we all have them!I'm lucky to be above ground!


Been there sorta. Recovering my my open heart led to my ordering my first Yamaha -- the A820. Had to wait two weeks after it was delivered to open it because it exceeded the weight limit I was allowed to lift. Still more weeks before I could finally manage getting it set up.  Seems long ago and now there is the A3060.

Good job -- pace yourself. (Broken elbow and shoulder?! Pace, pace, pace...


----------



## whysoblu

Ashsrighthand said:


> Answered my own question I guess: you have to choose Bitstream Direct on the PS4 but WHILE the movie is playing. How stupid is that? But at least it's a workaround. There seems to be no hope for the Apple TV unless they enable it in a later update.


I CANNOT get my PS4 to pass a Atmos signal no matter what. Same 1080p Blu-ray disc in my Sammy 4K player and ATmos no problem. What are your audio settings on PS4 to accomplish this other than Bitsteam Direct on options screen while flick plays? Do you have default out on PCM or Dolby Bitsream? Thanks!


----------



## Ashsrighthand

whysoblu said:


> I CANNOT get my PS4 to pass a Atmos signal no matter what. Same 1080p Blu-ray disc in my Sammy 4K player and ATmos no problem. What are your audio settings on PS4 to accomplish this other than Bitsteam Direct on options screen while flick plays? Do you have default out on PCM or Dolby Bitsream? Thanks!


Actually I set it to Linear PCM. Again, you have to select the Atmos track WHILE the movie is playing the first time.


----------



## whysoblu

Ashsrighthand said:


> Actually I set it to Linear PCM. Again, you have to select the Atmos track WHILE the movie is playing the first time.


So my master output under settings is set to Linear PCM, but while Batman v Superman Blu-ray plays for example I have the English Dolby Atmos track playing and hit options and select Bitstream (Direct) and still only TrueHD is being passed to the receiver via the Info button.


----------



## whysoblu

Ashsrighthand said:


> Actually I set it to Linear PCM. Again, you have to select the Atmos track WHILE the movie is playing the first time.


I've also read some people had luck getting Atmos to work by doing a reset on their system. You know anything about that?


----------



## whysoblu

And what does this mean on page 3 here? How do you turn secondary audio off on PS4? 

y. Why "Multi Ch In" and not DD/DTS/Dolby TrueHD/DTS MA HD/Atmos/DTS:X?: This is because your source device (eg. Blu Ray player or HTPC) is set to "PCM" and so it is decoding/uncompressing the audio to PCM. If you want the AVR to do the decoding (although it won't matter audio quality wise which one decodes it) so you can see the compressed audio track on the AVR's front panel display then set the source device to "bitstream" with either the Secondary Audi/BD Audio Mix set to OFF. Note that when playing an ATMOS or DTS:X BD (after installing the DTS:X firmware update, ETA early 2016), the source device must be set to "bitstream"/Secondary Audio (OFF).


----------



## grendelrt

whysoblu said:


> I CANNOT get my PS4 to pass a Atmos signal no matter what. Same 1080p Blu-ray disc in my Sammy 4K player and ATmos no problem. What are your audio settings on PS4 to accomplish this other than Bitsteam Direct on options screen while flick plays? Do you have default out on PCM or Dolby Bitsream? Thanks!


I thought ps4 didnt bitstream hd codecs, but I may have been wrong since I found this, 

http://developer.dolby.com/News/Enabling_Dolby_Bitstream_Pass-Through_on_Playstation.aspx


----------



## normandia

Upgrading two systems to Dolby Atmos in new home and have specific questions...tried searching and going through this very long thread, so please excuse if discussed (or point me to the relevant discussions).

1. System 1 is 7.1.4 with new MX122 processor and Revel Ultima Salon II system all around (sides on walls and rears on stands) and I have two subs and Levinson amps with a new Sony 4k projector to be installed. Basically this system is intended to be as good as it can. Did not get MX160 due to HDR limitations despite Room Perfect and can not afford the RS20i.
Room is rectangular (open back) with a 9 ft. ceiling height and In-ceiling pre-wired as per Atmos or DTS-X diagrams good enough for two rows of seating.
As speakers have Be tweeters, how important is spending money to get Be tweeters?
Revel doesn't have them, but Paradigm and Focal do.
How important is spending money to get 8" instead of 6" Atmos speakers?
Alternatively, to save money, where would it be best to compromise so money is available for Family Room system 2?

2. System 2 (Family Room) is wired for in-wall/in-ceiling 7.2.4 has a Marantz 8802a and Sony XBR 65" 4k TV and 1 sub (but wired for 2 in-wall or 2 in-room).
Room is rectangular and part of 40' x 20' open space with Kitchen/Dining area about 1/2 of that. Ceilings are 10 feet.
Speakers TBD (Revel Performa3 F60 or F80 or Paradigm Prestige 95 with matching center if free-standing.
However, I have wall mounted 3 older Meridian A350 speakers (ribbons) around the TV with its active G41 amp and the sound seems much better than what I've listened to in showrooms, so I really want to keep them. Actually, better means truly awesome.
Regardless of LCR speakers, the side speakers must be in-ceiling (or on-wall mounted on-ceiling) to the sides of the seating area. Am aware of Dolby's modified stance of keeping surrounds at ear level, so Atmos is on a different plane that the 7 channels and couldn't agree more. Understand vertical dispersion complications.

That said, I am strongly leaning to using in-ceiling with an angled tweeter (usually they are 30 degrees if not adjustable) as to not to have the side vertical listening plane be on the same height plane as Atmos, which I have determined will be downward firing only (not angled). 
Of course, I am unsure of all of this but came to these conclusions from reading what I could on the subject.

Questions for System 2 are if the above is OK or can be improved upon (not a speaker discussion in this thread).
Rears could be in-wall or on-wall, so question is whether direct firing or bipole/dipole, etc. (not a discussion as I read those dedicated posts).
Of course, the same question on need for timbre matching (can save a lot of money if not necessary).

Thanks for any recommendations or suggestions. 

Mike


----------



## whysoblu

grendelrt said:


> I thought ps4 didnt bitstream hd codecs, but I may have been wrong since I found this,
> 
> http://developer.dolby.com/News/Enabling_Dolby_Bitstream_Pass-Through_on_Playstation.aspx


Yeah but that is not working. Someone said to reset the PS4 but what does that mean. They also said it's on page 3 in this forums and I don't see that at all.


----------



## pacman9270

ALtlOff said:


> Ditto what @Selden Ball said, find what would be correct for TM positioning on your ceiling and follow that line to the side walls, then mount at ceiling height with a slight angle. I actually prefer mine with just a slight angle than aimed"cross seating", but the angle has a lot to do with personal taste and ceiling reflections in you room, experimentation is key to optimal performance, esp when going off spec.


I wish I could mount the rear heights to the side walls. Unfortunately, my right sidewall is about 15ft away from the MLP and the other is 5ft away. I went with the Auro3D speaker configuration because of my room constraints. It turned out really well.


----------



## dholmes54

Thxs smurraybhm & rich life,I think I'll use some cheap 5lb spks and see if it sounds better overhead.how far apart should i place them?The elbow & shoulder was #23-24 fractures, I had a compound fx of my right leg on my birthday Friday night football 1970,that leg is always been weak and what caused me to fall off my back deck on to concrete


----------



## dschulz

whysoblu said:


> Yeah but that is not working. Someone said to reset the PS4 but what does that mean. They also said it's on page 3 in this forums and I don't see that at all.


The old PS3 "fat" did not support bitstream, but later models and the PS4 definitely will.

Make sure you are set to output bitstream, *not* PCM, and also make sure you have secondary audio set to "off."


----------



## whysoblu

dschulz said:


> The old PS3 "fat" did not support bitstream, but later models and the PS4 definitely will.
> 
> Make sure you are set to output bitstream, *not* PCM, and also make sure you have secondary audio set to "off."


That is the thing. Not yelling just using CAPS for emphasis, HOW THE HECK DO YOU TRUN OFF SECONDARY AUDIO? What is that? Where is that found?


----------



## ALtlOff

pacman9270 said:


> I wish I could mount the rear heights to the side walls. Unfortunately, my right sidewall is about 15ft away from the MLP and the other is 5ft away. I went with the Auro3D speaker configuration because of my room constraints. It turned out really well.


I agree, the Auro3d placement actually doesn't work bad at all with an all height setup, only adjustment really needed is depending on the actual location of your surround heights, and that's a simple label designation of either TM or TR or RH, just to see what sounds best in your room.


----------



## sharkshark

Because I can't help myself I've decided to toy with Atmos thanks to my new 8802a. Existing 7.1 is B&W all around, with 805d2 rears and SCM-1s mounted at ear level. I bought to test the Klipsch speakers to give a taste, currently running them via an old NAD receiver I had kicking around.

I've got a 6'4" ceiling so mounting speakers there I think won't be suitable, and I like the idea of both the Klipsch and the newly announced SVS angled beasties. I've got a couple questions:

- If I do in fact go 7.1.4 I'll need another 4ch of amplification in addition to my Earthquake Cinenova - I'm not wanting to go nuts here (well, more nuts), just something that's a decent 50w/ch given what it's going to drive. XLR would be nice if only for fun factor, so some nice, cheap-ish 4x50w with speaker posts amps would do the trick I think. I see a bunch of rack-mount instrument amps that would do the trick but they've got all kinds of distracting blinky lights that might be an issue (though rack form factor is a nice thing). Fanless would also be ideal. If I keep with only the two, what's the best bang for buck on stereo amps these days? 

- I'm currently doing 7.1.2, with the Klipsch's mounted directly above the SCM-1s, as close to the ceiling as possible and angled to listening position. I've tested with the "helicopter" file and they do timbre match reasonably well with the rest of the fun. I've read all the suggested layouts from Dolby, and there's no real guidance on wall mounted/directional Atmos speakers, only up-firing (mounted atop L/R/RRs/LRs) or above (to the front and back of the RS/LS, closer to the wall than not). I figure they're working as essentially height in line with Surround R/L, and placed them accordingly. If I truly go insane and add four I'd also think to line them up several feet on either side of the surround, though this might prove a challenge given my storage solutions.

At any rate, it's more fun things to play with...


----------



## makrelov

whysoblu said:


> Yeah but that is not working. Someone said to reset the PS4 but what does that mean. They also said it's on page 3 in this forums and I don't see that at all.


Hi,

All you have to do is:
1. Change main audio settings into PCM: Settings => Sound and Screen => Audio Output Settings => Primary output port HDMI OUT
Audio format (Priority) Linear PCM

2. After point 1 you start a Blue Ray movie. When the movie starts press *Options* on the controller, go to *Settings* and in Audio format choose *Bitstream (direct)*. You are done.

That is how I get TrueHD/DTS MA sound out of my AVR.

Greetings.


----------



## whysoblu

makrelov said:


> Hi,
> 
> All you have to do is:
> 1. Change main audio settings into PCM: Settings => Sound and Screen => Audio Output Settings => Primary output port HDMI OUT
> Audio format (Priority) Linear PCM
> 
> 2. After point 1 you start a Blue Ray movie. When the movie starts press *Options* on the controller, go to *Settings* and in Audio format choose *Bitstream (direct)*. You are done.
> 
> That is how I get TrueHD/DTS MA sound out of my AVR.
> 
> Greetings.


Exactly and that's how I am set up too. However, won't the PS4 also pass the Atmos track to receiver if Atmos is available and my receiver can do Atmos (hooked up to do it as well)?


----------



## hatlesschimp

dschulz said:


> The old PS3 "fat" did not support bitstream, but later models and the PS4 definitely will.
> 
> Make sure you are set to output bitstream, *not* PCM, and also make sure you have secondary audio set to "off."


Ive seen/heard a ps3 with slide top play Atmos no problem.


----------



## hatlesschimp

I have a mate looking to go 7.1.4 Atmos. He has a max $5,000 Australian (3,800 usd) to spend. 
He is going to buy the Yamaha 3060 for 2k. So 3k left for 9 or 11 speakers and a sub. 

His room is 23' long by 13'. I was thinking if he had a smaller room he might have got away with some cambridge audio minx 22 speakers they are like the size of a Coke can and would be easy to mount. I had a pair once and thought they were great for a small room and would keep his wife happy. But the length of the room would be too big for them as LCR. Any ideas would be great. Thanks. 

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmyaz

Hey guys, 

I picked up Teenage Ninja Turtles "Out of the Shadow" 3D Bluray yesterday.... The 3D disc is marked to have Dolby Atmos, but upon playing it, I see no DolbyAtmos option, only Digital Dolby??? What the heck?

It's not my system, I have been playing other DolbyAtmos disc just fine.

Another print mistake? or is it me?


----------



## richlife

dholmes54 said:


> Thxs smurraybhm & rich life,I think I'll use some cheap 5lb spks and see if it sounds better overhead.how far apart should i place them?The elbow & shoulder was #23-24 fractures, I had a compound fx of my right leg on my birthday Friday night football 1970,that leg is always been weak and what caused me to fall off my back deck on to concrete


Whoa! That last tore a big "OUCH!" out of me! When we look back on these things, we tend to think, "Now if I only hadn't..." Too bad that hindthought isn't forethought. Murphy sucks!

As for your test, I would put them as far apart as your room allows keeping two restrictions in mind. No wider than your main fronts and keep them two to three feet from the walls if that's reasonable. Obviously the room controls everything (shades of batpig :


----------



## dholmes54

Thx rich life,I'll try ur advise with those cheap spks I have,can't lift more than ten lbs yet,that 1970 football fracture was also are homecoming night and I turned 16 that night and had a date for the dance with cute blue eyed blond,at least we won 36 to 0!


----------



## whysoblu

So last night I was playing with the Denon's iOS app and found that when I clicked on Dolby TrueHD or whatever audio the receiver was playing on the app it gave me this whole list of changes.

So today I popped back in the BvS Dolby Atmos 1080p Blu-ray and touched TrueHD on the iOS app. I got the long list and tried pressing a few of the audio choices. I touched Dolby Surround and BOOM there app changed to display Atmos at top and my receiver's front panel changed and my Atmos firing speakers came to life. 

Now tell me who the hell would have ever known to do this, especially on the iOS app of all places?

Ha ha I am just glad it's working now. Thank you everyone for offering your help and advice. Even if it didn't work, I want you to know how appreciative I am for the offers and comments. Have a good one! I'm going to rock out to some Atmos now


----------



## gwsat

whysoblu said:


> So last night I was playing with the Denon's iOS app and found that when I clicked on Dolby TrueHD or whatever audio the receiver was playing on the app it gave me this whole list of changes.
> 
> So today I popped back in the BvS Dolby Atmos 1080p Blu-ray and touched TrueHD on the iOS app. I got the long list and tried pressing a few of the audio choices. I touched Dolby Surround and BOOM there app changed to display Atmos at top and my receiver's front panel changed and my Atmos firing speakers came to life.
> 
> Now tell me who the hell would have ever known to do this, especially on the iOS app of all places?
> 
> Ha ha I am just glad it's working now. Thank you everyone for offering your help and advice. Even if it didn't work, I want you to know how appreciative I am for the offers and comments. Have a good one! I'm going to rock out to some Atmos now


Good for you! We are in such an early day where Atmos is concerned, the kind of problem you described concerning your Denon receiver seems to happen in a lot of ways. It happened to me when I upgraded my home theater a couple of months ago. I bought a Kaleidescape Strato movie server. I bought it from and it was installed by a well regarded local AV dealer. Also, it was, um, not cheap. Nevertheless, when I tried to play movie files that had TrueHD Atmos audio, my Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver couldn't see that I was receiving Atmos audio. I then did some research and learned that the Strato's default audio-out setting is for PCM, not Bitstream. When I used the iOS app for Kaleidescape and changed that setting to Bitstream, my 3060 accurately showed "TrueHD Atmos whenever I played a movie file on my Strato that had an Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## whysoblu

gwsat said:


> Good for you! We are in such an early day where Atmos is concerned, the kind of problem you described concerning your Denon receiver seems to happen in a lot of ways. It happened to me when I upgraded my home theater a couple of months ago. I bought a Kaleidescape Strato movie server. I bought it from and it was installed by a well regarded local AV dealer. Also, it was, um, not cheap. Nevertheless, when I tried to play movie files that had TrueHD Atmos audio, my Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver couldn't see that I was receiving Atmos audio. I then did some research and learned that the Strato's default audio-out setting is for PCM, not Bitstream. When I used the iOS app for Kaleidescape and changed that setting to Bitstream, my 3060 accurately showed "TrueHD Atmos whenever I played a movie file on my Strato that had an Atmos soundtrack.


Wow! See that is what I mean. Who would have ever thought to use the iOS app to solve this issue for the both of us? I just accidentally pressed on the app yesterday and stumbled upon a hidden menu behind where it displays the audio playing.


----------



## bkeeler10

whysoblu said:


> So today I popped back in the BvS Dolby Atmos 1080p Blu-ray and touched TrueHD on the iOS app. I got the long list and tried pressing a few of the audio choices. I touched Dolby Surround and BOOM there app changed to display Atmos at top and my receiver's front panel changed and my Atmos firing speakers came to life.


You may still have a problem. It sounds to me like you engaged the upmixer (which is called Dolby Surround), and didn't actually get the native Atmos track decoded. Since I don't own the Denon, I can't be certain, but that's what your description sounds like.


----------



## sikclown

bkeeler10 said:


> You may still have a problem. It sounds to me like you engaged the upmixer (which is called Dolby Surround), and didn't actually get the native Atmos track decoded. Since I don't own the Denon, I can't be certain, but that's what your description sounds like.


Nah, if the display says Atmos then that is what you are getting. Otherwise it says Dolby Digital + Dolby Surround or Dolby Surround (on stereo sources).


----------



## Josh Z

jimmyaz said:


> I picked up Teenage Ninja Turtles "Out of the Shadow" 3D Bluray yesterday.... The 3D disc is marked to have Dolby Atmos, but upon playing it, I see no DolbyAtmos option, only Digital Dolby??? What the heck?
> 
> It's not my system, I have been playing other DolbyAtmos disc just fine.
> 
> Another print mistake? or is it me?


Was this a purchase or a rental? Some studios have been stripping Atmos and lossless audio out of rental copies.

If it was a purchase, did you happen to buy from Walmart? I've heard of at least one previous instance where Walmart was getting "dumbed down" discs, though I don't remember the title.


----------



## batpig

bkeeler10 said:


> You may still have a problem. It sounds to me like you engaged the upmixer (which is called Dolby Surround), and didn't actually get the native Atmos track decoded. Since I don't own the Denon, I can't be certain, but that's what your description sounds like.


No it's right, if the input stream is Atmos contained in TrueHD the surround mode choices will be "Dolby TrueHD" (which plays the 7.1 core) or "Dolby Atmos/Surround" (which will engage the full Atmos decoding). It's just a funny labeling in the on-screen graphic that they say "Atmos/Surround". Once you actually engage that surround mode the display accurately registers "Dolby Atmos" as the input signal.

Interestingly now that I have a X6300H on hand with the cross-upmix update, there is a third option for "Dolby TrueHD + Neural:X" which will apply Neural:X upmixing to the 7.1 TrueHD core soundtrack. So for those Atmos tracks that have barely any overhead activity, you could instead to TrueHD+Neural:X which should engage the overheads much more heavily.

I rented Batman vs. Superman from Redbox yesterday and this is a pretty powerful, immersive Atmos mix. Tons of overhead action.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The Yamaha does something similar. If you have chosen Dolby Surround as the upmixer and hit the surround decoder mode (for DSU) and play back Atmos it will still say that you're using the surround decoder mode but it will decode the Atmos as it should.

This got even more confusing with the DTS:X update. Now I just make sure that what ever should be decoded is decoded with the appropriate sound mode. Fine for me but probably too much to think about for a lot of people who sometimes give lots of damns but cant give a damn to pick the right settings from time to time.

That's right. I said that. You wanna fight about it?!


----------



## grendelrt

Another random question, when you guys measure out your speakers for the ceiling angles do you measure from the tweeter? I ask because my tweeter is at the edge of the speaker not the center, so its like a 4" difference from the center of the speaker.


----------



## batpig

grendelrt said:


> Another random question, when you guys measure out your speakers for the ceiling angles do you measure from the tweeter? I ask because my tweeter is at the edge of the speaker not the center, so its like a 4" difference from the center of the speaker.


Do not worry about a 4" difference, that level of precision isn't going to gain you any benefit. Do you sit with your head tightly gripped in a vice while watching movies or are you a normal human who slouches, shifts to the side, etc.?


----------



## grendelrt

batpig said:


> Do not worry about a 4" difference, that level of precision isn't going to gain you any benefit. Do you sit with your head tightly gripped in a vice while watching movies or are you a normal human who slouches, shifts to the side, etc.?


Yeah i know its 4inches, but I am working on a placement range of like 6 inches on top of that so its more like 10 inches , so just looking for suggestions, I am thinking off the tweeter.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> The Yamaha does something similar. If you have chosen Dolby Surround as the upmixer and hit the surround decoder mode (for DSU) and play back Atmos it will still say that you're using the surround decoder mode but it will decode the Atmos as it should.
> 
> This got even more confusing with the DTS:X update. Now I just make sure that what ever should be decoded is decoded with the appropriate sound mode. Fine for me but probably too much to think about for a lot of people who sometimes give lots of damns but cant give a damn to pick the right settings from time to time.
> 
> That's right. I said that. You wanna fight about it?!


Yep, even we obsessives have our limits.


----------



## dholmes54

Thx rich life for answering all my questions, my ceiling are 8ft 4inch high.I have my 4 surround spks mounted on the walls 2 on sides 2 in the back all pointed toward my listening area,my atmos spks are mounted higher than the rest,about 2ft forward of my LCR and they are 1.5ft from side walls,if I did move the atmos spks it would only be 6in to 1ft,I don't think it would be worth it,I get a good atmos effect now but no room is perfect,also if I moved them to the ceiling they would be too much like surrounds,I would like anyone's opinion. Thxs


----------



## LNEWoLF

Two Atmos titles on sale 6.99 each Best Buy and Amazon


----------



## smurraybhm

Everyone can see if they can hear the flies buzzing for themselves


----------



## oldsteve

LNEWoLF said:


> Two Atmos titles on sale 6.99 each Best Buy and Amazon


Thanks for the heads up. I was going to rent "In the Heart of the Sea" at Redbox. For a few dollars more now I can own it.


----------



## richlife

LNEWoLF said:


> Two Atmos titles on sale 6.99 each Best Buy and Amazon
> 
> ...


The devil is in the details. It SAYS that it is exclusively for Prime members. I am that, so thank you!

Both are also Atmos releases.


----------



## williamwallace

I'm about 45 minutes into The Shallows UHD and the Atmos sound is really good. Great ambient sounds (various animals, waves, music), and clever use when the camera goes from above water to under water to make it feel like the water line is above you.


----------



## gwsat

richlife said:


> The devil is in the details. It SAYS that it is exclusively for Prime members. I am that, so thank you!
> 
> Both are also Atmos releases.


I bought both _Unbroken_ and _In the Heart of the Sea_ from the Kaleidescape Movie Store because of their TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. Alas, I paid a good deal more than $6.99 each for the BD quality files that I bought. Still, the Atmos audio in both films was stunning. Pay attention to the early scene in _Unbroken_ showing a huge flight of B-24s flying overhead. That one will give your Atmos setup a workout.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gwsat said:


> Pay attention to the early scene in _Unbroken_ showing a huge flight of B-24s flying overhead. That one will give your Atmos setup a workout.


That entire scene is on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc for a good reason.


----------



## LNEWoLF

oldsteve said:


> Thanks for the heads up. I was going to rent "In the Heart of the Sea" at Redbox. For a few dollars more now I can own it.


When the blurays reach that price point. I prefer to own the physical media.

Best video and audio quality for a few dollars more and can enjoy the movie whenever and as many times as I want to.


----------



## LNEWoLF

richlife said:


> The devil is in the details. It SAYS that it is exclusively for Prime members. I am that, so thank you!
> 
> Both are also Atmos releases.


Although I am up to my neck into psychoacoustics................

I am not a psychic and have no idea whom is a amazon prime member..........

Thus the BEST BUY reference of the same sale price in my post............

So yes the devil is IN the details of the post.


----------



## marchewd

*6.1 base for Atmos?*

I think I read earlier in this tread that Atmos requires either a 5.1 or 7.1 bed, is that correct? I had to re-arrange my living room and I could only get a single surround channel in the back wall. I already have four ceiling surrounds (TF and TR) that are still good via a different hookup. Just trying to decide if I can use a single back channel or not.


----------



## Josh Z

marchewd said:


> I think I read earlier in this tread that Atmos requires either a 5.1 or 7.1 bed, is that correct? I had to re-arrange my living room and I could only get a single surround channel in the back wall. I already have four ceiling surrounds (TF and TR) that are still good via a different hookup. Just trying to decide if I can use a single back channel or not.


I don't believe that either Atmos or DSU support a 6.1 configuration of the ground-level speakers, only 5.1 or 7.1. The reason for this is that 6.1 is advised against, because when a sound is directly behind your head it causes an effect called "image reversal" where your brain perceives it as coming from in front of you. Even before discrete 7.1 sound was available on home video, Dolby recommended using two speakers to the sides of your head to disperse the Surround Back audio in 6.1 (Dolby Digital-EX) soundtracks.


----------



## Ted99

williamwallace said:


> I'm about 45 minutes into The Shallows UHD and the Atmos sound is really good. Great ambient sounds (various animals, waves, music), and clever use when the camera goes from above water to under water to make it feel like the water line is above you.


Didn't hear any of those effects with the BR/DSU.


----------



## Witchboard

Josh Z said:


> I don't believe that either Atmos or DSU support a 6.1 configuration of the ground-level speakers, only 5.1 or 7.1.


From the Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide, Page 5:


> With the exception of the center and center surround speakers, all speakers in a Dolby Atmos playback system (listener level, overhead, Dolby Atmos enabled) must be added in pairs.


I would presume center surround speaker would indicate a 6.1 configuration. Now whether or not your receiver supports a 6.1 configuration with Atmos is another thing.


----------



## batpig

native Atmos will support a single back surround, but DSU won't upmix to it.


----------



## richlife

batpig said:


> native Atmos will support a single back surround, but DSU won't upmix to it.


I hope this isn't a nonsense question, but when you say "DSU" to you literally mean only Dolby Surround Upmix as in the "Dolby Surround"? Or do you mean a general statement of Surround Decoders as in Neural:X or Neo:6 Cinema? Does Denon have any DSPs that work with Atmos encoding? Or (one more) does DSU have a specific meaning in Denon? (Yeah, more than one question.)

I'm limited to my Yamaha world and have no knowledge of Denon. It's hard enough to stay abreast of what exists with Yamaha.


----------



## batpig

richlife said:


> I hope this isn't a nonsense question, but when you say "DSU" to you literally mean only Dolby Surround Upmix as in the "Dolby Surround"? Or do you mean a general statement of Surround Decoders as in Neural:X or Neo:6 Cinema? Does Denon have any DSPs that work with Atmos encoding? Or (one more) does DSU have a specific meaning in Denon? (Yeah, more than one question.)
> 
> I'm limited to my Yamaha world and have no knowledge of Denon. It's hard enough to stay abreast of what exists with Yamaha.


I'm specifically referring to Dolby Surround upmixing, "DSU" is the generally accepted shorthand for this surround mode. In other words, if you have a 6.1 floor layout and apply Dolby Surround upmix to a 2.0 stereo input, the output will be 5.1, and the single SB speaker will be silent.


----------



## richlife

batpig said:


> I'm specifically referring to Dolby Surround upmixing, "DSU" is the generally accepted shorthand for this surround mode. In other words, if you have a 6.1 floor layout and apply Dolby Surround upmix to a 2.0 stereo input, the output will be 5.1, and the single SB speaker will be silent.


Ok, thanks. I think that is as I indicated in my first question. The reason I asked is that the Yamaha A3060 has several upmixers (called "Surround Decoders"). Though only one is titled "Dolby Surround" (or Digital Dolby Surround if you interpret the Double-D logo), they will all upmix any lower (non-Atmos) signal and upmix to your speaker layout (depending on their capability). 

Because we have different equipment (Denon vs Yamaha), it was difficult for me to understand whether you specifically meant exactly "Dolby Surround" (as I now interpret) or any of the others available on the Yamaha. As it is, since Atmos does support 6.1, anyone with a Yamaha AVR may want to check all the Surround Encoder options AND the "Enhanced" DSP to see how they handle that lone center surround. (@marchewd; didn't specify his equipment.)

(Possible exception to the upmixing: I don't actually own any 2-channel sources, so I can't test them.)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

richlife said:


> (Possible exception to the upmixing: I don't actually own any 2-channel sources, so I can't test them.)


You don't have a single CD/youtube capable computer you can connect?


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> Though only one is titled "Dolby Surround" (or Digital Dolby Surround if you interpret the Double-D logo)...


Just a FYI: Dolby's double-D logo is meant to imply the encode/decode nature of most of their technologies, hence the second D being the reverse of the first D (decoding being the reverse process of encoding). Shouldn't be interpreted as anything to do with "digital".


----------



## grendelrt

Question for those running in ceiling speakers, did you have run them a few db hotter? I just got my 7.2.4 setup run through Audyssey and the effects on the demos I watched were way underwhelming, I didnt feel like anything was overhead. I moved all tops up 2db and I can def hear more effects,especially overhead. is this normal or do i possibly have a setup issue? If you do run hotter, how much?


----------



## marchewd

batpig said:


> native Atmos will support a single back surround, but DSU won't upmix to it.


Ok, I thought the single back (center) surround would just remain silent at all times. It's good to know that if I install it, at least Atmos would utilize it. 

I appreciate everyone's help.


----------



## rec head

grendelrt said:


> Question for those running in ceiling speakers, did you have run them a few db hotter? I just got my 7.2.4 setup run through Audyssey and the effects on the demos I watched were way underwhelming, I didnt feel like anything was overhead. I moved all tops up 2db and I can def hear more effects,especially overhead. is this normal or do i possibly have a setup issue? If you do run hotter, how much?


I would try running another pass of Audyssey. You might get the same results but it only takes about 15 minutes.


----------



## westbergjoakim

grendelrt said:


> Question for those running in ceiling speakers, did you have run them a few db hotter? I just got my 7.2.4 setup run through Audyssey and the effects on the demos I watched were way underwhelming, I didnt feel like anything was overhead. I moved all tops up 2db and I can def hear more effects,especially overhead. is this normal or do i possibly have a setup issue? If you do run hotter, how much?


I also run them some db hotter. Def a big difference. I have them hanging from the ceiling atm, going to build them in. Don't know if that's affecting them.

I hear them after I have run MCACC Pro, but wanted it some db louder. Havn't watch a movie with that original db, but liked it better when boosted a bit.


----------



## grendelrt

rec head said:


> I would try running another pass of Audyssey. You might get the same results but it only takes about 15 minutes.


Yeah prob my next step, but wanted to see if maybe this was common, like most people run the sub a little hotter after calibration. 



westbergjoakim said:


> I also run them some db hotter. Def a big difference. I have them hanging from the ceiling atm, going to build them in. Don't know if that's affecting them.
> 
> I hear them after I have run MCACC Pro, but wanted it some db louder. Havn't watch a movie with that original db, but liked it better when boosted a bit.


Thanks for the reply, I have been checking demos to see the levels seem right, so far it doesnt seem overpowering. The leaf demo is a pretty good one to use.


----------



## Witchboard

Just wanting confirmation. If you're running the heights using an external amplifier, you're supposed to have the external amplifier at maximum volume and let the AVR do the level adjustments, correct?


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> Just a FYI: Dolby's double-D logo is meant to imply the encode/decode nature of most of their technologies, hence the second D being the reverse of the first D (decoding being the reverse process of encoding). Shouldn't be interpreted as anything to do with "digital".


Actually, I was sloppy with my terminology. The double-D logo is explicitly Dolby Digital (not Digital Dolby). Dates back many years to when it was also commonly referred to as AC3. (Yes, I check my facts: http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/what-is-dolby-digital-surround . But I also lived through the time when AC3 was considered a wonder similar to what Atmos is today. The big p****ng contest then was betweeen AC3 (Dolby Digital) and DTS (just plain DTS). I paid through the nose to get a Lexicon DC1 fully outfitted with both decoders.) And yes, I sometimes swapped my words then too. 

That Dolby Digital emblem became the Dolby logo.


----------



## richlife

Mashie Saldana said:


> You don't have a single CD/youtube capable computer you can connect?


Ok, mis-statement. I don't actually own any 2-channel sources _*that are connected*_, so I can't test them. I'm referring to a physical connection -- access to the back of my AVR is awkward and requires literally disconnecting my RP amp, the automatic cooling fan used, and my bluray player as well as sticking my head and shoulders in with a flashlight to run the stereo input to do such a test. Definitely not worth it to me after having spent over a month repeatedly doing and undoing the connections as I set up and tested the various configs for my 7.2.4 setup. It's a sleeping dog... (Except when I turn it on.  ) I actually made a fairly big deal a few days ago in the Yamaha Axx60 Owners thread about now being able to change my setup from 7.2.4 to 7.2.2+Zone2 with a simple AVR Setup change -- because I'm d--n tired of taking things apart. 

So maybe when I exchange the amp... maybe. Just because I can't (right now) test the encoders with a stereo 2-channel source doesn't at all imply that I don't think they will work. I'm sure they will. BTW, I'm not referring to stereo PCM or MP3 sources -- they work just fine. I'm referring to physical, 2-channel connections such as a turntable (ok, or output from a computer or tablet or phone headphone jack). Just too much trouble for me to bother.


----------



## richlife

grendelrt said:


> Question for those running in ceiling speakers, did you have run them a few db hotter? I just got my 7.2.4 setup run through Audyssey and the effects on the demos I watched were way underwhelming, I didn't feel like anything was overhead. I moved all tops up 2db and I can def hear more effects,especially overhead. is this normal or do i possibly have a setup issue? If you do run hotter, how much?


I've seen many posts from lots of folks who run their presence speakers a little hotter. I have mine bumped 2.0db from what YPAO set them. I bump my back surrounds even more -- 4.0db. The backs partly because they don't get a really strong signal to start and partly because they are set 12 feet behind my MLP. 

I've also seen a number of posts that say that 7.x surround is worth not bothering with because there isn't enough program material that goes to the back surrounds. Consider that most encoders will probably assume that back surrounds will be immediately behind the listener position or at most a few feet back, I think a bump is justified in my case -- maybe in others. And just like running a little hotter on the presence speakers, it tends to help those back surrounds actually participate. 

A final thought on running presence speakers a little hot. There is so much discussion here (and in every other thread which considers ATMOS) about how to get the presence speakers "perfectly" positioned. You want the "object" sound to be placed properly, but running a bit hotter may help compensate for a less than "perfect" setup. (I'm not talking about fixing screwed up placements, but circumstances may dictate a few degrees of variance from "perfect".)


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> The double-D logo is explicitly Dolby Digital (not Digital Dolby). ...That Dolby Digital emblem became the Dolby logo.


How do you explain the double-D logo appearing on gear from 1967, a full 25 years before Dolby Digital came out in 1992?


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> How do you explain the double-D logo appearing on gear from 1967, a full 25 years before Dolby Digital came out in 1992?


I have no argument with your input/output comment, Sanjay. Just the part that said the word "digital" has nothing to do with it. And I truly do remember the double-D in the late-60s. It helped make vinyl and tape palatable. Being a Philistine, I'm one of those who (despite leaving college hundreds of dollars in debt due to my large album collection -- both debt and collection a really big deal in 1969), found CDs and digital music platforms to be overwhelmingly more pleasant to listen to. I still do. 

I also see the double-D surround upmixer (very distinct on my screen right now) as Dolby Digital Surround upmixer. That's what it upmixes -- the Dolby Digital Surround.

Are we closer? If not, I concede to you.


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> How do you explain the double-D logo appearing on gear from 1967, a full 25 years before Dolby Digital came out in 1992?


Your pic of that old Advent noise reduction unit made me nostalgic. My first projection TV, which I bought in 1970 something, was an Advent. Before that, in the '60s, I had a KLH FM table radio. Henry Kloss really was a genius.


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> I truly do remember the double-D in the late-60s.


In that case, the word "digital" had nothing to do with the double-D logo, since the Dolby Digital format wouldn't appear for another quarter century.


> I also see the double-D surround upmixer (very distinct on my screen right now) as Dolby Digital Surround upmixer. That's what it upmixes -- the Dolby Digital Surround.


The double-D symbol is a corporate logo, not an abbreviation for any format.


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> In that case, the word "digital" had nothing to do with the double-D logo, since the Dolby Digital format wouldn't appear for another quarter century. The double-D symbol is a corporate logo, not an abbreviation for any format.


Not closer. I concede to you.


----------



## tezster

Witchboard said:


> Just wanting confirmation. If you're running the heights using an external amplifier, you're supposed to have the external amplifier at maximum volume and let the AVR do the level adjustments, correct?


I set mine at around 80% - I think it can be anywhere between 75%-100%. One reason why some people might intentionally lower the external amp volume is to force the AVR to send a stronger signal, for those amps set to turn on when a signal is detected.


----------



## Witchboard

tezster said:


> I set mine at around 80% - I think it can be anywhere between 75%-100%. One reason why some people might intentionally lower the external amp volume is to force the AVR to send a stronger signal, for those amps set to turn on when a signal is detected.


Mine is connected via trigger, so I don't have to worry about it sensing a signal to turn on. What I do have to worry about is kids turning the knob.  If I set it to 100%, it's easier for me to turn it back to where the AVR leveled it.


----------



## richlife

tezster said:


> I set mine at around 80% - I think it can be anywhere between 75%-100%. One reason why some people might intentionally lower the external amp volume is to force the AVR to send a stronger signal, for those amps set to turn on when a signal is detected.


Is it still true of modern amps that maxing out the volume will also tend to maximize distortion in the output? As individual components in the amp approach their max, they contribute increasing distortion?

I've always avoided running any system at maximum for that reason. That now includes my RP amp.


----------



## MacFreibier

richlife said:


> Is it still true of modern amps that maxing out the volume will also tend to maximize distortion in the output? As individual components in the amp approach their max, they contribute increasing distortion?
> 
> I've always avoided running any system at maximum for that reason. That now includes my RP amp.


I am using a Denon AVR 3808A receiver as amplifier for my 4 Top speaker and the Yamaha RX-A3060 as the main receiver.
During initial setup I have set the main volume on the Denon on 0dB as I read somewhere that 75dB should be set as the reference level and this is (or should be) ~0dB on the Denon.


----------



## Markitron

I have no experience with pre-amps (or any additional amplification not done by an AVR), so this might sound like a stupid/basic question, but is it possible to use an AVR to power additional channels for another AVR?

I'm getting a Denon X7200, but it requires an amp for a 5.1.4 output. I have a Yamaha AVR that's roughly 3 years old and I'm curious as to whether this can power the additional 2 Atmos channels.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Markitron said:


> I have no experience with pre-amps (or any additional amplification not done by an AVR), so this might sound like a stupid/basic question, but is it possible to use an AVR to power additional channels for another AVR?
> 
> I'm getting a Denon X7200, but it requires an amp for a 5.1.4 output. I have a Yamaha AVR that's roughly 3 years old and I'm curious as to whether this can power the additional 2 Atmos channels.


Does the old Yamaha have 5.1/7.1 analog in as that is the best input to use, second best is to just use CD in which also will work.


----------



## Markitron

Mashie Saldana said:


> Does the old Yamaha have 5.1/7.1 analog in as that is the best input to use, second best is to just use CD in which also will work.


Thanks for the reply. Yea, it's a full 5.1 AVR, with a full set of inputs. So it is possible to use it? Are there any drawbacks to this setup do you know? I wouldn't want the sound quality of the rear Atmos speakers to be a massive downgrade.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Markitron said:


> Thanks for the reply. Yea, it's a full 5.1 AVR, with a full set of inputs. So it is possible to use it? Are there any drawbacks to this setup do you know? I wouldn't want the sound quality of the rear Atmos speakers to be a massive downgrade.


Yes it will work.

Just give it a try, after all you already have it.

What is the exact model of the Yamaha?


----------



## Markitron

Mashie Saldana said:


> Yes it will work.
> 
> Just give it a try, after all you already have it.
> 
> What is the exact model of the Yamaha?


I'm not home, so I don't have the exact model no. to hand right now, but I think its the RX-V473. If it's not that one, then it will be very similar.


----------



## sikclown

Markitron said:


> I have no experience with pre-amps (or any additional amplification not done by an AVR), so this might sound like a stupid/basic question, but is it possible to use an AVR to power additional channels for another AVR?
> 
> I'm getting a Denon X7200, but it requires an amp for a 5.1.4 output. I have a Yamaha AVR that's roughly 3 years old and I'm curious as to whether this can power the additional 2 Atmos channels.


Worth noting, the x7200 is an 11 channel avr with 9 channel amps so a 5.1.4 setup does not need an external amp as all will run off internal amps. You would need one to power a pair of height speakers in a 7.1.4 setup though.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Markitron said:


> I'm not home, so I don't have the exact model no. to hand right now, but I think its the RX-V473. If it's not that one, then it will be very similar.


If that is the model you have just use the "Audio" inputs on the back and it will be fine.


----------



## Markitron

sikclown said:


> Worth noting, the x7200 is an 11 channel avr with 9 channel amps so a 5.1.4 setup does not need an external amp as all will run off internal amps. You would need one to power a pair of height speakers in a 7.1.4 setup though.


Actually that was a mistake on my part, I'm getting the 4200. That does require a pre-amp.



Mashie Saldana said:


> If that is the model you have just use the "Audio" inputs on the back and it will be fine.


Good stuff! Thanks


----------



## sikclown

Markitron said:


> Actually that was a mistake on my part, I'm getting the 4200. That does require a pre-amp.
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff! Thanks


Yup it sure does. You could definitely repurpose your old AVR as am amp or, if space is an issue, pick up a relatively cheap Audiosource Amp many of us use for one of the height channels.


----------



## richlife

Markitron said:


> I'm not home, so I don't have the exact model no. to hand right now, but I think its the RX-V473. If it's not that one, then it will be very similar.


Regardless, it won't be a problem and won't be difficult. If you look at my sig, you'll see that I'm currently using an RX-V373 for my RP amp. I set the V373 at +5db (a reasonable volume for it to produce listenable sound) and used the Setup to disable the remote so my A3060 remote won't muck things up. Since you have a Denon, there should be no remote conflict.

BTW, when I use YPAO to setup the configuration, at the 5db level I have the RP amp set for, YPAO set 0db as the RP channel output level as it typically does most of the speakers. For me, that confirmed my choice of volume level on the RP amp.


----------



## Selden Ball

richlife said:


> Ok, mis-statement. I don't actually own any 2-channel sources _*that are connected*_, so I can't test them. I'm referring to a physical connection -- access to the back of my AVR is awkward and requires literally disconnecting my RP amp, the automatic cooling fan used, and my bluray player as well as sticking my head and shoulders in with a flashlight to run the stereo input to do such a test. Definitely not worth it to me after having spent over a month repeatedly doing and undoing the connections as I set up and tested the various configs for my 7.2.4 setup. It's a sleeping dog... (Except when I turn it on.  ) I actually made a fairly big deal a few days ago in the Yamaha Axx60 Owners thread about now being able to change my setup from 7.2.4 to 7.2.2+Zone2 with a simple AVR Setup change -- because I'm d--n tired of taking things apart.
> 
> So maybe when I exchange the amp... maybe. Just because I can't (right now) test the encoders with a stereo 2-channel source doesn't at all imply that I don't think they will work. I'm sure they will. BTW, I'm not referring to stereo PCM or MP3 sources -- they work just fine. I'm referring to physical, 2-channel connections such as a turntable (ok, or output from a computer or tablet or phone headphone jack). Just too much trouble for me to bother.


It doesn't have to be a hardwired analog stereo input. Playing a CD in your Blu-ray player, streaming a stereo internet podcast or even listening to a stereo FM radio station would work just as well for this kind of test.


----------



## richlife

Selden Ball said:


> It doesn't have to be a hardwired analog stereo input. Playing a CD in your Blu-ray player, streaming a stereo internet podcast or even listening to a stereo FM radio station would work just as well for this kind of test.


The output from the bluray player is bitstream connected via HDMI. Bitstream and PCM are fine with all Surround Decoders and DSPs. I addressed input via 2-channel physical connection only for completeness related to input options. 

But this question doesn't appear relevant to those who opened the question of whether a single back surround is supported (would x.x.1 get output). Atmos supports it. That was the answer. Details of all other encoders related to this were side questions and appear to be of no concern to anyone (especially whether DSUs support 2-channel input). Not worth pursuing for me, as I said above. 

But thanks for the attempted assistance.


----------



## Selden Ball

richlife said:


> The output from the bluray player is bitstream connected via HDMI. Bitstream and PCM are fine with all Surround Decoders and DSPs. I addressed input via 2-channel physical connection only for completeness related to input options.
> 
> But this question doesn't appear relevant to those who opened the question of whether a single back surround is supported (would x.x.1 get output). Atmos supports it. That was the answer. Details of all other encoders related to this were side questions and appear to be of no concern to anyone (especially whether DSUs support 2-channel input). Not worth pursuing for me, as I said above.
> 
> But thanks for the attempted assistance.


Atmos uses it but Dolby Surround does not. Many people like how DSU upmixes the audio of non-Atmos soundtracks, but not having any Rear Surround can be a deal-breaker for some, forcing them to find some way, any way, to put in that second rear surround speaker.


----------



## tezster

I need to prioritize the order I watch my Atmos titles. So, is there a consensus in terms of which among the following titles listed below have the most aggressive Atmos mixes? 

Batman v Superman
Everest
The Fifth Element
John Wick
Jupiter Ascending
Mad Max: Fury Road
Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
Mockingjay I & II
Terminator: Genysis


----------



## batpig

Haven't seen the Hunger Games ones but that list is pretty much all good stuff. 

Terminator G is an aggressive and dynamic action mix but not a ton of overhead. If you want a mediocre action flick with a crazy aggressive mix AND a lot of powerful overhead action then go with BvS. That movie really utilized Atmos well. 

John Wick, Mad Max, and The Fifth Element are all great movies and great mixes. John Wick especially has a lot of dramatic overhead usage. I enjoyed MI:5 when I saw it in the theater but haven't seen it on BD but reports are that its a fun mix as well. 

Everest isn't an action movie but is supposed to be an incredibly immersive Atmos mix using the overheads aggressively to immerse you in the enviornment. I own it but haven't watched it yet.

Jupiter Ascending is by all accounts a pretty terrible movie so I would put that last.


----------



## vsorgi

tezster said:


> I need to prioritize the order I watch my Atmos titles. So, is there a consensus in terms of which among the following titles listed below have the most aggressive Atmos mixes?
> 
> Batman v Superman
> Everest
> The Fifth Element
> John Wick
> Jupiter Ascending
> Mad Max: Fury Road
> Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
> Mockingjay I & II
> Terminator: Genysis




Mad Max by far should be your first. I watched this with just my top speakers engaged and there was constant aggressive sound throughout.
John Wick
Batman v Superman
The Fifth Element
Mission Impossible 
Everest

Have not seen the others. Have fun!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## caryav

Hi,

I wanted to get your feedback on setting up the 7.1.4 in my home theater. Please see attached image and provide your feedback.

The big question I have is about the rear 2 surrounds which I do not want to put them on stands. (As there is no wall behind the MLP). Is it ok to have them mounted on ceiling and pointed down to MLP???? what is your feedback? Or would they be better of with stands only at listening ear position or just above listening position ????
Or given the size of the room, should I be better of with only 5.1.4 ???? please advise....

Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Josh Z

caryav said:


> The big question I have is about the rear 2 surrounds which I do not want to put them on stands. (As there is no wall behind the MLP). Is it ok to have them mounted on ceiling and pointed down to MLP???? what is your feedback? Or would they be better of with stands only at listening ear position or just above listening position ????
> Or given the size of the room, should I be better of with only 5.1.4 ???? please advise....


It would be better to put the Surround Back speakers on stands at the same height as your other ground speakers. If you put them on the ceiling, you'll get very confused directionality when sounds that are supposed to go behind you on the ground level suddenly shoot up above you. You'll also have sounds that are supposed to be on the ground and sounds that are supposed to be in the heights all coming from the same plane. That could get very messy.

If speakers on stands don't appeal to you, I'd personally prefer to go 5.1.4 but move the "side" surrounds back a little so they fill some of the gap behind your seat.


----------



## caryav

Josh Z said:


> It would be better to put the Surround Back speakers on stands at the same height as your other ground speakers. If you put them on the ceiling, you'll get very confused directionality when sounds that are supposed to go behind you on the ground level suddenly shoot up above you. You'll also have sounds that are supposed to be on the ground and sounds that are supposed to be in the heights all coming from the same plane. That could get very messy.
> 
> If speakers on stands don't appeal to you, I'd personally prefer to go 5.1.4 but move the "side" surrounds back a little so they fill some of the gap behind your seat.




Thank you.
What if I hook them to the side walls at listening ear height and point them to mlp (of course it will not at the same angle what Dolby suggests), what are your thought on this approach?
Thanks once again for your help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Duckbacker

tezster said:


> I need to prioritize the order I watch my Atmos titles. So, is there a consensus in terms of which among the following titles listed below have the most aggressive Atmos mixes?
> 
> Batman v Superman
> Everest
> The Fifth Element
> John Wick
> Jupiter Ascending
> Mad Max: Fury Road
> Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
> Mockingjay I & II
> Terminator: Genysis





batpig said:


> Haven't seen the Hunger Games ones but that list is pretty much all good stuff.
> 
> Terminator G is an aggressive and dynamic action mix but not a ton of overhead. If you want a mediocre action flick with a crazy aggressive mix AND a lot of powerful overhead action then go with BvS. That movie really utilized Atmos well.
> 
> John Wick, Mad Max, and The Fifth Element are all great movies and great mixes. John Wick especially has a lot of dramatic overhead usage. I enjoyed MI:5 when I saw it in the theater but haven't seen it on BD but reports are that its a fun mix as well.
> 
> Everest isn't an action movie but is supposed to be an incredibly immersive Atmos mix using the overheads aggressively to immerse you in the enviornment. I own it but haven't watched it yet.
> 
> Jupiter Ascending is by all accounts a pretty terrible movie so I would put that last.


When it comes to aggressive immersive surround and an Atmos mix with a TON of deep punchy LFE, my go to movie is Deadpool. The scene near the beginning when that armada of vehicles is going down the freeway just before Deadpool jumps off the overpass into the fray, feels like it is going right through you. Still the best sequence of full immersive audio involving all channels I've heard to date.

It makes me smile at the thought of Heat making it to UHD Atmos...


----------



## the3dwizard

tezster said:


> I need to prioritize the order I watch my Atmos titles. So, is there a consensus in terms of which among the following titles listed below have the most aggressive Atmos mixes?
> 
> Batman v Superman
> Everest
> The Fifth Element
> John Wick
> Jupiter Ascending
> Mad Max: Fury Road
> Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
> Mockingjay I & II
> Terminator: Genysis


Get Unbroken if only for the opening scene. It will give your system a sonic workout.


----------



## Josh Z

caryav said:


> What if I hook them to the side walls at listening ear height and point them to mlp (of course it will not at the same angle what Dolby suggests), what are your thought on this approach?


Based on your sketch, if you simply moved the "Rear" speakers sideways over to the walls, I'd be concerned that they might be too close to the side Surrounds. If it's possible, maybe also move them back a little more and move the side Surrounds forward a little bit to get more separation between them? 

Just my opinion. This is probably something where you'd have to experiment to see what sounds best to you. Could you put the speakers on stands or shelves or on top of something temporarily to test it out and move the positions around until you find a spot you like?


----------



## jvkahl

caryav said:


> Thank you.
> What if I hook them to the side walls at listening ear height and point them to mlp (of course it will not at the same angle what Dolby suggests), what are your thought on this approach?
> Thanks once again for your help.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Personal opinion: I have a long room like yours and put my rears on stands and jacks plug into the ceiling so I can remove them on the rare occasions of using my pool table... wish I had saved the money of speakers and external amp and stayed with 5.1.4. If you had another row of seating behind the 1 row then maybe the rears would be more worthwhile.


----------



## Dave-T

I just upgraded from a receiver to a Marantz 8802a processor and I a now running a 5.1.2 atmos system which I really like. I am also using Rotel class D amps for power ( Rmb 1575 (5 channel) and RB 1572 (2 channel). My current atmos speakers are B&W CCM683 which I want to move out further and use two other sets of speakers to create a 7.1.4 atmos system. Now here are my questions:

1. Will atmos still sound good still work if I have surround speakers in the ceiling as well as atmos speakers on the ceiling?
2. My current surround speakers are 8" speakers can I use 6" speakers for Atmos or do I need to use 8" as well?
3. Do I need to use B&W speakers for atmos speakers to stay with the same brand as all of my other speakers?
4 My two current amps are 250W per channel should I use the same watts per channel for the four atmos speakers or can I use lower wattage.
5 My current amps are class D if I can't find another or other amps that are class D can I use class AB amp(S) with the two current class D amps?
6. Any good amp recommendations?
7 Any good speaker recommendations? (I was thinking B&W CCM663(6" speakers) if I have to use B&W speakers to match or CCM683(8" speakers) if I have to use the same as the other two ceiling speakers that will be surrounds)

Thanks for any help. 

*Current speakers are B&W XT4 fronts, XTC center and XT2 surround*


----------



## quinn4528

Dave-T said:


> I just upgraded from a receiver to a Marantz 8802a processor and I a now running a 5.1.2 atmos system which I really like. I am also using Rotel class D amps for power ( Rmb 1575 (5 channel) and RB 1572 (2 channel). My current atmos speakers are B&W CCM683 which I want to move out further and use two other sets of speakers to create a 7.1.4 atmos system. Now here are my questions:
> 
> 1. Will atmos still sound good still work if I have surround speakers in the ceiling as well as atmos speakers on the ceiling?
> 2. My current surround speakers are 8" speakers can I use 6" speakers for Atmos or do I need to use 8" as well?
> 3. Do I need to use B&W speakers for atmos speakers to stay with the same brand as all of my other speakers?
> 4 My two current amps are 250W per channel should I use the same watts per channel for the four atmos speakers or can I use lower wattage.
> 5 My current amps are class D if I can't find another or other amps that are class D can I use class AB amp(S) with the two current class D amps?
> 6. Any good amp recommendations?
> 7 Any good speaker recommendations? (I was thinking B&W CCM663(6" speakers) if I have to use B&W speakers to match or CCM683(8" speakers) if I have to use the same as the other two ceiling speakers that will be surrounds)
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 
> *Current speakers are B&W XT4 fronts, XTC center and XT2 surround*


I have been using ATMOS for about two years. From my experience this is how I see it:

1. No, Atmos will not sound as good with surrounds on the same plain as heights. Maybe lower surrounds to ear level?

2. The difference in woofer diameter between surround and atmos speakers will make no difference. There will be more information going to the surrounds and as such will require more power handling than heights, but all of the bass will be routed to sub anyway. Try to find the best ATMOS ceiling speakers you can for your budget. It has been a couple of years since I purchased my Paradigms, there may be better choices currently. 

3. No

4. Use an amplifier that matches the power requirements of the ATMOS speaker. Anything more is a waste. Unless you are acquiring a high powered amp for some future use, you do not need to go any higher than what is required to drive the height speakers.

5. Of course, any differences ( I know of none) should be flushed out in calibration.

6. I use Rotels but there are plenty of good small amp options for heights and surrounds.

7. Match your current ceiling speakers.

Just my opinion, good luck with your 8802a. Have a nice day.


----------



## Dave-T

So should I go with a 5.1.4 atmos system instead of trying to get 7.1.4 because there is no way to get the surrounds down to ear level? There is no wall to mount a speaker on the left side of the room at ear level as you can see fro the picture, unless I am missing something?


----------



## Josh Z

Dave-T said:


> So should I go with a 5.1.4 atmos system instead of trying to get 7.1.4 because there is no way to get the surrounds down to ear level? There is no wall to mount a speaker on the left side of the room at ear level as you can see fro the picture, unless I am missing something?


It seems like you're saying even in a 5.1.4 system, your side surrounds would be in the ceiling. This is problematic.You don't want any of the ground-level channels in the same plane as the height-level channels. There needs to be some separation between them.


----------



## Dave-T

The Surrounds on the back wall (B&W XT2's) are going to lowered. If I converted to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 the surrounds on the back wall would be become surround backs which will be lowered. If I do 5.1.4 the current surrounds (XT2's) will be lowered. The 8" B&W CCM683 ceiling speakers now will be pushed in and forward and another set of B&W CCM683 speakers will be added to make a 5.1.4 atmos system.


----------



## sdurani

caryav said:


> What if I hook them to the side walls at listening ear height and point them to mlp (of course it will not at the same angle what Dolby suggests), what are your thought on this approach?


Dolby recommends spreading the rear speakers at least 60 degrees apart. If you place your rear speakers on the side walls, 17 feet rearward of your listening position, they'll be 60 degrees apart; just like Dolby recommends.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dave-T said:


> I just upgraded from a receiver to a Marantz 8802a processor and I a now running a 5.1.2 atmos system which I really like. I am also using Rotel class D amps for power ( Rmb 1575 (5 channel) and RB 1572 (2 channel). My current atmos speakers are B&W CCM683 which I want to move out further and use two other sets of speakers to create a 7.1.4 atmos system. Now here are my questions:
> 
> 1. Will atmos still sound good still work if I have surround speakers in the ceiling as well as atmos speakers on the ceiling?
> 2. My current surround speakers are 8" speakers can I use 6" speakers for Atmos or do I need to use 8" as well?
> 3. Do I need to use B&W speakers for atmos speakers to stay with the same brand as all of my other speakers?
> 4 My two current amps are 250W per channel should I use the same watts per channel for the four atmos speakers or can I use lower wattage.
> 5 My current amps are class D if I can't find another or other amps that are class D can I use class AB amp(S) with the two current class D amps?
> 6. Any good amp recommendations?
> 7 Any good speaker recommendations? (I was thinking B&W CCM663(6" speakers) if I have to use B&W speakers to match or CCM683(8" speakers) if I have to use the same as the other two ceiling speakers that will be surrounds)
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 
> *Current speakers are B&W XT4 fronts, XTC center and XT2 surround*


I think you'll really enjoy a 7.1.4 setup. 

I have a great location for your "Front Height" speakers. Can you set a speaker in each of the horned animals above your TV? You know - - make it inconspicuous. They'll wonder where the sounds are coming from. :laugh:


----------



## normandia

It would be better to put the Surround Back speakers on stands at the same height as your other ground speakers. If you put them on the ceiling, you'll get very confused directionality when sounds that are supposed to go behind you on the ground level suddenly shoot up above you. You'll also have sounds that are supposed to be on the ground and sounds that are supposed to be in the heights all coming from the same plane. That could get very messy.

Josh,
I have a situation where I must, unfortunately, put the sides and Atmos in-ceiling for 7.1.4. I understand the height issues.

Would in-ceiling sides that have the ability to aim the sound to the listener (thinking Martin Logan EM-R, for example) solve some of the issues? Then the Atmos speakers could aim straight down above the left and right fronts/rears.
For the rears, I also have the same issues, but could put the rears in-wall (but they 4 ft. to the left and right of the seating area (as I don't know of in-walls that can be aimed).
Thoughts welcomed. Getting near decision time.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## normandia

Sorry, I meant to quote Josh in the first paragraph, but somehow it didn't work correctly.


----------



## Josh Z

normandia said:


> I have a situation where I must, unfortunately, put the sides and Atmos in-ceiling for 7.1.4. I understand the height issues.
> 
> Would in-ceiling sides that have the ability to aim the sound to the listener (thinking Martin Logan EM-R, for example) solve some of the issues? Then the Atmos speakers could aim straight down above the left and right fronts/rears.


Well, I'm not going to categorically say that it _won't_ work, but I'd be pretty skeptical of it. Honestly, if you can't get any height separation between the two levels, Atmos may just not work out in that room. Which is fine. 5.1 and 7.1 are still pretty good.


----------



## normandia

Thanks,
I don't want to get 8 more speakers for 7.1.4 if it ruins the effects, so I really appreciate the candid response.
I do have some lesser alternatives as I have on-wall LCR (or could be freestanding) with ear level tweeters.
So I could place in-ceiling speakers for Atmos above those (slightly outward the way the room is configured and still be within proper design).

Option 1: Just install in-ceiling sides (again aimed down to listener) - seems risky, but is the best compromise I could come up with for a 5.1.2 or 5.2.2 system.

Option 2: Just install on-wall or in-wall rears for 5.1.2 system (can do 5.2.2) and give up the 7.1.4.

Option 3: If on-wall or in-wall rears, I could put Atmos above them for 5.1.4 or 5.2.4. 

Questions remaining:
Whether rears should be monopole/dipole/bipole , although monopole seem to be preferred for Atmos after reading many threads.
Whether tweeters should match (timbre match) for the Dolby Atmos speakers.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## cdelena

Dave-T said:


> ...
> 3. Do I need to use B&W speakers for atmos speakers to stay with the same brand as all of my other speakers?
> ...


Although the same brand is not required a similar 'voice' can be important in rare cases.

I was really surprised watching a scene using DSU when the director panned back and forth on a mountain side as two characters loudly had numerous lines. The movement used front to back surround speakers but DSU pushed some dialog up which was fine, but nothing will show a timbre mismatch more than a single human voice.

Spent a lot of time to find and replay the scene a year later after I had changed my speakers to the same brand/line and the sound was much more natural.

I doubt this is a common situation, but it is possible. Wife and I both heard and commented on it.


----------



## Dave-T

So I think the consensus is to forget 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 because having the Surrounds on the ceiling is not going to work, I can live with that. The reason I can't but my surrounds at ear level is because I have a one year old who is a little to curious, I already have issues with him unplugging the banana plugs on the front two loud speakers (XT4's). I wish I could put the surrounds back on stands and put them right behind the couch but that would end up becoming a nightmare with my son. i kept the my XT2 stands for when he is older so I can that route, but not now. So is the consensus to add another set of CCM683's and push the current CCM683 forward and lower the surround speakers lower? I would end up with 5.1.4. That leads another question should I just buy another Rotel RB-1572 for power? I would then have (1) RMB 1575 and (2) RB-1572's. So $2500 for two speakers and an amp, this is an expensive hobby!

I could add some front wide speakers as well but what is that going to do for me except being able to tell all of my friends I have 11.1 speaker system in my 1300sqft condo


----------



## CLTGreg

batpig said:


> John Wick, Mad Max, and The Fifth Element are all great movies and great mixes.


I agree with these three choices. They are my references for Atmos. All three are fast moving. Fury Road only stops for a pee break a couple of times. The first 30 minutes it's hard to detect a plot but don't hold that against them. These three are also quite affordable.

John Wick introduces the "chest chest head" idea. You'll know what I mean when you watch it.

I watched Everest this past week and thought it really sucked. It's a dud though a lot of people like it for combining great sound and visuals. If you did end up liking it I can't imagine wanting to watch it for a second time.


----------



## bongchillog

Hi. I have question on atmos. Im on 5.1.2 setup...

My sorrounds is svs sss-01 which is dipole? Front height is polk owm3...

Are dipole speakers ok with atmos? Because my svs sss-01 is dipole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CLTGreg

*Anyone going high on side surrounds?*

Me and my brother are enjoying a richer sound stage by moving the side surround speakers to the height of standing ear level. He's at 57" or so and I'm at 63". Part of the experiment is to move everything closer to the TV as I was 12 feet back and now I have to deal with a fireplace mantle. I know this is a preference versus reference thing but I wonder if anyone else has been satisfied with this setup.

One issue that I am contemplating that I'd like some thoughts is what to do with the rear surrounds. The sides are bookshelf size and mounted to the wall easy. They are Definitive Technology ProMonitor 100 which have 5 1/4 mids and 1" tweeters. The rears started off as fronts and are Definitive Technology BP-2002. They were bumped to the back and replaced by BP-2000. The 2002 remain as rears. The BP-202 has the same drivers as the Pro 100 except they are bipolar and there's a 10" powered subwoofer inside each speaker. With my current setup they will be too far from the walls to have any effect due to the duplicated drivers.

So the question is has anyone did this and if they had did you find raising the rears to the same height as the sides? I have end tables that can handle this but I'd rather have the bass on the ground and the Atmos speakers on top (7.1.4).

Right now the rear subwoofers are pointed to the wall but I think I need to bring them more center and toed in. When the subs are facing each other there's more boom-boom FEEL at the listening position.

I think this is a hybrid between the THX recommendation of 2' higher than sitting position. The Atmos speakers are under 6' on stands with the fronts mounted on top of the speaker. It's too tall to put them on the rears as long as they are as high as they are.


----------



## maikeldepotter

With DSU activated on a 7.1 track, the level meters (resolution 0.1 dB) on a Trinnov Altitude show the exact same readings for all top speakers on one side. I tested this with a TF-TM-TR configuration on several tracks, and the results were always the same. 

It so appears that DSU as implemented on the Altitude, generates additional content for only one left and one right top channel. This content is then matrixed to all top speakers on the left respectively right top array. 

That is very different from how we thought DSU works:



sdurani said:


> If you have a single pair above you, then diffuse sounds from fronts and sides and rears will be combined and sent to the single pair of heights. If you have two pairs of heights, then the diffuse sounds from the fronts goes to one pair of heights and the diffuse sounds from the surrounds (sides & rears combined) goes to the other pair of heights. In the future, if mass market products allow for three pairs of heights, then diffuse sounds from each pair of channels will go to their respective height speakers (no combining of extracted height info).


----------



## tezster

Thanks to everyone for all the Atmos movie feedback so far.

Mad Max has insane levels of overhead speaker usage... it's the winner so far in terms of an aggressive Atmos mix


----------



## bongchillog

bongchillog said:


> Hi. I have question on atmos. Im on 5.1.2 setup...
> 
> My sorrounds is svs sss-01 which is dipole? Front height is polk owm3...
> 
> Are dipole speakers ok with atmos? Because my svs sss-01 is dipole
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Any comment on dipole? Ive read somewhere, dipole is not for
Atmos? Should i replace my dipole to direct radiating speakers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

bongchillog said:


> Any comment on dipole? Ive read somewhere, dipole is not for
> Atmos? Should i replace my dipole to direct radiating speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Dipoles are not suitable in modern surround systems. You want either monopoles (preferred) or bipoles.


----------



## dholmes54

I have 6 jbl l820 for surrounds and atmos, JBL they can be mounted on the wall not the ceiling,they have 6 screws built into the SPK for mounting, do you think if I mounted 2 for atmos on the ceiling would they fall, I have figured a way to do it.Also I have a 7.2.2 setup with atmos SPK on shelves,if I moved them to the ceiling how far in front of my seating area should they be,directly above me or a few feet in front.I've been told here that they should be inline with my mains.I just have 3 seats in my room and its 11.5 ft wide,what I really need to know is how far away from seat to put them slightly in front over directly overhead thxs


----------



## richlife

CLTGreg said:


> Me and my brother are enjoying a richer sound stage by moving the side surround speakers to the height of standing ear level. He's at 57" or so and I'm at 63". Part of the experiment is to move everything closer to the TV as I was 12 feet back and now I have to deal with a fireplace mantle. I know this is a preference versus reference thing but I wonder if anyone else has been satisfied with this setup.
> 
> One issue that I am contemplating that I'd like some thoughts is what to do with the rear surrounds. The sides are bookshelf size and mounted to the wall easy. They are Definitive Technology ProMonitor 100 which have 5 1/4 mids and 1" tweeters. The rears started off as fronts and are Definitive Technology BP-2002. They were bumped to the back and replaced by BP-2000. The 2002 remain as rears. The BP-202 has the same drivers as the Pro 100 except they are bipolar and there's a 10" powered subwoofer inside each speaker. With my current setup they will be too far from the walls to have any effect due to the duplicated drivers.
> 
> So the question is has anyone did this and if they had did you find raising the rears to the same height as the sides? I have end tables that can handle this but I'd rather have the bass on the ground and the Atmos speakers on top (7.1.4).
> 
> Right now the rear subwoofers are pointed to the wall but I think I need to bring them more center and toed in. When the subs are facing each other there's more boom-boom FEEL at the listening position.
> 
> I think this is a hybrid between the THX recommendation of 2' higher than sitting position. The Atmos speakers are under 6' on stands with the fronts mounted on top of the speaker. It's too tall to put them on the rears as long as they are as high as they are.


My side surrounds are 9" tall and slightly wider *bipoles* [Editted]. They are wall-mounted so that the top of the speakers are right at 6'. For 20 years, they have helped provided great 7.1 surround. The MLP is 12' from my fronts and 12' in front of my back surrounds (there are pics and a layout diagram in the room link of my sig). I took great care to separate the in-ceiling rear height speakers away from these surrounds (2' higher and inward by 3-4 ft -- approx inline with my main fronts). Fronts and backs are full frequency towers at sitting ear level. 

I do think it might be better from the MLP if I lowered the side surrounds, but that would put them "in the ear" of two other living room seating positions. I'm very happy with this compromise.


----------



## bongchillog

Mashie Saldana said:


> Dipoles are not suitable in modern surround systems. You want either monopoles (preferred) or bipoles.




Should you suggest that i rewire them to bipole?
The drivers are just screwed. Maybe i can remove them via allen wrench


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dholmes54

My idea of mounting the spks won't work,there is no screws holes on the bottom part of the SPK.The only way to do it is to hang the spks straight,they wouldn't be flush against the ceiling they would be hanging straight down that wouldn't sound good,they would be pointed toward the listening area.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

bongchillog said:


> Should you suggest that i rewire them to bipole?
> The drivers are just screwed. Maybe i can remove them via allen wrench
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That will probably not work very well. Best option is to sell them and buy suitable replacements.


----------



## bongchillog

Mashie Saldana said:


> That will probably not work very well. Best option is to sell them and buy suitable replacements.




Ok thanks will do as suggested.
Would you recommend a good bipole speaker? At the same price range..or cheaper.They are rear wall mounted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BBruin66

CLTGreg said:


> I agree with these three choices. They are my references for Atmos. All three are fast moving. Fury Road only stops for a pee break a couple of times. The first 30 minutes it's hard to detect a plot but don't hold that against them. These three are also quite affordable.
> 
> John Wick introduces the "chest chest head" idea. You'll know what I mean when you watch it.
> 
> I watched Everest this past week and thought it really sucked. It's a dud though a lot of people like it for combining great sound and visuals. If you did end up liking it I can't imagine wanting to watch it for a second time.


Try Everest in 3D with Atmos. THAT is what people go back for.


----------



## CLTGreg

tezster said:


> Thanks to everyone for all the Atmos movie feedback so far.
> 
> Mad Max has insane levels of overhead speaker usage... it's the winner so far in terms of an aggressive Atmos mix


Consider Roger Water's The Wall. It's insane as a concert movie but there's also a lot of object movement in the space between tracks. The movie is part documentary and makes more sense to those that are die hard fans of him or Pink Floyd and the album together. You can chapter skip those parts if you don't like them so you can just have the concert.

There's movements through a house which includes clocks and other things.


----------



## CLTGreg

richlife said:


> My side surrounds are 9" tall and slightly wider *bipoles* [Editted]. They are wall-mounted so that the top of the speakers are right at 6'. For 20 years, they have helped provided great 7.1 surround. The MLP is 12' from my fronts and 12' in front of my back surrounds (there are pics and a layout diagram in the room link of my sig). I took great care to separate the in-ceiling rear height speakers away from these surrounds (2' higher and inward by 3-4 ft -- approx inline with my main fronts). Fronts and backs are full frequency towers at sitting ear level.
> 
> I do think it might be better from the MLP if I lowered the side surrounds, but that would put them "in the ear" of two other living room seating positions. I'm very happy with this compromise.


Fantastic. How big is the TV? Mine is 60" and moving closer has revealed a lot more detail. I have 28' deep living room so we have similar dimensions. I'm lucky to have a nice long rectangle with the biggest drawback being popcorn ceiling.


----------



## gwsat

> Originally Posted by batpig View Post
> 
> _John Wick, Mad Max_, and _The Fifth Element_ are all great movies and great mixes.





CLTGreg said:


> I agree with these three choices. They are my references for Atmos. All three are fast moving. Fury Road only stops for a pee break a couple of times. The first 30 minutes it's hard to detect a plot but don't hold that against them. These three are also quite affordable.
> 
> John Wick introduces the "chest chest head" idea. You'll know what I mean when you watch it.
> 
> I watched Everest this past week and thought it really sucked. It's a dud though a lot of people like it for combining great sound and visuals. If you did end up liking it I can't imagine wanting to watch it for a second time.


I agree that _John Wick, Mad Max_, and _The Fifth Element_ are all great movies with wonderful TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. _Warcraft_ also has demonstration quality Atmos audio and looks great but, alas, isn't a good film, despite having been directed by the estimable Duncan Jones. I bought it for its great Atmos soundtrack but can't recommend it for any other reason.


----------



## CLTGreg

BBruin66 said:


> Try Everest in 3D with Atmos. THAT is what people go back for.


That's how I watched it with my brother. I bought it because of the reviews but to us the whole was far less than the parts.


----------



## gwsat

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by BBruin66 View Post
> Try Everest in 3D with Atmos. THAT is what people go back for.





CLTGreg said:


> That's how I watched it with my brother. I bought it because of the reviews but to us the whole was far less than the parts.


I agree. I saw _Everest_ in the theater in 3D IMAX and was underwhelmed. As much as I love good Atmos soundtracks, I don't love it enough to buy this film on BD. I don't have any 3D BDs because 3D has never done anything for me.Thus, no sale.


----------



## BBruin66

gwsat said:


> I agree. I saw _Everest_ in the theater in 3D IMAX and was underwhelmed. As much as I love good Atmos soundtracks, I don't love it enough to buy this film on BD. I don't have any 3D BDs because 3D has never done anything for me.Thus, no sale.


Well I didn't mean _buy_ it. My feelings on owning physical media are for another thread though. I rent most all titles. $30 for ANY movie is too steep for me. 

Try some 3D on your 4k set. Most will say it's much better than what it is/was on 1080p displays. The "Imax 3D" you saw is just 2k on a larger curved screen at almost all their venues. And just as likely, no Atmos either. Not at all reference material.

Everest does a great job of putting you on the mountain with 3D and Atmos combined. It's a place most people will never experience, but also a place and experience that is real (unlike say, Fury Road). Most of us have been in freezing weather and on the top of a mountain, so we can relate to the extremes shown in the movie. It's sure as hell as close as I ever want to get to a 25,000 ft plus mountain. 

But if that doesn't do it for you, try San Andreas or Fury Road, something with a little more 3D pop


----------



## sharkshark

Have been having fun messing about - Got a pair of the Klipsch mounted halfway between mains and side surround, and a pair of up-firing Onkyos that I've also borrowed. Running the copter test shows how radically different in terms of timbre and response the Ks are from the Os (no surprise, really).

Leaning towards on wall, and pleased to see SVS has entered the fray. Given my ceiling height I still believe that on-wall is preferable to (distracting?) on ceiling, with the .4 channels placed a few feet on either side of my side surround (which is at ear level) to give a boost to height.

I do, however, actually likely have an easier time of situating on-ceiling in terms of avoiding media racks, etc., so if there's a good solution for low-ceiling'd solutions I'm happy to hear about it 



sharkshark said:


> Because I can't help myself I've decided to toy with Atmos thanks to my new 8802a. Existing 7.1 is B&W all around, with 805d2 rears and SCM-1s mounted at ear level. I bought to test the Klipsch speakers to give a taste, currently running them via an old NAD receiver I had kicking around.
> 
> I've got a 6'4" ceiling so mounting speakers there I think won't be suitable, and I like the idea of both the Klipsch and the newly announced SVS angled beasties. I've got a couple questions:
> 
> - If I do in fact go 7.1.4 I'll need another 4ch of amplification in addition to my Earthquake Cinenova - I'm not wanting to go nuts here (well, more nuts), just something that's a decent 50w/ch given what it's going to drive. XLR would be nice if only for fun factor, so some nice, cheap-ish 4x50w with speaker posts amps would do the trick I think. I see a bunch of rack-mount instrument amps that would do the trick but they've got all kinds of distracting blinky lights that might be an issue (though rack form factor is a nice thing). Fanless would also be ideal. If I keep with only the two, what's the best bang for buck on stereo amps these days?
> 
> - I'm currently doing 7.1.2, with the Klipsch's mounted directly above the SCM-1s, as close to the ceiling as possible and angled to listening position. I've tested with the "helicopter" file and they do timbre match reasonably well with the rest of the fun. I've read all the suggested layouts from Dolby, and there's no real guidance on wall mounted/directional Atmos speakers, only up-firing (mounted atop L/R/RRs/LRs) or above (to the front and back of the RS/LS, closer to the wall than not). I figure they're working as essentially height in line with Surround R/L, and placed them accordingly. If I truly go insane and add four I'd also think to line them up several feet on either side of the surround, though this might prove a challenge given my storage solutions.
> 
> At any rate, it's more fun things to play with...


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> I bought both _Unbroken_ and _In the Heart of the Sea_ from the Kaleidescape Movie Store because of their TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. Alas, I paid a good deal more than $6.99 each for the BD quality files that I bought. Still, the Atmos audio in both films was stunning. Pay attention to the early scene in _Unbroken_ showing a huge flight of B-24s flying overhead. That one will give your Atmos setup a workout.


Thanks again to @LNEWoLF for pointing out the Amazon sale. Your right, the Atmos result in _In the Heart of the Sea_ is just amazing. I caught myself cringing several times from the sound of crashing water all around. Vaults right to the top of my demo movies. And a really good movie to boot!


----------



## dholmes54

I've got a idea of how to mount my atmos spks on the ceiling,I'm going to use steel angle braces bolt them together to make a square u shape and place the spks on them,they will be 2ft from side walls & 6 ft apart & 6 ft from my side spks.I plan to angle them downwards, should they be toed in like we do are mains or just straight,also they be about 2-3ft in front of my seating area,sound like a good idea? Rich life you got to very nice house.


----------



## oldsteve

richlife said:


> Thanks again to @LNEWoLF for pointing out the Amazon sale. Your right, the Atmos result in _In the Heart of the Sea_ is just amazing. I caught myself cringing several times from the sound of crashing water all around. Vaults right to the top of my demo movies. And a really good movie to boot!


Thanks also to Lonewolf for the heads up on the movies. I can see why the B-24 scene is included on the Atmo demo disc. The first time I watched it I jumped when the first flak bursts went off. This is definitely my new Atmos demonstration scene until something better comes along. Wow!!!


----------



## LNEWoLF

Your both very welcome. 

The opening scene with the B-24z flying in formation in unbroken is one of my favorites.

The sound of the open air swirling around the B-24z

That Zero doing a firing flyover.

Then the BiG ol GuNz fire up. Wow, just wow

Later the scenes with the rain in the life raft and camp.

I think our own Filmmixer is responsible for that AWESOME sonic artistic journey creation.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Marc did Fury (which is also excellent, just not Atmos) not Unbroken.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

LNEWoLF said:


> Your both very welcome.
> 
> The opening scene with the B-24z flying in formation in unbroken is one of my favorites.
> 
> The sound of the open air swirling around the B-24z
> 
> That Zero doing a firing flyover.
> 
> Then the BiG ol GuNz fire up. Wow, just wow
> 
> Later the scenes with the rain in the life raft and camp.
> 
> I think our own Filmmixer is responsible for that AWESOME sonic artistic journey creation.


A bit of a shame that is the only audio excitement in the entire film. At least you don't have to fast forward to get to it.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Scott Simonian said:


> Marc did Fury (which is also excellent, just not Atmos) not Unbroken.


Thank you for correcting me. I will have to add fury to my wish list.

It just amazes me what these talented individuals are able to create nowadays with audio mixes.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Marc did Fury (which is also excellent, just not Atmos) not Unbroken.


I bought the UHD quality version of _Fury_ from the Kaleidescape Movie Store and watched it last week. Its soundtrack is awesome.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Mashie Saldana said:


> A bit of a shame that is the only audio excitement in the entire film. At least you don't have to fast forward to get to it.


Imho, I would't consider unbroken an action type movie. It was meant to share the story of a remarkable an honorable warrior.

The action scenes were more to reinforce some of the unbelievable circumstances that he and others went through.

No matter how badly he was treated, threatend with death, all in an attempt to break him.

The unshakable faith he had and his ability to stand with honor in defiance of death like an errect middle finger. 

Just mho........


----------



## richlife

Mashie Saldana said:


> A bit of a shame that is the only audio excitement in the entire film. At least you don't have to fast forward to get to it.


I completely agree. Having seen the film, though I enjoyed it, I really have no great interest in seeing it again. But after reading all the accolades here, I have finally decided that $9 for a good demo is ok. After all -- look at the cost of all those Atmos and DTS:X demo discs that aren't generally available anyway...


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's funny...

Movies are probably the cheapest aspect of this whole hobby yet so many people are so stingy about buying them or whining hardcore when a 2nd or 3rd version comes out.


----------



## lujan

Scott Simonian said:


> It's funny...
> 
> Movies are probably the cheapest aspect of this whole hobby yet so many people are so stingy about buying them or whining hardcore when a 2nd or 3rd version comes out.


That may be because you only buy the AVR and speakers once hopefully, but you have to buy the movie 3 or 4 times. One example might be Star Wars. First VHS tape, then DVD, then Blu-ray, next UHD if Disney ever does UHD. Thankfully, I never got into the laser disc genre.


----------



## wse

Ok so could this be used for home theater JBL CBT 70J-1 

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/cbt-series/cbt70j-1#.V_KtXdzw288

If you believe that 

http://www.wisdomaudio.com/wisdom_series-line-source-advantages.php


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Ok so could this be used for home theater JBL CBT 70J-1
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/cbt-series/cbt70j-1#.V_KtXdzw288
> 
> If you believe that
> 
> http://www.wisdomaudio.com/wisdom_series-line-source-advantages.php


JBL used line source speaker models in their home Synthesis theater demos at CEDIA. Used for the side and rear surround arrays.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> That may be because you only buy the AVR and speakers once hopefully, but you have to buy the movie 3 or 4 times. One example might be Star Wars. First VHS tape, then DVD, then Blu-ray, next UHD if Disney ever does UHD. Thankfully, I never got into the laser disc genre.


I understand that some folks are collectors or just simply want the ability to watch a movie over and over or at the drop of a hat. For those scenarios you'd want the disc (or digital recording) available on command, and you have to be willing to pay for the privilege.

But if you are not a collector and/or simply don't want to shell out the simoleons for a library full of movies, a subscription service is an excellent alternative. Since this is the Dolby Atmos thread, I assume that most of us are focussed on getting the immersive audio sound track whenever possible--I know that I am. I have a one-disc-at-a-time Netflix Blu-ray sub for which I pay $10.79 (including tax) for between six and eight discs per month, on average (depending on our viewing habits). Since Netflix does not carry UHD or 3D Blu-rays and, more importantly, occasionally gets dumbed-down versions of the retail BD from some distributors (e.g., Lionsgate), I also maintain a 2-disc-per-month sub with 3D-BlurayRental.com at a cost of $6.99 p.m. And even though Netflix has an unmatched collection of titles on disc, once in a while I'll find something esoteric in 3D-BlurayRental's inventory that is not offered by Netflix (such as the delightful Atmos-encoded documentaries from distributor Shout Factory).

For the cost-conscious, that amounts in my case to a grand total of $213.36 a year for around 108 movies on Blu-ray delivered to my mailbox, or just under $2.00 per movie (including tax and shipping/handling both ways). I consider that a tremendous bargain. Obviously, if you want to have more discs out at a time or other privileges (like Netflix streaming) the price goes up. But it's still much more cost-efficient than purchasing a truckload of "shiny discs." Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## LowTech1

The SVS Atmos speakers are interesting, but wouldn't mounting them on the side defeat the real purpose of Atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LowTech1 said:


> The SVS Atmos speakers are interesting, but wouldn't mounting them on the side defeat the real purpose of Atmos?


They're useful only if you cannot install in-ceiling or on ceiling speakers. There are always compromises and these speakers are at least better than using "enabled" Atmos modules.


----------



## LowTech1

I'll probably just break down and mount some over head.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> JBL used line source speaker models in their home Synthesis theater demos at CEDIA. Used for the side and rear surround arrays.


Which one did they use?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Probably one of the CBT series they use in Dolby Cinema installations.

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/cbt-series


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wse said:


> Which one did they use?


Specifically,

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/cbt-series/cbt50la-1#.V_LXbSRj3Ng


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol. Weaksauce.


----------



## wse

Dan Hitchman said:


> Specifically,
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/cbt-series/cbt50la-1#.V_LXbSRj3Ng


Surprised they did not use these: JBL CBT 70J-1 they look much better?

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/cbt-series/cbt70j-1#.V_LhO9zw288


----------



## Scott Simonian

That is part of the mid-section of the full lines they use at the Dolby Cinema's AMC Prime's I've been to. On top and below is a woofer only array.


----------



## Mrjmc99

tezster said:


> Thanks to everyone for all the Atmos movie feedback so far.
> 
> Mad Max has insane levels of overhead speaker usage... it's the winner so far in terms of an aggressive Atmos mix


Try 13 hours 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stoked21

Holy pacific rim. 

Watched Friday night. Watched again twice today. Best Atmos mix of all time. 

Hdr. Blah. Especially since in 1.78. But the bass will destroy your subs. This movie actually surpasses the Gravity benchmark. It's insane.


----------



## grendelrt

Stoked21 said:


> Holy pacific rim.
> 
> Watched Friday night. Watched again twice today. Best Atmos mix of all time.
> 
> Hdr. Blah. Especially since in 1.78. But the bass will destroy your subs. This movie actually surpasses the Gravity benchmark. It's insane.


Stop making me want to double dip :O I love the 3D on the Blu Ray, but I want to hear that Atmos mix!!


----------



## isingh

Hello Experts 
So I am getting this setup for my basement with 8' ceiling. (single row seating to screen area is about 14'Lx12'W) 

Klipsch: RP 280F (2), 450C (1), 250S (2), 112SW (1)
And Denon x4200W. 

Which in-ceiling speakers you will recommend for 5.1.2 atmos settings and position of those speakers as well. Will you suggest keeping those say 1-2' away from listening position or exactly on top of listener? 

I do not wish to spend a lot of money on these. If possible then $200-300 range. Any help will be appreciated. 

What do you think about these options 
JBL SP6CII, 
Definitive Technology UEUA/Di 6.5R 
Polk Audio RC80i


----------



## Stoked21

grendelrt said:


> Stop making me want to double dip :O I love the 3D on the Blu Ray, but I want to hear that Atmos mix!!


Double dip! If you're not happy I'll reimburse you!!!!
Not really, but I'm just that confident u will be blown away. 
Even a mediocre Atmos install (not insinuating that's what you have) will blow the roof off with this mix. Whoever mixed the release deserves countless oscars.


----------



## CLTGreg

BBruin66 said:


> Try some 3D on your 4k set. Most will say it's much better than what it is/was on 1080p displays. The "Imax 3D" you saw is just 2k on a larger curved screen at almost all their venues. And just as likely, no Atmos either. Not at all reference material.


I think that's a big assumption today. Some have declared 3D dead because it only really pops in 4K but it was pushed two years ago. Yesterday at a non Magnolia Best Buy there were exactly zero 3D models. At a Magnolia store the cheapest one I saw was $1700 for 55". While we can't compare apples to oranges as far as other specs go, $800 will get you a nice Sony that size.

So it looks dead but I hope they try again now that we have displays that POP.


----------



## grendelrt

Stoked21 said:


> Double dip! If you're not happy I'll reimburse you!!!!
> Not really, but I'm just that confident u will be blown away.
> Even a mediocre Atmos install (not insinuating that's what you have) will blow the roof off with this mix. Whoever mixed the release deserves countless oscars.


I just finished my install this weekend of Atmos. Sounds like I am going to have to pick it up whenever the OPPO player releases. I am a Pacific Rim junkie, it will match my accoustic panel nicely :O


----------



## BigScreen

Mashie Saldana said:


> Dipoles are not suitable in modern surround systems. You want either monopoles (preferred) or bipoles.





bongchillog said:


> Should you suggest that i rewire them to bipole?
> The drivers are just screwed. Maybe i can remove them via allen wrench





Mashie Saldana said:


> That will probably not work very well. Best option is to sell them and buy suitable replacements.


Before you go and spend money based on someone else's opinion, try what you already have and determine for yourself what you like or dislike. While I agree that Dolby recommends direct radiating speakers, dipole and bipole surrounds don't become unusable just because you have additional speakers overhead.

The home theater hobby is all about experimentation and making adjustments to suit your individual preferences and the room and equipment you have. Guidelines from Dolby are a starting point. First-hand experiences, like those that can be gathered here, can guide you in directions and provide you with options to consider, but what works well for me won't necessarily work well for you. There are people in this thread that are very happy with their dipole/bipole surrounds, even with overhead speakers.

Before spending money, try what you have. If you're unhappy with the results, then determine what might be causing the issues you're unhappy with. It might be the fact that you have dipole surround speakers, but it could also be that the position of the overheads needs to be tweaked. Or perhaps the surrounds need to be relocated. If you have access to some, you could install different surround speakers temporarily to see if that changes anything.


----------



## bongchillog

BigScreen said:


> Before you go and spend money based on someone else's opinion, try what you already have and determine for yourself what you like or dislike. While I agree that Dolby recommends direct radiating speakers, dipole and bipole surrounds don't become unusable just because you have additional speakers overhead.
> 
> The home theater hobby is all about experimentation and making adjustments to suit your individual preferences and the room and equipment you have. Guidelines from Dolby are a starting point. First-hand experiences, like those that can be gathered here, can guide you in directions and provide you with options to consider, but what works well for me won't necessarily work well for you. There are people in this thread that are very happy with their dipole/bipole surrounds, even with overhead speakers.
> 
> Before spending money, try what you have. If you're unhappy with the results, then determine what might be causing the issues you're unhappy with. It might be the fact that you have dipole surround speakers, but it could also be that the position of the overheads needs to be tweaked. Or perhaps the surrounds need to be relocated. If you have access to some, you could install different surround speakers temporarily to see if that changes anything.




Actually the sound that i am experiencing right now with atmos is quite impressive.. My dipole speakers works ok with atmos. Im not saying excellent because i havent tried monopole with sorrounds yet using atmos. But due to room size limitation, Maybe im sticking with dipoles. 

Thank you very much for your very nice reply brother


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lucky Strike

I've got a question on the placement height of my surrounds. I'm in the process of setting up a 5.1.4 system with my .4's being on-walls (no ceiling access) which will be mounted right at ceiling level pointing at MLP. My ceiling is pretty low (7'4") as it's a basement room. 

In it's current 5.1 setup my surrounds are 2' above ear level and at 105 degres per standard practices. With the new setup how low do I want to move those down? Do i lower them right to ear level (matching my front channels which currently have the tweeters right at ear level which for me is 38" off ground) to get the most separation from the height speakers? My rear height speakers/surround heights/whatever the correct term is will be mounted directly above my regular surrounds in what is basically an Auro3d placement setup due to room layout/limitations.

Or should I still have them mounted a little higher (like 6 or so inches) than the fronts? I put them on a step ladder with the tweeter at 38" just to see if the back of the couch would be blocking anything and at that height the bottom of the woofer (they're two way bookshelfs) was still an inch or so above the top of the couch.


----------



## petetherock

Using bipoles for my side surrounds and loving it. Spreads the sound very nicely. 
Decide with your own ears, not because some one / book / website says so. They spread the sound very nicely and help if your side surrounds can't be placed in the most optimal position.


----------



## bongchillog

petetherock said:


> Using bipoles for my side surrounds and loving it. Spreads the sound very nicely.
> 
> Decide with your own ears, not because some one / book / website says so. They spread the sound very nicely and help if your side surrounds can't be placed in the most optimal position.




My rear wall mounted dipole sorround works as well. I prefer dipole over bipole because of my room size and layout. Good news is it blends well with atmos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

Lucky Strike said:


> I've got a question on the placement height of my surrounds. I'm in the process of setting up a 5.1.4 system with my .4's being on-walls (no ceiling access) which will be mounted right at ceiling level pointing at MLP. My ceiling is pretty low (7'4") as it's a basement room.
> 
> In it's current 5.1 setup my surrounds are 2' above ear level and at 105 degres per standard practices. With the new setup how low do I want to move those down? Do i lower them right to ear level (matching my front channels which currently have the tweeters right at ear level which for me is 38" off ground) to get the most separation from the height speakers? My rear height speakers/surround heights/whatever the correct term is will be mounted directly above my regular surrounds in what is basically an Auro3d placement setup due to room layout/limitations.
> 
> Or should I still have them mounted a little higher (like 6 or so inches) than the fronts? I put them on a step ladder with the tweeter at 38" just to see if the back of the couch would be blocking anything and at that height the bottom of the woofer (they're two way bookshelfs) was still an inch or so above the top of the couch.


Lots of advice here today to try options out and see what you like/sounds best. Good advice. To me, about midway between the 38" you describe and the 2' above ear would be worth checking out. You want to take your position in the room out of the picture, so get the surrounds high enough to go over.

Last evening, I was watching Harry Potter 2 (whatever the name is). I called my wife in to hear the scene where the mandrakes are pulled out of their pots -- stunning DSU effect! But when she came and stood at my right side, she affected the sound for me -- lost some of that screaming coherence because she completely blocked my right surround. I think that is what you want to avoid.


----------



## isingh

Any suggestion guys ? What do you think about Def Tech Di 6.5R with this system for 5.1.2 ? 





isingh said:


> Hello Experts
> So I am getting this setup for my basement with 8' ceiling. (single row seating to screen area is about 14'Lx12'W)
> 
> Klipsch: RP 280F (2), 450C (1), 250S (2), 112SW (1)
> And Denon x4200W.
> 
> Which in-ceiling speakers you will recommend for 5.1.2 atmos settings and position of those speakers as well. Will you suggest keeping those say 1-2' away from listening position or exactly on top of listener?
> 
> I do not wish to spend a lot of money on these. If possible then $200-300 range. Any help will be appreciated.
> 
> What do you think about these options
> JBL SP6CII,
> Definitive Technology UEUA/Di 6.5R
> Polk Audio RC80i


----------



## LNEWoLF

Another Atmos title on sale for 6.99 at Best Buy and Amazon dot com.

Other Atmos titles on sale for 9.99 also.


----------



## DoyleS

A quick question. 
I am setup for 7.2.4 with in ceiling speakers in a room with a 9.5 ft ceiling. 
My In Ceiling speakers are aimable. 
Should I aim them at the listening position or point them straight down?


----------



## Jonas2

DoyleS said:


> A quick question.
> I am setup for 7.2.4 with in ceiling speakers in a room with a 9.5 ft ceiling.
> My In Ceiling speakers are aimable.
> Should I aim them at the listening position or point them straight down?


Might not be super-convenient, but try both! See which one you prefer!


----------



## healthnut

isingh said:


> Hello Experts
> 
> So I am getting this setup for my basement with 8' ceiling. (single row seating to screen area is about 14'Lx12'W)
> 
> 
> 
> Klipsch: RP 280F (2), 450C (1), 250S (2), 112SW (1)
> 
> And Denon x4200W.
> 
> 
> 
> Which in-ceiling speakers you will recommend for 5.1.2 atmos settings and position of those speakers as well. Will you suggest keeping those say 1-2' away from listening position or exactly on top of listener?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not wish to spend a lot of money on these. If possible then $200-300 range. Any help will be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about these options
> 
> JBL SP6CII,
> 
> Definitive Technology UEUA/Di 6.5R
> 
> Polk Audio RC80i




Of the speakers you list, i would recommend the JBL's. I'd suggest considering RSL's also, and they are in your price range.
As for positioning, if you're using two sets of overheads (optimal if you have the space), one set should be 3-4 feet in front of the listening position and the second set 3-4 feet behind, with both sets being on the same plane as the main fronts. If using only one, they can be directly overhead, but you'd still want to line them up with your fronts. Hope this is helpful and best of luck!


----------



## tezster

Lucky Strike said:


> With the new setup how low do I want to move those down? Do i lower them right to ear level (matching my front channels which currently have the tweeters right at ear level which for me is 38" off ground) to get the most separation from the height speakers? My rear height speakers/surround heights/whatever the correct term is will be mounted directly above my regular surrounds in what is basically an Auro3d placement setup due to room layout/limitations.


Before making any changes, you can see how it sounds with the surround speakers where they are, then move them and decide if there's a noticeable improvement. Because your plan is to mount the heights directly over your surrounds, I suspect that lowering your surrounds will be beneficial, although I wouldn't necessarily lower them to seated ear level; maybe 6"-12" higher.


----------



## isingh

Thank you. RSL do look interesting and perfect for my budget. At this point I am exploring for 5.1.2 only, and for that purpose these two should do well. I was considering to keep the just about 1' ahead of seating area, this is just to give a bit more room in case I added 2 more in the back. 




healthnut said:


> Of the speakers you list, i would recommend the JBL's. I'd suggest considering RSL's also, and they are in your price range.
> As for positioning, if you're using two sets of overheads (optimal if you have the space), one set should be 3-4 feet in front of the listening position and the second set 3-4 feet behind, with both sets being on the same plane as the main fronts. If using only one, they can be directly overhead, but you'd still want to line them up with your fronts. Hope this is helpful and best of luck!


----------



## healthnut

isingh said:


> Thank you. RSL do look interesting and perfect for my budget. At this point I am exploring for 5.1.2 only, and for that purpose these two should do well. I was considering to keep the just about 1' ahead of seating area, this is just to give a bit more room in case I added 2 more in the back.




You can learn more about RSL's on the "Best Speakers for Atmos" thread, lots of raves for them (and nothing negative, if memory serves). Dolby specs for overheads are the distance from the top of your head to the ceiling should be the distance in front and behind. Obviously, there's latitude with this, but your proposal to only extend out to a foot would involve significant compromise when you add a second set of in ceilings. Not that it wouldn't or couldn't work, but personally I attempt to get as close as possible to the ideal in order to achieve the best results, as always, YMMV.


----------



## sdurani

DoyleS said:


> Should I aim them at the listening position or point them straight down?


It's just sound, coming from speakers. Just like all the other speakers in your room. If you aim them towards the listening position, then do the same with these.


----------



## Csbooth

Hey guys. I can't remember where I should post this but I figured someone here might be interested. I bought the Gravity Diamond Luxe version for the atmos disc and already owned the 3D copy. I wanted to sell them both as I found I wasn't feeling like watching it again. I mainly got it for the Atmos presentation (which was awesome) but now that the "fad" has worn down for me, I thought someone else might get more use out of it.

The Atmos version is inside the 3D case along with the 3D and special features discs. Sorry, I didn't keep the Diamond Luxe case. I know that's like half the reason for some wanting to own it but I wanted that part clear. I'm willing to sell it for a fairly cheap price of $30 FIRM. I noticed that it's almost impossible to find for under $50 and obviously those don't include the 3D blu ray as well. That version is of course easier to find but still runs for $10+ on most sites.

Again, I don't know why I stupidly tossed the Luxe version case, but I just chalk it up to me not liking to hoard as that's what my parents were bad about lol. I know that it will effectively kill any collectors wanting it, but again, this copy seems quite rare to find on every site I've checked, so I feel $30 is a pretty great price. I'm very OCD with the quality of my property, so it is in mint condition.

I'll take payment through PayPal and I can ship as soon as tomorrow morning. I'll update this post and create a new post to let others know it's been sold.

Message if interested,

Thanks!


----------



## BBruin66

CLTGreg said:


> I think that's a big assumption today. Some have declared 3D dead because it only really pops in 4K but it was pushed two years ago. Yesterday at a non Magnolia Best Buy there were exactly zero 3D models. At a Magnolia store the cheapest one I saw was $1700 for 55". While we can't compare apples to oranges as far as other specs go, $800 will get you a nice Sony that size.
> 
> So it looks dead but I hope they try again now that we have displays that POP.


Somehow 3D has gone super-premium. At BB, Lego 3D & Mad Max 3D are $43 each. Their UHD counterparts, $30.

2016 sets with 3D are all in the upper echelon of pricing (as you noticed), where margins aren't so tight.

The industry has clearly made a shift away from 3D to 4k, but as long as movies are still mastered in 3D, they'll be pushing consumer electronics with that format. Remember the UHD format currently doesn't have support for 4k 3D, but once they standardize then they can gladly sell us 4K3D ready TVs.

I wonder if we will see studios worry less about 3D and more about HDR (I'm still skeptical we'll see alot of actual UHD CGI). Atmos already seems to be pretty common as the mastering tools seems to be studio friendly and they have base layers for older tech.


----------



## CLTGreg

BBruin66 said:


> Somehow 3D has gone super-premium


My bro got a good price on Jungle Book 3D from the UK. But why not avail here? This movie stands the best 3D / CGI from my minimal exposure (to 3D). Start Trek: Beyond has a retail combo pack at Amazon for $50 for both 4K/3D/BR. I don't expect that price to hold but it won't be much cheaper.


----------



## Witchboard

CLTGreg said:


> My bro got a good price on Jungle Book 3D from the UK. But why not avail here?


Because it's Disney. I have no idea why Disney isn't releasing their 3D titles in the states. They sell the Marvel and the new Star Wars is in 3D in the collectors edition coming out, but their animated movies... nada. You have to import them.


----------



## Selden Ball

DoyleS said:


> A quick question.
> I am setup for 7.2.4 with in ceiling speakers in a room with a 9.5 ft ceiling.
> My In Ceiling speakers are aimable.
> Should I aim them at the listening position or point them straight down?


It depends on the design of the speakers, but pointing the tweeters toward the audience usually produces the best result.

Except in carefully designed wide-dispersion speakers (mostly coaxial designs), high frequencies usually are "beamed." As a result, if their tweeters are not pointed toward the audience, the highest frequencies will be harder to hear than usual. Audyssey's calibration will try to compensate, but the results usually are unpleasant.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Solving a riddle....*

Why do the Top Front speakers also produce some sound when the Top Middle test tones for a 5.1.2 lay-out are being played on a 7(or more).1.6 configuration using a Trinnov Altitude?

Let's build on the premises that the Atmos renderer works with room-referenced (as opposed to mixer/listener referenced) positioning of height speakers. In that scenario the renderer will probably use the relative ITU positions of the listeners' level speakers as a basis for determining the presumed room width/length ratio.

This presumed room will be shorter when fed with a 5.1.x lay-out (side surrounds at back end of room), as compared to a 7.1.x lay-out (rear surrounds at back end of room). If the Atmos renderer assumes the Top Middle speakers to be exactly in the middle of such room, their intended position relative to MLP will therefore shift a bit to the front going from 7.1.x to 5.1.x. 

Such behavior is reflected in the way the Atmos renderer positions the 5.1.2 Top Middle test sound (October 2015 Atmos demo disk) on a 7(or more).1.6 configuration (Trinnov Altitude): This Top Middle test sound is not only sent to the Top Middle speakers, but also - at minus 20dB - to the Top Front speakers.

*Edit: Nice try, but not how it works as @sdurani explains, which was confirmed by running an additional test (see two posts below)*


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Let's build on the premises that the Atmos renderer works with room-referenced (as opposed to mixer/listener referenced) positioning of height speakers. In that scenario the renderer will probably use the relative ITU positions of the listeners' level speakers as a basis for determining the presumed room width/length ratio.


Even though we sometimes describe the rendering using the short-hand "room centric", the fact is that the decoder is unaware of the room and speaker locations. Instead, screen grabs of the studio encoder indicate a base layer and a height layer, with object rendering happening within and between these two planes. Sounds at the front edge of the base layer will be sent to the L/C/R speakers; sounds at the front edge of the height layer will be sent to the Front Height speakers. Same with the rear edge of the plane as well as sounds between the front & rear edges. That's all the renderer can do, since it doesn't know room size/shape and where the speakers are in the room.


> This presumed room will be shorter when fed with a 5.1.x lay-out (side surrounds at back end of room), as compared to a 7.1.x lay-out (rear surrounds at back end of room). If the Atmos renderer assumes the Top Middle speakers to be exactly in the middle of such room, their intended position relative to MLP will therefore shift a bit to the front going from 7.1.x to 5.1.x.


Reconfiguring speakers on one plane shouldn't change the speaker configuration on the other plane. Going from 7.1.x to 5.1.x means that each side & rear speaker are combined to the same rendering location. That doesn't mean the room shrank, since the renderer doesn't know where those speakers are. Just means that the L/R Surrounds are the farthest back any object can be rendered (back edge of the lower plane). But this shouldn't affect the height layer. A test tone for the Left Top Middle speaker should come from only that speaker.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Reconfiguring speakers on one plane shouldn't change the speaker configuration on the other plane. Going from 7.1.x to 5.1.x means that each side & rear speaker are combined to the same rendering location. That doesn't mean the room shrank, since the renderer doesn't know where those speakers are. Just means that the L/R Surrounds are the farthest back any object can be rendered (back edge of the lower plane). But this shouldn't affect the height layer. A test tone for the Left Top Middle speaker should come from only that speaker.


You are right. I played those Top Middle 5.1.2 test tones again on a 5.1.6 configuration. The same -20dB leakage to the Top Fronts occurred. I believe the responsible Atmos mixing engineer has - for some obscure reason - placed the 5.1.2 Top Middle test tone a bit forward of the Top Middle speaker positions, and did not tick the 'snap to nearest speaker' check box. By comparison, the Top Middle 7.1.2 test tones appear to be spot on, with no such leakage to other overhead speakers.


----------



## gwsat

I watched _Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice_ again last night and was again blown away by both it Atmos effects and LFE. This movie has, hands down, the best TrueHD Atmos soundtrack I have yet heard. Don't get me wrong, there are now a lot of others that are terrific too but none of them give me the visceral impact that this one does.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I believe the responsible Atmos mixing engineer has - for some obscure reason - placed the 5.1.2 Top Middle test tone a bit forward of the Top Middle speaker positions, and did not tick the 'snap to nearest speaker' check box. By comparison, the Top Middle 7.1.2 test tones appear to be spot on, with no such leakage to other overhead speakers.


Yup, noticed inconsistencies in the test tones on that disc. For example, if you configure 6 speakers above you (Front Height, Top Middle, Rear Height), I remember the Top Front test tones in the 9.1.6 track snap to the Front Height speakers while the Top Front test tones in the 7.1.4 track phantom image between Front Height and Top Middle.


----------



## dholmes54

I'm moving my atmos spks to my ceiling,the best place to put them is going to be 5.5ft from my side channels,is that too close? Gwast,Batman vs Superman did sound great have you tried Mad Max Fury Road?


----------



## pacman9270

maikeldepotter said:


> You are right. I played those Top Middle 5.1.2 test tones again on a 5.1.6 configuration. The same -20dB leakage to the Top Fronts occurred. I believe the responsible Atmos mixing engineer has - for some obscure reason - placed the 5.1.2 Top Middle test tone a bit forward of the Top Middle speaker positions, and did not tick the 'snap to nearest speaker' check box. By comparison, the Top Middle 7.1.2 test tones appear to be spot on, with no such leakage to other overhead speakers.





sdurani said:


> Yup, noticed inconsistencies in the test tones on that disc. For example, if you configure 6 speakers above you (Front Height, Top Middle, Rear Height), I remember the Top Front test tones in the 9.1.6 track snap to the Front Height speakers while the Top Front test tones in the 7.1.4 track phantom image between Front Height and Top Middle.


What pre/pro are you all using?


----------



## gwsat

dholmes54 said:


> I'm moving my atmos spks to my ceiling,the best place to put them is going to be 5.5ft from my side channels,is that too close? Gwast,Batman vs Superman did sound great have you tried Mad Max Fury Road?


Yep, I own _Mad Max: Fury Road._ I really like the film and agree that its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is great. For whatever reason, though, it didn't hit me in the gut quite the way _Batman v Superman_ did. Another movie with a demonstration quality TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is _Warcraft._ It looks as good as it sounds but I thought the film was poor. I was particularly disappointed because Duncan Jones directed it. I also own Jones' two earlier films, _Moon_ and _Source Code._ In stark contrast to _Warcraft,_ I thought his two earlier efforts were wonderful.


----------



## richlife

On a different wavelength, I received my copy of Unbroken yesterday and got to listen to that bomb run opening that everyone keeps talking about. Really amazing! The soundtrack has you inside the bomber experiencing the combat! Unlike what others said, though, when the early youth scenes begin, I keep hearing the Atmos effects. They are atmospheric effects though, not the physical jarring sounds of war. In the church, it feels (sounds) softly etherial coming from everywhere. 

I only watched a few minutes of Unbroken, but I'm now looking forward to seeing the rest of the movie again. There is a lot more to Atmos than just the impressive bang-bang events. I noticed that a LOT in In the Heart of the Sea -- near constant "feeling" from the sounds that show you are on the voyage.

I have a couple of other movies on the way including the entire "Expendables" series -- great sales on Amazon Prime (and BestBuy) that @LNEWoLF has helped us keep up with. "THANKS!"

BTW, while I've found that a number of the older bluray discs provide great surround results with the upmixer(s), I'm choosing to only buy Atmos encoded or UHD with Atmos movies -- and someday I'll get an new UHD player. 

(I have the distinct disadvantage of living in a area that does NOT have access to reasonably priced high speed, large volume internet. Streaming is NOT a possibility unless I chose to have huge monthly internet bills. As it is, internet costs me $115 for barely adequate, limited data service. Be aware of your internet options if you are planning to move to a new area. And don't believe the service providers. Centurylink tells us we can get 10Mbs service, but can only provide 1-2Mbs at best (their techs have verified this). Add "high" speed from Verizon and I get 10-20Mbs, but limited to 10GB/month or suffer excessive charges.)


----------



## LNEWoLF

richlife said:


> On a different wavelength, I received my copy of Unbroken yesterday and got to listen to that bomb run opening that everyone keeps talking about. Really amazing! The soundtrack has you inside the bomber experiencing the combat! Unlike what others said, though, when the early youth scenes begin, I keep hearing the Atmos effects. They are atmospheric effects though, not the physical jarring sounds of war. In the church, it feels (sounds) softly etherial coming from everywhere.
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of Unbroken, but I'm now looking forward to seeing the rest of the movie again. There is a lot more to Atmos than just the impressive bang-bang events. I noticed that a LOT in In the Heart of the Sea -- near constant "feeling" from the sounds that show you are on the voyage.


Strap yourself in while watching Unbroken in it's entirety. There is allot more audio effects coming your way throughout Unbroken. Some more subtle than others.

Atmos is much more than just the overhead experience. It's the total sum of all the speakers. Working together to produce a realistic like listening environment. 

From my experience so far it has been a notable experience from 7.1



richlife said:


> I have a couple of other movies on the way including the entire "Expendables" series -- great sales on Amazon Prime (and BestBuy) that @LNEWoLF has helped us keep up with. "THANKS!"


Your welcome, enjoy. Hard to pass up when they are in that price range.



richlife said:


> BTW, while I've found that a number of the older bluray discs provide great surround results with the upmixer(s), I'm choosing to only buy Atmos encoded or UHD with Atmos movies -- and someday I'll get an new UHD player. .


They say the 1st step is to admit you have a problem 

Need more shiny Atmos disc's, must have more shiny Atmos disc's...................

Have fun..........


----------



## EdQ

I just starting reading all the information. So much, but it's making me want to upgrade soon. 
I have had my equipment for many years now, so I guess it's time. Damn this thread. lol


----------



## Ricoflashback

richlife said:


> On a different wavelength, I received my copy of Unbroken yesterday and got to listen to that bomb run opening that everyone keeps talking about. Really amazing! The soundtrack has you inside the bomber experiencing the combat! Unlike what others said, though, when the early youth scenes begin, I keep hearing the Atmos effects. They are atmospheric effects though, not the physical jarring sounds of war. In the church, it feels (sounds) softly etherial coming from everywhere.
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of Unbroken, but I'm now looking forward to seeing the rest of the movie again. There is a lot more to Atmos than just the impressive bang-bang events. I noticed that a LOT in In the Heart of the Sea -- near constant "feeling" from the sounds that show you are on the voyage.
> 
> I have a couple of other movies on the way including the entire "Expendables" series -- great sales on Amazon Prime (and BestBuy) that @*LNEWoLF* has helped us keep up with. "THANKS!"
> 
> BTW, while I've found that a number of the older bluray discs provide great surround results with the upmixer(s), I'm choosing to only buy Atmos encoded or UHD with Atmos movies -- and someday I'll get an new UHD player.
> 
> (I have the distinct disadvantage of living in a area that does NOT have access to reasonably priced high speed, large volume internet. Streaming is NOT a possibility unless I chose to have huge monthly internet bills. As it is, internet costs me $115 for barely adequate, limited data service. Be aware of your internet options if you are planning to move to a new area. And don't believe the service providers. Centurylink tells us we can get 10Mbs service, but can only provide 1-2Mbs at best (their techs have verified this). Add "high" speed from Verizon and I get 10-20Mbs, but limited to 10GB/month or suffer excessive charges.)


Yes - to me, "Unbroken" and the early bombing scene is hands down, the best example of Dolby Atmos there is. Batman versus Superman is a close second and my first choice for an entire movie mastered with Dolby Atmos. 

If y'all can remember when we first got DD 5.1 and then 7.1 - - we all commented about which mixes were the best and more importantly - - which mixes seamlessly moved around your soundstage and provided the best audio experience.

If it's a really good mix - - it's like a referee in boxing. You don't notice he's there - - but he does his job and you enjoy the fight. The same way with movie soundtracks. The better the mix - - the more you really don't notice it (it terms of real obvious sounds) and it pulls you into the movie and complements what you are seeing on the screen and makes it more real.

By the way - - I have a good friend who is out in the sticks (rural North Carolina) and he uses Yellow Jacket Broadband. It's pricey but the best option he has. You would think that technology could help more folks with much faster speeds outside of main city and metropolitan areas - - but I know it's a struggle for many people finding adequate internet speeds at a decent price.


----------



## richlife

Ricoflashback said:


> ...
> By the way - - I have a good friend who is out in the sticks (rural North Carolina) and he uses Yellow Jacket Broadband. It's pricey but the best option he has. You would think that technology could help more folks with much faster speeds outside of main city and metropolitan areas - - but I know it's a struggle for many people finding adequate internet speeds at a decent price.


Thanks for the tip. But Yellow Jacket pricing is comparable to Verizon, and Verizon has more data options, so I save quite a bit. If I were to stream 10 2-hr HD movies with either (for example), the cost would quickly escalate to over $500 a month. And if they were UHD/4K movies, it's more than twice that. So your last statement is very true. 

People could by lots of Atmos encoded and UHD movies from Amazon for $500-$1000+ a month!


----------



## lujan

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes - to me, "Unbroken" and the early bombing scene is hands down, the best example of Dolby Atmos there is. Batman versus Superman is a close second and my first choice for an entire movie mastered with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> ...


I guess I'll have to watch Batman vs. Superman again? The first time I watched the UHD version I was concentrating on how bad I thought the video was that I probably didn't pay much attention to the audio.


----------



## richlife

With the numerous comments about various Atmos encoded movies in this thread (especially recently), I just wanted to again remind all of the really good reviews provided by @Ralph Potts. I find after seeing several movies and then reading his reviews, I tend to be in strong agreement with him on the details both technical and overall movie related. If you haven't checked on Ralph's review, I recommend it. (BTW, In the Heart of the Sea is the only movie to date that he rates at a "100" for Atmos.)

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...avsforum-blu-ray-disc-review-database.html#Ii

Scroll to the end of his alphabetic list for specific bluray, UHD and Atmos titles which are otherwise mixed in the alphabetic list.


----------



## gwsat

lujan said:


> I guess I'll have to watch Batman vs. Superman again? The first time I watched the UHD version I was concentrating on how bad I thought the video was that I probably didn't pay much attention to the audio.


I bought the BD quality file of _Batman v Superman,_ Extended Edition, from the Kaleidescape Movie Store in order to play it on my Strato Movie Server. The Strato upconverts native 1080P to 4K. It looked great on this film. Based on your comments, I may have been lucky that the Kscape Movie Store doesn't offer it in UHD. As noted in an earlier post, _Batman v Superman_ has the best overall TrueHD Atmos soundtrack I have yet heard.


----------



## boolay

Hello, I would like to know if anyone can recommend a ceiling mount speaker, as I cannot install in ceiling due to no access.
Something with a low profile, my ceiling height is 85 inches. I did see XTZ Cinema S2 Atmosphere, which may be a possible fit
and are these good speakers. Thanks for any input.


----------



## CLTGreg

richlife said:


> With the numerous comments about various Atmos encoded movies in this thread (especially recently), I just wanted to again remind all of the really good reviews provided by @*Ralph Potts* . I find after seeing several movies and then reading his reviews, I tend to be in strong agreement with him on the details both technical and overall movie related. If you haven't checked on Ralph's review, I recommend it. (BTW, In the Heart of the Sea is the only movie to date that he rates at a "100" for Atmos.)
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...avsforum-blu-ray-disc-review-database.html#Ii
> 
> Scroll to the end of his alphabetic list for specific bluray, UHD and Atmos titles which are otherwise mixed in the alphabetic list.


Good stuff. I fell for the Interstellar case prommissing an Atmos soundtrack. I'd usually look here but it would never dawn on me that there would be logos for Atmos that are a mistake.


----------



## Sven Gunderson

HI,

I'm helping out a friend, whom will add 4 (Focal probably) In-Ceiling Speakers for Atmos/DTS:X, to his 5.1 setup (result 5.1.4. overhead)

Of course we will do this as much as possible in accordance with the Dolby tmos guidelines (page 18)

But here comes the advice request. his (3P) couch wil be very close to the back wall. AS I've read on several threads over here and on avsforum.com) is that in this situation, one should use down firing in-ceiling speakers with 'low' dispursement above the MLP and , the regular wide disp in-ceiling speakers , between the couch and proj/TV, attaining a 55' degree towards MLP

See schematics for a picture of the idea



The 2 questions in my mind are :

Do you agree with 2x wide , 2x straight firing (monopole?)

Placement of the Blue ones are correct ?

Many Thanks ! 

,Kind Regards Sven


----------



## ArmyMan

*Which amp to power which speakers?*

Just got my Denon 4300 9 ch avr.
Since I am set up for 7.1.4 I know I have to power two of the speakers with another amp, which I have on hand.

So out of the 11 spurs, which do I power with the extra Amp?

Paul


----------



## Jonas2

ArmyMan said:


> Just got my Denon 4300 9 ch avr.
> Since I am set up for 7.1.4 I know I have to power two of the speakers with another amp, which I have on hand.
> 
> So out of the 11 spurs, which do I power with the extra Amp?
> 
> Paul


Depends. Without knowing more, I'd say your L&R main speakers to the separate amp since they will do a lot of the heavier lifting and let the receiver use its power on the lighter duty speakers.


----------



## ArmyMan

My extra amps are really a pioneer vsx-102. 5.1 AVR and a denon pma-700v. Both have plenty of power on their own. Speakers are nothing special--low level Swan Divas, old.

Paul


----------



## Mashie Saldana

ArmyMan said:


> Just got my Denon 4300 9 ch avr.
> Since I am set up for 7.1.4 I know I have to power two of the speakers with another amp, which I have on hand.
> 
> So out of the 11 spurs, which do I power with the extra Amp?
> 
> Paul


It depends on the amp, if it is better than your AVR use it for the L/R, if it is weaker use it for the rears or top rears.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

Hi all,
Since I upgraded my home theater to Dolby Atmos, I figured I would post my configuration, setup components, general thoughts, etc.


My setup is a 5.1.4 configuration: front left and right (Energy RC 70s), Center (Energy RC LCR), surrounds (Energy RC 10s), 4 height speakers (Energy Take Classic satellites) and a HSU VTF 15H sub. I have a Denon X4200 AVR along with the Audio Source AMP100VS amp for the additional 2 channel processing. My room is roughly 15.5' by 10.5', with my 70" 4K Vizio being on a 15.5' wall (wide viewing setup - just better for the room configuration). It is a loft area, open to the downstairs living/dining room areas on the right side. The surrounds are just past 90 degrees, and the heights are in the front height and top middle configuration (with the 2 ch amp powering the top middles). I wasn't sure if I should go with 4 ceiling speakers since the sofa is against the opposite wall of the tv, but I just said screw it and went with 4 lol.


I already had the Energy RC line as the base, and when looking for the best speakers for the heights, I went with the Take Classics since I was familiar with them already (had listened to them a few years back and loved them), they are Energy and I am a big fan of the Energy sound (especially the RCs), and they are small & light enough to be ceiling mounted and not be too obtrusive.


My thoughts on Dolby Atmos for the home...its just flat out incredible!!! It has exceeded my expectations. Every Atmos Blu-ray I have watched sounds really good, and some just standing out and being absolutely fantastic. I am so glad I went with 4 heights, the seamless panning for the height channels (back to front/front to back) is amazing. The best Atmos tracks that come to mind, in no particular order really, are Transformers: Age of Extinction, Batman v Superman, and Jupiter Ascending. Those just stand out at the top of my head as the best 3 I have heard so far. Others that are also very, very good are Terminator: Genysis, Everest, 13 Hours, San Andreas, American Sniper, Warcraft, and a few others that I cant think of at the moment. I just really haven't heard a "bad" Atmos mix yet...they all sound amazing, but of course, some films make better use of the height channels than others...IMHO.


My conclusion...I am so glad that my brother told me about the lower price on the X4200!! It made the decision easier, to say the least. The sound is so good, the first thing I look at when buying a new Blu-ray is flipping it over to the back panel to see if it has the Atmos track, and if it doesn't, I probably wont buy it (looking at you Captain America: Civil War!!!). I would love to get my hands on a real deal Dolby Atmos demo disc. I love the short Dolby Atmos trailer in front of some of the films lol. The Dolby upmixer is also not bad either, not as good as a true Atmos mix, but its seems to do a good job of upmixing true hd to incorporate the height speakers, I'm fairly pleased with it. I couldn't be happier with my setup...now all I need is a UHD player lol.


----------



## sdurani

GiTcHaSuM said:


> the first thing I look at when buying a new Blu-ray is flipping it over to the back panel to see if it has the Atmos track


Bookmark these links: 

Atmos Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132 

DTS:X Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

sdurani said:


> Bookmark these links:
> 
> Atmos Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> DTS:X Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742




Done. Thank you.


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> Bookmark these links:
> 
> Atmos Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> DTS:X Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742


Thanks. 

But be careful if you specifically want Atmos or DTS:X. Some of the movies listed don't specify Atmos or DTS:X in the soundtrack. Who knows despite being listed on these pages?

Another gotcha -- Blues Brothers is in Atmos only in German. Will the format work on US bluray players? _Caveat emptor_.


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> Some of the movies listed don't specify Atmos or DTS:X in the soundtrack. Who knows despite being listed on these pages?


Those links are for separate threads (and therefore separate lists) for Atmos and DTS:X. So, for example, if you're looking at the DTS:X thread, then there's no need to specify which of those Blu-rays is Atmos. All the titles have been vetted as having an immersive mix.


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> Those links are for separate threads (and therefore separate lists) for Atmos and DTS:X. So, for example, if you're looking at the DTS:X thread, then there's no need to specify which of those Blu-rays is Atmos. All the titles have been vetted as having an immersive mix.


Sorry that I wasn't clear. I understand those sites are about Atmos and DTS:X and, as I wrote, "thanks". But each movie listed has a link to Amazon. The Amazon listing for some do not show any indication of Atmos. May not be relevant, but I have found more than once that if Amazon does not show a pic of the back side of the package so that you can actually see the "Atmos" information, that release of the disc may well not be an Atmos movie. 

So far every release that I got from Amazon that does show the backside Atmos info has indeed been Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> I have found more than once that if Amazon does not show a pic of the back side of the package so that you can actually see the "Atmos" information, that release of the disc may well not be an Atmos movie.


Understood. I've run into the same problem, but only if the title had multiple releases or was a foreign release. For example: co-worker picked up the "re-mastered" version of _'5th Element'_, thinking it had the Atmos track. Turned out the Atmos track was on an even newer version (4K restoration). Can be tricky.


----------



## CLTGreg

sdurani said:


> Understood. I've run into the same problem, but only if the title had multiple releases or was a foreign release. For example: co-worker picked up the "re-mastered" version of _'5th Element'_, thinking it had the Atmos track. Turned out the Atmos track was on an even newer version (4K restoration). Can be tricky.


Fifth Element IS available with Atmos for about $10. If you're looking at it from Best Buy watch out for a steelbook or similar BB only disc. THAT isn't Atmos. But the $10 plain looking one should have an Atmos sticker. It is one of the best rides for Atmos.

As far as UHD, there is deception. Ender's Game on the 4K bundle says Atmos but doesn't say it's only 4K. The worse in your face error is on Interstellar. It's got the logo and trademark notices but no Atmos.

If shopping at BB I'd pick up John Wick also and if you are a serious Roger Waters fan pick up his version of The Wall. Different ways to excite the brain. All great!


----------



## Witchboard

richlife said:


> With the numerous comments about various Atmos encoded movies in this thread (especially recently), I just wanted to again remind all of the really good reviews provided by @*Ralph Potts*. (BTW, In the Heart of the Sea is the only movie to date that he rates at a "100" for Atmos.)


Looks like Pacific Rim just joined the Atmos 100 team.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...7025-pacific-rim-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> Bookmark these links:
> 
> Atmos Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> DTS:X Blu-ray list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742


Those are probably the most complete and updated lists on the planet, but don't forget the UHD list too:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065

This is all three formats, though: Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D.


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> Those are probably the most complete and updated lists on the planet, but don't forget the UHD list too:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065
> 
> This is all three formats, though: Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D.


Auro on UHD is easy to remember, since it is only one title, though it is the only Auro 13.1 mix I know of (aside from possibly some cuts on the Auro demo disc). Wish there was an indicator for Atmos vs DTS:X. The UHD list is missing the first two Hunger Games movies (mentioned in the thread, but not added to the first post).


----------



## PeterTHX

richlife said:


> So far every release that I got from Amazon that does show the backside Atmos info has indeed been Atmos.



Look at Warner's reissue of _*Interstellar*_


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> Auro on UHD is easy to remember, since it is only one title, though it is the only Auro 13.1 mix I know of (aside from possibly some cuts on the Auro demo disc). Wish there was an indicator for Atmos vs DTS:X. The UHD list is missing the first two Hunger Games movies (mentioned in the thread, but not added to the first post).


Sure, but we all hope that 10 movie Sony deal will change that, right?

I've asked about making a note about Atmos or DTS:X, but seems they are happy with it as is.

Made a post about the two missing Hunger titles 

Still, these three lists are bookmarked for sure, and as oppposed to others, are worldwide, and darn accurate.


----------



## richlife

PeterTHX said:


> Look at Warner's reissue of _*Interstellar*_


I'm not sure what you mean. I checked every release of Intersteller on Amazon and none show the backside image with a reference to Atmos. There is a forum item talking about an incorrect Atmos label on the back of a bluray, but no images on Amazon. 

Whether or not it's shown, very unfortunate that some release was incorrectly labled. Of the 5 2015 releases, which one has the bad label?

Edit: Explored some more and found more forum discussions about this error and other labeling errors in releases last year by Universal. One comment about Interstellar said the director didn't want Atmos or even surround: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu...ellar-dolby-atmos-soundtrack.html#post2554579

At least I have good upmix capability and the Enhanced DSP regardless of what the director thinks...


----------



## LNEWoLF

richlife said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. I checked every release of Intersteller on Amazon and none show the backside image with a reference to Atmos. There is a forum item talking about an incorrect Atmos label on the back of a bluray, but no images on Amazon.
> 
> Whether or not it's shown, very unfortunate that some release was incorrectly labled. Of the 5 2015 releases, which one has the bad label?
> 
> Edit: Explored some more and found more forum discussions about this error and other labeling errors in releases last year by Universal. One comment about Interstellar said the director didn't want Atmos or even surround: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu...ellar-dolby-atmos-soundtrack.html#post2554579
> 
> At least I have good upmix capability and the Enhanced DSP regardless of what the director thinks...


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Interstellar-Blu-ray/138491/


----------



## CLTGreg

richlife said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. I checked every release of Intersteller on Amazon and none show the backside image with a reference to Atmos. There is a forum item talking about an incorrect Atmos label on the back of a bluray, but no images on Amazon.
> 
> Whether or not it's shown, very unfortunate that some release was incorrectly labled. Of the 5 2015 releases, which one has the bad label?
> 
> Edit: Explored some more and found more forum discussions about this error and other labeling errors in releases last year by Universal. One comment about Interstellar said the director didn't want Atmos or even surround: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu...ellar-dolby-atmos-soundtrack.html#post2554579
> 
> At least I have good upmix capability and the Enhanced DSP regardless of what the director thinks...


I got into a shouting match with my locals Best Buy shop over the logo being there incorrectly. I had one broken record stuck on only able to return it for the same title. If I didn't start to boil over I would have suggested that we open every copy in the store until we found one that had Atmos. Another rep shouted to me that the copyright laws FORBIDDEN returns on media. I snapped and shouted out that she was lying. Not a pretty scene. Finally the store manager came over and said he has it at home and it's Atmos. To prove it we went to the Magnolia room and luckily he knew how to turn off the upmixers. Poor guy probably wants a refund too since Amazon Prime has it for free.

But as alluded to here my brother says the director won't even do 7.1 so there.


----------



## Mr.SoftDome

This thread is two years old and I just heard my first real Atmos set-up this past weekend. It was incredible using their demo clips. I was there to audition new subs and Atmos was secondary but the experience was unmistakable. In this dedicated room and speakers all properly placed and treated-wow..

So to me and my world. I have just purchased my first AVR that handle all this. Now I am thinking to start I want to try front heights and will see how it is to start. What are your guys thoughts on the Atmos modules that sit on the front speakers? Pretty decent? Some other than others? I use KEF as my dedicated speakers all around and am considering their Atmos module from the R series line.

It seems there are mixed thoughts on these modules that sit on the speakers as opposed to wall mounting or in-wall. I really would prefer to try the module direction first but if the consensus is not really worth it I may need to put some additional thought into it.

Rick


----------



## BigScreen

richlife said:


> But be careful if you specifically want Atmos or DTS:X. Some of the movies listed don't specify Atmos or DTS:X in the soundtrack. Who knows despite being listed on these pages?


The links I include in my signature are personally maintained by me, with links to the version on Amazon that should be the Atmos/DTS:X version. FWIW, I have never heard of any issues with that information. (They are for U.S. releases only.)


----------



## richlife

BigScreen said:


> The links I include in my signature are personally maintained by me, with links to the version on Amazon that should be the Atmos/DTS:X version. FWIW, I have never heard of any issues with that information. (They are for U.S. releases only.)


THANKS!!! 

Those links just went into my bookmarks. I really appreciate all the research, exploration and effort that has been going into those resources and I'l bet a LOT of others do also.

A couple of updates: You may want to check out this version of The Fifth Element -- it is Atmos and one of the true bargains. https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Elemen...578&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fifth+element+blu+ray

On the DTS:X equipment, the Yamaha RX-Axx60 AVRs (and others this year) have DTS.


----------



## healthnut

Mr.SoftDome said:


> This thread is two years old and I just heard my first real Atmos set-up this past weekend. It was incredible using their demo clips. I was there to audition new subs and Atmos was secondary but the experience was unmistakable. In this dedicated room and speakers all properly placed and treated-wow..
> 
> So to me and my world. I have just purchased my first AVR that handle all this. Now I am thinking to start I want to try front heights and will see how it is to start. What are your guys thoughts on the Atmos modules that sit on the front speakers? Pretty decent? Some other than others? I use KEF as my dedicated speakers all around and am considering their Atmos module from the R series line.
> 
> It seems there are mixed thoughts on these modules that sit on the speakers as opposed to wall mounting or in-wall. I really would prefer to try the module direction first but if the consensus is not really worth it I may need to put some additional thought into it.
> 
> Rick




I don't think upfiring Atmos speakers will be nearly as effective as dedicated in ceilings. I'd only go that way if room/WAF/decor, etc, precluded the in ceilings. It represents a significant compromise. I think most immersive audio users would be in agreement.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Mr.SoftDome said:


> This thread is two years old and I just heard my first real Atmos set-up this past weekend. It was incredible using their demo clips. I was there to audition new subs and Atmos was secondary but the experience was unmistakable. In this dedicated room and speakers all properly placed and treated-wow..
> 
> So to me and my world. I have just purchased my first AVR that handle all this. Now I am thinking to start I want to try front heights and will see how it is to start. What are your guys thoughts on the Atmos modules that sit on the front speakers? Pretty decent? Some other than others? I use KEF as my dedicated speakers all around and am considering their Atmos module from the R series line.
> 
> It seems there are mixed thoughts on these modules that sit on the speakers as opposed to wall mounting or in-wall. I really would prefer to try the module direction first but if the consensus is not really worth it I may need to put some additional thought into it.
> 
> Rick


You may find this thread helpful

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1714010-dolby-atmos-upward-firing-module-speakers.html


----------



## richlife

LNEWoLF said:


> You may find this thread helpful
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1714010-dolby-atmos-upward-firing-module-speakers.html


These Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES) work well as long as they are used properly. "Properly" includes your room configuration. I use ELAC A4s in a room which has a vaulted ceiling and, with a little testing of placement and angle, the result is superb. 

Where these DAES are known to have issues is with high ceilings that are too far up for a good reflection.


----------



## BigScreen

richlife said:


> THANKS!!!
> 
> Those links just went into my bookmarks. I really appreciate all the research, exploration and effort that has been going into those resources and I'l bet a LOT of others do also.


You're welcome! I started that list at the beginning of the Dolby Atmos rollout, as there was some misinformation out there, with one site in particular jumping the gun on listing movies as having an Atmos soundtrack when there wasn't any confirmation of such. The receivers that were going to be DTS:X capable and when was also a factor around a year ago, so that's when that list came together as well.



> A couple of updates: You may want to check out this version of The Fifth Element -- it is Atmos and one of the true bargains.


I did have the Cinema Series of The Fifth Element listed, and now I have just added the standard package that was released last October as well. Not sure how I missed it, but that's why it's nice for people to give me the heads-up! 



> On the DTS:X equipment, the Yamaha RX-Axx60 AVRs (and others this year) have DTS.


Ah, thanks for the reminder that I needed to update the text to be more generic. Now that new models from the mainstream manufacturers are coming with DTS:X, it would be difficult to keep up with every new release, so I've added general links to the manufacturers. For now, I've kept the archive of the first-gen models that had DTS:X via firmware updates, but that will probably be removed in the future as well.


----------



## jonah1810

*No Overhead Sound*

So under my 5.1.2 system i hear no overhead sound and i was hoping you guys could help me.
ive tried atmos content (only tried mad max fury road) and ive tried the dolby surround AND the DTS: Nueral X Upmixing. the atmos enabled speakers will play quietly for ambient noises (crowd cheering) and get louder when a car or some other thing produces an "overhead" sound. even then it still seems pretty quiet compared to the fronts and centre although that may just be how it's supposed to be, im not sure. but when sitting in my sitting position it never sounds as if there is any sound coming from even above the tower speakers, let alone from above me.

now i have tried tuning it via the full auto MCAAC with the microphone included and i have also tried tuning it via my (cross spectrum labs) microphone and REW for the channel levels, and a tape measure for the distance either way, it doesn't sound like anything is coming from above me. which has left me utterly frustrated and with a feeling as though i wasted some money going for atmos

My setup is as follows:
Pioneer VSX-1131 Receiver
Polk T600 Tower Speaker
Polk T300 Bookshelf Speaker
Polk T30 Centre Speaker
Polk TPSW10 Subwoofer
Onkyo SK-410 Dolby atmos enabled Modules

I have it set up to the following:
Fronts: 22 degrees/ L:90" R: 89"
Centre:0 Degrees/ C:88"/ Top of Centre Speaker is 2ft above ground height
Surround: 120 degrees/L:66" R:77"/slightly above ear level, top of bookshelf is 4ft above ground height
Atmos:22 Degrees/ L:90" R:89"/ slightly above ear level. 3.4ft above ground height, 4.6ft below ceiling




yes, my receiver is set to 5.1.2 with the atmos enabled speakers being set to on top of Tower speakers.
Reflex Optimiser is set to on, although im not sure what it does, and it doesn't seem to my ears like it changes anything 

thanks in advance for the help, really wondering if i should just take these back and go to a 7.1 system instead. if there is any information i missed just let me know and i will make sure it gets put on there.
- Jonah


----------



## Davidave

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Hi all,
> Since I upgraded my home theater to Dolby Atmos, I figured I would post my configuration, setup components, general thoughts, etc.
> 
> 
> My setup is a 5.1.4 configuration: front left and right (Energy RC 70s), Center (Energy RC LCR), surrounds (Energy RC 10s), 4 height speakers (Energy Take Classic satellites) and a HSU VTF 15H sub. I have a Denon X4200 AVR along with the Audio Source AMP100VS amp for the additional 2 channel processing. My room is roughly 15.5' by 10.5', with my 70" 4K Vizio being on a 15.5' wall (wide viewing setup - just better for the room configuration). It is a loft area, open to the downstairs living/dining room areas on the right side. The surrounds are just past 90 degrees, and the heights are in the front height and top middle configuration (with the 2 ch amp powering the top middles). I wasn't sure if I should go with 4 ceiling speakers since the sofa is against the opposite wall of the tv, but I just said screw it and went with 4 lol.
> 
> 
> I already had the Energy RC line as the base, and when looking for the best speakers for the heights, I went with the Take Classics since I was familiar with them already (had listened to them a few years back and loved them), they are Energy and I am a big fan of the Energy sound (especially the RCs), and they are small & light enough to be ceiling mounted and not be too obtrusive.
> 
> 
> My thoughts on Dolby Atmos for the home...its just flat out incredible!!! It has exceeded my expectations. Every Atmos Blu-ray I have watched sounds really good, and some just standing out and being absolutely fantastic. I am so glad I went with 4 heights, the seamless panning for the height channels (back to front/front to back) is amazing. The best Atmos tracks that come to mind, in no particular order really, are Transformers: Age of Extinction, Batman v Superman, and Jupiter Ascending. Those just stand out at the top of my head as the best 3 I have heard so far. Others that are also very, very good are Terminator: Genysis, Everest, 13 Hours, San Andreas, American Sniper, Warcraft, and a few others that I cant think of at the moment. I just really haven't heard a "bad" Atmos mix yet...they all sound amazing, but of course, some films make better use of the height channels than others...IMHO.
> 
> 
> My conclusion...I am so glad that my brother told me about the lower price on the X4200!! It made the decision easier, to say the least. The sound is so good, the first thing I look at when buying a new Blu-ray is flipping it over to the back panel to see if it has the Atmos track, and if it doesn't, I probably wont buy it (looking at you Captain America: Civil War!!!). I would love to get my hands on a real deal Dolby Atmos demo disc. I love the short Dolby Atmos trailer in front of some of the films lol. The Dolby upmixer is also not bad either, not as good as a true Atmos mix, but its seems to do a good job of upmixing true hd to incorporate the height speakers, I'm fairly pleased with it. I couldn't be happier with my setup...now all I need is a UHD player lol.


Four Atmos Demos are available on Vudu. It's the only Vudu content that includes Atmos that isn't 4k (which makes no sense to me). They're all pretty good for a quick Atmos demo.


----------



## Lesmor

jonah1810 said:


> So under my 5.1.2 system i hear no overhead sound and i was hoping you guys could help me.
> ive tried atmos content (only tried mad max fury road) and ive tried the dolby surround AND the DTS: Nueral X Upmixing. the atmos enabled speakers will play quietly for ambient noises (crowd cheering) and get louder when a car or some other thing produces an "overhead" sound. even then it still seems pretty quiet compared to the fronts and centre although that may just be how it's supposed to be, im not sure. but when sitting in my sitting position it never sounds as if there is any sound coming from even above the tower speakers, let alone from above me.
> 
> now i have tried tuning it via the full auto MCAAC with the microphone included and i have also tried tuning it via my (cross spectrum labs) microphone and REW for the channel levels, and a tape measure for the distance either way, it doesn't sound like anything is coming from above me. which has left me utterly frustrated and with a feeling as though i wasted some money going for atmos
> 
> My setup is as follows:
> Pioneer VSX-1131 Receiver
> Polk T600 Tower Speaker
> Polk T300 Bookshelf Speaker
> Polk T30 Centre Speaker
> Polk TPSW10 Subwoofer
> Onkyo SK-410 Dolby atmos enabled Modules
> 
> I have it set up to the following:
> Fronts: 22 degrees/ L:90" R: 89"
> Centre:0 Degrees/ C:88"/ Top of Centre Speaker is 2ft above ground height
> Surround: 120 degrees/L:66" R:77"/slightly above ear level, top of bookshelf is 4ft above ground height
> Atmos:22 Degrees/ L:90" R:89"/ slightly above ear level. 3.4ft above ground height, 4.6ft below ceiling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, my receiver is set to 5.1.2 with the atmos enabled speakers being set to on top of Tower speakers.
> Reflex Optimiser is set to on, although im not sure what it does, and it doesn't seem to my ears like it changes anything
> 
> thanks in advance for the help, really wondering if i should just take these back and go to a 7.1 system instead. if there is any information i missed just let me know and i will make sure it gets put on there.
> - Jonah


Atmos overhead sound is discrete mostly adding ambiance, any speaker in a proper set up system shouldn't draw attention to themselves
People seem to want to hear Atmos height above everything else the same as when height speakers were introduced by DTS Neo:X and folks were going up stepladders to see if the speakers were working.

That said one problem could be that the consensus is that Onkyo SK-410 are pretty rubbish speakers you would get better results using KEF

The best disc for a Atmos overhead demo is Transformers. 
If you want sound above you then that really is where the speakers should be, on or in the ceiling, not bounced off it.


----------



## richlife

jonah1810 said:


> ...
> 
> My setup is as follows:
> Pioneer VSX-1131 Receiver
> Polk T600 Tower Speaker
> Polk T300 Bookshelf Speaker
> Polk T30 Centre Speaker
> Polk TPSW10 Subwoofer
> Onkyo SK-410 Dolby atmos enabled Modules
> 
> I have it set up to the following:
> Fronts: 22 degrees/ L:90" R: 89"
> Centre:0 Degrees/ C:88"/ Top of Centre Speaker is 2ft above ground height
> Surround: 120 degrees/L:66" R:77"/slightly above ear level, top of bookshelf is 4ft above ground height
> Atmos:22 Degrees/ L:90" R:89"/ slightly above ear level. 3.4ft above ground height, 4.6ft below ceiling
> 
> ...
> 
> thanks in advance for the help, really wondering if i should just take these back and go to a 7.1 system instead. if there is any information i missed just let me know and i will make sure it gets put on there.
> - Jonah


Jonah, Perhaps something ain't right and perhaps you have too many expectations. But yes, Atmos SHOULD be a noticeable improvement to your surround sound capability. What you don't provide that may affect your results is a description of your room (size, ceiling height, and if it has any open walls). 

First of all, manually increase the volume of your Atmos speakers by 2 - 3 db to see if it helps. I'm not suggesting you should make the speakers a highlight of your sound, but many (including me) have said that their Atmos is improved with a slight bump in "presence" volume. 

Second, move your Atmos speakers closer to the ceiling -- even if only temporarily to see if it helps. See the link in my sig for pics of where my Dolby Enabled Atmos Speaker sit well above my mains. If you ceiling is not flat, that may be your issue. See my post on how I had to adjust my ELAC A4s to accommodate my ceiling. (Even if you have a flat ceiling, elevating the back of the Onkyos by a small amount (1/2" to 2") may help find a "sweet reflection spot". Try toeing the Atmos (and your fronts) toward your MLP.

The John Wick bluray with Atmos starts with a really good Atmos demo. My sister says it sounds like bats flying around. I think it sounds more like mice overhead with jackboots. 

These are simple things you can try to get better results. Given the hours many of us have spent trying to get our equipment and our rooms "right", I can tell you that good Atmos is often NOT a simple "out of the box" setup.


----------



## richlife

BigScreen said:


> ...
> Ah, thanks for the reminder that I needed to update the text to be more generic. Now that new models from the mainstream manufacturers are coming with DTS:X, it would be difficult to keep up with every new release, so I've added general links to the manufacturers. For now, I've kept the archive of the first-gen models that had DTS:X via firmware updates, but that will probably be removed in the future as well.


Yes, I saw you you linked to the equipment in the Atmos link and figured you would end up doing that in DTS:X. I'm going to send your movie links to my wife -- much clearer and easier for the "uninvolved" to be able to find movies.


----------



## cdelena

jonah1810 said:


> So under my 5.1.2 system i hear no overhead sound and i was hoping you guys could help me.
> ...


The most common failure to get Atmos sound is because the DVD player is not outputting bitstream. Either because PCM is selected or secondary audio stream is on.


----------



## Gates

richlife said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. I checked every release of Intersteller on Amazon and none show the backside image with a reference to Atmos. There is a forum item talking about an incorrect Atmos label on the back of a bluray, but no images on Amazon.
> 
> Whether or not it's shown, very unfortunate that some release was incorrectly labled. Of the 5 2015 releases, which one has the bad label?
> 
> Edit: Explored some more and found more forum discussions about this error and other labeling errors in releases last year by Universal. One comment about Interstellar said the director didn't want Atmos or even surround: http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu...ellar-dolby-atmos-soundtrack.html#post2554579
> 
> At least I have good upmix capability and the Enhanced DSP regardless of what the director thinks...




Interstellar never had an ATMOS release on BD. Printing error.


----------



## jonah1810

*Definitly was inputting atmos and outputting atmos*



cdelena said:


> The most common failure to get Atmos sound is because the DVD player is not outputting bitstream. Either because PCM is selected or secondary audio stream is on.


ps3 in my case, but yeah i did that, and when i hit the info on my receiver it said input was atmos and output was atmos. has anybody else watched mad max fury road with atmos? maybe it isnt a good track to demo it on. never expected much from the upmixing, but true atmos content i was hoping for better results...

so what do you guys say then? probably just the onkyo speakers? its weird because there is so many good reviews saying it did well to create a atmos effect... maybe in a different setup it would work better.

so should i keep it as is?
go to 7.1 instead as my receiver handles it
or replace them with ceiling speakers or maybe a better add on module? 

im open ears i just want to get this figured out before i cant take the onkyo speakers back


----------



## Selden Ball

jonah1810 said:


> ps3 in my case, but yeah i did that, and when i hit the info on my receiver it said input was atmos and output was atmos. has anybody else watched mad max fury road with atmos? maybe it isnt a good track to demo it on. never expected much from the upmixing, but true atmos content i was hoping for better results...
> 
> so what do you guys say then? probably just the onkyo speakers? its weird because there is so many good reviews saying it did well to create a atmos effect... maybe in a different setup it would work better.
> 
> so should i keep it as is?
> go to 7.1 instead as my receiver handles it
> or replace them with ceiling speakers or maybe a better add on module?
> 
> im open ears i just want to get this figured out before i cant take the onkyo speakers back


Sorry, but the Onkyo upfiring speakers are the worst ones made, with the DefTech upfiring ones close behind.

In any case, you do have to get the speakers' angles right. Think of the speakers as flashlights and the ceiling as a mirror. The speakers have to be angled so that the "beam" of sound reflects correctly off the ceiling so it illuminates the audience. One way to get the angles about right to adjust the speakers so they point toward the location on the ceiling which is half-way between the speakers and the main listening position. The speakers also have to be positioned somewhat above ear level so that you can't easily hear their directly radiated sound.


----------



## usc1995

jonah1810 said:


> ps3 in my case, but yeah i did that, and when i hit the info on my receiver it said input was atmos and output was atmos. has anybody else watched mad max fury road with atmos? maybe it isnt a good track to demo it on. never expected much from the upmixing, but true atmos content i was hoping for better results...


Mad Max Fury Road is a good implementation of Atmos. The opening scene is even included on one of the official Dolby Atmos demo discs! In that scene you should hear the voices and different sounds in Max's mind coming from distinct and different places around the room. If you don't then your set up is flawed. The Dolby Atmos enabled speakers are difficult in that you need both capable speakers and proper set up which isn't always quick and easy to get dialed in. I followed the DAES thread for a while before realizing it would be quicker and easier to set up Atmos with direct firing on wall speakers. You should check out that thread and see what the knowledgeable community here on AVS thinks of those Onkyo speakers..http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1714010-dolby-atmos-upward-firing-module-speakers.html


----------



## gwsat

usc1995 said:


> Mad Max Fury Road is a good implementation of Atmos. The opening scene is even included on one of the official Dolby Atmos demo discs! In that scene you should hear the voices and different sounds in Max's mind coming from distinct and different places around the room. If you don't then your set up is flawed.


I agree that the _Mad Max: Fury Road_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is demonstration quality. I bought it solely because of the good reports I had been reading about its audio and was not disappointed.


----------



## Lesmor

jonah1810 said:


> ps3 in my case, but yeah i did that, and when i hit the info on my receiver it said input was atmos and output was atmos. has anybody else watched mad max fury road with atmos? maybe it isnt a good track to demo it on. never expected much from the upmixing, but true atmos content i was hoping for better results...
> 
> so what do you guys say then? probably just the onkyo speakers? its weird because there is so many good reviews saying it did well to create a atmos effect... maybe in a different setup it would work better.
> 
> so should i keep it as is?
> go to 7.1 instead as my receiver handles it
> or replace them with ceiling speakers or maybe a better add on module?
> 
> im open ears i just want to get this figured out before i cant take the onkyo speakers back


If you can put the Onkyo speakers back and go in ceiling


----------



## CLTGreg

Selden Ball said:


> Sorry, but the Onkyo upfiring speakers are the worst ones made, with the DefTech upfiring ones close behind.


All of DefTech? The latest ones have gotten good reviews. 

I traded in Onkyo for Pioneer SP-T22A-LR which are only about $110 right now. Where my brother who is more picky went with ELAC A4.


----------



## CLTGreg

Davidave said:


> Four Atmos Demos are available on Vudu. It's the only Vudu content that includes Atmos that isn't 4k (which makes no sense to me). They're all pretty good for a quick Atmos demo.


Thanks for pointing this out. http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/638505/The-Dolby-Atmos-Experience


----------



## Nalleh

This was a rather genius Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D "Lego-like" module design:


http://www.residentialsystems.com/audio/0009/room-within-a-room/88785


----------



## Selden Ball

CLTGreg said:


> All of DefTech? The latest ones have gotten good reviews.


Sorry, I was unaware of their new model. Their new design does seem to be somewhat better than their original one.


----------



## mburton875

I'm so confused on where to put my ATMOS speakers even after reading everything..and I want to get all of my speaker placement right



I have six theatre seats

Three in front on the Floor
Three Directly behind on a riser.

Where in the ceiling should I put the 4 in ceiling speakers? 

Is there someone on here that will take a look at the floor plan and suggest all of the speaker placement?

Thanks


----------



## sdurani

mburton875 said:


> Where in the ceiling should I put the 4 in ceiling speakers?


Typically 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of the main listening position (main row).


> Is there someone on here that will take a look at the floor plan and suggest all of the speaker placement?


Floor plan would be helpful.


----------



## sdrucker

Selden Ball said:


> Sorry, I was unaware of their new model. Their new design does seem to be somewhat better than their original one.


Are there any reviews? The Dolby modules that seem to have the best reviews online from the trade press are the Triad Bronze/Silver H modules and the PSB Imagine XA.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dolby-atmos-vs-dolby-atmos#7A0Y52gkyY6iJE8T.97
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/psb-imagine-x-speaker-system-review#GhZqzuQtTt18SQ7I.97

Not as rigorous as the opinions of AVSers, of course, since we live with our configurations and do more critical listening LOL


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> This was a rather genius Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D "Lego-like" module design:
> 
> 
> http://www.residentialsystems.com/audio/0009/room-within-a-room/88785


Guess they saw my room build.


----------



## Jive Turkey

*ability to discern rear/top speakers*

I suspect some of us are better than others at discerning sound from behind and above. I have always thought that while I hear sounds from behind and above from my Atmos system, I don't think I discern their actual point of origin a significant percentage of the time.

Today I had a smoke alarm low battery alert chirping. There were two on the ceiling about eight feet apart and a carbon monoxide detector halfway up a wall also about eight feet away. As I stood on the floor with my ears between and in the direction of the two ceiling detectors and the one on the wall pretty much directly behind me, I struck out twice before I realized it was the carbon monoxide detector on the wall that needed new batteries.

That explained a lot in regards to how I hear my Atmos system. The top front speakers I often do hear distinctly, when there's not a total cacophony going on everywhere, but the top rear and rear surrounds are a different story. I'm setup with appropriate angles and the rear (lower) surround speakers are not blocked by my chair headrest when I lay the seat back the normal amount.


----------



## gwsat

Jive Turkey said:


> I suspect some of us are better than others at discerning sound from behind and above. I have always thought that while I hear sounds from behind and above from my Atmos system, I don't think I discern their actual point of origin a significant percentage of the time.
> 
> Today I had a smoke alarm low battery alert chirping. There were two on the ceiling about eight feet apart and a carbon monoxide detector halfway up a wall also about eight feet away. As I stood on the floor with my ears between and in the direction of the two ceiling detectors and the one on the wall pretty much directly behind me, I struck out twice before I realized it was the carbon monoxide detector on the wall that needed new batteries.
> 
> That explained a lot in regards to how I hear my Atmos system. The top front speakers I often do hear distinctly, when there's not a total cacophony going on everywhere, but the top rear and rear surrounds are a different story. I'm setup with appropriate angles and the rear (lower) surround speakers are not blocked by my chair headrest when I lay the seat back the normal amount.


Yep, the same thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago. One of my five smoke alarms started sounding a low battery warning but I ended up walking all over my house and scratching my head trying to figure out which one it was before I finally identified the culprit.


----------



## richlife

Jive Turkey said:


> I suspect some of us are better than others at discerning sound from behind and above. I have always thought that while I hear sounds from behind and above from my Atmos system, I don't think I discern their actual point of origin a significant percentage of the time.
> 
> Today I had a smoke alarm low battery alert chirping. There were two on the ceiling about eight feet apart and a carbon monoxide detector halfway up a wall also about eight feet away. As I stood on the floor with my ears between and in the direction of the two ceiling detectors and the one on the wall pretty much directly behind me, I struck out twice before I realized it was the carbon monoxide detector on the wall that needed new batteries.
> 
> That explained a lot in regards to how I hear my Atmos system. The top front speakers I often do hear distinctly, when there's not a total cacophony going on everywhere, but the top rear and rear surrounds are a different story. I'm setup with appropriate angles and the rear (lower) surround speakers are not blocked by my chair headrest when I lay the seat back the normal amount.


If you are discretely hearing your top fronts, you may want to back them off up to 3 db (for a start).


----------



## Jive Turkey

No, I don't think reducing them would be best. All of my speakers levels are calibrated proper.

I'm referring to a discrete sound being placed in the front top speakers when the overall track is not full of stuff going on everywhere. I can easily locate the position of the sound in that instance. Behind me, either top rear or rear surround, it's a little more hit and miss for me.

I believe my hearing is just more attuned to whats in in front, above and in front, and to the sides of me than behind me.


----------



## batpig

Jive Turkey said:


> I believe my hearing is just more attuned to whats in in front, above and in front, and to the sides of me than behind me.


That would make you human.


----------



## Jive Turkey

batpig said:


> That would make you human.


:laugh:


----------



## Ziba Ji

Has any one used Martin Logan Atmos and how did the placement go?


----------



## jimmyaz

Josh Z said:


> Was this a purchase or a rental? Some studios have been stripping Atmos and lossless audio out of rental copies.
> 
> If it was a purchase, did you happen to buy from Walmart? I've heard of at least one previous instance where Walmart was getting "dumbed down" discs, though I don't remember the title.



It was a brand new 3D Bluray, Bluray, Digital copy purchased from BestBuy. I have confirmed, the 2D bluray have dolbyatmos, the 3D allthough said right on the disc, DolbyAtmos, BUT it does not have it.


Have anyone test The Legend of Tarzan 3D bluray? does it actually output Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Josh Z

jimmyaz said:


> It was a brand new 3D Bluray, Bluray, Digital copy purchased from BestBuy. I have confirmed, the 2D bluray have dolbyatmos, the 3D allthough said right on the disc, DolbyAtmos, BUT it does not have it.
> 
> Have anyone test The Legend of Tarzan 3D bluray? does it actually output Dolby Atmos?


Am I correct in assuming that you're using a PS3 for Blu-ray playback? The PS3 can't do 3D and Dolby TrueHD (or Atmos) at the same time, so it dumbs the audio down to Dolby Digital 5.1. Atmos will only work on 2D discs using the PS3.


----------



## jimmyaz

Josh Z said:


> Am I correct in assuming that you're using a PS3 for Blu-ray playback? The PS3 can't do 3D and Dolby TrueHD (or Atmos) at the same time, so it dumbs the audio down to Dolby Digital 5.1. Atmos will only work on 2D discs using the PS3.


Yup, you're right, I'm using Ps3.

Darn it... well, that's something new for me. I always thought my PS3 was the best money spent for the past 5 years... it does 3D and actually output Dolby Atmos... But I guess at the same time is too much for it. 

What about PS4? Can PS4 do 3D + Dolby Atmos?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Blows my mind that people still to this day will use a gaming console as their *main* disc player.

Get a proper player and forget about these lame arbitrary limitations. People dealt with that crap 10yrs ago because players were slow and expensive. You can buy a proper BD player for


----------



## jimmyaz

Scott Simonian said:


> Blows my mind that people still to this day will use a gaming console as their *main* disc player.
> 
> Get a proper player and forget about these lame arbitrary limitations. People dealt with that crap 10yrs ago because players were slow and expensive. You can buy a proper BD player for


----------



## Scott Simonian

jimmyaz said:


> And which one may this be? One that can move through Netflix menu without lag/freezing, one that have 500gb memory for music/video storage. I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't know if something like that is available now? probably does. I would like to know.
> 
> *Because when I purchased my PS3, it did so much and it was so cheap.*


Well...no offense but... look what that got you. No 3D and Atmos together.

There are all sorts of solutions out there.


----------



## jimmyaz

Scott Simonian said:


> Well...no offense but... look what that got you. No 3D and Atmos together.
> 
> There are all sorts of solutions out there.


Then why not name a few? Blow my mind that you wouldn't name one.

Purchased my PS3 for 350.00 for more than 5 years now. Worth it every penny. Look like PS4 will do just fine for 299.00.


----------



## Scott Simonian

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you'll find a Blu-ray player that isn't an old game console somewhere.

Might have to use the internet to find one.

Good luck!


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> You're a smart guy. I'm sure you'll find a Blu-ray player that isn't an old game console somewhere.
> 
> Might have to use the internet to find one.
> 
> Good luck!


He's sincere. He's right. And he and many others here have many more things that they want to do than to research the needs of everyone who asks. (You might consider dipping into his signature thread. There may be a few others around too.)


----------



## Argyle

jimmyaz said:


> What about PS4? Can PS4 do 3D + Dolby Atmos?


Yes it can...


----------



## richlife

CLTGreg said:


> I am using some cheap shelving to elevate my Pioneer SP-T22A-LR Atmos speakers. I have two choices. I can elevate them so the top of the driver in the speaker is 63" or I can go 48". The ceiling is 9'. I know guidance is 1/2 the wall height but I thought I'd check to see what folks have done that has worked well.
> 
> The rear speakers are 72" from MLP and 15' from the fronts where the Atmos speakers are 53" off the ground.
> 
> Any thoughts appreciated.


Just because my speakers perforum well at 48", doesn't mean yours will. You need to find out which sounds best to you in your room with your setup. Experimenting with your alternatives will provide far more benefits than anyone else's speaker position.


----------



## hatlesschimp

CLTGreg said:


> I got into a shouting match with my locals Best Buy shop over the logo being there incorrectly. I had one broken record stuck on only able to return it for the same title. If I didn't start to boil over I would have suggested that we open every copy in the store until we found one that had Atmos. Another rep shouted to me that the copyright laws FORBIDDEN returns on media. I snapped and shouted out that she was lying. Not a pretty scene. Finally the store manager came over and said he has it at home and it's Atmos. To prove it we went to the Magnolia room and luckily he knew how to turn off the upmixers. Poor guy probably wants a refund too since Amazon Prime has it for free.
> 
> But as alluded to here my brother says the director won't even do 7.1 so there.


Well known Nolan hates anything more than 5 channels of audio. I love interstellar but.


----------



## Naylorman32

I'm trying to decide if my theater can do Atmos. I have 7 foot ceilings (drop ceiling). I'm thinking I could maybe do 2 in ceiling speakers, but is 7 feet too short? I'm worried about hot spotting. 

Also, how much room is needed in the ceiling for the speakers? Its a really, really tight fit. 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## David Susilo

Naylorman32 said:


> I'm trying to decide if my theater can do Atmos. I have 7 foot ceilings (drop ceiling). I'm thinking I could maybe do 2 in ceiling speakers, but is 7 feet too short? I'm worried about hot spotting.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


7ft is okay. Depending on the dispersion angle of the speakers, you may not experience hotspotting.


----------



## Naylorman32

David Susilo said:


> 7ft is okay. Depending on the dispersion angle of the speakers, you may not experience hotspotting.


any suggestions on a specific speaker?


----------



## David Susilo

Nakymatone is the most ideal. If not, Monitor Audio CWT180 is a good compromise


----------



## Jonas2

Naylorman32 said:


> Also, how much room is needed in the ceiling for the speakers? Its a really, really tight fit.


Depends on the speaker - they vary in depth - just how tight are you talking?



Naylorman32 said:


> any suggestions on a specific speaker?


This speaker seems to have some traction in the Best Atmos Ceiling Speaker thread:

https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/

YMMV, and I do not personally own/use these - but they do have a 30-day in home trial as well as free shipping both ways. Just a thought!


----------



## richlife

Jonas2 said:


> Depends on the speaker - they vary in depth - just how tight are you talking?
> 
> This speaker seems to have some traction in the Best Atmos Ceiling Speaker thread:
> 
> https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/
> 
> YMMV, and I do not personally own/use these - but they do have a 30-day in home trial as well as free shipping both ways. Just a thought!


I agree. How close will your speakers be? To me, 2 - 3 feet away is too close at 7ft. 

I very much agree with the RSL C34As. Really good dispersion. But mine are 5ft away in an 8ft ceiling. Look up the design for yourself -- that's what convinced me. And then installing them, of course.


----------



## Naylorman32

Wow so the RSL's you guys recommended are much cheaper than I was anticipating. I had been looking at the GoldenEar Invisia line ($500 a speaker). 

And im talking like 4-5 inches of space in my ceiling. I'm not even sure how can lights were installed in there, its that tight. 

As for distance, Its probably going to be like 4 feet from my seating position. I worry thats just a bit close.


----------



## healthnut

Naylorman32 said:


> Wow so the RSL's you guys recommended are much cheaper than I was anticipating. I had been looking at the GoldenEar Invisia line ($500 a speaker).
> 
> 
> 
> And im talking like 4-5 inches of space in my ceiling. I'm not even sure how can lights were installed in there, its that tight.
> 
> 
> 
> As for distance, Its probably going to be like 4 feet from my seating position. I worry thats just a bit close.




It's a bit short of the minimum recommendation, but not by much (a few inches). An added benefit of the RSL's is if they don't work for you, you can simply send them back. Haven't heard a negative owner review on them, they've been very well received and do offer wide dispersion, which is what you would need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

Naylorman32 said:


> Wow so the RSL's you guys recommended are much cheaper than I was anticipating. I had been looking at the GoldenEar Invisia line ($500 a speaker).
> 
> And im talking like 4-5 inches of space in my ceiling. I'm not even sure how can lights were installed in there, its that tight.
> 
> As for distance, Its probably going to be like 4 feet from my seating position. I worry thats just a bit close.


I believe you need 4.25" of clearance for those RSLs. so you're going to be close! I know, that price is LOW. Which concerns me, BUT - like others have said, they are quite well received so they can't suck!  PLUS that return policy is generous. I know, manufacturers want to sell speakers of course, BUT they also don't want them returned - so you could give a shout out to RSL and consult with them on the height issue - both install and distance to listening position.


----------



## richlife

Jonas2 said:


> I believe you need 4.25" of clearance for those RSLs. so you're going to be close! I know, that price is LOW. Which concerns me, BUT - like others have said, they are quite well received so they can't suck!  PLUS that return policy is generous. I know, manufacturers want to sell speakers of course, BUT they also don't want them returned - so you could give a shout out to RSL and consult with them on the height issue - both install and distance to listening position.


The C34As are 4" (try checking the spec). Don't worry about the quality -- some manufacturers specialize in keeping cost low (like RSL). I didn't cheap out -- I went for the best reviewed/performing. I was not disappointed.

Go to https://rslspeakers.com and read up.


----------



## hatlesschimp

My Atmos Demo disc arrived. Cant play it for another few months 😣


----------



## dholmes54

May I ask where you bought that disk?


----------



## trespoochies

+ 1, how can we get a disc like that?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

trespoochies said:


> + 1, how can we get a disc like that?


If you have a blu-ray burner you can get it here.


----------



## trespoochies

Awesome, thank you for pointing that out. I'd love to also get one of those official discs, but I'm guessing it's some kind of exclusive you can only get if you purchase something. But now that I can fully utilize DTS-X/Atmos, I'll just throw these demos on a blu and go that route.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Not sure if this question should go here or on the AVR model thread (so i'm asking in both places)....I just got a Denon 6200 with 4 on wall speakers (mounted right at ceiling height) for atmos duty. Two are on front wall over my L/R speakers are two are on side walls about 2 feet behind my couch. 

As most of you know, on denon's amp assignment for a 9.1 system you can have your 4 "atmos" speakers assigned in various combinations of on wall "heights" or in ceiling "tops". I listed mine as what they are....the Front Height/Rear Height designation but i was wondering if people have played around with designating their speakers as different to what they actually are....like if you have on walls, listing them as all in-ceiling tops or a combination (middle tops/rear heights).

Does it actually change the sound at all or the way the Atmos signal is sent to the various speakers?


----------



## Jonas2

richlife said:


> The C34As are 4" (try checking the spec). Don't worry about the quality -- some manufacturers specialize in keeping cost low (like RSL). I didn't cheap out -- I went for the best reviewed/performing. I was not disappointed.
> 
> Go to https://rslspeakers.com and read up.


I did check, I was looking at the required hole depth in their spec sheet.  Glad to hear you like them! I have yet to read a revieew in which their was disappointment, that's gotta say something.


----------



## Selden Ball

Lucky Strike said:


> Not sure if this question should go here or on the AVR model thread (so i'm asking in both places)....I just got a Denon 6200 with 4 on wall speakers (mounted right at ceiling height) for atmos duty. Two are on front wall over my L/R speakers are two are on side walls about 2 feet behind my couch.
> 
> As most of you know, on denon's amp assignment for a 9.1 system you can have your 4 "atmos" speakers assigned in various combinations of on wall "heights" or in ceiling "tops". I listed mine as what they are....the Front Height/Rear Height designation but i was wondering if people have played around with designating their speakers as different to what they actually are....like if you have on walls, listing them as all in-ceiling tops or a combination (middle tops/rear heights).
> 
> Does it actually change the sound at all or the way the Atmos signal is sent to the various speakers?


Yes, it does. 

In particular, Atmos and DTS:X will phantom-image in between the speakers as necessary. Top speaker designations indicate speakers which are closer together than Heights. Sounds which are placed (by the person mixing the soundtrack) near the nominal locations of Top speakers will be phantom imaged by Heights with proportional sounds emitted by both fronts and rears. Annoyingly, DTS and Dolby use the speaker designations differently. DTS Height speaker locations are at about the same position as Dolby's Top speaker positions.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

Lucky Strike said:


> Not sure if this question should go here or on the AVR model thread (so i'm asking in both places)....I just got a Denon 6200 with 4 on wall speakers (mounted right at ceiling height) for atmos duty. Two are on front wall over my L/R speakers are two are on side walls about 2 feet behind my couch.
> 
> As most of you know, on denon's amp assignment for a 9.1 system you can have your 4 "atmos" speakers assigned in various combinations of on wall "heights" or in ceiling "tops". I listed mine as what they are....the Front Height/Rear Height designation but i was wondering if people have played around with designating their speakers as different to what they actually are....like if you have on walls, listing them as all in-ceiling tops or a combination (middle tops/rear heights).
> 
> Does it actually change the sound at all or the way the Atmos signal is sent to the various speakers?


Hello, 
All of my atmos speakers are mounted to the ceiling and i have the denon x4200. The front 2 are front height, and the rear two are just inside the surrounds (which are ear level). I had the rear ceilings disgnated as rear heights at the start, then switched them to top middle since that is more in line with their actual placement, as far as atmos is concerned anyway. In all honesty, i couldnt tell any difference with either designation. You could just switch yours and see if you do. Just takes a few button presses on the AVR remote. Hope this helps.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## ndabunka

Mashie Saldana said:


> If you have a blu-ray burner you can get it here.


Not interested in going the pirate route. Where do we get the legit version?


----------



## Lucky Strike

Selden Ball said:


> Yes, it does.
> 
> In particular, Atmos and DTS:X will phantom-image in between the speakers as necessary. Top speaker designations indicate speakers which are closer together than Heights. Sounds which are placed (by the person mixing the soundtrack) near the nominal locations of Top speakers will be phantom imaged by Heights with proportional sounds emitted by both fronts and rears. Annoyingly, DTS and Dolby use the speaker designations differently. DTS Height speaker locations are at about the same position as Dolby's Top speaker positions.



Interesting...my rear heights are about the same location to where rear tops would be (relative to the distance from MLP but my fronts are obviously a lot farther away from MLP than middle or front tops would be.


----------



## Lucky Strike

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Hello,
> All of my atmos speakers are mounted to the ceiling and i have the denon x4200. The front 2 are front height, and the rear two are just inside the surrounds (which are ear level). I had the rear ceilings disgnated as rear heights at the start, then switched them to top middle since that is more in line with their actual placement, as far as atmos is concerned anyway. In all honesty, i couldnt tell any difference with either designation. You could just switch yours and see if you do. Just takes a few button presses on the AVR remote. Hope this helps.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


Yeah i'll have to experiment with switching the assignments around to the various combos....did you rerun audyssey when you switched them? If i need to do that then I'd probably be discouraged from trying it since it'd take so long to try the different designations out and i'd likely not be able tell any actual difference for the different assignments since i wouldn't be able to remember how exactly the previous one sounded.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

ndabunka said:


> Not interested in going the pirate route. Where do we get the legit version?


You can't as it never was released for the general public. It is intended for system integrators/retailers as the content isn't licensed for personal use.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

Lucky Strike said:


> Yeah i'll have to experiment with switching the assignments around to the various combos....did you rerun audyssey when you switched them? If i need to do that then I'd probably be discouraged from trying it since it'd take so long to try the different designations out and i'd likely not be able tell any actual difference for the different assignments since i wouldn't be able to remember how exactly the previous one sounded.


Yes, i reran audyssey and also adjusted the aiming of them (pointed them at the furthest listening position). Like i said, i couldnt really tell a difference in my room. Perhaps you may fare differntly.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

ndabunka said:


> Not interested in going the pirate route. Where do we get the legit version?


eBay.

The official Demo discs are only given out to people (usually dealers) who attend the various industry conventions, like CEDIA and others. Some of those people are willing to sell the discs they received that way.


----------



## Josh Z

trespoochies said:


> Awesome, thank you for pointing that out. I'd love to also get one of those official discs, but I'm guessing it's some kind of exclusive you can only get if you purchase something. But now that I can fully utilize DTS-X/Atmos, I'll just throw these demos on a blu and go that route.





ndabunka said:


> Not interested in going the pirate route. Where do we get the legit version?


That particular version of the Dolby Atmos demo disc was given out at the September 2015 CEDIA conference. It is not available for retail sale. You may find copies on eBay for exorbitant prices.


----------



## Lucky Strike

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Yes, i reran audyssey and also adjusted the aiming of them (pointed them at the furthest listening position). Like i said, i couldnt really tell a difference in my room. Perhaps you may fare differntly.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


Oh damn....yeah i'm not willing to rerun Audyssey 4 or 5 times to try out the various combos. I also can't re aim my front heights since they're SVS Prime Elevations mounted flat on the front wall. The angle/distance on the Elevations puts them within Dolby's spec'd vertical angle range so I didn't bother to get adjustable wall mounts like i did for my rear heights (SVS Satellites on the side walls) since those needed to be adjusted vertically and horizontally.

I had my first Atmos experience ever last night in my theater room (Gravity) and it sounded pretty good. I could tell that it'd likely sound better with in ceilings (not an option in my particular space) since my front heights are 12' away from my MLP but I'm happy with what i've got.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

Lucky Strike said:


> Oh damn....yeah i'm not willing to rerun Audyssey 4 or 5 times to try out the various combos. I also can't re aim my front heights since they're SVS Prime Elevations mounted flat on the front wall. The angle/distance on the Elevations puts them within Dolby's spec'd vertical angle range so I didn't bother to get adjustable wall mounts like i did for my rear heights (SVS Satellites on the side walls) since those needed to be adjusted vertically and horizontally.
> 
> I had my first Atmos experience ever last night in my theater room (Gravity) and it sounded pretty good. I could tell that it'd likely sound better with in ceilings (not an option in my particular space) since my front heights are 12' away from my MLP but I'm happy with what i've got.


Yeah...i only reran audyssey once. All 4 of my ceiling speakers are a little off, not quite placed where they should be. I tried to be cute and use a laser pointer, didnt work out that well lol. Its not like they are way off or anything, and im not willing to remount them.. ..so whatever lol. Atmos in my room sounds fantastic...and im a believer in the "if it aint broke dont fix it" way of thinking.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

Lucky Strike said:


> Oh damn....yeah i'm not willing to rerun Audyssey 4 or 5 times to try out the various combos. I also can't re aim my front heights since they're SVS Prime Elevations mounted flat on the front wall. The angle/distance on the Elevations puts them within Dolby's spec'd vertical angle range so I didn't bother to get adjustable wall mounts like i did for my rear heights (SVS Satellites on the side walls) since those needed to be adjusted vertically and horizontally.
> 
> I had my first Atmos experience ever last night in my theater room (Gravity) and it sounded pretty good. I could tell that it'd likely sound better with in ceilings (not an option in my particular space) since my front heights are 12' away from my MLP but I'm happy with what i've got.


You may want to try some simple manual tweaks like increasing the output level of your front heights by 2-3db just to add more "presence". It sounds like you would like more sound closer ("in ceiling") and that might help. I had to do that with my rear in-ceiling speakers. 

Yeah, I know, Audessey says don't mess with it. Audessey doesn't have your room.


----------



## ndabunka

Selden Ball said:


> eBay.
> 
> The official Demo discs are only given out to people (usually dealers) who attend the various industry conventions, like CEDIA and others. Some of those people are willing to sell the discs they received that way.


Thanks for the clarification. I understand better now. Since this crosses a gray area I would have to skip it due to my professional obligations. Good luck all


----------



## richlife

Naylorman32 said:


> Wow so the RSL's you guys recommended are much cheaper than I was anticipating. I had been looking at the GoldenEar Invisia line ($500 a speaker).
> 
> And im talking like 4-5 inches of space in my ceiling. I'm not even sure how can lights were installed in there, its that tight.
> 
> As for distance, Its probably going to be like 4 feet from my seating position. I worry thats just a bit close.


Your concern got me to try another tweak in a room I thought was pretty perfect.  Since distance from RPs and dispersion is the question, I started up the opening bombing run scene in Unbroken (great Atmos, good long-running scene), then got up and stood BEHIND my MLP. That put me closer (about midway between the MLP and the C34As) -- about direct line 3 feet away and maybe 18" in front of those RPs. 

What I heard caused me to bump the RPs by another 3db in my setup -- right at the threshold of being able to hear the difference in sound level. IOW, I thought the overall sound effect was BETTER by moving closer to the RPs. And I did NOT at all hear sounds emanating from the RPs -- I had to get closer to each to hear that. These C34Es have really good dispersion and I think they can be used in an even tighter room than I had expected. I don't think 4 feet will be bad at all -- I doubt you will hear any discrete sound from your Atmos speakers unless you get right on them. Just run YPAO and (if needed) tweak from there. 

As for me, I get to re-watch/listen to lots of stuff with better rearward soundfield. (I had been thinking of trying this tweak anyway, but your question convinced me to do it. Thanks!)


----------



## sdurani

Sony just announced 4K UHD releases of the original _'Underworld'_ movie from 2003 and _'Resident Evil: Afterlife'_, both with brand new home Atmos mixes.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Sony just announced 4K UHD releases of the original _'Underworld'_ movie from 2003 and _'Resident Evil: Afterlife'_, both with brand new home Atmos mixes.


I'm sure Kate Beckinsale's leather catsuit in Underworld will look great in UHD. Talk about a reference disc  And hopefully the Atmos soundtrack will be up to the task as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Sony just announced 4K UHD releases of the original _'Underworld'_ movie from 2003 and _'Resident Evil: Afterlife'_, both with brand new home Atmos mixes.


Nice. 

Sony definitely deserves a big pat on the back for all these catalog Atmos re-mixes. Yeah!


----------



## thebland

sdrucker said:


> I'm sure Kate Beckinsale's leather catsuit in Underworld will look great in UHD. Talk about a reference disc  And hopefully the Atmos soundtrack will be up to the task as well.


Doh! Now I need a 4K projector!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

How do you not already have one of those, Jeff?


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Sony just announced 4K UHD releases of the original _'Underworld'_ movie from 2003 and _'Resident Evil: Afterlife'_, both with brand new home Atmos mixes.


I hope this means that Atmos is achieving critical mass. Sometimes I fear that those of us who are fans and have sprung for Atmos speakers are on the far outer fringe.


----------



## Scott Simonian

We are.


----------



## sdurani

All love for Kate, nothing for Milla and her _'Resident Awful'_ movies?


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> I hope this means that Atmos is achieving critical mass. Sometimes I fear that those of us who are fans and have sprung for Atmos speakers are on the far outer fringe.


Yes, we are the bleeding edge where we have to deal with all the pitfalls such as being the guinea pigs but it is also fun as well and that's why I stick with it.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> All love for Kate, nothing for Milla and her _'Resident Awful'_ movies?


Milla is absolutely fine in Fifth Element, no need for the Resident Evil franchise.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Sony just announced 4K UHD releases of the original _'Underworld'_ movie from 2003 and _'Resident Evil: Afterlife'_, both with brand new home Atmos mixes.


Strange that they'd choose Afterlife. That's not even the most recent Resident Evil movie. If they're not going to do all five to tie in with the new sequel, I'd think they'd either start at the beginning and work forward or start with Retribution and work backward. Picking one in the middle is just odd.

Imagine Warner Bros. announcing that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire would get a UHD but none of the others in that series.


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> Strange that they'd choose Afterlife. That's not even the most recent Resident Evil movie. If they're not going to do all five to tie in with the new sequel, I'd think they'd either start at the beginning and work forward or start with Retribution and work backward. Picking one in the middle is just odd.
> 
> Imagine Warner Bros. announcing that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire would get a UHD but none of the others in that series.


It's probably due to something "silly", like reproduction rights licensing that they forgot to include in some of the movie contracts.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Strange that they'd choose Afterlife. That's not even the most recent Resident Evil movie.


But it is the highest grossing (domestic and foreign) Resident Evil movie by a wide margin. Not so strange to start with the audience favourite and work their way down to the less popular ones in the franchise.


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> I hope this means that Atmos is achieving critical mass. Sometimes I fear that those of us who are fans and have sprung for Atmos speakers are on the far outer fringe.


Yes and no. 

Yes on Atmos, but still lack of availability and no reason not to include it with DD+ streaming or even cable/satellite.

No on 4K - - whether it's streamed (minuscule availability and too high priced) and Blu-rayed - see previous and add cost of new player and all the HDCP crap to put up with. 

Honestly, Dolby Atmos is far and away the greatest advancement out there and it has been a tremendous "value-add" to any movie that I've watched. Even DSU improves TV series shows.

I'm perfectly happy with a plain old Bluray with Dolby Atmos. Even the Comcast DD+ freebie I streamed (Black Sails) sounded great. But it's all about the money and getting people to buy more product all along the chain.

Too bad - - you could stream/cable/satellite and provide Dolby Atmos via DD+ without any bandwidth issues right now.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> But it is the highest grossing (domestic and foreign) Resident Evil movie by a wide margin. Not so strange to start with the audience favourite and work their way down to the less popular ones in the franchise.


Afterlife may be the highest grossing, but I don't know that it's really the most popular. I enjoy this franchise as a guilty pleasure and own all of them on Blu-ray, but I'll be damned if I can remember what happens in that one.

I bet most fans would probably claim that the original film is their favorite.


----------



## tezster

I have the entire Resident Evil collection, mainly because a) they're cheap (UK import), b) certain scenes make for good A/V demo sequences c) good showcase of exaggerated pop-out 3D for the most recent two titles d) Milla.

I wonder if certain 4k titles will eventually reach bargain bin status, where we can snatch them up for $10 or less.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Afterlife may be the highest grossing, but I don't know that it's really the most popular.


What other metric would you use for popularity? Even adjusting its gross for inflation, it still comes out way ahead of the others. Doesn't seem unreasonable for Sony to start with that one.


----------



## trespoochies

tezster said:


> I have the entire Resident Evil collection, mainly because a) they're cheap (UK import), b) certain scenes make for good A/V demo sequences c) good showcase of exaggerated pop-out 3D for the most recent two titles d) Milla.
> 
> I wonder if certain 4k titles will eventually reach bargain bin status, where we can snatch them up for $10 or less.


Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon UHD is regularly priced at $22.99, so I'm hoping this one (and many others, especially Sony) will be in the $10-$15 range during sales and the holidays.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> What other metric would you use for popularity? Even adjusting its gross for inflation, it still comes out way ahead of the others. Doesn't seem unreasonable for Sony to start with that one.


I'd think that how well each of them sold on DVD and Blu-ray over time would be a more relevant criteria when choosing which one to re-release on disc now. I don't have those numbers, so maybe Afterlife would still come out on top, but that one never struck me as being particularly beloved within the franchise.

The box office margin isn't really that huge between Afterlife and the next entry, Retribution: $296.2 million vs. $240.2 million. Both are a big jump over the next highest-grossing, Extinction with $147.7 million.

The original Resident Evil is technically the lowest grossing of the franchise with only $102.4 million. However, I believe it was a big hit on video, which is where most fans discovered it, thus allowing subsequent entries to grow. Much like Austin Powers or Pitch Perfect, the first movie wasn't necessarily a blockbuster, but its huge success in the secondary market prompted bigger grosses for its sequels. 

The Spy Who Shagged Me made more money in its opening weekend than the original Austin Powers did during its entire theatrical run. Do you know anyone who likes Spy Who Shagged Me more than the original, or would choose to buy it on disc without the first one? I sure don't. Warner would be nuts if they decided to release just Spy Who Shagged Me on UHD by itself without the first one or a trilogy package.


----------



## lujan

Josh Z said:


> Strange that they'd choose Afterlife. That's not even the most recent Resident Evil movie. If they're not going to do all five to tie in with the new sequel, I'd think they'd either start at the beginning and work forward or start with Retribution and work backward. Picking one in the middle is just odd.
> 
> Imagine Warner Bros. announcing that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire would get a UHD but none of the others in that series.


Sounds like the X-Men movies as I don't believe that they're releasing them (4k) in any logical order?


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> I don't have those numbers, so maybe Afterlife would still come out on top, but that one never struck me as being particularly beloved within the franchise.


Maybe they're going by what people did rather than what people say. What people did is spend more on Afterlife than any of the other Resident Evil movies. You said it was "strange" that Sony started with Afterlife. I explained one reason why it wasn't strange (highest grossing of the franchise). If you are unwilling to accept that reason, then it will have to remain a strange mystery why Sony arbitrarily started with a movie in the middle of a franchise.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well...I'm sure Return of the King _made_ more money than Fellowship of the Ring but if there ever were a single Atmos/4K re-release of a series of movies, it should be the first one and not some....random one (as in non-sequential).

Just makes more sense. Otherwise it's just....weird. Josh's Harry Potter example is spot on.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Maybe they're going by what people did rather than what people say. What people did is spend more on Afterlife than any of the other Resident Evil movies. You said it was "strange" that Sony started with Afterlife. I explained one reason why it wasn't strange (highest grossing of the franchise). If you are unwilling to accept that reason, then it will have to remain a strange mystery why Sony arbitrarily started with a movie in the middle of a franchise.


They spent more on Afterlife for theatrical tickets, but did they spend more on that one for home video too? I don't know. Maybe you're right. I still think it's an odd choice. 



lujan said:


> Sounds like the X-Men movies as I don't believe that they're releasing them (4k) in any logical order?


Exactly. If Sanjay is correct, I can understand why Fox would re-release Days of Future Past now (highest theatrical gross), but First Class (which came out on UHD first) is actually the second lowest-grossing of that franchise. The studio isn't doing them in release order and isn't doing them in box office order. What criteria are they using? These decisions are just very puzzling to me.


----------



## PeterTHX

Josh Z said:


> Exactly. If Sanjay is correct, I can understand why Fox would re-release Days of Future Past now (highest theatrical gross), but First Class (which came out on UHD first) is actually the second lowest-grossing of that franchise. The studio isn't doing them in release order and isn't doing them in box office order. What criteria are they using? These decisions are just very puzzling to me.




_First Class_, _Days of Future Past_ and _Apocalypse_ form a trilogy of the rebooted X-Men crew.


----------



## zeus33

Josh Z said:


> I'd think that how well each of them sold on DVD and Blu-ray over time would be a more relevant criteria when choosing which one to re-release on disc now. I don't have those numbers, so maybe Afterlife would still come out on top, but that one never struck me as being particularly beloved within the franchise.


----------



## smurraybhm

Mashie Saldana said:


> If you have a blu-ray burner you can get it "link deleted"


I can understand folks wanting the Atmos disk, I would respectfully point out to you that posting link to this source is a BIG AVS no-no. Great way to get banned. Material is copyrighted for a reason, this was discussed for more than a few pages when the disk first came out.

The best way to get a disk is to ask your local dealer or via a friend in the AV bushiness. I wouldn't want to pay the eBay premium.


----------



## Expidia

trespoochies said:


> + 1, how can we get a disc like that?


Ebay. $15-19 including shipping. Ships from Taiwan. Mine came in about two weeks. Same one as pictured above.

Great for demo-ing my samsung atmos soundbar!

Also has a loop that plays through all the tracks.


----------



## brian6751

Expidia said:


> Ebay. $15-19 including shipping. Ships from Taiwan. Mine came in about two weeks. Same one as pictured above.
> 
> Great for demo-ing my samsung atmos soundbar!
> 
> Also has a loop that plays through all the tracks.


Same here


----------



## nickbuol

smurraybhm said:


> I can understand folks wanting the Atmos disk, I would respectfully point out to you that posting link to this source is a BIG AVS no-no. Great way to get banned. Material is copyrighted for a reason, this was discussed for more than a few pages when the disk first came out.
> 
> The best way to get a disk is to ask your local dealer or via a friend in the AV bushiness. I wouldn't want to pay the eBay premium.



Technically, Mashie simply provided the link to a long running thread on AVS about how to get the Atmos (Sept 2015 version) disc via download, and V19 and V20 of the DTS demo discs. 

The topic that was linked had not caused anyone to get banned, and AVS has not taken it down.

That said, this is definitely a gray area, which is also why I make the comment that I did a while back and didn't provide the link. I received my discs all either directly from Dolby, DTS, or at CEDIA. Technically the copies on eBay shouldn't be for sale either, leaving the only true legitimate way of getting them is to be given one via the distributor channel.


----------



## AllenA07

At one point I had asked a local store about getting a copy of the demo disc (this was before I had Atmos, I just wanted the 7.1 demos) and was flat out told that Dolby didn't supply demo discs. I would imagine that you would get that response from a lot of distributors. 

I ended up getting my discs at CEDIA.


----------



## jrogers

Looking forward to this one in UHD and Dolby Atmos!

IMAX® Sight & Sound - Jack Reacher: Never Go Back


----------



## Josh Z

zeus33 said:


>


Where do the first two movies fall in comparison?


----------



## gwsat

jrogers said:


> Looking forward to this one in UHD and Dolby Atmos!
> 
> IMAX® Sight & Sound - Jack Reacher: Never Go Back


I am a long time Lee Childs fan and have read all of the Jack Reacher books. When I saw that Tiny Tom Cruise was the star of the first movie, _Jack Reacher,_ I was scared to death because in the books Reacher is 6'5" tall and weighs about 250 pounds. The first film delighted me, though because Cruise, despite his diminutive size, made a completely believable Jack Reacher. It will come as no surprise then, that I too am looking forward to the second film. The Atmos audio is a bonus.


----------



## cuzed2

gwsat said:


> I am a long time Lee Childs fan and have read all of the Jack Reacher books. When I saw that Tiny Tom Cruise was the star of the first movie, _Jack Reacher,_ I was scared to death because in the books Reacher is 6'5" tall and weighs about 250 pounds. The first film delighted me, though because Cruise, despite his diminutive size, made a completely believable Jack Reacher. It will come as no surprise then, that I too am looking forward to the second film. The Atmos audio is a bonus.


This opinion echoes my thoughts in transitioning from reading to watching Reacher....
I hope movie #2 in ATMOS lives up to this hype


----------



## CBdicX

*6.1.4 or 7.1.4 ?*

Hello, at the moment i run a 5.1.4 system.

I can do stereo surround back but the space to place the surround back speakers is very small.
I can get 2 small satellite speakers (100hz - 20.000hz) side by side, thats it.
So is it usefull to do 7.1.4 or is 6.1.4 (one mono surround back) also an option ?
I do have the setup choise for 1 or 2 surround back speakers (Denon AVR X6200W).

Would a stereo SB setup in my side by side situation have any benefit over a mono setup ?

For speakers i have a second option, a 150hz - 20.000 speaker.
The 150-20000 (tube) speakers i can mount on the rear wall, about 40cm (not more !) between the 2 speakers.
But i do not know if the 40cm space has any benefit for L/R SB use ?
And will the 150hz be a "problem" if bass stuff is send to the sub from 150hz ?

(my Heights are set by Audyssey at 150hz while the speakers can do 100hz)

Thanks


----------



## pasender91

That's an easy one to respond to 
As Dolby Surround and DTS:X Neural don't support 6.1.4, the way to go is 7.1.4, even if placed side by side


----------



## petetherock

tezster said:


> I have the entire Resident Evil collection, mainly because a) they're cheap (UK import), b) certain scenes make for good A/V demo sequences c) good showcase of exaggerated pop-out 3D for the most recent two titles d) Milla.
> 
> I wonder if certain 4k titles will eventually reach bargain bin status, where we can snatch them up for $10 or less.


Yeah, the first few were made quite some time back, on a more shoestring budget, and I don't know if a UHD version will look a lot better. Plus the shows were filmed mainly at night so having HDR or other tech might show up the flaws even more?

But Milla was very nice in it. What if they put Ms Kate and Ms Milla together with Ms Scarlett in some kickass movie... Resident Evil in a Shell perhaps? I'll buy that for more than a dollar


----------



## mburton875

*Atmos speaker*

I have two rows, the last row is on a riser. I'm doing a 5.1.4 with in ceiling speakers. According to the Dolby info it looks like my two back in ceiling would be slightly behind the second row. However I'm only two feet from the back wall. So my two surrounds are right behind me. If I place the in ceiling Atmos behind me as well that puts the in ceiling and back surround very close together..is that okay, am I even making sense.


----------



## cdelena

mburton875 said:


> I have two rows, the last row is on a riser. I'm doing a 5.1.4 with in ceiling speakers. According to the Dolby info it looks like my two back in ceiling would be slightly behind the second row. However I'm only two feet from the back wall. So my two surrounds are right behind me. If I place the in ceiling Atmos behind me as well that puts the in ceiling and back surround very close together..is that okay, am I even making sense.


My room with 7.1.4 is similar and I placed my in ceiling speakers in the recommended position based upon the front row which puts them just forward of the rear row. The sound when listening from the rear row is interesting in that you actually hear all the speakers better (ears face forward) so it is different but good. I usually sit in the front row but also enjoy the sound when sitting in the rear.


----------



## Selden Ball

mburton875 said:


> I have two rows, the last row is on a riser. I'm doing a 5.1.4 with in ceiling speakers. According to the Dolby info it looks like my two back in ceiling would be slightly behind the second row. However I'm only two feet from the back wall. So my two surrounds are right behind me. If I place the in ceiling Atmos behind me as well that puts the in ceiling and back surround very close together..is that okay, am I even making sense.


If at all possible, you should consider adding some in-wall (or on-wall) speakers for the original 5.1 surround sound, using your existing ceiling speakers for the overhead Atmos audio. The more vertical separation you can provide between the two levels of speakers, the more "enveloping" ths sound will be.

Edited to add:

After rereading what you wrote, I realized I probably misunderstood it. Even so...


----------



## mburton875

I'm not sure if my room set up loaded below or not. Currently I don't have any speakers installed but I have a typical 5.1 (Bookshelf speakers) and am purchasing 4 in ceiling speakers.

My seats in the back are 2 feet from the back wall. The only way I can figure to hang the two back surrounds are in each corner behind me about a foot or two up.

I've looked at every chart online and basically it shows the surrounds farther back and then the atmos in ceiling behind the back row. Since I only have two feet that would put them to close to the surrounds.

I had an install guy stopped by and he said with the shape of my room I'm just going to have to guest, he pointed to four spots in the ceiling that he thinks would be good...

Is there not a more scientific way of figuring all this out or is that they way to go


----------



## mburton875

sdurani said:


> Typically 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of the main listening position (main row). Floor plan would be helpful.


I've attached the room layout.

My current thought is to put the center above the TV since it will be 42 inches off the bottom of the floor, under it would direct it directly at my front row. Then put my left and rights Centered to the TV but maybe 18 inches out from the end of the wall. That would put them just outside my left and right seating and I can angle them in if needed.

For the back, I have two feet to play with so put each rear surround on the corner or close to it and tilt those towards my seats. If all that is right, then where do I put the 4 in ceiling atmos speakers? I can't put them very far behind my seating because that puts it really close to my back surrounds, or can I? Should I just put them in front of my back row of seats and in front of my front row? 

I had an installer guy come by and he said with the room I'm dealing with there isn't a correct answer, we just have to guess and he pointed to four spots on the ceiling he thought would work..Shouldn't it me a little more scientific than that?


----------



## sdurani

mburton875 said:


> My current thought is to put the center above the TV since it will be 42 inches off the bottom of the floor, under it would direct it directly at my front row. Then put my left and rights Centered to the TV but maybe 18 inches out from the end of the wall. That would put them just outside my left and right seating and I can angle them in if needed.


I would put the L/R speakers at the same height as the Centre. When sounds pan left to right across the soundstage, you don't want them moving up and down, just across (the way it was mixed).


> I had an installer guy come by and he said with the room I'm dealing with there isn't a correct answer, we just have to guess and he pointed to four spots on the ceiling he thought would work..Shouldn't it me a little more scientific than that?


You have to decide which is going to be your main row and which will be your overflow row. If the front row is going to be the main listening position, then the heights should be roughly 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of that row, based on suggestions from Dolby and DTS. Easy way to figure it out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling: same distance forward and rearward of that row is 45 degrees up. 

IF this ends up putting the rear heights right above the listeners in the back row, then you can move them (the speakers, not the listeners) back a foot or so. This doesn't have to be exact, just as long as you get the impression of sounds above you and can hear left-vs-right & front-vs-back separation overhead. Also, if you can find in-ceiling speakers that have a tilt built in, that would be useful (compared to in-ceilings that point straight down).


----------



## ndabunka

mburton875 said:


> I have two rows, the last row is on a riser. I'm doing a 5.1.4 with in ceiling speakers. According to the Dolby info it looks like my two back in ceiling would be slightly behind the second row. However I'm only two feet from the back wall. So my two surrounds are right behind me. If I place the in ceiling Atmos behind me as well that puts the in ceiling and back surround very close together..is that okay, am I even making sense.


ATMOS specs that the rear 5 part of the 5.1.4 MUST be MUCH lower than you apparently have yours. Ideally, they should be at ear level behind you. That would provide the separation that is sought and YES, your rear ATMOS ceiling speakers would likely be almost right at the edge of the rear wall and the ceiling


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> I would put the L/R speakers at the same height as the Centre. When sounds pan left to right across the soundstage, you don't want them moving up and down, just across (the way it was mixed). You have to decide which is going to be your main row and which will be your overflow row. If the front row is going to be the main listening position, then the heights should be roughly 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of that row, based on suggestions from Dolby and DTS. Easy way to figure it out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling: same distance forward and rearward of that row is 45 degrees up.
> 
> IF this ends up putting the rear heights right above the listeners in the back row, then you can move them (the speakers, not the listeners) back a foot or so. This doesn't have to be exact, just as long as you get the impression of sounds above you and can hear left-vs-right & front-vs-back separation overhead. Also, if you can find in-ceiling speakers that have a tilt built in, that would be useful (compared to in-ceilings that point straight down).


You just can't argue with that advice -- at least if you want the best Atmos you'll get in your room. I would suggest looking at the RSL C34Es for those rear in-ceiling. I did some checking in my setup and they are just very difficult to pick out as a speaker source even from rather close up. That is good for your situation. No reason I can see not to consider them for front in-ceiling also. They are just a nice addition for a high quality immersive setup.


----------



## mburton875

ndabunka said:


> ATMOS specs that the rear 5 part of the 5.1.4 MUST be MUCH lower than you apparently have yours. Ideally, they should be at ear level behind you. That would provide the separation that is sought and YES, your rear ATMOS ceiling speakers would likely be almost right at the edge of the rear wall and the ceiling


If I put the rear atmos ceiling speakers at the back, wouldn't that be right next to my rear bookshelf surrounds? Is that okay


----------



## mburton875

richlife said:


> You just can't argue with that advice -- at least if you want the best Atmos you'll get in your room. I would suggest looking at the RSL C34Es for those rear in-ceiling. I did some checking in my setup and they are just very difficult to pick out as a speaker source even from rather close up. That is good for your situation. No reason I can see not to consider them for front in-ceiling also. They are just a nice addition for a high quality immersive setup.


Thats good to hear, my plan was to buy the RSL speakers. So my rear surrounds would hang on the back wall and the rear in ceillng surrounds would be behind me in basically the same place but in the ceiling? am I understanding that correctly


----------



## ndabunka

mburton875 said:


> If I put the rear atmos ceiling speakers at the back, wouldn't that be right next to my rear bookshelf surrounds? Is that okay


No, not really. Your rear surrounds should be about ear level (while seated at the MLP) so let's say 36 inches off the floor. Your rear ATMOS will be ON THE CEILING which is like 96 inches off the floor, right? I guess I don't understand how speakers separated by 5 or 6 feet could be considered to being "right next" to each other. Perhaps you thought that your rear surrounds should be ...higher?


----------



## richlife

mburton875 said:


> If I put the rear atmos ceiling speakers at the back, wouldn't that be right next to my rear bookshelf surrounds? Is that okay


You appear to be missing this part of @sdurani's recommendation: "I would put the L/R speakers at the same height as the Centre. When sounds pan left to right across the soundstage, you don't want them moving up and down, just across (the way it was mixed)." I was agreeing with that and the rest of his comment. And also suggesting the RSLs.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

mburton875 said:


> I have two rows, the last row is on a riser. I'm doing a 5.1.4 with in ceiling speakers. According to the Dolby info it looks like my two back in ceiling would be slightly behind the second row. However I'm only two feet from the back wall. So my two surrounds are right behind me. If I place the in ceiling Atmos behind me as well that puts the in ceiling and back surround very close together..is that okay, am I even making sense.


FYI, there are no REAR surrounds in a 5.1.4 setup. The surrounds go directly to the sides of the listening position, not on the back wall.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> FYI, there are no REAR surrounds in a 5.1.4 setup. The surrounds go directly to the sides of the listening position, not on the back wall.


Traditionally, in a 5.1 setup, the surrounds _are_ behind you on or near the rear wall.


----------



## cholmes1

mburton875 said:


> I have two rows, the last row is on a riser. I'm doing a 5.1.4 with in ceiling speakers. According to the Dolby info it looks like my two back in ceiling would be slightly behind the second row. However I'm only two feet from the back wall. So my two surrounds are right behind me. If I place the in ceiling Atmos behind me as well that puts the in ceiling and back surround very close together..is that okay, am I even making sense.



I think it is primarily dependent upon the dispersion pattern of your in-ceiling speakers. If you click on the theater link in my signature you can see that I was limited even further than you in terms of placement and distance, but still was able to achieve a great sounding system. The back surrounds are your largest hurdle and likely would have to be brought down and spaced wider at an angle. The in-ceilings are pretty flexible from my experiences at CEDIA, listing to others systems, and then my own.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Traditionally, in a 5.1 setup, the surrounds _are_ behind you on or near the rear wall.



Since when? Dolby has always dictated that surrounds in a 5.1 setup go directly to the sides of your listening position.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Since the 90's when 5.1 surround sound came to the home. 


Now they are at your sides with 7.1 audio. I like how you say it as if everyone actually does that. Seems to be a more recent occurrence with Dolby Atmos. People are actually putting thought into their speaker locations. Well....some of them.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Since the 90's when 5.1 surround sound came to the home.
> 
> 
> Now they are at your sides with 7.1 audio. I like how you say it as if everyone actually does that. Seems to be a more recent occurrence with Dolby Atmos. People are actually putting thought into their speaker locations. Well....some of them.




Even then, the surrounds went to your sides. Hell, even with old Pro-logic pre-digital surround, they went to your sides. That did not change with the transition from theater to the home. The only difference with Atmos is that the surrounds are placed lower, whereas previous 5.1 placement standards dictated elevated surrounds so they would generalize and sound more like theatrical arrays.



Regardless, if he's setting up 5.1.4, those channels do not go on the back wall.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Even then, the surrounds went to your sides. Hell, even with old Pro-logic pre-digital surround, they went to your sides.


Yup, that placement is what prompted some of the THX enhancements. Because surrounds were supposed to go directly to the sides, it sometimes resulted in a mono in-your-head effect. To ameliorate that problem, THX created their decorrelation feature, to make sure those speakers remained slightly out of phase with each other and were never able to form a phantom image from their common mono signal. The direct-to-side placement is also what allowed THX to spec dipole surrounds: that placement insured that the entire row of listeners would be in the null of the dipoles, giving the effect similar to diffuse surround arrays in dubbing stages and movie theatres. None of this would have been needed or possible if surrounds had been placed at any other location (e.g., behind the listener).


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> Since the 90's when 5.1 surround sound came to the home.
> 
> 
> Now they are at your sides with 7.1 audio. I like how you say it as if everyone actually does that. Seems to be a more recent occurrence with Dolby Atmos. People are actually putting thought into their speaker locations. Well....some of them.




Negative Ghost rider. C'mon Scott, you of all people should know this. They have been speced to the sides for years now. Long before Atmos.

I have even seen receivers (pre-Atmos) that wouldn't allow you to use the surround "rear" speakers unless it was a 7.1 setup. 

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/5-1-setup.html












http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/


----------



## Scott Simonian

Freakin' Looney Toons in here.

Everybody was putting their "surrounds" behind them. Only like...three people put theirs to the sides and they had dipoles probably. (obvious exaggeration is obvious).

Yeah... let's all pretend NOBODY was setting up their 7.1 systems like this and why they were doing it like that  :


----------



## Scott Simonian

zeus33 said:


> Negative Ghost rider. C'mon Scott, you of all people should know this. They have been speced to the sides for years now. Long before Atmos.


You're right. I do know better and am remembering how people actually set up their systems until 7.1 and now Atmos.

People put their surrounds like this was most common:













zeus33 said:


> I have even seen receivers (pre-Atmos) that wouldn't allow you to use the surround "rear" speakers unless it was a 7.1 setup.


That's because they weren't "rear" surrounds. They were just "surrounds".


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> You're right. I do know better and am remembering how people actually set up their systems until 7.1 and now Atmos.
> 
> People put their surrounds like this was most common:




So Dolby and THX have no idea what they are talking about?

If you Google Dolby Digital 5.1 speaker setup, every single link on the first page shows the surrounds located to the side.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 with surrounds _BEHIND_ the listener? What kind of sorcery is this?!?!?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Yup, that placement is what prompted some of the THX enhancements. Because surrounds were supposed to go directly to the sides, it sometimes resulted in a mono in-your-head effect. To ameliorate that problem, THX created their decorrelation feature, to make sure those speakers remained slightly out of phase with each other and were never able to form a phantom image from their common mono signal. The direct-to-side placement is also what allowed THX to spec dipole surrounds: that placement insured that the entire row of listeners would be in the null of the dipoles, giving the effect similar to diffuse surround arrays in dubbing stages and movie theatres. None of this would have been needed or possible if surrounds had been placed at any other location (e.g., behind the listener).


Exactly. And Dolby's original 5.1 guideline diagram was as attached. You could pull them slightly behind the listener, but never on the back wall. There are no "rear surrounds" in a 5.1 setup.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zeus33 said:


> So Dolby and THX have no idea what they are talking about?



Nope. Just the rest of you have blocked it out for some reason.

Which is okay cuz you shouldn't have no rear wall imaging if you have room behind you for rear wall speakers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Freakin' Looney Toons in here.
> 
> Everybody was putting their "surrounds" behind them. Only like...three people put theirs to the sides and they had dipoles probably. (obvious exaggeration is obvious).
> 
> Yeah... let's all pretend NOBODY was setting up their 7.1 systems like this and why they were doing it like that  :


What people DID and what they're supposed to do are two different arguments. There are no rear surrounds in 5.1.


----------



## Scott Simonian

zeus33 said:


> If you Google Dolby Digital 5.1 speaker setup, every single link on the first page shows the surrounds located to the side.



Look, Maverick, I'm just posting what people actually did. Not what Google now shows are the most linked diagrams as if that is 100% fact.


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 with surrounds _BEHIND_ the listener? What kind of sorcery is this?!?!?



C'mon Scott. there is a MASSIVE difference between 90 degrees (directly beside you) to 110 degrees (just ever so slightly back from beside you) and the speaker locations that you showed that are WAY behind you.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> What people DID and what they're supposed to do are two different arguments. There are no rear surrounds in 5.1.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 with surrounds _BEHIND_ the listener? What kind of sorcery is this?!?!?


You just proved my point exactly. 110 degrees isn't ON THE BACK WALL... especially when he said he has two rows of seating. Look at the guy's diagram! Back wall placement doesn't fit the angles of any of the recommended guidelines!


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> Look, Maverick, I'm just posting what people actually did. Not what Google now shows are the most linked diagrams as if that is 100% fact.



OK Ice Man.  I defer to Dolby for my setups, as they designed the thing to begin with! 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry for the thread derail.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yeah. Let's get back to helping newbs figure out where to put overhead speakers at.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Or not talking about anything much else...


----------



## zeus33

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. Let's get back to helping newbs figure out where to put overhead speakers at.



How many degrees exactly should my top speakers be again?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah. Let's get back to helping newbs figure out where to put overhead speakers at.


Now that your semantic argument is over, did you have an opinion on mburton875's placement? He provided a diagram showing where his two rows of seating go... and with Atmos, back wall placement would put them at rear surround angles, not those prescribed for surrounds in a 5.1.x configuration. Given Atmos' dependence upon defined placements to approximate the imaging of objects given XYZ coordinates in the room, would you agree that placing them to the sides is preferred?


----------



## Scott Simonian

He should upgrade to a 7.1.x configuration.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Scott Simonian said:


> He should upgrade to a 7.1.x configuration.


See? I knew we'd eventually agree on something!


----------



## richlife

Jeremy Anderson said:


> See? I knew we'd eventually agree on something!


+1


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Look, Maverick, I'm just posting what people actually did. Not what Google now shows are the most linked diagrams as if that is 100% fact.


I have to agree with Scott. Prior to 7.1, the conventional wisdom was to put surround speakers behind the seating position in order to fill the back of the room with sound. 110-degrees or so sounds about right. Otherwise, there's a big hole in the soundstage back there. About the only people putting speakers directly to the sides were those whose couch or seats were against the back wall of the room.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You could pull them slightly behind the listener, but never on the back wall. There are no "rear surrounds" in a 5.1 setup.


Right, there would have been no need to add surround-back speakers to fill the hole behind the listener if the surrounds were already filling the hole behind the listener. Hence 7.1 (which wasn't 5.1 with sides added, it's 5.1 with rears added).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Right, there would have been no need to add surround-back speakers to fill the hole behind the listener if the surrounds were already filling the hole behind the listener. Hence 7.1 (which wasn't 5.1 with sides added, it's 5.1 with rears added).




And initially was done with matrixed solutions like DD-EX and DTS:ES. This argument was always semantic. They're on the side walls in the theater... And the home was never any different.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And initially was done with matrixed solutions like DD-EX and DTS:ES.


Yes, 6.1 and 7.1 were initially done by extracting surround-back information from the surround channels. If you believe your 2 surrounds went on the back wall, then the surround-back extraction would allow for 3 or 4 surrounds on the back wall (the additional speakers went between the current surrounds). If you start from the premise that the surrounds went along the sides, then the surround-back extraction allowed the addition of speakers behind you for some side vs rear separation in the surround field. The latter makes more sense to me than the former.


> They're on the side walls in the theater... And the home was never any different.


They're on the side walls in a theatre now, but that wasn't always the case. Theatre is different from home to the extent that the number of speakers stayed the same in the theatre while additional speakers were added home set-ups. 

In the cinema, there was an array of speakers wrapped all the way around the audience. This array kept getting subdivided as additional channels (not speakers) were added. At first, they all played the same mono surround channel (Dolby Stereo), then got cut into two L-shaped arrays (5.1), then got cut into three arrays (Surround EX) and eventually the back wall speakers were divided into two arrays (discrete 7.1). 

By comparison, most home set-ups kept adding more speakers, from 2 surrounds to 3 surrounds to 4. That aspect is different from theatres.


----------



## Iron Maiden

Question for you Atmos experts.
Is there any Atmos or other new setups that use "Front Wide" speakers? My current setup is a 9.4 using an Onkyo receiver and outboard amps. My signature details my speakers. I use "Audyssey DSX" to decode and feed the 5 front speakers for movies and tv. It has made my front stage so much wider and dynamic. I love it. For music, I use either "All Stereo" or "Stereo" for 2ch music. Just depends on the cd/recording. For multi channel SACD/DVDA discs I either run Audyssey DSX to feed all the speakers or simply run it in the 5ch mode it was produced in.


My question about Atmos or one of the other new formats, is there one that I can keep my front wide setup and simply add the overhead speakers? 
I want to keep the front wides more so for music than for movies although I really think it helped my setup for both.


----------



## Lesmor

Iron Maiden said:


> Question for you Atmos experts.
> Is there any Atmos or other new setups that use "Front Wide" speakers? My current setup is a 9.4 using an Onkyo receiver and outboard amps. My signature details my speakers. I use "Audyssey DSX" to decode and feed the 5 front speakers for movies and tv. It has made my front stage so much wider and dynamic. I love it. For music, I use either "All Stereo" or "Stereo" for 2ch music. Just depends on the cd/recording. For multi channel SACD/DVDA discs I either run Audyssey DSX to feed all the speakers or simply run it in the 5ch mode it was produced in.
> 
> 
> My question about Atmos or one of the other new formats, is there one that I can keep my front wide setup and simply add the overhead speakers?
> I want to keep the front wides more so for music than for movies although I really think it helped my setup for both.


IIRC A Denon 7200WA lets you use wides in lieu of rear surrounds for Atmos.


----------



## ALtlOff

Iron Maiden said:


> Question for you Atmos experts.
> Is there any Atmos or other new setups that use "Front Wide" speakers? My current setup is a 9.4 using an Onkyo receiver and outboard amps. My signature details my speakers. I use "Audyssey DSX" to decode and feed the 5 front speakers for movies and tv. It has made my front stage so much wider and dynamic. I love it. For music, I use either "All Stereo" or "Stereo" for 2ch music. Just depends on the cd/recording. For multi channel SACD/DVDA discs I either run Audyssey DSX to feed all the speakers or simply run it in the 5ch mode it was produced in.
> 
> 
> My question about Atmos or one of the other new formats, is there one that I can keep my front wide setup and simply add the overhead speakers?
> I want to keep the front wides more so for music than for movies although I really think it helped my setup for both.


Any of the 2016 D & M models that process more than 9 channels will allow you to keep your front wides, but since DSU has replaced PLIIZ and doesn't use front wides, they will only be used with Atmos, DTS-X and Neural-X.
I'm not sure about the neo modes on the earlier Atmos only models.


----------



## jrod9707

ALtlOff said:


> Iron Maiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I am for the most part done(or at least moving onto other projects for the time being) with my non ideal theatre room.
> I want to give a big shout out to ALToff for giving me good advice and allowing me to bounce ideas off him as I had never heard an atmos soundtrack before I installed and made my own atmos system.
> 
> I Just got the green light from the wife to buy the SVS 16. So that's the only piece of the puzzle that's missing. I'm going to put that at the foot of the long couch.
> 
> It sounds great and people can't believe how lifelike it sounds in the room.
> Here's some photos to give others an idea what's possible. Thanks to everyone else that's helped along the way with random questions I've had.
> 
> ***For whatever reason I cant get the pictures to upload without having all the artifacts in them.***
Click to expand...


----------



## ALtlOff

jrod9707 said:


> I am for the most part done(or at least moving onto other projects for the time being) with my non ideal theatre room.
> I want to give a big shout out to ALToff for giving me good advice and allowing me to bounce ideas off him as I had never heard an atmos soundtrack before I installed and made my own atmos system.
> 
> I Just got the green light from the wife to buy the SVS 16. So that's the only piece of the puzzle that's missing. I'm going to put that at the foot of the long couch.
> 
> It sounds great and people can't believe how lifelike it sounds in the room.
> Here's some photos to give others an idea what's possible. Thanks to everyone else that's helped along the way with random questions I've had.
> 
> ***For whatever reason I cant get the pictures to upload without having all the artifacts in them.***


I'm really glad things worked out and sound good, was more than happy to give you what input I could.

Oh..... one more piece of advice....
Just don't let the wife know that there's free return shipping when she sees the actual size of that Sub.
:laugh:


----------



## zeus33

ALtlOff said:


> Any of the 2016 D & M models that process more than 9 channels will allow you to keep your front wides.....



Incorrect. The 2016 Denon models dropped front wide speakers. IIRC, all manufacturers have dropped them from their lineups. 




jdsmoothie said:


> *Notable differences comparing the 2016 to 2015 S/X models *
> 
> *X4300H vs. X4200W:*
> - 9CH AVR (w/expansion to 11CH via 2CH external amp), Denon HEOS module on board (stream audio to AVR using HEOS app or stream 2CH audio from AVR to up to 32 HEOS wireless speakers set throughout the house), *Note: Front Wide speakers no longer supported* and Web Control no longer available (to be replaced by new app capability with SAVE/LOAD via USB later this fall)
> 
> *X6300H vs. X6200W:*
> - 11CH AVR (no further expansion capability), Denon HEOS module on board (stream audio to AVR using HEOS app or stream 2CH audio from AVR to up to 32 HEOS wireless speakers set throughout the house), Smart Menu (use TV remote to control AVR), HDMI (ARC) - ON/OFF, and able to use the Surround Back L pre-out for the Auro 3D Top Surround/Voice of God speaker instead of the Sub pre-out 2. * Note: Front Wide speakers no longer supported* and Web Control no longer available (to be replaced by new app capability with SAVE/LOAD via USB later this fall).


----------



## sdurani

ALtlOff said:


> Any of the 2016 D & M models that process more than 9 channels will allow you to keep your front wides...


2015 models, not 2016 models. Starting with this year's models, wides are not supported by any mainstream manufacturer: Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony, etc.


----------



## ALtlOff

sdurani said:


> 2015 models, not 2016 models. Starting with this year's models, wides are not supported by any mainstream manufacturer: Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Integra, Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony, etc.


My mistake, I thought it was the 2017 models that were just now coming out, I guess I'm thinking in automotive terms about release dates.


----------



## jrod9707

ALtlOff said:


> I'm really glad things worked out and sound good, was more than happy to give you what input I could.
> 
> Oh..... one more piece of advice....
> Just don't let the wife know that there's free return shipping when she sees the actual size of that Sub.
> :laugh:


LOL, Yeah the conversation will definitely go something like this. 

Her:What was wrong with the other sub? 

Me: It didn't sound the way I wanted it to.

Her: It sounded great to me.

Me: It was missing 16-22 Hz. The real low end stuff.

Her: Nothings ever good enough, so stop spending money.

Me: Look, my birthdays right around the corner. Now you dont need to buy me anything.

Her: I dont ever buy you anything.

Me: Thats why I feel unappreciated.

Her: Just do whatever you want. I don't even care anymore. But its way too damn big.

Me: Yeah.... Sorry about that.

Daughter chimes in: Mom its awesome, it feels like someones punching me in the chest. It looks manly, I like it (She likes to run her mouth when the Fun police starts in on me, its always funny when she'll add some kind of sexist comment in there as well).


CHECKMATE


----------



## ndabunka

Josh Z said:


> I have to agree with Scott. Prior to 7.1, the conventional wisdom was to put surround speakers behind the seating position in order to fill the back of the room with sound. 110-degrees or so sounds about right. Otherwise, there's a big hole in the soundstage back there. About the only people putting speakers directly to the sides were those whose couch or seats were against the back wall of the room.


I think that the "problem" here is that many of these guys that "think" they were on the sides must be younger than you, I & Scott. 

I agree with you that the ORIGINAL 5.1 design DID have them on the back wall at an angle. This was probably 20(?) years ago. 

Then about 17 years ago they started the bi-pole di-pole speakers that would "fill" the space behind us with diffused sound. In most cases those were also mounted on the back wall. 

Those rear 5.1 speakers were moved to the rear sides about 14 years ago right around the same time that 7.1 was being introduced. At that time I bought a Yamaha RX-V2400 to run my, new at the time. 7.1 system that could not actually run 7.1 (due to the limited audio bandwidth of optical audio) as HDMI had not yet even been set as a standard.

These guys who "think" they were ALWAYS on the sides are simply showing their age or being more accurate, their lack of experience. They may remember them ONLY being on the sides because... by the time THEY were familiar with their usage, the 5.1 surrounds actually WERE on the sides (what's old to them is fairly new to you and I)
:laugh:


----------



## Micker99

I have a Vizio P65 and a Denon X2300 receiver. I can't get atmos to work over ARC. I'm using VUDU to stream and I just get DD+ to my receiver for movies that I know have atmos. I have tried CEC on and off for my TV and it is on in my receiver. Not sure if anyone knows what might be stopping atmos from working with my setup?? Thanks!!


----------



## Iron Maiden

Well, that sucks. Maybe there is a way to have Front A and Front B speakers and be able to play both in stereo mode. It's not needed as my Veritas are great speakers. But, I feel like I get great results and a nice volume without pushing them too hard. Either way, I'm sure jumping to Atmos at some point will be worth it. Even if I do have to lose my wides. Thanks for the info.


----------



## jqmn

[Q] Atmos 2015 Demo Disc: Helicopter flyover/around track--

In a .4 Atmos configuration, if the sound system is correctly calibrated around, say, a single seat MLP, is the sound intended to represent a uniform, sonic circle overhead at some height and around the MLP (the sound of the helicopter is essentially level) or is there a pitch variation due to changes in height, distance or both in the sound as the helicopter "circles" or ovoids the MLP? Thanks.


----------



## zeus33

ndabunka said:


> I think that the "problem" here is that many of these guys that "think" they were on the sides must be younger than you, I & Scott.
> 
> I agree with you that the ORIGINAL 5.1 design DID have them on the back wall at an angle. This was probably 20(?) years ago.
> 
> Then about 17 years ago they started the bi-pole di-pole speakers that would "fill" the space behind us with diffused sound. In most cases those were also mounted on the back wall.
> 
> Those rear 5.1 speakers were moved to the rear sides about 14 years ago right around the same time that 7.1 was being introduced. At that time I bought a Yamaha RX-V2400 to run my, new at the time. 7.1 system that could not actually run 7.1 (due to the limited audio bandwidth of optical audio) as HDMI had not yet even been set as a standard.
> 
> These guys who "think" they were ALWAYS on the sides are simply showing their age or being more accurate, their lack of experience. They may remember them ONLY being on the sides because... by the time THEY were familiar with their usage, the 5.1 surrounds actually WERE on the sides (what's old to them is fairly new to you and I)
> :laugh:



Your timeline is inaccurate.

Yes, surrounds were speced to be behind you a LONG time ago, but that was changed over 20 years ago. 

While people did put surround speakers behind them, that was not the preferred location that Dolby specified 20 years ago. Long before 7.1 was used. It was probably longer than that, but the Time Machine doesn't go back that far:

Nov. 2nd, 1996

_*Preferred surround placement

Location
If possible, place surround speakers to either side of the listening area, not behind it. If that's not convenient, see Alternative Surround Placement.*_


https://web.archive.org/web/19961102152411/http://www.dolby.com/ht/sound/sound3.html


----------



## wackid

jrod9707 said:


> LOL, Yeah the conversation will definitely go something like this.
> 
> Her:What was wrong with the other sub?
> 
> Me: It didn't sound the way I wanted it to.
> 
> Her: It sounded great to me.
> 
> Me: It was missing 16-22 Hz. The real low end stuff.
> 
> Her: Nothings ever good enough, so stop spending money.
> 
> Me: Look, my birthdays right around the corner. Now you dont need to buy me anything.
> 
> Her: I dont ever buy you anything.
> 
> Me: Thats why I feel unappreciated.
> 
> Her: Just do whatever you want. I don't even care anymore. But its way too damn big.
> 
> Me: Yeah.... Sorry about that.
> 
> Daughter chimes in: Mom its awesome, it feels like someones punching me in the chest. It looks manly, I like it (She likes to run her mouth when the Fun police starts in on me, its always funny when she'll add some kind of sexist comment in there as well).
> 
> 
> CHECKMATE


I don't know on which sub it goes.... But that dialog is almost the same i have had Hahaha 

I have the Klipsch R-115SW... And gave here the dimensions of the R-112SW. 

When it arrived here she was going mad. My excuse was i was confused on the dimensions. 😇
But when I hooked it up and gave here a demo she was amazed haha. Only one demand. "can I put things on it" Ahhh well no problem😀

Good luck.


----------



## ndabunka

zeus33 said:


> Your timeline is inaccurate. *Yes, surrounds were speced to be behind you a LONG time ago*, but that was changed over 20 years ago.


It looks like you are "nik-picking" in an attempt to justify your position yet you actually CONFIRMED mine in the process (see your comments in *bold* above). 

Just add ten years to my original numbers if that helps you feel better. Man, I am 10 years older than I original realized 

It doesn't really change the fundemental argument that... *The rears WERE originally placed on the rear wall rather than on the SIDE walls in the ORIGINAL 5.1 configurations* (which is what my entire contribution to this subject matter was about). 

The EXACT timeframe itself is irrelavent. Anyone stating that they were "never" on the rear wall is... well, let's ust call it "immature", OK? :laugh:


----------



## kokishin

ndabunka said:


> It looks like you are *"nik-picking"* in an attempt to justify your position yet you actually *CONFRIMED* mine in the process (see your comments in *bold* above).
> 
> Just add ten years to my original numbers if that helps you feel better. Man, I am 10 years older than I original realized


Not to *nitpick* but it's *confirmed*.


----------



## zeus33

ndabunka said:


> It looks like you are "nik-picking" in an attempt to justify your position yet you actually CONFRIMED mine in the process (see your comments in *bold* above).
> 
> Just add ten years to my original numbers if that helps you feel better. Man, I am 10 years older than I original realized
> 
> It doesn't really change the fundemental argument that... *The rears WERE originally placed on the rear wall rather than on the SIDE walls in the ORIGINAL 5.1 configurations* (which is what my entire contribution to this subject matter was about).
> 
> The EXACT timeframe itself is irrelavent. Anyone stating that they were "never" on the rear wall is... well, let's ust call it "immature", OK? :laugh:


 
Actually, you would be the one nitpicking. I never said that they weren't. That was someone else. I said that they had been speced to the sides for years, long before Atmos. Your answer to that was it changed when 7.1 was incorporated. That is incorrect. It had absolutely nothing to do with 7.1 as it changed long before 7.1 was introduced.

I'm done with this. I have backed up my info with proof from Dolby (the experts). Regardless of what you guys were doing, the CORRECT installation according to Dolby was as I posted. 




zeus33 said:


> They have been speced to the sides for years now. Long before Atmos.





ndabunka said:


> Those rear 5.1 speakers were moved to the rear sides about 14 years ago right around the same time that 7.1 was being introduced.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ndabunka said:


> It looks like you are "nik-picking" in an attempt to justify your position yet you actually CONFRIMED mine in the process (see your comments in *bold* above).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just add ten years to my original numbers if that helps you feel better. Man, I am 10 years older than I original realized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really change the fundemental argument that... *The rears WERE originally placed on the rear wall rather than on the SIDE walls in the ORIGINAL 5.1 configurations* (which is what my entire contribution to this subject matter was about).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EXACT timeframe itself is irrelavent. Anyone stating that they were "never" on the rear wall is... well, let's ust call it "immature", OK? :laugh:




If we added 10 years, that would be before the existence of digital 5.1 in theaters (1992). I think Dolby's 1996 diagram for the home is pretty clear proof that there are not now nor were there ever "rear surrounds" in 5.1. Not that people didn't put them there... But they weren't SUPPOSED TO.



I'm 43 and have been in this game since before the first 5.1 receivers hit the home. Side wall placement has been the guideline since the beginning.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

No idea what the intended speaker locations where but this is how I have morphed the surround locations for the past two decades.

1998 (5.1) my surround speakers were on the rear wall at ~150 degrees.
2000 (5.1) my surround speakers were behind me at ~120 degrees.
2002 (5.1) my surround speakers were ~95 degrees as I had my sofa against the rear wall by then.
2009 (7.1) my surround speakers were at 90 degrees and rear speakers at 150 degrees.
2014 (7.1) my surround speakers were at 100 degrees and rear speakers at 150 degrees.
2016 (9.1.6) my surround speakers at 100 degrees and rear speakers at 142 degrees.


----------



## maikeldepotter

So what do you guys then think of putting some rears on the side wall. Because that is what Dolby is presenting in their 24.1.10 lay-out diagram....


----------



## ndabunka

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If we added 10 years, that would be before the existence of digital 5.1 in theaters (1992). I think Dolby's 1996 diagram for the home is pretty clear proof that there are not now nor were there ever "rear surrounds" in 5.1. Not that people didn't put them there... But they weren't SUPPOSED TO.
> 
> I'm 43 and have been in this game since before the first 5.1 receivers hit the home. Side wall placement has been the guideline since the beginning.


Someone else was the one leading these statements. Myself and 3 others agreed with him. You and two others claim it was "never that way". Either way, this is not my fight. I put in a 5.1 system when you were still in high school and recall it differently. I don't really give two flips about "who's wrong on the internet".


----------



## ndabunka

maikeldepotter said:


> So what do you guys then think of putting some rears on the side wall. Because that is what Dolby is presenting in their 24.1.10 lay-out diagram....


:laugh:


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Side wall placement has been the guideline since the beginning.


The alternative (back wall placement) doesn't jibe with history. The THX home program started in 1991. IF back wall placement was the guideline at that time, then THX could not have spec'd dipole surrounds (with the entire row of listeners sitting in the null) nor would they have needed their decorrelation feature (no in-your-head imaging from speakers behind you). IF back wall placement was the guideline for surrounds in a 5.1 layout, then EX and 7.1 layouts could not have added surround-back speakers on the back wall because the surrounds would have already been there. Both those things make sense only if you start with surrounds placed on the side walls.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> So what do you guys then think of putting some rears on the side wall. Because that is what Dolby is presenting in their 24.1.10 lay-out diagram....


Of the 4 rears on each side, only one is on the side wall. The next one is in the back corner and the last two are on the back wall. I would guess that side-vs-rear separation would be better if the rears had been on the back wall only, but I can't say for sure since I've never heard a set-up where the rear array was L-shaped and wrapped around the back corner.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ndabunka said:


> Someone else was the one leading these statements. Myself and 3 others agreed with him. You and two others claim it was "never that way". Either way, this is not my fight. I put in a 5.1 system when you were still in high school and recall it differently. I don't really give two flips about "who's wrong on the internet".




I was almost out of college when the first 5.1 AVRs came out. And I had a Pro-logic setup before that. We're all enthusiasts here...



Regardless, this history lesson aside, the point remains that the poster who asked for advice should move his surrounds to his sides for 5.1.4. There are no rear surrounds in that configuration.


----------



## richlife

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I was almost out of college when the first 5.1 AVRs came out. And I had a Pro-logic setup before that. We're all enthusiasts here...
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, this history lesson aside, the point remains that the poster who asked for advice should move his surrounds to his sides for 5.1.4. There are no rear surrounds in that configuration.


Living history:

In 1958, (I was 10) my father came home with one of the first commercially available stereo systems. The demo had a little man walking across the top of our low cabinet from speaker to speaker. (This was in Germany -- I don't _think_ it was available in the US.)

In the late sixties, sealed bookshelf speakers became all the rage -- I was in college. Dolby became a pop audio tech "name".

In the seventies, the part you all left out came along: quadraphonic. I built my own from a kit and had the first real "surround sound". 

In the eighties, digital almost replaced analog sources and equipment. I finally started buying classical music because I could actually enjoy it without snap-crackle-pop. 

In the early nineties THX and The Fifth Element introduced huge new possibilities to me. 1996 I bought a Lexicon DC-1 and my main Mirage speakers. From there the 13" tv was replaced by a 40" Pioneer Elite and I thought I had found heaven. Until... -- that's when AC3 (5.1) came into my life and where this "discussion" started. Intro DTS and the seeds were in place for Atmos/DTS:X. 

May I simply say that in the folds of time the detail of placement has all been lost in the mists. But I still agree -- move to 7.1.x -- for starters.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

richlife said:


> In the seventies, the part you all left out came along: quadraphonic. I built my own from a kit and had the first real "surround sound".


Oh, quadraphonic placement was a different animal, and I think we'd all agree on the speaker placement for that. But we were specifically talking about Dolby/DTS 5.1. It just spun off into its own semantic argument, when the original point was that Dolby has always dictated side wall placement for 5.1 setups and that the poster in question was adding 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos but planning to have his surrounds in his 5.1.4 setup placed on the rear wall. And I feel like we all agree that 1) they should go on the side walls (especially given that he has two rows of seating in his diagram), and 2) that he should consider 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 instead.


----------



## batpig

jqmn said:


> [Q] Atmos 2015 Demo Disc: Helicopter flyover/around track--
> 
> In a .4 Atmos configuration, if the sound system is correctly calibrated around, say, a single seat MLP, is the sound intended to represent a uniform, sonic circle overhead at some height and around the MLP (the sound of the helicopter is essentially level) or is there a pitch variation due to changes in height, distance or both in the sound as the helicopter "circles" or ovoids the MLP? Thanks.


I'll quote you so this doesn't get buried in the midst of this thrilling side vs. rear wall conversation...

I don't know it for a fact, but my assumption would be that it's supposed to sound like a helicopter is circling above you, although the shape is more of a "box" since it's panning through four speakers, and it does seem to hesitate slightly in each location. I would also assume that it's supposed to be uniform in pitch/timbre and level if your overheads are symmetrically placed.

I say "assume" because it sure as sh!t doesn't sound perfectly uniform in my room, but my overheads are not currently identical nor symmetrically placed with respect to MLP. I brought this up a few months back noting this track seems to be a "torture test" for overhead effects since it will expose any timbral shifts or other issues with your overheads, again under the assumption that it's supposed to sound uniform. I think a few people chimed in that it did sound smooth and uniform in their setups.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

batpig said:


> I'll quote you so this doesn't get buried in the midst of this thrilling side vs. rear wall conversation...
> 
> I don't know it for a fact, but my assumption would be that it's supposed to sound like a helicopter is circling above you, although the shape is more of a "box" since it's panning through four speakers, and it does seem to hesitate slightly in each location. I would also assume that it's supposed to be uniform in pitch/timbre and level if your overheads are symmetrically placed.
> 
> I say "assume" because it sure as sh!t doesn't sound perfectly uniform in my room, but my overheads are not currently identical nor symmetrically placed with respect to MLP. I brought this up a few months back noting this track seems to be a "torture test" for overhead effects since it will expose any timbral shifts or other issues with your overheads, again under the assumption that it's supposed to sound uniform. I think a few people chimed in that it did sound smooth and uniform in their setups.


My 4 overheads are at pretty much dead-on perfect angles per Dolby's guidelines and that helicopter demo still seems to snap between speakers rather than smoothly pan between them in a uniform manner. I played around with aiming the tweeters a bit (Polk V60 Slim in-ceilings) but it's never perfect. That said, the pans through them in the Leaf and Encounter demos sound very uniform by comparison. 

I'm tinkering with the distance settings for my top rear set per the earlier comb filtering discussion to see if that gives me any better cohesion as the sound moves between the overheads.


----------



## jqmn

@batpig @Jeremy Anderson

Thanks for your helpful comments on the helicopter demo track. I can see what you are saying in that there is a bit of a "snap" or hesitation but I also get a slight loudness boost as it moves to the rears; all why I was asking the question. I also have top middles I can use instead of the fronts and backs and even then when it plays in the .2 there is a change of timbre as it moves from one side and across to the next. All of my distances are set by laser but maybe your idea of playing with the distances against what they actually measure might be interesting. I can't think why the backs should be louder; I would think that they would have made it uniform so I will remeasure the outputs of the rears. Thanks again.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jqmn said:


> @batpig @Jeremy Anderson
> 
> Thanks for your helpful comments on the helicopter demo track. I can see what you are saying in that there is a bit of a "snap" or hesitation but I also get a slight loudness boost as it moves to the rears; all why I was asking the question. I also have top middles I can use instead of the fronts and backs and even then when it plays in the .2 there is a change of timbre as it moves from one side and across to the next. All of my distances are set by laser but maybe your idea of playing with the distances against what they actually measure might be interesting. I can't think why the backs should be louder; I would think that they would have made it uniform so I will remeasure the outputs of the rears. Thanks again.


I haven't stressed over it too much, because every other track on that demo disc has cohesive pans through those speakers. That's the only demo clip that doesn't sound as perfect as I'd like with between-speaker pans. I don't hear any of that shift in timbre with the other clips that have pans moving through them, or with actual listening material. Watched The Conjuring 2 the other night and it had some pretty nice "stuff moving around upstairs" sounds that were very realistic, and I noticed no shift in the sound whatsoever.


----------



## Witchboard

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Watched The Conjuring 2 the other night and it had some pretty nice "stuff moving around upstairs" sounds that were very realistic, and I noticed no shift in the sound whatsoever.


What are you talking about? The Conjuring 2 doesn't have Atmos...


----------



## _voyager_

Are bi-pole inceiling speakers good choice for Atmos overhead .4 speakers?


----------



## healthnut

_voyager_ said:


> Are bi-pole inceiling speakers good choice for Atmos overhead .4 speakers?




I don't think they'd be a good choice, since they'd radiate forward and then backward into the ceiling, muddying up the sound. RSL's would be a good choice and they're reasonably priced. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HT-Eman

Witchboard said:


> What are you talking about? The Conjuring 2 doesn't have Atmos...


Yes it does !


----------



## ndabunka

Witchboard said:


> What are you talking about? The Conjuring 2 doesn't have Atmos...


Maybe time for...


----------



## kokishin

Witchboard said:


> What are you talking about? The Conjuring 2 doesn't have Atmos...


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Conjuring-2-Blu-ray/157343/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Conjuring-2-4K-Blu-ray/157085/

Hmmm...


----------



## Witchboard

HT-Eman said:


> Yes it does !





kokishin said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Conjuring-2-Blu-ray/157343/
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Conjuring-2-4K-Blu-ray/157085/
> 
> Hmmm...


Guys... the joke's not funny if you make me explain it.


----------



## _voyager_

healthnut said:


> I don't think they'd be a good choice, since they'd radiate forward and then backward into the ceiling, muddying up the sound. RSL's would be a good choice and they're reasonably priced.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am interested in Monitor Audio CT265-FX for overhead speakers.
http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/trimless-200/ct265-fx

I would use it in bipole mode 5.1.4 setup. Is it safer to go with CT265-IDC?
http://www.monitoraudio.co.uk/products/trimless-200/ct265-idc


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Witchboard said:


> Guys... the joke's not funny if you make me explain it.


Don't worry, I got it... But I live in a one-story home, so I'm pretty sure those sounds were in the movie. Or there's some crazy s#!t going on in my attic. One of those things.


----------



## richlife

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't worry, I got it... But I live in a one-story home, so I'm pretty sure those sounds were in the movie. Or there's some crazy s#!t going on in my attic. One of those things.


Reminds me of long ago when we were cleaning out a new (for us) single-story duplex. Had just seen The Exorcist that week. Under the fridge, I found a custom-rolled "stogie" that I decided to try out alone in an empty apartment while taking a break from cleaning that night. There was no Atmos in those days, but it was very freaky to hear footsteps and other noises coming from overhead. It turned out, that virtually any movement, including footsteps, from the adjacent duplex amplified itself through the connection space above. But my mind was elsewhere and that proved a truly disconcerting (dare I say frightening?) experience given my state...


----------



## mobileES

Was watching Batman VS Superman UHD yesterday, forgot how good that intro sounds in Atmos...............


----------



## gwsat

mobileES said:


> Was watching Batman VS Superman UHD yesterday, forgot how good that intro sounds in Atmos...............


Agreed! The TrueHD Atmos soundtrack in _Batman vs Superman_ is demonstration class, one of the very best in my collection.


----------



## ndabunka

Witchboard said:


> Guys... the joke's not funny if you make me explain it.


I REALLY thought that my posting the GHOSTBUSTERs logo would have given them a hint but I guess some are simply too literal!


----------



## ndabunka

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't worry, I got it... But I live in a one-story home, so I'm pretty sure those sounds were in the movie. Or there's some crazy s#!t going on in my attic. One of those things.


Ah, your post says that you DIDN'T "get it" so...
The movie IS in ATMOS so yes, those sounds WERE coming from the overhead ATMOS speakers. Whitchboard was trying to get YOU to think that the movie wasn't in ATMOS and therefore the noises were coming from YOUR attic. 

I posted the Ghostbusters logo as a CONTINUATION of Whitchboard's post encouraging you to go out and find someone to help you remove any ACTUAL ghosts but since ghosts only exists in movies my post was a circular reference.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ndabunka said:


> Ah, your post says that you DIDN'T "get it" so...
> The movie IS in ATMOS so yes, those sounds WERE coming from the overhead ATMOS speakers. Whitchboard was trying to get YOU to think that the movie wasn't in ATMOS and therefore the noises were coming from YOUR attic.
> 
> I posted the Ghostbusters logo as a CONTINUATION of Whitchboard's post encouraging you to go out and find someone to help you remove any ACTUAL ghosts but since ghosts only exists in movies my post was a circular reference.


No, I totally got it. Other people were the ones posting links showing that it was in Atmos, not me! I do wish there were more horror flicks in Atmos though. This movie did a pretty good job of showing just how Atmos can add to that experience. (I was also watching it at about -12dB from reference... and I have a Buttkicker under the couch.)


----------



## CreativeVilla

Micker99 said:


> I have a Vizio P65 and a Denon X2300 receiver. I can't get atmos to work over ARC. I'm using VUDU to stream and I just get DD+ to my receiver for movies that I know have atmos. I have tried CEC on and off for my TV and it is on in my receiver. Not sure if anyone knows what might be stopping atmos from working with my setup?? Thanks!!


Didnt see a reply to this yet - first, on the Vizio settings be sure that Digital Audio Out is set to BITSTREAM. On your Denon, set HDMI Control to ON. and as you did, set the Vizio CEC to Enable. Vudu has free ATMOS demos to test out. Your denon should read ATMOS on the display. If not, try manually selecting a different audio mode on the Denon (Dolby Surround, etc, and see if Atmos shows up on the list).


----------



## kokishin

Witchboard said:


> Guys... the joke's not funny if you make me explain it.


----------



## batpig

Apropos of the helicopter demo conversation from yesterday, here's Mark Henninger's comments in his review of the Klipsch Reference 7.2.4 system: http://www.avsforum.com/klipsch-rp-280fa-7-2-4-dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-system-review/



> I examined the effectiveness of the RP-280FAs at rendering height effects using Dolby’s 2016 Atmos demo disc as well as numerous movies on Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray. One simple audio-only demo called “Helicopter” consists of nothing more than helicopter noise circling overhead. It’s a great test of how well an Atmos system renders height effects, including panning from speaker to speaker.
> 
> I’ve heard the Helicopter loop played on well over a dozen Atmos-enabled systems and just as many in-ceiling Atmos systems, with results that ranged from mediocre to excellent. With an ideal rendition of the loop, you can follow the helicopter as a discrete object as it smoothly circles overhead. *In some systems that use in-ceiling speakers, the helicopter sound has a tendency to cling to whichever speaker is loudest, and appears to jump from channel to channel.* As a counterpoint, in some Atmos-enabled systems, the helicopter sound is too indistinct to follow—it’s more overhead ambience than a discrete object. With the Klipsch rig, I heard the helicopter rendered as a distinct object, smoothly circling overhead. You could say it’s in the Goldilocks zone.


Note the comment I bolded, which is something several people observed (the helicopter sound seeming to cling/jump to in-ceiling speakers).


----------



## Jonas2

batpig said:


> Note the comment I bolded, which is something several people observed (the helicopter sound seeming to cling/jump to in-ceiling speakers).


What could be some of the causes of this AFA in-ceiling speakers? I would certainly find this annoying and distracting in a system....


----------



## ndabunka

batpig said:


> Apropos of the helicopter demo conversation from yesterday, here's Mark Henninger's comments in his review of the Klipsch Reference 7.2.4 system: http://www.avsforum.com/klipsch-rp-280fa-7-2-4-dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-system-review/
> 
> Note the comment I bolded, which is something several people observed (the helicopter sound seeming to cling/jump to in-ceiling speakers).


In the Yamaha receivers you would simply run YPAO and have it "correct" for the differing volume levels which should balance out the speaker volume levels to make the sound travel in the manner intended. I think you have to use Audessy for that in your receiver. Have you done that and if it is still an issue then is HAS to be your mis-matched speakers, right?


----------



## Spanglo

I had trouble with Helicopter demo when I first got the 2015 demo disc. It didn't sound very good on my system, the RH speakers were noticeably louder than the TF with the levels audyssey set and Dynamic EQ on.

I tried level matching all speakers to 75dB at the MLP using the avr's test tones, but that didn't help, it actually made the speaker imbalance worse. 

Then I level matched the overheads using the dolby demo disc test tones, and voila the helicopter demo was spot on. The difference in levels audyssey set compared to using the demo disc test tones was over 6dB!


----------



## jimim

I noticed the exact thing last night. I got the new Dolby disk with the test tones now and my atmos speakers were about 3-4 db hot. 

I leveled everything out. 

The movement is very smooth from rear left to right. The movement from front right to left is very smooth. The movement from front to rear is very smooth. Actually sounds like I have a 7.x.4 vs a 5.x.4. 

My problem is from rear to front transition. I hear the side movement but it not as smooth. It doesn't jump from speaker to speaker but just not as smooth. 

Can you guys help me if this is more or a delay, placement, or whatever issue?

I'm using triad modules. My crossovers r pretty high at 250. Tried recommends 190-200 but when I ran audyssey they came in at 250 and I knows it's not recommended to lower a crossover after running setup vs making it higher. 

Can this be part of the issue?

Over all I'm very pleased. In general I feel that atmos is way more immersive. So much more going on. Deff more of a 360 degree sound field. My front soundstage is much wider and works much better together. My tears don't stick out but there is so much more going on it feels. The mix overall with atmos vs dd is just better. 

This is my first atmos setup and experience. Trying to use this setup as an experiment for my dedicAted room. 

My rear sound modules are deff over and behind my head. My front modules produce an elevAted sound but I feel it is a bit forward of myseating position. Is this normal?

I am 10.5 feet from my fronts. Rears are really spread. 10 feet away also but my mlp is about 4 feet off rear wall. 

None dedicTed living room open to a kitchen 10' doorway and another room 4' doorway.


----------



## jsb75

Where can I get a copy of the demo disc? Atmos test tones would be very helpful. Thanks


----------



## jqmn

Spanglo said:


> Then I level matched the overheads using the dolby demo disc test tones, and voila the helicopter demo was spot on. The difference in levels audyssey set compared to using the demo disc test tones was over 6dB!


Based on your rec and some earlier discussion I used the test tones on the demo disc and that went a very long way to clearing things up. I was also very hot before using the disc to match the db of the bed speakers.


----------



## jqmn

jimim said:


> My problem is from rear to front transition. I hear the side movement but it not as smooth. It doesn't jump from speaker to speaker but just not as smooth.


If you used the AVR to measure and set the distances you might want to use a long measuring tape or a laser to shoot them and see how they compare to what you have in the AVR. Also check to make sure the angles are very uniform to the MLP and if you have adjustable drivers or the drivers are oriented differently to the MLP square them up if you can.


----------



## jimim

jqmn said:


> If you used the AVR to measure and set the distances you might want to use a long measuring tape or a laser to shoot them and see how they compare to what you have in the AVR. Also check to make sure the angles are very uniform to the MLP and if you have adjustable drivers or the drivers are oriented differently to the MLP square them up if you can.


Distances are spot on. When u say square them up what do u mean?

My fronts r 20 degree toed in. 

My rears r in the corners of the room but they r both same distance to main listening position. They point right at my main listening position. They r toes in 60 degrees in relation to rear wall or if they were pointing straight forward to my fronts. I hope I said that right.


----------



## jqmn

jimim said:


> Distances are spot on. When u say square them up what do u mean?
> 
> My fronts r 20 degree toed in.
> 
> My rears r in the corners of the room but they r both same distance to main listening position. They point right at my main listening position. They r toes in 60 degrees in relation to rear wall or if they were pointing straight forward to my fronts. I hope I said that right.


Ah, OK they are "Dolby Enabled" height speakers. I was thinking they were Triad ceiling speakers. By square I meant that the driver cabinet and the drivers themselves within the cabinet (some are aim-able) are all similar in orientation to the MLP (maybe not applicable because you have modules).

So, first, make sure the AVR sees them as heights and not tops.

Maybe you have a copy but second, take a look at the Dolby Installation Guidelines paper ("7.1.4 Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers"). That will give you your angles, height relative to head height, distance off of walls, etc. You can play with them within those guidelines based on your room. For example, your fronts, at 20 degrees, are slightly out of the guidelines. Why should you care? Studios guidelines mix at 30 degrees ( + - ) for the fronts and 150 degrees ( + - ) for the rears on a 7.1 system. Playing within the guidelines gets you closer to how the stuff was created so the sound will be tighter. Dolby's top config for .4 is slightly different than for height enabled so the speaker modules have to make up for that.

You may know all of this but if not hope it helps.


----------



## jimim

jqmn said:


> Ah, OK they are "Dolby Enabled" height speakers. I was thinking they were Triad ceiling speakers. By square I meant that the driver cabinet and the drivers themselves within the cabinet (some are aim-able) are all similar in orientation to the MLP (maybe not applicable because you have modules).
> 
> So, first, make sure the AVR sees them as heights and not tops.
> 
> Maybe you have a copy but second, take a look at the Dolby Installation Guidelines paper ("7.1.4 Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers"). That will give you your angles, height relative to head height, distance off of walls, etc. You can play with them within those guidelines based on your room. For example, your fronts, at 20 degrees, are slightly out of the guidelines. Why should you care? Studios guidelines mix at 30 degrees ( + - ) for the fronts and 150 degrees ( + - ) for the rears on a 7.1 system. Playing within the guidelines gets you closer to how the stuff was created so the sound will be tighter. Dolby's top config for .4 is slightly different than for height enabled so the speaker modules have to make up for that.
> 
> You may know all of this but if not hope it helps.


Ok I have to pull out the guidelines again tomorrow and re aim the speakers. I totally forgot that might throw things off. 

In my avr they r setup right. Dolby enabled speakers marantz calls them vs height speakers. 

Thanks for the refresher. I have been worrying about the module placement so much I forgot about other basics.


----------



## gravi

*RSL In-Ceiling Questions*

I saw several recommendations for the RSL C34E speakers for immersive audio applications. I just saw the specs and it says diameter is 115/8". If that is true, that is enormous! Four of these will dominate the ceiling but I saw no concerns from anyone regarding size. Any recommendations for in-ceilings that are somewhat smaller?


----------



## healthnut

jsb75 said:


> Where can I get a copy of the demo disc? Atmos test tones would be very helpful. Thanks




I checked ebay and Amazon, and Amazon was much cheaper (about $20 shipped). Lots of gouging going on at ebay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

gravi said:


> I saw several recommendations for the RSL C34E speakers for immersive audio applications. I just saw the specs and it says diameter is 115/8". If that is true, that is enormous! Four of these will dominate the ceiling but I saw no concerns from anyone regarding size. Any recommendations for in-ceilings that are somewhat smaller?


It's actually no big deal. That size fits easily within your joists. My first thought was just like yours, but I'm really glad I got them. All those great reviews are for real.

For pics, go to my signature thread and look at my installation of these near the end of the thread. They ARE a little bigger, but no more noticeable than the 8" (at least to me). And mine are in my 10'x12' dining room space! Even my wife didn't have a comment at all. (Now THAT is a big deal!)

What you get with these is two side-by-side drivers with a tweeter -- and excellent build quality!


----------



## Micker99

CreativeVilla said:


> Micker99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Vizio P65 and a Denon X2300 receiver. I can't get atmos to work over ARC. I'm using VUDU to stream and I just get DD+ to my receiver for movies that I know have atmos. I have tried CEC on and off for my TV and it is on in my receiver. Not sure if anyone knows what might be stopping atmos from working with my setup?? Thanks!!
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt see a reply to this yet - first, on the Vizio settings be sure that Digital Audio Out is set to BITSTREAM. On your Denon, set HDMI Control to ON. and as you did, set the Vizio CEC to Enable. Vudu has free ATMOS demos to test out. Your denon should read ATMOS on the display. If not, try manually selecting a different audio mode on the Denon (Dolby Surround, etc, and see if Atmos shows up on the list).
Click to expand...

Thanks, but it ended up being my hdmi cable. Replaced it with a different one and working great now!!


----------



## MrUPC

jsb75 said:


> Where can I get a copy of the demo disc? Atmos test tones would be very helpful. Thanks


pm'd


----------



## evoll88

I was going to order the atmos test or demo from ebay? Which one is the best one?


----------



## davehale

Is the Reelwood Demo Disc 2016 on Amazon the right one to order? It comes from China. Just want to be sure before I order it.


----------



## johnrabi1983

Dear Friends,

I live in south India. I have a dealer who deals with used speakers and he has a M&K 5000thx 11.1 Home Theatre in good condition. I have read a lot of great things about these speakers. Does anyone have these??? What is the best receiver to match these speaker set up. My room size is 19 feet Long x 14 feet wide x 9feet high. I am planing to have a 7.1.4 atmos. 

Thanks for your help,

John


----------



## Mashie Saldana

davehale said:


> Is the Reelwood Demo Disc 2016 on Amazon the right one to order? It comes from China. Just want to be sure before I order it.


Are you going to buy a bootleg copy of a Demo Disc produced by one of the guys here on AVS? Just use the search and you will find the official download link.


----------



## jsb75

healthnut said:


> I checked ebay and Amazon, and Amazon was much cheaper (about $20 shipped). Lots of gouging going on at ebay.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for the reply. didn't realize that you can't purchase a copy without being a vendor. So either order from China or pay an arm and leg from ebay. You would think dolby would want to promote their product as much as possible and gladly sell copies to consumers. why offer vendors demos and test tones to correctly set up and demonstrate their product, but not consumers? So now you will have thousands of ripped and burned files and copies instead of something dolby could sell for promotion


----------



## pmeintel

Hey guys I'm sure that this has been answered before yet I've got a buddy that is using a Sony BDP-S1100 blu ray player yet cant seem to get Atmos signal transfered to the AVR. Looking at the manual I believe that the correct settings should be : Digital Audio /Output = Auto, DSD Output Mode = On, Audio mix setting - off. Can anyone confirm this for me? Thanks for the help.


----------



## westbergjoakim

pmeintel said:


> Hey guys I'm sure that this has been answered before yet I've got a buddy that is using a Sony BDP-S1100 blu ray player yet cant seem to get Atmos signal transfered to the AVR. Looking at the manual I believe that the correct settings should be : Digital Audio /Output = Auto, DSD Output Mode = On, Audio mix setting - off. Can anyone confirm this for me? Thanks for the help.


For my 5500:

Setup>Audio Settings>Digital Audio Output=Auto *AND* 
Setup>Audio Settings>BD Audio MIX Setting=Off


----------



## batpig

evoll88 said:


> I was going to order the atmos test or demo from ebay? Which one is the best one?


The most complete demo disc is the Sep 2015 disc. That's the one that has the Atmos test tones and lots of demo clips including multiple movie snippets and the awesome Star Wars: Battlefront demo.

There's older ones from Oct 2014 and Jan 2015 that have some good clips but way less overall content.

There's also a German disc that is similar to the Oct 2014 / Jan 2015 ones. 

If possible get the Sep 2015 disc, although it tends to be expensive ($80-120). I just checked though and it looks like there's a Chinese seller listing it for only $20, so maybe grab that while it's there.


----------



## davehale

Mashie Saldana said:


> Are you going to buy a bootleg copy of a Demo Disc produced by one of the guys here on AVS? Just use the search and you will find the official download link.


If your talking about Post 230 in this thread I am not confident enough on how to use torrents, seeding, magnets or how to stitch them altogether. Don't have a google drive or other sign up accounts for these processes. Searching thru google sends me to Amazon, Ebay (China delivery) or post #230. If someone has a non bootleg copy I can paypal for it.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

davehale said:


> If your talking about Post 230 in this thread I am not confident enough on how to use torrents, seeding, magnets or how to stitch them altogether. Don't have a google drive or other sign up accounts for these processes. Searching thru google sends me to Amazon, Ebay (China delivery) or post #230. If someone has a non bootleg copy I can paypal for it.


You talked about buying the Reelwood Demo Disc from China, well the original can be found here on AVS.


----------



## evoll88

batpig said:


> The most complete demo disc is the Sep 2015 disc. That's the one that has the Atmos test tones and lots of demo clips including multiple movie snippets and the awesome Star Wars: Battlefront demo.
> 
> There's older ones from Oct 2014 and Jan 2015 that have some good clips but way less overall content.
> 
> There's also a German disc that is similar to the Oct 2014 / Jan 2015 ones.
> 
> If possible get the Sep 2015 disc, although it tends to be expensive ($80-120). I just checked though and it looks like there's a Chinese seller listing it for only $20, so maybe grab that while it's there.


Ok awesome,thanks for the help.


----------



## davehale

Mashie Saldana said:


> You talked about buying the Reelwood Demo Disc from China, well the original can be found here on AVS.


OK Thank-you


----------



## pmeintel

westbergjoakim said:


> For my 5500:
> 
> Setup>Audio Settings>Digital Audio Output=Auto *AND*
> Setup>Audio Settings>BD Audio MIX Setting=Off


Thanks sir, all set...


----------



## gravi

richlife said:


> It's actually no big deal. That size fits easily within your joists. My first thought was just like yours, but I'm really glad I got them. All those great reviews are for real.
> 
> For pics, go to my signature thread and look at my installation of these near the end of the thread. They ARE a little bigger, but no more noticeable than the 8" (at least to me). And mine are in my 10'x12' dining room space! Even my wife didn't have a comment at all. (Now THAT is a big deal!)
> 
> What you get with these is two side-by-side drivers with a tweeter -- and excellent build quality!


Yeah, those don't look that big at all. I will stick to the RSL's, thanks for th eresponse.


----------



## richlife

gravi said:


> Yeah, those don't look that big at all. I will stick to the RSL's, thanks for th eresponse.


Over the weeks that I've had these C34Es, I've grown to appreciate them more and more. The dispersion (ideal for Atmos) from those two drivers is amazing. I ended up standing between them and actually getting on a step ladder to better determine how they contributed to a great Atmos soundtrack (the opening bomber run in Unbroken). That led to me increasing the level by +3db, and showed me even more how good these sound. And I still can't pick them out of the soundfield. Perfect for Atmos!


----------



## MarkStega

johnrabi1983 said:


> Dear Friends,
> 
> I live in south India. I have a dealer who deals with used speakers and he has a M&K 5000thx 11.1 Home Theatre in good condition. I have read a lot of great things about these speakers. Does anyone have these??? What is the best receiver to match these speaker set up. My room size is 19 feet Long x 14 feet wide x 9feet high. I am planing to have a 7.1.4 atmos.
> 
> John


I can't speak directly to the 5000thx but my theater is based on M&K S-150 speakers and the 350thx subwoofer in a 5.1 configuration. I am still really impressed with the sound quality. I use Parasound separated to drive the system so can't really comment on the receiver aspect.


----------



## Holiday121

Can anyone recommend any speaker mounts that I can use to mount my martin Logan motion 2s on the ceiling firing down for atmos. 

I see a bunch of brackets but looking for someone that can vouch for a pair that will hold because last thing I need is these things falling from the sky


----------



## Wendell R. Breland

Holiday121 said:


> Can anyone recommend any speaker mounts that I can use to mount my martin Logan motion 2s on the ceiling firing down for atmos.
> 
> I see a bunch of brackets but looking for someone that can vouch for a pair that will hold because last thing I need is these things falling from the sky


Try OmniMount. Be sure to weigh your speaker then pick the model that will support that weight.


----------



## jimim

batpig said:


> The most complete demo disc is the Sep 2015 disc. That's the one that has the Atmos test tones and lots of demo clips including multiple movie snippets and the awesome Star Wars: Battlefront demo.
> 
> There's older ones from Oct 2014 and Jan 2015 that have some good clips but way less overall content.
> 
> There's also a German disc that is similar to the Oct 2014 / Jan 2015 ones.
> 
> If possible get the Sep 2015 disc, although it tends to be expensive ($80-120). I just checked though and it looks like there's a Chinese seller listing it for only $20, so maybe grab that while it's there.


I have the original version and the sept new version. The new one is great. Lots of demos. The battlefront one is great. Having the test tones if also a plus. Way more accurate than using the test tones in ur avr too. 

I never realized they were so much. That's crazy.


----------



## healthnut

Holiday121 said:


> Can anyone recommend any speaker mounts that I can use to mount my martin Logan motion 2s on the ceiling firing down for atmos.
> 
> I see a bunch of brackets but looking for someone that can vouch for a pair that will hold because last thing I need is these things falling from the sky




Ascend Acoustics recommends B Tech BT77's for mounting their heavy bookshelf speakers. They're available on Amazon for around $55/pair. I looked for Omnimount and wasn't able to find any that I thought would work. Best of luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dwaleke

healthnut said:


> Ascend Acoustics recommends B Tech BT77's for mounting their heavy bookshelf speakers. They're available on Amazon for around $55/pair. I looked for Omnimount and wasn't able to find any that I thought would work. Best of luck!


I wouldn't use those to mount speakers to the ceiling. Those are a traditional wall mount.


----------



## AllenA07

Holiday121 said:


> Can anyone recommend any speaker mounts that I can use to mount my martin Logan motion 2s on the ceiling firing down for atmos.
> 
> I see a bunch of brackets but looking for someone that can vouch for a pair that will hold because last thing I need is these things falling from the sky


I'm using mounts from Videosecu for my SVS Prime Satalites. It has been 11 months now and they are holding strong.


----------



## helvetica bold

Has anyone tried Battlefield 1 in Dolby Atmos on PC? I imagine if Battlefront sounds amazing in Atmos I think BF1 will take it up a notch.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Xeneize12 said:


>


Has anyone tried ceilingplacement like this? How did it work? Almost like both are in the top middle section.


----------



## Jonas2

westbergjoakim said:


> Has anyone tried ceilingplacement like this? How did it work? Almost like both are in the top middle section.


They seem awfully close! Definitely what Dolby recommends for placement, maybe there was no choice in this situation, but seems like separation would not be very good and the immersive effect would not be what it should be in my less-than-expert opinion.


----------



## murlidher

In such situation where the back wall is close to listening position, is the front height or top front is recommended with top middle position?

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## raf77

helvetica bold said:


> Has anyone tried Battlefield 1 in Dolby Atmos on PC? I imagine if Battlefront sounds amazing in Atmos I think BF1 will take it up a notch.


Update for bitstream not released yet.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

murlidher said:


> In such situation where the back wall is close to listening position, is the front height or top front is recommended with top middle position?
> 
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


Greetings,
For my Atmos setup, my MLP is against the back wall so i went with front height and top middle configuration and it sounds amazing. Im no expert, but i would think both top front and top middle would be a little too close, perhaps I am wrong.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Greetings,
> For my Atmos setup, my MLP is against the back wall so i went with front height and top middle configuration and it sounds amazing. Im no expert, but i would think both top front and top middle would be a little too close, perhaps I am wrong.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


You are correct. In D+M equipment, at least, if you've selected Top Middle, you aren't allowed to select either Top Front or Top Rear, although Front Height or Rear Height are allowed.

FWIW, some people have reported getting a better overhead soundfield when they designated as either Top Rear or Rear Height those speakers which actually were in the locations recommended for Top Middle. I haven't tried that myself. I'm just too lazy to run the Audyssey calibration again.


----------



## smurraybhm

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, some people have reported getting a better overhead soundfield when they designated as either Top Rear or Rear Height those speakers which actually were in the locations recommended for Top Middle. I haven't tried that myself. I'm just too lazy to run the Audyssey calibration again.


I made this switch from FH/TM after reading the results of a few of our dedicated forum members listening tests with the Dolby Demo Disk w/ test tones (Marc, Sanjay and Scott - thank you). Without a doubt the effects are much better using what you suggest above. It is easy to hear the improvement if you have the Dolby Test Disk along with other material with active tops.

Like you it took me a while to get motivated to re-run Audyssey - never fails a dog barks in the middle of my test tones


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

Selden Ball said:


> You are correct. In D+M equipment, at least, if you've selected Top Middle, you aren't allowed to select either Top Front or Top Rear, although Front Height or Rear Height are allowed.
> 
> FWIW, some people have reported getting a better overhead soundfield when they designated as either Top Rear or Rear Height those speakers which actually were in the locations recommended for Top Middle. I haven't tried that myself. I'm just too lazy to run the Audyssey calibration again.


Ah, thank you for insight. I originally had mine designated as rear height. I changed it to top middle since that is more in line with their actual location. I reran audyssey and honestly...couldnt tell any difference in my room. 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## westbergjoakim

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, some people have reported getting a better overhead soundfield when they designated as either Top Rear or Rear Height those speakers which actually were in the locations recommended for Top Middle. I haven't tried that myself. I'm just too lazy to run the Audyssey calibration again.


Which setting do you mean? Top front and top middle but they are placed at top rear/rear height?


----------



## jrogers

westbergjoakim said:


> Which setting do you mean? Top front and top middle but they are placed at top rear/rear height?


The consensus here some time ago was that, even if speakers are physically placed in top middle position, the sound is better (particularly when panning front to back/back to front) when system is configured as front/rear. In my case, for example, top speakers are physically at FH/TM positions, but I have the system configured as FH/TR. fwiw, I found TF/TR to be slightly better in my room for Atmos/DSU, but now that I listen to both Atmos/DSU and DTS:X/Neural:X I've found FH/TR to be the best configuration/compromise.


----------



## murlidher

smurraybhm said:


> I made this switch from FH/TM after reading the results of a few of our dedicated forum members listening tests with the Dolby Demo Disk w/ test tones (Marc, Sanjay and Scott - thank you). Without a doubt the effects are much better using what you suggest above. It is easy to hear the improvement if you have the Dolby Test Disk along with other material with active tops.
> 
> Like you it took me a while to get motivated to re-run Audyssey - never fails a dog barks in the middle of my test tones


So what mode you use now? TF and RH
?

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## Livin

*Help with 7.2.4 Speaker Placement*

Guys, about to install ceiling speakers - please provide advice on placement.

Ceiling Speakers: Yamaha 3-way 8" NS-IW480CWH (dual aim-able tweeters) - photo attached
AVR: Denon X4300H

My "by the book" proposed placement diagram is attached. 
- Dolby math says, with my 9' ceilings, to get 45 degree angle, I need a 6' distance from MLP

Looking at most diagrams (2 examples attached) from Dolby and others the ceiling speakers look to be MUCH closer to MLP than my calculations?

Where would you place the ceiling speakers?
- at the 45 degree reference positions or ?
- inline with the FL/FR or ?

other suggestions?

thanks for the help!


----------



## smurraybhm

murlidher said:


> So what mode you use now? TF and RH
> ?
> 
> Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


TF/TR - if you search the thread or the immersive thread you will see a lengthy discussion regarding the benefits of doing this with Atmos. If you are running DTS:X then it is better to configure using FH/RH. One negative with D&M is you can't save speaker profiles for quick access like you can with Yamaha. So for optimal setup for the two different immersive codes with D&M you would have to re-load your Audyssey profiles to when switching your speaker setup back and forth to accommodate them. With Yamaha you can accomplish this by just pushing one button. 

Some will say the difference is indistinguishable, if that's you then enjoy and don't test 

So unless things change for D&M, this is one reason my next upgrade is likely to be a Yamaha 3060 or whatever succeeds it. Right now I am limited to Atmos only so its not a big deal. I am also enjoying the sound of my system without having X so I may not be upgrading until I decided to move on my from plasma to 4k and beyond.


----------



## raf77

I don't understand.
You have two setups of speakers, to switch between?
I have one setup 7.2.4 with FH and RH and run 3 systems on them Atmos, DTS-X and auro3d.


----------



## stangflyer

raf77 said:


> I don't understand.
> You have two setups of speakers, to switch between?
> I have one setup 7.2.4 with FH and RH and run 3 systems on them Atmos, DTS-X and auro3d.


I think what he is saying is that with one set of speakers on Atmos it sounds better with TF/TR as the speaker location setting. Then With X it is better with FH/RH as the speaker location setting. 

The speakers are not moving it is just the user changing the speaker location setting in amp assign.


----------



## raf77

That's wrong.
He should setup the real speakers location and do not touch it. Every time you change speakers location you need to do calibration again.


----------



## sdurani

raf77 said:


> He should setup the real speakers location and do not touch it.


If he sets up 4 speakers at 45 degrees elevation, Dolby calls that location "Tops" while DTS calls that same location "Heights". Which setting should he use?


----------



## healthnut

sdurani said:


> If he sets up 4 speakers at 45 degrees elevation, Dolby calls that location "Tops" while DTS calls that same location "Heights". Which setting should he use?




DTS:X should be designated as heights and Atmos as tops. AFAIK, only Yamaha allows you to create scenes to specify for this. With other brands, you'd need to manually change the configuration settings each time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## westbergjoakim

jrogers said:


> The consensus here some time ago was that, even if speakers are physically placed in top middle position, the sound is better (particularly when panning front to back/back to front) when system is configured as front/rear. In my case, for example, top speakers are physically at FH/TM positions, but I have the system configured as FH/TR. fwiw, I found TF/TR to be slightly better in my room for Atmos/DSU, but now that I listen to both Atmos/DSU and DTS:X/Neural:X I've found FH/TR to be the best configuration/compromise.


Thanks for replaying!

As now I have 4 inceiling speakers so I will go with tops. My room is 360cm long at the end where I'm playing and I have 155cm from ear to ceiling. Do you think 45° will work for me as top front or should I go with around 55°? That's around 100cm infront of me. With 45° the fronts will be placed at 220cm of 360cm.

And for top rear; you said that many feel that top middle placement works best and are the way to go. Should it be placed just in front of me, right above or just behind me? My MPL is 65cm from the back wall.

Thanks!


----------



## Livin

Livin said:


> Guys, about to install ceiling speakers - please provide advice on placement.
> 
> Ceiling Speakers: Yamaha 3-way 8" NS-IW480CWH (dual aim-able tweeters) - photo attached
> AVR: Denon X4300H
> 
> My "by the book" proposed placement diagram is attached.
> - Dolby math says, with my 9' ceilings, to get 45 degree angle, I need a 6' distance from MLP
> 
> Looking at most diagrams (2 examples attached) from Dolby and others the ceiling speakers look to be MUCH closer to MLP than my calculations?
> 
> Where would you place the ceiling speakers?
> - at the 45 degree reference positions or ?
> - inline with the FL/FR or ?
> 
> other suggestions?
> 
> thanks for the help!


No help?


----------



## Jonas2

Livin said:


> No help?


I think your math sounds right. With 9' ceilings, that puts your ear at about 36" off the floor, yeah? If that's true, then your 6' measurement would be correct for the 45 degree angle Dolby recommends. I don't know if those diagrams are to scale, I wouldn't worry about that.


----------



## raf77

healthnut said:


> DTS:X should be designated as heights and Atmos as tops. AFAIK, only Yamaha allows you to create scenes to specify for this. With other brands, you'd need to manually change the configuration settings each time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You not change manually every time.

Reference settings is as You said.
Tops(in ceiling) for atmos, Highs(on the wall) for dtsX.

But atmos can be played on FH, RH as well as dtsX can be played on TF, TR.
No need change anything.

You choose one's when you hook your speakers, which layout in better for you and you staying with that choice.


----------



## Selden Ball

raf77 said:


> You not change manually every time.
> 
> Reference settings is as You said.
> Tops(in ceiling) for atmos, Highs(on the wall) for dtsX.
> 
> But atmos can be played on FH, RH as well as dtsX can be played on TF, TR.
> No need change anything.
> 
> You choose one's when you hook your speakers, which layout in better for you and you staying with that choice.


Sorry, but you misunderstand the problem.

The physical in-ceiling locations at +/- 45 degrees are called "Tops" by Atmos but are called "Heights" by DTS:X. 
It's quite annoying.

With D+M equipment, one can Save/Load the receiver's settings (Including speaker designations and Audyssey calibration) to a computer, but it takes about 10 minutes to do either. That's too much bother for most people. As a result, many people are just using the Top designations because there are many more Atmos soundtracks than DTS:X.


----------



## raf77

I think, you don't understand Atmos and DTS-X speakers setup.
Difference is not only call them top or high.
There is different physical location of speakers.
You can't switch between, just like that.

If your setup is FH, RH you should choice that and stay with that.
When speakers are on ceiling, you should choice TF, TR 
Change to High in menu if physically speakers are Top mounted (in ceiling) is wrong.


----------



## sdurani

raf77 said:


> Difference is not only call them top or high.
> There is different physical location of speakers.


No, same location (45 degrees elevation) different names (Dolby=Tops, DTS=Heights).


----------



## raf77

Basically.No.
If something like you said will be needed, to change every time, between Atmos and DTS-X, probably every manufacturer will ad button on remote for that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Most people rather deny that it really is a thing and just not worry about it.


Cuz it sounds fine!


----------



## sdurani

raf77 said:


> If something like you said...


It's definitely like I said. Here's proof: 










Same speaker locations (circled in green), two different names: Atmos calls it Tops (see the "t" in the speaker designations) while DTS:X callis it Heights (see the "h" in the speaker designations).


----------



## raf77

You missed important information.
Top is in ceiling.
High is on wall.
That's real difference.


----------



## Scott Simonian

raf77 said:


> You missed important information.
> Top is in ceiling.
> High is on wall.
> That's real difference.


----------



## sdurani

raf77 said:


> High is on wall.


Only for Atmos (and Auro), but not for DTS:X. Again, here's proof: 










Note the DTS:X "Heights" are on the ceiling, elevated 45 degrees (same as Atmos "Tops"). Same location, two different names.


----------



## Josh Z

raf77 said:


> You missed important information.
> Top is in ceiling.
> High is on wall.
> That's real difference.


You are incorrect. Sanjay is correct. 

Dolby and DTS use different terminology for the same speakers. Dolby calls in-ceiling speakers "Tops" while DTS calls those exact same in-ceiling speakers "Heights."

If you set your A/V receiver to call these speakers "Top," it will be correct for Atmos but incorrect for DTS:X. If you set the receiver to call the speakers "Height," it will be correct for DTS:X and incorrect for Atmos. There is no single setting in the receiver that is correct for both.

Because there are far more Atmos soundtracks available on video now, most people set the receiver for "Top" and just let the few DTS:X soundtracks be wrong.

You will still get audio from those speakers even with the wrong setting. However, the way the receiver decodes the soundtrack may not put as much information (or not the correct information) in those speakers as it should.


----------



## raf77

Ok.
You right follow this picture, but still, don't know what you need to change with your setup, when playing films Atmos and DTS-X?
Your speakers are I ceiling.
So you need to choose ceiling speakers in your AV, no matter what they call.
Location is important.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> Because there are far more Atmos soundtracks available on video now, most people set the receiver for "Top"* and just let the few DTS:X soundtracks be wrong.*
> 
> You will still get audio from those speakers even with the wrong setting. However, *the way the receiver decodes the soundtrack may not put as much information (or not the correct information) in those speakers as it should.*


Woah. Careful there, Josh.

I got run out of this forum by angry Denon-ites when I said this. 

"I'm hearing things above me and it sounds great! You're a jerk, Scott for saying this untrue nonsense. Go to hell!"

But as long as Sanjay says it...then it's correct!


----------



## Josh Z

Scott Simonian said:


> Woah. Careful there, Josh.
> 
> I got run out of this forum by angry Denon-ites when I said this.


What were they arguing?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol. That I was wrong cuz they could still hear things and it sounded "fine".

Really it was just insecurity, denial and laziness on their part. Nobody wants to keep track (nor do I!) and switch settings for certain movies. I get that. It's a dumb situation but it IS the situation with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X native playback.


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Woah. Careful there, Josh.
> 
> I got run out of this forum by angry Denon-ites when I said this.
> 
> "I'm hearing things above me and it sounds great! You're a jerk, Scott for saying this untrue nonsense. Go to hell!"
> 
> But as long as Sanjay says it...then it's correct!





Josh Z said:


> What were they arguing?


 I just went back to using *Tops* for that very reason! DTS:X must now sit at the" Lil Kids table" :laugh:


----------



## raf77

Josh Z said:


> You are incorrect. Sanjay is correct.
> 
> Dolby and DTS use different terminology for the same speakers. Dolby calls in-ceiling speakers "Tops" while DTS calls those exact same in-ceiling speakers "Heights."
> 
> If you set your A/V receiver to call these speakers "Top," it will be correct for Atmos but incorrect for DTS:X. If you set the receiver to call the speakers "Height," it will be correct for DTS:X and incorrect for Atmos. There is no single setting in the receiver that is correct for both.
> 
> Because there are far more Atmos soundtracks available on video now, most people set the receiver for "Top" and just let the few DTS:X soundtracks be wrong.
> 
> You will still get audio from those speakers even with the wrong setting. However, the way the receiver decodes the soundtrack may not put as much information (or not the correct information) in those speakers as it should.


As I said.
No matter what you call them.
Location is important for AV to make correct calibration.


----------



## Scott Simonian

And for what it's worth, with DTS:X and set to TOP, you'll still get audio out of your overheads. 

I just wouldn't describe the soundfield as "stable" when left that way. Better than flat 7.1? Ehhh....well, it's something.


----------



## Scott Simonian

raf77 said:


> As I said.
> No matter what you call them.
> Location is important for AV to make correct calibration.


Equally important is the correct choice of settings in said "correct calibration".


----------



## smurraybhm

I just want to thank Sanjay for the giving me a reason to try Yamaha after a few Denons in a row. If it had been Scott's work only it would have been wrong 
Just kidding Scott. The time you, Sanjay and Marc took to do all this testing is greatly appreciated and is overlooked too often in our answering questions about Atmos/X setups. In most cases we have people who aren't being advised that there are two optimal speaker designations for our two prominent immersive formats (sorry Auro guys). Important info to have if you want to hear things optimally. 

That's not to say Audioguy isn't being smart by just setting things for Atmos. Big thumbs up for Star Trek Beyond - great mix.


----------



## grendelrt

Josh Z said:


> You are incorrect. Sanjay is correct.
> 
> Dolby and DTS use different terminology for the same speakers. Dolby calls in-ceiling speakers "Tops" while DTS calls those exact same in-ceiling speakers "Heights."
> 
> If you set your A/V receiver to call these speakers "Top," it will be correct for Atmos but incorrect for DTS:X. If you set the receiver to call the speakers "Height," it will be correct for DTS:X and incorrect for Atmos. There is no single setting in the receiver that is correct for both.
> 
> Because there are far more Atmos soundtracks available on video now, most people set the receiver for "Top" and just let the few DTS:X soundtracks be wrong.
> 
> You will still get audio from those speakers even with the wrong setting. However, the way the receiver decodes the soundtrack may not put as much information (or not the correct information) in those speakers as it should.


Whoa whoa, so when I set up my denon for atmos using tf and tr the receiver doesn't make that assumption for dtsx?

I mean during setup it shows a picture for that terminology of where that speaker is placed, I would assume it knows that placement for both codecs and doesn't care what dts or Dolby calls them. I can't see people changing the speaker setup everytime they put in a different disc with whatever codec.


----------



## richlife

grendelrt said:


> Whoa whoa, so when I set up my denon for atmos using tf and tr the receiver doesn't make that assumption for dtsx?
> 
> I mean during setup it shows a picture for that terminology of where that speaker is placed, I would assume it knows that placement for both codecs and doesn't care what dts or Dolby calls them. I can't see people changing the speaker setup everytime they put in a different disc with whatever codec.


Reading through all this of the past day or so, I did see mention that Yamaha allows for Scene configuration so that you can use the proper Atmos and DTS:X terminology for setting up your speakers -- and with judicious placement of the speakers you can use the same physical setup to configure the two different Scenes that will allow running differently encoded discs for the proper playback. It DOES make a difference (as said by Scott, Sanjay, Josh, etc.) because the software in the AVRs interprets sound placement based on the use of the appropriate terminology.

So that was just a repetition -- but what no one pointed out is that @PioManiac in his signature thread on p9, not only defines how to set up the needed Yamaha Scenes, but also shows pics so that you all can go and look to see that this is all true. And for those like me, we can easily use our Yamaha A3050/A3060 to configure those scenes so that we have that ability to select to properly playback an Atmos or a DTS:X disc as needed or at whim. (Or even, as Scott alluded to, switch them as desired to see just how the placement of sound is different if you choose the "wrong" decoding technique -- or terminology.)

Want to see for yourself? Go look or just click here to start reading and seeing: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...-new-house-basement-plans-9.html#post42312705

(I get a nickel for every time I plug Pio's thread -- I'm a rich man now -- see my username?)


----------



## giftedmd

Here is what it looks like in the Denon menu when select heights vs tops. I have been going by the picture was well. 


















If it is in ceiling you select tops and if they are on the front and rear walls you select heights. So we are supposed to do the height setup even though we have in ceiling to get dts x to play correctly? Weird. There may not be a lot of dts x movies right now but there is a lot of dts and dts true HD which get up mixed to dts neural x. Want to make sure I'm getting the most out of those as well. Guess I'll need to do some experimenting. I like dts neural x. I hope I can't tell a difference.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Look. It's all about the angles.

Dolby assumes HEIGHTS are at 30 degrees elevation and TOPS are 45 degrees elevation.

DTS assumes HEIGHTS are at 45 degrees elevation and TOPS are at 60 degrees elevation.



Way too many people are taking the DIAGRAMS (for illustrative purposes) WAY too literally. HEIGHTS "have to be" on the wall? No they don't. That's just a suggestion. They have to be at 30 degrees (for Dolby) and 45 degrees (for DTS). They DON'T 'have to be' on the wall for them to be HEIGHTS. That's ridiculous and untrue. 

There is no requirement that they must be on the wall. They DO need to meet the angle requirements though for proper playback.

Pretty easy stuff guys.


----------



## sdurani

raf77 said:


> ...don't know what you need to change with your setup, when playing films Atmos and DTS-X?


You don't need to change physical location of the speakers. Atmos has 10 possible speaker locations above. DTS:X has 13 possible speaker locations above. Thankfully, there are 4 speaker locations in common between both formats. That means one speaker layout can satisfy Atmos and DTS:X. That's good news. 

As mentioned, the bad news is that the common locations (at 45 degrees elevation) have different names, depending on format. For those that have Atmos and DTS:X demo discs with speaker identification tracks, Atmos will render to the common locations when the speakers are designated as Tops, DTS:X will render to the common locations when those speakers are labeled Heights. 

Hopefully there will be a fix eventually that will allow the rendering engines on both formats to understand that Atmos Tops = DTS:X Heights. Until then, you can switch between the two settings, or just choose one setting and not worry about it.


----------



## jrogers

westbergjoakim said:


> Thanks for replaying!
> 
> As now I have 4 inceiling speakers so I will go with tops. My room is 360cm long at the end where I'm playing and I have 155cm from ear to ceiling. Do you think 45° will work for me as top front or should I go with around 55°? That's around 100cm infront of me. With 45° the fronts will be placed at 220cm of 360cm.
> 
> And for top rear; you said that many feel that top middle placement works best and are the way to go. Should it be placed just in front of me, right above or just behind me? My MPL is 65cm from the back wall.
> 
> Thanks!


Sorry... I didn't mean to imply that top middle placement works best with 4 height speakers, what I meant is that if you can't physically position speakers at top rear and have to position at top middle (e.g. when the couch is against the back wall) it is still best to set the AVR configuration to top rear. If you can position the speakers behind the listening position then, by all means, do so and just configure the avr accordingly.

Given you're just 65cm from the back, it may well be your speakers will be at what would be considered a top middle position in order to get some separation from other speakers.


----------



## Josh Z

raf77 said:


> As I said.
> No matter what you call them.
> Location is important for AV to make correct calibration.


No one has ever said otherwise. But that is not the argument you've been having with others in this thread. 

You insisted: "Top is in ceiling. High is on wall."

That is not correct. In DTS:X, "Height" speakers are also in the ceiling.

If you put speakers in the ceiling at 45-degrees from your listening position, Dolby calls those speakers "Top" but DTS calls those same speakers "Height." There is no single setting in the receiver that accurately identifies those speakers for both formats.

Either you have to manually change the setting (and recalibrate) every time you listen to a different format, or you just let one format be wrong and learn to live with it.


----------



## richlife

giftedmd said:


> Here is what it looks like in the Denon menu when select heights vs tops. I have been going by the picture was well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is in ceiling you select tops and if they are on the front and rear walls you select heights. So we are supposed to do the height setup even though we have in ceiling to get dts x to play correctly? Weird. There may not be a lot of dts x movies right now but there is a lot of dts and dts true HD which get up mixed to dts neural x. Want to make sure I'm getting the most out of those as well. Guess I'll need to do some experimenting. I like dts neural x. I hope I can't tell a difference.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I heartily agree (and I bet most everyone who had taken the extra time to do it will also agree) -- experimentation BEFORE you lock it all up is your best option. Despite any rules and recommendations, your ears, your room, your equipment and your setup will not be the same as anyone else's. 

I know I started off with a plan and it took weeks of moving things around, experimenting with setups and listening to lots of different sources before I finally started to nail down the wiring and cutting into my ceiling. And in the end, I had only 4 overhead speakers of two different types to deal with. Experiment and give it time. THEN you will end up happy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Recalibrate for Denon/Marantz.

Yamaha has two full system configuration PATTERNS available. Those of us aware of this format nuisance have been using them to the full effect. One for Dolby, one for DTS.


----------



## grendelrt

Josh Z said:


> No one has ever said otherwise. But that is not the argument you've been having with others in this thread.
> 
> You insisted: "Top is in ceiling. High is on wall."
> 
> That is not correct. In DTS:X, "Height" speakers are also in the ceiling.
> 
> If you put speakers in the ceiling at 45-degrees from your listening position, Dolby calls those speakers "Top" but DTS calls those same speakers "Height." There is no single setting in the receiver that accurately identifies those speakers for both formats.
> 
> Either you have to manually change the setting (and recalibrate) every time you listen to a different format, or you just let one format be wrong and learn to live with it.





Scott Simonian said:


> Recalibrate for Denon/Marantz.
> 
> Yamaha has two full system configuration PATTERNS available. Those of us aware of this format nuisance have been using them to the full effect. One for Dolby, one for DTS.


Totally get what you guys are saying, just kind of bewildered that this is a thing to begin with. Just seems like absolute common sense that the receiver manufacturer would have you put the speaker location and then assign the DTS or Dolby layout that fits with that location and give 2 ****s about what Dolby and DTS call them :O


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> Recalibrate for Denon/Marantz.
> 
> Yamaha has two full system configuration PATTERNS available. Those of us aware of this format nuisance have been using them to the full effect. One for Dolby, one for DTS.


Yes. Yamaha also has a Power Amp Assign in their setup. With that, you can change your configuration from something like 7.2.2 +1Zone to 7.2.4 [ext RP] on-the-fly if that provides you with better physical setup options. And that can be done via a smartphone from any location in your network by using the ip addr\setup menus with a browser. 

That has given me far more flexibility in managing my system the way I want at any time. N ever doubt that I will always choose a 7.2.4 setup (over a 7.2.2) when watching an appropriately encoded movie. But that extra Zone is great when I want music outside!


----------



## giftedmd

This is a nuisance but not sure it's worth trading audyssey for YPAO just to use the yamaha receivers.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## giftedmd

Scott Simonian said:


> Look. It's all about the angles.
> 
> Dolby assumes HEIGHTS are at 30 degrees elevation and TOPS are 45 degrees elevation.
> 
> DTS assumes HEIGHTS are at 45 degrees elevation and TOPS are at 60 degrees elevation.
> 
> 
> 
> Way too many people are taking the DIAGRAMS (for illustrative purposes) WAY too literally. HEIGHTS "have to be" on the wall? No they don't. That's just a suggestion. They have to be at 30 degrees (for Dolby) and 45 degrees (for DTS). They DON'T 'have to be' on the wall for them to be HEIGHTS. That's ridiculous and untrue.
> 
> There is no requirement that they must be on the wall. They DO need to meet the angle requirements though for proper playback.
> 
> Pretty easy stuff guys.


Thanks! I hopefully shouldn't notice too much difference then since my in ceiling speakers are around 50-55 degrees of elevation to make sure I am in the sweet spot of their 90 degree horizontal dispersion pattern. That is still ok for Atmos and may be close enough to 60 degrees for tops in dts x as well. I will do some experimenting but will likely leave set as tops on my Denon.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

grendelrt said:


> Totally get what you guys are saying, just kind of bewildered that this is a thing to begin with. Just seems like absolute common sense that the receiver manufacturer would have you put the speaker location and then assign the DTS or Dolby layout that fits with that location and give 2 ****s about what Dolby and DTS call them :O


The fact that DTS calls its speaker locations something different than Dolby already standardized defies all common sense.

Imagine if DTS decided to call the Left/Center/Right main speakers "Port, Forward and Starboard" and made them incompatible with the normal settings for L/C/R, for no reason other than to be different. That's pretty much what happened here.


----------



## grendelrt

Josh Z said:


> The fact that DTS calls its speaker locations something different than Dolby already standardized defies all common sense.
> 
> Imagine if DTS decided to call the Left/Center/Right main speakers "Port, Forward and Starboard" and made them incompatible with the normal settings for L/C/R, for no reason other than to be different. That's pretty much what happened here.


Exactly , its crazy this is a thing on second gen DTSX receivers, you would think at this point the manufacturer would just say you can call it ramen noodles for all I care but I am using the location of the speaker not the terminology. 

Worst case, let them call it whatever they want, but instead of having one location for both codecs in the setup , have the user set the speaker locations independently for atmos and dtsx then there is no confusion. Audyssey (Denon) doesnt care about codecs when setting delays, volumes, etc.


----------



## raf77

Exactly.

I see the boy's point of view, but I don't think there is much different between 30° or 45° and between, top and high in your case.
Personally I have 7.3.4 systems with FH and RH.
Run 3 systems on this set up with maratz sr7010 and auro3d.
No problems at all.


----------



## zeus33

grendelrt said:


> Exactly , its crazy this is a thing on second gen DTSX receivers, you would think at this point the manufacturer would just say you can call it ramen noodles for all I care but I am using the location of the speaker not the terminology.



Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the manufacturers can't do anything about how it's handled. All of that is done within DTS' code. The receiver can't change what DTS does within their codec. Same with Dolby and Atmos.

The only solution is the way that Yamaha handles it. I seriously doubt that they created it for this reason. It was probably existing and just happens to be extremely beneficial for these circumstances.

DTS did it intentionally to be "different". All they had to do, was utilize the existing terminology and placement. Especially since they love to say "you can put your speakers anywhere and it works great!"


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> The fact that DTS calls its speaker locations something different than Dolby already standardized defies all common sense.
> 
> Imagine if DTS decided to call the Left/Center/Right main speakers "Port, Forward and Starboard" and made them incompatible with the normal settings for L/C/R, for no reason other than to be different. That's pretty much what happened here.


DTS used the same names that Dolby did: Heights and Tops. They even mimicked the same structure that Dolby did: lower elevation angle = Heights, higher elevation angle = Tops. But they apparently missed the memo when it came to elevation angles. Not unreasonable, considering the two rival companies weren't sharing specifications when creating their respective immersive audio formats.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Josh Z said:


> The fact that DTS calls its speaker locations something different than Dolby already standardized defies all common sense.
> 
> Imagine if DTS decided to call the Left/Center/Right main speakers "Port, Forward and Starboard" and made them incompatible with the normal settings for L/C/R, for no reason other than to be different. That's pretty much what happened here.


That would be...._fantastic!_

I'd get to wear my Admiral's hat and everything.


----------



## Scott Simonian

giftedmd said:


> This is a nuisance but not sure it's worth trading audyssey for YPAO just to use the yamaha receivers.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Yeah, what a shame.

I totally bought this Yamaha _just_ for the YPAO too. 




A total coincidence that it's 100% awesome, yo! *wicked guitar riff*


----------



## grendelrt

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, what a shame.
> 
> I totally bought this Yamaha _just_ for the YPAO too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A total coincidence that it's 100% awesome, yo! *wicked guitar riff*


Haha this totally got me cracking up


----------



## Marc Alexander

giftedmd said:


> Here is what it looks like in the Denon menu when select heights vs tops. I have been going by the picture was well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is in ceiling you select tops and if they are on the front and rear walls you select heights. So we are supposed to do the height setup even though we have in ceiling to get dts x to play correctly? Weird. There may not be a lot of dts x movies right now but there is a lot of dts and dts true HD which get up mixed to dts neural x. Want to make sure I'm getting the most out of those as well. Guess I'll need to do some experimenting. I like dts neural x. I hope I can't tell a difference.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk





grendelrt said:


> Totally get what you guys are saying, just kind of bewildered that this is a thing to begin with. *Just seems like absolute common sense that the receiver manufacturer would have you put the speaker location and then assign the DTS or Dolby layout that fits with that location and give 2 ****s about what Dolby and DTS call them :O*


*
I agree 100%
I think that is what D/M was trying to do when they released their "Universal Layout" for Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro3D. Unfortunately, DTS:X was so new the assumption was that a DTS height was analogous with Auro3D HEIGHT and not Dolby TOP. 

I'm hoping that a future update from D/M will resolve this. I know they don't want Yammy to have a leg up. I will make sure my D/M dealer @SteveH is aware. I suggest others do the same and I'm confident it will be resolved by 2018!  😜 

My fingers are crossed for sometime in 2017. The fix should be easy but will require a manual addendum and minor changes in the layout selection screen. Universal Layout has a nice ring to it!*


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> DTS used the same names that Dolby did: Heights and Tops. They even mimicked the same structure that Dolby did: lower elevation angle = Heights, higher elevation angle = Tops. But they apparently missed the memo when it came to elevation angles. Not unreasonable, considering the two rival companies weren't sharing specifications when creating their respective immersive audio formats.


They may not have shared specifications, but it's not like these products were released simultaneously. Dolby had a substantial headstart and market presence long before DTS:X was finalized. Because Auro was a non-starter, Dolby's speaker designations and placement guidelines became the effective standard. That DTS chose to ignore that (even while copying Dolby's "Height" and "Top" names) is needlessly frustrating.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> They may not have shared specifications, but it's not like these products were released simultaneously.


They were being developed concurrently. So while it might have been easy to change labels to conform with Atmos naming conventions, doing a last minute change to the algorithm's baked-in rendering assumptions (azimuth and elevation angles) would not have been so trivial. Besides, they were doing all they could just to get the product out.


> Dolby had a substantial headstart and market presence long before DTS:X was finalized.


DTS:X had already been finalized. The year-long delay was to work out enough bugs to release product. Not like they spent that year deciding speaker locations. Those locations (rendering assumptions) had already been coded into the decoders that chipmakers were programming AND into encoders that studios had received. The first DTS:X soundtrack, _'Ex Machina'_, was released more than 6 months ahead of the first DTS:X decoder. If they had changed rendering assumptions in the decoder, then already released DTS:X titles like _'Ex Machina'_, _'American Ultra', __'Last Witch Hunter'_ and _'Crimson Peak'_ would not have decoded correctly.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Besides, they were doing all they could just to get the product out.


And maybe that is the the problem. Too much focus on "we need to get this out there" than "we need to get this in shape for a release to the public".

In retrospect, it makes sense considering the financial troubles DTS has had. But still.


Make a good product now or a great product later. Funny thing is that we did have to wait an extra year and then some and still got a "needs a day 1 patch" product.

Just like videogames. Ugh.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> They were being developed concurrently. So while it might have been easy to change labels to conform with Atmos naming conventions, doing a last minute change to the algorithm's baked-in rendering assumptions (azimuth and elevation angles) would not have been so trivial. Besides, they were doing all they could just to get the product out. DTS:X had already been finalized. The year-long delay was to work out enough bugs to release product. Not like they spent that year deciding speaker locations. Those locations (rendering assumptions) had already been coded into the decoders that chipmakers were programming AND into encoders that studios had received. The first DTS:X soundtrack, _'Ex Machina'_, was released more than 6 months ahead of the first DTS:X decoder. If they had changed rendering assumptions in the decoder, then already released DTS:X titles like _'Ex Machina'_, _'American Ultra', __'Last Witch Hunter'_ and _'Crimson Peak'_ would not have decoded correctly.


OK, Sanjay. I'll defer to you on this. I still think it's annoying, though.


----------



## TheWaz

When I ran the YPAO setup on my 3050 I enabled the Angle/Height Measurement Mode and used the 4-position microphone stand when taking measurements. The manual says that Angle/Height Measurement Mode "Enables the angle/height measurement. The unit will measure angle of each speaker and height of the presence speakers at the listening position, and correct the speaker parameters so that CINEMA DSP can create more effective sound fields". If the 3050 knows where all of the speakers are then wont it automatically adjust to deliver the best sound for the speaker configuration?


----------



## Scott Simonian

You would think it should but it doesn't.


----------



## kokishin

Josh Z said:


> OK, Sanjay. I'll defer to you on this. I still think it's annoying, though.


*Resistance is futile.*


----------



## gwsat

TheWaz said:


> When I ran the YPAO setup on my 3050 I enabled the Angle/Height Measurement Mode and used the 4-position microphone stand when taking measurements. The manual says that Angle/Height Measurement Mode "Enables the angle/height measurement. The unit will measure angle of each speaker and height of the presence speakers at the listening position, and correct the speaker parameters so that CINEMA DSP can create more effective sound fields". If the 3050 knows where all of the speakers are then wont it automatically adjust to deliver the best sound for the speaker configuration?





Scott Simonian said:


> You would think it should but it doesn't.


I have a Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver. Do you know What Scene settings to use to optimize Atmos and DTS:X, respectively? I may be in the wrong thread for this but here seems to be the best bet to find out about settings for immersive codecs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> I have a Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver. Do you know What Scene settings to use to optimize Atmos and DTS:X, respectively? I may be in the wrong thread for this but here seems to be the best bet to find out about settings for immersive codecs.


That's not a thing, Gwsat.

A 'SCENE' is a preset of various settings including: input, surround mode, EQ, etc.

There is no particular one to "optimize" Atmos or DTS:X. You optimize them by configuring all the settings appropriately during initial setup. Such as level, delay/distance, EQ, etc.



It's not like there is an all encompassing "ENHANCE" button somewhere on the remote as a big red button. The "make everything awesome" button. 


Weed or shrooms might help with that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Oh wait. 

There is actually an ENHANCER button. 

It adds all sorts of ringing and "enhances" the sound by making it worse.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> It's not like there is an all encompassing "ENHANCE" button somewhere on the remote as a big red button. The "make everything awesome" button.


Thank God! I decided a long time ago that the wonderful "Enhanced (Cinema DSP HD3) on my Yamaha RX-A3060 would solve all of my problems for me. I have been happy with that but thought I would ask if some other 3060 owner might have a solution for DTS:X that they thought was better than the Enhanced DSP.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Umm...

Well, yeah.

The CinemaDSP "Enhanced" is just a room simulation mode. You still need to *decode* the format either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X.

You can apply CinemaDSP _over_ a decoded signal. They are two completely different things.


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> I have a Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver. Do you know What Scene settings to use to optimize Atmos and DTS:X, respectively? I may be in the wrong thread for this but here seems to be the best bet to find out about settings for immersive codecs.


Gee, uh, duh -- I guess I get another nickel.  Sorry, @gwsat but once again the answer is in @PioManiac's signature thread, p9. You create the Scene, you save the Scene, you backup the A3060 setup and it's there whenever you need to Restore it. Or just call up the Atmos or DTS:X Scene when you want it.

I just installed my new AMP100VS for RPs, and while it provides CLOSE to the same output as my temporary amp, I still need to once again run YPAO, make the adjustments I want (yes, I'm one who does not accept YPAO as is -- my listening room is just not designed that way), and then redefine the Scenes to work with this amp. 

And now that I finally have the final physical setup for my theater, I also plan to redo everything with my window insulating blinds in place (a solid window wall is the left side of my room). That will allow me to enjoy my system regardless of outside weather conditions and with the best SOUND options available. 

Link to Pio's Scene configuration info: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...42-finally-my-new-house-basement-plans-9.html


----------



## jpco

gwsat said:


> I have a Yamaha RX-A3060 receiver. Do you know What Scene settings to use to optimize Atmos and DTS:X, respectively? I may be in the wrong thread for this but here seems to be the best bet to find out about settings for immersive codecs.



What some do is use 2 patterns to designate the height layer differently, one pattern with overhead designation for Atmos and the other pattern as heights for DTS:X. These designations cause the sounds to map discretely for each format. 

The patterns are then assigned to separate scenes for one-touch switching.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Umm...
> 
> Well, yeah.
> 
> The CinemaDSP "Enhanced" is just a room simulation mode. You still need to *decode* the format either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X.
> 
> You can apply CinemaDSP _over_ a decoded signal. They are two completely different things.


My Yamaha RX-A3060 decodes DTS:X or Atmos automatically when it receives a DTS:X or Atmos signal. Yamaha’s Enhanced DSP does not disable this signal, it only enhances it. I have done A/B companions while playing Atmos soundtracks and shifted between “Straight” (no additional processing) and the Enhanced DSP (Cinema DSP HD3). To my ears at least, the Enhanced DSP sounds slightly better. Don’t have any DTS:X soundtracks yet, so have no idea how the Enhanced DSP would work with it.



jpco said:


> What some do is use 2 patterns to designate the height layer differently, one pattern with overhead designation for Atmos and the other pattern as heights for DTS:X. These designations cause the sounds to map discretely for each format.
> 
> The patterns are then assigned to separate scenes for one-touch switching.


Thanks. This is what I was asking about. I will checkout the references given above and see if I can’t create Scenes specific to Atmos and DTS:X, respectively.


----------



## westbergjoakim

jrogers said:


> Sorry... I didn't mean to imply that top middle placement works best with 4 height speakers, what I meant is that if you can't physically position speakers at top rear and have to position at top middle (e.g. when the couch is against the back wall) it is still best to set the AVR configuration to top rear. If you can position the speakers behind the listening position then, by all means, do so and just configure the avr accordingly.
> 
> Given you're just 65cm from the back, it may well be your speakers will be at what would be considered a top middle position in order to get some separation from other speakers.


Ah, okey! I'm with you ☺ Thanks!
But for my fronts, where do you think they will be placed best? As said, my room are 360cm long at the shortside where I'm playing. 45° will be placed 155cm in front of me (220cm from the back wall) or at 55° that are around 100cm infront of me. Thanks!


----------



## mburton875

RSL speaker atmos placement

I installed my ceiling speakers for atmos (RSL speakers) and when my back row is reclined, my ear is about in the middle of the back speaker (the fronts are in front of the front row). 

Do you think that is back far enough for the correct effect? I'd hate to have to move them since we cut a hole in the ceiling


----------



## aviaction

I have Yammi RX A3040 so only Atmos. Have just gone 7.2.4 using Kef eggs set high up as possible on front wall either side of screen and behind on rear wall, again high as possible just above and behind the listening couch, as front and rear presence speakers.

I find using Rain demo on Atmos demo disc the sound comes from above as though its raining on our ceiling (very impressed). Set without, the sound radiates high around the room.
So advise anyone who doesn't want to cut holes in their ceiling F/R presence appear to work well.


----------



## jrogers

westbergjoakim said:


> Ah, okey! I'm with you ☺ Thanks!
> But for my fronts, where do you think they will be placed best? As said, my room are 360cm long at the shortside where I'm playing. 45° will be placed 155cm in front of me (220cm from the back wall) or at 55° that are around 100cm infront of me. Thanks!


Best if you can listen and compare, and it might not make a significant difference, but given you are "cheating" the rears forward, I'd push the fronts forward as well.


----------



## mburton875

jrogers said:


> Best if you can listen and compare, and it might not make a significant difference, but given you are "cheating" the rears forward, I'd push the fronts forward as well.


Ok. thanks..that was my thought I'll listen to it and try to move my chair around and see. If anyone has any other thoughts let me know


----------



## richlife

jrogers said:


> Best if you can listen and compare, and it might not make a significant difference, but given you are "cheating" the rears forward, I'd push the fronts forward as well.


Unless there is a significantly bad setup or placement choice, this is always the BEST advice. Squeezing a foot forward or backward can make big differences and only you know if you have the room to play with.



mburton875 said:


> Ok. thanks..that was my thought I'll listen to it and try to move my chair around and see. If anyone has any other thoughts let me know


You indicated your REAR seats put you under the RP when reclined. Do you watch movies fully reclined? If there is room to move seating, that's the place to start if speaker placement is fixed. If you're trying to place speakers, be sure you have your seats setup the way you view. Are your rear seats your MLP? You have to look at what you have to play with and TEST/EXPERIMENT if there is any question of placement. Install wire and cut walls/ceiling LAST only after you're sure.


----------



## mburton875

richlife said:


> Unless there is a significantly bad setup or placement choice, this is always the BEST advice. Squeezing a foot forward or backward can make big differences and only you know if you have the room to play with.
> 
> 
> 
> You indicated your REAR seats put you under the RP when reclined. Do you watch movies fully reclined? If there is room to move seating, that's the place to start if speaker placement is fixed. If you're trying to place speakers, be sure you have your seats setup the way you view. Are your rear seats your MLP? You have to look at what you have to play with and TEST/EXPERIMENT if there is any question of placement. Install wire and cut walls/ceiling LAST only after you're sure.


Yeah, thats a good point Rich Life. I could move the back row forward 4 inches which would put the ear just in front of the rear ceiling speaker. However, if I do that I'd have to move my front row 4 inches which would then put my front ceiling speakers now not in front of the front row. 

If I listen to it and it all sounds good I'll leave it. It might not make much of a difference. But if it does, I'll move the seats where I only have to move two of the ceiling speakers. If I'm looking at moving the back speakers 4-6 inches to be slightly behind the ear that won't be too much of a gap in the ceiling so I wonder if I could patch that without it being noticed versus having to re paint and texture the whole ceiling. The texture might be tough to match but its only 6 inches. Also wondered if their is a trim band I could put around the speaker to cover most of it.

What I think I might do if it doesn't sound right is move the whole thing forward 5 inches. That would put the rear ceilings just behind the ear on the back row. I'll have to measure it but that would mean moving my front ceiling speakers 3-4 inches to be in front of the front row ears.. If I get some sort of band for the trim of the speaker that might cover an inch of it.


----------



## remidian

I just picked up a Samsung 8000 TV and I am trying to see if I should replace my Sony BDV-N890W (Blu ray, 5.1 player) since I have a Samsung K8500 coming in a couple days. The audio on the Sony works great for me but I want to get the best audio from my PS4 and K8500 and I don't think that will be possible via optical from the TV to the Sony while having the K8500 and PS4 hooked up to the TV VIA HDMI. I do not believe this model Sony supports HDMI 2.0 or Arc? I am trying to find info on that right now.

I was about to buy the Samsung Atmos 5.1 soundbar but I see it doesnt support DTS and I still want to be able to watch my Blu Rays with good audio and most of them have DTS.

Can anyone suggest a good Atmos/DTS 5.1 system? I'm currently browsing everywhere trying to find something because I am having everything installed and mounted in a couple days. Thank you very much for your help.


----------



## remidian

remidian said:


> I just picked up a Samsung 8000 TV and I am trying to see if I should replace my Sony BDV-N890W (Blu ray, 5.1 player) since I have a Samsung K8500 coming in a couple days. The audio on the Sony works great for me but I want to get the best audio from my PS4 and K8500 and I don't think that will be possible via optical from the TV to the Sony while having the K8500 and PS4 hooked up to the TV VIA HDMI. I do not believe this model Sony supports HDMI 2.0 or Arc? I am trying to find info on that right now.
> 
> I was about to buy the Samsung Atmos 5.1 soundbar but I see it doesnt support DTS and I still want to be able to watch my Blu Rays with good audio and most of them have DTS.
> 
> Can anyone suggest a good Atmos/DTS 5.1 system? I'm currently browsing everywhere trying to find something because I am having everything installed and mounted in a couple days. Thank you very much for your help.


Unfortunately I don't see a way to edit my post. The Sony does have an Arc port but the audio stops for a second approximately every 1-2 minutes while using HBO now or Netflix. I have not tried a Blu-Ray yet.

Currently I am trying to figure out if this Sony Blu Ray player I have supports HDMI 2.0/4k/HDR. I do not think it will so the next step is to find a sound bar(5.1) or a receiver(5.1 package) that supports HDMI 2.0/4k/HDR and DTS. Currently I am having an issue finding a setup like this which I find surprising.


----------



## Livin

Guys... NEED HELP PLEASE 

About to install 4 Atmos ceiling speakers and have serious concern about placement 

First row eyes (where I sit) is 116" away from the screen... about 9.5 foot. With 9' ceilings that places 45 degree Atmos ceiling speakers 6 foot away - thus, ONLY 3.5 foot from the screen.

... is there an issue with Atmos Front Ceiling speakers being that close to the L/C/R speakers?

Should I look to move them closer like 5' away having a 50 degree angle instead?

thx


----------



## Scott Simonian

No. It's all about the angle to the MLP.

If that means the front pair are sorta close to the screen and/or mains.... doesn't diminish the experience whatsoever.

That being said, a 50 degree (5 degree difference) is meaningless. 

Choose which spot you prefer and enjoy.


----------



## richlife

mburton875 said:


> Yeah, thats a good point Rich Life. I could move the back row forward 4 inches which would put the ear just in front of the rear ceiling speaker. However, if I do that I'd have to move my front row 4 inches which would then put my front ceiling speakers now not in front of the front row.
> 
> If I listen to it and it all sounds good I'll leave it. It might not make much of a difference. But if it does, I'll move the seats where I only have to move two of the ceiling speakers. If I'm looking at moving the back speakers 4-6 inches to be slightly behind the ear that won't be too much of a gap in the ceiling so I wonder if I could patch that without it being noticed versus having to re paint and texture the whole ceiling. The texture might be tough to match but its only 6 inches. Also wondered if their is a trim band I could put around the speaker to cover most of it.
> 
> What I think I might do if it doesn't sound right is move the whole thing forward 5 inches. That would put the rear ceilings just behind the ear on the back row. I'll have to measure it but that would mean moving my front ceiling speakers 3-4 inches to be in front of the front row ears.. If I get some sort of band for the trim of the speaker that might cover an inch of it.


Honestly, it sounds like you are spacing out over a few inches. With no idea what your room looks like, my suggestion is that you dig up the Dolby Atmos placement recommendations (or just prowl back through the past week of this thread). Probably the single best suggestion for Atmos speaker placement (and one that does not conflict with DTS:X recommendations) is to have the Front Atmos speakers at about a 45* angle out front and over ear position of your main listening position and the Rear Atmos speakers at about a 45* angle to the rear and over that ear position. You don't seem to be describing anything like that. Six inches isn't going to buy you 45*. Personally, I wouldn't consider a six inch move -- 3 or 4 feet yes, but not six inches. _Machts nichts_.


----------



## Yamahaboy

so this dolby atmos feature- must the movie dvd be equipped with this technology to truly experience dolby atmos effect in our home theatre system with of course dolby atmos enhanced speakers??


----------



## pasender91

Yamahaboy said:


> so this dolby atmos feature- must the movie dvd be equipped with this technology to truly experience dolby atmos effect in our home theatre system with of course dolby atmos enhanced speakers??


To have the full and best results, you need a new Bluray or UHD drive + Atmos movies + Atmos receiver + ideally 4 height speakers, quite a lot of $$$.

The minimum investment point is to get an Atmos receiver and 2 height speakers. In this case you can still play all your regular movies and TV programs, they will be enhanced using a techno called "Dolby Surround" , which will add height effects, and to be honest i (and many others) believe it works very well in most cases


----------



## murlidher

*atmos suggestion*

Please see my HT room layout which is a living room as well. Need your suggestion for the additional on-ceiling speakers apart from the existing Top Middle on ceiling speaker (JBL control one) which is already placed. 

Should it be front height or top front or top rears, which is best suitable ? 

Also in case you have any other suggestion for overall placement of speakers, its most welcome, thanks.

Note: i will be moving to 5.2.4 early next year. 

Regards


----------



## Selden Ball

murlidher said:


> Please see my HT room layout which is a living room as well. Need your suggestion for the additional on-ceiling speakers apart from the existing Top Middle on ceiling speaker (JBL control one) which is already placed.
> 
> Should it be front height or top front or top rears, which is best suitable ?
> 
> Also in case you have any other suggestion for overall placement of speakers, its most welcome, thanks.
> 
> Note: i will be moving to 5.2.4 early next year.
> 
> Regards


You neglected to include the ceiling height.

However, front overhead speakers placed at about 45 degrees generally produce the best results. In other words,place them in front of the main listening position, as far forward as your ears are below the ceiling. With a 9' ceiling, for example, this usually would be slightly less than 6' in front of the seating. Designating them Top Front probably would be the best compromise between Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## sdurani

Yamahaboy said:


> so this dolby atmos feature- must the movie dvd be equipped with this technology to truly experience dolby atmos effect in our home theatre system with of course dolby atmos enhanced speakers??


You need a receiver that decodes Atmos. You also need either speaker above you or Atmos-enhanced speakers (upfiring speakers that simulate the effect of speakers above you). If you already have a 5.1 set-up, then adding just one pair of heights gets you an Atmos set-up. A second pair of heights will sound better, but that's optional. 

To experience Atmos, the movie (on BD or UHD or streaming) must have an Atmos soundtrack. IF the movie doesn't have an Atmos soundtrack, then you can use surround processing (upmixing) to extract height info for the overhead speakers.


----------



## murlidher

Selden Ball said:


> You neglected to include the ceiling height.
> 
> However, front overhead speakers placed at about 45 degrees generally produce the best results. In other words,place them in front of the main listening position, as far forward as your ears are below the ceiling. With a 9' ceiling, for example, this usually would be slightly less than 6' in front of the seating. Designating them Top Front probably would be the best compromise between Atmos and DTS:X.


You said I have neglected to include ceilings heights. The TM (Top middle) I have showcased is it not ceilings heights ?

So I guess you are suggesting I should go for top fronts being placed little front of front speakers labeled as front heights.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

murlidher said:


> You said I have neglected to include ceilings heights. The TM (Top middle) I have showcased is it not ceilings heights ?


 Sorry: I meant the physical height of your room's ceiling. I only saw the length and width values for the room. 


> So I guess you are suggesting I should go for top fronts being placed little front of front speakers labeled as front heights.


Measure the height of your ears above the floor when you're seated in your primary listening position. (that's typically about 3 ft or so) Subtract that value from the height of the room's ceiling. (that's typically about 9 ft or so, but can vary a lot. 9 - 3 = 6 ft) Place the front overhead speakers that far forward of your seat if you can.

Front Height and Top Front both are specific speaker location designations used by D+M. When playing Atmos soundtracks, designating the front overhead speakers as Top Front seems to produce the best results. When playing DTS:X soundtracks, designating the front overhead speakers as Front Height seems to produce the best results. Since there are more movies with Atmos soundtracks than there are movies with DTS:X soundtracks, using the Top Front designation seems to be appropriate.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

remidian said:


> Unfortunately I don't see a way to edit my post. The Sony does have an Arc port but the audio stops for a second approximately every 1-2 minutes while using HBO now or Netflix. I have not tried a Blu-Ray yet.
> 
> Currently I am trying to figure out if this Sony Blu Ray player I have supports HDMI 2.0/4k/HDR. I do not think it will so the next step is to find a sound bar(5.1) or a receiver(5.1 package) that supports HDMI 2.0/4k/HDR and DTS. Currently I am having an issue finding a setup like this which I find surprising.


Sony doesn't have a BD player yet that is 4K/HDR. The only native 4K/HDR BD players available are from Samsung, Philips and Panasonic all released this year. Your best bet to enjoy DD/DTS especially with multiple 4K/HDR sources (where you need a 4K/HDR/HDCP2.2 pass through) is to get a receiver that supports all these and a set of speakers for each channel. Almost all of the popular brands like Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer etc have at least 6 to 8 models that supports DD/DTS and 4 to 5 support Atmos/DTS:x (all 4K/HDR/HDCP22 pass through) based on your budget and number of channels required. If you have budget, go that route. It will be much better than having a sound bar and will be much easier to make the AVR as a hub for all your devices.


----------



## jesyjames

So... I have a 13' x 17' x 8' room. I have a dolby atmos receiver. I want to add a .4 setup. I've narrowed it down to using either the Klipsch RP-140SA atmos speakers that I put on top of my speakers or going with the SVS elevation models and putting them high on the side or front/rear walls. 

Any clue which would be best? Ceiling speakers are simply a no-go unfortunately. The ease of using the add on Klipsch models appeals to me. I do feel like I sort of have an 'ideal' room for the reflected sound route. However, part of me thinks that maybe the SVS approach would be better. 

I noticed the receiver(Anthem MRX 1120) seems to have an option to configure the atmos speakers as either atmos(I assume upfiring), on ceiling, or on wall(same as SVS approach?). That confuses me as I thought the only officially sanctioned methods were either in ceiling or upfiring. 

What would you do in my situation? Thanks!


----------



## Jonas2

jesyjames said:


> So... I have a 13' x 17' x 8' room. I have a dolby atmos receiver. I want to add a .4 setup. I've narrowed it down to using either the Klipsch RP-140SA atmos speakers that I put on top of my speakers or going with the SVS elevation models and putting them high on the side or front/rear walls.
> 
> Any clue which would be best? Ceiling speakers are simply a no-go unfortunately. The ease of using the add on Klipsch models appeals to me. I do feel like I sort of have an 'ideal' room for the reflected sound route. However, part of me thinks that maybe the SVS approach would be better.


You could get the Klipsch say from Crutchfield or other source with a generous return policy and give them a try, see how you like it. I can see the appeal, and they'd be the least amount of effort. SVS also has a generous return policy, and while I think they'd give a better result, be a bit more effort to install them.


----------



## sdurani

jesyjames said:


> What would you do in my situation?


IF you can't put speakers in/on the ceiling, then my first choice would be speakers high up on walls to create phantom imaging overhead, with the second choice being upfiring speakers.


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> IF you can't put speakers in/on the ceiling, then my first choice would be speakers high up on walls to create phantom imaging overhead, with the second choice being upfiring speakers.


Sanjay, have you had the opportunity to try out upfiring speakers? Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES)? I ask because from my perspective this would be the second most desirable option. If plausible, I agree that in-ceiling speakers are first simply because of HT design simplicity.

There are also conflicting views, in general, about reflected sound speakers and direct firing speakers. I admit to being a proponent of reflected sound (note the Mirage in my signature HT configuration).

From my perspective, with both DAES and in-ceiling speakers in my setup, I think up-firing DAES speakers are a very good option. They are far preferable to using DAES speakers as direct firing even mounted high on the walls. If they are truly designed as DAES, then direct fire mounted is not a desirable option. That completely ignores the explicit design intent of DAES which seeks good dispersion. 

My third choice would be high mounted, normal wide dispersion speakers for "presence" or "immersion". (Having heard only one set of DAES, I continue to have reservations about about "DAES-design" speakers used as high mounted heights.)


----------



## sdurani

richlife said:


> Sanjay, have you had the opportunity to try out upfiring speakers? Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES)?


My very first experience with the consumer version of Atmos included an A-B comparison of ceiling mounted speakers vs Atmos-enabled speakers. Back in August of 2014, I was one of four AVS members accompanying Scott Wilkinson to an Atmos press conference & preview demonstration at Dolby Labs in Burbank, CA. Most (if not all) of us came away preferring the upfiring speakers. My experience with them since has been more mixed.


> There are also conflicting views, in general, about reflected sound speakers and direct firing speakers.


They can both sound excellent, but I prefer the stability of speakers above the listeners. In my experience, the upfiring modules require care and finessing during installation to give a solid impression of sound above you. By comparison, slap 2 or 4 speakers on the ceiling (even haphazardly) and those sounds will almost always image above you. Hence my personal preference for speakers physically up there (IF you can accommodate them).


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> You need a receiver that decodes Atmos. You also need either speaker above you or Atmos-enhanced speakers (upfiring speakers that simulate the effect of speakers above you). If you already have a 5.1 set-up, then adding just one pair of heights gets you an Atmos set-up. A second pair of heights will sound better, but that's optional.
> 
> To experience Atmos, the movie (on BD or UHD or streaming) must have an Atmos soundtrack. IF the movie doesn't have an Atmos soundtrack, then you can use surround processing (upmixing) to extract height info for the overhead speakers.


Like Sanjay said.  When I decided to upgrade my home theater to 4K HDR, I also decided to go the Atmos route. I added four high quality in-ceiling speakers and an excellent 7.1.4 capable receiver. My receiver, a Yamaha RX-A3060 not only plays both Atmos and DTS:X encoded soundtracks natively, if also has a DSP, called "Enhanced," which will matrix any non Atmos/DTS:X audio to 7.1.4. Matrixed audio doesn't sound like native Atmos, of course, but it is nevertheless quite nice.


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> My very first experience with the consumer version of Atmos included an A-B comparison of ceiling mounted speakers vs Atmos-enabled speakers. Back in August of 2014, I was one of four AVS members accompanying Scott Wilkinson to an Atmos press conference & preview demonstration at Dolby Labs in Burbank, CA. Most (if not all) of us came away preferring the upfiring speakers. My experience with them since has been more mixed.
> 
> They can both sound excellent, but I prefer the stability of speakers above the listeners. In my experience, the upfiring modules require care and finessing during installation to give a solid impression of sound above you. By comparison, slap 2 or 4 speakers on the ceiling (even haphazardly) and those sounds will almost always image above you. Hence my personal preference for speakers physically up there (IF you can accommodate them).


Thanks for filling in the background -- I was pretty sure you had specifics behind your thoughts.

No arguments at all on reflected or non- speakers. As for the "care and finessing" bit -- you better believe it! My ELACs are on a very stable wall unit -- they have not budged since installed. (I'd have reservations about putting DAES modules on top of full frequency fronts unless they were well fixed in place.) And to further support that "c&f" quote, the name that I assign to my Yamaha backup configuration includes "2.25" -- the exact measurement in inches of the rear side elevation that I had to add to the ELACs to compensate for my sloped ceiling. Fortunately, when I re-did YPAO today for my new RP amp, the ELACs were still propped up to that exact measurement -- stable base!


----------



## richlife

I should add to my last comment related to rerunning YPAO after inserting my new AMP100VS. One of the comments made following the last firmware update was something about improved YPAO. TELL ME ABOUT IT!

This time I found that many (most? -- haven't had time yet to check) of the manual changes I had made to the YPAO results were already in place. And the most outlandish issue I previously had (the height measured showed as 72') was completely corrected -- it now shows as 4.6' -- precisely exact. (That appeared to be a "mechanical" screw up -- the speakers did not sound like they were set for 72' above. And no change when I did correct it.)

And so I had to re-sample the music I've been listening to the past few days... @gwsat I'm suspecting that the surprise you felt after hearing your new YPAO results is this "improvement". First was Mark Knopfler/Emmylou Harris from last night. Breathtaking! Then check out Black and White Nights that I have to play for my wife. Vital! And then... Life is SO GOOD! My Wall is crashing and I'm getting "Comfortably Numb". (Not literally -- damn it!)

@PioManiac, sorry it took so long with Black and White Nights. It's been a busy two months, but with the election today, my wife can finally relax. She became convinced with "Knights in White Satin" and was blown away with The Wall, so now it's time for the clincher! Thank you my unknown friend!  (Do you know how loud -16db really is?!)


----------



## ChiWestSider

jesyjames said:


> So... I have a 13' x 17' x 8' room. I have a dolby atmos receiver. I want to add a .4 setup. I've narrowed it down to using either the Klipsch RP-140SA atmos speakers that I put on top of my speakers
> I noticed the receiver(Anthem MRX 1120) seems to have an option to configure the atmos speakers as either atmos(I assume upfiring), on ceiling, or on wall(same as SVS approach?). That confuses me as I thought the only officially sanctioned methods were either in ceiling or upfiring.
> 
> What would you do in my situation? Thanks!


I have 4 RP-140SA 's. I have had them on top of speakers for months. I even emailed Klipsch asking if the could be mounted up on the walls. Their response was "That is not a use for them". I saw someone in this forum who used them as side surrounds mounted on the wall. I then tried them mounted above my LR speakers on an arch at 45 degrees above MLP. The front at that point sounded PHENOMENAL! Once I decided to mount the back, there was minimal improvement. The biggest improvement was adding 2 heights. The rear just completed the bubble. I would have had the same phenomenal sound had I installed the rear height first, and minimal if I added the front second. Using the RP-140SA as height speaker was the greatest improvement to my system yet. I forgot to mention, after changing speaker positions I re-ren Audyssey and DID NOT use them as Atmos enabled. They are currently crossed over a 110 a piece. Audyssey crossed them over at 100.


----------



## ChiWestSider

BTW... My rear speakers are 2 degrees too low, for symmetry. 

I'll live...


----------



## westbergjoakim

Hey!

I'm in the setup of 7.2.4. Can someone tell me how to connect the rca-cabel when I run this reciever (Sony STR-DN 1050) as a pre-out to Pioneer SC-95? Running SB trough the exern reciever. 

Thanks!


----------



## PioManiac

richlife said:


> I should add to my last comment related to rerunning YPAO after inserting my new AMP100VS. One of the comments made following the last firmware update was something about improved YPAO. TELL ME ABOUT IT!
> 
> This time I found that many (most? -- haven't had time yet to check) of the manual changes I had made to the YPAO results were already in place. And the most outlandish issue I previously had (the height measured showed as 72') was completely corrected -- it now shows as 4.6' -- precisely exact. (That appeared to be a "mechanical" screw up -- the speakers did not sound like they were set for 72' above. And no change when I did correct it.)
> 
> And so I had to re-sample the music I've been listening to the past few days... @gwsat I'm suspecting that the surprise you felt after hearing your new YPAO results is this "improvement". First was Mark Knopfler/Emmylou Harris from last night. Breathtaking! Then check out Black and White Nights that I have to play for my wife. Vital! And then... Life is SO GOOD! My Wall is crashing and I'm getting "Comfortably Numb". (Not literally -- damn it!)
> 
> @PioManiac, sorry it took so long with Black and White Nights. It's been a busy two months, but with the election today, my wife can finally relax. She became convinced with "Knights in White Satin" and was blown away with The Wall, so now it's time for the clincher! Thank you my unknown friend!  (Do you know how loud -16db really is?!)


Rich, -15 is about as loud as I need for most movies,
But an exceptionally clear performance during a good concert bluray has seen the volume creep up to 0.0 for at least a minute or two.
(...a David Gilmour guitar solo or Roy Orbisons' exceptional vocals get me every time!)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

westbergjoakim said:


> Hey!
> 
> I'm in the setup of 7.2.4. Can someone tell me how to connect the rca-cabel when I run this reciever (Sony STR-DN 1050) as a pre-out to Pioneer SC-95? Running SB trough the exern reciever.
> 
> Thanks!


Connect it to SA-CD/CD IN.


----------



## jesyjames

ChiWestSider said:


> I have 4 RP-140SA 's. I have had them on top of speakers for months. I even emailed Klipsch asking if the could be mounted up on the walls. Their response was "That is not a use for them". I saw someone in this forum who used them as side surrounds mounted on the wall. I then tried them mounted above my LR speakers on an arch at 45 degrees above MLP. The front at that point sounded PHENOMENAL! Once I decided to mount the back, there was minimal improvement. The biggest improvement was adding 2 heights. The rear just completed the bubble. I would have had the same phenomenal sound had I installed the rear height first, and minimal if I added the front second. Using the RP-140SA as height speaker was the greatest improvement to my system yet. I forgot to mention, after changing speaker positions I re-ren Audyssey and DID NOT use them as Atmos enabled. They are currently crossed over a 110 a piece. Audyssey crossed them over at 100.


Thanks for the info! Do you mind taking a picture of the setup so I can get an idea of your room and how you put them? Phenomenal is what I aim aiming for


----------



## westbergjoakim

Mashie Saldana said:


> Connect it to SA-CD/CD IN.


Thanks! It worked.


----------



## ggsantafe

Scott Simonian said:


> Look. It's all about the angles.
> 
> Dolby assumes HEIGHTS are at 30 degrees elevation and TOPS are 45 degrees elevation.
> 
> DTS assumes HEIGHTS are at 45 degrees elevation and TOPS are at 60 degrees elevation.
> 
> 
> 
> Way too many people are taking the DIAGRAMS (for illustrative purposes) WAY too literally. HEIGHTS "have to be" on the wall? No they don't. That's just a suggestion. They have to be at 30 degrees (for Dolby) and 45 degrees (for DTS). They DON'T 'have to be' on the wall for them to be HEIGHTS. That's ridiculous and untrue.
> 
> There is no requirement that they must be on the wall. They DO need to meet the angle requirements though for proper playback.
> 
> Pretty easy stuff guys.


I was out of town hangin' with the grandkids while this discussion was taking place. But as soon as I got home I reviewed Scott's suggestions and reconfigured my Ceiling speakers - kept the Top Front designation since they met the 45 degree angle recommendation and changed the rears from Top Rear to Rear Heights since they were closer to 30 degrees. Then I popped in my recently acquired Dolby Atmos Demo Disc (found a copy from Germany on Ebay for $16) and HOLY SMOKES - the skies lit up - the "747" & "Helicopter" clips were amazing - the 747 impact reminded me of when I was a kid living in the LaGuardia flight path - the sounds from the jets were so loud you couldn't hear the TV for 15 seconds - the Atmos Clip captured that impact with enormous visceral energy and the Helicopter clip provided a seamless overhead circling sensation. 
I had previously viewed the Atmos Demo Clips that VUDU streams - and the impact, after the Overhead AVR adjustments was clearly an improvement. So when testing your setups, keep in mind that making adjustments in the AVR to speaker designations can be just as effective as either moving the MLP and/or speaker locations.

Thanks again to Scott and all the other Atmos early adapters who have made the trail easier to follow.


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> Rich, -15 is about as loud as I need for most movies,
> But an exceptionally clear performance during a good concert bluray has seen the volume creep up to 0.0 for at least a minute or two.
> (...a David Gilmour guitar solo or Roy Orbisons' exceptional vocals get me every time!)


-15dB is about as loud as I can ordinarily stand too. The only exception comes in the presence of a particularly remarkable Atmos or 7.1 soundtrack. Then I will sometimes crank up to volume to -12.5 or even -10. At those listening levels I am approaching movie theater volume but it can be fun.


----------



## Krio

*Help please Upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1 and now 9.1 using ceiling rear speaker*

Hello Guys,

I have a few questions for some expert as every time i see some manual i get confused. I had my standard 5.1 , then i upgraded the receiver to Marantz7010 , with the good sound i decided to upgrade to 7.1 using Ceiling speakers (b&W) as rear surround (isn't optimal but no other choice) - well i liked it and i purchased other 2 ceiling speakers to upgrade to 9.1 - and here comes my problem ... i dont know what config is better - Top middle - Top Front - Height Front- or enable 2 Atmos ... what would be better? As of now those 2 speakers are set at Top Front.

1) based on the source those 2 speakers will be converted in Atmos? considering i just download movies and i haven't seen an Atmos enabled movie yet ...


----------



## dwaleke

Sounds like you went to 5.1.2 and now want to go 5.1.4. Correct?


----------



## sdurani

Krio said:


> i decided to upgrade to 7.1 using Ceiling speakers (b&W) as rear surround


You'd be better off keeping your base layer as 5.1 and re-designating the ceiling speakers as Top Rear (to go with the other 2 speakers you've designated as Top Front).


----------



## giftedmd

Krio said:


> Hello Guys,
> 
> I have a few questions for some expert as every time i see some manual i get confused. I had my standard 5.1 , then i upgraded the receiver to Marantz7010 , with the good sound i decided to upgrade to 7.1 using Ceiling speakers (b&W) as rear surround (isn't optimal but no other choice) - well i liked it and i purchased other 2 ceiling speakers to upgrade to 9.1 - and here comes my problem ... i dont know what config is better - Top middle - Top Front - Height Front- or enable 2 Atmos ... what would be better? As of now those 2 speakers are set at Top Front.
> 
> 1) based on the source those 2 speakers will be converted in Atmos? considering i just download movies and i haven't seen an Atmos enabled movie yet ...


^^^agree with above. I also contemplated using my rear ceiling speakers as surround backs for 7.1.2 since my rear ceiling speakers are in the soffit about a foot lower than my front ceiling speakers. But from everything I have read 5.1.4 is better since surround backs aren't used that much and effects can be mixed into side surrounds (I have mine angled slightly behind seats at 120 degrees as a bit of a compromise and similar to Dolby Atmos diagrams for 5.1.4). Two pairs of ceiling speakers, Top rears and top fronts, provide more convincing overhead effects than a single pair.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ChiWestSider

jesyjames said:


> Thanks for the info! Do you mind taking a picture of the setup so I can get an idea of your room and how you put them? Phenomenal is what I aim aiming for


Here ya go


----------



## richlife

ChiWestSider said:


> Here ya go


My, but that long theater space looks familiar...  We have way different spaces, but it sure make for an interesting listening room!


----------



## Scott Simonian

ggsantafe said:


> Thanks again to Scott and all the other Atmos early adapters who have made the trail easier to follow.


Nice!

Glad I could help.


----------



## ChiWestSider

richlife said:


> My, but that long theater space looks familiar...  We have way different spaces, but it sure make for an interesting listening room!


I was just asking in another AVS forum about wanting to feel the bass. I have 2 Klipsch R115-SW 's and feel nothing. That room has wonderful space, but it robs me of that chest feel bass I'm looking for. I gave my measurements and was told I would need approximately 8 15's to get that feeling. :crying::crying::crying:


----------



## richlife

ChiWestSider said:


> I was just asking in another AVS forum about wanting to feel the bass. I have 2 Klipsch R115-SW 's and feel nothing. That room has wonderful space, but it robs me of that chest feel bass I'm looking for. I gave my measurements and was told I would need approximately 8 15's to get that feeling. :crying::crying::crying:


Maybe, maybe not. If you haven't already done it, try a subwoofer crawl (move a sub into your MLP and walk around the room listening at each possible location for where the bass sounds best -- put the sub there). Then do the same with the other sub. Repeat again? Short of REW, that may help find the optimum positions. 

Then, without question, consider adding more subs if/when you can. If you read my sig carefully (or my theater thread), you can see that I have six subs -- four in the form of "Large" speakers with built-in powered subs. Placement of these four is dictated by speaker placement -- so no sub crawl. 

After sub crawl, I placed my second independent sub in the "second best" position. My wife would have a fit if I tried replacing one of her side tables with a sub -- even if it sounded better. With your open room (at this point) at least you have a number of options -- well, maybe depending on spouse. 

And all this reminds me that I too should redo my sub crawl. Way too many room and equipment changes in the years since I last did it. (But I also may have REW in my future.)


----------



## ChiWestSider

Eventually I might do the SW crawl. I like symmetry, that is why I haven't done it. Problem is, I also like bass. I will try it when I get my next sub.


----------



## giftedmd

ChiWestSider said:


> I was just asking in another AVS forum about wanting to feel the bass. I have 2 Klipsch R115-SW 's and feel nothing. That room has wonderful space, but it robs me of that chest feel bass I'm looking for. I gave my measurements and was told I would need approximately 8 15's to get that feeling. :crying::crying::crying:


Nearfield sub for sure! Check out the midbasss nearfield sub thread in the subwoofer section and look into the Boehringer B1200d. Pretty cheap at around $270 right now. Sometimes tricky to integrate with other subs but it is worth it if you crave that tactile response. People that have it seem to love it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

ChiWestSider said:


> I was just asking in another AVS forum about wanting to feel the bass. I have 2 Klipsch R115-SW 's and feel nothing. That room has wonderful space, but it robs me of that chest feel bass I'm looking for. I gave my measurements and was told I would need approximately 8 15's to get that feeling. :crying::crying::crying:





giftedmd said:


> Nearfield sub for sure! Check out the midbasss nearfield sub thread in the subwoofer section and look into the Boehringer B1200d. Pretty cheap at around $270 right now. Sometimes tricky to integrate with other subs but it is worth it if you crave that tactile response. People that have it seem to love it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Yes! I was just going to post this! Trying to get "chest slam" bass in a large room with far-field subs takes a LOT of woofage. You can get there a lot cheaper with a nearfield mbm right behind you if that thread is to be believed.


----------



## audiofan1

ChiWestSider said:


> Eventually I might do the SW crawl. I like symmetry, that is why I haven't done it. Problem is, I also like bass. I will try it when I get my next sub.





giftedmd said:


> Nearfield sub for sure! Check out the midbasss nearfield sub thread in the subwoofer section and look into the Boehringer B1200d. Pretty cheap at around $270 right now. Sometimes tricky to integrate with other subs but it is worth it if you crave that tactile response. People that have it seem to love it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk





batpig said:


> Yes! I was just going to post this! Trying to get "chest slam" bass in a large room with far-field subs takes a LOT of woofage. You can get there a lot cheaper with a nearfield mbm right behind you if that thread is to be believed.


Get the 2 subs you have settled first (you said it , sub crawl) then REW if further placement assistance is needed and then and only then if you feel you need more bass , go near-field. You don't need 8 15's if your mlp (subs say 12-15ft away) is only half that of the space your trying fill. Place them well as with all your speakers and put the money towards software you enjoy


----------



## jesyjames

ChiWestSider said:


> Here ya go


Oh wow, thank you! You have a super interesting set-up. It kinda looks like it goes through 3 rooms, but they all work out perfect. I can see where high on the wall, near the ceiling definitely improved your experience. Excited to try it out.


----------



## gravi

*Atmos Demo Disc*

Will be installing Atmos speakers this weekend and did a search on this thread for a demo disc and went through the posts. I don't understand why this is a collector's item, like a secret Led Zeppelin concert bootleg or something. Kind of annoying that something basic like this cannot be made available like any other commodity. Of course, a minor annoyance.


----------



## Selden Ball

gravi said:


> Will be installing Atmos speakers this weekend and did a search on this thread for a demo disc and went through the posts. I don't understand why this is a collector's item, like a secret Led Zeppelin concert bootleg or something. Kind of annoying that something basic like this cannot be made available like any other commodity. Of course, a minor annoyance.


My understanding is that it's a licensing issue. Dolby probably has not paid the royalty fees required when reproducing something for sale to the public. Dolby's demo discs are created strictly for free distribution to their commercial customers.

The various companies which produce calibration audio and video discs doubtless will be producing their own UHD Atmos and DTS:X calibration discs, but they aren't available yet.


----------



## Balforth

Hello everybody, 

I created a new thread asking for advice on where to place my surrounds given my room layout and a big piece of the puzzle is how well the surrounds will play with my rear presence speakers. If anybody would care to look and offer some advice I would really appreciate it!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...elp-me-placing-my-surrounds.html#post48088393


----------



## mbergh22

Ok so I have the denon s710. I want to run dolby atmos which would be a 5.1.2 setup. I am looking at the module speakers like the pioneer add ons. My room is a small 10x12 bedroom. Ceiling is 8 feet or so. I sit about 5 feet away. What is my best option to do dolby atmos? Will the add ons work well?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that it's a licensing issue. Dolby probably has not paid the royalty fees required when reproducing something for sale to the public. Dolby's demo discs are created strictly for free distribution to their commercial customers.


That's essentially it. The Dolby demo discs contain movie clips, trailers and music videos that are not licensed for retail sale.

That said, there's absolutely no reason Dolby couldn't sell a stripped-down disc that only has test tones and their own internally-produced content (Dolby trailers and so forth). Why they haven't done this when there's a clear demand for it is puzzling.


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> That's essentially it. The Dolby demo discs contain movie clips, trailers and music videos that are not licensed for retail sale.
> 
> That said, there's absolutely no reason Dolby couldn't sell a stripped-down disc that only has test tones and their own internally-produced content (Dolby trailers and so forth). Why they haven't done this when there's a clear demand for it is puzzling.


Not really. Their business model is that they sell their products only to OEMs, not directly to consumers. They'd have to make a lot of changes in how they operate in order to satisfy us.

Hopefully Avia and DVE calibration products will be available in the not too distant future.


----------



## cdelena

Josh Z said:


> That's essentially it. The Dolby demo discs contain movie clips, trailers and music videos that are not licensed for retail sale.
> 
> That said, there's absolutely no reason Dolby couldn't sell a stripped-down disc that only has test tones and their own internally-produced content (Dolby trailers and so forth). Why they haven't done this when there's a clear demand for it is puzzling.


I recently bought the 'Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Sep 2015)'
From Amazon through their China Mainland vendor. $17 plus shipping.

Happy to get it, is excellent.


----------



## Witchboard

Is there a test tone disc I can get to configure my Atmos, or do you guys use the demo disc you're all talking about? I've got my Atmos speakers up and running, but honestly... it's underwhelming. I haven't done any room treatments yet, so it could be reflections messing with it and that's next on the list. I've run Audyssey and know they are working, but I don't really notice it. I only have two and they are set as top center.


----------



## Selden Ball

Witchboard said:


> Is there a test tone disc I can get to configure my Atmos, or do you guys use the demo disc you're all talking about? I've got my Atmos speakers up and running, but honestly... it's underwhelming. I haven't done any room treatments yet, so it could be reflections messing with it and that's next on the list. I've run Audyssey and know they are working, but I don't really notice it. I only have two and they are set as top center.


Some people have reported that increasing the trim levels of the overhead speaker channels by +3dB helps. 

Bear in mind that many Atmos titles only use the overheads for ambient sounds, and some don't use them much at all, so part of the perceived problem might be which movies you've watched. Bear in mind that you aren't supposed to "notice" the overheads. They're intended to produce a "bubble" of sound that's more realistic than having speakers only at ear-level.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Eh. Give the elevated levels for the overheads a try. After a few listens, you'll end up backing them down anyway. Doesn't hurt to try out.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Scott Simonian said:


> Look. It's all about the angles.
> 
> Dolby assumes HEIGHTS are at 30 degrees elevation and TOPS are 45 degrees elevation.
> 
> DTS assumes HEIGHTS are at 45 degrees elevation and TOPS are at 60 degrees elevation.
> 
> 
> 
> Way too many people are taking the DIAGRAMS (for illustrative purposes) WAY too literally. HEIGHTS "have to be" on the wall? No they don't. That's just a suggestion. They have to be at 30 degrees (for Dolby) and 45 degrees (for DTS). They DON'T 'have to be' on the wall for them to be HEIGHTS. That's ridiculous and untrue.
> 
> There is no requirement that they must be on the wall. They DO need to meet the angle requirements though for proper playback.
> 
> Pretty easy stuff guys.





sdurani said:


> You don't need to change physical location of the speakers. Atmos has 10 possible speaker locations above. DTS:X has 13 possible speaker locations above. Thankfully, there are 4 speaker locations in common between both formats. That means one speaker layout can satisfy Atmos and DTS:X. That's good news.
> 
> As mentioned, the bad news is that the common locations (at 45 degrees elevation) have different names, depending on format. For those that have Atmos and DTS:X demo discs with speaker identification tracks, Atmos will render to the common locations when the speakers are designated as Tops, DTS:X will render to the common locations when those speakers are labeled Heights.
> 
> Hopefully there will be a fix eventually that will allow the rendering engines on both formats to understand that Atmos Tops = DTS:X Heights. Until then, you can switch between the two settings, or just choose one setting and not worry about it.


I don't remember where I snipped this diagram but I thought it came out of the Denon X7200WA DTS:X addendum. Perhaps it is a homebrew that has no validity. Can anyone identify it? Is this a Dolby diagram that they copy/pasted? If this is from a Denon addendum did they correct it?


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's from Denon. It's useful but I wouldn't take it 100% literally. Nobody sits in the center of a perfectly shaped square room with all their speakers equi-distant. It's a good suggestion but in the real world you have to 'fudge it' more than that picture alludes. The Dolby published ones are more accurate to the layout of a living room HT system.

You can see that there is built in "wiggle room" for each overhead speaker location (per Dolby).


----------



## sdurani

Marc Alexander said:


> Is this a Dolby diagram that they copy/pasted?


Yes, it's the Atmos diagram that first appeared in the user manuals of D&M's 2014 models.


----------



## Marc Alexander

sdurani said:


> Yes, it's the Atmos diagram that first appeared in the user manuals of D&M's 2014 models.


That explains the Height vs Top elevation angles following the Dolby conventions.


----------



## sdurani

Marc Alexander said:


> That explains the Height vs Top elevation angles following the Dolby conventions.


The naming followed the Dolby conventions (Tops above Heights), but the elevation angles were different (Dolby Tops = 45° and Heights = 30°, DTS Tops = 60° and Heights = 45°).


----------



## dicksop

*Denon avr 4100/3802 SPEAKER SETUP QUESTION*

Dolby Atmos Setup Questions
I am looking for a little help in my set up of my Home theatre.
I run PSB speakers (Alpha B and C's...fronts, center,sub,side surround and back surround) and the new PSB Atmos speakers that sit on top of the front right and left speakers. I am only running front Dolby ATMOS speakers, no rears.
I have the Denon AVR-X4100W Receiver as well as the Denon AVR 3802 receiver.
The 4100 is driving all the speakers except the DOLBY ATMOS speakers, which are run from the 3802. (RCA pre out from the height speaker out on the 4100 to the front L/R in on the 3802. I have 2 subs which are run from the sub 1 and 2 pre outs on the 4100.

So... the question is in the Auddesey setup and what speaker setup to choose.

It gives me all sorts of options including 9.1 speaker, Dolby ATMOS Speaker and 7.1 speaker setups.
Which is correct?
I currently have it on 9.1 with front dolby speakers. Should I be using the Dolby ATMOS speaker configuration.???
A little confused here....any help would be appreciated.


----------



## mf15

*Ceiling speaker placement for this room*

This is for Atmos ceiling speaker placement using 6.5"speakers,down firing
Yamaha with adjustable tweeters.
Each block on the drawing is 1/2 foot. 
As you can see this is a mess for placement not sure where to put the right ceiling speaker.
Please see attached drawing,which is pretty much to scale.
If I put the right ceiling speaker on the same plane as the FR speaker it seems too
narrow and no coverage of the couch. 
Since this will probably only ever be a 3.1.2 or eventually 5.1.2 the ceiling
speakers will be at a 65 degree angle from the top of my head to the ceiling as per
atmos placement when only using two ceiling speakers.
At 65 degrees speakers should be 31 inches towards front speakers,from my head.


Any help appreciated,for better placement and coverage.
Old Mike


----------



## Josh Z

Selden Ball said:


> Not really. Their business model is that they sell their products only to OEMs, not directly to consumers. They'd have to make a lot of changes in how they operate in order to satisfy us.


Perhaps, but they could still license it to a third party to distribute.


----------



## Selden Ball

dicksop said:


> Dolby Atmos Setup Questions
> I am looking for a little help in my set up of my Home theatre.
> I run PSB speakers (Alpha B and C's...fronts, center,sub,side surround and back surround) and the new PSB Atmos speakers that sit on top of the front right and left speakers. I am only running front Dolby ATMOS speakers, no rears.
> I have the Denon AVR-X4100W Receiver as well as the Denon AVR 3802 receiver.
> The 4100 is driving all the speakers except the DOLBY ATMOS speakers, which are run from the 3802. (RCA pre out from the height speaker out on the 4100 to the front L/R in on the 3802. I have 2 subs which are run from the sub 1 and 2 pre outs on the 4100.
> 
> So... the question is in the Auddesey setup and what speaker setup to choose.
> 
> It gives me all sorts of options including 9.1 speaker, Dolby ATMOS Speaker and 7.1 speaker setups.
> Which is correct?
> I currently have it on 9.1 with front dolby speakers. Should I be using the Dolby ATMOS speaker configuration.???
> A little confused here....any help would be appreciated.


You're using the correct Amp Assign configuration. 

The Atmos Amp Assign was designed for a specific speaker configuration which few people actually have. As you've found, it's more confusing then helpful, and actually is unnecessary, so it was removed from their 2015 and 2016 models.


----------



## Marc Alexander

sdurani said:


> The naming followed the Dolby conventions (Tops above Heights), but the elevation angles were different (Dolby Tops = 45° and Heights = 30°, DTS Tops = 60° and Heights = 45°).


What I am saying is that the diagram shows [DTS] TOPs range of 30°-55° which doesn't even include 60°. D/M got things wrong in this diagram and their implementation. 

I do understand (only recently) that
"Dolby Tops = 45° and Heights = 30°, DTS Tops = 60° and Heights = 45°".


----------



## Scott Simonian

Right. It's a copy and paste from when the AVR's started coming out with Dolby Atmos. The ranges were not changed in that diagram for DTS:X.


----------



## sdurani

Marc Alexander said:


> D/M got things wrong in this diagram and their implementation.


In the drawing, yes, because they just cut-n-pasted their old Atmos diagram. Don't know if they ever asked DTS for a set-up diagram. I don't think DTS issued one to the public. The orange-coloured DTS:X diagrams posted on-line all originate from a set-up guide that DTS gave to dealers for setting up at trade show demos, not something us consumers were ever meant to see. 

Not sure what you mean by D&M getting the "implementation" wrong. As far as I know, their DTS:X decoder works correctly.


> I do understand (only recently) that "Dolby Tops = 45° and Heights = 30°, DTS Tops = 60° and Heights = 45°".


Right, and those numbers are an approximation for Atmos, not something to be dogmatically followed. So if you find overhead locations that give a better impression of height than Dolby's recommendations, then go with what sounds better rather that slavishly sticking to Dolby's guidelines.


----------



## Marc Alexander

sdurani said:


> Not sure what you mean by D&M getting the "implementation" wrong. As far as I know, their DTS:X decoder works correctly.


In "Speakers/Amp Assign
Assign Mode
Height
- Layout"
D/M made the assumption that HEIGHTs & TOPs mean the same thing for Atmos & DTS:X when they do not. Now we know that there should be an Atmos/DTS:X layout of TOPs/HEIGHTs respectively in addition to the Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D "Universal Layout" of HEIGHTs. With the lack of DTS:X native content I doubt the omission of a DTS:X TOPS option would be a big deal nor would its inclusion be much work either.


----------



## batpig

D&M didn't screw this up, it's all on DTS.

The same issue affects Yamaha as well as (I can only assume) Pio/Onkyo. The only difference is that Yamaha allows a workaround.


----------



## Witchboard

Selden Ball said:


> Some people have reported that increasing the trim levels of the overhead speaker channels by +3dB helps.
> 
> Bear in mind that many Atmos titles only use the overheads for ambient sounds, and some don't use them much at all, so part of the perceived problem might be which movies you've watched. Bear in mind that you aren't supposed to "notice" the overheads. They're intended to produce a "bubble" of sound that's more realistic than having speakers only at ear-level.





Scott Simonian said:


> Eh. Give the elevated levels for the overheads a try. After a few listens, you'll end up backing them down anyway. Doesn't hurt to try out.


Thanks guys. I think I'll revisit it after I work on treatments. I can currently snap my fingers in my MLP and can hear a substantial echo.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Can you put up some acoustic treatment to fix that?


----------



## claw

Marc Alexander said:


> In "Speakers/Amp Assign
> Assign Mode
> Height
> - Layout"
> D/M made the assumption that HEIGHTs & TOPs mean the same thing for Atmos & DTS:X when they do not. Now we know that there should be an Atmos/DTS:X layout of TOPs/HEIGHTs respectively in addition to the Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D "Universal Layout" of HEIGHTs. With the lack of DTS:X native content I doubt the omission of a DTS:X TOPS option would be a big deal nor would its inclusion be much work either.


When I set up 2 Dolby Front Atmos Enabled add-ons in my Denon 4200w, I chose no Heights, but 2 Dolby instead. Then chose Front Dolby. This is how I read the user manual.


----------



## Witchboard

Scott Simonian said:


> Can you put up some acoustic treatment to fix that?


I'm going to go through the mirror method as usual and hope placing acoustic paneling will mitigate the echo at the MLP.


----------



## Marc Alexander

batpig said:


> D&M didn't screw this up, it's all on DTS.
> 
> The same issue affects Yamaha as well as (I can only assume) Pio/Onkyo. The only difference is that Yamaha allows a workaround.


Good point. I wonder if Anthem & Arcam will have the same issue? 

It would be nice if DTS initiated a fix and distributed it. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on DTS though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Marc Alexander said:


> Good point. I wonder if Anthem & Arcam will have the same issue?
> 
> It would be nice if DTS initiated a fix and distributed it. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on DTS though.



DTS is probably a lost cause. At this point it may be just as well as long as Dolby will lower the price of their proprietary Atmos mixing/mastering software and gear to gain more industry customers. DTS: X, currently, is a lesser capable format.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS is probably a lost cause. At this point it may be just as well as long as Dolby will lower the price of their proprietary Atmos mixing/mastering software and gear to gain more industry customers. DTS: X, currently, is a lesser capable format.


Didn't think you'd be saying _that_ two years ago, huh?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Didn't think you'd be saying _that_ two years ago, huh?


No one knew at the time that DTS would be so far behind technology-wise and that it would get sold... possibly for spare parts, so to speak.


----------



## audiofan1

Legend of Tarzan just could be the best Atmos mix to date

Bonus to those who rent disc as it contains the Atmos mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audiofan1 said:


> Legend of Tarzan just could be the best Atmos mix to date
> 
> Bonus to those who rent disc as it contains the Atmos mix.



Too bad it's not the greatest film. 

Why do forgettable movies get such wonderful soundtracks??


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad it's not the greatest film.
> 
> Why do forgettable movies get such wonderful soundtracks??


 It wasn't all that bad of a film,surely not the best but at least watchable. I suspect next year will be a treat (at least for audio and visual) and a few good films should pop up from time to time


----------



## Dmega

Looking for some good advice on atmos speaker configuration and components.

I'm considering updating my home cinema from a denon x2200 5.1.2 layout to either a 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. My current setup is pretty darn good tho not amazing and I feel like I'm missing some sounds from the front wide position and the surround back position. I haven't found many people using the 9.1.2 setup and was hoping to get some feed back from people who actually set this up and have experience. I'm very interested in what the wide front's can bring to the table as most of the movies sound stage is on the horizontal plane. Also It will be a huge pain to open up the ceiling and walls at this point for wiring and such...but doable. 

I'm targeting the marantz sr7010 or denon x6200 at black Friday prices (if possible) with the marantz mm7025 stereo amp. I'm sure I will be happy with the performance of these components based on my current avr sounding pretty darn good. The advantage going this route to me is I can try the 9.1.2 and see how I like it. I already have enough satellite speakers to make it work. If it's not up to par I could rig ceiling speakers.

On the other hand I could just go the one box solution and get the denon x6300h or Anthem mrx1120 and forgo the front wide's all together. Not sure if this stuff will be reduced in price for black Friday or not but I will keep my eyes opened. BTW I literally live 10 minutes away from the Anthem HQ in Mississauga so I don't know if there is any sort of benefit should I need repairs or help but there is some civic pride there. I would love to support the home town team especially if the product makes sense.

In house evaluations seems like a remote possibility and there are two retailer in the area the local BB and AV enthusiast store. We all know what BB is like but the enthusiast store didn't have any of the components I targeted on the floor ready to be sampled.

The marantz and denon products seem to be pretty much stuffed with all the bells and whistles but the anthem I have no experience with...does it do dts x yet?...how to I play music from my iphone to the receiver? Based on the few reviews I can find I'm confident it will sound better than the D+M receivers but I don't know if its worth it.

Thanks in advance for any help I can get.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

Dmega said:


> Looking for some good advice on atmos speaker configuration and components.
> 
> I'm considering updating my home cinema from a denon x2200 5.1.2 layout to either a 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. My current setup is pretty darn good tho not amazing and I feel like I'm missing some sounds from the front wide position and the surround back position. I haven't found many people using the 9.1.2 setup and was hoping to get some feed back from people who actually set this up and have experience. I'm very interested in what the wide front's can bring to the table as most of the movies sound stage is on the horizontal plane. Also It will be a huge pain to open up the ceiling and walls at this point for wiring and such...but doable.
> 
> I'm targeting the marantz sr7010 or denon x6200 at black Friday prices (if possible) with the marantz mm7025 stereo amp. I'm sure I will be happy with the performance of these components based on my current avr sounding pretty darn good. The advantage going this route to me is I can try the 9.1.2 and see how I like it. I already have enough satellite speakers to make it work. If it's not up to par I could rig ceiling speakers.
> 
> On the other hand I could just go the one box solution and get the denon x6300h or Anthem mrx1120 and forgo the front wide's all together. Not sure if this stuff will be reduced in price for black Friday or not but I will keep my eyes opened. BTW I literally live 10 minutes away from the Anthem HQ in Mississauga so I don't know if there is any sort of benefit should I need repairs or help but there is some civic pride there. I would love to support the home town team especially if the product makes sense.
> 
> In house evaluations seems like a remote possibility and there are two retailer in the area the local BB and AV enthusiast store. We all know what BB is like but the enthusiast store didn't have any of the components I targeted on the floor ready to be sampled.
> 
> The marantz and denon products seem to be pretty much stuffed with all the bells and whistles but the anthem I have no experience with...does it do dts x yet?...how to I play music from my iphone to the receiver? Based on the few reviews I can find I'm confident it will sound better than the D+M receivers but I don't know if its worth it.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help I can get.


Greetings,
I'm no expert...but based on what i have read, from Dolby and here on the forums, it is always best to go with a x.x.4 setup over the .2. This is because the more speakers there are overhead, the better the height panning will be from front to back and back to front.

Of course, the decision is yours, so you could try 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 and and go with whichever one you like best...hope this helps.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Dmega said:


> Looking for some good advice on atmos speaker configuration and components.
> 
> I'm considering updating my home cinema from a denon x2200 5.1.2 layout to either a 9.1.2 or 7.1.4. My current setup is pretty darn good tho not amazing and I feel like I'm missing some sounds from the front wide position and the surround back position. I haven't found many people using the 9.1.2 setup and was hoping to get some feed back from people who actually set this up and have experience. I'm very interested in what the wide front's can bring to the table as most of the movies sound stage is on the horizontal plane. Also It will be a huge pain to open up the ceiling and walls at this point for wiring and such...but doable.
> 
> I'm targeting the marantz sr7010 or denon x6200 at black Friday prices (if possible) with the marantz mm7025 stereo amp. I'm sure I will be happy with the performance of these components based on my current avr sounding pretty darn good. The advantage going this route to me is I can try the 9.1.2 and see how I like it. I already have enough satellite speakers to make it work. If it's not up to par I could rig ceiling speakers.
> 
> On the other hand I could just go the one box solution and get the denon x6300h or Anthem mrx1120 and forgo the front wide's all together. Not sure if this stuff will be reduced in price for black Friday or not but I will keep my eyes opened. BTW I literally live 10 minutes away from the Anthem HQ in Mississauga so I don't know if there is any sort of benefit should I need repairs or help but there is some civic pride there. I would love to support the home town team especially if the product makes sense.
> 
> In house evaluations seems like a remote possibility and there are two retailer in the area the local BB and AV enthusiast store. We all know what BB is like but the enthusiast store didn't have any of the components I targeted on the floor ready to be sampled.
> 
> The marantz and denon products seem to be pretty much stuffed with all the bells and whistles but the anthem I have no experience with...does it do dts x yet?...how to I play music from my iphone to the receiver? Based on the few reviews I can find I'm confident it will sound better than the D+M receivers but I don't know if its worth it.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help I can get.


If you get the SR7010 you can also do 7.1.4 using wides instead of rears. That way you can keep the existing layout, add wides and a second height pair.


----------



## Krio

dwaleke said:


> Sounds like you went to 5.1.2 and now want to go 5.1.4. Correct?


Hello,

sorry for the late reply i didnt get any notification about it ... Well i though to upgrade from 5.1 to 7.1 ... i am still using the read ceiling as the rear surround .. plus i i just installed another sub SVS) .... the 2 other speakers i add it as top front ..... not much difference ...


----------



## Krio

giftedmd said:


> ^^^agree with above. I also contemplated using my rear ceiling speakers as surround backs for 7.1.2 since my rear ceiling speakers are in the soffit about a foot lower than my front ceiling speakers. But from everything I have read 5.1.4 is better since surround backs aren't used that much and effects can be mixed into side surrounds (I have mine angled slightly behind seats at 120 degrees as a bit of a compromise and similar to Dolby Atmos diagrams for 5.1.4). Two pairs of ceiling speakers, Top rears and top fronts, provide more convincing overhead effects than a single pair.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


.. just now i add one sub ... mmmm - the actual config its 4 ceiling speakers ... the rear are used as rear surround, and the front are used as top front .... you are suggesting to back to base 5.2 and use the ceiling speakers as top front and top rear. actually i wanted to buy 2 FH speakers ... and convert the top front in 2 Atmos ... would that be better?


----------



## giftedmd

Krio said:


> .. just now i add one sub ... mmmm - the actual config its 4 ceiling speakers ... the rear are used as rear surround, and the front are used as top front .... you are suggesting to back to base 5.2 and use the ceiling speakers as top front and top rear. actually i wanted to buy 2 FH speakers ... and convert the top front in 2 Atmos ... would that be better?


Yes 5.2.4 would be what I would do with top front and top rears. But you may prefer a 7.2.2 setup using your rear ceiling speakers as surround backs. You could always experiment with some Atmos scenes like the John Wick club scene and see what you like. Adding front heights will make your sound stage taller and Dolby Atmos will utilize them but it won't help with the front to rear and rear to front overhead panning effects like having a pair of ceiling or height speakers behind you will. But like I said, I would experiment with how you designate them in your receiver to see what you like. You can add more speakers later if you feel you are still missing something.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## dolphinc

Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp. Anyone have any recommendations for a 2 channel amp? I currently have a Onkyo TX-757 with a 5.1.2 setup and I would like to avoid replacing the receiver if possible.

Thanks,


----------



## jcp2

dolphinc said:


> Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp. Anyone have any recommendations for a 2 channel amp? I currently have a Onkyo TX-757 with a 5.1.2 setup and I would like to avoid replacing the receiver if possible.
> 
> Thanks,


Audiosource amp100vs


----------



## Livin

dolphinc said:


> Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp. Anyone have any recommendations for a 2 channel amp? I currently have a Onkyo TX-757 with a 5.1.2 setup and I would like to avoid replacing the receiver if possible.
> 
> Thanks,


Anything cheap


----------



## dolphinc

jcp2 said:


> Audiosource amp100vs





Livin said:


> Anything cheap


Thanks, found an Onkyo 2 channel amp on Amazon with good reviews that I am going to try.


----------



## usc1995

dolphinc said:


> Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp. Anyone have any recommendations for a 2 channel amp? I currently have a Onkyo TX-757 with a 5.1.2 setup and I would like to avoid replacing the receiver if possible.
> 
> Thanks,


I hate to break it to you but I am pretty sure your receiver is only a 7 channel receiver with processing only for 7 channels plus subs. You won't be able to get a 5.2.4 atmos configuration with that receiver just 5.2.2. I was set on 5.2.4 and was upgrading from an Onkyo but I couldn't find one that could do it without stepping way up beyond my budget. Double check it before you buy your extra amp.


----------



## aaranddeeman

dolphinc said:


> Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp. Anyone have any recommendations for a 2 channel amp? I currently have a Onkyo TX-757 with a 5.1.2 setup and I would like to avoid replacing the receiver if possible.
> 
> Thanks,


TX-757 looks to be only 7 channel processor.


----------



## dolphinc

aaranddeeman said:


> TX-757 looks to be only 7 channel processor.


This is where I get confused, the Onkyo is a 7.1 receiver which I have a atmos setup right now of 5.1.2, if I add a 2 channel amp shouldn't I be able to get a 5.1.4 setup?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dolphinc said:


> This is where I get confused, the Onkyo is a 7.1 receiver which I have a atmos setup right now of 5.1.2, if I add a 2 channel amp shouldn't I be able to get a 5.1.4 setup?


That particular model Onkyo is only capable of 5.1.2 processing. That's it. You would have to upgrade receivers for 5.1.4 or even further for 7.1.4.


----------



## Skylinestar

dolphinc said:


> Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp.


A lot? Could you please name a few models?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dolphinc said:


> Dumb question but I see a lot of 5.1.2 receivers stating you can go to a 5.1.4 setup with an external 2 channel amp. Anyone have any recommendations for a 2 channel amp? I currently have a Onkyo TX-757 with a 5.1.2 setup and I would like to avoid replacing the receiver if possible.
> 
> Thanks,



The only receivers that can do 5.1.4 processing are those mid level units with _actual_ 5.1.4 capable processing chips and upper tier models with 7.1.4 processing (or above that if you have a lot of money). Some 5.1.4 receivers allow you to do 5.1.4 with an added stereo amp for the Top Rear speakers, and some now have all the amps built-in if they're a high enough 2016 model.

As mentioned, your model can only do 5.1.2.


----------



## Krio

giftedmd said:


> Yes 5.2.4 would be what I would do with top front and top rears. But you may prefer a 7.2.2 setup using your rear ceiling speakers as surround backs. You could always experiment with some Atmos scenes like the John Wick club scene and see what you like. Adding front heights will make your sound stage taller and Dolby Atmos will utilize them but it won't help with the front to rear and rear to front overhead panning effects like having a pair of ceiling or height speakers behind you will. But like I said, I would experiment with how you designate them in your receiver to see what you like. You can add more speakers later if you feel you are still missing something.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Do you mean, if i set the ceiling speakers as top front and top rear, Dolby Atmos will use it ? if that the case maybe i can try the 5.2.4 then i ll add a pair of Front Heights .... that would be better?


----------



## Selden Ball

Krio said:


> Do you mean, if i set the ceiling speakers as top front and top rear, Dolby Atmos will use it ?


 Yes. 
There are 5 overhead position designations used by Atmos: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height.


> if that the case maybe i can try the 5.2.4 then i ll add a pair of Front Heights .... that would be better?


The best overhead speaker placement is for the front overheads to be about 45 degrees in front of the seating and the rear overheads to be about 45 degrees in back of the seating. Designating them as Top Front and Top Rear seems to be the best compromise between Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## Skylinestar

Dan Hitchman said:


> Some 5.1.4 receivers allow you to do 5.1.4 with an added stereo amp for the Top Rear speakers


Could you please list a few models with 7ch amps with the ability to go 5.1.4 with added ext amp? I can only think of the old Denon X4200.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Skylinestar said:


> Could you please list a few models with 7ch amps with the ability to go 5.1.4 with added ext amp? I can only think of the old Denon X4200.


There were some 2014 and 2015 Onkyo and Pioneer Elite models too. I do know that the new 2016 Denon and Marantz model lineup has dropped the 5.1.4/7.1.2 line and now it goes from 5.1.2 base models to 7.1.4 mid and upper models with built-in amps for 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 without the need of an external amp (only if you want 7.1.4). 

However, they no longer support Front Wides. No one does in 2016, which is unfortunate.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Skylinestar said:


> Could you please list a few models with 7ch amps with the ability to go 5.1.4 with added ext amp? I can only think of the old Denon X4200.


The SR6010 can do 5.1.4, 7.1.2 or even 7.1.2 using front wides instead of rears.


----------



## usc1995

dolphinc said:


> This is where I get confused, the Onkyo is a 7.1 receiver which I have a atmos setup right now of 5.1.2, if I add a 2 channel amp shouldn't I be able to get a 5.1.4 setup?


You are already using all 7 of your amps: 5 for your LCR and surrounds + 2 for your Atmos. Your receiver also only has processing for 2 Atmos speakers so even with an additional amp you would not be able to feed the other 2 Atmos channels to it because it is not capable.


----------



## Ricoflashback

audiofan1 said:


> Legend of Tarzan just could be the best Atmos mix to date
> 
> Bonus to those who rent disc as it contains the Atmos mix.


--Is the Bluray version Dolby Atmos? 

The critics panned the movie - - not surprising from critics. The comments were like "Me Tarzan, You Bored." 

If Redbox has the Dolby Atmos mix - - I'll definitely pick it up. Thx.


----------



## audiofan1

Ricoflashback said:


> --Is the Bluray version Dolby Atmos?
> 
> The critics panned the movie - - not surprising from critics. The comments were like "Me Tarzan, You Bored."
> 
> If Redbox has the Dolby Atmos mix - - I'll definitely pick it up. Thx.


 Yes the bluray has Atmos (got mine from Netflix) as far as the critics go I agree but while not the best it could have been, I still came away entertained. The Atmos mix is just stellar and good visuals to bootI'm buying a copy anyway


----------



## gwsat

audiofan1 said:


> Yes the bluray has Atmos (got mine from Netflix) as far as the critics go I agree but while not the best it could have been, I still came away entertained. The Atmos mix is just stellar and good visuals to bootI'm buying a copy anyway


I entered the 4K HDR and Atmos age last summer when I upgraded my home theater gear to accommodate both. I have concluded that the upgrade from DTS-HD MA 5.1 to TrueHD Atmos does more to enhance my enjoyment of a film than the upgrade from 1080P to 4K HDR does.


----------



## audiofan1

gwsat said:


> I entered the 4K HDR and Atmos age last summer when I upgraded my home theater gear to accommodate both. I have concluded that the upgrade from DTS-HD MA 5.1 to TrueHD Atmos does more to enhance my enjoyment of a film than the upgrade from 1080P to 4K HDR does.


 I haven't crossed the 4k HDR bridge yet and will most likely be awhile, the audio side of things is largely done,going from 5.1 to 7.1.4 was money well spent and worth the labor and I'm just back to enjoying movies and music again


----------



## richlife

audiofan1 said:


> I haven't crossed the 4k HDR bridge yet and will most likely be awhile, the audio side of things is largely done,going from 5.1 to 7.1.4 was money well spent and worth the labor and I'm just back to enjoying movies and music again


I tend to agree. And notice that I agree with @gwsat, also. But I think that we won't see the real difference in 4K HDR until we get true 4K HDR source material with new Bluray players. Currently, I'm biding time for two things: One is the new OPPO 4K HDR bluray player soon to be released. Depending on actual features/specs, that one may go on my wishlist. A lot also depends on the acceptance and availability of Dolby Vision. My other item is a new HDTV. While my Vizio is 4K and truly did provide an improved up-scaled picture, a key is HDR and, for me, an upgrade to 65". When all these things come together, THEN I'll be happy with the investment. (My wife has other thoughts,  , but she is thinking this year while I know it's definitely next year at the earliest.)


----------



## audiofan1

richlife said:


> I tend to agree. And notice that I agree with @gwsat, also. But I think that we won't see the real difference in 4K HDR until we get true 4K HDR source material with new Bluray players. Currently, I'm biding time for two things: One is the new OPPO 4K HDR bluray player soon to be released. Depending on actual features/specs, that one may go on my wishlist. A lot also depends on the acceptance and availability of Dolby Vision. My other item is a new HDTV. While my Vizio is 4K and truly did provide an improved up-scaled picture, a key is HDR and, for me, an upgrade to 65". When all these things come together, THEN I'll be happy with the investment. (My wife has other thoughts,  , but she is thinking this year while I know it's definitely next year at the earliest.)


 HDR ,Dolby Vision and the wider color gamut are most important to me. I can get away with a screen size of 75-80" and be a happy camper My current Mits 73" Dlp is still serving me well with a back up bulb in the wings. as for Oppo's latest player? Well i'm glad I have time on that end as well , during the massive upgrades since 2013 my Oppo 105 is no longer in the setup only to be replaced by replaced by an Marantz UD5007 which PQ I like more than the coveted Oppo it was just more cinematic to me, and that little discovery has me on look out for D&M's offerings to compare before plunking down any change:laugh:


----------



## Sekosche

I just got the Sept. 2015 Atmos demo disc (from Amazon), and wow is it awesome! It took about two and a half weeks to receive it from China. Since installing Atmos speakers, I've been running my 4 overheads about +3dB hotter than the rest. 

What do most people prefer on this disc to fine tune their Atmos systems, and are most people level matching to the base speakers? I've read of some people using the helicopter demo to adjust levels, angles, etc. For my system integration with speakers/subs, I use an SPL meter, mic, REW, and miniDSP to run off a Denon X4200.

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## richlife

audiofan1 said:


> HDR ,Dolby Vision and the wider color gamut are most important to me. I can get away with a screen size of 75-80" and be a happy camper My current Mits 73" Dlp is still serving me well with a back up bulb in the wings. as for Oppo's latest player? Well i'm glad I have time on that end as well , during the massive upgrades since 2013 my Oppo 105 is no longer in the setup only to be replaced by replaced by an Marantz UD5007 which PQ I like more than the coveted Oppo it was just more cinematic to me, and that little discovery has me on look out for D&M's offerings to compare before plunking down any change:laugh:


I appreciate that comment about the Marantz -- I'm just waiting on OPPO because it SHOULD be a good offering. But reputedly, it will NOT have Dolby Vision support and I won't jump until it's clear that Dolby Vision won't be widely supported -- and I don't expect that at all. So Marantz (with Dolby Vision) might be an option for me.

Anyone else have thoughts about this coming world of Atmos with UHD HDR wide color gamut? Or does this belong in another thread?


----------



## audiofan1

richlife said:


> I appreciate that comment about the Marantz -- I'm just waiting on OPPO because it SHOULD be a good offering. But reputedly, it will NOT have Dolby Vision support and I won't jump until it's clear that Dolby Vision won't be widely supported -- and I don't expect that at all. So Marantz (with Dolby Vision) might be an option for me.
> 
> Anyone else have thoughts about this coming world of Atmos with UHD HDR wide color gamut? Or does this belong in another thread?


 Apologies  I'm not sure if the Marantz will have Dolby Vision  but from what I understand so far the Oppo will due to a possible later update?


----------



## kenreau

*Need input on rear surrounds locations*

Greetings all, 

I have a space constrained basement 7.2.4 Atmos build out going on and could use some expert input on rear surround speaker placement. The room measures 13' wide x 26' long x 6'-10" high. I intend to install the in-ceiling speakers at ~45 degrees front and back of the MLP. MLP is (4' to screen/false wall + 12' screen to MLP) 16' back. 

I'm struggling with where to place the side and back surround speakers (GoldenEar SuperSat 50s). All the speaker locations are in Red. 

What I have in mind is;
2 Side speakers - at ~10 degrees back from seating position on side walls with tweeters at same height as front L, C & R.
2 Rear speakers on side walls, placed back some undetermined distance. My rear surround speakers will only work on the side walls. The back wall has the entry door and a cabinet wet bar on the back wall (not currently shown in the sketchup). Should I mount them on the side walls back a distance (shown red in the sketchup) and have them face the towards the listening area? Or facing each other? Or? 

Thanks in advance
Kenreau


----------



## Scott Simonian

Looks pretty good where they are @kenreau

Here is a suggested alternate position that will avoid hotspotting side surrounds and may very well enhance the envelopment of surround sound as a whole.


----------



## kenreau

Scott Simonian said:


> Looks pretty good where they are @kenreau
> 
> Here is a suggested alternate position that will avoid hotspotting side surrounds and may very well enhance the envelopment of surround sound as a whole.


Thanks for the input! Are you thinking the side rear back speakers are actually pushed forward of the MLP? like 30 degrees forward?

Thanks
Kenreau


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. Just ahead of the seating area. You don't want to have them directly at the side at these distances. It will be annoying and distracting firing right into the side of your head. 

It's best in a narrow room like yours (I also have a long, narrow room) to put the side surrounds either just forward of the MLP or just behind it. With 7.1 and greater, I highly recommend putting the side surrounds slight ahead of the MLP to exaggerate the separation from side to rear. It will give a very enveloping sound that puts you right in the surround soundfield.

Other than that, your layout looks pretty good.


----------



## sdurani

kenreau said:


> Are you thinking the side rear back speakers are actually pushed forward of the MLP? like 30 degrees forward?


At the forward edge of the window. That can't be 30 degrees forward of the MLP.


----------



## audiofan1

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup. Just ahead of the seating area. You don't want to have them directly at the side at these distances. It will be annoying and distracting firing right into the side of your head.
> 
> *It's best in a narrow room like yours (I also have a long, narrow room) to put the side surrounds either just forward of the MLP or just behind it.* With 7.1 and greater, I highly recommend putting the side surrounds slight ahead of the MLP to exaggerate the separation from side to rear. It will give a very enveloping sound that puts you right in the surround soundfield.
> 
> Other than that, your layout looks pretty good.


And who says bi/poles don't have a place in this immersive world of ours


----------



## gwsat

richlife said:


> I tend to agree. And notice that I agree with @gwsat, also. But I think that we won't see the real difference in 4K HDR until we get true 4K HDR source material with new Bluray players. Currently, I'm biding time for two things: One is the new OPPO 4K HDR bluray player soon to be released. Depending on actual features/specs, that one may go on my wishlist. A lot also depends on the acceptance and availability of Dolby Vision. My other item is a new HDTV. While my Vizio is 4K and truly did provide an improved up-scaled picture, a key is HDR and, for me, an upgrade to 65". When all these things come together, THEN I'll be happy with the investment. (My wife has other thoughts,  , but she is thinking this year while I know it's definitely next year at the earliest.)


I have a Kaleidescape Strato movie server, which allows me to download and play files for films, which are the bit for bit equivalent to what is encoded on 4K HDR discs. Although the 4K HDR version of films is clearly superior to the 1080P version, that improvement hasn't meant as much to me as the improvement to Atmos from DTS-HD MA 5.1 has.

Despite owning a Strato, I plan to buy an Oppo UDB-203 4K HDR disc player when it is released. The Kaleidescape Movie Store is all right but still has much less choice than Amazon offers. although the Oppo 203 is apparently not going to support Dolby Vision HDR on release, it will apparently have the necessary hardware built it, so that Dolby Vision can be added via upgraded firmware. A limitation of Dolby Vision is that many 4K HDR capable TVs don't have the requisite hardware support for Dolby Vision. This includes my Sony 75XBR 940D set I bought last summer, so Dolby Vision support on the 203 won't do anything for me. Oh well, I will just continue to enjoy Atmos audio,


----------



## richlife

audiofan1 said:


> Apologies  I'm not sure if the Marantz will have Dolby Vision  but from what I understand so far the Oppo will due to a possible later update?


Ok, found this thread, so really should end this item: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...3-uhd-blu-ray-player-anticipation-thread.html

For those who don't care, OPPO now says the UDP-203, with or without Dolby Vision, release is pushed back to Dec. So now to add the above thread to my subscriptions.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

richlife said:


> I appreciate that comment about the Marantz -- I'm just waiting on OPPO because it SHOULD be a good offering. But reputedly, it will NOT have Dolby Vision support and I won't jump until it's clear that Dolby Vision won't be widely supported -- and I don't expect that at all. So Marantz (with Dolby Vision) might be an option for me.
> 
> Anyone else have thoughts about this coming world of Atmos with UHD HDR wide color gamut? Or does this belong in another thread?


Well, some studios, namely Fox, sometimes Sony, and Disney will only put Atmos or DTS: X on UHD Blu-ray discs, so you might as well move up since you invested in Dolby Atmos gear. The Samsung will be $189 at Costco on 11/17. And $10 more at Best Buy around BF.


----------



## smurraybhm

richlife said:


> Ok, found this thread, so really should end this item: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...3-uhd-blu-ray-player-anticipation-thread.html
> 
> For those who don't care, OPPO now says the UDP-203, with or without Dolby Vision, release is pushed back to Dec. So now to add the above thread to my subscriptions.


Rich - apologies to sound like those on the Oppo thread, but the release date has always been sometime by the end of 2016, so it hasn't been pushed back until we cross over to 2017  As for DV who knows if that's important disk format or not until we start getting more releases that utilize DV. The fact that the Oppo 203 has a possible upgrade path to DV and the players hold their value so well whether it happens (DV upgrade) or not minimizes any risk IMO. I've sold 3 Oppos since the 83 was released and never been out more than $100 to upgrade to the next generation - which is about the cost of buying an every day blu-ray player from Sony, Samsung, etc. Add the things that Oppo is known for plus the ability to play other types of disks and its a win win in my book.

I'm focused on the 203 for its ability to allow me to buy 4k Ultra disks and enjoy them on my none 4k display/receiver. While the release of immersive formats on blu-ray continue, there are more being released in the 4k Ultra format and with the holidays approaching that means better prices. As we have learned, even though the 4k disks include a blu-ray, the Atmos or X mix isn't always on the blu-ray. I fully admit to having a Atmos addiction, at the same time I'm in no hurry to upgrade my display to 4k, but the Oppo would likely push me to upgrade to a receiver that has DTS:X capabilities. 

Apologies if we are off topic, but we are discussing immersive technology. As for Tarzan, when the price dropped to $14.99 I bought it. Looks entertaining and I'm usually watching/listening to a movie to escape the serious things in life or debates about the college football playoffs. Keep in mind I live in Alabama


----------



## Dave-T

I was wondering if I could get some advice on speaker placement for my speakers. I am switching all of my speakers out and converting to in-wall speakers. My room is 21' L X 12'W at the front & 10'W at the back of the room X 9'H. The room is long and narrow with large windows. I am going to do a 5.1.4 atmos setup. I am using 3 B&W CWM7.3 speakers up front, 2 B&W CWM7.4 speakers in the back, 4 B&W CCM683 speakers on the ceiling and one Velodyne DD10. The front speakers are not going to be an issue, it is the rear speakers I am concerned about. The rear speakers are going to be roughly 9' away from the MLP and the center speaker is going to be roughly 11'.5" away from the couch. This is in a living room so there will only be 1 couch. The rear speakers have to go on the back wall or they can go on the rear side wall. If on the rear side wall the speakers would be at 90 degrees and about 8' away from the couch. Because the speakers are in-walls they cannot be angled so I am thinking the they would not sound right. I attached pictures of the room and a copy of the floor plans with measurements. Next the atmos speakers are going on the ceiling where should they go? How many feet in front and behind the couch? Any help would be greatly appreciated because once these speakers are in the wall there is no turning back. The speaker in the pictures are already sold so I no longer have them. For equipment I using a marantz 8802a processor, a Rotel RMB-1575 (Fronts and Center) and Rotel RMB-1565(Ceiling speakers). Thanks for the help and feedback.


----------



## gwsat

smurraybhm said:


> Rich - apologies to sound like those on the Oppo thread, but the release date has always been sometime by the end of 2016, so it hasn't been pushed back until we cross over to 2017  As for DV who knows if that's important disk format or not until we start getting more releases that utilize DV. The fact that the Oppo 203 has a possible upgrade path to DV and the players hold their value so well whether it happens (DV upgrade) or not minimizes any risk IMO. I've sold 3 Oppos since the 83 was released and never been out more than $100 to upgrade to the next generation - which is about the cost of buying an every day blu-ray player from Sony, Samsung, etc. Add the things that Oppo is known for plus the ability to play other types of disks and its a win win in my book.
> 
> I'm focused on the 203 for its ability to allow me to buy 4k Ultra disks and enjoy them on my none 4k display/receiver. While the release of immersive formats on blu-ray continue, there are more being released in the 4k Ultra format and with the holidays approaching that means better prices. As we have learned, even though the 4k disks include a blu-ray, the Atmos or X mix isn't always on the blu-ray. I fully admit to having a Atmos addiction, at the same time I'm in no hurry to upgrade my display to 4k, but the Oppo would likely push me to upgrade to a receiver that has DTS:X capabilities.
> 
> Apologies if we are off topic, but we are discussing immersive technology. As for Tarzan, when the price dropped to $14.99 I bought it. Looks entertaining and I'm usually watching/listening to a movie to escape the serious things in life or debates about the college football playoffs. Keep in mind I live in Alabama


smurraybhm -- Like you said. I started to post an explanation last night that Oppo has never announced a release date for the 203, other to announce that they expected to roll it out this year, but got busy and didn't do it.

Like you, I want the 4K HDR capable 203 as much for the broader choice of immersive audio codecs it will give me as for 4K HDR capability. I think immersive audio is as much the future as 4K HDR is.


----------



## Scott Simonian

audiofan1 said:


> And who says bi/poles don't have a place in this immersive world of ours


People who read way too much into online diagrams instead of trying for themselves at home.


----------



## richlife

smurraybhm said:


> ...
> 
> Apologies if we are off topic, but we are discussing immersive technology. As for Tarzan, when the price dropped to $14.99 I bought it. Looks entertaining and I'm usually watching/listening to a movie to escape the serious things in life or debates about the college football playoffs. Keep in mind I live in Alabama


Yes, this is the Atmos thread, and I expect that the dominant immersive tech for UHD/4K will be Atmos (as it is for the minimal software currently available). I'm holding off on UHD disc purchases due to the holidays -- my family is very good at feeding my needs this time of year.  I'm a step ahead of you in that my Vizio is UHD -- just need more size! Size matters! (I didn't think there was any debate in Alabama -- especially now...  ) At this point, even my wife has reluctantly conceded on the OPPO 203 -- sometime early next year.



Dave-T said:


> I was wondering if I could get some advice on speaker placement for my speakers. I am switching all of my speakers out and converting to in-wall speakers. My room is 21' L X 12'W at the front & 10'W at the back of the room X 9'H. The room is long and narrow with large windows. I am going to do a 5.1.4 atmos setup. I am using 3 B&W CWM7.3 speakers up front, 2 B&W CWM7.4 speakers in the back, 4 B&W CCM683 speakers on the ceiling and one Velodyne DD10. The front speakers are not going to be an issue, it is the rear speakers I am concerned about. The rear speakers are going to be roughly 9' away from the MLP and the center speaker is going to be roughly 11'.5" away from the couch. This is in a living room so there will only be 1 couch. The rear speakers have to go on the back wall or they can go on the rear side wall. If on the rear side wall the speakers would be at 90 degrees and about 8' away from the couch. Because the speakers are in-walls they cannot be angled so I am thinking the they would not sound right. I attached pictures of the room and a copy of the floor plans with measurements. Next the atmos speakers are going on the ceiling where should they go? How many feet in front and behind the couch? Any help would be greatly appreciated because once these speakers are in the wall there is no turning back. The speaker in the pictures are already sold so I no longer have them. For equipment I using a marantz 8802a processor, a Rotel RMB-1575 (Fronts and Center) and Rotel RMB-1565(Ceiling speakers). Thanks for the help and feedback.


The difficulty I see for your rear surrounds, is that your have limited distance on those side walls from the back corners to place in-wall speakers. But since your have defined 5.1.4, I would say the side walls are really your only option to get the right effects and you should move them as far forward as possible. You appear to be committed to the B&Ws and in-wall, but more ideally you should orient the rear surrounds toward your MLP. Given that, other speakers with a directable tweeter might be an option -- but I would stick with keeping timbre matching. 

As for the Atmos ceiling speakers, with a 9' ceiling, about 5 feet before and after your couch ear position (or about 45* both directions) would be best. Good luck with this, I know what it's like trying to fit a none standard Atmos room.


----------



## batpig

audiofan1 said:


> And who says bi/poles don't have a place in this immersive world of ours


Yup. Lots of people jump on absolutes on questions about things like speaker height, monopole vs. bipole, etc.

I think it is telling that Triad, which worked very closely with Dolby in the development of Atmos home speaker tech, still recommends bipole (not dipole!) surrounds for small rooms when you are closer than ~6' to the speaker.

I definitely agree that monopole surrounds directly to the sides is a problem in a smaller room. Especially if you lower your surrounds to near ear level. My room is about 15.5' wide, and I was never happy with mine to the sides (they were slightly forward, but close enough to directly to the sides), too much hot spotting and distraction. Unfortunately, I have a large window on the left side that prevents the surrounds from moving any further forward of where I had them, so I went with "slightly behind" and I am much happier.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> I think it is telling that Triad, which worked very closely with Dolby in the development of Atmos home speaker tech, still recommends bipole (not dipole!) surrounds for small rooms when you are closer than ~6' to the speaker.


Does Triad's bipole recommendation extend to overhead speakers, given that those often are within that 6' distance from MLP?


----------



## Krio

Selden Ball said:


> Yes.
> There are 5 overhead position designations used by Atmos: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height.
> 
> 
> The best overhead speaker placement is for the front overheads to be about 45 degrees in front of the seating and the rear overheads to be about 45 degrees in back of the seating. Designating them as Top Front and Top Rear seems to be the best compromise between Atmos and DTS:X.


Got it, one more question, so Adtos and DTS:X, uses those 5 positions 'Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height.' - all of them simultaneously can be used, or only 4 each time? like a pair of top front + top rear, a pair of Front Height Rear Height, or a combination but still only 4 ceiling speakers?


----------



## Selden Ball

Krio said:


> Got it, one more question, so Adtos and DTS:X, uses those 5 positions 'Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height.' - all of them simultaneously can be used, or only 4 each time? like a pair of top front + top rear, a pair of Front Height Rear Height, or a combination but still only 4 ceiling speakers?


Each of the positions I listed includes both a Left and a Right speaker for a total of 10 individual speaker locations. Current mainstream processors (receivers and pre/pros) can only send signals to four of those individual speaker locations, using two of those five pairs. Another restriction is that "adjacent" locations can't be used. For example, you can specify Front Height and Top Middle, but not Front Height and Top Front.

In general, it has been found that the two pairs (four speakers) designated Top Front and Top Rear provide the best compromise.


----------



## Krio

Selden Ball said:


> Each of the positions I listed includes both a Left and a Right speaker for a total of 10 individual speaker locations. Current mainstream processors (receivers and pre/pros) can only send signals to four of those individual speaker locations, using two of those five pairs. Another restriction is that "adjacent" locations can't be used. For example, you can specify Front Height and Top Middle, but not Front Height and Top Front.
> 
> In general, it has been found that the two pairs (four speakers) designated Top Front and Top Rear provide the best compromise.


Geez i just set back as base 5.2 + 4 ceiling speakers (top Front top Rear) ... its gives me a totally different sound compared the 7.2.2... i am extremely impressed by the result , simply outstanding ...

Now why the simple 5.2.4 it is better than a 7.2.2??- the rear surround didn't push as the 5.2.2 - i still have the possibility to add 2 rear surround speakers wall mounted 45 Degrees at 2.5 meters away from the listening position but now i am afraid to ruin what i already have which is simply spectacular !!! i can't ask for more ... i have no idea what 'more' could be .. 

Here some info about my equipment 
Marantz 7010
Prime speakers set SVS, (Prime Towers-Prime Center- Surround )
X2 Subwoofer SVS PB 1000
Cambridge Audio CXU 
X4 Ceiling Speakers B&W 6'' 
55'' samsung curve


----------



## audiofan1

Krio said:


> Geez i just set back as base 5.2 + 4 ceiling speakers (top Front top Rear) ... its gives me a totally different sound compared the 7.2.2... i am extremely impressed by the result , simply outstanding ...
> 
> Now why the simple 5.2.4 it is better than a 7.2.2??- the rear surround didn't push as the 5.2.2 - i still have the possibility to add 2 rear surround speakers wall mounted 45 Degrees at 2.5 meters away from the listening position but now i am afraid to ruin what i already have which is simply spectacular !!! i can't ask for more ... *i have no idea what 'more' could be *..
> 
> Here some info about my equipment
> Marantz 7010
> Prime speakers set SVS, (Prime Towers-Prime Center- Surround )
> X2 Subwoofer SVS PB 1000
> Cambridge Audio CXU
> X4 Ceiling Speakers B&W 6''
> 55'' samsung curve


 That more is 7.1.4  The rear surrounds are very active with native and upmixed material,so if you have the potential, do so later down the road, but for now sit back and enjoy some software


----------



## Krio

audiofan1 said:


> That more is 7.1.4  The rear surrounds are very active with native and upmixed material,so if you have the potential, do so later down the road, but for now sit back and enjoy some software


Ok then, i can move to the 7.2.4 later on in case i will feel the need for more speakers as 11 for now its fine ... Max i can reach without an external amp its 13 ...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Krio said:


> Ok then, i can move to the 7.2.4 later on in case i will feel the need for more speakers as 11 for now its fine ... Max i can reach without an external amp its 13 ...


Actually you can only process 11 channels with the SR7010.


----------



## giftedmd

Krio said:


> Now why the simple 5.2.4 it is better than a 7.2.2??- the rear surround didn't push as the 5.2.2 - i still have the possibility to add 2 rear surround speakers wall mounted 45 Degrees at 2.5 meters away from the listening position but now i am afraid to ruin what i already have which is simply spectacular !!! i can't ask for more ... i have no idea what 'more' could be ..


If you add rear surrounds keep them ear level along with the other 5 base level speakers.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> I entered the 4K HDR and Atmos age last summer when I upgraded my home theater gear to accommodate both. I have concluded that the upgrade from DTS-HD MA 5.1 to TrueHD Atmos does more to enhance my enjoyment of a film than the upgrade from 1080P to 4K HDR does.


I think a lot of people will agree with your statement. 

What bothers me is that with DD+ - - you can transmit Dolby Atmos with out any bandwidth issues. Yet here we are - - still very little Dolby Atmos from broadcast stations or cable/satellite TV. Hands down - - Dolby Atmos is the best improvement in my Home Theater experience.


----------



## dschulz

Ricoflashback said:


> I think a lot of people will agree with your statement.
> 
> What bothers me is that with DD+ - - you can transmit Dolby Atmos with out any bandwidth issues. Yet here we are - - still very little Dolby Atmos from broadcast stations or cable/satellite TV. Hands down - - Dolby Atmos is the best improvement in my Home Theater experience.


The terrestrial broadcast standard uses AC3, which doesn't support Atmos, so we won't see broadcast Atmos until the adoption of the next generation standard (ATSC 3.0, which will be using Dolby AC4).

Services using Dolby Digital Plus could be delivering Atmos (streaming and possibly some satellite), and I wish they'd start!


----------



## funky54

dschulz said:


> The terrestrial broadcast standard uses AC3, which doesn't support Atmos, so we won't see broadcast Atmos until the adoption of the next generation standard (ATSC 3.0, which will be using Dolby AC4).
> 
> Services using Dolby Digital Plus could be delivering Atmos (streaming and possibly some satellite), and I wish they'd start!


I hope I'm not placing this request for info in the wrong thread. I am very interested in truly understanding the basic pro's and con's of an Atoms 5.1.4 vs a Auro 3D. I am going to install the four in-ceiling speakers and want to understand the placement.. should I concentrate on Atmos? Should I concentrate on Auro 3D and let Atmos deal with it? Whats the compromise? Would one format work better with my limitations of ceiling?

I will have to place teh front and rear right height channel in-ceiling speakers on a slope ceiling. I can purchase inceiling speakers that tilt so that they both fire down at the same angle but the right channel will be a foot closer to the priority seating.

Where can I discuss those questions? Is it here? Can someone help?

I'll be investoing in either the Marantz 7702 mkii or 7703.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

funky54 said:


> I hope I'm not placing this request for info in the wrong thread. I am very interested in truly understanding the basic pro's and con's of an Atoms 5.1.4 vs a Auro 3D. I am going to install the four in-ceiling speakers and want to understand the placement.. should I concentrate on Atmos? Should I concentrate on Auro 3D and let Atmos deal with it? Whats the compromise? Would one format work better with my limitations of ceiling?
> 
> I will have to place teh front and rear right height channel in-ceiling speakers on a slope ceiling. I can purchase inceiling speakers that tilt so that they both fire down at the same angle but the right channel will be a foot closer to the priority seating.
> 
> Where can I discuss those questions? Is it here? Can someone help?
> 
> I'll be investoing in either the Marantz 7702 mkii or 7703.


Is there enough content to even entertain the idea of using Auro 3D?


----------



## funky54

Mashie Saldana said:


> Is there enough content to even entertain the idea of using Auro 3D?


Thats a great question. The same argument is out there for DV versus HDR. (Even though you kinda have to have DV with HDR) I'm tired of format wars. 

Is Auro 3D not a good format? Is this thread bias? I don't have an opinion and Im not educated with either. I have heard both. Both were amazing.


----------



## trespoochies

Not bias, Auro just has very little in terms of material that has been released. 38 releases, and of those, only 3 are movies (Texas Chainsaw Massacre German release, Pixels, and Red Tails). The rest are music, with live concerts. Theaters have a lot more, but when they hit home release, Auro isn't often included.

http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/bluray/


----------



## funky54

trespoochies said:


> Not bias, Auro just has very little in terms of material that has been released. 38 releases, and of those, only 3 are movies (Texas Chainsaw Massacre German release, Pixels, and Red Tails). The rest are music, with live concerts. Theaters have a lot more, but when they hit home release, Auro isn't often included.
> 
> http://www.auro-3d.com/consumer/bluray/


https://www.aperionaudio.com/blog/your-guide-to-immersive-sound-atmos-auro-3d-and-dtsx

I did find this. Might be generic but it was helpful to me, not knowing anything.

I guess Ill focus my speaker placement to benefit from Atmos..and that means DTS-X is covered. "Two outta three ain't bad" It also should save me $200 bucks with Marantz.

Now to learn the best speaker placement of in-ceiling speakers with my rooms limitations...


----------



## sdurani

funky54 said:


> I am very interested in truly understanding the basic pro's and con's of an Atoms 5.1.4 vs a Auro 3D. I am going to install the four in-ceiling speakers and want to understand the placement.


Auro wants its 4 height speakers high up on the walls, directly above your L/R fronts and L/R surrounds. Atmos and DTS:X typically want their 4 height speakers in or on the ceiling, roughly 45 degrees elevation forward and rearward of the listener. Based on content available, I would stick to the Atmos/DTS:X layout.


----------



## barhoram

Would two speakers between the main listening position and the front LCR speakers (much closer to LCR than main listening position) work well for Atmos?

I have a dedicated theater that was build for 7.1 surround per the Dolby specs. Room is double drywall, green glue, etc, so I really don't want to rip into any of that to install 4 Atmos speakers between the equipment room and theater. 

However, I did run one extra pair of speaker wire from the equipment room to behind the AT screen/proscenium. I could probably get a set of speakers 3-4 feet in front of the LCR's and almost to the ceiling. Would this be worth it...or should I just stick to my current 7.1 setup?

If not, would it be possible to set them at ground level and aim them towards the ceiling (like the ones that set on top of L/R main speakers). 

I know the ideal situation wold be ripping up drywall and installing 4 correctly, but that just isn't in the cards right now. 

I will see if I can post a pic of theater room wall. 

Thanks in Advance.


----------



## batpig

barhoram said:


> Would two speakers between the main listening position and the front LCR speakers (much closer to LCR than main listening position) work well for Atmos?
> 
> I have a dedicated theater that was build for 7.1 surround per the Dolby specs. Room is double drywall, green glue, etc, so I really don't want to rip into any of that to install 4 Atmos speakers between the equipment room and theater.
> 
> However, I did run one extra pair of speaker wire from the equipment room to behind the AT screen/proscenium. I could probably get a set of speakers 3-4 feet in front of the LCR's and almost to the ceiling. Would this be worth it...or should I just stick to my current 7.1 setup?
> 
> If not, would it be possible to set them at ground level and aim them towards the ceiling (like the ones that set on top of L/R main speakers).
> 
> I know the ideal situation wold be ripping up drywall and installing 4 correctly, but that just isn't in the cards right now.
> 
> I will see if I can post a pic of theater room wall.
> 
> Thanks in Advance.


Yes, what you are describing would be the "Front Height" speaker position (overhead location closest to the front wall). Ideally you would also be able to add a rear pair of overheads for the full 7.1.4 setup. These can be physical speakers or up-firing Atmos enabled speakers. 

If you can't rip up the drywall ceiling, what about some sort of low profile surface mounted channel for speaker wire? If you paint over to match the ceiling it could be pretty discreet.


----------



## gravi

*First Time Atmos Setup Questions*

Just finished installing in-ceiling speakers for 7.1.4 setup and have some questions. I have two rows of seating (11' and 16' distance) and will be using a Marantz SR7010 (which I picked up at a good sale).

- The ceiling speakers are not exactly in line with the LR speakers but just a tad inside so I could clear the sloping vault on both sides of the room. Hopefully Audyssey can correct for that.

- The first set of speakers is about 3-4 feet in front of the first row. I angled the tweeter towards the seating. Configured as "Top Front" in the Marantz - is this good?

- The second set is in between the first and second row and angled straight down. Configured a s "Top Rear"

- Due to unavoidable circumstances (roofline), the right top rear had to be placed about 18 inches forward, so it is not exactly parallel to the left speaker. Can the setup compensate for that?

Apperceiate any feedback. Thx.


----------



## mike0716

I am a home theatre novice. I have a smallish living room and would like to go with a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. One thing I have been struggling with is finding a good receiver to go with already purchased Atmos speakers. 

I don't really want to spend more than $1500 (and would love something in the $700-1000 range). 

Is there a list of good receivers that I can use for 5.1.4? Do I just find the most inexpensive 9 channel receiver that does Atmos? I would really like to go with a 5.1.4 setup instead of 5.1.2. 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

mike0716 said:


> I am a home theatre novice. I have a smallish living room and would like to go with a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. One thing I have been struggling with is finding a good receiver to go with already purchased Atmos speakers.
> 
> I don't really want to spend more than $1500 (and would love something in the $700-1000 range).
> 
> Is there a list of good receivers that I can use for 5.1.4? Do I just find the most inexpensive 9 channel receiver that does Atmos? I would really like to go with a 5.1.4 setup instead of 5.1.2.
> 
> Thanks for the help.


The denon x4200 is available on amazon for 799. That receiver will get you 5.1.2 and adding the Audio Source AMP100VS external amp for 99 also at amazon will give you 5.1.4. These two are what I use for my atmos set up, and it sounds fantastic.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## EdQ

Another option is if you want to go 7.1.4 in the future 

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_033AVX6200/Denon-AVR-X6200W.html?cc=07


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

EdQ said:


> Another option is if you want to go 7.1.4 in the future
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/p_033AVX6200/Denon-AVR-X6200W.html?cc=07


Yep...and if you wanted to have the latest and greatest...the x4200's replacement is the x4300, which can do 5.1.4 and with an additional amp will get you 7.1.4 processing. The x4300 is at the top of your budget...1500, but its an option.
These are just a few options, the comparable receivers from other manufacturers (yamaha, pioneer, onkyo, etc.) will also get you there.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## dante`afk

noob question here:

does the video/movie actually have to support dolby atmos to have that new feature or would a dolby atmos system actually enable it on anything I throw on the screen?


----------



## Josh Z

dante`afk said:


> noob question here:
> 
> does the video/movie actually have to support dolby atmos to have that new feature or would a dolby atmos system actually enable it on anything I throw on the screen?


Blu-rays with Dolby Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks have discrete audio that's sent to all of your speakers. 

If you watch movies with older 5.1, 7.1, or even stereo soundtracks, you may choose to engage either the Dolby Surround Upmixer or the DTS Neural:X upmixer. These will extract sounds (mostly ambient sounds) from the ground level speakers and spread them to the height speakers. 

This is akin to how Dolby ProLogic II can take a stereo soundtrack and spread it around a 5.1 channel system. It's not as good as a truly discrete soundtrack, but you may enjoy the way it fills the room.


----------



## dante`afk

Thanks.

Our couch is against the wall, thus the rear speakers would be very near to the listener, right behind us, maybe 35-40inch distance to us. Would a 5.1.2 system be even worth in this constellation or should I rather opt for a 3.1 system then?


----------



## sdurani

dante`afk said:


> Our couch is against the wall, thus the rear speakers would be very near to the listener, right behind us, maybe 35-40inch distance to us.


Can you put the surrounds on the side walls or the back corners of the room?


----------



## richlife

dante`afk said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Our couch is against the wall, thus the rear speakers would be very near to the listener, right behind us, maybe 35-40inch distance to us. Would a 5.1.2 system be even worth in this constellation or should I rather opt for a 3.1 system then?


First of all, while I agree with JoshZ (would be a fool not to ), be aware that at some point moving to a receiver and software that handle Atmos is a VERY big plus. Upmix can be really, really good, but I have yet to find that it is as good as native Atmos.

And 35-40 inches is not unmanageable. With wide dispersion speakers (or perhaps even bipoles), that distance is sufficient to provide a significant improvement over 3.1. It would also enable other future enhancement options.


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> Can you put the surrounds on the side walls or the back corners of the room?


Also, would it be feasible to pull the couch out from the wall? Even a foot would help. Again, especially with future options.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> Blu-rays with Dolby Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks have discrete audio that's sent to all of your speakers.
> 
> If you watch movies with older 5.1, 7.1, or even stereo soundtracks, you may choose to engage either the Dolby Surround Upmixer or the DTS Neural:X upmixer. These will extract sounds (mostly ambient sounds) from the ground level speakers and spread them to the height speakers.
> 
> This is akin to how Dolby ProLogic II can take a stereo soundtrack and spread it around a 5.1 channel system. It's not as good as a truly discrete soundtrack, but you may enjoy the way it fills the room.


Josh -- I agree with everything you said but would add one point. The Yamaha RX-A3060 has a DSP, "Enhanced" (Cinema DSP HD3), which matrixes non Atmos content to spread stereo or 5.1/7 audio, so that all 11 speakers, including heights, are active. Although to my ears at least Yamaha's Enhanced DSP is marginally better than other matrixing codecs, I agree entirely that no DSP sounds as good as native TrueHD Atmos audio.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

dante`afk said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Our couch is against the wall, thus the rear speakers would be very near to the listener, right behind us, maybe 35-40inch distance to us. Would a 5.1.2 system be even worth in this constellation or should I rather opt for a 3.1 system then?


Greetings,
My couch is against the wall. I have a 5.1.4 system (enabling the atmos and dts:x) with front heights and top middle/rear heights, and it sounds fantastic. 

For me and my room/setup...it was a significant improvement from what i had before, which was the current 5.1 with front heights...so i already had 7 of the 9 channels i now have. When I went to the atmos/dts:x capable receiver, and added the two additional speakers, it was still worth it for me.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> Josh -- I agree with everything you said but would add one point. The Yamaha RX-A3060 has a DSP, "Enhanced" (Cinema DSP HD3), which matrixes non Atmos content to spread stereo or 5.1/7 audio, so that all 11 speakers, including heights, are active. Although to my ears at least Yamaha's Enhanced DSP is marginally better than other matrixing codecs, I agree entirely that no DSP sounds as good as native TrueHD Atmos audio.


Dude...I know you are enjoying CinemaDSP but...

There has been Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X doing this. CinemaDSP is a "room simulation" algorithm not an upmixer. Although it has an upmixer built-in to expand the audio along with the room simulation. It may very well put things up overhead but Dolby Surround and Neural:X are actual surround processing for upmixing lower channel content "legacy" audio to newer immersive layouts.


----------



## mf15

Just finished 3.1.2 set up and pretty much dialed in with ceiling speakers, will add sides later as WAF is in effect.
Really like it, but of course after replacing an only 4 year old A-1010 with a new TSR-7810 I had better like it.


I do find that the 7810 seems more detailed on music, also as listed with less power but seems to have more than needed.
I also seem to think I here Neural X mudding up music.


What I do find that I am not liking tooo much is that I watch a lot of cable and when you have the up mixers on it
seems than many commercials are putting in really aggressive height signals.
So you can get some real loud height effects during a commercial, pita. 


Other thoughts, many say to set ceiling speaker crossovers say at 120 or so. YPAO sets them at 40,I will have to recheck specs to
see how low they actually go.
There is also something to do with directionality of the sound at different crossover points.
Anyhow, if say I want to here thunder above me. Why would I want to send all that low frequency info to the sub,if the crossover for the ceiling speakers is set to 120 or even higher.


I guess the other thing I had to figure out is that when streaming the Atmos demos from VUDU, I had
to set the AVR to DS to get Atmos to light up, where if I had it on Neural X it shows DD+. So the stream
contains metadata for both, and the avr does not know that you want to here Atmos unless you tell it.


Is this correct.


Just some observations.
Thanks
Old Mike


----------



## dante`afk

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Greetings,
> My couch is against the wall. I have a 5.1.4 system (enabling the atmos and dts:x) with front heights and top middle/rear heights, and it sounds fantastic.
> 
> For me and my room/setup...it was a significant improvement from what i had before, which was the current 5.1 with front heights...so i already had 7 of the 9 channels i now have. When I went to the atmos/dts:x capable receiver, and added the two additional speakers, it was still worth it for me.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


where do you have your rear speakers ?



richlife said:


> First of all, while I agree with JoshZ (would be a fool not to ), be aware that at some point moving to a receiver and software that handle Atmos is a VERY big plus. Upmix can be really, really good, but I have yet to find that it is as good as native Atmos.
> 
> And 35-40 inches is not unmanageable. With wide dispersion speakers (or perhaps even bipoles), that distance is sufficient to provide a significant improvement over 3.1. It would also enable other future enhancement options.


 ?


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

dante`afk said:


> where do you have your rear speakers ?
> 
> 
> 
> ?


In my room, I have room on both sides of the sofa for the surrounds. The left and right surrounds are at about a 95 degree angle, just slightly behind the MLP, and about 2 to 3 feet away from the ends of the sofa. My top middle/rear heights are just inside the surrounds in line with the front L & R speakers, mounted to the ceiling.

With your room, you dont really appear to have much room for surrounds. If you are able to, you could try to move the couch just forward enough to create room for your surrounds.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

GiTcHaSuM said:


> In my room, I have room on both sides of the sofa for the surrounds. The left and right surrounds are at about a 95 degree angle, just slightly behind the MLP, and about 2 to 3 feet away from the ends of the sofa. My top middle/rear heights are just inside the surrounds in line with the front L & R speakers, mounted to the ceiling.
> 
> With your room, you dont really appear to have much room for surrounds. If you are able to, you could try to move the couch just forward enough to create room for your surrounds.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


Yeah, that's what I was suggesting. But though the picture doesn't really show us, I get the impression that there is not a lot of forward space to move into. As in many European homes and apartments, you work with the space you have and often it's just not a whole lot. (There are a few of those places that have been around for a little longer than surround sound -- like, even several hundred years longer.)


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Dude...I know you are enjoying CinemaDSP but...
> 
> There has been Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X doing this. CinemaDSP is a "room simulation" algorithm not an upmixer. Although it has an upmixer built-in to expand the audio along with the room simulation. It may very well put things up overhead but Dolby Surround and Neural:X are actual surround processing for upmixing lower channel content "legacy" audio to newer immersive layouts.


I understand the difference between Yamaha's Enhanced DSP on one hand and Dolby Surround and Neural:X on the other. My Yamaha RX-A3060 offers all three. All are terrific but to my ears at least, Enhanced sounds better, albeit marginally. Bottom line, we are on the same page, I promise.


----------



## JonasHansen

I have heard numerous demos of Atmos systems where DSU was used to upscale 5.1/7.1 to Atmos. Everytime I have heard this, I have not really liked the result. It sounds like something is out of phase and you lose some precision in the sound. Movies in native Atmos does not have this artifact in my ears. 

Do you guys have similar experiences?

EDIT: Posted this in the DSU thread instead. Seemed like the appropiate place. (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...surround-upmixing-thread-19.html#post48264737)


----------



## gravi

*First Time Setup - Additional Question*

Adding to my original list of questions:

Just finished installing in-ceiling speakers for 7.1.4 setup and have some questions. I have two rows of seating (11' and 16' distance) and will be using a Marantz SR7010 (which I picked up at a good sale).

- The ceiling speakers are not exactly in line with the LR speakers but just a tad inside so I could clear the sloping vault on both sides of the room. Hopefully Audyssey can correct for that.

- The first set of speakers is about 3-4 feet in front of the first row. I angled the tweeter towards the seating. Configured as "Top Front" in the Marantz - is this good?

- The second set is in between the first and second row and angled straight down. Configured a s "Top Rear"

- Due to unavoidable circumstances (roofline), the right top rear had to be placed about 18 inches forward, so it is not exactly parallel to the left speaker. Can the setup compensate for that?

- My side and rear surrounds were originally placed 2' above listening position per Dolby recommendations. My ceilings are hiigh enough (11'), is there anything to be gained by moving the surrounds down?

Apperceiate any feedback. Thx.


----------



## cdelena

JonasHansen said:


> I have heard numerous demos of Atmos systems where DSU was used to upscale 5.1/7.1 to Atmos. Everytime I have heard this, I have not really liked the result. It sounds like something is out of phase and you lose some precision in the sound. Movies in native Atmos does not have this artifact in my ears.
> 
> Do you guys have similar experiences?
> 
> EDIT: Posted this in the DSU thread instead. Seemed like the appropiate place. (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...surround-upmixing-thread-19.html#post48264737)


I find DSU a very good feature 99% of the time. There are a few scenes where it sounds are not placed well but in my theater we are happy with it most of the time.


----------



## Ricoflashback

cdelena said:


> I find DSU a very good feature 99% of the time. There are a few scenes where it sounds are not placed well but in my theater we are happy with it most of the time.


I have an older Denon x5200, so my options are DSU and DTS Neo X (as opposed to DTS: X). I've been really happy with DTS Neo X and use it mostly for TV shows, news and sports. For movies - especially two channel soundtracks, DSU does a fantastic job of providing an extended soundstage and listening enjoyment. You'll just have to experiment for yourself and there is no right or wrong answer, IMHO. 

As always - - YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). The goal is to find the best "upmix" for you and that is very subjective. But that's o.k.! It's what your ears like and it's much better to have the option to "upmix" as opposed to no options at all.


----------



## richlife

gravi said:


> ...
> - My side and rear surrounds were originally placed 2' above listening position per Dolby recommendations. My ceilings are hiigh enough (11'), is there anything to be gained by moving the surrounds down?
> 
> Apperceiate any feedback. Thx.


The only real answer is just the same as it is for me -- whatever the issues, try it out and see. 

No real way to answer otherwise.


----------



## mf15

*Lower db on fronts for better Atmos effects ?*

Ok please bare with me this might get convoluted.
Just got TSR-7810 which is Costco version of RX-V781.
Installed two in ceiling Yamaha 6.5" speakers at 65 degrees out from my head
into 8 foot ceilings. Fronts JBL S38II's/8 " woofers,with Infinity center.
Right now 3.1.2 system
Run YPAO it sets speakers SPL to 0 db for fronts, and say plus 2 for heights. All well and good, manually set crossovers, and size.


Listen to the upmixers or actual Atmos track, cant really here much height effect.
Boost db on heights to +10 on right height, and 3 on left, still underwhelming,I sit to the left between the two heights.


Anyway last night as an experiment, lowered db on fronts and center -10 db, movies now sound great and the way I think it should sound. Can here good height effects.


What I think is going on, the fronts are overwhelming any sound from the heights.
YPAO sets the spl level to be the same for each speaker.
So from this discussion below, the spl for two speakers seems to be additive, so getting something
like perhaps double the sound pressure from the fronts and center, blowing away the sounds from the height 
speakers.
http://www.audiobanter.com/archive/index.php?t-90904.html


It sounded so good stayed up to midnight watching Avatar on cable using Neural X.
Plus other Atmos demos with true Atmos signals.


Might need to set up a special scene using lowered db on fronts for watching up mixers or Atmos.
Since this would globally lower spl for music.


Setting the fronts -10 db probably not optimal, or even legitimate. I only know that it sounds much
better.
How can this be done properly either using YPAO or a SPL meter.
I did try multipoint YPAO right now using single point.


Thoughts: 
Thanks 
Old Mike


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mf15 said:


> Ok please bare with me this might get convoluted.
> Just got TSR-7810 which is Costco version of RX-V781.
> Installed two in ceiling Yamaha 6.5" speakers at 65 degrees out from my head
> into 8 foot ceilings. Fronts JBL S38II's/8 " woofers,with Infinity center.
> Right now 3.1.2 system
> Run YPAO it sets speakers SPL to 0 db for fronts, and say plus 2 for heights. All well and good, manually set crossovers, and size.
> 
> 
> Listen to the upmixers or actual Atmos track, cant really here much height effect.
> Boost db on heights to +10 on right height, and 3 on left, still underwhelming,I sit to the left between the two heights.
> 
> 
> Anyway last night as an experiment, lowered db on fronts and center -10 db, movies now sound great and the way I think it should sound. Can here good height effects.
> 
> 
> What I think is going on, the fronts are overwhelming any sound from the heights.
> YPAO sets the spl level to be the same for each speaker.
> So from this discussion below, the spl for two speakers seems to be additive, so getting something
> like perhaps double the sound pressure from the fronts and center, blowing away the sounds from the height
> speakers.
> http://www.audiobanter.com/archive/index.php?t-90904.html
> 
> 
> It sounded so good stayed up to midnight watching Avatar on cable using Neural X.
> Plus other Atmos demos with true Atmos signals.
> 
> 
> Might need to set up a special scene using lowered db on fronts for watching up mixers or Atmos.
> Since this would globally lower spl for music.
> 
> 
> Setting the fronts -10 db probably not optimal, or even legitimate. I only know that it sounds much
> better.
> How can this be done properly either using YPAO or a SPL meter.
> I did try multipoint YPAO right now using single point.
> 
> 
> Thoughts:
> Thanks
> Old Mike


The problem is that you have all base layer channels routed to the front three speakers. You need to add side surrounds to the mix and that will help balance out your system.


----------



## mf15

Dan: Thanks I can try that with an extra pair of cheap speakers I happen to have.
I did turn on surrounds in set up with no speakers connected and it does sound a bit different.
Will rerun YPAO with sides connected and see what goes on.
Old Mike


----------



## richlife

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem is that you have all base layer channels routed to the front three speakers. You need to add side surrounds to the mix and that will help balance out your system.


Good logic -- sounds right to me. The thing is that Atmos and the upmixers are built on "surround sound". Atmos itself is TrueHD with Atmos sound objects. Without those extra speakers, the soundtrack has nothing to work with. 

Thanks, Dan -- that adds level of understanding for me. Sent me off to specifically look up TrueHD on Wikipedia. Sometimes in picking up bits and pieces in the Forums, I forget to take a look at the whole picture -- or fail to properly put together all the parts.


----------



## mf15

Well re ran everything with surrounds hooked up, there is a possible improvement.
But still to me sounds better lowering the db on the fronts and raising the db on the heights.
Still seems like the fronts are blowing out the sound from the heights, much better speakers.


As an experiment will try the YPAO mike horizontal as opposed to vertical just to see if there is any difference.
EDIT: That did not seem to do much for me.
Thanks again.
Old Mike


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mf15 said:


> Well re ran everything with surrounds hooked up, there is a possible improvement.
> But still to me sounds better lowering the db on the fronts and raising the db on the heights.
> Still seems like the fronts are blowing out the sound from the heights.
> 
> 
> As an experiment will try the YPAO mike horizontal as opposed to vertical just to see if there is any difference.
> Thanks again.
> Old Mike


You cannot just willy nilly add new speakers without re-running a full system calibration setup... doing it the recommended way. There should be a YPAO FAQ thread here on the forum.


----------



## mf15

Dan: Did rerun YPAO, reset speaker size, adjusted crossovers, checked that distance was ok.
All readings were near 0 db, except RS which has more distance from MLP.


Anyone know if YPAO takes into account double the sound pressure level,provided by the two
fronts plus what ever might come from the center, for the upmixers and or Atmos
feeds. It is difficult to believe they do not, or perhaps it is done in the upmixers.
.
A quiet Atmos demo like Leaf is one thing where there is not much going on, and you can easily
here the overhead and left right directional sounds, but an action movie is totally different.


I might imagine if I had put in 8" height speakers as opposed to 6.5" the height effect would be stronger.
Can also imagine that people who have installed large enclosed height speakers on ceiling may not see
this problem.


Anyway the difference in the experience by lowering the spl from up front seems to enhance the
height effects. 
I have read most of the threads start to finish, and many seem to raise the db of the height speakers
so they can actually here the effects. I have done this and it helps but lowering the front db levels seems additive,especially when turning up the master volume.
Believe me I do not really want to mess with the db levels on the fronts.
I do have a 50 ft run of in wall 16 gauge cable to the height speakers, 
I just left it at 50 ft without cutting shorter, the cable manufactured indicates
16 gauge at 50 ft wont degrade the signal. Any chance the length is a problem.


Have had Yamaha since V-1400 through A1010, but Atmos is new to me.
Thanks for your or anyone else's perspective.
Old Mike


----------



## fafrd

I Have a Marantz NR1606 AVR and have Atmos working through Blurays as well as streaming the Amos demo loops on VUDU through my Sony Bluray player (1080p, SDR).

I'm trying to stream the same VUDU Atmos demo content through my new Chromecast Ultra media player connected to the Matantz and each of the VUDU Atmos demos is showing something different, none of which appear to be Atmos.

Is any one of these 4 VUDU Atmos demos considered to be the most representative as far as matching the Atmos format of VUDU w/Atmos content?

My memory is that the NR1606 said 'Atmos' for all 4 of these demos when streamed through my Sony Bluray player. I guess I'm going to circle back and do the head-to-head comparison to understand what is different between streaming through the Bluray Player and the Chromecast Ultra.

Any advice/suggestions for how best to confirm I've got my media player properly passing Atmos streams through my AVR before I start investing in Atmos streaming content appreciated...


----------



## Krio

Mashie Saldana said:


> Actually you can only process 11 channels with the SR7010.




True but i consider the 2 subs as speakers too ...


----------



## Krio

giftedmd said:


> If you add rear surrounds keep them ear level along with the other 5 base level speakers.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


does it really change a lot - ear level or wall mounted 45 degrees? as i have my surround already at the same 45 degrees... basically the only speakers i have at ear level are the front towers ...


----------



## Dave-T

richlife said:


> Yes, this is the Atmos thread, and I expect that the dominant immersive tech for UHD/4K will be Atmos (as it is for the minimal software currently available). I'm holding off on UHD disc purchases due to the holidays -- my family is very good at feeding my needs this time of year.  I'm a step ahead of you in that my Vizio is UHD -- just need more size! Size matters! (I didn't think there was any debate in Alabama -- especially now...  ) At this point, even my wife has reluctantly conceded on the OPPO 203 -- sometime early next year.
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty I see for your rear surrounds, is that your have limited distance on those side walls from the back corners to place in-wall speakers. But since your have defined 5.1.4, I would say the side walls are really your only option to get the right effects and you should move them as far forward as possible. You appear to be committed to the B&Ws and in-wall, but more ideally you should orient the rear surrounds toward your MLP. Given that, other speakers with a directable tweeter might be an option -- but I would stick with keeping timbre matching.
> 
> As for the Atmos ceiling speakers, with a 9' ceiling, about 5 feet before and after your couch ear position (or about 45* both directions) would be best. Good luck with this, I know what it's like trying to fit a none standard Atmos room.


So are you saying to put the rear speakers on the side walls in the very back of the room where the back wall is but not on the back wall? I can't put the speakers on the side wall directly behind the couch because the wall with the counter top and the wall right behind the sliding glass door do not come close to lining up. If I put them on the side wall in the back they would be at 90 degrees 9 feet away from the couch. If I put them on the back wall they would be 10 feet away from the couch facing the MLP. Unfortunately I can only use in wall speakers. Contractor comes this week so I have to nail down placement or this is going to be a train wreck.


----------



## richlife

Dave-T said:


> So are you saying to put the rear speakers on the side walls in the very back of the room where the back wall is but not on the back wall? I can't put the speakers on the side wall directly behind the couch because the wall with the counter top and the wall right behind the sliding glass door do not come close to lining up. If I put them on the side wall in the back they would be at 90 degrees 9 feet away from the couch. If I put them on the back wall they would be 10 feet away from the couch facing the MLP. Unfortunately I can only use in wall speakers. Contractor comes this week so I have to nail down placement or this is going to be a train wreck.


Edit: In direct answer to your first question, yes.

Thanks for the additional pics -- that is one tough room!  Since no one else has responded to your questions, I assume that in general they agree with what I said. So accepting flat out that you can only go with the in-walls, I think you have some decisions to make which come down to, "Which is the least bad option?" and "How to you maximize what you have to work with?". I see three alternatives that I would consider (and I would be trying to somehow temporarily mount the in-walls in place to help decide): 1) despite the mis-alignment, you can consider closer to your couch using the space in front of the window and below the counter -- it looks like that would be about ear-level and still behind the couch. 

Aside from that, since your placement will be so far back regardless, I'd say to make max use of those rear corners that you can -- let them reflect the sound to augment whichever placement. 2) if you want to use side wall placement, push them as far back as the joists allow. They would fire at 90* to MLP, but would get some reflection off the back wall to augment. 3) Using the same thought, if mounting in the back wall, go to the corners and get as much reflection off the side walls as possible. (Another thought, can your contractors build a "false" diagonal into those rear corners to allow those speakers to fire at 45* into the room. Or a boxed-in section at about 5 - 6 feet above the floor might make an attractive feature.)

Are your contractors also audio consultants who might help with this decision? Good luck with this and I hope you'll come back and let us know what you decided.


----------



## quinn4528

fafrd said:


> I Have a Marantz NR1606 AVR and have Atmos working through Blurays as well as streaming the Amos demo loops on VUDU through my Sony Bluray player (1080p, SDR).
> 
> I'm trying to stream the same VUDU Atmos demo content through my new Chromecast Ultra media player connected to the Matantz and each of the VUDU Atmos demos is showing something different, none of which appear to be Atmos.
> 
> Is any one of these 4 VUDU Atmos demos considered to be the most representative as far as matching the Atmos format of VUDU w/Atmos content?
> 
> My memory is that the NR1606 said 'Atmos' for all 4 of these demos when streamed through my Sony Bluray player. I guess I'm going to circle back and do the head-to-head comparison to understand what is different between streaming through the Bluray Player and the Chromecast Ultra.
> 
> Any advice/suggestions for how best to confirm I've got my media player properly passing Atmos streams through my AVR before I start investing in Atmos streaming content appreciated...


Check your setting on the chromecast streamer. Should be set to bit stream.


----------



## Dave-T

richlife said:


> Edit: In direct answer to your first question, yes.
> 
> Thanks for the additional pics -- that is one tough room!  Since no one else has responded to your questions, I assume that in general they agree with what I said. So accepting flat out that you can only go with the in-walls, I think you have some decisions to make which come down to, "Which is the least bad option?" and "How to you maximize what you have to work with?". I see three alternatives that I would consider (and I would be trying to somehow temporarily mount the in-walls in place to help decide): 1) despite the mis-alignment, you can consider closer to your couch using the space in front of the window and below the counter -- it looks like that would be about ear-level and still behind the couch.
> 
> Aside from that, since your placement will be so far back regardless, I'd say to make max use of those rear corners that you can -- let them reflect the sound to augment whichever placement. 2) if you want to use side wall placement, push them as far back as the joists allow. They would fire at 90* to MLP, but would get some reflection off the back wall to augment. 3) Using the same thought, if mounting in the back wall, go to the corners and get as much reflection off the side walls as possible. (Another thought, can your contractors build a "false" diagonal into those rear corners to allow those speakers to fire at 45* into the room. Or a boxed-in section at about 5 - 6 feet above the floor might make an attractive feature.)
> 
> Are your contractors also audio consultants who might help with this decision? Good luck with this and I hope you'll come back and let us know what you decided.


So I think i am going to go on the back wall with the surrounds at ear level and 10" wider than the front speakers. The fronts are going to be about 10' from the MLP and 6' 5" apart from each other. Since my OLED E6 is 57" wide the front speakers will be 10" away from the TV on each side. All speakers tweeters will be at ear level. Atmos speakers will be 5' in front of the MLP and 5' behind the MLP. 

My walls are currently 3' deep, I need 4' to get the speakers to fit in the wall. The installer said he can add two more layers of 1/2' dry wall to give the inch so there will be three layers of drywall on top of each other. Then notch the drywall so the doglegs on the speakers will clear the height of the speaker in the wall. Can dry wall be stacked in three layers? If so his plan could be sound. Then he is going to add insulation in the areas where the speakers are. I do not care about sound proofing the wall or decoupling the wall because my room is an open floor plan. Does this sound like it could work? Anything else I need to do to make the speakers sound good? Adding another layer of metal beams and doing a double stud wall would be extremely expensive and probably overkill for just an inch. Doing this would make the wall 6" deep instead of 4' deep.

Thanks again for your input

Dave-t


----------



## richlife

Dave-T said:


> So I think i am going to go on the back wall with the surrounds at ear level and 10" wider than the front speakers.  The fronts are going to be about 10' from the MLP and 6' 5" apart from each other. Since my OLED E6 is 57" wide the front speakers will be 10" away from the TV on each side. All speakers tweeters will be at ear level. Atmos speakers will be 5' in front of the MLP and 5' behind the MLP.
> 
> My walls are currently 3' deep, I need 4' to get the speakers to fit in the wall. The installer said he can add two more layers of 1/2' dry wall to give the inch so there will be three layers of drywall on top of each other. Then notch the drywall so the doglegs on the speakers will clear the height of the speaker in the wall. Can dry wall be stacked in three layers? If so his plan could be sound. Then he is going to add insulation in the areas where the speakers are. I do not care about sound proofing the wall or decoupling the wall because my room is an open floor plan. Does this sound like it could work? Anything else I need to do to make the speakers sound good? Adding another layer of metal beams and doing a double stud wall would be extremely expensive and probably overkill for just an inch. Doing this would make the wall 6" deep instead of 4' deep.
> 
> Thanks again for your input
> 
> Dave-t


This sounds like a plan! Though I think your current walls are 3 inches deep not 3 feet and will end up about 4".  The reason he should add insulation is to damp the area behind the speaker minimizing sound and booming in the walls. The surface that speakers are mounted in is called the baffle -- whether that be the front of a speaker box or your wall. The "ideal" speaker would have an infinite baffle extending in all directions so you can't hear any sound from the back side or be packed with enough insulation to prevent booming, echoing, etc. Putting insulation behind damps that back side. I made sure my new ceiling speakers had the insulation draped over the speaker back to minimize that sound. 

Having 3 layers of dry wall should not be an issue. But do try not to slam it with your fist -- not likely to cave.


----------



## westmd

Sorry a bit of an odd question but can anybody confirm if all new releases of Game of Thrones (especially box sets) or if Atmos is only on the steelbooks for older seasons?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

westmd said:


> Sorry a bit of an odd question but can anybody confirm if all new releases of Game of Thrones (especially box sets) or if Atmos is only on the steelbooks for older seasons?


Season Five and beyond have Dolby Atmos on the regular retail sets and steelbooks.

Seasons One-Four are guaranteed on the Steelbook Reissues with house sigils. Sometimes you can find the Atmos steelbooks at a killer price at Amazon UK.


----------



## dberri

*Trying to Build a 5.1.4 Any help Appreciated*

Starting to put together a home theater system that is Atmos enabled. Looking for advice for what components to get. Leaning towards the Pioneer Elite speakers with the SC-LX701 for the receiver. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them! New to this stuff. Price range is about the same as the aforementioned components. Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dberri said:


> Starting to put together a home theater system that is Atmos enabled. Looking for advice for what components to get. Leaning towards the Pioneer Elite speakers with the SC-LX701 for the receiver. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them! New to this stuff. Price range is about the same as the aforementioned components. Thanks.


Welcome!

Is there a particular reason why you would want Dolby enabled speakers rather than on/in ceiling or heights? Enabled upward firing speakers would be an absolute last resort for immersive surround as you're getting a pseudo effect rather than a true 3D scape with physical speakers placed above your head.

If your room cannot support rear surrounds for a 7.1.4 layout, then you might consider a closeout priced 2015 Denon or Marantz 7.1.4 capable receiver model that will allow for Front Wides along with 5.1.4 (no 2016 models support Front Wides, which is a real shame). DTS: X, Dolby Atmos, and DTS Neural: X all can utilize these Front Wide speaker positions. They are used in cinemas to fill in the sonic gap between the front screen speakers and the main surrounds, and often times off-screen dialog and effects are steered to those speakers. Music is often spread there too in order to widen the front stage.


----------



## batpig

dberri said:


> Starting to put together a home theater system that is Atmos enabled. Looking for advice for what components to get. Leaning towards the Pioneer Elite speakers with the SC-LX701 for the receiver. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them! New to this stuff. Price range is about the same as the aforementioned components. Thanks.


Are you specifically looking for "Atmos enabled" as in up-firing speakers as opposed to physical overhead speakers? If so then the Pioneer Elite and the Klipsch Reference models are probably the best with integrated Atmos-enabled units. 

So we are talking about $4-5k or so total budget? And does that budget include subwoofer(s)?


----------



## dwaleke

dberri said:


> Starting to put together a home theater system that is Atmos enabled. Looking for advice for what components to get. Leaning towards the Pioneer Elite speakers with the SC-LX701 for the receiver. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them! New to this stuff. Price range is about the same as the aforementioned components. Thanks.


Start a new thread and link it so we can discuss your system outside of this thread in the right place as it's off topic for this thread.


----------



## richlife

Dan Hitchman said:


> Welcome!
> 
> Is there a particular reason why you would want Dolby enabled speakers rather than on/in ceiling or heights? Enabled upward firing speakers would be an absolute last resort for immersive surround as you're getting a pseudo effect rather than a true 3D scape with physical speakers placed above your head.
> 
> ...


You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Dan. But that's just what it is -- an opinion. I chose DAES for fronts because I really have no other choice. I chose in-ceiling for rears and I have no option for DAES there. After installing the ELAC A4s, if I had a choice I would have used them in the rear presence also.

I don't care that you have an opinion -- obviously I do also. Hopefully, those new to Atmos can make their own judgement without thinking they made the "wrong" choice -- it is the "right" choice -- depending on the room and the individual.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

richlife said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Dan. But that's just what it is -- an opinion. I chose DAES for fronts because I really have no other choice. I chose in-ceiling for rears and I have no option for DAES there. After installing the ELAC A4s, if I had a choice I would have used them in the rear presence also.
> 
> I don't care that you have an opinion -- obviously I do also. Hopefully, those new to Atmos can make their own judgement without thinking they made the "wrong" choice -- it is the "right" choice -- depending on the room and the individual.


The OP did state they were new to all this. Some people see _Dolby Atmos Enabled_ labeled on a speaker and think that's what they need for immersive surround to work... even if they _can _install ceiling or height speakers, which are the first and second best options for object positioning in 3D space. 

I'm trying to give them some information.


----------



## gwsat

dberri said:


> Starting to put together a home theater system that is Atmos enabled. Looking for advice for what components to get. Leaning towards the Pioneer Elite speakers with the SC-LX701 for the receiver. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them! New to this stuff. Price range is about the same as the aforementioned components. Thanks.


It seems to me that your question is appropriate for this thread. In the event I am wrong, let’s leave it to the moderators to tell us so. You will find no group more knowledgeable about Atmos than the posters here. I relied heavily on their advice last spring and summer when I was setting up my Atmos system. New posters like you are the life blood of AVS Forum. Welcome aboard!


----------



## darthray

Did some research, but not found what I was looking for


It might be bury somewhere into this thread, just too much too read!
Anyhow, I am ready to do the jump, going from my AV8801 to AV7703 with one more power amp.


My question is more about on "How to Install your speakers if you are using bookshelf" (same as your surrounds, aperion Verus Grand).
They are going to be angle down (a given) and side way if needed?
Tweeter on top and mid at the bottom, or the opposite, to reduce reflection?


Ray


----------



## tbaucom

I want to mention something I recently discovered regarding Dynamic EQ in case anyone else is having the same problems. I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by atmos. I found it to be an improvement but only marginally. It was not the wow that many describe. I rarely noticed the overhead speakers. 

Yesterday, I had a thought to turn off Dynamic EQ while watching Tarzan. Wow what a difference! I knew that Dynamic EQ boosts the surrounds. I did not know how significant it was. I watch blu-rays at -10. I was leaving reference level offset at 0 because that is the audyssey recommendation for movies. Setup like this, it appears Dynamic EQ was boosting the volume level of my surrounds by around 5 decibels. The surrounds were so loud they were drowning out my overhead speakers without me realizing it! Atmos performance greatly improved without the surround boost. I feel like I am finally hearing what I should. I have read that Audyssey DSX lowers the volume of the surrounds by about 3 db. I think the reason why is to keep the DSX speakers from being drowned out by the surrounds because of Dynamic EQ.

I have not yet decided whether I want to keep Dynamic EQ off or lower the volume of my surrounds. Either way is a big improvement. I think no Dynamic EQ sounds better other than bass response being a little light.


----------



## Foundation42

tbaucom said:


> I want to mention something I recently discovered regarding Dynamic EQ in case anyone else is having the same problems. I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by atmos. I found it to be an improvement but only marginally. It was not the wow that many describe. I rarely noticed the overhead speakers.
> 
> Yesterday, I had a thought to turn off Dynamic EQ while watching Tarzan. Wow what a difference! I knew that Dynamic EQ boosts the surrounds. I did not know how significant it was. I watch blu-rays at -10. I was leaving reference level offset at 0 because that is the audyssey recommendation for movies. Setup like this, it appears Dynamic EQ was boosting the volume level of my surrounds by around 5 decibels. The surrounds were so loud they were drowning out my overhead speakers without me realizing it! Atmos performance greatly improved without the surround boost. I feel like I am finally hearing what I should. I have read that Audyssey DSX lowers the volume of the surrounds by about 3 db. I think the reason why is to keep the DSX speakers from being drowned out by the surrounds because of Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I have not yet decided whether I want to keep Dynamic EQ off or lower the volume of my surrounds. Either way is a big improvement. I think no Dynamic EQ sounds better other than bass response being a little light.


How does it sound with a reference level offset of -5 or -10? Does that lessen the impact of DEQ enough to bring them back in balance?


----------



## tbaucom

Foundation42 said:


> How does it sound with a reference level offset of -5 or -10? Does that lessen the impact of DEQ enough to bring them back in balance?


At -10 it should not being doing anything so it sounded fine. -5 the bass sounds better but it it still changes the balance of the presentation because the surrounds get a 2 to 3 db boost. I am going back and forth between -5 RFLO and decrease surrounds by 2db and no dynamic eq. I am leaning towards no Dynamic EQ.

I really wish there were a way to remove the surround boost from Dynamic EQ. I think it may be possible on new denon/marantz models once the new audyssey app is released


----------



## Kain

Would you guys say a 7.1.4 setup is "good enough" to get a good sense of what Atmos really is? Or do you need to go into "beast mode" by having 20 or more channels with something like an Altitude32 to really hear what Atmos is all about?

By the way, the latest IMAX theaters that use laser projectors have a new IMAX 12-channel sound system (which is basically 7.1.4). If IMAX thinks 7.1.4 is "good enough" for even large commercial theaters, I guess that is something to think about. However, I am not sure if this new IMAX 12-channel sound system uses objects like Atmos. Lastly, I've also noticed that IMAX theaters don't have an array of surrounds like "normal commercial" theaters. They have one surround on each side of the theater and that is for the whole theater.


----------



## batpig

tbaucom said:


> At -10 it should not being doing anything so it sounded fine. -5 the bass sounds better but it it still changes the balance of the presentation because the surrounds get a 2 to 3 db boost. I am going back and forth between -5 RFLO and decrease surrounds by 2db and no dynamic eq. I am leaning towards no Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I really wish there were a way to remove the surround boost from Dynamic EQ. I think it may be possible on new denon/marantz models once the new audyssey app is released


The Audyssey app doesn't allow you to tweak DEQ at all, unfortunately Audyssey never has allowed the separation of the loudness comp from the surround boost which is a real shame.

Personally, I use an RLO setting of 10dB to minimize the surround boost, but still get some loudness comp at lower volumes. Unfortunately my most frequent viewing condition is late at night with wife/kids sleeping, so I'm typically in the -35 to -25 range depending on content. At those volumes DEQ is really helpful. When I'm able to watch without restriction I'm usually close to -10, so DEQ isn't really doing much and sometimes I even turn it off completely when I'm able to crank the volume just to avoid any compression artifacts.

At a listening volume of -10, DEQ shouldn't have to do that much boost. You should be able to goose the subs a few dB to restore the bass at that volume and dispense with DEQ and its surround boost. I bump the subs about 3-4dB from calibrated reference on my setup which seems to work well for me.

I also lower my surrounds a few dB -- the way I tweak it is by using Atmos demos, specifically Audiosphere and Amaze (especially the 360 bird flyaround), and tweak down the surrounds until I feel the 360 degree effects sound natural all the way around the room. I do this with DEQ engaged so it bakes in the boost as I tweak.

What the Audyssey app WILL allow you to do is customize the target curve to build in some low end boost so you don't have to use DEQ at all if you consistently listen at a regular volume level (e.g. -10). In theory you can dial in a target curve which boosts the bass and then rolls off gradually to the mids so that things sound correct at your preferred listening volume and then DEQ is no longer needed.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> Would you guys say a 7.1.4 setup is "good enough" to get a good sense of what Atmos really is? Or do you need to go into "beast mode" by having 20 or more channels with something like an Altitude32 to really hear what Atmos is all about?


I think for the small scale of a typical home environment, and with only one row of seating, a 7.1.4 setup is certainly "good enough" to get a good sense of immersive audio. The 7.1.4 setup gives you the core 3-speaker front soundstage, side vs. rear imaging in the lower surround field, and front vs. rear and side-to-side imaging in the overhead plane. 

With two rows, you start running into compromises, but using a side-surround array (one speaker per row) is a common solution to keep the side-wall audio consistent.

I think the general consensus would be that 20+ channel "beast mode" is overkill and unnecessary for a typical home environment. I think most agree that 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 is sufficient to fully convey Atmos in a residential listening space. That gives you some extra resolution on the listener level plane, the addition of those "front surrounds" (wides) to help expand the front soundstage, and a full front/middle/rear overhead array. I would bet you'd have to have a really enormous home theater to see any real benefit beyond 11.1.6.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Would you guys say a 7.1.4 setup is "good enough" to get a good sense of what Atmos really is? Or do you need to go into "beast mode" by having 20 or more channels with something like an Altitude32 to really hear what Atmos is all about?
> 
> By the way, the latest IMAX theaters that use laser projectors have a new IMAX 12-channel sound system (which is basically 7.1.4). If IMAX thinks 7.1.4 is "good enough" for even large commercial theaters, I guess that is something to think about. However, I am not sure if this new IMAX 12-channel sound system uses objects like Atmos. Lastly, I've also noticed that IMAX theaters don't have an array of surrounds like "normal commercial" theaters. They have one surround on each side of the theater and that is for the whole theater.



Real IMAX locations (rather than LIEMAX) have auditoriums that emphasize seating height over length unlike regular commercial movie theaters where the theaters are longer as the screens aren't floor to ceiling and multi-story high, so there isn't the real need for multiple speaker arrays. Their 12-channel system consists of twelve discrete PCM tracks, no objects. Where object based audio might actually enhance their system would be in multiple behind the screen speaker locations since they have a lot of image space to cover. 

Having listened to a 13.1.10 Atmos system from JBL using a Trinnov Altitude processor (under the JBL Synthesis label), I can tell you that 7.1.4 only scratches the surface of what object based audio can accomplish given a large enough space and more speaker coverage. However, as batpig stated, it can be fine for a one row, average sized home theater setup.


----------



## bambam

How about 7.1.2 in a small(er) theater with a relatively low ceiling - around 7.5 feet? Is it worth it at all to go Atmos with only two overhead speakers? Because of a beam (in my theater), having two overheads is really the only option for me.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bambam said:


> How about 7.1.2 in a small(er) theater with a relatively low ceiling - around 7.5 feet? Is it worth it at all to go Atmos with only two overhead speakers? Because of a beam (in my theater), having two overheads is really the only option for me.


I don't see why not, though, with a ceiling like that you would want to be able to angle the drivers more precisely to the main listening position. Something like SVS Prime Satellites on adjustable ceiling mounts might do the trick. Or possibly the RSL C34E in-ceilings with angled drivers (as long as you set them in the ceiling so they fire at the MLP). 

The only problem with two overheads is that you lose more precise object placement and front to back/back to front and cross panning.

As long as you can get the drivers to fire past the beam to your seating, you should be able to do four.


----------



## batpig

bambam said:


> How about 7.1.2 in a small(er) theater with a relatively low ceiling - around 7.5 feet? Is it worth it at all to go Atmos with only two overhead speakers? Because of a beam (in my theater), having two overheads is really the only option for me.


Like Dan says, you will lose the precision of overhead effects in a front-to-back sense, but considering how our hearing works the rear overheads are the least important pair of speakers. We aren't really that precise in locating sounds behind and above us, and if your surround back speakers are elevated a bit you'll still get a good sense of "stuff" going on back there. 

With ceilings that low, you'll want to place the two overheads a few feet forward so they aren't beating down right on your heads (hot spotting). Something you can angle and aim (e.g. the RSL in-ceilings mentioned above) would allow you to focus the audio across the listening area.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Like Dan says, you will lose the precision of overhead effects in a front-to-back sense, but considering how our hearing works the rear overheads are the least important pair of speakers. We aren't really that precise in locating sounds behind and above us, and if your surround back speakers are elevated a bit you'll still get a good sense of "stuff" going on back there.
> 
> With ceilings that low, you'll want to place the two overheads a few feet forward so they aren't beating down right on your heads (hot spotting). Something you can angle and aim (e.g. the RSL in-ceilings mentioned above) would allow you to focus the audio across the listening area.


In the movie Everest, as an example, when the storm is off screen behind you, the thunder roll happens behind and above your head in the overheads. It wouldn't have been as effective just coming from above you. If the OP can angle the overhead speakers correctly, I think four would be the best choice IMHO.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Hello!

I have a question about my top rears and my surrounds. Do you guys think I can have my top rears even more against the wall or are they at their max as now? The tweater are now in the same line as the shelf and a bit outside of the shelf as you can see. And my side surrounds, are they in a good height or should they go down a bit?

Here are some pictures for you to see (I know that my rear surrounds are to close 😔 ).

MLP are 65cm (ear to back wall) and the top rear are around 30cm out from the wall.

Thanks for all replays! ☺


----------



## helvetica bold

batpig said:


> Are you specifically looking for "Atmos enabled" as in up-firing speakers as opposed to physical overhead speakers? If so then the Pioneer Elite and the Klipsch Reference models are probably the best with integrated Atmos-enabled units.
> 
> 
> 
> So we are talking about $4-5k or so total budget? And does that budget include subwoofer(s)?




Batpig, I'm in the same boat, can't cut holes in my ceiling since I live in an apartment. I was looking at the PSB imagine line of speakers and their modules. Also I'm a fan of Sony AVRs. I was looking at the ZA5000es even tho it's overpriced IMO. You think Pioneer is better for Atmos enabled speakers? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

helvetica bold said:


> Batpig, I'm in the same boat, can't cut holes in my ceiling since I live in an apartment. I was looking at the PSB imagine line of speakers and their modules. Also I'm a fan of Sony AVRs. I was looking at the ZA5000es even tho it's overpriced IMO. You think Pioneer is better for Atmos enabled speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not batpig, but...

The quality of sound heard from upfiring speakers is not determined by the receiver. It's determined by the quality of the speakers you use, how you installed them (*) and your room's acoustics, especially the type of ceiling you have. (e.g. it's difficult for upward firing, reflecting speakers to work well if your ceiling is sloped or has sound absorbing tiles.)

How a receiver works with Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (the ones which work by reflecting sound off your ceiling) is specified by Dolby. The receiver manufacturer can't provide that option without its receiver's firmware passing Dolby's tests. That firmware is part of what's provided by the manufacturer of the DSP chips used in the receiver, not by the receiver's manufacturer.

____
* - In most cases you'll have adjust the angle of the upfiring speakers so the reflected sound correctly reaches your seating area.


----------



## cisco1982

cisco1982 said:


> fyi: They forward my problem to Japan, for 2-3 weeks now, but there is no answer. But at this point, they admit, that this is a problem, because they (European support) don't have a solution.


And here we go again...If you still remeber...if not...my probelm is that i have an onkyo tx-rz900 which only said atmos input signal when the speaker config is more than 5.1 - 6.1,7.1 works as well...

So today i got an answer, from EU support, and they got it from Japan. I wait for this answer for 3 months...

It is the following:
__________________________________
today we received the answer from Japan.
Here it is:

"It supposed to be correct work 6.1ch Config as Atmos. 
Even no speaker of height direction, If you have speaker of Surround Back CH, will Play-back Atmos signal that is SPEC for Atomos.
The other manufacturer is the same working. 

In TX-RZ900, once you set to 6.1ch Config, Front L/R, Surround L/R, Surround Back L/R is configuration. 
It contains speaker of Surround Back CH, The indicator of Dolby Atmos will be light. 

Adversely, in 5.1ch Config, The speaker of Surround Back Ch is not contained, will be play-back as Dolby TrueHD ."

With best regards
__________________________________

So nothing real answer or solution... So I replied to them...

__________________________________
- So it takes 3 months, to get answer from Japan. Nice.
- The reciever works how it shuold be, but at EU support no one knows it. Why?
- This is not in the user manual, it says the following:

Input Format Listening Mode
Dolby Atmos
●● The listening mode of Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD can be selected if back speakers or height speakers are not connected.

Direct
Mono
Dolby Atmos
TV Logic
AllCh Stereo
Full Mono
T-D

- Why is different the input signal based on the speaker config. The input signal is a fact, what the reciever creates from it is based on the settings. If I listen a dts-hd ma sound with headphone, the input signal is dts-hd ma and the output should be stereo. Am I mistaken?

__________________________________

So here I am... after 3 months I'm not upset or anything, just curious how things are going at Onkyo


----------



## Selden Ball

cisco1982 said:


> - Why is different the input signal based on the speaker config. The input signal is a fact, what the reciever creates from it is based on the settings. If I listen a dts-hd ma sound with headphone, the input signal is dts-hd ma and the output should be stereo. Am I mistaken?


 The receiver provides an EDID over HDMI to the player which tells the player which speakers you have. The player can adjust its output signal to match your speaker configuration, it can select a soundtrack which matches your speaker configuration, or it can send the full soundtrack and let your receiver do the down-mix. Exactly which happens is determined by the person who authored the soundtracks on the disc and by what settings you have made in the disc player. Every movie can be different.

Many disc players have a menu option which will show you what type of signal it is reading from the disc. They often do not show what type of signal they are sending to the receiver.

Many receivers have a menu option which will show you what type of signal it is receiving from the player, what sound processing it is applying to that signal, and which speakers it is using for the results. If you press the Display button on the tx-rz900's remote, it'll step through the information about the input signal.


----------



## cisco1982

Selden Ball said:


> Many disc players have a menu option which will show you what type of signal it is reading from the disc. They often do not show what type of signal they are sending to the receiver.
> 
> Many receivers have a menu option which will show you what type of signal it is receiving from the player, what sound processing it is applying to that signal, and which speakers it is using for the results. If you press the Display button on the tx-rz900's remote, it'll step through the information about the input signal.


There is a little video about it, i've recorded:





Here you can see what the reciever says with different config, for the input and output format.

The bd player stays untouched during the process.


----------



## rdclark

*7.1 to... what?*

My 6-year old 7.1 system has the 5.1 speakers positioned conventionally (surrounds at the sides facing in), plus back-surrounds that are on the back wall, nearly at the ceiling, facing forward. This is in a 13x12 space where the back wall is actually a large arch with another, larger room adjacent.

The old AVR was used with PLIIX or native 7.1 content most of the time. The new AVR supports 7.1 or 5.1.2 with DSU/Atmos or NeuralX/DTS:X.

I am unable to move any of the speakers at this time. Given that, would you suggest setting the back speakers up as back-surrounds, or as rear height, or as something else?


----------



## westbergjoakim

westbergjoakim said:


> Hello!
> 
> I have a question about my top rears and my surrounds. Do you guys think I can have my top rears even more against the wall or are they at their max as now? The tweater are now in the same line as the shelf and a bit outside of the shelf as you can see. And my side surrounds, are they in a good height or should they go down a bit?
> 
> Here are some pictures for you to see (I know that my rear surrounds are to close 😔 ).
> 
> MLP are 65cm (ear to back wall) and the top rear are around 30cm out from the wall.
> 
> Thanks for all replays! ☺


Anyone know? ☺


----------



## richlife

rdclark said:


> My 6-year old 7.1 system has the 5.1 speakers positioned conventionally (surrounds at the sides facing in), plus back-surrounds that are on the back wall, nearly at the ceiling, facing forward. This is in a 13x12 space where the back wall is actually a large arch with another, larger room adjacent.
> 
> The old AVR was used with PLIIX or native 7.1 content most of the time. The new AVR supports 7.1 or 5.1.2 with DSU/Atmos or NeuralX/DTS:X.
> 
> I am unable to move any of the speakers at this time. Given that, would you suggest setting the back speakers up as back-surrounds, or as rear height, or as something else?


Since it's just a setup change, try both -- only you can tell. One may eliminate itself or one may provide the immersive sound and the other doesn't. Try as many different source options with each as you normally use. I find that with some sources (Directv DTS-ES Mtrx, for example) an Atmos setup works distinctly better. 

I also tried my rear surrounds (back) as RP (heights) only to find it was a total flop, while going fully with 7.x.4 opened up the world of immersive sound.


----------



## CactusJack

I've seen a few mentions here of Atmos demos on VUDU. I've searched VUDU but didn't find any. Can anyone tell me how to find the Atmos demos on VUDU?

Thanks.


----------



## tcramer

CactusJack said:


> I've seen a few mentions here of Atmos demos on VUDU. I've searched VUDU but didn't find any. Can anyone tell me how to find the Atmos demos on VUDU?
> 
> Thanks.



It's titled: The Dolby Atmos Experience (see attached)


----------



## CactusJack

tcramer said:


> It's titled: The Dolby Atmos Experience (see attached)


Thanks, tcramer. Looks like it's just four of the clips you can get from Demo World. Was hoping for some new demos.

Jack


----------



## tcramer

CactusJack said:


> Thanks, tcramer. Looks like it's just four of the clips you can get from Demo World. Was hoping for some new demos.
> 
> Jack


Ah ok. As far as I know, those are the only demos that are on Vudu.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, will a Auro 3D VOG (TS speaker) also work in DTS:X and Atmos as TS ? 
I have now a 7.1.4 (front and rear Heights) setup with a Denon X6200W, and my fronts as pre on a Denon 2500NE.
I have an Auro 3D update and want to use one TS as VOG, or will this only work with the Auro setup ?

thanks....


----------



## rich47

I have a recently installed home theater that includes an Atmos-enabled receceiver (Sony STRZA5000ES) and speakers. Can someone help locate a place where I can rent or stream Atmos titles? I get that Vudu has some streaming titles, but it's not clear to me if Netflix has either streaming or disc titles with Atmos. I've searched the web but haven't had much luck. I'm new to this forum, so I apologize if this question has been asked before (I didn't have time to read through 1000+ pages of posts.). Thanks.


----------



## batpig

rich47 said:


> I have a recently installed home theater that includes an Atmos-enabled receceiver (Sony STRZA5000ES) and speakers. Can someone help locate a place where I can rent or stream Atmos titles? I get that Vudu has some streaming titles, but it's not clear to me if Netflix has either streaming or disc titles with Atmos. I've searched the web but haven't had much luck. I'm new to this forum, so I apologize if this question has been asked before (I didn't have time to read through 1000+ pages of posts.). Thanks.


As far as I know VUDU is the only streaming service to offer Atmos titles (only accessible with 4k streams via a device like Roku4). In terms of rentals, Netflix and Redbox will nearly always have the Atmos/DTS:X track as long as it's not a Lionsgate release.


----------



## molebdynum

I have a current 7.1 setup but would like to add 4 height speakers. I've seen a lot of discussion about 7.1.4 setups. But I find a lot of the 7.1.4 receiver's/ pre-amps to be over $1000 and up. Is it possible to have (2) Denon s720w's and assign the height speakers one on receiver to do front height and the other do rear height?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

molebdynum said:


> I have a current 7.1 setup but would like to add 4 height speakers. I've seen a lot of discussion about 7.1.4 setups. But I find a lot of the 7.1.4 receiver's/ pre-amps to be over $1000 and up. Is it possible to have (2) Denon s720w's and assign the height speakers one on receiver to do front height and the other do rear height?


That doesn't work unfortunately. You will have the same sound play in the front and rear heights in that setup.

See if you can find a refurbished Marantz SR6010, it should be well below $1000, mine was.


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> The Audyssey app doesn't allow you to tweak DEQ at all, unfortunately Audyssey never has allowed the separation of the loudness comp from the surround boost which is a real shame.
> 
> Personally, I use an RLO setting of 10dB to minimize the surround boost, but still get some loudness comp at lower volumes. Unfortunately my most frequent viewing condition is late at night with wife/kids sleeping, so I'm typically in the -35 to -25 range depending on content. At those volumes DEQ is really helpful. When I'm able to watch without restriction I'm usually close to -10, so DEQ isn't really doing much and sometimes I even turn it off completely when I'm able to crank the volume just to avoid any compression artifacts.
> 
> At a listening volume of -10, DEQ shouldn't have to do that much boost. You should be able to goose the subs a few dB to restore the bass at that volume and dispense with DEQ and its surround boost. I bump the subs about 3-4dB from calibrated reference on my setup which seems to work well for me.
> 
> I also lower my surrounds a few dB -- the way I tweak it is by using Atmos demos, specifically Audiosphere and Amaze (especially the 360 bird flyaround), and tweak down the surrounds until I feel the 360 degree effects sound natural all the way around the room. I do this with DEQ engaged so it bakes in the boost as I tweak.
> 
> What the Audyssey app WILL allow you to do is customize the target curve to build in some low end boost so you don't have to use DEQ at all if you consistently listen at a regular volume level (e.g. -10). In theory you can dial in a target curve which boosts the bass and then rolls off gradually to the mids so that things sound correct at your preferred listening volume and then DEQ is no longer needed.


Is the bird supposed to stay level all the way around the room in the 360 fly around in Amaze? In my room it is level through the sides but I sense it to fly up between the rear speakers and then back down. Is this correct or is it supposed to stay perfectly at ear level the entire time?


----------



## Ricoflashback

tbaucom said:


> I want to mention something I recently discovered regarding Dynamic EQ in case anyone else is having the same problems. I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by atmos. I found it to be an improvement but only marginally. It was not the wow that many describe. I rarely noticed the overhead speakers.
> 
> Yesterday, I had a thought to turn off Dynamic EQ while watching Tarzan. Wow what a difference! I knew that Dynamic EQ boosts the surrounds. I did not know how significant it was. I watch blu-rays at -10. I was leaving reference level offset at 0 because that is the audyssey recommendation for movies. Setup like this, it appears Dynamic EQ was boosting the volume level of my surrounds by around 5 decibels. The surrounds were so loud they were drowning out my overhead speakers without me realizing it! Atmos performance greatly improved without the surround boost. I feel like I am finally hearing what I should. I have read that Audyssey DSX lowers the volume of the surrounds by about 3 db. I think the reason why is to keep the DSX speakers from being drowned out by the surrounds because of Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I have not yet decided whether I want to keep Dynamic EQ off or lower the volume of my surrounds. Either way is a big improvement. I think no Dynamic EQ sounds better other than bass response being a little light.


*******************************

My experience is the exact opposite. Dynamic EQ in conjunction with my Audyssey setup yields by far the best sound. Maybe it's because I listen at lower volumes. I also have two amplifiers - the XPA-3 for the L/C/R channels and a Audio Source AMP100VS for my RH surrounds in a 7.1.4 configuration for Dolby Atmos.

For TV - - I listen at the -45 to -40 level. Movies - never louder than -35 - - which can rattle the room. When I did not have Dynamic EQ on - - I had to crank it up to -25 and -20 - - with no discernible difference in SQ, outside of cranking up the volume. Quite frankly - - it was far worse without Dynamic EQ. 

I guess it's up to one's ears and room acoustics on what works better. And, how you have configured your equipment - - whether you have external amps or not. Plus - your source signal. With Roku - - whether it's Amazon Prime or Epix (fantastic two series, by the way - - Berlin Station and Graves) the volume is always higher. I do not know why, but it is. An audio setting of -43 to -45 on my Denon x5200 for my Roku works fine for content from this source.


----------



## tbaucom

Ricoflashback said:


> *******************************
> 
> My experience is the exact opposite. Dynamic EQ in conjunction with my Audyssey setup yields by far the best sound. Maybe it's because I listen at lower volumes. I also have two amplifiers - the XPA-3 for the L/C/R channels and a Audio Source AMP100VS for my RH surrounds in a 7.1.4 configuration for Dolby Atmos.
> 
> For TV - - I listen at the -45 to -40 level. Movies - never louder than -35 - - which can rattle the room. When I did not have Dynamic EQ on - - I had to crank it up to -25 and -20 - - with no discernible difference in SQ, outside of cranking up the volume. Quite frankly - - it was far worse without Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I guess it's up to one's ears and room acoustics on what works better. And, how you have configured your equipment - - whether you have external amps or not. Plus - your source signal. With Roku - - whether it's Amazon Prime or Epix (fantastic two series, by the way - - Berlin Station and Graves) the volume is always higher. I do not know why, but it is. An audio setting of -43 to -45 on my Denon x5200 for my Roku works fine for content from this source.


Everyone is different but the volume would be basically inaudible on my setup at -40 to -45. I am using a marantz sr7009 with an emotiva xpa5 to drive the main 5 channels. Are you possibly using the absolute volume scale on your avr instead of relative?


----------



## Ricoflashback

tbaucom said:


> Everyone is different but the volume would be basically inaudible on my setup at -40 to -45. I am using a marantz sr7009 with an emotiva xpa5 to drive the main 5 channels. Are you possibly using the absolute volume scale on your avr instead of relative?


No - definitely the relative scale. Maybe the kicker for my setup is that my center channel is the beastly Paradigm CC-690, set at ear level on a cabinet, when reclining back in my chair in my home theater. (I know - no reclining allowed in a pure environment.) My 65" LCD/LED is mounted on the wall, above the cabinet and my projection screen goes over the TV. 

In the past with different (smaller) center channels - - I had to crank the volume up much higher to -30 or -35 for everyday listening. 

Now - my man cave is a smaller room with lower ceilings but with Dynamic EQ set at "Light" - - these are the volume settings I am using for my Denon x5200. When I added the Audio Source two channel amp for my RH's (9.1.2 for DTS Neo X and 7.1.4 for Dolby Atmos) - - I noticed the serious drop off in volume after re-running Audyssey. Then, I switched back to Dynamic EQ "Light" and everything was the same as before.


----------



## tbaucom

Ricoflashback said:


> No - definitely the relative scale. Maybe the kicker for my setup is that my center channel is the beastly Paradigm CC-690, set at ear level on a cabinet, when reclining back in my chair in my home theater. (I know - no reclining allowed in a pure environment.) My 65" LCD/LED is mounted on the wall, above the cabinet and my projection screen goes over the TV.
> 
> In the past with different (smaller) center channels - - I had to crank the volume up much higher to -30 or -35 for everyday listening.
> 
> Now - my man cave is a smaller room with lower ceilings but with Dynamic EQ set at "Light" - - these are the volume settings I am using for my Denon x5200. When I added the Audio Source two channel amp for my RH's (9.1.2 for DTS Neo X and 7.1.4 for Dolby Atmos) - - I noticed the serious drop off in volume after re-running Audyssey. Then, I switched back to Dynamic EQ "Light" and everything was the same as before.


Interesting. I don't know what the difference is but Dynamic EQ would be a must if I was listening at 30 or 40 db below reference. Are you by chance also using dynamic volume?


----------



## Ricoflashback

tbaucom said:


> Interesting. I don't know what the difference is but Dynamic EQ would be a must if I was listening at 30 or 40 db below reference. Are you by chance also using dynamic volume?


Yes - and maybe this is the difference. Dynamic Volume set to "Light." Now some folks have complained about their surrounds being too loud using Dynamic Volume. I find it perfect for balancing out very low volume and virtually unaudible sounds for me during movie soundtracks. I have high loss hearing so my settings might not work for other folks. 

But with Dynamic Volume at "Light" on my Denon x5200 - - I can modulate the sound, whether for TV or movies and have a great Dolby Atmos experience without cranking up the volume too high on my AVR.


----------



## tbaucom

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes - and maybe this is the difference. Dynamic Volume set to "Light." Now some folks have complained about their surrounds being too loud using Dynamic Volume. I find it perfect for balancing out very low volume and virtually unaudible sounds for me during movie soundtracks. I have high loss hearing so my settings might not work for other folks.
> 
> But with Dynamic Volume at "Light" on my Denon x5200 - - I can modulate the sound, whether for TV or movies and have a great Dolby Atmos experience without cranking up the volume too high on my AVR.


Most folks do not recommend using Dynamic volume. This function compresses the audio and typically would only be used if one has no other choice but to listen at low volume due to apartment dwelling or perhaps children sleeping. It removes the huge dynamic swings and keeps all sounds in a soundtrack at a more similar level.

Dynamic EQ on the other hand is a completely different animal. It tries to shape the sound so that one gets the impact of listening at reference level(0 on the volume) at lower levels. It does this mainly by increasing the bass but also treble slightly. this feature also increases the volume of the surrounds because audyssey believes sounds from behind the listener falls off faster than in front. Dynamic EQ does not do any dynamic compression at all.


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Now - my man cave is a smaller room with lower ceilings but with Dynamic EQ set at "Light" - - these are the volume settings I am using for my Denon x5200. When I added the Audio Source two channel amp for my RH's (9.1.2 for DTS Neo X and 7.1.4 for Dolby Atmos) - - I noticed the serious drop off in volume after re-running Audyssey. Then, I switched back to Dynamic EQ "Light" and everything was the same as before.





Ricoflashback said:


> Yes - and maybe this is the difference. Dynamic Volume set to "Light." Now some folks have complained about their surrounds being too loud using Dynamic Volume. I find it perfect for balancing out very low volume and virtually unaudible sounds for me during movie soundtracks. I have high loss hearing so my settings might not work for other folks.
> 
> But with Dynamic Volume at "Light" on my Denon x5200 - - I can modulate the sound, whether for TV or movies and have a great Dolby Atmos experience without cranking up the volume too high on my AVR.


Part of the confusion here is Rico seems to be conflating/confusing Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, which are two distinct things.

Dynamic EQ is the technology that boosts the bass (not exclusively, but mostly) and the surround volume. There is no "Light/Medium/Heavy" setting for Dynamic EQ.

Dynamic Volume is the technology that prevents loud things from being too loud and also makes things audible at a lower volume. This is the one that has a "Light/Medium/Heavy" setting.

With Dynamic Volume on "Light", it is normal for things to be nice and audible at a volume of -40dB. With only Dynamic EQ on, it would probably be too soft.

Theoretically, Dynamic EQ is a "always on" setting that should make things sound better. Whereas Dynamic Volume is a "use it if you have to" setting.


----------



## pacman9270

CBdicX said:


> Hi, will a Auro 3D VOG (TS speaker) also work in DTS:X and Atmos as TS ?
> I have now a 7.1.4 (front and rear Heights) setup with a Denon X6200W, and my fronts as pre on a Denon 2500NE.
> I have an Auro 3D update and want to use one TS as VOG, or will this only work with the Auro setup ?
> 
> thanks....


The VOG channel is part of the Auro3D speaker configuration. I do not know if Auro upmixer uses this channel on Atmos or DTS:X content.


----------



## CBdicX

pacman9270 said:


> The VOG channel is part of the Auro3D speaker configuration. I do not know if Auro upmixer uses this channel on Atmos or DTS:X content.



On DD and DTS material it will, on Atmos it will, on DTS:X it will not !
At the moment even Denon (X6200W) can not say why Atmos will and DTS:X won't.
It should work on both but for now it will not.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> Part of the confusion here is Rico seems to be conflating/confusing Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, which are two distinct things.
> 
> Dynamic EQ is the technology that boosts the bass (not exclusively, but mostly) and the surround volume. There is no "Light/Medium/Heavy" setting for Dynamic EQ.
> 
> Dynamic Volume is the technology that prevents loud things from being too loud and also makes things audible at a lower volume. This is the one that has a "Light/Medium/Heavy" setting.
> 
> With Dynamic Volume on "Light", it is normal for things to be nice and audible at a volume of -40dB. With only Dynamic EQ on, it would probably be too soft.
> 
> Theoretically, Dynamic EQ is a "always on" setting that should make things sound better. Whereas Dynamic Volume is a "use it if you have to" setting.


*************************

Thanks for the clarification, batpig. I often get confused. Dynamic EQ is on, like you say. 

Dynamic Volume with the "Light" setting makes it easier for me to hear audio at lower settings, just like you said. It also helps with the "spike" in some soundtracks where there will be moments of complete silence and then incredible loudness. I never understood these soundtracks to begin with but there they are.

For older hippies like myself with high end hearing loss from too many concerts and God knows what else - - Dynamic Volume has provided a better listening experience. Namely, I can hear what they are saying! 

When mama permits it (which means she is watching a movie with me) I get to crank the sound up and really get the benefit of my HT. (Or, when she's out of the house!)


----------



## batpig

It gets a lot of hate but IMO there's no shame in using Dynamic Volume if you find it more pleasurable. I use it regularly as it allows me to watch movies late at night with the wife/kids asleep and keeps thing nicely audible even at lower volumes, so I don't feel like I'm getting a totally crippled experience. I turn it off if I have no restrictions though!


----------



## vsorgi

molebdynum said:


> I have a current 7.1 setup but would like to add 4 height speakers. I've seen a lot of discussion about 7.1.4 setups. But I find a lot of the 7.1.4 receiver's/ pre-amps to be over $1000 and up. Is it possible to have (2) Denon s720w's and assign the height speakers one on receiver to do front height and the other do rear height?




Unfortunately you can't do 7.1.4 with the Marantz 6010. You will need the 7010. Accessories4less has it for $1000 which is a good deal. Mine was $1800 new. You'll need a separate amp for 2 of the height speakers but I used my old A/V receiver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vsorgi

molebdynum said:


> I have a current 7.1 setup but would like to add 4 height speakers. I've seen a lot of discussion about 7.1.4 setups. But I find a lot of the 7.1.4 receiver's/ pre-amps to be over $1000 and up. Is it possible to have (2) Denon s720w's and assign the height speakers one on receiver to do front height and the other do rear height?



Unfortunately you can't do 7.1.4 with the Marantz 6010. You will need the 7010. Accessories4less has it for $1000 which is a good deal. Mine was $1800 new. You will need a separate amp for 2 of the height channels but I used my old A/V receiver.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

If you're interested by the reproduction of Dolby Atmos_Dolby Surround via headphones, as this is REALLY possible with the soon to be available Smyth Realiser A16, for those interested by the technical details and more general questions concerning this headphones processor, HCFR has recorded a long and very interesting podcast with Stephen Smyth, see here :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/...a16-emission-hcfr-en-ligne-t30075654-135.html

It was a real pleasure chatting with Stephen... 

Hugo


----------



## Egghaus

Hello all, I just started to experiment with Atmos and am looking for some tips. I'm testing some bookshelf speakers at a 15 degree angle on top of my mains. I set them as Atmos modules in the AVR. After running calibration the distance came out equal to the total from the speaker to ceiling plus ceiling to MLP (14ft assuming 90 degree bounce from ceiling). 

I tried Terminator Genisys and didn't notice much for overhead sounds. I have a flat 8ft ceiling in my room. Is 15 degrees too low? Is it typical that these speakers need level boosting over calibrated settings? Should I set them as Atmos modules or define them as overhead and let the AVR figure it out?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Egghaus said:


> Hello all, I just started to experiment with Atmos and am looking for some tips. I'm testing some bookshelf speakers at a 15 degree angle on top of my mains. I set them as Atmos modules in the AVR. After running calibration the distance came out equal to the total from the speaker to ceiling plus ceiling to MLP (14ft assuming 90 degree bounce from ceiling).
> 
> I tried Terminator Genisys and didn't notice much for overhead sounds. I have a flat 8ft ceiling in my room. Is 15 degrees too low? Is it typical that these speakers need level boosting over calibrated settings? Should I set them as Atmos modules or define them as overhead and let the AVR figure it out?


You need to mount them on either the ceiling or as height speakers at the ceiling/wall juncture, aim them toward the MLP, and designate them as such in the AVR. Normal bookshelf speakers are not designed for the use you're putting them to.


----------



## Selden Ball

Egghaus said:


> Hello all, I just started to experiment with Atmos and am looking for some tips. I'm testing some bookshelf speakers at a 15 degree angle on top of my mains. I set them as Atmos modules in the AVR. After running calibration the distance came out equal to the total from the speaker to ceiling plus ceiling to MLP (14ft assuming 90 degree bounce from ceiling).
> 
> I tried Terminator Genisys and didn't notice much for overhead sounds. I have a flat 8ft ceiling in my room. Is 15 degrees too low? Is it typical that these speakers need level boosting over calibrated settings? Should I set them as Atmos modules or define them as overhead and let the AVR figure it out?


What speaker designation did you use?

Upward firing speakers must be designated as "Dolby enabled" so that an appropriate psychoacoustic filter can be applied to help make their sounds seem to come from overhead.

As Dan pointed out, standard bookshelf speakers really aren't designed for use as reflective speakers, although sometimes they'll sort-of work. In addition to the psycho-acoustic filters that are included in them, Dolby-enabled speakers are designed to have limited dispersion in order to "beam" the sound upward and to limit the amount of directly radiated sound that you hear from them. If the directly radiated sound is "loud enough", it'll effectively defeat the sense that the sounds are coming from overhead. We get our directional cues from the sounds which arrive at our ears first. Later "echoes" don't change that direction.


----------



## richlife

Selden Ball said:


> What speaker designation did you use?
> 
> Upward firing speakers must be designated as "Dolby enabled" so that an appropriate psychoacoustic filter can be applied to help make their sounds seem to come from overhead.
> 
> As Dan pointed out, standard bookshelf speakers really aren't designed for use as reflective speakers, although sometimes they'll sort-of work. In addition to the psycho-acoustic filters that are included in them, Dolby-enabled speakers are designed to have limited dispersion in order to "beam" the sound upward and to limit the amount of directly radiated sound that you hear from them. If the directly radiated sound is "loud enough", it'll effectively defeat the sense that the sounds are coming from overhead. We get our directional cues from the sounds which arrive at our ears first. Later "echoes" don't change that direction.


I'll give a specific example. When I was testing whether I thought Atmos would be worthwhile and checking setup alternatives before buying new DAES speakers, I used some small bookshelf speakers I already had to try out Front (and Rear) Presence -- Front was first in a 7.2.2 configuration and then Rear was added as 7.2.4. The first thing I decided was that Atmos was worthwhile! 

For the Fronts, I placed the Yamaha bookshelf speakers high (about 6' up) on top of a wall unit (book shelf) and only about 2' from my ceiling. I thought that would help me "test" Atmos and also minimize the direct radiated sound that Selden describes. As stated, it worked -- somewhat. But when I bought the ELAC DAES speakers and put them in the same place, the effect was absolutely night and day! Nothing could really prevent the book shelf speaker direct radiation (not even being located 4 feet above ear level). The location of the DAES speakers truly cannot be determined by ear. (You can see pics in my sig thread.)

The Rear Presence with book shelves were mounted more like heights and I called them that when I wanted to determine if the effort (wiring and ceiling mounting) would be worth it to make my new installation a 7.2.4. Direct radiation is not a particular issue, but the improved Atmos effect resulted in my buying the RSL in-ceiling speakers. Once again, I felt the RSLs resulted in an improved effect -- they have much greater sound dispersion than the book shelf speakers providing an enhanced Atmos experience. I have not looked back or had a second thoughts about the effort or the money spent to produce the "appropriate" result -- in either case.


----------



## westbergjoakim

tbaucom said:


> Is the bird supposed to stay level all the way around the room in the 360 fly around in Amaze? In my room it is level through the sides but I sense it to fly up between the rear speakers and then back down. Is this correct or is it supposed to stay perfectly at ear level the entire time?


I'm also intrested to know. It's the same in my room. Is that the correct way for the sound?


----------



## Josh Z

The bird sounds that way in my room too, but my Surround Back speakers are elevated a little to clear my chair backs and I just assumed that was the reason.


----------



## batpig

The bird is supposed to fly around the room at ear level. We had a huge discussion about this with multiple people testing and with a full 7.1.4 layout it definitely stays completely in the base layer speakers (with maybe some overtones of flapping coming from the heights).


----------



## Martin Holly

*Just purchased a Denon AVR-X4300H and want to set up Atmos system*

This thread is so long and goes back years so hard to find a setup guide for what I want to do. Is there a section on this forum for this type of advice?

I currently have Golden Ear Tritons and center speaker for my front speakers and two Definitive Speaker bipolar surrounds.

First question is wether bipolar surrounds work well in an Atmos configuration and if I should purchase two more for the back speakers?

Second question is what type of ceiling speakers should I get to match? I cant get in-ceiling speakers because I have a wood cathedral ceiling but want to hang two speakers from the ceiling. 

Please let me know where to post this if not here.


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> The bird is supposed to fly around the room at ear level. We had a huge discussion about this with multiple people testing and with a full 7.1.4 layout it definitely stays completely in the base layer speakers (with maybe some overtones of flapping coming from the heights).


I have a 7.1.4 layout. The bird is mostly all in the base layer speakers. I have checked this in the past by disconnecting my overhead speakers. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't. However, it does not stay perfectly at ear level to me when it moves to the rear speakers. My side and rear surrounds are at the same level so it is not caused by a difference in speaker height. Maybe it is my speakers or just the way I perceive sounds coming from behind me. My 4 surrounds are mirage omd-rs. The rears are about 6 feet behind my head.


----------



## batpig

Martin Holly said:


> This thread is so long and goes back years so hard to find a setup guide for what I want to do. Is there a section on this forum for this type of advice?
> 
> I currently have Golden Ear Tritons and center speaker for my front speakers and two Definitive Speaker bipolar surrounds.
> 
> First question is wether bipolar surrounds work well in an Atmos configuration and if I should purchase two more for the back speakers?
> 
> Second question is what type of ceiling speakers should I get to match? I cant get in-ceiling speakers because I have a wood cathedral ceiling but want to hang two speakers from the ceiling.
> 
> Please let me know where to post this if not here.


Bipolars aren't ideal but it's not like they will stop sounding good if you're happy with them now. And yes adding back surrounds if possible will make things even better. 

For ceiling speakers you can go with GoldenEar SuperSats to match your fronts. Or if too expensive DT ProMonitors will also work well and obviously match your surrounds.


----------



## westbergjoakim

batpig said:


> The bird is supposed to fly around the room at ear level. We had a huge discussion about this with multiple people testing and with a full 7.1.4 layout it definitely stays completely in the base layer speakers (with maybe some overtones of flapping coming from the heights).


I tried to run my rears some db hotter and now it's much better and it feels like the bird stay at ear level around my room in 7.1.4. Before it didn't.


----------



## batpig

westbergjoakim said:


> I tried to run my rears some db hotter and now it's much better and it feels like the bird stay at ear level around my room in 7.1.4. Before it didn't.


I use this fly-around to tweak surround levels also, especially important because I want to compensate a bit for Dynamic EQ.


----------



## Methodical_1

Which in ceiling speaker would be best for Atmos height speakers - 6 1/2 or 8" woofers?

Thanks


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Methodical_1 said:


> Which in ceiling speaker would be best for Atmos height speakers - 6 1/2 or 8" woofers?
> 
> Thanks


Whichever are the closest match to the other speakers.


----------



## nickbuol

Mashie Saldana said:


> Whichever are the closest match to the other speakers.


I used to say that all the time, and I still 100% agree that some consistency with timbre matching IS important, with one caveat. While at CEDIA this past year, the D+M booth was talking about what they did for overhead speakers. They put in 10" overheads for Atmos/DTS:X. This was much larger than the woofers in their other speakers.

The reason for it was so that they could put more bass energy overhead... I know, I know, bass is not directional, right? That is what they even said, but we aren't talking about getting down to the 20Hz range, just getting deeper than most other overheads. 

They did a demo, where they specifically said, at this point in this Transformers demo, pay attention to the energy coming from overhead, and see if you can notice a lot of bass coming from above, just like it would if the Transformers were really there (sorry folks, but it is a fictional movie if you didn't know.).

It was really pretty cool. You really could get the sense of bass (again, not super deep bass like from a subwoofer) sweeping overhead. 

So again, go as big as you can while still maintaining quality and some timbre matching. 
If you can't, you probably won't ever hear that something is "missing" because there is nobody there to point it out, and you won't be able to do an A/B comparison, but if it is possible, you will get a nice benefit. Of course figuring out that cost/benefit ratio is kind of hard to nail down.

And yes, I know that some day, someone will be pushing that you use the exact same speaker type/size/configuration for all speakers in an Atmos setup, just like that being somewhat of an "ideal" sonic state for 5.1/7.1/etc, and some of you may think that this is the same thing (pushing more and more sound, and expense, into overheads) and when will it ever end.... 

I just wanted to point the speaker size experience that I got from the D+M booth at CEDIA this past fall. It was pretty cool with the 10" woofers up there.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> A must-watch video about the Atmos mix for 'Swiss Army Man'. Notice the mention of Wides.
> https://vimeo.com/172149885


My wife and I watched the "Swiss Army Man" Blu-ray this week and we both loved this quirky, innovative, albeit challenging story. I would admit that it surely will not appeal to everyone (particularly those who are squeamish about bodily functions), but the film, like its eponymous title character, is greater than the sum of its component parts. Some viewers (and critics) may focus on the pervasive farting (it's probably the first movie whose credits include a _fartologist_) and "Weekend at Bernie's" reanimated corpse elements, but as odd as it may sound this is really at heart a warm, touching relationship movie. 

This is the first full-length feature film from the writer/director team of Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (who refer to themselves as "the Daniels") and, although it was made on a shoestring budget, the filmmakers received a grant from the Dolby Institute to record it in Atmos. The effects are subtle but effective, and both cinematography and audio (including the unusual musical score, which was composed almost entirely with layered voices and no instruments) contribute significantly to the storytelling alongside an outstanding script and stunning set design.

The Blu-ray contains some illuminating extras, including an hour-long interview/Q&A with the Daniels, sound mixer Brent Kiser, and composers Robert McDowell and Andy Hull, the last 30 minutes of which are largely devoted to discussing their experiences with using the Atmos technology. There is also a director's commentary track with the Daniels, Kiser, and production designer Jason Kisvarday. 

N.B.: This is a Lionsgate release, so if you rent the BD from Netflix or Redbox it will almost certainly not contain the Atmos mix.


----------



## gravi

batpig said:


> The Audyssey app doesn't allow you to tweak DEQ at all, unfortunately Audyssey never has allowed the separation of the loudness comp from the surround boost which is a real shame.
> 
> Personally, I use an RLO setting of 10dB to minimize the surround boost, but still get some loudness comp at lower volumes. Unfortunately my most frequent viewing condition is late at night with wife/kids sleeping, so I'm typically in the -35 to -25 range depending on content. At those volumes DEQ is really helpful. When I'm able to watch without restriction I'm usually close to -10, so DEQ isn't really doing much and sometimes I even turn it off completely when I'm able to crank the volume just to avoid any compression artifacts.
> 
> At a listening volume of -10, DEQ shouldn't have to do that much boost. You should be able to goose the subs a few dB to restore the bass at that volume and dispense with DEQ and its surround boost. I bump the subs about 3-4dB from calibrated reference on my setup which seems to work well for me.
> 
> I also lower my surrounds a few dB -- the way I tweak it is by using Atmos demos, specifically Audiosphere and Amaze (especially the 360 bird flyaround), and tweak down the surrounds until I feel the 360 degree effects sound natural all the way around the room. I do this with DEQ engaged so it bakes in the boost as I tweak.
> 
> What the Audyssey app WILL allow you to do is customize the target curve to build in some low end boost so you don't have to use DEQ at all if you consistently listen at a regular volume level (e.g. -10). In theory you can dial in a target curve which boosts the bass and then rolls off gradually to the mids so that things sound correct at your preferred listening volume and then DEQ is no longer needed.


Really good advice, I am in the middle of tweaking on my Marantz 7010. I can see a dialog level and subwoofer level adjustment in the "Audio" menu. Where do I tweak the surround levels? In the "Speaker" section using test tones?


----------



## pacman9270

gravi said:


> Really good advice, I am in the middle of tweaking on my Marantz 7010. I can see a dialog level and subwoofer level adjustment in the "Audio" menu. Where do I tweak the surround levels? In the "Speaker" section using test tones?


Go to Manual Setup in the Speakers section. You will find the channel level option there.


----------



## gravi

pacman9270 said:


> Go to Manual Setup in the Speakers section. You will find the channel level option there.


Thanks. I was also reading here that using Subwoofer Level Adjustment (SLA) results in setting it to 0db. However, in my case I turned it on and it stays at -3.5 db as confirmed by Audyssey results. Am I missing something?


----------



## darthray

Been reading a lot, but did skip a few pages.


I finally order my Atmos AVP, so now I am into the bang wagon and looking forward to it


But I got questions, about the ceiling speakers angle!


I kind of like this (picture from Gooddoc).
Post #27 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2390826-dolby-atmos-worth.html

PS Copy the picture did not work, so you will have to click the above post

The angles look about 45 degrees, I am thinking about 22.5 for my room, some thing that is between 45 and nott horizontal to the ceiling, but do have some angle to do 45.
Or should, I look into making-it possible to do 45 degrees!?


What are your honest thought!
Just trying to find a good speakers mount for this purpose, with my Aperion Verus Grand Bookshelf (yes 4 more, will be use for that duty).


Any help or thought/ experience will be Greatly appreciated, before I start to fish wires in to the ceiling.


Ray


----------



## petetherock

I just watched Star Trek Beyond, IMO the whole surround effect was quite subtle and the Atmos speakers were rather under-utilised. Anyone else share the same opinion?


----------



## Krio

giftedmd said:


> If you add rear surrounds keep them ear level along with the other 5 base level speakers.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Seems i have just purchased 2 speakers Monitor Audio to use as rear surround ... you suggested to place it at ear level as the others .. but unfortunately the left and right surround are placed high and at 45 degrees ... shall i still place them at ear level or i follow the lateral surround placement ? in front i have floor standing towers ...


----------



## giftedmd

Krio said:


> Seems i have just purchased 2 speakers Monitor Audio to use as rear surround ... you suggested to place it at ear level as the others .. but unfortunately the left and right surround are placed high and at 45 degrees ... shall i still place them at ear level or i follow the lateral surround placement ? in front i have floor standing towers ...


All base level speakers including left and right surrounds should be at ear level to get the proper separation from your Atmos speakers - this allows Atmos tracks to be able to place objects where they should be in 3d space. Frustrating I know, I had my left and right surrounds elevated because that used to be Dolby's recommendation and had to lower them for Atmos.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Krio

giftedmd said:


> All base level speakers including left and right surrounds should be at ear level to get the proper separation from your Atmos speakers - this allows Atmos tracks to be able to place objects where they should be in 3d space. Frustrating I know, I had my left and right surrounds elevated because that used to be Dolby's recommendation and had to lower them for Atmos.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


ok got it i can lower them no issue .. now my question is : during the set up i didn't indicate any speaker ATMOS, i just indicated top front and top rear (ceiling), those ones will function as ATMOS when the sound track its atmos and something else during a normal DTS?


----------



## giftedmd

Krio said:


> ok got it i can lower them no issue .. now my question is : during the set up i didn't indicate any speaker ATMOS, i just indicated top front and top rear (ceiling), those ones will function as ATMOS when the sound track its atmos and something else during a normal DTS?


Yes top front and top rear are Atmos designated speaker positions. An Atmos encoded sound track will utilize them.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## westbergjoakim

Hello!

Can someone tell me if my surrounds are to high when using Atmos? They are 135cm (~4ft 5in) from the floor to tweeter and my Atmosspeakers are 240cm (8ft) from the floor. Should I change the placement? Thanks!


----------



## dwaleke

westbergjoakim said:


> Hello!
> 
> Can someone tell me if my surrounds are to high when using Atmos? They are 135cm (~4ft 5in) from the floor to tweeter and my Atmosspeakers are 240cm (8ft) from the floor. Should I change the placement? Thanks!


I would remove your rear surrounds and run a 5.1.x setup as they really need to be further back than they are there. I would also lower the side surrounds to ear level, but that's up to you. 

It really depends on how it sounds. If you like it leave everything the way it is.


----------



## carp

petetherock said:


> I just watched Star Trek Beyond, IMO the whole surround effect was quite subtle and the Atmos speakers were rather under-utilised. Anyone else share the same opinion?


I don't have Atmos just yet, but I didn't like the sound at all on Beyond especially the bass. Bloaty and no depth. Ugh.


----------



## helvetica bold

I'm surprised to hear about Star Trek Beyond, I watched it in a Dolby cinema and it had a great presentation.


----------



## Methodical_1

How important is it to timbre match the Atmos in ceiling speakers with the other speakers in the HT setup? I have Polk speakers, but looking that the angled ceiling speakers for my low ceiling (7' 10"), but Polk doesn't offer any angled in ceiling speakers, so I wonder if going with a different manufacturer is ok. I'm thinking not so much based on my research, but want to know from those that know a bit more about this than I do.

Thanks


----------



## petetherock

Methodical_1 said:


> How important is it to timbre match the Atmos in ceiling speakers with the other speakers in the HT setup? I have Polk speakers, but looking that the angled ceiling speakers for my low ceiling (7' 10"), but Polk doesn't offer any angled in ceiling speakers, so I wonder if going with a different manufacturer is ok. I'm thinking not so much based on my research, but want to know from those that know a bit more about this than I do.
> 
> Thanks


I am using AG A'Divas with a Dynaudio setup. No issues.


----------



## petetherock

westbergjoakim said:


> Hello!
> 
> Can someone tell me if my surrounds are to high when using Atmos? They are 135cm (~4ft 5in) from the floor to tweeter and my Atmosspeakers are 240cm (8ft) from the floor. Should I change the placement? Thanks!


IMO, keep the surround layer to around your ear level, so there's a definite separation of the sound from the top speakers and the side surrounds.


----------



## Gooddoc

Methodical_1 said:


> How important is it to timbre match the Atmos in ceiling speakers with the other speakers in the HT setup? I have Polk speakers, but looking that the angled ceiling speakers for my low ceiling (7' 10"), but Polk doesn't offer any angled in ceiling speakers, so I wonder if going with a different manufacturer is ok. I'm thinking not so much based on my research, but want to know from those that know a bit more about this than I do.
> 
> Thanks


Many with matching surrounds will tell you it matters, many without will tell you it doesn't.  Who to believe?


----------



## petetherock

Gooddoc said:


> Many with matching surrounds will tell you it matters, many without will tell you it doesn't.  Who to believe?


Well, I did do an all 800 B&W surround system, and IMO it's waste of money to use such fine speakers for the surrounds. But YMMV, and if you have the funds, sure, why not?
But if you don't want to do so, either because it's expensive or not practical, there's no need to lose any sleep over it. Cheers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Methodical_1 said:


> How important is it to timbre match the Atmos in ceiling speakers with the other speakers in the HT setup? I have Polk speakers, but looking that the angled ceiling speakers for my low ceiling (7' 10"), but Polk doesn't offer any angled in ceiling speakers, so I wonder if going with a different manufacturer is ok. I'm thinking not so much based on my research, but want to know from those that know a bit more about this than I do.
> 
> Thanks



Try the RSL C34E angled in-ceiling speakers. Getting good reviews for budget, angled models.


----------



## slybacon

petetherock said:


> Well, I did do an all 800 B&W surround system, and IMO it's waste of money to use such fine speakers for the surrounds.


I did an all 600 B&W surround system, which is much cheaper than 800s 
(Fronts:604, Centre:LCR6, Surrounds:685, Rears:602, Ceilings:CCM683)


----------



## Methodical_1

Thanks everyone for the confirmation about the Atmos speakers. I have several speakers in mind and can move forth with my research of them. Dan, the RSLs are on the list, but the only issue at the moment is they are not in stock and won't be until January or so. I spoke with RSL and they said they will have them early January and the initial batch will go to the pre order customers, which from past experiences with pre orders, a company tends to run out and have to produce more and therefore it could be months before one can get them. Additionally, they charge your card for pre orders and I don't want to commit any payments at this time for something that I don't know if I will get soon - this may change after my research of the other speakers, so we'll see.


----------



## richlife

Dan Hitchman said:


> Try the RSL C34E angled in-ceiling speakers. Getting good reviews for budget, angled models.


Remember that one of the purposes of YPAO or Audessey is to compensate for speakers that are not timbre matched. I have the RSLs for RPs with ELAC DAES for FPs with my set of matched Mirage. Frankly, they all sound matched even with 9-channel music. With Atmos, I certainly can't detect any uniqueness.

These are not truly pre-orders, they are restocks, so they are simply filling the orders in the order received. And they did not charge my credit card until the speakers shipped, so unless they said specifically that they would charge at time of order, I wouldn't expect it. Regardless, you're talking about a very reputable company and this is essentially build-to-order.


----------



## sdurani

Methodical_1 said:


> How important is it to timbre match the Atmos in ceiling speakers with the other speakers in the HT setup?


Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. IF you felt it was important that adjacent speakers (e.g., left front, left side) sound similar to each other for the sake of consistency, then it's no different with Atmos. If it never bothered you when sounds change as they moved around the room, then don't worry about it with Atmos. Speakers in/on the ceiling are no different than speakers anywhere else.


----------



## Methodical_1

richlife said:


> Remember that one of the purposes of YPAO or Audessey is to compensate for speakers that are not timbre matched. I have the RSLs for RPs with ELAC DAES for FPs with my set of matched Mirage. Frankly, they all sound matched even with 9-channel music. With Atmos, I certainly can't detect any uniqueness.
> 
> These are not truly pre-orders, they are restocks, so they are simply filling the orders in the order received. And they did not charge my credit card until the speakers shipped, so unless they said specifically that they would charge at time of order, I wouldn't expect it. Regardless, you're talking about a very reputable company and this is essentially build-to-order.


I specifically ask if they charge my card now or when the speakers shipped and was told that my card would be charged when I placed the order. Once I've exhausted my research, I may go ahead and place the order



sdurani said:


> Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. IF you felt it was important that adjacent speakers (e.g., left front, left side) sound similar to each other for the sake of consistency, then it's no different with Atmos. If it never bothered you when sounds change as they moved around the room, then don't worry about it with Atmos. Speakers in/on the ceiling are no different than speakers anywhere else.


Good to know.

Thanks


----------



## Kain

Would an 11.1.6 setup in a sealed room that is roughly 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high be overkill (even if I can correctly place/position each speaker)? The setup will use a Trinnov Altitude32.

I might post a drawing of the room and proposed setup if and when I get time to make it.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> Would an 11.1.6 setup in a sealed room that is roughly 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high be overkill (even if I can correctly place/position each speaker)? The setup will use a Trinnov Altitude32.
> 
> I might post a drawing of the room and proposed setup if and when I get time to make it.


I feel like we've been through this before right? 

Personally, I feel like with only one row of seats there isn't much need for more than 9 floor level channels.... but if you've got 'em, smoke 'em.


----------



## Spidacat

For my living room, I will have to go with speakers mounted high on the wall. Should they be angled down some? Obviously not pointing at my head, but not riding the ceiling either. Any particular type of speaker I should be looking at? I like the idea of the SVS Elevations, but that's about $1000 for 4 white speakers (small, no visible brackets). I've seen some Elac's (B72, B73) that look OK. My mains are all DefTech and Amazon sells some smaller bookshelves (Promonitor 800 + 1000) that could work. Since height speakers are far from full range, is there any need for a more high performance, more expensive speaker? I've been anxious to get the height speakers, but most of the posts I've seen were either for in/on ceiling or add on modules that sit on top of your existing speakers.


----------



## showmak

I did my 5.1.4 all with Jamo as shown in my signature, and very pleased with the outcome...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mark.davis.bish

Wonder if anyone uses or has any thoughts on using kef eggs KEF HTS2001 as atmos speakers. I'm currently completing a loft conversion so sloped roof. Was thinking these would be good for angles. Any thoughts. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


----------



## BBruin66

petetherock said:


> I just watched Star Trek Beyond, IMO the whole surround effect was quite subtle and the Atmos speakers were rather under-utilised. Anyone else share the same opinion?


It did not wow me at all.

Same can be said for the 3D, the chosen color pallet, and the movie itself.

My least favorite 3D & Atmos movie so far. Sold it back to Amazon a week after getting it.


----------



## batpig

mark.davis.bish said:


> Wonder if anyone uses or has any thoughts on using kef eggs KEF HTS2001 as atmos speakers. I'm currently completing a loft conversion so sloped roof. Was thinking these would be good for angles. Any thoughts.


KEF egg satellites are excellent choices considering their easy mounting options and concentric design with wide, conical dispersion. I'm using some of these as well as user Nalleh (I think) who has a bunch of them on his ceiling for a crazy Atmos/Auro dual use setup. The only downside is they are small so don't expect them to produce huge bass or SPL, but as long as you're not expecting reference level playback they will work great.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Spidacat said:


> For my living room, I will have to go with speakers mounted high on the wall. Should they be angled down some? Obviously not pointing at my head, but not riding the ceiling either. Any particular type of speaker I should be looking at? I like the idea of the SVS Elevations, but that's about $1000 for 4 white speakers (small, no visible brackets). I've seen some Elac's (B72, B73) that look OK. My mains are all DefTech and Amazon sells some smaller bookshelves (Promonitor 800 + 1000) that could work. Since height speakers are far from full range, is there any need for a more high performance, more expensive speaker? I've been anxious to get the height speakers, but most of the posts I've seen were either for in/on ceiling or add on modules that sit on top of your existing speakers.


Atmos tracks can be full range all around. It's just the amount of bass reproduction _you can afford_ to have in each speaker location and if the room can handle larger speakers, and how much will get shunted to your subwoofer(s). The more full range you can get them, the better given these caveats. 

However, the SVS Prime Satellites (that the Elevations are based off of) can put out a surprising amount of volume for their size.


----------



## spirithockey79

Methodical_1 said:


> How important is it to timbre match the Atmos in ceiling speakers with the other speakers in the HT setup? I have Polk speakers, but looking that the angled ceiling speakers for my low ceiling (7' 10"), but Polk doesn't offer any angled in ceiling speakers, so I wonder if going with a different manufacturer is ok. I'm thinking not so much based on my research, but want to know from those that know a bit more about this than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks




I have all Polk speakers except for subs (2 SVS PB 2000s) and I also have a low drop ceiling. Mine is actually a little less than 7ft. I bought 4 Polk v60's in-ceiling that have aimable tweeters that you can adjust and aim at the MLP. I bought them at Best Buy (but their model is the VT60). But it's the exact same speaker. I think they work great.



Check out my HT & Movie collection @ http://www.blu-ray.com/community/profile.php?u=379734

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Methodical_1

Thanks^^^. I will take a look at them.


----------



## helvetica bold

Im considering the Pioneer SC-LX801 AVR. Does the Reflex Optimizer in the Pioneer really make a difference with Atmos enabled speakers? Is this a bespoke effect for Pioneer AVRs.


----------



## Dave-T

richlife said:


> Edit: In direct answer to your first question, yes.
> 
> Thanks for the additional pics -- that is one tough room!  Since no one else has responded to your questions, I assume that in general they agree with what I said. So accepting flat out that you can only go with the in-walls, I think you have some decisions to make which come down to, "Which is the least bad option?" and "How to you maximize what you have to work with?". I see three alternatives that I would consider (and I would be trying to somehow temporarily mount the in-walls in place to help decide): 1) despite the mis-alignment, you can consider closer to your couch using the space in front of the window and below the counter -- it looks like that would be about ear-level and still behind the couch.
> 
> Aside from that, since your placement will be so far back regardless, I'd say to make max use of those rear corners that you can -- let them reflect the sound to augment whichever placement. 2) if you want to use side wall placement, push them as far back as the joists allow. They would fire at 90* to MLP, but would get some reflection off the back wall to augment. 3) Using the same thought, if mounting in the back wall, go to the corners and get as much reflection off the side walls as possible. (Another thought, can your contractors build a "false" diagonal into those rear corners to allow those speakers to fire at 45* into the room. Or a boxed-in section at about 5 - 6 feet above the floor might make an attractive feature.)
> 
> Are your contractors also audio consultants who might help with this decision? Good luck with this and I hope you'll come back and let us know what you decided.


Finally got the speakers up. I just need to buy one set of CCM682 speakers for Atmos rears. Funny thing was I thought I had CCM683. Fronts are B&W CWM7.3 and the surrounds are B&W CWm7.4, system sounds really good. attached are some pics.


----------



## richlife

Dave-T said:


> Finally got the speakers up. I just need to buy one set of CCM682 speakers for Atmos rears. Funny thing was I thought I had CCM683. Fronts are B&W CWM7.3 and the surrounds are B&W CWm7.4, system sounds really good. attached are some pics.


Looks good! Even better, it sounds good! Congrats. Those rears will open the effect up. Then you can start on the tweaking...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks^^^. I will take a look at them.


I run 4 Polk V60 Slims that I got off of eBay. They work nicely for Atmos duty and match well with my bed-level Polk speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

mark.davis.bish said:


> Wonder if anyone uses or has any thoughts on using kef eggs KEF HTS2001 as atmos speakers. I'm currently completing a loft conversion so sloped roof. Was thinking these would be good for angles. Any thoughts.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


As @batpig mentioned above here, i use the KEF 3005SE speakers as on ceiling Atmos, and they are exellent for Atmos use, with wide dispersion and easy flexible mounting. And they sound MUCH bigger than they are, and very natural. Very happy with them


----------



## Legairre

Hey guys quick question. My theater is in the basement and is 12.5 x 24. I have a black drop ceiling with 2'x'2 tiles. My front L/R speaker are dead center of the grid beams on the L/R of the room. I know the Atmos speakers are supposed to line up with the front L/R but with the grid beams dead center of my fronts I cant put the ceiling speakers completely in-line with the fronts.

So what would you do? 

1) Put the ceiling speakers in the first row of tiles that are right next to the side walls on the L/R and have the ceiling speakers only about 5" from the side walls?
2) Or put the ceiling speakers in the second row of tiles on each side and have them inside the front L/R speaker about 10"?

I know neither option is ideal since the fronts are dead center of the grid beams. I'm guessing it's better to keep them farther from the side walls and go with option 2. BTW if it helps the ceilings speakers are Russound RSF-635 (wide dispersion with pivoting tweeters).

I should also mention the moving the fronts closer to the side wall is not an option for obvious reason and moving them inward would block my 120" projection screen so the fronts have to stay where they are.

Thanks
Legairre


----------



## batpig

Legairre said:


> Hey guys quick question. My theater is in the basement and is 12.5 x 24. I have a black drop ceiling with 2'x'2 tiles. My front L/R speaker are dead center of the grid beams on the L/R of the room. I know the Atmos speakers are supposed to line up with the front L/R but with the grid beams dead center of my fronts I cant put the ceiling speakers completely in-line with the fronts.
> 
> So what would you do?
> 
> 1) Put the ceiling speakers in the first row of tiles that are right next to the side walls on the L/R and have the ceiling speakers only about 5" from the side walls?
> 2) Or put the ceiling speakers in the second row of tiles on each side and have them inside the front L/R speaker about 10"?
> 
> I know neither option is ideal since the fronts are dead center of the grid beams. I'm guessing it's better to keep them farther from the side walls and go with option 2. BTW if it helps the ceilings speakers are Russound RSF-635 (wide dispersion with pivoting tweeters).
> 
> I should also mention the moving the fronts closer to the side wall is not an option for obvious reason and moving them inward would block my 120" projection screen so the fronts have to stay where they are.
> 
> Thanks
> Legairre


The "in line with the front L/R speakers" is not an ironclad rule, just a suggestion from the Atmos guide. In the actual cinema, the overhead arrays are actually lined up in between the L/R screen speakers and the center channel, so most people who have a big PJ screen at home would probably be better off placing them narrower than the L/R mains anyway. This also helps to increase the lateral separation between side wall surrounds and overheads, which is especially important in a smaller home environment like your 12.5' width room.


----------



## Jonas2

Legairre said:


> So what would you do?
> 
> 1) Put the ceiling speakers in the first row of tiles that are right next to the side walls on the L/R and have the ceiling speakers only about 5" from the side walls?
> 2) Or put the ceiling speakers in the second row of tiles on each side and have them inside the front L/R speaker about 10"?


I vote Option 2 - I agree, keep them away from the walls. Most manufacturers recommend at least 2' from boundaries if possible. I'd imagine though that if you had speakers with boundary controls, or room EQ that you could put them closer to the walls and it would not be the end of the world. But 5" - that's close. Go inboard of the mains. Sounds like your speaker design will help to some extent the less-than-perfect positioning. 

I'm sure it'd be a pain in the booty - but if you can, are you able to try them in either location without too much trouble? Sacrifice a few tiles if they are cheapies???


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> I think for the small scale of a typical home environment, and with only one row of seating, a 7.1.4 setup is certainly "good enough" to get a good sense of immersive audio. The 7.1.4 setup gives you the core 3-speaker front soundstage, side vs. rear imaging in the lower surround field, and front vs. rear and side-to-side imaging in the overhead plane.
> 
> With two rows, you start running into compromises, but using a side-surround array (one speaker per row) is a common solution to keep the side-wall audio consistent.
> 
> I think the general consensus would be that 20+ channel "beast mode" is overkill and unnecessary for a typical home environment. I think most agree that 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 is sufficient to fully convey Atmos in a residential listening space. That gives you some extra resolution on the listener level plane, the addition of those "front surrounds" (wides) to help expand the front soundstage, and a full front/middle/rear overhead array. I would bet you'd have to have a really enormous home theater to see any real benefit beyond 11.1.6.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Real IMAX locations (rather than LIEMAX) have auditoriums that emphasize seating height over length unlike regular commercial movie theaters where the theaters are longer as the screens aren't floor to ceiling and multi-story high, so there isn't the real need for multiple speaker arrays. Their 12-channel system consists of twelve discrete PCM tracks, no objects. Where object based audio might actually enhance their system would be in multiple behind the screen speaker locations since they have a lot of image space to cover.
> 
> Having listened to a 13.1.10 Atmos system from JBL using a Trinnov Altitude processor (under the JBL Synthesis label), I can tell you that 7.1.4 only scratches the surface of what object based audio can accomplish given a large enough space and more speaker coverage. However, as batpig stated, it can be fine for a one row, average sized home theater setup.


Quick question for you guys...

My room is 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. I will have a single row of three seats. I can easily fit 7.1.4 but could squeeze in 9.1.6. Do you think it would be worth it while keeping that single row of three seats? I've seen 7.1.4 being used in much larger rooms than mine so was wondering.


----------



## barty88

best bang for the buck for 9 channel DTS-x and Atmos capable receiver? 

Pioneer SC-95 $949
Yamaha rx a-2060 $1,100
Marantz SR6011 $1000
Denon AVR x6200W $1,249

Bells and whistles are nice but 95% of what I need is just a good sounding easy to set up 5.1.4 system to watch movies. I have mostly Klipsch Speakers and small DT surrounds. I dont need to tweak unless I have to. Multi-zone is not used... Just need best bag for buck to watch movies with the best sound (including sound calibration software) for an oddly shaped room with a 5.1.4 setup.


----------



## Johan81

barty88 said:


> best bang for the buck for 9 channel DTS-x and Atmos capable receiver?
> 
> Pioneer SC-95 $949
> Yamaha rx a-2060 $1,100
> Marantz SR6011 $1000
> Denon AVR x6200W $1,249
> 
> Bells and whistles are nice but 95% of what I need is just a good sounding easy to set up 5.1.4 system to watch movies. I have mostly Klipsch Speakers and small DT surrounds. I dont need to tweak unless I have to. Multi-zone is not used... Just need best bag for buck to watch movies with the best sound (including sound calibration software) for an oddly shaped room with a 5.1.4 setup.


I would recommend to choose either the Marantz or the Denon because of Audyssey XT32 support, that is a very important part of getting a good sounding and easy to set up configuration.


----------



## Legairre

batpig said:


> The "in line with the front L/R speakers" is not an ironclad rule, just a suggestion from the Atmos guide. In the actual cinema, the overhead arrays are actually lined up in between the L/R screen speakers and the center channel, so most people who have a big PJ screen at home would probably be better off placing them narrower than the L/R mains anyway. This also helps to increase the lateral separation between side wall surrounds and overheads, which is especially important in a smaller home environment like your 12.5' width room.


Thanks I had seen pics like the one you posted and was wondering why I keep reading in-line with the fronts when some pics show an array of a speakers centered over the audience instead of in-line. 

I had also thought that in a narrow room there wouldn’t be very much separation between the sides and ceilings with a large screen with front speakers next to it. Definitely seems to make more sense to get more separation. Thank you VERY much for your help. 



Jonas2 said:


> I vote Option 2 - I agree, keep them away from the walls. Most manufacturers recommend at least 2' from boundaries if possible. I'd imagine though that if you had speakers with boundary controls, or room EQ that you could put them closer to the walls and it would not be the end of the world. But 5" - that's close. Go inboard of the mains. Sounds like your speaker design will help to some extent the less-than-perfect positioning.
> 
> I'm sure it'd be a pain in the booty - but if you can, are you able to try them in either location without too much trouble? Sacrifice a few tiles if they are cheapies???


Thanks for the reply. I have an Anthem MRX 720 with ARC (Anthem Room Correction). You’re right ARC would just EQ the speakers to account for the closeness to the side walls. Also the pivoting tweeter could be aimed away from the walls to help too.

Thanks to you and batpig’s suggestions I’m going to put them inward of the fronts. For kicks and giggles I’m also going to try them near the walls and inward just to see the difference. I don’t even need to cut up any tiles to try it in both locations. I can just remove the tiles and drop in the speaker mounting grid and see how it sounds in both places. Then later on cut up the unward tiles and move them their permanently.

Thank you VERY much.


----------



## Jonas2

Legairre said:


> Thanks to you and batpig’s suggestions I’m going to put them inward of the fronts. For kicks and giggles I’m also going to try them near the walls and inward just to see the difference. I don’t even need to cut up any tiles to try it in both locations. I can just remove the tiles and drop in the speaker mounting grid and see how it sounds in both places. Then later on cut up the unward tiles and move them their permanently.


Ah, the benefits of a drop ceiling....


----------



## Legairre

Jonas2 said:


> Ah, the benefits of a drop ceiling....


Yeas sir, it sure has made adding new speakers and running wires easier over the years, going from 5.1 to 7.1 to 7.1.4. Also made it easier since they keep adding new resolutions so I can fish new HDMI cables too. I think back to when we were finish the theater and I actually thought about a drywall ceiling. I must have been nuts


----------



## batpig

barty88 said:


> best bang for the buck for 9 channel DTS-x and Atmos capable receiver?
> 
> Pioneer SC-95 $949
> Yamaha rx a-2060 $1,100
> Marantz SR6011 $1000
> Denon AVR x6200W $1,249
> 
> Bells and whistles are nice but 95% of what I need is just a good sounding easy to set up 5.1.4 system to watch movies. I have mostly Klipsch Speakers and small DT surrounds. I dont need to tweak unless I have to. Multi-zone is not used... Just need best bag for buck to watch movies with the best sound (including sound calibration software) for an oddly shaped room with a 5.1.4 setup.


From that list the Denon X6200W is probably the best value, since it is beefier and more powerful than the lower level Marantz 6011 (important if you will be using internal amps for all 9 channels) and has the ability to expand to 11 channels if you decide to do so later on. It's a $2k+ msrp unit, built in Japan, with nicer DAC's, etc. 

All of those are good choices though.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> Quick question for you guys...
> 
> My room is 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. I will have a single row of three seats. I can easily fit 7.1.4 but could squeeze in 9.1.6. Do you think it would be worth it while keeping that single row of three seats? I've seen 7.1.4 being used in much larger rooms than mine so was wondering.


I'm getting deja vu....... 

Brother, if you're paying all that cash for an Altitude 32, why would you NOT try to use it?


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> I'm getting deja vu.......
> 
> Brother, if you're paying all that cash for an Altitude 32, why would you NOT try to use it?




Just asking cuz if I stay with 7.1.4 I might just spring for the RS20i instead which some have stated/hinted that it has an edge over the Altitude32 in terms of sound quality. Not sure how true that is though.


----------



## sdrucker

Kain said:


> Just asking cuz if I stay with 7.1.4 I might just spring for the RS20i instead which some have stated/hinted that it has an edge over the Altitude32 in terms of sound quality. Not sure how true that is though.


In my humble opinion  you'd be overspending, unless you're planning to do active speakers, absolutely have to have a multiple speaker array for applying upmixers, or are one of those guys that value alleged "DAC quality" over room EQ. Or you want to have physically separate Atmos and Auro speaker configurations. Otherwise you'd be better putting your $$$$ into a Marantz and a couple of MiniDSPs with Dirac, while having serious bucks left over for speakers and acoustic treatments. That goes for multi-sub world as well.

My room is probably closer in size (single row, 20' L x 15' W x 9' H) to yours than the typical multi-row "personal cinema" in Trinnovworld, but I can see pros and cons to the Altitude WRT Atmos. I have 9.2.4, with wides, and even here I can't justify going to more than L/C/R up front due to the performance of my mains in a +/- 30 degree angle, nor adding a center surround speaker at 180 degrees LOL. The sound is huge and pretty fat IMO, especially for multichannel music concerts and Atmos content, so I'm not about to go beserk and fill up the room with screen speakers, three pairs of side and three pairs of rear surrounds, and both height and top speakers just because I can .

As for the 7.x.4 in larger rooms, there's two pragmatic reasons for this. First is that only Trinnov supports those many floor and height channels simultaneously for independent content (although Audiocontrol may or may not do 7.1.6) and there's less than 500 Trinnov Altitude owners in the world. Second is that speakers with good off-axis performance in your SPL setting make that good enough for most folks anyway, relative to any cost/benefit you'd get from > 7.1.4. 

However, what the higher independent channel count DOES give you is:
a) The ability to fill-in gaps in the sound as you hear it (e.g. a second pair of side surrounds if you detect a sound gap in the transition from front/wide/sides). Nothing else is going to do that for Atmos content at the moment
b) Wides - they've been dropped from 2016 mainstream models  , and there's no guarantee they'll ever come back
c) Flexibility in your speaker configuration, i.e. either separate configs for different content OR to have a universal set of speakers positioned to best use 3D remapping

Having said all that, those are first world problems. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you could do a 13.1.6 system with little KEF satellites to make use of all that resolution, but considering how little some of those speakers might be used and how little value you'd get doing a speaker array for, say, screen speakers for non-Atmos content, you might enjoy the system just as much with lesser quantity, slightly more bass extension or SPL (if you must) and more attention to treatments.


----------



## smiddleton5401

I have a Denon X6200 that has 9.2.2 & 7.2.4 connected. External 5 Channel for mains and another 2 channel amp for front wide speakers.


After doing the audessey auto setup it recognizes all speakers (13 + 2 subs) correctly, During an Atmos movie (set to Auto on the receiver), the receiver correctly chooses Atmos but chooses the front wide speakers and not the rear surround as the best option. 


Is 7.2.4 the best choice the receiver should be making with the rear surround NOT active, in favor of the front wides? Should I override the choice or is it setup wrong? If so, How? 


Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

smiddleton5401 said:


> I have a Denon X6200 that has 9.2.2 & 7.2.4 connected. External 5 Channel for mains and another 2 channel amp for front wide speakers.
> 
> 
> After doing the audessey auto setup it recognizes all speakers (13 + 2 subs) correctly, During an Atmos movie (set to Auto on the receiver), the receiver correctly chooses Atmos but chooses the front wide speakers and not the rear surround as the best option.
> 
> 
> Is 7.2.4 the best choice the receiver should be making with the rear surround NOT active, in favor of the front wides? Should I override the choice or is it setup wrong? If so, How?
> 
> 
> Thanks


There is no "best" (other than having all 13 speakers active simultaneously, which currently is not an option with mainstream equipment  ). You have to decide which combination of speakers you prefer. You can manually disable pairs of speakers by selecting Setup -> Speakers -> Speaker Config and selecting "None" for the ones you don't want to hear.


----------



## Lesmor

smiddleton5401 said:


> I have a Denon X6200 that has 9.2.2 & 7.2.4 connected. External 5 Channel for mains and another 2 channel amp for front wide speakers.
> 
> 
> After doing the audessey auto setup it recognizes all speakers (13 + 2 subs) correctly, During an Atmos movie (set to Auto on the receiver), the receiver correctly chooses Atmos but chooses the front wide speakers and not the rear surround as the best option.
> 
> 
> Is 7.2.4 the best choice the receiver should be making with the rear surround NOT active, in favor of the front wides? Should I override the choice or is it setup wrong? If so, How?
> 
> 
> Thanks


Although you can have 13 speakers recognised Denon's can only process 11 channels so you can't have wides and rears
I cant remember if there is an option for selecting one or the other


----------



## Dan Hitchman

smiddleton5401 said:


> I have a Denon X6200 that has 9.2.2 & 7.2.4 connected. External 5 Channel for mains and another 2 channel amp for front wide speakers.
> 
> 
> After doing the audessey auto setup it recognizes all speakers (13 + 2 subs) correctly, During an Atmos movie (set to Auto on the receiver), the receiver correctly chooses Atmos but chooses the front wide speakers and not the rear surround as the best option.
> 
> 
> Is 7.2.4 the best choice the receiver should be making with the rear surround NOT active, in favor of the front wides? Should I override the choice or is it setup wrong? If so, How?
> 
> 
> Thanks


If you want all four overheads active and want the Front Wides, then you have to drop the rear surrounds. It all depends on what sounds best to you. Maybe manually set up each configuration and test to see what sounds best to you and then leave it alone.


----------



## owl1

petetherock said:


> I just watched Star Trek Beyond, IMO the whole surround effect was quite subtle and the Atmos speakers were rather under-utilised. Anyone else share the same opinion?


I totally agree. I'm in the process of trying a couple Atmos rcvrs/processors as well as testing ceiling placement for the 4 atmos speakers. Looking at the Marantz 7011 and Anthem AVM 60 and bought this BD thinking it could be Atmos reference but it's a very subtle mix. Actually was a little disappointed. I'd love to find a reasonably priced Gravity Limited Edition with the Atmos track but Amazon is charging like $68 for it now ;(


----------



## chi_guy50

owl1 said:


> I totally agree. I'm in the process of trying a couple Atmos rcvrs/processors as well as testing ceiling placement for the 4 atmos speakers. Looking at the Marantz 7011 and Anthem AVM 60 and bought this BD thinking it could be Atmos reference but it's a very subtle mix. Actually was a little disappointed. I'd love to find a reasonably priced *Gravity Limited Edition with the Atmos track* but Amazon is charging like $68 for it now ;(


You can also rent it for $3.99 (free with a monthly subscription):

http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/product-p/gravityca-tw.htm


----------



## stef2

I am in the process of "destroying" my home theater to perform an Atmos UHD 4K update.

I have bought four Klipsch KL-7502-THX as my new in-ceiling speakers (I got a great deal on those).

A quick advice is needed though...if MLP sound quality is my top priority, should I rotate each speaker so that the tweeter points directly to it (MLP) or should I keep the speakers facing directly towards the front and back of my room (as Klipsch suggests, but they only refer to a 5.1 or 7.1 setup without Atmos).

I will certainly experiment with the angle, but any input is more than welcome! I have searched the web but could not find any details about the dispersion characteristics of those speakers.


----------



## sdurani

stef2 said:


> ...should I rotate each speaker so that the tweeter points directly to it (MLP) or should I keep the speakers facing directly towards the front and back of my room...


Are your other speakers pointing at the MLP or are they facing the front and back of the room?


----------



## stef2

sdurani said:


> Are your other speakers pointing at the MLP or are they facing the front and back of the room?


The front speakers (CC, FR, FL and two front wides) are pointing to the MLP. The 4 surrounds do not.


----------



## sdurani

stef2 said:


> The front speakers (CC, FR, FL and two front wides) are pointing to the MLP. The 4 surrounds do not.


Then point them at the MLP (for the same reasons your front speakers are pointed at the MLP).


----------



## unretarded

Getting ready to install a 5.5.2 in a 13 foot by 13 foot room......anyone have any recomendations ?


Anything close to this anything you would do different next time etc...all input welcome.

Thanks


----------



## TKNice

unretarded said:


> Getting ready to install a 5.5.2 in a 13 foot by 13 foot room......anyone have any recomendations ?
> 
> 
> Anything close to this anything you would do different next time etc...all input welcome.
> 
> Thanks




Not install in a square room? You don't have a lot of space to work with but you may consider reducing the width by a few feet to help the bass node issues you will likely encounter down the road. Just a thought.


----------



## unretarded

TKNice said:


> Not install in a square room? You don't have a lot of space to work with but you may consider reducing the width by a few feet to help the bass node issues you will likely encounter down the road. Just a thought.


 Not exactly square....11.7 by 12.7....close to square....


With just one sub placed center front wall it is already boomy sounding and a super null in the center of room....

First plan is one in all 4 corners and one center front wall......room is bare right now....it will have sound board and velevet over most of it....hopefully that cures some of it.

I have no clue when it comes to sub placement to negate any of it.....as you can imagine in a area that size with 3 doors, a closet door and a window options are limited.......window is getting plugged and closet is getting covered....but that still leaves 3 doors.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

unretarded said:


> Not exactly square....11.7 by 12.7....close to square....
> 
> 
> With just one sub placed center front wall it is already boomy sounding and a super null in the center of room....
> 
> First plan is one in all 4 corners and one center front wall......room is bare right now....it will have sound board and velevet over most of it....hopefully that cures some of it.
> 
> I have no clue when it comes to sub placement to negate any of it.....as you can imagine in a area that size with 3 doors, a closet door and a window options are limited.......window is getting plugged and closet is getting covered....but that still leaves 3 doors.


With 4 subs it shouldn't be difficult to deal with the nulls. You really have three layouts to play with. Either one subwoofer in each corner, one subwoofer right in the middle of each wall or placing them at the 1/4 and 3/4 position on the front and rear wall.

My long-term plan is to move from one to four subs in my perfectly square room.


----------



## markus767

unretarded said:


> Getting ready to install a 5.5.2 in a 13 foot by 13 foot room......anyone have any recomendations ?
> 
> 
> Anything close to this anything you would do different next time etc...all input welcome.
> 
> Thanks


Get REW and a mic then measure to find the best locations for subs, speakers and listeners. All those room simulations or recommendations based on idealized physical effects (like "square rooms are always bad") tend to become moot once you're in a real room. Only measurements will help you getting the most out of a given space.


----------



## batpig

unretarded said:


> Getting ready to install a 5.5.2 in a 13 foot by 13 foot room......anyone have any recomendations ?
> 
> Anything close to this anything you would do different next time etc...all input welcome.


My input:

1. Subs already covered above and I agree -- the multiple subs should help mitigate the modal issues with being in a square(ish) room, and ideally you would use REW to measure and know for sure. The fifth sub (maybe even the fourth) likely won't even be needed if you can optimize with measurements.

2. If possible, I would recommend doing 5.1.4 instead of 5.1.2. Get that front/rear separation and fuller immersion by having the extra pair of overheads.

3. You didn't mention ceiling height, but the biggest thing I would do differently is NOT install overhead speakers nearly DIRECTLY overhead. Unless you have really high ceilings (10'+) the overheads are too close beating right down on the heads of the listeners and create serious hot-spotting. Install them a few feet forward, even if you're only doing 5.1.2. And that also allows the flexibility to install the second rearward pair to expand to 5.1.4.


----------



## edwinhernandez1986

did anyone notice they removed Conductor Girl demo from Vudu in Dolby Atmos Demo pack. What gives that was my favorite one!


----------



## Selden Ball

edwinhernandez1986 said:


> did anyone notice they removed Conductor Girl demo from Vudu in Dolby Atmos Demo pack. What gives that was my favorite one!


The Atmos demos are also available for download from demo-world.eu


----------



## grendelrt

Some quick advise on speaker placement. I am going to move my side surrounds from bipole/dipoles to monopoles. I have been waiting to move the speaker mounts down until I made the switch. The speakers are about 12inches tall tweeter at top , woofer in middle. They are slightly behind the seating posiition, when I move them down I know ear level is recommended and I think up to 18" above based on dolby atmos specs. I was thinking of putting the bottom of the speaker at ear level so the drivers are slightly higher, I have big puffy home theater chairs (MLP being in the middle of the row) and don't want to block the sound by placing the tweeter right in line with the seating height, does this make sense or am I off =)


----------



## jrogers

Sounds like bitstream pass-through and Atmos are coming to both Xbox One and Xbox One S (and Windows 10)...

https://news.xbox.com/2016/12/14/dolby-atmos-xbox-one-windows-10/


----------



## edwinhernandez1986

Selden Ball said:


> edwinhernandez1986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did anyone notice they removed Conductor Girl demo from Vudu in Dolby Atmos Demo pack. What gives that was my favorite one!
> 
> 
> 
> The Atmos demos are also available for download from demo-world.eu
Click to expand...

The problem with those demos is I dont have a way to play them as I dont have a Nvidia Shield, Blu Ray player or burner. I will be getting a Oppo UDP-203 tomorrow, will it work with that unit proerly over USB?


----------



## Methodical_1

I decided on the Infinity ERS 610 3-way In-Ceiling Speaker. The price was right and I can always send them back to Amazon if not satisfied. They are of similar design to the RSLs, except older and with a 30* angle. I use and angle finder on the ceiling and the suggested placement of around 44" from main position agrees with the 30* angle. Only thing is there's not much information (i.e. reviews) out there on them, assuming because of the original pricing of these speakers and not many people buying them, so I will do my own testing. I will mount these during the holiday time off. I will probably test them before cutting into the ceiling.

https://www.amazon.com/Infinity-ERS...rds=Infinity+ERS+610+3-way+In-Ceiling+Speaker


----------



## richlife

grendelrt said:


> Some quick advise on speaker placement. I am going to move my side surrounds from bipole/dipoles to monopoles. I have been waiting to move the speaker mounts down until I made the switch. The speakers are about 12inches tall tweeter at top , woofer in middle. They are slightly behind the seating posiition, when I move them down I know ear level is recommended and I think up to 18" above based on dolby atmos specs. I was thinking of putting the bottom of the speaker at ear level so the drivers are slightly higher, I have big puffy home theater chairs (MLP being in the middle of the row) and don't want to block the sound by placing the tweeter right in line with the seating height, does this make sense or am I off =)


To me, you have the right idea. Lower the speakers but keep them high enough to avoid seating interference. I also have bipoles for side surrrounds and will keep them since the positioning (in corners) causes them to function more like monos (pics in my sig thread). And I also want to lower mine by about a foot which allows me to clear lamp shades nearby and also my seating. 

Depending on just how high the sides are now, lowering them may not matter a whole lot. Mine are only about 3' above ear level and frankly sound just fine as is. But because of the new Atmos RP speakers, I want to get more separation between them, so I think moving down a foot is worthwhile for me. 

Now to find time for one more project...


----------



## richlife

Methodical_1 said:


> I decided on the Infinity ERS 610 3-way In-Ceiling Speaker. The price was right and I can always send them back to Amazon if not satisfied. They are of similar design to the RSLs, except older and with a 30* angle. I use and angle finder on the ceiling and the suggested placement of around 44" from main position agrees with the 30* angle. Only thing is there's not much information (i.e. reviews) out there on them, assuming because of the original pricing of these speakers and not many people buying them, so I will do my own testing. I will mount these during the holiday time off. I will probably test them before cutting into the ceiling.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Infinity-ERS...rds=Infinity+ERS+610+3-way+In-Ceiling+Speaker


Interesting looking speakers! Certainly worth trying. Don't be too put off by your testing without being mounted. If they work and sound ok, they probably are. You won't get anything like what you will hear when they are mounted. Also, be sure to go by a big box hardware store and get the pink 3M (I think) sound insulation. Sold in 4 ft lengths. Put a 2 ft piece in above the speaker before you mount them to provide damping. 

Sounds like you're good to go.


----------



## Selden Ball

edwinhernandez1986 said:


> The problem with those demos is I dont have a way to play them as I dont have a Nvidia Shield, Blu Ray player or burner. I will be getting a Oppo UDP-203 tomorrow, will it work with that unit proerly over USB?


Yes, that should work fine. DLNA from your computer by way of the Oppo should work, too, as should a direct HDMI connection from your computer to the receiver.


----------



## Methodical_1

richlife said:


> Interesting looking speakers! Certainly worth trying. Don't be too put off by your testing without being mounted. If they work and sound ok, they probably are. You won't get anything like what you will hear when they are mounted. Also, be sure to go by a big box hardware store and get the pink 3M (I think) sound insulation. Sold in 4 ft lengths. Put a 2 ft piece in above the speaker before you mount them to provide damping.
> 
> Sounds like you're good to go.


Thanks for your input.

I have insulation in the floor joists in the basement already. Can the insulation be used in place of the 3M stuff? Also, the speakers are built with a backer box, so is the 3M insulation still a necessity?


----------



## grendelrt

richlife said:


> To me, you have the right idea. Lower the speakers but keep them high enough to avoid seating interference. I also have bipoles for side surrrounds and will keep them since the positioning (in corners) causes them to function more like monos (pics in my sig thread). And I also want to lower mine by about a foot which allows me to clear lamp shades nearby and also my seating.
> 
> Depending on just how high the sides are now, lowering them may not matter a whole lot. Mine are only about 3' above ear level and frankly sound just fine as is. But because of the new Atmos RP speakers, I want to get more separation between them, so I think moving down a foot is worthwhile for me.
> 
> Now to find time for one more project...


Thanks for the reply, I went this route and they look barely over ear height and tall enough to reach the center seat on the row. My old speaker were mounted about 6 ft up so these are 2.5ft lower now and monopole, so hoping those two changes will make a tangible difference.


----------



## richlife

Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks for your input.
> 
> I have insulation in the floor joists in the basement already. Can the insulation be used in place of the 3M stuff? Also, the speakers are built with a backer box, so is the 3M insulation still a necessity?


If you have damping "behind" the speakers, you should be good -- especially if the back of the speaker is contained. For my part, I would add the insulation even with a "box" simply because I doubt the containment is very thorough -- but you have that with you floor insulation already. It sounds like you are good to go without the 3M. I expect your "floor" insulation is fiberglass also and probably 3" thick -- so deeper.


----------



## Methodical_1

richlife said:


> If you have damping "behind" the speakers, you should be good -- especially if the back of the speaker is contained. For my part, I would add the insulation even with a "box" simply because I doubt the containment is very thorough -- but you have that with you floor insulation already. It sounds like you are good to go without the 3M. I expect your "floor" insulation is fiberglass also and probably 3" thick -- do deeper.


Yep fiberglass about 4".


----------



## edwinhernandez1986

Selden Ball said:


> edwinhernandez1986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with those demos is I dont have a way to play them as I dont have a Nvidia Shield, Blu Ray player or burner. I will be getting a Oppo UDP-203 tomorrow, will it work with that unit proerly over USB?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that should work fine. DLNA from your computer by way of the Oppo should work, too, as should a direct HDMI connection from your computer to the receiver.
Click to expand...

I will try the Oppo, but the computer didnt work for me. All I got was no sound or continuous beep!


----------



## bkeeler10

edwinhernandez1986 said:


> I will try the Oppo, but the computer didnt work for me. All I got was no sound or continuous beep!


The Oppo should work, whether over the network from a network drive (DLNA, SMB) or from a USB drive connected directly to the Oppo.


----------



## NorthSky

As of today, and slowly growing, and leading too among the three 3D immersive formats: http://www.nextgenhometheater.com/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-movies/

The new Oppo UDP-203 4K BR player will give it a boost, with UHD Blu-ray titles encoded with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Selden Ball

edwinhernandez1986 said:


> I will try the Oppo, but the computer didnt work for me. All I got was no sound or continuous beep!


 A continuous beep is unusual. Lots of people use computers as their primary media player, although configuring one to get the best results sometimes can be a challenge. Kodi media player software works well for me under Windows 7 for both HDMI and DLNA connections. It's available for just about all types of computers.

If you want to pursue this further, you probably should post a message in the HTPC forum describing your situation. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/


----------



## scarabaeus

Selden Ball said:


> edwinhernandez1986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with those demos is I dont have a way to play them as I dont have a Nvidia Shield, Blu Ray player or burner. I will be getting a Oppo UDP-203 tomorrow, will it work with that unit proerly over USB?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that should work fine. DLNA from your computer by way of the Oppo should work, too, as should a direct HDMI connection from your computer to the receiver.
Click to expand...

Reports in the Oppo UDP-203 owner's thread state that file playback of Atmos (TrueHD, but probably DD+ as well) is NOT supported, due to some licensing issue.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...o-udp-203-owner-s-thread-35.html#post48998153


----------



## chi_guy50

scarabaeus said:


> Reports in the Oppo UDP-203 owner's thread state that file playback of Atmos (TrueHD, but probably DD+ as well) is NOT supported, due to some licensing issue.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...o-udp-203-owner-s-thread-35.html#post48998153


I believe that particular issue is specific to MKV files. The Atmos demo files in question here are M2TS.


----------



## richlife

scarabaeus said:


> Reports in the Oppo UDP-203 owner's thread state that file playback of Atmos (TrueHD, but probably DD+ as well) is NOT supported, due to some licensing issue.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...o-udp-203-owner-s-thread-35.html#post48998153





chi_guy50 said:


> I believe that particular issue is specific to MKV files. The Atmos demo files in question here are M2TS.


Yes, please don't spread alarmist and mis-leading information. The quote you reference includes this statement: "You currently can't bitstream Dolby True HD (so no Atmos) from mkv files. That's said to be a new licensing restriction, so this may be a permanent difference compared to the 10x players." 

That is far from a blanket statement that ATMOS is not supported.


----------



## scarabaeus

richlife said:


> Yes, please don't spread alarmist and mis-leading information. The quote you reference includes this statement: "You currently can't bitstream Dolby True HD (so no Atmos) from mkv files. That's said to be a new licensing restriction, so this may be a permanent difference compared to the 10x players."
> 
> That is far from a blanket statement that ATMOS is not supported.


OK, good then, because I love Atmos. I misread that as a limitation for all files, sorry if I caused any confusion.

I'll set up my 203 tomorrow, and will be able to test a bunch over the weekend.


----------



## Methodical_1

Question for those who already have Atmos in ceiling speakers. The infinity ERS 610 speakers have a 30* angle - should the Atmos sound be directed at your face, body or just over/above your head. Looking at the Dolby pdf they have all of them shown, but which aim sounds the best?

Thanks


----------



## richlife

Methodical_1 said:


> Question for those who already have Atmos in ceiling speakers. The infinity ERS 610 speakers have a 30* angle - should the Atmos sound be directed at your face, body or just over/above your head. Looking at the Dolby pdf they have all of them shown, but which aim sounds the best?
> 
> Thanks


That all depends on you and your room. Only you can determine it. As for any major diffs -- probably not.


----------



## batpig

Methodical_1 said:


> Question for those who already have Atmos in ceiling speakers. The infinity ERS 610 speakers have a 30* angle - should the Atmos sound be directed at your face, body or just over/above your head. Looking at the Dolby pdf they have all of them shown, but which aim sounds the best?
> 
> Thanks


Right at the crotch. That's where the feels are.


----------



## scarabaeus

scarabaeus said:


> I'll set up my 203 tomorrow, and will be able to test a bunch over the weekend.


Happy to report that the UDP-203 plays everything I threw at it, as expected. PCM multichannel up to 192 kHz, TrueHD up to 96 kHz, various DTS formats up to 96 kHz, DD+, DD. All from M2TS files over USB. I used the files off a STD-100N test blu-ray. Don't have any Atmos files handy right now, but they should have no problem.


----------



## CpHaAiOnS

Methodical_1 said:


> I decided on the Infinity ERS 610 3-way In-Ceiling Speaker. The price was right and I can always send them back to Amazon if not satisfied. They are of similar design to the RSLs, except older and with a 30* angle. I use and angle finder on the ceiling and the suggested placement of around 44" from main position agrees with the 30* angle. Only thing is there's not much information (i.e. reviews) out there on them, assuming because of the original pricing of these speakers and not many people buying them, so I will do my own testing. I will mount these during the holiday time off. I will probably test them before cutting into the ceiling.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Infinity-ERS...rds=Infinity+ERS+610+3-way+In-Ceiling+Speaker


Definitely interested in your findings!!! I purchased these as well when they were on sale for $69 each. Won't be able to put them up for another couple months because of how early I am in my build. I'll test them this weekend just to make sure they work.


----------



## sacabonos

Is there any reason why I can't get these https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002YPS6T6/ and build a boxes for 4 of them for on ceiling setup and connect them a Denon x4200 and get a decent atmos quality? Btw I bought kef q100, kef q200c and emotiva erd-1 for rear or sides (didn't decide yet)

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

sacabonos said:


> Is there any reason why I can't get these https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002YPS6T6/ and build a boxes for 4 of them for on ceiling setup and connect them a Denon x4200 and get a decent atmos quality?


They should work fine. 



> Btw I bought kef q100, kef q200c and emotiva erd-1 for rear or sides (didn't decide yet)


Don't forget that a 5.1 surround sound system must include speakers designated as Surrounds. The designation Rear Surround is used only in a 7.1 surround sound system. Of course, Surround speakers can be physically located at the sides or the rear.


----------



## batpig

sacabonos said:


> Is there any reason why I can't get these https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B002YPS6T6/ and build a boxes for 4 of them for on ceiling setup and connect them a Denon x4200 and get a decent atmos quality? Btw I bought kef q100, kef q200c and emotiva erd-1 for rear or sides (didn't decide yet)
> 
> Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


The only reason would be if you want your overheads to be more closely timbre matched to your main speakers, in which case you would want to go with KEF Q-series in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Methodical_1

CpHaAiOnS said:


> Definitely interested in your findings!!! I purchased these as well when they were on sale for $69 each. Won't be able to put them up for another couple months because of how early I am in my build. I'll test them this weekend just to make sure they work.


Will update once I get them installed.


----------



## Theriddler07sms

My room is 13x15 with 7.5 ft ceilings. I was thinking about going 7.1 but have been reading that since my couch will only be about 2ft from rear wall that 5.1.2 would be a better option. Now I am reading that 5.1.4 is an even better option. I'm sure theres a lot better out there but 5.1.4 would be my max.

Anyway, I cannot cut into my ceiling so I would be looking for on ceiling speakers for atmos. I also have a header that sticks down roughtly 4' in front of my seating position and drops down one foot. would that impair the front atmos speakers? 

Where would I place the atmos speakers? I read directly above is not good. Would I basically just have rear and front heights than? or Rear and side heights? Hell even rear, side, front heights 5.1.6 for S&G's.


----------



## batpig

Theriddler07sms said:


> My room is 13x15 with 7.5 ft ceilings. I was thinking about going 7.1 but have been reading that since my couch will only be about 2ft from rear wall that 5.1.2 would be a better option. Now I am reading that 5.1.4 is an even better option. I'm sure theres a lot better out there but 5.1.4 would be my max.
> 
> Anyway, I cannot cut into my ceiling so I would be looking for on ceiling speakers for atmos. I also have a header that sticks down roughtly 4' in front of my seating position and drops down one foot. would that impair the front atmos speakers?
> 
> Where would I place the atmos speakers? I read directly above is not good. Would I basically just have rear and front heights than? or Rear and side heights? Hell even rear, side, front heights 5.1.6 for S&G's.


First off, you can't do 5.1.6 unless you pay a lot of money for a Datasat. So forget that 

It would probably be best if you posted some photos and/or a diagram showing the room layout. Would be easier to visualize what we are working with.


----------



## Theriddler07sms

Ill take some pictures before I leave for work. I might be able to draw a diagram on paint at work as well. Little prehistoric but will get the idea.


----------



## sacabonos

Selden Ball said:


> Don't forget that a 5.1 surround sound system must include speakers designated as Surrounds. The designation Rear Surround is used only in a 7.1 surround sound system. Of course, Surround speakers can be physically located at the sides or the rear.


Thanks for the heads up. I tried to look up this information but I was confused when I found that Dolby advise on having the surrounds on the side of the listener while THX advise on having them at the back! Is there a right way or is it just try it and see what you prefer type of thing? Also from you signature I see that you have an AVR that (as far as I know, and I don't know much) isn't capable of 7.1.4 Atmos setup! How did you manage to do that? Can my Denon X4200W do 7.1.4?



batpig said:


> The only reason would be if you want your overheads to be more closely timbre matched to your main speakers, in which case you would want to go with KEF Q-series in-ceiling speakers.


You're probably right and I was thinking the same thing but I got put off by my budget. Anyways you made me think again and I'm trying to match my fronts and center. I've looked around and found KEF CI-160ER for $180 a pair and KEF CI-160QR for $165 (single speaker). Is there a big difference between these two generations that would make it for this price difference?


----------



## Selden Ball

sacabonos said:


> Thanks for the heads up. I tried to look up this information but I was confused when I found that Dolby advise on having the surrounds on the side of the listener while THX advise on having them at the back! Is there a right way or is it just try it and see what you prefer type of thing?


Mostly preference.

The idea is to "fill in" the soundfeild at your sides and behind you. That's one of the reasons that one of the original recommendations for 5.1 speaker configurations was to use dipole or bipole speakers placed relatively high on the walls for the Surround channels. They're designed to bounce their sounds off the side and rear walls so that the ambience would surround you behind and above.

Many (but not all) current soundtracks work best with monopole speakers in order to provide better directionality instead of ambience.

If you look at the diagram in your receiver's manual, you'll find that D+M recommends a location for the Side surrounds which is as much as 20 degrees behind you (i.e. 110 degrees from the position of the center speaker.)



> Also from you signature I see that you have an AVR that (as far as I know, and I don't know much) isn't capable of 7.1.4 Atmos setup! How did you manage to do that?


The SR7009 has 9 internal amplifiers, but can process up to 11 simultaneously active channels. It requires at least two external channels of amplification in order to do that. As many as 13 speakers can be connected and calibrated, but 2 have to be disabled while playing a particular soundtrack. I use an external 5 channel amp, driving the front 3 speakers and two of the four overhead speakers.



> Can my Denon X4200W do 7.1.4?


Unfortunately, no. The X4200W has 7 internal amps and can process up to 9 simultaneously active channels. Valid speaker combinations are 5.1.4, 7.1.2 and 9.1. More speakers can be connected and calibrated, but some have to be disabled while playing a particular soundtrack.



> You're probably right and I was thinking the same thing but I got put off by my budget. Anyways you made me think again and I'm trying to match my fronts and center. I've looked around and found KEF CI-160ER for $180 a pair and KEF CI-160QR for $165 (single speaker). Is there a big difference between these two generations that would make it for this price difference?


Sorry: I'm not a speaker expert, although timbre matching the speakers is the best thing to do. However, even identical speakers sound slightly different when they're located in different places in the room.

For historical reasons, my speakers are a mis-matched bunch from three different manufacturers: NHT fronts, DefTech overheads and Side Surrounds, and Advent Heritage Rear Surrounds. I can certainly hear some differences in the sound when a source moves from one speaker to another, but it's small enough that it doesn't bother me. So far as I'm concerned, Audyssey does an adequate job of compensating for the differences when it tries to make them all "flat".


----------



## batpig

sacabonos said:


> You're probably right and I was thinking the same thing but I got put off by my budget. Anyways you made me think again and I'm trying to match my fronts and center. I've looked around and found KEF CI-160ER for $180 a pair and KEF CI-160QR for $165 (single speaker). Is there a big difference between these two generations that would make it for this price difference?


The difference is that the more expensive Q series is more robust, with nicer drivers (better woofer and larger tweeter with the fancy "tangerine waveguide" that's in your Q series fronts) so it can handle more power cleanly and play a bit lower. Obviously in a perfect world you'd perfectly match them all around, but if you're budget strapped that's not a bad place to compromise, the overhead speakers are the least critical.


----------



## Theriddler07sms

batpig said:


> First off, you can't do 5.1.6 unless you pay a lot of money for a Datasat. So forget that
> 
> It would probably be best if you posted some photos and/or a diagram showing the room layout. Would be easier to visualize what we are working with.


Here is a rough drawing of my living room. Overhead view and from MLP view. I cannot figure out how to draw the header in there but its the black line in front of the couch in the overhead view. It is about 12" tall. The room is 15' long and its 10' wide by the couch.


----------



## Methodical_1

richlife said:


> That all depends on you and your room. Only you can determine it. As for any major diffs -- probably not.


So, no major difference in sound with either method - cool thanks.



batpig said:


> Right at the crotch. That's where the feels are.


Have to check to make sure you are serious about this or are you joking?


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Right at the crotch. That's where the feels are.


Then that would be the same spot where you put you mic facing upward, right? 

(I will probably delete his post and deny I ever wrote it)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> Then that would be the same spot where you put you mic facing upward, right?
> 
> (I will probably delete his post and deny I ever wrote it)


Too late, post saved for safety.


----------



## Selden Ball

Theriddler07sms said:


> Here is a rough drawing of my living room. Overhead view and from MLP view. I cannot figure out how to draw the header in there but its the black line in front of the couch in the overhead view. It is about 12" tall. The room is 15' long and its 10' wide by the couch.


That bar is going to interfere with the optimal speaker location. 

I'd suggest putting the frontmost overhead speakers on the side of the bar nearest the seating and the rearmost ones at the top of the wall behind the seating, designating them Top Front and Top Rear.

OT:

Many people like to use the free 3D graphics program SweetHome3D for showing room layouts. It's available for most types of computers.


----------



## davidimdpt

Hey guys, i thought I would interject my experience with the onkyo skh-410 upfiring dolby atmos speakers since I have an unusual set up. Bottom line, it works very well and the effect is very impressive. My setup is not ideal for upfiring dolby atmos so I wasn't sure how it would turn out. I have a denon avr x-3200W powering a 5.1 orb audio mod2 setup with a def tech sub in my family room. My Tv is mounted above my fireplace with my LCR speakers above the TV and angled down. My surround channels are about one foot above ear level. In other words I wasn't able to put the onkyo speakers on top of my front L and R speakers. I ended putting the Left onkyo speaker on top of the entertainment cabinet about 5 feet below the ceiling and about 5 inches left of the Left Orb speaker. The Right onkyo speaker is on the top of the fireplace mantle also about 5 feet below the ceiling and 5 inches right of the Right orb speaker. I have both speakers on isolation pads that angle them up an additional 10 degrees since they are higher than the denon suggested height of 6 feet below the ceiling. I ran Audyssey and watched the Dolby atmos tracks on Vudu. I was not impressed. Before anyone asks, yes I did watch the clips before I set up the onkyo speakers and rerunning Audyssey. I then watched scenes from Batman v Superman and Transformers which was much better. Yesterday I watched the dolby atmos demo disc and I was blown away. 

My room has 9 foot ceilings and the sitting position is about 10 feet away with the couch against the wall. I have a solid wall to the left of the sitting position with an entry opening from the living room. To the right of the sitting position it is completely open to the kitchen. Bottom line, even if your situation is not ideal, dolby atmos can still work. By the way, before I even got the onkyo skh-410, I ordered the klipsch rp-140sa since it got such good reviews. I should be getting them by the end of next week. I'll report back if i hear any difference.


----------



## EricST

I hope this is ok to ask.
I don't think my Atmos system is working right and I need some advise. 
My set up:
Denon W2200x Atmos/DTSX receiver 
PSB X2T fronts 
PSB Imagine XA Atmos speakers

I have the XA 's sitting on the X2T's and have the XA channel levels set at 12.0 ( full blast)
And I have the Denon's speakers/amp assign to front Dolby because on the on screen set up selecting Front Dolby shows the speakers are shown sitting on the tower speakers. I have done all the sound test and I do get sound and they are working. 

Anyway, no Blu Ray with Atmos has wowed me or even raised a eye EXCEPT, American Ultra and that was the DTSX track.

What am I doing wrong?

Eric


----------



## Selden Ball

EricST said:


> I hope this is ok to ask.
> I don't think my Atmos system is working right and I need some advise.
> My set up:
> Denon W2200x Atmos/DTSX receiver
> PSB X2T fronts
> PSB Imagine XA Atmos speakers
> 
> I have the XA 's sitting on the X2T's and have the XA channel levels set at 12.0 ( full blast)
> And I have the Denon's speakers/amp assign to front Dolby because on the on screen set up selecting Front Dolby shows the speakers are shown sitting on the tower speakers. I have done all the sound test and I do get sound and they are working.
> 
> Anyway, no Blu Ray with Atmos has wowed me or even raised a eye EXCEPT, American Ultra and that was the DTSX track.
> 
> What am I doing wrong?
> 
> Eric


Which Atmos movies have you listened to?
Many Atmos movies really don't make substantial use of the overheads.

Have you listened to any non-Atmos movies while having the Dolby Surround upmixer enabled?
DSU usually produces quite noticeable but not overpowering overhead effects.

If DTS:X sounds good, then you're probably doing nothing wrong, although it can be a bit tricky to tilt the Dolby-Enabled reflecting speakers so their sound gets correctly reflected off the ceiling and into the audience. The DTS Neural:X upmixer provides a louder overhead ambience than Dolby Surround does, though. Some people consider it to be a little too much.


----------



## Theriddler07sms

Selden Ball said:


> Theriddler07sms said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a rough drawing of my living room. Overhead view and from MLP view. I cannot figure out how to draw the header in there but its the black line in front of the couch in the overhead view. It is about 12" tall. The room is 15' long and its 10' wide by the couch.
> 
> 
> 
> That bar is going to interfere with the optimal speaker location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest putting the frontmost overhead speakers on the side of the bar nearest the seating and the rearmost ones at the top of the wall behind the seating, designating them Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> OT:
> 
> Many people like to use the free 3D graphics program SweetHome3D for showing room layouts. It's available for most types of computers.
Click to expand...

If I was to go 5.1.2 forst for awhile, should I still mount the two speakers to right next to that header in front of the couch? It's a little forward of the recommended 5.1.2 by Dolby. 

I may not even go 5.1.4 if the 2 atmos speakers sound as good as I hope they do


----------



## EricST

Selden Ball said:


> EricST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this is ok to ask.
> I don't think my Atmos system is working right and I need some advise.
> My set up:
> Denon W2200x Atmos/DTSX receiver
> PSB X2T fronts
> PSB Imagine XA Atmos speakers
> 
> I have the XA 's sitting on the X2T's and have the XA channel levels set at 12.0 ( full blast)
> And I have the Denon's speakers/amp assign to front Dolby because on the on screen set up selecting Front Dolby shows the speakers are shown sitting on the tower speakers. I have done all the sound test and I do get sound and they are working.
> 
> Anyway, no Blu Ray with Atmos has wowed me or even raised a eye EXCEPT, American Ultra and that was the DTSX track.
> 
> What am I doing wrong?
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> Which Atmos movies have you listened to?
> Many Atmos movies really don't make substantial use of the overheads.
> 
> Have you listened to any non-Atmos movies while having the Dolby Surround upmixer enabled?
> DSU usually produces quite noticeable but not overpowering overhead effects.
> 
> If DTS:X sounds good, then you're probably doing nothing wrong, although it can be a bit tricky to tilt the Dolby-Enabled reflecting speakers so their sound gets correctly reflected off the ceiling and into the audience. The DTS Neural:X upmixer provides a louder overhead ambience than Dolby Surround does, though. Some people consider it to be a little too much.
Click to expand...

The most recent was Star Trek Beyond witch is sappost to have a great Atmos soundtrack but to me I didn't notice any over head sound. 
I did watch 4k Deadpool and there were a few higth sound in it that were clearly using Atmos. 
I haven't used the DTS Neural X upmixer.


----------



## Selden Ball

EricST said:


> The most recent was Star Trek Beyond witch is sappost to have a great Atmos soundtrack but to me I didn't notice any over head sound.
> I did watch 4k Deadpool and there were a few higth sound in it that were clearly using Atmos.
> I haven't used the DTS Neural X upmixer.


Well, as I mentioned, the physical placement and orientation of the upward-firing speakers can be a little tricky. You'll have to adjust them until you get the best results. The upward firing speakers have to be high enough that their direct sound is minimized. For example, the audience shouldn't be able to see their speaker drivers if they weren't covered by grille cloth. Hearing their sounds directly can destroy the illusion of sounds coming from overhead. Our hearing makes sounds seem to come from the location from which a sound arrives first. When that happens, the echoes from overhead won't change that apparent direction. The speakers also have to be tilted so that they point to the location on the ceiling which is half-way between where they're located and where the audience sits. Think of the ceiling as a mirror and the sound coming from the speaker like a flashlight. The beam from the flashlight has to hit the audience. The sounds will seem to come from where the beam hits the ceiling.


----------



## EricST

Selden Ball said:


> EricST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most recent was Star Trek Beyond witch is sappost to have a great Atmos soundtrack but to me I didn't notice any over head sound.
> I did watch 4k Deadpool and there were a few higth sound in it that were clearly using Atmos.
> I haven't used the DTS Neural X upmixer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I mentioned, the physical placement and orientation of the upward-firing speakers can be a little tricky. You'll have to adjust them until you get the best results. The upward firing speakers have to be high enough that their direct sound is minimized. For example, the audience shouldn't be able to see their speaker drivers if they weren't covered by grille cloth. Hearing their sounds directly can destroy the illusion of sounds coming from overhead. Our hearing makes sounds seem to come from the location from which a sound arrives first. When that happens, the echoes from overhead won't change that apparent direction. The speakers also have to be tilted so that they point to the location on the ceiling which is half-way between where they're located and where the audience sits. Think of the ceiling as a mirror and the sound coming from the speaker like a flashlight. The beam from the flashlight has to hit the audience. The sounds will seem to come from where the beam hits the ceiling.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the insight, may I ask what would you do to the Atmos speakers in terms of adjusting then to bounce off the ceiling better? 
The are atop of my tower speakers now ( 4 feet tall?) they do have wall mount clips on them . Would you wall mount them? If so how far from the ceiling?


----------



## Selden Ball

EricST said:


> Thank you for the insight, may I ask what would you do to the Atmos speakers in terms of adjusting then to bounce off the ceiling better?
> The are atop of my tower speakers now ( 4 feet tall?) they do have wall mount clips on them . Would you wall mount them? If so how far from the ceiling?


Sorry, I don't have any upfiring speakers myself. Hopefully someone else can provide some advice from personal experience.

However, a relatively thorough discussion of Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers is available in Dolby's official document at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf


----------



## HarpNinja

I don't have a dedicated HT, but rather a great room. It was finished when I moved in, so some of my choices have to fit within that current design. Two in-ceiling speakers were installed, and would work for rear tops. That being said, the R is in line with my front R perfectly. the L is about a feet inside of my front L and not "optimal" placement.

Right now, I don't use them as my receiver is only 5.2.2. Since I wasn't wired for top middles, I am using Pioneer add ons with solid success.

With that being said, when I go to 5.2.4, I had planned on using Atmos add ons and then rear tops. This is "ok" according to the Dolby white paper. If I wanted to get crazy and add two top middles in-ceiling, should I line up the TL with the RL or the front L?

My right side is all lined up perfectly, but that one rear L speaker is driving me nuts. We have a sectional that goes up against that side wall so if someone sits in the corner the atmos speaker would be abover their inside shoulder, making it a crappy spot for Atmos.

Thanks!


----------



## EricST

Selden Ball said:


> EricST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the insight, may I ask what would you do to the Atmos speakers in terms of adjusting then to bounce off the ceiling better?
> The are atop of my tower speakers now ( 4 feet tall?) they do have wall mount clips on them . Would you wall mount them? If so how far from the ceiling?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't have any upfiring speakers myself. Hopefully someone else can provide some advice from personal experience.
> 
> However, a relatively thorough discussion of Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers is available in Dolby's official document at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you for your time and explanation.


----------



## gwsat

After I installed my Oppo UDP-203 4K HDR disc player yesterday, I watched _The Magnificent Seven_ 4K HDR Atoms audio disc. The film looks and sounds terrific but the immersive Atmos effect is disappointingly underutilized. It is not in the same world with the Atmos audio presented in _Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road,_ and a few others.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's too bad.

At least you can sorta "fix" that underused "effect" by applying CinemaDSP to the Atmos track.


----------



## baltar

I recently upgraded my 9.1 (with Front Wides) to a Atmos 7.1.2 setup. I use my FW speakers (Paradigm Millenia one) as height ceiling speakers and it works beautifully. The Atmos demo disc sounds awesome! I am missing somewhat in the middle where my FW's used to be.

I would like to hear some 9.1.2 experiences before i shelve 700euro's for an extra pair of speakers.


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## wildswing

*Upgraded - Atmos is much better now*

Hey folks,

It's been a long time since I posted but have been lurking and learning. After struggling with my Dolby enabled Onkyo SKH-410 speakers, in my search for answers, I found a thread here in which a member describes using ceiling mounted Polk Audio Atrium outdoor speakers (sorry can't find it right now). I did the same (along with a couple other upgrades) and am now a total Atmos convert. Instead of repeating myself, you can find the all the details in this Atmos speaker forum thread...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...d-firing-module-speakers-75.html#post49206553

Keep your stick on the ice!


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> That's too bad.
> 
> At least you can sorta "fix" that underused "effect" by applying CinemaDSP to the Atmos track.


I may have overstated the case with respect to the quality of the Atmos soundtrack in _The Magnificent Seven._ I only wished the overheads could have been a bit more active. They were still operating some of the time though. Better yet, the directionality of the 7.1 portion of the audio was outstanding, as was the LFE. In short, I didn't feel deprived when I was watching the movie. The Atmos soundtracks to which I compared the film are world class, to my ears at least.


----------



## wbree

I already had a DENON AVR X6200 receiver setup as a 7.1 configuration. I recently added two small Atmos speakers (Onkyo) in the front. On top of the front speakers.
When I stream a file specify as TrueHD 7.1 Atmos audio the display of the receiver shows that it will play TrueHD 7.1. But when I change that with the soundmode button on the remote to Atmos surround the display gives "Atmos" 5.1? Where did the surroundback go? Or is Atmos 5.1 only?


Any suggestions?


Wilco


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

wbree said:


> I already had a DENON AVR X6200 receiver setup as a 7.1 configuration. I recently added two small Atmos speakers (Onkyo) in the front. On top of the front speakers.
> When I stream a file specify as TrueHD 7.1 Atmos audio the display of the receiver shows that it will play TrueHD 7.1. But when I change that with the soundmode button on the remote to Atmos surround the display gives "Atmos" 5.1? Where did the surroundback go? Or is Atmos 5.1 only?
> 
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Wilco


Greetings,
I have the x4200 and its similar to the 6200. If you hit the info button on your remote, a display should pop up that will tell you what signal is being received & what is actually being played by the speakers. This will also give a display of the speakers being used. So as long as youve done the audyysey setup to incorporate all 9 speakers, it should use all 9 when decoding an atmos track. It will tell you this on the right side of that display with all of the speakers in your set up highlighted in some way. Hope this helps.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## wbree

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Greetings,
> I have the x4200 and its similar to the 6200. If you hit the info button on your remote, a display should pop up that will tell you what signal is being received & what is actually being played by the speakers. This will also give a display of the speakers being used. So as long as youve done the audyysey setup to incorporate all 9 speakers, it should use all 9 when decoding an atmos track. It will tell you this on the right side of that display with all of the speakers in your set up highlighted in some way. Hope this helps.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


Thanks for your reply.
On info it only says that there is an Atmos sound. Not how many speakers are involved. For the output I can see this on the info and display. But how can I see if there were more speakers involved.
Or is de X6200 only capable of Atmos 5.x.2 output? Have you ever had a Atmos 7.1.2 on your display?


Wilco


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

wbree said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> On info it only says that there is an Atmos sound. Not how many speakers are involved. For the output I can see this on the info and display. But how can I see if there were more speakers involved.
> Or is de X6200 only capable of Atmos 5.x.2 output? Have you ever had a Atmos 7.1.2 on your display?
> 
> 
> Wilco


The x6200 has 9 ch of amplification...so it will power up to 5.1.2, 7.1.2, 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 with an ext amplifier connected. Based on my knowledge, Atmos is only restricted to what the number of speakers a receiver has connected to it. For my x4200, by itself can only handle 5.1.2 atmos, but with my 2 ch amp connected to it, it will do 5.1.4. When i hit the onfo button it says the incoming signal is Atmos and show which speakers are active when it outputs the dolby atmos audio. See pic below.









Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

wbree said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> On info it only says that there is an Atmos sound. Not how many speakers are involved. For the output I can see this on the info and display. But how can I see if there were more speakers involved.
> Or is de X6200 only capable of Atmos 5.x.2 output? Have you ever had a Atmos 7.1.2 on your display?
> 
> 
> Wilco


...and no, i havent set up my speakers in a 7.1.2 configuration...my room wont allow it in its current orientation of the seating and display. If your x6200 is receiving an atmos signal, then it will output to all speakers connected to it. Atmos is not restricted to just 5.1.2 or 7.1.2...it can handle up to 30+ speaker configuration.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## scottsanz

I already asked this the wrong place, but I want to do a 5.1.4 Atmos setup and I have my back against the wall when I'm watching movies. I know with 5.1.2, the ceiling speakers go directly above the seating, but with 5.1.4 they go behind and in front. How ... strict is that? Would it be terribly wrong to have the back speakers directly above the seating, then the front speakers farther out in front? If that's fine, would I want them to be at something like 90 degrees and 60 degrees? And also, if I do that, should the front ones point back toward the listener? I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. I've looked a bit, but I couldn't figure out how to find these answers. Thank you all!


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

scottsanz said:


> I already asked this the wrong place, but I want to do a 5.1.4 Atmos setup and I have my back against the wall when I'm watching movies. I know with 5.1.2, the ceiling speakers go directly above the seating, but with 5.1.4 they go behind and in front. How ... strict is that? Would it be terribly wrong to have the back speakers directly above the seating, then the front speakers farther out in front? If that's fine, would I want them to be at something like 90 degrees and 60 degrees? And also, if I do that, should the front ones point back toward the listener? I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. I've looked a bit, but I couldn't figure out how to find these answers. Thank you all!


Greetings,
I have 5.1.4 and sit against the back wall. For atmos, i have front heights and top middle speakers, and not in ceiling but mounted on ceiling for placement flexibility. The Dolby placement is ideal, but you can adjust it as you need to. My set up sounds fantastic, and IMO and IME...you dont need in ceiling speakers to get good atmos sound.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## scottsanz

GiTcHaSuM said:


> Greetings,
> I have 5.1.4 and sit against the back wall. For atmos, i have front heights and top middle speakers, and not in ceiling but mounted on ceiling for placement flexibility. The Dolby placement is ideal, but you can adjust it as you need to. My set up sounds fantastic, and IMO and IME...you dont need in ceiling speakers to get good atmos sound.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk




Thank you! I'm considering placing them in boxes temporarily to make sure they sound good, them just put them in ceiling when I'm confident. I appreciate it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

scottsanz said:


> I already asked this the wrong place, but I want to do a 5.1.4 Atmos setup and I have my back against the wall when I'm watching movies. I know with 5.1.2, the ceiling speakers go directly above the seating, but with 5.1.4 they go behind and in front. How ... strict is that? Would it be terribly wrong to have the back speakers directly above the seating, then the front speakers farther out in front? If that's fine, would I want them to be at something like 90 degrees and 60 degrees? And also, if I do that, should the front ones point back toward the listener? I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. I've looked a bit, but I couldn't figure out how to find these answers. Thank you all!


One perfectly in-spec overhead speaker configuration for your seating position would be front height (FH) and top middle (TM). Note that proper placement comes down to the elevation angle relative to MLP. For FH that would be 30° - 45°, and for TM it's 65° to 100° (see the attached diagram from the D+M owner's manual). To avoid hot-spotting, I would recommend that you place the TM slightly forward of the MLP (e.g., 80°) rather than directly overhead. 

Whereas the ideal placement, in theory, may be 45° forward and aft of the MLP, that is not the only acceptable placement and in fact won't always be feasible. We all have to work with what we have, and many users have reported excellent results with the sort of solution I have outlined above.

Your proposal to experiment with placement before cutting into your ceiling is the optimal route to getting it right the first time since everyone's room is different.


----------



## wbree

GiTcHaSuM said:


> When i hit the onfo button it says the incoming signal is Atmos and show which speakers are active when it outputs the dolby atmos audio. See pic below.
> 
> View attachment 1851569


Where it says on your pic FHL and FHR it says on my screen using the "info" button FDL and FDR!


Is that a problem? I thought I had all speakers configured the way it should be.


Wilco


----------



## Skylinestar

baltar said:


> I recently upgraded my 9.1 (with Front Wides) to a Atmos 7.1.2 setup. I use my FW speakers (Paradigm Millenia one) as height ceiling speakers and it works beautifully. The Atmos demo disc sounds awesome! I am missing somewhat in the middle where my FW's used to be.
> 
> I would like to hear some 9.1.2 experiences before i shelve 700euro's for an extra pair of speakers.
> 
> 
> Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html
9.1.6 ?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Skylinestar said:


> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html
> 9.1.6 ?


About time they made the test tones public.


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

wbree said:


> Where it says on your pic FHL and FHR it says on my screen using the "info" button FDL and FDR!
> 
> 
> Is that a problem? I thought I had all speakers configured the way it should be.
> 
> 
> Wilco


Nope, not a problem at all...the ones you have stand for Front Dolby Left and Front Dolby Right. Instead of height like mine, you have the Dolby Enabled speakers that fire up and bounce off the ceiling. As long as those are the type of speakers you are using for atmos, then you're good.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## GiTcHaSuM

wbree said:


> Where it says on your pic FHL and FHR it says on my screen using the "info" button FDL and FDR!
> 
> 
> Is that a problem? I thought I had all speakers configured the way it should be.
> 
> 
> Wilco


Also, on that same area where it shows your active speakers when hitting the info button, it should also display your back surrounds as well...probably where mine shows the Rear Height speakers, yours should say LBS & RBS...for left and right back surround. Thats just a guess though, not exactly sure what it says since ive never had the back surrounds of a 7.1, but it should display those two as well.

I also just checked your previous post, you have the dolby enabled upward firing modules so that part is correct. 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## scottsanz

chi_guy50 said:


> One perfectly in-spec overhead speaker configuration for your seating position would be front height (FH) and top middle (TM). Note that proper placement comes down to the elevation angle relative to MLP. For FH that would be 30° - 45°, and for TM it's 65° to 100° (see the attached diagram from the D+M owner's manual). To avoid hot-spotting, I would recommend that you place the TM slightly forward of the MLP (e.g., 80°) rather than directly overhead.
> 
> Whereas the ideal placement, in theory, may be 45° forward and aft of the MLP, that is not the only acceptable placement and in fact won't always be feasible. We all have to work with what we have, and many users have reported excellent results with the sort of solution I have outlined above.
> 
> Your proposal to experiment with placement before cutting into your ceiling is the optimal route to getting it right the first time since everyone's room is different.


Thank you for this information. I think you've got a solid plan for me there! I appreciate you taking the time to do this (even though I take a couple of days to respond), as it should really clear up a lot. I'm excited to start!


----------



## Selden Ball

Skylinestar said:


> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html
> 9.1.6 ?


9.1.6 is for all those Trinnov and Datasat owners. 

Bear in mind that Atmos uses objects to specify where sounds are in xyz, not as being sent to specific speakers. In some cases, however, the person mixing a soundtrack will specify "snap to speaker" when he's doing the encoding, which will cause the sounds to come from only those speakers closest to the specified xyz location. Unfortunately, Dolby does not document if "snap to speaker" is being used on any of the test soundtracks. Previous reports for the test tracks provided on their Demo BDs suggest that some of the test tracks use "snap to speaker" and some don't.

For example, when I play the 7.1.4 soundtrack (which apparently is optimized for Top Front and Top Rear speakers) my speaker configuration phantom-images the front overheads by sending equal volume sounds to both my Front Height and Top Middle speakers.

I dunno if the downloadable test tracks are identical to those on the BDs, but suspect they are.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Selden Ball said:


> 9.1.6 is for all those Trinnov and Datasat owners.


Mainly Trinnov owners as Datasat are limited to 5.1.6/7.1.4/9.1.2

I have a setup under construction using 4 AVRs which should handle that 9.1.6 demo correctly as well. It should be operational in a month or so.


----------



## Selden Ball

Mashie Saldana said:


> Mainly Trinnov owners as Datasat are limited to 7.1.6.
> 
> I have a setup under construction using 4 AVRs which should handle that 9.1.6 demo correctly as well. It should be operational in a month or so.


I would have expected two to be sufficient, but there are several ways to generate the additional channels.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Selden Ball said:


> I would have expected two to be sufficient, but there are several ways to generate the additional channels.


With only two AVRs you will duplicate the height sounds assuming you do 9.1.2 using all speakers and then adding top front and top rear from a second AVR running 5.1.4.

I don't use the heights from the 9.1.2 and instead do PLII matrixing to get the top middle channels. Hopefully it will work out in practice.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mashie Saldana said:


> Mainly Trinnov owners as Datasat are limited to 7.1.6.


Datasat -> DSP-chip based -> max 11.1 discrete channels, -> max 5.1.6 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 Atmos.
Meaning additional channels (up to 16 in total) are used for arraying (copying), or multi-amping/active cross-overs.
Or did I miss something?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> Datasat -> DSP-chip based -> max 11.1 discrete channels, -> max 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 Atmos.
> Meaning additional channels (up to 16 in total) are used for arraying (copying), or multi-amping/active cross-overs.
> Or did I miss something?


Sorry, they can't do 7.1.6, they can do 5.1.6, 7.1.4 or 9.1.2.


----------



## rknaub

*Help picking a receiver with 5.1.4*

Hello friends. I am looking for a new receiver to support Atmos in my 5.1.4 speaker setup. I have always been a personal fan of Yamaha, but the a2060 and a3060 look like they need an external amp to handle 5.1.4, and I do not want to have to add a second amp. Could someone please suggest some receivers in the $2k or less range that can do what I need?

Currently looking at the Onkyo TX-RZ1100 as I think this can do 5.1.4, but are there any others?

I really appreciate the suggestions. Thank you!


----------



## Craig Mecak

rknaub said:


> Hello friends. I am looking for a new receiver to support Atmos in my 5.1.4 speaker setup. I have always been a personal fan of Yamaha, but the a2060 and a3060 look like they need an external amp to handle 5.1.4, and I do not want to have to add a second amp. Could someone please suggest some receivers in the $2k or less range that can do what I need?
> 
> Currently looking at the Onkyo TX-RZ1100 as I think this can do 5.1.4, but are there any others?
> 
> I really appreciate the suggestions. Thank you!


No, neither the 2060 or 3060 require an external amp to do 5.1.4. Only the 3060 requires an external amp to do 7.1.4, as it's 11.1 processing channel capable.


----------



## rknaub

Craig Mecak said:


> rknaub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello friends. I am looking for a new receiver to support Atmos in my 5.1.4 speaker setup. I have always been a personal fan of Yamaha, but the a2060 and a3060 look like they need an external amp to handle 5.1.4, and I do not want to have to add a second amp. Could someone please suggest some receivers in the $2k or less range that can do what I need?
> 
> Currently looking at the Onkyo TX-RZ1100 as I think this can do 5.1.4, but are there any others?
> 
> I really appreciate the suggestions. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> No, neither the 2060 or 3060 require an external amp to do 5.1.4. Only the 3060 requires an external amp to do 7.1.4, as it's 11.1 processing channel capable.
Click to expand...

Great! I obviously misunderstood the manual. Thanks so much for the quick reply!


----------



## Mrjmc99

Craig Mecak said:


> No, neither the 2060 or 3060 require an external amp to do 5.1.4. Only the 3060 requires an external amp to do 7.1.4, as it's 11.1 processing channel capable.


The x4300h does 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 without an external amp, it's around $1500, or try to catch it on sale. It can expand to 11 channel with an external amp as well, which might be one of the least expensive models in that range that can support 11 channels. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

rknaub said:


> Hello friends. I am looking for a new receiver to support Atmos in my 5.1.4 speaker setup. I have always been a personal fan of Yamaha, but the a2060 and a3060 look like they need an external amp to handle 5.1.4, and I do not want to have to add a second amp. Could someone please suggest some receivers in the $2k or less range that can do what I need?
> 
> Currently looking at the Onkyo TX-RZ1100 as I think this can do 5.1.4, but are there any others?
> 
> I really appreciate the suggestions. Thank you!


The marantz SR7010 will do 5.1.4 without external amp or 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 with an external amp.


----------



## engineear

I'm running 5.1.2 now with a vaulted ceiling. The vault is 2 different angles and is 40/60 in the room...meaning the vault isn't right in the center of the room. The angle is much steeper where the TV and front speakers are and then slopes back at a flatter angle. Also, my back surrounds are mounted on the wall well above my head. The room opens on the right to the kitchen..an open floor plan. The 2 over heads are right over our seating area for now until I change the furniture which will put us closer to the TV and then that will situate the over heads behind us. 

Has anyone been in a room like this with 5.1.4? Will it be THAT big of a difference? The way it is now is way better than 5.1. 

Open to any suggestions...thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

engineear said:


> I'm running 5.1.2 now with a vaulted ceiling. The vault is 2 different angles and is 40/60 in the room...meaning the vault isn't right in the center of the room. The angle is much steeper where the TV and front speakers are and then slopes back at a flatter angle. Also, my back surrounds are mounted on the wall well above my head. The room opens on the right to the kitchen..an open floor plan. The 2 over heads are right over our seating area for now until I change the furniture which will put us closer to the TV and then that will situate the over heads behind us.
> 
> Has anyone been in a room like this with 5.1.4? Will it be THAT big of a difference? The way it is now is way better than 5.1.
> 
> Open to any suggestions...thanks.


What matters most is the directions toward the speakers rather than the distances to them.

Alternatively, maybe hang the overhead speakers from track-lighting supports?


----------



## Jonathan Schwabe

I have set up a 9.2.2 atmos system, but no sound in the wide speakers when i play atmos movies, but all the atmos demo from dolby, there are sounds in the wide speakers, why....


----------



## Selden Ball

Jonathan Schwabe said:


> I have set up a 9.2.2 atmos system, but no sound in the wide speakers when i play atmos movies, but all the atmos demo from dolby, there are sounds in the wide speakers, why....


It might depend on which movie you're listening to.

Also, make sure your Blu-ray player is fully configured to bitstream its audio. In particular, "Secondary Audio Mix" must be Off. The default is On.


----------



## Jonathan Schwabe

Jonathan Schwabe said:


> I have set up a 9.2.2 atmos system, but no sound in the wide speakers when i play atmos movies, but all the atmos demo from dolby, there are sounds in the wide speakers, why....


I have sortet it, its just because theres not much going on in the wide, so I didn't heard it at first.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Dolby has published the 9.1.6 setup guide lines at last: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.pdf

They are simply the 7.1.4 and 9.1.2 layouts merged together so no spectacular revelations.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol finally! Yeesh...

Just in time for me to not care about it anymore. 

I'm all about 11.1.4 now.


----------



## howard68

I have just watched 4k of Martian and it is very under used hight speakers 
I have just got the new widescreen review mag and they make many comments on the under use of hights in Atmos mixes 
If we go to the trouble of a Atmos DTS X set up I want to hear the top speakers to be used
Balls to the wall mix not just fill in a bit


----------



## Molon_Labe

howard68 said:


> I have just watched 4k of Martian and it is very under used hight speakers
> I have just got the new widescreen review mag and they make many comments on the under use of hights in Atmos mixes
> If we go to the trouble of a Atmos DTS X set up I want to hear the top speakers to be used
> Balls to the wall mix not just fill in a bit


The goal of Atmos and DTS:X is to try to mimic the world around us from a sound perspective. When you go outside, very little sound comes from above you unless an object is passing overhead, it thunders, etc. The ultimate goal is to have the speakers disappear into a bubble of sound, not draw attention to themselves. With that said, I think we all go through that stage of wanting a lot of content to showcase our time and money spent on immersive audio. There are mixes that are better than others but the best mixes make the speakers disappear and drop you into the movie.


----------



## Swiguy

Hi all, I've finally bit the bullet and purchased a new AVR after much research... the Marantz SR7010, now I can take advantage of Dolby Atmos.

My speakers are as follows:

Fronts: PSB Imagine T
Centre: PSB Imagine C
Rears: PSB Alpha B
Sub: SVS PB1000

This combo sounds great in it's current 5.1 set up but I'm now unsure if I should add 2 or 4 ceiling speakers. I pre-wired the ceiling prior to drywall going up so I do have the option for 4 in-ceiling speakers.

With all of that being said, I've read quite a few different options for Atmos when the main listening position is against the back wall. I don't really have the option of changing this so I would prefer to add my ceiling speakers based on the fact my MLP is on the back wall.

I should also mention that the rears are installed on the back wall. They sit on mounts a foot above ear level while sitting and are titled down accordingly. The fronts, centre and sub are all situated in your typical positions.

I've read that the first pair of ceiling speakers should be installed just in front of the MLP if your seating is against the back wall. This is not an issue. However, where should I install the 2nd pair of ceiling speakers? I've read that front height bookshelf speakers would be a good option as opposed to a 2nd set of in-ceiling. But, I think I would prefer to stick to in-ceiling speakers. Would installing a 2nd set of in-ceiling speakers let's say 3-5 feet in front of the top middle speakers achieve anything? Or should I stick with a 5.1.2 setup (2 in-ceiling speakers just in front of the MLP)?

Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mashie Saldana said:


> Dolby has published the 9.1.6 setup guide lines at last: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.pdf
> 
> They are simply the 7.1.4 and 9.1.2 layouts merged together so no spectacular revelations.


Nothing spectacular, true, but you would no longer have to choose between rear surrounds and front wide surrounds, and if you had a longer room the three pairs of overheads would be welcome... though, I think 11.1.6 is more balanced, giving us an additional set of side surround speakers to the 9.1.6 layout, and thereby creating a basic theatrical array for better, more precise object placement. It would be better for two rows of seating as well.


----------



## howard68

I think you should read the rewiew in widescreen Review 
They don't mix them for home very well some times I think it is a pointless up mix to Atmos just to sell new discs 
I heard Hacksaw Ridge in the studio it was mixed in 
OMG that was a mix !!!!
I hope it translates to the Home Mix


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> I think you should read the rewiew in widescreen Review
> They don't mix them for home very well some times I think it is a pointless up mix to Atmos just to sell new discs
> I heard Hacksaw Ridge in the studio it was mixed in
> OMG that was a mix !!!!
> I hope it translates to the Home Mix


Unless you listen to the home Atmos mix with a Trinnov processor and multiple speakers, there's no way of knowing for sure how close it is to the cinema Atmos mix.


----------



## howard68

Dan Hitchman said:


> Unless you listen to the home Atmos mix with a Trinnov processor and multiple speakers, there's no way of knowing for sure how close it is to the cinema Atmos mix.



The blu ray mix is not the same mix you get at the cinema that is my point it is to dumb down 
Or a lazy remix


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> The blu ray mix is not the same mix you get at the cinema


I know that, but the object positioning may or may not be similar and you have to take into account how much effect object spatial compression in the home Atmos version is having on the soundscape (depending on how many discrete objects were in the original Atmos session file and how many of those discrete objects are left alone and how many have been lumped together). 

Without an A/B comparison on large theater systems it's hard to know since so many of us are locked at no more than 7.1.4. 

I'll tell you one thing: after listening to the same Atmos Blu-ray's on my 7.1.4 system compared to the JBL/Trinnov demos at CEDIA... the soundtracks become much more alive on the larger home Atmos system.


----------



## howard68

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know that, but the object positioning may or may not be similar and you have to take into account how much effect object spatial compression in the home Atmos version is having on the soundscape (depending on how many discrete objects were in the original Atmos session file and how many of those discrete objects are left alone and how many have been lumped together).
> 
> Without an A/B comparison on large theater systems it's hard to know since so many of us are locked at no more than 7.1.4.
> 
> I'll tell you one thing: after listening to the same Atmos Blu-ray's on my 7.1.4 system compared to the JBL/Trinnov demos at CEDIA... the soundtracks become much more alive on the larger home Atmos system.


I do agree 
My system will not compare to a $50.000 system 
However Widescreen Review has a good set up and point out the under use of the high speakers 
Read the review in January 2017 issue I do have to agree with them


----------



## howard68

howard68 said:


> I do agree
> My system will not compare to a $50.000 system
> However Widescreen Review has a good set up and point out the under use of the high speakers
> Read the review in January 2017 issue I do have to agree with them


Don't get me wrong I love surround sound 
however I have just listened to concussion uhd Dolby Atmos mix there seems like no reason to get this mix over a 7.1 mix 
I will re watch it with all ear level speakers off and see if there was any unique sound in hight speaker that is not just repeted ambiance 
I don't expect it to be star wars however if you don't add anything that makes it better it feels like re badging something to sell it as better when it is really almost the same as the 7.1 mix 
I want atmos blu ray mixed to use what it has to offer


----------



## smurraybhm

howard68 said:


> I do agree
> My system will not compare to a $50.000 system
> However Widescreen Review has a good set up and point out the under use of the high speakers
> Read the review in January 2017 issue I do have to agree with them


If I remember correctly Widescreen Review has never been a fan of Atmos. Believe one of their articles soon after the "release" of Atmos set off more than a few members. So I find the fact they consider the heights underutilized no surprise. Time for Auro 

As a few others have posted, I too recently acquired a Oppo 203 for use eventually with a new display. Right now its being used to advance my collection of Atmos encoded disks. Magnificent 7 sounded great, and I find it disappointing when forced to acquire the 4k version since the studio has decided to exclude it from the blu-ray. A lot of folks do not have that option and are missing out on some great mixes - Deadpool and Oblivion being two others. 

If your doing Atmos with the hope of hearing a bunch of sound above you then you screwed up. As other have mentioned its about putting the sounds where they belong, with a few exceptions I continue to be drawn to this feature every time I listen to an Atmos mix. By the way the Martian received some very positive reviews for how well it utilized the heights on the Atmos mix via the 4k version (be sure to buy the right 4k version). Disclaimer being when it was appropriate to use the heights - like the storm scene at the beginning of the movie. Guess Widescreen Review wasn't one those who reviewed it positively


----------



## howard68

WSR is not the only mag to point out under use of hight speakers 
TMNT is well documented as having almost no hight action
I love Atmos and Auro and Dts X 
I have no personal axe to grind

I don't want to buy a chocolate chip cookies to find no chocolate in !!!!
I to have to go get a UHD player to access the Atmos Films 
It is to easy to say you don't need much in the hight 
Sorry I asked for a chocolate chips and go our of my way to get it 
then I want chocolate in the cookie that's what they are selling with the immersive sound formats


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> WSR is not the only mag to point out under use of hight speakers
> TMNT is well documented as having almost no hight action
> I love Atmos and Auro and Dts X
> I have no personal axe to grind
> 
> I don't want to buy a chocolate chip cookies to find no chocolate in !!!!
> I to have to go get a UHD player to access the Atmos Films
> It is to easy to say you don't need much in the hight
> Sorry I asked for a chocolate chips and go our of my way to get it
> then I want chocolate in the cookie that's what they are selling with the immersive sound formats


What I am saying is that even though you may not hear much coming out of the overheads, sad as it may be, there is still a lot of object activity in the ground level speakers that you won't notice until you have a processor like the Trinnov and a lot more speakers. My set up consists of Front Wides right now (still making it a 7.1.4 system) and they are consistently active compared to the overheads. Music and dialog are pulled to those locations as well as objects passing through to the other surround speakers. 

That's why it is disappointing that Dolby and the manufacturers of basic consumer A/V processors continue to put emphasis on adding more overhead speakers when we need arrays on the ground level more... at this timid stage in immersive mixing at least.


----------



## scarabaeus

Selden Ball said:


> 9.1.6 is for all those Trinnov and Datasat owners.


And CP850. Full compliment of 24.1.10, and cinematic Atmos on top of that.


----------



## Jrek

*tmnt?*

I can a sure you both TMNT atmos mixes are great, very fun mixes plenty of top action most don't know about them because they don't care for the subject matter but as far as atmos mixes go they are great,in fact the first has a scene where they are going down a mountain with a truck which is great atmos demo, an eighteen wheeler passes over the heads of some of them as they slide down the mountain and it passes directly overhead fantastic demo for sure and the lfe is incredible to boot! Thanks Jim


----------



## gwsat

Compared to some here, I have been relatively timid because I have only 7 ground level speakers. I will say, though, that a first class TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, think _John Wick_ or _Gravity_, for example, gives me a thrillingly immersive 3D sound field from my 7.1.4 system.


----------



## audiofan1

I for one couldn't be happier with my move to 7.1.4 and count it as promised delivered.More speakers? nope not needed for my single row! bi-poles to simulate side speaker array? You bet! The mixes have only gotten better and still stoked at what the mixers will do with the immersive formats (Atmos/DTS:X) for 2017


----------



## Johan81

Sully is one hell of a ride! Best Atmos experience for me yet! Funny thing is that it works great with all the placements, even with my 5.2.2 setup, got bipoles as surrounds in a small room, which should help


----------



## smurraybhm

howard68 said:


> WSR is not the only mag to point out under use of hight speakers
> TMNT is well documented as having almost no hight action
> I love Atmos and Auro and Dts X
> I have no personal axe to grind
> 
> I don't want to buy a chocolate chip cookies to find no chocolate in !!!!
> I to have to go get a UHD player to access the Atmos Films
> It is to easy to say you don't need much in the hight
> Sorry I asked for a chocolate chips and go our of my way to get it
> then I want chocolate in the cookie that's what they are selling with the immersive sound formats


As was Transformers, our infamous first release using Atmos. The mixes have improved with time, and we can agree to disagree on how much is needed up top. I want accurate sound and as Dan pointed out that's Atmos intends to do and I agree with his comments on the lower level. Atmos demo disks are great examples of when things are put up top that belong there, like the helicopter example on the 2015 disk with the panning from front/side to back/side. 

It seems that those who are looking for more up top like Auromatic and/or Neural. Both, especially Auromatic put more things up top, but not with much accuracy as we've discussed numerious time over the year. FilmMixer keeps talking about an Atmos mix (yet to be named) that he just finished up which sounds like it will deliver the type of action you seek from above - maybe. We all seek different things and I continue to enjoy Atmos nearly 2.5 years out. Times have changed since Tranformers and TMNT, we quality movies (talking to you Dan  ) that offer an excellent Atmos experience IMO. Looking forward to 4 days off and checking out Lucy on 4k w/ Atmos  plus some others like The Shallows.


----------



## gwsat

Johan81 said:


> Sully is one hell of a ride! Best Atmos experience for me yet! Funny thing is that it works great with all the placements, even with my 5.2.2 setup, got bipoles as surrounds in a small room, which should help


The TrueHD Atmos soundtrack for _Sully_ is indeed wonderful. I watched a bit of the film again today and was again blown away by the immersive audio.


----------



## unretarded

I just upgraded to 7 matching speakers for my 5.x.2 system......we will see what that delivers.

With my old mismatched stuff, room correction was able to make the speakers disappear and gave sound that seemed to come from all over.

I hope 7 matched speakers will do better and give more full range sound from all locations.....


----------



## Molon_Labe

Johan81 said:


> Sully is one hell of a ride! Best Atmos experience for me yet! Funny thing is that it works great with all the placements, even with my 5.2.2 setup, got bipoles as surrounds in a small room, which should help


Sully also had an awesome LFE track as well. I rented it but will probably add it to my library for demo material.


----------



## FilmMixer

smurraybhm said:


> FilmMixer keeps talking about an Atmos mix (yet to be named) that he just finished up which sounds like it will deliver the type of action you seek from above - maybe.



I will be able to share the name once the studio announces it... the film hasn't hit theaters yet. 

My approach might not suit everyone on this film.... but I can say that I had objects running almost 75% of the time. 

Mostly ambience, reverb and music. I didn't have access to the original elements, only stems, but there is plenty of stuff flying around, PA voices up above, whooshes traveling, cave drips, swirling and gusty wind.... I think it's fun and the person who signed off on it was very happy... 

I eagerly await getting feedback from the peanut gallery. . Figure we will see the title in April...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zeus33

FilmMixer said:


> I eagerly await getting feedback from the peanut gallery. . Figure we will see the title in April...



Looking forward to it FM. Enjoy your work.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I will be able to share the name once the studio announces it... the film hasn't hit theaters yet.
> 
> My approach might not suit everyone on this film.... but I can say that I had objects running almost 75% of the time.
> 
> Mostly ambience, reverb and music. I didn't have access to the original elements, only stems, but there is plenty of stuff flying around, PA voices up above, whooshes traveling, cave drips, swirling and gusty wind.... I think it's fun and the person who signed off on it was very happy...
> 
> I eagerly await getting feedback from the peanut gallery. . Figure we will see the title in April...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Looking forward to it as well. Did you do the home Atmos mix as well? If so, do you find spatial compression fairly transparent (if needed to add more objects than the consumer version can handle) or does it do harm to the original immersive mix?


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Looking forward to it as well. Did you do the home Atmos mix as well? If so, do you find spatial compression fairly transparent (if needed to add more objects than the consumer version can handle) or does it do harm to the original immersive mix?




I only did the home Atmos.... it had just been finished in 7.1 for the theatrical and the original mixers weren't available. 

Spacial coding wasn't an issue... I didn't go crazy with the number of objects.... 

And as my wife would say.... it's not how many objects you have. It's all in how you use them... 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Looking forward to it as well. Did you do the home Atmos mix as well? If so, do you find spatial compression fairly transparent (if needed to add more objects than the consumer version can handle) or does it do harm to the original immersive mix?




I only did the home Atmos.... it had just been finished in 7.1 for the theatrical and the original mixers weren't available. 

Spacial coding wasn't an issue... I didn't go crazy with the number of objects.... 

And as my wife would say.... it's not how many objects you have. It's all in how you use them... 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Neal Springer

*What is the best way to hear Atmos once set up to be sure it is working?*

My Denon w400H has been connected to the new TV with 7.4.1 4 Klipsch atmos Klipsch RP-140SA. How do I get the Doldy Atmos to play. the configuration on the TV only shows the bottom although all speakers where attached and tested with the Audyssey speaker as part of the setup. What is the setting on the 4300H that will allow the 4 Dolby Atmos to be utilized? What could be the reason why the upper 4 do not play? Do I need to go to youtube and play an Atmos Demo to hear these 4 engage?

When I set the surround sound feature on the OLED65C6P - 65" 3D Curved TV, only the 7.1 speakers configuration is heard, same when I play through the 
Samsung UBD-K8500 4K Ultra HD Wi-Fi Built-In Blu-ray Player Black ...
Roku 4
Apple TV 
All the components are run through the Denon w4300H. 

Here are the speakers (1) SC-1 center speaker

(2) RF-3 Floor standing speakers

(2) SS1 Rear surround sound speakers

(1) KSW-10 subwoofer
2 Paradigm Floor speakers at the back corners
4 Klipsch atmos Klipsch RP-140SA


----------



## unretarded

Neal Springer said:


> My Denon w400H has been connected to the new TV with 7.4.1 4 Klipsch atmos Klipsch RP-140SA. How do I get the Doldy Atmos to play. the configuration on the TV only shows the bottom although all speakers where attached and tested with the Audyssey speaker as part of the setup. What is the setting on the 4300H that will allow the 4 Dolby Atmos to be utilized? What could be the reason why the upper 4 do not play? Do I need to go to youtube and play an Atmos Demo to hear these 4 engage?
> 
> When I set the surround sound feature on the OLED65C6P - 65" 3D Curved TV, only the 7.1 speakers configuration is heard, same when I play through the
> Samsung UBD-K8500 4K Ultra HD Wi-Fi Built-In Blu-ray Player Black ...
> Roku 4
> Apple TV
> All the components are run through the Denon w4300H.
> 
> Here are the speakers (1) SC-1 center speaker
> 
> (2) RF-3 Floor standing speakers
> 
> (2) SS1 Rear surround sound speakers
> 
> (1) KSW-10 subwoofer
> 2 Paradigm Floor speakers at the back corners
> 4 Klipsch atmos Klipsch RP-140SA


 Not sure if your receiver has a upscaler or not, but you need atmos content for atmos to show on the receiver, most will upscale 5.1/7.1 content to play sounds from the atmos speakers, even though it is not true atmos.

I am not sure youtube supports atmos streaming or not.....

I know mine only shows atmos when a atmos content is being played.

That's all I know...hope it helps some.


----------



## tcramer

Neal Springer said:


> My Denon w400H has been connected to the new TV with 7.4.1 4 Klipsch atmos Klipsch RP-140SA. How do I get the Doldy Atmos to play. the configuration on the TV only shows the bottom although all speakers where attached and tested with the Audyssey speaker as part of the setup. What is the setting on the 4300H that will allow the 4 Dolby Atmos to be utilized? What could be the reason why the upper 4 do not play? Do I need to go to youtube and play an Atmos Demo to hear these 4 engage?
> 
> When I set the surround sound feature on the OLED65C6P - 65" 3D Curved TV, only the 7.1 speakers configuration is heard, same when I play through the
> Samsung UBD-K8500 4K Ultra HD Wi-Fi Built-In Blu-ray Player Black ...
> Roku 4
> Apple TV
> All the components are run through the Denon w4300H.
> 
> Here are the speakers (1) SC-1 center speaker
> 
> (2) RF-3 Floor standing speakers
> 
> (2) SS1 Rear surround sound speakers
> 
> (1) KSW-10 subwoofer
> 2 Paradigm Floor speakers at the back corners
> 4 Klipsch atmos Klipsch RP-140SA


When you hit info, you want the audio output to be Dolby Surround with all the heights highlighted. If it doesn't show this, use the green movie button to change the mode to Dolby Surround.

You could also change it to Multi channel stereo, which will output the same full range sound through all speakers. Don't use this for listening to a movie, but it will help you ensure all speakers are engaged.

The only true Atmos sources are on Blu-Ray and UHD BR, but if you search Vudu for "The Dolby Atmos Experience", there are 4 short clips that do a pretty good job of demonstrating the Atmos flow, as long as you have your mode set to Dolby Surround.


----------



## deano86

The Vudu clips stream as true Atmos soundtracks.... Vudu could be using the Dolby Digital Plus codec... don't recall exactly as I haven't used it for a long time now, but Atmos tracks, nonetheless.....


----------



## sdurani

howard68 said:


> The blu ray mix is not the same mix you get at the cinema...


Used to be the case in the early days of home Atmos but encoders were eventually updated to automatically translate/adapt cinema mixes to home video without having to remix the soundtrack. Terminator Genisys was the first title on BD to use it.


----------



## howard68

sdurani said:


> Used to be the case in the early days of home Atmos but encoders were eventually updated to automatically translate/adapt cinema mixes to home video without having to remix the soundtrack. Terminator Genisys was the first title on BD to use it.


HI 
Can you give me any more information on Atmos Home Mix 
Does how many objects in the cinema mix against the home mix


----------



## sdurani

howard68 said:


> Does how many objects in the cinema mix against the home mix


Cinema can have up to 118 objects (nobody uses that many), home can have up to 20 objects (default setting on the home encoder is for 12 objects). IF a particular moment in the theatrical soundtrack uses more objects than the home version, then adjacent objects are combined.


----------



## howard68

sdurani said:


> Cinema can have up to 118 objects (nobody uses that many), home can have up to 20 objects (default setting on the home encoder is for 12 objects). IF a particular moment in the theatrical soundtrack uses more objects than the home version, then adjacent objects are combined.


How will the mix decide to choose what objects to use ?
This can be automatically done


----------



## sdurani

howard68 said:


> How will the mix decide to choose what objects to use ?


ALL the objects from the theatrical mix are used. Adjacent objects are combined ONLY if the home Atmos track runs out of objects at any given moment. Otherwise, each object in the theatrical mix is encoded as a separate object in the home mix.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Used to be the case in the early days of home Atmos but encoders were eventually updated to automatically translate/adapt cinema mixes to home video without having to remix the soundtrack. Terminator Genisys was the first title on BD to use it.


Is that a "blind" down mix to home Atmos, or does the tool allow for near field monitoring and the usual tweaks that a mixer might make for the near field mix?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I only did the home Atmos.... it had just been finished in 7.1 for the theatrical and the original mixers weren't available.
> 
> Spacial coding wasn't an issue... I didn't go crazy with the number of objects....
> 
> And as my wife would say.... it's not how many objects you have. It's all in how you use them...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Great! Can't wait! Hopefully, the movie in question is a good one too and coming to UHD Blu-ray! 

In general, have you run across issues with spatial compression coding when translating a cinema Atmos mix to a home mix? Do the tools allow you to choose which objects are left alone and which get "spatialized?" 

Thanks!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

FilmMixer said:


> I will be able to share the name once the studio announces it... the film hasn't hit theaters yet.


I have probably missed this but do you have a list somewhere of the mixes you have done?


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have probably missed this but do you have a list somewhere of the mixes you have done?


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279892/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


----------



## PeterTHX

FilmMixer said:


> I only did the home Atmos.... it had just been finished in 7.1 for the theatrical and the original mixers weren't available.
> 
> Spacial coding wasn't an issue... I didn't go crazy with the number of objects....
> 
> And as my wife would say.... it's not how many objects you have. It's all in how you use them...



Hmm. 7.1 theatrical, home Atmos. Sounds like a Lionsgate..._*John Wick Chapter 2*_ perhaps I'm thinking? 


We will know come April-ish.


----------



## Johan81

Skylinestar said:


> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html
> 9.1.6 ?


I have something strange with the 5.1.2 file I have downloaded from this link. When it turns to the surrounds, both the surround and the respective front speaker give sound. This while the DVE HD disc only plays a test tone through the surround speaker.
While with the DVE HD disc, the speaker calibrated almost the same as Audyssey set the levels, but with the test tone from Dolby, the right surround was off by 3 dB.

Anyone else tried using this to manually check the calibration and seeing similar results? I am a 100% sure I have set the correct sound mode as it shows as Atmos.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> In general, have you run across issues with spatial compression coding when translating a cinema Atmos mix to a home mix?


This is my first home Atmos title so I am not able to give you an informed opinion... and I was doing it from scratch (it wasn't an upmix...)

I have spoken to others with much more experience and you can run into artifacts when the tracks get really really busy and you try and take very complex elements (i.e. orchestral scores) and pull them far off the front LCR and into the overheads.... but it's rare and requires only minor adjustments to fix..



> Do the tools allow you to choose which objects are left alone and which get "spatialized?"


No, you don't get to choose... if objects are being combined you have to think of it as splitting the sound field into zones, like a grid. since certain objects with shared frequency characteristics might be in the same place at the same time, they probably won't stay spatially in the same "zone" together over the length of the file/objects duration... obviously by their very nature objects are dynamic spatially (you aren't required to move them around, but >95% of the time they are panning.) 

So any 2 or more objects might be grouped and coded together at a given moment, but if one moves out of the defined proximity it can't remained tied the other...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> This is my first home Atmos title so I am not able to give you an informed opinion... and I was doing it from scratch (it wasn't an upmix...)
> 
> I have spoken to others with much more experience and you can run into artifacts when the tracks get really really busy and you try and take very complex elements (i.e. orchestral scores) and pull them far off the front LCR and into the overheads.... but it's rare and requires only minor adjustments to fix..
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to choose... if objects are being combined you have to think of it as splitting the sound field into zones, like a grid. since certain objects with shared frequency characteristics might be in the same place at the same time, they probably won't stay spatially in the same "zone" together over the length of the file/objects duration... obviously by their very nature objects are dynamic spatially (you aren't required to move them around, but >95% of the time they are panning.)
> 
> So any 2 or more objects might be grouped and coded together at a given moment, but if one moves out of the defined proximity it can't remained tied the other...


Thank you for your insights, as always! Much obliged.  Have a Happy New Year!


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Is that a "blind" down mix to home Atmos, or does the tool allow for near field monitoring and the usual tweaks that a mixer might make for the near field mix?


Dan... I'm not sure how they were doing this exactly when the format launched.. I think they had a tool to make a DAMF from the theatrical print master...

But as I was told a little while ago, they don't need to/can't/aren't doing that ... 

The RMU now can run the home code, so you can simply take the theatrical Atmos print master and make a real time (run time) DAMF... you can choose how many objects you will be using on the encode and hear the coding, etc.. 

You are be able to make changes, but then by definition you aren't just transferring the mix as it exists.. you're mixing.... 

At that point, it's a financial decision, not an artistic one.


----------



## FilmMixer

PeterTHX said:


> Hmm. 7.1 theatrical, home Atmos. Sounds like a Lionsgate..._*John Wick Chapter 2*_ perhaps I'm thinking?
> 
> 
> We will know come April-ish.


Nope.. that title is being mixed natively in Atmos last time I checked..

I'm getting ready to start a film for said studio and we will also be mixing immersive from the go (all formats except Auro AFAIK....)


----------



## Scott Simonian

While rendering the home code off the RMU.... can you disable that 'snap-to' crap for the wide speakers?


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279892/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1





> Marc is excited to see the development of immersive sound formats, stating that "*Atmos and Auro* are just the beginning of where we are going."



Me like


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> While rendering the home code off the RMU.... can you disable that 'snap-to' crap for the wide speakers?


End the pain...buy a Trinnov LOL. But you'll have to do your own crowdsourcing.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Me like


I'm sure similar things were said about Delorean too. 



sdrucker said:


> End the pain...buy a Trinnov LOL. But you'll have to do your own crowdsourcing.


Ehh... no.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> While rendering the home code off the RMU.... can you disable that 'snap-to' crap for the wide speakers?


Actually I think we should have a lot more snap to wides.


----------



## zeus33

FilmMixer said:


> Nope..



Of what's listed on your "page", Rings seems like it would have a good soundtrack for it, but it says releases Feb. and you said April. Nothing else on "the list" lines up. Guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## FilmMixer

Scott Simonian said:


> While rendering the home code off the RMU.... can you disable that 'snap-to' crap for the wide speakers?



The snap to parameter is selectable on an on by object basis. ... I suspect some of the behavior some have observed has to do with the decoder design, not the codec, if that makes sense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

zeus33 said:


> Of what's listed on your "page", Rings seems like it would have a good soundtrack for it, but it says releases Feb. and you said April. Nothing else on "the list" lines up. Guess we'll have to wait and see.



I didn't mix the theatrical on this title.... so it not a true credit. 

I expect the BR/UHD release announcement in Jan/early Feb. I would assume April/early May release. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Actually I think we should have a lot more snap to wides.


Umm, not sure you know what I mean. This isn't a good feature for we end users.




FilmMixer said:


> The snap to parameter is selectable on an on by object basis. ... I suspect some of the behavior some have observed has to do with the decoder design, not the codec, if that makes sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ah, okay. Yeah that makes sense.

Thanks for the incite on such things, Marc.


----------



## petetherock

Rather dumb movie, but Independence Day II is a demo worthy disc to showcase Atmos.. it's not about the bass, but the use of ambient effects was sweet.
They missed one chance to do a 'drop in' when they constructed the big laser on the moon. Would have been nice to hear and see the big weapon drop into place from top to bottom..


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> Rather dumb movie, but Independence Day II is a demo worthy disc to showcase Atmos.. it's not about the bass, but the use of ambient effects was sweet.
> 
> They missed one chance to do a 'drop in' when they constructed the big laser on the moon. Would have been nice to hear and see the big weapon drop into place from top to bottom..



Edit... never mind. . 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

4k version has Atmos.. 
That's about the only reason to even rent it.. and of course sentimental reasons.. I was truly awed when they destroyed the White House in the original.. keep wondering how they did that..


----------



## Kazz063

petetherock said:


> 4k version has Atmos..
> I was truly awed when they destroyed the White House in the original.. keep wondering how they did that..


Pete on the original DVD release of ID4, on the extras there was an explanation of how they did that scene (not sure if it's on the blu-ray or 4K), they used small models for all of the buildings they blew up and then they literally blew them up with just the blue beam from the alien ships being cgi as cgi was only in it's infancy back then. 
It's been along time since I watched it but I remember they said something about having to put the NY/LA models on their sides to get the fire rings to move the way they needed them to.


----------



## petetherock

Thanks, it was years later when I found out how they did it...
I recall watching Superman in 1978 and believed he could actually fly ..


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> Umm, not sure you know what I mean. This isn't a good feature for we end users.


Please enlighten me as I have must have missed that discussion.


----------



## audiofan1

*Sully*

This is the best immersive mix to date period


----------



## Nalleh

Not sure if it has been noted earlier, but the installaiton guidelines pdf in first post was updated july 2016. Little more info about height speaker placement.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Nalleh said:


> Not sure if it has been noted earlier, but the installaiton guidelines pdf in first post was updated july 2016. Little more info about height speaker placement.


Nice, interesting that you should line up the height speakers as if the fronts are at 30 degrees. That goes against the cinema layout where the tops are a lot closer together.


----------



## markus767

Mashie Saldana said:


> Nice, interesting that you should line up the height speakers as if the fronts are at 30 degrees. That goes against the cinema layout where the tops are a lot closer together.


...and the surrounds are way higher up


----------



## Kain

@FilmMixer

What's your view on the importance(?) or use of front wide speakers in home Atmos mixes? Would you say it is an "important sound channel" to accurately convey the sound field? I'm trying to decide between a 7.1.4 setup and a 9.1.6 setup. My room is relatively small, about 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

markus767 said:


> ...and the surrounds are way higher up


Here we go again.. :laugh:


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279892/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


What does a re-recording mixer do, please?


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> What does a re-recording mixer do, please?


Creates the final mix. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-recording_mixer


----------



## ChiWestSider

I have 7.X.4 with Front height and Rear height. I was thinking about using my rear height speaker and moving it to each of the side walls pointed towards MLP. This will involve some time consuming work to do. Since I will be using the speakers this way, would a top middle designation fit? 

I have an arch right above my sofa. Is there any suggestions of how I can use the arch to incorporate a top middle with the arch? (with minimal screws, brackets or such)


----------



## Selden Ball

ChiWestSider said:


> I have 7.X.4 with Front height and Rear height. I was thinking about using my rear height speaker and moving it to each of the side walls pointed towards MLP. This will involve some time consuming work to do. Since I will be using the speakers this way, would a top middle designation fit?


Maybe.

Top Middle is the designation recommended for speakers which are directly over or slightly to the front of the seating.

Some people have reported getting the best sound if they use Top Front and Top Rear designations, no matter where the four overhead speakers are actually located.


> I have an arch right above my sofa. Is there any suggestions of how I can use the arch to incorporate a top middle with the arch? (with minimal screws, brackets or such)


That'll depend on how the arch is constructed. Often it's a solid piece of plywood, so screwing into the front of it might work.


----------



## ChiWestSider

Selden Ball said:


> Maybe.
> 
> Top Middle is the designation recommended for speakers which are directly over or slightly to the front of the seating.
> 
> Some people have reported getting the best sound if they use Top Front and Top Rear designations, no matter where the four overhead speakers are actually located.


Thanks for your input. The arch is directly over the seating. It has a keyhole type mount hole in the back. If I could come up with or find some kind of mount, the speakers would still be almost directly over. Any ideas?

I should play with front height or top front plus top rear with my proposed setup you say?


----------



## checker9

Selden Ball said:


> Some people have reported getting the best sound if they use Top Front and Top Rear designations, no matter where the four overhead speakers are actually located.


Would a top front and top rear setting for each pair, when they are outside the norm of angles to MLP, be okay?

My set-up: My front height speakers are just below 30 degrees from MLP. My rear height speakers are just over 60 degrees (60 if you were facing them but 120 degrees if considering they are behind the MLP.) The angle to MLP of the rears is actually probably around where top rears would typically be but the angle to MLP of the front height is below the normal guidelines. 

Based on those angles, should I try top 'front height-top rear' or 'front height-top rear' for the two pairs? Also, will Denon receivers (I have 4200) do DTS:X and Neural X with top amp assignments like that?

Also, I am thinking of trying to fire my front height upward, so that they reflect from ceiling around 40 degrees to MLP.


----------



## paulfromtulsa

Hi guys I have a quick question. After running audessey I raised all 4 of my atmos channels by 7db on my avr. Is that a bad thing or is there anything negative about doing so?


----------



## petetherock

paulfromtulsa said:


> Hi guys I have a quick question. After running audessey I raised all 4 of my atmos channels by 7db on my avr. Is that a bad thing or is there anything negative about doing so?


I believe there was an old song: "Song like it hot.." and you may too for a more prominent Atmos effect. I prefer mine subtle. 
Also, it depends on the sensitivity of the speakers compared to your other ones.
Mine are about 1.5 db higher than the fronts, but it's a totally different setup in a totally different room..


----------



## paulfromtulsa

petetherock said:


> I believe there was an old song: "Song like it hot.." and you may too for a more prominent Atmos effect. I prefer mine subtle.
> Also, it depends on the sensitivity of the speakers compared to your other ones.
> Mine are about 1.5 db higher than the fronts, but it's a totally different setup in a totally different room..


I do love a prominent atmos effect. That's why I turned them up so high. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Please enlighten me as I have must have missed that discussion.


So usually you can image a sound in places between speakers. I can get stuff to image where there should be speakers (wides) as that content is equally in the respective front and side surround.

Anyway...

Actual channel and object content destined for the wide speaker doesn't image correctly at that position. Instead, the decoder "snaps" all that content back to the front speakers. So with Dolby Atmos, things that should image at the wides doesn't. We used to before but now *it is required to have wides* in order to image sound there.

Mostly.

I guess the idea is to keep content in the front soundstage or whatever. I don't buy that argument at all. This sucks especially now when most popular brand models to just release suddenly lack wide outputs. D'oh!


----------



## Marc Alexander

Scott Simonian said:


> So usually you can image a sound in places between speakers. I can get stuff to image where there should be speakers (wides) as that content is equally in the respective front and side surround.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> Actual channel and object content destined for the wide speaker doesn't image correctly at that position. Instead, the decoder "snaps" all that content back to the front speakers. So with Dolby Atmos, things that should image at the wides doesn't. We used to before but now *it is required to have wides* in order to image sound there.
> 
> Mostly.
> 
> I guess the idea is to keep content in the front soundstage or whatever. I don't buy that argument at all. This sucks especially now when most popular brand models to just release suddenly lack wide outputs. D'oh!


What titles best/worst exhibit this behavior?


----------



## Scott Simonian

I don't know. I don't have wides or the capability to have them.


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't know. I don't have wides or the capability to have them.






I was considering adding wides to my 5.x.2,making it 7.x.2, so I gather it is not a good idea with atmos then? 

Just use wides in a NON atmos system?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol, no. It _is_ good to have wides with Atmos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> So usually you can image a sound in places between speakers. I can get stuff to image where there should be speakers (wides) as that content is equally in the respective front and side surround.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> Actual channel and object content destined for the wide speaker doesn't image correctly at that position. Instead, the decoder "snaps" all that content back to the front speakers. So with Dolby Atmos, things that should image at the wides doesn't. We used to before but now *it is required to have wides* in order to image sound there.
> 
> Mostly.
> 
> I guess the idea is to keep content in the front soundstage or whatever. I don't buy that argument at all. This sucks especially now when most popular brand models to just release suddenly lack wide outputs. D'oh!


Oh it was that issue you were referring to. I would say that is either a bad implementation of the renderer.

Thankfully I won't have an issue with that but you would think it should be fixed with all manufacturers dropping wides.


----------



## Selden Ball

ChiWestSider said:


> Thanks for your input. The arch is directly over the seating. It has a keyhole type mount hole in the back. If I could come up with or find some kind of mount, the speakers would still be almost directly over. Any ideas?


 Not from me. The DefTech speakers that I used have their own mounting system.


> I should play with front height or top front plus top rear with my proposed setup you say?


That'd be my suggestion.


----------



## Selden Ball

Mashie Saldana said:


> Oh it was that issue you were referring to. I would say that is either a bad implementation of the renderer.
> 
> Thankfully I won't have an issue with that but you would think it should be fixed with all manufacturers dropping wides.


As they did for their 2016 models.


----------



## Selden Ball

checker9 said:


> Would a top front and top rear setting for each pair, when they are outside the norm of angles to MLP, be okay?


Probably, but I'd try the different configuration settings and use the one that sounds best.



> My set-up: My front height speakers are just below 30 degrees from MLP. My rear height speakers are just over 60 degrees (60 if you were facing them but 120 degrees if considering they are behind the MLP.) The angle to MLP of the rears is actually probably around where top rears would typically be but the angle to MLP of the front height is below the normal guidelines.
> 
> Based on those angles, should I try top 'front height-top rear' or 'front height-top rear' for the two pairs?


Try both and use the one you like better.



> Also, will Denon receivers (I have 4200) do DTS:X and Neural X with top amp assignments like that?


Yes. 

The older DTS Neo:X upmixer required the use of Front Height, but that's not the case for DTS Neural:X.



> Also, I am thinking of trying to fire my front height upward, so that they reflect from ceiling around 40 degrees to MLP.


In general, the specially designed Dolby Enabled speakers work better than standard bookshelf speakers for reflected sound. Dolby Enabled speakers are designed to produce a narrow dispersion beam (to minimize the amount of directly-radiated sound reaching the ears of the audience) and they incorporate psychoacoustic sound filters which help reinforce the impression that their sounds are coming from overhead.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Selden Ball said:


> As they did for their 2016 models.


Indeed, which is why I use the 2015 SR7010 and SR6010, both of which supports wides.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mashie Saldana said:


> Indeed, which is why I use the 2015 SR7010 and SR6010, both of which supports wides.


I too stuck with the 2015 model 7702 mk II. It also has Front Wides. 

Time for gear that doesn't make you choose between speaker locations. 11.1.6 would be really cool!


----------



## paulfromtulsa

Does anybody here think that me turning my 4 atmos channels 7db up after audessey is too much? I like they way it sounds like that bit don't know if it's too hot for my avr. Thanks

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

paulfromtulsa said:


> Does anybody here think that me turning my 4 atmos channels 7db up after audessey is too much? I like they way it sounds like that bit don't know if it's too hot for my avr. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


If your goal is to completely destroy the placement of sounds on the Z axis, then it's a great idea! Keep in mind that every sound placed above the ear level speakers will collapse to overhead, meaning you will get no imaging of sound anywhere in between the two planes. Objects will all sound overhead, even if they are meant to be moving through the room or only be slightly elevated. You also run the risk of any orchestral assets collapsing to the overheads if the mixer placed some of their sound in an elevated placement.



But having said that, it's your system. Do what sounds best to you. Just know that you're undoing the precision that Atmos offers in favor of treating them like an all-or-nothing overhead channel.


----------



## paulfromtulsa

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If your goal is to completely destroy the placement of sounds on the Z axis, then it's a great idea! Keep in mind that every sound placed above the ear level speakers will collapse to overhead, meaning you will get no imaging of sound anywhere in between the two planes. Objects will all sound overhead, even if they are meant to be moving through the room or only be slightly elevated. You also run the risk of any orchestral assets collapsing to the overheads if the mixer placed some of their sound in an elevated placement.
> 
> 
> 
> But having said that, it's your system. Do what sounds best to you. Just know that you're undoing the precision that Atmos offers in favor of treating them like an all-or-nothing overhead channel.


Whoa. I'm even more confused lol. I though by me turning up the dB on my avr for the atmos channels would only increase the volume of what sound goes to those channels in movies. The way audessey had it set the sound overhead was a little underwhelming. That's why I turned it up. How does it effect the sound in other channels? Thanks and sorry for the newbie questions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## 5mark

Anyone who thinks Wides might work well in their room setup should seriously consider a 2015 AVR while the price and selection is still decent.

I recently picked up a Marantz 7010. I don't even have my ceiling speakers installed yet, but I'm already loving what lowering my surrounds and adding Wides has done to my setup. The Fronts, Wides and side surrounds (placed behind the LP) are all working together seamlessly. The wides produce many ambient and discreet effects and feel like an actual discreet channel (even on non-Atmos tracks using DTS:Neural X) I don't miss having surround back channels at all.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

paulfromtulsa said:


> Whoa. I'm even more confused lol. I though by me turning up the dB on my avr for the atmos channels would only increase the volume of what sound goes to those channels in movies. The way audessey had it set the sound overhead was a little underwhelming. That's why I turned it up. How does it effect the sound in other channels? Thanks and sorry for the newbie questions
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


By way of a simplified explanation... Imagine your two main stereo speakers. Now, if I want to place a sound directly in between them, I would put that sound 50% in each speaker. This makes that sound image between those two speakers. Now, flip that on its side. If I want to place a sound half-way between the ear-level speakers and the overhead speakers, I put that sound 50% in each speaker. This is how Atmos' placement of sounds in the XYZ axes works, and it relies on all speakers being at the same calibrated level. The Atmos renderer then looks at the XYZ positional data for the object and places that object's sound in each speaker in the right percentage so that it images where it's supposed to in the room.

So if you turn up the overheads significantly, any sound that is meant to be maybe 10% above ear level will instead collapse upward, imaging at maybe 50%... or with your 7dB boost, pretty much 80-90% toward the ceiling rather than hovering in space 10% above the ear-level channels. You have to stop thinking of the overheads as "channels" in the traditional sense, where you would expect to hear sounds come FROM those channels. The overheads are assistive in nature, pulling sounds above ear-level in varying increments OR completely overhead if (and ONLY if) the object is placed there. If you're hearing things up there all the time, you're not hearing what Atmos is really capable of, which should sound more like a cohesive bubble of sound around you where sound can be placed anywhere in 3-D space between your speakers. Not every overhead effect is meant to be 100% overhead.

More complicated example so you understand how this all interacts: Let's say I have an object placed 50% above ear-level but also half-way between the left main and left surround. To make the sound image there, the renderer looks to see what speakers you have in which placements, then would place that sound maybe 40% in the overhead, 30% in the left main and 30% in the left surround (note: Not exact percentages here... I'm too lazy to do the math). The net result is that the sound phantom images in space between the left main and left surround, but about half-way up toward the overhead plane. This is what the Atmos renderer does; it takes the XYZ (and object size) data and determines how much of that sound to place in each of your available speakers so that it images where it should in that particular space. Any deviation from calibrated levels throws that placement off, meaning that sound will image in a different place in your room than the renderer was trying to make it image.

On Audyssey: It's great for calibration, but be wary of using its DynamicEQ with Atmos. Part of what DynamicEQ does is raise the surround levels as the global volume is reduced from 0 to give a more balanced sense of surround with movies mixed to reference levels.  With pre-Atmos setups, that works pretty well. The problem with DEQ and Atmos is that it boosts the surrounds but does nothing to the overhead channels. Similarly to you boosting the overheads by 7dB collapsing things upward, this boost to the surrounds but not the overheads collapses things DOWNWARD, which is often why people feel like they're not getting a sense of sounds being above ear-level when DEQ is engaged (and then they bump the overhead levels to compensate). There's only one fix for this: Turn DynamicEQ off. This way, no matter what your volume level is set to, all channels will stay at their calibrated level, and Atmos objects will image where they're ideally supposed to. The only caveat here is that DEQ also boosts bass levels to account for any reduction from reference level. Most people's compromise is to kill DEQ and then bump up the bass a bit to compensate. So if you're currently running DEQ, I recommend turning it off, putting your overhead channels back to their calibrated level, then giving some Atmos material a listen, paying attention to the PRECISION of where sounds are placed in space rather than just if some of them come from overhead.

Now, also consider that how much gets placed above ear-level is up to whoever did the sound design. More bombastic action flicks will naturally tend to use more of that sort of thing, but ultimately, these are artistic decisions and they're content-specific.  For instance, 10 Cloverfield Lane takes place mostly in an underground bunker, so for most of the movie, Atmos is used in an atmospheric way... but then when someone drives a car above the bunker, you hear that car clearly come from overhead the way they would in that bunker. It's one of the better examples of Atmos being used in several ways within the same movie (including a car wreck early on in the flick).  Another good example of "a little of everything Atmos offers" is The Age Of Adaline. There are two car wreck scenes in the movie, both of which have a ton of audio moving about the room, with heavy overhead use to recreate the feeling of being in that car.  Then much of the movie sounds like traditional surround... but when they're in the city, you'll note this cohesive sense of being in that space that non-Atmos tracks just don't quite nail. It's one of my favorite mixes for how Atmos can be used to suit every situation in a movie in a worthwhile way, though I think most favor the material that more obviously shows off "Hey, I have speakers up there!"


----------



## chi_guy50

5mark said:


> Anyone who thinks Wides might work well in their room setup should seriously consider a 2015 AVR while the price and selection is still decent.
> 
> I recently picked up a Marantz 7010. I don't even have my ceiling speakers installed yet, but I'm already loving what lowering my surrounds and* adding Wides* has done to my setup. The Fronts, Wides and side surrounds (placed behind the LP) are all working together seamlessly. The wides produce many ambient and discreet effects and feel like an actual discreet channel (even on non-Atmos tracks using DTS:Neural X)* I don't miss having surround back channels at all.*


The one doesn't necessarily preclude the other. You can connect both SB and FW to your SR7010 and employ them collectively (Neo:X 11.1, Atmos 9.2) or individually (e.g., Atmos 5(+SB).1.4 or 5(+FW).1.4) as the spirit moves you.


----------



## CpHaAiOnS

Methodical_1 said:


> Will update once I get them installed.


Do you have them installed yet?


----------



## 5mark

chi_guy50 said:


> The one doesn't necessarily preclude the other. You can connect both SB and FW to your SR7010 and employ them collectively (Neo:X 11.1, Atmos 9.2) or individually (e.g., Atmos 5(+SB).1.4 or 5(+FW).1.4) as the spirit moves you.


True, but the side surrounds likely wouldn't be in the perfect spot for all configurations. They should be farther behind the LP when using wides, and more even with the LP using backs. Maybe that's being picky and obsessive, but I have been described that way at times. 

One reason I liked the idea of wides is I have a narrow room, so side surrounds at ear height and even with the LP would blast the side seats.


----------



## checker9

Selden Ball said:


> In general, the specially designed Dolby Enabled speakers work better than standard bookshelf speakers for reflected sound. Dolby Enabled speakers are designed to produce a narrow dispersion beam (to minimize the amount of directly-radiated sound reaching the ears of the audience) and they incorporate psychoacoustic sound filters which help reinforce the impression that their sounds are coming from overhead.


The first part should not be a problem because the speakers are almost to the ceiling (~7 inches below ceiling.) I am trying it now. It is the same to better (seems better effects but so slight that I might be imagining it.)


----------



## sdurani

Marc Alexander said:


> What titles best/worst exhibit this behavior?


Don't know about best/worst examples, but a recent one is the Atmos mix for Star Trek Beyond. If you have wides configured, listen to the Rhianna song over the end credits. The soundstage clearly extends to the wide speakers. Then designate wides as None and listen to the beginning of the song again. The same instruments you heard in the wides now come from the front L/R speakers.


----------



## Kevin4730

I have a 5.1.2 setup.

Is the receiver smart enough to take the .2 in a 5.1 movie to play from the rears instead of the ceiling speakers? (thats my current problem since I have the setup, but old receiver)

If I have a DTS-HD MA 7.1 movie with a 5.1.2 config how will that work on an atmos setup? can you treat the 5.1.2 as 7.1 or simulate atmos?


----------



## Marc Alexander

sdurani said:


> Don't know about best/worst examples, but a recent one is the Atmos mix for Star Trek Beyond. If you have wides configured, listen to the Rhianna song over the end credits. The soundstage clearly extends to the wide speakers. Then designate wides as None and listen to the beginning of the song again. The same instruments you heard in the wides now come from the front L/R speakers.


Thanks for the specifics. I own the 3D version of this title so I can check out this behavior. I have never even considered using wides before although I do have the capability.


----------



## sdurani

Marc Alexander said:


> I have never even considered using wides before although I do have the capability.


You're not alone. When expanding beyond a 5.1-speaker layout, wides are probably the lowest priority, well behind rears and/or heights. In fact, we often see on these forums that folks will go for multiple pairs of heights (5.1.4) before considering wides. Might indicate why wides have disappeared from current receivers & pre-pros.


----------



## alphasig293

sdurani said:


> You're not alone. When expanding beyond a 5.1-speaker layout, wides are probably the lowest priority, well behind rears and/or heights. In fact, we often see on these forums that folks will go for multiple pairs of heights (5.1.4) before considering wides. Might indicate why wides have disappeared from current receivers & pre-pros.


I have a question, I'm looking to upgrade my system from the ground up essentially. I'm looking at the Denon x6300 or the x4300. My room is 28 x 23 x 7.5. So it's fairly large. My question is if will I notice the difference of not having 2 speakers if I went with the 4300 vs the 6300? 

I could go with either ceiling mounted speakers or even the floor toppers.

Thanks for the feed back.


----------



## sdurani

alphasig293 said:


> My question is if will I notice the difference of not having 2 speakers if I went with the 4300 vs the 6300?


Yes. Using the 6300 to do a 7.1.4 set-up will allow you to hear side-vs-rear separation around you AND front-to-back separation above you. You'd notice the difference if some of that directionality was missing.


----------



## batpig

In a room that huge you absolutely want the full 7.1.4 setup if you can afford it. Plan on plenty of subwoofage and higher sensitivity speakers for that much volume.


----------



## Sam Ash

With new pre/pro units offering the facility of up to 6 ceiling / height speakers under Atmos, does the Atmos guide for home theatre configurations cover this in terms of recommended locations ? - I presume that separation or enough distance between the sets of 3 speakers would be important to realise a credible difference.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Sam Ash said:


> With new pre/pro units offering the facility of up to 6 ceiling / height speakers under Atmos, does the Atmos guide for home theatre configurations cover this in terms of recommended locations ? - I presume that separation or enough distance between the sets of 3 speakers would be important to realise a credible difference.


Their guides online are updated to cover 7.1.6 and 9.1.6.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> You're not alone. When expanding beyond a 5.1-speaker layout, wides are probably the lowest priority, well behind rears and/or heights. In fact, we often see on these forums that folks will go for multiple pairs of heights (5.1.4) before considering wides. Might indicate why wides have disappeared from current receivers & pre-pros.


If you put it that way, the disappearance of wides from DSP chips maxed out at 12 channels does make sense. It removes the least favorable option for expanding an immersive lay-out from 9 (5.1.4 or 7.1.2) to 11 main speakers. The only ones that are left out in the cold, are those that don't want to go for height speakers (nor up-firing ones), and are now deprived of the possibility to use a 9.1 lay-out (please show hands.... anyone?).


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> You're not alone. When expanding beyond a 5.1-speaker layout, wides are probably the lowest priority, well behind rears and/or heights. In fact, we often see on these forums that folks will go for multiple pairs of heights (5.1.4) before considering wides. Might indicate why wides have disappeared from current receivers & pre-pros.


Wides might have disappeared from current receivers & pre-pos, but I'm extremely glad I have them. They fill in a nice space in between the Front Heights and my Side Surrounds. I bought an older Denon X5200 for $650.00 (open box - Best Buy) and added a two channel receiver for a 11.1.2 configuration (DTS Neo X) and 9.1.4 for Dolby Atmos. (I'm not sure but I believe Dolby Atmos does not use wides that much - - hence 7.1.4?) Also - - no UHD player -- strictly Bluray via Redbox for most movies and Amazon Prime & EPIX. 

To me - - it's the best of both worlds as I can experiment with what works best depending on the source. For Cable TV, News and Sports, and most TV shows - - it's 11.1.2 and DTS Neo X. For Dolby Atmos movies, obviously Atmos and I experiment with DSU to see which upmixer sounds best for non Atmos material. 

For those looking to go X.6 or greater, it looks like the Trinnov is the only alternative?


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm not sure but I believe Dolby Atmos does not use wides that much - - hence 7.1.4?


Wides are a low priority for Atmos users as well as Dolby (their upmixer doesn't even support wides). However, Atmos soundtracks often have more content in wides than heights.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> Wides are a low priority for Atmos users as well as Dolby (their upmixer doesn't even support wides). However, Atmos soundtracks often have more content in wides than heights.


That's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Wides are a low priority for Atmos users as well as the Dolby Atmos Upmixer, yet Atmos often has more soundtracks with more content in wides that heights?

Who gets to benefit from the content in the wides with Dolby Atmos? I guess if you have a Trinnov or are at the movie theater? 

Otherwise, you have to switch over to DTS Neo X or Neural X to engage the Front Wides. I know with Dolby Atmos engaged - - my Front Wides are not an option with my FH/RH - - even though I have the amplifiers to power the channels.

At any rate - - I've been very happy with the performance of my Front Wides and wouldn't discourage anyone from trying them out - - if you can make it work with your configuration.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ricoflashback said:


> Who gets to benefit from the content in the wides with Dolby Atmos? I guess if you have a Trinnov or are at the movie theater?


The mix and end users benefit. 

Technology (at home) right now might be limiting but the content will always be there ready for the playback hardware to catch up. These mixes can still be fully realized at the cinema. Go out there and see some movies!



Ricoflashback said:


> Otherwise, you have to switch over to DTS Neo X or Neural X to engage the Front Wides.


Neo:X, sure. But native DTS:X only supports up to 7.1.4 currently. Using wides, you lose rear surrounds.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> That's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Wides are a low priority for Atmos users as well as the Dolby Atmos Upmixer, yet Atmos often has more soundtracks with more content in wides that heights?


Dolby doesn't control where movie mixers put sound, and mixers tend to put more sound around you than above you (you've read complaints on these forums about the heights not being utilized enough on many Atmos mixes).


> Who gets to benefit from the content in the wides with Dolby Atmos?


Everyone gets to hear that content. If you configure wides, you hear it from those speakers; if not, you hear that content from the front speakers.


> I guess if you have a Trinnov or are at the movie theater?


No need to resort to that. Up until the 2016 models, mass market receivers and pre-pros from D&M and OIP supported wides.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Dolby doesn't control where movie mixers put sound, and mixers tend to put more sound around you than above you (you've read complaints on these forums about the heights not being utilized enough on many Atmos mixes). Everyone gets to hear that content. If you configure wides, you hear it from those speakers; if not, you hear that content from the front speakers.


True, but in that case, in a logical world, why shouldn't 7.1.4 with sides but no rears be the next step up from 5.1.4 for the Japanese manufacturers? Since we tend to hear things more in front and to the side sound from behind us, I believe. Wides are probably easier to add in a typical multipurpose room than rears, where the user may have little space behind a sofa or lack a back wall to put true rear speakers.



> No need to resort to that. Up until the 2016 models, mass market receivers and pre-pros from D&M and OIP supported wides.


I never quite understood the reasoning for specifically dropping wides other than freeing up a marginal amount of DSP horsepower...sure, it's a minority interest but the feature was already in place...


----------



## Scott Simonian

To save a buck or two.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> To save a buck or two.


Like you couldn't do that by dropping stadium or church DSP mode. Or all channel stereo because you can get a similar benefit (actually more) from a $199 Auromatic upgrade...


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdrucker said:


> True, but in that case, in a logical world, why shouldn't 7.1.4 with sides but no rears be the next step up from 5.1.4 for the Japanese manufacturers? Since we tend to hear things more in front and to the side sound from behind us, I believe.


I don't believe there are much who have tried both and would advocate wides over rears.



> Wides are probably easier to add in a typical multipurpose room than rears, where the user may have little space behind a sofa or lack a back wall to put true rear speakers.


If you have room for wides but not for rears, you could consider turning your set-up 90 degrees. 

Kidding aside, you are right that a number of people with short rooms will end up with reduced enveloping sound by the loss of the wides option.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ricoflashback said:


> That's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Wides are a low priority for Atmos users as well as the Dolby Atmos Upmixer, yet Atmos often has more soundtracks with more content in wides that heights?


It's not an oxymoron. Sanjay said FW was a low priority for the upmixer (which does not recognize that speaker position), not for Atmos. In Atmos the FW is addressable for objects only AIUI, but it does get quite a bit of use in my limited experimentation. I say limited because, as much as I am married to my FW, I found that the 7.1.4 immersive bubble was more enveloping using SB than FW (in my room with my setup, but YMMV). 9.1.2 was also terrific on the base plane but not worth sacrificing the second set of overheads.



Ricoflashback said:


> I know with Dolby Atmos engaged - - my Front Wides are not an option with my FH/RH - - even though I have the amplifiers to power the channels.


I don't understand that statement. You should be able to engage 5(+FW).1.4 simply by deselecting the SB in your Amp Assign settings. Or does your Pio not allow the same flexibility as comparable D+M models?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Good thing you easily can get 9.1.4 for a low cost, just get a heavily discounted 2015 Marantz SR7010 for the 9.1.x duty and combine it with whatever is currently giving you the x.x.4 sound.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: I don't understand that statement. You should be able to engage 5(+FW).1.4 simply by deselecting the SB in your Amp Assign settings.

That's the whole point - - to able to engage ALL channels - - Front Wides, Front Heights and Front Rears along with my Side Surrounds and Rear Back Surrounds. 

What's the purpose of giving up ANY channels (switching from Dolby Atmos or DTX to enable the Front Wides or losing your Back Surrounds with Dolby) for Dolby Atmos encoding that supposedly makes more use of the "Front Wides?" 

Since the statement has been made that "Front Wides" are not a Dolby priority, then why have anything mixed there? For the unenlightened few that have incorporated "Front Wides?"

My ultimate goal would be having the ability to use all the channels in my setup - - 9.1.4 that incorporates "Front Wides" AND "Front/Rear Heights" with my "Side Surrounds" and "Back Surrounds" with Dolby Atmos material. That's not possible with the receiver I have and I believe you'd have to have a Trinnov or something similar.

Not to get buried on an esoteric point, but if "Front Wides" are so inconsequential and not a priority for any listeners, then why would Dolby Atmos bother to mix anything there?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

7.1.4 is where it starts to get interesting. But what beyond that? Obviously in a family room sized HT like mine, 9.1.6 would be about as good as it gets. But it seems that this will not be available on what's sold for normal money. But which is best: 9.1.4 or 7.1.6? 

I wired for 9.1.6 hence I can do both. Alternatively, I could install all 15 speakers and sum the wides (@65°) and the sides (105°). But I wouldn't dump a 16ch processor just to get a 18ch device.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Ricoflashback said:


> My ultimate goal would be having the ability to use all the channels in my setup - - 9.1.4 that incorporates "Front Wides" AND "Front/Rear Heights" with my "Side Surrounds" and "Back Surrounds" with Dolby Atmos material. That's not possible with the receiver I have and I believe you'd have to have a Trinnov or something similar.


There will be more reasonable 9.1.4 machines this year...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

erwinfrombelgium said:


> 7.1.4 is where it starts to get interesting. But what beyond that? Obviously in a family room sized HT like mine, 9.1.6 would be about as good as it gets. But it seems that this will not be available on what's sold for normal money. But which is best: 9.1.4 or 7.1.6?
> 
> I wired for 9.1.6 hence I can do both. Alternatively, I could install all 15 speakers and sum the wides (@65°) and the sides (105°). But I wouldn't dump a 16ch processor just to get a 18ch device.


I will let you know how 9.1.6 is in a few weeks when my HT is operational. I would guess 9.1.4 is more exciting than 7.1.6 by looking at some of the comments.


----------



## Scott Simonian

erwinfrombelgium said:


> 7.1.4 is where it starts to get interesting. But what beyond that? Obviously in a family room sized HT like mine, 9.1.6 would be about as good as it gets. But it seems that this will not be available on what's sold for normal money. But which is best: 9.1.4 or 7.1.6?
> 
> I wired for 9.1.6 hence I can do both. Alternatively, I could install all 15 speakers and sum the wides (@65°) and the sides (105°). But I wouldn't dump a 16ch processor just to get a 18ch device.





Mashie Saldana said:


> I will let you know how 9.1.6 is in a few weeks when my HT is operational. I would guess 9.1.4 is more exciting than 7.1.6 by looking at some of the comments.


After living with it for a year.... I'd rather have 9.1.4 layout. 

I liked it for a long time and it "works" but after a while I started to not like the middle pair. It might have been some proximity effect but the middle pair would hotspot and become distracting at the MLP. I'd try reducing the levels to the point where there was no point in them. So I went to 4ch overheads and never looked back. I get the same sound and directionality in my room/system with discrete 4ch overhead as I did with 6ch derived center pair if not better.


----------



## chi_guy50

erwinfrombelgium said:


> 7.1.4 is where it starts to get interesting. But what beyond that? Obviously in a family room sized HT like mine, 9.1.6 would be about as good as it gets. But it seems that this will not be available on what's sold for normal money. But which is best: 9.1.4 or 7.1.6?
> 
> I wired for 9.1.6 hence I can do both. Alternatively, I could install all 15 speakers and sum the wides (@65°) and the sides (105°). But I wouldn't dump a 16ch processor just to get a 18ch device.


Even though I have also wired for 9.1.6, when I had to make the decision of where to make the cut-outs in my living room ceiling I reluctantly decided that discretion (and WAF) was the better part of valor and opted for a .4 placement; the extra pair of in-ceiling speakers is sitting in reserve and will probably never join their brethren.



erwinfrombelgium said:


> There will be more reasonable 9.1.4 machines this year...


Speaking selfishly, I hope that is the case since I am planning to upgrade with the upcoming new Denon flagship AVR. 

Nonetheless, I am guessing that the next mainstream processor expansion, if it is incremental, will be to 7.1.6 rather than 9.1.4.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I don't sea a reason not to let the customer choose between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6?

9.1.4 makes more sense to me unless there's a physical obstacle to prevent it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Or all channel stereo because you can get a similar benefit (actually more) from a $199 Auromatic upgrade...


Lol! That is terrible advice, Stuart.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol! That is terrible advice, Stuart.


Given the two choices...given the two choices  Personally I'd take DSU over Auromatic, even for music, because I find the reverb effect too annoying even turned down to a low room level. YMMV, but about the only time I'd see using Auromatic would be for a Woody Allen movie that's dialogue heavy or maybe something with a mono soundtrack. Then I won't care quite as much is the voice is all around me (again, low reverb). 

IMO, you shouldn't use either of those, but Auromatic is a marginal improvement over all channel stereo since you get content sent to a front/rear height setup, and the side and rears aren't playing back content at the same db level as the mains. It's an improvement in the "death is not an option" sense.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> After living with it for a year.... I'd rather have 9.1.4 layout.
> 
> I liked it for a long time and it "works" but after a while I started to not like the middle pair. It might have been some proximity effect but the middle pair would hotspot and become distracting at the MLP. I'd try reducing the levels to the point where there was no point in them. So I went to 4ch overheads and never looked back. I get the same sound and directionality in my room/system with discrete 4ch overhead as I did with 6ch derived center pair if not better.


The man has come around! 

As you know, I have


----------



## maikeldepotter

Thinking some more about it:

Wides are the ONE AND ONLY pair of speakers that an Atmos renderer of a consumer AVR/processor can use to enhance the spatial resolution in the listeners' pane (where it matters most, albeit with sacrificing one out of two overhead pairs). So in that sense and dramatically put: Dropping the wides is a SLAP IN THE FACE of home Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> The man has come around!
> 
> As you know, I have


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Since the statement has been made that "Front Wides" are not a Dolby priority, then why have anything mixed there? For the unenlightened few that have incorporated "Front Wides?"


You're thinking of it as particular speakers but movie mixers think of it as a location: i.e., they want to put sounds (especially music) just outside the screen, to have a bit of separation from on-screen sounds (reproduced by the L/C/R speakers). Those speakers just outside the screen correspond to wides at home. Listen to what mixers say in these short videos. 

https://vimeo.com/115088528#t=115s 

https://vimeo.com/156994297#t=25s 

Sounds at the wides locations aren't there for the "unenlightened few" but instead because movie mixers wanted sounds just outside the screen. And most home Atmos mixes are based on theatrical Atmos mixes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> Given the two choices...given the two choices  Personally I'd take DSU over Auromatic, even for music, because I find the reverb effect too annoying even turned down to a low room level. YMMV, but about the only time I'd see using Auromatic would be for a Woody Allen movie that's dialogue heavy or maybe something with a mono soundtrack. Then I won't care quite as much is the voice is all around me (again, low reverb).
> 
> IMO, you shouldn't use either of those, but Auromatic is a marginal improvement over all channel stereo since you get content sent to a front/rear height setup, and the side and rears aren't playing back content at the same db level as the mains. It's an improvement in the "death is not an option" sense.


I think you've lost the context, Stuart. My response was to "saving a buck" to which you recommend spending $200 on a dead format's upmixer than to just get the included for free all-channel stereo. 

Lol. You're crazy! 



batpig said:


> The man has come around!
> 
> As you know, I have


----------



## NorthSky

Scott, and to all my friends, Happy New Year! 

May 2017 bring you, and all your family, good health, joy, love and lots of good BR Dolby Atmos releases.
And if some in your family are into it...some BR Auro-3D releases. ,-) 

Keep the good humor alive; that's the essence.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> I think you've lost the context, Stuart. My response was to "saving a buck" to which you recommend spending $200 on a dead format's upmixer than to just get the included for free all-channel stereo.
> 
> Lol. You're crazy!



The hobby does that to us...I wasn't think of the save a buck aspect so much as why someone would want Auromatic just for the upmixer, as a marginal improvement over "all channel stereo". But yes, it's a dead format (both Auro and Auromatic) that I don't use or recommend putting much money or time into. If I was a Denon/Marantz customer I wouldn't spend the $200 just to have Auromatic keep my heights busy unless I really, really, hated DSU or I was just the curious type.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> So in that sense and dramatically put: Dropping the wides is a SLAP IN THE FACE of home Atmos.


What if you were a receiver manufacturer facing cut-throat competition in the marketplace and trying to save pennies to keep your products competitive. You poll your customers and find out that a negligibly small percentage use wides. You can argue the artistic (and psychoacoustical) merits of wides, but if customers just aren't using them, then wides move from the 'must have' category to a 'maybe have' feature. 

Now, I don't know if that's exactly what happened, but it is some coincidence that wides aren't supported by any 2016 model receiver or pre-pro from any mass market manufacturer. Whatever the reason, Dolby confirmed that they had noting to do with that decision (I asked).


----------



## Ladeback

Wow, 9.1.4, 9.1.6 or 7.1.6, that would be awesome, but I am just trying to get Dolby Atmos into my HT I am building so I am looking at doing 5.1.2 or 5.1 and a Zone 2 for my game room when I am having people over to watch a game. My dream is to have 7.1.4, but that is out of my affordability at this point. How big are are your rooms you are putting a 9.1.6 system in? My HT is 14'x26'x9'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ladeback said:


> Wow, 9.1.4, 9.1.6 or 7.1.6, that would be awesome, but I am just trying to get Dolby Atmos into my HT I am building so I am looking at doing 5.1.2 or 5.1 and a Zone 2 for my game room when I am having people over to watch a game. My dream is to have 7.1.4, but that is out of my affordability at this point. How big are are your rooms you are putting a 9.1.6 system in? My HT is 14'x26'x9'.


Dude, your room is quite a bit larger than mine and I comfortably can fit 7.1.6 audio in here no problem. Probably more.


----------



## alphasig293

sdurani said:


> Wides are a low priority for Atmos users as well as Dolby (their upmixer doesn't even support wides). However, Atmos soundtracks often have more content in wides than heights.


Ok, if your'e suggesting going w/ the the 6300 to get the extra 2 atmos speakers, I've also been recommend to just add a 2ch amp to the 4300 and I would obtain the same finished result for less money.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "It is some coincidence that wides aren't supported by any 2016 model receiver or pre-pro from any mass market manufacturer. Whatever the reason, Dolby confirmed that they had nothing to do with that decision (I asked)."

Great! With my modest HT setup, I have "Front Wide Envy."


----------



## sdurani

alphasig293 said:


> Ok, if your'e suggesting going w/ the the 6300 to get the extra 2 atmos speakers, I've also been recommend to just add a 2ch amp to the 4300 and I would obtain the same finished result for less money.


IF that works out cheaper for you then do 7.1.4 that way.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ladeback said:


> Wow, 9.1.4, 9.1.6 or 7.1.6, that would be awesome, but I am just trying to get Dolby Atmos into my HT I am building so I am looking at doing 5.1.2 or 5.1 and a Zone 2 for my game room when I am having people over to watch a game. My dream is to have 7.1.4, but that is out of my affordability at this point. How big are are your rooms you are putting a 9.1.6 system in? My HT is 14'x26'x9'.


I could comfortably fit my HT twice in your room: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2473633-tower-cinema-budget-9-1-6-12x12-room.html


----------



## batpig

Ladeback said:


> Wow, 9.1.4, 9.1.6 or 7.1.6, that would be awesome, but I am just trying to get Dolby Atmos into my HT I am building so I am looking at doing 5.1.2 or 5.1 and a Zone 2 for my game room when I am having people over to watch a game. My dream is to have 7.1.4, but that is out of my affordability at this point. How big are are your rooms you are putting a 9.1.6 system in? My HT is 14'x26'x9'.


I agree with Scott, that room is easily big enough to handle 7.1.4 and a 5.1.2 system won't do it justice. If you can't afford the receiver you need right now, so be it, but definitely wire up for 7.1.4 (or more) so you are ready when the time comes. If you are building now is the time to run all that wire so you don't have to rip up drywall later, wire is cheap.

Especially that 26' depth -- a shame to not have back surrounds so you get better side vs. rear separation on the ground plane.

You can get a Marantz SR7010 for $999 as a refurb from accessories4less with 1-yr warranty. That has 9 built-in amps so you can do 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 right away. You can get cheap in-ceiling speakers for now (Micca and Monoprice brands are like $50/each and get solid reviews) and upgrade the overheads later. Find a cheap amp for the extra speakers and you could be at 7.1.4 for less than you think.


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> In fact, it will only fuel the discussions of 'precision'. You know, those arguments we all had about a year ago. Truth is that there is no additional precision to Dolby Atmos (over legacy 7.1) until you add more speaker locations. So let's add more speaker locations. The next obvious choices are wides


That feels like something I've been saying for a long time!


----------



## Ladeback

Scott Simonian said:


> Dude, your room is quite a bit larger than mine and I comfortably can fit 7.1.6 audio in here no problem. Probably more.


I have seen your build before, I take it you like a lot of BASS!:laugh::laugh:

I guess I have the space just not the money for all the speakers and the receiver. I want to upgrade to at least 7.2.4 from my 5.2, but even going to 5.2.2 is a stretch on our founds right now. I will have to sell some things to even get that to happen. I still have soundproofing to do before putting up drywall. I need to get the processor first, then more speakers.


----------



## batpig

Ladeback said:


> I have seen your build before, I take it you like a lot of BASS!:laugh::laugh:
> 
> I guess I have the space just not the money for all the speakers and the receiver. I want to upgrade to at least 7.2.4 from my 5.2, but even going to 5.2.2 is a stretch on our founds right now. I will have to sell some things to even get that to happen. I still have soundproofing to do before putting up drywall. I need to get the processor first, then more speakers.


To add to (and slightly contradict) my comment above -- and coming from someone who is also scraping the budget -- I do think it's a smart idea to get the "fundamentals" right first. If you're building, doing proper soundproofing, pre-wiring, acoustic treatment etc. will all make that 5.1 system you have right now sound great. It's a lot easier to get a new processor and/or more speakers later on. But a well designed room with good sound isolation and acoustic treatment will last through many upgrades.


----------



## Ladeback

batpig said:


> I agree with Scott, that room is easily big enough to handle 7.1.4 and a 5.1.2 system won't do it justice. If you can't afford the receiver you need right now, so be it, but definitely wire up for 7.1.4 (or more) so you are ready when the time comes. If you are building now is the time to run all that wire so you don't have to rip up drywall later, wire is cheap.
> 
> Especially that 26' depth -- a shame to not have back surrounds so you get better side vs. rear separation on the ground plane.
> 
> You can get a Marantz SR7010 for $999 as a refurb from accessories4less with 1-yr warranty. That has 9 built-in amps so you can do 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 right away. You can get cheap in-ceiling speakers for now (Micca and Monoprice brands are like $50/each and get solid reviews) and upgrade the overheads later. Find a cheap amp for the extra speakers and you could be at 7.1.4 for less than you think.


Thanks for the website. So what it the reliability of their stuff? I am not having good luck with Integra and have a receiver I got about 2 years ago that has been fixed once and now it is broke again with the same issue. I was looking at Yamaha as well. The SR7010 is out of stock right now and so is the AV7702 Preamp which is what I would want. I have plenty of amps that I could use. The MARANTZ SR6011 is available and that may be the way to go. I will let you know.


----------



## batpig

Ladeback said:


> Thanks for the website. So what it the reliability of their stuff? I am not having good luck with Integra and have a receiver I got about 2 years ago that has been fixed once and now it is broke again with the same issue. I was looking at Yamaha as well. The SR7010 is out of stock right now and so is the AV7702 Preamp which is what I would want. I have plenty of amps that I could use. The MARANTZ SR6011 is available and that may be the way to go. I will let you know.


Marantz is reliable, anecdotally it seems like Yamaha is overall the most reliable AVR brand but it's not like Marantz has issues like Onkyo/Integra is noted for.

The 6011 is nice but you are paying a premium for a 2016 model, (if it was in stock) it's the same price for the 7010 from 2015 which is a better, higher end unit. 

Since you have the amps, if you don't need 4K support right away, and want a cheap entry into immersive audio, there's a Marantz 7702 pre/pro on sale in the AVS classifieds for only $650. Note that it does NOT have DTS:X support nor does it have HDCP 2.2 (for 4K), but if you don't need 4K it's a great value. The lack of DTS:X is a fairly minimal drawback IMO as there isn't that much BD content and you can just apply DSU upmixing to the 7.1 DTS-HD Master core soundtrack. Plop $200 on some cheap Micca/Monoprice in-ceiling speakers to get you going and you can have a 5.1.4 setup for well under a grand (combined with the 5.1 setup and amps you already own). And easy upgrade paths in the future when you build up funds.


----------



## Striper Mark

*Atmos Question*

New to the immersive sound concept, I am puttting in a Denon AVR x4300 in our basement and currently have a 6.1 set up with L/C/R and L/C/R rear's. Speakers that I'll be migrating to over time are the SVS Prime or Ultra Bookshelf and Center with Prime Satellites in the rear Was planning on adding 2 elevation fronts withe the existing speakers already there. I also have 2 infinity speakers in the ceiling that we used for music and will be addign them as the other 2 height speakers. End state would be L/C.F, Surround Left/Right, Rear Surround Left/Right; Height Front and Height 2 (just over couch). Will Atmos use all of that setup or do I need to upgrade to the Denon Aura 3D? I guess I'm mostly confused on whether it uses the rear surrounds... Thanks for any thoughts...


----------



## Ladeback

Striper Mark said:


> New to the immersive sound concept, I am puttting in a Denon AVR x4300 in our basement and currently have a 6.1 set up with L/C/R and L/C/R rear's. Speakers that I'll be migrating to over time are the SVS Prime or Ultra Bookshelf and Center with Prime Satellites in the rear Was planning on adding 2 elevation fronts withe the existing speakers already there. I also have 2 infinity speakers in the ceiling that we used for music and will be addign them as the other 2 height speakers. End state would be L/C.F, Surround Left/Right, Rear Surround Left/Right; Height Front and Height 2 (just over couch). Will Atmos use all of that setup or do I need to upgrade to the Denon Aura 3D? I guess I'm mostly confused on whether it uses the rear surrounds... Thanks for any thoughts...


From what I have read on line it is has a 9 channel amp and should do 7.1.2 or 7.2.2 with just the receiver. To get another set of Dolby Atmos speakers or a second zone you would need to add a 2 channel amp to it. I believe the Auro 3D in a 9.2 channel receiver, you will need an extra 2 channel amp to to go 7.1.4 or 7.2.4. I see the Aura is the new flag ship for Denon so it won't be cheap, but check out http://www.accessories4less.com/. They have the DENON AVR-X7200WA 9.2-Ch for $1899.99.

I am now looking into this as well maybe and have extra amps to make this work.


----------



## scarabaeus

*Atmos/TrueHD over eARC*

HDMI 2.1 was announced today:

"
*HDMI FORUM ANNOUNCES VERSION 2.1 OF THE HDMI SPECIFICATION*

_Higher video resolutions and Dynamic HDR highlight
the new advanced features for the HDMI® eco-system_​ 
Las Vegas, Nevada – January 4, 2017 -  HDMI Forum, Inc. today announced the upcoming release of Version 2.1 of the HDMI Specification. This latest HDMI Specification supports a range of Higher Video Resolutions and refresh rates including 8K60 and 4K120, Dynamic HDR, and increased bandwidth with a new 48G cable. Version 2.1 of the HDMI Specification is backward compatible with earlier versions of the Specification, and was developed by the HDMI Forum’s Technical Working Group whose members represent some of the world’s leading manufacturers of consumer electronics, personal computers, mobile devices, cables and components.

“This new release of the Specification offers a broad range of advanced features for enhancing the consumer entertainment experience, as well as providing robust solutions to the commercial AV sector,” said Robert Blanchard of Sony Electronics, president of the HDMI Forum. “This is part of the HDMI Forum’s continuing mission to develop specifications for the HDMI eco-system that meet the growing demand for compelling, high-performance and exciting features.”

*HDMI Specification 2.1 Features Include:* 

Higher Video Resolutions support a range of higher resolutions and faster refresh rates including 8K60Hz and 4K120Hz for immersive viewing and smooth fast-action detail.
Dynamic HDR ensures every moment of a video is displayed at its ideal values for depth, detail, brightness, contrast, and wider color gamuts—on a scene-by-scene or even a frame-by-frame basis.
48G cables enable up to 48Gbps bandwidth for uncompressed HDMI 2.1 feature support including 8K video with HDR. The cable is backwards compatible with earlier versions of the HDMI Specification and can be used with existing HDMI devices.
eARC supports the most advanced audio formats such as object-based audio, and enables advanced audio signal control capabilities including device auto-detect.
Game Mode VRR features variable refresh rate, which enables a 3D graphics processor to display the image at the moment it is rendered for more fluid and better detailed gameplay, and for reducing or eliminating lag, stutter, and frame tearing.
 The new specification will be available to all HDMI 2.0 Adopters and they will be notified when it is released early in Q2 2017."

Note the announcement of eARC! Supports all audio formats, including TrueHD/Atmos, DTS-HD MA and multichannel PCM, and has its own independent signaling.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

*Hdmi forum announces version 2.1 of the hdmi specification*

So how much, if any, of 2.1 will be software/firmware upgradable? How much, if any, can be made available via replacement HDMI ports like the Samsung One Connect Box, or some other way to put in new ports? Last question, and least urgent, when should we expect to see 8K content.


----------



## Swolern

Can someone recommend the best "bang for the buck" complete 5.1.2 Atmos system for around $2-3K +\- some money if needed.


----------



## humbland

Hi and Happy New Year to all AVSers,
I could use some help going from 7.2.4 to 7.2.6. I've been posting in the multi AVR thread, but it has slowed down.
We currently have a Pioneer SC-97 and a 7.2.4 Atmos set up. The 4 overhead speakers are currently configured as Top Fronts and Top Rears. 
Our family room HT is large and long with high cathedral ceilings. Adding the extra wiring and speakers for Atmos was a real challenge. So, while we were doing the HT remodel, I "future proofed" the lay out and also installed an additional pair of "Front Height" speakers, at ceiling level, above and outside the front L/R mains. They are located just outside the front projection screen case. I have been following this thread, hoping for a clear consensus of some sort as to the best way to _add _the new Front Height pair into the mix, and go to a 7.2.6 set up. 
As far as I can tell, the "easy" way is to use an old Pro-logic receiver and "matrix" decode/drive a stereo pair to serve as the additional Front Height channels. To me, it seems the straightforward way is to reroute the signal going to the current Top Front speakers and send it to the new Front Height speakers. Then, I should "decode " (with Pro-Logic), the Front Height R/L signal and reroute the resulting R/L derivative to the _current _Top Front positions (to be the Top Middles in the 7.2.6). What do people think? Will this work? 
If so, I have an older Yamaha HTR-6030 AVR to decode the current Top Fronts signal (and extract the Top Middles). However, I have a couple of questions: 
The Pioneer SC-97 can only configure up to 7.2.4. What's the best way to "equalize" the new Front Heights and Top Fronts so that the SC-97 "sees" only one pair as the source (Top Front) when I run MCACC Pro calibration in 7.2.4 mode? Should I get an SPL meter and check the output of the current Top Rears, then sum the Front Height output and the Top Front output to match it? That way the SC-97 will "see" this sum of the Front Heights+Top Fronts as one source (Top Fronts)...This seems doable, but complicated. Is there an easier way?
Also, which Pro Logic mode should I use to decode the current Top Front signals (to extract the Top Middle signal)? There is straight "Pro Logic" and then all flavors of "PLII" decoding. What do people recommend?
Thanks in advance. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## batpig

Swolern said:


> Can someone recommend the best "bang for the buck" complete 5.1.2 Atmos system for around $2-3K +\- some money if needed.


Can you provide some more specifics? How big is the room? How loud do you want to play? Does that budget have to include the receiver, and all speakers/subs?


----------



## Swolern

batpig said:


> Swolern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend the best "bang for the buck" complete 5.1.2 Atmos system for around $2-3K +\- some money if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide some more specifics? How big is the room? How loud do you want to play? Does that budget have to include the receiver, and all speakers/subs?
Click to expand...

Room is 20x20ft with 9ft ceilings. I do like movies on the loud side, which movies will be its most use. Budget does include receiver and complete 5.1.2 speaker set, but budget is somewhat flexible. Thanks.


----------



## jrogers

sdrucker said:


> True, but in that case, in a logical world, why shouldn't 7.1.4 with sides but no rears be the next step up from 5.1.4 for the Japanese manufacturers? Since we tend to hear things more in front and to the side sound from behind us, I believe. Wides are probably easier to add in a typical multipurpose room than rears, where the user may have little space behind a sofa or lack a back wall to put true rear speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> I never quite understood the reasoning for specifically dropping wides other than freeing up a marginal amount of DSP horsepower...sure, it's a minority interest but the feature was already in place...





maikeldepotter said:


> I don't believe there are much who have tried both and would advocate wides over rears.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have room for wides but not for rears, you could consider turning your set-up 90 degrees.
> 
> Kidding aside, you are right that a number of people with short rooms will end up with reduced enveloping sound by the loss of the wides option.


It seems to me there are probably a significant number of folks like me with a room restriction preventing rear surrounds who still want as immersive an experience as they can get. Since adding front-wides to my 5.1.4 system, I have been surprised by the amount of discreet content coming from them in the majority of native Dolby Atmos and DTS:X movies (which is presumably getting steered elsewhere in systems without front-wide speakers) and the overall improvement they've made in my short-wide theater. Now I'm just hoping my Denon 2015 X6200W lasts a really long time or AVR manufacturers decide to bring back support for wides in 2017 - maybe along with, not instead of, rear surrounds (although in my case instead of is just fine)


----------



## 5mark

Until recently, I never gave wides a second thought, assuming they were only for very high end setups and/or "wide" rooms. (Likely the average person never considers them either, probably one reason they were abandoned). But in my narrow room they work out perfectly, and effectively become a second set of side surrounds. The wides being in front of the LP and the side surrounds being behind it, and no ear level speaker blasting the side seats. Now I just learned that the discrete wide info in Atmos tracks gets sent all to the fronts in setups without wides. Very happy I jumped in and grabbed a 2015 AVR.


----------



## Plutotype

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html
"A Dolby Atmos audio/video receiver (AVR) adapts the cinema experience to your home theater from seven speakers to as many as *34*, recreating the original artistic concept.

I have just finished wiring mine 9.4.4 HT ( yes, with stereo wides ) and I´m curious if there has been any discussion around what could be better than this. How many speakers are the reference for the home if original master is done for 34 speakers? How would 34 channels object audio be better than 13 channel system in a 20ftx15ftx8ft room? What is the future in terms of multichannel speaker technology and setups for object based audio, I mean beyond of what we know today?


----------



## scarabaeus

Plutotype said:


> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html
> "A Dolby Atmos audio/video receiver (AVR) adapts the cinema experience to your home theater from seven speakers to as many as *34*, recreating the original artistic concept.
> 
> I have just finished wiring mine 9.4.4 HT ( yes, with stereo wides ) and I´m curious if there has been any discussion around what could be better than this. How many speakers are the reference for the home if original master is done for 34 speakers? How would 34 channels object audio be better than 13 channel system in a 20ftx15ftx8ft room? What is the future in terms of multichannel speaker technology and setups for object based audio, I mean beyond of what we know today?


OK, you are familiar with the "9" layout at ear level: LCR, side surrounds, rear surrounds and front wides.

If you want to add more, you have several options:
- L/R Center, between Left front and Center, and between Right front and Center. You can move your L/R closer to the wides to accomodate this.
- Additional L/R side surrounds, between side surrounds and wides (move the wides forward to accomodate this, if they are not already at the front of the room).
- Additional L/R rear surrounds, between side surrounds and rear surrounds.
- L/R center surround, between rear surrounds and rear center position (where you could place a single rear center as another speaker, but that's not that recommended)

Then, you can add L/R screen centers, inbetween the L/R centers and the Center speaker (basically, close to the edges of your screen). Move the L/R centers outwards for this.
And, then another pair of L/R surrounds, between L/R surrounds and the additional L/R rear surrounds (which have to be moved a bit backwards)
And finally another pair of L/R rear surrounds, between the rear surrounds and the L/R center surrounds (which have to be moved inwards)

There you have all 24 ear-level speakers supported by Atmos.


----------



## gwsat

All this 9.4.4 talk makes me dizzy. There is barely room in my viewing room for the 7.1.4 setup I have now and that's with four of the speakers mounted in the ceiling. Of Course, my subwoofer, a Hsu VTF-3 MK3 Turbo, is so big that when I got it, my daughter and grandson dubbed it "R2-D2."


----------



## sdrucker

scarabaeus said:


> OK, you are familiar with the "9" layout at ear level: LCR, side surrounds, rear surrounds and front wides.
> 
> If you want to add more, you have several options:
> - L/R Center, between Left front and Center, and between Right front and Center. You can move your L/R closer to the wides to accomodate this.
> - Additional L/R side surrounds, between side surrounds and wides (move the wides forward to accomodate this, if they are not already at the front of the room).
> - Additional L/R rear surrounds, between side surrounds and rear surrounds.
> - L/R center surround, between rear surrounds and rear center position (where you could place a single rear center as another speaker, but that's not that recommended)
> 
> Then, you can add L/R screen centers, inbetween the L/R centers and the Center speaker (basically, close to the edges of your screen). Move the L/R centers outwards for this.
> And, then another pair of L/R surrounds, between L/R surrounds and the additional L/R rear surrounds (which have to be moved a bit backwards)
> And finally another pair of L/R rear surrounds, between the rear surrounds and the L/R center surrounds (which have to be moved inwards)
> 
> There you have all 24 ear-level speakers supported by Atmos.


I have a similar room (20x15x9) to Plutotype, and even with a 24 channel Altitude and 7 spare channels after I hook up my two add'l subs to a 9.2.4 setup with wides @ 55 and sides at 105 due to a room limitation putting my rears closer to 145-150 degrees, I'd put adding one set of side surrounds at about 80-90 degrees in my room ahead of L/R screen or center speakers, or another pair of rears. With my mains at close to 30 degrees, I don't feel much immersion lacking between my mains  .

Even then it's more of a nice to have than anything really essential for Atmos, at least in a three seat, single row of seats. If anything the extra pair of sides may have more use for DSU or Neural:X upmixing with a multiple array setup to capture more ambience, than a real need for additonal 3D audio resolution as such.


----------



## Plutotype

9.4.4 is maximum I can do with installed cabling, I will start with 7.1.4 and continue from there. I just wanted to discuss future proofness of the speaker setups for object based audio for home.


----------



## Methodical_1

CpHaAiOnS said:


> Do you have them installed yet?


No. I am about to work on them today, as a matter of fact right now. I've been busy doing other work around the house and being my Mom's electrician, haha!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Diminishing returns! 7.x.4 is already excellent but beyond 9.x.6 the rewards are small but the cost keeps going up. 

A semi-commerial viewing space is another matter of course.


----------



## sdurani

Plutotype said:


> How many speakers are the reference for the home if original master is done for 34 speakers?


Most home Atmos tracks started off as theatrical Atmos mixes. As such, they weren't mixed for 34 speakers or, for that matter, any specific number of speakers (number of speakers varies from theatre to theatre). There is no "reference" number of speakers for home. Just use however many speakers you can accommodate. That's the point of object-based audio: the soundtrack scales to your speaker layout.


> How would 34 channels object audio be better than 13 channel system in a 20ftx15ftx8ft room?


The more speakers you use, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field (for ALL listeners). Simplest example is 3 people on a couch listening to 2 speakers. Only the listener in the middle of the couch hears the vocals at the intended location (middle of the soundstage). Add a centre speaker and ALL listeners hear the vocals at intended location. Same directionality (middle of the soundstage), just greater imaging stability (no longer relying on a phantom centre). Extrapolate that to the rest of your speaker layout.


----------



## Plutotype

sdurani said:


> Most home Atmos tracks started off as theatrical Atmos mixes. As such, they weren't mixed for 34 speakers or, for that matter, any specific number of speakers (number of speakers varies from theatre to theatre). There is no "reference" number of speakers for home. Just use however many speakers you can accommodate. That's the point of object-based audio: the soundtrack scales to your speaker layout. The more speakers you use, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field (for ALL listeners). Simplest example is 3 people on a couch listening to 2 speakers. Only the listener in the middle of the couch hears the vocals at the intended location (middle of the soundstage). Add a centre speaker and ALL listeners hear the vocals at intended location. Same directionality (middle of the soundstage), just greater imaging stability (no longer relying on a phantom centre). Extrapolate that to the rest of your speaker layout.


Thanks for this, basically that means, in regards to number of speakers, anyone serious about object-based audio should be limited only by the room limitations and budget.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

True, but 24 ground level speakers means 15° between each, or only half the distance than between L-C or C-R. And behind us, we are even less capable of detecting where the sound comes from. 24 speakers is way overkill for a small group of listeners. IMO!

Money no object, I would do an ear level speaker every 30°, cancel the one behind me and add two between LCR, 13 in total. Add 6 or 8 on top.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> True, but 24 ground level speakers means 15° between each, or only half the distance than between L-C or C-R. And behind us, we are even less capable of detecting where the sound comes from. 24 speakers is way overkill for a small group of listeners. IMO!
> 
> Money no object, I would do an ear level speaker every 30°, cancel the one behind me and add two between LCR, 13 in total. Add 6 or 8 on top.


And how big is your room, Erwin?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

It's 23 by 28 feet but even that has limitations. I want big LCR hence there is no space for anything in between, unless I cancel the absorption. I am happy to do 9 ear level speakers. That should do it!


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> It's 23 by 28 feet but even that has limitations. I want big LCR hence there is no space for anything in between, unless I cancel the absorption. I am happy to do 9 ear level speakers. That should do it!


You might have the width (23 ft?) to do those 15 degrees screen speakers, but despite the not-trivial source input for screens in this post of a sample 20.1.10 room (see screenshots 4 and 5 for Lsc and Rsc as well as Lc and Rc, under "Memory of all channels":
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...1516103-trinnov-altitude-39.html#post36341066

...how many people could tell the difference between those speakers being in the layout vs. a good set of capable mains with good dispersion qualities?

Of AVSers, I think there's only one or two with those 15 degrees from center speakers, even in Trinnovland. If that.


----------



## rsoares28

I'm currently running a 5.2.4 setup with a 4300h... my rear speakers are about 1-2ft behind the couch... sides is not an option as the right side of the couch is against a wall. I would like to add an amp and go 7.2.4 but I'm unsure if having 4 speakers behind the mlp will provide any separation.... any advice? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

*Stores besides Frye's and BestBuy to demo Atmos?*

I'm planning to go from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 or even 7.1.4 and hence I started looking for 9.2 & 11.2 Atmos receivers to listen to. I've just about had it with Frye's and Bestbuy's lack of demo product, lack of inventory and lack of information and their misinformation. As of my "shopping trip" to those stores tonight in the rain, I've almost vowed to never visit either one of them again.

Can someone suggest an appropriate place to visit in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles? I suppose we are all expected to buy online now, but I would like to give a listen first to determine if this adventure is even worth it. Is this an unreasonable request today with so many brick and mortar stores going under?

Thanks for any suggestions.


----------



## Swolern

Larry Rosenberg said:


> I'm planning to go from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 or even 7.1.4 and hence I started looking for 9.2 & 11.2 Atmos receivers to listen to. I've just about had it with Frye's and Bestbuy's lack of demo product, lack of inventory and lack of information and their misinformation. As of my "shopping trip" to those stores tonight in the rain, I've almost vowed to never visit either one of them again.
> 
> Can someone suggest an appropriate place to visit in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles? I suppose we are all expected to buy online now, but I would like to give a listen first to determine if this adventure is even worth it. Is this an unreasonable request today with so many brick and mortar stores going under?
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions.


B&M stores are dwindling for sure. If there are no home theater stores in your area try a Best Buy that has a Magnolia Home-theater store. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/electro...er/pcmcat139900050002.c?id=pcmcat139900050002


----------



## Ricoflashback

FYI - and I know other threads have covered it, but Sully is spectacular in Dolby Atmos. I rented a plain, Bluray disc from Redbox and when the birds hit the engines and all the sounds started whirling around the room - - I looked for my "Flight Attendant" button to ask what the hell was going on!"

Somewhat fiction on how the NTSB handled the investigation but another superb performance by Tom Hanks. Well worth the rental/purchase and with a Dolby Atmos setup, quite the ride.

Also - great link to the reunion between the crew and passengers of Flight 1549 -


----------



## Marc Alexander

Larry Rosenberg said:


> I'm planning to go from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 or even 7.1.4 and hence I started looking for 9.2 & 11.2 Atmos receivers to listen to. I've just about had it with Frye's and Bestbuy's lack of demo product, lack of inventory and lack of information and their misinformation. As of my "shopping trip" to those stores tonight in the rain, I've almost vowed to never visit either one of them again.
> 
> Can someone suggest an appropriate place to visit in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles? I suppose we are all expected to buy online now, but I would like to give a listen first to determine if this adventure is even worth it. Is this an unreasonable request today with so many brick and mortar stores going under?
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions.


If you want to be sure you will get the rigbt assistance, visit a Magnolia Design Center vs MagnoliaHome Theater which are inside of Best Buys. 

https://www.magnoliaav.com/locations/


----------



## sdurani

rsoares28 said:


> I'm currently running a 5.2.4 setup with a 4300h... my rear speakers are about 1-2ft behind the couch... sides is not an option as the right side of the couch is against a wall. I would like to add an amp and go 7.2.4 but I'm unsure if having 4 speakers behind the mlp will provide any separation.... any advice?


Since you already have a 5.1.4 set-up, configure the remaining two speakers as wides to fill the gap between your fronts and surrounds.


----------



## Selden Ball

rsoares28 said:


> I'm currently running a 5.2.4 setup with a 4300h... my rear speakers are about 1-2ft behind the couch... sides is not an option as the right side of the couch is against a wall. I would like to add an amp and go 7.2.4 but I'm unsure if having 4 speakers behind the mlp will provide any separation.... any advice?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





sdurani said:


> Since you already have a 5.1.4 set-up, configure the remaining two speakers as wides to fill the gap between your fronts and surrounds.


Unfortunately, the 2016 x4300h that he has does not have Front Wide outputs.

However, some people have found that placing Side Surround speakers forward of the seating does provide an enjoyable result, even though it is not what was intended by the person mixing the soundtrack.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

+1 for moving side surrounds to about 75° instead of the usual 90-110° if you also have rear surrounds around 105-120°. 

Or, putting it in another way, if your side surrounds are at 110° and you cannot do rear surrounds, rename the side surrounds to rears and add another pair slightly ahead of MLP! Et voila, you have 7.1!

And another advantage is that you avoid sounds from the sides being blocked by the head of the person next to you if the sides were at 90°.


----------



## rsoares28

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, the 2016 x4300h that he has does not have Front Wide outputs.
> 
> However, some people have found that placing Side Surround speakers forward of the seating does provide an enjoyable result, even though it is not what was intended by the person mixing the soundtrack.


Hello, Thanks for all the replies. Unfortunately wides is not an option either. As i stated side surrounds wont work as my couch is up against the right wall. 

So will moving to 7 lower bed speakers provide any advantage if both side surr and rear surr is behind the main MLP?

Thanks


----------



## Selden Ball

rsoares28 said:


> Hello, Thanks for all the replies. Unfortunately wides is not an option either. As i stated side surrounds wont work as my couch is up against the right wall.
> 
> So will moving to 7 lower bed speakers provide any advantage if both side surr and rear surr is behind the main MLP?
> 
> Thanks


We all have to accept some compromises in life 

You might try placing all four speakers as far apart as you can on the rear wall, centered on the seating. It certainly won't be ideal, but only you can decide if the separation produces an enjoyable result.


----------



## batpig

Swolern said:


> Larry Rosenberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm planning to go from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 or even 7.1.4 and hence I started looking for 9.2 & 11.2 Atmos receivers to listen to. I've just about had it with Frye's and Bestbuy's lack of demo product, lack of inventory and lack of information and their misinformation. As of my "shopping trip" to those stores tonight in the rain, I've almost vowed to never visit either one of them again.
> 
> Can someone suggest an appropriate place to visit in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles? I suppose we are all expected to buy online now, but I would like to give a listen first to determine if this adventure is even worth it. Is this an unreasonable request today with so many brick and mortar stores going under?
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> B&M stores are dwindling for sure. If there are no home theater stores in your area try a Best Buy that has a Magnolia Home-theater store. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/electro...er/pcmcat139900050002.c?id=pcmcat139900050002
Click to expand...

I haven't been to a Magnolia that has an adequate Atmos demo. At best it's a 5.1.2 with the Def Tech modules up-firing. 

For a proper 7.1.4 demo unfortunately I think the best practical option is a friendly fellow enthusiast allowing visit to demo a home setup.


----------



## Swolern

Thanks for response guys. Ok on my pending purchase, so far I have decided to get 4 Pioneer Elite SP-EBS73s and a EC73 center. Got a change of heart in the receiver and I want to get the Pioneer SC-89 140w 9-channel as it has some room to upgrade in the future and it has a 32bit Sabre DAC to connect to my PC also. Might as well play some lossless FLAC files. Only thing I read is this has some issues with HDCP 2.2. Any other receivers that y'all recommend that have a high-end Sabre DAC?

Haven't decided on a sub yet. Will probably start with 5.1.4 and upgrade to 5.2.4 as I see the need.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

Marc Alexander said:


> If you want to be sure you will get the rigbt assistance, visit a Magnolia Design Center vs MagnoliaHome Theater which are inside of Best Buys.
> 
> https://www.magnoliaav.com/locations/


Good advice and it *should* be like that, but the Magnolia I visited was a Design Center inside the store and it was just silly how little anyone knew about anything and how little product they had to demo. I learned long ago that regular BestBuy offerings were not exactly top of the line - aside from TVs. But I have been equally dismayed at Magnolia when I want to actually listen to anything beyond 5.1.2, and even that is usually only set up on one receiver. What happened to "stereo stores," or home theater specialists? Are we now all at the mercy of BestBuy and Fryes or buying blind from the internet??


----------



## batpig

Unfortunately B&M specialty shops have been hit hard. Your best bet these days is to seek the counsel of experienced fellow enthusiasts on forums like this one, and be willing to maybe return something if it doesn't meet your needs when you get it home. There is no substitute for trying out the gear in your own room anyway.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Scott Simonian said:


> Actual channel and object content destined for the wide speaker doesn't image correctly at that position.


Does consumer Atmos support channels named Lw/Rw? The theatrical format does not -- it has the usual 7.1 base plus 2 height channels -- right? 



> Instead, the decoder "snaps" all that content back to the front speakers.


Channels do not have a "snap" option, but if a channel does not find it's corresponding speaker in the system, then a rule can tell it where to go -- such as a front speaker. But unless it's possible to transmit "wide" channels, that option is moot for wide sounds.

The good news is that any channel-based sounds mixed to the "wide" locations (between fronts and sides), as encoded in the 7.1 base layer, will remain there in the consumer version, and will phantom image as desired.

Objects, OTOH, can support snap, but it has to be used with care. One goal is to force the sound to come from a single speaker, thus preserving timbre. Good for music. So music parked in locations flanking the screen might have a small snap window applied so that if those front wall surrounds are not present, the sound locks to the L/R mains, instead of phantom imaging (and possible comb filtering). But if the sound is a moving object, snap would not make sense as it will cause abrupt jumps to the speakers. 

All this windage to say that it is probably not a global "snap decision" afoot here, but a choice made for certain sounds. 



> I guess the idea is to keep content in the front soundstage or whatever. I don't buy that argument at all. This sucks especially now when most popular brand models to just release suddenly lack wide outputs. D'oh!


I agree -- and do not buy the argument that phantom imaged content is so harmful. This topic bears further probing with Dolby to see what's driving it. Did someone hear a nasty result? Is this a global rule or does each studio/mix is decided individually?

Marc, if you wanted to place music wide of the screen in a consumer Atmos mix, snap turned off, would that be ok with the mastering process?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> When expanding beyond a 5.1-speaker layout, wides are probably the lowest priority, well behind rears and/or heights. In fact, we often see on these forums that folks will go for multiple pairs of heights (5.1.4) before considering wides. Might indicate why wides have disappeared from current receivers & pre-pros.


That made perfect sense as a 7.1 system can do a decent job of imaging wide content, at least for the good seats. 

But now that some content is circumventing that option , it changes the calculus. Speakers that previously held the weakest justification just became more important if you want to hear the original mix. A sinister plot, no doubt...


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> I agree -- and do not buy the argument that phantom imaged content is so harmful. This topic bears further probing with Dolby to see what's driving it. Did someone hear a nasty result?


Me, all the time. Phantom imaging is just too fragile and it breaks down completely once you leave the single location it is designed for. Even turning one's head can introduce major localization changes. Occupational hazard I guess. I even can't stand the elevated surround presentation of Atmos content in commercial cinemas.


----------



## NorthSky

_Anthony Grimani_ has a very interesting and calculated (psychoacoustics) take on this: ...Start from *23:58*





_____

* mtbdudex - 2 years ago (edited)

_"Anthony's comments on how important the wides are echo with what Audyssey found in their basic psycho acoustic research, http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dsx/faq , makes me wonder why Dolby decided for DSU to not extract info to wides.....I hope Dolby re-considers their algorithm for DSU (Dolby Surround up-mixing), as my real world experience of nearly 2 years with wides "echos" what Anthony states, unless Dolby found there are patents that DTS/Audyssey has that keeps them from doing that (they don't want to pay royalties to competition).....That's a Q I'd like to have Dolby asked and answered in a future podcast, why DSU does not feed signal info to wides.
Yes - I realize for a Atmos feed if wides are present wides will be fed a signal but not for upmixing done via DSU, there had gotta be some Intellectual Property issue."_ ﻿


----------



## Ladeback

Larry Rosenberg said:


> Good advice and it *should* be like that, but the Magnolia I visited was a Design Center inside the store and it was just silly how little anyone knew about anything and how little product they had to demo. I learned long ago that regular BestBuy offerings were not exactly top of the line - aside from TVs. But I have been equally dismayed at Magnolia when I want to actually listen to anything beyond 5.1.2, and even that is usually only set up on one receiver. What happened to "stereo stores," or home theater specialists? Are we now all at the mercy of BestBuy and Fryes or buying blind from the internet??


I would think living in Los Angeles there would be AV stores that you could listen to equipment or check out a projector. The current High End AV store I go to has a home theater set up with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 to other listening rooms to check out speakers. They have been around for about 40 years and it where I got my first stereo back in 1982. The home theater has also given me ideas on how want mine set up. 

Here are some photos of it. They are running an Anthem for the Dolby Atmos and maybe a Yamaha as well. I can't remember. They have been very helpful to me.

I do know what you mean about that the people in the Magnolia BestBay's don't know much about what they have.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> But now that some content is circumventing that option , it changes the calculus.


True, though to keep it in perspective, the "some content" is only Atmos soundtracks. DSU, Auro 3D & Auro-Matic don't use wides and DTS:X seems to phantom image those objects between the fronts & sides, at least on the Ip Man 3 soundtrack (I don't know if there are any other DTS:X Blu-rays with objects to test).


> Speakers that previously held the weakest justification just became more important if you want to hear the original mix.


Again, only when listening to Atmos mixes. IF that makes up a significant portion of usage, then it might be worth sacrificing spatial resolution in the height layer (i.e., swapping a pair of heights for a pair of wides). Of course 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 gear would solve the problem, but who knows when that will show up on mainstream gear.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> Does consumer Atmos support channels named Lw/Rw? The theatrical format does not -- it has the usual 7.1 base plus 2 height channels -- right?
> 
> Channels do not have a "snap" option, but if a channel does not find it's corresponding speaker in the system, then a rule can tell it where to go -- such as a front speaker. But unless it's possible to transmit "wide" channels, that option is moot for wide sounds.
> 
> The good news is that any channel-based sounds mixed to the "wide" locations (between fronts and sides), as encoded in the 7.1 base layer, will remain there in the consumer version, and will phantom image as desired.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that in an Atmos soundtrack, only objects ever go to Wide speakers. Channel-based content in the mix stays in the regular 7.1 base.

DSU doesn't use Wide speakers at all.


----------



## Methodical_1

CpHaAiOnS said:


> Do you have them installed yet?


Update: I've installed them (finished on Thursday). It took a just little while longer because I ran into some challenges (i.e. plumbing pipes) on the first two speakers. I had to remove one of the recessed lights (new work assembly) to enable me to install one of them near the drain pipe. The other speaker just slip by the water line (see images). The first three images shows the plumbing I ran into, the fourth image shows how I finally drop the one speaker inside and around the drain pipe without compromising the recessed light existing location (had to buy the remodeling can for reinstall) . The last 4 images show the final install. 

I don't know if I have any movies to test to see how the speakers work. Will any of these movies provide a good test for the Atmos speakers - these are some of the latest titles I have at the moment?

1. MadMax
2. The Revenant
3. Jurassic World
4. Witch Slayer (thing that's the correct title)


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

Ladeback said:


> I would think living in Los Angeles there would be AV stores that you could listen to equipment or check out a projector. The current High End AV store I go to has a home theater set up with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 to other listening rooms to check out speakers. They have been around for about 40 years and it where I got my first stereo back in 1982. The home theater has also given me ideas on how want mine set up.
> 
> Here are some photos of it. They are running an Anthem for the Dolby Atmos and maybe a Yamaha as well. I can't remember. They have been very helpful to me.
> 
> I do know what you mean about that the people in the Magnolia BestBay's don't know much about what they have.


Beautiful pix!

Yeah, you would think home theater shops would be on every street in Los Angeles. Not anymore. There probably are some within a 100 mile radius of me and that's why I posted here. But, near me, everything I knew has closed down.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Methodical_1 said:


> Update: I've installed them (finished on Thursday). It took a just little while longer because I ran into some challenges (i.e. plumbing pipes) on the first two speakers. I had to remove one of the recessed lights (new work assembly) to enable me to install one of them near the drain pipe. The other speaker just slip by the water line (see images). The first three images shows the plumbing I ran into, the fourth image shows how I finally drop the one speaker inside and around the drain pipe without compromising the recessed light existing location (had to buy the remodeling can for reinstall) . The last 4 images show the final install.
> 
> I don't know if I have any movies to test to see how the speakers work. Will any of these movies provide a good test for the Atmos speakers - these are some of the latest titles I have at the moment?
> 
> 1. MadMax
> 2. The Revenant
> 3. Jurassic World
> 4. Witch Slayer (thing that's the correct title)


Wow - really nice job on the install. Hey - - if you would have knicked the drain pipe, the Dolby Atmos water sounds would have been very realistic!  Nice work.


----------



## Methodical_1

Ricoflashback said:


> Wow - really nice job on the install. Hey - - if you would have knicked the drain pipe, the Dolby Atmos water sounds would have been very realistic!  Nice work.


That would be a very expensive movie, haha!

Thanks


----------



## scarabaeus

Josh Z said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that in an Atmos soundtrack, only objects ever go to Wide speakers. Channel-based content in the mix stays in the regular 7.1 base.


Home Atmos supports a 9.1 base, including a wide pair, so not only dynamic objects can be placed in the wides.



> DSU doesn't use Wide speakers at all.


Correct. For Non-atmos channel based content.


----------



## FilmMixer

scarabaeus said:


> Home Atmos supports a 9.1 base, including a wide pair, so not only dynamic objects can be placed in the wides.



Incorrect. Only objects can feed the wides. There is no "wide" channel in the bed, nor is there a dedicated stereo OH. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Mini review (overall impression) from one AVS member on *9.1.2* versus *7.1.4* Dolby Atmos: • http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...152665-atmos-9-1-4-coming-3.html#post40729914


----------



## tigerhonaker

Delete !!!


----------



## Foundation42

NorthSky said:


> _Anthony Grimani_ has a very interesting and calculated (psychoacoustics) take on this: ...Start from *23:58*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that. I watched the whole thing and it was great as usual. At about 16:00 he also discusses how dolby would add wides in converting a 5.1 layout to Atmos.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> _Anthony Grimani_ has a very interesting and calculated (psychoacoustics) take on this: ...Start from *23:58*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbqJkjfABQ


_____




Foundation42 said:


> Thanks for posting that. I watched the whole thing and it was great as usual. At about 16:00 he also discusses how dolby would add wides in converting a 5.1 layout to Atmos.


It's a great video (the full video); instructional, educative. Sir Anthony Grimani, acoustician expert and articulate gentleman, has several other videos, and interviews by Scott Wilkinson...all good stuff.


----------



## asarose247

@Methodical_1

"I don't know if I have any movies to test to see how the speakers work. Will any of these movies provide a good test for the Atmos speakers - these are some of the latest titles I have at the moment?"


treat yourself to the special editon of "Gravity", current gold standard, iirc


----------



## NorthSky

tigerhonaker said:


> Delete !!!


Hi Terry; Happy New Year! ...And to your wife.

Why did you delete your post?


----------



## Marc Alexander

Larry Rosenberg said:


> Beautiful pix!
> 
> Yeah, you would think home theater shops would be on every street in Los Angeles. Not anymore. There probably are some within a 100 mile radius of me and that's why I posted here. But, near me, everything I knew has closed down.


Reach out to @Peterc613, I believe he is not far from you and perhaps can provide you some direction. We still have some dedicated shops down here in O.C.


----------



## tigerhonaker

NorthSky said:


> Hi Terry; Happy New Year! ...And to your wife.
> 
> Why did you delete your post?


Happy New-Year to you buddy a little further up North. 



> Mini review (overall impression) from one AVS member on *9.1.2* versus *7.1.4* Dolby Atmos: • Is Atmos 9.1.4 coming?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...152665-atmos-9-1-4-coming-3.html#post40729914
I should have read more carefully to the above posting.
I read rather quickly the post and actually at 1st Glance thought it was referring to having a 7.1 or like in my case a 7.4 with 4-subs.
Actually it was really referring to having the 4-Over-Head spkrs for Atmos.

My Boo-Boo 

Terry


----------



## NorthSky

Lol, no big deal I see.  ...And it's free.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*9.3.4*

While I designed and executed my HT for 9.3.6, in the end I will reassuringly settle for 9.3.4. The upcoming generation of sub-esoteric processors [Emotiva RMC-1] support it and it makes sense to me. I will try to explain.

In the horizontal plane, a 30° speaker separation makes sense. That would mean 360°/30° = 12 speakers. But we can leave 3 behind us out because it's uncritical there. 0/30/60/100/150° seems ideal, gradually widening from 30° in front to 60° towards the rear, adding up to 9 speakers. In my case it's 0/35/65/100/135° which is close enough. (BTW, I am against putting ear level side surround at 90° because the head of your neighbor blocks the sound. I prefer 100°)

Now, when you go upwards, you don't need as many. Although you need 12 to have the same 30° separation in the horizontal (upper) plane, you do not actually need 12 to cover the "hemisphere". If you go all the way up (90°) you would only need a single speaker (which is the VOG in Auro 3D). Simplifying things without calculation, I would say you need only half the speakers if you go halfway up. Half of 9 ear level speakers is 4,5 which translated to the nearest pair is... 4! 

So there you have your 9.x.4! The best way to place 13 speakers. When I sit in my HT and look around and above me, I do feel I have all angles covered!


----------



## NorthSky

Erwin, Happy New Year! ...And to your family. 

You always make the greatest Dolby Atmos home theater plans/graphs; packed with all the details. 
I was wondering if you have an overview (360° photograph) from the sweet spot inside your Atmos home theater room? 

And I agree with you; since the very Dolby Atmos beginning we were shortchanged of two channels/speakers (only 12 instead of 14 - that includes the .1 LFE channel, subwoofer). --- 9.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 5.1.6 instead of 11.1.2 or 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 or 5.1.8 ... 

EDIT: The link in your sig; fantastic! Erwin from Belgium | Home Theater Build

---------------------

◘ Bonus: Comin' up...later on this year...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Happy and healthy new year too!

Yeah, I am getting there hopefully. Electric installation still not powered on, so I am rather stuck. 

I am building the [4] ceiling speakers soon. A custom version of the DIYSG VOLT 10, with a better tweeter. More expensive anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

Alright; building the Atmos overheads [4]. 
_____

Speaking of overhead (just for fun, 2017 good humor): 






Deadpool


----------



## Methodical_1

asarose247 said:


> @Methodical_1
> 
> "I don't know if I have any movies to test to see how the speakers work. Will any of these movies provide a good test for the Atmos speakers - these are some of the latest titles I have at the moment?"
> 
> 
> treat yourself to the special editon of "Gravity", current gold standard, iirc


Thanks. I will do that. Question. Will state "special edition" be on the package?


----------



## asarose247

^ look for the word ATMOS on the packaging


----------



## Methodical_1

asarose247 said:


> ^ look for the word ATMOS on the packaging


Cool. Thanks


----------



## invadergir

Well i finally got my Marantz 7010 mostly hooked up. My only problem is that I have a smallish room to use it in and want to benefit using the Atmos 5.1.4 configuration. My ceilings are just over 7' 6" tall, and am using a projector setup and the screen takes up all of my furthest wall. I have a couple Mission speakers i thought about mounting to the wall but am still short 2 more speakers for my setup. Living in Canada the wall mount pricing is expensive for the grip kind i am looking for. (B-tech $70-75 after taxes for a pair) So i'm thinking of keeping my Mission speakers aside for now (might eventually go 7.1.4 or create a Zone 2 with them) and just buy 4 Polk Atrium 4 speakers instead and mount them to the ceiling of my bedroom. Already come with the mount, can angle them into sweet spot for listening and i can get them for $150Cnd a pair on Amazon. I love my Mission speakers but price wise i am better buying the Polk instead of $150 for mounts, frustration building/mounting them, and then buying 2 more speakers on top of that. Do you think the Polk's would work for my situation? Bedroom is roughly L 14' W 8'6' H 7' 6"


----------



## Mashie Saldana

erwinfrombelgium said:


> While I designed and executed my HT for 9.3.6, in the end I will reassuringly settle for 9.3.4. The upcoming generation of sub-esoteric processors [Emotiva RMC-1] support it and it makes sense to me. I will try to explain.
> 
> In the horizontal plane, a 30° speaker separation makes sense. That would mean 360°/30° = 12 speakers. But we can leave 3 behind us out because it's uncritical there. 0/30/60/100/150° seems ideal, gradually widening from 30° in front to 60° towards the rear, adding up to 9 speakers. In my case it's 0/35/65/100/135° which is close enough. (BTW, I am against putting ear level side surround at 90° because the head of your neighbor blocks the sound. I prefer 100°)
> 
> Now, when you go upwards, you don't need as many. Although you need 12 to have the same 30° separation in the horizontal (upper) plane, you do not actually need 12 to cover the "hemisphere". If you go all the way up (90°) you would only need a single speaker (which is the VOG in Auro 3D). Simplifying things without calculation, I would say you need only half the speakers if you go halfway up. Half of 9 ear level speakers is 4,5 which translated to the nearest pair is... 4!
> 
> So there you have your 9.x.4! The best way to place 13 speakers. When I sit in my HT and look around and above me, I do feel I have all angles covered!


In my case it is 0/30/60/100/142.5° for the 9 base layer speakers, I couldn't do 135° due to a window but it is close enough. I'm going with 6 height speakers though.


----------



## Peterc613

Ladeback said:


> I would think living in Los Angeles there would be AV stores that you could listen to equipment or check out a projector. The current High End AV store I go to has a home theater set up with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 to other listening rooms to check out speakers. They have been around for about 40 years and it where I got my first stereo back in 1982. The home theater has also given me ideas on how want mine set up.





Larry Rosenberg said:


> Yeah, you would think home theater shops would be on every street in Los Angeles. Not anymore. There probably are some within a 100 mile radius of me and that's why I posted here. But, near me, everything I knew has closed down.





Marc Alexander said:


> Reach out to @Peterc613, I believe he is not far from you and perhaps can provide you some direction. We still have some dedicated shops down here in O.C.



:smile: *Speak and you shall receive....
*


*Partial Map*











*Southern CA Audio Dealers*


*Acoustic Image*
11124 Sunshine Ter
Studio City, CA 91604
(818) 762-1501
http://www.acousticimage.com


*Audiophile Zone*
6519 Vista Del Mar, 
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
(310) 827-0359
http://audiophilezone.com


*Alma Audio*
5759 La Jolla Blvd, 
La Jolla, CA 92037
(858) 412-5530
https://almaaudio.com


*Ahead Stereo*
7428 Beverly Blvd, 
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(323) 931-8873
http://aheadstereo.com/content/


*Audio Concepts*
6236 E Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach, CA 90803
(562) 597-5450
http://www.audioconceptsinc.com


*Audio Element*
117 E Union St, 
Pasadena, CA 91103
(626) 793-7229
http://audio-element.com


*Audio Video City*
3201 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 305
Santa Monica, CA 90403
(424) 371-6845
http://www.avcityca.com


*Audio Video Today*
23012 Del Lago Dr., Ste D
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
(949) 535-0555
http://www.audiovideotoday.com/high-end-audio-systems


*Brooks Berdan*
110 W Olive Ave, 
Monrovia, CA 91016
(626) 359-9131
http://brooksberdanltd.com


*Definition Audio Video*
2934 Wilshire Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90403
(310) 829-9888
http://definitionav.com


*Destination Hi Fi*
5355 Cartwright Ave. 
North Hollywood, CA 91601. 
(818) 732-1448
http://destinationhifi.com


*High 5 Stereo*
841 E Whittier Blvd, 
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 691-4434
http://www.hi5stereo.com


*Monaco Audio Video*
350 S Lake Ave., Ste 112
Pasadena, CA 91101
(626) 395-9597
http://www.monacoav.com


*Optimal Enchantment* 
522 Santa Monica Blvd, 
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 393-4434
http://www.optimalenchantment.com


*PBN Audio*
380 Vernon Way # I, 
El Cajon, CA 92020
(619) 440-8237
http://www.pbnaudio.com


*Precision Audio & Video*
12277 Arbor Hill St, 
Moorpark, CA 93021
(805) 523-3005
http://www.precisionav.com


*Reus Audio Systems*
1036 W Collins Ave, 
Orange, CA 92867
(714) 633-6636
http://www.reusaudio.com


*Scott Walker Audio*
1215 N Tustin Ave, 
Anaheim, CA 92807
(714) 630-4100
http://www.scottwalkeraudio.com


*Shelley's Stereo*
22102 Clarendon St, 
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
(818) 716-8500
http://www.shelleysstereo.com


*Sunny's Audio*
1370 E Cypress St, #D , 
Covina, CA 91724
(626) 966-6259
http://sunnyaudiovideo.com


*The Audio Salon*
2525 Michigan Ave F1, 
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Phone: (310) 863-0863
http://www.audiosalon.com


*The Source AV*
3035 Kashiwa St, 
Torrance, CA 90505
(310) 534-9900
http://thesourceav.com


*Venice Audio*
1803 Andalusia Ave, 
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 437-0515
http://www.veniceaudio.com/va/venice_audio___two_channel_home_audio_systems.html


*Weinhart Design*
2337 Roscomare Rd #1 , 
Los Angeles, CA 90077
(310) 472-8880
http://www.weinhartdesign.com/index.html


*Wilshire Media Systems*
1412 N Moorpark Rd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-7536
http://www.wilshirehe.com/about/brands/


Many of these shops host LAOCAS events if you want to audition their systems with other audiophiles in the area:


*LAOCAS 2017 Calendar of Events*










*January: *Sunday, January 22nd, 1-4 PM: The Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society will hold its will hold its monthly meeting presented by San Diego's *Alma Music *and Audio at the Holiday Inn in Buena Park (7000 Beach Blvd) in the beautiful Penthouse ballroom. The acoustics are excellent and there will be seating for all. Our host, Fabio Storelli of Alma Music and Audio will demonstrate with examples of top-of- the-line equipment including speakers by YG Acoustics, electronics by D’Agostino, Dartzeel and MSB Tech with cabling by Kubala-Sosna. An industry presenter has been invited to address the Society. Eastwind Import will be on hand to offer hand selected vinyl and CDs for sale. A raffle is planned and an extraordinary lunch will be served at 1 PM. Parking is free. Guests, visitors and new members are invited.

*February:* Sunday, February 12th, 2-5 PM: The Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society will hold its fun February Event at *Scott Walker Audio* (1215 Tustin Avenue, Anaheim CA 92807).

Building upon last year's outstanding success, Scott Walker will be hosting “The Best in Affordable High-End Audio – Part III”. He will have 6 demonstration rooms showcasing some of the highest value high-end gear currently available. Complete systems will range from $1,500 - $15,000. Presenters to be announced.

Eastwind Import will be on hand to offer carefully selected Vinyl and CDs for sale. A raffle is planned and a wonderful lunch will be served. Parking is free. Guests, visitors and members alike are invited.

*March:* Sunday, March 19th, 2-5 PM: The Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society will hold its monthly meeting at *Upscale Audio* at Upscale's new address (2058 Wright Avenue, La Verne, CA 91750).

This fascinating event will feature Upscale Audio’s own Kevin Deal the “Tube King” himself and include a Grand Opening of Upscale’s 10,000 square foot premises devoted to musical enjoyment! Kevin will present his latest personal tube-search adventures and give tours of the new facility!

Eastwind Import will be on hand to offer carefully selected Vinyl and CDs for sale. A raffle is planned and an extraordinary lunch will be served. Free parking is nearby. Guests, visitors and new members are invited. 

*April:* *Sunny's Components*, Covina

*May: Brooks Berdan Audio, Ltd.*, Monrovia

*July: The Source AV*, Torrance

*August: The Audio Salon*, Santa Monica

*September: Shelley's Stereo & Video*, Woodland Hills

*October: Weinhart Design*, Bel Air

*November: Sunny's Components*, Covina


You can see even more audiophile brands than these shops cary at the Los Angeles Audio Show:


*LA Audio Show, June 2-4, 2017*

http://www.laaudioshow.com










This stellar fine audio event takes place Friday through Sunday, June 2nd to the 4th, 2017, at the Sheraton Gateway LA, just minutes from the Los Angeles International Airport via complimentary shuttle. The Los Angeles Audio Show is open to the public from 10 AM to 6 PM, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Discounted early-bird tickets went on sale November 25th. Ticket prices include access to all demo rooms, booths, entertainment and seminars. Society Members get big discounts!! New members who join the Society before or at LAAS, get free admission to the big event! Special low parking prices, best in area! Your Society does not back any other audio shows in California. 

***** LAOCAS - New Member ***** ($40.00) 

Purchase a 1-Year membership with the LA/OC Audio Society AND receive a FREE 3-Day admission to the show. What a deal!! (Regular 3-Day admission $60)


*Happy Listening !*


----------



## chi_guy50

Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks. I will do that. Question. Will state "special edition" be on the package?


Actually, the _Gravity_ Blu-ray disc version you are looking for is titled the "Diamond Luxe Edition."

It can be difficult to find a copy for sale at less than astronomically jacked-up prices, but you can rent a copy from 3D-BlurayRental.com ($3.99 as an a la carte rental or free with a monthly subscription).


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> In the horizontal plane, a 30° speaker separation makes sense. That would mean 360°/30° = 12 speakers. But we can leave 3 behind us out because it's uncritical there. 0/30/60/100/150° seems ideal, gradually widening from 30° in front to 60° towards the rear, adding up to 9 speakers.


Indeed, 0/30/60/100/150 is the ideal distribution for 9 speakers, resulting in an average speaker separation of 30, 40 and 60 degrees for front (120 degrees arc), side (2x 60 degrees arc), and rear (120 degrees arc).

If room and budget allows, stepping up to 11 base layer speakers (0/25-30/50/80/110/150) gets you closer to the intended sound at MLP because:
1. It brings the average speaker separation for the sides down from 40 to 30 degrees, which is the minimum Dolby specifies for optimal spatial resolution (BTW these specs include the rear area);
2. It allows the wides to be put more narrow, which brings them closer to the position assumed by the home Atmos renderer (in the cinema referred to as precedence speakers, positioned just outside the screen, usually no more than 15 degrees separated from L/R).



> Now, when you go upwards, you don't need as many. Although you need 12 to have the same 30° separation in the horizontal (upper) plane, you do not actually need 12 to cover the "hemisphere". If you go all the way up (90°) you would only need a single speaker (which is the VOG in Auro 3D). Simplifying things without calculation, I would say you need only half the speakers if you go halfway up. Half of 9 ear level speakers is 4,5 which translated to the nearest pair is... 4!


Nice rule-of-thumb! For 11 base speakers this would yield 5.5 = 3 pairs of overheads. These outcomes actually correspond quite well to the guidelines for Cinema Atmos, where every side-wall mounted surround pair (which BTW includes rears at 135 degrees!) gets its corresponding overhead pair.


----------



## Selden Ball

Methodical_1 said:


> Update: I've installed them (finished on Thursday). It took a just little while longer because I ran into some challenges (i.e. plumbing pipes) on the first two speakers. I had to remove one of the recessed lights (new work assembly) to enable me to install one of them near the drain pipe. The other speaker just slip by the water line (see images). The first three images shows the plumbing I ran into, the fourth image shows how I finally drop the one speaker inside and around the drain pipe without compromising the recessed light existing location (had to buy the remodeling can for reinstall) . The last 4 images show the final install.
> 
> I don't know if I have any movies to test to see how the speakers work. Will any of these movies provide a good test for the Atmos speakers - these are some of the latest titles I have at the moment?
> 
> 1. MadMax
> 2. The Revenant
> 3. Jurassic World
> 4. Witch Slayer (thing that's the correct title)


Of the Atmos titles you list, Mad Max in particular is known to have a good Atmos mix.

For just testing the speakers, though, you might want to consider Dolby's recently released test tracks, which are downloadable from https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## Ricoflashback

*RE*:


Peterc613 said:


> :smile: *Speak and you shall receive....*
> 
> 
> *Happy Listening !*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *******
> 
> For those of you who do not recognize him, Charles Rodrigues was one of the most hilarious and talented cartoonists in the industry. Often a favorite of Playboy Magazine and the National Lampoon as well as a contributor to Stereo Review, his cartoons have been enjoyed by millions and his sense of humor is off the charts.
> 
> "In a collection of interviews with various cartoonists, Mark Jacobs wrote:He works at night, which is fitting, since some of his best cartoons deal with the dark side of the psyche. A classic black humorist, he rummages around in violence, insanity, perversion, bigotry and scatology, looking for what he needs to create the typical Rodrigues effect: wild laughter with a cringe of repulsion.[3]​He was also a long-time contributor to _Stereo Review_, beginning with its first issue in 1958, and created three comic features for the Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate: _Eggs Benedict_, _Casey the Cop_ and the daily panel _Charlie_.[2]"


----------



## gwsat

asarose247 said:


> [MENTION=7665412]treat yourself to the special editon of "Gravity", current gold standard, iirc


Couldn't agree more. _Gravity_ was one of the first movies I bought with Atmos audio. If is wonderful. The scenes at the beginning of the picture showing Ryan and Matt working outside their spacecraft is an audible _tour de force_ of Atmos sound. Highly recommended!


----------



## howard68

I hope all our amps will now get an upgrade to pass through Dolby Vision


----------



## Mashie Saldana

howard68 said:


> I hope all our amps will now get an upgrade to pass through Dolby Vision


And even if they don't, most of the DV capable sources have dual HDMI outputs.


----------



## nikolajbak

*Atmos 5.2.4 asymmetric front*

I am setting up my new system, but are in doubt how to place FL, FR and C as my room does not allow for a symmetric speaker setup.

Attached are 3 super professional drawings with 3 different setups. Which should I go with? (Distances are metric)


----------



## nikolajbak

Forgot to mention equipment.

Marantz SR7010
Anthony Gallo A'Diva x9
Anthony Gallo MPS150
Velodyne MiniVee
LG 55" 4K


----------



## Peterc613

Ricoflashback said:


> For those of you who do not recognize him, Charles Rodrigues was one of the most hilarious and talented cartoonists in the industry. Often a favorite of Playboy Magazine and the National Lampoon as well as a contributor to Stereo Review, his cartoons have been enjoyed by millions and his sense of humor is off the charts.
> 
> "In a collection of interviews with various cartoonists, Mark Jacobs wrote:He works at night, which is fitting, since some of his best cartoons deal with the dark side of the psyche. A classic black humorist, he rummages around in violence, insanity, perversion, bigotry and scatology, looking for what he needs to create the typical Rodrigues effect: wild laughter with a cringe of repulsion.​





I remember reading Charles Rodrigues work in Stereo Review in the 70's and 80's and he was always one of my favorite cartoonists. I worked at a number of retail stereo chains and High End Audio Salons from High School through College and a few years after. The sales staff would always post his cartoons by the register where customers couldn't see them. I have a fond memory of that period of my life. We were all young (17-25), with no responsibilities and no mortgage to pay. All we had to do other than go to school/homework, was play music to our heart's content at the shop and sell stereo equipment to customers in the process. 

Our only real challenge was overcoming Wife Acceptance Factor and we became expert at reading the body language of disgruntled wives dragged along to enable their husbands audio compulsion. For a budding Audio Alcoholic it was like working at a Bar with unlimited drinking privileges. The thing about humor and irony is that there is an element of truth under the disguise of a humorous bent. This is what makes Rodrigues' cartoons so funny to those of us that worked selling stereos back in the golden age of the retail stereo chains and high end audio salons. We were in the know how ironic his humor really was. His Stereo Shop, Wife Acceptance Factor, and Audiohillic Anonymous cartoons were always spot on. Some of my favorites are posted below.

I even bought his paperback collection of cartoons for $7.95 when it first came out. Eventually, that disappeared along with other 70's/80's cartoon books for Doonesbury and The Far Side as I got more responsible jobs, moved a couple of times, and had to clean house. Now you can't touch Charles Rodrigues' paperback for less than $200 as a collectable on ebay. Sort of like the SOTA turntable I sold for $400 in the 90's when I thought vinyl was dead and started collecting CD's. (I have made some really stupid decisions over my life in retrospective). 


*Rodriguez Paperback*











:wink: *STEREO SHOP*









































































































































:angel: *WIFE ACCEPTANCE FACTOR*
















































:devil: *AUDIOHOLIC ANONYMOUS*


----------



## gwsat

Peterc613 -- The wonderful old cartoons you posted prove that not much has changed with our compulsion driven hobby in the last 35 or 40 years. About all I can see is that it's no longer just audio. These days, it's video too.


----------



## Peterc613

gwsat said:


> Peterc613 -- The wonderful old cartoons you posted prove that not much has changed with our compulsion driven hobby in the last 35 or 40 years. About all I can see is that it's no longer just audio. These days, it's video too.



:eeksurprise: *Except everything old is new again...
*












*2016 Newport Audio Show*


----------



## Methodical_1

asarose247 said:


> @Methodical_1
> 
> "I don't know if I have any movies to test to see how the speakers work. Will any of these movies provide a good test for the Atmos speakers - these are some of the latest titles I have at the moment?"
> 
> 
> treat yourself to the special editon of "Gravity", current gold standard, iirc





chi_guy50 said:


> Actually, the _Gravity_ Blu-ray disc version you are looking for is titled the "Diamond Luxe Edition."
> 
> It can be difficult to find a copy for sale at less than astronomically jacked-up prices, but you can rent a copy from 3D-BlurayRental.com ($3.99 as an a la carte rental or free with a monthly subscription).





gwsat said:


> Couldn't agree more. _Gravity_ was one of the first movies I bought with Atmos audio. If is wonderful. The scenes at the beginning of the picture showing Ryan and Matt working outside their spacecraft is an audible _tour de force_ of Atmos sound. Highly recommended!


Chi_guy50, ironically you posted that. I searched the local stores and only found the regular and 3D verison, which did not specify Atmos in the audio section and then came across the diamond lux edition (via google) and wandered what was so special that it cost so much. I'd like to get it, but not for $70. Thanks for the rental suggestion - a much better deal. I did buy Everest, American Sniper and San Andreas.


----------



## nikolajbak

nikolajbak said:


> I am setting up my new system, but are in doubt how to place FL, FR and C as my room does not allow for a symmetric speaker setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Attached are 3 super professional drawings with 3 different setups. Which should I go with? (Distances are metric)




Any chance on getting a view on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nikolajbak

nikolajbak said:


> Any chance on getting a view on this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Post #43190 has the attachment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Methodical_1

nikolajbak said:


> I am setting up my new system, but are in doubt how to place FL, FR and C as my room does not allow for a symmetric speaker setup.
> 
> Attached are 3 super professional drawings with 3 different setups. Which should I go with? (Distances are metric)


Curious, what is that L shape item in the drawing? Sofa, island???


----------



## nikolajbak

Methodical_1 said:


> Curious, what is that L shape item in the drawing? Sofa, island???




L-shape is sofa, hence MLP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LNEWoLF

Methodical_1 said:


> Chi_guy50, ironically you posted that. I searched the local stores and only found the regular and 3D verison, which did not specify Atmos in the audio section and then came across the diamond lux edition (via google) and wandered what was so special that it cost so much. I'd like to get it, but not for $70. Thanks for the rental suggestion - a much better deal. I did buy Everest, American Sniper and San Andreas.


https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...83892859&sr=1-1&keywords=gravity+diamond+luxe

15.00 USD


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> Peterc613 -- The wonderful old cartoons you posted prove that not much has changed with our compulsion driven hobby in the last 35 or 40 years. About all I can see is that it's no longer just audio. These days, it's video too.


Yes, indeed - - the marketing hype is everywhere. By the way, I have an authentic pair of Stenzil cables for sale. They are known for their unequaled sonic capability and real life music reproduction, doubling the standard frequency response on both ends of the scale.

They are solid, pure silver (105% Conductivity) cables with a Kevlar encasing and patented "Diamond Tip" connectors. I got them at an auction for an unbelievably low price (I can't tell you how much) and these retail for over $10K, per cable, IF you can find them! The original owner and manufacturer, Ziggy Stenzil, mysteriously disappeared back in early 2010. He was the ONLY one who had the exact manufacturing process and these cables are sought after, worldwide, by audiophiles who know the difference between good sound, great sound and FANTASTIC sound!

So - please PM me but do not wait too long as I expect these to be sold, within minutes, of my post. First come, first serve! A truly unique opportunity - - a once in a lifetime opportunity for the fortunate person who acquires these revolutionary cables.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: Stenzil Cables. GONE!!! Sorry, everyone. Thanks for your interest.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes, indeed - - the marketing hype is everywhere. By the way, I have an authentic pair of Stenzil cables for sale. They are known for their unequaled sonic capability and real life music reproduction, doubling the standard frequency response on both ends of the scale.
> 
> They are solid, pure silver (105% Conductivity) cables with a Kevlar encasing and patented "Diamond Tip" connectors. I got them at an auction for an unbelievably low price (I can't tell you how much) and these retail for over $10K, per cable, IF you can find them! The original owner and manufacturer, Ziggy Stenzil, mysteriously disappeared back in early 2010. He was the ONLY one who had the exact manufacturing process and these cables are sought after, worldwide, by audiophiles who know the difference between good sound, great sound and FANTASTIC sound!
> 
> So - please PM me but do not wait too long as I expect these to be sold, within minutes, of my post. First come, first serve! A truly unique opportunity - - a once in a lifetime opportunity for the fortunate person who acquires these revolutionary cables.


Wow, that's YUUUUGE!

Is your slogan "Make audio great again"?


----------



## Ricoflashback

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, that's YUUUUGE!
> 
> Is your slogan "Make audio great again"?


You're gonna get tired of all your audio choices and the best part - - Mexico will PAY for your next upgrade!


----------



## chi_guy50

Ricoflashback said:


> You're gonna get tired of all your audio choices and* the best part - - Mexico will PAY for your next upgrade!*


Oh boy, that's terrific! I've been hearing such great things about this "Auro."


----------



## gwsat

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, that's YUUUUGE!
> 
> Is your slogan "Make audio great again"?


I might even go so far as to call those magic cables "Big time!"


----------



## Swolern

The wife got me the 6 seasons Bluray set of Game Of Thrones for Christmas and on season 3 now. After I read the review of how damn good Atmos is mastered on this series I REFUSE to watch anymore episodes until I get my Atmos setup!!

Read the "Sound Quality" review section. https://www.avforums.com/review/game-of-thrones-season-1-blu-ray-review.4753


----------



## CpHaAiOnS

Methodical_1 said:


> Curious, what is that L shape item in the drawing? Sofa, island???


Listened to an Atmos film yet? Wondering how you like the new in ceiling speakers?


----------



## nikolajbak

CpHaAiOnS said:


> Listened to an Atmos film yet? Wondering how you like the new in ceiling speakers?




I have not yet installed my setup as our living room is being rebuild until next weekend.

Furthermore I still do not know how to place my speakers. Would you mind giving your take in relation to the 3 scenarios I have attached as a drawing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Methodical_1

CpHaAiOnS said:


> Listened to an Atmos film yet? Wondering how you like the new in ceiling speakers?


Yes, I watched Madmax, San Andreas and Everest and so far so good. I can definitely hear the debris falling above and around me during the earthquakes in San Andreas and the the storms in Everest and the helicopter scenes were nice, too. I will have to rewatch Madmax as I was so tired when I tried to view that movie that I fell asleep on it. I will be watching the American Sniper today at some point. I was watching a movie on FIOS (Tomorrow Land) it had sounds coming from the ceiling speakers. I don't know how or what settings are causing this, but it even sounded good. I'm going to see how the ceiling speakers play with DTS:X with the Last Witchunter movie. 

These new audio formats are all new to me and I am really just learning about them.


----------



## Methodical_1

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...83892859&sr=1-1&keywords=gravity+diamond+luxe
> 
> 15.00 USD


Is this legit? Just confirming.

Thanks


----------



## Marc Alexander

Methodical_1 said:


> Is this legit? Just confirming.
> 
> Thanks


Yep, except it appears that they are out of stock. "Usually ships within 1 to 2 months."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com


----------



## Methodical_1

nikolajbak said:


> I am setting up my new system, but are in doubt how to place FL, FR and C as my room does not allow for a symmetric speaker setup.
> 
> Attached are 3 super professional drawings with 3 different setups. Which should I go with? (Distances are metric)


Is it possible to rotate the setup so that the sofa (i.e. MLP) is facing the wall (i.e. side that's 35cm) to the right of where the sofa sits now?


----------



## nikolajbak

Methodical_1 said:


> Is it possible to rotate the setup so that the sofa (i.e. MLP) is facing the wall (i.e. side that's 35cm) to the right of where the sofa sits now?




Unfortunately not. Room layout is set in stone as my wife also has a say in this.
Sofa and TV cannot be moved. Only speakers can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LNEWoLF

Methodical_1 said:


> Is this legit? Just confirming.
> 
> Thanks


Yes,

When I ordered it stated 1 to 2 months also

Received it about a week later.

At the time others that ordered it experienced the same.


----------



## Therberg

Swolern said:


> The wife got me the 6 seasons Bluray set of Game Of Thrones for Christmas and on season 3 now. After I read the review of how damn good Atmos is mastered on this series I REFUSE to watch anymore episodes until I get my Atmos setup!!


Are you certain the box set has the Atmos soundtrack? Thought I read somewhere that the box sets of multiple seasons didn't include the Atmos mix. That would be great if it does and I'll be ordering one too!


----------



## Peterc613

nikolajbak said:


> I am setting up my new system, but are in doubt how to place FL, FR and C as my room does not allow for a symmetric speaker setup.
> 
> Attached are 3 super professional drawings with 3 different setups. Which should I go with? (Distances are metric)













First and most important change is to get the main speaker positions OUT of the corners. Speakers right next to the corner energize the reflected sound and standing waves at their strongest, so the single biggest change you could make is to set the main speakers a few feet from the corners. If you don't already own the L-shaped sofa bed, purchasing a model with the return on the right would open up the room considerably and better accommodate wider speaker positioning across the front wall away from the corner. It might also allow for the inclusion of a standalone chair to the left side.



















The second most important change is to get the main listening positions OFF the rear wall. Right next to the wall are where the reflected sound and standing waves are almost as strong as the corners, so the next biggest change you could make is to get the listening position a few feet into the room. Since your room is only 10'5" wide, the best way to do this is by moving the sofa so the your ear is about 63 cm (25") away from the back wall. That would place it at the *20%* mark which is right between the second order mode (25%) and third order mode (15%) reflection in your room. 






























You can also move it a little off the right wall to improve the sound for guests sitting in that area and to increase the width of the sweet spot. With the sofa farther in the room, you can now add side right and left speakers. To increase the separation between the side/right surround speakers and the Dolby Atmos overhead speakers overhead, use in walls mounted about a foot above ear height. Your in ceiling speakers should be closer together at 45 degrees in front and behind the main LP. The idea is to get an idea 30 - 50 degree arc separation minimum between surround and ceiling speakers.


----------



## Swolern

Therberg said:


> Are you certain the box set has the Atmos soundtrack? Thought I read somewhere that the box sets of multiple seasons didn't include the Atmos mix. That would be great if it does and I'll be ordering one too!


Not sure about other packs but mine definitely has Dolby Atmos. It reminds me everytime I put in the Bluray with a little Atmos demo. https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones.../ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=


----------



## Ricoflashback

Methodical_1 said:


> Yes, I watched Madmax, San Andreas and Everest and so far so good. I can definitely hear the debris falling above and around me during the earthquakes in San Andreas and the the storms in Everest and the helicopter scenes were nice, too. I will have to rewatch Madmax as I was so tired when I tried to view that movie that I fell asleep on it. I will be watching the American Sniper today at some point. I was watching a movie on FIOS (Tomorrow Land) it had sounds coming from the ceiling speakers. I don't know how or what settings are causing this, but it even sounded good. I'm going to see how the ceiling speakers play with DTS:X with the Last Witchunter movie.
> 
> These new audio formats are all new to me and I am really just learning about them.


Above all, enjoy. Experiment with your settings. When you first get your Atmos setup, you pay a lot of attention to the sounds coming above you. At least I did. Kind of natural in that, hey, I just installed these babies - - are they working?

You'll find that over time, the great Dolby Atmos mixes provide an "envelope or bubble" of sound above, behind, to the side & front, and it really enhances the sound track. It draws you into the movie and can be somewhat transparent. Even when using the upmixer - - DSU - - you'll find that it adds to the listening enjoyment. It may not be as good as a Dolby Atmos native mix - - but still very enjoyable.

As always - - some Dolby Atmos mixes are better than others. Really no change from 5.1 to 7.1 mixes in that before Atmos, everyone was always looking for that best sound track that showed off their system. I remember with Saving Private Ryan came out and it was one of the first 5.1 soundtracks that really made people jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## Therberg

Swolern said:


> Not sure about other packs but mine definitely has Dolby Atmos. It reminds me everytime I put in the Bluray with a little Atmos demo.


Thanks for confirming, that's excellent news! 
I'm ordering it now.


----------



## nikolajbak

Peterc613 said:


> First and most important change is to get the main speaker positions OUT of the corners. Speakers right next to the corner energize the reflected sound and standing waves at their strongest, so the single biggest change you could make is to set the main speakers a few feet from the corners. If you don't already own the L-shaped sofa bed, purchasing a model with the return on the right would open up the room considerably and better accommodate wider speaker positioning across the front wall away from the corner. It might also allow for the inclusion of a standalone chair to the left side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second most important change is to get the main listening positions OFF the rear wall. Right next to the wall are where the reflected sound and standing waves are almost as strong as the corners, so the next biggest change you could make is to get the listening position a few feet into the room. Since your room is only 10'5" wide, the best way to do this is by moving the sofa so the your ear is about 63 cm (25") away from the back wall. That would place it at the *20%* mark which is right between the second order mode (25%) and third order mode (15%) reflection in your room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also move it a little off the right wall to improve the sound for guests sitting in that area and to increase the width of the sweet spot. With the sofa farther in the room, you can now add side right and left speakers. To increase the separation between the side/right surround speakers and the Dolby Atmos overhead speakers overhead, use in walls mounted about a foot above ear height. Your in ceiling speakers should be closer together at 45 degrees in front and behind the main LP. The idea is to get an idea 30 - 50 degree arc separation minimum between surround and ceiling speakers.




First off, thanks for the very detailed input.

About the sofa. It has already been bought and the shape cannot be changed.

On the front wall there is a door 180 cm from the right corner, which is the reason the setup is crammed a little in that part of the front wall.
My main concern about speaker placement was whether to place all speakers right of the door, or separate them with LF left of the door and creating an asymmetrical setup. If doing so will it make sense to place C speaker left to the middle of the TV to separate C and RF a bit more, but also moving C away from the middle of the screen?

Moving the sofa a bit out from the wall might be an option, but it's about aesthetics and I am not sure it will work.
We are living in a fairly small apartment and unfortunately cannot dedicate a full room for TV.

I cannot avoid placing speakers in the corner(s), but I am hoping with my small, full range speakers, to get the best out of that.

To sum up. My main question is how to position speakers on the front wall. Getting the rest of the speakers placed right I can work out from the Dolby manual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Therberg

Swolern said:


> Not sure about other packs but mine definitely has Dolby Atmos. It reminds me everytime I put in the Bluray with a little Atmos demo.





Therberg said:


> Thanks for confirming, that's excellent news!
> I'm ordering it now.


Strange... I just looked on blu-ray.com and according to them only seasons 5 and 6 have the Atmos mix in the season 1-6 box set.

blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Seasons-1-6-Blu-ray/163675/
(I cannot post a direct link because I have fewer than 5 posts)


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

nikolajbak said:


> I am setting up my new system, but are in doubt how to place FL, FR and C as my room does not allow for a symmetric speaker setup.
> 
> Attached are 3 super professional drawings with 3 different setups. Which should I go with? (Distances are metric)


None of the above will give you good stereo imaging or a wide soundstage in relation to the screen. So you might as well stick to number 3 and keep the LCR centered on the axis of the screen.

I'd also stick to faux Atmos also (upfiring). 

It's a compromised layout to say the least so don't aspect to much. Sorry!

If it was me, I would make a 180 cm wide black MDF enclosure for screen and LCR using 3 DIYSG Volt 10 below the screen and pivot the whole thing towards MLP (about 15°)

Post a picture of the situation please.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Therberg said:


> Strange... I just looked on blu-ray.com and according to them only seasons 5 and 6 have the Atmos mix in the season 1-6 box set.
> 
> blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Seasons-1-6-Blu-ray/163675/
> (I cannot post a direct link because I have fewer than 5 posts)


I have a nordic version of the box and all seasons have Atmos in that. Also showing Atmos on the receiver.


----------



## smurraybhm

Therberg said:


> Strange... I just looked on blu-ray.com and according to them only seasons 5 and 6 have the Atmos mix in the season 1-6 box set.
> 
> blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Seasons-1-6-Blu-ray/163675/
> (I cannot post a direct link because I have fewer than 5 posts)


There are different versions for Seasons 1 & 2 - haven't kept up with 3/4. Here is one example of Season 1 with Atmos. You can see some discussion of these mixes on this thread - use the search - I would not buy 1 or 2 for the Atmos mixes.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/23135/game_thrones_s1_steelbook.html


----------



## Methodical_1

erwinfrombelgium said:


> None of the above will give you good stereo imaging or a wide soundstage in relation to the screen. So you might as well stick to number 3 and keep the LCR centered on the axis of the screen.
> 
> I'd also stick to faux Atmos also (upfiring).
> 
> It's a compromised layout to say the least so don't aspect to much. Sorry!
> 
> If it was me, I would make a 180 cm wide black MDF enclosure for screen and LCR using 3 DIYSG Volt 10 below the screen and pivot the whole thing towards MLP (about 15°)
> 
> Post a picture of the situation please.


I was thinking #3 also since he can't turn the L shape sofa so the MLP was facing the other wall (315cm). He will have to do the best with what he has.


----------



## Methodical_1

Ricoflashback said:


> Above all, enjoy. Experiment with your settings. When you first get your Atmos setup, you pay a lot of attention to the sounds coming above you. At least I did. Kind of natural in that, hey, I just installed these babies - - are they working?
> 
> You'll find that over time, the great Dolby Atmos mixes provide an "envelope or bubble" of sound above, behind, to the side & front, and it really enhances the sound track. It draws you into the movie and can be somewhat transparent. Even when using the upmixer - - DSU - - you'll find that it adds to the listening enjoyment. It may not be as good as a Dolby Atmos native mix - - but still very enjoyable.
> 
> As always - - some Dolby Atmos mixes are better than others. Really no change from 5.1 to 7.1 mixes in that before Atmos, everyone was always looking for that best sound track that showed off their system. I remember with Saving Private Ryan came out and it was one of the first 5.1 soundtracks that really made people jump on the bandwagon.


I agree that I have been looking for the sounds above me because it's new. I even stopped and rewound movies, got on my ladder and listened for them. I did that a lot with the American Sniper movie. To my surprise there were some scenes that I knew for sure came from the ceiling speakers, but didn't, but it still felt like I was right in the middle of the action, so yes I agree that it's working in tandem to give that all inclusive feel. However, there were two scenes in the American Sniper movie where I knew the sounds definitely were above and I noticed immediately, but not because it was obvious from the speakers, but because of the scene on the screen and how I felt right inside of it - 1) the scene where the 2 helicopters came from the back, above and to the front (as they approached the popping of the propellers came from the rear back speakers, side surrounds, above and out to the front speakers. This made it feel like I was on the base with the soldiers and 2) the scene with the sand storm - it felt like I was in the middle of that storm.

I will eventually calm down, but I just like to have those demos that make it real obvious when necessary to show off the system every now and again.


----------



## gwsat

Swolern said:


> Not sure about other packs but mine definitely has Dolby Atmos. It reminds me everytime I put in the Bluray with a little Atmos demo. https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones.../ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=





Therberg said:


> Thanks for confirming, that's excellent news!
> I'm ordering it now.


I'm holding out for a UHD HDR Atmos edition of _Game of Thrones._ Sure hope issues such a set.


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> There are different versions for Seasons 1 & 2 - haven't kept up with 3/4. Here is one example of Season 1 with Atmos. You can see some discussion of these mixes on this thread - use the search - I would not buy 1 or 2 for the Atmos mixes.
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/23135/game_thrones_s1_steelbook.html


But the specific question is whether the box set (which has all 6 seasons) includes Atmos audio for ALL seasons. The blu-ray.com page only shows Atmos for seasons 5 and 6, which were released originally in Atmos (unlike seasons 1-4 which had 5.1 audio on the earlier versions and then Atmos on the remastered steelbox versions). 

So we know seasons 5/6 will have Atmos, because AFAIK that's the only available version; the big question is whether they used the Atmos remastered audio for seasons 1-4 in the box set or if they just included the original 5.1 mixes.

I would like to see confirmation from a USA owner that ALL seasons have Atmos audio.


----------



## batpig

I rented "Sully" the other night from Redbox, and like others have reported this is an outstanding Atmos mix. It's not a bombastic action movie, but the overhead speakers are used aggressively throughout the movie to convey ambiance and environmental effects. It's not one of those movies that they are dead silent 90% of the time and only make noise with a few specific effects. 

For example, PA announcements in the airport or inside the airplane come from above (just like in a real airport), helicopters swirling overhead during the rescue sequences, airplanes flying over as they take off / land at the airport, etc. When they're in the airport or in a press conference or a cockpit you FEEL like you are in that space with them. It's really a perfect example of how the format can be used effectively to envelop you IN the movie.


----------



## smurraybhm

batpig said:


> But the specific question is whether the box set (which has all 6 seasons) includes Atmos audio for ALL seasons. The blu-ray.com page only shows Atmos for seasons 5 and 6, which were released originally in Atmos (unlike seasons 1-4 which had 5.1 audio on the earlier versions and then Atmos on the remastered steelbox versions).
> 
> So we know seasons 5/6 will have Atmos, because AFAIK that's the only available version; the big question is whether they used the Atmos remastered audio for seasons 1-4 in the box set or if they just included the original 5.1 mixes.
> 
> I would like to see confirmation from a USA owner that ALL seasons have Atmos audio.


According to the back of the box it is Dolby Atmos - copy the image and blow it up. Since I own the first 3 without Atmos I am not feeling the urge to splurge for repeats given what we've heard about the mixes for the first few season (Atmos). Believe that Marc commented on those two seasons a while back. At the same time we know what you see can't always be trusted, but at least this is a picture of the actual box set vs. something provided by the studio.

http://winteriscoming.net/2016/11/30/behold-game-thrones-complete-seasons-1-6/

I bought Sully on release day, as you noted it is a great example of well done Atmos mix.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> I rented "Sully" the other night from Redbox, and like others have reported this is an outstanding Atmos mix. It's not a bombastic action movie, but the overhead speakers are used aggressively throughout the movie to convey ambiance and environmental effects. It's not one of those movies that they are dead silent 90% of the time and only make noise with a few specific effects.
> 
> For example, PA announcements in the airport or inside the airplane come from above (just like in a real airport), helicopters swirling overhead during the rescue sequences, airplanes flying over as they take off / land at the airport, etc. When they're in the airport or in a press conference or a cockpit you FEEL like you are in that space with them. It's really a perfect example of how the format can be used effectively to envelop you IN the movie.


Yes, indeed, and the drone of the engines behind & to the side of you with all the recognizable aircraft sounds around you make this a very realistic movie. As I commented earlier - - I was looking for my flight attendant button to ask what the hell was going on!

The Atmos effects are used to maximum efficiency. As they flashback from the airplane scenes (especially in the cabin & passenger perspective) to non airplane scenes - - you are there and experiencing what is going on with this flight. It's like your senses are heightened when the airplane scenes are played and you are riveted to your seat.


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> I'm holding out for a UHD HDR Atmos edition of _Game of Thrones._ Sure hope issues such a set.


After reading all of the wonderful things said about Game of Thrones I got a free subscription to HBO Now for 3 months and started the first episode. Unfortunetely, I thought it was just as boring as Marco Polo on Netflix so I didn't continue watching it.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Methodical_1 said:


> I agree that I have been looking for the sounds above me because it's new. I even stopped and rewound movies, got on my ladder and listened for them. I did that a lot with the American Sniper movie. To my surprise there were some scenes that I knew for sure came from the ceiling speakers, but didn't, but it still felt like I was right in the middle of the action, so yes I agree that it's working in tandem to give that all inclusive feel. However, there were two scenes in the American Sniper movie where I knew the sounds definitely were above and I noticed immediately, but not because it was obvious from the speakers, but because of the scene on the screen and how I felt right inside of it - 1) the scene where the 2 helicopters came from the back, above and to the front (as they approached the popping of the propellers came from the rear back speakers, side surrounds, above and out to the front speakers. This made it feel like I was on the base with the soldiers and 2) the scene with the sand storm - it felt like I was in the middle of that storm.
> 
> I will eventually calm down, but I just like to have those demos that make it real obvious when necessary to show off the system every now and again.


Good points and you're spot on about settling down after a while. When I first had my speakers installed, I was adamant about wanting to know why some obvious "above you" sounds were not in the Dolby Atmos mix. After a while, I just came to accept it as some mixes are better than others and there's really nothing you can do about it. 

Now, I just enjoy the movie and when you run across a Dolby Atmos mix like "Sully," - - you smile and say to yourself - - it was all worth it!


----------



## Methodical_1

Ricoflashback said:


> Good points and you're spot on about settling down after a while. When I first had my speakers installed, I was adamant about wanting to know why some obvious "above you" sounds were not in the Dolby Atmos mix. After a while, I just came to accept it as some mixes are better than others and there's really nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Now, I just enjoy the movie and when you run across a Dolby Atmos mix like "Sully," - - you smile and say to yourself - - it was all worth it!


I will put Sully on the list. I've downloaded some Atmos demos and they reveal some really nice things. It's more than just about the height speakers that make Atmos, Atmos; it's the whole package that's makes it incredible. 

I'm going to watch the Last Witch Hunter to check out DTS:X.


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Yes, indeed, and the drone of the engines behind & to the side of you with all the recognizable aircraft sounds around you make this a very realistic movie. As I commented earlier - - I was looking for my flight attendant button to ask what the hell was going on!
> 
> The Atmos effects are used to maximum efficiency. As they flashback from the airplane scenes (especially in the cabin & passenger perspective) to non airplane scenes - - you are there and experiencing what is going on with this flight. It's like your senses are heightened when the airplane scenes are played and you are riveted to your seat.


Your review was one of the main reasons I decided to rent this one, I might have skipped this movie entirely if I didn't know it had such a great Atmos mix.


----------



## batpig

Methodical_1 said:


> I'm going to watch the Last Witch Hunter to check out DTS:X.


It's a silly movie (although I enjoyed it, might not be everyone's taste) but I definitely recommend "American Ultra" for its DTS:X mix. Tons of fun effects with explosions and gunfire. 

It seems overall like Atmos mixes are getting better (at least "better" defined as using the overheads more consistently to make us HT guys happy). Several of the recent releases (e.g. Batman vs. Superman and of course Sully) have been pretty impressive, BvS might be the most impressive mix I've heard in terms of really aggressive action effects in the overheads.


----------



## batpig

smurraybhm said:


> According to the back of the box it is Dolby Atmos - copy the image and blow it up.


Honestly, I'm not sure what you're seeing but that image is so low rez that I can't see squat when I zoom in.

Also an Atmos logo on the back of the box set doesn't mean ALL seasons are in Atmos. There may also be a DTS-HD logo on there (indicating it's a mix). I'd like to see the logos on the individual boxes or discs for each season.

I don't any own any season (just streamed on HBO-GO) but if it was all Atmos for all 6 seasons I might get that.

EDIT: found a better image of the back of the box and it does indicate Dolby Atmos audio for all discs. Awesome! Guess the Blu-ray.com specs are wrong and they must have just pulled in the specs from the individual season releases.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Your review was one of the main reasons I decided to rent this one, I might have skipped this movie entirely if I didn't know it had such a great Atmos mix.


Same. Well....not _his_ review but others here at AVS. I had no interest in the movie but plenty of people said the Atmos and bass were good so I thought it was worth a rental. And it was.

Very good Atmos mix with Sully. Definitely recommended to those on the fence about it.


----------



## gwsat

Methodical_1 said:


> I will put Sully on the list. I've downloaded some Atmos demos and they reveal some really nice things. It's more than just about the height speakers that make Atmos, Atmos; it's the whole package that's makes it incredible.
> 
> I'm going to watch the Last Witch Hunter to check out DTS:X.


_Sully_ has one of the best Atmos soundtracks I have heard.

_Jason Bourne_ has a terrifically immersive DTS:X soundtrack. Watched the film again today and was once again very pleased by how good it sound.


----------



## chi_guy50

lujan said:


> After reading all of the wonderful things said about Game of Thrones I got a free subscription to HBO Now for 3 months and started the first episode. Unfortunetely, *I thought it was just as boring as Marco Polo* on Netflix so I didn't continue watching it.



OK, so it's not just me . . . 

"But it's got gore and nudity!!"


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> Your review was one of the main reasons I decided to rent this one, I might have skipped this movie entirely if I didn't know it had such a great Atmos mix.


Many reviews of Sully here at AVS and other locations. Glad you liked it. I thought, like many others, that I knew this story and the movie wasn't on my list to pickup until a good friend said I really need to watch it. At the time, I didn't even know it was available via Redbox as a Bluray disc with Dolby Atmos. Needless to say, it was very entertaining for not only the Atmos sound track, but the acting & story as well. 

Thanks for all your AVS posts throughout the years as I've always gained valuable knowledge and perspective from them.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

Marc Alexander said:


> Reach out to @Peterc613, I believe he is not far from you and perhaps can provide you some direction. We still have some dedicated shops down here in O.C.


Take action person that I am , and after reading suggestions here, I bought a Pioneer SC-LX801 9.2/11.2/7.4 Atmos receiver and an AMP100VS to power the last 2 channels, and a couple of Pioneer Elite Atmos bookshelf speakers for rear surrounds. (I have the front and center speakers from that Pioneer Elite set already and I'll continue to use my existing Atlantic Research bookshelfs as the surrounds.)

That's the good news. The bad news is that *NO ONE* in my town has *ANY* 9.2/11.2/7.4 receivers actually in stock. It's all "ship to store," or ship to you. I purchased on 1/6/17 and the ETA at the Magnolia Design Center in my local BB is 1/18/17!

However, they did honor the holiday pricing being $400 less than list on the internet now.

So that's how we have to shop. If there is a problem, or something else more suitable appears (within the return period), back it all goes. Not my preferred way of doing business, but what other choices do we have? But I'll keep your reference handy just in case and for the future.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

WOW! Ultra cool, thanks! Definitely going in my keeper stash and suddenly now thinking about maybe planning a road trip to check some of this out in person. 


Peterc613 said:


> :smile: *Speak and you shall receive....
> *
> 
> 
> *Partial Map*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Southern CA Audio Dealers*
> 
> 
> *Acoustic Image*
> 11124 Sunshine Ter
> Studio City, CA 91604
> (818) 762-1501
> http://www.acousticimage.com
> 
> 
> *Audiophile Zone*
> 6519 Vista Del Mar,
> Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
> (310) 827-0359
> http://audiophilezone.com
> 
> 
> *Alma Audio*
> 5759 La Jolla Blvd,
> La Jolla, CA 92037
> (858) 412-5530
> https://almaaudio.com
> 
> 
> *Ahead Stereo*
> 7428 Beverly Blvd,
> Los Angeles, CA 90036
> (323) 931-8873
> http://aheadstereo.com/content/
> 
> 
> *Audio Concepts*
> 6236 E Pacific Coast Hwy
> Long Beach, CA 90803
> (562) 597-5450
> http://www.audioconceptsinc.com
> 
> 
> *Audio Element*
> 117 E Union St,
> Pasadena, CA 91103
> (626) 793-7229
> http://audio-element.com
> 
> 
> *Audio Video City*
> 3201 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 305
> Santa Monica, CA 90403
> (424) 371-6845
> http://www.avcityca.com
> 
> 
> *Audio Video Today*
> 23012 Del Lago Dr., Ste D
> Laguna Hills, CA 92653
> (949) 535-0555
> http://www.audiovideotoday.com/high-end-audio-systems
> 
> 
> *Brooks Berdan*
> 110 W Olive Ave,
> Monrovia, CA 91016
> (626) 359-9131
> http://brooksberdanltd.com
> 
> 
> *Definition Audio Video*
> 2934 Wilshire Blvd
> Santa Monica, CA 90403
> (310) 829-9888
> http://definitionav.com
> 
> 
> *Destination Hi Fi*
> 5355 Cartwright Ave.
> North Hollywood, CA 91601.
> (818) 732-1448
> http://destinationhifi.com
> 
> 
> *High 5 Stereo*
> 841 E Whittier Blvd,
> La Habra, CA 90631
> (562) 691-4434
> http://www.hi5stereo.com
> 
> 
> *Monaco Audio Video*
> 350 S Lake Ave., Ste 112
> Pasadena, CA 91101
> (626) 395-9597
> http://www.monacoav.com
> 
> 
> *Optimal Enchantment*
> 522 Santa Monica Blvd,
> Santa Monica, CA 90401
> (310) 393-4434
> http://www.optimalenchantment.com
> 
> 
> *PBN Audio*
> 380 Vernon Way # I,
> El Cajon, CA 92020
> (619) 440-8237
> http://www.pbnaudio.com
> 
> 
> *Precision Audio & Video*
> 12277 Arbor Hill St,
> Moorpark, CA 93021
> (805) 523-3005
> http://www.precisionav.com
> 
> 
> *Reus Audio Systems*
> 1036 W Collins Ave,
> Orange, CA 92867
> (714) 633-6636
> http://www.reusaudio.com
> 
> 
> *Scott Walker Audio*
> 1215 N Tustin Ave,
> Anaheim, CA 92807
> (714) 630-4100
> http://www.scottwalkeraudio.com
> 
> 
> *Shelley's Stereo*
> 22102 Clarendon St,
> Woodland Hills, CA 91367
> (818) 716-8500
> http://www.shelleysstereo.com
> 
> 
> *Sunny's Audio*
> 1370 E Cypress St, #D ,
> Covina, CA 91724
> (626) 966-6259
> http://sunnyaudiovideo.com
> 
> 
> *The Audio Salon*
> 2525 Michigan Ave F1,
> Santa Monica, CA 90404
> Phone: (310) 863-0863
> http://www.audiosalon.com
> 
> 
> *The Source AV*
> 3035 Kashiwa St,
> Torrance, CA 90505
> (310) 534-9900
> http://thesourceav.com
> 
> 
> *Venice Audio*
> 1803 Andalusia Ave,
> Venice, CA 90291
> (310) 437-0515
> http://www.veniceaudio.com/va/venice_audio___two_channel_home_audio_systems.html
> 
> 
> *Weinhart Design*
> 2337 Roscomare Rd #1 ,
> Los Angeles, CA 90077
> (310) 472-8880
> http://www.weinhartdesign.com/index.html
> 
> 
> *Wilshire Media Systems*
> 1412 N Moorpark Rd
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-7536
> http://www.wilshirehe.com/about/brands/
> 
> 
> Many of these shops host LAOCAS events if you want to audition their systems with other audiophiles in the area:
> 
> 
> *LAOCAS 2017 Calendar of Events*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *January: *Sunday, January 22nd, 1-4 PM: The Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society will hold its will hold its monthly meeting presented by San Diego's *Alma Music *and Audio at the Holiday Inn in Buena Park (7000 Beach Blvd) in the beautiful Penthouse ballroom. The acoustics are excellent and there will be seating for all. Our host, Fabio Storelli of Alma Music and Audio will demonstrate with examples of top-of- the-line equipment including speakers by YG Acoustics, electronics by D’Agostino, Dartzeel and MSB Tech with cabling by Kubala-Sosna. An industry presenter has been invited to address the Society. Eastwind Import will be on hand to offer hand selected vinyl and CDs for sale. A raffle is planned and an extraordinary lunch will be served at 1 PM. Parking is free. Guests, visitors and new members are invited.
> 
> *February:* Sunday, February 12th, 2-5 PM: The Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society will hold its fun February Event at *Scott Walker Audio* (1215 Tustin Avenue, Anaheim CA 92807).
> 
> Building upon last year's outstanding success, Scott Walker will be hosting “The Best in Affordable High-End Audio – Part III”. He will have 6 demonstration rooms showcasing some of the highest value high-end gear currently available. Complete systems will range from $1,500 - $15,000. Presenters to be announced.
> 
> Eastwind Import will be on hand to offer carefully selected Vinyl and CDs for sale. A raffle is planned and a wonderful lunch will be served. Parking is free. Guests, visitors and members alike are invited.
> 
> *March:* Sunday, March 19th, 2-5 PM: The Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society will hold its monthly meeting at *Upscale Audio* at Upscale's new address (2058 Wright Avenue, La Verne, CA 91750).
> 
> This fascinating event will feature Upscale Audio’s own Kevin Deal the “Tube King” himself and include a Grand Opening of Upscale’s 10,000 square foot premises devoted to musical enjoyment! Kevin will present his latest personal tube-search adventures and give tours of the new facility!
> 
> Eastwind Import will be on hand to offer carefully selected Vinyl and CDs for sale. A raffle is planned and an extraordinary lunch will be served. Free parking is nearby. Guests, visitors and new members are invited.
> 
> *April:* *Sunny's Components*, Covina
> 
> *May: Brooks Berdan Audio, Ltd.*, Monrovia
> 
> *July: The Source AV*, Torrance
> 
> *August: The Audio Salon*, Santa Monica
> 
> *September: Shelley's Stereo & Video*, Woodland Hills
> 
> *October: Weinhart Design*, Bel Air
> 
> *November: Sunny's Components*, Covina
> 
> 
> You can see even more audiophile brands than these shops cary at the Los Angeles Audio Show:
> 
> 
> *LA Audio Show, June 2-4, 2017*
> 
> http://www.laaudioshow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This stellar fine audio event takes place Friday through Sunday, June 2nd to the 4th, 2017, at the Sheraton Gateway LA, just minutes from the Los Angeles International Airport via complimentary shuttle. The Los Angeles Audio Show is open to the public from 10 AM to 6 PM, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Discounted early-bird tickets went on sale November 25th. Ticket prices include access to all demo rooms, booths, entertainment and seminars. Society Members get big discounts!! New members who join the Society before or at LAAS, get free admission to the big event! Special low parking prices, best in area! Your Society does not back any other audio shows in California.
> 
> ***** LAOCAS - New Member ***** ($40.00)
> 
> Purchase a 1-Year membership with the LA/OC Audio Society AND receive a FREE 3-Day admission to the show. What a deal!! (Regular 3-Day admission $60)
> 
> 
> *Happy Listening !*


----------



## mobileES

batpig said:


> It's a silly movie (although I enjoyed it, might not be everyone's taste) but I definitely recommend "American Ultra" for its DTS:X mix. Tons of fun effects with explosions and gunfire.
> 
> It seems overall like Atmos mixes are getting better (at least "better" defined as using the overheads more consistently to make us HT guys happy). Several of the recent releases (e.g. Batman vs. Superman and of course Sully) have been pretty impressive, *BvS might be the most impressive mix I've heard in terms of really aggressive action effects in the overheads.*


Co-sign this, the intro by far is one of the most immersive mixes I have heard. One of the ones I keep going back to is Oblivion, the fly-overs in the bubbleship especially when he lands it in the stadium, it really sounds like it is going to land in the living room!


----------



## batpig

Man, I have to get a UHD player so I can get some of those 4k exclusive Atmos mixes. I have Oblivion on BD in 7.1 and it's a great surround mix, would love to hear the Atmos version.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Man, I have to get a UHD player so I can get some of those 4k exclusive Atmos mixes. I have Oblivion on BD in 7.1 and it's a great surround mix, would love to hear the Atmos version.


After this past Christmas, I started picking up UHD titles using all the good gift cards I got for Amazon and BB and such. Already have about a half dozen UHD titles ready to go when I get my player.

When are you getting yours? I think I'll be getting mine in the next month or two. Whenever that tax refund comes in.


----------



## Ladeback

Larry Rosenberg said:


> WOW! Ultra cool, thanks! Definitely going in my keeper stash and suddenly now thinking about maybe planning a road trip to check some of this out in person.


Larry, Glad you were able to find some places to go do some listening in your area. I was able to go to a fellow AVS Forum members house with some others to see a movie on his Home Theater. Maybe I will have my mine to a point I can invite people over to enjoy in a few months.


----------



## gwsat

Heads up! If any of you are considering buying _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk, don't. It lacks either DTS:X or TrueHD Atmos audio. It's just DTS-MA 7.1. I now have 8 or 10 UHD HDR disks and _The Accountant_ is the only one that lacks an immersive soundtrack. Needless to say, I will be returning my copy to Amazon. Nearly $30.00 for a disk that is so clearly lacking makes no sense, at least not to me.


----------



## kingwiggi

smurraybhm said:


> According to the back of the box it is Dolby Atmos - copy the image and blow it up. Since I own the first 3 without Atmos I am not feeling the urge to splurge for repeats given what we've heard about the mixes for the first few season (Atmos). Believe that Marc commented on those two seasons a while back. At the same time we know what you see can't always be trusted, but at least this is a picture of the actual box set vs. something provided by the studio.
> 
> http://winteriscoming.net/2016/11/30/behold-game-thrones-complete-seasons-1-6/
> 
> I bought Sully on release day, as you noted it is a great example of well done Atmos mix.


I have the box set was still in the shrink wrap. Opened it just to check. 

According to the sleeve notes Seasons 5 & 6 are the only disks with Atmos, Popped in season 1 disk 1 to verify and it has DTS-HD MA 5.1


----------



## nickbuol

gwsat said:


> Heads up! If any of you are considering buying _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk, don't. It lacks either DTS:X or TrueHD Atmos audio. It's just DTS-MA 7.1. I now have 8 or 10 UHD HDR disks and _The Accountant_ is the only one that lacks an immersive soundtrack. Needless to say, I will be returning my copy to Amazon. Nearly $30.00 for a disk that is so clearly lacking makes no sense, at least not to me.


Not trying to be harsh, but wasn't that really an error on your part? Nowhere does Amazon claim that it had Atmos or DTS:X (if you look at the back of the case on their website), and you could also do the same at blu-ray.com. Nobody shows anything but DTS-HD: MA 7.1 & 5.1...

Amazon's link:
https://www.amazon.com/The-Accounta...65953&creativeASIN=B01LBWHRHY&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Amazon's back of case photo:









Blu-Ray.com's link:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Accountant-4K-Blu-ray/166418/
They show the same image...

I understand your frustration with it not having an immersive track, but again, it really wasn't their fault that you didn't check before ordering. Did you open it yet? If so, will they even take it back?

On a positive note, it is looking like it is $25 USD, which is the same as their price for the standard blu-ray, so while you feel ripped off, at least it didn't cost more than the regular HD version, and if it did, I would file a price match with them ASAP.


----------



## Therberg

kingwiggi said:


> I have the box set was still in the shrink wrap. Opened it just to check.
> 
> According to the sleeve notes Seasons 5 & 6 are the only disks with Atmos, Popped in season 1 disk 1 to verify and it has DTS-HD MA 5.1


Crap! I have the region free (import from UK) Box set from Amazon being delivered today. According to some comments on reviews there is supposed to be Atmos on all 6 seasons but it is not the default audio track, it has to be selected. Guess i'll know for sure later today if it does show up on time.


----------



## gwsat

nickbuol said:


> Not trying to be harsh, but wasn't that really an error on your part? Nowhere does Amazon claim that it had Atmos or DTS:X (if you look at the back of the case on their website), and you could also do the same at blu-ray.com. Nobody shows anything but DTS-HD: MA 7.1 & 5.1...
> 
> I understand your frustration with it not having an immersive track, but again, it really wasn't their fault that you didn't check before ordering. Did you open it yet? If so, will they even take it back?
> 
> On a positive note, it is looking like it is $25 USD, which is the same as their price for the standard blu-ray, so while you feel ripped off, at least it didn't cost more than the regular HD version, and if it did, I would file a price match with them ASAP.


As to whether my preordering the UHD HDR disk of _The Accountant_ and then discovering to my profound disappointment that it lacked either Atmos or DTS:X audio, consider the following: (1) I now have 10 UHD HDR disks and _The Accountant_ is the only one, I say again, the only one, that lacks an immersive audio track. (2) Before the disk was released, Blu-ray.com reported the audio was "to be announced." (3) Thus, there was no way I could have learned of the disk's lack of immersive audio until I opened the package from Amazon. Given the prices charged for UHD HDR disks, it would seem to me that the inclusion of immersive audio would be a given.

For the foregoing reasons, I think my problem was the fault of a bait and switch by WB. Anyway, I learned the valuable lesson that preordering UHD HDR disks without first being able to confirm that they will have immersive audio is a big mistake. Fool me once, well, you get it.

I should add that Amazon treated me right. They both authorized my return of the disk for credit and sent me a prepaid UPS shipping label. So all I have to do now is drop it off at a nearby UPS store. I guess this means that while I am still surly, I am no longer mutinous.


----------



## Therberg

gwsat said:


> I should add that Amazon treated me right. They both authorized my return of the disk for credit and sent me a prepaid UPS shipping label. So all I have to do now is drop it off at a nearby UPS store. I guess this means that while I am still surly, I am no longer mutinous.


I have the box set of Game of Thrones being delivered today and uncertain about all the seasons having the Atmos mix. There have been reports both positive and negative as to all seasons including it. Did you actually open the plastic wrapper/seal on the Blu-ray and play the disc or just read the back label? I'm inclined to return the set if it doesn't include Atmos on all the seasons.


----------



## gwsat

Therberg said:


> I have the box set of Game of Thrones being delivered today and uncertain about all the seasons having the Atmos mix. There have been reports both positive and negative as to all seasons including it. Did you actually open the plastic wrapper/seal on the Blu-ray and play the disc or just read the back label? I'm inclined to return the set if it doesn't include Atmos on all the seasons.


Because all of my previously bought UHD HDR disks have immersive audiotracks, I didn't even bother to read the small print on the back of the box. Instead, I put the disk in my player and only then learned that it lacked immersive audio.


----------



## Johan81

gwsat said:


> Because all of my previously bought UHD HDR disks have immersive audiotracks, I didn't even bother to read the small print on the back of the box. Instead, I put the disk in my player and only then learned that it lacked immersive audio.


What a load of crap, nowhere is UHD defined as always using DTS:X or Atmos. This kind of entitlement really is annoying. I love the formats, but the "older" formats are still very good! Not really a reason to not like a movie.


----------



## Mike_WI

*7.1 - UDH Atoms audio benefit?*

What will audio benefit be for a new AVR, no new speakers with Atoms for 7.1?

I have been increasing reading on Oppo 203/205 threads and thinking about updating a few things in my HT (link in signature).

AVR
- Current: Denon 5308CI
- Consideration: Denon 7200 (Atmos)

I have a 7.1 speaker configuration that sounds great and has Audyssey XT32 (Pro) EQ.

Without adding more speakers, would I hear a benefit (with Oppo UDP-203 and UHDs) for Atoms vs. regular audio tracks?
Given no easy way to route new front/side/ceiling speakers (I could add low or center-ish ceiling) what would a speaker addition do?


Thanks,

Mike


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Mike_WI said:


> What will audio benefit be for a new AVR, no new speakers with Atoms for 7.1?
> 
> I have been increasing reading on Oppo 203/205 threads and thinking about updating a few things in my HT (link in signature).
> 
> AVR
> - Current: Denon 5308CI
> - Consideration: Denon 7200 (Atmos)
> 
> I have a 7.1 speaker configuration that sounds great and has Audyssey XT32 (Pro) EQ.
> 
> Without adding more speakers, would I hear a benefit (with Oppo UDP-203 and UHDs) for Atoms vs. regular audio tracks?
> Given no easy way to route new front/side/ceiling speakers (I could add low or center-ish ceiling) what would a speaker addition do?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> MIke


If you don't have height speakers you will just hear the TrueHD 7.1 track.


----------



## Mike_WI

Mashie Saldana said:


> If you don't have height speakers you will just hear the TrueHD 7.1 track.


Thanks.
So a new AVR might be helpful in other ways but no benefit without more speakers.
Helpful.

Mike


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Mike_WI said:


> Thanks.
> So a new AVR might be helpful in other ways but no benefit without more speakers.
> Helpful.
> 
> Mike


Correct.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> Because all of my previously bought UHD HDR disks have immersive audiotracks, I didn't even bother to read the small print on the back of the box. Instead, I put the disk in my player and only then learned that it lacked immersive audio.


UHD has a great amount of immersive tracks (and this is good!) but it is not required for an immersive track to belong on disc nor has 100% of UHD releases had an immersive audio track.

You're lucky you've avoided the first wave of 20th Century Fox titles. 


You should ALWAYS pay attention to the specs on the disc you plan to purchase if the specs are that important to you.


----------



## batpig

I feel like someone doesn't understand what "bait and switch" means....


----------



## nickbuol

gwsat said:


> As to whether my preordering the UHD HDR disk of _The Accountant_ and then discovering to my profound disappointment that it lacked either Atmos or DTS:X audio, consider the following: (1) I now have 10 UHD HDR disks and _The Accountant_ is the only one, I say again, the only one, that lacks an immersive audio track. (2) Before the disk was released, Blu-ray.com reported the audio was "to be announced." (3) Thus, there was no way I could have learned of the disk's lack of immersive audio until I opened the package from Amazon. Given the prices charged for UHD HDR disks, it would seem to me that the inclusion of immersive audio would be a given.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, I think my problem was the fault of a bait and switch by WB. Anyway, I learned the valuable lesson that preordering UHD HDR disks without first being able to confirm that they will have immersive audio is a big mistake. Fool me once, well, you get it.
> 
> I should add that Amazon treated me right. They both authorized my return of the disk for credit and sent me a prepaid UPS shipping label. So all I have to do now is drop it off at a nearby UPS store. I guess this means that while I am still surly, I am no longer mutinous.



Glad that Amazon took care of this for you.

FYI that blu-ray.com had images of the back of the case showing the disc details since December 8th showing DTS-HD:MA and not an immersive format. 
Since their "stats" page showed "TBD" I would have looked up these readily available images, even though I took would have hoped for (or even assumed that it would get) an Atmos treatment for the 4K like most of the other UHD discs out there.

The movie IS good though, immersive format or not, and if I had the 4K player, I would have just kept the disc since it was the same price as the standard blu-ray, but to each their own.

Again, all said and done, Amazon is stepping up and resolving your issue, so kudos to them, and now you can move on to something else hopefully without feeling ripped off.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mike_WI said:


> What will audio benefit be for a new AVR, no new speakers with Atoms for 7.1?


Nothing. It is a requirement to have at least one pair of height/overhead speakers designated in your system for Atmos to decode at all.

What you will get is just the standard TrueHD 7.1ch track.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Mike_WI said:


> What will audio benefit be for a new AVR, no new speakers with Atoms for 7.1?
> 
> 
> Without adding more speakers, would I hear a benefit (with Oppo UDP-203 and UHDs) for Atoms vs. regular audio tracks?
> Given no easy way to route new front/side/ceiling speakers (I could add low or center-ish ceiling) what would a speaker addition do?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike


Have you considered upfiring modules? They also have to be wired to of course, like real ceiling speakers.


----------



## smurraybhm

nickbuol said:


> Glad that Amazon took care of this for you.
> 
> FYI that blu-ray.com had images of the back of the case showing the disc details since December 8th showing DTS-HD:MA and not an immersive format.
> Since their "stats" page showed "TBD" I would have looked up these readily available images, even though I took would have hoped for (or even assumed that it would get) an Atmos treatment for the 4K like most of the other UHD discs out there.
> 
> The movie IS good though, immersive format or not, and if I had the 4K player, I would have just kept the disc since it was the same price as the standard blu-ray, but to each their own.
> 
> Again, all said and done, Amazon is stepping up and resolving your issue, so kudos to them, and now you can move on to something else hopefully without feeling ripped off.


Actually the blu-ray was cheaper until recently and I screwed up by not keeping an eye the prices as I agree 100% with you even though I've yet to get a 4k display. I had the 4k disk ordered but once the audio specs were clear I cancelled and pre-ordered the blu due to it being 5 bucks cheaper at the time. I have been buying 4k disks only when they have Atmos since I received my 203. There have been a significant number of 4k disks without immersive mixes, the most prominent being The Revenant, but that has gotten high marks for its picture quality. 

Scott, once you get that new player you're going to enjoy watching/listening to those 4k disks with Atmos and/or X.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> UHD has a great amount of immersive tracks (and this is good!) but it is not required for an immersive track to belong on disc nor has 100% of UHD releases had an immersive audio track.
> 
> You're lucky you've avoided the first wave of 20th Century Fox titles.
> 
> You should ALWAYS pay attention to the specs on the disc you plan to purchase if the specs are that important to you.


Scott -- Thanks for your unoffensive tone. I know that immersive Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks are not required on UHD HDR disks but from personal experience, I haven't identified one that has been issued in the last few months that lacked it. Please note that I did check Blu-ray.com to learn the audio format of _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk but they said "to be announced." This meant that because I had preordered _The Accountant_ I had to wait until I had paid for the disk and Amazon had delivered it to learn that it, alone of my 10 UHD HDR titles, didn't have immersive audio. Fortunately, Amazon took care of it by issuing an immediate refund and sending me a prepaid UPS shipping label.

I preordered the _La La Land_ UHD HDR disk from Amazon yesterday but, as a result of the unfortunateness surrounding _The Accountant_, cancelled it. I won't be preordering anymore UHD HDR disks, which guarantees that I won't be getting anymore nasty surprises if another UHD HDR disk lacks immersive audio. Most UHD HDR disks are just too expensive for me not to insist on immersive audio as a precondition to parting with my money.


----------



## Mike_WI

*7.1 + upfiring modules ?*



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Have you considered upfiring modules? They also have to be wired to of course, like real ceiling speakers.


Thanks for the query.

1. I can't easily pull new wires for new channels (drywalled and I don't think an easy way to do this?)
However, if "upfiring modules" use the same as L/R speaker channels then I could

2. I have soffit and ceiling acoustical treatments
See: HT 2009 pic

I read:
(bold added)



> Fortunately, this is not necessary—anticipating such objections, Dolby developed an alternative called a Dolby Atmos-enabled speaker.
> In addition to the front-facing drivers found in virtually all conventional speakers, manufacturers add an upward-facing driver on the top of the speaker cabinet.
> With special filtering and speaker design, sound from this so-called upfiring driver is directed toward the ceiling and—*assuming the ceiling is flat and reflective*— back down to the listeners, simulating the sound of an actual speaker located overhead.



The Middle Atlantic rack with gear is at the back of room, which might offer more flexibility for rear speakers.

Mike


----------



## gwsat

nickbuol said:


> Glad that Amazon took care of this for you.
> 
> FYI that blu-ray.com had images of the back of the case showing the disc details since December 8th showing DTS-HD:MA and not an immersive format.
> Since their "stats" page showed "TBD" I would have looked up these readily available images, even though I took would have hoped for (or even assumed that it would get) an Atmos treatment for the 4K like most of the other UHD discs out there.
> 
> The movie IS good though, immersive format or not, and if I had the 4K player, I would have just kept the disc since it was the same price as the standard blu-ray, but to each their own.
> 
> Again, all said and done, Amazon is stepping up and resolving your issue, so kudos to them, and now you can move on to something else hopefully without feeling ripped off.


The misunderstanding here has probably been my fault for not giving enough info in the first place. Please see my reply to Scott Simonian above that describes how I tried to learn the audio format of _The Accountant_ before it was released but WD didn’t announce it in advance. Thus, I had no way to learn the bad news until the disk showed up and I put it in my player. Also, I know of no other UHD HDR disk issued in recent months that lacks immersive audio and was buttressed in this by having already acquired 10 UHD HDR titles, all of which have Immersive audiotracks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> I preordered the _La La Land_ UHD HDR disk from Amazon yesterday but, as a result of the unfortunateness surrounding _The Accountant_, cancelled it. I won't be preordering anymore UHD HDR disks, which guarantees that I won't be getting anymore nasty surprises if another UHD HDR disk lacks immersive audio. Most UHD HDR disks are just too expensive for me not to insist on immersive audio as a precondition to parting with my money.



Just....make sure to check before you buy. That will guarantee you won't have anymore nasty surprises.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Just....make sure to check before you buy. That will guarantee you won't have anymore nasty surprises.


Of course. thought I had made clear, but maybe not, that before ordering a new UHD HDR disk, I check the audio format when I can. Because I preordered _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk, though, I couldn't learn that it lacked immersive audio in advance because WB failed to announce it in advance. Although I think WB should be ashamed of themselves for this failure, I won't be preordering anymore movies, so lesson learned.


----------



## ChiWestSider

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...83892859&sr=1-1&keywords=gravity+diamond+luxe
> 
> 15.00 USD


Thank you for the link. It was $23.50 shipped. I have been wanting this forever because everyone raves about this!


----------



## paulfromtulsa

gwsat said:


> Of course. thought I had made clear, but maybe not, that before ordering a new UHD HDR disk, I check the audio format when I can. Because I preordered _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk, though, I couldn't learn that it lacked immersive audio in advance because WB failed to announce it in advance. Although I think WB should be ashamed of themselves for this failure, I won't be preordering anymore movies, so lesson learned.


Quick question. Even though the movie does not have atmos or dtsX. Won't most of the newer receiver output the sound to dolby surround or dts Neural-X making it an immersive track? I know my receiver does that on movies that do not have atmos or dtsX. When I play older bluray movies that did not have the new sound format my receiver still outputs sound from my ceiling speakers 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> Of course. thought I had made clear, but maybe not, that before ordering a new UHD HDR disk, I check the audio format when I can. Because I preordered _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk, though, I couldn't learn that it lacked immersive audio in advance because WB failed to announce it in advance. Although I think WB should be ashamed of themselves for this failure, I won't be preordering anymore movies, so lesson learned.


The Dolby web site does not list The Accountant as having an Atmos mix theatrically either. 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/theatrical-releases.html

Not every movie is mixed in Atmos. Even some major tentpole pictures like Jurassic World and Interstellar go out to theaters with just 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks. 

Of course, the studio could still remix the audio for home video (like John Wick, for example). In this case, Warner Bros. apparently felt it wasn't worth the effort.


----------



## gwsat

paulfromtulsa said:


> Quick question. Even though the movie does not have atmos or dtsX. Won't most of the newer receiver output the sound to dolby surround or dts Neural-X making it an immersive track? I know my receiver does that on movies that do not have atmos or dtsX. When I play older bluray movies that did not have the new sound format my receiver still outputs sound from my ceiling speakers


My Yamaha RX-A3060's DSP does a nice job of matrixing DTS-HD 7.1 to 7.1.4. Nevertheless, native Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks sound better to my ears at least. I think the main motivating factor in my returning _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk because it lacked an immersive soundtrack, though, was WB's failure to announce it in advance. I preordered the disk so had no way to know that it didn't have immersive audio until after I had paid for and received it. Anyway, lesson learned: no more preorders for me!


----------



## Alanlee

batpig said:


> I rented "Sully" the other night from Redbox, and like others have reported this is an outstanding Atmos mix. It's not a bombastic action movie, but the overhead speakers are used aggressively throughout the movie to convey ambiance and environmental effects. It's not one of those movies that they are dead silent 90% of the time and only make noise with a few specific effects.
> 
> For example, PA announcements in the airport or inside the airplane come from above (just like in a real airport), helicopters swirling overhead during the rescue sequences, airplanes flying over as they take off / land at the airport, etc. When they're in the airport or in a press conference or a cockpit you FEEL like you are in that space with them. It's really a perfect example of how the format can be used effectively to envelop you IN the movie.


This post spurred me to buy Sully. I have been whining about my ceiling speakers and even said a few nasty words about Dolby corporation because I have not been hearing the Atmos effects. I disconnected all speakers except the four ceiling and played the movie. Your assessment of the mix is accurate. I have adjusted my speakers and bumped the volume a little.

No more whining - sorry Dolby - thanks Batpig.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> The Dolby web site does not list The Accountant as having an Atmos mix theatrically either.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/theatrical-releases.html
> 
> Not every movie is mixed in Atmos. Even some major tentpole pictures like Jurassic World and Interstellar go out to theaters with just 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks.
> 
> Of course, the studio could still remix the audio for home video (like John Wick, for example). In this case, Warner Bros. apparently felt it wasn't worth the effort.


Thanks for the link to the Dolby site, I'll keep it in mind. As I have said, ahem, more than once, the situation that gave rise to my returning _The Accountant_ UHD HDR disk because it lacked an immersive audiotrack was a one off. It happened only because I preordered the disk. That's a mistake I won't be making again.


----------



## LNEWoLF

ChiWestSider said:


> Thank you for the link. It was $23.50 shipped. I have been wanting this forever because everyone raves about this!


Your welcome


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Not every movie is mixed in Atmos.


Then the movie is not worth owning in 4K. Send it back.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol, especially if it's derived from a 2K DI.


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Then the movie is not worth owning in 4K. Send it back.





Scott Simonian said:


> Lol, especially if it's derived from a 2K DI.


I know you guys are kidding but I really wouldn't buy most UHD HDR disks unless they had an immersive soundtrack. Does that mean I'm an obsessive compulsive? Sure it does, but there it is. 

The price of most UHD HDR titles, so far at least, is so high that I need an immersive soundtrack to convince me to pay the extortionate prices charged for them. That said, if a UHD HDR title that really appealed to me were to become available without Atmos/DTS:X and the price was right, I might spring for it. But as long as prices are in the $30.00 and up, some way up, range for most titles, I need Atmos or DTS:X to convince me to buy.


----------



## mrtickleuk

gwsat said:


> I know you guys are kidding but I really wouldn't buy most UHD HDR disks unless they had an immersive soundtrack. Does that mean I'm an obsessive compulsive?


No, not obsessive compulsive, but it does mean you're cutting your nose off to spite your face - to use that idiom accurately. From what you are saying you also wouldn't watch brilliant movies such as "12 Angry Men" (Black and White, Mono sound, *5th highest rated film of all time* on IMDb) or "Schindler's List" from a UHD disc. IMHO that's madness.


----------



## DrDon

Condescending remarks edited. Please find a way to make points without disparaging other members.


----------



## sdurani

gwsat said:


> Does that mean I'm an obsessive compulsive?


No, it just demonstrates your priorities. Like someone who orders a classic movie on Blu-ray, only to send it back upon discovering that the movie is in black & white (there's no excuse for a Blu-ray to not have colour). Has nothing to do with OCD. Just an indicator of what is most important to them about movies. Varies by person.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> (there's no excuse for a Blu-ray to not have colour).


There is, I certainly don't agree with that! There were attempts to "colorise" classic Laurel and Hardy movies. Pure and utter vandalism. Regardless of the medium of release, which is only a medium, I thought everyone here supported the principle of recreating the artist's creation in the home as accurately as possible? It seems from some recent comments, that not everyone holds true to that guiding principle. That's a shame.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> I certainly don't agree with that!


Read the part you quoted again IN CONTEXT.


----------



## gwsat

mrtickleuk said:


> No, not obsessive compulsive, but it does mean you're cutting your nose off to spite your face - to use that idiom accurately. From what you are saying you also wouldn't watch brilliant movies such as "12 Angry Men" (Black and White, Mono sound, *5th highest rated film of all time* on IMDb) or "Schindler's List" from a UHD disc. IMHO that's madness.


Come on, be fair. You elided the second paragraph of my post you quoted:


> The price of most UHD HDR titles, so far at least, is so high that I need an immersive soundtrack to convince me to pay the extortionate prices charged for them. *That said, if a UHD HDR title that really appealed to me were to become available without Atmos/DTS:X and the price was right, I might spring for it*. But as long as prices are in the $30.00 and up, some way up, range for most titles, I need Atmos or DTS:X to convince me to buy.


 [Emphasis added.] 

I should add that I own the 1080p BDs of both _12 Angry Men_ and _Schindler's List_. Clearly, Atmos audio couldn't do much for _12 Angry Men_. The _Schindler's List_ BD's audio is already DTS-MA 5.1, though, so it seems to me that it might benefit by being reworked into DTS:X. That's just me though.

I agree with the opinion I have heard expressed by others at AVS that immersive audiotracks add more to their enjoyment of a movie than UHD HDR video does.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Read the part you quoted again IN CONTEXT.


Right, I think we agree, if you're saying that you meant it to be the attitude of the person who would send it back. I thought (because it wasn't in quotes, as if they were thinking it) that you meant you also shared that opinion .


----------



## mrtickleuk

gwsat said:


> Come on, be fair. You elided the second paragraph of my post you quoted: [Emphasis added.]


ok, actually to be fair I just responded to your first para in isolation. My elidation was due to my haste in wantin to respond to the first bit! 



gwsat said:


> I should add that I own the 1080p BDs of both _12 Angry Men_ and _Schindler's List_. Clearly, Atmos audio couldn't do much for _12 Angry Men_. The _Schindler's List_ BD's audio is already DTS-MA 5.1, though, so it seems to me that it might benefit by being reworked into DTS:X. That's just me though.
> 
> I agree with the opinion I have heard expressed by others at AVS that immersive audiotracks add more to their enjoyment of a movie than UHD HDR video does.


That sounds perfectly fair. And I can hardly argue further if you have those titles  . Taking 4K HDR video in isolation, IMHO only 25% of the improvement over Blu-Ray is down to the extra resolution. The wow factor is provided by the wide colour gamut and dynamic range of HDR.


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> No, it just demonstrates your priorities. Like someone who orders a classic movie on Blu-ray, only to send it back upon discovering that the movie is in black & white (there's no excuse for a Blu-ray to not have colour). Has nothing to do with OCD. Just an indicator of what is most important to them about movies. Varies by person.


Come on, Sanjay, you know better than that. There is nothing significant immersive audio could do for old time single channel audio '30s and '40s classic movies and the very idea of tampering with the beautiful B&W images of those films makes me cringe. When I said I wouldn't buy a UHD HDR disk unless it had an immersive audiotrack, I was speaking in the context of recent films. Whether I would so insist about older films would have to be determined on a case by case basis but I wouldn't insist on immersive audio unless I thought including it would improve the film's sound.


----------



## Therberg

kingwiggi said:


> I have the box set was still in the shrink wrap. Opened it just to check.
> 
> According to the sleeve notes Seasons 5 & 6 are the only disks with Atmos, Popped in season 1 disk 1 to verify and it has DTS-HD MA 5.1





Therberg said:


> Crap! I have the region free (import from UK) Box set from Amazon being delivered today. According to some comments on reviews there is supposed to be Atmos on all 6 seasons but it is not the default audio track, it has to be selected. Guess i'll know for sure later today if it does show up on time.


 Feeling a bit more optimistic, hope to have time tonight to verify.


----------



## batpig

that big sticker on the front seems pretty promising, as does the photo I found of the back. I'm assuming at this point it's the complete remastered Atmos version for all seasons (looks for wallet)....


----------



## Therberg

batpig said:


> that big sticker on the front seems pretty promising, as does the photo I found of the back. I'm assuming at this point it's the complete remastered Atmos version for all seasons (looks for wallet)....


The shame of it is, we have HBO and could have watched it all on demand! Since the Atmos upgrade of our system I couldn't resist and thought it was worth the $100.


----------



## sdurani

gwsat said:


> Come on, Sanjay, you know better than that.


I'm not the one that returned a perfectly good movie for the sole reason that it didn't have an immersive audio track.


> When I said I wouldn't buy a UHD HDR disk unless it had an immersive audiotrack, I was speaking in the context of recent films.


I wasn't judging, merely pointing out that it wasn't the sign of OCD that you mentioned but instead an indication of your priorities (no immersive track = no sale). For the record, The Accountant never had an immersive mix.


----------



## batpig

Therberg said:


> The shame of it is, we have HBO and could have watched it all on demand! Since the Atmos upgrade of our system I couldn't resist and thought it was worth the $100.


I've already watched it all on HBO streaming  but the streaming PQ is often disappointing and I'm interested in the Atmos audio.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Therberg said:


> Feeling a bit more optimistic, hope to have time tonight to verify.


I have the same box set of the Nordic version bought in Sweden and all season in that one have Atmos. Have seen the first and some episodes of the second season and all of them have been in Atmos (you have to select it). Not so good mixes so far though of those two seasons.


----------



## Therberg

Therberg said:


> Feeling a bit more optimistic, hope to have time tonight to verify.





westbergjoakim said:


> I have the same box set of the Nordic version bought in Sweden and all season in that one have Atmos. Have seen the first and some episodes of the second season and all of them have been in Atmos (you have to select it). Not so good mixes so far though of those two seasons.


Awesome! It does indeed have Atmos on all 6 seasons! You are right about having to select it under the audio menu. So happy right now!


----------



## JJ7

Therberg said:


> Awesome! It does indeed have Atmos on all 6 seasons! You are right about having to select it under the audio menu. So happy right now!


Can you confirm which version you are describing? Is it the one available from amazon.co.uk? I'm very interested in getting these in Atmos as well.


----------



## Therberg

JJ7 said:


> Can you confirm which version you are describing? Is it the one available from amazon.co.uk? I'm very interested in getting these in Atmos as well.


It is available on Amazon.com as an import for $99. I almost ordered the individual seasons off one of the lists of releases with Atmos, so glad I found the box set. It saved me a good chunk of change.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01936Q064/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Here are the lists I usually check before ordering anything.
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/List-of-Blu-ray-Discs-with-Dolby-Atmos.shtml


----------



## thebland

*AURO Lives !!!*

Apparently Auro CX is designed for streaming services including Smart TVs, mobile devices, etc for Over The Air and Pay Per View...

http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2016/1...o-technology-for-video-streaming-at-ces-2017/


----------



## smurraybhm

thebland said:


> *AURO Lives !!!*
> 
> Apparently Auro CX is designed for streaming services including Smart TVs, mobile devices, etc for Over The Air and Pay Per View...
> 
> http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2016/1...o-technology-for-video-streaming-at-ces-2017/


Maybe in Europe - Denmark based on their partner 
We all have learned the over the past few years that what comes out of VB's (aka Auro Tech) mouth is usually not accurate and PR bs. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the infamous interview when Auro 3D was announced is hard to forget. Hope your enjoying that HT I lust for.


----------



## trespoochies

batpig said:


> I've already watched it all on HBO streaming  but the streaming PQ is often disappointing and I'm interested in the Atmos audio.


The Atmos is crazy good on this show. Picture is probably better than what you saw, HBO usually does a really good job with their transfers. I actually re-bought the first 3 seasons just for the Atmos. It has a very good audio environment, and not just with action, but stuff like snow, wind, things of that nature.


----------



## giftedmd

I was experimenting last night with my in ceiling speakers. I moved my seat a little closer to my front ceiling speakers to get closer to my screen and since I was at a around 60 degree angle from the MLP I tried the front ceiling speakers as top middles instead of top fronts and I really liked the sound better. Sounds still sounded like they were coming from the right places with the Dolby Atmos demos and the overhead sounds were much fuller and more enveloping. Idk, do you think the top middles sound like that because they are getting sound from both the top front and top rear channels so maybe they give a fuller sound? I am gonna try it for a while with my rear ceiling speakers as rear heights to see if I continue to like it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## thebland

After having Atmos for many months now, it is hard to listen (and upmix) 7.1 tracks. Upmixing is very good and beats stock 7.1 but boy are the native maxes excellent - Sully for one put you right in the cockpit.

Awesome technology!


----------



## thebland

smurraybhm said:


> Maybe in Europe - Denmark based on their partner
> We all have learned the over the past few years that what comes out of VB's (aka Auro Tech) mouth is usually not accurate and PR bs. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the infamous interview when Auro 3D was announced is hard to forget. Hope your enjoying that HT I lust for.


Streaming is so in it's infancy - we'll see!


----------



## Skylinestar

How's DSU with 2 front heights vs the old ProLogic IIz?


----------



## gwsat

thebland said:


> After having Atmos for many months now, it is hard to listen (and upmix) 7.1 tracks. Upmixing is very good and beats stock 7.1 but boy are the native maxes excellent - Sully for one put you right in the cockpit.
> 
> Awesome technology!


Couldn't agree more! I love Atmos and am almost as fond of DTS:X. Although the Enhanced DSP on my Yamaha RX-A3060 does a marvelous job of matrixing 7.1 audiotracks to 7.1.4, there is no substitute for the real thing, Atmos/DTS:X.


----------



## thebland

gwsat said:


> Couldn't agree more! I love Atmos and am almost as fond of DTS:X. Although the Enhanced DSP on my Yamaha RX-A3060 does a marvelous job of matrixing 7.1 audiotracks to 7.1.4, there is no substitute for the real thing, Atmos/DTS:X.


Haven't had too much DTS-X - too bad it is constrained to 7.1.4 now.

But I do have a copy of 'Jason Bourne' in DTS-X, so I'll see how good that can be. I hear the soundtrack is pretty amazing!


----------



## gwsat

thebland said:


> Haven't had too much DTS-X - too bad it is constrained to 7.1.4 now.
> 
> But I do have a copy of 'Jason Bourne' in DTS-X, so I'll see how good that can be. I hear the soundtrack is pretty amazing!


Because my system is "only” 7.1.4, DTS:X works as well for me as Atmos does, which is to say, very well indeed! I think you will enjoy _Jason Bourne_. Although the UHD HDR version is an upconvert from 2k, it still looks very good. I really enjoyed the immersive effect of its DTS:X soundtrack too. The film’s only weakness is that it is almost totally derivative of the earlier Bourne movies, so there isn’t much new to see. The upside is that the film’s director, Paul Greengrass, and its star, Matt Damon, make polished and exciting Bourne movies. Its action sequences are world class. Despite my quibble, I liked it a lot, 8 Stars out of 10.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Skylinestar said:


> How's DSU with 2 front heights vs the old ProLogic IIz?


_Ssshhhh!!!!_


No one is to talk about that.


----------



## thebland

gwsat said:


> Because my system is "only” 7.1.4, DTS:X works as well for me as Atmos does, which is to say, very well indeed! I think you will enjoy _Jason Bourne_. Although the UHD HDR version is an upconvert from 2k, it still looks very good. I really enjoyed the immersive effect of its DTS:X soundtrack too. The film’s only weakness is that it is almost totally derivative of the earlier Bourne movies, so there isn’t much new to see. The upside is that the film’s director, Paul Greengrass, and its star, Matt Damon, make polished and exciting Bourne movies. Its action sequences are world class. Despite my quibble, I liked it a lot, 8 Stars out of 10.


Got it. 7.1.4 is likely great for a single row - I have 8 heights but spread them out over *3* rows!

I'm less of a videophile (using an older SIM2 Lumis) but it still throws a heck of a 1080P picture!


----------



## NorthSky

Jeff, you didn't watch _'Deepwater Horizon'_ yet?


----------



## gwsat

thebland said:


> Got it. 7.1.4 is likely great for a single row - I have 8 heights but spread them out over 8 rows!
> 
> I'm less of a videophile (using an older SIM2 Lumis) but it still throws a heck of a 1080P picture!


1080p upconverted to 4k on a modern display looks so wonderful, I have now concluded that a well designed immersive soundtrack adds more to my movie watching enjoyment than UHD HDR does. That's heresy I know, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

I would love to be able to buy all new releases from the Kaleidescape Store and play them on my Strato, despite most of them being available only in 1080p quality. Unfortunately, though, many if not most of the new releases the Kscape store has for sale lack an immersive audiotrack. That makes them a no sale for me. The short term solution has been to buy UHD HDR disks of newly released titles because, for the past several months at least, virtually all have included immersive audiotracks. For example, the version of _Deadpool,_ which I saw in the theater and liked a lot, that the Kscape store sells, lacks immersive audio. I remedied that today by ordering the UHD HDR disk from Amazon because it has TrueHD Atmos audio.


----------



## batpig

trespoochies said:


> The Atmos is crazy good on this show. Picture is probably better than what you saw, HBO usually does a really good job with their transfers. I actually re-bought the first 3 seasons just for the Atmos. It has a very good audio environment, and not just with action, but stuff like snow, wind, things of that nature.


The PQ is ok for still scenes but there's obvious compression artifacts with streaming. Also don't know your screen size but I'm watching 16:9 content at the equivalent of a ~120" diagonal screen, which means compression artifacts are very obvious. Especially banding / blocking on really dark scenes, which are very common in GoT!


----------



## thebland

NorthSky said:


> Jeff, you didn't watch _'Deepwater Horizon'_ yet?


Not yet - so darn busy since the holidays.


----------



## FilmMixer

Finally can share the Atmos project I just finished, for those who asked 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ricoflashback

thebland said:


> After having Atmos for many months now, it is hard to listen (and upmix) 7.1 tracks. Upmixing is very good and beats stock 7.1 but boy are the native maxes excellent - Sully for one put you right in the cockpit.
> 
> Awesome technology!


Right on. Without a doubt (outside of the upgrade to the beastly Paradigm center channel CC-690) - - Dolby Atmos has been my best upgrade and has provided the most enjoyment from my HT setup. Even with non Atmos content - - you can use DSU or DTS:X (or in my case with an older receiver, DTS Neo X) to add a little punch to the soundtrack. 

I'm perfectly happy with a 1080P Bluray picture and even Cable & Streaming via my 65" Sammy LCD/LED set and for movies, a BenQ W1080ST (short throw) with a 100" screen & Darby Darblet. My only regret was not investing more in a better projection screen but still, the big screen effect makes it a real movie night. I'm using the projector more and more for sports, as well. Especially the NCCA Basketball Finals and BCS Championship game. It's a nice combo.

For grins, I always look at the new TV's at Costco & Best Buy. I guess I'm not that picky and am happy with 1080P as opposed to Dolby Vision, HDR and the like. I can understand folks who like to have the latest and greatest, and if you can afford it, financially, then great!

I haven't bought a UHD Bluray Player and probably won't for a long time. My older OPPO 103 is holding up pretty well. I haven't felt the need to chase any new technology since the advent of Dolby Atmos. I rent via Redbox and I know that limits my selection. But the Dolby Atmos releases on plain old Bluray are still a joy to watch and listen to. 

Here's to Dolby Atmos, 2017, and a great year for more Dolby Atmos releases!


----------



## zeus33

FilmMixer said:


> Finally can share the Atmos project I just finished, for those who asked



Nice! It will be good to see Kate back in her vinyl suit and hear some great sound. I can imagine this was a great movie for Atmos. Looking forward to it FM.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Finally can share the Atmos project I just finished, for those who asked


Excellent. Did they do immersive remixes of the previous Underworld movies for 4K UHD release, to coincide with the new release?

EDIT: answered my own question, just the first 2003 Underworld movie so far.


----------



## gwsat

thebland said:


> Not yet - so darn busy since the holidays.


I think you will love _Deepwater Horizon_. The color and special effects used in depicting the fire scenes aboard the rig were terrific. Better yet, to me at least, the aggressive Atmos soundtrack was visceral. Great stuff!


----------



## Uktima

Whoaaa, just stumbled on this thread.
Anyone got quick advice.

using an atmos amplifier.....got a 7.1 height set up in place, cant change it yet, so for now....

Will the atmos amp on 5.1.2 be ok for atmos and atmos upmixing. The height speakers are double speakers, do I need to angle one of the doubles to the wall or both fowards...?

Also Im assuming the 5.1.2. set up asks are speaker high or top front, will the atmos siganl be the same if i choose height as there is no PLIIz on here?

Advice will be nice.


----------



## gwsat

My daughter game me the _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ UHD HDR Atmos audio disk for Christmas. I loved the movie because I am a big Jane Austen fan and am particularly fond of her masterpiece, _Pride and Prejudice._ I fear, though, that the film may have far less appeal for those who don't already love the Austen story, the Bennet girls, and the prickly romance between Lizzy Bennet and the arrogant but very rich Mr. Darcy. If you know Austen's story, there is a lot of funny stuff that is created by the way this film reflects her story in a Zombie Apocalypse tinted mirror. Best of all, the Atmos audio is wonderful. The usual percussive sounds of guns is well done but I liked even more the way Atmos handled the music. This was immersive audio at its best, I thought.


----------



## Swolern

Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver? There seems to be many more Atmos movies vs DTS:X.


----------



## Alanlee

gwsat said:


> My daughter game me the _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ UHD HDR Atmos audio disk for Christmas. I loved the movie because I am a big Jane Austen fan and am particularly fond of her masterpiece, _Pride and Prejudice._ I fear, though, that the film may have far less appeal for those who don't already love the Austen story, the Bennet girls, and the prickly romance between Lizzy Bennet and the arrogant but very rich Mr. Darcy. If you know Austen's story, there is a lot of funny stuff that is created by the way this film reflects her story in a Zombie Apocalypse tinted mirror. Best of all, the Atmos audio is wonderful. The usual percussive sounds of guns is well done but I liked even more the way Atmos handled the music. This was immersive audio at its best, I thought.


I am not a fan of zombies, but I do like Jane Austin; so you may have sucked me in on acquiring this movie. I am especially intrigued by the immersive music. I am in audio/video limbo right now because my Oppo 103 will not play UHD video and the X-box one s will not pass Atmos audio. The Denon 5200 does not like DTS-X. Hopefully by the end of 2017 I will have sorted out the present issues and be able to fully enjoy _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_.


----------



## Scarriere

Swolern said:


> Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver? There seems to be many more Atmos movies vs DTS:X.


I don't. Especially if your AVR could put DSU on DTS tracks.

Yes, there are many more Atmos titles than DTS-X ones.

IMO, with you having Atmos and DSU, you're good until there's something more significant to upgrade to.


----------



## Uktima

Scarriere said:


> I don't. Especially if your AVR could put DSU on DTS tracks.
> 
> Yes, there are many more Atmos titles than DTS-X ones.
> 
> IMO, with you having Atmos and DSU, you're good until there's something more significant to upgrade to.


I prefer the atmos upmixing compared to dts X but most amp with atmos will have dts x.

If it were me, id get an amp with both or whats point in upgrading.


----------



## Selden Ball

Swolern said:


> Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver? There seems to be many more Atmos movies vs DTS:X.


By itself, I've decided it isn't worth it. I'm also waiting for 4K projectors become more affordable. Once that happens, though, I might be upgrading.


----------



## sdurani

Swolern said:


> Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver?


I would wait till there is more than one feature you're interested in before upgrading.


----------



## gwsat

Alanlee said:


> I am not a fan of zombies, but I do like Jane Austin; so you may have sucked me in on acquiring this movie. I am especially intrigued by the immersive music. I am in audio/video limbo right now because my Oppo 103 will not play UHD video and the X-box one s will not pass Atmos audio. The Denon 5200 does not like DTS-X. Hopefully by the end of 2017 I will have sorted out the present issues and be able to fully enjoy _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_.


I am not much of a zombie fan either. If I had not received the _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ UHD HDR atmos disk for Christmas, I might never have seen it. If you decide you want it, be warned that the 1080p BD version does not have Atmos audio. It's only DTS-MA 5.1. Only the UHD HDR version has Atmos.


----------



## batpig

Swolern said:


> Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver? There seems to be many more Atmos movies vs DTS:X.


I agree with others -- not worth it unless you need other features (specifically 4k HDCP 2.2 support). If you've got a 1080p display then just enjoy your current Atmos-only receiver and use DSU upmixing for DTS content. There's so little DTS:X material out there that it's not worth upgrading just for that.


----------



## OJ Bartley

Swolern said:


> Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver? There seems to be many more Atmos movies vs DTS:X.


If you mean performing an update from the manufacturer to get DTS:X capability on a receiver that you own that is capable... then yes! If you were considering replacing a receiver that is not upgradeable to DTS:X, but that does have Atmos, then no, I wouldn't replace an otherwise working unit just for that.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> I agree with others -- not worth it unless you need other features (specifically 4k HDCP 2.2 support). If you've got a 1080p display then just enjoy your current Atmos-only receiver and use DSU upmixing for DTS content. There's so little DTS:X material out there that it's not worth upgrading just for that.


I agree. I how have 10 UHD HDR disks that have immersive soundtracks. Nine have TrueHD Atmos audio but only one (_Jason Bourne_) has DTS:X.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Hey guys, I've been on yet another AVS hiatus... my apologies. 

I'm thinking about making a couple of changes to my setup, was curious about what others are doing and if any changes have been observed over the last year or two. 

#1. I'm going to switch out my Klipsch surrounds (RS 62) bi poles since I heard front firing is better for Atmos. I was looking into getting the KEF R300 instead, but was told that I'd have to mount it higher than ear level or else the sound would be too localized. I'm curious if you guys have been mounting them up high or @ ear level? 

#2. In ceilings... I currently have KEF CI200RR's which sound very good. Though I've heard Mark Henninger say that having speakers with such high dispersion is a waste and that pointable tweeters are better for in ceilings. I'm curious if there's been a consensus on which is better?

I compared my HT to another with pointable tweeters and felt like while panning was more clear overhead, but was lacking in the actual overhead sensation. So it seems like a trade off, though I'm wondering if there has been any new developments/ what you guys have been doing with your in ceilings?


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hey guys, I've been on yet another AVS hiatus... my apologies.


Whassup! Not sure what you're apologizing for  I believe taking a break from a forum is fully within your rights. 



Aras_Volodka said:


> #1. I'm going to switch out my Klipsch surrounds (RS 62) bi poles since I heard front firing is better for Atmos. I was looking into getting the KEF R300 instead, but was told that I'd have to mount it higher than ear level or else the sound would be too localized. I'm curious if you guys have been mounting them up high or @ ear level?


There's a lot of "by the book" types who will say with absolute certainty that monopole is the only way to do it, but I think bipole surrounds are still a valid choice in some cases. Like covering two rows of seating where the surround is between the rows, or if you have a narrow-ish room and you want the listener at the end of the couch to not get blasted in the ear. Triad for example still specifies bipole (NOT dipole) surrounds for when there's 6' or less of distance to the listener. Bipole will still give some direct sounds since the tweeters are in phase.

That said, it's going to be personal preference and probably involved some experimenting. Are your fronts KEF also? Because you've already got KEF overheads, and there's the side benefit of better timbre matching if so.

In terms of location, again there's the "by the book" ear level recommendation, but I think people still tend to place them slightly above ear level, again due to hot-spotting issues for the closest listener and also to create more even dispersion across the seats. And nobody's head blocks the sound. I think the general consensus is lower than what you used to do with regular 5.1/7.1 surround, because you need separation from the overheads...... but not so low that it creates other problems (hot-spotting, poor coverage). 

Personally, I have monopoles (small KEF satellites) and I found I did NOT like it directly to the sides closer to ear level, you get this "too discrete" effect with a speaker firing right into your earhole that makes it overwhelm other speakers. I couldn't place them any further forward, so I went with a placement slightly behind and slightly elevated. A couple feet back and maybe 1.5ft up. Works well for me. If I had a huge wide room where I could get better separation from the surrounds I might have been fine with directly to the sides and slightly elevated.

I found this blog post from Nyal Mellor helpful: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/



Aras_Volodka said:


> #2. In ceilings... I currently have KEF CI200RR's which sound very good. Though I've heard Mark Henninger say that having speakers with such high dispersion is a waste and that pointable tweeters are better for in ceilings. I'm curious if there's been a consensus on which is better?
> 
> I compared my HT to another with pointable tweeters and felt like while panning was more clear overhead, but was lacking in the actual overhead sensation. So it seems like a trade off, though I'm wondering if there has been any new developments/ what you guys have been doing with your in ceilings?


I don't think Mark meant it like that, it's not like it makes it WORSE to have a speaker with wide dispersion. I think the idea is more that IF you can aim the speaker, then it's not necessary to have such wide dispersion, so the whole "Atmos speakers need to have wide dispersion" thing might be overblown (if you have an aimable speaker). It's not much different than the sentiment expressed by Nyal here: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/

IMO there's no reason to swap out what are top-of-the-line ceiling speakers with excellent performance and dispersion. Look for other things to change! 

As with surrounds placement/height/type there's so many variables, between room size, layout, acoustics, etc. plus personal preference to account for.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Whassup! Not sure what you're apologizing for  I believe taking a break from a forum is fully within your rights.


I try to keep in touch with everyone on here because a lot of people have been very helpful to me and I enjoy the community. I've actually met some people that I think you personally know like Sanjay and Stuart 
Does Keith still hang out on here? 



batpig said:


> There's a lot of "by the book" types who will say with absolute certainty that monopole is the only way to do it, but I think bipole surrounds are still a valid choice in some cases. Like covering two rows of seating where the surround is between the rows, or if you have a narrow-ish room and you want the listener at the end of the couch to not get blasted in the ear. Triad for example still specifies bipole (NOT dipole) surrounds for when there's 6' or less of distance to the listener. Bipole will still give some direct sounds since the tweeters are in phase.


I just have one couch with 5' distance from the Left Surround, 6' from the right. This is kind of a living room that has a home theater inside of it (lol). I posted pics of this setup but in another location about a year and a half ago, later I'll find that post & link it. 



batpig said:


> That said, it's going to be personal preference and probably involved some experimenting. Are your fronts KEF also? Because you've already got KEF overheads, and there's the side benefit of better timbre matching if so.


I don't have front KEF's yet, only the in ceiling (Currently I have Klipsch Chorus II's as my F L/R and rear L/R, and an RC 64 center.) I know it will not be timbre matched but the system is mismatched as it is. I gradually intend to phase out the Klipsch with KEF's unless if I go with a different brand... I'm still researching other manufacturers in that tier and I tend to buy everything used to save costs. 



batpig said:


> In terms of location, again there's the "by the book" ear level recommendation, but I think people still tend to place them slightly above ear level, again due to hot-spotting issues for the closest listener and also to create more even dispersion across the seats. And nobody's head blocks the sound. I think the general consensus is lower than what you used to do with regular 5.1/7.1 surround, because you need separation from the overheads...... but not so low that it creates other problems (hot-spotting, poor coverage).
> 
> Personally, I have monopoles (small KEF satellites) and I found I did NOT like it directly to the sides closer to ear level, you get this "too discrete" effect with a speaker firing right into your earhole that makes it overwhelm other speakers. I couldn't place them any further forward, so I went with a placement slightly behind and slightly elevated. A couple feet back and maybe 1.5ft up. Works well for me. If I had a huge wide room where I could get better separation from the surrounds I might have been fine with directly to the sides and slightly elevated.
> 
> I found this blog post from Nyal Mellor helpful: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/


Very cool, thanks for the info! I appreciate the detailed feedback especially since you have personal experience with the KEF's. You using the R100? 



batpig said:


> I don't think Mark meant it like that, it's not like it makes it WORSE to have a speaker with wide dispersion. I think the idea is more that IF you can aim the speaker, then it's not necessary to have such wide dispersion, so the whole "Atmos speakers need to have wide dispersion" thing might be overblown (if you have an aimable speaker). It's not much different than the sentiment expressed by Nyal here: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/
> 
> IMO there's no reason to swap out what are top-of-the-line ceiling speakers with excellent performance and dispersion. Look for other things to change!
> 
> As with surrounds placement/height/type there's so many variables, between room size, layout, acoustics, etc. plus personal preference to account for.


Understood, I won't worry about it for now. I remember people were experimenting with all kinds of things such as slightly tipping speakers like mine but having negative results. I wasn't sure if there was some development on this front or if other speaker types hit the market.
In the long run, when reasonably priced 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 receivers start hitting the market I might pick up a pair of aimable tweeters for the front while keeping the other 4 speakers for center and rear. 

Thanks so much !


----------



## meli

I haven't been closely tracking current releases, but it seems to me there has not been a big increase in the rate of Blu-ray Atmos releases. Is that correct? I see Hacksaw Ridge and Jack Reacher coming up, recent releases include Deepwater Horizon, Sully and Magnificent Seven, a few others...

Is Atmos failing to catch on? Or is this about the rate that we can expect for Atmos releases in the future?


----------



## David Susilo

Failing to catch on how? There are about 100 titles with Atmos, less than 20 titles in DTS:X.


----------



## NorthSky

If DTS:X wants to stay afloat and keep up with Dolby Atmos, Disney has to get on with the program. I think.


----------



## Methodical_1

David Susilo said:


> Failing to catch on how? There are about 100 titles with Atmos, less than 20 titles in DTS:X.





NorthSky said:


> If DTS:X wants to stay afloat and keep up with Dolby Atmos, Disney has to get on with the program. I think.


Reminds me of:

VHS vs Beta
Bluray vs HD DVD

Main reason why I purchased a receiver that can do both - won't get burned.


----------



## lujan

Methodical_1 said:


> Reminds me of:
> 
> VHS vs Beta
> Bluray vs HD DVD
> 
> Main reason why I purchased a receiver that can do both - won't get burned.


Yes, I chose correctly with VHS and then incorrectly with HD DVD but HD DVD did come out before Blu-ray and I was anxious for HD. Never did the laserdisc format so glad about that.


----------



## gene4ht

Swolern said:


> Anyone think a DTS:X upgrade is worth it if one already has an Atmos receiver? There seems to be many more Atmos movies vs DTS:X.





Scarriere said:


> IMO, with you* having Atmos and DSU, you're good* until there's something more significant to upgrade to.





Selden Ball said:


> *By itself, I've decided it isn't worth it.* I'm also waiting for 4K projectors become more affordable. Once that happens, though, I might be upgrading.





sdurani said:


> I would *wait till there is more than one feature you're interested in* before upgrading.





batpig said:


> I agree with others -- *not worth it unless you need other features* (specifically 4k HDCP 2.2 support). If you've got a 1080p display then just enjoy your current Atmos-only receiver and *use DSU upmixing for DTS content*. There's so little DTS:X material out there that it's not worth upgrading just for that.


Totally agree with everyone's comments! My previous AVR did not have or was upgradable to 3D sound capability. I pulled the trigger to gain all the 3D sound codecs and 4K. Otherwise, Atmos (greater content) and DSU go a long way in providing an enjoyable immersive sound experience.


----------



## Methodical_1

lujan said:


> Yes, I chose correctly with VHS and then incorrectly with HD DVD but HD DVD did come out before Blu-ray and I was anxious for HD. Never did the laserdisc format so glad about that.


Ha! I forgot about laserdisc. I never even considered those big 'ole things. I purchased a box of albums from a gentleman and it had a laserdisc movie in it. The closest I came to one of them.


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hey guys, I've been on yet another AVS hiatus... my apologies.
> 
> I'm thinking about making a couple of changes to my setup, was curious about what others are doing and if any changes have been observed over the last year or two.
> 
> #1. I'm going to switch out my Klipsch surrounds (RS 62) bi poles since I heard front firing is better for Atmos. I was looking into getting the KEF R300 instead, but was told that I'd have to mount it higher than ear level or else the sound would be too localized. I'm curious if you guys have been mounting them up high or @ ear level?
> 
> #2. In ceilings... I currently have KEF CI200RR's which sound very good. Though I've heard Mark Henninger say that having speakers with such high dispersion is a waste and that pointable tweeters are better for in ceilings. I'm curious if there's been a consensus on which is better?
> 
> I compared my HT to another with pointable tweeters and felt like while panning was more clear overhead, but was lacking in the actual overhead sensation. So it seems like a trade off, though I'm wondering if there has been any new developments/ what you guys have been doing with your in ceilings?


Welcome back Aras! Have to agree with comments from @batpig in not getting caught up with the "by the book" thing. So many questions are seen throughout these threads that suggests folks are paralyzed attempting to place a speaker within 1/2 degree of this or that or does this speaker have the correct dispersion characteristics or timbre match, etc, etc.. IMO and from my experience, one size does not fit all. The more critical aspect/component is the environment itself. The room geometry, ceiling height, acoustical characteristics, seating configuration and type all impact 3D sound performance/effectiveness. Therefore, the "book" is nothing more than a suggested starting point. My solution may not be your solution. Bottom line...experimentation with varying speaker placements and possibly speaker types are key and necessary to yield favorable results in one's unique environment. But I think you already knew all this! No new epiphanies!


----------



## meli

David Susilo said:


> Failing to catch on how? There are about 100 titles with Atmos, less than 20 titles in DTS:X.


Is Atmos failing to catch on, not relative to the number DTS:X releases, but to the number of all releases? What is the percentage of releases that used object-oriented mixes in the last 6 months, and how different is that from the previous 6 months? It seems to me, with a cursory look, that the increase is not very great or if there is an increase at all.

Maybe it's just that there haven't been many good movies (using a general consensus) released in the last year with Atmos; really only a handful.

I'd be happy to be wrong about this.


----------



## Ladeback

Methodical_1 said:


> Ha! I forgot about laserdisc. I never even considered those big 'ole things. I purchased a box of albums from a gentleman and it had a laserdisc movie in it. The closest I came to one of them.


I have two laserdisk players and a bunch of disk still. I have one where the laser would switch sides so you didn't have to turn the disk over. I have Terminator 2 on a special Laserdisk set. There are 5 sides to watch the whole movie. It was pretty good quality before DVD's came in. 

This is what it looks like.


----------



## Methodical_1

gene4ht said:


> Welcome back Aras! Have to agree with comments from @*batpig* in not getting caught up with the "by the book" thing. So many questions are seen throughout these threads that suggests folks are paralyzed attempting to place a speaker within 1/2 degree of this or that or does this speaker have the correct dispersion characteristics or timbre match, etc, etc.. IMO and from my experience, one size does not fit all. The more critical aspect/component is the environment itself. The room geometry, ceiling height, acoustical characteristics, seating configuration and type all impact 3D sound performance/effectiveness. Therefore, the "book" is nothing more than a suggested starting point. My solution may not be your solution. Bottom line...experimentation with varying speaker placements and possibly speaker types are key and necessary to yield favorable results in one's unique environment. But I think you already knew all this! No new epiphanies!


I agree. I have Infinity ceiling speakers mixed with Polks and they are playing well together. I could not get the exact speaker angle, speaker location (2 are about 1' from sidewall) as suggested by Dolby because my room did not allow it, so I had to compromise here and there, but I can tell you that with Audyssey making up for those compromises my Atmos system sounds pretty good. I have di/bipole surround speakers (side surrounds initially set to dipole) and can confirm that the Atmos audio sounded pretty good with them set to dipole, but ultimately I changed to bipole and it sounds even better. Now, if I were to go into a perfectly setup Atmos room, I may be able to notice differences, but there's nothing I can do about it.


----------



## lujan

Ladeback said:


> I have two laserdisk players and a bunch of disk still. I have one where the laser would switch sides so you didn't have to turn the disk over. I have Terminator 2 on a special Laserdisk set. There are 5 sides to watch the whole movie. It was pretty good quality before DVD's came in.
> 
> This is what it looks like.


They will release Terminator 2 in every format there is. I hear that this title is coming out later this year in 4k after they re-release it at the theater in 3D.


----------



## Scott Simonian

meli said:


> Is Atmos failing to catch on.....


No. No way. I'm actually quite surprised how much the whole most of the industry is embracing Dolby Atmos as the new standard.

In just about three years the expansion of cinema locations is enormous. Hundred's of titles have been mixed in Atmos and plenty of them are coming out *on a regular basis* on both Blu-ray and UHD. Sure, back in 2014 things looked bleak. Things look great now. We have videogames in Atmos. Television shows in Atmos. $400 HTiB's with Atmos. Soundbars with Atmos. Tablets with Atmos....

My favorite is that older, catalog titles are being remixed in Dolby Atmos. Yus!

It's looking good for Dolby Atmos. Real good.


----------



## gene4ht

Methodical_1 said:


> Ha! I forgot about laserdisc. I never even considered those big 'ole things. I purchased a box of albums from a gentleman and it had a laserdisc movie in it. The closest I came to one of them.



LOL! I'm from way back "in the day" so I still have two laserdisc players (one for backup) and about 100 of those "big 'ole" discs! It's sometimes difficult to part with some things!


----------



## rekbones

gene4ht said:


> LOL! I'm from way back "in the day" so I still have two laserdisc players (one for backup) and about 100 of those "big 'ole" discs! It's sometimes difficult to part with some things!



Yes I still have about 100 of them also. Haven't tried in years but I think both my players have issues. I remember this was my first introduction to Dolby Digital using the AC3 outputs from the players, vastly superior to Dolby Pro logic. There was no format war as this was the only way to get the best possible audio/picture pre DVD.


----------



## Methodical_1

Ladeback said:


> I have two laserdisk players and a bunch of disk still. I have one where the laser would switch sides so you didn't have to turn the disk over. I have Terminator 2 on a special Laserdisk set. There are 5 sides to watch the whole movie. It was pretty good quality before DVD's came in.
> 
> This is what it looks like.





gene4ht said:


> LOL! I'm from way back "in the day" so I still have two laserdisc players (one for backup) and about 100 of those "big 'ole" discs! It's sometimes difficult to part with some things!


Have you guys plugged it up and played them for old time sake.

Gene4ht, I still have 8 track tapes, 8 track tape player and cassettes, so I know exactly what you mean. I do still play the cassettes though as it would cost a fortune to try and get all that music from itunes. 

I've been thrift shop hunting for albums lately and have found quite a few gems - 3 mint Thriller albums, some original Miles Davis and Count Basie albums from the 50's and 60s, Eagles, Doobie Brothers just to name a few. As you can see I love a variety of music.


----------



## meli

Scott Simonian said:


> No. No way. I'm actually quite surprised how much the whole most of the industry is embracing Dolby Atmos as the new standard.


Okay, I'll try to keep the faith. I have flashbacks to how excited manufacturers and (some) consumers were about 3D a few years ago. And when I look at the Blu-ray Atmos releases in the last 6 months that are also "good" movies, I see:

01. Sully
02. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
03. Everest
04. Wonders of the Arctic


----------



## gwsat

meli said:


> Is Atmos failing to catch on, not relative to the number DTS:X releases, but to the number of all releases? What is the percentage of releases that used object-oriented mixes in the last 6 months, and how different is that from the previous 6 months? It seems to me, with a cursory look, that the increase is not very great or if there is an increase at all.
> 
> Maybe it's just that there haven't been many good movies (using a general consensus) released in the last year with Atmos; really only a handful.
> 
> I'd be happy to be wrong about this.


Virtually every UHD HDR version of newly released films includes a TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. The 1080p disks that are included may or may not also come with Atmos audio. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Methodical_1

meli said:


> Okay, I'll try to keep the faith. I have flashbacks to how excited manufacturers and (some) consumers were about 3D a few years ago. And when I look at the Blu-ray Atmos releases in the last 6 months that are also "good" movies, I see:
> 
> 01. Sully
> 02. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
> 03. Everest
> 04. Wonders of the Arctic


I didn't see #s 2 and 4 on the Atmos list. Is there a new list out there?


----------



## Scott Simonian

meli said:


> Okay, I'll try to keep the faith. I have flashbacks to how excited manufacturers and (some) consumers were about 3D a few years ago. *And when I look at the Blu-ray Atmos releases in the last 6 months that are also "good" movies, I see:*
> 
> 01. Sully
> 02. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
> 03. Everest
> 04. Wonders of the Arctic


----------



## NorthSky

Methodical_1 said:


> I didn't see #s 2 and 4 on the Atmos list. Is there a new list out there?


• Dolby A → https://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
• This (_'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' & 'Wonders of the Arctic'_) → http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> In just about three years the expansion of cinema locations is enormous. Hundred's of titles have been mixed in Atmos and plenty of them are coming out *on a regular basis* on both Blu-ray and UHD. Sure, back in 2014 things looked bleak. Things look great now. We have videogames in Atmos. Television shows in Atmos. $400 HTiB's with Atmos. Soundbars with Atmos. Tablets with Atmos....


And Smartphones with Atmos !?


----------



## meli

Methodical_1 said:


> I didn't see #s 2 and 4 on the Atmos list. Is there a new list out there?


I was searching here:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...h=reviews&audio=atmos&sortby=releasetimestamp


----------



## meli

Scott Simonian said:


>


I don't get it. What does that mean?


----------



## Ricoflashback

meli said:


> I don't get it. What does that mean?


Ah, I think it's sarcasm. 

8 Track Tapes? Oh my, does that bring back memories. Do you remember the carrying cases for those? Mini suitcases. But boy, when they first came out, everyone had to have one. If you accidentally left one on the dashboard in the summer, let's just say that it wasn't optimal listening - - if it played at all. 

I think you'll find Dolby Atmos to be very rewarding. Even though I do not have a UHD player or buy Bluray discs anymore - - the occasional Dolby Atmos I rent from Redbox is quite a treat. It's going to get better - - especially if they ever start using DD+ as a transport mechanism for Atmos soundtracks - - like Comcast has done on "Black Sails." 

IMHO - Dolby Atmos releases will continue to increase in pace over the next couple of years. For HT enthusiasts - - it's already spurred increased AVR, UHD Player and Speaker sales.


----------



## sdurani

meli said:


> ...when I look at the Blu-ray Atmos releases in the last 6 months that are also "good" movies...


In the last 6 months, there were around 25 Atmos BDs and 45 Atmos UHDs released here in the US. By defining "good" any way you want, you can then shrink that list to any number, even down to just 4 titles (like you did) and then wonder whether Atmos is _"failing to catch on"_ or if a mere 4 titles over 6 months is _"about the rate that we can expect for Atmos releases in the future"_.


----------



## Scott Simonian

meli said:


> I don't get it. What does that mean?



This:



sdurani said:


> In the last 6 months, there were around 25 Atmos BDs and 45 Atmos UHDs released here in the US. By defining "good" any way you want, you can then shrink that list to any number, even down to just 4 titles (like you did) and then wonder whether Atmos is _"failing to catch on"_ or if a mere 4 titles over 6 months is _"about the rate that we can expect for Atmos releases in the future"_.


----------



## meli

sdurani said:


> In the last 6 months, there were around 25 Atmos BDs and 45 Atmos UHDs released here in the US. By defining "good" any way you want, you can then shrink that list to any number, even down to just 4 titles (like you did) and then wonder whether Atmos is _"failing to catch on"_ or if a mere 4 titles over 6 months is _"about the rate that we can expect for Atmos releases in the future"_.


But no one cares if a hundred bad movies they never want to watch are released with Atmos. Right? Look at the list of Blu-rays released in the last 6 months and see how many of those you care about. I doubt you'll come up with many more than I did. I understand it may be a while until the new Kenneth Lonergan movie is in Atmos, but most people over the age of 17 would consider these mostly bad movies or movies that are obviously not made for their demographic.

Suicide Squad
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
The Secret Life of Pets
Mechanic: Resurrection
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay
Sausage Party (could make a case for)
Ster Trek Beyond (could make a case for)
Ghostbusters remake
Ice Age: Collision Course
Legend of Tarzan
Angels & Demons
Penny Dreadful
Swiss Army Man
X-Men Apocalypse
Warcraft
The Shallows
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
Labyrinth
The Conjuring 2
Now You See Me 2
The Angry Birds Movie
Lucy (could make a case for)
Oblivion
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Man of Steel


----------



## sdurani

meli said:


> But no one cares if a hundred bad movies they never want to watch are released with Atmos. Right?


Who is deciding they're bad? You?


> Look at the list of Blu-rays released in the last 6 months and see how many of those you care about. I doubt you'll come up with many more than I did.


It's the opposite of you: there are probably 4 movies on that list that I don't like.


----------



## Scott Simonian

meli said:


> Is Atmos failing to catch on...





sdurani said:


> In the last 6 months, there were around 25 Atmos BDs and 45 Atmos UHDs released here in the US





meli said:


> But no one cares if a hundred bad movies they never want to watch are released with Atmos. Right?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I have 64 Atmos and 14 DTS-X titles.

That is before my Atmos setup is up and running and I have not even started to look at UHD only releases.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The momentum of the format (Dolby Atmos) is enough proof that it is "doing well". 

I'm not worried.


----------



## meli

sdurani said:


> Who is deciding they're bad? You? It's the opposite of you: there are probably 4 movies on that list that I don't like.


General census among critical reviews. Rotten Tomatoes top critic scores.

But let me re-phrase the question. "Manchester By the Sea" was mixed in surround sound even though it would largely be the same movie if it was mixed in stereo. It was mixed in surround just because most movies these days are. How long until a movie like "Manchester By the Sea" is mixed with object-oriented audio just because most films are?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> The momentum of the format (Dolby Atmos) is enough proof that it is "doing well".
> 
> I'm not worried.


Now we only need to have Disney see the light as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

That's already been happening.

There will never be a time of 'everything is 100% object-based all the time'. Just like not everything is in surround sound.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Now we only need to have Disney see the light as well.


Only on home video. They are quite fond of it theatrically.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> Only on home video. They are quite fond of it theatrically.


Of course, I want it at home as it is near impossible to enjoy Atmos + 2D in the cinemas here in the UK.


----------



## sdurani

meli said:


> General census among critical reviews. Rotten Tomatoes top critic scores.


That's a reflection of movies in general and has nothing to do with Atmos. You could use the same trick to wonder whether movies in general are _"failing to catch on"_ (even though the industry had a record breaking year in 2016).


> How long until a movie like "Manchester By the Sea" is mixed with object-oriented audio just because most films are?


Don't have an exact date, but it's a matter of time before mixers will simply place & move sounds in 3D space rather than consciously mix them to specific channels. Video games have been doing object based audio for a decade.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Video games have been doing object based audio for a decade.


A lot longer than _that_.


----------



## sdrucker

meli said:


> General census among critical reviews. Rotten Tomatoes top critic scores.
> 
> But let me re-phrase the question. "Manchester By the Sea" was mixed in surround sound even though it would largely be the same movie if it was mixed in stereo. It was mixed in surround just because most movies these days are. How long until a movie like "Manchester By the Sea" is mixed with object-oriented audio just because most films are?


There's something like 80+ Atmos movies in UHD (which is becoming increasingly dominant as the go-to delivery platform) or BluRay. Everything from Gravity to Unbroken to the Age of Adeline among movies that I'd call "dialog-driven" films that judiciously use Atmos to pull you into the story, to the likes of spy dramas like Salt, to movies that action film fans can love like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or X-Men. You'll find a fair number of critics that would support Oblivion, Lucy, or any of the Hunger Games movies as films with legitimate appeal to a large number of potential viewers, by the way. 

Room for everyone as the format continues to roll out...and even if you don't like the typical Atmos movie, there's always DSU to provide a rich ambient experience for movies that you do like with a 2.0, 5.1 or 7.1 track. To the extent that DSU and Atmos have made their way into < $500 AVRs, there's nothing to keep anyone from experience this except budget and number of speakers your room can support. If you can afford $499/pair and have a < 9 ft concrete ceiling, you can even get high-quality Dolby AE speakers and enjoy "80%" of the Dolby Atmos experience in an apartment with proper placements and not need to put holes in your ceiling . Even UHD isn't really a barrier with the el cheapo Samsung K8500 (which you find at BestBuy for $349.99, but often the AVS classifieds for well under that as many owners upgrade to the Oppo 203) and ready conversion within the UHD player to SDR and 1080p.


Having said that, about the only movies where I find DSU not worth the upmix are things like Woody Allen films or soundtracks in pure mono. But that's a legacy content issue.


----------



## lujan

meli said:


> But no one cares if a hundred bad movies they never want to watch are released with Atmos. Right? Look at the list of Blu-rays released in the last 6 months and see how many of those you care about. I doubt you'll come up with many more than I did. I understand it may be a while until the new Kenneth Lonergan movie is in Atmos, but most people over the age of 17 would consider these mostly bad movies or movies that are obviously not made for their demographic.
> 
> Suicide Squad
> Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
> The Secret Life of Pets
> Mechanic: Resurrection
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay
> Sausage Party (could make a case for)
> Ster Trek Beyond (could make a case for)
> Ghostbusters remake
> Ice Age: Collision Course
> Legend of Tarzan
> Angels & Demons
> Penny Dreadful
> Swiss Army Man
> X-Men Apocalypse
> Warcraft
> The Shallows
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
> Labyrinth
> The Conjuring 2
> Now You See Me 2
> The Angry Birds Movie
> Lucy (could make a case for)
> Oblivion
> Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
> Man of Steel


Out of the 25 on your list I have and like 16 of them so that's a pretty high percentage IMO.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
Mechanic: Resurrection
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay
Star Trek Beyond
Ghostbusters remake
Legend of Tarzan
X-Men Apocalypse
Warcraft
The Shallows
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
The Conjuring 2
Now You See Me 2
Lucy
Oblivion
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Man of Steel


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Who is deciding they're bad? You? It's the opposite of you: there are probably 4 movies on that list that I don't like.


Yeah, either the poster has been having a very bad day or, perhaps, lives under a bridge in standing water. I would also wonder aloud why he posts such negative comments about Atmos to a thread dedicated to Atmos?


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> I try to keep in touch with everyone on here because a lot of people have been very helpful to me and I enjoy the community. I've actually met some people that I think you personally know like Sanjay and Stuart
> Does Keith still hang out on here?


Brother, not only did you meet people I know, you met someone I know VERY well.... ME  

It was a rainy night in Chicago, and we went to see "In the Heart of the Sea" in Atmos......


----------



## NorthSky

meli said:


> But no one cares if a hundred bad movies they never want to watch are released with Atmos. Right? Look at the list of Blu-rays released in the last 6 months and see how many of those you care about. I doubt you'll come up with many more than I did. I understand it may be a while until the new Kenneth Lonergan movie is in Atmos, but most people over the age of 17 would consider these mostly bad movies or movies that are obviously not made for their demographic.
> 
> Suicide Squad
> Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
> *The Secret Life of Pets*
> Mechanic: Resurrection
> The Hunger Games: Mockingjay
> *Sausage Party* (could make a case for)
> Star Trek Beyond (could make a case for)
> Ghostbusters remake
> Ice Age: Collision Course
> Legend of Tarzan
> Angels & Demons
> Penny Dreadful
> Swiss Army Man
> *X-Men: Apocalypse*
> Warcraft
> The Shallows
> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
> Labyrinth
> The Conjuring 2
> Now You See Me 2
> The Angry Birds Movie
> *Lucy* (could make a case for)
> *Oblivion*
> Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
> Man of Steel


Those above in magenta were good. ... 20% ... not bad.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Brother, not only did you meet people I know, you met someone I know VERY well.... ME
> 
> It was a rainy night in Chicago, and we went to see "In the Heart of the Sea" in Atmos......



I also had Aras over at our place about three weeks ago, and we enjoyed the full glory of Gravity, Unbroken and a few other movies with wides.....we should have played In the Heart of the Sea for comparison's sake, though....


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> I also had Aras over at our place about three weeks ago, and we enjoyed the full glory of Gravity, Unbroken and a few other movies with wides.....we should have played In the Heart of the Sea for comparison's sake, though....


I dunno man, don't want you to fall asleep again....


----------



## meli

gwsat said:


> Yeah, either the poster has been having a very bad day or, perhaps, lives under a bridge in standing water. I would also wonder aloud why he posts such negative comments about Atmos to a thread dedicated to Atmos?


I don't mean for it to be a negative post and never said anything negative about Atmos. I have an Atmos system and am hoping for it's success. I'm questioning the relevance of an Atmos system for someone whose taste more closely aligns with critical consensus. (And I don't think I'm really going out on a limb by calling a movie like "Batman v Superman" a bad movie. It's already a punch line; see the Golden Globes award show)

The current state of Atmos reminds somewhat of the scenario that 3d movies went through, where it's implemented more frequently in movies target for children and teenagers. In my recollection, for a couple years after there stopped being many 3D films released that I was interested in, my kids continued to see 3D movies marketed toward them. Then the whole thing kind of died. And I'm sure "3D" had a much larger name recognition among the general public than "Atmos" does now. I wanted reassurance that things are not headed the same way for Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> I dunno man, don't want you to fall asleep again....



The Atmos effects were awesome but the movie really DID put me to sleep....at least you guys took one for the team and watched it from start to finish. Of course, with the shiny disc we can go to selected scenes, which you can't do in the theatre LOL.

Different strokes, I suppose...I sat through 160+ minutes of Silence (Martin Scorsese) over the weekend and found it captivating, but definitely NOT worth an Atmos mix.


----------



## Methodical_1

NorthSky said:


> • Dolby A → https://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/bluray-and-streaming.html
> • This (_'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' & 'Wonders of the Arctic'_) → http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1


I've been using the Dolby list in the 1st link and those movies I questioned are not on that list. So, Dolby has not updated it's own list of Atmos movies if that's the case. Also, that Crouching Tiger movie shows Atmos in Mandarin, which is useless to me.



meli said:


> I was searching here:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...h=reviews&audio=atmos&sortby=releasetimestamp


Thanks for those links as there are a lot more Atmos movies listed in the Blu-ray link than in Dolby's own Atmos list - interesting.


----------



## apexgrin

I apologize if this has already been asked, this thread is a monster.

Are releases with Atmos also including 5.1/7.1 tracks as well? My living room won't work for Atmos, vaulted ceiling in a rented house, so I'm sticking with 7.2 as I upgrade, including a Denon X3300. Wondering if it'll still play the Atmos track and I'll just not hear the height channels or if there are separate tracks for DD/DTS.


----------



## NorthSky

Methodical_1 said:


> ... Also, that *Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon* movie shows Atmos in Mandarin, which is useless to me.


• BD (1080p | Atmos) → http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Crouching-Tiger-Hidden-Dragon-Blu-ray/140094/#Review
• BR (4K | Atmos) → http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Crouching-Tiger-Hidden-Dragon-4K-Blu-ray/162080/#Review

Yes, but some BR flicks are much better listening to them in their own original language, like this one for sure. 
If you listen to the English dubbed audio language (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1) you lose Atmos and it's atrocious, because the lips don't follow the spoken words; it sounds like echoes from a phone booth...ADR dubbing → http://www.filmsound.org/terminology/adr.htm
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubbing_(filmmaking)

This flick is very very good, and the only way to experience it fully audio wise, it's in its original Mandarin language.
I could give you other examples of foreign films like that,,,but another time when they'll be remastered in Dolby Atmos in their own native language. 

Cheers,


----------



## NorthSky

apexgrin said:


> I apologize if this has already been asked, this thread is a monster.
> 
> Are releases with Atmos also including 5.1/7.1 tracks as well? My living room won't work for Atmos, vaulted ceiling in a rented house, so I'm sticking with 7.2 as I upgrade, including a Denon X3300. Wondering if it'll still play the Atmos track and I'll just not hear the height channels or if there are separate tracks for DD/DTS.


Yes, all Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-ray movies automatically have Dolby TrueHD 7.1-channel audio soundtracks, for people without the Atmos decoder, or without the height channels.


----------



## gwsat

meli said:


> I don't mean for it to be a negative post and never said anything negative about Atmos. I have an Atmos system and am hoping for it's success. I'm questioning the relevance of an Atmos system for someone whose taste more closely aligns with critical consensus. (And I don't think I'm really going out on a limb by calling a movie like "Batman v Superman" a bad movie. It's already a punch line; see the Golden Globes award show)
> 
> The current state of Atmos reminds somewhat of the scenario that 3d movies went through, where it's implemented more frequently in movies target for children and teenagers. In my recollection, for a couple years after there stopped being many 3D films released that I was interested in, my kids continued to see 3D movies marketed toward them. Then the whole thing kind of died. And I'm sure "3D" had a much larger name recognition among the general public than "Atmos" does now. I wanted reassurance that things are not headed the same way for Atmos.


Thanks for your clarification. Had it not been for its highly recommended Atmos soundtrack, I would never have bought _Batman v. Superman Extended Edition._ Much to my surprise, I really liked the film and thought it was well worth its price.


----------



## Methodical_1

gwsat said:


> Thanks for your clarification. Had it not been for its highly recommended Atmos soundtrack, I would never have bought _Batman v. Superman Extended Edition._ Much to my surprise, I really liked the film and thought it was well worth its price.


Interesting you say this. I now have Atmos and wanted to experience the 3d sound and therefore have watch movies that I probably would not have watch if it weren't for Atmos and found them to be good movies.


----------



## meli

Methodical_1 said:


> Interesting you say this. I now have Atmos and wanted to experience the 3d sound and therefore have watch movies that I probably would not have watch if it weren't for Atmos and found them to be good movies.


I thought "Lucy" was better than the reviews indicated. It wasn't easy to find an Atmos copy, though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Methodical_1 said:


> *Also, that Crouching Tiger movie shows Atmos in Mandarin, which is useless to me.*


Why is it "useless" to you? There are English subtitles available. The script was written by an American, if that matters. It's a really good movie. 

Do you like dubbed movies without the performance of the original actor or actress?


----------



## Therberg

meli said:


> I was searching here:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...h=reviews&audio=atmos&sortby=releasetimestamp


Awesome! What search words did you use to find Blu-ray's with Atmos? I've tried searching on there before with no luck.


----------



## meli

Therberg said:


> Awesome! What search words did you use to find Blu-ray's with Atmos? I've tried searching on there before with no luck.


Go to http://www.blu-ray.com/

Toward the top-left of the page, right under "Blu-ray.com", click on "Blu-ray". That brings you to:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/

On the left column, under the bold word "Database", click "Search Movies". That brings you to:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php

Under "Audio", type "atmos". Hit return. I sorted by release date.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> If DTS:X wants to stay afloat and keep up with Dolby Atmos, Disney has to get on with the program. I think.


I did notice @ CES press conference that Spider Man was announced as being available for UHD (streaming?). I do know that the film is a joint partnership with (sony?) & Disney. But hopefully indicative of UHD discs coming from Disney. 

Gareth Edwards is also on record saying that he saw 4k A New hope.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Brother, not only did you meet people I know, you met someone I know VERY well.... ME
> 
> It was a rainy night in Chicago, and we went to see "In the Heart of the Sea" in Atmos......


Haha! 

Oh my apologies, I had always thought you were Sdurani for some reason... now I know for the future. 

Thanks again for that beer! I hope to run into you at some other events. I probably won't be able to make it to Cedia (in your neck of the woods?) but I will be @ Axpona.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> I did notice @ CES press conference that Spider Man was announced as being available for UHD (streaming?). I do know that the film is a joint partnership with (sony?) & Disney. But hopefully indicative of UHD discs coming from Disney.
> 
> Gareth Edwards is also on record saying that he saw 4k A New hope.


Hi Aras,

Spider-Man (2002) is Sony Pictures. ...The full franchise. 
Sony is supposed to release ten Blu-ray titles with Auro-3D.

A New Hope is Disney (was Fox). A New Hope in 4K is appropriate; 4K needs all the boost they can get...bring Atmos exclusivity and kill 3D. 
Disney is certainly going to releases some 4K BR titles (Dolby Vision?); they have to...it's how they make some money...triple and quadruple dipping. 
The Force Awakens is just awaiting its triple dipping (2D and 3D were no. 1 and 2). ...With 4K (no. 3), and or with Atmos or with DTS:X (my guess? Atmos).

3D is d3ad, we don't ne3d 3D, vive 3D!


----------



## Therberg

meli said:


> Go to http://www.blu-ray.com/
> 
> Toward the top-left of the page, right under "Blu-ray.com", click on "Blu-ray". That brings you to:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/
> 
> On the left column, under the bold word "Database", click "Search Movies". That brings you to:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php
> 
> Under "Audio", type "atmos". Hit return. I sorted by release date.


Thanks!! The two lists I have been checking have no recent updates.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour,

FWIW I've just published the first part of an HCFR article (in French) comparing Dolby Atmos reproductions of 2 small extracts of Lucy in 7.2.4, 7.2, 5.2, 9.2.2 configurations driven by a Marantz AV8802A :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/dolby-...urations-marantz-av8802a-7-2-4-7-2-5-2-9-2-2/

the 2nd part of this HCFR article will be dedicated to above 11.1 channels reproductions with the unique Trinnov Altitude 32. 

Hugo


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> FWIW I've just published the first part of an HCFR article (in French) comparing Dolby Atmos reproductions of 2 small extracts of Lucy in 7.2.4, 7.2, 5.2, 9.2.2 configurations driven by a Marantz AV8802A :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/dolby-...urations-marantz-av8802a-7-2-4-7-2-5-2-9-2-2/
> 
> the 2nd part of this HCFR article will be dedicated to above 11.1 channels reproductions with the unique Trinnov Altitude 32.
> 
> Hugo


Interesting, so in 9.2.2 you didn't actually hear any sound at all in the wides?


----------



## hatlesschimp

Mashie Saldana said:


> Interesting, so in 9.2.2 you didn't actually hear any sound at all in the wides?


Front wides have been killed off in favour of Atmos speakers. They will bring them back one day and make a song and dance about it and say you must have HDMI 4.1A as an enabler.

I loved front wides and missed them but I just installed my atmos speakers a few days back and picked up Deepwater Horizon UHD for my first movie to test them and the new theater room out. Hopefully Im done this week!!!


----------



## Swolern

Anyone try Hacksaw Ridge in Dolby Atmos yet? Any good?

*Edit:*
Hey, what are you doing here Hatless??


----------



## Mashie Saldana

hatlesschimp said:


> Front wides have been killed off in favour of Atmos speakers.


Front wide is one of the 32 valid Atmos speaker locations and object data will be rendered there (if authored on the disc), in this case either the AVR was acting up or no object data was intended to go there. Looking at this thread it seems to be a bit hit and miss if the sound engineers are sending sounds to the wides though: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> Interesting, so in 9.2.2 you didn't actually hear any sound at all in the wides?


I can't speak to the Marantz, but on my Trinnov Altitude there's at least two instances where wides lit up as inputs on Lucy:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...channel-exploiting-thread-2.html#post47307265

FYI I'm running 9.x.4 in my room...Unbroken's opening bombing run also has some wides action. This second link is from the Trinnov thread, in a high channel count room. Check out the second snapshot on for Lw and Rw:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...1516103-trinnov-altitude-39.html#post36341066


----------



## maikeldepotter

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> FWIW I've just published the first part of an HCFR article (in French) comparing Dolby Atmos reproductions of 2 small extracts of Lucy in 7.2.4, 7.2, 5.2, 9.2.2 configurations driven by a Marantz AV8802A :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/dolby-...urations-marantz-av8802a-7-2-4-7-2-5-2-9-2-2/
> 
> the 2nd part of this HCFR article will be dedicated to above 11.1 channels reproductions with the unique Trinnov Altitude 32.
> 
> Hugo


Interesting observation of getting a more 'cinemascopic' sound when adding apparently silent wides to a 7.x.2 configuration. If this turns out to be more than a placebo effect, it will cause some interesting debates on how the Atmos object playback renderer works with 'lower' channel counts. We know that the Atmos renderer is not active with only 7 base layer speakers (7.x). Maybe you have discovered that - in contrast to our current believes - there is in fact an audible difference between playing back the 7.1 down-mix, and having active object rendering with the same 7.1 lay-out. Did you by any chance also compare 7.x.0 with 9.x.0, and observe the same difference in sound with wides being silent?


----------



## hatlesschimp

Swolern said:


> Anyone try Hacksaw Ridge in Dolby Atmos yet? Any good?
> 
> *Edit:*
> Hey, what are you doing here Hatless??


Im everywhere man! Im probably more on AVS than OCN nower days. Is Hacksaw ridge even out yet?

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Swolern

hatlesschimp said:


> Im everywhere man! Im probably more on AVS than OCN nower days. Is Hacksaw ridge even out yet?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


Got too excited when i saw it on the Atmos list, to look at the release date. 

Ya me too. I have Atmos 5.2.4 incoming and pretty damn excited. My 70" 4K will have to do for now, but im eyeing some projectors.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Mashie Saldana said:


> Front wide is one of the 32 valid Atmos speaker locations and object data will be rendered there (if authored on the disc), in this case either the AVR was acting up or no object data was intended to go there. Looking at this thread it seems to be a bit hit and miss if the sound engineers are sending sounds to the wides though: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html


Not everyone has a trinov or the other 16+ channel processor. I know that some of the mainstream consumer AVR models have mostly dropped the front wide channel like Denon and Yamaha. 😭

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sekosche

hatlesschimp said:


> Im everywhere man! Im probably more on AVS than OCN nower days. Is Hacksaw ridge even out yet?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


Stateside Hacksaw comes out Feb 21 to buy. I missed this in theaters, so I'll definitely be picking it up.

After loving the rental in Atmos, I just picked up Sully on bluray for $15 @ http://www.blu-ray.com/deals/?category=bluray

It's $24 at BB still.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Sekosche said:


> Stateside Hacksaw comes out Feb 21 to buy. I missed this in theaters, so I'll definitely be picking it up.
> 
> After loving the rental in Atmos, I just picked up Sully on bluray for $15 @ http://www.blu-ray.com/deals/?category=bluray
> 
> It's $24 at BB still.


I think Im going to have to region mod my Oppo udp 203. Actually isnt the UHD disc region free?


----------



## Swolern

My Atmos setup is finally getting to me in 2 days. What are you guys top movie picks to show-off Atmos?

Im less than half way through the 6 season Game of Thrones boxed set, so that will give plenty of Atmos goodness.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Swolern said:


> My Atmos setup is finally getting to me in 2 days. What are you guys top movie picks to show-off Atmos?
> 
> Im less than half way through the 6 season Game of Thrones boxed set, so that will give plenty of Atmos goodness.


Im halway through episode 4, season 1 lol. Im saving it for when my wife and I can watch it together. 

I cant give you too much help with personal atmos expierence other than Mad Max: Fury Road is well known to be good. I have demoed a few things but not a full movie.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hugo S

Mashie Saldana said:


> Interesting, so in 9.2.2 you didn't actually hear any sound at all in the wides?


In this 9.2.2 configuration, no sound in the Wides. 

H.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



maikeldepotter said:


> Interesting observation of getting a more 'cinemascopic' sound when adding apparently silent wides to a 7.x.2 configuration. If this turns out to be more than a placebo effect, it will cause some interesting debates on how the Atmos object playback renderer works with 'lower' channel counts. We know that the Atmos renderer is not active with only 7 base layer speakers (7.x). Maybe you have discovered that - in contrast to our current believes - there is in fact an audible difference between playing back the 7.1 down-mix, and having active object rendering with the same 7.1 lay-out. Did you by any chance also compare 7.x.0 with 9.x.0 and observe the same difference in sound?


No I haven't compared 7.x.0 and 9.x.0, but that's a good suggestion... I'll do that when I find some time. 

Anyway what's really interesting in this Wides reproduction case, is that in the (5+Wides).x.4 configuration the Wides are really active, when in 9.x.2 they're silent. A (5+Wides.x.4 that's really pleasant with its "cinemascope" impression.

And I do agree that as per the Atmos documentation I have read so far, only "objects" should be reproduced by the Wides, so it seems here that there is something wrong in the process.

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



sdrucker said:


> I can't speak to the Marantz, but on my Trinnov Altitude there's at least two instances where wides lit up as inputs on Lucy:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...channel-exploiting-thread-2.html#post47307265
> 
> FYI I'm running 9.x.4 in my room...Unbroken's opening bombing run also has some wides action. This second link is from the Trinnov thread, in a high channel count room. Check out the second snapshot on for Lw and Rw:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...1516103-trinnov-altitude-39.html#post36341066


Merci for these links, singularly the Wides thread, I just subscribed to. 

Which ends up showing that the selected extracts of Lucy used in the tests aren't precisely indicated to provide a good idea as to what Wides can bring into a 9.x.x reproduction.

... and which ends up showing again why AVS is such a valuable source of information. 

Hugo


----------



## thebland

Mashie Saldana said:


> Front wide is one of the 32 valid Atmos speaker locations and object data will be rendered there (if authored on the disc), in this case either the AVR was acting up or no object data was intended to go there. Looking at this thread it seems to be a bit hit and miss if the sound engineers are sending sounds to the wides though: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html


I posted a short video and screen shot of the movie, _Sully_ and the along with the simultaneous individual channel audio output. The wides are the 7th and 8th peaks from the left. They are labeled: RW and LW. Most Atmos movies (if not all) I've watched employ wides regularly - and to great effect! _Sully_ in Atmos puts you right in the cockpit! Very, very impressive mix.

I hope the next generation of SSPs employ wides - they really expand the front soundstage. More information and discrete channels is better.










https://vimeo.com/197732270


----------



## maikeldepotter

Hugo S said:


> Anyway what's really interesting in this Wides reproduction case, is that in the (5+Wides).x.4 configuration the Wides are really active, when in 9.x.2 they're silent. A (5+Wides.x.4 that's really pleasant with its "cinemascope" impression.


Maybe the Atmos renderer in the Marantz assumes the wides in a 5+2.x.4 lay-out to be more to the side (e.g. at 70 degrees azimuth), while in a 7+2.x.4 lay-out it expects them to be part of the front stage (e.g. at 50 degrees azimuth). That would mean that for the Atmos renderer the wides are synonym with either an additional pair of side surrounds at about 70 degrees (5+2 lay-out), or with the home variant of the cinematic 'precedence speakers' (placed just outside the screen borders) at about 50 degrees (7+2 lay-out). In the latter case, to protect the integrity of the front stage, no object sound meant for the sides is sent to the 'wides'.

Edit: This would be another Atmos implementation than on the Trinnov Altitude, where the wides are ALWAYS considered to be part of the front stage.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

thebland said:


> I posted a short video and screen shot of the movie, _Sully_ and the along with the simultaneous individual channel audio output. The wides are the 7th and 8th peaks from the left. They are labeled: RW and LW. Most Atmos movies (if not all) I've watched employ wides regularly - and to great effect! _Sully_ in Atmos puts you right in the cockpit! Very, very impressive mix.
> 
> I hope the next generation of SSPs employ wides - they really expand the front soundstage. More information and discrete channels is better.https://vimeo.com/197732270


Good to hear wides are used a lot since I will get to enjoy it in the very near future as well.

On a side note, I totally need to figure out how to make a 15 channel VU meter to connect to the speaker out terminals, that looks awesome.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> Hi Aras,
> 
> Spider-Man (2002) is Sony Pictures. ...The full franchise.
> Sony is supposed to release ten Blu-ray titles with Auro-3D.
> 
> A New Hope is Disney (was Fox). A New Hope in 4K is appropriate; 4K needs all the boost they can get...bring Atmos exclusivity and kill 3D.
> Disney is certainly going to releases some 4K BR titles (Dolby Vision?); they have to...it's how they make some money...triple and quadruple dipping.
> The Force Awakens is just awaiting its triple dipping (2D and 3D were no. 1 and 2). ...With 4K (no. 3), and or with Atmos or with DTS:X (my guess? Atmos).
> 
> 3D is d3ad, we don't ne3d 3D, vive 3D!


Based on the CES press conference I'm almost 100% positive that they were discussing the Spiderman that's coming out this July, not the 2002 feature.


----------



## sdrucker

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> Merci for these links, singularly the Wides thread, I just subscribed to.
> 
> Which ends up showing that the selected extracts of Lucy used in the tests aren't precisely indicated to provide a good idea as to what Wides can bring into a 9.x.x reproduction.
> 
> ... and which ends up showing again why AVS is such a valuable source of information.
> 
> Hugo


FYI - taken this morning...a snapshot of an input from Lucy around the 25 minute mark. Wides are lower than mains but still active during that levitation scene I mentioned on the Width thread:


----------



## funky54

I understand and have researched Atmos suggested speaker placement threads and blog's. Currently I enjoy ITU 775 speaker placement. 

Before I start moving and cutting walls... has anyone merged the to lines of thought? What negative effect would it have on Atmos to leave the side surrounds? Or, What negative effect would there be with moving the sides to directly beside the listener when it comes to multi channel music?

In truth to be clear about my priorities, it goes like this

1) Two channel - 75% of my listening and goals
2) Atmos - to enjoy movies with a great immersion
3) Multi channel listening

So, what do you guys recommend?


----------



## paulfromtulsa

Swolern said:


> My Atmos setup is finally getting to me in 2 days. What are you guys top movie picks to show-off Atmos?
> 
> Im less than half way through the 6 season Game of Thrones boxed set, so that will give plenty of Atmos goodness.


Sully has been the best atmos affect that I have seen

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I had always thought you were Sdurani for some reason...


Common mistake. Even our parents can't tell us apart.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> I also had Aras over at our place about three weeks ago, and we enjoyed the full glory of Gravity, Unbroken and a few other movies with wides.....we should have played In the Heart of the Sea for comparison's sake, though....


Ever since hearing your setup I can't wait for the day when receivers can do wides again. I'm going to wait until 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 hits the market before upgrading my receiver (around the 2k price point). 

Thanks for having me over Stuart, you gotta come check out my space soon. I also want to see that projector when you get it setup!


----------



## Opethion

I'm confused about the recommended elevation angle of top front/rear speakers according to the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines from July 2016:

It says: "The overhead speakers should be at a height (shown as H3 in Figure 2) between two and three times the vertical position of the listener-level speakers. The angle of elevation from the listening position to the left top front/right top front and left top rear/right top rear overhead speakers in a 7.1.4 reference layout should be 45 degrees."

This sounds like the 45 degrees of elevation should be measured in the vertical plane which goes through the MLP and e.g. the top front right speaker.

However, figure 2 looks like a side view, i.e. like a projection of all speakers to the side wall. An angle of 45 degrees in this side view projection would be equal to about 35 degrees (=arctan(1/sqrt(2)) in the vertical plane which goes through the MLP and e.g. the top front right speaker.

So, which way to measure is the right one?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Opethion said:


> I'm confused about the recommended elevation angle of top front/rear speakers according to the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines from July 2016:
> 
> It says: "The overhead speakers should be at a height (shown as H3 in Figure 2) between two and three times the vertical position of the listener-level speakers. The angle of elevation from the listening position to the left top front/right top front and left top rear/right top rear overhead speakers in a 7.1.4 reference layout should be 45 degrees."
> 
> This sounds like the 45 degrees of elevation should be measured in the vertical plane which goes through the MLP and e.g. the top front right speaker.
> 
> However, figure 2 looks like a side view, i.e. like a projection of all speakers to the side wall. An angle of 45 degrees in this side view projection would be equal to about 35 degrees (=arctan(1/sqrt(2)) in the vertical plane which goes through the MLP and e.g. the top front right speaker.
> 
> So, which way to measure is the right one?


Sideways place them in line where your mains had been if they were at 30 degrees. Then just the normal 45 degree projection forward (same distance forward as the distance between MLP and height speakers).


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> Ever since hearing your setup I can't wait for the day when receivers can do wides again. I'm going to wait until 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 hits the market before upgrading my receiver (around the 2k price point).
> 
> Thanks for having me over Stuart, you gotta come check out my space soon. I also want to see that projector when you get it setup!



I need to fix one misbehaving woofer on a sub (hence I'm running 9.3.4 rather than 9.4.4 at the moment), and get that AT screen ordered along with my contractor coming over to add some support beams and help me mount the PJ on our ceiling. Hopefully I'll have that JVC RS and 95-100" width screen up before AXPONA....


----------



## Opethion

Mashie Saldana said:


> Sideways place them in line where your mains had been if they were at 30 degrees. Then just the normal 45 degree projection forward (same distance forward as the distance between MLP and height speakers).


Ok, thanks! So it's the second way to measure it. If by coincidence the distance between front left and front right main speaker is twice the height difference between the MLP an the top speakers, this results in the mentioned 35 degrees in the vertical plane which goes through the top speaker. So to place the front top right speaker I go the same distance forward and to the right as the height difference between MLP and top speaker.


----------



## sdurani

Opethion said:


> So, which way to measure is the right one?


Either will work. Easiest way to do it is to measure from your ears to the ceiling; that same distance forward & rearward of your listening position draw imaginary lines across the width of the ceiling. Mount your speakers on the ceiling, spread apart on those imaginary lines. Yes, spreading the speakers apart will mean that they are at less than 45 degrees elevation, but they'll still be within the placement range for those speakers.


----------



## NorthSky

*Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)*



Aras_Volodka said:


> Based on the CES press conference I'm almost 100% positive that they were discussing the Spiderman that's coming out this July, not the 2002 feature.


Oh this guy (sorry):





_____

Production company: Columbia Pictures
Marvel Studios
LStar Capital

Distributed by: Sony Pictures Releasing 

Release date: July 7, 2017 (United States)


----------



## gwsat

Methodical_1 said:


> Interesting you say this. I now have Atmos and wanted to experience the 3d sound and therefore have watch movies that I probably would not have watch if it weren't for Atmos and found them to be good movies.


In addition to its Atmos audiotrack, I bought _Batman v. Superman Extended Edition_ because so many were saying that the Extended Edition told a much clearer and more satisfying story than the theatrical edition. The word was that the theatrical edition just wasn't very good. Bottom line, since I entered the Atmos age, this film has been my most pleasant surprise. There is a scene in which young Bruce Wayne falls into a well filled with bats. The immersive effect of the Atmos soundtrack in that scene is sensational.


----------



## sdrucker

Hugo S said:


> In this 9.2.2 configuration, no sound in the Wides.
> 
> H.



As a follow-up to what you've observed on the Marantz 8802a in your article..it's odd that 9.x.2 doesn't apparently have object passthrough in the wides at the two Lucy scenes you cited (which coincidentally or not, are the same snippets of time I'd mentioned a few months earlier on the Width thread), but that the Trinnov is showing discrete input content as per my snapshot today and more anecdotal observation back in October on the Width thread. Jeff (thebland) already noted that in his own Trinnov setup the wides can be quite active with object passthrough (he's got a source input snapshot, so no remapping is involved).


So...I'm wondering if anybody else can confirm this with Lucy in a 9.x.2 setup on other D&M pre/pros or AVRs, or if they can cite a similar instance on a UHD or BD track where there IS wides content in a 9.x.2 or other setup with wides enabled. 

Assuming that there wasn't an issue in the Audyssey calibration or speaker enabling in the 8802a, it would be interesting to see if this was "always" the case or somehow related to authoring where the wides somehow automatically snapped to the front on this disc when played back with only two height channels on a DSP implementation of Atmos. And has anyone used a Dolby Atmos test tone with 9.x.2 successfully with the wides correctly playing the tones? I don't have the demo disc supporting tests of 9.x.2 to 9.x.6 configurations so I can't test this myself - to be meaningful to folks on this thread, it really needs to be tested with a mainstream processor.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdrucker said:


> I need to fix one misbehaving woofer on a sub (hence I'm running 9.3.4 rather than 9.4.4 at the moment), and get that AT screen ordered along with my contractor coming over to add some support beams and help me mount the PJ on our ceiling. Hopefully I'll have that JVC RS and 95-100" width screen up before AXPONA....


Are You going to Axpona? I might get the 2 day pass



NorthSky said:


> Oh this guy (sorry):


One could be forgiven... there's only like a million spider man movies now!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Hugo S said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> FWIW I've just published the first part of an HCFR article (in French) comparing Dolby Atmos reproductions of 2 small extracts of Lucy in 7.2.4, 7.2, 5.2, 9.2.2 configurations driven by a Marantz AV8802A :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/dolby-...urations-marantz-av8802a-7-2-4-7-2-5-2-9-2-2/
> 
> the 2nd part of this HCFR article will be dedicated to above 11.1 channels reproductions with the unique Trinnov Altitude 32.
> 
> Hugo


Hugo, thank you! Makes we want to put Lucy in the Oppo once more... Great movie.

Anyway, I am sure you can't wait for 13.1 to finally become reality. I was so disappointed that the Marantz 8802 didn't get proper 13.1 output that I got the Atmos-less XMC-1 instead (because it has Dirac).

Do you think the 8803 or whatever it's called will be introduced this year with "real" 13.1?


----------



## thebland

Oh no.... not another Spider-Man movie...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> As a follow-up to what you've observed on the Marantz 8802a in your article..it's odd that 9.x.2 doesn't apparently have object passthrough in the wides at the two Lucy scenes you cited (which coincidentally or not, are the same snippets of time I'd mentioned a few months earlier on the Width thread), but that the Trinnov is showing discrete input content as per my snapshot today and more anecdotal observation back in October on the Width thread. Jeff (thebland) already noted that in his own Trinnov setup the wides can be quite active with object passthrough (he's got a source input snapshot, so no remapping is involved).
> 
> 
> So...I'm wondering if anybody else can confirm this with Lucy in a 9.x.2 setup on other D&M pre/pros or AVRs, or if they can cite a similar instance on a UHD or BD track where there IS wides content in a 9.x.2 or other setup with wides enabled.
> 
> Assuming that there wasn't an issue in the Audyssey calibration or speaker enabling in the 8802a, it would be interesting to see if this was "always" the case or somehow related to authoring where the wides somehow automatically snapped to the front on this disc when played back with only two height channels on a DSP implementation of Atmos. And has anyone used a Dolby Atmos test tone with 9.x.2 successfully with the wides correctly playing the tones? I don't have the demo disc supporting tests of 9.x.2 to 9.x.6 configurations so I can't test this myself - to be meaningful to folks on this thread, it really needs to be tested with a mainstream processor.


I just tested this with my SR7010 with only the wides connected in a 9.1.2 setup. The wides are working perfectly fine with the 9.1.6 test tones as well as the Unbroken and Bailando demos on the 2016 demo disk.

I do have the Lucy Atmos BD but I have not opened it and wont do that until the HT is fully operational.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Hugo S said:


> In this 9.2.2 configuration, no sound in the Wides.
> 
> H.


It's weird. I'm running front wides and most Atmos discs I've thrown at my Marantz have sounds, music, and occasionally dialog come out of them most of the time.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Hugo, thank you! Makes we want to put Lucy in the Oppo once more... Great movie.
> 
> Anyway, I am sure you can't wait for 13.1 to finally become reality. I was so disappointed that the Marantz 8802 didn't get proper 13.1 output that I got the Atmos-less XMC-1 instead (because it has Dirac).
> 
> Do you think the 8803 or whatever it's called will be introduced this year with "real" 13.1?


Heck, I'd love 11.1.6 myself. If we're going for broke, why not?


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's weird. I'm running front wides and most Atmos discs I've thrown at my Marantz have sounds, music, and occasionally dialog come out of them most of the time.



Do you have a UHD player and the Lucy disc? One other due diligence detail for Hugo, BTW - was the UHD player playing the UHD on bitstream for the 9.x.2 setting?


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Heck, I'd love 11.1.6 myself. If we're going for broke, why not?



Join us, join us..... (one more time with feeling)


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> I just tested this with my SR7010 with only the wides connected in a 9.1.2 setup. The wides are working perfectly fine with the 9.1.6 test tones as well as the Unbroken and Bailando demos on the 2016 demo disk.
> 
> I do have the Lucy Atmos BD but I have not opened it and wont do that until the HT is fully operational.



I thought Lucy only had Atmos on the UHD disc, not the standard BD.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Do you have a UHD player and the Lucy disc? One other due diligence detail for Hugo, BTW - was the UHD player playing the UHD on bitstream for the 9.x.2 setting?


I don't have _Lucy._ Thought it was stupid myself and haven't sat through the Atmos version.  I do have a UHD player on bitstream and am using Denon/Marantz's 7.1.4 mode with 5.1.4 and Front Wides (we non Altitude owners are stuck at 11.1 processing for now, of course  ). 

It would also be interesting to know if those few more current DTS: X titles with objects listed in the metadata (rather than static 7.1.4) are getting the objects read and manipulated by current DTS: X renderers at all.


----------



## Nalleh

Hugo S said:


> In this 9.2.2 configuration, no sound in the Wides.
> 
> H.


I tried my Denon 7200 in 9.1.2 config, and in those two clips from Lucy they were sounds from the wides. Not all the time, but more than a couple times.

However, disabling surround back, make a HUGE difference, as you said. Sounds almost all the time from the wides.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't have _Lucy._ Thought it was stupid myself and haven't sat through the Atmos version.  I do have a UHD player on bitstream and am using Denon/Marantz's 7.1.4 mode with 5.1.4 and Front Wides (we non Altitude owners are stuck at 11.1 processing for now, of course  ).



It's preposterous and the script is incoherent towards the end, but who cares when you have Scarlett Johansson in tight jeans to look at  



> It would also be interesting to know if those few more current DTS: X titles with objects listed in the metadata (rather than static 7.1.4) are getting the objects read and manipulated by current DTS: X renderers at all.


I only have Independence Day 20th Anniversary, Ex Machina, and Whisky Tango Foxtrot, along with the 2015 DTS:X demo. Just not a ton I've found captivating to own, but I probably will pick at least the first Bourne movie one of these days...

And on the subject, a little less than 25 Atmos releases. Sad!


----------



## NorthSky

sdrucker said:


> I thought Lucy only had Atmos on the UHD disc, not the standard BD.


• 'Lucy' | Blu-ray (1080p) | Dolby Atmos

But true from this version: 'Lucy' | 4K Blu-yay = D Atmos | Regular Blu-nay = D TrueHD 7.1


----------



## matth22

Swolern said:


> My Atmos setup is finally getting to me in 2 days. What are you guys top movie picks to show-off Atmos?
> 
> Im less than half way through the 6 season Game of Thrones boxed set, so that will give plenty of Atmos goodness.


Sully is my absolute go to when doing an Atmos demo. It does everything right.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't have _Lucy._ Thought it was stupid myself and haven't sat through the Atmos version.  I do have a UHD player on bitstream and am using Denon/Marantz's 7.1.4 mode with 5.1.4 and Front Wides (we non Altitude owners are stuck at 11.1 processing for now, of course  ).
> 
> It would also be interesting to know if those few more current DTS: X titles with objects listed in the metadata (rather than static 7.1.4) are getting the objects read and manipulated by current DTS: X renderers at all.


Independence Day UHD blu-ray with DTS:X audio has 7.1.4 + 2 Objects, according to my Yamaha receiver. I wonder if those 2 objects ever get into the Wide positions at any time throughout the film?

Craig.


----------



## 5mark

I have a Marantz SR7010 using a 7.1.4 setup with wides instead of backs. The wides are active in Atmos tracks and often even more active using Neural X.

Today I was watching Mad Max and the wides were very active with both music and discrete effects. As an experiment I tried configuring for 9.1.2. In the same scene the wides became silent. 

When the backs are disabled, the wides certainly are treated differently, more like a second set of side surrounds. It's working perfectly in my setup with the wides along the side walls, and the side surrounds behind the LP. So no complaints here.


----------



## gwsat

NorthSky said:


> • 'Lucy' | Blu-ray (1080p) | Dolby Atmos
> 
> But true from this version: 'Lucy' | 4K Blu-yay = D Atmos | Regular Blu-nay = D TrueHD 7.1


I just checked the 1080p version of _Lucy_ from the UHD HDR set. The 1080p version has only DTS-HD MA 5.1.


----------



## NorthSky

gwsat said:


> I just checked the 1080p version of _Lucy_ from the UHD HDR set. The 1080p version has only DTS-HD MA 5.1.


Ah, then it's a misprint, an audio spec error from blu-ray.com ...I should tell them so that they can correct it. Thx for checking gwsat.

Then the regular Blu-ray disc from that 4K BR package would be the same to this one: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/108026/#Review

* The Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio track mentioned is from the 4K Blu-ray disc when not decoded by a Dolby Atmos decoder.
Then the audio spec is correct; it is only for the 4K BR disc, and they simply don't mention the audio for the regular Blu. 

I wonder...how much more $billions of dollars it would cost them to put the Dolby Atmos audio track on the regular Blu-ray version? 
It would probably be too prohibitive, and the studios would lost their shirts. Lol

Look, the guy with his wife and their two dogs and cats are watching a 3D Blu-ray movie in their Dolby Atmos home theater room, but sans Atmos because the studio didn't put it on that 3D immersive version, only on that 4K ultra high resolution one. And that movie by the way, looks even better from the regular 1080p/2D version because the UHD/HDR one wasn't transferred properly. But that cannot be, 4K is supposed to look the very best..._Suicide Squat_ ? ..._Suicide Squid._ ,,,, Sorry. Lol


----------



## Scott Simonian

Craig Mecak said:


> Independence Day UHD blu-ray with DTS:X audio has 7.1.4 + 2 Objects, according to my Yamaha receiver. I wonder if those 2 objects ever get into the Wide positions at any time throughout the film?
> 
> Craig.


Check and see if one of those is a dialog object and controllable through the DTS Dialogue parameter.


----------



## meli

NorthSky said:


> Then the audio spec is correct; it is only for the 4K BR disc, and they simply don't mention the audio for the regular Blu.


There is a Hong Kong import Blu-ray of "Lucy" with Atmos. Last May, I wrote to 3D Bluray Rental and they bought a copy, which I then rented. 3D Rental was very receptive to my suggestion; I told them people on the AVS forms were interested in the Atmos version.

Here it is:
http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html

Edit: Maybe they do still have it. See next post.


----------



## meli

3D Rental does still have the Atmos "Lucy". It wasn't showing-up thru a search, but I was able to find it thru my rental history. They also have the Atmos versions of "Sicario", "John Wick" and "Gravity".

Here's the Atmos "Lucy":
https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=LucyDA12-14

They have the Atmos Blu-ray of "Gravity":
http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=gravityca-tw

They also have this really well-shot snowboarding movie, "The Art of Flight":
http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=2373


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> I thought Lucy only had Atmos on the UHD disc, not the standard BD.


The Hong Kong release of Lucy BD is indeed Atmos. It had been cheaper to wait for the UHD release though.


----------



## lujan

Mashie Saldana said:


> The Hong Kong release of Lucy BD is indeed Atmos. It had been cheaper to wait for the UHD release though.


I also got the Hong Kong version of Lucy to get Atmos and then bought it again on 4k which also had Atmos. Ended up selling the Hong Kong version for $20 so not out quite so much $$$.


----------



## maikeldepotter

The observations below suggest that in D&M models the ATMOS rendering designation of 'wides' depend on whether or not 'rears' are present:

*- with rears: the first position outside L/R (called 'wides' in the Atmos guidelines, forming part of the front stage), or 
- without rears: the second position outside L/R (called left and right surround 1 in the Atmos guidelines, forming part of the side surrounds).*

If this is the way it works, it could be intended and not necessarily "something wrong in the process". Personally, I would find it a quite sensible approach since it enables optimized performance of set-ups without rears. I wonder whether consumer AVRs/processors from other brands (e.g. Yamaha) exhibit similar behavior, or that this a typical D&M implementation.




Hugo S said:


> Anyway what's really interesting in this Wides reproduction case, is that in the (5+Wides).x.4 configuration the Wides are really active, when in 9.x.2 they're silent. A (5+Wides.x.4 that's really pleasant with its "cinemascope" impression.
> 
> And I do agree that as per the Atmos documentation I have read so far, only "objects" should be reproduced by the Wides, so it seems here that there is something wrong in the process.





Nalleh said:


> I tried my Denon 7200 in 9.1.2 config, and in those two clips from Lucy they were sounds from the wides. Not all the time, but more than a couple times.
> 
> However, disabling surround back, make a HUGE difference, as you said. Sounds almost all the time from the wides.





5mark said:


> I have a Marantz SR7010 using a 7.1.4 setup with wides instead of backs. The wides are active in Atmos tracks and often even more active using Neural X.
> 
> Today I was watching Mad Max and the wides were very active with both music and discrete effects. As an experiment I tried configuring for 9.1.2. In the same scene the wides became silent.
> 
> When the backs are disabled, the wides certainly are treated differently, more like a second set of side surrounds. It's working perfectly in my setup with the wides along the side walls, and the side surrounds behind the LP. So no complaints here.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mashie Saldana said:


> I just tested this with my SR7010 with only the wides connected in a 9.1.2 setup. The wides are working perfectly fine with the 9.1.6 test tones as well as the Unbroken and Bailando demos on the 2016 demo disk.


Did you also check whether de-activating your rears changes the output to the wides in any way?


----------



## Opethion

sdurani said:


> Yes, spreading the speakers apart will mean that they are at less than 45 degrees elevation, but they'll still be within the placement range for those speakers.


This sounds like they should ideally be at 45 degrees elevation in the vertical plane which goes through the top speaker and the MLP. Sorry but then that's not the same what Mashie said.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> Did you also check whether de-activating your rears changes the output to the wides in any way?


I will try that later today and see how the 9.1.6 test track sounds in the wides and if there is any leakage from the nearby speaker locations.


----------



## sdurani

Opethion said:


> This sounds like they should ideally be at 45 degrees elevation in the vertical plane which goes through the top speaker and the MLP. Sorry but then that's not the same what Mashie said.


As I said: both will work. The Atmos decoder doesn't render objects based on angles, so it really doesn't matter. There's no "ideal" with Atmos, just what sounds good to you (i.e., gives a convincing impression of height). That's why the Atmos install guide uses such broad placement ranges instead of precise locations. You can be as precise you want with angles, if that makes you feel better, but understand that it won't make the rendering any more accurate.


----------



## Hugo S

Bonjour Erwin,



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Hugo, thank you! Makes we want to put Lucy in the Oppo once more... Great movie.
> 
> Anyway, I am sure you can't wait for 13.1 to finally become reality. I was so disappointed that the Marantz 8802 didn't get proper 13.1 output that I got the Atmos-less XMC-1 instead (because it has Dirac).
> 
> Do you think the 8803 or whatever it's called will be introduced this year with "real" 13.1?


Ah Lucy in Atmos...  though let's hope that the new Luc Besson's _"Valérian et la Cité des milles planètes"_ due in July, will also be an Atmos jewel.

(One of) my 2017 wish(es) : a Marantz 8804 with a 15.1(2) processing capacity, for a full 9.2.6... PLEASE² Yxmxda-san... 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Dan,



Dan Hitchman said:


> It's weird. I'm running front wides and most Atmos discs I've thrown at my Marantz have sounds, music, and occasionally dialog come out of them most of the time.


My "no sound" in 9.2.2, was only in perspective to the specific time-codes of the 2 extracts of Lucy used in the tests I've made for the above mentioned HCFR article. 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

sdrucker said:


> Do you have a UHD player and the Lucy disc? One other due diligence detail for Hugo, BTW - was the UHD player playing the UHD on bitstream for the 9.x.2 setting?


Bitstream in all contexts.

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

Nalleh said:


> I tried my Denon 7200 in 9.1.2 config, and in those two clips from Lucy they were sounds from the wides. Not all the time, but more than a couple times.
> 
> However, disabling surround back, make a HUGE difference, as you said. Sounds almost all the time from the wides.


That's the point... 

H.


----------



## Hugo S

maikeldepotter said:


> The observations below suggest that in D&M models the ATMOS rendering designation of 'wides' depend on whether or not 'rears' are present:
> 
> *- with rears: the first position outside L/R (called 'wides' in the Atmos guidelines, forming part of the front stage), or
> - without rears: the second position outside L/R (called left and right surround 1 in the Atmos guidelines, forming part of the side surrounds).*
> 
> If this is the way it works, it could be intended and not necessarily "something wrong in the process". Personally, I would find it a quite sensible approach since it enables optimized performance of set-ups without rears. I wonder whether consumer AVRs/processors from other brands (e.g. Yamaha) exhibit similar behavior, or that this a typical D&M implementation.


Waouw... that's MOST interesting... MERCI!

Which would explain many things... Does this come from a public document or a discussion?

Hugo


----------



## Opethion

sdurani said:


> As I said: both will work. The Atmos decoder doesn't render objects based on angles, so it really doesn't matter. There's no "ideal" with Atmos, just what sounds good to you (i.e., gives a convincing impression of height). That's why the Atmos install guide uses such broad placement ranges instead of precise locations. You can be as precise you want with angles, if that makes you feel better, but understand that it won't make the rendering any more accurate.


Pity. I would have preferred to know what Dolby really meant with those 45 degrees (or with the range of 30 to 55 degrees, for that matter). But it seems no one really knows and cares, because it works anyway, more or less. I'm aware that this is not exact science but there should be a reference setup.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Hugo S said:


> Waouw... that's MOST interesting... MERCI!
> 
> Which would explain many things... Does this come from a public document or a discussion?
> 
> Hugo


Well, it comes from the discussion you initiated! 
Just a brainwave I had, as a possible explanation...


----------



## Nalleh

Hugo S said:


> That's the point...
> 
> H.


Understood, but you said "no sounds" from wides in 9.2.2.

I had sounds.



maikeldepotter said:


> Well, it comes from the discussion you initiated!
> Just a brainwave I had, as a possible explanation...


I agree and that makes a lot of sense.

For example in a 5.1 + wides setup (no SB's), and playing the 9.1.6 Atmos test tones, the side surround tones phantom between the surround and wides.


----------



## gwsat

NorthSky said:


> Ah, then it's a misprint, an audio spec error from blu-ray.com ...I should tell them so that they can correct it. Thx for checking gwsat.
> 
> Then the regular Blu-ray disc from that 4K BR package would be the same to this one: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Lucy-Blu-ray/108026/#Review
> 
> * The Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio track mentioned is from the 4K Blu-ray disc when not decoded by a Dolby Atmos decoder.
> Then the audio spec is correct; it is only for the 4K BR disc, and they simply don't mention the audio for the regular Blu.
> 
> I wonder...how much more $billions of dollars it would cost them to put the Dolby Atmos audio track on the regular Blu-ray version?
> It would probably be too prohibitive, and the studios would lost their shirts. Lol
> 
> Look, the guy with his wife and their two dogs and cats are watching a 3D Blu-ray movie in their Dolby Atmos home theater room, but sans Atmos because the studio didn't put it on that 3D immersive version, only on that 4K ultra high resolution one. And that movie by the way, looks even better from the regular 1080p/2D version because the UHD/HDR one wasn't transferred properly. But that cannot be, 4K is supposed to look the very best..._Suicide Squat_ ? ..._Suicide Squid._ ,,,, Sorry. Lol


It is a cheap trick but studio suits are known as much for their cheap tricks as they are for their paranoia about technological advances -- unless an advance might allow them to add another layer of copy protection, of course.


----------



## scarabaeus

Hugo S said:


> ... let's hope that the new Luc Besson's _"Valérian et la Cité des milles planètes"_ due in July, will also be an Atmos jewel


Oh, that looks like a cool movie! I read those comic books when I was a teenager, great stories. By this summer, a HDR UHD release with Atmos will hopefully be the norm, maybe even with Dolby Vision.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Nalleh said:


> For example in a 5.1 + wides setup (no SB's), and playing the 9.1.6 Atmos test tones, the side surround tones phantom between the surround and wides.


Cool you already tested it, no need for me to mess around doing it again.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> For example in a 5.1 + wides setup (no SB's), and playing the 9.1.6 Atmos test tones, the side surround tones phantom between the surround and wides.


Yes, the renderer expecting surrounds at 70 and 110 degrees, and thus phantoming the test tone inbetween at 90 degrees.

I would almost say 'QED', but it would be nice if there was some confirmation of someone from 'inside'.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> The observations below suggest that in D&M models the ATMOS rendering designation of 'wides' depend on whether or not 'rears' are present:
> 
> *- with rears: the first position outside L/R (called 'wides' in the Atmos guidelines, forming part of the front stage), or
> - without rears: the second position outside L/R (called left and right surround 1 in the Atmos guidelines, forming part of the side surrounds).*
> 
> If this is the way it works, it could be intended and not necessarily "something wrong in the process". Personally, I would find it a quite sensible approach since it enables optimized performance of set-ups without rears. I wonder whether consumer AVRs/processors from other brands (e.g. Yamaha) exhibit similar behavior, or that this a typical D&M implementation.


One very important thing to remember here with Denon/Marantz AV receivers and pre//pros models prior they removed the Wides: Audyssey.
With Dolby Atmos (and DTS:X and Auro-3D), 97.9% (roughly) of people engage Audyssey Room EQ. 
For the people using and loving the Wides, Audyssey plays a large role on how and from where the Wides get their audio signals. Yes? 

Yamaha, Onkyo/Integra, Pioneer, Arcam, ...they don't use Wides. 
______

It's funny; 3D is dead, and Wides are dead too, and curved panels. Pretty soon we're going to live in a flat dimensionless world, where everything looks unrealistically soft, or sharp, or dark, or color altered, or color tinted, or lenses filtered, and boring. The balance is in the hands of what brings the most money, and not in the service of the true art. 
But that's ok because movies are entertainment, fake realities, with overblown exaggerated pictures and sounds. It's all camera and sound mixing processing. Only real life is true moving pictures and sounds. And the few filmmakers who respect life's integrity in its natural color elements without alterations are in the minority of artists who cannot survive financially; Hollywood movie studios don't engage in non-profitable artistic films. It's Batman or Superman or Spider-Man or Iron-Man or X-Men or the red Exit door. 
* I hope they do a decent sequel to _Suicide Squat_, with better realistic artistry. ...Less blacks, more blue skies with white cumulus nimbus clouds.
And they should hire Tom Hardy (Mad Max) and Charlize Theron for that sequel...IMO.

The Wides are gone from D&M; that is sad, as sad as 3D is gone from LG OLED TVs in 2017, as sad as Dolby Atmos is becoming more and more the exclusivity of 4K Blu-rays, as sad as there are regular Blu-rays that look better than their 4K BR counterparts, as sad as the curved gimmick panels from Samsung, as sad as the Samsung phones with explosive batteries, as sad as I believe Wides have a true acoustical benefit, as ...tra-la-la we live in a material world of financial profits and heck with the artistry. 

It's like a nightmare, a bad sci-fi flick with a terrible ending. ...A disaster. Bring back the Wides, make Denon/Marantz great again.


----------



## Hugo S

maikeldepotter said:


> Well, it comes from the discussion you initiated!
> Just a brainwave I had, as a possible explanation...


So let's wait till somebody checks this... hypothesis.  

Hugo


----------



## 5mark

I certainly feel that the info I'm getting from the wides is more enjoyable than what the backs would be doing. (I do have 4 speakers behind me with the side surrounds and top rears.) I think most would agree it's easier to distinguish exact locations of sounds in front of us than behind.

In the Atmos Wide thread it was stated that Minions has no wide content (presumably in a 9 channel setup). I watched Minions the other day and noticed lots of great wide effects.(7.1.4 with no backs) Pans from front to back became more seemless and 3d feeling from the wides. There were also character voices from off screen that were perfectly placed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Bring back the Wides, *make Denon/Marantz great again.*


So really they are only useful for their wide speaker and Audyssey features. Otherwise, they are not great.


Yep. Sounds about right.


----------



## NorthSky

meli said:


> There is a Hong Kong import Blu-ray of "Lucy" with Atmos. Last May, I wrote to 3D Bluray Rental and they bought a copy, which I then rented. 3D Rental was very receptive to my suggestion; I told them people on the AVS forms were interested in the Atmos version.
> 
> Here it is:
> http://www.yesasia.com/global/lucy-...ng-kong-version/1039049740-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> Edit: Maybe they do still have it. See next post.





Mashie Saldana said:


> The Hong Kong release of Lucy BD is indeed Atmos. It had been cheaper to wait for the UHD release though.





lujan said:


> I also got the Hong Kong version of Lucy to get Atmos and then bought it again on 4k which also had Atmos. Ended up selling the Hong Kong version for $20 so not out quite so much $$$.


Yes, first link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1449.html#post49975569



meli said:


> 3D Rental does still have the Atmos "Lucy". It wasn't showing-up thru a search, but I was able to find it thru my rental history. They also have the Atmos versions of "Sicario", "John Wick" and "Gravity".
> 
> Here's the Atmos "Lucy":
> https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=LucyDA12-14
> 
> They have the Atmos Blu-ray of "Gravity":
> http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=gravityca-tw
> 
> They also have this really well-shot snowboarding movie, "The Art of Flight":
> http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=2373


Awesome!


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> So really they are only useful for their wide speaker and Audyssey features. Otherwise, they are not great.
> 
> Yep. Sounds about right.


Did you buy a Yamaha processor. It doesn't come with Wides. ...And no EQ below 31.5Hz. 
I'm just kidding Scott; I think Wides was a great option, and I'm sad to see them gone now. It's 0K, we now have 4K.


----------



## LDBaha

Can someone link me to the Atmos Wide thread? I want to learn more about it and I can't find it.

Also, if you want to add me to the list. I'm pretty new here:

avsforum member: LDBaha
Speaker Config: 5.1.2 
AVR: Denon X1300W
Atmos Speakers: Elac A4
Mounted: Atmos Enabled
Height Config : FD


----------



## sdurani

Opethion said:


> I would have preferred to know what Dolby really meant with those 45 degrees (or with the range of 30 to 55 degrees, for that matter).


Those are 'best practices' for speaker placement. For example: 45 degrees (give or take) is a good starting point to give the impression of sounds above you. But let's not confuse that with how the Atmos renderer in your AVR works. Precise placement at a particular angle is not going to guarantee greater accuracy. The Atmos install guide is just that: a guide. Use its recommendations as a starting point but don't fret if you can't hit those numbers precisely.


> I'm aware that this is not exact science but there should be a reference setup.


There is a reference, but it doesn't involve azimuth/elevation angles, because Atmos rendering is room centric rather than listener centric. The reference is a box bound by two horizontal planes. In the drawing below, the base layer is in grey and the height layer is in black. 










The height layer has 5 locations. The front & back edges of this plane are defined by where ever the Front Height & Rear Height speakers are located, to the extent that objects cannot be rendered forward or rearward of these speakers. Between these two pairs of speakers are remaining 3 locations (Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear), spaced equally apart. 










Audio objects in the Atmos format are mixed to locations in 3D space using Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. If an object is intended to image above the listeners at 1/3rd the distance from front to back, then it will be rendered between the Top Front & Top Middle speaker locations. Listener location has no bearing on this. If an object is intended to image between your front L/R speakers, then it will be rendered to that location; irrespective of listener location. 

Even if the listener is directly under the Top Middle location (as in the diagram above), there's no guarantee that the Top Front & Top Rear speakers will end up at 45 degrees elevation, since that depends on things like how high up the listener's ears are and how tall the ceiling is. So, since Atmos doesn't know where the listener is, it is pointless to think that placing speakers at precise angles will yield greater accuracy. Instead, follow the Atmos install guide as a starting point and tweak the placement so that you hear good separation between the base layer and height layer. IF that means 45 degrees elevation, great. If not, then use whatever works. Your set up at home should be configured to satisfy you more than some install guide.


----------



## NorthSky

maikeldepotter said:


> Well, it comes from the discussion you initiated!
> Just a brainwave I had, as a possible explanation...


_"Brainwaves"_; that's what they put in the Wides?


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Did you buy a Yamaha processor. It doesn't come with Wides. ...And no EQ below 31.5Hz.
> I'm just kidding Scott; I think Wides was a great option, and I'm sad to see them gone now. It's 0K, we now have 4K.


Actually, as of last week or so, it _does_ EQ below 31.5Hz. Not that I needed that capability, Bob. I have plenty of processing power. More than most.

I was making a point about the "popularity" of Denon/Marantz and everybody has addiction to both those features that make them blind to the rest of the world. Every one is easy to scoff away Yamaha or another brand simply because it doesn't have Audyssey or wide speaker capability. As if anything else is useless garbage. D&M are the exception to the wides dealy. They really only had them because of DSX. Then DTS shoved out Neo:X to support them a bit more. Onkyo followed for a few years but that's about it. Nobody else does wides. So it's not like Yamaha suddenly dropped the ball with no wides.

And to my thoughts that D&M really offer nothing else (that every one else provides) besides those two features.

So in a way, what you and I just exchanged is spot on. Without wides or Audyssey, D&M isn't very great.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Nalleh,



Nalleh said:


> Understood, but you said "no sounds" from wides in 9.2.2.
> 
> I had sounds.
> ...


Yes I wrote here "no sound" in 9.2.2 as a (too) short answer referring to a specific context, the 2 small period of time of the 2 small Atmos extracts of Lucy BRD UHD used in the tests I've made for an article I wrote and which is linked above. Now if you read this article (in French) I didn't _precisely_ write "no sound" in 9.2.2, but something slightly different... 

Which then doesn't obviously mean there that in general, there "no sound" in the Wides in a 9.2.2 configuration. 

But that within the context of the extracts used, *by comparison* to the Wides activity in a 5+Wides.2.4 configuration, there is "no sound" in the Wides in a 9.2.2 configuration driven by a Marantz AV8802A processor. Though _"That's the point"_.

Something to which maikel came with an hypothesis, and something I'll investigate down the road... even if the general Wides activity in Lucy, ends up being quite low, as sdrucker has shown. 

Hugo


----------



## Hugo S

NorthSky said:


> _"Brainwaves"_; that's what they put in the Wides?




Meilleurs Voeux à Toi, Bob.

Hugo


----------



## 5mark

So it would appear that discrete Wide content in a 9ch setup is actually fairly rare, or it at least varies a lot from track to track. And it makes sense that this content would "snap" to the front in setups without wides, since it is assumed it is part of the front stage. 

So when using wides with no backs, is the wide content simply what would normally be imaged between fronts and side surrounds? Or is the process more complicated/precise than that? Not sure if anyone really knows yet..

Also, in the above setup, does actual discrete Wide content snap to the front speakers or is it imaged between the front and wide speakers? Probably doesn't make a lot of difference but I may still look into it...


----------



## Nalleh

Hugo S said:


> Hi Nalleh,
> 
> Yes I wrote here "no sound" in 9.2.2 as a (too) short answer referring to a specific context, the 2 small period of time of the 2 small Atmos extracts of Lucy BRD UHD used in the tests I've made for an article I wrote and which is linked above. Now if you read this article (in French) I didn't _precisely_ write "no sound" in 9.2.2, but something slightly different...
> 
> Which then doesn't obviously mean there that in general, there "no sound" in the Wides in a 9.2.2 configuration.
> 
> But that within the context of the extracts used, *by comparison* to the Wides activity in a 5+Wides.2.4 configuration, there is "no sound" in the Wides in a 9.2.2 configuration driven by a Marantz AV8802A processor. Though _"That's the point"_.
> 
> Something to which maikel came with an hypothesis, and something I'll investigate down the road... even if the general Wides activity in Lucy, ends up being quite low, as sdrucker has shown.
> 
> Hugo


Sure, i get it. I was just surprised to read "no sound", and thought: Not active at all!! But i agree, in 9.1.2 it is clearly objects only in the wides, while in 5.1+ wides, the wides sound more like side surrounds.

It all makes sense.


----------



## sdrucker

Nalleh said:


> Sure, i get it. I was just surprised to read "no sound", and thought: Not active at all!! But i agree, in 9.1.2 it is clearly objects only in the wides, while in 5.1+ wides, the wides sound more like side surrounds.
> 
> It all makes sense.



Keep in mind that I was looking at approximately the 1/2 hour of Lucy, and saw only two instances where wides lit up with object passthrough. In this period perhaps 'very little' or 'sparse' is more descriptive than 'no' sound from my wides on the Altitude. And remember, this is one movie.


----------



## Nalleh

sdrucker said:


> Keep in mind that I was looking at approximately the 1/2 hour of Lucy, and saw only two instances where wides lit up with object passthrough. In this period perhaps 'very little' or 'sparse' is more descriptive than 'no' sound from my wides on the Altitude. And remember, this is one movie.


I listened to maybe 30 minutes total, spread over several chapters, included the two snippets Hugo used, and with ONLY the wides connected. In 9.1.2 "object mode" i would say there were sound coming from the wides each 5-10 seconds on average.

Way more than two times, but never continiously.


----------



## sdurani

5mark said:


> In the Atmos Wide thread it was stated that Minions has no wide content (presumably in a 9 channel setup). I watched Minions the other day and noticed lots of great wide effects.(7.1.4 with no backs) Pans from front to back became more seemless and 3d feeling from the wides. There were also character voices from off screen that were perfectly placed.


When doing the nearfield mix for the 'Minions' home video release, the mixer specifically asked for Wides to be installed in the mixing room because he was going to make good use of them (certainly compared to heights). 

When 'Minions' came out on Blu-ray, turned out it showed off Atmos by placing sounds outside the screen rather than sounds above the listeners: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/top-5-dolby-atmos-demos-in-minions/28222


----------



## gwsat

sdrucker said:


> Keep in mind that I was looking at approximately the 1/2 hour of Lucy, and saw only two instances where wides lit up with object passthrough. In this period perhaps 'very little' or 'sparse' is more descriptive than 'no' sound from my wides on the Altitude. And remember, this is one movie.


I have a 7.1.4 system, no wides. I recently rewatched my _Lucy_ UHD HDR Atmos disk and was again blown away. I thought the immersive effect of the Atmos soundtrack was arguably the best I have heard. The LFE was terrific too. I should add that Besson's eye for striking visuals has rarely been shown to better effect than it is in _Lucy._


----------



## 5mark

sdurani said:


> When doing the nearfield mix for the 'Minions' home video release, the mixer specifically asked for Wides to be installed in the mixing room because he was going to make good use of them (certainly compared to heights).
> 
> When 'Minions' came out on Blu-ray, turned out it showed off Atmos by placing sounds outside the screen rather than sounds above the listeners: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/top-5-dolby-atmos-demos-in-minions/28222


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...h-channel-exploiting-thread.html#post46140065

I was referencing this post where CINERAMAX found no measured Wide activity in Minions. Very strange...


----------



## sdrucker

5mark said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...h-channel-exploiting-thread.html#post46140065
> 
> I was referencing this post where CINERAMAX found no measured Wide activity in Minions. Very strange...



No offense to Peter, but he's not infallible  . He didn't catch the snippets of Wides activity in Lucy during his listening, or he is using the term "nada" or "none" to represent "little but not no sound". I'd regard his snapshots of Datasat input meter processing on page 1 of the Width thread more as evidence of films where he saw Wides activity at some point rather than evidence of a lack of Wides per se. It's a valuable resource regardless to know what's possible on the films he looked at.


----------



## scarabaeus

meli said:


> I was searching here:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...h=reviews&audio=atmos&sortby=releasetimestamp


Coming back to this, there are actually two curated lists on blu-ray.com, one for Blu-rays and for UHD Blu-rays, with Atmos. They often have early annoncements of new titles.

*List of BDs with Dolby Atmos*
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132

*List of UHDs that contain Dolby Atmos/DTS:X*
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065

And, a separate one for DTS:X Blu-rays:

*List of BDs with DTS:X*
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742


----------



## Jond0

ChiWestSider said:


> Thank you for the link. It was $23.50 shipped. I have been wanting this forever because everyone raves about this!





LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...83892859&sr=1-1&keywords=gravity+diamond+luxe
> 
> 15.00 USD


Thank you both! I had found it on Walmart.ca but ordering it through Amazon.ca made it simple and much cheaper! On it's way and I can't wait!


----------



## LNEWoLF

Jond0 said:


> Thank you both! I had found it on Walmart.ca but ordering it through Amazon.ca made it simple and much cheaper! On it's way and I can't wait!


Your welcome


----------



## ChiWestSider

Jond0 said:


> Thank you both! I had found it on Walmart.ca but ordering it through Amazon.ca made it simple and much cheaper! On it's way and I can't wait!


Mine is listed on Amazon.ca as expected to ship Feb 23rd. Nice to see your's is on the way!


----------



## Jond0

gwsat said:


> I have a 7.1.4 system, no wides. I recently rewatched my _Lucy_ UHD HDR Atmos disk and was again blown away. I thought the immersive effect of the Atmos soundtrack was arguably the best I have heard. The LFE was terrific too. I should add that Besson's eye for striking visuals has rarely been shown to better effect than it is in _Lucy._


I thought you had said Sully was the best you've heard!  

I rented it last night based on what I read from you yesterday and it was fantastic! The scene near the end where they show the whole flight path and the jet finally hits the water just completely lit up my room with sound -- I actually felt for a second _I_ was doing the belly flop into the river! Intense!


----------



## Jond0

ChiWestSider said:


> Mine is listed on Amazon.ca as expected to ship Feb 23rd. Nice to see your's is on the way!



I checked the other options/sellers and found one in Chicago (selling to Canada) who says they have it in stock. With shipping it was a few $$ more than the fulfilled by Amazon option.


----------



## ChiWestSider

Jond0 said:


> I checked the other options/sellers and found one in Chicago (selling to Canada) who says they have it in stock. With shipping it was a few $$ more than the fulfilled by Amazon option.


That was smart! (I'm an expert in Ebay, still learning the in's and out's of Amazon). Coincidentally, I'm in Chicago.


----------



## ChiWestSider

Jond0 said:


> I checked the other options/sellers and found one in Chicago (selling to Canada) who says they have it in stock. With shipping it was a few $$ more than the fulfilled by Amazon option.


I just found whom I think you used. Looks like they are in Elk Grove Village and they have a website. I filled out an inquiry and I'm waiting for them to get back. Let me see if I too can speed up delivery of a copy. Thanks


----------



## gwsat

Jond0 said:


> I thought you had said Sully was the best you've heard!
> 
> I rented it last night based on what I read from you yesterday and it was fantastic! The scene near the end where they show the whole flight path and the jet finally hits the water just completely lit up my room with sound -- I actually felt for a second _I_ was doing the belly flop into the river! Intense!


I was deeply impressed by the immersive effect of the _Sully_ Atmos soundtrack. It would be hard for me to pick a favorite between it and the _Lucy_ Atmos audiotrack. Both are wonderful, as are a number of others. _Gravity,_ _Batman v. Superman Extended Edition,_ and _Mad Max_ come to mind.


----------



## NorthSky

Scott Simonian said:


> Actually, as of last week or so, it _does_ EQ below 31.5Hz. Not that I needed that capability, Bob. I have plenty of processing power. More than most.


Wow, from a new firmware update? 



> I was making a point about the "popularity" of Denon/Marantz and everybody has addiction to both those features that make them blind to the rest of the world. Every one is easy to scoff away Yamaha or another brand simply because it doesn't have Audyssey or wide speaker capability. As if anything else is useless garbage. D&M are the exception to the wides dealy. They really only had them because of DSX. Then DTS shoved out Neo:X to support them a bit more. Onkyo followed for a few years but that's about it. Nobody else does wides. So it's not like Yamaha suddenly dropped the ball with no wides.
> 
> And to my thoughts that D&M really offer nothing else (that every one else provides) besides those two features.
> 
> So in a way, what you and I just exchanged is spot on. Without wides or Audyssey, D&M isn't very great.


...Audyssey DSX with Wides...that's very right Scott...only Denon/Marantz.
• https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212340423 

...Onkyo/Integra → No more Audyssey. 
- Before: http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/features/audyssey-dsx-29049.html 
- After (now): http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/features/accueq-98905.html
_____

♦ Yamaha CX-A5100 → http://download.yamaha.com/search/d...tegory_id=16622&product_id=2100039&1484803342 

*CX-A5100 Firmware Update Version 2.04*

Yamaha is pleased to offer the following firmware update to ensure the best possible performance and latest features for your AV pre-amplifier.

This firmware includes
1, Add New CINEMA DSP Sound program “ENHANCED”
*2, Support for Manual setup of less than 32Hz with parametric EQ (15.6Hz or more)*
3, Other operation improvement

Registered Date : 1/5/2017 (January 05, 2017)
_____

Wow, that is truly awesome...way to go Yamaha! I didn't know that Scott...I've just learned it from you right now. 
_____

Now, ...the only one thing missing from your Yamaha top-notch prep/pro is . . . Auro-3D. :wink::grin::nerd::kiss::laugh::angel::devil:


----------



## NorthSky

Hugo S said:


> Meilleurs Voeux à Toi, Bob.
> 
> Hugo


Hugo, it's always a delight to read you anywhere, everywhere and here. 
_C'est toujours un grand plaisir de te lire n'importe où, partout et ici._ 

*Vive Lucy!*  *Et Bonne Année!*

Big cheers,
Bob


----------



## maikeldepotter

NorthSky said:


> _"Brainwaves"_; that's what they put in the Wides?


If they do, it'd better not be mine, their perceived chaoticity being more than most can bear. 


Scott Simonian said:


>


----------



## Therberg

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/Gravity-Speci...83892859&sr=1-1&keywords=gravity+diamond+luxe
> 
> 15.00 USD


Do you own this dual language version from the link above and does it have Atmos? I'm just trying to confirm
before ordering because I can't find any info on this version.


----------



## nickbuol

Therberg said:


> Do you own this dual language version from the link above and does it have Atmos? I'm just trying to confirm
> before ordering because I can't find any info on this version.


I bought that from Amazon.ca last fall and it does indeed have Atmos.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Therberg said:


> Do you own this dual language version from the link above and does it have Atmos? I'm just trying to confirm
> before ordering because I can't find any info on this version.


Yes
Yes


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/118767/


----------



## Legairre

ChiWestSider said:


> Mine is listed on Amazon.ca as expected to ship Feb 23rd. Nice to see your's is on the way!


I ordered mine from Amazon.ca last week and it said expected ship date between Feb 23 and Mar 23, but it shipped the next day and I got it yesterday. Maybe yours will come sooner than Feb 23 too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

NorthSky said:


> Now, ...the only one thing missing from your Yamaha top-notch prep/pro is . . . Auro-3D. :wink::grin::nerd::kiss::laugh::angel::devil:














Spoiler


----------



## markus767

Skylinestar said:


> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


Not sure whether this has already been discussed or not but the 5.1.x E-AC3 file renders the surrounds between front and surrounds?


----------



## meli

markus767 said:


> Not sure whether this has already been discussed or not but the 5.1.x E-AC3 file renders the surrounds between front and surrounds?


I just noticed the same thing, I think. The signal for my left surround comes out of the left surround and left front speaker. Same with the right surround signal. The signals for the other speakers map correctly.

What appears to be the same video on the Dolby Atmos September 2015 disc works correctly. I guess Dolby messed-up these test signals, though that seems difficult to believe.

I was using the 5.1.4 test.


----------



## Therberg

LNEWoLF said:


> Yes
> Yes
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/118767/


Thanks! Just placed my order!


----------



## NorthSky

markus767 said:


> Not sure whether this has already been discussed or not but the 5.1.x E-AC3 file renders the surrounds between front and surrounds?





meli said:


> I just noticed the same thing, I think. The signal for my left surround comes out of the left surround and left front speaker. Same with the right surround signal. The signals for the other speakers map correctly.
> 
> What appears to be the same video on the Dolby Atmos September 2015 disc works correctly. I guess Dolby messed-up these test signals, though that seems difficult to believe.
> 
> I was using the 5.1.4 test.


• https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

The Front Wides have their acoustical advantage (Yamaha's new line of receivers), more so than the Front Heights and more so than the Back Rears. 
IME&O

Dolby must know that too.


----------



## Steve Goff

Therberg said:


> Do you own this dual language version from the link above and does it have Atmos? I'm just trying to confirm
> 
> before ordering because I can't find any info on this version.




Today I received my copy from Amazon Canada and I can confirm that it has the Atmos track.


----------



## markus767

meli said:


> I just noticed the same thing, I think. The signal for my left surround comes out of the left surround and left front speaker. Same with the right surround signal. The signals for the other speakers map correctly.
> 
> What appears to be the same video on the Dolby Atmos September 2015 disc works correctly. I guess Dolby messed-up these test signals, though that seems difficult to believe.
> 
> I was using the 5.1.4 test.


The TrueHD Atmos files work correctly for me too. It's just the E-AC3 files that render at the wrong locations. I've tested this with a Denon X4200W. What AVR did you test with?


----------



## meli

markus767 said:


> The TrueHD Atmos files work correctly for me too. It's just the E-AC3 files that render at the wrong locations. I've tested this with a Denon X4200W. What AVR did you test with?


I used a Marantz 6010. I also tried the receiver in Pure Direct mode. The thumb drive was plugged into an Oppo player. I could try connecting directly to the receiver, but since the identical test on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc works correctly that's probably not the problem.


----------



## markus767

meli said:


> I used a Marantz 6010. I also tried the receiver in Pure Direct mode. The thumb drive was plugged into an Oppo player. I could try connecting directly to the receiver, but since the identical test on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc works correctly that's probably not the problem.


Guess they made a mistake during mixing/encoding the E-AC3 files. Wrote Dolby an email.


----------



## checker9

Do other find the rear Atmos speakers to be more active than fronts? I have a 5.1.4 setup. I just added the rear Atmos speakers in the last month. Both pair of my Atmos speakers are SVS Prime Satellite speakers. I sit almost 3 feet from my back wall, and I have the rear at top of wall firing downward toward MLP. They are at a rather close angle, probably 60 degrees if facing them. My fronts are farther away and below 30 degrees, probably around 28 degrees. Right now I have the fronts set as front heights and the rears as rear tops. I have also tried both as tops and heights. I have the fronts set at +4dB above calibration line levels and the rears at +0. 

During actual Atmos movies and upmixing, I hear a lot more activity from the rears. I figured it was because the fronts are at such low angles, but I frequently re-watch scenes, that have a lot of upward audio activity, to stand right below the front height speakers and they do not have all that much activity. I even got a step ladder and did that routine right up to them. Yes there is some sound, but it is not as loud nor as active as the rears.

Is this just how the content is (more rear height activity than front)? Or is there some setting I might be overlooking that is causing my results?


----------



## rekbones

Makes sense if you have no rear speakers the rear channel sounds have to be sent somewhere and the rear top/heights are all you have. You really need 7.1.4


----------



## sdurani

rekbones said:


> Makes sense if you have no rear speakers the rear channel sounds have to be sent somewhere and the rear top/heights are all you have.


If you have no rear speakers, the rear channel sounds are downmixed to the sides, not the rear tops/heights.


----------



## meli

checker9 said:


> ...Right now I have the fronts set as front heights and the rears as rear tops.


That's how mine are also currently set and I haven't noticed a problem. Have you tried test signals, like the ones from Dolby? There'a a link a few posts back. Is there a noticeable volume difference with with test signals, or only content? When you ran Audyssey, did you choose to run it for the 4 height speakers?


----------



## checker9

meli said:


> That's how mine are also currently set and I haven't noticed a problem. Have you tried test signals, like the ones from Dolby? There'a a link a few posts back. Is there a noticeable volume difference with with test signals, or only content? When you ran Audyssey, did you choose to run it for the 4 height speakers?


I have not tried the test signals. I ran audyssey with them as Front Height and Top rear. I ran audyssey on all my 9 speakers.

I have the Atmos blu-ray. It has channel test. All play fine as well as level test within my Denon receiver.


----------



## meli

checker9 said:


> I have not tried the test signals. I ran audyssey with them as Front Height and Top rear. I ran audyssey on all my 9 speakers.
> 
> I have the Atmos blu-ray. It has channel test. All play fine as well as level test within my Denon receiver.


Is there a video on the September Dolby Atmos disc (2015 or 2016) in which the volume discrepancy is extreme? I can check it on my system.

Maybe someone else has a suggestion about any incorrect settings. If the test signals sound okay, maybe there isn't a problem?


----------



## checker9

meli said:


> Maybe someone else has a suggestion about any incorrect settings. If the test signals sound okay, maybe there isn't a problem?


I will run the MP4 from Dolby for 5.1.4. Edit: It's the same test tones and video as on the Atmos demo disk. Those check out fine.

My front height are about 2 feet behind my front 3 (what I mean is the front height speakers are ~6 feet above the front 3, at top of ceiling, but the front 3 are farther into the room by about 2 feet.) Do you think that angle causes a separation problem? Anyway to confirm, without moving my speakers?


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "And to my thoughts that D&M really offer nothing else (that every one else provides) besides those two features."

And chocolate ice cream offers nothing else but chocolate and ice cream - nothing else besides those two features. 

And a steak dinner offers nothing else but, eh , a steak - - nothing else besides that one feature.

If it's a feature you like - - then enjoy!


----------



## Sittler27

*5.2 to 7.2.2*

Finally upgrading my HT to Atmos, and very excited.

I'm hoping to get a big improvement in immersion.

Current system:
Marantz SR7010 AVR
Paradigm Studio 60v5 L/R
Paradigm CC-690 centre
Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds (from my old Monitor 7 set)
2x SVS PB12-Plus subs

New system:
Swap out Paradigm ADP-370s with Paradigm E80-IW (inwalls for surrounds)
Add - Paradigm E80-A (angled rear surrounds - in ceiling)
Add - Paradigm E80-R (height channels - in ceiling)

Coupling this with my JVC X750R to a 138" scope screen.

Installers coming this Friday and some speaker wire will need to get fished, but hoping this will blow my socks off once it's done and calibrated.

Thoughts/advice?

How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Sittler27 said:


> Finally upgrading my HT to Atmos, and very excited.
> 
> I'm hoping to get a big improvement in immersion.
> 
> Current system:
> Marantz SR7010 AVR
> Paradigm Studio 60v5 L/R
> Paradigm CC-690 centre
> Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds (from my old Monitor 7 set)
> 2x SVS PB12-Plus subs
> 
> New system:
> Swap out Paradigm ADP-370s with Paradigm E80-IW (inwalls for surrounds)
> Add - Paradigm E80-A (angled rear surrounds - in ceiling)
> Add - Paradigm E80-R (height channels - in ceiling)
> 
> Coupling this with my JVC X750R to a 138" scope screen.
> 
> Installers coming this Friday and some speaker wire will need to get fished, but hoping this will blow my socks off once it's done and calibrated.
> 
> Thoughts/advice?
> 
> How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.


Don't put any surround speakers in the ceiling if you are doing Atmos. You are much better off doing 5.1.4. Since you have a Sr7010 you could do 5+wides.1.4 as well.


----------



## chi_guy50

Sittler27 said:


> Finally upgrading my HT to Atmos, and very excited.
> 
> I'm hoping to get a big improvement in immersion.
> 
> Current system:
> Marantz SR7010 AVR
> Paradigm Studio 60v5 L/R
> Paradigm CC-690 centre
> Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds (from my old Monitor 7 set)
> 2x SVS PB12-Plus subs
> 
> New system:
> Swap out Paradigm ADP-370s with Paradigm E80-IW (inwalls for surrounds)
> Add - Paradigm E80-A (angled rear surrounds - in ceiling)
> Add - Paradigm E80-R (height channels - in ceiling)
> 
> Coupling this with my JVC X750R to a 138" scope screen.
> 
> Installers coming this Friday and some speaker wire will need to get fished, but hoping this will blow my socks off once it's done and calibrated.
> 
> Thoughts/advice?
> 
> *How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.*


There are plenty of options depending on what you are looking for and your personal taste.

In terms of aural and visual splendor (and overall production values), I think it's hard to beat the BBC Home Entertainment nature documentary _Enchanted Kingdom_.

For a mass appeal full-length feature film with scenes that will showcase the immersive nature of Atmos, I would recommend _Lucy_ (but make sure that you get either the Hong Kong Blu-ray version (available from yesasia, among others) or the UHD Blu-ray, both of which contain the Atmos track.


----------



## Sittler27

Mashie Saldana said:


> Don't put any surround speakers in the ceiling if you are doing Atmos. You are much better off doing 5.1.4. Since you have a Sr7010 you could do 5+wides.1.4 as well.


I presume you mean about the pair of Paradigm E80-A I'm planning on using as rear surrounds?
What would you recommend? Where would I put these "wides"? 

I was just following the Dolby Atmos documented guidelines and it says rear surrounds...


----------



## Ricoflashback

Sittler27 said:


> Finally upgrading my HT to Atmos, and very excited.
> 
> I'm hoping to get a big improvement in immersion.
> 
> Current system:
> Marantz SR7010 AVR
> Paradigm Studio 60v5 L/R
> Paradigm CC-690 centre
> Paradigm ADP-370 surrounds (from my old Monitor 7 set)
> 2x SVS PB12-Plus subs
> 
> New system:
> Swap out Paradigm ADP-370s with Paradigm E80-IW (inwalls for surrounds)
> Add - Paradigm E80-A (angled rear surrounds - in ceiling)
> Add - Paradigm E80-R (height channels - in ceiling)
> 
> Coupling this with my JVC X750R to a 138" scope screen.
> 
> Installers coming this Friday and some speaker wire will need to get fished, but hoping this will blow my socks off once it's done and calibrated.
> 
> Thoughts/advice?
> 
> How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.


Nice setup! Especially the beastly center CC-690. Fabulous center speaker. 

For a quick fix on Dolby Atmos - - rent Sully from Redbox. Unbroken, especially the early bombing scene is quite an Atmos thrill. 

Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice is also a great soundtrack. Subtle soundtracks like "The Age of Adaline" are also interesting. (More of a chick flick, IMHO, but I enjoyed it.) I'm sure lots of different opinions on what Bluray/UHD discs show off Dolby Atmos the best. 

Once you become accustom to not focusing on the "height" speakers, you'll really enjoy the Atmos experience. Better use of technology to provide that "envelope" of sound. 

Enjoy!!!


----------



## Sittler27

Ricoflashback said:


> Nice setup! Especially the beastly center CC-690. Fabulous center speaker.
> 
> For a quick fix on Dolby Atmos - - rent Sully from Redbox. Unbroken, especially the early bombing scene is quite an Atmos thrill.
> 
> Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice is also a great soundtrack. Subtle soundtracks like "The Age of Adaline" are also interesting. (More of a chick flick, IMHO). I'm sure lots of different opinions on what Bluray/UHD discs show off Dolby Atmos the best.
> 
> Once you become accustom to not focusing on the "height" speakers, you'll really enjoy the Atmos experience. Better use of technology to provide that "envelope" of sound.
> 
> Enjoy!!!


Yeah, I'm hoping investing in Atmos is a better choice than what I was originally planning on investing in which was to just swap out my aging Panasonic plasma 65VT60 with an OLED or Z9D (all in another room of course).
But this would have left me with just my current 5.2 setup downstairs....hope I made the right choice going Atmos over OLED.


----------



## Selden Ball

Sittler27 said:


> I presume you mean about the pair of Paradigm E80-A I'm planning on using as rear surrounds?
> What would you recommend? Where would I put these "wides"?
> 
> I was just following the Dolby Atmos documented guidelines and it says rear surrounds...


When used in an "immersive" sound system which includes overhead speakers, Side Surround and Rear Surround speakers should be at approximately the same height as your front speakers, although they should be slightly higher so they aren't obstructed by other people's heads and chairbacks. In other words, the vertical distance between the surrounds and the heights should be as much as possible in order to provide as much distinction as possible between the overhead sounds and the listener-level sounds.

The height of listener-level speakers is discussed on page 6 in the Dolby document https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

eta:
Diagrams showing speaker placement for a 7.1.4 speaker system, including within the same plane at listener-level, are on page 29 of that document.


----------



## Methodical_1

Sittler27 said:


> ...How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.


Until you can get some Blurays, well even when get them, you should download Atmos/DTS:X demos from the site below. The demo clips are great because they are designed to intentionally exploit the new surround modes. I really like the demo with the music going all around the room. Great demos for anyone who wants to get a taste of the new stuff and to show it off. Interesting, I found someone selling those exact same demos on Ebay for $14.

http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/

Sully
American Sniper (sandstorm scene)
Jason Bourne (the riot/protest scene is nice)
Deep Water Horizon
Madmax
Everestt (storm scene)
Last Witchunter
Enchanted Kingdom (if you love wildlife)

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1

I kinda went on a movie binge


----------



## Swolern

Are there different version of Deep Horizon Bluray? The one I rented didn't have Atmos. I was pretty disappointed. I'm on the 4th season of Game of Thrones Bluray also and not that much sound from the 4 upfiring Atmos speakers also. At least I have Sully on the way.


----------



## smurraybhm

Swolern said:


> Are there different version of Deep Horizon Bluray? The one I rented didn't have Atmos. I was pretty disappointed. I'm on the 4th season of Game of Thrones Bluray also and not that much sound from the 4 upfiring Atmos speakers also. At least I have Sully on the way.


Loinsgate always strips the immersive mix from their disks when they are being used as rentals - like Netflix. Be aware going forward. IMO the mix is great and well with the $. Suspect in a week or two you'll see the price drop. Sully is stellar, you'll enjoy it. GOT gets more interesting the last few seasons as far as the mix goes. 

Remember to not get caught up in the top only matters for Atmos. I really enjoy the precision it brings to the base layer, very noticeable on a number of mixes.


----------



## Methodical_1

smurraybhm said:


> ...Remember to not get caught up in the top only matters for Atmos. I really enjoy the precision it brings to the base layer, very noticeable on a number of mixes.


Yep, initially, you will focus on the heights and that's to be expected. Hell, I had my ladder nearby to make sure I was hearing things from them, but have settled down now that I've gone through some movies. What I've discovered is that it's a mix about the entire surround system and not just the height speakers; it works in tandem to put you in there.

On the initial run, I had my side surrounds on dipoles (test), which is not recommended by Dolby. (rears were set to bipole) I switched them to bipole and what a difference, even with non Atmos/DTS:X movies. If you have any surrounds that can switch between di/bipole, just go ahead and set to bipole to save you some listening time, unless you want to experiment and hear difference.

Note: when you buy the movies always and I mean always look at the audio section on the package for Atmos or DTS:X. If you buy online hopefully it states what audio is included.


----------



## Gouie

*Struggling with speaker location*

I'm working through a build and am getting very close to closing in the ceiling. I've posted the same question in my build thread but I'm hoping that this thread being on the specific topic will generate some thought. I need to make some decisions on my Atmos speaker placement but am torn because my layout is not ideal. I'll try to explain.

The soffits around the room will have a 10" cantilever. The intent is to use the overhang to mount my pot lights so that I'm not disrupting the sound proof shell. My original plan was to place the speakers in the cantilever as well so I haven't been too fussed about the exact location. I'm starting to re-think that approach. The bottom of the soffit is 88" from the floor or roughly 4' from the top of the listener's head. If I place the speakers in the ceiling I'll gain another 15 or so inches of separation. 

Seating is fairly tight to the back wall with only 3' the wall and seating position. The soffit will extend from the back wall 30". If I move the speaker from the rear soffit to the ceiling, it will essentially be directly above the listening position. So, what's the lesser of the 2 evils; installing the speaker in the rear soffit 3' behind the listener and 4' above or installing the speaker in the ceiling to gain another foot or so of height but positioning it directly above the listener?


----------



## Methodical_1

Gouie said:


> I'm working through a build and am getting very close to closing in the ceiling. I've posted the same question in my build thread but I'm hoping that this thread being on the specific topic will generate some thought. I need to make some decisions on my Atmos speaker placement but am torn because my layout is not ideal. I'll try to explain.
> 
> The soffits around the room will have a 10" cantilever. The intent is to use the overhang to mount my pot lights so that I'm not disrupting the sound proof shell. My original plan was to place the speakers in the cantilever as well so I haven't been too fussed about the exact location. I'm starting to re-think that approach. The bottom of the soffit is 88" from the floor or roughly 4' from the top of the listener's head. If I place the speakers in the ceiling I'll gain another 15 or so inches of separation.
> 
> Seating is fairly tight to the back wall with only 3' the wall and seating position. The soffit will extend from the back wall 30". If I move the speaker from the rear soffit to the ceiling, it will essentially be directly above the listening position. So, what's the lesser of the 2 evils; installing the speaker in the rear soffit 3' behind the listener and 4' above or installing the speaker in the ceiling to gain another foot or so of height but positioning it directly above the listener?


Can you post some photos and a link to your build thread? I am more visual.

Thanks


----------



## trespoochies

Methodical_1 said:


> Sittler27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can get some Blurays, well even when get them, you should download Atmos/DTS:X demos from the site below. The demo clips are great because they are designed to intentionally exploit the new surround modes. I really like the demo with the music going all around the room. Great demos for anyone who wants to get a taste of the new stuff and to show it off. Interesting, I found someone selling those exact same demos on Ebay for $14.
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/
> 
> Sully
> American Sniper (sandstorm scene)
> Jason Bourne (the riot/protest scene is nice)
> Deep Water Horizon
> Madmax
> Everestt (storm scene)
> Last Witchunter
> Enchanted Kingdom (if you love wildlife)
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1
> 
> I kinda went on a movie binge
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up to the demos. I noticed they're m2ts. What software would you all recommend to burn these with? I have a blu ray burner, just not sure what software would be good to burn these.


----------



## Gouie

Methodical_1 said:


> Can you post some photos and a link to your build thread? I am more visual.
> 
> Thanks



Here's a link to my build thread and a couple of photos that I hope will help. The front and rear soffits aren't up yet and the cantilever hasn't been installed on the side soffits but hopefully this will help. The soffit on the rear wall will be the same as the sides, just installed after the sound proofing treatments.


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...struction/2715737-el-unico-theatre-build.html






















Not sure what picture will help, here's a shot of the side soffit










Here's a shot of the backside of the room or seating position. Sorry, not the best way of showing my problem due to the stage of construction.


----------



## chi_guy50

trespoochies said:


> Thanks for the heads up to the demos. I noticed they're m2ts. What software would you all recommend to burn these with? I have a blu ray burner, just not sure what software would be good to burn these.


Those Dolby Atmos demos are .m2ts files.

You can download them onto any data storage medium you choose (e.g., HDD, CD, USB flash drive) and play them from there.


----------



## trespoochies

chi_guy50 said:


> Those Dolby Atmos demos are .m2ts files.
> 
> You can download them onto any data storage medium you choose (e.g., HDD, CD, USB flash drive) and play them from there.


Thanks, I mis-read and went back to correct my comment. That's when I realized I can just slap them on a USB drive.


----------



## Therberg

trespoochies said:


> Thanks, I mis-read and went back to correct my comment. That's when I realized I can just slap them on a USB drive.


I wanted to try some of those demos but can't even figure out how to even download them from that site. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## trespoochies

Therberg said:


> trespoochies said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I mis-read and went back to correct my comment. That's when I realized I can just slap them on a USB drive.
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to try some of those demos but can't even figure out how to even download them from that site. Any help would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I just clicked the link of the demo I wanted, then when it went to the page, just click the picture of the demo and it'll download. There's a lot of ads around it that make it look like you need to click them, but just ignore all of them. Just click on the picture.


----------



## Therberg

trespoochies said:


> I just clicked the link of the demo I wanted, then when it went to the page, just click the picture of the demo and it'll download. There's a lot of ads around it that make it look like you need to click them, but just ignore all of them. Just click on the picture.


I tried that and just keep getting "This site can't be reached" and "refused to connect" when clicking on the pic. Not sure what is causing the issue.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

In this situation, my vote goes to install the Atmos top speakers in the ceiling and not in the soffit. I am confident that you will not be bothered by the fact that TR are above you instead of behind. 

You need backer boxes of course.


----------



## chi_guy50

Therberg said:


> I tried that and just keep getting "This site can't be reached" and "refused to connect" when clicking on the pic. Not sure what is causing the issue.


IDK what computer system or browser you might be using, but if on a PC simply left-click on the image as shown below. That should bring up the download dialog box, from which you can choose to save the file. For example:


Conductor (lossless)


----------



## gwsat

Sittler27 said:


> How about some suggestions for Atmos blurays I should pick up to best demo it.





Methodical_1 said:


> Sully
> American Sniper (sandstorm scene)
> Jason Bourne (the riot/protest scene is nice)
> Deep Water Horizon
> Madmax
> Everestt (storm scene)
> Last Witchunter
> Enchanted Kingdom (if you love wildlife)


I have several of the titles on your list on UHD HDR disks with immersive soundtracks. and highly recommend them all:

_Jason Bourne
Deep Water Horizon
Madmax_

_Jason Bourne_ has Dolby DTS:X audio, not TrueHD Atmos as the other two tiles do, but the DTS:X soundtrack sounds just as good as the Atmos audio, to my ears at least.


----------



## Foundation42

Hugo S said:


> Hi Nalleh,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I wrote here "no sound" in 9.2.2 as a (too) short answer referring to a specific context, the 2 small period of time of the 2 small Atmos extracts of Lucy BRD UHD used in the tests I've made for an article I wrote and which is linked above. Now if you read this article (in French) I didn't _precisely_ write "no sound" in 9.2.2, but something slightly different...
> 
> Which then doesn't obviously mean there that in general, there "no sound" in the Wides in a 9.2.2 configuration.
> 
> But that within the context of the extracts used, *by comparison* to the Wides activity in a 5+Wides.2.4 configuration, there is "no sound" in the Wides in a 9.2.2 configuration driven by a Marantz AV8802A processor. Though _"That's the point"_.
> 
> Something to which maikel came with an hypothesis, and something I'll investigate down the road... even if the general Wides activity in Lucy, ends up being quite low, as sdrucker has shown.
> 
> Hugo



Hi Everybody,

I've been lurking in this thread for a while and finally thought I'd jump in. I've been curious about the whole Atmos 7.x.4 vs 9.x.2 (or putting together what it takes to get to 9.x.4, for that matter) question for a while, so I recently moved things around to get all 13 speakers hooked up (7.1 + Wides + 4) to play with, with of course only 11.1 driven at any given time by the AVR (Denon 6200).

For content, I've been playing most recently with the Luxe version (Atmos) of Gravity. The opening scene with the astronauts moving around the central point of view as the work on the telescope has objects predictably panning through the wide speakers as everything rotates. So far I haven't noticed a difference when I have the SB speakers enabled or not, but I'm still playing with different combinations. Was their specific combination where the processing shifted? I haven't tried removing the overhead speakers entirely yet (kept 2 on ), but I may try that next.


----------



## Scott Simonian

smurraybhm said:


> Remember to not get caught up in the top only matters for Atmos. I really enjoy the precision it brings to the base layer, very noticeable on a number of mixes.


Uhh, well, yeah...there is reason to be upset about lack of overhead use in an Atmos mix. For those of us at home (with out a Trinnov) with standard layouts, the only thing Atmos adds beyond a 7.1 layout _IS_ the overhead content. There is no extra precision added by Atmos "to the base layer" until one has a speaker layout that goes beyond 7ch for the base layer.

You can thank the mixers for providing us with better, 'more precise sounding' mixes since Atmos came out.


----------



## smurraybhm

Whatever you say Scott - you keep hoping for more channels/action up top and I will enjoy the improved precision brought to us by those like FilmMixer.


----------



## Methodical_1

chi_guy50 said:


> Those Dolby Atmos demos are .m2ts files.
> 
> You can download them onto any data storage medium you choose (e.g., HDD, CD, USB flash drive) and play them from there.


Yep, a usb worked fine for me.


----------



## ChiWestSider

Legairre said:


> I ordered mine from Amazon.ca last week and it said expected ship date between Feb 23 and Mar 23, but it shipped the next day and I got it yesterday. Maybe yours will come sooner than Feb 23 too.


Mine is shipping out tomorrow the site says. They billed my card today.


----------



## Methodical_1

Gouie said:


> Here's a link to my build thread and a couple of photos that I hope will help. The front and rear soffits aren't up yet and the cantilever hasn't been installed on the side soffits but hopefully this will help. The soffit on the rear wall will be the same as the sides, just installed after the sound proofing treatments.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...struction/2715737-el-unico-theatre-build.html


I agree with the other poster about putting the speakers in the ceiling, which would be the lesser of 2 evils as the soffits are only 7'3" - Dolby recommends minimum of 8'. The ceiling location would net you over 8', base on the measurements you provided above. You have to work with what you have. 

There was someone who posted that they installed their ceiling speakers closer than desired, but yet it turned out ok and sounds good. I think it was on this thread back some pages, but not too long ago.

Those photos remind me of when I built my basement some years ago.


----------



## Gouie

I appreciate the input, ceiling it is. 

I'm enjoying the build but at this point I'd rather be enjoying a movie!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Gouie said:


> I appreciate the input, ceiling it is.
> 
> I'm enjoying the build but at this point I'd rather be enjoying a movie!


Really nice theater. Please post pics when it's finished.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

*Still trying to test out 7.1.4 - can anyone verify that ...*

... this is how to do it? 

I'm happily running the Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos enabled speaker set with a Polk Audio subwoofer in a 5.1.4 configuration on the Pioneer SC-LX701 receiver (9.2/11.2 with external amplification). But I want to audition 7.1.4 to see if it would be worth trying to cram another two channels into our small home theater area. (It's pretty small.)

I've tried running an RCA left and right from the Surround Back pre-outs on the Pioneer to the audio inputs for Blue-ray on the receiver the Pioneer replaces, which is a Denon 910 S, if that matters. I set the speaker configuration on the Pioneer to 7.1.4, and the input selector in the Denon to Blue-ray. No sound. Nada.

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong and what the right way would be to test out 7.1.4 on the SC-LX701?

Many thanks.

P.S. I've cross-posted this here, as well as in the relevant Pioneer receiver forum. I apologize to those who have to read it twice.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

shortspecialbus said:


> It's 9.2 but supports 11.2 via preamp outputs. I'm powering 9 with the Marantz and 2 temporarily with a Denon until I sell it and replace it with a 2 channel amp. I'm very happy with it (at least over the first 5 days or whatever) and would definitely recommend it.


Can you tell me what, if anything, you did to make this connection besides run RCA cables from the Marantz to the Denon? (And did you run them from Surround Back out, or which, and to what input on the Denon?) 

I'm trying to do the same thing with a Pioneer SC-LX701 and a Denon 910S but get no sound running the cables from the Pioneer Surround Backs to the Denon - even after setting the Pioneer to be 7.1.4 (from 5.1.4 which it was) and putting the Denon on the Blueray input where I connected the cables to it.

Any help or insights would be appreciated.


----------



## shortspecialbus

Larry Rosenberg said:


> Can you tell me what, if anything, you did to make this connection besides run RCA cables from the Marantz to the Denon? (And did you run them from Surround Back out, or which, and to what input on the Denon?)
> 
> I'm trying to do the same thing with a Pioneer SC-LX701 and a Denon 910S but get no sound running the cables from the Pioneer Surround Backs to the Denon - even after setting the Pioneer to be 7.1.4 (from 5.1.4 which it was) and putting the Denon on the Blueray input where I connected the cables to it.
> 
> Any help or insights would be appreciated.


Physical connections were just hooking RCA cables up and turning the volume on Denon to Reference. I turn it on and off (and ensure the input didn't change) with the Harmony.

I *did* have to set a setting in the Marantz's options to tell it which speakers to send via pre-amp out, if I recall. I can try to take some pictures when I get home tonight, if I remember. My memory is awful.

Edit: I ran them from whichever preamp outs were the correct ones for the speakers I wanted to a random input on the Denon, I forget which one. I definitely set the Denon's volume to -0db and leave it there.


----------



## Selden Ball

Larry Rosenberg said:


> ... this is how to do it?
> 
> I'm happily running the Pioneer Elite Dolby Atmos enabled speaker set with a Polk Audio subwoofer in a 5.1.4 configuration on the Pioneer SC-LX701 receiver (9.2/11.2 with external amplification). But I want to audition 7.1.4 to see if it would be worth trying to cram another two channels into our small home theater area. (It's pretty small.)
> 
> I've tried running an RCA left and right from the Surround Back pre-outs on the Pioneer to the audio inputs for Blue-ray on the receiver the Pioneer replaces, which is a Denon 910 S, if that matters. I set the speaker configuration on the Pioneer to 7.1.4, and the input selector in the Denon to Blue-ray. No sound. Nada.
> 
> Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong and what the right way would be to test out 7.1.4 on the SC-LX701?
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> P.S. I've cross-posted this here, as well as in the relevant Pioneer receiver forum. I apologize to those who have to read it twice.


Did you configure the Blu-ray input settings of the Denon to give priority to its analog audio inputs?

You might consider using the Denon's CD inputs instead.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

Selden Ball said:


> Did you configure the Blu-ray input settings of the Denon to give priority to its analog audio inputs?
> 
> You might consider using the Denon's CD inputs instead.


Yes, and I put the sound mode on "Pure Direct," although I did try other modes, too. Do you really think the CD input would make a difference? I could try that but I like to know why things work - and why they don't.


----------



## Selden Ball

Larry Rosenberg said:


> Yes, and I put the sound mode on "Pure Direct," although I did try other modes, too. Do you really think the CD input would make a difference? I could try that but I like to know why things work - and why they don't.


Blu-ray normally expects to use an HDMI connection, but CD normally does not. I'm just guessing that that might be related to your problem.

It wouldn't hurt to do a full "return-to-factory-settings" reset of the Denon, too, just to be sure.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

shortspecialbus said:


> Physical connections were just hooking RCA cables up and turning the volume on Denon to Reference. I turn it on and off (and ensure the input didn't change) with the Harmony.
> 
> I *did* have to set a setting in the Marantz's options to tell it which speakers to send via pre-amp out, if I recall. I can try to take some pictures when I get home tonight, if I remember. My memory is awful.
> 
> Edit: I ran them from whichever preamp outs were the correct ones for the speakers I wanted to a random input on the Denon, I forget which one. I definitely set the Denon's volume to -0db and leave it there.


So the pre-outs are not hot all of the time? That would sure explain it. Thanks. I did look for such a setting or explanation for my receiver and could not find any mention. There is a setting to disable speaker output called "preamp mode," which can save power by allowing the option of shutting down some of the speaker power or another (Surround or Back Surround was not one of them), but nothing that *enables* the preamp. Unless, of course, I missed something. Thanks again.


----------



## shortspecialbus

Larry Rosenberg said:


> So the pre-outs are not hot all of the time? That would sure explain it. Thanks. I did look for such a setting or explanation for my receiver and could not find any mention. There is a setting to disable speaker output called "preamp mode," which can save power by allowing the option of shutting down some of the speaker power or another (Surround or Back Surround was not one of them), but nothing that *enables* the preamp. Unless, of course, I missed something. Thanks again.


It's less that the preamps aren't hot all the time so much as if the processor in your primary receiver doesn't think it has those speakers, it won't mix any sound to them, so nothing will come out. You have to tell it you have those speakers and that they're on an external amp.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

Selden Ball said:


> Blu-ray normally expects to use an HDMI connection, but CD normally does not. I'm just guessing that that might be related to your problem.
> 
> It wouldn't hurt to do a full "return-to-factory-settings" reset of the Denon, too, just to be sure.


Thanks. Being the kind of interested (obsessed?) person who hangs out here, no doubt I will try your suggestions, probably tonight.  I'm still within the return period and if I can't get this working to at least try out 7.1.4, it's probably back to Bestbuy (who, of course, could not answer my questions about how to do this).


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

shortspecialbus said:


> It's less that the preamps aren't hot all the time so much as if the processor in your primary receiver doesn't think it has those speakers, it won't mix any sound to them, so nothing will come out. You have to tell it you have those speakers and that they're on an external amp.


Right. That much I did. I set the configuration for 7.1.4 and told the Pioneer what speakers I was running. It saw the 5.1.4 setup connected to its speaker terminals, but not the speakers on the Denon.


----------



## shortspecialbus

Larry Rosenberg said:


> Right. That much I did. I set the configuration for 7.1.4 and told the Pioneer what speakers I was running. It saw the 5.1.4 setup connected to its speaker terminals, but not the speakers on the Denon.


My best guess is the same as the other guy's then. Make sure on the secondary receiver that the input you're using is set to use the RCA connectors and not optical or HDMI or something. Good luck.


----------



## Scott Simonian

smurraybhm said:


> Whatever you say Scott - you keep hoping for more channels/action up top and I will enjoy the improved precision brought to us by those like FilmMixer.


Actually my comment was towards hope that we can get more ground level speakers but.... whatevz, brah.


----------



## checker9

Methodical_1 said:


> http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/
> 
> Sully
> American Sniper (sandstorm scene)
> Jason Bourne (the riot/protest scene is nice)
> Deep Water Horizon
> Madmax
> Everestt (storm scene)
> Last Witchunter
> Enchanted Kingdom (if you love wildlife)


Where do you find those demos? I followed that link and saw some Atmos and DTS:X demos but none of the demos from scenes in those movies titles.


----------



## batpig

checker9 said:


> Where do you find those demos? I followed that link and saw some Atmos and DTS:X demos but none of the demos from scenes in those movies titles.


I'm pretty sure the movie titles listed weren't demo clips, but just suggestions of specific titles that make for good demo material.


----------



## wreckingball

Told myself just a couple years ago that Atmos was a 'fad', but now here I am, funny how that works... 

Anyway, I just picked up the Denon X4300H, and intend on using it in a 7.2.4 setup.
Although I'm kind of stumped on choices of using Front Height and Top Middle, Top Front and Top Back, Top Middle and Rear Height...

And after further reading I realize that you don't *need* to 'skip zones' ..that is apparently only a limitation of Atmos; that you can't skip more than one zone if skipping at all... (more )

So is there a general consensus on what configuration to use if limited to four height speakers?
If it makes any difference, I live alone and I'm the only one this currently concerns, but the less holes I have to put in my ceiling the better (resale value plus hassle).

I could do Front Height and Middle Top with only 2 holes in the ceiling, on the other hand, if the Atmos effect would be more pronounced using TM and Top Back surrounding the MLP, then I think I would prefer that...

Thoughts? Any help greatly appreciated...


----------



## Methodical_1

checker9 said:


> Where do you find those demos? I followed that link and saw some Atmos and DTS:X demos but none of the demos from scenes in those movies titles.


Those were just suggested movie titles for one of the posters. 



wreckingball said:


> Told myself just a couple years ago that Atmos was a 'fad', but now here I am, funny how that works...
> 
> Anyway, I just picked up the Denon X4300H, and intend on using it in a 7.2.4 setup.
> Although I'm kind of stumped on choices of using Front Height and Top Middle, Top Front and Top Back, Top Middle and Rear Height...
> 
> And after further reading I realize that you don't *need* to 'skip zones' ..that is apparently only a limitation of Atmos; that you can't skip more than one zone if skipping at all... (more )
> 
> So is there a general consensus on what configuration to use if limited to four height speakers?
> If it makes any difference, I live alone and I'm the only one this currently concerns, but the less holes I have to put in my ceiling the better (resale value plus hassle).
> 
> I could do Front Height and Middle Top with only 2 holes in the ceiling, on the other hand, if the Atmos effect would be more pronounced using TM and Top Back surrounding the MLP, then I think I would prefer that...
> 
> Thoughts? Any help greatly appreciated...


I have the same receiver and I installed 4 ceiling speakers and set them to TLF, TRF, TLR, TRR. I'd do 4 speakers as suggested by Dolby. The only way I would've only installed 2 if I could not physically installed 4. Just leave the speakers in the ceiling if you decide to sell.


----------



## tokerblue

I'm thinking of jumping into the Atmos pool. Currently have a 5.1 setup and want to install ceiling speakers. I have Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2 right now and a few people suggested dedicated ceiling speakers, but I'm trying to keep my budget down. Ascend makes small sealed speakers that people have used on ceilings. I have 8' drop ceilings, so I can mount the speakers several ways to the wood beams.

1. If I use small sealed speakers instead of dedicated ceiling speakers, should I angle them towards the primary listening or mount them flat? If I don't mount them flat, should hang the speaker below the ceiling (A) or should I cut into the panel and mount it in the panel (B)

2. My couch is against the wall. I think the Dolby 5.1.2 layout suggests position 1 for the height speaker. Wouldn't position 2 angled be better?


----------



## wreckingball

Methodical_1 said:


> I have the same receiver and I installed 4 ceiling speakers and set them to TLF, TRF, TLR, TRR. I'd do 4 speakers as suggested by Dolby. The only way I would've only installed 2 if I could not physically installed 4. Just leave the speakers in the ceiling if you decide to sell.


Hey thanks, I was waiting for someone in-the-know to reply, as I'm getting anxious to try this here 'fad' out...  

So four holes in the ceiling it is, damn the torpedos, full speed! ..haha..


----------



## unretarded

tokerblue said:


> I'm thinking of jumping into the Atmos pool. Currently have a 5.1 setup and want to install ceiling speakers. I have Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2 right now and a few people suggested dedicated ceiling speakers, but I'm trying to keep my budget down. Ascend makes small sealed speakers that people have used on ceilings. I have 8' drop ceilings, so I can mount the speakers several ways to the wood beams.
> 
> 1. If I use small sealed speakers instead of dedicated ceiling speakers, should I angle them towards the primary listening or mount them flat? If I don't mount them flat, should hang the speaker below the ceiling (A) or should I cut into the panel and mount it in the panel (B)
> 
> 2. My couch is against the wall. I think the Dolby 5.1.2 layout suggests position 1 for the height speaker. Wouldn't position 2 angled be better?


Mine are position 1 mounted flat and I run them 1 db hot....they work fine like that....

I opted to mount them slightly farther forward,8 to 10 inches, so they are not firing direct at me and then run them slightly hot to make up for it.

I would say approx. 24 inches forward of ear position..

I must have got them almost perfect as room correction,MCACC, set the levels exactly the same on all of my speakers.

Before when I had them mounted 6-8 to 12-20 inches from perfect, MCACC, room correction had them at different DB levels to make it even at the listening position.

Just from my observations, I would imagine you have approx. up to a 6 to 10 inch circle from perfect before room correction starts adding/subtracting DB to even it out at the MLP.


One could play with the positions to figure out what your room correction thinks is ideal before perm installation.....not mandatory though as that is what room correction is for.


----------



## sdurani

tokerblue said:


> If I use small sealed speakers instead of dedicated ceiling speakers, should I angle them towards the primary listening or mount them flat?


Do you angle any of your other speakers towards the primary listening area? If so, do the same with the ceiling speakers.


> If I don't mount them flat, should hang the speaker below the ceiling (A) or should I cut into the panel and mount it in the panel (B)


I would hang them on swivel mounts below the ceiling (A), so that you can optimize tilt and toe-in for best imaging above you.


----------



## tokerblue

unretarded said:


> I opted to mount them slightly farther forward,8 to 10 inches, so they are not firing direct at me and then run them slightly hot to make up for it.
> 
> I would say approx. 24 inches forward of ear position..
> 
> One could play with the positions to figure out what your room correction thinks is ideal before perm installation.....not mandatory though as that is what room correction is for.


The ceiling beam is about 24 inches from the primary seating position, so that looks like where I'm going to mount it. 



sdurani said:


> Do you angle any of your other speakers towards the primary listening area? If so, do the same with the ceiling speakers. I would hang them on swivel mounts below the ceiling (A), so that you can optimize tilt and toe-in for best imaging above you.


My speakers are currently angled towards the primary listening position. So it makes sense to do the same for the ceiling. Now to find good swivel mounts.


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

*7.1.4 test issue solved - it was the volume ...*



shortspecialbus said:


> My best guess is the same as the other guy's then. Make sure on the secondary receiver that the input you're using is set to use the RCA connectors and not optical or HDMI or something. Good luck.


... go figure. Tonight, I hooked up my now replaced Denon S910 to the Pioneer SC-LX701 Surround Back outs via a cheap RCA cable I have had forever. I connected headphones, did a factory reset and this time I used the CD inputs on the Denon - but what "did the trick" is turning up the volume. Way up. The test tone finally kicked in so I know there is nothing wrong with the Pioneer.

Thanks for all the suggestions made here, including turning up the volume on the Denon. 

Now when I feel ambitious again, I will hook up speakers and actually balance it all for 7.1.4!


----------



## Therberg

trespoochies said:


> I just clicked the link of the demo I wanted, then when it went to the page, just click the picture of the demo and it'll download. There's a lot of ads around it that make it look like you need to click them, but just ignore all of them. Just click on the picture.





Therberg said:


> I tried that and just keep getting "This site can't be reached" and "refused to connect" when clicking on the pic. Not sure what is causing the issue.





chi_guy50 said:


> IDK what computer system or browser you might be using, but if on a PC simply left-click on the image as shown below. That should bring up the download dialog box, from which you can choose to save the file. For example:
> 
> 
> Conductor (lossless)


Well, I figured out what the problem is, it seems my ISP Time Warner is blocking it. I tried it on my phone to see and if I'm connected to my home wifi I get the "refused to connect". If I turn of wifi and use phone data it and it downloads just fine! Does anyone have any idea to correct this problem?


----------



## shortspecialbus

Larry Rosenberg said:


> ... go figure. Tonight, I hooked up my now replaced Denon S910 to the Pioneer SC-LX701 Surround Back outs via a cheap RCA cable I have had forever. I connected headphones, did a factory reset and this time I used the CD inputs on the Denon - but what "did the trick" is turning up the volume. Way up. The test tone finally kicked in so I know there is nothing wrong with the Pioneer.
> 
> Thanks for all the suggestions made here, including turning up the volume on the Denon.
> 
> Now when I feel ambitious again, I will hook up speakers and actually balance it all for 7.1.4!


Glad to hear it! Set the volume on your secondary receiver to reference. My Denon has a volume display option, I think it's between Absolute and Reference, where Absolute goes from, say, 1 is quiet to 20 is loud, where reference will be -50db is quiet and -10db is pretty loud. You want to use that mode, and set it to -0db, which is exactly reference, and then leave it there. Then the Audyssey stuff will take care of the rest, but you should find that it's not having to adjust those speakers more than a couple db, same as the rest. Nice job getting it working!


----------



## Therberg

Legairre said:


> I ordered mine from Amazon.ca last week and it said expected ship date between Feb 23 and Mar 23, but it shipped the next day and I got it yesterday. Maybe yours will come sooner than Feb 23 too.





ChiWestSider said:


> Mine is shipping out tomorrow the site says. They billed my card today.


I ordered mine on the 19th and it said ships between Feb 23 and Mar 23 as well. It ended up shipping today and will be here on Thursday! They obviously have them in stock so I wonder why Amazon.ca shows delayed shipping? I certainly appreciate whoever first posted the link to this version of Gravity, it saved me a bunch of money. One I had been watching on Ebay, last night sold for $56 including shipping.


----------



## Selden Ball

Therberg said:


> Well, I figured out what the problem is, it seems my ISP Time Warner is blocking it. I tried it on my phone to see and if I'm connected to my home wifi I get the "refused to connect". If I turn of wifi and use phone data it and it downloads just fine! Does anyone have any idea to correct this problem?



It might or might not be a problem with your local Time Warner / Road Runner provider. I have no problems accessing demo-world from our local TW/RR ISP.

First, I suggest verifying where the blockage is happening. In particular, you can use the terminal command
tracert www.demo-world.com (or tracert demo-world.eu)
(tracert is the Windows command. The equivalent command is spelled traceroute under MacOS and Linux)
Its IP address is 5.45.110.210, so this would be equivalent:
tracert 5.45.110.210

The tracert command will give you the response times of all of the routers between you and the destination. It'll loop showing just asterisks if one of them doesn't respond. If it stops before it gets to the demo-world, that's the company you need to complain to/about. Here are the last few lines that I see.

7 27 ms 28 ms 27 ms 0.ae1.pr0.nyc30.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.161]
8 27 ms 27 ms 28 ms ae9.edge3.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.63.21]
9 119 ms 117 ms 117 ms ae-3-80.edge6.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [4.69.154.138]
10 119 ms 118 ms 117 ms ae-3-80.edge6.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [4.69.154.138]
11 121 ms 120 ms 135 ms gw-level3.ffm.netcup.net [62.67.36.18]
12 124 ms 123 ms 124 ms www.demo-world.eu [5.45.110.210]


----------



## Therberg

Selden Ball said:


> It might or might not be a problem with your local Time Warner / Road Runner provider. I have no problems accessing demo-world from our local TW/RR ISP.


I got it working now! It ended up being a default security setting in Chrome, had to uncheck a box that said "protect you and your device from dangerous sites". I could go to Demo World with no problem and look at the list of demos and even click on them and go to the download page where you click on the pic to download but when I clicked on the pic I would get "refuse to connect". Apparently both Chrome and Edge both saw the download link as dangerous???

Tracert showed 13 hops to reach demo-world, I never knew how to do that. Thanks!


----------



## Methodical_1

wreckingball said:


> Hey thanks, I was waiting for someone in-the-know to reply, as I'm getting anxious to try this here 'fad' out...
> 
> So four holes in the ceiling it is, damn the torpedos, full speed! ..haha..


That's exactly what I did. I went full steam ahead and I have some big ceiling speakers.


----------



## gurkey

Just wondering about that (repeatedly) mentioning of "wide" speakers, because none of the newly released AVRs support them anymore. They seem to be "gone" and a thing of the past.
Audyssey DSX has disappeared in this context too.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gurkey said:


> Just wondering about that (repeatedly) mentioning of "wide" speakers, because none of the newly released AVRs support them anymore. They seem to be "gone" and a thing of the past.
> Audyssey DSX has disappeared in this context too.


Correct, either go for 2015 D&M or very high end for Wides support. I'm sure it will be back once consumer grade kit can do more than 11 processed channels.


----------



## gurkey

Wides are an Audyssey "invention", if I remember it correctly. But Audyssey - unfortunatelly - seems to withdraw gradually from the home-cinema and room EQ business, watching prior and current developments and their web site. Almost all remaining references to Audyssey's room EQ have been removed now from their pages including specs, posts, comments, Q&A section etc.
D&M Group is currently one of the few remaining, which still use Audyssey, but I'm not sure about the future...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gurkey said:


> Wides are an Audyssey "invention", if I remember it correctly. But Audyssey - unfortunatelly - seems to withdraw gradually from the home-cinema and room EQ business, watching prior and current developments and their web site. Almost all remaining references to Audyssey's room EQ have been removed now from their pages including specs, posts, comments, Q&A section etc.
> D&M Group is currently one of the few remaining, which still use Audyssey, but I'm not sure about the future...


The wides are one of the most useful speaker locations in Atmos once you move past 7.1.4. It was probably thanks to old DSX that the wides were available to use for by D&M.

The Emotive RMC-1 will have wides if the leaked pictures are to be believed, they don't run Audyssey at all, this is for Atmos use only.


----------



## gurkey

But this seems to be the exception, because those new surround formats abandon wides also.
I converted mine already, because most of the time they were just "dead" and thus useless. 
I doubt, if wides as a speaker category will survive, if almost no AVR manufacturer will support them anymore, no matter if "niche" manufacturers like Emotiva will still do. 
It is the mainstream then and the so called "volume manufacturers", which count. A "special" surround decoder or upmixer might still synthesize them, but who in his right mind will be doing their own thing, considering the complexity of such software nowadays and the correponding manpower needed to support this ?
If surround sources will no longer support them, as it looks to me at least right now, than they are "fighting" an already lost battle uphill.


----------



## maikeldepotter

gurkey said:


> But this seems to be the exception, because those new surround formats abandon wides also.


What formats would that be? 

ATMOS uses wides extensively, and they are included in DTS:X allthough not yet rolled-out. Only Auro3D has no wides, but is at this moment the least significant player of the three.


----------



## hatlesschimp

maikeldepotter said:


> What formats would that be?
> 
> ATMOS uses wides extensively, and they are included in DTS:X allthough not yet rolled-out. Only Auro3D has no wides, but is at this moment the least significant player of the three.


Ive pre wired for front wides. I loved front wides with my old denon x4000 doing faux front wides. 

Just installed my custom made surrounds on wall today and connected all speakers to my rotel amps. Waiting on some RCAs ive ordered to connect yamaha rxa3050 pre outs to power amps. I could use what I have at the moment but wanted to get some the correct length to make my rack neat. I cant wait to fire up the system, surely it will be this week 😀


----------



## deano86

maikeldepotter said:


> What formats would that be?
> 
> ATMOS uses wides extensively, and they are included in DTS:X allthough not yet rolled-out. Only Auro3D has no wides, but is at this moment the least significant player of the three.


With all this talk and interest in using wides, just thought I would mention a perfect movie to get for those with a wide setup is the crazy movie called "Shoot Em Up" starring Clive Owen. It says it has a 7.1 DTS Master Audio soundtrack... which normally just expands to the rear surround channels. But, when I hit the Info button on my Denon 5200, it shows that actually this movie was mixed to incorporate the Wide channels instead of the Rears! I saw the same info with my former Onkyo receiver also.. Check it out....


----------



## ggsantafe

tokerblue said:


> The ceiling beam is about 24 inches from the primary seating position, so that looks like where I'm going to mount it.
> 
> 
> My speakers are currently angled towards the primary listening position. So it makes sense to do the same for the ceiling. Now to find good swivel mounts.


I am using these swivel mounts:https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004C4XN86/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

They provide a solid mounting platform and flexibility in positioning and tilting speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

deano86 said:


> With all this talk and interest in using wides, just thought I would mention a perfect movie to get for those with a wide setup is the crazy movie called "Shoot Em Up" starring Clive Owen. It says it has a 7.1 DTS Master Audio soundtrack... which normally just expands to the rear surround channels. But, when I hit the Info button on my Denon 5200, it shows that actually this movie was mixed to incorporate the Wide channels instead of the Rears! I saw the same info with my former Onkyo receiver also.. Check it out....


Thanks for that mention of _Shoot 'Em Up_. I was actually tempted to get a copy of this 2007 flick until I read A.O. Scott's hilariously scathing review in the N.Y. Times (title: "Never Mind Those Bullets, a Newborn Needs Rescuing"). I'm sure I was far more entertained by the review than I would have been by the movie (or, as Scott describes it, "this slapdash assembly of hectic, poorly shot action sequences, lame catchphrases . . . , sadistic gags and heavy-metal tunes").

You did warn us that the movie was crazy, but I wonder whether you could have found an apter description, albeit perhaps one a tad gentler than Scott's "worthless piece of garbage."

Disclaimer: I'm still tempted to waste an hour and a half watching it simply because I like Clive Owens and want to hear that 5(+FW).1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack.


----------



## deano86

Obviously, that reviewer doesn't know excellent "guys movie night" cinema when he sees it! Lol! The gun and bullet flight sounds along with the crankin' tunes make this a winner in my book!


----------



## ChiWestSider

Therberg said:


> I ordered mine on the 19th and it said ships between Feb 23 and Mar 23 as well. It ended up shipping today and will be here on Thursday! They obviously have them in stock so I wonder why Amazon.ca shows delayed shipping? I certainly appreciate whoever first posted the link to this version of Gravity, it saved me a bunch of money. One I had been watching on Ebay, last night sold for $56 including shipping.


You make me want to buy another to put on Ebay! 

That's great news. I too am very happy the link was posted. It sure is nice to be a forum member!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

gurkey said:


> But this seems to be the exception, because those new surround formats abandon wides also.
> I converted mine already, because most of the time they were just "dead" and thus useless.
> I doubt, if wides as a speaker category will survive, if almost no AVR manufacturer will support them anymore, no matter if "niche" manufacturers like Emotiva will still do.
> It is the mainstream then and the so called "volume manufacturers", which count. A "special" surround decoder or upmixer might still synthesize them, but who in his right mind will be doing their own thing, considering the complexity of such software nowadays and the correponding manpower needed to support this ?
> If surround sources will no longer support them, as it looks to me at least right now, than they are "fighting" an already lost battle uphill.


In a 11.1 device Wides don't make a lot of sense. And one can put Side Surrounds forward of MLP effectively taking the Wide position.

11.1 is a standard that most AVR's will not surpass. But I would certainly not go as far as claiming only "niche" manufacturers will be the only to support Wides. The Marantz AV8802 for example has 13.2 outputs but thus far simply lacks the necessary chipset to do 13.x. But this will change sooner rather than later. And Onkyo will follow. Etc etc!!


----------



## shift_grind

What about front heights? With my projector I have to put my center channel on the ground aimed up, which gives a very localized sound. My current setup is 9.2 and I use the front heights in the top corner of the screen and my Onkyo's "Center width" option to mix the center into these speakers. It gives a fantastic "center" channel sound that makes the sound seem like it's coming from the center of the screen with a wide sound stage.

Until I can do that with .4 atmos speakers, I won't upgrade. Mixing to the main L/R would help some, but I don't think it will lift the soundstage like the heights do.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Front Heights would be my first upgrade after 9.1.4. I even have these figured out already. There's a spot above my screen reserved for them @ 22.5° vertical elevation. But don't hold your breath.


----------



## Jond0

shift_grind said:


> What about front heights? With my projector I have to put my center channel on the ground aimed up, which gives a very localized sound. My current setup is 9.2 and I use the front heights in the top corner of the screen and my Onkyo's "Center width" option to mix the center into these speakers. It gives a fantastic "center" channel sound that makes the sound seem like it's coming from the center of the screen with a wide sound stage.
> 
> Until I can do that with .4 atmos speakers, I won't upgrade. Mixing to the main L/R would help some, but I don't think it will lift the soundstage like the heights do.


I really like using this feature too -- dialog lift on the Yamaha. I used to feel my center speaker was being overtaxed but not anymore using heights.


----------



## Scarriere

"Shoot 'em up" is a crap movie. I wanted to, and should've, walked out when I saw it in theatre.
DTS-X, Atmos, Auro...none of that will make it a better movie.


----------



## Therberg

chi_guy50 said:


> Those Dolby Atmos demos are .m2ts files.
> 
> You can download them onto any data storage medium you choose (e.g., HDD, CD, USB flash drive) and play them from there.


After a bit of difficulty trying to figure out why I couldn't download any of the demo files and with some help from several forum members (thank you), finally sucess! At least with the Atmos demos in .m2ts files but I tried a couple of DTS demos that are .mkv and the video portion plays fine but no audio. Any ideas how I can make those work? I loaded the files on a USB flash drive and playing them through a Panasonic blu-ray player.


----------



## gurkey

@erwinfrombelgium

If no volume manufacturer will provide (support) for "wides" any more, who is going to provide channels for this then ?
11.1 amp models will mostly be "niche" AVR units, but even more amps (and speakers) in a domestic housing / living room today, where the majority of installed systems just covers 5.1, a lot less even 7.1 ? I can't believe it. 
The reason not going beyond 11.2 systems is the fact, that there is only such a small percentage of users / buyers expected to spend money for this, that development cost and production is not worthwhile for such a manufacturer or prices would have to sky rocket.

We will see, what has happened in a year or two or so, before counting on any real progress in this respect...


----------



## Legairre

gurkey said:


> @erwinfrombelgium
> 
> If no volume manufacturer will provide (support) for "wides" any more, who is going to provide channels for this then ?
> 11.1 amp models will mostly be "niche" AVR units, but even more amps (and speakers) in a domestic housing / living room today, where the majority of installed systems just covers 5.1, a lot less even 7.1 ? I can't believe it.
> The reason not going beyond 11.2 systems is the fact, that there is only such a small percentage of users / buyers expected to spend money for this, that development cost and production is not worthwhile for such a manufacturer or prices would have to sky rocket.
> 
> We will see, what has happened in a year or two or so, before counting on any real progress in this respect...


Yeah there's not a large market for going past 11.? speakers. Out of everyone I work with or even talk to (other than being on AVS or other sites) none one I know has ever even heard of systems with 11.? speakers at home. They know about 5.1 but that's about it. When I used to tell them I had 7.2 they were like "you have 7 speakers and two subs?"

Now when I say I have 11.2. they think I'm just running multiple wires out the same outputs from a 5.1 receiver. They don't even know there is a format called ATMOS or DTS:X and that 11.? receivers even exist. Heck they don't even know what a pre/pro or external amps are and they think you have to pay $400 for HDMI cables.

I have a dedicated theater with a black suspended ceiling so upgrading from my anthem MRX 300 to an Anthem MRX 720 with 7.2.4 was easy for me because I easily ran wires and cut holes in ceiling tiles. Everyone I know is using their living rooms (if they even have a system) and going past 5 speakers and trying to hide a sub is the most they are willing to do. Installing speakers in their living room ceiling and adding wides is completely out of the question for them. Just running wires through the living room ceiling with bedrooms upstairs is not easy and none of the people I know are willing to do it just for HT. 

I love HT but my point is that most people just use HT causally if even at all and the number of those people far outweigh all of us here who will go as many speakers as we can. From a monetary standpoint there's not a lot of money in HT for manufacturers going past 11 speakers.

I still haven't met a single person with more than a 5.1 system, other than all of us on AVS or other sites.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Methodical_1 said:


> Reminds me of:
> 
> VHS vs Beta
> Bluray vs HD DVD
> 
> Main reason why I purchased a receiver that can do both - won't get burned.





lujan said:


> Yes, I chose correctly with VHS and then incorrectly with HD DVD but HD DVD did come out before Blu-ray and I was anxious for HD. Never did the laserdisc format so glad about that.


Me, I too choose them all! 

I still have my Laser Disc player which I modified to provide Dolby Digital output, at least 4-5 HD-DVD players including a few PC based units as well as an external Xbox player and about 100 discs! 

Although I have hundreds of Blu-rays I have stopped buying them and look forward to UHD 4k BD discs 

Being an early adopter has its draw backs...


----------



## gwsat

Al Sherwood said:


> Me, I too choose them all!
> 
> I still have my Laser Disc player which I modified to provide Dolby Digital output, at least 4-5 HD-DVD players including a few PC based units as well as an external Xbox player and about 100 discs!
> 
> Although I have hundreds of Blu-rays I have stopped buying them and look forward to UHD 4k BD discs
> 
> Being an early adopter has its draw backs...


Yep, being an early adopter does indeed have its drawbacks. Been there, done that. I had two laser disk players, the second one a two disk Pioneer. Guess than makes me a slow learner.


----------



## Ladeback

gwsat said:


> Yep, being an early adopter does indeed have its drawbacks. Been there, done that. I had two laser disk players, the second one a two disk Pioneer. Guess than makes me a slow learner.


I too have a couple laser disk players with a pretty good old collection of disk. At least my last one will also play DVD's as well, but the last time I played it the picture was in black and white. I think I have a bad RBG cored. I need to try another one to make sure.


----------



## AllenA07

My Dad has decided that he wants to upgrade his theater to a 5.1.2 system and I wanted to try to get some advice for him on proper placement of the Atmos speakers. He is going to be doing ceiling mounted speakers (not in-ceiling) for this project. His setup is a living room system with the MLP being placed against the rear wall of the room, because of this he is using side surrounds and doesn't have rear surrounds. We both agreed that with this layout 5.1.2 is a much more logical layout then attempting to go to a traditional 7.1 setup. Looking at the Dolby's recommendation it appears that the speakers should be roughly in a straight line from the L/R channels and slightly in front the couch. One of the issues I foresee here is that my parents don't lineup perfectly with where they sit and the location of where the speakers will be. Should they make changes that are based upon their actual seating location, or continue to follow the Dolby guidelines.

This is a living room setup so WAF is going to always be a consideration.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

gurkey said:


> @erwinfrombelgium
> 
> If no volume manufacturer will provide (support) for "wides" any more, who is going to provide channels for this then ?
> 11.1 amp models will mostly be "niche" AVR units, but even more amps (and speakers) in a domestic housing / living room today, where the majority of installed systems just covers 5.1, a lot less even 7.1 ? I can't believe it.
> The reason not going beyond 11.2 systems is the fact, that there is only such a small percentage of users / buyers expected to spend money for this, that development cost and production is not worthwhile for such a manufacturer or prices would have to sky rocket.
> 
> We will see, what has happened in a year or two or so, before counting on any real progress in this respect...


I agree with what you guys are saying but this discussion is beaten to the death. I don't care much about what other folks think of this as we all have our habits/hobby good or bad...

Funny, but today I was accidentally in my old hifi shop (was years ago) because of a problem with an amp. Anyway, he asked which preamp I have and I answer "an Emotiva". He never heard of it. I said the most important feature was it has Dirac. He never heard of Dirac before. Then I said I am considering sending it back to USA later to implement Atmos capability. He heard about Atmos but he said almost nobody has 7.1 hence Atmos was of little importance. 

Then he got called away for a minute and I went inside the listening corner where a pair of B&W CM towers were playing (I have an older 5.1 CM set which he sold me BTW). It was very obvious they sounded worse in the shop than in my living room. That's because the room has hard surfaces al around and carpet on the floor. And no Dirac of course. 

When he got back I said I was interested in a BlueSound multiroom system. In the end he explained it was very important for SQ to use an audiophile ethernet cable between the wall and the BlueSound device. He showed me a very wide red "cat 8" cable. All the time, I said to myself "Cable lie, cable lie!"

Conclusion: the man shows a whole wall of flatscreen TV's but doesn't bother to let his potential clients experience what a good system in a well treated room can sound like... So no, I don't care what others think about my hifi and acoustic endeavors.


----------



## Josh Z

Ladeback said:


> I too have a couple laser disk players with a pretty good old collection of disk. At least my last one will also play DVD's as well, but the last time I played it the picture was in black and white. I think I have a bad RBG cored. I need to try another one to make sure.


The Laserdisc picture is black & white or the DVD picture is black & white?

The Laserdisc/DVD combi players had Component Video outputs, but they were only intended for DVD. Laserdisc video is encoded in Composite format and will appear in b&w if you try to play it through Component connections.

To watch an LD, you need to connect either an RCA Composite cable or an S-video cable.


----------



## Ladeback

Josh Z said:


> The Laserdisc picture is black & white or the DVD picture is black & white?
> 
> The Laserdisc/DVD combi players had Component Video outputs, but they were only intended for DVD. Laserdisc video is encoded in Composite format and will appear in b&w if you try to play it through Component connections.
> 
> To watch an LD, you need to connect either an RCA Composite cable or an S-video cable.


It was a DVD and I am using a component video cable. I would like to use S-video, but my Pre-amp doesn't have S-video. Guess I will be hooking up composite as well for the LD's.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Al Sherwood said:


> Me, I too choose them all!
> 
> I still have my Laser Disc player which I modified to provide Dolby Digital output, at least 4-5 HD-DVD players including a few PC based units as well as an external Xbox player and about 100 discs!
> 
> [...]
> 
> Being an early adopter has its draw backs...


Could be worse, you could have bought a Phillips CD-i.
Or a 3DO.
Or a Commodore Amiga CDTV


----------



## gwsat

mrtickleuk said:


> Could be worse, you could have bought a Phillips CD-i.
> Or a 3DO.
> Or a Commodore Amiga CDTV


Or we could talk about the Sony Betamax I bought in 1977. Sigh, it seems like I haven't learned a damn thing.


----------



## Jond0

mrtickleuk said:


> Could be worse, you could have bought a Phillips CD-i.
> Or a 3DO.
> Or a Commodore Amiga CDTV


I had a 3DO! (and laserdiscs) And HD DVD too... anyone want an Atari Jaguar?


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

As a follow-up to the HCFR article I wrote, previously referenced on AVS here :

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-724.html#post49952113

where with 2 specifically used Atmos extracts of the Lucy UHD Bluray, huge differences have been found in the Wides reproduction in 5+Wides.x.4 and 9.x.2 configurations processed by a Marantz 8802A...

Now after some further testings, I've finally found the causes behind all this.

Which is : in a 5+Wides.x.4 configuration driven by a Marantz 8802A (and _probably_ all other D&M products), a Surround Left Atmos (SL) signal is simultaneously reproduced by the Surround Left (SL) speaker *and* the Wide Left (WL) speaker... with the very same phenomenon happening with a SR Atmos signal simultaneously reproduced by the SR *and* WR speakers.

Something that can be experienced with the Dolby Atmos test disc (I've used the latest Sep 2016 version), where when testing a Marantz 8802A 5+Wides.x.4 configuration, the test signals within every proposed configurations 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 of the SL channel is reproduced with both SL + WL speakers and SR channel is reproduced with both SR + WR speakers.

Something that could "sound" logic at the very first thought, but which ends up not being anecdotic in a 5+Wides.x.4 Atmos configurations, where Surround channels signals are directly mixed and also reproduced in the Wides speakers.

Something which doesn't happen in a 9.x.2 configuration processed with a Marantz 8802A, where Surround channels are only naturally reproduced with Surround speakers and Wide channels reproduced (only) by Wide spakers. 

Though the fact that when directly comparing 5+Wides.x.4 and 9.x.2 configurations, their Wides content reproduction ends up being totally different.

Now to go a bit further, in this HCFR article, the reason I've found the 9.x.2 configuration being some sort of "cinemascopic", even though the Wides (object) content of both Lucy Atmos extracts is very poor, making this reproduction a sort of a "simple 7.x.2 reproduction, is - _my presumption_ - that in a Marantz 8802A 9.2.2 configuration, the respective Left and Right Top/Height Left Front+Middle+Rear signals are all mixed_condensed in their respective Left and Right Top/Height Front speaker.

A 9.x.2 configuration phenomenon, which makes the perceived content of the Top/Height Front speakers much more "full", though _potentialy_ the described "cinemascope" impression.

And have fun... testing all this...  

Hugo


----------



## Methodical_1

Marc Alexander said:


> Yep, except it appears that they are out of stock. "Usually ships within 1 to 2 months."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com





LNEWoLF said:


> Yes,
> 
> When I ordered it stated 1 to 2 months also
> 
> Received it about a week later.
> 
> At the time others that ordered it experienced the same.


Yeah mine came last week - way faster than estimated.

Thanks for the heads up on the $15 movie.


----------



## CINERAMAX

deano86 said:


> With all this talk and interest in using wides, just thought I would mention a perfect movie to get for those with a wide setup is the crazy movie called "Shoot Em Up" starring Clive Owen. It says it has a 7.1 DTS Master Audio soundtrack... which normally just expands to the rear surround channels. But, when I hit the Info button on my Denon 5200, it shows that actually this movie was mixed to incorporate the Wide channels instead of the Rears! I saw the same info with my former Onkyo receiver also.. Check it out....


 Not that most of us can appreciate: This movie has enormous amounts of lfe in the 5hz to 15 hz, best demo for rotary subwoofer i have found.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Methodical_1 said:


> Yeah mine came last week - way faster than estimated.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up on the $15 movie.


I have experienced that also with Amazon.

Your welcome.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "I still haven't met a single person with more than a 5.1 system, other than all of us on AVS or other sites."

Right you are, but I'm still glad I invested the time and money to make a 11.1.4 system possible in my HT. Every time we watch a movie or when friends come over to our house - - they are amazed at the sound. It's better than the movie theater, they say. Outside of my center speaker purchase - - Dolby Atmos has provided the most enjoyment from my home theater. 

They don't know what they're missin!


----------



## stef2

I have been testing my new Atmos 7.4.1 setup for the past two weeks. Before that, it was 11.1 for me.


My impressions so far? I miss my front wides...


Of course, the occasional helicopter fly by or thunderstorm sound very impressive (I am talking about original ATMOS soundtrack). But my front stage has gotten thinner that's for sure.
Music? nah, I always have preferred stereo 2.1 by far. DSU doesn't change that. 


DSU for non ATMOS movies? Yes, it sounds better than 5.1 or 7.1, I feel more enveloped. But in my setup, DSU does not sound as room filling as DTS Neo:X used to sound in my former 11.1 setup.


Right now I am feeling a bit sad. Sad that ATMOS does not sound as good as I thought it would in my setup, after all the time and money I put into it.


But most of all, sad that the wides are going away...I know, ATMOS can use wides for object based audio, and future receivers will take care of that. But what I will miss it the enveloping effect the wides channels give (gave?) me: it is not the very ocasional bulllet sound that I want, it is the constant, enveloping effect they provide. That effect used to be provided extremely well with DTS Neo:X in my setup.


I wonder how the DSU algorithm sound with the wides? Something I will certainly try very soon is change my setup to a 9.2.1 just to experiment with what DSU brings to the wides. Not the object based sounds, but what DSU will extend into those wides, extracting it from the base channels...


Now, if those new 15 or 16 channels preamps (XMR-1) can bring my wides back to life while providing me with the ATMOS overhead bonus effects, I might be in heaven! I feel that right now, with ATMOS as it is sounds in my setup, I only did a lateral move. But still, I am glad I did it. Now I know how ATMOS sounds in my room.


----------



## maikeldepotter

stef2 said:


> I have been testing my new Atmos 7.4.1 setup for the past two weeks. Before that, it was 11.1 for me.
> 
> My impressions so far? I miss my front wides...
> 
> Of course, the occasional helicopter fly by or thunderstorm sound very impressive (I am talking about original ATMOS soundtrack). But my front stage has gotten thinner that's for sure.
> Music? nah, I always have preferred stereo 2.1 by far. DSU doesn't change that.
> 
> DSU for non ATMOS movies? Yes, it sounds better than 5.1 or 7.1, I feel more enveloped. But in my setup, DSU does not sound as room filling as DTS Neo:X used to sound in my former 11.1 setup.
> 
> Right now I am feeling a bit sad. Sad that ATMOS does not sound as good as I thought it would in my setup, after all the time and money I put into it.
> 
> But most of all, sad that the wides are going away...I know, ATMOS can use wides for object based audio, and future receivers will take care of that. But what I will miss it the enveloping effect the wides channels give (gave?) me: it is not the very ocasional bulllet sound that I want, it is the constant, enveloping effect they provide. That effect used to be provided extremely well with DTS Neo:X in my setup.


This thread might interest you:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html



> I wonder how the DSU algorithm sound with the wides? Something I will certainly try very soon is change my setup to a 9.2.1 just to experiment with what DSU brings to the wides. Not the object based sounds, but what DSU will extend into those wides, extracting it from the base channels...


Unfortunately, DSU does not support wides.


----------



## Jond0

Methodical_1 said:


> Yeah mine came last week - way faster than estimated.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up on the $15 movie.


I got mine yesterday and watched it last night -- it was awesome! 


I did notice though that during the opening scene as Clooney is flying around while talking to Houston, as the action starts going down and Houston panned around the room -- Houston's voice wasn't as clear coming out the rears on my system as I remembered it pre-atmos... was that just part of the transmission breaking up or do I need to do some rear soundstage tweaking?


----------



## 5mark

stef2 said:


> I wonder how the DSU algorithm sound with the wides? Something I will certainly try very soon is change my setup to a 9.2.1 just to experiment with what DSU brings to the wides. Not the object based sounds, but what DSU will extend into those wides, extracting it from the base channels...
> 
> Now, if those new 15 or 16 channels preamps (XMR-1) can bring my wides back to life while providing me with the ATMOS overhead bonus effects, I might be in heaven! I feel that right now, with ATMOS as it is sounds in my setup, I only did a lateral move. But still, I am glad I did it. Now I know how ATMOS sounds in my room.


As mentioned, DSU does not support wides, but Neural X does. When you try out 9.1.2, also try 5+wides.1.4 (preferrably with the side surrounds behind the LP). This configuration, at least with Denon and Marantz, is the only one that keeps the wides very active with all content, including native Atmos. Plus you get to keep the 4 overheads.


----------



## Legairre

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "I still haven't met a single person with more than a 5.1 system, other than all of us on AVS or other sites."
> 
> Right you are, but I'm still glad I invested the time and money to make a 11.1.4 system possible in my HT. Every time we watch a movie or when friends come over to our house - - they are amazed at the sound. It's better than the movie theater, they say. Outside of my center speaker purchase - - Dolby Atmos has provided the most enjoyment from my home theater.
> 
> They don't know what they're missin!


My experience is the same as yours. Every time someone comes over they are just amazed at the sound and picture in my theater. They really don't know what they are missing. My system with 7.2.4 has is so much more enveloping than it was with just 7.2. Having 11 speakers makes a huge difference even on movies that DSU is applied. Upgrading from 7.2 to 7.2.4 was well worth it.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Sure!

As was saying before after visiting the AV shop I used to buy things from: how can you sell people something that you don't even bother to show in your shop? Atmos? Not on display. Room treatments? Not on display. The speaker corner only has speakers and amps in it, bare ceiling, horrible sound! 

"Oh, but you need this cat 8 cable sir if you want audiophile sound from this streamer!" Yeah, right!


----------



## Dave-T

I also have a Marantz 8802a processor hooked up to a 5.1.4 atmos setup. I have B&W CCM682 speakers in the ceiling firing straight down with 9 ' ceilings with B&W CWM 7.3 in-walls up front and CWM7.4 in-walls in the back. I called B&W and asked what the dispersement of the CCM682 speakers where because B&W does not list it under specs. I was told that all B&W speakers meet THX specs and atmos specs, however they did not get the certification because it would money to do so. With that being said I have the front atmos speakers and rear atmos speakers roughly at 45 degrees from the MLP(tweeter can be tilted). I called Marantz to find out when running Audyessy should I assign the amp as dolby atmos with 4 heights or do an 11 channel setup and let Audyssey figure out what I have. I was told that it made no difference how I set it up in the amp assign and I would end up with the same results when Audyssey was completed. Has anyone played around with the Marantz amp assign and found that to be true or false? If so what is the best way to setup in the amp assign for 5.1.4? Thanks Dave


----------



## batpig

Dave-T said:


> I called Marantz to find out when running Audyessy should I assign the amp as dolby atmos with 4 heights or do an 11 channel setup and let Audyssey figure out what I have. I was told that it made no difference how I set it up in the amp assign and I would end up with the same results when Audyssey was completed. Has anyone played around with the Marantz amp assign and found that to be true or false? If so what is the best way to setup in the amp assign for 5.1.4? Thanks Dave


With the first round of D+M Atmos models (to include the 8802) there was a special "Dolby Atmos" amp assign mode, however it was confusing as it's really just a subset of the "11ch" mode that locks you into a Top Front + Top Rear assignment for the overheads. In the 11ch mode you have more flexibility (e.g. doing Front Height + Top Middle) to tell the processor what the exact layout is. If you're doing a straight 5.1.4 with TF+TR then it doesn't matter which one you choose.


----------



## Dave-T

Methodical_1 said:


> Until you can get some Blurays, well even when get them, you should download Atmos/DTS:X demos from the site below. The demo clips are great because they are designed to intentionally exploit the new surround modes. I really like the demo with the music going all around the room. Great demos for anyone who wants to get a taste of the new stuff and to show it off. Interesting, I found someone selling those exact same demos on Ebay for $14.
> 
> http://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/
> 
> Sully
> American Sniper (sandstorm scene)
> Jason Bourne (the riot/protest scene is nice)
> Deep Water Horizon
> Madmax
> Everestt (storm scene)
> Last Witchunter
> Enchanted Kingdom (if you love wildlife)
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9699579&postcount=1
> 
> I kinda went on a movie binge


Please help this may be a stupid question but how do I watch the www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd on my home theater. I downloaded to a USB and it will not play the file. I have a marantz 8802a and an LG E6 OLED and a Denon bd3800BDCI blu ray player. 

Thanks


----------



## batpig

Hugo S said:


> Now after some further testings, I've finally found the causes behind all this.
> 
> Which is : in a 5+Wides.x.4 configuration driven by a Marantz 8802A (and _probably_ all other D&M products), a Surround Left Atmos (SL) signal is simultaneously reproduced by the Surround Left (SL) speaker *and* the Wide Left (WL) speaker... with the very same phenomenon happening with a SR Atmos signal simultaneously reproduced by the SR *and* WR speakers.
> 
> Something that can be experienced with the Dolby Atmos test disc (I've used the latest Sep 2016 version), where when testing a Marantz 8802A 5+Wides.x.4 configuration, the test signals within every proposed configurations 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 of the SL channel is reproduced with both SL + WL speakers and SR channel is reproduced with both SR + WR speakers.


Hugo - thanks for this. Have you tested if the level is the same between the two outputs on each side?

The finding had been reported before with the test tones you reference, and the general conclusion has been that the renderer assumes that with only one pair of surrounds (5.1+FW instead of 7.1 with Surround + Surr Back) it assumes the surrounds are further behind you so it's trying to phantom image the direct-to-the-side 90 degree Surround position. 

With a standard 7.1 or 9.1 layout, the Surround is 90 degrees (direct to side) and the SurrBack behind you... but without SurrBack the theory is that it assumes Surrounds are at 120(?) degrees so it uses the wides as "Front surround" to pull the phantom image more to the side wall.


----------



## batpig

Dave-T said:


> Please help this may be a stupid question but how do I watch the www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd on my home theater. I downloaded to a USB and it will not play the file. I have a marantz 8802a and an LG E6 OLED and a Denon bd3800BDCI blu ray player.
> 
> Thanks


You need a device that can play the file off a USB stick and bitstream the TrueHD audio to the processor. The USB port on your Marantz is audio-only so can't be used to play multich video files, and the TV itself is not going to be able to bitstream the audio back to the receiver even if it has a compatible USB port. So, that leaves your Denon BDP, and if it can't play mkv/m2ts via USB with bitstream audio output over HDMI, you are SOL.


----------



## Selden Ball

batpig said:


> You need a device that can play the file off a USB stick and bitstream the TrueHD audio to the processor. The USB port on your Marantz is audio-only so can't be used to play multich video files, and the TV itself is not going to be able to bitstream the audio back to the receiver even if it has a compatible USB port. So, that leaves your Denon BDP, and if it can't play mkv/m2ts via USB with bitstream audio output over HDMI, you are SOL.


Well, actually some receivers can play some movie file formats. They can't show the video portion, but you can listen to their soundtracks. That's the case for my Marantz SR7009, anyhow. Its on-screen menu complains that the files are not valid, but it doesn't prevent you from selecting and listening to them.


----------



## fingersdlp

I currently have a 7.1 setup. I am adding 4 ceiling speakers. I have two rows of seating and a back row only a foot or so in front of the back wall. The rear surrounds are close together about head height on the back wall. The side surrounds are between the front and rear seating on the sides.

Has anyone with such a configuration found that 5.1.4 is a better atmos experience than 7.1.4? If I powered 7.1.4 the rear surrounds are obviously non standard and I know the side surrounds might be a tad high as well. I plan to experiment but it seems from reading this thread there might be support for 5.1.4 over 7.1.4 when the rears are close together and close to the back row? I plan on setting the front heights and rear heights mostly optimized to the front row. This would put the rear heights directly over the back row. I will have the ability to move them around a bit and experiment. I thought I would ask opinions on 5.1.4 (which I can get close to the standard for the first row) vs 7.1.4 with its issue of the rear surrounds. Thanks.

EDIT: If I move the rear surrounds wider on the back wall (closer to the Atmos spec) would this influence 5.14 vs 7.1.4 any since they are still so close to the back seating?


----------



## Selden Ball

fingersdlp said:


> I currently have a 7.1 setup. I am adding 4 ceiling speakers. I have two rows of seating and a back row only a foot or so in front of the back wall. The rear surrounds are close together about head height on the back wall. The side surrounds are between the front and rear seating on the sides.
> 
> Has anyone with such a configuration found that 5.1.4 is a better atmos experience than 7.1.4? If I powered 7.1.4 the rear surrounds are obviously non standard and I know the side surrounds might be a tad high as well. I plan to experiment but it seems from reading this thread there might be support for 5.1.4 over 7.1.4 when the rears are close together and close to the back row? I plan on setting the front heights and rear heights mostly optimized to the front row. This would put the rear heights directly over the back row. I will have the ability to move them around a bit and experiment. I thought I would ask opinions on 5.1.4 (which I can get close to the standard for the first row) vs 7.1.4 with its issue of the rear surrounds. Thanks.
> 
> EDIT: If I move the rear surrounds wider on the back wall (closer to the Atmos spec) would this influence 5.14 vs 7.1.4 any since they are still so close to the back seating?


It'd be nice for at least some sounds to come from the rear for people in the rear seats, so a 7.1.4 configuration like what you describe is appropriate. The room's shape and the locations of the seats will affect whether a wider spacing is appropriate for the Rear Surround speakers. You can place the Top Rear speakers somewhat farther forward if you want to compensate for the Rear Surround speakers being too close to the ceiling.

Seeing a picture your room's current layout would help people to give advice. A few pictures are worth a few thousand words.  If you'd rather provide a 3D diagram instead of photographs (for whatever reason), the free 3D layout program SweetHome3D can be fun to use.


----------



## Methodical_1

Jond0 said:


> I got mine yesterday and watched it last night -- it was awesome!
> 
> 
> I did notice though that during the opening scene as Clooney is flying around while talking to Houston, as the action starts going down and Houston panned around the room -- Houston's voice wasn't as clear coming out the rears on my system as I remembered it pre-atmos... was that just part of the transmission breaking up or do I need to do some rear soundstage tweaking?


I never watched this movie at home prior to getting this disc. I will have to one day replay and pay attention to that. I just let Audyssey handle all that stuff for me though. Are you setting up your speakers yourself or using Audyssey? Replay the other disc and see what it sounds like.


----------



## cdnscg

Is the placement of the ceiling Atmos speakers very specific to be effective? I'm looking to expand my 5.1 to a 5.1.4. The surround speakers are in-wall and about 1' behind the seats. The ceiling has a bulk head protruding out from the side about 3.3' of a 14' wide ceiling. What are my options for the .4 ceiling speakers?


----------



## Methodical_1

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Sure!
> 
> As was saying before after visiting the AV shop I used to buy things from: how can you sell people something that you don't even bother to show in your shop? Atmos? Not on display. Room treatments? Not on display. The speaker corner only has speakers and amps in it, bare ceiling, horrible sound!
> 
> "Oh, but you need this cat 8 cable sir if you want audiophile sound from this streamer!" Yeah, right!


There's a sucker born every day. We just ain't that sucker. A fool and his money shall soon part..."

For me, I am visual. If you set up those theater rooms and let them sit and listen, undisturbed, more likely than not they may be willing to buy because they saw and heard and not just read it somewhere on the net. Impulse buying is real. He needs advertising 101 training.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

fingersdlp said:


> I currently have a 7.1 setup. I am adding 4 ceiling speakers. I have two rows of seating and a back row only a foot or so in front of the back wall. The rear surrounds are close together about head height on the back wall. The side surrounds are between the front and rear seating on the sides.
> 
> Has anyone with such a configuration found that 5.1.4 is a better atmos experience than 7.1.4? If I powered 7.1.4 the rear surrounds are obviously non standard and I know the side surrounds might be a tad high as well. I plan to experiment but it seems from reading this thread there might be support for 5.1.4 over 7.1.4 when the rears are close together and close to the back row? I plan on setting the front heights and rear heights mostly optimized to the front row. This would put the rear heights directly over the back row. I will have the ability to move them around a bit and experiment. I thought I would ask opinions on 5.1.4 (which I can get close to the standard for the first row) vs 7.1.4 with its issue of the rear surrounds. Thanks.
> 
> EDIT: If I move the rear surrounds wider on the back wall (closer to the Atmos spec) would this influence 5.14 vs 7.1.4 any since they are still so close to the back seating?


Some people have great results with surrounds slightly ahead of MLP if rear surrounds are present. Those rear surrounds can be on the side wall, where you might think only side surrounds can be put. So for example: Surround @ 70/80° and Rear Surround @ 105/135°.

Or you can do as Hugo S has demonstrated to be very enveloping: do Wides @ 55/65° and skip the Rear Surrounds. But then the Atmos up mixer (DSU) does not use the Wides. You then use the DTS up-mixer. Native Atmos material is all well of course.

Hugo on Wides

Succes!


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Sure! As was saying before after visiting the AV shop I used to buy things from: how can you sell people something that you don't even bother to show in your shop? Atmos? Not on display. Room treatments? Not on display. The speaker corner only has speakers and amps in it, bare ceiling, horrible sound! 

Oh, but you need this cat 8 cable sir if you want audiophile sound from this streamer!" Yeah, right!"

Sir - of course YOUR system is going to sound much better in your place than our floor demo! You see, we are limited by the tremendous size of this place and the echos you hear off the washing machines as they ping pong off the refrigerators do not get you that full, Dolby Atmos "Theater" experience. 

Once you buy the the eleven speakers I have recommended in addition to that wonderful (on sale!) receiver, you will begin your journey towards heavenly music and movie bliss. Don't forget that UHD player and keep in mind that you will definitely need UHD cables to get the most out of your system. Couple that with our Wabulator Stabilizers (which I strongly recommend for all high end equipment like yours) - - and you will see a remarkable difference in sonic quality and stability.

Now - let's write this up and before I forget, you ARE going to want the extended warranty, aren't you? And the best part? We can roll all of this into 60 small payments of $89.99 a month! Why don't you have a seat and fill out our credit application while I get you a bottle of water. Boy, are YOU going to be the envy of all your friends when they hear your fantastic new home theater. Our Geek-Tech-Install Squad will make sure of that!!!


----------



## dvdwilly3

fingersdlp said:


> I currently have a 7.1 setup. I am adding 4 ceiling speakers. I have two rows of seating and a back row only a foot or so in front of the back wall. The rear surrounds are close together about head height on the back wall. The side surrounds are between the front and rear seating on the sides.
> 
> Has anyone with such a configuration found that 5.1.4 is a better atmos experience than 7.1.4? If I powered 7.1.4 the rear surrounds are obviously non standard and I know the side surrounds might be a tad high as well. I plan to experiment but it seems from reading this thread there might be support for 5.1.4 over 7.1.4 when the rears are close together and close to the back row? I plan on setting the front heights and rear heights mostly optimized to the front row. This would put the rear heights directly over the back row. I will have the ability to move them around a bit and experiment. I thought I would ask opinions on 5.1.4 (which I can get close to the standard for the first row) vs 7.1.4 with its issue of the rear surrounds. Thanks.
> 
> EDIT: If I move the rear surrounds wider on the back wall (closer to the Atmos spec) would this influence 5.14 vs 7.1.4 any since they are still so close to the back seating?


I have had both 5.1.4 and 7.1.4, and I prefer 7.1.4. My HT configuration is very similar to yours...two rows of seating, rear surrounds close to rear wall.

I don't know which speakers you are using, bit I am running dipole for both my side surrounds and rear surrounds.

My side surrounds are Monitor Audio Gold FX. While MA instructions are intened to have them run in either Direct or Dipole mode, I have fooled with the switches so that they are running in bipole, not dipole mode. That gives me the woofer/mid 6.5" driver firing into the space between the rows and 4" mid/woofer and 1" dome tweeter firing toward the front and toward the rear. So, there are a total of 5 drivers on each side of the room provind side audio content. This actually gives me a combination of direct and bipole, the best of both worlds.

Similarly, my rear surrounds are MA Silver FX running in dipole mode. The woofer/mid 6" fires toward the seating and the 1" tweeters on the angled baffles firing toward the sides.

I find that this provides a very immersive soundfield that puts me directly into the movie. As an example, the initial bombing run in Unbroken puts you inside the B24 bomber, and the sounds pan appropriately no matter where it is coming from.

I know that the use of dipole speakers flies in the face of convential advice, but it works for my configuration. In particular, I feel that the thoughtful use of dipoles in theaters with more than one row of seats is a better way to do it.

YMMV...

Most appropriately, what do YOU think about 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4? It's your theater...


----------



## fingersdlp

Thanks all for the replies RE 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4 for my setup. Good information. I will post back after I have a chance to experiment. Hopefully I will have a productive weekend!


----------



## Sittler27

*7.2.2 or 5.2.4?*

Which is better for Atmos?

I have a Marantz SR7010 and can do either or (i.e. use the rear surrounds as rear surrounds, or use them as additional height channel by mounting them closer and narrower to the seating position but go without rear surrounds).

Unfortunately I can't do 7.2.4


----------



## EdQ

Sittler27 said:


> Which is better for Atmos?
> 
> I have a Marantz SR7010 and can do either or (i.e. use the rear surrounds as rear surrounds, or use them as additional height channel by mounting them closer and narrower to the seating position but go without rear surrounds).
> 
> Unfortunately I can't do 7.2.4


x.x.4 is better for Atmos, you can get the front to back panning.


----------



## Sittler27

EdQ said:


> x.x.4 is better for Atmos, you can get the front to back panning.


And what about for when (like the majority of content) is upmixed from Dolby Digital, etc. to all channels? Is 5.x.4 still better or is 7.x.2 better?


----------



## cdnscg

cdnscg said:


> Is the placement of the ceiling Atmos speakers very specific to be effective? I'm looking to expand my 5.1 to a 5.1.4. The surround speakers are in-wall and about 1' behind the seats. The ceiling has a bulk head protruding out from the side about 3.3' of a 14' wide ceiling. What are my options for the .4 ceiling speakers?


Thoughts?


----------



## Oilmanmojo

Sittler27 said:


> Which is better for Atmos?
> 
> I have a Marantz SR7010 and can do either or (i.e. use the rear surrounds as rear surrounds, or use them as additional height channel by mounting them closer and narrower to the seating position but go without rear surrounds).
> 
> Unfortunately I can't do 7.2.4


I also own a SR7010 and started with 7.1.2 and was just disappointed in the sound compared to 7.1. I tried 5.4 but hooked up my old Marantz as an additional amp and got the 7.1.4. I am using Mirage OS3-SAT as my height speakers. My room is similar to the OP who started the thread and i chose to mount them behind the back row (two rows with the back row on a 9 in riser) and lowered my original surround(LS/RS and LR/RR) speakers to create a little more air between the surrounds and height. now my surrounds and front/centers are exactly at ear level for my MLP. My MLP is on the back row and is about 18-20 inches from the back wall. I worried that lowering them would make the rears too oppressive but wow, the impact was phenomenal. Fantastic surround and height effects. I was blown away when watching Enders Game and miss peregrine home for peculiar children. Been a while since i got goosebumps watching movies. I had purchased 2 channel amp for the Height speakers that i now plan to sell as i like using my old marantz for the height channels and my new Marantz 7010 for the lower speakers. But put the speakers on the back wall vs on the sides. In my setup trying both locations before i mounted them permanently, the rear position for the height speakers was the way to go


----------



## Sittler27

Oilmanmojo said:


> I also own a SR7010 and started with 7.1.2 and was just disappointed in the sound compared to 7.1. I tried 5.4 but hooked up my old Marantz as an additional amp and got the 7.1.4. I am using Mirage OS3-SAT as my height speakers. My room is similar to the OP who started the thread and i chose to mount them behind the back row (two rows with the back row on a 9 in riser) and lowered my original surround(LS/RS and LR/RR) speakers to create a little more air between the surrounds and height. now my surrounds and front/centers are exactly at ear level for my MLP. My MLP is on the back row and is about 18-20 inches from the back wall. I worried that lowering them would make the rears too oppressive but wow, the impact was phenomenal. Fantastic surround and height effects. I was blown away when watching Enders Game and miss peregrine home for peculiar children. Been a while since i got goosebumps watching movies. I had purchased 2 channel amp for the Height speakers that i now plan to sell as i like using my old marantz for the height channels and my new Marantz 7010 for the lower speakers. But put the speakers on the back wall vs on the sides. In my setup trying both locations before i mounted them permanently, the rear position for the height speakers was the way to go


So looks like I'm gonna be going with 7.2.2 with the heights setup in a mid-height (TM) position and the surround rears acting as surround rears but in the rear-height (TR) position.

this is because remembered that the in-ceiling speakers I ordered are angled ones (for the rear surrounds) so need to be mounted further back from MLP than if I was to mount them for a rear height channel setup.

Due to a non-symetrical room layout, those rear surrounds (Paradigm E80-A) will be mounted at a narrower width on centre from the MLP than the surrounds.
The surrounds (Paradigm E80-IW) are most lined up with the L/R fronts (Studio 60s) and then two height channels in the TM position (Paradigm E80-R)

Hoping this provides sufficient separation of channels.

In summary, MLP is 12.5' from screen wall, and L/R are about 12' apart (6' on centre of screen), the TM heights will be also 12' apart and 7' from L/R, the surrounds are also about 12' apart, but the rear surround in-ceilings are only about 8' apart (4' on centre of screen and MLP)


----------



## Jond0

Methodical_1 said:


> I never watched this movie at home prior to getting this disc. I will have to one day replay and pay attention to that. I just let Audyssey handle all that stuff for me though. Are you setting up your speakers yourself or using Audyssey? Replay the other disc and see what it sounds like.


I used auto setup and am still using dipole rear surrounds and I am wondering if that was the reason for the broken up dialog in the rears -- otherwise for immersion effect the dipoles have been perfect so far but there is always that nagging feeling it could be better...


----------



## Jond0

cdnscg said:


> Is the placement of the ceiling Atmos speakers very specific to be effective? I'm looking to expand my 5.1 to a 5.1.4. The surround speakers are in-wall and about 1' behind the seats. The ceiling has a bulk head protruding out from the side about 3.3' of a 14' wide ceiling. What are my options for the .4 ceiling speakers?


If you can mount them symmetrically over the MLP at least 55-45 degrees you should get good effect. 

I actually have mine on the front and rear walls at ~45 front 125 rear degrees since I couldn't get them on the ceiling and I get a great sound bubble with separation from main and height effects. 

I think there is some leeway while still able to get good effect.


----------



## gwsat

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "Sure! As was saying before after visiting the AV shop I used to buy things from: how can you sell people something that you don't even bother to show in your shop? Atmos? Not on display. Room treatments? Not on display. The speaker corner only has speakers and amps in it, bare ceiling, horrible sound!
> 
> Oh, but you need this cat 8 cable sir if you want audiophile sound from this streamer!" Yeah, right!"
> 
> Sir - of course YOUR system is going to sound much better in your place than our floor demo! You see, we are limited by the tremendous size of this place and the echos you hear off the washing machines as they ping pong off the refrigerators do not get you that full, Dolby Atmos "Theater" experience.
> 
> Once you buy the the eleven speakers I have recommended in addition to that wonderful (on sale!) receiver, you will begin your journey towards heavenly music and movie bliss. Don't forget that UHD player and keep in mind that you will definitely need UHD cables to get the most out of your system. Couple that with our Wabulator Stabilizers (which I strongly recommend for all high end equipment like yours) - - and you will see a remarkable difference in sonic quality and stability.
> 
> Now - let's write this up and before I forget, you ARE going to want the extended warranty, aren't you? And the best part? We can roll all of this into 60 small payments of $89.99 a month! Why don't you have a seat and fill out our credit application while I get you a bottle of water. Boy, are YOU going to be the envy of all your friends when they hear your fantastic new home theater. Our Geek-Tech-Install Squad will make sure of that!!!


Your imaginary AV salesman reminds me of Billy Flynn, the sleazy lawyer in the great Broadway show, later a movie, _Chicago._ Billy described his schtick in song:

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they’ll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle


----------



## Theriddler07sms

Looking for some black on ceiling speakers to use for atmos. Was looking at the Klipsch AW series (I have a full 5.0 klipsch RP set of speakers), or the Polk Atriums. I cannot do in-ceiling so will be mounting these on the sealing. Figured outdoor speakers were a good fit with their mounting bracket. 

Unless anyone has some better ideas I am all ears. Have a denon x4200w and going to use an emotiva 2ch amp to run 2 of my speakers so I can go full 5.1.4. My room is 15x11x7.5.


----------



## cdnscg

Jond0 said:


> If you can mount them symmetrically over the MLP at least 55-45 degrees you should get good effect.
> 
> I actually have mine on the front and rear walls at ~45 front 125 rear degrees since I couldn't get them on the ceiling and I get a great sound bubble with separation from main and height effects.
> 
> I think there is some leeway while still able to get good effect.


Thanks. Should 2 be slightly behind and 2 slightly in front of my MLP, or both slightly in front per illustrations I've seen on the Dolby website?


----------



## EdQ

Sittler27 said:


> So looks like I'm gonna be going with 7.2.2 with the heights setup in a mid-height (TM) position and the surround rears acting as surround rears but in the rear-height (TR) position....


Not sure if they will would sound correctly. You might try the rears as TR


----------



## Jond0

cdnscg said:


> Thanks. Should 2 be slightly behind and 2 slightly in front of my MLP, or both slightly in front per illustrations I've seen on the Dolby website?


I'm not sure which diagrams you looked at as there do seem to be a lot of options, but if you are doing x.x.4 then one pair slightly in front of the MLP and one pair behind, so you are seated centered between them underneath. At least that's how I would do it if I were to mount on the ceiling.


----------



## Theriddler07sms

Jond0 said:


> I'm not sure which diagrams you looked at as there do seem to be a lot of options, but if you are doing x.x.4 then one pair slightly in front of the MLP and one pair behind, so you are seated centered between them underneath. At least that's how I would do it if I were to mount on the ceiling.


You wouldnt do one behind the MLP and one above the L/R?


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> Your imaginary AV salesman reminds me of Billy Flynn, the sleazy lawyer in the great Broadway show, later a movie, _Chicago._ Billy described his schtick in song:
> 
> Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
> Razzle Dazzle 'em
> Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
> And the reaction will be passionate
> Give 'em the old hocus pocus
> Bead and feather 'em
> How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
> 
> What if your hinges all are rusting?
> What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
> 
> Razzle dazzle 'em
> And they’ll never catch wise!
> 
> Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle


Love it! Where's the kitchen table (insurance salesman). In truth, not all salesmen are this way but I can guarantee you that the folks at my Best Buy were drilled to sell new HDMI cables when 4K TV sets came out. When I bought a 4K TV (Visio) for our bedroom a year & half ago, the first thing the salesman said was "Do you have the right cables to work with this set?" 

I thought for a minute and said "I think I'm o.k." Geez, he even had me thinking about it! (UHD players weren't available at that time. No HDCP issues and my cables were relatively new at the time.)

How about Buck in Boogie Nights - "So basically you're gettin twice the bass cause of the TK421 modification we got in this system, here. I've got one at home - got it modified with the TK421, which is a bass unit that basically kicks in another two, maybe three quads when you really crank - - - let me put another eight track in so you can get a better idea what I'm talkin about." 

Back when stereo salesmen were really salesmen. (Snake oil, smoke & mirrors optional.)


----------



## unretarded

cdnscg said:


> Thoughts?


 Speaker placement for the overheads are just ideal suggestions as long as get in the general area your room correction should take care of any placement issues up to a point.

I can not extoll the virtues of .4 over .2 , but I can tell you just 2 speakers overhead makes a world of difference.........going from none to 2 overheads is giant step up.....not sure how big going from 2 to 4 overhead will be. I am sure it will be better, how much better in a less than ideal installation for the costs involved is up to you.


I would love to hear a .4 system so I knew first hand the differences........my logic is 2 overheads is like stereo....4 is like surround.......up top.

I know from my set up, that 2 up top is great, so if you can only do that it is worth it.


----------



## Sittler27

I just had two height in-ceilign speakers installed and two surround rear in-ceiling speakers installed.

What sound mode should I be putting my AVR (Marantz SR7010) into in order to have non-Atmos sources play upmixed properly.

Is it Dolby Digital + Neural:X? Or something else?


----------



## zeus33

Sittler27 said:


> I just had two height in-ceilign speakers installed and two surround rear in-ceiling speakers installed.
> 
> What sound mode should I be putting my AVR (Marantz SR7010) into in order to have non-Atmos sources play upmixed properly.
> 
> Is it Dolby Digital + Neural:X? Or something else?



Try Dolby Surround and Neural:X. See which one you prefer. Most members feel that Neural places more sound "up there" compared to Dolby Surround. Whether you like that or not, is up to you.


----------



## Sittler27

zeus33 said:


> Try Dolby Surround and Neural:X. See which one you prefer. Most members feel that Neural places more sound "up there" compared to Dolby Surround. Whether you like that or not, is up to you.


Ok, and for upmixing Stereo sources, is Multi-Channel best in a 7.2.2 setup?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Sittler27 said:


> Unfortunately I can't do 7.2.4


Yes we can!


----------



## EdQ

unretarded said:


> ... I would love to hear a .4 system so I knew first hand the differences........my logic is 2 overheads is like stereo....4 is like surround.......up top.
> 
> I know from my set up, that 2 up top is great, so if you can only do that it is worth it.


It allows front to back panning. Like a plane flying overhead.



Sittler27 said:


> Ok, and for upmixing Stereo sources, is Multi-Channel best in a 7.2.2 setup?


I prefer Dolby Surround for stereo.


----------



## cdnscg

unretarded said:


> Speaker placement for the overheads are just ideal suggestions as long as get in the general area your room correction should take care of any placement issues up to a point.
> 
> I can not extoll the virtues of .4 over .2 , but I can tell you just 2 speakers overhead makes a world of difference.........going from none to 2 overheads is giant step up.....not sure how big going from 2 to 4 overhead will be. I am sure it will be better, how much better in a less than ideal installation for the costs involved is up to you.
> 
> 
> I would love to hear a .4 system so I knew first hand the differences........my logic is 2 overheads is like stereo....4 is like surround.......up top.
> 
> I know from my set up, that 2 up top is great, so if you can only do that it is worth it.


Thanks. I'm more than anxious now to get a 5.1.4 installed. I just realized, I may have to upgrade my 3 yr Sony BD player to enable Atlmos.


----------



## petetherock

dvdwilly3 said:


> I have had both 5.1.4 and 7.1.4, and I prefer 7.1.4. My HT configuration is very similar to yours...two rows of seating, rear surrounds close to rear wall.
> 
> I don't know which speakers you are using, bit I am running dipole for both my side surrounds and rear surrounds.
> 
> My side surrounds are Monitor Audio Gold FX. While MA instructions are intened to have them run in either Direct or Dipole mode, I have fooled with the switches so that they are running in bipole, not dipole mode. That gives me the woofer/mid 6.5" driver firing into the space between the rows and 4" mid/woofer and 1" dome tweeter firing toward the front and toward the rear. So, there are a total of 5 drivers on each side of the room provind side audio content. This actually gives me a combination of direct and bipole, the best of both worlds.
> 
> Similarly, my rear surrounds are MA Silver FX running in dipole mode. The woofer/mid 6" fires toward the seating and the 1" tweeters on the angled baffles firing toward the sides.
> 
> I find that this provides a very immersive soundfield that puts me directly into the movie. As an example, the initial bombing run in Unbroken puts you inside the B24 bomber, and the sounds pan appropriately no matter where it is coming from.
> 
> I know that the use of dipole speakers flies in the face of convential advice, but it works for my configuration. In particular, I feel that the thoughtful use of dipoles in theaters with more than one row of seats is a better way to do it.
> 
> YMMV...
> 
> Most appropriately, what do YOU think about 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4? It's your theater...


+1 I use the Silver FX too, and they give a nice enveloping sonic soundfield..


----------



## Methodical_1

Jond0 said:


> I'm not sure which diagrams you looked at as there do seem to be a lot of options, but if you are doing x.x.4 then one pair slightly in front of the MLP and one pair behind, so you are seated centered between them underneath. At least that's how I would do it if I were to mount on the ceiling.





Theriddler07sms said:


> You wouldnt do one behind the MLP and one above the L/R?


I have one row seating, so I have the fronts in front and the rear behind the MLP so the MLP is in between the rear and fronts - centered.



unretarded said:


> Speaker placement for the overheads are just ideal suggestions as long as get in the general area your room correction should take care of any placement issues up to a point.
> 
> I can not extoll the virtues of .4 over .2 , but I can tell you just 2 speakers overhead makes a world of difference.........


Exactly. Mine are not perfect, so I let Audyssey handle that stuff. You do the best with what you have. If all you can get is 2, then work with 2.



Sittler27 said:


> I just had two height in-ceilign speakers installed and two surround rear in-ceiling speakers installed.
> 
> What sound mode should I be putting my AVR (Marantz SR7010) into in order to have non-Atmos sources play upmixed properly.
> 
> Is it Dolby Digital + Neural:X? Or something else?


I use Neural:X. It definitely gets the sounds up there.


----------



## Methodical_1

Gouie said:


> Here's a link to my build thread and a couple of photos that I hope will help. The front and rear soffits aren't up yet and the cantilever hasn't been installed on the side soffits but hopefully this will help. The soffit on the rear wall will be the same as the sides, just installed after the sound proofing treatments.
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...struction/2715737-el-unico-theatre-build.html


I thought of your build when I saw this. Here's a photo of a similar build as yours. Check his speaker placement. This is was I was getting at with using brackets to be able to swivel your speakers for best placement.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2447010-ceiling-speakers-atmos-dts-x.html#post44388481


----------



## i2k

cdnscg said:


> Thanks. I'm more than anxious now to get a 5.1.4 installed. I just realized, I may have to upgrade my 3 yr Sony BD player to enable Atlmos.




If your BD player supports HD Audio (all do right?!) it should support Atmos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pmeintel

cdnscg said:


> Thanks. I'm more than anxious now to get a 5.1.4 installed. I just realized, I may have to upgrade my 3 yr Sony BD player to enable Atlmos.


You should be fine with the BD player, I use a 6-7 year old LG and it works just fine. As long as it can Bitstream everything should be hunky dori


----------



## Jond0

Theriddler07sms said:


> You wouldnt do one behind the MLP and one above the L/R?


You mean just a single one in front and in back? Not stereo pairs? I've never thought about that... I didn't know that was an option.


----------



## stef2

5mark said:


> As mentioned, DSU does not support wides, but Neural X does. When you try out 9.1.2, also try 5+wides.1.4 (preferrably with the side surrounds behind the LP). This configuration, at least with Denon and Marantz, is the only one that keeps the wides very active with all content, including native Atmos. Plus you get to keep the 4 overheads.


thanks!
I will try that for sure...the surround back do not help much with anything anyway.

The other thing I will try is to use my older avr (denon4520ci) in parallel and have it running in DTS NEO:X mode to power the front wides only, while letting my newer Marantz amp do 7.1.4.


----------



## muzz

Why would you put the 4520 in DTS/Neo?


----------



## AV_GURU

I have a problem that Im hoping one of you guys can help with. On my Pioneer SC-LX 701, when I run Audussey in 7.1, it finds my surround back speakers. I added 4 height speakers to get the ATMOS experience. 2 in the front, and 2 rear height speakers. When I run Audussey in 7.1.4, it does not find the surround back speakers. So what I end up getting is 5.1.4, and not 7.1.4. If I leave the settings at 7.1.4 and ignore that Audussey missed them, I still get 5.1.4 not matter what surround setting.

Why is Audussey not finding my surround back channels, and subsequently after the receiver ignoring them too?

Any thoughts appreciated.

thanks,

Mark


----------



## cdnscg

i2k said:


> If your BD player supports HD Audio (all do right?!) it should support Atmos
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a Sony BDP-S590 and does Dolby Digital / DTS. So I guess I should be okay.


----------



## i2k

cdnscg said:


> It's a Sony BDP-S590 and does Dolby Digital / DTS. So I guess I should be okay.




Does it do HD audio (Dolby true HD etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

AV_GURU said:


> I have a problem that Im hoping one of you guys can help with. On my Pioneer SC-LX 701, when I run Audussey in 7.1, it finds my surround back speakers. I added 4 height speakers to get the ATMOS experience. 2 in the front, and 2 rear height speakers. When I run Audussey in 7.1.4, it does not find the surround back speakers. So what I end up getting is 5.1.4, and not 7.1.4. If I leave the settings at 7.1.4 and ignore that Audussey missed them, I still get 5.1.4 not matter what surround setting.
> 
> Why is Audussey not finding my surround back channels, and subsequently after the receiver ignoring them too?
> 
> Any thoughts appreciated.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Mark


You do know that you only have 9 channels of amplification on board, right?

You have to use the pre-outs and another amp/AVR to power your rear height speakers.

If you do not have another amp, then all that you can ever get is 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.

See page 9, note 7...

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ephox/StaticFiles/PUSA/Files/Home/SC-LX701_801_BAS_EnFr.pdf


----------



## Pat Seguin

I have really nice Energy speakers I got from Best Buy a few years ago. The front ones are big and the kind you can bi amp so I have 5.1 but can do 7.1 if I wanted to. I just bought an Onkyo that can do Atmos. Can I get Atmos somehow with what I have? Or do I just need to buy 2 more speakers for that?


----------



## cdnscg

i2k said:


> Does it do HD audio (Dolby true HD etc)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


When a disc is Dolby True HD, my Pioneer LX701 avr states that's what it's receiving. So I guess the BD player is passing through the True HD.


----------



## i2k

Pat Seguin said:


> I have really nice Energy speakers I got from Best Buy a few years ago. The front ones are big and the kind you can bi amp so I have 5.1 but can do 7.1 if I wanted to. I just bought an Onkyo that can do Atmos. Can I get Atmos somehow with what I have? Or do I just need to buy 2 more speakers for that?




You would need a set of speakers for Atmos either front top firing specific atmos speakers or a pair of ceiling mounted speakers (you then would have 5.1.2)

Also bi-amping speakers is essentially a waste of time (search the forum for that one )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

Pat Seguin said:


> I have really nice Energy speakers I got from Best Buy a few years ago. The front ones are big and the kind you can bi amp so I have 5.1 but can do 7.1 if I wanted to. I just bought an Onkyo that can do Atmos. Can I get Atmos somehow with what I have? Or do I just need to buy 2 more speakers for that?


How many speakers do you have total right now?

You will need either 2 or 4 height speakers. Depending upon the Onkyo receiver you may be able to do 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 or, possibly 7.1.4.

What model Onkyo did you buy?


----------



## Pat Seguin

i2k said:


> You would need a set of speakers for Atmos either front top firing specific atmos speakers or a pair of ceiling mounted speakers (you then would have 5.1.2)
> 
> Also bi-amping speakers is essentially a waste of time (search the forum for that one )
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? I've been reading the opposite so far? WOuld it be better to wire them as 7.1 then? I remember the Best Buy salesman telling me to set my audio to 7.1 because it would use the other pair in the front speakers as the surround side speakers or something.


----------



## Naylorman32

Hi all, 

I am working on installing my RSL speakers into my drop ceiling. Do I need like a metal speaker support bracket above the tiles? I feel stupid for not looking into this prior me installing them lol


----------



## AV_GURU

*Getting 7.1.4*



dvdwilly3 said:


> You do know that you only have 9 channels of amplification on board, right?
> 
> You have to use the pre-outs and another amp/AVR to power your rear height speakers.
> 
> If you do not have another amp, then all that you can ever get is 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.
> 
> See page 9, note 7...
> 
> Yes. thanks Willy. I have my two fronts and my center using the pre-outs hooked up to an Emotiva XPA3, so I should have 3 channels to spare no?
> 
> Im sure the answer is staring me in the face, I just can't see it.
> 
> thanks.


----------



## EdQ

AV_GURU said:


> Yes. thanks Willy. I have my two fronts and my center using the pre-outs hooked up to an Emotiva XPA3, so I should have 3 channels to spare no?
> 
> Im sure the answer is staring me in the face, I just can't see it.
> 
> thanks.


Can you reassign the front amps to the rears? If not, it won't work.


----------



## Swolern

Upgrade path suggestions?

I currently have the Pioneer SC-85 running 5.1.4. The SC-85 has an extra 2 pre-outs that would need an extra amp to run 7.1.4. Or is there a way to buy another 7-9 channel AVR to have extra channels if I want to increase to 9.1.4 or more later on?

If I go the 2 channel route what amp do you guys suggest?


----------



## Selden Ball

Swolern said:


> Upgrade path suggestions?
> 
> I currently have the Pioneer SC-85 running 5.1.4. The SC-85 has an extra 2 pre-outs that would need an extra amp to run 7.1.4. Or is there a way to buy another 7-9 channel AVR to have extra channels if I want to increase to 9.1.4 or more later on?


Your question is ambiguous.

A receiver which contains 9 amplifiers and has a 7.1 multichannel preamp input can be used as an 8 channel amplifier at some later date, if that's what you mean.

However, you can't combine multiple current mainstream receivers to properly decode object-oriented Atmos or DTS:X driving 9.1.4 or more speakers. You can use them to produce "fake" Atmos or DTS:X by using them as matrix decoders, though. See the thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html



> If I go the 2 channel route what amp do you guys suggest?


The least expensive recommendation tends to be the Audio Source AMP100VS. https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94 There are many companies selling more expensive stereo amps, of course.


----------



## stef2

muzz said:


> Why would you put the 4520 in DTS/Neo?


Because I want my wides to do the same thing they used to do before I upgraded to ATMOS. I do not want them to reproduce object based sounds, I want them to "widen" my front stage like before. And before, they did it with Neo:X, all the time.


----------



## Swolern

Selden Ball said:


> Your question is ambiguous.
> 
> A receiver which contains 9 amplifiers and has a 7.1 multichannel preamp input can be used as an 8 channel amplifier at some later date, if that's what you mean.
> 
> However, you can't combine multiple current mainstream receivers to properly decode object-oriented Atmos or DTS:X driving 9.1.4 or more speakers. You can use them to produce "fake" Atmos or DTS:X by using them as matrix decoders, though. See the thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html
> 
> 
> 
> The least expensive recommendation tends to be the Audio Source AMP100VS. https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94 There are many companies selling more expensive stereo amps, of course.


Thanks for the clarification and links. Thats just what i was looking for! I will probably just get the extra amp you suggested, but the multi-avr link you provided sure is interesting! Hmmm.


----------



## kematt

Stoked21 said:


> .....The $2K system will still sound better than someone's who is non-existent as it's not going to be finished until June 2017.....Just buy what you like and can afford, research some optimal speaker placements and most importantly ENJOY!!!


Entire post well said!


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

Selden Ball said:


> The least expensive recommendation tends to be the Audio Source AMP100VS. https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94 There are many companies selling more expensive stereo amps, of course.


I dunno about this amp. Check out the discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2352305-audiosource-amp100vs-help.html

I had one and returned it after experiencing a similar result. The failure of this amp actually put my entire plan to add rear surrounds to my 5.1.4 setup - to make it 7.1.4 - on hold indefinitely. (Probably better that way for me as space is at a premium in our home theater setup and my 5.1.4 sounds wonderful.)


----------



## stangflyer

Larry Rosenberg said:


> I dunno about this amp. Check out the discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2352305-audiosource-amp100vs-help.html
> 
> I had one and returned it after experiencing a similar result. The failure of this amp actually put my entire plan to add rear surrounds to my 5.1.4 setup - to make it 7.1.4 - on hold indefinitely. (Probably better that way for me as space is at a premium in our home theater setup and my 5.1.4 sounds wonderful.)


I have added this amp to my Denon 4300h to go 7.2.4. Has been perfect for the 4 months that I have had it


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Selden Ball said:


> Your question is ambiguous.
> 
> A receiver which contains 9 amplifiers and has a 7.1 multichannel preamp input can be used as an 8 channel amplifier at some later date, if that's what you mean.
> 
> However, you can't combine multiple current mainstream receivers to properly decode object-oriented Atmos or DTS:X driving 9.1.4 or more speakers. You can use them to produce "fake" Atmos or DTS:X by using them as matrix decoders, though. See the thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


Are you sure you can use 8 of the amps and not only 7 as the .1 normally would be hardwired to the subwoofer pre-out?

You can do a fairly proper 9.1.4 setup using two Atmos AVRs, no matrixing involved and no need for extra 2ch amps. :wink:


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> Your question is ambiguous.
> 
> A receiver which contains 9 amplifiers and has a 7.1 multichannel preamp input can be used as an 8 channel amplifier at some later date, if that's what you mean.
> 
> However, you can't combine multiple current mainstream receivers to properly decode object-oriented Atmos or DTS:X driving 9.1.4 or more speakers. You can use them to produce "fake" Atmos or DTS:X by using them as matrix decoders, though.


What do you mean by 'fake'? 

I don't know how it works with DTS:X, but with Atmos you only need one overhead pair to extract ALL overhead sounds from the bed channels. So the base level speakers of a 9.1.2 config can perfectly be combined with the 4 overheads of a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 config. There are no trade-offs in terms of Atmos sound presentation as compared to using one 9.1.4 capable processor.


----------



## mgproudfit

Few questions about a potential Atmos setup. Current 5.1 equipment list:

Paradigm Monitor 9 v7 fronts
Paradigm Center 1
Paradigm Atom Monitor 7 surrounds 
Marantz SR6010
ADCOM GFA-535 2-channel amp
PS4

I would like to run a 5.1.4 Atmos setup but may be OK with a 5.1.2 if it would suit my room better. 

1.) I have an un-equal ceiling in my basement, pic below, with the low part carrying our HVAC ductwork. As a result, I cannot place speakers in the low portion of the ceiling.
Q.) Do I have enough room (right-to-left) to have effective Atmos setup? I can place speakers equidistant over the main listening position but the left-most speakers will be right up against the drop-down of the ceiling. 

13938617_865383119542_3739058828462143301_n by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr

This is kinda what Id be thinking for an in-ceiling installation. The location front-to-back is not correct unless the locations shown were the front of the .4 setup.

13938617_865383119542_3739058828462143301_n copy by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr

3.) Given the low-ceiling-spot issue, would I be better served to use Atmos enabled up-firing speakers? If so, does my drop-ceiling limit their effectiveness? 

13934939_865383064652_6406184422265437669_n by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr

Note, the sub is now placed in the FR corner next to my front R speaker.


----------



## Selden Ball

maikeldepotter said:


> What do you mean by 'fake'?
> 
> I don't know how it works with DTS:X, but with Atmos you only need one overhead pair to extract ALL overhead sounds from the bed channels. So the base level speakers of a 9.1.2 config can perfectly be combined with the 4 overheads of a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 config. There are no trade-offs in terms of Atmos sound presentation as compared to using one 9.1.4 capable processor.


A given receiver is still limited in the number of active speaker channels which it can process. You can't do 9.1.6, for example, without using matrixing for some of the speaker channels. My understanding is that quite a few of the people who've tried multi-receiver configurations with a large number of speakers haven't been entirely satisfied with the results.


----------



## Selden Ball

Mashie Saldana said:


> Are you sure you can use 8 of the amps and not only 7 as the .1 normally would be hardwired to the subwoofer pre-out?


 Good point. I hadn't through it through entirely.


> You can do a fairly proper 9.1.4 setup using two Atmos AVRs, no matrixing involved and no need for extra 2ch amps. :wink:


Maybe I misunderstand the process, but (generally speaking) the way an individual receiver has to phantom image sounds among the speakers which it controls can't be the same phantom imaging used by a receiver driving a different configuration of speakers. Listening to nine ear-level speakers driven by one receiver (with its two overheads disconnected) and four overhead speakers driven by another (with its ear-level channels disconnected) probably works right, but my understanding is that expanding beyond that isn't quite so satisfying.


----------



## 5mark

stef2 said:


> Because I want my wides to do the same thing they used to do before I upgraded to ATMOS. I do not want them to reproduce object based sounds, I want them to "widen" my front stage like before. And before, they did it with Neo:X, all the time.


I think you'll like Neural X with the 5+wides.1.4 configuration. Although I decided the wides were actually being emphasized a bit too much. This was with a manual calibration using the SR7010 test tones. I just calibrated using the Atmos demo disc tones (9.1.6) and am liking the results more. The wides got lowered about 1-2db and the surrounds went up 1-2db (using the rear surround test tone). This was about what I thought needed to happen and so far it seems more seamless and balanced.


----------



## Socio

My current setup I have been using for several years now is a 7.2 base with matrixed front and rear side axis channels giving me 11.2 and 6 matrixed overhead channels front, rear and mid, plus front and rear Yamaha DSP driven ambiance channels at the top of the 4 corners of the room.

The desire to go 4K has given me the need to upgrade my receiver to a Denon that has Dolby Atmos.

To use Dolby Atmos in my setup all I need to do is use front and rear overhead channels from the receiver for the front and rear overheads and matrix those channels for mid my overhead channels to get the Dolby Atmos affect correct? 


With the matrixed overheads it was best to use di or tripole speakers to diffuse the sound so your immersion does not get distracted by any odd sounds that should not be coming from overhead. 


However for Atmos I should be using direct radiating speakers for the overheads in this scenario correct? 

Thanks


----------



## EdQ

You should use monopoles for Atmos. 
Any extra (matrixed) channels will not let the object based sounds work properly.
It's not just overhead sounds, Atmos uses other channels to place sounds where they need to be.


----------



## Socio

EdQ said:


> You should use monopoles for Atmos.
> Any extra (matrixed) channels will not let the object based sounds work properly.
> It's not just overhead sounds, Atmos uses other channels to place sounds where they need to be.



The way I have matrixing setup on my system it should only enhance the sound; take the matrixed front side axis for example it simply displays the sound in between front and the side as the sound is moving from front to side and side to front giving it a smoother transition.

If a sound was placed to the side surround it would just sound a bit wider as it is primarily heard on the side surround and then spread to the front and rear matrixed side axis channels as it fades away. I think if anything it will make it more realistic.

Same with the overhead I will matrix the front left over head and back left overheard to display sounds on center overheads that are transitioning front to back and back to front. If there is a sound that is place on the front left channel it will be a bit wider as that sound moves to the center left as it fades away.


----------



## Legairre

mgproudfit said:


> Few questions about a potential Atmos setup. Current 5.1 equipment list:
> 
> Paradigm Monitor 9 v7 fronts
> Paradigm Center 1
> Paradigm Atom Monitor 7 surrounds
> Marantz SR6010
> ADCOM GFA-535 2-channel amp
> PS4
> 
> I would like to run a 5.1.4 Atmos setup but may be OK with a 5.1.2 if it would suit my room better.
> 
> 1.) I have an un-equal ceiling in my basement, pic below, with the low part carrying our HVAC ductwork. As a result, I cannot place speakers in the low portion of the ceiling.
> Q.) Do I have enough room (right-to-left) to have effective Atmos setup? I can place speakers equidistant over the main listening position but the left-most speakers will be right up against the drop-down of the ceiling.
> 
> 13938617_865383119542_3739058828462143301_n by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr
> 
> This is kinda what Id be thinking for an in-ceiling installation. The location front-to-back is not correct unless the locations shown were the front of the .4 setup.
> 
> 13938617_865383119542_3739058828462143301_n copy by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr
> 
> 3.) Given the low-ceiling-spot issue, would I be better served to use Atmos enabled up-firing speakers? If so, does my drop-ceiling limit their effectiveness?
> 
> 13934939_865383064652_6406184422265437669_n by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr
> 
> Note, the sub is now placed in the FR corner next to my front R speaker.


Matt my ceiling is the same as yours except I have black 2x2 ceiling tiles. I have the same size higher part of my ceiling and the same size lower part with the HVAC duct work. I use four Atmos speakers and have two on the high side (front and back) and two on the low side with the duct work(front and back). 

I went with wide dispersion speakers that have pivoting tweeters and are only 2.7 inches deep. By the speakers being so shallow I was able to get them under the part with the duct work because I had 3.5 inches of space under the duct work from the visible side of the tile to the duct work so the 2.7 inch depth of the speakers left a little room to spare.

Hope this helps here's the speakers they are Russound RSF 635 Shallow Depth. If you get them make sure they are the RSF 635 and not the RSA 635. Only the RSF 635 is wide dispersion and shallow depth. The RSA is deeper and not wide dispersion.

BTW they are difficult to find at good prices but there are plenty brand new on Ebay.

https://www.russound.com/products/s...designer-edgeless-bezel-grille#specifications


----------



## mgproudfit

Thanks for the reply. Ill look into those speakers. Where did you get your black 2x2 tiles?


----------



## Legairre

mgproudfit said:


> Thanks for the reply. Ill look into those speakers. Where did you get your black 2x2 tiles?


I got mine as a special order form a building materials company here in CT about 10 years ago. They also carry them at Lowes, but you have to order them. I ordered a box from Lowes about a month ago to replace a few tiles that got scratched over the years.


----------



## mgproudfit

I just checked my low-ceiling tiles and the duct work is RIGHT above the grid. Im not sure even those shallow mounts would work well in my application. Do you think the spacing of what I posted above would suffice for an Atmos setup or not bother?


----------



## Legairre

mgproudfit said:


> I just checked my low-ceiling tiles and the duct work is RIGHT above the grid. Im not sure even those shallow mounts would work well in my application. Do you think the spacing of what I posted above would suffice for an Atmos setup or not bother?


It looks like the only time there would be an issue is for people siting under the low part, because the speakers next to the low part would have their sound blocked.


----------



## jrogers

mgproudfit said:


> I just checked my low-ceiling tiles and the duct work is RIGHT above the grid. Im not sure even those shallow mounts would work well in my application. Do you think the spacing of what I posted above would suffice for an Atmos setup or not bother?


I too have a drop ceiling for duct work (mine runs off center down the middle of my "theater") I ended up mounting a bit wider than I would have liked (trying to maintain line-of-sight from the MLP) but would definitely say it IS worth the bother!


----------



## jeff43

Swolern said:


> Upgrade path suggestions?
> 
> I currently have the Pioneer SC-85 running 5.1.4. The SC-85 has an extra 2 pre-outs that would need an extra amp to run 7.1.4. Or is there a way to buy another 7-9 channel AVR to have extra channels if I want to increase to 9.1.4 or more later on?
> 
> If I go the 2 channel route what amp do you guys suggest?


I guess I have the same question but let's see if I can be very specific on the SC-85 hooked up to run Atmos: 

A. Fact: I can run either a 7.2.2 or 5.2.4 setup. That tells me the receiver decodes for both the x.x.2 and x.x.4 Atmos signal. Question 1: Does that mean the receiver actually receives a 7.2.4 Atmos signal and then mixes into either the 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 dependent upon the receiver mode selection? Question 2: Does it change the mode by simply adding or subtracting those "extra" channels? (For example, a 5.2.4 simply eliminates the middle surrounds and the 7.2.2 simply eliminates the top front speakers). 

B. Are the preamp outputs controlled by the receiver mode selection or are they "native"? Question 3: If I, for example, select a 5.2.4 setup are those the signals you'll get out of the preamp connections or are they "pure", in this case outputting a 7.2.4 signals?

C. Question 4: If I run in 5.2.4 Atmos mode can I hook up middle surround speakers via preamp outputs to get a 7.2.4 system? 

D. I will have a 7.2.4 speaker hook up and the manual says you can set the mode so it will automatically use the front wide or top middle speakers, dependent upon the input signal. However, if I can get a cheap amp to power 2 surround speakers and get a true 7.2.4 sound that would be nice. My guess is the mode used also sets the preamp outputs. Question 5: Is there anyway on the SC-85 to grab all 11 channels by simply adding an amp to two of those 11 channels?

Thanks. I went through a lot of this material in a couple of threads and there is a lot of jargon I simply don't understand. Every time I thought I got it I realized I wasn't close.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Selden Ball said:


> A given receiver is still limited in the number of active speaker channels which it can process. You can't do 9.1.6, for example, without using matrixing for some of the speaker channels. My understanding is that quite a few of the people who've tried multi-receiver configurations with a large number of speakers haven't been entirely satisfied with the results.


Yes, driving more than 4 overheads with two receivers makes fuzzy Atmos, but 9.1.4 should do the job perfectly.


----------



## EdQ

Socio said:


> ...Same with the overhead I will matrix the front left over head and back left overheard to display sounds on center overheads that are transitioning front to back and back to front. If there is a sound that is place on the front left channel it will be a bit wider as that sound moves to the center left as it fades away.


It makes perfect sense when using channel based audio. But Atmos is object based audio. It will try to place sounds in 3d space with multiple speakers. Having more speakers than it knows about will skew the location. 



Sent from my Note Edge


----------



## Socio

EdQ said:


> It makes perfect sense when using channel based audio. But Atmos is object based audio. It will try to place sounds in 3d space with multiple speakers. Having more speakers than it knows about will skew the location.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Note Edge


Ah I see what you are talking about the way Atmos works it will not lend itself well to matrixed audio expansion, Auro-3D might be a better suited to experiment with in this respect or I will just stick with my channel based matrix expanded audio setup.

Thanks.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, driving more than 4 overheads with two receivers makes fuzzy Atmos, but 9.1.4 should do the job perfectly.


Correct, which is why you need four AVRs for 9.1.6.


----------



## Selden Ball

jeff43 said:


> I guess I have the same question but let's see if I can be very specific on the SC-85 hooked up to run Atmos:
> 
> A. Fact: I can run either a 7.2.2 or 5.2.4 setup. That tells me the receiver decodes for both the x.x.2 and x.x.4 Atmos signal. Question 1: Does that mean the receiver actually receives a 7.2.4 Atmos signal and then mixes into either the 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 dependent upon the receiver mode selection?


Atmos soundtracks do not provide 7.1.4 channels. An Atmos soundtrack provides 7.1 channels of audio plus metadata which tells the receiver's Atmos decoder where to place audio objects in xyz coordinates within the room. The Atmos decoder in the receiver subtracts those objects from the 7.1 channel audio and sends their audio to appropriate speakers so that the object audio signals seem to come from the appropriate directions.


> Question 2: Does it change the mode by simply adding or subtracting those "extra" channels? (For example, a 5.2.4 simply eliminates the middle surrounds and the 7.2.2 simply eliminates the top front speakers).


Atmos soundtrack always have exactly 7.1 channels (with Side and Rear Surround channels). If you have only 5 ear-level speakers, then the Rear Surround audio is mixed into the Side Surround speaker channels. The decoder redirects object sounds from the 7 ear-level channels to appropriate speakers, including Wides and overheads. Which speakers get which sounds depends on which speakers you've told the receiver that you have. There are no additional channels to be eliminated and no sounds are lost.



> B. Are the preamp outputs controlled by the receiver mode selection or are they "native"?


I'm not sure what you mean by "native". 

When you configure the receiver, the preamp outputs labelled TopMiddle and FrontWide have to be given appropriate designations in the receiver which are determined by where you've decided to place your speakers. See page 21 in the SC-85's owner's manual.

When the receiver is decoding an Atmos soundtrack, preamp outputs get different signals depending on the locations specified in the soundtrack for Atmos objects. If an object is located in between two speaker positions, the receiver uses "phantom imaging" . In other words, the object's audio will be divided between two or more preamp outputs (i.e. some audio is sent to several of them) so that the sound seems to come from the appropriate xyz location in the room. Which preamps get audio depends on which speakers you've configured in your receiver.



> Question 3: If I, for example, select a 5.2.4 setup are those the signals you'll get out of the preamp connections or are they "pure", in this case outputting a 7.2.4 signals?


The original soundtrack does not contain 7.1.4 channels of audio, so the concept of "pure" is irrelevant in this context (if I'm correctly interpreting what you're trying to say).



> C. Question 4: If I run in 5.2.4 Atmos mode can I hook up middle surround speakers via preamp outputs to get a 7.2.4 system?


When connecting two additional surround speakers to a 5.2.4 speaker configuration, the existing surround speakers are called Side Surrounds and the additional speakers are called either Rear Surrounds if they're in the back or Front Wide speakers if they're in the front.

Unfortunately, the SC-85 can only process 9.2 output channels. None of Pioneer's 2014 models can handle more than 9 simultaneously active speakers. For support of 11 channels you'd need to get a 2015 (e.g. SC-97 or 99) or later model. The SC-85 can't simultaneously output the 11.2 speaker channels needed to support a 7.2.4 speaker configuration with all of the speakers active at the same time.The additional back-panel connections are just for your convenience. You can connect speakers to them all, but you have to choose which 9 of those speakers are to be used.



> D. I will have a 7.2.4 speaker hook up and the manual says you can set the mode so it will automatically use the front wide or top middle speakers, dependent upon the input signal. However, if I can get a cheap amp to power 2 surround speakers and get a true 7.2.4 sound that would be nice. My guess is the mode used also sets the preamp outputs. Question 5: Is there anyway on the SC-85 to grab all 11 channels by simply adding an amp to two of those 11 channels?


You can connect additional external amplifiers, but they won't all be used at the same time. You can select which are used by selecting a different speaker configuration in the receiver.



> Thanks. I went through a lot of this material in a couple of threads and there is a lot of jargon I simply don't understand. Every time I thought I got it I realized I wasn't close.


edited to add:

Object oriented audio like Atmos and DTS:X is a very different way of handling where sounds are located. It's caused a lot of confusion.

There is a new channel-oriented audio sysem called Auro3D, but it's not being used very much in the consumer marketplace.


----------



## rmilyard

Ok looking for some help with my speakers again. 

Right now I have this setup:

AVR = Denon AVR-X6200W
AMPS = 2x AudioSource 100 = Power for ATMOS Top Middles other for my 4 Aura Bass Shakers
FRONTS R/L = DT DP7002
Center = DT CLR 2002
Surrounds R/L = ProCinema 100
REAR R/L = DT BP2X
FRONT ATMOS HEIGHT= ProCinema 100
TOP MIDDLE ATMOS = ProCinema 100
SUB: Klipsh SW-115

So running at 7.1.4 with also the 4 Bass Shakers. Wife and I love how all really sounds. However I believe my CLR 2002 is going out. We have found in the last few weeks having issues hearing center channel. We are finding voices are very faded and low now. 

We are thinking about replacing the center. What would be some good options to replace a 2002 and upgrade maybe? A 2300 or 2500? Not sure about the 3000 or if a new speaker would be better for us?


----------



## Selden Ball

rmilyard said:


> Ok looking for some help with my speakers again.
> 
> Right now I have this setup:
> 
> AVR = Denon AVR-X6200W
> AMPS = 2x AudioSource 100 = Power for ATMOS Top Middles other for my 4 Aura Bass Shakers
> FRONTS R/L = DT DP7002
> Center = DT CLR 2002
> Surrounds R/L = ProCinema 100
> REAR R/L = DT BP2X
> FRONT ATMOS HEIGHT= ProCinema 100
> TOP MIDDLE ATMOS = ProCinema 100
> SUB: Klipsh SW-115
> 
> So running at 7.4.1 with also the 4 Bass Shakers. Wife and I love how all really sounds. However I believe my CLR 2002 is going out. We have found in the last few weeks having issues hearing center channel. We are finding voices are very faded and low now.


What do you mean by "now"? Is it that it's quieter than it was with your previous receiver or did it become quieter at some point after you'd been using the 6200 for a while?

Bear in mind that some movies do have a reduced center channel output when compared to other movies. The 6200 includes a "dialog enhancer" option which you can use to turn up the volume of the center channel. See page 156 in the 6200's owner's manual.

Also, Audyssey's Dynamic EQ boosts the relative soundlevel of the surround speakers as you turn the volume down. This sometimes can reduce the apparent sound level of the center speaker channel. Adjusting the "Reference Level Offset" sometimes can help.



> We are thinking about replacing the center. What would be some good options to replace a 2002 and upgrade maybe? A 2300 or 2500? Not sure about the 3000 or if a new speaker would be better for us?


Can't help there other than a generic suggestion to get a speaker which has a design which most closely matches that of your front main speakers. Ideally, you want one which has the same "timbre" as your other speakers (i.e. it should sound the same as they do.)


----------



## rmilyard

Selden Ball said:


> What do you mean by "now"? Is it that it's quieter than it was with your previous receiver or did it become quieter at some point after you'd been using the 6200 for a while?
> 
> Bear in mind that some movies do have a reduced center channel output when compared to other movies. The 6200 includes a "dialog enhancer" option which you can use to turn up the volume of the center channel. See page 156 in the 6200's owner's manual.
> 
> Also, Audyssey's Dynamic EQ boosts the relative soundlevel of the surround speakers as you turn the volume down. This sometimes can reduce the apparent sound level of the center speaker channel. Adjusting the "Reference Level Offset" sometimes can help.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help there other than a generic suggestion to get a speaker which has a design which most closely matches that of your front main speakers. Ideally, you want one which has the same "timbre" as your other speakers (i.e. it should sound the same as they do.)


I have been using this setup for about a year. Nothing changed other than firmware updates for the AVR. We re watched a movie the other night which is the past could hear voices etc from center fine. This time was hard to hear. I am thinking the center is going out but not 100% sure yet.


----------



## jeff43

Selden Ball said:


> You can connect additional external amplifiers, but they won't all be used at the same time. You can select which are used by selecting a different speaker configuration in the receiver.
> 
> edited to add:
> 
> Object oriented audio like Atmos and DTS:X is a very different way of handling where sounds are located. It's caused a lot of confusion.
> 
> There is a new channel-oriented audio sysem called Auro3D, but it's not being used very much in the consumer marketplace.


Thank you so much! You explained it really well. I appreciate you taking the time. Since you did take the time to explain it, let me pick your brain once more. I read in the manual that you can set the surround sound settings to choose it's own speakers, TopMiddle versus FrontWide dependent upon the incoming signal, for a 7.2.4 setup ending up with a 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Since I will have 11 speakers set up, does it make sense to let the incoming signal choose or should I set it up as a 7.2.2 or 5.4.4, choosing TopMiddle or Front Wide speakers as the "Atmos" speakers? 

Basically, should I pick the 9 speakers I use or should I let the receiver choose for me...if I read that right. Thanks again.


----------



## Selden Ball

rmilyard said:


> I have been using this setup for about a year. Nothing changed other than firmware updates for the AVR. We re watched a movie the other night which is the past could hear voices etc from center fine. This time was hard to hear. I am thinking the center is going out but not 100% sure yet.


If you haven't already, you might try a "soft reset" -- unplugging the receiver from wall power for about 10 minutes sometimes can clear up strange problems.


----------



## Selden Ball

jeff43 said:


> Thank you so much! You explained it really well. I appreciate you taking the time. Since you did take the time to explain it, let me pick your brain once more. I read in the manual that you can set the surround sound settings to choose it's own speakers, TopMiddle versus FrontWide dependent upon the incoming signal, for a 7.2.4 setup ending up with a 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Since I will have 11 speakers set up, does it make sense to let the incoming signal choose or should I set it up as a 7.2.2 or 5.4.4, choosing TopMiddle or Front Wide speakers as the "Atmos" speakers?
> 
> Basically, should I pick the 9 speakers I use or should I let the receiver choose for me...if I read that right. Thanks again.


I'd say that which you do it depends on your personal preferences. Some people are "control freaks" and want the speakers they select to be the ones outputting sound. Others just enjoy whatever the receiver does.

You'll be more likely to get an accurate description of how your Pioneer SC-85 handles the speakers if you ask in the dedicated Pioneer thread.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...oneer-sc-89-87-85-82-81-vsx-80-44-thread.html


----------



## rmilyard

jeff43 said:


> Thank you so much! You explained it really well. I appreciate you taking the time. Since you did take the time to explain it, let me pick your brain once more. I read in the manual that you can set the surround sound settings to choose it's own speakers, TopMiddle versus FrontWide dependent upon the incoming signal, for a 7.2.4 setup ending up with a 7.2.2 or 5.2.4. Since I will have 11 speakers set up, does it make sense to let the incoming signal choose or should I set it up as a 7.2.2 or 5.4.4, choosing TopMiddle or Front Wide speakers as the "Atmos" speakers?
> 
> Basically, should I pick the 9 speakers I use or should I let the receiver choose for me...if I read that right. Thanks again.


Here is how setup in AVR.


----------



## Selden Ball

rmilyard said:


> Here is how setup in AVR.


Unfortunately, Denon and Pioneer have different menu systems.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rmilyard*  
_
I have been using this setup for about a year. Nothing changed other than firmware updates for the AVR. We re watched a movie the other night which is the past could hear voices etc from center fine. This time was hard to hear. I am thinking the center is going out but not 100% sure yet._


Check to see if you can have Dynamic Volume set to "Light." Dynamic EQ "On."

Setup, Audio, Audyssey. Then, check your settings. Without "Dynamic Volume" set to "Light" for me - - I can barely hear the center speaker. Hope this helps.


----------



## Zachhorn

I am looking for a pair of in-ceiling speakers to complete my 7.1.2 Atmos set up. I am looking at the Paradigm CI Pro P65-R or Tannoy CMS 3.0 CMS 803DCs and need some help.

My 7 channels are all Paradigm. I have Monitor 9s with matching center and surrounds. The Paradigm P65-R ceiling speakers are timbre matched to my existing speakers, but I understand the Tannoys have a "better" 90 degree conical dispersion and a rear backcan for controlling noise through the ceiling.

Any recommendations on which would be better or am I overthinking this?

Many thanks.


----------



## jayraysaiz

Are there certain receivers that will out put Atmos (and DTS:X) better than others? I also have the same question regarding my speaker set up. I have heard good things about the 11.2 channels receivers they all have the pros and cons. Thinking about upgrading my receiver to be able to take advantage of DTS:X since I really dig Atmos.

I never really used the EQ set up with my Onkyo just set the speakers base on distance and adjusted the decibel level to my liking based on the test tones since my receiver is about 70 feet from my listening area. I think my current set up sounds pretty good with my speakers just looking for the full immersive sound. I have a very large room about 30x30 with an 11 foot ceiling so it is not a dedicated theater room.

Since I am technically trying to fix something that isn't broken I am slightly leery about upgrading to a new receiver. I am pretty green when it comes to audio jargon. I probably won't dive into trying to fine tune my set up with the receiver EQ unless I am currently leaving "sound" on the table. My set up is listed in my signature. Currently I am contemplating the Yamaha advantage 3060 or the Denon X4300H with an extra amp.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

jayraysaiz said:


> Are there certain receivers that will out put Atmos (and DTS:X) better than others? I also have the same question regarding my speaker set up. I have heard good things about the 11.2 channels receivers they all have the pros and cons. Thinking about upgrading my receiver to be able to take advantage of DTS:X since I really dig Atmos.
> 
> I never really used the EQ set up with my Onkyo just set the speakers base on distance and adjusted the decibel level to my liking based on the test tones since my receiver is about 70 feet from my listening area. I think my current set up sounds pretty good with my speakers just looking for the full immersive sound. I have a very large room about 30x30 with an 11 foot ceiling so it is not a dedicated theater room.
> 
> Since I am technically trying to fix something that isn't broken I am slightly leery about upgrading to a new receiver. I am pretty green when it comes to audio jargon. I probably won't dive into trying to fine tune my set up with the receiver EQ unless I am currently leaving "sound" on the table. My set up is listed in my signature. Currently I am contemplating the Yamaha advantage 3060 or the Denon X4300H with an extra amp.


A Trinnov Altitude 32 will definitely do it best.

As for the more affordable options it is just a matter of picking the one with your preferred room correction software, the rendering is identical between them.


----------



## hatlesschimp

I just finished my theater room to the point I can watch and listen. I havent treated the walls or even cleaned up my rack cabling etc. But what Ive noticed with my 5.0.4 setup (will end up being 5.2.4) is the Atmos and surrounds are not defined as such. Like in movies i just get this beautiful 360 like sound coming into my ears and it sounds great and like a real atmos cinema but all the demo hometheater rooms Ive tried have all sound defined and If I close my eyes I can pin point where they are. Am I hearing it correctly and are the atmos more just like a presence sound like making erry tones if watching a suspense thriller movie? Or is it just me with having no wall treatment or using the exact same speakers for the surrounds and atmos? Like is timbre matching too good? Im not winging it sounds great but just trying to understand what Im hearing. Maybe its the movies Ive watched - Lucy, Inferno, oblivion, deadpool.


----------



## paulfromtulsa

hatlesschimp said:


> I just finished my theater room to the point I can watch and listen. I havent treated the walls or even cleaned up my rack cabling etc. But what Ive noticed with my 5.0.4 setup (will end up being 5.2.4) is the Atmos and surrounds are not defined as such. Like in movies i just get this beautiful 360 like sound coming into my ears and it sounds great and like a real atmos cinema but all the demo hometheater rooms Ive tried have all sound defined and If I close my eyes I can pin point where they are. Am I hearing it correctly and are the atmos more just like a presence sound like making erry tones if watching a suspense thriller movie? Or is it just me with having no wall treatment or using the exact same speakers for the surrounds and atmos? Like is timbre matching too good? Im not winging it sounds great but just trying to understand what Im hearing. Maybe its the movies Ive watched - Lucy, Inferno, oblivion, deadpool.


What demo did you listen to? If it was an actual dolby atmos demo disc those weer made to exaggerate the overhead sound so that's why you could here exactly where the sound was coming from. Also it might of been a bigger room too so that makes it easier to distinguish where the sound was coming from. That might be 2 reasons?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## hatlesschimp

paulfromtulsa said:


> What demo did you listen to? If it was an actual dolby atmos demo disc those weer made to exaggerate the overhead sound so that's why you could here exactly where the sound was coming from. Also it might of been a bigger room too so that makes it easier to distinguish where the sound was coming from. That might be 2 reasons?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


Think your right on them points. Also my surrounds are a tad higher on the wall which brings them closer to the Atmos ceiling speakers. 

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

jayraysaiz said:


> Are there certain receivers that will out put Atmos (and DTS:X) better than others? .


That depends on your definition of "better".

Some 2015 model receivers include support for the ear-level speaker position Front Wide.
No 2016 model receivers include it.

So far as the quality of the receiver's audio is concerned, which is better depends on how well the features provided by the roomEQ software match your preferences.

The combined implementation of Atmos and DTS:X has limitations on some equipment. Pioneer receivers, for example, do not (yet?) support cross-mixing between the two upmixers: Dolby Surround can't be applied to DTS soundtracks, while DTS Neural:X can't be applied to Dolby soundtracks. D+M and Yamaha receivers don't have that limitation.


----------



## Ladeback

hatlesschimp said:


> I just finished my theater room to the point I can watch and listen. I havent treated the walls or even cleaned up my rack cabling etc. But what Ive noticed with my 5.0.4 setup (will end up being 5.2.4) is the Atmos and surrounds are not defined as such. Like in movies i just get this beautiful 360 like sound coming into my ears and it sounds great and like a real atmos cinema but all the demo hometheater rooms Ive tried have all sound defined and If I close my eyes I can pin point where they are. Am I hearing it correctly and are the atmos more just like a presence sound like making erry tones if watching a suspense thriller movie? Or is it just me with having no wall treatment or using the exact same speakers for the surrounds and atmos? Like is timbre matching too good? Im not winging it sounds great but just trying to understand what Im hearing. Maybe its the movies Ive watched - Lucy, Inferno, oblivion, deadpool.


The demo theater that my dealer has uses Unbroken with the planes flying over, being shot at and dropping bombs. When I have watched it a few times now it makes it feel like you are in the plane and sound carries over you as the planes fly over. The room is 12'x20'x8' I believe and the speakers are set up in the ceiling a few feet before the first row and behind the last row. They are using a Anthem 11.2 processor. Here are where they have the Dolby Atmos speakers in white set up.


----------



## healthnut

Atmos mixes are all over the place. There's great ones like Gravity, Goosebumps and Unbroken, and a fair share of mixes that really aren't significantly better than 5.1. I think it's a combination of things: mixers are learning how to do this, some movies don't lend themselves to much overhead action, and we have to say, some are poorly mixed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## giftedmd

hatlesschimp said:


> I just finished my theater room to the point I can watch and listen. I havent treated the walls or even cleaned up my rack cabling etc. But what Ive noticed with my 5.0.4 setup (will end up being 5.2.4) is the Atmos and surrounds are not defined as such. Like in movies i just get this beautiful 360 like sound coming into my ears and it sounds great and like a real atmos cinema but all the demo hometheater rooms Ive tried have all sound defined and If I close my eyes I can pin point where they are. Am I hearing it correctly and are the atmos more just like a presence sound like making erry tones if watching a suspense thriller movie? Or is it just me with having no wall treatment or using the exact same speakers for the surrounds and atmos? Like is timbre matching too good? Im not winging it sounds great but just trying to understand what Im hearing. Maybe its the movies Ive watched - Lucy, Inferno, oblivion, deadpool.


Some Atmos mixes show off discrete objects moving around in 3d space and overhead effects better than others. Other Atmos mixes just use overhead speakers for a greater sense of immersion and envelopment in the music and effects. I have Lucy and Deadpool and even though they look great in UHD and HDR, the Atmos mixes are nothing to write home about. Didn't sound much different than an upmixed 7.1 track to me. Get Sully, that will show you want Atmos is supposed to sound like. Mad Max and Gravity are almost as good.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

healthnut said:


> Atmos mixes are all over the place. There's great ones like Gravity, Goosebumps and Unbroken, and a fair share of mixes that really aren't significantly better than 5.1.


Just like all surround sound mixes. Not all 7.1 and 5.1 mixes are awesome either.

However, I find that *at worst* a pretty lame Atmos mix is often a pretty damned good 7.1 track just with little overhead use. That can be fixed if you have the right tools.


----------



## klimo

Had my 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS X setup complete for about a week. Finally got around to putting a proper blu ray in. Used the Upmixer for Magnificent 7 and The Accountant. Both were good but disappointing.

Watched Inferno with the proper Atmos track and holy cow. Totally sold on Atmos and would recommend to anyone. 

Not exactly wowed by the upmixers. 

Just throwing out my .02c.


----------



## Ricoflashback

klimo said:


> Had my 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS X setup complete for about a week. Finally got around to putting a proper blu ray in. Used the Upmixer for Magnificent 7 and The Accountant. Both were good but disappointing.
> 
> Watched Inferno with the proper Atmos track and holy cow. Totally sold on Atmos and would recommend to anyone.
> 
> Not exactly wowed by the upmixers.
> 
> Just throwing out my .02c.


I think "The Accountant" was a 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio Mix for both discs. Yes, a properly mixed Dolby Atmos is what this thread is all about - - the joy of an immersive soundtrack and the journeys' posters have taken to get there. 

That being said - - I believe the Upmixers have their place. Where they won't "wow" you like Atmos does, they do add subtle nuances to some soundtracks. You can always toggle in between "native" and DSU or DTS Neural X (if you have it) or in my case, DTS Neo X - - which provides an enhancement for the center channel in movie mode. 

Give the Upmixers a little more listening and you'll find that there are movies where they really add to the quality of the soundtrack and some where they really don't make much of a difference. It's nice to have the Upmixer option available.


----------



## gwsat

Ricoflashback said:


> I think "The Accountant" was a 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio Mix for both discs. Yes, a properly mixed Dolby Atmos is what this thread is all about - - the joy of an immersive soundtrack and the journeys' posters have taken to get there.
> 
> That being said - - I believe the Upmixers have their place. Where they won't "wow" you like Atmos does, they do add subtle nuances to some soundtracks. You can always toggle in between "native" and DSU or DTS Neural X (if you have it) or in my case, DTS Neo X - - which provides an enhancement for the center channel in movie mode.
> 
> Give the Upmixers a little more listening and you'll find that there are movies where they really add to the quality of the soundtrack and some where they really don't make much of a difference. It's nice to have the Upmixer option available.


Couldn't agree with you more. On the Yamaha line of Aventage receivers there is a broad range of Digital Sound Processing (DSP) algorithms. On mine, an RX-A3060, the DSP I like best is called "Enhanced." The Enhanced DSP can be added on to a native Atmos or DTS:X soundtrack and, to my ears at least, makes it sound even better. When receiving any other source, from 2.0 through 7.1, the Enhanced DSP will matrix the source signal to 7.1.4. As disappointed as I was by the absence of Atmos audio on the UHD HDR _The Accountant_ disk, its native DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack provided serviceable immersive audio when matrixed to 7.1.4 by the 3060's Enhanced DSP. As you said, though, DSPs work a lot better with some soundtracks than they do with others.


----------



## Jond0

klimo said:


> Had my 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS X setup complete for about a week. Finally got around to putting a proper blu ray in. Used the Upmixer for Magnificent 7 and The Accountant. Both were good but disappointing.
> 
> Watched Inferno with the proper Atmos track and holy cow. Totally sold on Atmos and would recommend to anyone.
> 
> Not exactly wowed by the upmixers.
> 
> Just throwing out my .02c.


Try 13 Hours of Benghazi -- for most of the movie I could not understand why it was even mixed as atmos since there was hardly any overhead information, but as soon as the crazy started bullets where whizzing around all over the place overhead ~ my cat got up and started looking up and all around completely freaked out and then ran out of the room!


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jond0 said:


> Try 13 Hours of Benghazi -- for most of the movie I could not understand why it was even mixed as atmos since there was hardly any overhead information, but as soon as the crazy started bullets where whizzing around all over the place overhead ~ my cat got up and started looking up and all around completely freaked out and then ran out of the room!


Superb. That's one Youtube cat video I *would* like to see!


----------



## EdQ

Jond0 said:


> Try 13 Hours of Benghazi -- for most of the movie I could not understand why it was even mixed as atmos since there was hardly any overhead information, but as soon as the crazy started bullets where whizzing around all over the place overhead ~ my cat got up and started looking up and all around completely freaked out and then ran out of the room!


Good movie. When they were in the room on fire. You could hear the flames above you.


----------



## jayraysaiz

Selden Ball said:


> That depends on your definition of "better".
> 
> Some 2015 model receivers include support for the ear-level speaker position Front Wide.
> No 2016 model receivers include it.
> 
> So far as the quality of the receiver's audio is concerned, which is better depends on how well the features provided by the roomEQ software match your preferences.
> 
> The combined implementation of Atmos and DTS:X has limitations on some equipment. Pioneer receivers, for example, do not (yet?) support cross-mixing between the two upmixers: Dolby Surround can't be applied to DTS soundtracks, while DTS Neural:X can't be applied to Dolby soundtracks. D+M and Yamaha receivers don't have that limitation.


Thanks for the clarification. In my new home is really my first "Theater" and to be honest I didn't do a whole lot of research on the speakers I purchased. Some seem to like them, as do I, and some don't. I personally think they sound great with the Onkyo but I am pretty much done with them (and also Pioneer as well). However I really haven't heard any other combination. I think of the 3 brands (D&M and Yamaha) I am also wondering if either brand will lend itself better to the Klipsch speakers.

I plan on getting an Emotiva A-500 to run with the new receiver.


----------



## pacman9270

Ricoflashback said:


> I think "The Accountant" was a 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio Mix for both discs. Yes, a properly mixed Dolby Atmos is what this thread is all about - - the joy of an immersive soundtrack and the journeys' posters have taken to get there.
> 
> That being said - - I believe the Upmixers have their place. Where they won't "wow" you like Atmos does, they do add subtle nuances to some soundtracks. You can always toggle in between "native" and DSU or DTS Neural X (if you have it) or in my case, DTS Neo X - - which provides an enhancement for the center channel in movie mode.
> 
> Give the Upmixers a little more listening and you'll find that there are movies where they really add to the quality of the soundtrack and some where they really don't make much of a difference. It's nice to have the Upmixer option available.


Star Wars: Force Awakens and Avengers are the first ones that come to mind. Avengers was even more enjoyable with immersive audio. Also, I upmix a Dolby 2.0 Stereo signal with Dolby Surround and it add much more to my TV experience.
Avengers


----------



## pacman9270

jayraysaiz said:


> Thanks for the clarification. In my new home is really my first "Theater" and to be honest I didn't do a whole lot of research on the speakers I purchased. Some seem to like them, as do I, and some don't. I personally think they sound great with the Onkyo but I am pretty much done with them (and also Pioneer as well). However I really haven't heard any other combination. I think of the 3 brands (D&M and Yamaha) I am also wondering if either brand will lend itself better to the Klipsch speakers.
> 
> I plan on getting an Emotiva A-500 to run with the new receiver.


You're good with either. Marantz will give you more features and options if that matters. You also have Audyssey XT32 vs YPAO to consider.


----------



## Opethion

Everyone who can play region B Blu-rays should get this Austrian extreme sports documentary with an English and German Atmos track: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Attention-A-Life-in-Extremes-Blu-ray/132055/

It was one of the first Atmos Blu-rays ever but apparently it did not get the attention (pun intended) it deserves due to the region lock. But it's a very immersive Atmos mix, with tons of content for overhead and front wide speakers. It's also a good documentary. Highly recommended!


----------



## Ladeback

I have to 5.1 systems in my house. One is in the HT I am building and can be pushed to 7.1. I am using a Integra DHC-60.5 in the HT right now. The other 5.1 system I have is my living room, but haven't used it since I moved my Klipsch KPS-400's down to my HT and then found out a few months ago the sound on my Integra DTR-40.2 stopped working, but not before I bought a pair of Klipsch R-26F speakers for the living room. I am trying to decide on whether to just replace the DTR-40.2 with Yamaha RX-V779 or use the DHC-60.5 for the upstairs and get a new receiver for the HT that does Dolby Atmos.

The models I am looking at are; Denon AVR-X6300H IN-Command, Marantz SR-7011 and the Yamaha AVENTAGE RX-A3060. I really like the Denon, but I do have extra amps I could use with the 9.2 receivers to get 7.2.4 so that is not a problem, it just looks like the Denon is the clean way to go. I could possibly sell some of my amps if I got the Denon. Accessories4less seem to have good prices on all and it the way to save money.

What are your thoughts on it. My HT is just framed in and was going to pre-wire for Dolby Atmos and install backer boxes.


----------



## EdQ

Ladeback said:


> ....The models I am looking at are; Denon AVR-X6300H IN-Command, Marantz SR-7011 and the Yamaha AVENTAGE RX-A3060. I really like the Denon, but I do have extra amps I could use with the 9.2 receivers to get 7.2.4 so that is not a problem, it just looks like the Denon is the clean way to go. I could possibly sell some of my amps if I got the Denon. Accessories4less seem to have good prices on all and it the way to save money....


Both the Denon and Marantz are good units. I didn't need the extra amps. So I chose the Marantz because I wanted the multi-channel inputs. Then I can use the unit as an amp when I upgrade.


----------



## gwsat

Ladeback said:


> I have to 5.1 systems in my house. One is in the HT I am building and can be pushed to 7.1. I am using a Integra DHC-60.5 in the HT right now. The other 5.1 system I have is my living room, but haven't used it since I moved my Klipsch KPS-400's down to my HT and then found out a few months ago the sound on my Integra DTR-40.2 stopped working, but not before I bought a pair of Klipsch R-26F speakers for the living room. I am trying to decide on whether to just replace the DTR-40.2 with Yamaha RX-V779 or use the DHC-60.5 for the upstairs and get a new receiver for the HT that does Dolby Atmos.
> 
> The models I am looking at are; Denon AVR-X6300H IN-Command, Marantz SR-7011 and the Yamaha AVENTAGE RX-A3060. I really like the Denon, but I do have extra amps I could use with the 9.2 receivers to get 7.2.4 so that is not a problem, it just looks like the Denon is the clean way to go. I could possibly sell some of my amps if I got the Denon. Accessories4less seem to have good prices on all and it the way to save money.
> 
> What are your thoughts on it. My HT is just framed in and was going to pre-wire for Dolby Atmos and install backer boxes.


I am an old time Yamaha guy so consider the source from which the following comes. I have been using my latest Yamaha AV receiver, an RX-A3060 for the past six months. I bought a two channel power amp to go with it in order to support my 7.1.4 system. Atmos audio is a revelation. It has added as much or more to my listening pleasure as UHD HDR video has to my viewing pleasure. 

Another appealing feature of the 3060, to me at least, is its "Enhanced" Digital Sound Processing algorithm. My 3060's Enhanced DSP has turned out to be a wonder. I use it with whatever source I hm receiving from 2.0 to 7.x.4. I should add that the Enhanced DSP does not supplant native Atmos source material, it enhances it. Highly recommended. To learn more sample "_*The "Official" Yamaha RX-A1060, RX-A2060 and RX-A3060 AVENTAGE AVR Thread*_." Warning: it's _*really*_ long.


----------



## Zachhorn

I am looking for a pair of in-ceiling speakers to complete my 7.1.2 Atmos set up. I am looking at the Paradigm CI Pro P65-R or Tannoy CMS 3.0 CMS 803DCs and need some help.

My 7 channels are all Paradigm. I have Monitor 9s with timbre matching center (CC-190), and surrounds (ADP-190 & Monitor Surround 1s). I have a Marantz av8802a and Anthem amps.

The Paradigm P65-R ceiling speakers are timbre matched to my existing speakers, but I understand the Tannoys have a "better" 90 degree conical dispersion (as recommended by Dolby) and a rear backcan for controlling noise through the ceiling.

My room is 14x20 (sound insulated and accostically treated) but oriented the wrong way... TV is mounted along the long wall (unavoidable). Any recommendations on which would be better or am I overthinking this?

Many thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

Zachhorn said:


> I am looking for a pair of in-ceiling speakers to complete my 7.1.2 Atmos set up. I am looking at the Paradigm CI Pro P65-R or Tannoy CMS 3.0 CMS 803DCs and need some help.
> 
> My 7 channels are all Paradigm. I have Monitor 9s with timbre matching center (CC-190), and surrounds (ADP-190 & Monitor Surround 1s). I have a Marantz av8802a and Anthem amps.
> 
> The Paradigm P65-R ceiling speakers are timbre matched to my existing speakers, but I understand the Tannoys have a "better" 90 degree conical dispersion (as recommended by Dolby) and a rear backcan for controlling noise through the ceiling.
> 
> My room is 14x20 (sound insulated and accostically treated) but oriented the wrong way... TV is mounted along the long wall (unavoidable). Any recommendations on which would be better or am I overthinking this?
> 
> Many thanks.


How far apart is the seating?

The wide dispersion provided by the coaxial Tannoy models (not all of their speakers are coaxial) can help if some of the seating is relatively distant from the main listening position. Speakers with narrow dispersion should be pointed toward the primary seating.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Deepwater Horizon is pretty epic on my current 5.1.4 setup. Hearing the sounds of the poor rig blowing up were amazing. 

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

gwsat said:


> I am an old time Yamaha guy so consider the source from which the following comes. I have been using my latest Yamaha AV receiver, an RX-A3060 for the past six months. I bought a two channel power amp to go with it in order to support my 7.1.4 system. Atmos audio is a revelation. It has added as much or more to my listening pleasure as UHD HDR video has to my viewing pleasure.
> 
> Another appealing feature of the 3060, to me at least, is its "Enhanced" Digital Sound Processing algorithm. My 3060's Enhanced DSP has turned out to be a wonder. I use it with whatever source I hm receiving from 2.0 to 7.x.4. I should add that the Enhanced DSP does not supplant native Atmos source material, it enhances it. Highly recommended. To learn more sample "_*The "Official" Yamaha RX-A1060, RX-A2060 and RX-A3060 AVENTAGE AVR Thread*_." Warning: it's _*really*_ long.


If I went with Yamaha for Dolby Atmos I would want the 3060. I have 5 Marantz 200 watt Mono Block amps that I use on my current 5.2 system and I would use to of those for the front high speakers and look into adding more passive subs up front and in back where I could use the other three amps. 

One question, can you hook up the 3060 to do 7.x.4 and a second zone? What I mean is can you switch between 7.x.4 to 7.x.2 and a second zone? I eventually will be building a game room/bar area next to the HT where I would like to have a second zone when watching sporting events for a party or play music. I could also use two more of my Mono Blocks.

Attached is what I am attempting to build for my HT. I am running Klipsch speakers for 5.2 right now. I don't have anything hooked up for the rear surrounds yet. I am thinking of moving my surround speakers to the rear and use my R-26F's for the surrounds right now to at least get some use out of them and get the 7.2 sound I have never heard before. The walls are the only thing up so nothing is set in stone yet.


----------



## stef2

stef2 said:


> thanks!
> I will try that for sure...the surround back do not help much with anything anyway.
> 
> The other thing I will try is to use my older avr (denon4520ci) in parallel and have it running in DTS NEO:X mode to power the front wides only, while letting my newer Marantz amp do 7.1.4.


So I just tried that...

BR player to HDMI 2 way splitter : one HDMI out to Marantz---> Dolby ATMOS or DSU for 7.1.4 (L,C,R, SR, SL, SBR, SBL , SUB and 4 overhead atmos speakers)

and one HDMI out to Denon ------> DTS NEO:X since it does not do ATMOS (outputting only to my two Front Wides)

Then, everything is volume matched and delay adjusted.

So far, I am very happy! I have regained my wider front sound stage, and I havent noticed any negative effect in doing that.

I have tried a few ATMOS and non ATMOS soundtracks, I have also tested the official ATMOS demo clips.

I can easily switch between wides on or wides off, without any delay (by pressing mute on the DENON). I can also easily mute the MARANTZ to see what the Wides do, all alone.

I have programmed my remote to link the two amps volumes together.

So far, I am very happy with what I hear! from my (pseudo) 9.1.4 dolby ATMOS setup.


----------



## AekaGSR

If I have a pair of front heights (SVS Prime Elevations) mounted on the wall on my 5.1.2 setup, where should my next pair go if I want to do a 5.1.4 setup? 

Also if this makes a difference my rear surrounds are in a non traditional spot, near ceiling and 10 feet behind main listening position due to room restraints.


----------



## chi_guy50

AekaGSR said:


> If I have a pair of front heights (SVS Prime Elevations) mounted on the wall on my 5.1.2 setup, where should my next pair go if I want to do a 5.1.4 setup?
> 
> Also if this makes a difference my rear surrounds are in a non traditional spot, near ceiling and 10 feet behind main listening position due to* room restraints*.


I sincerely hope that was a typo and you really meant room *constraints*.


----------



## AekaGSR

chi_guy50 said:


> I sincerely hope that was a typo and you really meant room *constraints*.


Haha, must have something else on my mind.


----------



## batpig

AekaGSR said:


> If I have a pair of front heights (SVS Prime Elevations) mounted on the wall on my 5.1.2 setup, where should my next pair go if I want to do a 5.1.4 setup?
> 
> Also if this makes a difference my rear surrounds are in a non traditional spot, near ceiling and 10 feet behind main listening position due to room restraints.


The surround position is a real problem -- 10 feet behind you and near the ceiling means they are basically in a "rear height" position, not anywhere close to a "surround" position which should be closer to the sides and much lower down.

Any chance you could use those speakers as rear height for Atmos and install a pair of surrounds closer to ear level?


----------



## AekaGSR

batpig said:


> AekaGSR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a pair of front heights (SVS Prime Elevations) mounted on the wall on my 5.1.2 setup, where should my next pair go if I want to do a 5.1.4 setup?
> 
> Also if this makes a difference my rear surrounds are in a non traditional spot, near ceiling and 10 feet behind main listening position due to room restraints.
> 
> 
> 
> The surround position is a real problem -- 10 feet behind you and near the ceiling means they are basically in a "rear height" position, not anywhere close to a "surround" position which should be closer to the sides and much lower down.
> 
> Any chance you could use those speakers as rear height for Atmos and install a pair of surrounds closer to ear level?
Click to expand...

I cannot


----------



## batpig

AekaGSR said:


> I cannot


OK, we're at an impasse then. Given the weird positioning of your surrounds it's impossible to recommend the proper way to go to 5.1.4 without seeing some photos and/or a diagram showing the room layout.

My gut is that the best bet would be nearly directly overhead, maybe a bit behind, in/on the ceiling, because it sounds like the biggest "gap" is the one overhead between your front speakers + front heights and those surrounds way behind you.


----------



## AekaGSR

batpig said:


> AekaGSR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot
> 
> 
> 
> OK, we're at an impasse then. Given the weird positioning of your surrounds it's impossible to recommend the proper way to go to 5.1.4 without seeing some photos and/or a diagram showing the room layout.
> 
> My gut is that the best bet would be nearly directly overhead, maybe a bit behind, in/on the ceiling, because it sounds like the biggest "gap" is the one overhead between your front speakers + front heights and those surrounds way behind you.
Click to expand...

I'll get some pics up once my girls get to bed. The biggest gap would be directly overhead.


----------



## AekaGSR




----------



## shyyour

Would it be possible to mount your surrounds on the rear arch wall (like in the pic)?


----------



## slots1

I am installing my new anthem avm 60 to replace the anthem D2vI have 7 thiel speakers and a Seaton sub
I would have to a 2 channel amp
Giving me a 5.1.4 atmos system


I am thinking. Of using the back ceiling speakers as the back height speakers
It's impossible to put top atmos speakers on the round top of the thiel 3.7 front speakers
And the acoustical screen comes down 
Would the front atmos speakers work behind the screen?
Comments


----------



## Ladeback

slots1 said:


> I am installing my new anthem avm 60 to replace the anthem D2vI have 7 thiel speakers and a Seaton sub
> I would have to a 2 channel amp
> Giving me a 5.1.4 atmos system
> 
> 
> I am thinking. Of using the back ceiling speakers as the back height speakers
> It's impossible to put top atmos speakers on the round top of the thiel 3.7 front speakers
> And the acoustical screen comes down
> Would the front atmos speakers work behind the screen?
> Comments


I am not an expert on placement, but I am placing my front Atmos speakers just a few feet in front of the first row in my theater. I think you would want separation from the main fronts and the Atmos fronts. How big is your room? I have seen the front height speakers 2'-3' in front of the first row of 3 and the back height speakers 2'-3' behind the back row. I think that way it gives a flow of the sound going over you as you watch the movie.

This may help.
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html


----------



## Zachhorn

Selden Ball said:


> Zachhorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for a pair of in-ceiling speakers to complete my 7.1.2 Atmos set up. I am looking at the Paradigm CI Pro P65-R or Tannoy CMS 3.0 CMS 803DCs and need some help.
> 
> My 7 channels are all Paradigm. I have Monitor 9s with timbre matching center (CC-190), and surrounds (ADP-190 & Monitor Surround 1s). I have a Marantz av8802a and Anthem amps.
> 
> The Paradigm P65-R ceiling speakers are timbre matched to my existing speakers, but I understand the Tannoys have a "better" 90 degree conical dispersion (as recommended by Dolby) and a rear backcan for controlling noise through the ceiling.
> 
> My room is 14x20 (sound insulated and accostically treated) but oriented the wrong way... TV is mounted along the long wall (unavoidable). Any recommendations on which would be better or am I overthinking this?
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> How far apart is the seating?
> 
> The wide dispersion provided by the coaxial Tannoy models (not all of their speakers are coaxial) can help if some of the seating is relatively distant from the main listening position. Speakers with narrow dispersion should be pointed toward the primary seating.
Click to expand...

Seating is probably 14' - 16' wide, single row.


----------



## Selden Ball

Zachhorn said:


> Seating is probably 14' - 16' wide, single row.


In that case, I think Tannoy speakers would be appropriate.


----------



## Kain

My room is 15 ft in length (15 ft long x 11.6 ft wide x 9.5 ft high). If I have a 7.1.4 setup, can I place the side surrounds and seating halfway up the side walls and the back surrounds somewhere on the back wall? Most 7.1 placement recommendations have the side surrounds 3/4 way up the side walls. I will need to do this due to room limitations.


----------



## thebland

Well, now you can have up to *48 channels* or as many active speakers, more subs, etc as you like and get the full Atmos 24.1.10 spec... And the update is only software...











Or on the cheap , Trinnov has announced a 'low cost' bare bones box that does all codecs and up to 16 discrete channels... So you can have your wides AND 6 heights!!


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> My room is 15 ft in length (15 ft long x 11.6 ft wide x 9.5 ft high). If I have a 7.1.4 setup, can I place the side surrounds and seating halfway up the side walls and the back surrounds somewhere on the back wall? Most 7.1 placement recommendations have the side surrounds 3/4 way up the side walls. I will need to do this due to room limitations.


The (older) 7.1 recommendations were designed for when there were no overhead speakers. As a result, the Side and Rear Surround speakers had to do double-duty, providing ambient audio with both overhead and ear-level components. That's why they recommended placing the Surround speakers up high.

For speaker configurations which include separate overhead speakers, the Side and Rear Surrounds should be lower than previously recommended. Ideally they should be only slightly above ear height: as low as possible but not blocked by seats or people's heads. The greater a vertical distance you can provide between the listener-level speakers and the overhead speakers, the more distinctive the overhead effects will be.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nice! @thebland

How much will the 16ch version go for?

Wonder if will allow for 11.x.4 output?


----------



## Kain

Selden Ball said:


> The (older) 7.1 recommendations were designed for when there were no overhead speakers. As a result, the Side and Rear Surround speakers had to do double-duty, providing ambient audio with both overhead and ear-level components. That's why they recommended placing the Surround speakers up high.
> 
> For speaker configurations which include separate overhead speakers, the Side and Rear Surrounds should be lower than previously recommended. Ideally they should be only slightly above ear height: as low as possible but not blocked by seats or people's heads. The greater a vertical distance you can provide between the listener-level speakers and the overhead speakers, the more distinctive the overhead effects will be.


I think I worded my post poorly. I meant halfway along the side walls (the mid-point of the side walls) not vertically up the side walls. Basically, placing the side surrounds and seating in a 7.1.4 setup at the mid-point of the room.


----------



## thebland

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice! @thebland
> 
> How much will the 16ch version go for?
> 
> Wonder if will allow for 11.x.4 output?


No word on price yet - but as flexible as the Trinnov is, any configuration you can think of!

I think it is a unique piece of gear that you could actually think of it as an investment so as to better rationalize the cost - heck they added 12 channels to my Altitude simply via software at a nominal cost!


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> No word on price yet - but as flexible as the Trinnov is, any configuration you can think of!



I hope so!



> I think it is a unique piece of gear that you could actually think of it as an investment so as to better rationalize the cost - heck they added 12 channels to my Altitude simply via software at a nominal cost!


Unique is right....that's why I bought the 24 channel when I had no idea how I would go past 11 back when....this isn't just a pre/pro, it's a durable good like a car, motorcycle, or a boat. However, unlike those it will likely hold its value over time, and can be upgraded as needed for many years to follow via software and field hardware upgrades. Not just at the heart of an A/V system today, but a processor that allows you to grow as your needs in the hobby/obsession change. And everything I've seen over the past 3 years in this hobby shows just why you want to make the investment if you can.


----------



## dbrice2

*Blu Ray player question*

Quick question - is it safe to assume any 'current' Blu-Ray player will output Atmos? I need to replace my old PS3 that does not support Atmos. In shopping around online, I cannot find any that specifically state they support Atmos. Only Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, etc.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> I hope so!
> 
> *
> ....this isn't just a pre/pro, it's a durable good like a car, motorcycle, or a boat. However, unlike those it will likely hold its value over time*, and can be upgraded as needed for many years to follow via software and field hardware upgrades. Not just at the heart of an A/V system today, but a processor that allows you to grow as your needs in the hobby/obsession change. And everything I've seen over the past 3 years in this hobby shows just why you want to make the investment if you can.


Do you still own and use any 20yr old computers, Stuart? 

C'mon. I'm sure the Trinnov Altitude in it's current form will be supported for a few years. Not like, decades. Get real, bro.


----------



## Selden Ball

dbrice2 said:


> Quick question - is it safe to assume any 'current' Blu-Ray player will output Atmos? I need to replace my old PS3 that does not support Atmos. In shopping around online, I cannot find any that specifically state they support Atmos. Only Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, etc.


Yes, that's a safe assumption.

The feature they need to support is "bitstream." In other words, they have to be able to "stream" the audio bits coming off the disc to the receiver with no modifications whatsoever. The standalone disc players all can do this. Some game systems don't, though.

Atmos and other immersive audio formats have to be decoded in a receiver or preamp/processor. They don't get decoded in the player, so the player documentation won't mention Atmos, DTS:X or Auro3D.


----------



## Selden Ball

Kain said:


> I think I worded my post poorly. I meant halfway along the side walls (the mid-point of the side walls) not vertically up the side walls. Basically, placing the side surrounds and seating in a 7.1.4 setup at the mid-point of the room.


Having the side surrounds slightly in front of some of the audience is fine. Some people (including me) do that even for a single row of seating when the seating is too close to the rear wall of the room


----------



## dbrice2

Selden Ball said:


> Yes, that's a safe assumption.
> 
> The feature they need to support is "bitstream." In other words, they have to be able to "stream" the audio bits coming off the disc to the receiver with no modifications whatsoever. The standalone disc players all can do this. Some game systems don't, though.
> 
> Atmos and other immersive audio formats have to be decoded in a receiver or preamp/processor. They don't get decoded in the player, so the player documentation won't mention Atmos, DTS:X or Auro3D.


Thanks Selden for the quick and detailed reply.


----------



## Selden Ball

dbrice2 said:


> Thanks Selden for the quick and detailed reply.


You're very welcome.

Now you can ask which player is best for you at the end of either http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...fficial-help-me-choose-uhd-player-thread.html or http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-b...se-player-thread-can-t-decide-start-here.html depending on if you want a 4K player or a standard Blu-ray player.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Do you still own and use any 20yr old computers, Stuart?
> 
> C'mon. I'm sure the Trinnov Altitude in it's current form will be supported for a few years. Not like, decades. Get real, bro.



I said many years...that's not decades LOL. And no I don't have a 20 year old desktop. Although in a storage area in my office, I actually DO have one that's old enough to support parallel ports because one program I occasionally work with has a dongle. It's a DOS program that never got replaced by the developers that's sporadically useful. Seriously. 

That's a big TBD about the Altitude's lifecycle. You don't think a CPU, RAM, motherboard and I/O boards could get upgraded if needed? Remember, this is a computer architecture and at their price point, the will may exist in a way that isn't the same with a Dell or ASUS machine. 

I'm not sure anybody knows the longevity of the product but if their current processor can do 48 channels now, and selected boards (e.g. HDMI) can get upgraded in the field as well as the support for software-only upgrades, it's conceivable that Altitude owners may still be using their current processor (or more to the point, have a license and own what the pre/pro could become) in 2026. I won't say very likely but it's non-trivally likely.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdrucker said:


> I said many years...that's not decades LOL. And no I don't have a 20 year old desktop (although in a storage area in my office, I actually DO have one that's old enough to support parallel ports because one program I work with has a dongle. It's a DOS program that never got replaced by the developers that's occasionally useful. Seriously.
> 
> That's a big TBD about the Altitude's lifecycle. You don't think a CPU, RAM, motherboard and I/O boards could get upgraded if needed? Remember, this is a computer architecture and at their price point, the will may exist in a way that isn't the same with a Dell or ASUS machine.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure anybody knows the longevity of the product but if their current processor can do 48 channels now, and selected boards (e.g. HDMI) can get upgraded in the field as well as the support for software-only upgrades, it's conceivable that Altitude owners may still be using their current processor (or more to the point, have a license and own what the processor will become) in 2026. I won't say very likely but it's non-trivally likely.


Right. My point was that you are blowing it up a bit large on how good the longevity is of a PC-based $30,000 surround sound processor. Eventually they'll just make something else and you'll have to or want to buy it cuz it will be better than what is available now. Like... everything technological that has ever existed... ever. 

It is conceivable, sure. I don't doubt that just like there are still plenty of people out there still using pre-HDMI based surround processors or CRT projectors for their HT system today.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Right. My point was that you are blowing it up a bit large on how good the longevity is of a PC-based $30,000 surround sound processor. Eventually they'll just make something else and you'll have to or want to buy it cuz it will be better than what is available now. Like... everything technological that has ever existed... ever.
> 
> It is conceivable, sure. I don't doubt that just like there are still plenty of people out there still using pre-HDMI based surround processors or CRT projectors for their HT system today.



You're right, they will make something else as a successor some day. Who knows what will mean..although theoretically I could see some program where owners send their processors in and get a motherboard upgrade with new CPU, RAM, and I/O for all we know. That's science fiction right now, of course.


What I think is possible is that the investment made in an Altitude + that hypothetical upgrade in the unknown future might be a better investment than buying whatever that Altitude successor is from scratch. So think something like that Robin Williams character in Bicentennial Man, in a way, rather than a hunk of metal upgrade like Denon did several years ago with one of their behemoth flagships.


----------



## Legairre

dbrice2 said:


> Quick question - is it safe to assume any 'current' Blu-Ray player will output Atmos? I need to replace my old PS3 that does not support Atmos. In shopping around online, I cannot find any that specifically state they support Atmos. Only Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, etc.


 If you have a PS3 slim it will support Atmos because it can be set to bitstream like other players can. The really really old PS3 fat boy can't do bitstream though.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Legairre said:


> If you have a PS3 slim it will support Atmos because it can be set to bitstream like other players can. The really really old PS3 fat boy can't do bitstream though.


Indeed. I took "old PS3" to mean "fat PS3". I'm sure the OP knows that the PS3 slim can do bitstreaming and therefore supports Atmos - but if he doesn't he'll read this and save himself the money


----------



## Legairre

mrtickleuk said:


> Indeed. I took "old PS3" to mean "fat PS3". I'm sure the OP knows that the PS3 slim can do bitstreaming and therefore supports Atmos - but if he doesn't he'll read this and save himself the money


Yeah I just wasn't sure what he meant by old. My fat boy died years and years ago after it's chip unseated itself. If he still has a fat boy he should get some kind of award.


----------



## thrang

*Speaker assignment vs. processing*

(posted this in the DTS:X thread, but thought it would be appropriate here as well...)


A question regarding all the different elevation level speaker assignments.

Does anyone know how Dolby Atmos processing (and DTS:X for that matter) changes, or at all, with certain elevation speaker assignments?

For example, the Marantz 8802a offers options for either _Side Heights_ or Rear Heights. Is this just semantics (i.e. they really receive the same signal) or does this setting impact what is delivered to the speaker?

More broadly, are there certain designations that are semantically different and others that are fundamentally different?

In my MX160, they offer a ton of elevations options, but only Side Heights - no Rear Heights. Physically mine are in the rear (gee, that doesn't sound right...)

Thanks for any clarity on this...


----------



## Ziba Ji

Did any one compare Klipsch atmos vs SVS elevation speakers for front height on the front wall for atmos sound tracks?


----------



## wse

thebland said:


> Well, now you can have up to *48 channels* or as many active speakers, more subs, etc as you like and get the full Atmos 24.1.10 spec... And the update is only software...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or on the cheap , Trinnov has announced a 'low cost' bare bones box that does all codecs and up to 16 discrete channels... So you can have your wides AND 6 heights!!


How much is the 16 channels? $20,000


----------



## AekaGSR

shyyour said:


> Would it be possible to mount your surrounds on the rear arch wall (like in the pic)?


Possibly, but that arch is not wide, maybe the left channel speaker, then the right channel under the cabinet? I actually plan on ripping that out and moving the table into the other room. So assuming I get those there, where should I place the second pair of Atmos speakers assuming I'm keeping my front heights for Atmos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

wse said:


> How much is the 16 channels? $20,000


Considering the Altitude32 with 16 channels is around $24k, the Altitude16 better be in the $10k or less region to take on the RMC-1 and similar processors. Any more than that and they fall out of the mid range tier.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

??

So is there an Altitude *32* with 16ch and an Altitude *16* with 16ch?


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Erwin,



erwinfrombelgium said:


> ??
> 
> So is there an Altitude *32* with 16ch and an Altitude *16* with 16ch?


Yup... seems to... but for how much time... 

And for those who happen to be visiting the ISE on Feb 08th (which very unfortunately won't be my case), there will be this most interesting Trinnov presentation :










Have a nice WE,

Hugo


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Tempting, I live 2 hours from Amsterdam. But an 100€ entrance fee?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

erwinfrombelgium said:


> ??
> 
> So is there an Altitude *32* with 16ch and an Altitude *16* with 16ch?


Correct, the Altitude32 you can get with either 8, 16, 24, 32 or soon 48 channels. The Altitude16 may have 16 channels only, not much info is available yet.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Regarding the Trinnov and expanding past x.x.4 - - what is the sweet spot for most home theater enthusiasts? x.x.6? 

We all love toys but how many people have the money and room to configure past x.x.6? I know you can keep adding speakers to your hearts content with the Trinnov but at some point, there are diminishing returns. (The old "bang for the buck" argument.) I know for me - 9.1.6 covers all my needs. Especially with "Front Wides" to fill in the gap 

If the new generation of AVR's are x.x.6 capable - - I believe that would address 90% of the market.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ricoflashback said:


> Regarding the Trinnov and expanding past x.x.4 - - what is the sweet spot for most home theater enthusiasts? x.x.6?
> 
> We all love toys but how many people have the money and room to configure past x.x.6? I know you can keep adding speakers to your hearts content with the Trinnov but at some point, there are diminishing returns. (The old "bang for the buck" argument.) I know for me - 9.1.6 covers all my needs. Especially with "Front Wides" to fill in the gap
> 
> If the new generation of AVR's are x.x.6 capable - - I believe that would address 90% of the market.


Considering how configurable the Trinnov32 is you can probably go with either 9.1.6 or 11.1.4 depending on the room layout.


----------



## thrang

Any thoughts on this? Thanks

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1460.html#post50464161


----------



## wse

erwinfrombelgium said:


> ??
> 
> So is there an Altitude *32* with 16ch and an Altitude *16* with 16ch?


I guess it must be very new?

"Trinnov offers the Altitude32 in four versions: the eight-channel AL32-88 base model ($17,500), 16-channel AL32-816 ($21,000), 24-channel AL32-1624 ($25,500), and 32-channel AL32-1632 ($29,000)—all priced without the $2,500 3D Audio package that brings Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3D into the fold. 
Read more at http://www.soundandvision.com/content/trinnov-altitude32-av-preamplifierprocessor#ai76UBb80FTQuULd.99"

No information about the Altitude 16?

https://www.trinnov.com/products/ho.../specs-altitude32/product-details/?lang=en_us


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> Considering how configurable the Trinnov32 is you can probably go with either 9.1.6 or 11.1.4 depending on the room layout.


In my 20x15 room, I have 9.x.4 including wides right now. With wides at 50-55 degrees, sides at 105-110, and rears at 150 due to a room limitation (the door blocks 130-135 degrees on one side), I have plans to add a second pair of side surrounds (S1) at maybe 80-85 degrees, just forward of MLP. The tolerances in the Dolby specs and using 3D remapping is your friend here  ,

I've held off until I could afford another Class D, fully balanced XLR amp and decide how many channels I wanted for it. If I do another seven channel amp, I can add another pair of heights (top middle, but that means ceiling work in my case) or squeeze in a pair of timbre-matched bookshelves as screens between my mains, which are located at a little under 30 degrees. But even if those screens make sense in a 15 foot width, it's something to do because I have the channels. I'm not convinced that it's particularly essential.

So 11.1.6 and 4 subs is probably a sweet spot for this "'moderately sized" room of about 2700 cubic feet. And even so, these are first world problems. If I had a 16 channel Attitude I would stop at 9.2.4 and use a simple solution to manage level and distance for pairs of front and rear subs.


----------



## wse

Mashie Saldana said:


> Correct, the Altitude32 you can get with either 8, 16, 24, 32 or soon 48 channels. The Altitude16 may have 16 channels only, not much info is available yet.


This sound great if it is less than $10,000


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> I guess it must be very new?
> 
> "Trinnov offers the Altitude32 in four versions: the eight-channel AL32-88 base model ($17,500), 16-channel AL32-816 ($21,000), 24-channel AL32-1624 ($25,500), and 32-channel AL32-1632 ($29,000)—all priced without the $2,500 3D Audio package that brings Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3D into the fold.
> Read more at http://www.soundandvision.com/content/trinnov-altitude32-av-preamplifierprocessor#ai76UBb80FTQuULd.99"
> 
> No information about the Altitude 16?
> 
> https://www.trinnov.com/products/ho.../specs-altitude32/product-details/?lang=en_us


Way too soon to know. And note those prices are from early 2016 and do NOT include assistance with calibration, which should be done or at least facilitated by an experienced calibator (can be remote, but in-person visit is best) unless you have previous Trinnov experience or plan to use what could be sub-optimal default settings as a placeholder.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Erwin,



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Tempting, I live 2 hours from Amsterdam. But an 100€ entrance fee?


Some time ago I published the following on HCFR :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/optoma...uhd-a-lise-2017-amsterdam-07-10-fevrier-2017/



> _...
> L’ISE 2017 se déroulera du 7 au 10 Février 2017 au RAI Exhibition Centre d’Amsterdam. Le Stand Optoma sera dans le Hall 1, stand 1-H120. Utilisez le code 705254 pour recevoir votre entrée gratuite sur : http://www.iseurope.org_
> ...


Maybe it's not too late... 

Hugo


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> This sound great if it is less than $10,000


I know about as much as you on what they'll be pricing, but the "mid-range" isn't necessarily Emotiva's hypothetical RMC-1. IMO it's more likely to be Storm Audio's 16 channel processor, the Acurus/Indy Control, and maybe Datasat's LS10. 

I'd be happy to be wrong, but a four figure price for an Altitude 16 with all 3D audio codecs isn't a realistic expectation. For one thing, being cheaper than the 8-channel Altitude 32? Not likely.


----------



## Al Sherwood

wse said:


> This sound great if it is less than $10,000


Ditto!



sdrucker said:


> I know about as much as you on what they'll be pricing, but the "mid-range" isn't necessarily Emotiva's hypothetical RMC-1. IMO it's more likely to be Storm Audio's 16 channel processor, the Acurus/Indy Control, and maybe Datasat's LS10.
> 
> I'd be happy to be wrong, but a four figure price for an Altitude 16 with all 3D audio codecs isn't a realistic expectation. For one thing, being cheaper than the 8-channel Altitude 32? Not likely.


You are likely correct, priced as they do I would be curious how many they sell, even at $10,000 which is no bargain, I can't see them flying off the shelves!


----------



## Hugo S

Hi again,

In our case, the physical installation we own, is 9.2.6, with Klipsch THX U2 + RP160 speakers + 2SVS PB13U, driven by 2* Onkyo PA MC5500 9 channels amps and processed by a Marantz 8802A, wich is limited to a maximum of 11.1 channels of processing.

Though a real frustration as we usually listen in 7.2.4 - with Height Surrounds + Height Rears Surrounds (Klipsch KS525 Bipoles) today wired in parallel - and from time to time I switch the configuration to 5+Wides.2.4... and the frustration remains intact... as can be seen in the HCFR Atmos article I wrote recently and linked above.

So my real "hope" - as a Marantz brand with Ken Ishiwata tweakings fan - is that the future 8804 processor will provide a full 9.2.6 capacity... so PLEASE Yxmxdx-san... 

Now as I also LOVE the Trinnov Altitude 32 processor(s) I've had the real pleasure to listen to several times this far, so maybe the future of the processing of our installation lies somewhere with a Trinnov Altitude 16... and no more frustrations...  

Hugo


----------



## Naylorman32

Is it safe to have atmos speakers installed within an inch of the paper bag wrapped ceiling insulation? I have very little room to work with in my theater.


----------



## wse

sdrucker said:


> I know about as much as you on what they'll be pricing, but the "mid-range" isn't necessarily Emotiva's hypothetical RMC-1. IMO it's more likely to be Storm Audio's 16 channel processor, the Acurus/Indy Control, and maybe Datasat's LS10.
> 
> I'd be happy to be wrong, but a four figure price for an Altitude 16 with all 3D audio codecs isn't a realistic expectation. For one thing, being cheaper than the 8-channel Altitude 32? Not likely.


Oh well one can always dream just try Anthem AVM 60 and it sound very nice


----------



## sdrucker

wse said:


> Oh well one can always dream just try Anthem AVM 60 and it sound very nice


Whatever floats your boat


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Hugo S said:


> Hi Erwin,
> 
> 
> 
> Some time ago I published the following on HCFR :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/optoma...uhd-a-lise-2017-amsterdam-07-10-fevrier-2017/
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's not too late...
> 
> Hugo


Hugo, You're the best! I am in! Merci!

Deciding to go Tuesday or Thursday. New world for me, this kind of industry. Who knows, maybe there's a way to combine my skills in construction & interior design with my passion for audio...


----------



## Acerox

Hi everybody,

I am going to speak with my contractor for pre-wiring installation, but I still have some doubts about where to put the dolby atmos overhead speakers for a 5.1.4 system. I saw that the recommended angle from the listening position is 45º, which means that in my case the back speaker would be outside the living room… also taking into account that the ceiling has beams, I think the best angle I could get would be around 25-35º. Another option would be to do a 5.1.2 system… 

So, is there a big difference between a .2 or .4 dolby atmos system, and therefore would you recommend to go with the .4 without the optimum angles or just the .2?

I have attached some drawings for reference; the dashed lines are the beams, which can be seen in the other picture. The main listening position is where the two armchairs are.

Thanks!


----------



## Jond0

Acerox said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I am going to speak with my contractor for pre-wiring installation, but I still have some doubts about where to put the dolby atmos overhead speakers for a 5.1.4 system. I saw that the recommended angle from the listening position is 45º, which means that in my case the back speaker would be outside the living room… also taking into account that the ceiling has beams, I think the best angle I could get would be around 25-35º. Another option would be to do a 5.1.2 system…
> 
> So, is there a big difference between a .2 or .4 dolby atmos system, and therefore would you recommend to go with the .4 without the optimum angles or just the .2?
> 
> I have attached some drawings for reference; the dashed lines are the beams, which can be seen in the other picture. The main listening position is where the two armchairs are.
> 
> Thanks!


.4 for sure.


----------



## Zachhorn

Selden Ball said:


> Zachhorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seating is probably 14' - 16' wide, single row.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, I think Tannoy speakers would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. Do you think I will even notice the Tannoys aren't timbre matched?


----------



## chi_guy50

Acerox said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I am going to speak with my contractor for pre-wiring installation, but I still have some doubts about where to put the dolby atmos overhead speakers for a 5.1.4 system. I saw that the recommended angle from the listening position is 45º, which means that in my case the back speaker would be outside the living room… also taking into account that the ceiling has beams, I think the best angle I could get would be around 25-35º. Another option would be to do a 5.1.2 system…
> 
> So, is there a big difference between a .2 or .4 dolby atmos system, and therefore would you recommend to go with the .4 without the optimum angles or just the .2?
> 
> I have attached some drawings for reference; the dashed lines are the beams, which can be seen in the other picture. The main listening position is where the two armchairs are.
> 
> Thanks!


Based on the pictures you provided, it appears to me that your room is well suited for a 5.1.4 layout with front height and top middle overhead speaker locations (see *1 and *3 in the below illustration of recommended elevation angle ranges). One caveat: I would try to place the front overhead speakers at greater than 30º; anything approaching 30º or less will diminish the immersive effect due to the proximity to the front listener-level speakers.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi Erwin,



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Hugo, You're the best! I am in! Merci!
> 
> Deciding to go Tuesday or Thursday. New world for me, this kind of industry. Who knows, maybe there's a way to combine my skills in construction & interior design with my passion for audio...


 "the best"... _certainement pas!!!_ 

Have fun at this ISE show. 

H.


----------



## Selden Ball

Acerox said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> I am going to speak with my contractor for pre-wiring installation, but I still have some doubts about where to put the dolby atmos overhead speakers for a 5.1.4 system. I saw that the recommended angle from the listening position is 45º, which means that in my case the back speaker would be outside the living room… also taking into account that the ceiling has beams, I think the best angle I could get would be around 25-35º. Another option would be to do a 5.1.2 system…


People have reported that designating the overhead speakers as Top Front and Top Rear sounds best, even if their locations aren't perfect. I'd suggest putting the front overheads at +45 and the rear overheads as far back as you can.



> So, is there a big difference between a .2 or .4 dolby atmos system, and therefore would you recommend to go with the .4 without the optimum angles or just the .2?


People who previously had a .2 configuration have reported that the addition of front-to-back panning by going to a .4 configuration is a noticeable improvement over the side-to-side panning which is all that .2 can provide.


----------



## Acerox

Hi, thanks for the answers. So .4 will be! I think I can get the front overhead speakers at 45 angle and the back ones at around 120, so almost there.

How far would you install the overhead speakers from the beams to avoid the beams messing up with the sound? I was thinking 30cm (12").


----------



## wse

Al Sherwood said:


> Ditto!...You are likely correct, priced as they do I would be curious how many they sell, even at $10,000 which is no bargain, I can't see them flying off the shelves!


Who knows especially when you can get an ANTHEM AVM 60 for $2999


----------



## Al Sherwood

wse said:


> Who knows especially when you can get an ANTHEM AVM 60 for $2999


Still only a 11.2 channel processor though... really would like to get 16 channels minimum.


----------



## Methodical_1

Hugo S said:


> Hi Erwin,
> 
> 
> 
> Some time ago I published the following on HCFR :
> 
> http://www.homecinema-fr.com/optoma...uhd-a-lise-2017-amsterdam-07-10-fevrier-2017/
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's not too late...
> 
> Hugo


Curious. Are you the Hugo guy from Audioholics I see on the videos?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Methodical_1 said:


> Curious. Are you the Hugo guy from Audioholics I see on the videos?


The bodybuilder?


----------



## Selden Ball

Acerox said:


> Hi, thanks for the answers. So .4 will be! I think I can get the front overhead speakers at 45 angle and the back ones at around 120, so almost there.
> 
> How far would you install the overhead speakers from the beams to avoid the beams messing up with the sound? I was thinking 30cm (12").


That seems reasonable. Line-of-sight to the seating would be appropriate.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,



Methodical_1 said:


> Curious. Are you the Hugo guy from Audioholics I see on the videos?


:smile: no, I'm not that Hugo... and with my age, I could easily be his father...

H.


----------



## Methodical_1

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> :smile: no, I'm not that Hugo... and with my age, I could easily be his father...
> 
> H.


Gotcha.


----------



## chi_guy50

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> :smile: no, I'm not that Hugo... and with my age, I could easily be his father...
> 
> H.


Alors, ça, c'est bien vous?










(Si nos Atlanta Falcons ne gagnent pas le Superbowl ce soir, moi je me compterai bien parmi _Les Misérables_.)


----------



## KilroyNo1

Hoping someone has run into this problem and can shed some light...

I have a Denon 7200WA and I'm currently hooking it up for my HT room. My configuration is as shown on the following link under "DOLBY ATMOS" - "11.1 SYSTEM" about 80% of the way down the page. The only difference is that I also have front height left and right speakers, which aren't shown in the configuration. Is it possible to hook these up via separate amplifier and still get the correct sound information to those two front height speakers? If so, how would I go about this?

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX7200W/EU/EN/JPLKSYbaxctrum.php

I've got a Denon 3600, Denon 4306 and a Dayton Audio SA230 to use as external amplifiers and 3 Clark Synthesis tactile transducers will also be running off of them.


----------



## X-ray Doc

*Opinions Requested From Actual Atmos Users*

This thread is too long to read everything posted before. I appologize if my questions have already been answered. I have a very nice 7.2 theater setup. I had the ceiing prewired for an Atmos "upgrade" and I'm considering moving to a 7.2.4 Atmos theater. I've always felt that movie dialog is not optimally handled with a single center speaker, especially when you're sitting on the back row. 

1. Does an Atmos setup improve movie dialog in any way, or does it just add a wow factor to special effects?

2. As a general opinion, would you say that a Dolby Atmos upgrade (or the DTS equivalent) is noticeably better and worth the extra cost?

Thanks!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Sorry for answering! Although I am still in the build phase, I did read a lot about it and I watched commercial Atmos movies... 

1. Ofcourse dialog is not enhanced by 7.1.4. Maybe it would with the use of the 2 extra screen speakers Atmos provides for, but it's not supported on normal devices. Dialog is enhanced when the Center speaker is capable and it's output is not smeared by early reflections or improper positioning. Have you got those in order?

2. Not the question one asks in a thread about a subject with 43,821 posts and counting, is it? 
Here's an attempt: there's mainly two things the 3D Atmos and DTS audio formats do: obviously there are the "objects" that can now be presented in a spectacular way anywhere in the hemisphere surrounding the listeners. But what came as a surprise to me is the "bubble" one experiences. That's why it's called "Atmos". Ie, "atmospherical"!


----------



## thebland

Mashie Saldana said:


> Considering the Altitude32 with 16 channels is around $24k, the Altitude16 better be in the $10k or less region to take on the RMC-1 and similar processors. Any more than that and they fall out of the mid range tier.


$10K? No chance of that.. I'll bet $16K.


----------



## sdurani

X-ray Doc said:


> Does an Atmos setup improve movie dialog in any way, or does it just add a wow factor to special effects?


Has nothing to do with dialogue. The home version of Atmos adds overhead speakers.


> As a general opinion, would you say that a Dolby Atmos upgrade (or the DTS equivalent) is noticeably better and worth the extra cost?


Noticeably better, to the extent that it takes you from a 2-dimensional ring of sound to a 3-dimensional bubble of sound; like how we hear in real life.


----------



## sdrucker

thebland said:


> $10K? No chance of that.. I'll bet $16K.


Closer to my guess. You also have to factor in hiring a calibrator to at least do the initial calibration remotely, and on-site for best results if you really want to get many of the parameters of the Optimizer dialed in.


----------



## Skylinestar

X-ray Doc said:


> I've always felt that movie dialog is not optimally handled with a single center speaker, especially when you're sitting on the back row.


Perhaps you need the Yamaha Dialogue Lift feature


----------



## Larry Rosenberg

X-ray Doc said:


> This thread is too long to read everything posted before. I appologize if my questions have already been answered. I have a very nice 7.2 theater setup. I had the ceiing prewired for an Atmos "upgrade" and I'm considering moving to a 7.2.4 Atmos theater. I've always felt that movie dialog is not optimally handled with a single center speaker, especially when you're sitting on the back row.
> 
> 1. Does an Atmos setup improve movie dialog in any way, or does it just add a wow factor to special effects?
> 
> 2. As a general opinion, would you say that a Dolby Atmos upgrade (or the DTS equivalent) is noticeably better and worth the extra cost?
> 
> Thanks!


No effect on dialog, pe se, as part of the Atmos system, but your AVR probably has some center channel enhancements, and you can always raise the level of the center channel a decibel or two. Failing at that, closed captioning.


----------



## Methodical_1

X-ray Doc said:


> This thread is too long to read everything posted before. I appologize if my questions have already been answered. I have a very nice 7.2 theater setup. I had the ceiing prewired for an Atmos "upgrade" and I'm considering moving to a 7.2.4 Atmos theater. I've always felt that movie dialog is not optimally handled with a single center speaker, especially when you're sitting on the back row.
> 
> 1. Does an Atmos setup improve movie dialog in any way, or does it just add a wow factor to special effects?
> 
> 2. As a general opinion, would you say that a Dolby Atmos upgrade (or the DTS equivalent) is noticeably better and worth the extra cost?
> 
> Thanks!


I don't hear dialog coming from my Atmos ceiling speakers, it's more the atmosphere it you will - wind, snow, storms, bullets, helicopters etc. Now, when I have DTS: NeroX enable on cable playback, I hear some dialog, music etc. but not much. 

I had to cut holes to snake cable (which means some patch work and paint), work around plumbing pipes in the ceiling and cut speaker holes - got a few cuts along the way and some insulation in my nose. Saying all that to say - it's worth it. Go for it. I would do nothing less than 4 speakers.

I, too, always thought dialog was low on the center channel, however, this new Denon 4300 gives me the option to increase it, which I have done and it makes a world of difference. If you have that option, I suggest you up it and see if that satisfies you. I think I raised mine 3-5db.


----------



## gwsat

Skylinestar said:


> Perhaps you need the Yamaha Dialogue Lift feature


I think you mean "Dialog Level," which adjusts the volume of dialog sounds. "Dialog Lift," though, adjusts the perceived height of dialog sounds if they seem to be coming from below the TV screen. It doesn't adjust the volume. Both settings are useful, although I haven't used Dialog Lift much. I have become particularly fond of Dialog Level, though, and use it frequently. Too many soundtracks have the dialog recorded at a volume that can be understood comfortably only if the overall volume is raised to "Stun." Dialog Level allows me to adjust the dialog volume so that I can hear and understand dialog without the need to listen at an overall volume that is painfully loud.


----------



## X-ray Doc

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Sorry for answering! Although I am still in the build phase, I did read a lot about it and I watched commercial Atmos movies...
> 
> 1. Ofcourse dialog is not enhanced by 7.1.4. Maybe it would with the use of the 2 extra screen speakers Atmos provides for, but it's not supported on normal devices. Dialog is enhanced when the Center speaker is capable and it's output is not smeared by early reflections or improper positioning. Have you got those in order?
> 
> 2. Not the question one asks in a thread about a subject with 43,821 posts and counting, is it?
> Here's an attempt: there's mainly two things the 3D Atmos and DTS audio formats do: obviously there are the "objects" that can now be presented in a spectacular way anywhere in the hemisphere surrounding the listeners. But what came as a surprise to me is the "bubble" one experiences. That's why it's called "Atmos". Ie, "atmospherical"!


My theater has three rows of leather reclining seats. There is an 8" stadium seating rise between each row. The center speaker sits on the floor with a slight upward angulation. I've done an Audyssey calibration. My wife and I usually watch on the front or middle rows so we can hear movie dialogue fine. If there is one weakness to the design of surround sound however, I would place it on clearly intelligible dialogue when you're sitting further back. After all, it uses a single speaker positioned relatively low beneath the screen and has to travel through several high back cushion type chairs. The center speaker could be raised off the floor, but only by about 14" because of the screen position.

Has anyone ever tried the sonically transparent screens that allow you to place a center channel behind the screen? I've never even considered that. Do those screens have tiny holes are something? I would assume video quality might suffer.


----------



## sdurani

X-ray Doc said:


> The center speaker sits on the floor with a slight upward angulation.


It should be in clear line of sight to all listeners.


> Do those screens have tiny holes are something?


You can get both kinds: tiny holes (perf screens) or something (woven screens).


----------



## X-ray Doc

Methodical_1 said:


> I don't hear dialog coming from my Atmos ceiling speakers, it's more the atmosphere it you will - wind, snow, storms, bullets, helicopters etc. Now, when I have DTS: NeroX enable on cable playback, I hear some dialog, music etc. but not much.
> 
> I had to cut holes to snake cable (which means some patch work and paint), work around plumbing pipes in the ceiling and cut speaker holes - got a few cuts along the way and some insulation in my nose. Saying all that to say - it's worth it. Go for it. I would do nothing less than 4 speakers.
> 
> I, too, always thought dialog was low on the center channel, however, this new Denon 4300 gives me the option to increase it, which I have done and it makes a world of difference. If you have that option, I suggest you up it and see if that satisfies you. I think I raised mine 3-5db.


Thanks for the reassurance that I will appreciate the added effects of expanding to an Atmos speaker setup. Now let me think a minute. Four new quality speakers? A new four or five channel power amp? Another trigger hookup to start the amp? A full weekend used for installation? Probably a new Audyssey calibration? WAF at DEFCON level 2?

How do you actually get permission for this?


----------



## Ladeback

X-ray Doc said:


> My theater has three rows of leather reclining seats. There is an 8" stadium seating rise between each row. The center speaker sits on the floor with a slight upward angulation. I've done an Audyssey calibration. My wife and I usually watch on the front or middle rows so we can hear movie dialogue fine. If there is one weakness to the design of surround sound however, I would place it on clearly intelligible dialogue when you're sitting further back. After all, it uses a single speaker positioned relatively low beneath the screen and has to travel through several high back cushion type chairs. The center speaker could be raised off the floor, but only by about 14" because of the screen position.
> 
> Has anyone ever tried the sonically transparent screens that allow you to place a center channel behind the screen? I've never even considered that. Do those screens have tiny holes are something? I would assume video quality might suffer.


I watched Jason Bourne on a AVS Forum Members HT last month and his screen is a 106" AT screen and he is running large Behringer speakers that sounded really good from the front row and the guys in the second row said it sounded real good as well. I think you may loss a little bit, but it does get the center at ear level. My center is at about 16" off the ground and I am looking to get it to about 20" to 23" off the ground to increase the height of the center channel.

I seen on Crutchfield web site to place your center channel right above or below your TV, and line it up with the midpoint. If possible, tilt it to direct the sound to ear level.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

X-ray Doc said:


> Has anyone ever tried the sonically transparent screens that allow you to place a center channel behind the screen? I've never even considered that. Do those screens have tiny holes are something? I would assume video quality might suffer.


I would avoid the perfo type. Get Center Stage XD (or the newer UF) as this only takes away 1dB.

Seymour AV

Think it through carefully. Which speakers do you have now? Do you use acoustic absorption on reflection points?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Skylinestar said:


> Perhaps you need the Yamaha Dialogue Lift feature


The guy needs a lot more than that if he can't get good dialog from a single center speaker.


----------



## X-ray Doc

Scott Simonian said:


> The guy needs a lot more than that if he can't get good dialog from a single center speaker.


grrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Scott's right (he's always right BTW). Post some pictures, will you?


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> The guy needs a lot more than that if he can't get good dialog from a single center speaker.


With all due respect, Scott, my own experience has been that Yamaha's Lift adjustment has improved the audio I have heard from several Atmos soundtracks. As I noted in an earlier post, the audio often seems to have been recorded at such a low volume, if it’s turned up to comfortable listening levels with the main volume control, the overall volume becomes painfully loud. This has been the case, although I have a rather large and optimally placed center speaker, as shown in the appended photo. That's why I often use Yamaha's Dialog Lift control to increase the volume of dialog without making the overall sound level uncomfortably loud. The good news is that I have had to do this far less with Atmos soundtracks than I have with non-Atmos audio.


----------



## ggsantafe

gwsat said:


> With all due respect, Scott, my own experience has been that Yamaha's Lift adjustment has improved the audio I have heard from several Atmos soundtracks. As I noted in an earlier post, the audio often seems to have been recorded at such a low volume, if it’s turned up to comfortable listening levels with the main volume control, the overall volume becomes painfully loud. This has been the case, although I have a rather large and optimally placed center speaker, as shown in the appended photo. That's why I often use Yamaha's Dialog Lift control to increase the volume of dialog without making the overall sound level uncomfortably loud. The good news is that I have had to do this far less with Atmos soundtracks than I have with non-Atmos audio.
> 
> View attachment 1947817


Actually - it looks like your center channel would benefit from moving the speaker forward on the shelf so that the face of the speaker extends past the edge of the shelf to eliminate potential reflections.


----------



## gwsat

ggsantafe said:


> Actually - it looks like your center channel would benefit from moving the speaker forward on the shelf so that the face of the speaker extends past the edge of the shelf to eliminate potential reflections.


The spot shown is what my AV guy's tech picked and to my ears at least, it sounds good. Another negative indicator is that if the speaker were moved to the front edge of the shelf. It would block the bottom of the display when my viewing chair is reclined. I did, however, take your advice and move my center speaker a few inches forward on the shelf. If I notice any difference in the dialog as a result, I will report it here. Thanks for the advice. My AV guy's tech will be returning to replace some HDMI cables. When he comes, I will ask him what he thinks about moving the center speaker forward even more. I will report about that too.

I should add that Yamaha's Dialog Lift adjustment has worked well for me. As a consequence, I have no trouble configuring audio so both the audio and the rest of the soundtrack sound good.


----------



## ggsantafe

gwsat said:


> The spot shown is what my AV guy's tech picked and to my ears at least, it sounds good. Another negative indicator is that if the speaker were moved to the front edge of the shelf. It would block the bottom of the display when my viewing chair is reclined. I did, however, take your advice and move my center speaker a few inches forward on the shelf. If I notice any difference in the dialog as a result, I will report it here. Thanks for the advice. My AV guy's tech will be returning to replace some HDMI cables. When he comes, I will ask him what he thinks about moving the center speaker forward even more. I will report about that too.
> 
> I should add that Yamaha's Dialog Lift adjustment has worked well for me. As a consequence, I have no trouble configuring audio so both the audio and the rest of the soundtrack sound good.


I'm just relaying center speaker positioning advice I've seen mentioned many times in various forums. If you have access to REW & measuring equipment you'll be able to verify which position produces the best results. As an aside - I'm not familiar with Yamaha's EQ protocols - but if indeed it measures speaker distances from the MLP you may want to rerun once you've established the optimal speaker placement.


----------



## DavefromMaine

*Hello  I currently have a 7.2.2 set right now. This is the receiver i have ( Denon AVR-X4300H) I want to add 2 more speakers. The amp i will use is the Russound - P75 2-Ch. Amplifier .Can some one please tell me how to connect the Amp to the receiver ? Where do the speaker wires connect get connected ? Also is there another cord that i need ? If so where does it connect ? Thanks for any help you can give me. I new to Atmos and need all the help i can get*


----------



## zeus33

gwsat said:


> The spot shown is what my AV guy's tech picked and to my ears at least, it sounds good. Another negative indicator is that if the speaker were moved to the front edge of the shelf. It would block the bottom of the display when my viewing chair is reclined. I did, however, take your advice and move my center speaker a few inches forward on the shelf. If I notice any difference in the dialog as a result, I will report it here. Thanks for the advice.



Moving it a few inches forward probably won't do much. The front edge of the speaker actually needs to extend slightly past the shelf it's sitting on. You are getting a lot of reflections off the glass shelf that it's sitting on that's muddying up the sound. I know you said it would block your TV, but that really is the proper location.

Just try it temporarily to see if it improves the dialogue for you.


----------



## ggsantafe

zeus33 said:


> Moving it a few inches forward probably won't do much. The front edge of the speaker actually needs to extend slightly past the shelf it's sitting on. You are getting a lot of reflections off the glass shelf that it's sitting on that's muddying up the sound. I know you said it would block your TV, but that really is the proper location.
> 
> Just try it temporarily to see if it improves the dialogue for you.


And - while it's hard to tell if the TV is on a stand, or mounted on the wall - it shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the TV so that the newly positioned center speaker doesn't obstruct your line of sight.


----------



## gwsat

Guys thanks for trying to help but I love the sound quality of my system after configuring it with Yamaha's YPAO. Clarifying the dialog with Dialog Lift once in a while has done nothing whatever to detract from my sonic enjoyment. That could be a function of my aging ear-balls but there it is. Bottom line: I am happy with my current configuration. 

I have found that where I place my sub is critical to getting satisfying LFE but the placement of the other speakers not so much as long as I configure everything with YPAO after moving something.


----------



## Ladeback

DavefromMaine said:


> *Hello  I currently have a 7.2.2 set right now. This is the receiver i have ( Denon AVR-X4300H) I want to add 2 more speakers. The amp i will use is the Russound - P75 2-Ch. Amplifier .Can some one please tell me how to connect the Amp to the receiver ? Where do the speaker wires connect get connected ? Also is there another cord that i need ? If so where does it connect ? Thanks for any help you can give me. I new to Atmos and need all the help i can get*


On the back of your reliever there are pre-outs so that you can hook up the amp to. I take it you have the fronts hooked up. Just use some RCA cords from the amp to the receiver pre-outs on the HRIGHT2. The white is your left and the red is your right. Just connect the speaker wires that corresponds to the left and right. I hope that makes since. Here is a page from Crutchfield that may help.

https://www.crutchfield.com/p_033AV...=c&awkw=avr+x4300h&awmt=p&awnw=g&awug=9023905


----------



## DavefromMaine

*This is to "Ladeback"

Thanks so much  So i do not connect any speaker wire to the Amp ? I just connect speaker wire to the receiver and the speakers ? Thanks again*


----------



## Molon_Labe

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Scott's right (he's always right BTW). Post some pictures, will you?


Don't encourage him but he typically is spot on.


----------



## thebland

X-ray Doc said:


> My theater has three rows of leather reclining seats. There is an 8" stadium seating rise between each row. The center speaker sits on the floor with a slight upward angulation. I've done an Audyssey calibration. My wife and I usually watch on the front or middle rows so we can hear movie dialogue fine. If there is one weakness to the design of surround sound however, I would place it on clearly intelligible dialogue when you're sitting further back. After all, it uses a single speaker positioned relatively low beneath the screen and has to travel through several high back cushion type chairs. The center speaker could be raised off the floor, but only by about 14" because of the screen position.
> 
> Has anyone ever tried the sonically transparent screens that allow you to place a center channel behind the screen? I've never even considered that. Do those screens have tiny holes are something? I would assume video quality might suffer.


 Click on my link below, I similarly have three rows of home theater seating (stadium style). I have a microperf screen (with automatic masking) and it's the only way to go if you want the best experience over all three rows (or a single row for that matter). A center channel sitting on the floor with 3 rows of seating is a serious handicap.and your left and right speakers flanking either side of the screen classes it's own problems. In a room like the center channel should be behind the screen and at ear level to the second row... Just like a real theater. Everybody in the room, all three rows, will get great sound with the front speakers behind the screen. Go get one installed!


----------



## Methodical_1

X-ray Doc said:


> Thanks for the reassurance that I will appreciate the added effects of expanding to an Atmos speaker setup. Now let me think a minute. Four new quality speakers? A new four or five channel power amp? Another trigger hookup to start the amp? A full weekend used for installation? Probably a new Audyssey calibration? WAF at DEFCON level 2?
> 
> How do you actually get permission for this?


It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.


----------



## Methodical_1

DavefromMaine said:


> *This is to "Ladeback"
> 
> Thanks so much  So i do not connect any speaker wire to the Amp ? I just connect speaker wire to the receiver and the speakers ? Thanks again*


You also need to tell the receiver what you did/doing.

I have this receiver. What is it you are trying to accomplish?


----------



## Skylinestar

Scott Simonian said:


> The guy needs a lot more than that if he can't get good dialog from a single center speaker.


His problem is with the listeners at the back, which the center sound is blocked by the front seat. At least the front presence (Yamaha term for front height) have direct line of sight to those listeners.


----------



## X-ray Doc

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Scott's right (he's always right BTW). Post some pictures, will you?


Of course I don't have very good lighting inside my theater, so these aren't the best pictures. You can see my speaker setup however. The 7 surround speakers are all Martin Logans. The three front speakers sit on the carpeting. The four surround speakers are all wall mounted. I think I should try to raise the center speaker that currently sits on the floor.


----------



## X-ray Doc

thebland said:


> Click on my link below, I similarly have three rows of home theater seating (stadium style). I have a microperf screen (with automatic masking) and it's the only way to go if you want the best experience over all three rows (or a single row for that matter). A center channel sitting on the floor with 3 rows of seating is a serious handicap.and your left and right speakers flanking either side of the screen classes it's own problems. In a room like the center channel should be behind the screen and at ear level to the second row... Just like a real theater. Everybody in the room, all three rows, will get great sound with the front speakers behind the screen. Go get one installed!


Very nice theater! I wanted to do an auto masking installation but I couldn't believe the price when I checked into the Stewart model. I also wanted to get a 2.4:1 aspect ratio screen and keep the image height constant and only vary the width depending on the source. My projector would have handled that well with approximately 10 zoom presets. But I inadvertantly limited the width of my screen because I thought it made sense to have FR and FL speakers flanking the screen. That "mistake" caused me to maximize my screen height instead and get a 16:9 aspect ratio screen. The picture and experience are still amazing! But I now realize that if all three front speakers were behind the screen, a 2.4:1 aspect ratio screen would have probably fit and I still could have had the same screen height I have now. Oh well, I've learned something. And my current setup still looks gorgeous with a 127" diagonal screen.

Did you lose some image quality by using a microperf screen? How big are the holes?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

X-ray Doc said:


> Of course I don't have very good lighting inside my theater, so these aren't the best pictures. You can see my speaker setup however. The 7 surround speakers are all Martin Logans. The three front speakers sit on the carpeting. The four surround speakers are all wall mounted. I think I should try to raise the center speaker that currently sits on the floor.


Such a nice room deserves to be taken to the next level! It has written AT screen all over it. At the very least, try to put the center as close to the bottom of the screen as possible and see if it helps. 

Also, if I am not mistaken, you don't have any acoustic panels? Believe me, this would help. The reflected sound arrives to your ears slightly later which results in a blur, like an out of focus picture. 

Carpet doesn't count as this takes away only the high frequencies. Materials are cheap, all it takes is some sweat.


----------



## DavefromMaine

*To Methodical_1 I am going from 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 . I need to know if you have to wire the speaker wire from the amp to the speakers or just need to wire the receiver to the speakers along with the RCA cable hook up.*


----------



## thebland

X-ray Doc said:


> Did you lose some image quality by using a microperf screen? How big are the holes?


Not really - the image is sharp and I use an anamorphic lens... If you look on this site, all the best, dedicated theaters use perf screens. It's really the standard for the best theater experience - video and audo. Look at the AVS HT of the month page - essentially all are perf screens. At some point, you'll redo your room with a scope screen and you can add the speakers.


----------



## smurraybhm

DavefromMaine said:


> *To Methodical_1 I am going from 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 . I need to know if you have to wire the speaker wire from the amp to the speakers or just need to wire the receiver to the speakers along with the RCA cable hook up.*


Speaker wire from the applicable amp(s). This is meant as a nice suggestion - for questions about your receiver you will likely be better served by using the applicable owners thread, if its not listed on the main page "Rec, Amps & Proc" then the search function is your friend. They will also make sure you do your "Amp Assign" correctly if you are using a D&M product and/or something else. Enjoy.


----------



## Ladeback

DavefromMaine said:


> *This is to "Ladeback"
> 
> Thanks so much  So i do not connect any speaker wire to the Amp ? I just connect speaker wire to the receiver and the speakers ? Thanks again*


*You will connect the speaker wires to the Amp and then to the speakers in the rear ceiling. * 
Your receiver has nine channels and they are for the 7.2.2 speakers setup (2 front, center, 2 surround, 2 surround back and 2 front height speakers should be wired to it. You are using the pre-outs on the HEIGHT2 that are patched in to you 2 channel amp to get the signal to the rear Dolby Atmos speakers.

The pre-outs are for if say you wanted to double your wattage from the 125 per channel to say 200 or 250. In this setup you would use all the pre outs. I like this setup better, because I think it is cleaner and most of the time separate amps can be cleaner then the amps in the receiver. I have a receiver with pre-out and a pre-amp that only gets power from separate 200 watt amps.

Sorry if I am giving you to much information here is a diagram of a 11.2 receiver. Just ignor the front wide speakers setup. Look at how the external amp is set up for the rear height speakers. There is a copy of the back of your receiver and the setup for Dolby Atmos listed.


----------



## Selden Ball

DavefromMaine said:


> *To Methodical_1 I am going from 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 . I need to know if you have to wire the speaker wire from the amp to the speakers or just need to wire the receiver to the speakers along with the RCA cable hook up.*


Speaker cables are to be used between speakers and whatever device you want to have powering them. Connect them either to the speaker binding posts on the receiver or to the speaker binding posts on the amplifier. RCA cables are to be used between the receiver's peramp outputs and the amplifier(s). 

Since you're adding overhead speakers to an existing system, the easiest thing to do is probably to connect the receiver's HEIGHT2 preamp outputs using RCAs to a stereo amp, and run speaker cables from that amp to the new speakers. Then run the Setup Assistant (select the 11.1 amp option) both to check the speakers and to run Audyssey.


----------



## X-ray Doc

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Such a nice room deserves to be taken to the next level! It has written AT screen all over it. At the very least, try to put the center as close to the bottom of the screen as possible and see if it helps.
> 
> Also, if I am not mistaken, you don't have any acoustic panels? Believe me, this would help. The reflected sound arrives to your ears slightly later which results in a blur, like an out of focus picture.
> 
> Carpet doesn't count as this takes away only the high frequencies. Materials are cheap, all it takes is some sweat.


Actually, the front, side and rear walls are all covered in fabric. Only the ceiling is textured drywall. The front wall just has OSB board beneath the fabric. The two sides and rear have sheets of foam. I forget the brand name. Perhaps they're called "whisper walls"?

What is an "AT screen"?


----------



## Ladeback

X-ray Doc said:


> Actually, the front, side and rear walls are all covered in fabric. Only the ceiling is textured drywall. The front wall just has OSB board beneath the fabric. The two sides and rear have sheets of foam. I forget the brand name. Perhaps they're called "whisper walls"?
> 
> What is an "AT screen"?


"AT" is acoustically transparent. The screen is made so sound will pass through it like the screens in a commercial theater.


----------



## atomic4877

Just a quick question, I have searched several forums but can't find a consensus answer. I have a 5.1.2 atmos setup w/ upward firing speakers for the atmos and just moved the rear speakers down roughly 2-3ft, so that the speakers are 2 ft above ear level at about 120 degrees. I wanted to have them at 90 degrees from the couch, but could not due to my wife not wanting to move the artwork that are already there. My question is with the speakers being the speakers being 2ft above ear level as recommended, should the speakers be flush against the mount firing straight forward, or should I angle them downward so they are firing more towards the MLP?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

atomic4877 said:


> Just a quick question, I have searched several forums but can't find a consensus answer. I have a 5.1.2 atmos setup w/ upward firing speakers for the atmos and just moved the rear speakers down roughly 2-3ft, so that the speakers are 2 ft above ear level at about 120 degrees. I wanted to have them at 90 degrees from the couch, but could not due to my wife not wanting to move the artwork that are already there. My question is with the speakers being the speakers being 2ft above ear level as recommended, should the speakers be flush against the mount firing straight forward, or should I angle them downward so they are firing more towards the MLP?


It depends on the speakers. Try both.


----------



## Selden Ball

atomic4877 said:


> Just a quick question, I have searched several forums but can't find a consensus answer. I have a 5.1.2 atmos setup w/ upward firing speakers for the atmos and just moved the rear speakers down roughly 2-3ft, so that the speakers are 2 ft above ear level at about 120 degrees. I wanted to have them at 90 degrees from the couch, but could not due to my wife not wanting to move the artwork that are already there. My question is with the speakers being the speakers being 2ft above ear level as recommended, should the speakers be flush against the mount firing straight forward, or should I angle them downward so they are firing more towards the MLP?


One frequent recommendation is to point speakers which are off to the sides (including overhead speakers) toward the opposite ends of the seating. In other words, speakers on the right should point toward the left end of a couch, and vice versa. It's sometimes called the "equal energy" orientation. The speakers aren't pointed directly at the ears of the people seated closest to them but they do point toward the people who are farthest away.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

X-ray Doc said:


> Actually, the front, side and rear walls are all covered in fabric. Only the ceiling is textured drywall. The front wall just has OSB board beneath the fabric. The two sides and rear have sheets of foam. I forget the brand name. Perhaps they're called "whisper walls"?


You don't stop to amaze me! It must be the position of the center speakers then that is the main cause. The direct sound is blocked by the seats in front of you. Then the unblocked ceiling reflected sound further blurs the precision of the dialogs. 

While you are considering ceiling speakers anyway, I suggest a sound absorption (or even diffusion) ceiling island / baffle... together with an acoustic transparent screen this would give you a whole new experience.


----------



## DavefromMaine

Selden Ball Thanks for the help. So the speaker wires go to the Dual Amp i am getting to the speakers not to the Denon to the speakers correct ?


----------



## atomic4877

Selden Ball said:


> One frequent recommendation is to point speakers which are off to the sides (including overhead speakers) toward the opposite ends of the seating. In other words, speakers on the right should point toward the left end of a couch, and vice versa. It's sometimes called the "equal energy" orientation. The speakers aren't pointed directly at the ears of the people seated closest to them but they do point toward the people who are farthest away.


This is actually how I was contemplating having them pointed, as my wife and I usually are on opposite ends of the couch as our boxer tends to claim the middle of the couch. Right now I have them pointing more towards the front of the arm of the couch opposite to the speaker, so not to different than the opposite seating position. I just was not sure how I should have them angled whether it be flush with the mount, which would basically have the speaker firing directly out as if it was flat against the wall, or angle the mount downward slightly so the sound was directed more toward the couch vs. over the listeners ears. Most set up guides recommend them be 2' above ear level and show the speakers flush against a wall and not angled. I basically am trying to get the rears to have as little localization as possible and make it so they are not easily pinpointed as to where the sound is coming from.


----------



## Selden Ball

atomic4877 said:


> This is actually how I was contemplating having them pointed, as my wife and I usually are on opposite ends of the couch as our boxer tends to claim the middle of the couch. Right now I have them pointing more towards the front of the arm of the couch opposite to the speaker, so not to different than the opposite seating position. I just was not sure how I should have them angled whether it be flush with the mount, which would basically have the speaker firing directly out as if it was flat against the wall, or angle the mount downward slightly so the sound was directed more toward the couch vs. over the listeners ears. Most set up guides recommend them be 2' above ear level and show the speakers flush against a wall and not angled. I basically am trying to get the rears to have as little localization as possible and make it so they are not easily pinpointed as to where the sound is coming from.


Have you considered bipole speakers instead of monopole? They'd minimize localization, especially if there's a corner nearby so they reflect off two walls.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Hugo S said:


> Hi Erwin,
> 
> 
> 
> "the best"... _certainement pas!!!_
> 
> Have fun at this ISE show.
> 
> H.


So I went today in Amsterdam. I have never attended a more international event than this. Not even the Milan Furniture Fair. 









Storm Audio (owned by Auro 3D mother Barco) had a que for the demo booth. Only 10 persons each viewing were allowed.









Speakers were Triad but completely hidden









The 3D formats were represented. Not all elevated speakers were used all the time. Note 7.1.6 Atmos!









The big processor









Backside









First Atmos. Cool scene with Jason Statham.









DTS:X









Auro 3D

The sound was impressive, as could be expected! There were some Indian folks in my batch and they were clearly known customers. When we got out after the viewing, one of them told the hostess that "Auro is still the best!" Yeah, right. As if one wouldn't reserve the best possible demo for it's own format...

I have to admit, after the Panda's there was a final fragment with Auromatic and it was very good. 

Later I went to the Trinnov/Procella box, where one could walk in freely. All Procella speakers were in sight, but I couldn't make one decent picture of it, too dark. All elevated speakers were pointed to the listeners. Speaker count was about the same as StormAudio. The operator showed some random fragments. Presumably all Atmos. Conclusion: Trinnov wins by a small margin. Very natural and crystal clear sound (Storm Audio was slightly to loud for my taste).


----------



## atomic4877

Selden Ball said:


> Have you considered bipole speakers instead of monopole? They'd minimize localization, especially if there's a corner nearby so they reflect off two walls.


I have considered it, but unfortunately my wife is being a bit of a stickler at the moment as we just upgraded the tv and surround sound system less than a year ago. I know some sort of localization is inevitable, but just want to maximize the sound on my current system. I think I may end up trying with them flush and pointed down and have the speakers point towards the opposite listener on the couch to see which sounds better.


----------



## X-ray Doc

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You don't stop to amaze me! It must be the position of the center speakers then that is the main cause. The direct sound is blocked by the seats in front of you. Then the unblocked ceiling reflected sound further blurs the precision of the dialogs.
> 
> While you are considering ceiling speakers anyway, I suggest a sound absorption (or even diffusion) ceiling island / baffle... together with an acoustic transparent screen this would give you a whole new experience.


Thanks for the advice. I should have researched this site before building my current theater. This is the second high end theater I've created and I thought I already knew everything.  In retrospect I probably would have chosen an AT screen in 2.4:1 aspect ratio and have placed all of the front speakers at ear level. I've got too much money invested in my current screen and front speakers to make a change now. And our current setup is truly very enjoyable. But that will be the direction I go in the future.

This may be a dumb question, but with three speakers (including woofers) directly behind the screen, is there any movement of the screen with loud passages?


----------



## asarose247

^ : I think I may end up trying with them flush and pointed down and have the speakers point towards the opposite listener on the couch to see which sounds better.

also known as "energy exchange"

can you program presets / scenes where you can bias the optimal MLP sound field. for YOU!, without her noticing . . .

the dogs won"t mind


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

X-ray Doc said:


> Thanks for the advice. I should have researched this site before building my current theater. This is the second high end theater I've created and I thought I already knew everything.  In retrospect I probably would have chosen an AT screen in 2.4:1 aspect ratio and have placed all of the front speakers at ear level. I've got too much money invested in my current screen and front speakers to make a change now. And our current setup is truly very enjoyable. But that will be the direction I go in the future.
> 
> This may be a dumb question, but with three speakers (including woofers) directly behind the screen, is there any movement of the screen with loud passages?


Join the club. My ideas on sound quality have been turned around and upside down a great deal over the last decade. Crazy. 

Only the big woofers from subs (and their ports if not of the sealed variety) tend to move the screen when positioned close. Others can advise this better.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi,

Very many thks Erwin for your feed-back, particularly as attending this Stormaudio démo was an item positioned high on my ISE 2017 to do list...

Now I think I know the person who made the plans of this Stormaudio booth, so I'll ask him if I'm not wrong and if he can (or wants) to share some specificities of this installation. 

Encore MERCI à Toi,

Hugo


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Hugo S said:


> Hi,
> 
> Very many thks Erwin for your feed-back, particularly as attending this Stormaudio démo was an item positioned high on my ISE 2017 to do list...
> 
> Now I think I know the person who made the plans of this Stormaudio booth, so I'll ask him if I'm not wrong and if he can (or wants) to share some specificities of this installation.
> 
> Encore MERCI à Toi,
> 
> Hugo


Any more information about the Altitude16?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

No, thank you, Hugo. 

Downside is that seeing thousands of flatscreens at ISE made me realize our own good old 65" JVC rear projection TV in our living room is outdated... Just now that I had made up my mind about updating the 5.1 set-up to 7.2.4 with made to size enclosure for LCR + subwoofers around the TV. Can't believe this whole set is now 8,5 years old.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Mashie Saldana said:


> Any more information about the Altitude16?


I should have asked, but I forgot!

The 16-channel version of the Storm Audio [ISP 3D.16 ELITE] processor retails for €9,990 BTW. It seems a good match for the Altitude 16. I think it should do 7.1.6, same as the 32-channel. 

No mentioning of 9.1.4 does worry me though. I hope this lacking is not something the RMC-1 will suffer from.


----------



## atomic4877

Selden Ball said:


> One frequent recommendation is to point speakers which are off to the sides (including overhead speakers) toward the opposite ends of the seating. In other words, speakers on the right should point toward the left end of a couch, and vice versa. It's sometimes called the "equal energy" orientation. The speakers aren't pointed directly at the ears of the people seated closest to them but they do point toward the people who are farthest away.


I've decided on keep the speakers flush against the mounts instead of angling down. I ran the angles and with them slight angled down the sound will be hitting the back of the sofa slightly as it is relatively high backed and even angled down slightly from the 2' above ear level position will hit the back. Now I just need to figure out where I want them firing. I have basically researched it endlessly for the past day and have come across three recommendations. Them directly firing at the middle of the couch, them angled slightly so the speakers face the end seating positions on the couch (right facing right and left facing left) and the "equal energy" method. I was just wondering which one would be best. I've read that the facing them toward the middle of the couch creates localization and I have upward firing atmos speakers in the front as well so I think them facing to the middle of the couch will impact the overhead sounds, but not sure what the best of the three would be. I have them currently with the equal energy set up, but had a hard time hearing the speaker that was facing towards my seating position (the one on the opposite side) and seemed to pick up the speaker on the same side of me more. The only con I could see with facing them to the ends on of the couch on the ends that are mounted would be a much more localized sound when seated on the ends where my wife and I tend to sit.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I should have asked, but I forgot!
> 
> The 16-channel version of the Storm Audio [ISP 3D.16 ELITE] processor retails for €9,990 BTW. It seems a good match for the Altitude 16. I think it should do 7.1.6, same as the 32-channel.
> 
> No mentioning of 9.1.4 does worry me though. I hope this lacking is not something the RMC-1 will suffer from.


So at the very least, it can render to three pairs of heights. But I'd be careful calling the ISP 3D.16 a good match to the Altitude 16. Trinnov's software runs in a Linux variant with a PC architecture, so there can be as much flexibility as they decide to allow at this price point relative to the full Altitude fearure set.

Based on what we know from the promotional picture, this Altitude is no different in rendering to 16 discrete channels. That alone will allow to outclass the competition if it can do 9.1.4 and support multiple subwoofers (up to 3) or even 11.1.4 with an external solution to level and delay multiple subs - and especially if they allow the CI/user to decide what those two extra floor channels are. That's leaving active crossover support out of it.

IMO the Storm Audio ISP is more of a match for the Datasat LS10, maybe even the RS20i with active crossover and other post-processing suoport (i.e. speaker arrays), and outside of Dirac possibly betters the RMC-1 and Acurus pre-pro. The wild card is what the "Storm Optimizer" room EQ turns out to be.

The


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I have sent an e-mail to the sales departement of Storm Audio to clear some things out regarding 9.1.4 vs 7.1.6 etc. I will report when I get answered.

The DRC is apparently something from the Iosono company that parent Barco acquired. Not sure this is as sophisticated as Dirac. I read it does "time and frequency" correction. Which is only party of what Dirac does.


----------



## Hugo S

Hi again,

And the answer to the Stormaudio booth builder lies here :

http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post179139509.html#p179139509

Société Cinéma Privé, Jean-Pierre Lafont, IMO a really major professional in this field.

Hugo


----------



## gwsat

erwinfrombelgium said:


> No, thank you, Hugo.
> 
> Downside is that seeing thousands of flatscreens at ISE made me realize our own good old 65" JVC rear projection TV in our living room is outdated... Just now that I had made up my mind about updating the 5.1 set-up to 7.2.4 with made to size enclosure for LCR + subwoofers around the TV. Can't believe this whole set is now 8,5 years old.


You are in the same position I was in last year. I had a 60 inch Sony Kuro plasma, which had been state of the art in its day, but was eight years old. Also, my old Yamaha RX-V3900 couldn't handle either UHD HDR video or 7.1.4 audio. In July, I replaced my still perfect Kuro with a Sony 75 inch 75XBR X940D UHD HDR TV and my old Yamaha 3900 with a 7.2.4 capable Yamaha RX-A3060. The new setup has changed my life. I would be hard pressed to say whether UHD HDR video or immersive audio has added the most to my viewing pleasure but both have been great.


----------



## Ladeback

gwsat said:


> You are in the same position I was in last year. I had a 60 inch Sony Kuro plasma, which had been state of the art in its day, but was eight years old. Also, my old Yamaha RX-V3900 couldn't handle either UHD HDR video or 7.1.4 audio. In July, I replaced my still perfect Kuro with a Sony 75 inch 75XBR X940D UHD HDR TV and my old Yamaha 3900 with a 7.2.4 capable Yamaha RX-A3060. The new setup has changed my life. I would be hard pressed to say whether UHD HDR video or immersive audio has added the most to my viewing pleasure but both have been great.


Our main TV we watch shows/most movies and sports is 2007 Sony 60" rear projection TV. It looks ok as long as the bulb is new. The projector I have in my HT while I am building it is a Optoma HD65. It is ok, but after seeing the Epson 6040 on a nice 96" screen at local AV shop this Saturday I can't wait to upgrade to it. I then watched in another room with a 70" 4K flat panel TV with 7.2.2 Dolby Atmos and the speakers were all in-wall speakers blow me away. Their HT they have setup is a 7.2.4 Anthem AVM 60 I believe on a 106" screen. That is what I am hoping to have in my HT some day.


----------



## tokerblue

Thanks for everyone's advice on a 5.1.2 setup. Unfortunately, I loved the way everything sounding and now I want to do 5.1.4. My couch is against the back wall, so I wasn't able to place rear ceiling speakers there. I was also limited due to where the beams were located.

My current ceiling speakers are in position 1. I can put the speakers in position 2 or 3. I can also do a front height mount above my current L and R speakers instead of ceiling mounting. My initial thought is that position 3 will give me the best sound, but I was looking for any other opinions.


----------



## sdurani

tokerblue said:


> My current ceiling speakers are in position 1. I can put the speakers in position 2 or 3.


Position 3, just to get enough separation to hear front-to-back panning overhead.


----------



## Jond0

tokerblue said:


> Thanks for everyone's advice on a 5.1.2 setup. Unfortunately, I loved the way everything sounding and now I want to do 5.1.4. My couch is against the back wall, so I wasn't able to place rear ceiling speakers there. I was also limited due to where the beams were located.
> 
> My current ceiling speakers are in position 1. I can put the speakers in position 2 or 3. I can also do a front height mount above my current L and R speakers instead of ceiling mounting. My initial thought is that position 3 will give me the best sound, but I was looking for any other opinions.


Put in a set in position 2 and another set directly above your rear surrounds? Seems like you would get a good overhead sound bubble that way, or maybe just directly over your fronts and rears?


----------



## tokerblue

sdurani said:


> Position 3, just to get enough separation to hear front-to-back panning overhead.


Thanks. That's what I was originally thinking.



Jond0 said:


> Put in a set in position 2 and another set directly above your rear surrounds? Seems like you would get a good overhead sound bubble that way, or maybe just directly over your fronts and rears?


I already have a set of ceiling speakers at position 1. Unfortunately, there is no beam to mount the speakers above my rear surrounds. The closest beam has recessed lighting, so I can't get in there either. So I had to settle with slightly in front of the seating position.


----------



## Jond0

tokerblue said:


> I already have a set of ceiling speakers at position 1. Unfortunately, there is no beam to mount the speakers above my rear surrounds. The closest beam has recessed lighting, so I can't get in there either. So I had to settle with slightly in front of the seating position.


Ah, I missed that part sorry. Then position 3 is a good option.


----------



## brazensol

erwinfrombelgium said:


> No, thank you, Hugo.
> 
> Downside is that seeing thousands of flatscreens at ISE made me realize our own good old 65" JVC rear projection TV in our living room is outdated... Just now that I had made up my mind about updating the 5.1 set-up to 7.2.4 with made to size enclosure for LCR + subwoofers around the TV. Can't believe this whole set is now 8,5 years old.


I'm still using my 73" Mistubishi rear projector and am still quite happy with it!  Of course it doesn't do Atmos...


----------



## Bird-Dog

brazensol said:


> I'm still using my 73" Mistubishi rear projector and am still quite happy with it!  Of course it doesn't do Atmos...


The Atmos on my beautiful 82" Mitsubishi rear projection TV started working last summer after I had the TI DLP chip replaced and bought the Yamaha RX-A3060 accessory.


----------



## dschulz

Maybe this has already been posted on this thread ,but I didn't see it and seems like pretty big news. BT broadcast an English Premier League match in UHD with Dolby Atmos last month, and Sky has announced that they will be adding Atmos to their broadcasts later in 2017. 

So Atmos is starting to show up on broadcast/satellite TV, at least in the UK. Hey Netflix can you do us a solid and follow suit?


----------



## StevenC56

Do any current receivers or processors allow for an 11.2.4 system? I'm using an older Yamaha RX-Z11 receiver running an 11.2 system. Finally thinking about getting a new receiver or processor and moving to Atmos. I would like to retain my existing speaker setup which is basically a 7.2 system plus front and rear presence speaker pairs (11.2) and add 4 overhead speakers. (.4) I have some 2 channel amps that can be utilized as well since I don't see anything that has more than 11 built in amps. Does anything currently even offer processing for what I would like to do?


----------



## dschulz

StevenC56 said:


> Do any current receivers or processors allow for an 11.2.4 system?currently even offer processing for what I would like to do?


Currently the only processor that can handle that many Atmos outputs is the Trinnov Altitude.


----------



## StevenC56

dschulz said:


> Currently the only processor that can handle that many Atmos outputs is the Trinnov Altitude.


That's well beyond my budget. Looks like I'll have to wait until the technology trickles down a bit into the mainstream.


----------



## StevenC56

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX7200WA/NA/EN/fig/Pict SP Position2_UJDCILwssbzasu.png



I had seen this for the Denon AVR-X7200WA and thought maybe it was possible, but it appears 11 channels is the max and there are just alternate speaker locations.


----------



## Ricoflashback

I think the max you can go is 9.x.4. That's what I have with Front Wides and Front/Rear Heights (Atmos) with a separate two channel receiver and the older Denon x5200. 

I'm not sure if there are any imminent AVR releases that expand this capacity. I know many people would like x.x.6 - - but I'm not sure where that is in the product cycle. The Trinnov looks like a dream solution but only if I could drive it off the lot. (And I need monthly payments, to boot!)


----------



## smurraybhm

Ricoflashback said:


> I think the max you can go is 9.x.4. That's what I have with Front Wides and Front/Rear Heights (Atmos) with a separate two channel receiver and the older Denon x5200.
> 
> I'm not sure if there are any imminent AVR releases that expand this capacity. I know many people would like x.x.6 - - but I'm not sure where that is in the product cycle. The Trinnov looks like a dream solution but only if I could drive it off the lot. (And I need monthly payments, to boot!)


You can set up 9.x.4 with the a number of "affordable" receivers, but you'll only get 7.x.4 when playing something back - maybe that's what you meant? Only way to expand beyond the 7.x.4 limitation is to do a multi-unit setup which some have named Scatmos 

I think we will never see more than 7.x.4 on the regular run of the manufacturer receivers and processors. Emo may be the greatest hope for something "affordable" that offers more than that, but given their track record its likely we won't see it for a while.


----------



## Ricoflashback

smurraybhm said:


> You can set up 9.x.4 with the a number of "affordable" receivers, but you'll only get 7.x.4 when playing something back - maybe that's what you meant? Only way to expand beyond the 7.x.4 limitation is to do a multi-unit setup which some have named Scatmos
> 
> I think we will never see more than 7.x.4 on the regular run of the manufacturer receivers and processors. Emo may be the greatest hope for something "affordable" that offers more than that, but given their track record its likely we won't see it for a while.


Yes - correct. I use the Front Wides with DTS Neo X (older AVR & for news/sports) and for movies, it's Dolby Atmos with FH/FR and no wides. I love the Scatmos name although it seems like a lot of work. I'm surprised someone hasn't addressed the price gap between current Atmos receivers and the Trinnov Altitude Pre-Amp. It seems like a nice product fit for a company like Emotiva. It's also a way to sell their amplifiers.


----------



## Ladeback

StevenC56 said:


> Do any current receivers or processors allow for an 11.2.4 system? I'm using an older Yamaha RX-Z11 receiver running an 11.2 system. Finally thinking about getting a new receiver or processor and moving to Atmos. I would like to retain my existing speaker setup which is basically a 7.2 system plus front and rear presence speaker pairs (11.2) and add 4 overhead speakers. (.4) I have some 2 channel amps that can be utilized as well since I don't see anything that has more than 11 built in amps. Does anything currently even offer processing for what I would like to do?


I believe the Marantz AV7702 will do what you want. I was just looking at it on Crutchfield and it says it will do 13.2. Here is the link to the AV7702. Check out the Details page. I would guess an extra 2 channel amp would be needed, but it sounds like you have one.

https://www.crutchfield.com/p_642AV7702/Marantz-AV7702.html?search=AV7702&osp=av7702&tp=47509


----------



## Ladeback

Ladeback said:


> I believe the Marantz AV7702 will do what you want. I was just looking at it on Crutchfield and it says it will do 13.2. Here is the link to the AV7702. Check out the Details page. I would guess an extra 2 channel amp would be needed, but it sounds like you have one.
> 
> https://www.crutchfield.com/p_642AV7702/Marantz-AV7702.html?search=AV7702&osp=av7702&tp=47509


I guess the link won't work. I would check out the AV7702 though.

Amazon has it for $1599.

https://www.amazon.com/Marantz-AV77...qid=1486652529&sr=8-1&keywords=marantz+av7702


----------



## Mashie Saldana

smurraybhm said:


> You can set up 9.x.4 with the a number of "affordable" receivers, but you'll only get 7.x.4 when playing something back - maybe that's what you meant? Only way to expand beyond the 7.x.4 limitation is to do a multi-unit setup which some have named Scatmos
> 
> I think we will never see more than 7.x.4 on the regular run of the manufacturer receivers and processors. Emo may be the greatest hope for something "affordable" that offers more than that, but given their track record its likely we won't see it for a while.


9.1.4 is easy to set up, all you need is two Atmos AVRs, 9.1.6 is a bit trickier as you add scatmos (PLII matrixing) to the mix.

Here is how I do it: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ema-budget-9-1-6-12x12-room.html#post46974841


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ladeback said:


> I believe the Marantz AV7702 will do what you want. I was just looking at it on Crutchfield and it says it will do 13.2. Here is the link to the AV7702. Check out the Details page. I would guess an extra 2 channel amp would be needed, but it sounds like you have one.
> 
> https://www.crutchfield.com/p_642AV7702/Marantz-AV7702.html?search=AV7702&osp=av7702&tp=47509


It has indeed 13.2 outputs but it can only ever use 11.2 at any given time. This is so you can have multiple speaker layouts to swap between.


----------



## StevenC56

That Marantz looks to be discontinued. The Denon 6300 shows what I would like to do on pages 61-62 on the manual, but you have to choose between the front and rear heights or the 4 ceiling locations-Can't do both unless there's a way to get creative and use the speaker and pre-outs too. I think the Denon 7200 mentions 13 channel operation as well.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

StevenC56 said:


> That Marantz looks to be discontinued. The Denon 6300 shows what I would like to do on pages 61-62 on the manual, but you have to choose between the front and rear heights or the 4 ceiling locations-Can't do both unless there's a way to get creative and use the speaker and pre-outs too. I think the Denon 7200 mentions 13 channel operation as well.


Nothing sold by either Denon/Marantz/Yamaha/Onkyo/Pioneer will drive more than 11 speakers and 2 subwoofers.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Mashie Saldana said:


> Nothing sold by either Denon/Marantz/Yamaha/Onkyo/Pioneer will drive more than 11 speakers and 2 subwoofers.


I have the Denon 7200wa and can confirm the unit will permit active connections of 13.2 speakers and subs in various configurations for ATMOS, DTS:X and AURO. However, only 11 channels can be active at any one time and/or specific sound field mode. 

This permits you to have alternating speaker configurations already hooked up and ready to go on the fly. Just will not engage or active more then 11.2. channels simultaneously. Even with external amplification.


----------



## Ted99

Mashie Saldana said:


> 9.1.4 is easy to set up, all you need is two Atmos AVRs, 9.1.6 is a bit trickier as you add scatmos (PLII matrixing) to the mix.
> 
> Here is how I do it: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ema-budget-9-1-6-12x12-room.html#post46974841


Would you please show the simple 9.1.4/ two Atmos AVR setup? I get left behind with the need for matrixing to get .6. In fact, what I'd like to do is combine my 7702MkII with a Denon X3300H to get 9.1.4; but I'd like to get some extra along with it by using the 3300 to feed a second "center" speaker located above the screen. I'd also like to get .3 audyssey-calibrated subs by using L and R subs from the 7702 and a rear from the 3300. With each "center" being Eq'd separately, the combined output after Eq would be about 3 dB up from the Audyssey setting, but I routinely manually raise the gain on the center by 3dB anyway.

BUT: JDSmoothie advises that Audyssey cannot be run on the 3300H unless FL and FR speakers are present. Is the solution to this to run Audyssey on the 3300H with FL and FR speakers connected, along with C and Height 2 (Height 1 having been part of the 9.2.2 setup) and then manually reducing the gain to FL and FR to zero? I presume one must have at least one set of heights present in each AVR to "activate" the atmos rendering in each? Would I really have to keep the fake FL and FL speakers (with gain at zero) hooked up to keep the Audyssey in the 3300H functioning, or could I just remove them once the Audyssey is set up?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ted99 said:


> Would you please show the simple 9.1.4/ two Atmos AVR setup? I get left behind with the need for matrixing to get .6. In fact, what I'd like to do is combine my 7702MkII with a Denon X3300H to get 9.1.4; but I'd like to get some extra along with it by using the 3300 to feed a second "center" speaker located above the screen. I'd also like to get .3 audyssey-calibrated subs by using L and R subs from the 7702 and a rear from the 3300. With each "center" being Eq'd separately, the combined output after Eq would be about 3 dB up from the Audyssey setting, but I routinely manually raise the gain on the center by 3dB anyway.
> 
> BUT: JDSmoothie advises that Audyssey cannot be run on the 3300H unless FL and FR speakers are present. Is the solution to this to run Audyssey on the 3300H with FL and FR speakers connected, along with C and Height 2 (Height 1 having been part of the 9.2.2 setup) and then manually reducing the gain to FL and FR to zero? I presume one must have at least one set of heights present in each AVR to "activate" the atmos rendering in each? Would I really have to keep the fake FL and FL speakers (with gain at zero) hooked up to keep the Audyssey in the 3300H functioning, or could I just remove them once the Audyssey is set up?


Did you check the link to post 5 in my build thread, that is explaining it in detail below the picture.

Just because you don't have a speaker connected doesn't mean you have to disable the output on the AVR. Set up the base one to 9.2.2 and the top for 5.1.4. During the Audyssey setup have all speakers connected, unplug the ones intended for the other AVR afterwards.

Do you want all 3 subs to work together as one? Then you need to make sure all the speakers use the same crossover frequencies or weird things will happen. At least that way the same sounds are sent to all of them. Since you have to set up the delays very accurately between the AVRs using REW to get the three subs to integrate it shouldn't be a lot of extra work to get the two centres working either. It is all about getting the delays matched across the two units.


----------



## batpig

StevenC56 said:


> Do any current receivers or processors allow for an 11.2.4 system? I'm using an older Yamaha RX-Z11 receiver running an 11.2 system. Finally thinking about getting a new receiver or processor and moving to Atmos. I would like to retain my existing speaker setup which is basically a 7.2 system plus front and rear presence speaker pairs (11.2) and add 4 overhead speakers. (.4) I have some 2 channel amps that can be utilized as well since I don't see anything that has more than 11 built in amps. Does anything currently even offer processing for what I would like to do?


As an FYI, the Yamaha "presence" speakers correspond to Front/Rear "Heights", so what you're describing is actually a 7.1.8 system (i.e. a 7ch base with an overhead array consisting of 4 pairs of height speakers).

As others have noted, 11 channels total is the max for any non-$20K receiver or processor at this point. Emotiva has been promoting an upcoming unit with a ~$5K price which looks like it may be able to to a 7.1.6 setup, which means you could keep your front/rear heights and then add a pair more directly overhead. 

You could also just get a newer Yamaha flagship unit and run 7.1.4 with your current presence speakers as front/rear height.


----------



## batpig

Ted99 said:


> Would you please show the simple 9.1.4/ two Atmos AVR setup? I get left behind with the need for matrixing to get .6. In fact, what I'd like to do is combine my 7702MkII with a Denon X3300H to get 9.1.4;


You can't do it with the Denon X3300H or any other 7ch unit, in order for the 9.1.4 to work properly you need the second unit to be capable of 9ch processing at a minimum (so the Denon X4200W from last year for example would be a better choice).

The way it works is pretty simple -- the primary 11ch unit is set up for 9.1.2, with the single Top Middle pair of overheads ensuring that any overhead sound is extracted from the 9 floor speakers. This first unit then runs the 9 floor speakers as a discrete base layer. Then the second unit operates in 5.1.4 mode, and only operates the 4 height speakers.

That gives you 9.1.4 without any "slop" or overlap between channels.



Ted99 said:


> but I'd like to get some extra along with it by using the 3300 to feed a second "center" speaker located above the screen.


If you want to do dual centers above/below the screen, I think it makes more sense to split the CC output from the Marantz 7702 to two channels of amplification so it can set level/delay and EQ for the summed response of the two centers. Having two centers run separately by two different processors sounds like a bad idea.



Ted99 said:


> I'd also like to get .3 audyssey-calibrated subs by using L and R subs from the 7702 and a rear from the 3300.


Also a bad idea -- Audyssey NEEDS to EQ the SUMMED response of all the subs to work properly. If you have two subs EQ's by one processor to be flat, and then a third sub EQ'd by another processor to be flat, when you combine the response the sum will be NOT flat due to the way bass waves interact. The correct way to do >2 subs is to split an output off one of the Marantz sub outs, and/or use a MiniDSP 2x4 if you need additional control to set delays or filters. If you have two front subs and one rear sub, the easiest way is to drive the front pair as Sub1 and then the rear sub as Sub2 so the front/rear groups get separate level/delay settings. If the front two subs are fairly symmetrically placed this will work fine.


----------



## Ted99

Mashie Saldana said:


> Did you check the link to post 5 in my build thread, that is explaining it in detail below the picture.
> 
> Just because you don't have a speaker connected doesn't mean you have to disable the output on the AVR. Set up the base one to 9.2.2 and the top for 5.1.4. During the Audyssey setup have all speakers connected, unplug the ones intended for the other AVR afterwards.
> 
> Do you want all 3 subs to work together as one? Then you need to make sure all the speakers use the same crossover frequencies or weird things will happen. At least that way the same sounds are sent to all of them. Since you have to set up the delays very accurately between the AVRs using REW to get the three subs to integrate it shouldn't be a lot of extra work to get the two centres working either. It is all about getting the delays matched across the two units.


Thanks very much for the answer and the pioneering work. The real clincher, for my understanding, is your second paragraph above. It's the key for my step-by-step understanding of your process. My room is also 12 x 12', with the PJ in a bump-back into a 2' deep closet to get the PJ minimum throw of 12' lens to screen. The 12" L and R subs are identical ported. The rear, under the PJ, is a sealed 18" nearfield. I'm hoping for a seamless integration, even with independent Audyssey calibrations. Currently, the L & R subs are fed from sub1 and a Y connector and the 18" from sub2 and are integrated thru Aud. The 18" being nearfield (30" away and behind the MLP) and having a lower -3dB point and smoother rolloff than the two 12" ported subs located under the main L & R speakers should integrate without too many problems. I'm hoping to avoid yet another equipment purchase (REW) for a temporary need--Looking forward to the Emo RMC-1 with Dirac processing for 3 subs.


----------



## asarose247

@RiCofflashback : I love the Scatmos name although it seems like a lot of work.

When I first saw the diagram, yes, a bit of work.
That is exactly the same thought process when first opening /perusing (as I did for my first DIY ever) a set of plans for a BFM sub or whatever build.

The beauty of the "subtle" psychology that Bill uses is simple: Read the plans. Then re-read the plans. And if you have a question - the answer? It's in the plans.

Scott's diagram is a similar gem of "simplicity" : Assign pre-outs. Plug. Play. (finessing balanced properly xo'd and EQ'd response in the details).
QED


----------



## Ted99

@batpig: Wow--you addressed every one of my concerns. You must have posted as I was typing my above answer. Very simply and clearly, too. In my current single 7702MkII setup, what you recommend for the dual centers and the 3 subs is exactly what I am doing. It looks like trying to get fancier with Audyssey if one has two AV processors is not a good idea. I'm using wides and no SB speakers, which seems like the least loss--The MLP is only 30" from the rear wall and the Rear Heights seem to be doing a good job of making up for the lack of SB bed speakers. I was holding off on purchase of the X3300H until I better understood the setup and it looks like that's a purchase that's not going to be made. Thanks for your knowledge and ability to clearly communicate it.


----------



## veger69

Ok I'm setting up a Dolby atmos system and looking at purchasing new surrounds and was wondering if the frequency response would make a big enough difference to justify spending 2000 on SVS ULTRA. I'm looking at 
hsu 60-20khz 159$
SVS prime 48hz 25khz 250$
SVS ULTRA - 45hz-32khz 500$ per
Air motive b1 48hz-28khz 300$
I also need some suggestions for good ceiling speakers. 
How important is to timber match the surrounds and ceiling to my Revel F32? And how would you go about it?
Thanks all



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## veger69

I may go with Revel M105 and C763 ceiling speakers if you guys think timber matching is important. Has anyone heard of designer audio video they sell Revel online probably not authorized dealers 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

batpig said:


> As an FYI, the Yamaha "presence" speakers correspond to Front/Rear "Heights", so what you're describing is actually a 7.1.8 system (i.e. a 7ch base with an overhead array consisting of 4 pairs of height speakers).
> 
> As others have noted, 11 channels total is the max for any non-$20K receiver or processor at this point. Emotiva has been promoting an upcoming unit with a ~$5K price which looks like it may be able to to a 7.1.6 setup, which means you could keep your front/rear heights and then add a pair more directly overhead.
> 
> You could also just get a newer Yamaha flagship unit and run 7.1.4 with your current presence speakers as front/rear height.


Since I've only had Yamaha Processors and receivers for the last 20+ years (Starting with the DSPA-1000) and only have experience with them, do the front and rear height channels on these newer non-Yamaha receivers operate with only 5/7 channel source material like the Yamaha models do, or only when the source material has an Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## zeus33

StevenC56 said:


> Since I've only had Yamaha Processors and receivers for the last 20+ years (Starting with the DSPA-1000) and only have experience with them, do the front and rear height channels on these newer non-Yamaha receivers operate with only 5/7 channel source material like the Yamaha models do, or only when the source material has an Atmos soundtrack?



Dolby's upmixer (Dolby Surround) and DTS' upmixer (Neural:X) will matrix sound to the height speakers when engaged.


----------



## StevenC56

Wouldn't it be possible to use a speaker switcher with the front and rear height channel outputs from the receiver to the switcher's inputs, with 8 outputs to the 4 height and 4 overhead speakers making it possible to utilize the heights for non Atmos material or switch to the 4 overhead speaker for Atmos material?


----------



## veger69

Yes But if you had any calibration on one set they would be carried over to the other


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## whereisfifty

Mods please delete

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

veger69 said:


> Yes But if you had any calibration on one set they would be carried over to the other
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Do any of the current receivers allow for more than 1 stored calibration set?


----------



## Willemvanvugt

Hi all, does anyone know of a WIRELESS surround system that in addition to Dolby Atmos (plenty of those) also supports DTS X? I want a system which also supports REAR speakers and have not been able to find it.


----------



## Jonas2

veger69 said:


> I may go with Revel M105 and C763 ceiling speakers if you guys think timber matching is important. Has anyone heard of designer audio video they sell Revel online probably not authorized dealers


If you can match, yes - this is ideal. However, not the end of the world if you can't match in-ceilings and surrounds. Some will say I'm wrong. 

Designer Audio Video - Yes, had a good conversation with one of their sales agents by phone. Very nice guy, very helpful. No purchase experience. Just know that they are not necessarily a Factory Authorized reseller. If you are concerned with this, contact your manufacturer of interest and consult with them. EX: DefTech - confirmed for me they are not an authorized reseller, and did not know how they acquire their items for resale. Not saying anything is fishy or bad about that, it just is what it is. I'd imagine a lot of folks have had great experiences with them.


----------



## zimmo

the new processor emotiva comming eventually whit 16 chanels cost 5000 dollars this year maybe.


----------



## Ricoflashback

zimmo said:


> the new processor emotiva comming eventually whit 16 chanels cost 5000 dollars this year maybe.


Right you are! This announcement slipped by me: http://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/emotiva-rmc-1-atmos-dts-x-av-processor 

On the audio side, the RMC-1 features a full 16 channels of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X surround sound (7.3.6 channels), with a decoded audio signal for each channel that is processed by a separate high performance AKM Verita™ 32-bit DAC, operated in what Emotiva refers to as "precision balanced mono mode". Support is provided for native audio decoding of single- and double-rate DSD digital audio signals, accepted from either HDMI or USB sources. DSP processing is handled by two state of the art dual core ADSP-SC573 SHARC DSP chips from Analog Devices. Emotiva is currently the only AV manufacturer that we know of employing these chips.


----------



## Scott Simonian

StevenC56 said:


> Do any current receivers or processors allow for an 11.2.4 system? I'm using an older Yamaha RX-Z11 receiver running an 11.2 system. Finally thinking about getting a new receiver or processor and moving to Atmos. I would like to retain my existing speaker setup which is basically a 7.2 system plus front and rear presence speaker pairs (11.2) and add 4 overhead speakers. (.4) I have some 2 channel amps that can be utilized as well since I don't see anything that has more than 11 built in amps. Does anything currently even offer processing for what I would like to do?





batpig said:


> As an FYI, the Yamaha "presence" speakers correspond to Front/Rear "Heights", so what you're describing is actually a 7.1.8 system (i.e. a 7ch base with an overhead array consisting of 4 pairs of height speakers).
> 
> As others have noted, 11 channels total is the max for any non-$20K receiver or processor at this point. Emotiva has been promoting an upcoming unit with a ~$5K price which looks like it may be able to to a 7.1.6 setup, which means you could keep your front/rear heights and then add a pair more directly overhead.
> 
> You could also just get a newer Yamaha flagship unit and run 7.1.4 with your current presence speakers as front/rear height.





StevenC56 said:


> Since I've only had Yamaha Processors and receivers for the last 20+ years (Starting with the DSPA-1000) and only have experience with them, do the front and rear height channels on these newer non-Yamaha receivers operate with only 5/7 channel source material like the Yamaha models do, or only when the source material has an Atmos soundtrack?





StevenC56 said:


> Wouldn't it be possible to use a speaker switcher with the front and rear height channel outputs from the receiver to the switcher's inputs, with 8 outputs to the 4 height and 4 overhead speakers making it possible to utilize the heights for non Atmos material or switch to the 4 overhead speaker for Atmos material?


I don't see why you need to use a speaker switcher. You can leave your "heights" where they are and continue to use both CinemaDSP modes and (if you upgrade) any of the two new immersive audio formats. Both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X support that speaker location. Personally, I'd recommend moving them further up onto the ceiling than high on the wall but that is another discussion.

Nor does the system have to be some sort of 11.x.8 layout simply to adhere to Yamaha's old thinking of having their "presence" speakers high up on the wall. The system works the same with the presence speakers mounted on the ceiling.

No, there are no current processors that support >7.1.4 layouts unless you pony up for the Trinnov. Rumors abound of some mystical piece of gear by somebody that will do more but it's all crazy expensive vaporware so far.

I'm a Yamaha fan and would recommend the current 5100 pre/pro but even if I wasn't, I would still recommend it. If you want to get into the immersive audio world, it's a good buy and pretty much a 'drop-in' for your current system.

That 11.x.4 system will have to wait though.


----------



## StevenC56

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't see why you need to use a speaker switcher. You can leave your "heights" where they are and continue to use both CinemaDSP modes and (if you upgrade) any of the two new immersive audio formats. Both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X support that speaker location. Personally, I'd recommend moving them further up onto the ceiling than high on the wall but that is another discussion.
> 
> Nor does the system have to be some sort of 11.x.8 layout simply to adhere to Yamaha's old thinking of having their "presence" speakers high up on the wall. The system works the same with the presence speakers mounted on the ceiling.
> 
> No, there are no current processors that support >7.1.4 layouts unless you pony up for the Trinnov. Rumors abound of some mystical piece of gear by somebody that will do more but it's all crazy expensive vaporware so far.
> 
> I'm a Yamaha fan and would recommend the current 5100 pre/pro but even if I wasn't, I would still recommend it. If you want to get into the immersive audio world, it's a good buy and pretty much a 'drop-in' for your current system.
> 
> That 11.x.4 system will have to wait though.


I would like to retain my current speaker setup with the 4 presence speakers, but I have also purchased 4 in ceiling Def Tech speakers to match all my existing DT speakers. I was just hoping I could either run all 8 or at least switch between to presence and ceiling speakers. I am considering the Yamaha 5100/5000 setup, but it looks like you can only have one room correction set and I was hoping to have different profiles I could engage for presence VS ceiling.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Willemvanvugt said:


> Hi all, does anyone know of a WIRELESS surround system that in addition to Dolby Atmos (plenty of those) also supports DTS X? I want a system which also supports REAR speakers and have not been able to find it.


No idea... but that's a cool King Crimson avatar, Willem!


----------



## Willemvanvugt

erwinfrombelgium said:


> No idea... but that's a cool King Crimson avatar, Willem!


Thanks! Lovely music.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn Lenovo P2a42 met Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

StevenC56 said:


> I would like to retain my current speaker setup with the 4 presence speakers, but I have also purchased 4 in ceiling Def Tech speakers to match all my existing DT speakers. I was just hoping I could either run all 8 or at least switch between to presence and ceiling speakers. I am considering the Yamaha 5100/5000 setup, but it looks like you can only have one room correction set and I was hoping to have different profiles I could engage for presence VS ceiling.




Yamaha receivers have a setting called "patterns" that actually allow you to do just what you are asking. I do not own a Yamaha but from reading you can set what speakers run and have separate YPAO calibrations saved and switch between the patterns as you desire when you want to use your tops vs your presence speakers. Hopefully a Yamaha owner will chime in here or you can google "Yamaha patterns" for more info. I found the following link when searching https://www.manualslib.com/manual/986249/Yamaha-Aventage-Rx-A3050.html?page=133


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't see why you need to use a speaker switcher. You can leave your "heights" where they are and continue to use both CinemaDSP modes and (if you upgrade) any of the two new immersive audio formats. Both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X support that speaker location. Personally, I'd recommend moving them further up onto the ceiling than high on the wall but that is another discussion.
> 
> Nor does the system have to be some sort of 11.x.8 layout simply to adhere to Yamaha's old thinking of having their "presence" speakers high up on the wall. The system works the same with the presence speakers mounted on the ceiling.
> 
> No, there are no current processors that support >7.1.4 layouts unless you pony up for the Trinnov. Rumors abound of some mystical piece of gear by somebody that will do more but it's all crazy expensive vaporware so far.
> 
> I'm a Yamaha fan and would recommend the current 5100 pre/pro but even if I wasn't, I would still recommend it. If you want to get into the immersive audio world, it's a good buy and pretty much a 'drop-in' for your current system.
> 
> That 11.x.4 system will have to wait though.


You're right-It looks like the 5100/5000 combo is my best bet. And with the 2 patterns (See Below) for room correction I'll be able to use a switcher and choose between my 4 existing presense speakers for Cinema DSP modes or the 4 ceiling speakers I'm going to add for Atmos and DST:X.



usc1995 said:


> Yamaha receivers have a setting called "patterns" that actually allow you to do just what you are asking. I do not own a Yamaha but from reading you can set what speakers run and have separate YPAO calibrations saved and switch between the patterns as you desire when you want to use your tops vs your presence speakers. Hopefully a Yamaha owner will chime in here or you can google "Yamaha patterns" for more info. I found the following link when searching https://www.manualslib.com/manual/986249/Yamaha-Aventage-Rx-A3050.html?page=133
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Perfect! That's exactly what I need. Features like that is why I've owned so many Yamaha processors and receivers over the years.


----------



## Craig Mecak

StevenC56 said:


> You're right-It looks like the 5100/5000 combo is my best bet. And with the 2 patterns (See Below) for room correction I'll be able to use a switcher and choose between my 4 existing presense speakers for Cinema DSP modes or the 4 ceiling speakers I'm going to add for Atmos and DST:X.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect! That's exactly what I need. Features like that is why I've owned so many Yamaha processors and receivers over the years.


And which set of speakers will you use when you want to decode ATMOS/DTS:X whilst also overlaying Yamaha DSP effects? ;-)


----------



## StevenC56

Craig Mecak said:


> And which set of speakers will you use when you want to decode ATMOS/DTS:X whilst also overlaying Yamaha DSP effects? ;-)



I'll have to experiment with that, but I would think the overheads for all Atmos and DTS:X material.


----------



## Scott Simonian

StevenC56 said:


> You're right-It looks like the 5100/5000 combo is my best bet. And with the 2 patterns (See Below) for room correction I'll be able to use a switcher and choose between my 4 existing presense speakers for Cinema DSP modes or the 4 ceiling speakers I'm going to add for Atmos and DST:X.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect! That's exactly what I need. Features like that is why I've owned so many Yamaha processors and receivers over the years.


I personally use both Patterns available to do essentially what you want to do.

They are both identical, just that one pattern is set for HEIGHT and the other pattern is set for OVERHEAD.

I use one for Dolby Atmos and one for DTS:X because of ....reasons.


----------



## reburg99

*Best movies for Atmos?*

If everything goes as planned, I should be done and enjoys my theater room on Saturday. What movies have you guys found to have the best Atmos soundtrack? I'll be running 7.1.4 and can't wait!


----------



## trespoochies

John Wick is one of the best and cheapest. Gravity Luxe Edition is also a good reference one.


----------



## rontalley

reburg99 said:


> If everything goes as planned, I should be done and enjoys my theater room on Saturday. What movies have you guys found to have the best Atmos soundtrack? I'll be running 7.1.4 and can't wait!


I recently upgraded my TV to a 4k HDR compatible "Display"


----------



## lujan

reburg99 said:


> If everything goes as planned, I should be done and enjoys my theater room on Saturday. What movies have you guys found to have the best Atmos soundtrack? I'll be running 7.1.4 and can't wait!





trespoochies said:


> John Wick is one of the best and cheapest. Gravity Luxe Edition is also a good reference one.


I thought this one was very good as well:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-Blu-ray/138634/


----------



## Mashie Saldana

reburg99 said:


> If everything goes as planned, I should be done and enjoys my theater room on Saturday. What movies have you guys found to have the best Atmos soundtrack? I'll be running 7.1.4 and can't wait!


The first few films I will play are:

Gravity
Lucy
The Fifth Element
Sully
Deepwater Horizon
Hacksaw Ridge
13 days of Benghazi
Heart of the Sea

All available on BluRay thankfully.

If I had a UHD player I would add Deadpool, The Martian and Oblivion to the list.


----------



## StevenC56

Scott Simonian said:


> StevenC56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right-It looks like the 5100/5000 combo is my best bet. And with the 2 patterns (See Below) for room correction I'll be able to use a switcher and choose between my 4 existing presense speakers for Cinema DSP modes or the 4 ceiling speakers I'm going to add for Atmos and DST:X.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect! That's exactly what I need. Features like that is why I've owned so many Yamaha processors and receivers over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally use both Patterns available to do essentially what you want to do.
> 
> They are both identical, just that one pattern is set for HEIGHT and the other pattern is set for OVERHEAD.
> 
> I use one for Dolby Atmos and one for DTS:X because of ....reasons.
Click to expand...

How do you switch between the height and ceiling speakers? I've been looking for a speaker switcher that will do that, but I haven't found anything that will accept 4 inputs and 8 outputs.


----------



## Scott Simonian

StevenC56 said:


> How do you switch between the height and ceiling speakers? I've been looking for a speaker switcher that will do that, but I haven't found anything that will accept 4 inputs and 8 outputs.


I'm not *physically* moving or switching speaker locations, I'm changing the setting for the location in the main configuration screen.

From the manual:


----------



## StevenC56

Scott Simonian said:


> StevenC56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you switch between the height and ceiling speakers? I've been looking for a speaker switcher that will do that, but I haven't found anything that will accept 4 inputs and 8 outputs.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not *physically* moving or switching speaker locations, I'm changing the setting for the location in the main configuration screen.
> 
> From the manual:
Click to expand...

I see. My plan is to physically use both front and rear height speakers, plus 4 overhead speakers and switch between them. Looks like I'm heading into uncharted territory.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Not exactly. Use the method I described and use an external switcher.

All you have to do is find a switcher with stereo input and two stereo outputs. Couldn't be too hard to find that! Hook up each front and rear pair to a switcher and then switch between the physical locations.

Having the two preset PATTERNS only aids in what you want to do.


----------



## batpig

StevenC56 said:


> I see. My plan is to physically use both front and rear height speakers, plus 4 overhead speakers and switch between them. Looks like I'm heading into uncharted territory.


You'd basically need to combine the "pattern" setting with a physical speaker switch to do what you want to accomplish.


----------



## jayraysaiz

rontalley said:


> However, if you want to test if your system is setup properly then Gravity is the movie for that. I thought my Atmos setup was perfect until I watched Gravity. Voices were all over the place. Finally understood what I was doing wrong and Gravity became an audio masterpiece!
> 
> Enjoy.


I am curious, what were you doing wrong with your set up? I have yet to watch gravity in Atmos.


----------



## rontalley

jayraysaiz said:


> I am curious, what were you doing wrong with your set up? I have yet to watch gravity in Atmos.


First Setup,
1. "Ceiling" Speakers were little sattlelites I had stole from a Sony HTIB. (DAV-DZ170)
2. Had them boys cranked up to plus 7 and to me they sounded decent.
3. Gravity revealed that I was fooling myself.
4. Had no idea what YPAO was and hadn't ran it!

Second Setup,
1. Purchased better Ceiling Speaker and these blew the little Sonys out of the water. WOW!!!
2. Again, I thought this couldn't get any better.
3. Gravity revealed again how crappy my setup was.
4. Fronts were at like 52 degrees because of the way my room was set up.
5. Only about 6' from Ceiling Fronts to Backs.

Third Setup,
1. No acoustical treatment
2. Gravity sounded much better but could definately tell something was off. (That damn bird!)


----------



## Kris Deering

StevenC56 said:


> Do any of the current receivers allow for more than 1 stored calibration set?


The Anthem receivers will allow multiple stored calibrations and also multiple configurations based on a calibration.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

^ I agree, and I did say it a few times myself in other threads. "Gravity" atmos is a true test of your atmos capabilities. Well done rontally.


----------



## hatlesschimp

dschulz said:


> Maybe this has already been posted on this thread ,but I didn't see it and seems like pretty big news. BT broadcast an English Premier League match in UHD with Dolby Atmos last month, and Sky has announced that they will be adding Atmos to their broadcasts later in 2017.
> 
> So Atmos is starting to show up on broadcast/satellite TV, at least in the UK. Hey Netflix can you do us a solid and follow suit?


Australia will see Atmos in 2058. Hell we cant even watch the premier league unless we have a telephone or internet on 24 month plan with Optus. What a load of BS.



Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

jayraysaiz said:


> I am curious, what were you doing wrong with your set up? I have yet to watch gravity in Atmos.


Gravity (specifically the first scene) is a torture test for timbre matching and spatial accuracy because there are voices floating all around the room -- around you, above you, etc.

When you're listening to an action flick and there's explosions and stuff it's hard to tell subtle timbral differences. However, our ears are extremely sensitive to the human voice due to evolution, and as such if a voice pans slowly from one position to another you're going to be much more able to pick out a subtle timbral shift that would not be as obvious as, say, if a space ship rips by at high speed.

I have a fairly mismatched setup right now, and thanks to Audyssey XT32 and bass management it's mostly unnoticeable for a the vast majority of content. However that first scene in Gravity makes it obvious that things aren't perfect.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup. 

Parts of Gravity (like the very beginning with panning dialog) reveals ALL that is wrong with an Atmos system.

I'd love to hear it on a system with 100% identical speakers all around.


----------



## jayraysaiz

batpig said:


> Gravity (specifically the first scene) is a torture test for timbre matching and spatial accuracy because there are voices floating all around the room -- around you, above you, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're listening to an action flick and there's explosions and stuff it's hard to tell subtle timbral differences. However, our ears are extremely sensitive to the human voice due to evolution, and as such if a voice pans slowly from one position to another you're going to be much more able to pick out a subtle timbral shift that would not be as obvious as, say, if a space ship rips by at high speed.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a fairly mismatched setup right now, and thanks to Audyssey XT32 and bass management it's mostly unnoticeable for a the vast majority of content. However that first scene in Gravity makes it obvious that things aren't perfect.




Thanks for the explanation. I never used the AccuEQ room equalizer that came with my Onkyo. Mainly because I didn't want to buy a 70ish foot 3.5mm extension. I just used the speaker distance and test tones to adjust the level. 

I do have all the same brand and series of speakers but I am not certain they are timber matched. 

Now I want to go rent Gravity to see if my set up is correct. Too bad they haven't released a 4k UHD version yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jayraysaiz

rontalley said:


> First Setup,
> 
> 1. "Ceiling" Speakers were little sattlelites I had stole from a Sony HTIB. (DAV-DZ170)
> 
> 2. Had them boys cranked up to plus 7 and to me they sounded decent.
> 
> 3. Gravity revealed that I was fooling myself.
> 
> 4. Had no idea what YPAO was and hadn't ran it!
> 
> 
> 
> Second Setup,
> 
> 1. Purchased better Ceiling Speaker and these blew the little Sonys out of the water. WOW!!!
> 
> 2. Again, I thought this couldn't get any better.
> 
> 3. Gravity revealed again how crappy my setup was.
> 
> 4. Fronts were at like 52 degrees because of the way my room was set up.
> 
> 5. Only about 6' from Ceiling Fronts to Backs.
> 
> 
> 
> Third Setup,
> 
> 1. No acoustical treatment
> 
> 2. Gravity sounded much better but could definately tell something was off. (That damn bird!)


----------



## JETeague

Mashie Saldana said:


> The first few films I will play are:
> 
> Gravity
> Lucy
> The Fifth Element
> Sully
> Deepwater Horizon
> Hacksaw Ridge
> 13 days of Benghazi
> Heart of the Sea
> 
> All available on BluRay thankfully.
> 
> If I had a UHD player I would add Deadpool, The Martian and Oblivion to the list.


It will be at least a month before I finish my 5.1.4 build out.
Number 1 on my list is
Gravity: I ordered the Luxe edition from Canada just so I could break in the system. Good to hear it's a revealing challenge for the system.

Followed by
Fifth Element
MI: Rogue Nation

I really should pick up Sully after the build out is complete. I rented and watched in 5.1 and imagine the Atmos will be amazing.
.


----------



## tabraham1

Really hoping this is the right place to ask this question:

Currently have the following setup:

L/R - Cambridge Audio S30 Bookshelves
C - Cambridge Audio SX-70 Center
Sub -SVS-SB1000

Trying to figure out the best way to create a surround environment / Atmos would be awesome if achievable.

The L/R flank the TV toed in towards LP, Center is below the TV, raised slightly to aim towards LP. I know the standard surround orientation states to have the 5/7 speakers of the 5.x.x/7.x.x configuration to be at ear level, but that cannot be the case for me. I cannot use in/on wall speakers for surrounds, nor does the WAF accept bookshelves on stands....which leads me to my question...Is there a way to achieve good sounding surround and/OR atmos if all other speakers are in-ceiling? I am at a fork in the road and want to know if pursuing ceiling speakers to establish surround are worthwhile or should I just invest in upgrading LCR and leave it at that.... 

Ive included a VERY rough drawing of the living room, not to scale. (ceiling height is 9'/ tv wall to rear wall is about 15'). One thing to note is the couch is pushed all the way back, touching the rear wall/window. Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Hellohowareyou

batpig said:


> Gravity (specifically the first scene) is a torture test for timbre matching and spatial accuracy because there are voices floating all around the room -- around you, above you, etc.
> 
> When you're listening to an action flick and there's explosions and stuff it's hard to tell subtle timbral differences. However, our ears are extremely sensitive to the human voice due to evolution, and as such if a voice pans slowly from one position to another you're going to be much more able to pick out a subtle timbral shift that would not be as obvious as, say, if a space ship rips by at high speed.
> 
> I have a fairly mismatched setup right now, and thanks to Audyssey XT32 and bass management it's mostly unnoticeable for a the vast majority of content. However that first scene in Gravity makes it obvious that things aren't perfect.


100% correct! If you notice the scene, George Clooney is slowly floating in the air. The voice must not change in timbre and it must not seem to jump to a particular speaker, but rather transition gradually from front and in-plane to the heights and back. I'd also add another scene, but to a bit lesser extent while still a torture nonetheless, is near the very end where flies come from behind and hover above and in front of Sandra Bullock's head as she lies exhausted on the sand. Anyone who has camped or spent an evening outside will be able to relate to buzz of flies behind, and above you. Does it feel seamless in transition, or does it feel like the fly has suddenly jumped from speaker to speaker?

As one who has tried the Atmos before following the Dolby guide to the letter when building my room, the Gravity scene immediately screams at me where I lack (as a low height basement, reaching the preferred Atmos ceiling height was a problem for me). Having gone through the painful atmos build, I can tell you timbre match is rather easy. Get the same line of speakers as your in-plane surrounds from the manufacturer, and you're done. Spatial accuracy is another thing. Try getting the joist clearances at 45 degrees both front and back of the main listening position, after having negotiated all those HVAC's; and the recommended ceiling height. Which is why, your room layout is the single best thing you can do about your atmos acoustics (not those expensive speakers).


----------



## reburg99

This should be interesting then, I'm not 100% matching... I all polks, that are supposed to be timber matched (same series) outside of the 4 ceiling speakers. The are a series below everything else.... I just could justify spending that much on 4 ceiling speakers. That being said, they sound very comparable to the main system. Looks like Gravity will tell....


----------



## Hellohowareyou

reburg99 said:


> This should be interesting then, I'm not 100% matching... I all polks, that are supposed to be timber matched (same series) outside of the 4 ceiling speakers. The are a series below everything else.... I just could justify spending that much on 4 ceiling speakers. That being said, they sound very comparable to the main system. Looks like Gravity will tell....


May I ask, what are your in plane and atmos speakers?


----------



## reburg99

Over all very please with the system so far. I've not had it very long and have only had it set up in 7.1 for a month or so.... it's packed away in the attic at the moment waiting to be heard again . I can't wait to get everything installed and rocking! I think I've got everything right.... I'm not getting it out to double check.

Mains: RTi10
Center: CSi5
Surround and rears: Fxi5
Atmos:RC80i
Sub: Dayton Utilmax 15


----------



## Hellohowareyou

Did you ever give a call to Polk advisers? I suspect, your atmos speakers could be actually timbre matched to the line of your in planes. But they can verify. All good, except if it were me I would have chosen the RC60i instead of 80's because the 6.5 inch driver does better justice for the human voice and other similar mid-ranges. Again, Polk advisers will be able to give you the best guidance on the speakers, if you wished.


----------



## reburg99

Hellohowareyou said:


> Did you ever give a call to Polk advisers? I suspect, your atmos speakers could be actually timbre matched to the line of your in planes. But they can verify. All good, except if it were me I would have chosen the RC60i instead of 80's because the 6.5 inch driver does better justice for the human voice and other similar mid-ranges. Again, Polk advisers will be able to give you the best guidance on the speakers, if you wished.


I picked everything up used outside of the 80's which I picked up on Polk's ebay store(referbs). I briefly spoke with Polk about a PSW10 that came with the system. I think I chatted with them about the Atmos speakers, but honestly can't remember at this point. I can't completely argue with your point about the 6.5 vs the 8's, but I don't know if you'd notice it that much much of a difference.


----------



## StevenC56

Scott Simonian said:


> Not exactly. Use the method I described and use an external switcher.
> 
> All you have to do is find a switcher with stereo input and two stereo outputs. Couldn't be too hard to find that! Hook up each front and rear pair to a switcher and then switch between the physical locations.
> 
> Having the two preset PATTERNS only aids in what you want to do.


Right-I'll have to use 2 switchers like that. I was looking for a single switcher solution, but it doesn't look like there's anybody who makes one in that configuration.


----------



## mrtickleuk

jayraysaiz said:


> Thanks for the explanation. I never used the AccuEQ room equalizer that came with my Onkyo. Mainly because I didn't want to buy a 70ish foot 3.5mm extension.


When you consider the total cost of your amp and speakers, vs the small cost of an extension cable - surely it's a drop in the ocean? Calibration can make a large improvement and you may be missing out - go for it!


----------



## alfa1

tabraham1 said:


> Really hoping this is the right place to ask this question:
> 
> Currently have the following setup:
> 
> L/R - Cambridge Audio S30 Bookshelves
> C - Cambridge Audio SX-70 Center
> Sub -SVS-SB1000
> 
> Trying to figure out the best way to create a surround environment / Atmos would be awesome if achievable.
> 
> The L/R flank the TV toed in towards LP, Center is below the TV, raised slightly to aim towards LP. I know the standard surround orientation states to have the 5/7 speakers of the 5.x.x/7.x.x configuration to be at ear level, but that cannot be the case for me. I cannot use in/on wall speakers for surrounds, nor does the WAF accept bookshelves on stands....which leads me to my question...Is there a way to achieve good sounding surround and/OR atmos if all other speakers are in-ceiling? I am at a fork in the road and want to know if pursuing ceiling speakers to establish surround are worthwhile or should I just invest in upgrading LCR and leave it at that....
> 
> Ive included a VERY rough drawing of the living room, not to scale. (ceiling height is 9'/ tv wall to rear wall is about 15'). One thing to note is the couch is pushed all the way back, touching the rear wall/window. Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!


Only possible solution for in ceiling surrounds and Atmos AFAIK is special directional ceiling speakers designed to simulate ear level speakers; i.e Goldenear invisa 7000 or Definitive Technology RCS series. Depending on which direction your ceiling joists go, you could mount them on each side of your couch (preferred)(if joists go side to side), or behind your couch (if joists go front to back). 

Then, you could place your Atmos ceiling speakers in top middle position, slightly in front of your couch to create as much separation as possible from your surrounds.

The Goldenears are amiable so it may be possible to mount them to the side of your couch and aim them towards the couch even if the joists run front to back - not sure though.


----------



## jayraysaiz

mrtickleuk said:


> When you consider the total cost of your amp and speakers, vs the small cost of an extension cable - surely it's a drop in the ocean? Calibration can make a large improvement and you may be missing out - go for it!


Going to have to purchase gravity to test it out. There isn't a chance for a bad calibration since extension is pretty long? It is a drop in the ocean considering my flagship 2014 does not do DTS:X (I know wrong thread) and was basically out of date by the time I installed it....But hey Onkyo did offer me a $200 trade in for it.


----------



## jayraysaiz

Hellohowareyou said:


> 100% correct! If you notice the scene, George Clooney is slowly floating in the air. The voice must not change in timbre and it must not seem to jump to a particular speaker, but rather transition gradually from front and in-plane to the heights and back. I'd also add another scene, but to a bit lesser extent while still a torture nonetheless, is near the very end where flies come from behind and hover above and in front of Sandra Bullock's head as she lies exhausted on the sand. Anyone who has camped or spent an evening outside will be able to relate to buzz of flies behind, and above you. Does it feel seamless in transition, or does it feel like the fly has suddenly jumped from speaker to speaker?
> 
> As one who has tried the Atmos before following the Dolby guide to the letter when building my room, the Gravity scene immediately screams at me where I lack (as a low height basement, reaching the preferred Atmos ceiling height was a problem for me). Having gone through the painful atmos build, I can tell you timbre match is rather easy. Get the same line of speakers as your in-plane surrounds from the manufacturer, and you're done. Spatial accuracy is another thing. Try getting the joist clearances at 45 degrees both front and back of the main listening position, after having negotiated all those HVAC's; and the recommended ceiling height. Which is why, your room layout is the single best thing you can do about your atmos acoustics (not those expensive speakers).


What in the speaker specification do you look for to determine if you height speakers are timbre matched to your surrounds? I do not have an ideal room layout more of a great room set up. 

However my 5.1.4 set up fits nicely in the main listening area. The only exception is my left surround placement is slightly towards the front of the seating area (like 15-20 degree angle)due to my sliding glass door location. My height speakers are about as close as I could get them to the top front and top rear since my listening/viewing area is at a 45 degree angle to my roof trusses. They do have an adjustable woofer and tweeter that I have angled down toward the center listening area. 

My rear surrounds sit about 1.5 feet below directly below my ceiling (11 feet) attached to a kitchen soffit only place I could put them. I don't have any issues hearing rear surround even though they are a good 15 ish feet my the back of my couch and about 9.5 feet in the air.

All the speakers are the reference primer line. I have also tried different sub locations and I'm just not feeling the sub in the front location. It sounds and feels better when it is place in the corner of the room slightly behind my listening area or directly behind the couch (on the wall of course)


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> Gravity (specifically the first scene) is a torture test for timbre matching and spatial accuracy because there are voices floating all around the room -- around you, above you, etc.
> 
> When you're listening to an action flick and there's explosions and stuff it's hard to tell subtle timbral differences. However, our ears are extremely sensitive to the human voice due to evolution, and as such if a voice pans slowly from one position to another you're going to be much more able to pick out a subtle timbral shift that would not be as obvious as, say, if a space ship rips by at high speed.
> 
> I have a fairly mismatched setup right now, and thanks to Audyssey XT32 and bass management it's mostly unnoticeable for a the vast majority of content. However that first scene in Gravity makes it obvious that things aren't perfect.


My experience is the same as yours with respect to timbre matching. Although the speakers in the 7.1 part of my audio setup all came from Hsu, my .4 in-ceiling speakers were made by Focal. Thanks to my having configured my audio system with YPAO, using my Yamaha RX-A3060, though, everything sounds great. I have noticed no difference in vocal timbre, even when listening to the _Gravity_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, which is a builtin torture test if ever there was one. The directionality of the sound is excellent too.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

jayraysaiz said:


> What in the speaker specification do you look for to determine if you height speakers are timbre matched to your surrounds? I do not have an ideal room layout more of a great room set up.
> 
> However my 5.1.4 set up fits nicely in the main listening area. The only exception is my left surround placement is slightly towards the front of the seating area (like 15-20 degree angle)due to my sliding glass door location. My height speakers are about as close as I could get them to the top front and top rear since my listening/viewing area is at a 45 degree angle to my roof trusses. They do have an adjustable woofer and tweeter that I have angled down toward the center listening area.
> 
> My rear surrounds sit about 1.5 feet below directly below my ceiling (11 feet) attached to a kitchen soffit only place I could put them. I don't have any issues hearing rear surround even though they are a good 15 ish feet my the back of my couch and about 9.5 feet in the air.
> 
> All the speakers are the reference primer line. I have also tried different sub locations and I'm just not feeling the sub in the front location. It sounds and feels better when it is place in the corner of the room slightly behind my listening area or directly behind the couch (on the wall of course)


Timbre matching is best done at the manufacturer level. More than sound pressure or any other decibel frequency response test, it is how sound of a single object's sound match from speaker to speaker. It is done by choosing speaker components and build out of similar material and crucially matching responses. And so, your absolute best bet is to call your speaker manufacturers and ask them about their recommendation for timbre match. While timbre matching among all speakers is ideal, if you have different speakers across the board, I will be mindful of my future goals, and make a wise decision based on which speakers I would settle for in the long term. Remember timbre matching is not the same as speaker accuracy. It is rather, how much George Clooney's voice changes from speaker to speaker.

In terms of speaker placement, again ideal goal would be to follow the Dolby Atmos guideline by the book, as much as feasible. A very important element is the separation between in-plane and top speakers. The in-planes should be very close to your ear height. I wouldn't worry too much about the distance of speakers, as long as you have a quality amp/receiver to get it to the equalized levels but be careful about more than ideal dispersion. So, I would lower the surround speakers as close as possible to your sitting ear height, something maybe around 38 to 40 inches from the floor. If not, how close can you get? At that distance I would prefer bookshelf cube speakers over trapezoidal ones to take care of dispersion. 

My first sub placement was very much similar to yours. And it worked wonderful; soon enough though I found the benefit of dual subs. I guess you know that dual subs is ideal, not because you like bass, but because your room (any room) is notorious for nulling long wavelengths, as you have already experienced. Given your favored sub position, with a dual sub layout placed diagonally or front and back middle, I can guarantee that you will hear significant difference, and probably will give you the most bang for your buck. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## chi_guy50

tabraham1 said:


> Really hoping this is the right place to ask this question:
> 
> Currently have the following setup:
> 
> L/R - Cambridge Audio S30 Bookshelves
> C - Cambridge Audio SX-70 Center
> Sub -SVS-SB1000
> 
> Trying to figure out the best way to create a surround environment / Atmos would be awesome if achievable.
> 
> The L/R flank the TV toed in towards LP, Center is below the TV, raised slightly to aim towards LP. I know the standard surround orientation states to have the 5/7 speakers of the 5.x.x/7.x.x configuration to be at ear level, but that cannot be the case for me. I cannot use in/on wall speakers for surrounds, nor does the WAF accept bookshelves on stands....which leads me to my question...*Is there a way to achieve good sounding surround and/OR atmos if all other speakers are in-ceiling?* I am at a fork in the road and want to know if pursuing ceiling speakers to establish surround are worthwhile or should I just invest in upgrading LCR and leave it at that....
> 
> Ive included a VERY rough drawing of the living room, not to scale. (ceiling height is 9'/ tv wall to rear wall is about 15'). One thing to note is the couch is pushed all the way back, touching the rear wall/window. Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!


With your surrounds mounted overhead, any form of immersive audio will be severely compromised. In order to be effective, Atmos/DTS:X require vertical separation between the listener-level and overhead planes. 

At one point, I had a 5.1 setup with the surrounds mounted in-ceiling and that arrangement--necessitated by WAF factors--still resulted in decent surround sound. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be satisfied with something similar and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it if you can't accommodate ear-level surround speakers. But I don't think it would be worth it to expand to an immersive setup in this scenario.

OTOH, with a little ingenuity you might find a way to install ear-level surrounds. I solved my problem by face-mounting satellite speakers to the built-in cabinets flanking a fireplace behind the MLP. I ran the speaker wires in the walls and through an attic space overhead. My former in-ceiling surrounds now serve as TR overhead speakers with a matching pair up front.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

^ Agree with chi_guy. There's no reason to not enjoy a "traditional" 5.1, 7.1 or 9.1 if you have built your room around that. I have my main room with that 5.1 layout and although movies sound different from my basement HT that has 7.2.4, the whole family thoroughly enjoy every movie in both the rooms, and any good receiver will give you enough surround effects to keep you interested. 

Whether you have Atmos or not, there is still no floor channel surround to separate the shark in Jaws when it comes from somewhere underneath you. But Jaws, Deep Blue Sea and the like are still very enjoyable in our currently deficient systems  No?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hellohowareyou said:


> Having gone through the painful atmos build, I can tell you timbre match is rather easy. Get the same line of speakers as your in-plane surrounds from the manufacturer, and you're done.



Lol!

If only it was that simple.

Any acoustical device will interact with and be affected by nearby boundaries such as the ceiling, soffits, walls, etc. The interactions can and will drastically change the response and therefor 'timbre'.

Even with the exact same speaker, the response will change and 'timbre' will sound different from one to another without some compensation in the crossover network or REQ/PEQ.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

Scott Simonian said:


> Lol!
> 
> If only it was that simple.
> 
> Any acoustical device will interact with and be affected by nearby boundaries such as the ceiling, soffits, walls, etc. The interactions can and will drastically change the response and therefor 'timbre'.
> 
> Even with the exact same speaker, the response will change and 'timbre' will sound different from one to another without some compensation in the crossover network or REQ/PEQ.


So, what's your solution? As far as I know and learned from Physics, high frequency content is most directional, so for the best imaging your tweeters should be pointed directly at your ears. How critical this is depends on the off-axis response of your speakers. Also, high frequency tweeters and much of the mid ranges are practically too high a frequency (too small a wavelength) to be impacted by the wall issue when compared to much longer wavelength bass, and especially when directed towards the main listening position. 

You may be at a fine tuning level while we're struggling with coarse issues.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hellohowareyou said:


> You may be at a fine tuning level while we're struggling with coarse issues.


You might have that backwards. 

I never said anything about pointing speakers, bud. I simply said that the physical position of the speaker will affect it's frequency response. You said, (paraphrase) "just buy like-model speakers and that's it, you're done.".

Like....no. A speaker mounted in the middle of a ceiling will sound different from it's clone nestled up in one of the front corners of your room.

As I said in the previous post, this can be alleviated by using careful positioning, PEQ or REQ algorithm or even built-in controls to compensate for these physical locations.

If you don't understand this, you either need more time in the field or need to hit the books again.


----------



## showmak

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup.
> 
> Parts of Gravity (like the very beginning with panning dialog) reveals ALL that is wrong with an Atmos system.
> 
> I'd love to hear it on a system with 100% identical speakers all around.



Scott, my system! You are most welcome to come and heart it


----------



## Hellohowareyou

showmak said:


> Scott, my system! You are most welcome to come and heart it


All 9 or 11 speakers? Amazing!! I wish I could hear it as well.


----------



## showmak

Hellohowareyou said:


> All 9 or 11 speakers? Amazing!! I wish I could hear it as well.



All 9 (5.1.4)


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Better start to build a sphere homecinema then. All speakers equidistant and identical reflections...


----------



## Scott Simonian

showmak said:


> Scott, my system! You are most welcome to come and heart it


I'd love to!



erwinfrombelgium said:


> Better start to build a sphere homecinema then. All speakers equidistant and identical reflections...


Heheh. Nice.

A more realistic and reasonable choice would be a dome/hemisphere shaped room with accompanying layout.

I guess when under-surround becomes an actual thing we will have to revisit the sphere shaped room.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

Scott Simonian said:


> You might have that backwards.
> 
> I never said anything about pointing speakers, bud. I simply said that the physical position of the speaker will affect it's frequency response. You said, (paraphrase) "just buy like-model speakers and that's it, you're done.".
> 
> Like....no. A speaker mounted in the middle of a ceiling will sound different from it's clone nestled up in one of the front corners of your room.
> 
> As I said in the previous post, this can be alleviated by using careful positioning, PEQ or REQ algorithm or even built-in controls to compensate for these physical locations.
> 
> If you don't understand this, you either need more time in the field or need to hit the books again.


I admit, I may have sounded as an absolute end goal of timbre matching, and should have ended a statement by adding the qualifier that you mentioned. But I was talking to an audience that seemed to be not looking for PEQ/REQ level of detail. 

If you don't have matching timbre speakers to start with, no amount of PEQ/REQ algorithm or speaker placement is going to resolve it, correct? Your example of two speaker locations, as drastic as they are, the high frequencies would still sound very very similar when not blocked by something in the direction. Different volume, yes but anyone is free to give it a try by pointing the tweeter toward you and you moving away or close towards the tweet. Now, mid to low, yes you are absolutely correct, they will sound different. 

Two points to take note here. A lot of audio manufacturers know this issue of problem placement. Which is why, atmos speakers are not generally given low frequencies. Second, an awful number of tech advisers in speaker industry will veer towards lower dia mid ranges, read 6 inch, 5 inch and the like lower dia. They say it does a better job of mimicking human voice, plus also that these speakers will not put out a low frequency which is the reason why most speakers sound different when placed in different locations. 

Enough bickering. I have enough things to do besides gawking at your superawesome setup


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> I'd love to!
> 
> 
> 
> Heheh. Nice.
> 
> A more realistic and reasonable choice would be a dome/hemisphere shaped room with accompanying layout.
> 
> I guess when under-surround becomes an actual thing we will have to revisit the sphere shaped room.


Or forgo Atmos all together. 

The timbre shift between my mains and the ceiling is really annoying. Outside of Gravity and the demo disc, I have been very underwhelmed thus far. I didn't realize my 12v trigger cable had worked it's way loose on my ceiling speakers amp and was none the wiser for awhile. I once turned off my main speaker amp and just listened to the ceiling channels and was like...no what - that's it? I think the biggest benefit of Atmos/DTS:X thus far is we are getting better surround mixes in the bed channels. I am sure many will disagree and flame me for speaking such blasphemy in the Atmos thread


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hellohowareyou said:


> Two points to take note here. A lot of audio manufacturers know this issue of problem placement. Which is why, atmos speakers are not generally given low frequencies.


They are "not given low frequencies" because they are small...very small speakers. A 3" cone can only do so much.



Hellohowareyou said:


> Second, an awful number of tech advisers in speaker industry will veer towards lower dia mid ranges, read 6 inch, 5 inch and the like lower dia.


Right. Because they are smaller, cheaper, lighter weight and easier to pack and ship. Also people like "lifestyle" speakers these days so there is higher WAF with smaller speakers.



Hellohowareyou said:


> They say it does a better job of mimicking human voice,


Ummm.... no. Lol who said that?



Hellohowareyou said:


> plus also that these speakers will not put out a low frequency which is the reason why most speakers sound different when placed in different locations.


Even if it has less bass, it will still be affected equally by the environment around it.



Hellohowareyou said:


> Enough bickering. I have enough things to do besides gawking at your superawesome setup


lol thanks!



Molon_Labe said:


> Or forgo Atmos all together.


Very true.

Not everybody wants or needs Atmos yet that doesn't seem to stop those that think they need it. 




I'd rather have Atmos with not-ideal timbre than not Atmos like I've had all my life. This is better in every way possible than all the legacy audio formats.




And I'd flame ya but you'll probably change your mind about Atmos again in the near future.


----------



## tabraham1

alfa1 said:


> Only possible solution for in ceiling surrounds and Atmos AFAIK is special directional ceiling speakers designed to simulate ear level speakers; i.e Goldenear invisa 7000 or Definitive Technology RCS series. Depending on which direction your ceiling joists go, you could mount them on each side of your couch (preferred)(if joists go side to side), or behind your couch (if joists go front to back).
> 
> Then, you could place your Atmos ceiling speakers in top middle position, slightly in front of your couch to create as much separation as possible from your surrounds.
> 
> The Goldenears are amiable so it may be possible to mount them to the side of your couch and aim them towards the couch even if the joists run front to back - not sure though.


Thanks alfa. When you say directional, do you mean a directional tweeter or a speaker thats set at an angle?


----------



## Therberg

tabraham1 said:


> Really hoping this is the right place to ask this question:
> 
> Currently have the following setup:
> 
> L/R - Cambridge Audio S30 Bookshelves
> C - Cambridge Audio SX-70 Center
> Sub -SVS-SB1000
> 
> Trying to figure out the best way to create a surround environment / Atmos would be awesome if achievable.
> 
> The L/R flank the TV toed in towards LP, Center is below the TV, raised slightly to aim towards LP. I know the standard surround orientation states to have the 5/7 speakers of the 5.x.x/7.x.x configuration to be at ear level, but that cannot be the case for me. I cannot use in/on wall speakers for surrounds, nor does the WAF accept bookshelves on stands....which leads me to my question...*Is there a way to achieve good sounding surround and/OR atmos if all other speakers are in-ceiling?* I am at a fork in the road and want to know if pursuing ceiling speakers to establish surround are worthwhile or should I just invest in upgrading LCR and leave it at that....
> 
> Ive included a VERY rough drawing of the living room, not to scale. (ceiling height is 9'/ tv wall to rear wall is about 15'). One thing to note is the couch is pushed all the way back, touching the rear wall/window. Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!


I had similar restrictions with speaker placement and achieved very good results going with ceiling speakers for surrounds and Atmos. (LCR are at ear level) I followed the guide from my Yamaha receiver manual for ceiling speaker layout. I have a Polk front stage and went with these for the surrounds and these for the Atmos speakers.

Given that your MLP is against the back wall, I would eliminate the rear surrounds and with a bit of experimentation on the direction the surrounds are pointing you should be able to achieve good results. At that point you could go with a 5.1.2 or a 5.1.4 setup depending on how many holes you want to cut in your ceiling!  I have the Atmos demo disc and a bunch of the recommended movies with good Atmos tracks and we are extremely pleased with the results.


----------



## tabraham1

chi_guy50 said:


> With your surrounds mounted overhead, any form of immersive audio will be severely compromised. In order to be effective, Atmos/DTS:X require vertical separation between the listener-level and overhead planes.
> 
> At one point, I had a 5.1 setup with the surrounds mounted in-ceiling and that arrangement--necessitated by WAF factors--still resulted in decent surround sound. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be satisfied with something similar and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it if you can't accommodate ear-level surround speakers. But I don't think it would be worth it to expand to an immersive setup in this scenario.
> 
> OTOH, with a little ingenuity you might find a way to install ear-level surrounds. I solved my problem by face-mounting satellite speakers to the built-in cabinets flanking a fireplace behind the MLP. I ran the speaker wires in the walls and through an attic space overhead. My former in-ceiling surrounds now serve as TR overhead speakers with a matching pair up front.


Thanks chi_guy. I've constantly heard that having most of the speakers in-ceiling give it the "voice of God" or "intercom" feeling. Did you experience that as well? Since my front LCR will be at ear level, will that be enough to establish surround if the rear 2 were in ceiling? How did your setup sound when you had the in-ceilings?


----------



## tabraham1

Therberg said:


> I had similar restrictions with speaker placement and achieved very good results going with ceiling speakers for surrounds and Atmos. I followed the guide from my Yamaha receiver manual for ceiling speaker layout. I have a Polk front stage and went with these for the surrounds and these for the Atmos speakers. The
> 
> Given that your MLP is against the back wall, I would eliminate the rear surrounds and with a bit of experimentation on the direction the surrounds are pointing you should be able to achieve good results. At that point you could go with a 5.1.2 or a 5.1.4 setup depending on how many holes you want to cut in your ceiling!  I have the Atmos demo disc and a bunch of the recommended movies with good Atmos tracks and we are extremely pleased with the results.


Therberg - Interesting thought. Thanks for your advice. Maybe this will be the way to go after all. Instead of adding just two, maybe I can put the SR/SL flanking the couch on either side, but direct them towards the MLP, and then have two sets of ATMOS in between the front stage and the surrounds..I just dont know how much ceiling real estate I can offer without destroying the aesthetics of the room. 2 rows of 3 recessed lights going from left to right from right window to left wall, almost dividing the ceiling into 3rds...I'd have to do more research regarding speaker placement, and if I want to go 5.1.2 or 5.1.4...

Which brings me to my next question - does each receiver have its own "desired" speaker placement? I currently do not have anything more than a 5.1 capable receiver. I will upgrade to an atmos receiver if/once I decide to add more speakers. If I have a few AVR in mind, would you recommend looking at their user manuals to see their recommended placement?

Thanks in advance! Very helpful


----------



## alfa1

tabraham1 said:


> Thanks alfa. When you say directional, do you mean a directional tweeter or a speaker thats set at an angle?




I believe with the GoldenEar Invisa 7000 that the speakers have a 30 degree downward angle, and that the entire speaker can adjusted horizontally to aim at your listening position, while the Def Techs have a 45 degree downward angle, but cannot be further adjusted, so they need to be mounted where they are aiming at your MLP. The technology is much more than angled tweeters - I own the Def Tech RCS III's, and they definitely do give the impression that speakers are at listener level even though they are in the ceiling. I was in the same boat as you, for various reasons I couldn't put my surround speakers at ear level, and I wanted Atmos, so after doing some internet research found these two options. I found a great deal on the RCS III's, and they really do work, but in retrospect I probably should have paid a little more and gotten the Invisas, because of their aimability. My surrounds are behind my MLP (only place I could put them), but are lined up with my mains, so they are not pointing directly at my MLP. Because of the technology in these speakers they have very narrow dispersion, so it is important I think to have them aimed exactly where you will be sitting. 


Imagic gave a glowing review of an all in-ceiling Atmos system with GoldenEar Invisa 7000's a while back on AVS, you might want to check that out, or user reviews of the RCS III's or Invisas, they were all pretty positive to my recollection, but I looked over a year ago.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Yup.
> 
> Parts of Gravity (like the very beginning with panning dialog) reveals ALL that is wrong with an Atmos system.
> 
> I'd love to hear it on a system with 100% identical speakers all around.


I watched _Gravity_ again this afternoon and was, once again, blown away by its Atmos soundtrack, especially by the extended early scenes with Ryan and Matt outside the shuttle, and the voices of Houston mission control, and the rest of the shuttle crew. The most impressive scene to me, though, was the depiction of the reentry of the Chinese space station late in the picture. The sounds of its rattling and shaking were enveloping and made me feel as if I were inside the thing instead of Ryan.

As has been discussed a lot here, there are so many variables in any audio setup, from the brand and location of the speakers to the size of the room ,that configuration with YPAO or Audyssey, or something similar, is indispensable. Don’t know about Audyssey but YPAO has got better and better over the years, so that its implementation on the Yamaha RX-A3060 has given me the best home theatre sound I have ever had, by far. Even with demanding Atmos soundtracks, like _Gravity_, I can’t hear any obvious differences in the timbre of dialog, whether delivered from my in-ceiling Focal speakers or by my 7.1 Hsu speakers. That could be a function of my aging hearing but whatever the reason, I love how soundtracks sound when played in my setup.


----------



## SoundChex

Hellohowareyou said:


> Whether you have Atmos or not, there is still no floor channel surround to separate the shark in Jaws when it comes from somewhere underneath you. But Jaws, Deep Blue Sea and the like are still very enjoyable in our currently deficient systems  No?



Although home Atmos doe not appear to make provision for below-the-screen|floor-level speakers, Dolby AC-4, DTS:X, and MPEG-H 3D Audio technologies all seem to have been influenced by *ATSC 3.0* and *Rec. ITU-R BS.2051-0* (*link*). While the 22.2 channel config all three support for NHK TV may not be implemented outside Japan, *Rec. ITU-R BS.2051-0* speaker layout *E* resembles the conventional Auro3d 9.1 speaker layout, but with an added *Bottom Front Center* speaker, i.e., total speaker count 10.1. That would work well for me, but right now it seems we just have to wait and see how extensive is immersive audio penetration in the home theater marketplace...?! 


_


----------



## wse

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Better start to build a sphere homecinema then. All speakers equidistant and identical reflections...


Cool half a sphere could work!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like Atmos, I just think it has a lot more potential than what has been utilized.


Right but this has nothing to do with the system configuration/calibration nor the format itself.

Your complaint should be aimed squarely at the content creators. It's not the fault of the format that it isn't used to your expectations.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

wse said:


> Cool half a sphere could work!


Yes, but only if the floor would be infinitely absorptive. Otherwise the ear level speakers will have different floor reflections than the elevated speakers.

And a floor has to be more or less reflective as this is more representative of the Savanne environment our species (H. Sapiens) developed in.

So in conclusion, it's useless!!



Me, I am waiting for Dirac Unison which will probably cure all problems. Seriously.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Right but this has nothing to do with the system configuration/calibration nor the format itself.
> 
> Your complaint should be aimed squarely at the content creators. It's not the fault of the format that it isn't used to your expectations.


And it's met yours?


----------



## Scott Simonian

The format, yes.

The sound mixes only get better in time and we already have several good ones.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> The format, yes.
> 
> The sound mixes only get better in time and we already have several good ones.


Then we're in agreement.


----------



## Scott Simonian

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Me, I am waiting for Dirac Unison which will probably cure all problems. Seriously.


By introducing new problems! Seriously. 

:laugh:


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> Then we're in agreement.


----------



## chi_guy50

tabraham1 said:


> I've constantly heard that having most of the speakers in-ceiling give it the "voice of God" or "intercom" feeling. Did you experience that as well?


No, not that I recall. I was (and still am) using the Polk 80F/X-RT in-ceiling speakers with the tweeters pointing toward the MLP (this is the same speaker that Therberg linked to above for his surrounds). If there had been a detectable VOG effect I should think it would have been strikingly noticeable since that is not the intention for sounds steered to the surround channels.



tabraham1 said:


> Since my front LCR will be at ear level, will that be enough to establish surround if the rear 2 were in ceiling?


In a 2D surround-sound system it can be an acceptable compromise to use in-ceiling speakers, particularly if done right. But the main point of moving up to immersive audio is to add that third dimension (plus the ability to more precisely localize sounds on an X/Y/Z axis). If some or all of the listener-level speakers are mounted overhead on the same plane as the height speakers, the effect will be muddled. You might still be satisfied with the results, but IMHO it's not worth the effort. This assumes that for you, like most of us in the mainstream, cutting multiple holes in the ceiling and running wires in the wall and through ceiling cavities is a major commitment. And since it appears you do not have a dedicated HT room, I assume you fall in this category (along with me and most of us here).



tabraham1 said:


> How did your setup sound when you had the in-ceilings?


 It worked for me as a 5.1 setup. But then, at the time those surrounds were my best quality speakers!

I will refer back to what I believe was your original question: "Is there a way to achieve good sounding surround and/OR atmos if all other speakers [besides the LCR] are in-ceiling?" IMHO, the answer is yes for surround and a qualified no for Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> By the way, I have decided to try and keep the rear part of the room sonically matching as much as possible with the Atmos/SCS 8 speakers. The 4722's were just crammed in too tight on the side surrounds and the rear. I was not digging the panning between the 4722 surrounds and the Atmos SCS 8's on the ceilings. To make matters worse, I moved my seating back for better room response and it just go too crowded with the 4722's. They just didn't have the space they had prior before the rearrange and became localized since because they couldn't image properly. I mitigated the issue by ordering SCS 12's for surround duties. Big yard sale coming on 4722's in San Antonio.


Heh. Small room problems. I get it. I definitely get it! Ugh! 

You do what you gotta do, man. I like that you're constantly trying new things rather than simply being told what to do. Good stuff. I'm interested in how this change goes and how you like it.

GLWS


----------



## Scott Simonian

Molon_Labe said:


> If only my wife were as understanding. This change was costly  Should have gone with the prescribed JBL surround/Atmos recipe from the onset. But hey, it was a blast when it was workable.


You won't know until you try. Now you know.

This isn't an inexpensive hobby. Somebody should have warned you.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> This isn't an inexpensive hobby. Somebody should have warned you.


Now you tell us?


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> Now you tell us?


And it never ends...


----------



## SoundChex

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Better start to build a sphere homecinema then. All speakers equidistant and identical reflections...



Graphic showing setup of one BBC test room a few years ago: 12 identical speakers arranged to test immersive audio...










_


----------



## SoundChex

Scott Simonian said:


> This isn't an inexpensive hobby. Somebody should have warned you.





Mashie Saldana said:


> Now you tell us?





sdrucker said:


> And it never ends...




_Just when you thought upgrading to Atmos might allow you some breathing room..._










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


_


----------



## Nalleh

SoundChex said:


> Graphic showing setup of one BBC test room a few years ago: 12 identical speakers arranged to test immersive audio...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


3.6.3 ? Hmm, interesting...


----------



## mrtickleuk

SoundChex said:


> _Just when you thought upgrading to Atmos might allow you some breathing room..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> _Source:_ *March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE* (*link-to-pdf*)
> 
> 
> _


I note a distinct lack of "Dolby True HD" or any lossless format in that graphic! It would seem that reducing compression and moving towards lossless isn't part of their idea of "improving the experience"?!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Who will be the first on the proverbial "AVS Forum" block to have this setup? Nominations are now open and being accepted.


----------



## Opethion

In my 9.1.4 setup, my LCRs are midfield monitors and all other 10 speakers are identical nearfield monitors from the same manufacturer (Neumann). All speakers are neutral on axis and use waveguides for controlled off-axis response. All speakers are facing the MLP exactly (looks a bit like in that illustration). The room is well treated and I use room EQ for bass to lower mid frequencies. The result sounds pretty much seamless (I checked out Gravity again because of this discussion), but you can still make out differences between some of the speakers if you're searching for them. So nothing is perfect and you shouldn't worry too much about it.


Nevertheless, if your room allows it, I would always go for identical speakers all around (except LCR, depending on several factors) with controlled off-axis response, all facing the MLP exactly. That's an extremely good starting point for seamless immersive sound.


----------



## thrang

SoundChex said:


> Graphic showing setup of one BBC test room a few years ago: 12 identical speakers arranged to test immersive audio...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Thank goodness they're apparently wireless speakers, or it would be awfully difficult to go take a leak in the middle of a movie...


----------



## hatlesschimp

Im running 5.1.4 and soon to be 7.2.4 by mid year and all the speakers other than the three LCR speakers are the same. Im using kef Ci200RR for the lot and so far Ive noticed how timbre match makes the sound fully imerssive, uniform and 360 degree like. I made the video below about my projector but was using the Dolby Atmos demo disc for content and I love the Dolby Atmos designed Demos even just the Audio is great. Is the new version of this Disc worth getting or keep on with this disc and not worry? Cheers


----------



## Ladeback

hatlesschimp said:


> Im running 5.1.4 and soon to be 7.2.4 by mid year and all the speakers other than the three LCR speakers are the same. Im using kef Ci200RR for the lot and so far Ive noticed how timbre match makes the sound fully imerssive, uniform and 360 degree like. I made the video below about my projector but was using the Dolby Atmos demo disc for content and I love the Dolby Atmos designed Demos even just the Audio is great. Is the new version of this Disc worth getting or keep on with this disc and not worry? Cheers
> 
> https://youtu.be/Jd0SwLKHDWw


Nice video and I have seen some the Dolby Atmos Clips so I know what it can sound like. I am more wanting to know how you like the Epson 9300/6040? That is the projector I thinking of getting along with adding Dolby Atmos.


----------



## stikle

Willemvanvugt said:


> Hi all, does anyone know of a WIRELESS surround system that in addition to Dolby Atmos (plenty of those) also supports DTS X? I want a system which also supports REAR speakers and have not been able to find it.



Since I didn't see anybody reply to this, I'll comment:

*There is no such thing as a wireless surround system currently.*

Typical setup: All speakers have wires going to them from the AVR that carry power/signal. Subwoofers also have a power cord to plug into a wall receptacle.

Current "wireless" subwoofer systems: There's no longer an RCA cable going from the AVR to the subwoofer, but the sub still has to plug into wall power. It's not wireless - you're limited by your wall receptacle placement.

And as far as "wireless" surround speakers...same thing. They STILL have to have power. Currently power is being sent VIA left/right speaker cables to each speaker. Get rid of those so they are "wireless" then the speakers STILL have to plug into power at that point. So you'd have to have a receptacle by each speaker.

That's why you have not been able to find what you are looking for.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Ladeback said:


> Nice video and I have seen some the Dolby Atmos Clips so I know what it can sound like. I am more wanting to know how you like the Epson 9300/6040? That is the projector I thinking of getting along with adding Dolby Atmos.


Bang for buck! Its very very good for gaming. Like its ridiculous! And the motorised lens memory is a treat. Its not still not the cheapest pj but here in Australia its around $4,300 and the next level up projector that I rate is the JVC x7500 that comes in at $8,500. But the x7500 is another league but does have a few things that annoy me but bloody looks great. I the the Epson is priced good because its tge same price as a highend TV and Id rather this pj onto a wall than a highend 65". 

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

hatlesschimp said:


> Bang for buck! Its very very good for gaming. Like its ridiculous! And the motorised lens memory is a treat. Its not still not the cheapest pj but here in Australia its around $4,300 and the next level up projector that I rate is the JVC x7500 that comes in at $8,500. But the x7500 is another league but does have a few things that annoy me but bloody looks great. I the the Epson is priced good because its tge same price as a highend TV and Id rather this pj onto a wall than a highend 65".


Sorry, mate, but you've lost all credibility on this forum.

I watched that video and you are most definitely NOT hatless!


----------



## hatlesschimp

chi_guy50 said:


> Sorry, mate, but you've lost all credibility on this forum.
> 
> I watched that video and you are most definitely NOT hatless!


New name is Hatted Chimp haha. When I was editing I noticed this too and thought someone will say something for sure. Hey, Maybe I was trolling? Is that even trolling? IDK. 

I cant wait to add the rear surrounds. But the one Im really trying to be super patient on is the front wides. I was shocked to find my Yamaha 3050 didnt support front wides. Is anyone rolling with front wides with atmos? Maybe 9.2.2 perhaps?

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Krally

Does Atmos have any benefit for in-ceiling speakers? It seems like it does the opposite.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

hatlesschimp said:


> I cant wait to add the rear surrounds. But the one Im really trying to be super patient on is the front wides. I was shocked to find my Yamaha 3050 didnt support front wides. Is anyone rolling with front wides with atmos? Maybe 9.2.2 perhaps?


Most if not all the guys with Trinnov Altitude's roll wides. Then you have the multi-AVR lot (me included) that roll wides in either 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 configurations. My system should be up and running in the near future.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Krally said:


> Does Atmos have any benefit for in-ceiling speakers?


Yes.



Krally said:


> It seems like it does the opposite.


Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Krally said:


> Does Atmos have any benefit for in-ceiling speakers? It seems like it does the opposite.














Well...I guess for someone who is used to having their surrounds in the ceiling...a proper Atmos layout would end being the opposite, huh?


----------



## chi_guy50

hatlesschimp said:


> New name is Hatted Chimp haha. When I was editing *I noticed this too and thought someone will say something for sure.*


Yeah, there's a smart-ass in every crowd (at least, there is when I'm present) .



hatlesschimp said:


> I cant wait to add the rear surrounds. But the one Im really trying to be super patient on is the front wides. I was shocked to find my Yamaha 3050 didnt support front wides. Is anyone rolling with front wides with atmos? Maybe 9.2.2 perhaps?


I use my FW for Neo:X with music sources. I've experimented using them with Atmos--both in 9.1.2 and 7.1.4 configuration--but found that sacrificing the rear tops or surround backs, respectively, was not worth the expansion that the wides brought to the front sound stage.


----------



## Krally

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.


Thanks!

I guess I wrote that wrong, from what I was reading about Atmos it makes the sound seem like it's coming from above. So if I already have in-ceiling speakers (yes, I know you guys love them ) I didn't think there would be any benefit to having it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Krally said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I guess I wrote that wrong, from what I was reading about Atmos it makes the sound seem like it's coming from above. So if I already have in-ceiling speakers (yes, I know you guys love them ) I didn't think there would be any benefit to having it.


The point of Dolby Atmos (and competing immersive formats) is to achieve a separation of sound that is *around you* and sound that is *above you*. 

With a traditional surround sound system with the surrounds in the ceiling, _everything_ images above you. Including all the things that shouldn't.


For you, Krally, you would need to install two to four new speakers (for the side and rear surrounds) and mount them at an elevation that is more like your front left, right and center. Then simply use the existing in ceiling speakers as your overhead speakers.


----------



## Krally

Scott Simonian said:


> The point of Dolby Atmos (and competing immersive formats) is to achieve a separation of sound that is *around you* and sound that is *above you*.
> 
> With a traditional surround sound system with the surrounds in the ceiling, _everything_ images above you. Including all the things that shouldn't.
> 
> 
> For you, Krally, you would need to install two to four new speakers (for the side and rear surrounds) and mount them at an elevation that is more like your front left, right and center. Then simply use the existing in ceiling speakers as your overhead speakers.


Thanks Scott for the info.

I'm just researching what I need to setup a multi-room (3) system and I think I'm just going to use 2 in-ceiling speakers per room. So Atmos wouldn't benefit me.


----------



## maikeldepotter

SoundChex said:


> _Just when you thought upgrading to Atmos might allow you some breathing room..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> _Source:_ *March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE* (*link-to-pdf*)



It is not that bad or maybe not that good, since that presentation only refers to the 7.x.4 variant of the AC4 codec, in which L/R and Side Surround speakers are mandatory, while Rears, Top Fronts and Top Rears can be silenced. So it seems that for the broadcast AC4 codec, objects will be used ONLY to create user-adjustable sounds and optional height channels, and NOT to effectively increase spatial resolution during playback by allowing higher speaker granularity... (for now that is)


----------



## freezinghot

I am building my atmos system up and have a question about my rear speakers, currently I have polk monopoles but was thinking of getting the klipsch bipole speakers for the rear, only problem is I cannot place them to the sides at 100 degrees due to a garage door. Will they work ok at the rear of the room? Not ideal but I can place them in the corner and use monopoles and fire them forward to the listening position.

Which option would be best? Monopole of Bipole? rest of my speakers are all klipsch.

Thanks


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Dolby only recommends the use of monopole speakers for Atmos.


----------



## freezinghot

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Dolby only recommends the use of monopole speakers for Atmos.


So lets say I place my monopoles near the corner of the room at say 130 degrees will this be the best for my situation? bearing in mind I cannot place them to the sides at 100 degrees!


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I have sent an e-mail to the sales departement of Storm Audio to clear some things out regarding 9.1.4 vs 7.1.6 etc. I will report when I get answered.


At ISE I have heard from Stormaudio's product manager that at this moment their processors can do 7.1.6 and 9.1.2, but not 9.1.4. They are working on it though. Much like what I heard from Acurus about their ACT-4.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

@freezinghot >
You actually mean Side Surrounds I reckon, not Rear Surrounds.

While 100° is about the preferred angle for Side Surrounds, recommendations go up to 120°. So 130° would be pushing it somehow, but I would leave any sleep over it. 

Do you have Rear Surrounds? Did you know that with Rear Surrounds in the set, you can even push the Side Surrounds way more forward (ahead of that garage door even). You can go up to 65° from MLP, but 70-80° would be ideal. The speakers at 130° would then obviously be named Rear Surrounds. This provides for very good envelopment. Te position of the Rear Surrounds is even less critical.

Now add 4 overheads...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

maikeldepotter said:


> At ISE I have heard from Stormaudio's product manager that at this moment their processors can do 7.1.6 and 9.1.2, but not 9.1.4. They are working on it though. Much like what I heard from Acurus about their ACT-4.


Yes, this is the answer I got back from Storm Audio:

_Further to your email, please note that we are currently supporting 7.1.4
and this is valid for all ISPs, including ISP16 Elite.
9.1.2 and 7.1.6 free updates shall be released within the next 2 months.

As far as the configuration with Wide (9.1.4 and 9.1.6) is concerned, we
are currently reviewing with Dolby their integration and certification
into our DSP platform. We have no date to provide on their release._


----------



## maikeldepotter

erwinfrombelgium said:


> _As far as the configuration with Wide (9.1.4 and 9.1.6) is concerned, we
> are currently reviewing with Dolby their integration and certification
> into our DSP platform. We have no date to provide on their release._


Acurus is waiting on the same 9.1.4 Dolby certification/licensing before they can effectively roll it out. Apparently, at last CEDIA they showed the ACT-4 to already be able to do this 9.1.4 (with special permission from Dolby).


----------



## SoundChex

SoundChex said:


> _Just when you thought upgrading to Atmos might allow you some breathing room..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> _Source:_ *March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE* (*link-to-pdf*)





maikeldepotter said:


> It is not that bad or maybe not that good, since that presentation only refers to the 7.x.4 variant of the AC4 codec, in which L/R and Side Surround speakers are mandatory, while Rears, Top Fronts and Top Rears can be silenced. So it seems that for the broadcast AC4 codec, objects will be used ONLY to create user-adjustable sounds and optional height channels, and NOT to effectively increase spatial resolution during playback by allowing higher speaker granularity... (for now that is)




From the very limited extent to which I understand Fourier–Bessel math, I believe rendering MIX objects into a well-defined non-coplanar [speaker] channel space (e.g., 7.x.4) for delivery retains all space-time information (x,y,z,t) about the mix object, and allows for the aggregation of all objects in the channel space (the “scene”) to be manipulated collectively for playback on a different well-defined channel space, possibly including a larger number of speakers. Among other things, this is the underlying basis for *Higher Order Ambisonics* (*HOA*) sound delivery: “pretty pictures” from *Trinnov* (*link*).

To be clear: rendering non-interactive objects from the mix into channels for delivery does NOT restrict spatial resolution during playback by decreasing speaker granularity.

Even ignoring the likely NHK specific 22.2 layout, it appears AC-4 offers eight delivery channel configurations for content distribution by broadcast, streaming, download, or disc (_should we expect to see an AC-4 extension substream added to TrueHD soundtracks on BD?_) However, as with previous codecs such as Atmos, it seems likely the number of speakers a processor can utilize for playback will be related to its price.  










__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_Source_: *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*)


_Other pertinent documents_:
*Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-0 (02/2014) Advanced sound system for programme production* (*link*)
*ETSI TS 103 190 V1.1.1 (2014-04) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard* (*link*)


_


----------



## showmak

Last night I watched Hacksaw Ridge, and my intension was to get the taste of a good immersive sound as this movie was recommended one of the best for Atmos demoing. But for the first time, the story and the actions of the movie overwhelmed the enjoyment of the immersive sound, and I was continuously reminding myself to go back and focus on the sound.

What an amazing movie, story and sound!

Salute to Mel Gibson and Andrew Garfield.


----------



## gurkey

freezinghot said:


> I am building my atmos system up and have a question about my rear speakers, currently I have polk monopoles but was thinking of getting the klipsch bipole speakers for the rear, only problem is I cannot place them to the sides at 100 degrees due to a garage door. Will they work ok at the rear of the room? Not ideal but I can place them in the corner and use monopoles and fire them forward to the listening position.
> 
> Which option would be best? Monopole of Bipole? rest of my speakers are all klipsch.
> 
> Thanks


It's usually not that important, what is recommended by the manufacturer but how you own seating situation within your listening room is and how you can place / position the needed speakers. If you are situated close to a rear or side wall most monopole speakers directed close to the listener pose a problem, because they "blast" into your very ear, closest to the speaker. To make this less obvious and increase the "virtual space" you are better off looking either for monopoles directed at some sound reflective surfaces (indirect radiation) or get some bipole or dipole speakers which by design have this very feature somehow "built in". What your are creating this way are virtual sound sources which seem to be further away as they are in reality, thus increasing the "spaciousness" around your listening area / seats to make the sound more immersive. They also widen the "sweet spot" at the same time by adding more reflections thus creating the impression of a larger room. You could even combine several small speakers strategically hooked up to a channel to create some sort of "wall of sound" or sound array to make up for acoustic deficiencies oe placement problems in your room. They will be treated by your system (and your ears / brain) like a single sound source or "black box" if done right.
Note: This makes some sort of measuring system a necessity, to get the levels and timing etc. corrected.


----------



## HarpNinja

Anything on the horizon regarding receivers for 5.2.4 hitting a lower price point (right now I think the best deal is the Marantz 6010 from Accessories4less)? I have a Denon 2200 and am doing 5.1.2. I love the overheads!

My room is far from ideal, not a dedicated HT, and full of kids stuff . But I am wired for 5.2.4.

I built the cab and need to finish the doors and get the center back up....and I need to buy a new sub, paint the inwalls (just added a couple weeks ago), and then do some custom panels with family pics.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Krally said:


> Thanks Scott for the info.
> 
> I'm just researching what I need to setup a multi-room (3) system and I think I'm just going to use 2 in-ceiling speakers per room. So Atmos wouldn't benefit me.


As in no interest at all about using lower surrounds or just limiting yourself to two inceiling speakers per room?

Cuz if it's the latter then you can still do Atmos just with a single pair of overheads instead of two. You'll get real height imaging. Just no front to back pans and such.


----------



## Krally

Scott Simonian said:


> As in no interest at all about using lower surrounds or just limiting yourself to two inceiling speakers per room?
> 
> Cuz if it's the latter then you can still do Atmos just with a single pair of overheads instead of two. You'll get real height imaging. Just no front to back pans and such.


I would like to go full surround in the living room and I had all ready ran the wire in the ceiling for 3 fronts and 2 rears plus sub, but from reading about in-ceiling speakers on here it didn't seem like it would sound any good. It's actually a project I've had on hold for a while so I was just going to purchase a new receiver and install just a L&R pair of JBLs for the ceiling and call it a day for now.

I recently visited a high end home that had speakers in virtually ever room over head and it honestly sounded great to me and it made me realize just how much sound quality I was missing out on with just having sound come out of the TV so I was willing to settle for just the 2 speakers for now.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well, any external speaker will sound better than tv speakers.


----------



## Ladeback

HarpNinja said:


> Anything on the horizon regarding receivers for 5.2.4 hitting a lower price point (right now I think the best deal is the Marantz 6010 from Accessories4less)? I have a Denon 2200 and am doing 5.1.2. I love the overheads!
> 
> My room is far from ideal, not a dedicated HT, and full of kids stuff . But I am wired for 5.2.4.
> 
> I built the cab and need to finish the doors and get the center back up....and I need to buy a new sub, paint the inwalls (just added a couple weeks ago), and then do some custom panels with family pics.


I don't think the Marantz 6010 will do 5.1.4, you would have to go with the Marantz 7010, the Denon 4300 or the Yamaha 2060 to do 5.1.4. The Denon will also do 7.1.4 with an extra 2 channel amp for the other two height speakers. It is $1199 on Accessories4less. I have been thinking of getting this receiver. I have extra an extra amp to make to go to 7.2.4.


----------



## EdQ

freezinghot said:


> I am building my atmos system up and have a question about my rear speakers,....
> ....Which option would be best? Monopole of Bipole? rest of my speakers are all klipsch.
> 
> Thanks


You want all Monopoles for Atmos



gurkey said:


> ...To make this less obvious and increase the "virtual space" you are better off looking either for monopoles directed at some sound reflective surfaces (indirect radiation) or get some bipole or dipole speakers which by design have this very feature somehow "built in". What your are creating this way are virtual sound sources which seem to be further away as they are in reality, thus increasing the "spaciousness" around your listening area / seats to make the sound more immersive....


I agree when you are not doing Atmos and channel based audio.

But with Atmos, the object based audio will take care of the immersive/spaciousness sounds. It will use multiple speakers to place objects in 3D space. Which monopoles are the best option.


----------



## Ladeback

Ladeback said:


> I don't think the Marantz 6010 will do 5.1.4, you would have to go with the Marantz 7010, the Denon 4300 or the Yamaha 2060 to do 5.1.4. The Denon will also do 7.1.4 with an extra 2 channel amp for the other two height speakers. It is $1199 on Accessories4less. I have been thinking of getting this receiver. I have extra an extra amp to make to go to 7.2.4.


There is a brand new in the box Denon 4300 on ebay for $1199. If I had the money I would get it. Just thought I would pas it on to you HarpNinja.


----------



## Scott Simonian

EdQ said:


> You want all Monopoles for Atmos


Monopole is recommended by Dolby but _HE_ and anyone else might actually want something else. It's not wrong to use bipoles or even dipoles if one wants to with Atmos.

Or were you trying a Jedi mind trick just now? 











_"You want all Monopoles for Atmos."_


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ladeback said:


> I don't think the Marantz 6010 will do 5.1.4, you would have to go with the Marantz 7010, the Denon 4300 or the Yamaha 2060 to do 5.1.4. The Denon will also do 7.1.4 with an extra 2 channel amp for the other two height speakers. It is $1199 on Accessories4less. I have been thinking of getting this receiver. I have extra an extra amp to make to go to 7.2.4.


The Marantz SR6010 will do 5.1.4 if you add a 2ch amp.


----------



## Ladeback

Mashie Saldana said:


> The Marantz SR6010 will do 5.1.4 if you add a 2ch amp.


You are correct. I did a little more digging. I want to do 7.2.4 and I am looking at the Marantz 6011 on Accessories4less for $999.99 now. I have had bad luck with Integra, but good luck with Marantz amps. The SR6011 has some great reviews on it. I was leaning toward Yamaha, but I can more bang for my buck on the Marantz.

http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/marantz-sr6011


----------



## Hallwhite

*ATMOS Receiver Question*

An ancient newbie here who needs a little help: I have an older Denon 2313CI AVR, a viewing room that has an “open floor plan” with 10 foot high ceilings, and because of the terrible lay-out, all speakers (5.1, B&W), other than the center and sub are mounted in the ceiling. Predictably the sound field is pretty poor. A new Denon would have newer CODECS, but what I’m really wondering is whether an ATMOS capable receiver like the AVR-S920W would provide an improvement in the sound because the front left / right and side speakers are already in the ceiling? How much of a problem would the absence of speakers at ear level (with the exception of the center) present? Called Denon and got a pretty much worthless answer.
Thanks so much!


----------



## EdQ

Scott Simonian said:


> Monopole is recommended by Dolby but _HE_ and anyone else might actually want something else. It's not wrong to use bipoles or even dipoles if one wants to with Atmos.
> 
> Or were you trying a Jedi mind trick just now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"You want all Monopoles for Atmos."_


Lol. Maybe I was??

I'll just say Atmos won't work as well if you use speakers other than Monopoles.


----------



## dschulz

Hallwhite said:


> An ancient newbie here who needs a little help: I have an older Denon 2313CI AVR, a viewing room that has an “open floor plan” with 10 foot high ceilings, and because of the terrible lay-out, all speakers (5.1, B&W), other than the center and sub are mounted in the ceiling. Predictably the sound field is pretty poor. A new Denon would have newer CODECS, but what I’m really wondering is whether an ATMOS capable receiver like the AVR-S920W would provide an improvement in the sound because the front left / right and side speakers are already in the ceiling? How much of a problem would the absence of speakers at ear level (with the exception of the center) present? Called Denon and got a pretty much worthless answer.
> Thanks so much!


I don't think switching to an Atmos receiver will help - if you're still playing in 5.1 mode, then Atmos decoding won't kick in anyway, you'll still be playing the 5.1 soundtrack just as you are now. If you add additional speakers to enable Atmos, but they are all in the ceiling plane, then the lack of height separation will render the Atmos effects pretty much moot.


----------



## Scott Simonian

EdQ said:


> I'll just say Atmos won't work as well if you use speakers other than Monopoles.













I'm using bipoles for my front and rear height (firing up and down) and it works great.


----------



## thrang

Krally said:


> Does Atmos have any benefit for in-ceiling speakers? It seems like it does the opposite.


If you have in-ceiling speakers, I think the recommendation is install Atmos speakers at ankle level, though you need to sit on your head to get the proper effect...


----------



## asarose247

^
HT guys, always thinking . . .


----------



## tokerblue

Ladeback said:


> There is a brand new in the box Denon 4300 on ebay for $1199. If I had the money I would get it. Just thought I would pas it on to you HarpNinja.


Send a PM to JDSmoothie, he's an AVS rep and will give you a good deal on the x4300.


----------



## tokerblue

Waiting for my 2nd pair of Ascend HTM-200 for 5.1.4. I currently have a 5.1.2 setup and people in this thread advised me to put the 2nd pair in position 3.

My question is if I should put the ceiling speakers on the same position as my Front L & R speakers (position A) or if they should go outside them (position B). Position A would be about 3.5 feet from the side wall and Position B would be 2.5 feet if that makes a difference.


----------



## gurkey

@*EdQ* 

There is a general misunderstanding of the role speakers play in a surround system and what the position the surround format has in this.
The surround decoder and its upmixer direct the channels and objects to the speakers, but the speakers, their design and placement are responsible to get this information to the listener.
The surround decoder knows nothing about the specific acoustic situation the listener is within his room, his seating position and his speaker design, radiation pattern and placement.
The speakers are responsible for the transport of the provided information to the listener and have to be chosen accordingly to the listeners situation. Dipole, bipole and monopole speakers each have their pros and cons with respect to this.
Monopoles may be favored, if the speakers can be placed at least 8 feet away from the listener to either side allowing for the formation and propagation of a sound "field" and mixing of the individual sound sources to combine into the itended effects, thus front, center and front height speakers are usually of this variety.
Looking at the surround, back surround, rear and top height speakers might provide quite a different picture, depending mostly upon the seating position of the listener(s) and their "closeness" to the individual speakers position. Especially, when seated near to one of the sides walls, the rear wall or a rather large surface hampering the placement of speakers near their ideal positions, this might become a "major" problem. That is exactly the situation where dipole- or bipole-speakers or reflected sound constellations comes into play, avoiding or at least softening most ot the stated limitations of conventional monopole speaker placements.

If speakers are getting close, even to close because of existing seating restrictions, then other solutions to the sound propagation question are needed, or you will experience acoustic "hot spots", shadowing and other (negative) head absorption effects and phenomenons, which distort the intended surround scenery provided by the surround sound decoder. Immersiveness has thus to be divided into two, 1) by the surround format and 2) by the sound propagation pattern and placement of the individual speakers. Both combined make up the virtual surround space as provided.


----------



## maikeldepotter

gurkey said:


> Monopoles may be favored, if the speakers can be placed *at least 8 feet* away from the listener to either side allowing for the formation and propagation of a sound "field" and mixing of the individual sound sources to combine into the itended effects, thus front, center and front height speakers are usually of this variety.


For bookshelf speakers or speakers with concentric drivers the minimum distance to avoid a risk of localization might be significantly smaller, like 4-5 feet.


----------



## gurkey

Not exactly, because the generated sound of different surround speakers have to mix / intermingle for their intented purpose and this for alle listeners, if there are more than one. Thus the driver defined minimum distance is only one part of the equation. This will also not solve the "hot spot" situation, when sitting close to one speaker.
Note: If one would follow your route than a single driver (full band) speaker would have an ever closer minimum distance setting, which wouldn't solve the stated problems either.


----------



## maikeldepotter

gurkey said:


> because the generated sound of different surround speakers have to mix / intermingle for their intented purpose and this for all listeners, if there are more than one.


Agreed. Speakers that are equidistant (path length difference below say 10%) will get you the smoothest transitions, and the least chance of speaker localization issues. 



> Thus the driver defined minimum distance is only one part of the equation.


Very true. But that equally goes for your 'minimum 8 feet statement' to which I was responding. If your surrounds are at those 8' and your fronts at 12', you will still have the same issue you describe.



> This will also not solve the "hot spot" situation, when sitting close to one speaker.


So in this context 'close' is a more of relative measure (assuming you respect the minimum speaker defined distance), meaning 'closer' than the other speakers (like L and R fronts).

BTW Other ways to mitigate speaker localization caused by relative closeness include 1) arraying a (surround) channel over multiple speakers, and 2) equalizing frequency response to match that of speakers placed further away.


----------



## gurkey

It all depends on the seating situation and the relative position of the corresponding speakers. If more than one person is seated, than the position of the speaker and its radiating pattern might be detrimental to the quality of the sound information perceived by the individual person. If your speakers are a certain amount above your head, this might be less problematic and tolerable compared to the situation where they are just above or at ears height, because shadowing effects and volume differences are less dominating. This has nothing to do with the distances to the remaining speakers. 
The closer the speakers get the more effort has to go into positioning and radiation pattern looking at the information both ears will get. Thus diffuse or reflective sound sources might provide more satisfaction under these circumstances than monopole, direct radiating speakers, which some seem to exclude up front. As has been proven already several times in different listening events, i.e. Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers, which are based on reflection from overhead surfaces (ceiling) might sometimes even prove superior under certain circumstances and provide more of that immersive feeling than conventionl direct radiating speakers. 
Therefore...it all depends...


----------



## maikeldepotter

SoundChex said:


> From the very limited extent to which I understand Fourier–Bessel math, I believe rendering MIX objects into a well-defined non-coplanar [speaker] channel space (e.g., 7.x.4) for delivery retains all space-time information (x,y,z,t) about the mix object, and allows for the aggregation of all objects in the channel space (the “scene”) to be manipulated collectively for playback on a different well-defined channel space, possibly including a larger number of speakers. Among other things, this is the underlying basis for *Higher Order Ambisonics* (*HOA*) sound delivery: “pretty pictures” from *Trinnov* (*link*).


That is the principle of Trinnov's speaker remapping. Object playback rendering currently relies just on pan-potting between adjacent speakers.



> To be clear: rendering non-interactive objects from the mix into channels for delivery does NOT restrict spatial resolution during pla yback by decreasing speaker granularity.


Yes, it does. Dolby (Cinema technical guidelines) specifies a 30 degrees maximum angle between surround speakers (as measured from the listener closest to the wall) for optimal Atmos spatial resolution. Translated to the home situation (angles are angles) this implies that a 7 channel base layer (as in 7.1.4) will NOT give you the Dolby specified optimal spatial resolution.



> Even ignoring the likely NHK specific 22.2 layout, it appears AC-4 offers eight delivery channel configurations for content distribution by broadcast, streaming, download, or disc (_should we expect to see an AC-4 extension substream added to TrueHD soundtracks on BD?_) However, as with previous codecs such as Atmos, it seems likely the number of speakers a processor can utilize for playback will be related to its price.


Yes, but it would also imply that processors that go beyond those 7.1.4 channels will need yet another immersive codec (with its own speaker configurations) to be implemented, as the next step up already involves adding two 'so-called' L/R screen speakers which have nothing in common with their Atmos namesakes....


----------



## maikeldepotter

gurkey said:


> It all depends on the seating situation and the relative position of the corresponding speakers. If more than one person is seated, than the position of the speaker and its radiating pattern might be detrimental to the quality of the sound information perceived by the individual person. If your speakers are a certain amount above your head, this might be less problematic and tolerable compared to the situation where they are just above or at ears height, because shadowing effects and volume differences are less dominating. This has nothing to do with the distances to the remaining speakers.
> The closer the speakers get the more effort has to go into positioning and radiation pattern looking at the information both ears will get. Thus diffuse or reflective sound sources might provide more satisfaction under these circumstances than monopole, direct radiating speakers, which some seem to exclude up front. As has been proven already several times in different listening events, i.e. Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers, which are based on reflection from overhead surfaces (ceiling) might sometimes even prove superior under certain circumstances and provide more of that immersive feeling than conventionl direct radiating speakers.
> Therefore...it all depends...


It certainly does, and it is always a balancing act. Applying bipole speakers or dobly enabled speakers ("ceiling bouncers") will get you a more diffuse immersive soundfield, but at the same time it has a detrimental effect on the spatial resolution of discrete sounds and their dynamics. Pick your poison...


----------



## gurkey

It all is a balancing act, but one, where the decision is often made between a working illusion and a more or less defective "pinpong" situation. I am looking for a virtual space, where i can't identify the individual sound source (speaker) and where, if I close my eyes, the illusion of a "different" environment is real and overwhelming.
Each one has its pros and cons certainly... but I am always for the pros 

PS.: I put a lot of effort into creating this illusion with a combination of direct, reflected, multi-source / array and in case of my "home cinema" even dipole-speakers. My "trick" is, to combine both, direct and reflected sound, sometimes even per channel, so nothing gets lost. The smaller the space, the more sound sources are needed for this (in my opinion) to simulate an "endless" immersive environment / space. That's the reason I use 17 speakers (plus 4 subwoofers) in the stated combinations within my own home cinema.


----------



## EdQ

gurkey said:


> @*EdQ*....If speakers are getting close, even to close because of existing seating restrictions, then other solutions to the sound propagation question are needed, or you will experience acoustic "hot spots", shadowing and other (negative) head absorption effects and phenomenons, which distort the intended surround scenery provided by the surround sound decoder. Immersiveness has thus to be divided into two, 1) by the surround format and 2) by the sound propagation pattern and placement of the individual speakers. Both combined make up the virtual surround space as provided.


I understand what you are saying. For the longest time, I had Bi-Pole surrounds because my room was small and the speakers were very close to the MLP. After moving to a larger place, I switched to Di-Pole which like you said kept localization to a minimum. 
But now with Atmos, I prefer to utilize the object based audio as optimal as I can. Which is using Monopoles for all the speakers. And even though I still have two side speakers still kinda close. Audyssey does a good job of distance and levels. 
And I get a great 3D bubble.


----------



## gurkey

I have gone through implementing several scenarios in different rooms: living rooms, sleeping rooms and home cinema in two homes.
Having tested several constellations in terms of electronics, speaker choice and placement plus seating arrangements I ended up with a more complex setup. For the living room, where the seating situation is not quite symmetrical and located along the rear and a side wall in a large, open living room. My fronts, center, surrounds, and front height speakers are monopoles, directed partially at the listener and along the walls. The back surround speakers are comprised of an array of 2x4 small speakers / satellites, where 1 speaker on each side is radiating directly in the direction of the listeners from above whilst the other 6 are using various reflective surfaces (walls, ceiling) under different angles along the side walls each side down to the bottom to create a more diffuse sound field with many secondary sound sources to immitate a larger distance to the room boundaries, making up for the lack of it. The "top middle" speakers are direct radiating ones using 2 angled tweeters. 

In my previous living room (5.1) the back surround speakers where radiating against the ceiling already being to close to the listeners to listen comfortably in direct radiating mode, which expanded the rear sound field quite a bit and opened up the space plus removed acoustic hot spots going with that original (direct radiating) arrangement. I expanded on that experiences and have now implemented that 7.2.2 setup but with 17 speakers in the living room as stated before.

The living room setup successfully employs Audyssey MultEQ XT32, the sleeping room the somewhat older MultEQ XT (7.2). 

The home cinema is a complete different story using 17 speakers individually powered by 17 amp channels plus a semi DBA with 4 subwoofers and a combination of YPAO RSC, AntiMode 8033 plus Omnes Audio DBC-12 units to control the double bass array and the speakers. That rather complex setup has all its 17 channels corrected by the combined room measurement systems XT32 and YPAO RSC. Here also a direct / reflecting concept is been used, although the seating is much further away (appr. 35% of room length) from the rear wall and the speaker arrangement follows closely the ITU recommendations for a 7-channel arrangement. 4 direct radiating speakers plus 4 additional speaker radiating against the ceiling make up the "upper" speaker layer to be used in a Dolby Atmos and DTS:X etc. setup.


----------



## stikle

Ladeback said:


> There is a brand new in the box Denon 4300 on ebay for $1199.



Check with Denon's web site and make sure the seller is an authorized vendor or...no warranty.



tokerblue said:


> *Send a PM to JDSmoothie*, he's an AVS rep and will give you a good deal on the x4300.



^this.


----------



## Ladeback

OK, I was wanting to get a 4K up-scaling projector to go with an Dolby Atmos receiver when I get one, but I have a chance to get Benq 1075 for $500 that is basically new, used once. 

Do you have to have 4K to enjoy Dolby Atmos? 

I like a good picture, but as I get older sound seems more important to me then the best picture I can afford. If I got the 1075 it would make it easier to get the receiver I want.


----------



## klimo

Ladeback said:


> OK, I was wanting to get a 4K up-scaling projector to go with an Dolby Atmos receiver when I get one, but I have a chance to get Benq 1075 for $500 that is basically new, used once.
> 
> Do you have to have 4K to enjoy Dolby Atmos?
> 
> I like a good picture, but as I get older sound seems more important to me then the best picture I can afford. If I got the 1075 it would make it easier to get the receiver I want.


Absolutely do not need 4k to enjoy atmos. I use a sony vpl-vw60 1080p on a 100" along with my 7.2.4 setup and its fantastic.

I was thinking of getting one of the upscaling 4k projectors, but it would really just be a band aid until true 4k projectors come down to earth on price. So I decided to wait and hopefully in 1-2 years we can get a decent true 4k with hdr and dolby vision for 3-4k.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Looks like speakers that would compliment Scott's "Wall of Bass." Where are the "mids" on these puppies? Are they buried under the Atmos "tops?"


----------



## chi_guy50

Ladeback said:


> OK, I was wanting to get a 4K up-scaling projector to go with an Dolby Atmos receiver when I get one, but I have a chance to get Benq 1075 for $500 that is basically new, used once.
> 
> *Do you have to have 4K to enjoy Dolby Atmos? *
> 
> I like a good picture, but as I get older sound seems more important to me then the best picture I can afford. If I got the 1075 it would make it easier to get the receiver I want.


Yes, the Dolby Atmos White Paper specifies a minimum pixel count. See here.


Spoiler



Psych!



Seriously, the only connection between 4K and Atmos that I can think of is the tendency of some video distributors to reserve the immersive sound track (whether Dolby Atmos or DTS:X) for release on UHD Blu-ray. But even in those cases, you don't need a 4K display to watch the video, just a UHD Blu-ray player.


----------



## Hallwhite

*ATMOS Receiver Question*



dschulz said:


> I don't think switching to an Atmos receiver will help - if you're still playing in 5.1 mode, then Atmos decoding won't kick in anyway, you'll still be playing the 5.1 soundtrack just as you are now. If you add additional speakers to enable Atmos, but they are all in the ceiling plane, then the lack of height separation will render the Atmos effects pretty much moot.


Thanks for the responses. As I suspected, I'm out of luck.


----------



## Ladeback

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, the Dolby Atmos White Paper specifies a minimum pixel count. See here.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Psych!
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the only connection between 4K and Atmos that I can think of is the tendency of some video distributors to reserve the immersive sound track (whether Dolby Atmos or DTS:X) for release on UHD Blu-ray. But even in those cases, you don't need a 4K display to watch the video, just a UHD Blu-ray player.


Ok, I know this a Dolby Atmos thread, but I would be going from a Optoma HD65 to the 1075. Is it worth the change or go with a better 1080p like a Optoma 142x or Epson 3100?


----------



## gwsat

Ladeback said:


> OK, I was wanting to get a 4K up-scaling projector to go with an Dolby Atmos receiver when I get one, but I have a chance to get Benq 1075 for $500 that is basically new, used once.
> 
> Do you have to have 4K to enjoy Dolby Atmos?
> 
> I like a good picture, but as I get older sound seems more important to me then the best picture I can afford. If I got the 1075 it would make it easier to get the receiver I want.


You definitely do not have to go UHD HDR to enjoy the benefits of TrueHD Atmos. I have happily bought a number of 1080p BDs with Atmos when for some reason or other getting the same film in UHD HDR would have been inconvenient or impossible. Over the course of the six months I have had a UHD HDR Atmos capable AV system, I have concluded that Atmos audio does more for my movie watching pleasure than UHD HDR does. The may be apostasy but there it is.


----------



## Ricoflashback

If I had to give anyone advice on how to prioritize their home theater setup, it would be the following:

1. Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 - at a minimum. I know this will be a challenge based on your room and configuration, but if at all possible, plan for it and make it happen. By far, and as other posters have said, Dolby Atmos has provided the most pleasure out of their home theater system. The advancement in technology with Dolby Atmos mixes & soundtracks is truly worth the investment. Even "upmixes" (DSU/DTS X) provide a new level of enjoyment for older movies and non Atmos tracks. Even two channel (stereo) tracks sound much better with DSU. 

Now - you can spend a lot of $$$ on an AVR or separates to achieve the ultimate objective and spend what you can comfortably afford - - but there are many bargains out there and if you can live with a 1080P picture and not the latest and greatest HDR, etc., - - you can find cost effective solutions to fit your budget.

2. This is a personal taste - - but a dual setup (projector over LCD/LED/OLED (if you have the bucks) is a great way to enjoy both movies and everyday viewing. There is absolutely nothing like the "big screen" experience - 100" projection screen and greater for that theater experience. I went on the cheap with a short throw, BenQ W1080ST and a cheaper motorized screen (100") that goes over my 65" LCD/LED TV. For regular TV - sports & news, it's the 65". Sometimes, I watch basketball & football on the big screen, as well. My one regret is that if I knew the picture would be as good as it is, I would have invested in a better screen. So - I have the option of lights off with the projector and lights on with the LCD/LED TV.

Lastly - - I am very happy with a 1080P picture with my projector and Samsung LCD/LED 65" that also uses the Darbee Darblet. I have a Roku 4 that works great for Amazon Prime streaming. I rent from my local Redbox at total cost of usually $1.50 or less with discounts and promotions. I do not have a UHD Bluray player. I don't plan on getting one. I have an older OPPO that works just great. 

In closing, Dolby Atmos has changed everything and it makes movie nights something to look forward to. I haven't been to a public theater in ten years. Just around the time I started investing in my home theater. Coincidence?


----------



## Bferra

Help with setup...
Hey guys... After a lot of problems I am very close to finalizing my Atmos setup. The problem is my 2 rear presence speakers are powered, but not receiving atmos, or any content.
My gear involved with this problem:
-Yamaha rxa3060 set to 7.2.4 rear 
presence power amp assign
Rcas connected to zone 3 rear. presence spot in back to external amp mains in
-Audiosource amp 102vs
-2 Rear presence Klipsch sw140sa

All other speakers work fine with content. I tried to test tone and the rear presence speakers make the pink noise along with calibrating and working in YPAO.

Lastly my receiver displays "Dolby Atmos" on the front and yet no content still in rear presence. Any thoughts?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Bferra said:


> Help with setup...
> Hey guys... After a lot of problems I am very close to finalizing my Atmos setup. The problem is my 2 rear presence speakers are powered, but not receiving atmos, or any content.
> My gear involved with this problem:
> -Yamaha rxa3060 set to 7.2.4 rear
> presence power amp assign
> Rcas connected to zone 3 rear. presence spot in back to external amp mains in
> -Audiosource amp 102vs
> -2 Rear presence Klipsch sw140sa
> 
> All other speakers work fine with content. I tried to test tone and the rear presence speakers make the pink noise along with calibrating and working in YPAO.
> 
> Lastly my receiver displays "Dolby Atmos" on the front and yet no content still in rear presence. Any thoughts?


Are you using the "Trigger Out" on your RX-A3060? What is the AudioSource 102 set to - "Trigger, Auto On or Normal?" Are your connections right? Volume set to around three o'clock? 

Lastly - - and I have the AudioSource 100VS and the light turns green when it's getting a signal. Try playing an Atmos soundtrack and listen for a while. See if it engages. Sometimes, my green light will not go on until there is an Atmos signal to my rear speakers.


----------



## EdQ

Bferra said:


> ...Lastly my receiver displays "Dolby Atmos" on the front and yet no content still in rear presence. Any thoughts?


What are you playing for the source??

(From the Manual) Amp assign is '7.2.4 [ext.FP+RP]' ???


----------



## qal1h

What does it mean to have Atoms enabled speakers? Is it not possible to use any speaker?


----------



## tokerblue

qal1h said:


> What does it mean to have Atoms enabled speakers? Is it not possible to use any speaker?


The Atmos speakers are usually the upfiring ones. But you can use almost any speaker or ceiling speaker if you go the ceiling route.


----------



## Bferra

Sorry guys... using ps4 with American sniper... bitstream changed to on both ps4 settings and bitstream on blu ray menu. By atmos enabled I just mean the rear up firing ones. I should have clarified that.


----------



## qal1h

tokerblue said:


> The Atmos speakers are usually the upfiring ones. But you can use almost any speaker or ceiling speaker if you go the ceiling route.


Good to know, to be 'atmos enabled' I thought it might mean the amp treats the speaker differently and the atmos doesnt 'activate' or something. 

Any ceiling speakers you recommend for atmos? Around the $200/£150 range?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

qal1h said:


> Good to know, to be 'atmos enabled' I thought it might mean the amp treats the speaker differently and the atmos doesnt 'activate' or something.
> 
> Any ceiling speakers you recommend for atmos? Around the $200/£150 range?


I'm using Monitor Audio BX1s for Atmos duty on-ceiling, they are about £100 a pair. Preferably you want to use the same make and series as you have for your base layer speakers.


----------



## tokerblue

qal1h said:


> Any ceiling speakers you recommend for atmos? Around the $200/£150 range?


I have an Ascend Acoustics setup, so I used their small sealed HTM-200 for ceiling mounting. I'm sure others can recommend you good dedicated ceiling speakers.


----------



## sdurani

qal1h said:


> Good to know, to be 'atmos enabled' I thought it might mean the amp treats the speaker differently and the atmos doesnt 'activate' or something.


Atmos Enabled speakers have a frequency response squiggle in their crossover network that tricks the ear into thinking those sounds are coming from above. It's called Dolby Elevation processing and looks like this:








This frequency response squiggle is not in any other type of speaker (doesn't need to be), making Atmos Enabled speakers unique. When you tell the AV receiver that you're using AE speakers, it prevents the room correction system from flattening out the Elevation squiggle (which it would otherwise do and thereby destroy the psychoacoustic height effect).


----------



## gurkey

Not sure, if this is really needed, because Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers are using acoustic reflective surfaces to get their virtual sound source projected onto the correspondig ceiling and walls they are pointed at.
They are not supposed to emit directly to the listeners, thus their construction and design shields them from radiating directly in this direction. 
The measurement system just "sees" (hears) the reflected virtual sound source (its projection onto walls and ceiling) and will adjust to it accordingly. Because these reflections originate overhead from the corresponding surface, why should there be the need for a specific frequency response then ?


----------



## PioManiac

Ricoflashback said:


> If I had to give anyone advice on how to prioritize their home theater setup, it would be the following:
> 
> 1. Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 - at a minimum. I know this will be a challenge based on your room and configuration, but if at all possible, plan for it and make it happen. By far, and as other posters have said, Dolby Atmos has provided the most pleasure out of their home theater system. The advancement in technology with Dolby Atmos mixes & soundtracks is truly worth the investment. Even "upmixes" (DSU/DTS X) provide a new level of enjoyment for older movies and non Atmos tracks. Even two channel (stereo) tracks sound much better with DSU.
> 
> Now - you can spend a lot of $$$ on an AVR or separates to achieve the ultimate objective and spend what you can comfortably afford - - but there are many bargains out there and if you can live with a 1080P picture and not the latest and greatest HDR, etc., - - you can find cost effective solutions to fit your budget.
> 
> 2. This is a personal taste - - but a dual setup (projector over LCD/LED/OLED (if you have the bucks) is a great way to enjoy both movies and everyday viewing. There is absolutely nothing like the "big screen" experience - 100" projection screen and greater for that theater experience. I went on the cheap with a short throw, BenQ W1080ST and a cheaper motorized screen (100") that goes over my 65" LCD/LED TV. For regular TV - sports & news, it's the 65". Sometimes, I watch basketball & football on the big screen, as well. My one regret is that if I knew the picture would be as good as it is, I would have invested in a better screen. So - I have the option of lights off with the projector and lights on with the LCD/LED TV.
> 
> Lastly - - I am very happy with a 1080P picture with my projector and Samsung LCD/LED 65" that also uses the Darbee Darblet. I have a Roku 4 that works great for Amazon Prime streaming. I rent from my local Redbox at total cost of usually $1.50 or less with discounts and promotions. I do not have a UHD Bluray player. I don't plan on getting one. I have an older OPPO that works just great.
> 
> In closing, Dolby Atmos has changed everything and it makes movie nights something to look forward to. I haven't been to a public theater in ten years. Just around the time I started investing in my home theater. Coincidence?


Ditto to all the above 

I went nutz right after setting up my Yamaha RX-A3050 for 7.4.4 Atmos/DTS:X exactly a year ago,
Wall mounted 1080p Kuro plasma and a 1080UB Epson projector with electric drop down 120" screen.

In August I decided to go all-in with 4K Upgrades for Atmos/DTS:X exclusive 4K/UHD Bluray titles
Made the jump to a 4K E-Shift JVC projector, Panasonic UB900 and on Black Friday added a 4K 65" OLED.














































...a few comparison photo's here: 



Spoiler



65" OLED









120" JVC









65" OLED









120" JVC









65" OLED









120" JVC









65" OLED









120" JVC









Camera: Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge smartphone point & click 


Love my multi-purpose basement cave
sent the wife out shopping for the day while I calibrate the new Funk Audio subs...










All Speakers are matched Mission's (including the Height speakers on swivel mounts)
...all about 10 years old that I collected when they were discontinued at half price..



















Two more subs near-field (Velodyne 15" 1000w kidney pounders)
are placed directly behind the MLP for increased tactile response.


----------



## clarkkent06

Ricoflashback said:


> If I had to give anyone advice on how to prioritize their home theater setup, it would be the following:
> 
> 1. Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 - at a minimum. I know this will be a challenge based on your room and configuration, but if at all possible, plan for it and make it happen. By far, and as other posters have said, Dolby Atmos has provided the most pleasure out of their home theater system. The advancement in technology with Dolby Atmos mixes & soundtracks is truly worth the investment. Even "upmixes" (DSU/DTS X) provide a new level of enjoyment for older movies and non Atmos tracks. Even two channel (stereo) tracks sound much better with DSU.
> 
> Now - you can spend a lot of $$$ on an AVR or separates to achieve the ultimate objective and spend what you can comfortably afford - - but there are many bargains out there and if you can live with a 1080P picture and not the latest and greatest HDR, etc., - - you can find cost effective solutions to fit your budget.
> 
> 2. This is a personal taste - - but a dual setup (projector over LCD/LED/OLED (if you have the bucks) is a great way to enjoy both movies and everyday viewing. There is absolutely nothing like the "big screen" experience - 100" projection screen and greater for that theater experience. I went on the cheap with a short throw, BenQ W1080ST and a cheaper motorized screen (100") that goes over my 65" LCD/LED TV. For regular TV - sports & news, it's the 65". Sometimes, I watch basketball & football on the big screen, as well. My one regret is that if I knew the picture would be as good as it is, I would have invested in a better screen. So - I have the option of lights off with the projector and lights on with the LCD/LED TV.
> 
> Lastly - - I am very happy with a 1080P picture with my projector and Samsung LCD/LED 65" that also uses the Darbee Darblet. I have a Roku 4 that works great for Amazon Prime streaming. I rent from my local Redbox at total cost of usually $1.50 or less with discounts and promotions. I do not have a UHD Bluray player. I don't plan on getting one. I have an older OPPO that works just great.
> 
> In closing, Dolby Atmos has changed everything and it makes movie nights something to look forward to. I haven't been to a public theater in ten years. Just around the time I started investing in my home theater. Coincidence?


Thanks for your post and Piomaniac.

I'm sort of in the same boat now, I have an atmos receiver, a solid 5.1 setup, and an old 60" plasma. I'm moving into a house this week and I'll be deciding what to do. I could get a 4k HDR tv (a good 75" is around $2500). OR, get a decent projector for half that. That's my debate right now. I'll definitely be taking some measurements when I get moved in on what I can do. I'm thinking I'll keep the 60" plasma on/near the wall, and have a drop down projector in front. But we'll see

I'm thinking of doing something like this for the atmos speakers, so I don't have to cut huge holes in the ceiling (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1722.html#post50691049). Although right now, my receiver only supports 5.1.2


----------



## mgproudfit

Alright gents, lend me your eyes and ears. Im about to install my Dolby Atmos setup (5.1.4 total) and want to confirm the placement shown below should work well. I know we all have to work around constraints, and my room is no exception. 

Questions:
- You can see that my SL and my two LEFT Atmos speakers are further away from my MLP and the right side speakers. How good of a job with Audyssey do in accounting for this difference? 
- Any other recommendations on equipment placement? Im not 100% sold on the subwoofer location but I just drew it in CAD where it currently resides. Ill keep messing with that.

Info:
- Installation in basement. 
- Drop ceiling at 7' AFF 
- Area *between* YELLOW hash marks is a 6" lower bulkhead which houses my HVAC ducts (booo)
- Purple represents current grid spacing (tiles with X are fluorescent lights)
- GREEN lines are hot/cold water lines just above ceiling tiles (i.e., cannot use that grid area for speaker install)
- Projector is positioned directly above MLP (main listening position)

Equipment:
- 106" Screen
- BenQ HT1075
- Marantz SR6010
- Adcom GFA535 Amp 
- PS4
- Paradigm Monitor 9v7 L/R
- Paradigm Center 3 CC
- Paradigm Atom Monitor SL/SR 
- Polk RC60i in-ceiling x4 ATMOS

Screen Shot 2017-02-19 at 11.04.15 AM by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr

13934939_865383064652_6406184422265437669_n by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2017-02-19 at 11.10.41 AM by Matt Proudfit, on Flickr


----------



## Ted99

gurkey said:


> Not sure, if this is really needed, because Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers are using acoustic reflective surfaces to get their virtual sound source projected onto the correspondig ceiling and walls they are pointed at.
> They are not supposed to emit directly to the listeners, thus their construction and design shields them from radiating directly in this direction.
> The measurement system just "sees" (hears) the reflected virtual sound source (its projection onto walls and ceiling) and will adjust to it accordingly. Because these reflections originate overhead from the corresponding surface, why should there be the need for a specific frequency response then ?


I've used both the AT and Pioneer atmos-enabled speakers at ear level and above ear level. Both have required that I wrap them with acoustic foam that extends a little above the front edge of the speaker to avoid ear-level leakage. The AT has internal foam wedges at the front of the 30 degree angled speakers and either it's not enough or there is case radiation. The Pioneers are 20 degrees elevation but have no internal foam. They actually have less ear-level leakage, but are still aided by foam in front. They do work, but I find FH and RH, mounted at the ceiling/wall intersection to be less distracting than the atmos-enabled modules.


----------



## gurkey

Most case radiation should only happen in the bass region, if any, because of the inherent properties of the material used for the case. But due to the size and design of the units frequencies below 100 Hz (?) should normally be directed to the subwoofer(s) anyway.
If there is a direct "leak", one should observe the height of the Atmos Enabled speakers - they should always be mounted above ear level - and diffraction around protruding edges of the case.
That is a matter of careful designed case construction.

I don't use Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers myself, but employ reflection for direct radiating speakers in various patterns and positions which helps a lot especially in difficult situations.


----------



## veger69

Hey guys just bought a new house and finally going to do a dedicated home theater w Dolby Atmos!
I have F32, C32, LMF1 SUB and going to buy M106x4, C763Lx4 and hsu vtf3 mk5. Here are some SketchUps of my room. It's small but I've managed to achieve all the required angles including 45deg to the overhead speakers. Let me know if you guys can see any improvements on the placement.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

veger69 said:


> Hey guys just bought a new house and finally going to do a dedicated home theater w Dolby Atmos!
> I have F32, C32, LMF1 SUB and going to buy M106x4, C763Lx4 and hsu vtf3 mk5. Here are some SketchUps of my room. It's small but I've managed to achieve all the required angles including 45deg to the overhead speakers. Let me know if you guys can see any improvements on the placement.


You won't regret getting Atmos. The upgrade to 7.1.4 immersive audio, Atmos and DTS:X, has done more for my movie watching enjoyment than UHD HDR video has. I should add that I have had a Hsu VTF3 MK3 Turbo in my home theatre for many years and still love it. The VTF-3 MK5 will serve you well in your new audio setup.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

veger69,

Looking good. If you could make the Top speakers a 8' by 8' square centered around MLP, that would be perfect. Because they are not actually @ +/- 45° horizontal now. Yes this puts them slightly inwards to the L&R Front but that's in spec.

Another thing is that the Surrounds @90° and ear height makes that their direct sound to MLP can be blocked by the heads of adjacent listeners. If it were me, I'd put them two feet forward, but that's up to you: see my next post.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

A lot of people that come here for advice claim or think they can only do 5.1.4 due to room restrictions. But the basic (ear level) layout Atmos builds on is based on the ITU recommendations. It doesn't hurt to insert this page from their 2012 paper where figure 2 is very clear: when there is more than one pair of surround speakers present, the first pair can be up to 60° off axis. Doesn't need to be between 90° or 110°. Best practice is to evenly spread in the 60-150° sector, but better to have them present at the extremities than have none...

Also don't forget about the issue that the direct sound from an ear level speaker @90° scan be blocked by your neighbor listener's head.


----------



## sdurani

veger69 said:


> Let me know if you guys can see any improvements on the placement.


Centre your two subs at the 1/4 & 3/4 points of room width for smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) across your couch. Move the couch so that the listeners ears are at an odd division (thirds, fifths) of room length to avoid nulls.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdurani said:


> Move the couch so that the listeners ears are at an odd division (thirds, fifths) of room length to avoid nulls.


38% of room length is what I read most in that regard. Looks fine to me.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> 38% of room length is what I read most in that regard.


I've read that too, but that location is in one of the nulls of the 4th order length mode: 











One third room length avoids sitting in a null AND has most of the length modes around the same level:


----------



## StevenC56

I can tell from past experience a square room is the worst for even bass response. Our previous house's HT was 16' X 16.5' x 8' ceiling. Horrible for bass response. Bass non existent in several spots. Move a few feet and it was overwhelming. Made the HT dimensions of our current HT non divisible and the bass is quite even everywhere.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

And 8' height is half of 16', which is again bad.


----------



## sdurani

StevenC56 said:


> I can tell from past experience a square room is the worst for even bass response.


Can still minimize bass problems with placement (subwoofer and seating).


> Bass non existent in several spots.


Avoid sitting in nulls.


> Move a few feet and it was overwhelming.


Tame peaks with EQ.


----------



## StevenC56

sdurani said:


> Can still minimize bass problems with placement (subwoofer and seating). Avoid sitting in nulls. Tame peaks with EQ.


All band-aids. Room dimensions are 90% of the battle. But if you have no choice the methods you list are the only way. Just saying if you can avoid divisible dimensions, things will work out much better when it's all about the bass.


----------



## StevenC56

erwinfrombelgium said:


> And 8' height is half of 16', which is again bad.


Correct-It was horrible. Lesson learned.


----------



## sdurani

StevenC56 said:


> All band-aids.


You can label it anything you want, but it still results in smoother/more consistent bass across the listening area.


> Just saying if you can avoid divisible dimensions, things will work out much better when it's all about the bass.


What dimensions avoid the need to address room modes?


----------



## StevenC56

sdurani said:


> You can label it anything you want, but it still results in smoother/more consistent bass across the listening area. What dimensions avoid the need to address room modes?


There's no perfect dimension, only better choices for more even response. There are books and articles that give you calculations for the best room size dimensions with the most even modes possible. All rooms will have standing waves and room modes. It's just that square or close to square rooms are the hardest to tame, especially if the ceiling height is half of the wall length. So LxWxH dimensions that are not an exact divisible are the key to a good start. Multiple subwoofers can be a benefit as well. I'm not an engineer or expert-This is just my real world experience on the subject.


----------



## sdurani

StevenC56 said:


> There are books and articles that give you calculations for the best room size dimensions with the most even modes possible.


You're still going to end up with room modes, still need to avoid sitting in nulls, still need to place subs to cancel out peaks & dips; just like in a square room. Folks with square rooms shouldn't despair; they can address modal problem using the same methods used in rectangular rooms.


----------



## StevenC56

sdurani said:


> You're still going to end up with room modes, still need to avoid sitting in nulls, still need to place subs to cancel out peaks & dips; just like in a square room. Folks with square rooms shouldn't despair; they can address modal problem using the same methods used in rectangular rooms.


What I for know for a fact is that in my previous 16X16.5X8 room nothing tamed the uneven bass response to any degree. Sure, there was a couple sweet spots, but they were small and only 1 was close to my seating area. Heck, you could be in the sweet spot and moving only a foot would completely change the outcome. I realize lots of people have squarish rooms and just have to make the best of it since there's really no other choice. We lived with that room as our HT for many years and enjoyed it immensely despite the uneven bass. In my current home we had the builder convert the living room/dining room at the front of the house to a sealed (With the one and only door closed) dedicated 19X12X10 room for our HT. The bass response is quite even in all areas-That I can quantify.


----------



## sdurani

StevenC56 said:


> What I for know for a fact is that in my previous 16X16.5X8 room nothing tamed the uneven bass response to any degree.


There's no need to project your problems onto others. If subwoofers are going to be placed for mode cancelling and seating is going to be placed to avoid modal nulls, then the lack of modal distribution need not be a crisis. They're going to be minimized and/or avoided anyway.


> I realize lots of people have squarish rooms and just have to make the best of it since there's really no other choice.


I'm merely pointing out that those people shouldn't be discouraged when it comes to bass response, because they can use the same techniques used in rectangular rooms to get good results. I'm not asking you to change your mind; you can keep using your experience to tell people with square rooms what a horrible experience they can expect. I'm simply explaining how those people can avoid what you experienced.


----------



## StevenC56

sdurani said:


> There's no need to project your problems onto others. If subwoofers are going to be placed for mode cancelling and seating is going to be placed to avoid modal nulls, then the lack of modal distribution need not be a crisis. They're going to be minimized and/or avoided anyway. I'm merely pointing out that those people shouldn't be discouraged when it comes to bass response, because they can use the same techniques used in rectangular rooms to get good results. I'm not asking you to change your mind; you can keep using your experience to tell people with square rooms what a horrible experience they can expect. I'm simply explaining how those people can avoid what you experienced.


My intent was not to try and discourage anybody that has a square room. Maybe subwoofer EQ technology has come so far that it's not an issue anymore? I do have older equipment. If that's the case, I'm totally out of the loop.


----------



## helvetica bold

John Wick has an Atmos soundtrack at home but I can't find one theater playing Wick2 in Atmos! Was the first film an Atoms release? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

StevenC56 said:


> My intent was not to try and discourage anybody that has a square room. Maybe subwoofer EQ technology has come so far that it's not an issue anymore? I do have older equipment. If that's the case, I'm totally out of the loop.


Still an issue, but still resolvable with 1) proper seating positioning, 2) sub woofer placement (2 or more), and (finally) 3) equalization of remaining peaks...


----------



## sdurani

helvetica bold said:


> John Wick has an Atmos soundtrack at home but I can't find one theater playing Wick2 in Atmos! Was the first film an Atoms release?


The Atmos mix for John Wick was created specifically for the home video release (the theatrical version had an Auro mix). The end credits of John Wick Chapter 2 show no immersive audio mix, just Dolby Surround 7.1 (still an outstanding mix). If past history is any indication, Wick2 will likely have an immersive mix (Atmos or DTS:X) when it is released on BD & UHD.


----------



## gwsat

Sanjay -- Thanks for the info about _John Wick: Chapter 2._ I have the original _John Wick_ on BD. It's Atmos soundtrack is outstanding. I hope your prediction that the current film gets the Atmos treatment proves to be right. I think I have confessed here before that Atmos audio adds more to my movie watching enjoyment than UHD HDR video does.


----------



## Opethion

sdurani said:


> I'm merely pointing out that those people shouldn't be discouraged when it comes to bass response, because they can use the same techniques used in rectangular rooms to get good results. I'm not asking you to change your mind; you can keep using your experience to tell people with square rooms what a horrible experience they can expect. I'm simply explaining how those people can avoid what you experienced.


Rectangular or square rooms are ideal for a double bass array, which is among the best bass reproduction solutions there is. So, if someone is having trouble with even bass response at the MLP and across the room, they should try to build a DBA.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Double_Bass_Array
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ouble-bass-array-dba-modern-bass-concept.html


----------



## Molon_Labe

veger69 said:


> Hey guys just bought a new house and finally going to do a dedicated home theater w Dolby Atmos!
> I have F32, C32, LMF1 SUB and going to buy M106x4, C763Lx4 and hsu vtf3 mk5. Here are some SketchUps of my room. It's small but I've managed to achieve all the required angles including 45deg to the overhead speakers. Let me know if you guys can see any improvements on the placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Dedicated room? The best investment you can make in a dedicated room is to go with three matching front speakers, a projector, and AT screen. That will take your enjoyment to an entire new level and will make your home heater experience more theatrical. If Atmos is on the horizon, I would wire for it but put funds to the front stage first if there are financial restraints on the project. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Molon_Labe said:


> Dedicated room? The best investment you can make in a dedicated room is to go with three matching front speakers, a projector, and AT screen.


That depends if you intend to enjoy UHD with Dolby Vision this decade which that OLED screen will offer while none of the PJ options are likely to.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Mashie Saldana said:


> That depends if you intend to enjoy UHD with Dolby Vision this decade which that OLED screen will offer while none of the PJ options are likely to.


Have 10 people watch a movie on a 4k 65-70" display and have the same people watch the same movie on a quality 1080p projector with a 120" plus screen with a matching front three sound stage and see which one they prefer. The people I have known that upgraded their projector to 4k have not seen the huge difference post upgrade that they thought they would. But to your point, everyone has their preference.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Molon_Labe said:


> Have 10 people watch a movie on a 4k 65-70" display and have the same people watch the same movie on a quality 1080p projector with a 120" plus screen with a matching front three sound stage and see which one they prefer. The people I have known that upgraded their projector to 4k have not seen the huge difference post upgrade that they thought they would. But to your point, everyone has their preference.


I don't think 10 people will fit in his 3 seater sofa.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Mashie Saldana said:


> I don't think 10 people will fit in his 3 seater sofa.


I have looked at your build before. I must say you squeezed a ton out of that space - well done buddy.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Molon_Labe said:


> I have looked at your build before. I must say you squeezed a ton out of that space - well done buddy.


Thanks, can't wait to get it all operational. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel now.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

I don't know if this ads to the conversation, but I did host about 10 guys over the superbowl weekend for some fun, poker and movie. I did have two setups at two rooms, one with a small 4K TV (Vizio P), the other with a 7.2.4 with a 130 inch screen non 4K projector. The 130 inch projector won 10:0. 
I don't have an OLED, but that may have changed things a bit, but I believe it's all about content. With scarce HDR, DV material available, and given it's Superbowl the projector won handily. I learned that winning friends over that have varied tastes in life...has to do everything with content, and less of fine tuning.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

veger69 said:


> Hey guys just bought a new house and finally going to do a dedicated home theater w Dolby Atmos!
> I have F32, C32, LMF1 SUB and going to buy M106x4, C763Lx4 and hsu vtf3 mk5. Here are some SketchUps of my room. It's small but I've managed to achieve all the required angles including 45deg to the overhead speakers. Let me know if you guys can see any improvements on the placement.


To get the speakers at the required 45 degrees forward/rearward position they should be the same distance in front and behind of MLP as the distance between the MLP ears and the ceiling. Sideways they should be in line with the front speakers woul dbe located if they were installed at 30 degrees.

So in other words your ceiling speakers needs to be quite a bit further away if the height is drawn to scale.


----------



## veger69

Molon_Labe said:


> Dedicated room? The best investment you can make in a dedicated room is to go with three matching front speakers, a projector, and AT screen. That will take your enjoyment to an entire new level and will make your home heater experience more theatrical. If Atmos is on the horizon, I would wire for it but put funds to the front stage first if there are financial restraints on the project. Just my 2 cents.




Well I'm pretty satisfied with LG-G6 is 65" but the viewing distance is about 8' my fronts are F32 c32 I'm really happy with the F32, although with John recent posts about center I'm thinking on upgrading to c208 but very happy with the F32. It is a dedicated room but the viewing wall has three windows on it and will have heavy drapes in front of it not the best situation for a screen


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## veger69

Molon_Labe said:


> I have looked at your build before. I must say you squeezed a ton out of that space - well done buddy.




Thanks I was limited on space but managed to get all the right angles 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rontalley

Mashie Saldana said:


> To get the speakers at the required 45 degrees forward/rearward position they should be the same distance in front and behind of MLP as the distance between the MLP ears and the ceiling. Sideways they should be in line with the front speakers woul dbe located if they were installed at 30 degrees.
> 
> So in other words your ceiling speakers needs to be quite a bit further away if the height is drawn to scale.


Couldn't agree more. I did the ceiling speakers 6 feet apart from each other front to back when I first set up my Atmos setup. Might as well had just 2 overhead as you hardly get any separation from front to back.

Say 48" from floor to ear (typically around 40-43 depending on couch, chair, whatever). 8' Ceiling means that at the recommended 45 degree angle, Front and Backs would be around 8' apart from each other. Could go a little further depending on your speakers and/or ceiling height.


----------



## veger69

My celling height is nine feet so I've updated my layout a little it puts my ear height about 5'8" from ceiling within 1" of the horizontal distance.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## veger69

I believe the Dolby guide states 45deg from speakers to ear measured directly. Not front to center?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gurkey

sdurani said:


> I've read that too, but that location is in one of the nulls of the 4th order length mode:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One third room length avoids sitting in a null AND has most of the length modes around the same level:


This an example link http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm to a docu about that 38% rule.
REW allows to simulate the (theoretical) frequency response at the MLP in a rectangular room with dimensions you provide and the (planned) positions of your speakers and subwoofers.


----------



## veger69

gurkey said:


> This an example link http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm to a docu about that 38% rule.
> REW allows to simulate the (theoretical) frequency response at the MLP in a rectangular room with dimensions you provide and the (planned) positions of your speakers and subwoofers.




Could you explain a little more about the graph you posted what is the significance of the green box?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

veger69 said:


> I believe the Dolby guide states 45deg from speakers to ear measured directly. Not front to center?


The overheads are to wide now IMO. They should be forming more or less a square.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Molon_Labe said:


> I have looked at your build before. I must say you squeezed a ton out of that space - well done buddy.


Wow, I wish I had a room as big as that! Sadly the UK builds the smallest houses in the whole of Europe. 

Heres my current plan. Ceiling height=2.34m (7.6 feet).

The brown lines are the joists in the ceiling so the ceiling speakers have to go between them - either in line with the 30° fronts or 22° fronts positions.


----------



## sdurani

gurkey said:


> This an example link http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm to a docu about that 38% rule.


The linked article says to avoid nulls and then puts you in a null. Room modes have nulls at even divisions (half, quarters, sixths, eights, etc) of room length. You can see for yourself in the graphs I posted (which you quoted). 38% is 3/8ths room length; one of the even divisions (location of a null). 

To really avoid length mode nulls, better to sit at one of the odd divisions (thirds, fifths, etc) of room length. Does that not make sense?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow, I wish I had a room as big as that! Sadly the UK builds the smallest houses in the whole of Europe.


Molon_Labe quoted me, my room is 3.6x3.6m which funnily enough is located in the UK as well.


----------



## Jonas2

maikeldepotter said:


> Still an issue, but still resolvable with 1) proper seating positioning, 2) sub woofer placement (2 or more), and (finally) 3) equalization of remaining peaks...


I've only got #3 on my side - my seating is pretty much fixed, limited - as well as the subwoofer locations just due to all manners of constraint with other furniture and aesthetics. My MLP is in a bass null - but fortunately, I don't typically sit at the MLP! Off to either side on a 3-person couch, and the bass is much enhanced at left or right of MLP, lucky me.  Hey, less than ideal, BUT much better than without them, I can only fantasize how great it would be IF I could place them properly.  My space is challenging, and that's an understatement. 



rontalley said:


> Couldn't agree more. I did the ceiling speakers 6 feet apart from each other front to back when I first set up my Atmos setup. Might as well had just 2 overhead as you hardly get any separation from front to back.
> 
> Say 48" from floor to ear (typically around 40-43 depending on couch, chair, whatever). 8' Ceiling means that at the recommended 45 degree angle, Front and Backs would be around 8' apart from each other. Could go a little further depending on your speakers and/or ceiling height.


That's pretty much where mine landed - 8' separation front to back. Could only squeeze out 6' left to right though. 



veger69 said:


> I believe the Dolby guide states 45deg from speakers to ear measured directly. Not front to center?


I've always wondered about this interpretation. I took it to be 45 degrees not from speaker to ear directly, but rather 45 degrees directly front and back, then of course moving those laterally left and right to form those other angles you can see in the recommendation renderings. That's how I did mine anyway. But I have wondered exactly about what you mentioned.....


----------



## gurkey

It's not that "simple".

The originator of that "38% guide line", famous pro studio designer Wes Lachot, did explain the basis and the hows and whys of his "38% guide line" in one of his articles (see web site link http://www.weslachot.com). Its been accepted (and followed) widely in the acoustic community for quite some time as the starting point for finding the (theroretical) "ideal" listening spot in a rectangular room (real rooms might differ somewhat, which could lead to some minor deviations from that theoretical value, therefore its not a strict "rule" just a guide line):

His "theory" is based on architectural and musical guidelines.
Here's an article he wrote that should help to understand his approach.
http://www.weslachot.com/new/articles_scales.html

(Quote) from Wes Lachot "If you draw a graph carrying this out to the first 5 or 6 harmonics, you'll notice that the point in the room that is least affected is 38 percent from the front of the room. Coincidentally, this is also the Golden Mean point." 

This holds true, although to a lesser degree, for the distance to the rear wall of the room, which usually is better suited for the MLP in a "standard" living room.
I usually end up somewhere between 33% (1/3rd) to 39% of that longer dimension in my own rooms if I have the freedom to place the MLP where I want it to be. 

And an example 









Another link based upon this http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/room-setup-speaker-placement/

There are lots of other references on the web, which refer to that 38% "rule", if you search for it.


----------



## chi_guy50

veger69 said:


> *I believe the Dolby guide states 45deg from speakers to ear measured directly.* Not front to center?





Jonas2 said:


> I've always wondered about this interpretation. *I took it to be 45 degrees not from speaker to ear directly, but rather 45 degrees directly front and back*, then of course moving those laterally left and right to form those other angles you can see in the recommendation renderings. That's how I did mine anyway. But I have wondered exactly about what you mentioned.....


This has been debated many times in this thread, most recently just last month. Here was Sanjay's recommendation (also not the first time he has stated it):



sdurani said:


> Either [method] will work. Easiest way to do it is to measure from your ears to the ceiling; that same distance forward & rearward of your listening position draw imaginary lines across the width of the ceiling. Mount your speakers on the ceiling, spread apart on those imaginary lines. Yes, spreading the speakers apart will mean that they are at less than 45 degrees elevation, but they'll still be within the placement range for those speakers.


It has also been pointed out (OCD and laser angle finders be damned!) that the precise angles are not as important as we tend to make them out to be, as Sanjay alluded to and as witnessed by the rather wide range of recommended elevation angles shown in most of the AVR user guides.


----------



## sdurani

gurkey said:


> It's not that "simple".


One aspect of it is pretty simple: you're either sitting at the location of a modal null or you're not. Rather than resorting to an appeal to authority (Wes Lachot), folks can simply look at where modal nulls occur along the length of a room and see for themselves where the 38% point is.


----------



## Jonas2

Molon_Labe said:


> I agree. I think the speaker dispersion pattern and it's off axis response is more important than a precise angle. I got really scientific and looked up and said...."right about there" Dang-it, no ceiling stud....how about here. Yep, there's a ceiling stud...that works" My speakers are 120x120 dispersion and have had no issues what so ever.


Yep, ceiling studs completely dictated my left-right placement, front to back was zero issue. Of course, the studs in my ceiling worked against me for the most part and to keep any sense of symmetry, made sure I could not install any speaker I wanted to - had to very conscious of cut-out size as every single speaker comes very close to a stud. I measured and remeasured too many times, I lost count. 

I love getting all scientific, but reality and science don't often cooperate for me - and you're right in suggesting that kind of precision is not mandatory for a great experience.


----------



## chi_guy50

Molon_Labe said:


> I agree. I think the speaker dispersion pattern and it's off axis response is more important than a precise angle. I got really scientific and looked up and said...."right about there" Dang-it, no ceiling stud....how about here. Yep, there's a ceiling stud...that works" My speakers are 120x120 dispersion and have had no issues what so ever.


Bear in mind that nothing I've said stopped me from agonizing for weeks over the exact placement for my overheads. I ordered said laser angle finder and drew up draft after draft of proposed locations complete with tape marks on the ceiling and countless measurements. In my defense, it's a living room ceiling and I wanted to be sure to get it right the first time. Plus, you know, OCD.


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> It has also been pointed out (OCD and laser angle finders be damned!) that the precise angles are not as important as we tend to make them out to be, as Sanjay alluded to and as witnessed by the rather wide range of recommended elevation angles shown in most of the AVR user guides.





sdurani said:


> One aspect of it is pretty simple: you're either sitting at the location of a modal null or you're not. Rather than resorting to an appeal to authority (Wes Lachot), folks can simply look at where modal nulls occur along the length of a room and see for themselves where the 38% point is.





Molon_Labe said:


> I agree. I think the speaker dispersion pattern and it's off axis response is more important than a precise angle. I got really scientific and looked up and said...."right about there" Dang-it, no ceiling stud....how about here. Yep, there's a ceiling stud...that works" My speakers are 120x120 dispersion and have had no issues what so ever.





Jonas2 said:


> Yep, ceiling studs completely dictated my left-right placement, front to back was zero issue. Of course, the studs in my ceiling worked against me for the most part and to keep any sense of symmetry, made sure I could not install any speaker I wanted to - had to very conscious of cut-out size as every single speaker comes very close to a stud. I measured and remeasured too many times, I lost count.
> 
> I love getting all scientific, but reality and science don't often cooperate for me - and you're right in suggesting that kind of precision is not mandatory for a great experience.





chi_guy50 said:


> Bear in mind that nothing I've said stopped me from agonizing for weeks over the exact placement for my overheads. I ordered said laser angle finder and drew up draft after draft of proposed locations complete with tape marks on the ceiling and countless measurements. In my defense, it's a living room ceiling and I wanted to be sure to get it right the first time. Plus, you know, OCD.


There have been countless questions in countless threads around the holy grail of 3D sound speaker placement. Like all of you, I've traversed the same learning curve and arrived at the same conclusion. Use the Atmos diagram as a starting point/guideline (and Sanjay's shortcut) and understand that one size does not fit all as one's unique ceiling and room acoustics, physical properties, and constraints will present different challenges. Suffice to say, adhere to the guidelines as much as possible and experiment with your particular situation until a satisfying result is obtained. As objective, scientific, and OCD as we are, ultimately our ears will tell us what works. I'm confident that the majority of us can and have obtained very pleasing performance in this manner. Lastly, rather than having to address this question repeatedly, it would be great if our collective experiences/advice could be somehow consolidated/highlighted and easily accessed withing this thread. The "What is the best speaker for Atmos?" question seems to have the same issue.


----------



## veger69

sdurani said:


> Centre your two subs at the 1/4 & 3/4 points of room width for smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) across your couch. Move the couch so that the listeners ears are at an odd division (thirds, fifths) of room length to avoid nulls.


Ok I've adjusted again I've actually managed to get close to 45 on the celling that's pretty much it though. side surrounds now are unobstructed. I even adjusted the mlp to 1/3 length. My question is I can't get the subs at 1/4 3/4 there's just no room I might be able to get them at 1/4 the length will that help? And also should I separate the rear surrounds more to get better separation ? I was trying to maintain the ceiling / rs locations like shown in the Dolby guide. I'm thinking it's more important to maintain the separation in the rear surrounds 
Thanks for all the help











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Beautiful! But yes, more separation between the Rear Surrounds. They were perfect in your first layout. 

Not sure about the subs. What about mid wall Left + mid wall Right?


----------



## petetherock

veger69 said:


> Ok I've adjusted again I've actually managed to get close to 45 on the celling that's pretty much it though. side surrounds now are unobstructed. I even adjusted the mlp to 1/3 length. My question is I can't get the subs at 1/4 3/4 there's just no room I might be able to get them at 1/4 the length will that help? And also should I separate the rear surrounds more to get better separation ? I was trying to maintain the ceiling / rs locations like shown in the Dolby guide. I'm thinking it's more important to maintain the separation in the rear surrounds
> Thanks for all the help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Nice!


----------



## sdurani

veger69 said:


> I can't get the subs at 1/4 3/4 there's just no room I might be able to get them at 1/4 the length will that help?


What is that large object on the front wall: TV or equipment console? How wide is it? Can you place the subs on both sides of it?


> And also should I separate the rear surrounds more to get better separation ?


I would put the rear speakers at least 60 degrees apart. Easy way to figure it out: measure from your ears to the back wall, multiply by 1.2 to get rear speaker spread (roughly 60 degrees apart). For example: if the back wall is 5 feet behind you, 5 x 1.2 = 6 (spread the rear speakers at least 6 feet apart).


----------



## veger69

sdurani said:


> What is that large object on the front wall: TV or equipment console? How wide is it? Can you place the subs on both sides of it? I would put the rear speakers at least 60 degrees apart. Easy way to figure it out: measure from your ears to the back wall, multiply by 1.2 to get rear speaker spread (roughly 60 degrees apart). For example: if the back wall is 5 feet behind you, 5 x 1.2 = 6 (spread the rear speakers at least 6 feet apart).




It's a bdi entrainment center. I would have to move the front channels forward to fit the subs there


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

veger69 said:


> I would have to move the front channels forward to fit the subs there.


Don't know if your drawing is to scale, but it looks like putting the subs right next to the bdi entertainment centre would leave enough room on either side to fit the front L/R speakers just outside the subs. Is that possible?


----------



## veger69

Ok I was able to move the LCR forward I needed to anyway I cannot mount the tv on the wall and the mounting solution I found at bdi wouldn't get the tv high enough to have the center channel on the entertainment center. Now the surrounds are at 70d but I would like them a little further apart, do I need to worry about the ceiling speakers separation from the rear surrounds?










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=20823

The Expendables 1&2 are coming to UHD and with brand new Atmos tracks.


----------



## sdurani

veger69 said:


> Now the surrounds are at 70d but I would like them a little further apart...


With your side speakers placed forward of the listening area, it's not a problem to spread the rear speakers a little more apart (up to 90 degrees). You'll still have excellent rear-vs-side separation in the surround field.


> ...do I need to worry about the ceiling speakers separation from the rear surrounds?


No, that's a worry for people who place their rear speakers high up on the back wall and end up with too little separation from the ceiling speakers. BTW, I would move both pairs of ceiling speakers a bit towards the centre line; i.e., place them at the corners of an 8' x 8' square above the main listening position.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

+1
+1


----------



## Holiday121

Question regarding atmos fronts and rears.

What is the distance your audussey xt32 setting them at? And how far away should they be from
My fronts?

I finally watched a movie with 4 atmos speakers so I am not sure if what I was hearing was right.

It kind of sounded like it was sort of above my fronts.

Is there any good clips I could run or tests to see how wel my atmos speakers are working and ssetup


----------



## veger69

Thanks guys for all your help here is my final design!










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Great! Now get the acoustic treatments in order....

BTW, I would fancy the LG OLED also in my living room. Price isn't right yet, @ 4,000 euros for the 65" "B" model with Dolby Vision... Maybe next year when it's probably 3K!


----------



## veger69

I've all ready contacted gik acoustics and I'm planning on tri bass traps in the corner absorption panels on the side one and a mixture of both with possibly diffusion panels on the rear


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sub_ohm

Does anyone know where to get an ATMOS demo disc without paying an arm and a leg?


----------



## Lucky Strike

sub_ohm said:


> Does anyone know where to get an ATMOS demo disc without paying an arm and a leg?


I bought one on ebay.....shipped from China so i'm assuming it was a copy...came in an official looking case and had all the Atmos tracks that were supposed to be on it...payed like $19 shipped.


----------



## sdurani

veger69 said:


> Thanks guys for all your help here is my final design!


Lookin' good. In small rooms you have to be careful that listeners don't get distracted or overwhelmed by nearby speakers. Loudspeakers tend to sound louder when closer to you than when farther away. Loudspeakers also usually sound louder on-axis than when they're not pointed right at you. With that in mind, one quick suggestion: aim each of your speaker pairs (fronts, sides, rears) at the listener on the other side of the couch, to help compensate for proximity. Likewise, if you end up buying in-ceiling speakers with angled baffles, aim them at the listener farthest away.


----------



## mbergh22

Ok so I'm debating on jumping on the Atmos bandwagon. My setup is this. 10x12 room. 8 ft ceiling. I have the denon avr s710w reciever. Polk monitor 60s for my fronts CS2 foe my center and monitor 40s for my rears. It is my bedroom. What are my options. Since my reciever is only 7 channel is it worth doing 5.1.2 since i can't do 5.2.4? And if i get something like the pioneer atmos addons will it be worth it? 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

What program are you guys using for the cool 3D room drawings?


----------



## veger69

SketchUp and it's free!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

veger69 said:


> SketchUp and it's free!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thanks! I downloaded it! Don't have a clue how to use it however.  Do you use a certain template for a room design?


----------



## veger69

No just open the drawing and save it you can draw lines in cardinal directions when the line turns green, blue for up. then type in a distance. there are many videos on how to use it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

StevenC56 said:


> Thanks! I downloaded it! Don't have a clue how to use it however.  Do you use a certain template for a room design?


Personally I prefer SweetHome3D. It's free and available for all platforms. Since it's designed to help design rooms and buildings, its controls might be a bit more "obvious" than those of a generic 3D drafting program like Sketchup.


----------



## Selden Ball

Holiday121 said:


> Question regarding atmos fronts and rears.
> 
> What is the distance your audussey xt32 setting them at? And how far away should they be from
> My fronts?


Sorry: dunno. It's been a long time since I looked at that.


> I finally watched a movie with 4 atmos speakers so I am not sure if what I was hearing was right.
> 
> It kind of sounded like it was sort of above my fronts.


Where the sounds come from depends a lot on how the movie's audio was mixed in the studio. There's no standard.



> Is there any good clips I could run or tests to see how wel my atmos speakers are working and ssetup



There are some demo discs which usually have to be purchased on ebay. They're given out for free at the various home entertainment expos like CEDIA and CES. They aren't available commercially, presumably due to licensing restrictions.

Some Atmos tests and demos (Leaf and Amaze) are available for downloading from Dolby's web site. See https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

Some others can be found on demo-world.eu


----------



## westbergjoakim

Hey!

I wanted to ask what you guys think and recommend.

My MLP is 75cm/2,46ft from the backwall. I have 142cm/4,66ft from my ears to the ceiling.

My top fronts are 129cm/4,23ft in front of me (48°) but my top backs are only 57cm/1,87ft behind me (112°? or something like that).

Should I move my top fronts closer to match my backs better or just leave it as it is now? I have stretched my MLP and top backs as much as I can. 

I think it sounds good as it is, but would it be better to have somewhat equal distance to both tops? Or is it better to have one of them in the right place and the other somewhere near it?

Thanks!


----------



## fbov

veger69 said:


> I've all ready contacted gik acoustics and I'm planning on tri bass traps in the corner absorption panels on the side one and a mixture of both with possibly diffusion panels on the rear...





veger69 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Am I seeing windows behind the screen? Do you have confirmation that the room has bass issues? 

Low frequency sound waves reflect well from cinder blocks, especially if they're backed by earthen fill. A basement. 

Conversely, low frequencies do not reflect well from conventional stick-and-sheet rock construction above grade. They leak out rather than reflect, creating a very weak standing wave pattern by comparison to the basement HT. I wondered form reading these forums what was wrong with my room, until I came to a better understanding of acoustics... and residential construction techniques. 

Simply put, with room acoustics, it's best to start by identifying room issues with your ears, and hopefully confirming with a measurement rig, so your treatment vendors can target problems, and you get the sonic bang for the buck you have coming. 

Have fun,
Frank


----------



## veger69

Yeah I'll use Dirac to record my room acoustics before I buy any treatments . Yes they are windows but there will be heavy curtains in front of them and if I have to I'll make some custom panels to cover them


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

hatlesschimp said:


> Deepwater Horizon is pretty epic on my current 5.1.4 setup. Hearing the sounds of the poor rig blowing up were amazing.


Agreed, _Deepwater Horizon_ has an exceptionally well utilized Atmos sound track that brings to life the film's multitudinous effects of helicopters, explosions, and debris flying about. We watched it last night and even my wife, who would happily listen to everything at -35dB and without a subwoofer, was impressed with the realism.

Unfortunately, I found the movie disappointing despite generally positive critical reviews. The script, while based on actual events and real people, was a rehash of every trite catastrophe movie Hollywood has ever pumped out. Just substitute Gene Hackman or Steve McQueen for Kurt Russell and you have _The Poseidon Adventure_ or _Towering Inferno_ all over again. 

Set design, sound, and special effects were all top-notch; pity the producers didn't opt to devote the same level of care to the quality of the writing.


----------



## hatlesschimp

For those that didnt know Battlefield 1 on PC has Dolby Atmos! I guess most already knew about Battlefront. I guess EA get some street cred back! mmmm ok no they dont but its a good start!!!


----------



## Lucky Strike

For those that are running on-wall (at ceiling height) speakers (I’m using SVS satellites) for their front heights is there a general consensus on whether they should be pointed directly at the MLP or pointed higher up? I’ve got a short basement ceiling height (7’4”) so the tweeters on my front heights are only 7’ off the ground. When I set them up I pointed them approximately 6 or so inches above ear height for the MLP. MLP is about 10 feet away from the screen. Since my ceiling height is so low I don’t have a lot of physical separation between my front heights and my L & R channels. 

I was just wondering if there’s some sort of general consensus on whether repositioning the front heights so they’re pointing more straight out instead of angled down would help with separation. Things sound ok on the front heights as is….not ideal obviously (unfortunately I couldn’t do sidewall mounting like my rear heights, which sound excellent, due to a door & window) but just ok. I know I could experiment myself but everything is behind an AT screen that’s a pain in the butt to access so I’d rather not do it if there’s a good chance it won’t improve anything……if there was some sort of general consensus that pointing them straight out would add to separation from the fronts though then it’d be worth the effort.


----------



## Foundation42

hatlesschimp said:


> For those that didnt know Battlefield 1 on PC has Dolby Atmos! I guess most already knew about Battlefront. I guess EA get some street cred back! mmmm ok no they dont but its a good start!!!
> https://youtu.be/rZagwWGrr3U


I forgot all about that. I'll have to go hook the pc up and give it a try. Thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

Lucky Strike said:


> For those that are running on-wall (at ceiling height) speakers (I’m using SVS satellites) for their front heights is there a general consensus on whether they should be pointed directly at the MLP or pointed higher up? I’ve got a short basement ceiling height (7’4”) so the tweeters on my front heights are only 7’ off the ground. When I set them up I pointed them approximately 6 or so inches above ear height for the MLP. MLP is about 10 feet away from the screen. Since my ceiling height is so low I don’t have a lot of physical separation between my front heights and my L & R channels.
> 
> I was just wondering if there’s some sort of general consensus on whether repositioning the front heights so they’re pointing more straight out instead of angled down would help with separation. Things sound ok on the front heights as is….not ideal obviously (unfortunately I couldn’t do sidewall mounting like my rear heights, which sound excellent, due to a door & window) but just ok. I know I could experiment myself but everything is behind an AT screen that’s a pain in the butt to access so I’d rather not do it if there’s a good chance it won’t improve anything……if there was some sort of general consensus that pointing them straight out would add to separation from the fronts though then it’d be worth the effort.



In general, monopole speakers tend to sound the best if they're pointed toward the opposite end of the seating (aka "equal energy" configuration). The left-most speaker would be pointed toward the right-most seat and vice-versa. Pointing straight out means that (for most speakers) the highest frequencies would be directed away from the audience and away from the calibration microphone. This often results in the audio seeming to be overly bright, since the calibration would boost the highest frequencies to compensate. 

Pointing straight out also would result in sound reflecting off the side walls. While this tends to be reasonable for audio systems optimized for music (reflections from the side walls can give the impression of a wider front sound stage) it's not so good for movies, where it's better to have sounds be more directional.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Selden Ball said:


> In general, monopole speakers tend to sound the best if they're pointed toward the opposite end of the seating (aka "equal energy" configuration). The left-most speaker would be pointed toward the right-most seat and vice-versa. Pointing straight out means that (for most speakers) the highest frequencies would be directed away from the audience and away from the calibration microphone. This often results in the audio seeming to be overly bright, since the calibration would boost the highest frequencies to compensate.
> 
> Pointing straight out also would result in sound reflecting off the side walls. While this tends to be reasonable for audio systems optimized for music (reflections from the side walls can give the impression of a wider front sound stage) it's not so good for movies, where it's better to have sounds be more directional.


Thanks for the response....I guess I should have been more clear, when I said pointing straight out, I meant just vertically.....I would still have the speakers toed in on the horizontal plane towards the MLP (although perhaps based on what you're suggesting I should experiment with toeing in a bit more) like they currently are. I guess I just thought maybe if they're not angled down towards ear height at MLP and instead were aimed vertically to a point 3 or 4 feet above the listeners head it might create the sensation of the sound coming from higher up.....but perhaps that doesn't jive with actual audio theory....I definitely don't have a solid handle on all the science involved in this hobby.

I might just be stuck with what I've got due to my room setup....like I said previously the rear heights which are mounted on the side wall sound great and give a really good sensation of the sound coming from over your head but they're only 2 or 3 feet behind my couch compared to the front heights which are on the front wall 11 feet away. I regret not being able to do in-ceilings for my front heights.


----------



## Mrjmc99

hatlesschimp said:


> For those that didnt know Battlefield 1 on PC has Dolby Atmos! I guess most already knew about Battlefront. I guess EA get some street cred back! mmmm ok no they dont but its a good start!!!
> https://youtu.be/rZagwWGrr3U


I wonder if the pc version of the new mass effect game will have atmos, it's running on a variation of the frostbite engine, which is what battlefront and battlefield runs on. I guess I'll find out in a few weeks 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Movie78

hatlesschimp said:


> For those that didnt know Battlefield 1 on PC has Dolby Atmos! I guess most already knew about Battlefront. I guess EA get some street cred back! mmmm ok no they dont but its a good start!!!
> https://youtu.be/rZagwWGrr3U


I am wondering if they are going to bring ATMOS gaming to the XBOX ONE on the March update.


----------



## Jond0

Lucky Strike said:


> Thanks for the response....I guess I should have been more clear, when I said pointing straight out, I meant just vertically.....I would still have the speakers toed in on the horizontal plane towards the MLP (although perhaps based on what you're suggesting I should experiment with toeing in a bit more) like they currently are. I guess I just thought maybe if they're not angled down towards ear height at MLP and instead were aimed vertically to a point 3 or 4 feet above the listeners head it might create the sensation of the sound coming from higher up.....but perhaps that doesn't jive with actual audio theory....I definitely don't have a solid handle on all the science involved in this hobby.
> 
> I might just be stuck with what I've got due to my room setup....like I said previously the rear heights which are mounted on the side wall sound great and give a really good sensation of the sound coming from over your head but they're only 2 or 3 feet behind my couch compared to the front heights which are on the front wall 11 feet away. I regret not being able to do in-ceilings for my front heights.


I have my front heights pointing straight out toward my rear heights with the hope of creating a 'stereo image' above my MLP and for the most part it works very well. 

The fly scene at the end of Gravity and the gun fights in 13 Hours are both really good tests for my setup illustrating the overhead effect -- do you have access to either of those to test yours? If you get decent overhead info then I'd say you're good.


----------



## Kumate

Just finished my Atmos system. 5.1.4. Put 4 ceiling Yamaha 3 way 8'' 480's and man it's the best investment I have done in awhile. I had the Atmos caps that came with the Defintive Tech's 9000 series towers and they sadly were pretty nonexistant/weak (speakers are great). Putting ceiling 4 speakers above me ...man I would MUCH rather watch movies at home over the theater any day of the week. Watched the new Blair witch move last night and there is a scene where they are in a house and someone is running upstairs from right to left..and then slams a door. Man it sounded like I had a third floor in my house and someone was doing it upstairs right above me!

Movie companies are just going to get better and better at this too! Excited!


----------



## Lucky Strike

Jond0 said:


> I have my front heights pointing straight out toward my rear heights with the hope of creating a 'stereo image' above my MLP and for the most part it works very well.
> 
> The fly scene at the end of Gravity and the gun fights in 13 Hours are both really good tests for my setup illustrating the overhead effect -- do you have access to either of those to test yours? If you get decent overhead info then I'd say you're good.


I do have both of those atmos movies...Looks like i'll probably just bite the bullet and try readjusting the front heights and testing...it requires taking down the screen which is a pain in the butt, however probably worth it in the end just for the peace of mind


----------



## westbergjoakim

westbergjoakim said:


> Hey!
> 
> I wanted to ask what you guys think and recommend.
> 
> My MLP is 75cm/2,46ft from the backwall. I have 142cm/4,66ft from my ears to the ceiling.
> 
> My top fronts are 129cm/4,23ft in front of me (48°) but my top backs are only 57cm/1,87ft behind me (112° or something like that).
> 
> Should I move my fronts closer to match my backs better or just leave it as it is now? I have stretched my MLP and top backs as much as I can.
> 
> Thanks!


Anyone have some idées? 😊


----------



## veger69

sdurani said:


> Lookin' good. In small rooms you have to be careful that listeners don't get distracted or overwhelmed by nearby speakers. Loudspeakers tend to sound louder when closer to you than when farther away. Loudspeakers also usually sound louder on-axis than when they're not pointed right at you. With that in mind, one quick suggestion: aim each of your speaker pairs (fronts, sides, rears) at the listener on the other side of the couch, to help compensate for proximity. Likewise, if you end up buying in-ceiling speakers with angled baffles, aim them at the listener farthest away.




I would leave the fronts alone. If you're rears are pointable you might try the above


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BRADH

I just started the process of looking into Dolby Atmos. I would like to get some options from those of you that have already upgraded to Atmos.


Current speakers 7.2 Martin Logan Montis for the front, Stage for center and FX2 for sides and rear and 2 Rythmik E15's. Equipment Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-pro. I will have to replace this for sure and add a 4 channel amp, plus 4 height speakers to achieve 7.2.4.
Room is approx. 22x14 with 8ft ceilings and a bulkhead on both sides 12in high and 12in wide. I have the FX2 mount high on the sides and rear which work really well in there current setup. I could lower the FX2 closer to ear height ( or replace them with motion 4's) and add 4 motions for the height channels. Or I could keep the FX2 and add 4 FX for the height channel put them on bulkhead and lower the FX2. Last keep the FX2 lower them and add 4 motions for height channel.


I know Dolby recommends direct firing speakers for Atmos. I was just curious if you guys think the FX would work being they are a bipole and not a dipole.


I have attached a pictures that might help. As you can see I am limited some what in where I can place surround speakers.


Thanks in advance.


Brad


----------



## Swolern

Finally just finished catching up with the Game of Thrones Bluray in Atmos. The last season is so bloody good it's probably one of the best things I have ever seen at home or in theaters!! Battle of the Bastards will live in infamy!! All in glorious Dolby Atmos. A must have for any Atmos owner!


----------



## sdurani

BRADH said:


> I was just curious if you guys think the FX would work being they are a bipole and not a dipole.


Of the choices you mentioned, I would get four Motion 4 speakers for surrounds (move the sides a little forward of the listeners, lower all four closer to ear height). Considering their wide dispersion, your current FX2 speakers would work out nicely for the four heights, if you can figure out a way to mount them on the ceiling.


----------



## BRADH

sdurani said:


> Of the choices you mentioned, I would get four Motion 4 speakers for surrounds (move the sides a little forward of the listeners, lower all four closer to ear height). Considering their wide dispersion, your current FX2 speakers would work out nicely for the four heights, if you can figure out a way to mount them on the ceiling.


I don't how I would get them mounted on the ceiling. What about mounting them on the bulkhead and angle them down a little. Do you that might work?


Thanks for the help.
Brad


----------



## sdurani

BRADH said:


> I don't how I would get them mounted on the ceiling.


Find a ceiling mount that can attach to the post hole on the back of the speaker.


> What about mounting them on the bulkhead and angle them down a little. Do you that might work?


Not ideal, but it would work to the extent that those sounds would appear to come from above you (versus sounds coming from around you, from the fronts & surrounds).


----------



## asarose247

my initial "what if' for mounting is that it would be a 2 part construct . the pic i saw makes it look like a 6mm or 1/4" threaded inserton the back
so that would be a mount suitable for the bulkhead or ceiling, depending on ease of access for wires, anchors etc.

and then an "interface" piece to adapt the faceplate of the mount to using that single mounting insert in the speaker.

at 16lbs, they are not too light .

a beefy mount to deal with some of the angular stress of subsequent "aiming" which shouldn't add "too much" horizontal load

the reach of the mounts is TBD so you can keep as much layer separation as possible

these :VideoSecu One Pair Black Univaersal Satellite Speaker Mount Bracket for Wall and Ceiling, fits Keyhole and thread hole with 1/4 20 threads, 4mm and 5mm 1ST

say they have a limit of 10# but if well anchored may fit the bill for a 1 shot "it's up there"

HTH


----------



## BRADH

asarose247 said:


> my initial "what if' for mounting is that it would be a 2 part construct . the pic i saw makes it look like a 6mm or 1/4" threaded inserton the back
> so that would be a mount suitable for the bulkhead or ceiling, depending on ease of access for wires, anchors etc.
> 
> and then an "interface" piece to adapt the faceplate of the mount to using that single mounting insert in the speaker.
> 
> at 16lbs, they are not too light .
> 
> a beefy mount to deal with some of the angular stress of subsequent "aiming" which shouldn't add "too much" horizontal load
> 
> the reach of the mounts is TBD so you can keep as much layer separation as possible
> 
> these :VideoSecu One Pair Black Univaersal Satellite Speaker Mount Bracket for Wall and Ceiling, fits Keyhole and thread hole with 1/4 20 threads, 4mm and 5mm 1ST
> 
> say they have a limit of 10# but if well anchored may fit the bill for a 1 shot "it's up there"
> 
> HTH



Thanks for idea. I found this and it looks like the ball socket can be opened. Then I could mount that to the speaker and the put it back in the socket. They will hold 20 lbs.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002BBNEE/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


----------



## JonFo

BRADH said:


> ... I know Dolby recommends direct firing speakers for Atmos. I was just curious if you guys think the FX would work being they are a bipole and not a dipole.


Hi Brad, I see you are moving along similar paths I've traveled with my ML setup. Not only is direct firing recommended, but the ideal is coaxial, so the sound source is identical across the frequency spectrum (no lobing). The closest ML offers there are their in-celing units. The Vanquish has received high praise on the ML owners forum by folks how have deployed those. An Electromotion R might also work.
With an 8' ceiling, in-ceiling would be preferred to get the added distance.

I have 10' ceilings and was able to go with the rather large JBL SCS8's (8" coaxial). They protrude pretty far down; If my ceilings were any lower, I'd look at boring into the ceiling. These work just fine with the ML setup, as Audyssey Pro calibration keeps it all balanced.

If going with Motion 4's, get them mounted as close to the ceiling as possible. I don't think the bulkheads are the right place, they should be overhead.

As for the FX's, I'd first lower them. Then test with the new Atmos setup. If it blends fine and sound is localizable along the sides and rear, then keep them. But the bipole nature (in-pase tweeters aiming 60 degrees apart means they might not localize very well, which in a 3D positional audio rendering system is not desirable, so you might need to replace those with Motion 8's or something similar.

All that said, my 5.2.4 setup with large Sequels (6' tall dipole ESL) as my rears, works pretty well in my HT. So a bipole or dipole can be acceptable (assuming good room treatment).

Oh, and the Marantz AV8802A is is a nice unit, I don't miss my AVP-A1.


----------



## BRADH

JonFo said:


> Hi Brad, I see you are moving along similar paths I've traveled with my ML setup. Not only is direct firing recommended, but the ideal is coaxial, so the sound source is identical across the frequency spectrum (no lobing). The closest ML offers there are their in-celing units. The Vanquish has received high praise on the ML owners forum by folks how have deployed those. An Electromotion R might also work.
> With an 8' ceiling, in-ceiling would be preferred to get the added distance.
> 
> I have 10' ceilings and was able to go with the rather large JBL SCS8's (8" coaxial). They protrude pretty far down; If my ceilings were any lower, I'd look at boring into the ceiling. These work just fine with the ML setup, as Audyssey Pro calibration keeps it all balanced.
> 
> If going with Motion 4's, get them mounted as close to the ceiling as possible. I don't think the bulkheads are the right place, they should be overhead.
> 
> As for the FX's, I'd first lower them. Then test with the new Atmos setup. If it blends fine and sound is localizable along the sides and rear, then keep them. But the bipole nature (in-pase tweeters aiming 60 degrees apart means they might not localize very well, which in a 3D positional audio rendering system is not desirable, so you might need to replace those with Motion 8's or something similar.
> 
> All that said, my 5.2.4 setup with large Sequels (6' tall dipole ESL) as my rears, works pretty well in my HT. So a bipole or dipole can be acceptable (assuming good room treatment).
> 
> Oh, and the Marantz AV8802A is is a nice unit, I don't miss my AVP-A1.



Thanks Jonathan


I did put in the Dolby Atmos demo disc. I was surprise how the FX2 handled the tracks down converted to 7.1. There was a since of height towards the rear but a gap to the front. There was a great deal of localized sound moving around from the FX2's I stood up and placed my head in MLP and it got better.


From what you saying it would best to but 4 in ceiling Martin Logan and Motion 4's for sides and rears. If the FX2 don't work as sides and rears. What do you think about the other options of putting the FX's on the ceiling, if that could be done.


Thanks 
Brad


----------



## lovswr

tokerblue said:


> Waiting for my 2nd pair of Ascend HTM-200 for 5.1.4. I currently have a 5.1.2 setup and people in this thread advised me to put the 2nd pair in position 3.
> 
> My question is if I should put the ceiling speakers on the same position as my Front L & R speakers (position A) or if they should go outside them (position B). Position A would be about 3.5 feet from the side wall and Position B would be 2.5 feet if that makes a difference.


I'm late to this party, but I have what you describe as position B, in my 5.1.2 ATMOS setup in my living room. Also the rear surrounds are about 2 feet behind my head as I sit on my couch. Since this is the only home ATMOS I have heard, I only have one point of reference. I will tell you that the opening of Sully gets me every time  & the ATMOS demos sound really good.


----------



## serrated

How important is the quality of the speakers for atmos? I guess I should word this better. How good do the ceiling speakers for atmos need to be to get the job done? If it's an area I can skimp to put money elsewhere where it might count more, I'd love to.


----------



## rekbones

serrated said:


> How important is the quality of the speakers for atmos? I guess I should word this better. How good do the ceiling speakers for atmos need to be to get the job done? If it's an area I can skimp to put money elsewhere where it might count more, I'd love to.


My personal opinion they don't need to be a high end speaker. I won my Marantz 7009 on an EBay bid I didn't expect to win and I thought my wife was going to kill me so I had no extra funds for the top 4 speakers. I bought 4 Pyle (I know labeled as pure junk) 5 1/4 inch with point able tweeters black in ceiling speakers for $70 total and built my own boxes for them to install on my dark ceiling. I couldn't install them in ceiling because of an non excess able attic and I didn't want to penetrate the vapor barrier. They actually sound very good and I have no plans at the moment to replace them. If I get some more funds in the future I might replace with something a little better but defiantly nothing over $50 a piece.


----------



## Cramer86

serrated said:


> How important is the quality of the speakers for atmos? I guess I should word this better. How good do the ceiling speakers for atmos need to be to get the job done? If it's an area I can skimp to put money elsewhere where it might count more, I'd love to.


I got 2 Cambridge Minx12 speakers attached to the ceiling, cost my 50 euros each...they do quite well :laugh:


----------



## chi_guy50

serrated said:


> How important is the quality of the speakers for atmos? I guess I should word this better. *How good do the ceiling speakers for atmos need to be to get the job done?* If it's an area I can skimp to put money elsewhere where it might count more, I'd love to.


If "get the job done" = "reproduce sound" then any functioning speaker will do.

Otherwise, the overhead speakers should not be regarded any differently from the rest of your surround speakers. That is, any compromise on quality represents a compromise in the immersive effect. 

And in the case of in-ceiling speakers, which entail a good deal more trouble and expense to install, I'd go even further: Choose them (and their location) with care with the goal to get it right the first time. I would advise that you set your speaker budget accordingly.


----------



## Selden Ball

serrated said:


> How important is the quality of the speakers for atmos? I guess I should word this better. How good do the ceiling speakers for atmos need to be to get the job done? If it's an area I can skimp to put money elsewhere where it might count more, I'd love to.


Atmos and DTS:X send full-range audio to all speaker channels. As a result, Dolby recommends that all of the speakers be full range and timbre-matched. 

Fortunately, most roomEQ products can do quite a bit to improve the accuracy of the sounds coming from all of the speakers while bass management can redirect low frequencies that the speakers can't handle to the subwoofer. Together they can compensate for quite a few infelicities in speakers and room acoustics. However, the better the speakers and room acoustics are to begin with, the better the results will be from whatever room EQ product you're using.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Just wanted to drop in and say... I gave Fantastic Beasts And How To Find Them a spin last night on my 7.1.4 setup. Hands down my favorite Atmos track thus far. You're all going to love how this one sounds when you get your hands on it. And it's a pretty outstanding movie to boot!


----------



## Jonas2

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Just wanted to drop in and say... I gave Fantastic Beasts And How To Find Them a spin last night on my 7.1.4 setup. Hands down my favorite Atmos track thus far. You're all going to love how this one sounds when you get your hands on it. And it's a pretty outstanding movie to boot!


Ah! I didn't really care for the movie so much (no way it can replace Harry Potter), so I've not been inclined to purchase this one. Maybe I need to give it a second chance....


----------



## Mrjmc99

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Just wanted to drop in and say... I gave Fantastic Beasts And How To Find Them a spin last night on my 7.1.4 setup. Hands down my favorite Atmos track thus far. You're all going to love how this one sounds when you get your hands on it. And it's a pretty outstanding movie to boot!


+1, It had quite a bit of overhead sound, and a good mix across the board. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## deano86

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Just wanted to drop in and say... I gave Fantastic Beasts And How To Find Them a spin last night on my 7.1.4 setup. Hands down my favorite Atmos track thus far. You're all going to love how this one sounds when you get your hands on it. And it's a pretty outstanding movie to boot!


Gave it a spin? Didn't realize it was released....


----------



## DomNY

*Question about 5.1.2*

Greetings,
Dolby indicates that ceiling height speakers in a 5.1.2 set-up should be "slightly" in front of MLP. Does anyone know what slightly means in terms of percent of distance from screen? Of course, Dolby never replied to my inquiry. Also, several sites indicate that the ceiling height speakers should be directly overhead. For those with a 5.1.2 setup, which is best?
Apologies if this has been asked before.
Regards,
Dom


----------



## veger69

The guide states 65-100 deg from MLP. I'll let someone who has experience tell you what angle works best for 5.1.2 but once you get that angle, Measure from your ears to the ceiling then go to one of those triangles calc sites then enter the distance and 90deg on one of the angles on the side you entered the distance. then ( angle provided) on the opposite side. That should give the distance out. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lujan

deano86 said:


> Gave it a spin? Didn't realize it was released....


I don't think it's released until 3/28. Maybe OP got an early copy?


----------



## sdurani

DomNY said:


> Does anyone know what slightly means in terms of percent of distance from screen?


The Atmos install guide on the Dolby website shows that configuring a single pair of heights should put them around 80 degrees elevation. Easy way to figure that out: measure from your ears to the ceiling, multiply that number by 0.2 and that's the distance forward of your listening position that the speakers go. So, if you ceiling is 5 feet above your ears, then the height speakers go a foot forward of your listening position. I personally like it a couple feet forward of that, but anywhere in that range will work.


----------



## DomNY

sdurani said:


> The Atmos install guide on the Dolby website shows that configuring a single pair of heights should put them around 80 degrees elevation. Easy way to figure that out: measure from your ears to the ceiling, multiply that number by 0.2 and that's the distance forward of your listening position that the speakers go. So, if you ceiling is 5 feet above your ears, then the height speakers go a foot forward of your listening position. I personally like it a couple feet forward of that, but anywhere in that range will work.


Thanks veger69 and sdurani. I can handle that calculation. )


----------



## keeper

sdurani said:


> The Atmos install guide on the Dolby website shows that configuring a single pair of heights should put them around 80 degrees elevation. Easy way to figure that out: measure from your ears to the ceiling, multiply that number by 0.2 and that's the distance forward of your listening position that the speakers go. So, if you ceiling is 5 feet above your ears, then the height speakers go a foot forward of your listening position. I personally like it a couple feet forward of that, but anywhere in that range will work.


I'm trying to research the top middle placement myself. I am going to start with 2 overheads with the likelyhood of going 4 at some point next year. Want to limit the amount of holes that I cut in the ceiling. With that said my first set of overheads will be around 3-4 ft in front of mlp. Not sure how good that will sound but I can angle the tweeters in.


----------



## sdurani

keeper said:


> Want to limit the amount of holes that I cut in the ceiling. With that said my first set of overheads will be around 3-4 ft in front of mlp.


In consideration of the second pair of heights coming next year, mount the first pair of heights at a 45 degree elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward of your listening position is where the heights go). It won't sound directly overhead, but you'll still get plenty of height effect. Plus, you won't have to move them and cut new holes in the ceiling when you add the second pair (which should also be elevated 45 degrees, but rearward of your listening position).


----------



## keeper

sdurani said:


> In consideration of the second pair of heights coming next year, mount the first pair of heights at a 45 degree elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward of your listening position is where the heights go). It won't sound directly overhead, but you'll still get plenty of height effect. Plus, you won't have to move them and cut new holes in the ceiling when you add the second pair (which should also be elevated 45 degrees, but rearward of your listening position).


Thanks for your response. Second question is because of a support I may need to mount the top rear overheads about a ft further apart than the top front/middle. So it maybe the spacing between the two top middles are 7ft and the spacing for the top rears are 8ft apart. Do you see a problem with that. Much appreciated.


----------



## sdurani

keeper said:


> So it maybe the spacing between the two top middles are 7ft and the spacing for the top rears are 8ft apart. Do you see a problem with that.


Normally that one foot difference would render a system completely useless. But you lucked out: turns out that our human hearing isn't very good behind us, so you'll never notice the difference in spacing between your two pairs of heights.


----------



## howard68

So Harry potter UHD D/V 
With a avr 6200 you will be **** out of luck for pass through 
When will the avr 7300 ? 
Why the f can't Denon just sort this out to all amps not just the one covered by the last model they appear to have the same speciation 
I have been a,denon man for over 25 years it may be time to change 
If this lazy marketing goes on


----------



## smurraybhm

howard68 said:


> So Harry potter UHD D/V
> With a avr 6200 you will be **** out of luck for pass through
> When will the avr 7300 ?
> Why the f can't Denon just sort this out to all amps not just the one covered by the last model they appear to have the same speciation
> I have been a,denon man for over 25 years it may be time to change
> If this lazy marketing goes on


Then change to Yamaha, oh wait they aren't adding this feature until the next batch of receivers, so some would say that's even worse. At the same time let them know you want the Audyssey app too, that would be another great feature to have so you could make same adjustments to the target curve, etc, 

This same type of thing was complained about way too much in regards to a previous D/M generation not getting an upgrade - see DTS:X and those who bought a 4100, 5200, 7009, etc. Personally I think its great that D/M is updating this year's receivers, could have easily waited for next year before adding the feature to pass through DV. If you buy a new 4k player that features apps (see Sony, Panny, Samsung but not my Oppo 203), they have two outputs, one for audio and one for video, so its easy to get the best of both worlds by running the video directly to your display and the audio to your 6200. Use the players apps for your DV not shiny disk content, and regardless you'll need a display that offers DV, audio will still run through your 6200. Perfect, no, but it works. This is how I am enjoying some Atmos only mixes available via Ultra 4k on my ancient 5200 

You bought the 6200 and it listed its specs/features, at no time did it say anything about adding support for DV, so I hate to say it's really not reasonable to expect an upgrade for free regardless of how "similar" the past few models make look to you. At least D/M gave you Auro


----------



## mrtickleuk

smurraybhm said:


> This same type of thing was complained about way too much in regards to a previous D/M generation not getting an upgrade - see DTS:X and those who bought a 4200, 5200, 7009, etc.


To be fair the 4200 does do DTS:X. It had its free upgrade over a year ago now at the same time (18th Feb 2016) as the 6200  . Only the 7200 was earlier (28th Jan 2016)!



smurraybhm said:


> You bought the 6200 and it listed its specs/features, at no time did it say anything about adding support for DV, so I hate to say it's really not reasonable to expect an upgrade for free regardless of how "similar" the past few models make look to you. At least D/M SOLD you Auro for a big extra whack of money


"gave?" Hardly! I've fixed your quote for you


----------



## howard68

You miss the point 
I believe Denon could do the upgrade to passed D/V to other avrs
They just want to sell new ones!!!
It is not a nice practice 
And do you work for Denon 
I know,things change 
Somethings don't have to be thrown away for a bigger profit by a good company thay seems to be losing it customers service for profit


----------



## Scott Simonian

howard68 said:


> So Harry potter UHD D/V
> With a avr 6200 you will be **** out of luck for pass through
> When will the avr 7300 ?
> Why the f can't Denon just sort this out to all amps not just the one covered by the last model they appear to have the same speciation
> I have been a,denon man for over 25 years it may be time to change
> If this lazy marketing goes on


Someone have a gun to your head ordering you to only watch HP in Dolby Vision? 


New standards, new gear. Complaining about new standards never gets old. 

First adopter, eh? Future proof? Hell yeah! You say you need my last four SSN, eh? Extended Warranty? How can I lose?!? HDR-what now? Ahhh crap.


----------



## Scott Simonian

howard68 said:


> They just want to sell new ones!!!














howard68 said:


> It is not a nice practice


A business making money for itself is rather nice. 

You as a consumer have the choice when and if to buy a product. Don't like it? Don't buy it.


----------



## smurraybhm

mrtickleuk said:


> To be fair the 4200 does do DTS:X. It had its free upgrade over a year ago now at the same time (18th Feb 2016) as the 6200  . Only the 7200 was earlier (28th Jan 2016)!
> 
> 
> 
> "gave?" Hardly! I've fixed your quote for you


Careful, a forum member is already upset 
Thanks for the catch, damn model numbers. Edited my post.


----------



## howard68

I think there are many trolls,
here
that don't want to talk and want to show off how much money thay can pretend to spend on Avr
Why you don't really care about the upgrades
that could and should come as a common practice upgrades to Avrs
I am not expecting new channel of amplifier upgrades for free

This is for support and not gloating about you big supposed budget that allows you to upgrade to the next Avr at the drop of you hat and go stop crying 
I spend a lot and hope it will be supported


----------



## Molon_Labe

howard68 said:


> I think there are many trolls,
> here
> that don't want to talk and want to show off how much money thay can pretend to spend on Avr
> Why you don't really care about the upgrades
> that could and should come as a common practice upgrades to Avrs
> I am not expecting new channel of amplifier upgrades for free
> 
> This is for support and not gloating about you big supposed budget that allows you to upgrade to the next Avr at the drop of you hat and go stop crying
> I spend a lot and hope it will be supported


A company's loyalty is not to it's customer but rather it's shareholder. They would have you buying a new receiver every year if possible - it is what it is.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol who is gloating on about their awesome budget?


----------



## Scott Simonian

howard68 said:


> I think there are many trolls,
> here
> that don't want to talk and want to show off how much money thay can pretend to spend on Avr
> Why you don't really care about the upgrades
> that could and should come as a common practice upgrades to Avrs
> I am not expecting new channel of amplifier upgrades for free
> 
> This is for support and not gloating about you big supposed budget that allows you to upgrade to the next Avr at the drop of you hat and go stop crying
> I spend a lot and hope it will be supported












It's going to be okay.


----------



## paul46nix

KidHorn said:


> Can atmos work properly in a room with a cathedral ceiling?


the set-up microphone of receiver will listen to atmos speakers and adjust accordingly, for that kind of room, mounting the atmos speakers in or on ceiling might have better results instead of bouncing of ceiling, the echo effect of bouncing the sound off ceiling might sound nice too.


----------



## chi_guy50

howard68 said:


> I think there are many trolls,
> here
> that don't want to talk and want to show off how much money thay can pretend to spend on Avr
> Why you don't really care about the upgrades
> that could and should come as a common practice upgrades to Avrs
> I am not expecting new channel of amplifier upgrades for free
> 
> This is for support and not gloating about you big supposed budget that allows you to upgrade to the next Avr at the drop of you hat and go stop crying
> I spend a lot and hope it will be supported


I agree with you that it seems plausible that D+M could make the DV upgrade available for the 2014/2015 model year units (e.g., my X5200 and your X6200) if they chose to do so, but I do think that you are making too big a deal out of what amounts to a "nice to have" feature upgrade.

As Steve and Scott have pointed out, you have the option to bypass the AVR for the video signal or, in a worst case, select HDR10 in lieu of DV on the source (HDR10 is a mandatory feature for all UHD Blu-rays) so it's not even as if your current AVR prevents you from enjoying DV content.

I myself intend to upgrade my AVR next year but under no circumstances would I be prepared to do it just for DV, and I can't see that feature as a driving force for more than a literal handful of prospective buyers. If that were D+M marketing's intention, they should be given an award for wishful thinking.


----------



## Ricoflashback

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree with you that it seems plausible that D+M could make the DV upgrade available for the 2014/2015 model year units (e.g., my X5200 and your X6200) if they chose to do so, but I do think that you are making too big a deal out of what amounts to a "nice to have" feature upgrade.
> 
> As Steve and Scott have pointed out, you have the option to bypass the AVR for the video signal or, in a worst case, select HDR10 in lieu of DV on the source (HDR10 is a mandatory feature for all UHD Blu-rays) so it's not even as if your current AVR prevents you from enjoying DV content.
> 
> I myself intend to upgrade my AVR next year but under no circumstances would I be prepared to do it just for DV, and I can't see that feature as a driving force for more than a literal handful of prospective buyers. If that were D+M marketing's intention, they should be given an award for wishful thinking.


There are not many AVR's out there that have a full set of upgradeable features. Even those that do are much higher in price. And the way technology changes, you'll probably end up replacing major equipment on a 5 to 7 year cycle. Not speakers, mind you - - you can keep those forever. And, some amplifiers, too. But AVR's, Bluray Players & TV's usually have new features & benefits at a lower price within a 5 to 7 year cycle. I mean major, major differences in PQ and quality. 

Yes, you can keep things longer, but that's the norm from what I've seen. My 65" LED/LCD TV will be five years old in September of this year. My, how time flys. Quite frankly, if I can get another two to three years out of it - - I'd be happy. 

I went on the cheap with an open box, Dolby Atmos Denon X5200. I haven't joined the UHD bandwagon - - my old OPPO is doing fine. So - - there are ways to save money. I don't necessarily think anyone is trolling on this thread. Although, Scott can be a condescending "meany," at times. Just kidding. 

In the famous words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"


----------



## Jonas2

Ricoflashback said:


> There are not many AVR's out there that have a full set of upgradeable features. Even those that do are much higher in price. And the way technology changes, you'll probably end up replacing major equipment on a 5 to 7 year cycle. Not speakers, mind you - - you can keep those forever. And, some amplifiers, too. But AVR's, Bluray Players & TV's usually have new features & benefits at a lower price within a 5 to 7 year cycle. I mean major, major differences in PQ and quality.


Yeah, I'd like to think I invested in quality-enough speakers that they will hopefully outlast me.  But my strategy is to always have the $$$ stuffed away to replace the TV and the AVR, assuming they'll be the biggest ticket items in my "HT", if you can call it that.  Figure I will just replace the dumb things every 5 years - hopefully they will last that long physically and technologically. I certainly understand the frustration of folks by the rapid changes and lack of support thereof. Just buy, try to enjoy, and plan on replacing it regularly. Chasing tech. sucks, but it is what it is.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Anyway....back to Atmos. Yeesh.

Hacksaw Ridge is a great new Atmos mix. Nice and natural yet subdued throughout the first half of the film. Then an aggressive (without being gimmicky) soundfield in battle. Great bass too! 

Just makes me think of Saving Private Ryan in Atmos or DTS:X. Oh man.


----------



## Jonas2

Scott Simonian said:


> Just makes me think of Saving Private Ryan in Atmos or DTS:X. Oh man.


Have this been re-mixed in Atmos or DTS:X? Don't even know if that's possible....??


----------



## Scott Simonian

Jonas2 said:


> Have this been re-mixed in Atmos or DTS:X? Don't even know if that's possible....??


Not to my knowledge but it is inevitable.

Yes. Yes it _is_ possible.


----------



## Roger Wise

veger69 said:


> Hey guys just bought a new house and finally going to do a dedicated home theater w Dolby Atmos!
> I have F32, C32, LMF1 SUB and going to buy M106x4, C763Lx4 and hsu vtf3 mk5. Here are some SketchUps of my room. It's small but I've managed to achieve all the required angles including 45deg to the overhead speakers. Let me know if you guys can see any improvements on the placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'd flip it around so people coming in can't sneak up on you. Oh and so you can add more seats if (AND WHEN) you want


----------



## Scott Simonian

All that equipment would fill the area in that walkway. It wouldn't work well.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Anyway....back to Atmos. Yeesh.
> 
> Hacksaw Ridge is a great new Atmos mix. Nice and natural yet subdued throughout the first half of the film. Then an aggressive (without being gimmicky) soundfield in battle. Great bass too!
> 
> Just makes me think of Saving Private Ryan in Atmos or DTS:X. Oh man.


Yeah, don't know whether I've said it here yet, but _Hacksaw Ridge_ has the best Atmos soundtrack I have heard. It's LFE is world class, too.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Scott Simonian said:


> Hacksaw Ridge is a great new Atmos mix. Nice and natural yet subdued throughout the first half of the film. Then an aggressive (without being gimmicky) soundfield in battle. Great bass too!


I may have to get a UHD player just for this movie. 

Here is my Atmos journey thus far


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Molon_Labe said:


> I may have to get a UHD player just for this movie.
> 
> Here is my Atmos journey thus far


You can get it with Atmos on Blu-Ray as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I did pick up the UHD version but yes, the regular Blu-ray has the Atmos track and that is how I watched it.


No UHD player yet.


----------



## healthnut

Molon_Labe said:


> I did not know that. I thought the BR was 7.1 only - thanks! I can hold off on that player a bit longer then.




Having invested in a 4k player (and JVC projector), i haven't seen the big increase in PQ I expected. ATMOS has been great, and was a worthwhile upgrade. There are some great BD titles that have ATMOS and the DSU feature can get you a good percentage of the way on straight 7.1 titles. The whole UHD 4k landscape is a mess right now, the longer you can wait, the better and cheaper your options will be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## westbergjoakim

I try it again! 😊


westbergjoakim said:


> Hey!
> 
> I wanted to ask what you guys think and recommend.
> 
> My MLP is 75cm/2,46ft from the backwall. I have 142cm/4,66ft from my ears to the ceiling.
> 
> My top fronts are 129cm/4,23ft in front of me (48°) but my top backs are only 57cm/1,87ft behind me (112°? or something like that).
> 
> Should I move my top fronts closer to match my backs better or just leave it as it is now? I have stretched my MLP and top backs as much as I can.
> 
> I think it sounds good as it is, but would it be better to have somewhat equal distance to both tops? Or is it better to have one of them in the right place and the other somewhere near it?
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## gwsat

healthnut said:


> Having invested in a 4k player (and JVC projector), i haven't seen the big increase in PQ I expected. ATMOS has been great, and was a worthwhile upgrade. There are some great BD titles that have ATMOS and the DSU feature can get you a good percentage of the way on straight 7.1 titles. The whole UHD 4k landscape is a mess right now, the longer you can wait, the better and cheaper your options will be.


I have really been enjoying the dozen or so UHD HDR movie disks I have acquired. I think the process can make what are already beautiful images on a BD look even better. That said, I think 7.1.4.Atmos or DTS:X adds more to my movie watching enjoyment than UHD HDR does.


----------



## AsahiToro

I haven't posted in awhile and am looking to make some changes in my older 5.1 setup. I'm picking up a Yamaha RX-A860 receiver and am wondering which setup would work best? I absolutely cannot have anything but ceiling speakers for my rears but can add another non ceiling mounted pair up front.

Current speakers:
Mains-KEF Reference 2s
Center-KEF Reference 100c
Sub: HSU VTF-3 MKII
Rear surrounds: Energy? 5.25" two way ceiling mounted speakers (I may upgrade these to Polk RC85is.)

Again, I can add some speakers for front presence but can't add them to the ceiling up front. Any good speaker advice here?

So should I just go with my front L/C/R speakers and use my rear ceiling mounted speakers and any extra front speakers I get for presence speakers (skip rear surrounds)? My other option is use the rear ceiling mounted ones as actual rear surrounds and only use any new speakers I add up front for presence speakers.

My rear ceiling mounted speakers are about 2' beside and behind the seating position if that matters.

Thanks for any input.


----------



## muzz

gwsat said:


> I have really been enjoying the dozen or so UHD HDR movie disks I have acquired. I think the process can make what are already beautiful images on a BD look even better. That said, I think 7.1.4.Atmos or DTS:X adds more to my movie watching enjoyment than UHD HDR does.


I see this type of comment made fairly frequently, unfortunately I need/want a 9.2 Atmos/DTS:X receiver and ceiling speakers, and because I'm here everyday, all I ever read about is the D+M issues( molesting video- humming/crackling, pay for repair shipping out),and the rather uninspiring Ypao, and worse yet MCAAC(which I wouldn't buy anyway due to Manufacturer issues).
I need to get in this to go with my RS400, but prices aren't cheap!
Looking at 2060 right now, probably A4L.


----------



## hatlesschimp

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content









These beauties arrived on Monday. I tried to hold out till Friday night to share Hacksaw Ridge with my friends but I caved in! 

This is now my favorite movie and its not just because of the awesome Atmos soundtrack and sharp vivid 4K picture but the emotions this movie puts the viewer through really rammed this one home as an absolute keeper. 

Hacksaw Ridge = 👍


----------



## audiofan1

gwsat said:


> Yeah, don't know whether I've said it here yet, but _Hacksaw Ridge_ has the best Atmos soundtrack I have heard. It's LFE is world class, too.


That about sums it up! but just could be the best mix I've ever heard period


----------



## mrtickleuk

Molon_Labe said:


> Your not the first person to mention a bit of disappointing in the 4k projector. My Sony 55es is only a year old, so my plan was to wait at least 3-4 years before upgrading it. By then, I hope that things will settle down, including the standards and pricing. I bought the device that proxies the 4k security for my projector in the event that I decide to get a UHD player for the Atmos/DTS:X audio but there hasn't been a compelling reason to do that thus far. I am in a holding pattern for now.


Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.

For this reason I predict a new shift away from home projectors, and back to home large-screen TVs.


----------



## hatlesschimp

mrtickleuk said:


> Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.
> 
> For this reason I predict a new shift away from home projectors, and back to home large-screen TVs.


A total light cannon of a projector is required to get HDR at home working. Also need the right type of screen too, dont even try and think an AT screen will be bright enough at a respectable size. I have an AT woven screen and I end up stripping metadata and keep the REC2020 colour and it looks fine. For me its the Rec.2020 colour that I like more than the wider dynamic brightness nits. Obviously my Epson tw9300 is not going to punch out an image brightness with incredible dynamic contrast like the jvc x9500. Cant wait till I get my hands on the x9500. 
Back to Hacksaw Ridge. I love that 4k discs are not region locked. Also back to Atmos I found my celing speakers were perfectly placed for the overhead sound. Some other movies I think they just throw random sounds up there because they can where as HSR made every sound have a purpose and a reason to be at that location. When I say this I mean Independence day Resurgence randomly shunted PA Speaker anouncements to the Atmos and made them too powerful. I found it distracting. The first time it happened I thought it was cool but then it continued and it got old real quick.

If you buy the movie the first real battle scene is incredible and totally takes hold of you, it certainly wakes you up. Incredibly filmed by Mel Gibson, he is a genius! I dont know what techniques he used to get the shots! I had the 18" sub bumped up a few notches too for the viewing. 😄

Just talking about it now makes me feel like watching it again!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Hacksaw Ridge - Oscar for Sound Mixing, Film Editing and my opinion, should have been an Oscar for Best Director - Mel Gibson. The "Hacksaw Ridge" movie review thread contains many poster's comments on how the movie affected them. 

It was a great story about a true American hero who is as humble as anyone can be. A "Conscientious Cooperator" - not a "Conscientious Objector!" It was the best film of 2016 that I saw, by far.


----------



## Molon_Labe

mrtickleuk said:


> Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.
> 
> For this reason I predict a new shift away from home projectors, and back to home large-screen TVs.



Not in my room. To be honest, I don't feel I am missing anything with 1080p. The immersive, theatrical experience I get from a large screen would be gone with a crystal clear small display. I understand 4k, 8k, and HDR is a priority to some, but it isn't to me. 1080p isn't 4:3 TV days, it is actually a very good picture if one has a decent projector. I have never watched a movie and felt something was missing picture wise. If, or when, the technology makes its way to projectors that are affordable I will upgrade. Until then, I will keep enjoying my theater. Don't get me wrong, would I love a better picture if possible - yes. Am I on the edge of my seat waiting - no.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Molon_Labe said:


> Not in my room. To be honest, I don't feel I am missing anything with 1080p. The immersive, theatrical experience I get from a large screen would be gone with a crystal clear small display. I understand 4k, 8k, and HDR is a priority to some, but it isn't to me. 1080p isn't 4:3 TV days, it is actually a very good picture if one has a decent projector. I have never watched a movie and felt something was missing picture wise. If, or when, the technology makes its way to projectors that are affordable I will upgrade. Until then, I will keep enjoying my theater. Don't get me wrong, would I love a better picture if possible - yes. Am I on the edge of my seat waiting - no.


For the dual HT setup folks (Projector over an LCD/LED or OLED TV) - you've got the best of both worlds. You can cost effectively obtain a large screen 65" TV (even larger if you're not going top dollar) for news, sports and other "TV" viewing and keep a 100" screen or larger for movies with a 1080P projector. I find a Bluray picture with the Darbee Darblet does not detract at all from the movie experience. 

Great for folks who are into HDR. You can have both worlds if you invest in a dual setup. I find times where I do not want to be in the dark watching TV (Cable news, sports, TV shows like "Black Sails" or "Billions"). For movies with Atmos - - having a dark room with the big screen is really a treat. 

Net-net - - many ways to get there and within a cost that fits your budget.


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> I did pick up the UHD version but yes, the regular Blu-ray has the Atmos track and that is how I watched it.
> 
> 
> No UHD player yet.


Unless you are watching the Netflix version, where Lionsgate doesn't include Atmos!


----------



## oldsteve

Ted99 said:


> Unless you are watching the Netflix version, where Lionsgate doesn't include Atmos!


The blu-ray version that comes with the 4K Ultra HD disc has Dolby Atmos. I don't know if the combination blu-ray/DVD version has it or not?


----------



## Scott Simonian

It does.


----------



## Jond0

Molon_Labe said:


> I had rented it from Redbox. That is why I didn't think the BR version had Atmos since it was removed.





Ted99 said:


> Unless you are watching the Netflix version, where Lionsgate doesn't include Atmos!


Dang it!! My Redbox doesn't even have the BD yet but I guess there is no point in waiting.


----------



## gwsat

muzz said:


> I see this type of comment made fairly frequently, unfortunately I need/want a 9.2 Atmos/DTS:X receiver and ceiling speakers, and because I'm here everyday, all I ever read about is the D+M issues( molesting video- humming/crackling, pay for repair shipping out),and the rather uninspiring Ypao, and worse yet MCAAC(which I wouldn't buy anyway due to Manufacturer issues).
> I need to get in this to go with my RS400, but prices aren't cheap!
> Looking at 2060 right now, probably A4L.


I have in-ceiling speakers and agree that they are the ideal arrangement especially in 10 feet high ceilings, which mine are. My space is limited enough that 7.1.4 is the practical limit to what I can do. Fortunately, that has been good enough. I have been very happy with my setup. I should add that my Yamaha RX-A3060 has performed flawlessly.


----------



## sotwell

My dedicated theater is 25x17x10, to rows with 4 seats per row. My front L/R are both about 2' from side wall (either side of an 11' screen). I have my L/R, turned and pointing to MLP. In looking at Dolby Atmos setup guide, it shows the line straight from the front L/R to the back of the room and the ceiling speakers are placed along this dashed line. But since i have my from L/R angled in, should i be following that line? With my room so wide, when following the guide, my ceiling spears are only 2' from side walls. It seems like i would would them in closer to the center of the room a bit and provide greater separation from my side surrounds.


----------



## sdurani

sotwell said:


> It seems like i would would them in closer to the center of the room a bit and provide greater separation from my side surrounds.


I would spread them about 1/2 room width (8.5 feet) apart and aim them at the listener farthest away.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ted99 said:


> Unless you are watching the Netflix version, where Lionsgate doesn't include Atmos!





Molon_Labe said:


> I had rented it from Redbox. That is why I didn't think the BR version had Atmos since it was removed.





oldsteve said:


> The blu-ray version that comes with the 4K Ultra HD disc has Dolby Atmos. I don't know if the combination blu-ray/DVD version has it or not?


It's the "rental" version of the BRD that has the immersive audio track removed. This is typical for Lionsgate releases (even some/most of the regular HD audio tracks are dumbed down to lossy versions). 

The solution is to rent these titles from 3D-BlurayRental.com, which stocks only the full, undoctored retail discs.


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> I may have to get a UHD player just for this movie.





Mashie Saldana said:


> You can get it with Atmos on Blu-Ray as well.


True for this title...but not all.



Molon_Labe said:


> I did not know that. I thought the BR was 7.1 only - thanks! I can hold off on that player a bit longer then.


I have both the Philips 7501 and the Oppo 203. For your consideration if you want a temporary or bridge solution, I highly recommend the Philips 7501 for its excellent PQ, no birthing issues, and low cost of entry. Relative to what many have invested in our systems, the Philips currently at $229 and recently on sale for $179 at Monoprice is a no-brainer!

https://www.monoprice.com/Product?p...ing&utm_content=2x2&utm_campaign=q2_2016_test


----------



## muzz

chi_guy50 said:


> It's the "rental" version of the BRD that has the immersive audio track removed. This is typical for Lionsgate releases (even some/most of the regular HD audio tracks are dumbed down to lossy versions).
> 
> The solution is to rent these titles from 3D-BlurayRental.com, which stocks only the full, undoctored retail discs.


Lionsgate are scumbags.
That is all.


----------



## mrtickleuk

muzz said:


> Lionsgate are scumbags.
> That is all.


Agreed. It's a despicable practice. Everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Jond0

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed. It's a despicable practice. Everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.





muzz said:


> Lionsgate are scumbags.
> That is all.


It totally stinks, but it got me to fork over $17 to buy it. Sounds like this one will be demo worthy so I am glad to add it to my collection even if it is a Mel Gibson joint.


----------



## ma1746

I have a feeling I know the answer already, but I'm curious to hear opinions. Does anyone think in any scenario atmos modules would be better than in ceiling speakers? I have a Denon x3300 that runs 5.1.2 atmos, with goldenear mains and center, and fluance xlbp bipole surrounds. I'm currently using Andrew Jones pioneer add on's because they matched my previous mains, but I finally got permission from my wife to install 2 ceiling speakers in my movie room (12x10 bedroom with 8' ceilings, untreated). My main listening position is a single recliner right in the middle of the room. I bought 2 micca m-8c's and they will be installed this weekend right in the middle of the room on either side of a center light fixture. Will this be a big improvement for me? Any tips or suggestions?


----------



## PeterTHX

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed. It's a despicable practice. Everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.




Why? Because they don't see any profit from rentals other than Netflix or Redbox buying the initial disc?


Don't like it: buy the movie.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ma1746 said:


> I have a feeling I know the answer already, but I'm curious to hear opinions. Does anyone think in any scenario atmos modules would be better than in ceiling speakers? I have a Denon x3300 that runs 5.1.2 atmos, with goldenear mains and center, and fluance xlbp bipole surrounds. I'm currently using Andrew Jones pioneer add on's because they matched my previous mains, but I finally got permission from my wife to install 2 ceiling speakers in my movie room (12x10 bedroom with 8' ceilings, untreated). My main listening position is a single recliner right in the middle of the room. I bought 2 micca m-8c's and they will be installed this weekend right in the middle of the room on either side of a center light fixture. Will this be a big improvement for me? Any tips or suggestions?


Probably a big improvement: discrete sounds above will be more defined and more powerful. 
Suggestion: put the in-ceilings a bit forward at 80-85 degrees elevation.


----------



## humbland

muzz said:


> Lionsgate are scumbags.
> That is all.


+1 on the Lionsgate sentiment. In the past, I have rented only 3D Blu-rays from 3D Bluray rentals.com. How can you know if you are getting the Atmos soundtrack on an ordinary BR disc?
We have Netflix, but from the description, I would like to hear Hacksaw Ridge in Atmos. We have not yet jumped on the 4K bandwagon. When I looked at the BR description of Hacksaw Ridge on 3D Bluray rentals.com, it said nothing about the audio...
Thanks,


----------



## gene4ht

mrtickleuk said:


> Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.


This is true...PJs currently cannot produce the necessary lumens that flat panels offer. However, in my experience and for my personal taste, 1080 upscaled to 4K with SDR and REC2020 or even REC709 produces a discernibly improved and stunning image...HDR would be icing on the cake but don't miss it in the least.



mrtickleuk said:


> For this reason I predict a new shift away from home projectors, and back to home large-screen TVs.


Totally disagree...IMO, for the majority of people, the immersive factor of PJ's outweigh the benefits of HDR.



Molon_Labe said:


> The immersive, theatrical experience I get from a large screen would be gone with a crystal clear small display. I understand...HDR is a priority to some, but it isn't to me.


+1


----------



## mrtickleuk

gene4ht said:


> +1


Fair enough but just remember some of those are arguments against things I did not say . I wouldn't suggest anyone would be pleased with a "small" screen. I'm pretty sure I said "large" in my post.


----------



## Ladeback

gene4ht said:


> This is true...PJs currently cannot produce the necessary lumens that flat panels offer. However, in my experience and for my personal taste, 1080 upscaled to 4K with SDR and REC2020 or even REC709 produces a discernibly improved and stunning image...HDR would be icing on the cake but don't miss it in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally disagree...IMO, for the majority of people, the immersive factor of PJ's outweigh the benefits of HDR.
> 
> 
> 
> +1



I agree with the above. I haven't seen a lot of HDR, but the new Epson's and JVC are seeming to be doing better with this. The whole reason to have a dedicated home theater is to have that big screen and you just can't get that with a large IMO. Also the larger 85" 4K Tv's are about the same price as a Sony 4K projector. I rather have the projector and 120" to 150" screen then the TV.


----------



## chi_guy50

humbland said:


> +1 on the Lionsgate sentiment. In the past, I have rented only 3D Blu-rays from 3D Bluray rentals.com. How can you know if you are getting the Atmos soundtrack on an ordinary BR disc?
> We have Netflix, but from the description, I would like to hear Hacksaw Ridge in Atmos. We have not yet jumped on the 4K bandwagon. When I looked at the BR description of Hacksaw Ridge on 3D Bluray rentals.com, it said nothing about the audio...
> Thanks,


As I stated above, every disc you get from 3D-BlurayRental.com will be the complete retail version, not the rental version.

There are various reliable sources that will list the audio track on a given Blu-ray (or UHD Blu-ray) title including my go-to source, www.blu-ray.com. 

Both retail editions of _Hacksaw Ridge_ (2K & UHD) have the Atmos sound track. So rent away (from 3D-BlurayRental.com) and be assured that you will get your added "Atmos sprinkles."


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "I rather have the projector and 120" to 150" screen then the TV."

I'd rather have both! It's amazing how cost effective projectors are these days. Even inexpensive screens can give you a great picture. While my projector screen is only 100" - - it's still big enough in my small man cave theater to totally immerse yourself in that "big screen" experience. For movies - - it's the closest thing to being at the theater (coupled with a Dolby Atmos setup). Sans the high cost of popcorn and other refreshments. It's not as long a trip to the bathroom and you can pause the movie, too.


----------



## gwsat

chi_guy50 said:


> As I stated above, every disc you get from 3D-BlurayRental.com will be the complete retail version, not the rental version.
> 
> There are various reliable sources that will list the audio track on a given Blu-ray (or UHD Blu-ray) title including my go-to source, www.blu-ray.com.
> 
> Both retail editions of _Hacksaw Ridge_ (2K & UHD) have the Atmos sound track. So rent away (from 3D-BlurayRental.com) and be assured that you will get your added "Atmos sprinkles."


I own the 1080p version of _Hacksaw Ridge_ and can confirm that it has a TrueHD Atmos soundtrack.

I agree that Blu-ray.com is the go to site to learn definitively about the technical specs of any disk, including the audio codec used. The reviews collected there are useful too.


----------



## Legairre

gene4ht said:


> This is true...PJs currently cannot produce the necessary lumens that flat panels offer. However, in my experience and for my personal taste, 1080 upscaled to 4K with SDR and REC2020 or even REC709 produces a discernibly improved and stunning image...HDR would be icing on the cake but don't miss it in the least.
> 
> Totally disagree...IMO, for the majority of people, the immersive factor of PJ's outweigh the benefits of HDR.
> 
> +1


 Absolutely, I'd never give up my 120” projector and screen for something like an 80” TV, just to get HDR. Sure HDR is nice, but I’d never give up the immersion we get sitting 13 feet from a 120” screen. To get the same 37 degree viewing angle and immersion as we get with the 120” from 13 feet we'd have to sit 8.5 feet from an 80” TV.

Give up a big screen just for HDR? Never. The theater experience is about incredible sound and a big screen. Once you give up the big screen you’re just watching TV.


----------



## gene4ht

Legairre said:


> Absolutely, I'd never give up my 120” projector and screen for something like an 80” TV, just to get HDR. Sure HDR is nice, but I’d never give up the immersion we get sitting 13 feet from a 120” screen. To get the same 37 degree viewing angle and immersion as we get with the 120” from 13 feet we'd have to sit 8.5 feet from an 80” TV.
> 
> Give up a big screen just for HDR? Never. * The theater experience is about incredible sound and a big screen*. Once you give up the big screen you’re just watching TV.


Ah Yes! Atmos (immersive sound) enhances and goes hand in hand with an immersive image!


----------



## veger69

Hey guys if I wanted to wire for a projector for the future what location would you suggest in my 15'5" x 14'9" room?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## klimo

gene4ht said:


> This is true...PJs currently cannot produce the necessary lumens that flat panels offer. However, in my experience and for my personal taste, 1080 upscaled to 4K with SDR and REC2020 or even REC709 produces a discernibly improved and stunning image...HDR would be icing on the cake but don't miss it in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally disagree...IMO, for the majority of people, the immersive factor of PJ's outweigh the benefits of HDR.
> 
> 
> 
> +1




I thought that the new epson 5040s were HDR? 

1080p plus HDR looks pretty fantastic 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Legairre

klimo said:


> I thought that the new epson 5040s were HDR?
> 
> 1080p plus HDR looks pretty fantastic
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There's also the Optoma UHD60 4K with HDR for $2799 coming this year. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...optoma-uhd60-4k-hdr-projector-ces-2017-a.html


----------



## gene4ht

klimo said:


> I thought that the new epson 5040s were HDR?


True...the 5040 is HDR compatible.



klimo said:


> 1080p plus HDR looks pretty fantastic


Most owners of current HDR compatible PJ's find the HDR image too dark...a function of PJ's just not bright enough at this time Consequently, many owners continually tweak adjustments in an effort to obtain a brighter image. Others have elected to turn off HDR in favor of SDR and BT709 which is still very impressive. Others still, have elected to strip HDR but retain BT2020 by external means via an Oppo 203 or HD Fury Linker. In any case, the consensus is current consumer grade PJ's at this price point are not quite ready for HDR prime time due to lack of brightness. Never the less, the majority of owners including myself, find that these PJ's project an incredibly beautiful stunning image...even without HDR in the picture (no pun intended).


----------



## batpig

klimo said:


> I thought that the new epson 5040s were HDR?


It's one thing to "support" HDR, but it's another thing to have enough actual light output to really take advantage of it.


----------



## Legairre

veger69 said:


> Hey guys if I wanted to wire for a projector for the future what location would you suggest in my 15'5" x 14'9" room?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


 We'd need to know the projector and screen size before we can recommend placement for were to run the HDMI.


----------



## veger69

Legairre said:


> We'd need to know the projector and screen size before we can recommend placement for were to run the HDMI.




Well I'm not sure of screen size but my view distance is going to be about 9'. An as far as what projector I'm not sure is there anyway if you determine the screen size you could get me close to the position and then I could leave the hdmi and power loose with a few feet extra length to finish it later when I pick a projector?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

veger69 said:


> Well I'm not sure of screen size but my view distance is going to be about 9'


Respectfully, not sure why this is in the Atmos thread? Sounds like you just want general PJ recommendations?


----------



## veger69

True sorry I'll move it to another forum


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Legairre

veger69 said:


> Well I'm not sure of screen size but my view distance is going to be about 9'
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Without knowing the screen size and projector so we can look up it's the throw range there's no way to say where to mount the projector/run the HDMI. Some projectors are long throw and some are short throw. Also you want to mount it where it will be in the middle of the throw range not the max or min. Every projector doesn't fit every location so depending on the projector and screen size you could have to mount it over, in front of, or behind the seating.


----------



## David Susilo

---Quote (Originally by mrtickleuk)---
Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.

I never realized that Dolby Cinemas are not using projectors :: Perhaps they're using shadow puppets instead?


----------



## mrtickleuk

David Susilo said:


> ---Quote (Originally by mrtickleuk)---
> Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.
> 
> I never realized that Dolby Cinemas are not using projectors :: Perhaps they're using shadow puppets instead?


Well obviously there are exceptions with specialist projectors. Everyone else understood what I meant. I was making a general point.


----------



## Ricoflashback

veger69 said:


> True sorry I'll move it to another forum
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Try projectorcentral.com - it has a wealth of information including a calculator and extensive database of projectors. Multiple other threads and great advice on PJ's at AVSForum. 

Start by figuring out two things - the maximum size of your screen and where you want to mount your projector. I'm going to assume that you will have a ceiling mount. There are even short throw projectors to accommodate smaller rooms. 

My advice is to figure out where you will mount your projector and then shine an image on your wall. If you get a projector without lens shift - you won't have as much margin for error. That's ok - my pj doesn't have lens shift and I was able to get the screen up correctly by putting marks on the wall for alignment. 

My post install advice is to invest in the best screen you can afford. I went with a cheaper screen and it's still fantastic! Once you have a projector setup -- you'll rarely go back to watching movies on a regular tv. Above all - enjoy your journey!


----------



## gwsat

I was an early adopter of front projection TV sets. I bought the first one in the late ‘70s and the second in the mid ‘80s. Both were Henry Kloss designs. I recognize that modern projectors are exponentially superior to my old, dim, SD only sets. Nevertheless, I remember the hassle of having to have my viewing room dark, or nearly so, before much of a picture would appear from the murk. 

Based on what I have read here and elsewhere it’s still important that a room be light controlled to show off a projection system at its best. I’m sorry, but that is too much of a hassle for me. although my smart TV’s screen is pretty small by projection screen standards, 75 inches, I can watch it comfortably with every light in my viewing room left on. That’s handy if I’m watching a news show or sports. When I want to watch a movie, though, I can turn out the lights and see it in all its UHD HDR glory. I also suggest that an immersive TrueHD Atmos soundtrack sounds just good in my home theater as it would in one equipped with a projector and screen.

The bottom line here, is that there is a tradeoff either way we go, projector and screen, or LCD/OLED TV. Neither is perfect so which we choose turns on our own individual priorities.


----------



## Ladeback

gwsat said:


> I was an early adopter of front projection TV sets. I bought the first one in the late ‘70s and the second in the mid ‘80s. Both were Henry Kloss designs. I recognize that modern projectors are exponentially superior to my old, dim, SD only sets. Nevertheless, I remember the hassle of having to have my viewing room dark, or nearly so, before much of a picture would appear from the murk.
> 
> Based on what I have read here and elsewhere it’s still important that a room be light controlled to show off a projection system at its best. I’m sorry, but that is too much of a hassle for me. although my smart TV’s screen is pretty small by projection screen standards, 75 inches, I can watch it comfortably with every light in my viewing room left on. That’s handy if I’m watching a news show or sports. When I want to watch a movie, though, I can turn out the lights and see it in all its UHD HDR glory. I also suggest that an immersive TrueHD Atmos soundtrack sounds just good in my home theater as it would in one equipped with a projector and screen.
> 
> The bottom line here, is that there is a tradeoff either way we go, projector and screen, or LCD/OLED TV. Neither is perfect so which we choose turns on our own individual priorities.


If you use one of new projectors in rear projection mode you can have the lights on and still have a great picture. The trade off is you need a room long enough on the other side to place the projector. One of the guy's in my area on the forum has this setup and it is awesome for watching games, TV or movies.


----------



## twochannel

sotwell said:


> My dedicated theater is 25x17x10, to rows with 4 seats per row. My front L/R are both about 2' from side wall (either side of an 11' screen). I have my L/R, turned and pointing to MLP. In looking at Dolby Atmos setup guide, it shows the line straight from the front L/R to the back of the room and the ceiling speakers are placed along this dashed line. But since i have my from L/R angled in, should i be following that line? With my room so wide, when following the guide, my ceiling spears are only 2' from side walls. It seems like i would would them in closer to the center of the room a bit and provide greater separation from my side surrounds.


I'm in a similar position. I haven't come across a consistent recommendation for the ceiling speaker placement. To complicate matters a little more, my rear ceiling speakers will be in a 7' high ceiling and my fronts in an 8' high. I feel like I should place the rear speakers a little closer together than the fronts to compensate for the height difference.

I'm planning on using Triad silver speakers w/ their 35 degree angle so I think I'm good for how far forward and back to place


----------



## helvetica bold

I watched Logan at a Dolby Cinema last night. Great Atmos mix, I felt every punch and slice. Great film but its brutal!!!


----------



## Ladeback

helvetica bold said:


> I watched Logan at a Dolby Cinema last night. Great Atmos mix, I felt every punch and slice. Great film but its brutal!!!


I seen it as well at a Dolby Cinema. It was a great movie and I agree on the sound. It's a different movie then all the other X Men movie for sure, but well worth it to see it.


----------



## gene4ht

sotwell said:


> My dedicated theater is 25x17x10, to rows with 4 seats per row. My front L/R are both about 2' from side wall (either side of an 11' screen). I have my L/R, turned and pointing to MLP. In looking at Dolby Atmos setup guide, it shows the line straight from the front L/R to the back of the room and the ceiling speakers are placed along this dashed line. But since i have my from L/R angled in, should i be following that line? With my room so wide, when following the guide, my ceiling spears are only 2' from side walls. It seems like i would would them in closer to the center of the room a bit and provide greater separation from my side surrounds.





sdurani said:


> I would spread them about 1/2 room width (8.5 feet) apart and aim them at the listener farthest away.





twochannel said:


> I'm in a similar position. *I haven't come across a consistent recommendation for the ceiling speaker placement.* To complicate matters a little more, my rear ceiling speakers will be in a 7' high ceiling and my fronts in an 8' high. I feel like I should place the rear speakers a little closer together than the fronts to compensate for the height difference.
> 
> I'm planning on using Triad silver speakers w/ their 35 degree angle so I think I'm good for how far forward and back to place


It's rare that a home has an ideal room and seating where all the Dolby guidelines apply. Most if not all rooms have some physical constraints and varying acoustic properties requiring deviation from Dolby's guidelines. Add to this the fact that there are no Dolby guidelines for more than one row of seating for the home application. From my experience, there is no one size fits all. The best advice is to adhere to the guidelines where possible and then experiment with placement as @sdurani suggests. Enthusiast here have been creative utilizing ladders, makeshift framework, hooks and wires, etc to support speakers in various positions/locations. Ideally, having access to some of Dolby's Atmos Demos i.e. Amaze will assist greatly. Your ears will ultimately determine what sounds best/right/correct for your room and seating arrangements.


----------



## Coniption

*Help Choosing External Power Amp for 7.1.4 (Atmos) Setup*

Hi all,

With the recent news that Xbox One will be adding Dolby Atmos support, I decided to upgrade my existing 7.1 setup to an Atmos setup by adding 4 in-ceiling speakers.

Since my Aventage 3050 only powers up to 9.2 channels, I need an external stereo amplifier to power one of the pairs of overheads. Trouble is, I'm kind of tight on space, and all the amps I've seen so far are way bigger than what I can accommodate. Also, this is my first time dealing with an external amp setup, so I have to admit I'm not entirely familiar with what I need. Here's my current setup:

6 Polk 265-LS in-wall (L/R + surrounds)
1 Polk 255C-LS in-wall (center)
1 Polk DSW Pro 500 subwoofer

The new overheads I'll be installing are:

4 Polk 900-LS in-ceiling

So far, the closest amp I've been able to find that I *think* will suit my needs (mainly in terms of size) is a nice 120x2W PTA 4 Stereo Amp by Pyle (can't post links, sorry!), but I'm not sure if it's good enough quality-wise.

Can anyone give me some good suggestions on decent (but preferably small) amps I could use with the above equipment? I'd really appreciate any guidance. I attached an image of my receiver setup for reference in terms of space (nevermind the mess!).

Thanks!


----------



## Mrjmc99

Coniption said:


> Hi all,
> 
> With the recent news that Xbox One will be adding Dolby Atmos support, I decided to upgrade my existing 7.1 setup to an Atmos setup by adding 4 in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Since my Aventage 3050 only powers up to 9.2 channels, I need an external stereo amplifier to power one of the pairs of overheads. Trouble is, I'm kind of tight on space, and all the amps I've seen so far are way bigger than what I can accommodate. Also, this is my first time dealing with an external amp setup, so I have to admit I'm not entirely familiar with what I need. Here's my current setup:
> 
> 6 Polk 265-LS in-wall (L/R + surrounds)
> 1 Polk 255C-LS in-wall (center)
> 1 Polk DSW Pro 500 subwoofer
> 
> The new overheads I'll be installing are:
> 
> 4 Polk 900-LS in-ceiling
> 
> So far, the closest amp I've been able to find that I *think* will suit my needs (mainly in terms of size) is a nice 120x2W PTA 4 Stereo Amp by Pyle (can't post links, sorry!), but I'm not sure if it's good enough quality-wise.
> 
> Can anyone give me some good suggestions on decent (but preferably small) amps I could use with the above equipment? I'd really appreciate any guidance. I attached an image of my receiver setup for reference in terms of space (nevermind the mess!).
> 
> Thanks!


I don't think you have enough xbox's. Lol

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

Coniption said:


> Hi all,
> 
> With the recent news that Xbox One will be adding Dolby Atmos support, I decided to upgrade my existing 7.1 setup to an Atmos setup by adding 4 in-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Since my Aventage 3050 only powers up to 9.2 channels, I need an external stereo amplifier to power one of the pairs of overheads. Trouble is, I'm kind of tight on space, and all the amps I've seen so far are way bigger than what I can accommodate. Also, this is my first time dealing with an external amp setup, so I have to admit I'm not entirely familiar with what I need. Here's my current setup:
> 
> 6 Polk 265-LS in-wall (L/R + surrounds)
> 1 Polk 255C-LS in-wall (center)
> 1 Polk DSW Pro 500 subwoofer
> 
> The new overheads I'll be installing are:
> 
> 4 Polk 900-LS in-ceiling
> 
> So far, the closest amp I've been able to find that I *think* will suit my needs (mainly in terms of size) is a nice 120x2W PTA 4 Stereo Amp by Pyle (can't post links, sorry!), but I'm not sure if it's good enough quality-wise.
> 
> Can anyone give me some good suggestions on decent (but preferably small) amps I could use with the above equipment? I'd really appreciate any guidance. I attached an image of my receiver setup for reference in terms of space (nevermind the mess!).
> 
> Thanks!


I would look at the iNUKE NU 1000 at Amazon for $152. I it is a 2x500. That should be more power than you need. I will want the have a lot of air like the receiver, you can stack other components like DVD and game systems to make room for the amp.

Hook up is pretty easy, do you understand the setup?


----------



## Coniption

Ladeback said:


> I would look at the iNUKE NU 1000 at Amazon for $152. I it is a 2x500. That should be more power than you need. I will want the have a lot of air like the receiver, you can stack other components like DVD and game systems to make room for the amp.
> 
> Hook up is pretty easy, do you understand the setup?


Thanks! I think this is exactly what I was looking for. I still wish it were a little smaller, but I think I'm going to have to move some stuff around regardless, so it shouldn't be too big an issue.

As far as setup, I've looked at the receiver manual, along with some threads here, but I'm still confused about what goes connected where (and with what).

From what I understand, the speakers would go connected to the Yamaha, just like the ones connected now (my 7), right?. What I'm not clear on is what connects the external amp to the Yamaha.


----------



## Ladeback

Coniption said:


> Thanks! I think this is exactly what I was looking for. I still wish it were a little smaller, but I think I'm going to have to move some stuff around regardless, so it shouldn't be too big an issue.
> 
> As far as setup, I've looked at the receiver manual, along with some threads here, but I'm still confused about what goes connected where (and with what).
> 
> From what I understand, the speakers would go connected to the Yamaha, just like the ones connected now (my 7), right?. What I'm not clear on is what connects the external amp to the Yamaha.



No you are using two of the pre outs on the Yamaha. So if you using the iNUKE to run say the back height speakers you will want to use a pair of RCA cables from the pre out for the back height speakers to the pre in on the amp. The speaker wires are attached to the amp. The Yamaha does the processing and the amp gives the power to the speakers. This is what is called using separates to power the speakers. My 5.2 system is all separates. I use 5 Marantz 200 watt mono block amps to power the 5 speakers, they all are hooked into the pre outs of the Pre amp. A pre amp has no power, you use separate amps or amp to power the speakers

I hope this makes since.


----------



## Coniption

Ladeback said:


> No you are using two of the pre outs on the Yamaha. So if you using the iNUKE to run say the back height speakers you will want to use a pair of RCA cables from the pre out for the back height speakers to the pre in on the amp. The speaker wires are attached to the amp. The Yamaha does the processing and the amp gives the power to the speakers. This is what is called using separates to power the speakers. My 5.2 system is all separates. I use 5 Marantz 200 watt mono block amps to power the 5 speakers, they all are hooked into the pre outs of the Pre amp. A pre amp has no power, you use separate amps or amp to power the speakers
> 
> I hope this makes since.


Oh wow, the way you put it, it sounds deceptively simple. I'm embarrassed I didn't understand it before. Thank you so much for the clarification! Now time to start pulling the trigger on buying the rest of what I need. =)


----------



## chi_guy50

Coniption said:


> Oh wow, the way you put it, it sounds deceptively simple. I'm embarrassed I didn't understand it before. Thank you so much for the clarification! Now time to start pulling the trigger on buying the rest of what I need. =)


I would recommend that you look at the AudioSource AMP100VS to power your top rear 900-LS speakers . At about the same price (or less) as the Behringer iNuke mentioned above, it is smaller, lighter, produces less heat, and would be much less obtrusive sitting in your A/V cabinet.


----------



## Ladeback

chi_guy50 said:


> I would recommend that you look at the AudioSource AMP100VS to power your top rear 900-LS speakers . At about the same price (or less) as the Behringer iNuke mentioned above, it is smaller, lighter, produces less heat, and would be much less obtrusive sitting in your A/V cabinet.


The Audio-Source AMP100VS would be good, but it about have the power then what his 3050 is putting out. Not use that makes a diffeernce or not, but Crutchfield is selling them for $119 and they are offering free shipping as well. It can be bridged to get 150 watts out of one so you could get 2 for around $240. You could just get one and try it out to see if it has the power you need for your 

Here is the AMP100VS link to Crutchfield.

https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2eq6fnGjie4/p_021AMP100V/AudioSource-AMP100VS.html

The attachment also shows you how to hook up the amp for front left&right height speakers, but you could make use them on the back instead if you like.

Good luck and enjoy the Atmos speakers.


----------



## shyyour

Ladeback said:


> The Audio-Source AMP100VS would be good, but it about have the power then what his 3050 is putting out. Not use that makes a diffeernce or not, but Crutchfield is selling them for $119 and they are offering free shipping as well. It can be bridged to get 150 watts out of one so you could get 2 for around $240. You could just get one and try it out to see if it has the power you need for your
> 
> Here is the AMP100VS link to Crutchfield.
> 
> https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2eq6fnGjie4/p_021AMP100V/AudioSource-AMP100VS.html
> 
> The attachment also shows you how to hook up the amp for front left&right height speakers, but you could make use them on the back instead if you like.
> 
> Good luck and enjoy the Atmos speakers.


Wont you need some sort of adapters for the inuke to work with Home speakers?


----------



## Ladeback

shyyour said:


> Wont you need some sort of adapters for the inuke to work with Home speakers?


I believe you are correct for the speakers. I found this on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/GLS-Audio-Sp...rd_wg=E1WPw&psc=1&refRID=7F9CESDXQ9CHPFG8WDM3

I know one of the guys on our local forum is using 9 of the 3000DSP's for subs and other speakers. The Audio Source would probably be an easier hook up. 

I also have Carver amps I like and I found this on ebay that should work well. Carver amps are pretty clean.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carver-PM-1...543998?hash=item211ffc387e:g:wigAAOSwopRYmTZd


----------



## chi_guy50

Ladeback said:


> The Audio-Source AMP100VS would be good, but it about have the power then what his 3050 is putting out.


For use as overhead speakers, 50W/pc should be more than enough to power those Polk Audio 900-LS's (8-ohm, sensitivity 90 dB). Unless he's playing in a cavernous space, the AVR would be unlikely to need more than about 10W max for this purpose.


----------



## Ladeback

chi_guy50 said:


> For use as overhead speakers, 50W/pc should be more than enough to power those Polk Audio 900-LS's (8-ohm, sensitivity 90 dB). Unless he's playing in a cavernous space, the AVR would be unlikely to need more than about 10W max for this purpose.


I was wondering how much power was actually needed for Atmos speakers. I want to to new DA receiver and I have two Carver 15Ccb's and a 6cb that I am not using right now, but plan to use them when I get a Dolby Atmos reciever or preamp.


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> I would recommend that you look at the AudioSource AMP100VS to power your top rear 900-LS speakers . At about the same price (or less) as the Behringer iNuke mentioned above, it is smaller, lighter, produces less heat, and would be much less obtrusive sitting in your A/V cabinet.





Ladeback said:


> The Audio-Source AMP100VS would be good, but it about have the power then what his 3050 is putting out. Not use that makes a diffeernce or not, but Crutchfield is selling them for $119 and they are offering free shipping as well. It can be bridged to get 150 watts out of one so you could get 2 for around $240. You could just get one and try it out to see if it has the power you need for your
> 
> Here is the AMP100VS link to Crutchfield.
> 
> https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2eq6fnGjie4/p_021AMP100V/AudioSource-AMP100VS.html
> 
> The attachment also shows you how to hook up the amp for front left&right height speakers, but you could make use them on the back instead if you like.
> 
> Good luck and enjoy the Atmos speakers.


Agreed....the AudioSource is popular and cost effective solution. 

FYI...the Crutchfield link is broken...found it that way several days ago and hasn't been repaired yet.


----------



## Ladeback

gene4ht said:


> Agreed....the AudioSource is popular and cost effective solution.
> 
> FYI...the Crutchfield link is broken...found it that way several days ago and hasn't been repaired yet.


Try this one or just go to their website and look up amps. It is the first on the list for home audio.
https://www.crutchfield.com/

I have tried reinserting it, but it won't work.


----------



## gene4ht

Ladeback said:


> I was wondering how much power was actually needed for Atmos speakers. I want to to new DA receiver and I have two Carver 15Ccb's and a 6cb that I am not using right now, but plan to use them when I get a Dolby Atmos reciever or preamp.


Agree with @chi_guy50 For Atmos duty...almost nothing! Consider the intermittent and not sustained effects of insects, birds,wind, rain, voices, rustling trees/leaves, and the occasional aircraft where the heavy bass lifting is the domain of the sub. so the likes of the AudioSource amp is more than adequate/capable. I've pushed my system to near reference using similar amps for my Atmos speakers without issue.


----------



## batpig

Ladeback said:


> I was wondering how much power was actually needed for Atmos speakers. I want to to new DA receiver and I have two Carver 15Ccb's and a 6cb that I am not using right now, but plan to use them when I get a Dolby Atmos reciever or preamp.





gene4ht said:


> Agree with @chi_guy50 For Atmos duty...almost nothing! Consider the intermittent and not sustained effects of insects, birds,wind, rain, voices, rustling trees/leaves, and the occasional aircraft where the heavy bass lifting is the domain of the sub. so the likes of the AudioSource amp is more than adequate/capable. I've pushed my system to near reference using similar amps for my Atmos speakers without issue.


I think the answer is a bit more complicated than that depending on the performance requirements of your system. The same could be said about surround speakers (mostly ambient effects with an occasional big boom) so I think it's a good rule of thumb to scale the performance of your overhead speakers to be in the same ballpark as your other speakers.

It's about overall system performance -- if you have reasonably efficient speakers and don't really listen above -15 then yeah you don't need much power. But there are folks who have really high performance systems where they expect clean SPL at full reference volumes (i.e. 105dB peaks at the listening position) and they might need more.


----------



## sotwell

can anyone comment that has moved from bi-pole bed layer surrounds to mono-pole on the degree of improvement? I just added mono-pole for the ceiling and have been using bi-pole (QS8s are actually quad-poles) for surrounds but from reading all of the Dolby material, bi-poles are recommended. Who has actually switched out there bi-poles bed level for mono-poles. How big of a difference was it?


----------



## Coniption

batpig said:


> I think the answer is a bit more complicated than that depending on the performance requirements of your system. The same could be said about surround speakers (mostly ambient effects with an occasional big boom) so I think it's a good rule of thumb to scale the performance of your overhead speakers to be in the same ballpark as your other speakers.
> 
> It's about overall system performance -- if you have reasonably efficient speakers and don't really listen above -15 then yeah you don't need much power. But there are folks who have really high performance systems where they expect clean SPL at full reference volumes (i.e. 105dB peaks at the listening position) and they might need more.


Thanks for everyone's feedback! It really helped clear up a lot of my questions.

After checking out all the different options mentioned, I think I'm going to go with the Audio Source AMP100VS to power the two rear overheads. It seems to be the simplest, cleanest solution at the moment. I suspect it should be enough, power-wise, but I could always upgrade the amp later if need be.

Hopefully all the equipment will be here by next week so I could have everything installed soon. I'll let you know how everything sounds once it's all ready!

Thanks again!


----------



## batpig

sotwell said:


> can anyone comment that has moved from bi-pole bed layer surrounds to mono-pole on the degree of improvement? I just added mono-pole for the ceiling and have been using bi-pole (QS8s are actually quad-poles) for surrounds but from reading all of the Dolby material, bi-poles are recommended. Who has actually switched out there bi-poles bed level for mono-poles. How big of a difference was it?


Be aware that not everyone is on board with the "monopoles only" for surrounds with Atmos recommendation. It's not like your QS8's are suddenly going to start to sound crappy because Atmos is around. And there's a ton of not-Atmos material out there too. 

Triad for example (who worked very closely with Dolby in the development of Atmos) still recommends bipole surround speakers for installations in small rooms where you are close (


----------



## chi_guy50

Coniption said:


> Thanks for everyone's feedback! It really helped clear up a lot of my questions.
> 
> After checking out all the different options mentioned, I think I'm going to go with the Audio Source AMP100VS to power the two rear overheads. It seems to be the simplest, cleanest solution at the moment. I suspect it should be enough, power-wise, but I could always upgrade the amp later if need be.
> 
> Hopefully all the equipment will be here by next week so I could have everything installed soon. I'll let you know how everything sounds once it's all ready!
> 
> Thanks again!


I'm sure you'll be fine with that choice. I was formerly using a pair of the predecessor model AMP100 to power my overhead speakers (Polk Audio 80-FX/RT) and had no problems whatsoever with their levels in my medium-sized room.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> Be aware that not everyone is on board with the "monopoles only" for surrounds with Atmos recommendation. It's not like your QS8's are suddenly going to start to sound crappy because Atmos is around. And there's a ton of not-Atmos material out there too.
> 
> Triad for example (who worked very closely with Dolby in the development of Atmos) still recommends bipole surround speakers for installations in small rooms where you are close (


----------



## wse

If only I had a dedicated room I would do 9.9.4.6 Now I would need to buy a processor that costs more than a car and that would be an other problem !

- 9 speakers at ear level
- 9 speakers 3 feet up from ear level 
- 6 speakers in ceiling
and of course 4 subs one in each corner.
So all I need is the room and DATASAT I would probably use all in wall speakers so that they could disapear


----------



## cdnscg

Recently installed 5.1.4 Atmos. Would appreciate suggestions for Blu-rays that really show off the format.


----------



## healthnut

cdnscg said:


> Recently installed 5.1.4 Atmos. Would appreciate suggestions for Blu-rays that really show off the format.




Everest, Hacksaw Ridge, Into the Storm, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Goosebumps, The Finest Hours, Ghostbusters (4k remake), John Wick, Sicario, The Revenent, Dead Pool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kematt

John Budny said:


> For those of you running a 7.2.4 Atmos configuration with separates, what kind of power did you have to run to your equipment? Are two separate 20 amp circuits required/sufficient to run all of the equipment (two amps, processor, subs, TV etc)? Recently moved into a new home and have a great space in a finished basement for a media room but am dismayed to see that all of the outlets are on the same 10 amp circuit. Guessing that breaker would flip the second I hit power "ON".


Residental wiring is typically #14AWG rated 20A (copper) but must be protected with no more than 15A breaker in accordance with the NEC. No problem with simply replacing the 10A breaker with 15A. The NEC sometimes takes you in circles. Why rate a conductor at 20A but limit overcurrent protection at a max of 15A? I'm a EE and would have no problem sleeping at night with #14AWG copper conductor in my home protected at 20A. Now if the local inspector comes along he may well have you change to 15A breaker. If wiring in your home has an upgrade to #12AWG, change the 10A breaker to 20A without question.


----------



## Foundation42

healthnut said:


> Everest, Hacksaw Ridge, Into the Storm, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Goosebumps, The Finest Hours, Ghostbusters (4k remake), John Wick, Sicario, The Revenent, Dead Pool
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If you pick up Gravity, make sure you get the Diamond Luxe edition. That is the one with the Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## kematt

Alanlee said:


> Thanks for your response Craig. I have a Denon 5200
> 
> I can adjust the surrounds, but I may have them placed too close to my ears. I can't move them further away as you can see in the pix (attached), but I have adjusted the volume down somewhat. I am still not hearing the ceiling as I think I should even though when adjusting audyssey the ceiling are loud enough.
> 
> When I play John Wick for instance, the receiver registers the movie as Dolby Atmos, so I think I have the receiver and the oppo DVD are set correctly. Still I have to stand on a ladder to make sure the ceiling are operating.
> 
> So I propose to put in two more directly over the listening post (couch) and directly above the surrounds (front). The additional will be pointed straight down and might be easier perceived. I have the and have pre-wired for six , hence I will not be going to too much extra work.


I'd get rid of the side chair and move the MLP forward centered between the 4 ceiling speakers


----------



## shyyour

healthnut said:


> Everest, Hacksaw Ridge, Into the Storm, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Goosebumps, The Finest Hours, Ghostbusters (4k remake), John Wick, Sicario, The Revenent, Dead Pool
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i dont think "The Finest Hours" was in Atmos unless you meant using DSU?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

wse said:


> If only I had a dedicated room I would do 9.9.4.6 Now I would need to buy a processor that costs more than a car and that would be an other problem !
> 
> - 9 speakers at ear level
> - 9 speakers 3 feet up from ear level
> - 6 speakers in ceiling
> and of course 4 subs one in each corner.
> So all I need is the room and DATASAT I would probably use all in wall speakers so that they could disapear


Ha! Wouldn't we all. Yet affordable 24.4 processors are not around the corner, me thinks...

One thing though if we are ignoring laws of diminishing returns here: that's a lot of emphasis on the heights & overheads there, maybe skip some. I would do 11 ear level speakers instead. One @ each 30° except rear 180°.


----------



## Ricoflashback

wse said:


> If only I had a dedicated room I would do 9.9.4.6 Now I would need to buy a processor that costs more than a car and that would be an other problem !
> 
> - 9 speakers at ear level
> - 9 speakers 3 feet up from ear level
> - 6 speakers in ceiling
> and of course 4 subs one in each corner.
> So all I need is the room and DATASAT I would probably use all in wall speakers so that they could disapear


I'm guessing you do not live in an apartment, especially with four subs? 

Why not "Daisy Chain" four Trinnov's (32 channels each) for a maximum of 128 speakers? (I'm not sure if you have to subtract the subs or not from this total) Using your algorithm, here is your ultimate configuration:

48 speakers at ear level
48 speakers 3 feet up from ear level
32 speakers in the ceiling

When you get done with this installation, please let me know. I'll take a road trip to see it in action and bring the finest bottle of libation you like.


----------



## Ladeback

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm guessing you do not live in an apartment, especially with four subs?
> 
> Why not "Daisy Chain" four Trinnov's (32 channels each) for a maximum of 128 speakers? (I'm not sure if you have to subtract the subs or not from this total) Using your algorithm, here is your ultimate configuration:
> 
> 48 speakers at ear level
> 48 speakers 3 feet up from ear level
> 32 speakers in the ceiling
> 
> When you get done with this installation, please let me know. I'll take a road trip to see it in action and bring the finest bottle of libation you like.



One of the members in our area has 5 sealed subs up front and 3 sealed for near field behind the front row of theater chairs. Another has 8 sealed subs in the front and a near field sub behind the front row.

They sound awesome and yes they do live in houses not apartments.

If you want some great base look into getting a couple JTR Captivator 4000ULF's. Heck one of these would be more then enough with there 4000 watt amp. I heard it on our last theater crawl and it and noesis-215RM's shock one of the guys house pretty good. Lets just say it was heard to stay in the room for any amount of time. 

http://jtrspeakers.com/home-audio/captivator-4000ulf/

http://jtrspeakers.com/home-audio/noesis-215rm/


----------



## healthnut

shyyour said:


> i dont think "The Finest Hours" was in Atmos unless you meant using DSU?




Yes, you are correct. That brings up another good point: the DSU upsampler does a great job on many non-ATMOS mixes. It can literally add a whole new "dimension" to movie sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alanlee

kematt said:


> I'd get rid of the side chair and move the MLP forward centered between the 4 ceiling speakers


I would be in favor of that arrangement. I'm wondering if you could come to my house and explain that idea to my wife. Hint: wear your football pads.


----------



## gwsat

healthnut said:


> Everest, Hacksaw Ridge, Into the Storm, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Goosebumps, The Finest Hours, Ghostbusters (4k remake), John Wick, Sicario, The Revenent, Dead Pool





shyyour said:


> i dont think "The Finest Hours" was in Atmos unless you meant using DSU?


Don't know about _The Finest Hours_ but _*The Revenant*_ definitely did not come with Atmos sound. Its TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack is terrific, though. I have the Atmos versions of most of the other titles healthnut listed and can confirm that those are wonderful, indeed.


----------



## cdnscg

gwsat said:


> Don't know about _The Finest Hours_ but _*The Revenant*_ definitely did not come with Atmos sound. Its TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack is terrific, though. I have the Atmos versions of most of the other titles healthnut listed and can confirm that those are wonderful, indeed.


I believe heathnut was listing BD and 4K discs. The revenant, Deadpool, and Pacific Rim have Atmos on the 4k discs only.


----------



## Josh Z

cdnscg said:


> I believe heathnut was listing BD and 4K discs. The revenant, Deadpool, and Pacific Rim have Atmos on the 4k discs only.


The Revenant is 7.1 on both Blu-ray and UHD. No Atmos.


----------



## gwsat

cdnscg said:


> I believe heathnut was listing BD and 4K discs. The revenant, Deadpool, and Pacific Rim have Atmos on the 4k discs only.


I posted the Blu-ray.com link for _The Revenant_ UHD HDR disk. According to Blu-ray.com, the UHD HDR disk has TrueHD 7.1, not Atmos. Can you confirm that this is wrong? I don't own the UHD HDR version so I can't.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The Revenant definitely DOES NOT have any Atmos on any home video format currently.


----------



## showmak

healthnut said:


> Everest, Hacksaw Ridge, Into the Storm, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Goosebumps, The Finest Hours, Ghostbusters (4k remake), John Wick, Sicario, The Revenent, Dead Pool
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I would also add "Fantastic Beasts and How to Find Them"...


----------



## batpig

Speaking of great Atmos soundtracks which are ALSO great movies...

Everyone who lives within driving distance of a good Atmos theater, GO SEE "LOGAN" ASAP.

Incredible movie, absolutely brutal and intense, and one of (if not the) best theatrical Atmos soundtracks I've heard. I'm praying this Atmos track makes it to the home release, there was not only several cool overhead effects (weather, helicopters, etc) but also amazing use of the 3D soundscape to build drama and tension during action sequences and immerse you emotionally into the movie.

This is the best dark action flick since "Mad Max Fury Road" and IMO it's going to become a reference Atmos track for home just like MMFR. It's not some "San Andreas" type yeah-the-movie-sucks-but-the-bass-is-AWESOME situation, this is a GREAT genre-busting movie with amazing visuals and audio. Basically it did to the X-Men franchise what "The Dark Knight" did to Batman.


----------



## cdnscg

gwsat said:


> I posted the Blu-ray.com link for _The Revenant_ UHD HDR disk. According to Blu-ray.com, the UHD HDR disk has TrueHD 7.1, not Atmos. Can you confirm that this is wrong? I don't own the UHD HDR version so I can't.


Sorry, thought I saw it listed as Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I'm praying this Atmos track makes it to the home release...


It's Fox, so Atmos on UHD only (not BD). Agree with you on the mix, and even more so on the movie (emotional enough to get me choked up and teary eyed). Like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, this didn't feel like the typical superhero action flick, instead was an excellent drama that just happened to be about a superhero. I also liked how the very first word of dialogue makes it clear that you're watching an R-rated movie.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Speaking of great Atmos soundtracks which are ALSO great movies...
> 
> Everyone who lives within driving distance of a good Atmos theater, *GO SEE "LOGAN" ASAP.*
> 
> Incredible movie, absolutely brutal and intense, and one of (if not the) best theatrical Atmos soundtracks I've heard. I'm praying this Atmos track makes it to the home release, there was not only several cool overhead effects (weather, helicopters, etc) but also amazing use of the 3D soundscape to build drama and tension during action sequences and immerse you emotionally into the movie.
> 
> This is the best dark action flick since "Mad Max Fury Road" and IMO it's going to become a reference Atmos track for home just like MMFR. It's not some "San Andreas" type yeah-the-movie-sucks-but-the-bass-is-AWESOME situation, this is a GREAT genre-busting movie with amazing visuals and audio. Basically it did to the X-Men franchise what "The Dark Knight" did to Batman.


How about those of us who have no particular interest in superhero (or comic book-based) movies and have not followed the X-Men franchise: Would you still earnestly recommend this one as a "great movie" (and not just for the sound mix)?


----------



## wse

NO atmos for Blu Ray only UHD!


----------



## wse

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Ha! Wouldn't we all. Yet affordable 24.4 processors are not around the corner, me thinks...
> 
> One thing though if we are ignoring laws of diminishing returns here: that's a lot of emphasis on the heights & overheads there, maybe skip some. I would do 11 ear level speakers instead. One @ each 30° except rear 180°.


Yes I think 11 DTS:neoX format with 6 in ceiling would do it.

So now when will we see affordable processors


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> How about those of us who have no particular interest in superhero (or comic book-based) movies and have not followed the X-Men franchise: Would you still earnestly recommend this one as a "great movie" (and not just for the sound mix)?


Yes, this movie IMO is good enough to stand alone. Like Sanjay said it's barely a "superhero movie", it's really more of a "western" style character drama that happens to be about a superhero and also has some stretches of intense action and brutal violence. It's unlike any superhero movie I've ever seen.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> Yes, this movie IMO is good enough to stand alone. Like Sanjay said it's barely a "superhero movie", it's really more of a "western" style character drama that happens to be about a superhero and also has some stretches of intense action and brutal violence. It's unlike any superhero movie I've ever seen.


Well, allllllllllllrighty then. Onto my watch list it goes. (FWIW, it seems that Manohla Dargis shares your exalted opinion of this flick.)

Plus I just remembered that Sanjay alerted me in another thread to the fact that James Mangold would be directing _Logan_. That makes for another excellent reason to give the UHD Blu-ray a spin.


----------



## gwsat

cdnscg said:


> Sorry, thought I saw it listed as Atmos.


It's not as if the studios make it easy for us to learn which disks have Atmos and which do not. Virtually every UHD HDR Blu-ray combination I have bought in which the UHD HDR disk had Atmos, lacked it on the BD.


----------



## Ladeback

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, allllllllllllrighty then. Onto my watch list it goes. (FWIW, it seems that Manohla Dargis shares your exalted opinion of this flick.)
> 
> Plus I just remembered that Sanjay alerted me in another thread to the fact that James Mangold would be directing _Logan_. That makes for another excellent reason to give the UHD Blu-ray a spin.


It is definitely not a normal X Men movie or Super Hero movie. Starts as a drama the comes the main fight seems, with more drama. I recommend it as well.


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, allllllllllllrighty then. Onto my watch list it goes. (FWIW, it seems that Manohla Dargis shares your exalted opinion of this flick.)
> 
> Plus I just remembered that Sanjay alerted me in another thread to the fact that James Mangold would be directing _Logan_. That makes for another excellent reason to give the UHD Blu-ray a spin.


UHD Blu-ray? Just see it in the theater! It's a spectacle!

I just connected that Mangold also did "3:10 to Yuma".... in a way "Logan" is closer to that movie as a violent, western noir drama than it is to previous X-men movies.


----------



## gwsat

I have been trying to get to the theater to see _Logan_ since the weekend but haven't made it yet. I won't get to see it in Atmos in the theater, though. The only two Atmos theaters here in the Tulsa area are huge arenas and both are in the same complex. The reason is that I have been spoiled by the reclining club chairs offered by my two go to theaters. The arenas have conventional non-reclining theater seats. I would rather give up the theater Atmos than the reclining club chair seating. Anyway, I'll hear the Atmos version (I hope) when I buy the UHD HDR disk.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> *UHD Blu-ray? Just see it in the theater! It's a spectacle!*


What sacrilege! How dare you, sir? 










I'll take the UHD Blu-ray played in Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 on my new Oppo UDP-203 and displayed on my new Sony XBR-65Z9D in our comfortable living room over a crowded, noisy, sticky-seated, overpriced Multiplex theater any day of the week.


----------



## gwsat

chi_guy50 said:


> I'll take the UHD Blu-ray played in Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 on my new Oppo UDP-203 and displayed on my new Sony XBR-65Z9D in our comfortable living room over a crowded, noisy, sticky-seated, overpriced Multiplex theater any day of the week.


I still like going to the movies but agree that there is nothing like the image quality of UHD HDR video and the audio quality of Atmos/DTS:X. A theater's huge screen can't be matched at home, of course, but video and audio quality can be matched and often exceeded.


----------



## Therberg

gwsat said:


> I have been trying to get to the theater to see _Logan_ since the weekend but haven't made it yet. I won't get to see it in Atmos in the theater, though. The only two Atmos theaters here in the Tulsa area are huge arenas and both are in the same complex. The reason is that I have been spoiled by the reclining club chairs offered by my two go to theaters. The arenas have conventional non-reclining theater seats. I would rather give up the theater Atmos than the reclining club chair seating. Anyway, I'll hear the Atmos version (I hope) when I buy the UHD HDR disk.


I saw Logan last weekend at a Regal RPX Theater. They do not have Atmos but the sound was pretty awesome. It is a huge theater with recliners and wide enough isles that people can walk by even when full reclined. As a bonus the recliners have buttkicker bass shakers built into them, it adds a lot to the experience. I was sold 5 minutes into the previews when we went there last fall. I most likely will never go to another theater even though we have another Regal Cinema complex with IMAX 10 minutes from our house but no recliners. The RPX theater is a 25 minute drive and totally worth it! Very good movie by the way!


----------



## DomNY

*Issues with Specific discs and Atmos & DTS-X?*

Greetings,
I have a similar post in the Official Yamaha 7810 Owners threads. Question: Are there issues with some discs not playing on all hardware? I ask because I have successfully played Mad Max-Fury Road and San Andreas in Atmos. However, Jason Bourne and Huntsman Winter's War do not play in DTS-X (only DTS) and John Wick and Transformers - Age of Extinction do not play in Atmos, (only standard Dolby Digital). Both my receiver and Blu-Ray player have the latest firmware. Player is a Sony BDP-S6500.
Regards,
Dom


----------



## petetherock

shyyour said:


> i dont think "The Finest Hours" was in Atmos unless you meant using DSU?


Definitely no Atmos..


----------



## petetherock

DomNY said:


> Greetings,
> I have a similar post in the Official Yamaha 7810 Owners threads. Question: Are there issues with some discs not playing on all hardware? I ask because I have successfully played Mad Max-Fury Road and San Andreas in Atmos. However, Jason Bourne and Huntsman Winter's War do not play in DTS-X (only DTS) and John Wick and Transformers - Age of Extinction do not play in Atmos, (only standard Dolby Digital). Both my receiver and Blu-Ray player have the latest firmware. Player is a Sony BDP-S6500.
> Regards,
> Dom


Maybe it's the Sony? I had that for a short while - sold it.
I own all the discs you mentioned, no issues with 2 different Oppos and another BR player.


----------



## mrtickleuk

gwsat said:


> I still like going to the movies but agree that there is nothing like the image quality of UHD HDR video and the audio quality of Atmos/DTS:X. A theater's huge screen can't be matched at home, of course, but video and audio quality can be matched and often exceeded.


I'd agree and change "often" to "*always*", in the case of HDR.


----------



## reburg99

A little confused here(nothing new there).... Does the bitstream out on XboxOne currently support Atmos? There's an update coming that's supposed to support it, but I thought uncompressed bitstream would result in Atmos audio out to the receiver. What's the better format, Dolby surround or DTS? 

Secondly, if I understand correctly PCM out does not support Atmos (only option on my old el-cheapo Blue-Ray player).


----------



## deano86

DomNY said:


> Greetings,
> I have a similar post in the Official Yamaha 7810 Owners threads. Question: Are there issues with some discs not playing on all hardware? I ask because I have successfully played Mad Max-Fury Road and San Andreas in Atmos. However, Jason Bourne and Huntsman Winter's War do not play in DTS-X (only DTS) and John Wick and Transformers - Age of Extinction do not play in Atmos, (only standard Dolby Digital). Both my receiver and Blu-Ray player have the latest firmware. Player is a Sony BDP-S6500.
> Regards,
> Dom


There is nothing wrong with your Sony player....if you have it correctly set for bitstreaming. 
Digital Audio Out set for - Auto
BD Audio mix set to - OFF


----------



## DomNY

Deano86
That was it. BD Audio mix set to - On. Turned it off and good to go.
Thanks !!!!!!


----------



## KennyLSU

reburg99 said:


> A little confused here(nothing new there).... Does the bitstream out on XboxOne currently support Atmos? There's an update coming that's supposed to support it, but I thought uncompressed bitstream would result in Atmos audio out to the receiver. What's the better format, Dolby surround or DTS?
> 
> Secondly, if I understand correctly PCM out does not support Atmos (only option on my old el-cheapo Blue-Ray player).


XboxOne does not support true bitstreaming. XboxOne S will when the update comes. Use the old blu-ray player until then.


----------



## reburg99

KennyLSU said:


> XboxOne does not support true bitstreaming. XboxOne S will when the update comes. Use the old blu-ray player until then.


no true bitstreaming for the standard Xbox one?

PCM supports Atmos then?


----------



## batpig

reburg99 said:


> no true bitstreaming for the standard Xbox one?
> 
> PCM supports Atmos then?


No, PCM doesn't support Atmos, you need bitstream.


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> What sacrilege! How dare you, sir?


I guess good ol' Georgia hasn't caught up with the times and started to build nice, modern cinemas.


----------



## batpig

I'm confident there are nice, modern cinemas in Atlanta. I think he's more concerned about the cost and the other people sharing the space with him


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'm concerned about those "sticky seats". 


What kind of cinema is this again?


----------



## gwsat

Therberg said:


> I saw Logan last weekend at a Regal RPX Theater. They do not have Atmos but the sound was pretty awesome. It is a huge theater with recliners and wide enough isles that people can walk by even when full reclined. As a bonus the recliners have buttkicker bass shakers built into them, it adds a lot to the experience. I was sold 5 minutes into the previews when we went there last fall. I most likely will never go to another theater even though we have another Regal Cinema complex with IMAX 10 minutes from our house but no recliners. The RPX theater is a 25 minute drive and totally worth it! Very good movie by the way!


Yeah, the complex with the two Atmos theaters I mentioned in my last post is much closer than my go to theater, which has recliner club chair seating but the extra driving time is worth it to me. 

I saw _Logan_ earlier today and loved it. 9 Stars out of 10. It is very dark but it works. In that regard, it reminded me of _The Dark Knight._ Despite the lack of Atmos audio in the theater where I saw it, I too was blown away by the film's soundtrack. It was immersive, had terrific directionality and great LFE. What wasn't to like? I will definitely be buying the UHD HDR version of this one. Fingers crossed that it comes with Atmos audio.


----------



## gwsat

chi_guy50 said:


> I'll take the UHD Blu-ray played in Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 on my new Oppo UDP-203 and displayed on my new Sony XBR-65Z9D in our comfortable living room over a crowded, noisy, sticky-seated, overpriced Multiplex theater any day of the week.


You have a point. I was reminded of the drawbacks of seeing a film in a theater when I saw _Logan_ in one earlier today. Early in the film a woman sitting a couple of seats from me took a call on her cell phone. She did get up and moved but didn’t leave the theater and I could still hear her talking. Fortunately her call was short and she returned to her seat. Then, maybe an hour later, she took another call but talked from her seat. I leaned over and said as courteously as I could, “Ma’am, please!” She kept talking but almost immediately after I had made my remark a man sitting behind us growled, “Get off your damn phone!” That did it. Didn’t notice any sticky seats or popcorn crunching, though, so there was that.

Somebody said in another post that those of us who watch UHD HDR video in our home theaters can really see its absence in movie theaters. I agree. Although _Logan_ had very good image quality the lack of the sort of range between the brightest and the darkest part of an image, which we are accustomed to seeing on UHD HDR disks, is noticeable in a theater.


----------



## Ladeback

gwsat said:


> You have a point. I was reminded of the drawbacks of seeing a film in a theater when I saw _Logan_ in one earlier today. Early in the film a woman sitting a couple of seats from me took a call on her cell phone. She did get up and moved but didn’t leave the theater and I could still hear her talking. Fortunately her call was short and she returned to her seat. Then, maybe an hour later, she took another call but talked from her seat. I leaned over and said as courteously as I could, “Ma’am, please!” She kept talking but almost immediately after I had made my remark a man sitting behind us growled, “Get off your damn phone!” That did it. Didn’t notice any sticky seats or popcorn crunching, though, so there was that.
> 
> I can't believe people anymore. I turn my phone either off or to mute and don't look at it. Apparently my wife got a text from her mom about our son she had for the night asking a question and my wife answered it. I never seen her do it and she was sitting next to me. I wouldn't have looked at me phone.
> 
> No the thing that gets me is the people that bring there baby's to the movies. There was some young kids at the 7:45 showing of Logan we seen last weekend.
> 
> One of the theaters in town plays a notice that if you call, text or talk during the movie you get one warning then you are kicked out. Some of the people I was with said they have seen them escort people out of the movies. This is one of many reasons I am building a home theater.


----------



## healthnut

Ladeback said:


> gwsat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. I was reminded of the drawbacks of seeing a film in a theater when I saw _Logan_ in one earlier today. Early in the film a woman sitting a couple of seats from me took a call on her cell phone. She did get up and moved but didn’t leave the theater and I could still hear her talking. Fortunately her call was short and she returned to her seat. Then, maybe an hour later, she took another call but talked from her seat. I leaned over and said as courteously as I could, “Ma’am, please!” She kept talking but almost immediately after I had made my remark a man sitting behind us growled, “Get off your damn phone!” That did it. Didn’t notice any sticky seats or popcorn crunching, though, so there was that.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe people anymore. I turn my phone either off or to mute and don't look at it. Apparently my wife got a text from her mom about our son she had for the night asking a question and my wife answered it. I never seen her do it and she was sitting next to me. I wouldn't have looked at me phone.
> 
> 
> 
> No the thing that gets me is the people that bring there baby's to the movies. There was some young kids at the 7:45 showing of Logan we seen last weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the theaters in town plays a notice that if you call, text or talk during the movie you get one warning then you are kicked out. Some of the people I was with said they have seen them escort people out of the movies. This is one of many reasons I am building a home theater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rude people aside, I find the A/V experience to superior in my basement theater to the local cineplex, and I'm able to BUY most movies for what a couple of tickets and popcorn costs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## mrtickleuk

Ladeback said:


> No the thing that gets me is the people that bring there baby's to the movies. There was some young kids at the 7:45 showing of Logan we seen last weekend.


Utterly disgraceful.



Ladeback said:


> One of the theaters in town plays a notice that if you call, text or talk during the movie you get one warning then you are kicked out. Some of the people I was with said they have seen them escort people out of the movies.


GOOD. But the notice at the start should count as the one warning. They shouldn't get a free pass to do even one call.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> I guess good ol' Georgia hasn't caught up with the times and started to build nice, modern cinemas.


We're too busy revisiting the Great War of Northern Aggression to bother progressing into the 21st century.



batpig said:


> I'm confident there are nice, modern cinemas in Atlanta. I think he's more concerned about the cost and the other people sharing the space with him


We have at least one Dolby Atmos cinema in Hotlanta (Regal Atlantic Station 18 IMAX & RPX) but I haven't been there recently except for an occasional private screening.



Scott Simonian said:


> I'm concerned about those "sticky seats".


You and me both, brother! (And I'm pretty sure they were already sticky before I got there.)



Ladeback said:


> Rude people aside, I find the A/V experience to superior in my basement theater to the local cineplex, and I'm able to BUY most movies for what a couple of tickets and popcorn costs.


Exactly right (not that I would be tempted to purchase movie theater popcorn or sugary snacks at vastly inflated prices). But I don't even need to buy the discs since I'm not a collector; I just rent them from Netflix or 3D-BlurayRental for about $3 a pop (or I stream them from Amazon Prime).

I used to go to the movies at least two or three times a week. (And when I was a student in Paris I would sometimes go to two or three different cinemas in a single day for retrospective showings.) But thanks in large part to the inspiration and advice I've encountered here at the AVSForum (plus an investment of many hours, lots of sweat and about $12K simoleons), I now have the means to a far more enjoyable movie-watching experience right at home. 

And my wife makes the very best popcorn!


----------



## Ladeback

mrtickleuk said:


> Utterly disgraceful.
> 
> Ya I was little mad at her for don't it, because she knows it bothers me when others do it. She hid it pretty good or I would have nudged her to stop.
> 
> 
> GOOD. But the notice at the start should count as the one warning. They shouldn't get a free pass to do even one call.


Agreed.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

KennyLSU said:


> XboxOne does not support true bitstreaming. XboxOne S will when the update comes. Use the old blu-ray player until then.


The launch Xbox One will also do true bitstream from Blu-ray. Been in the test builds since December (and works). March update will also include Dolby Atmos game support, Dolby Atmos for headphones, and Windows Sonic for headphones. This is for the original and Xbox One S as both use the same Tensilica audio chipset.


----------



## KennyLSU

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The launch Xbox One will also do true bitstream from Blu-ray. Been in the test builds since December (and works). March update will also include Dolby Atmos game support, Dolby Atmos for headphones, and Windows Sonic for headphones. This is for the original and Xbox One S as both use the same Tensilica audio chipset.


Do you have a link to this? I haven't seen this before.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

KennyLSU said:


> Do you have a link to this? I haven't seen this before.


I don't have a link handy. I'm basing it on the current alpha of the dashboard that I have on my launch system, which has the Atmos/Sonic options (which are part of the Win10 Creator's Update - also on PCs right now with preview builds of Win10) and currently bitstreams from Blu-Ray by changing an option in the Blu-Ray playback app. Plus, I'm a member of the Xbox Ambassador program. If you're questioning a particular part of what I said, I will be glad to post a link to the info when I am back at a PC.

Edit: Okay, back at a PC now. Here's a link to the latest patch notes for the alpha build (via Reddit since you can only access the preview program forums if you're in the preview program), which shows the pending support for Atmos Headphone and Windows Sonic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/5ybo2z/xbox_one_insider_program_march_8th_new_preview/
And here's the link to Microsoft's original announcement of Atmos support:
http://news.xbox.com/2016/12/14/dolby-atmos-xbox-one-windows-10/
And here's a link to Cadence's press release regarding Xbox One using 4 of Tensilica's programmable DSP chips for audio (which gives them PLENTY of headroom to update their codec support):
https://ip.cadence.com/news/466/330/Microsoft-Employs-Cadence-Tensilica-Processors-in-Xbox-One


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> Yeah, the complex with the two Atmos theaters I mentioned in my last post is much closer than my go to theater, which has recliner club chair seating but the extra driving time is worth it to me.
> 
> I saw _Logan_ earlier today and loved it. 9 Stars out of 10. It is very dark but it works. In that regard, it reminded me of _The Dark Knight._ Despite the lack of Atmos audio in the theater where I saw it, I too was blown away by the film's soundtrack. It was immersive, had terrific directionality and great LFE. What wasn't to like? I will definitely be buying the UHD HDR version of this one. Fingers crossed that it comes with Atmos audio.


I haven't been to a theater in ten or so years but I have a couple freebies for a Dolby Cinema near me. Logan sounds intriguing. 

Question: where do you like to sit in the theater if you have your choice of seats? I always like an end row but haven't heard a Dolby presentation in a theater. Are there better places to sit, immersion wise?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ricoflashback said:


> I haven't been to a theater in ten or so years but I have a couple freebies for a Dolby Cinema near me. Logan sounds intriguing.
> 
> Question: where do you like to sit in the theater if you have your choice of seats? I always like an end row but haven't heard a Dolby presentation in a theater. Are there better places to sit, immersion wise?


The same applies to Cinema as to HT, MLP is MLP and that will never be near a wall/side.

I just sit in the middle at a distance that feels good for the screen size, normally middle to 1/3 from the rear.


----------



## sorini

Hello. I would like to ask if the speakers Sony SS-CS5 they are good for ceiling mounting for Dolby Atmos? I thought of a system formed in front of the speakers Sony SS-CS3, center SS-CS8, back and ceiling SS-CS5, subwoofer Sony SA-CS9? But I do not know if this system is good for Dolby Atmos? Thank you.


----------



## gwsat

Molon_Labe said:


> I have kicked my teenagers out of our home theater due to their phones - big no no. No phones allowed.


When I see a movie in a theater I always set my phone on Silent and my Apple Watch on Do Not Disturb. Anybody who needs to communicate with me while I am at the movies is going to have to wait until later.


----------



## reburg99

Thanks for the input guys and thanks Electronic Express for having Blu-Ray players on sale!! Picked up an open Samsung that has uncompressed bitstream out, on the cheap. Plans eventually include upgrade to 4k, but not for a while so no point in a big $$ player at the moment.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Molon_Labe said:


> I have kicked my teenagers out of our home theater due to their phones - big no no. No phones allowed.


Too kind. Kick them out of the house! I blame the parents for not bringing them up properly


----------



## gene4ht

mrtickleuk said:


> Too kind. Kick them out of the house! I blame the parents for not bringing them up properly


Totally agree...not enough "tough love" these days!


----------



## zeus33

Ricoflashback said:


> Question: where do you like to sit in the theater if you have your choice of seats? I always like an end row but haven't heard a Dolby presentation in a theater. Are there better places to sit, immersion wise?



As close to center as possible.


----------



## Ladeback

zeus33 said:


> As close to center as possible.


I agree, but in the Dolby Cinema I have been too the sound sounds pretty good all over, but the sweet spot would be the middle about half way up in the rows.


----------



## asarose247

The movie goers in the LAAVA HT group like center seats , rows E,F,G .
John Wick just a few weeks ago, rather awesome, and loud (no, I'm not too old . . .)
maybe its just me and my no-line-trifocals,
but next outing I'm shooting for row I (not a pun)


----------



## sdurani

Next time anyone goes to an Atmos theatre, look at the speakers on the side walls. If they are toed in, you'll notice one pair (sometimes two) that are not; instead pointing directly across the theatre. The row(s) in line with those speakers are my sweet spot, about 2/3 the length of the auditorium back. In talking to folks in the industry, that area also happens to be roughly where the mixing console is located in large dubbing stages where theatrical soundtracks are mixed. Sitting in the middle of that row is kinda weird, because it looks like every speaker in the auditorium is pointing at you.


----------



## veger69

Just saw Logan at amc16 San Francisco at the Dolby theater wow!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ggsantafe

Last night, while watching the current episode, "Jungles" of BBC America's "Planet Earth II" I was struck by how helpful the upmixer is in creating an enveloping soundscape. You really have a sense of being in the jungle with sounds coming from all around and above you. I highly recommend the series, if only for the amazing photography (how often do you get to see a jaguar stalking a caiman) and if you have access to Dish or DirecTV - they are broadcasting in 4K. And as usual, the Brits also doing an outstanding job with sound recording, not to get too graphic - but you hear the sound of crunching bones as the jaguar clamps onto the caiman!!


----------



## Jonas2

ggsantafe said:


> Last night, while watching the current episode, "Jungles" of BBC America's "Planet Earth II" I was struck by how helpful the upmixer is in creating an enveloping soundscape. You really have a sense of being in the jungle with sounds coming from all around and above you. I highly recommend the series, if only for the amazing photography (how often do you get to see a jaguar stalking a caiman) and if you have access to Dish or DirecTV - they are broadcasting in 4K. And as usual, the Brits also doing an outstanding job with sound recording, not to get too graphic - but you hear the sound of crunching bones as the jaguar clamps onto the caiman!!


This is a great series. Alas, I'm only getting it from Comcast, so I don't even know if it is 1080. Claims it is, and it doesn't look bad but not as good as I know it should. Would love to see in 4K though, and stupid me - I haven't attempted to listen except through crummy TV speakers.  Don't ask me why.....


----------



## gurkey

ma1746 said:


> I have a feeling I know the answer already, but I'm curious to hear opinions. Does anyone think in any scenario atmos modules would be better than in ceiling speakers? I have a Denon x3300 that runs 5.1.2 atmos, with goldenear mains and center, and fluance xlbp bipole surrounds. I'm currently using Andrew Jones pioneer add on's because they matched my previous mains, but I finally got permission from my wife to install 2 ceiling speakers in my movie room (12x10 bedroom with 8' ceilings, untreated). My main listening position is a single recliner right in the middle of the room. I bought 2 micca m-8c's and they will be installed this weekend right in the middle of the room on either side of a center light fixture. Will this be a big improvement for me? Any tips or suggestions?


The answer is "mixed".
When Dolby Atmos had reached the market, many listening sessions with different speaker constellations had been set up with direct and Dolby Enabled speaker scenarios.
Surprisingly the outcome hasn't been as clear as some have hoped and thought off. Sometimes the enveloping surround effects had been more convincing (and "real") using Dolby Enabled speakers and sometimes using direct radiating speakers depending on the original Dolby Atmos (and Upmixer) source material. 
The latest tests had been performed (to my knowledge) December 2016 by the German magazine "ct" and led to exactly the same conclusion: it depends. 
Still most users favor direct radiating speakers because that is the what has been propagated mostly. 
My own experiences favor a mix of direct and reflected sound sources to create the most convincing scenarios, but this depends mostly on the situation in the individual listening room, seating position and the possible mounting positions (ceiling height) of the height speakers.


----------



## bourmb

Ok, I'm committed to turning my half-assed 7.1 HT which utilizes ceiling mounted rears right behind our seating to a kick-ass 5.1.4 setup. I will repurpose those ceiling speakers along with two more ceiling speakers for the full effect. Here is my dilemma; my rears in the new setup will stay located in the rear corners of my 13x15 room. I have 3 high back home theater chairs that would block the back of heads to the rear speakers if I lower then to the correct height in reference to Atmos 5.1.4 guidelines. Would this diminished sound blocking mean I'd be better off leaving them mounted 5' off the ground and asked down to the listener? The issue will be the rear Atmos ceiling speakers will be mounted in 7' section not too far from those rear speakers while the front Atmos speakers will be mounted in a 8.5' section of the ceiling. 

I am also considering just leaving the current 2 ceiling speakers alone and adding 2 speakers on the side of the seating to make a 7.1.2 arrangement, too. I will need to upgrade my receiver to do this setup, too. I am running a HSU 5.1 HT bookshelf speaker setup with their top 15" sub along with Polk 8" ceiling speakers from the prior homeowner.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## kematt

ma1746 said:


> I have a feeling I know the answer already, but I'm curious to hear opinions. Does anyone think in any scenario atmos modules would be better than in ceiling ? I have a Denon x3300 that runs 5.1.2 atmos, with goldenear mains and center, and fluance xlbp bipole surrounds. I'm currently using Andrew Jones pioneer add on's because they matched my previous mains, but I finally got permission from my wife to install 2 ceiling in my movie room (12x10 bedroom with 8' ceilings, untreated). My main listening position is a single recliner right in the middle of the room. I bought 2 micca m-8c's and they will be installed this weekend right in the middle of the room on either side of a center light fixture. Will this be a big improvement for me? Any tips or suggestions?


Can't help with your Atmos question but you may want to move your MLP back slightly. When I picked up my 2nd SVS PB12 Plus sub, the folks at SVS avised me to move my MLP back ~2ft from center of room. I was told center of the room is worst possible position for bass response. I didn't do the bass speaker crawl as my subs are placed in the only two available positions in the room; FL & FR corners.


----------



## techguru34

I am considering getting better set up for Atmos. I have the Yamaha RX-A3060, seven Klipsch speakers (Front, Center, Surround, and Surround Back), two subs, and two front presence JBL bookshelf speakers (7.2.2). I'm considering replacing the front presence with the Klipsch RP-140SA Dolby Atmos enabled speakers. I'm a little hesitant to do it because I do like the sound from the presence speakers for all music, TV, and movie content. 


 Would the Klipsch Dolby Atmos speakers still produce a good sound for non-Atmos content? 


 Would these Klipsch speakers sound significantly better than my JBL bookshelf speakers for Atmos? But not as good for the non-Atmos content?


 Would it be worth the investment to also add two more Atmos enabled speakers in the rear?


 Unfortunately, I have vaulted ceilings and a large open room, so how will that factor in when considering these questions?


 These are my _*BURNING*_ questions! 


 Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks.


----------



## robert ham

*Very Nioce!*



techguru34 said:


> I am considering getting better set up for Atmos. I have the Yamaha RX-A3060, seven Klipsch speakers (Front, Center, Surround, and Surround Back), two subs, and two front presence JBL bookshelf speakers (7.2.2). I'm considering replacing the front presence with the Klipsch RP-140SA Dolby Atmos enabled speakers. I'm a little hesitant to do it because I do like the sound from the presence speakers for all music, TV, and movie content.
> 
> 
> Would the Klipsch Dolby Atmos speakers still produce a good sound for non-Atmos content?
> 
> 
> Would these Klipsch speakers sound significantly better than my JBL bookshelf speakers for Atmos? But not as good for the non-Atmos content?
> 
> 
> Would it be worth the investment to also add two more Atmos enabled speakers in the rear?
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I have vaulted ceilings and a large open room, so how will that factor in when considering these questions?
> 
> 
> These are my _*BURNING*_ questions!
> 
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks.


 I am going to take a different approach to your question.. My system is similar to yours, I have 3 Subs, and all 4 presence speakers. My 4 rear surround are JBL and my 4 presence speakers are Energy V-Mini, so the size and 150 watt rating fits my Yamaha RX-A3050 just fine.. My 2 front are up high on the wall facing forward but downward about 25 deg.. The 2 in the back are mounted on the rear wall facing Upward to the ceiling.. After calibration with the 3D YAPO Yamaha system, I then grab my Test Disk, The Last Witch Hunter to test DTS-X. Sitting in my optimum seating position and listening to the lady call out each speaker position not only does her voice sound the same tonal quality and clarity, but the volume is heard at the same volume. The same for a test ATMOS track.. For me, even with different speakers in my setup, fronts L-R-C are BK the overall sound is amazing. For me, with the YAPO of the Yamaha, the 4 presence speakers may be the least important speakers in the entire system. My rear face upward to reflect off the ceiling, and the 3D YAPO seems to do a great job in overall equalization.. Not sure you need those special speakers to get great sound.. Just my take on this...


----------



## jkcheng122

Question:

If after auto-calibration on the receiver, my Pioneer atmos add-ons still sound like the sound is coming from the front rather than above, what manual djustments can I make to improve the sound? I have a Pioneer VSX-1130-K with Andrew Jones fronts, center, and add-ons. Ceiling is flat at about 10' high. The test tones coming from the add-ons don't sound like they're coming from above, should I play around with speaker distance adjustments?


----------



## robert ham

*Seen this before??*



jkcheng122 said:


> Question:
> 
> If after auto-calibration on the receiver, my Pioneer atmos add-ons still sound like the sound is coming from the front rather than above, what manual djustments can I make to improve the sound? I have a Pioneer VSX-1130-K with Andrew Jones fronts, center, and add-ons. Ceiling is flat at about 10' high. The test tones coming from the add-ons don't sound like they're coming from above, should I play around with speaker distance adjustments?


When you have Presence speakers, are you sure the receiver or BluRay player is set up correctly to assure it is sending signal to these speakers.. I have seen things not set up right, and when it tries to send a test signal to the upper front and rear Presence speakers it will funnel the test signal to the rear surround or the front Left and Right? I had this happen when I hooked up my new Sony X800 4K UHD player... After a setting change in the X800, all Atmos and DTS-X tracks were sent to all the correct speakers... If the speakers are high up and not easy to listen to the speaker close up, I use a 8 foot long piece of 1" PVC water pipe to listen to my speakers. Works great!


----------



## Selden Ball

jkcheng122 said:


> Question:
> 
> If after auto-calibration on the receiver, my Pioneer atmos add-ons still sound like the sound is coming from the front rather than above, what manual djustments can I make to improve the sound? I have a Pioneer VSX-1130-K with Andrew Jones fronts, center, and add-ons. Ceiling is flat at about 10' high. The test tones coming from the add-ons don't sound like they're coming from above, should I play around with speaker distance adjustments?


Atmos reflecting speakers should be above ear/eye height in order to minimize the sound coming directly from them to your ears. You shouldn't be able to see the speaker drivers.


----------



## jkcheng122

robert ham said:


> When you have Presence speakers, are you sure the receiver or BluRay player is set up correctly to assure it is sending signal to these speakers.. I have seen things not set up right, and when it tries to send a test signal to the upper front and rear Presence speakers it will funnel the test signal to the rear surround or the front Left and Right? I had this happen when I hooked up my new Sony X800 4K UHD player... After a setting change in the X800, all Atmos and DTS-X tracks were sent to all the correct speakers... If the speakers are high up and not easy to listen to the speaker close up, I use a 8 foot long piece of 1" PVC water pipe to listen to my speakers. Works great!





Selden Ball said:


> Atmos reflecting speakers should be above ear/eye height in order to minimize the sound coming directly from them to your ears. You shouldn't be able to see the speaker drivers.


Thanks for the advice guys. I do know the Atmos enabled speakers are hooked up correctly as I am not hearing sound from my rears during test tones. They're coming out of the correct speakers, just not as "from above" as I would like, though there is definitely some sense of sound coming from above. I didn't feel quite enveloped.

I will pay more attention to where my ears are in regard to the height of the add-ons.


----------



## Selden Ball

jkcheng122 said:


> Thanks for the advice guys. I do know the Atmos enabled speakers are hooked up correctly as I am not hearing sound from my rears during test tones. They're coming out of the correct speakers, just not as "from above" as I would like, though there is definitely some sense of sound coming from above. I didn't feel quite enveloped.
> 
> I will pay more attention to where my ears are in regard to the height of the add-ons.


Oh, one thing I'd forgotten: bass frequencies below about 180Hz which would otherwise go to the Atmos speakers are redirected to the corresponding ear-level speakers. This is because the upfiring speakers simply aren't designed to handle lower frequencies. This might result in some sounds not seeming to come from overhead.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Selden Ball said:


> Oh, one thing I'd forgotten: bass frequencies below about 180Hz which would otherwise go to the Atmos speakers are redirected to the corresponding ear-level speakers. This is because the upfiring speakers simply aren't designed to handle lower frequencies. This might result in some sounds not seeming to come from overhead.


Very interesting. I hadn't read that before! So if you have bass-heavy effects from overhead, such as the Dolby 747 flying overhead demo or anything big flying over you in a movie - then real ceiling speakers are going to sound better.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Anything that is capable of reproducing the signal and isn't bass managed, yes.

While there are no new "channels" perse with Atmos, all of it's speaker outputs are *FULL RANGE*. Like any other speaker, they may require bass management.


----------



## mbergh22

With this setup in my room would I benefit from getting a set of Pioneer atmos add on Speakers to put on top of my 2 fronts?









Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## headcase151

jkcheng122 said:


> Question:
> 
> If after auto-calibration on the receiver, my Pioneer atmos add-ons still sound like the sound is coming from the front rather than above, what manual djustments can I make to improve the sound? I have a Pioneer VSX-1130-K with Andrew Jones fronts, center, and add-ons. Ceiling is flat at about 10' high. The test tones coming from the add-ons don't sound like they're coming from above, should I play around with speaker distance adjustments?


When you setup the Pioneer Atmos speakers. Did you measure the distance from the speaker to the ceiling. Yu need to input that into the setup.


----------



## Ladeback

OK, this may have been covered, but since I have been on this thread I have not seen it so I hope I am not repeating something.

If you have a 11.2 channel AVR for Dolby Atmos, can you also set it up to do a second zone say in a bar area in your basement so when you are watching a game in the theater you can be sharing picture and sound with the bar are like at a super bowl party? I would think this would be possible and could be used when you set the theater room to 7.1 or 7.2. Am I wrong in thinking this is possible? I realize I would need a separate amp and it would have to go through a RCA splitter into the pre-outs.


----------



## Selden Ball

Ladeback said:


> OK, this may have been covered, but since I have been on this thread I have not seen it so I hope I am not repeating something.
> 
> If you have a 11.2 channel AVR for Dolby Atmos, can you also set it up to do a second zone say in a bar area in your basement so when you are watching a game in the theater you can be sharing picture and sound with the bar are like at a super bowl party? I would think this would be possible and could be used when you set the theater room to 7.1 or 7.2. Am I wrong in thinking this is possible? I realize I would need a separate amp and it would have to go through a RCA splitter into the pre-outs.


If you have a receiver with a Zone 2 output, then you don't need an external splitter.

The higher-end equipment models (which are needed for 11.2) include Zone 2 stereo preamp outputs which can be used with an external amp. You don't need to change the main zone's speaker configuration in order to use them.


----------



## EdQ

jkcheng122 said:


> Question:
> 
> If after auto-calibration on the receiver, my Pioneer atmos add-ons still sound like the sound is coming from the front rather than above, what manual djustments can I make to improve the sound? I have a Pioneer VSX-1130-K with Andrew Jones fronts, center, and add-ons. Ceiling is flat at about 10' high. The test tones coming from the add-ons don't sound like they're coming from above, should I play around with speaker distance adjustments?


Play with the angles. 

Sent from my Note Edge


----------



## Ladeback

Selden Ball said:


> If you have a receiver with a Zone 2 output, then you don't need an external splitter.
> 
> The higher-end equipment models (which are needed for 11.2) include Zone 2 stereo preamp outputs which can be used with an external amp. You don't need to change the main zone's speaker configuration in order to use them.


Ah man I can't believe I forgot about the Zone 2 hook ups. I was more intersected in hooking the AVR up to do more then Atmos and it sounds like it is possible. Thanks. Now I just need to decide on a AVR or AV pre-amp.


----------



## genesplitter

Selden Ball said:


> Oh, one thing I'd forgotten: bass frequencies below about 180Hz which would otherwise go to the Atmos speakers are redirected to the corresponding ear-level speakers. This is because the upfiring speakers simply aren't designed to handle lower frequencies. This might result in some sounds not seeming to come from overhead.


Does this apply to in-ceiling ATMOS speakers too? I don't recall being able to tell the AVR if one is using ATMOS-upfiring vs real in-ceiling speakers. If that's the case then in-ceiling ATMOS speakers only need a small woofer.


----------



## Selden Ball

genesplitter said:


> Does this apply to in-ceiling ATMOS speakers too?


No, it does not. In-ceiling speakers are assumed to just like all of the other direct-firing speakers, with a single bass management crossover frequency.

The special hand-off of the higher end of the low frequencies applies only to the upfiring Dolby Atmos speaker designs.


> I don't recall being able to tell the AVR if one is using ATMOS-upfiring vs real in-ceiling speakers. If that's the case then in-ceiling ATMOS speakers only need a small woofer.


They all have some way to determine whether you're using upfiring, reflecting speakers or direct-firing (in-ceiling or on-ceiling) speakers.

Most upfiring speakers have only small (less than 4") speaker drivers and don't have a real woofer at all.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ladeback said:


> Ah man I can't believe I forgot about the Zone 2 hook ups. I was more intersected in hooking the AVR up to do more then Atmos and it sounds like it is possible. Thanks. Now I just need to decide on a AVR or AV pre-amp.


As you ponder your 11ch AVR options, bear in mind that you don't even have to rely on the AVR to power all the main zone channels. As long as the AVR offers 11ch processing with external zone stereo preouts, you can power any or all of the channels externally. 

Thus, for example, I have the 11ch X5200, which provides nine internal amps. But I am running 11.1/7.1.4 in the main zone plus two additional zones with the aid of one 12ch Dayton Audio MA1260 power amp (eight channels dedicated to FH/TR in bridge mode and four channels powering stereo Zones 2 and 3). With the MA1260 slaved to the X5200 via a 12v trigger to power it on/off, it works seamlessly. I was looking for a solution with a minimal footprint and low heat generation, and this combination fit the bill for me.


----------



## jkcheng122

headcase151 said:


> When you setup the Pioneer Atmos speakers. Did you measure the distance from the speaker to the ceiling. Yu need to input that into the setup.





EdQ said:


> Play with the angles.
> 
> Sent from my Note Edge


The distance to ceiling was input. I did some tinkering last night using some suggestions I read from another thread saying to up the dB by 3 to 5 on the presence speakers. While doing this I also recalibrated the other speakers' levels. After this was done I now have pretty immersive audio for Atmos soundtracks.

Thank you everyone for all the advice.


----------



## jkcheng122

mbergh22 said:


> With this setup in my room would I benefit from getting a set of Pioneer atmos add on Speakers to put on top of my 2 fronts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


Ideally you should also let us know if the ceiling is flat. It looks pretty good to me for Atmos add-ons.


----------



## mbergh22

jkcheng122 said:


> Ideally you should also let us know if the ceiling is flat. It looks pretty good to me for Atmos add-ons.


Its flat just the old popcorn style surface from the 70s 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

chi_guy50 said:


> As you ponder your 11ch AVR options, bear in mind that you don't even have to rely on the AVR to power all the main zone channels. As long as the AVR offers 11ch processing with external zone stereo preouts, you can power any or all of the channels externally.
> 
> Thus, for example, I have the 11ch X5200, which provides nine internal amps. But I am running 11.1/7.1.4 in the main zone plus two additional zones with the aid of one 12ch Dayton Audio MA1260 power amp (eight channels dedicated to FH/TR in bridge mode and four channels powering stereo Zones 2 and 3). With the MA1260 slaved to the X5200 via a 12v trigger to power it on/off, it works seamlessly. I was looking for a solution with a minimal footprint and low heat generation, and this combination fit the bill for me.


I understand what you are saying that most of the 9ch AVR's will actually process 11 channels with the help of external amps. That's what I am looking to get and want one that will do both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. If I am going to upgrade, I might as well upgrade to the latest technology. I am using 5 Marantz mono blocks for my current system and a Marantz 5 channel amp for my upstairs living room system. I also have 2 Carver 15cb's and a Caver 6cb that I could use to do 7.1.4. I just need a AVR or Pre-Amp.


----------



## lovswr

batpig said:


> Speaking of great Atmos soundtracks which are ALSO great movies...
> 
> Everyone who lives within driving distance of a good Atmos theater, GO SEE "LOGAN" ASAP.
> 
> Incredible movie, absolutely brutal and intense, and one of (if not the) best theatrical Atmos soundtracks I've heard. I'm praying this Atmos track makes it to the home release, there was not only several cool overhead effects (weather, helicopters, etc) but also amazing use of the 3D soundscape to build drama and tension during action sequences and immerse you emotionally into the movie.
> 
> This is the best dark action flick since "Mad Max Fury Road" and IMO it's going to become a reference Atmos track for home just like MMFR. It's not some "San Andreas" type yeah-the-movie-sucks-but-the-bass-is-AWESOME situation, this is a GREAT genre-busting movie with amazing visuals and audio. Basically it did to the X-Men franchise what "The Dark Knight" did to Batman.



I concur. The HDR was pretty good too.


----------



## clarkkent06

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't have a link handy. I'm basing it on the current alpha of the dashboard that I have on my launch system, which has the Atmos/Sonic options (which are part of the Win10 Creator's Update - also on PCs right now with preview builds of Win10) and currently bitstreams from Blu-Ray by changing an option in the Blu-Ray playback app. Plus, I'm a member of the Xbox Ambassador program. If you're questioning a particular part of what I said, I will be glad to post a link to the info when I am back at a PC.
> 
> Edit: Okay, back at a PC now. Here's a link to the latest patch notes for the alpha build (via Reddit since you can only access the preview program forums if you're in the preview program), which shows the pending support for Atmos Headphone and Windows Sonic:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/5ybo2z/xbox_one_insider_program_march_8th_new_preview/
> And here's the link to Microsoft's original announcement of Atmos support:
> http://news.xbox.com/2016/12/14/dolby-atmos-xbox-one-windows-10/
> And here's a link to Cadence's press release regarding Xbox One using 4 of Tensilica's programmable DSP chips for audio (which gives them PLENTY of headroom to update their codec support):
> https://ip.cadence.com/news/466/330/Microsoft-Employs-Cadence-Tensilica-Processors-in-Xbox-One


I ran into this issue last night. Just set up my 5.1.2 and put in my atmos demo disc into my xbox one. Couldn't figure out why Atmos wasn't coming through, then did a bunch of research and figured it out. Hopefully the update comes out soon! All I have for disc players is an xbox one and PS3 lol [I have the first gen "fat" ps3 so it won't work either http://developer.dolby.com/News/Enabling_Dolby_Bitstream_Pass-Through_on_Playstation.aspx]


----------



## ChiWestSider

chi_guy50 said:


> As you ponder your 11ch AVR options, bear in mind that you don't even have to rely on the AVR to power all the main zone channels. As long as the AVR offers 11ch processing with external zone stereo preouts, you can power any or all of the channels externally.
> 
> Thus, for example, I have the 11ch X5200, which provides nine internal amps. But I am running 11.1/7.1.4 in the main zone plus two additional zones with the aid of one 12ch Dayton Audio MA1260 power amp (eight channels dedicated to FH/TR in bridge mode and four channels powering stereo Zones 2 and 3). With the MA1260 slaved to the X5200 via a 12v trigger to power it on/off, it works seamlessly. I was looking for a solution with a minimal footprint and low heat generation, and this combination fit the bill for me.


Can I run 7.X.4, with the 7 base layer running off the Pre-Outs and still run other zones powered from the X6200? 
Oops, sorry. Wrong forum


----------



## batpig

ChiWestSider said:


> Can I run 7.X.4, with the 7 base layer running off the Pre-Outs and still run other zones powered from the X6200?
> Oops, sorry. Wrong forum


No, the X6200W can't "remap" the main zone amps to other zones when in 9 or 11ch mode, you'd still need external amps for other zones.


----------



## muzz

mrtickleuk said:


> Bear in mind that even cinema projectors costing thousands and thousands can't project HDR.
> 
> For this reason I predict a new shift away from home projectors, and back to home large-screen TVs.


They'd better come down in price, and grow much larger at the same time.


Ladeback said:


> Ah man I can't believe I forgot about the Zone 2 hook ups. I was more intersected in hooking the AVR up to do more then Atmos and it sounds like it is possible. Thanks. Now I just need to decide on a AVR or AV pre-amp.





deano86 said:


> There is nothing wrong with your Sony player....if you have it correctly set for bitstreaming.
> Digital Audio Out set for - Auto
> BD Audio mix set to - OFF


----------



## muzz

So, correct placement of ceiling speakers is ear to ceiling measurement(at MLP sitting down)then back and forth that distance from that position?
My ceiling is only 7'(it's all I got, working with it best I can) but the speakers do have aimable tweeters.

Thanks guys

Thanks


----------



## Fazzz

muzz said:


> So, correct placement of ceiling speakers is ear to ceiling measurement(at MLP sitting down)then back and forth that distance from that position?
> My ceiling is only 7'(it's all I got, working with it best I can) but the speakers do have aimable tweeters.
> 
> Thanks guys
> 
> Thanks


If it's all you got, it's all you got. I'm at about 7' 1-2" on my ceiling and have 4 heights installed. I'm using 4 Polk RC80i ceiling speakers with adjustable tweeters and it sounds fine even with the low ceilings.


----------



## muzz

Fazzz said:


> If it's all you got, it's all you got. I'm at about 7' 1-2" on my ceiling and have 4 heights installed. I'm using 4 Polk RC80i ceiling speakers with adjustable tweeters and it sounds fine even with the low ceilings.


Is that the formula you used? Measure up and then out THE SAME?
Think that's what Rd said on here.

Btw, unfortunately I have 1x1 ceiling tiles with strapping running perpendicular to floor joists above, so placement is gonna be even more restrictive, as the speakers HAVE to be out in the center of the tiles...I'll get it though!

Thanks


----------



## Fazzz

muzz said:


> Is that the formula you used? Measure up and then out THE SAME?
> Think that's what Rd said on here.
> 
> Btw, unfortunately I have 1x1 ceiling tiles with strapping running perpendicular to floor joists above, so placement is gonna be even more restrictive, as the speakers HAVE to be out in the center of the tiles...I'll get it though!
> 
> Thanks


I followed the placement guidelines on the Dolby site as best as I could given my joist location and the placement of my lighting. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's as good as I could get done. Just find some speakers with wide dispersion and you should be ok even if you're off a little. Some will say that 7' is too short for ceiling Atmos speakers and that upward-firing Atmos speakers are better, but mine are fine. You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html


----------



## Fafa2e

Hello, I have been doing a lot of research on this board as I endeavor to upgrade my surround sound system to Dolby Atmos. This is my first post and I'm hoping that some of you experienced board members may be able to give me some advice on speaker placement. I sent the following information to my dealer to get their advice.

I am interested in putting together a Dolby Atmos system using the Goldenear Triton 2+ Towers and the SuperCenter XL for the Center. I am less confident in the best surround and height speaker configuration for my space. I’ve attached some photos of the space that I am dealing with. I’ve added 
some notes to the pictures regarding some ideas that may work, but I’m not sure what to do about ATMOS speakers. My original idea was to use the Tritons and SuperCenter Upfront and use SuperSat 3s for the Surrounds and Tops, but I am concerned that I won’t have enough vertical separation between the surrounds and tops. I thought maybe I could use the HTR 7000 as the sides and surrounds because they are designed to direct the sound down to ear level and use the SuperSat 3s or maybe the other Goldenear Invisas for height speakers. (Note: The ceiling slopes from about 16' in the front to about 8' in the rear across about 20'. The couch is approximately in the center of the room and the ceiling in the location of the proposed Invisa HTR 7000s side surrounds is approximately 11ft.) 

I am dealing with several problems because of the open floor plan and the inability to put surround speakers at ear level. Also, the sharply sloped ceiling could be a problem for Atmos. Let me know if you think the XTR 7000s might be an option for me or using in ceiling speakers for the Top speakers may work better than the SuperSats.

Do you think I could make Atmos work in this room or should I just use a standard 5.2 or 7.2 setup since the surrounds will need to be mounted well above ear level anyway?

Thank you in advance for your input.

Fafa


----------



## muzz

I measured up and back, found the nearest 1x1tile, and out the speakers there. Rear 2 speakers holes are cut, front 2 require me to remove felt on the ceiling....
The 1x1 tiles and strapping sure make it interesting, neither are dead smack middle cuz of the strapping above, but they look good regardless(temp, gotta run wire- test fit). 
2 to go!🙌


----------



## muzz

All 4 ceilings dry fit, just gotta run wire!
Each ceiling speaker is ~39" from MLP, compromises had to be made due to cross strapping and joists. Pretty close to matching mains L/R, not perfect, but close. Look good.


----------



## keeper

Officially went Atmos today by installing two top middle/front overhead speakers. Will install the top rear in the fall. I have to say I'm very impressed. Atmos is a definite upgrade. Much more lifelike where sound is coming at you from all directions instead of one single speaker. Though my base layer is a bit high things still sound great. I have to play around with ypao and get things set up but I'm very happy with the test material I played (Terminator, Mad Max). You guys that hang your surround and surround backs on a wall do you actually have them as low as ear level? Mine are ear level when I'm standing which I know is too high.


----------



## jisu

What's the minimum number of speakers required to enable Dolby Atmos? I read that you can get now away with 2.0.2 but my AVR's (Marantz NR1607) manual says I need 5.1 minimum.


----------



## maikeldepotter

jisu said:


> What's the minimum number of speakers required to enable Dolby Atmos? I read that you can get now away with 2.0.2 but my AVR's (Marantz NR1607) manual says I need 5.1 minimum.


The Atmos codec allows enabling any height speakers with only L/R fronts. Indeed, the absolute Atmos minimum is L/R plus one pair of overheads (2.0.2). The 5.1 minimum limitation is an implementation choice made by the AVR/processor manufacturer.


----------



## jdsmoothie

jisu said:


> What's the minimum number of speakers required to enable Dolby Atmos? I read that you can get now away with 2.0.2 but my AVR's (Marantz NR1607) manual says I need 5.1 minimum.


Although the manual does say that, you can do 2.0.2 and pass an Atmos audio track.


----------



## EdQ

keeper said:


> ....You guys that hang your surround and surround backs on a wall do you actually have them as low as ear level? Mine are ear level when I'm standing which I know is too high.


All my base speakers are at ear level.

Sent from my Note Edge


----------



## Methodical_1

e


keeper said:


> ... You guys that hang your surround and surround backs on a wall do you actually have them as low as ear level? Mine are ear level when I'm standing which I know is too high.


Mine are not at ear level and won't be either. It's set up based on older surround standards from over 12 years ago. It sounds great. Will it sound better if the speakers were at ear level...won't know.


----------



## keeper

Methodical_1 said:


> e
> 
> Mine are not at ear level and won't be either. It's set up based on older surround standards from over 12 years ago. It sounds great. Will it sound better if the speakers were at ear level...won't know.


Thanks for your reply. Yeah mine are the same based on years ago. I lowered them to their current spot but I know it is not optimal. Any way I think my system sounded great after doing a few tests last night. Will add the back two in the future. Was nervous as hell cutting my ceiling but everything turned out great. If I could do it all over again or my next upgrade will be all floor standing speakers.


----------



## celestica

I have recently upgraded to Denon x4200 for dolby atmos, from Pioneer 1124k, and is deciding on dolby atmos add on speakers. I need to make decision between either pioneer or NHT atmos mini add on. Nog much price difference for a pair, but amazon best selling rank is putting NHT better rating. Can some member here who has or used NHT can comment. One difference i noted is that pioneer ones come with tweeter while nht ones not. Whst tweeter adds to atmos. Experts can help for that question.


----------



## Extreman

*Speaker positioning*

I have to use on-wall speakers for my top-mid Atmos channels in a 5.1.2 setup.
I wonder what will be my best options on the toe-in angle for these channels:
1) Directed towards listening position (ref. picture)
2) Directed straight towards the companion speaker on the opposite wall 
3) Directed slightly towards front speakers

Suggestions highly appreciated.


----------



## Selden Ball

Extreman said:


> I have to use on-wall speakers for my top-mid Atmos channels in a 5.1.2 setup.
> I wonder what will be my best options on the toe-in angle for these channels:
> 1) Directed towards listening position (ref. picture)
> 2) Directed straight towards the companion speaker on the opposite wall
> 3) Directed slightly towards front speakers
> 
> Suggestions highly appreciated.


Many people like the "equal energy" toe-in -- point each speaker toward the opposite end of the seating: left speaker toward right side of seating, right speaker toward left side of seating.


----------



## Extreman

Selden Ball said:


> Many people like the "equal energy" toe-in -- point each speaker toward the opposite end of the seating: left speaker toward right side of seating, right speaker toward left side of seating.


Thank you for this suggestion.
I will use it as my baseline setup.

Any additional comments to my sub-optimal Atmos speaker channels, based on the fact that it is *not* roof-mounted (firing directly downwards) and that my roof is vaulted? 
I guess what I am saying is 'will this work well', nevertheless?


----------



## timjohnson1717

So, following up on an earlier Atmos question in the UDP-203 thread. I am not showing either DTS:X or Atmos on my AVR when playing back the appropriate titles. This was determined to be that since I have no Atmos overhead channels, the receiver simply ignores the Atmos data and shows the DTS- HD Master and TrueHD audio feeds. 

Now the questions, I am currently running a phantom center, I do not have the available space to place a center channel speaker, unless I buy something smaller than what I want. I am planning on moving out of the apartment in the near future, and want the matching Verus Grand Center, but until then, no center it is. If I take the time to purchase and install four overhead channels, will Atmos/DTS:X work without the center channel in place, or is that a flat out requirement?

Edit: Using a Pioneer SC-97 if that makes a difference.


----------



## cdnscg

*San Andreas*

Watched San Andreas in Atmos 5.1.4, and although the overall sound was exciting, the 4 overhead speakers had little to no sound. Only at times a cable snapping or rock dust falling. Anyone else with a similar experience?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

timjohnson1717 said:


> So, following up on an earlier Atmos question in the UDP-203 thread. I am not showing either DTS:X or Atmos on my AVR when playing back the appropriate titles. This was determined to be that since I have no Atmos overhead channels, the receiver simply ignores the Atmos data and shows the DTS- HD Master and TrueHD audio feeds.
> 
> Now the questions, I am currently running a phantom center, I do not have the available space to place a center channel speaker, unless I buy something smaller than what I want. I am planning on moving out of the apartment in the near future, and want the matching Verus Grand Center, but until then, no center it is. If I take the time to purchase and install four overhead channels, will Atmos/DTS:X work without the center channel in place, or is that a flat out requirement?
> 
> Edit: Using a Pioneer SC-97 if that makes a difference.


Why don't you just tell your AVR that you have height speakers installed and see what it thinks is going on. After all just because you assign heights doesn't mean you need them plugged in.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

cdnscg said:


> Watched San Andreas in Atmos 5.1.4, and although the overall sound was exciting, the 4 overhead speakers had little to no sound. Only at times a cable snapping or rock dust falling. Anyone else with a similar experience?


Some Atmos mixes are more active than others. San Andreas isn't considered a very active one.


----------



## matth22

cdnscg said:


> Watched San Andreas in Atmos 5.1.4, and although the overall sound was exciting, the 4 overhead speakers had little to no sound. Only at times a cable snapping or rock dust falling. Anyone else with a similar experience?


This is not a great movie for immersive sound.


----------



## cdnscg

Thank you guys for the input on San Andreas. I feared there was something wrong with my player.


----------



## Kadath

What movies have the MOST overhead data?


----------



## trespoochies

Gravity is one of the big ones and considered reference. Incredibly active overheads. John Wick is also good. And surprisingly (at least to me), Inferno was really active.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kadath said:


> What movies have the MOST overhead data?


Another one is Lucy. Also try Sully. Both on UHD Blu-ray as well. 

Bram Stoker's Dracula and The Fifth Element (both coming to UHD Blu-ray this summer) also had pretty active remixes. Not hit you over the head in terms of overhead usage, but still effective in enveloping you in the soundscape.


----------



## ggsantafe

Kadath said:


> What movies have the MOST overhead data?


While it's true that the previously mentioned movies have a more active overhead soundfield going on - it really helps to listen to something like the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc - that may be found on Ebay and/or Amazon. Dolby produced an amazing disc to promote Atmos and their specially engineered video & audio clips really highlight the format's potential, to a far greater degree than any home video Atmos release I've listened to. Try the "747" airplane audio to get a taste of what properly directed overhead speaker sounds sound like! I lived in the LaGuardia Airport flight path as a kid with the jets flying so low you couldn't hear your TV for 30 seconds, and the "747" audio clip matches that intensity. Just saying....


----------



## thetman

ggsantafe said:


> While it's true that the previously mentioned movies have a more active overhead soundfield going on - it really helps to listen to something like the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc - that may be found on Ebay and/or Amazon. Dolby produced an amazing disc to promote Atmos and their specially engineered video & audio clips really highlight the format's potential, to a far greater degree than any home video Atmos release I've listened to. Try the "747" airplane audio to get a taste of what properly directed overhead speaker sounds sound like! I lived in the LaGuardia Airport flight path as a kid with the jets flying so low you couldn't hear your TV for 30 seconds, and the "747" audio clip matches that intensity. Just saying....


saw the 2015 and 2016 demo disc on amazon- but seller was from china. not sure it will play in U.S or not.


----------



## meli

thetman said:


> saw the 2015 and 2016 demo disc on amazon- but seller was from china. not sure it will play in U.S or not.


Go thru this thread and you can find where to download it..
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mo-disk-files-downloads-september-2015-a.html


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kadath said:


> What movies have the MOST overhead data?


Deepwater Horizon is a newer good Atmos mix if you want to hear a lot of overhead action.

Very aggressive mix.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Deepwater Horizon is a newer good Atmos mix if you want to hear a lot of overhead action.
> 
> Very aggressive mix.


_Unbroken_ has first class Atmos, too. At the beginning of the picture, a huge formation of bombers is flying overhead and the Atmos effects work really well.


----------



## Ladeback

gwsat said:


> _Unbroken_ has first class Atmos, too. At the beginning of the picture, a huge formation of bombers is flying overhead and the Atmos effects work really well.


I have seen that clip a few times on Atmos systems and is very cool.


----------



## Ricoflashback

All great Dolby Atmos suggestions. Unbroken, besides being an exceptional movie, with the bomber scene will light up your speakers. The rain in many scenes will have you reaching for your umbrella.

Sully - - for a movie with an incredible Dolby Atmos mix from overheads to side to side. I mean, you're looking for the flight attendant button when the plane starts to have problems. The grinding sound is somewhat nerve wracking - - especially if you fly a lot. You'll recognize what I'm talking about when you hear it.

Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice. Another fine Atmos mix. 

Once you get over the novelty of ceiling (height) speakers (you will, trust me) - - you'll start enjoying the "envelope" of sound with Dolby Atmos. Most everyone is preoccupied with the height speakers once they install them. It's like - - are they on? Can I hear anything? Is this really Dolby Atmos? 

After a while, you start noticing the subtle nuances of a well mixed, Dolby Atmos sound track. It really pulls you into the movie. Don't forget DSU or DTS X for older movies without Dolby Atmos. With some movies, it doesn't make much of a difference - - but with others, it's really exceptional.


----------



## thetman

trespoochies said:


> Gravity is one of the big ones and considered reference. Incredibly active overheads. John Wick is also good. And surprisingly (at least to me), Inferno was really active.


was going to pick up the gravity disc but the atmos diamond luxe edition version is like $70! too much. I may pick up John Wick.


----------



## deano86

thetman said:


> was going to pick up the gravity disc but the atmos diamond luxe edition version is like $70! too much. I may pick up John Wick.


Order Gravity Diamond Luxe from Amazon Canada.... it has typically been around $19.96! ... the favorable exchange rate ends up paying for your shipping!


----------



## thetman

deano86 said:


> Order Gravity Diamond Luxe from Amazon Canada.... it has typically been around $19.96! ... the favorable exchange rate ends up paying for your shipping!


ordered! was like $23. not too bad. I have actually had good luck ordering things from Amazon.ca and U.K.


----------



## deano86

thetman said:


> ordered! was like $23. not too bad. I have actually had good luck ordering things from Amazon.ca and U.K.


Good deal... I took the Atmos soundtrack from this version and muxed it into my 3D disc copy to get the version that should have been provided in a "Diamond Luxe" version to begin with!!


----------



## lujan

deano86 said:


> Good deal... I took the Atmos soundtrack from this version and muxed it into my 3D disc copy to get the version that should have been provided in a "Diamond Luxe" version to begin with!!


I you don't mind, PM with the instructions you used because I couldn't get it to work when I tried? If I can't I may have to triple dip and get the 4k version when it comes out later in the year.


----------



## gwsat

Ricoflashback said:


> All great Dolby Atmos suggestions. Unbroken, besides being an exceptional movie, with the bomber scene will light up your speakers. The rain in many scenes will have you reaching for your umbrella.
> 
> Sully - - for a movie with an incredible Dolby Atmos mix from overheads to side to side. I mean, you're looking for the flight attendant button when the plane starts to have problems. The grinding sound is somewhat nerve wracking - - especially if you fly a lot. You'll recognize what I'm talking about when you hear it.
> 
> Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice. Another fine Atmos mix.
> 
> Once you get over the novelty of ceiling (height) speakers (you will, trust me) - - you'll start enjoying the "envelope" of sound with Dolby Atmos. Most everyone is preoccupied with the height speakers once they install them. It's like - - are they on? Can I hear anything? Is this really Dolby Atmos?
> 
> After a while, you start noticing the subtle nuances of a well mixed, Dolby Atmos sound track. It really pulls you into the movie. Don't forget DSU or DTS X for older movies without Dolby Atmos. With some movies, it doesn't make much of a difference - - but with others, it's really exceptional.


I agree with you on all counts. I was particularly fond of the Atmos effects in _Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice_. I bought the Extended Edition in order to get the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. I even thought the movie was pretty good. Apparently, the shorter theatrical version disappointed a lot of folks.


----------



## trespoochies

Personally, all of it is incredibly disappointing. I would never sit through an entire watching of it again. But hey, it does have good Atmos. So it was worth getting just to show off the action scenes.


----------



## gwsat

trespoochies said:


> Personally, all of it is incredibly disappointing. I would never sit through an entire watching of it again. But hey, it does have good Atmos. So it was worth getting just to show off the action scenes.


If by "it" you meant _Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice_ Extended Edition you are not alone in your opinion. Given what we have learned about Affleck's personal life lately, those of us who thought he looked fat and wasted in the film were right. I thought all of that worked, though. Batman is old (for a costumed crimefighter) and tired. Affleck's Batman needed to do what Nolan's version of the character did and hookup with a beautiful woman and move to the Riviera.


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> If by "it" you meant _Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice_ Extended Edition you are not alone in your opinion. Given what we have learned about Affleck's personal life lately, those of us who thought he looked fat and wasted in the film were right. I thought all of that worked, though. Batman is old (for a costumed crimefighter) and tired. Affleck's Batman needed to do what Nolan's version of the character did and hookup with a beautiful woman and move to the Riviera.


The depiction of Batman in that movie was based on Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns comic, in which Batman was old and over-the-hill.


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> I you don't mind, PM with the instructions you used because I couldn't get it to work when I tried? If I can't I may have to triple dip and get the 4k version when it comes out later in the year.


Easy just read this thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-ne...ming/1939705-gravity-3d-mkv-atmos-how-do.html


----------



## Tapidlittle

Does the in-ceiling speakers for Atmos must match the other speakers, I have Paradigm Studios speakers and I was wondering if I should stay with Paradigm for my height speakers or I can go with any brand? If so, what you guys suggest?

thanks.


----------



## lujan

Movie78 said:


> Easy just read this thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-ne...ming/1939705-gravity-3d-mkv-atmos-how-do.html


Thanks, I believe this is the one I tried and it didn't work. Guess I'll have to try again?


----------



## Movie78

lujan said:


> Thanks, I believe this is the one I tried and it didn't work. Guess I'll have to try again?


I did the same thing on Pixel and works great.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> The depiction of Batman in that movie was based on Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns comic, in which Batman was old and over-the-hill.


If you thought I was complaining about Affleck having been miscast in _Batman v. Superman,_ please understand that I wasn't. My point was that recent events concerning Affleck's substance abuse problems have provided a life-imitating-art explanation for why Batman as portrayed by Affleck looked so bad. Christopher Nolan's Batman was supposed to be getting old and very beat up in _The Dark Knight Rises_ too but Christian Bale looked exponentially better in that one than Affleck did in _Batman v. Superman._ 

To return to topic briefly, the Atmos soundtrack in _Batman v. Superman._ was world class, particularly the scene in which young Bruce falls in an old well with a bunch of bats.


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> If by "it" you meant _Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice_ Extended Edition you are not alone in your opinion. Given what we have learned about Affleck's personal life lately, those of us who thought he looked fat and wasted in the film were right. I thought all of that worked, though. Batman is old (for a costumed crimefighter) and tired. Affleck's Batman needed to do what Nolan's version of the character did and hookup with a beautiful woman and move to the Riviera.


Fat & wasted? I could have played that part! I still liked the movie and Dolby Atmos effects. I didn't think it was boring but personal tastes can differ. Certainly not the greatest of the "Batman" genre but a good example of a Dolby Atmos mix that blends in well with the movie. I didn't think Affleck looked too chunky in "The Accountant." (Which is a movie I liked but the critics panned.)

Were the movies that far apart in the making? Maybe Ben worked at being fat & wasted like DeNiro did for a fat Jake LaMotta later in life?


----------



## clarkkent06

I got my Atmos 5.1.2 system installed over the weekend. For the 2 front atmos I installed small Klipsch RB-10 bookshelfs on the wall with these brackets (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005BV0FHG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) into studs and they are working great. I'll post pictures later. They are about 5'6" from MLP, 8' tall ceiling

Only issue I have now is I don't have a player capable of passing atmos to my receiver lol. Stupid xbox one


----------



## Kadath

deano86 said:


> Order Gravity Diamond Luxe from Amazon Canada.... it has typically been around $19.96! ... the favorable exchange rate ends up paying for your shipping!


Showing as $100 on amazon.ca for me, got a $20 link?


----------



## Kadath

clarkkent06 said:


> I got my Atmos 5.1.2 system installed over the weekend. For the 2 front atmos I installed small Klipsch RB-10 bookshelfs on the wall with these brackets (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005BV0FHG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) into studs and they are working great. I'll post pictures later. They are about 5'6" from MLP, 8' tall ceiling
> 
> Only issue I have now is I don't have a player capable of passing atmos to my receiver lol. Stupid xbox one


Sign up for the preview, it supports Atmos. Oh, unless you meant the 1 and not the 1S. If you don't have the S they are like $240 now, well worth upgrade. You could even trade your One in for a discount.


----------



## clarkkent06

Kadath said:


> Sign up for the preview, it supports Atmos. Oh, unless you meant the 1 and not the 1S. If you don't have the S they are like $240 now, well worth upgrade. You could even trade your One in for a discount.


I just have the One, not One S. I am on the preview but I'm "too new" so I wasn't grandfathered in to the system previews. I think I can get system previews but I'm in like the last phase, so it's when they're about to go to everyone anyways.

I don't think I need a One S yet, no 4k anytime soon. And I'm curious to see what Scorpio is about (although I'm sure it's going to be expensive)


----------



## gwsat

Ricoflashback said:


> Fat & wasted? I could have played that part! I still liked the movie and Dolby Atmos effects. I didn't think it was boring but personal tastes can differ. Certainly not the greatest of the "Batman" genre but a good example of a Dolby Atmos mix that blends in well with the movie. I didn't think Affleck looked too chunky in "The Accountant." (Which is a movie I liked but the critics panned.)
> 
> Were the movies that far apart in the making? Maybe Ben worked at being fat & wasted like DeNiro did for a fat Jake LaMotta later in life?


Yeah, there is no telling why Affleck looked as bad as he did. The only reason I commented on it was that if his appearance had been contributed to by his substance abuse problem, it created an interesting life-imitating-art situation. I'm glad to see that he is getting help in that regard. As limited as he is as an actor, he is a superbly talented director.


----------



## timjohnson1717

Mashie Saldana said:


> Why don't you just tell your AVR that you have height speakers installed and see what it thinks is going on. After all just because you assign heights doesn't mean you need them plugged in.


Ok, so for those who may have similar questions down the road. 

When enabling the four height channels I now show Atmos on the receiver, no center channel required, still have it switched off. This was on an SC-97, however I couldn't get the DTS:X to show. Not sure if that is a firmware issue or possible disc issue. Ah well, I'll continue this in the pioneer thread. Thanks for the help!


----------



## thetman

Kadath said:


> Showing as $100 on amazon.ca for me, got a $20 link?


https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00PTGEUZQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's currently $70 on the USA site.

https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Spec...title_16?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1490048183&sr=8-4


----------



## muzz

Better now my lawn for $70 Scott!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Uhhh. I'm cool. Thanks.

I have a copy of this. 

Later, suckers!


----------



## batpig

timjohnson1717 said:


> Ok, so for those who may have similar questions down the road.
> 
> When enabling the four height channels I now show Atmos on the receiver, no center channel required, still have it switched off. This was on an SC-97, however I couldn't get the DTS:X to show. Not sure if that is a firmware issue or possible disc issue. Ah well, I'll continue this in the pioneer thread. Thanks for the help!


Pretty sure DTS:X requires a center channel


----------



## Kadath

thetman said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00PTGEUZQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Snagged one thanks


----------



## healthnut

batpig said:


> Pretty sure DTS:X requires a center channel




I run DTS:X with no center without issues 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rontalley

healthnut said:


> I run DTS:X with no center without issues
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


May I ask why you choose not to run a center speaker?


----------



## Skylinestar

healthnut said:


> I run DTS:X with no center without issues
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What's your AVR?
I think this is just D&M bug.


----------



## healthnut

Skylinestar said:


> What's your AVR?
> 
> I think this is just D&M bug.




Yamaha 3060


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## healthnut

rontalley said:


> May I ask why you choose not to run a center speaker?




Sure: one day, there was some 2 channel material playing (at first I thought it was using the center), but I verified it was not. It sounded great: spacious, vocals right where they should have been, expansive, not narrowed (as they had been with my excellent Ascend Horizon with the RAAL tweeter.) I tried it with other material, with similar positive results. 
I know all the science and conventional wisdom says to use a center, but I have chosen to go phantom, here's a few other reasons:
1. Your best speakers are normally the 2 fronts, oriented vertically and flanking your screen, they're also likely to be somewhere close to the screen's center, and if pointed it slightly in, can nicely fill up the space between them. On this way, you are maximizing your investment in them, since so much material from movies is center- driven. Equidistant positioning has worked well for me.
2. The vertical orientation of the center has some inherent technical disadvantages, especially compared to vertical towers, and they often must be positioned above or below the screen and seldom in alignment with the fronts. Vocals are mainly tweeter derived, especially female vocals, and tweeters, with their high frequency easily localizable behavior, work best at ear level. 
3. Vertical towers tend to be more dynamic than most centers, and will generally handle lower frequencies better.
4. For me, in my situation, the soundstage is much larger (as well as more dynamic), it's as though my HT space has been enlarged. I haven't experienced any of the expected shift in any of the seats in my home theater, it sounds great in all of them. To me, this decision was a meaningful upgrade in performance.
I'm in no way critical of those who use and advocate the convention horizontal center speaker, I've just chosen to go in a different direction, and to my ears in my room with my equipment, it's worked great. I'd recommend experimenting, it's free to try out, and if it works well for you, you can make a few bucks selling your center speaker. I've been in home theater since the 80's, and this tweak has been one of the best for me. As always, YMMV


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kadath

meli said:


> Go thru this thread and you can find where to download it..
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...mo-disk-files-downloads-september-2015-a.html


Thanks. I'm not a huge BT guy but I was able to work out getting both the 2015 and 2016 disks downloaded in about an hour last night and successfully burned the 2016 one. Will check it out tonight.


----------



## rontalley

healthnut said:


> 1. Your best speakers are normally the 2 fronts, oriented vertically and flanking your screen, they're also likely to be somewhere close to the screen's center, and if pointed it slightly in, can nicely fill up the space between them. On this way, you are maximizing your investment in them, since so much material from movies is center- driven. Equidistant positioning has worked well for me.


That a really good point. The center does get abused. And yep, the mains are typically the most expensive speakers. 

So are you the only one that's watching movies typically? I do not have a MLP and had to compromise amongst five family members. MLP is actually right in between two sofas.  Without a center, the sound would get lopsided fairly quickly as the vocals would be coming out of the fronts where one might be seating.

For a 1 person setup, I totally get not having a center. But a multi position setup, someone would definately be getting the short end of the stick without a center.


----------



## Movie78

Kadath said:


> Thanks. I'm not a huge BT guy but I was able to work out getting both the 2015 and 2016 disks downloaded in about an hour last night and successfully burned the 2016 one. Will check it out tonight.


----------



## healthnut

rontalley said:


> That a really good point. The center does get abused. And yep, the mains are typically the most expensive speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you the only one that's watching movies typically? I do not have a MLP and had to compromise amongst five family members. MLP is actually right in between two sofas.  Without a center, the sound would get lopsided fairly quickly as the vocals would be coming out of the fronts where one might be seating.
> 
> 
> 
> For a 1 person setup, I totally get not having a center. But a multi position setup, someone would definately be getting the short end of the stick without a center.




I have 2 rows of 3 seats in my dedicated theater room and intelligibility or inconsistencies in the phantom center's presentation has not been a problem at all. I have sat on the end seats and never felt the sound field was compromised in any way. This has been my experience with my speakers in my room. I sit about 12 feet back from the front speakers and they are 12 feet apart (equidistant), toed in (I used a laser sight to insure the tweeters were pointed at the left and right sides of the center seat respectively, and it has worked very well for me. I expected the problem you referenced, but happily, I didn't get it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Sounds like you "need" a new acoustically transparent screen and identical center channel, @healthnut


----------



## batpig

Man, if I'm listening in stereo mode I don't have to sit very far to the left or right of center to have the stereo image collapse to the nearer speaker....


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Man, if I'm listening in stereo mode I don't have to sit very far to the left or right of center to have the stereo image collapse to the nearer speaker....


What kind of speakers do you have again?

Room treatments?


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> What kind of speakers do you have again?
> 
> Room treatments?


Triad Bronze LCR... light room treatments at this point.

I'm talking about the center image of things that are "locked in" to center like vocals/dialogue. Without the center channel in play it's very easy to hear that phantom image get "pulled" towards the closer speaker when sitting on either side.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Have you played with various angles of toe-in and/or varying distance of width separation?

With good imaging speakers and a wide enough sweet spot, you should be able to move some and keep a 'locked' center image.

Not every system is capable of this for various reasons.


----------



## healthnut

Scott Simonian said:


> Sounds like you "need" a new acoustically transparent screen and identical center channel, @healthnut




I'm well aware of that option, Scott, but I'm sticking with my present configuration. Interestingly, when investigating that option, I remember Joe Kane's comment that placing speakers behind ANY screen (AT or not) compromises both video and audio. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## muzz

IMHO, speakers being behind the screen makes up for a slight compromise in either.


----------



## Kadath

Movie78 said:


>


Not sure that's good or bad but the thanks were sincere. The burn finished at 1:30 so there was no cranking up speakers when it was done. Burned #2 and both sounded great! Whoever recommended Unbroken but that's on the 2016 one too so no need to buy and watch that again just for the B24 scene!


----------



## gwsat

Kadath said:


> NWhoever recommended Unbroken but that's on the 2016 one too so no need to buy and watch that again just for the B24 scene!


I recommended great Atmos effects in the early scene in _Unbroken,_ in which the huge bomber formation was flying overhead. You are welcome, it was indeed terrific.


----------



## Scott Simonian

healthnut said:


> I remember Joe Kane's comment that placing speakers behind ANY screen (AT or not) compromises both video and audio.



Heh. Like the difference from 100% and 99.999999%. 

Everything in this hobby is a balance of compromise. Just have to pick yours.



And lol at (AT or not). Of course putting speakers behind a non-AT screen is never a good idea.


----------



## Mrjmc99

I want to add "Sing" to the list of great atmos mixes. We just watched it and the mix was excellent, it was different from many other atmos titles I've seen since it plays like a concert in some scenes and a regular animated movie in others. Highly recommended. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kadath

Cool, I have both the 3D and 4k here ready to watch later this week.


----------



## Tapidlittle

Tapidlittle said:


> Does the in-ceiling speakers for Atmos must match the other speakers, I have Paradigm Studios speakers and I was wondering if I should stay with Paradigm for my height speakers or I can go with any brand? If so, what you guys suggest?
> 
> thanks.


I was looking at the Paradigm H65-A (angled to 30 degree), any other suggestions? I prefer angled speakers since my ceiling is not high.


----------



## batpig

Tapidlittle said:


> I was looking at the Paradigm H65-A (angled to 30 degree), any other suggestions? I prefer angled speakers since my ceiling is not high.


best case scenario is you match the lower level speakers, so if you've got Paradigms down low and those H65-A's fit your budget, then go for it. The angled baffle will work well for Atmos.

If the budget is tight then these are very popular and well reviewed, half the price, and also have angled baffles: https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/


----------



## gwsat

Mrjmc99 said:


> I want to add "Sing" to the list of great atmos mixes. We just watched it and the mix was excellent, it was different from many other atmos titles I've seen since it plays like a concert in some scenes and a regular animated movie in others. Highly recommended.


Thanks. I am thinking about buying the _Sing_ UHD HDR Atmos disk from Amazon but have not yet pulled the trigger.


----------



## Tapidlittle

batpig said:


> best case scenario is you match the lower level speakers, so if you've got Paradigms down low and those H65-A's fit your budget, then go for it. The angled baffle will work well for Atmos.
> 
> If the budget is tight then these are very popular and well reviewed, half the price, and also have angled baffles: https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/


Thanks I will look at these!


----------



## techguru34

Does anyone here have their home theater system in a room with vaulted ceilings? Unfortunately, this is what I have. I'm gradually building toward a system that will have atmos, but I'm concerned that it won't be worth the investment to get atmos enabled speakers when I have a vaulted ceiling.


I'd like to hear about your experiences with this type of room and what type of atmos speakers you recommend for such a room. Ceiling speakers are not an option for me.


Thanks.


----------



## trespoochies

I have vaulted ceilings. I just used an adjustable pivotable mounts for my 4 speakers. No issues at all, and they sound great. My vaulted ceilings are not that angled, so slight tilts worked just fine. I have SVS satellites that work really well and match my Prime Bookshelves and Prime Towers.


----------



## Tapidlittle

batpig said:


> best case scenario is you match the lower level speakers, so if you've got Paradigms down low and those H65-A's fit your budget, then go for it. The angled baffle will work well for Atmos.
> 
> If the budget is tight then these are very popular and well reviewed, half the price, and also have angled baffles: https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/


After reading many positive reviews I just ordered 4 RSL C34E...  Now the cabling....


----------



## techguru34

trespoochies said:


> I have vaulted ceilings. I just used an adjustable pivotable mounts for my 4 speakers. No issues at all, and they sound great. My vaulted ceilings are not that angled, so slight tilts worked just fine. I have SVS satellites that work really well and match my Prime Bookshelves and Prime Towers.


Okay, cool. Are your satellites hanging on the wall? I plan to get the speakers that lay flat on my towers and rear surrounds and that send the sound up to reflect off the ceiling. I am considering the Klipsch RP-140SA, but I've seen mixed reviews about them in these forums. All my other speakers are Klipsch.

Edit: I see you say pivotal mounts, so I guess that answers my question! 

Any input from someone about the RP-140SA speakers working okay with vaulted ceilings would be great. Or a recommendation for another model?


----------



## fredxr2d2

techguru34 said:


> Okay, cool. Are your satellites hanging on the wall? I plan to get the speakers that lay flat on my towers and rear surrounds and that send the sound up to reflect off the ceiling. I am considering the Klipsch RP-140SA, but I've seen mixed reviews about them in these forums. All my other speakers are Klipsch.
> 
> Edit: I see you say pivotal mounts, so I guess that answers my question!
> 
> Any input from someone about the RP-140SA speakers working okay with vaulted ceilings would be great. Or a recommendation for another model?


I have vaulted ceilings and used Def Tech outdoor AW5500 for atmos duty (they timbre match the whole deftech line that I already have). Their 360 degree mounts worked great for getting the speakers to point directly down.


----------



## batpig

techguru34 said:


> Does anyone here have their home theater system in a room with vaulted ceilings? Unfortunately, this is what I have. I'm gradually building toward a system that will have atmos, but I'm concerned that it won't be worth the investment to get atmos enabled speakers when I have a vaulted ceiling.
> 
> I'd like to hear about your experiences with this type of room and what type of atmos speakers you recommend for such a room. Ceiling speakers are not an option for me.
> 
> Thanks.





trespoochies said:


> I have vaulted ceilings. I just used an adjustable pivotable mounts for my 4 speakers. No issues at all, and they sound great. My vaulted ceilings are not that angled, so slight tilts worked just fine. I have SVS satellites that work really well and match my Prime Bookshelves and Prime Towers.





techguru34 said:


> Okay, cool. Are your satellites hanging on the wall? I plan to get the speakers that lay flat on my towers and rear surrounds and that send the sound up to reflect off the ceiling. I am considering the Klipsch RP-140SA, but I've seen mixed reviews about them in these forums. All my other speakers are Klipsch.
> 
> Edit: I see you say pivotal mounts, so I guess that answers my question!
> 
> Any input from someone about the RP-140SA speakers working okay with vaulted ceilings would be great. Or a recommendation for another model?





fredxr2d2 said:


> I have vaulted ceilings and used Def Tech outdoor AW5500 for atmos duty (they timbre match the whole deftech line that I already have). Their 360 degree mounts worked great for getting the speakers to point directly down.


These responses doesn't really address his question as he's asking about UP-FIRING REFLECTED speakers for Atmos with vaulted ceilings. 

I honestly don't think up-firing speakers are a viable option with high, vaulted ceilings. I know you said ceiling speakers are not an option, but can you do speakers mounted high on the walls angled down?


----------



## techguru34

batpig said:


> These responses doesn't really address his question as he's asking about UP-FIRING REFLECTED speakers for Atmos with vaulted ceilings.
> 
> I honestly don't think up-firing speakers are a viable option with high, vaulted ceilings. I know you said ceiling speakers are not an option, but can you do speakers mounted high on the walls angled down?


I can't mount them on the wall, but are there pole mounts for speakers that can go way up to like 10 to 15 feet? I searched a little bit but I'm only seeing a maximum of about 6 feet.


----------



## Selden Ball

techguru34 said:


> I can't mount them on the wall, but are there pole mounts for speakers that can go way up to like 10 to 15 feet? I searched a little bit but I'm only seeing a maximum of about 6 feet.


Some people have used lamp stands that are extremely tall.


----------



## Extreman

fredxr2d2 said:


> I have vaulted ceilings and used Def Tech outdoor AW5500 for atmos duty (they timbre match the whole deftech line that I already have). Their 360 degree mounts worked great for getting the speakers to point directly down.


My Atmos top mid speakers are installed on-wall close to the vaulted ceiling, pointing towards listening position and not directly downwards - I wonder if this will work or if it is sub-optimal.


----------



## Selden Ball

Extreman said:


> My Atmos top mid speakers are installed on-wall close to the vaulted ceiling, pointing towards listening position and not directly downwards - I wonder if this will work or if it is sub-optimal.


It is sub-optimal, but it will work.


----------



## ggsantafe

Selden Ball said:


> It is sub-optimal, but it will work.





Extreman said:


> My Atmos top mid speakers are installed on-wall close to the vaulted ceiling, pointing towards listening position and not directly downwards - I wonder if this will work or if it is sub-optimal.


You might also consider renaming the speakers as Front Height ot Top front if you are only using one set of overheads.


----------



## Kain

If I want to use bookshelf speakers as the Atmos speakers and cannot mount them to the ceiling (due to mounting issues), can I mount them high up on the front and back walls and aim them down towards the seating? Will this work without degrading the Atmos height effect too much?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kain said:


> If I want to use bookshelf speakers as the Atmos speakers and cannot mount them to the ceiling (due to mounting issues), can I mount them high up on the front and back walls and aim them down towards the seating? Will this work without degrading the Atmos height effect too much?


What would the angles be? As long as they are 30 degrees or more it will be absolutely fine.


----------



## muzz

1st Atmos movie, DWH.
AWESOME!👍👍


----------



## kematt

Mashie Saldana said:


> What would the angles be? As long as they are 30 degrees or more it will be absolutely fine.


You sure about that, in particular the absolutely fine part. I've read otherwise.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kematt said:


> You sure about that, in particular the absolutely fine part. I've read otherwise.


It is within the specification, just not at the most optimal location.


----------



## techguru34

For front atmos speakers in a room with vaulted ceilings, which is the most optimal location for these two choices: 

1) Up high on front wall angled down, or

2) On top of the front towers, with the sound bouncing off the ceiling.


----------



## Extreman

ggsantafe said:


> You might also consider renaming the speakers as Front Height ot Top front if you are only using one set of overheads.


Thanks, but looking at the Dolby illustration thay are physically close to my surround speakers. I also think they are elevated >30 deg. from ear height.


----------



## gwsat

muzz said:


> 1st Atmos movie, DWH.
> AWESOME!👍👍


I assume you were referring to the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack in _Deepwater Horizon._ If so, I agree entirely. It is indeed terrific.


----------



## muzz

gwsat said:


> I assume you were referring to the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack in _Deepwater Horizon._ If so, I agree entirely. It is indeed terrific.


Yes
Certainly was awesome! 👍


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

clarkkent06 said:


> I just have the One, not One S. I am on the preview but I'm "too new" so I wasn't grandfathered in to the system previews. I think I can get system previews but I'm in like the last phase, so it's when they're about to go to everyone anyways.
> 
> I don't think I need a One S yet, no 4k anytime soon. And I'm curious to see what Scorpio is about (although I'm sure it's going to be expensive)


The original Xbox One handles audio in the same way as the One S, so no need to upgrade for that. Wait for Scorpio for true 4K.

As for Atmos on the Xbox One, you shouldn't have to be in the current preview to use bitstreaming from Blu-ray discs on it. Go to Settings, then Disc & Blu-ray, then Blu-ray, then there should be a box that says "Let my receiver decode audio". That should let you enjoy Atmos titles using your Xbox One. This functionality was in the December 14, 2016 public firmware release. The Atmos support that's being worked on in the current preview is for Atmos from games via DD+ and in-console Atmos headphone processing for people using stereo headsets.


----------



## showmak

I just finished watching The Conjuring 2 in Atmos... This is a true Atmos movie, very nice and scary sounds from all over the room, specially from the roof. One of my best movies.


----------



## Prisonmike

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The original Xbox One handles audio in the same way as the One S, so no need to upgrade for that. Wait for Scorpio for true 4K.
> 
> As for Atmos on the Xbox One, you shouldn't have to be in the current preview to use bitstreaming from Blu-ray discs on it. Go to Settings, then Disc & Blu-ray, then Blu-ray, then there should be a box that says "Let my receiver decode audio". That should let you enjoy Atmos titles using your Xbox One. This functionality was in the December 14, 2016 public firmware release. The Atmos support that's being worked on in the current preview is for Atmos from games via DD+ and in-console Atmos headphone processing for people using stereo headsets.


Do you know if this same update is supposed to enable Atmos for the system...like from apps or is it just the headphones and games?


----------



## Ziba Ji

i was looking at some atlantic technology in ceiling 2 way atmos speakers and were wondering by just pointing the tweeters in different direction, one single pair could possibly work as rear back surround and back height?
IC-6 OBA


----------



## thrang




----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Prisonmike said:


> Do you know if this same update is supposed to enable Atmos for the system...like from apps or is it just the headphones and games?


It is up to the third parties whether to update their apps for Atmos.


----------



## clarkkent06

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The original Xbox One handles audio in the same way as the One S, so no need to upgrade for that. Wait for Scorpio for true 4K.
> 
> As for Atmos on the Xbox One, you shouldn't have to be in the current preview to use bitstreaming from Blu-ray discs on it. Go to Settings, then Disc & Blu-ray, then Blu-ray, then there should be a box that says "Let my receiver decode audio". That should let you enjoy Atmos titles using your Xbox One. This functionality was in the December 14, 2016 public firmware release. The Atmos support that's being worked on in the current preview is for Atmos from games via DD+ and in-console Atmos headphone processing for people using stereo headsets.


I just looked, I swear that wasn't there when I was looking through those options a few weeks ago! Although my xbox had been in the box for a few months (I just moved), so maybe all the updates hadn't kicked in yet. I did notice last week that there was a blu ray disk app update, maybe that did it. I dunno, either way, thanks for the heads up!


----------



## sdurani

Dredd coming to 4K UHD in June with a new Atmos mix. I love that movie.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Dredd coming to 4K UHD in June with a new Atmos mix. I love that movie.


*gasp!*


----------



## Fazzz

Just picked up Hacksaw Ridge from Redbox to watch for the first time. Really disappointed it's not the Atmos version. I half wasn't expecting it after reading this thread, but still disappointed to say the least. Not sure what the studios gain by not releasing it to Redbox as 99.9% of people won't know the difference nor care.


----------



## thrang

Fazzz said:


> Just picked up Hacksaw Ridge from Redbox to watch for the first time. Really disappointed it's not the Atmos version. I half wasn't expecting it after reading this thread, but still disappointed to say the least. Not sure what the studios gain by not releasing it to Redbox as 99.9% of people won't know the difference nor care.


If your last sentence is accurate, you've just answered your own question...


----------



## sjchmura

Extreman said:


> Thank you for this suggestion.
> 
> I will use it as my baseline setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Any additional comments to my sub-optimal Atmos speaker channels, based on the fact that it is *not* roof-mounted (firing directly downwards) and that my roof is vaulted?
> 
> I guess what I am saying is 'will this work well', nevertheless?




In this vain ....

So I can do top (9 foot ceiling) front height rear height but also need ceiling LS Rs (sides). I can't get the down at ear level

Can I get in ceiling speakers that are directional to aim.at say center seating? Or best to do those "on ceiling" and angle at seating position?

Aesthetically in ceiling for all 6 would be perfect

Front : deftech bp7002 powered towers
Center : matching 8006 center powwred
Sub : PSA V1800 (18")

So my front center and sub are ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Dredd coming to 4K UHD in June with a new Atmos mix. I love that movie.


Yeah, I liked it a lot too. I thought that Lena Headey, as the aging scar-faced beauty Ma-Ma, was particularly memorable.


----------



## chi_guy50

sjchmura said:


> In this vain ....
> 
> *So I can do top (9 foot ceiling) front height rear height but also need ceiling LS Rs (sides). I can't get the down at ear level*
> 
> Can I get in ceiling speakers that are directional to aim.at say center seating? Or best to do those "on ceiling" and angle at seating position?
> 
> Aesthetically in ceiling for all 6 would be perfect
> 
> Front : deftech bp7002 powered towers
> Center : matching 8006 center powwred
> Sub : PSA V1800 (18")
> 
> So my front center and sub are ...


If I understand correctly, you want to have a 5.1.4 speaker configuration but with S/LR, FH and RH speakers all mounted in-ceiling?

If so, that will be a decidedly suboptimal arrangement for immersive audio as the listener-level and top-level planes will be jumbled. Sounds intended to emanate at your side will come from overhead and sounds panning front to back and side to side will instead skitter about the room in a jagged arc.

My first suggestion would be to revisit your conclusion that your side surrounds must be in-ceiling. See if you can find a way to place them on the floor, in or on an adjacent wall, in a cabinet or on a stand, or even face-mounted on built-in furniture. Sometimes ingenuity can prevail where all seems lost. (Full disclosure: I started out with in-ceiling surrounds because I thought that was the only practical option in my living room, but eventually I figured out a way to replace them with ear-level satellites.)

Otherwise, I would suggest that you stick with the best 5.1 (or, better yet, 7.1) arrangement you can muster. While I am an ardent proponent of immersive audio for the HT, nonetheless I believe an excellent 7.1 setup wins out over a severely compromised 5.1.4 any day.


----------



## tokerblue

sdurani said:


> Dredd coming to 4K UHD in June with a new Atmos mix. I love that movie.


Dredd was one of the best $5 Blu-Ray blind buys I have ever purchased. I'm not sure if a 4K update will be notable, but an Atmos mix would be awesome.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Fazzz said:


> Just picked up Hacksaw Ridge from Redbox to watch for the first time. Really disappointed it's not the Atmos version. I half wasn't expecting it after reading this thread, but still disappointed to say the least. Not sure what the studios gain by not releasing it to Redbox as 99.9% of people won't know the difference nor care.


This has been covered many times in multiple threads - - Lionsgate (Lyinsgate) makes it a habit to NOT release anything to Redbox or Netflix on plain old regular Bluray that is Dolby Atmos encoded. That is their policy and I'm sure it's to try and make people buy the full version of the disc - - versus renting the stripped down version that Lyinsgate makes available to Redbox/Netflix. I'm sure there are other studios that adhere to this practice but Lionsgate leads the pack.

If you rent from 3D Bluray Rental (slow boat to China delivery) - you will get the Dolby Atmos version. 

Lastly - it's a great movie that still sounded terrific with DSU. Desmond Doss...a "Conscientious Cooperator" not a "Conscientious Objector!" A true American hero.


----------



## pacman9270

Is it true that the Oppo 203 can play a 4K disc to a 1080p display so we can hear Atmos/DTS:X sound? I don't believe this but have to ask to confirm.


----------



## rekbones

pacman9270 said:


> Is it true that the Oppo 203 can play a 4K disc to a 1080p display so we can hear Atmos/DTS:X sound? I don't believe this but have to ask to confirm.



I belive all the 4K players will down convert to 1080p if it doesn't detect a 4K display and the ATMOS track should play fine.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

pacman9270 said:


> Is it true that the Oppo 203 can play a 4K disc to a 1080p display so we can hear Atmos/DTS:X sound? I don't believe this but have to ask to confirm.


You can do that with all UHD players thankfully.


----------



## sdurani

pacman9270 said:


> Is it true that the Oppo 203 can play a 4K disc to a 1080p display so we can hear Atmos/DTS:X sound?


Sure, just like any Blu-ray player can play high def content on a standard def display.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Sure, just like any Blu-ray player can play high def content on a standard def display.


Right, but does it require HDMI 2.0 if you're downconverting to 1080p?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Why would HDMI 2.0 be *required* for transmitting a 1080p signal?

The downconversion happens in the player.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> Why would HDMI 2.0 be *required* for transmitting a 1080p signal?
> 
> The downconversion happens in the player.


It may really be a question about HDCP 2.2 .


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Right, but does it require HDMI 2.0 if you're downconverting to 1080p?


I would think it was the other way around: if the player _doesn't_ see HDMI 2.0, then it sends out a 1080p signal (instead of the full 4K that's on the disc).


----------



## Scott Simonian

mrtickleuk said:


> It may really be a question about HDCP 2.2 .


For the full UHD signal, sure.

I'm not aware that the 1080p signal is subject to HDCP 2.2 but... I may be wrong.

I know it _capable_ of it but that doesn't mean that is what is happening. Plenty of people are purchasing OPPO 203's for 1080p playback on systems that are not fully HDCP 2.2 compliant.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> For the full UHD signal, sure.
> 
> I'm not aware that the 1080p signal is subject to HDCP 2.2 but... I may be wrong.
> 
> I know it _capable_ of it but that doesn't mean that is what is happening. Plenty of people are purchasing OPPO 203's for 1080p playback on systems that are not fully HDCP 2.2 compliant.


Well indeed, I'm only guessing at what might have been meant 

It's very important to emphasise that ANY UHD player can do this - it's NOT a feature exclusive to one of them.

(I'm off to watch Planet Earth II from UHD with mono sound and my composite SD video cable )


----------



## Josh Z

mrtickleuk said:


> It may really be a question about HDCP 2.2 .


You are correct. The question was really about HDCP 2.2.

I'm glad to hear that isn't required if the signal is downconverted to 1080p.


----------



## muzz

During the handshake, the 4k player will recognize the avr/ display is not 2.2 compliant, and automatically drop down to 1080p output.


----------



## fredxr2d2

A question might arise now of whether a downconverted 1080p signal from a UHD blu is better than a regular 1080p blu.

Anyone with thoughts?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

fredxr2d2 said:


> A question might arise now of whether a downconverted 1080p signal from a UHD blu is better than a regular 1080p blu.
> 
> Anyone with thoughts?


I posted that question to Scott Wilkinson here at AVS as it would be nice to see reviewed/tested here but ended up in a discussion as he had no idea that this was the normal behaviour. I don't expect to ever see such a comparison unless someone have a bunch of UHD players at home.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Mashie Saldana said:


> I posted that question to Scott Wilkinson here at AVS as it would be nice to see reviewed/tested here but ended up in a discussion as he had no idea that this was the normal behaviour. I don't expect to ever see such a comparison unless someone have a bunch of UHD players at home.


I only really ask because of the behavior of some companies (Sony, Fox) makes a UHD with Atmos/DTS:X more exciting, even when I don't have plans to upgrade to UHD for my display.

If the UHD downconverted to 1080p was better than regular 1080p on a 1080p display, then I might think about getting a UHD player for the immersive sound and possibly better picture, rather than just the immersive sound (I think that DSU and DTS: Neural X work pretty well).

As it is, I'm not sure we'll know this, as the people I've seen interested in UHD Blu-rays are already invested in a UHD display, whether or not they have immersive audio.


----------



## Josh Z

fredxr2d2 said:


> A question might arise now of whether a downconverted 1080p signal from a UHD blu is better than a regular 1080p blu.
> 
> Anyone with thoughts?


From what I have gathered (I don't have one myself), this is dependent on the player. Some do a better job than others.


----------



## chi_guy50

fredxr2d2 said:


> A question might arise now of whether a downconverted 1080p signal from a UHD blu is better than a regular 1080p blu.
> 
> Anyone with thoughts?


Like the previous posters who responded, I don't know the answer--but that won't prevent me from answering.

Unlike upconversion, which depending on the source device can result in a range of outcomes, I would imagine that downconversion is relatively simple and I doubt that there would be a wide divergence in the resulting image. In fact, I doubt there would be any difference discernible to the average viewer. 

FWIW, I used my Oppo UDP-203 with an HD display for two months before moving up to my present UHD display. I've played both Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray discs with each display and, although this does not speak directly to your question, nothing about the resulting picture jumped out at me. That's my $0.02.


----------



## AndreNewman

fredxr2d2 said:


> A question might arise now of whether a downconverted 1080p signal from a UHD blu is better than a regular 1080p blu.
> 
> Anyone with thoughts?


I'd love to know...

As the UHD format is 4:2:0 it's possible that the down converted could be 4:4:4, the information is there to do it. 10bit 1080p would be very nice too and already covered in the 1080p standards, most DLP projectors can handle 10bit and possibly some other types too. 

I've tried to get the local home cinema shop interested in trying it but they aren't very interested, unsurprisingly.

As many UHD movies are upconverted from a 2k DI anyway there won't be much (any) more real detail than a 1080p 4:4:4 10bit anyway.

If any UHD player was able to output anamorphic 1080p down converted from 4k that might be interesting to the anamorphic lens crowd.


----------



## Scott Simonian

fredxr2d2 said:


> A question might arise now of whether a downconverted 1080p signal from a UHD blu is better than a regular 1080p blu.
> 
> Anyone with thoughts?


Good question. I wonder if it would be noticeable difference as long as the transfer for each format was from the same source. Also, very few people seem to notice much resolution difference from BD to UHD so going backwards and downconverting the image would yield little difference. It should look the same or maybe a tiny, tiny bit better.

However, I _do_ know that when I first got high-definition video at home and plugged it into my old RPTV with only s-video.... it was a YYYYUUUUGGGGEEEE upgrade in picture quality over DVD. Like a super, super, super, Superbit edition.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

fredxr2d2 said:


> I only really ask because of the behavior of some companies (Sony, Fox) makes a UHD with Atmos/DTS:X more exciting, even when I don't have plans to upgrade to UHD for my display.
> 
> If the UHD downconverted to 1080p was better than regular 1080p on a 1080p display, then I might think about getting a UHD player for the immersive sound and possibly better picture, rather than just the immersive sound (I think that DSU and DTS: Neural X work pretty well).
> 
> As it is, I'm not sure we'll know this, as the people I've seen interested in UHD Blu-rays are already invested in a UHD display, whether or not they have immersive audio.


I'm in the same boat as you, I will get a UHD player in the near future and use it with a 1080p display. I still don't know which one to get except it has to have Dolby Vision to be future proof for once I get an​ UHD display.


----------



## Fazzz

Josh Z said:


> From what I have gathered (I don't have one myself), this is dependent on the player. Some do a better job than others.


Do all players/AVRs even have the capability of down converting? I'd love to buy all my new blu rays in 4K UHD to future-proof my collection, but I haven't been able to figure out how to get either my Samsung UHD player (K8500) or my AVR (Denon 4300) to downconvert so I can play on my non-4K Panny 8000 projector. I get an error when trying to play them unless I switch to my 4K TV as the output.


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> Unlike upconversion, which depending on the source device can result in a range of outcomes, I would imagine that downconversion is relatively simple and I doubt that there would be a wide divergence in the resulting image. In fact, I doubt there would be any difference discernible to the average viewer.


The issue is less the resolution scaling part of it (which, as you say, should be pretty straightforward) than the conversion from HDR to SDR and Wide Color Gamut to Rec. 709. What I've heard is that the Samsung UHD player does those poorly and crushes contrast in comparison to watching a regular Blu-ray.


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> *The issue is less the resolution scaling part of it (which, as you say, should be pretty straightforward) than the conversion from HDR to SDR and Wide Color Gamut to Rec. 709.* What I've heard is that the Samsung UHD player does those poorly and crushes contrast in comparison to watching a regular Blu-ray.


Good point, Josh, and you're right that I gave that aspect of the process short shrift.

But, again, from my somewhat limited experience the UDP-203 seems to do an excellent job transmitting an HD video signal from a UHD disc.


----------



## jag2006

Just received the Pioneer modules, I hope they provide the effects I'm looking for. I need to set them up properly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## shyyour

Fazzz said:


> Do all players/AVRs even have the capability of down converting? I'd love to buy all my new blu rays in 4K UHD to future-proof my collection, but I haven't been able to figure out how to get either my Samsung UHD player (K8500) or my AVR (Denon 4300) to downconvert so I can play on my non-4K Panny 8000 projector. I get an error when trying to play them unless I switch to my 4K TV as the output.


i have no issues with the Samsung K8500 and a HD TV and Projector. Most of the Samsung settings are on auto, you can also try setting it to 1080p for the Panny PJ.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Dredd coming to 4K UHD in June with a new Atmos mix. I love that movie.


It is somewhat ironic that this movie was basically THE showcase flick for DTS Neo:X matrix encoding, and for the 4K immersive remix it's being done in Atmos and NOT in DTS:X.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It is somewhat ironic that this movie was basically THE showcase flick for DTS Neo:X matrix encoding, and for the 4K immersive remix it's being done in Atmos and NOT in DTS:X.


Yeah, I was waiting for someone to notice. 










If _'The Haunting'_ comes out in Atmos, I'll plotz.


----------



## gerchy

I was pleasanlty surprised that Atmos is available with HDMI 1.3 player as many sources stated 1.4 is needed.
I wonder if that's good enough for DTS:X too.


----------



## lizrussspike

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I was waiting for someone to notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If _'The Haunting'_ comes out in Atmos, I'll plotz.


sdurani, do you have a German Shepherd or Belgian Malinois? That is a command I use for my Malinois.


----------



## sdurani

lizrussspike said:


> sdurani, do you have a German Shepherd or Belgian Malinois? That is a command I use for my Malinois.


No dogs, just a New York upbringing (the Yiddish slips out occasionally).


----------



## batpig

gerchy said:


> I was pleasanlty surprised that Atmos is available with HDMI 1.3 player as many sources stated 1.4 is needed.
> I wonder if that's good enough for DTS:X too.


All you need is the ability to bitstream HD audio codecs -- Atmos is carried over Dolby TrueHD and DTS:X is carried over DTS-HD. If the Blu-ray player can bitstream those codecs, it supports Atmos/DTS:X.


----------



## unretarded

muzz said:


> IMHO, speakers being behind the screen makes up for a slight compromise in either.


 Especially in room where the screen is almost wall to wall and ceiling to floor.

Right now my mains are mounted on the front wall and in the very corner against the side wall.......less than ideal for many reasons.

The center is 16 inches off the ground or could be mounted against the ceiling....less than ideal for many reasons.


I am also not using a high end screen or a high end projector.

In my case I will be upgrading soon to a AT screen and it will be a upgrade across the board for me in my situation. Plus it will allow me to run all my MTM`s vertical in the correct locations.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@unretarded

Hey, I've got my old 100" 16:9 AT screen going unused. It is SeymourAV XD material. 

Wanna make the drive to Fresno/Clovis, it's yours.


----------



## doughn

guys what is the ideal SIDE SURROUND and REAR SURROUND for 7.2.4 atmos setup ..... Dipole or Bookshelf (monopole).... coz im planning to buy a new system ..... the dealer said DIPOLE is the better choice . Need Help, thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

Monopole is preferred.


Do you have a narrow shaped room and sit close to your side surrounds? If so... then bi/dipole surrounds could be of extra benefit.


There really is no wrong answer. It just depends on what kind of sound you want. Monopoles will offer very precise, direct sound. Dipoles will offer more diffuse sound that is not as specific.


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> @*unretarded*
> 
> Hey, I've got my old 100" 16:9 AT screen going unused. It is SeymourAV XD material.
> 
> Wanna make the drive to Fresno/Clovis, it's yours.


 I appreciate the offer !

It would be worth the trip to hear your set up/feel, but going from approx 140 inch to 100 inch is not in the plans.......

I am running less than the planned 150 inches right now due to speakers on each side taking up room..........this AT screen should let me get back to 150 diagonal, which was my original plan.

Mighty nice of you to offer that up though!!!!!!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Aww, yeah. 

I looked at your sig thread after I posted and was like, "ahhh, yeah he's not going to want a lil 100" screen, methinks."


----------



## doughn

Scott Simonian said:


> Monopole is preferred.
> 
> 
> Do you have a narrow shaped room and sit close to your side surrounds? If so... then bi/dipole surrounds could be of extra benefit.
> 
> 
> There really is no wrong answer. It just depends on what kind of sound you want. Monopoles will offer very precise, direct sound. Dipoles will offer more diffuse sound that is not as specific.


thanks btw the room size is 4.5meters by 5.5 meters , 2 rows seating, 7.2.4 atmos. 

my choices for side surrounds and back surrounds :
A. Focal Aria SR900 (dipole)
B. Focal Chorus SR700 (slim bookshelf)

which is more ideal for my room?

thanks


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> Aww, yeah.
> 
> I looked at your sig thread after I posted and was like, "ahhh, yeah he's not going to want a lil 100" screen, methinks."


 :laugh:

I am packin 5 lbs in a 2 lb bucket here......


If I could only figure out, which I will, how to fit a sub riser like yours in there...then its game on.

It is way over the top for a 11x12 room !

150 inch screen.....4 decent sized subs and with my new speakers yesterday gives me 18......6.5 inch woofers.....other than seats, I could fill a room 3 times this size.

I am adding 2 more ceiling/atmos speakers 2 foot behind the MLP......

To think when I started, I thought a cheaper than HTIB set of speakers was going to "Get me by".......LOL. I had 7 klipsch quintet style speakers and a tiny 100 watt sub....

Less than 4 months from inception, I now have 9 MTM`s and 4 subs and 800 hours on the bulb, with plans for a powered riser and a couple of MBM`s....and plans to upgrade the screen.


----------



## gwsat

doughn said:


> my choices for side surrounds and back surrounds :
> A. Focal Aria SR900 (dipole)
> B. Focal Chorus SR700 (slim bookshelf)
> 
> which is more ideal for my room?
> 
> thanks


My in-ceiling Atmos/DTS:X speakers are Focal FOC ICW8, 8 inch arthecechual speakers. They have been terrific.


----------



## doughn

gwsat said:


> My in-ceiling Atmos/DTS:X speakers are Focal FOC ICW8, 8 inch arthecechual speakers. They have been terrific.


so you are also using inceiling focals for surrounds rear andside surrounds? thanks


----------



## KB77Hell

batpig said:


> best case scenario is you match the lower level speakers, so if you've got Paradigms down low and those H65-A's fit your budget, then go for it. The angled baffle will work well for Atmos.
> 
> If the budget is tight then these are very popular and well reviewed, half the price, and also have angled baffles: https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/





Tapidlittle said:


> After reading many positive reviews I just ordered 4 RSL C34E...  Now the cabling....


I'm looking at some angled baffles now too after reading your posts. The Micca's I ordered are not angled so I think on my lower ceilings the angle will help as has been discussed.

My question is do you know what the angle is on the RSL speakers? I couldnt find that info in their website and just want to compare to the paradigms which I believe are 30°.


----------



## Tapidlittle

KB77Hell said:


> I'm looking at some angled baffles now too after reading your posts. The Micca's I ordered are not angled so I think on my lower ceilings the angle will help as has been discussed.
> 
> My question is do you know what the angle is on the RSL speakers? I couldnt find that info in their website and just want to compare to the paradigms which I believe are 30°.


I do not know but I think it's close to 30° if I compare the pictures from the RSL and the Paradigms. I will receive them today and probably install them tonight if I have the time.


----------



## Ted99

My iterative approach to Front Heights:
1-- first picture is of a corner-mounted Polk CS1 center speaker. 30 deg down from the corner of a 9' concrete ceiling and 45 deg pointing directly at a 2-seat MLP in a 12'w x 14' deep room
2--second picture is of the two metal mounting brackets that allowed me to get as close to the ceiling as possible mounted to the top of the CS1.
3--third picture is of one side of the mounting showing the metal strap hooked over a screw-in hook affixed to the upper wall stud for maximum load carrying capacity.
4--fourth picture is of a Polk Monitor 40 suspended by a picture wire thru two eye screws and looped over the two hooks that used to suspend the CS1's. It hangs by gravity at a 30 deg down angle.

The CS1's worked fine and the horizontal form factor let me get a pair of mid-drivers as close to the ceiling as possible. But, other posters have convinced me that I should use full range Atmos speakers, if possible; and so I went to the Larger Monitor 40's Audyssey says that the crossover of these is 40 Hz.

If anyone is interested, the pair of CS1's with the 4 brackets are for sale for $100, plus shipping.


----------



## gwsat

doughn said:


> so you are also using inceiling focals for surrounds rear andside surrounds? thanks


No. Read the speakers listed in my sig and all should become clear. I have four Focal speakers, and as previously noted they are in-ceiling and for Atmos/DTS:X (7.1.4). My front, center, surround, back surround, and subwoofer, speakers were all made by Hsu.


----------



## KB77Hell

Tapidlittle said:


> I do not know but I think it's close to 30° if I compare the pictures from the RSL and the Paradigms. I will receive them today and probably install them tonight if I have the time.


Great, if they come with a spec sheet hopefully it will list it. To me the paradigms had more of an angle in the marketing material but it is hard to tell and everyone's eyes are different. If you get a better idea once you have them and you have the time, please post your thoughts. Oh and DAMN those paradigms are $$$


----------



## helvetica bold

Hey any thoughts on the Buttkicker? I love the Dolby Cinema and they use Buttkicker seats. I have a small NY apt but I think it would be fun for movies and video games w/ and w/out Atmos.


----------



## Ladeback

helvetica bold said:


> Hey any thoughts on the Buttkicker? I love the Dolby Cinema and they use Buttkicker seats. I have a small NY apt but I think it would be fun for movies and video games w/ and w/out Atmos.


Some aren't sold on them here, but I like them in the Prime and was thinking the same thing. I found this link as to what they use in the theaters. I am thinking of going with the wireless ones maybe or Sound Shakers.

http://thebuttkicker.com/prime#


----------



## helvetica bold

Exactly I saw this review and didn't realize they make it for the home.


----------



## Josh Z

helvetica bold said:


> Exactly I saw this review and didn't realize they make it for the home.


The Aura Bass Shaker Pro available at Parts Express is a more affordable alternative to the Buttkicker, and just as good. You will need to pair it with a small subwoofer amp.


----------



## unretarded

I posted a thread but did not get any replies........which points to me asking a silly question or it is a uncommon question....anyway.

I going to/want to run 4 ceiling atmos speakers on a .2 system, dual speakers per channel.


Anyone have any input?


----------



## veger69

unretarded said:


> I posted a thread but did not get any replies........which points to me asking a silly question or it is a uncommon question....anyway.
> 
> I going to/want to run 4 ceiling atmos speakers on a .2 system, dual speakers per channel.
> 
> 
> Anyone have any input?




I think it wouldn't be advised as the Dolby Atmos algorithm Splits up the sound between the speakers between the .2 if you run 4 speakers off the .2 signal the effect will be detrimental to the Atmos affect by spreading a sound that is supposed to come from one location to being spread between two locations


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

While not directly applicable, this is the only "Official" statement I could find....


*When asked a similar question on the Ask Audyssey forum, Audyssey founder and CTO Chris Kyriakakis confirmed that Y-cording surround channels to duplicate surround signals was perfectly acceptable since movie theaters use the same method to distribute uniform ambient sound throughout a large space.*


----------



## maikeldepotter

unretarded said:


> *When asked a similar question on the Ask Audyssey forum, Audyssey founder and CTO Chris Kyriakakis confirmed that Y-cording surround channels to duplicate surround signals was perfectly acceptable since movie theaters use the same method to distribute uniform ambient sound throughout a large space.*


It may be the same method movie theaters use, but to do it properly arrayed channels should be de-correlated to avoid comb filtering.


----------



## Pauls09

Josh Z said:


> helvetica bold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly I saw this review and didn't realize they make it for the home.
> 
> 
> 
> The Aura Bass Shaker Pro available at Parts Express is a more affordable alternative to the Buttkicker, and just as good. You will need to pair it with a small subwoofer amp.
Click to expand...

I have used buttkickers in my HT for the last 5 years and imo experience is superb!! Specially for the most action, sci-fi type movies. Realistic Vibrations, thumps, thuds, blasts, et al even at low volumes are imo priceless and do an extra dimension to your movie enjoyment!! FYI I have no connection w buttkicker company.


----------



## deano86

Pauls09 said:


> I have used buttkickers in my HT for the last 5 years and imo experience is superb!! Specially for the most action, sci-fi type movies. Realistic Vibrations, thumps, thuds, blasts, et al even at low volumes are imo priceless and do an extra dimension to your movie enjoyment!! FYI I have no connection w buttkicker company.


+1.... Totally agree... I initially was under the mistaken impression that they had to be just a silly gimmick, but once I tried out my first Buttkicker, I was hooked. Once they are properly installed and adjusted volume-wise into your system, they provide a wonderful tactile addition to your subwoofers that need not be distracting at all. And the advantage the Buttkickers have over the other brands is their greater movement ability/power and they can respond to LFE below 20Hz .... down to as low as 5Hz... Talk about a perfect complement to Atmos immersive audio from up above!


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> It may be the same method movie theaters use, but to do it properly arrayed channels should be de-correlated to avoid comb filtering.


And how is that done?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> And how is that done?


Adding delay or applying (random) phase shift.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Adding delay or applying (random) phase shift.


Interesting...

So adding delay= decreasing the distance to speaker, correct?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Interesting...
> 
> So adding delay= decreasing the distance to speaker, correct?


Decrease or increase. The idea is that there must be a enough time difference in the arrival of sound from the arrayed speaker to he listeners' ears. In a multi-listener environment it can be hard to make this work for everyone. The more sophisticated method is applying random phase shift to all arrayed speakers. But this requires a capable processor.


----------



## sjchmura

Windows 10 now has native Atmos. I am in preview (just RC) works flawlessly. An app has demos and all.

(Win10/ Nvidia 1080/ Denon x4200)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

sjchmura said:


> Windows 10 now has native Atmos. I am in preview (just RC) works flawlessly. An app has demos and all.
> 
> (Win10/ Nvidia 1080/ Denon x4200)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If this is what is in preview, the Atmos processing seems like it's designed for virtual immersive audio over stereo headphones. Still pretty cool though...

https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2017...ly-bring-surround-sound-masses/#.tnw_GJymy5zh


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Decrease or increase. The idea is that there must be a enough time difference in the arrival of sound from the arrayed speaker to he listeners' ears. In a multi-listener environment it can be hard to make this work for everyone. The more sophisticated method is applying random phase shift to all arrayed speakers. But this requires a capable processor.


Thanks, i will test this when i get time 

Any idea about amount of delay/ distance difference?


----------



## unretarded

maikeldepotter said:


> Adding delay or applying (random) phase shift.


 My thoughts exactly on why this can be pulled off in a large commercial cinema.

Because spacing the speakers 10-16 foot along the side walls, is in fact creating a delay by use of distance if not compensated for.


I am just wondering how critical this is for a Atmos ceiling speaker, due to how this channel is used and what information gets sent there.


----------



## sjchmura

sdrucker said:


> If this is what is in preview, the Atmos processing seems like it's designed for virtual immersive audio over stereo headphones. Still pretty cool though...
> 
> 
> 
> https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2017...ly-bring-surround-sound-masses/#.tnw_GJymy5zh




Using it with 9.1. it's brilliant. Titanfall 2 trial is free this weekend and instantly just worked 

Battlefield 1 works also 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

I wonder if the windows 10 Atmos support will go beyond the standard .4 of most recievers.........this might be serious option to get 6 or more ceiling speakers, since recievers that do a buch or all of the ceiling speakers are crazy expensive.


I would gladly pay 600-800 for a sound card or cards that will allow 6-8-12 overheads......


This just concretes that it is a super good idea to run atmos and it is going to be here to stay for a long time.

I can not wait to see where this goes and how many ceiling speakers it will support !


----------



## Mrjmc99

unretarded said:


> I wonder if the windows 10 Atmos support will go beyond the standard .4 of most recievers.........this might be serious option to get 6 or more ceiling speakers, since recievers that do a buch or all of the ceiling speakers are crazy expensive.
> 
> 
> I would gladly pay 600-800 for a sound card or cards that will allow 6-8-12 overheads......
> 
> 
> This just concretes that it is a super good idea to run atmos and it is going to be here to stay for a long time.
> 
> I can not wait to see where this goes and how many ceiling speakers it will support !


I don't think that's what windows 10 atmos support means, it's more like what they did with the Xbox to allow Bitstreaming, plus the ability to decode atmos into headphones.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Thanks, i will test this when i get time
> 
> Any idea about amount of delay/ distance difference?


A few milliseconds/couple of feet should be enough. Roger Dressler applies 5 ms delay (decreasing distance in AVR/processor) to its rear heights to separate them from the front heights when playing DSU.


----------



## Protan71

Scott Simonian said:


> Why would HDMI 2.0 be *required* for transmitting a 1080p signal?
> 
> The downconversion happens in the player.


It sucks having a older projection set up, having to replace the wire probably 25'hdmi (decent one $200 to $300) eshift 4k epson projector $3k, let alone if you want to do a Sony again in 4k with hdr $10k, I have been there asked all these questions about the 203,after I had bought the 103d a year and half earlier. So the question is either do or don't do, take a small car loan out to replace everything or be happy with what you have. That is the question my friend, so if your not replacing the projector don't get the 203 because other then 4k the 103 is just about the same in your current world. Well that's my two cents. By the way I took the loan out Yamaha cxa5100,Sony Vplvw365es, and yes oppo 203


----------



## Roger Dressler

unretarded said:


> I going to/want to run 4 ceiling atmos speakers on a .2 system, dual speakers per channel.





unretarded said:


> My thoughts exactly on why this can be pulled off in a large commercial cinema.
> 
> Because spacing the speakers 10-16 foot along the side walls, is in fact creating a delay by use of distance if not compensated for.
> 
> I am just wondering how critical this is for a Atmos ceiling speaker, due to how this channel is used and what information gets sent there.


Just wondering -- what is your desired outcome from using 2 pair of ceiling speakers carrying 2 channels instead of 1 pair. The answer to "how critical" depends on that.


----------



## lizrussspike

helvetica bold said:


> Hey any thoughts on the Buttkicker? I love the Dolby Cinema and they use Buttkicker seats. I have a small NY apt but I think it would be fun for movies and video games w/ and w/out Atmos.


The nice thing about these helvetica bold, is that you can turn them on without to much disturbance to your neighbors. Having it on a pad our mounted to your furniture is great, and you do get a feel for it. I turn these on for my girls when at night after my wife and I go to bed, so that the other subwoofers do not interfere with our sleep.


----------



## 04rex

Hey guys, I am planning on doing Atmos. I don't know if I am going to do 2 or 4 ceiling speakers, but I will obviously for sure start with 2. In terms of ceiling speakers, is it better to have direct firing or the 30 degree angle speakers for Atmos?


Thanks


----------



## Scott Simonian

Depends on your situation.

If you can mount actual speakers on your ceiling, that would preferred to using the Atmos-enabled upfiring speaker modules.

Really, those are the last-ditch option when one can't actually mount any speakers physically high on the walls or ceiling.


----------



## Josh Z

Protan71 said:


> so if your not replacing the projector don't get the 203 because other then 4k the 103 is just about the same in your current world.


I think you missed the point of the original question.

This is the Dolby Atmos thread. Some studios (notably Fox) are making Atmos soundtracks exclusive to UHD and are not including them on regular Blu-ray. Therefore, someone who has an Atmos system may still want a UHD player even if they don't plan to ugrade their TV/projector to 4k.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Protan71 said:


> ...so if your not replacing the projector *don't get the 203 because other then 4k the 103 is just about the same in your current world.* Well that's my two cents.


Will be difficult to play all those new UHD's with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X in my 103D. 

















Protan71 said:


> By the way I took the loan out Yamaha cxa5100,Sony Vplvw365es, and yes oppo 203


Lol nice.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on your situation.
> 
> If you can mount actual speakers on your ceiling, that would preferred to using the Atmos-enabled upfiring speaker modules.
> 
> Really, those are the last-ditch option when one can't actually mount any speakers physically high on the walls or ceiling.



FWIW the PSB Imagine XAs I bought last year have gotten quite good reviews (here's the most recent one, and imagic wrote up his own review in December here on AVS):
http://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...agine-xa-dolby-atmos-enabled-speakers-review/

They certainly work given a flat 9' concrete ceiling in producing convincing overhead/ambience effects if you follow the height recommendations of 36" to 48" from the floor, and no more than 1/2 the wall height to the ceiling. I've used them as both simulated top front/rear and front/rear height speakers by drawing in a custom target curve on the Trinnov Optimizer based on the patent graph, with slightly more convincing effects as "heights" for Atmos and DTS:X than as tops (I drew in my own curves so I could use the Dolby AEs for both 3D audio codecs). As the cliché goes, you get 80% of what real heights or tops do, but not quite the pinpoint movement you get, say, for a circling helicopter. The floating leaf on the 2014 Atmos demo trailer above you in the room, just not at the top of the ceiling, and it's slightly uneven but still moving overhead compared to real speakers I've heard. 

If I had a normal AVR  I'd live with this and enjoy those UHD/Atmos discs. However, my Altitude has problems recognizing the elevation angle due to being virtual speakers, so the imagery works best if you don't use the Trinnov 3D Remapping unless you can live with the tradeoff of having the overhead effect squashed slightly toward the center from where they should be. So you might be gratified to know that I'm having to replace them with physical front/rear height speakers soon (probably PSB Imagine XB's mounted high up on the front and back of the room) so I can best use that function. Still, IMO it was definitely worth the $499/pair otherwise.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> A few milliseconds/couple of feet should be enough. Roger Dressler applies 5 ms delay (decreasing distance in AVR/processor) to its rear heights to separate them from the front heights when playing DSU.


The issue here is that when you array two speakers to one channel, there is no way in the processor to individually manage delay for the speakers in the array. This would need to be done externally somehow.


----------



## Protan71

Josh Z said:


> I think you missed the point of the original question.
> 
> This is the Dolby Atmos thread. Some studios (notably Fox) are making Atmos soundtracks exclusive to UHD and are not including them on regular Blu-ray. Therefore, someone who has an Atmos system may still want a UHD player even if they don't plan to ugrade their TV/projector to 4k.


I might of missed that, because I only buy 4k disc anymore, I didn't even think of that, because every disc I buy has it, but it sounded like he was trying to talk himself into upgrading to 4k.


----------



## Protan71

Scott Simonian said:


> Will be difficult to play all those new UHD's with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X in my 103D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol nice.


Well you would not buy the uhd, you would buy the blue ray with atmos or dts x which do exists.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Protan71 said:


> Well you would not buy the uhd, you would buy the blue ray with atmos or dts x which do exists.


You mean movies like:
Deadpool
The Martian
Edge Of Tomorrow
Oblivion
Underworld
Underworld Blood Wars
And so on...


----------



## Protan71

Mashie Saldana said:


> You mean movies like:
> Deadpool
> The Martian
> Edge Of Tomorrow
> Oblivion
> Underworld
> Underworld Blood Wars
> And so on...


Don't hate the player, hate the game


----------



## unretarded

Roger Dressler said:


> Just wondering -- what is your desired outcome from using 2 pair of ceiling speakers carrying 2 channels instead of 1 pair. The answer to "how critical" depends on that.


 I now have a extra matched pair not in use.......and I usually run the 2 ceiling speakers a few DB hot.


I could move them closer, but it seems unbalanced, I have played with locations already and cranking them up a few DB hot seems a little off.


My thought is ...a pair 24 inches,current location, in front of MLP and a pair 24 inches behind MLP.

I would not have to run them aws hot and it would creat a more enveloping Atmos effect.

It is fine as is for the most part........my other option for the extras is a A/B switch, mount them behind the screen for movies and use the new speakers I just got for music.

I had 7 matched speakers for movies, but the mains were lacking for music, I upgraded those 2 for music and now have 2 extra speakers....just looking for a good use for them.

My thought were extra ceilings or a A/B switch for use behind the screen.

I already have them, so why not use them "Somewhere"......


----------



## Scott Simonian

Protan71 said:


> Well you would not buy the uhd, you would buy the blue ray with atmos or dts x which do exists.


Dude...












Protan71 said:


> Don't hate the player, hate the game


I like this game and I'm kicking ass at it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

unretarded said:


> I had 7 matched speakers for movies, but the mains were lacking for music, I upgraded those 2 for music and now have 2 extra speakers....just looking for a good use for them.
> 
> I would not have to run them aws hot and it would creat a more enveloping Atmos effect.


Ok, I understand better. 

I think it makes sense to install 4 on the ceiling, and run wires direct to each to a future AVR upgrade can drive them individually. 

For now, there will be a slight problem if you run the front pair in duplicate to the rear pair, as already mentioned. Comb filtering. It will not be obvious most of the time, so it's worth a shot. Where it will become audible is with the right content, like the rain scene near the end of John Wick (wideband noise), and then if you happen to lean forward while it's playing, the combs shift frequency, very unnaturally. 

If you feel adventurous, one free option you might try is to wire the rear pair of speaker to be opposite polarity to the front pair. Normally that would cancel bass frequencies, but with bass management that will not happen as much. It will diffuse the sounds somewhat, which might give you what you're seeking.


----------



## taj07

HI Folks ,

Can some please help me with my questions?


Here is what i have setup but some how i am not getting *atmos effect* and *no sound in rear surround speakers*(i hear sound from them only when i select all in stereo) .

I tested using "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray.

Could it be because this movie says "*Dolby Atmos English :5.1*" and i have to test with another movie which should say "*Dolby Atmos English :7.1*" i.e American snipper to hear the sound from rear speakers ?

Please advice.


Below is what i have setup .

Front(L&R) with Atmos :-klipsch 280-FA

Sub :- Klipsch R-12SW 

Center :- klipsch RP-450C

Surround (L&R) - in wall Klipsch R-5800-W

Rear Surround (L&R) - in wall Klipsch R-5650-S II

AV:-Denon AVR-X4200W

BluRay:- Samsung UBDK8500 4k Ultra Hd Blu-Ray Player

Thanks in Advance.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

taj07 said:


> HI Folks ,
> 
> Can some please help me with my questions?
> 
> 
> Here is what i have setup but some how i am not getting *atmos effect* and *no sound in rear surround speakers*(i hear sound from them only when i select all in stereo) .
> 
> I tested using "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray.
> 
> Could it be because this movie says "*Dolby Atmos English :5.1*" and i have to test with another movie which should say "*Dolby Atmos English :7.1*" i.e American snipper to hear the sound from rear speakers ?
> 
> Please advice.
> 
> 
> Below is what i have setup .
> 
> Front(L&R) with Atmos :-klipsch 280-FA
> 
> Sub :- Klipsch R-12SW
> 
> Center :- klipsch RP-450C
> 
> Surround (L&R) - in wall Klipsch R-5800-W
> 
> Rear Surround (L&R) - in wall Klipsch R-5650-S II
> 
> AV:-Denon AVR-X4200W
> 
> BluRay:- Samsung UBDK8500 4k Ultra Hd Blu-Ray Player
> 
> Thanks in Advance.




Without an external amp, your receiver is only capable of amplifying 7 channels at a time hence why your rear surrounds are quiet in Atmos. You need to connect a stereo amp to the receiver for the Atmos speakers to be able to do 9 simultaneous channels.

Note that as far as I know all Atmos titles have 7.1 core tracks.


----------



## fredxr2d2

taj07 said:


> HI Folks ,
> 
> Can some please help me with my questions?
> 
> 
> Here is what i have setup but some how i am not getting *atmos effect* and *no sound in rear surround speakers*(i hear sound from them only when i select all in stereo) .
> 
> I tested using "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray.
> 
> Could it be because this movie says "*Dolby Atmos English :5.1*" and i have to test with another movie which should say "*Dolby Atmos English :7.1*" i.e American snipper to hear the sound from rear speakers ?
> 
> Please advice.
> 
> 
> Below is what i have setup .
> 
> Front(L&R) with Atmos :-klipsch 280-FA
> 
> Sub :- Klipsch R-12SW
> 
> Center :- klipsch RP-450C
> 
> Surround (L&R) - in wall Klipsch R-5800-W
> 
> Rear Surround (L&R) - in wall Klipsch R-5650-S II
> 
> AV:-Denon AVR-X4200W
> 
> BluRay:- Samsung UBDK8500 4k Ultra Hd Blu-Ray Player
> 
> Thanks in Advance.





SteveTheGeek said:


> Without an external amp, your receiver is only capable of amplifying 7 channels at a time hence why your rear surrounds are quiet in Atmos. You need to connect a stereo amp to the receiver for the Atmos speakers to be able to do 9 simultaneous channels.
> 
> Note that as far as I know all Atmos titles have 7.1 core tracks.


Fantastic Beasts also defaults to the DTS-MA 5.1 track and you have to go to the settings in the BD menu to select Atmos.


----------



## lovingdvd

*Game of Thrones in Atmos, or not??*

Hey guys - I've having a hard time figuring out how to buy Game of Thrones seasons on Blu-ray that have the Atmos track. I though all seasons on Steelbook had Atmos, and bought season 1 and 2 from same seller on eBay. Season One has Atmos, but Season Two doesn't.  . Any helpful ideas on ways I can be sure I am buying the Atmos editions? See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...tles-will-updated-often-490.html#post52002449 for more details on what I ran into. Thanks!


----------



## cyclones22

SteveTheGeek said:


> Without an external amp, your receiver is only capable of amplifying 7 channels at a time hence why your rear surrounds are quiet in Atmos. You need to connect a stereo amp to the receiver for the Atmos speakers to be able to do 9 simultaneous channels.
> 
> Note that as far as I know all Atmos titles have 7.1 core tracks.


Yep, you need that amp and given the choice, I'd drop those rear surrounds for a second set of Atmos speakers. You can't have a 7.x.4 setup with the X4200W, even with an external amp. My system didn't go to the next level until I added the rear Atmos speakers to go with the fronts. As someone else has mentioned, Fantastic Beasts defaults to DTS-MSTR for some reason, you have to manually select Atmos in the setup menu. That being said, the Atmos track sounded great on my system, in particular the scene where the ceiling begins to crack. Sounded just as if my own ceiling was about to come down.


----------



## klimo

Amazon just started streaming UHD movies. Anyone try to see if the Atmos track is on any of those streams?


----------



## lovingdvd

klimo said:


> Amazon just started streaming UHD movies. Anyone try to see if the Atmos track is on any of those streams?


Are they streaming any free UHD movies? What devices are they doing this through, such as the Panasonic UB900 and Roku Ultra? I will try and check it out and let you know.


----------



## klimo

No that I can see. Using Passengers as an example.

Here's the link for the UHD rental. https://www.amazon.com/Passengers-4...R/ref=tmm_aiv_title_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

then supported devices. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/devices/ref=atv_dp_hd_dev

Doesn't look like it does HDR though.

My atmos theater room is only 1080p so not a big deal for me yet. I'm just trying to finally rent Atmos movies.


----------



## lovingdvd

klimo said:


> No that I can see. Using Passengers as an example.
> 
> Here's the link for the UHD rental. https://www.amazon.com/Passengers-4...R/ref=tmm_aiv_title_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
> 
> then supported devices. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/devices/ref=atv_dp_hd_dev
> 
> Doesn't look like it does HDR though.
> 
> My atmos theater room is only 1080p so not a big deal for me yet. I'm just trying to finally rent Atmos movies.


I think I recall reading a while ago that Vudo is able to stream some Atmos tracks though a DD+ container.


----------



## taj07

cyclones22 said:


> Yep, you need that amp and given the choice, I'd drop those rear surrounds for a second set of Atmos speakers. You can't have a 7.x.4 setup with the X4200W, even with an external amp. My system didn't go to the next level until I added the rear Atmos speakers to go with the fronts. As someone else has mentioned, Fantastic Beasts defaults to DTS-MSTR for some reason, you have to manually select Atmos in the setup menu. That being said, the Atmos track sounded great on my system, in particular the scene where the ceiling begins to crack. Sounded just as if my own ceiling was about to come down.


Thanks SteveTheGeek,fredxr2d2 & cyclones22 for quick response.

Pardon my ignorance.I am still new to this and may ask dumb questions.When you say i need to add external amp to get rear surround work ,that means Denon x4200W only works atmos with 5.1 setup and not 7.1? Please recommend any economical amp i can use and how that need to be connected to receiver?
Apart from this I have attached image of my receiver connections for your reference ,please advice if you see anything wrong with other settings.


----------



## Ladeback

taj07 said:


> Thanks SteveTheGeek,fredxr2d2 & cyclones22 for quick response.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance.I am still new to this and may ask dumb questions.When you say i need to add external amp to get rear surround work ,that means Denon x4200W only works atmos with 5.1 setup and not 7.1? Please recommend any economical amp i can use and how that need to be connected to receiver?
> Apart from this I have attached image of my receiver connections for your reference ,please advice if you see anything wrong with other settings.


The Denon X4200W will do this for Dolby Atmos: 
With Dolby Atmos, sound comes alive from all directions, including overhead, to fill your home theater with astonishing clarity, power, detail, and depth. The AVR-X4200W has the processing power to run a more enveloping 7ch or 9ch Dolby Atmos layout using 5.1.2, 5.1.4*, or 7.1.2* configurations utilizing ceiling mounted, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers (sold separately). A 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 5.1 speaker layout complemented by two or four overhead or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 7.1.2 is based on a 7.1 speaker layout with either two overhead or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. *The 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 configuration will require an external amplifier.

So if you want 4 Atmos speakers you can only have 5.1/5.2 surround to give you 5.X.4, but the receiver will only power 7 channels so you will need extrunal 2 channel amp hooked up to say the HEIGHT2 Pre-Outs. Then those to the pre-in on your amp and hook up the speaker wires to the corresponding post on the amp.

If you want 7.X you will only be able to have 2 Atmos speakers and that is where you would hook up the amp to the HEIGHT1 for the front height speakers.

I hope this makes sense. See the photo I attached. Blue box hook up amp to this for 7.x.2 and amp to red box for 7.x.4 for rear height speakers.


----------



## cyclones22

taj07 said:


> Thanks SteveTheGeek,fredxr2d2 & cyclones22 for quick response.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance.I am still new to this and may ask dumb questions.When you say i need to add external amp to get rear surround work ,that means Denon x4200W only works atmos with 5.1 setup and not 7.1? Please recommend any economical amp i can use and how that need to be connected to receiver?
> Apart from this I have attached image of my receiver connections for your reference ,please advice if you see anything wrong with other settings.


Sorry, I was reading wrong. I have the X4200W. Check my signature for my setup. Your AVR is capable of 7.x.2. I ran a 7.2.2 setup, but I didn't use rear surrounds as I used wides instead. You should be able to output Fantastic Beasts without issue, but it has been mentioned that you must choose Atmos in the disc setup. It defaults to DTS-MA 5.1. That will disengage your rear surrounds, but your AVR should engage DTS Neural X for the Atmos speakers, unless you didn't properly set up your speakers in the AVR OR you didn't upgrade your firmware to enable DTS Neural X. Either way, try the disc again and make sure that Atmos is the selected audio stream and get back to us with your results. As far as cheap amps to add to your AVR, check the X4200W owners thread and ask Jsmoothie. He's recommended a few in there for this same instance.


----------



## lujan

klimo said:


> Amazon just started streaming UHD movies. Anyone try to see if the Atmos track is on any of those streams?


It has been around 6 - 9 months at least that Amazon has been streaming UHD movies. I own about 6 or 7 of them and no, they don't stream any of them in Atmos. Only Vudu does that but you need specific hardware for their UHD movies if you also want Dolby Vision.


----------



## veger69

lujan said:


> It has been around 6 - 9 months at least that Amazon has been streaming UHD movies. I own about 6 or 7 of them and no, they don't stream any of them in Atmos. Only Vudu does that but you need specific hardware for their UHD movies if you also want Dolby Vision.




What specific hardware?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lujan

veger69 said:


> What specific hardware?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


2016 Vizio and LG TVs. More info found here:

http://www.watchvudu.com/UHD/


----------



## warnija

lujan said:


> 2016 Vizio and LG TVs. More info found here:
> 
> http://www.watchvudu.com/UHD/


Actually the 2016 LG OLED TV's are not capable of sending Dolby Atmos over ARC. Therefore, you can only enjoy the Dolby Vision aspect of that TV and not the corresponding ATMOS sound track using the Vudu app. The 2017 LG OLED models do have this capability or will get it soon via firmware update. The people like me who own the 2016 model must suffer with no information from LG on if they plan to update their older models.


----------



## mzingali

Hi All,

New to this forum so please bear with me. I'm waiting for my house to get finished being built. I have a dedicated media room (finally). It's wired for 5.1.4 (Atmos), which is new to me. I was initially going to wire it for 7.1 but figured an Atmos setup would sound better. I also have 3 rooms downstairs that will have a pair of speakers in the ceiling for music. My question is what is the most sensible set up? 

I've read that for Atmos, I should go with say a Denon x4300h and external amp or go with a Denon x6300h with a smaller external amp?

Other folks talk about getting a Denon pre/pro and 2 external amps to reduce heat.

What do you guys recommend? Which AVR should I get and what amp to run Atmos and the 3 pairs of speakers?

Thanks in advance!

Mike


----------



## lujan

warnija said:


> Actually the 2016 LG OLED TV's are not capable of sending Dolby Atmos over ARC. Therefore, you can only enjoy the Dolby Vision aspect of that TV and not the corresponding ATMOS sound track using the Vudu app. The 2017 LG OLED models do have this capability or will get it soon via firmware update. The people like me who own the 2016 model must suffer with no information from LG on if they plan to update their older models.


I know what you mean as I bought the bleeding edge (at the time) 2015 LG OLED and it doesn't even do Dolby Vision and never will. I keep it in the bedroom.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mzingali said:


> Hi All,
> 
> New to this forum so please bear with me. I'm waiting for my house to get finished being built. I have a dedicated media room (finally). It's wired for 5.1.4 (Atmos), which is new to me. I was initially going to wire it for 7.1 but figured an Atmos setup would sound better. I also have 3 rooms downstairs that will have a pair of speakers in the ceiling for music. My question is what is the most sensible set up?
> 
> I've read that for Atmos, I should go with say a Denon x4300h and external amp or go with a Denon x6300h with a smaller external amp?
> 
> Other folks talk about getting a Denon pre/pro and 2 external amps to reduce heat.
> 
> What do you guys recommend? Which AVR should I get and what amp to run Atmos and the 3 pairs of speakers?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Mike



Is there a particular reason why you can't wire for back surrounds as well and go with a 7.1.4 configuration? That would be the better, more immersive layout. 

Also, how big is your room? Do you want to crank the system loud?


----------



## SteveTheGeek

Ladeback said:


> The Denon X4200W will do this for Dolby Atmos:
> With Dolby Atmos, sound comes alive from all directions, including overhead, to fill your home theater with astonishing clarity, power, detail, and depth. The AVR-X4200W has the processing power to run a more enveloping 7ch or 9ch Dolby Atmos layout using 5.1.2, 5.1.4*, or 7.1.2* configurations utilizing ceiling mounted, or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers (sold separately). A 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 speaker configuration is based upon a traditional 5.1 speaker layout complemented by two or four overhead or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. A 7.1.2 is based on a 7.1 speaker layout with either two overhead or Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers. *The 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 configuration will require an external amplifier.
> 
> So if you want 4 Atmos speakers you can only have 5.1/5.2 surround to give you 5.X.4, but the receiver will only power 7 channels so you will need extrunal 2 channel amp hooked up to say the HEIGHT2 Pre-Outs. Then those to the pre-in on your amp and hook up the speaker wires to the corresponding post on the amp.
> 
> If you want 7.X you will only be able to have 2 Atmos speakers and that is where you would hook up the amp to the HEIGHT1 for the front height speakers.
> 
> I hope this makes sense. See the photo I attached. Blue box hook up amp to this for 7.x.2 and amp to red box for 7.x.4 for rear height speakers.


In term of accessible amp, a lot of people recommend the AudioSource AMP100VS as a great solution for Atmos speakers to extend receiver capabilities as you need.

Nothing is wrong with your wiring, but the receiver will only activate 7 channels at the same time when connecter like this, with a stereo amp connected to the height pre-outs, and then your atmos speakers connected to the amp, you'll be able to achieve 7.1.2.


----------



## sjchmura

I ditched 7.1.2 for 5.1.4. I personally like the overhead - even for DSU - much more than the few native 7 tracks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

*Prometheus on UHD*

Woot!

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...metheus-ultra-hd-bluray-up-for-preorder/38825

In Atmos, I hope.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> *Prometheus on UHD*
> 
> Woot!
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...metheus-ultra-hd-bluray-up-for-preorder/38825
> 
> In Atmos, I hope.


Why oh why did they have to start with one of the most rubbish Alien movies? Next they will probably announce the AVP series.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Why oh why did they have to start with one of the most rubbish Alien movies? Next they will probably announce the AVP series.




So anyway...

Looking forward to Prometheus on UHD. Hopefully some immersive audio. Did it have an Atmos theatrical mix?


----------



## cdnscg

Mashie Saldana said:


> Why oh why did they have to start with one of the most rubbish Alien movies? Next they will probably announce the AVP series.


You've got to be kidding Prometheus is a great film, and stands next to Alien as one of the best:
It was not released in Atmos, so I guess there will have to be a remix if it is issued with DA.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> Did it have an Atmos theatrical mix?


Nope, it was Dolby Surround 7.1 in the theatres. The last time Fox did a home video immersive mix for a non-immersive title (Independence Day: 20th Anniv), they used DTS:X.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> The issue here is that when you array two speakers to one channel, there is no way in the processor to individually manage delay for the speakers in the array. This would need to be done externally somehow.


Agreed. But not a problem in my case(seperate processors).


----------



## markus767

sjchmura said:


> Windows 10 now has native Atmos. I am in preview (just RC) works flawlessly. An app has demos and all.
> 
> (Win10/ Nvidia 1080/ Denon x4200)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is good news. Now add personalized HRTFs with head tracking for headphone listening and we can finally trash all those half-baked receivers, bulky room treatments and expensive speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Nope, it was Dolby Surround 7.1 in the theatres. The last time Fox did a home video immersive mix for a non-immersive title (Independence Day: 20th Anniv), they used DTS:X.


Ah yes. It was 7.1 in theaters.

Okay then.... let's see if they remix this baby.


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> Agreed. But not a problem in my case(seperate processors).


Right, but this was in the context of the original question from a poster asking about running four ceiling speakers arrayed as a single channel pair (Top Middle).


----------



## klimo

sjchmura said:


> I ditched 7.1.2 for 5.1.4. I personally like the overhead - even for DSU - much more than the few native 7 tracks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




You're aware that you can do 7.x.4 right? I think that's what the previous poster was asking? Why aren't you working for 7.x.4? You can always add speakers later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Methodical_1

Josh Z said:


> I think you missed the point of the original question.
> 
> This is the Dolby Atmos thread. Some studios (notably Fox) are making Atmos soundtracks exclusive to UHD and are not including them on regular Blu-ray. Therefore, someone who has an Atmos system may still want a UHD player even if they don't plan to ugrade their TV/projector to 4k.


Question. For clarification. Are you saying that if I have a UHD player, Atmos, but no 4k TV that I will be able to watch the UHD Atmos version on a non 4k TV. I was under the impression that it would only play UHD Atmos only if it sees a 4k TV. If that's the case, then I need to get off my butt then. A 4k tv is in the upgrade path, but probably not until the end of the year. Perhaps I am way off base and misunderstood what's being said.

What's a small UHD player, but decent that's on the market? I don't want to replace the Oppo 93 at the moment, but supplement it, but with something smaller.

Thanks


----------



## Josh Z

Methodical_1 said:


> Question. For clarification. Are you saying that if I have a UHD player, Atmos, but no 4k TV that I will be able to watch the UHD Atmos version on a non 4k TV. I was under the impression that it would only play UHD Atmos only if it sees a 4k TV. If that's the case, then I need to get off my butt then.


A UHD player can downconvert a UHD disc to regular 1080p resolution. Some may do a better job of this than others. From what I've heard, the Samsung UHD player has issues converting HDR video to standard dynamic range.


----------



## mzingali

Dan Hitchman said:


> mzingali said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> New to this forum so please bear with me. I'm waiting for my house to get finished being built. I have a dedicated media room (finally). It's wired for 5.1.4 (Atmos), which is new to me. I was initially going to wire it for 7.1 but figured an Atmos setup would sound better. I also have 3 rooms downstairs that will have a pair of speakers in the ceiling for music. My question is what is the most sensible set up?
> 
> I've read that for Atmos, I should go with say a Denon x4300h and external amp or go with a Denon x6300h with a smaller external amp?
> 
> Other folks talk about getting a Denon pre/pro and 2 external amps to reduce heat.
> 
> What do you guys recommend? Which AVR should I get and what amp to run Atmos and the 3 pairs of speakers?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a particular reason why you can't wire for back surrounds as well and go with a 7.1.4 configuration? That would be the better, more immersive layout.
> 
> Also, how big is your room? Do you want to crank the system loud?
Click to expand...

Due to time constraints, I had to make a quick decision from a standard 7.1 setup to a 5.1.4 wiring change. I think I can add two more for 7.1.4. 
My room I still 15 x 16. Wiring i can do. What's new to me is atmos and the newer receivers.
Since my current set up is 5.1.4, and I have 3 rooms with pairs of ceiling speakers, how should I setup my receiver and amp? 
Should I start with the x6300h with an external amp? If I do 7.1.4, all my channels will be used up with the x6300h right? Or will I still be able to connect to an external amp to run my 3 pairs of speakers?
Mike


----------



## shyyour

Methodical_1 said:


> Question. For clarification. Are you saying that if I have a UHD player, Atmos, but no 4k TV that I will be able to watch the UHD Atmos version on a non 4k TV. I was under the impression that it would only play UHD Atmos only if it sees a 4k TV. If that's the case, then I need to get off my butt then. A 4k tv is in the upgrade path, but probably not until the end of the year. Perhaps I am way off base and misunderstood what's being said.
> 
> What's a small UHD player, but decent that's on the market? I don't want to replace the Oppo 93 at the moment, but supplement it, but with something smaller.
> 
> Thanks


Yes you can. I currently have a 1080P TV and PJ and i am able to watch 4K (also atmos) movies . 

Cheapest UHD player will be Philips or Samsung but they dont have DV. You need the Oppo, LG, or new Philips (BDP7502) for that (as well as a DV TV).


----------



## Mrjmc99

mzingali said:


> Due to time constraints, I had to make a quick decision from a standard 7.1 setup to a 5.1.4 wiring change. I think I can add two more for 7.1.4.
> My room I still 15 x 16. Wiring i can do. What's new to me is atmos and the newer receivers.
> Since my current set up is 5.1.4, and I have 3 rooms with pairs of ceiling speakers, how should I setup my receiver and amp?
> Should I start with the x6300h with an external amp? If I do 7.1.4, all my channels will be used up with the x6300h right? Or will I still be able to connect to an external amp to run my 3 pairs of speakers?
> Mike


You will still have zone 2 and 3 preouts. So you should be fine. The x6300h will be able to run all 11 Main speakers with its on board amps, if you get a x4300h, you will need an amp to run speakers 10 and 11, plus the zone 2 and 3 preouts. This is how I'm currently setup, 7.1.4 in my main room. Using and old avr with 5.1 multi channel analog in to power the additional channels, 2 channels used for speakers 10 and 11, then 2 for zone 2, and 1 for zone 3.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

Mashie Saldana said:


> Why oh why did they have to start with one of the most rubbish Alien movies? Next they will probably announce the AVP series.


The AVP series might not be Oscar material for plot and acting, but they have some of the best soundtracks around, even without Atmos. I might consider a triple dip just for them 
(own the DVD and the BR already)..


----------



## mzingali

Mrjmc99 said:


> You will still have zone 2 and 3 preouts. So you should be fine. The x6300h will be able to run all 11 Main speakers with its on board amps, if you get a x4300h, you will need an amp to run speakers 10 and 11, plus the zone 2 and 3 preouts. This is how I'm currently setup, 7.1.4 in my main room. Using and old avr with 5.1 multi channel analog in to power the additional channels, 2 channels used for speakers 10 and 11, then 2 for zone 2, and 1 for zone 3.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


Thanks for the reply! That sounds good. I haven't bought the x6300h yet and was trying to figure out which AVR to get. I have an older Rotel RMB-1075 5.1 Multichannel Amp I used years ago when it was just 5.1.

I should be able to run my 3 pairs of speakers (3 different rooms) out of that amp as just one zone right? 

Zone 2 preout from x6300h into Rotel. I'm just going to have all speakers play same music and each room will have a volume control knob.

Mike


----------



## batpig

Methodical_1 said:


> Question. For clarification. Are you saying that if I have a UHD player, Atmos, but no 4k TV that I will be able to watch the UHD Atmos version on a non 4k TV. I was under the impression that it would only play UHD Atmos only if it sees a 4k TV. If that's the case, then I need to get off my butt then.


the video resolution and the soundtrack are separate things -- it can send 1080p video while separately sending the same bitstream Dolby True HD / DTS-HD audio package.


----------



## Stayreal23

Hi Fellas! Do you guys know if I will be able to get Atmos from the 280FAs running a 3.1.2 as my understanding is that you need to be running minimum 5.1.2 to make it work.

This is my current gear:

2: RP-280FA
1: Marantz SR-6011
1: RP-450c
1: R-112sw

I will be adding surrounds in a couple of weeks but wanted to see in the meantime if its possible to hear any benefit from the atmos speakers in the 280FAs.

Thanks


----------



## Mrjmc99

mzingali said:


> Thanks for the reply! That sounds good. I haven't bought the x6300h yet and was trying to figure out which AVR to get. I have an older Rotel RMB-1075 5.1 Multichannel Amp I used years ago when it was just 5.1.
> 
> I should be able to run my 3 pairs of speakers (3 different rooms) out of that amp as just one zone right?
> 
> Zone 2 preout from x6300h into Rotel. I'm just going to have all speakers play same music and each room will have a volume control knob.
> 
> Mike


That should work, you could do some sort of multi channel stereo or whatever option exists on that amp.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## thetman

thetman said:


> ordered! was like $23. not too bad. I have actually had good luck ordering things from Amazon.ca and U.K.





deano86 said:


> Order Gravity Diamond Luxe from Amazon Canada.... it has typically been around $19.96! ... the favorable exchange rate ends up paying for your shipping!


Ok finally got everything up and running in the new movie room ( minus the screen-projection. put tv in there for now). But the first movie watched was gravity I got on the cheap from Amazon.ca. I must say it was very impressive. this is my first taste of Atmos. running 7.1.4. room is set up for 9.2.6. I wasn't sure if all the effort of installing all those speakers would be worth it. But overall it was great I thought. every little nuance could be heard. loved it. I think also helps the room is dead quiet with complete light control. some of those dark scenes along with the sounds just takes you right into the movie. 
Any other suggestions for great Atmos soundtracks? I guess i'm kinda hooked now.


----------



## batpig

Stayreal23 said:


> Hi Fellas! Do you guys know if I will be able to get Atmos from the 280FAs running a 3.1.2 as my understanding is that you need to be running minimum 5.1.2 to make it work.
> 
> This is my current gear:
> 
> 2: RP-280FA
> 1: Marantz SR-6011
> 1: RP-450c
> 1: R-112sw
> 
> I will be adding surrounds in a couple of weeks but wanted to see in the meantime if its possible to hear any benefit from the atmos speakers in the 280FAs.
> 
> Thanks


Yes, 3.1.2 will work and engage the Atmos decoding.


----------



## unretarded

When a movie is listed as bilingual, does that mean words on the screen all the time.


I thought most movies offered a few languages or subtitles........never watched or purched a bilingual movie.

I am just worried I can not watvch it in normal english with no subtitles.


I am ordering some Atmos movies and they state bilingual....whats the story ?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Probably means there are included alternative language tracks like most movies do.

It would be of great assistance to the rest of us if you named the titles you were interested in.


----------



## cdnscg

unretarded said:


> When a movie is listed as bilingual, does that mean words on the screen all the time.
> 
> 
> I thought most movies offered a few languages or subtitles........never watched or purched a bilingual movie.
> 
> I am just worried I can not watvch it in normal english with no subtitles.
> 
> 
> I am ordering some Atmos movies and they state bilingual....whats the story ?


Here in Canada, many BR's are listed as bilingual as that is the countries official status. The BD's gives one an option for different languages to be spoken.
I've never encountered one that had subtitles on at all times.


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> Probably means there are included alternative language tracks like most movies do.
> 
> It would be of great assistance to the rest of us if you named the titles you were interested in.


 One is the above mentioned Gravity from Canada......but now that I look, I am seeing more and more that state bilingual, which now I am starting to think is just marketing, because even a loct of my older DVD`s have multiple languages for spoken and subtitles.

Maybe bilingual gives you one language spoken and another subtitled.......

My best guess soo far is marketing mostly, combined with what cdnscg stated, since it is a Canadian release.

I am just rying to prevent anymore standard titles with no atmos and 3d movies that end uo needed the paper glasses.........I want to do the research and avoid that as much as possible.

I looked at one bluray that has atmos and realized there was like 20 versions and only 1 has Atmos...LOL


----------



## Josh Z

unretarded said:


> One is the above mentioned Gravity from Canada......but now that I look, I am seeing more and more that state bilingual, which now I am starting to think is just marketing, because even a loct of my older DVD`s have multiple languages for spoken and subtitles.
> 
> Maybe bilingual gives you one language spoken and another subtitled.......


As cdnscg mentioned, Canada has two official languages: English and French. Home video releases there are required by law to state on the packaging what languages the audio comes in. Discs labeled "Bilingual" have both English and French audio tracks. You choose which one you want to listen to. Subtitles are optional; you can turn them on or not. 

When it comes to Blu-rays from a major studio like Warner Bros, the disc will almost always be identical to the copy released in the United States. Only the packaging is different. 

The American "Diamond Luxe" release of Gravity had 8 audio options:



English Dolby Atmos
English 5.1 Dolby Digital
English 5.1 Dolby Digital (Silent Space Version)
English 2.0 Dolby Digital
French 5.1 Dolby Digital
Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital
Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital
English Audio Description

Because English and French are both in there, that's good enough to qualify as "Bilingual" and the studio had no reason to press a different copy for Canada.


----------



## Methodical_1

Josh Z said:


> A UHD player can downconvert a UHD disc to regular 1080p resolution. Some may do a better job of this than others. From what I've heard, the Samsung UHD player has issues converting HDR video to standard dynamic range.





shyyour said:


> Yes you can. I currently have a 1080P TV and PJ and i am able to watch 4K (also atmos) movies .
> 
> Cheapest UHD player will be Philips or Samsung but they dont have DV. You need the Oppo, LG, or new Philips (BDP7502) for that (as well as a DV TV).





batpig said:


> the video resolution and the soundtrack are separate things -- it can send 1080p video while separately sending the same bitstream Dolby True HD / DTS-HD audio package.


Thanks everyone for the enlightenment. Just to be clear, you are still able to enable the Atmos soundtrack from an UHD bluray on a 1080P tv, via a UHD player, correct. Just want to be absolutely sure before spending my doh.

shyyour, what is DV?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks everyone for the enlightenment. Just to be clear, you are still able to enable the Atmos soundtrack from an UHD bluray on a 1080P tv, via a UHD player, correct. Just want to be absolutely sure before spending my doh.
> 
> shyyour, what is DV?


Yes the UHD player will output 1080p video and Atmos.

DV stands for Dolby Vision which is a new and improved version of HDR. It is just a way to future proof your investment for when you do get a 4K display.


----------



## shyyour

Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks everyone for the enlightenment. Just to be clear, you are still able to enable the Atmos soundtrack from an UHD bluray on a 1080P tv, via a UHD player, correct. Just want to be absolutely sure before spending my doh.
> 
> shyyour, what is DV?


Yes i get Dolby Atmos from a UHD Bluray. The only difference is the Video displayed is 1080p.

DV is Dolby vision, as @mashie stated its an improved form for HDR. The reason i mentioned it was if you're going to buy a UHD player you might want to get one that has/will get a DV firmware update so that you dont have to replace your UHD player later if you decide you want it. Note that your 4K TV (when you get it) will also need to be able to play DV as well.


----------



## Methodical_1

Mashie Saldana said:


> Yes the UHD player will output 1080p video and Atmos.
> 
> DV stands for Dolby Vision which is a new and improved version of HDR. It is just a way to future proof your investment for when you do get a 4K display.





shyyour said:


> Yes i get Dolby Atmos from a UHD Bluray. The only difference is the Video displayed is 1080p.
> 
> DV is Dolby vision, as @mashie stated its an improved form for HDR. The reason i mentioned it was if you're going to buy a UHD player you might want to get one that has/will get a DV firmware update so that you dont have to replace your UHD player later if you decide you want it. Note that your 4K TV (when you get it) will also need to be able to play DV as well.


Cool. I am going to start my research.


----------



## petetherock

Did a mini sampling of some of my Atmos equipped discs over this weekend, and it's interesting to see the progress that has been made.
The first few, especially Transformers was just a publicity stunt - that vehicles raining from the skies scene was the only demo worthy scene.
And yes, the first few discs were all about rain and flybys. These scenes seemed to be specially engineered or had extra chili added. The rest of the movie was plain surround. Not bad mind you, but it seems that the sound engineers were told to turn up the Atmos channels to help the disc makers get some extra credence for that "Atmos" or even DTS-X tag. 

These days the last few discs had much more integration, more ambience and more surround substance. And the 'atmospheric effect' is much more constant, engaging you in the movie from the word go, both in the action scenes and also in the quieter ones. See Hacksaw Ridge for fine example of Atmos being used in both kinds of scenes.

I am looking forward to the next few implementations. 

On the other hand, some shows like Oblivion already had good DTS-MA tracks and the Atmos was not massively better. Good but IMO, you don't have to force yourself to double dip, and worry about missing out big time.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

petetherock said:


> Did a mini sampling of some of my Atmos equipped discs over this weekend, and it's interesting to see the progress that has been made.
> The first few, especially Transformers was just a publicity stunt - that vehicles raining from the skies scene was the only demo worthy scene.
> And yes, the first few discs were all about rain and flybys. These scenes seemed to be specially engineered or had extra chili added. The rest of the movie was plain surround. Not bad mind you, but it seems that the sound engineers were told to turn up the Atmos channels to help the disc makers get some extra credence for that "Atmos" or even DTS-X tag.
> 
> These days the last few discs had much more integration, more ambience and more surround substance. And the 'atmospheric effect' is much more constant, engaging you in the movie from the word go, both in the action scenes and also in the quieter ones. See Hacksaw Ridge for fine example of Atmos being used in both kinds of scenes.
> 
> I am looking forward to the next few implementations.
> 
> On the other hand, some shows like Oblivion already had good DTS-MA tracks and the Atmos was not massively better. Good but IMO, you don't have to force yourself to double dip, and worry about missing out big time.


So besides Hacksaw Ridge, which other Atmos mixes impressed you recently?


----------



## petetherock

13 Hours
There's a Norwegian disaster movie - can't recall the title offhand
10 Cloverfield Lane
Overhead III (HKG disc)
One more Hong Kong disc about a nuclear device from Korea


----------



## Mashie Saldana

petetherock said:


> 13 Hours
> There's a Norwegian disaster movie - can't recall the title offhand
> 10 Cloverfield Lane
> Overhead III (HKG disc)
> One more Hong Kong disc about a nuclear device from Korea


Thanks, the Norwegian one is most likely The Wave. I saw it in 7.1 so looking forward to rewatch it in Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> 13 Hours
> *There's a Norwegian disaster movie - can't recall the title offhand*
> 10 Cloverfield Lane
> Overhead III (HKG disc)
> One more Hong Kong disc about a nuclear device from Korea


That title would be _The Wave_ ("Bølgen" in Norwegian).


----------



## petetherock

Thanks, I can't say I speak Norwegian, but with a movie like that, the action, and the ambient sounds speak louder than words...
I must say, they do know how to make a good disaster movie


----------



## mrtickleuk

petetherock said:


> Thanks, I can't say I speak Norwegian, but with a movie like that, the action, and the ambient sounds speak louder than words...
> I must say, they do know how to make a good disaster movie


Sounds great. I thought I'd check it out. But the UK Blu-Ray only has DTS-HD Master Audio.* No Atmos*.


----------



## petetherock

mrtickleuk said:


> Sounds great. I thought I'd check it out. But the UK Blu-Ray only has DTS-HD Master Audio.* No Atmos*.


Not only in UK, but other region B places like Oz miss out on 7.1 tracks and Atmos!
So I have a Region A US Oppo as my main player.
I have a secondary all region player for other discs. My collection is 90% region A or region free. 
Some of the best material comes from Hong Kong, which is region A.


----------



## paulfromtulsa

Mashie Saldana said:


> So besides Hacksaw Ridge, which other Atmos mixes impressed you recently?


The best atmos I have heard is fantastic beast. The action scenes on sully are also mixed very well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

paulfromtulsa said:


> The best atmos I have heard is fantastic beast. The action scenes on sully are also mixed very well.


I have heard a lot of good Atmos soundtracks over the past eight months and agree, _Fantastic Beasts,_ which I watched again last night, is among the very best.


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> Sounds great. I thought I'd check it out. But the UK Blu-Ray only has DTS-HD Master Audio.* No Atmos*.


That sucks. I rented _The Wave _Blu-ray from Netflix last year here in the (poor old benighted) U.S. of A., and it had the Norwegian-language Atmos soundtrack. As Pete says, it's a very well done disaster flick with an excellent Atmos mix.


----------



## Nalleh

petetherock said:


> Thanks, I can't say I speak Norwegian, but with a movie like that, the action, and the ambient sounds speak louder than words...
> I must say, they do know how to make a good disaster movie


Yes, that one was really well made, and the scenes when the mountains falls, is Atmos demo scenes for sure.
Link, in case someone wants it:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Wave-Blu-ray/152476/



paulfromtulsa said:


> The best atmos I have heard is fantastic beast.


Agreed, the scenes in the wand license room, with the post tubes overhead, was insanely cool.


----------



## gwsat

Nalleh said:


> Agreed, the scenes in the wand license room, with the post tubes overhead, was insanely cool.


As wonderful is the Atmos soundtrack in _Fantastic Beasts_ was, I fell in love with the movie. Dan Fogler, who played Kowalski is a Tony Award winning Broadway musical theater guy and a standup comedian. He is a terrific actor and a very funny guy! I also loved the sisters, Tish (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol). They charmed me out of my socks.


----------



## u5488

*challenging atmos setup*

I could use some advice on the best option for ATMOS setup in my listening room. I have attached a picture of the room with heights and my current idea is to mount Andrew jones bookshelf speakers high (blue orbs on photos) pointed down at the listening area.


----------



## u5488

u5488 said:


> I could use some advice on the best option for ATMOS setup in my listening room. I have attached a picture of the room with heights and my current idea is to mount Andrew jones bookshelf speakers high (blue orbs on photos) pointed down at the listening area.


here is the photo..


----------



## wse

u5488 said:


> here is the photo..


Here is an idea for you

- http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-60-series#.WOplVo61uHo


----------



## Yeahnah

I've laid out my HT room in CAD according to the Dolby recommendations, and have set the room up in accordance with the results. Now I'm considering a 5.1.4 Atmos setup, but the recommended location for the rear speakers is very close to the rear wall - is there an issue with placing these speakers too close to the wall?


----------



## sdurani

Yeahnah said:


> I'm considering a 5.1.4 Atmos setup, but the recommended location for the rear speakers is very close to the rear wall - is there an issue with placing these speakers too close to the wall?


Same as placing any speaker near a wall (like your centre or surrounds). You'll get reflections, which can be absorbed if they bother you. Any chance of moving your seating forward?


----------



## Yeahnah

sdurani said:


> Any chance of moving your seating forward?


Funny you mention that. I had a look in CAD at an optimised setup for 5.1.4 which resulted in the couch being 1650mm off the back wall. This would have been great for an Atmos setup, but when the wife saw it she nearly started world war 3. Unfortunately there is not much chance of moving the couch forward (although I managed to gain a little extra when I 'put the couch back where it was before').
I might have to locate the speakers and then put some sort acoustic treatment.


----------



## Ladeback

Yeahnah said:


> Funny you mention that. I had a look in CAD at an optimised setup for 5.1.4 which resulted in the couch being 1650mm off the back wall. This would have been great for an Atmos setup, but when the wife saw it she nearly started world war 3. Unfortunately there is not much chance of moving the couch forward (although I managed to gain a little extra when I 'put the couch back where it was before').
> I might have to locate the speakers and then put some sort acoustic treatment.


What about moving the surrounds up to be 90 degrees or in line with your seating to get more separation from the rear Atmos speakers?


----------



## sdurani

Yeahnah said:


> Unfortunately there is not much chance of moving the couch forward (although I managed to gain a little extra when I 'put the couch back where it was before').


I was asking for the sake of smoother frequency response, not so much proper Atmos placement. Precise angles aren't critical, as long as you can separate sounds around you vs sounds above you (hallmark of a good Atmos layout). 

Every room has peaks & nulls (suck-outs) in the bass region along the length of the room. You can use EQ to bring down peaks, but there's nothing you can do about nulls, except avoid sitting in them. Nulls typically fall at even divisions (half, quarters, sixths) of room length, so it's a good idea to place the listeners' ears at odd divisions (thirds, fifths) of room length. In your case, that would be 960mm (1/5th room length) from the back wall, since you've already mentioned that 1600mm (1/3rd room length) from the back wall is a non-starter with the missus.


> I might have to locate the speakers and then put some sort acoustic treatment.


Every room also has peaks & nulls in the bass region across the width of the room. You can minimize these by centering the woofers of your L/R speakers 750mm away from the side walls and placing your sub at the midpoint of room width (either on the front wall or back wall). This will result in smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) across your couch. Placement is a good way to solve acoustical problems, since it is free. 

As for treatment, start with some broadband absorption between and behind the L/C/R speakers, which will minimize boundary cancellations due to reflections off the front wall and reduce muddying the front soundstage.


----------



## petetherock

u5488 said:


> here is the photo..


Can you suspend some orbs / AG Micros from the ceiling on high tensile strength cables or even fishing lines?
That will allow you to put the speakers at the level from the MLP and the base surround layer. Much easier to calibrate.


----------



## shyyour

I know i'm late to the party (just got the blu-ray this weekend) but i just had to say this. Hacksaw Ridge (Dolby atmos)was amazing. its now my go to disc for atmos demo. it was like my living room was the battle scene; bullets flying past me, explosions. My gosh it was a really good movie. Now cant wait for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them


----------



## richlife

Originally Posted by deano86 View Post
Order Gravity Diamond Luxe from Amazon Canada.... it has typically been around $19.96! ... the favorable exchange rate ends up paying for your shipping!



thetman said:


> Ok finally got everything up and running in the new movie room ( minus the screen-projection. put tv in there for now). But the first movie watched was gravity I got on the cheap from Amazon.ca. I must say it was very impressive. this is my first taste of Atmos. running 7.1.4. room is set up for 9.2.6. I wasn't sure if all the effort of installing all those speakers would be worth it. But overall it was great I thought. every little nuance could be heard. loved it. I think also helps the room is dead quiet with complete light control. some of those dark scenes along with the sounds just takes you right into the movie.
> Any other suggestions for great Atmos soundtracks? I guess i'm kinda hooked now.


Ok, you made this very tempting -- but I'm going to hold out for the UHD version with Atmos (or DTS:X should that happen).


----------



## richlife

petetherock said:


> Did a mini sampling of some of my Atmos equipped discs over this weekend, and it's interesting to see the progress that has been made.
> The first few, especially Transformers was just a publicity stunt - that vehicles raining from the skies scene was the only demo worthy scene.
> And yes, the first few discs were all about rain and flybys. These scenes seemed to be specially engineered or had extra chili added. The rest of the movie was plain surround. Not bad mind you, but it seems that the sound engineers were told to turn up the Atmos channels to help the disc makers get some extra credence for that "Atmos" or even DTS-X tag.
> 
> These days the last few discs had much more integration, more ambience and more surround substance. And the 'atmospheric effect' is much more constant, engaging you in the movie from the word go, both in the action scenes and also in the quieter ones. See Hacksaw Ridge for fine example of Atmos being used in both kinds of scenes.
> 
> I am looking forward to the next few implementations.
> 
> On the other hand, some shows like Oblivion already had good DTS-MA tracks and the Atmos was not massively better. Good but IMO, you don't have to force yourself to double dip, and worry about missing out big time.


Thanks, Pete. Good to know. For my part, while I'm only making new purchases of discs that are UHD (and that MOSTLY says Atmos or DTS:X), I've found that with my Yamaha A3060, the Enhanced DSP does absolute magic with almost all Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA discs. I don't specifically note any real difference between these and the Atmos or DTS:X versions. I can't say that the sound image placement is identical, but the DSP placement of 3D immersive sound is still excellent and very convincing. 

I don't know if any of the other AVR brands provide any kind of DSP that might be comparable to this Yamaha Enhanced.



mrtickleuk said:


> Sounds great. I thought I'd check it out. But the UK Blu-Ray only has DTS-HD Master Audio.* No Atmos*.


I wouldn't necessarily suggest changing any equipment, but based on my comment above to Pete-the-Rock, if you are considering a new AVR, I would certainly consider the 2016 Yamaha A3060 or the newer models with the Enhanced DSP. Or specifically make that a checkpoint for any other brand purchase. There are a LOT of Dolby True HD BRs and DTS HD MA BRs available and unless there is a truly exceptional Atmos mix, I don't think Atmos is necessarily a requirement o double-dip. Now add UHD w/ HDR or DV to that, and my choice goes there. Watching my older (2016 and earlier) True HD and HD MA BRs has been a priority to enjoy with the Enhanced DSP.



u5488 said:


> here is the photo..


You may want to take a look at my signature HT thread. While our rooms are very different, you may see some options or methods that could be helpful. (And incidentally, I find those hanging "ceiling" speakers to be interesting for a situation like yours.)


----------



## thetman

richlife said:


> Originally Posted by deano86 View Post
> Order Gravity Diamond Luxe from Amazon Canada.... it has typically been around $19.96! ... the favorable exchange rate ends up paying for your shipping!
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you made this very tempting -- but I'm going to hold out for the UHD version with Atmos (or DTS:X should that happen).


Honestly I was never blown away by the movie. but really wanted to test out my Atmos setup and I knew this would be a perfect candidate- since its not a big bang-shoot em up movie , I would be more apt to listen and hear in more detail how the setup would play out. For that reason alone it was well worth it. After hearing the insects buzzing over my head towards the end of the movie I was sold. Great demo disc for Atmos. 
I played a quick demo of Bvs.S -while it sounded awesome- there was just too much stuff going on everywhere ( at least in the section I played) to accurately tell what and where it was coming from.


----------



## Yeahnah

sdurani said:


> I was asking for the sake of smoother frequency response, not so much proper Atmos placement. Precise angles aren't critical, as long as you can separate sounds around you vs sounds above you (hallmark of a good Atmos layout).
> 
> Every room has peaks & nulls (suck-outs) in the bass region along the length of the room. You can use EQ to bring down peaks, but there's nothing you can do about nulls, except avoid sitting in them. Nulls typically fall at even divisions (half, quarters, sixths) of room length, so it's a good idea to place the listeners' ears at odd divisions (thirds, fifths) of room length. In your case, that would be 960mm (1/5th room length) from the back wall, since you've already mentioned that 1600mm (1/3rd room length) from the back wall is a non-starter with the missus. Every room also has peaks & nulls in the bass region across the width of the room. You can minimize these by centering the woofers of your L/R speakers 750mm away from the side walls and placing your sub at the midpoint of room width (either on the front wall or back wall). This will result in smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips) across your couch. Placement is a good way to solve acoustical problems, since it is free.
> 
> As for treatment, start with some broadband absorption between and behind the L/C/R speakers, which will minimize boundary cancellations due to reflections off the front wall and reduce muddying the front soundstage.


Cheers for that. Are you basing the 750mm from the side walls for the L/R speakers based on my actual room dimensions, or is this just an educated guess? Would you toe them in or have them firing forwards? I'll be ordering UMIK in a couple of days so I can play around with REW which will be interesting. I wonder how sensitive my room is acoustically to changes. It was built as a 'media room', however I'm not sure if any additional treatments were done or if it was just a spare room. I'm going to contact the builder to see if they can confirm.


----------



## sdurani

Yeahnah said:


> Are you basing the 750mm from the side walls for the L/R speakers based on my actual room dimensions, or is this just an educated guess?


Based on the actual dimensions, there will be resonances at certain frequencies (38Hz, 77Hz, 115Hz, 153Hz, etc), resulting in peaks & nulls across the width of your room. 










You can often reduce these large swings in bass response by placing your L/C/R speakers at the following locations: 












> Would you toe them in or have them firing forwards?


I would cross-toe the L/R speakers so that they are pointing at the person at the opposite end of the couch. A little time-energy trading, so that the nearby speaker doesn't dominate.


----------



## unretarded

I think the win 10 native atmos support update will open the floodgates for content........


I can not wait to see exactly what it will support, I have some unrealistically high hopes for this !

If people can just toss in a soundcard and get 5.x.2 or better, this will be huge for all the markets from content to speaker systems.......

Even if it is just headphones at this time...the future looks very good at this point for Atmos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

unretarded said:


> I think the win 10 native atmos support update will open the floodgates for content........
> 
> 
> I can not wait to see exactly what it will support, I have some unrealistically high hopes for this !
> 
> If people can just toss in a soundcard and get 5.x.2 or better, this will be huge for all the markets from content to speaker systems.......
> 
> Even if it is just headphones at this time...the future looks very good at this point for Atmos.


 This is Atmos encoding and not decoding win 10. As in you can play a game on Win 10 and if you connect the PC to an Atmos receiver to decode it as any other Atmos content.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

My four AVR 9.1.6 system is finally operational. Yesterday we watched Gravity as the premiere film since it was known to have an impressive Atmos track, we were not left disappointed from an immersive sound point of view. It was a world of difference from the 7.1 setup that used to be in the same room. 


With all the activity in the height speakers it was smooth panning around the front, middle and rear speakers so the Scatmos part of the setup worked a treat, as did the use of two Atmos AVR's used to drive each speaker layer.


Tonight it will be The Fifth Element, I have watched the first 5 minutes of it already and the immersive sound during the opening credits was a very promising sign. It also happens to be my number one favourite film.


I still have to complete all the sound treatments in the room as well as do some more calibration work but as of now I'm a happy bunny, I can't wait to watch through the rest of the film collection over the next few months.


----------



## OJ Bartley

u5488 said:


> I could use some advice on the best option for ATMOS setup in my listening room. I have attached a picture of the room with heights and my current idea is to mount Andrew jones bookshelf speakers high (blue orbs on photos) pointed down at the listening area.


Why not take the speakers up to the full 14' height you have available on the left side, and match it on the right? It won't be perfect, but I'd think you'll still get some good separation happening. Those pendant speakers look like they'd be ideal for a room like yours.


----------



## KB77Hell

Mashie Saldana said:


> Tonight it will be The Fifth Element, I have watched the first 5 minutes of it already and the immersive sound during the opening credits was a very promising sign. It also happens to be my number one favourite film.



Definitely in my top 5, I didn't know it had an Atmos soundtrack until recently as I own only the original Bluray that was released 2007. I almost pulled the trigger on the re-master a few weeks back but then learned it's scheduled for a 4k release with Atmos. By the time I have my ceiling speakers in it will probably have been released, a while :-(



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gabre

unretarded said:


> I think the win 10 native atmos support update will open the floodgates for content........
> 
> 
> I can not wait to see exactly what it will support, I have some unrealistically high hopes for this !
> 
> If people can just toss in a soundcard and get 5.x.2 or better, this will be huge for all the markets from content to speaker systems.......
> 
> Even if it is just headphones at this time...the future looks very good at this point for Atmos.


Not sure what u mean, but using win10 to play atmos functions with no issues when you set your video player of choice to passthrough audio. Like, PowerDvd, Kodi,media player classic, etc. 


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

KB77Hell said:


> Definitely in my top 5, I didn't know it had an Atmos soundtrack until recently as I own only the original Bluray that was released 2007. I almost pulled the trigger on the re-master a few weeks back but then learned it's scheduled for a 4k release with Atmos. By the time I have my ceiling speakers in it will probably have been released, a while :-(


It was fantastic, you will not be disappointed.

Fun fact, always make sure your speakers are fully level matched using the Dolby Atmos test tones. I had skipped that minor thing when I was rushing to get my setup ready for Gravity. As a result all the heights were running 6dB below the base layer. With that minor issue fixed this room showed a completely new dimension of immersive sound. I was giggling like a little girl through most of The Fifth Element. I will rewatch Gravity with the correct settings eventually, I have some 70ish Atmos movies to watch through before then.


----------



## Nikonowski

Hello, 

I am trying to get 5.2.4 Dolby Atmos system going and would like to know your opinion on the following in-ceiling speakers: 

- KEF Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers Ci160ER
- Yamaha Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers NS-IC600
- Yamaha Home Speakers NS-IC400 
- Yamaha Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers NS-IC80
- Thunder Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers TR-62
- Paradigm In Ceiling Speaker H55R 
- Paradigm In Ceiling SpeakerH65R 

Can any of these be a good fit for overhead 4 channel Dolby Atmos setup ? My budget is about $300 per pair. 

Do these overhead need to have a adjustable tweeters so I would be able to position it the way I like it i.e. towards listening area ?

Thanks for your help! 

Regards,
Nikonowski


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Nikonowski said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to get 5.2.4 Dolby Atmos system going and would like to know your opinion on the following in-ceiling speakers:
> 
> - KEF Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers Ci160ER
> - Yamaha Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers NS-IC600
> - Yamaha Home Speakers NS-IC400
> - Yamaha Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers NS-IC80
> - Thunder Home Speakers In-Ceiling Speakers TR-62
> - Paradigm In Ceiling Speaker H55R
> - Paradigm In Ceiling SpeakerH65R
> 
> Can any of these be a good fit for overhead 4 channel Dolby Atmos setup ? My budget is about $300 per pair.
> 
> Do these overhead need to have a adjustable tweeters so I would be able to position it the way I like it i.e. towards listening area ?
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> Regards,
> Nikonowski


What are your main speakers? If possible try to make them match.


----------



## Nikonowski

Mashie Saldana said:


> What are your main speakers? If possible try to make them match.


My main speakers L and R front are Paradigm Phantom v2 and all other surrounds are mix of Paradigm satellites speakers cinema 70 v3 and couple of Yamaha side surrounds. 

So what would you recommend from my list ? Paradigm in-ceiling ? And if so which models - do they have to have adjustable tweeters etc... ?

Thanks,
N


----------



## KB77Hell

Nikonowski said:


> My main speakers L and R front are Paradigm Phantom v2 and all other surrounds are mix of Paradigm satellites speakers cinema 70 v3 and couple of Yamaha side surrounds.
> 
> So what would you recommend from my list ? Paradigm in-ceiling ? And if so which models - do they have to have adjustable tweeters etc... ?
> 
> Thanks,
> N


What is your ceiling height? To my knowledge lower ceilings work better with directional speakers (i.e. 30 degree angle) whereas the higher your ceiling the less direction you need moving up to straight down firing speakers.


----------



## richlife

KB77Hell said:


> What is your ceiling height? To my knowledge lower ceilings work better with directional speakers (i.e. 30 degree angle) whereas the higher your ceiling the less direction you need moving up to straight down firing speakers.


Low meaning 8-9 feet. Much lower can be another issue and, IMO, DAES may be better. 3 feet from the ceiling works well for them.


----------



## KB77Hell

richlife said:


> Low meaning 8-9 feet. Much lower can be another issue and, IMO, DAES may be better. 3 feet from the ceiling works well for them.




Eeeesh, I considered those but I just keep hearing bad things about them. Unfortunately for me, in my excitement to acquire Atmos sound I didn't do enough research and I bought direct firing speakers to put in my 7' 3" ceilings and now have to return them! So many pages to read in these threads! Being retired (which I'm not) actually pays when you're an amateur HT enthusiast. Maybe I just need to learn patience!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## deano86

Mashie Saldana said:


> It was fantastic, you will not be disappointed.
> 
> Fun fact, always make sure your speakers are fully level matched using the Dolby Atmos test tones. I had skipped that minor thing when I was rushing to get my setup ready for Gravity. As a result all the heights were running 6dB below the base layer. With that minor issue fixed this room showed a completely new dimension of immersive sound. I was giggling like a little girl through most of The Fifth Element. I will rewatch Gravity with the correct settings eventually, I have some 70ish Atmos movies to watch through before then.


+1! Ya, the majority of time, I can't run my system as loud as I would like... as such, using Audyssey Dynamic EQ is a lifesaver... but... Audyssey Dynamic EQ DOES NOT boost the heights at all like it does to the base level surrounds.... at least with my Denon anyway.  So, definitely use the Dolby Atmos test tones at your typical volume level and manually tweak your heights to match with a SPL meter. Of course, on the rare occasion, that I can indeed crank it up proper, my heights will be running a bit hot, but that is preferred over the opposite scenario for me anyway.


----------



## Nikonowski

KB77Hell said:


> What is your ceiling height? To my knowledge lower ceilings work better with directional speakers (i.e. 30 degree angle) whereas the higher your ceiling the less direction you need moving up to straight down firing speakers.



My ceiling height is 11-12' - I actually went out and bought KEF Ci160ER In-Ceiling Speaker Ultra Thin Bezel design - any feedback on those please ? I can still return them if not good/suitable 

Thanks,
N.


----------



## richlife

KB77Hell said:


> Eeeesh, I considered those but I just keep hearing bad things about them. Unfortunately for me, in my excitement to acquire Atmos sound I didn't do enough research and I bought direct firing speakers to put in my 7' 3" ceilings and now have to return them! So many pages to read in these threads! Being retired (which I'm not) actually pays when you're an amateur HT enthusiast. Maybe I just need to learn patience!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


From what I've seen, the bad stuff all comes from people who assume but have not heard or who don't set them up properly. An example -- a DAES sitting on a 3 - foot tower in a room with ceilings 9 or more feet. Mine are outstanding and my room is far from perfect. They can take some time to set up properly. Try putting ceiling speakers in a vaulted cedar ceiling...


----------



## KB77Hell

Nikonowski said:


> My ceiling height is 11-12' - I actually went out and bought KEF Ci160ER In-Ceiling Speaker Ultra Thin Bezel design - any feedback on those please ? I can still return them if not good/suitable
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> N.



I have no experience with these speakers but what is the finish of your ceiling, flat or other? If flat I'd say they would fit your application.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## timc1475

Regarding Atmos & the recent windows 10 pro creators update that allows Atmos, here is a post with pics some may be interested in: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-194.html#post52187497


----------



## Scott Simonian

timc1475 said:


> Regarding Atmos & the recent windows 10 pro creators update that allows Atmos, here is a post with pics some may be interested in: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-194.html#post52187497


Hmmm....

_"Dolby Atmos for Headphones"_?

Ehh.

Still shows 7.1 layout in Windows speaker configuration.


Not sure if exciting. :/


Thanks for the post though.


----------



## javanpohl

I don't know if there's an active DSU thread where this would be more relevant but I just got the (still on-sale on amazon) Africa (2013) BBC series on blu-ray and I think that might have the best overhead-upmixed sound out of any non-object-based movie I've ever experienced (it's a 5.1 dts-hd ma mix). If it were an atmos mix I'd STILL be impressed. Technically I was listening in DTS Neural X as I've been preferring that one lately but I imagine that and DSU aren't worlds apart. Also, I'm only two episodes in but it's definitely living up to its reputation--it's really good! Definitely worth a blind buy.


----------



## javanpohl

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - I've having a hard time figuring out how to buy Game of Thrones seasons on Blu-ray that have the Atmos track. I though all seasons on Steelbook had Atmos, and bought season 1 and 2 from same seller on eBay. Season One has Atmos, but Season Two doesn't.  . Any helpful ideas on ways I can be sure I am buying the Atmos editions? See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...tles-will-updated-often-490.html#post52002449 for more details on what I ran into. Thanks!


bluray.com usually does a pretty good job individually listing the different versions of a movie/tv-show and then linking to that specific version on amazon. Granted, while you're searching on the website for a movie or show like "game of thrones" it won't say "atmos" in the search results, but it does show the release date. In this case, you find the older season with the more recent release date and it should be the one with atmos--the bluray.com product page for the version you selected will tell you if it has atmos or not (the atmos second season: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Second-Season-Blu-ray/152105/). 

I do want to point out though that I own all seasons on blu-ray and have been completely underwhelmed by the Atmos versions so far. On the contrary, I was really impressed with the original tracks--in terms of them being 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, they were reference quality. Amazing use of surrounds, DSU potential, and overall sound quality. The Atmos mixes--they're just poorly mixed. There are times where you expect intense over-head action and get none and there are times where you do get overhead sounds and it feels totally out-of-place.

Moral of the story: I don't think the atmos mixes are worth it. Though to be fair, I did not get the first two seasons in Atmos.


----------



## mrtickleuk

javanpohl said:


> I do want to point out though that I own all seasons on blu-ray and have been completely underwhelmed by the Atmos versions so far. On the contrary, I was really impressed with the original tracks--in terms of them being 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, they were reference quality. Amazing use of surrounds, DSU potential, and overall sound quality. The Atmos mixes--they're just poorly mixed. There are times where you expect intense over-head action and get none and there are times where you do get overhead sounds and it feels totally out-of-place.
> 
> Moral of the story: I don't think the atmos mixes are worth it. Though to be fair, I did not get the first two seasons in Atmos.


Thanks very much for those comments. I had just assumed the Atmos mixes would be great, with dragons flying all around and overhead. It's so easy to just assume it would be better. Useful to know, thanks.


----------



## deano86

javanpohl said:


> I don't know if there's an active DSU thread where this would be more relevant but I just got the (still on-sale on amazon) Africa (2013) BBC series on blu-ray and I think that might have the best overhead-upmixed sound out of any non-object-based movie I've ever experienced (it's a 5.1 dts-hd ma mix). If it were an atmos mix I'd STILL be impressed. Technically I was listening in DTS Neural X as I've been preferring that one lately but I imagine that and DSU aren't worlds apart. Also, I'm only two episodes in but it's definitely living up to its reputation--it's really good! Definitely worth a blind buy.


You may want to check this title out then.... In 3D and Atmos!

https://www.amazon.com/Enchanted-Ki...25&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B013JBJ6MO&m=


----------



## timc1475

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> _"Dolby Atmos for Headphones"_?
> 
> Ehh.
> 
> Still shows 7.1 layout in Windows speaker configuration.
> 
> 
> Not sure if exciting. :/
> 
> 
> Thanks for the post though.


YW Scott. I am using it for my HTPC. I have not tried the BD player with an Atmos BD yet. The cool thing is after the creators upgrade I can now stream YT 4k without freezing up my PC. The multi channel sound is a major bonus from what I had b4. IMO

I hooked it up to my AVR which must be Atmos ready for the EDID handshake to occur & recognize. Once the AVR is powered off the Atmos for home theater option is removed which is normal. 

It will show 7.1 for me as well until I learned a few correct settings aforementioned. I agree about the headphones but since I never heard it I can't diss it to much. The way I figure it the video and sound is amazing from what it was. YMMV

:nerd:


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey. It's all good. 

I was just hoping for something..... more, from the Atmos update than headphone emulation. I'll take a look at the update when I get home.


----------



## richlife

mrtickleuk said:


> Thanks very much for those comments. I had just assumed the Atmos mixes would be great, with dragons flying all around and overhead. It's so easy to just assume it would be better. Useful to know, thanks.


I'll have to question his Atmos setup if he didn't think the Atmos mix added life and dragons swooping and flapping (thunder clap more like) overhead. The eeriness of GOT comes through very well with the Atmos mix. Perhaps not Atmos reference, but still preferrable.


----------



## javanpohl

deano86 said:


> You may want to check this title out then.... In 3D and Atmos!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Enchanted-Ki...25&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B013JBJ6MO&m=


Thanks! I was not aware of this


----------



## chi_guy50

javanpohl said:


> Thanks! I was not aware of this


In that case, you are in for quite a treat. _Enchanted Kingdom _(aka _Nature_) is a visual and aural extravaganza.


----------



## Nikonowski

KB77Hell said:


> I have no experience with these speakers but what is the finish of your ceiling, flat or other? If flat I'd say they would fit your application.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Thanks for all your comments - I did go with KEFs Ci160ER's after all. I cannot wait to install them on Sat  

So, to get 5.2.4 on my Denon 4200w and an external Emotive UPA-2 amp how should my setup on the Denon menu and Audyssey look like ? Is there any links or site that I can go to see step-by-step instructions ? 

Thanks,
N.


----------



## Legairre

javanpohl said:


> bluray.com usually does a pretty good job individually listing the different versions of a movie/tv-show and then linking to that specific version on amazon. Granted, while you're searching on the website for a movie or show like "game of thrones" it won't say "atmos" in the search results, but it does show the release date. In this case, you find the older season with the more recent release date and it should be the one with atmos--the bluray.com product page for the version you selected will tell you if it has atmos or not (the atmos second season: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Game-of-Thrones-The-Complete-Second-Season-Blu-ray/152105/).
> 
> I do want to point out though that I own all seasons on blu-ray and have been completely underwhelmed by the Atmos versions so far. On the contrary, I was really impressed with the original tracks--in terms of them being 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, they were reference quality. Amazing use of surrounds, DSU potential, and overall sound quality. The Atmos mixes--they're just poorly mixed. There are times where you expect intense over-head action and get none and there are times where you do get overhead sounds and it feels totally out-of-place.
> 
> Moral of the story: I don't think the atmos mixes are worth it. Though to be fair, I did not get the first two seasons in Atmos.


To search Bluray.com just use their search feature from this link http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php and you'll get all the GOT with Atmos. Just enter Game of Thrones as the "title" and Atmos as the "audio". Then you'll get just the ones with Atmos.


----------



## richlife

Legairre said:


> To search Bluray.com just use their search feature from this link http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php and you'll get all the GOT with Atmos. Just enter Game of Thrones as the "title" and Atmos as the "audio". Then you'll get just the ones with Atmos.


He doesn't say for sure, but it does sound like he has the individual year releases. The Atmos versions I have are from the full 6 season set. Less expensive to buy and something to consider.


----------



## javanpohl

Legairre said:


> To search Bluray.com just use their search feature from this link http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php and you'll get all the GOT with Atmos. Just enter Game of Thrones as the "title" and Atmos as the "audio". Then you'll get just the ones with Atmos.


Brilliant! Thanks!


----------



## Yeahnah

I wonder if Atmos works with the Nvidia Shield streaming from my PC. That would be awesome.


----------



## KB77Hell

richlife said:


> He doesn't say for sure, but it does sound like he has the individual year releases. The Atmos versions I have are from the full 6 season set. Less expensive to buy and something to consider.




I'm going to wait until the show is done and then pay some ridiculously exorbitant price to buy the whole series, HOPEFULLY with Atmos! I can't imagine they won't release the whole set without it when the series is done two years from now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Yeahnah

I forget where I read this, but what was the minimum number of speakers for Atmos? Was it 2.0.2? Do you absolutely need the overhead speakers for it to work, and if so then why? Surely object based audio can still be useful for any number of speakers on the same plane.
On my Marantz 6010 I can't figure out how to confirm that the input or output is Atmos, so if it is not actually possible with 5.1 then that explains a lot, but it's confusing since it can detect DTS:X input but never Atmos input.


----------



## KB77Hell

Nikonowski said:


> Thanks for all your comments - I did go with KEFs Ci160ER's after all. I cannot wait to install them on Sat
> 
> So, to get 5.2.4 on my Denon 4200w and an external Emotive UPA-2 amp how should my setup on the Denon menu and Audyssey look like ? Is there any links or site that I can go to see step-by-step instructions ?
> 
> Thanks,
> N.




Nice, let us know how your install goes and how great they sound... as for the set up the Denon manual should tell you how to access the amp assign setup. I'm no expert but I think most might power their main (L/R speakers) with the Emotiva and the rest with the Denon. You could also check the Denon 4200w owners thread. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

KB77Hell said:


> I'm going to wait until the show is done and then pay some ridiculously exorbitant price to buy the whole series, HOPEFULLY with Atmos! I can't imagine they won't release the whole set without it when the series is done two years from now.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you have seen it, that's definitely a good plan though it may be a year or more for the full set. In our case, we don't get HBO and we can't stream due to our isolated location and limited internet bandwidth. We bought the 6 year set just to see it for the first time. An now WE wait for the final year. 



Yeahnah said:


> I forget where I read this, but what was the minimum number of speakers for Atmos? Was it 2.0.2? Do you absolutely need the overhead speakers for it to work, and if so then why? Surely object based audio can still be useful for any number of speakers on the same plane.
> On my Marantz 6010 I can't figure out how to confirm that the input or output is Atmos, so if it is not actually possible with 5.1 then that explains a lot, but it's confusing since it can detect DTS:X input but never Atmos input.


The real answer is 5.x.2 (or .4 for much improved immersion). Imagine your rectangular room of whatever height. Now imagine a half bubble within the confines of the walls and the ceiling. While "fake" Atmos soundbars can reflect sound to give a semblance of "3d sound" coming from somewhere, only speakers on the ceiling (or directed, beamed reflections from DAES) can interpret the Atmos signals (as controlled by the Atmos logic) to place sound at specific points between speakers anywhere in those 3 dimensions (think like "stereo" between multiple speaker positions) so that the sound comes out of the "bubble" to those locations. And it is moving, dynamic and has magnitude or bulk -- so the helicopter flies around the interior of your listening/viewing room. No, that cannot be accomplished with a planar speaker arrangement no matter how much reflection you apply. and certainly not with 2.0.2 no matter where you put those speakers. 

Atmos is specific sound placement within a space relevant to the listeners. Bouncing sound reflections have no specificity.


----------



## KB77Hell

richlife said:


> If you have seen it, that's definitely a good plan though it may be a year or more for the full set. In our case, we don't get HBO and we can't stream due to our isolated location and limited internet bandwidth. We bought the 6 year set just to see it for the first time. An now WE wait for the final year.



100%, I've followed the show (and the books) from the start. I was just talking to a friend now about how GRRM wrote his books: A Game of Thrones (1996), A Clash of Kings (1998), A Storm of Swords (2000) then went 5 years until "A Feast for Crows" (2005), then 6 years for "A Dance With Dragons" (2011)... the books, not to take anything away from the show which is so great, are infinitely more detailed and engrossing. Point being A) I can wait to buy a full set when released as I am an hbo subscriber and B) to me it's upsetting we will never see the series concluded through the books (as I wish it would be) as it would seem GRRM can not write 2 books in the time it would seem it take to finish the final 2 seasons of the show... or may be he has already which would just add to his legend.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Yeahnah

richlife said:


> The real answer is 5.x.2 (or .4 for much improved immersion). Imagine your rectangular room of whatever height. Now imagine a half bubble within the confines of the walls and the ceiling. While "fake" Atmos soundbars can reflect sound to give a semblance of "3d sound" coming from somewhere, only speakers on the ceiling (or directed, beamed reflections from DAES) can interpret the Atmos signals (as controlled by the Atmos logic) to place sound at specific points between speakers anywhere in those 3 dimensions (think like "stereo" between multiple speaker positions) so that the sound comes out of the "bubble" to those locations. And it is moving, dynamic and has magnitude or bulk -- so the helicopter flies around the interior of your listening/viewing room. No, that cannot be accomplished with a planar speaker arrangement no matter how much reflection you apply. and certainly not with 2.0.2 no matter where you put those speakers.


Yes I understand how it works, but surely instead of 5.1 discreet channels the sound can move on the same 2D plane (i.e. without the height).


----------



## chi_guy50

Yeahnah said:


> I forget where I read this, but what was the minimum number of speakers for Atmos? Was it 2.0.2? Do you absolutely need the overhead speakers for it to work, and if so then why? Surely object based audio can still be useful for any number of speakers on the same plane.
> On my Marantz 6010 I can't figure out how to confirm that the input or output is Atmos, so if it is not actually possible with 5.1 then that explains a lot, but it's confusing since it can detect DTS:X input but never Atmos input.


I believe that you are correct in that 2.0.2 is the minimum speaker configuration in order to enable Atmos decoding. But that technical detail doesn't necessarily negate richlife's point about the relative effectiveness of such a layout.


----------



## richlife

KB77Hell said:


> 100%, I've followed the show (and the books) from the start. I was just talking to a friend now about how GRRM wrote his books: A Game of Thrones (1996), A Clash of Kings (1998), A Storm of Swords (2000) then went 5 years until "A Feast for Crows" (2005), then 6 years for "A Dance With Dragons" (2011)... the books, not to take anything away from the show which is so great, are infinitely more detailed and engrossing. Point being A) I can wait to buy a full set when released as I am an hbo subscriber and B) to me it's upsetting we will never see the series concluded through the books (as I wish it would be) as it would seem GRRM can not write 2 books in the time it would seem it take to finish the final 2 seasons of the show... or may be he has already which would just add to his legend.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Agree! I read the first four and pined for a while for the fifth. Then moved on and missed that it happened until the series started. Still waiting to read it. Given that, I didn't know he planned two more. I'll probably start again with Book 1 -- maybe he'll be finished by the time I get to 6? Or, at 6 years a book, maybe not...  But I agree -- would like to see the series continue. Maybe based on an outline? They have the basic down rather well! 



Yeahnah said:


> Yes I understand how it works, but surely instead of 5.1 discreet channels the sound can move on the same 2D plane (i.e. without the height).


So at best you have 5.1 planar audio with sounds placed on the plane. I don't know that you could tell any difference. The entire point of Atmos is immersion.



chi_guy50 said:


> I believe that you are correct in that 2.0.2 is the minimum speaker configuration in order to enable Atmos decoding. But that technical detail doesn't necessarily negate richlife's point about the relative effectiveness of such a layout.


We have some very strong Atmos expertise on the thread -- I'd like to see their input. First of all, I don't think Atmos can be decoded (collapsed) from 4 (5.1) speakers to 2 -- not enough base. A line instead of a "plane". Second, how could that decoding differentiate front from back with only that line as base? 

But I'm open to theoritical learning... BUT, even more important, I'm not going to waste my time trying to resolve Atmos immersion to somehow expanding a line of sound. Sixty or seventy years ago, spreading sound between two speakers was a big deal, but not today.


----------



## batpig

You need to think of it from the perspective of "what is the minimum config which will cause the decoder to read the Atmos metadata?". That's a different question from "what is the minimum speaker layout to make Atmos effective and worthwhile?"

The former is an objective, technical question and the answer is indeed 2.1.2. 

Remember that Atmos is carried on TrueHD as a standard 7.1 ch bed plus metadata for objects. The presence of those two height speakers by necessity engages the Atmos decoder because that's the only way it can generate height information. Doesn't matter if the ear level bed collapses to the stereo downmix, the Atmos decoder must be engaged.


----------



## darkrenata

Anyone having issues with Atmos on PC in either games like Battlefield 1 or Star Wars Battlefront or with the Spatial Sound Setting in Windows 10 Creators Update and have issue getting it to work? On my Anthem MRX 1120 I get 7.1 PCM and it's not working. I got Atmos to light up for like 90 seconds until it disappeared faster than it came and I couldn't do anything to get it back.


----------



## sdurani

Yeahnah said:


> I forget where I read this, but what was the minimum number of speakers for Atmos? Was it 2.0.2?


Yes.


> Do you absolutely need the overhead speakers for it to work, and if so then why?


Maybe not. Home Atmos soundtracks contain a 7.1-channel downmix for backwards compatibility. Any time you set up speakers at locations for which there are no channels (wides, heights), then those speakers have to be fed by objects, which means Atmos decoding should activate. We had someone here who configured a 6.1 speaker layout (5.1 + centre rear) and was surprised to see the Atmos decoder turn on. Since there is no centre rear channel in the soundtrack, it apparently triggered the Atmos decoder so that the centre rear speaker could be fed by objects.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Yes. Maybe not. Home Atmos soundtracks contain a 7.1-channel downmix for backwards compatibility. Any time you set up speakers at locations for which there are no channels (wides, heights), then those speakers have to be fed by objects, which means Atmos decoding should activate. We had someone here who configured a 6.1 speaker layout (5.1 + centre rear) and was surprised to see the Atmos decoder turn on. Since there is no centre rear channel in the soundtrack, it apparently triggered the Atmos decoder so that the centre rear speaker could be fed by objects.


And to get back to OP's technical question: Is 2.0.2 still the minimum layout that will allow Atmos decoding, as you yourself informed us back in August?


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> And to get back to OP's technical question: Is 2.0.2 still the minimum layout that will allow Atmos decoding, as you yourself informed us back in August?


AFAIK, yes, since I don't think AVRs can be configured with only 2 fronts and 2 wides (maybe someone can try it).


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to get back to OP's technical question: Is 2.0.2 still the minimum layout that will allow Atmos decoding, as you yourself informed us back in August?
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK, yes, since I don't think AVRs can be configured with only 2 fronts and 2 wides (maybe someone can try it).
Click to expand...

I've never seen an implementation where wides could be added without surrounds


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I have just watched Hacksaw Ridge, excellent film and fantastic immersive soundtrack. At one stage I was looking at the doorway as it sounded like some was having an argument on the other side.


----------



## muzz

Hacksaw is mint.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have just watched Hacksaw Ridge, excellent film and fantastic immersive soundtrack. At one stage I was looking at the doorway as it sounded like some was having an argument on the other side.


That's pretty funny, during Patriots day my wife thought somebody was in our house because of sounds she heard off the rear right, I think it was during one of the action scenes, not an atmos title, but same end result 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

For excellent off stage effects, do try Sherlock Holmes I - with Robert Downing, and Mark Strong.
The abattoir scene with Mark reciting voices and his voice going all round.. 'only' 5.1 but a real gem..


----------



## mrtickleuk

petetherock said:


> For excellent off stage effects, do try Sherlock Holmes I - with Robert Downing, and Mark Strong.
> The abattoir scene with Mark reciting voices and his voice going all round.. 'only' 5.1 but a real gem..


Do you mean the 2009 Guy Ritchie movie with *Robert Downey Jr.* and Jude Law and Mark Strong?


----------



## petetherock

mrtickleuk said:


> Do you mean the 2009 Guy Ritchie movie with *Robert Downey Jr.* and Jude Law and Mark Strong?


Yep, it's an Atmos thread, so I didn't elaborate too much 
But you don't always need 100.1.100 to get excellent presence and ambience..


----------



## Mrjmc99

petetherock said:


> Yep, it's an Atmos thread, so I didn't elaborate too much
> But you don't always need 100.1.100 to get excellent presence and ambience..


Well if we're going to that extreme I'll take 100.100.100  none of the .1 nonsense 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nikonowski

*Which external amp for Denon 4200w for 2 front speakers in 5.2.4 Dolby Atmost setup ?*

In your opinion which external amp would be better for Denon 4200w: an external Emotiva UPA-2 amp or NAD Amplifier C326BEE ? I would like to setup 5.2.4 Dolby Atmos with 4 in-celing speakers , I would only use external amp for the main 2 front and left channels.

Thanks,
N.


----------



## Jonas2

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have just watched Hacksaw Ridge, excellent film and fantastic immersive soundtrack. At one stage I was looking at the doorway as it sounded like some was having an argument on the other side.


Just bought this movie yesterday, the 4K version, with the intent of also picking of a UHD player - but dealer was out of stock on the player!  Still, HAD to experience this just briefly so put the regular blu-ray on, and just chapter flipped to a battle scene for a few a minutes - nothing short of AWESOME. Can't wait to get the UHD player later this week and take this for a full spin!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Another day, another film enjoyed. Tonight it was Fantastic beasts and where to find them. The Atmos effects were really good, especially the scene with the vacuum tubes in the ceiling. I would be surprised if that isn't featured in a future Atmos demo disc. The film itself could have been at least 20 minutes shorter though.


----------



## Jonas2

Mashie Saldana said:


> Another day, another film enjoyed. Tonight it was Fantastic beasts and where to find them. The Atmos effects were really good, especially the scene with the vacuum tubes in the ceiling. I would be surprised if that isn't featured in a future Atmos demo disc. The film itself could have been at least 20 minutes shorter though.


I definitely didn't care for this movie as much as the Potter series, but I've only seen it once, and I've had a lot of things go much better the 2nd time around. I will definitely buy this disc, probably next, in keeping with the Potter Universe, but also largely due to positive things said about the Atmos experience with this one.


----------



## Ziba Ji

Jonas2 said:


> Just bought this movie yesterday, the 4K version, with the intent of also picking of a UHD player - but dealer was out of stock on the player!  Still, HAD to experience this just briefly so put the regular blu-ray on, and just chapter flipped to a battle scene for a few a minutes - nothing short of AWESOME. Can't wait to get the UHD player later this week and take this for a full spin!


I concur! A bit too graphic but it is a war movie! But it is done right!


----------



## lightthief

*Overhead Atmos speakers that are not in-ceiling*

I'm looking to replace my current overhead Atmos set up.
Right now I have surround speakers that I have attached to the ceiling. 

I'm looking for advice on ceiling speakers with wide dispurtion that not need to be installed in the ceiling itself, but can just be mounted. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Scott Simonian

mrtickleuk said:


> Do you mean the 2009 Guy Ritchie movie with *Robert Downey Jr.* and Jude Law and Mark Strong?


I was thinking of good ol' Morton Downey Jr.


----------



## megametaman

lightthief said:


> I'm looking to replace my current overhead Atmos set up.
> Right now I have surround speakers that I have attached to the ceiling.
> 
> I'm looking for advice on ceiling speakers with wide dispurtion that not need to be installed in the ceiling itself, but can just be mounted.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I want to recommend SVS Elevation Prime speakers, which I have bought for the same purpose, but I can't recommend them yet since I haven't gotten a chance to mount them yet. They are angled and wall-mountable. I like them because they seem versatile. They sound great as my current surrounds. I plan to buy 2 more and put them up on the wall where the ceiling meets the wall. 

I'll be happy to post my review when I have them in the final position. Hopefully someone else can be of more assistance.


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> I was thinking of good ol' Morton Downey Jr.


:laugh:

I went and saw him live in St.louis with some buddies.........it was entertaining.


----------



## gregbarlow1963

*denon x5200*

Anybody out there having problems with their receiver not decoding in ATMOS? I use a Playstation 4 to play the movies. I have seen it decode the last Transformers movie properly but if I use the microphone to reset speaker levels then play the movie it says multi channel in and that is it. Playstation is outputting PCM format which I think is what is required. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gregbarlow1963 said:


> Anybody out there having problems with their receiver not decoding in ATMOS? I use a Playstation 4 to play the movies. I have seen it decode the last Transformers movie properly but if I use the microphone to reset speaker levels then play the movie it says multi channel in and that is it. Playstation is outputting PCM format which I think is what is required. Any help would be appreciated.


PCM is wrong. You need to set the PS4 to bitstream and make sure secondary audio is off. Then it will be encoded Atmos content going across to the AVR.


----------



## Mrjmc99

darkrenata said:


> Anyone having issues with Atmos on PC in either games like Battlefield 1 or Star Wars Battlefront or with the Spatial Sound Setting in Windows 10 Creators Update and have issue getting it to work? On my Anthem MRX 1120 I get 7.1 PCM and it's not working. I got Atmos to light up for like 90 seconds until it disappeared faster than it came and I couldn't do anything to get it back.


I just ran the creators update the other day, I had no issues passing "real" atmos from battlefront. I also did a quick test with mass effect 4, it was passing lossy atmos, I haven't tested enough yet, but I hope that the pc is applying Dolby surround to the "surround" output of the game and sending that to the receiver, which would be a huge step forward for pc gaming, currently the only way to get "surround" in most games is to have analog 5.1 out, using hdmi or optical just outputs 2 channel pcm.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legairre

gregbarlow1963 said:


> Anybody out there having problems with their receiver not decoding in ATMOS? I use a Playstation 4 to play the movies. I have seen it decode the last Transformers movie properly but if I use the microphone to reset speaker levels then play the movie it says multi channel in and that is it. Playstation is outputting PCM format which I think is what is required. Any help would be appreciated.


You have to make sure you set the PS4 to bitstream as instructed by Mashie Saldana above, but you also have to do the following: 

1) While the Blu-ray is playing...
2) Press the "Options" button on the PS4 controller
3) Select "Settings"
4) "Audio Format" to “Bitstream (Direct)"


----------



## Extreman

What is unclear to me is if an UHD disc w/Atmos contains a maximum of 7.1 (or 5.1.2) and during negotiation with the sink device, the additional immersive channels are added in the decoder during the post processing stage - OR that the disc actually contains native audio information for all channels beyond 5.1.2 which in turn are decoded and reproduced accordingly?


----------



## batpig

Extreman said:


> What is unclear to me is if an UHD disc w/Atmos contains a maximum of 7.1 (or 5.1.2) and during negotiation with the sink device, the additional immersive channels are added in the decoder during the post processing stage - OR that the disc actually contains native audio information for all channels beyond 5.1.2 which in turn are decoded and reproduced accordingly?


The player is simply bitstreaming an encoded audio stream. It has no idea what's in the stream -- all it knows is that it's sending a Dolby TrueHD bitstream downstream to the processor.

All the information (7.1 channel base + objects metadata) is in that bitstream. It's up to the processor downstream to make the decision of what to do when it unpacks the codec.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Extreman said:


> What is unclear to me is if an UHD disc w/Atmos contains a maximum of 7.1 (or 5.1.2) and during negotiation with the sink device, the additional immersive channels are added in the decoder during the post processing stage - OR that the disc actually contains native audio information for all channels beyond 5.1.2 which in turn are decoded and reproduced accordingly?


Both UHD and Blu-ray containing a Dolby Atmos soundtrack are both 7.1ch and beyond that amount.


The signal has to be compressed and delivered to our equipment. The signal is technically 7.1ch compressed in Dolby TrueHD. However, the additional positional data and actual content of the objects is present in that backwards-compatible 7.1ch TrueHD signal. This allows anybody to hear the Atmos encoded signal whether or not they have the capability to decode Atmos at all. It is when this signal is passed through an Atmos decoder that this positional data is used to extract the content that belongs in between the channels or up above us.

The presence of the objects allows one with an appropriate decoder to expand beyond the conventional 7.1 layout. Dolby Atmos (the home version) allows for a speaker layout from a simple 2.x.2 layout (stereo with stereo overhead) all the way to 24.x.10 (24 ground level speakers and 10 overhead speaker locations). The location of any of the objects used in the encoding can be ANYWHERE in a theoretical rectangle "box" (think of the shape of a cinema). The location of these objects may be in a location that does not have a speaker.... yet.

Right now regular DSP-based hardware (pretty much all receivers and pre/pro's you can think of) are limited to a maximum of twelve channels. Usually the layout is 7.1.4 but it could be 9.1.2 or less. New hardware is about to show up that can supposedly handle up to 14 channels. Hardware over time will allow for increasing size speaker layouts. The software that exists will scale up to the maximum which I quoted earlier.

The only beyond 7.1.4 currently is a Trinnov Altitude. It's expensive.

Other alternatives exist but they merely process the current limit and attempt to extract more speaker locations. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html



TL; DR

So to answer your question: all existing Dolby Atmos encoded Blu-rays and UHD's will scale up with future hardware. 

What now sounds awesome in 7.1.4 will sound even more awesome in up to 24.1.10 audio. Whenever you can afford to do so. Now for a lot of money...or some time down the road for less.


----------



## Extreman

Thanks for all your answers.
So I reckon if one have only 2 overhead speakers (top, middle height channels), during decoding all the immersive height content will be directed to these speakers above the cut-off frequency set in the processor.


----------



## dannybee

Just a quick question would it be better to have a 5.1.4 layout in a small viewing area as opposed to squeezing a 7.1.4 in, would I lose much of the effect by doing away with the rears thanks.


----------



## dschulz

dannybee said:


> Just a quick question would it be better to have a 5.1.4 layout in a small viewing area as opposed to squeezing a 7.1.4 in, would I lose much of the effect by doing away with the rears thanks.


I would much rather have a sensible 5.1.4 setup than a cramped 7.1.4 with speakers in the wrong spot, or too close together, or too close to my ears. This is why I haven't upgraded past 5.1, and when I do go Atmos it will be to 5.1.2 or 5.1.4.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dannybee said:


> Just a quick question would it be better to have a 5.1.4 layout in a small viewing area as opposed to squeezing a 7.1.4 in, would I lose much of the effect by doing away with the rears thanks.


If your room (and receiver/processor) allows, you should also consider/try out adding wides instead of rears. Wides that are added to a 5.x.x configuration get a special treatment by the ATMOS renderer (receiving surround bed channel info), which can create a more cinemascopic sound field. This type of processing is lost when adding rears...


----------



## Yeahnah

maikeldepotter said:


> If your room (and receiver/processor) allows, you should also consider/try out adding wides instead of rears. Wides that are added to a 5.x.x configuration get a special treatment by the ATMOS renderer (receiving surround bed channel info), which can create a more cinemascopic sound field. This type of processing is lost when adding rears...


Front wides? Where do they go, on front wall or sides?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Yeahnah said:


> Front wides? Where do they go, on front wall or sides?


Wides typically are positioned between front L/R and side surrounds at 50-70 degrees azimuth (MLP reference). Whether that is on front or side wall depends on the shape of your room, but mostly it will be the side wall. The ideal position can be found by taking the median of the 'MLP - Front l/R - side surround' triangle, in your situation ending up at around 55 degrees azimuth (see enclosed pdf). Does your receiver/processor support width channels?

View attachment wides location.pdf


PS Putting rears at 135 degrees azimuth gives you a listening distance of about 6 feet. You could give that a try as well, and then experiment with putting them even closer, like up to 150 degrees, to see/listen what you like most.


----------



## jayraysaiz

I tried searching to Dolby digital + Atmos over arc vs Dolby true HD Atmos and I think came up. Could be cause I'm using my phone. 

Is there really any difference once you are listening to Atmos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Well.... I've been absent for exactly a year. I spent the last couple of days reading the thread from where I left off (not a trivial task).

It's as if I was never away 

Lots of questions about where to put Atmos speakers (with the same answers of course as a year ago). Lots of questions about the type of speakers which are best suited to Atmos (ditto). Lots of discussion about monopoles vs dipoles vs bipoles (ditto). Lots of questions about which is the best AVR or processor, etc etc etc.

Even the old oft-posted speaker layout diagram has been, well, oft-posted 

And all the gang is still here! Sanjay is still _Grand PlaceMeister D_, giving out brilliant contributions on where to put speakers, subs and seats, with supporting diagrams showing modes and nulls where required. Batpig is still a walking encyclopedia of all things D&M and still giving great advice based on personal experience in his own room (possibly the best sort of advice). Scott is still causing visible measurements on the Richter scale with his Wall of Subs (TM). Stuart has managed to post at least 4 posts where he doesn't mention his Trinnov . Selden is, as ever, an oasis of calm giving solid help to all-comers. 

What have I been doing for the last 12 months? Moving house, with no HT since. Currently a month away from the completion of a pro-installed HT in a very big outbuilding at my new house. If anyone is interested I have a build thread on the UK forum (can’t recall if we are allowed to post links to other forums - if someone can advise me I'll post the url). 

See you in another year guys! Enjoy your Atmos! It's still the biggest step forward in movie sound in decades.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> What have I been doing for the last 12 months? Moving house, with no HT since. Currently a month away from the completion of a pro-installed HT in a very big outbuilding at my new house. If anyone is interested I have a build thread on the UK forum (can’t recall if we are allowed to post links to other forums - if someone can advise me I'll post the url).


I have never seen anyone get slapped on the fingers for linking to avforums. Maybe you should replicate your build thread here as well?


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have never seen anyone get slapped on the fingers for linking to avforums. *Maybe you should replicate your build thread here as well?*


That sounds to me like double trouble!  I see you found the build thread anyway. 

I'll take the risk then - https://www.avforums.com/threads/pro-custom-ht-build-to-highest-standards-cowshed-cinema.2089291/

@Moderators: if it's a breach of forum rules, please edit the post accordingly - thanks.


----------



## sdurani

Welcome back Keith!


----------



## sdrucker

Welcome back here, Keith! Looks like I have some reading to do on the other forum...


BTW I don't actually post here all that much anymore (as opposed to a few speaker and processor threads). Not THAT much happening here that's all that new other than movies getting rolled out...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Well hot damn. 

Welcome back, Keith.


----------



## cuzed2

Keith,

I also welcome you back. Congrats on starting a new project! I just took a peek, then quickly joined that forum for more reading pleasure.
Hope you don't mind me tagging along - should be fun.


----------



## zeus33

kbarnes701 said:


> I'll take the risk then...



It's good to hear from you Keith. I'm glad it's just life stuff that has kept you away. Congrats on the new place. I look forward to seeing the theater once it's completed.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Welcome back Keith!





sdrucker said:


> Welcome back here, Keith! Looks like I have some reading to do on the other forum...
> 
> 
> BTW I don't actually post here all that much anymore (as opposed to a few speaker and processor threads). Not THAT much happening here that's all that new other than movies getting rolled out...





Scott Simonian said:


> Well hot damn.
> 
> Welcome back, Keith.





cuzed2 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I also welcome you back. Congrats on starting a new project! I just took a peek, then quickly joined that forum for more reading pleasure.
> Hope you don't mind me tagging along - should be fun.





zeus33 said:


> It's good to hear from you Keith. I'm glad it's just life stuff that has kept you away. Congrats on the new place. I look forward to seeing the theater once it's completed.


Hey guys! Thanks for the kind words and warm welcome back. I shall be popping in from time to time I am sure - one of the good things I gleaned from my exhaustive read of the thread is all the great new Atmos movies that have come along since I dismantled the old Hobbit Theater and now. I haven't watched a movie at home for over 6 months!! Serious withdrawal. New HT is scheduled to be finished end of May so I am stockpiling Atmos movies for the Grand Opening.

I also discovered (thanks Batpig) that when I next plug my Marantz 7010 in, it will be doing an update which solves the upmix cross-pollination issue and I will be able to use DSU with my DTS soundtracks without having to go through the hassle of switching to PCM.

The new HT is, of course, an Atmos HT and will start in a 7.2.4 configuration, but we have wired for two additional overheads, two additional subs and wides 'just in case'.

Please feel free to take a look at my build thread. Right now it's just 'construction work rather than any HT type stuff but it may be of interest. Anyone who has shares in Rockwool - you will soon see their price going up! We have bought *tons* of the stuff.


----------



## Nalleh

kbarnes701 said:


> That sounds to me like double trouble!  I see you found the build thread anyway.
> 
> I'll take the risk then - https://www.avforums.com/threads/pro-custom-ht-build-to-highest-standards-cowshed-cinema.2089291/
> 
> @Moderators: if it's a breach of forum rules, please edit the post accordingly - thanks.


I'll join in: welcome back Keith, we missed you 

And congrats on the new HT project, look like serious stuff


----------



## richlife

Nalleh said:


> I'll join in: welcome back Keith, we missed you
> 
> And congrats on the new HT project, look like serious stuff


Yeah, ditto for me too! I started catching your posts last year in the Yamaha RX-A3050 thread and then others around that theme. That new project of yours is more than impressive. I want to know what admission you will be charging?!! :laugh:


----------



## Yeahnah

maikeldepotter said:


> Wides typically are positioned between front L/R and side surrounds at 50-70 degrees azimuth (MLP reference). Whether that is on front or side wall depends on the shape of your room, but mostly it will be the side wall. The ideal position can be found by taking the median of the 'MLP - Front l/R - side surround' triangle, in your situation ending up at around 55 degrees azimuth (see enclosed pdf). Does your receiver/processor support width channels?
> 
> View attachment 2090985
> 
> 
> PS Putting rears at 135 degrees azimuth gives you a listening distance of about 6 feet. You could give that a try as well, and then experiment with putting them even closer, like up to 150 degrees, to see/listen what you like most.


Thank you very much, and thanks for using my ****ty layout  Unfortunately the rears are constrained by the door location (rear right), so I have to move the couch instead of speakers. I've managed to move the couch as far forwards as possible as the mrs cracked the ****s so that's pretty much set now. The AVR does support wides, but I'm limited by it's pre-processing as it's only got 7 channels amplified and 9 for pre-processing. It'd be more worthwhile selling and buying a better AVR than buying an amp for the extra 2 channels. I will look at updating my AVR probably in a year or so.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> Well.... I've been absent for exactly a year. I spent the last couple of days reading the thread from where I left off (not a trivial task).
> 
> It's as if I was never away


Welcome back!


----------



## petetherock

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have never seen anyone get slapped on the fingers for linking to avforums. Maybe you should replicate your build thread here as well?


Unfortunately, it happens mate.. You don't see it because the links are not there..


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey guys! Thanks for the kind words and warm welcome back. I shall be popping in from time to time I am sure - one of the good things I gleaned from my exhaustive read of the thread is all the great new Atmos movies that have come along since I dismantled the old Hobbit Theater and now. I haven't watched a movie at home for over 6 months!! Serious withdrawal. New HT is scheduled to be finished end of May so I am stockpiling Atmos movies for the Grand Opening.
> 
> I also discovered (thanks Batpig) that when I next plug my Marantz 7010 in, it will be doing an update which solves the upmix cross-pollination issue and I will be able to use DSU with my DTS soundtracks without having to go through the hassle of switching to PCM.
> 
> The new HT is, of course, an Atmos HT and will start in a 7.2.4 configuration, but we have wired for two additional overheads, two additional subs and wides 'just in case'.
> 
> Please feel free to take a look at my build thread. Right now it's just 'construction work rather than any HT type stuff but it may be of interest. Anyone who has shares in Rockwool - you will soon see their price going up! We have bought *tons* of the stuff.


Welcome back mate.
Be careful with that stuff, itches like no tomorrow!
I used close to 80kgs in my own building. Nothing close to your build, but it was one scratchy assignment for my contractor. 
Hang onto that 7010, it's still current and IMO, as good if not better than the 7011 which costs more. Cheers


----------



## kbarnes701

Nalleh said:


> I'll join in: welcome back Keith, we missed you
> 
> And congrats on the new HT project, look like serious stuff





richlife said:


> Yeah, ditto for me too! I started catching your posts last year in the Yamaha RX-A3050 thread and then others around that theme. That new project of yours is more than impressive. I want to know what admission you will be charging?!! :laugh:





dschulz said:


> Welcome back!





petetherock said:


> Welcome back mate.
> Be careful with that stuff, itches like no tomorrow!
> I used close to 80kgs in my own building. Nothing close to your build, but it was one scratchy assignment for my contractor.
> Hang onto that 7010, it's still current and IMO, as good if not better than the 7011 which costs more. Cheers


Wow. Thanks so much guys. I feel like I have come home after a long journey 

Pete - yeah, I start itching if I just go in to check on progress. The guys handling it are suited and masked. I love that 7010 - terrific value - will only change when I need new features it doesn't have - eg 9.1.6. But TBH I don't see 9.1.6 coming along soon at affordable prices. I was interested to read how the mainstream makers are dropping Wides. That seems a step backwards to me. Most of the stuff I've read says Atmos makes more use of Wides than it does of overheads (currently). And I have that nagging feeling that we ought to be going for *more* speakers not fewer. As Batpig says mo' speakers = mo' better.

Of course, if dropping Wides is a prelude to giving us 6 on the ceiling, that might be a compromise worth having. But again, TBH, I don't think many people really need 6 on the ceiling.* Those with really big rooms and multiple rows of seats will benefit but they are in a very small minority. I have wired for TM but I doubt I will ever connect speakers to the end of the wires. I have also wired for Wides - that may be redundant even before the HT is finished, although my 7010 has Wides of course.

Difficult at this stage to understand the thinking behind dropping Wides. Very few people will use Wides for sure, and it will no doubt save a bit of cash for the manufacturer - but neither of those seem compelling arguments to me. AVRs have a lot of features that are of minority interest but they still offer them. The decision would be like researching the customer base, discovering that not a huge percentage use the rear surrounds and then deciding to drop them. I know it's not a great analogy as 7.1 is a defacto industry standard (as is 7.1.4 now) but YKWIM.

OMG - I have been sucked back in already, after just one day LOL 

*Even Scott, the Pioneer of SCATMOS, EXATMOS or whatever one is calling it now, has decided to go back to 4 on the ceiling I read the other day. Reason he gave: he felt no benefit in his room and even experienced some hotspotting which he didn't like, causing him to turn down the TM pair to the point where he might as well actually remove them. The day *Scott* says we don't need extra speakers is the day we do not need extra speakers


----------



## petetherock

Get into the program: Get ATMOSpheric


----------



## Yeahnah

Well with Atmos and other object based audio surely in the future it can be up to the individual where to put the speakers if the relative location is put into the AVR. We should be able to choose wides, rears, heights etc and the AVR does it all.


----------



## unicronic

Legairre said:


> You have to make sure you set the PS4 to bitstream as instructed by Mashie Saldana above, but you also have to do the following:
> 
> 1) While the Blu-ray is playing...
> 2) Press the "Options" button on the PS4 controller
> 3) Select "Settings"
> 4) "Audio Format" to “Bitstream (Direct)"


Just so I understand. If you have a PS4 and an ATMOS receiver, why wouldn't PCM work here? 

This is for my education not to challenge your knowledge.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

unicronic said:


> Just so I understand. If you have a PS4 and an ATMOS receiver, why wouldn't PCM work here?
> 
> This is for my education not to challenge your knowledge.


When the PS4 output PCM it has already decoded the bitstream containing the encoded Atmos meta data so it is nothing for the AVR to process. In other words outputting PCM will strip off everything Atmos from the audio track.


----------



## kbarnes701

Yeahnah said:


> Well with Atmos and other object based audio surely in the future it can be up to the individual where to put the speakers if the relative location is put into the AVR. We should be able to choose wides, rears, heights etc and the AVR does it all.


There were high hopes, at the beginning of the Atmos era, that this is how it would work - with so-called 'positional rendering'. Unfortunately these hopes were dashed and the AVR makes an assumption as to where the speakers are located and directs sounds accordingly. It's the same in this respect as it always was - the user has to ensure his speakers fall in line with the locations expected by the AVR, just as we try to poisition our LCR and surrounds in ITU/THX/Dolby approved locations.

Even if true positional rendering was here, it would still be incumbent on the user to try as best as he could to place speakers as accurately as possible. One can never, for example, envisage a situation where we can just slap our speakers down anywhere in the room we like and expect the AVR to sort it all out.

The good news is that Atmos is very flexible, which is why Dolby specify a *range* of locations, not just a location, for each overhead speaker. Stay broadly within these ranges and you will get a superb result. Way back in this thread there's a quote from a senior Dolby guy who says, in effect, "it's really difficult to get Atmos wrong".


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Well.... I've been absent for exactly a year. I spent the last couple of days reading the thread from where I left off (not a trivial task).
> 
> It's as if I was never away
> 
> Lots of questions about where to put Atmos speakers (with the same answers of course as a year ago). Lots of questions about the type of speakers which are best suited to Atmos (ditto). Lots of discussion about monopoles vs dipoles vs bipoles (ditto). Lots of questions about which is the best AVR or processor, etc etc etc.
> 
> Even the old oft-posted speaker layout diagram has been, well, oft-posted
> 
> And all the gang is still here! Sanjay is still _Grand PlaceMeister D_, giving out brilliant contributions on where to put speakers, subs and seats, with supporting diagrams showing modes and nulls where required. Batpig is still a walking encyclopedia of all things D&M and still giving great advice based on personal experience in his own room (possibly the best sort of advice). Scott is still causing visible measurements on the Richter scale with his Wall of Subs (TM). Stuart has managed to post at least 4 posts where he doesn't mention his Trinnov . Selden is, as ever, an oasis of calm giving solid help to all-comers.
> 
> What have I been doing for the last 12 months? Moving house, with no HT since. Currently a month away from the completion of a pro-installed HT in a very big outbuilding at my new house. If anyone is interested I have a build thread on the UK forum (can’t recall if we are allowed to post links to other forums - if someone can advise me I'll post the url).
> 
> See you in another year guys! Enjoy your Atmos! It's still the biggest step forward in movie sound in decades.


I think not many of us believe you are going to stay only for a few days, and then disappear on us again... are you really? 

To me, the moment you left created a milestone, dividing this Atmos thread in a with-Keith and a without-Keith era. There have been numerous discussions and 'discoveries' that craved for your input, but they were answered with a deafening silence we all heard ...

Three that IMO deserve special mentioning:

1- The search for the ideal/intended/default angular speaker positions as programmed into the playback Atmos renderer has come to a definitive end by the discovery that those positions are room referenced (x,y,z coordinates), and not listener (MLP) referenced.

2- Logic steering of the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) does not extend beyond 7.x.2 channels. Adding additional surrounds (up to 10 extra) and overheads (up to 8 extra) turns DSU into a channel copying machine, without even applying some form of decorrelation. 

3- The 'wides' in a 5.x.x+wides configuration get a special treatment by the Atmos renderer, which is adding surround bed channel info. This results in much more active wides, and a more cinemascopic experience. Adding rears puts this special effect to an end.

As long as you are 'in the house', please don't hold back... 

And... Welcome BACK!


----------



## gwsat

Although I joined the Atmos Age last summer when I installed a 7.1.4 system, I had only one sub, a 9 years old Hsu VTF-3 MK3 Turbo. I am finally upgrading to two subs, which I should receive next week. I am really looking forward to enjoying TrueHD Atmos audio with the exponentially improved LFE, which my new subs, Rythmik FV18s, should provide.


----------



## cdnscg

gwsat said:


> Although I joined the Atmos Age last summer when I installed a 7.1.4 system, I had only one sub, a 9 years old Hsu VTF-3 MK3 Turbo. I am finally upgrading to two subs, which I should receive next week. I am really looking forward to enjoying TrueHD Atmos audio with the exponentially improved LFE, which my new subs, Rythmik FV18s, should provide.


Congrats Where do you plan to place them, both next to the screen or spread out in the room?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> There were high hopes, at the beginning of the Atmos era, that this is how it would work - with so-called 'positional rendering'.


Yeah, I really wanted positional rendering to be important. Just seemed like such a helpful concept. Turned out it was never part of the Atmos format (i.e., Atmos rendering doesn't take listener location into account). Nor were angles (elevation & azimuth) part of the format. So back to the old ways of placing speakers where they sound best. Not like that's a bad thing.


----------



## gwsat

cdnscg said:


> Congrats Where do you plan to place them, both next to the screen or spread out in the room?


Thanks. I plan to place my new subs with one of them outside of the right front speaker and the other outside the left front speaker. With two subs, I hope that getting them configured to suit me won't create too many issues. I do have a miniDSP UMIK-1, which I use with REW to aid me in the process.


----------



## smdelaney

*Smallest Viable Room Dimensions for Atmos?*

Greetings all...

I am in the process of buying a house and will be upgrading my AVR afterwards to replace a failing Onkyo (looking mostly at lower end Denons). The room in which I envision setting up the TV and Stereo is about 14'wx13'd with the intrusions of a closet (front left) and back of a fireplace (front center) with a 2'x3' recessed area FR....basically the side of the fireplace from behind. The TV distance from main seating is somewhere between 9' and 10'. It will be a 5.1 configuration where satellites are the main FR and FL which will be positioned approximately on either side of the TV and most likely wall mounted. Surrounds will be mounted on the back wall and they can be set as either bipole or dipole as needed. 

Can this room accommodate modest up-firing Atmos speakers? Should I be looking at something that I can mount high and down-firing instead? I'd like to dip my toes in Atmos without having to go all out with speaker replacement as that's just not in the budget. Right now the upgrade priorities are AVR, 4KUHDTV, 4KUHD player, Speakers and by then the AVR again. At 
that point the old system gets demoted to a bedroom or to my office.

Until I take on finishing the basement "real" speakers and anything approximating a full blown home theater are a non-starter as far as WAF goes but I still would like to be able to enjoy the Atmos experience.

Any suggestions?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I really wanted positional rendering to be important. Just seemed like such a helpful concept.


Yeah, me too! Remember the heady early days of Atmos when we thought/hoped this would all be possible?



sdurani said:


> Turned out it was never part of the Atmos format (i.e., Atmos rendering doesn't take listener location into account). Nor were angles (elevation & azimuth) part of the format. So back to the old ways of placing speakers where they sound best. Not like that's a bad thing.


Indeed. Initially I was very disappointed that we weren't getting positional rendering. But on reflection it isn't something I am all that concerned about. I’d always strive to put speakers in the 'proper' positions anyway just like I've always done. And considering Dolby give a pretty substantial range of possible locations, I think most people are going to get a pretty good result.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember the heady early days of Atmos when we thought/hoped this would all be possible?


I was really PO'd that it didn't show up in first gen products. I still think it would be helpful in some cases to remap speaker feeds to the correct (albeit virtual) speaker locations in order to more closely hear the intent of the mixer. But that has nothing to do with Atmos, since it could potentially benefit all soundtracks.


----------



## Clovis559

darkrenata said:


> Anyone having issues with Atmos on PC in either games like Battlefield 1 or Star Wars Battlefront or with the Spatial Sound Setting in Windows 10 Creators Update and have issue getting it to work? On my Anthem MRX 1120 I get 7.1 PCM and it's not working. I got Atmos to light up for like 90 seconds until it disappeared faster than it came and I couldn't do anything to get it back.


Before and After the CU update, I did not have problems. I don't think Battlefield 1 or Battlefront care what your window settings are. Even now if I turn Spatial settings off, Battlefield and Battlefront work with Atmos. The Dolby Access App is buggy, and if all you play is those two games, you might be happy leaving it uninstalled for now. It doesn't do anything for you, especially if those are the games you play.


----------



## Clovis559

Mrjmc99 said:


> I just ran the creators update the other day, I had no issues passing "real" atmos from battlefront. I also did a quick test with mass effect 4, it was passing lossy atmos, I haven't tested enough yet, but I hope that the pc is applying Dolby surround to the "surround" output of the game and sending that to the receiver, which would be a huge step forward for pc gaming, currently the only way to get "surround" in most games is to have analog 5.1 out, using hdmi or optical just outputs 2 channel pcm.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


I don't think the windows settings are doing anything for Battlefront. You can turn Spatial off, and still use Atmos in Battlefront. You don't use HDMI? You have analog hooked up to your receiver?


----------



## Mrjmc99

Clovis559 said:


> I don't think the windows settings are doing anything for Battlefront. You can turn Spatial off, and still use Atmos in Battlefront. You don't use HDMI? You have analog hooked up to your receiver?


I know that the windows settings aren't touching battlefront, it's letting the bitstreaming pass through. I am only using hdmi, my son played need for speed hot pursuit last night, it doesn't have atmos, but it has a 7.1 surround option, with spacial sound enabled it appears to apply Dolby surround and pass an atmos feed to the avr, it sounded amazing. This is quite possibly the best improvement to pc gaming for quote some time.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Clovis559 said:


> I need 2 more posts so I can show you  brb. Digging for something interesting in the forums.


How bout..

_"Holy s**t! Another person from Clovis. Wow, what are the odds! How do you do? How do YOU do?"_

And so on.


----------



## Clovis559

Mrjmc99 said:


> I know that the windows settings aren't touching battlefront, it's letting the bitstreaming pass through. I am only using hdmi, my son played need for speed hot pursuit last night, it doesn't have atmos, but it has a 7.1 surround option, with spacial sound enabled it appears to apply Dolby surround and pass an atmos feed to the avr, it sounded amazing. This is quite possibly the best improvement to pc gaming for quote some time.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


I don't think it's working the way you're hoping. Your receiver worked the same in games before CU, as it did after. Need for Speed is not getting a Atmos feed, anymore then Doom, Overwatch, or Battlefield 4 is... and they aren't.








I don't believe the new Atmos for Home Theater is supported in any games yet. Even turning it off or on, I get the same results.

LoL Scot, that's how I'm feeling right about now.  I feel initiated through embarrassment.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@*Clovis559* 

Are you bitstreaming or using PCM output?

Dolby Atmos *requires* bitstream output for it to work.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Clovis559 said:


> I don't think it's working the way you're hoping. Your receiver worked the same in games before CU, as it did after. Need for Speed is not getting a Atmos feed, anymore then Doom, Overwatch, or Battlefield 4 is... and they aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the new Atmos for Home Theater is supported in any games yet. Even turning it off or on, I get the same results.
> 
> LoL Scot, that's how I'm feeling right about now.  I feel initiated through embarrassment.


It is getting an "atmos" feed from the pc, whether or not it is a "real" atmos feed or not is what I am suggesting, Dolby surround is being applied and packaged up at the pc, not the avr applying dsu to a 2.0 pcm feed. I believe the pc is taking the "surround" signal from the game and applying dsu before packaging it up and out to the avr.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

Jeez, all this love for Keith, all I could think of was this:


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Jeez, all this love for Keith, all I could think of was this:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu1JMbSLPvc



Yeah, I know. After all this time. Still the same amount of subwoofers.

What's up with _that?!? 

_Hardly worth getting _too_ excited.


----------



## Clovis559

Scott Simonian said:


> @*Clovis559*
> 
> Are you bitstreaming or using PCM output?
> 
> Dolby Atmos *requires* bitstream output for it to work.


There's no actual Bitstream PCM options.
It's just Atmos On/Off. Same for Battlefront.

I made this video real quick:


----------



## CBdicX

After some changes in the house i endit up with a 3.1.2 system, no surrounds possible for now.
Have a hard popcorn ceiling.
What would my "best " option be, Front Height or Enabled on the fronts ?
I have a set of Klipsch RP140SA to do Enabled or Height.

Thanks......


----------



## Mrjmc99

Clovis559 said:


> There's no actual Bitstream PCM options.
> It's just Atmos On/Off. Same for Battlefront.
> 
> I made this video real quick:
> https://youtu.be/WRWA23aiKZg


I'm still not sure why you are saying this isn't atmos?

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Jeez, all this love for Keith, all I could think of was this:



Yet? *Yet?* What's with *Yet?*?  Now I am scared. Very scared


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, I know. After all this time. Still the same amount of subwoofers.
> 
> What's up with _that?!?
> 
> _Hardly worth getting _too_ excited.


On the upside, I have wired for two more Submersives at the front (the existing two are going at the back). And if I feel the need for two more, _I might even make my own_! ¯ ⊂(◉‿◉)つ 

But hey... remind me who once said he thought he needed 6 speakers on the ceiling and who said he thought he didn't


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> After some changes in the house i endit up with a 3.1.2 system, no surrounds possible for now.
> Have a hard popcorn ceiling.
> What would my "best " option be, Front Height or Enabled on the fronts ?
> I have a set of Klipsch RP140SA to do Enabled or Height.
> 
> Thanks......


AE speakers are very good, but if I were you I'd choose physical speakers if at all possible. If you really can't, then AE speakers will give you a better result than no AE speakers.

That setup is going to be very front-centric. May I ask why you are not putting some surrounds in at this time?


----------



## Sweetmeat

So I just upgraded from a 5.2 to a 7.2.4 system so I could enjoy Atmos/DTS X, and yesterday I was searching for a list of movies that use those audio formats, and I was disappointed to see that a lot of the newest movies are including Atmos only on the UHD blu-ray.

Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that, and if they're planning to include Atmos on future 1080p blu-rays? Really hope I didn't just waste 5k on my system upgrades to get to Atmos and not be able to fully enjoy it without an additional 5 - 10k investment for a 4k projector.


----------



## klimo

Sweetmeat said:


> So I just upgraded from a 5.2 to a 7.2.4 system so I could enjoy Atmos/DTS X, and yesterday I was searching for a list of movies that use those audio formats, and I was disappointed to see that a lot of the newest movies are including Atmos only on the UHD blu-ray.
> 
> Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that, and if they're planning to include Atmos on future 1080p blu-rays? Really hope I didn't just waste 5k on my system upgrades to get to Atmos and not be able to fully enjoy it without an additional 5 - 10k investment for a 4k projector.


Fear not. All you need is a 4k blu ray player to play the UHD disc not a full blown 4k projector or eshift. I'm in the same boat. Cost a bit more for the UHD disc, but I found the new releases seem to be 50/50 blu ray vs 4k.


----------



## shyyour

Sweetmeat said:


> So I just upgraded from a 5.2 to a 7.2.4 system so I could enjoy Atmos/DTS X, and yesterday I was searching for a list of movies that use those audio formats, and I was disappointed to see that a lot of the newest movies are including Atmos only on the UHD blu-ray.
> 
> Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that, and if they're planning to include Atmos on future 1080p blu-rays? Really hope I didn't just waste 5k on my system upgrades to get to Atmos and not be able to fully enjoy it without an additional 5 - 10k investment for a 4k projector.


You can get a UHD player (from about $200) and still use your 1080p projector to enjoy atmos UHD disc's till you feel you need a 4K TV or Projector.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Sweetmeat said:


> So I just upgraded from a 5.2 to a 7.2.4 system so I could enjoy Atmos/DTS X, and yesterday I was searching for a list of movies that use those audio formats, and I was disappointed to see that a lot of the newest movies are including Atmos only on the UHD blu-ray.
> 
> Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that, and if they're planning to include Atmos on future 1080p blu-rays? Really hope I didn't just waste 5k on my system upgrades to get to Atmos and not be able to fully enjoy it without an additional 5 - 10k investment for a 4k projector.


Some studio's use the Atmos only for UHD as an incentive to make people move away from Bly-Ray. The good news ​is that if you connect an UHD player to your system it will work just fine with the 1080p display and still deliver all the Atmos sound to your 7.1.4.

Some good Blu-Rays to give your new system a workout are: Hacksaw Ridge, The Fifth Element, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them, Deepwater Horizon and Gravity.


----------



## Legairre

Sweetmeat said:


> So I just upgraded from a 5.2 to a 7.2.4 system so I could enjoy Atmos/DTS X, and yesterday I was searching for a list of movies that use those audio formats, and I was disappointed to see that a lot of the newest movies are including Atmos only on the UHD blu-ray.
> 
> Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that, and if they're planning to include Atmos on future 1080p blu-rays? Really hope I didn't just waste 5k on my system upgrades to get to Atmos and not be able to fully enjoy it without an additional 5 - 10k investment for a 4k projector.


There's lots of Atmos 1080p BDs and DTS:X is far behind on 1080p and 4K.

Here's a list of 1080p Blu-rays that are Atmos:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search

And here's DTS:X:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


----------



## Clovis559

Mrjmc99 said:


> I'm still not sure why you are saying this isn't atmos?
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


That was Atmos. Battlefield 1 supports Atmos. Need for speed doesn't.

I'm also saying, those Spatial Features for Home Theater, currently don't do anything for games. Atmos already worked in the 2 games that supported Atmos (by Receiver).


----------



## cdnscg

Legairre said:


> There's lots of Atmos 1080p BDs and DTS:X is far behind on 1080p and 4K.
> 
> Here's a list of 1080p Blu-rays that are Atmos:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search
> 
> And here's DTS:X:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


You might find these links easier to navigate if your looking for 1080P only:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742


----------



## Legairre

cdnscg said:


> You might find these links easier to navigate if your looking for 1080P only:
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742


One of those threads has 108 pages of conversations about the movies. Why go through 108 pages of discussing the releases when all he need is a list of movies.


----------



## cdnscg

Legairre said:


> One of those threads has 108 pages of conversations about the movies. Why go through 108 pages of discussing the releases when all he need is a list of movies.


You don't have to look through the complete thread, just the first page with the movie titles


----------



## Legairre

cdnscg said:


> You don't have to look through the complete thread, just the first page with the movie titles


OK fair enough. Wasn't aware they update the first page regularly.


----------



## sdurani

Sweetmeat said:


> Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that, and if they're planning to include Atmos on future 1080p blu-rays?


Blu-rays are still getting Atmos mixes. Recent titles: Suicide Squad, Sully, Deepwater Horizon, Blair Witch, Jack Reacher 2, Hacksaw Ridge, Sing, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. Coming soon: La La Land, xXx: Return of Xander Cage, Great Wall, John Wick 2, Lego Batman movie. So it's not like all the Atmos action is on UHD.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> On the upside, I have wired for two more Submersives at the front And if I feel the need for two more, _I might even make my own_! ¯ ⊂(◉‿◉)つ


Yeah, I hope so!




kbarnes701 said:


> But hey... remind me who once said he thought he needed 6 speakers on the ceiling and who said he thought he didn't












The same guy who actually tried it and found out he didn't need it. 











I don't mess around when it comes to bass. :devil:


----------



## Scott Simonian

Clovis559 said:


> There's no actual Bitstream PCM options.
> It's just Atmos On/Off. Same for Battlefront.
> 
> I made this video real quick:
> https://youtu.be/WRWA23aiKZg


Okay. It does say Atmos on the OSD. Does it still say Atmos when you.... play the game?



Btw, I meant the Windows audio section tools but.... you'll get there.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> AE speakers are very good, but if I were you I'd choose physical speakers if at all possible. If you really can't, then AE speakers will give you a better result than no AE speakers.
> 
> That setup is going to be very front-centric. May I ask why you are not putting some surrounds in at this time?


Hi Keith, nice to hear from you ! 

The not putting in surrounds is that i changed the room setting and putting surrounds will not be possible to do this in a good way.
I have a set of very powerfull fronts, the Magnat Quantum 1009S, a Magnat Quantum 1000S center will be coming soon (use now a custom build center) and then as i have them a set Klipsch RP140SA.

Indeed a bit heavy on the front, but the room is bouncing a lot, and on action parts i still have the feeling sound is also coming from the sides and back.
Think you can call this the "Bose" effect  

As you say that having physical speakers is the best option, i went for the 2 Klipsch speakers near the ceiling as Front Height, see pic.
Sprayed them white, my fronts are white also, as Klipsch only uses black for the RP serie.

Thanks for your always kind and usefull advice


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi Keith, nice to hear from you !


Thanks. Long time no type 



CBdicX said:


> Indeed a bit heavy on the front, but the room is bouncing a lot,


That is not good!  All those bouncing reflections are _destroying_ your imaging. Regardless of being able to fit surrounds, you really ought to take care of those reflections with some sort of acoustic treatments. They can look very good - you can even get them with artwork on them so they look like pictures on the walls. Try it - you will like it I can _guarantee_.


----------



## Sweetmeat

Thanks, everyone, for letting me know that I could play a UHD disk without needing a UHD projector, and for the lists of movies with Atmos.

I assumed playing an UHD disk would require the display to accept a 4k signal. Since that's not the case, how does that work? Is there a setting within the UHD player to send only 1080p resolution, or does the player auto detect the supported resolution and just sends whatever that is? 

If I had an UHD player, I would plan to buy an Oppo and connect it to my AVR which is 4k compatible, however my TV and projector aren't. If the player auto detects the supported resolution, hopefully it would go down the full chain to the TV/Projector rather than just to the AVR.


----------



## Clovis559

Scott Simonian said:


> Okay. It does say Atmos on the OSD. Does it still say Atmos when you.... play the game?
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I meant the Windows audio section tools but.... you'll get there.


Yeah it still says when playing the game.
Window's audio section tools... Get me there!  pour favor! I'm listening


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks. Long time no type
> 
> 
> 
> That is not good!  All those bouncing reflections are _destroying_ your imaging. Regardless of being able to fit surrounds, you really ought to take care of those reflections with some sort of acoustic treatments. They can look very good - you can even get them with artwork on them so they look like pictures on the walls. Try it - you will like it I can _guarantee_.



You know from the past i was not an Audyssey lover.
But now i hear the benefit of using roomcorrection, without the soundstage drops, even with just this 3.0.2 setup, or maybe just because this setup.
(maybe going to buy also the Audyssey app)


Do not think i can get acoustic treament as an option around the wife 
Had a hard time keeping 3.0.2 


Thanks, and hope to read a lot from you again here !!!!


----------



## Mrjmc99

Scott Simonian said:


> Okay. It does say Atmos on the OSD. Does it still say Atmos when you.... play the game?
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I meant the Windows audio section tools but.... you'll get there.


I'll take a screen shot when I get home, with spacial atmos enabled on the pc all audio is sent to the avr as atmos, my game sounded accurate to match it's 7.1 surround option in game, which had previously relied on an analog connection to a sound system.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

Sweetmeat said:


> I was disappointed to see that a lot of the newest movies are including Atmos only on the UHD blu-ray.
> 
> Anyone have any insight to why they're doing that,


The short answer is that the people who run the home video divisions of those studios are dicks.

I could be more polite about it, but that's the cold, hard truth of it.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> The short answer is that the people who run the home video divisions of those studios are dicks.
> 
> I could be more polite about it, but that's the cold, hard truth of it.


Yep, that about sums it up. About all I could add is that studio suits are also technophobic and paranoid.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Clovis559 said:


> Yeah it still says when playing the game.
> Window's audio section tools... Get me there!  pour favor! I'm listening



If it's in Atmos when you're playing then.... what's the problem? 


I'm lost.


----------



## Clovis559

Scott Simonian said:


> If it's in Atmos when you're playing then.... what's the problem?
> 
> 
> I'm lost.


I see. It's kind of like a daisy chained conversation. I was trying to explain to Mrjmc99, that the spatial sounds in Windows CU aren't doing anything for him. He was under the impression that it was improving the sound for Need for Speed. His sound should be the same in Need for Speed After CU, as it was before CU.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ah. I gotcha. 

That part I have no idea about. You're right, it should be the same.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Sweetmeat said:


> Thanks, everyone, for letting me know that I could play a UHD disk without needing a UHD projector, and for the lists of movies with Atmos.
> 
> I assumed playing an UHD disk would require the display to accept a 4k signal. Since that's not the case, how does that work? Is there a setting within the UHD player to send only 1080p resolution, or does the player auto detect the supported resolution and just sends whatever that is?


Normally both. The latter is more convenient for the user.

It's exactly the same situation as having a Blu-Ray player with a Standard Definition TV many years ago. The devices tell each other over the HDMI cable what they can do.

Normally the problem is the other way around - playing DVDs, or Blu-Rays both of which require upscaling on a 4k TV. Because of this and the knowledge that TVs can scale, and AVRs can scale, but sometimes the player's scaling may be better or worse than the TV's - the players are normally very flexible in whether or not they scale.



> If I had an UHD player, I would plan to buy an Oppo and connect it to my AVR which is 4k compatible, however my TV and projector aren't. If the player auto detects the supported resolution, hopefully it would go down the full chain to the TV/Projector rather than just to the AVR.


You'll be in control.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Clovis559 said:


> I see. It's kind of like a daisy chained conversation. I was trying to explain to Mrjmc99, that the spatial sounds in Windows CU aren't doing anything for him. He was under the impression that it was improving the sound for Need for Speed. His sound should be the same in Need for Speed After CU, as it was before CU.


I did a confirmation test in fallout 4 on pc. Previously I would only get a 2 channel output to the avr, now with spacial sound with atmos enabled I am getting an accurate bed level sound reproduction, which confirms my suspicion that windows is taking the raw feed from the game, then applying Dolby surround to it. Which in the case of fall out is either 5 channel or 7 channel. 

To test yourself if you have fallout. You can walk up to a group of friendlies, then wait for them to talk, while they are talking you can turn around, the voices are accurately placed to the front, side, or rear. Previously you would only get 2 channel which can't place voices behind you accurately. 

Here is a screen shot of what my denon sees.

As far as the avr is concerned it's getting an atmos signal, Windows is just doing the up mixing before using the atmos wrapper to send out to avr.

So short version Dolby surround on 5 or 7 channel audio is better than 2 channel audio, (at least for gaming). So I chalk it up as a win.









Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

Only 2ch?

Were you using optical? 

People have been gaming in 5/7.1 PCM for years now through HDMI. Pretty much every game is in surround.



I need to look into this Atmos "spacial sound" you speak of. Hmmm....


----------



## Scott Simonian

Windows 10 Dolby Atmos Spatial Sound dev notes


**for our advanced class reading material

https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/spatial_sound


----------



## Scott Simonian

Looking into it... it does sound like this is DSU for PC. Either in headphone variety or regular.

Surprised Dolby is okay with it outputting as a true Atmos signal and not just PCM.

There might be more to it....I hope. Would be nice if this was encoding in real time and games were still using DirectSound API but I don't think games do that any more. They usually have their own sound engine these days. *sad*


----------



## Stayreal23

I need help.

I'm just not hearing the benefit of the enabled atmos speakers in the 280fa's (I ran Audyssey and did not make any manual adjustments). Granted, my setup is 3.0.2 (rear speakers getting delivered on Tuesday) but I was still expecting to hear some over head effects.

I watched Mad Max: Fury Road and San Andreas and while they both sounded great, I did not get the atmos experience I was expecting.

Will I notice a huge difference once I incorporate the rear surrounds or will it just sound more like a 5.1 setup?

I know this is not an easy question to answer but I was just wondering if you guys had any thoughts.

Additional info....my room is 18x13.5 with 8' flat ceiling.


----------



## batpig

Stayreal23 said:


> I need help.
> 
> I'm just not hearing the benefit of the enabled atmos speakers in the 280fa's (I ran Audyssey and did not make any manual adjustments). Granted, my setup is 3.0.2 (rear speakers getting delivered on Tuesday) but I was still expecting to hear some over head effects.
> 
> I watched Mad Max: Fury Road and San Andreas and while they both sounded great, I did not get the atmos experience I was expecting.
> 
> Will I notice a huge difference once I incorporate the rear surrounds or will it just sound more like a 5.1 setup?
> 
> I know this is not an easy question to answer but I was just wondering if you guys had any thoughts.
> 
> Additional info....my room is 18x13.5 with 8' flat ceiling.


First thing to note is that San Andreas is notorious as one of the early Atmos releases with basically zero overhead info. So don't read anything into that movie.

Next I would ask how far you are sitting from the front speakers? If you're near the back of the room the bounce is going to be so far ahead of you that it may be difficult to discern. Many people bump the level on the up-firing speakers 3-5dB to make them more audible.


----------



## Clovis559

Scott Simonian said:


> Windows 10 Dolby Atmos Spatial Sound dev notes
> 
> 
> **for our advanced class reading material
> 
> https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/spatial_sound


That was a good read, not too informative.

Mrjmc99, your feed for Atmos is from the new spatial sounds. It's not doing anything to or from the game. The spatial sounds setting is creating a lot of confusion. 

Fallout 4 had some problems it's Xaudio2 api and surround in headphones and with receivers. People got it to work long time ago with their headphones and receiver/surround. You could have been playing in surround this whole time.

If you had a Atmos signal to your receiver, it would have object based information from Windows, you would hear sound out of your height speakers. But you don't. I don't. It's not giving you Atmos in your game. You have simply fixed your Fallout 4 surround problem with and attributing it to the Windows Spatial Sound settings.


----------



## chamjin

Hello. I have 5.1 right now and wish to upgrade to 5.1.2 since my avr only allows two more. Would it still be worth it of atmos / dtx if I add them as rear height only compared to other positioning? It would be alot easier if i can position them as rear height facing down, since I have a bookshelf behind MLP. I am considering to get Klipsch rp-140 or SVS prime elevations.

Thanks.


----------



## batpig

chamjin said:


> Hello. I have 5.1 right now and wish to upgrade to 5.1.2 since my avr only allows two more. Would it still be worth it of atmos / dtx if I add them as rear height only compared to other positioning? It would be alot easier if i can position them as rear height facing down, since I have a bookshelf behind MLP. I am considering to get Klipsch rp-140 or SVS prime elevations.
> 
> Thanks.


It would be OK but a LOT less impactful than if you can get them above / in front of you.


----------



## chamjin

batpig said:


> It would be OK but a LOT less impactful than if you can get them above / in front of you.


I see, thank you. Would up-firing from the front also better than from the rear height positions?


----------



## westbergjoakim

Hello!

I have read that some people have got good results when they have their side surrounds in front of MLP.

What do you guys think of that? Will the whole sound get wrong if they are placed at around 85° or something like that?

As for me; I have my MLP around 80cm from my rear wall. Using a 7.2.4-setup. If my sides are at 95-100°, they will be near both rear corners and near the other rear speakers.

So can I have my sides slightly in front of my MLP or will it screw things up even though it's close to the recommendations?


----------



## batpig

westbergjoakim said:


> Hello!
> 
> I have read that some people have got good results when they have their side surrounds in front of MLP.
> 
> What do you guys think of that? Will the whole sound get wrong if they are placed at around 85° or something like that?
> 
> As for me; I have my MLP around 80cm from my rear wall. Using a 7.2.4-setup. If my sides are at 95-100°, they will be near both rear corners and near the other rear speakers.
> 
> So can I have my sides slightly in front of my MLP or will it screw things up even though it's close to the recommendations?


It will work just fine and not screw anything up. And considering your seating position it may even improve things as you'll get more separation from rear vs. side effects, and also close the gap between the surround field and the front soundstage.

You might even want to go slightly forward of 85°, since that's basically directly to the sides. Unless you have a very wide room (or the speakers are dipole), those speakers directly to the sides blasting into your ear holes can become distracting, especially if they are close to ear level in height.


----------



## Clovis559

Mrjmc99 said:


> I did a confirmation test in fallout 4 on pc. Previously I would only get a 2 channel output to the avr, now with spacial sound with atmos enabled I am getting an accurate bed level sound reproduction, which confirms my suspicion that windows is taking the raw feed from the game, then applying Dolby surround to it. Which in the case of fall out is either 5 channel or 7 channel.
> 
> To test yourself if you have fallout. You can walk up to a group of friendlies, then wait for them to talk, while they are talking you can turn around, the voices are accurately placed to the front, side, or rear. Previously you would only get 2 channel which can't place voices behind you accurately.
> 
> Here is a screen shot of what my denon sees.
> 
> As far as the avr is concerned it's getting an atmos signal, Windows is just doing the up mixing before using the atmos wrapper to send out to avr.
> 
> So short version Dolby surround on 5 or 7 channel audio is better than 2 channel audio, (at least for gaming). So I chalk it up as a win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


If the Windows Spatial sound really was upmixing your 2.0 Fallout4 to a surround bed. It would be able to upmix other 2.0 sources. That's where I'm not convinced. Fallout4 does support surround.

Where Medieval2 Total war does not support surround.
I'm getting no sound out of my surround, or even my center. Only left and right speakers.
But it says I got an Atmos Signal! (You can fidget with it and make anything say it's Atmos)









This windows spatial setting for home theater, as far as I know, doesn't do anything at all. I used to think that it enabled Atmos for Edge browser, and the built in "Movies and TV" app.

But when I tested it, no difference, on or off. (sorry for the blurry pictures, I shot off my phone real quick).

Dolby website, Home - Atmos: http://i.imgur.com/5WNe2LA.jpg
(Spatial off, Atmos works)

Ninja Turtles - Atmos: http://i.imgur.com/pmRwij9.jpg
(Spatial off, Atmos works)

If you fidget with it enough, all you can do is make it stamp Atmos on your OSD anytime it uses any sound source, which is more of a bug, but it doesn't change that signal in anyway, it doesn't up-mix it. The sound is the same.


----------



## Clovis559

chamjin said:


> I see, thank you. Would up-firing from the front also better than from the rear height positions?


That would depend on your ceiling. If you have a hard flat, non popcorn cielling, yes/depending.
Depending on what content your watching. Some movies are focused a lot on the front channels for sound, including height. If you put your height in the rear, you might be missing out a lot. Kinda just depends.
As for games, I dunno, I've never tried it.

food for thought!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Interesting. Good post @Clovis559

Will try the headphone function this weekend. 

Wish I had the budget for a new HTPC.... or could be bothered to pick up my current PC and carry it 20ft. Ehhh.


----------



## Clovis559

Scott Simonian said:


> Interesting. Good post @Clovis559
> 
> Will try the headphone function this weekend.
> 
> Wish I had the budget for a new HTPC.... or could be bothered to pick up my current PC and carry it 20ft. Ehhh.


If you factor that your cables are usually 3ft, that makes it 17ft, and that's a lot closer!
I'm left for now to believe, it's for future implementations, future software to support. Maybe instead of publishers having to pay for a license, they can just support it for free through windows. Those of us who have receivers already have paid into it by buying licensed hardware. Those with any headphones $15... and hopefully we can see Atmos wider supported. But for now that's just hopes and speculation.

Be ready for the Dolby Acess App. It's buggy. With your receiver you can watch the headphone videos too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It's a big watercooled system. It's heavy.

I could unhook it all and carry it...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Clovis559 said:


> Be ready for the Dolby Acess App. It's buggy. With your receiver you can watch the headphone videos too.


Awesome. I love bugs! 

Will be trying out the virtualizer for Atmos. My Logitech gaming framework software..... now that has some bugs! Couple days active and it's memory leak has consumed 5gigs of Ram! Ugh.... though these bugs have ruined my PL2x processing for my current gaming headphones. Have had to resort to stereo and software surround processing.


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> Interesting. Good post @*Clovis559*
> 
> Will try the headphone function this weekend.
> 
> Wish I had the budget for a new HTPC.... or could be bothered to pick up my current PC and carry it 20ft. Ehhh.



My HTPC sat 5 feet from my stack and I could not be bothered to run a couple cables.....I hooked a spare 25 foot hdmi up to the back of the reciever for REW and leave it coiled for when people bring over ipads etc.

I just recently, out of being lazy,left my laptop plugged into the hdmi when running REW, closed the laptop and realized it still worked as a pc........so it sits on the top of HTPC closed now.....:laugh:


I might get motivated and run a spare 6 footer to it and pick it up and slide it in the equipment rack....maybe........


----------



## Mrjmc99

Clovis559 said:


> If the Windows Spatial sound really was upmixing your 2.0 Fallout4 to a surround bed. It would be able to upmix other 2.0 sources. That's where I'm not convinced. Fallout4 does support surround.
> 
> Where Medieval2 Total war does not support surround.
> I'm getting no sound out of my surround, or even my center. Only left and right speakers.
> But it says I got an Atmos Signal! (You can fidget with it and make anything say it's Atmos)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This windows spatial setting for home theater, as far as I know, doesn't do anything at all. I used to think that it enabled Atmos for Edge browser, and the built in "Movies and TV" app.
> 
> But when I tested it, no difference, on or off. (sorry for the blurry pictures, I shot off my phone real quick).
> 
> Dolby website, Home - Atmos: http://i.imgur.com/5WNe2LA.jpg
> (Spatial off, Atmos works)
> 
> Ninja Turtles - Atmos: http://i.imgur.com/pmRwij9.jpg
> (Spatial off, Atmos works)
> 
> If you fidget with it enough, all you can do is make it stamp Atmos on your OSD anytime it uses any sound source, which is more of a bug, but it doesn't change that signal in anyway, it doesn't up-mix it. The sound is the same.


I'll test out a few more games, I tried mass effect, need for speed and fallout, I'm guessing that if the game supports a surround mode, then it will take those channels and pass them over, I'll check to see if the height channels have any sound.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

None of these games should have height sounds.

They are not Atmos nor DirectSound3D.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

We have just watched 13 Hours Of Benghazi, very good film and an excellent Atmos track. Plenty of sounds in the wides as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

chamjin said:


> I see, thank you. Would up-firing from the front also better than from the rear height positions?


Generally if you have to choose between speakers in front of you and speakers behind you, I'd choose in front. Our ear/brain is much more sensitive to sounds coming from in front of us. If you can aim the upfiring modules more towards the middle of the ceiling that would be good. Don't be afraid to experiment, letting your ears be the judge as to which positions sound better to you.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Scott Simonian said:


> None of these games should have height sounds.
> 
> They are not Atmos nor DirectSound3D.


Agreed 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## chamjin

Clovis559 said:


> That would depend on your ceiling. If you have a hard flat, non popcorn cielling, yes/depending.
> Depending on what content your watching. Some movies are focused a lot on the front channels for sound, including height. If you put your height in the rear, you might be missing out a lot. Kinda just depends.
> As for games, I dunno, I've never tried it.
> 
> food for thought!





kbarnes701 said:


> Generally if you have to choose between speakers in front of you and speakers behind you, I'd choose in front. Our ear/brain is much more sensitive to sounds coming from in front of us. If you can aim the upfiring modules more towards the middle of the ceiling that would be good. Don't be afraid to experiment, letting your ears be the judge as to which positions sound better to you.


thank you for the advice guys!


----------



## Stayreal23

batpig said:


> First thing to note is that San Andreas is notorious as one of the early Atmos releases with basically zero overhead info. So don't read anything into that movie.
> 
> Next I would ask how far you are sitting from the front speakers? If you're near the back of the room the bounce is going to be so far ahead of you that it may be difficult to discern. Many people bump the level on the up-firing speakers 3-5dB to make them more audible.


I did like you said and increased both up-fires by 4db and I'm happy to report that it made a huge difference. Mad Max and Fifth Element sound amazing now. 

I cant wait to hookup the rears now.

Really appreciate your help.


----------



## Extreman

Scott Simonian said:


> None of these games should have height sounds.
> 
> They are not Atmos nor DirectSound3D.


But if your AVR do Atmos post-processing, will your height channel stay muted? I thought the Atmos decoder did some mixing here....


----------



## wse

Mashie Saldana said:


> We have just watched 13 Hours Of Benghazi, very good film and an excellent Atmos track. Plenty of sounds in the wides as well.


On UHD?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Extreman said:


> But if your AVR do Atmos post-processing, will your height channel stay muted? I thought the Atmos decoder did some mixing here....


Atmos is not post processing. It is a decoder. You decode an Atmos signal.

It won't add things to the heights that aren't meant to be there. It won't add anything. It simply decodes an Atmos signal.

What you're talking about is using DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) to upmix a 5/7.1 signal to then use heights.



wse said:


> On UHD?


It's only on BD.


----------



## Extreman

Scott Simonian said:


> Atmos is not post processing. It is a decoder. You decode an Atmos signal.
> 
> It won't add things to the heights that aren't meant to be there. It won't add anything. It simply decodes an Atmos signal.
> 
> What you're talking about is using DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) to upmix a 5/7.1 signal to then use heights.


Thx.
So,
what is described in my audio processor manual, quote:
'Note: Many movie soundtracks are recorded with 5.1 discrete channels, so post processing is required in order for playback in a 7.1 or 5.1.2 channel system to utilize all of the channels. Choosing Dolby Atmos or DTS Neural-X for example, will generate the extra rear or top/height channel signals necessary. Without post processing applied, only the original 5.1 channels will play, leaving the rear or top/height channels silent.'

and

'A processing mode that can be used to decode Dolby Atmos encoded streams or as a post-processing mode to generate content for all channels in your chosen configuration. For example, a stereo signal could be up-mixed to a 3D audio experience with 5.1.2 using Dolby Atmos. As a post-processing mode, Dolby Atmos may be applied to streams of all types except DTS:X. The Dolby Atmos mode encompasses decoding capability for all Dolby Digital streams up to and including Dolby TrueHD.'

.... is the DSU?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Extreman said:


> Thx.
> So,
> what is described in my audio processor manual, quote:
> 'Note: Many movie soundtracks are recorded with 5.1 discrete channels, so post processing is required in order for playback in a 7.1 or 5.1.2 channel system to utilize all of the channels. Choosing Dolby Atmos or DTS Neural-X for example, will generate the extra rear or top/height channel signals necessary. Without post processing applied, only the original 5.1 channels will play, leaving the rear or top/height channels silent.'
> 
> and
> 
> 'A processing mode that can be used to decode Dolby Atmos encoded streams or as a post-processing mode to generate content for all channels in your chosen configuration. For example, a stereo signal could be up-mixed to a 3D audio experience with 5.1.2 using Dolby Atmos. As a post-processing mode, Dolby Atmos may be applied to streams of all types except DTS:X. The Dolby Atmos mode encompasses decoding capability for all Dolby Digital streams up to and including Dolby TrueHD.'
> 
> .... is the DSU?


That manual is badly written, they are describing DSU except for when they mention Dolby Atmos encoded streams.


----------



## funky54

Mashie Saldana said:


> That manual is badly written, they are describing DSU except for when they mention Dolby Atmos encoded streams.


I'm sorry, but this really confused me. Would you be kind enough to break this down a little more?

I'm trying to confirm a few things before pulling the trigger on gear.
Please tell me if I'm wrong:
If I buy an ultra HD player, the audio (whatever it is, stereo, atmos) will be bit streamed (HDMI) to my Marantz pre that will decode and convert the digital info to analog. I can set the Marantz to upmix any signal to become Atmos or 5.1.4?

If that's right, I do want to confirm the player is only passing whatever signal it has and is not processing any audio?

I got the folks over in the oppo thread really angry because I don't see a benefit in any ultra players dac if all they will do is pass by bitstream. This is why I bought the Marantz, cause now it will do all those tasks. Am I right about that?


----------



## cdnscg

funky54 said:


> I'm sorry, but this really confused me. Would you be kind enough to break this down a little more?
> 
> I'm trying to confirm a few things before pulling the trigger on gear.
> Please tell me if I'm wrong:
> If I buy an ultra HD player, the audio (whatever it is, stereo, atmos) will be bit streamed (HDMI) to my Marantz pre that will decode and convert the digital info to analog. I can set the Marantz to upmix any signal to become Atmos or 5.1.4?
> 
> If that's right, I do wan to confirm the player is only passing whatever signal it has and is not processing any audio?


When set to bitstream, the signal is not manipulated by the BD or HDR player, it is the avr that reads the signal and sends the format it is in. If the disc has Atmos, and the avr can reproduce Atmos, then that's what you get. If the signal is not Atmos, an avr with Atmos ability should be able to artificially produce an Atmos sound field, but it won't be as good as a true Atmos sound track.


----------



## funky54

cdnscg said:


> When set to bitstream, the signal is not manipulated by the BD or HDR player, it is the avr that reads the signal and sends the format it is in. If the disc has Atmos, and the avr can reproduce Atmos, then that's what you get. If the signal is not Atmos, an avr with Atmos ability should be able to artificially produce an Atmos sound field, but it won't be as good as a true Atmos sound track.


Ok, that's the way I understand it. (Thanks by the way). So, is there any reason one ultra HD player is better than another in regards to audio if all it will ever be used for is physical content movies?


----------



## mrtickleuk

funky54 said:


> Ok, that's the way I understand it. (Thanks by the way). So, is there any reason one ultra HD player is better than another in regards to audio if all it will ever be used for is physical content movies?


In regards to audio, no. They will either send the whole audio bitstream to the AVR, or they won't (and then they are broken)


----------



## cdnscg

mrtickleuk said:


> In regards to audio, no. They will either send the whole audio bitstream to the AVR, or they won't (and then they are broken)


Well, some believe certain players handle the delivery of the sound track better than others. When I had the Panasonic UB900, I noticed an improvement in sound versus my older Sony BD player. This may also hold true for different HDR players.


----------



## muzz

cdnscg said:


> Well, some believe certain players handle the delivery of the sound track better than others. When I had the Panasonic UB900, I noticed an improvement in sound versus my older Sony BD player. This may also hold true for different HDR players.


Bitstream? It's a pass through.


----------



## cdnscg

muzz said:


> Bitstream? It's a pass through.


What can I say, I noticed a difference


----------



## Clovis559

cdnscg said:


> muzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitstream? It's a pass through.
> 
> 
> 
> What can I say, I noticed a difference
Click to expand...

What content have you noticed a difference on? Specifically non Atmos content that was upmixed to atmos.

I'm always looking for more, but I've never seen anything upmixed, to Atmos, yet. Maybe someone has found something. I would definitely want to try it. Game? Movie? Software?


----------



## kbarnes701

funky54 said:


> If I buy an ultra HD player, the audio (whatever it is, stereo, atmos) will be bit streamed (HDMI) to my Marantz pre that will decode and convert the digital info to analog. I can set the Marantz to upmix any signal to become Atmos or 5.1.4?


You seem to be getting confused by some of the terminology. You don't 'upmix' to Atmos 5.1.4. Atmos is 'baked in' if you will, just like DTS HD MA 7.1 or Dolby TrueHD for example. Upmixing is when you have more speakers than are catered for in the content. So if you have 7 speakers and your content is 5.1 then you can upmix it to 7.1 so that all your speakers are used. Similarly, if you have 4 speakers on your ceiling and you play a 5.1 content disc, then the upmixer (in this case DSU) will send sound to all of your speakers, including the overheads. The upmixer algorithm works out what to send to where. But if you play an Atmos soundtrack on that system, there is no upmixing required since the content is already dedicated to all the speakers anyway.

To send Atmos content, you need to bitstream the signal out.

Any help?


----------



## smurraybhm

@kbarnes701
I go away for a few weeks and look who's back


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> @kbarnes701
> I go away for a few weeks and look who's back


LOL. I just made what I thought was a flying visit to check up on all you lot, and guess what? I am sucked right back in. 

In my year off I've learned not to post I suppose, so I doubt if I will ever be as prolific as I was, but if I am here and can offer anything, I will. I still owe AVS and the likes of Sanjay, Batpig, Jerry, etc etc a huge debt for the knowledge I have acquired over the years. It has meant I can discuss my new HT build with my installer on much more of a one-to-one basis and that is helping us both deliver exactly what I am looking for.

I still love Atmos and can't wait to hear it in my new, much bigger, much taller room. Not long to go - end of May is my scheduled completion date and the guys are bang on target so far.

Nice to chat with you again too  

BTW, this is my cowshed. Look at the height of that ceiling and imagine Dolby Atmos speakers up there!


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. I just made what I thought was a flying visit to check up on all you lot, and guess what? I am sucked right back in.
> 
> In my year off I've learned not to post I suppose, so I doubt if I will ever be as prolific as I was, but if I am here and can offer anything, I will. I still owe AVS and the likes of Sanjay, Batpig, Jerry, etc etc a huge debt for the knowledge I have acquired over the years. It has meant I can discuss my new HT build with my installer on much more of a one-to-one basis and that is helping us both deliver exactly what I am looking for.
> 
> I still love Atmos and can't wait to hear it in my new, much bigger, much taller room. Not long to go - end of May is my scheduled completion date and the guys are bang on target so far.
> 
> Nice to chat with you again too
> 
> BTW, this is my cowshed. Look at the height of that ceiling and imagine Dolby Atmos speakers up there!


Welcome back! I take it that Cowshed = New Home Theater ? 

Nice space! Do you plan on sound treatments? A Trinnov for 32 Atmos channels? Separate power supply and going green with solar panels on the roof? (Possible across the pond?) Screen size? Probably located towards the front of your picture (long ways)? 

Elevator to accommodate guests? Vacation package (priced reasonably, of course) for out of town/country visitors with special discount for AVS Forum Members, including tour of local pubs, restaurants with Dolby Atmos movies nightly?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, this is my cowshed. Look at the height of that ceiling and imagine Dolby Atmos speakers up there!


Nice! That height would be ideal for adding (narrow) Top Middles and not having to worry about speaker localization.


----------



## richlife

Clovis559 said:


> What content have you noticed a difference on? Specifically non Atmos content that was upmixed to atmos.
> 
> I'm always looking for more, but I've never seen anything upmixed, to Atmos, yet. Maybe someone has found something. I would definitely want to try it. Game? Movie? Software?


Atmos/DTS:X results from information encoded (superimposed) in the Dolby True HD/DTS HD MA bitstream. It is "physical" bits (so to speak). Upmixing, in contrast, expands the existing bitsream info to utilize other channels than what was originally recorded. On the Yamahas, the Exhanced DSP can SIMULATE or "enhance" the non-Atmos?DTS:X bitstream to provide an immersive "Atmos/DTS:X-like" audio experience. But only Atmos or DTS:X are actually Atmos or DTS:X -- no upmixing can "create" Atmos or DTS:X. (But that Enhanced DSP can be damn close or "better". The latter depends on your environment and your perception.)



kbarnes701 said:


> You seem to be getting confused by some of the terminology. You don't 'upmix' to Atmos 5.1.4. Atmos is 'baked in' if you will, just like DTS HD MA 7.1 or Dolby TrueHD for example. Upmixing is when you have more speakers than are catered for in the content. So if you have 7 speakers and your content is 5.1 then you can upmix it to 7.1 so that all your speakers are used. Similarly, if you have 4 speakers on your ceiling and you play a 5.1 content disc, then the upmixer (in this case DSU) will send sound to all of your speakers, including the overheads. The upmixer algorithm works out what to send to where. But if you play an Atmos soundtrack on that system, there is no upmixing required since the content is already dedicated to all the speakers anyway.
> 
> To send Atmos content, you need to bitstream the signal out.
> 
> Any help?


Well stated and totally consistent with my comment above. 



kbarnes701 said:


> *LOL. I just made what I thought was a flying visit to check up on all you lot, and guess what? I am sucked right back in. *
> 
> In my year off I've learned not to post I suppose, so I doubt if I will ever be as prolific as I was, but if I am here and can offer anything, I will. I still owe AVS and the likes of Sanjay, Batpig, Jerry, etc etc a huge debt for the knowledge I have acquired over the years. It has meant I can discuss my new HT build with my installer on much more of a one-to-one basis and that is helping us both deliver exactly what I am looking for.
> 
> I still love Atmos and can't wait to hear it in my new, much bigger, much taller room. Not long to go - end of May is my scheduled completion date and the guys are bang on target so far.
> 
> Nice to chat with you again too
> 
> BTW, this is my cowshed. Look at the height of that ceiling and imagine Dolby Atmos speakers up there!


I have been trying to "break off" for months. Not quit, just rein in (I'm sure some wish I would  ). But with constant new upgrades (on my part), new HT developments and releases in this realm, and my being physically limited during most of this time by a bad knee and consequent replacement, I keep being "forced" back. And what a boon for a near invalid! But so very, very addictive. 

I agree with all you said.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Welcome back! I take it that Cowshed = New Home Theater ?


Thanks and yes it is. There's a link in my sig if you care to take a look. I believe you can browse without registering.



Ricoflashback said:


> Nice space! Do you plan on sound treatments?


Oh yes. We are soundproofing it too, so a ton of Rockwool has already gone into it, along with various other soundproofing measures.



Ricoflashback said:


> A Trinnov for 32 Atmos channels?


No  I am happy with 7.1.4 for now. Although it's a fairly big space, it will only have a single row of 5 seats, and I think 4 on the ceiling is enough for that. I don't think there would be any audible benefit from a middle row overhead. Maybe even a negative as they would be directly overhead and that could be distracting. For those with multiple rows though, absolutely. My main benefit from Atmos will come, I believe, from the much higher ceiling than is usually found in a domestic room. Great for separation from the floor levels speakers and should really add to the impression of spaciousness.



Ricoflashback said:


> Separate power supply and going green with solar panels on the roof? (Possible across the pond?)


Separate power supply because it's just practical to do that - I don't think it will make any significant difference (we have 240v here remember). I did consider solar panels but in the UK there is no longer a government subsidy for installing them and without it, one will never break even on the cost compared with just using regular electricity.



Ricoflashback said:


> Screen size? Probably located towards the front of your picture (long ways)?


11.5 feet on the short end of the space. Seating distance 11.5 feet. Scope CIH screen with automated masking. (We haven’t used the full length of the space as we wanted a small gym at one end - hence the single row of seats). The cinema is coming in at about 21 feet long and 16 wide.



Ricoflashback said:


> Elevator to accommodate guests? Vacation package (priced reasonably, of course) for out of town/country visitors with special discount for AVS Forum Members, including tour of local pubs, restaurants with Dolby Atmos movies nightly?


Hahaha. Yes all of that other than the elevator


----------



## kbarnes701

richlife said:


> I have been trying to "break off" for months. Not quit, just rein in (I'm sure some wish I would  ). But with constant new upgrades (on my part), new HT developments and releases in this realm, and my being physically limited during most of this time by a bad knee and consequent replacement, I keep being "forced" back. And what a boon for a near invalid! But so very, very addictive.
> 
> I agree with all you said.


Cold turkey is the only way! I am a recovering AVS-er, lapsed


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> I take it that Cowshed = New Home Theater ?


Tried to get him to call it Barnes' Barn, but the name didn't take.


----------



## richlife

kbarnes701 said:


> Cold turkey is the only way! I am a recovering AVS-er, lapsed


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## mrtickleuk

cdnscg said:


> Well, some believe certain players handle the delivery of the sound track better than others.


People can "believe" all they like, they can believe the Earth is flat if they like - but the fact remains that it's a bitstream of data, and the exact same stream of bits come off the disc and are sent down the cable regardless of which player is being used. If not, and any given player can't read data off a disc, it's got much bigger problems


----------



## keeper

Hey guys need some guidance. I am running 7.1.2 now with two ceiling speakers placed around 4 feet in in front of mlp. I like it but want to go with two more in ceiling top back speakers. How important is it to have both sets of ceiling speakers in line with each other? What I would like to do is spread my top back ceiling speakers out more so than the top front speakers. The top front is probably 3 1/2 out from each side wall. I'd like to put the top back speakers very close to the side walls. My room is around 29' long so I have a good 10ft between top front and top back. I have a Yamaha 3040 if that helps.


----------



## Extreman

The Atmos height channel information superimposed on the 7.1 HD bitstream, is this metadata (for decoder or DSU processing) or actual sound information?

And, if audio is bitstreamed, aren't those bits prone to timing errors, i.e. sensitive to jitter issues that may explain difference in SQ?


----------



## ggsantafe

kbarnes701 said:


> Cold turkey is the only way! I am a recovering AVS-er, lapsed


Shades of Michael Corleone


----------



## funky54

kbarnes701 said:


> You seem to be getting confused by some of the terminology. You don't 'upmix' to Atmos 5.1.4. Atmos is 'baked in' if you will, just like DTS HD MA 7.1 or Dolby TrueHD for example. Upmixing is when you have more speakers than are catered for in the content. So if you have 7 speakers and your content is 5.1 then you can upmix it to 7.1 so that all your speakers are used. Similarly, if you have 4 speakers on your ceiling and you play a 5.1 content disc, then the upmixer (in this case DSU) will send sound to all of your speakers, including the overheads. The upmixer algorithm works out what to send to where. But if you play an Atmos soundtrack on that system, there is no upmixing required since the content is already dedicated to all the speakers anyway.
> 
> To send Atmos content, you need to bitstream the signal out.
> 
> Any help?


It does help. But that's kinda what I knew. What I would like to understand better is the DSU. Is it just separating frequencies and randomly throwing surround mix across 6 speakers? (Surround L, SR, Front height, rear height) or is it smart somehow knowing what "should" go to front or rear heights and what should stay as surrounds?


----------



## richlife

keeper said:


> Hey guys need some guidance. I am running 7.1.2 now with two ceiling speakers placed around 4 feet in in front of mlp. I like it but want to go with two more in ceiling top back speakers. How important is it to have both sets of ceiling speakers in line with each other? What I would like to do is spread my top back ceiling speakers out more so than the top front speakers. The top front is probably 3 1/2 out from each side wall. I'd like to put the top back speakers very close to the side walls. My room is around 29' long so I have a good 10ft between top front and top back. I have a Yamaha 3040 if that helps.


Being "inline" is minor. Due to the shape of my room (actually two rooms offset about 4 feet), inline is impossible. May be just me, but I can't tell that there is any issue. And actually, none of my presence speakers are the same distance from the walls, nor are the fronts and rears the same distance between them. (See my signature home theater thread for more info.) 

However, placing the speakers too close to the walls can be an issue. I struggled a bit (per the above) to keep the rear speakers away from the walls. My closest is about 2 feet. IMO (and just opinion), one foot would be too close -- you will get reflection. 



Extreman said:


> The Atmos height channel information superimposed on the 7.1 HD bitstream, is this metadata (for decoder or DSU processing) or actual sound information?
> 
> And, if audio is bitstreamed, aren't those bits prone to timing errors, i.e. sensitive to jitter issues that may explain difference in SQ?


You need an Atmos decoder in your AVR to extract and insert the metadata appropriately as sound. (I indicated before that a DSU -- or a DSP for that matter -- does not handle this. 

As for jitter, if that is an issue there is more to be concerned about. Not anything I've had to deal with -- ever. Anyone have a good answer for this?


----------



## sdurani

Extreman said:


> The Atmos height channel information superimposed on the 7.1 HD bitstream, is this metadata (for decoder or DSU processing) or actual sound information?


Think of an Atmos soundtrack as containing two basic parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). Height channel information is never metadata (i.e., you're never listening to the instructions part of the digital signal). 

Your question is conflating two different technologies: Atmos decoding and DSU processing. Atmos mixes have audio objects placed in the height speakers. DSU extracts ambient information from a 7.1 mix and places it in the height speakers. So, in both cases, the heights get _"actual sound information"_ that is 100% from the soundtrack itself.


> And, if audio is bitstreamed, aren't those bits prone to timing errors, i.e. sensitive to jitter issues that may explain difference in SQ?


Doubt it would happen to encoded bitstreams, though possibly to decoded PCM signals.


----------



## sdurani

keeper said:


> How important is it to have both sets of ceiling speakers in line with each other?


Preferable but not critical. Preferable because the more symmetrical the placement, the greater consistency you'll have during playback. So when a sound pans from front to back, like a helicopter circling overhead, it won't appear to spread apart when it's behind you. Doesn't mean you can't spread your rear heights apart, just understand what sort of results you get.


----------



## cdnscg

Clovis559 said:


> What content have you noticed a difference on? Specifically non Atmos content that was upmixed to atmos.
> 
> I'm always looking for more, but I've never seen anything upmixed, to Atmos, yet. Maybe someone has found something. I would definitely want to try it. Game? Movie? Software?


Sorry, the difference in sound I mentioned was before I had my 5.1.4 set up. I noticed a heavier bass concentration from the Panasonic with my 5.1.


----------



## cdnscg

mrtickleuk said:


> People can "believe" all they like, they can believe the Earth is flat if they like - but the fact remains that it's a bitstream of data, and the exact same stream of bits come off the disc and are sent down the cable regardless of which player is being used. If not, and any given player can't read data off a disc, it's got much bigger problems


Ok, then does a 5-year-old BR player have the exact same compontents as a 2017 HDR player. Say what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the UB900 sounded better to me than my 5 year old Sony BD player. Plus, what do you mean, the Earth isn't flat


----------



## deano86

cdnscg said:


> Ok, then does a 5-year-old BR player have the exact same compontents as a 2017 HDR player. Say what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the UB900 sounded better to me than my 5 year old Sony BD player. Plus, what do you mean, the Earth isn't flat


I think what it's really called is "The Placebo Effect" ... and it really takes a hold after purchasing new AV goodies!!... and we all get afflicted with it! It's what makes this expensive hobby so much fun... lol!


----------



## kbarnes701

funky54 said:


> It does help. But that's kinda what I knew. What I would like to understand better is the DSU. Is it just separating frequencies and randomly throwing surround mix across 6 speakers? (Surround L, SR, Front height, rear height) or is it smart somehow knowing what "should" go to front or rear heights and what should stay as surrounds?


No, there is nothing random about it. All upmixers work to an algorithm. The algorithm 'looks at' what content is in the 'baked in' channels (eg the 5.1) and it then, in the case of DSU, extracts certain information and sends it to the overhead speakers and to the rear surrounds if present. The algorithm identifies diffuse or non-directional components of the signal and distributes them across the available loudspeakers. Directional components of the sound aren't touched, so, for example, anything sent to the centre speaker is ignored by DSU or you could have dialog suddenly coming from the ceiling.

Dolby described it like this: "Unlike previous wideband upmixing technologies, the Dolby surround upmixer operates on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands for a fine-grained analysis of the source signal. The Dolby surround upmixer can individually steer frequency bands, producing surround sound with precisely located audio elements and a spacious ambience.”

Notice the use of the word 'steer' there. DSU actually does steer the upmixed content to the appropriate speaker, so when, for example, the helicopter moves from the left side of the room (above you) to the right side, the sound will do the same even in the upmixed version. Now it clearly won't do it as well as if it was Atmos, with discrete sounds placed precisely where the mixer intended them to be placed, but most of us have been amazed at how well DSU works. Very rarely does content get sent to the 'wrong' speakers.

So there's nothing random about it - far from it. I can pretty much guarantee that if you try it you will not be disappointed. If you go back through this long thread you will find most people are hugely impressed by DSU, me included.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Tried to get him to call it Barnes' Barn, but the name didn't take.


 That is the working name of the project for the installers. It's not bad. I haven't really settled on a name yet and just use Cowshed because that is what the building originally was. It wasn't actually a barn. *I* live in the barn! LOL.


----------



## Extreman

sdurani said:


> Preferable but not critical. Preferable because the more symmetrical the placement, the greater consistency you'll have during playback. So when a sound pans from front to back, like a helicopter circling overhead, it won't appear to spread apart when it's behind you. Doesn't mean you can't spread your rear heights apart, just understand what sort of results you get.


But at least the speaker distance setting in your processor is in play and this may help out a little for 2D compensation/sound delay due to asymmetric localization?


----------



## cdnscg

Extreman said:


> But at least the speaker distance setting in your processor is in play and this may help out a little for 2D compensation/sound delay due to asymmetric localization?


That's a good point you touch on. If one wanted to increase the sound coming from the rear heights (to produce a more enveloping sound field) in Atmos, should you adjust the speaker distance, speaker level, or both?


----------



## sdurani

Extreman said:


> But at least the speaker distance setting in your processor is in play and this may help out a little for 2D compensation/sound delay due to asymmetric localization?


Speaker distance settings can compensate for proximity, by delaying a nearby speaker to appear the same distance away as all other speakers, but it can't do anything about angles. For example: if you place your L/C/R speakers right next to each other, it can't change their angles to make them appear wider apart. 

Same with the rear heights: there's no electronic way to compensate for the fact that they'll be much wider apart than his front heights. It won't stop his system from working. But let's not kid ourselves about what it will sound like when something pans from front to back. Again, I didn't tell him not to do it (especially if he has no other option), as long as he understands the results he'll end up with.


----------



## funky54

kbarnes701 said:


> No, there is nothing random about it. All upmixers work to an algorithm. The algorithm 'looks at' what content is in the 'baked in' channels (eg the 5.1) and it then, in the case of DSU, extracts certain information and sends it to the overhead speakers and to the rear surrounds if present. The algorithm identifies diffuse or non-directional components of the signal and distributes them across the available loudspeakers. Directional components of the sound aren't touched, so, for example, anything sent to the centre speaker is ignored by DSU or you could have dialog suddenly coming from the ceiling.
> 
> Dolby described it like this: "Unlike previous wideband upmixing technologies, the Dolby surround upmixer operates on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands for a fine-grained analysis of the source signal. The Dolby surround upmixer can individually steer frequency bands, producing surround sound with precisely located audio elements and a spacious ambience.”
> 
> Notice the use of the word 'steer' there. DSU actually does steer the upmixed content to the appropriate speaker, so when, for example, the helicopter moves from the left side of the room (above you) to the right side, the sound will do the same even in the upmixed version. Now it clearly won't do it as well as if it was Atmos, with discrete sounds placed precisely where the mixer intended them to be placed, but most of us have been amazed at how well DSU works. Very rarely does content get sent to the 'wrong' speakers.
> 
> So there's nothing random about it - far from it. I can pretty much guarantee that if you try it you will not be disappointed. If you go back through this long thread you will find most people are hugely impressed by DSU, me included.


Hey thanks for a detailed reply. I also appreciate it being said in a way so I grasp it. Sometimes the technical details are related a little over my head.


----------



## smurraybhm

sdurani said:


> Tried to get him to call it Barnes' Barn, but the name didn't take.


Much better than the Hobbit he is moving from - we can always call Keith's theater what we want to on AVS, unless it makes him disappear. If that's the case some of the Auro guys might start using your suggested name


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: Dolby described it like this: "Unlike previous wideband upmixing technologies, the Dolby surround upmixer operates on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands for a fine-grained analysis of the source signal. The Dolby surround upmixer can individually steer frequency bands, producing surround sound with precisely located audio elements and a spacious ambience.”

Great explanation! I find DSU to be very engaging on most non Atmos material (especially movies) and it adds a lot of enjoyment to the source - - even two channel streams. 

My significant other operates "on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands," of which, most I do not understand. (Nor do I seek to understand. I just enjoy it for what it is....just like DSU!)


----------



## sdrucker

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: Dolby described it like this: "Unlike previous wideband upmixing technologies, the Dolby surround upmixer operates on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands for a fine-grained analysis of the source signal. The Dolby surround upmixer can individually steer frequency bands, producing surround sound with precisely located audio elements and a spacious ambience.”
> 
> Great explanation! I find DSU to be very engaging on most non Atmos material (especially movies) and it adds a lot of enjoyment to the source - - even two channel streams.
> 
> My significant other operates "on multiple perceptually spaced frequency bands," of which, most I do not understand. (Nor do I seek to understand. I just enjoy it for what it is....just like DSU!)


This may sound like a weird question, but has anyone on AVS run full-spectrum pink noise or a sine wave and measured what frequencies are getting steered to a center channel by DSU vs. sides or rear surrounds? Just curious.


----------



## burton14e7

I'm building a new house and selected 7.2.4 before I realized my room wasn't technically big enough to handle that setup using dolby's atmos guide, my ceilings are 10' so the atmos speakers should be 6' in front and behind and my room isn't that long based on where I want to place the couch. I came up with the attached and reading the posts above it looks like I'll have reflection from having the atmos speakers so close to the side walls. Do you guys have any suggestions for moving the atmos speakers or should I just go with it as is and let room correction do it's thing and be happy with what I have.

The room is 16'4 long and 15'10 wide


----------



## deano86

sdrucker said:


> This may sound like a weird question, but has anyone on AVS run full-spectrum pink noise or a sine wave and measured what frequencies are getting steered to a center channel by DSU vs. sides or rear surrounds? Just curious.


Man! I thought I was an AV geek, but this request takes the cake!


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdrucker said:


> This may sound like a weird question, but has anyone on AVS run full-spectrum pink noise or a sine wave and measured what frequencies are getting steered to a center channel by DSU vs. sides or rear surrounds? Just curious.


Above my pay grade or "AVS IQ Quotient." 

I thought that DSU did not direct any frequencies or content to the center channel. Maybe to the side or rear surrounds. Perhaps some of our more distinguished AVS Forum Members can chirp in. 

PRIMER ON NOISE 

*White noise *can be explained as a “static” sound. It combines sounds and tones that range across all frequencies. This combination of sounds and tones acts as a wall or a shield for other noises within the room or area a person is in.

*Pink Noise *can be compared to the sound of ocean waves or running water such as rain. Pink noise is sound in which every octave has a consistent frequency and it generally uses lower frequencies of sound. 

*Brown Noise:* Sometimes referred to as red noise or Brownian noise, brown noise has a sound of a roar or of thunder but at a much lower sound frequency. It uses much lower frequencies of sound than higher ones.

*WAF Noise:* A constant, high pitched, "nasally" sound directed at Home Theater Enthusiasts for buying too much equipment, too many speakers and creating "boom" sounds when watching movies in addition to "breaking the household budget." A WAF "Sine Wave" can vary in intensity and frequency. It can appear and disappear at random making it difficult to ascertain the exact cause or trigger event.


----------



## sdurani

burton14e7 said:


> I'll have reflection from having the atmos speakers so close to the side walls.


Move them away from the side walls. What are the dimensions of your room?


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> This may sound like a weird question, but has anyone on AVS run full-spectrum pink noise or a sine wave and measured what frequencies are getting steered to a center channel by DSU vs. sides or rear surrounds?


Since it is decorrelated noise, I doubt any of it would end up in the centre output. Most surround processing (upmixing) sends decorrelated info to the speakers outside the front soundstage. However, if you play a full range sweep in the left & right channels simultaneously, that will be a correlated (in-phase) mono signal that should get fully extracted the centre output. If you measure the centre output (at the RCA jack of the AVR or pre-pro), you'll see the frequency response of the extracted centre signal.


----------



## burton14e7

sdurani said:


> Move them away from the side walls. What are the dimensions of your room?


I just realized I forgot that in my post when I was staring at my mockup. 16'4" by 15'10".


----------



## sdurani

burton14e7 said:


> I just realized I forgot that in my post when I was staring at my mockup. 16'4" by 15'10".


Thanx. Are you willing to move your couch a little forward, so that the listeners' ears are 1/3 room length from the back wall? (listeners' ears, NOT the back of the couch) That will go a long way to giving you smoother frequency response AND greater rear-vs-side separation in the surround field and overhead.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Since it is decorrelated noise, I doubt any of it would end up in the centre output. Most surround processing (upmixing) sends decorrelated info to the speakers outside the front soundstage. However, if you play a full range sweep in the left & right channels simultaneously, that will be a correlated (in-phase) mono signal that should get fully extracted the centre output. If you measure the centre output (at the RCA jack of the AVR or pre-pro), you'll see the frequency response of the extracted centre signal.


Thx Sanjay. That explanation makes sense.


----------



## burton14e7

sdurani said:


> Thanx. Are you willing to move your couch a little forward, so that the listeners' ears are 1/3 room length from the back wall? (listeners' ears, NOT the back of the couch) That will go a long way to giving you smoother frequency response AND greater rear-vs-side separation in the surround field and overhead.


Absolutely, it looks like I'm pretty much there with my guestimate listening position at 11' from the front of the wall, which is 5'4" from the rear wall. 1/3 of 16'4" is 5'5" and change. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestions. Thank you for helping.

I moved the MLP up to 10'11" and moved the atmos speakers 2' away from the walls. Is it a big deal if the atmos speakers are a little inside the front left and rights? Trying to see if I can get them further off the wall.


----------



## Extreman

kbarnes701 said:


> Very rarely does content get sent to the 'wrong' speakers.


One comment to this;
If one set the speaker cut-off frequency 'wrongly', wouldn't this cause a panning problem?
Example:
Mains set to 50Hz
Surround set to 90Hz
Atmos set to 120Hz
I guess this means that height channel frequencies between 120-90Hz will be sent to the surrounds but below 90Hz, surround channels will be sent to the fronts, which in turn will sound wrong (localization wise) for the upper part of the frequency band that still could be localized aurally in 3D space by humans (?)
- Or is this not happening like I state above?


----------



## kbarnes701

smurraybhm said:


> Much better than the Hobbit he is moving from - we can always call Keith's theater what we want to on AVS, unless it makes him disappear. If that's the case some of the Auro guys might start using your suggested name


Surely Auro has died by now hasn't it? I know I've been away for a year, but in that time has there been a flurry of movies released in Auro then? I know we have had numerous Atmos releases on BD and UHD, and even a few DTS:X, but Auro??


----------



## sdurani

burton14e7 said:


> I'm pretty much there with my guestimate listening position at 11' from the front of the wall, which is 5'4" from the rear wall. 1/3 of 16'4" is 5'5" and change.


That's perfect. Your room length is going to cause certain frequencies (35Hz, 69Hz, 104Hz, etc) to resonate, which will result in peaks & nulls along the length of your room. 11' from the front wall is one of the locations where the frequency response has the least amount variation/swing in level. Fewer/smaller peaks & dips mean smoother frequency response. Hence a good location to place the listeners' ears.


----------



## kbarnes701

burton14e7 said:


> Is it a big deal if the atmos speakers are a little inside the front left and rights? Trying to see if I can get them further off the wall.


Don't worry about it, or overthink it. Moving them inboard a little is fine. Try to get good separation between all the speakers in the room and you will be good to go. IOW, put speakers in spaces where there are no speakers. You're aiming for a 'dome' of sound. Dolby guidelines for home Atmos speaker placement are very flexible, which indicates that precise positioning isn't required. Just try to keep a reasonable separation between the overheads and the floor speakers. And remember what Dolby said back at the launch, when people were bombarding them with similar questions to yours: "It's really difficult to make Atmos *not* work".


----------



## burton14e7

sdurani said:


> That's perfect. Your room length is going to cause certain frequencies (35Hz, 69Hz, 104Hz, etc) to resonate, which will result in peaks & nulls along the length of your room. 11' from the front wall is one of the locations where the frequency response has the least amount variation/swing in level. Fewer/smaller peaks & dips mean smoother frequency response. Hence a good location to place the listeners' ears.


You are a saint, thank you so much for making me feel more comfortable with planning this out.


----------



## kbarnes701

Extreman said:


> One comment to this;
> If one set the speaker cut-off frequency 'wrongly', wouldn't this cause a panning problem?
> Example:
> Mains set to 50Hz
> Surround set to 90Hz
> Atmos set to 120Hz
> I guess this means that height channel frequencies between 120-90Hz will be sent to the surrounds but below 90Hz, surround channels will be sent to the fronts, which in turn will sound wrong (localization wise) for the upper part of the frequency band that still could be localized aurally in 3D space by humans (?)
> - Or is this not happening like I state above?


It depends if you can localise frequencies at 120Hz or not. Personally I would never cross over that high. If you *have* to cross over that high, it implies that you might need to reconsider the overhead speaker choice. 

Not sure what you mean by "below 90Hz, surround channels will be sent to the fronts". The crossover determines which frequencies are sent to the subwoofer, not to other speakers. Unless I am reading you wrong.


----------



## sdurani

burton14e7 said:


> Is it a big deal if the atmos speakers are a little inside the front left and rights?


On the contrary, commercial Atmos installs have the height arrays splitting the L/C/R speakers. Dubbing stages, where most of the Atmos soundtracks are mixed, tend to be smaller versions of commercial theatres. So all their left height speakers are half way between the L and C speaker while all the right height speakers are half way between the C and R speaker. Again, this is the placement used when mixing most of the Atmos tracks you hear. So not a problem if your heights are a little inside your L/R speakers. 












> Trying to see if I can get them further off the wall.


For your room dimensions, I would try to get the heights around 1/6 room width in from the side walls.


----------



## burton14e7

sdurani said:


> On the contrary, commercial Atmos installs have the height arrays splitting the L/C/R speakers. Dubbing stages, where most of the Atmos soundtracks are mixed, tend to be smaller versions of commercial theatres. So all their left height speakers are half way between the L and C speaker while all the right height speakers are half way between the C and R speaker. Again, this is the placement used when mixing most of the Atmos tracks you hear. So not a problem if your heights are a little inside your L/R speakers.
> 
> For your room dimensions, I would try to get the heights around 1/6 room width in from the side walls.


That is awesome, I was really concerned about my left sides ceiling sloping up to 10' at right about 1/6th the room width so moving them more inside hopefully isn't a big deal.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Surely Auro has died by now hasn't it? I know I've been away for a year, but in that time has there been a flurry of movies released in Auro then? I know we have had numerous Atmos releases on BD and UHD, and even a few DTS:X, but Auro??


There's been a few releases in Auro (I think they're all Region B): Ghostbusters, Inferno, Pippa, Johnny Mnemonic, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But other than that it's been music only.

Also, not quite dead, since there's the object-based Auromax that may or may not be coming down the pipeline to non-high end consumers in the future, and a streaming format called Auro CX that was announced over the winter. See here: http://www.auro-3d.com/press/2016/1...o-technology-for-video-streaming-at-ces-2017/

(Yes, I know I couldn't avoid the T word but it's part of the link)


----------



## Extreman

kbarnes701 said:


> It depends if you can localise frequencies at 120Hz or not. Personally I would never cross over that high. If you *have* to cross over that high, it implies that you might need to reconsider the overhead speaker choice.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "below 90Hz, surround channels will be sent to the fronts". The crossover determines which frequencies are sent to the subwoofer, not to other speakers. Unless I am reading you wrong.


If I am not mistaken the sound below cut-off is sent to the next speakers in line that have a lower cut-off point. Everything below the lowest cut-off is sent to the sub. You can localize sound down to about 80Hz, then it is hard to detect.


----------



## kbarnes701

Extreman said:


> If I am not mistaken the sound below cut-off is sent to the next speakers in line that have a lower cut-off point. Everything below the lowest cut-off is sent to the sub. You can localize sound down to about 80Hz, then it is hard to detect.


I am not understanding you. In this context the crossover is the frequency at which content is redirected to the subwoofer. If you set a speaker to cross over at 100Hz, then the frequencies above 100Hz are played by the speaker and the frequencies below 100Hz are played by the subwoofer (ignoring slope for the moment). If you set another pair to cross over at 70Hz, then the frequencies above 70Hz are played by the speaker and the frequencies below 70Hz are played by the subwoofer. No sounds below the various crossovers are sent anywhere else but to the subwoofer. I do not understand what you mean by 'the next speakers in line', sorry.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Ricoflashback said:


> A WAF "Sine Wave" can vary in intensity and frequency. It can appear and disappear at random making it difficult to ascertain the exact cause or trigger event.


Maybe it should be renamed a Spousal Acceptance Factor as some gay men and women (yes, there are gay home A/V enthusiasts) experience this exact same phenomenon! 🙉

After hanging out with a few gay couples I have no choice but to support gay marriage. They have a right to suffer along with the rest of us! Otherwise it ain't fair to the straight folks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Extreman said:


> If I am not mistaken the sound below cut-off is sent to the next speakers in line that have a lower cut-off point.


Everything below any cutoff is sent to the subwoofer.

The only time this doe not happen is when you do not have a subwoofer.


----------



## Marc Alexander

It turns out that the Emotiva Atmos processors are not vaporware. They've been waiting on Dolby! 🙄



imagic said:


> The info is simple, it's going to ship as soon as Dolby provides him with CODECs. It's not gonna ship without Atmos. But when do they get 'em? Not known right now, but assure you Emotiva would like it to be ASAP based on what I overheard.


----------



## Extreman

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not understanding you. In this context the crossover is the frequency at which content is redirected to the subwoofer. If you set a speaker to cross over at 100Hz, then the frequencies above 100Hz are played by the speaker and the frequencies below 100Hz are played by the subwoofer (ignoring slope for the moment). If you set another pair to cross over at 70Hz, then the frequencies above 70Hz are played by the speaker and the frequencies below 70Hz are played by the subwoofer. No sounds below the various crossovers are sent anywhere else but to the subwoofer. I do not understand what you mean by 'the next speakers in line', sorry.


Yes, you are correct - my bad.
I confused this with redirection of sound to other speakers if you set some speakers to 'None' in the setup menu.
Here is what the AVR manual says:
'Select the subwoofer crossover point equal to the lowest crossover point of the other speakers. In general, low frequencies will be redirected from the speakers with the highest crossover points to the speakers with the lowest crossover points. Low-frequency signals lower than the lowest crossover point will be redirected to the subwoofer.'
Still unclear, though if everything redirects to your Mains and below Mains cut-off, to Subwoofer (so I might have partly right, nevertheless). However, my recent prosessor seem to reinforce the statement that everything below cut-off is sent to the LFE channel.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Marc Alexander said:


> It turns out that the Emotiva Atmos processors are not vaporware. They've been waiting on Dolby! 🙄


Hey, that's cool.

Just to let you know... I'm working on a 32ch pre/pro and another chassis with 16ch of built-in ICE power. Looking to price around $3,000. 

I wanted it to be ready by this Christmas but.... *I'm waiting on Dolby!*


----------



## Ricoflashback

Marc Alexander said:


> Maybe it should be renamed a Spousal Acceptance Factor as some gay men and women (yes, there are gay home A/V enthusiasts) experience this exact same phenomenon! 🙉
> 
> After hanging out with a few gay couples I have no choice but to support gay marriage. They have a right to suffer along with the rest of us! Otherwise it ain't fair to the straight folks.


Absofrigginlutely!!!

I'll even go a further. Here is my campaign speech and I'm sticking to it!:

"I believe that the LGBT Community has the unalienable and equal right to be as unequally happy in the institution of marriage as heterosexuals!" "This applies to Significant Others, Domestic Partners, Better Half, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Lovers - - did I miss anyone?"

Thank you, thank you. Can I count on your support? Campaign donation? (Just kidding - )


----------



## lujan

Marc Alexander said:


> Maybe it should be renamed a Spousal Acceptance Factor as some gay men and women (yes, there are gay home A/V enthusiasts) experience this exact same phenomenon! 🙉
> 
> After hanging out with a few gay couples I have no choice but to support gay marriage. They have a right to suffer along with the rest of us! Otherwise it ain't fair to the straight folks.


Glad I'm single and sticking to it...


----------



## keeper

So I transitioned to Atmos a few weeks ago with 2 in ceiling speakers with the intent of adding another 2'in the future. I have on wall surrounds that I moved down to 6- 6 1/2 feet. They are still too high so I'm planning on going back to speakers on stands- my wife will be thrilled. My question is do you guys angle your side surrounds away from the mlps so they aren't blasting in the ears of the nearest seat? Just trying to picture how I'm going to place these speakers I'd imagine my first attempt will be to angle them facing the center speaker but slightly in back of the mlp. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## sdurani

keeper said:


> My question is do you guys angle your side surrounds away from the mlps so they aren't blasting in the ears of the nearest seat?


If pointing a speaker towards someone makes it sound louder, then point each surround to the listener farthest away (could use the boost in level to compensate for the distance). That means the listener nearest to each surround speaker will be hearing it off axis and won't get blasted by the sound.


----------



## keeper

sdurani said:


> If pointing a speaker towards someone makes it sound louder, then point each surround to the listener farthest away (could use the boost in level to compensate for the distance). That means the listener nearest to each surround speaker will be hearing it off axis and won't get blasted by the sound.


I understand what you mean but I think that would be difficult as I have a curved row of 3 ht chairs. Each end seat will be within 3-4 feet of the nearest surround. I'll have to experiment and see. Thanks for your response.


----------



## Ricoflashback

keeper said:


> So I transitioned to Atmos a few weeks ago with 2 in ceiling speakers with the intent of adding another 2'in the future. I have on wall surrounds that I moved down to 6- 6 1/2 feet. They are still too high so I'm planning on going back to speakers on stands- my wife will be thrilled. My question is do you guys angle your side surrounds away from the mlps so they aren't blasting in the ears of the nearest seat? Just trying to picture how I'm going to place these speakers I'd imagine my first attempt will be to angle them facing the center speaker but slightly in back of the mlp. Hope that makes sense.


I'm probably in the minority on this but I use Dipoles for my side surrounds. That's a supposed no no in the Atmos world but the tightness of my room with monopole speakers led to terrific hot spotting and "in your face" sounds that were like a rock being thrown at you every time the speaker fired off. It was quite distracting. 

I would think that the lower they are placed, the more you will notice them no matter where you sit. Maybe someone with a room configuration like yours can chime in with their experience.


----------



## Scott Simonian

keeper said:


> My question is do you guys angle your side surrounds away from the mlps so they aren't blasting in the ears of the nearest seat?


Yes. That and also they are elevated so they fire over my head. Not only that but they are pushed forward so they are not in-line with my ears but rather in front of my face. Sounds counter intuitive but the results are pleasing with no hottspotting. Cherry on top is a very enveloping surround field.


----------



## keeper

My surrounds now are bipolar bpxs by definitive technology. I like the speakers but they are not low enough to get a great sound of height from my ceilings speakers. They are mounted old school for Dolby pro logic I guess. My room is long at 29ft so I have space between all of my speakers but the height thing is throwing me off. I mean don't get me wrong it sounds great but I believe it will sound better if I could lower those surround to just above ear level.


----------



## Marc Alexander

My room is a narrow 14.5' so I replaced 42" high floor-standing speakers with on-walls (bipolar of sorts) at 48" for side surrounds. Mirage OM R2s which have a front firing 6.5" mid and two tweeters firing at 45°(?) angles to the sides. These are slightly behind the MLP and 4' high, just above head level. Floor standing are now the rears.

My ceiling is 8½'.


----------



## richlife

keeper said:


> My surrounds now are bipolar bpxs by definitive technology. I like the speakers but they are not low enough to get a great sound of height from my ceilings speakers. They are mounted old school for Dolby pro logic I guess. My room is long at 29ft so I have space between all of my speakers but the height thing is throwing me off. I mean don't get me wrong it sounds great but I believe it will sound better if I could lower those surround to just above ear level.


Your situation sounds much like mine. My surrounds are Mirage bipolars maybe 6" behind my listening positions and right at 6' high with a 28' room. Due to necessary placement of my RP, the surrround and presence on each side tend to pull the effect up a little. I think the bipolar helps prevent hotspotting (at least I don't hear it at all). I'd like greater separation also between the surrounds and ceiling RPs, but can only drop the surrounds about 12 - 15". Yet the overall result is still excellent and I've been in no rush with all the other sh-tuff in my life.  So they have stayed in place while I attack the list which grows faster than I can tackle it one thing at a time. 

"The road is long -- with many a winding turn." (Originally by The Hollies, but I like Neil Diamond's better.  )

@Marc Alexander After posting, I saw yours and noted that we have the same surrounds. In my very much not normal room, they are marvelous.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

keeper said:


> I understand what you mean but I think that would be difficult as I have a curved row of 3 ht chairs. Each end seat will be within 3-4 feet of the nearest surround. I'll have to experiment and see. Thanks for your response.


My surround and rear speakers are just above ear height and no hot spotting.


----------



## keeper

Thanks for the comments. At this point maybe I'll experiment with dropping my bipolar surrounds a bit more to see the effect if any. In the pic my atmos speakers are close to the first set of canned lights. About 6ft between the side surround and ceiling speaker.


----------



## richlife

keeper said:


> Thanks for the comments. At this point maybe I'll experiment with dropping my bipolar surrounds a bit more to see the effect if any. In the pic my atmos speakers are close to the first set of canned lights. About 6ft between the side surround and ceiling speaker.


I hope to hear from you here on how this works out.


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> That's perfect. Your room length is going to cause certain frequencies (35Hz, 69Hz, 104Hz, etc) to resonate, which will result in peaks & nulls along the length of your room. 11' from the front wall is one of the locations where the frequency response has the least amount variation/swing in level. Fewer/smaller peaks & dips mean smoother frequency response. Hence a good location to place the listeners' ears.


That's terrific info. Would you do a chart for a 12' length?


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> Would you do a chart for a 12' length?


You can plug in your room length, width & height in the Harman room mode calculator (free download). 

http://www.harman.com/room-mode-calculator


----------



## Scott Simonian

Where' the free "Sanjay does it all in his head" calculator? I want that version. The one in the link you provided makes me do all the work. Hmph!

Are you free at the moment? Got some numbers for you to punch in.


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> You can plug in your room length, width & height in the Harman room mode calculator (free download).
> 
> http://www.harman.com/room-mode-calculator


 @sdurani Fantastic. Got out my proportional dividers and interpolated the peak distances. There might be a way (and probably is) to do a readout of the distances of the peaks and nulls, but measurement was easy enough for my single case. Many thanks for this great tool!!


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> You can plug in your room length, width & height in the Harman room mode calculator (free download).
> 
> http://www.harman.com/room-mode-calculator


How do you calculate the modes if your room isn't precisely rectangular? (Mine has an alcove that extends a little over half the length of the room on one side.)


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> There might be a way (and probably is) to do a readout of the distances of the peaks and nulls, but measurement was easy enough for my single case.


The locations of the nulls are printed on the graph. If you look at the graph you quoted in your earlier post, there are numbers with "Hz" after them. Those are the resonating frequencies (room modes or standing waves). They're colour coded (each frequency matches a trace on the graph). Any numbers that don't have Hz after them are distances (how far a null is from a room boundary). Notice in that graph that 69Hz (black trace) has nulls at roughly 4 feet and 12 feet from the wall, with a peak around 8 feet (peaks are exactly in between the nulls). So no need to interpolate locations when they're already printed on the graph.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> How do you calculate the modes if your room isn't precisely rectangular? (Mine has an alcove that extends a little over half the length of the room on one side.)


Plug in numbers for the two widths of your room and you'll see the width modes for those parts of the room. There will be a transition area as you move from one half of the room to the other (it's not a clean change as you go from one width to the other).


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> You can plug in your room length, width & height in the Harman room mode calculator (free download).
> 
> http://www.harman.com/room-mode-calculator





sdurani said:


> The locations of the nulls are printed on the graph. If you look at the graph you quoted in your earlier post, there are numbers with "Hz" after them. Those are the resonating frequencies (room modes or standing waves). They're colour coded (each frequency matches a trace on the graph). Any numbers that don't have Hz after them are distances (how far a null is from a room boundary). Notice in that graph that 69Hz (black trace) has nulls at roughly 4 feet and 12 feet from the wall, with a peak around 8 feet (peaks are exactly in between the nulls). So no need to interpolate locations when they're already printed on the graph.





sdurani said:


> Plug in numbers for the two widths of your room and you'll see the width modes for those parts of the room. There will be a transition area as you move from one half of the room to the other (it's not a clean change as you go from one width to the other).


Prodigious thanks, Sanja! (Notice how I collected you comments on usage to allow convenient copying to my "Yamaha HT" file folder.  )

I've previously seen the results you posted, but this is first time I've seen the source. Nice! 

With my room, the authors/engineers from Harman would probably be apoplectic , but right away I was able to confirm my room volume which previously I had only mentally guesstimated at over 6000 cu. ft. With only the base area dimensions (no room offset, no additional loft area, no entry alcove, etc.) with height at 12 ft (actually it is vaulted from 8 to 16 ft plus loft area), the app spit out 6104 cu ft. Fill THAT space!


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Plug in numbers for the two widths of your room and you'll see the width modes for those parts of the room. There will be a transition area as you move from one half of the room to the other (it's not a clean change as you go from one width to the other).


I'll try it, thanks!


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> The locations of the nulls are printed on the graph. If you look at the graph you quoted in your earlier post, there are numbers with "Hz" after them. Those are the resonating frequencies (room modes or standing waves). They're colour coded (each frequency matches a trace on the graph). Any numbers that don't have Hz after them are distances (how far a null is from a room boundary). Notice in that graph that 69Hz (black trace) has nulls at roughly 4 feet and 12 feet from the wall, with a peak around 8 feet (peaks are exactly in between the nulls). So no need to interpolate locations when they're already printed on the graph.


Thanks. I was referring to finding the optimum distance from the front to the MLP. Easy to eyeball where the three waveforms cross to a common max. Then need to "interpolate" the distance of where that spot is from the front wall and that is the optimum position for the MLP. Interpolation needed because there is no scale at the bottom of the graph.


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> Easy to eyeball where the three waveforms cross to a common max.


That's around 1/3rd room length from the wall. But take that waveform crossing with a grain of salt. Different things (furniture, drapes, etc) in your room will absorb various frequencies to different degrees. For example: for your 12-foot room length, the length modes are going to be 47Hz, 94Hz, 141Hz, and multiples of 47Hz thereof. Hardly anything in your room is going to absorb 47Hz. More will be absorbed at 94Hz. Even greater degree of absorption at 141Hz. Different amounts of absorption mean those frequencies end up at different levels than what you see on the graph. 

The mode calculator is not taking your particular room furnishings into account. So, in the real world those traces are not going to cross where you see them on the graph. Also, the fact that bass can make your walls flex means that those frequency numbers might be slightly off as well. The graph is there to give you an idea of what is happening in your room. Use it as a starting point, but don't take those numbers literally. Optimum location should be based on measurements, not predictions (use them as a starting point).


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> How do you calculate the modes if your room isn't precisely rectangular? (Mine has an alcove that extends a little over half the length of the room on one side.)


As well as the excellent Harman spreadsheet, there's this whizzy website:
http://amroc.andymel.eu/amroc_andymel_eu_calculator.php?l=354&w=462&h=234&re=ITU%20listening%20room

You can see the frequencies laid out on the keys of a piano which is VERY cool, and there's a 3d visualisation of the room too. 

Of interest to me was the "Bolt Area" section:


> The so called "Bolt-area" indicates a accumulation of good room ratios. If the red cross lies within this area you have a good chance of more evenly distributed modes.


Well, the red cross for my room is within the area - but I can't see how to determine where it thinks that red cross should be physically in terms of ma! Anyone know?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> *Optimum location should be based on measurements, not predictions (use them as a starting point).*


Bolded for emphasis.


----------



## Josh Z

mrtickleuk said:


> As well as the excellent Harman spreadsheet, there's this whizzy website:
> http://amroc.andymel.eu/amroc_andymel_eu_calculator.php?l=354&w=462&h=234&re=ITU listening room
> 
> You can see the frequencies laid out on the keys of a piano which is VERY cool, and there's a 3d visualisation of the room too.


That one is entirely too much math for me, and I'm lost just looking at it. I sort of understand the one Sanjay provided.


----------



## petetherock

For those who are fans of Hong Kong movies and don't mind a scary one, check this out :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5157030/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

This will make The Ring look quite tame.. interesting plot .. think Constantin but in Canto...

For another scary hit, try C+ Detective ... atmosphere ++


----------



## dschulz

Interesting news out of NAB: announcement of a new Dolby Atmos Production Suite, tightly integrated with ProTools, and a new Mastering Suite, which replaced the hardware RMU for Atmos home theatre mixes (a hardware RMU is still required for theatrical Atmos mixes).

Link here: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...by-atmos-production-suite-and-mastering-suite

A couple of interesting notes:

1) The 9.1 channel bed has been renamed the 7.1.2 channel bed (same concept, clearer nomenclature)

2) If I'm reading the press releases right, the ProTools plugin supports speaker monitor channels up to 9.1.6. It is unclear if this is just to keep it inside a 16-channel footprint, or if this is perhaps an indication of what Dolby considers the sweet spot, maximal configuration for home Atmos. Certainly interesting.

3) VR production is built in, including the option of binaural monitoring and a binaural down-mix render.

DTS had a similar announcement for a similar toolset for DTS:X: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...offering-immersive-and-object-based-solutions


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> A couple of interesting notes:
> 
> 1) The 9.1 channel bed has been renamed the 7.1.2 channel bed (same concept, clearer nomenclature)


Stupid question, but I've always thought of "bed" as the "ear-level" sound. It's low, it's at the bottom, you lie on it. 

Does that 7.1.2 mean that the .2 at the end refers to two Top Middle channels? Surely it's a departure from the normal nomenclature to start including Height channels in the "bed"?
EDIT: Ok, now I've read the link . Yes it is two top middles. Hmm.


----------



## Craig Mecak

mrtickleuk said:


> Stupid question, but I've always thought of "bed" as the "ear-level" sound. It's low, it's at the bottom, you lie on it.
> 
> Does that 7.1.2 mean that the .2 at the end refers to two Top Middle channels? Surely it's a departure from the normal nomenclature to start including Height channels in the "bed"?
> EDIT: Ok, now I've read the link . Yes it is two top middles. Hmm.


No, not really. The signal is spread over all height array speakers, left and right.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Craig Mecak said:


> No, not really. The signal is spread over all height array speakers, left and right.


Well, yeah I know what you mean. If you had a x.y.4 setup it would sort it out at playback time.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> 2) If I'm reading the press releases right, the ProTools plugin supports speaker monitor channels up to 9.1.6. It is unclear if this is just to keep it inside a 16-channel footprint, or if this is perhaps an indication of what Dolby considers the sweet spot, maximal configuration for home Atmos. Certainly interesting.


Trinnov, Stormaudio and Acurus (where is DataSat?) all claim to be presenting 16-channel processors capable of 9.1.6 before the end of this year (?). The latter two are currently waiting for Dolby's certification and licensing of their DSP-based solution. So this might currently be more of a marketing sweet spot, than a true performance optimum ...


----------



## Ted99

^^^^ Emotiva just said their new RMC-1 pre-pro was waiting on Dolby.


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> That's around 1/3rd room length from the wall. But take that waveform crossing with a grain of salt. Different things (furniture, drapes, etc) in your room will absorb various frequencies to different degrees. For example: for your 12-foot room length, the length modes are going to be 47Hz, 94Hz, 141Hz, and multiples of 47Hz thereof. Hardly anything in your room is going to absorb 47Hz. More will be absorbed at 94Hz. Even greater degree of absorption at 141Hz. Different amounts of absorption mean those frequencies end up at different levels than what you see on the graph.
> 
> The mode calculator is not taking your particular room furnishings into account. So, in the real world those traces are not going to cross where you see them on the graph. Also, the fact that bass can make your walls flex means that those frequency numbers might be slightly off as well. The graph is there to give you an idea of what is happening in your room. Use it as a starting point, but don't take those numbers literally. Optimum location should be based on measurements, not predictions (use them as a starting point).[/QUOTE
> 
> Thanks for the insight that the lower frequencies are less affected by the room furnishings and construction. It means that when I am eyeballing a point where the three curves are located, I should give lower weight to the higher frequencies, as they are attenuated more than the lowest.


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> Thanks for the insight that the lower frequencies are less affected by the room furnishings and construction. It means that when I am eyeballing a point where the three curves are located, I should give lower weight to the higher frequencies, as they are attenuated more than the lowest.


Exactly. The extent to which the higher frequencies are being absorbed is something that cannot be guessed at and will need to be measured. Remember, the goal isn't to end up with your head in a vise. The frequency response shouldn't become a mess when you recline your seat or lean forward to grab some popcorn. Allow yourself some flexibility in seating placement. You're looking for a sweet area more than a sweet spot.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> I've always thought of "bed" as the "ear-level" sound.


Bed = channels. Nothing more complicated than that. Never had anything to do with ear level or overhead. The theatrical version of Atmos has 10 channels: L/C/R, 2 Side Surrounds, 2 Rear Surrounds, 2 Top Surrounds, and LFE. These were referred to as the 9.1 bed channels or channel beds. I stopped using the word bed (needlessly confusing) and just call them channels. They're the exact same thing. The home version of Atmos delivers the two overhead channels using static objects.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Interesting news out of NAB: announcement of a new Dolby Atmos Production Suite, tightly integrated with ProTools, and a new Mastering Suite, which replaced the hardware RMU for Atmos home theatre mixes (a hardware RMU is still required for theatrical Atmos mixes).
> 
> Link here: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...by-atmos-production-suite-and-mastering-suite
> 
> A couple of interesting notes:
> 
> 1) The 9.1 channel bed has been renamed the 7.1.2 channel bed (same concept, clearer nomenclature)
> 
> 2) If I'm reading the press releases right, the ProTools plugin supports speaker monitor channels up to 9.1.6. It is unclear if this is just to keep it inside a 16-channel footprint, or if this is perhaps an indication of what Dolby considers the sweet spot, maximal configuration for home Atmos. Certainly interesting.
> 
> 3) VR production is built in, including the option of binaural monitoring and a binaural down-mix render.
> 
> DTS had a similar announcement for a similar toolset for DTS:X: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...offering-immersive-and-object-based-solutions


This is most excellent news! Even better than the weekly new immersive releases that we've been getting.

This means MUCH more and diverse immersive audio in the near future.





> 2) If I'm reading the press releases right, the ProTools plugin supports speaker monitor channels up to 9.1.6. It is unclear if this is just to keep it inside a 16-channel footprint, or if this is perhaps an indication of what Dolby considers the sweet spot, maximal configuration for home Atmos. Certainly interesting.


Yes. Definitely interesting. I was wondering where they would take this and if we are to assume just a single available "advanced" layout (9.1.6) when others are possible inside a 16ch footprint, that would be slightly disappointing.

With 16ch available, one can also have either a 11.1.4 layout or a 7.1.8 layout and each of those sound just as good and a "sweet spot" (a totally relative-to-the-user only standard but w/e) as 9.1.6 is.



Also looks like DTS is sticking with 7.1.4 as the max for DTS:X.


----------



## Scott Simonian

> *Dolby Atmos Panner plug-in* - This lets you position audio objects for a Dolby Atmos
> home theatre mix. This panner plug-in lets you position audio objects in a three-dimensional audio field.
> *Dolby Atmos VR Spherical Panner plug-in* - One of two plug-ins that let you position audio objects for a Dolby Atmos VR mix. This panner plug-in lets you position objects using a polar coordinate system.
> *Dolby Atmos VR XYZ Panner plug-in* - One of two plug-ins that let you position audio objects for a Dolby Atmos VR mix. This panner plug-in lets you position objects in a three-dimensional audio field.






Sweet!


----------



## richlife

Scott Simonian said:


> This is most excellent news! Even better than the weekly new immersive releases that we've been getting.
> 
> This means MUCH more and diverse immersive audio in the near future.
> 
> Yes. Definitely interesting. I was wondering where they would take this and if we are to assume just a single available "advanced" layout (9.1.6) when others are possible inside a 16ch footprint, that would be slightly disappointing.
> 
> With 16ch available, one can also have either a 11.1.4 layout or a 7.1.8 layout and each of those sound just as good and a "sweet spot" (a totally relative-to-the-user only standard but w/e) as 9.1.6 is.
> 
> Also looks like DTS is sticking with 7.1.4 as the max for DTS:X.


This appears to opens option for those with x.y.2 (or any non-Atmos setup), but what about those who have already installed 7.x.4 and might want to go to 7.x.6 as far as placing the additional two speakers. Is that placement defined? Would it require moving the .4s? (Not so easy if in-ceiling.) 

Assuming a "typical" 7.x.4 with F/R presence speakers say 45* before and after the MLP (or any seating arrangement) would the recommended option be directly overhead for the new speakers? -- or something else? (Overhead is what I would try for my unique setup even though testing with placing my RPs in that overhead position was not satisfactory.)

Edit: @Scott Simonian Your additional post directly above seems to say that almost and +2 addition might be used. Certainly my "mid" positioning ought to work.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yes, in a x.x.6 layout, the next pair would be directly overhead. 

Although in actual use most have found that having this pair slightly forward is preferred. Probably is affected by the distance above your head as for most people it will only be a few feet over head.

Every layout in between the hardware "max" is and the minimum is should be supported. 

My extra post about the Authoring suite has to do with mixing and rendering and has nothing to do with any future layout. Just interested to see that there will be different ways to convey a listening space. Up til now Atmos has been stuck inside a shoebox.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

richlife said:


> This appears to opens option for those with x.y.2 (or any non-Atmos setup), but what about those who have already installed 7.x.4 and might want to go to 7.x.6 as far as placing the additional two speakers. Is that placement defined? Would it require moving the .4s? (Not so easy if in-ceiling.)
> 
> Assuming a "typical" 7.x.4 with F/R presence speakers say 45* before and after the MLP (or any seating arrangement) would the recommended option be directly overhead for the new speakers? -- or something else? (Overhead is what I would try for my unique setup even though testing with placing my RPs in that overhead position was not satisfactory.)
> 
> Edit: @*Scott Simonian* Your additional post directly above seems to say that almost and +2 addition might be used. Certainly my "mid" positioning ought to work.


The 7.1.6 and 9.1.6 layout guides have been on the Dolby website since last summer. It is simply a TM pair right between the 4 heights in the standard 7.1.4 layout.


----------



## Marc Alexander

maikeldepotter said:


> Trinnov, Stormaudio and Acurus (where is DataSat?) all claim to be presenting 16-channel processors capable of 9.1.6 before the end of this year (?). The latter two are currently waiting for Dolby's certification and licensing of their DSP-based solution. So this might currently be more of a marketing sweet spot, than a true performance (22 discrete channnels) optimum ...


The Steinway Lyngdorf P200 (22 discrete channels), McIntosh MX-160, and Lyngdorf MP-50 are already available. MP-50 and MX-160 are 7.1.4 with 4 auxiliary channels. Choices can be seen in the diagram.


----------



## DaveMcLain

Its cool that the mastering package is only $1000 too. I'm still sort of under the impression that the mixing/mastering suite can be configured using one of several different layouts yet the mix will automatically render and work correctly even if the end user has a different layout with a greater or lesser number of overheads.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Definitely interesting. I was wondering where they would take this and if we are to assume just a single available "advanced" layout (9.1.6) when others are possible inside a 16ch footprint, that would be slightly disappointing.
> 
> With 16ch available, one can also have either a 11.1.4 layout or a 7.1.8 layout and each of those sound just as good and a "sweet spot" (a totally relative-to-the-user only standard but w/e) as 9.1.6 is.





DaveMcLain said:


> Its cool that the mastering package is only $1000 too. I'm still sort of under the impression that the mixing/mastering suite can be configured using one of several different layouts yet the mix will automatically render and work correctly even if the end user has a different layout with a greater or lesser number of overheads.


I didn't mean to imply that Dolby would somehow fix the format to 9.1.6. Dolby Atmos will always be a flexible renderer, and an Atmos soundtrack will play back correctly on any properly setup Atmos system, from 2.1.2 to 24.1.10.

But that said, one can imagine that mixers would prefer to monitor their mixes on a system that is fairly close to that of a majority of the target audience. Most of the home theatre Atmos remixes nowadays are monitored as 7.1.4, for example. So I find it interesting that 9.1.6 is name-checked as the monitoring format in the ProTools plugin.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Marc Alexander said:


> The Steinway Lyngdorf P200, McIntosh MX-160, and Lyngdorf MP-50 are already available. MP-50 and MX-160 are 7.1.4 with 4 auxiliary channels. Choices can be seen in the diagram.


But that diagram shows only 7.x.4 active channels. Acurus and Stormaudio are currently at 7.x.6 discrete channels, with Acurus already having demoed 9.1.4.


----------



## Yeahnah

Anyone used KEF in ceiling speakers for Atmos, and if so do you need a back box? I don't want noise leaking out the house, but I want to make sure the sound is optimised.


----------



## Marc Alexander

maikeldepotter said:


> But that diagram shows only 7.x.4 active channels. Acurus and Stormaudio are currently at 7.x.6 discrete channels, with Acurus already having demoed 9.1.4.


7.1.4 fixed. 4 auxiliary can be chosen. These can be additional subwoofers or matrixed/DSP'd channels.


Marc Alexander said:


> So along these same lines can you use auxiliary channels to run 7.2.6 with matrixed TOP MIDDLES? If so can 9.1.6 achieved with just a single sub/LFE channel?
> 
> Any more info on the uses and limitations of the 4 auxiliary channels would be helpful.





ARROW-AV said:


> YES
> 
> YES. In fact, the audio system that we are nearly finished setting up using our MP-50 is precisely that, but with 4 subwoofers as single sub/LFE channel. So great minds think alike!
> 
> See the following diagram... All the speaker channels with dotted lines and blue '+' signs are auxiliary channels, the rest are discrete. You can allocate a total of 4 auxiliary, plus total 12 discrete, grand total 16 audio channels:


Corrected my previous post, the Steinway Lyngdorf P200 supports 22 discrete channels! But, you could buy several Datasats or Trinnovs for the price!


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Interesting news out of NAB: announcement of a new Dolby Atmos Production Suite, tightly integrated with ProTools, and a new Mastering Suite, which replaced the hardware RMU for Atmos home theatre mixes (a hardware RMU is still required for theatrical Atmos mixes).
> 
> 
> 
> Link here: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...by-atmos-production-suite-and-mastering-suite
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of interesting notes:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The 9.1 channel bed has been renamed the 7.1.2 channel bed (same concept, clearer nomenclature)
> 
> 
> 
> 2) If I'm reading the press releases right, the ProTools plugin supports speaker monitor channels up to 9.1.6. It is unclear if this is just to keep it inside a 16-channel footprint, or if this is perhaps an indication of what Dolby considers the sweet spot, maximal configuration for home Atmos. Certainly interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) VR production is built in, including the option of binaural monitoring and a binaural down-mix render.
> 
> 
> 
> DTS had a similar announcement for a similar toolset for DTS:X: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...offering-immersive-and-object-based-solutions




The software renderer from inception has always maxed out at 16. 

Remember that a majority of pro audio gear expands out in units of 8....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

DaveMcLain said:


> Its cool that the mastering package is only $1000 too. I'm still sort of under the impression that the mixing/mastering suite can be configured using one of several different layouts yet the mix will automatically render and work correctly even if the end user has a different layout with a greater or lesser number of overheads.




Don't forget that to even use the package you need, at a minimum, around another 15-20k in gear just to produce something that can be encoded by it. 

A Pro Tools HD 8 channel system starts at ~5-6k just for the software, processing hardware and an 8 channel audio interface.... 


Up to this point you could make a DAMF with the RMU running a dual boot cinema and home theater suite.... this is surely a good thing for those who don't have access to an RMU.. but it's still a huge capital investment to use the suite 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndreNewman

I'm seeing (hearing) a problem with my overhead speakers, 7.2.4 configuration.

I have four Monitor Audio Bronze 1's attached to the ceiling by the MA brackets, I can't have in ceiling speakers as it's an apartment and anyway the ceiling is isolated as part of soundproofing to the apartment above. This means the ceiling doesn't have any solid joists to attach to, the speakers are attached with strong cavity fixings.

The issue is (I believe) resonance in the ceiling material, my amp auto eq (Yamaha 3050) has set some huge dips around 147Hz which seems to be the resonant frequency. I've measured it with REW and only the ceiling speakers have this huge ~12dB hump, I have Bronze 1's for Surround and surround back and they are fine.

This hasn't been too horrible until the Gravity atmos mix came along, which was really quite unpleasant with 80Hz crossovers. I've found that setting the crossover to 160Hz fixes the problem but my subs (front and back REL Quake with minidsp) don't do anything much above 100Hz! For now I've compromised by setting the overheads to 120Hz crossover.

Have others seen (heard) this sort of problem? Now I realised what it is I would think almost everyone with ceiling mounted speakers will have some level of this issue? Any ideas how to mitigate it?

I will try to manually set EQ & re-measure which is usually better than the auto EQ in my experience but otherwise I'm going to have to go back to top of wall mounting and therefore front heights which didn't have good placement when I tried it at first. I think I can (just) wall mount for top rear as the sofa is just in front of a big bay window.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> I didn't mean to imply that Dolby would somehow fix the format to 9.1.6. Dolby Atmos will always be a flexible renderer, and an Atmos soundtrack will play back correctly on any properly setup Atmos system, from 2.1.2 to 24.1.10.


That I understand. What I was speculating is that 16ch processors will come out but only support 9.1.6 as-is with no other possible 16ch layouts. I know the format can support them but doesn't mean the hardware will.


For example: Why aren't there any *native* 5.1.6 layouts available? (plz don't say DataSat lol) There are plenty of AVR's that can do 7.1.4 but not 5.1.6. Why is that? Is it not possible for this layout to work with Dolby Atmos? I can't imagine it wouldn't.


It's arbitrary limitations like this. Could happen with 16ch models, no doubt.


----------



## ARROW-AV

Marc Alexander said:


> 7.1.4 fixed. 4 auxiliary can be chosen. These can be additional subwoofers or matrixed/DSP'd channels.
> 
> Corrected my previous post, *the Steinway Lyngdorf P200 supports 22 discrete channels! But, you could buy several Datasats or Trinnovs for the price!*


Marc, the Steinway P200 is in fact only slightly more expensive than the Lyngdorf MP-50


----------



## Marc Alexander

ARROW-AV said:


> Marc, the Steinway P200 is in fact only slightly more expensive than the Lyngdorf MP-50


How much? 

I guess I should've qualified my statement with this (I don't even know the price): 


> The Model P200 can only be used with amplifiers and speakers from Steinway Lyngdorf.


----------



## sdrucker

Question for you guys: has anybody used an Atmos/DTS:X ceiling speaker like this one, with a 6 1/2 woofer and a 1" tweeter, and adjustable horizontal and vertical positioning?

http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/outdoor-speakers/CS1000-Universal-In-Outdoor-Speakers

I'm doing some room change-ups while I get my room professionally Trinnovized (sorry, Keith, you get the obligatory shoutout to the processor that won't be named ), and I'm looking at switching out my Dolby AE upfiring Imagine XAs with real speakers to get a) better overall precision and b) use some esoteric processor features. I've actually gotten decent results with little effort from my Dolby AEs unless I use their remapping, and even some phantom imaging of solid objects with, say, the helicopter scene on the Atmos demo disc, but I'd always intended them to be placeholders until I did something else and I got my PJ/screen up and running (which is finally getting pulled together in the next week or so). So.....

Having said that, what's the conventional wisdom these days about a using a concentric overhead speaker vs. a two-way with separate woofer/midrange and tweeter? And are bookshelves being used in practice with ceiling mounts for TF/TM/TR placements, or are they too prone to hotspotting and/or more narrow dispersion? My thinking is that I could support any of these, but not true in-ceiling speakers, with my cement ceiling, but I'm curious where folks are going today, and what the practical experience is. I can place whatever I use with a laser pointer and a contractor I'm working with to do the mounting. Probably doing three pairs in my 20x15x9 room, since my processor supports that.

Those CS1000s I'm looking at seem capable, with a relatively big woofer, timbre matched woofer and tweeter to my speakers, and at least as much power handling as everything other than my mains, though. Technically they're "indoor/outdoor", but that never stopped anyone from using Tannoys .

Hope that's not too basic a question, but I've mostly ignored the discussions on ceiling apps since I've been firmly in the upfiring world until recently.


----------



## unretarded

Yeahnah said:


> Anyone used KEF in ceiling speakers for Atmos, and if so do you need a back box? I don't want noise leaking out the house, but I want to make sure the sound is optimised.


 All speakers need a backing box for soundprooring, even speakers that come with a backer box.


Best scenario is some sort of soffit inside the soundproof room to mout them or mount them in a box inside the soundproofing of the room.


Great care should be taken when you start to cut holes in your soundproofing.

General concensus is to do any of that work before the room is done for best results or stay iside the soundproof room when doing retrofits.


So the easy answer is, dont do it or take great care in doing so.

If you have a non soundproofed room, then yeah, put a backer box on and call it a day.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> Question for you guys: has anybody used an Atmos/DTS:X ceiling speaker like this one, with a 6 1/2 woofer and a 1" tweeter, and adjustable horizontal and vertical positioning?
> 
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/outdoor-speakers/CS1000-Universal-In-Outdoor-Speakers
> 
> I'm doing some room change-ups while I get my room professionally Trinnovized (sorry, Keith, you get the obligatory shoutout to the processor that won't be named ), and I'm looking at switching out my Dolby AE upfiring Imagine XAs with real speakers to get a) better overall precision and b) use some esoteric processor features. I've actually gotten decent results with little effort from my Dolby AEs unless I use their remapping, and even some phantom imaging of solid objects with, say, the helicopter scene on the Atmos demo disc, but I'd always intended them to be placeholders until I did something else and I got my PJ/screen up and running (which is finally getting pulled together in the next week or so). So.....
> 
> Having said that, what's the conventional wisdom these days about a using a concentric overhead speaker vs. a two-way with separate woofer/midrange and tweeter? And are bookshelves being used in practice with ceiling mounts for TF/TM/TR placements, or are they too prone to hotspotting and/or more narrow dispersion? My thinking is that I could support any of these, but not true in-ceiling speakers, with my cement ceiling, but I'm curious where folks are going today, and what the practical experience is. I can place whatever I use with a laser pointer and a contractor I'm working with to do the mounting. Probably doing three pairs in my 20x15x9 room, since my processor supports that.
> 
> Those CS1000s I'm looking at seem capable, with a relatively big woofer, timbre matched woofer and tweeter to my speakers, and at least as much power handling as everything other than my mains, though. Technically they're "indoor/outdoor", but that never stopped anyone from using Tannoys .
> 
> Hope that's not too basic a question, but I've mostly ignored the discussions on ceiling apps since I've been firmly in the upfiring world until recently.


I use six 2-way bookshelf speakers with custom ceiling brackets, works a treat:



















These are a little smaller though with 5.5" woofers (Monitor Audio BX1's).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I'm doing some room change-ups while I get my room professionally Trinnovized (sorry, Keith, you get the obligatory shoutout to the processor that won't be named )


You got a Trinnov then, Stu?? 



sdrucker said:


> Having said that, what's the conventional wisdom these days about a using a concentric overhead speaker vs. a two-way with separate woofer/midrange and tweeter?


Not saying a 2-way won't work or even be a good choice, but a coaxial design has some definite advantages IMO. Remember Dolby would like you to choose an overhead speaker that has 90° dispersion among other things. Coax speakers are also in phase right from the driver and that could possibly be of benefit, depending on how close they are to you etc. I think a coax design might be easier to set up than a 2-way but it's probably just my personal preference as I do love coaxial designs.



sdrucker said:


> Those CS1000s I'm looking at seem capable, with a relatively big woofer, timbre matched woofer and tweeter to my speakers, and at least as much power handling as everything other than my mains, though. Technically they're "indoor/outdoor", but that never stopped anyone from using Tannoys .


LOL. Indeed not. 'Outdoor' just means 'weatherproof' and is no guide to quality. As you know, I am using Tannoy Di6 DCs on the ceiling in my new HT and I know they will perform well and give me a terrific Atmos presentation. It was Roger who put me on to these initially and he too is still using them, describing them as "perfect" for Atmos. I am certainly delighted with mine. If the Di6 is too big for someone, then the smaller Di5 is also a worthy contender IMO.

EDIT to add: The Tannoys also have a reasonable sensitivity making them easy to drive and also a good power handling capability, so they can play very nicely with beefy mains. And they come with 'C' brackets to make mounting them a snap.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> EDIT to add: The Tannoys also have a reasonable sensitivity making them easy to drive and also a good power handling capability, so they can play very nicely with beefy mains. And they come with 'C' brackets to make mounting them a snap.


The only issue with the Tannoys is that they were discontinued a while ago.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> The only issue with the Tannoys is that they were discontinued a while ago.


That's a shame. I didn't know that (obviously!). Real pity as they are terrific speakers and were very good value for money. I guess nothing goes on for ever. 

The nearest I can see on their website is the AMS 6DC which has very similar specs.


----------



## Yeahnah

unretarded said:


> All speakers need a backing box for soundprooring, even speakers that come with a backer box.
> 
> 
> Best scenario is some sort of soffit inside the soundproof room to mout them or mount them in a box inside the soundproofing of the room.
> 
> 
> Great care should be taken when you start to cut holes in your soundproofing.
> 
> General concensus is to do any of that work before the room is done for best results or stay iside the soundproof room when doing retrofits.
> 
> 
> So the easy answer is, dont do it or take great care in doing so.
> 
> If you have a non soundproofed room, then yeah, put a backer box on and call it a day.


Cheers for that. I'm going to build a back box when I install the speakers. Should I fill them with anything or just make sure they are the minimum volume recommended by KEF?


----------



## ARROW-AV

Marc Alexander said:


> How much? I guess I should've qualified my statement with this (I don't even know the price):
> 
> The Model P200 can only be used with amplifiers and speakers from Steinway Lyngdorf.


Marc, not meaning any disrespect but that does not in fact qualify your statement... 

This is your statement:


Marc Alexander said:


> ...the Steinway Lyngdorf P200 supports 22 discrete channels! But, you could buy several Datasats or Trinnovs for the price!


Regarding which the salient facts are as per follows. 

The Steinway Lyngdorf audio systems are ‘all or nothing’ in that they are complete audio systems where you cannot combine the individual component parts with other brands of AV equipment. The reason for this is because the SL audio systems operate differently, wherein SL has sought to eliminate some of the pre-existing flaws to do with how all audio systems typically operate. In particular, this is with respect to eliminating any and all amplification that is carried out within the analogue domain, plus having all of the signal processing and electronics maintained within the digital domain right from the source to the speakers themselves. This has many advantages but that’s a discussion for another time. 

But the fact that, as you say, “The Model P200 can only be used with amplifiers and speakers from Steinway Lyngdorf”, is in fact irrelevant with respect to price comparisons. 

Where you have gone wrong is it to compare the total cost of complete audio system(s) with the price of a singular component part, namely the AV processor. This is comparing apples-with-oranges and hence is meaningless. The Datasats and Trinnovs are AV processors that are integrated into an entire audio system. The P200 is also an AV processor that is integrated into an entire audio system; where it is simply the case that you can’t use other brands of equipment for the rest of the audio system. This has no relevance regarding what are the comparative costs between the respective AV processors. 

Consequently, with respect to a proper/true apples-with-apples comparison you must compare what is the cost of the respective AV processors. But that’s not all… we also need to ensure that all prices compared relate to the same specification with respect to including both whatever Room Correction technology and Atmos/Auro/DTS:X, and whatever costs are associated with respect to including these. Where here are said true apples-with-apples MSRP pricing comparisons:

*● Datasat RS20i = €31,800 |16 audio channels 

● Trinnov Altitude32-1624 = €24,000 |24 audio channels

● Trinnov Altitude32-816 = €20,000 |16 audio channels

● Steinway Lyngdorf P200 = €14,000 |20 audio channels

● Lyngdorf MP-50 = €12,000 | 16 audio channels*

That said, clearly the fact that with SL you have to no choice but to buy the complete audio system is a potential negative (although in our opinion the benefits provided by SL’s whole system differing technology far outweighs this negative). Which is why we are so excited about the new Lyngdorf MP-50 AV processor, because it has the promise to deliver much of the same audio performance and features as SL, but with an AV processor that can be partnered with whatever you like; thereby allowing integrating in an existing AV system. With 12 discrete plus 4 auxiliary audio channels the MP-50 can do speaker configurations such as 9.4.6… Whether or not you really need more than this with respect to Dolby Atmos audio we will leave up for discussion, which brings us fully back to the topic of this thread.

We should add that we consider all of the above to be excellent AV processors! 
.


----------



## Marc Alexander

ARROW-AV said:


> Marc, not meaning any disrespect but that does not in fact qualify your statement...


You are correct, my assumptions and hyperbole were way off! 

Thanks the information. Do you have a screenshot or slide that shows the discrete channels available?


----------



## ma1746

I have a question for the group referencing my 5.1.2 atmos setup listed in my signature. Do you guys think I'd be better off swapping my fluance surrounds for pioneer fs52 towers? I have a small 12x10 room and my current fluance bipoles are mounted above my head on the back wall. They do really well for ambiance but I hear atmos wants direct firing speakers as surrounds/rears. Any thoughts? Also, does anyone know if the ceiling positions of top front and top middle carry different information? Or are they programmed the exact same. I ask because I currently have my ceiling speakers set as top middle but they are slightly in front of my main listening position when seated. Thanks!


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## Josh Z

ma1746 said:


> Also, does anyone know if the ceiling positions of top front and top middle carry different information? Or are they programmed the exact same. I ask because I currently have my ceiling speakers set as top middle but they are slightly in front of my main listening position when seated. Thanks!


The way Atmos works, it categorizes sounds into two levels: the ground level and the height level. If you have any height speakers connected, sounds meant for the ground level always stay in the ground speakers and sounds meant for the height level always stay in the height speakers. 

If you're configured for x.x.2 with only two height speakers, all sound information intended for the height level will go to those two speakers, no matter whether you call them Top Front, Top Middle, or Top Rear. It doesn't matter, all height info will go to them regardless. The speaker designations are more important when dealing with x.x.4.


----------



## ma1746

Josh Z said:


> The way Atmos works, it categorizes sounds into two levels: the ground level and the height level. If you have any height speakers connected, sounds meant for the ground level always stay in the ground speakers and sounds meant for the height level always stay in the height speakers.
> 
> If you're configured for x.x.2 with only two height speakers, all sound information intended for the height level will go to those two speakers, no matter whether you call them Top Front, Top Middle, or Top Rear. It doesn't matter, all height info will go to them regardless. The speaker designations are more important when dealing with x.x.4.




Excellent response, and exactly what I was looking for! Thank you. 


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## imureh

Josh Z said:


> The way Atmos works, it categorizes sounds into two levels: the ground level and the height level. If you have any height speakers connected, sounds meant for the ground level always stay in the ground speakers and sounds meant for the height level always stay in the height speakers.
> 
> If you're configured for x.x.2 with only two height speakers, all sound information intended for the height level will go to those two speakers, no matter whether you call them Top Front, Top Middle, or Top Rear. It doesn't matter, all height info will go to them regardless. The speaker designations are more important when dealing with x.x.4.


I have a bit of a unique situation but believe it can be made to work in my favor with the correct advice. I have attached some pics with notations on possible usage of my speaker connections. The background is that I have a 7.1 channel in ceiling wiring in the media room. However i am only using two of the connections for my surrounds in my current 5.1 set up. The front speakers are directly connected to the receiver as they are not mounted on ceiling. So I have the front three, and 2 sides available for use. 

My thoughts are as follows:

1. Use the the front left and right for height (don't know what to with center connection)
2. Move the surrounds to the middle left and right
3. Use the rear connections for rear height speakers
4. Add two back surrounds on stands by the rear wall

*I am just not sure if the connections I have available will work with the seating rows. Also should go for in ceiling or ceiling mounted with slants?*
*
The pictures should make this more clear. I am trying to get to a 7.2.4 set up*

I hope the query is clear


----------



## gerchy

I can't believe my SR7009 is behaving so unlogical. 
It has four external amps connected (for ground speakers) but wanted to use Marantz's speaker outputs for 4 height speakers. Guess what? Can't do because the setup insists using external amp for rear heights. The only option is to use 11.1 speaker configuration and then disable the front wides.
How weird is that?


----------



## Ted99

I am feeding over and under screen center speakers by using a Y-connector from the pre-pro center feed to two channels of amplification and thence to the two speakers. Equipment layout is in my sig. The intent is to get a "phantom" center coming directly from the center of the screen, since I don't have enough room for an AT screen. To do this, one needs to balance the signals to the two speakers to get that phantom center. I would welcome suggestions of a device that would replace the simple Y-connector and allow balancing. I propose to do this balancing by sitting in the MLP and changing gain to each speaker until I hear a test tone coming from the middle of the screen. It's looking like the next generation of DSP-based Atmos processors will not feature a two center capability (perhaps Trinitov/Datasat does?).


----------



## unretarded

imureh said:


> I have a bit of a unique situation but believe it can be made to work in my favor with the correct advice. I have attached some pics with notations on possible usage of my speaker connections. The background is that I have a 7.1 channel in ceiling wiring in the media room. However i am only using two of the connections for my surrounds in my current 5.1 set up. The front speakers are directly connected to the receiver as they are not mounted on ceiling. So I have the front three, and 2 sides available for use.
> 
> My thoughts are as follows:
> 
> 1. Use the the front left and right for height (don't know what to with center connection)
> 2. Move the surrounds to the middle left and right
> 3. Use the rear connections for rear height speakers
> 4. Add two back surrounds on stands by the rear wall
> 
> *I am just not sure if the connections I have available will work with the seating rows. Also should go for in ceiling or ceiling mounted with slants?*
> *
> The pictures should make this more clear. I am trying to get to a 7.2.4 set up*
> 
> I hope the query is clear


How big is that room ?


----------



## imureh

unretarded said:


> How big is that room ?


Hi, its about 2050 cuft, 12X19X9


----------



## unretarded

imureh said:


> Hi, its about 2050 cuft, 12X19X9


Thanks.



I am getting ready to move up to a 11x18 room from a 12x12 and want 2 rows.


----------



## Marc Alexander

imureh said:


> Hi, its about 2050 cuft, 12X19X9


Why not just 5.1.4?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Marc Alexander said:


> Why not just 5.1.4?


Don't understand the question. Why not just stereo 2.0?


----------



## imureh

Marc Alexander said:


> Why not just 5.1.4?




I know you are kidding right Marc? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## humbland

gregbarlow1963 said:


> Anybody out there having problems with their receiver not decoding in ATMOS? I use a Playstation 4 to play the movies. I have seen it decode the last Transformers movie properly but if I use the microphone to reset speaker levels then play the movie it says multi channel in and that is it. Playstation is outputting PCM format which I think is what is required. Any help would be appreciated.





Ted99 said:


> I am feeding over and under screen center speakers by using a Y-connector from the pre-pro center feed to two channels of amplification and thence to the two speakers. Equipment layout is in my sig. The intent is to get a "phantom" center coming directly from the center of the screen, since I don't have enough room for an AT screen. To do this, one needs to balance the signals to the two speakers to get that phantom center. I would welcome suggestions of a device that would replace the simple Y-connector and allow balancing. I propose to do this balancing by sitting in the MLP and changing gain to each speaker until I hear a test tone coming from the middle of the screen. It's looking like the next generation of DSP-based Atmos processors will not feature a two center capability (perhaps Trinitov/Datasat does?).


We have the same set up. There is a window in back of our electric drop screen, so no way to mount the center in the middle with an AT screen. Also, we have a Dalite HP 2.8 screen that I really like. So, I opted for one center speaker above and one center speaker below the screen . As you mentioned, there are different ways to approach balancing out the signal. I used the center pre-out from our Pioneer AVR and got a HK PA 2000 AMP for the extra speaker. I used it in bridged mode to get 100w for the one channel.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Harman-Kard...813879?hash=item3adcefeab7:g:bdAAAOSwXYtYwGEx

The HK has a 12v trigger which powers it up when the AVR comes on.

I found that it was easier with the Pioneer MCAAC room calibration to use the AVR's internal center AMP to drive the speaker below the screen and the HK to drive the one above the screen. Using the AVR manual pink noise test tones, I manually adjusted the HK AMP volume knob until it sounds like the center channel pink noise is coming from the center of the screen. Then I ran the MCACC auto room calibration and it set up the total center balance, relative to the other channels. When you see the results, it's clear the the AVR "sees" the extra speaker (and AMP) as the indicated gain on the center channel is about half the DBs as the rest of the 7.1.4 channels. The results are satisfying. The dialog is anchored to the screen center. 
At first I was worried about comb-filtering from the two speakers being driven from the same signal, but I can not hear anything "out of wack". It sounds good and we never notice the center locations as being above/below. Just center.


----------



## Ted99

humbland said:


> We have the same set up. There is a window in back of our electric drop screen, so no way to mount the center in the middle with an AT screen. Also, we have a Dalite HP 2.8 screen that I really like. So, I opted for one center speaker above and one center speaker below the screen . As you mentioned, there are different ways to approach balancing out the signal. I used the center pre-out from our Pioneer AVR and got a HK PA 2000 AMP for the extra speaker. I used it in bridged mode to get 100w for the one channel.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Harman-Kard...813879?hash=item3adcefeab7:g:bdAAAOSwXYtYwGEx
> 
> The HK has a 12v trigger which powers it up when the AVR comes on.
> 
> I found that it was easier with the Pioneer MCAAC room calibration to use the AVR's internal center AMP to drive the speaker below the screen and the HK to drive the one above the screen. Using the AVR manual pink noise test tones, I manually adjusted the HK AMP volume knob until it sounds like the center channel pink noise is coming from the center of the screen. Then I ran the MCACC auto room calibration and it set up the total center balance, relative to the other channels. When you see the results, it's clear the the AVR "sees" the extra speaker (and AMP) as the indicated gain on the center channel is about half the DBs as the rest of the 7.1.4 channels. The results are satisfying. The dialog is anchored to the screen center.
> At first I was worried about comb-filtering from the two speakers being driven from the same signal, but I can not hear anything "out of wack". It sounds good and we never notice the center locations as being above/below. Just center.


Glad you have confirmed the concept. You are able to adjust volume because you are using an amplifier with a volume control for the second center speaker. An excellent solution but not one available to me because the EMO XPA-5 does not have a volume control.
There is 5' of separation between top and bottom of the screen, so I expect minimal comb filtering. But, in my case, the upper speaker's sound path is 30 percent longer to the MLP, compared to the lower; so idealy I should introduce a little time delay in the lower speaker. But, will that mess with lip sync? Won't know until I do it (after calculating the time delay needed for an extra 3'--might be inconsequencial).


----------



## humbland

Ted99 said:


> Glad you have confirmed the concept. You are able to adjust volume because you are using an amplifier with a volume control for the second center speaker. An excellent solution but not one available to me because the EMO XPA-5 does not have a volume control.
> There is 5' of separation between top and bottom of the screen, so I expect minimal comb filtering. But, in my case, the upper speaker's sound path is 30 percent longer to the MLP, compared to the lower; so idealy I should introduce a little time delay in the lower speaker. But, will that mess with lip sync? Won't know until I do it (after calculating the time delay needed for an extra 3'--might be inconsequencial).


I think the top speaker will be further away in almost all set ups. It is in ours. 
The actual distance difference is so small that I don't believe that you need to fool around with time delays.
I'm not sure that I understand your set up. In ours, we had plenty of power to drive both speakers from the AVR amp. However, I was concerned about an impedance mismatch relative to the other channels. Splitting the center RCA output and driving another amp was a simplistic solution. I have used the HK 2000 before and I really like the HK amps. However, there are smaller/lighter modern digital amps that are a "plug and play" fix:

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-apa102-class-d-stereo-60-wpc-amplifier-auto-on--300-591

For $100, you are good to go...


----------



## Marc Alexander

imureh said:


> I know you are kidding right Marc?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I was serious. You don't want side surrounds mounted near the ceiling. Try and stay below ½ ceiling height. The next gen Denon's may allow 5.1.6 (x6400) and 7.1.6 (x7400).


----------



## Ted99

humbland said:


> I think the top speaker will be further away in almost all set ups. It is in ours.
> The actual distance difference is so small that I don't believe that you need to fool around with time delays.
> I'm not sure that I understand your set up. In ours, we had plenty of power to drive both speakers from the AVR amp. However, I was concerned about an impedance mismatch relative to the other channels. Splitting the center RCA output and driving another amp was a simplistic solution. I have used the HK 2000 before and I really like the HK amps. However, there are smaller/lighter modern digital amps that are a "plug and play" fix:
> 
> https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-apa102-class-d-stereo-60-wpc-amplifier-auto-on--300-591
> 
> For $100, you are good to go...


Same as you, I split the center RCA out (actually used the XLR's) to feed two separate channels of the XPA-5 because, like you, I was concerned about paralleling the two speakers because of impedance mismatch. The Audyssey correction sets the "combined" levels because it only "sees" a single center and this is also the method you have employed. The difference is that I can't independently adjust the volume of the two "centers". You can. The simplest method for me would be to have a RCA/XLR mixer that would separate the single center output into two volume controlled outputs. @MSAldana has pointed out one that goes the opposite way (two inputs to one output), but I haven't found one for the way I need. I have found for $500,or so, signal processors that will do this and also provide time correction and phase correction but this seems overkill. I agree with you that introducing a time delay for my 10' distant MLP is probably overkill. I have an extra amp of the type you describe (Emo X-100), but I'm afraid it's power capability is not up to the rest of the system.
Still looking.


----------



## sdurani

imureh said:


> Move the surrounds to the middle left and right


If the only way you can do a 7.1 configuration is by placing the side speakers in the ceiling, then stick to a 5.1 layout. One of the hallmarks of an Atmos set-up is the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. That's not going to happen if your side speakers are in the ceiling near to your height speakers. If you can place the side speakers just forward of the front row, then it's worth doing a 7.1 base layer, since it will be well separated from the height layer.


----------



## imureh

Marc Alexander said:


> I was serious. You don't want side surrounds mounted near the ceiling. Try and stay below ½ ceiling height. The next gen Denon's may allow 5.1.6 (x6400) and 7.1.6 (x7400).




Ah I got you know. You correct. I will like the go with 5.2.4. My comment about kidding was about indicating one sub instead of 2. And I know you would never say there are enough subs in any set up  also is that speculation on the next denons or who know the specs? I am going to need a new AVR as well so may as well hold out. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## imureh

sdurani said:


> If the only way you can do a 7.1 configuration is by placing the side speakers in the ceiling, then stick to a 5.1 layout. One of the hallmarks of an Atmos set-up is the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. That's not going to happen if your side speakers are in the ceiling near to your height speakers. If you can place the side speakers just forward of the front row, then it's worth doing a 7.1 base layer, since it will be well separated from the height layer.




Yes I appreciate that now. The issue with side is that one side will block the passage into the room. I am happy to stay 5.2.4. Not sure how much I will miss out by not having rear surround backs. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

imureh said:


> The issue with side is that one side will block the passage into the room.


Can't you place the sides forward of the entry passage?


----------



## imureh

sdurani said:


> Can't you place the sides forward of the entry passage?




If I do that then it will miss the second row completely. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

No it won't.


----------



## imureh

Scott Simonian said:


> No it won't.




Please elaborate. My understanding is probably flawed so would like to understand better. Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Simonian

imureh said:


> Please elaborate. My understanding is probably flawed so would like to understand better. Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You can't "miss" the whole 2nd row just because the speaker is ahead of it. Sound is scattering all over the place. You can't "miss it".

Can you at least try it out before knocking the idea? You do want to keep both side and rear surrounds, don't you?


Try it out. You might find it extremely satisfying to listen to. Or not. But you won't know until you try.


----------



## Marc Alexander

imureh said:


> Ah I got you know. You correct. I will like the go with 5.2.4. My comment about kidding was about indicating one sub instead of 2. And I know you would never say there are enough subs in any set up  also is that speculation on the next denons or who know the specs? I am going to need a new AVR as well so may as well hold out.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Haha, I got you now.😀

Because the subs in my systems are all mono I always use the x.1.x notation.


----------



## imureh

Scott Simonian said:


> You can't "miss" the whole 2nd row just because the speaker is ahead of it. Sound is scattering all over the place. You can't "miss it".
> 
> Can you at least try it out before knocking the idea? You do want to keep both side and rear surrounds, don't you?
> 
> 
> Try it out. You might find it extremely satisfying to listen to. Or not. But you won't know until you try.




Of course no harm in trying. Space will be the issue on the right side of room. Ideally yes would like to have surrounds and back surrounds. But that means 4 speakers on stands in the room which I am not a fan about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## imureh

Marc Alexander said:


> Haha, I got you now.
> 
> Because the subs in my systems are all mono I always use the x.1.x notation.




Sorry about the crappy grammar and spelling. Dang iPhone typing is not fun.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## humbland

Ted99 said:


> Same as you, I split the center RCA out (actually used the XLR's) to feed two separate channels of the XPA-5 because, like you, I was concerned about paralleling the two speakers because of impedance mismatch. The Audyssey correction sets the "combined" levels because it only "sees" a single center and this is also the method you have employed. The difference is that I can't independently adjust the volume of the two "centers". You can. The simplest method for me would be to have a RCA/XLR mixer that would separate the single center output into two volume controlled outputs. @MSAldana has pointed out one that goes the opposite way (two inputs to one output), but I haven't found one for the way I need. I have found for $500,or so, signal processors that will do this and also provide time correction and phase correction but this seems overkill. I agree with you that introducing a time delay for my 10' distant MLP is probably overkill. I have an extra amp of the type you describe (Emo X-100), but I'm afraid it's power capability is not up to the rest of the system.
> Still looking.


As I understand it, you just need a two channel amp or a good 4 channel (HK PA 4000), with independent volume controls. Just take the center RCA output, split it , then feed each amp. End of story. You might be surrendering some of your original (included) amplifier capacity, but with a good outboard set up, it won't matter...


----------



## Scott Simonian

imureh said:


> Of course no harm in trying. Space will be the issue on the right side of room. Ideally yes would like to have surrounds and back surrounds. But that means 4 speakers on stands in the room which I am not a fan about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can you use inwall speakers for these positions?


----------



## sdurani

imureh said:


> If I do that then it will miss the second row completely.


Your L/C/R speakers are all the way up front but they don't miss the second row. Likewise, a pair of side speakers slightly in front of the first row will not miss the second row. You might want to elevate the surrounds just above ear height so that all listeners have clear line of sight to those speakers.


----------



## imureh

Scott Simonian said:


> Can you use inwall speakers for these positions?




Possibly. It's more headache than I am up for to just incorporate rear back surrounds. I may give the 5.2.4 a try and see how it goes. I doubt that I will miss the rear back surrounds much. I just did not think about the fact that I cannot have my surrounds at the same height as the height speakers so now that I have been educated on that, I will have to see what works in the space I have. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## imureh

sdurani said:


> Your L/C/R speakers are all the way up front but they don't miss the second row. Likewise, a pair of side speakers slightly in front of the first row will not miss the second row. You might want to elevate the surrounds just above ear height so that all listeners have clear line of sight to those speakers.




Understood. Accommodating them at ear level or slightly above is the issue for the right side of room. That is why I wanted to use the center connections I have to connect the surrounds but that placed the speakers at the same height as the height speakers and that will lose all benefits. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Kevnmin

humbland said:


> As I understand it, you just need a two channel amp or a good 4 channel (HK PA 4000), with independent volume controls. Just take the center RCA output, split it , then feed each amp. End of story. You might be surrendering some of your original (included) amplifier capacity, but with a good outboard set up, it won't matter...


I'm actually glad I read across these posts regarding the dual centers(above & below). For now I just have the two of mine ran in series. I mostly hear sound from the larger lower speaker in my setup. I never thought about using an additional amp for the second(upper center). For now though, is is a huge problem that I'm giving the AVR a higher impedance for the center channel in relation to all other channels?


----------



## unretarded

I had to put rears about 2 foot behind the only row due to a door, all is good.

I have a 5.X.2 set up that I will be adding a second set of ceilings to like the dual front mod.........you will never know if it works for you until you give it a shot.

I guess it will be 5.X.2+2......


----------



## imureh

unretarded said:


> I had to put rears about 2 foot behind the only row due to a door, all is good.
> 
> I have a 5.X.2 set up that I will be adding a second set of ceilings to like the dual front mod.........you will never know if it works for you until you give it a shot.
> 
> I guess it will be 5.X.2+2......




Yep. Space is the issue. Plus I am not sure how much effect I am giving up by not having the rear back surrounds. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## veger69

So I calculated the Schroeder frequency in my room based on 12'11" x 15'5" x 8'11" but it has about a 6' hall attached on the right back corner? Will this change the frequency and how might a calc it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## imureh

Scott Simonian said:


> Can you use inwall speakers for these positions?





sdurani said:


> Your L/C/R speakers are all the way up front but they don't miss the second row. Likewise, a pair of side speakers slightly in front of the first row will not miss the second row. You might want to elevate the surrounds just above ear height so that all listeners have clear line of sight to those speakers.


What would you recommend for the heights (front and rear) as marked on the pics? In ceiling or on ceiling. I was leaning towards on ceiling with speaker angled towards the MLP since the front ones are quite a bit out from second row. Also any speaker recommendations?


----------



## Scott Simonian

veger69 said:


> So I calculated the Schroeder frequency in my room based on 12'11" x 15'5" x 8'11" but it has about a 6' hall attached on the right back corner? Will this change the frequency and how might a calc it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



No, not really but you should always verify with measurements not rely on calculations/simulations alone.


----------



## sdurani

imureh said:


> What would you recommend for the heights (front and rear) as marked on the pics? In ceiling or on ceiling. I was leaning towards on ceiling with speaker angled towards the MLP since the front ones are quite a bit out from second row.


I would do the same (on ceiling), so that the speakers can be aimed for best coverage.


> Also any speaker recommendations?


What's wrong with another pair of the ones you already have behind you hanging from the ceiling?


----------



## imureh

sdurani said:


> I would do the same (on ceiling), so that the speakers can be aimed for best coverage. What's wrong with another pair of the ones you already have behind you hanging from the ceiling?


Well, those I am selling to a friend of mine together with my other speakers, plus I need 4 more...so total 6 including surrounds


----------



## unretarded

For a budget speaker, I went with the bic fh-6 lcr`s all around.......


----------



## imureh

unretarded said:


> For a budget speaker, I went with the bic fh-6 lcr`s all around.......




Thanks. I was thinking of Prime satellite, RSL CG3 or Ascend 170s. Not sure yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> This may sound like a weird question, but has anyone on AVS run full-spectrum pink noise or a sine wave and measured what frequencies are getting steered to a center channel by DSU vs. sides or rear surrounds? Just curious.





sdurani said:


> Since it is decorrelated noise, I doubt any of it would end up in the centre output. Most surround processing (upmixing) sends decorrelated info to the speakers outside the front soundstage. However, if you play a full range sweep in the left & right channels simultaneously, that will be a correlated (in-phase) mono signal that should get fully extracted the centre output. If you measure the centre output (at the RCA jack of the AVR or pre-pro), you'll see the frequency response of the extracted centre signal.


A week old, but I've been super busy and barely checking AVS so I'm just catching up....

But I have measured at least part of this, and have shown the graph to both of you before 

DSU doesn't appear to redirect bass


----------



## sdurani

^^^^Thanx, I'd forgotten about that.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> So you can no longer use DSU like you used to be able to do with PLII Cinema to measure the center channel with REW (for those of us who can't get ASIO to work).



Get yourself a copy of this. Useful even if you don't have OM.

https://www.parts-express.com/dayto...mnimic-precision-measurement-systems--390-793


----------



## veger69

Scott Simonian said:


> No, not really but you should always verify with measurements not rely on calculations/simulations alone.




How would I measure it I have arc on my Anthem avm60 and REW with a calibrated mic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jrogers

ARROW-AV said:


> Marc, not meaning any disrespect but that does not in fact qualify your statement...
> 
> This is your statement:
> 
> Regarding which the salient facts are as per follows.
> 
> The Steinway Lyngdorf audio systems are ‘all or nothing’ in that they are complete audio systems where you cannot combine the individual component parts with other brands of AV equipment. The reason for this is because the SL audio systems operate differently, wherein SL has sought to eliminate some of the pre-existing flaws to do with how all audio systems typically operate. In particular, this is with respect to eliminating any and all amplification that is carried out within the analogue domain, plus having all of the signal processing and electronics maintained within the digital domain right from the source to the speakers themselves. This has many advantages but that’s a discussion for another time.
> 
> But the fact that, as you say, “The Model P200 can only be used with amplifiers and speakers from Steinway Lyngdorf”, is in fact irrelevant with respect to price comparisons.
> 
> Where you have gone wrong is it to compare the total cost of complete audio system(s) with the price of a singular component part, namely the AV processor. This is comparing apples-with-oranges and hence is meaningless. The Datasats and Trinnovs are AV processors that are integrated into an entire audio system. The P200 is also an AV processor that is integrated into an entire audio system; where it is simply the case that you can’t use other brands of equipment for the rest of the audio system. This has no relevance regarding what are the comparative costs between the respective AV processors.
> 
> Consequently, with respect to a proper/true apples-with-apples comparison you must compare what is the cost of the respective AV processors. But that’s not all… we also need to ensure that all prices compared relate to the same specification with respect to including both whatever Room Correction technology and Atmos/Auro/DTS:X, and whatever costs are associated with respect to including these. Where here are said true apples-with-apples MSRP pricing comparisons:
> 
> *● Datasat RS20i = €31,800 |16 audio channels
> 
> ● Trinnov Altitude32-1624 = €24,000 |24 audio channels
> 
> ● Trinnov Altitude32-816 = €20,000 |16 audio channels
> 
> ● Steinway Lyngdorf P200 = €14,000 |20 audio channels
> 
> ● Lyngdorf MP-50 = €12,000 | 16 audio channels*
> 
> That said, clearly the fact that with SL you have to no choice but to buy the complete audio system is a potential negative (although in our opinion the benefits provided by SL’s whole system differing technology far outweighs this negative). Which is why we are so excited about the new Lyngdorf MP-50 AV processor, because it has the promise to deliver much of the same audio performance and features as SL, but with an AV processor that can be partnered with whatever you like; thereby allowing integrating in an existing AV system. With 12 discrete plus 4 auxiliary audio channels the MP-50 can do speaker configurations such as 9.4.6… Whether or not you really need more than this with respect to Dolby Atmos audio we will leave up for discussion, which brings us fully back to the topic of this thread.
> 
> We should add that we consider all of the above to be excellent AV processors!
> .


Looks like a future version of the Lyngdorf MP-50 may provide an (albeit somewhat more expensive) upgrade path for those of us who want to continue to incorporate front-wide speakers into our rooms when our 2015 AVR's become obsolete (given the AVR manufacturers have apparently abandoned front wides in lieu of rear surrounds. Looked through the manual and it at least appears to support a flexible arrangement of speakers that can include front-wides without rear surrounds


----------



## Kevnmin

I could use some help with some questions after reading a few posts earlier today. There were a couple posts from a couple members using two center channel speakers, one above and one below. Can I get some opinions on this, good or bad.


----------



## ARROW-AV

jrogers said:


> Looks like a future version of the Lyngdorf MP-50 may provide an (albeit somewhat more expensive) upgrade path for those of us who want to continue to incorporate front-wide speakers into our rooms when our 2015 AVR's become obsolete (given the AVR manufacturers have apparently abandoned front wides in lieu of rear surrounds. Looked through the manual and it at least appears to support a flexible arrangement of speakers that can include front-wides without rear surrounds


Both P200 and MP-50 will also ensure that those front-wide speakers won't be resting idle outputing nothing or very little most of the time either  In that you have the option of having audio always emanating from them, even in instances wherein it is not natively present in the audio track and also when DSU is used, even though DSU does not create any information for those audio channels when upscaling to Dolby Atmos. And they achieve this via matrixing audio from the front left/right and surround audio channels so with respect to the MP-50 it does not 'use up' any of your discrete audio channels allocation


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember Dolby would like you to choose an overhead speaker that has 90° dispersion among other things


While having a wide dispersion is never a bad thing, I believe this specific Dolby recommendation is only meant for speakers facing directly downward.



> _Mounting considerations_
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

With the 2017 Yamaha receivers announced it seems they stick with 7.1.4 for yet another year.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

ARROW-AV said:


> Both P200 and MP-50 will also ensure that those front-wide speakers won't be resting idle outputing nothing or very little most of the time either  In that you have the option of having audio always emanating from them, even in instances wherein it is not natively present in the audio track and also when DSU is used, even though DSU does not create any information for those audio channels when upscaling to Dolby Atmos. And they achieve this via matrixing audio from the front left/right and surround audio channels so with respect to the MP-50 it does not 'use up' any of your discrete audio channels allocation


Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the MP-50 simply is a 7.1.4 processor with four built in PLII chips to run 4x Scatmos internally. I assume it can't do native 9.1.4 without matrixing?


----------



## ARROW-AV

Mashie Saldana said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the MP-50 simply is a 7.1.4 processor with four built in PLII chips to run 4x Scatmos internally. I assume it can't do native 9.1.4 without matrixing?


Very astute observation sir. You are absolutely correct.

The Lyngdorf MP-50 has 12 discrete audio channels plus 4 matrixed/auxiliary, grand total 16 audio channels. So, you can in fact do 9.1.6 with matrixing 

The Steinway P200, the MP-50's 'big brother', has 20 discrete audio channels. That said, as mentioned ^^ the P200 can only be partnered with Steinway amps and speakers.  
.


----------



## HarpNinja

I have a 5.1.2 set up, but am wired for 5.1.4. I have a Denon 2200, which I really like besides the fact it can't do 5.1.4. It seems the cheapest route to 5.1.4 is a Denon 4200 or Marantz 6010 from accessories4less.

Will these units drop in price further soon? I don't have 4k or HDR with my projector, but I do want to be able to use UHD's. I am having a hard time keeping track of what model years can do what. Since I have a great room and not a dedicated HT, room correction is super helpful.

Thanks for any insight!


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the MP-50 simply is a 7.1.4 processor with four built in PLII chips to run 4x Scatmos internally. I assume it can't do native 9.1.4 without matrixing?


Remains to be seen how the matrixing is done. If it is like PLII, then an extracted speaker feed will be cancelled from adjacent speakers. If it is simply a sum, then those sounds are going to be coming from more than one speaker, whether intended to be that way or not. 

BTW, since DTS:X is going to be 7.1.4 for the foreseeable future, they'll also be doing 9.1.6 via matrixing (extracting wides and top middles using Neural:X). We're over 20 years into the discrete multi-channel era and matrixing is still used to scale sources to speaker layouts.


----------



## Kevnmin

Question out there to those with way more experience and knowledge than me.

I have a Denon X6200 paired with a 2 channel Parasound amp to get 7.x.4 layout. I'm using bookshelfs right now for my height channels until I get my better half's approval and $$. Anyway the fronts are toed in and angled down towards MLP whereas the rears are only toed in towards MLP and not angled down. My first go I set the AVR to Front Height & Rear Height and found the best sound with either DTS:X or Neural X. Much reading leaned me to change to Top Front & Top Rear which indeed sounds incredibly better for Atmos & Dolby Surround but not so good for DTS:X.
So here's my question: has anyone found a good combination of either Top Front & Rear Height or vise versa? Is it worthwhile to investigate this? I'm hoping someone out there already has question this and tried. 

Thanks in advance for your help and suggestions


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kevnmin said:


> Question out there to those with way more experience and knowledge than me.
> 
> I have a Denon X6200 paired with a 2 channel Parasound amp to get 7.x.4 layout. I'm using bookshelfs right now for my height channels until I get my better half's approval and $$. Anyway the fronts are toed in and angled down towards MLP whereas the rears are only toed in towards MLP and not angled down. My first go I set the AVR to Front Height & Rear Height and found the best sound with either DTS:X or Neural X. Much reading leaned me to change to Top Front & Top Rear which indeed sounds incredibly better for Atmos & Dolby Surround but not so good for DTS:X.
> So here's my question: has anyone found a good combination of either Top Front & Rear Height or vise versa? Is it worthwhile to investigate this? I'm hoping someone out there already has question this and tried.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help and suggestions



Yes.

During playback of Dolby Atmos material, TOP (front&rear) is optimal.

During playback of DTS:X material, HEIGHT (front&rear) is optimal.


Since you own a Denon, you have to settle on one selection, choose which ever you prefer for most material.


----------



## Kevnmin

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes.
> 
> During playback of Dolby Atmos material, TOP (front&rear) is optimal.
> 
> During playback of DTS:X material, HEIGHT (front&rear) is optimal.
> 
> 
> Since you own a Denon, you have to settle on one selection, choose which ever you prefer for most material.


Thanks for the info. Just wish there was a quick toggle between the two setups with Audyssey remembering the settings for each.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kevnmin said:


> Thanks for the info. Just wish there was a quick toggle between the two setups with Audyssey remembering the settings for each.


Sorry.

To my knowledge, Yamaha is the only brand to offer a feature like that in an AVR.

I use this feature to do just that with my 5100.


----------



## Kevnmin

Scott Simonian said:


> Sorry.
> 
> To my knowledge, Yamaha is the only brand to offer a feature like that in an AVR.
> 
> I use this feature to do just that with my 5100.


Always something to get us to spend more and upgrade. Does it ever end???? Uggh! I'm over a year at building my measly setup compared to what I see you have. Gives me something to look forward to though.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> While having a wide dispersion is never a bad thing, I believe this specific Dolby recommendation is only meant for speakers facing directly downward.


There's certainly no harm in aiming the overhead speakers. Aiming speakers, and/or toeing them in, has always been something we have done for decades so I can't see it becoming a problem just because some of our speakers are on the ceiling. But if people struggle to aim the speakers (eg they are in-ceiling types) then the 90° dispersion is what's needed. Otherwise, aim away! 

(AAMOI, mine are 90° Tannoy dual concentrics and I aim them anyway! Why not!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kevnmin said:


> Always something to get us to spend more and upgrade.


No, not necessarily.



Kevnmin said:


> Does it ever end????


Lol, no, not necessarily. 



Kevnmin said:


> Uggh! I'm over a year at building my measly setup compared to what I see you have. Gives me something to look forward to though.


Thanks! It took a _very_ long time to collect all this gear. It surely wasn't all flown in overnight.  It took a better part of a decade to fully transform my HT system from it's previous version.


You'll get there.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Thanks! it took a _very_ long time to collect all this gear. It surely wasn't all flown in overnight.  It took a better part of a decade to fully transform my HT system from it's previous version.


The futon has survived every change and upgrade though


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> There's certainly no harm in aiming the overhead speakers. Aiming speakers, and/or toeing them in, has always been something we have done for decades so I can't see it becoming a problem just because some of our speakers are on the ceiling. But if people struggle to aim the speakers (eg they are in-ceiling types) then the 90° dispersion is what's needed. Otherwise, aim away!
> 
> (AAMOI, mine are 90° Tannoy dual concentrics and I aim them anyway! Why not!


+1

To make my statement more clear I should have used the term "Dolby's requirement", instead of "recommendation". Aiming and wide dispersion are in general both (and jointly) recommended, but for the overheads, missing one of them turns the other from recommendation into absolute requirement: If you can't aim, you MUST have a wide dispersion speaker; If you don't have a wide dispersion speaker, you MUST aim.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> The futon has survived every change and upgrade though


The man got his priorities right.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> The man got his priorities right.


The futon must be very well constructed. Just to survive the bass in Scott's room


----------



## mrtickleuk

maikeldepotter said:


> +1
> 
> To make my statement more clear I should have used the term "Dolby's requirement", instead of "recommendation". Aiming and wide dispersion are in general both (and jointly) recommended, but for the overheads, missing one of them turns the other from recommendation into absolute requirement: If you can't aim, you MUST have a wide dispersion speaker; If you don't have a wide dispersion speaker, you MUST aim.


My ceiling speakers (Monitor Audio CT165) have aimable tweaters. But obviously not the whole speaker can be aimed. Is that what you meant and does that "comply"?


----------



## maikeldepotter

mrtickleuk said:


> My ceiling speakers (Monitor Audio CT165) have aimable tweaters. But obviously not the whole speaker can be aimed. Is that what you meant and does that "comply"?


Yes, it is about aiming the whole speaker, or just the tweeter, or both, whatever is necessary to get the right response at the listening position ...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hey. It's the only thing that fits through the damn door.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> My ceiling speakers (Monitor Audio CT165) have aimable tweaters. But obviously not the whole speaker can be aimed. Is that what you meant and does that "comply"?


While that looks like quite a nice speaker, in typical consumer audio fashion, the manufacturer only gives scant information on the speaker's specification, saying it has "wide dispersion" but without quantifying what they mean by that. I'd assume that their dispersion pattern is less than 90° all round and play safe therefore by aiming them towards MLP. Aiming just the tweeter is better than not aiming at all, so do that and you should be fine.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey. It's the only thing that fits through the damn door.


If you can get subs the size of wardrobes in there, you can get a decent, comfy chair in there!  (Now you'll tell me you built the subs in the room! LOL). Seriously, there are nice recliners that break into two halves (backrest and seat) so you can get them through a normal door - then you just assemble them inside the room. While it won't have any impact on the SQ you are getting, it will sure as heck have an impact on your SC*.  I bet this would add to your overall enjoyment of your movies, maybe not as much as Atmos though 


*Spinal Comfort


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> If you can get subs the size of wardrobes in there, you can get a decent, comfy chair in there!  (Now you'll tell me you built the subs in the room! LOL). *Seriously, there are nice recliners that break into two halves (backrest and seat) so you can get them through a normal door - then you just assemble them inside the room.* While it won't have any impact on the SQ you are getting, it will sure as heck have an impact on your SC*.  I bet this would add to your overall enjoyment of your movies, maybe not as much as Atmos though
> 
> 
> *Spinal Comfort


I know. 

I want three of these: http://www.rtheaters.com/FusionCollection/FC-Escape-1019.html

I can't fit three. Plus, I'd have to seriously modify my subriser to fit the new seating. I also can't afford three. 

I could fit two but I don't really want only two. Plus, I'd have to seriously modify my subriser to fit the new seating. I also can not afford two.

I could definitely fit one but I don't want _just_ one. I would also have to seriously modify my subriser to fit the new seating. I also can not afford even one. 


See the dilemma? 

The futon stays. :serious:


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I know.
> 
> I want three of these: http://www.rtheaters.com/FusionCollection/FC-Escape-1019.html
> 
> I can't fit three. Plus, I'd have to seriously modify my subriser to fit the new seating. I also can't afford three.
> 
> I could fit two but I don't really want only two. Plus, I'd have to seriously modify my subriser to fit the new seating. I also can not afford two.
> 
> I could definitely fit one but I don't want _just_ one. I would also have to seriously modify my subriser to fit the new seating. I also can not afford even one.
> 
> 
> See the dilemma?
> 
> The futon stays. :serious:


LOL. They look seriously nice. And they are _Buttkicker-Ready_! 

I'm sure there are cheaper chairs though that would be more comfortable than a futon. I agree though that two seats is no good - nobody gets the sweet central spot then. So it's three or one. One is a bit miserable I also agree. So it has to be three. I am getting 5 in my new HT - deliberately went for an odd number so my seat is bang on the centre line.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. They look seriously nice. And they are _Buttkicker-Ready_!















kbarnes701 said:


> I'm sure there are cheaper chairs though that would be more comfortable than a futon. I agree though that two seats is no good - nobody gets the sweet central spot then. So it's three or one. One is a bit miserable I also agree. So it has to be three. I am getting 5 in my new HT - deliberately went for an odd number so my seat is bang on the centre line.


There are but I don't find any I like or would want to spend money on. And why spend money on something I don't really like just to have new seats? Affecting the sweetspot is one thing but I don't want to reduce the already small number of people that are allowed to fit in here. Three just fit now, I'd be spending money to reduce that number. Ugh!

I'm not a big fan of this room. Really, I've reached the point where I can move all my hardware to another (preferable MUCH larger, at least twice as big) room and just keep on trucking....with room to spare for some g'damned seats. S**t.


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott Simonian said:


> I'm not a big fan of this room. Really, I've reached the point where I can move all my hardware to another (preferable MUCH larger, at least twice as big) room and just keep on trucking....with room to spare for some g'damned seats. S**t.


Pretty much what I've done with my new room. I kept as much of the hardware as I could and bought two more of the seats I already had to give me a total of 5. I could've done two rows but we wanted to steal some space at the end of the building for a small gym, so I stuck with a single row of 5. It's more than enough for me.

I prewired for 6 on the ceiling and also for wides (just as every manufacturer decides to drop wides LOL). No intention of using 6 on the ceiling at this time of course.


----------



## unretarded

Your in cali, there is always some big spender looking to get this years model....

Picked these up on craigs list for 75 bucks....2 seater

They are pretty wide and with new plans I wanted 3 seats, so back to craigs list......3 seats wide only about 25 inches wider than the 2 seater........200 bucks, with the detachable backs for easy lifting.......can run them as 1, 2 or 3...configuration.

These are berkling hollywoods some one paid 800-1000 per seat...........

So for what has to be close to 3000 bucks in seats, I am all in for $275 for 5 seats.


Sure, I had to drive 1.5 hours one way, but.....it works for me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Craigslist?!?

Somebody likely had their naked butt on those "new" seats of yours. And who knows the composition of the numerous stains it is sure to have. Sweet deal. 



*shudders*


If my furniture is going to have any DNA on it, it's gonna me MINE!


----------



## unretarded

Scott Simonian said:


> Craigslist?!?
> 
> Somebody likely had their naked butt on those "new" seats of yours. And who knows the composition of the numerous stains it is sure to have. Sweet deal.
> 
> 
> 
> *shudders*
> 
> 
> If my furniture is going to have any DNA on it, it's gonna me MINE!


I hosed the cloth ones down with the industrial cleaners....foaming stain lifters etc and then a healthy dose of lysol....then my little hand held cleaner to flush the chemicals off it.

So maybe 30 bucks in cleaners..........now I can deposit my own funk in them.


Notice the new ones are leather.......much easier to clean and less chance any residue was absorbed.


I nest up in these with a blanket and pillows anyway....not much direct contact.....:laugh:

I also made sure they came from a good home and not some undesirable like me....

There were some that were eliminated just for the reasons you stated......


...also most normal home theaters see minimal usage as they are not the main living room seating.....unlike me, who puts a good 6 hours a night in them.

I purchased the PJ the end of november and I have approx 1300 hours on it.....



I just can`t figure out where this weird rash came from..........


----------



## Yeahnah

Finally ordered my 2 Atmos speakers - KEF CI200QR's and I should be installing them in 2 weeks. I've checked the room setout and was wondering where you guys recommended to put the 2 bearing in mind there is a fan on the roof.. I won't be upgrading to 4 anytime soon, but I don't mind cutting more holes and patching them in the future. Updated pdf attached as per Dolby recommendations.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Yeahnah said:


> Finally ordered my 2 Atmos speakers - KEF CI200QR's and I should be installing them in 2 weeks. I've checked the room setout and was wondering where you guys recommended to put the 2 bearing in mind there is a fan on the roof.. I won't be upgrading to 4 anytime soon, but I don't mind cutting more holes and patching them in the future. Updated pdf attached as per Dolby recommendations.


I have my top middle at 80 degrees elevation so a little bit in front of MLP.


----------



## Yeahnah

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have my top middle at 80 degrees elevation so a little bit in front of MLP.


And you're super happy with that position??


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Yeahnah said:


> And you're super happy with that position??


It is working fine but then I also have speakers at 45 and 125 degrees as well.


----------



## timjohnson1717

kbarnes701 said:


> There's certainly no harm in aiming the overhead speakers. Aiming speakers, and/or toeing them in, has always been something we have done for decades so I can't see it becoming a problem just because some of our speakers are on the ceiling. But if people struggle to aim the speakers (eg they are in-ceiling types) then the 90° dispersion is what's needed. Otherwise, aim away!
> 
> (AAMOI, mine are 90° Tannoy dual concentrics and I aim them anyway! Why not!


So, when I installed my heights, I was advised to point them straight down as per spec. Now I am seeing multiple posts here saying aim them at MLP.

When I went to the Atmos cinema, all surrounds and heights were aimed towards the center of the room. 

I am using SVS Prime Sats, I doubt they have extremely wide dispersion, So should I adjust them to face the MLP? Or should I leave them straight down, they do sound great as is, but I guess I can mess with it.


----------



## Yeahnah

timjohnson1717 said:


> So should I adjust them to face the MLP? Or should I leave them straight down, they do sound great as is, but I guess I can mess with it.


If you can move them then have a go and see for yourself. You don't need REW to hear for yourself if it sounds better. Unfortunately I can't adjust mine so wherever I choose, they go!


----------



## kbarnes701

timjohnson1717 said:


> So, when I installed my heights, I was advised to point them straight down as per spec. Now I am seeing multiple posts here saying aim them at MLP.


If they have a 90° style all-round dispersion, they can be pointed directly down. That is what Dolby say. OTOH, if they do not have that kind of dispersion pattern, then they can be aimed. That is also what Dolby say. What characteristics do your speakers have? 

Mine have 90° dispersion but I still aim them anyway. Aiming speakers is something we have done for decades without even questioning it, so why would it be different just because the speakers are on the ceiling? It probably makes no difference with my Tannoys, but it can’t do any harm either. But if I had in-ceiling designs which couldn’t be aimed, then I'd want them to have 90° dispersion as per Dolby spec, and if they didn't, then I'd want them to be aimable, or at least have aimable tweeters. If the speakers are mounted ON the ceiling, then we have more options.



timjohnson1717 said:


> When I went to the Atmos cinema, all surrounds and heights were aimed towards the center of the room.


It's difficult to compare a room with 1,000 seats and one with half a dozen seats - the requirements and relevant parameters are just so different. Dolby issue a set of recommendations for commercial cinemas and a separate set for home cinemas for a good reason.



timjohnson1717 said:


> I am using SVS Prime Sats, I doubt they have extremely wide dispersion, So should I adjust them to face the MLP? Or should I leave them straight down, they do sound great as is, but I guess I can mess with it.


I think we are talking fairly subtle differences anyway in all likelihood. If SVS don't publish full specs then it is difficult to know what their dispersion pattern is. In that case, personally, I'd assume they did NOT have 90° dispersion (as this is the most likely scenario) and aim them towards MLP, or maybe towards the general area of MLP. If they Do happen to have wide dispersion characteristics, aiming them won't do any harm, so you can’t really lose with this strategy IMO. If it is easy to do, why not do it and have a listen? If it sounds better, leave them aimed, if it sounds worse, put them back, if you can't really hear much difference, leave them where they are or put them back, whichever floats your boat.

I think a lot of overthinking goes on. Remember what the tech guy from Dolby said: "It's hard to get Atmos wrong".


----------



## HT-Eman

*Lexus movie commercial in Dolby Atmos*

Do you think we will be able to get a copy of this commercial ad for Lexus with Dolby Atmos for our own home theaters ?


----------



## sdurani

timjohnson1717 said:


> So should I adjust them to face the MLP?


Shouldn't all your speakers be aimed towards the listeners? I don't see the advantage of having heights pointed at a random spot on the floor where no one is sitting.


----------



## timjohnson1717

I didn't think so either, but I was told on the forums to face them straight down by other members, I guess its a matter of preference at the end. I can easily adjust as they are mounted on ceiling brackets from svs, the ones with the balls on the end, so any direction or tilt is basically attainable. I just can move their physical location in the room, however I think I got that part near perfect given the space I had to work with.

If I aim them then it becomes much more directional, however right now it does have directionality, but the room sounds huge compared to before because I imagine it is more diffuse in its current state. This is going to be a matter of messing with it, and then testing for a bit as opposed to a right/wrong type thing.


----------



## kbarnes701

timjohnson1717 said:


> I didn't think so either, but I was told on the forums to face them straight down by other members...


They were probably telling you what Dolby recommends *if* you have speakers with 90° dispersion. But Dolby also says to aim them if they do *not *have 90° dispersion. Both are right, depending on the characteristics of the speaker. But it cannot be 'wrong' to do what we have always done - aim the speakers regardless of their directivity.



timjohnson1717 said:


> If I aim them then it becomes much more directional, however right now it does have directionality, but the room sounds huge compared to before because I imagine it is more diffuse in its current state.


You may have to choose between the huge spaciousness on the one hand, and more precise location of sounds on the other. This is just a preference thing (if it applies at all). Personally, I enjoy being able to precisely locate in space the different sounds, others will prefer the spacious effect.



timjohnson1717 said:


> This is going to be a matter of messing with it, and then testing for a bit as opposed to a right/wrong type thing.


Exactly. As it is easy to move your speakers around, just try it both ways and settle for the position you enjoy the most. I’d use the Atmos trailers as my first port of call for testing, and then try it on some movies.


----------



## sdurani

timjohnson1717 said:


> I didn't think so either, but I was told on the forums to face them straight down by other members, I guess its a matter of preference at the end.


What does your common sense tell you? Most speakers have their smoothest, flattest, most extended frequency response when measured on-axis. Up to you whether you want the best part of your speakers' dispersion aimed at the listeners or at a random spot on the floor.


> I can easily adjust as they are mounted on ceiling brackets from svs, the ones with the balls on the end, so any direction or tilt is basically attainable.


Do you have a SPL meter or can you buy an inexpensive one? If so, play your receiver's speaker calibration tone (usually pink noise) from one of your height speakers and measure the level from all three seats. Play with tilt and angle until you get all three seats as close as possible to the same volume level. Lather, rinse, repeat for the rest of your height speakers. Heck, even for your front L/R speakers.


----------



## hgosmelbfl

Okay, I am ready to take the plunge into the Dolby Atmos experience. A little input on my system, I'm currently using a 7.1 setup with all Martin Logan electrostats. My room is 18 feet from front to back and is 14 feet from side to side, I have a tray ceiling that is 9 feet in height. My listening position is about 3-4 feet of the back wall with a single row of seats. My question is can I use 4 height in ceiling speakers with my room layout, and would it be suggested to put 2 above the listening position and the other 2 towards the front of the room. Or do you think I have enough room to put 2 behind the listening poistion and 2 just in front of the listening. Lastly, the 3rd option would be to put just 2 above or slightly in front of the listening position. Hope this makes since as it is very confusing for me to understand the placement of this technology. Thanks in advance for you input on this matter.


----------



## myxylplyx

*Quick Help with Speaker Placement!*

So, my contractor just asked me to provide him a layout for the ceiling - specifically the recessed lights and in-ceiling speakers, by Monday.

I've been reading as much as I can on the Dolby recommendations but I could really use some more experienced feedback before finalizing...

My layout is to be a 5.2.4, with the 4 Atmos channels 5' 1" forward and behind the MLP, in line with the L and R channels of the front sound stage.

I got that measurement by taking the ceiling height (8'7") and subtracting seated ear height (42") and got 5' 1"... I believe that's correct?


Help please!


----------



## batpig

myxylplyx said:


> So, my contractor just asked me to provide him a layout for the ceiling - specifically the recessed lights and in-ceiling speakers, by Monday.
> 
> I've been reading as much as I can on the Dolby recommendations but I could really use some more experienced feedback before finalizing...
> 
> My layout is to be a 5.2.4, with the 4 Atmos channels 5' 1" forward and behind the MLP, in line with the L and R channels of the front sound stage.
> 
> I got that measurement by taking the ceiling height (8'7") and subtracting seated ear height (42") and got 5' 1"... I believe that's correct?
> 
> 
> Help please!


You've got it, although no need to be so precise down to the inch. The final placement will likely be limited from that level of precision based on where the ceiling joists are or other such factors. But as long as you are approximately 45 degrees front/rear you are good to go.


----------



## myxylplyx

batpig said:


> You've got it, although no need to be so precise down to the inch. The final placement will likely be limited from that level of precision based on where the ceiling joists are or other such factors. But as long as you are approximately 45 degrees front/rear you are good to go.


Thanks for your response!


I went back and looked at the Dolby instructions for setting up Atmos and the illustration for overhead 5.x.4 looks really different for the rear Atmos (behind the MLP).

Figure 13 on page 20 seemingly shows the rear overhead Atmos channels in front of the rear surround channels?!

That illustration seemingly has the rear Atmos channels significantly closer to the MLP than the fronts?


----------



## HT-Eman

*xXx: Return of Xander Cage*

Just finished watching xXx: Return of Xander Cage . The atmos activity is on par with Mad Max. Lots of activity up there and objects around the room.


----------



## freezinghot

I have just purchased a pair of these to complete my 5.1.2 atmos setup. They are Niles DS7MP directional.

What does anyone think of these??

FH.


----------



## lujan

HT-Eman said:


> Just finished watching xXx: Return of Xander Cage . The atmos activity is on par with Mad Max. Lots of activity up there and objects around the room.


Are you referring to the streaming version somewhere as I thought the disc wasn't out until the 16th?


----------



## Jonas2

myxylplyx said:


> I've been reading as much as I can on the Dolby recommendations but I could really use some more experienced feedback before finalizing...
> 
> My layout is to be a 5.2.4, with the 4 Atmos channels 5' 1" forward and behind the MLP, in line with the L and R channels of the front sound stage.
> 
> I got that measurement by taking the ceiling height (8'7") and subtracting seated ear height (42") and got 5' 1"... I believe that's correct?


That is how I did it. Worked just fine for fronts, but unfortunately for my room, it put the rears within a foot of the rear wall! I thought that was too close, so I moved them forward to 21" away from the rear wall which still kept them within the Dolby recommended angles and maintained a nice (?) visual appearance. I had to go slightly inboard of the L/R speakers, but I think it has worked well. (Especially thanks to Anthem ARC.) Your math and placement should be fine. 



myxylplyx said:


> I went back and looked at the Dolby instructions for setting up Atmos and the illustration for overhead 5.x.4 looks really different for the rear Atmos (behind the MLP).
> 
> Figure 13 on page 20 seemingly shows the rear overhead Atmos channels in front of the rear surround channels?!
> 
> That illustration seemingly has the rear Atmos channels significantly closer to the MLP than the fronts?


If you stick with the side view, that is in line with your math - equidistant from MLP front to back, you'll be good. I know they show the side surrounds well behind the MLP, but that is not how I've got mine arranged. Mine are pretty much at the sides of the MLP, 90 degrees, but angled slightly forward, and this produces pleasing results. (Of course, that's subjective!)

Ideally, you could do some experimenting before final placement. I know that is typically not practical, at least not for in-ceilings/ceiling-mounted speakers. My sides are on stands, so I was able to move them around and experiment a bit with their placement, and I run 5.1 and 5.1.4, and the x.x.4 do not really have any bearing on the placement of the surrounds, at least not in MY situation. My sides are well forward of the rear heights. So you might want to use that as a starting point if you can - place the sides where they sound BEST to you, in your situation, worry less about their placement relative to the schematic, that's a guideline (a good one) but not an absolute.


----------



## HT-Eman

lujan said:


> Are you referring to the streaming version somewhere as I thought the disc wasn't out until the 16th?


The Atmos version is out through torrents .


----------



## Mrjmc99

HT-Eman said:


> The Atmos version is out through torrents .


Might not want to say that too specifically  that being said I agree that there was a lot of activity all around, however the voices in certain points sounded distorted, I only had that issue in this movie. I watched something else right away as I thought I might of had a speaker issue.

Just because there is a lot of overhead activity doesn't mean it's good  it was overbearing at some points, I actually had to lower the db level on my heights by 1-2 to balance it out.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Mrjmc99 said:


> Might not want to say that too specifically  that being said I agree that there was a lot of activity all around, however the voices in certain points sounded distorted, I only had that issue in this movie. I watched something else right away as I thought I might of had a speaker issue.
> 
> Just because there is a lot of overhead activity doesn't mean it's good  it was overbearing at some points, I actually had to lower the db level on my heights by 1-2 to balance it out.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


Have level matched your speakers using the Dolby Atmos test tones? If not I highly recommend it.


----------



## Ricoflashback

myxylplyx said:


> So, my contractor just asked me to provide him a layout for the ceiling - specifically the recessed lights and in-ceiling speakers, by Monday.
> 
> I've been reading as much as I can on the Dolby recommendations but I could really use some more experienced feedback before finalizing...
> 
> My layout is to be a 5.2.4, with the 4 Atmos channels 5' 1" forward and behind the MLP, in line with the L and R channels of the front sound stage.
> 
> I got that measurement by taking the ceiling height (8'7") and subtracting seated ear height (42") and got 5' 1"... I believe that's correct?
> 
> 
> Help please!


Any thought of wiring for six Atmos height speakers? Depending on how long you say in your house - - it might be worth it. Maybe you do not have a receiver that is capable right now but I'm sure they'll be available in the next couple of years.


----------



## lujan

Mrjmc99 said:


> Might not want to say that too specifically  that being said I agree that there was a lot of activity all around, however the voices in certain points sounded distorted, I only had that issue in this movie. I watched something else right away as I thought I might of had a speaker issue.
> 
> Just because there is a lot of overhead activity doesn't mean it's good  it was overbearing at some points, I actually had to lower the db level on my heights by 1-2 to balance it out.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


I agree and with the movies that has this issue I then turn on the subtitles (CC) in order to understand what they're saying...


----------



## thrang

lujan said:


> I agree and with the movies that has this issue I then turn on the subtitles (CC) in order to understand what they're saying...


Really? This seems to indicate something else is not right with your setup


----------



## Mrjmc99

thrang said:


> Really? This seems to indicate something else is not right with your setup


Me personally I only had that issue with this movie. The rest of my content is good, I agree that if this is a common issue, then something is fundamentally wrong.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## lujan

thrang said:


> Really? This seems to indicate something else is not right with your setup





Mrjmc99 said:


> Me personally I only had that issue with this movie. The rest of my content is good, I agree that if this is a common issue, then something is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> ...


It only happens on some movies like the Transformers movies and a lot of Michael Bay movies where the director likes to have a lot of destruction.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Mrjmc99 said:


> The rest of my content is good, I agree that if this is a common issue, then *something is fundamentally wrong*.





lujan said:


> It only happens on some movies like the Transformers movies and a lot of* Michael Bay* movies where the director likes to have a lot of destruction.


There's your problem  



Spoiler


----------



## lujan

mrtickleuk said:


> There's your problem
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q


I don't know what you're trying to tell us with this video because it doesn't say anything about the dialogue being difficult to hear because of all the background noise in the movie?


----------



## mrtickleuk

lujan said:


> I don't know what you're trying to tell us with this video because it doesn't say anything about the dialogue being difficult to hear because of all the background noise in the movie?


I was making a tangential point about the quality (or otherwise) of Michael Bay movies. With smilies to indicate it was light-hearted.


----------



## lujan

mrtickleuk said:


> I was making a tangential point about the quality (or otherwise) of Michael Bay movies. With smilies to indicate it was light-hearted.


----------



## Dave-T

Could someone please help me out here and give me some piece of mind PLEASE? I started out with a atoms 5.1.2 setup with Atmos speakers on the ceiling and decided to move to 5.1.4 which made a huge difference. The first time I had all four speakers on the ceiling the contractor was way off so I had it fixed a second time by someone else. Come to find out I found out today when my new motorized blinds were installed I had the installer measure the speakers and they are still wrong. On the left side front to back the speakers are 92.5 inches apart. On the right side front to back they are 91 inches apart. In the front left to right they are 65.5 inches apart. Finally in the rear left to right they are 64.5 inches apart. Should I both and have them moved again to have it perfect to just leave it. The second contractor I did not have to pay because he never finished so I lucked out in away. What is driving me nuts is that I can't find a decent contractor who can read a tap measure and cut a hole in the right spot. Any suggestions would be very welcome. By the way I live in Arlington Va if anyone knows any one who can move the speakers or can help me out.


----------



## genesplitter

Dave-T said:


> On the left side front to back the speakers are 92.5 inches apart. On the right side front to back they are 91 inches apart. In the front left to right they are 65.5 inches apart. Finally in the rear left to right they are 64.5 inches apart.


That's a difference of 1.6% and 1.5%, assuming the measurements are accurate. That seems like a high quality job to me.


----------



## mrtickleuk

genesplitter said:


> That's a difference of 1.6% and 1.5%, assuming the measurements are accurate. That seems like a high quality job to me.


High quality?! With modern LASER measuring tools there is zero excuse for not being exactly perfect. The only inaccuracy should be down to the material the holes are cut from, but the centre of each hole should be precisely lined up.


----------



## Dave-T

mrtickleuk said:


> High quality?! With modern LASER measuring tools there is zero excuse for not being exactly perfect. The only inaccuracy should be down to the material the holes are cut from, but the centre of each hole should be precisely lined up.


So I am not crazy then? I was not sure if genesplitter was serious or messing with me. I had a long day and I am half asleep. Is to much to ask for all four speakers to line up? Would you fix it or leave it?


----------



## timjohnson1717

Dave-T said:


> So I am not crazy then? I was not sure if genesplitter was serious or messing with me. I had a long day and I am half asleep. Is to much to ask for all four speakers to line up? Would you fix it or leave it?


Were there studs in the way or something? Over ~100 inches unless you are OCD, it shouldn't be in any way noticeable, nor will it make a bit of difference with regards to audio. Atmos isn't _that _picky.


----------



## unretarded

You will never hear a difference..............it would be expected to be within a 1/4 inch or so, but there could be structure in the way above them preventing exact locations.....


If it looks odd, it might be worth investigating.......


----------



## Jonas2

Dave-T said:


> On the left side front to back the speakers are 92.5 inches apart. On the right side front to back they are 91 inches apart. In the front left to right they are 65.5 inches apart. Finally in the rear left to right they are 64.5 inches apart. Should I both and have them moved again to have it perfect to just leave it. The second contractor I did not have to pay because he never finished so I lucked out in away. What is driving me nuts is that I can't find a decent contractor who can read a tap measure and cut a hole in the right spot. Any suggestions would be very welcome. By the way I live in Arlington Va if anyone knows any one who can move the speakers or can help me out.


You want something done right, you've gotta do it yourself.  Contractors are very good at rough work. Precise, detailed work? More of a crapshoot - too many of them simply don't care, ballpark is adequate, they've got other jobs to do and money to make, so they need to sopend as little time as possible on YOUR job.  Could they if they wanted to? SURE! They've generally got the know-how, skill, and tools - they're just too DAMN lazy to do it right. 



genesplitter said:


> That's a difference of 1.6% and 1.5%, assuming the measurements are accurate. That seems like a high quality job to me.


Not if you're anal, that's a gross error!  Seriously, off by an inch when you're only dealing with 65-66 of 'em? That's just piss-poor. I got my 4 drilled within 1/8" accuracy in both dimensions with larger spreads. I put a LOT of effort into it though calculating, measuring, re-measuring, re-measuring, but I done good. 



mrtickleuk said:


> High quality?! With modern LASER measuring tools there is zero excuse for not being exactly perfect. The only inaccuracy should be down to the material the holes are cut from, but the centre of each hole should be precisely lined up.


YES.



Dave-T said:


> So I am not crazy then? I was not sure if genesplitter was serious or messing with me. I had a long day and I am half asleep. Is to much to ask for all four speakers to line up? Would you fix it or leave it?


No. Not too much to ask. But no. I wouldn't fix it unless it was visually obvious (and it likely is not at those distances). Unless you are going to lose sleep over it. 



timjohnson1717 said:


> Were there studs in the way or something? Over ~100 inches unless you are OCD, it shouldn't be in any way noticeable, nor will it make a bit of difference with regards to audio. Atmos isn't _that _picky.


THIS. 



unretarded said:


> You will never hear a difference..............it would be expected to be within a 1/4 inch or so, but there could be structure in the way above them preventing exact locations.....
> 
> 
> If it looks odd, it might be worth investigating.......


THIS.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dave-T said:


> So I am not crazy then? I was not sure if genesplitter was serious or messing with me. I had a long day and I am half asleep. Is to much to ask for all four speakers to line up? Would you fix it or leave it?


I agree with what Jonas2 writes. If you don't mind how it looks or you can't see it, you could leave it. But if you're asking me what I'd do - with slight OCD even knowing they are properly not lined up, whether or not you can easily see it, would drive me absolutely crazy.

Audio wise, yes Atmos is fine with it. But you can SEE them all of the time, not just when they are playing sounds!

The problem now is how to fix. I think you have to choose just one speaker which stays in position as "correct", and then measure out where the other 3 would need to slightly move to, relative to this speaker.
Then you can draw out where the extra cutting needs to be done on the ceiling for the other three (and if it's possible due to studs etc - this is easier now, you can take the speakers out leaving the holes and look visually for studs or stick your hand up and feel around).
Then, do the whole thing 3 mores times, once for each "chosen correct" speaker.
Then either choose the option with the least cutting, or the option which works in terms of studs, or the option which has them lining up best with your TV/Sofa/room.

Not easy, which is why it's super-important to "measure twice, cut once" in the first place.


----------



## deano86

Big waste of time and effort to relocate those ceiling speakers... .unless appearance -wise, they really do look whack. If at first look, they appear to be fine, then leave them be. Audiowise, the location differences stated, absolutely will have no effect on Atmos performance. Besides, in the vast majority of our home theater rooms, the only person noticing ceiling speaker locations is ourselves! LOL! Friends and family members couldn't care less...


----------



## megametaman

Now that I have a 5.2.4 setup, I think I am now officially able to post in here. And, DAMN, does it feel good.

I setup an all SVS 5.2.4 just a couple days ago and although I've only been able to watch the good John Wick dolby atmos scenes a couple times, I'm already in love.

My friend came over last night "to hear my speakers" and while I was playing the club scene he kept saying how much he loves the scene...while staring at his phone the whole time. Then I rewound the movie and removed the atmos and went to the bathroom expecting to see my friend's jaw on the ground when I got back. He was still on his phone and said the sound was great, not noticing the difference.

My 35 year old friend's millennial behavior notwithstanding, I sure as hell noticed a significant difference in sound and am super happy to have the new setup. Today I got 3 movies in the mail. I messed up thinking Deadpool is atmos on Blu Ray, but it's only on UHD so I will return it. So, instead it's Fifth Element and Mad Max: Fury Road this weekend. I can't wait to hear those bursting flares in the air for MMFR or the scene chase scene in Fifth Element. 

The thing that strikes me is the "depth" of the sound. It's like everyone describes with it being a "bubble" of sound. It sounds way flatter when only 5.2. John Wick has no real height stuff going on, so a movie with space ships and vertical movement should be a treat.


----------



## cwglideman

megametaman said:


> Now that I have a 5.2.4 setup, I think I am now officially able to post in here. And, DAMN, does it feel good.
> 
> I setup an all SVS 5.2.4 just a couple days ago and although I've only been able to watch the good John Wick dolby atmos scenes a couple times, I'm already in love.
> 
> My friend came over last night "to hear my speakers" and while I was playing the club scene he kept saying how much he loves the scene...while staring at his phone the whole time. Then I rewound the movie and removed the atmos and went to the bathroom expecting to see my friend's jaw on the ground when I got back. He was still on his phone and said the sound was great, not noticing the difference.
> 
> My 35 year old friend's millennial behavior notwithstanding, I sure as hell noticed a significant difference in sound and am super happy to have the new setup. Today I got 3 movies in the mail. I messed up thinking Deadpool is atmos on Blu Ray, but it's only on UHD so I will return it. So, instead it's Fifth Element and Mad Max: Fury Road this weekend. I can't wait to hear those bursting flares in the air for MMFR or the scene chase scene in Fifth Element.
> 
> The thing that strikes me is the "depth" of the sound. It's like everyone describes with it being a "bubble" of sound. It sounds way flatter when only 5.2. John Wick has no real height stuff going on, so a movie with space ships and vertical movement should be a treat.


I too am a recent Atmos-DTS-X convert with a 7.2.4 set up (4 ceiling speakers) and have been really enjoying the new (to me) format.

By far, the best sounding Atmos release that I've heard so far is, Fantastic Beast! I hadn't seen the movie in the theater and i probably wouldn't have bought it just for the cinematic value but just for the sounds going on in this movie, it's outstanding! I'd highly recommend it just for Atmos experience. 

Others that I've seen so far in Atmos or DTS-X are:

Jason Bourne-DTS-X...was hoping for more but not bad

Mad Max-Fury Road-Atmos...a mind blowing visual and aural experience!

Hacksaw Ridge-Atmos

Deepwater Horizon-Atmos..I really enjoyed this one

Jack Reacher-Never Go Back...Meh

I have many of other Blu Rays that are now out in Atmos but don't think I'll re-invest unless the price drops to a more reasonable rate or if I hear that the Atmos version is TOO GOOD to not upgrade for.
Game of Thrones being top of the list.

I'm open for suggestions for the best Atmos-DTS-X movies if anyone would like to share their experiences.


----------



## Jonas2

megametaman said:


> My friend came over last night "to hear my speakers" and while I was playing the club scene he kept saying how much he loves the scene...while staring at his phone the whole time. Then I rewound the movie and removed the atmos and went to the bathroom expecting to see my friend's jaw on the ground when I got back. He was still on his phone and said the sound was great, not noticing the difference.
> 
> My 35 year old friend's millennial behavior notwithstanding, I sure as hell noticed a significant difference in sound and am super happy to have the new setup. Today I got 3 movies in the mail. I messed up thinking Deadpool is atmos on Blu Ray, but it's only on UHD so I will return it. So, instead it's Fifth Element and Mad Max: Fury Road this weekend. I can't wait to hear those bursting flares in the air for MMFR or the scene chase scene in Fifth Element.
> 
> The thing that strikes me is the "depth" of the sound. It's like everyone describes with it being a "bubble" of sound. It sounds way flatter when only 5.2. John Wick has no real height stuff going on, so a movie with space ships and vertical movement should be a treat.


A better comparison for audio/HT virgins is to simply play the sounds through one's TV's crappy little speakers for a few minutes (that is if you're using one), and then engage the real audio system and blow the PNED (Personal Narcissism Enabling Device) clean out of their hands with your dual subs! 

Can't wait to get me a UHD Atmos edition of Fifth Element.....


----------



## unretarded

The weird thing I have noticed is at first the atmos was new and I was like....HEY look whats happening up there, all that sound from above my head.


Now that everything has been installed and dialed in for a while......I hardly notice the difference and it now just sounds how it is supposed to really sound.


For example in real life , if you were standing on a mountain peak and a plane nose dived into the ground from 5000 feet, you would not think,....WOW , I heard it above my head,pass in front of me and go down below........you would just think it sounded correct and how it should......you would think nothing of the sound being in the proper location.


I still notice the atmos when thinking about all the movies that had no sound above I have watched......but when deep immersed into a good movie, I forget all about the atmos speakers as they make it sound right.



Anyway...just a observation.

Sort of like when surrounds were new.......sound from the back/sides was like WOW and startling sometimes.......now it just seems normal and I do not think during the movie...WOW there is sound from the back and sides....it just is there because that is how it naturally should sound.


Do not get me wrong....when the plaster on the ceiling cracked in Fantastic beasts, I still had to look up because it really sounded like the ceiling was cracking open...it does stand out in certain scenes and yes the unexpected door slam in the surrounds still makes me turn me head..........but for the most part it just sounds right and adds, not detracts from the experience......just like any good integration should not stand out, it should just add to the experience and it does !


----------



## megametaman

Wow. I've read so much about atmos and it's finally a part of my physical reality. I remember reading about high definition tv and wondering what it will be like. Atmos is similar in that you know that'll be the standard moving forward. 

Mad max was unbelievable in atmos. I think I've texted every person in my phone who would even remotely care about this stuff. I can't say enough. 

One thing that is true is that it's hard to tell what is really coming from height speakers. Only after I turn them off so you realize the effect sometimes. 

I still want to pick up a few more atmos discs to play with soon. Expensive hobby but now that's it's all setup (until future upgraditis), it's worth the effort. I'll now be enjoying audio that the vast majority of people will never experience in their homes. 

Sweeeeeeet!


----------



## Kevnmin

cwglideman said:


> By far, the best sounding Atmos release that I've heard so far is, Fantastic Beast! I hadn't seen the movie in the theater and i probably wouldn't have bought it just for the cinematic value but just for the sounds going on in this movie, it's outstanding! I'd highly recommend it just for Atmos experience.
> Others that I've seen so far in Atmos or DTS-X are:
> 
> Jason Bourne-DTS-X...was hoping for more but not bad
> 
> Mad Max-Fury Road-Atmos...a mind blowing visual and aural experience!
> 
> Hacksaw Ridge-Atmos
> 
> Deepwater Horizon-Atmos..I really enjoyed this one
> 
> Jack Reacher-Never Go Back...Meh
> 
> I'm open for suggestions for the best Atmos-DTS-X movies if anyone would like to share their experiences.


I've read several comments on Gravity but yet to get that one myself.

Bring on the suggestions so I too can spend even more $$$ on this worthy audio/visual addiction. :laugh:


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kevnmin said:


> I've read several comments on Gravity but yet to get that one myself.
> 
> Bring on the suggestions so I too can spend even more $$$ on this worthy audio/visual addiction. :laugh:


Blu-ray:
The 5th Element
In the heart of the sea
Gravity
Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them

UHD:
Deadpool
Oblivion
Edge of Tomorrow


----------



## Jonas2

megametaman said:


> Wow. I've read so much about atmos and it's finally a part of my physical reality. I remember reading about high definition tv and wondering what it will be like. Atmos is similar in that you know that'll be the standard moving forward.


I'm wondering what will follow Atmos? Maybe Sub-Atmos - speakers in the floor??


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Jonas2 said:


> I'm wondering what will follow Atmos? Maybe Sub-Atmos - speakers in the floor??


Well a start is to get more than 11 channels in consumer processors. After that I would guess immersive sound for streaming/broadcast.


----------



## veger69

Mashie Saldana said:


> Blu-ray:
> The 5th Element
> In the heart of the sea
> Gravity
> Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them
> 
> UHD:
> Deadpool
> Oblivion
> Edge of Tomorrow




Edge of tomorrow is not uhd or atmos I don't believe 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

veger69 said:


> Edge of tomorrow is not uhd or atmos I don't believe
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I was slightly wrong, Edge of Tomorrow UHD/Atmos is a VUDU exclusive by the look of things and not available on disc, just streaming. A shame as I was hoping to get it.


----------



## darthray

I have been trying to find an answer for this question.
But honestly way too many pages to read


I do understand that most home owner will install in-ceiling speakers, with no angles what's so ever (other than a few).
But if one use a ceiling speakers with some angle, like the SVS Elevation (a ceiling adapter is now available, but since it is new low quantity available at the moment) .
https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-elevation

What is the best way to install them;
-facing the front wall and the back wall, at the proper distance from the left and right position from the MLP?
-or facing the MLP mounted at 45 degree angle?


What would you do?


Ray


----------



## HiFiGuy1

darthray said:


> I have been trying to find an answer for this question.
> But honestly way too many pages to read
> 
> 
> I do understand that most home owner will install in-ceiling speakers, with no angles what's so ever (other than a few).
> But if one use a ceiling speakers with some angle, like the SVS Elevation (a ceiling adapter is now available, but since it is new low quantity available at the moment) .
> https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-elevation
> 
> What is the best way to install them;
> -facing the front wall and the back wall, at the proper distance from the left and right position from the MLP?
> -or facing the MLP mounted at 45 degree angle?
> 
> 
> What would you do?
> 
> 
> Ray


Ray,
You might not be familiar with them, but Triad has some InCeiling speakers with angled baffles, that work very well as Atmos height speakers.


----------



## unretarded

Forget they are atmos ceiling speakers and treat them the same as any other speaker.........


----------



## Mashie Saldana

unretarded said:


> Forget they are atmos ceiling speakers and treat them the same as any other speaker.........


This is a very good idea. I just aim all 15 of my speakers towards MLP. Works great.


----------



## petetherock

darthray said:


> I have been trying to find an answer for this question.
> But honestly way too many pages to read
> 
> 
> I do understand that most home owner will install in-ceiling speakers, with no angles what's so ever (other than a few).
> But if one use a ceiling speakers with some angle, like the SVS Elevation (a ceiling adapter is now available, but since it is new low quantity available at the moment) .
> https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-elevation
> 
> What is the best way to install them;
> -facing the front wall and the back wall, at the proper distance from the left and right position from the MLP?
> -or facing the MLP mounted at 45 degree angle?
> 
> 
> What would you do?
> 
> 
> Ray


Hey Ray
I use AG A'divas, and I angle them towards me, using the Atmos suggested figures. My contractor/installer used a laser angle device to check - it's available on Amazon from Borsch. Cheers


----------



## darthray

HiFiGuy1 said:


> Ray,
> You might not be familiar with them, but Triad has some InCeiling speakers with angled baffles, that work very well as Atmos height speakers.



Thanks for the suggestion.


Yes I know about them, and actually you might have been the one that point them out to me in an another thread.
This is why, I said in my previous post
"I do understand that most home owner will install in-ceiling speakers, with no angles what's so ever *(other than a few)*. "

I went with the SVS Elevation, because I do not want to do in-ceiling.
Was just curious with speaker that can be angle, if the should facing the MLP or facing the front and back.


Thanks again for the reply


Ray


----------



## darthray

petetherock said:


> Hey Ray
> I use AG A'divas, and I angle them towards me, using the Atmos suggested figures. My contractor/installer used a laser angle device to check - it's available on Amazon from Borsch. Cheers



Thanks


I was also leaning toward having them facing the MLP, and after re-reading the instruction from Atmos.
It does say, they should if the have an angle.


Ray


----------



## veger69

Mashie Saldana said:


> I was slightly wrong, Edge of Tomorrow UHD/Atmos is a VUDU exclusive by the look of things and not available on disc, just streaming. A shame as I was hoping to get it.




Me too since I have a 2016 oled65g6p and can't stream atmos from the app on the tv


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## darthray

petetherock said:


> Hey Ray
> I use AG A'divas, and I angle them towards me, using the Atmos suggested figures. My contractor/installer used a laser angle device to check - it's available on Amazon from Borsch. Cheers



Cannot find what he use, using the key word "Borsch" and many other ones for angle finder with laser
Some search do show some nice tools, but are very expensive for a one time project to find a perfect 45 degree angle, and I hope once I find the proper spot, it will be close to a ceiling stud.


Worst scenario, I will built one made of wood with a 45 and 135 degrees angle, by drilling some holes that would accept a round laser pointer, make sure the piece of 2 x 4 with the holes is perfectly level, and if done right, I do have the angle on the ceiling using the pointer.


Just thinking outside the box, for a cheap way to do-it right 


Ray


----------



## muzz

Boche is the name I think.


----------



## confinoj

*Transition to Atmos*

I originally posted in the speaker forum until I found this thread realizing it was more appropriate.

Wondering if I can easily transition to Atmos and was hoping for some advise. I currently have a 5.1 setup + front heights in our living room. My front heights are in-walls (Polk RC55i) and were originally used as L/R mains. Now using Polk RTiA3 and CSiA6 as L/R/C and repurposed in-walls as front heights (PLIIz). MLP is about 16 ft from front sound stage. I can't easily do true side surrounds in my room. Have rear surrounds (Polk owm3) mounted on back wall about 7 feet behind MLP but also off to the side 4-7ft near where rear wall meets side wall. They have a curved face and are currently flipped so tweeter aiming down a bit. They were wired when front in-walls were installed so also relatively high on the wall. Both the in-wall front heights and rear on-wall surrounds are about 6.5ft off ground (ceiling is 8ft). My thought is to use the front in-wall heights and rear surrounds for Atmos heights since they are relatively high. I can't do much with the in walls but the tweeter is aimable. Would then get small surrounds on stands and place in rear corners under the current rear surrounds (again no good way to do side surrounds in my room). I think I can inconspicuously run speaker wire in room for this. Obviously I would need a new AVR that supports 4 Atmos speakers and thinking of Denon X4300. So do you think that could work? Is 6.5ft for front and rear mounted Atmos heights high enough in my room or should I not bother and just stick with 5.1? The rear heights would essentially be right above stand mounted rear surrounds in this proposed setup. If I do this how high should the new stand mounted rear surrounds be? Ear height? Where should I aim the tweeters of the in-wall fronts? How should I flip the rear on-walls - tweeter up or down? Hope that all makes sense. Attached some pics to help. Thanks for any advice.


----------



## petetherock

darthray said:


> Cannot find what he use, using the key word "Borsch" and many other ones for angle finder with laser
> Some search do show some nice tools, but are very expensive for a one time project to find a perfect 45 degree angle, and I hope once I find the proper spot, it will be close to a ceiling stud.
> 
> 
> Worst scenario, I will built one made of wood with a 45 and 135 degrees angle, by drilling some holes that would accept a round laser pointer, make sure the piece of 2 x 4 with the holes is perfectly level, and if done right, I do have the angle on the ceiling using the pointer.
> 
> 
> Just thinking outside the box, for a cheap way to do-it right
> 
> 
> Ray


Something like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Bosch-GLM-10...568&sr=8-1&keywords=bosch+laser+angle+measure

Also the Anthony Gallo speakers are full range, so a single cone helps to radiate sound more evenly IMO.


----------



## chi_guy50

darthray said:


> Cannot find what he use, using the key word "Borsch" and many other ones for angle finder with laser
> Some search do show some nice tools, but are very expensive for a one time project to find a perfect 45 degree angle, and I hope once I find the proper spot, it will be close to a ceiling stud.
> 
> 
> Worst scenario, I will built one made of wood with a 45 and 135 degrees angle, by drilling some holes that would accept a round laser pointer, make sure the piece of 2 x 4 with the holes is perfectly level, and if done right, I do have the angle on the ceiling using the pointer.
> 
> 
> Just thinking outside the box, for a cheap way to do-it right
> 
> 
> Ray


ToolUSA.com used to sell a very decent and reasonably priced generic (no-name) laser angle finder, as pictured below. I purchased one from them in June 2015 for $15.12 (shipped), but it doesn't appear to be in their current inventory and I haven't spotted it for sale elsewhere at present. If interested, you could call or email them to inquire about availability.


----------



## chi_guy50

confinoj said:


> I originally posted in the speaker forum until I found this thread realizing it was more appropriate.
> 
> Wondering if I can easily transition to Atmos and was hoping for some advise. I currently have a 5.1 setup + front heights in our living room. My front heights are in-walls (Polk RC55i) and were originally used as L/R mains. Now using Polk RTiA3 and CSiA6 as L/R/C and repurposed in-walls as front heights (PLIIz). MLP is about 16 ft from front sound stage. I can't easily do true side surrounds in my room. Have rear surrounds (Polk owm3) mounted on back wall about 7 feet behind MLP but also off to the side 4-7ft near where rear wall meets side wall. They have a curved face and are currently flipped so tweeter aiming down a bit. They were wired when front in-walls were installed so also relatively high on the wall. Both the in-wall front heights and rear on-wall surrounds are about 6.5ft off ground (ceiling is 8ft). My thought is to use the front in-wall heights and rear surrounds for Atmos heights since they are relatively high. I can't do much with the in walls but the tweeter is aimable. Would then get small surrounds on stands and place in rear corners under the current rear surrounds (again no good way to do side surrounds in my room). I think I can inconspicuously run speaker wire in room for this. Obviously I would need a new AVR that supports 4 Atmos speakers and thinking of Denon X4300. So do you think that could work? Is 6.5ft for front and rear mounted Atmos heights high enough in my room or should I not bother and just stick with 5.1? The rear heights would essentially be right above stand mounted rear surrounds in this proposed setup. If I do this how high should the new stand mounted rear surrounds be? Ear height? Where should I aim the tweeters of the in-wall fronts? How should I flip the rear on-walls - tweeter up or down? Hope that all makes sense. Attached some pics to help. Thanks for any advice.


I recall our discussion about your speaker layout in the Polkies thread. You have a nice room but are facing multiple serious challenges in getting a suitable arrangement for surround sound, let alone immersive audio reproduction.

The first and most significant compromise for an Atmos layout is that your current in-wall front height speakers are, by my estimation, at an elevation angle of approx. just over 13*°*. This is far too shallow for the intended effect, with the minimum recommended elevation being 30*° *(see chart below).










To my mind, the obvious solution would be to get a second pair of OWM3's and mount them on the ceiling no more than 7 feet in front of the MLP. This would result in a FH/RH elevation angle of approx. 35*°/*28*°*.

But I think you should focus first on your listener-level speaker positioning as that is the most critical element. As long as your "side surrounds" are to the distant rear of the MLP everything else is just lipstick on a pig (or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as I wrote to you previously). 

I think you are headed in the right direction but need to expand the playing field in order to consider some more radical changes such as reorienting your seating arrangement or finding another room for your setup.


----------



## confinoj

chi_guy50 said:


> I recall our discussion about your speaker layout in the Polkies thread. You have a nice room but are facing multiple serious challenges in getting a suitable arrangement for surround sound, let alone immersive audio reproduction.
> 
> The first and most significant compromise for an Atmos layout is that your current in-wall front height speakers are, by my estimation, at an elevation angle of approx. just over 13*°*. This is far too shallow for the intended effect, with the minimum recommended elevation being 30*° *(see chart below).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my mind, the obvious solution would be to get a second pair of OWM3's and mount them on the ceiling no more than 7 feet in front of the MLP. This would result in a FH/RH elevation angle of approx. 35*°/*28*°*.
> 
> But I think you should focus first on your listener-level speaker positioning as that is the most critical element. As long as your "side surrounds" are to the distant rear of the MLP everything else is just lipstick on a pig (or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as I wrote to you previously).
> 
> I think you are headed in the right direction but need to expand the playing field in order to consider some more radical changes such as reorienting your seating arrangement or finding another room for your setup.


Thanks again for your input. I recently realized that the front height angle was way too shallow. Not much I'm going to do with this room in terms of re-arranging. The surrounds are high but otherwise work quite well for surrounds. Perhaps I'm getting some reflection off the side walls that's helping. As mentioned I could potentially lower them by using stand mounted satellites in a similar position. I could bring them forward a bit that way but not much. I would consider having in ceilings installed for Atmos if the cost wasn't prohibitive but the wife would never go for ceiling mounted. I could also do upfiring speakers on top of the bookshelves but I keep reading mixed opinions on how well this really works. Down the road would like to add a dedicated theater space in our basement and do it right but that will be many years likely.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Jonas2 said:


> I'm wondering what will follow Atmos? Maybe Sub-Atmos - speakers in the floor??


A chip that works with corresponding tiny ear buds that are implanted in your ear canals that provide a full Dolby Atmos/DTS: X, immersive experience without waking up anyone in the house. Sounds like four subs going off at the same time. 

No need for any speakers, amplifiers - - just your TV speaker that you turn off. Extremely cost effective. Add a "butt kicker" and you'll be in Seventh Heaven.


----------



## SoundChex

Jonas2 said:


> I'm wondering what will follow Atmos? Maybe Sub-Atmos - speakers in the floor??



_Just when you thought upgrading to Atmos might allow you some breathing room..._










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


_


----------



## sdrucker

Ricoflashback said:


> A chip that works with corresponding tiny ear buds that are implanted in your ear canals that provide a full Dolby Atmos/DTS: X, immersive experience without waking up anyone in the house. Sounds like four subs going off at the same time.
> 
> No need for any speakers, amplifiers - - just your TV speaker that you turn off. Extremely cost effective. Add a "butt kicker" and you'll be in Seventh Heaven.


The good news is that it may be developed someday.

The bad news is that the developer would probably be Trinnov and it will cost $2 million dollars USD. LOL.


----------



## sdurani

Jonas2 said:


> I'm wondering what will follow Atmos?


VR, allowing you to hear (and see) an immersive bubble around you. It's what Atmos would be if you took away the constraints of loudspeakers & rooms. Why attempt to render objects based on physical speaker locations when you can render them to their intended location in a virtual environment. Why have to choose between various room correction technologies when you can do away with the room to begin with. Etc.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> VR, allowing you to hear (and see) an immersive bubble around you. It's what Atmos would be if you took away the constraints of loudspeakers & rooms. Why attempt to render objects based on physical speaker locations when you can render them to their intended location in a virtual environment. Why have to choose between various room correction technologies when you can do away with the room to begin with. Etc.


Well that's easy, it's because only one person can wear a VR headset at a time? Whereas a whole family can sit in a room and share just one set of 7.2.4 expensive speakers.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> VR, allowing you to hear (and see) an immersive bubble around you. It's what Atmos would be if you took away the constraints of loudspeakers & rooms. Why attempt to render objects based on physical speaker locations when you can render them to their intended location in a virtual environment. Why have to choose between various room correction technologies when you can do away with the room to begin with. Etc.


Such a headset already exist, it was posted a few hundred pages ago in this thread. It was some French company behind it.


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> Such a headset already exist, it was posted a few hundred pages ago in this thread. It was some French company behind it.


There's the Smyth Realiser, but I think it's audio only. No video component


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> Well that's easy, it's because only one person can wear a VR headset at a time? Whereas a whole family can sit in a room and share just one set of 7.2.4 expensive speakers.


VR users can be in a shared experience with other family members (whether they're physically in the same room or not).


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> There's the Smyth Realiser, but I think it's audio only. No video component


Thanks, that's the one. Audio only unless you use it in a HT.


----------



## unretarded

They have the HTIB....its a carboard box , blacked out inside and you put your phone and the end of it and put your head in the box......

With the new windows update and a set of headphones you will also have atmos, I think some of the new phones are 4k........what more could you need ?


----------



## GGI

Any thoughts on this error and why this might not be working?



GGI said:


> Welp I'm a big dummy. I had been messing around with the DVD version of Hacksaw rather than the blu ray. Stupid blu ray was behind a insert in the case.... Yeah don't watch many movies. But, I'm still having issues.
> 
> 
> Got this number after putting in the blu ray version of Hacksaw....
> 
> Soooo wtf now?
> 
> Also I promise I have a 646 hooked into an original xbox one via hdmi fwiw.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdrucker said:


> The good news is that it may be developed someday.
> 
> The bad news is that the developer would probably be Trinnov and it will cost $2 million dollars USD. LOL.


Uh, is there financing available?

All seriousness aside, I do believe this will happen someday - probably with headphones but the real idea is to provide the same realism as speakers with as little equipment as possible. But then again, think of how many AVS Forum threads would wilt without the intense discussions of speakers, placement, amplifiers and AVR's.


----------



## confinoj

chi_guy50 said:


> But I think you should focus first on your listener-level speaker positioning as that is the most critical element. As long as your "side surrounds" are to the distant rear of the MLP everything else is just lipstick on a pig (or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as I wrote to you previously).
> 
> I think you are headed in the right direction but need to expand the playing field in order to consider some more radical changes such as reorienting your seating arrangement or finding another room for your setup.


Looking at pics and assuming we are not going to re-arrange furniture do you see any obvious way to have more appropriate listener level surrounds? I'm not so handy but could have an AV installer do it. I would then look into cost of 4 in ceilings but not sure how feasible it will be. There is no attic above, just second floor bedrooms.


----------



## darthray

petetherock said:


> Something like this:
> https://www.amazon.com/Bosch-GLM-10...568&sr=8-1&keywords=bosch+laser+angle+measure
> 
> Also the Anthony Gallo speakers are full range, so a single cone helps to radiate sound more evenly IMO.



A little steep for my one time application, but Thanks for the link



chi_guy50 said:


> ToolUSA.com used to sell a very decent and reasonably priced generic (no-name) laser angle finder, as pictured below. I purchased one from them in June 2015 for $15.12 (shipped), but it doesn't appear to be in their current inventory and I haven't spotted it for sale elsewhere at present. If interested, you could call or email them to inquire about availability.



More my size


Thank You both for the reply and the links


Ray


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> VR, allowing you to hear (and see) an immersive bubble around you. It's what Atmos would be if you took away the constraints of loudspeakers & rooms. Why attempt to render objects based on physical speaker locations when you can render them to their intended location in a virtual environment. Why have to choose between various room correction technologies when you can do away with the room to begin with. Etc.


And the challenge will go from "speaker-room" correction to "head-torso" correction (HRTFs customization) ...


----------



## Scott Simonian

SoundChex said:


> _Just when you thought upgrading to Atmos might allow you some breathing room..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> _Source:_ *March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE* (*link-to-pdf*)
> 
> 
> _


You keep bringing up AC-4 like it's important.


----------



## alwaller

*XXX Atmos sound track*

Hi all
Just rented XXX, I watched the opening and the first scene, it has some of the best sound that I have heard on my 5.1 system.
I don't have Atmos but the sound from my surround speakers seems to cover the ceiling above me. The bass is solid and low.
The core mix down from the Atmos sound track is great. I have experienced the same thing with other Atmos sound tracks ( John Wick, Transformers 4 Jupiter Ascending ).
Its a shame that labels are starting to restrict Atmos to 4K disc. I going to have to find a way to upgrade to Atmos. I was going to upgrade my subwoofer, but after hearing XXX, I might have to buy a Atmos receiver first. Has anyone had a similar experiences with mixed down Atmos soundtracks? I am going to Best buy to pick up a copy XXX now.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave-T said:


> Could someone please help me out here and give me some piece of mind PLEASE? I started out with a atoms 5.1.2 setup with Atmos speakers on the ceiling and decided to move to 5.1.4 which made a huge difference. The first time I had all four speakers on the ceiling the contractor was way off so I had it fixed a second time by someone else. Come to find out I found out today when my new motorized blinds were installed I had the installer measure the speakers and they are still wrong. On the left side front to back the speakers are 92.5 inches apart. On the right side front to back they are 91 inches apart. In the front left to right they are 65.5 inches apart. Finally in the rear left to right they are 64.5 inches apart. Should I both and have them moved again to have it perfect to just leave it. The second contractor I did not have to pay because he never finished so I lucked out in away. What is driving me nuts is that I can't find a decent contractor who can read a tap measure and cut a hole in the right spot. Any suggestions would be very welcome. By the way I live in Arlington Va if anyone knows any one who can move the speakers or can help me out.


If you are using some sort of auto-setup/EQ such as Audyssey, YPAO, ARC etc, then it will set the distances appropriately and you will never hear a problem.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> You keep bringing up AC-4 like it's important.


Oh, but it is. AC-4 is what will lead us to the Promised Land of Atmos everywhere. 'cuz the content owners only want to mix it once, and if they need it in in AC-4 for the TV broadcast (which is a small but important piece of the distribution chain), they'll try to do it once for that and repurpose.

Think about how ubiquitous AC-3 made 5.1. *Everything* is mixed in 5.1, because that AC-3 deliverable could be used for satellite, cable, broadcast, DVD, OTT - hell, even cinema. That's what AC-4 is gonna do for immersive sound.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> Oh, but it is. AC-4 is what will lead us to the Promised Land of Atmos everywhere. 'cuz the content owners only want to mix it once, and if they need it in in AC-4 for the TV broadcast (which is a small but important piece of the distribution chain), they'll try to do it once for that and repurpose.
> 
> Think about how ubiquitous AC-3 made 5.1. *Everything* is mixed in 5.1, because that AC-3 deliverable could be used for satellite, cable, broadcast, DVD, OTT - hell, even cinema. That's what AC-4 is gonna do for immersive sound.


Yeah, I know. That's why I put a smilie. 

But you're right! I see it happening already. It's out there and affordable. Just got to get more content out there for everything.


----------



## Ricoflashback

dschulz said:


> Oh, but it is. AC-4 is what will lead us to the Promised Land of Atmos everywhere. 'cuz the content owners only want to mix it once, and if they need it in in AC-4 for the TV broadcast (which is a small but important piece of the distribution chain), they'll try to do it once for that and repurpose.
> 
> Think about how ubiquitous AC-3 made 5.1. *Everything* is mixed in 5.1, because that AC-3 deliverable could be used for satellite, cable, broadcast, DVD, OTT - hell, even cinema. That's what AC-4 is gonna do for immersive sound.



If I understand the capability and importance of AC-4 - - it's on the distribution side? Tastes great, less filling? 50% better compression efficiency equals less bandwidth and maybe equals more Dolby Atmos soundtracks? I always thought that DD+ was an efficient method for Dolby Atmos content but I hardly see it anywhere.

What are the hurdles towards implementation of AC-4 for cable/satellite/OTA? Does AC-4 need to be adopted as the industry "Standard?" What time frame are we talking about? Any estimates?

(From the Dolby website https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/AC-4.html)
*
Expand Capabilities, Not Complexity *

The Dolby AC-4 format fundamentally rethinks audio architecture to add capabilities while reducing complexity. It addresses a complete range of delivery methods, including traditional broadcast, mobile networks, and hybrid broadcast and broadband.
Dolby AC-4 capabilities include:


Greatly improved compression efficiency, up to 50 percent better than current broadcast-standard technologies
Native support for dialogue enhancement, intelligent loudness, and advanced dynamic range control
The most efficient support for multiple languages and descriptive services
Delivery of optimum playback across all use cases and devices
Immersive audio, enabling sound to move around the audience in three-dimensional space
Personalized audio streams that enable broadcasters to provide customized presentations and elements that consumers can select to enjoy audio that matches their interests.
 
You can transfer information more reliably. Built-in self-configuration and automation will improve reliability and help you lower your operational costs. And Dolby AC-4 gives you the flexibility to deliver future services and experiences—on your timetable. 
Dolby AC-4 provides the tools. You decide how and when to use them.


----------



## The Hotness

Perhaps you folks can help me, I have been sifting through this long a$$ thread and not quite finding what I am looking for.



My 7.1 surround setup is based on the ITU-R standard, with my side channels at 60* ahead of the listening position vs 90-110 dolby. (This is amazing btw.)



Issue is now that I am going to ATMOS, following the dolby recommendation not only does it seem to far out on the outside walls, but they land nearly on top of all my side surround channels. My side channels have very good dispersion (my opinion) and it seems that the atmos speakers directly above them may negate the point of ATMOS.



What's your thoughts and experiences?



I'll see if I can attach my layout via tapatalk..


----------



## gerchy

Hello gang and welcome back, Keith! 

I hardly believe I'm listening to Atmos/DSU for almost 3 years and only today I realized that rear height speakers are noticeably louder - especially with 2 channel sources which Roger Dressler confirmed here.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...dwood-theater-comes-alive-7.html#post29237489

If one disables "ground" speakers than if standing below front heights you can hear the rears playing. But if stay below rear heights you can't hear the fronts. You can't notice that when all the speakers are playing but I still found this quite interesting.


----------



## Ted99

Back to AC-4 and Atmos: If I am reading this correctly, we will need new codecs in our receivers/pre-pro to use AC-4 and in the near future, this is aimed at OTA and streaming. In the short term, Disc media will continue to use Atmos/DTS:X/Auro(lol). If one were intending to purchase a new TV in the near future, one would look for ATSC 3 and AC-4 to be included (the ATSC 3 standard has just been published by the FCC and AC-4 is well established, so products could be on the way in the next couple of years?)


----------



## Selden Ball

The Hotness said:


> Perhaps you folks can help me, I have been sifting through this long a$$ thread and not quite finding what I am looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> My 7.1 surround setup is based on the ITU-R standard, with my side channels at 60* ahead of the listening position vs 90-110 dolby. (This is amazing btw.)
> 
> 
> 
> Issue is now that I am going to ATMOS, following the dolby recommendation not only does it seem to far out on the outside walls, but they land nearly on top of all my side surround channels. My side channels have very good dispersion (my opinion) and it seems that the atmos speakers directly above them may negate the point of ATMOS.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thoughts and experiences?


I'm not sure what you mean by "on top of".

The overhead (top) speakers should be in, on or at the ceiling. Typically the "ear level" seakers shouldn't be more than a foot or two up from the height of your ears. This is better than having them exactly at ear-height since it avoids them being blocked by people's heads. There should be as much vertical spacing as possible between the "ear level" speakers and the overheads in order to provide the best audible separation between the upper and lower levels of speakers. 

Also, the overhead (top) speakers should be roughly in-line (front-to-back) with your front main speakers and about +/- 45 degrees forward and back of where your ears are located in the main listening position. 

See figure 27b on page 36 of Rep. ITU-R BS.2159-4 for an example of this speaker layout, which is one of those that they evaluated. (See page 37.)


----------



## unretarded

The Hotness said:


> Perhaps you folks can help me, I have been sifting through this long a$$ thread and not quite finding what I am looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> My 7.1 surround setup is based on the ITU-R standard, with my side channels at 60* ahead of the listening position vs 90-110 dolby. (This is amazing btw.)
> 
> 
> 
> Issue is now that I am going to ATMOS, following the dolby recommendation not only does it seem to far out on the outside walls, but they land nearly on top of all my side surround channels. My side channels have very good dispersion (my opinion) and it seems that the atmos speakers directly above them may negate the point of ATMOS.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thoughts and experiences?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll see if I can attach my layout via tapatalk..


 While it is correct and right to chart it all out like that. The dolby recomendations are just that,suggestions ........there is a lot of wiggle room. If you were to come in 10-20 inches and away from the other speakers 10-20 inches it will still be fine.


Given todays room correcting avrs, you could almost blindly chuck the speakers against the ceiling in random locations........once room correction set the distances,delays and set the DB level from the MLP you would be hard pressed to hear a difference unless the the cone was facing the ceiling...and even then it might be hard to detect after room correction.



I mounted mine approx 30 inches in front of the MLP and brought them in approx 14 inches from the width of the mains..........seems fine to me.

I would say you easily have a 24 inch circle from those pin point locations you have marked on your chart.....cheat them the direction that makes sense and treat them like any other speaker.


----------



## sdurani

The Hotness said:


> Issue is now that I am going to ATMOS, following the dolby recommendation not only does it seem to far out on the outside walls, but they land nearly on top of all my side surround channels. My side channels have very good dispersion (my opinion) and it seems that the atmos speakers directly above them may negate the point of ATMOS.


They shouldn't end up that close to each other since the surround speakers should be on the walls, closer to ear height, while the overhead speakers should be on the ceiling.


----------



## The Hotness

Selden Ball said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "on top of".
> 
> The overhead (top) speakers should be in, on or at the ceiling. Typically the "ear level" seakers shouldn't be more than a foot or two up from the height of your ears. This is better than having them exactly at ear-height since it avoids them being blocked by people's heads. There should be as much vertical spacing as possible between the "ear level" speakers and the overheads in order to provide the best audible separation between the upper and lower levels of speakers.
> 
> Also, the overhead (top) speakers should be roughly in-line (front-to-back) with your front main speakers and about +/- 45 degrees forward and back of where your ears are located in the main listening position.
> 
> See figure 27b on page 36 of Rep. ITU-R BS.2159-4 for an example of this speaker layout, which is one of those that they evaluated. (See page 37.)


Based on my room width, I have my FL/FR speakers buried into the corners, thus placing the ATMOS heights near the perimeter of the room, based on the recommended angles they nearly put the speakers with a couple of feet of the side surrounds. I also have a 7.5’ ceiling so not much separation.
I read that specification, and that clearly applies for the conventional 7.1.4 setup. I am using the optional with the side surrounds at 60* forward of the MLP. (Huge improvement in envelopment BTW.)
I attached a screen shot of the hybrid arrangement trying to demonstrate how close they come. (If you visualize the squish of a square room.)



unretarded said:


> While it is correct and right to chart it all out like that. The dolby recomendations are just that,suggestions ........there is a lot of wiggle room. If you were to come in 10-20 inches and away from the other speakers 10-20 inches it will still be fine.
> 
> 
> Given todays room correcting avrs, you could almost blindly chuck the speakers against the ceiling in random locations........once room correction set the distances,delays and set the DB level from the MLP you would be hard pressed to hear a difference unless the the cone was facing the ceiling...and even then it might be hard to detect after room correction. I mounted mine approx 30 inches in front of the MLP and brought them in approx 14 inches from the width of the mains..........seems fine to me. I would say you easily have a 24 inch circle from those pin point locations you have marked on your chart.....cheat them the direction that makes sense and treat them like any other speaker.


That is very helpful, and makes a good point. Due to the permanent nature of these, I want to make sure I get the full immersion that we all paid for.  Hearing yours (and everyones) experiences helps make educated decisions.


sdurani said:


> They shouldn't end up that close to each other since the surround speakers should be on the walls, closer to ear height, while the overhead speakers should be on the ceiling.


Short ceiling.. 7.5’ and not a ton of room width (14’) brings them pretty close together.


----------



## sdurani

The Hotness said:


> Short ceiling.. 7.5’ and not a ton of room width (14’) brings them pretty close together.


Then separate them. In commercial Atmos cinemas and Atmos dubbing stages (where most of the Atmos mixes you hear were created), the height arrays are at the quarter points of the L/R speaker spread (25% inward of the L/R speakers). The home Atmos install guide exaggerates this spread to make stereo separation more obvious in the overheads. No reason you can't move the overhead speakers inward from the side walls for greater separation from the surrounds and to give a better impression of those sounds being overhead (instead of high up on the sides).


----------



## imureh

*Dolby Atmos set up in room*


I am looking for some guidance and input on how to use the speaker connections i have on the ceiling for an Atmos set up. I have a Denon X4300H. 

I would like to see if the location of the rear and the front connections will work for height speakers and whether additional atmos speakers should/can be added to the Middle speaker connections? In the pic I have called them SR/L and SR/R with question marks but would like to know what they can be used for (additional atmos? If so do assign the SR backs as additional heights?)The connections in the middle of the room cannot be used as side surrounds as that would put them at the same height as the atmos speakers.

I have moved my surrounds that you see on mounts in rear of room to stands at ear level now and will use the surround connections as rear height speakers as noted above. I am leaning towards on ceiling speakers rather than in ceiling. I have attached the pictures of the room with markings and some comments. 

Hope that is helpful.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

imureh said:


> *Dolby Atmos set up in room*
> 
> 
> I am looking for some guidance and input on how to use the speaker connections i have on the ceiling for an Atmos set up. I have a Denon X4300H.
> 
> I would like to see if the location of the rear and the front connections will work for height speakers and whether additional atmos speakers should/can be added to the Middle speaker connections? In the pic I have called them SR/L and SR/R with question marks but would like to know what they can be used for (additional atmos? If so do assign the SR backs as additional heights?)The connections in the middle of the room cannot be used as side surrounds as that would put them at the same height as the atmos speakers.
> 
> I have moved my surrounds that you see on mounts in rear of room to stands at ear level now and will use the surround connections as rear height speakers as noted above. I am leaning towards on ceiling speakers rather than in ceiling. I have attached the pictures of the room with markings and some comments.
> 
> Hope that is helpful.


I would just patch them, but first use the holes to help fish wires to the proper Front and Rear Top locations. Otherwise, you'll have to go with Front and Rear Height locations, which is second best to Tops because you won't get as good of a true overhead sensation.


----------



## imureh

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would just patch them, but first use the holes to help fish wires to the proper Front and Rear Top locations. Otherwise, you'll have to go with Front and Rear Height locations, which is second best to Tops because you won't get as good of a true overhead sensation.


Thanks, I was thinking of mounting on ceiling speakers and angling towards the MLP, something like SVS Satellite or Elevations. Trying to minimize tearing the ceiling and make use of what I have as best as possible.


----------



## maikeldepotter

The Hotness said:


> Short ceiling.. 7.5’ and not a ton of room width (14’) brings them pretty close together.





sdurani said:


> Then separate them. In commercial Atmos cinemas and Atmos dubbing stages (where most of the Atmos mixes you hear were created), the height arrays are at the quarter points of the L/R speaker spread (25% inward of the L/R speakers). The home Atmos install guide exaggerates this spread to make stereo separation more obvious in the overheads. No reason you can't move the overhead speakers inward from the side walls for greater separation from the surrounds and to give a better impression of those sounds being overhead (instead of high up on the sides).


+1. 

From your drawing: I would move the Top Fronts inwards till the point where they almost touch the line drawn between MLP and L/R speaker, and put the Top Rears at that same lateral position. In your room that gives a lateral elevation of the Top speakers of about 55 degrees, which is within Dolby specs (35-55 degrees). You can now elevate your surrounds up to 2 feet (I would recommended 1 foot max) while still having sufficient separation with the overhead speakers.


----------



## scarabaeus

Ted99 said:


> Back to AC-4 and Atmos: If I am reading this correctly, we will need new codecs in our receivers/pre-pro to use AC-4 and in the near future, this is aimed at OTA and streaming. In the short term, Disc media will continue to use Atmos/DTS:X/Auro(lol). If one were intending to purchase a new TV in the near future, one would look for ATSC 3 and AC-4 to be included (the ATSC 3 standard has just been published by the FCC and AC-4 is well established, so products could be on the way in the next couple of years?)


Looking at the install base of DD+/MAT Atmos devices vs. AC-4, it would make sense that AC-4 receivers (STBs) decode AC-4, apply any personalisation controlled by its own GUI, and then output re-encoded Atmos in DD+ or MAT/TrueHD.


----------



## Nyago123

unretarded said:


> While it is correct and right to chart it all out like that. The dolby recomendations are just that,suggestions ........there is a lot of wiggle room. If you were to come in 10-20 inches and away from the other speakers 10-20 inches it will still be fine.





The Hotness said:


> That is very helpful, and makes a good point. Due to the permanent nature of these, I want to make sure I get the full immersion that we all paid for.  Hearing yours (and everyones) experiences helps make educated decisions.





maikeldepotter said:


> +1.
> 
> From your drawing: I would move the Top Fronts inwards till the point where they almost touch the line drawn between MLP and L/R speaker, and put the Top Rears at that same lateral position. In your room that gives a lateral elevation of the Top speakers of about 55 degrees, which is within Dolby specs (35-55 degrees). You can now elevate your surrounds up to 2 feet (I would recommended 1 foot max) while still having sufficient separation with the overhead speakers.


Really just wanted to add a thanks for these recent posts. I also have a low ceiling (7'1" actually) and have been working out where to mount speakers on ceiling.

I've read the Dolby spec for HT and I've searched this thread and elsewhere (and used an Atmos calculator spreadsheet I found somewhere - maybe it was here), but I wasn't able to find a clear and explicit answer to my n00b question/confusion regarding speaker angles for ceiling speakers... which arises more because I want to understand all this better, rather than any concern about sound quality. 

Whenever I see a cross-section 2D type diagram from the side that shows the "ideal" 45 degrees (like this one posted earlier in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1505.html#post52987410), because the world is actually 3D I'm not sure if that 45 degrees is:
1. From the MLP to the _midpoint_ of the height speakers (presuming the MLP is in the center from a left-right perspective and the left-right height speakers are equidistant on each side from the MLP) - i.e. the equilateral 45-90-45 triangle is from the MLP's ear to the ceiling to the height speaker midpoint, *or* 
2. 45 degrees _direct line of sight_ to the individual speakers themselves, which implies compensating for some z-axis (right/left) distance (if you define from-side picture as x-axis (front/back) and y-axis (up/down)), which would imply that the speakers are actually closer to the MLP along the x-axis (forward/back) than the distance from the MLP's ear to the ceiling - i.e. the equilateral 45-90-45 triangle is from the MLP to the ceiling to the speaker.

I'm guessing the answer to my question is that the "ideal" 45 degrees is measured direct line of sight to the speaker regardless of left-right separation distance (#2). 

I know that Atmos is not so picky that a few degrees will destroy the sound... but with a low ceiling even a 6" move forward/back from the MLP can change the line-of-sight angle significantly in terms of degrees (and potentially out of spec) depending on how far the ceiling speakers are right or left of the MLP, never mind that even just the thickness of the speaker with its mount is enough to change the angle as well.

Based on this I will start with the 45 degree line (center 4' forward of and behind the MLP since my ceiling height 7' minus MLP height 3' = 4') and move the speakers right/left along that line but keep them inside the front left & right speakers, which I believe for my total R/L separation width will keep the direct angle around 40 degrees (if straight forward looking at TV=0 degrees, or about 50 degrees from vertical), but if the angle gets too close to the spec's limit, I'll move them towards the MLP a little.

But overall, I won't stress too much about it (until my wife comes home from work and asks what happened to the TV room ). 

At least all this helped me drag up some of my old trigonometry lessons from 8th grade or so that I never thought I'd use


----------



## chi_guy50

Nyago123 said:


> Really just wanted to add a thanks for these recent posts. I also have a low ceiling (7'1" actually) and have been working out where to mount speakers on ceiling.
> 
> I've read the Dolby spec for HT and I've searched this thread and elsewhere (and used an Atmos calculator spreadsheet I found somewhere - maybe it was here), but I wasn't able to find a clear and explicit answer to my n00b question/confusion regarding speaker angles for ceiling speakers... which arises more because I want to understand all this better, rather than any concern about sound quality.
> 
> Whenever I see a cross-section 2D type diagram from the side that shows the "ideal" 45 degrees (like this one posted earlier in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1505.html#post52987410), because the world is actually 3D I'm not sure if that 45 degrees is:
> 1. From the MLP to the _midpoint_ of the height speakers (presuming the MLP is in the center from a left-right perspective and the left-right height speakers are equidistant on each side from the MLP) - i.e. the equilateral 45-90-45 triangle is from the MLP's ear to the ceiling to the height speaker midpoint, *or*
> 2. 45 degrees _direct line of sight_ to the individual speakers themselves, which implies compensating for some z-axis (right/left) distance (if you define from-side picture as x-axis (front/back) and y-axis (up/down)), which would imply that the speakers are actually closer to the MLP along the x-axis (forward/back) than the distance from the MLP's ear to the ceiling - i.e. the equilateral 45-90-45 triangle is from the MLP to the ceiling to the speaker.
> 
> I'm guessing the answer to my question is that the "ideal" 45 degrees is measured direct line of sight to the speaker regardless of left-right separation distance (#2).
> 
> I know that Atmos is not so picky that a few degrees will destroy the sound... but with a low ceiling even a 6" move forward/back from the MLP can change the line-of-sight angle significantly in terms of degrees (and potentially out of spec) depending on how far the ceiling speakers are right or left of the MLP, never mind that even just the thickness of the speaker with its mount is enough to change the angle as well.
> 
> Based on this I will start with the 45 degree line (center 4' forward of and behind the MLP since my ceiling height 7' minus MLP height 3' = 4') and move the speakers right/left along that line but keep them inside the front left & right speakers, which I believe for my total R/L separation width will keep the direct angle around 40 degrees (if straight forward looking at TV=0 degrees, or about 50 degrees from vertical), but if the angle gets too close to the spec's limit, I'll move them towards the MLP a little.
> 
> But overall, I won't stress too much about it (until my wife comes home from work and asks what happened to the TV room ).
> 
> At least all this helped me drag up some of my old trigonometry lessons from 8th grade or so that I never thought I'd use


It appears to me that you have a very good handle on the issue.

Since the post you quoted was one of mine, here's an earlier post that more directly addresses your concerns about the lateral mounting angles.


----------



## anothermib

Hi, is there any common view on which speaker config works best for Atmos when upgrading an existing 7.1 setup? 
This may be a FAQ, but so far I was not really able to find a good, consistent answer. 
I assume that actual ceiling speakers generally are better than upfiring speakers (though I actually have read the opposite as well). Are 2 ceiling speakers better than 4 hight speakers and how does a solution with upfiring speakers compare to one using hights? If starting with 9ch should one rather go with 5.x4 than 7.x.2? How big is the actual difference between the variants? Is there a hierarchy of preferable solutions that most people agree to or is it considered being pretty much all the same - as long the speakers are where the avr expects them? 
Lots of questions - any views and insights would be appreciated.


----------



## mrtickleuk

anothermib said:


> If starting with 9ch should one rather go with 5.x4 than 7.x.2? How big is the actual difference between the variants?


I can point to some ideas on this point. From This post:


> If you have not heard Atmos in the home, it's a stunning experience vs. traditional 5.1 and 7.1. It's the real-deal.
> 
> Finally, whatever you do, do not cheap out on the height speakers. *I am telling you from first-hand experience to go for 4. Do not do 2. You do not get the same effect with only 2 in-ceiling speakers. You need 4. *


Go for 5.1.4, not 7.1.2.


----------



## Nyago123

chi_guy50 said:


> It appears to me that you have a very good handle on the issue.
> 
> Since the post you quoted was one of mine, here's an earlier post that more directly addresses your concerns about the lateral mounting angles.


Ha ha - there it is - I knew it had to be in here somewhere.  Just couldn't find it... actually surprised it didn't come up very early in the thread (or maybe it did  ) Thanks much!

And for the record, I am using OWM3's for the ceiling. I wanted an inexpensive and somewhat "neutral" sounding speaker for this use case to get the feet wet with Atmos that aren't too obtrusive on the low ceiling, and I think they will fit the bill.


----------



## unretarded

anothermib said:


> Hi, is there any common view on which speaker config works best for Atmos when upgrading an existing 7.1 setup?
> This may be a FAQ, but so far I was not really able to find a good, consistent answer.
> I assume that actual ceiling speakers generally are better than upfiring speakers (though I actually have read the opposite as well). Are 2 ceiling speakers better than 4 hight speakers and how does a solution with upfiring speakers compare to one using hights? If starting with 9ch should one rather go with 5.x4 than 7.x.2? How big is the actual difference between the variants? Is there a hierarchy of preferable solutions that most people agree to or is it considered being pretty much all the same - as long the speakers are where the avr expects them?
> Lots of questions - any views and insights would be appreciated.


 If you want sound to come from above you, you put speakers above you, if you want sound from the back, you put speakers in the back.


Everything is context based, when you hear a description such as upfiring modules sound shockingly good or they are described as sounding just as good as ceiling speakers or not a big difference.


Thats because there is a difference and thats why they compare it to ceiling speakers as that is the ideal location. I am sure they do sound shockingly good for not being in the ideal location, but they do not sound the same as being in the ideal location.

Also you need a fairly ideal ceiling to bounce reflections of sound from to get that not a big difference in sound.

The ear and brain combo is pretty good at locating sounds, thats what has kept us alive for thousands of years.

A prime example is height speakers...........just a couple feet difference on the same wall as other speakers and we can discern the location quite well.


If bouncing sound was ideal and the way, we would turn the mains away from us at the front wall and bounce that sound too.


Why start from a handicapped position.


Upfiring atmos modules are for people who can not or will not do ceiling speakers and in my mind, really a marketing measure to gain acceptance,sell a product and allow those who cant or would not still be able to get some of the experiance.


I am sure they can be made to work very well for what they are, theres that context based reply,...........in the right enviroment such as a proper ceiling height, a uniform smooth ceiling.

In contrast.....ceiling speakers will work on any ceiling with no special needs other than mounting.

If all you can do is upfiring, then its better than nothing and in the right conditions can sound very good.....almost undiscernable from ceiling speakers.


If the option exists, I would recomend ceiling speakers........but as stated, under the right conditions, upfiring modules can be just as enjoyable.


----------



## sdurani

Nyago123 said:


> I'm not sure if that 45 degrees is...


The more you look into this, the more you'll realize that it isn't that important. Both immersive formats, DTS:X and Atmos, use a combination of traditional channels (that get routed to their intended speakers) and audio objects (that get rendered to their intended locations in 3D space). I used to obsess about each format's rendering assumptions. After all, if you are going to place speakers on the ceiling, why not put them where the object renderer assumes them to be. Not like it costs more or requires more effort to put them at the "correct" locations rather than some arbitrary spots. 

With DTS:X it was easy, since the format does its rendering based on elevation and azimuth angles relative to the listener. The 4 height speakers were 45 degrees elevation above ear height and 45 degrees azimuth from the centre line. With a typical seated ear height around 3.5' and your 7' ceiling, the DTS:X height speakers would go on the corners of a 5' x 5' square above you. That's pretty tight placement. Could be distracting, especially with low ceilings. Not much left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation. And what does sticking to the correct 45 degree placement buy you when it comes to accurate object-based rendering? Not much, because it turned out that home DTS:X soundtracks rarely contained objects (most are discrete 11.1 channel mixes). 

Atmos is different, because it was conceived as a theatrical format, where listener locations range from corner to corner of the theatre. So it doesn't render based on any listener location but instead relative to the room/speakers. If an audio object is intended to be 1/3rd of the way between the screen wall and the back wall, then that's where it will be rendered; both at the cinema and at home. Since there are no angles involved, the 45-degree recommendation in the Atmos install guide turns out to be good practice in general for height speaker placement, but not anything to do with the rendering itself (i.e., sticking diligently to 45 degrees won't result in more accurate object placement). 

So in both cases, worrying about what "45 degrees" really means isn't that important. Better instead to just spread your height speakers enough to hear good front/back and left/right separation while still sounding like they're overhead (instead of high up on the walls). Both formats are forgiving when it comes to speaker placement. So rather than worrying about hitting specific numbers, place your speakers where they sound good to you. You'll enjoy the results more.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> The more you look into this, the more you'll realize that it isn't that important. Both immersive formats, DTS:X and Atmos, use a combination of traditional channels (that get routed to their intended speakers) and audio objects (that get rendered to their intended locations in 3D space).


Apparently, at least DTS: X for the home is limited to fixed (possibly snap-to) objects for the four overhead locations and any additional objects are to be used for different language tracks. It contains _no_ 3D positional objects, at least in comparison to Dolby Atmos' home or cinema versions. Any speaker expansion beyond 7.1.4 is to be dealt with via Neural: X upmixing. 

Looks like DTS never got 3D rendered objects to work properly and quite possibly due to the company's buyout, the new owners thought this was a low priority or don't care.


----------



## anothermib

unretarded said:


> If you want sound to come from above you, you put speakers above you, if you want sound from the back, you put speakers in the back.
> 
> 
> Everything is context based, when you hear a description such as upfiring modules sound shockingly good or they are described as sounding just as good as ceiling speakers or not a big difference.
> 
> 
> Thats because there is a difference and thats why they compare it to ceiling speakers as that is the ideal location. I am sure they do sound shockingly good for not being in the ideal location, but they do not sound the same as being in the ideal location.
> 
> Also you need a fairly ideal ceiling to bounce reflections of sound from to get that not a big difference in sound.
> 
> The ear and brain combo is pretty good at locating sounds, thats what has kept us alive for thousands of years.
> 
> A prime example is height speakers...........just a couple feet difference on the same wall as other speakers and we can discern the location quite well.
> 
> 
> If bouncing sound was ideal and the way, we would turn the mains away from us at the front wall and bounce that sound too.
> 
> 
> Why start from a handicapped position.
> 
> 
> Upfiring atmos modules are for people who can not or will not do ceiling speakers and in my mind, really a marketing measure to gain acceptance,sell a product and allow those who cant or would not still be able to get some of the experiance.
> 
> 
> I am sure they can be made to work very well for what they are, theres that context based reply,...........in the right enviroment such as a proper ceiling height, a uniform smooth ceiling.
> 
> In contrast.....ceiling speakers will work on any ceiling with no special needs other than mounting.
> 
> If all you can do is upfiring, then its better than nothing and in the right conditions can sound very good.....almost undiscernable from ceiling speakers.
> 
> 
> If the option exists, I would recomend ceiling speakers........but as stated, under the right conditions, upfiring modules can be just as enjoyable.




Thanks. So if I am reading this correctly 4 ceiling speakers is best (no surprise there). And upfiring would be preferable over hights- assuming they can be placed the right way. 

Obviously everything depends on the individual circumstances, but if I attempt to put it as a sorted list:

4 ceiling 
4 upfiring (or mix ceiling/upfiring)
2 ceiling 
4 hights 
2 hights

Does that sound about right?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dan Hitchman said:


> Apparently,


No, 



> at least DTS: X for the home is limited to fixed (possibly snap-to) objects for the four overhead locations and any additional objects are to be used for different language tracks. It contains _no_ 3D positional objects, at least in comparison to Dolby Atmos' home or cinema versions. Any speaker expansion beyond 7.1.4 is to be dealt with via Neural: X upmixing.


It's certainly capable of more. We went into this in great detail recently on the DTS:X thread around the time of the furore about a movie about cars going too fast being released on disc in "lossy DTS:X" format (ie DTS:X using a DTS-HD High Resolution Audio track [which was in the spec all along and is mentioned in the DTS:X launch press release], instead of a DTS-HD Master Audio track).

DTS:X for the home allows 16 Streams + 2 LFE. eg 7.x leaves enough streams free for up to 9 objects; or 7.x.4 => up to 5 objects

more info from that thread:
*Most discs so far* are 7.1.4 channels with 0 objects, with the .4 usually designated as height, and not top, locations. 
However, Ip Man 3 is 7.1.4 *with 5 objects* (using all 16 streams). Neural: X upmixing not required.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mrtickleuk said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently,
> 
> 
> 
> No,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least DTS: X for the home is limited to fixed (possibly snap-to) objects for the four overhead locations and any additional objects are to be used for different language tracks. It contains _no_ 3D positional objects, at least in comparison to Dolby Atmos' home or cinema versions. Any speaker expansion beyond 7.1.4 is to be dealt with via Neural: X upmixing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly capable of more. We went into this in great detail recently on the DTS:X thread around the time of the furore about a movie about cars going too fast being released on disc in "lossy DTS:X" format (ie DTS:X using a DTS-HD High Resolution Audio track [which was in the spec all along and is mentioned in the DTS:X launch press release], instead of a DTS-HD Master Audio track).
> 
> DTS:X for the home allows 16 Streams + 2 LFE. eg 7.x leaves enough streams free for up to 9 objects; or 7.x.4 => up to 5 objects
> 
> more info from that thread:
> *Most discs so far* are 7.1.4 channels with 0 objects, with the .4 usually designated as height, and not top, locations.
> However, Ip Man 3 is 7.1.4 *with 5 objects* (using all 16 streams). Neural: X upmixing not required.
Click to expand...

FilmMixer has already stayed that DTS:X on disc is limited in such away and fixed at 7.1.4. As to if the 4 overheads in the codec's extension file are static objects or actual channels, I'm not sure. 

I can only assume DTS over promised and under delivered.


----------



## gwsat

In my 7.2.4 system, with the four height speakers being set in the ceiling, both Atmos and DTS:X sound equally wonderful to me. I know there are technical differences in the way the two formats are rendered but I still can't hear any difference.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> In my 7.2.4 system, with the four height speakers being set in the ceiling, both Atmos and DTS:X sound equally wonderful to me. I know there are technical differences in the way the two formats are rendered but I still can't hear any difference.


The difference is clear once you go beyond 7.1.4 rendering, which is the upper limit for DTS: X.


----------



## retro124

Hey guys I have a chance to get pair like new RB-61II's for good price so I'm thinking to get it and use it against RB-81II's ( front height) on top back wall behind sofa facing down to MLP to have 4 speakers 🔊 for Atmos. Is that good idea? Or leave it for now just like I have front heights and then one day when I will have bigger room get 4 in ceiling speakers for Atmos?


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> So in both cases, worrying about what "45 degrees" really means isn't that important. Better instead to just spread your height speakers enough to hear good front/back and left/right separation while still sounding like they're overhead (instead of high up on the walls). Both formats are forgiving when it comes to speaker placement. So rather than worrying about hitting specific numbers, place your speakers where they sound good to you. You'll enjoy the results more.


Absolutely agree! No "real world" need to obsess about a few degrees or few inches or even a foot here and there. Furthermore, the majority of rooms have physical and/or acoustical constraints and other variables that preclude exact guideline placement recommendations. After much experimentation with 3D speaker placement over the last 2 years, I've concluded that the best advice on these threads is exactly what @sdurani has stated above (no pun intended).


----------



## gene4ht

retro124 said:


> Hey guys I have a chance to get pair like new RB-61II's for good price so I'm thinking to get it and use it against RB-81II's ( front height) on top back wall behind sofa facing down to MLP to have 4 speakers 🔊 for Atmos. Is that good idea? Or leave it for now just like I have front heights and then one day when I will have bigger room get 4 in ceiling speakers for Atmos?


Hi Retro! For Atmos, the more space between the sofa and back wall, the better the effect. Unless you have an extremely large room, the 61's should be fine. In the past, I've used both 41's and 51's in that configuration and they worked out just fine. As you suggest, just be sure to angle them toward the MLP.


----------



## retro124

gene4ht said:


> Hi Retro! For Atmos, the more space between the sofa and back wall, the better the effect. Unless you have an extremely large room, the 61's should be fine. In the past, I've used both 41's and 51's in that configuration and they worked out just fine. As you suggest, just be sure to angle them toward the MLP.


Hi Gene4th, I guess you right maybe 61's are bigger then need it. Is that posible to place them on side walls at same line like MLP just all them way again to ceiling and face them down to MLP ofcourse. Will that effect result dramatically over to have them behind MLP?


----------



## gene4ht

retro124 said:


> Hi Gene4th, I guess you right maybe 61's are bigger then need it. Is that posible to place them on side walls at same line like MLP just all them way again to ceiling and face them down to MLP ofcourse. Will that effect result dramatically over to have them behind MLP?


I have never tried this and although it is not a Dolby Atmos standard configuration, it would be worth experimenting to see/hear how it sounds to you. I would guess this might be a passable solution for a single row of seating and less so for multiple rows...front to rear panning and object placement would likely be less accurate. Speaker manufacturers...i.e. SVS and others seem to be addressing some non standard situations with alternative speaker solutions. I suspect there are others with room and/or seating constraints that have experimented with non standard configurations. Perhaps someone who has attempted similar configs could also chime in with their experience/findings/solutions. Also, be aware that with Atmos configurations, side surrounds should be at or slightly above ear level to ensure sufficient vertical separation from the height speakers.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> FilmMixer has already stayed that DTS:X on disc is limited in such away and fixed at 7.1.4. As to if the 4 overheads in the codec's extension file are static objects or actual channels, I'm not sure.
> 
> I can only assume DTS over promised and under delivered.




Dan. For clarity. 

X is 16 audio stream with metadata. 

The format supports that, with object rendering just like Atmos. 

They have no equivalent tech to Dolby's spatial coding, so are limited to 9 objects on 7.1 bed titles (and usually two of those would be needed to carry a stereo OH bed/object mix down, leaving 7.)

For titles with higher object counts, they are "recommending" 7.1.4 channel rendering of the tracks coming out of the encoders, and I doubt you will see anything other than that for any titles released in the format, now or in the future. 

The decoders have been limited to 7.1.4... any extra channels will be derived by matrix decoders at this point in time. 

And the .4 out of the encoders are almost always designated as heights, and not overheads. 

I think, IMO, we will continue to see any titles that were released theatrically on Atmos come to the home in the format... 

The last film I mixed was released in both Atmos and X.... it will be coming home in Atmos... as a side note we used almost 60 objects... . Coming home end of June. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

Thanks for the clarification. Was beginning to think I'd remembered it wrong, even though I made notes


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> The last film I mixed was released in both Atmos and X.... it will be coming home in Atmos...


Lionsgate is pretty good about bringing their theatrical Atmos titles (and even theatrical Auro exclusives, like John Wick) home in Atmos. On the other hand, Universal is big into DTS:X, what with 24 titles released or announced on home video. In keeping with that, they're releasing F&F8 on BD & UHD with a DTS:X track, even though the movie was mixed for all 3 immersive formats theatrically.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Lionsgate is pretty good about bringing their theatrical Atmos titles (and even theatrical Auro exclusives, like John Wick) home in Atmos. On the other hand, Universal is big into DTS:X, what with 24 titles released or announced on home video. In keeping with that, they're releasing F&F8 on BD & UHD with a DTS:X track, even though the movie was mixed for all 3 immersive formats theatrically.




I think it's pretty obvious why FF8 is being released on video with X...

How many of thee 24 Uni titles are catalog? And how many had theatrical Atmos mixes?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> How many of thee 24 Uni titles are catalog? And how many had theatrical Atmos mixes?


Most of them are either catalogue titles or recent releases that had no theatrical immersive mix (Jason Bourne, Girl on the Train). 

There are only a couple of Universal titles so far that had theatrical Atmos mixes that ended up on home video with DTS:X tracks (Fifty Shades Darker, Fate of the Furious), though both movies did have theatrical DTS:X tracks as well. 

Uni titles that had Atmos & Auro theatrical mixes (No DTS:X theatrically) ended up on home video in Atmos (Secret Life of Pets, Sing).


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Most of them are either catalogue titles or recent releases that had no theatrical immersive mix (Jason Bourne, Girl on the Train).
> 
> There are only a couple of Universal titles so far that had theatrical Atmos mixes that ended up on home video with DTS:X tracks (Fifty Shades Darker, Fate of the Furious), though both movies did have theatrical DTS:X tracks as well.
> 
> Uni titles that had Atmos & Auro theatrical mixes (No DTS:X theatrically) ended up on home video in Atmos (Secret Life of Pets, Sing).




Patriots Day is Lionsgate. 

My main point still stands... if it's Atmos in the theaters, it will be at home with very few exceptions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## funky54

I need advice. Atmos in-ceiling...Three different ceiling heights. And one on a slope angle.










Anything I should do different? No holes yet..


----------



## megametaman

funky54 said:


> Anything I should do different? No holes yet..


I'm not expert, but looking at your diagram, I think I would put everything in the same spots. I don't know about the subwoofer, I guess that would depend on acoustics and where you are ok with placing the sub. I think your setup would be awesome. Even more awesome with a second sub!


----------



## funky54

megametaman said:


> I'm not expert, but looking at your diagram, I think I would put everything in the same spots. I don't know about the subwoofer, I guess that would depend on acoustics and where you are ok with placing the sub. I think your setup would be awesome. Even more awesome with a second sub!


ANy thoughts on the spacing between the immersion speakers and the mains? Any concern with cancellation with the separation being so similar?

As to sub, I actually dont use the one I have. My mains hit 19 HZ at 101 db with no break up.


----------



## gene4ht

funky54 said:


> I need advice. Atmos in-ceiling...Three different ceiling heights. And one on a slope angle. Anything I should do different? No holes yet..





funky54 said:


> ANy thoughts on the spacing between the immersion speakers and the mains? Any concern with cancellation with the separation being so similar?


From a pure baseline Dolby Atmos specifications guideline perspective, the "in ceiling" speakers are recommended to be in line with the L & R mains. Also, if possible, reposition the surrounds so they're in line with the main seating and at or slightly above ear level (if only the short wall available...perhaps use a speaker stand). Your varying ceiling heights will be compensated for by your room correction system. Although I can't speak to the spacing/cancellation possibility, I suspect that would not be an issue...unlikely that identical material will be going to all speakers simultaneously. Bottom line, use the Dolby recommendations as a "guideline." Most of us have some level of departure from these recommendations with excellent performance results. Experiment with locations as your physical room constraints will determine actual speaker locations. Ultimately, the best tool you have, your ears, will tell you what sounds right/best. 

Note: Depending on results, you may want to use a speaker with a pivoting driver to offset the sloped ceiling.


----------



## funky54

gene4ht said:


> From a pure baseline Dolby Atmos specifications guideline perspective, the "in ceiling" speakers are recommended to be in line with the L & R mains. Also, if possible, reposition the surrounds so they're in line with the main seating and at or slightly above ear level (if only the short wall available...perhaps use a speaker stand). Your varying ceiling heights will be compensated for by your room correction system. Although I can't speak to the spacing/cancellation possibility, I suspect that would not be an issue...unlikely that identical material will be going to all speakers simultaneously. Bottom line, use the Dolby recommendations as a "guideline." Most of us have some level of departure from these recommendations with excellent performance results. Experiment with locations as your physical room constraints will determine actual speaker locations. Ultimately, the best tool you have, your ears, will tell you what sounds right/best.
> 
> Note: Depending on results, you may want to use a speaker with a pivoting driver to offset the sloped ceiling.


Thanks for the response. Two additional pieces of info I should have mentioned earlier.. One the in-ceiling immersive speakers are 15 degree 6.5" speakers so I can turn them to point at the main listening area. They also have pivoting tweeters. So I like that you suggested it, those are things I probably chose the best ones to work with. I "was" gong to move those in-ceilings to 84" center to center so that the separation would not be so great that it lost the left right effect. My mains are so large and the sound stage is so wide that the 115" center to center is no problem, no audio hole in the center when in Stereo mode. But I'm not to sure little 6.5 in-ceiling speakers could hang with that much separation? Thoughts?


----------



## gene4ht

funky54 said:


> I "was" gong to move those in-ceilings to 84" center to center so that the separation would not be so great that it lost the left right effect. But I'm not to sure little 6.5 in-ceiling speakers could hang with that much separation? Thoughts?


For the most part, the L & R mains, as you suggest serve to create a " sound stage"...a reference mostly to 2 channel music/stereo. The "height" speakers serve to place overhead effects and objects anywhere in 3D space (front to back, side to side, and everywhere in between including diagonal space) to supplement the immersive environment created by the 5.1/7.1 channels and primarily for movies. In this regard, the center to center distance is less critical and any necessary fine turning could be accomplished by pivoting your speakers and/or by manually trimming the speaker levels. BTW...the goal for the overhead speaker is to achieve wide dispersion and avoid hot spotting.


----------



## The Hotness

Thanks for all the help from the folks in this thread; I just had my first atmos experience and it was EPIC. Interstellar was amaZing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

The Hotness said:


> Thanks for all the help from the folks in this thread; I just had my first atmos experience and it was EPIC. Interstellar was amaZing!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And just think... that movie wasn't even in Dolby Atmos (theatrically or on home video). The Blu-ray packaging is in error. You were probably hearing the 5.1 track bumped up via Dolby Surround upmixing. 

If you want a really good _real_ Atmos mix, try finding a copy of Gravity's Diamond Luxe Edition.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Mono objects vs Stereo objects: How does it work?*

My understanding is that objects in Atmos are usually mono-sounds, which are being positioned in 3D-space by the Atmos playback renderer present in any Atmos capable AVR/processor. This Atmos renderer either sends this mono-sound to specific speaker designations, or pan-pots it (applying volume controls) over the available speakers to get it as close as possible to the intended position or trajectory. While doing this (and contrary to the way (surround) bed channels are best arrayed) there is no de-correlation applied. 

The phantom image of such mono-aural sound positioned between two speakers is only stable in the very center. Generally speaking, you could say that pan-pot isn’t the greatest tool for filling up the sound stage between speakers. Yet, Atmos does allow the re-recording engineer to apply so-called stereo-objects, which are basically two interlinked (uncorrelated) mono-objects. 

And this brings me to my question: How is such "stereo object" being positioned? In particular how is the L/R separation secured, as a stereo phantom image needs sound coming from both sides of our head with a certain spread. Are these stereo objects being tagged with specific speaker designations, or can they in turn be positioned anywhere in 3D space using the pan-pot method described above?


----------



## The Hotness

Dan Hitchman said:


> And just think... that movie wasn't even in Dolby Atmos (theatrically or on home video). The Blu-ray packaging is in error. You were probably hearing the 5.1 track bumped up via Dolby Surround upmixing.
> 
> If you want a really good _real_ Atmos mix, try finding a copy of Gravity's Diamond Luxe Edition.




It's cause I said the wrong damn movie! Haha Oblivion is what was viewed..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> My understanding is that objects in Atmos are usually mono-sounds, which are being positioned in 3D-space by the Atmos playback renderer present in any Atmos capable AVR/processor. This Atmos renderer either sends this mono-sound to specific speaker designations, or pan-pots it (applying volume controls) over the available speakers to get it as close as possible to the intended position or trajectory. While doing this (and contrary to the way (surround) bed channels are best arrayed) there is no de-correlation applied.
> 
> The phantom image of such mono-aural sound positioned between two speakers is only stable in the very center. Generally speaking, you could say that pan-pot isn’t the greatest tool for filling up the sound stage between speakers. Yet, Atmos does allow the re-recording engineer to apply so-called stereo-objects, which are basically two interlinked (uncorrelated) mono-objects.
> 
> And this brings me to my question: *How is such "stereo object" being positioned?* In particular how is the L/R separation secured, as a stereo phantom image needs sound coming from both sides of our head with a certain spread. Are these stereo objects being tagged with specific speaker designations, or can they in turn be positioned anywhere in 3D space using the pan-pot method described above?




If Dolby re-used the 'stereo object positioning logic' from Atmos in the Dolby AC-4 codec, you might look in [Section 5.10.2.3 ?] of *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*) for some indication of the processing...?!

Also: the attached slide from an MPEG-H 3D Audio presentation (*link*) shows use of a 5.0 personalization object which appears to be static and spatially co-existent with 5 channel locations in the delivery stream layout.


_


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> In commercial Atmos cinemas and Atmos dubbing stages (where most of the Atmos mixes you hear were created), the height arrays are at the quarter points of the L/R speaker spread (25% inward of the L/R speakers). The home Atmos install guide exaggerates this spread to make stereo separation more obvious in the overheads.


How often would such overhead stereo separation (between the top arrays) at home be part of an effect intended by the re-recording engineer/director, given that in the typical commercial Atmos cinema the top surround arrays are too close together for this to work well, and - on top of that - half of the audience has both arrays are at one side (left or right) of their heads?


----------



## unretarded

Because most of the watchers have no idea........there are only a handfull of really great seats in a normal theater and about the same or less in a atmos theater......some where in the center 1/3rd and about center of that for atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

unretarded said:


> Because most of the watchers have no idea........there are only a handfull of really great seats in a normal theater and about the same or less in a atmos theater......some where in the center 1/3rd and about center of that for atmos.


Yes, but in the typical Atmos Cinema (as displayed in Dolby specs) almost 30% of the prime seats in the so-called Central Listening Area have no Top Speaker on both (L/R) side. I am just curious if/how filmmixers deal with this fact when positioning overhead sounds that are supposed to be perceived either left or right from listener, or traveling in-between. @FilmMixer?


----------



## maikeldepotter

SoundChex said:


> If Dolby re-used the 'stereo object positioning logic' from Atmos in the Dolby AC-4 codec, you might look in [Section 5.10.2.3 ?] of *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*) for some indication of the processing...?!


Thanks for that. 

In that document the panning of stereo signals is described only for the channel based renderer, which works for speakers in the horizontal pane. There is no specific mentioning of stereo signals (objects) in the description of the spatial (Intermediate Spatial Format) renderer, which includes the height layers. If Atmos works on these same principles, this would at least suggest that there are no stereo signals present in the overhead speakers. And how such panning/positioning/processing of stereo signals/objects works in the horizontal pane... ? This doc is mostly over my head, as I do not understand all nomenclature and am having difficulties going through some of those formulas ...


----------



## hlvowell

maikeldepotter said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> In that document the panning of stereo signals is described only for the channel based renderer, which works for speakers in the horizontal pane. There is no specific mentioning of stereo signals (objects) in the description of the spatial (Intermediate Spatial Format) renderer, which includes the height layers. If Atmos works on these same principles, this would at least suggest that there are no stereo signals present in the overhead speakers. And how such panning/positioning/processing of stereo signals/objects works in the horizontal pane... ? This doc is mostly over my head, as I do not understand all nomenclature and am having difficulties going through some of those formulas ...


Hello,

Apologies as I'm sure this has been answered before.

Have an existing 7.1 set-up. All speakers same model (pioneer bookshelves), all equal distance from primary listening position at (0, 30, 90, 135 degrees). Have a Pioneer 9.2 SC-85 and have two pair of Atmos enabled speakers (only using one pair at this time). 

Question - with one pair of Atmos enabled speakers, what is the most effective placement of the Atmos enabled speaker? I was thinking in the surround position at 90 degrees (top middle)?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Howard


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> In that document the panning of stereo signals is described only for the channel based renderer, which works for speakers in the horizontal pane. There is no specific mentioning of stereo signals (objects) in the description of the spatial (Intermediate Spatial Format) renderer, which includes the height layers. If Atmos works on these same principles, this would at least suggest that there are no stereo signals present in the overhead speakers. And how such panning/positioning/processing of stereo signals/objects works in the horizontal pane... ? This doc is mostly over my head, as I do not understand all nomenclature and am having difficulties going through some of those formulas ...


I was under the impression that the "stereo" aspect of the Atmos overheads came from the two bed channels that are normally arrayed in the cinema to come out of all of the left and right overhead speakers just like the stereo channel beds to the sides and rear of the auditorium. Home Atmos doesn't have stereo bed channels for the overheads, so if they're present in the theatrical mix, two available object "slots" are fixed in space and operate in the same manner as channels. Mono objects can then pan through any of the speakers the renderer "sees" based upon panning metadata... creating "stereo" movement, though maybe not stereo imaging.


----------



## Scott Simonian

@maikeldepotter

Don't think of 'stereo objects' as having or requiring any imaging between them at all.

They are simply a pair (or more) or singular objects that are locked to one another.

There is no requirement for them to have a phantom image and "where they go" is a simple matter of their positional metadata and the Atmos decoder doing it's job with that data.


----------



## sidd66

using Def Tech DT 6.5R in-ceiling for my atmos speakers.. 7.1.2 setup


----------



## Jonas2

sidd66 said:


> using Def Tech DT 6.5R in-ceiling for my atmos speakers.. 7.1.2 setup


How are you liking your setup, and those DefTechs?


----------



## TL5

A question: if my MLP is close to a back wall, should I just stick with a 5.1.2 setup, or can I use one set of ceiling speakers as front heights, and another pair over listening position as top middle?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TL5 said:


> A question: if my MLP is close to a back wall, should I just stick with a 5.1.2 setup, or can I use one set of ceiling speakers as front heights, and another pair over listening position as top middle?


Front Heights and Top Middle are a permissable Atmos combo.


----------



## trevorgoldon

Will there be any difference between assigning the speakers as 'Top Front & Top Rear' instead of 'Front Height & Rear Height'?
My front 2 speakers are above my floor towers (a few inches infront) and angled toward the MLP my back speakers are just behind the MLP angled down towards it (MLP seating is close to back wall). 
I'm unsure what I should set them as in amp assign or if it will make any difference anyway.


----------



## the_jaguar

I currently have a pair of JBL 590's, 520c center, and I have a couple of old Polk's acting as my surrounds. I also have a couple of Pioneers SP T-22A-LR add-on speakers for atmos. 

I am now building a dedicated media room, so looking to upgrade to in-ceiling atmos speakers. I also upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4300H, which is capable of doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I am trying to figure out if I should go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.2.

I would really appreciate suggestions regarding which ceiling speakers to purchase and should I go with 4 or 2 ceiling speakers. Also, for the surrounds (and/rears), any specific speakers that will go well with my 590 and 520 setup?

Thanks much!


----------



## sahil0909

the_jaguar said:


> I currently have a pair of JBL 590's, 520c center, and I have a couple of old Polk's acting as my surrounds. I also have a couple of Pioneers SP T-22A-LR add-on speakers for atmos.
> 
> I am now building a dedicated media room, so looking to upgrade to in-ceiling atmos speakers. I also upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4300H, which is capable of doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I am trying to figure out if I should go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.2.
> 
> I would really appreciate suggestions regarding which ceiling speakers to purchase and should I go with 4 or 2 ceiling speakers. Also, for the surrounds (and/rears), any specific speakers that will go well with my 590 and 520 setup?
> 
> Thanks much!


 how was your experience with the pioneer atmos modules?


----------



## Jonas2

the_jaguar said:


> I am now building a dedicated media room, so looking to upgrade to in-ceiling atmos speakers. I also upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4300H, which is capable of doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I am trying to figure out if I should go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.2.
> 
> I would really appreciate suggestions regarding which ceiling speakers to purchase and should I go with 4 or 2 ceiling speakers. Also, for the surrounds (and/rears), any specific speakers that will go well with my 590 and 520 setup?


Go 5.1.4 if your space can fit them! You'll get more out of the experience with 4 Atmos, than the two extra rear surrounds will provide. Some might disagree. But that's what I'd do. I thought that receiver did 7.1.4?? Have to add an extra amp though?? I could be wrong....

You don't need anything too fancy for the Atmos speakers (or the surrounds for that matter). Get the best you can buy within your budget of course, but your budget doesn't need to be large for this. There are a number of good manufacturers for in-ceilings. Be sure to check out the Best In-Ceiling Speakers for Atmos thread!


----------



## vpillay01

so for in wall and in ceiling, which speaker out performs: KEF Ci series thx, or DT DI series, or DT UIW RCS enclosed?
Current cost KEF ci 4100 THX $500 ea, DT DI 5.5 about 200, DT UIW about 400.
Will open back always sound worse than enclosed? 
Since the KEF specs are published at 4ohms and the rest 8, will that mean my denon 7200 will work harder?
dt certainly appears beefier, but are the KEF's more refined and would atmos work better with them?
All comments welcome.


----------



## 9985

the_jaguar said:


> I currently have a pair of JBL 590's, 520c center, and I have a couple of old Polk's acting as my surrounds. I also have a couple of Pioneers SP T-22A-LR add-on speakers for atmos.
> 
> I am now building a dedicated media room, so looking to upgrade to in-ceiling atmos speakers. I also upgraded my AVR to a Denon X4300H, which is capable of doing 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I am trying to figure out if I should go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.2.
> 
> I would really appreciate suggestions regarding which ceiling speakers to purchase and should I go with 4 or 2 ceiling speakers. Also, for the surrounds (and/rears), any specific speakers that will go well with my 590 and 520 setup?
> 
> Thanks much!


 If you are building a dedicated room & already have an X4300H, I would definitely wire it for overhead (downward firing) 7.1.4 at a minimum no matter what you do, just need to add a 2 channel amp to that receiver to support it. Retrofitting overhead Atmos speakers will be a bigger PITA later, and the recommended positioning between 2 & 4 speakers is different. Several threads on AVS talk about recommendations for adding 2 channel amps for Atmos enabled AVRs, decent models seem to go for about $200. If you can't afford to set up 7.1.4 right out of the gate, I'd go with 5.1.4 (regardless of upward/downward firing) & can add the 2 channel amp & the rear surrounds later. If your room/ceiling dimensions supports it, I think you'll be happier with downward firing - a lot easier to deal with adjustments. I hate my upward firing models, have complex room setup that is holding me back from downward firing at the moment.


----------



## the_jaguar

sahil0909 said:


> how was your experience with the pioneer atmos modules?


so so, but I think that's because I have a popcorn ceiling, not sure though.



Jonas2 said:


> Go 5.1.4 if your space can fit them! You'll get more out of the experience with 4 Atmos, than the two extra rear surrounds will provide. Some might disagree. But that's what I'd do. I thought that receiver did 7.1.4?? Have to add an extra amp though?? I could be wrong....
> 
> You don't need anything too fancy for the Atmos speakers (or the surrounds for that matter). Get the best you can buy within your budget of course, but your budget doesn't need to be large for this. There are a number of good manufacturers for in-ceilings. Be sure to check out the Best In-Ceiling Speakers for Atmos thread!


Thanks for the suggestion about 5.1.4, which is very useful. I was quite confused about it. You are right in that if I add an amp, I can convert it to a 7.1.4, which is what I will likely do. I was leaning towards the JBL in-ceiling speakers since the rest of my speakers are JBL, but I am reading that the RSL's are vastly better, but I am still trying to confirm if this is the case.



9985 said:


> If you are building a dedicated room & already have an X4300H, I would definitely wire it for overhead (downward firing) 7.1.4 at a minimum no matter what you do, just need to add a 2 channel amp to that receiver to support it. Retrofitting overhead Atmos speakers will be a bigger PITA later, and the recommended positioning between 2 & 4 speakers is different. Several threads on AVS talk about recommendations for adding 2 channel amps for Atmos enabled AVRs, decent models seem to go for about $200. If you can't afford to set up 7.1.4 right out of the gate, I'd go with 5.1.4 (regardless of upward/downward firing) & can add the 2 channel amp & the rear surrounds later. If your room/ceiling dimensions supports it, I think you'll be happier with downward firing - a lot easier to deal with adjustments. I hate my upward firing models, have complex room setup that is holding me back from downward firing at the moment.


Yep, the plan is to have it wired for downward firing. Initial plan was for 7.1 system, but I will now have it wired for 7.1.4. Yes with an additional amp, I should be able to drive 7.1.4 with the X4300H. Regarding the downward firing speakers, I am torn between the JBL (because the rest of my speakers are JBL) vs the RSL. Any thoughts?


----------



## unretarded

.4 is the way to go no matter what.


I have .2 and it is alright.


With .4 you get all the feautures of atmos.......left to right pans and front to back.........even a big movie house with 20 ceiling speakers only get ,left to right and frot to back, they just have more speakers to cover multiple rows.


I will be upgrading in my tiny 12x12 room to .4 soon.


I set above/slightly behind against the wall on the ceiling and the second set as middles, but cheated towards the MLP. That way I get the front to backs pans I am missing with a .2 system.


My current .2 reciever asks if they are front ceiling,middle ceiling or rear ceiling as the 3 possible locations for the .2

I am sure a .4 will ask the same questions.......


So, .4 gets you all the content features of Atmos, even if you have to run them a little off spec as far as location, it will be better than not having the second set overhead.....somewhere...


----------



## 9985

the_jaguar said:


> Yep, the plan is to have it wired for downward firing. Initial plan was for 7.1 system, but I will now have it wired for 7.1.4. Yes with an additional amp, I should be able to drive 7.1.4 with the X4300H. Regarding the downward firing speakers, I am torn between the JBL (because the rest of my speakers are JBL) vs the RSL. Any thoughts?


From everything I have read, voicing/matching of Atmos speakers to the rest of your speakers doesn't matter much, if you go with .4, just get 2 pairs of the same model. There is a massive thread about Atmos speakers with lot of recommendations, I'm not a good source as I have bottom-of-the-line upward firing .2 setup at the moment - playing with Atmos Helicopter demo this weekend made it painfully obvious how bad my room/ceiling is for upward firing. If you get 4 decent downward firing speakers positioned properly and calibrated using Audessey, Atmos will sound great.


----------



## the_jaguar

unretarded said:


> .4 is the way to go no matter what.
> 
> 
> I have .2 and it is alright.
> 
> 
> With .4 you get all the feautures of atmos.......left to right pans and front to back.........even a big movie house with 20 ceiling speakers only get ,left to right and frot to back, they just have more speakers to cover multiple rows.
> 
> 
> I will be upgrading in my tiny 12x12 room to .4 soon.
> 
> 
> I set above/slightly behind against the wall on the ceiling and the second set as middles, but cheated towards the MLP. That way I get the front to backs pans I am missing with a .2 system.
> 
> 
> My current .2 reciever asks if they are front ceiling,middle ceiling or rear ceiling as the 3 possible locations for the .2
> 
> I am sure a .4 will ask the same questions.......
> 
> 
> So, .4 gets you all the content features of Atmos, even if you have to run them a little off spec as far as location, it will be better than not having the second set overhead.....somewhere...


Awesome - thanks for the detailed response. Any thoughts between JBL vs. RSL for the in-ceiling speakers?

Also, any specific recommendations on speakers for surrounds and rears? I am currently using my old & tiny Polks for surrounds...


----------



## the_jaguar

9985 said:


> From everything I have read, voicing/matching of Atmos speakers to the rest of your speakers doesn't matter much, if you go with .4, just get 2 pairs of the same model. There is a massive thread about Atmos speakers with lot of recommendations, I'm not a good source as I have bottom-of-the-line upward firing .2 setup at the moment - playing with Atmos Helicopter demo this weekend made it painfully obvious how bad my room/ceiling is for upward firing. If you get 4 decent downward firing speakers positioned properly and calibrated using Audessey, Atmos will sound great.


I see. Thanks for the heads up regarding the speaker thread - I will make sure to go through it.


----------



## imureh

9985 said:


> From everything I have read, voicing/matching of Atmos speakers to the rest of your speakers doesn't matter much, if you go with .4, just get 2 pairs of the same model. There is a massive thread about Atmos speakers with lot of recommendations, I'm not a good source as I have bottom-of-the-line upward firing .2 setup at the moment - playing with Atmos Helicopter demo this weekend made it painfully obvious how bad my room/ceiling is for upward firing. If you get 4 decent downward firing speakers positioned properly and calibrated using Audessey, Atmos will sound great.




I am FWIW will be trying the SVS Prime elevations. I am not a fan of in ceiling for me it had to be on ceiling. Those speakers with their angled baffle and mounting flush to ceiling seems interesting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

the_jaguar said:


> so so, but I think that's because I have a popcorn ceiling, not sure though.


Definitely a contributor!



the_jaguar said:


> Thanks for the suggestion about 5.1.4, which is very useful. I was quite confused about it. You are right in that if I add an amp, I can convert it to a 7.1.4, which is what I will likely do. I was leaning towards the JBL in-ceiling speakers since the rest of my speakers are JBL, but I am reading that the RSL's are vastly better, but I am still trying to confirm if this is the case.


So, for Atmos duty - I don't think it is nearly as critical - I think sticking with JBLs is fine. RSLs, though I've never heard them, have a lot of happy owners on this forum. Company has great policies and philosophy, and not expensive so absolutely worth considering. YES - I'd worry about in-ceiling speakers a lot more IF they were my only option - in other words - in-ceilings as my main music listening speakers, center channel. I certainly can't say they are vastly better, RSLs vs. JBLs, I'd let somebody with actual experience with both make that claim.


----------



## healthnut

the_jaguar said:


> Awesome - thanks for the detailed response. Any thoughts between JBL vs. RSL for the in-ceiling speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, any specific recommendations on speakers for surrounds and rears? I am currently using my old & tiny Polks for surrounds...




I own JBL in-ceilings (and the associated enclosures) and they sound great. The RSL's are far cheaper, however, and very highly regarded. Can't go wrong either way, but if cost is a concern, I'd go with the RSL's. I doubt there's a significant difference in performance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vpillay01

healthnut said:


> I own JBL in-ceilings (and the associated enclosures) and they sound great. The RSL's are far cheaper, however, and very highly regarded. Can't go wrong either way, but if cost is a concern, I'd go with the RSL's. I doubt there's a significant difference in performance.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




How about def tech enclosed uiw series? Do they compete ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## the_jaguar

healthnut said:


> I own JBL in-ceilings (and the associated enclosures) and they sound great. The RSL's are far cheaper, however, and very highly regarded. Can't go wrong either way, but if cost is a concern, I'd go with the RSL's. I doubt there's a significant difference in performance.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are you referring to JBL SP8CII? The RSL's are $250 per pair vs. the JBL's, which are ~$220. I am looking to be in $250 or so per pair range.

I have a pair of old Polk RM8's and an extra pair of RM7's lying around. Would it make sense to use these are surrounds and rears for my JBL 590 fronts and JBL 520 center?


----------



## Jonas2

vpillay01 said:


> How about def tech enclosed uiw series? Do they compete ?


Sure, like the RCS II? But that's an awful lot of money for an Atmos speaker. If you're going to spend that much, I'd spend less and consider the Revel C763L, but seriously - there is no need to spend a lot of money on Atmos speakers. I would not spend more than $250.00/speaker, but that's just me, and a lot of blokes would think that is nuts!  But each to their own, hard to criticize somebody for wanting to spend a lot of money on a nice speaker, provided they are armed with the knowledge that it is not necessary, as opposed to being unarmed and getting chumped by a salesperson looking for a fatter commission!


----------



## TL5

Jonas2 said:


> Sure, like the RCS II? But that's an awful lot of money for an Atmos speaker. If you're going to spend that much, I'd spend less and consider the Revel C763L, but seriously - there is no need to spend a lot of money on Atmos speakers. I would not spend more than $250.00/speaker, but that's just me, and a lot of blokes would think that is nuts!  But each to their own, hard to criticize somebody for wanting to spend a lot of money on a nice speaker, provided they are armed with the knowledge that it is not necessary, as opposed to being unarmed and getting chumped by a salesperson looking for a fatter commission!


I'm curious why people say the Atmos height speakers quality is not as critical as others in the system. Is it because of the content so far on the discs is not very demanding? I had thought the Atmos height channels were capable of full-range information. I remember in the "Old days" of Dolby Surround people said the surround speakers didn't have to be the same quality as the front 3, but I think this has changed big time over the years. I bet the same thing eventually happens with the height channels in Atmos as the mixers gain experience.


----------



## MN_Moody

I've had good luck with JBL Control 24c & 26c purchased used (complete with back-cans)... I'll usually add a bit of polyfill to tame some of the ringing from the steel enclosure, but for $100ish or less a pair they are hard to beat for in-ceiling applications including Atmos height speakers.

If you are buying these used, the CT version (with a transformer) can be easily converted back to 16 ohms via bypassing the transformer (these are usually cheaper and it's easy surgery). Make sure you get the 4 pin phoenix connector required to connect each speaker, and double check that all 4 of the mounting legs are included - both show up missing fairly often so ask for lots of pictures if you are buying on ebay. The metal mounting ring that shipped with these originally is nice for drywall but not necessary, I've cut replacements from some scrap sheet metal that achieved the same thing.


----------



## Jonas2

TL5 said:


> I'm curious why people say the Atmos height speakers quality is not as critical as others in the system. Is it because of the content so far on the discs is not very demanding? I had thought the Atmos height channels were capable of full-range information. I remember in the "Old days" of Dolby Surround people said the surround speakers didn't have to be the same quality as the front 3, but I think this has changed big time over the years. I bet the same thing eventually happens with the height channels in Atmos as the mixers gain experience.


Well, perhaps some qualification of the statement is in order - not as critical in the need to sonically match them, at least is my reference. And certainly not saying that you should buy $15.00 speakers, quality is all good - but good quality can be had for not so much money. If money is no object - by all means, match all of your drivers if you can - I'm not against that. But not always possible if matching speakers simply don't exist, or they are cost prohibitive. The technical match for my mains, for example, is a speaker 2-3 times the cost of what I installed! Couldn't do it. 

And yes, the way I understand it is that Atmos is capable of full range, and in fact some even say deep bass, so invest in speakers that have a good-sized driver that can handle it. But the content is still primarily L/R/C - focus money there, and in a good sub, preferably two. Depending on what I'm watching, I can get a lot of content through the surround channels, and powerful content, but it does still tend to be effect and ambience, the focus is never on the surround channels, it's still front stage. Same with Atmos, but to even more of a degree. It's the sum total of the effect and how the mind processes it. (Now, this is just my theory, please keep that in mind! ) Are mine a perfect match? No, only my L/R/C are matched. My sides and Atmos are different flavors. Do I notice the difference? Sure, if I play JUST Atmos speakers, which I can do (which really illustrates the ambience and effect over hard-hitting content), I can notice tonal differences, chalk that up to being in the ceiling and/or being a different brand and driver type - but the sound quality is still good. Put them altogether, can't notice it at all. It blends very well because of where the focus remains. 

YMMV!


----------



## sdurani

TL5 said:


> I'm curious why people say the Atmos height speakers quality is not as critical as others in the system. Is it because of the content so far on the discs is not very demanding?


Other way 'round. Claims of height speaker quality not being as critical as other speakers in the system has to do with how much usage the height speakers get, not because of the content. Height speakers get the same content as other speakers: sound effects, music, even dialogue occasionally. So this falls into two camps. Those that feel content doesn't appear often enough in the height speakers to warrant their quality being the same as other speakers. And those that feel that content should remain consistent sounding when panned to the height speakers, even if it happens rarely.


> I had thought the Atmos height channels were capable of full-range information.


They are. But let's not conflate channels with speakers. Full range channels don't require that all the speakers be full range, since we have bass management.


> I remember in the "Old days" of Dolby Surround people said the surround speakers didn't have to be the same quality as the front 3, but I think this has changed big time over the years.


The old Dolby Surround format had a single mono surround channel that was band-limited (100Hz to 7kHz). As such, mixers usually put ambient information in that channel. For all these reasons, it would be overkill to have surround speakers with the same articulation and low-frequency/high-frequency extension as your L/C/R speakers. Things changed with discrete 5.1, where the 5 main channels were all full range (20Hz to 20kHz).


----------



## TL5

^^^ good info! Thanks!


----------



## oldsteve

Just swapped out my Elac Dolby enabled speakers for these inexpensive Dayton Audio IO655B 6-1/2" indoor/outdoor types. They are mounted at ceiling height in a top forward top rear arrangement as Pioneer calls it. I really wanted to see if there was a big improvement over the up-firing Dolby enabled ones. My problem from day one was I have a popcorn (aka acoustic) ceiling which doesn't reflect sound well. After testing some Dolby Atmos soundtracks, the verdict is in. It's a huge improvement! I was going to purchase the SVS Prime Elevation speakers right away but I decided I better try this out first.Now I can order the SVSs with confidence. The Dayton's will probably find a new home in the garage with my Dolby Atmos jr.setup.

*
*


----------



## vpillay01

Jonas2 said:


> Sure, like the RCS II? But that's an awful lot of money for an Atmos speaker. If you're going to spend that much, I'd spend less and consider the Revel C763L, but seriously - there is no need to spend a lot of money on Atmos speakers. I would not spend more than $250.00/speaker, but that's just me, and a lot of blokes would think that is nuts!  But each to their own, hard to criticize somebody for wanting to spend a lot of money on a nice speaker, provided they are armed with the knowledge that it is not necessary, as opposed to being unarmed and getting chumped by a salesperson looking for a fatter commission!




Thanks everyone for the comments .
I thought the DT rcs2 were about 300 at the time of my post. And at that price point , given that I was in an sf apartment ( huge space restrictions) that I could get away with buying all the same: l/c/r/s/4h. 
I figure that the enclosed nature of this in ceiling would be appealing for sound reproduction . I was also thinking about the KEF 200ci THX cert's for in ceiling( because again will try them as l/c/r/s/4h. This is considerably more. 
Let's say I had the money to burn, any one with input? I love everyone's comments as it helps me to think in ways I otherwise might not have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

vpillay01 said:


> Thanks everyone for the comments .
> I thought the DT rcs2 were about 300 at the time of my post. And at that price point , given that I was in an sf apartment ( huge space restrictions) that I could get away with buying all the same: l/c/r/s/4h.
> I figure that the enclosed nature of this in ceiling would be appealing for sound reproduction . I was also thinking about the KEF 200ci THX cert's for in ceiling( because again will try them as l/c/r/s/4h. This is considerably more.
> Let's say I had the money to burn, any one with input? I love everyone's comments as it helps me to think in ways I otherwise might not have.


I think those were like $750.00!! (That's DefTech's MSRP), there is another one for $500.00. You might have been looking at something that I missed though. But yes - if you are considering for L/C/R - then spend good money on hi-end speakers. The Atmos speakers don't need that kind of investment. Doesn't mean you can't, but if budget is tight you don't need to worry as much about those. 

I may be misunderstanding - but you don't want to install all in-ceilings if you are doing Atmos - you need to separate those layers, keep your mains and surrounds at ear level and Atmos in the ceiling. Is that what you were thinking about doing?


----------



## vpillay01

I may be misunderstanding - but you don't want to install all in-ceilings if you are doing Atmos - you need to separate those layers, keep your mains and surrounds at ear level and Atmos in the ceiling. Is that what you were thinking about doing?[/QUOTE]


Sorry i need to add detail: l/c/r would be in wall in typical location rest would be in ceiling . All would be flush to their respective wall/ceiling. Yes I get that floor standing trumps in wall l/c/r but maybe one day I can move out to the burbs and realize that dream. 

My budget is 300-500 per driver and I was considering open box so hope that explains the price. Further was hoping to get solid perspectives from DT enclosed vs open back KEF ci's, going thx certified vs not in the in ceiling/ in wall domain . I am thinking yes, it matters more since sound quality already compromised. My hope is someone has these in their setup and gives feedback.
KEF 200ci thx vs DT rcs II.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

vpillay01 said:


> Sorry i need to add detail: l/c/r would be in wall in typical location rest would be in ceiling . All would be flush to their respective wall/ceiling. Yes I get that floor standing trumps in wall l/c/r but maybe one day I can move out to the burbs and realize that dream.
> 
> My budget is 300-500 per driver and I was considering open box so hope that explains the price. Further was hoping to get solid perspectives from DT enclosed vs open back KEF ci's, going thx certified vs not in the in ceiling/ in wall domain . I am thinking yes, it matters more since sound quality already compromised. My hope is someone has these in their setup and gives feedback.
> KEF 200ci thx vs DT rcs II.


Actually, there are advantages to in-wall speakers too, I don't know that I'd say floor-standers necessarily trump them? I think it really depends on the speakers and the room, advantages and disadvantages to both. In-Wall LCR is not the end of the world! 

I will let the more experienced comment on the DT vs. KEF thing, I've good things about the KEFs. You might want to bounce this off the DefTech Owners thread and KEF too.....





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## taz291819

Ok, here is my situation:

I just upgraded pretty much everything in my HT (specs in sig). Since I didn't have much of a budget left, I bought the Onkyo Atmos upfiring speakers, and put them on top of my main front JBL's.

My HT room is actually our sun-room (20x12), which was built onto the house later. So, it has three walls that are all glass (double sliding glass doors on all three sides), and the last wall is actually the old exterior of the house (Masonite). It used to have indoor-outdoor carpet, but we pulled it up two weeks ago, so now it's just bare concrete for the time being.

Also, the ceilings are cathedral-style wood ceilings, with about a 45-degree pitch, max height of ~15 feet. Couch is in the center of the room, display is along one of the sliding glass doors, looking towards just one of the angled ceilings. 

I can hear the upward firing speakers during Atmos content, but ever so slightly. The Accu setup process of my Onkyo detects them, and sets their heights correctly.

My question is, for a better effect, can I use the same speakers, but mount them on the sloped ceiling facing downward towards the couch? Or should I go with a more traditional set of speakers?

I can add pictures if needed.


----------



## unretarded

You can try them and see how they sound....I think those style are of the narrow sound stage type to better reflect....so they might need to be aimed more precise than normal speakers and might have a smaller sweet spot...by how much who knows, they might work fine.


----------



## Hresna

*Amotsifying my 7.1*

I’ve just got my first Atmos AVR (Yammy 3060) which I’ll be setting up this weekend. I posted about this in that owner’s thread but it was suggested this would be a better spot for my specific question.

I have a fairly traditional 7.1 setup (drawing & pics supplied – the main walls are roughly to scale). The fronts and surrounds are floor-standers with the tweeters at ear level. The “Surround back” speakers, however, are bookshelves mounted high near the ceiling (which is low-ish, basement soft-tile “drop ceiling”). 

I had two questions. I surmise form what I’ve read that I would do better to configure those back speakers as “rear-presence” for Atmos (instead of surround back). The Yamaha can apparently “virtualize” surround backs, though my primary surrounds might be a bit too far forward for that. 

In any case, with this speaker layout, is a 5.1.2 more appropriate than a 7.1 with no Atmos?

My second question relates to adding 2 more speakers for Atmos using the spare amps in the AVR (only 9 total). I know 4 ceilings is the gold standard for Atmos, that will be for the next house. This is not really a dedicated HT, it’s a semi-finished storage basement that I’ve managed to jam 7 speakers and subwoofer into with a couch and an OLED =P

My current inclination is to use upward firing PSB Imagine Atmos for fronts in a 5.1.4 config (and configure a separate “scene” as a 7.1.2 to do some A/B comparison). I’m thinking I might enjoy that better than 2 ceilings (which I wonder if it might seem a bit too localized, what with the small room and low ceiling), and yield a better effect than simply adding front height/presence speakers (which is the most simmetrical option in this config). This option is also the least amount of work. I’d love to have 4 ceilings but that’s the most work and I’d need to pickup a 2ch amp somewhere – I’d prefer a lower fuss solution that still gets improvement over the 7.1 that is there.

All advice most welcome. Cheers.


----------



## richlife

Hresna said:


> I’ve just got my first Atmos AVR (Yammy 3060) which I’ll be setting up this weekend. I posted about this in that owner’s thread but it was suggested this would be a better spot for my specific question.
> 
> I have a fairly traditional 7.1 setup (drawing & pics supplied – the main walls are roughly to scale). The fronts and surrounds are floor-standers with the tweeters at ear level. The “Surround back” speakers, however, are bookshelves mounted high near the ceiling (which is low-ish, basement soft-tile “drop ceiling”).
> 
> I had two questions. I surmise form what I’ve read that I would do better to configure those back speakers as “rear-presence” for Atmos (instead of surround back). The Yamaha can apparently “virtualize” surround backs, though my primary surrounds might be a bit too far forward for that.
> 
> In any case, with this speaker layout, is a 5.1.2 more appropriate than a 7.1 with no Atmos?
> 
> My second question relates to adding 2 more speakers for Atmos using the spare amps in the AVR (only 9 total). I know 4 ceilings is the gold standard for Atmos, that will be for the next house. This is not really a dedicated HT, it’s a semi-finished storage basement that I’ve managed to jam 7 speakers and subwoofer into with a couch and an OLED =P
> 
> My current inclination is to use upward firing PSB Imagine Atmos for fronts in a 5.1.4 config (and configure a separate “scene” as a 7.1.2 to do some A/B comparison). I’m thinking I might enjoy that better than 2 ceilings (which I wonder if it might seem a bit too localized, what with the small room and low ceiling), and yield a better effect than simply adding front height/presence speakers (which is the most simmetrical option in this config). This option is also the least amount of work. I’d love to have 4 ceilings but that’s the most work and I’d need to pickup a 2ch amp somewhere – I’d prefer a lower fuss solution that still gets improvement over the 7.1 that is there.
> 
> All advice most welcome. Cheers.


Crowded, isn't it!?  I've been there -- and you are far ahead where I was with your speakers! My first suggestion would pack you in a little more. As I indicated in the Yamaha forum where this started, I would start by crowding even more and moving that left surround back and inward a little so that it has a wall behind it. 

In direct answer to your question, the PSB Imagine Atmos appear good, but with that soft, flexible ceiling, I doubt they will perform properly as DAES in an up-firing position. I think you would do better to mount them as Front Presence, re-mount your rears about half-way forward from their current position as Rear Presence and configure as 5.1.4. 

And I look forward to seeing the suggestions from others...


----------



## zeus33

Sorry if this was already linked.

*Hear The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s in mind-bending Dolby Atmos for the 50th Anniversary*


----------



## MrDickerson

*Choices?*

Which of these do you think is best? Trying to stay around 500-800ish. Yamaha RX-A670 or Denon AVR-S930H. They both are brand new this year. Thanks in advance for the help. I do mostly movies/tv/Xbox One. I'm trying to plan ahead for an 5.2.2 Atmos setup. I like the idea of having a 2nd hdmi out as well.


----------



## Kain

How much use do back surrounds get in a movie that has an active Atmos mix? Basically referring to 7.1.4 vs. 5.1.4.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kain said:


> How much use do back surrounds get in a movie that has an active Atmos mix? Basically referring to 7.1.4 vs. 5.1.4.


It depends on the mix obviously. But the difference is the same between a 5.1.4 and a 7.1.4 as it is between a 5.1 and a 7.1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MrDickerson said:


> Which of these do you think is best? Trying to stay around 500-800ish. Yamaha RX-A670 or Denon AVR-S930H. They both are brand new this year. Thanks in advance for the help. I do mostly movies/tv/Xbox One. I'm trying to plan ahead for an 5.2.2 Atmos setup. I like the idea of having a 2nd hdmi out as well.


Man, if you can save just a little bit, I would go with at least a 5.1.4 setup. The four overheads are much better than two. You get much more distinct object movement overhead.


----------



## taz291819

Quick question, with my Onkyo 656, everything in the manual states 5.1.2 for Atmos, which is how I have it set up currently. If I add two more speakers to the last two rear outputs, would that give me 5.1.4?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

taz291819 said:


> Quick question, with my Onkyo 656, everything in the manual states 5.1.2 for Atmos, which is how I have it set up currently. If I add two more speakers to the last two rear outputs, would that give me 5.1.4?


It only has 5.1.2 processing capabilities, so no.


----------



## oldsteve

Dan Hitchman said:


> Man, if you can save just a little bit, I would go with at least a 5.1.4 setup. The four overheads are much better than two. You get much more distinct object movement overhead.


Amen to that! I have both setups and the four speaker arrangement is a huge difference in comparison. Maybe in the future there won't be such a large price differential between a 7.1.2 receiver and a 7.1.4 one?


----------



## jpalermo

So I recently bought some speakers and receiver for an Atmos setup. I have a 5.0.2 currently, sub should arrive tomorrow. But I haven't been able to find anything online about how far away to sit from front Atmos enabled speakers. I bought the Pioneer Elite EBS73 for my fronts, and in the manual it says to have the speakers no higher than halfway to the ceiling. But the Atmos speakers that are built in are set at a certain angle, so I would think it would matter how far I am sitting so that it is reflected down at me. Depending on the angle I would have to sit closer/further or move the speakers up/down, but I have no idea what the angle is or how to do the math to figure out where to sit so that the sound is bouncing back down towards my ears instead of in front of me or behind me.


----------



## Ladeback

jpalermo said:


> So I recently bought some speakers and receiver for an Atmos setup. I have a 5.0.2 currently, sub should arrive tomorrow. But I haven't been able to find anything online about how far away to sit from front Atmos enabled speakers. I bought the Pioneer Elite EBS73 for my fronts, and in the manual it says to have the speakers no higher than halfway to the ceiling. But the Atmos speakers that are built in are set at a certain angle, so I would think it would matter how far I am sitting so that it is reflected down at me. Depending on the angle I would have to sit closer/further or move the speakers up/down, but I have no idea what the angle is or how to do the math to figure out where to sit so that the sound is bouncing back down towards my ears instead of in front of me or behind me.


I am no expert, but it may be a little bit of trail and error. How far back have you been sitting? How big is your screen? I would think it would get it at the half way point of the height of your room and then start with where you have been sitting. This is just what I would do to see what sounds best.


----------



## jpalermo

Ladeback said:


> I am no expert, but it may be a little bit of trail and error. How far back have you been sitting? How big is your screen? I would think it would get it at the half way point of the height of your room and then start with where you have been sitting. This is just what I would do to see what sounds best.


I'm probably sitting about 12ft back. TV is 65". A lot of times it's hard to tell where exactly the sound is coming from. Maybe what I'll have to do is unplug all of the other speakers so that the only sound is coming from the up-firing Atmos speakers. That might help me pinpoint exactly where it is going and where the best placement would be.


----------



## richlife

jpalermo said:


> I'm probably sitting about 12ft back. TV is 65". A lot of times it's hard to tell where exactly the sound is coming from. Maybe what I'll have to do is unplug all of the other speakers so that the only sound is coming from the up-firing Atmos speakers. That might help me pinpoint exactly where it is going and where the best placement would be.


With Atmos, the objective is that you WON'T hear the sound coming from a specific speaker. Atmos will direct sound to come appropriately from somewhere in the soundfield. 

The best test I know of for testing an Atmos setup is to use the audio only Helicopter Atmos sound demo. You can find it on disc or download it from various sites including YouTube. This demo has a helicopter flying round your room, over your head and moving in a circle around you. It should move smoothly, should NOT jump from speaker to speaker or corner to corner. In my long room (27x18'), it is an oval, but it sweeps smoothly overhead around the room and does not specifically isolate to ANY of my speakers.


----------



## Hresna

jpalermo said:


> So I recently bought some speakers and receiver for an Atmos setup. I have a 5.0.2 currently, sub should arrive tomorrow. But I haven't been able to find anything online about how far away to sit from front Atmos enabled speakers. I bought the Pioneer Elite EBS73 for my fronts, and in the manual it says to have the speakers no higher than halfway to the ceiling. But the Atmos speakers that are built in are set at a certain angle, so I would think it would matter how far I am sitting so that it is reflected down at me. Depending on the angle I would have to sit closer/further or move the speakers up/down, but I have no idea what the angle is or how to do the math to figure out where to sit so that the sound is bouncing back down towards my ears instead of in front of me or behind me.


I'm going through the same process as I recently "borrowed" (bought, with a generous return window) a pair of PSB Imagine "Atmos-enabled" add-on modules that are meant to sit on top of the Fronts. After doing a bit of grade 12 trigonometry and reading the Dolby white paper on Atmos, it's clear that these are not meant to actually bounce the sounds "directly" at you. At best, you'll hear it coming from roughly the position on your ceiling where the bounce is happening, that point will be slightly forward (or very forward) of your listening position.

I have flexibility in positioning mine, and so I intend to play around with it, because I'm not convinced they are "doing 'the thing'" where they are right now. The main thing would be to have them where, when they are on, you hear the sounds coming "from above" instead of "from where the speaker is". Right now I'm sortof experiencing both, a little fuzzily.

Finding good demo material has been hard. Thanks to @richlife for the Helicopter tip, I will look for that one.
Your AVR might also be able to generate discrete channel test tones for those modules you could use, but keep in mind you'll need to ensure a high cut-off frequency for them, and also note that broadband noise isn't a very "fair" test of their directionality since some frequencies which may not bounce properly, could end up dominating what you hear at the MLP.

That's my 2 cents from exactly 3 days of experience messing around with this =P


----------



## jpalermo

richlife said:


> With Atmos, the objective is that you WON'T hear the sound coming from a specific speaker. Atmos will direct sound to come appropriately from somewhere in the soundfield.
> 
> The best test I know of for testing an Atmos setup is to use the audio only Helicopter Atmos sound demo. You can find it on disc or download it from various sites including YouTube. This demo has a helicopter flying round your room, over your head and moving in a circle around you. It should move smoothly, should NOT jump from speaker to speaker or corner to corner. In my long room (27x18'), it is an oval, but it sweeps smoothly overhead around the room and does not specifically isolate to ANY of my speakers.


That makes sense, but I think to achieve what you are describing, you want the Atmos to be generally right above you. I will say, it all sounds great. I'm extremely pleased with my setup. I've never had surround sound before. I even got spooked once when I wasn't paying any attention and all of a sudden I hear something loud a little behind and to the left of me. But it was just coming from the speaker lol. I'm sure I'm not the first person that's had that happen.

As far as the demo. I know I can't use YouTube on my TV and play back Atmos on ARC. If I have Youtube on an Xbox or any other smart device (Chromecast, Roku, ect) am I able to play Atmos soundtracks through those? I've read a lot of info and it's not really clear what you can and can't use to play Atmos tracks.



Hresna said:


> I'm going through the same process as I recently "borrowed" (bought, with a generous return window) a pair of PSB Imagine "Atmos-enabled" add-on modules that are meant to sit on top of the Fronts. After doing a bit of grade 12 trigonometry and reading the Dolby white paper on Atmos, it's clear that these are not meant to actually bounce the sounds "directly" at you. At best, you'll hear it coming from roughly the position on your ceiling where the bounce is happening, that point will be slightly forward (or very forward) of your listening position.
> 
> I have flexibility in positioning mine, and so I intend to play around with it, because I'm not convinced they are "doing 'the thing'" where they are right now. The main thing would be to have them where, when they are on, you hear the sounds coming "from above" instead of "from where the speaker is". Right now I'm sortof experiencing both, a little fuzzily.
> 
> Finding good demo material has been hard. Thanks to @richlife for the Helicopter tip, I will look for that one.
> Your AVR might also be able to generate discrete channel test tones for those modules you could use, but keep in mind you'll need to ensure a high cut-off frequency for them, and also note that broadband noise isn't a very "fair" test of their directionality since some frequencies which may not bounce properly, could end up dominating what you hear at the MLP.
> 
> That's my 2 cents from exactly 3 days of experience messing around with this =P


Lol, better you than me. I was thinking about trying to figure out all of the angles and whatnot, then I realized I never took trig in school....I guess I owe some of my teachers an apology. All of that useless information turned out to not be so useless. Well most of it still is, but that would've been helpful.

But yea, I'm trying to tinker with it to get it to be right above me. But it's not always easy identifying where the sound is coming from. It definitely seems to have created a bubble of sound around me which is awesome and it sounds like that's exactly what it is supposed to do.


----------



## richlife

Hresna said:


> I'm going through the same process as I recently "borrowed" (bought, with a generous return window) a pair of PSB Imagine "Atmos-enabled" add-on modules that are meant to sit on top of the Fronts. After doing a bit of grade 12 trigonometry and reading the Dolby white paper on Atmos, it's clear that these are not meant to actually bounce the sounds "directly" at you. *At best, you'll hear it coming from roughly the position on your ceiling where the bounce is happening, that point will be slightly forward (or very forward) of your listening position.*
> 
> I have flexibility in positioning mine, and so I intend to play around with it, because I'm not convinced they are "doing 'the thing'" where they are right now. The main thing would be to have them where, when they are on, you hear the sounds coming "from above" instead of "from where the speaker is". Right now I'm sortof experiencing both, a little fuzzily.
> 
> Finding good demo material has been hard. Thanks to @richlife for the Helicopter tip, I will look for that one.
> Your AVR might also be able to generate discrete channel test tones for those modules you could use, but keep in mind you'll need to ensure a high cut-off frequency for them, and also note that broadband noise isn't a very "fair" test of their directionality since some frequencies which may not bounce properly, could end up dominating what you hear at the MLP.
> 
> That's my 2 cents from exactly 3 days of experience messing around with this =P


It seems to me that you're catching on to Atmos quickly.  Yes, if you hear the sound "directly" from a DAES, you would want it to emanate from the ceiling (the bounce area). The DAES are designed with a narrow cone of dispersion which after bouncing from the ceiling, will continue to disperse providing audio output much like a normal speaker mounted at that point in your ceiling. With an x.x.2 Atmos system you likely will hear more "forward" sound but the more "overhead" the better. Picture an ideal set of speakers directly overhead that you don't really hear as normal speakers but they disperse sound all around so that the "effects" can come as the Atmos control metadata directs -- circling that helicopter around you rather than having it sit above.



jpalermo said:


> That makes sense, but I think to achieve what you are describing, you want the Atmos to be generally right above you. I will say, it all sounds great. I'm extremely pleased with my setup. I've never had surround sound before. *I even got spooked once when I wasn't paying any attention and all of a sudden I hear something loud a little behind and to the left of me. But it was just coming from the speaker lol. I'm sure I'm not the first person that's had that happen.*
> 
> As far as the demo. I know I can't use YouTube on my TV and play back Atmos on ARC. If I have Youtube on an Xbox or any other smart device (Chromecast, Roku, ect) am I able to play Atmos soundtracks through those? I've read a lot of info and it's not really clear what you can and can't use to play Atmos tracks.
> 
> 
> Lol, better you than me. I was thinking about trying to figure out all of the angles and whatnot, then I realized I never took trig in school....I guess I owe some of my teachers an apology. All of that useless information turned out to not be so useless. Well most of it still is, but that would've been helpful.
> 
> *But yea, I'm trying to tinker with it to get it to be right above me.* But it's not always easy identifying where the sound is coming from. It definitely seems to have created a bubble of sound around me which is awesome and *it sounds like that's exactly* what it is supposed to do.


Definitely NOT the first to be spooked by a speaker -- especially with Atmos!

As for the helo demo from YouTube, you have to be able to play the Atmos track directly though your sound system, not with a cable routing TV audio to your AVR. You need the bitstream coming from the actual file. Best to find a download you can play from storage into your AVR. 

Personal opinion: Trying to use math to calculate angles is fairly self-defeating. Consider it like having a mirror positioned in your ceiling where you want the "apparent" speaker to be placed. When you look at the mirror, you should be able to see the DAES speaker pointed right at you (the mirror image). With my near 45* vaulted ceiling, that was a neat trick. My first attempt was too direct and ended with me hearing the sound coming at me from the DAES themselves (remember that "tight beam"?). I set them back flat which resulted in my "virtual ceiling speaker" clearly being up front of me. I then started raising the back edge an 1/8" (or 1/4" and then back 1/8" ) at a time until the sound hit the "mirror". Took quite a bit of adjusting -- shouldn't be as difficult with a flat ceiling. Then I tried pointing them straight out from the front wall instead of canted in toward the MLP. That caused my sound to clearly bounce out to the sides of the room -- not good. Some days after I got it all setup, my Atmos demo disc came. You can probably understand how happy I was to hear that chopper flying properly around the room. There are a number of other good Atmos demos too, but I think the helicopter is the single most effective one. ("Amaze" is another outstanding one with forest sounds coming from all around and a bird fluttering around the room at ear level.)

And as for "right above you" -- yeah, generally as I indicated above. But the "bubble" of sound effects overhead and all around is definitely a clue your getting it right. Or maybe "spot on"! 

Edit: If you can get to an x.x.4 system, you really starting getting the best from Atmos. It pulls the sound out from the front/overhead to being more totally immersive all around. Other freaks here will tell you that x.x.6 or more is even better, but few of us will likely ever get to that point. And frankly, my properly setup 7.2.4 literally is better than some rather "improperly" setup Atmos theaters. *In the Heart of the Sea*, *Everest*, and *Deepwater Horizon* (to mention a few) have staggering audio! And there are many that I have yet to see.


----------



## mrtickleuk

richlife said:


> The best test I know of for testing an Atmos setup is to use the audio only Helicopter Atmos sound demo. You can find it on disc or download it from various sites including YouTube.


Actually no, not including YouTube at all! YouTube *still* doesn't support anything more than bog-standard, 2-channel, stereo sound. Any 5.1 or higher demos on YouTube are fake.


----------



## richlife

mrtickleuk said:


> Actually no, not including YouTube at all! YouTube *still* doesn't support anything more than bog-standard, 2-channel, stereo sound. Any 5.1 or higher demos on YouTube are fake.


Good to know, thanks. I'm only a casual/occasional user of YouTube and stumbled on the demos. My mistake for suggesting without testing...


----------



## mrtickleuk

richlife said:


> Good to know, thanks. I'm only a casual/occasional user of YouTube and stumbled on the demos. My mistake for suggesting without testing...


 There are many people who misleadingly upload demos to YouTube, and put "5.1" in the title, etc. All a huge waste of time and confusing for everyone.


----------



## Jonas2

richlife said:


> Definitely NOT the first to be spooked by a speaker -- especially with Atmos!


There is a particular gunshot in Hacksaw Ridge - scared the you-know-what outta me! Left Surround, man that was fun!

The Atmos speakers are really messing with my cats. They are seriously confused. Even with nothing playing, all I have to do is point at a speaker and one of the cats gets panicked! There's more to Atmos than just sound.....


----------



## richlife

Jonas2 said:


> There is a particular gunshot in Hacksaw Ridge - scared the you-know-what outta me! Left Surround, man that was fun!
> 
> The Atmos speakers are really messing with my cats. They are seriously confused. Even with nothing playing, all I have to do is point at a speaker and one of the cats gets panicked! There's more to Atmos than just sound.....


Hacksaw Ridge is high on my list to see! Apparently that sound track is amazing.

Cats too, huh? My poor dog gets completely out of sorts. He'll get up and leave the room when a movie starts. Best case is, he goes to his special spot on the couch near me, but nothing stops him from going nuts over thunder (from the speakers) or animal voices (dogs, elephants, tigers, pretty much any) or the unexpected that he just can't see but clearly hears. One scene in The Lone Ranger has the bad guy walking on the roof of the train. He just cannot handle those stomping boots going overhear (vaulted ceiling, so over thin air!) and looses it every time. 

We should be nicer to our pets. 

EDIT: Thanks to PeterTHX -- Dante ain't "loosing" nothing!  But pounding noise in the air does cause him to "lose it". :wink:


----------



## gwsat

@richlife -- In my estimation _Hacksaw Ridge's_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is one of the best. It is immersive, makes good use of surround effects, and its LFE will make you jump right out of your skin. I watched my newly acquired _Dredd_ UHD HDR Atmos disk today and ended up as impressed by its TrueHD Atmos audiotrack as I had been by _Hacksaw Ridge's._ _Dredd_ is very different from _Hacksaw Ridge,_ of course, but it looks and sounds wonderful, too. It's LFE made my room shake and left me with a big smile on my face.


----------



## Jonas2

richlife said:


> Hacksaw Ridge is high on my list to see! Apparently that sound track is amazing.


It is very impressive, some good LFE going on in parts, and just immersive, as it should be!


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> @richlife -- In my estimation _Hacksaw Ridge's_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is one of the best. It is immersive, makes good use of surround effects, and its LFE will make you jump right out of your skin. I watched my newly acquired _Dredd_ UHD HDR Atmos disk today and ended up as impressed by its TrueHD Atmos audiotrack as I had been by _Hacksaw Ridge's._ _Dredd_ is very different from _Hacksaw Ridge,_ of course, but it looks and sounds wonderful, too. It's LFE made my room shake and left me with a big smile on my face.


Thanks for that! I was mistaking Dredd for an older movie seen years ago. Gee -- the "must see" list just keeps getting longer!


----------



## allredp

Just read the "Over My Head" paper on upgrading to Atmos/X I found at Noble Fidelity's site. Considering the amp challenges of 7.1.4 for AVRs, what are the least pricey AVRs that can handle the optimum 11 speakers?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Front Heights and Top Middle are a permissable Atmos combo.


Top Fronts and Top Middles are also a _permissible_ Atmos combo, however not _possible_ on current consumer AVRs/processors...


----------



## gwsat

richlife said:


> Thanks for that! I was mistaking Dredd for an older movie seen years ago. Gee -- the "must see" list just keeps getting longer!


Be careful to buy only the UHD HDR Atmos disk because the 1080P BD has only 7.1, no Atmos sprinkles


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> Be careful to buy only the UHD HDR Atmos disk because the 1080P BD has only 7.1, no Atmos sprinkles


Having made the financial and time investment to get a great 4k Atmos/DTS:X home theater up and running, I will only buy UHD. And then I'm looking for Atmos/DTS:X or Dolby Vision almost exclusively. So my library is building slowly while I wait. UHD rentals let me see if I actually want to buy (though some are outright buys). If it is not Atmos/DTS:X, to me it is not worth buying or even renting most discs let alone those that aren't UHD. 

So good advice, but I'm way ahead of you.  

Edit: Though I'm seriously behind you in my UHD library -- you're hard to catch!


----------



## gwsat

richlife said:


> Having made the financial and time investment to get a great 4k Atmos/DTS:X home theater up and running, I will only buy UHD. And then I'm looking for Atmos/DTS:X or Dolby Vision almost exclusively. So my library is building slowly while I wait. UHD rentals let me see if I actually want to buy (though some are outright buys). If it is not Atmos/DTS:X, to me it is not worth buying or even renting most discs let alone those that aren't UHD.
> 
> So good advice, but I'm way ahead of you.
> 
> Edit: Though I'm seriously behind you in my UHD library -- you're hard to catch!


I have bought a few BD quality films, either from the Kaleidescape store for my Strato or from Amazon, because they had TrueHD Atmos soundtracks or there was no UHD HDR version available. I prefer buying films in UHD HDR when available, though, despite the extortionate prices the studios charge for them.


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> I have bought a few BD quality films, either from the Kaleidescape store for my Strato or from Amazon, because they had TrueHD Atmos soundtracks or there was no UHD HDR version available. I prefer buying films in UHD HDR when available, though, despite the extortionate prices the studios charge for them.


I had to look up "extortionate". What do you think, we're all college professors?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

lujan said:


> I had to look up "extortionate". What do you think, we're all college professors?


Well some people could be mistaken for being reasonably intelligent around here. :wink:


----------



## gwsat

lujan said:


> I had to look up "extortionate". What do you think, we're all college professors?


Now cut that out!


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> Now cut that out!


Yes, Professor. And you, and you, and...


----------



## MrDickerson

*Which one?? Please help*

Yamaha RX-A760
Onkyo TX-NR676
Denon AVR-S930H

Trying to stay between 500-600. 4K viewing mostly, about 10% audio.

Unless you think it's worth the extra 100 to go up to Onkyo TX-NR777

Thanks in advance


----------



## Ladeback

MrDickerson said:


> Yamaha RX-A760
> Onkyo TX-NR676
> Denon AVR-S930H
> 
> Trying to stay between 500-600. 4K viewing mostly, about 10% audio.
> 
> Unless you think it's worth the extra 100 to go up to Onkyo TX-NR777
> 
> Thanks in advance


I think either of them would be good, I know Onkyo has had some issues with their network chips in the past, but should have it fixed now. Crutchfield has the Onkyo TX-NR676 for $549.99, the Denon AVR-S93H for $579.99 and the Yamaha RX-A770 (New Model) for for $649.99.


Others who have them hopefully will chime in.


----------



## richlife

Ladeback said:


> I think either of them would be good, I know Onkyo has had some issues with their network chips in the past, but should have it fixed now. Crutchfield has the Onkyo TX-NR676 for $549.99, the Denon AVR-S93H for $579.99 and the Yamaha RX-A770 (New Model) for for $649.99.
> 
> 
> Others who have them hopefully will chime in.


Before buying, be sure to ask yourself if you are interested in Atmos/DTS:X and/or Dolby Vision. The new Yamaha RX-V583 and RX-V683 provide those in your price range. You would need to check on the others for capabilities. And only you can determine what an aural audition would provide for you.


----------



## Josh Z

allredp said:


> Just read the "Over My Head" paper on upgrading to Atmos/X I found at Noble Fidelity's site. Considering the amp challenges of 7.1.4 for AVRs, what are the least pricey AVRs that can handle the optimum 11 speakers?


I don't know what you consider "amp challenges," but the AudioSource AMP100VS is the very affordable 2-channel amp of choice for pairing with a 7.1.4 receiver that only has 9 internal amps of its own. It's not much of a challenge to add that. The key is that the receiver needs to be able to decode 11 channels regardless of how many amps it has.


----------



## helvetica bold

In no way this replaces a real Atmos set up but this is pretty cool. First announced Dolby Atmos headphones for Xbox and PC! No Atmos games supported on Xbox One (yet) but the demos sound good. 
https://www.cnet.com/news/plantronics-unveils-new-dolby-atmos-gaming-headphones/


----------



## unretarded

I was glad to see the windows 10 update included atmos for home theater........not sure what that means for the future....but it is looking good........

I am not sure what it actually does for HT at this point.....only thing I can think of is it gave it pass thru abilities to play a BR disk in your PC`s BDP and have it output to the AVR....?


Or the ability to use programs to create/mix atmos content.


I would bet the number one driver for it was video games, which i am sure we will now see PC based sound cards that decode atmos.


A crazy hope is that it will push beyond the commercial AVRS 11 channel barrier without costing 20-30 thousand bucks....


The only reason I purchased a AVR for home theater is the PC based sound had fallen behind.......


----------



## allredp

Josh Z said:


> I don't know what you consider "amp challenges," but the AudioSource AMP100VS is the very affordable 2-channel amp of choice for pairing with a 7.1.4 receiver that only has 9 internal amps of its own. It's not much of a challenge to add that. The key is that the receiver needs to be able to decode 11 channels regardless of how many amps it has.


Cool - that's good to know on the AudioSource AMP100VS - thanks for that. 

What are the big contenders for the most affordable 11 channel decoding AVRs? Are these labelled 7.1/2.4?


----------



## lizrussspike

The AudioSource AMP100VS is literally plug in and play. An awesome addition to get those .2 or .4 channels.
I am using one with my Denon X4200 and for around $100, it can't be beat.


----------



## Mrjmc99

unretarded said:


> I was glad to see the windows 10 update included atmos for home theater........not sure what that means for the future....but it is looking good........
> 
> I am not sure what it actually does for HT at this point.....only thing I can think of is it gave it pass thru abilities to play a BR disk in your PC`s BDP and have it output to the AVR....?
> 
> 
> Or the ability to use programs to create/mix atmos content.
> 
> 
> I would bet the number one driver for it was video games, which i am sure we will now see PC based sound cards that decode atmos.
> 
> 
> A crazy hope is that it will push beyond the commercial AVRS 11 channel barrier without costing 20-30 thousand bucks....
> 
> 
> The only reason I purchased a AVR for home theater is the PC based sound had fallen behind.......


It allows for games that support surround sound to be passed correctly to your avr over hdmi as opposed to requiring and special sound cards or using multi channel analog in. (Awesome)

I've tested in the following games:
Fallout 4
Mass effect Andromeda 
Need for speed most wanted

It works great, not sure about any sort of overheard activity, but the bed level is accurate. 

Battlefront still works using native atmos, no change there. Kodi and other media players that support Bitstream are unaffected by this update as well. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## stangflyer

Josh Z said:


> I don't know what you consider "amp challenges," but the AudioSource AMP100VS is the very affordable 2-channel amp of choice for pairing with a 7.1.4 receiver that only has 9 internal amps of its own. It's not much of a challenge to add that. The key is that the receiver needs to be able to decode 11 channels regardless of how many amps it has.


I use this amp with my Denon 4300H. I have 7.2.4. Very easy to set up! I use the AudioSource Amp for my top rears and the amp has been great.


----------



## nikospriov

Hello i recently bought a Yamaha AVR RX-V681 that supports Atmos and DTS-X (of course True HD and DTS-HD MA).I download sometimes mkv file that are in DTS-HD MA or Atmos/True HD and i insert the hard drive to my Samsung BD player 6700.I have the passthrough set to bitstream unprocessed and the file that are in Atmos/True HD show on my tv "audio format not supported" and the files that are in DTS-HD MA they show on amp simple DTS. Does anybody know anything abouty this? Also when i insert Bluray Discs (bought or rented) the True HD and the DTS-HD MA are shown on my amp
Thanks in advance


----------



## PeterTHX

richlife said:


> He just cannot handle those stomping boots going overhear (vaulted ceiling, so over thin air!) and *looses* it every time.




Need to tighten down your dog. It could get messy otherwise.


----------



## richlife

PeterTHX said:


> Need to tighten down your dog. It could get messy otherwise.


Yech!  Yeah, distracted typo. Ah, well...


----------



## imureh

stangflyer said:


> I use this amp with my Denon 4300H. I have 7.2.4. Very easy to set up! I use the AudioSource Amp for my top rears and the amp has been great.




Do you think two these amps could be connected to the 4300H to run some bass shakers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## trevorgoldon

trevorgoldon said:


> Will there be any difference between assigning the speakers as 'Top Front & Top Rear' instead of 'Front Height & Rear Height'?
> My front 2 speakers are above my floor towers (a few inches infront) and angled toward the MLP my back speakers are just behind the MLP angled down towards it (MLP seating is close to back wall).
> I'm unsure what I should set them as in amp assign or if it will make any difference anyway.


Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## unretarded

trevorgoldon said:


> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.



I would try it and see how you like it.......I think that is one of the accepted locations, maybe not ideal, but will work.


----------



## deano86

nikospriov said:


> Hello i recently bought a Yamaha AVR RX-V681 that supports Atmos and DTS-X (of course True HD and DTS-HD MA).I download sometimes mkv file that are in DTS-HD MA or Atmos/True HD and i insert the hard drive to my Samsung BD player 6700.I have the passthrough set to bitstream unprocessed and the file that are in Atmos/True HD show on my tv "audio format not supported" and the files that are in DTS-HD MA they show on amp simple DTS. Does anybody know anything abouty this? Also when i insert Bluray Discs (bought or rented) the True HD and the DTS-HD MA are shown on my amp
> Thanks in advance


It is very common for typical stand alone bluray players to limit audio/video format capabilities when using their network or USB streaming options. With Samsung models being notoriously poor in this regard.


----------



## whipit

Reading through some recent comments about pets...we may have to come out with a new acronym. 

I call it PAF or Pet Acceptance Factor!


----------



## Hresna

jpalermo said:


> So I recently bought some speakers and receiver for an Atmos setup. I have a 5.0.2 currently, sub should arrive tomorrow. But I haven't been able to find anything online about how far away to sit from front Atmos enabled speakers.





Hresna said:


> I'm going through the same process as I recently "borrowed" (bought, with a generous return window) a pair of PSB Imagine "Atmos-enabled" add-on modules that are meant to sit on top of the Fronts.


Well I'm sorry to report that I've given up on the XAs. Moving them around, angling them, etc - the best I was able to achieve was a "sort of sounds like it might be coming from the top corner, ish". The experience helped me come to terms with two things: firstly, that I need Atmos. Atmos isn't a bit of horseradish with my roast beef, its all the fixings combined. And second, that I should have been looking at an array of 4 in-ceilings all along (because I have a tile ceiling, tile is easy to work with and cheap to replace). So, that's what I'm going to do. 

In the end though, I think it was my room that was at fault. The ceiling was just too low and soft. All other accounts are that these things work fairly well when there's a plaster or drywall ceiling in place. And the "no fuss" solution would have been great.


----------



## westbergjoakim

nikospriov said:


> Hello i recently bought a Yamaha AVR RX-V681 that supports Atmos and DTS-X (of course True HD and DTS-HD MA).I download sometimes mkv file that are in DTS-HD MA or Atmos/True HD and i insert the hard drive to my Samsung BD player 6700.I have the passthrough set to bitstream unprocessed and the file that are in Atmos/True HD show on my tv "audio format not supported" and the files that are in DTS-HD MA they show on amp simple DTS. Does anybody know anything abouty this? Also when i insert Bluray Discs (bought or rented) the True HD and the DTS-HD MA are shown on my amp
> Thanks in advance


Do you have these settings:

Setup>Audio Settings>Digital Audio Output=Auto and
Setup>Audio Settings>BD Audio MIX Setting=Off


----------



## helvetica bold

pretty cool the new Xbox One X will fully support Dolby Atmos. Gears of War 4 will be one of the first games. 

"Mike Rayner: One of the unique features of Xbox One X is full support for Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 audio – for both headphones as well as Atmos Digital Receivers.

Dolby Atmos adds extra channels that are used for ambient audio experiences, adding environmental noises that encapsulate you as if you were right in the midst of the action. On the dramatic side, the sound of Kestrel helicopters right above you and missiles flying overhead really add to the intensity of the firefight. When you go through the darker opening moments of Act 2 with nothing around in the dead of the night, the sounds of the wind and leaves rustling around you reinforce that feeling of being on your own against an unknown emergent enemy. It’s an added layer of, well, atmosphere that elevates the experience whether you are fighting online or journeying through the story of our game."

https://gearsofwar.com/en-us/community/gears-4-xbox-one-x


----------



## PeterTHX

helvetica bold said:


> pretty cool the new Xbox One X will fully support Dolby Atmos. Gears of War 4 will be one of the first games.




I'm led to believe it will also be so on the standard XBOX One as well. There should be no difference in the way the two units process and output audio.


----------



## dschulz

helvetica bold said:


> "Mike Rayner: One of the unique features of Xbox One X is full support for Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 audio – for both headphones as well as Atmos Digital Receivers.


I do wish they'd stop confusing the issue about fixed channel layouts (7.1.4). Half of the point of Atmos is that the soundtrack is no longer tied to a specific layout, but will play back correctly on any Atmos system, from 5.1.2 up to 24.1.10. I am hoping Mr. Rayner misspoke here, rather than there being some weird limitation of the XB1X that fixes the Atmos output to 7.1.4.


----------



## Frank714

It's been a very long time I haven't been to this thread and continue to enjoy Dolby Atmos programs with my Marantz SR 7009.


Just in case it might be of interest please note that the French Blu-ray of the (2.35:1) nature documentary THE SEASONS (which Dolby selected as a demo on its latest Dolby Atmos demo disc) features the French Version in Dolby Atmos (only little French narration), which I'm not aware about any other international release. Enjoyed it a lot, fabulous images and great DA sound:












https://www.amazon.fr/Saisons-Blu-r...497438282&sr=1-1&keywords=les+saisons+blu+ray


Now, in the early days of Dolby Atmos one of the things many of us where wondering about was the "object-based" sound recreation of sound objects within our listening room (in contrast to mere "channel based" surround sound).


I will never forget one poster insisting that he could hear flys circling around his head in the POW camp scene in BROKEN - which turned out to be real fly that had entered his theater room. 


One of the last things I remember was the guess that by 2016 or 2017 pre-amps and AVRs with new components would arrive in the AV market that would finally be capable to really place sound objects like aforementioned flys in front or near our heads.


What happened to these aspirations and how far are we currently from implementation?


----------



## PeterTHX

dschulz said:


> I do wish they'd stop confusing the issue about fixed channel layouts (7.1.4). Half of the point of Atmos is that the soundtrack is no longer tied to a specific layout, but will play back correctly on any Atmos system, from 5.1.2 up to 24.1.10. I am hoping Mr. Rayner misspoke here, rather than there being some weird limitation of the XB1X that fixes the Atmos output to 7.1.4.



Well it's one of the most common layouts and they mention DTS:X in the product literature which *is* pretty much limited to 7.1.4...


----------



## sdurani

Frank714 said:


> What happened to these aspirations and how far are we currently from implementation?


Object-based rendering has been on Atmos receivers since day one. It's up to movie mixers to use the format to get whatever effect they want (sounds right next to you, sounds far away, sounds above you).


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I am hoping Mr. Rayner misspoke here, rather than there being some weird limitation of the XB1X that fixes the Atmos output to 7.1.4.


IF the XB1X is not decoding the Atmos track internally, then I doubt they could pre-render the bitstream so that it only decodes to 7.1.4. Most likely Atmos is going through the phase that Dolby Digital went through, when that codec's name was used synonymously with 5.1 (even though the codec wasn't tied to a specific number of channels).


----------



## Frank714

sdurani said:


> Object-based rendering has been on Atmos receivers since day one. It's up to movie mixers to use the format to get whatever effect they want (sounds right next to you, sounds far away, sounds above you).


So what you are essentially saying is that object-based rendering and reproduction on our home AV receivers is theoretically possible, but all the Dolby Atmos remixes for home theater applications don't make use of it? 

I'll keep going back to the "fly example", even in GRAVITY at the end the insects are hoovering somewhere near my front speakers but never do they or other objects (in the DA mixes I listened to) penetrate the sound bubble I'm sitting in (i.e. they all keep a healthy distance to my MLP). 

In the latest Dolby Atmos explanation film (on the DA demo disc) they feature spheres that represent sound objects moving acroos the room and close to the MLP, but I've thus far not experienced any of these (nor am I aware of corresponding user reports or listening examples).


----------



## sdurani

Frank714 said:


> So what you are essentially saying is that object-based rendering and reproduction on our home AV receivers is theoretically possible, but all the Dolby Atmos remixes for home theater applications don't make use of it?


Atmos and DTS:X have been capable of doing object-based rendering since the day they were put into receivers. Some mixes don't take full advantage of the immersive audio formats and/or your set-up is not reproducing it. Imagine your friend gets his first 5.1 set-up, watches a 5.1 movie and then tells you that he doesn't get the surround effect. Is it the mix (maybe he's watching a comedy that has practically no surround content)? Is it his system? If you're not hearing a certain effect, there could be multiple reasons why. 

BTW, object-based rendering is nothing new for consumers. It's been in video games for over a decade. If you're playing a game and you hear your enemy sneaking up from behind, you can rotate your character so that you're aiming at the enemy. The sound will go from your back speakers to your side speakers to your front speakers. If that sound effect was mixed to a particular channel, how you would be able to change its direction in real time? It turns out that many (most) of the sounds you hear in video games are audio objects. The location they're rendered to is based on where your character is pointing. If the enemy is at your left, then the sound will be at your left. If the enemy is behind you, then the sound will be behind you. Again, real-time object-based rendering is not new. It has suddenly achieved awareness because Hollywood started using the technology for movie soundtracks.


> I'll keep going back to the "fly example", even in GRAVITY at the end the insects are hoovering somewhere near my front speakers but never do they or other objects (in the DA mixes I listened to) penetrate the sound bubble I'm sitting in (i.e. they all keep a healthy distance to my MLP).


Have you heard a demo of this effect on another system to confirm that you're not getting the intended effect?


----------



## unretarded

sdurani said:


> Object-based rendering has been on Atmos receivers since day one. It's up to movie mixers to use the format to get whatever effect they want (sounds right next to you, sounds far away, sounds above you).


 Which I feel they are only just starting to really use and it is getting better and better at a quick rate.


I think there is more and better use to come as they get comfortable with it.......

It seems as if every new batch of movies is setting a new benchmark for Atmos........


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "I will never forget one poster insisting that he could hear flys circling around his head in the POW camp scene in BROKEN - which turned out to be real fly that had entered his theater room. "

Now available (at a great discount for AVS Forum Members) are my trained, immersive (Dolby, DTS:X) flies that will add great realism and sound effects to your audio system. 

These "Diptera Dolby Darlings" have been specifically trained to only buzz around the audience during outdoor and indoor "kitchen" food scenes. 12 for $25.00 - - and this includes shipping (Continental U.S. - only). Unfortunately, no Auro 3D as the flies get confused on this soundtrack format.


----------



## javanpohl

maikeldepotter said:


> Top Fronts and Top Middles are also a _permissible_ Atmos combo, however not _possible_ on current consumer AVRs/processors...


Really?! I assumed that'd be possible on Denons and/or Marantz--don't you get to designate the heights speakers accordingly or is "TM" only permissible if you're doing a .2 set-up?


----------



## zeus33

javanpohl said:


> Really?! I assumed that'd be possible on Denons and/or Marantz--don't you get to designate the heights speakers accordingly or is "TM" only permissible if you're doing a .2 set-up?



What he means is that you can't use two positions that are adjacent to each other. Top front and top middle or top middle and top rear, etc. There needs to be an empty position between them.

Front height and top middle for example, would be fine.


----------



## absabsabs

Will it be possible to get Dolby Atmos sound from XBox One X + Onkyo Tx Nr 3007 (Direct mode)?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

absabsabs said:


> Will it be possible to get Dolby Atmos sound from XBox One X + Onkyo Tx Nr 3007 (Direct mode)?


No. 

Dolby Atmos and DTS: X support is unprocessed audio bitstream out (like most Blu-ray players on the market), which requires a receiver with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X decoding, though the Xbox X may have Dolby Headphones.

The gaming part of it is powerful enough to allow real-time object positioning in a game's Atmos track, which was once the purview of PC's.


----------



## absabsabs

Dan Hitchman said:


> No.
> 
> Dolby Atmos and DTS: X support is unprocessed audio bitstream out (like most Blu-ray players on the market), which requires a receiver with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X decoding, though the Xbox X may have Dolby Headphones.
> 
> The gaming part of it is powerful enough to allow real-time object positioning in a game's Atmos track, which was once the purview of PC's.


Thank you.


----------



## Ted99

Jupiter Ascending: THE atmos demo disc


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> The gaming part of it is powerful enough to allow real-time object positioning in a game's Atmos track, which was once the purview of PC's.


No, not really. It's just that now that positional data is sent to a Dolby Atmos encoder that was not previously available.

Current Xbox consoles can *encode* DD 5.1, DTS 5.1 or output as native PCM 5/7.1 audio. Now they have Atmos.


----------



## cglin222

Thinking of adding 4 atmos speakers, currently own a MC8207 with 5.1 system.
I am considering getting either Halo A23 for my main 2 ch so I can use MC8207 for the 7 speakers: C/SR/SL/4atmos, or should I just stick with MC8207, and get a Emotiva basX A-500, or outlaw 5000 to connect the 4 atmos speakers instead and save some money?
That will I can still have 5.1 or 7.1 on the main 8207 for more coherent sound.


----------



## unretarded

Most recievers allow you to choose from 2.0 stereo up to Atmos configurations..........no need for 2 seperate recievers/processors for that.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

PeterTHX said:


> I'm led to believe it will also be so on the standard XBOX One as well. There should be no difference in the way the two units process and output audio.


Atmos is available right now on the launch Xbox One and Xbox One S. They use identical audio hardware, and I'm pretty sure that won't change on the One X. There just haven't been any game updates that enable Atmos output yet (or output to Microsoft's own Windows Sonic, which uses the same software hooks for output), so all you can really do with it is watch the demo clips in the Dolby Access app.

Note: You have to pay $15 to license Atmos on the Xbox One, but there is a 30 day trial so you can try before you buy.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> *Note: You have to pay $15 to license Atmos on the Xbox One*, but there is a 30 day trial so you can try before you buy.


 Wow. Unbelievable. That cost should be absorbed into the cost of the hardware by Microsoft.


----------



## Hresna

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Note: You have to pay $15 to license Atmos on the Xbox One, but there is a 30 day trial so you can try before you buy.





mrtickleuk said:


> Wow. Unbelievable. That cost should be absorbed into the cost of the hardware by Microsoft.


Wow, yeah that is pretty nuts. I’m sure it made business sense, to offer the console at a lower price point (or higher margin) to the majority of users who can’t benefit from Atmos encoding because they don’t have elevation speakers (all consoles currently will mix 7.1 surround just fine, even without Atmos), but Microsoft just doesn’t seem to learn from their gamer-enraging mistakes. Remember the whole “you can’t sell your used discs” debacle from the previous generation? How long before they walked back on that – not before losing all their goodwill coming out the gate, and lo & behold, PS4 outsold the Xbones everafter.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow. Unbelievable. That cost should be absorbed into the cost of the hardware by Microsoft.


And it would have been had it been an option at launch. But since it was something they added after the fact, it isn't part of the original licensing. You can thank Dolby for that, not Microsoft.



They already sell the consoles at near cost. Be realistic here. Atmos is a niche that only a small minority need. Having to raise the price of the console for everyone would be ridiculous. 



Besides... You pay hundreds or thousands for an Atmos setup and a one time $15 charge upsets you?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And it would have been had it been an option at launch. But since it was something they added after the fact, it isn't part of the original licensing. You can thank Dolby for that, not Microsoft.
> 
> They already sell the consoles at near cost. Be realistic here. Atmos is a niche that only a small minority need. Having to raise the price of the console for everyone would be ridiculous.


I said "*absorb*", ie make a slightly lower profit overall.

Not "raise the price of the console". You be realistic. That's a strawman. "raise the price of the console" is the opposite of what I said.

The licensing is an *internal Microsoft problem*, for them to deal with. They can't refer their customers to dolby and say "not our fault" - the customer is paying MS and only MS.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Besides... You pay hundreds or thousands for an Atmos setup and a one time $15 charge upsets you?


I'm not at all "upset". I'm saying the principle is wrong. Once you start charging extra for a feature that "not everyone uses", it's a slippery slope, and it must be resisted at the start before it's allowed to take off.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

mrtickleuk said:


> I said "*absorb*", ie make a slightly lower profit overall.
> 
> Not "raise the price of the console". You be realistic. That's a strawman. "raise the price of the console" is the opposite of what I said.
> 
> The licensing is an *internal Microsoft problem*, for them to deal with. They can't refer their customers to dolby and say "not our fault" - the customer is paying MS and only MS.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not at all "upset". I'm saying the principle is wrong. Once you start charging extra for a feature that "not everyone uses", it's a slippery slope, and it must be resisted at the start before it's allowed to take off.


The point you're missing is that *they don't make a profit off the console*. They sell it as close to cost as they can so they can get it out to as many people as possible, because _their profits are made off licensing for the games_. That has been the economic model of console gaming for a long time now. So if they then have to tack on an additional license fee to every unit sold so they can pay Dolby, they HAVE to pass it on the consumer so they don't take a loss on the initial hardware sale. They're not a charity... They're a BUSINESS, and have to answer to their shareholders. The "principle" based on the expectations of gamers is irrelevant. At the end of the day, their shareholders are not going to allow them to take a new $15 loss on every piece of hardware so that less than 1% of their user base can have Dolby Atmos support for games. 

Would you rather they didn't offer it at all and just wait until the next console generation instead so they can negotiate new inclusive licensing with Dolby and directly include it in the audio hardware? Because that's what it would take. If you're just a headphone user (which arguably most of their user base is), Microsoft offers Windows Sonic (their own HRTF-based spatial audio, which also includes height and was developed for HoloLens) for free. As both Sonic and DAfH both use the same software hooks for audio placement, headphone users can totally choose not to pay that $15 fee (though Sonic is based on a cube-shaped virtual space and DAfH is based on a rectangular room model). Microsoft has given a free option for spatial audio for the vast majority of their owners.

Microsoft isn't even the one selling the Dolby Access app on the console. Dolby is (so the customer isn't "paying MS and only MS"). And they're the ones having to actively code the app, as I've spoken with their software engineers. Microsoft is only offering support to them for the necessary software hooks and enabling it on the console's audio chipset. And Dolby is having to put work into it. Regular users have already received one update to the app since it came out. I'm on Dolby's test build ring and have received more updates than that, and they're still tweaking it. They also have to do testing, both at Microsoft and Dolby, when some receivers have issues with the way they output the realtime Dolby Atmos. For instance, it currently doesn't work right on my Denon x5200, causing constant stuttering... so Dolby and Microsoft are having to test it with my model receiver to find a fix, and potentially get Denon to do a firmware update that addresses it. So it's not unreasonable that Dolby wants to get paid for their work.

P.S. - That $15 license fee enables Dolby Atmos for home theaters on your Xbox One, and DAfH on both your Xbox One and your PC, because it's a UWP app. Assuming you use the same Microsoft account on both, you get more value out of that $15 purchase.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The point you're missing is that *they don't make a profit off the console*.


No, I'm not missing your point, thanks all the same. I understand your point completely, and I take a different view to you - that's all.



> They sell it as close to cost as they can so they can get it out to as many people as possible, because _their profits are made off licensing for the games_. That has been the economic model of console gaming for a long time now. So if they then have to tack on an additional license fee to every unit sold so they can pay Dolby, they HAVE to pass it on the consumer so they don't take a loss on the initial hardware sale. They're not a charity... They're a BUSINESS,


...and they can *choose* whether or not to take a hit in one instance in return for greater returns elsewhere. They don't "have" to take any particular single course of action.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

mrtickleuk said:


> No, I'm not missing your point, thanks all the same. I understand your point completely, and I take a different view to you - that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and they can *choose* whether or not to take a hit in one instance in return for greater returns elsewhere. They don't "have" to take any particular single course of action.


But why would they? $15 per unit... so for every million units sold going forward, they lose $15,000,000 as opposed to breaking even. If they have to pay $15 out to Dolby for every console ALREADY sold... and for sake of argument, let's use 30 million units (because Microsoft doesn't release their sales numbers publicly, but we know they had already sold over 20 million units last year)... that's $450 million in additional licensing that Microsoft would have to pay out. Even if they negotiated that down by 2/3, you're looking at Microsoft's shareholders losing $150 million in revenue... so that a VERY SMALL number of users can access Dolby Atmos. Would including Atmos for free to consumers increase their number of sales by $150 million dollars? Not likely. So economically, why would they do that? Because you believe they should? C'mon... Be realistic here. They start losing that kind of money on the hardware and their shareholders will riot. There's no "greater returns elsewhere" for them to get out of doing that. It would just be a LOSS.

Related note, this quote is from their 1st quarter 2017 earnings report, to give you some perspective:
"Gaming revenue declined 5% (down 4% in constant currency) driven by lower Xbox console revenue offset by higher Xbox software and services revenue"

What you propose is unreasonable. I'm just glad they're offering it as an option to those lucky few of us with Atmos setups, and I think they found a pretty creative way to solve the licensing issue after the fact (which is only possible to implement because they left so much headroom in their audio subsection by using 4 Tensilica DSP chips). And that one-time $15 payment to Dolby is nothing by comparison to what that costs. It's less than the price of a single new release Blu-ray. And there's no reason to even buy it yet, because there isn't a single game that has been updated to output to it (though there will be by November - Gears 4 is getting updated for Atmos when it gets its 4K HDR patch for Xbox One X, and most of the Frostbite-based games should get it then too).


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But why would they?


They might choose to.



> It would just be a LOSS.


That's your opinion, not a fact.



> What you propose is unreasonable.


So is that.

I take a different view. I'm not trying to change your view.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

mrtickleuk said:


> That's your opinion, not a fact.


It's not opinion. Phil Spencer has outright stated that they don't make money off the hardware and when cost of manufacture lowers, they reduce the price of the console to match. He confirmed it just this week at E3 when he said they aren't making money off of the Xbox One X hardware when it comes out either. My argument is factually sound. Console manufacturers make their money off the licensing for the games. That's a fact. Absorbing a $15 per unit fee into the cost of hardware you're already selling at a break-even point is just not possible without taking a loss. That's math.

But we'll just agree to disagree. I'm still glad they're giving us the option. $15 is inconsequential compared to what my 7.1.4 Atmos setup cost me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lol.

Are you guys seriously having an argument about *adding the functionality of Dolby Atmos, for only $15*?


A movie cost about $15-25? A game? $50-60, each. Hell. A _single_ piece of DLC for a game can cost more than $15, easily. "Premium" and season passes are totally a thing for games and they are $30-50 on top of the original cost of a game.

But adding Dolby Atmos to your current gear for only $15? Oh. Now you've crossed the line!



Smh


----------



## DrMac210

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Atmos is available right now on the launch Xbox One and Xbox One S. They use identical audio hardware, and I'm pretty sure that won't change on the One X. There just haven't been any game updates that enable Atmos output yet (or output to Microsoft's own Windows Sonic, which uses the same software hooks for output), so all you can really do with it is watch the demo clips in the Dolby Access app.
> 
> *Note: You have to pay $15 to license Atmos on the Xbox One, but there is a 30 day trial so you can try before you buy.*


My understanding is that the $15 fee is for the Dolby Access App for HEADPHONES only. If you are not using headphones, then Atmos playback on the Xbox One will NOT cost you $15.

Is this correct?


----------



## Scott Simonian

*to contrast the previous posts*



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Atmos is available right now on the launch Xbox One and Xbox One S. They use identical audio hardware, and I'm pretty sure that won't change on the One X. There just haven't been any game updates that enable Atmos output yet (or output to Microsoft's own Windows Sonic, which uses the same software hooks for output), so all you can really do with it is watch the demo clips in the Dolby Access app.
> 
> *Note: You have to pay $15 to license Atmos on the Xbox One, but there is a 30 day trial so you can try before you buy.*



Perfectly reasonable. Hey, look. It comes with 30 free days to try and you don't even have to get this update. Totally optional.

I wish I only had to spend $15 to add Atmos to the rest of my gear.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

DrMac210 said:


> My understanding is that the $15 fee is for the Dolby Access App for HEADPHONES only. If you are not using headphones, then Atmos playback on the Xbox One will NOT cost you $15.
> 
> Is this correct?


No. The $15 fee on the Xbox One adds both Atmos for headphones and Atmos for home theater. Atmos from Blu-ray/UHD, on the other hand, you can bitstream out for free... because that just passes the existing data on the disc out unaltered to your receiver. But for Atmos support for games, those games have to support the new spatial audio extensions in Windows Media Foundation and the system has to then make that output available in a container that your AVR can read. They're using the DSPs in the console to handle that translation.

Game audio is object-based by its nature. The question is how you output it in a way that an AVR can play it back correctly.


----------



## mrtickleuk

(I meant an overall loss for the whole company)



Jeremy Anderson said:


> But we'll just agree to disagree.


Yes, that's what I'm trying to say 
@Scott Simonian - no, I wasn't (in the discussion that is now over). I was discussing the _principle_, and not the number. Thought I'd made that pretty clear in post #45335 , but apologies if it wasn't clear enough


----------



## DrMac210

Jeremy Anderson said:


> No. The $15 fee on the Xbox One adds both Atmos for headphones and Atmos for home theater. Atmos from Blu-ray/UHD, on the other hand, you can bitstream out for free... because that just passes the existing data on the disc out unaltered to your receiver.


INTERESTING.


Per the info here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/dolby-access/9n0866fs04w8



> Set up, try and experience Dolby Atmos, a breakthrough sound technology that pulls you inside the action with immersive, moving audio for your games and movies. *Within the app, you can also start a free trial of Dolby Atmos for Headphones, or buy it via in-app purchase.*


I assumed by the screenshots, and the bolded quote above, that it was ONLY the "Dolby Atmos for Headphones" part of the app that costs the $15.

Is the app live yet so someone can verify, or do you have a link to where it shows Atmos gaming through a home theater system WITHOUT headphones still costs $15 to use? Thanks!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

DrMac210 said:


> INTERESTING.
> 
> 
> Per the info here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/dolby-access/9n0866fs04w8
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed by the screenshots, and the bolded quote above, that it was ONLY the "Dolby Atmos for Headphones" part of the app that costs the $15.
> 
> Is the app live yet so someone can verify, or do you have a link to where it shows Atmos gaming through a home theater system WITHOUT headphones still costs $15 to use? Thanks!


The app is live now and there's a 30-day trial, so you can test it for yourself. Search for Dolby Access on your Xbox One, or go to settings and change HDMI audio to bitstream then select Dolby Atmos for Home Theater. It will then prompt you to download the Access app.

Those screenshots are from an older version of the PC app, where you don't need the Atmos for home theater renderer because any modern video card with HDMI should be able to output the container needed. That support is specific to the video card model on PC though, not something Microsoft can control. So in the case of PC, you're right... You'd only be paying for the DAfH. But because Dolby is doing this as a Universal Windows Platform app, your purchase on one applies to both.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

mrtickleuk said:


> (I meant an overall loss for the whole company)


That's not the way corporations work. The Xbox division is its own entity within the company. They don't excuse that loss in one division by making it up in another unrelated division. That particular division is expected to maintain a certain profit on its own or shareholders do away with it. No economic cross-pollination. You have to look at it more as if Microsoft's gaming division is its own standalone company... because that's how shareholders see it, and how it's broken down in their quarterly economic reports. You don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Just sayin'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

mrtickleuk said:


> (I meant an overall loss for the whole company)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I'm trying to say
> 
> @*Scott Simonian* - no, I wasn't (in the discussion that is now over). I was discussing the _principle_, and not the number. Thought I'd made that pretty clear in post #45335 , but apologies if it wasn't clear enough


Yeah, well...

Everybody has to pay the bills. Heck, those _other_ enthusiasts sure didn't balk at paying $199 for a DOA codec with a barely passable as an "upmixer" upmixer. And they are still charging for that upgrade.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> Heck, those _other_ enthusiasts sure didn't balk at paying $199 for a DOA codec with a barely passable as an "upmixer" upmixer. And they are still charging for that upgrade.


I thought that might be mentioned  . I'd say most sane people _did_ baulk at it, so they didn't buy it! The few, er, enthusiasts who bought it were those who didn't baulk


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, well...
> 
> Everybody has to pay the bills. Heck, those _other_ enthusiasts sure didn't balk at paying $199 for a DOA codec with a barely passable as an "upmixer" upmixer. And they are still charging for that upgrade.


Supposedly it'll be included for free no additional charge in the higher end 2017 models.


----------



## Dark Helmet

I didnt see anything about a $15 fee for enabling ATMOS. Its working fine for me, Blu Ray and the demo material as well as the VUDU app.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dark Helmet said:


> I didnt see anything about a $15 fee for enabling ATMOS. Its working fine for me, Blu Ray and the demo material as well as the VUDU app.


Again, we're not talking about apps coded to provide bitstream output. We're talking about Atmos for games.


----------



## Hresna

Dark Helmet said:


> I didnt see anything about a $15 fee for enabling ATMOS. Its working fine for me, Blu Ray and the demo material as well as the VUDU app.





Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, we're not talking about apps coded to provide bitstream output. We're talking about Atmos for games.


As Jeremy would no doubt point out, the key technical difference here is that the box is doing real-time *encoding* of Atmos for the games, whereas bitstreaming an existing Atmos stream is childsplay by comparison. It's cool, I'd like to see that come to PS4 as well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

mrtickleuk said:


> I thought that might be mentioned  .


Mmm. 



mrtickleuk said:


> I'd say most sane people _did_ baulk at it, so they didn't buy it! *The few, er, enthusiasts who bought it were those who didn't baulk *


Yeah.... that's what I said.



Selden Ball said:


> Supposedly it'll be included for free no additional charge in the higher end 2017 models.


That's a nice thought but the damage has already been done.


----------



## John Wittenberg

DrMac210 said:


> INTERESTING.
> 
> 
> Per the info here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/dolby-access/9n0866fs04w8
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed by the screenshots, and the bolded quote above, that it was ONLY the "Dolby Atmos for Headphones" part of the app that costs the $15.
> 
> Is the app live yet so someone can verify, or do you have a link to where it shows Atmos gaming through a home theater system WITHOUT headphones still costs $15 to use? Thanks!


It is $15 for the headphone version on Windows 10, and the home theater version (that I'm using right now) didn't cost me a cent, and it isn't a trial version. This is on Windows 10, and I don't really care about Atmos for games on my Xbox One S at the moment (I don't play it much).

Edit: It is a bit buggy even with the latest Nvidia drivers and my 1080 Ti. Sometimes audio cuts out for a second, and the bugs get better or worse depending on updates to the Dolby app.


----------



## Kevnmin

*Timbre matching*

I hate to interrupt the ongoing discussion about Microsoft and them wanting to get even richer with additional fees, but I do have a real question I know you guys can give me best advice on.

I've reads tons of prior posts referencing timbre matched speakers. In regards to buying my new ceiling speakers, I cant really get the same stuff from the manufacturer. 
Here is background info:
I've got some old Missions, complete 7.x.x system. All from their 700 series line. Kevlar woofers and soft dome tweeters. I have matching Missions as well for the height channels, but they are bookshelfs mounted to the ceiling in the fronts and on shelfs in the pair in the rear. I'd want to start with ceiling speakers in the rear to replace the bookshelfs in back. 
Question:
Looking for timbre match speakers, am I better to be looking to match the silk soft dome tweeter or the kevlar in the driver? Everything I've looked at so far with the kevlar driver is either aluminum or titanium dome tweeter. But if looking at silk soft dome tweeter, the driver is best case graphite or poly. 

thanks guys and I look forward to comments back.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Mmm.
> 
> Yeah.... that's what I said.
> 
> That's a nice thought but the damage has already been done.


Auromatic, free or not to you as a consumer, is just barely "legitimate" IMO due to the way the technology works. I only use it for live concerts in 5.1, with Auromatic effects toned way down, and occasionally for a mono movie. For two channel music I'm actually sticking with the purist approach thanms to using freestander towers, or using DSU with some custom array tweaks.

Of course, for no add'l charge it's no harm done to try for yourself.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kevnmin said:


> Question:
> Looking for timbre match speakers, am I better to be looking to match the silk soft dome tweeter or the kevlar in the driver? Everything I've looked at so far with the kevlar driver is either aluminum or titanium dome tweeter. But if looking at silk soft dome tweeter, the driver is best case graphite or poly.
> 
> thanks guys and I look forward to comments back.


Neither. Matching the material of what the driver(s) are composed of is no guarantee that it will sound similar whatsoever.

Real life "timbre matching" = identical speakers. Anything else will be different and certainly sound different.


----------



## Hresna

Kevnmin said:


> I've reads tons of prior posts referencing timbre matched speakers. In regards to buying my new ceiling speakers, I cant really get the same stuff from the manufacturer.


Interesting question. I don't have a lot of experience on this but recently went through the same decision process. My HT speakers are all B&W 600 series (though not all the same "size" or versions, the mains are larger and older than the rest, which are newer S2s). I considered going out-of-brand for the Atmos ceiling speakers, because B&W can be pricey and I figured, its just elevation speakers... the AVRs room-correction should flatten out the response well enough that they'll still blend in reasonably well with the 7 others.

B&W makes many many ceiling speakers at different price points. My dealer told me that for a true timber match, I'd have to get the near top-line $800 each guys which have the same tweeter (nautilus dome tweeter) as the rest of my speakers (though I think only my surrounds and centre have the nautilus). At any rate, I opted not to do this to be reasonable. I got the most modest 600 series ones in the line, in the end, because staying in the "family" would keep the timber relatively close (probably close enough for my ears) and I was able to keep the cost about the same as getting something like Polk or other entry-level speakers. 

I don't have them installed yet (hopefully in the next 2 weeks) but I suspect I'd have been pretty happy with anything at that price point, regardless of timber match. The rhetoric on here is that quad-atmos is the bees knees, and I'm looking forward to experiencing it in my humble HT.


----------



## unretarded

Elsewhere as the timbre debate rages on, my logic was that it certainly could not hurt, so I just got all identical speakers.....yes,even mounted the big 30 pounders on the ceiling.....


I recently changed out my L/R mains to different model of the same brand and I can tell no difference......there very well could be a difference and if I was to listen for it, I might notice, but just watching a movie I notice nothing different.

My center matches the rest of the room.........if I had changed that, I might notice a difference.....


I am sure a drastic style mixmatch would yield more noticable results.....


I know before when I had huge mains and tiny surrounds, that was very detectable and nothing to do with timbre.


Other than cost/size restraints I see no downside to matching speakers.........guy posted a pic here the other day with 4 La Scalia`s up in the ceiling........so size is certainly able to be overcame if willing and the funding is there.


You can only do what you can do........I doubt anyone has 1899`s as atmos speakers..........and I doubt anyone who has them as mains has a poor sounding system because the rest of the speakers do not match exactly.


----------



## Kevnmin

Scott Simonian said:


> Neither. Matching the material of what the driver(s) are composed of is no guarantee that it will sound similar whatsoever.
> 
> Real life "timbre matching" = identical speakers. Anything else will be different and certainly sound different.


Right now I do have all matching, just bookshelf style. Rented Gravity a week ago. Sounded really good. All voices moved well from location and flowed smoothly other than a 'sort of' hole directly overhead. I'm attributing that to using the bookshelfs not up as high as they can go. So if I do bag on the idea of getting new co-axial in ceiling speakers and stick with my bookshelfs, is it a cardinal sin to place them horizontaly then tilt towards MLP so that the majority of the speaker size is in the horizontal plane. If I do that, I believe it would be equally as possible to move them towards MLP to obtain the 45 degree angle as per Dolby spec. 

Any thoughts on the horizontal placement?


----------



## unretarded

I have a .2 system and just mounted them firing down at the floor approx 16 inches in front of my ears at the MLP.


Tilting them towards the MLP is not bad in any way.....standard practice is aim speakers at the MLP. No different for ceiling mouted speakers.


Unless you have multiple rows of seating and a .4 overheads.....then it gets a little different.


I mounted my ceiling speakers in a few locations and almost directly overhead gave the best impression of overhead sound to me.....and filled in the sound bubble.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kevnmin said:


> Right now I do have all matching, just bookshelf style. Rented Gravity a week ago. Sounded really good. All voices moved well from location and flowed smoothly other than a 'sort of' hole directly overhead. I'm attributing that to using the bookshelfs not up as high as they can go. So if I do bag on the idea of getting new co-axial in ceiling speakers and stick with my bookshelfs, is it a cardinal sin to place them horizontaly then tilt towards MLP so that the majority of the speaker size is in the horizontal plane. If I do that, I believe it would be equally as possible to move them towards MLP to obtain the 45 degree angle as per Dolby spec.
> 
> Any thoughts on the horizontal placement?




Changing the orientation of your speakers (they are not coax) will affect their sound, so... do so knowing that.


----------



## jdsmoothie

I rented Lionsgate John Wick Chapter 2 from Redbox last night and the audio track was actually Dolby Atmos. Wohoo!! Not sure when Lionsgate started doing this but glad to see it finally happened.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> Real life "timbre matching" = identical speakers. Anything else will be different and certainly sound different.


If you buy from a company that aims at different customers with different models or have less competent designers (which covers almost everone) then that's true. For a company which have ONE specific sound target which applies to all models, it's not... Then it's range or volume capability that varies between models. But good luck finding one... Most people sacrifice the goal for the profit...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nightlord said:


> If you buy from a company that aims at different customers with different models or have less competent designers (which covers almost everone) then that's true. For a company which have ONE specific sound target which applies to all models, it's not... Then it's range or volume capability that varies between models. But good luck finding one... Most people sacrifice the goal for the profit...


True but 1 out 100 (more like 1,000) speaker brands is negligible at best. I follow though.

Having said that, even having identical speakers is no guarantee that even they will sound the same as one another. One speaker out in a field will sound different than if it were in a room. That same speaker will sound different 4ft off a wall in a room than it did in the field... it will also sound different when placed against a wall than the one only 4ft away.

Acoustics! Agh!


----------



## srinivas1015

Finally got Atmos (7.1.2 with two rear heights) set up like this:










I've set them to rear height channels in the receiver. Would it make any difference if I set the type as 'in-ceiling' instead? Perhaps more distinct sounds sent overhead?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

srinivas1015 said:


> Finally got Atmos (7.1.2 with two rear heights) set up like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've set them to rear height channels in the receiver. Would it make any difference if I set the type as 'in-ceiling' instead? Perhaps more distinct sounds sent overhead?


That layout would be much closer to 5.1.4. With 7.1.2 you are supposed to have 7 speakers around you and 2 above you. That diagram is for Auro-3d which pretty much is a dead immersive format.


----------



## Nightlord

Scott Simonian said:


> True but 1 out 100 (more like 1,000) speaker brands is negligible at best. I follow though.
> 
> Having said that, even having identical speakers is no guarantee that even they will sound the same as one another. One speaker out in a field will sound different than if it were in a rcoom. That same speaker will sound different 4ft off a wall in a room than it did in the field... it will also sound different when placed against a wall than the one only 4ft away.
> 
> Acoustics! Agh!


That's why any designer should inform (if not enforce) what use case their speaker should be used in... So they can consider the surroundings in the design.


----------



## Roger Dressler

The great unifier for timbre is "room" EQ. I have found that XT32, Dirac, and manual PEQ are all totally effective in achieving excellent timbre matching across different brands, models, and locations of speakers. I'm sure ARC and others I have not tried would do so, too.


----------



## srinivas1015

Mashie Saldana said:


> That layout would be much closer to 5.1.4. With 7.1.2 you are supposed to have 7 speakers around you and 2 above you. That diagram is for Auro-3d which pretty much is a dead immersive format.


I get that. I'm using the image to showcase where my height speakers are in relation to my seating position. 

What's the difference between setting them to height vs 'in-ceiling' in the receiver? Does it change the sounds sent to the speakers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

srinivas1015 said:


> I get that. I'm using the image to showcase where my height speakers are in relation to my seating position.
> 
> What's the difference between setting them to height vs 'in-ceiling' in the receiver? Does it change the sounds sent to the speakers?


Yes, it does. 

Telling the receiver that they are HEIGHT means that it thinks that the speakers are at a lower angle. Yours are positioned at a high angle so you should use TOP as your setting.


----------



## srinivas1015

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, it does.
> 
> Telling the receiver that they are HEIGHT means that it thinks that the speakers are at a lower angle. Yours are positioned at a high angle so you should use TOP as your setting.


Thank you, I appreciate the response  .

Yes, they're placed at ceiling level but they're not directly above my seating area. They're placed above my surrounds. I'll try it tomorrow and see how the soundstage changes.


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> The great unifier for timbre is "room" EQ. I have found that XT32, Dirac, and manual PEQ are all totally effective in achieving excellent timbre matching across different brands, models, and locations of speakers. I'm sure ARC and others I have not tried would do so, too.


Thanks, Roger. Coming from you, that's more than good enough for me


----------



## Ricoflashback

jdsmoothie said:


> I rented Lionsgate John Wick Chapter 2 from Redbox last night and the audio track was actually Dolby Atmos. Wohoo!! Not sure when Lionsgate started doing this but glad to see it finally happened.


Yes, quite a pleasant surprise! A Lionsgate mistake or just a one time occurrence? We shall see. 

Also - - it wasn't a plain disc with the title on it. It was full color and it looked like a commercial Bluray that you bought online or from a retail store.

Best two bucks an change that I've spent in a while!


----------



## FilmMixer

Been waiting for all of you to finally hear what I would do with my first native Atmos mix... it's taken a little while. 

Very very proud of this track. Can't wait to hear everyone's feedback. 


http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/46515/powerrangersultrahdbluray.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nalleh

FilmMixer said:


> Been waiting for all of you to finally hear what I would do with my first native Atmos mix... it's taken a little while.
> 
> Very very proud of this track. Can't wait to hear everyone's feedback.
> 
> 
> http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/46515/powerrangersultrahdbluray.html
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow, can't wait


----------



## gwsat

FilmMixer said:


> Been waiting for all of you to finally hear what I would do with my first native Atmos mix... it's taken a little while.
> 
> Very very proud of this track. Can't wait to hear everyone's feedback.
> 
> 
> http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/46515/powerrangersultrahdbluray.html


_Power Rangers_ is a film that I would ordinarily have steered clear of. Because of your contributions to this thread, though, I have changed my mind. The 1080P TrueHD BD version was available from the Kaleidescape store, so I bought it and am downloading it to my Kscape Strato now. The High-Def Digest review intrigued me. Not only did the author like the Atmos effects he was equally laudatory about some of the ultra low frequencies in its LFE. Because I am a certifiable bass-head, that made the sale for me. Won’t get to watch it until tomorrow but will report my impressions then.


----------



## unretarded

Just ordered it......


----------



## helvetica bold

Well this is good news. 
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...port-with-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/39309


----------



## gwsat

unretarded said:


> Just ordered it......


I got the 1080P BD quality version of _Power Rangers_ but it has the same TrueHD Atmos soundtrack as the UHD HDR disk will have. That Atmos audio is demonstration quality. The LFE is good and the immersive atmosphere created in the sound design is wonderful. The surround effects are well placed and convincing. Even in BD quality, the film looks good. Although _Power Rangers_ isn't deathless art by quite a bit, the story is decent. Add to that, its good looking video and world class Atmos audio and I was glad I spent my money on it. 7 Stars out of 10.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Well this is good news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...port-with-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/39309


Where have you been? The rumor has been floating around for a while. 

Dolby seemed to be a bit giddy at the prospects of Disney jumping on board the 4k train at NAB. Both with Atmos and Vision. You will only hear Atmos with their 4k releases... just like 20th Century Fox.


----------



## Saber008

Hi everyone, I hope this has not been brought up before but I couldn't find it in any searches. I have a 7.1.2 setup and while I haven't had too much time hearing actual Atmos movies I've been doing plenty of upmixing with Dolby and DTS. My issue arises with music and vocals coming through the height channels. It just sounds horrible and way too loud, I don't think the levels are far off either.

When voices come through it creates this weird echo effect that many people in the room complained about. Seemed to happen in both DTS and Dolby upmixes. Is this normal? Does changing the location of the height speakers in the receiver (Denon X4300) change this? (I think the options were in front, above, or behind)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where have you been? The rumor has been floating around for a while.
> 
> Dolby seemed to be a bit giddy at the prospects of Disney jumping on board the 4k train at NAB. Both with Atmos and Vision. You will only hear Atmos with their 4k releases... just like 20th Century Fox.


Since I finally got an UHD player I can live with this limitation if Star Wars comes out with Atmos.


----------



## Hresna

Saber008 said:


> Hi everyone, I hope this has not been brought up before but I couldn't find it in any searches. I have a 7.1.2 setup and while I haven't had too much time hearing actual Atmos movies I've been doing plenty of upmixing with Dolby and DTS. My issue arises with music and vocals coming through the height channels. It just sounds horrible and way too loud, I don't think the levels are far off either.
> 
> When voices come through it creates this weird echo effect that many people in the room complained about. Seemed to happen in both DTS and Dolby upmixes. Is this normal? Does changing the location of the height speakers in the receiver (Denon X4300) change this? (I think the options were in front, above, or behind)


You might also try your post in the X4300 owner’s thread since if there is anything amiss, it is high likely it would be the AVR causing.

The upmixing should be fairly transparent and well blended; if it is producing an unpleasant effect, something could be off in your settings. I would first check that the AVR has the distance and levels set appropriately, and perhaps run another calibration (if the denon does multiple points, try that also). I’m not sure it would be normal for dialog to raise to the height channels, unless your AVR has a setting specifically for “lifting” the dialog above the center (the A3060 does). Perhaps such a setting exists and is set too high.

If the distance for the heights is off, and you are doing a dialog-lift, that could account for the echo effect. But I don’t think dialog would normally matrix to the heights otherwise.

The regular surround decoding (dolby or DTS), with no added DSP, should not be adding any reverb. You might check that there’s no additional DSP being layered onto the decoding.

What is the source you are upmixing? A 5.1 should upmix pretty easily. If it is stereo, sometimes the source just isn’t conducive to full 9-11 channel matrixing (but if it is TV / movie, it should still be okay. Ripped stereo content, perhaps not so much.) In a stereo mix, the processing has to extract the dialog and some of it will indeed bleed through to the mains and surrounds. The more compressed or poor the source, the harder this would be to do effectively.

In any case the denon owners should be able to provide advice specific to your AVR.


----------



## Scott Simonian

DSU nor Neural:X *add* any content.

DSU = removes diffuse content and moves it upwards into the ceiling

Neural:X = actively steers in and out of phase content and moves it upwards into the ceiling


----------



## Saber008

Hresna said:


> You might also try your post in the X4300 owner’s thread since if there is anything amiss, it is high likely it would be the AVR causing.
> 
> The upmixing should be fairly transparent and well blended; if it is producing an unpleasant effect, something could be off in your settings. I would first check that the AVR has the distance and levels set appropriately, and perhaps run another calibration (if the denon does multiple points, try that also). I’m not sure it would be normal for dialog to raise to the height channels, unless your AVR has a setting specifically for “lifting” the dialog above the center (the A3060 does). Perhaps such a setting exists and is set too high.
> 
> If the distance for the heights is off, and you are doing a dialog-lift, that could account for the echo effect. But I don’t think dialog would normally matrix to the heights otherwise.
> 
> The regular surround decoding (dolby or DTS), with no added DSP, should not be adding any reverb. You might check that there’s no additional DSP being layered onto the decoding.
> 
> What is the source you are upmixing? A 5.1 should upmix pretty easily. If it is stereo, sometimes the source just isn’t conducive to full 9-11 channel matrixing (but if it is TV / movie, it should still be okay. Ripped stereo content, perhaps not so much.) In a stereo mix, the processing has to extract the dialog and some of it will indeed bleed through to the mains and surrounds. The more compressed or poor the source, the harder this would be to do effectively.
> 
> In any case the denon owners should be able to provide advice specific to your AVR.


Thanks for the reply. I did check levels and distances last night. I'll look to see if this setting of "lifting" the dialogue exists. Most of the issues are on 5.1 bitstreams from Roku and Blurays. 7.1 might be the same but I don't really know. I only upmix when I get 5.1 or 7.1 sources. I always change to stereo for stereo sources. I just wanted to find out from the Atmos thread if this is normal as I'm new to Atmos still. Since the AVR is already defective in another area I suppose this could be related. I'll see if my replacement handles Atmos the same way. Thanks!


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> Neural:X = actively steers in and out of phase content and moves it upwards into the ceiling



And the surrounds. It's extremely annoying too (especially with dialogue with characters on screen and their voices in the sides/back), and the reason why I keep it in DSU mode on my setup.


----------



## Saber008

The thing is I was always happy with my 7.1 setup. 5.1 upmixes would sound great. And now I can no longer do 5.1 --> 7.1 because it only allows for 5.1 --> 7.1.2. (Although this is more of a receiver thing, maybe some have the option to allow it)


----------



## Hresna

Saber008 said:


> The thing is I was always happy with my 7.1 setup. 5.1 upmixes would sound great. And now I can no longer do 5.1 --> 7.1 because it only allows for 5.1 --> 7.1.2. (Although this is more of a receiver thing, maybe some have the option to allow it)


If the denon lets you configure them alternately as a zone 2, you could set them that way and then Just have them disabled when not using content with heights.


----------



## Craig Mecak

I have the Yamaha RX-A3060, and prefer DSU for 2.0 sources because of the above reasons, but Neural:X for 5.1 & 7.1 sources.

It would be great if the receiver had preferences that could be set up to switch in DSU for native 2.0 sources, and N:X for 5.1/7.1 sources. Perfect. And automatically engage ATMOS when that kind of bitstream is detected, and DTS:X when that bitstream is detected. Totally hands-off, and easy. But alas, we have to press lots of buttons to get into the modes we want.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> And the surrounds. It's extremely annoying too (especially with dialogue with characters on screen and their voices in the sides/back), and the reason why I keep it in DSU mode on my setup.


Eh. I think it works great for aggressive mixes where my expectation is that kind of sound.

For every one time I hear something wrong like a car drive by in the overheads, it gets it correct like something falling from above or Godzilla roar about five or six times. I'll take NeuralX for those kinds of movies. DSU doesn't do anything for that type of mix. 

All power to you. I like the choice of using both which I do. A little DSU here, a little NeuralX there.


----------



## rmerlano

Hi!

I´m startint to follow this thread, is too long, but someday I´ll read all of it.

In the meantime, I have a question:

Is there a way to verify that my atmos configuration is correctly deployed?
And I do not speak of the position of the speakers, but really do their work of immersion and three-dimensionality. 
Maybe a calibration disc?
Some parts ot movies with explanation of the sound I should receive/feel?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rmerlano said:


> Hi!
> 
> I?m starting to follow this thread, is too long, but someday I?ll read all of it.
> 
> In the meantime, I have a question:
> 
> Is there a way to verify that my Atmos configuration is correctly deployed?
> And I do not speak of the position of the speakers, but really to their work of immersion and three-dimensionality.
> Maybe a calibration disc?
> Some parts of movies with explanation of the sound I should receive/feel?


The best thing to find is a more recent Dolby Atmos demo disc. There are some clips that really test an immersive system and its cohesiveness.


----------



## rmerlano

Dan Hitchman said:


> The best thing to find is a more recent Dolby Atmos demo disc. There are some clips that really test an immersive system and its cohesiveness.


Do you know where can I to find those demos?

Thank you Dan!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rmerlano said:


> Do you know where can I to find those demos?
> 
> Thank you Dan!


PM sent.


----------



## Saber008

Dan Hitchman said:


> PM sent.


Also interested in learning where to find the demos.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Saber008 said:


> Also interested in learning where to find the demos.


Dolby offers these: Link


----------



## Nalleh

There are cheap ones on ebay too:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=dolby+atmos+demo+disc+2015&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> There are cheap ones on ebay too:
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=dolby+atmos+demo+disc+2015&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1


Good find! 

And you'd better hurry, the cheap UK offer sold 4 out of 6 available disks within a day...


----------



## deano86

maikeldepotter said:


> Good find!
> 
> And you'd better hurry, the cheap UK offer sold 4 out of 6 available disks within a day...


Not that it matters that much when you want one of these demo discs, but those UK discs and just burned copies someone is profitting on. Although, I am surprised they aren't charging more....


----------



## maikeldepotter

deano86 said:


> Not that it matters that much when you want one of these demo discs, but those UK discs and just burned copies someone is profitting on. Although, I am surprised they aren't charging more....


Well, then that seller certainly has some nerve choosing this avatar... LOL


----------



## deano86

maikeldepotter said:


> Well, then that seller certainly has some nerve choosing this avatar... LOL
> 
> View attachment 2198849


Well, if you scroll down to the bottom of listing description, it says : 

"On a quality 25gb bd-r media disc"

I figure that says it all!


----------



## mrtickleuk

Nalleh said:


> There are cheap ones on ebay too:
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=dolby+atmos+demo+disc+2015&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1


The first match is currently showing as $124.95 . I really hope it was less than that when you posted the link, because that's not cheap!


----------



## Nalleh

mrtickleuk said:


> The first match is currently showing as $124.95 . I really hope it was less than that when you posted the link, because that's not cheap!


Look further down 

I have one of those cheap ones, just as good


----------



## Frank D

Saber008 said:


> Hi everyone, I hope this has not been brought up before but I couldn't find it in any searches. I have a 7.1.2 setup and while I haven't had too much time hearing actual Atmos movies I've been doing plenty of upmixing with Dolby and DTS. My issue arises with music and vocals coming through the height channels. It just sounds horrible and way too loud, I don't think the levels are far off either.
> 
> When voices come through it creates this weird echo effect that many people in the room complained about. Seemed to happen in both DTS and Dolby upmixes. Is this normal? Does changing the location of the height speakers in the receiver (Denon X4300) change this? (I think the options were in front, above, or behind)


This may not be ideal but one way might be to set your blu ray player hdmi output for pcm and not bit stream/auto so that only a 5.1 or 7.1 pcm signal gets sent and then your receiver will not apply dolby atmos or DTS X to it. I have not fully tested it but i think it may work. If you do try it let us know how it works out.


----------



## Selden Ball

mrtickleuk said:


> The first match is currently showing as $124.95 . I really hope it was less than that when you posted the link, because that's not cheap!


Many of the demo Atmos soundtracks are available for free on demo-world.eu on their 2D HD page. Be sure to download the "Lossless" versions.


----------



## Nalleh

Got my (german) UHD edition of The Great Wall the other day, and strangely enough it had both Atmos and DTS:X sticker on the back !
But no DTS:X track....










Also got DREDD UHD, and happy to see that not only was a 3D bluray inluded, but the bluray had the Neo:X soundtrack on it. Win-win


----------



## Scott Simonian

Were you expecting a new 7.1 mix for the Blu-ray, Nalleh? 

Of course it was included.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Were you expecting a new 7.1 mix for the Blu-ray, Nalleh?
> 
> Of course it was included.


I have one with 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio mix


----------



## batpig

Since you mentioned The Great Wall, I rented from Redbox last week. The movie was HORRRRRRRIBLE but it was one of the most aggressive Atmos soundtracks I've ever heard, tons of high power overhead activity and pretty nice visuals too. So if you're really itching for a brainless action flick that really pushes your overhead speakers, this is a good one.


----------



## PeterTHX

Nalleh said:


> I have one mix in 5.1 encoded with DTS-HD Master Audio



Fixed.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

batpig said:


> Since you mentioned The Great Wall, I rented from Redbox last week. The movie was HORRRRRRRIBLE but it was one of the most aggressive Atmos soundtracks I've ever heard, tons of high power overhead activity and pretty nice visuals too. So if you're really itching for a brainless action flick that really pushes your overhead speakers, this is a good one.


Stupid plot but excellent special effects and Atmos track indeed.


----------



## lujan

Mashie Saldana said:


> Stupid plot but excellent special effects and Atmos track indeed.


I liked the movie (The Great Wall) much better than the critics gave it credit for but to each his own...


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Since you mentioned The Great Wall, I rented from Redbox last week. The movie was HORRRRRRRIBLE but it was one of the most aggressive Atmos soundtracks I've ever heard, tons of high power overhead activity and pretty nice visuals too. So if you're really itching for a brainless action flick that really pushes your overhead speakers, this is a good one.


I agree, awsome visuals and immersive sound 



PeterTHX said:


> Fixed.


Thanks


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> Since you mentioned The Great Wall, I rented from Redbox last week. The movie was HORRRRRRRIBLE but it was one of the most aggressive Atmos soundtracks I've ever heard, tons of high power overhead activity and pretty nice visuals too. So if you're really itching for a brainless action flick that really pushes your overhead speakers, this is a good one.





Mashie Saldana said:


> Stupid plot but excellent special effects and Atmos track indeed.


I had planned to pass on _The Great Wall_ but you guys have made me consider renting the BD from Redbox. I love loud and dumb, especially if the film has good audio design. Sounds like this one may fill the bill.


----------



## batpig

gwsat said:


> I had planned to pass on _The Great Wall_ but you guys have made me consider renting the BD from Redbox. I love loud and dumb, especially if the film has good audio design. Sounds like this one may fill the bill.


It is loud and very dumb, so you should be happy 

Worthwhile for Atmos setups if only to really hear the overheads get a workout.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> Since you mentioned The Great Wall, I rented from Redbox last week. The movie was HORRRRRRRIBLE but it was one of the most aggressive Atmos soundtracks I've ever heard, tons of high power overhead activity and pretty nice visuals too. So if you're really itching for a brainless action flick that really pushes your overhead speakers, this is a good one.


I thought the movie was deeply written with thought provoking concepts coupled with superb character development and exceptional choreography. 

O.K. - not "Gone With The Wind," but certainly worth a two shekel, Redbox rental. The colors as upscaled on my Sony XBR900E were fantastic! What's great about movies like this is that you never have to worry about missing anything that is central to the plot. It all leads to the same place. 

Hey, I'm a Matt Damon fan but jeez did he look dorky in those costumes. My, how far Jason Bourne has fallen. I'm sure it was a good paycheck.


----------



## audioguy

*Where are the angles computer from?*

I have had an Atmos system since the end of 2014. I am about to finally get rid of my on-celing speakers and replace them with in-ceiling speakers. It has been so long that I need help with something.

When placing the speakers at a specific angle (say 45 degrees), where is that angle measured from? The MLP or in position "B" on my diagram? (see attached).


----------



## Mashie Saldana

audioguy said:


> I have had an Atmos system since the end of 2014. I am about to finally get rid of my on-celing speakers and replace them with in-ceiling speakers. It has been so long that I need help with something.
> 
> When placing the speakers at a specific angle (say 45 degrees), where is that angle measured from? The MLP or in position "B" on my diagram? (see attached).


From B and preferably in line with the left and right speakers. Take a look at the most up to date installation guide over at the Dolby website.


----------



## audioguy

Mashie Saldana said:


> From B and preferably in line with the left and right speakers. Take a look at the most up to date installation guide over at the Dolby website.


I looked at what I thought was the most recent Installation Guide (July of 2016) prior to posting this question but (at least to me ) the location from where to measure is not clear the way the diagrams are drawn. Can you point me to a specific statement or drawing that confirms that? FWIW, that is what I remember but do recall a lot of going back and forth on the subject.

Thanks


----------



## veger69

audioguy said:


> I looked at what I thought was the most recent Installation Guide (July of 2016) prior to posting this question but (at least to me ) the location from where to measure is not clear the way the diagrams are drawn. Can you point me to a specific statement or drawing that confirms that? FWIW, that is what I remember but do recall a lot of going back and forth on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks




I think he was talking about the "in line with the front speakers" and not the 45deg measurement point. They do not specify that point but the current consensus is the B location. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Hresna

audioguy said:


> I have had an Atmos system since the end of 2014. I am about to finally get rid of my on-celing speakers and replace them with in-ceiling speakers. It has been so long that I need help with something.
> 
> When placing the speakers at a specific angle (say 45 degrees), where is that angle measured from? The MLP or in position "B" on my diagram? (see attached).


That's an excellent question, and as mentioned by the previous poster, the dolby paper is quite helpful here.

As it turns out, I had this exact debate with my installer TODAY as I was having my in-ceilings put in. He wanted to measure 45 deg out from the MLP which would have put the speakers too close to the ends of the couch. I finally convinced him that the 45 deg is from ear height, but from the point B in your diagram.

Another way, from the MLP, go 45 degrees towards the very front (along the centerline). That will mark the plane for the speakers and tell you how far in the front/back direction to place them. Then just run a perpendicular line out to the corners of your "box", however wide your listening plane is (usually in line with the mains, Dolby suggests) to get the exact sweet spot.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Hresna said:


> That's an excellent question, and as mentioned by the previous poster, the dolby paper is quite helpful here.
> 
> As it turns out, I had this exact debate with my installer TODAY as I was having my in-ceilings put in. He wanted to measure 45 deg out from the MLP which would have put the speakers too close to the ends of the couch. I finally convinced him that the 45 deg is from ear height, but from the point B in your diagram.


From reading posts on this forum (not necessarily this thread), I agree for Dolby. 
DTS:X is definitely different, and specifies both azimuth and elevation angles from the MLP.
Think of it this way: Dolby specifies "elevation", but effectively NOT "azimuth" - instead telling you to use "whatever azimuth results in the speakers being in line with your fronts".



> Another way, from the MLP, go 45 degrees towards the very front (along the centerline). That will mark the plane for the speakers and tell you how far in the front/back direction to place them. Then just run a perpendicular line out to the corners of your "box", however wide your listening plane is (usually in line with the mains, Dolby suggests) to get the exact sweet spot.


Batpig produced this diagram in the past, for someone who had measured that their Atmos ceiling speakers should be 5ft in front and behind of the MLP, to show the differences between the DTS:X and Dolby Atmos placements:










I combined Denon, Dolby and DTS:X images myself. The bottom orange circle is also DTS:X


----------



## audioguy

Thanks for the responses. Very helpful - and what I thought to be correct.


----------



## MrDickerson

mrtickleuk said:


> From reading posts on this forum (not necessarily this thread), I agree for Dolby.
> DTS:X is definitely different, and specifies both azimuth and elevation angles from the MLP.
> Think of it this way: Dolby specifies "elevation", but effectively NOT "azimuth" - instead telling you to use "whatever azimuth results in the speakers being in line with your fronts".
> 
> 
> 
> Batpig produced this diagram in the past, for someone who had measured that their Atmos ceiling speakers should be 5ft in front and behind of the MLP, to show the differences between the DTS:X and Dolby Atmos placements:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I combined Denon, Dolby and DTS:X images myself. The bottom orange circle is also DTS:X



Great images to help in setup. What if you're only using 2 in-ceiling speakers for atmos? Which of the angles do I use then?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

MrDickerson said:


> Great images to help in setup. What if you're only using 2 in-ceiling speakers for atmos? Which of the angles do I use then?


In the images you quoted the top middle should be in the 65 to 100 degree angle. I have mine at 85 degrees.


----------



## Gabre

Dan Hitchman said:


> PM sent.


Link please,I downloaded latest 2016 version from somewher, but Kodi nor Powerdvd will play it,all I can do it is open through windows explorer, and then findin stream folder and randomly playing files


----------



## rekbones

Gabre said:


> Link please,I downloaded latest 2016 version from somewher, but Kodi nor Powerdvd will play it,all I can do it is open through windows explorer, and then findin stream folder and randomly playing files


Most likely you need to convert it to an ISO. Use ISO Creator, then PowerDVD should play it with the correct menus.


----------



## sdurani

Blade Runner: Final Cut coming to 4K UHD on September 5th with a brand new Atmos re-mix.


----------



## Jonas2

sdurani said:


> Blade Runner: Final Cut coming to 4K UHD on September 5th with a brand new Atmos re-mix.


Awesome! I guess I can retire my Japanese-subtitled Director's Cut Laserdisc......


----------



## batpig

Oh hellz yeah. I still have my 5-disc HD DVD Blade Runner collection with the Final Cut (among others).


----------



## Methodical_1

batpig said:


> Since you mentioned The Great Wall, I rented from Redbox last week. The movie was HORRRRRRRIBLE but it was one of the most aggressive Atmos soundtracks I've ever heard, tons of high power overhead activity and pretty nice visuals too. So if you're really itching for a brainless action flick that really pushes your overhead speakers, this is a good one.





Mashie Saldana said:


> Stupid plot but excellent special effects and Atmos track indeed.


Sometimes that's all you want so you can listen and enjoy the fruits of your labor.


----------



## oldsteve

FilmMixer said:


> Been waiting for all of you to finally hear what I would do with my first native Atmos mix... it's taken a little while.
> 
> Very very proud of this track. Can't wait to hear everyone's feedback.
> 
> 
> http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/46515/powerrangersultrahdbluray.html
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just got done watching "Power Rangers". I can see why you're proud of your work on this. Here's hoping that you have started a trend of the use of more and more immersive Dolby Atmos tracks in future movies. Congratulations!


----------



## ez1dog

Ricoflashback said:


> I thought the movie was deeply written with thought provoking concepts coupled with superb character development and exceptional choreography.
> 
> O.K. - not "Gone With The Wind," but certainly worth a two shekel, Redbox rental. The colors as upscaled on my Sony XBR900E were fantastic! What's great about movies like this is that you never have to worry about missing anything that is central to the plot. It all leads to the same place.
> 
> Hey, I'm a Matt Damon fan but jeez did he look dorky in those costumes. My, how far Jason Bourne has fallen. I'm sure it was a good paycheck.


Heard he made that movie on his lunch break!


----------



## Mrjmc99

FilmMixer said:


> Been waiting for all of you to finally hear what I would do with my first native Atmos mix... it's taken a little while.
> 
> Very very proud of this track. Can't wait to hear everyone's feedback.
> 
> 
> http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/46515/powerrangersultrahdbluray.html
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I must say, this mix has atmos demo written all over it. The use of the entire sound stage is perfect, dialog that comes from where it should be, and that opening scene must have been fun, once I heard that I knew I was in for a treat. The sound effects were natural and appropriate throughout the film.

Excellent job, look forward to hearing more atmos mixes from you in the future.

Highly recommend this movie to others for their atmos listening pleasure. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDickerson

Ok, I have attempted to change an atmos picture to more of what I have in my current set. My question is this:









My side surrounds are 90 degrees from Main Listner Position MLP. I am planning on adding 2 in ceiling atmos speakers. I am planning on alligning them with my front speakers, per atmos recommendations, and at about 85 degrees in ceiling from MLP. However, what I'm not sure about is what the distance should be between speakers 5 and 6, and/or what the distance should be from MLP to atmos speakers.

I can't seem to find this information anywhere. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Hresna

MrDickerson said:


> Ok, I have attempted to change an atmos picture to more of what I have in my current set. My question is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My side surrounds are 90 degrees from Main Listner Position MLP. I am planning on adding 2 in ceiling atmos speakers. I am planning on alligning them with my front speakers, per atmos recommendations, and at about 85 degrees in ceiling from MLP. However, what I'm not sure about is what the distance should be between speakers 5 and 6, and/or what the distance should be from MLP to atmos speakers.
> 
> I can't seem to find this information anywhere. Thanks for the help.


We had a similar question last week about a 4-speaker Atmos arrangement. Dolby's diagram for the ceiling speaker placement does seem to trip up a few people.

I can't quite discern from your question exactly what information you need, so I'll cover a few points.

Firstly, the distance between the ceiling speakers (5 and 6 from your diagram) should be the same as your mains, assuming your mains are within the Dolby-Recommended angle offset of MLP (30 deg being the sweet spot). The 85 degree angle has no bearing on that distance, and this is where the confusion lies. The 85 degrees to the speaker is not measured directly from the MLP, but rather, from the intersect point of the imaginary line between the MLP and the Main. On your diagram, that ends up being more or less where the surrounds are placed (or, "on top" of your left surround, and just inside your right surround).

Think of it this way, the ceiling speakers go on a plane that is parallel to the couch, at a width that is the same as the width between the mains. The distance to those plains (front or aft) is dictated by the elevation angle that Dolby recommends, be it 85 degree for a x.2, or 45 for a x.4. But once you have the distance for/aft, their placement is on the Left-Right edges of your listening environment.

For Atmos, it's important not to get too bent out of shape about getting them in the "exact" sweet spot - real life comes in to play here a lot, and you'll have obstacles in your ceiling, and so forth. In general, it's better to go "wider" with the box, than narrower, because a wider box will be more forgiving and your AVR's room-correction / level&distance adjustment will be able to compensate for it. If the box gets too narrow, then the listeners on the ends of the couch get high directionality from the speaker they are nearest too, and it can compromise the effect to some degree. If you need to go suuuuuper wide, and you're entirely outside the dispersion cone of your speaker, you can get speakers with steerable tweeters - but for most consumer-grade applications, this is highly overkill just for Atmos.

In my setup, I put the ceiling speaker centers about 1 foot out from the side walls, regardless of their alignement with the mains, which puts the lefts a little further out than the rights. The AVR more than compensates for this, and the guy on the left of the couch doesn't get too much directionality from the side speaker - and I have "forgiveness" with the speaker placement in the future if I want to shimmy it left or right within the room. I also have all the speakers slightly abaft their "ideal" placement, because of obstructions in the ceiling tiles. Going rearwards was more desirable since I can move the couch back (currently at 8 feet from screen) more easily than moving it forward. Again, the AVR compensates wonderfully for this, and the Atmos effect is wonderfully preserved.


----------



## puddy77

I posted this in the HDR master thread, but I thought I'd share it here too since it's more about Atmos.



puddy77 said:


> Netflix released Okja today in HDR. And for the very first time on Netflix, it also includes Atmos.Dolby's press release mentions the Atmos will only be available through the Xbox One and One S immediately, 2017 LG OLEDs soon, and other devices later. Then Netflix's press release said they will add Atmos to at least 4 other titles: Blame!, Death Note, Bright, and Wheelman.


----------



## gene4ht

*BRIEF-Dolby Laboratories and Netflix partner to deliver the first global combined Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision streaming experience to consumers around the world*


REUTERS 9:09 AM ET 6/28/2017 
Symbol Last Price Change DLB  49.3







0 (0%) NFLX 151.03 0 (0%) QUOTES AS OF 04:02:00 PM ET 06/27/2017 

June 28 (Reuters) - Dolby Laboratories Inc(DLB)
* Dolby Laboratories(DLB) and Netflix(NFLX) partner to deliver first global combined Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision streaming experience to consumers around world
* Dolby Laboratories Inc(DLB) - Combined Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision streaming experience from Netflix(NFLX) will be available on 2017 LG OLED TVs pending an update soon.
* Dolby Laboratories Inc(DLB) - Over time, Netflix(NFLX) plans to roll out support to additional devices Source text for Eikon: Further company coverage:


----------



## usc1995

Looks like Xbox owners will get Netflix Atmos first https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/28/netflix-dolby-atmos-debut-okja/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

My biggest concern with the Netflix Atmos implementation is whether they limit it to 4K streams only as my Atmos setup is connected to my 1080p projector.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## puddy77

usc1995 said:


> My biggest concern with the Netflix Atmos implementation is whether they limit it to 4K streams only as my Atmos setup is connected to my 1080p projector.


I doubt it. It will probably be like HDR. You are required to purchase the 4 screen UHD plan to access it, but it is available at all resolutions (on those titles). So you could probably watch Okja in 1080p with Atmos. But that's just my supposition. I don't have a way of testing it right now.


----------



## usc1995

puddy77 said:


> I doubt it. It will probably be like HDR. You are required to purchase the 4 screen UHD plan to access it, but it is available at all resolutions (on those titles). So you could probably watch Okja in 1080p with Atmos. But that's just my supposition. I don't have a way of testing it right now.




Looks like you are correct...
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066

Looks like Netflix just squeezed a few more bucks out of me each month LOL


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Possibly the greater question is...is this the definitive handwriting on the wall that signals the beginning of the end for physical media/content...food for thought?


----------



## Scott Simonian

gene4ht said:


> Possibly the greater question is...is this the definitive handwriting on the wall that signals the beginning of the end for physical media/content...food for thought?


Yup.

It was all hanging on this Dolby/Netflix merger.

It's all over now. 




Lol, no. I think it's safe to go buy more "physical media" for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Hresna

gene4ht said:


> Possibly the greater question is...is this the definitive handwriting on the wall that signals the beginning of the end for physical media/content...food for thought?


Physical media remains the only way to enjoy lossless audio with our movies (Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA). The Atmos streams that streamers (Netflix, Vudu, etc) employ all have a dolby digital plus core. The bitrates are variable (not fixed at ~680) and can include more channels (i.e. 7.1, and Atmos sprinkles) but it is still an inherently lossy codec. Netflix' current DD streams are all in the 340 bitrate range (they basically use it only to cut down on file sizes, not to offer better quality audio).

I for one can definitely tell the difference between a DD bitstream and the lossless TrueHD, which is why I watch all my popcorn flicks on Bluray, and leave Netflix for vanilla TV shows and the odd rom-com for the wifey.


----------



## dgkula

All I can say is WOW. I built a dedicated 12x14 theater this year and put in 7.2.4 and just last night hooked up a Denon X4300h AVR with a separate 2 channel amp to let me configure for Atmos. I watched Suicide squad on HBO in 1080p and the AVR upmixed to Atmos - it was awesome! I cant wait to watch my first Atmos Blu Ray - may make it John Wick2 (I watched this weekend prior to Atmos - I bet the Atmos mix is amazing), Power Rangers or Transformers.

This is one of the best improvements I have made to my home theater ever and that sentiment is only with the upmixed content!!


----------



## mrtickleuk

gene4ht said:


> Possibly the greater question is...is this the definitive handwriting on the wall that signals the beginning of the end for physical media/content...food for thought?


Hehe, certainly not. Not unless and until streaming is markedly better. As a minimum it means the *same or better picture quality*, and the *same or better audio quality* (that means the lossless audio tracks). It also means it must includes *all extras, behind-the-scenes documentaries, director's commentaries* that are on the physical media - and then something else to clearly denote streaming as being obviously better.


----------



## jrogers

usc1995 said:


> Looks like you are correct...
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> Looks like Netflix just squeezed a few more bucks out of me each month LOL
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Surprised Atmos wouldn't work from any device that currently outputs Dolby Digital Plus from Netflix. Why just Xbox?


----------



## tonygeno

*Atmos Speaker Placement Choices*

I am ready to install four speakers to move to a 7.1.4 system and have a question regarding Atmos speaker placement. In-ceilings are not an option as my finished theater room is in the basement and the ceiling is plastered.

My two options are: 1) two front and two rear speakers placed at the wall/ceiling junction and pointing down towards the front and rear rows (rear row is on a 7" riser). Or 2) the height speakers placed to the left and right side of the front and rear rows at the wall/ceiling junction, again pointed down towards the seats.


Would either of these two placements work and is one preferable? My room is 23' x 17' x 7' 10". Front row is 11 feet from the screen and the rear row is 5 feet from the back wall.


----------



## sdurani

tonygeno said:


> My two options are: 1) two front and two rear speakers placed at the wall/ceiling junction and pointing down towards the front and rear rows (rear row is on a 7" riser). Or 2) the height speakers placed to the left and right side of the front and rear rows at the wall/ceiling junction, again pointed down towards the seats.


The former are official home Atmos speaker locations (Front Height & Rear Height) but in my experience the latter does a better job of phantom imaging sounds above you (configured as Top Front & Top Rear, aimed at the listener at the opposite end of the row).


----------



## Hresna

dgkula said:


> All I can say is WOW. I built a dedicated 12x14 theater this year and put in 7.2.4 and just last night hooked up a Denon X4300h AVR with a separate 2 channel amp to let me configure for Atmos. I watched Suicide squad on HBO in 1080p and the AVR upmixed to Atmos - it was awesome! I cant wait to watch my first Atmos Blu Ray - may make it John Wick2 (I watched this weekend prior to Atmos - I bet the Atmos mix is amazing), Power Rangers or Transformers.
> 
> This is one of the best improvements I have made to my home theater ever and that sentiment is only with the upmixed content!!


John Wick 2 Atmos mix is a bit soft, but still fun. I've heard TF and Power Rangers are great. I'm looking forward PR in 4k and Atmos. Goign to be going through all my bluray to tease out the ones with Atmos this summer holiday.


----------



## chi_guy50

gene4ht said:


> Possibly the greater question is...is this the definitive handwriting on the wall that signals the beginning of the end for physical media/content...food for thought?


If your question was meant to pertain solely to Netflix, then there might be something to it. My own personal wish, on the contrary, has always been that they would move in the opposite direction and upgrade their physical media (disc-by-mail) service to include UHD Blu-ray at the same time that they are broadening the streaming side of the business. Unfortunately, I have seen no signs of any move in this direction as yet despite what IMO has been an impressive launch for UHD BRD. Ironically, the disc-by-mail subscriptions are actually more profitable per capita than those of the streaming service--which would seem to mitigate against terminating the service (or spinning it off, as CEO Reed Hastings tried to do six years ago with disastrous results) at least for the time being. But Netflix has not been promoting the disc-by-mail service to any significant degree, the subscriber numbers are declining, and although he has been chastised by the bone-headed way he mishandled it in 2011 ("Qwikster" will live in infamy alongside New Coke), I think Hastings still envisions ending it in the medium (five- to ten-year) term.

If you were implying the demise of video on disc in general--then no, decidedly not.


----------



## gwsat

chi_guy50 said:


> If your question was meant to pertain solely to Netflix, then there might be something to it. My own personal wish, on the contrary, has always been that they would move in the opposite direction and upgrade their physical media (disc-by-mail) service to include UHD Blu-ray at the same time that they are broadening the streaming side of the business. Unfortunately, I have seen no signs of any move in this direction as yet despite what IMO has been an impressive launch for UHD BRD. Ironically, the disc-by-mail subscriptions are actually more profitable per capita than those of the streaming service--which would seem to mitigate against terminating the service (or spinning it off, as CEO Reed Hastings tried to do six years ago with disastrous results) at least for the time being. But Netflix has not been promoting the disc-by-mail service to any significant degree, the subscriber numbers are declining, and although he has been chastised by the bone-headed way he mishandled it in 2011 ("Qwikster" will live in infamy alongside New Coke), I think Hastings still envisions ending it in the medium (five- to ten-year) term.
> 
> If you were implying the demise of video on disc in general--then no, decidedly not.


Although Netflix, Vudu, and others wish that physical media would die and go away, I agree that it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. There are too may home theater enthusiasts who care as much, if not more, about a movie's audio than they do about its video. Count me among their number. When streaming services acquire the ability to stream lossless codecs, DTS-HD MA and True HD, we can talk. It looks like that won't be happening soon, if ever. I do buy a lot of titles from the Kaleidescape store and download them to my Kscape Strato because such files are bit for bit copies of the corresponding physical media. This means that the audio I get on every title I buy from Kscape has lossless audio and lot of the video is UHD HDR. 

I concede that streaming media does look very good these days, even UHD HDR content, but the shiny disks still do it better, it seems to me. For this reason, I preordered an Oppo UDP 203 and received in in December. It's not going anywhere for a long while to come.


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> Although Netflix, Vudu, and others wish that physical media would die and go away, I agree that it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. There are too may home theater enthusiasts who care as much, if not more, about a movie's audio than they do about its video. Count me among their number. When streaming services acquire the ability to stream lossless codecs, DTS-HD MA and True HD, we can talk. It looks like that won't be happening soon, if ever. I do buy a lot of titles from the Kaleidescape store and download them to my Kscape Strato because such files are bit for bit copies of the corresponding physical media. This means that the audio I get on every title I buy from Kscape has lossless audio and lot of the video is UHD HDR.
> 
> I concede that streaming media does look very good these days, even UHD HDR content, but the shiny disks still do it better, it seems to me. For this reason, I preordered an Oppo UDP 203 and received in in December. It's not going anywhere for a long while to come.


I know this is not the correct thread but how do you like the Oppo 203? I also ordered it in December but returned in before the 30-day return window because it was having too many playback issues. I've recently ordered it again to give it another shot hoping the firmware updates have taken care of these problems I was having.


----------



## gwsat

lujan said:


> I know this is not the correct thread but how do you like the Oppo 203? I also ordered it in December but returned in before the 30-day return window because it was having too many playback issues. I've recently ordered it again to give it another shot hoping the firmware updates have taken care of these problems I was having.


As you know from your participation in the Oppo 203 thread, it is far from perfect. Nevertheless, it does a great job most of the time and carries with it Oppo's track record of relentlessly fixing bugs. In short, I have never regretted buying my 203 but have learned to be patient with its problems in trying to tame the Wild West of UHD HDR disk playback.


----------



## unretarded

If its good, I get the disk......borderline gets a redbox rental................if someone comes over and we watch a borderline B flick, it is on netflix...........so I happy the Atmos thing is happening on netflix. It is looking good for the future and more to becoming the norm/default audio for all content...hopefully.

I will still buy disks because you can watch them with no internet and play them anywhere you go easily.


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> As you know from your participation in the Oppo 203 thread, it is far from perfect. Nevertheless, it does a great job most of the time and carries with it Oppo's track record of relentlessly fixing bugs. In short, I have never regretted buying my 203 but have learned to be patient with its problems in trying to tame the Wild West of UHD HDR disk playback.


Thanks, I haven't participated on the 203 thread since I returned the 203 in January so haven't kept track of the current issues. I started back on the thread yesterday when I ordered the 203 for the 2nd time. At the time I returned it I considered the playback issues to be major (freezing, etc.) and not just minor so I'm hoping the current issues are minor. The same UHD discs were playing fine on my cheap Philips player and not playing correctly on the expensive Oppo.


----------



## hatlesschimp

lujan said:


> Thanks, I haven't participated on the 203 thread since I returned the 203 in January so haven't kept track of the current issues. I started back on the thread yesterday when I ordered the 203 for the 2nd time. At the time I returned it I considered the playback issues to be major (freezing, etc.) and not just minor so I'm hoping the current issues are minor. The same UHD discs were playing fine on my cheap Philips player and not playing correctly on the expensive Oppo.


Was playing Oblivion 4k uhd the other day and it paused around 1hr mark. Only ever used the movie for testing and had a friend over and we got stuck i to it and was surprised with it pausing. It skipped 5 mins in the end.

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> If your question was meant to pertain solely to Netflix, then there might be something to it...If you were implying the demise of video on disc in general--then no, decidedly not.


Neither...the intent of my question was to generate/elicit opinions and dialogue. To be clear...as an "enthusiast" I am firmly entrenched in the camp of shiny discs and expound all of their advantages. However, the average consumer/mass market appear to be perfectly satisfied with portable video/audio and care less about 4K UHD, 3D sound, and HDR. It's realistic to expect that content providers and their methods of delivery will be governed by revenue...which is the other side of the coin. I'm hopeful that at least for the near future, the market will have room for both delivery systems. And if the shiny discs do go away, it will be because technology replaced it with something with all its current attributes and then some.


----------



## gene4ht

lujan said:


> I know this is not the correct thread but how do you like the Oppo 203? I also ordered it in December but returned in before the 30-day return window because it was having too many playback issues. I've recently ordered it again to give it another shot hoping the firmware updates have taken care of these problems I was having.





lujan said:


> Thanks, I haven't participated on the 203 thread since I returned the 203 in January so haven't kept track of the current issues. I started back on the thread yesterday when I ordered the 203 for the 2nd time. At the time I returned it I considered the playback issues to be major (freezing, etc.) and not just minor so I'm hoping the current issues are minor. The same UHD discs were playing fine on my cheap Philips player and not playing correctly on the expensive Oppo.


I own the Philips 7501, the Oppo 203, and the Panasonic 900. IMO, there is very little separating PQ among these UHD players...only features and price. Bottom line, if you have a flat panel...get the 203 and if you have a PJ, get the 900...the 7501 is a very capable back up and/or for a secondary system. The Oppo has DV capability...the Panny does not...but is a moot point for PJ's as PJ's will likely not support DV. The Panny however, has an excellent feature especially effective for PJs called the Dynamic Range Slider that compensates for darkly mastered HDR titles. Lastly, I have never experienced issues with either the Philips or the Panny.


----------



## kamenoff

chi_guy50 said:


> If your question was meant to pertain solely to Netflix, then there might be something to it. My own personal wish, on the contrary, has always been that they would move in the opposite direction and upgrade their physical media (disc-by-mail) service to include UHD Blu-ray at the same time that they are broadening the streaming side of the business. Unfortunately, I have seen no signs of any move in this direction as yet despite what IMO has been an impressive launch for UHD BRD. Ironically, the disc-by-mail subscriptions are actually more profitable per capita than those of the streaming service--which would seem to mitigate against terminating the service (or spinning it off, as CEO Reed Hastings tried to do six years ago with disastrous results) at least for the time being. But Netflix has not been promoting the disc-by-mail service to any significant degree, the subscriber numbers are declining, and although he has been chastised by the bone-headed way he mishandled it in 2011 ("Qwikster" will live in infamy alongside New Coke), I think Hastings still envisions ending it in the medium (five- to ten-year) term.
> 
> If you were implying the demise of video on disc in general--then no, decidedly not.



Interesting comment but I respectfully will disagree. There are a few disc by mail services in Australia and they are complete disaster. The companies don't store enough discs and you wait months until the movie appears in the streaming services in 3- 6 months. Presently there are still some issues mainly with the sound in the streaming however with the development of the technology (faster broadband) the discs will be a story from the past..the same as the audio tapes and CDs. You can see how many computers are selling with DVD/CD drives nowadays. The DVD shops are slowly disappearing. In my area 2 shops closed down in the last 3 months.
The only issues will be the streaming rights and I am not sure how this will be sorted out.


----------



## chi_guy50

kamenoff said:


> Interesting comment but I respectfully will disagree. *There are a few disc by mail services in Australia and they are complete disaster.* The companies don't store enough discs and you wait months until the movie appears in the streaming services in 3- 6 months. Presently the there are still some issues mainly with the sound in the streaming however with the development of the technology (faster broadband) the discs will be a story from the past..the same as the audio tapes and CDs. You can see ho many computers are selling with DVD/CD drives nowadays. The DVD shops are slowly disappearing. In my area 2 shops closed down in the last 3 months.
> The only issues will be the streaming rights and I am not sure how this will be sorted out.


It's a different story here in the U.S.

Netflix has an incredibly efficient decentralized distribution system and has partnered with the U.S. Postal Service to streamline turnaround. (I can typically count on getting my next disc within two business days of dropping the last one into the mail box.)

Although there is usually a delay before recent productions become available for rental on BRD, Netflix's disc library is unrivaled and dwarfs their streaming selection in breadth and depth. I have a BRD subscription and would gladly pay a premium if they would add UHD BRD to their inventory. (N.B.: I also subscribe to 3DBlu-rayRental for UHD BRD's, but that's another story.)

HST, I also have a 4K streaming sub with Netflix, in addition to Amazon Prime Video, and am happy to rely on them for additional sources of entertainment. But, to parrot gwsat's comments above, I continue to hold those shiny discs in particular esteem for the unsurpassed audio and video quality they provide. After all, why should we compromise needlessly on the media after having spent (and continuing to spend) so much time and money on our HT systems?


----------



## shyyour

kamenoff said:


> Interesting comment but I respectfully will disagree. There are a few disc by mail services in Australia and they are complete disaster. The companies don't store enough discs and you wait months until the movie appears in the streaming services in 3- 6 months. Presently there are still some issues mainly with the sound in the streaming however with the development of the technology (faster broadband) the discs will be a story from the past..the same as the audio tapes and CDs. You can see how many computers are selling with DVD/CD drives nowadays. The DVD shops are slowly disappearing. In my area 2 shops closed down in the last 3 months.
> The only issues will be the streaming rights and I am not sure how this will be sorted out.


You forget that not all countries have the technology readily affordable. I live in one of such countries. We can stream Netflix but mostly in SD. Most consumer houses don't have the bandwidth requirement to stream Netflix in UHD not to even talk about the fact that the fiber infrastructure for home is just developing here. The average home is either watching satellite TV or discs (probably pirated).

My point is if you take into account how many similar countries are just building or developing their internet infrastructure you'll realize there's still a big market for discs. I buy all my discs as that's my only option to get atmos audio.


----------



## gwsat

shyyour said:


> My point is if you take into account how many similar countries are just building or developing their internet infrastructure you'll realize there's still a big market for discs. I buy all my discs as that's my only option to get atmos audio.


I used to rent almost every movie title I watched on Disk. After I upgraded my audio system to add Atmos/DTS:X capability, though, I started to buy nearly everything. As you noted a dispiritingly high percentage of rental disks aren't encoded with an immersive format. Still, I continue to rent BDs from a nearby Redbox kiosk and have been considering renewing my Netflix disk rental contract. All of that said, I have really enjoyed the UHD HDR disks I have bought, especially those that have TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA soundtracks.


----------



## chi_guy50

shyyour said:


> You forget that not all countries have the technology readily affordable. I live in one of such countries. We can stream Netflix but mostly in SD. Most consumer houses don't have the bandwidth requirement to stream Netflix in UHD not to even talk about the fact that the fiber infrastructure for home is just developing here. The average home is either watching satellite TV or discs (probably pirated).
> 
> My point is if you take into account how many similar countries are just building or developing their internet infrastructure you'll realize there's still a big market for discs. I buy all my discs as that's my only option to get atmos audio.


That is a good point to bear in mind. And, by the same token, here in the U.S. the availability and affordability of HSI does not approach that of most European countries. Whereas Blu-ray discs are very cheap to produce and require very little additional investment of the consumer, wherever he may live, beyond a cheap player.

Also factoring into the continued appeal of physical media is the desire on the part of many consumers to have a tangible object in their collection. It's one reason e-books will never replace printed books for the enthusiast.


----------



## chi_guy50

gwsat said:


> I used to rent almost every movie title I watched on Disk. After I upgraded my audio system to add Atmos/DTS:X capability, though, I started to buy nearly everything. As you noted a dispiritingly high percentage of rental disks aren't encoded with an immersive format. Still, I continue to rent BDs from a nearby Redbox kiosk and have been considering renewing my Netflix disk rental contract. All of that said, I have really enjoyed the UHD HDR disks I have bought, especially those that have TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA soundtracks.


For the full-feature audio experience in a rental disk (whether Blu-ray or UHD BR), there's always 3D-BlurayRental. Although the service is not as convenient as Netflix, its per-disc subscription price of under $5.00 is a nice alternative to purchasing movies you have no interest in collecting.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gene4ht said:


> ...but is a moot point for PJ's as PJ's will likely not support DV. The Panny however, has an excellent feature especially effective for PJs called the Dynamic Range Slider that compensates for darkly mastered HDR titles.


The OPPO 203 also has a feature like this.


----------



## tonygeno

sdurani said:


> The former are official home Atmos speaker locations (Front Height & Rear Height) but in my experience the latter does a better job of phantom imaging sounds above you (configured as Top Front & Top Rear, aimed at the listener at the opposite end of the row).


Thanks, Sanjay. It will be easier to add the extra speakers to the side, so if it works better, it's an added bonus. I've ordered two sets of the SVS Prime elevation speakers and will give them a whirl over the weekend.


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> The OPPO 203 also has a feature like this.


Hi Scott...I believe you're referring to the "Target Luminance" setting on the Oppo 203 that allows tweaking of the HDR to SDR conversion. The "Dynamic Range Slider" on the Panny 900 is different, is strictly for HDR, increases image brightness without negatively impacting the color gamut...works great for projectors. As I also own the Oppo, I contacted Oppo support to understand if there was a similar feature in the works for the 203 but got the standard ND verbiage.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gene4ht said:


> Hi Scott...I believe you're referring to the "Target Luminance" setting on the Oppo 203 that allows tweaking of the HDR to SDR conversion. The "Dynamic Range Slider" on the Panny 900 is different, is strictly for HDR, improves image brightness without negatively impacting the color gamut...works great for projectors. As I also own the Oppo, I contacted Oppo support to understand if there was a similar feature in the works for the 203 but got the standard ND verbiage.


Ahh, okay. I didn't know that. No HDR playback capability over here. 

Thanks for the clarification!

You say it works great for projectors. Umm... my OPPO works great on my projector. Maybe yours has HDR.


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> Ahh, okay. I didn't know that. No HDR playback capability over here.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification!
> 
> You say it works great for projectors. Umm... my OPPO works great on my projector. Maybe yours has HDR.


Yes, my Epson 5040 is HDR capable. The Oppo 203 is fine with SDR material through my Epson 5040. With HDR material, the Oppo lags the Panny 900 in brightness.

As I understand it, currently studios are not yet marching to the same standard in terms of HDR mastering. Consequently, some HDR titles are fine while others like The Martian & The Revenant are too dark...especially for projectors. Most flat panel displays have the necessary lumens for most HDR and BT2020 content while most current projectors do not due to a lack of lumens. Projectors have no difficulty with SDR and BT709 and produce beautiful images. However because of the lack of lumens, projectors (even so called HDR capable projectors) have difficulty with dark HDR BT2020 material. The Oppo 203 produces an excellent SDR BT709 image on a projector, but the Panasonic 900 produces a better/brighter HDR image on a projector while maintaining BT2020.


----------



## audioguy

gene4ht said:


> Yes, my Epson 5040 is HDR capable. The Oppo 203 is fine with SDR material through my Epson 5040. With HDR material, the Oppo lags the Panny 900 in brightness.
> 
> As I understand it, currently studios are not yet marching to the same standard in terms of HDR mastering. Consequently, some HDR titles are fine while others like The Martian & The Revenant are too dark...especially for projectors. Most flat panel displays have the necessary lumens for most HDR and BT2020 content while most current projectors do not due to a lack of lumens. Projectors have no difficulty with SDR and BT709 and produce beautiful images. However because of the lack of lumens, projectors (even so called HDR capable projectors) have difficulty with dark HDR BT2020 material. The Oppo 203 produces an excellent SDR BT709 image on a projector, but the Panasonic 900 produces a better/brighter HDR image on a projector while maintaining BT2020.


Which is exactly the reason I use SDR/WCG on my JVC and large AT screen. It is excellent whereas HDR was too variable and in most cases, lacked sufficient brightness. In fact, 1080P upscaled to 4K is excellent.


----------



## gene4ht

audioguy said:


> Which is exactly the reason I use SDR/WCG on my JVC and large AT screen. It is excellent whereas HDR was too variable and in most cases, lacked sufficient brightness. In fact, 1080P upscaled to 4K is excellent.


Absolutely...your points apply equally to the Epson as well. As I mentioned, SDR and 1080 upscaling are excellent on current projectors but lack the lumens necessary to do HDR justice. My point is the Panasonic 900 with its Dynamic Range Slider feature does HDR/WCG better than the Oppo 203.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gene4ht said:


> Absolutely...your points apply equally to the Epson as well. As I mentioned, SDR and 1080 upscaling are excellent on current projectors but lack the lumens necessary to do HDR justice. My point is the Panasonic 900 with its Dynamic Range Slider feature does HDR/WCG better than the Oppo 203.


I'm well happy with the Dynamic Range Slider in the Panasonic UBR-BD400. The resulting image on my Pioneer Kuro is the best I have seen with any content to date on it.


----------



## audioguy

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm well happy with the Dynamic Range Slider in the Panasonic UBR-BD400. The resulting image on my Pioneer Kuro is the best I have seen with any content to date on it.


I have seen HDR on the $60,000 Sony and it still doesn't do much for me. The ONLY HDR I have seen that would make me do backflips (If I were able) was on the very newest Sony flat panels. As projectors get more lumen capability, and the studios figure out some common standards they will all follow, I am perfectly happy to just ignore 4K -- as long as they don't exclude 1080P discs from having 3D audio -- but even at that, may just depend on using DSU or Neural:X


----------



## Mashie Saldana

audioguy said:


> I have seen HDR on the $60,000 Sony and it still doesn't do much for me. The ONLY HDR I have seen that would make me do backflips (If I were able) was on the very newest Sony flat panels. As projectors get more lumen capability, and the studios figure out some common standards they will all follow, I am perfectly happy to just ignore 4K -- as long as they don't exclude 1080P discs from having 3D audio -- but even at that, may just depend on using DSU or Neural:X


The UHD exclusive Atmos releases are the only reason I got the UHD player at this stage. A 4K TV is a few years out still. The fake HDR offered by the player makes a nice improvement here, the scenic shots in The Martian looked really good so an added bonus for now.


----------



## gene4ht

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm well happy with the Dynamic Range Slider in the Panasonic UBR-BD400. The resulting image on my Pioneer Kuro is the best I have seen with any content to date on it.


I've heard many report this as well. It's unfortunate the 400 is not available in the US.


----------



## gene4ht

audioguy said:


> I have seen HDR on the $60,000 Sony and it still doesn't do much for me. The ONLY HDR I have seen that would make me do backflips (If I were able) was on the very newest Sony flat panels. As projectors get more lumen capability, and the studios figure out some common standards they will all follow, I am perfectly happy to just ignore 4K -- as long as they don't exclude 1080P discs from having 3D audio -- but even at that, may just depend on using DSU or Neural:X


HDR (HDR10, DV, HLG, etc) is still pretty much in infancy. It's just that some of us enthusiast/early adopters are a bit further along the "bleeding edge."


----------



## audioguy

gene4ht said:


> HDR (HDR10, DV, HLG, etc) is still pretty much in infancy. It's just that some of us enthusiast/early adopters are a bit further along the "bleeding edge."


I am all about "bleeding edge". I had ChadB calibrate my JVC and Oppo for 4K/HDR. On a few movies, it looked just OK but on most, way less than just OK. Had my screen been smaller or higher gain (e.g. >2), it might have helped but with 10 foot wide and a screen gain of less than 1, not an "upgrade" to my eyes. 

To insure I don't end up spending more $$ for a new PJ, I will just stay away from all HT stores, friend's systems, industry shows and HT magazines and websites !!


----------



## Frank D

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm well happy with the Dynamic Range Slider in the Panasonic UBR-BD400. The resulting image on my Pioneer Kuro is the best I have seen with any content to date on it.


Did you get a chance to compare the UBR-BD400 to the 900 model? Is the only difference having the pre outs?


----------



## ki11abee

I have a question I couldn't seem to find an answer to. I ordered a Yamaha rx a1070 so I can start with 2 atmos ceiling speakers to my existing setup. When I play movies now that only have 5.1, the receiver does a great job of producing rear back sound to the speakers even though the disc doesn't have the extra 2 channels for back surrounds. When I have the ceiling speakers, will the 1070 or any receiver out there do that for non atmos disc? Do they somehow make sound come out from the top even though it's not atmos disc? Or is that where DTSX comes in better?


----------



## Jonas2

ki11abee said:


> When I have the ceiling speakers, will the 1070 or any receiver out there do that for no need atmos disc? Do they somehow make sound come out from the top even though it's not atmos disc? Or is that where DTSX comes in better?


Yes, the Dolby Surround algorithm will upmix sound tracks to all speakers, provided the receiver has it on board. I find this to actually work quite well, at least on my processor. It's pretty impressive really.


----------



## ki11abee

Jonas2 said:


> Yes, the Dolby Surround algorithm will upmix sound tracks to all speakers, provided the receiver has it on board. I find this to actually work quite well, at least on my processor. It's pretty impressive really.


Im assuming this https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-a1070_u/index.html
Can do that since it just came out?


----------



## Jonas2

ki11abee said:


> Im assuming this https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-a1070_u/index.html
> Can do that since it just came out?


I would be extremely surprised if it couldn't!


----------



## rekbones

ki11abee said:


> I have a question I couldn't seem to find an answer to. I ordered a Yamaha rx a1070 so I can start with 2 atmos ceiling speakers to my existing setup. When I play movies now that only have 5.1, the receiver does a great job of producing rear back sound to the speakers even though the disc doesn't have the extra 2 channels for back surrounds. When I have the ceiling speakers, will the 1070 or any receiver out there do that for non atmos disc? Do they somehow make sound come out from the top even though it's not atmos disc? Or is that where DTSX comes in better?


On my Marantz 7009 the DS upmix does an amazing job. I watch Apocalypse Now Redux from Hulu that was actually just mixed in stereo and upmixed to 7.1.4 and the helicopters actually sounded like they were flying overhead.


----------



## showmak

Kong Skulls Island was added to my favorite Atmos movie. Amazing sound tracks...


----------



## Kevnmin

*Ceiling speakers side positioning*

I'm ready to cut holes in the sheetrock for my ceiling speakers, and like the hundreds of others in this forum, I'm asking for some advice on the lateral positioning from MLP in relationship to my fronts and surrounds. I've included 3 screen shots of my room rendering. Basic Room size is 15 feet by 11 feet with a funky corner for entrance/exit. Ceiling height is 7-1/2 feet. I'm starting with the top rears in the ceiling then as funds replenish, I'll replace my current top front bookshelfs that are tilted & toed in, currently, well below the minimum recommended angle.
In the screen shots, the rear position distance of the top rears is fixed to in between floor joists so that cant change. It results in a 48-51 degree vertical angle depending on final seat positioning. It also leaves 22 inches to the rear wall. The side to side positioning that I question is set up at a 45 vertical position. As shown in the screen shots, this places the ceiling speakers out of on-axis alignment with the fronts and rears and leaves 18 inches to side walls.

With all that said, my question to you all with way more knowledge than I, should I cut holes in the side positioning where I have it laid out? Or move ceiling speaker closer to wall placing more in alignment with fronts/surrounds? Or move them even further away from the wall creating more distance from on-axis alignment?

Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to reading the responses.


----------



## gwsat

showmak said:


> Kong Skulls Island was added to my favorite Atmos movie. Amazing sound tracks...


The Kaleidescape store made the _Kong: Skull Island_ UHD HDR Atmos files available yesterday. I bought the movie and downloaded it to my Kscape Strato. A poster in the Strato thread was also impressed with the films TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. I'm looking forward to seeing it.


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> The Kaleidescape store made the _Kong: Skull Island_ UHD HDR Atmos files available yesterday. I bought the movie and downloaded it to my Kscape Strato. A poster in the Strato thread was also impressed with the films TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. I'm looking forward to seeing it.


The digital code I bought is supposed to be emailed to me on Thursday so I hope it will redeem soon afterwards so I can watch on Vudu UHD...


----------



## showmak

lujan said:


> The digital code I bought is supposed to be emailed to me on Thursday so I hope it will redeem soon afterwards so I can watch on Vudu UHD...



You will definitely enjoy it


----------



## Jonas2

Kevnmin said:


> With all that said, my question to you all with way more knowledge than I, should I cut holes in the side positioning where I have it laid out? Or move ceiling speaker closer to wall placing more in alignment with fronts/surrounds? Or move them even further away from the wall creating more distance from on-axis alignment?


I know diagrams can be deceiving and not necessarily true to scale - but they don't look that far off to me. I don't think it'll matter all that much given that Atmos arrangements have play in them, don't need to be perfect!

One question I do have though, does that surround left have to be back in the entrance to the space? What about moving surround right forward a bit, then bring surround left into the same room opposite, they'd be just forward of the rear-heights relative. I'm just wondering if the corner closest to the surround left might affect sound coming from that direction....

Are you doing subs, just not shown here?


----------



## Kevnmin

Jonas2 said:


> I know diagrams can be deceiving and not necessarily true to scale - but they don't look that far off to me. I don't think it'll matter all that much given that Atmos arrangements have play in them, don't need to be perfect!
> 
> One question I do have though, does that surround left have to be back in the entrance to the space? What about moving surround right forward a bit, then bring surround left into the same room opposite, they'd be just forward of the rear-heights relative. I'm just wondering if the corner closest to the surround left might affect sound coming from that direction....
> 
> Are you doing subs, just not shown here?


Thanks, you are correct, the subs just not shown. Three 12 inchers. Two in the front and one in the rear. The sub in the rear really helps with dispersion of sound out away into the open space.

I'd love to pull the left surround up, just slowly have to convince my better half into the idea. I've tried it forwards before and surprisingly, even with it back though, Audyssey compensates rather well for it being set back and away. One thing at a time though. Its been six months to get the go ahead with the rear ceiling speakers. Thank you Fathers Day for that one


----------



## aaronwt

chi_guy50 said:


> If your question was meant to pertain solely to Netflix, then there might be something to it. My own personal wish, on the contrary, has always been that they would move in the opposite direction and upgrade their physical media (disc-by-mail) service to include UHD Blu-ray at the same time that they are broadening the streaming side of the business. Unfortunately, I have seen no signs of any move in this direction as yet despite what IMO has been an impressive launch for UHD BRD. Ironically, the disc-by-mail subscriptions are actually more profitable per capita than those of the streaming service--which would seem to mitigate against terminating the service (or spinning it off, as CEO Reed Hastings tried to do six years ago with disastrous results) at least for the time being. But Netflix has not been promoting the disc-by-mail service to any significant degree, the subscriber numbers are declining, and although he has been chastised by the bone-headed way he mishandled it in 2011 ("Qwikster" will live in infamy alongside New Coke), I think Hastings still envisions ending it in the medium (five- to ten-year) term.
> 
> If you were implying the demise of video on disc in general--then no, decidedly not.


I get emails regularly from Netflix asking me to come back to their Disc service. If they didn't want to lose me after being a disc Customer since February 1999, they shouldn't have screwed over with the streaming increase. They told me it would go up $2 but raised it for instead. So in protest I dropped the disc service last year. And have no desire to come back. Especially since www.3d-blurayrental.com has UHD BD and 3D BD rentals. In addition to 2D BD and PS4/Xbox1 rentals.

I finally ordered a small Atmos/DTS:X system to use with my UHD set. The Onkyo HT-S7800. I decided on that over the Sony Atmos speaker bar because one, the price is much lower. Two, it handles DTS:X and ATMos along with 7.1 PCM. And three, it has eight HDMi inputs.


----------



## srinivas1015

Does anybody have a copy of the* Battlefront demo in Atmos*?

This one: http://www.demo-world.eu/2016/11/22/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-sep-2016/


----------



## gwsat

I watched my copy of _Hacksaw Ridge_ again earlier and was once again blown away by its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. If there is another soundtrack with better immersive effects and LFE, I don't know what it could be.


----------



## lujan

gwsat said:


> I watched my copy of _Hacksaw Ridge_ again earlier and was once again blown away by its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. If there is another soundtrack with better immersive effects and LFE, I don't know what it could be.


Yes, this is one (if not the favorite) of my favorites for 2017 and I give both video and audio 5 stars.


----------



## chi_guy50

aaronwt said:


> I get emails regularly from Netflix asking me to come back to their Disc service. *If they didn't want to lose me after being a disc Customer since February 1999, they shouldn't have screwed over with the streaming increase. They told me it would go up $2 but raised it for instead. So in protest I dropped the disc service last year. *And have no desire to come back. Especially since www.3d-blurayrental.com has UHD BD and 3D BD rentals. In addition to 2D BD and PS4/Xbox1 rentals.
> 
> I finally ordered a small Atmos/DTS:X system to use with my UHD set. The Onkyo HT-S7800. I decided on that over the Sony Atmos speaker bar because one, the price is much lower. Two, it handles DTS:X and ATMos along with 7.1 PCM. And three, it has eight HDMi inputs.


IKWYM. I cancelled my Netflix sub in September 2011 after getting that insulting email from CEO Reed Hastings. But they really have an unparalleled catalog, and their system is incredibly efficient and user-friendly, and so after a little more than two years (after Hastings had done his penitence and the disc-by-mail service had been restored to the fold), I resubscribed. If only they stocked UHD BRD's and the full retail version of all the discs (like 3D-BlurayRental), I would gladly pay double or triple the current charges. 

BTW, any time I slip up and order an Atmos title that doesn't have the immersive sound track on the disc (e.g., Lionsgate), I report that the disk was defective; it's my way of standing up against the practice of short-changing the rental customer and letting Netflix know of my dissatisfaction. But ordinarily I am careful to get those titles from 3D-BlurayRental.

Boy, if ever there were a corporate merger that would provide customer-friendly synergies, this would be it!


----------



## Rgdeuce

Finally joined the club, 5.2.2 setup in my 1,350 cu. ft home theater. Completely blown away.


----------



## Jonas2

Rgdeuce said:


> Finally joined the club, 5.2.2 setup in my 1,350 cu. ft home theater. Completely blown away.


Yep, it's a different experience, isn't it?


----------



## aaronwt

Rgdeuce said:


> Finally joined the club, 5.2.2 setup in my 1,350 cu. ft home theater. Completely blown away.


Wow!! That's the size of my condo!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## deano86

Uhhh... I believe he wrote Cubic feet, not square feet! lol!


----------



## aaronwt

deano86 said:


> Uhhh... I believe he wrote Cubic feet, not square feet! lol!


🤔 Whoops!!!! doh!!!!!!!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Overthinker

I'm thinking of running:

(1) a 2.1.2 or 4.1.2 setup in my main media room (no center, very small surrounds or no surrounds, upward-firing Atmos in a room with a 9' perfectly flat ceiling; Atmos would likely be in the front); and

(2) a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup with front height bookshelfs in my bedroom.

Does anyone have any experience with such configurations? In particular:

-Would a low-end Atmos receiver support such configs? I'm thinking of a Denon X1300W or a Yamaha v581. I know initially the answer was no, but I've heard Dolby has started to bless such smaller configurations.

-If supported, is the effort/expense of setting up the extra Atmos speakers worth it for such configurations? I understand these configurations are not ideal, but there's no possibility of doing it right where I currently live (e.g. in-ceilings, or full 5.1.2/5.1.4). It would be the configurations I suggested or just sticking with simple 2.1/3.1 setups.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## chi_guy50

Overthinker said:


> I'm thinking of running:
> 
> (1) a 2.1.2 or 4.1.2 setup in my main media room (no center, very small surrounds or no surrounds, upward-firing Atmos in a room with a 9' perfectly flat ceiling; Atmos would likely be in the front); and
> 
> (2) a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup with front height bookshelfs in my bedroom.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with such configurations? In particular:
> 
> -*Would a low-end Atmos receiver support such configs? I'm thinking of a Denon X1300W or a Yamaha v581.* I know initially the answer was no, but I've heard Dolby has started to bless such smaller configurations.
> 
> -*If supported, is the effort/expense of setting up the extra Atmos speakers worth it for such configurations?* I understand these configurations are not ideal, but there's no possibility of doing it right where I currently live (e.g. in-ceilings, or full 5.1.2/5.1.4). It would be the configurations I suggested or just sticking with simple 2.1/3.1 setups.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


1) I'm not intimately familiar with those particular models but don't know of a reason why they would have any difficulty with your proposed setups. (I assume you realize that you would need a separate AVR for each room.)

2) Only you can decide whether the result is worth the trouble/expense since that is a subjective judgment, but I think you will appreciate the enhancement that the height dimension provides--not to mention enabling the "sparkles" (© Bob Pariseau) of Atmos audio objects, which cannot be decoded without height speakers.

And, lastly, to point out the obvious: You're "overthinking" this.


----------



## Hresna

Overthinker said:


> I'm thinking of running:
> (1) a 2.1.2 or 4.1.2 setup in my main media room (no center, very small surrounds or no surrounds, upward-firing Atmos in a room with a 9' perfectly flat ceiling; Atmos would likely be in the front); and
> (2) a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup with front height bookshelfs in my bedroom.


These are interesting and unnusual ideas. I am not sure to what extent a traditional AVR would entertain these rather "niche" implementations (In the worst case, you'd have to tell the AVR you have a 4.1.2 or something, and you'd lose some of the sound effects going to yoru phantom non-existant surrounds). 

But, if you can get thoe height speakers anywhere near the sides of your MLP, you'd likely get much better value configuring it as a 5.1 (even if they were in your ceiling). There is tends of thousands of films with 5.1 tracks, and only a handful with Atmos that will unlock elevation channels. The matrixing is unlikely to provide as good an immersion as decoding the natural 5.1 track. Just a suggestion.

On a side note, some current AVRs (like the Yamaha A3060) lets you use Front Heights to create "virtual" surrounds; something like that might still be better than going with a 2.1.2, if you really really really can't position those extra speakers towards the back of the room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Overthinker said:


> I'm thinking of running:
> 
> (1) a 2.1.2 or 4.1.2 setup in my main media room (no center, very small surrounds or no surrounds, upward-firing Atmos in a room with a 9' perfectly flat ceiling; Atmos would likely be in the front); and
> 
> (2) a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup with front height bookshelfs in my bedroom.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with such configurations? In particular:
> 
> -Would a low-end Atmos receiver support such configs? I'm thinking of a Denon X1300W or a Yamaha v581. I know initially the answer was no, but I've heard Dolby has started to bless such smaller configurations.
> 
> -If supported, is the effort/expense of setting up the extra Atmos speakers worth it for such configurations? I understand these configurations are not ideal, but there's no possibility of doing it right where I currently live (e.g. in-ceilings, or full 5.1.2/5.1.4). It would be the configurations I suggested or just sticking with simple 2.1/3.1 setups.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Just don't bother with immersive surround. With those configurations it wouldn't be worth it with no real benefits, and I doubt you could get rendering layouts like those to work anyway... without something like a Trinnov processor.


----------



## Selden Ball

Overthinker said:


> I'm thinking of running:
> 
> (1) a 2.1.2 or 4.1.2 setup in my main media room (no center, very small surrounds or no surrounds, upward-firing Atmos in a room with a 9' perfectly flat ceiling; Atmos would likely be in the front); and
> 
> (2) a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup with front height bookshelfs in my bedroom.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with such configurations? In particular:
> 
> -Would a low-end Atmos receiver support such configs? I'm thinking of a Denon X1300W or a Yamaha v581. I know initially the answer was no, but I've heard Dolby has started to bless such smaller configurations.
> 
> -If supported, is the effort/expense of setting up the extra Atmos speakers worth it for such configurations? I understand these configurations are not ideal, but there's no possibility of doing it right where I currently live (e.g. in-ceilings, or full 5.1.2/5.1.4). It would be the configurations I suggested or just sticking with simple 2.1/3.1 setups.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


All of those speaker configurations are supported by Denon and Marantz for Atmos, but DTS:X requires a center speaker. (I dunno what Yamaha's limitations might be.) Having overheads, even with no surround speakers, does provide substantial additional entertainment value, but only you can decide if it's worth it for you. If the ceiling is flat, you might consider using up-pointing (reflecting) Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers if installing overheads is too much of a pain.


----------



## sprins

Overthinker said:


> I'm thinking of running:
> 
> (1) a 2.1.2 or 4.1.2 setup in my main media room (no center, very small surrounds or no surrounds, upward-firing Atmos in a room with a 9' perfectly flat ceiling; Atmos would likely be in the front); and
> 
> (2) a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup with front height bookshelfs in my bedroom.


Have you read this already?

*I Used Dolby Atmos-Enabled Speakers in a 2.2.2 System & Here’s What Happened*


----------



## batpig

Having played a bit with 2.1.2 for fun, I'm of the opinion that in a small room (where you don't want to install surround speakers) a 2.1.2 setup is perfectly viable and adds some nice expansion of ambiance / immersion vs. straight stereo. 

You can get a pair of the excellent Pioneer Elite Andrew Jones Atmos speakers for $399: http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...os-speakers-by-andrew-jones-black-pair/1.html

Run them with an entry-level Atmos receiver, and a small sub or two, and you can have a very high quality, budget friendly system that will sound a lot more "spacious" than a plain 2ch setup thanks to the extra diffuse effects bouncing off the ceiling. No, it won't have the spatial resolution of a real Atmos surround sound setup, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand (especially Atmos is now standard on entry-level units).


----------



## Kadath

Agreed, I love my AJ set, even tho they are bouncing off a sloped ceiling. Expect ambiance, not the laser like precision you can get from 4 speakers on a flat ceiling. It's totally different but still very cool.


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> IKWYM. I cancelled my Netflix sub in September 2011 after getting that insulting email from CEO Reed Hastings. But they really have an unparalleled catalog, and their system is incredibly efficient and user-friendly, and so after a little more than two years (after Hastings had done his penitence and the disc-by-mail service had been restored to the fold), I resubscribed. If only they stocked UHD BRD's and the full retail version of all the discs (like 3D-BlurayRental), I would gladly pay double or triple the current charges.
> 
> *BTW, any time I slip up and order an Atmos title that doesn't have the immersive sound track on the disc (e.g., Lionsgate), I report that the disk was defective; it's my way of standing up against the practice of short-changing the rental customer and letting Netflix know of my dissatisfaction. But ordinarily I am careful to get those titles from 3D-BlurayRental.*
> 
> Boy, if ever there were a corporate merger that would provide customer-friendly synergies, this would be it!


Last week I actually committed this faux pas and accidentally ordered _John Wick: Chapter 2_ (a Lionsgate release) from Netflix. Of course, it arrived with a DD5.1 sound track instead of the retail Dolby Atmos. (BTW, to add insult to injury, the movie itself--a mindless video game disguised as a feature film--stinks.)

In addition to reporting the disk as defective, I also called customer service and had them send me an additional disc from my queue as compensation. I highly recommend everyone follow this practice in order to give Netflix an incentive rolleyes to renegotiate their distribution arrangement with Lionsgate.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> Last week I actually committed this faux pas and accidentally ordered _John Wick: Chapter 2_ (a Lionsgate release) from Netflix. Of course, it arrived with a DD5.1 sound track instead of the retail Dolby Atmos. (BTW, to add insult to injury, the movie itself--a mindless video game disguised as a feature film--stinks.)
> 
> In addition to reporting the disk as defective, I also called customer service and had them send me an additional disc from my queue as compensation. I highly recommend everyone follow this practice in order to give Netflix an incentive rolleyes to renegotiate their distribution arrangement with Lionsgate.


If that's their policy, outrageous as it is and I support your position, how come don't they just reply with "no, it's supposed to be DD5.1, it is not defective"? I don't understand why they caved and compensated you. (You don't get grovelling/compensating service like that here with our UK companies, we have to lump it!)


----------



## Mrjmc99

With Disney finally going UHD with Gaurdians 2, has anyone seen if they will do atmos or dts:x with their releases? I'm assuming atmos, since all (most) of the theatrical releases are atmos, but you know what happens when you assume... it would be a shame for them not to include any 3d audio on their UHD releases.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mrjmc99 said:


> With Disney finally going UHD with Gaurdians 2, has anyone seen if they will do atmos or dts:x with their releases? I'm assuming atmos, since all (most) of the theatrical releases are atmos, but you know what happens when you assume... it would be a shame for them not to include any 3d audio on their UHD releases.
> 
> Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


Dolby Atmos along with Dolby Vision. I don't know about remixes. That's a 50/50 proposition. I do believe those titles that did have a theatrical Atmos mix will get Atmos on the UHD Blu-ray discs (_not_ on the regular BD discs, however).


----------



## ki11abee

chi_guy50 said:


> Last week I actually committed this faux pas and accidentally ordered _John Wick: Chapter 2_ (a Lionsgate release) from Netflix. Of course, it arrived with a DD5.1 sound track instead of the retail Dolby Atmos. (BTW, to add insult to injury, the movie itself--a mindless video game disguised as a feature film--stinks.)
> 
> In addition to reporting the disk as defective, I also called customer service and had them send me an additional disc from my queue as compensation. I highly recommend everyone follow this practice in order to give Netflix an incentive rolleyes to renegotiate their distribution arrangement with Lionsgate.


I used to run into this problem with redbox. I would get a blu ray, only to find out it had normal DTS or DD sound instead of HD. I havent used them in a long time!!!


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> If that's their policy, outrageous as it is and I support your position, how come don't they just reply with "no, it's supposed to be DD5.1, it is not defective"? I don't understand why they caved and compensated you. (You don't get grovelling/compensating service like that here with our UK companies, we have to lump it!)


I am not privy to the details of Netflix's arrangements with the distributors and so do not know what would be involved in renegotiating the deal. It could just be a question of financial considerations, or there could be other strategic factors involved on Lionsgate's part. But the fact that other, smaller companies (such as 3D-BlurayRental) are able to obtain and rent out the full retail version makes me think that Netflix could do the same if they thought it made business sense.

As to why "they caved": In my experience, their front-line customer service is very responsive and usually follows the motto that "the customer is always right." After all, the cost of granting a concession such as this is negligible, and the good will it generates makes conceding the request on a case-by-case basis an easy call.

BTW, the Netflix rep I spoke with said that I was not the first to complain about that title lacking the Atmos sound track. (She even commented that she considered herself pretty knowledgeable about A/V but had not heard of this "Atmos immersive audio" innovation.) 

My point in proselytizing this issue here is that if we care about the advancement of immersive audio, we ought to make the various industry sources (and fellow consumers) aware of its impact on the product's desirability and marketability.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> My point in proselytizing this issue here is that if we care about the advancement of immersive audio, we ought to make the various industry sources (and fellow consumers) aware of its impact on the product's desirability and marketability.


Absolutely! I'm glad you get such good results. The monopoly and dominant pay-TV provider here in the UK, Sky, offers a "buy and keep" 'service' where you "buy" a download to the STB which is HD with maximum 5.1 DD audio (the STB can't do more than that), and then the advert says they'll send you "the DVD" in the post so that you can keep it. 


Spoiler










This is 2017. The idea that they'd sent "the Blu-Ray" or "the UHD Blu-Ray" is simply not on the table, and from a completely different universe. If you phoned them up and asked, not only would they pretend that they didn't know what a Blu-Ray was, they would be speaking the truth.
And (not that I'd go for one of those offers, but) I bet that "the DVD" would be a special Sky bare-bones version with 

no extras, 
no directors commentaries, 
everything missing, etc.
Their purchasing screens are *deliberately created to withhold this vital information* so that you can't find out before you buy (as in your case). So I'm 100% behind you


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> Absolutely! I'm glad you get such good results. The monopoly and dominant pay-TV provider here in the UK, Sky, offers a "buy and keep" 'service' where you "buy" a download to the STB which is HD with maximum 5.1 DD audio (the STB can't do more than that), and then the advert says they'll send you "the DVD" in the post so that you can keep it.
> 
> This is 2017. The idea that they'd sent "the Blu-Ray" or "the UHD Blu-Ray" is simply not on the table, and from a completely different universe. If you phoned them up and asked, not only would they pretend that they didn't know what a Blu-Ray was, they would be speaking the truth.
> And (not that I'd go for one of those offers, but) I bet that "the DVD" would be a special Sky bare-bones version with
> 
> no extras,
> no directors commentaries,
> everything missing, etc.
> Their purchasing screens are *deliberately created to withhold this vital information* so that you can't find out before you buy (as in your case). So I'm 100% behind you


Well, that sucks!

As far as Netflix's truth in advertising is concerned, their product page lists the audio content for both DVD and BRD; however, that info is not reliably accurate (N.B.: I have brought this to their attention multiple times but it seems the disc info in their database comes from a third-party source, probably the distributor itself, and there's not much they can do about it in-house at present), which bolsters my case for complaining after the fact.

Last night we watched another Netflix BRD rental, the very impressive _Get Out_ (from Universal Studios). It had a very good DTS-HD MA 5.1 track, but the special features--which in this case are particularly interesting as they include an alternate ending in addition to director's commentary, deleted scenes, and other extras--were missing (this appears to be standard practice for Universal on their rental discs). I will wait for the UHD BRD, which is due out in September with a DTS:X/DTS-HD MA 7.1 track, to see the movie a second time and enjoy the special features. On the plus side, this is a feature that definitely bears rewatching for the added layers that can only be fully appreciated once the denouement is revealed!


----------



## zeus33

chi_guy50 said:


> -which in this case are particularly interesting as they include an alternate ending in addition to director's commentary, deleted scenes, and other extras--were missing



The alternate ending was not good and was exactly what you would expect it to be. The deleted scenes were deleted for a reason and rightfully so. You didn't miss a thing.


----------



## chi_guy50

zeus33 said:


> The alternate ending was not good and was exactly what you would expect it to be. The deleted scenes were deleted for a reason and rightfully so. You didn't miss a thing.


I'm not so sure that I agree with you on that. But aside from the relative merits of the alternate ending (I've already watched a synopsis of it with some comments from Jordan Peele) and the deleted scenes (which I've also subsequently viewed), I am very much looking forward to the director's commentary on the film itself.

IOW, I'll be watching the entire movie at least two more times on UHD BRD. Maybe by that time the AVR in my system will also be able to decode the DTS:X track.


----------



## Sean Spamilton

*Angle overhead speakers towards MLP? Which Direction?*

Hey all, 

So I've done quite a bit of reading about proper overhead placement in a 7.1.4 config and am a bit confused about something. It seems that you can angle speakers straight down if they have proper dispersion characteristics (which aren't widely available for all speakers) or you can angle them.

I've got a 9.1 config at the moment but will move my height speakers to more closely resemble the recommended atmos recommendations, but I'm confused about with respect to the angle. The ceiling speakers I'm getting (Polk Atrium5's which have similar characteristics to my Polk RTI setup) have the ability to rotate to point in whatever direction from their mounting point, but should I also angle them to be pointed directly at the MLP?

To whit:









So the ceiling speakers in front of the couch could point 1. down, 2. at a 45 degree angle towards the couch or 3 (purple line) at a 45 degree angle AND pointed directly at the MLP. Would that clutter up directionality too much? Thanks!!

Sean.


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> Last week I actually committed this faux pas and accidentally ordered _John Wick: Chapter 2_ (a Lionsgate release) from Netflix. Of course, it arrived with a DD5.1 sound track instead of the retail Dolby Atmos. (BTW, to add insult to injury, the movie itself--a mindless video game disguised as a feature film--stinks.)
> 
> In addition to reporting the disk as defective, I also called customer service and had them send me an additional disc from my queue as compensation. I highly recommend everyone follow this practice in order to give Netflix an incentive rolleyes to renegotiate their distribution arrangement with Lionsgate.


I can understand your frustration with Lionsgate's practice and your subsequent practice with Netflix. However, WRT to your perspective of John Wick: Chapter 2, I'll offer a slightly different point of view. If you approach JW 2 as pure campy entertainment, it's actually very well done. If it's intellectual stimulus you're seeking, look elsewhere.


----------



## sdurani

Sean Spamilton said:


> The ceiling speakers I'm getting (Polk Atrium5's which have similar characteristics to my Polk RTI setup) have the ability to rotate to point in whatever direction from their mounting point, but should I also angle them to be pointed directly at the MLP?


I would point them at the listener farthest away, to compensate for the distance.


----------



## chi_guy50

gene4ht said:


> I can understand your frustration with Lionsgate's practice and your subsequent practice with Netflix. However, WRT to your perspective of John Wick: Chapter 2, I'll offer a slightly different point of view. * If you approach JW 2 as pure campy entertainment, it's actually very well done. If it's intellectual stimulus you're seeking, look elsewhere.*


In other words . . .


----------



## dvdmd1

Exactly !! that's why I enjoyed XXX Return Of Xander Cage.I took it or what it was,outragious over the top action.


----------



## 1hasbro1

Greetings,

I am getting four Atmos ceiling speakers installed this week to complete a 5.1.4. system in my family room. My surrounds are around 66" behind the fixed MLP position. I know the optimum Dolby speaker placement for my situation would be 5' in front of and five' behind the MLP but such rear orientation would put them six linear inches from the bed speakers. Am I going to be okay doing this or should I use 40 degree or so orientation to provide extra spacing?

I should also add that I am planning a narrow horizontal orientation of the ceilings so they will be at least 36" diagonally away from each surround.

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## eddiemg24

*Atmos question*

Before I start spending money on an atmos speaker setup and configuring my room in the best way possible I'd like to see if I can get some of its effect with my existing speakers. My sound room is in a small room in my basement, roughly 10 by 13 with an open area on the right side. I have 6" 6" ceilings. I currently have a 6.2 system with large Snell Mains, Snell Bipolars attached to the rear side walls and one small Deftech speaker in the rear. My receiver only allows for two Atmos speakers so I would like to put a pair of bookshelf speakers facing upward on my mains. These speakers are Miller and Kreisel S1 speakers. My other alternative would be to bracket mount these speakers to the front wall and tilt them downward. I would like to hear comments and recommendations. Again realize I am not looking for perfection here just something to give my system some height sound. Thanks in advance for your response.


----------



## helvetica bold

Any concerns mixing Elac B5s as a base for a 5.1 and 4 SVS elevation speakers? Im thinking this would be a good combo for my 5.1.4 system.


----------



## unretarded

gene4ht said:


> I can understand your frustration with Lionsgate's practice and your subsequent practice with Netflix. However, WRT to your perspective of John Wick: Chapter 2, I'll offer a slightly different point of view. If you approach JW 2 as pure campy entertainment, it's actually very well done. If it's intellectual stimulus you're seeking, look elsewhere.



One overlooked aspect to this is the time spent on weapons training and the attempt to make it as realistic as possible on weapons operation.


You can watch youtube vids of him training on courses with pro`s in 3 gun comps etc.

If you pay attention to weapons operation, he fires the correct amount of rounds....does mag changes and does a good job at weapons handling..........not the sort of thing that makes a difference to most in a shoot em up film, but was refreshing to see.

It is the best weapons handling I have seen in a film of this nature.............while a 900 round string of tracers from a 30 round mag makes for good shoot em up action, I prefered the more realistic approach this film used.


Great attention to detail was taken in this aspect of the film.


No whipping out curveballs like the matrix firing upside down while performing a gymastic trick, which is quite entertaing itself, but completely the opposite of this movie.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I would rather enjoy a true Bullet-time sequence in the next JW. Fo sho.


----------



## gene4ht

unretarded said:


> One overlooked aspect to this is the time spent on weapons training and the attempt to make it as realistic as possible on weapons operation.
> 
> 
> You can watch youtube vids of him training on courses with pro`s in 3 gun comps etc.
> 
> If you pay attention to weapons operation, he fires the correct amount of rounds....does mag changes and does a good job at weapons handling..........not the sort of thing that makes a difference to most in a shoot em up film, but was refreshing to see.
> 
> It is the best weapons handling I have seen in a film of this nature.............while a 900 round string of tracers from a 30 round mag makes for good shoot em up action, I prefered the more realistic approach this film used.
> 
> 
> Great attention to detail was taken in this aspect of the film.
> 
> 
> No whipping out curveballs like the matrix firing upside down while performing a gymastic trick, which is quite entertaing itself, but completely the opposite of this movie.


Many have also noted the outstanding choreography of the fight sequences...


----------



## Csbooth

Good evening. It's been some time since I've frequented this particular thread, but I'll be re-calibrating my setup in the next day or two and wanted to get confirmation of something that was specific to the two competing (Read: Dolby Atmos/DTS:X) formats.

Does DTS:X still only send height signal information with no bleeding to the base level speakers when set to the FH/RH configuration? In other words, when set to TF/TR, it will not be as "pin-pointy" when I watch an "X movie" as when set to FH/RH? 

From memory, (it's been months since I have had time to watch a movie, sadly) I noticed no perceivable difference in regards to height effects on Atmos films (Gravity) when I was using FH/RH; but the opposing option was a very noticeable change when dealing with DTS:X movies as TF/TR (The Last Witch Hunter/American Ultra) The biggest factor was TLWH's test tones, however.

It's not a big deal if it's still needing to be set that way, and especially if it needs to remain that way forever, as I enjoyed it just fine when set to FH/RH (I personally enjoy telling if something is coming from above, so anyone who feels it should "blend", that opinion will fall on deaf ears, somewhat literally haha). It's more a matter of it irking my OCD, since I'm closer to a TF/TR layout by design for my room size. Although, I would probably be considered close enough to FH/RH it doesn't really matter lol.

Just in case it matters, my AVR is the Marantz SR7010. I'm not sure if certain mfr(s) have it set --Restricted-- it this way for some reason, so thought I would share that. Thanks in advance everyone for any help that you can provide!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yes. Still no changes (afaik) with the settings for DTS:X versus Atmos.

You will still need to configure DTS:X playback with HEIGHT and Atmos with TOP for best results.


----------



## Csbooth

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Still no changes (afaik) with the settings for DTS:X versus Atmos.
> 
> You will still need to configure DTS:X playback with HEIGHT and Atmos with TOP for best results.


Thanks Scott for such a speedy response!

In your opinion, do you notice enough difference to toggle between the two? If so, do you know if when I run Audyssey set to FH/RH, will I need to rerun, each time I want or need to switch to TF/TR? 

I'm guessing there's ways to save configurations for each via a PC or something, but for convenience sake, I was wondering if I even needed to run another calibration or would it be able to remember that information.

Lastly, if I don't notice enough or any difference, I should just be happy and stay with FH/RH, right?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Csbooth said:


> Thanks Scott for such a speedy response!
> 
> In your opinion, do you notice enough difference to toggle between the two?


In my opinion? Yes!

I was one of if not THE first one to notice this behavior when the DTS:X update came out for Yamaha.

To me, it is quite noticeable especially when doing channel tests of sorts. Wow is it audible! During movie watching, I found the overhead sensation was moderately lessened and the overall "bubble" of sound being squashed and often resulting in "phasey" sounding effects when overheads were utilized. Now watching something I am unfamiliar with? I might not notice but something will be "off". I've accidentally left my settings as TOP while watching DTS:X titles and would eventually fix it. So it's that noticeable to me, if that means anything to you.




Csbooth said:


> If so, do you know if when I run Audyssey set to FH/RH, will I need to rerun, each time I want or need to switch to TF/TR?
> 
> I'm guessing there's ways to save configurations for each via a PC or something, but for convenience sake, I was wondering if I even needed to run another calibration or would it be able to remember that information.


Good question. I don't know. I'd ask someone like @batpig who knows the Denon/Marantz eco-system better than I. I want to say a new update came out that allows saving more than one instance of Audyssey curve but.... I don't know for sure.



Csbooth said:


> Lastly, if I don't notice enough or any difference, I should just be happy and stay with FH/RH, right?


Umm... sure. Why ask me? Ask yourself. It's not my ears and brain listening to your system.


----------



## healthnut

eddiemg24 said:


> Before I start spending money on an atmos speaker setup and configuring my room in the best way possible I'd like to see if I can get some of its effect with my existing speakers. My sound room is in a small room in my basement, roughly 10 by 13 with an open area on the right side. I have 6" 6" ceilings. I currently have a 6.2 system with large Snell Mains, Snell Bipolars attached to the rear side walls and one small Deftech speaker in the rear. My receiver only allows for two Atmos speakers so I would like to put a pair of bookshelf speakers facing upward on my mains. These speakers are Miller and Kreisel S1 speakers. My other alternative would be to bracket mount these speakers to the front wall and tilt them downward. I would like to hear comments and recommendations. Again realize I am not looking for perfection here just something to give my system some height sound. Thanks in advance for your response.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## healthnut

healthnut said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Of the two options you present, bracketing speakers downward appears the best option. You have a small space, and one of the criteria for good surround is some separation between the speakers. Your ceiling height is also quite low, which also presents a challenge. It doesn't mean you can't get good results, but expectations need to be managed accordingly. Although Dolby recommends conventional, forward firing surround speakers, in my opinion, bipolars can work very well to create a greater sense of space and depth, particularly in smaller rooms. Although it may be more difficult than in a larger room, I think you can get an effective surround presentation in a room such as yours. Good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Csbooth

Scott Simonian said:


> In my opinion? Yes!
> 
> I was one of if not THE first one to notice this behavior when the DTS:X update came out for Yamaha.
> 
> To me, it is quite noticeable especially when doing channel tests of sorts. Wow is it audible! During movie watching, I found the overhead sensation was moderately lessened and the overall "bubble" of sound being squashed and often resulting in "phasey" sounding effects when overheads were utilized. Now watching something I am unfamiliar with? I might not notice but something will be "off". I've accidentally left my settings as TOP while watching DTS:X titles and would eventually fix it. So it's that noticeable to me, if that means anything to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. I don't know. I'd ask someone like @batpig who knows the Denon/Marantz eco-system better than I. I want to say a new update came out that allows saving more than one instance of Audyssey curve but.... I don't know for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... sure. Why ask me? Ask yourself. It's not my ears and brain listening to your system.


Thanks for your opinions on the matter. I'm going to give it another listen to soon, and make a final decision. Part of me wants to hear what I'm missing, in a literal sense, but the other part wants to not hear it if it means having to switch back and for between movies, ESPECIALLY if it means running Audyssey each time. 

Thanks again!


----------



## Scott Simonian

Csbooth said:


> Thanks for your opinions on the matter. I'm going to give it another listen to soon, and make a final decision. Part of me wants to hear what I'm missing, in a literal sense, but the other part wants to not hear it if it means having to switch back and for between movies, ESPECIALLY if it means running Audyssey each time.
> 
> Thanks again!



And don't feel bad if that is what you choose to do. As if doing so results in us taking your "AV enthusiast card" away. 

Honestly, if I had to be stuck with one setting... I'd probably leave it as the "most used one" too.


----------



## Chadolac

Hello all! First time posting, so please bare with me if anything I say comes across wrong!

I recently purchased a home that has the benefit of us needing to do some renos.. what a great time to enhance my set up you might think, well so did I!

Right now I'm running a 5.1 set up with an old HK reciever and Mission tower speakers, I love them.

What I'm thinking I want is to wire the house for a future 7.1 set up, and while I'm at it.. add ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos..

Here's the kicker, most gents are saying You should use at least four ceiling speakers for optimization, yet most affordable recievers only support 5.1.2.. 

So my question is, what are your thoughts on wiring four speakers to work on the .2 channel? As shown below..

I currently have four ceiling speakers that should be up to the task and am thinking of upgrading my receiver to the Sony STR DN1080 which should be able to handle the power required.


----------



## bluemark81

I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I got tired of going through all the posts. My speakers are Paradigm Signature S6's which have a curved top, so they are not conducive to placing atmos speakers on them. Can atmos speakers go on a stereo cabinet that sites between the front speakers like in the photo?










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ChiWestSider

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. Still no changes (afaik) with the settings for DTS:X versus Atmos.
> 
> You will still need to configure DTS:X playback with HEIGHT and Atmos with TOP for best results.


I recently went from FH & RH to FH & TM. I found previously very little difference between DSU & Neural X, with an advantage to Neural X being my listening pleasure. I've found no audible difference between Atmos and DTS:X when playing soundtracks.

I switched to the FH TM after moving and mounting my speakers. I ran setup again and played the helicopter demo. With the DSU engaged, I find that the sound stays in the rear surround speakers and above me panning side to side but never to the front. Once I switched to Neural:X, the helicopter swooped over head just fine. I think this is what some other forum members was talking about a few day ago about the time that WONDERFUL LINK was posted for demos!


----------



## ki11abee

I just added a new receiver to try out the atmos with 2 ceiling speakers added to my existing 7.2 and was b,own away with a movie that wasn't even in atmos. I watched revenge of the fallen and love that the new speakers get sound to them even though it's not on the blu ray thanks to the receiver the receiver somehow just sounds so nice compared to my older one(vsx1120). I'm in the debate if I should just leave my back surrounds as is or move them to the back part of the ceiling. I just feel I need the back surrounds. I always hear them doing work nicely also on 5.1 movies. For now, I'm loving 7.2.2.


----------



## Hresna

Chadolac said:


> What I'm thinking I want is to wire the house for a future 7.1 set up, and while I'm at it.. add ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos..
> 
> Here's the kicker, most gents are saying You should use at least four ceiling speakers for optimization, yet most affordable recievers only support 5.1.2..
> 
> So my question is, what are your thoughts on wiring four speakers to work on the .2 channel? As shown below..
> 
> I currently have four ceiling speakers that should be up to the task and am thinking of upgrading my receiver to the Sony STR DN1080 which should be able to handle the power required.


That is an interesting idea and I'm sure someone out there has done a variant of this. I haven't studied your wiring diagram to see exactly how it works from an electrical load side, but the concept would be a power share between all four speakers so you might be volume limited.

Of particular note, however, if you have .2 of processing, the most you'd want to double up on the wiring is 2 speakers so that you have discrete left and rights (or maybe front and back). In a true Atmos implementation, all four would be discrete so you would get object imaging between them. The Atmos decoders are forced to a Left/Right decode of atmos speakers in pairs, so if you were to have a pair of Lefts and a Pair of Right, separated front to back, they are both getting the same audio, but dispersing it more evenly across your MLP. You'll get proper left-right object panning, but no front/back panning (which is the case for a regular 5.1.2). I'm not sure whether the boost in the benefit of the extra 2 in a .4 comes from this front/back object decoding (it is certainly part of it), or if it is subjectively more to do with the more enveloping speaker placement and less directional sound. 

In the very worst case, you can set it up this way with your budget-friendly AVR, and upgrade later on to one that will do the processing for all 11 channels (for a bump up in price, but there are still non-separates solutions available). Some, like mine, have only 9 amps, so an inexpensive 2ch external amplifier is used to amplify the final 2 channels, but I get a discrete 7.2.4. In your case, you could do a 5.2.4 with this model without the need of an external amp.

[When you do upgrade, though, you'll be rewiring those speakers, so give yourself some play and accessibility to the wires, or figure out a simple way to have both wiring configs available from the get-to with only minimal adjustment through an accessible connector box, or something]

Caveat: I'm hardly an expert. Hopefully you get some other opinions as well.


----------



## deano86

Chadolac said:


> Hello all! First time posting, so please bare with me if anything I say comes across wrong!
> 
> I recently purchased a home that has the benefit of us needing to do some renos.. what a great time to enhance my set up you might think, well so did I!
> 
> Right now I'm running a 5.1 set up with an old HK reciever and Mission tower speakers, I love them.
> 
> What I'm thinking I want is to wire the house for a future 7.1 set up, and while I'm at it.. add ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos..
> 
> Here's the kicker, most gents are saying You should use at least four ceiling speakers for optimization, yet most affordable recievers only support 5.1.2..
> 
> So my question is, what are your thoughts on wiring four speakers to work on the .2 channel? As shown below..
> 
> I currently have four ceiling speakers that should be up to the task and am thinking of upgrading my receiver to the Sony STR DN1080 which should be able to handle the power required.


So, you have money set aside for some renovations, but yet you are going to skimp on the Atmos receiver?  Don't put the effort in to install and wire up 4 speakers and then cobble your system together like that. By all means, mount and wire up your 4 ceiling speakers in their recommended positions, but you should be able to find a used or refurbished 9.2 channel capable receiver that fits in your budget and do it right. Don't waste your time with only a 7.2 channel unit that can only process 2 top/height locations when you are one of the lucky ones whose room can support 4 proper ceiling speakers!


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> In my opinion? Yes!
> 
> I was one of if not THE first one to notice this behavior when the DTS:X update came out for Yamaha.
> 
> To me, it is quite noticeable especially when doing channel tests of sorts. Wow is it audible! During movie watching, I found the overhead sensation was moderately lessened and the overall "bubble" of sound being squashed and often resulting in "phasey" sounding effects when overheads were utilized. Now watching something I am unfamiliar with? I might not notice but something will be "off". I've accidentally left my settings as TOP while watching DTS:X titles and would eventually fix it. So it's that noticeable to me, if that means anything to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. I don't know. I'd ask someone like @batpig who knows the Denon/Marantz eco-system better than I. I want to say a new update came out that allows saving more than one instance of Audyssey curve but.... I don't know for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... sure. Why ask me? Ask yourself. It's not my ears and brain listening to your system.


Out of curiosity, do you also think Neural:X works better with height configuration or do you leave it set to Tops? I know you use Yamaha equipment so which setting do you feel is better for Yamaha DSP?


----------



## Jonas2

Chadolac said:


> Hello all! First time posting, so please bare with me if anything I say comes across wrong!
> 
> I recently purchased a home that has the benefit of us needing to do some renos.. what a great time to enhance my set up you might think, well so did I!
> 
> Right now I'm running a 5.1 set up with an old HK reciever and Mission tower speakers, I love them.
> 
> What I'm thinking I want is to wire the house for a future 7.1 set up, and while I'm at it.. add ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos..
> 
> Here's the kicker, most gents are saying You should use at least four ceiling speakers for optimization, yet most affordable recievers only support 5.1.2..
> 
> So my question is, what are your thoughts on wiring four speakers to work on the .2 channel? As shown below..
> 
> I currently have four ceiling speakers that should be up to the task and am thinking of upgrading my receiver to the Sony STR DN1080 which should be able to handle the power required.


My thoughts are that you should not waste your time or money trying it this way. You will not get the intended result. By all means, install the 4 Atmos speakers, or at least pre-wire, but just save your money and purchase a receiver capable of processing all 11 channels. It's not like you need to buy a new receiver every year, so I recommend not pinching pennies here. Don't jump in just to jump in. The result you seek is best achieved with patience, and investing in proper gear up front, once. You can get an 11 channel receiver and drive all of the channels with one piece of equipment, or a lot of blokes may opt for an amp to drive mains, and then let the receiver handle the "lighter" channels (surrounds, heights). 

Just my opinion of course. 



bluemark81 said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I got tired of going through all the posts. My speakers are Paradigm Signature S6's which have a curved top, so they are not conducive to placing atmos speakers on them. Can atmos speakers go on a stereo cabinet that sites between the front speakers like in the photo?


I don't know that I'd place them on the cabinet like that, but that's just me. You could pick up a pair of inexpensive speaker stands and place the up-firing modules on those, that is, if you have the space next to your speakers to accommodate them? Just a thought, and I don't know how well that would work either.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> Out of curiosity, do you also think Neural:X works better with height configuration or do you leave it set to Tops? I know you use Yamaha equipment so which setting do you feel is better for Yamaha DSP?


I played around with this a little bit. Haven't done much more after I came to the conclusion of sticking to TOP for both upmixers. 


You should too. Watch some stuff you like and try either setting. I think with an upmixer it is user choice anyway. An upmixer, by definition, is changing the original content to suit it's parameters. It's all personal taste at this point, imho.


Yamaha's DSP modes are not directional with use of steering logic so I haven't even tested that (TOP vs. HEIGHT) at all. Good question though.


----------



## sdurani

bluemark81 said:


> My speakers are Paradigm Signature S6's which have a curved top, so they are not conducive to placing atmos speakers on them. Can atmos speakers go on a stereo cabinet that sites between the front speakers like in the photo?


Atmos upfiring modules don't have to be placed directly on top of a speaker cabinet. The modules can be placed within 3 feet of their respective speaker, as long as they are at/around ear height. The top of your stereo cabinet looks like it is well below ear height, so it is not conducive to placing Atmos modules on it. Maybe you can mount some small shelves on the wall, just above your main L/R speakers.


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> I played around with this a little bit. Haven't done much more after I came to the conclusion of sticking to TOP for both upmixers.
> 
> 
> You should too. Watch some stuff you like and try either setting. I think with an upmixer it is user choice anyway. An upmixer, by definition, is changing the original content to suit it's parameters. It's all personal taste at this point, imho.
> 
> 
> Yamaha's DSP modes are not directional with use of steering logic so I haven't even tested that (TOP vs. HEIGHT) at all. Good question though.


I find it interesting that you choose to leave your configuration as tops for Neural:X but change it to heights for DTS:X. I get that an upmixer changes the source so it is all preference but logically it seems to me that if DTS developed their immersive codec to work best with a height configuration then they would do the same with their upmixer. Since switching between the 2 configs is extremely easy with yamaha equipment and you have tried both, I take it your opinion is Neural:X sounds better configured as tops and not heights.

Does anyone know for sure where the speakers are physically located in a DTS:X mixing room? From DTS:X test signals it seems obvious they use height configuration but I have not seen an actual mixing room to see where the speakers are physically located. As far as I know, all that has ever been posted is a diagram from an unofficial source. Maybe filmixer can tell us about the actual mixing rooms and if they are setup any differently for DTS:X and Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> I find it interesting that you choose to leave your configuration as tops for Neural:X but change it to heights for DTS:X. I get that an upmixer changes the source so it is all preference but logically it seems to me that if DTS developed their immersive codec to work best with a height configuration then they would do the same with their upmixer. Since switching between the 2 configs is extremely easy with yamaha equipment and you have tried both, I take it your opinion is Neural:X sounds better configured as tops and not heights.


Yes, I do.

The reason why it matters for native DTS:X content is because between Atmos and DTS:X, they have their designations backwards. With native DTS:X content, you must choose HEIGHT or else hear the crappy sounding version of it trying to relocate the sounds. 

With the upmixer, it doesn't make a difference which one is "correct" and as I have never seen documented anywhere.... that DTS recommends one setting or the other. Even Dolby doesn't.


If logic says you should use a certain setting then by all means...


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> The reason why it matters for native DTS:X content is because between Atmos and DTS:X, they have their designations backwards. With native DTS:X content, you must choose HEIGHT or else hear the crappy sounding version of it trying to relocate the sounds.
> 
> With the upmixer, it doesn't make a difference which one is "correct" and as I have never seen documented anywhere.... that DTS recommends one setting or the other. Even Dolby doesn't.
> 
> 
> If logic says you should use a certain setting then by all means...


I understand what you are saying and I am not trying to start an argument so I am sorry if I came across that way. I am just trying to have a discussion and learn. I was never talking about anything being 'correct' for Neural:X. After all, it is an upmixer nothing will be correct to the source. As I software developer, I think it is reasonable to think that if someone developed a codec to expect speakers to be in a certain position and configuration for best performance they would do everything possible to ensure that their upmixer sounded as best as it possibly could with that setup.

As you mentioned I have never seen DTS recommend or document anything regarding their codec or upmixer. I think this is a shame. Some official guidelines like the ones for Atmos would be nice even if it conflicted with Dolby's official atmos recommendation. Unless I am mistaken, the document I have seen showing the designations between atmos and dts:x being backwards are not official DTS documentation or recommendations. This is why I am curious how a DTS:X mixing room is setup. As far as I am aware, the DTS:X releases to date have been 7.1.4 channel tracks only and it would be very nice to know exactly where those .4 channels are physically located in the mixing room.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> I understand what you are saying and I am not trying to start an argument so I am sorry if I came across that way. I am just trying to have a discussion and learn.



It's okay. You did not. I am also here just tying to have a discussion. 



tbaucom said:


> I was never talking about anything being 'correct' for Neural:X. After all, it is an upmixer nothing will be correct to the source. As I software developer, I think it is reasonable to think that if someone developed a codec to expect speakers to be in a certain position and configuration for best performance they would do everything possible to ensure that their upmixer sounded as best as it possibly could with that setup.



Understood.

Reasonable expectation but I have found through experience is that in this hobby, there isn't always a correct answer for everything. As mentioned, neither Dolby or DTS recommends a setting for their upmixer. You asked me what I like and I answered.

I briefly tested both settings and came up with my own conclusion. You should do the same.



tbaucom said:


> As you mentioned I have never seen DTS recommend or document anything regarding their codec or upmixer. I think this is a shame. Some official guidelines like the ones for Atmos would be nice even if it conflicted with Dolby's official atmos recommendation. Unless I am mistaken, the document I have seen showing the designations between atmos and dts:x being backwards are not official DTS documentation or recommendations.


I see that you are very curious about this. Why not contact DTS and see what they say about it? If you find utility from their "guidelines" then you should seek it out officially.


Btw, the DTS:X documents showing the designations... which are you talking about? A link would help.




tbaucom said:


> This is why I am curious how a DTS:X mixing room is setup. As far as I am aware, the DTS:X releases to date have been 7.1.4 channel tracks only and it would be very nice to know exactly where those .4 channels are physically located in the mixing room.


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> It's okay. You did not. I am also here just tying to have a discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understood.
> 
> Reasonable expectation but I have found through experience is that in this hobby, there isn't always a correct answer for everything. As mentioned, neither Dolby or DTS recommends a setting for their upmixer. You asked me what I like and I answered.
> 
> I briefly tested both settings and came up with my own conclusion. You should do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are very curious about this. Why not contact DTS and see what they say about it? If you find utility from their "guidelines" then you should seek it out officially.
> 
> 
> Btw, the DTS:X documents showing the designations... which are you talking about? A link would help.


User preferences can and will be different.However, in my experience there is always design intent.

I don't think DTS will give me a straight answer but I will ask them anyway. I realize all mixing rooms are not exactly the same but I would think speaker layout should be generally similar across mixing stages that are mixing to the same format. For instance, I would think that an auro/atmos mixing studio would have the speakers in the same general area they recommend for playback. I am not as much concerned with the precise angle that is used for the .4 speakers in a DTS:X mixing stage but where they are generally located. I know I used 'exactly' but I meant are they on the ceiling in the same area as they would be for atmos. 

The DTS:X layout image I am referring to is the one posted in this thread numerous times. As far as I know it is not from any official source. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> The DTS:X layout image I am referring to is the one posted in this thread numerous times. As far as I know it is not from any official source. Please correct me if I am wrong.


There have been several images used before so ...if you can, please link the one you are talking about.



DTS has released no official documents, instructions, white papers.... nothing. 

They sure have put out plenty of marketing though.


----------



## tbaucom

I don't have a link and don't have time to search thru the thread right now. I am referring to the one showing height at 45 degrees and tops at 60 degrees.





Scott Simonian said:


> There have been several images used before so ...if you can, please link the one you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> DTS has released no official documents, instructions, white papers.... nothing.
> 
> They sure have put out plenty of marketing though.


----------



## javanpohl

So I've been brainstorming ways for me to bring my overhead channels closer together on my high, sloped ceiling, more specifically, a way to hang my speakers from the ceiling at a distance of 2+ feet (so hanging down, 2+ feet away from the ceiling) and it finally dawned on me!!

Projector mounts!!

Finally decided on a very sturdy looking mount that comes with a drop length adjustable in the 22-32" range and can be extended via an attachment to much greater lengths if need be.

Hopefully bringing in the overheads closer will give me more of that sense of immersion that the .2 set-up gave me yet still offer the greater localization of .4.


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> I am referring to the one showing height at 45 degrees and tops at 60 degrees.


Those are from a DTS document sent to DTS:X licensees, instructing them on how to set up for trade shows and demos.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> I played around with this a little bit. Haven't done much more after I came to the conclusion of sticking to TOP for both upmixers.
> 
> 
> You should too. Watch some stuff you like and try either setting. I think with an upmixer it is user choice anyway. An upmixer, by definition, is changing the original content to suit it's parameters. It's all personal taste at this point, imho.
> 
> 
> Yamaha's DSP modes are not directional with use of steering logic so I haven't even tested that (TOP vs. HEIGHT) at all. Good question though.


I assume by "TOP" you mean telling the receiver, in my case a Yamaha 3060, that the speakers are in the ceiling. I also assume that by "HEIGHT" you mean telling the receiver that two of those speakers are mounted high on the wall. If so, then I have been doing the same thing you are, leaving all four of my in-ceiling speakers set for TOP, regardless of whether I am playing a TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA soundtrack. I use the 3060's Enhanced, Dolby, and Neural X DSPs pretty much interchangeably, without changing the settings of the four in-ceiling from TOP. It works very well.


----------



## tbaucom

sdurani said:


> Those are from a DTS document sent to DTS:X licensees, instructing them on how to set up for trade shows and demos.


Thank you. I take it this means DTS:X demos have used speakers on the ceiling and not in the traditional height locations? I have not been to or seen pictures of any demos so I was unsure about that.


----------



## carp

Scott Simonian said:


> Yamaha's DSP modes are not directional with use of steering logic so I haven't even tested that (TOP vs. HEIGHT) at all. Good question though.



I have tried both settings with my rear ceiling speakers (the ones that could have fallen on you while in deep REM because my installation skills are poor to quite poor ). 

As you know they are a bit more than the recommended 45% behind me, and when running YPAO the 3060 sets them to "height". When I tried it as both top and height I couldn't tell a difference. I didn't do much testing though, just enough to not have to think about it anymore.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> I don't have a link and don't have time to search thru the thread right now. I am referring to the one showing height at 45 degrees and tops at 60 degrees.


Thought so.

See @sdurani 's response.




gwsat said:


> I assume by "TOP" you mean telling the receiver, in my case a Yamaha 3060, that the speakers are in the ceiling. I also assume that by "HEIGHT" you mean telling the receiver that two of those speakers are mounted high on the wall. If so, then I have been doing the same thing you are, leaving all four of my in-ceiling speakers set for TOP, regardless of whether I am playing a TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA soundtrack. I use the 3060's Enhanced, Dolby, and Neural X DSPs pretty much interchangeably, without changing the settings of the four in-ceiling from TOP. It works very well.



TOP and HEIGHT = settings in configuration screen

"in ceiling" and "on wall" = physical locations

I have my front overhead speaker physically in a "height/on wall" location but I still set both front and rear overheads to TOP.





carp said:


> I have tried both settings with my rear ceiling speakers (the ones that could have fallen on you while in deep REM because my installation skills are poor to quite poor ).
> 
> As you know they are a bit more than the recommended 45% behind me, and when running YPAO the 3060 sets them to "height". When I tried it as both top and height I couldn't tell a difference. I didn't do much testing though, just enough to not have to think about it anymore.


Yeaahhh.... about that. 



Hey.... do whatever pleases ya.


----------



## carp

ChiWestSider said:


> I recently went from FH & RH to FH & TM. I found previously very little difference between DSU & Neural X, with an advantage to Neural X being my listening pleasure. I've found no audible difference between Atmos and DTS:X when playing soundtracks.
> 
> I switched to the FH TM after moving and mounting my speakers. I ran setup again and played the helicopter demo. With the DSU engaged, I find that the sound stays in the rear surround speakers and above me panning side to side but never to the front. Once I switched to Neural:X, the helicopter swooped over head just fine. I think this is what some other forum members was talking about a few day ago about the time that WONDERFUL LINK was posted for demos!


Over time I have slowly completely migrated from nothing but 2 channel music to now nothing but using the upmixer. I prefer DSU by a wide margin. Neural X sounds way too diffuse. I haven't tried a comparison with movies... I never think about it but I should compare sometime.


----------



## carp

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeaahhh.... about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.... do whatever pleases ya.






You owe your life to these:

https://www.lowes.com/pd/TOGGLER-10-Pack-0-25-in-x-2-5-in-Yellow-Zinc-Toggle-Bolts/3183831

As luck would have it, there was never a 2x4 or a joist in the places I wanted to put any of the surrounds or ceiling speakers. I discovered those togglers years ago and have been life savers (ha, literally) because they make all other dry wall anchors look like a joke.


----------



## usc1995

tbaucom said:


> Does anyone know for sure where the speakers are physically located in a DTS:X mixing room? From DTS:X test signals it seems obvious they use height configuration but I have not seen an actual mixing room to see where the speakers are physically located. As far as I know, all that has ever been posted is a diagram from an unofficial source. Maybe filmixer can tell us about the actual mixing rooms and if they are setup any differently for DTS:X and Atmos.


After reading this thread I got to googling and while I couldn't find any official direction from DTS I did find an interesting article that was put out after some journalists were invited by DTS to experience DTSX at their facilities. You can read the article here: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...highdef-digests-dtsx-home-theater-guide/22341 where you will see how DTS set up their room to demo for the journalists and get an idea of where they place the speakers. Also interesting in the article was a shot of the software, the MDA Creator, used by mixers to create the mixes (see attached). You can see in the photo how it matches up to the common diagram we have for where to place the speakers for DTSX. Hopefully that helps and gives you a little more confidence in where to place your speakers. Since the vast majority of the immersive audio mixes are in Atmos, I am content to place my speakers according to Dolby's guidelines and let my AVR figure out how to compensate when playing back DTSX files.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ehh. I wasn't worried.

I know what it has stood up to.


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> TOP and HEIGHT = settings in configuration screen
> 
> "in ceiling" and "on wall" = physical locations
> 
> I have my front overhead speaker physically in a "height/on wall" location but I still set both front and rear overheads to TOP.


I was thinking you had all of your .4 speakers on the ceiling in approximately the locations recommended by Dolby. In my setup my .4 speakers are mounted to the ceiling at around 45 degrees front and back. When I ran the angle measurement on my yamaha 3060 it set them both as tops. Have you experiment with things configured as front height and top rear?


----------



## sdurani

tbaucom said:


> I take it this means DTS:X demos have used speakers on the ceiling and not in the traditional height locations?


Speakers mounted overhead, though not physically on the ceiling. A good example is one of the smaller sound rooms at DTS headquarters:


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> I was thinking you had all of your .4 speakers on the ceiling in approximately the locations recommended by Dolby. In my setup my .4 speakers are mounted to the ceiling at around 45 degrees front and back. When I ran the angle measurement on my yamaha 3060 it set them both as tops. *Have you experiment with things configured as front height and top rear?*



Yes and the best sounding configuration is how I have it set now: both front and rear set as TOP/OVERHEAD. Only DTS:X needs a change to HEIGHT.

The 5100 correctly set them as front HEIGHT and rear TOP when I ran YPAO but I changed the settings to what it sounded (and rendered) best.


----------



## Hresna

gwsat said:


> I assume by "TOP" you mean telling the receiver, in my case a Yamaha 3060, that the speakers are in the ceiling. I also assume that by "HEIGHT" you mean telling the receiver that two of those speakers are mounted high on the wall. If so, then I have been doing the same thing you are, leaving all four of my in-ceiling speakers set for TOP, regardless of whether I am playing a TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA soundtrack. I use the 3060's Enhanced, Dolby, and Neural X DSPs pretty much interchangeably, without changing the settings of the four in-ceiling from TOP. It works very well.


I do the same with my A3060, though probably more from ignorance than indifference. I have not owned any films in DTS:X except as coincidence would have it, I picked up Underworld Blood Wars (UHD) on sale yesterday which does have DTSx. So now I don't wonder if I shouldn't do the same and have a separate configuration with them set as heights instead of ceiling for dtsx decoding. I downloaded some DTSx demo material but none of it is very conclusive. Would need to find test tones (I haven't tried DTS actual website, which is where the dolby ones can be found).

I did wonder about the neural:x upmixer, but @Scott Simonian seems to have tested that. I'll perhaps do some of my own sometime I have the time to play.

In the meantime, I think the A3060 can easily enough accommodate both setups through the two "speaker pattern" designations (and/or by using "scenes") for easy switching back and forth. Cost is just time and running another YPAO for good measure. When I get the 2nd sub hooked up, perhaps I'll do this again.


----------



## Scott Simonian

I'd like to meet this Scott Smithsonian.


----------



## ki11abee

Just went to atmos with new yamaha receiver and 2 ceiling speakers and just love it. I'm debating weather I should move my 2 surround backs to the top back to make it 5.2.4 from 7.2.2. But I feel I'll miss that rear effect. Also, my side surrounds are mountain up high above the ear pointed to listening area and don't know if it will interfere with the rear ceilings since they will be kinda close. I know sides are supposed to be lower, but I can't in my room.


----------



## tcartwright

bluemark81 said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I got tired of going through all the posts. My speakers are Paradigm Signature S6's which have a curved top, so they are not conducive to placing atmos speakers on them. Can atmos speakers go on a stereo cabinet that sites between the front speakers like in the photo?
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Preferably, the Atmos add-ons should be placed horizontally higher than your ears, in order to minimize the amount of audio you can hear directly from the speaker. In a perfect world, you would hear nothing directly from the speaker and everything would come reflected down to you from the ceiling, but... well... speakers aren't lasers.

Your cabinet seems like it is far too low, and you would get too much audio directly "line-of-sight" from the add-on speakers.


----------



## MarkZ

*Dolby Atmos Possible Problem*

Very interesting discussions. I have a question about upgrading my HT to Dolby Atmos. I've just upgraded to an Anthem AVM 60 from an AVM 20 using their 20% discount offer. I would like to upgrade my current 7.1 system to a 7.1.4. The room is about 20 x 19 (garage) that I converted into a recording studio control room in 1992. I'm using the Mackie HR824s for LCR, Mackie HRS120 sub, and 4 Event 20/20s for the surrounds. The Anthem has XLR balanced outputs that work great with these (old) studio monitors which maybe problematic given whatever is used for the Height 1 and 2 left and rights. Are there appropriate powered Atmos speakers you could recommend that can receive XLR cables that aren't too large or do I have to rig some sort of work around with with a separate amplifier and non powered speakers? Or do I need to resort to a Dolby Atmos Enabled speaker situation on top of the front LR and rear surround LR which many have said works but isn't as good as ceiling speakers? 
Thanks!


----------



## Chadolac

Jonas2 said:


> Chadolac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all! First time posting, so please bare with me if anything I say comes across wrong!
> 
> I recently purchased a home that has the benefit of us needing to do some renos.. what a great time to enhance my set up you might think, well so did I!
> 
> Right now I'm running a 5.1 set up with an old HK reciever and Mission tower speakers, I love them.
> 
> What I'm thinking I want is to wire the house for a future 7.1 set up, and while I'm at it.. add ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos..
> 
> Here's the kicker, most gents are saying You should use at least four ceiling speakers for optimization, yet most affordable recievers only support 5.1.2..
> 
> So my question is, what are your thoughts on wiring four speakers to work on the .2 channel? As shown below..
> 
> I currently have four ceiling speakers that should be up to the task and am thinking of upgrading my receiver to the Sony STR DN1080 which should be able to handle the power required.
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts are that you should not waste your time or money trying it this way. You will not get the intended result. By all means, install the 4 Atmos speakers, or at least pre-wire, but just save your money and purchase a receiver capable of processing all 11 channels. It's not like you need to buy a new receiver every year, so I recommend not pinching pennies here. Don't jump in just to jump in. The result you seek is best achieved with patience, and investing in proper gear up front, once. You can get an 11 channel receiver and drive all of the channels with one piece of equipment, or a lot of blokes may opt for an amp to drive mains, and then let the receiver handle the "lighter" channels (surrounds, heights).
> 
> Just my opinion of course.
> 
> Solid point,
> 
> I suppose I could look into a higher end reciever.. I'm not rich so a 6k + reciever is just not in the wheelhouse
> 
> Do you or anyone know of a reciever that fits into the real of affordable that is capable of 5.1.4 or higher? (7.1.4)
> 
> I'm open to suggestions
Click to expand...


----------



## Chadolac

Hresna said:


> Chadolac said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm thinking I want is to wire the house for a future 7.1 set up, and while I'm at it.. add ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos..
> 
> Here's the kicker, most gents are saying You should use at least four ceiling speakers for optimization, yet most affordable recievers only support 5.1.2..
> 
> So my question is, what are your thoughts on wiring four speakers to work on the .2 channel? As shown below..
> 
> I currently have four ceiling speakers that should be up to the task and am thinking of upgrading my receiver to the Sony STR DN1080 which should be able to handle the power required.
> 
> 
> 
> That is an interesting idea and I'm sure someone out there has done a variant of this. I haven't studied your wiring diagram to see exactly how it works from an electrical load side, but the concept would be a power share between all four speakers so you might be volume limited.
> 
> Of particular note, however, if you have .2 of processing, the most you'd want to double up on the wiring is 2 speakers so that you have discrete left and rights (or maybe front and back). In a true Atmos implementation, all four would be discrete so you would get object imaging between them. The Atmos decoders are forced to a Left/Right decode of atmos speakers in pairs, so if you were to have a pair of Lefts and a Pair of Right, separated front to back, they are both getting the same audio, but dispersing it more evenly across your MLP. You'll get proper left-right object panning, but no front/back panning (which is the case for a regular 5.1.2). I'm not sure whether the boost in the benefit of the extra 2 in a .4 comes from this front/back object decoding (it is certainly part of it), or if it is subjectively more to do with the more enveloping speaker placement and less directional sound.
> 
> In the very worst case, you can set it up this way with your budget-friendly AVR, and upgrade later on to one that will do the processing for all 11 channels (for a bump up in price, but there are still non-separates solutions available). Some, like mine, have only 9 amps, so an inexpensive 2ch external amplifier is used to amplify the final 2 channels, but I get a discrete 7.2.4. In your case, you could do a 5.2.4 with this model without the need of an external amp.
> 
> [When you do upgrade, though, you'll be rewiring those speakers, so give yourself some play and accessibility to the wires, or figure out a simple way to have both wiring configs available from the get-to with only minimal adjustment through an accessible connector box, or something]
> 
> Caveat: I'm hardly an expert. Hopefully you get some other opinions as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was worried that I'd be losing half the volume .. but maybe the reciever can compensate?

That being said, it might be worth just wiring it up, and waiting to add the last two speakers when recievers catch up cost wise


----------



## shyyour

Chadolac said:


> Jonas2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts are that you should not waste your time or money trying it this way. You will not get the intended result. By all means, install the 4 Atmos speakers, or at least pre-wire, but just save your money and purchase a receiver capable of processing all 11 channels. It's not like you need to buy a new receiver every year, so I recommend not pinching pennies here. Don't jump in just to jump in. The result you seek is best achieved with patience, and investing in proper gear up front, once. You can get an 11 channel receiver and drive all of the channels with one piece of equipment, or a lot of blokes may opt for an amp to drive mains, and then let the receiver handle the "lighter" channels (surrounds, heights).
> 
> Just my opinion of course.
> 
> Solid point,
> 
> I suppose I could look into a higher end reciever.. I'm not rich so a 6k + reciever is just not in the wheelhouse
> 
> Do you or anyone know of a reciever that fits into the real of affordable that is capable of 5.1.4 or higher? (7.1.4)
> 
> I'm open to suggestions
> 
> 
> 
> check Accessories4less. There's a Marantz SR6011 which is about $1k. It can do 5.1.4 & 7.1.4 with an external amp. It also can do both Dolby Atmos & DTS:X.
> 
> There are also cheaper 9.2 amps that do Dolby Atmos only or are limited to 7.1.2
Click to expand...


----------



## BGLeduc

bluemark81 said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I got tired of going through all the posts. My speakers are Paradigm Signature S6's which have a curved top, so they are not conducive to placing atmos speakers on them. Can atmos speakers go on a stereo cabinet that sites between the front speakers like in the photo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It is not optimum, but you may be able to make it work. My L/R (NHT Classic) also have curved tops, and my system set-up is very similar to yours. I am currently repurposing a pair of NHT SuperZero 2.1 speakers as bouncers, sitting on my rack. The results thus far are not bad.

I had no intention of ever going Atmos, but after buying a new Anthem MRX 720, I decided to experiment with a pair of mini-monitors sitting on top of my rack, angled back. I have yet to hear a discrete sound that seemed to come from the bounce point on the ceiling but, the sense of ambience is quite pronounced. I am not really getting any localization...just a very pronounced sense of ambience, depending upon the scene. In this orientation, the tweeters are just a few inches below seated ear height. I also created a sort of wave guide by applying some weatherstripping around the tweeter to further suppress direct sounds. Take a look at the PSB Atmos speakers to get an idea of what I was trying to mimic. 

I may eventually buy a proper pair of elevation speakers and wall mount then to the left and right of my display such that they can be above ear height as suggested, but thus far I am pleased with the results. Even more so, since I already owned the speakers it cost me nothing to experiment. 

Good luck.


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes and the best sounding configuration is how I have it set now: both front and rear set as TOP/OVERHEAD. Only DTS:X needs a change to HEIGHT.
> 
> The 5100 correctly set them as front HEIGHT and rear TOP when I ran YPAO but I changed the settings to what it sounded (and rendered) best.


In my setup, even though I actually have top(on ceiling speakers) in the front and rear I have always run them as height for DTS:X per the recommendations in this forum and that is also how I have been running them for Neural:X. That is why I wanted to know how others have their speakers configured for Neural:X. I had not seen it mentioned before. 

Last night I tested leaving them as top for Neural:X, This sounded fine though I think the elevation layer was noticeably lowered in the top configuration. I felt the elevation of the sound stage was more similar to Dolby Surround if i used top configuration for Dolby Surround and height for Neural:X. The thing I did like about top for Neural:X was the overhead speakers didn't seem to be as busy which I often find quite distracting when I use the DTS upmixer. From my testing, I would say the overhead speakers are less prominent when using Neural:X if configured as tops.


----------



## Jonas2

Chadolac said:


> Solid point,
> 
> I suppose I could look into a higher end reciever.. I'm not rich so a 6k + reciever is just not in the wheelhouse
> 
> Do you or anyone know of a reciever that fits into the real of affordable that is capable of 5.1.4 or higher? (7.1.4)
> 
> I'm open to suggestions


Oh, I can appreciate that. I'm not rich either, took me long time to save for what I have. But that's the point - unless time is against you somehow, you've got time to save and get what you really want. And you won't need $6,000, you'll be able to do this for a lot less.


----------



## Fafa2e

Jonas2 said:


> Oh, I can appreciate that. I'm not rich either, took me long time to save for what I have. But that's the point - unless time is against you somehow, you've got time to save and get what you really want. And you won't need $6,000, you'll be able to do this for a lot less.


I would like to get opinions on Atmos/DTSX speaker placement for my open floor plan room with a ceiling that slopes from the front (14 ft) to the back (8 ft). I am going to have an Atmos System installed by the end of the month and the dealer / installer has recommended the Top Front speakers be installed on the front wall near the ceiling (just under 14 ft) and the Top Rear speakers be installed behind the MLP just in front of a ceiling joist (about 9 ft high). The speakers will be Goldenear SuperSat 3c on swivel mounts so that they can be aimed at the MLP.

I am happy with the Top Rear placement, but I have some reservations with the Top Front placement. Do you think that the Top Front speakers will be too far forward (further back than the Front L/R - Goldenear Triton Ones) and too high for a good Atmos/DTSX sound field?


----------



## tbaucom

Hresna said:


> I do the same with my A3060, though probably more from ignorance than indifference. I have not owned any films in DTS:X except as coincidence would have it, I picked up Underworld Blood Wars (UHD) on sale yesterday which does have DTSx. So now I don't wonder if I shouldn't do the same and have a separate configuration with them set as heights instead of ceiling for dtsx decoding. I downloaded some DTSx demo material but none of it is very conclusive. Would need to find test tones (I haven't tried DTS actual website, which is where the dolby ones can be found).
> 
> I did wonder about the neural:x upmixer, but @Scott Simonian seems to have tested that. I'll perhaps do some of my own sometime I have the time to play.
> 
> In the meantime, I think the A3060 can easily enough accommodate both setups through the two "speaker pattern" designations (and/or by using "scenes") for easy switching back and forth. Cost is just time and running another YPAO for good measure. When I get the 2nd sub hooked up, perhaps I'll do this again.


I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying regarding DTS:X settings. To clarify, I think the consensus in this thread is you should have a separate setting for DTS:X with your speakers configured as height in the avr(different designation in the avr not physical location). Leaving the avr configuration as top is fine for Neural:X upmixer.


----------



## javanpohl

MarkZ said:


> Very interesting discussions. I have a question about upgrading my HT to Dolby Atmos. I've just upgraded to an Anthem AVM 60 from an AVM 20 using their 20% discount offer. I would like to upgrade my current 7.1 system to a 7.1.4. The room is about 20 x 19 (garage) that I converted into a recording studio control room in 1992. I'm using the Mackie HR824s for LCR, Mackie HRS120 sub, and 4 Event 20/20s for the surrounds. The Anthem has XLR balanced outputs that work great with these (old) studio monitors which maybe problematic given whatever is used for the Height 1 and 2 left and rights. Are there appropriate powered Atmos speakers you could recommend that can receive XLR cables that aren't too large or do I have to rig some sort of work around with with a separate amplifier and non powered speakers? Or do I need to resort to a Dolby Atmos Enabled speaker situation on top of the front LR and rear surround LR which many have said works but isn't as good as ceiling speakers?
> Thanks!


Is mounting more Event 20/20s on the ceiling for the Atmos speakers not an option?


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> In my setup, even though I actually have top(on ceiling speakers) in the front and rear I have always run them as height for DTS:X per the recommendations in this forum and that is also how I have been running them for Neural:X. That is why I wanted to know how others have their speakers configured for Neural:X. I had not seen it mentioned before.
> 
> Last night I tested leaving them as top for Neural:X, This sounded fine though I think the elevation layer was noticeably lowered in the top configuration. I felt the elevation of the sound stage was more similar to Dolby Surround if i used top configuration for Dolby Surround and height for Neural:X. The thing I did like about top for Neural:X was the overhead speakers didn't seem to be as busy which I often find quite distracting when I use the DTS upmixer. From my testing, I would say the overhead speakers are less prominent when using Neural:X if configured as tops.


If I had to describe how N:X sounded with it set to HEIGHT, I'd say it sounded taller. Not an overwhelming sense of overhead action. Less of it. More fuzzy but a bigger presentation. I actually thought it was okay. 

What sold me on using the TOP/OVERHEAD setting was that with much listening (full length movie watching) that often, very often with N:X I would get the sensation of a "legacy" audio mix sounding like a true 11.1 mix. I mean, really discrete (sounds like real Atmos) overhead action. I never got that using HEIGHT.

Also, it's a whole other button sequence on the remote to not have to deal with. I leave it in 'OVERHEAD MODE' all the time only switching to 'HEIGHT MODE' when decoding native DTS:X. Like most with D/M products, I'd rather stick to one setting than have to deal with another setting to tinker with when I just want to get on and watch a movie.


So while I get what you're saying "if native DTS:X prefers HEIGHT, why not the upmixer?" yes.... yes. All good questions. I prefer not to have to fiddle around with modes when I know the one that I set as default (TOP) sounds the best anyway. Whether DTS says so or not.


----------



## javanpohl

Fafa2e said:


> I would like to get opinions on Atmos/DTSX speaker placement for my open floor plan room with a ceiling that slopes from the front (14 ft) to the back (8 ft). I am going to have an Atmos System installed by the end of the month and the dealer / installer has recommended the Top Front speakers be installed on the front wall near the ceiling (just under 14 ft) and the Top Rear speakers be installed behind the MLP just in front of a ceiling joist (about 9 ft high). The speakers will be Goldenear SuperSat 3c on swivel mounts so that they can be aimed at the MLP.
> 
> I am happy with the Top Rear placement, but I have some reservations with the Top Front placement. Do you think that the Top Front speakers will be too far forward (further back than the Front L/R - Goldenear Triton Ones) and too high for a good Atmos/DTSX sound field?


I have about the same, exact situation and yes, I do believe the top front speakers are too far forward (currently mine are up a little ways on the sloped ceiling--mine is 9ft at the front and 16ish at the back). I just recently had the thought to use jerry-rigged projector mounts to hang the front speakers down from the ceiling to bring them closer to the listening position. My first atmos set-up was a .2 and I don't think the way I have it set-up now in a .4 gives enough of an "overhead" presence. 

However, your installer's proposed set-up might has some interesting potential. If the top fronts are located on the wall near the ceiling and the ceiling slopes down towards the listening position, then the ceiling is going to be reflecting and diffusing much of the sound from the top front, which COULD be pretty effective in rendering the overhead channel sound effects. The sound could be less localizable yet still have a weighty presence. The top rears being where they will be hard for your ears to localize anyways since they are not only behind you but also overhead, which has been my own experience with my own ears, anyways.

At any rate, you won't have a basis for comparison (in your own home, I'm assuming anyways) so chances are you still will be mightily impressed by the added height dimension regardless of how it might compare to other set-up scenarios.


----------



## tbaucom

Scott Simonian said:


> If I had to describe how N:X sounded with it set to HEIGHT, I'd say it sounded taller. Not an overwhelming sense of overhead action. Less of it. More fuzzy but a bigger presentation. I actually thought it was okay.
> 
> What sold me on using the TOP/OVERHEAD setting was that with much listening (full length movie watching) that often, very often with N:X I would get the sensation of a "legacy" audio mix sounding like a true 11.1 mix. I mean, really discrete (sounds like real Atmos) overhead action. I never got that using HEIGHT.
> 
> Also, it's a whole other button sequence on the remote to not have to deal with. I leave it in 'OVERHEAD MODE' all the time only switching to 'HEIGHT MODE' when decoding native DTS:X. Like most with D/M products, I'd rather stick to one setting than have to deal with another setting to tinker with when I just want to get on and watch a movie.
> 
> 
> So while I get what you're saying "if native DTS:X prefers HEIGHT, why not the upmixer?" yes.... yes. All good questions. I prefer not to have to fiddle around with modes when I know the one that I set as default (TOP) sounds the best anyway. Whether DTS says so or not.


Exactly. That is what I was trying to say by elevation. The sound stage isn't as tall with the top setting. To get the height or tallness that I perceive with Dolby Surround, Neural:X had to be in the height configuration. The top config seemed to isolate the output more closely to sounds that Neural:X thinks should be above you. It didn't seem to include as much overall ambiance.


----------



## Jonas2

Fafa2e said:


> I would like to get opinions on Atmos/DTSX speaker placement for my open floor plan room with a ceiling that slopes from the front (14 ft) to the back (8 ft). I am going to have an Atmos System installed by the end of the month and the dealer / installer has recommended the Top Front speakers be installed on the front wall near the ceiling (just under 14 ft) and the Top Rear speakers be installed behind the MLP just in front of a ceiling joist (about 9 ft high). The speakers will be Goldenear SuperSat 3c on swivel mounts so that they can be aimed at the MLP.
> 
> I am happy with the Top Rear placement, but I have some reservations with the Top Front placement. Do you think that the Top Front speakers will be too far forward (further back than the Front L/R - Goldenear Triton Ones) and too high for a good Atmos/DTSX sound field?


Hmmm. I just don't know, that seems too far forward and too high in my opinion. I've never heard such an arrangement, so it might work - but my sense is that certain sounds at least might seem off, those sounds that really were meant to pan around the Atmos speakers just might not produce the intended effect. Have you asked your dealer if they've done a similar install, and if so, hopefully they would be honest in reporting the results? 

The arrangement I'd imagine could still be immersive, and might not be too bad. However, it's not the way I'd do it, but I'm not an expert, and I know aesthetics must be taken into consideration and your dealer is likely thinking about that too.


----------



## Scott Simonian

tbaucom said:


> Exactly. That is what I was trying to say by elevation. The sound stage isn't as tall with the top setting. To get the height or tallness that I perceive with Dolby Surround, Neural:X had to be in the height configuration. The top config seemed to isolate the output more closely to sounds that Neural:X thinks should be above you. It didn't seem to include as much overall ambiance.


Yes. There is quite a drop in perceived ambiance using Neural:X. 

That is why I like to alternate between the two new upmixers based off my mood, the movie mix itself and...whatever else. But my opinion of the two is that I prefer DSU when a mix is more nuanced with a greater sense of ambiance. Now when I watch a more bombastic title where I have expectations of very aggressive audio, including overhead action... I prefer Neural:X.


Fight Club, Prometheus, The Revenant = DSU

Transfomers, Godzilla, Dredd = Neural:X

That's not to say I or anyone couldn't/shouldn't flip that around, I just found that is how I pick my upmixer these days. It's good to change it up from time to time. Now you're making me want to go back and relisten to some stuff with it set to HEIGHT (Neural:X).


----------



## gwsat

I choose from among my Yamaha 3060's DSPs based on what sounds best with any particular source. I probably use Enhanced the most, followed by either DD Surround or Neural:X. All three matrix non immersive soundtracks to 7.2.4. With a lossless TrueHD Atmos soundtrack I use Enhanced exclusively. Enhanced is designed to supplement the native Atmos, not alter it. To my ears at least, it works well.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> ...I use Enhanced exclusively. Enhanced is designed to supplement the native Atmos, not alter it. To my ears at least, it works well.


It simply puts a little bit of the lower speakers into the overheads. It fills the overheads with sound from all lower speakers including the center channel. 

Stopped using it right away with movies, at least. 

But Auromatic fans.... eat your heart out.


----------



## Hresna

Hresna said:


> In the meantime, I think the A3060 can easily enough accommodate both setups through the two "speaker pattern" designations (and/or by using "scenes") for easy switching back and forth. Cost is just time and running another YPAO for good measure. When I get the 2nd sub hooked up, perhaps I'll do this again.





tbaucom said:


> I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying regarding DTS:X settings. To clarify, I think the consensus in this thread is you should have a separate setting for DTS:X with your speakers configured as height in the avr(different designation in the avr not physical location). Leaving the avr configuration as top is fine for Neural:X upmixer.


My AVR has a feature that lets me switch more quickly between settings and retain room EQ for each. One of is called "speaker pattern" and has 2 that can be stored, which I think is the easiest way to go about it. In the one, I would have the elevations configured as "top" (like they are now, since they are in-ceiling) and in pattern-2, I would set them as front-high / height. I can have separate YPAO for each pattern (I think - and if not, I think I can use a "scene" for this). It's still a OSD menu toggle for the speaker pattern, and separate YPAO is likely unnecessary since, as you've said, the speakers are in the same physical location. (The "pattern" feature is likely for when speakers move around or different groupings are being used).

If I did it using a "scene", then I have one-button press on the remote (or the App) to alternate between the two (no OSD required), which would be the ideal for A/B testing.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. There is quite a drop in perceived ambiance using Neural:X.
> 
> That is why I like to alternate between the two new upmixers based off my mood, the movie mix itself and...whatever else. But my opinion of the two is that I prefer DSU when a mix is more nuanced with a greater sense of ambiance. Now when I watch a more bombastic title where I have expectations of very aggressive audio, including overhead action... I prefer Neural:X.
> 
> 
> Fight Club, Prometheus, The Revenant = DSU
> 
> Transfomers, Godzilla, Dredd = Neural:X
> 
> That's not to say I or anyone couldn't/shouldn't flip that around, I just found that is how I pick my upmixer these days. It's good to change it up from time to time. Now you're making me want to go back and relisten to some stuff with it set to HEIGHT (Neural:X).


Hold on a minute, are you trying to say that you don't have the Atmos version Dredd yet?

Personally I don't use DSU for anything since I love the front wides by far too much to leave them off.


----------



## grendelrt

Mashie Saldana said:


> Hold on a minute, are you trying to say that you don't have the Atmos version Dredd yet?
> 
> Personally I don't use DSU for anything since I love the front wides by far too much to leave them off.


I wish there was a 3d atmos version of dredd, the 3d is great in that movie, guess dsu for the best compromise lol

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> It simply puts a little bit of the lower speakers into the overheads. It fills the overheads with sound from all lower speakers including the center channel.
> 
> Stopped using it right away with movies, at least.
> 
> But Auromatic fans.... eat your heart out.


It's interesting how subjective tastes in sound are. I love the job Yamaha's Enhanced DSP does with TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. Most of the Yamaha 3060 users in the Yamaha X060 thread seem to agree. Thus, despite my profound respect for your deep knowledge of audio theory and practice, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Also, it's a whole other button sequence on the remote to not have to deal with.


Are you not using scene buttons for this? It's 1! button to change beteween height/tops !


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Hold on a minute, are you trying to say that you don't have the Atmos version Dredd yet?
> 
> Personally I don't use DSU for anything since I love the front wides by far too much to leave them off.


Of course I have Dredd in Atmos.

It was an example and still a valid one. Dredd 7.1 still sounds good in DSU/Neural:X.



gwsat said:


> It's interesting how subjective tastes in sound are. I love the job Yamaha's Enhanced DSP does with TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. Most of the Yamaha 3060 users in the Yamaha X060 thread seem to agree. Thus, despite my profound respect for your deep knowledge of audio theory and practice, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.


Hey, I didn't say you were wrong or that your tastes are bad.

I prefer a certain kind of performance from the upmixers I use. CinemaDSP is not an upmixer. You keep bringing it up interchanging with DSU and Neural:X. It's not the same thing. It is room simulation.



Nalleh said:


> Are you not using scene buttons for this? It's 1! button to change beteween height/tops !


Ugh. Dude... of course I do. Wasn't I like "the guy" spouting about the Yamaha Patterns last year?

But it's not just one button. It's two buttons! I have to hit Scene and then select the scene. That's a lot of work! Yeesh.


----------



## MarkZ

javanpohl said:


> Is mounting more Event 20/20s on the ceiling for the Atmos speakers not an option?


It's only really an aesthetic appearance problem because the 20/20s are almost a foot deep and the ceiling height is about 8'4" and because it was a control room at one point there's recessed lighting. Even without angling them toward the listening position they would protrude pretty low in the room. I was hoping for something perhaps 6" deep with the proper angle already built into the cabinet mounted to a flat ceiling might be available. But to add to that self powered and XLR connections I maybe way off base.  It could be I'll have to mount them on the left and right side walls at ceiling level or go the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers route. I've been away from all of this for 14 years so forgive me.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Ugh. Dude... of course I do. Wasn't I like "the guy" spouting about the Yamaha Patterns last year?
> 
> But it's not just one button. It's two buttons! I have to hit Scene and then select the scene. That's a lot of work! Yeesh.


The way you wrote it, it sounded like you went into meny and changed patterns manually 

2 buttons? Well, if you use more than 4 scenes yes, but if you have height on scene1 button and then tops on scene2 button, it's one button to change between them. Unless your 5100 is different than my older Yama AVR?


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey, I didn't say you were wrong or that your tastes are bad.
> 
> I prefer a certain kind of performance from the upmixers I use. CinemaDSP is not an upmixer. You keep bringing it up interchanging with DSU and Neural:X. It's not the same thing. It is room simulation.


I understood perfectly and was not offended. Anyway, at my age, how much credibility can be given to what I hear is questionable.



> Ugh. Dude... of course I do. Wasn't I like "the guy" spouting about the Yamaha Patterns last year?
> 
> But it's not just one button. It's two buttons! I have to hit Scene and then select the scene. That's a lot of work! Yeesh.


Two Buttons! Oh, the humanity! How much work do those AVR manufacturers expect us to do? 

Confession time. Although I have been aware of the conventional wisdom that native DTS:X is improved by changing the designation of two of the in-ceiling speakers from TOP to HEIGHT, I have been too lazy to setup the scenes for the purpose. Leaving all four in-ceiling speakers as TOP has worked well for all immersive content, to my no doubt questionable hearing, at least.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> The way you wrote it, it sounded like you went into meny and changed patterns manually
> 
> 2 buttons? Well, if you use more than 4 scenes yes, but if you have height on scene1 button and then tops on scene2 button, it's one button to change between them. Unless your 5100 is different than my older Yama AVR?


I only use the Yamaha APP with a tablet. I don't use the physical remote. Sometimes it can be clunky but for changing SCENES it's pretty easy. 

At the bottom of the screen I have selections: Input, DSP mode, Scenes, Remote...

So I just touch SCENES and then select either of the two scenes I made which are: OVERHEAD and HEIGHT.

Very easy. Much easier than actually switching from DSU to Neural:X which requires going through several steps of button presses and menus to change. Only way to do it faster is with the physical remote which I do not use.

Not a huge deal. I only switch the mode once before a movie begins. Unless I'm fiddling and testing... then it's clunky to switch.



gwsat said:


> I understood perfectly and was not offended. Anyway, at my age, how much credibility can be given to what I hear is questionable.


Good. 




gwsat said:


> *Confession time.* Although I have been aware of the conventional wisdom that native DTS:X is improved by changing the designation of two of the in-ceiling speakers from TOP to HEIGHT,* I have been too lazy to setup the scenes for the purpose.* Leaving all four in-ceiling speakers as TOP has worked well for all immersive content, to my no doubt questionable hearing, at least.


And that's...... okay.

At least you are willing to admit to "lazyness" instead of making up some lame excuse like.... _some_ would.


----------



## tbaucom

gwsat said:


> I understood perfectly and was not offended. Anyway, at my age, how much credibility can be given to what I hear is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> Two Buttons! Oh, the humanity! How much work do those AVR manufacturers expect us to do?
> 
> Confession time. Although I have been aware of the conventional wisdom that native DTS:X is improved by changing the designation of two of the in-ceiling speakers from TOP to HEIGHT, I have been too lazy to setup the scenes for the purpose. Leaving all four in-ceiling speakers as TOP has worked well for all immersive content, to my no doubt questionable hearing, at least.



The conventional wisdom is to change all 4 of the speakers from top to height for native DTS:x not 2. Do it manually then watch a DTS:X movie. You can decide if it is worth setting up a scene after this test.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> I only use the Yamaha APP with a tablet. I don't use the physical remote. Sometimes it can be clunky but for changing SCENES it's pretty easy.
> 
> At the bottom of the screen I have selections: Input, DSP mode, Scenes, Remote...
> 
> So I just touch SCENES and then select either of the two scenes I made which are: OVERHEAD and HEIGHT.
> 
> Very easy. Much easier than actually switching from DSU to Neural:X which requires going through several steps of button presses and menus to change. Only way to do it faster is with the physical remote which I do not use.
> 
> Not a huge deal. I only switch the mode once before a movie begins. Unless I'm fiddling and testing... then it's clunky to switch.


I use my iPad's Yamaha app to change DSPs on my 3060 and like doing it that way so I may just set up HEIGHT and OVERHEAD scenes and use the iPad for them too.




> And that's...... okay.
> 
> At least you are willing to admit to "lazyness" instead of making up some lame excuse like.... _some_ would.


I tend to resent those posters we see too many of at AVS who profess to have Golden Ears, Golden Eyes, or both, and presume to tell those of us who confess to being mortal that we just don't hear or see what the anointed ones can see and hear. Sheesh!


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> I only use the Yamaha APP with a tablet. I don't use the physical remote. Sometimes it can be clunky but for changing SCENES it's pretty easy.
> 
> At the bottom of the screen I have selections: Input, DSP mode, Scenes, Remote...
> 
> So I just touch SCENES and then select either of the two scenes I made which are: OVERHEAD and HEIGHT.
> 
> Very easy. Much easier than actually switching from DSU to Neural:X which requires going through several steps of button presses and menus to change. Only way to do it faster is with the physical remote which I do not use.
> 
> Not a huge deal. I only switch the mode once before a movie begins. Unless I'm fiddling and testing... then it's clunky to switch.
> 
> )


Ahh, then i get it 

But you can use scenes to change soundmodes too, you know 

I use the Harmony Ultimate universal remote, and have all of this programmed, for example one scene for Atmos and one for Auro.
Works wonderfully 

However i am waaay to OCD to put away the original remotes....i always have to double-check everthing before starting the movie. LOOL.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gwsat said:


> I use my iPad's Yamaha app to change DSPs on my 3060 and like doing it that way so I may just set up HEIGHT and OVERHEAD scenes and use the iPad for them too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to resent those posters we see too many of at AVS who profess to have Golden Ears, Golden Eyes, or both, and presume to tell those of us who confess to being mortal that we just don't hear or see what the anointed ones can see and hear. Sheesh!


Once you have set up the additional SCENE's to do what some of us are doing, it's just a matter of pressing a button or two to swtich. It's fairly simple to do and you only have to do it once. Well, unless you constantly recalibrate your system. Then you'd have to "fix it" each time but even then it's pretty simple 'copy and save' process.



Nalleh said:


> Ahh, then i get it
> 
> But you can use scenes to change soundmodes too, you know
> 
> I use the Harmony Ultimate universal remote, and have all of this programmed, for example one scene for Atmos and one for Auro.
> Works wonderfully
> 
> However i am waaay to OCD to put away the original remotes....i always have to double-check everthing before starting the movie. LOOL.


No, you can not program *Upmixer toggle* with the scenes.

You can program a SCENE to switch to the SURROUND PROCESSOR mode but it will only remember your last selection.

Trust me, I tried and I do not use a universal remote to facilitate the use of macros or other programming. I'm stuck with the capabilities of the Yamaha APP and it doesn't allow you to do quick surround processor switches. You either have to go into a menu system or use the physical remote, which again... I'm not using.

Your system is different from mine and does not require any additional attention beyond what: input I'm using (now that I have two OPPO's), the surround mode and volume.

After that it's any adjustments to the low-end. That's it. Once the surround mode is selected and I've set the volume.... we're I am ready to enjoy a movie.

I've spent plenty of time adjusting things. Years. I can now "just" watch a damn movie these days. And guess what? It sounds awesome.  Correct modes and everything.  

Home Theater doesn't have to be complicated.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> No, you can not program *Upmixer toggle* with the scenes.
> 
> You can program a SCENE to switch to the SURROUND PROCESSOR mode but it will only remember your last selection.
> 
> Trust me, I tried and I do not use a universal remote to facilitate the use of macros or other programming. I'm stuck with the capabilities of the Yamaha APP and it doesn't allow you to do quick surround processor switches. You either have to go into a menu system or use the physical remote, which again... I'm not using.
> 
> Your system is different from mine and does not require any additional attention beyond what: input I'm using (now that I have two OPPO's), the surround mode and volume.
> 
> After that it's any adjustments to the low-end. That's it. Once the surround mode is selected and I've set the volume.... we're I am ready to enjoy a movie.
> 
> I've spent plenty of time adjusting things. Years. I can now "just" watch a damn movie these days. And guess what? It sounds awesome.  Correct modes and everything.
> 
> Home Theater doesn't have to be complicated.


Ok, my bad. You see i have a Denon equivalent to scenes: quick select: and these can be used for different sound modes. So i have button 1 for Auro/Auromatic, button 2 for Atmos/DSU and button 3 for DTS:X/N:X.

Anyway, it's all good.

Carry on


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Ok, my bad. You see i have a Denon equivalent to scenes: quick select: and these can be used for different sound modes. So i have button 1 for Auro/Auromatic, button 2 for Atmos/DSU and button 3 for DTS:X/N:X.
> 
> Anyway, it's all good.
> 
> Carry on


Well... you're sorta right about it. You can program a scene to use the (which Yamaha calls it...) SURROUND MODE which is their wording for "which upmixer would you like? DSU, PL2X, Neo:6*shudder*, Neural:X" and you can select one but it will go to only last used mode when using the APP. You can hit the SURROUND MODE button forever and it will only stick to the last used one. However, if you use the actual physical remote, hitting the SURROUND MODE button cycles through them all.

So it is an arbitrary decision by the engineers that made the APP to not allow this function.

It's possible but... not.

Very annoying.


----------



## gwsat

Scott Simonian said:


> After that it's any adjustments to the low-end. That's it. Once the surround mode is selected and I've set the volume.... we're I am ready to enjoy a movie.
> 
> I've spent plenty of time adjusting things. Years. I can now "just" watch a damn movie these days. And guess what? It sounds awesome.  Correct modes and everything.
> 
> Home Theater doesn't have to be complicated.


Indeed, after I upgraded my system with dual Rythmik FV18 subwoofers in April, I reran YPAO on my 3060 and used REW with a UMIK-1 to configure my subs, mostly with the controls on the subs. After I got the upgraded system dialed in, the improvement was almost magical. Of course, the LFE has been incredible but the impact of immersive and surround effects and the clarity of dialog have improved too. Ever since, I have just relaxed, sat back, and enjoyed watching movies. Sometimes life can be complicated but, as you said, Home Theater doesn't have to be.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Well... you're sorta right about it. You can program a scene to use the (which Yamaha calls it...) SURROUND MODE which is their wording for "which upmixer would you like? DSU, PL2X, Neo:6*shudder*, Neural:X" and you can select one but it will go to only last used mode when using the APP. You can hit the SURROUND MODE button forever and it will only stick to the last used one. However, if you use the actual physical remote, hitting the SURROUND MODE button cycles through them all.
> 
> So it is an arbitrary decision by the engineers that made the APP to not allow this function.
> 
> It's possible but... not.
> 
> Very annoying.


Right. So i guess both Denon and Yama have pros and cons 
After you mentioned it in post above, i remebered we had that discussion before, when Scatmos was all the rage, i just forgot.

The Denon quick select's is a "save all settings" option and save input, volume, surroundmode etc(almost everything), and you can't choose what it saves(as the Yama's can), so it is not perfect either, but it works for my needs.


----------



## Hatredcopter

I'm planning to add on-ceiling overhead speakers to try out Atmos. Since all my speakers have 6 ohm impedance, should I limit my choices to just 6 ohm speakers?

Looking for suggestions on what would be a good choice to blend with my current setup.

Thanks!

My setup:
Receiver: Denon AVR-X1300W
Front: Wharfedale Diamond 10.1
Center: Wharfedale Diamond 9.CS
Rear: Wharfedale WH-DFS
Subwoofer: SVS SB12-NSD


----------



## anothermib

Hi, I have a (somewhat convoluted) question on the speaker positioning on the listener plane. Sorry if this is getting a bit lengthy.

In a 7.1 configuration Dolby recommends the surrounds to go at 90-110 degree positions while e.g. ITU BS.775 sees them more at a 60-70 degree angle. In my current 7.1 setup I have the surrounds at 70 and I like it much better than having them further back. I feel that it closes the gap between the fronts and the rears very well and makes the room much wider. I imagine additional front wide speakers would have a similar effect. So far I have not noticed any issues with this setup (and in a theater there are seats that will have a similar angle), but perhaps I haven't compared it carefully enough. 










I would hate to loose that "wide room" effect when upgrading to atmos, so here are my questions:
- How "forgiving" is atmos to such deviations from the standard speaker positions in the listener plane? Would it e.g. require adjustments in the top speaker positioning? 
- If one would use a proper 9.x.4 configuration as per the Dolby recommendations- would the front wide be used at all (e.g. by the upmixers) or will their use be limited e.g. to audio objects.

Any other ideas or recommendations how to deal with this? Or have I just taken a wrong corner somewhere and am now on a completely wrong path?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

anothermib said:


> I would hate to loose that "wide room" effect when upgrading to atmos, so here are my questions:
> - How "forgiving" is atmos to such deviations from the standard speaker positions in the listener plane? Would it e.g. require adjustments in the top speaker positioning?
> - If one would use a proper 9.x.4 configuration as per the Dolby recommendations- would the front wide be used at all (e.g. by the upmixers) or will their use be limited e.g. to audio objects.
> 
> Any other ideas or recommendations how to deal with this? Or have I just taken a wrong corner somewhere and am now on a completely wrong path?


You can keep your current 7.1 layout and just add the 4 heights, it will work fine.

With Front Wides in 9.1.4 you will not get to use them with the Dolby Surround Upmixer, however Neural:X will use them as will DTS:X.


----------



## Scott Simonian

anothermib said:


> Hi, I have a (somewhat convoluted) question on the speaker positioning on the listener plane. Sorry if this is getting a bit lengthy.
> 
> In a 7.1 configuration Dolby recommends the surrounds to go at 90-110 degree positions while e.g. ITU BS.775 sees them more at a 60-70 degree angle. In my current 7.1 setup I have the surrounds at 70 and I like it much better than having them further back. I feel that it closes the gap between the fronts and the rears very well and makes the room much wider. I imagine additional front wide speakers would have a similar effect. So far I have not noticed any issues with this setup (and in a theater there are seats that will have a similar angle), but perhaps I haven't compared it carefully enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would hate to loose that "wide room" effect when upgrading to atmos, so here are my questions:
> - How "forgiving" is atmos to such deviations from the standard speaker positions in the listener plane? Would it e.g. require adjustments in the top speaker positioning?
> - If one would use a proper 9.x.4 configuration as per the Dolby recommendations- would the front wide be used at all (e.g. by the upmixers) or will their use be limited e.g. to audio objects.
> 
> Any other ideas or recommendations how to deal with this? Or have I just taken a wrong corner somewhere and am now on a completely wrong path?



This is essentially how I have mine set up. I'd say, "go look in my sig" but it's borked at the moment. 


I'm confused. You want to upgrade to Atmos, yes? You know you don't have to use wides. In fact, it's a rather poorly supported speaker location at current. You can have 7.1 and then add four overhead speakers like... most of us.

How much sound? Depends. Depends on the input source decoded. Depends on the mix. DSU doesn't use wides. Atmos does. DTS:X umm.. sorta... does. Neo:X and Neural:X do too apparently.


----------



## J_P_A

I need to surface mount four volt-6 speakers to my ceiling for ATMOS. My room is built with isolation clips, hat channel, and double drywall, so I can't screw directly into the joists above. Does anyone have any clever ideas for how to do that? Right now I'm leaning towards toggle bolts.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Scott Simonian said:


> But it's not just one button. It's two buttons! I have to hit Scene and then select the scene. That's a lot of work! Yeesh.


George would agree!


----------



## anothermib

Scott Simonian said:


> This is essentially how I have mine set up. I'd say, "go look in my sig" but it's borked at the moment.
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You want to upgrade to Atmos, yes? You know you don't have to use wides. In fact, it's a rather poorly supported speaker location at current. You can have 7.1 and then add four overhead speakers like... most of us.
> 
> How much sound? Depends. Depends on the input source decoded. Depends on the mix. DSU doesn't use wides. Atmos does. DTS:X umm.. sorta... does. Neo:X and Neural:X do too apparently.




Thanks for the responses. Just to make sure I understand this correctly - you are using the ITU setup in the listener plane for atmos and there is no disadvantage in having the surround speakers about 30 degrees off from the Dolby recommendation? 

I guess if that is the experience and the consensus here in this forum I will probably not bother with going to 9.x.4. The incremental benefit of the wides is probably not big enough. 
In fact having the surrounds at 60 degrees being used all the time may be superior to having wides at the same position that remain silent in many cases.


----------



## Scott Simonian

anothermib said:


> Thanks for the responses. Just to make sure I understand this correctly - you are using the ITU setup in the listener plane for atmos and there is no disadvantage in having the surround speakers about 30 degrees off from the Dolby recommendation?


Correct.

Sounds great. Very immersive surround in my room. 




anothermib said:


> I guess if that is the experience and the consensus here in this forum I will probably not bother with going to 9.x.4. The incremental benefit of the wides is probably not big enough.
> In fact having the surrounds at 60 degrees being used all the time may be superior to having wides at the same position that remain silent in many cases.


I agree. 

Worth considering when the hardware catches up. The wide speaker location was dropped from products this year. I'm sure they'll make a comeback in the near future but until then... it's a poorly supported speaker location and the least important one.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Worth considering when the hardware catches up. The wide speaker location was dropped from products this year. I'm sure they'll make a comeback in the near future but until then... it's a poorly supported speaker location and the least important one.


I agree. However, if your surround speakers are situated at appreciably greater than 90*°* azimuth, then the FW can be a valuable addition on the listener-level plane as long as there is a signal to be directed to that location. And even when silent, they happen to look great in my room.

A number of us here have voiced our appreciation for the wider front sound stage (for me, it adds to my enjoyment of musical performances using the Neo:X upmixer); and, as you have noted, Dolby Atmos utilizes FW for audio objects, making a potential 9.1.4 (or 9.1.6) configuration interesting for immersive sources.

As far as whether manufacturers will bring FW back for future models, I can only hope that your optimism will bear fruit! Let's see what D+M reveal in the next couple of months regarding the upcoming flagship AVR-X7400H with its presumed 13-channel processing. See how contagious optimism can be?


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree. However, if your surround speakers are situated at appreciably greater than 90*°* azimuth, then the FW can be a valuable addition on the listener-level plane as long as there is a signal to be directed to that location. And even when silent, they happen to look great in my room.


Rrriiigghhttt. Make any gap large enough and you'll now "need" that new speaker. 



chi_guy50 said:


> A number of us here have voiced our appreciation for the wider front sound stage (for me, it adds to my enjoyment of musical performances using the Neo:X upmixer); and, as you have noted, Dolby Atmos utilizes FW for audio objects, making a potential 9.1.4 (or 9.1.6) configuration interesting for immersive sources.


I can't think of anyone that wouldn't want or agree with this.




chi_guy50 said:


> As far as whether manufacturers will bring FW back for future models, I can only hope that your optimism will bear fruit! Let's see what D+M reveal in the next couple of months regarding the upcoming flagship AVR-X7400H with its presumed 13-channel processing. See how contagious optimism can be?


Yes, it's nice. 

I'm very confident support for wides will return in the future.


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Rrriiigghhttt. Make any gap large enough and you'll now "need" that new speaker.


You have no idea how much I would love to position all of my speakers in their ideal locations. That gap was imposed on me by my room (and WAF), and I strongly suspect I'm not the only one in this predicament.


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> You have no idea how much I would love to position all of my speakers in their ideal locations.


You and me, both.




chi_guy50 said:


> That gap was imposed on me by my room (and WAF),


Hey, sounds like she set the both of youz up for wides. Unwillingly but still. 



chi_guy50 said:


> and I strongly suspect I'm not the only one in this predicament.


Well...there are ways of avoiding this "issue".


----------



## Frank D

Mashie Saldana said:


> You can keep your current 7.1 layout and just add the 4 heights, it will work fine.
> 
> With Front Wides in 9.1.4 you will not get to use them with the Dolby Surround Upmixer, however Neural:X will use them as will DTS:X.


So Atmos does not make use of Front Wides? Kind of sucks but good to know.


----------



## tbaucom

Frank D said:


> So Atmos does not make use of Front Wides? Kind of sucks but good to know.


Native atmos uses wides. The upmixer does not.


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> Worth considering when the hardware catches up. The wide speaker location was dropped from products this year. I'm sure they'll make a comeback in the near future but until then... it's a poorly supported speaker location and the least important one.





chi_guy50 said:


> A number of us here have voiced our appreciation for the wider front sound stage (for me, it adds to my enjoyment of musical performances using the Neo:X upmixer); and, as you have noted, Dolby Atmos utilizes FW for audio objects, making a potential 9.1.4 (or 9.1.6) configuration interesting for immersive sources.
> 
> As far as whether manufacturers will bring FW back for future models, I can only hope that your optimism will bear fruit! Let's see what D+M reveal in the next couple of months regarding the upcoming flagship AVR-X7400H with its presumed 13-channel processing. See how contagious optimism can be?


I recently sold my Denon x6200 and temporarily using an Onkyo 636 in a 5.2.2 config while "optimistically" awaiting both Onkyo's and Denon's flagship...hopefully with 13 channel processing. With the 6200, I ran 7.2.4. Although I've never had wides, I'm a firm believer in "filling the gaps."


----------



## Frank D

tbaucom said:


> Native atmos uses wides. The upmixer does not.


Uh ok got it. Thanks.


----------



## anothermib

chi_guy50 said:


> I agree. However, if your surround speakers are situated at appreciably greater than 90*°* azimuth, then the FW can be a valuable addition on the listener-level plane as long as there is a signal to be directed to that location. And even when silent, they happen to look great in my room.
> 
> A number of us here have voiced our appreciation for the wider front sound stage (for me, it adds to my enjoyment of musical performances using the Neo:X upmixer); and, as you have noted, Dolby Atmos utilizes FW for audio objects, making a potential 9.1.4 (or 9.1.6) configuration interesting for immersive sources.
> 
> As far as whether manufacturers will bring FW back for future models, I can only hope that your optimism will bear fruit! Let's see what D+M reveal in the next couple of months regarding the upcoming flagship AVR-X7400H with its presumed 13-channel processing. See how contagious optimism can be?




Out of curiosity - if you are able to put speakers near the 60 degrees azimuth for wides wouldn't it be an option for you to put the surrounds there and leave the 90+ for the rear?

On the 7400 (or perhaps even the 6400): That was actually part of my reason for raising the question. It sounds like the 13ch processing remains a good addition, but based on what we discussed not absolutely necessary for getting a "gaples" listener level.
I assume the issue of DSU not supporting the wides would remain even in the 7400 - or is that implementation specific in the AVR?


----------



## mcdbirdman

*Temp Solution*

Getting new ATMOS Klipsch RP-280FA today but still awaiting new Denon/Yamaha receiver purchase. In the meantime can I hook up the height speaker of the RP-280FAs to the Surround Back of my Pioneer VSX-72TXV and run the auto MCACC Setup again? Will this work and give me the best sound or will the MCACC not be able to process the bounced sound from the height speakers since the receiver is not ATMOS capable?


----------



## chi_guy50

anothermib said:


> Out of curiosity - if you are able to put speakers near the 60 degrees azimuth for wides wouldn't it be an option for you to put the surrounds there and leave the 90+ for the rear?


I never implied that my FW were at or even near 60*°* azimuth (remember what I said about compromises?). In fact, they are at the front of the room alongside the mains; but they serve my purpose to enlarge the front sound stage for orchestral music and to partially compensate for my rearward side surrounds.



anothermib said:


> On the 7400 (or perhaps even the 6400): That was actually part of my reason for raising the question. It sounds like the 13ch processing remains a good addition, but based on what we discussed not absolutely necessary for getting a "gaples" listener level.


As Scott has pointed out, none of these extra speakers are "necessary" as long as you can position and calibrate your listener-level speakers properly for five- or seven-channel reproduction.



anothermib said:


> I assume the issue of DSU not supporting the wides would remain even in the 7400 - or is that implementation specific in the AVR?


IDK what future models have in store, but it's entirely possible that they could bring back the FW and/or accommodate a second set of side surrounds which could be used for objects if not bed channel info (à la theatrical Atmos's "additional side surround loudspeakers").


----------



## gwsat

tbaucom said:


> Native atmos uses wides. The upmixer does not.


I didn't know that native Atmos took account of wides. Thanks for contributing to my continuing education. The idea of front wide speakers is purely academic for me anyway because, even if I had a receiver capable of driving them, I wouldn't have room for them. My current 7.2.4 setup pretty much fills us my family room, which doubles as my home theater room.


----------



## J_P_A

I'm having a tough time finding answers to specific questions in this monstrous thread.

For a multi-row theater, is the idea to try to put top speakers so that they fall within the 30 degrees to 55 degrees range for both rows? That is, the middle set of speakers in a 7.1.6 setup would ideally be 45 behind the front row and 45 in front of the second row? My setup would actually put the speakers about 37 degrees behind the front row and 35 degrees in front of the second row. 

The Dolby diagrams don't seem to match once you get above 7.1.4. E.g., the layout on the dolby site for a 24.x.10 looks like they've evenly spaced the top speakers, with no regard for where they fall with respect to the listener. My guess is, as you add more tops, specific location doesn't matter as much, but that's just a guess.

I'm only going to be running a 7.1.4 setup, so would I be better off just optimizing for the front row where my MLP is?


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> For a multi-row theater, is the idea to try to put top speakers so that they fall within the 30 degrees to 55 degrees range for both rows? That is, the middle set of speakers in a 7.1.6 setup would ideally be 45 behind the front row and 45 in front of the second row?


IF both rows are important to you, then I wouldn't worry about specific numbers and instead approach the placement problem by thinking of what I want all the listeners to hear. Three pairs of heights is an opportunity to separate sounds above that are in front, behind, and directly overhead. So one pair of heights should go well forward of both rows. The second pair should be heard as clearly rearward of both rows. The third pair should sound like it's overhead; so maybe mount that pair in between the rows. Yeah, it won't be directly above anyone's head, but it will sound more "overhead" than the other two pairs. This will allow you to sit in either row and clearly separate sounds above you as being in front, behind and overhead. You don't need to use specific elevation numbers or angles to figure that out. Atmos doesn't.


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> IF both rows are important to you, then I wouldn't worry about specific numbers and instead approach the placement problem by thinking of what I want all the listeners to hear. Three pairs of heights is an opportunity to separate sounds above that are in front, behind, and directly overhead. So one pair of heights should go well forward of both rows. The second pair should be heard as clearly rearward of both rows. The third pair should sound like it's overhead; so maybe mount that pair in between the rows. Yeah, it won't be directly above anyone's head, but it will sound more "overhead" than the other two pairs. This will allow you to sit in either row and clearly separate sounds above you as being in front, behind and overhead. You don't need to use specific elevation numbers or angles to figure that out. Atmos doesn't.


This is exactly how my 3 pairs of overheads are positioned for my two rows of seating...


----------



## J_P_A

For now, I want the best sound I can get for the front row with only four overhead speakers, but I'd like to position my speakers as best I can should I ever get to upgrade to a 7.1.6 setup.

That in mind, assuming I'll be stuck with only 7.1.4 for several years, would you recommend I use that middle row of speakers between the two rows or go ahead an put my rear overheads behind the 2nd row? Will putting the rear overheads that far back from the front row give me poor results?


----------



## Scott Simonian

chi_guy50 said:


> I never implied that my FW were at or even near 60*°* azimuth (remember what I said about compromises?). In fact, they are at the front of the room alongside the mains; but they serve my purpose to enlarge the front sound stage for orchestral music and to partially compensate for my rearward side surrounds.



Hmm.

Why not... place the left and right where the wides are then? That will certainly decrease the size of the gap from front to side surrounds.

EDIT: Sorry. Not trying to critique your system with this. Just wondering, since you are doing it the way you are, if you can maybe get the sound you want with two less speakers. I was pretty happy when I found that I could get the sound I wanted with only four overhead speakers instead of six. I thought six would be the way to go but I actually thought less sounded better. Possibly because the six were of slight compromise too? Hard to say... without trying for yourself, I mean.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gwsat said:


> I didn't know that native Atmos took account of wides. Thanks for contributing to my continuing education. The idea of front wide speakers is purely academic for me anyway because, even if I had a receiver capable of driving them, I wouldn't have room for them. My current 7.2.4 setup pretty much fills us my family room, which doubles as my home theater room.


Native Atmos supports up to 34 speakers for HT's, 24 around and 10 above.

I love the immersive bubble produced in my 9.1.6 system.


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> For now, I want the best sound I can get for the front row with only four overhead speakers, but I'd like to position my speakers as best I can should I ever get to upgrade to a 7.1.6 setup.


You already know that with a 5.1 set-up, the single pair of surrounds go somewhere between the sides and rears of a 7.1 set-up. Upgrading to 7.1 isn't just a matter of placing a second pair of surrounds in the back, you also move the original pair of surrounds forward to get some rear-vs-side separation in the surround field. Same with going from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6: it isn't just a matter of dropping a third pair between the original two. The original two pairs will also move locations.


> That in mind, assuming I'll be stuck with only 7.1.4 for several years, would you recommend I use that middle row of speakers between the two rows or go ahead an put my rear overheads behind the 2nd row? Will putting the rear overheads that far back from the front row give me poor results?


Speaker placement is usually based on the location of the listener(s), so placement for one row will be different than placement for two rows. IF you want to optimize for a single row, then I would do the typical placement of roughly 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of that row, without worrying about how it will sound in the other row. Understand that this placement will be different when using 6 speakers above AND optimizing for both rows. You're changing two variables.


----------



## J_P_A

Awesome! Thanks for the feedback. Now I just have to get it all put together


----------



## chi_guy50

Scott Simonian said:


> Hmm.
> 
> *Why not... place the left and right where the wides are then? That will certainly decrease the size of the gap from front to side surrounds.
> *
> EDIT: Sorry. Not trying to critique your system with this. Just wondering, since you are doing it the way you are, if you can maybe get the sound you want with two less speakers. I was pretty happy when I found that I could get the sound I wanted with only four overhead speakers instead of six. I thought six would be the way to go but I actually thought less sounded better. Possibly because the six were of slight compromise too? Hard to say... without trying for yourself, I mean.


As they say, great (and weak) minds think alike.

I have already anticipated doing just that if my next AVR does not support FW; and in that case I would take those floorstanding Polk Audio RTiA5's and substitute them for the OWM5 satellites in my surrounds (thereby moving the surrounds forward another 9 or 10 inches due to the increased cabinet depth). But in the meantime, "mo' speakers, mo' better" (© batpig).

Eventually I will probably swap out the surrounds anyway, whether with the repurposed RTiA5s or with a second pair.


----------



## gene4ht

J_P_A said:


> For now, I want the best sound I can get for the front row with only four overhead speakers, but I'd like to position my speakers as best I can should I ever get to upgrade to a 7.1.6 setup.
> 
> That in mind, assuming I'll be stuck with only 7.1.4 for several years, would you recommend I use that middle row of speakers between the two rows or go ahead an put my rear overheads behind the 2nd row? Will putting the rear overheads that far back from the front row give me poor results?


Installing 3 pairs of overheads as described by @*sdurani* and myself above provides some flexibility as well. If your current preference is first row importance, configure the TF's and TM's as front and rear overheads for the first row. If your preference later changes to include both rows, then designate the TF's and TR's as the front and rear overheads. If and when 7.X.6 becomes a reality, TF's, TM's, and TR's will all be in place to accommodate it. It may be beneficial to consider wiring and installing all six overheads at this point.

Note: As @sdurani indicated, this will not be optimal for 7.X.6 but will put you in the ballpark and provide a "real world feel" for what final/ultimate placement should be.


----------



## Scott Simonian

gene4ht said:


> Installing 3 pairs of overheads as described by @*sdurani* and myself above provides some flexibility as well. If your current preference is first row importance, configure the TF's and TM's as front and rear overheads for the first row. If your preference later changes to include both rows, then designate the TF's and TR's as the front and rear overheads. If and when 7.X.6 becomes a reality, TF's, TM's, and TR's will all be in place to accommodate it. It may be beneficial to consider wiring and installing all six overheads at this point.



I like it.

It must be somewhat obvious that if you are building a multi-row theater that one of those rows will be your "favorite". I would optimize for that row.


----------



## gene4ht

Scott Simonian said:


> I like it.
> 
> It must be somewhat obvious that if you are building a multi-row theater that one of those rows will be your "favorite". I would optimize for that row.


Yep...afterall...the MLP is the MLP!


----------



## Scott Simonian

gene4ht said:


> Yep...afterall...the MLP is the MLP!


Sometimes I wonder about the wonderful and continuous guest list people have for their HT's....

I can't even fill my own couch all the way.


----------



## J_P_A

Scott Simonian said:


> I like it.
> 
> It must be somewhat obvious that if you are building a multi-row theater that one of those rows will be your "favorite". I would optimize for that row.





gene4ht said:


> Yep...afterall...the MLP is the MLP!



Well, yes and no. I've found that I like the front row best for movies, but I'm leaning a bit towards the second row for gaming. I only have a little time with any gaming, so I may gravitate back to the front row with that as well, but it's a BIG screen for gaming! 

But in general I have been dialing everything in for the front row and letting the second row get what they get.



Scott Simonian said:


> Sometimes I wonder about the wonderful and continuous guest list people have for their HT's....
> 
> I can't even fill my own couch all the way.


haha! Yeah, we have the same problem. The only exception is when we have friends over with kids. We'll turn on a movie in the theater for the kids to keep them occupied.


----------



## AndreNewman

J_P_A said:


> I need to surface mount four volt-6 speakers to my ceiling for ATMOS. My room is built with isolation clips, hat channel, and double drywall, so I can't screw directly into the joists above. Does anyone have any clever ideas for how to do that? Right now I'm leaning towards toggle bolts.




I had to do similar but I found an issue, because the ceiling is floating it resonates at around 147Hz in my case!

Something to watch out for.


----------



## J_P_A

AndreNewman said:


> I had to do similar but I found an issue, because the ceiling is floating it resonates at around 147Hz in my case!
> 
> Something to watch out for.


That's interesting. Did the resonance start after you added the speakers, or was it just more apparent?


----------



## asarose247

Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post
I need to surface mount four volt-6 speakers to my ceiling for ATMOS. My room is built with isolation clips, hat channel, and double drywall, so I can't screw directly into the joists above. Does anyone have any clever ideas for how to do that? Right now I'm leaning towards toggle bolts.



as some have done . . .

remove the driver, mount the toggle bolts thru the back panel . . .

or bodacious anchors


----------



## Nalleh

*Passengers: cool sound effect *

Did anyone else notice a totally awsome panning sound effect in this scene from Passengers?

It start at the 1 minute of this clip, and is a Rrrrrrr kind of sound in the music, pitching up and down. And it pans TOTALLY seamless and stable around you in a complete circle, over and over. Coolest thing ever!

Unfortunately it is low level, a little in the background, but when you notice, it is wicked


----------



## jer181

I am currently laying out my dedicated home theater for a 5.2.4. I already have all the speakers as the Atmos was an after thought. My question is, will it be fine to have dipoles as side surrounds? I don't have an Atoms capable AVR right now so want the best of both worlds until that happens.

Also does anyone know if 2 rear in ceiling speakers should be placed behind or slightly in front of the side surrounds???


----------



## ki11abee

jer181 said:


> I am currently laying out my dedicated home theater for a 5.2.4. I already have all the speakers as the Atmos was an after thought. My question is, will it be fine to have dipoles as side surrounds? I don't have an Atoms capable AVR right now so want the best of both worlds until that happens.
> 
> Also does anyone know if 2 rear in ceiling speakers should be placed behind or slightly in front of the side surrounds???


They need to be placed slightly in front of the side surrounds, according to the atmos guide.


----------



## Jonas2

jer181 said:


> I am currently laying out my dedicated home theater for a 5.2.4. I already have all the speakers as the Atmos was an after thought. My question is, will it be fine to have dipoles as side surrounds? I don't have an Atoms capable AVR right now so want the best of both worlds until that happens.


Well, maybe. You already have them though, so I guess you will find out!! Depends somewhat on environment and taste. 



jer181 said:


> Also does anyone know if 2 rear in ceiling speakers should be placed behind or slightly in front of the side surrounds???





ki11abee said:


> They need to be placed slightly in front of the side surrounds, according to the atmos guide.


Although that is how it is shown pictorially, the angular realities might be different. My "side" surrounds are well-forward of the rear Atmos speakers, and the rear Atmos speakers are forward of their ideal location based on the Dolby recommendations. It sounds excellent. Would it be better if they were behind the rear Atmos speakers? Dunnon, I'll never know as that placement is totally impossible in my situation. 

Jer, this is a personal opinion, but I'd place your Atmos speakers as close to ideal per the Dolby spec. as you can. Are your sides going to be wall-mounted, or on stands? If the later, just play with it! See where it sounds best to YOU.  I'm going to bet it'll sound just fine if they are forward of the rear Atmos speakers.


----------



## ki11abee

Jonas2 said:


> Well, maybe. You already have them though, so I guess you will find out!! Depends somewhat on environment and taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although that is how it is shown pictorially, the angular realities might be different. My "side" surrounds are well-forward of the rear Atmos speakers, and the rear Atmos speakers are forward of their ideal location based on the Dolby recommendations. It sounds excellent. Would it be better if they were behind the rear Atmos speakers? Dunnon, I'll never know as that placement is totally impossible in my situation.
> 
> Jer, this is a personal opinion, but I'd place your Atmos speakers as close to ideal per the Dolby spec. as you can. Are your sides going to be wall-mounted, or on stands? If the later, just play with it! See where it sounds best to YOU.  I'm going to bet it'll sound just fine if they are forward of the rear Atmos speakers.


Yes, I agree, it's just how close you can get to the atmos spec as possible. Sometimes it's not possible, based on your room and have to o with what you can.


----------



## AndreNewman

J_P_A said:


> That's interesting. Did the resonance start after you added the speakers, or was it just more apparent?




The resonance only shows in the ceiling mounted speakers and only appeared when they were installed. YPAO puts a huge null there which helps but not really a full solution. I started to notice after I got the atmos version of gravity, George Clooney's voice really sets it off.


----------



## MagnumX

Are any/all of the receivers out there with Atmos capable of defining where you put your speakers? In other words, if you bought a 7.1.2 receiver could you tell it to have one (mono) height speaker in the front of the room and one in the back of the room instead of left/right (stereo) only in the front? I'm looking at receivers now but it's not clear to me how flexible the system is (as currently implemented). 

I was under the impression that Atmos itself doesn't care what kind of crazy arrangement of speakers you want to set up; you just tell it where the speakers are for a given number of channels and if a given sound effect is in that area it pans between the nearest speakers as needed for the effect. But reading any number of Atmos receiver threads, it sounds like most models are set up with RIGID configurations that are nearly exactly like the channel based rigidity that Atmos was supposed to eliminate (i.e. if you buy a receiver with 5.1.4 capability, you MUST use 4 channels for height and they MUST be left/right pairs; you can't just space wider dispersion speakers in a straight line across a 30 foot room and tell the receiver to do ultra-smooth pans down a 4 speaker line in a row. It seems like that should be EXACTLY what you could do with 4 height channels, but then why should a 5.1.4 setup need to have 4 height channels? Why not two extra pairs of side surrounds on a long room or some floor speakers? Just tell the Atmos decoder where you put your speakers and it uses them as-is, right? No? If not, what's the freaking point of an effect based system instead of a channel one if you have to use some pre-defined rigid standards? 

The problem is, of course, that 7.1.4 systems aren't exactly cheap and yet 5.1.4 isn't entirely desirable when you've already set up for a 6.1 or 7.1 setup and you have more movies in 7.1 than Atmos, but having 7.1.2 instead leaves you with height only in the front of the room (the helicopter suddenly sounds like landed/crashed when it moves into the back of the room because the only speakers back there are at ear level?)

I'm currently using a 6.1 setup because that's what fits in my room (there's a sliding door and an addition behind it in the back of the room that all but makes it impossible to do a 7.1 setup without blocking the doorway area, but 6.1 works well with a center rear speaker). I'm using an old Yamaha receiver that pre-dates Atmos and even HD-MA/True-HD formats and I'm looking to upgrade my sound system now that I upgraded my projector from a 10-year old Panasonic PT-AX100U to an Epson 3100. My speakers are PSB Image models (3 identical L/C/R B12 satellites with S50 side-wall bipole surrounds and another B12 in the rear center position) with a Def Tech Powerfield 1500 sub. There is a Imagine S surround by PSB I could swap out to that offers a "7.1" mode (front baffle drivers are side surround and back baffle drivers are rear surround) that could get around my 7.1 issue in a way, but I don't really know how "good" that would sound like that (it might just sound more like a two foot difference between the channels for all I know instead of sounding like it's coming from the back area of the room). I don't really want to mount height channel speakers on the ceiling either. PSB makes a newer XA Atmos enabled speaker that bounces off the ceiling and in my room would probably work well, but given the expense of the 7.1.4 receivers (often needing another amp to boot) it seems like you could get 80% of the effect of 7.1.4 if you could only set a 7.1.2 receiver to use the height channels as mono front/back instead of stereo one zone left/right. But somehow I doubt the likelihood that many (if any) receivers can configure such a setup. So I figure this is the place to ask from people that have used these Atmos based receivers and know what their capabilities are. 

Ideally, a 6.1.2 configuration would work best in my room with an XA speaker on the center middle and the rear middle to reflect evenly back to the listening area for height. 7.1.2 would require getting the aforementioned Imagine S surrounds (only real place there's room for them) and 7.1.4 would need two sets of XAs and again, I'd have the placement issue in the back of the room (either little to no separation of the speakers or I'd be blocking the sliding glass door which opens to one side of the back wall, not in the middle or anything). It's not ideal, but then that far back in the room the side surrounds panning to a rear center gives some left/right clues and up until now 90% of my movies don't even make use of 7.1 or 6.1 (I think I have 5 DTS-ES 6.1 titles, several EX faked ones and maybe two dozen 7.1 titles (with or without Atmos and/or DTS:X) that I can't take advantage of until I get a new receiver. 

While 5.1.4 might work (although with some placement issues of the rear speakers unless I could aim them from behind my couch area to bounce the ceiling in reverse and still sound right somehow), going down from even 6.1 to 5.1 is a loss (e.g. Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children _does _have a DTS-ES core (at least my 3D BD does) and and an object lands in the back of the room at one point in the movie. In 5.1 it couldn't land anywhere but just behind my couch instead at best (room layout has couch in center, surrounds on side walls just behind the couch and a rear center speaker in the back of the room and normal L/C/R identical channels sitting underneath the 93" dropdown screen in the front of the room).


----------



## ki11abee

Well I suppose you can put the ceiling speakers anyway you want it, but the really are meant to be on the right or on the left for best accurate positioning immersion. On my receiver, it gives you the option to either do height(in top of the front speakers) and of course 2 more on the rear, overhead mode which is the atmos way, and Dolby enabled sp(those speakers you place on top of the mains and shoot up bouncing the sound down). I also come from a 6.1 setup that I liked very much and didn't want to give up when I go new receiver and do 5.2.4. Ran 6.2.2 for a while and I found a cheap pair of detects to add up top and dock 4 ceiling speakers. I can honestly say I don't regret it one bit. I thought I would miss the rear back channel, but the rear ceiling speakers kind make up for it and just fills up the top so nice. Now I know why people kept saying to go with 5.2.4 for the full immersion, and of course, they were right.


----------



## Roger Dressler

AndreNewman said:


> The resonance only shows in the ceiling mounted speakers and only appeared when they were installed. YPAO puts a huge null there which helps but not really a full solution. I started to notice after I got the atmos version of gravity, George Clooney's voice really sets it off.


Sorry if you have already analyzed this. Is there a way to tell if this is due to the ceiling movement vs the acoustics of the speaker/room? If it's the ceiling moving, then bracing it with something like a pole to the floor (just for a temporary test) would significantly reduce it. If doing so does not alter the sound quality, then it's not the ceiling's vibration, but something else. I'd be very curious to better understand the mechanism affecting the sound.


----------



## AndreNewman

Roger Dressler said:


> Sorry if you have already analyzed this. Is there a way to tell if this is due to the ceiling movement vs the acoustics of the speaker/room? If it's the ceiling moving, then bracing it with something like a pole to the floor (just for a temporary test) would significantly reduce it. If doing so does not alter the sound quality, then it's not the ceiling's vibration, but something else. I'd be very curious to better understand the mechanism affecting the sound.




I don't have a suitable pole although I guess a broom handle might damp it a bit and give some idea! 

I have the same speakers for surround and rear surround and they don't resonate in the same way, that's why I'm blaming the suspended ceiling.


----------



## Rondog32837

*ATMOS movie availability*

Sorry, but I haven't read the 2 million posts in this thread. Where do I rent Atmos movies - streaming, Redbox, but not buying?


----------



## batpig

Rondog32837 said:


> Sorry, but I haven't read the 2 million posts in this thread. Where do I rent Atmos movies - streaming, Redbox, but not buying?


Redbox and Netflix (mail delivery) rental services will have Atmos.... EXCEPT for titles from Lionsgate which is the only studio that "cripples" the audio of their rentals to regular Dolby Digital 5.1.

Bookmark this page which lists all BD titles with Dolby Atmos: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132

If you click on an image of a title it will take you to the details page which will list the studio. Lionsgate = no bueno. However, anything else (Universal, Warner, Paramount, Sony, Fox, etc) will still have Atmos on the rental.


----------



## batpig

Side note... but I purchased the Blu-ray of Season 6 of Game of Thrones as I rewatched prior to the Season 7 premiere yesterday. The PQ on my large projection screen is MUCH better than the crappy HBO stream, but relevant to this thread is that the Atmos soundtrack is EXCELLENT and really enhances the action.

I know early on there were pretty meh reports on the Season 1/2 releases with the Atmos remix, and Filmmixer promised that future seasons would be more aggressive and take more advantage of the format. I'm happy to report that Season 6 for sure validates this prediction.

Those who watch the show know that it's not non-stop action, so there are plenty of quieter moments of dialogue and character / narrative development where it's more about subtle atmospherics, but there are plenty of moments where there are really distinct and aggressive and APPROPRIATE overhead effects. A good example is the very final moment of Season 6 where three dragons zoom past from the front of the screen right before it cuts to black -- you can distinctly hear/feel them flying above and through the "listening zone" and it's quite dramatic and on point with the action. Another example is "The Door" scene (anyone who's seen it knows what I'm talking about) and you can feel the ground cracking above, zombies scrambling along the ceiling, etc. Good stuff!


----------



## chi_guy50

Rondog32837 said:


> Sorry, but I haven't read the 2 million posts in this thread. Where do I rent Atmos movies - streaming, Redbox, but not buying?





batpig said:


> Redbox and Netflix (mail delivery) rental services will have Atmos.... EXCEPT for titles from Lionsgate which is the only studio that "cripples" the audio of their rentals to regular Dolby Digital 5.1.
> 
> Bookmark this page which lists all BD titles with Dolby Atmos: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132
> 
> If you click on an image of a title it will take you to the details page which will list the studio. Lionsgate = no bueno. However, anything else (Universal, Warner, Paramount, Sony, Fox, etc) will still have Atmos on the rental.


. . . And not to forget discs by mail from 3D-BlurayRental.com, where all the releases are the full retail version--even those from Lionsgate. They also have a good selection of UHD Blu-ray and 3D BR discs.


----------



## Roger Dressler

AndreNewman said:


> I have the same speakers for surround and rear surround and they don't resonate in the same way, that's why I'm blaming the suspended ceiling.


But these other speakers are located in a different relation to the room, so again we cannot be sure if it is acoustics or vibration. Once you can be sure of the root cause, then the best means to address it can be identified.


----------



## ki11abee

I would love to buy the GOT series, especially now that they have Atmos, but it's going to be missing season 7. I'll wait till it's over and buy the the true complete series when it's all complete in a set.


----------



## AndreNewman

Roger Dressler said:


> But these other speakers are located in a different relation to the room, so again we cannot be sure if it is acoustics or vibration. Once you can be sure of the root cause, then the best means to address it can be identified.




I've run the room through REW's room simulator and it's not a ceiling to floor resonance. I've just started house hunting so it might not be a problem for long.

It's definitely some sort of room effect, oh and I forgot to mention, I installed the speakers as heights initially, due to mounting concerns with the ceiling. They didn't have this resonance when they were attached to the walls. Of course they didn't have the right effect as heights either so I decided to try a ceiling mount, which is mostly successful, with the exception of this resonance. A 150Hz crossover fixes it completely, only trouble with that is my subs stop dead at 110Hz. I have a couple of spare minidsp outputs so I did consider a mid bass sub or two but a new house will bring different challenges.


----------



## showmak

Scott Simonian said:


> It simply puts a little bit of the lower speakers into the overheads. It fills the overheads with sound from all lower speakers including the center channel.
> 
> Stopped using it right away with movies, at least.
> 
> But Auromatic fans.... eat your heart out.


Is it possible for Yamaha to implement the Enhanced sound program in 3050 through future FW update?


----------



## aaronwt

chi_guy50 said:


> . . . And not to forget discs by mail from 3D-BlurayRental.com, where all the releases are the full retail version--even those from Lionsgate. They also have a good selection of UHD Blu-ray and 3D BR discs.


Yes. And most newer releases do not have Atmos on the 2K BD any more. The Atmos/DTS:X track is typically on the UHD BD. While the 2K BD will typically just have DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD.
Which is more reason to use www.3d-blurayrental.com. Since you can rent the UHD BD titles from them.


----------



## Scott Simonian

showmak said:


> Is it possible for Yamaha to implement the Enhanced sound program in 3050 through future FW update?


I honestly don't know but I can speculate!

Is it possible? Maybe. Will they? Doubtful.

I figure they would have done it by now if they were. Try sending them an email inquiry. 


Honestly, you're not missing much. I was bummed out when the xx60's got it. Then the 5100 owners got it. Not a huge fan of what it does for movies. Might make music fun though.


----------



## Scott Simonian

*Zero Dark Thirty* will have Dolby Atmos and releases on *UHD on September 12th.


**

Starship Troopers* and the new sequel, *Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars *announced for *UHD release on September 19th.*

Both in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## confinoj

aaronwt said:


> Yes. And most newer releases do not have Atmos on the 2K BD any more. The Atmos/DTS:X track is typically on the UHD BD. While the 2K BD will typically just have DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD.
> Which is more reason to use www.3d-blurayrental.com. Since you can rent the UHD BD titles from them.


I find this marketing annoying but I guess that's to help them sell UHD. I have made to jump to atmos but not 4K/HDR yet. Hanging on to my Samsung plasma and waiting a little while longer for oled prices to fall. I may need to buy a UHD blu ray player and output 1080p just so I can get the Atmos track.


----------



## gwsat

aaronwt said:


> Yes. And most newer releases do not have Atmos on the 2K BD any more. The Atmos/DTS:X track is typically on the UHD BD. While the 2K BD will typically just have DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD.
> Which is more reason to use www.3d-blurayrental.com. Since you can rent the UHD BD titles from them.


I have been reading with interest what you and others have been saying about _*3DBlurayRental.Com*_ Today I created an account there, although I have not yet selected a subscription plan. Will report how it works out for me. Because this service is likely to be of interest to most who post to this thread, I will risk going off topic and ask which subscription plan works best for you?


----------



## chi_guy50

confinoj said:


> I find this marketing annoying but I guess that's to help them sell UHD. I have made to jump to atmos but not 4K/HDR yet. Hanging on to my Samsung plasma and waiting a little while longer for oled prices to fall. I may need to buy a UHD blu ray player and output 1080p just so I can get the Atmos track.


My advice: Don't wait until you're ready to upgrade your display to 4K. You will not regret having a UHD BDP in your rack, especially now that there are very affordable options on the market. Life is short (even shorter when you're already my age) and you shouldn't downgrade your audio experience now just because your display doesn't handle the latest video standard.


----------



## Scott Simonian

confinoj said:


> I may need to buy a UHD blu ray player and output 1080p just so I can get the Atmos track.


Many of us are doing just that.


----------



## confinoj

chi_guy50 said:


> My advice: Don't wait until you're ready to upgrade your display to 4K. You will not regret having a UHD BRP in your rack, especially now that there are very affordable options on the market. Life is short (even shorter when you're already my age) and you shouldn't downgrade your audio experience now just because your display doesn't handle the latest video standard.


Agree. Will probably happen in the near future. There are many 1080p atmos titles right now but it does seem newer releases are less and less likely to have atmos on 1080p versions. As soon as I start getting annoyed about not having the titles I want with atmos will bite the bullet and get a UHD player.

It's going to ruin my nice Plex setup as right now all my discs are ripped and played via Plex on a media PC (which supports HD audio including atmos) or ATVs. No way to rip UHD disc right now.


----------



## chi_guy50

gwsat said:


> I have been reading with interest what you and others have been saying about _*3DBlurayRental.Com*_ Today I created an account there, although I have not yet selected a subscription plan. Will report how it works out for me. Because this service is likely to be of interest to most who post to this thread, I will risk going off topic and ask *which subscription plan works best for you?*


I think that's a highly subjective question and the answer will vary depending on the subscriber's viewing habits, number of consumers in the household, other sources of video entertainment, etc., not to mention budget.

I have been a monthly subscriber for over a year and have posted a number of times on AVSForum to describe the pros and cons (there are plenty of both) of this service compared to Netflix (to which I also subscribe for both discs-by-mail and 4K streaming). 

Note also that you don't have to keep a monthly subscription. You can order titles à la carte or you can stop and start your monthly sub as your viewing schedule dictates (you can also combine the two methods, paying per disc for additional titles that go beyond your monthly limit). But at a per-disc rate of between $2.67 (@15 p.m.) and $4.50 (@2 p.m.), the monthly sub is generally the best deal.


----------



## batpig

ki11abee said:


> I would love to buy the GOT series, especially now that they have Atmos, but it's going to be missing season 7. I'll wait till it's over and buy the the true complete series when it's all complete in a set.


Same here, I was thinking of buying the big six season boxed set but I figure I'll hold off. I just got Season 6 cheap on eBay (less than $15). The PQ improvements and Atmos audio was well worth it!


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Many of us are doing just that.


Not 100% Atmos related, but relevant because of the 4K immersive exclusives....

What have people's experiences been with HDR-SDR conversion for PQ with different players? I'm playing with a Phillips UHD player I got cheap off Craigslist, and when I compare the PQ on the 4K disc vs. the regular BD there are definite differences in the presentation. It's made me hesitant to move forward with more 4K titles just for the Atmos track if the PQ is going to be wonky because of the HDR conversion.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Not 100% Atmos related, but relevant because of the 4K immersive exclusives....
> 
> What have people's experiences been with HDR-SDR conversion for PQ with different players? I'm playing with a Phillips UHD player I got cheap off Craigslist, and when I compare the PQ on the 4K disc vs. the regular BD there are definite differences in the presentation. It's made me hesitant to move forward with more 4K titles just for the Atmos track if the PQ is going to be wonky because of the HDR conversion.


Well....he might have said "Atmos".

I read it as "either immersive format". In a 7.1.4 world, it's all the same.

I have the Oppo 203. At first I had some issues but after a firmware update, it fixed most of the problems I had.

Occasionally things will be a lil off with white/black balance. Color might be a little duller than usual. Very minor. The worst stuff I see on my system is banding. I seem to get a lot of that. And by "a lot" I mean frequently enough to notice it and for it to be an "issue" but it's not constant by any means. Just... the worst of the problems I've run into. Could be less now with more updates. It's been a few weeks since I last watched a UHD.


----------



## Computer Supplies

Good idea


----------



## Scott Simonian

I agree.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

batpig said:


> Not 100% Atmos related, but relevant because of the 4K immersive exclusives....
> 
> What have people's experiences been with HDR-SDR conversion for PQ with different players? I'm playing with a Phillips UHD player I got cheap off Craigslist, and when I compare the PQ on the 4K disc vs. the regular BD there are definite differences in the presentation. It's made me hesitant to move forward with more 4K titles just for the Atmos track if the PQ is going to be wonky because of the HDR conversion.


I have the Panasonic UB400 and the picture on my Pioneer Kuro is stunning with 4K discs.


----------



## gwsat

chi_guy50 said:


> My advice: Don't wait until you're ready to upgrade your display to 4K. You will not regret having a UHD BRP in your rack, especially now that there are very affordable options on the market. Life is short (even shorter when you're already my age) and you shouldn't downgrade your audio experience now just because your display doesn't handle the latest video standard.


I agree that a UHD HDR TV is a good idea, even if you don't yet have access to native 4K content. When I bought my Sony 940D last summer, I upgraded the rest of my system to match it. Nevertheless, I have come to appreciate how much using the 940D to upconvert native 1080P content to 2160P adds to my viewing enjoyment. 



chi_guy50 said:


> I think that's a highly subjective question and the answer will vary depending on the subscriber's viewing habits, number of consumers in the household, other sources of video entertainment, etc., not to mention budget.
> 
> I have been a monthly subscriber for over a year and have posted a number of times on AVSForum to describe the pros and cons (there are plenty of both) of this service compared to Netflix (to which I also subscribe for both discs-by-mail and 4K streaming).
> 
> Note also that you don't have to keep a monthly subscription. You can order titles à la carte or you can stop and start your monthly sub as your viewing schedule dictates (you can also combine the two methods, paying per disc for additional titles that go beyond your monthly limit). But at a per-disc rate of between $2.67 (@15 p.m.) and $4.50 (@2 p.m.), the monthly sub is generally the best deal.


Thanks for the tip. I'll report further after I have had the opportunity to rent and watch some of the UHD HDR titles available from 3DBluerayRental.com’s catalog.


----------



## aaronwt

gwsat said:


> I have been reading with interest what you and others have been saying about _*3DBlurayRental.Com*_ Today I created an account there, although I have not yet selected a subscription plan. Will report how it works out for me. Because this service is likely to be of interest to most who post to this thread, I will risk going off topic and ask which subscription plan works best for you?


I'm on the three out plan and have been using them for around 4.5 years. I get UHD BDs, 3D BDs, 2D BDs, and sometimes XB1/PS4 game rentals. I will typically add rentals to my cart a week before release. So I will typically get them release week. Otherwise if you wait until the titles have released to order them, there can be a delay in getting them. But this is normal for a disc subscription service.

The last title I got was the UHD BD of King Kong. I looked at and listened to some of it last night. But I really wasn't in the mood to watch it. But I saw enough that I don't want to purchase it. unless I can get it on sale for $15.


----------



## gwsat

aaronwt said:


> I'm on the three out plan and have been using them for around 4.5 years. I get UHD BDs, 3D BDs, 2D BDs, and sometimes XB1/PS4 game rentals. I will typically add rentals to my cart a week before release. So I will typically get them release week. Otherwise if you wait until the titles have released to order them, there can be a delay in getting them. But this is normal for a disc subscription service.
> 
> The last title I got was the UHD BD of King Kong. I looked at and listened to some of it last night. But I really wasn't in the mood to watch it. But I saw enough that I don't want to purchase it. unless I can get it on sale for $15.


I am seriously considering the three at a time play from 3DBlurayRental.com but want to ask first, how quickly I could expect delivery of the disks I order that are shown as being "In Stock" and how long for those that are listed as "Short Wait?" The lengths to which we will go for lossless immersive soundtracks is amazing, isn't it?

I bought the UHD HDR DTS:X MA version of _King Kong_ (2005) and really enjoyed it. Its HDR, especially in the Times Square and Empire State Building scenes later in the film is beautiful. The DTS:X audio is good too but I thought it fell a bit short in the LFE department. Consider the source, though. Not everybody is as crazy about low frequencies as I am.


----------



## petetherock

Scott Simonian said:


> *Zero Dark Thirty* will have Dolby Atmos and releases on *UHD on September 12th.
> 
> 
> **
> 
> Starship Troopers* and the new sequel, *Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars *announced for *UHD release on September 19th.*
> 
> Both in Dolby Atmos.


I am looking forward to opinions on these 'upscaled' discs, and whether the sound is significantly better or is this another means to milks more $$ from us..


----------



## Scott Simonian

How do you know that they are "upscaled"?


----------



## petetherock

Because AFAIK, they were not mastered in Atmos as a native format...


----------



## FilmMixer

petetherock said:


> Because AFAIK, they were not mastered in Atmos as a native format...




ZDT was "re-done" from original pre dubs and elements. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Scott Simonian

petetherock said:


> Because AFAIK, they were not mastered in Atmos as a native format...


You do know that *several* catalog titles have been remixed into either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, right?

It's not like they just run it through DSU and spit out a new "Atmos" track.


----------



## petetherock

Scott Simonian said:


> You do know that *several* catalog titles have been remixed into either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, right?
> 
> It's not like they just run it through DSU and spit out a new "Atmos" track.


Yep, that's why I want to know how it sounds. Remix or simply run through DSU, the proof will be in the actual product and how good it is. I have "Dirty Harry II" and it's 'just' DTS-MA and it's wonderful. I also have some recently DTS-X mixes and I sold off the disc once I made it to the end.. so Atmos/DTS-X isn't a guarantee that it will be gold. Cheers


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> Atmos/DTS-X isn't a guarantee that it will be gold.


Who said it was? I don't see anyone (at least in this thread) claiming that a sound format guarantees a good mix.


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> Yes. And most newer releases do not have Atmos on the 2K BD any more. The Atmos/DTS:X track is typically on the UHD BD. While the 2K BD will typically just have DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD.
> Which is more reason to use www.3d-blurayrental.com. Since you can rent the UHD BD titles from them.


That's a pathetic tactic of the industry. The same industry is moving like a turtle for providing 4K home projectors (even I wanted to spend $8k+ on a 4K Sony projector, I can't use it in my room due to the lack of lens shift so I'm stuck with a 1080p 3D projector or a faked 4K model for over $1000 more). The irony is that most people can't see 4K resolution on their 4K sets because they don't sit 5 feet from a 55" set! That's probably why they came up with the HDR/WCG because at least you can see that from across the room and most people don't know their eyes aren't getting a 4K experience since it just looks as sharp as it can. 

All I know is I refuse to pay 2-3x as much for a 4K Ultra disc when I don't even have a player for it right now as my projector isn't 4K. If it's not dead in 3-5 years when maybe a few other 4K projector models exist, the prices should hopefully be lower on Ultra 4K discs (look how much cheaper 2K BDs are), but then they have a habit of killing things that don't sell well/fast enough (just look how they are dumping 3D support). 4K will saturate and then 8K will come out.... Who cares if you don't NEED it (how big would the set have to be to actually resolve that detail in a home environment?) and can't see any difference? They want to keep selling you more TVs.

So a better question is why should I bother getting an Atmos receiver and buying more speakers if they can't even be bothered to include the Atmos meta data on a regular BD when it's right there and identical to the soundtrack requirements of the 4K disc? What about streaming? DD+ can carry Atmos. It'd be ironic if a cheap streaming version had Atmos and the superior picture BD did not.


----------



## showmak

Scott Simonian said:


> I honestly don't know but I can speculate!
> 
> Is it possible? Maybe. Will they? Doubtful.
> 
> I figure they would have done it by now if they were. Try sending them an email inquiry.
> 
> 
> Honestly, you're not missing much. I was bummed out when the xx60's got it. Then the 5100 owners got it. Not a huge fan of what it does for movies. Might make music fun though.



I'll take your word for it.


----------



## jm10

sdurani said:


> Who said it was? I don't see anyone (at least in this thread) claiming that a sound format *guarantees a good mix.*


...and even a good mix can be screwed up by speaker location. So for Atmos and DTS-X, the overhead speaker location is better than FH/RH, isn't it?


----------



## chi_guy50

gwsat said:


> I am seriously considering the three at a time play from 3DBlurayRental.com but want to ask first, *how quickly I could expect delivery of the disks I order that are shown as being "In Stock" and how long for those that are listed as "Short Wait?" *The lengths to which we will go for lossless immersive soundtracks is amazing, isn't it?


YMMV, but in my experience, "In Stock" titles usually take about three to five business days to arrive (via USPS first-class mail from their centralized repository in Naperville, IL, to my location in Atlanta, GA). Those listed as "Short Wait" can take months depending on what else you have stacked up in your cart and whether you reach your monthly limit since, even though they nominally* guarantee a wait time of no greater than 20 days, that maximum delay resets each month. Therefore, with a 2-per-month plan, you could wait months to get a specific title unless you ask (via e-mail) to have it take priority over anything else in your cart.

Unlike Netflix, where you have wide flexibility on-line to reorder your queue, change your plan, and make other account settings adjustments with just a few mouse clicks, 3D-BlurayRental's site is not terribly user-friendly and you have to send them an e-mail for most actions other than placing an order. However, they are very responsive and will usually honor any reasonable requests--or provide an individualized answer to any question--within 24 hours.

I like their service and do not hesitate to recommend it but, as I have already stated, there are a number of cons to go with the pros. IOW, you are wise to do the research beforehand so that you will know what to expect and can avoid disappointment.

* Or, as the French say, _en principe_, meaning "don't depend on it."


----------



## sdurani

jm10 said:


> So for Atmos and DTS-X, the overhead speaker location is better than FH/RH, isn't it?


Atmos FH/RH locations don't have corresponding DTS:X speaker locations. Instead, the Atmos TF/TR locations are close enough to the DTS:X FH/RH locations that one layout can satisfy both formats. See speakers circled in green in the diagram below:


----------



## aaronwt

gwsat said:


> I am seriously considering the three at a time play from 3DBlurayRental.com but want to ask first, how quickly I could expect delivery of the disks I order that are shown as being "In Stock" and how long for those that are listed as "Short Wait?" The lengths to which we will go for lossless immersive soundtracks is amazing, isn't it?
> 
> I bought the UHD HDR DTS:X MA version of _King Kong_ (2005) and really enjoyed it. Its HDR, especially in the Times Square and Empire State Building scenes later in the film is beautiful. The DTS:X audio is good too but I thought it fell a bit short in the LFE department. Consider the source, though. Not everybody is as crazy about low frequencies as I am.


It usually takes around three to five days to reach me on the East Coast. But when you put it in the mailbox you can count it as returned for ordering another. Wait times for short wait titles can range from a few days to three weeks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

petetherock said:


> Yep, that's why I want to know how it sounds. Remix or simply run through DSU, the proof will be in the actual product and how good it is. I have "Dirty Harry II" and it's 'just' DTS-MA and it's wonderful. I also have some recently DTS-X mixes and I sold off the disc once I made it to the end.. so Atmos/DTS-X isn't a guarantee that it will be gold. Cheers














showmak said:


> I'll take your word for it.


Yeah, sorry. I don't know for sure what they will do for your series.

The Enhanced DSP mode is kinda disappointing. It copies a litttle bit of each speaker into the two front and rear overhead zones of ambiance. All the speakers, including the center channel. So when people complain about Neural:X _sometimes_ moves things overhead that shouldn't... this mode does it without ever stopping. There is a little bit of reverb and I think it could be pleasing with music, especially multi-channel music. Sounds exactly like Auromatic and it's adjustable too. So if that sounds like something you "gotta have!" (remember there are all the other modes that do the same thing...mostly) then I won't stop ya from looking forward to it.

I just can't say if you will get it or not.

Again, you're not missing much (for movies).



jm10 said:


> ...and even a good mix can be screwed up by speaker location. So for Atmos and DTS-X, the overhead speaker location is better than FH/RH, isn't it?





sdurani said:


> Atmos FH/RH locations don't have corresponding DTS:X speaker locations. Instead, the Atmos TF/TR locations are close enough to the DTS:X FH/RH locations that one layout can satisfy both formats. See speakers circled in green in the diagram below:


I got the idea that he meant the Height location physically mounted high up on a wall than on the ceiling.

Imho, yes, the ceiling is a much better position for overhead sound. I know companies for years have been doing wall mounted but ... between the two locations, on the ceiling gets much more "effect" than speakers high up on the front or rear wall.

Just my opinion based off experience.


----------



## sdurani

Scott Simonian said:


> I got the idea that he meant the Height location physically mounted high up on a wall than on the ceiling.


Hence my pointing out that DTS:X doesn't have a corresponding speaker location.


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> Hence my pointing out that DTS:X doesn't have a corresponding speaker location.


That's true.

Though there will be several people who have or can only have wall mounted "heights" instead of actual on ceiling speakers.

What I'm saying is I don't think that HEIGHT *speaker location*..... is ever good. 

But if it's all you got....


----------



## showmak

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah, sorry. I don't know for sure what they will do for your series.
> 
> The Enhanced DSP mode is kinda disappointing. It copies a litttle bit of each speaker into the two front and rear overhead zones of ambiance. All the speakers, including the center channel. So when people complain about Neural:X _sometimes_ moves things overhead that shouldn't... this mode does it without ever stopping. There is a little bit of reverb and I think it could be pleasing with music, especially multi-channel music. Sounds exactly like Auromatic and it's adjustable too. So if that sounds like something you "gotta have!" (remember there are all the other modes that do the same thing...mostly) then I won't stop ya from looking forward to it.
> 
> I just can't say if you will get it or not.
> 
> Again, you're not missing much (for movies).


To be honest I'm quite happy with what Neural:X and DSU do, but I was curious about this new mode and was asking myself why not in my 3050. I believe it's only a software upgrade, but if Yamaha doesn't care about their legacy products then why should I.


----------



## jm10

Scott Simonian said:


> I got the idea that *he meant the Height location physically mounted high up on a wall than on the ceiling.*
> 
> *Imho, yes, the ceiling is a much better position for overhead sound. *I know companies for years have been doing wall mounted but ... between the two locations, on the ceiling gets much more "effect" than speakers high up on the front or rear wall.
> 
> Just my opinion based off experience.


Yeap.... thats what I was referring to. I will stick with my original plan to mount them on ceiling then. Thanks.
...a nice project for this weekend. #WootWoot


----------



## Scott Simonian

jm10 said:


> Yeap.... thats what I was referring to. I will stick with my original plan to mount them on ceiling then. Thanks.
> ...a nice project for this weekend. #WootWoot


Looks like a good layout.

You're gonna really like the upgrade to Atmos.


----------



## Ted99

gwsat said:


> I am seriously considering the three at a time play from 3DBlurayRental.com but want to ask first, how quickly I could expect delivery of the disks I order that are shown as being "In Stock" and how long for those that are listed as "Short Wait?" The lengths to which we will go for lossless immersive soundtracks is amazing, isn't it?
> 
> I bought the UHD HDR DTS:X MA version of _King Kong_ (2005) and really enjoyed it. Its HDR, especially in the Times Square and Empire State Building scenes later in the film is beautiful. The DTS:X audio is good too but I thought it fell a bit short in the LFE department. Consider the source, though. Not everybody is as crazy about low frequencies as I am.


I have the 2/month plan and order the new releases. I always load them up in the week before release. Generally speaking, I would be unable to use a plan with more than 2/month because of wait time. I would average about 2 1/2 per month, if they had such a plan. If mail came from IL to TX more quickly, I could use a 3/mos plan. 4/mos would be a waste of $ unless I was ordering old titles.


----------



## gwsat

Ted99 said:


> I have the 2/month plan and order the new releases. I always load them up in the week before release. Generally speaking, I would be unable to use a plan with more than 2/month because of wait time. I would average about 2 1/2 per month, if they had such a plan. If mail came from IL to TX more quickly, I could use a 3/mos plan. 4/mos would be a waste of $ unless I was ordering old titles.


Thanks. Earlier today I carefully reviewed the UHD HDR releases available at _*3DBlurayRental.Com*_ and decided that, for the moment at least, it makes more sense to buy the UHD HDR titles I want instead of renting them. There are few enough new releases that I care enough about to even want to watch, I'm better off buying them.


----------



## Ted99

gwsat said:


> Thanks. Earlier today I carefully reviewed the UHD HDR releases available at _*3DBlurayRental.Com*_ and decided that, for the moment at least, it makes more sense to buy the UHD HDR titles I want instead of renting them. There are few enough new releases that I care enough about to even want to watch, I'm better off buying them.


Yes. Another reason I think 2/mos is enough is that there are not very many new UHD titles released on 3DBluRay that I even want to see.


----------



## mateo222

Hi all,

Doing a new build and hoping to get some advice. I would like to do a 7.1.4 system, however, I will have a few challenges with how the room is currently designed. We are going to nix the fireplace on the bottom and likely use a drop down projector screen that will be placed on the top of the attached layout. The windows on the bottom can be tweaked as well to allow for rear in-wall speakers. I will do in-ceiling speakers so I don't have to do upward firing speakers.

The first challenge is that I really want to do in wall speakers for the Front/Rear L/R speakers. I am hoping that I can do this with a solution the pivots a bit towards the central listening position. I know that the staircase is going to mess with the placement of one of the in-wall speakers if I go this route.

The second challenge is the side speakers. Again I would like these to be in-wall or wall mounted, however, they will have to be up high. I am not certain how this will effect the immersive surround experience. I know SVS has a product that is angled, however, I believe it is more so a solution for those who don't want to do upward firing speakers/in-ceiling speakers. One side I could achieve this as we have a wall, however, the other side will be a door system and this is not changeable, thus I only have overhead to work with. 

I appreciate any advice and other challenges that folks might see with this.

TIA.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Ted99 said:


> Yes. Another reason I think 2/mos is enough is that there are not very many new UHD titles released on 3DBluRay that I even want to see.


Agreed. Today, I received UHD Logan and UHD Power Rangers from 3DBluRay. I'm on the two a month plan and I usually order on the first of the month. I have plenty of time to keep the two discs I have right now, watch them and then send them back for another two in August, 2017. 

I do not buy any discs, period, and rarely watch the same movie twice. For the most part, it's like reading yesterday's newspaper that you already read. There are exceptions - - but few and far between.


----------



## mateo222

jm10 said:


> Yeap.... thats what I was referring to. I will stick with my original plan to mount them on ceiling then. Thanks.
> ...a nice project for this weekend. #WootWoot


What did you use to draw this out? Trying to think of something good to get my layout mapped out properly.


----------



## jm10

mateo222 said:


> What did you use to draw this out? Trying to think of something good to get my layout mapped out properly.


I use MS Visio because I already have it due to my work, but its costly and probably too much for HT hobby. 

Although I have not try this other one yet, it could be helpful for you: http://www.sweethome3d.com/index.jsp

Let us know your end result mapping your Atmos speakers placement.

...and don't forget to review the Atmos Installation guide... you can find it quickly on the first post of this thread.


----------



## Sweetmeat

mateo222 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> Doing a new build and hoping to get some advice. I would like to do a 7.1.4 system, however, I will have a few challenges with how the room is currently designed. We are going to nix the fireplace on the bottom and likely use a drop down projector screen that will be placed on the top of the attached layout. The windows on the bottom can be tweaked as well to allow for rear in-wall speakers. I will do in-ceiling speakers so I don't have to do upward firing speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> The first challenge is that I really want to do in wall speakers for the Front/Rear L/R speakers. I am hoping that I can do this with a solution the pivots a bit towards the central listening position. I know that the staircase is going to mess with the placement of one of the in-wall speakers if I go this route.
> 
> 
> 
> The second challenge is the side speakers. Again I would like these to be in-wall or wall mounted, however, they will have to be up high. I am not certain how this will effect the immersive surround experience. I know SVS has a product that is angled, however, I believe it is more so a solution for those who don't want to do upward firing speakers/in-ceiling speakers. One side I could achieve this as we have a wall, however, the other side will be a door system and this is not changeable, thus I only have overhead to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate any advice and other challenges that folks might see with this.
> 
> 
> 
> TIA.




Others may have better alternatives, but if my room layout matched yours, I'd just go with regular speakers rather than in-wall. Unless your basement ceiling is going to be really high, there's not going to be much room to place an in-wall speaker above the door on the left.

I think I'd get L & R floor standers (or bookshelf on stands) and RL/RR bookshelves on stands, and a center channel that matches the timbre of the FL/FR and fits in the space you have available. You might be able to add rear surround speakers on (or in) your back wall.

If you want 4 atmos speakers, then your seating area will need to be a few feet from the back wall so your rear atmos speakers (which I'd recommend to be in-ceiling) would be behind you. Then your front atmos speakers will be the same distance in-ceiling in front of you.

If you want just 2 atmos speakers, then your seating area could be at the back wall and then put the atmos speakers in front of you in-ceiling. If you want the rear surrounds with those 2 atmos speakers, you'll need to move your seating area away from the back wall and your atmos speakers closer to the front and still in-ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## woody777

Is atmos worth it in an open floor plan with vaulted ceilings? I just wonder if my room requires too many compromises. I'm exploring the idea of doing a 5.1.2 system. Here's my situation:

3.1 setup is fantastic. Traditional left, right, center all positioned perfectly with the mlp. Things go downhill from there. 

I can't really do side surrounds. The couch is up against the left wall and there is no wall to the right. There is no back wall either. Best solution for the surrounds seems like in ceiling (possibly angled with an aimable tweeter) located slightly behind and to the sides of the mlp. *I know it's not ideal, but could it sound awesome?*

And I can't do anything in ceiling. The ceiling is vaulted and at an angle. I do have a huge front wall to work. Best solution for the .2 seems like in wall heights (again possibly angled with an aimable tweeter). *Again, less than ideal, but could it sound awesome?*

Would love some feedback and/or other ideas!


----------



## Ricoflashback

Quick question on Dolby Digital Plus (DD+) as it relates to DSU. Any difference in how DSU handles DD versus DD+, sound wise? 

The reason I ask is that for the first time (and maybe my eyes didn't notice before) I saw a HBO movie (great flick - Hacksaw Ridge) that was DD+ on my Denon x5200. Even though I have HBO, I rarely watch their movies as I rent from 3D Bluray Rental, Redbox and stream from Amazon Prime. 

The soundtrack in DSU sounded fantastic.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ricoflashback said:


> Quick question on Dolby Digital Plus (DD+) as it relates to DSU. Any difference in how DSU handles DD versus DD+, sound wise?
> 
> The reason I ask is that for the first time (and maybe my eyes didn't notice before) I saw a HBO movie (great flick - Hacksaw Ridge) that was DD+ on my Denon x5200. Even though I have HBO, I rarely watch their movies as I rent from 3D Bluray Rental, Redbox and stream from Amazon Prime.
> 
> The soundtrack in DSU sounded fantastic.


DD+ can transport Atmos, are you sure it was DSU and not actual Atmos that was playing?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Mashie Saldana said:


> DD+ can transport Atmos, are you sure it was DSU and not actual Atmos that was playing?


Thanks Mashie. Yes, when I pushed the "Info" button on my Denon, it said DD+ versus Dolby Digital and only five boxes (speakers) were highlighted.

I've written HBO to see if they can clarify their use of DD+ and also if they will have Dolby Atmos via DD+ in the future. I'm not sure if I'll get a response - - but at least I tried. 

IMHO, it would be a great strategy for HBO and other movie providers to have Dolby Atmos via DD+. I would think it would be easier to drive subscriptions and increase revenue but maybe the cost is prohibitive for their model. It's not an issue of technology and even though it is compressed and not lossless, it would add a lot to soundtracks for folks who have invested in a Dolby Atmos setup.


----------



## aaronwt

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks Mashie. Yes, when I pushed the "Info" button on my Denon, it said DD+ versus Dolby Digital and only five boxes (speakers) were highlighted.
> 
> I've written HBO to see if they can clarify their use of DD+ and also if they will have Dolby Atmos via DD+ in the future. I'm not sure if I'll get a response - - but at least I tried.
> 
> IMHO, it would be a great strategy for HBO and other movie providers to have Dolby Atmos via DD+. I would think it would be easier to drive subscriptions and increase revenue but maybe the cost is prohibitive for their model. It's not an issue of technology and even though it is compressed and not lossless, it would add a lot to soundtracks for folks who have invested in a Dolby Atmos setup.


But even with an Atmos setup, it will do a great job simulating the height speakers of Atmos from a 5.1 or 7.1 track.

Realistically having Atmos tracks will not really drive subscriptions. Not when then majority of people still use TV speakers for audio. And only a very tiny group of people have Atmos capability.

I got my first surround setup in 1991. And most people still don't have the capability I had over 25 years ago. Since most people are still using the TV speakers for audio.

Unfortunately, this forum is nowhere near the norm.


----------



## Jonas2

woody777 said:


> Is atmos worth it in an open floor plan with vaulted ceilings? I just wonder if my room requires too many compromises. I'm exploring the idea of doing a 5.1.2 system. Here's my situation:
> 
> 3.1 setup is fantastic. Traditional left, right, center all positioned perfectly with the mlp. Things go downhill from there.
> 
> I can't really do side surrounds. The couch is up against the left wall and there is no wall to the right. There is no back wall either. Best solution for the surrounds seems like in ceiling (possibly angled with an aimable tweeter) located slightly behind and to the sides of the mlp. *I know it's not ideal, but could it sound awesome?*
> 
> And I can't do anything in ceiling. The ceiling is vaulted and at an angle. I do have a huge front wall to work. Best solution for the .2 seems like in wall heights (again possibly angled with an aimable tweeter). *Again, less than ideal, but could it sound awesome?*
> 
> Would love some feedback and/or other ideas!


Do you have a floor plan we could see??


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Any difference in how DSU handles DD versus DD+, sound wise?


No difference; upmixers are codec agnostic (everything has to be converted to PCM before processing).


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Realistically having Atmos tracks will not really drive subscriptions. Not when then majority of people still use TV speakers for audio. And only a very tiny group of people have Atmos capability."

I respectfully disagree. There are a lot more people out there with Atmos than you think. Sure, it's still a small minority, but they are making Dolby Atmos soundbars and multiple ways to deliver immersive sound that do not require a full blown theater speaker setup (and dedication) like the folks here on the AVS Forum have.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> No difference; upmixers are codec agnostic (everything has to be converted to PCM before processing).


Thanks, Sanjay. I wonder why HBO changed from DD to DD+ ? For future Dolby Atmos via DD+?


----------



## aaronwt

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "Realistically having Atmos tracks will not really drive subscriptions. Not when then majority of people still use TV speakers for audio. And only a very tiny group of people have Atmos capability."
> 
> I respectfully disagree. There are a lot more people out there with Atmos than you think. Sure, it's still a small minority, but they are making Dolby Atmos soundbars and multiple ways to deliver immersive sound that do not require a full blown theater speaker setup (and dedication) like the folks here on the AVS Forum have.


Yes. But that is the problem. The people here on AVS are nowhere near the norm. I cannot even count the number of times I've run into people, that spend a ton of money on an OLED set or something even more expensive. Only to use either the TV speakers or some low end speaker bar.
Most of them don't even have a clue how to wire any of the equipment up. And then they pay through the nose to have someone wire things up for them.

One person I ran into paid many thousands to have their system moved to an upper level. Just so their kids could have better cellular service while watching TV. I was flabbergasted. I had a Femtocell around nine years ago. A couple hundred dollar solution compared to spending over $5k. Yet the person was clueless about it. And the company they had moved the system of course didn't mention it. You average person, ie. the masses, have no clue about any of this stuff.


----------



## aaronwt

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks, Sanjay. I wonder why HBO changed from DD to DD+ ? For future Dolby Atmos via DD+?


If they changed from DD to DD+ the reason would probably be the same as why Netflix did years ago. To lower the bandwidth needed for streaming. When millions of people are streaming from your service, even a small reduction in bitrate can make a difference in cost.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> I wonder why HBO changed from DD to DD+ ? For future Dolby Atmos via DD+?


Broadcast, cable and satellite have been changing over from DD to DD+ over the last few years because of the greater efficiency of the newer compression codec. DD+ is 10 years newer than old DD, and during that time a lot was learned about perceptual coding, so lossy compression technologies kept improving. DD+ can give you DD quality at much lower bit rates. And you already know that transmission bandwidth is important to broadcasters. The ability for DD+ to encode Atmos was a recent development, giving another reason to convert from DD. But the change was already happening pre-Atmos.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> Broadcast, cable and satellite have been changing over from DD to DD+ over the last few years because of the greater efficiency of the newer compression codec. DD+ is 10 years newer than old DD, and during that time a lot was learned about perceptual coding, so lossy compression technologies kept improving. DD+ can give you DD quality at much lower bit rates. And you already know that transmission bandwidth is important to broadcasters. The ability for DD+ to encode Atmos was a recent development, giving another reason to convert from DD. But the change was already happening pre-Atmos.


Thanks aaronwt and sdurani. Much appreciated. So it looks like Dolby Atmos is a "ride along" with DD+? But still - - not a lot of implementation, at least broadcast wise, of Dolby Atmos via DD+.

I understand the reason for the switch. Like Nicky says in the movie Casino, "Always a dollar. Always a dollar."


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Broadcast, cable and satellite have been changing over from DD to DD+ over the last few years because of the greater efficiency of the newer compression codec. DD+ is 10 years newer than old DD, and during that time a lot was learned about perceptual coding, so lossy compression technologies kept improving. DD+ can give you DD quality at much lower bit rates. And you already know that transmission bandwidth is important to broadcasters. The ability for DD+ to encode Atmos was a recent development, giving another reason to convert from DD. But the change was already happening pre-Atmos.


Ever since I learned (here, where else?) that DD+ not only sounds better than DD but has Atmos capability too and is more efficient than DD I have been deeply impressed with what Dolby's engineers have wrought.


----------



## aaronwt

gwsat said:


> Ever since I learned (here, where else?) that DD+ not only sounds better than DD but has Atmos capability too and is more efficient than DD I have been deeply impressed with what Dolby's engineers have wrought.


I'm still not seeing any evidence of DD+ sounding better. At least not with the streaming services. Of course if you have content at a 6Mb/s bitrate with DD+, of course it sounds better than DD. DD maxes out at 640Kb/s. While DD+ can maxes out at 6.1Mb/s.

But Netflix typically uses a 192Kb/s bitrate for their 5.1 DD+ tracks. When that 5.1 DD+ is converted to 640Kb/s DD, it sounds identical to the 192Kb/s DD+. Which is what my Sony TV and Roku Ultra can do with the DD+ streaming audio.

of course that conversion doesn't work so well with a 7.1 DD+ track, like Vudu has. Since the conversion to DD seems to just truncate the extra two channels. But for Netflix it works great. Since netflix only has 2.0 and 5.1 audio tracks.


----------



## sdurani

aaronwt said:


> I'm still not seeing any evidence of DD+ sounding better....Netflix typically uses a 192Kb/s bitrate for their 5.1 DD+ tracks.


If you compare that to DD 5.1 @ 384Kb/s (on laserdisc), you'll hear that DD+ at half the bitrate sounds as good (maybe even slightly better). Which means that if you have both codecs at the same bitrate, DD+ will sound better.


----------



## aaronwt

sdurani said:


> If you compare that to DD 5.1 @ 384Kb/s (on laserdisc), you'll hear that DD+ at half the bitrate sounds as good (maybe even slightly better). Which means that if you have both codecs at the same bitrate, DD+ will sound better.


Oh yes. DD+ is more efficient. So at the same bitrate DD+ will most definitely sound better. But most DD+ stuff I deal with is from streaming streaming services. Netlflix used to have higher bitrate DD audio. Then went to a lower bitrate DD+ audio. And as they said, to have the same audio quality, only with a lower bitrate. Whether true or not I don't know. But I know that when the netflix 5.1 192Kb/s DD+ is converted to 5.1 640Kb/s DD, it sounds the same.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> If you compare that to DD 5.1 @ 384Kb/s (on laserdisc), you'll hear that DD+ at half the bitrate sounds as good (maybe even slightly better). Which means that if you have both codecs at the same bitrate, DD+ will sound better.


That's like saying you can't hear a real issue with either (at least with movies). TrueHD and HD Master Audio? It's nice they've got room for them on a BD, but I think most people are kidding themselves that they actually sound noticeably better (at least compared to regular DTS; DD always had fairly low bit-rates by comparison, although at 640kbps it sounds pretty good). 

Personally, I'd rather see more 7.1 soundtracks with DD+ than endless 5.1 soundtracks with DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD. The impact of more channel information adds far more impact than some slight "maybe" possible improvement in the clarity of the mid-range or cymbals or whatever that compression might affect here and there. But despite the capability of 7.1 and Atmos, are there ANY 7.1 soundtracks being used on DD+ ? I think I read somewhere the 4K Ultra streams on Vudu are starting to use 7.1 and Atmos, but I've never heard of Netflix or iTunes or anyone else at all using even 7.1 channels, let alone Atmos. If it costs them more bandwidth, they'll probably say you can do without since as has been pointed out, most people don't even do 5.1 or even 4.1 or even 3.0 for that matter. They use their craptastic TV speakers (which are WAY crappier than they have ever been since tiny thin flat panels can't support real speakers like the old giant rear projectors could throw in there at the base). 

I installed a 4.0 system for my mother at her house with big Klipsch towers that have decent bass and used her existing installed surrounds as best I could (it's a corner install due to a big fireplace), but even so it sounds WAY better than the TV speakers (which ironically are on an older Panasonic 1080i/720p 57" CRT rear projector with giant built-in speakers that sound far from terrible and still all works fine) and all she has to do is push 1 button to get better sound. When I'm not there, she just uses the TV speakers (Why bother? To push one button???). 

I think sound simply isn't remotely important to not just some, but MANY people. They Ooh and Aah over OLED 4K at Best Buy, but if you point out that if you back up to where you'd actually watch the set at home (often 15 or even 20 feet away) that you can't possibly tell 4K from 1080P (not counting HDR/WCG material for those effects, but the resolution itself), they act like it never even occurred to them because you walk up and stand 2-4 feet from one of these sets previewing 4K material that isn't even broadcast (it always looks like travel shows or TV that isn't available in 4K) and OMG is that sharp! Yeah, it is, but you're two feet from it. Unless you're going to park your chair 2 feet from the set and ignore the fact cable TV has ZERO 4K available and 4K Blu-Rays are still pretty far and few-bewteen and average about $30 each, exactly WHAT and HOW are you going to see that 4K resolution on a daily basis? 

"OMG! I never thought about that! But it looks SO GOOD! I want one anyway!" Yeah, I want a 4K HDR projector, but short of those new DLP "Rainbow Effect" units (I can see it big time), there's not much out there under $8000 (plus the screen and I would want a new 2.35:1 motorized one to go with it with the same height as my current one so that would be another $2400 and I'm suddenly over $10k and STILL only have so many movies available to watch on it right now. And even on a 93" 16:9 screen at 10 feet, it's only going to be noticeably slightly sharper than it already is with a 1080p model due to the limits of the eye's resolving power. The HDR/WCG effect might be nice, but is it worth $10,000 for a handful of movies I'd actually want to see?). Yeah, I'll check back in 4-5 years and see what they cost then.

I think I might have 3 dozen or so BDs with even 7.1 sound on them total out of over 650 movies and probably less than 10 with Atmos. Until there's more material, it just seems like paying a lot to watch the same movies over and over again. I'm not really into watching crap movies just to hear 7.1 sound either. I'd MUCH rather watch one of Bogart's more mediocre movies (I've got 70 of his movies) in B&W 4:3 Mono any day of the week than Transformers again....


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> I think I might have 3 dozen or so BDs with even 7.1 sound on them total out of over 650 movies and probably less than 10 with Atmos. Until there's more material, it just seems like paying a lot to watch the same movies over and over again. I'm not really into watching crap movies just to hear 7.1 sound either. I'd MUCH rather watch one of Bogart's more mediocre movies (I've got 70 of his movies) in B&W 4:3 Mono any day of the week than Transformers again....



Well...


That seems more like a personal issue than a technical one.


----------



## sdurani

aaronwt said:


> Netlflix used to have higher bitrate DD audio. Then went to a lower bitrate DD+ audio.


OK, now I understand what you meant by _"still not seeing any evidence of DD+ sounding better"_. The higher efficiency has been exploited for lower bitrate rather than better audio. So the switch from DD to DD+ didn't result in better sound (at least on streaming content). I initially thought you were being skeptical that DD+ was capable of better sound quality than old DD.


----------



## Roger Dressler

aaronwt said:


> But I know that when the netflix 5.1 192Kb/s DD+ is converted to 5.1 640Kb/s DD, it sounds the same.


Converted? How does that happen? If you are referring to something happening in your system, then it cannot improve the quality. You could output the decoded DD+ as full tilt PCM and it would not sound any better.


----------



## aaronwt

Roger Dressler said:


> Converted? How does that happen? If you are referring to something happening in your system, then it cannot improve the quality. You could output the decoded DD+ as full tilt PCM and it would not sound any better.


I never said it improved it. Capable devices(ie. devices that have paid the licensing fee) convert the 192Kb/s 5.1 DD+ Netflix audio tracks to 640Kb/s 5.1 DD. I said they sound the same.


----------



## Roger Dressler

aaronwt said:


> I never said it improved it. Capable devices(ie. devices that have paid the licensing fee) convert the 192Kb/s 5.1 DD+ Netflix audio tracks to 640Kb/s 5.1 DD. I said they sound the same.


Yes, that was my inference. I was not sure where that was going. All good.


----------



## woody777

Jonas2 said:


> Do you have a floor plan we could see??


No... let me see if I can put something together.


----------



## Gabre

What would be a good budget set of ceiling speakers for Atmos, right now I have some polk bookshelfs in between ceiling joists but thinking of s something that would have better dispersion. Monoprice?


----------



## bigbrain28

Not sure if there's a better place to pose my question - Its more so about set-up (speaker location) than use.

I currently have an 8.2 set up consisting of;
1) Left main
2) Right main
3) Center
4) Front Left Height
5) Front Right Height
6) Surround Left - IN CEILING
7) Surround Center - IN CEILING
8) Surround Right - IN CEILING
.1) Sub 1 (front)
.2) Sub 2 (rear)

Can some of you super smart folks help me figure out the smart way to reconfigure this (its a 16' x 20' room with 8'8" ceilings) to best accommodate an Atmos set-up? I *may* be able to add 2 more speakers if I need to use the rear in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.

Also, I have NOT upgraded to an Atmos AVR yet, part of that process is deciding what my set up will be so I don't buy an AVR which can't drive it. So, off topic, but I am also open to AVR suggestions.

Thanks!


----------



## grendelrt

bigbrain28 said:


> Not sure if there's a better place to pose my question - Its more so about set-up (speaker location) than use.
> 
> I currently have an 8.2 set up consisting of;
> 1) Left main
> 2) Right main
> 3) Center
> 4) Front Left Height
> 5) Front Right Height
> 6) Surround Left - IN CEILING
> 7) Surround Center - IN CEILING
> 8) Surround Right - IN CEILING
> .1) Sub 1 (front)
> .2) Sub 2 (rear)
> 
> Can some of you super smart folks help me figure out the smart way to reconfigure this (its a 16' x 20' room with 8'8" ceilings) to best accommodate an Atmos set-up? I *may* be able to add 2 more speakers if I need to use the rear in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.
> 
> Also, I have NOT upgraded to an Atmos AVR yet, part of that process is deciding what my set up will be so I don't buy an AVR which can't drive it. So, off topic, but I am also open to AVR suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!


Prob best to give a drawing of the locations of the speakers in relation to seating and the wall layout of the room to see what can be moved or repurposed. I would wait on buying a receiver, new ones come out in September from Denon/Marantz (and prob other manufacturers) that will have some new hdmi features.


----------



## bigbrain28

grendelrt said:


> Prob best to give a drawing of the locations of the speakers in relation to seating and the wall layout of the room to see what can be moved or repurposed. I would wait on buying a receiver, new ones come out in September from Denon/Marantz (and prob other manufacturers) that will have some new hdmi features.


Good info, thanks.

I'll work up a layout image soon.


----------



## Jonas2

Gabre said:


> What would be a good budget set of ceiling speakers for Atmos, right now I have some polk bookshelfs in between ceiling joists but thinking of s something that would have better dispersion. Monoprice?


Monoprice, Micca come to mind. There are quite a few out there. What's your total budget, 2 or 4 speakers?


----------



## Gabre

Jonas2 said:


> Monoprice, Micca come to mind. There are quite a few out there. What's your total budget, 2 or 4 speakers?


2 speakers only. Budget lower the better. I have all Kef other speakers, but their pricing is crazy for ceiling speakers. 

I'll look into monoprice then and micca


----------



## sdurani

bigbrain28 said:


> 6) Surround Left - IN CEILING
> 7) Surround Center - IN CEILING
> 8) Surround Right - IN CEILING
> 
> Can some of you super smart folks help me figure out the smart way to reconfigure this (its a 16' x 20' room with 8'8" ceilings) to best accommodate an Atmos set-up? I *may* be able to add 2 more speakers if I need to use the rear in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.


First question: are you willing to add speakers that are NOT in the ceiling, like 2 or 4 surround speakers closer to seated ear height?


----------



## bigbrain28

sdurani said:


> First question: are you willing to add speakers that are NOT in the ceiling, like 2 or 4 surround speakers closer to seated ear height?


That's pretty much what I was thinking. That perhaps the in-ceiling speakers would become Atmos rears, and the front height spks would be Atmos front, and I would have to add/replace (which I never had in the truest sense of placement) some side surrounds flanking the couch.

However that leaves me with one extra in-ceiling in the rear...

Could I leave the 2 as rear surrounds and use just one (the center one) as an Atmos for the rear?


----------



## sdurani

bigbrain28 said:


> That perhaps the in-ceiling speakers would become Atmos rears, and the front height spks would be Atmos front, and I would have to add/replace (which I never had in the truest sense of placement) some side surrounds flanking the couch.


Would have to see a diagram of where the in-ceiling surround speakers are in relation to the listening area in order to determine whether they can be repurposed as height speakers.


> Could I leave the 2 as rear surrounds and use just one (the center one) as an Atmos for the rear?


The Atmos format adds height speakers in pairs. None of the locations in the height layer support a single speaker (the way the base layer supports a single surround-back speaker).


----------



## bigbrain28

The red discs are the in-ceiling locations. I have one unused center channel wire above the TV, also.


----------



## Scott Simonian

The center ceiling positions will not be of use to you in an Atmos/DTS:X application.

The two left and right in-ceiling positions over the couch could be used either as: 2ch middle overhead or rear pair of overhead locations with plans to install another *pair* ahead of the listening position.


----------



## sdurani

Simplest route to Atmos: right Surround speaker at the back end of the right wall; left Surround speaker directly opposite. Both surrounds as close to seated ear height as possible, raising them enough to give all listeners clear line of sight to the speakers. Two of the overhead locations can be used for left & right Top Middle speakers. Should allow you clearly separate sounds around you vs sounds above you (the hallmark of a good Atmos set-up).


----------



## Lonewolf7002

Hey all, I'm looking for some advice here. I recently bought an AVR capable of 5.1.2. I currently have speakers sitting on top of my towers pointing up and forward to use as Front Atmos speakers. I don't get any sense of height with them at all. I've played a number of Atmos demos and Atmos shows as playing on my AVR, but sound wise I don't hear any difference with Atmos on or off. According to the Dolby home theatre installation guide an Atmos enabled setup can be preferable to overhead speakers, but I don't see how lol. I'd like to try a different setup, so this is where I'm looking for advice to get the best experience. I can do Front Height, Top Front or Top Middle. I would prefer Front Height over mounting on my ceiling, but if ceiling mounted gives a better experience I will go that route. If ceiling mounted is recommended, would it be best to mount as Top Front or Top Middle? The work is the same to me, so I don't care which I go with. Any input is appreciated since I have no previous experience with Atmos other than my current setup, which sounds no different than plain old 5.1.

Also, I'm looking for flat speaker wire that can stick to my wall and can be painted so as to be barely noticeable. I've done a bit of looking but what little I have found seems to be overly expensive. If anyone has recommendations on that, I'd love to hear it to.

Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

Lonewolf7002 said:


> I currently have speakers sitting on top of my towers pointing up and forward to use as Front Atmos speakers. I don't get any sense of height with them at all.


Are your upfiring speakers Atmos-enabled or just regular bookshelf speakers? Did you designate them as Dolby speakers during initial set-up (so that your receiver's room correction doesn't erase the height processing)?


----------



## duckymomo

If the FL/FR speakers are toed in, do you use the front or back of the speaker to determine the exact line that the tops should be on?


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> The center ceiling positions will not be of use to you in an Atmos/DTS:X application.


He could make use of it with a second cheap receiver (i.e. Use Dolby Pro Logic Surround to create a center channel output from the stereo rear height outputs of the Atmos receiver if he has pre-outs). I've seen this done to add more sets of speakers with phantom panning between sets in a 13.2 configuration. It worked great. It can add panning front to back instead with a 3rd set of ceiling stereo speakers as well since outside some really expensive stuff, that configuration is currently unavailable.

Generally speaking, it seems he just needs some ear-height surrounds added and use the existing ceiling and height speakers for Atmos height (front height and back ceiling) assuming he gets an 11.1 (7.1.4) or 9.1 (5.1.4) channel receiver.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> He could make use of it with a second cheap receiver (i.e. Use Dolby Pro Logic Surround to create a center channel output from the stereo rear height outputs of the Atmos receiver if he has pre-outs). I've seen this done to add more sets of speakers with phantom panning between sets in a 13.2 configuration. It worked great. It can add panning front to back instead with a 3rd set of ceiling stereo speakers as well since outside some really expensive stuff, that configuration is currently unavailable.


Oh yeah? You don't say...




MagnumX said:


> Generally speaking, it seems he just needs some ear-height surrounds added and use the existing ceiling and height speakers for Atmos height (front height and back ceiling) assuming he gets an 11.1 (7.1.4) or 9.1 (5.1.4) channel receiver.


Sure.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

duckymomo said:


> If the FL/FR speakers are toed in, do you use the front or back of the speaker to determine the exact line that the tops should be on?


It really doesn't matter however I used the tweeters as the reference points for placing all speakers but that has more to do with OCD than anything else.


----------



## Lonewolf7002

sdurani said:


> Are your upfiring speakers Atmos-enabled or just regular bookshelf speakers? Did you designate them as Dolby speakers during initial set-up (so that your receiver's room correction doesn't erase the height processing)?


Just regular old speakers. When looking up Atmos speakers I couldn't find anything "special" about them other than they are designed to point up at an angle rather than the traditional straight forward. I've tried mine straight up, forward at an angle, forward at more of an angle, but no impression of sound from above.

Yes they are designated as Dolby speakers in my AVR, I set the speaker to ceiling distance, and I've run the room correction afterwards. They do make sound but turning Atmos on and off and viewing Atmos material, I've never gotten a sense of overhead sound at all. With Atmos on or off, it sounds the same - sound in front of me. Hence my desire to mount the speakers. I'd rather not drill holes all over the place so I'm trying to get advice on the best position for 5.1.2 - front height, top front or top middle.


----------



## sdurani

Lonewolf7002 said:


> Just regular old speakers. When looking up Atmos speakers I couldn't find anything "special" about them other than they are designed to point up at an angle rather than the traditional straight forward.


Atmos-enabled speakers have Dolby Elevation processing built into the crossover network and that's what is mostly responsible for the impression of sound coming from above (bouncing the sound off the ceiling helps, but to a much lesser extent). DTS has similar virtual-height processing called DTS Virtual:X. Without that processing, you're not going to get the effect of sound coming from above (as you've already discovered). Atmos-enabled speakers also have dispersion characteristics that try to keep directional frequencies firing up rather than out in an attempt to minimize localizing the speaker itself.


----------



## Lonewolf7002

sdurani said:


> Atmos-enabled speakers have Dolby Elevation processing built into the crossover network and that's what is mostly responsible for the impression of sound coming from above (bouncing the sound off the ceiling helps, but to a much lesser extent). DTS has similar virtual-height processing called DTS Virtual:X. Without that processing, you're not going to get the effect of sound coming from above (as you've already discovered). Atmos-enabled speakers also have dispersion characteristics that try to keep directional frequencies firing up rather than out in an attempt to minimize localizing the speaker itself.


Interesting. I did a bunch of reading up on Dolby Elevation processing and found a lot of conflicting info! The general consensus seems to be that although part of the target curve for Elevation can be built into the crossover, it is typically done by the AVR. Even the patent for the Atmos speakers says the curve "may" be built into the crossover, implying that it's not necessary. In an interview with Audyssey, Chris Kyriakakis says that the Atmos elevation speakers are measured and then the target Dolby curve is applied, so it sounds like I'm covered in that aspect. One audio site said bookshelf speakers work just fine in this role, and to tilt them forward at 20 degrees and to set the crossover to 180Hz to reduce directionality - which made no difference in my case lol

All of the above is irrelevant since what I "should" be able to do and what I am actually experiencing are two different things  It's not "working" with my current setup, hence wanting to wall or ceiling mount the speakers. I'm just not sure which is typically the best location and need advice.


----------



## sdurani

Lonewolf7002 said:


> The general consensus seems to be that although part of the target curve for Elevation can be built into the crossover, it is typically done by the AVR.


If you're using Atmos-enabled speakers, then the AVR has to make sure the Elevation squiggle isn't erased by its room correction system, which can be done by having the squiggle in the target curve OR not equalizing that part of the frequency range. You should e-mail Dolby and ask them if their height virtualizer processing is built into any AVR.


> In an interview with Audyssey, Chris Kyriakakis says that the Atmos elevation speakers are measured and then the target Dolby curve is applied, so it sounds like I'm covered in that aspect.


If you believe you're covered when it comes to Dolby height virtualization, then my previous explanation does not apply and the fact that you're getting no height effect remains a mystery (to you).


----------



## Kevin C Brown

Based on what little I know:

a) You might have to play around with the angle to get the proper bounce. 20 deg is a catch-all. I've seen anywhere from 10 to 30 deg, and 20 -50 deg in different Dolby Atmos documents.

b) One common tweak, is to increase the Dolby Atmos speakers' level by 5 or so dB. Again, I think there's some experimentation that you have to do to get things to work properly.

I have a buddy who is also using regular bookshelf speakers. He's done a lot of "sperimentation" as he calls it, and he's getting a pretty good effect, even on non-Dolby Atmos soundtracks with upmixing.


----------



## GunmetalR56

For what it's worth, I tried using SVS Prime sats for Atmos ceiling bounce and got zilch. Once I switched to true Atmos enabled speakers the problem was solved. I tried 2 different brands, trying to get the sound to best match my mains but both brands worked as advertised.

I'd say give some true AE speakers a shot and see what you get.


----------



## sdurani

Kevin C Brown said:


> You might have to play around with the angle to get the proper bounce.


Easiest way I have found to do that is to sit in the main listening position with a SPL meter, play a steady test tone and have someone rotate and tilt the upfring module until you get the highest reading on the meter. This way, you know that the upfiring module is aimed at its first reflection spot on the ceiling and you're getting as much on-axis energy as possible from the speaker.


----------



## Lonewolf7002

Kevin C Brown said:


> Based on what little I know:
> 
> a) You might have to play around with the angle to get the proper bounce. 20 deg is a catch-all. I've seen anywhere from 10 to 30 deg, and 20 -50 deg in different Dolby Atmos documents.
> 
> b) One common tweak, is to increase the Dolby Atmos speakers' level by 5 or so dB. Again, I think there's some experimentation that you have to do to get things to work properly.
> 
> I have a buddy who is also using regular bookshelf speakers. He's done a lot of "sperimentation" as he calls it, and he's getting a pretty good effect, even on non-Dolby Atmos soundtracks with upmixing.


I've tried a number of different angles but haven't heard any sound coming from above. I've tried aiming for the first reflection point, ahead of it, behind it, straight up - no noticeable change. I'll try bumping the level by 5 dB or so and see what happens, thanks for the tip! I've tried DSU as well, but the only thing I noticed is that the surround speakers were quieter and less active, with no height to the sound - obviously.



GunmetalR56 said:


> For what it's worth, I tried using SVS Prime sats for Atmos ceiling bounce and got zilch. Once I switched to true Atmos enabled speakers the problem was solved. I tried 2 different brands, trying to get the sound to best match my mains but both brands worked as advertised.
> 
> I'd say give some true AE speakers a shot and see what you get.


I'd rather wall or ceiling mounting the speakers I have now as opposed to buying another set of speakers - unless AE speakers really are the only way to go? Wall or ceiling mounting is easy enough to do and I imagine would work well, I just don't know which location would be best.


----------



## deano86

Lonewolf7002 said:


> I've tried a number of different angles but haven't heard any sound coming from above. I've tried aiming for the first reflection point, ahead of it, behind it, straight up - no noticeable change. I'll try bumping the level by 5 dB or so and see what happens, thanks for the tip! I've tried DSU as well, but the only thing I noticed is that the surround speakers were quieter and less active, with no height to the sound - obviously.


Sure sounds to me like you have something not setup correctly. You should have been able to "stumble" onto something that sounded cool by now. How tall is your ceiling? What type of material? Switching to DSU causes your surround speakers to be less active?...huh? As compared to what other sound processing mode and input soundtrack? What Atmos titles are you using for testing? Maybe something is wonky with your receiver and it needs a reset/reboot and set it up again.


----------



## unretarded

Lonewolf7002 said:


> Interesting. I did a bunch of reading up on Dolby Elevation processing and found a lot of conflicting info! The general consensus seems to be that although part of the target curve for Elevation can be built into the crossover, it is typically done by the AVR. Even the patent for the Atmos speakers says the curve "may" be built into the crossover, implying that it's not necessary. In an interview with Audyssey, Chris Kyriakakis says that the Atmos elevation speakers are measured and then the target Dolby curve is applied, so it sounds like I'm covered in that aspect. One audio site said bookshelf speakers work just fine in this role, and to tilt them forward at 20 degrees and to set the crossover to 180Hz to reduce directionality - which made no difference in my case lol
> 
> All of the above is irrelevant since what I "should" be able to do and what I am actually experiencing are two different things  It's not "working" with my current setup, hence wanting to wall or ceiling mount the speakers. I'm just not sure which is typically the best location and need advice.



I played with my .2 atmos a bit with overhead locations.


Here is my take on it.....for a .2 system, the top middle designation sounded best for immersion. The speakers mounted approx 16-20 inches in front of my ears when seated.

I found NOT spacing them as far apart as the mains to be better....


When placing the mains, the ideal set up is the equilateral triangle........I found that to be best with the overheads.


My ears are approx 5 foot from the ceiling and I spaced my speakers a little over 6 feet apart on the ceiling.


I am approx 9-10 feet back from the screen/speakers and I have the mains approx 10 feet apart..........10 feet apart on the overheads yielded to much spacing for my 2 seat front row.

My overheads are spaced approx the same width as my seating which seemed to work well.


I might experiment with moving them closer to directly above the seating since I run them approx 3db hot to sound right........even the AVR`s room correction had them 1db hot for level matching.


----------



## Kevin C Brown

I have seen earlier in this thread and other places, that one other experiment to try is that even though they are "bouncers", try to config them in the SSP/AVR's software as front height speakers or ceiling speakers. Yes, I know, that theoretically removes the Dolby Atmos secret sauce that's supposed to reinforce the fact that even though they aren't overhead, that they are, but some people have said that works better for hearing anything from them in terms of coming from the ceiling.


----------



## jazzrock

Lonewolf7002 said:


> I've tried a number of different angles but haven't heard any sound coming from above. I've tried aiming for the first reflection point, ahead of it, behind it, straight up - no noticeable change. I'll try bumping the level by 5 dB or so and see what happens, thanks for the tip! I've tried DSU as well, but the only thing I noticed is that the surround speakers were quieter and less active, with no height to the sound - obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather wall or ceiling mounting the speakers I have now as opposed to buying another set of speakers - unless AE speakers really are the only way to go? Wall or ceiling mounting is easy enough to do and I imagine would work well, I just don't know which location would be best.




Ceiling mounted are always the way to go unless you absolutely can't. Why settle for a simulated ceiling/atmospheric presentation if you can achieve the real envelopment as intended?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

I've had some luck getting small speakers mounted to the sides and on the floor of a listening position to "bounce" off the side walls and sound like they're coming from the far left/right walls (in a living room where speakers mounted on the walls would look like crap, but these hide nicely beside a recliner chair). But then the speaker is well below the listening level and pointed sideways (so the chair itself acts as a barrier). 

I imagine if I put speakers behind my listening couch in my home theater and pointed them nearly straight up that MIGHT sound like it's coming from the ceiling directly overhead, but I can't imagine that working nearly as well in the front of the room sitting on top of the front speakers. There's going to be at least some sound leakage there. Frankly, I'm afraid to spend $600 for a pair of PSB XAs just to find out as there aren't local dealers like there used to be to loan a pair. I'll probably play with some other speakers I have first to see how well it works (say behind the couch) before even bothering at this point. There is a place I could mount them nearly directly overhead (as the central beam box runs through the room just behind the couch and I have the projector mounted on a mount on the back of that to get it nearly even with the center of the screen and hide the cables along the back wall of it), but I'd really rather not use really large speakers there given they don't come in white.

How well do current receivers match tone/timbre with different brand speakers these days that have "room correction" on them? I really don't want to replace all my PSB speakers just to get a brand that would mount better on a ceiling.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Frankly, I'm afraid to spend $600 for a pair of PSB XAs just to find out as there aren't local dealers like there used to be to loan a pair. I'll probably play with some other speakers I have first to see how well it works (say behind the couch) before even bothering at this point. There is a place I could mount them nearly directly overhead (as the central beam box runs through the room just behind the couch and I have the projector mounted on a mount on the back of that to get it nearly even with the center of the screen and hide the cables along the back wall of it), but I'd really rather not use really large speakers there given they don't come in white.
> 
> How well do current receivers match tone/timbre with different brand speakers these days that have "room correction" on them? I really don't want to replace all my PSB speakers just to get a brand that would mount better on a ceiling.


Magnum,
For what it's worth, you can buy a pair of Imagine XAs for $499/pair. They work quite well if you have an 8'-9' flat ceiling. I had two pairs with my PSB Imagines until I got ceiling mounted speakers installed.

You can find some used for less online...I also (EDIT) just sent a PM your way related to this.


----------



## Lonewolf7002

deano86 said:


> Sure sounds to me like you have something not setup correctly. You should have been able to "stumble" onto something that sounded cool by now. How tall is your ceiling? What type of material? Switching to DSU causes your surround speakers to be less active?...huh? As compared to what other sound processing mode and input soundtrack? What Atmos titles are you using for testing? Maybe something is wonky with your receiver and it needs a reset/reboot and set it up again.


I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I have something setup incorrectly, although I doubt it. I agree that I should've even accidentally "stumbled" upon something decent by now. I did more playing around last night, changing angles, increasing the Front Dolby speakers by 5 dB, stuff like that, but no sense of height at all. My ceiling is... I think 9 feet tall. It's made of whatever every other apartment ceiling I've ever had is made of. And yes, I find when I turn on DSU there is less sound going to the rears. I was playing a game on my Xbox One the other day and noticed there seemed to be less ambient sound than usual. I checked and DSU was on. Turned it back to Multi Ch In and the surrounds were louder. I've played with this while movies were playing and noticed this as well. This is with Multi Channel In and DD+ at least. I assume some of the rear sound is being directed to the Front Dolby speakers? I have no idea, just reporting what I've heard! As for Atmos titles, I've used Dolby Atmos demos like Leaf and Amaze and some others I have downloaded. I've used the Dolby Access app on the XB1S and checked out the demos in there. I've confirmed that there is sound coming from the Front Dolby speakers. The only Atmos movie I have is Logan and I don't notice anything overhead either, although I don't know how much use they make of the overheads. Whatever the reason is it's ultimately not giving me any sense of height and since it's easy enough to wall or ceiling mount I'll just do that. Plopping the speakers on top of my other speakers is the easiest, but I don't mind mounting them either.



unretarded said:


> I played with my .2 atmos a bit with overhead locations.
> 
> Here is my take on it.....for a .2 system, the top middle designation sounded best for immersion. The speakers mounted approx 16-20 inches in front of my ears when seated.
> 
> I found NOT spacing them as far apart as the mains to be better....
> 
> When placing the mains, the ideal set up is the equilateral triangle........I found that to be best with the overheads.
> 
> My ears are approx 5 foot from the ceiling and I spaced my speakers a little over 6 feet apart on the ceiling.
> 
> I am approx 9-10 feet back from the screen/speakers and I have the mains approx 10 feet apart..........10 feet apart on the overheads yielded to much spacing for my 2 seat front row.
> 
> My overheads are spaced approx the same width as my seating which seemed to work well.
> 
> I might experiment with moving them closer to directly above the seating since I run them approx 3db hot to sound right........even the AVR`s room correction had them 1db hot for level matching.


Thanks, I was making an "educated guess" that top middles would be best but I wasn't sure. Preferred mounting location is Front Heights but if the experience is much better as Top Middle I can go that route. You also touched on another thing I was going to ask, which was if it was better to have them the same distance apart as the front speakers, or move them closer together the closer they are to you.



Kevin C Brown said:


> I have seen earlier in this thread and other places, that one other experiment to try is that even though they are "bouncers", try to config them in the SSP/AVR's software as front height speakers or ceiling speakers. Yes, I know, that theoretically removes the Dolby Atmos secret sauce that's supposed to reinforce the fact that even though they aren't overhead, that they are, but some people have said that works better for hearing anything from them in terms of coming from the ceiling.


I'm willing to try that too. Thanks! Sounds like I'm not the only one who has had difficulty with the Atmos Elevation setup.



jazzrock said:


> Ceiling mounted are always the way to go unless you absolutely can't. Why settle for a simulated ceiling/atmospheric presentation if you can achieve the real envelopment as intended?


That is what I originally thought until I read the Dolby Atmos setup guide put out by Dolby, where they seem to recommend that Atmos Elevation speakers can be preferable to overhead speakers and "must be heard to be believed". I've tried since it's super easy to do, but for whatever reason is not working for me. And I'm fine with that, I can easily mount them. I just want input on what to expect at the different locations so that I don't have to drill a bunch of holes in my ceiling and walls, which is why I initially posted asking for advice.


----------



## Kevin C Brown

Lonewolf7002 said:


> [Bouncers vs ceiling mounted:]
> That is what I originally thought until I read the Dolby Atmos setup guide put out by Dolby, where they seem to recommend that Atmos Elevation speakers can be preferable to overhead speakers and "must be heard to be believed". I've tried since it's super easy to do, but for whatever reason is not working for me.


People might disagree with this, but my personal feeling is that this is marketing "fluff". Stay with me now.  There is a new format. The best way to reap its benefits is to install ceiling speakers. But I bet _most_ people can't or won't do that. But hey, Dolby still wants to make their money from licensing, so they say that bouncers might be a _preferable_ option to ceiling speakers. Bam, now all of a sudden you get people like me and my buddy ponying up cash to try, rather than if they had just said from the get-go, that ceiling speakers were the way to go, and people like me and my buddy would just throw up our hands because we _can't_ do that. See what I'm trying to say?

Now with that said though, I know my buddy has tried a lot of things, and I trust his ears, and he *is* getting a pretty good effect, with bouncers. So it can be done. Just more difficult than with ceiling speakers.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kevin C Brown said:


> People might disagree with this, but my personal feeling is that this is marketing "fluff". Stay with me now.  There is a new format. The best way to reap its benefits is to install ceiling speakers. But I bet _most_ people can't or won't do that. But hey, Dolby still wants to make their money from licensing, so they say that bouncers might be a _preferable_ option to ceiling speakers. Bam, now all of a sudden you get people like me and my buddy ponying up cash to try, rather than if they had just said from the get-go, that ceiling speakers were the way to go, and people like me and my buddy would just throw up our hands because we _can't_ do that. See what I'm trying to say?
> 
> Now with that said though, I know my buddy has tried a lot of things, and I trust his ears, and he *is* getting a pretty good effect, with bouncers. So it can be done. Just more difficult than with ceiling speakers.


Protip: Research before buying.

Or yeah.... Dolby was conspiring to sucker you and your friend into speakers that ...what? They aren't as good as actual overhead speakers? Waht?! Who'dathunk?


Yes, this is my main complaint about DAE speakers. They are marketed as an alternative but in reality they often don't work well where Dolby suggests placing them.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes, this is my main complaint about DAE speakers. They are marketed as an alternative but in reality they often don't work well where Dolby suggests placing them.


DAE?

If bouncing-sound speakers were marketed as a second choice alternative given most people's requirements, *yet it was made properly clear at every opportunity that proper ceiling speakers were the best if you can possibly fit them*, I'd have no problem. They are being realistic and catering to both markets.

But this isn't happening. Instead, bouncing-sound speakers are being marketed as equivalent, and even better.


----------



## sdurani

DAE = Dolby Atmos Enabled (the official name of the category of speakers/modules)


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dolby-Atmos-Enabled speakers.

DAE.

Ie: "bouncing wall speakers" or whatever.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> Dolby-Atmos-Enabled speakers.
> 
> DAE.
> 
> Ie: "bouncing wall speakers" or whatever.


Right, thanks. I'm not a fan of unnecessary acronyms, especially when a google search throws up multiple conflicting results


----------



## Lonewolf7002

Kevin C Brown said:


> People might disagree with this, but my personal feeling is that this is marketing "fluff". Stay with me now.  There is a new format. The best way to reap its benefits is to install ceiling speakers. But I bet _most_ people can't or won't do that. But hey, Dolby still wants to make their money from licensing, so they say that bouncers might be a _preferable_ option to ceiling speakers. Bam, now all of a sudden you get people like me and my buddy ponying up cash to try, rather than if they had just said from the get-go, that ceiling speakers were the way to go, and people like me and my buddy would just throw up our hands because we _can't_ do that. See what I'm trying to say?
> 
> Now with that said though, I know my buddy has tried a lot of things, and I trust his ears, and he *is* getting a pretty good effect, with bouncers. So it can be done. Just more difficult than with ceiling speakers.


No argument from me! In my mind mounting the speakers high would be better than bouncing the sound. After reading the Dolby recommendations where they insist that many audio experts agree it sound even better, and obviously many people seem to feel bounced sound is worthwhile, I was willing to keep an open mind and try. After all it costs me nothing except my time, which I don't consider wasted due to this being a learning experience. I'm totally with you on your assessment of the situation, especially after having given it a good try myself.



mrtickleuk said:


> DAE?
> 
> If bouncing-sound speakers were marketed as a second choice alternative given most people's requirements, *yet it was made properly clear at every opportunity that proper ceiling speakers were the best if you can possibly fit them*, I'd have no problem. They are being realistic and catering to both markets.
> 
> But this isn't happening. Instead, bouncing-sound speakers are being marketed as equivalent, and even better.


The impression I got from the Dolby guidelines is that bounced is the preferred method and "you have to hear to believe". I guess if I'd heard I would've believed  I hadn't intended for this to turn into a discussion of the merits of bounced sound lol, I just wanted to some advice on the best placement for mounting the speakers from those who've been down this route.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Lonewolf7002 said:


> The impression I got from the Dolby guidelines is that bounced is the preferred method and "you have to hear to believe". I guess if I'd heard I would've believed  I hadn't intended for this to turn into a discussion of the merits of bounced sound lol, I just wanted to some advice on the best placement for mounting the speakers from those who've been down this route.


Yeah. With that said, when cinemas are fitted with bounced speakers and they rip down all the overhead speakers they have previously fitted in Dolby's cinemas, then I'll believe their hyperbole.  Because if that was _really _true, that's what they would do.

I think it's very unhelpful of them to give the impression that it's in any way preferred. Their demo Blu-Ray doesn't say this, it's more straightforward. The "you have to hear to believe" message is there in the context of "it's good if you can't fit ceiling speakers, don't worry, you'll still be able to enjoy Atmos". But on that disc at least, they are honest about it.


----------



## Dcal215

Hi guys quick question, if I only have to worry about one row of seats do I need four ceiling speakers, or would two give good results? Trying to decide if the Denon 3300 would be good enough or if I need the 4300. Don't really care about HEOS.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Four versus two overheads is a HUGE difference.

Always go with four if you can.


Two overheads can only give you the impression of stereo effects above. With four you can hear a difference between something that is in front or behind and in every direction. Yes, it's a huge difference.


----------



## Dcal215

OK, thank you very much for the reply Scott.


----------



## sdrucker

mrtickleuk said:


> Yeah. With that said, when cinemas are fitted with bounced speakers and they rip down all the overhead speakers they have previously fitted in Dolby's cinemas, then I'll believe their hyperbole.  Because if that was _really _true, that's what they would do.
> 
> I think it's very unhelpful of them to give the impression that it's in any way preferred. Their demo Blu-Ray doesn't say this, it's more straightforward. The "you have to hear to believe" message is there in the context of "it's good if you can't fit ceiling speakers, don't worry, you'll still be able to enjoy Atmos". But on that disc at least, they are honest about it.


There was a brief time, even here on AVS, where the bounce speakers were considered simply to be an alternative way of producing Atmos height effects above the listener. A few of you here may have also been at CEDIA 2014 as I was, and heard the Andrew Jones Atmos speaker demos. Properly set up, they did a convincing job of speaker ambience for upmixed content, and certainly were better than no overhead effect on the Atmos demos played at the show. I could say the same about the Triad bounce speakers at AXPONA in 2016. Finally, IIRC back in the summer of 2014, largely absent AVSer Keith Barnes attended a Dolby press event in London where they compared ceilings to some brand of Dolby AE speakers (Triad prototypes?), and he remarked that there was roughly equal preference for ceiling speakers vs. the Dolby AEs.

Having said that, as we approach 200 Atmos mixes in some form, as well as largely legacy content in DTS:X format, I think we know better. Ceiling/height speakers and physical height speakers in general clearly produce a superior, precise immersion effect that Dolby AE speakers just can't capture. And that was with a Trinnov where I could draw in the Dolby patent curve and use the speakers for both Atmos and DTS:X....and one of the better Dolby AEs, with adequate foam and a waveguide built into the grille, as well as a woofer that could reach comfortably down to 80 Hz in my system....

I used PSB Imagine XAs for a year in a 7.x.4 system, and they were better than no overhead effects at all. But compared to three pairs of PSB CS1000 ceilings in my current layout (11.4.6), the difference is profound. I'd compare it to a cone of sound emanating from the bounce speakers to a wide dispersion overhead effect that you could physically feel above you. Without getting too carried away, I'd describe the difference to a matrixed, upmixed effect vs. a discrete sound steered to a speaker.


----------



## ki11abee

Scott Simonian said:


> Four versus two overheads is a HUGE difference.
> 
> Always go with four if you can.
> 
> 
> Two overheads can only give you the impression of stereo effects above. With four you can hear a difference between something that is in front or behind and in every direction. Yes, it's a huge difference.


^^^^^this^^^^^. 
I started with 2 in the ceiling and it was nice. I went ahead and added 2 more for the full immersion, and yes, this is where it's at!!! If your receiver can only do 2, don't worry, it's still amazing to have sound above though.


----------



## mrtickleuk

ki11abee said:


> ^^^^^this^^^^^.
> I started with 2 in the ceiling and it was nice. I went ahead and added 2 more for the full immersion, and yes, this is where it's at!!! If your receiver can only do 2, don't worry, it's still amazing to have sound above though.


These recommendations are why I'm planning 5.1.4 instead of 7.1.2 . My rear speakers will just have to be silent most of the time!


----------



## Dcal215

Yes, I think I will hold off and go 5.1.4 with the denon 4300 also.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> But compared to three pairs of PSB CS1000 ceilings in my current layout (11.4.6), the difference is profound.


Speaking of which, would it be possible for you to check one thing for me, at the very start of Mad Max Fury Road where the little girl is talking in above. At one stage her voice in my system is focused in the top middle left, is that the case in your system too considering you have native x.x.6 rendering?


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> Speaking of which, would it be possible for you to check one thing for me, at the very start of Mad Max Fury Road where the little girl is talking in above. At one stage her voice in my system is focused in the top middle left, is that the case in your system too considering you have native x.x.6 rendering?


Mashie,
I don't have that disc and I'm not a K-Scape guy. Let me see if I can get a copy in the next couple of days. Do you have a specific time stamp I can check?


----------



## LNEWoLF

sdrucker said:


> Mashie,
> I don't have that disc and I'm not a K-Scape guy. Let me see if I can get a copy in the next couple of days. Do you have a specific time stamp I can check?


Best buy has Fury Road bluray on sale at this time for 7.99









They also have NOS Blade Runner 30th anniversary bluray 3 disc set on sale for 9.99 VERY difficult to find, good luck.


----------



## Kain

What's everyone opinion on using non-monopole speakers such as the Klipsch RP-250S for the side and back surround speakers in an Atmos setup?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Totally fine.

As long as that is the kind of sound/dispersion you want, that is.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> Mashie,
> I don't have that disc and I'm not a K-Scape guy. Let me see if I can get a copy in the next couple of days. Do you have a specific time stamp I can check?


I will need to check out the exact timestamp once I'm back home next weekend. I'll drop you a PM when I found it.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Mashie Saldana said:


> Speaking of which, would it be possible for you to check one thing for me, at the very start of Mad Max Fury Road where the little girl is talking in above. At one stage her voice in my system is focused in the top middle left, is that the case in your system too considering you have native x.x.6 rendering?


That part always sounded not-right with ScAtmos, imo.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Scott Simonian said:


> That part always sounded not-right with ScAtmos, imo.


It sounds pretty nice here, I'm just curious to find out how it is intended to sound. If it is a small object it will, if it is a large object it won't.

This is one of the very few scenes I come across where something remainst static in the TM position for a while and not just pan through.


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> ki11abee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^this^^^^^.
> I started with 2 in the ceiling and it was nice. I went ahead and added 2 more for the full immersion, and yes, this is where it's at!!! If your receiver can only do 2, don't worry, it's still amazing to have sound above though.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I wish 5.1.2 had an option for one mono height in front/center and one for the back. I'd rather have front to back height pans than left/right overhead only as the side and rear surrounds would provide some left/right directional cues. Nothing will give you front/back pans but another set of speakers. Sadly, current receivers aren't very flexible despite DTS bragging about how flexible it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These recommendations are why I'm planning 5.1.4 instead of 7.1.2 . My rear speakers will just have to be silent most of the time!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't have to choose if they offered the above. And how about an option to switch speaker sets if it's not Atmos or X?
Click to expand...


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> Speaking of which, would it be possible for you to check one thing for me, at the very start of Mad Max Fury Road where the little girl is talking in above. At one stage her voice in my system is focused in the top middle left, is that the case in your system too considering you have native x.x.6 rendering?


OK, so in the interests of science I picked up the BD. I've spent the last hour playing the clip at the 1 minute mark repeatedly, soloing 
L/R mains, center, side surround, rear surround, top fronts, top rears, and top middles in each pair of channels or the center, and in combination. Remapping is off.

Starting from the scene at about 1:05, where Max is standing and you slowly pan to the lizard toward the bottom of the screen:

"Hello" comes from both of the L/R, and more softly from the two side surrounds
"Where are you" comes from both L/R, but more softly from the center and a bit more loudly from the top fronts (or from front heights; I got the same result either way) and top rears
"Help us, Max" at about 1:32 is clearly coming from the top middles (both), not the top fronts, and the top rears 

Is this the section you're referring to?


----------



## ki11abee

MagnumX said:


> mrtickleuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I wish 5.1.2 had an option for one mono height in front/center and one for the back. I'd rather have front to back height pans than left/right overhead only as the side and rear surrounds would provide some left/right directional cues. Nothing will give you front/back pans but another set of speakers. Sadly, current receivers aren't very flexible despite DTS bragging about how flexible it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to choose if they offered the above. And how about an option to switch speaker sets if it's not Atmos or X?
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, a front and back mono would probably work too. That should be a setting in receivers. Unless it was tried and was not that great sounding?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonewolf7002

sdrucker said:


> Having said that, as we approach 200 Atmos mixes in some form, as well as largely legacy content in DTS:X format, I think we know better. *Ceiling/height speakers and physical height speakers in general clearly produce a superior, precise immersion effect that Dolby AE speakers just can't capture*. And that was with a Trinnov where I could draw in the Dolby patent curve and use the speakers for both Atmos and DTS:X....and one of the better Dolby AEs, with adequate foam and a waveguide built into the grille, as well as a woofer that could reach comfortably down to 80 Hz in my system.


Before I got my receiver, while reading up on Atmos and Dolby AE speakers and other mounting options, my gut told me that ceiling or wall mounted would be far better than a bounced sound. I only tried it after reading through Dolbys recommendations because what the hell, it only costs some time. It cost nothing to lay the speakers on top of my towers and try different angles. It was worth it to satisfy my curiosity, but my intention has always been to ceiling or wall mount. I've only gotten one response so far about wall vs ceiling mount. So on the weekend I mounted the speakers on the wall close to the ceiling. I think I want to try ceiling mount but went with the wall mount because I needed some extra hardware to ceiling mount plus more speaker wire, and didn't have time to go shopping. After rerunning Audyssey and listening to some Atmos demos I don't get the sense that sound is "above" me, since indeed it is not. I DO get the sense that my front speakers are much taller tho. There is a very noticeable difference in this configuration compared to using them as bounce speakers. I am very eager to try them as Top Middles, although that'll be a project for another day down the road.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Lonewolf7002 said:


> It was worth it to satisfy my curiosity, but my intention has always been to ceiling or wall mount. I've only gotten one response so far about wall vs ceiling mount. So on the weekend I mounted the speakers on the wall close to the ceiling. I think I want to try ceiling mount but went with the wall mount because I needed some extra hardware to ceiling mount plus more speaker wire, and didn't have time to go shopping. After rerunning Audyssey and listening to some Atmos demos I don't get the sense that sound is "above" me, since indeed it is not. I DO get the sense that my front speakers are much taller tho.


More evidence that wall-mounted "heights" are no good at achieving good overhead effect.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> More evidence that wall-mounted "heights" are no good at achieving good overhead effect.


Exactly. Same technique employed with front "heights". These were intended to heighten the sound stage, as the name implies. No matter how tricky you get mounting speakers on the wall; this will never sound as good as a proper ceiling mounted speaker, IMO. 

I'm probably in the minority; but I feel too many people are suckered into the "more is better" approach when it comes to surround implementation. I think a well setup 7/9.1 system can sound better than a poorly installed atmos setup. I could have Atmos a year or so ago but chose to wait until I could re install my speakers at the proper height for the most realistic immersion.


----------



## aviaction

bass addict said:


> Exactly. Same technique employed with front "heights". These were intended to heighten the sound stage, as the name implies. No matter how tricky you get mounting speakers on the wall; this will never sound as good as a proper ceiling mounted speaker, IMO.
> 
> I'm probably in the minority; but I feel too many people are suckered into the "more is better" approach when it comes to surround implementation. I think a well setup 7/9.1 system can sound better than a poorly installed atmos setup. I could have Atmos a year or so ago but chose to wait until I could re install my speakers at the proper height for the most realistic immersion.


We get all this tech and then a majority of films (UK) still come as 5.1. I went 7.1 before atmos 7:4:2 and now doubt it was even worth going to atmos due to lack of software. The last big innovation (IMO) was Blu-ray with uncompressed 5.1 audio, since then I don't believe we really have any game-changing advances.


----------



## Lonewolf7002

Scott Simonian said:


> More evidence that wall-mounted "heights" are no good at achieving good overhead effect.


Nor did I expect them to. So far my speaker locations have been living up to my expectations  I haven't really received much advice on Top Front or Top Middle, just a whole lot on Dolby AE speakers that I am trying to get away from.  What do people usually do with 5.1.2 systems? How will setting the speakers as Top Front or Top Middle affect the steering of sound? It's the same amount of work to ceiling mount front or middle, and I suspect Top Middle will be the best, but never having heard it that is just a guess.


----------



## Jonas2

bass addict said:


> I'm probably in the minority; but I feel too many people are suckered into the "more is better" approach when it comes to surround implementation. I think a well setup 7/9.1 system can sound better than a poorly installed atmos setup. I could have Atmos a year or so ago but chose to wait until I could re install my speakers at the proper height for the most realistic immersion.


I think another part of the problem is a lack of patience - jumping on the bandwagon prematurely because everyone else is doing it, keeping up with the Joneses. You chose to exercise patience. Wise. 



aviaction said:


> We get all this tech and then a majority of films (UK) still come as 5.1. I went 7.1 before atmos 7:4:2 and now doubt it was even worth going to atmos due to lack of software. The last big innovation (IMO) was Blu-ray with uncompressed 5.1 audio, since then I don't believe we really have any game-changing advances.


7.4.2 or did you mean 7.2.4? If you meant 7.4.2 that might explain it. To really get the experience, the x.x.4 is the way to go, but x.x.2 is better than nothing. I'm finding plenty of discs with Atmos tracks, not to mention DSU adds a dimension to everything, even without Atmos tracks, but you've gotta have the speakers there to do it. Not sure about your set up, but I'm enjoying the heckfire outta mine!


----------



## gwsat

Jonas2 said:


> I think another part of the problem is a lack of patience - jumping on the bandwagon prematurely because everyone else is doing it, keeping up with the Joneses. You chose to exercise patience. Wise.
> 
> 7.4.2 or did you mean 7.2.4? If you meant 7.4.2 that might explain it. To really get the experience, the x.x.4 is the way to go, but x.x.2 is better than nothing. I'm finding plenty of discs with Atmos tracks, not to mention DSU adds a dimension to everything, even without Atmos tracks, but you've gotta have the speakers there to do it. Not sure about your set up, but I'm enjoying the heckfire outta mine!


I think how much good an immersive, 7.2.4 audio setup can do turns to a material degree on whether the system includes UHD HDR video capability. When I upgraded my home theater last summer, I bought a UHD HDR TV at the same time I got an Atmos/DTS:X capable receiver and four in-ceiling speakers. When the Oppo UDP-203 UHD HDR disk player was released in December I bought it too. Virtually every UHD HDR disk released these days has native TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA audio. The bottom line, is that I wouldn't be without 7.2.4 capability.


----------



## aviaction

Scott Simonian said:


> More evidence that wall-mounted "heights" are no good at achieving good overhead effect.



Yup 7:2:4 (dyslexic keyboard) 7 main, 2 sub, 2 front presence and 2 rear presence. with the yammy I get good overhead effects. Dolby Atmos test disc with the rain is repeatable. Non-atmos the rain is surrounding laterally. With Atmos it sounds like its is falling on the ceiling above. Compromised possibly? but no way SWMBO will allow more ceiling modifications to accommodate overhead speakers.

UHD discs released seem to have Atmos etc when Blu ray (UK) are "dumbed down" to standard Dolby/DTS. It looks like a ploy to get us to upgrade to 4K, which won't be anytime soon..


----------



## grendelrt

Stupid question of the day! So I am replacing my rear bipole/dipole surrounds with monopoles and looking at the mounting vs atmos requirements. My seating ear height is about 37inches in the front row (Primary spot), my side surround monopoles are mounted so that the tweeter is about 50" and woofer below that from around 42inches. I have two rows of seating (back row on a 7" riser) which is making mounting the rears more complicated because I need to clear that back couch. Here comes the stupid part of my question, the back part of my couch ends at around 46", how much of the woofer should I keep line of site/clearing the back of the couch? Conventional thought would be all of it dummy, but since this will put the tweeter around 58" which is above the dolby spec and my other speakers I figured I should check lol.


----------



## Darth Omi

Will be upgrading my 5.1 system to 5.3.4 I've read about speaker placement but want to make sure I have it right before cutting holes  

I made some templates to experiment with placement (see attached) Does the placement make sense?

The height speakers would be equidistant, 8 feet apart. The ones in the front are about 45 degrees from MLP but my concern are the ones in the back with only 15 degrees and about a foot off the wall. Also, the ones in the back are almost directly on top of the surround speakers with 4.5 feet separation. Any feedback or alternative placement is welcome.


----------



## sdurani

grendelrt said:


> ...this will put the tweeter around 58" which is above the dolby spec...


The Atmos install guide is not a suicide pact: i.e., you're not supposed to strictly adhere to the spec even to the detriment of your system. Just place your surrounds so that all listeners have clear line of sight to the tweeters. If you're worried about the tweeter being too high, then you can flip your rear speakers upside down to keep the tweeter lower. The idea is to get good separation between the height layer and the base layer, but not at the expense of someone's head blocking the sound of the base layer speakers. Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## grendelrt

sdurani said:


> The Atmos install guide is not a suicide pact: i.e., you're not supposed to strictly adhere to the spec even to the detriment of your system. Just place your surrounds so that all listeners have clear line of sight to the tweeters. If you're worried about the tweeter being too high, then you can flip your rear speakers upside down to keep the tweeter lower. The idea is to get good separation between the height layer and the base layer, but not at the expense of someone's head blocking the sound of the base layer speakers. Nothing more complicated than that.


That interesting about flipping them, I hadn't though of that, they are a trianglular shape though so it wouldn't work very well with my mounts. I was more worried about the woofer being blocked if i lowered the tweeter height, so you would suggest clearing the woofer height and just let the tweeter be above spec? 

Also I think I am calculating my angles incorrect, I need a sanity check, if I want to be in that 135-150 degree dolby spec on rear speakers and my listening position is 10 ft away from the rear wall, I am getting around 5ft to fall in that spec, does that seem correct??


----------



## sdurani

grendelrt said:


> I was more worried about the woofer being blocked if i lowered the tweeter height, so you would suggest clearing the woofer height and just let the tweeter be above spec?


Yes, I would go with common sense over blindly follow some spec. Sound from any speaker should not be blocked. So, instead of worrying about specific numbers, just mount them high enough to give all listeners clear line of sight to the tweeters.


> Also I think I am calculating my angles incorrect, I need a sanity check, if I want to be in that 135-150 degree dolby spec on rear speakers and my listening position is 10 ft away from the rear wall, I am getting around 5ft to fall in that spec, does that seem correct??


Yes, the overhead speakers should be roughly 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the main listening position. The easy way to figure that out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling. That same distance forward & rearward of the MLP is 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## grendelrt

sdurani said:


> Yes, I would go with common sense over blindly follow some spec. Sound from any speaker should not be blocked. So, instead of worrying about specific numbers, just mount them high enough to give all listeners clear line of sight to the tweeters. Yes, the overhead speakers should be roughly 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the main listening position. The easy way to figure that out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling. That same distance forward & rearward of the MLP is 45 degrees elevation.


My ceilings are in (that was fun btw) I am calculating the rear surrounds I am replacing, I am using a right triangle calculator and for the 135-150 spec I am seeing for 10ft from rear wall to listening position I should position the speaker about 5ft to right or left to get 150 degrees, just wanted to double check I am doing this correct haha. Thanks for the help!


----------



## sdurani

grendelrt said:


> I am calculating the rear surrounds I am replacing...


My mistake, I thought you were talking about height speaker elevation. To get your rear speakers at 150 degrees azimuth, measure from your ears to the back wall and multiply by 1.2 to get the rear speaker spread. In your case, 10 x 1.2 = 12 feet apart (each rear speaker 6 feet from the centre line).


----------



## grendelrt

sdurani said:


> My mistake, I thought you were talking about height speaker elevation. To get your rear speakers at 150 degrees azimuth, measure from your ears to the back wall and multiply by 1.2 to get the rear speaker spread. In your case, 10 x 1.2 = 12 feet apart (each rear speaker 6 feet from the centre line).


Thanks for the quick help!


----------



## batpig

grendelrt said:


> Stupid question of the day! So I am replacing my rear bipole/dipole surrounds with monopoles and looking at the mounting vs atmos requirements. My seating ear height is about 37inches in the front row (Primary spot), my side surround monopoles are mounted so that the tweeter is about 50" and woofer below that from around 42inches. I have two rows of seating (back row on a 7" riser) which is making mounting the rears more complicated because I need to clear that back couch. Here comes the stupid part of my question, the back part of my couch ends at around 46", how much of the woofer should I keep line of site/clearing the back of the couch? Conventional thought would be all of it dummy, but since this will put the tweeter around 58" which is above the dolby spec and my other speakers I figured I should check lol.


To add to what Sanjay said, you may find these two blog posts by acoustics pro Nyal Mellor useful:

http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/

The key theme relevant to your situation (and echoing Sanjay's advice) is that you can make common sense adjustments to the "official specs" to accommodate a multi-row environment. If the surrounds are placed higher to avoid being blocked by listener's heads, then you should also adjust the relative position of the overheads to maintain that separation between speakers / layers. So, for example, when the back surrounds get raised to clear the heads in the back row, then the rearmost overheads should scoot forward a bit to give them elevation / separation from those elevated back surrounds on the rear wall. If the side surrounds are place higher, then the overhead arrays may need to be pushed a bit narrower (in terms of side-to-side spacing) to give them lateral angular separation from the side wall speakers.

Imagine a "dome of sound", with the 7 base layer speakers forming the bottom ring of the dome and then the overheads providing the elevation aspect -- space the speakers so you have (as much as possible) even coverage around and above the "dome".


----------



## batpig

Darth Omi said:


> Will be upgrading my 5.1 system to 5.3.4 I've read about speaker placement but want to make sure I have it right before cutting holes
> 
> I made some templates to experiment with placement (see attached) Does the placement make sense?
> 
> The height speakers would be equidistant, 8 feet apart. The ones in the front are about 45 degrees from MLP but my concern are the ones in the back with only 15 degrees and about a foot off the wall. Also, the ones in the back are almost directly on top of the surround speakers with 4.5 feet separation. Any feedback or alternative placement is welcome.


It looks fine to me, although I might bring the ceiling speakers a bit narrower so that the right side overheads aren't so close to the side wall.

There's only so much you can do in terms of rear overheads when the couch is so close to the back wall. I think you've got them placed fine given the constraints, they are behind you as much as they can be and you'll hear clear front-to-back separation from the two pairs of overheads.


----------



## grendelrt

batpig said:


> To add to what Sanjay said, you may find these two blog posts by acoustics pro Nyal Mellor useful:
> 
> http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/
> http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/
> 
> The key theme relevant to your situation (and echoing Sanjay's advice) is that you can make common sense adjustments to the "official specs" to accommodate a multi-row environment. If the surrounds are placed higher to avoid being blocked by listener's heads, then you should also adjust the relative position of the overheads to maintain that separation between speakers / layers. So, for example, when the back surrounds get raised to clear the heads in the back row, then the rearmost overheads should scoot forward a bit to give them elevation / separation from those elevated back surrounds on the rear wall. If the side surrounds are place higher, then the overhead arrays may need to be pushed a bit narrower (in terms of side-to-side spacing) to give them lateral angular separation from the side wall speakers.
> 
> Imagine a "dome of sound", with the 7 base layer speakers forming the bottom ring of the dome and then the overheads providing the elevation aspect -- space the speakers so you have (as much as possible) even coverage around and above the "dome".


Thanks for the reply, that works out well, my rear ceiling were already a little forward I believe on the specs side. These last 2 rear surrounds are the finishing touch on my atmos set up =)


----------



## Darth Omi

batpig said:


> It looks fine to me, although I might bring the ceiling speakers a bit narrower so that the right side overheads aren't so close to the side wall.
> 
> There's only so much you can do in terms of rear overheads when the couch is so close to the back wall. I think you've got them placed fine given the constraints, they are behind you as much as they can be and you'll hear clear front-to-back separation from the two pairs of overheads.


Thanks for the feedback and advice. With the couch against the wall I was considering only 2 in-ceiling speakers, but after reading this and other threads, it seems 4 is the way to go. Was not sure if it was going to work though. Hope that even with the compromise atmos will work with nice effects.

Any recommendations regarding speakers? I have SVS Ultra bookshelves, Ultra center, and Prime Satellite.


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> More evidence that wall-mounted "heights" are no good at achieving good overhead effect.


It's only going to be as high as the speakers mounted. If you put ceiling speakers on a 7 foot ceiling, your helicopter will be 7 feet overhead. If you put them 12 feet up the side walls of a 15 foot cathedral ceiling room, you will get the helicopter 12 feet over head with phantom imaging. That's the way stereo works. My current side wall speakers in a traditional 6.1 system are 6 feet off the floor in an 8 foot ceiling room. This was the configuration practically demanded for Pro Logic style mono surround and recommended as a compromise for 5.1 and above to work with both (using bipole not dipole surrounds). But all surround material sounds like it's several feet above my head (for centered images), not at ear height. This works well for some material and less well for others. Almost no director will put "strong" (save things like whizzing bullets, etc.) centered surround information in the 5.1 surround channels because it sounds like it's coming right through your head as if you're a ghost or something). This leaves "most" effects to the sides as if you have giant hole in the center of the room where very few sounds tread (hanging around the front but often panning to the left or right of center when heading in the back). 

I know it's not my speakers. Play ON AIR (Alan Parsons DTS album) and the track 11 "Blue Blue Sky" and the dude singing with an acoustic guitar walks right through the room straight through the middle with no gaps and then straight up to the front along the side wall and into the middle. He does not walk to the middle from the back of the room, although I assume he could have. But that's the area director's seem to avoid. 

Height channels seem to now want to use that range, but specify it should be overhead. But there's this fallacy that it's going to extend to infinity into space, but you're still dealing with stereo so depth effects are limited with most speakers to say the least. It will sound most of the time like it's coming from the place you mount them and in-between. As you move out of the sweet spot, you will have far FAR less accuracy for placement so as with ALL stereo systems, there is ONE good seat and that's it. Center channels exist in the front for this very reason (to put dialog in the middle for everyone). But for some stupid reason beyond comprehension they decided that L/C/R wasn't needed for the rear surrounds and side surrounds (yeah that would require 12-channel sound WITHOUT heights just to get that far, but that's the price you have to pay just to get the center part right for all seats, let alone proper panning. 

Let's face it, if the other seats don't matter just yours in the center, you only really need 4 speakers for proper surround and 2 more for height as it can then pan between any of them to create the effect for one person. Of course, you could just use DTS: X Headphone and everyone can have almost binaural-like sound in every position, but I'm sure the opposition to watching movies with headphones on would be worse in some respects than 3D glasses. 

So can wall mounted height speakers work OK? Sure, if they're mounted high enough on the walls and you don't mind the effect spread out across the entire room instead of just one tiny ceiling area you put speakers on. This idea that Dolby Atmos somehow "knows" you did something not recommended is pure BS as is the idea that one shoe fits all for a given room. Most people aren't going to want to frack their ceiling up with speakers dangling off them (well most women wouldn't put up with it; most guys wouldn't care but then they probably don't care about cleaning the fridge either). 

I don't think "bounce" is likely to work better than high wall mounted surrounds for many rooms. High wall mounting is _always_ going to sound like it's coming from near the ceiling whereas bounce is going to sound like it's coming from the front speakers in many rooms. I'm thinking with my older setup I can re-purpose my high wall surrounds as height channels and just mount an ear-height set for the side surrounds. Ideally, it would be nice to try both setups, but the dearth of local speaker sellers makes borrowing some for testing purposes unlikely to say the least.


----------



## MagnumX

Has anyone tried DTS:X titles to compare to Atmos yet? I noticed my 4K Ultra "The Girl on the Train" has DTS:X, but I don't yet have a receiver or height speakers to test it. Since most receivers don't really have more flexibility with DTS:X currently, I'd imagine it behaves similar to Atmos for now. It sounds like you'll eventually be able to use almost any layout you can conceive of in the future, however with X (e.g. three rear surrounds including a center plus side surrounds plus three sets of height or whatever as long as the processor has enough channels).


----------



## gwsat

MagnumX said:


> Has anyone tried DTS:X titles to compare to Atmos yet? I noticed my 4K Ultra "The Girl on the Train" has DTS:X, but I don't yet have a receiver or height speakers to test it. Since most receivers don't really have more flexibility with DTS:X currently, I'd imagine it behaves similar to Atmos for now. It sounds like you'll eventually be able to use almost any layout you can conceive of in the future, however with X (e.g. three rear surrounds including a center plus side surrounds plus three sets of height or whatever as long as the processor has enough channels).


I have the _Jason Bourne_ UHD HDR DTS:X MA disk and think it sounds just as good as the TrueHD Atmos soundtracks do on other films I own on disk.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> Has anyone tried DTS:X titles to compare to Atmos yet?


There are no titles that exist that have both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X on them.

What exactly are we comparing?


----------



## audiofan1

MagnumX said:


> Has anyone tried DTS:X titles to compare to Atmos yet? I noticed my 4K Ultra "The Girl on the Train" has DTS:X, but I don't yet have a receiver or height speakers to test it. Since most receivers don't really have more flexibility with DTS:X currently, I'd imagine it behaves similar to Atmos for now. It sounds like you'll eventually be able to use almost any layout you can conceive of in the future, however with X (e.g. three rear surrounds including a center plus side surrounds plus three sets of height or whatever as long as the processor has enough channels).


 Just finished "The Girl on the Train" and the overall DTS:X mix was good and blended well into a nice bubble of sound. Not much more to ask from an immersive track


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> There are no titles that exist that have both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X on them.
> 
> What exactly are we comparing?


I didn't mean a comparison of a single title, but rather compared to other titles you've listened to on the same system (i.e. comparing a good Atmos title to a DTS:X title and whether DTS:X does anything superior or worse, more or less precision, etc.).



gwsat said:


> I have the _Jason Bourne_ UHD HDR DTS:X MA disk and think it sounds just as good as the TrueHD Atmos soundtracks do on other films I own on disk.


Thanks, this is what I was referring to.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> Has anyone tried DTS:X titles to compare to Atmos yet? I noticed my 4K Ultra "The Girl on the Train" has DTS:X, but I don't yet have a receiver or height speakers to test it. Since most receivers don't really have more flexibility with DTS:X currently, I'd imagine it behaves similar to Atmos for now. It sounds like you'll eventually be able to use almost any layout you can conceive of in the future, however with X (e.g. three rear surrounds including a center plus side surrounds plus three sets of height or whatever as long as the processor has enough channels).



At this point all Atmos titles are using beds plus discrete objects.

With rare exceptions, all DTS:X tracks are channel based 7.1.4 encodes with zero objects... 

This is why some hear channel bleed when running DTS:X test tones... It also means that when/if 9.1.6 setups are available DTS:X will rely on matrix decoders to feed the extra speakers.. 

There is no reason to believe the continuing fallacy that DTS:X will support "anywhere" speaker placement any more so than Atmos, especially since it is really much more tied to channels at this point in time. 

Why CEs continue to copy and paste that claim in their literature and manuals is beyond me. And honestly, I think DTS should also stop claiming it's a "feature." 

Just my .02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> At this point all Atmos titles are using beds plus discrete objects.
> 
> With rare exceptions, all DTS:X tracks are channel based 7.1.4 encodes with zero objects...


Wouldn't that make DTS a bunch of liars when it comes to X? I mean what you are describing sounds like DTS NEO:X (i.e. 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 to 11.2 (7.1.4) up-converts including the ability to matrix encode height channels in regular 7.1 mixes), not DTS:X, which by all accounts is _supposed_ to be an object-based system, not channel-based as DTS already has/had channel based formats including the newer NEO:X. 

Where are you getting this information from? I haven't seen anyone make this claim before (not that I've read every thread in every forum, obviously. There's only so much time in the day).



> It also means that when/if 9.1.6 setups are available DTS:X will rely on matrix decoders to feed the extra speakers..


 Proof please.



> There is no reason to believe the continuing fallacy that DTS:X will support "anywhere" speaker placement any more so than Atmos, especially since it is really much more tied to channels at this point in time.


The only reason Atmos doesn't support more flexible speaker placement is the manufacturers haven't made it so. The first generation chipsets do what they do for backwards compatibility as a priority. It is not a limitation of the object-based system itself (e.g. My first generation DTS decoder from the 1990s did not support phantom centers or bass management yet newer models soon added it). Given Dolby has their own layout recommendations, they're probably not going to recommend you stick a speaker behind the potted plant on the floor, yet that is a reality in many home systems (often due to the notorious WAF). A good implementation of Atmos would account for such placements and adjust for it accordingly (exactly what the DTS papers talk about doing in the next generation decoders). Just because some people who like to posture over the superiority of their personal systems don't like it, doesn't mean it couldn't or even shouldn't be so.



> Why CEs continue to copy and paste that claim in their literature and manuals is beyond me. And honestly, I think DTS should also stop claiming it's a "feature."


I think people shouldn't make contradictory claims without proof, but then it's the Internet.... "Some" or someone getting bleed in their height channels (possibly from a defective receiver) doesn't exactly prove it's a channel based matrix system contrary to all claims by the company.


----------



## deano86

MagnumX said:


> Where are you getting this information from? I haven't seen anyone make this claim before (not that I've read every thread in every forum, obviously. There's only so much time in the day).
> 
> Proof please.
> .


Obviously you haven't been reading in this forum or related forums very much.. otherwise you would be aware of who FilmMixer is or more importantly what he does.... HINT .....read his name to yourself and think about it for a moment...there is your proof


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Wouldn't that make DTS a bunch of liars when it comes to X? I mean what you are describing sounds like DTS NEO:X (i.e. 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 to 11.2 (7.1.4) up-converts including the ability to matrix encode height channels in regular 7.1 mixes), not DTS:X, which by all accounts is _supposed_ to be an object-based system, not channel-based as DTS already has/had channel based formats including the newer NEO:X.


"Liar" is a strong word, but "letting Marketing get ahead of Engineering" would be a fair categorization.



> Where are you getting this information from? I haven't seen anyone make this claim before (not that I've read every thread in every forum, obviously. There's only so much time in the day).


The channel-based nature of most DTS:X Blu Rays has been well-attested by civilians in various subforums, as well as industry insiders (of which FilmMixer is one, as am I). 



> The only reason Atmos doesn't support more flexible speaker placement is the manufacturers haven't made it so. The first generation chipsets do what they do for backwards compatibility as a priority. It is not a limitation of the object-based system itself (e.g. My first generation DTS decoder from the 1990s did not support phantom centers or bass management yet newer models soon added it).


Well, sort of. The maximal implementation of the home version of Dolby Atmos is 24.1.10 independent speaker feeds. Atmos does not support *full* positional rendering (this is not supported even in the theatrical implementation of Atmos), but it does support so many possible speaker positions as to make this almost moot. There's a lot of spatial resolution in having 24 ear-level speakers! You are correct that it is really up to manufacturers to make available more than the 7.1.4 positions that are currently the norm. But we'll never see the renderer itself render out to arbitrary speaker locations, that is beyond the scope of the codec.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> Atmos does not support *full* positional rendering (*this is not supported even in the theatrical implementation of Atmos*)


Interesting, didn't know that (only suspected it). Just out of scientific curiosity, do you know (and are allowed to disclose) the amount of possible speaker positions Theatrical Atmos works with?


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> But we'll never see the renderer itself render out to arbitrary speaker locations, that is beyond the scope of the codec.


When you have height and multiple distance positions already encoded, how hard would it be for a decoder to adjust panning and delays to make use of almost any speaker position within the total positional space between all those supported channels (i.e. DSP adjustment)? Distance between positions in a given Z coordinate is a simple time delay in the pan between the speakers and left right is a matter of assigning the correct volume level relative to the object's position compared to the speaker location. Height information would more of a vertical pan between existing height speakers and ear-level speakers and with proper delays you should be able to support nearly any position in-between (I'd call that arbitrary location support and it doesn't seem technically very hard to implement at all within the existing channel structure. Yamaha receivers already let you specify whether your height speakers are in front of you, overhead or behind you and their overall distance from the primary listening location. How hard would it be to fine tune that to an exact location overhead? After all, it's just a matter of when and how much volume of sound to play for a given object in a given speaker and its relative phase.). 

Between the two, I can't think of any technical reason why a receiver _couldn't_ be built to assign arbitrary positions between layout positions in a given direction relative to known object locations and I assume this was what DTS was talking about in their literature. If they're not doing it, that's one thing, but that doesn't make it an impossibility. Clearly, this is more useful for a home environment than a commercial theater because theaters are built to accommodate the typical layouts we know and Atmos was designed to work in a typical theater shaped room. Home environments, on the other hand are often a compromise between rooms that were never designed for home theater usage (many many houses being 50+ years old; it didn't even exist) and practical use (anything from adjoining rooms to fireplaces to the so-called wife acceptance factor). Thus, flexibility is more useful at home than in a typical commercial theater. Large theaters can use more speakers, but they typically can be placed precisely and symmetrically and thus predictably. I kind of assumed this is why DTS talked more about flexibility since they transitioned from a theater environment to almost exclusively the home environment (i.e. Blu-Rays).

I think Sony has a position correction mode on at least one model that corrects for uneven layouts to make them sound symmetrical at the listening position due to room limitations. It would be very similar to that. Obviously, you couldn't put speakers in strange locations like "below the floor level" (as if you were sitting on a grated floor) as that information isn't encoded, although that would be awesome if they could simulate that somehow since sounds can come from below in various situations in real life and it would be pretty impressive sounding to hear that in a theater).

Frankly, I've always thought binaural mixes with headphone playback (with a wireless system correcting for seating positions mapped out in the room somehow) would be the ultimate way to go for truly accurate "surround" information. You can have bees land on your ear lobe with binaural. Nothing I've heard in any theater even comes close to what I've heard done with binaural for positional accuracy. They would need to correct for head size differences as well to get it perfect, of course. I'm not sure how far DTS Headphone goes in that direction (I've got a movie with it; I just need to test it out soon).


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> Where are you getting this information from?
> [...]
> Proof please.
> [...]
> Just because *some people who like to posture* over the superiority of their personal systems don't like it, doesn't mean it couldn't or even shouldn't be so.
> [...]
> I think people shouldn't make *contradictory claims* without proof, but then it's the Internet....


Wow.  Just, wow. I expected *buckets of contrition* from you after the posts which followed yours, but you just carried on posting as if nothing was wrong! SMH.

"contradictory claims" 



deano86 said:


> *Obviously you haven't been reading in this forum or related forums very much.. otherwise you would be aware of who FilmMixer is* or more importantly what he does.... HINT .....read his name to yourself and think about it for a moment...there is your proof


Exactly. And it is very obvious 



MagnumX said:


> Frankly, I've always thought binaural mixes with headphone playback (with a wireless system correcting for seating positions mapped out in the room somehow) would be the ultimate way to go for truly accurate "surround" information. You can have bees land on your ear lobe with binaural. Nothing I've heard in any theater even comes close to what I've heard done with binaural for positional accuracy. They would need to correct for head size differences as well to get it perfect, of course. I'm not sure how far DTS Headphone goes in that direction (I've got a movie with it; I just need to test it out soon).


The recent Doctor Who episode "Knock Knock" (new Season 10 Episode 4) had a special binarual mix done by the BBC. It was available on the iPlayer (UK only). I don't know if they made it available in other countries, but I heard it and it was very impressive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p051x29z


> Plug in your headphones to experience Doctor Who with 3D sound* in this special binaural audio mix* – it’s virtual reality for your ears. Why do floorboards creak? When a sinister landlord shows Bill and her friends the perfect houseshare, they have no idea what lies ahead... knock knock, who's there?


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> I didn't mean a comparison of a single title, but rather compared to other titles you've listened to on the same system (i.e. comparing a good Atmos title to a DTS:X title and whether DTS:X does anything superior or worse, more or less precision, etc.).


You mean like watching more than one movie?

How exactly do you compare one movie with Dolby Atmos to an entirely different movie in DTS:X? What are you trying to compare? You can't possibly consider comparing the two codecs and judging the differences of two codecs while completely ignoring the fact that they are 100% different mixes altogether? 

Ever hear of the saying "Apples and Oranges"? That applies here, so much.

To do what you suggest would require the *exact same mix* to be encoded with no variations in both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. Nothing outside a studio or laboratory (demo disc?) does something like that even exist.... yet.


----------



## Scott Simonian

deano86 said:


> Obviously you haven't been reading in this forum or related forums very much..


This dude must been living under a rock for the past 10-15 years.... yeesh.


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow.  Just, wow. I expected *buckets of contrition* from you


Why is that? Because this guy mixes soundtracks? How does that automatically negate any point I made? I've recorded and mixed rock albums. Oddly, I don't expect people to bow down and worship me because of it or to take my word on everything in life because of it.



> after the posts which followed yours, but you just carried on posting as if nothing was wrong! SMH.


Wow. Just Wow. You're sure making a good first impression on me! 



> Exactly. And it is very obvious


Exactly. There are only like a hundred sub-forums on here and everyone else has read every single thread in every single one of them! 

Really, you're right about not reading the forums for ten years. I built my previous home theater about ten years ago and unlike some people, I have other things to do in life than just discuss home theater 24/7 for ten years (including things like my day job, writing and recording music and attempting to have a life. Imagine THAT!?!?) That doesn't mean I'm suddenly a door post. I've just upgraded part of my home theater and so here I am again 10 years later. I haven't kept track of whom you think is a god around here and I honestly don't care.



Scott Simonian said:


> You mean like watching more than one movie?
> How exactly do you compare one movie with Dolby Atmos to an entirely different movie in DTS:X? What are you trying to compare? You can't possibly consider comparing the two codecs and judging the differences of two codecs while completely ignoring the fact that they are 100% different mixes altogether?


How do you compare cars when they don't have the same engine, seats and power steering systems? How do you compare restaurants when they don't make the same exact same meals using the exact same recipes? How do you generalize or make abstract comparisons of anything in life? You'd think I'd asked someone to compare viscosity levels under stress between two variations of synthetic engine formulas or something. I mean if your impression of a sound system is limited only to the exact same mix, how would you know if one system is capable of things the other is not? Where would you even start? You'd have to leave it to FilmMixer, I know. 



> Ever hear of the saying "Apples and Oranges"? That applies here, so much.


Yes, how silly of me to think people who may have heard multiple Atmos and DTS:X soundtracks on the same system they're familiar with (i.e. their own) might form an opinion about what they heard and whether it was similarly effective (you know with scenes with planes and helicopters and explosions, the kind of thing found in almost every action movie out there). Yes, it could be just the movie, but that's why you watch more than one of them! I know I can form an opinion about the effectiveness of Dolby Pro Logic versus Dolby Digital for a given system without comparing the two mixes for the same movie (they are different mixes after all so according to what you said, you can't compare them!)



> To do what you suggest would require the *exact same mix* to be encoded with no variations in both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. Nothing outside a studio or laboratory (demo disc?) does something like that even exist.... yet.


No, others managed to give an impression without that. Clearly, they are capable of abstract thought and impressions and realized I wasn't asking for a double blind test, just an impression of how the surround effects compared in general. I know you are incapable of making that distinction, but to me things flying over head or past my head or to the sides or wherever is what I'm thinking about, not whether it was a rocket or a helicopter or whatever. That's why it's an abstract comparison. I know. I know. You can't handle that type of comparison. Thank goodness others can or I'd never get a helpful response.



Scott Simonian said:


> This dude must been living under a rock for the past 10-15 years.... yeesh.


Yes, I was _literally_ living under a rock to not know who some dude with the screen name FilmMixer is. And again, so what? And I wasn't aware every person who mixes soundtracks has in-depth inside knowledge of every single Atmos and DTS:X soundtrack in existence to know without a doubt almost all the DTS:X ones apparently suck. Again, it's wrong to ask for where he's getting this information? Even knowing he works on mixing soundtracks, I'm supposed to guess he just knows everything automatically about every mix? Why on Earth would I make that assumption with the official information from DTS stating otherwise. How could I possibly know with absolute certainty which one is correct with just that information? Ah, that's right...because I've been living under a rock for the past ten years I didn't know FilmMixer is god!


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> I wasn't asking for a double blind test, just an impression of how the surround effects compared in general.


Compared multiple DTS:X titles (Big Short, Daddy's Home, Zoolander No. 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Girl on the Train, Fifty Shades Darker) to several Atmos titles (Gravity, Hacksaw Ridge, Oblivion, John Wick: Chapter 2, Pacific Rim, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them, Kong: Skull Island, Power Rangers [mixed by the aforementioned FilmMixer]) and found a huge difference in the amount of surround effects and height information between the two formats, making it obvious that Atmos blows away DTS:X.


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> Compared multiple DTS:X titles (Big Short, Daddy's Home, Zoolander No. 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Girl on the Train, Fifty Shades Darker) to several Atmos titles (Gravity, Hacksaw Ridge, Oblivion, John Wick: Chapter 2, Pacific Rim, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them, Kong: Skull Island, Power Rangers [mixed by the aforementioned FilmMixer]) and found a huge difference in the amount of surround effects and height information between the two formats, making it obvious that Atmos blows away DTS:X.


Sure, those DTS:X titles are lousy, but there are good ones too, try the Harry Potter movies, Huntsman Winters War, Lone Survivor, Battleship, Snow White and the Huntsman for example. All exellent 3D sound titles.

Besides, there is a large number of bad Atmos mixes too.


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> If they're not doing it, that's one thing, but that doesn't make it an impossibility.


Trinnov did speaker remapping on a Sherwood receiver almost a decade ago, so adjusting speaker feeds based on listener location is not an impossibility. But that's different from positional rendering and, as Dan points out, is beyond the scope of the home versions of all three immersive audio formats (Atmos, Auro, DTS:X). 

Of the three formats, only DTS:X renders object based on a listener location (egocentric rendering). That capability is not implemented in the current home version of DTS:X and who knows if it ever will. Almost all DTS:X titles on BD & UHD are discrete 7.1.4 tracks with no objects. Auro is a channel based format, so it doesn't do any object-based rendering. 

Atmos does render objects, but neither the theatrical version nor the home version is keyed to a listener location. Instead it renders objects based on relative left/right, front/back, up/down position (allocentric rendering). It was never designed with a listener location in mind, so don't expect it to do positional rendering any time soon. 

Having said that, there is nothing to stop manufacturers from implementing some sort of speaker remapping feature, similar to what Sherwood had back in 2008, as and when they have the DSP horsepower to do so. That will help correct for speaker angles and asymmetries. But having azimuth and elevation numbers for speakers (relative to a listener location) won't change object-based rendering, since those formats have no entry table for those numbers.


----------



## rboster

Reminder political comments/discussions are forbidden on AVS.

thanks


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> Wouldn't that make DTS a bunch of liars when it comes to X? I mean what you are describing sounds like DTS NEO:X (i.e. 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 to 11.2 (7.1.4) up-converts including the ability to matrix encode height channels in regular 7.1 mixes), not DTS:X, which by all accounts is _supposed_ to be an object-based system, not channel-based as DTS already has/had channel based formats including the newer NEO:X.
> 
> Where are you getting this information from? I haven't seen anyone make this claim before (not that I've read every thread in every forum, obviously. There's only so much time in the day).
> 
> Proof please.
> 
> The only reason Atmos doesn't support more flexible speaker placement is the manufacturers haven't made it so. The first generation chipsets do what they do for backwards compatibility as a priority. It is not a limitation of the object-based system itself (e.g. My first generation DTS decoder from the 1990s did not support phantom centers or bass management yet newer models soon added it). Given Dolby has their own layout recommendations, they're probably not going to recommend you stick a speaker behind the potted plant on the floor, yet that is a reality in many home systems (often due to the notorious WAF). A good implementation of Atmos would account for such placements and adjust for it accordingly (exactly what the DTS papers talk about doing in the next generation decoders). Just because some people who like to posture over the superiority of their personal systems don't like it, doesn't mean it couldn't or even shouldn't be so.
> 
> I think people shouldn't make contradictory claims without proof, but then it's the Internet.... "Some" or someone getting bleed in their height channels (possibly from a defective receiver) doesn't exactly prove it's a channel based matrix system contrary to all claims by the company.




Others have answered a lot of your detailed questions abut the codecs before my reply so I won't repeat much of that information. 

Regarding my experience. 

I've consulted for both Dolby and DTS over the last 20 plus years at various times. 

The last two films I have mixed have been released theatrically in both Atmos and DTS:X so I've had very recent experience and discussions with both companies about how said films would be encoded for the home. (One came home via Atmos, the other will be Atmos and Auro for Europe..). 

The workflow for DTS:X has been to mix in the format and then render out in 7.1.4. AFAIK there hasn't been one domestic DTS:X film release that uses objects. If one was interested in confirming that Yamaha products tell you have many objects are in a DTS:X package.

But more simply.... DTS allows for a total of 16 streams and doesn't have a technology like Dolby's Spatial Coding. So I know a title like Power Rangers (with over 60 objects at times) would have to be channel rendered to get it to the home. 

Front channel bleed isn't indicative of matrix decoders when playing test tones. It's indicative that the DTS encoder was set for heights and not overheads. However, older AVRs that supported wides did confirm that some kind of steering was happening with content that clearly didn't have objects.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Nalleh

FilmMixer said:


> (One came home via Atmos, the other will be Atmos and *Auro for Europ*e..).


Interesting  Any more info about this?


----------



## jm10

FilmMixer said:


> The workflow for *DTS:X *has been to *mix in the format and then render out in 7.1.4*. AFAIK there hasn't been one domestic DTS:X film release that uses objects. If one was interested in confirming that Yamaha products tell you have many objects are in a DTS:X package.
> 
> But more simply.... DTS allows for a total of 16 streams and doesn't have a technology like *Dolby's Spatial Coding*. So I know a title like Power Rangers (with over 60 *objects *at times) *would have to be channel rendered *to get it to the home.


Interesting... I just watched Harry Potter 7th (2nd part) on DTS:X in a 5.1.4 config and I really liked it, a lot. Great sync and immersion. 

How the end user experience is really impacted by those different approaches? 
At the end we are all listening thru channels, right?

On the other hand, I am now thinking this is the reason why you can playback DTS:X from MKVs on the Oppo 203, but not Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> Yes, I was _literally_ living under a rock to not know who some dude with the screen name FilmMixer is. And again, so what?


I wasn't talking about FilmMixer...

You're doing great, man! Keep it up! :kiss:


----------



## FilmMixer

maikeldepotter said:


> Interesting, didn't know that (only suspected it). Just out of scientific curiosity, do you know (and are allowed to disclose) the amount of possible speaker positions Theatrical Atmos works with?



The theatrical format supports 62 speaker outputs (plus two subwoofer outs.)

So accounting for a mandatory LCR, you have 59 left. 

As far as where the rendering unit can "see" them? We know the panner has 100 values for each axis (X, Y, Z..) so I think it is safe to assume that it supports as much resolution when rendering to a given speakers actual location. I know that in a given room the rending unit does know specifically the room dimensions and where the speakers are inside aid "box."

The DTS:X panner has the same resolution btw. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dschulz

maikeldepotter said:


> Interesting, didn't know that (only suspected it). Just out of scientific curiosity, do you know (and are allowed to disclose) the amount of possible speaker positions Theatrical Atmos works with?


Theatrical Atmos supports 64 independent speaker feeds.


----------



## FilmMixer

jm10 said:


> Interesting... I just watched Harry Potter 7th (2nd part) on DTS:X in a 5.1.4 config and I really liked it, a lot. Great sync and immersion.
> 
> 
> 
> How the end user experience is really impacted by those different approaches?
> 
> 
> At the end we are all listening thru channels, right?
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I am now thinking this is the reason why you can playback DTS:X from MKVs on the Oppo 203, but not Atmos.



I think the MKV issue is a licensing issue, not a technical one. 

I totally agree that in the end it really shouldn't matter what format it gets delivered to the home in for more than 99% of people. When people are able to go to 9.1.6 and greater it might be a little more obvious.... but even then I suspect it won't be night and day. 

I do take issue (and have told DTS employees this) with the "put your speakers anywhere" claim. 

As Sanjay pointed out in another post, that will really be a function of the processor and not the codec... outside of Trinnov enabled and some Yamaha products, a vast majority of AVRs and SSPs don't know where your speakers really are in any capacity that counts. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jm10

FilmMixer said:


> I think the MKV issue is a licensing issue, not a technical one.
> 
> I totally agree that in the end it really shouldn't matter what format it gets delivered to the home in for more than 99% of people. *When people are able to go to 9.1.6 *and greater it might be a little more obvious.... but *even then I suspect it won't be night and day. *
> 
> I do take issue (and have told DTS employees this) with the *"put your speakers anywhere" claim*.
> 
> As Sanjay pointed out in another post, that will really be a function of the processor and not the codec... *outside of Trinnov enabled and some Yamaha products, a vast majority of AVRs and SSPs don't know where your speakers really are in any capacity that counts.*


Thank you... you know, at the end I think is all about who is doing the decoding to the channels... the receiver or the mixing department? 

It looks like the old PCM vs. TrueHD debate. Lossless is lossless regardless who decoded it, right? Something similar here I might guess and like you I believe it might not be so noticeable... and the DTS:X can even be a more consistent playback implementation across brands if they are the ones doing the decoding to the channels after the mixing...interesting.

On the other hand, I am an advocate of doing all the YPAO setup (all positions and the angle/height thing) and I am now even more convinced about it. I remember reading about Trinnov some time ago and the angle thing and as soon as I learned about the freaking Yammy boomerang, I used it.

I have an A3060 and I dedicated a lot of time putting the speakers at the most appropriate location, given my limitations. I found that Harry Potter movie a lot better than other Atmos ones I already tried... but I am just starting on this, so I might not enjoyed Atmos at its best yet... but that HP movie... men, that was a great mix those guys at WB did... Awesome IMHO.


----------



## FilmMixer

jm10 said:


> Thank you... you know, at the end I think is all about who is doing the decoding to the channels... the receiver or the mixing department?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the old PCM vs. TrueHD debate. Lossless is lossless regardless who decoded it, right? Something similar here I might guess and like you I believe it might not be so noticeable... and the DTS:X can even be a more consistent playback implementation across brands if they are the ones doing the decoding to the channels after the mixing...interesting.
> 
> 
> I found that Harry Potter movie a lot better than other Atmos ones I already tried... but I am just starting on this, so I might not enjoyed Atmos at its best yet... but that HP movie... men, that was a great mix those guys at WB did... Awesome IMHO.



When you bake an object based mix into channels for delivery, you do away with all the flexibility that happens when the speaker count exceeds the payload. 

So if you have a pan from overhead front to back, once it's baked into 7.1.4 channels what happens when you have three over heads (front center and back?) 

With DTS:X I expect the channels that have been designated as heights will bleed not only into the fronts a bit (if they are designated as overheads and not presence/height) but also the center OHs. 

It's not ideal. but it might not be so noticeable... that was my point. 

Some might like that all of their overhead channels are on almost all of the time. But it's not accurate to what was intended. 

DTS:X, as it is being used today, in a majority of systems, would be fairly indistinguishable from Atmos if the same mix was encoded in both formats and played back with what is currently available to most consumers, with the Trinnov Altitude being the notable exception. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> Sure, those DTS:X titles are lousy...


Doesn't matter to the poster I was replying to. I was comparing formats, not mixes. And just to keep the comparison fair, I compared multiple titles.


> ...try the Harry Potter movies, Huntsman Winters War, Lone Survivor, Battleship, Snow White and the Huntsman for example.


If you compare those titles to Gravity and TMNT, you'll see that the Atmos format has a huge advantage: dialogue can be panned to the overhead speakers.


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> I mean what you are describing sounds like DTS NEO:X (i.e. 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 to 11.2 (7.1.4) up-converts including the ability to matrix encode height channels in regular 7.1 mixes), not DTS:X, which by all accounts is supposed to be an object-based system, not channel-based as DTS already has/had channel based formats including the newer NEO:X.


What FilmMixer was describing was scaling a DTS:X 7.1.4 track to a 9.1.6 speaker layout, where the feeds for the additional speakers (wides and top middles) are matrix extracted using a simple centre output between adjacent channels. This scaling process is built into the DTS:X decoder and happens automatically (not a user selectable upmix option, like Neo:X).


----------



## gwsat

FilmMixer said:


> DTS:X, as it is being used today, in a majority of systems, would be fairly indistinguishable from Atmos if the same mix was encoded in both formats and played back with what is currently available to most consumers, with the Trinnov Altitude being the notable exception.


Yeah, my experience has been that on my system, at least, DTS:X MA sounds just as good as TrueHD Atmos does. But then I have a 7.2.4 system, with the four overhead speakers being mounted in my 10' ceiling, so neither format has to do any matrixing. Another reason I might not be able to tell the difference is my aging ears.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> If you compare those titles to Gravity and TMNT, you'll see that the Atmos format has a huge advantage: dialogue can be panned to the overhead speakers.


That's not a format issue, but a mix decision. If Gravity were encoded with DTS:X, the dialog would have included the height speakers, too. As Marc noted:


FilmMixer said:


> DTS:X, as it is being used today, in a majority of systems, would be fairly indistinguishable from Atmos if the same mix was encoded in both formats and played back with what is currently available to most consumers, with the Trinnov Altitude being the notable exception.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> That's not a format issue, but a mix decision.


So what are you and Nalleh trying to say? I can't draw valid conclusions about the formats based on listening to totally different mixes? Even "on the same system they're familiar with (i.e. their own)"? 

Sorry MagnumX, I tried.


----------



## helvetica bold

I think I finally settled on speakers for my Atmos upgrade. Elac B5 will make up my 5.1 and 4, SVS Elevation Speakers for heights. What do you guys think? Im coming from Energy Take Classic 5.1. Will most likely pair with Yamaha RX–A2070. Room is small 9'X11'.


----------



## jm10

FilmMixer said:


> When you bake an object based mix into channels for delivery, you do away with all the flexibility that happens when the speaker count exceeds the payload.
> 
> So if you have a pan from overhead front to back, once it's baked into 7.1.4 channels what happens when you have three over heads (front center and back?)
> 
> With DTS:X I expect the channels that have been designated as heights will bleed not only into the fronts a bit (if they are designated as overheads and not presence/height) but also the center OHs.
> 
> *It's not ideal. but it might not be so noticeable... that was my point.
> *



Yes, I got you.. I know what you was referring to... I will add that currently it is rare to see people on 9.x... I think most of us are on 7.x.4 and 5.x.4. Even that movie from HP was processed at 5.1.4 for me, so I might ended up losing some separation definition on the back side of "the bed".

Do you know or foresee that DTS:X will continue with the current approach or they will end up letting the object decoding on the consumer end?

The other day I read something about most surround systems still on plain 5.1... not even on 7.1... Applying the same possible reasons to this Atmos/DTS:X debate...let say... speaker placement issues, lack of enthusiasm to embrace new stuff, or whatever... Going further beyond 7.x.4 seems to me a bit far for the regular mortals like me. Even the Atmos Guide for Home setup have the 7.x.4 as The Reference setup... and very few manufactures supporting beyond 7.x.4 for the masses.

So, got it....letting the AVR do the decoding its better when you can accommodate more than 7.x.4 speakers and have the room space so the increase in speakers makes sense or is justified in terms of having play-back holes as the speakers are widely separated (big room) or have narrow dispersion.... or it is appreciated a more exact location of those objects as they move around speakers.

However, this will start another debate.. How much improvement can I get from 9.x.6 over 7.x.4? Is it as big as jumping from 5.1 to 5.1.4? 

In my particular case I got better definition on the top plane, but to be honest, my AVR and previous speaker placement before "the Atmos upgrade" was doing a very nice work handling surrounds effect and mimicking the top experience probably with the "virtual speaker" stuff. I tested the Oblivion Atmos track without tops vs. after the upgrade. I discovered BTW that the Atmos track, remastered of course, have now more details (not related to Atmos) than before as I played it back without tops... a trick from the marketing department? 

Going back to configs...I can't even place more than 5.x.4 as I currently have no space for them  So for me its irrelevant where the decoding is being done... I least I picked a nice AVR that can help me have a "bigger room" and hell yes, it seems my room is bigger at play-back.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> DTS:X, as it is being used today, in a majority of systems, would be fairly indistinguishable from Atmos if the same mix was encoded in both formats and played back with what is currently available to most consumers


I agree. The whole discussion about Atmos vs. DTS:X is just much ado about nothing. Object-based audio is in its infancy. Things will become interesting when the renderer has access to audio object and _complete_ spatial information as separate entities. In other words the audio object itself shouldn't carry any spatial information. Neither position in space nor auditory environment. That information is stored as meta data accompanying the audio object. The renderer then tries to recreate the intended auditory scene using available speaker channels (or HRTFs in case of headphone playback).

Right now DTS:X and Atmos is not much more than good old channel-based audio just with more channels. Not much gained from rendering objects as the speaker layout is rather fixed and critical spatial information is still channel-based.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Roger Dressler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a format issue, but a mix decision.
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you and Nalleh trying to say? I can't draw valid conclusions about the formats based on listening to totally different mixes? Even "on the same system they're familiar with (i.e. their own)"?
> 
> Sorry MagnumX, I tried.
Click to expand...

And yet others including FilmMixer managed to convey useful impressions and opinions without being sarcastic or stacking the deck to make the point that apparently some people need a published scientific journal study to form any opinion what-so-ever.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> And yet others including FilmMixer managed to convey useful impressions and opinions without being sarcastic or stacking the deck to make the point that apparently some people need a published scientific journal study to form any opinion what-so-ever.



To be clear in what I expressed to you in my first reply..

My opinion has to do with how DTS claims the codec does something it does not at this in time (real time speaker remapping). 

If accurate, they could encode a 5.1 or 7.1 channel (channels are just static objects after all) mix in X and you could put your speakers anywhere and have it playback as intended (within reason.. and the laws of physics and acoustic science of course )... 

You originally asked me for proof about my assertion. 

Let me reposition the conversation....

I've yet to see DTS demonstrate such a use case with any mix at this point in time... I would think this feature would set the AVR market on fire and lead every content maker to abandon Atmos in a second. 

Have they shown you "proof" that such a feature exists and works as described? 

I'm still waiting for my AVR auto setup to ask me where my speaker is located and one of the choices is "anywhere."  

(And I stole that quip from a fellow member on here, lest he bust me on that..) 

That's a function of the processor and not the codec. 

It's easy to see that almost every manufacturer has simply copied and pasted DTS's marketing material verbatim without putting any effort into how the codecs actually work or work on their products. 

That's my complaint. 

My experience about almost all the releases being channel based comes from me discussing it with both DTS and others mixers delivering content in the format. 

I personally discussed with the company how I would get one of my mixes with over 60 objects into the home with X... the answer was to render into 7.1.4, and that was and has been their recommended practice moving forward. 

I am by no means the end all be all for this subject... I've been mistaken in the past and always try to clarify or correct when I've faltered. You certainly don't need to spend hours researching my posts or history. 

However I can tell you that I am probably more well versed on these home technologies than a great majority of my peers. I can't prove that. You'll just have to trust me on that one. 

I don't think your assertion that just because I have spent almost three decades creating film sound tracks makes me the last word on this subject is out of line. 

However I think you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss anyone's posts, or demand proof, off the bat without first doing some research of your own... 

As you've learned, such actions can make the natives restless. 

Just my .02


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> To be clear in what I expressed to you in my first reply..
> 
> My opinion has to do with how DTS claims the codec does something it does not at this in time (real time speaker remapping).
> 
> If accurate, they could encode a 5.1 or 7.1 channel (channels are just static objects after all) mix in X and you could put your speakers anywhere and have it playback as intended (within reason.. and the laws of physics and acoustic science of course )...
> 
> You originally asked me for proof about my assertion.
> 
> Let me reposition the conversation....
> 
> I've yet to see DTS demonstrate such a use case with any mix at this point in time... I would think this feature would set the AVR market on fire and lead every content maker to abandon Atmos in a second.
> 
> Have they shown you "proof" that such a feature exists and works as described?
> 
> I'm still waiting for my AVR auto setup to ask me where my speaker is located and one of the choices is "anywhere."
> 
> (And I stole that quip from a fellow member on here, lest he bust me on that..)
> 
> That's a function of the processor and not the codec.
> 
> It's easy to see that almost every manufacturer has simply copied and pasted DTS's marketing material verbatim without putting any effort into how the codecs actually work or work on their products.
> 
> That's my complaint.
> 
> My experience about almost all the releases being channel based comes from me discussing it with both DTS and others mixers delivering content in the format.
> 
> I personally discussed with the company how I would get one of my mixes with over 60 objects into the home with X... the answer was to render into 7.1.4, and that was and has been their recommended practice moving forward.
> 
> I am by no means the end all be all for this subject... I've been mistaken in the past and always try to clarify or correct when I've faltered. You certainly don't need to spend hours researching my posts or history.
> 
> However I can tell you that I am probably more well versed on these home technologies than a great majority of my peers. I can't prove that. You'll just have to trust me on that one.
> 
> I don't think your assertion that just because I have spent almost three decades creating film sound tracks makes me the last word on this subject is out of line.
> 
> However I think you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss anyone's posts, or demand proof, off the bat without first doing some research of your own...
> 
> As you've learned, such actions can make the natives restless.
> 
> Just my .02


So, to break it all down to the simplest layman's terms for those at home reading all this back and forth...

If every immersive mix and processor/renderer was fixed at 7.1.4, then both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X would be exactly the same in terms of immersive soundtrack presentation (barring how the engineer chose to pan or locate particular sound elements). 

However, once you start moving beyond 7.1.4 systems (as Trinnov, Steinway, etc. and possibly soon Denon/Marantz units can allow the consumer to do so), the differences start becoming apparent given Atmos' scalability via 3D objects (and more of them).

Would that be a fair summation?

Also, given that Sony is releasing _The Bridge on the River Kwai_ in Dolby Atmos, would it be fair to assume they're utilizing Atmos' ability to have five behind the screen speakers to recreate the hyper front-of-the-house directionality of the original mult-track roadshow release, which also happened to utilize five screen speakers?


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> So what are you and Nalleh trying to say? I can't draw valid conclusions about the formats based on listening to totally different mixes? Even "on the same system they're familiar with (i.e. their own)"?
> 
> Sorry MagnumX, I tried.


You mentioned some bad DTS:X titles and compared them to some of the best Atmos titles(top demo titles, infact), so sure, looking at it that way Atmos is better. I simply throwed some GOOD DTS:X titles in the mix. It is not black and white, and as several have mentioned, both Atmos and DTS:X CAN be awsome, and indistinguishable from each other.

And they can both be terrible, it is all in how it is mixed.

I would say more than 50% of the Atmos titles released so far is not any better than the regular 7.1/5.1 track played back in DSU instead.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> You mentioned some bad DTS:X titles and compared them to some of the best Atmos titles(top demo titles, infact), so sure, looking at it that way Atmos is better. I simply throwed some GOOD DTS:X titles in the mix. It is not black and white, and as several have mentioned, both Atmos and DTS:X CAN be awsome, and indistinguishable from each other.
> 
> And they can both be terrible, it is all in how it is mixed.
> 
> I would say more than 50% of the Atmos titles released so far is not any better than the regular 7.1/5.1 track played back in DSU instead.


I'd say some of the most creative Atmos mixes have never made it to home video yet because the studio either didn't bother to include it or was waiting for UHD Blu-ray. 

I was really PO'd that _Dawn of the Planet of the Apes _UHD Blu-ray did not receive its Dolby Atmos track. It was one of the better ones. And now that Disney is part of the 4k crowd... we shall see (or hear) soon enough.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, to break it all down to the simplest layman's terms for those at home reading all this back and forth...
> 
> If every immersive mix and processor/renderer was fixed at 7.1.4, then both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X would be exactly the same in terms of immersive soundtrack presentation (barring how the engineer chose to pan or locate particular sound elements).
> 
> However, once you start moving beyond 7.1.4 systems (as Trinnov, Steinway, etc. and possibly soon Denon/Marantz units can allow the consumer to do so), the differences start becoming apparent given Atmos' scalability via 3D objects (and more of them).
> 
> Would that be a fair summation?
> 
> Also, given that Sony is releasing _The Bridge on the River Kwai_ in Dolby Atmos, would it be fair to assume they're utilizing Atmos' ability to have five behind the screen speakers to recreate the hyper front-of-the-house directionality of the original mult-track roadshow release?




I think that would be a good summation. 

I believe Kwai is building on the 5.1 remix that was done a few years back.... I also knew the material they had to work with was limited... I wouldn't expect that kind of directionality out of the front soundstage. 

But that's just a guess (well that and I am currently working with the mixer who just finished it so we've been taking about the title )

Titles that old are really difficult to do while maintaining integrity with the original mix. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> And yet others including FilmMixer managed to convey useful impressions and opinions without being sarcastic or stacking the deck to make the point that apparently some people need a published scientific journal study to form any opinion what-so-ever.


It was obvious that you were determined to believe that one variable (audio format) could be isolated and evaluated even when inextricably commingled with another variable (sound mix), as evidenced by your post lecturing mrtickleuk and Scott about their lack of "abstract" thinking, so I merely tried a different approach. Worth a shot. But, at least you picked up on the sarcasm, which others have yet to.


----------



## jazzrock

sdurani said:


> Compared multiple DTS:X titles (Big Short, Daddy's Home, Zoolander No. 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Girl on the Train, Fifty Shades Darker) to several Atmos titles (Gravity, Hacksaw Ridge, Oblivion, John Wick: Chapter 2, Pacific Rim, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them, Kong: Skull Island, Power Rangers [mixed by the aforementioned FilmMixer]) and found a huge difference in the amount of surround effects and height information between the two formats, making it obvious that Atmos blows away DTS:X.




Strictly speaking of Atmos and DtsX and not their up mixing counterparts, one of the most, if not THE most important element of a sound design, is how the Sound Designer/Director created the mix. That is what will significantly determine the amount of perceived envelopment. Using these totally different films to compare the performance of a codec/software is comical at best.


----------



## gwsat

jazzrock said:


> Strictly speaking of Atmos and DtsX and not their up mixing counterparts, one of the most, if not THE most important element of a sound design, is how the Sound Designer/Director created the mix. That is what will significantly determine the amount of perceived envelopment. Using these totally different films to compare the performance of a codec/software is comical at best.


Amen! It seems to me that the most important elements contributing to sound quality, by far, are sound design and editing. I have heard 5.1 mixes that were thrilling because their sound design and editing were wonderful. Conversely, I have heard TrueHD Atmos mixes that if not quite bad, were uninspiring because less than a great job had been done laying them down. Here's the Executive Summary: Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> You mentioned some bad DTS:X titles and compared them to some of the best Atmos titles(top demo titles, infact)...


Indeed, I tried to make it as obvious as I could, but the point of that post was still missed (though, thankfully, not by the poster I was replying to).


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, to break it all down to the simplest layman's terms for those at home reading all this back and forth...
> 
> If every immersive mix and processor/renderer was fixed at 7.1.4, then both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X would be exactly the same in terms of immersive soundtrack presentation (barring how the engineer chose to pan or locate particular sound elements).
> 
> However, once you start moving beyond 7.1.4 systems (as Trinnov, Steinway, etc. and possibly soon Denon/Marantz units can allow the consumer to do so), the differences start becoming apparent given Atmos' scalability via 3D objects (and more of them).
> 
> Would that be a fair summation?
> 
> Also, given that Sony is releasing _The Bridge on the River Kwai_ in Dolby Atmos, would it be fair to assume they're utilizing Atmos' ability to have five behind the screen speakers to recreate the hyper front-of-the-house directionality of the original mult-track roadshow release?




I think that would be a good summation. 

I believe Kwai is building on the 5.1 remix that was done a few years back.... I also knew the material they had to work with was limited... I wouldn't expect that kind of directionality out of the front soundstage. 

But that's just a guess (well that and I am currently working with the mixer who just finished it so we've been taking about the title )

Titles that old are really difficult to do while maintaining integrity with the original mix. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> I think that would be a good summation.
> 
> I believe Kwai is building on the 5.1 remix that was done a few years back.... I also knew the material they had to work with was limited... I wouldn't expect that kind of directionality out of the front soundstage.
> 
> But that's just a guess (well that and I am currently working with the mixer who just finished it so we've been taking about the title )
> 
> Titles that old are really difficult to do while maintaining integrity with the original mix.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


So, there may be a small chance the audio mixers working on Kwai could have used the dialog stems to re-create the five speaker directionalized dialog and effects of the roadshow mix... and then there's the possibility the Atmos mix is even more limited than that (more like an upmix).


----------



## jm10

sdurani said:


> Compared multiple DTS:X titles (Big Short, Daddy's Home, Zoolander No. 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Girl on the Train, Fifty Shades Darker) to several Atmos titles (Gravity, Hacksaw Ridge, Oblivion, John Wick: Chapter 2, Pacific Rim, Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them, Kong: Skull Island, Power Rangers [mixed by the aforementioned FilmMixer]) and found a huge difference in the amount of surround effects and height information between the two formats, making it obvious that Atmos blows away DTS:X.


I liked Harry Potter 7th... way more that Kung: Skull Island... specially the part 2, that one is the one. I still need to try more & better movies in Atmos and DTS:X.



FilmMixer said:


> DTS:X, as it is being used today, in a majority of systems, would be fairly indistinguishable from Atmos *if the same mix* was encoded in both formats and played back with what is currently available to most consumers, with the Trinnov Altitude being the notable exception.





jazzrock said:


> Strictly speaking of Atmos and DtsX and not their up mixing counterparts, one of the most, if not THE most important element of a sound design, is *how the Sound Designer/Director created the mix*. That is what will significantly determine the amount of perceived envelopment. Using these totally different films to compare the performance of a codec/software is comical at best.


I agree with you... having a 7.x.4 system (and even the 5.1.4 like I have) the encoding seems to be irrelevant to me as per all the discussion here. The mix is what makes the show... that piece in front of those knobs, not the container. Try Master & Commander not in Atmos or DTS:X... you feel you are inside that freaking ship... that what is immersion.

I am wondering... are the top skilled studios (best mixers) more inclined towards Atmos than DTS:X? Is Atmos a bit ahead on top studio adoption? Did those top sound designer manage Atmos better than DTS:X or even prefered Atmos over DTS:X?

Interesting is that Harry Potter comes from WB...a great company. The rendering of that mix using DTS:X is great in my setup.


----------



## dschulz

jm10 said:


> I am wondering... are the top skilled studios (best mixers) more inclined towards Atmos than DTS:X? Is Atmos a bit ahead on top studio adoption? Did those top sound designer manage Atmos better than DTS:X or even prefered Atmos over DTS:X?


For theatrical releases, the A-list movies are being mixed in Dolby Atmos. The theaters where premieres are held, the flagship screening rooms on the studio lots, the big houses in big cities where you most want to impress, are all Dolby Atmos cinemas and screening rooms. And Dolby has done an excellent job in maintaining relationships directly with the talent (directors, producers, mixers). In the main the Atmos mix is the primary mix, and then DTS:X, IMAX 12-channel and Auro-3D mixes are prepared separately to meet the demands of exhibition.

Home video is a little more even-keeled than this, with a number of remixes for Blu Ray / UHD being done in DTS:X instead of Dolby Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> I believe Kwai is building on the 5.1 remix that was done a few years back....
> Titles that old are really difficult to do while maintaining integrity with the original mix.


Had the laserdisc version, which included a brand new mix encoded on a Dolby Surround track. Caused quite a commotion back in the day as comparisons to the original mono mix revealed that a whole bunch of new sound effects had been added.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Had the laserdisc version, which included a brand new mix encoded on a Dolby Surround track. Caused quite a commotion back in the day as comparisons to the original mono mix revealed that a whole bunch of new sound effects had been added.



I know that was on their mind this time around. 

Based on the conversation I had about it last week, I don't expect it to radically different, but to definitely take advantage of the overhead speakers when appropriate.


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> For theatrical releases, the A-list movies are being mixed in Dolby Atmos. The theaters where premieres are held, the flagship screening rooms on the studio lots, the big houses in big cities where you most want to impress, are all Dolby Atmos cinemas and screening rooms. And Dolby has done an excellent job in maintaining relationships directly with the talent (directors, producers, mixers). In the main the Atmos mix is the primary mix, and then DTS:X, IMAX 12-channel and Auro-3D mixes are prepared separately to meet the demands of exhibition.
> 
> 
> 
> Home video is a little more even-keeled than this, with a number of remixes for Blu Ray / UHD being done in DTS:X instead of Dolby Atmos.



At this point in time, I don't know any rooms in LA that have DTS:X or Auro capability without Atmos. 

However there are a lot of stages that exclusively have Atmos in terms of immersive capability.... and Dolby has made it so the RMU can monitor and render out 12.0 for IMAX using the Atmos mix as a start. 

Smart move on their part


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> To be clear in what I expressed to you in my first reply..
> 
> My opinion has to do with how DTS claims the codec does something it does not at this in time (real time speaker remapping).


Well, that's disappointing to hear, to say the least. To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply you were wrong in your statements, but rather I did a few searches after your comments and I couldn't find anything (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist out there; I've thought for awhile now that Google is getting ever more commercial in its results and less and less useful as indicated by it ignoring what you type and picking the most common key word out half the time. 



> If accurate, they could encode a 5.1 or 7.1 channel (channels are just static objects after all) mix in X and you could put your speakers anywhere and have it playback as intended (within reason.. and the laws of physics and acoustic science of course )...


Actually, as I put on another forum, the primary thing I was looking to do in my current home theater layout was to find a way to make height channels work in my room without totally ripping things up and hanging speakers all over a finished ceiling, etc. I currently have a 6.1 layout (7.1 was impractical with there being a sliding glass door in the back of the room with a half bathroom just in front of it which makes that part of the wall in the back of the room narrower than the front 3/5 of the room). When I put it together last (2006), 7.1 was just a dual-mono version of 6.1 and 6.1 was only discrete with DTS-ES and hardly anything had DTS-ES (I think I had The Haunting DVD, LOTR Extended DVD and I rented Snakes on a Plane at one point that had it). 

I started out with AppleTV (initially 720p only, but that didn't matter since my first projector back then was a Panasonic PT-AX100U which was a highly rated 720p unit for around $1600-1900 at the time while 1080p units were in the $3-5k range and Blu-Ray was just starting to come out and was originally battling HD-DVD at the time (I wasn't going to step into that mess until it settled anyway). I didn't even get an HDMI capable receiver since everything I had including my projector had component and the Yamaha receiver I got (HTR-5960) was half the price of the same version whose only difference was HDMI switching (all of 4 ports if I recall correctly) and of course that standard didn't last that long and wouldn't do me much good right now even if I had gotten it (I'm using an HDMI remote control switch box (which also pulls out optical/coax from HDMI) until I decide on a new receiver but I'm thinking of waiting for HDMI 2.2 versions to come out first and I was hoping receivers would add a bit more flexibility in setup and/or some more models with DIRAC would come out in the mean time. I upgraded to an Epson 3100 a little over a month ago and have already amassed over 50 3D Blu-Rays.

What I thought would be appealing for my 6.1 setup and room would be if there were a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 receiver where you could configure the height channels to use summed mono front/back instead of just overhead L/R. This would cost anywhere from $1500-2000+ LESS than having to get an 11.1 (7.1.4) receiver (plus possible extra amp and two sets of ~$600 pair PSB speakers) when I can't even fit proper rear 7.1 surrounds easily into the room and due to the main beam of the house dropping the ceiling about 1.7 feet in the middle of the room (I've attached a hand-made layout diagram and a photo with the older Panasonic projector to illustrate the layout issues I'm dealing with), it creates an odd boundary just behind the couch (although it was a good place to hang the projector while being able to hide the wires behind it in white wire molds). I was thinking about a 6.1.2 setup with front/back mono heights blended to side surrounds which are currently matching driver bipoles PSB S50s 2/3 up the wall. But of course, there really is no receiver that supports such a configuration. I've seen one model support 6.1.4 on an 11.1 receiver, but that's as close as it gets that I'm aware of. Obviously, an outboard mixer could sum the .4 channels into .2 front/back monos, but you've already paid for 4 channels at that point, so why not spring the extra $600 (or find them used for less) and go full bore 7.1.4.

I had endless arguments with some people on another forum who told me such a configuration was everything from IMPOSSIBLE (yeah right; I could do it with a mixer like I said) to what I was asking for (similar to my Yamaha's visual setup) would be the Rolls Royce of surround receivers... just to sum front/back channels instead of left/right overhead? (sigh)

I don't even know how well Atmos enabled speakers like the PSB XA would sound in my room and mounting speakers on the ceiling would be problematic at best (looks great!). I thought about using the existing high wall side surround bipoles (which mount flat and look good as they're white) as "height" speakers instead of ceiling and getting another pair (maybe the Imagine S, which can also be configured for dual mono front/back 7.1 instead of bipoles or dipoles which it can also be) and putting them at ear height and making those the side surrounds and possibly even the side and rear surrounds if that 7.1 dual mono mode sounded OK in the room. Ideal? No. Would it sound better than it does now? Quite possibly. And it doesn't sound "bad" now at all. Since my screen is above ear level (93" drop down from near ceiling), the surround speakers already line up with the screen and yet convey height above ear level for things like planes, rockets, helicopters, etc. (they already sound "overhead because they ARE overhead). I'm not even certain how much more height ceiling mounted speakers would convey, but mounted closer inward, they might provide more height fill between the couch and screen or something. Without testing it out, it's hard to be certain how any of these configurations would alternatively sound in my room.



> I'm still waiting for my AVR auto setup to ask me where my speaker is located and one of the choices is "anywhere."


I was thinking more like Yamaha lets you slide the position of the height speakers forward, overhead or back. My current Yamaha already measures for distance from the listening position to determine delays (you can manually input the values as well) and you can choose presence, dual rear surrounds, mono rear surrounds, bass management and a phantom center. Looking to get a front/back height configuration and/or continue to use a single rear surround (because that's what fits in the room) doesn't sound like much of a stretch to me in terms of flexibility (even for just Atmos). While it would be cools to put a speaker to the right and in front of me 1/3 off the floor, that's not what I was really looking for, although that is what DTS literature is trying to sell me (again, disappointing to read it's currently a load of "BS").



> That's a function of the processor and not the codec.


Any receiver that gives more flexibility than another one is going to get my attention when I go to buy. Whether I would prioritize room correction over speaker placement, I don't know. Having something with both options would be nice. Ironically, I can get DIRAC for my two-channel Carver ribbon speaker system for $450 (https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-24), but to get it for even 7.1, I seem to be looking at something more akin to $3000+ receivers. 



> It's easy to see that almost every manufacturer has simply copied and pasted DTS's marketing material verbatim without putting any effort into how the codecs actually work or work on their products.


I would put it more like it's hard to find something OTHER than that since that is the type of material a Google or Bing search turns up.



> I personally discussed with the company how I would get one of my mixes with over 60 objects into the home with X... the answer was to render into 7.1.4, and that was and has been their recommended practice moving forward.


Does this have something to do with them being bought out by Tessera Technologies last year? (Hey guys, let's tone this X thing down to a cheaper channel based system and NOT change the marketing and literature!)


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> It was obvious that you were determined to believe that one variable (audio format) could be isolated and evaluated even when inextricably commingled with another variable (sound mix), as evidenced by your post lecturing mrtickleuk and Scott about their lack of "abstract" thinking, so I merely tried a different approach. Worth a shot. But, at least you picked up on the sarcasm, which others have yet to.


Well, you had exactly one action movie on the DTS:X side so it seemed stacked towards poor surround even without having heard the mixes in question so it immediately seemed that you were being sarcastic. Given sarcasm is my own favorite method of demeaning things, I'm probably more apt to notice it even in print. 

Given I believe I only have one DTS:X encoded title at the moment (The Girl on the Train) and that title wasn't exactly loaded with great surround moments even in 5.1, I don't think I would have been able to comment about X even if I had a newer receiver and the height speakers added to the ceiling. It seems Terminator 2 3D (well the European import anyway since the 3D version won't be available in the US it seems) will have DTS:X on the Blu-Ray. I wonder if Cameron had any input on this at all for the home environment. I find the role reversal of Dolby vs. DTS kind of fascinating in general (i.e. DTS was considered superior to Dolby Digital in the cinema back in the 1990s and ALL the local theaters where I'm at in Ohio had DTS for probably over 10 years and then eventually Sony's SDDS showed up here and there and I think one downtown theater had Dolby Digital. I go to the cinema so few and far between these days I'm not sure what they have offhand now. They don't advertise as much as they used to (DTS and THX trailers used to be THE thing at the theater. 

I got the CinemaVision plugin for Kodi specifically to recreate the 1990s theater feel. It's pretty sweet at doing so, I might add. I've got loads of real theater bumpers I can use for a movie presentation at home now. It's set to recognize the audio codec and play the appropriate bumper the movie is stored in (even if Kodi converts it to Dolby Digital or the receiver down to regular DTS or DTS-ES) and about every THX trailer ever made plus loads of cinema based "feature presentation" from General Cinema, Cinemark, AMC, etc. I've been thinking of putting in some smart lighting so CinemaVision can control dimming the lights too.


----------



## Sanjay

srinivas1015 said:


> Does anybody have a copy of the* Battlefront demo in Atmos*?
> 
> This one: http://www.demo-world.eu/2016/11/22/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-sep-2016/


Are you still looking for this?


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> Theatrical Atmos supports 64 independent speaker feeds.


Are you referring to the total number of feeds coming out of the CP850 processor? Then I guess subtracting one screen sub woofer (LFE) and two surround sub (bass managed) from that number leaves 61 discrete feeds.



FilmMixer said:


> The theatrical format supports 62 speaker outputs (plus two subwoofer outs.)
> 
> So accounting for a mandatory LCR, you have 59 left.


Does that still include the one LFE output? Since that would leave 58 speaker feeds excluding LCR, which yields an even number as in the theatrical format all other speakers come in pairs if I am not mistaken...

Now if I am also interpreting the Dolby Atmos Specifications (issue 3) correctly, those 61 feeds are distributed over 5 screen feeds, 12 side surround feeds on either side, 8 rear feeds, and 12 pair top surround feeds (corresponding to the side surround pairs). That makes the maximum of discrete base level feeds 37 at the commercial theater, compared to 24 at home with 7 screen, 2x 5 side wall, and 7 rear wall speakers.

So at home we have 35% lower max average speaker resolution as compared to the theater. But while for the side walls we have to do with 60% less, the front wall (screen speakers) scores 40% higher as compared to the theater, with 7 instead of 5 screen speakers! Why would that be? 

Edit: I may have found the answer myself. Apparently, home Atmos is originally designed for a widened front stage in which the Lf/Rf speakers are positioned at 45, the Lcenter/Rcenter speakers at 30, and the Lscreen/Rscreen speakers at 15 degrees. Now if you place the Lscreen/Rscreen speakers at the front corners of the auditorium, the Lc/Rc and Lf/Rf speakers now become the first two pair of speakers on the side wall. That brings the amount of 'screen speakers' down from 7 to 3, and the amount of side wall mounted speakers up from 5 to 7 on each side. Add to that the Lrs/Rrs pair, and this number goes up to 8. This brings the speaker distribution over front:side:rear wall to 3:8:5, and this is in much better balance with the 5:12:8 commercial theater ratio.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Have they deployed the maximum number of speakers in any commercial cinama yet?


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> I find the role reversal of Dolby vs. DTS kind of fascinating in general (i.e. DTS was considered superior to Dolby Digital in the cinema back in the 1990s and ALL the local theaters where I'm at in Ohio had DTS for probably over 10 years and then eventually Sony's SDDS showed up here and there and I think one downtown theater had Dolby Digital.


The difference in quality never led to greater adoption: I think there were more DD cinema installs (nationally and worldwide) than DTS and SDDS combined. As for theatrical releases, there were around 2,000 SDDS titles, almost 4,000 DTS titles and close to 20,000 DD titles.


> I go to the cinema so few and far between these days I'm not sure what they have offhand now.


Uncompressed PCM. There's enough room on the hard drives that there is no longer a need to save space by using lossy compression or lossless packing (except for Atmos soundtracks).


----------



## Selden Ball

MagnumX said:


> Any receiver that gives more flexibility than another one is going to get my attention when I go to buy. Whether I would prioritize room correction over speaker placement, I don't know. Having something with both options would be nice. Ironically, I can get DIRAC for my two-channel Carver ribbon speaker system for $450 (https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-24), but to get it for even 7.1, I seem to be looking at something more akin to $3000+ receivers.


I can't tell from what you've written if you're aware that miniDSP makes an 8-channel DIRAC unit, the DDRC-88A, for about $1K. Two can be used if you need more than 8 channels (e.g. 7.2.4).


----------



## maikeldepotter

Mashie Saldana said:


> Have they deployed the maximum number of speakers in any commercial cinama yet?


I read that Dolby Cinema employs 57 active speakers, excluding the subs. So they come pretty close to that maximum. Probably skipped one of the twelve pair of side surrounds with corresponding overheads (61-4=57).


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> I find the role reversal of Dolby vs. DTS kind of fascinating in general (i.e. DTS was considered superior to Dolby Digital in the cinema back in the 1990s.


If you read Widescreen Review, yes.
If you were in (or had touch with the industry) no.
DTS was a lot cheaper initially and got a lot more installs.


The "big" 70MM-capable premiere theaters here in LA usually showed the Dolby Digital versions despite having both formats available. Much less harsh - that edgy metallic "digital" sound that made the ears bleed.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Hmph.

They must have forgotten to turn off the 'metallic edgy sound' filter back in the 90's. Those DTS guys...


----------



## MagnumX

Selden Ball said:


> I can't tell from what you've written if you're aware that miniDSP makes an 8-channel DIRAC unit, the DDRC-88A, for about $1K. Two can be used if you need more than 8 channels (e.g. 7.2.4).


I'm aware of it, but I don't see how you could easily use it with a receiver. It seems you would need a decoder to split the 7.1 channels, pre-out all the channels and send it to the DDRC-88A and then send all the resulting channels to external amps. I don't think there's any way to use it with a receiver's internal amps since even IF you had analog inputs for 8 channels, I don't think they have the equivalent of a tape loop on receivers anymore so there's no way to feedback the external processed signal when you're already using an HDMI input in order to extract the 8 channels to begin with. Having to buy external amps for all channels would also get pretty expensive. This is where separates would be handy (used to be common even in the mid-range) since putting everything in one box limits what you can do if you need something that box doesn't have (i.e. DIRAC). Obviously, if you already have the amps needed or don't mind buying them, it could work, though.

I think you could use the nanoAVR DL, but you'd then have that as you're only input switching and you'd need something like a KODI box to extract 7.1 channel PCM to HDMI as it's not a Dolby/DTS decoder, just a 7.1 channel processor for DIRAC in HDMI form instead of all those analog input/outputs. 

Neither solution is ideal. Now if receivers had 7.1 channel pre-out tape loops (after processing before amp stage that would output the channels either as individual analog channels or through HDMI and then allow it to be input back in for amplification, then you'd have a reasonable solution. 

My Carver Sonic Holography 2-channel amp in my music room has tape loops for the 2-channel version or I could just use the main pre-outs since it's just a pre-amp before it goes to the active crossover and then two amplifiers. It's simple to implement and would cost only $450 for DIRAC. The thing is that system (using Carver Ribbons) already sounds phenomenal. I'm not sure how much it could be improved, but at the very least it could even the room response to be flat in the bass region), but I can test it with the software version and my Macbook Pro for 30 days to find out before I buy.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> I'm aware of it, but I don't see how you could easily use it with a receiver. It seems you would need ...


...external amps.

You're right. You can not use this with a receiver.....'s built in amplification.


----------



## Selden Ball

MagnumX said:


> I'm aware of it, but I don't see how you could easily use it with a receiver. It seems you would need a decoder to split the 7.1 channels, pre-out all the channels and send it to the DDRC-88A and then send all the resulting channels to external amps.


True: they need to go in between your audio processor and external amplifiers (or self-powered "active" speakers).

In other words, you need one of the receiver models which includes multichannel preamp outputs (or a pre/pro) plus as many external amp channels as you have speakers, forgoing the use of the receiver's internal amps. Receivers with preamp outputs are readily available. Although such receivers tend to be relatively expensive, they're usually less costly than comparable pre/pros. Adding the cost of external amps does make this even more expensive. Quality active speakers also tend to be rather expensive.


----------



## MagnumX

Selden Ball said:


> True: they need to go in between your audio processor and external amplifiers (or self-powered "active" speakers).
> 
> In other words, you need one of the receiver models which includes multichannel preamp outputs (or a pre/pro) plus as many external amp channels as you have speakers, forgoing the use of the receiver's internal amps. Receivers with preamp outputs are readily available. Although such receivers tend to be relatively expensive, they're usually less costly than comparable pre/pros. Adding the cost of external amps does make this even more expensive. Quality active speakers also tend to be rather expensive.


Which all goes back to my earlier statement that it's not cheap to add DIRAC to a 7.1 system right now whether you buy one of the few receivers that support it or go with a pre-out external amp solution plus mini-DSP box. I can hope next year's models support it, but I doubt it since most manufacturers have largely their own in-brand systems so they don't have to pay licensing fees. Too bad if those systems aren't as good. I simply hate choosing a receiver based on its room correction features alone. There are so many aspects to a receiver (types and numbers of inputs, whether there's analog support for older sources and conversion to HDMI, latest formats, etc.)


----------



## Scott Simonian

So don't choose one based off room correction?

Seems like an easy fix to me.

"But it must have DIRAC and all sorts of other things I need built in..... and for a reasonable price. Next year, I'm sure."

Yep.


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> If you read Widescreen Review, yes.
> If you were in (or had touch with the industry) no.
> DTS was a lot cheaper initially and got a lot more installs.
> 
> The "big" 70MM-capable premiere theaters here in LA usually showed the Dolby Digital versions despite having both formats available. Much less harsh - that edgy metallic "digital" sound that made the ears bleed.


That's funny because the reason cited most often for Dolby Digital being inferior sounding (if anything, I always used to read it was DD that sounded harsh) was due to its much lower bit-rates than DTS (due to it being printed on the film instead of time-code synced to an external drive that could hold much higher bit-rate DTS). In the cinema, Dolby Digital used 320kbps (averaging 64bps per channel) while DTS used 1.04Mbps (averaging closer to 200kbps per channel). Even if Dolby digital was more efficient than DTS in the 1990s, there is no way I believe it was over 3x more efficient! (http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/17_cinema_3.html).

Think of MP3 or AAC bitrates per channel. AAC is far more efficient than early 1990s Dolby Digital (almost a decade newer and THE standard for high quality compressed music, particularly at lower bit-rates with newer HE-AAC V1 and V2 madd with things like Internet radio in mind) and I sure as heck wouldn't want only 64kbps per channel even in HE-AAC that was designed for lower bit-rates (testing shows it still inferior to 128kbps MP3 even) whereas DTS at 200kbps is much closer to the rates found in higher quality MP3 and AAC used today, even if it loses a bit for efficiency for being an older format. At home, DVDs, in particular rarely used 640kbps rates, it was always more like 384 or 448 at most while DTS used 1.4 Mbps for CDs and 1.5Mbps for DVDs (2-3.5x higher). I still see a lot of information saying the same things now. (http://www.audioholics.com/audio-te...s-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats)

Most of the comments I read back then were that DTS sounded *much* better. Personally, I think the differences in day to day use were exaggerated by many for effect as most are with lossy formats, particularly when "fans" are involved that then get emotional over it and I doubt most people ever did double blind tests to prove their claims. I've certainly never thought of the words "metallic digital sound" when watching a movie in either format (the lowest bit-rate averages only apply when all channels are active at the same time). Either way, most consumers had little choice at home, however, as very few DTS DVDs were released. I have a number of DTS Music CDs, however and *none* of them sound "digital metallic harsh".

Even with Blu-Rays, how many come with both Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and DTS Master Audio 7.1? None, that I've noticed save perhaps some of the new Ultra 4Ks having Dolby TrueHD Atmos and the BD having HD Master Audio instead. I've seen some come with a Dolby Digital 5.1 plus DTS Master Audio 7.1. on the same disc, but short of A/B switching the 4K with the regular BD in some cases, it'd be hard to directly compare them for codec type differences in a double blind sort of test. 

Now whether some people might have other reasons or incentives to try and portray things differently (such as working for a given company directly or indirectly), I can't possibly say, but I do think history has this way of being rewritten by some over time, often on purpose for various reasons and all I can say is your statements aren't the way I remember it *AT ALL*.


----------



## srinivas1015

Sanjay said:


> Are you still looking for this?


I managed to find the file uploaded elsewhere. Downloaded it along with a few other Atmos demos  .


The thing is, even though I can hear the sounds coming from the height speakers, *it's often times hard to make out that it's coming from above.* 

This is how my speakers are oriented:











I know that it's not the ideal setup, but I'm wondering whether to assign them as 'Rear Heights' or 'Top Middle Left/Right'. With the Top Middle position, they would be assigned to the current position, but the receiver would think they're oriented downwards. Whereas with the Rear Height orientation, the position would be incorrect (they're actually above the side speakers) but their orientation would be incorrect-- they're facing each other, not downwards. 










vs












Does the receiver do anything different in both orientations? Ideally, I'd love to set them as Side Height Left/Right, but this option doesn't seem to exist in the Marantz:


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> So don't choose one based off room correction?
> 
> Seems like an easy fix to me.


Easy, perhaps, but I wouldn't call that a "fix" in any sense of the word.



srinivas1015 said:


> I managed to find the file uploaded elsewhere. Downloaded it along with a few other Atmos demos  .
> 
> 
> The thing is, even though I can hear the sounds coming from the height speakers, *it's often times hard to make out that it's coming from above.*


Perhaps the (what looks like a forward orientation; I can't see the couch directly in the photo) has an effect? My side surrounds are bipoles just behind the couch 2/3 up the wall (see earlier photo in thread) and even without Atmos height speakers, all overhead aircraft, etc. sound "above" my listening location due to that positioning. My screen is also above the listening position (i.e. you look up a bit at it) and so it all fits in my mind (things move at screen level and yet surround effects are also overhead). I'm not sure Atmos would help (or even change) much in my room unless I changed the side surrounds entirely.


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> Most of the comments I read back then were that DTS sounded *much* better.


That's always going to be the case, because DTS has something no other compression codec does: a fan base (for an audio compression codec, of all things). Back then, it meant DTS sounded much better than DD (even though every attempt to blind test this superiority failed). In the Blu-ray era, it meant DTS lossless sounded night & day better than Dolby lossless (even though they were bit for bit identical). With immersive audio, it means comments like the following: _"I have watched American Ultra and Crimson Peak in DTS: X. To me, the audio track is more 'object based' than Dolby Atmos."_ (even though those tracks have zero objects)


----------



## dschulz

PeterTHX said:


> The "big" 70MM-capable premiere theaters here in LA usually showed the Dolby Digital versions despite having both formats available. Much less harsh - that edgy metallic "digital" sound that made the ears bleed.


There was nothing inherent to the DTS codec that made it sound edgy, harsh, metallic or digital. I think that phenomenon (which was real) was more to do with the fact that neither audiences nor mixers were, in the early days of digital audio in cinemas, used to having full range, discrete 5.1 with that much headroom, and also cinema B-Chains weren't really equipped to handle it properly. As equipment was upgraded, and mixers adjusted to the new creative possibilities, the promise of digital sound was realized.

Also to clarify something, there never was a 70mm implementation of Dolby Digital. Any of those big houses running 70mm prints were running DTS or 6-track magnetic sound with Dolby noise reduction. In fact, part of the appeal to the studios of digital sound was to eliminate the need for making expensive 70mm prints in order to have something more than Dolby Stereo 4-track optical sound.


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> That's funny because the reason cited most often for Dolby Digital being inferior sounding (if anything, I always used to read it was DD that sounded harsh) was due to its much lower bit-rates than DTS (due to it being printed on the film instead of time-code synced to an external drive that could hold much higher bit-rate DTS). In the cinema, Dolby Digital used 320kbps (averaging 64bps per channel) while DTS used 1.04Mbps (averaging closer to 200kbps per channel). Even if Dolby digital was more efficient than DTS in the 1990s, there is no way I believe it was over 3x more efficient! (http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/17_cinema_3.html).
> 
> Think of MP3 or AAC bitrates per channel. AAC is far more efficient than early 1990s Dolby Digital (almost a decade newer and THE standard for high quality compressed music, particularly at lower bit-rates with newer HE-AAC V1 and V2 madd with things like Internet radio in mind) and I sure as heck wouldn't want only 64kbps per channel even in HE-AAC that was designed for lower bit-rates (testing shows it still inferior to 128kbps MP3 even) whereas DTS at 200kbps is much closer to the rates found in higher quality MP3 and AAC used today, even if it loses a bit for efficiency for being an older format. At home, DVDs, in particular rarely used 640kbps rates, it was always more like 384 or 448 at most while DTS used 1.4 Mbps for CDs and 1.5Mbps for DVDs (2-3.5x higher). I still see a lot of information saying the same things now. (http://www.audioholics.com/audio-te...s-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats)
> 
> Most of the comments I read back then were that DTS sounded *much* better. Personally, I think the differences in day to day use were exaggerated by many for effect as most are with lossy formats, particularly when "fans" are involved that then get emotional over it and I doubt most people ever did double blind tests to prove their claims. I've certainly never thought of the words "metallic digital sound" when watching a movie in either format (the lowest bit-rate averages only apply when all channels are active at the same time). Either way, most consumers had little choice at home, however, as very few DTS DVDs were released. I have a number of DTS Music CDs, however and *none* of them sound "digital metallic harsh".
> 
> Even with Blu-Rays, how many come with both Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and DTS Master Audio 7.1? None, that I've noticed save perhaps some of the new Ultra 4Ks having Dolby TrueHD Atmos and the BD having HD Master Audio instead. I've seen some come with a Dolby Digital 5.1 plus DTS Master Audio 7.1. on the same disc, but short of A/B switching the 4K with the regular BD in some cases, it'd be hard to directly compare them for codec type differences in a double blind sort of test.
> 
> Now whether some people might have other reasons or incentives to try and portray things differently (such as working for a given company directly or indirectly), I can't possibly say, but I do think history has this way of being rewritten by some over time, often on purpose for various reasons and all I can say is your statements aren't the way I remember it *AT ALL*.


Not sure if any UHD BD titles have both lossless formats in 7.1 on them. But I do know of at least a couple of titles that have 7.1 Dolby True HD/Atmos and 5.1 DTS-HD MA. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and also The Lego Batman movie have both those formats on them.


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> That's funny because the reason cited most often for Dolby Digital being inferior sounding (if anything, I always used to read it was DD that sounded harsh) was due to its much lower bit-rates than DTS (due to it being printed on the film instead of time-code synced to an external drive that could hold much higher bit-rate DTS). In the cinema, Dolby Digital used 320kbps (averaging 64bps per channel) while DTS used 1.04Mbps (averaging closer to 200kbps per channel). Even if Dolby digital was more efficient than DTS in the 1990s, there is no way I believe it was over 3x more efficient!



It is. Did you know theatrical DTS was the APT-X codec?
AC-3 is a variable codec when it comes to channel allotment, so trying to measure bits "per channel" is irrelevant.



> Think of MP3 or AAC bitrates per channel. AAC is far more efficient than early 1990s Dolby Digital (almost a decade newer and THE standard for high quality compressed music, particularly at lower bit-rates with newer HE-AAC V1 and V2 madd with things like Internet radio in mind) and I sure as heck wouldn't want only 64kbps per channel even in HE-AAC that was designed for lower bit-rates (testing shows it still inferior to 128kbps MP3 even) whereas DTS at 200kbps is much closer to the rates found in higher quality MP3 and AAC used today, even if it loses a bit for efficiency for being an older format. At home, DVDs, in particular rarely used 640kbps rates, it was always more like 384 or 448 at most while DTS used 1.4 Mbps for CDs and 1.5Mbps for DVDs (2-3.5x higher). I still see a lot of information saying the same things now.



DTS on DVD/CD/lossy Blu-ray is an *entirely different* (and incompatible) *codec *than theatrical: Coherent Acoustics.



> Either way, most consumers had little choice at home, however, as very few DTS DVDs were released. I have a number of DTS Music CDs, however and *none* of them sound "digital metallic harsh".



Again, different codec. I'm talking theatrical DTS.



> Even with Blu-Rays, how many come with both Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and DTS Master Audio 7.1? None, that I've noticed save perhaps some of the new Ultra 4Ks having Dolby TrueHD Atmos and the BD having HD Master Audio instead. I've seen some come with a Dolby Digital 5.1 plus DTS Master Audio 7.1. on the same disc, but short of A/B switching the 4K with the regular BD in some cases, it'd be hard to directly compare them for codec type differences in a double blind sort of test.



Lossless is lossless. DTS has an advantage in the Blu-ray market being much easier & faster to author.



> Now whether some people might have other reasons or incentives to try and portray things differently (such as working for a given company directly or indirectly), I can't possibly say, but I do think history has this way of being rewritten by some over time, often on purpose for various reasons and all I can say is your statements aren't the way I remember it *AT ALL*.



Unfortunately my memories are quite clear. I've been in the LA area most of my life and it was THE battleground.


----------



## PeterTHX

dschulz said:


> There was nothing inherent to the DTS codec that made it sound edgy, harsh, metallic or digital.



APT-X was designed for satellite transmission in Europe. It was not designed for theatrical use.
Hell, the original DTS logo with the shrieking, crashing disc is the edginess of DTS in a nutshell.




> I think that phenomenon (which was real) was more to do with the fact that neither audiences nor mixers were, in the early days of digital audio in cinemas, used to having full range, discrete 5.1 with that much headroom, and also cinema B-Chains weren't really equipped to handle it properly. As equipment was upgraded, and mixers adjusted to the new creative possibilities, the promise of digital sound was realized.



That's part of it, but I remember working with the management of one premiere theater with the _Star Wars_ Trilogy Special Editions in 1997 - _SW_ was DD, _ESB_ was DTS and got many complaints. They then went back to DD for_ ROTJ_.



> Also to clarify something, there never was a 70mm implementation of Dolby Digital.



I was talking about 70MM _capable_ premiere theaters in Hollywood & Westwood. The huge houses with hundreds of seats. I realize that DD were not on 70MM prints (hence the "capable" disclaimer).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> That's always going to be the case, because *DTS has something no other compression codec does: a fan base* (for an audio compression codec, of all things).


No other?


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Which all goes back to my earlier statement that it's not cheap to add DIRAC to a 7.1 system right now


...but probably real soon: https://nadelectronics.com/en_EU/product/t-758-v3-av-surround-sound-receiver/


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> It is. Did you know theatrical DTS was the APT-X codec?
> AC-3 is a variable codec when it comes to channel allotment, so trying to measure bits "per channel" is irrelevant.


Actually, I was proceeding from the idea they were both variable (like home version of DTS), so you're correct, I was unaware the theatrical DTS was APTX-100 (I have verified this). That would make the theatrical DTS inferior to the home version, yes, but that in and of itself cannot not _totally_ negate the bitrate as completely irrelevant (codec efficiency aside for the moment). You still have a maximum of 320kbps for one-channel playback. As more channels are used at the same time, that pool diminishes and the advantages of variable rate start to disappear. What you're left with is codec efficiency and sound quality at whatever rate it's using at that moment. Certainly, variable in general (for a given codec) has real advantages in general during quieter, more dialogue-centric moments. AAC has a variable option and I've tried comparisons, but at higher bit-rates it all becomes indistinguishable.

What APT-X means for theatrical DTS is a flat assignment of just over 200kbps per channel that's fixed. While AC3 could have 320kbps for a mono movie or while dialogue in the center is the only sound going on, in practice you're going to have to have less than half that per channel in actual operation most of the time with something approaching that 64kbps number when all channels are active with content. Your question then is whether 64kbps AC3 sounds better than 200kbps APTX-100 at that low point and of course, overall. Your claim is that it does. Given the lack of APTX-100 soundtracks in the home market and its disappearance from the cinemas today, it's hard to evaluate, let alone refute that claim and as I mentioned, Dolby Digital didn't exist around here much back then to compare at the theater. 

Given APTX use today in Bluetooth headphone apps, I would guess that it must not totally suck as a codec. Did Dolby miss an opportunity to use AC3/AC4 with Bluetooth headphones being so much more superior or does it require too much processing power to encode by comparison?


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> ...but probably real soon: https://nadelectronics.com/en_EU/product/t-758-v3-av-surround-sound-receiver/


Thanks. I'll keep an eye on NAD. The removable card(s) in that line sound like a good idea, assuming they actually support it in the future.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Scott Simonian said:


> No other?


I'm a big fan of 7zip, personally. Written in Intercal if possible


----------



## Scott Simonian

Personal favorite of mine is Sony's ATRAC codec. 

Minidisc fo life!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Scott Simonian said:


> Personal favorite of mine is Sony's ATRAC codec.
> 
> Minidisc fo life!


I beg to differ. 8-track cassettes are da bomb.


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Personal favorite of mine is Sony's ATRAC codec.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minidisc fo life!


8-channel SDDS using ATRAC was *awesome*.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Dan Hitchman said:


> I beg to differ. 8-track cassettes are da bomb.


_Not_ a codec..... lol! 



dschulz said:


> 8-channel SDDS using ATRAC was *awesome*.


Aw yeah, that's right, it was used with SDDS.


----------



## sdurani

I like codecs with unusual names, like APE or Vorbis. 

- I'm a LAME fan. 
- You certainly are.


----------



## MagnumX

I had Mini-Disc (small recorder and car unit; still have the portable recorder, but don't use it) for years back around 2000 when the iPod had very little space, etc. I thought ATRAC 4 sounded pretty darn close to CD quality (I couldn't tell anyway on headphones or in the car). The 2.5" size inside a hard case so you couldn't get fingerprints on it, etc. was a great idea. Too bad Blu-Ray didn't do something similar, although I'm sure they're thrilled when people scratch their discs, etc. It's another reason I rip everything to a hard drive along with menus, forced previews, etc. plus the sheer convenience of being able to play any movie in any room in the house from the server or dump it to a portable, etc.


----------



## dschulz

PeterTHX said:


> APT-X was designed for satellite transmission in Europe. It was not designed for theatrical use.
> Hell, the original DTS logo with the shrieking, crashing disc is the edginess of DTS in a nutshell.


Well, AC-3 wasn't designed for theatrical use either, it was a broadcast codec. The crashing disc logo was pretty insanely harsh, but the cool Yamaha logo (sadly hardly ever used) was pleasant. 

To be fair I worked at DTS from 2000 - 2008 (when they sold the cinema division to Datasat), so it could be that I'm just hopelessly biased in this matter, but I was involved in the production of hundreds of DTS soundtracks and dozens of screenings, and with few exceptions audiences, filmmakers and mixers were pretty thrilled with the results. I think a good mix, played back in a properly calibrated cinema in DTS, sounded no more or less harsh than any other format. And I think DTS was sonically better than Dolby Digital theatrically (if everyone minded their Ps and Qs), not so much because the compression scheme was superior, but because of the true channel isolation. In a really complicated mix Dolby Digital could run out of bits to throw at all 5 channels, with poor results.

Definitely one of the unsung blessings of Digital Cinema was the sudden rise of uncompressed LPCM 48/24 5.1 or 7.1 tracks!


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Well, AC-3 wasn't designed for theatrical use either, it was a broadcast codec. The crashing disc logo was pretty insanely harsh, but the cool Yamaha logo (sadly hardly ever used) was pleasant.


I've got all those old trailers and the disc one was harsh in a sense (loud synthetic sound effects), but it was intended to demonstrate the channels big time (everyone I knew thought it was pretty cool at the time as you could really tell the surrounds were stereo, etc, which wasn't always apparent in every movie released in it since they seemed to be pretty tame on many mixes back then as some directors believed surround should be mono to not distract the audience. The Yamaha Grand Piano DTS trailer they used later certainly never sounded harsh in any theater I ever went to (both sound great on my PSB home theater and my Carver/Klipsch living room system).



> To be fair I worked at DTS from 2000 - 2008 (when they sold the cinema division to Datasat), so it could be that I'm just hopelessly biased in this matter, but I was involved in the production of hundreds of DTS soundtracks and dozens of screenings, and with few exceptions audiences, filmmakers and mixers were pretty thrilled with the results. I think a good mix, played back in a properly calibrated cinema in DTS, sounded no more or less harsh than any other format. And I think DTS was sonically better than Dolby Digital theatrically (if everyone minded their Ps and Qs), not so much because the compression scheme was superior, but because of the true channel isolation. In a really complicated mix Dolby Digital could run out of bits to throw at all 5 channels, with poor results.


That's exactly what I was alluding to above. Variable bit-rate sounds great when things aren't going nuts, but when the pool runs dry, you have a bunch of channels starved for bits. At least DTS in the theater always had separate "pools" of bits for each channel.

I saw The Matrix 17 times at the theater in like 6 different theaters in a 50 mile radius (the only movie series I've ever seen anywhere near that many times; I think Back To The Future 2 came in at about 7 times and BTTF 3 about 4 times and T2 about 4 times and a few others (Tron, Star Wars, etc.) twice. That's it. Two of those Matrix theaters were THX rated. One was a 70mm capable theater. All but a small one had DTS (it was still stereo). I heard the surround effects over a dozen times and when I got it at home on DVD and later Blu-Ray I remember thinking that scene where the the virtual racks of guns slide in around Neo really seemed to shoot into the back of the room at the theater. 

At home on two different 5.1 setups, not even close. I always wondered if the DTS mix had better surround (I think it was only ever released at home in DTS on laserdisc). Then I found where someone MADE an MKV that took the cinema DTS discs and converted them to home DTS and sync'ed them to the Blu-Ray. It did in fact have better surround effects on my system (pulled back further into the room), but it did seem a _little_ bit harsher sounding at some points compared to the higher bit-rate Dolby Blu-Ray now that i just compared it again (nothing like someone here makes it sound and not something I would ever expect an average theater goer would complain about unless the speakers they were using were exaggerating/exacerbating the problem somehow.) 

DTS used to claim their mixes were the same volume compared to the Dolby Digital mixes on the same DVDs and that didn't seem to be true in practice at all from what I witnessed with my own sound meter (DTS always seemed to be several dB louder overall, making exact A/B comparison difficult at best). They also seemed to have a few problems in the other directions. For example, DTS DVDs of Jurassic Park weren't even CLOSE to the sheer bass levels of the Laserdisc version (I still have both here and the DVDs are tame by comparison).

I read that SACD was doing the same thing on their combo SACD/CD discs. The SACD version was always louder than the CD version making it seem "better" to people who tend to perceive louder as "better" and this gave fans of SACD endless fodder to go on an on about how much better it sounded even in stereo when I saw a double blind test done that matched the levels and the differences completely disappeared (no one could tell them apart at that point), proving to me how much effect a level difference can make in a comparison. 

Pink Floyd's A Momentary Lapse of Reason got pummeled for sounding inferior as a nearly fully digital recording when its max levels were nowhere near the rails. I normalized it with no ill effects and it needs much less volume gain applied now. The record version at the same Carver volume levels was way louder compared to the CD, but now both are within a few dB of each other.


----------



## PeterTHX

dschulz said:


> Well, AC-3 wasn't designed for theatrical use either, it was a broadcast codec. The crashing disc logo was pretty insanely harsh, but the cool Yamaha logo (sadly hardly ever used) was pleasant.



_*Sonic Landscape*_. Yes, I really liked that logo.
Dolby Digital's _*Train*_ logo was my favorite for that format, never did like the "City" logo that got a lot more play. Too noisy.



> To be fair I worked at DTS from 2000 - 2008 (when they sold the cinema division to Datasat), so it could be that I'm just hopelessly biased in this matter



Quite understandable 




> but I was involved in the production of hundreds of DTS soundtracks and dozens of screenings, and with few exceptions audiences, filmmakers and mixers were pretty thrilled with the results. I think a good mix, played back in a properly calibrated cinema in DTS, sounded no more or less harsh than any other format. And I think DTS was sonically better than Dolby Digital theatrically (if everyone minded their Ps and Qs), not so much because the compression scheme was superior, but because of the true channel isolation. In a really complicated mix Dolby Digital could run out of bits to throw at all 5 channels, with poor results.



Well, DD did have full range surrounds for when the occasion called for it, rather than filtering all the bass along with the piggybacked LFE to the subs. 



> Definitely one of the unsung blessings of Digital Cinema was the sudden rise of uncompressed LPCM 48/24 5.1 or 7.1 tracks!



I don't think a lot of people realize lossy audio in the theater is a thing of the past.


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> Given APTX use today in Bluetooth headphone apps, I would guess that it must not totally suck as a codec. Did Dolby miss an opportunity to use AC3/AC4 with Bluetooth headphones being so much more superior or does it require too much processing power to encode by comparison?




I don't think they pursued that market very much.
They seem more intent on getting it on actual devices - cell phones, Kindles, Microsoft Surface, etc.


----------



## PeterTHX

dschulz said:


> 8-channel SDDS using ATRAC was *awesome*.



Unfortunately it wasn't used much - nor were there very many theaters that kept the old Todd-AO type layout of 5 screen channels.


Makes me wonder if and when Sony does some post-1993 catalog titles for 4K UHD-BD they will use those 8 channel mixes as the basis for the Dolby Atmos remix.


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> This is why I wish 5.1.2 had an option for one mono height in front/center and one for the back. I'd rather have front to back height pans than left/right overhead only as the side and rear surrounds would provide some left/right directional cues. Nothing will give you front/back pans but another set of speakers. Sadly, current receivers aren't very flexible despite DTS bragging about how flexible it should be.


If you like front-to back overhead panning, with DTS:X you can get it starting from via respectively , and ending in . As long as you don't exceed the current 11 main speaker limit, DTS provides such flexibility. The manufacturers decide however whether they want to allow such choices to be made on their products...​


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Well, AC-3 wasn't designed for theatrical use either, it was a broadcast codec. The crashing disc logo was pretty insanely harsh, but the cool Yamaha logo (sadly hardly ever used) was pleasant.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair I worked at DTS from 2000 - 2008 (when they sold the cinema division to Datasat), so it could be that I'm just hopelessly biased in this matter, but I was involved in the production of hundreds of DTS soundtracks and dozens of screenings, and with few exceptions audiences, filmmakers and mixers were pretty thrilled with the results. I think a good mix, played back in a properly calibrated cinema in DTS, sounded no more or less harsh than any other format. And I think DTS was sonically better than Dolby Digital theatrically (if everyone minded their Ps and Qs), not so much because the compression scheme was superior, but because of the true channel isolation. In a really complicated mix Dolby Digital could run out of bits to throw at all 5 channels, with poor results.



Ah yes... the spinning disc of high
end... I forgot about that one. 

My only real issue with DTS was the sub filtering. I actually prefer to filter my subs fro music at 80Hz, but you didn't have a choice and effects have tons of punch from 80-120. 

It was a great way to deliver soundtracks. 

SDDS, when it worked, was really transparent. But it was hugely unreliable and its fall back error correction was a nightmare. 

DD exhibits a narrowing soundstage with complex music. I never had anyone complain about how mixes sounded with it, but the deficiencies were sometimes very obvious (solo pianos, choirs, string based orchestral cues would really strain it) when you could directly AB the tracks.... that being said, it served us very well all these years. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## randrac

*Question on Dolby Atmos with 7.2.4 Config - Yamaha Aventage RX-A3060BL Receiver*

I am building a new home theater and will be installing 4 ceiling speakers to get true Atmos sound. I ordered the Yamaha Aventage RX-A3060BL receiver that I thought had innate 7.2.4 capability, but just read that it required an external amplifier for this configuration to work. I am not a technical guru by any means. What do I need to do to make the receiver work with my 7.2.4 speaker config?

Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## grendelrt

randrac said:


> I am building a new home theater and will be installing 4 ceiling speakers to get true Atmos sound. I ordered the Yamaha Aventage RX-A3060BL receiver that I thought had innate 7.2.4 capability, but just read that it required an external amplifier for this configuration to work. I am not a technical guru by any means. What do I need to do to make the receiver work with my 7.2.4 speaker config?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.


You have a couple options, simplest is to get a stereo amp for the additional two channels and use the pre outs on the Yamaha for 2 channels to the amp.

Personally I decided to go with a larger amp to power what I consider the more important speakers, the front 3 mainly(I ended up with a 5 ch amp) and used the amp to power those and let the internal receiver amps power the smaller surround and top channels. That way no matter which receiver I am using my more powerful front channels are always taken care of power wise, plus it left me with an extra couple channels of headroom in the future.


----------



## gwsat

randrac said:


> I am building a new home theater and will be installing 4 ceiling speakers to get true Atmos sound. I ordered the Yamaha Aventage RX-A3060BL receiver that I thought had innate 7.2.4 capability, but just read that it required an external amplifier for this configuration to work. I am not a technical guru by any means. What do I need to do to make the receiver work with my 7.2.4 speaker config?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.


I've got a 3060 too. All you have to do to enable it for 7.2.4 is to add a two channel power amp for the two front Atmos speakers. I bought external amp through my AV dealer/contractor and probably paid too much. Others here, though, have found reasonably priced two channel amps on Amazon and from other sites. Perhaps someone else will pitch in and tell you of a low price solution. By the way, my 3060 does a great job with TrueHD Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## Scott Simonian

randrac said:


> I am building a new home theater and will be installing 4 ceiling speakers to get true Atmos sound. I ordered the Yamaha Aventage RX-A3060BL receiver that I thought had innate 7.2.4 capability, but just read that it required an external amplifier for this configuration to work. I am not a technical guru by any means. What do I need to do to make the receiver work with my 7.2.4 speaker config?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.



The Yamaha 3060 is a great choice. Especially if you want 7.1.4 sound. The 3060 has 11.1ch decoding but only 9ch of amplification.

It's a simple fix. You need an external 2ch amplifier at minimum to output to a full 7.1.4 speaker layout.


----------



## randrac

Scott Simonian said:


> The Yamaha 3060 is a great choice. Especially if you want 7.1.4 sound. The 3060 has 11.1ch decoding but only 9ch of amplification.
> 
> It's a simple fix. You need an external 2ch amplifier at minimum to output to a full 7.1.4 speaker layout.


Thanks to all for your quick replies. I assume the external amp receives a pass through signal from the receiver, correct? My 2 front towers are Klipsch RP260f's that are 125 w continuous, 500 w peak. Does that mean I need an amp that powers up to 1000 w? I was not expecting to need an external amp so I am pretty budget strapped as I am finishing my entire basement after just buying a new house. Any suggestions on an amp that would meet my needs but not cost a fortune?


----------



## Scott Simonian

randrac said:


> Thanks to all for your quick replies. I assume the external amp receives a pass through signal from the receiver, correct? My 2 front towers are Klipsch RP260f's that are 125 w continuous, 500 w peak. Does that mean I need an amp that powers up to 1000 w? I was not expecting to need an external amp so I am pretty budget strapped as I am finishing my entire basement after just buying a new house. Any suggestions on an amp that would meet my needs but not cost a fortune?


There are so many choices for an amplifier... you'll have to do your own homework on that.

Basically, to answer your original question, you just need *at minimum* two more channels of power. The Yamaha has an 'AMP ASSIGN' mode that allows you to select which speakers you'd like to power with an external amp and which speakers will be powered by the Yamaha receiver.

I'm going to assume, like most people, that you have larger left and right front mains than all other speakers. In this case, you can tell the Yamaha that you are powering these speakers externally and to power the rest (center, all surrounds and overhead speakers) and it will do so. On the rear of the 3060 is a set of 11.2 *pre-amp outputs*. These are what they sound like. Small signal outputs that you send to external amplifiers. Luckily you have access to ALL the channels. So if you wanted to, you could externally power every single speaker.

But at minimum, you only need to power TWO more channels. You can choose to do more, of course.


----------



## AndreNewman

randrac said:


> Thanks to all for your quick replies. I assume the external amp receives a pass through signal from the receiver, correct? My 2 front towers are Klipsch RP260f's that are 125 w continuous, 500 w peak. Does that mean I need an amp that powers up to 1000 w? I was not expecting to need an external amp so I am pretty budget strapped as I am finishing my entire basement after just buying a new house. Any suggestions on an amp that would meet my needs but not cost a fortune?




Then secondhand is the answer, a pure power amp is well established technology and not going to be outdated anytime soon.

I got a quad 606 to drive my L&R, monitor audio silver 8's, Yamaha 3050 drives everything else. The quad needed modification to match gain with the Yamaha but there were plenty of amp options when I was shopping around, some really amazing stuff at silly low prices.

Watch the gain when you have external amps for Left speaker as YPAO sets the left as 0dB and adjusts everything else to match. I had +9dB on other speakers and clipping! I adjusted everything down by 6dB and it was fine, now I've modified the Quad and it's all fine.

Most more modern amps will have higher level inputs than an oldie like my quad but be careful Yamahas only output 1v, some power amps need 2v or even 4v for full output.


----------



## randrac

AndreNewman said:


> Then secondhand is the answer, a pure power amp is well established technology and not going to be outdated anytime soon.
> 
> I got a quad 606 to drive my L&R, monitor audio silver 8's, Yamaha 3050 drives everything else. The quad needed modification to match gain with the Yamaha but there were plenty of amp options when I was shopping around, some really amazing stuff at silly low prices.
> 
> Watch the gain when you have external amps for Left speaker as YPAO sets the left as 0dB and adjusts everything else to match. I had +9dB on other speakers and clipping! I adjusted everything down by 6dB and it was fine, now I've modified the Quad and it's all fine.
> 
> Most more modern amps will have higher level inputs than an oldie like my quad but be careful Yamahas only output 1v, some power amps need 2v or even 4v for full output.


Well I was eyeing the Yamaha PX3 Dual Channel 2x500W Lightweight Power Amplifier w/ DSP. I would hope that a Yamaha amp would be compatible with a Yamaha receiver, but then I would have expected that the receiver that states it is 11.2 or 7.2.4 Atmos capable would be able to power itself so I was already proven wrong once. Any feedback on my choice? Is this sufficient?


----------



## Scott Simonian

randrac said:


> I would hope that a Yamaha amp would be compatible with a Yamaha receiver


Don't do that.

There is more to compatibility than the name printed on the front plate.


I'm sure it would work fine but don't assume.


----------



## sdurani

randrac said:


> I would hope that a Yamaha amp would be compatible with a Yamaha receiver...


ANY amp would be compatible with your Yamaha receiver. There is nothing about the PX 3 that makes it any more "compatible" than some non-Yamaha amp. Since the PX 3 is a professional amp, you'll have to buy TRS or XLR adapters to connect to the RCA outputs on your receiver. You'll also be paying for several features (flexible signal routing, DSP processing, USB connectivity, configuration wizard, etc) that you don't need. A simply stereo amp with RCA inputs would be a much better fit for your needs.


----------



## AndreNewman

sdurani said:


> ANY amp would be compatible with your Yamaha receiver. There is nothing about the PX 3 that makes it any more "compatible" than some non-Yamaha amp. Since the PX 3 is a professional amp, you'll have to buy TRS or XLR adapters to connect to the RCA outputs on your receiver. You'll also be paying for several features (flexible signal routing, DSP processing, USB connectivity, configuration wizard, etc) that you don't need. A simply stereo amp with RCA inputs would be a much better fit for your needs.




And you probably don't really want dsp in a power amp , the AVR is already doing that stuff, another stage just adds noise. Keep it simple...


----------



## sdurani

AndreNewman said:


> Keep it simple...


Yup, when an amp includes a configuration wizard to help with set-up, that's an indication that it is overkill for this particular situation.


----------



## helvetica bold

According to Dolby's Guidelines: "...overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers."
I need some advice–Im thinking about combining SVS Elevation (for heights) with either Elac B5s or 6s for 5.1. Considering Dolby's guidelines, any concerns with combining the 2 brands?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> According to Dolby's Guidelines: "...overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers."
> I need some advice–Im thinking about combining SVS Elevation (for heights) with either Elac B5s or 6s for 5.1. Considering Dolby's guidelines, any concerns with combining the 2 brands?



Yes. Though auto calibration software can help, it is not a magic bullet for making one type of speaker sound exactly like another. Timbre matching is much more important with object based surround than ever before since sounds can be phantom imaged between layers of speakers. Kind of odd if the tonal balance is shifted greatly from one set to another.

You want to pick heights or overheads that are more closely in line with the base layer.


----------



## helvetica bold

Thanks Dan. So for my base i would be better off sticking w/ all SVS speakers? Maybe Prime Satellite or Bookshelf with the elevations.


----------



## MagnumX

Having the same drivers for midrange and tweeters is probably more important than the same "brand" alone. Some speaker makers have models with completely unrelated drivers in their lineups.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Thanks Dan. So for my base i would be better off sticking w/ all SVS speakers? Maybe Prime Satellite or Bookshelf with the elevations.


Yes. That would ensure a more sonically cohesive presentation. I would get the available ceiling brackets for the Elevations. If you cannot hide the wires in the ceiling, use wire molding.


----------



## darthray

PeterTHX said:


> _*Sonic Landscape*_. Yes, I really liked that logo.
> Dolby Digital's _*Train*_ logo was my favorite for that format, never did like the "City" logo that got a lot more play. Too noisy.



Cannot say, I remember "City"


But when you mention "Dolby Digital's _*Train*_ logo", that just brought out some old memories, from my Laser Disk days
It was a great one for sure.


Ray


----------



## darthray

helvetica bold said:


> Thanks Dan. So for my base i would be better off sticking w/ all SVS speakers? Maybe Prime Satellite or Bookshelf with the elevations.



If you can do it, then a big yes, if not get some speakers that have a similar tone (ie. Bright, lay back or neutral).
See the quote below.



MagnumX said:


> Having the same drivers for midrange and tweeters is probably more important than the same "brand" alone. Some speaker makers have models with completely unrelated drivers in their lineups.



I do agree that brand alone is not the whole equations.
I got four Aperion Verus Grand for the 4 surrounds duty, with the matching towers and center.
But after lots of consideration, I choose the SVS Elevation for my ceiling speakers, perfect matching tone?
No, but close enough, since they are also on the neutral side, maybe a little brighter, but could be a benefit for ceiling duty.
And my original speakers were no longer available and their new version, also brighter, I decided to go for the ease of use and look for the ceiling. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes. That would ensure a more sonically cohesive presentation. I would get the available ceiling brackets for the Elevations. If you cannot hide the wires in the ceiling, use wire molding.



Agree


When possible and budget wise allow it, it is always the best choice 


For me, as quoted above, I could no longer get the bookshelf use for surrounds, to do ceiling duty.
So I choose something that it a close match, easier to work on for ceiling duty and actually disappear from the ceiling, in a dark room once install.


If only we had the money and know what the future bring on, in this case Atmos/DTS:X, I could have bought 4 more surrounds and maybe not, quiet Happy with the Elevation the way they look, but then again, I might have not look into them if my present bookshelf were available


Hard to tell.


Ray


----------



## dschulz

darthray said:


> Cannot say, I remember "City"
> 
> 
> But when you mention "Dolby Digital's _*Train*_ logo", that just brought out some old memories, from my Laser Disk days
> It was a great one for sure.
> 
> 
> Ray


I really liked the even-more-rare Dolby Egypt logo.


----------



## MagnumX

darthray said:


> but then again, I might have not look into them if my present bookshelf were available


Have you ever thought about keeping an eye on something like eBay? I found replacement tweeters for my 10 year old PSB S50 surrounds on there that are no longer made for less than $50 total (and very close alternate drivers for even less ($10 each) in case another one ever goes bad again). Older speakers show up there all the time, often at a fraction of their original price (ever see PSB Stratus Golds go for $250 with only some minor abrasions on the top of the wood cabinet? Most speakers last a long time if not abused. 20 year old speakers are just breaking in....  

I actually compared the PSB Stratus Golds directly to the Carver AL-III ribbons I ended up buying 20 years ago (other than tightening the ribbons once, they're still working great too). Hey, but why not have both after all these years? I can always put them in my bedroom and put on some Barry White.


----------



## darthray

dschulz said:


> I really liked the even-more-rare Dolby Egypt logo.



Must have been rare.


In those days, a Laser Disk (in Canada), were going on average $60-70, and special Edition were around $200.
And do not recall to ever see it
Had about 100 of them, same as the competition to Blu-ray before it won the war, HD DVD?, cannot remember the name at the moment


Well, it is a new game, over 1000 Blu-ray, and everything is going 4K.
But this time, I am not playing
Buying new stuff, Yes
Replacing every movie into the new format, No



Ray


----------



## dschulz

darthray said:


> Must have been rare.
> 
> 
> In those days, a Laser Disk (in Canada), were going on average $60-70, and special Edition were around $200.
> And do not recall to ever see it
> 
> Ray


I was never a Laser Disc collector, so I couldn't tell you if it showed up there. I remember seeing it in the theater, but only a handful of times.


----------



## darthray

MagnumX said:


> Have you ever thought about keeping an eye on something like eBay? I found replacement tweeters for my 10 year old PSB S50 surrounds on there that are no longer made for less than $50 total (and very close alternate drivers for even less ($10 each) in case another one ever goes bad again). Older speakers show up there all the time, often at a fraction of their original price (ever see PSB Stratus Golds go for $250 with only some minor abrasions on the top of the wood cabinet? Most speakers last a long time if not abused. 20 year old speakers are just breaking in....
> 
> I actually compared the PSB Stratus Golds directly to the Carver AL-III ribbons I ended up buying 20 years ago (other than tightening the ribbons once, they're still working great too). Hey, but why not have both after all these years? I can always put them in my bedroom and put on some Barry White.



Yes


But those speakers, hardy show up, since they are that good
And sometime, the asking price for the few, a very questionable, as more than the original:frown:


But, thanks for your thought


Ray


----------



## audiofan1

darthray said:


> Cannot say, I remember "City"
> 
> 
> But when you mention "Dolby Digital's _*Train*_ logo", that just brought out some old memories, from my Laser Disk days
> It was a great one for sure.
> 
> 
> Ray


Did some cleaning a few months back and ran across my old collection and still couldn't part ways with them That Train was my fav as well and got me ready for "Stargate") I would love to hear that sound again and oh yes via LD


Whats great about Bluray though is it looks fantastic on 4k sets and kinda makes you feel good about not needing to replace every disc.


----------



## sdurani

Dolby Digital Intros 


Egypt: 







City:


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> I really liked the even-more-rare Dolby Egypt logo.


All those trailers are on Dolby's "*Explore Our World*" DVD from 2002. But wait, there's more. Now how much would you pay?


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ Wow guys thanks for the reminders its nice to know I have all the old DD trailers! Reminds me why I love this stuff


----------



## darthray

audiofan1 said:


> Did some cleaning a few months back and ran across my old collection and still couldn't part ways with them That Train was my fav as well and got me ready for "Stargate") I would love to hear that sound again and oh yes via LD
> 
> 
> Whats great about Bluray though is it looks fantastic on 4k sets and kinda makes you feel good about not needing to replace every disc.



No longer have the Laser Disk, for the same reason that Bluray look and sound better



audiofan1 said:


> ^^^ Wow guys thanks for the reminders its nice to know I have all the old DD trailers! Reminds me why I love this stuff



Same here, it is nice once in a while, to be reminded of the old stuff we use to have, and how technology have moved on That is for some of us old timer that grew through the vinyl years, 8 track, reel to reel, cassette tape and so on


Ray


----------



## gwsat

I had a pretty good collection of Laser Discs in the '80s and was lucky to have a nearby AV dealer who maintained a lending library of all of the new releases. This allowed me to rent newly released movies at reasonable rates. I had a two disk Pioneer LD player then and used it for many years thereafter. I finally got rid of it when I moved in 2013. By the standards of UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos disks, the LD format was primitive but I remember it fondly nonetheless.


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> I had a pretty good collection of Laser Discs in the '80s and was lucky to have a nearby AV dealer who maintained a lending library of all of the new releases. This allowed me to rent newly released movies at reasonable rates. I had a two disk Pioneer LD player then and used it for many years thereafter. I finally got rid of it when I moved in 2013. By the standards of UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos disks, the LD format was primitive but I remember it fondly nonetheless.


Do you remember the first time you heard a Laser Disc in the 80's? This was before Dolby Digital 5.1 in the 90's and I vividly remember a Western movie Laser Disc that had bullet sounds flying all around. It was the "go to" demo LD of it's time in my neck of the woods. It sounded amazing since I never heard anything like that before for a home setup.


----------



## Jonas2

helvetica bold said:


> According to Dolby's Guidelines: "...overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers."
> I need some advice–Im thinking about combining SVS Elevation (for heights) with either Elac B5s or 6s for 5.1. Considering Dolby's guidelines, any concerns with combining the 2 brands?


Keep in mind, guidelines are just that - guidelines - a good base to build from, but not an absolute. 

In a perfect world, sure - you'd do that - everything is matched as closely as possible - an attempt to keep the same or very similar drivers in all of your channels. The reality is that this is not end-game critical (and not always practical on several levels) in my humble opinion. I think similar characteristics and having a decent quality speakers are important, but exact matches? Not so much. Having a mix of speakers, all else done properly, will still yield pleasing results. You've gotta make decisions based on budget, aesthetics, and so on - so "perfect" is not always practical for various reasons. 

An all SVS set up? I'm not going to argue with that! I think you will be pleased. But I would not lose too much sleep overthinking it - I'm quite pleased with the results I get from my totally mismatched system and a lot of blokes here I think are in the same boat (especially with height speakers that don't match necessarily). Good luck, and most importantly - just have fun building your system and then more listening to it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jonas2 said:


> Keep in mind, guidelines are just that - guidelines - a good base to build from, but not an absolute.
> 
> In a perfect world, sure - you'd do that - everything is matched as closely as possible - an attempt to keep the same or very similar drivers in all of your channels. The reality is that this is not end-game critical (and not always practical on several levels) in my humble opinion. I think similar characteristics and having a decent quality speakers are important, but exact matches? Not so much. Having a mix of speakers, all else done properly, will still yield pleasing results. You've gotta make decisions based on budget, aesthetics, and so on - so "perfect" is not always practical for various reasons.
> 
> An all SVS set up? I'm not going to argue with that! I think you will be pleased. But I would not lose too much sleep overthinking it - I'm quite pleased with the results I get from my totally mismatched system and a lot of blokes here I think are in the same boat (especially with height speakers that don't match necessarily). Good luck, and most importantly - just have fun building your system and then more listening to it.


But the OP has the ability to have a sonically matching Atmos setup. If you can do it the right way... then that is ideal.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Ricoflashback said:


> Do you remember the first time you heard a Laser Disc in the 80's? This was before Dolby Digital 5.1 in the 90's and I vividly remember a Western movie Laser Disc that had bullet sounds flying all around. It was the "go to" demo LD of it's time in my neck of the woods. It sounded amazing since I never heard anything like that before for a home setup.


You're memory mirrors my own. Besides the transition from mono, low-fi sound to surround, that movie made just as dramatic a comparison between small black&white image to a large color screen. It defined the case for Home Theater in a minute or less!


----------



## helvetica bold

Hey, thank you all for the advice. Here's the thing, I prefer going with Elacs for my base 5.1 over SVS. It appears that the Elac B5s drivers will be a close match to the SVS Elevations. But who knows maybe I'll just get SVS satellites. I plan to mount the Elevations where the wall and ceiling meet. Ceiling fan limits me a bit. My room is small 9'x11'.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ricoflashback said:


> Do you remember the first time you heard a Laser Disc in the 80's? This was before Dolby Digital 5.1 in the 90's and I vividly remember a Western movie Laser Disc that had bullet sounds flying all around. It was the "go to" demo LD of it's time in my neck of the woods. It sounded amazing since I never heard anything like that before for a home setup.


I had a similar experience but it was very much in the 90's with digital sound. 

Got to see and listen to Jurassic Park: Lost World on DTS laser disc in a demo room. Was just getting into surround sound at home (about 10yrs old) and had pro logic and heard surround in movies. Hearing this in DTS 5.1 was one of the events that pushed me hardcore into this hobby. Another one (groan inducing as it may sound) was seeing Star Wars Special Edition in theaters. Before you all barf, this was a new experience for someone my age. I had been watching Star Wars at home on VHS in pan&scan. Now I got to see it on the big screen, widescreen and in 5.1 surround sound and I had never heard Star Wars in surround sound. As much as people like to use mostly derogatory terms for that release, it was quite another experience to me.



helvetica bold said:


> It appears that the Elac B5s drivers will be a close match to the SVS Elevations.


Where do you get that from? Just by looking at them?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Hey, thank you all for the advice. Here's the thing, I prefer going with Elacs for my base 5.1 over SVS. It appears that the Elac B5s drivers will be a close match to the SVS Elevations. But who knows maybe I'll just get SVS satellites. I plan to mount the Elevations where the wall and ceiling meet. Ceiling fan limits me a bit. My room is small 9'x11'.


You have a 45 day window to demo SVS speakers with free return shipping. Why not try out a set of Prime Bookshelves, Prime Center, and Prime Satellites (maybe Elevations for the heights as they have a built in angle) and see if they work?

Elac and SVS are not similar.


----------



## helvetica bold

You guys have made me seen the light, Im a audio noob.  Will go all in on SVS!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> You guys have made me see the light, I'm an audio noob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will go all in on SVS!


Cool! Enjoy (I think you will)! I would ask for extra sets of ceiling brackets for the Elevations in case you change your mind and decide to get them up on the ceiling. Might have to call, so they give you both types of brackets. 

In case you didn't see it, there is a Prime Bookshelf package and just add the Elevations to it. Might save a little bit over buying them individually. 

https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-bookshelf-surround-system

https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-elevation 

Any thoughts on a subwoofer? HSU Research makes some very good ones.

http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/vtf-2mk5.html


----------



## Jonas2

Dan Hitchman said:


> But the OP has the ability to have a sonically matching Atmos setup. If you can do it the right way... then that is ideal.


And that's why I said, "An all SVS set up? I'm not going to argue with that!"


----------



## PeterTHX

Ricoflashback said:


> Do you remember the first time you heard a Laser Disc in the 80's? This was before Dolby Digital 5.1 in the 90's and I vividly remember a Western movie Laser Disc that had bullet sounds flying all around. It was the "go to" demo LD of it's time in my neck of the woods. It sounded amazing since I never heard anything like that before for a home setup.





Roger Dressler said:


> You're memory mirrors my own. Besides the transition from mono, low-fi sound to surround, that movie made just as dramatic a comparison between small black&white image to a large color screen. It defined the case for Home Theater in a minute or less!



Hmmm. When I was working sales in the late '80s they were using the *Silverado* LD for the audio demo described.


----------



## Ricoflashback

PeterTHX said:


> Hmmm. When I was working sales in the late '80s they were using the *Silverado* LD for the audio demo described.


Yes! That's the one - Silverado! I can remember the showroom floor and how the speakers were setup. And I can still hear the whizzing of bullets carooming around the room. Everyone in the store gravitated to that LD demo. 

What a great stroll through audio/video memory lane. Thanks for your post.


----------



## ergalthema

Any summary of where Atmos is at? Is it picking up momentum? Any particularly great Blu-rays available with impressive height placement?


----------



## nickbuol

Doing well.
Yes.
Lots of great movies, but most have specific scenes that people find really show of the format. Keep in mind that sometimes subtle is just as impactful as a loud use of overhead speakers.

Just google things like "best atmos demo scenes" or something and you will get results like this list from last year....

http://www.krix.com.au/best-dolby-atmos-bluray-demo-scenes-2016/


----------



## batpig

ergalthema said:


> Any summary of where Atmos is at? Is it picking up momentum? Any particularly great Blu-rays available with impressive height placement?


Definitely picking up momentum, lots of Blu-rays out now and especially so when you widen the net to include 4K UHD discs and DTS:X tracks as well.

If you want some more recent flicks with impressive overhead action (leaving out early classics like Mad Max FR and John Wick):

Hacksaw Ridge (the 2nd half of the movie is reference level Atmos)
Logan (Atmos on the 4K disc only, but a phenomenal movie with a great sound mix that really enhances the story)
The Great Wall (dumb movie, but intense surround sound with tons of overhead activity)
Ghost in the Shell (not a great movie, but beautiful visually with a great sound mix)
Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them (good movie, great sound)
Batman vs. Superman (especially the final battle scenes)
Sully (not an action blockbuster, but an amazing example of how Atmos can be used to create overall immersion)

A couple of other recent releases that I haven't seen yet but which are getting solid reviews for the Atmos mix are Power Rangers (note the BD track was mixed by our very own FilmMixer) and Kong: Skull Island


----------



## ergalthema

Thanks for the info. I added my height speakers tonight. The Atmos demos from the Dolby Access app on Xbox sound great! 

I have John Wick 4K, so I watched some of that. Didn't catch anything mind-blowing, but it sounded good.

I downloaded some Atmos and DTS:X demos files. The Xbox media player doesn't appear to send Atmos - my TX-NR646 just says PCM - and it won't play the DTS:X .mkv files at all. The only other devices I have are Chromecasts (and I think the Ultra can't even send Atmos/DTS:X). And my KS8000 supposedly can't send those audio formats either. I have a MacBook Pro. Anyone know how I can hear these files correctly?


----------



## dschulz

ergalthema said:


> Any summary of where Atmos is at? Is it picking up momentum? Any particularly great Blu-rays available with impressive height placement?





batpig said:


> Definitely picking up momentum, lots of Blu-rays out now and especially so when you widen the net to include 4K UHD discs and DTS:X tracks as well.


In addition to the excellent Blu Ray selection, it's worth mentioning that Netflix has streamed their first Atmos title, and Vudu has Atmos as well. Not to mention the next audio codec for broadcast TV, Dolby AC-4, supports Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

ergalthema said:


> Thanks for the info. I added my height speakers tonight. The Atmos demos from the Dolby Access app on Xbox sound great!
> 
> I have John Wick 4K, so I watched some of that. Didn't catch anything mind-blowing, but it sounded good.
> 
> I downloaded some Atmos and DTS:X demos files. The Xbox media player doesn't appear to send Atmos - my TX-NR646 just says PCM - and it won't play the DTS:X .mkv files at all. The only other devices I have are Chromecasts (and I think the Ultra can't even send Atmos/DTS:X). And my KS8000 supposedly can't send those audio formats either. I have a MacBook Pro. Anyone know how I can hear these files correctly?


Yeah, get a KODI capable box that can output the signals correctly assuming you ripped the full lossless 7.1 soundtracks (e.g. see Kodi forums for suggestions) and your MKVs will play Atmos or DTS:X just fine (the meta data is preserved in the lossless signals). With the right hardware selection (that supports hardware MVS decoding in the graphics chipset), you can even playback 3D MVS files off a hard drive instead of the Blu-Ray disc and never have to watch a Blu-Ray from the disc again (non-4K for now as you can't rip 4K ones yet). Do you know how nice it is for a movie to just start playing instead of those miserable slow-loading menus and forced previews? It's one of the reasons some people prefer buying movies from places like iTunes or Vudu. You just want the movie to start and they just want to try and sell you more crap!


----------



## Ted99

dschulz said:


> In addition to the excellent Blu Ray selection, it's worth mentioning that Netflix has streamed their first Atmos title, and Vudu has Atmos as well. Not to mention the next audio codec for broadcast TV, Dolby AC-4, supports Atmos.


Which brings up a question re: AC-4. Is this another format we are going to need in our receivers? I've convinced myself that HDMI 2.1 is not something to wait for and that receivers with DV and Hybrid Log gamma pass thru are going to be sufficient when I purchase my next display, which will be a flat panel OLED. BUT, OTA will be AC-4 (someday). Will the streaming services and cable pass thru the AC-4, or convert it to our current Atmos format. Can current receivers handle AC-4, or is it a new Must-have?

By the way, the new BR King Arthur has a fantastic DTS:X soundtrack


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ted99 said:


> Which brings up a question re: AC-4. Is this another format we are going to need in our receivers? I've convinced myself that HDMI 2.1 is not something to wait for and that receivers with DV and Hybrid Log gamma pass thru are going to be sufficient when I purchase my next display, which will be a flat panel OLED. BUT, OTA will be AC-4 (someday). Will the streaming services and cable pass thru the AC-4, or convert it to our current Atmos format. Can current receivers handle AC-4, or is it a new Must-have?


I don't think AC-4 support exist in any consumer hardware yet. 

See it from the bright side, you will have a good reason to upgrade again in a few years.


----------



## Nalleh

Ted99 said:


> By the way, the new BR King Arthur has a fantastic DTS:X soundtrack


You mean Atmos, right?


----------



## Ted99

Nalleh said:


> You mean Atmos, right?


My 7702MkII display said "DTS:X" I was surprised.


----------



## Nalleh

Ted99 said:


> My 7702MkII display said "DTS:X" I was surprised.


Look at the backcover


----------



## gwsat

dschulz said:


> In addition to the excellent Blu Ray selection, it's worth mentioning that Netflix has streamed their first Atmos title, and Vudu has Atmos as well. Not to mention the next audio codec for broadcast TV, Dolby AC-4, supports Atmos.


Unfortunately, _*according to Netflix*_, only the Xbox One and One S, and 2017 and later LG OLED TVs can currently support streamed Atmos. I confirmed that my 2016 Yamaha RX-A3060 can't deliver Atmos from Netflix.


----------



## FilmMixer

gwsat said:


> Unfortunately, _*according to Netflix*_, only the Xbox One and One S, and 2017 and later LG OLED TVs can currently support streamed Atmos. I confirmed that my 2016 Yamaha RX-A3060 can't deliver Atmos from Netflix.




Sure it can. 

You just don't have a source device that can send it 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ted99

Nalleh said:


> Look at the backcover


Can't. It was a Netflix rental with no case and no printed info on the disc.


----------



## gwsat

FilmMixer said:


> Sure it can.
> 
> You just don't have a source device that can send it


Point taken. My inability to hear Atmos audio from Netflix is indeed Netflix's fault, not my 3060. I knew that but tripped over my own syntax in my last post.


----------



## Nalleh

Ted99 said:


> Can't. It was a Netflix rental with no case and no printed info on the disc.


It has Atmos:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...-king-arthur-legend-sword-blu-ray-review.html


----------



## gwsat

Nalleh said:


> It has Atmos:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...-king-arthur-legend-sword-blu-ray-review.html


Yep, the _*Kscape store*_ has _King Arthur_ in UHD HDR too. Like the same files encoded on disk, the Kscape version's audio is TrueHD Atmos.


----------



## nickbuol

I just watched King Arthur the other day and can confirm that it is native Atmos. Not sure how it would show DTS:X on a receiver. Even if the Marantz was set to upmix into DTS:X, I would have expected it to display DTS:Neural X, and not straight DTS:X... 

The movie was entertaining enough, but I don't know if I will ever re-watch it. Not *that* great in my opinion, but was still worth a single watch for me.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ted99 said:


> Can't. It was a Netflix rental with no case and no printed info on the disc.


Sure it wasn't Neural:X instead of DTS:X?


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Sure it wasn't Neural:X instead of DTS:X?


It definitely said DTS:X HD. I thought it odd, so that's why I remember it. Can't explain it. All others say Dolby Atmos when playing on my 7702.

I thought the movie was good and bad. Bad whenever Charlie Hunam was on-scene, and good the rest of the time. But, in any event, the SOUND was fantastic--lots of surround and movement in the soundfield.


----------



## powertoburn

I have a Pioneer VSX-1131 currently set up as 7.1. I am thinkinking about changing my surround back to height speakers for ATMOS DTS:X. So I would be running a 5.1.2 system. The surround back is currently mounted high on the wall. Is there an advantage to switch setups. In my 7.1 setup when I check what my receiver is decoding it does say ATMOS. Would this be the same as listening to the core Dolby True HD 7.1 as if I don't have an Atmos receiver?


----------



## sdurani

powertoburn said:


> Is there an advantage to switch setups.


Depends on where the speakers end up. Merely re-designating your rear speakers as heights won't be very beneficial. If you want to do 5.1.2 properly, move your surrounds to a location between the sides & rears, keeping them slightly above seated ear height, then move your former rear speakers to a location on the ceiling between the fronts & surrounds. This will allow you to separate sounds around you vs sounds above you (the hallmark of a good Atmos/DTS:X set-up).


----------



## powertoburn

sdurani said:


> Depends on where the speakers end up. Merely re-designating your rear speakers as heights won't be very beneficial. If you want to do 5.1.2 properly, move your surrounds to a location between the sides & rears, keeping them slightly above seated ear height, then move your former rear speakers to a location on the ceiling between the fronts & surrounds. This will allow you to separate sounds around you vs sounds above you (the hallmark of a good Atmos/DTS:X set-up).


Thank you for your advice. When we remodeled family room / theater back in 2012 we had speaker cables installed in the wall for a 7.1 system. So it seems we will be leaving it setup at 7.1 for now


----------



## dschulz

Ted99 said:


> Which brings up a question re: AC-4. Is this another format we are going to need in our receivers? I've convinced myself that HDMI 2.1 is not something to wait for and that receivers with DV and Hybrid Log gamma pass thru are going to be sufficient when I purchase my next display, which will be a flat panel OLED. BUT, OTA will be AC-4 (someday). Will the streaming services and cable pass thru the AC-4, or convert it to our current Atmos format. Can current receivers handle AC-4, or is it a new Must-have?


It will eventually be a format we'll want decoded natively in our receivers, but don't worry, it's a few years out yet. The ATSC 3.0 standard will be slow to roll out, especially in the absence of an FCC mandate to switch over from the current system - this is a very different paradigm than the switch from NTSC to ATSC, which had the federal government effectively forcing the cutover. This will be an expensive proposition for broadcasters, so they're going to be methodical about it. 

In any event, I shouldn't be surprised if devices that can receive signals with AC-4 audio can decode and then transcode to AC-3 (or PCM or DD+) for output to older equipment. OTOH other services may adopt it before broadcast television - I think it's pretty likely to become the de facto standard for streaming services, cable, satellite, etc. It's a very efficient codec with a lot of industry support, and content providers and distributors like being able to utilize one standard deliverable for all platforms.



MagnumX said:


> AC4? My god, yet another reason to not buy a new receiver any time soon (along with HDMI 2.2). Somehow, I would expect $2000+ receivers to last more than one year before being totally outdated, but the industry keeps making crap almost no wants and no one asked for.
> 
> Hey, let's also completely frack our digital over-the-air standards with yet another completely incompatible system yet not make it a requirement so you have mixed signals and even more consumer confusion and allow subscriptions too so there's no more free TV. (All for no other reasons than to try and force consumers to buy yet another TV sooner than planned. Who cares if 98% of all consumers can't actually see 4k of resolution with their small sets at typical viewing distances. We need a new broadcast standard anyway. Milk it with ala carte (yet still commercial laden) subscriptions with no DVRs allowed or only for even higher fees and hope consumers don't decide to just stop watching TV entirely. Maybe we need a Max Headroom law that says you must own at least one TV and it's never allowed to be turned off while we're at it.
> 
> Don't worry. AC5 will come out three years from now to replace AC4 so you can buy another receiver and TV. No more channels, just lower bitrates for the supposed same quality so they can squeeze some alternate foreign audio channels or a home shopping channel over the same bandwidth.


I think this is about 90% too cynical. If the industry kept to this attitude we'd still be watching black & white TV and listening to AM Radio, since the switch to color was probably a conspiracy by TV manufacturers to force people to buy new televisions, and Frequency Modulation was obviously just a con to sell more radios. ATSC 3.0 is going to bring us not only UHD resolution but also HDR, expanded color gamut, immersive sound, and more reliable reception of the signals. It's all to the good!


----------



## Roger Dressler

dschulz said:


> In any event, I shouldn't be surprised if devices that can receive signals with AC-4 audio can decode and then transcode to AC-3 (or PCM or DD+) for output to older equipment.


Just a comment to reinforce that no bridges will be burned. Transcoding has already been used, such as STBs receiving DD+ can convert it to Dolby Digital for S/PDIF output. The limitation in that case is if the DD+ exceeds 5.1, the DD output remains 5.1, same as ever. Thus, the only people who might feel compelled to get new gear would be those interested in new features, like Atmos.


----------



## unretarded

You would think the new Atmos update for win 10 would allow reception from Netflix of atmos and then sent to the receiver would work fine....or is Netflix in bed with xbox ?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> If the industry kept to this attitude we'd still be watching black & white TV and listening to AM Radio, since the switch to color was probably a conspiracy by TV manufacturers to force people to buy new televisions, and Frequency Modulation was obviously just a con to sell more radios.


Indeed, when new technology shows up there's always someone complaining (not because they don't want it but because they don't want anyone else to have it either). Thank goodness the industry isn't limited by this attitude.


----------



## Dave-T

i had my Av buddy come over last night because I was just not happy with how my system was sounding 5.1.4 Atoms setup, the phrase I used was "thin". I have deep bass from sub and it melds good with front three speakers but spatial voice did not have presence if you know what I mean. For speaker I have:

B&W CWm7.3 F/C/R - Frequency response 43Hz - 28Hz
B&W CWM7.4 surrounds Frequency response 47Hz - 28Hz
B&W CCM682 Atmos speakers 4 Frequency response 35Hz - 50Hz
Sub Velodyne DD10 Frequency response 18Hz -120Hz

before: speakers set to small 

fronts -80Hz
center -80Hz
surrounds -80Hz
Atmos - 80Hz.

LFE in processor 80Hz

My friend switched things up he left speakers set to small but:

fronts - 90Hz
center 90Hz
surounds 90Hz
Atmos - 100Hz

LFE in processor to 90Hz


things do sound better just not sure if crossing the Atmos speakers at 100Hz is correct, what do you guys/gals set your to? definitely sounds less muddy and thin spatialy. Why is this if the speakers have such low frequency response.


----------



## jm10

Dave-T said:


> My friend switched things up he left speakers set to small but:
> 
> fronts - 90Hz
> center 90Hz
> surounds 90Hz
> Atmos - 100Hz
> 
> LFE in processor to 90Hz
> 
> 
> things do sound better just *not sure if crossing the Atmos speakers at 100Hz is correct, what do you guys/gals set your to?* definitely sounds less muddy and thin spatialy. Why is this if the speakers have such low frequency response.


The Atmos Guide for *Theaters *explicitly said Atmos speakers should not be setup higher than 100Hz and point 80Hz as the optimal ...and regarding the *Home *Guide although it does not address frequency response directly it suggest the minimum is 100Hz...

*DolbyAtmos® Specifications (Cinemas)*
_If bass management is used, the surround loudspeakers frequency response (±3 dB) must extend to 90 Hz or lower. The crossover frequency should be set based on the capabilities of the surround loudspeakers, but must *not be higher than 100 Hz.*_

*Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines*
_ "If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band *from 100 Hz* to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward."_

...don't forget those are guidelines.


----------



## Dave-T

jm10 said:


> If I recall correctly, the Atmos Guide for *Theaters *explicitly said Atmos speakers should not be setup higher than 100Hz and point 80Hz as the optimal ...and regarding the *Home *Guide although it does not address frequency response directly it suggest the minimum is 100Hz...
> 
> _ "If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band *from 100 Hz* to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward."_
> 
> ...don't forget those are guidelines.


There you go then! Thank you sir. I will leave it at 100Hz


----------



## jm10

Dave-T said:


> There you go then! Thank you sir. I will leave it at 100Hz


...no problema.. re-quote the post as I updated it  

...enjoy the product of your hard work!


----------



## helvetica bold

is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room? Still planning my man cave.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Dave-T said:


> LFE in processor 80Hz


When you say "LFE in processor", do you mean the low pass filter of the LFE channel? Because that should pretty much always be set to 120Hz. Otherwise, you're throwing away part of the content in the LFE channel. It's arguable how much of an audible effect it would have, since mixers don't tend to put a lot above 80Hz in that channel anyway... but typically, that option is only to adjust around subwoofers meant to be filtered that way (THX spec'd, in particular). Otherwise, 120Hz is the correct setting, and given that your subwoofer is rated for up to 120Hz, would be ideal.

Bear in mind that this setting doesn't have anything to do with the bass redirected from the other channels. It is only for content in the LFE channel. So if you filter it at 80 or 90Hz, anything above that point in that channel is just gone - not redirected elsewhere.


----------



## Ted99

dschulz said:


> It will eventually be a format we'll want decoded natively in our receivers, but don't worry, it's a few years out yet. The ATSC 3.0 standard will be slow to roll out, especially in the absence of an FCC mandate to switch over from the current system - this is a very different paradigm than the switch from NTSC to ATSC, which had the federal government effectively forcing the cutover. This will be an expensive proposition for broadcasters, so they're going to be methodical about it.
> 
> In any event, I shouldn't be surprised if devices that can receive signals with AC-4 audio can decode and then transcode to AC-3 (or PCM or DD+) for output to older equipment. OTOH other services may adopt it before broadcast television - I think it's pretty likely to become the de facto standard for streaming services, cable, satellite, etc. It's a very efficient codec with a lot of industry support, and content providers and distributors like being able to utilize one standard deliverable for all platforms.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is about 90% too cynical. If the industry kept to this attitude we'd still be watching black & white TV and listening to AM Radio, since the switch to color was probably a conspiracy by TV manufacturers to force people to buy new televisions, and Frequency Modulation was obviously just a con to sell more radios. ATSC 3.0 is going to bring us not only UHD resolution but also HDR, expanded color gamut, immersive sound, and more reliable reception of the signals. It's all to the good!



I take comfort from your remarks. I agree wholeheartedly with the transition to ATSC 3.0 and AC-4, provided that the signal receiving devices transcode to what our Receivers recognize (bitstream?). From this, I conclude that the only mandatory change will be in the TV tuners, cable boxes and streaming devices. In the next year, I plan to cut the cord and rely on my Roku Ultra for streaming to the display, subscribing to the services/networks I want. It would be no hardship to change out that Roku a few years hence for one which accommodates AC-4. On the other hand, I'm anticipating paying between $3-5K to replace my 3-year old $2K 11 ch pre-pro next year with one having 16 ch and I would be very unhappy having to replace it inside 5 years. I'm still using a 15 year-old Yamaha Receiver with 5.1 DD in my bedroom, because it's all I need, there.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

unretarded said:


> You would think the new Atmos update for win 10 would allow reception from Netflix of atmos and then sent to the receiver would work fine....or is Netflix in bed with xbox ?


Well, first... Win 10 and Xbox are both Microsoft, so they can't be "in bed" with one without the other. As for your issue, the Atmos update for Win10 and Xbox are actually the same thing. The Xbox One runs the Win10 codebase, so these are basically just two different versions of the same app. The Xbox, however, is basically allowing bitstream output of the Atmos-enabled DD+ track from Netflix... whereas the Win10 version of the app doesn't. It isn't as simple to change a PC over to bitstream output and back again as it is a dedicated piece of hardware. So they probably just haven't coded it to do so. Likely because the audience for it on PC is smaller than on consoles and other devices as far as it being connected to an Atmos AVR.

Basically, give it time. A lot of the apps on both Win10 and Xbox One still need to be ported over to Microsoft's spatial audio software hooks.


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> When you say "LFE in processor", do you mean the low pass filter of the LFE channel? Because that should pretty much always be set to 120Hz. Otherwise, you're throwing away part of the content in the LFE channel. It's arguable how much of an audible effect it would have, since mixers don't tend to put a lot above 80Hz in that channel anyway... but typically, that option is only to adjust around subwoofers meant to be filtered that way (THX spec'd, in particular). Otherwise, 120Hz is the correct setting, and given that your subwoofer is rated for up to 120Hz, would be ideal.
> 
> Bear in mind that this setting doesn't have anything to do with the bass redirected from the other channels. It is only for content in the LFE channel. So if you filter it at 80 or 90Hz, anything above that point in that channel is just gone - not redirected elsewhere.


 This topic has been covered a bit and most have found the higher setting can have a little less fidelity in the lower bass regions as compared to using 80hz . One must keep in mind even if the LFE channel set a 80hz its not a brickwall filter . I sat back about 5 years ago on afternoon and played around with a few of the options and eventually settled on 90hz but on a few scenes I used to test (Starwars Ep.2 Attack of the Clones ) the landing scene in the beginning when the ship fly's over the landing platform sounded best at 80hz with more precieved low frequency rumble,however the asteroid scene was great at 110hz. Overall and in myroom with a wide range of content especially with Atmos/DTS;X 90hz is the sweet spot


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

audiofan1 said:


> This topic has been covered a bit and most have found the higher setting can have a little less fidelity in the lower bass regions as compared to using 80hz . One must keep in mind even if the LFE channel set a 80hz its not a brickwall filter . I sat back about 5 years ago on afternoon and played around with a few of the options and eventually settled on 90hz but on a few scenes I used to test (Starwars Ep.2 Attack of the Clones ) the landing scene in the beginning when the ship fly's over the landing platform sounded best at 80hz with more precieved low frequency rumble,however the asteroid scene was great at 110hz. Overall and in myroom with a wide range of content especially with Atmos/DTS;X 90hz is the sweet spot


To each their own, but the point remains: Any setting other than 120Hz removes or reduces content that was meant to be reproduced. Was just curious as to why the OP was using it that way.


----------



## Scott Simonian

helvetica bold said:


> is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room? Still planning my man cave.



lol no.


----------



## audiofan1

Jeremy Anderson said:


> To each their own, but the point remains: *Any setting other than 120Hz removes or reduces content that was meant to be reproduced.* Was just curious as to why the OP was using it that way.


 Only if it the LFE filter was a brickwall which it's not, so not all content is lost


----------



## Ted99

helvetica bold said:


> is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room? Still planning my man cave.


I have 9.3.5 in a 12' x 12' room. Some of the speakers are duplexed with "Y" inputs until I get a 2018 pre-pro with 16 ch of processing. Then I will go 9.5.7. SURROUND SOUND FOREVER!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

helvetica bold said:


> is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room? Still planning my man cave.


I think you need a few more actually, I have 9.1.6 in a 12'x12' room.


----------



## sdurani

helvetica bold said:


> is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room?


No, 11' (or even 9') is enough room length to separate two pairs of speakers above you.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room? Still planning my man cave.


If you are sitting right up against the back wall, then 7.1.4 wouldn't work well for you. 5.1.4 should be just fine. 

However, be sure to get a receiver that can handle at least 7.1.4 rendering (besides handling Dolby Vision and other HDR formats via HDMI... maybe even getting a unit that has HDMI 2.1 ports if you can hold off until 2018), so if you move your setup to a larger room, you're ready to expand.


----------



## maikeldepotter

helvetica bold said:


> is a 5.1.4 too many speakers for 9'x11' room? Still planning my man cave.


As long as your ceiling and walls look less crowded that in this (Dolby Atmos commercials and trailers mixing) room, I would not worry too much about 'too many speakers'.


----------



## sdurani

MagnumX said:


> You clearly don't comprehend what I said AT ALL. The point I made soared right over your head. I'm not trying to keep you from getting anything. I'm talking about pointless formats...


The fact that you believe AC-4 is pointless demonstrates my earlier point. You're trying to state subjective opinion as objective fact. You don't understand the advantages of AC-4, therefore it must not have any, making the codec pointless. You're not saying that you don't need it, you're claiming the codec itself is unnecessary. Which is what I posted previously: it's not that you don't want it, you don't feel anyone else should either.


> AC4 does nothing new at all in a functional sense and almost no one is even yet using DD+ for a darn thing except to save bandwidth and that is all ALL AC4 will be used for too save a few token titles.


Again, your couching subjective opinion as objective fact. You believe that DD+ isn't being used _"for a darn thing except to save on bandwidth"_. But you're posting that in an Atmos thread, where most of us are aware that DD+ has been used for transmitting/streaming Atmos soundtracks, which couldn't be done with previous transmission codecs like DD. So for the last couple years, DD+ has been doing more than saving bandwidth. 

When you start from such an obviously false premise it becomes impossible to take your arguments seriously. Likewise your opinion of AC-4. Anyone can Google the codec and see for themselves what the advantages are, which then makes it impossible to buy your _"does nothing new at all"_ argument.


> Why transmit 7.1 for 50 people out of 3 million watching that actually are using 7.1.x channels when you can save money instead by using 5.1 99% of the time?


Same reason you broadcast in colour when there are few colour TVs or transmit/stream Atmos soundtracks when most consumers are listening using the two speakers built into their displays. _"If the industry kept to this attitude we'd still be watching black & white TV and listening to AM Radio._


> They couldn't care less about more channels or true 4K because they know most people will not be able to tell the difference anyway or won't have that many speakers.


And I couldn't care less what their motives are. The end result is affordable UHD displays and more Atmos/DTS:X content. I just can't see that as the horror you describe.


> People buy it anyway.


This seems to be the part that bothers you the most about buying new technology: it is a 100% voluntary transaction between two parties. No coercion involved. Consumers want UHD content. Studios are happy to provide it. Content creators/providers want AC-4. Dolby is happy to provide it. For someone who believes these technologies are pointless, that's got to frustrate you no end.


----------



## Mrjmc99

unretarded said:


> You would think the new Atmos update for win 10 would allow reception from Netflix of atmos and then sent to the receiver would work fine....or is Netflix in bed with xbox ?


It should pass an "atmos" signal to the avr. Whether or not it's actually true atmos or Dolby surround is up for debate. For gaming it has been great.

BTW, Windows 10 and Xbox one are pretty much the same nowadays, Microsoft is trying to get the platforms to merge from a development standpoint. I don't have Netflix so I can't test, but if there's a Netflix app in the windows store, it's probably the same one that runs on Xbox. 

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> As long as your ceiling and walls look less crowded that in this (Dolby Atmos commercials and trailers mixing) room, I would not worry too much about 'too many speakers'.



WOW!! Now we're talking 

However, what is the setup here? 12?!? Ceiling speakers? And those surround speakers are waaay up on the walls?


----------



## rboster

Let's everyone take a deep breath and move on. If we get another report we'll have to issue infractions and banned members from posting in this thread. Responding to posts that are obvious infractions of conduct with the similar responses only implicates you too. So either ignore the post or report it....responding will be the last action you want to take.


----------



## PeterTHX

dschulz said:


> In any event, I shouldn't be surprised if devices that can receive signals with AC-4 audio can decode and then transcode to AC-3 (or PCM or DD+) for output to older equipment. OTOH other services may adopt it before broadcast television - I think it's pretty likely to become the de facto standard for streaming services, cable, satellite, etc. It's a very efficient codec with a lot of industry support, and content providers and distributors like being able to utilize one standard deliverable for all platforms.


People also seem to forget AC-3 made its official public debut *25 years ago*, with _Batman Returns_ (1 year earlier with a test with _Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country_). DD+ (E-AC-3) has been around for over 10 years. I think that's more than enough time between formats. 

AC-4 won't be available until next year at the earliest anyway.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> WOW!! Now we're talking
> 
> However, what is the setup here? 12?!? Ceiling speakers?


I believe this rather narrow (3.5 meter width?) studio holds a total of 35 main speaker positions (https://lbbonline.com/news/how-dolby-atmos-is-opening-up-opportunities-for-adland/), so that must be 5 behind the screen (not visible on the pics), 6 surrounds on each side wall, 6 pair of overheads, leaving 6 speakers for the rear wall. With 23 speakers at base level, that is on average a speaker every 15 degrees.



> And those surround speakers are waaay up on the walls?


To me it appears that the lateral elevation of surrounds and overheads lies around 25-30 and 60-65 degrees respectively. This produces about 35 degrees separation between surrounds and overhead arrays, and about 50 degrees separation between the two overhead arrays. 

Here is another pic from the factory.uk.com site:


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> I believe this rather narrow (3.5 meter width?) studio holds a total of 35 main speaker positions (https://lbbonline.com/news/how-dolby-atmos-is-opening-up-opportunities-for-adland/), so that must be 5 behind the screen (not visible on the pics), 6 surrounds on each side wall, 6 pair of overheads, leaving 6 speakers for the rear wall. With 23 speakers at base level, that is on average a speaker every 15 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> To me it appears that the lateral elevation of surrounds and overheads lies around 25-30 and 60-65 degrees respectively. This produces about 35 degrees separation between surrounds and overhead arrays, and about 50 degrees separation between the two overhead arrays.
> 
> Here is another pic from the factory.uk.com site:
> 
> View attachment 2267874


Again: WOW!

But if the room is 3.5 meters wide(MLP @ 1.75meters), and the surrounds are litterally up under the ceiling(@ maybe 2.2 meters), i calculate a angle of over 50 degrees ?!?

It probably must sound awsome, but that doesn't seem optimal, either logical, or according to Atmos guidelines.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Again: WOW!
> 
> But if the room is 3.5 meters wide(MLP @ 1.75meters), and the surrounds are litterally up under the ceiling(@ maybe 2.2 meters), i calculate a angle of over 50 degrees ?!?
> 
> It probably must sound awsome, but that doesn't seem optimal, either logical, or according to Atmos guidelines.


175 to the side and 100 up (with ear height at 120) makes 30 degrees lateral elevation, not 50. This room is Dolby Certified for Atmos Theatrical, and those guidelines recommend the lateral elevation of the overhead arrays to be at least 45+half the surround elevation, in this case 45+30/2=60 degrees. All well


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> 175 to the side and 100 up (with ear height at 120) makes 30 degrees lateral elevation, not 50. This room is Dolby Certified for Atmos Theatrical, and those guidelines recommend the lateral elevation of the overhead arrays to be at least 45+half the surround elevation, in this case 45+30/2=60 degrees. All well


My bad, used height from floor, not ear height.

Carry on


----------



## audiofan1

Oh no! side surrounds mounted up high


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> 175 to the side and 100 up (with ear height at 120) makes 30 degrees lateral elevation, not 50. This room is Dolby Certified for Atmos Theatrical, and those guidelines recommend the lateral elevation of the overhead arrays to be at least 45+half the surround elevation, in this case 45+30/2=60 degrees. All well



Certified under the guidelines and recommended are two entirely different things. 

That layout is Dolby approved but far from optimal, imho.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> To me it appears that the lateral elevation of surrounds and overheads lies around 25-30 and 60-65 degrees respectively. This produces about 35 degrees separation between surrounds and overhead arrays, and about 50 degrees separation between the two overhead arrays.


That doesn't look like 35 degrees separation between the surrounds & heights, let alone a full 50 degrees separation between the height arrays. 










Separation between surrounds & heights is helpful but can be undermined by speaker placement. Compare 7.1 layout with the sides at 95 & rears at 135 versus a 7.1 layout with sides at 120 & rears at 160. Same 40 degree separation, but the former will give excellent side vs rear separation in the surround field while the latter will collapse the surround field behind you. So a 35 degree gap in elevation isn't as helpful when the surrounds & heights are ALL way above you. 

The other problem with having surrounds so high up is that the mixer ends up hearing lots of phantom imaging overhead and might not use the height speakers as much. I know people complained that the movie San Andreas didn't have much in the heights, but when I heard it at a movie theatre (with the surround arrays way above me), there was plenty of overhead imaging (except it wasn't coming from the height speakers). By comparison, mixes where the surrounds were closer to ear level (5th Element) tend to have lots of sound in the height speakers (there's no other way to have sound overhead).


----------



## citsur86

I have a dopey question regarding Atmos and Subwoofers. I may be crazy, but I find the subwoofers to sound much better when watching a movie with a Dolby Atmos sound track. Is this just me and Atmos has nothing to do with the subs or does an Atmos sound carry higher quality signals to the subs as well?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

citsur86 said:


> I have a dopey question regarding Atmos and Subwoofers. I may be crazy, but I find the subwoofers to sound much better when watching a movie with a Dolby Atmos sound track. Is this just me and Atmos has nothing to do with the subs or does an Atmos sound carry higher quality signals to the subs as well?


The channels and objects in Dolby Atmos can all deliver full range sounds, so once you engage bass management, there can be more bass content being routed to your subwoofer along with the LFE channel.


----------



## citsur86

Dan Hitchman said:


> The channels and objects in Dolby Atmos can all deliver full range sounds, so once you engage bass management, there can be more bass content being routed to your subwoofer along with the LFE channel.


OK cool - so would that explain better transient response from the subs? The sound isn't necessarily louder, it's punchier and has a clearer sound quality to it. I guess going back to the transient response, it seems a lot of the ringing in the room is lessened when listening to Atmos content.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> That doesn't look like 35 degrees separation between the surrounds & heights, let alone a full 50 degrees separation between the height arrays.


To me it does, could even be 60 degrees.


----------



## Scott Simonian

citsur86 said:


> I have a dopey question regarding Atmos and Subwoofers. I may be crazy, but I find the subwoofers to sound much better when watching a movie with a Dolby Atmos sound track. Is this just me and Atmos has nothing to do with the subs or does an Atmos sound carry higher quality signals to the subs as well?





citsur86 said:


> OK cool - so would that explain better transient response from the subs? The sound isn't necessarily louder, it's punchier and has a clearer sound quality to it. I guess going back to the transient response, it seems a lot of the ringing in the room is lessened when listening to Atmos content.


These things you're hearing/feeling have nothing to do with Atmos but with the mix itself.

The tools to create a surround/immersive mix for movies has matured a lot in the passing years. Mixers themselves are creating much more enveloping and precise mixes now since immersive audio has taken over beyond 5.1 and 7.1 audio. However, listening to any Atmos or DTS:X mix in 5.1 or 7.1 will still have the same "better" sounding bass.

Can you give some examples of what you have heard?


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Certified under the guidelines and recommended are two entirely different things.
> 
> That layout is Dolby approved but far from optimal, imho.


Would this diagram in the Dolby Atmos Specifications then not resemble anything close to a recommended lay-out for a commercial theater?


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> Would this diagram...


Mmm. More diagrams.... 



maikeldepotter said:


> .... in the Dolby Atmos Specifications then not resemble anything close to a recommended lay-out for a commercial theater?


Depends on what row you're in.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> To me it does, could even be 60 degrees.


60 degrees? How tall are these recording engineers?


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> 60 degrees? How tall are these recording engineers?


Someone heard my derogatory "surround sound hat" comment and took it to heart.


----------



## citsur86

Scott Simonian said:


> These things you're hearing/feeling have nothing to do with Atmos but with the mix itself.
> 
> The tools to create a surround/immersive mix for movies has matured a lot in the passing years. Mixers themselves are creating much more enveloping and precise mixes now since immersive audio has taken over beyond 5.1 and 7.1 audio. However, listening to any Atmos or DTS:X mix in 5.1 or 7.1 will still have the same "better" sounding bass.
> 
> Can you give some examples of what you have heard?




Sure - in John Wick 2 there are many scenes where the bullets hit hard and fast without any boominess at all. 

In Okja there were some scenes when the super pig thing was flopping around and the bass hit very intentionally. The bass sounds good on normal 5.1 or 7.1 tracks, but there is an extra sharp edge to it in atmos mixes. It very hard to explain but it is cleaner and more intentional. It sounds like there are less persisting booms or loud boominess.


----------



## Scott Simonian

citsur86 said:


> Sure - in John Wick 2 there are many scenes where the bullets hit hard and fast without any boominess at all.
> 
> In Okja there were some scenes when the super pig thing was flopping around and the bass hit very intentionally. The bass sounds good on normal 5.1 or 7.1 tracks, but there is an extra sharp edge to it in atmos mixes. It very hard to explain but it is cleaner and more intentional. It sounds like there are less persisting booms or loud boominess.


You're comparing the sound from movies you've heard in Atmos to other movies that aren't Atmos? That isn't Atmos related. Purely the creation of the mix that you like.

Play back either of these movies in 5.1 or 7.1 and they will have the same sounding bass. It's not Atmos that makes the bass how you like.


----------



## citsur86

Scott Simonian said:


> You're comparing the sound from one movie to another. Not technology related. Purely the creation of the mix that you like.
> 
> Play back either of these movies in 5.1 or 7.1 and they will have the same sounding bass. It's not Atmos that makes the bass how you like.




Very good point! I have an easy way to test this out. I will find a particular bass heavy scene in Okja and play it through my Xbox One S in Atmos. I’ll have the same part queued up on the Apple TV (which runs through my Xbox One S) and ill be able to quickly switch to that method and play it again. All settings being equal, I will see if the bass is different. I’m very open to the idea that it could completely be a placebo effect. In fact, in this past weeks Home Theater Geeks with Scott Wilkinson, his guest Bob Carver even said he swears he hears a better sound from circuits with vacuum tubes than without, but often fails blind testing switching between those with and those without.


----------



## Scott Simonian

citsur86 said:


> Very good point! I have an easy way to test this out. I will find a particular bass heavy scene in Okja and play it through my Xbox One S in Atmos. I’ll have the same part queued up on the Apple TV (which runs through my Xbox One S) and ill be able to quickly switch to that method and play it again. All settings being equal, I will see if the bass is different. I’m very open to the idea that it could completely be a placebo effect. In fact, in this past weeks Home Theater Geeks with Scott Wilkinson, his guest Bob Carver even said he swears he hears a better sound from circuits with vacuum tubes than without, but often fails blind testing switching between those with and those without.



Nice. I always suggest that people do as such. Playing the "home game" is always recommended here at AVS.  

But... having said that. If you do hear a difference, it still has nothing to do with Atmos. Likely, there is either some processing that you are not aware of or some settings are different and triggered by different signal types. Or... it's just the mix and mixes have got much better in several ways since Atmos debuted. 

There is nothing in the technology for Dolby Atmos that will improve bass transient response or decrease in-room bass ringing though.


----------



## petetherock

maikeldepotter said:


> As long as your ceiling and walls look less crowded that in this (Dolby Atmos commercials and trailers mixing) room, I would not worry too much about 'too many speakers'.


I don't know..
Will there be a lot of interference between the speakers in such close proximity?
Seems to be a bit of overkill..


----------



## maikeldepotter

petetherock said:


> Will there be a lot of interference between the speakers in such close proximity?


I personally do not know about any research on required minimal distance between speakers to avoid some kind of detrimental interference between them. Would be happy to learn if such information does exist.



> Seems to be a bit of overkill..


Probably not in terms of the gained spatial resolution. Dolby states that the angular separation between adjacent main speakers should be MAXIMUM 30 degrees in order to enjoy OPTIMAL spatial resolution. In that regard, having an average separation of 15 degrees does not look like overkill. The maximum home Atmos lay-out also shows an average separation of 15 degrees (24 speakers covering a 360 degrees circle around us).


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Depends on what row you're in.


As far as the side surround arrays are concerned, changing rows does NOT affect the lateral elevation. Same goes for the overhead arrays, unless the auditorium has a sloped seating area without a corresponding tilted ceiling. Since that is how a typical commercial theater is built, Dolby specifies a reference point (MLP equivalent) for lateral elevation specifications. That is what the diagram is displaying.



Scott Simonian said:


> That layout is Dolby approved but far from optimal, imho.


One can believe that this diagram from the Atmos Specifications document does NOT resemble anything close to a Dolby recommended lay-out, but in the absence of official Dolby information suggesting otherwise (in which I am highly interested in case it happens to exist), why would anyone choose to do that?


----------



## citsur86

Scott Simonian said:


> Nice. I always suggest that people do as such. Playing the "home game" is always recommended here at AVS.
> 
> But... having said that. If you do hear a difference, it still has nothing to do with Atmos. Likely, there is either some processing that you are not aware of or some settings are different and triggered by different signal types. Or... it's just the mix and mixes have got much better in several ways since Atmos debuted.
> 
> There is nothing in the technology for Dolby Atmos that will improve bass transient response or decrease in-room bass ringing though.


While there didn't turn out to be any extremely good bass heavy scenes in Okja, I was able to find a few scenes with decent foot thumping bass. Turns out, in this test at least, I couldn't hear a difference between the 5.1 and Atmos version of the scene. I do, however, still believe that the Atmos mixes I've heard generally sound better in the bass department. I now understand that it's not necessarily because of the technology, but rather just the mixers attention to detail when mixing the Atmos mix on those movies. Especially when it's movies like John Wick 2.


----------



## Scott Simonian

maikeldepotter said:


> As far as the side surround arrays are concerned, changing rows does NOT affect the lateral elevation. Same goes for the overhead arrays, unless the auditorium has a sloped seating area without a corresponding tilted ceiling. Since that is how a typical commercial theater is built, Dolby specifies a reference point (MLP equivalent) for lateral elevation specifications. That is what the diagram is displaying.


I understand that. I'm just saying there is more than one row in a movie theater. 

You had asked a question and that was my answer.




maikeldepotter said:


> One can believe that this diagram from the Atmos Specifications document does NOT resemble anything close to a Dolby recommended lay-out,...


Are you now conflating my previous post about the 'sub-optimal layout' (in the mini media mixing room picture) with your diagram response (of the surrounds) that I did not make any mention of it's layout?

Please don't. It's confusing.



maikeldepotter said:


> .... but in the absence of official Dolby information suggesting otherwise (in which I am highly interested in case it happens to exist), why would anyone choose to do that?


For fun and to learn something.


----------



## deano86

citsur86 said:


> While there didn't turn out to be any extremely good bass heavy scenes in Okja, I was able to find a few scenes with decent foot thumping bass. Turns out, in this test at least, I couldn't hear a difference between the 5.1 and Atmos version of the scene. I do, however, still believe that the Atmos mixes I've heard generally sound better in the bass department. I now understand that it's not necessarily because of the technology, but rather just the mixers attention to detail when mixing the Atmos mix on those movies. Especially when it's movies like John Wick 2.


FYI, it was noted by many people ... including myself, that indeed there was a huge difference in bass levels between the Redbox (Dolby Digital 5.1) and the retail version (Dolby Atmos) of Deepwater Horizon. The Rebox version seemed literally neutered and weak in the bass when compared to the actual Atmos version.


----------



## citsur86

deano86 said:


> FYI, it was noted by many people ... including myself, that indeed there was a huge difference in bass levels between the Redbox (Dolby Digital 5.1) and the retail version (Dolby Atmos) of Deepwater Horizon. The Rebox version seemed literally neutered and weak in the bass when compared to the actual Atmos version.


Apparently attributable to the mix and not the tech.


----------



## Scott Simonian

citsur86 said:


> Apparently attributable to the mix and not the tech.


Since the signals are different, it could be a different mix but it could also be the same mix with the levels changed from one encode to another.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> 175 to the side and 100 up (with ear height at 120) makes 30 degrees lateral elevation, not 50. This room is Dolby Certified for Atmos Theatrical, and those guidelines recommend the lateral elevation of the overhead arrays to be at least 45+half the surround elevation, in this case 45+30/2=60 degrees. All well





Scott Simonian said:


> Certified under the guidelines and recommended are two entirely different things.
> 
> That layout is Dolby approved but far from optimal, imho.





sdurani said:


> That doesn't look like 35 degrees separation between the surrounds & heights, let alone a full 50 degrees separation between the height arrays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separation between surrounds & heights is helpful but can be undermined by speaker placement. Compare 7.1 layout with the sides at 95 & rears at 135 versus a 7.1 layout with sides at 120 & rears at 160. Same 40 degree separation, but the former will give excellent side vs rear separation in the surround field while the latter will collapse the surround field behind you. So a 35 degree gap in elevation isn't as helpful when the surrounds & heights are ALL way above you.
> 
> The other problem with having surrounds so high up is that the mixer ends up hearing lots of phantom imaging overhead and might not use the height speakers as much. I know people complained that the movie San Andreas didn't have much in the heights, but when I heard it at a movie theatre (with the surround arrays way above me), there was plenty of overhead imaging (except it wasn't coming from the height speakers). By comparison, mixes where the surrounds were closer to ear level (5th Element) tend to have lots of sound in the height speakers (there's no other way to have sound overhead).



I have to agree with Scott and sdurani on this one. No one in theire right mind would place Atmos surround that hight up and call it optimal. Actuall not even in a old 5.1/7.1 setup.

Only reason i can think of is because of a narrow room they did it to avoid hot spotting.
But that many speakers(optimal) and then botch it by placing them that high(NOT optimal).

Seems very strange....


----------



## Jerod Keller

I'm preparing to upgrade my existing home theater configuration to a Klipsch RP-280 system include an Atmos configuration, even though my AVR only support x.x.2 channels of Atmos as opposed to 4. I'm wondering if there is any special consideration that I should give to the location of my subwoofer in this re-arrangement. Currently, my sub is in the front right corner next to the FR main. I have attached an image of my room with both the current sub placement and an idea of where it could be placed if relocated. Any advice on this would be appreciated.


----------



## sdurani

Jerod Keller said:


> AVR only support x.x.2 channels of Atmos as opposed to 4.


I would move the two overhead speakers at least a couple feet forward to keep from distracting listeners directly below the speakers.


> I have attached an image of my room with both the current sub placement and an idea of where it could be placed if relocated.


Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to try both locations and see which sounds better (listen from more than one seat).


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> No one in theire right mind would place Atmos surround that hight up and call it optimal. Actuall not even in a old 5.1/7.1 setup.


Agreed. But, I'm seeing this more and more in Atmos theatres, including Dolby Cinemas. Most movie theatres I went to had the surrounds about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way up the walls. As more cinemas around me started installing Atmos, their surround arrays started going up, up, up (in some cases, pretty close to the ceiling). WvB of Auro even joked about this in an interview, saying that commercial Atmos installs near him were looking like a single layer, considering the shrinking separation between the surround and height arrays. 

In old 5.1/7.1 cinemas, the surround arrays were diffuse and not so distracting to nearby listeners. When it became possible to light up just one or two surround speakers in the array, that hotspotting becomes noticeable. One solution is to raise the surrounds, to lessen the distraction to nearby listeners. Raising the surrounds also reduces the distance difference (SPL difference) between nearby and far away listeners. If you get a new Atmos install around you, check out the height of the surround arrays.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Yup.

It's a practice I loathe.... but then I got Atmos at home and I stopped caring.


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> Agreed. But, I'm seeing this more and more in Atmos theatres, including Dolby Cinemas. Most movie theatres I went to had the surrounds about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way up the walls. As more cinemas around me started installing Atmos, their surround arrays started going up, up, up (in some cases, pretty close to the ceiling). WvB of Auro even joked about this in an interview, saying that commercial Atmos installs near him were looking like a single layer, considering the shrinking separation between the surround and height arrays.
> 
> In old 5.1/7.1 cinemas, the surround arrays were diffuse and not so distracting to nearby listeners. When it became possible to light up just one or two surround speakers in the array, that hotspotting becomes noticeable. One solution is to raise the surrounds, to lessen the distraction to nearby listeners. Raising the surrounds also reduces the distance difference (SPL difference) between nearby and far away listeners. If you get a new Atmos install around you, check out the height of the surround arrays.


I get that, and that makes sense, as it is a bigger room, and more space to place speakers, and still be optimal.
But this narrow room just made me shake my head. As you said, when mixing, and trying to deside if sound is from surrounds or overheads: that just can NOT be correct, as even the surrounds will soumd from above.


I LOVE the fact that now with Atmos, FINALLY, a car sound goes around you, while a plane goes above you, as it does in real life.
Not as it does with old 5.1/7.1 with high placed surrounds: everything comes from height, but nothing from sides or above.


----------



## MagnumX

Has anyone considered the speaker location relative to the screen? At many movie theaters (less so with stadium seating), the screen is well above ear height, especially the center point. Should the surround speakers (which until Atmos and/or 7.1 weren't called "side" surrounds as directly to the sides isn't always optimal for the more diffuse effects, especially with 5.1 which is why we saw dipole and bipolar models for the home to simulate something closer to arrays of speakers and those did do better closer to the sides.

But the idea of a car going along side the listener only really makes sense if the screen is closer to eye/head level since the car position is on the screen. If that screen is well above ear level then it makes no sense to have it drive "down hill" as it moves into the back of the room. Combined with obvious benefits to avoiding hot spotting I don't see why the older rules wouldn't still apply for such installs (i.e. About 2/3 up the wall). My home theater currently still using 6.1 has bipoles (PSB S50) mounted at about 105 degrees and 2/3 up the wall. My screen center is also about even with the bottom of these speakers. Generally surround effects are in line with the screen and things like the pirate flag flapping on the Disney castle in On Stranger Tides opening sound just above my head as it flies into view on the screen from behind, right where it appears to be.

If anything, it's my front speakers sitting just under the screen that don't perfectly align with what's happening on screen, although one's brain tends to place the sound where you see it when it's close (only way to get it perfect is with an audio transparent screen with the speakers behind it like at the theater. But putting my surrounds lower will definitely lower the height relative to the screen for all effects, especially if I went with direct pointing speakers which would localize even more. Height effects are already technically overhead, although not as high as ceiling speakers would place them.

So what's more important? Do you want things to align with visuals or have more separation between surrounds and ceiling speakers with a screen that's not right at eye level? I don't think it's quite as formulaic cut and dried as some comments suggest. Clearly, some theater installs have reasons for what they're doing. That photo clearly has a projector. The screen height from that angle isn't immediately apparent in that one photo, but if it's higher than eye level like many theaters it might make at least some sense to have the surrounds higher than just above ear level so it aligns with the plane of the screen.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Are you now conflating my previous post about the 'sub-optimal layout' (in the mini media mixing room picture) with your diagram response (of the surrounds) that I did not make any mention of it's layout?


Yes, I am, more or less deliberately, not meant to cause confusion though, sorry if it did.

Point I was trying to make so clumsy, is that the apparent 'very high' position of the overheads in that studio is not so much different than what the diagrams in Dolby's Atmos Specifications document show:


















> For fun and to learn something.


We are on the same page...


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> I have to agree with Scott and sdurani on this one. No one in theire right mind would place Atmos surround that hight up and call it optimal. Actuall not even in a old 5.1/7.1 setup.


My 'All well ' remark was not without some irony... 

Keep in mind though, that this is a studio aimed at reproduction in commercial theaters exhibiting similar "all high up" lay-outs, as do the diagrams in the Dolby Atmos Specifications written for those same commercial theaters. So 'all well' in terms of compliance to Dolby's recommendations for Atmos in commercial theaters...



> Only reason i can think of is because of a narrow room they did it to avoid hot spotting.


Maybe, or maybe they were just following Dolby's Atmos specifications...



> But that many speakers(optimal) and then botch it by placing them that high(NOT optimal).


Depends how you define 'optimal'. Dolby's Atmos documentation/specifications (and related theater implementations) suggest that this IS optimal. I can think of no reason why Dolby would recommend a sub-optimal Atmos lay-out for commercial venues. If you define 'optimal' as 'enabling an optimal immersive experience', well, that is another question. My opinion (that is where we agree): NOT optimal.



> Seems very strange....


Seemingly strange to try and achieve an optimal immersive experience that way, but this apparently is the Atmos way for commercial venues...



sdurani said:


> Agreed. But, I'm seeing this more and more in Atmos theatres, including Dolby Cinemas. Most movie theatres I went to had the surrounds about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way up the walls. As more cinemas around me started installing Atmos, their surround arrays started going up, up, up (in some cases, pretty close to the ceiling). WvB of Auro even joked about this in an interview, saying that commercial Atmos installs near him were looking like a single layer, considering the shrinking separation between the surround and height arrays.


So when going from legacy 5.1/7.1 to Atmos, we LOWER the surrounds at home, and RAISE them at the theater.... 



> In old 5.1/7.1 cinemas, the surround arrays were diffuse and not so distracting to nearby listeners. When it became possible to light up just one or two surround speakers in the array, that hotspotting becomes noticeable. One solution is to raise the surrounds, to lessen the distraction to nearby listeners. Raising the surrounds also reduces the distance difference (SPL difference) between nearby and far away listeners. If you get a new Atmos install around you, check out the height of the surround arrays.


Good explanation of how we ended up with those 'strange'/'all-high-up' lay-outs.



Nalleh said:


> I get that, and that makes sense, as it is a bigger room, and more space to place speakers, and still be optimal.
> But this narrow room just made me shake my head. As you said, when mixing, and trying to deside if sound is from surrounds or overheads: that just can NOT be correct, as even the surrounds will soumd from above.


Does a bigger room really allow surround speakers to be higher up while maintaining a sense of 'around you', whereas in smaller rooms this same elevation produces an 'all over your head' sensation?



> I LOVE the fact that now with Atmos, FINALLY, a car sound goes around you, while a plane goes above you, as it does in real life.
> Not as it does with old 5.1/7.1 with high placed surrounds: everything comes from height, but nothing from sides or above.


+1

The best compromise at home can be found with an elevation of the surrounds that - depending of the type of sound - enables our brain to interpret it as either ear-level (or even below that), or 'just above your head' level. Filmmixers can facilitate this process - and probably already do - by adding the appropriate HRTFs. 10 degrees lateral elevation of side surrounds and up to 15 degrees for the rears could be a good starting point. Trinnov's recommendations for high channel count installations is to have the speaker pane running not higher that 1 foot above the listeners' head.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Separation between surrounds & heights is helpful but can be undermined by speaker placement. Compare 7.1 layout with the sides at 95 & rears at 135 versus a 7.1 layout with sides at 120 & rears at 160. Same 40 degree separation, but the former will give excellent side vs rear separation in the surround field while the latter will collapse the surround field behind you. So a 35 degree gap in elevation isn't as helpful when the surrounds & heights are ALL way above you.


Agreed. That notion makes the 45+(surround elevation)/2 rule for the minimum elevation of overheads rather counter-intutive, as you would expect the required (listener referenced) angular separation between surround and overheads to increase, not decrease, with higher positioned surrounds. 

BTW Given the room-referenced approach of Atmos, this rule _does_ make sense as it basically takes the height of the surrounds, not that of the listener, as reference point for positioning of the overheads. 



> The other problem with having surrounds so high up is that the mixer ends up hearing lots of phantom imaging overhead and might not use the height speakers as much. I know people complained that the movie San Andreas didn't have much in the heights, but when I heard it at a movie theatre (with the surround arrays way above me), there was plenty of overhead imaging (except it wasn't coming from the height speakers). By comparison, mixes where the surrounds were closer to ear level (5th Element) tend to have lots of sound in the height speakers (there's no other way to have sound overhead).











We should have metadata included with all Atmos soundtracks, informing speaker remapping capable processors about the applied (mixer-referenced) lateral height of surround and overhead arryas during re-recording, so that our speakers can be re-positioned accordingly ... Easy fix 

Or as alternative, a D-Box kind of post-production solution, where the processor contains/ has on-line access to a regularly updated database which immediately recognizes a started soundtrack and feeds the processor with the appropriate mixing-room/remapping data.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Does a bigger room really allow surround speakers to be higher up while maintaining a sense of 'around you', whereas in smaller rooms this same elevation produces an 'all over your head' sensation?
> .


Doesn't it?

What would the angle be in a room 5 meters wide with the speakers that high? Lower, right?

And a room 5 meters wide would not hot spot the surrounds that much either, allowing them to be mounted lower, more optimal for Atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> What would the angle be in a room 5 meters wide with the speakers that high? Lower, right?


Yes, if the room gets bigger (and wider) and wall mounted surrounds stay at the same height, the elevation for the central listener decreases, leading to a less 'over your head' and a more 'around you' sensation.



> And a room 5 meters wide would not hot spot the surrounds that much either, allowing them to be mounted lower, more optimal for Atmos.


Absolutely.

But despite of that logic, we were looking at LARGER rooms (commercial theaters) that have their surround and overhead arrays at HIGHER lateral elevation levels as compared to SMALL rooms (our home theaters). The studio we are talking about represents that LARGER room with consequently those HIGHER lateral elevations, so ...

PS When I talk about speaker elevation it is always about degrees, if it is about the position of the speaker between floor and ceiling I refer to that as height in meters/feet

Edit: I now see that in previous post I used the term 'higher up' which might be confusing as it seems to refer to height in meters, while I should have said 'steeper' which more clearly refers to elevation level in degrees ...


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But despite of that logic, we were looking at LARGER rooms (commercial theaters) that have their surround and overhead arrays at HIGHER lateral elevation levels as compared to SMALL rooms (our home theaters). The studio we are talking about represents that LARGER room with consequently those HIGHER lateral elevations, so ...



Sure. And while reading this, all i can think of is the exellent example sdurani mentioned earlier:



sdurani said:


> The other problem with having surrounds so high up is that the mixer ends up hearing lots of phantom imaging overhead and might not use the height speakers as much. I know people complained that the movie San Andreas didn't have much in the heights, but when I heard it at a movie theatre (with the surround arrays way above me), there was plenty of overhead imaging (except it wasn't coming from the height speakers). By comparison, mixes where the surrounds were closer to ear level (5th Element) tend to have lots of sound in the height speakers (there's no other way to have sound overhead).


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> So when going from legacy 5.1/7.1 to Atmos, we LOWER the surrounds at home, and RAISE them at the theater....


I hate to say this but that's exactly what I'm seeing with home Atmos vs cinema Atmos installs. The first time I drove up state to visit AVS member Scott Simonian, we checked out his local Atmos theatre and sure enough, there were the surrounds, right below the ceiling. I understand why they're doing it, but I can't pretend to be pleased by this trend. Of the 35 Atmos theatres within a 50-mile radius of me, the earliest installs still have their surrounds well below ceiling height, so those are the ones I frequent.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Only went in that room once. That's actually where I saw San Andreas. ALL of the sound of overhead. It was like a surround sound hat. 

Never been back to that theater room since. Why have Atmos at all when there is absolutely zero separation from surround to overhead? 

Took Sanjay to the better 7.1 room instead.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> I hate to say this but that's exactly what I'm seeing with home Atmos vs cinema Atmos installs. The first time I drove up state to visit AVS member Scott Simonian, we checked out his local Atmos theatre and sure enough, there were the surrounds, right below the ceiling. I understand why they're doing it, but I can't pretend to be pleased by this trend. Of the 35 Atmos theatres within a 50-mile radius of me, the earliest installs still have their surrounds well below ceiling height, so those are the ones I frequent.


All of the theaters in the San Antonio area have the surrounds high up too. I don't frequent theaters much, but the few Atmos movies I heard were awful. I couldn't detect any difference between surround or height. To be honest, outside of the demo disc and a few movies I have not been impressed thus far with Atmos at home. I am hopeful it will get better. The demo disc sold me on the potential.


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> But... having said that. If you do hear a difference, it still has nothing to do with Atmos. Likely, there is either some processing that you are not aware of or some settings are different and triggered by different signal types. Or... it's just the mix and mixes have got much better in several ways since Atmos debuted.
> 
> There is nothing in the technology for Dolby Atmos that will improve bass transient response or decrease in-room bass ringing though.


Except both Dolby and sound mixers have talked about having full range objects for all speakers. Mixers out of habit have usually avoided putting heavy bass in the surrounds, or have had those surround bass actively redirected to the subs in theaters.


----------



## Scott Simonian

PeterTHX said:


> Except both Dolby and sound mixers have talked about having full range objects for all speakers. Mixers out of habit have usually avoided putting heavy bass in the surrounds, or have had those surround bass actively redirected to the subs in theaters.


Having said this would you like to admit to the rest of us that before Dolby Atmos, the technology for full range surrounds did not exist?

Or did they just finally decide to start using bass management in cinemas? 



Hint: it's the second part 


Your statement makes it seem like full range surrounds usage just started with Atmos. It did not. The same argument can be made for surround sound in general. We have had 7.1 audio for a while now. Some very good mixes in 7.1 audio. But since Dolby Atmos we have been getting even better 7.1 mixes. Could those good mixes not have existed before Atmos?


Let's not confuse content creation methods and practices with the actual technologies in use.

*The answer, as often as it is, is the same: *all together now* "It's the mix".*


----------



## alooffool

I currently have 7.1 (Energy Veritas) and want to move to 7.1.4, but no Atmos receiver yet. 

Any thoughts on using old Bose Acoustimass V satellites as Atmos height speakers? I could mount them high on the walls and then either angle them up to bounce off a flat ceiling or angle them down directly toward the floor. The two bass modules are not powered, and I would just place them on the ground.


----------



## PeterTHX

Scott Simonian said:


> Your statement makes it seem like full range surrounds usage just started with Atmos. It did not. The same argument can be made for surround sound in general. We have had 7.1 audio for a while now. Some very good mixes in 7.1 audio. But since Dolby Atmos we have been getting even better 7.1 mixes. Could those good mixes not have existed before Atmos?


No, because audio objects can go to any speaker. 7.1 mixes do not have objects.


Look at the graphic in the video, do you see objects only in the heights?

https://vimeo.com/106883323


----------



## Scott Simonian

citsur86 said:


> I have a dopey question regarding Atmos and Subwoofers. I may be crazy, *but I find the subwoofers to sound much better when watching a movie with a Dolby Atmos sound track.* Is this just me and Atmos has nothing to do with the subs or does an Atmos sound carry higher quality signals to the subs as well?





Scott Simonian said:


> These things you're hearing/feeling have* nothing to do with Atmos but with the mix itself.*
> 
> The tools to create a surround/immersive mix for movies has matured a lot in the passing years. Mixers themselves are creating much more enveloping and precise mixes now since immersive audio has taken over beyond 5.1 and 7.1 audio. However, listening to any Atmos or DTS:X mix in 5.1 or 7.1 will still have the same "better" sounding bass.
> 
> Can you give some examples of what you have heard?





PeterTHX said:


> *Except both Dolby and sound mixers have talked about having full range objects for all speakers.* Mixers out of habit have usually avoided putting heavy bass in the surrounds, or have had those surround bass actively redirected to the subs in theaters.





PeterTHX said:


> No, because audio objects can go to any speaker. *7.1 mixes do not have objects.*
> 
> 
> Look at the graphic in the video, do you see objects only in the heights?
> 
> https://vimeo.com/106883323


----------



## dschulz

Scott Simonian said:


> Having said this would you like to admit to the rest of us that before Dolby Atmos, the technology for full range surrounds did not exist?
> 
> Or did they just finally decide to start using bass management in cinemas?


We should be very careful with our terminology here - cinemas are *still* not bass managed in the way that most of us think of as bass management. Yes, Atmos uses bass management for the surround arrays, but they are bass managing only the surrounds and using subwoofers physically co-located with their respective surround speakers (i.e. left side of the auditorium for left surround, right side for right, ceiling for the ceiling arrays). The screen channels are still full-range, and the primary subwoofer arrays are still reproducing only the LFE channel, not reproducing re-directed bass from the entire soundtrack. 



> Your statement makes it seem like full range surrounds usage just started with Atmos. It did not.


It sort of did, though, at least with theatrical mixes. DTS explicitly high-passed the surrounds at 80hz, but even for Dolby Digital or, later, 5.1 or 7.1 PCM for digital cinema there was some recognition that surround arrays tended to not be full-range. I mean there may have been some mixers who disregarded this and mixed full range surrounds, but in general standard practice was to accept that the surrounds were not full range and to mix accordingly. It was only with the advent of Atmos that the mixers were told explicitly by Dolby that now the surrounds (both channels and object reproduction) are full range (because the surrounds are bass managed), and could be utilized more fully in a creative way.



> *The answer, as often as it is, is the same: *all together now* "It's the mix".*


Agreed! And despite what I said above, I really doubt whether Atmos is leading to tighter bass in our home video mixes.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> but they are bass managing only the surrounds and using subwoofers physically co-located with their respective surround speakers (i.e. left side of the auditorium for left surround, right side for right, ceiling for the ceiling arrays).


Does the CP850 also has a feed for a ceiling subwoofer? The Atmos Specifications only mention a left and right surround sub woofer as part of its bass management.


----------



## dschulz

maikeldepotter said:


> Does the CP850 also has a feed for a ceiling subwoofer? The Atmos Specifications only mention a left and right surround sub woofer as part of its bass management.


That is probably a mistake on my part - my local Atmos cinema has the surround subwoofers in the ceiling, but now that you mention it I think those are the subs for the left and right surrounds as well.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> That is probably a mistake on my part - my local Atmos cinema has the surround subwoofers in the ceiling, but now that you mention it I think those are the subs for the left and right surrounds as well.


And I didn't even had my first coffee yet...


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Did you notice any vertical on-screen sound steering yet?*

Monitoring the activity of all 7 front speakers simultaneously (LCR, Lsc/Rsc, Lc/Rc), I have noticed horizontal on-screen sound steering, where sounds are connected to visual objects positioned between L/R and Center speaker. Since with larger projection screens the first pair of overheads (at home the front heights speakers) are positioned close to the screen, mixers might have started using those for positioning sound objects connected to visual objects close to the top of the screen. Anyone who did actually already witness such vertical on-screen sound steering in a commercial venue or at home?


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Monitoring the activity of all 7 front speakers simultaneously (LCR, Lsc/Rsc, Lc/Rc), I have noticed horizontal on-screen sound steering, where sounds are connected to visual objects positioned between L/R and Center speaker. Since with larger projection screens the first pair of overheads (at home the front heights speakers) are positioned close to the screen, mixers might have started using those for positioning sound objects connected to visual objects close to the top of the screen. Anyone who did actually already witness such vertical on-screen sound steering in a commercial venue or at home?


No way to monitor such activity on consumer level products.

I have however noticed something like that on two ocasions:

Red Tails(Auro 3D), where a plane moved at the top of the screen, and the sound followed it exactly.

Power Rangers(Atmos), when they first discover the underground/water layer, and as they move out of the water(diving downwards), the camera is shooting 90 degrees vertically(?), so up is right(on the screen), and down is left. And so the whole soundfield is rotated 90 degrees, and as such use the heights as the "right" side sounds(according to what is happening on screen). Very cool effect.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Power Rangers(Atmos), when they first discover the underground/water layer, and as they move out of the water(diving downwards), the camera is shooting 90 degrees vertically(?), so up is right(on the screen), and down is left. And so the whole soundfield is rotated 90 degrees, and as such use the heights as the "right" side sounds(according to what is happening on screen). Very cool effect.


Would be interesting to check whether the '90 degrees turned right-side sound' comes exclusively from the front heights and not from the Top Fronts with both pair activated (on the same processor that is..  ). Have to get that disk to check it though...


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> We should be very careful with our terminology here - cinemas are *still* not bass managed in the way that most of us think of as bass management. Yes, Atmos uses bass management for the surround arrays, but they are bass managing only the surrounds and using subwoofers physically co-located with their respective surround speakers (i.e. left side of the auditorium for left surround, right side for right, ceiling for the ceiling arrays). The screen channels are still full-range, and the primary subwoofer arrays are still reproducing only the LFE channel, not reproducing re-directed bass from the entire soundtrack.


Yep!



dschulz said:


> It sort of did, though, at least with theatrical mixes. DTS explicitly high-passed the surrounds at 80hz, but even for Dolby Digital or, later, 5.1 or 7.1 PCM for digital cinema there was some recognition that surround arrays tended to not be full-range. I mean there may have been some mixers who disregarded this and mixed full range surrounds, but in general standard practice was to accept that the surrounds were not full range and to mix accordingly. It was only with the advent of Atmos that the mixers were told explicitly by Dolby that now the surrounds (both channels and object reproduction) are full range (because the surrounds are bass managed), and could be utilized more fully in a creative way.


Again... increased in output of these better mixes, sure. But I can go through my entire catalog of movies dating back 20 years old that have full range use of surrounds. Maybe not as much as a movie from right now but still. It's not new. Just ...better utilized now.

We have had full range surrounds, officially in digital format, since 1992. Objects didn't change anything here.




dschulz said:


> Agreed! And despite what I said above, I really doubt whether Atmos is leading to tighter bass in our home video mixes.


Exactly. 

This entire tangent sparked from a thought that Atmos increased bass tightness and even lowered in room ringing compared to non-Atmos. 

But objects and surround bass management. Yeah.


----------



## AndreNewman

Scott Simonian said:


> Yep!
> 
> 
> 
> Again... increased in output of these better mixes, sure. But I can go through my entire catalog of movies dating back 20 years old that have full range use of surrounds. Maybe not as much as a movie from right now but still. It's not new. Just ...better utilized now.
> 
> We have had full range surrounds, officially in digital format, since 1992. Objects didn't change anything here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> This entire tangent sparked from a thought that Atmos increased bass tightness and even lowered in room ringing compared to non-Atmos.
> 
> But objects and surround bass management. Yeah.




Tangents, around here? Nah, ooh look, a squirrel.


----------



## Ted99

MagnumX said:


> Has anyone considered the speaker location relative to the screen? At many movie theaters (less so with stadium seating), the screen is well above ear height, especially the center point. Should the surround speakers (which until Atmos and/or 7.1 weren't called "side" surrounds as directly to the sides isn't always optimal for the more diffuse effects, especially with 5.1 which is why we saw dipole and bipolar models for the home to simulate something closer to arrays of speakers and those did do better closer to the sides.
> 
> But the idea of a car going along side the listener only really makes sense if the screen is closer to eye/head level since the car position is on the screen. If that screen is well above ear level then it makes no sense to have it drive "down hill" as it moves into the back of the room. Combined with obvious benefits to avoiding hot spotting I don't see why the older rules wouldn't still apply for such installs (i.e. About 2/3 up the wall). My home theater currently still using 6.1 has bipoles (PSB S50) mounted at about 105 degrees and 2/3 up the wall. My screen center is also about even with the bottom of these speakers. Generally surround effects are in line with the screen and things like the pirate flag flapping on the Disney castle in On Stranger Tides opening sound just above my head as it flies into view on the screen from behind, right where it appears to be.
> 
> If anything, it's my front speakers sitting just under the screen that don't perfectly align with what's happening on screen, although one's brain tends to place the sound where you see it when it's close (only way to get it perfect is with an audio transparent screen with the speakers behind it like at the theater. But putting my surrounds lower will definitely lower the height relative to the screen for all effects, especially if I went with direct pointing speakers which would localize even more. Height effects are already technically overhead, although not as high as ceiling speakers would place them.
> 
> So what's more important? Do you want things to align with visuals or have more separation between surrounds and ceiling speakers with a screen that's not right at eye level? I don't think it's quite as formulaic cut and dried as some comments suggest. Clearly, some theater installs have reasons for what they're doing. That photo clearly has a projector. The screen height from that angle isn't immediately apparent in that one photo, but if it's higher than eye level like many theaters it might make at least some sense to have the surrounds higher than just above ear level so it aligns with the plane of the screen.


My screen center is 2 1/2 feet above eye/ear level. I have two center speakers with one just under the screen pointed at my ears and one at the top of the screen (5' up) pointed at my ears. Each is fed with it's own volume-adjustable amp from a "Y" connector to the pre-pro Center out. The volumes were adjusted manually to give a phantom image roughly from the center of the screen and then Eq'd by Audyssey with the rest of the speaker array. Works well for dialog, but in the example of the car moving from front to sides to rears, car sound starts high and then drops to ear level (all surrounds are at ear level) as it progresses. I have to listen for this. All in all, since dialog is the dominant mode for the center, I'm happy to lose a little vertical directionality for a front to side pan.


----------



## MagnumX

Ted99 said:


> Works well for dialog, but in the example of the car moving from front to sides to rears, car sound starts high and then drops to ear level (all surrounds are at ear level) as it progresses. I have to listen for this. All in all, since dialog is the dominant mode for the center, I'm happy to lose a little vertical directionality for a front to side pan.


You could try the surrounds at the same height as the centers for a consistent sound field. As long as they're not too high up you'll still have plenty of separation for the height channels. My bipoles are around two feet above ear level and they don't sound like a ceiling speaker or "hat" and line up with the action on the screen plus aircraft are at least overhead and not at ear level even without Atmos. 

It's a little odder for some music only surround (e.g. DTS or SACD surround music discs) as the screen isn't used. A track from Alan Parsons On Air has the vocalist walking around the room with a guitar and singing and it sounds like he's about seven feet tall but then I have another system upstairs with Carver ribbons I use for music only most of the time.

Guidelines are just that. Ultimately, use what you like best not what someone else thinks you should. You're the one that's going to be listening to it not them.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Would be interesting to check whether the '90 degrees turned right-side sound' comes exclusively from the front heights and not from the Top Fronts with both pair activated (on the same processor that is..  ). Have to get that disk to check it though...


Agreed. But as i can not have front height and top front from one processor, i can't answer that.

In my setup, with 2 processors, both front height and top front, has to have those sounds, because as we know, all overhead sounds gets extracted from ear level, regardless of designation.

Nevertheless a very cool and creative way of doing that sound scene(i believe @FilmMixer did the sound on this movie).


----------



## Kain

Would you guys say 7.1.4 is a "handicapped" version of Atmos and that you really need a Trinnov with more than a 7.1.4 setup to accurately convey what Atmos is all about? Or is 7.1.4 adequate enough for you to "hear the whole picture"?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Would you guys say 7.1.4 is a "handicapped" version of Atmos and that you really need a Trinnov with more than a 7.1.4 setup to accurately convey what Atmos is all about?


Absolutely not.

Thankfully when the hardware supports it, one can achieve even better spatial precision if 7.1.4 doesn't do it for you.





Kain said:


> Or is 7.1.4 adequate enough for you to "hear the whole picture"?


I consider the four discrete overhead outputs as quite a significant upgrade from 7.1 audio.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Ted99 said:


> My screen center is 2 1/2 feet above eye/ear level.


Just curious, why? What's the height of the lower C speaker? 

Anyway, if voices image at ear level but cars image higher, rolling off the high frequencies of the upper speaker might help. Easier said than done, I realize. I have various analog EQs sitting around, so something like that might be worth a try. Or aiming the speaker straight out rather than down toward you. Or drop the level on the upper speaker a wee bit. Might strike a good compromise between dialog and cars. Just a thought.

If someone could figure out a great way to get dialog to image where there's no speaker (vertically), it would be a boon to the next gen direct view screens that will eventually replace projectors.


----------



## blackspider

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow. Unbelievable. That cost should be absorbed into the cost of the hardware by Microsoft.


Dolby atmos for movies & games on xbox one don't need a license fee, its only for dolby atmos headphones, i hope you UNDERSTAND what i said?
all xbox one consoles are capable of DOLBY ATMOS for films & video games for Free, can't make myself more clear now. Does ps4 have dolby atmos support for movies & games?
i m not sure it does, also for surround sound it uses some lame sony format that sounds crap.

Cheers.


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> Or drop the level on the upper speaker a wee bit. Might strike a good compromise between dialog and cars. Just a thought.


I use that solution. I lower the channel level on the center speaker above the screen to where it can't be heard, and then increase it again to where speach is lifted to the center of screen. Works very well, kind of like Yamaha's dialog lift.


----------



## MagnumX

Roger Dressler said:


> .
> If someone could figure out a great way to get dialog to image where there's no speaker (vertically), it would be a boon to the next gen direct view screens that will eventually replace projectors.


I think DSP manipulation can simulate speakers in different positions to some extent, especially short distance differences.

But replace projectors? I don't see all of them being replaced at home ever really as they are so much more flexible for rooms that won't support a hanging set (or where the spouse won't allow it). 

For example, my screen drops down in front of closing blackout drapes that sit in front of a window. You can't put a TV there no matter how thin or light it is, but a drop down screen works great and can be retracted completely out of the way, allowing the window to be used when not watching the projector. 

You can even get screens that retract into the attic, leaving only a slit in the ceiling and projector boxes that retract into the ceiling as well leaving a room virtually untouched in appearance (speakers mounted in wall flush and equipment in a closet).

Thin screens emulate a picture frame very well, but they still have limits.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Roger Dressler said:


> If someone could figure out a great way to get dialog to image where there's no speaker (vertically), it would be a boon to the next gen direct view screens that will eventually replace projectors.


Yamaha has had their 'Dialog Lift' feature for a long, long time.

It uses the front "presence" speakers to help push the image of the CC up higher.


----------



## audiofan1

Kain said:


> Would you guys say 7.1.4 is a "handicapped" version of Atmos and that you really need a Trinnov with more than a 7.1.4 setup to accurately convey what Atmos is all about? Or is 7.1.4 adequate enough for you to "hear the whole picture"?


Not by a long shot 7.1.4 should get the job done! If ever in doubt grab an Atmos demo disc as it will point to the real handicap


----------



## Sam Ash

Roger Dressler said:


> If someone could figure out a great way to get dialog to image where there's no speaker (vertically), it would be a boon to the next gen direct view screens that will eventually replace projectors.


Hi Roger, I've always thought about that. Displays are getting larger and will probably replace projectors. However, I really appreciate a projected image, I find it soothing and easy on the eyes.

Furthermore, I still prefer DPLII for up-mixing 2 channel music to 7.1 channels, I really don't like how DSU up-mixes music to any number of channels. Can you shed some light on this Roger, I know you were part of the DPLII DNA.


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> If someone could figure out a great way to get dialog to image where there's no speaker (vertically), it would be a boon to the next gen direct view screens that will eventually replace projectors.



Like refining the new Sony A1 OLED screen based acoustic surface for a larger screen... 

Or Samsung Cinema Screen with Harman Audio (I assume they must be leveraging some kind of Trinnov tech in there...). 

The Iosono technology that let you use multiple speakers to render bed audio so there no sweet spot should be able to be fairly well suited as a starting point. 

Exciting times for sure... 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Roger Dressler

Sam Ash said:


> Furthermore, I still prefer DPLII for up-mixing 2 channel music to 7.1 channels, I really don't like how DSU up-mixes music to any number of channels. Can you shed some light on this Roger, I know you were part of the DPLII DNA.


I can shed on this, but it might not be light.  I'm not going to do this subject justice, but that won't stop me from providing an answer. 

1) The goals of the DSU and PLII designers were significantly different. PLII was designed by Jim Fosgate first as a music processor, the culmination of his many years in that pursuit. It was aimed at processing 2-ch sources into 5 outputs (and a couple years later to 7 with PLIIx). Based only on my speculative observations, DSU appears to have been designed to take 5.1 movies to "new heights" with 7.1.4 or more speakers. It does that admirably well.

2) The underlying upmixing techniques are very different. PLIIx uses wideband logic steering. The dominant sounds control the process, so less dominant sounds fall where they may -- which usually means they are redistributed. For example, the main singer stays up front but background singers spread into the surrounds. If you listen to the surrounds with the fronts muted, you still get a stereo effect.

DSU uses multiband processing. It's very sophisticated in its ability to "de-compose" sounds based on spectrum and correlation index. In some senses it works like magic, it's so adept at separating coherent elements from spatial, uncorrelated elements. That, in my opinion, is its undoing for stereo music applications. I suspect it was tasked with handling 2-ch music, partly because PLIIz could not go far enough, and partly because it was time to use technology originated within Dolby. 

At the risk of gross oversimplification, with DSU the vocalist and background singers stay up front, and what is left for the surrounds is the pure uncorrelated stuff. That tends to be a directionless, amorphous cloud of sound with a tilt toward the higher frequencies (where things are naturally less correlated). If you listen to the surrounds alone, it's not mono, but it's not stereo in the usual sense either. 

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## audioguy

*Some comments on the alleged requirement for ceiling speakers to be of the same brand/make/model as the other speakers in the room.* 

My experience suggests otherwise. I am no speaker designer but do have a couple of functioning ears. I have heard home theaters with "matching" ceiling speakers and those that do not have "matching' speakers. With proper placement, some rational decisions on what ceiling speaker to purchase (dispersion pattern and efficiency are important considerations) AND a reasonable room correction system (which most are), I have yet to hear ANY issues that suggest that the ceiling speakers must be of the same brand/make/model.

Up until yesterday, I was using Tannoy DI6 DC ceiling speakers and just changed them out for RSL C34E ceiling speakers. As you can see from the following plot (ignore the blue line), the FR (uncorrected - red line) at the MLP is more than satisfactory. 










These are certainly not the only two speaker brands/models that will work, but only an indication that the "celling speakers MUST match" is an inaccurate position in real world applications. And, FWIW and IMHO, the RSL's are a steal at $250 per pair, shipped. And, the efficiency of both the Tannoy's (89) and the RSL's (88) were less than that of my Triad base level speakers (92).


----------



## Ted99

Nalleh said:


> I use that solution. I lower the channel level on the center speaker above the screen to where it can't be heard, and then increase it again to where speach is lifted to the center of screen. Works very well, kind of like Yamaha's dialog lift.


This is exactly the method I used to get a phantom center of screen image.


----------



## Ted99

Roger Dressler said:


> Just curious, why? What's the height of the lower C speaker?
> 
> Anyway, if voices image at ear level but cars image higher, rolling off the high frequencies of the upper speaker might help. Easier said than done, I realize. I have various analog EQs sitting around, so something like that might be worth a try. Or aiming the speaker straight out rather than down toward you. Or drop the level on the upper speaker a wee bit. Might strike a good compromise between dialog and cars. Just a thought.
> 
> If someone could figure out a great way to get dialog to image where there's no speaker (vertically), it would be a boon to the next gen direct view screens that will eventually replace projectors.


Height of the lower center is 30" (just below the screen) angled up to ear level. I've adjusted the upper center speaker level to give a phantom image from the center of the screen, which is 2 1/2 feet above the lower center and 2 1/2 feet below the upper center. Since the surround speakers are all at ear level, a front to side to rear pan starts from the center of the screen and drops to ear level as the object moves. My observation of movies is that the moving objects tend to be at the bottom of the screen, while dialog is from the center. A single center at the usual position at the lower edge of the screen would position the sound of a moving object (car) in the right place, but wrong for dialog. I've chosen to bias for dialog, since that's always present; while moving objects are less frequent.

I was hoping that the Sony OLED with the panel as sound transducer would have an analog external input for mono use as a center speaker. It doesn't. That feature, alone, would bias me to paying the Sony premium over LG for a 79" panel for my Living Room. I see that as the best fix for a center channel for large flat panels.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Agreed. But as i can not have front height and top front from one processor, i can't answer that.


I know


----------



## Scott Simonian

audioguy said:


> *Some comments on the alleged requirement for ceiling speakers to be of the same brand/make/model as the other speakers in the room.*
> 
> My experience suggests otherwise. I am no speaker designer but do have a couple of functioning ears. I have heard home theaters with "matching" ceiling speakers and those that do not have "matching' speakers. With proper placement, some rational decisions on what ceiling speaker to purchase (dispersion pattern and efficiency are important considerations) AND a reasonable room correction system (which most are), I have yet to hear ANY issues that suggest that the ceiling speakers must be of the same brand/make/model.
> 
> Up until yesterday, I was using Tannoy DI6 DC ceiling speakers and just changed them out for RSL C34E ceiling speakers. As you can see from the following plot (ignore the blue line), the FR (uncorrected - red line) at the MLP is more than satisfactory.
> 
> 
> 
> These are certainly not the only two speaker brands/models that will work, but only an indication that the "celling speakers MUST match" is an inaccurate position in real world applications. And, FWIW and IMHO, the RSL's are a steal at $250 per pair, shipped. And, the efficiency of both the Tannoy's (89) and the RSL's (88) were less than that of my Triad base level speakers (92).



I don't remember anyone saying they MUST match. But it is always a good choice to match speakers when possible.

I think with "proper placement, some rational decisions on what ceiling speaker to purchase (dispersion pattern and efficiency are important considerations) AND a reasonable room correction system" you can get good sound out of almost any speaker combination.

Not really sure what point the FR graph is doing but I'm glad you are getting nice results with new speakers. My room has three different sets of speakers. Mains, surrounds and overheads yet with enough calibration I can achieve a mostly cohesive surround "bubble".

So you had Tannoy overheads .... what is the rest of your system? Also Tannoy DI6 DC's?


----------



## audioguy

Scott Simonian said:


> I don't remember anyone saying they MUST match. But it is always a good choice to match speakers when possible.


I read that somewhere which prompted my post.



> Not really sure what point the FR graph is doing


Now that I think about it, neither do I. 



> So you had Tannoy overheads .... what is the rest of your system? Also Tannoy DI6 DC's?


LCR's: Triad Platinum LCR's; Surrounds: Triad Silver In-Room Monitors; SUBS: 8 Seaton F18 subs (2 Masters and 6 Slaves driven by 4000 watt amp in each Master -- 2 in each of the front two corners) and (4) F18's located along the rear wall; 3D Audio ceiling speakers: (4) RSL C34E's


----------



## Roger Dressler

Ted99 said:


> Height of the lower center is 30" (just below the screen) angled up to ear level. I've adjusted the upper center speaker level to give a phantom image from the center of the screen, which is 2 1/2 feet above the lower center and 2 1/2 feet below the upper center. Since the surround speakers are all at ear level, a front to side to rear pan starts from the center of the screen and drops to ear level as the object moves.


I totally respect your decision to add an upper center speaker, especially if it works for you, as you are keenly attuned to the elevation aspects. Just offering my observations, if I may:

Screen center (vertically) is not a strict requirement for cinema movie presentation. Can be ~1/3 to 1/2 from the bottom. 

Human hearing is much more acute laterally than vertically. Evolution and all that rot. A moderate vertical misalignment (say, less than 10 deg) between C and L/R passes without notice.

Thanks to "ventriloquist effect," the power of eyes dominating ears in determining locations of on-screen sources, our brains conspire to convince us that the apparent position of the actors' faces is the source of their voices, when it often is not. And even though we are more sensitive along the horizontal axis, it turns out to be distracting if the dialog is jumping back and forth "accurately", so positional dialog is used with care.

30" above the floor is higher than I have my center speaker, at 26", with the L/R at ear level (40"), about a 7 deg difference. When the lights are out, no one realizes the speaker is below the screen. Not saying it would not be ideal to have the C speaker behind the screen. I left room for that in my build, but decided in the end to use a non-AT screen in favor of picture quality. 

Carry on!


----------



## BCRSS

Could someone please explain how to get the over head speakers correctly configured? I understand the 30/45/55 degree angle from MLP, but what confuses me is the distance between each? And how or what angle to the L/R speakers. I would imagine the wider apart the overheads are to each other the wider the bubble. I look at the dolby guidelines and still can not figure it out.
I been reading and looking at these.



















Any help would be greatly appreciated. Just started to set my room up and looking into this before I order speakers and equipment.
thanks 
Curt


----------



## MagnumX

One thing that has always bothered me is how many films stick dialog in the center and call it quits. On a small TV at home that might make sense as left/right speakers are probably to the left and right of the TV, but on larger screens a voice could be several feet to the left or right of center and given lateral sensitivity this sounds strange. 

Fortunately, not all films and studios do that. Disney comes to mind for proper vocal placement relative to screen placement. But if you haven't watched one in awhile it can almost be a bit of a shock to notice dialog tracking position correctly. With all the extra space on Blu-Rays, I'd rather see some "small screen" and "large screen" mixes to select in a home theatre versus a living room or bedroom system than eight foreign languages I'll never use.


----------



## asarose247

I can read all of the above wrt the center channel(s) and decorrleation and beyond and I will also have to say . WHEW!. 

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting science stuff . . 

my "experimenting" this spring while convincing myself that I needed to upgrade my surrounds from the DIYSG F4's to a pair of "88 Specials",
the left at about 7+ ft and the right at 6+ wrt MLP,
was (finally - a verb!)
to play "Marble Halls, the Enya version (stereo) , for one, without a center channel and , iirc, using DSU and a few other modes . . .

Then I read this today:

" At the risk of gross oversimplification, with DSU the vocalist and background singers stay up front, and what is left for the surrounds is the pure uncorrelated stuff. That tends to be a directionless, amorphous cloud of sound with a tilt toward the higher frequencies (where things are naturally less correlated). If you listen to the surrounds alone, it's not mono, but it's not stereo in the usual sense either"

EXACTLY , my what I was hearing

In DSU, iirc, The bed layer all sounded identical, like a mono signal, "a directionless, amorphous cloud " all around and quietly so. boosting the MV really didn't change anything

Kick in the CC and it all came back. the spaciousness exploded and the voice dominating / projecting out into the room . .

Thanks for a great discussion . .keep it coming


----------



## asarose247

Spacing of tops, 

maybe helpful to @BCRSS

short version: 3 years ago Sanjay visited me to hear the Submaximus sub. The he asked me if I'd heard the good news.

ATMOS.

We spent an hour, him directing, and me up and down a step ladder.

Using the 45 degrees , it happened that my 4 tops formed a 7 foot square with the MLP in the center. and mostly inline with the fronts and rear surrounds

that's 45 degrees front , back and left and right . .

as my room is about 14.5 wide there, there a notion of a good degree of "symmetry" wrt separation form each other and the bed layer.

so maybe that helps with the planning


----------



## healthnut

Roger Dressler said:


> I totally respect your decision to add an upper center speaker, especially if it works for you, as you are keenly attuned to the elevation aspects. Just offering my observations, if I may:
> 
> 
> 
> Screen center (vertically) is not a strict requirement for cinema movie presentation. Can be ~1/3 to 1/2 from the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> Human hearing is much more acute laterally than vertically. Evolution and all that rot. A moderate vertical misalignment (say, less than 10 deg) between C and L/R passes without notice.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to "ventriloquist effect," the power of eyes dominating ears in determining locations of on-screen sources, our brains conspire to convince us that the apparent position of the actors' faces is the source of their voices, when it often is not. And even though we are more sensitive along the horizontal axis, it turns out to be distracting if the dialog is jumping back and forth "accurately", so positional dialog is used with care.
> 
> 
> 
> 30" above the floor is higher than I have my center speaker, at 26", with the L/R at ear level (40"), about a 7 deg difference. When the lights are out, no one realizes the speaker is below the screen. Not saying it would not be ideal to have the C speaker behind the screen. I left room for that in my build, but decided in the end to use a non-AT screen in favor of picture quality.
> 
> 
> 
> Carry on!




After considerable experimentation, some of it with very capable dedicated center speakers, I've had great success in my theater room with tower speakers in phantom mode. I recognize that comb filtering can be an issue and proper setup is essential, but I now use my best, most capable speakers for front and center duties, and they now sound superior to any dedicated center I've owned. I'm currently using Golden Ear Triton 5's, which image very well, but I've also used this method with other speakers and dialogue comes right where it's supposed to and the Triton's superior imaging make the voices exceptionally realistic. I personally will never go back to a horizontally oriented center speaker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

healthnut said:


> After considerable experimentation, some of it with very capable dedicated center speakers, I've had great success in my theater room with tower speakers in phantom mode.
> 
> I personally will never go back to a horizontally oriented center speaker.


A perfectly valid choice for centrally situated listener(s). Do you keep a center speaker on hand when you have people seated off-axis? Or is thus a solo operation?


----------



## healthnut

Roger Dressler said:


> A perfectly valid choice for centrally situated listener(s). Do you keep a center speaker on hand when you have people seated off-axis? Or is thus a solo operation?




I have a row of 3 seats, and I've sat on the ends with no discernible deficit. To make this work, each front speaker needs to be the same distance from the mlp, and appropriately toed in. I actually discovered this by accident, I was listening to some 2 channel material which I had assumed was multichannel, and was struck by how much BETTER it sounded than my dedicated center setup, particularly with voices. The tweeters on my fronts are close to seated ear level, so I think this also helps to place dialogue appropriately. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BCRSS

asarose247 said:


> Spacing of tops,
> 
> maybe helpful to @*BCRSS*
> 
> short version: 3 years ago Sanjay visited me to hear the Submaximus sub. The he asked me if I'd heard the good news.
> 
> ATMOS.
> 
> We spent an hour, him directing, and me up and down a step ladder.
> 
> Using the 45 degrees , it happened that my 4 tops formed a 7 foot square with the MLP in the center. and mostly inline with the fronts and rear surrounds
> 
> that's 45 degrees front , back and left and right . .
> 
> as my room is about 14.5 wide there, there a notion of a good degree of "symmetry" wrt separation form each other and the bed layer.
> 
> so maybe that helps with the planning



So I am assuming you picked a few points on ceiling that were 45 degrees from MLP and created a circle around those points on the ceiling?


----------



## TL5

Question: I sit about 10.5 feet from my LCR's and my surrounds are at about 90 degrees. Couch is about a foot off back wall, no option to move it forward. If I go Atmos, am I limited to just 2 overheads, or can I do 4? If I can do 4, where do I put them?


----------



## mrtickleuk

BCRSS said:


> Could someone please explain how to get the over head speakers correctly configured? I understand the 30/45/55 degree angle from MLP, but what confuses me is the distance between each?


The "??? distance" on your 2nd picture is simple Pythagoras. You have the angle, the distance which comes out of the Pythagoras calculation depends on the height of the ceiling above your head, which is specific to your room.

Ie, this result will then be used for the distance forward between point 1, MLP, and the *mid-point between the two speakers (6).* Call this "x". the distance between the mid-point of the no. 6's and the mid-point of the no. 7's on your second picture, will be "2x".

Then, for Atmos, you take that distance in front of you on the ceiling, and then trace a line left/right of it until you're in line with the front left/rights and put your top speakers there. So to the question how *far apart* the two no. 6 (top front) speakers are - that's easy, it's "the same distance apart as your no. 2 front speakers".

There was a "Atmos_Speaker_Placement" spreadsheet that's linked from one of the posts here. It does all the calculations (to get "x" etc) for you. Hopefully someone else will remember where it is. It's excellent.

EDIT: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...ad-home-theater-version-417.html#post34426890
*aaranddeeman*'s Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator and Validator spreadsheet.

The distance in front/behind the MLP is calculated slightly differently between Atmos and DTS:X but in many rooms they are pretty close to each other so as to make no difference.
Atmos only uses the elevation angle, shown on your second diagram as ranges of possible angles you can use. DTS:X uses not only an elevation angle but it specifies an azimuth angle of 45deg. This is why it is different to the Atmos "forward distance x, then across in line with your fronts" way of doing it.

HTH


----------



## gwsat

I want to ask a question, which I think regular posters to this thread are more likely to be able to answer because some of you are audio professionals and many are gifted hobbyists.

Over the past couple of days, I have been watching an old BBC series, _MI-5,_ on Hulu. The native audio codec is PCM 2.0. When I use my Yamaha 3060's Enhanced DSP, the 2.0 audio upconverts to 7.2..4, as expected, so there are surround and immersive effects, albeit fairly minor. Here's the rub, though. When I use the Dolby Surround Upmixer builtin to the 3060, the native 2.0 audio matrixes to only 7.2. The overheads remain silent. This puzzles me because a lot of programming I have heard was upconverted to 7.2.4 just fine with the Digital Surround DSP. Can anyone suggest why the Digital Surround DSP isn't giving me 7.2.4 with _MI-5's_ PCM 2.0 audio? Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## asarose247

@BCRSS

So I am assuming you picked a few points on ceiling that were 45 degrees from MLP and created a circle around those points on the ceiling? 

We picked points 45 degrees ahead, behind and also to the left and right , following interpretation of the guidelines,

circles were never mentioned

I suppose the assumption of being equi-distant from the mlp seemed self explanatory and good science. . .

and yes I assume its possible to draw a circle that would include the placement of the tops as a 7 ft sq. with the vertices of that square on the circumference of the circle.

breaking ti down . . 
half that square would be a 7 x 7 right triangle. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 - 49 +49 = 98, call C = 9.9 ft.

9.9 / 2 =4.95, which would be the radius, if one were to need to draw a circle wherein the circumference intersected the points that are the corners of the square .

now for SCATMOS, if one were going for all tops equi-distant from 1 central point, a circle makes perfect sense. 
I didn't do that but now I lowered my surrounds and mover them forward to about 75-80 degrees, I
I can revisit that geometry .

the sides of the square would put my TM's at a linear 3.5 feet from the mlp, a opposed to the 4.95 for the TF and TR . working as a plane measurement

maybe I can work with settings in the SCATMOS amps and add some delay, or change the distance, and check with a SPL meter ., etc.
or 
break out the tape measure and see how things measure up for keeping good spacing of the TM's relative to the base layer and particularly the surrounds

as my tops are Volt6's, turning a co-axial on its side is not much of a change

I like the "look" of the klipsch SLX as TM's, they tuck up there like it was almost a real plan.

rabbit hole -What rabbit hole?

HTH


----------



## asarose247

my "images" files was playing hide and seek after I re-did this laptop . .

so , once again -

SCATMOS


----------



## BCRSS

Thank you for the explanations. @asarose247 & @mrtickleuk I think I am ready to layout a rough idea of my placements now.


Hopefully by the end of this year I will have a fine setup.


Thanks again
Curt


----------



## healthnut

TL5 said:


> Question: I sit about 10.5 feet from my LCR's and my surrounds are at about 90 degrees. Couch is about a foot off back wall, no option to move it forward. If I go Atmos, am I limited to just 2 overheads, or can I do 4? If I can do 4, where do I put them?




You're realistically limited to 2, and I'd recommend placing them directly overhead. You'd still get a good effect, just no panning in the coronal plane. You're also going to have bass issues sitting that far back, but that's another conversation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audioguy

healthnut said:


> You're realistically limited to 2, and I'd recommend placing them directly overhead. You'd still get a good effect, just no panning in the coronal plane. *You're also going to have bass issues sitting that far back*, but that's another conversation.


Agreed but some judicial use of EQ should ameliorate it to a great extent.


----------



## TL5

healthnut said:


> You're realistically limited to 2, and I'd recommend placing them directly overhead. You'd still get a good effect, just no panning in the coronal plane. You're also going to have bass issues sitting that far back, but that's another conversation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So if that's the case, am I better off with 4 atmos enabled speakers or 2 overheads?


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> One thing that has always bothered me is how many films stick dialog in the center and call it quits. On a small TV at home that might make sense as left/right speakers are probably to the left and right of the TV, but on larger screens a voice could be several feet to the left or right of center and given lateral sensitivity this sounds strange.
> 
> Fortunately, not all films and studios do that. Disney comes to mind for proper vocal placement relative to screen placement. But if you haven't watched one in awhile it can almost be a bit of a shock to notice dialog tracking position correctly. With all the extra space on Blu-Rays, I'd rather see some "small screen" and "large screen" mixes to select in a home theatre versus a living room or bedroom system than eight foreign languages I'll never use.


Studios don't mix films.. mixers do. The real, only practice effect the studios directly have on how a film sounds has to do with the amount of money they have budgeted to post sound... they also have a strong voice in who the mixers will be, but that usually has more to do with the relationship the mixer has with the director and/or producers. 

There are many reasons why you can't/don't pan dialog...... the main practical one being that on films that aren't animated, the production sound usually contains a lot of extraneous noise/ambience that doesn't lend well to panning. 

And even when you can, you don't always want to... film is a flat 2 dimension image with spatial and temporal disruptions (picture cuts and camera placement changes)... so while in real life, voices follow people, it can be extremely disconcerning when an actor moves from one side of the screen to the extreme other on a cut.. completely un-natrual, and panning dialog sometimes calls attention to that... we're supposed to help tell the story and not call attention to the sound.. 

Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should.

That reason alone should explain why it's prevalent on "Disney" films (I think you can use that term to talk about animated films in general...) All of the dialog is recorded in a controlled studio environment. You have complete control over the sound of the voices. I honestly found a lot of the early Disney/Pixar pan fests distracting, and also very disjointing depending on where you sat in the theater...

You can't solve for everyones setup via a different mix... some TV's have speakers on the LR of the screen, some tv's don't.. some home theaters do, some don't 

It would be impractical (and foolish) to try and chase that down.. are you then supposed to re-pan all of the effects and music? You must mix it for the intended aspect ratio.... 

Just my .02.


----------



## healthnut

TL5 said:


> So if that's the case, am I better off with 4 atmos enabled speakers or 2 overheads?




My initial reaction would be the 2 overheads. Some have reported good results with AE speakers, but the ceiling material, distance and other variables make it very unpredictable from setup to setup. It's easier to get good results with overheads and the consensus is that the audio experience is superior. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

@filmmixer 

I read an article on panning dialog at some point which is when I started noticing when it was used. It seems like 70mm films had something to do with it. A search shows that's when they first experimenting with it and I gather it's commonly used in Imax documentaries due to the extreme screen size. Perhaps Disney was mentioned or I noticed it there since I believe Tron used it (it was 70mm) and certainly Pixar (e.g. Cars). Gravity makes extensive use of it as well.

The question of what is realistic versus "distracting" seems to come up with surround sound a lot. Using mostly mono type surround effects when 5.1 first came out was often attributed to not wanting to distract viewers from the screen (some argued Pro Logic was all that was needed) while others realized that's not distraction, but immersion. People go to great lengths to create ceiling 'distractions' these days, for example. Whether someone likes the effect or not is subjective. I know someone that prefers mono for everything and wishes explosions weren't so darn loud, but others live for it. To each their own. 

Personally, I think some people are just so used to dialog in the center only they forget how totally unrealistic it is (while apparently wanting more "realism" with ceiling speakers and the like and yet locked tight dialog is somehow OK?) You've got people putting center speakers both above and below their screens to get phantom image dialog centered on the screen and yet they don't mind the guy on the left talking to the guy on the right with both their voices coming from the middle where neither is at? Yeah, I have to disagree with that practice.

And no you (obviously) wouldn't remix everything for panned dialog. Just dialog. (sigh)


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> @filmmixer
> 
> I read an article on panning dialog at some point which is when I started noticing when it was used. It seems like 70mm films had something to do with it. A search shows that's when they first experimenting with it and I gather it's commonly used in Imax documentaries due to the extreme screen size. Perhaps Disney was mentioned or I noticed it there since I believe Tron used it (it was 70mm) and certainly Pixar (e.g. Cars). Gravity makes extensive use of it as well.
> 
> The question of what is realistic versus "distracting" seems to come up with surround sound a lot. Using mostly mono type surround effects when 5.1 first came out was often attributed to not wanting to distract viewers from the screen (some argued Pro Logic was all that was needed) while others realized that's not distraction, but immersion. People go to great lengths to create ceiling 'distractions' these days, for example. Whether someone likes the effect or not is subjective. I know someone that prefers mono for everything and wishes explosions weren't so darn loud, but others live for it. To each their own.
> 
> Personally, I think some people are just so used to dialog in the center only they forget how totally unrealistic it is (while apparently wanting more "realism" with ceiling speakers and the like and yet locked tight dialog is somehow OK?) You've got people putting center speakers both above and below their screens to get phantom image dialog centered on the screen and yet they don't mind the guy on the left talking to the guy on the right with both their voices coming from the middle where neither is at? Yeah, I have to disagree with that practice.
> 
> And no you (obviously) wouldn't remix everything for panned dialog. Just dialog. (sigh)



What if the guy and the left and right talk at the same time? Then you can't separate them. 

Did I say to never do it? No I did not... go listen to Power Rangers... 

Yes... it works great in Gravity... a film that was designed with many locked down (and physically impossible to do in real life) camera shots. 

You seem to be the only one actively complaining... you shouldn't ascribe your gripe with everyone else on these boards (for example those with upper and lower C speakers.)

You're entitled to your opinion. So you can disagree (or 'sigh') all you want.

But I make a living for giving mine . 

Not every mixer agrees... but you seem fairy incapable of reading what I said and understanding that they are valid point and limitations.... discretion is always a factor... as is every other of the thousands and thousands of decisions that go into a mix. 

Regarding your last point... what about foley, or sound effects that accompany the dialog? So no, it's not "obviously..." 

Sorry... to say you only need to redo the dialog is a grossly uniformed statement IMO.


----------



## jm10

BCRSS said:


> Any help would be greatly appreciated. Just started to set my room up and looking into this before I order speakers and equipment.
> thanks
> Curt


Review the Atmos Home Theater guide (PDF) as it explains everything. Your Tops should be in-line with your L & R..that will set their wide distance. Then they should be at 45 angle from MLP. Measure your ear height to the ceiling and put them at that distance (front & back) from the MLP. If impractical, do your best to stay close.


----------



## Nalleh

MagnumX said:


> Personally, I think some people are just so used to dialog in the center only they forget how totally unrealistic it is (while apparently wanting more "realism" with ceiling speakers and the like and yet locked tight dialog is somehow OK?) You've got people putting center speakers both above and below their screens to get phantom image dialog centered on the screen and yet they don't mind the guy on the left talking to the guy on the right with both their voices coming from the middle where neither is at? Yeah, I have to disagree with that practice.


I actually agree with you here. It seems that dialog is "locked" to the center, no matter where the person speaking is placed in the scene. And i find that unrealistic too.
Another example: two people talking, one on the screen, the other out of screen, in the back of the room(behind where you sit and watch the movie). But still both voices come from the center. 

I find it spectacular when what happens on screen is followed by what you hear. Like the opening scene in Power Rangers, when he drives and crashes the car, the camera changes all around, and the sounds mirror that change. Very cool, and as it should be, in my opinion.

The very famous scene in a episode of Daredevil, where the camera pans 360 degrees in a car, while a man in the backseat sings, is also a "textbook" example of how what you see and hear is in sync.


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> Studios don't mix films.. mixers do. ... we're supposed to help tell the story and not call attention to the sound..


As it happens my wife and I just this minute finished watching (for the very first time) Matt Dillon's _City of Ghosts_ (2002). It's hard for me to believe that this was Dillon's sole feature film as writer/director. Everything about it--story, dialogue, acting, direction, character development, camera work, locations, and editing--was just stunning. As you say, the soundtrack put us right in the exotic settings where the action takes place without calling attention to itself.

And, lo and behold, whose name did we spot in the end credits but our very own @*FilmMixer*! Well done, sir!


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> What if the guy and the left and right talk at the same time? Then you can't separate them.


You're making up hypothetical scenarios without a lot of variables provided. How were these people miked on separate sides of the viewing screen and yet have no separation in their vocals? Are you implying they didn't record in stereo, which provides separation automatically and can be widened artificially? Why didn't they? If a movie is filmed with panned vocals in mind, you wouldn't use a mono mike to film dialog with two people talking at the same time on opposite sides of the screen. What do they do if there's too much noise or other issues? Do they not re-record the dialog in a studio room while watching the film bit to line it up? Or did you think I want all old movies redone as opposed to the idea of using modern speaker systems to their actual capability instead of the 1980s?

What I'm saying is that panned vocals CAN work when they're planned for. A technical issue for one scene or a problem with the way a movie was filmed and audio recorded is a technical would be an issue, yes. But clearly there are ways to do things and when a movie is being made to re-record vocals over top a noisy scene, etc.

Thus, what I'm saying is that my comments on PREFERRING correlation of sounds on screen with their position in the soundtrack are not a commentary on how to do your job or whether you're good at it, etc. I've never watched Power Rangers (what else have you done?) and I have no interest in watching that movie due to the subject matter. My comments are in general about movies I've seen with more (maybe not "all") vocals correlated versus the many many movies I've seen where everything is just thrown into the center whether it matches the screen or not. That strikes me as both lazy and unrealistic. I know there are other reasons given for why it's done (clear vocals for the entire audience in a theater, etc.), but that's less of a problem now with say 5 speakers across the screen than 3. Certainly, Atmos could have added even more if they wanted to make it even more seamless for all seats. But while "Cars" might place a vocal off-screen in my living room TV with speakers off to the sides, it does a great job in my home theater where the speakers are at the left/right screen edges and everything comes pretty close to where it's at on-screen. 

Some movies only move the dialog when it's at the extreme edges, but that's better than nothing, IMO. Maybe it's not always possible to put them perfectly where they are due to how it was recorded, etc. and certainly going back and editing old movies might be difficult to do at this point, but then we live in an age where they are often able to go back and take a movie that was only in stereo in the 1970s and make it 5.1 or 7.1 or even Atmos TODAY. 

I've been trying to point out how "taste" for mixes has changed over the years. Where the thought of stereo surround speakers was once distasteful for many people (it would be a distraction!), it's now commonplace and many people seem to enjoy it. How many would enjoy panned dialog if it were the norm instead of the exception? How much of that "unnatural" feeling is due to being used to what is common now rather than an actual problem with what is clearly more realistic (i.e. sound coming from where the source is on-screen)? You might hate it. That's OK. I didn't say you had to agree with me. I simply voiced an opinion.



> Did I say to never do it? No I did not... go listen to Power Rangers...


I really don't want to watch Power Rangers (nothing to do with your mix; I simply never got into Power Rangers as a kid and have zero interest in the movie in general and I'm not going to buy it just to hear an example of your mix).



> You seem to be the only one actively complaining


I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with anything? Why is giving my opinion "complaining" anyway? Do 1 million people have to agree with me for someone to bring something up on these forums? How many people have even thought about it? People take it for granted that dialog comes from the center. But when you watch a movie where it comes from the source on the screen, it's an ear opener. I happen to think it's better that way. Clearly, you seem to disagree enough to argue about it. I really didn't post the comment to create an argument.



> ... you shouldn't ascribe your gripe with everyone else on these boards (for example those with upper and lower C speakers.)


That has nothing to do with it. I'm pointing out that some people are very picky about sound placement to the nth degree where it really doesn't even matter (height or y-axis isn't as noticeable as left/right x-axis) but apparently don't notice or _care_ (as you seem to think) how dialog sound placement never moves in many films. I simply pointed out that it does move in several films and I think it makes a lot more sense for sounds to come from the source that made them than the middle of the screen (at least when "possible"). 



> You're entitled to your opinion. So you can disagree (or 'sigh') all you want.


I'm sighing because you implied I wanted a whole new soundtrack made from scratch. We have headphone mixes now and even DTS NEO: X mix in at least one case, but the idea that we could have an option for accurate dialog placement is just impossible? Actually, it would probably be best to mix for accurate dialog placement and then dump everything to center for the old-fashioned mix. It's not hard to put things in the center, after all. If I delete a pan in Logic Pro, it goes back to the center default placement. We can make 5.1 or 7.1 mixes from movies that were originally released in stereo only, but panning a vocal apparently is too much to ask for. 



> But I make a living for giving mine .


The fact other mixers have panned dialog tells me that I'm arguing with little more than the opinion of one person. And I don't even know why I'm arguing. I made a comment about preference and you attacked it. Hey, have at it. You've got your fan entourage here to agree with every post you make where I'm loathed for giving a contradictory opinion. And so I'm "all alone" in that opinion on the whole wide planet? That's why movies like Gravity and Cars use panned dialog. Because NO ONE else likes it? (and I mean film mixers, not the audience who is not asked what they would prefer!)



> Not every mixer agrees... but you seem fairy incapable of reading what I said and understanding that they are valid point and limitations.... discretion is always a factor... as is every other of the thousands and thousands of decisions that go into a mix.


Yes, I can't understand anything you say! You must speak more slowly! 



> Regarding your last point... what about foley, or sound effects that accompany the dialog? So no, it's not "obviously..."


What about them? Where are they at? Are you telling me they're better off in the "center" than the left or right when the center is WRONG for the dialog where you can clearly see their mouths moving, but this supposed sound effect matters that much? What kind of sound effect? Where is it at? You just interject abstract examples and then complain you can't separate them when that's no worse than having sound that should be from the left side of the screen come out of the center instead! Why is THAT acceptable to you but having some "sound effect" in the wrong place isn't? Maybe you should edit out the sound effect that's causing the problem and insert another one in the mix instead if it's such a big problem (probably easier to do than getting the actors to re-record their dialog).



> Sorry... to say you only need to redo the dialog is a grossly uniformed statement IMO.


You asked if they were supposed to redo everything and I said no. That doesn't address every single possibility, obviously. But it doesn't mean redo every single sound effect used either! Apparently, you weren't asking a question but being sarcastic and nasty because I'm questioning sound mixes and that's your livelihood so therefore everyone else that isn't also a film sound mixer for a living is apparently incapable of talking about the subject or giving opinions.

Hey, don't worry. Everyone will agree with you anyway. I'm hated (and I don't care since I'm not in high school).


----------



## FilmMixer

Nalleh said:


> I actually agree with you here. It seems that dialog is "locked" to the center, no matter where the person speaking is placed in the scene. And i find that unrealistic too.
> 
> Another example: two people talking, one on the screen, the other out of screen, in the back of the room(behind where you sit and watch the movie). But still both voices come from the center.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it spectacular when what happens on screen is followed by what you hear. Like the opening scene in Power Rangers, when he drives and crashes the car, the camera changes all around, and the sounds mirror that change. Very cool, and as it should be, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> The very famous scene in a episode of Daredevil, where the camera pans 360 degrees in a car, while a man in the backseat sings, is also a "textbook" example of how what you see and hear is in sync.



My entire original point was :

1. Sometimes for technical reasons you aren't able to do that. 

2. Sometimes you don't want to when you can because it doesn't serve the story, either visually or dramatically. 
@MagnumX suggested we should offer 2 mixes for home heater. Which makes no sense.... you can't account for every setup. We all know where speakers are supposed to exist in relation to a the image in all of the various aspect ratios in which films are presented. 

To creat a mix for one person who has speakers outside the LR and those who doesn't would be foolish. 

And as he has again shown in his lengthy reply to me, he doesn't understand why it isn't simple... but I don't need to keep beating that red horse. 

Both of those examples you listed of my work were prime example of the movement helping to tell the story and of me also being able to technically be able to do it (in daredevil the production sound was clean...). 

Again... sometimes you can't separate two characters entirely so that dictates your choices. Sometimes you want characters to be in the same space dramatically, which is why both or more voices in the center makes sense (and the opposite holds true when you want to creat a divide between them ...)

Let me say something that I hope isn't taken as egotistical.... but I was hired for Daredevil exactly because I bring this kind of thought process and sensibility to my work. 

So I'm not trying to dismiss what you or others may like. But I think it's a mistake to be critical of the practice without knowing all of the reasons what it is or isn't more ubiquitous. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

chi_guy50 said:


> As it happens my wife and I just this minute finished watching (for the very first time) Matt Dillon's _City of Ghosts_ (2002). It's hard for me to believe that this was Dillon's sole feature film as writer/director. Everything about it--story, dialogue, acting, direction, character development, camera work, locations, and editing--was just stunning. As you say, the soundtrack put us right in the exotic settings where the action takes place without calling attention to itself.
> 
> And, lo and behold, whose name did we spot in the end credits but our very own @*FilmMixer*! Well done, sir!




Thanks Jeff. 

That's certainly an interesting film with a really great score. 

As a side note... Matt Dillon talked a lot about just being a huge study and sponge when was working as an actor on all those really great films he acted in. 

He certainly had some good teachers


----------



## Nalleh

FilmMixer said:


> My entire original point was :
> 
> 1. Sometimes for technical reasons you aren't able to do that.
> 
> 2. Sometimes you don't want to when you can because it doesn't serve the story, either visually or dramatically.
> @MagnumX suggested we should offer 2 mixes for home heater. Which makes no sense.... you can't account for every setup. We all know where speakers are supposed to exist in relation to a the image in all of the various aspect ratios in which films are presented.
> 
> To creat a mix for one person who has speakers outside the LR and those who doesn't would be foolish.
> 
> And as he has again shown in his lengthy reply to me, he doesn't understand why it isn't simple... but I don't need to keep beating that red horse.
> 
> Both of those examples you listed of my work were prime example of the movement helping to tell the story and of me also being able to technically be able to do it (in daredevil the production sound was clean...).
> 
> Again... sometimes you can't separate two characters entirely so that dictates your choices. Sometimes you want characters to be in the same space dramatically, which is why both or more voices in the center makes sense (and the opposite holds true when you want to creat a divide between them ...)
> 
> Let me say something that I hope isn't taken as egotistical.... but I was hired for Daredevil exactly because I bring this kind of thought process and sensibility to my work.
> 
> So I'm not trying to dismiss what you or others may like. But I think it's a mistake to be critical of the practice without knowing all of the reasons what it is or isn't more ubiquitous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sure, i get it. And i think we agree about how it "should" sound. And then corporate gets in the way 

I guess with all people just listen to TV speakers, they don't know any better, and finds it distracting when something sounds from any other place.

I prefer when it sounds "logical" in that sounds come from where they belong. And what i find distracting is when all voices is put in the same place in the center.


----------



## FilmMixer

Nalleh said:


> Sure, i get it. And i think we agree about how it "should" sound. And then corporate gets in the way



No..... we don't all don't agree..... 

I certainly don't share your opinion. 

What does "corporate" getting in the way have to do with this discussion? I don't understand that comment.


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> My entire original point was :
> 
> 1. Sometimes for technical reasons you aren't able to do that.


That would be understandable.



> 2. Sometimes you don't want to when you can because it doesn't serve the story, either visually or dramatically.


That's where it's subjective and where things have clearly been changing over time, especially in regards to surround sound usage. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out that precision placement of dialog on screen makes more sense than putting everything in the center. You've got a theater with over 100 speakers in it and yet dialog is dead center all the time? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.... Treat the bird calls better than the actors voices.

However, given almost all films put the dialog dead center with no thought to anything else, I think it's safe to say most mixing people agree with you. I think that will change. Imagine VR where the voices come from a plant in the center instead of the people on the left. THAT is my point. And besides technical reasons where separation or whatever is an issue, there is no excuse for it other than "that's the way it's always been done" or "it's less distracting" and yet _some_ movies choose to do more and I find them preferable for it.



> @*MagnumX* suggested we should offer 2 mixes for home heater. Which makes no sense.... you can't account for every setup.


Please. There are only TWO possible mixes needed to handle dialog for every single home theater out there!

Panned vocals _require_ standardized fixed setup locations (edges and center of screen) to reasonably well place voices where they're supposed to be (nothing is perfect, obviously). 

Anchored vocals can accommodate everything else imaginable out there (since they put ALL the vocals in the dead center where one would assume the screen would be unless someone likes having the TV on the far left). 

I count exactly TWO mixes required there not one for "every setup" imaginable. 

The ironic thing is that most films already use anchored vocals even though they were mixed for theaters, not homes. Thus, it's actually the cinema mixes I have an issue with, not what I would call the "home" mix in my suggested alternate choice setup. Yet even so, I don't recall tons of complaints about Cars or Gravity at home (you said I'm the only one complaining, but who complained when the opposite was done?). There may be lots of hybrid mixes as well (I haven't made a list). 

In fact, in truth, "most" people don't care or notice such things as they play the sound out of their TV set speakers....



> So I'm not trying to dismiss what you or others may like.


Of course you are. That's the entire point of arguing to death over a simple opinion about existing soundtracks. You think things are fine the way they are and people smarter than me or my neighbor should make those decisions and we should probably just STFU and not imply things could be done more accurately than having voices come out of the dead center regardless of what's happening on screen. 

Really, I'm not having any fun here. I have better things to do than argue about an OPINION I gave (and at least one other agreed with). I'd prefer more accuracy for dialog placement. You're defending the status quo and I really don't need your reasoning to defend it because I don't agree with your opinion that it's fine as it is. 

If one mixed for panned dialog, making an anchored dialog version would be relatively simple by comparison (move everything dialog related to the center; Logic Pro did this for me by default if I removed my panning on my rock album (yes it's two-channel, but panning is panning and I did mix for placement using PLIIx processing as an option and that was more difficult than panning to actual discrete channels to get the results I wanted). CENTER is the default location for panning or the lack thereof in Logic Pro. Maybe there would be a few trouble spots along the way for making a panned dialog track, but that's not something I would call unsolved mystery worthy. 

Clearly, several films have managed already. Whether it's worth doing, hey, that's a different question altogether than CAN it be done because for the most part, YES IT CAN. And there is no technical reason a panned dialog soundtrack couldn't be mixed to be an anchored dialog version. Include both and the home user can pick their poison (make anchored the default for most compatibility and people that don't know any better). Is it worth the bother? Probably not to the bean counters. But then asking for an HD version of Star Wars as it originally appeared in theaters is too much to ask as well (fortunately, someone else managed to do it on their own).


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> To create a mix for one person who has speakers outside the LR and those who doesn't would be foolish.


In the MDA / DTS:X technology this problem can be addressed with a combination of a) panned dialog objects, and b) a playback system that knows the L/R speaker locations and the viewing angle of the video screen (which may be the same or different). This means the dialog panning would always coordinate with whatever screen and speaker arrangement is present. One set of mixing decisions covers all "immersive" playback cases.

When such a mix is played on a standard system, the panning can be same as today, be it center dominant or with similar panning as may be deemed appropriate. It is a separate set of mix decisions to derive anything other than "all dialog comes from center" which could be automatic for the standard 5.1 mix.

Unfortunately, a combination of factors prevents this solution from being implemented, including: a) consumer renderers do not accept positional coordinates of speakers (as can be done in the cinema renderers) nor info about screen extents; b) consumer codecs are not quite free to devote sufficient bitrate resources to carrying dialog stems separately; and c) studios do not seem to like the idea of "dialog in the clear" being accessible to the public at large.


----------



## Nalleh

FilmMixer said:


> No..... we don't all don't agree.....
> 
> I certainly don't share your opinion.


The two examples i used are projects you mixed, and i said i liked the way they were done, so i figured "we agree". Maybe a oversimplification, in that case, my bad 




FilmMixer said:


> What does "corporate" getting in the way have to do with this discussion? I don't understand that comment.


Well, maybe bad choise of words, but when you get hired for a project, you are not calling ALL the shots, are you? Maybe the director, producer or others (corporate)have a say in how it ends up?

In others words, it may not end up 100% as you wanted it?


----------



## FilmMixer

Roger Dressler said:


> In the MDA / DTS:X technology this problem can be addressed with a combination of a) panned dialog objects, and b) a playback system that knows the L/R speaker locations and the viewing angle of the video screen (which may be the same or different). This means the dialog panning would always coordinate with whatever screen and speaker arrangement is present. One set of mixing decisions covers all "immersive" playback cases.
> 
> 
> 
> When such a mix is played on a standard system, the panning can be same as today, be it center dominant or with similar panning as may be deemed appropriate. It is a separate set of mix decisions to derive anything other than "all dialog comes from center" which could be automatic for the standard 5.1 mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, a combination of factors prevents this solution from being implemented, including: a) consumer renderers do not accept positional coordinates of speakers (as can be done in the cinema renderers) nor info about screen extents; b) consumer codecs are not quite free to devote sufficient bitrate resources to carrying dialog stems separately; and c) studios do not seem to like the idea of "dialog in the clear" being accessible to the public at large.



In the end, though, it still doesn't change the reasons why dialog might come out of an anchored speaker even when it doesn't match the visuals in a motion picture. (not even getting into the discussion of phantom imaging, comb filtering concerns, etc...)

To your point B, and as we've discussed in the past, separating the dialog isn't a very practical idea in terms of preserving the integrity of the mix... Foley, SFX BGs and other sounds are all crafted moved around in conjunction with dialog when it's panned out of the center.... 

Which then leads (partially) to your point C .


----------



## FilmMixer

Nalleh said:


> The two examples i used are projects you mixed, and i said i liked the way they were done, so i figured "we agree". Maybe a oversimplification, in that case, my bad
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe bad choise of words, but when you get hired for a project, you are not calling ALL the shots, are you? Maybe the director, producer or others (corporate)have a say in how it ends up?
> 
> 
> 
> In others words, it may not end up 100% as you wanted it?



IMO it just isn't always warranted. 
regardless of if it matches what's on screen. 

It's not technology or history or laziness or...... that has lead us to those decisions, or stopped us from grabbing the pan knob. 

My job is to get the directors vision up on the screen using sound the best way I know how. 

Director always (99%) have the final word.... my job is to interpret the story and present ideas. I'd say 90% of what we present stays as we present it for the first time... sometimes we're way off then and we all have to find what works, or more importantly what isn't working (we probably spend more time finding out what isn't needed than searching for what is missing.)

For example, in Power Rangers (spoiler alert......). When the kids are in the pit and Zordon is taking to them... I initially presented that as him coming out of the overheads (where he is logically located based on where the kids look...). 

So we completely matched the picture. It just sounded weird, disjointed and disconnected.... we all agreed and I presented him in the surrounds and used some verb in the OHs... it kept him closer to the main characters yet still had the impact of him being off screen... 

I think our other poster missed the entire framing of my reply to him. 

Simply put just because you can doesn't mean you should. That's not because technology has changed, etc... Atmos and MDA allows us to go nuts with panning. Or laziness.. or the status quo... (I might add I was involved with the first film to ever have an overhead channel/speaker...)

For a 2D image presented on a flat screen, making audio move around to match it at all times isn't always the best way to tell a story. 

If your paying attention to the panning (or lack of it) the director has failed to properly tell their story. 

And by the same token, when we use the tech available to us just to use it, we haven't done our job either.


----------



## AndreNewman

FilmMixer said:


> IMO it just isn't always warranted.
> regardless of if it matches what's on screen.
> 
> It's not technology or history or laziness or...... that has lead us to those decisions, or stopped us from grabbing the pan knob.
> 
> My job is to get the directors vision up on the screen using sound the best way I know how.
> 
> Director always (99%) have the final word.... my job is to interpret the story and present ideas. I'd say 90% of what we present stays as we present it for the first time... sometimes we're way off then and we all have to find what works, or more importantly what isn't working (we probably spend more time finding out what isn't needed than searching for what is missing.)
> 
> For example, in Power Rangers (spoiler alert......). When the kids are in the pit and Zordon is taking to them... I initially presented that as him coming out of the overheads (where he is logically located based on where the kids look...).
> 
> So we completely matched the picture. It just sounded weird, disjointed and disconnected.... we all agreed and I presented him in the surrounds and used some verb in the OHs... it kept him closer to the main characters yet still had the impact of him being off screen...
> 
> I think our other poster missed the entire framing of my reply to him.
> 
> Simply put just because you can doesn't mean you should. That's not because technology has changed, etc... Atmos and MDA allows us to go nuts with panning. Or laziness.. or the status quo... (I might add I was involved with the first film to ever have an overhead channel/speaker...)
> 
> For a 2D image presented on a flat screen, making audio move around to match it at all times isn't always the best way to tell a story.
> 
> If your paying attention to the panning (or lack of it) the director has failed to properly tell their story.
> 
> And by the same token, when we use the tech available to us just to use it, we haven't done our job either.




Well I rented Power Rangers just to hear your professional efforts, I wasn't going to buy it!

My overriding thought was, this will please the guys complaining that their overheads don't get enough exercise. The car crash scene was a stand out moment for me.

I guess I really need to hear it all again with only 7.1 to really pinpoint specific Atmos moments but I think that's a sign of good work, it sounds right and you only notice the details when they are gone.

My partners father is intrigued by atmos and wants to hear something that really shows the benefits. I invited him over but his response was, do you have any atmos for grownups?

I do have Gravity atmos edition but suggestions of other stand out work would be welcome.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

AndreNewman said:


> My partners father is intrigued by atmos and wants to hear something that really shows the benefits. I invited him over but his response was, do you have any atmos for grownups?
> 
> I do have Gravity atmos edition but suggestions of other stand out work would be welcome.


Hacksaw Ridge
Mad Max Fury Road
Deadpool UHD
Deepwater Horizon
Dredd UHD
Underworld UHD, very nice mix especially if you have front wides.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> In the MDA / DTS:X technology this problem can be addressed with a combination of a) panned dialog objects, and b) a playback system that knows the L/R speaker locations and the viewing angle of the video screen (which may be the same or different). This means the dialog panning would always coordinate with whatever screen and speaker arrangement is present. One set of mixing decisions covers all "immersive" playback cases


The AC-4 standard includes so-called screen speakers (Lsc/Rsc) which are positioned in-between L/R and C channels. Remarkably, when stepping up from a 7.x.4 to a 9.x.2 or 9.x.4 lay-out, it are those speakers that are added AND NOT the width speakers. I wonder if this may have anything to do with establishing a 'known' location of 'L/R' speakers, being flanking the screen, irrespective of the viewing angle. And there might be a relation to Atmos which also has Lscreen/Rscreen speakers, and which are here displayed just inside the borders of the screen:


















_Source_: *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*)


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: If your paying attention to the panning (or lack of it) the director has failed to properly tell their story. 

Sounds like a boxing analogy where if you don't notice the referee, then he or she has usually done a great job. The same with Dolby Atmos or any other sound mix for that matter? In other words - - if you're not overly paying attention to the sound theatrics then it's fully integrated with the story you are trying to tell and that is the primary focus.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> 1. Sometimes for technical reasons you aren't able to do that.





MagnumX said:


> That would be understandable.


I believe this discussion, together with the examples given, may be better understood if a distinction is made between: 
1. The RE-recording process (what @FilmMixer does), versus the Recording process which takes place before that (e.g. on the set), and 
2. On-screen sound steering (sound following on-screen objects), versus Off-screen sound steering (sounds from objects that are not on, or move away from the screen)


----------



## chi_guy50

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: If your paying attention to the panning (or lack of it) the director has failed to properly tell their story.
> 
> Sounds like a boxing analogy where if you don't notice the referee, then he or she has usually done a great job. The same with Dolby Atmos or any other sound mix for that matter? In other words - - if you're not overly paying attention to the sound theatrics then it's fully integrated with the story you are trying to tell and that is the primary focus.


My view is that it is a bit more nuanced than your boxing analogy would have it. 

If you are watching a film and your attention is distracted from the story by the sound design--whether on the one hand because it is disjointed from the action or on the other hand due to its prominence--that is less than ideal.

But if, as in the example I cited in my post above (_City of Ghosts_), you are drawn into the storytelling by the mix and only realize how well it was done after reflecting on the viewing experience--that is subtle craftsmanship at its finest.


----------



## Sanjay

srinivas1015 said:


> I managed to find the file uploaded elsewhere. Downloaded it along with a few other Atmos demos  .
> 
> 
> The thing is, even though I can hear the sounds coming from the height speakers, *it's often times hard to make out that it's coming from above.*
> 
> This is how my speakers are oriented:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that it's not the ideal setup, but I'm wondering whether to assign them as 'Rear Heights' or 'Top Middle Left/Right'. With the Top Middle position, they would be assigned to the current position, but the receiver would think they're oriented downwards. Whereas with the Rear Height orientation, the position would be incorrect (they're actually above the side speakers) but their orientation would be incorrect-- they're facing each other, not downwards.


Why not just install the speakers where they really ought to be, i.e. on the ceiling?


----------



## Ricoflashback

chi_guy50 said:


> My view is that it is a bit more nuanced than your boxing analogy would have it.
> 
> If you are watching a film and your attention is distracted from the story by the sound design--whether on the one hand because it is disjointed from the action or on the other hand due to its prominence--that is less than ideal.
> 
> But if, as in the example I cited in my post above (_City of Ghosts_), you are drawn into the storytelling by the mix and only realize how well it was done after reflecting on the viewing experience--that is subtle craftsmanship at its finest.


I don't do "nuance." Just kidding - good post.


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> My job is to get the directors vision up on the screen using sound the best way I know how.
> 
> Director always (99%) have the final word.... my job is to interpret the story and present ideas. I'd say 90% of what we present stays as we present it for the first time... sometimes we're way off then and we all have to find what works, or more importantly what isn't working (we probably spend more time finding out what isn't needed than searching for what is missing.)
> 
> For example, in Power Rangers (spoiler alert......). When the kids are in the pit and Zordon is taking to them... I initially presented that as him coming out of the overheads (where he is logically located based on where the kids look...).



Man I wished I lived down your way. I'd love to have the opportunity to sit in on a mixing session. I know nothing about it, but it seems like a fascinating job. I've done a fair amount of consumer video editing, but nothing in the way of audio editing. It would be interesting to see the tools and process flow that you work with.

Keep doing what you do Marc. I've enjoyed every mix of yours as-is that I've come across.


----------



## dschulz

On the subject of panned dialogue - exception that proves the rule - old 70mm mixes that used 5 screen channels behind the screen to have dialogue follow the actors, at least to some extent. West Side Story comes to mind.

Of course, those mixes were done knowing they would be played back in unconventional cinemas with very large screens, 5 speakers behind the screen, and nary a thought to how things would translate to home video.


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> IMO it just isn't always warranted.
> regardless of if it matches what's on screen.


And that's where it's just your opinion. Your job doesn't apply except in that you tend to avoid dialog panning when you're working. Once you start "noticing" that people on the left of the screen are coming from the middle of the screen, it's hard to "un-notice" it and that's is the opposite of the effect of people being so used to dialog coming from the middle that it seems "weird" when it comes from the left of the screen or whatever.



> It's not technology or history or laziness or...... that has lead us to those decisions, or stopped us from grabbing the pan knob.


So it's 'je ne sais quoi' ? Of course it's history. It's the "way it's always been done" or the "way you were taught" or "what people are used to hearing". It's also, "It sounded WEIRD when I put the voice above the screen." All of those are psychological responses of not being used to hearing a movie that way. But real life sounds come from wherever the source is and it doesn't matter if it sounds "weird" or not. Mother nature says, "TOUGH."



> My job is to get the directors vision up on the screen using sound the best way I know how.


And that is the problem. And it's a problem with rock albums too. The sound guys are TOLD to make it louder. They're told to compress the crap out of it. And if they don't, the lose their jobs. Sadly, that makes for crappy sounding rock albums. Fortunately, no one told Pink Floyd what to do with their albums or DSOTM and WYWH wouldn't be what they are.



> For example, in Power Rangers (spoiler alert......). When the kids are in the pit and Zordon is taking to them... I initially presented that as him coming out of the overheads (where he is logically located based on where the kids look...).
> 
> So we completely matched the picture. It just sounded weird, disjointed and disconnected.... we all agreed and I presented him in the surrounds and used some verb in the OHs... it kept him closer to the main characters yet still had the impact of him being off screen...


I think the problem there is partly psychological ("weird" even though it's correct) and partly the fact that even Atmos doesn't cover every possible point of sound. If you look at the diagram on the most recent page, there are 24 speakers in the home version shown, but a HUGE GAP at the screen. You can just see all the dotted angles have this open spot there because there is just one center speaker. The theater version only has 3 with 2 more being optional. 70mm back in the 1960s had 5 speakers behind the screen and that's when they started playing with dialog panning. But it wasn't panning that killed 70mm films. It was the format itself. It's unwieldly and hard to work with. Another movie wasn't made until TRON in 1982 and that was for practical purposes with minimizing grain and the like with so many layers added to create the glow effects, etc. 70mm prints are still normally made from 35mm masters. It's not remotely 
the same as filming in 70mm.



> I think our other poster missed the entire framing of my reply to him.


I'm not sure you're thinking about it the same way some of us are. You seem to be stuck on the exceptions rather than the rules. I'm saying MOST FILMS have NO (as in NONE what-so-ever) dialog panning and you're talking about situations where it makes sense to not use it, but what about the rest of the film??? It's all from the center. That's not judicious. It's lazy.

I just put on Star Wars and no matter where they are on the screen, the voice comes from my center channel speaker below the center of the screen. If I concentrate on it, I'll notice it's not coming from anywhere on the screen since I had to put the speaker below it, but the brain is good at tuning out height differences when there's visual cues. It's harder to tune out left/right differences. A wider dispersion speaker or maybe even a dipole speaker might help at least stretch the image across the screen width, making it hard to localize. That would still be an improvement over having a point in the center talk where there's no one standing.



> Simply put just because you can doesn't mean you should. That's not because technology has changed, etc... Atmos and MDA allows us to go nuts with panning. Or laziness.. or the status quo... (I might add I was involved with the first film to ever have an overhead channel/speaker...)


You seem to use your job as a crutch to justify your opinion, but at some point it really is just viewer preference at work. Either you want sound to come from their mouths or wherever they are on the screen or you don't. I don't know how many spaceships flew into the back of the room on Revenge of the Sith, but I'm pretty darn sure despite DTS-ES 6.1 sound with a rear center and an in-phase side image, NONE flew past my head even when they SHOULD HAVE. Why? I'm sure Lucas thought it would be distracting if they did that. I think it would have been AWESOME. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides had the flag over Disney's Castle at the start be a pirate flag and it flapped as it went right past my head (exactly what Star Wars was avoiding) and it was short, but excellent! 

IMO, Reality should always be the goal. Avoiding "distractions" is subjective. Include a mono track if you think people have such short attention spans.

And what about those sound mixing folk that do use dialog panning when they're allowed to? Do they think they shouldn't have used it? I'm saying clearly we fundamentally disagree on what's REAL and what's FAKE. You appear to think fake is better because you can tell the story without being distracted. I'm saying it would be less distracting still if you made the film in MONO and then all those stereo ping-pong effects wouldn't keep me from noticing that Transformers is a terrible movie.



> For a 2D image presented on a flat screen, making audio move around to match it at all times isn't always the best way to tell a story.


You see that's George Lucas talking or whomever that decided reality is too "distracting" to use it. It's the same excuse used to justify NOT putting lots of stereo surround effects in the soundtrack when 5.1 first came out. We want the audience to pay attention to the story not the planes flying past their heads and into the back of the room. Even today, it's RARE to hear in-phase surround rear effects (that would go past your head when the side surrounds are in-phase) because people might jump if it sounds too real. They might miss something on screen while they're gawking or whatever. 

I think people willing to put 24 speakers in their home WANT to hear impressive sound effects in their movies. They watch movies for the sound not the story at this point. Is that bad? It's the difference between many audiophiles and music-philes. The former has maybe 100 albums in his collection and his speaker system cost $30,000. The latter has probably 10,000 albums in his collection and his system cost $500. The former listens to sound. The latter listens to music. The rest of us are probably somewhere in-between.



> If your paying attention to the panning (or lack of it) the director has failed to properly tell their story.


There is no story in Michael Bay movies so you might as well have impressive surround sound. How many on here bought T4 just to hear Atmos and couldn't have cared less about its (dismal) story telling?



dschulz said:


> On the subject of panned dialogue - exception that proves the rule - old 70mm mixes that used 5 screen channels behind the screen to have dialogue follow the actors, at least to some extent. West Side Story comes to mind.


Atmos has 5 (2 are optional) behind the screen so it could work well for panned dialog. It wasn't that it didn't work with those 70mm films. It was great. It's that directors hated filming in 70mm and 70mm theaters were/are more expensive, especially in an age when mono and stereo only sound was still common (1980s). THX was what it was because it meant someone took the time to certify the sound wouldn't SUCK at a given theater. These days, sound is monumentally better than it was even in the 1990s and such certification is largely unimportant these days and the home version of THX completely sold out to certify JUNK (THX cables that cost a fortune and do nothing or tiny computer speakers that are "THX" certified?) and thus the THX brand slowly became a joke at home, more of a money grab than a certification.



> Of course, those mixes were done knowing they would be played back in unconventional cinemas with very large screens, 5 speakers behind the screen, and nary a thought to how things would translate to home video.


If you have your speakers lined up properly with the screen edges (like with a projection drop-down screen), it sounds awesome at home. I had to put my front speakers under the screen, but they are in the proper places so when I watch Gravity or Cars or West Side Story it sounds like it should.


----------



## grendelrt

Can you guys start a new thread and talk about panned dialog, it's not specific to atmos and is clogging up this thread.


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> There is no story in Michael Bay movies so you might as well have impressive surround sound.


Hooray, I've found something I agree with 100%!


----------



## AndreNewman

grendelrt said:


> Can you guys start a new thread and talk about panned dialog, it's not specific to atmos and is clogging up this thread.




It seems very relevant to me, atmos has given studios and sound mixers an excuse to revisit many movies with mostly good results. I consider these details are all part of that process and I at least find it interesting and relevant.


----------



## Scott Simonian

grendelrt said:


> Can you guys start a new thread and talk about panned dialog, it's not specific to atmos and is clogging up this thread.


Ahh...

The "I can't be bothered to scroll past a few posts so please stop talking about what you're talking about so I can get back to not contributing a thing" post. 

The conversation _does_ have to do with Atmos and mixing and there was some interesting discussion going.


Would rather the discussion dissipate organically as it would but... thanks for saving the day, Thread Police. What would you like to talk about now? 

I watched some movies in Atmos the other day. Sounded pretty good!


----------



## grendelrt

Scott Simonian said:


> Ahh...
> 
> The "I can't be bothered to scroll past a few posts so please stop talking about what you're talking about so I can get back to not contributing a thing" post.
> 
> The conversation _does_ have to do with Atmos and mixing and there was some interesting discussion going.
> 
> 
> But... thanks for saving the day, Thread Police. What would you like to talk about now?
> 
> I watched some movies in Atmos the other day. Sounded pretty good!


No need to get all passive aggressive, that was just my opinion , if you don't agree you could have just scrolled past my post as well. If people feel its pertinent ( I obviously wasnt the only one who didnt), don't let me me get in the way, carry on.


----------



## Scott Simonian

grendelrt said:


> No need to get all passive aggressive, that was just my opinion , if you don't agree you could have just scrolled past my post as well. If people feel its pertinent ( I obviously wasnt the only one who didnt), don't let me me get in the way, carry on.


Just bustin' yer balls, man. 

Don't dish it if you can't take it.


----------



## grendelrt

Scott Simonian said:


> Just bustin' yer balls, man.
> 
> Don't dish it if you can't take it.


I am not sure what I dished lol. I didn't name anyone or say anything negative about anyone, just wanted the discussion to go away from long rants that were going in a circle  Anyways, my feeling are fine


----------



## chi_guy50

grendelrt said:


> *I am not sure what I dished* lol. I didn't name anyone or say anything negative about anyone, just wanted the discussion to go away from long rants that were going in a circle  Anyways, my feeling are fine


You can count yourself fortunate that you weren't busted by the redundancy police for panning the panning discussion!


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> I think the problem there is partly psychological ("weird" even though it's correct) and partly the fact that even Atmos doesn't cover every possible point of sound. If you look at the diagram on the most recent page, there are 24 speakers in the home version shown, but a HUGE GAP at the screen.


Just my own $0.02 - some of the more serious experts on the thread like sdurani or maikeldepotter can discuss the details in depth - but my feeling is that the "huge gap" has to do with not wanting to compromise the integrity of the soundstage between L/C/R where the vast majority of the sound you'll hear is dedicated, even in a high channel count setup with a Trinnov processor. Our human hearing is far more sensitive to those locations than, say, object passthrough for left screen or right screen speakers in all but the largest home theaters. 

FWIW with my own 11.4.6 Trinnov, I did an experiment in my 20x15x9 room where I took the opening scene of Unbroken and configured my L/R mains (+/- 25 degrees) as L/R screen speakers and my L/R wides (45 degrees) as mains, and I found that there was little activity taking place on those screens compared to, say, wides. The same with Lucy BTW. The gap IMO is more important for front to wide transition, where our hearing is sensitive, than between the mains. 




> I think people willing to put 24 speakers in their home WANT to hear impressive sound effects in their movies. They watch movies for the sound not the story at this point. Is that bad? It's the difference between many audiophiles and music-philes. The former has maybe 100 albums in his collection and his speaker system cost $30,000. The latter has probably 10,000 albums in his collection and his system cost $500. The former listens to sound. The latter listens to music. The rest of us are probably somewhere in-between.


I can think of a few people that would watch a movie for the sound rather than the plot, especially in the early days of Atmos, but while they offer diminishing returns, depending on your individual room configuration (single vs. multirow, longer vs. wider) and speakers (narrower vs. wider dispersion), I'd argue that even in a reasonable sized room with a single row like mine, those extra speakers beyond 7.x.4 make a difference even on non-action films with an Atmos soundtrack, but how much of a difference really depends on how the mixer decides to deploy 3D objects in space. I noticed the biggest impact compared to 7.x.4 for wides, followed by a second set of side surrounds at about 75 degrees. The extra set of height speakers (top middles at about 85 degrees) are more of a nice to have to stabilize the overhead effects than essential. But in my room I couldn't see doing more than 11.4.6 unless a standard emerged with a speaker location not supported by Atmos that I was interested in (no, Auro doesn't count LOL).



> There is no story in Michael Bay movies so you might as well have impressive surround sound. How many on here bought T4 just to hear Atmos and couldn't have cared less about its (dismal) story telling?


I don't think that T4 is as dismal as many make it out to be, but it's really more of a fanfic type re-imaging than a real connection to the classic first two films. They really should have stopped after Judgment Day.


----------



## javanpohl

FilmMixer said:


> Studios don't mix films.. mixers do. *The real, only practice effect the studios directly have on how a film sounds has to do with the amount of money they have budgeted to post sound... they also have a strong voice in who the mixers will be, but that usually has more to do with the relationship the mixer has with the director and/or producers. *


Is HTTYD2 an exception to that rule?


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Just my own $0.02 - some of the more serious experts on the thread like sdurani or maikeldepotter can discuss the details in depth - but my feeling is that the "huge gap" has to do with not wanting to compromise the integrity of the soundstage between L/C/R where the vast majority of the sound you'll hear is dedicated, even in a high channel count setup with a Trinnov processor. Our human hearing is far more sensitive to those locations than, say, object passthrough for left screen or right screen speakers in all but the largest home theaters.


Those speakers don't really address what I'm talking about. So-called "Wide" speakers (more like front side surrounds really) appear to be an invention to fill gaps between the front speakers and the side speakers. Of course, to really make it complete, you'd want wall rear side walls and rear back walls with a rear center (I think DTS: X offers all these as potential locations for speakers whereas Atmos doesn't seem to like a rear center at all even though it's probably necessary to lock the location for off-axis listeners, assuming films would actually use that location as most do very little with it in 6.1 soundtracks).

I'm talking about more along the lines of 70mm soundtracks that had 5 speakers behind the screen (far left, mid left, center, mid right, far right) all in a straight line. Most of the diagrams I'm seeing for front wide put it halfway between the side surrounds and the front of the room on the side walls or in a straight line back from the left front. In any case, any speakers not in a straight line from the center speaker aren't going to be useful for panned dialog. 

Here's a good picture of what I'm referring to in a theater Atmos type environment that uses a full 5 speakers across the front screen ((http://i.imgur.com/X4vco9k.jpg).

That type of setup can easily pan between positions along the screen with hard points at 5 distinct locations (making it lock in for more audience positions on a large screen than just 3 speakers where people sitting off the center axis are going to have position errors due to stereo phantom imaging being offset by them not sitting in the center). Obviously, the more speakers that can hard transition a pan, the less the seating location matters (this applies to any speaker panning). And that's what's great about Atmos and DTS:X. They can discretely pan to individual speakers between a lot of locations instead of having to rely on phantom imaging which only works best in the center. It also means something like a rocket flying into the back of the room doesn't just jump from the front to side to back, but moves along the wall at every point there's a speaker with phantom bits in-between. This sounds more smooth than relying on phantom stereo pans between simple arrays. The point is that having 5 speakers behind (or likely over or under in a home environment) means you could have panned dialog that sounds accurate for more listening locations than near the center. But this is only going to matter for very large screens at home. I have a 93" screen at 9 feet and 5 speakers would probably be way too much. A 200" screen? Maybe. 

It's probably only really important for large theaters which is why you're only seeing that typically deployed in that environment, although I can imagine a well designed "sound bar" that's only used for a center would probably work some serious magic for Atmos at home if a receiver offered that option. But without panned dialog, it's probably moot for most applications since most mixes (as you have already noticed with Audessey receivers that support "wide" and move more sound effects there) do very little with points along the actual screen for sound in general, let alone dialog. But try watching something like Cars or Gravity and you should find them used a LOT more (it might be helpful to have a definitive list of movies that support a lot of panned dialog; I know I've seen more, but with 700+ movies, my memory is pretty foggy which ones had it and which ones didn't offhand).



> I don't think that T4 is as dismal as many make it out to be, but it's really more of a fanfic type re-imaging than a real connection to the classic first two films. They really should have stopped after Judgment Day.


By T4 I meant Transformers 4 (and it being the first blu-ray with an Atmos soundtrack), not Terminator 4. 

As for the Terminator series, I actually liked the basic time travel plot to Gensys (that would be T5 I suppose if you wanted to call it that), but I think the actors playing John and Sarah Connor sucked as did that bad guy (magnetic dude terminator). That's what made it hokey. If they had a more believable terminator and better actors, the time travel aspects (not to mention watching Arnold kick his own younger butt were pretty novel). It'd be interesting to see what James Cameron does (if anything) once he gets the rights back to the Terminator series. 

But Transformers? I'd be in favor of a reboot or a TV Spin-off that isn't so darn focused on tiny gears and blowing crap up constantly. As a kid, I actually liked the original cartoon series and still have (mint) all my old Transformer toys from the early '80s. But the movies really didn't work for me. It was hard to even recognize Soundwave or Megatron, particularly in robot form they looked little or nothing like the cartoon versions and don't get me started on Mr. Labouf as an actor (I could forgive the acting of Megan Fox because she was so hot then, but I digress....


----------



## FilmMixer

javanpohl said:


> Is HTTYD2 an exception to that rule?



Why would that title be an exception in particular. 

It's not a 100% rule. 

But the director is the one who has the most say on the dub stage... until they don't. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## javanpohl

chi_guy50 said:


> My view is that it is a bit more nuanced than your boxing analogy would have it.
> *
> If you are watching a film and your attention is distracted from the story by the sound design--whether on the one hand because it is disjointed from the action or on the other hand due to its prominence--that is less than ideal.*
> 
> But if, as in the example I cited in my post above (_City of Ghosts_), you are drawn into the storytelling by the mix and only realize how well it was done after reflecting on the viewing experience--that is subtle craftsmanship at its finest.


Pretty sure George Lucas would strongly disagree with you.


----------



## javanpohl

FilmMixer said:


> Why would that title be an exception?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


In terms of dynamics, bass, volume levels of the music the sequel is incredibly tame compared to the first. I believe they both had the same director and Randy Thom did both, right? There was a video floating around of the director where he said they got some criticism for the music and sound effects overpowering the story (I'm going off of memory here so that's not verbatim.) Now, I don't know if that means "criticism _from the studio_" but that seems like a reasonable assumption.


----------



## FilmMixer

javanpohl said:


> In terms of dynamics, bass, volume levels of the music the sequel is incredibly tame compared to the first. I believe they both had the same director and Randy Thom did both, right? There was a video floating around of the director where he said they got some criticism for the music and sound effects overpowering the story (I'm going off of memory here so that's not verbatim.) Now, I don't know if that means "criticism _from the studio_" but that seems like a reasonable assumption.


Where did I ever say the studio didn't have _any_ say over the mix? I was making a generalized statement... which accounts for over 95% of situations I've seen in my 27+ years in the business..

They set the post sound budget, hire the sound crew (or approve it if the film maker has a previous relationship...) 

With few exceptions do we see a producer/studio during the final mix... we almost always have a final playback for them (so they can see the final mix against the final cut of the picture... sometimes they give notes, sometimes you get none... 

If they felt the first film was too loud, they certainly have an opinion they can share with the director... 

I said they aren't the ones making the day to day decisions... companies like Disney, Dreamworks, Pixar... they make films much more by committee than most other studios in town... 

I know Dean Dubois.. if he got a criticism that the first film was too loud/dynamic, he is the kind of director to heed that kind of critique.... (which i find personally valid for a film made for kids..) if he didn't he wouldn't be back for the third film..

Again... my original point was that there is a sound crew (mixers, supervising sound editors, sound designers, editors, etc..) who is responsible for creating the sound track... not the studios who finance and release them.


----------



## javanpohl

MagnumX said:


> And that's where it's just your opinion. Your job doesn't apply except in that you tend to avoid dialog panning when you're working. Once you start "noticing" that people on the left of the screen are coming from the middle of the screen, it's hard to "un-notice" it and that's is the opposite of the effect of people being so used to dialog coming from the middle that it seems "weird" when it comes from the left of the screen or whatever.


I'm just gonna quote this one little part because I wanted to jump into this discussion with you because, over the years, I've gone back-and-forth on whether or not I prefer "voices coming from wherever the character is speaking" vs "anchoring dialogue into the center" and there's one important reason why you might NOT want to have the dialogue going from speaker-to-speaker through the listening environment: tonal shifts between speakers. To me, THAT can be far more distracting than dialogue not coming from where the character is. Our ears are particularly sensitive to the human voice and a good portion of the human voice is made up by frequencies that are heavily influenced by the room itself. The one movie scene that comes to mind is in Dr Strange where he goes on that initial inter-dimensional trip when he first meets The Ancient One. Her voice starts moving all through the soundscape as he's floating through space. The timbre changes from speaker to speaker, in my rig, were really distracting, and I even have the same speaker model for all of my surrounds and atmos channels.


----------



## javanpohl

> "For example, in Power Rangers (spoiler alert......). When the kids are in the pit and Zordon is taking to them... I initially presented that as him coming out of the overheads (where he is logically located based on where the kids look...).
> 
> So we completely matched the picture. It just sounded weird, disjointed and disconnected.... we all agreed and I presented him in the surrounds and used some verb in the OHs... it kept him closer to the main characters yet still had the impact of him being off screen... "


You know... I'm pretty sure that exact scene is what influenced me to reconfigure my atmos speaker set-up (yet again) to be more "overhead", because I _thought_ I was supposed to be getting more overhead sound info (my overheads were really far apart front-and-back). Might not only have been that one scene that prompted my change, but it's still kind of funny that his voice wasn't supposed to sound like it was coming from overhead after all.


----------



## MagnumX

javanpohl said:


> I'm just gonna quote this one little part because I wanted to jump into this discussion with you because, over the years, I've gone back-and-forth on whether or not I prefer "voices coming from wherever the character is speaking" vs "anchoring dialogue into the center" and there's one important reason why you might NOT want to have the dialogue going from speaker-to-speaker through the listening environment: tonal shifts between speakers.


I agree is very important, but there are things you can generally do (or at least try) to fix that issue. One is to use matching drivers (or even matching speakers when possible). That generally (negating manufacturing consistency issues) means it generally will at least start out the same from the speaker. Next, you've modern day room/speaker correction systems that you can measure at one or more listening locations. It will then attempt to match whatever you're using (even if they're not the same model or manufacturer) to a nice flat curve (or with something like Dirac, whatever manual curve you want to feed it). This should at least get many systems in the ballpark if not precise tonal matching. 

I'm using PSB Image B15 speakers (+/- 1.5dB from 70-20kHz) across the front (L/C/R) sitting right underneath my 93" screen. I've then got PSB Image S50 (which use the same exact drivers) on the sides about two feet above the listening position (the S50 is a side-wall mounted speaker with angled drivers facing about 30 degrees outward towards the room on the front and back of the speaker wired as bipoles so they image, but not too pin-point (this lends itself to both mono surround and 5.1 and up configurations). I've got another B15 in the back of the room (6.1 configuration) with a Definitive Technology PF-1500 15" 250 Watt sub about two feet into the room on the left side up against an end table (that's what gave me flat frequency response right down to 21Hz before it starts to drop off). With Yamaha's YPAO system engaged (with some manual corrections using a SPL meter and manual measurements), even the pink noise sounds consistent around the room. In other words, the dialog's tonal/timbre characteristics remains pretty constant even if they pan.

I've been weighing whether to even try ceiling speakers or bounce type (PSB makes a new Imagine XA speaker that does the latter) as the side surrounds already put aircraft, etc. above my head and cars and the like even with the screen (Alan Parson's ON AIR's "Blue Blue Sky" walks right around the room pretty consistently). I may try to find a dealer I can drive to that could lend me a pair when I get my next receiver to try it out first. I really am not crazy about mounting speakers on the ceiling in that room, although I could put them right over the couch using the center wall beam box, but that would be almost right in line with the existing side surrounds and given the lack of sensitivity to height differences compared to lateral ones, I'm afraid it wouldn't sound all that different in that location. A bounce from the front equipment racks (which are the right height on the top with the 7' ceiling) might work better as that would fill the gap between the front and side surrounds overhead and I could put a pair on the back of the room box for the rear height and let them image phantom for the overhead couch area (along with side surrounds. I could move the side surrounds lower, but that would put them awfully close to the side listening locations and no longer in line with the center of the 93" screen. 

Given I only have a half dozen Atmos titles right now out of around 700 movies, I'm not terribly worried about it at the moment and I'm waiting for HDMI 2.1 to come out first anyway before I get a new receiver.


----------



## javanpohl

MagnumX said:


> I agree is very important, but there are things you can generally do (or at least try) to fix that issue. One is to use matching drivers (or even matching speakers when possible). That generally (negating manufacturing consistency issues) means it generally will at least start out the same from the speaker. Next, you've modern day room/speaker correction systems that you can measure at one or more listening locations. It will then attempt to match whatever you're using (even if they're not the same model or manufacturer) to a nice flat curve (or with something like Dirac, whatever manual curve you want to feed it). This should at least get many systems in the ballpark if not precise tonal matching.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> *I've been weighing whether to even try ceiling speakers or bounce type (PSB makes a new Imagine XA speaker that does the latter) as the side surrounds already put aircraft, etc. above my head and cars and the like even with the screen (Alan Parson's ON AIR's "Blue Blue Sky" walks right around the room pretty consistently). *


That's really weird. I once heard a demo of a 5.1 set-up of PSB speakers at (the now closed) Audio Visionaries in Colorado Springs. The demo was of an outdoor concert (audio only) and there was this amazing phantom image of a plane flying overhead. So, yeah, I agree they do do that very well!


----------



## Nalleh

MagnumX said:


> There is no story in Michael Bay movies so you might as well have impressive surround sound. How many on here bought T4 just to hear Atmos and couldn't have cared less about its (dismal) story telling?


Agreed. I watched T4 as my first Atmos movie back in 2014, and it was the biggest, coolest experience so far. The grin on my face afterwards is one seen probably less than 5 times since. This was how sound was supposed to be. Finally!

I have lost count over how many Atmos BD's i have seen since, where i just shake my head afterwards, and think: what a waste! So many lost opportunities regarding the sound, it is almost comical.

Another cool example of dialog panning is a pre-Atmos movie called:

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole.

This has a very active, cool soundtrack, and has several scenes were two main caracters(owls) talk to each other, one of them on screen and the other out of screen, moving around the room. And guess what: their voices comes from where they are, either on or of screen. And the camera switches between them several times, and the sound follows EXACTLY what happens in the scene. Guess how big my grin was ? Awsome 

Wasn't it George Lucas who said sound is 50% of the movie? I agree 100% !


----------



## grendelrt

Nalleh said:


> Agreed. I watched T4 as my first Atmos movie back in 2014, and it was the biggest, coolest experience so far. The grin on my face afterwards is one seen probably less than 5 times since. This was how sound was supposed to be. Finally!
> 
> I have lost count over how many Atmos BD's i have seen since, where i just shake my head afterwards, and think: what a waste! So many lost opportunities regarding the sound, it is almost comical.
> 
> Another cool example of dialog panning is a pre-Atmos movie called:
> 
> Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole.
> 
> This has a very active, cool soundtrack, and has several scenes were two main caracters(owls) talk to each other, one of them on screen and the other out of screen, moving around the room. And guess what: their voices comes from where they are, either on or of screen. And the camera switches between them several times, and the sound follows EXACTLY what happens in the scene. Guess how big my grin was ? Awsome
> 
> Wasn't it George Lucas who said sound is 50% of the movie? I agree 100% !


Love that movie, if anyone picks up, get the 3D release, its amazing.


----------



## helvetica bold

For you gamers, it was just announced that Rise of The Tomb Raider will get an update and support Dolby Atmos on the new Xbox One X. Im very excited that console games will support Atmos. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

javanpohl said:


> You know... I'm pretty sure that exact scene is what influenced me to reconfigure my atmos speaker set-up (yet again) to be more "overhead", because I _thought_ I was supposed to be getting more overhead sound info (my overheads were really far apart front-and-back). Might not only have been that one scene that prompted my change, but it's still kind of funny that his voice wasn't supposed to sound like it was coming from overhead after all.



Spoilers....

The first scene of the film with Zordons breathing.... that is an object that pans from OHs to the front center...

That's a good scene to hear how the timbre is matching between your OHs and the fronts. 

And all of the other dialog in that scene is panned to match the actors locations. 

In the rest of the film all of Zordon and Alpha 5s dialog pans based on where they are on camera (with a few exceptions where the camera move/picture edit are too jarring, or the example I gave earlier where it didn't sound correct...).


----------



## javanpohl

grendelrt said:


> Love that movie, if anyone picks up, get the 3D release, its amazing.


One of the most underrated films of the past decade, I think. Agreed the 3D is glorious and that that is a GOOD example of the voices moving around through the channels.

And since this is sorta sound related: Joel Edgerton as metal beak is one of the best voice acting jobs I think I've ever heard. It's performances like that that make me think there should be an oscar category for voice/mo-cap work.


----------



## grendelrt

javanpohl said:


> One of the most underrated films of the past decade, I think. Agreed the 3D is glorious and that that is a GOOD example of the voices moving around through the channels.
> 
> And since this is sorta sound related: Joel Edgerton as metal beak is one of the best voice acting jobs I think I've ever heard. It's performances like that that make me think there should be an oscar category for voice/mo-cap work.


I really want to rewatch it now, I wonder how it will sound using Dolby Surround upmixer....


----------



## Nalleh

FilmMixer said:


> Spoilers....
> 
> The first scene of the film with Zordons breathing.... that is an object that pans from OHs to the front center...
> 
> That's a good scene to hear how the timbre is matching between your OHs and the fronts.
> 
> And all of the other dialog in that scene is panned to match the actors locations.
> 
> In the rest of the film all of Zordon and Alpha 5s dialog pans based on where they are on camera (with a few exceptions where the camera move/picture edit are too jarring, or the example I gave earlier where it didn't sound correct...).


Yup, i noticed all those, and more. Exellent job on that movie, demo material for sure 



grendelrt said:


> Love that movie, if anyone picks up, get the 3D release, its amazing.


Forgot to mention, but yes, the 3D on that one is right up there with Avatar, top notch 


grendelrt said:


> I really want to rewatch it now, I wonder how it will sound using Dolby Surround upmixer....


It is even more glorious with DSU  Already in the opening scene you could swere it was native Atmos


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> If you look at the diagram on the most recent page, there are 24 speakers in the home version shown, but a HUGE GAP at the screen. You can just see all the dotted angles have this open spot there because there is just one center speaker. The theater version only has 3 with 2 more being optional.


It's a bit more complicating and a lot more confusing than that. The diagram I believe you are referring to (the one I posted) has the L/R speakers against the side wall. This is quite different from other diagrams in the Atmos Home Theater guidelines, where L/R speakers are flanking the screen, where we would normally expect them. In the latter case, the number of screen speakers (L/R included) goes up to 7, which obviously is 2 more than what theatrical Atmos offers.

I posted that diagram to draw attention to the Lscreen/Rscreen speakers, which also appear in the up-coming AC4 codec, and to make a (wild) suggestion that those could enable more consistent left-right on-screen sound steering on screens with different sizes (viewing angles). However, I don't believe anyone with a high-channel count lay-out is using this diagram as a guideline for speaker positions. 

The issue here is that being a room-referenced codec, the Atmos renderer 'expects' the L/R speakers to be in the front corners of a square room (edit: better described by corners of a horizontal rectangle). In this diagram Dolby has chosen to translate that into a +/- 45 degrees position but 'forgot'(?) to widen the screen accordingly (edit: apparently, this screen was added by someone, the original Dolby diagram does not show a screen). Initially, the remapping function of the Trinnov Altitude put the L/R speakers at that same wide position. Later on, Trinnov added an Atmos_Narrow lay-out, which puts the L/R speakers at 30 degrees azimuth and consequently pushes all screen speakers closer together. I believe this is the preferred lay-out for optimal Atmos playback.



sdrucker said:


> my feeling is that the "huge gap" has to do with not wanting to compromise the integrity of the soundstage between L/C/R where the vast majority of the sound you'll hear is dedicated, even in a high channel count setup with a Trinnov processor. Our human hearing is far more sensitive to those locations than, say, object passthrough for left screen or right screen speakers in all but the largest home theaters.


As explained above, there is no "huge gap" if you use the Atmos_Narrow lay-out or if your viewing angle is +/- 45 degrees.



> FWIW with my own 11.4.6 Trinnov, I did an experiment in my 20x15x9 room where I took the opening scene of Unbroken and configured my L/R mains (+/- 25 degrees) as L/R screen speakers and my L/R wides (45 degrees) as mains, and I found that there was little activity taking place on those screens compared to, say, wides. The same with Lucy BTW. The gap IMO is more important for front to wide transition, where our hearing is sensitive, than between the mains.


I am not sure if those examples are representative of the average activity of those speakers. All of the Atmos trailers (on the Sept2015 disc, including the audio-only clips) show LOTS of activity in all 7 'screen speakers'.


----------



## gerchy

Nalleh said:


> I have lost count over how many Atmos BD's i have seen since, where i just shake my head afterwards, and think: what a waste! So many lost opportunities regarding the sound, it is almost comical.


I agree. So much more could be done with all available speakers.
Watched Sing yesterday. It felt good!
In Power Rangers, where one guy landed on the car's roof, I flinched!
I get scared quickly, I guess.


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> It's a bit more complicating and a lot more confusing than that. The diagram I believe you are referring to (the one I posted) has the L/R speakers against the side wall. This is quite different from other diagrams in the Atmos Home Theater guidelines, where L/R speakers are flanking the screen, where we would normally expect them. In the latter case, the number of screen speakers (L/R included) goes up to 7, which obviously is 2 more than what theatrical Atmosphere offers.


Technically the diagram you posted is not from Dolby, it's a homemade one, and altough it has all the speakers, it not correct. Not even symmetrical, look at the front heights, and the dotted line to each front LR speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Technically the diagram you posted is not from Dolby, it's a homemade one, and altough it has all the speakers, it not correct. Not even symmetrical, look at the front heights, and the dotted line to each front LR speakers.


You are right! I too noticed the asymmetry, but that was after I (re-)posted it.

Below are the originals. 

So not Dolby is to blame for this part of the confusion, as in the right diagram you can still picture a screen as wide as the front wall, which places Lf/Rf just outside the borders, albeit still in this very peculiar position on the side walls... 

Thanks!


----------



## am2model3

helvetica bold said:


> For you gamers, it was just announced that Rise of The Tomb Raider will get an update and support Dolby Atmos on the new Xbox One X. Im very excited that console games will support Atmos.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


this is great news! I need to upgrade my sound system to atmos. Do you know how to get atmos from pc gaming? does it currently require windows 10 to get atmos? or can my nvidia card output PCM 5.1 or 7.1 and then dolby surround upmix to atmos?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> The issue here is that being a room-referenced codec, the Atmos renderer 'expects' the L/R speakers to be in the front corners of a square room.


For the Atmos renderer, those speaker locations represent the front corners of the lower plane, to the extent that objects cannot be rendered forward of those speakers or to the sides of those speakers. But in practical terms, the speakers themselves are typically not placed in the front corners of the room, either in movie cinemas or home theatres; which Dolby was aware of when inventing Atmos.


----------



## am2model3

Nalleh said:


> Agreed. I watched T4 as my first Atmos movie back in 2014, and it was the biggest, coolest experience so far. The grin on my face afterwards is one seen probably less than 5 times since. This was how sound was supposed to be. Finally!
> 
> I have lost count over how many Atmos BD's i have seen since, where i just shake my head afterwards, and think: what a waste! So many lost opportunities regarding the sound, it is almost comical.
> 
> Another cool example of dialog panning is a pre-Atmos movie called:
> 
> Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole.
> 
> This has a very active, cool soundtrack, and has several scenes were two main caracters(owls) talk to each other, one of them on screen and the other out of screen, moving around the room. And guess what: their voices comes from where they are, either on or of screen. And the camera switches between them several times, and the sound follows EXACTLY what happens in the scene. Guess how big my grin was ? Awsome
> 
> Wasn't it George Lucas who said sound is 50% of the movie? I agree 100% !


I would love to hear star wars and indiana jones in atmos!! I would love to hear my games in Atmos as well! I really need to upgrade my system to atmos! i am looking to do so and would love to hear transformers 4 in atmos! I have transformers5 ultra hd 4k blu ray on preorder. What are you thoughts on listening to non-atmos movie discs that upmix to atmos via dolby surround? I'm sure it might be not as strong; but i have read the upmix to atmos sounds great as well? I'm looking at doing 5.1.4. Should i stick with 5.1.4 or go 7.1.4? I was thinking for atmos sound; 5.1.4 is enough? What is your sound setup? 
I listened to a $20-30k demo projector room of dolby atmos, with goldenear tritons, 7.4.4 system; it was really impressive. there was a cave scene; and it sounded like we were in a cave, it was spectacular. There was a boat scene from master commander, and we could hear the creaks of the boat as if we were deep in the hull. 
The "dome" of atmos sound was apparent, vs. 5.1 dolby digital ring of sound that i am used to. (I'm on 5.1 dolby digital, compressed! lol. I haven't even been listening to dolby true HD; should have upgraded 8 years ago.) 
So i'll go from dolby digital 5.1 optical; bypass DolbyTrueHD, and go straight to Atmos! haha wild upgrade huh? I'm looking at the denon 9.2 receiver, capable of 11.2 with powered amps. they hit a big sale, went from 1499 to 799!


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> For the Atmos renderer, those speaker locations represent the front corners of the lower plane, to the extent that objects cannot be rendered forward of those speakers or to the sides of those speakers. But in practical terms, the speakers themselves are typically not placed in the front corners of the room, either in movie cinemas or home theatres; which Dolby was aware of when inventing Atmos.


Yes, I should have said 'front corners of a horizontal rectangle'.


----------



## Lonewolf7002

healthnut said:


> After considerable experimentation, some of it with very capable dedicated center speakers, I've had great success in my theater room with tower speakers in phantom mode. I recognize that comb filtering can be an issue and proper setup is essential, but I now use my best, most capable speakers for front and center duties, and they now sound superior to any dedicated center I've owned. I'm currently using Golden Ear Triton 5's, which image very well, but I've also used this method with other speakers and dialogue comes right where it's supposed to and the Triton's superior imaging make the voices exceptionally realistic. I personally will never go back to a horizontally oriented center speaker.


For years I didn't have the room to properly set up my surround system and either used two or four speakers. When I moved into the place I am in now last fall, I saw that the foam surround in my center channel had crumbled and fallen apart. So again I've been living with no center channel. Since I always sit in the center of my couch to watch content, and never have people over to watch movies with, I have not missed having my center channel speaker. My left/rights image well and I felt nothing was missing. When I have people over to video game and sit on either ends of the couch we are usually chatting and trash talking, so if voices seem a little off center no one would ever notice anyway. I finally got around to ordering and replacing the foam surrounds and put my center channel back into service a couple of days ago. I haven't had much time to listen with it in, but so far I don't feel like I have gained anything by having it. I didn't need to use it, I just hated having it sit there. For people with bigger screens and wider seating arrangements and actually have people over to watch with, the center becomes more important. But I agree with you that it's not "always" needed and you can get by fine without.




Ricoflashback said:


> RE: If your paying attention to the panning (or lack of it) the director has failed to properly tell their story.
> 
> Sounds like a boxing analogy where if you don't notice the referee, then he or she has usually done a great job. The same with Dolby Atmos or any other sound mix for that matter? In other words - - if you're not overly paying attention to the sound theatrics then it's fully integrated with the story you are trying to tell and that is the primary focus.


There are those that buy equipment to watch movies, and there are those that buy movies to watch their equipment. We all know people like that. There's room for both. Back in the day when 4:3 screens were still popular I had a buddy who bought a big rear projector. He always watched widescreen movies stretched to fill the whole screen and everything looked out of wack. He would not watch a movie with black bars because he "didn't spend the money on a big screen to only watch half of it". Personally, I buy equipment to stay out of the way. When the movie comes on, I don't want to see a TV or hear the speakers. I want to get lost in the movie and have everything else disappear. Some people need the LFE to hit the lowest notes possible with everything and hear their overheads at all times or they are disappointed with the lack of vision from the people who made the movie. I'm just glad not everything is made into a demo showcase, it would get tiring after a while.


----------



## Nalleh

am2model3 said:


> I would love to hear star wars and indiana jones in atmos!! I would love to hear my games in Atmos as well! I really need to upgrade my system to atmos! i am looking to do so and would love to hear transformers 4 in atmos! I have transformers5 ultra hd 4k blu ray on preorder. What are you thoughts on listening to non-atmos movie discs that upmix to atmos via dolby surround? I'm sure it might be not as strong; but i have read the upmix to atmos sounds great as well? I'm looking at doing 5.1.4. Should i stick with 5.1.4 or go 7.1.4? I was thinking for atmos sound; 5.1.4 is enough? What is your sound setup?
> I listened to a $20-30k demo projector room of dolby atmos, with goldenear tritons, 7.4.4 system; it was really impressive. there was a cave scene; and it sounded like we were in a cave, it was spectacular. There was a boat scene from master commander, and we could hear the creaks of the boat as if we were deep in the hull.
> The "dome" of atmos sound was apparent, vs. 5.1 dolby digital ring of sound that i am used to. (I'm on 5.1 dolby digital, compressed! lol. I haven't even been listening to dolby true HD; should have upgraded 8 years ago.)
> So i'll go from dolby digital 5.1 optical; bypass DolbyTrueHD, and go straight to Atmos! haha wild upgrade huh? I'm looking at the denon 9.2 receiver, capable of 11.2 with powered amps. they hit a big sale, went from 1499 to 799!


No need to worry: there are A LOT of non-Atmos movies that sound WAY better than many native Atmos movies using Dolby Surround Upmixer. So even if a movie is not in Atmos, it can be awsome 
I would go for as many speakers as possible, so 7.1.4 if you can swing it, but 5.1.4 is good too. And better than 7.1.2.
4 overheads is important for best effect !

My setup? Well i started with 7.1.4(when i watched that T4 movie), but have upgraded some since. Read about it in the link in my signature


----------



## stikle

am2model3 said:


> I would love to hear star wars and indiana jones in atmos!!



So would the rest of the world. That mix doesn't exist yet in the consumer space.



am2model3 said:


> What are you thoughts on listening to non-atmos movie discs that upmix to atmos via dolby surround? I'm sure it might be not as strong; but i have read the upmix to atmos sounds great as well?



You're not upmixing to Atmos. Atmos is an object oriented format vs channel based. DSU upmixes 2.0 or greater channels to use all available speakers (except wides). DSU does quite an excellent job.




am2model3 said:


> I'm looking at doing 5.1.4. Should i stick with 5.1.4 or go 7.1.4?



IMO, 7.x.4 is the best solution if your room is conducive to the correct speaker layout. The next best would be 5.x.4.



am2model3 said:


> What is your sound setup?



See my signature link.



am2model3 said:


> So i'll go from dolby digital 5.1 optical; bypass DolbyTrueHD, and go straight to Atmos!



That's not quite how it works. Atmos is carried over Dolby TrueHD (or DD+), so you actually still have to have a processor (AVR) capable of Dolby TrueHD before Atmos comes into play, and only on native Atmos authored content.



am2model3 said:


> I'm looking at the denon 9.2 receiver, capable of 11.2 with powered amps.



You only need one extra 2 channel amp for under $140, RCA cables, and a 12v trigger to drive the extra 2 speakers.


----------



## am2model3

thank you both for your information! I really appreciate it. 

wow, your Triple Atmos Receivers
Atmos 13.1.8/DTS:X 9.1.8/AURO 3D 12.1
that is incredible! I love the ingenuity! That is really compelling!
I had heard of Swatmos, zatmos, scatmos, etc. 

I heard there are many movies that sound great with the upmix dolby suround or neural x! That is great. While it will be great in the future to hear star wars and indiana jones in atmos or dtsX; i can enjoy the upmix until then! 

I am also interested in hearing upmix dolby surround / neural x for video games as well! 

I should upgrade soon; hopefully in a month or so before all the new movies & games release! I want to hear better sound from them all! = )


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


> I would love to hear star wars and indiana jones in atmos!!


Oddly, there are people that have gone out of their way to restore the original Star Wars as it was seen in movie theaters (no 5.1/6.1 sound either).



> The "dome" of atmos sound was apparent, vs. 5.1 dolby digital ring of sound that i am used to. (I'm on 5.1 dolby digital, compressed! lol. I haven't even been listening to dolby true HD; should have upgraded 8 years ago.)


Are you aware that there are no proven audible differences between uncompressed "Master Audio" or "TrueHD" and the "compressed/lossy" versions? Every blind test I've ever seen fails to show better than guessing. In truth, you've missed nothing on that front. I don't bother including Master Audio or TrueHD on my digital files (I store everything on a hard drive and watch with Kodi so I don't get menus and forced previews and can send everything around the house without having to search for a disc) due to the excessive space they take up unless they have 7.1 on them.



> So i'll go from dolby digital 5.1 optical; bypass DolbyTrueHD, and go straight to Atmos! haha wild upgrade huh? I'm looking at the denon 9.2 receiver, capable of 11.2 with powered amps. they hit a big sale, went from 1499 to 799!


You won't really be bypassing anything as you get what you get on a Blu-Ray or Ultra Blu-Ray. Most do not have Atmos or DTS:X and they're backwards compatible.



sdurani said:


> For the Atmos renderer, those speaker locations represent the front corners of the lower plane, to the extent that objects cannot be rendered forward of those speakers or to the sides of those speakers. But in practical terms, the speakers themselves are typically not placed in the front corners of the room, either in movie cinemas or home theatres; which Dolby was aware of when inventing Atmos.


I would certainly hope not. The corners of the room are among the absolute _worst_ possible place to put a speaker (save perhaps a sub for reinforcement purposes, although I find standing waves makes that a bad location as well without correction).


----------



## clarkkent06

MagnumX said:


> Oddly, there are people that have gone out of their way to restore the original Star Wars as it was seen in movie theaters (no 5.1/6.1 sound either).


Speaking of which, have you read about how they made the silver screen edition (the best one)? They got a hold of an original 35mm reel of A New Hope, and cleaned up the film and used a DSLR to take a picture of each frame, and put them all together "slide-show" style. Pretty crazy https://www.engadget.com/2016/02/18/star-wars-silver-screen-despecialized/


----------



## thrang

MagnumX said:


> Are you aware that there are no proven audible differences between uncompressed "Master Audio" or "TrueHD" and the "compressed/lossy" versions? Every blind test I've ever seen fails to show better than guessing. In truth, you've missed nothing on that front. I don't bother including Master Audio or TrueHD on my digital files (I store everything on a hard drive and watch with Kodi so I don't get menus and forced previews and can send everything around the house without having to search for a disc) due to the excessive space they take up unless they have 7.1 on them.


Meh, with a revealing system you can often tell. More than a few times I started watching a disc and found the sound strident - when I checked, playback had defaulted to the lossy track, not lossless.

There are likely many factors involved this this, but in total with a good system and room, there is a difference


----------



## MagnumX

thrang said:


> Meh, with a revealing system you can often tell. More than a few times I started watching a disc and found the sound strident - when I checked, playback had defaulted to the lossy track, not lossless.
> 
> There are likely many factors involved this this, but in total with a good system and room, there is a difference


Yeah, I've heard the same thing from many people before and not just soundtracks (i.e. AAC vs WAV, etc.). Not ONE could ever prove their claim in a double blind test. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## jazzrock

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, I've heard the same thing from many people before and not just soundtracks (i.e. AAC vs WAV, etc.). Not ONE could ever prove their claim in a double blind test. I'll leave it at that.




Many would envy your inability to hear differences between formats on a well recorded/mastered audio track. I assume you hear no difference between formats either, vinyl LP, CDs, etc.


----------



## MagnumX

jazzrock said:


> Many would envy your inability to hear differences between formats on a well recorded/mastered audio track. I assume you hear no difference between formats either, vinyl LP, CDs, etc.


You would assume wrong in regards vinyl, etc. I have a high quality 2-channel system (Carver ribbons bi-amped with a custom crossover network and sonic holography preamp) and what I'd call an entry-level high-end vinyl rig. But equating that with something like high bit-rate AAC or DTS is not even in the same realm. Vinyl has serious deficiencies compared to CD that are easily detected (let alone all the surface noise, different mastering mixes, etc. that make them inherently different sounding). Even so, a good vinyl rig comes much closer to CD quality than I imagined it would. Lossy compression algorithms only job is to save space without compromising sound quality. At reasonably high bit rates they do a really great job. They do such a great job that as I've previously said, I have YET to see ONE person prove they can detect any significant difference beyond guessing at the higher bit-rates in repeated double blind tests (such as ABX based testing). Claiming you can hear a difference and proving it are two different things.

Am I extra skeptical? I used to follow audiophile magazines, etc. for several years and I've invested quite a bit in my own 2-channel system, but no testing over the years showed differences in many areas that audiophile magazines claimed there were differences where the science sounded extremely suspect. 

Frankly, some of the audiophile claims over the years I've seen in Stereophile magazine and others are so RIDICULOUS it's hard to believe. Here's a few of the more ridiculous ones that they claimed worked in all opposition to science, physics and frankly the imagination with ZERO proof to back any of it up (but hey, it sells advertising space, so it's all good right?)

1>Painting the edges of CDs with a green marker pen somehow improves their sound. The data isn't on the edges so what was it supposed to be doing? I remember Stereophile saying they had no idea but they could hear a difference. Push them to a double blind test? Suddenly, where did it go? But hey, what's the harm in painting all your CD edges green and paying $50 for a 50 cent marker? It's called SNAKE OIL.

2>Putting a heavy mat on the spindle motor somehow improves sound. These motors weren't designed for heavy loading in most cases so at best, what's it supposed to be doing? At worst, it was shown to increase errors as it can no longer track as fast.

3>Shakti stones (magical stones you put around your room to make the music sound better). While there are room treatments you can buy that can help improve dampening and what not in your room, a couple of magic stones placed here and there aren't one of them. But darn did they sell a bunch of stones to a lot of people.

4>High-end interconnect cables. Ah, nothing like spending $5000 on a pair of magical interconnect cables that do literally nothing. Talk about throwing money in the garbage. You still see lots of overpriced cables at places like Best Buy that perform no better than a $3 cable.

5>High-end DACs. While there are measurable differences in some of these high-end DACs and they generally are improvements (or they'd be harder to sell without a marketing angle), the real problem is that humans are hard pressed to hear 0.5dB differences in sound levels, let alone 0.05dB differences. The average loudspeaker has variation of around 6dB (+/- 3dB being one of the most common goals) at various parts of the frequency spectrum and room interactions can cause even larger dips and peaks, especially around the bass region. Instead of spending $3000 on a high-end DAC, maybe some people could have put the money into room treatments or room correction systems (or even better speakers) that would get your far more bang for your dollar.

These aren't things pushed to average people. They are pushed to so-called "audiophiles" because that's where the money is. But advertising is always a great thing at all price levels. Words like "organic" or "natural" sell things much better than "synthetic" or "contains preservatives". The same is true in audio products. "Identical to the master audio track" sells better than "uses a lossy compression method" even if they sound the same to human ears. But once people pay for things, they can get very defensive about how they just spent their money. Do you think someone who spent $5000 on interconnect cables wants to hear they just wasted their money? No, I have little doubt many would rather believe in the Easter Bunny than hear that. 

But feel free to believe anything you want. I'm simply pointing out an alternative to those that think because something is marketed it's automatically a real improvement. A lot of snake oil has been sold over the years by touting the benefits of questionable products. There's no harm in having a lossless audio track, of course, but expecting an obvious improvement might lead to disappointment.


----------



## Nalleh

am2model3 said:


> I had heard of Swatmos, zatmos, scatmos, etc.


Actually, i think i am the only one doing SWAtmos 


(=Special Wide, mad idea by @maikeldepotter )


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> The corners of the room are among the absolute _worst_ possible place to put a speaker (save perhaps a sub for reinforcement purposes, although I find standing waves makes that a bad location as well without correction).


It's a bit more complicated than that. Modal effects depend on the source (speaker) location AND the listener location. I do have my L and R speakers in corners (flush mounted) because this eliminates certain reflections which I believe to be highly detrimental to imaging. Furthermore I gain a couple of dB max. output.


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> It's a bit more complicated than that. Modal effects depend on the source (speaker) location AND the listener location. I do have my L and R speakers in corners (flush mounted) because this eliminates certain reflections which I believe to be highly detrimental to imaging. Furthermore I gain a couple of dB max. output.


You _do_ gain output in the bass region (hence it's a favorite traditional place for subwoofers, especially ones that could use a boost), but that boost is also then no longer in the frequency response curve for the speakers and hard to control. But it's not the speaker or listening location that's the problem in the corner, but the proximity of the walls creating very early reflections that tend to either cancel each other out (or at lower frequencies reinforce each other), creating frequency response havoc and spaced gaps that vary by frequency similar to having a dipole speaker too close to the back wall. Move the speaker out from the wall and any frequency interaction is time delayed more and more where cancellation effects becomes less and less of an issue. Generally, this tends to "muddy" the sound compared to being away from the wall (i.e. I have my dipole ribbons over 4 feet from the rear wall in my two channel system).


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> You _do_ gain output in the bass region (hence it's a favorite traditional place for subwoofers, especially ones that could use a boost), but that boost is also then no longer in the frequency response curve for the speakers and hard to control.


Let's assume satellites are crossed over at 80Hz. You will and should have usable output down to 40Hz. That's very much in the modal region.



MagnumX said:


> But it's not the speaker or listening location that's the problem in the corner,


It is a problem because that's when modal effects are at maximum.



MagnumX said:


> but the proximity of the walls creating very early reflections that tend to either cancel each other out (or at lower frequencies reinforce each other), creating frequency response havoc and spaced gaps that vary by frequency similar to having a dipole speaker too close to the back wall. Move the speaker out from the wall and any frequency interaction is time delayed more and more where cancellation effects becomes less and less of an issue. Generally, this tends to "muddy" the sound compared to being away from the wall (i.e. I have my dipole ribbons over 4 feet from the rear wall in my two channel system).


Very early reflections can be controlled by specific dispersion patterns, flush mounting and absorption. At lower frequencies the proximity to the walls will have an insignificant effect because wavelengths are much longer than distance to the wall. That's not the case when you have speakers placed out in the room. See for example https://www.genelec.com/sites/defau.../genelec_step_by_step_setup_guide_ed_2015.pdf (they show the effect but draw the wrong conclusions) or Toole, "Sound Reproduction".


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Actually, i think i am the only one doing SWAtmos
> 
> 
> (=Special Wide, mad idea by @*maikeldepotter* )


Yeah... well... he was just saying that he _heard_ of it.


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah... well... he was just saying that he _heard_ of it.



Just felt the need to point out it is rare..... very rare.....


----------



## Scott Simonian

Nalleh said:


> Just felt the need to point out it is rare..... very rare.....


Yes. You're very special.


----------



## am2model3

your Super Hyper Edition ATMOS setup is impressive! Hats off to you!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Scott Simonian said:


> Yeah... well... he was just saying that he _heard_ of it.


SWatmos? Never heard it. 
Just imagined it, and gave it a name, that's all. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...channel-exploiting-thread-5.html#post50390897

People who actually did hear it are rare indeed. 
I know but one and that's @Nalleh.


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Let's assume satellites are crossed over at 80Hz. You will and should have usable output down to 40Hz. That's very much in the modal region.


Usable, yes. But that doesn't mean it will be desirable in all rooms even for subs. I had huge variations in frequency response at different listening locations, some as much as 12db. Moving the sub 3 feet forward and pointing it at a pentagon shaped end table broke up the standing waves and gave me flat response within 3db at all listening locations and only two peaks to correct with the parametric EQ on the receiver. More isn't always better. I have flat response to 21Hz now +3/-0 below 100Hz..

Yes, you could make speakers that would do OK in the corners by design and some possible room treatments, but why bother in most cases? Most speakers are not ideal in the corners so unless the room presents no other option, it wouldn't be my first choice or even 4th choice


----------



## Nalleh

Scott Simonian said:


> Yes. You're very special.


Yes, my mama has always said i'm special 



am2model3 said:


> your Super Hyper Edition ATMOS setup is impressive! Hats off to you!


Thanks


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Usable, yes. But that doesn't mean it will be desirable in all rooms even for subs. I had huge variations in frequency response at different listening locations, some as much as 12db. Moving the sub 3 feet forward and pointing it at a pentagon shaped end table broke up the standing waves and gave me flat response within 3db at all listening locations and only two peaks to correct with the parametric EQ on the receiver. More isn't always better. I have flat response to 21Hz now +3/-0 below 100Hz..


Minimizing strong and early reflections is desirable in any room. Putting subs in corners not so much. You can't "break up" standing waves. Smooth sub response isn't everything. You also want to look at the time domain and at multiple points within the listening area.



MagnumX said:


> Yes, you could make speakers that would do OK in the corners by design and some possible room treatments, but why bother in most cases? Most speakers are not ideal in the corners so unless the room presents no other option, it wouldn't be my first choice or even 4th choice


It's not only "OK" but also superior to any other approach. Only few do it though because the industry doesn't offer (m)any options and people make buying decisions that aren't guided by sound quality but first and foremost by looks, WAF, fashion, ego, etc.pp.


----------



## citsur86

Picked up Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 and realized the 4K disc has Atmos but the 3D is on the Blu-ray with DTS-HD 7.1. Are there any 3D Blu-ray Discs with Atmos sound tracks that anyone’s aware of? Stinks that I have to choose between 3D and Atmos at home for Guardians Vol 2. Not sure which way to watch it. Maybe I’ll just do both.


----------



## thrang

citsur86 said:


> Picked up Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 and realized the 4K disc has Atmos but the 3D is on the Blu-ray with DTS-HD 7.1. Are there any 3D Blu-ray Discs with Atmos sound tracks that anyone’s aware of? Stinks that I have to choose between 3D and Atmos at home for Guardians Vol 2. Not sure which way to watch it. Maybe I’ll just do both.


Since I haven't watched 3D in about 4 years, the choice would be easy for me!


----------



## grendelrt

citsur86 said:


> Picked up Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 and realized the 4K disc has Atmos but the 3D is on the Blu-ray with DTS-HD 7.1. Are there any 3D Blu-ray Discs with Atmos sound tracks that anyone’s aware of? Stinks that I have to choose between 3D and Atmos at home for Guardians Vol 2. Not sure which way to watch it. Maybe I’ll just do both.


Ghost in the Shell is 3d with Atmos.


----------



## citsur86

thrang said:


> Since I haven't watched 3D in about 4 years, the choice would be easy for me!




I VERY rarely watch 3D, but I decided to see Guardians Vol 2 in 3D in the theater when it came out and it is one of the few (and by few, I mean about 3 movies) where the 3D was done right. It enhanced the story without being gimmicky. It is therefore one of the rare times I can and would use the 3D on my projector. Just wish I didn’t have to sacrifice the Atmos experience for it!


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Minimizing strong and early reflections is desirable in any room. Putting subs in corners not so much.


All I can say is that your recommendations go contrary to every single article I've ever read, which usually recommend trying the corner for subs for bass reinforcement (typically +3db per surface which means +9db for room dimensions it will work in which is 8x the linear output compared to anechoic. Not all room dimensions work well, however as you can end up with uneven response in the desired range.



> You can't "break up" standing waves.


Sure you can. I don't know where you are getting these strange ideas. You typically need to stop the sound waves from reflecting directly off parallel surfaces. This is why pointing my sub at at the corner of a pentagon shaped cabinet eliminated the severe standing waves in my room. The sound waves no longer had any direct path to reflecting off room boundaries causing only minor interactions by comparison.



> Smooth sub response isn't everything.


Only if you want accurate bass response instead of boomy on one note and very light on the next.....



> You also want to look at the time domain and at multiple points within the listening area.


The time domain is compensated for with an appropriate delay to match the mains. Ideally, you want even response at all listening locations.



> It's not only "OK" but also superior to any other approach.


What's supposed to be superior about it? By the time you damp out the early reflections you're pretty much behaving like there's no walls there. I see no obvious advantage at all. Corner loading can increase your bass output. Everything else is detrimental.



> Only few do it though because the industry doesn't offer (m)any options and people make buying decisions that aren't guided by sound quality but first and foremost by looks, WAF, fashion, ego, etc.pp.


I'd think the corners would likely be more acceptable to a woman than in the middle of the room. They generally want them to be invisible whereas guys generally don't even like speaker grills installed because they look cooler with the drivers exposed.


----------



## jjackkrash

Is there a guide to how far from the side walls the Atmos speakers should be?


----------



## chi_guy50

citsur86 said:


> Picked up Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 and realized the 4K disc has Atmos but the 3D is on the Blu-ray with DTS-HD 7.1. *Are there any 3D Blu-ray Discs with Atmos sound tracks that anyone’s aware of?* Stinks that I have to choose between 3D and Atmos at home for Guardians Vol 2. Not sure which way to watch it. Maybe I’ll just do both.


If you like nature documentaries, you might check out the following UHD BRD offerings from distributor Shout! Factory. As I recall, the Atmos soundtrack is also included on the 3D BRD that accompanies the retail UHD BRD:

_Flight of the Butterflies_ (highly recommended) 

_Journey to Space_

_The Last Reef: Cities Beneath the Sea_ 

_Humpback Whales_

_Wonders of the Arctic_

And last, but not least, one of my very favorite Atmos films: _Enchanted Kingdom 3D_ (aka _Nature 3D_ in the Japanese release, which is the one I have). This one is demonstration material IMHO.


----------



## ergalthema

chi_guy50 said:


> If you like nature documentaries, you might check out the following UHD BRD offerings from distributor Shout! Factory. As I recall, the Atmos soundtrack is also included on the 3D BRD that accompanies the retail UHD BRD:
> 
> _Flight of the Butterflies_ (highly recommended)
> 
> _Journey to Space_
> 
> _The Last Reef: Cities Beneath the Sea_
> 
> _Humpback Whales_
> 
> _Wonders of the Arctic_
> 
> And last, but not least, one of my very favorite Atmos films: _Enchanted Kingdom 3D_ (aka _Nature 3D_ in the Japanese release, which is the one I have). This one is demonstration material IMHO.



I realize this is an audio thread, but I figured I'd mention that all the Journey to Space reviews say that most of the footage is not 4K (some being even less than 1080?).


----------



## chi_guy50

ergalthema said:


> I realize this is an audio thread, but I figured I'd mention that all the Journey to Space reviews say that most of the footage is not 4K (some being even less than 1080?).


Yeah, I thought that one was the least impressive of the titles I listed.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> All I can say is that your recommendations go contrary to every single article I've ever read, which usually recommend trying the corner for subs for bass reinforcement (typically +3db per surface which means +9db for room dimensions it will work in which is 8x the linear output compared to anechoic. Not all room dimensions work well, however as you can end up with uneven response in the desired range.


You really need to read something else than those "articles". Toole, "Sound Reproduction" for example. Or get an AES account. There are plenty of good papers on that topic. Welti did some good research.



MagnumX said:


> Sure you can. I don't know where you are getting these strange ideas. You typically need to stop the sound waves from reflecting directly off parallel surfaces. This is why pointing my sub at at the corner of a pentagon shaped cabinet eliminated the severe standing waves in my room. The sound waves no longer had any direct path to reflecting off room boundaries causing only minor interactions by comparison.


There is no "reflection" at such low frequencies. You have to approach the problem using a wave model. Again, see Toole for detailed information and references.



MagnumX said:


> Only if you want accurate bass response instead of boomy on one note and very light on the next.....


You can have a perfectly flat magnitude response that is highly distorted in the time domain.



MagnumX said:


> The time domain is compensated for with an appropriate delay to match the mains. Ideally, you want even response at all listening locations.


I'm referring to non-minimum phase behavior and not just simple time alignment of sub/main when talking about the time domain.



MagnumX said:


> What's supposed to be superior about it? By the time you damp out the early reflections you're pretty much behaving like there's no walls there. I see no obvious advantage at all. Corner loading can increase your bass output. Everything else is detrimental.


You don't see any advantage in controlling acoustics of the playback room and removing detrimental reflections? Well, I do. Again, please read up on psychoacoustics so we can have a more meaningful discussion. I'd recommend Blauert, "Spatial hearing"



MagnumX said:


> I'd think the corners would likely be more acceptable to a woman than in the middle of the room. They generally want them to be invisible whereas guys generally don't even like speaker grills installed because they look cooler with the drivers exposed.


Often people here like to use WAF when in reality they themselves don't like a particular idea for reasons that have nothing to do with sound quality. For example near field subs. They can be made less intrusive than a couple of big black boxes scattered around the room. Another example would be a DBA. It can be completely hidden and offer superior bass reproduction. One would think DBA has become the norm in dedicated home theaters but it's rather an exception.


----------



## citsur86

chi_guy50 said:


> If you like nature documentaries, you might check out the following UHD BRD offerings from distributor Shout! Factory. As I recall, the Atmos soundtrack is also included on the 3D BRD that accompanies the retail UHD BRD:
> 
> _Flight of the Butterflies_ (highly recommended)
> 
> _Journey to Space_
> 
> _The Last Reef: Cities Beneath the Sea_
> 
> _Humpback Whales_
> 
> _Wonders of the Arctic_
> 
> And last, but not least, one of my very favorite Atmos films: _Enchanted Kingdom 3D_ (aka _Nature 3D_ in the Japanese release, which is the one I have). This one is demonstration material IMHO.



Thanks for all the info! 



ergalthema said:


> I realize this is an audio thread, but I figured I'd mention that all the Journey to Space reviews say that most of the footage is not 4K (some being even less than 1080?).



Yeah actually I don’t have a 4K player so I was looking for 3D Blu-ray Discs that had Atmos sound tracks. 4K 3D with Atmos Discs should still play fine on my Xbox one S though. The guardians of the galaxy vol 2 4K disco played fine on my 1080p Projector through my Xbox one S and Marantz SR-6011 AVR.


----------



## Ted99

@markus767. What is "DBA", please?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Ted99 said:


> @*markus767* . What is "DBA", please?


Double Bass Array

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ouble-bass-array-dba-modern-bass-concept.html


----------



## javanpohl

citsur86 said:


> Picked up Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 and realized the 4K disc has Atmos but the 3D is on the Blu-ray with DTS-HD 7.1. Are there any 3D Blu-ray Discs with Atmos sound tracks that anyone’s aware of? Stinks that I have to choose between 3D and Atmos at home for Guardians Vol 2. Not sure which way to watch it. Maybe I’ll just do both.


Not that I know of. And I still don't know if ripping the UHD discs is possible yet, much less merging that audio track with the 1080p 3D video track. Fortunately ("perspective") it seems as though that Atmos mix isn't anything to really write home about.

BTW, I was assuming you meant "3D BD discs (for Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2) with Atmos sound tracks"


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> There is no "reflection" at such low frequencies. You have to approach the problem using a wave model. Again, see Toole for detailed information and references.


Of course there is. You can't excite a room mode without a reflection. Bass traps work precisely by absorbing part if that wave so less reflects back to create a standing wave. DBAs work by cancelling out the wave instead so there's nothing left to reflect. Honestly, you seem hung up on language and talk little about your reasoning. I'm still waiting to hear why you think putting speakers (other than subs) in the corners of the room are a good idea. You never answered the question.



> You can have a perfectly flat magnitude response that is highly distorted in the time domain.


Given the important transient harmonics are at higher frequencies, how likely is that going to significantly matter in a typical listening room for deep bass from a subwoofer crossed at 80Hz?



> You don't see any advantage in controlling acoustics of the playback room and removing detrimental reflections? Well, I do.


I was talking about your suggestion that putting speakers (not subs) in the corners is the "best approach" for speaker setups. I was not talking about removing room reflections there..... I honestly don't know if you're even serious at this point when you distort what I said so much.


----------



## jjackkrash

jjackkrash said:


> Is there a guide to how far from the side walls the Atmos speakers should be?


Ok, I know my question is pedestrian, but I am gonna start cutting holes this weekend. I googled around and looked at the Atmos guide online published by Dolby, but I did not see (maybe I missed it) how to figure how far to place the speaker in from the side walls on the ceiling.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html

Come in a foot and call it good? Measure the angle to the MLP? Roll dice? Tarrot cards?

Come on super smart people, take a break from the high-level theory stuff and help a simpleton out. 

(5.1.4, long rectangular family room, 9' ceiling, MLP 12' from display on boundary wall, 13' wide, one nice ported sub.)


----------



## midblue

jjackkrash said:


> Ok, I know my question is pedestrian, but I am gonna start cutting holes this weekend. I googled around and looked at the Atmos guide online published by Dolby, but I did not see (maybe I missed it) how to figure how far to place the speaker in from the side walls on the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> 
> 
> Come in a foot and call it good? Measure the angle to the MLP? Roll dice? Tarrot cards?
> 
> 
> 
> Come on super smart people, take a break from the high-level theory stuff and help a simpleton out.
> 
> 
> 
> (5.1.4, long rectangular family room, 9' ceiling, MLP 12' from display on boundary wall, 13' wide, one nice ported sub.)




They are supposed to be aligned with your L/R main speakers, ideally. It's not obvious, but this is shown by a dotted line in the diagrams on Dolby's site. Where are the L/R mains located in your room?


----------



## a68oliver

jjackkrash said:


> Ok, I know my question is pedestrian, but I am gonna start cutting holes this weekend. I googled around and looked at the Atmos guide online published by Dolby, but I did not see (maybe I missed it) how to figure how far to place the speaker in from the side walls on the ceiling.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-4-setups.html
> 
> Come in a foot and call it good? Measure the angle to the MLP? Roll dice? Tarrot cards?
> 
> Come on super smart people, take a break from the high-level theory stuff and help a simpleton out.
> 
> (5.1.4, long rectangular family room, 9' ceiling, MLP 12' from display on boundary wall, 13' wide, one nice ported sub.)


This document https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf says:


The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees.


----------



## jjackkrash

midblue said:


> They are supposed to be aligned with your L/R main speakers, ideally. It's not obvious, but this is shown by a dotted line in the diagrams on Dolby's site. Where are the L/R mains located in your room?


Awesome, thanks.

I don't have any sound in the living room yet; my basement build got bogged down in HVAC and budget hell, so I got the itch and ordered some gear for the living room last week. 

My mains get here Monday and the set up is not ideal in my living room; they need to go in a bookshelf about ear level. I was going to set up the front three and take some measurements when they get here. I have a little left-to-right placement flexibility, but I was planning on trying to get the L/R equidistant from the MLP, which would put them about 6-12" from the boundary wall on the side. I can move them closer to the display by up to about 2 feet each, if necessary.


----------



## jjackkrash

a68oliver said:


> This document https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf says:
> 
> 
> The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees.


Awesome, thanks for that link! It looks like some great info in there.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Of course there is. You can't excite a room mode without a reflection. Bass traps work precisely by absorbing part if that wave so less reflects back to create a standing wave. DBAs work by cancelling out the wave instead so there's nothing left to reflect. Honestly, you seem hung up on language and talk little about your reasoning.


At low frequencies wavelengths are longer than room dimensions. You don't get far with the classic mirror image model. You can't "break up" low frequency "reflections" by pointing your sub in a certain direction. Wavelengths are too big. Read Toole and things should become clearer. I can't give you a lecture on that in a forum post when others need a couple of hundred pages in a book to explain it. Better sit down and read such a book. I've provided references. I'm afraid it doesn't get easier than that.
Here's a good introduction: http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/loudspeakers_and_rooms_for_sound_reproduction.pdf



MagnumX said:


> I'm still waiting to hear why you think putting speakers (other than subs) in the corners of the room are a good idea. You never answered the question.


It's not me not answering but you not listening, so I'll repeat: by flush mounting L and R in corners I remove very early reflections that cause imaging problems and spectral distortion. In other words, I prevent reflections from occurring because it's easier than eliminating unwanted acoustical energy once it is out in the room.



MagnumX said:


> Given the important transient harmonics are at higher frequencies, how likely is that going to significantly matter in a typical listening room for deep bass from a subwoofer crossed at 80Hz?


Very likely. Here's just a random example from a user that posted measurements of L from the listening position. Note the excess phase group delay peaks (= non-minimum phase regions):












MagnumX said:


> I was talking about your suggestion that putting speakers (not subs) in the corners is the "best approach" for speaker setups. I was not talking about removing room reflections there..... I honestly don't know if you're even serious at this point when you distort what I said so much.


You've said this:



MagnumX said:


> The corners of the room are among the absolute _worst_ possible place to put a speaker (save perhaps a sub for reinforcement purposes, although I find standing waves makes that a bad location as well without correction).


So what were you talking about if it wasn't room reflections? Standing waves from the back and side wall? Flush mounting in a room corner takes care of that as well because there can't be any such standing waves with the speaker in or very close to those boundaries. So I still don't follow why putting speakers in a room corner is "the absolute _worst_ possible place to put a speaker". It can be one of the best IF correctly implemented.


----------



## H Stevens

Not all Atmos setups suggest that the ceiling speakers be in-line with with the front L & R's, check with the speaker manufacturer and installation manual. For example, Atlantic Technology recommends that their IC OBA's are positioned to the sides.

http://atlantictechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IC-6_OBA_manual_150116.pdf


----------



## Selden Ball

H Stevens said:


> Not all Atmos setups suggest that the ceiling speakers be in-line with with the front L & R's, check with the speaker manufacturer and installation manual. For example, Atlantic Technology recommends that their IC OBA's are positioned to the sides.
> 
> http://atlantictechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IC-6_OBA_manual_150116.pdf


I see just a vague "to the sides" recommendation in that document, not a specific placement recommendation, although their picture seems to suggest they could be farther apart than the front main speakers. 

It's probably still best to go by Dolby's recommendations if you can. They're the ones who designed Atmos, after all.


----------



## Ted99

Scott Simonian said:


> Double Bass Array
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...ouble-bass-array-dba-modern-bass-concept.html


Thanks for the link. That's very interesting. Looks like the implementation problem is to either get two pairs of speakers at the mid-points of the F and R walls, or a symetrical arrangement of 4 speakers on each wall. It looks like the new Dirac method of using the bass speakers as active room correction (can't remember the name) is another way of going for similar results with a multi-sub arrangement. I've got two floor-level 12" at the front, which i am going to move to a: x__2x__x arrangement, two floor-level 12' subs under the side surrounds at 90 degrees and one 18" in the center rear. All in a 12' x 14' room. I could do a 4 x 4 array on front and rear walls if the DBA "concentricity" would work with the speakers vertically arrayed at the wall floor and ceiling junction (need to put them above the screen).


----------



## markus767

Ted99 said:


> Thanks for the link. That's very interesting. Looks like the implementation problem is to either get two pairs of speakers at the mid-points of the F and R walls, or a symetrical arrangement of 4 speakers on each wall. It looks like the new Dirac method of using the bass speakers as active room correction (can't remember the name) is another way of going for similar results with a multi-sub arrangement. I've got two floor-level 12" at the front, which i am going to move to a: x__2x__x arrangement, two floor-level 12' subs under the side surrounds at 90 degrees and one 18" in the center rear. All in a 12' x 14' room. I could do a 4 x 4 array on front and rear walls if the DBA "concentricity" would work with the speakers vertically arrayed at the wall floor and ceiling junction (need to put them above the screen).


In most cases DBA will be (much) better than other active absorption approaches (like Dirac Unison) because sources are arranged in a way they can be optimally optimized. Unison on the other hand probably also optimizes the crossover region which will make a huge audible difference. Not much is known about spatial robustness though.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

markus767 said:


> In most cases DBA will be (much) better than other active absorption approaches (like Dirac Unison) because sources are arranged in a way they can be optimally optimized.


SBA on one wall and a massive amount of absorption on the opposite wall seems more popular though. I would have done that if I had the space.


----------



## Ted99

markus767 said:


> In most cases DBA will be (much) better than other active absorption approaches (like Dirac Unison) because sources are arranged in a way they can be optimally optimized.


OK. Accepted. Again with the need for concentricity: The screen means that I have to do a 4 x 4 matrix on the front wall with the four speakers vertical arrangement at the wall bottom and top. But, I could do the rear wall with two speakers at the wall mid-point. Does this violate the rule of concentricity? In my small room, self cancelling room nodes through geometry is very attractive. Also, 12" speakers in an in-wall enclosure is unlikely to have a deep bass expansion. Suppose one has the front and rear wall matrices and a fifth 18" sub in the near field? New problems?


----------



## markus767

Mashie Saldana said:


> SBA on one wall and a massive amount of absorption on the opposite wall seems more popular though. I would have done that if I had the space.


That approach is cheaper and adds higher frequency absorption to the room (which can be desirable). On the other hand you'll loose a ton of space.


----------



## markus767

Ted99 said:


> OK. Accepted. Again with the need for concentricity: The screen means that I have to do a 4 x 4 matrix on the front wall with the four speakers vertical arrangement at the wall bottom and top. But, I could do the rear wall with two speakers at the wall mid-point. Does this violate the rule of concentricity? In my small room, self cancelling room nodes through geometry is very attractive. Also, 12" speakers in an in-wall enclosure is unlikely to have a deep bass expansion. Suppose one has the front and rear wall matrices and a fifth 18" sub in the near field? New problems?


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Bass_Array for low frequency source placement. The closer you adhere to the spacing the better the outcome.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Ted99 said:


> In my small room, self cancelling room nodes through geometry is very attractive. Also, 12" speakers in an in-wall enclosure is unlikely to have a deep bass expansion. Suppose one has the front and rear wall matrices and a fifth 18" sub in the near field? New problems?


Hi Ted,

I have a feeling we could delve into multi-sub ideas for your room for quite a while longer. I'd invite that opportunity. But I think it would be better somewhere other than in this Atmos area. If you have a thread about your room, where we can see the physical layout and such, that would be ideal. Got thread?


----------



## Kevnmin

*External amp to run Atmos ceiling speakers*

I've got a Denon AVR-X6200W and looking to purchase a used amp to drive my top rear ceiling speakers. My price range is about 2 to 3 bills and my knowledge of amps is nil. I'm looking for an amp with 12 volt trigger to tie into the Denon. I've been looking at older Parasound HCA's or Rotel RMB's. I'm sure there are tons of others equal but I don't what brand or model to also look for. Please help...

I'd sure appreciate some input for options I can look into for satisfying my need for the external amp. Looking forward to your input. I'm also posting this in the 2015 Denon thread as well. Thanks.


----------



## asarose247

^ alternate possibilty

my amps for ATMOS (and Scatmos) may or may not have triggers . .

but I've opted for a first rate "smart strip' from APC that can trigger them , and a few other things , when I turn on the X5200 as the "master'.

https://www.amazon.com/APC-Controll...id=1503690872&sr=1-1&keywords=APC+smart+strip

HTH


----------



## Kevnmin

asarose247 said:


> ^ alternate possibilty
> 
> my amps for ATMOS (and Scatmos) may or may not have triggers . .
> 
> but I've opted for a first rate "smart strip' from APC that can trigger them , and a few other things , when I turn on the X5200 as the "master'.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/APC-Controll...id=1503690872&sr=1-1&keywords=APC+smart+strip
> 
> HTH


Are you 'turning off' your X5200 or 'standby'? Does that smart strip work somewhat like the CEC function in tv's and AVR's?


----------



## asarose247

good question . . 

the x5200 "on" is always pushed to be "on' and the remote kicks it (master) an everything else (on controlled outlets) into action,

the other amps also need to be in an "on" mode

so do I assume the power is always there, it seems to be for the master . . which controls power to the controlled outlets

I the 2 triggers for the 2x4HD unit and my SSR for the inukes from the denon.

my ATI amp is also on the strip and that's all on a dedicated 20 amp line.

so for so good

but you make me want to go back and review that all ...

TY


----------



## movieloverAL

Kevnmin said:


> I've got a Denon AVR-X6200W and looking to purchase a used amp to drive my top rear ceiling speakers. My price range is about 2 to 3 bills and my knowledge of amps is nil. I'm looking for an amp with 12 volt trigger to tie into the Denon. I've been looking at older Parasound HCA's or Rotel RMB's. I'm sure there are tons of others equal but I don't what brand or model to also look for. Please help...
> 
> I'd sure appreciate some input for options I can look into for satisfying my need for the external amp. Looking forward to your input. I'm also posting this in the 2015 Denon thread as well. Thanks.


What speakers do you have? Are you going to use the same for the top rear channels? (I have the same receiver ).


----------



## Kevnmin

movieloverAL said:


> What speakers do you have? Are you going to use the same for the top rear channels? (I have the same receiver ).


I have Missions all the way around for the bed. 705's up front, 703 & 702 centers(above & below tv) 704's for surrounds, 763i's for rears. Up top in the ceiling are Yamaha NSIC800WH. They blend really well since they have a soft dome just as the Missions have. Audyssey EQ helps of course. Got them off Amazon. Ordered my first pair a few months ago and just ordered my pair for the rear today.


----------



## Ted99

Roger Dressler said:


> Hi Ted,
> 
> I have a feeling we could delve into multi-sub ideas for your room for quite a while longer. I'd invite that opportunity. But I think it would be better somewhere other than in this Atmos area. If you have a thread about your room, where we can see the physical layout and such, that would be ideal. Got thread?


No, I don't Roger, but perhaps I should to tap the wisdom of this forum. As soon as our Cat 4 Hurricane passes (I'm still here), I'll look for a good home.

Ted


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> At low frequencies wavelengths are longer than room dimensions. You don't get far with the classic mirror image model. You can't "break up" low frequency "reflections" by pointing your sub in a certain direction. Wavelengths are too big.


You can change the room modes affected by turning the sub. This may or may not help your frequency response at your listening location (i.e. who cares if the bass response is uneven in the back of the room if no one is sitting there). In my case, however, I didn't just "point it" in a different direction as I indicated before. I pointed it at a semi-circular cabinet (end table) largely creating a new dispersion pattern leading to what I imagine were multiple wavefronts colliding at the listening couch instead of two primaries from two parallel walls. So instead of huge dips/peaks where the two primary wavefronts align and cancel, I have multiple primary interactions competing with one another, leading to the overall response being evened out to relatively minor amounts from 150Hz to 21Hz with two dips at 55Hz and 110Hz that can be corrected relatively easily compared to the massive variations I had when I put the subwoofer in any other position in the room (often 8-20dB across the listening couch alone). 

Turning the subwoofer or placing it at different points in the room would change the response, but the dips were still too large between seating locations at various frequencies. Using the rounded end table more or less as the sonic equivalent of a diffraction grating is what solved my room problem with the subwoofer. Given the huge variances before, I think the term "breaking up the standing waves" is perfectly descriptive as that's exactly what pointing the subwoofer at a curved reflection surface did for the room. 

Ultimately, what are my alternatives for this room short of changing the walls in it as you seem to think is ideal? A DBA won't work because of the bookshelves and windows. You either use a room correction system (assuming it's not so extreme that it CAN correct it) including room treatments or alter the sound dispersion somehow where the problem is (either through bass traps and room treatments or altering the pattern so it's not a big issue at the listening location. I did the latter). And this is what I was getting at. If you have a real house with a real room in it and you want to set up a "home theater" that doesn't cost two arms and two legs, you have actual limitations you can't just build another room to solve.

The main satellite speakers in my room are placed to align with the projection screen edges and center, not in its corners which would cause the sound stage be ridiculously wide compared to the movie on the screen and potentially lead to all kinds of phase issues caused by the sheer proximity to two different parallel wall surfaces to the sides of the speaker. 

Looking up see WTF a "flush mounted" "corner" speaker is, I'm getting images closer to this (http://www.lightsoundjournal.com/images/2009/CTD/CTD_KenScott_Photo2.jpg) which is NOT what is meant by a "corner" of the room if you have to insert angled walls to make it work! That is clearly a special case and NOT AT ALL related to what I was originally talking about (90 degree corners of actual real world rooms, not custom built walls to flush mount onto).

My "home theater room" is in a house built in 1973 when home theater didn't exist. To do this so-called "flush corner mount" thing would require modifying or putting in new walls in the room, which again is beyond the scope of most average people's home theater rooms (in my case there are two bookcases at the ends of the room and window in-between. I can't just alter the room willy-nilly without consequences.



> Read Toole and things should become clearer. I can't give you a lecture on that in a forum post when others need a couple of hundred pages in a book to explain it. Better sit down and read such a book. I've provided references. I'm afraid it doesn't get easier than that.
> Here's a good introduction: http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/loudspeakers_and_rooms_for_sound_reproduction.pdf


I'll take a look, but it doesn't change the fact you're talking about something completely different than what I had in mind when I said "corner location" (as in an actual typical house 90 degree corner, not some odd shaped room or added walls).



> It's not me not answering but you not listening, so I'll repeat: by flush mounting L and R in corners I remove very early reflections that cause imaging problems and spectral distortion. In other words, I prevent reflections from occurring because it's easier than eliminating unwanted acoustical energy once it is out in the room.


If that photo I linked is what you're referring to as a "corner" of a room, then it's small wonder there's a pointless argument going on here. I wondered what you meant by "flush mount". I should have figured you'd be talking about a special situation 99.9% of the typical home doesn't have or use.



> Very likely. Here's just a random example from a user that posted measurements of L from the listening position. Note the excess phase group delay peaks (= non-minimum phase regions):


Other than "very likely" you didn't really address what I was getting at, which is how does the group delay from sub frequencies matter when the human brain detects the "tightness" of something like a bass drum not by the lowest frequency, but by the harmonics at much higher frequencies? Group delay at subwoofer frequencies are generally ignored by the human auditory system. This is why you can get by with ONE subwoofer instead of stereo subwoofers. The human auditory system can't tell direction (phase) of bass below about 80Hz and thus the group delay of the subwoofer is largely irrelevant. So AGAIN, what does group delay of the sub matter with a subwoofer placed in a corner location? 

And what is this "random" measurement of a left speaker? What type of speaker? What kind of crossovers is it using (those greatly affect phase and group delay). Where is it located? That appears to be one speaker, not a subwoofer and satellite speaker in two different locations. I don't know what that graph has to do with the question of putting a subwoofer in a corner or not when it's crossed at 80Hz and has insignificant output above 160Hz.



> So what were you talking about if it wasn't room reflections? Standing waves from the back and side wall?


I had two things in mind. One is clearly stereo imaging. Unless your screen is wall to wall in your home theater, putting speakers in the corner of TYPICAL REAL WORLD ROOMS is going to cause mismatches for things like panned dialog effects and most music tracks played are going to have extremely wide sound stages for in-phase stereo sounds. The other is yes, room interaction. Typical speakers are not designed for corner placement (let alone using real world unmodified rooms) and just putting a typical loudspeaker in a corner location will probably NOT sound good. It may be impractical as well (real rooms have things like furniture and doorways and all kinds of things in them that build-to-order rooms typically do not).

Frankly, I think you knew full well what I was originally talking about and you still decided to engage in an argument anyway, knowing I was referring to normal rooms that do not have non-parallel wall setups. This is akin to using something like a semi-circular room (rounded on one end only) for a home theater. Yes, that might be nice for removing standing waves from the equation, but how many houses have rooms shaped that way?



> So I still don't follow why putting speakers in a room corner is "the absolute _worst_ possible place to put a speaker". It can be one of the best IF correctly implemented.


So you're taking a general statement about typical home theater installations and twisting it until it fits a pretty large IF? I also can't help but notice you purposely left off the "among" part in your quote as it makes it appear to say something I didn't really say (implying THE absolute worst and instead of one among many of poor places to put (clearly typical) loudspeakers in a typical room).


----------



## markus767

@MagnumX Instead of following the references provided in order to deepen your understanding of acoustics you simply restate your opinions and misconceptions over and over just to win the argument. Quite a few of your claims are simply false and you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. Example: I was taking about _excess phase_ group delay to identify non-minimum phase regions which is different from discussing "normal" group delay. See https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/minimumphase.html

This discussion leads nowhere and is also off-topic so I'll bow out. Again, if you're really interested in (psycho)acoustics I highly recommend these 4 books:

Everest "The master handbook of acoustics"
Toole "Sound Reproduction"
Blauert "Spatial Hearing"
Schnupp "Auditory Neuroscience"


----------



## movieloverAL

Kevnmin said:


> I have Missions all the way around for the bed. 705's up front, 703 & 702 centers(above & below tv) 704's for surrounds, 763i's for rears. Up top in the ceiling are Yamaha NSIC800WH. They blend really well since they have a soft dome just as the Missions have. Audyssey EQ helps of course. Got them off Amazon. Ordered my first pair a few months ago and just ordered my pair for the rear today.


Nice speakers, I think for the ones you plan to use a 50w per ch is enough. I use a Russound R290DS (90w per ch), with the Audyssey calibration I think it gives me at least the same power as the top front speakers (at half volume of the Russound). But you have more options if you are willing to spend more, like buy a good 3 or 5 channel amp for your LRC, and then use the denon for the rest of the speakers. Hope this helps


----------



## guitarguy316

I have an Denon X3300W only capable of 5.1.2 for atmos/dts-x. I just got a pair of svs prime elevation to use for height/atmos. My setup will either be front height positioned at the ceiling line on the wall above the tv OR should I do TOP MIDDLE which would also be along the wall at the ceiling joint but NOT in the ceiling (I have cathedral ceilings).

Which would be better to mount the speakers and use for Atmos/DTSX? FRONT HEIGHT or TOP MIDDLE? Either would be positioned on the wall where it hits the ceiling above 10ft high.

my amp's options:
http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3300W/EU/EN/GFNFSYvqscamxo.php


----------



## chi_guy50

guitarguy316 said:


> I have an Denon X3300W only capable of 5.1.2 for atmos/dts-x. I just got a pair of svs prime elevation to use for height/atmos. My setup will either be front height positioned at the ceiling line on the wall above the tv OR should I do TOP MIDDLE which would also be along the wall at the ceiling joint but NOT in the ceiling (I have cathedral ceilings).
> 
> Which would be better to mount the speakers and use for Atmos/DTSX? FRONT HEIGHT or TOP MIDDLE? Either would be positioned on the wall where it hits the ceiling above 10ft high.
> 
> my amp's options:
> http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3300W/EU/EN/GFNFSYvqscamxo.php


Your prime considerations should be (1) first and foremost, the resulting elevation and azimuth angles relative to the MLP and (2) the positioning of your overhead speakers relative to the listener-level (5.1) speakers.

On the first count, you will want the FH elevation angle to be greater than 30°; if it is less than that, then I would prioritize TM. OTOH, ideally the overhead speakers should be roughly on a line with your FL/R speakers in terms of lateral placement. This would presumably not be an issue for mounting on the front wall, but the side walls could be another matter unless your room is quite narrow.

On the second count, your goal should be to achieve audibly significant separation between the listener-level and overhead speakers. This applies not just to vertical separation between the two planes but also (where the vertical separation is compromised) laterally. For example, someone mounting their speakers on the ceiling might move the TM (or RH) speakers into the room or further out toward the sides if the vertical separation from their respective surround speakers is less than ideal. In your case, you would have no recourse when mounting on the side wall--those speakers would be fixed in place on the furthest extremes of the room. If, say, your F/LR and/or surround speakers are a good distance away from the side walls, then any sounds panning from front to back would seem to veer to the sides when overhead. How much of a concern this represents would depend on your room's dimensions and exactly where you choose to place your listener-level speakers. For instance, if your room is narrow and your speakers are already at or near the side walls, then TM placed slightly in front of the MLP would probably return the best results.

See the attached diagrams for more guidance.


----------



## madhuski

Just found this thread....merging in my post from a differrent forum:

So I'm going to try to change my living room setup into a Atmos. When we bought the house, there were allready in ceiling surrounds and surround wides. Not optimal location, but I went with it. They are pretty well located for Atmos. So my plan is to buy bookshelf surrounds and upfiring modules, and then use the in-celings for rear atmos. I think I'll have to just go with 5.1.4, since have in celing rear surrounds would be weird along with Atmos.

I think its not ideal to go with a mix of modules and in-ceilings, but for lack of a better plan......does this seem ok?


----------



## madhuski

ALtlOff said:


> Honestly i wouldn't worry about the position of those front ceiling speakers and would still use them instead of upfiring modules, while they are not prefect, I still think you'll have a considerably better effect.
> And because of the location of your seating and the rear in-ceiling speakers you should also play with the labeling of those speakers. Start with TF/TR but also experiment with labeling them FH/TM, then just choose what sounds best to you.



I'm glad you responded! FOr some reason I thought both in celings go in front of the LP. I just looked up thje 5.1.4 setup and it looks like the in-celings go in front and behind the LP. 











I think mine are almost optimally places. The rears are about 18 inches behind the LP, and the front are about 18 inches in front......just offset a little wide. I think you're right, and I'd be better served doing a 5.1.4 than a 7.1.4











Thanks a million. Talk about a total whiff on my part......should have looked at the Dolby website more closely


----------



## movieloverAL

guitarguy316 said:


> I have an Denon X3300W...Which would be better to mount the speakers and use for Atmos/DTSX? FRONT HEIGHT or TOP MIDDLE?


Front Height


----------



## am2model3

I am thinking to do 5.1.4 dolby atmos enabled ceiling bounce speakers pioneer elite by andrew jones; does bouncing work well off white ceiling tile or is there some absorption? I read online it still bounces well. Was thinking i could put something flat material under the tile based on the 70 degree angle to increase its sound bounce?


----------



## guitarguy316

movieloverAL said:


> Front Height


any comments on why you prefer or recommend that?


----------



## guitarguy316

chi_guy50 said:


> Your prime considerations should be (1) first and foremost, the resulting elevation and azimuth angles relative to the MLP and (2) the positioning of your overhead speakers relative to the listener-level (5.1) speakers.
> 
> On the first count, you will want the FH elevation angle to be greater than 30°; if it is less than that, then I would prioritize TM. OTOH, ideally the overhead speakers should be roughly on a line with your FL/R speakers in terms of lateral placement. This would presumably not be an issue for mounting on the front wall, but the side walls could be another matter unless your room is quite narrow.
> 
> On the second count, your goal should be to achieve audibly significant separation between the listener-level and overhead speakers. This applies not just to vertical separation between the two planes but also (where the vertical separation is compromised) laterally. For example, someone mounting their speakers on the ceiling might move the TM (or RH) speakers into the room or further out toward the sides if the vertical separation from their respective surround speakers is less than ideal. In your case, you would have no recourse when mounting on the side wall--those speakers would be fixed in place on the furthest extremes of the room. If, say, your F/LR and/or surround speakers are a good distance away from the side walls, then any sounds panning from front to back would seem to veer to the sides when overhead. How much of a concern this represents would depend on your room's dimensions and exactly where you choose to place your listener-level speakers. For instance, if your room is narrow and your speakers are already at or near the side walls, then TM placed slightly in front of the MLP would probably return the best results.
> 
> See the attached diagrams for more guidance.


Thank for all that input. Since I have cathedral ceilings, I can't mount directly in the ceiling. For "top middle" the speakers would be firing down on the listening at 70% angle (prime elevation speakers) along the side wall. Or the other option is directly at the listening position from the front wall as "front heights".


----------



## sdurani

guitarguy316 said:


> Or the other option is directly at the listening position from the front wall as "front heights".


Speakers high up on the front wall will give the impression of a tall front soundstage. By comparison, the intent of Atmos and DTS:X is to give the impression of sound overhead. If you're going to do a single pair of speakers above you, then place them much closer to the listeners (whether on the ceiling or high up on the side walls).


----------



## guitarguy316

sdurani said:


> Speakers high up on the front wall will give the impression of a tall front soundstage. By comparison, the intent of Atmos and DTS:X is to give the impression of sound overhead. If you're going to do a single pair of speakers above you, then place them much closer to the listeners (whether on the ceiling or high up on the side walls).


well my denon's only option is to place them high on the rear side wall and call the "top middle"


----------



## sdurani

guitarguy316 said:


> well my denon's only option is to place them high on the rear side wall and call the "top middle"


Your Denon doesn't control physical placement options. IF you can't do ceiling placement, then place them directly to your sides, as high up as possible on the side walls, pointing down towards the listening area. This should create a soundstage above you with phantom imaging overhead. You can then designate the speakers as Top Middle or any other designation (ALL the height information in the soundtrack will end up in those speakers irrespective of the designation).


----------



## ergalthema

sdurani said:


> Speakers high up on the front wall will give the impression of a tall front soundstage. By comparison, the intent of Atmos and DTS:X is to give the impression of sound overhead. If you're going to do a single pair of speakers above you, then place them much closer to the listeners (whether on the ceiling or high up on the side walls).


My understanding was that DTS:X, while still object-based, was designed more around high front speakers opposed to Atmos's ceiling emphasis.


----------



## sdurani

ergalthema said:


> My understanding was that DTS:X, while still object-based, was designed more around high front speakers opposed to Atmos's ceiling emphasis.


Other way 'round. While the home version of Atmos has speaker locations high up on the front & back walls, the home version of DTS:X has no similar locations (its lowest height layer is at 45 degrees elevation).


----------



## jjackkrash

Well, I got them in the ceiling at least. I still have some trim work to do. L/C/R and subs get here hopefully wednesday.


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> Your Denon doesn't control physical placement options. IF you can't do ceiling placement, then place them directly to your sides, as high up as possible on the side walls, pointing down towards the listening area. This should create a soundstage above you with phantom imaging overhead. You can then designate the speakers as Top Middle or any other designation (ALL the height information in the soundtrack will end up in those speakers irrespective of the designation).


I thought I had this whipped, until I read this post from a very capable member. I can't do tops (concrete ceiling). I have the overheads at the 9' wall/ceiling juncture. The fronts are at the front/side wall corner pointed at the MLP and at a 30 degree angle. The rears are at the rear/side wall corner pointed at the MLP and at a 45 degree angle. Use is predominately Atmos, as there are a lot more releases in Atmos than DTS:X. I thought this was a good compromise between the two Codecs. When I read @sdurani's post, I'm led to believe that I should move the Front Heights to the wall/ceiling junction at 90 and 270 degrees from the MLP (sides) and pointed down at 45 degrees (which would point the left speaker at the right seat and the right speaker to the left seat (one-row, two seat HT) and tell my Marantz that they are Top Middle. On the other hand, 2018 is expected to bring $5K Receivers capable of X.X.6 performance. If I get one of these, would the optimum be to keep the current speaker arrangement and add two more speakers at 90 and 270 degrees (sides), pointed down at 45 degrees? Then I would tell the Receiver I had "Front Height, Top Middle and Top Rear?"


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Ted99 said:


> I thought I had this whipped, until I read this post from a very capable member. I can't do tops (concrete ceiling). I have the overheads at the 9' wall/ceiling juncture. The fronts are at the front/side wall corner pointed at the MLP and at a 30 degree angle. The rears are at the rear/side wall corner pointed at the MLP and at a 45 degree angle. Use is predominately Atmos, as there are a lot more releases in Atmos than DTS:X. I thought this was a good compromise between the two Codecs. When I read @*http://www.avsforum.com/forum/member.php?u=7765362* sdurani's post, I'm led to believe that I should move the Front Heights to the wall/ceiling junction at 90 and 270 degrees from the MLP (sides) and pointed down at 45 degrees (which would point the left speaker at the right seat and the right speaker to the left seat (one-row, two seat HT) and tell my Marantz that they are Top Middle. On the other hand, 2018 is expected to bring $5K Receivers capable of X.X.6 performance. If I get one of these, would the optimum be to keep the current speaker arrangement and add two more speakers at 90 and 180 degrees, pointed down at 45 degrees? Then I would tell the Receiver I had "Front Height, Top Middle and Top Rear?


Both x.x.4 and x.x.6 have the fronts and rears heights in the same position, the difference is the added top middles. In other words, if you start with a 7.1.4 setup and go to a 9.1.6 you won't have to relocate a single speaker.


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> When I read @*http://www.avsforum.com/forum/member.php?u=7765362* sdurani's post, I'm led to believe that I should move the Front Heights to the wall/ceiling junction at 90 and 270 degrees from the MLP (sides) and pointed down at 45 degrees (which would point the left speaker at the right seat and the right speaker to the left seat (one-row, two seat HT) and tell my Marantz that they are Top Middle.


Keep in mind that my post was about getting the overhead effect using a single pair of height speakers. If you're going to use more than one pair, then high up on the front & back walls should create imaging above you.


----------



## whitedwarf

Hi everyone, I've currently got a 7.1 that I'm going to upgrade to a 7.1.4 setup but I'm still having some trouble with the placement of my Atmos speakers (In ceiling.)

My room is 15.4ft by 12ft, ceiling is 8.8ft high. From ear to ceiling it's about 5ft.

I have no issues with the 45 degree angle (5ft in front of MLP) for the front height speakers, but my MLP is 4ft from the back so I don't have enough room back there. There's also the rear surrounds that are mounted on the wall so I imagine I'd need to place my Rear Height speakers with a little separation between them.

Should I mount the Front Height at 45 degrees and the rear ones differently? Will that affect the Atmos effects?

Can anyone suggest what I should do in this case? Thank you for your help.


----------



## sdurani

^^^^ Get the rear heights as far back as you can. Move the rear surrounds down, closer to seated ear level. That should be enough angular separation to let you to hear the difference between sounds around you vs sounds above you.


----------



## Darth Omi

whitedwarf said:


> Hi everyone, I've currently got a 7.1 that I'm going to upgrade to a 7.1.4 setup but I'm still having some trouble with the placement of my Atmos speakers (In ceiling.)
> 
> My room is 15.4ft by 12ft, ceiling is 8.8ft high. From ear to ceiling it's about 5ft.
> 
> I have no issues with the 45 degree angle (5ft in front of MLP) for the front height speakers, but my MLP is 4ft from the back so I don't have enough room back there. There's also the rear surrounds that are mounted on the wall so I imagine I'd need to place my Rear Height speakers with a little separation between them.
> 
> Should I mount the Front Height at 45 degrees and the rear ones differently? Will that affect the Atmos effects?
> 
> Can anyone suggest what I should do in this case? Thank you for your help.



This sounds like my case (I'm even closer than you to the back wall and I have vaulted ceilings). I was very concerned as well about placement and not being able to follow the guidelines perfectly. I recently installed 4 in-ceiling speakers and LOVING IT. The top front are at about 45 degrees and 4.5 in front of me, the top rears are, of course, less than 45 degrees and about 2.5 feet behind me. I'm no expert but, guidelines define the ideal case, I tried to stay as close to the guidelines as I could given the constraints. If you can, try to go with 4 speakers and create good separation between ear level speakers and the ones in the ceiling.

Thank you Sanjay for all your feedback and advice!


----------



## guitarguy316

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. While the home version of Atmos has speaker locations high up on the front & back walls, the home version of DTS:X has no similar locations (its lowest height layer is at 45 degrees elevation).


so for non dtsx or atmos, which upmixer is better for front height speakers...per this post it would be dolby surround?


----------



## sdurani

guitarguy316 said:


> so for non dtsx or atmos, which upmixer is better for front height speakers...per this post it would be dolby surround?


Choice of upmixer comes down to personal preference. Try both and use the one you like. Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Darth Omi said:


> I recently installed 4 in-ceiling speakers and LOVING IT. The top front are at about 45 degrees and 4.5 in front of me, the top rears are, of course, less than 45 degrees and about 2.5 feet behind me. I'm no expert but, guidelines define the ideal case, I tried to stay as close to the guidelines as I could given the constraints. If you can, try to go with 4 speakers and create good separation between ear level speakers and the ones in the ceiling.


Thankyou for posting that picture! My room has a flat ceiling but I will be sat only just in front of the two top rears like you are, so it's great to know that your set-up works well.


----------



## Jonas2

Darth Omi said:


> This sounds like my case (I'm even closer than you to the back wall and I have vaulted ceilings). I was very concerned as well about placement and not being able to follow the guidelines perfectly. I recently installed 4 in-ceiling speakers and LOVING IT. The top front are at about 45 degrees and 4.5 in front of me, the top rears are, of course, less than 45 degrees and about 2.5 feet behind me. I'm no expert but, guidelines define the ideal case, I tried to stay as close to the guidelines as I could given the constraints.


My rears are probably just a little further than yours, but very similar in that my fronts are "perfect" but the rears had to be brought closer to the MLP - and it sounds great. I didn't want to get too close to the rear wall as the perfect rear placement would have brought them very close to the wall, and they would have looked aesthetically unpleasing to me, so I made a compromise between looks and placement - though they are still within the Dolby spec.


----------



## jjackkrash

I plugged my surrounds and overheads into my old 4311 and popped in the Royal PhilH plays Pink Floyd and it was like a veil had been lifted! I went from having no sound to sound in the ceiling! 

Seriously, I am pretty excited the speakers worked and I didn't have to tear anything out or trouble shoot. They actually sounded pretty good even without a sub or any eq.

Thanks for the set-up tips folks, I am pretty excited Atmos is just around the corner for me. I would have the LCR and Sub hooked up this weekend. Fingers crossed.


----------



## whitedwarf

Thanks for the reply guys, really helpful!


----------



## shyyour

Please can someone advise?

In a 2.1.2 setup what would be the best designation for the height speakers? Top Front, Top Middle or Front heights?

They are currently physically located in a Front height position.

thanks


----------



## sikclown

shyyour said:


> Please can someone advise?
> 
> In a 2.1.2 setup what would be the best designation for the height speakers? Top Front, Top Middle or Front heights?
> 
> They are currently physically located in a Front height position.
> 
> thanks


There is a thread about this exact configuration that may or may not give you some insight:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2882393-using-dolby-atmos-enabled-speakers-2-1-2-channel-system.html


----------



## shyyour

sikclown said:


> There is a thread about this exact configuration that may or may not give you some insight:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2882393-using-dolby-atmos-enabled-speakers-2-1-2-channel-system.html


Thanks i read it but it doesnt help. He used Dolby Enabled speakers (which im not using) and there was no mention of the designation which is what im after.


----------



## sikclown

shyyour said:


> Thanks i read it but it doesnt help. He used Dolby Enabled speakers (which im not using) and there was no mention of the designation which is what im after.


Right but I thought maybe someone in the thread chimed in. I thought Dolby enabled front speakers basically replaced Top Front though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

shyyour said:


> Please can someone advise?
> 
> In a 2.1.2 setup what would be the best designation for the height speakers? Top Front, Top Middle or Front heights?
> 
> They are currently physically located in a Front height position.
> 
> thanks


You are wasting your time with immersive surround in this configuration. For one, without a center speaker DTS: X does not engage with most receivers. The minimum for 3D surround is still 5.1.2.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> You are wasting your time with immersive surround in this configuration. For one, without a center speaker DTS: X does not engage with most receivers.


How very nice of you to tell him what is and what is not a waste of his time.  

The people in the linked thread above would appear to disagree....

2.1.2 is still going to be more "immersive" than 2.1 no matter what you think of it "wasting his time". I think he might be better off engaging ceiling or Atmos enabled speakers as regular surround in a 4.1 configuration (near the ceiling was always a recommended option before Atmos), but that's his choice. 2.1.2 clearly worked for those that tried it in that thread and DTS:X is hardly the be-all of everything regardless (I have ONE title out of over 700 that has it so far). _Most_ is not _all_ either and receivers can have their firmware updated to address it (phantom center behavior does not change just because ceiling speakers are added).



> The minimum for 3D surround is still 5.1.2.


I wasn't aware Atmos or X was now called "3D" sound. I have a full range 4.0 system in my living/music room that's plenty darn "immersive" without a center or ceiling speakers. A center is somewhat impractical in that room (there's a Roland piano in the middle under the wall-mounted plasma) and Carver ribbons don't match well to other speakers anyway and since I'm usually the only person using that system and sit in the middle, it matters not as a phantom center is as good or usually better (most center channel speakers are compromised in terms of lobe/comb and sometimes even imaging effects unless you use the same speaker in the center as the left/right instead of those horizontal centers) than any hard center if you're the only one listening to the system. I have a separate dedicated home theater room downstairs, but the Carver system sounds as good or better for traditional surround sound since the ribbon speakers are far more "engaging" and three dimensional sounding than most "box" speakers and with Sonic Holography on the Carver analog preamp, sound extended halfway out into the room even before I added the surround speakers (it works fine in conjunction with Dolby Digital and DTS and widens and deepens the front sound stage considerably)



shyyour said:


> Please can someone advise?
> 
> In a 2.1.2 setup what would be the best designation for the height speakers? Top Front, Top Middle or Front heights?
> 
> They are currently physically located in a Front height position.


You designate them where you intend to use them or they would get the wrong material. If you can move them in the room easily, you will probably get more of an effect if you can put them overhead or just behind you overhead. You could actually then use them as regular surround instead of height channels and work well with most of the traditional 5.1/7.1 mixes out there (whereas Atmos is still a tiny fraction of available titles and DTS:X has barely gotten started). I would imagine the upmixer would largely use them as surrounds anyway when designated as Top Middle. If you can't move them to a more overhead or just behind you position, you'll get some height effects, but no real surround.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> How very nice of you to tell him what is and what is not a waste of his time.
> 
> The people in the linked thread above would appear to disagree....
> 
> 2.1.2 is still going to be more "immersive" than 2.1 no matter what you think of it "wasting his time". I think he might be better off engaging ceiling or Atmos enabled speakers as regular surround in a 4.1 configuration (near the ceiling was always a recommended option before Atmos), but that's his choice. 2.1.2 clearly worked for those that tried it in that thread and DTS:X is hardly the be-all of everything regardless (I have ONE title out of over 700 that has it so far). _Most_ is not _all_ either and receivers can have their firmware updated to address it (phantom center behavior does not change just because ceiling speakers are added).
> 
> I wasn't aware Atmos or X was now called "3D" sound. I have a full range 4.0 system in my living/music room that's plenty darn "immersive" without a center or ceiling speakers. A center is somewhat impractical in that room (there's a Roland piano in the middle under the wall-mounted plasma) and Carver ribbons don't match well to other speakers anyway and since I'm usually the only person using that system and sit in the middle, it matters not as a phantom center is as good or usually better (most center channel speakers are compromised in terms of lobe/comb and sometimes even imaging effects unless you use the same speaker in the center as the left/right instead of those horizontal centers) than any hard center if you're the only one listening to the system. I have a separate dedicated home theater room downstairs, but the Carver system sounds as good or better for traditional surround sound since the ribbon speakers are far more "engaging" and three dimensional sounding than most "box" speakers and with Sonic Holography on the Carver analog preamp, sound extended halfway out into the room even before I added the surround speakers (it works fine in conjunction with Dolby Digital and DTS and widens and deepens the front sound stage considerably)


You seem to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. 

DTS: X is used on a growing number of titles, both Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray, like it or not (I personally like home Atmos better because it is the superior consumer audio product from a technical standpoint... and fully scalable to 34 speaker locations) and if you are stuck with what ends up being a hyped up stereo system, you are not getting a solid immersive experience. The heights work in conjunction with the fronts, side surrounds, and rear surrounds when positioning or panning audio effects, dialog, music, etc. to create a three-dimensional space on the x, y, and z axis. That is impossible with just two main speakers in the front of the room and two augmenting above the front two. Hence, 3D audio.


----------



## MagnumX

That's essentially like saying anything less than 7.1.4 is a waste of time. You're not getting the "full effect" so don't do anything at all....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> That's essentially like saying anything less than 7.1.4 is a waste of time. You're not getting the "full effect" so don't do anything at all....


I said the minimum was 5.1.2 because you can still move the sides towards the rear like at 100 or 110 degrees and improve surround coverage. It's not ideal with only two overheads due to limited panning available and with the lack of front to back/back to front and side to side movement in the height plane.

If you get right down to it 7.1.4 for Atmos isn't enough given the characteristics of audio objects. It's only adding four speakers to a standard layout, but you need the room for the added speakers and the budget. This is coming from someone who has heard a Trinnov setup more than once and is hoping that more companies come out with at least 9.1.6 processors.


----------



## dschulz

shyyour said:


> Please can someone advise?
> 
> In a 2.1.2 setup what would be the best designation for the height speakers? Top Front, Top Middle or Front heights?
> 
> They are currently physically located in a Front height position.
> 
> thanks


I would go with the designation that most closely matches their actual location, so in your case Front Height.



Dan Hitchman said:


> You are wasting your time with immersive surround in this configuration. For one, without a center speaker DTS: X does not engage with most receivers. The minimum for 3D surround is still 5.1.2.


I don't think it's a waste of time. I wouldn't give up my surround speakers unless I had to, but if I had to, and I had room on the front wall for Front Height, the Mark Henninger article linked upthread was enough to convince me of the usefulness of a 2.1.2 configuration for Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I said the minimum was 5.1.2 because you can still move the sides towards the rear like at 100 or 110 degrees and improve surround coverage. It's not ideal with only two overheads due to limited panning available and with the lack of front to back/back to front and side to side movement in the height plane.


What I'm saying is there is a _huge_ difference between "not ideal" and "waste of time". I would have thought that would have been obvious by now, but apparently not.... Try reading the thread on 2.1.2 and see what other people that have actually tried it think instead of assuming it's a waste of time. _Any_ improvement is better than _no_ improvement.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> What I'm saying is there is a _huge_ difference between "not ideal" and "waste of time". I would have thought that would have been obvious by now, but apparently not.... Try reading the thread on 2.1.2 and see what other people that have actually tried it think instead of assuming it's a waste of time. _Any_ improvement is better than _no_ improvement.


No surround is a waste of time. If you want a home _theater_ and not a home stereo, you need surround speakers... for, you know, a sense of immersion, not just the spotty effect of the occasional overhead pan. As Lucas stated more than once, sound is at least 50% of the movie watching experience.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> *No surround is a waste of time*. If you want a home _theater_ and not a home stereo, you need surround speakers... for, you know, a sense of immersion, not just the spotty effect of the occasional overhead pan. As Lucas stated more than once, sound is at least 50% of the movie watching experience.


You do know that old George said SOUND was 50% of the experience, not "surround sound" and when he said that around the time of the first THX theaters, they all had MONO extracted "surround" that was rarely even very noticeable in most mixes! 5.1 and above came later and surround calling attention to itself was a no-no for some time as the thinking was you should not be distracted by surround effects ping-ponging around the room. Obviously, the thoughts on that matter have evolved into having ping-pong sound effects everywhere now, including the ceiling. That's a pretty big departure from "old school" thinking about the use of surround effects, but that's the world George Lucas was in when he pushed to get theaters to have BETTER sound (surround already existed; THX was not about the surround channels when it came out but rather it was about creating and certifying a STANDARD for QUALITY SOUND for movie theaters. Quality is what comes first. Surround should be secondary to quality, IMO).

The vast majority of what happens on the screen is covered by the front speakers. I'd personally take a quality stereo setup over a poor surround setup (meaning using crap speakers and/or a crap receiver) any day of the week! Someone in my family had one of those "packaged" surround systems and the thing clipped, cut-out and pretty much sucked all around. Using the TV speaker was better most of the time. 

Surround is nice, but good front speakers are far more important, IMO. Front height speakers (even without Atmos on many systems) can be used as presence channels and/or to raise dialog height. They are NOT a "waste of time" to utilize over regular stereo. _If_ he can move these speakers, he can set them to surround instead (which includes the height effects if you don't have those speakers set) and get the elusive surround sound he doesn't have already. But don't ask about that or suggest it. Just tell him he's wasting his time on here.... 

Not every room can support every speaker configuration, particularly with the so-called _wife acceptance factor_. I don't know why this guy can't seem to have surround speakers and it's really none of my business if he doesn't want to share. Apparently, he can have and seemingly _already_ has some type of ceiling speakers installed in the room. Instead of answering his question or being at all helpful, all you did was tell him not to bother to hook them up (as he'd be "wasting [his] time"). I've tried to point out the flaw in this as delicately as I can, but it's apparently not registering. You seem to want to tell people that it's got to be 5.1 or greater or don't even flipping bother with anything at all since it's all just "stereo". I find that to be seriously _poor_ advice. It's a bit like saying if you can't afford at least a V8 Mustang, why bother even getting a car. Just take the bus....

I do find it pretty amusing, however, that this "3D" experience apparently has only occasional "spotty" overhead effects. With that kind of opinion of overhead speaker use thus far, one can't help but wonder why bother with overhead speakers PERIOD? For the occasional spotty effect? Oh boy! That sounds _so_ worth buying a new receiver and more speakers to get those _occasional spotty effects_....


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> I do find it pretty amusing, however, that this "3D" experience apparently has only occasional "spotty" overhead effects. With that kind of opinion of overhead speaker use thus far, one can't help but wonder why bother with overhead speakers PERIOD? For the occasional spotty effect? Oh boy! That sounds _so_ worth buying a new receiver and more speakers to get those _occasional spotty effects_....


That is why it's called Dolby ATMOS and not Dolby3D... 
For a more natural, continuous "3D experience", you're better served with live 3D recordings played on a Auro3D (double layered 5.1) lay-out. 
Unfortunately, there is not so much of that...


----------



## maikeldepotter

shyyour said:


> Please can someone advise?
> 
> In a 2.1.2 setup what would be the best designation for the height speakers? Top Front, Top Middle or Front heights?
> 
> They are currently physically located in a Front height position.
> 
> thanks





dschulz said:


> I would go with the designation that most closely matches their actual location, so in your case Front Height.


I second that, and their current physical location (in-line with L/R at about 30-45 degrees median elevation) is quite optimal if you want up-mixing (DSU or Neural:X) to create a more enveloping front stage.


----------



## shyyour

Dan Hitchman said:


> You are wasting your time with immersive surround in this configuration. For one, without a center speaker DTS: X does not engage with most receivers. The minimum for 3D surround is still 5.1.2.


Thanks Dan but i think you would have better helped me by asking me what i was trying to achieve. It's a bedroom setup, i already have a 7.1.4 syetm already. I haven't found a cost effective, neat way to get surrounds so the initial plan was always to do a 2.1 or 3.1 system until i read this  and it inspired me to do 2.1.2. i had everything i needed, the speakers, the processor and speaker wire. The only cost to me would be time, which took me about 30 mins to setup. As long as i get "better sound" than 2.1 then it definitely wasn't a waste of my time.


----------



## shyyour

MagnumX said:


> How very nice of you to tell him what is and what is not a waste of his time.
> 
> The people in the linked thread above would appear to disagree....
> 
> 2.1.2 is still going to be more "immersive" than 2.1 no matter what you think of it "wasting his time". I think he might be better off engaging ceiling or Atmos enabled speakers as regular surround in a 4.1 configuration (near the ceiling was always a recommended option before Atmos), but that's his choice. 2.1.2 clearly worked for those that tried it in that thread and DTS:X is hardly the be-all of everything regardless (I have ONE title out of over 700 that has it so far). _Most_ is not _all_ either and receivers can have their firmware updated to address it (phantom center behavior does not change just because ceiling speakers are added).
> 
> I wasn't aware Atmos or X was now called "3D" sound. I have a full range 4.0 system in my living/music room that's plenty darn "immersive" without a center or ceiling speakers. A center is somewhat impractical in that room (there's a Roland piano in the middle under the wall-mounted plasma) and Carver ribbons don't match well to other speakers anyway and since I'm usually the only person using that system and sit in the middle, it matters not as a phantom center is as good or usually better (most center channel speakers are compromised in terms of lobe/comb and sometimes even imaging effects unless you use the same speaker in the center as the left/right instead of those horizontal centers) than any hard center if you're the only one listening to the system. I have a separate dedicated home theater room downstairs, but the Carver system sounds as good or better for traditional surround sound since the ribbon speakers are far more "engaging" and three dimensional sounding than most "box" speakers and with Sonic Holography on the Carver analog preamp, sound extended halfway out into the room even before I added the surround speakers (it works fine in conjunction with Dolby Digital and DTS and widens and deepens the front sound stage considerably)
> 
> 
> 
> You designate them where you intend to use them or they would get the wrong material. If you can move them in the room easily, you will probably get more of an effect if you can put them overhead or just behind you overhead. You could actually then use them as regular surround instead of height channels and work well with most of the traditional 5.1/7.1 mixes out there (whereas Atmos is still a tiny fraction of available titles and DTS:X has barely gotten started). I would imagine the upmixer would largely use them as surrounds anyway when designated as Top Middle. If you can't move them to a more overhead or just behind you position, you'll get some height effects, but no real surround.


Thanks but unfortunately i can only place them upfront (at least for now). i'm hoping i can add surrounds down the line.


----------



## shyyour

dschulz said:


> I would go with the designation that most closely matches their actual location, so in your case Front Height.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a waste of time. I wouldn't give up my surround speakers unless I had to, but if I had to, and I had room on the front wall for Front Height, the Mark Henninger article linked upthread was enough to convince me of the usefulness of a 2.1.2 configuration for Atmos.





maikeldepotter said:


> I second that, and their current physical location (in-line with L/R at about 30-45 degrees median elevation) is quite optimal if you want up-mixing (DSU or Neural:X) to create a more enveloping front stage.


Many thanks @dschulz & @maikeldepotter i will designate as Front heights.


----------



## Kain

If I only have a 7.1 setup (no Atmos), can I still use Dolby Surround to upmix 5.1 and lower mixes? Or will I have to use one of the Dolby Pro Logic upmixers? What about with DTS Neural:X?


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> If I only have a 7.1 setup (no Atmos), can I still use Dolby Surround to upmix 5.1 and lower mixes? Or will I have to use one of the Dolby Pro Logic upmixers? What about with DTS Neural:X?


The newer upmixers (DSU and Neural:X) replace their older counterparts (PLII and Neo:X), you can still use them for "legacy style" upmixing like 2ch > 5.1 or 7.1, or expanding 5.1 > 7.1 by adding back surrounds.


----------



## David Johannesen

Last week I purchased an atmos capable prepro. I would like to know if my atmos speaker layout will give me optimal atmos response. My room is dedicated home theater, 19' by 21'. The room has a sloped ceiling, 8' at the screen and 18' at the back of the room. I am using 9 Triangle Titus speakers around the room, with l&r wides. I am using 4 Triangle Heydas for tops. Front tops are 11ft high on side walls, 11'8" from MLP. Rear tops are 11' from floor, mounted on back wall, 12'7" from MLP. The speaker mounts have 16" posts, so speakers are at least a foot from the wall. All four atmos speakers were aimed with laser level so they are directed at MLP.


----------



## jdurb

I'd like to purchase a single episode of Game of Thrones that plays in dolby atmos. Like season 2 episode 9. Can individual episodes of Game of Thrones in Dolby Atmos be purchased? Or is the blu ray steelbook version the only option for dolby atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jdurb said:


> I'd like to purchase a single episode of Game of Thrones that plays in dolby atmos. Like season 2 episode 9. Can individual episodes of Game of Thrones in Dolby Atmos be purchased? Or is the blu ray steelbook version the only option for dolby atmos?


Maybe on VUDU. Maybe. But I think you will just have to get the Blu-ray sets.


----------



## batpig

I'm willing to bet the streaming versions won't have Atmos. And on Blu-ray there will be multiple episodes per disc. Just buy a season, I was able to find Season 6 on eBay for cheap ($12 I think).

You don't need the steelbook version for more recent seasons AFAIK, I believe Seasons 5 and 6 were released natively in Atmos, and earlier seasons were re-released in Atmos for the steelbook.

I haven't heard Seasons 1 & 2 in Atmos but they are reputed to bee pretty tame and not much of an upgrade from the original 5.1 track. Perhaps maybe just the Battle of the Blackwater Wildfire explosion in S2E9 which is on the Atmos demo disc as a test clip. Season 6 is pretty excellent in Atmos though. Looking forward to Season 7 release since there was lots of action (even if less brains)!


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> I'm willing to bet the streaming versions won't have Atmos. And on Blu-ray there will be multiple episodes per disc. Just buy a season, I was able to find Season 6 on eBay for cheap ($12 I think).
> 
> You don't need the steelbook version for more recent seasons AFAIK, I believe Seasons 5 and 6 were released natively in Atmos, and earlier seasons were re-released in Atmos for the steelbook.
> 
> I haven't heard Seasons 1 & 2 in Atmos but they are reputed to bee pretty tame and not much of an upgrade from the original 5.1 track. Perhaps maybe just the Battle of the Blackwater Wildfire explosion in S2E9 which is on the Atmos demo disc as a test clip. Season 6 is pretty excellent in Atmos though. Looking forward to Season 7 release since there was lots of action (even if less brains)!


I just read _*Ralph Potts review*_ of Season 1 and 2 of _Game of Thrones_ and he was indeed underwhelmed by their TrueHD Atmos audio. 

Can anybody confirm that all six seasons' Blu rays of GoT are now available with TrueHD Atmos audio?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

gwsat said:


> Can anybody confirm that all six seasons' Blu rays of GoT are now available with TrueHD Atmos audio?


Yes, all six season are available in Atmos on Blu-Ray.


----------



## batpig

The complete Season 1-6 Blu-ray boxed set they released last year has Atmos for all six seasons: https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Season-Peter-Dinklage/dp/B01936Q064/

I'm loathe to buy it considering they will surely release future box sets with season 7 and then of course after the final season. 

But if you want a relatively affordable way to get the entire series in Atmos, that's the way. You can also find the box set $20-30 cheaper on eBay.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> The complete Season 1-6 Blu-ray boxed set they released last year has Atmos for all six seasons: https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Season-Peter-Dinklage/dp/B01936Q064/
> 
> I'm loathe to buy it considering they will surely release future box sets with season 7 and then of course after the final season.
> 
> But if you want a relatively affordable way to get the entire series in Atmos, that's the way. You can also find the box set $20-30 cheaper on eBay.


Yeah, I'm inclined to wait to buy the BDs until the series wraps up and all eight seasons are available. These HBO sets are _very_ expensive, so for the moment at least I'll stick with HBO Go which looks and sounds pretty good and is already paid for.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complete Season 1-6 Blu-ray boxed set they released last year has Atmos for all six seasons: https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Season-Peter-Dinklage/dp/B01936Q064/
> 
> I'm loathe to buy it considering they will surely release future box sets with season 7 and then of course after the final season.
> 
> But if you want a relatively affordable way to get the entire series in Atmos, that's the way. You can also find the box set $20-30 cheaper on eBay.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm inclined to wait to buy the BDs until the series wraps up and all eight seasons are available. These HBO sets are _very_ expensive, so for the moment at least I'll stick with HBO Go which looks and sounds pretty good and is already paid for.
Click to expand...

Like Westworld, I would bet Warner Bros. will release GOT on UHD Blu-ray including Atmos. GOT when the series concludes. 

Seasons 1 & 2 had underwhelming Atmos remixes only because the audio elements were poorly archived. They didn't have the proper separate SFX, music, and dialog files to turn them into 3D objects. 

Season 3 through Season 8's audio tracks were properly handled and so their Atmos tracks were able to be more immersive.


----------



## am2model3

Its usually about having great source data material! Amen for quality sources!


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> Like Westworld, I would bet Warner Bros. will release GOT on UHD Blu-ray including Atmos. GOT when the series concludes.
> 
> Seasons 1 & 2 had underwhelming Atmos remixes only because the audio elements were poorly archived. They didn't have the proper separate SFX, music, and dialog files to turn them into 3D objects.
> 
> Season 3 through Season 8's audio tracks were properly handled and so their Atmos tracks were able to be more immersive.


I thought about the possibility of a UHD HDR version of all seasons of _Game of Thrones_ after the show wraps up next year. I would definitely buy such a set, despite the slightly subpar Atmos audio in Season 1 and 2.



am2model3 said:


> Its usually about having great source data material! Amen for quality sources!


I will add another amen to your amen. I have long been satisfied that the most important component, by far, affecting the quality of audio is the quality of the source material. Garbage in, garbage out, and all that.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Do anyone know if Black Sails season 3-4 are heading to Atmos on Blu-Ray. It was apparently mastered in Atmos but all I seen is that they had a test Atmos episode on Comcast or similar network and that's it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mashie Saldana said:


> Do anyone know if Black Sails season 3-4 are heading to Atmos on Blu-Ray. It was apparently mastered in Atmos but all I seen is that they had a test Atmos episode on Comcast or similar network and that's it.


Unless the sets have been selling really well, I would doubt it. Maybe if Lionsgate decides to try a UHD Blu-ray set (hard to say), then perhaps they'll spring for Atmos tracks.


----------



## Marc Alexander

I just noticed that Universal's UHD DTS:X titles are on Vudu in Atmos. Could these be object based tracks or just channel based ports. 

What is the bitrate of Vudu's DD+ Atmos tracks?


----------



## torkibe

Probably a dumb question that has already been answered but there's just so much info to sort through...

I need new receiver but I'm not ready to upgrade my speaker layout to Atmos yet. Will most Atmos capable receivers still decode traditional 7.1?


----------



## JJ7

gwsat said:


> Yeah, I'm inclined to wait to buy the BDs until the series wraps up and all eight seasons are available. These HBO sets are _very_ expensive, so for the moment at least I'll stick with HBO Go which looks and sounds pretty good and is already paid for.


It's a good strategy but I was able to get 1-6 in Atmos pretty cheaply from amazon.uk... it was about $60. So you might keep an eye out for another sale there.


----------



## aaronwt

Marc Alexander said:


> I just noticed that Universal's UHD DTS:X titles are on Vudu in Atmos. Could these be object based tracks or just channel based ports.
> 
> What is the bitrate of Vudu's DD+ Atmos tracks?


Something like a 576Kbps bitrate.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

torkibe said:


> Probably a dumb question that has already been answered but there's just so much info to sort through...
> 
> I need new receiver but I'm not ready to upgrade my speaker layout to Atmos yet. Will most Atmos capable receivers still decode traditional 7.1?


Yes, it would decode everything up to and including Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## torkibe

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, it would decode everything up to and including Atmos and DTS:X.


That's what I assumed but thank you for confirming.


----------



## gwsat

JJ7 said:


> It's a good strategy but I was able to get 1-6 in Atmos pretty cheaply from amazon.uk... it was about $60. So you might keep an eye out for another sale there.


Thanks for the tip. I buy quite a few disks from Amazon.uk and will keep an eye out for another sale on the GoT sets.


----------



## PeterTHX

Marc Alexander said:


> I just noticed that Universal's UHD DTS:X titles are on Vudu in Atmos.


No, that's Dolby* Vision* for those titles, not Atmos.


They are in DD+ 5.1 otherwise.


----------



## Marc Alexander

PeterTHX said:


> No, that's Dolby* Vision* for those titles, not Atmos.
> 
> 
> They are in DD+ 5.1 otherwise.


Are you sure? The Vudu info pages show differently. I'm may have to rent a UHD and ask for money back it there is no Atmos but there may be. No?


----------



## PeterTHX

Marc Alexander said:


> Are you sure? The Vudu info pages show differently. I'm may have to rent a UHD and ask for money back it there is no Atmos but there may be. No?


Must be an error on their mobile website/app, it's listed correctly on the standard webpage: https://www.vudu.com/movies/#more_info/839748/The-Fate-of-the-Furious 

I have it, it's DD+ 5.1 for UHD.


----------



## jjackkrash

Coming from 5.1, my initial impression is: lots of wires and cables to run.  I am going to power up this afternoon and hopefully won't have too much trouble shooting. 

I have GotG 2, Alien Covenant, and and Despicable Me 1 and 2 ready to unwrap for some test material.


----------



## Jonas2

jjackkrash said:


> Coming from 5.1, my initial impression is: lots of wires and cables to run.  I am going to power up this afternoon and hopefully won't have too much trouble shooting.
> 
> I have GotG 2, Alien Covenant, and and Despicable Me 1 and 2 ready to unwrap for some test material.


It is a lot more to run, especially if you are doing x.x.4 and not x.x.2. But well worth it in my opinion!


----------



## Marc Alexander

PeterTHX said:


> Must be an error on their mobile website/app, it's listed correctly on the standard webpage: https://www.vudu.com/movies/#more_info/839748/The-Fate-of-the-Furious
> 
> I have it, it's DD+ 5.1 for UHD.


Thanks


----------



## Roger Dressler

PeterTHX said:


> Must be an error on their mobile website/app, it's listed correctly on the standard webpage: https://www.vudu.com/movies/#more_info/839748/The-Fate-of-the-Furious
> 
> I have it, it's DD+ 5.1 for UHD.


It's a little but ambiguous, though, in that the 1080 version stated DD+ 5.1, and the UHD version states only DD+. If it had said DD+ 5.1 (or 7.1) then we could be a little more confident. But since DD+ can carry Atmos, how can we be sure? I guess your experience of playing it tells the tale, assuming your AVR understands DD+ Atmos talk.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

gwsat said:


> Thanks for the tip. I buy quite a few disks from Amazon.uk and will keep an eye out for another sale on the GoT sets.


Hi gwsat,

Hope all is well and life is good my Friend.

Keep an eye out as these sets go on sale once the current season is over. But there are two different types of sets available on Bluray. One set normally less expensive is just the Bluray Discs for all six seasons. The other set advertised normally more expensive included "Digital on line Codes". So you get the physical Blurays and the online streaming rights as well. 

I bought just the disc set. FYI! The Atmos track is worth every cent. So is the increased video quality. If you are a GOT fan, its a must have. I love to sit back and binge watch. So worth it. The LFE Track is pretty active in many scenes. IMHO it was a high value buy with high re-watch value as well.

I think I know you and what you like. You get 60 Episodes of GOT entertainment. So what ever price you pay think of how much per episode cost. When you break it down its a great value. You will really enjoy the ATMOS sound. Your Subs will be rocking and watching GOT will never be the same for you!

Good luck Captain.


----------



## Jonas2

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi gwsat,
> 
> Hope all is well and life is good my Friend.
> 
> Keep an eye out as these sets go on sale once the current season is over. But there are two different types of sets available on Bluray. One set normally less expensive is just the Bluray Discs for all six seasons. The other set advertised normally more expensive included "Digital on line Codes". So you get the physical Blurays and the online streaming rights as well.
> 
> I bought just the disc set. FYI! The Atmos track is worth every cent. So is the increased video quality. If you are a GOT fan, its a must have. I love to sit back and binge watch. So worth it. The LFE Track is pretty active in many scenes. IMHO it was a high value buy with high re-watch value as well.
> 
> I think I know you and what you like. You get 60 Episodes of GOT entertainment. So what ever price you pay think of how much per episode cost. When you break it down its a great value. You will really enjoy the ATMOS sound. Your Subs will be rocking and watching GOT will never be the same for you!
> 
> Good luck Captain.


All good to hear! I've never once seen GOT, but hear nothing but good things about it from friends and co-workers, so I'm super-interested and have been toying with the idea of starting with the Season 1 Steel Book bluray w/Atmos track. Reasonable price, at least for Season 1! Gets a bit more pricey after that, but I think I'd really enjoy this story. Thanks for that reply to gwsat, helps me too.


----------



## PeterTHX

Roger Dressler said:


> It's a little but ambiguous, though, in that the 1080 version stated DD+ 5.1, and the UHD version states only DD+. If it had said DD+ 5.1 (or 7.1) then we could be a little more confident. But since DD+ can carry Atmos, how can we be sure? I guess your experience of playing it tells the tale, assuming your AVR understands DD+ Atmos talk.


Any non-Atmos title is listed by Vudu as "Dolby Digital Plus" (_Central Intelligence, Unforgiven, The Hangover_, etc) with the exception of one title are DD+ 5.1 

Vudu does have a few "secret" UHD titles like _The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Ender's Game, Power Rangers_ and a couple others and they're listed as "HDX 1080p Dolby Digital Plus 5.1" only but are actually UHD DV & DD+ Atmos.
_Power Rangers_ is listed as DV only on the Overview tab but is DV & Atmos.


----------



## jjackkrash

Well, my mess looks a little cleaner! Now I got to figure out how to work all the gear hidden behind door No. 1 and 2. 

I still need to cover up some wires with crown moulding, but I am getting closer.


----------



## Marc Alexander

John Wick 2 is another one of the Vudu secret UHD UV redemptions with Dolby Vision & Atmos. 



Marc Alexander said:


> What is the bitrate of Vudu's DD+ Atmos tracks?





aaronwt said:


> Something like a 576Kbps bitrate.


 @Roger Dressler what was the bitrate in which DD+ and True HD are basically indistinguishable? Have you listened to any of the Atmos tracks via Vudu?


----------



## CactusJack

*"Gravity" with Atmos?*

Anyone know where I can buy the Blu-Ray disc of "Gravity" with an Atmos soundtrack? I've been unable to find a copy in any of my usual sources: Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Found plenty of copies WITHOUT Atmos, though.

Thanks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Alexander said:


> what was the bitrate in which DD+ and True HD are basically indistinguishable? Have you listened to any of the Atmos tracks via Vudu?


I have not used Vudu since the original incarnation. Anyone interested in a lightly use Vudu HDD, lemme know!

Just looking at 5.1, DD+ ought to be essentially "perceptually" transparent around 256-320 kbps. Depending on how many objects and the nature of the audio, could need 448 to ~1000 kbps. But even bitrates slightly below these ought to sound excellent.


----------



## Jonas2

CactusJack said:


> Anyone know where I can buy the Blu-Ray disc of "Gravity" with an Atmos soundtrack? I've been unable to find a copy in any of my usual sources: Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Found plenty of copies WITHOUT Atmos, though.


The Diamond Luxe Edition seems to available via Amazon. Pricey though.....


----------



## Marc Alexander

CactusJack said:


> Anyone know where I can buy the Blu-Ray disc of "Gravity" with an Atmos soundtrack? I've been unable to find a copy in any of my usual sources: Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Found plenty of copies WITHOUT Atmos, though.
> 
> Thanks.


https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00PTGEUZQ

~ $20 USD


----------



## OKGeek

Hi there. Planning the speakers layout for the HT in the living room and leaning toward 5.1.4 (with potential upgrade to 7.1.4). The viewing zone is almost square 14x14 (while the room itself has the opening to the kitchen). The couch is supposed to be 3 - 3'6 feet from the back wall. The ceilings are almost 10 feet high. This layout allows for TF ceiling speakers to be in accordance with Dolby specs (42-45 deg), while TR can only be up to 115 degrees back (if put right in the corner) or less. Is it better to stick with TM (ca 82-85 degrees) instead of TR, but assign them as TR in AVR, or simply put rear ceiling speakers as close to the back wall (going 110 - 115 deg) as possible and assign as TR?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

@gwsat found a copy on sale at Amazon.com for about $75.00 bucks. Season 1 thru Season 6. No digital copy code. This is a great price. I would grab it quickly.

https://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Complete-1-6-Seasons/dp/B071WM3Z87/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_74_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=KFP16NTRABATRCZZCJ5H


----------



## Marc Alexander

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> @gwsat found a copy on sale at Amazon.com for about $75.00 bucks. Season 1 thru Season 6.


Adam, these are DVDs you found on Amazon. 

I am going to buy the sets w/Dolby Atmos. I keep this thread bookmarked: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132

The cover art and links in the thread best way I know to ensure buying the Atmos versions.

Edit: For some reason the box set cover art for GoT in Atmos is not shown in the main post of the thread I linked above. 









I purchased the set from ebay. This is the best price I could find. Only one remaining!  Sold out. 

Look at this on eBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/253122048674


----------



## CactusJack

Marc Alexander said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00PTGEUZQ
> 
> ~ $20 USD


Thanks, Marc. Didn't even think of checking non-US Amazon sites. It actually came in at about $11.32, and I was able to use my US Amazon login to purchase. Also got another movie that wasn't available on the US site.

Jack


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Oh wow, I just got the UHD copy of Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2, on the back the audio is listed as "7.1.4 Dolby Atmos"...


----------



## Marc Alexander

CactusJack said:


> Thanks, Marc. Didn't even think of checking non-US Amazon sites. It actually came in at about $11.32, and I was able to use my US Amazon login to purchase. Also got another movie that wasn't available on the US site.
> 
> Jack


www.amazon.co.uk and www.amazon, com.au are other great source to check for hard-to-find titles (especially 3D). I often order from the UK because the prices can be significantly lower.


----------



## am2model3

Yes gotg2 lists 7.1.4 dolby atmos! I really need to upgrade to dolby atmos and dts x right? Im thinking 5.1.4, or 5.2.4, or 7.1.4


----------



## OKGeek

OKGeek said:


> Hi there. Planning the speakers layout for the HT in the living room and leaning toward 5.1.4 (with potential upgrade to 7.1.4). The viewing zone is almost square 14x14 (while the room itself has the opening to the kitchen). The couch is supposed to be 3 - 3'6 feet from the back wall. The ceilings are almost 10 feet high. This layout allows for TF ceiling speakers to be in accordance with Dolby specs (42-45 deg), while TR can only be up to 115 degrees back (if put right in the corner) or less. Is it better to stick with TM (ca 82-85 degrees) instead of TR, but assign them as TR in AVR, or simply put rear ceiling speakers as close to the back wall (going 110 - 115 deg) as possible and assign as TR?


And the scheme is finally ready, just in case. So the main choice is between TR1 and TR2 positions for TR. What would you recommend?


----------



## Jonas2

am2model3 said:


> Yes gotg2 lists 7.1.4 dolby atmos! I really need to upgrade to dolby atmos and dts x right? Im thinking 5.1.4, or 5.2.4, or 7.1.4


Of those three, I would go 5.2.4. Although I can't compare to a 7.x.x, adding a second sub to my 5.1.4 was a big upgrade, so don't stop at 5.1.4!  Why not 7.2.4 if it's in your budget.....??


----------



## stikle

am2model3 said:


> Yes gotg2 lists 7.1.4 dolby atmos! I really need to upgrade to dolby atmos and dts x right? Im thinking 5.1.4, or 5.2.4, or 7.1.4



Always go x.x.4 if you are able. Having 4 overheads (properly positioned) is much better than only 2. Whether you go 5.x.x or 7.x.x is entirely up to you and your room.



Jonas2 said:


> Of those three, I would go 5.2.4. Although I can't compare to a 7.x.x, adding a second sub to my 5.1.4 was a big upgrade, so don't stop at 5.1.4!  Why not 7.2.4 if it's in your budget.....??



Or 7.3.4?


----------



## lovingdvd

Frank714 said:


> *What’s it about?*
> 
> In general I give musicals a wide berth, and prior to _Chicago_ the only one I really liked was _Cabaret _(directed by Bob Fosse, who also helped to bring _Chicago_ to the stage in 1975).
> 
> The story revolves around Roxie Heart (RenéeZellweger), who shoots her lover and ends up in Cook County Jail’s Murderess’ Row. There she tries to bribe and swindle her way out by teaming up with slick lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), hoping her notoriety may eventually help her vaudeville star ambitions, which her fellow inmate Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) regards as unbearable competition.
> 
> Except at the beginning and at the end, the musical performances come as daydreams or metaphors representing the characters or the situations these find themselves in, peppered with plenty of black humor and satire aiming at both the shallowness of criminal justice and showbiz.
> 
> The actors are driven by a passion and ferociousness I would not have believed possible, Chicago is fast paced, cleverly edited, entertaining, thought-provoking and as the sum of all its parts so whole, so perfect that I strongly recommend this film to anyone who hasn’t seen it yet (it’s also the first film I watched together with my wife and we are still happily together).
> 
> *Previously available for home theater systems*
> 
> Chicago had been available on DVD, multi-channel SACD and Blu-ray. Admittedly, mentioning the SACD along with the video releases is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. As an audio only medium the SACD takes liberties localizing sound objects and instruments directly in the surround channels, but even the LPCM 5.1 mix of my older Blu-ray didn’t achieve the clarity and precision of instruments and voices as the SACD does (I didn’t have the Diamond Edition from 2014 for comparison purposes).
> 
> *The remixed in Dolby Atmos Japanese release*
> 
> Apparently inspired by the 2014 US Diamond Edition release, the Japanese Blu-ray comes in a slipcover, which is a little bigger in size than your standard DVD keepcase. Japanese texts and product information are on a sheet of paper you can easily remove, after removal there is no indication this was ever a Japanese release. I tested playback for equally Regions A and B, no problems (bear in mind this is a Warner Brothers release in Japan). Upon inserting the disc in your player it starts immediately playing the film in the original English version, Japanese subtitles can be swapped for English ones or just be switched off (pressing the top menu button revealed the menu in Japanese, but it could be owed to the fact that English is not my default language setting).
> 
> *How does it sound remixed in Dolby Atmos?*
> 
> Marvelous! I have a 7.1.4 setup according to Dolby’s recommendations with overhead speakers whose tweeters (like my back surrounds) are angled towards the main listening position. Only the front speakers are somewhat in one straight line right below and within the 9’ width of my viewing screen(s).
> 
> Instruments and voices now come with the clarity and precision of my SACD, and with a couple of extra punches, especially noticeable in the LFE range which add an adrenaline kick to the listening experiencing (it’s vaudeville, so even enhancements that _might _be artificial are entirely appropriate, IMHO).
> 
> I assume that the Diamond Edition might be close to that listening experience but I’m certain it does not have what the Dolby Atmos remix delivers in addition - and plentiful.
> 
> In my previous viewings of_ Chicago_ the soundstage was very much anchored to the frontspeakers which includes the audiences’ reactions. To me it had always sounded as if the audience were present in a semi-circle (or 180°) in front of the main speakers, it felt as if I had been allotted the last row of the theater but now, Dolby Atmos has profoundly changed that.
> 
> *Not only does the Dolby Atmos remix put you in the center of the audience (surrounded by applause), but it also puts you in a much, much bigger theater (or cellblock), making it sound like the side walls of your home theater room have vanished and you actually listen from a position in a wide open space* (I was already impressed with this effect by the “audio only” samples on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disc January 2015, but now this is the “real thing”).
> 
> It’s an effect that’s immediately noticeable and has the potential for addiction, I couldn’t help but instantly think that I would love Warner Brothers to remix _Oblivion_, the _Matrix_ Trilogy, the _Lord of the Rings_ Trilogy and others in Dolby Atmos – and _asap_ and _pronto_, please! _(“If you want my gravy, give me Atmos, too…”)._
> 
> *In a nutshell:*
> 
> After _Gravity_, Warner Brothers has delivered yet another magnificent demonstration of what Dolby Atmos is capable of, especially since this is a remix that had never been available in Dolby Atmos before (!).
> 
> I’m just a bit perplexed that mostly Dolby talks and shows sound objects moving _into_ the room but understates that they can also _expand _existing rooms into much, much larger ones for a more lifelike and immersive listening experience.
> 
> Considering that many state-of-the-art private home theaters I’ve seen published are mostly long and rectangular “boxes”, I could imagine that their owners will tremendously benefit from Dolby Atmos - and maybe regardless whether it’s a 7.2.4 or 7.2.6 setup.


Amazing review Frank! I didn't have Atmos back when this review was written so I had missed it.

Anyone know where I can buy a copy of Chicago that has the Atmos track? The listing on Amazon,jp says it is currently unavailable, which I take to mean out of stock and not coming back, given how long its been since it was first released. If anyone has this and is interested in selling it - please send me a PM. Otherwise I suppose I will just wait for the 4K UHD Blu-ray release, which should look great with the WCG, but who knows how long we'll be waiting for that... ?


----------



## mrtickleuk

OKGeek said:


> And the scheme is finally ready, just in case. So the main choice is between TR1 and TR2 positions for TR. What would you recommend?


I would say, IMHO, TR2 without hesitation. Very nice diagram.


----------



## OKGeek

mrtickleuk said:


> I would say, IMHO, TR2 without hesitation. Very nice diagram.


Thanks, man!


----------



## thebland

MagnumX said:


> I do find it pretty amusing, however, that this "3D" experience apparently has only occasional "spotty" overhead effects. With that kind of opinion of overhead speaker use thus far, one can't help but wonder why bother with overhead speakers PERIOD? For the occasional spotty effect? Oh boy! That sounds _so_ worth buying a new receiver and more speakers to get those _occasional spotty effects_....


Sometimes you don't know what you don't know...
Ignorance is bliss... rock on in stereo dude!!


----------



## gwsat

thebland said:


> Sometimes you don't know what you don't know...
> Ignorance is bliss... rock on in stereo dude!!


Yep, and why should anyone need a subwoofer, much less a pair of them, right?


----------



## MagnumX

thebland said:


> Sometimes you don't know what you don't know...
> Ignorance is bliss... rock on in stereo dude!!


Ignorance _must_ be bliss seeing as I have a 4.1 room and a 6.1 room and a 4.0 room (none are "stereo" only although I suppose my computer in my den is 2.1 if you want to count that). 

But hey, I see the usual suspects all jumped in and agreed as they usually do with every comment that goes against anything I say so you must be right anyway.


----------



## thebland

MagnumX said:


> Ignorance _must_ be bliss seeing as I have a 4.1 room and a 6.1 room and a 4.0 room (none are "stereo" only although I suppose my computer in my den is 2.1 if you want to count that).
> 
> But hey, I see the usual suspects all jumped in and agreed as they usually do with every comment that goes against anything I say so you must be right anyway.


I'll say it again... are you serious? 

Err... 2.1, 4.1, 6.1 don't qualify as Atmos and barely DD - maybe quadraphonic form the 70s... So, how can you judge heights?? Do you even have an Atmos SSP to judge from?? So your comments bear a harsh (albeit comical) rebuttal! 

I have / had a 13.6.8 room and a 9.6.4 room prior, 7.1, 5.1, etc.. and even the many others here with 7.1.4 rooms will attest to the advantages as well ... The fact is the more speakers, the greater the sense of space and steering and overall precision in the mix. Remember, you are getting discrete sounds from up to 35 channels in the average Atmos Blu Ray (if you have the system that can handle it).. read a little more and you will become enlightened. 6.1 cannot pull it off and recall is not greater than 7.x.4 or 13.6.8 > 6.1 / 4.1 !!

Come out to CEDIA and be amazed!


----------



## MagnumX

thebland said:


> I'll say it again... are you serious?
> 
> Err... 2.1, 4.1, 6.1 don't qualify as Atmos and barely DD - maybe quadraphonic form the 70s...


You said STEREO. That is not 6 channels. It means TWO channels. Barely DD? How is something barely DD? Dolby Digital is 5.1 maximum without rear center steering (EX).



> So, how can you judge heights?? Do you even have an Atmos SSP to judge from?? So your comments bear a harsh (albeit comical) rebuttal!


Your quote was about STEREO and as far as I can tell you replied to the WRONG PERSON (the guy asking about doing a 2.1.2 system) and hence my comments about my system not being stereo. You don't even know who you are talking to and you call MY comments comical?

Just because I don't own an Atmos system doesn't mean I haven't heard one.... I'm waiting for HDMI 2.1 to be finalized (should appear next year). Besides, out of over 700 movies, I only have a half dozen in Atmos to begin with so I'm not in a hurry, especially given I already have height sounds above my head with the surrounds above ear level. I have a lack of "ground level" effects, but then my screen is also above ear level so it's less noticeable than a lower placed screen (i.e. TV) due to the lack of height perception in humans compared to lateral (i.e. try to tell screen height from ceiling height when it's only a height difference of 24 inches at most). 



> I have / had a 13.6.8 room and a 9.6.4 room prior, 7.1, 5.1, etc.. and even the many others here with 7.1.4 rooms will attest to the advantages as well ...


A 13.6.8 room eh? Yeah, I believe you.


----------



## Nalleh

MagnumX said:


> Besides, out of over 700 movies, I only have a half dozen in Atmos to begin with so I'm not in a hurry


You don't need a Atmos movie, you have the Dolby Surround Upmixer  There are many non-Atmos movies that sounds pretty amazing with DSU. And it works on all movies/formats


----------



## thrang

What we really around here is Magnum _P.I._


----------



## thebland

MagnumX said:


> Just because I don't own an Atmos system doesn't mean I haven't heard one.... I'm waiting for HDMI 2.1 to be finalized (should appear next year). Besides, out of over 700 movies, I only have a half dozen in Atmos to begin with so I'm not in a hurry, especially given I already have height sounds above my head with the surrounds above ear level. I have a lack of "ground level" effects, but then my screen is also above ear level so it's less noticeable than a lower placed screen (i.e. TV) due to the lack of height perception in humans compared to lateral (i.e. try to tell screen height from ceiling height when it's only a height difference of 24 inches at most).


Wow. Where do we start??? Improperly placed surround speakers don't mimic discrete height speakers.... ever. You need to do more reading...



> A 13.6.8 room eh? Yeah, I believe you.


It's true!


----------



## DJ Lushious

I really want to make the upgrade to Atmos and I want to do it the right way, with in-ceiling speakers. I tried the floor speaker add-ons and couldn't tell the difference.

Well, my living room poses a challenge for me, not only with the configuration of my setup, but that one or two of the in-ceiling speakers would need to be placed above the blades of a ceiling fan.

Would I need to align the ceiling speakers with my front/rears or would I bring them in closer to be above the couch? Right now they are at least 8-10 feet the left/right from the center channel, but should the Atmost speakers be above the listener/close to the sweet spot?

Here are some pictures of my living room's ceiling. Any help on proper placement and how to overcome this problemwould be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Selden Ball

DJ Lushious said:


> I really want to make the upgrade to Atmos and I want to do it the right way, with in-ceiling speakers. I tried the floor speaker add-ons and couldn't tell the difference.
> 
> Well, my living room poses a challenge for me, not only with the configuration of my setup, but that one or two of the in-ceiling speakers would need to be placed above the blades of a ceiling fan.
> 
> Would I need to align the ceiling speakers with my front/rears or would I bring them in closer to be above the couch? Right now they are at least 8-10 feet the left/right from the center channel, but should the Atmost speakers be above the listener/close to the sweet spot?
> 
> Here are some pictures of my living room's ceiling. Any help on proper placement and how to overcome this problemwould be greatly appreciated!


Overhead speakers hould be in line with the main speakers. If you install only two, they should be just slightly in front of the couch Better would be to install four speakers (two pairs), with the front pair about halfway between the couch and the main speakers, and the rear pair about the same distance behind the couch. (Officially they should be at about 45 degrees: the same distance in front (and back) as the distance between your ears and the ceiling.)

For details, see Dolby's official document: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## chi_guy50

Nalleh said:


> You don't need a Atmos movie, you have the Dolby Surround Upmixer  *There are many non-Atmos movies that sounds pretty amazing with DSU*. And it works on all movies/formats


As an illustration of the above statement, my wife and I are in the midst of re-re-watching the entire _Breaking Bad_ series (we followed the on-air episodes when they originally ran on AMC, then bought the complete series on Blu-ray, and are now streaming on Netflix in 4K and DD5.1) and yesterday viewed Fly (S3E10). That fly was realistically in our viewing room buzzing around over our heads in all directions. It was a thrilling experience, given the focal importance of that insect to the scenario, and really enhanced our enjoyment.

BTW, the third time through (and after having watched all the special features on BRD as well as three seasons of the _Better Call Saul_ backstory), our appreciation for the superb writing, acting, and production values of creator Vince Gilligan's _Breaking Bad_ only continues to grow. IMHO it ranks among the all-time best of American TV fare.


----------



## DJ Lushious

Selden Ball said:


> *Overhead speakers should be in line with the main speakers*.


That actually should solve the issue about the ceiling fan. 

Granted I own my home, it's still a bit scary to start cutting into the ceiling. Especially because it sort of feels like I need to get the placement done right the first time. And then never hope I rearrange. Haha!


----------



## MagnumX

thebland said:


> Wow. Where do we start??? Improperly placed surround speakers don't mimic discrete height speakers.... ever. You need to do more reading...


They are not improperly placed for 6.1. As for height sounds, an airplane overhead is an airplane overhead. That's how it was done before Atmos and the reason all theaters had surrounds overhead and in line with the screen rather than your head. But then I'm talking to someone that didn't even know what stereo means so....


----------



## Acaps

*Atmos set up assistance*

Hi everyone, I am in the process of making a few upgrades to my HT set up - I will be doing 90% TV/Movies/Gaming, with about 10% music. I currently am running a Marantz SR7008, with Paradigm Studio 100 V2's as mains, a Studio 570 Center, four in-ceiling paradigm as surrounds and a HSU VTF 15H as a sub (effectively 7.1 system). I am definitely going to upgrade my receiver in preparation for the new Xbox to run to my Sony 940D 4K UHD TV - really wanting to watch UHD movies on the Sony with the correct audio formats. As of now, I am contemplating which receiver to get (no rush, I have a couple of months), looking at the Denon 4300H/6300 or the Marantz 7011/6011, I guess it all depends on what audio format I want to support and how many channels I need.

I am strongly considering taking the leap into Atmos, I just had an installer over and he said he'd be able to add two additional FH speakers forward of my main listening position without too much trouble (very limited crawl space, so he's going to be doing some fishing using some pre-wiring that I did when they built the house - but he's confident he can add the two additional in-ceiling speakers). I've included some pictures, my listening area is a 24 by 24 non dedicated great room with vaulted ceilings. my first thought is just to add the two front heights in the ceiling slightly forward of my main listening position and call it good. Would not be too hard on wallet overall, purchasing a 9 channel receiver and two additional paradigm in ceiling speakers. Wondering if that would be a noticeable upgrade to what I have already?

A curve ball was thrown a bit this morning when we discovered that my 14 year old front left Paradigm Studio 100 is not working properly and by the installers estimation most likely has internal issues. So I may indeed be in the market for new main speakers as well. Do you all think that the up firing Atmos speakers like Def Tech or Klipsch would work in my room, and how would that compare to adding in the FH ceiling speakers? The new up-firing mains would possible be an easier way to run the 7.1.2 atmos set up, but wondering how this would compare to the in-celing option performance wise? My gut is that the in-ceiling would produce a better result, and I've actually been wanting to "downsize" my mains for years, thinking along the lines of a more slim, unobtrusive tower speakers. 

Another option that he suggested was to use my 4 current in-ceiling speakers for Atmos, and just add some surrounds for a 5.1.4 set up. Granted the current in-celing speakers are not ideally located for the 5.1.4 Atmos set up, but with room correction he suggested this as a viable option. My wife may balk at this one, as I would have to add two additional surround speakers in our family room which by my estimation would not be in-ceiliing or in-wall speakers - thinking probably some monitors. 

Can I get your guys opinions on what option may be the best for my room. I know it's not an ideal room, but really interested in your opinions.

Thank you


----------



## OKGeek

Hi



Acaps said:


> I currently am running a Marantz SR7008, with Paradigm Studio 100 V2's as mains, a Studio 570 Center, four in-ceiling paradigm as surrounds and a HSU VTF 15H as a sub (effectively 7.1 system).


The first thing I would pay attention is elevation separation between bed layer and height layer. While in-ceiling surrounds may work for 7.1 set-up, they'll screw up the whole idea of atmos, if you use them as bed layer. Bed layer surround speakers for atmos shall be at or slightly above the ear level, so you can definitely distinguish 'em from height level




Acaps said:


> my first thought is just to add the two front heights in the ceiling slightly forward of my main listening position and call it good.


Ideally it's not about distance from MLP per se, but elevation angle or the ratio between ceiling heights and distance (mathematically it's completely interchangeable). Rule of thumb for TF (top fronts atmos) - distance from ear, while seating, up to the ceiling is approx the same as distance from you to ceiling speakers (measuring in horizontal plane), so you get 45 deg elevation



Acaps said:


> Wondering if that would be a noticeable upgrade to what I have already?


 You would definitely got clear positioning for effects, which imply localisation in space (think of car, helicopter, fly) - it simply can't be delivered with any one-layer layout, as latter are limited more to spacious effects or steering in one plane (To be more precise, standard 5.1 or 7.1 implies some compromise due to elevated surrounds far above ear level to accomplish the task)



Acaps said:


> Do you all think that the up firing Atmos speakers like Def Tech or Klipsch would work in my room, and how would that compare to adding in the FH ceiling speakers?


 Up firing are fine for spacious effects, but to get most of your Atmos setup, go in-ceilings if there is a slight chance you can do it. On top of that, 7.1.2 with x.x.2 as up-firing and in-ceiling surrounds will definitely screw up most localisation effects, as you mix two layers



Acaps said:


> Another option that he suggested was to use my 4 current in-ceiling speakers for Atmos, and just add some surrounds for a 5.1.4 set up. Granted the current in-celing speakers are not ideally located for the 5.1.4 Atmos set up, but with room correction he suggested this as a viable option.


Bet it will be far better, than 7.1.2 with x.x.2 as up-firing and in-ceiling surrounds. Plus, it requires nothing from you in-terms of rearranging on-ceiling speakers, so you can start with this and rearrange 2 of 4, moving them forward, if completely unsatisfied with results.

For better feeling on how we hear, I like the picture attached. Layers are not mixed 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Kain

Just got back from watching It in a Dolby Cinema. Holy hell! Probably one of the most active Atmos mixes I've heard yet. Use of objects, overhead speakers, and sound panning was awesome! Dynamics were great too with some very loud moments. This will be a huge treat at home.


----------



## Acaps

OKGeek said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing I would pay attention is elevation separation between bed layer and height layer. While in-ceiling surrounds may work for 7.1 set-up, they'll screw up the whole idea of atmos, if you use them as bed layer. Bed layer surround speakers for atmos shall be at or slightly above the ear level, so you can definitely distinguish 'em from height level
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally it's not about distance from MLP per se, but elevation angle or the ratio between ceiling heights and distance (mathematically it's completely interchangeable). Rule of thumb for TF (top fronts atmos) - distance from ear, while seating, up to the ceiling is approx the same as distance from you to ceiling speakers (measuring in horizontal plane), so you get 45 deg elevation
> 
> You would definitely got clear positioning for effects, which imply localisation in space (think of car, helicopter, fly) - it simply can't be delivered with any one-layer layout, as latter are limited more to spacious effects or steering in one plane (To be more precise, standard 5.1 or 7.1 implies some compromise due to elevated surrounds far above ear level to accomplish the task)
> 
> Up firing are fine for spacious effects, but to get most of your Atmos setup, go in-ceilings if there is a slight chance you can do it. On top of that, 7.1.2 with x.x.2 as up-firing and in-ceiling surrounds will definitely screw up most localisation effects, as you mix two layers
> 
> 
> Bet it will be far better, than 7.1.2 with x.x.2 as up-firing and in-ceiling surrounds. Plus, it requires nothing from you in-terms of rearranging on-ceiling speakers, so you can start with this and rearrange 2 of 4, moving them forward, if completely unsatisfied with results.
> 
> For better feeling on how we hear, I like the picture attached. Layers are not mixed
> 
> Hope this helps.



So when considering the 5.1.4 set up, I could simply use my current in-ceiling speakers (currently surround) as my Atmos speakers, then add some type of monitor/on wall surround speakers at or near ear level for surrounds and try it as a 5.1.4 system? When sitting in my main listening position, the current in-ceiling side surrounds are just slightly forward from parallel and each approximately 8 feet or so to the side from the MLP, and the current rear surrounds are about 5-6 feet behind me and at maybe each a 45 degree or less angle. Think this might be able to work as Front Height and Rear Heights - then simply add a set of ear level surround speakers? this would definitely be the most economical way to upgrade for me.


----------



## Jonas2

DJ Lushious said:


> That actually should solve the issue about the ceiling fan.
> 
> Granted I own my home, it's still a bit scary to start cutting into the ceiling. Especially because it sort of feels like I need to get the placement done right the first time. And then never hope I rearrange. Haha!


Ditch the fan!! Seriously - you mention something worth considering - changing the layout/rearrangement. Think about that first - do you feel like rearranging; getting tired of the old arrangement of furniture? Just use those Dolby guidelines to help you determine viable scenarios for speaker/furniture arrangements relative to your space and any limitations it might have.



Acaps said:


> So when considering the 5.1.4 set up, I could simply use my current in-ceiling speakers (currently surround) as my Atmos speakers, then add some type of monitor/on wall surround speakers at or near ear level for surrounds and try it as a 5.1.4 system? When sitting in my main listening position, the current in-ceiling side surrounds are just slightly forward from parallel and each approximately 8 feet or so to the side from the MLP, and the current rear surrounds are about 5-6 feet behind me and at maybe each a 45 degree or less angle. Think this might be able to work as Front Height and Rear Heights - then simply add a set of ear level surround speakers? this would definitely be the most economical way to upgrade for me.


Sure, the ear-to slightly above ear level surrounds can be added and take care of you there. But based on what you're saying, sounds to me like the in-ceilings would need to be relocated, they are not in the ideal positions for Atmos. The rears *might* be doable, but the fronts would need to move - you want that 45 degree angle on those too if you can and more in line with the mains.


----------



## Newbie789

DJ Lushious said:


> I really want to make the upgrade to Atmos and I want to do it the right way, with in-ceiling speakers. I tried the floor speaker add-ons and couldn't tell the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my living room poses a challenge for me, not only with the configuration of my setup, but that one or two of the in-ceiling speakers would need to be placed above the blades of a ceiling fan.
> 
> 
> 
> Would I need to align the ceiling speakers with my front/rears or would I bring them in closer to be above the couch? Right now they are at least 8-10 feet the left/right from the center channel, but should the Atmost speakers be above the listener/close to the sweet spot?
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some pictures of my living room's ceiling. Any help on proper placement and how to overcome this problemwould be greatly appreciated!




I think you're fine. The speakers in this picture that I drew are within tolerances of atmos. Look at the atmos guide and see the acceptable angles the speakers can be installed from the seating position while avoiding the fan.

Your room is probably framed from the tv back to the couch so you'll probably be able to fish speaker wire in between the joists from the tv towards the couch.




















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## infernovball

*ANOTHER question about speaker placement*

I just got a Denon AVR-X4300H for my first try at an ATMOS setup. I got 4 Polk OMW3 for my on-ceiling speakers. As you can see in my diagram and picture, I have an unusual shape to my ceiling. There is a beam that spans the room at approximately 45 degrees from my head position. This could be a great place to put the OMW3s, I just wonder if it would place them too close to the seats (about 5.5 feet).

In my diagram I have 4 potential front ceiling positions, and 3 rear ceiling positions. 
F1 - most straighforward. Possibly too close?
F2 - still at a good angle to the listening position, but not as direct-firing
F3 - Could make a more disperse sound
F4 - Closer to front heights than overheads

B1 - Easiest to mount, would look better. Non-ideal angle to listening position.
B2 - 45 degree angle to listening positon. Harder to mount, wouldn't look as good.
B3 - 45 degree angle to listening position. Harder to mound, would be less obtrusive if mounted flush to ceiling and pointing straight down. 

One other, less important consideration is that I sometimes put a bean bag in front of my theater chairs to get closer to the TV. In this position F1 would be almost directly overhead, rather than the suggested 30-55 degrees. 
Thoughts?


----------



## sdurani

^^^ I would go with F1 and B1. Aim each speaker at the listener farthest away.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kain said:


> Just got back from watching It in a Dolby Cinema. Holy hell! Probably one of the most active Atmos mixes I've heard yet. Use of objects, overhead speakers, and sound panning was awesome! Dynamics were great too with some very loud moments. This will be a huge treat at home.


Which film is this?


----------



## tbass2k

Mashie Saldana said:


> Which film is this?


IT

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

tbass2k said:


> IT
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Ah thanks.

I will give this a miss as I'm not a big fan of horror movies.


----------



## stikle

Mashie Saldana said:


> I will give this a miss as I'm not a big fan of horror movies.



You might reconsider that. I haven't seen it yet, but according to an interview with Gray Drake of Rotten Tomatos this morning, it's much more than a horror movie - and it's excellent. Humor, suspense, and just well done overall.


----------



## hlvowell

Just set up my 7.1.2 (.2 being (2) up-firing Pioneers, set as top middle, placement of up-firing at surrounds position, surrounds at 81.5 degrees)

When I did the calibration on the system, a Pioneer SC-87, the GUI showed the TM Dolby up-fire represented on screen as being at the fronts position. The test tones came from the up-fire surrounds, so the TM sound is routed to the correct position as wired.

Question, am I correct placing the up-firing Pioneers at the surround positions or should the up-firing Pioneers be at the front positions. 

Thanks


----------



## gwsat

Mashie Saldana said:


> Ah thanks.
> 
> I will give this a miss as I'm not a big fan of horror movies.


I used to feel the same way about horror films generally, and films based on Stephen King's prolific output in particular. Over the course of the last ten years or so, though, I have become a Stephen King fan but have kept in mind that his work is hit and miss. Films based on King's best work, though, have entertained me hugely. Brian De Palma's great _Carrie_ and the equally wonderful Hulu miniseries, _11.22.63_ come to mind. I haven't read King's novel _It_ yet but will get to it soon. For obvious reasons, then, I am really looking forward to seeing the film version.

I also love Stanley Kubrick's _The Shining_ (1980), which was based on King's 1977 novel of the same name. King hated the film, though, and resented what Kubrick did with his work. King's angry dissent notwithstanding, I thought Kubrick did him a favor with his film. I thought King's book was good but not great, whereas Kubrick's film lives on as one of the greatest horror films ever made.

If I enjoy the film version of _It_ as much as I expect I will, I will be first in line to buy the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version.


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> I will be first in line to buy the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version.



I am in the process of moving to a small Eastern Oregon town that has a tiny 2 screen theater and doesn't get big first-run movies. I see plenty of streaming and UHD purchases in my future. Well, after I get my home theater set up again.


----------



## gwsat

stikle said:


> I am in the process of moving to a small Eastern Oregon town that has a tiny 2 screen theater and doesn't get big first-run movies. I see plenty of streaming and UHD purchases in my future. Well, after I get my home theater set up again.


I am a lossless audio snob so if a UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA disk is available, I'll buy it in preference to the streaming version every time. Streamed Dolby Digital+ Atmos is good but it is still lossy and to my ears at least is inferior to the lossless version available on UHD HDR and some 1080P BD disks.


----------



## sdurani

hlvowell said:


> Question, am I correct placing the up-firing Pioneers at the surround positions or should the up-firing Pioneers be at the front positions.


Whichever gives the better impression of sound above you. There is no right or wrong in this case, just whatever works best in your particular situation.


----------



## rizorith

Great thread, hoping you guys can help me out...

I'm in the process of putting together a small 5.1.2 setup with Chane 2.4/1.4 as a the front 3, Denon X1300, some sort of good sub, in a 10x13x7.5 foot room. For the rears and the heights, I am now leaning towards in ceiling and/or in wall for the simple reason that I am going to be putting the wires in the wall/ceiling anyways, so may as well put the speakers in there as well. 

What are the pros/cons to this versus putting speakers on ceiling/wall? And if I go this route, is there any reason I can't put in-ceiling speakers in the wall (the rears) so I have 4 of the same speaker. I'm guessing I should get speakers which I can direct the tweeter but besides that, I'm not sure what to look for. I want to keep all 4 of these speakers to 250ish total. I see that Polk V60's are often on sale in this range and currently I can get Klipsch KHC-6 for about $150/4 speakers. Would these be good and if not, what would you guys suggest?

One other problem I will have is that the ceiling is angled about 10 degrees. If I put on ceiling I could easily adjust this so the speaker is straight. If I get in ceiling I can adjust the tweeter though. Would that be enough of an adjustment?

And lastly, if I put the rears in the wall do I have them just go 90 degrees to the listeners, a foot behind and a couple feet above? Or should i adjust the tweeter slightly towards the front of the listener?


----------



## am2model3

I am planning to do atmos. Denon 4300h and pioneer elite andrew jones speaker set upfiring for 5.1.4. Sounds good?


----------



## KurianOfBorg

When I enable "Dolby Atmos for Home Theater" in Windows, my SR6012 just says:
Sound: Dolby Atmos
Signal: Dolby Atmos
LCD: Dolby Atmos

I cannot enable any upmixing mode. I cannot treat music as Stereo and upmix it to Dolby Surround, or enable DTS Neural:X, Virtual, etc. I cannot even disable Atmos and play just the base layer, if it even exists in this case.

When I bitstream Atmos movies, it says:
Sound: Dolby Atmos
Signal: Dolby Atmos / TrueHD
LCD: Dolby Atmos / Surround

I can disable Atmos and play just the TrueHD base layer, or use another upmixing mode like DTS Neural:X, Virtual etc.

It seems it's possible to just have an Atmos object stream without a base layer. I imagine it's much more efficient for real-time audio than compressing a TrueHD layer.


----------



## thebland

I am just leaving *CEDIA* now. 

Big winner in sound was Alcons Audio with a 13.4.6 configuration w/ a Trinnov Altitude . The LCR speakers feature a beefy 15" driver, midrange and a wide dispersion ribbon tweeters. Clear and loud. The demo clips of Passengers and The Man from UNCLE were some of the best demos I e heard. Loud and over. And Unbroken was excellent as well. 

9.1.6 seems to be where receivers are going and though the Trinnov Altitude supports 10 height channels, the majority set ups used six heights. When I asked about it, the Alcons calibrator said six heights seems to be the best option / compromise in rooms with Atmos. The demo room was approx 35' x 25' x 15 high. . 

Sound stage and sense of space was just amazing in this room. Best of show... besting out the JBL synthesis demo.


----------



## grendelrt

KurianOfBorg said:


> When I enable "Dolby Atmos for Home Theater" in Windows, my SR6012 just says:
> Sound: Dolby Atmos
> Signal: Dolby Atmos
> LCD: Dolby Atmos
> 
> I cannot enable any upmixing mode. I cannot treat music as Stereo and upmix it to Dolby Surround, or enable DTS Neural:X, Virtual, etc. I cannot even disable Atmos and play just the base layer, if it even exists in this case.
> 
> When I bitstream Atmos movies, it says:
> Sound: Dolby Atmos
> Signal: Dolby Atmos / TrueHD
> LCD: Dolby Atmos / Surround
> 
> I can disable Atmos and play just the TrueHD base layer, or use another upmixing mode like DTS Neural:X, Virtual etc.
> 
> It seems it's possible to just have an Atmos object stream without a base layer. I imagine it's much more efficient for real-time audio than compressing a TrueHD layer.


I havent bought the Atmos upgrade yet, but I believe when you do select that in Windows, it is doing an Atmos upmix in software similiar to the upmixer in your receiver and then passing it as an Atmos signal. If you switch the sound setting in windows back down to 7.1 it should pass PCM and you can apply the upmixer. I havent seen a need to use the Atmos setting in Windows since the upmixer in the receiver takes care of non atmos signals and all my other Atmos signals are bitstreamed anyways.


----------



## KurianOfBorg

grendelrt said:


> I havent bought the Atmos upgrade yet, but I believe when you do select that in Windows, it is doing an Atmos upmix in software similiar to the upmixer in your receiver and then passing it as an Atmos signal. If you switch the sound setting in windows back down to 7.1 it should pass PCM and you can apply the upmixer. I havent seen a need to use the Atmos setting in Windows since the upmixer in the receiver takes care of non atmos signals and all my other Atmos signals are bitstreamed anyways.


Atmos is free for Home Theatre. Only the Headphone version is purchasable.

Windows does not upmix content AFAIK. Even in Atmos mode it just outputs each channel as it is for regular applications. Using PCM for shared mode is viable for now because all current games that support Atmos explicitly bitstream from the game engine, which overrides shared mode. However going forward games will start using the Windows Spatial Sound API and this will typically require shared mode to be Atmos, unless the game settings specifically allow Atmos to be selected. I foresee having to switch between Stereo PCM and Atmos based on the content.


----------



## Jonas2

stikle said:


> I am in the process of moving to a small Eastern Oregon town that has a tiny 2 screen theater and doesn't get big first-run movies. I see plenty of streaming and UHD purchases in my future. Well, after I get my home theater set up again.


You should open your home theater to the deprived masses of eastern Oregon, show them what they are missing!! 



thebland said:


> 9.1.6 seems to be where receivers are going and though the Trinnov Altitude supports 10 height channels, the majority set ups used six heights. When I asked about it, the Alcons calibrator said six heights seems to be the best option / compromise in rooms with Atmos. The demo room was approx 35' x 25' x 15 high. .


That demo room is twice+ the size of my room.  I will never know (in this current dwelling) the joy of such a system. Oh well, it'll save me some $$$, always a silver lining..... Glad you enjoyed that demo and were able to experience it!!


----------



## harrisu

Hi guys. I have 4 ceiling speakers mounted at equi-distance from MLP angled down 45 degrees. I have all speakers pointed to MLP as well. 
Question: Should the speakers be pointed at MLp or more towards side seats? Again ceiling speakers are angled down 45 degrees and all pointed to MLP.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Jonas2 said:


> I will never know (in this current dwelling) the joy of such a system. Oh well, it'll save me some $$$, always a silver lining..... Glad you enjoyed that demo and were able to experience it!!


There will always be bigger and better. Many of us started and many of us are still at humble beginnings compared to some of the systems here on AVS However, the equipment you have in your signature probably puts you in the top 98% of consumer home theaters in the US. In a world where ear buds and soundbars are king, your system is above and beyond what most home consumers will ever experience. Your system can hold it's own to many here on AVS too. Enjoy your system, but more importantly enjoy the journey.



harrisu said:


> Hi guys. I have 4 ceiling speakers mounted at equi-distance from MLP angled down 45 degrees. I have all speakers pointed to MLP as well.
> Question: Should the speakers be pointed at MLp or more towards side seats? Again ceiling speakers are angled down 45 degrees and all pointed to MLP.



Call me selfish, but all the speakers in my theater are oriented foremost to the seat of the one who financed the operation


----------



## grendelrt

Molon_Labe said:


> There will always be bigger and better. Many of us started and many of us are still at humble beginnings compared to some of the systems here on AVS However, the equipment you have in your signature probably puts you in the top 98% of consumer home theaters in the US. In a world where ear buds and soundbars are king, your system is above and beyond what most home consumers will ever experience. Your system can hold it's own to many here on AVS too. Enjoy your system, but more importantly enjoy the journey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me selfish, but all the speakers in my theater are oriented foremost to the seat of the one who financed the operation


Haha mine are the same, I do wonder if I should point them more towards the outward edges of the row.


----------



## am2model3

When i go 5.1.4 i am thinking adding the second subwoofer for 5.2.4? Is that thumping? Also i listen to dolby digital 5.1 over optical, will things sound better with dolby true hd lossless with atmos over hdmi?


----------



## harrisu

Molon_Labe said:


> Call me selfish, but all the speakers in my theater are oriented foremost to the seat of the one who financed the operation


Good one. I was actually asking the best way to utilize the ceiling speakers but I guess it seems like MLP it is.


----------



## Roger Dressler

am2model3 said:


> When i go 5.1.4 i am thinking adding the second subwoofer for 5.2.4?


If you do it right, there will be obvious benefits. If not, well...



> Also i listen to dolby digital 5.1 over optical, will things sound better with dolby true hd lossless with atmos over hdmi?


Should be incremental improvement in the core sound quality going to lossless, but the bigger benefit with be the addition of the 4 height speaker -- when playing Atmos content anyway.


----------



## AndreNewman

Roger Dressler said:


> If you do it right, there will be obvious benefits. If not, well...
> 
> 
> 
> Should be incremental improvement in the core sound quality going to lossless, but the bigger benefit with be the addition of the 4 height speaker -- when playing Atmos content anyway.




I think the room and speakers plays a big part, at my place the difference between basic lossy Dolby D or DTS and lossless is huge, much more significant than atmos to me.

At my girlfriend's parents place it's really difficult to hear the difference between lossy and lossless. They have small satellite speakers, poorly placed in a difficult room. They don't have atmos and probably never will, speakers are already in heights positions. They just come to my place for atmos...


----------



## Roger Dressler

AndreNewman said:


> at my place the difference between basic lossy Dolby D or DTS and lossless is huge, much more significant than atmos to me.


Just curious, are you referring to DVD, or TV, where you hear huge differences?


----------



## AndreNewman

Roger Dressler said:


> Just curious, are you referring to DVD, or TV, where you hear huge differences?


Well everything where there's a choice between lossless & lossy. I watched the first couple of episodes of Homeland (season4 I think) with DTS audio and then rented the blurays for the rest of the season and the difference between DTS and DTS-MA was huge and even the DTS is usually a bit better than the DolbyD garbage you get with most off air TV.

I watched part of Game Thrones Season 1 on Sky HD and then later came back to it and re-watched from the beginning with the blurays and that was a massive improvement in clarity, detail and dynamic range. I cancelled my Sky HD subscription primarily due to terrible audio, gurgling pitch shifted dialogue as well as muffled low bit rate Dolby. Bluray rentals are so much better and cheaper too. That was before I upgraded my sound system too.


Sometimes I watch a movie and the audio has flipped to Dolby D or DTS and not picked up the lossless track, it sounds really muffled and mushy, the improvement is immediately obvious when you select the correct DTS-MA or Dolby TrueHD track.

Older movies don't always have a good master so sometimes it's not so obvious but anything from the last 20 years at least is a huge difference.

When there's a good drama on TV I often consider waiting for a Bluray release to get much better video and especially audio. There's no way I was going to watch Game Of Thrones Season 7 on Sky HD or Netflix streaming, we are waiting for the Bluray release.

I can't believe that anyone with more than a real entry level surround system or TV speakers would ever be happy listening to DolbyD or DTS audio, DTS can be borderline good sometimes but AC3 DD sounds really poor.


----------



## Jonas2

Molon_Labe said:


> There will always be bigger and better. Many of us started and many of us are still at humble beginnings compared to some of the systems here on AVS However, the equipment you have in your signature probably puts you in the top 98% of consumer home theaters in the US. In a world where ear buds and soundbars are king, your system is above and beyond what most home consumers will ever experience. Your system can hold it's own to many here on AVS too. Enjoy your system, but more importantly enjoy the journey.


Thank you my good sir! And indeed, for what it is, I do enjoy it - but to your point - the journey itself was extremely fun and educational, with a tremendous nod (95% at least!) to the fabulous folks and information on this very forum. (I really do recommend for anybody reading, and I sense that a large number of members here are the DIY (build and/or install) type, that you try some of this on your own, EVEN if you've got the luxury of affording an installer). I do suspect the journey is not yet over (hoping to change the 5.x.x to 7.x.x this Winter, but not sure yet....)



Molon_Labe said:


> Call me selfish, but all the speakers in my theater are oriented foremost to the seat of the one who financed the operation


AMEN! Nothing selfish about this at all! 



harrisu said:


> Hi guys. I have 4 ceiling speakers mounted at equi-distance from MLP angled down 45 degrees. I have all speakers pointed to MLP as well.
> Question: Should the speakers be pointed at MLp or more towards side seats? Again ceiling speakers are angled down 45 degrees and all pointed to MLP.


To only reiterate what others have said, point to MLP! I've done this in my system as well - I've only got a 3-person couch, and I would say it sounds best at MLP - but the overhead experience sounds very good at all three seating positions. Do a little experimenting in your various positions and come to a best-sound compromise, or take it all for yourself in the MLP! 



am2model3 said:


> When i go 5.1.4 i am thinking adding the second subwoofer for 5.2.4? Is that thumping? Also i listen to dolby digital 5.1 over optical, will things sound better with dolby true hd lossless with atmos over hdmi?


I think even more important than the "thumping" aspect of adding a second sub, is that a second sub will smooth out the bass response across a greater number of listening positions in your space, and greatly reduce the localization of the subs, at least that was my experience with subs that could not be ideally placed. I've found that those low frequency effects that can really physically rattle furniture and floor can really be discerned from a single sub, not optimally located. Two subs definitely added more uniformity to that perception, really equalized the physical aspect of it as well.


----------



## Roger Dressler

AndreNewman said:


> I watched the first couple of episodes of Homeland (season4 I think) with DTS audio and then rented the blurays for the rest of the season and the difference between DTS and DTS-MA was huge and even the DTS is usually a bit better than the DolbyD garbage you get with most off air TV.
> 
> I watched part of Game Thrones Season 1 on Sky HD and then later came back to it and re-watched from the beginning with the blurays and that was a massive improvement in clarity, detail and dynamic range. I cancelled my Sky HD subscription primarily due to terrible audio, gurgling pitch shifted dialogue as well as muffled low bit rate Dolby. Bluray rentals are so much better and cheaper too. That was before I upgraded my sound system too.
> 
> When there's a good drama on TV I often consider waiting for a Bluray release to get much better video and especially audio. There's no way I was going to watch Game Of Thrones Season 7 on Sky HD or Netflix streaming, we are waiting for the Bluray release.


One of the key characteristics of lossless audio is that there's no variability imposed by codec options. There is only one lossless rendition -- that of the source file. In contrast, lossy audio runs the gamut of codecs (MP3, AAC, DD, DD+, TrueHD, DTS CA, DTS HD HR and HD MA). On top of that, even within the confines of a single codec, there may be huge variation in bitrates. Lastly, the final delivery codec you see may not represent the first time that signal was lossy coded in the delivery chain. There may have been additional distribution codecs cascaded (additional encode-decode cycles of lossy coding), particularly if we are talking about broadcast. We simply cannot be sure of the pedigree, and the poor results you report are the sad but true reality that can happen. 

However, none of that may be relevant to the OP's question. I took the OP to be referring strictly to optical BD/UHD disc based media, as that is the only source relevant to his question of upgrading his equipment to play lossless Atmos. OP wrote: >>When i go 5.1.4 ... Also, i listen to dolby digital 5.1 over optical, will things sound better with dolby true hd lossless with atmos over hdmi


----------



## am2model3

Yes i am looking for an upgrade audio epiphany! All my dd5.1 is from dvds blus and uhds over optical


----------



## freinhar

I have not done an A/B test between lossy and lossless versions of the same content, and I've watched quite a few movies over the years where I've had no issues with lossy DD or DTS audio. In many cases they are perfectly fine. 

I did have an experience recently where the difference seemed huge - I was rewatching Fringe on Blu-Ray, which I hadn't seen since it first aired on TV. The first two seasons are in lossy DD, and the rest are in DTS-HD MA. I did not realise the difference in audio before I began watching, but it was immediately noticeable. I found the entire soundscape to be quite muddy during the first two seasons, and often struggled with dialogue during scenes with lots of stuff going on. Gunshots, explosions, etc. seemed to lack definition.

I was so struck by how clear, precise, and legible everything sounded as soon as I'd gotten into season three that it made the check the audio info, and that's when I noticed the show had finally made the move to lossless audio. I'm not sure you should expect this sort of difference for all content, but in this case I found it very noticeable. 

A somewhat related/somewhat unrelated question, as this is the Atmos thread: do you generally prefer the Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X upmixer for legacy content? I'm currently using the Dolby one for Dolby content and the DTS one for DTS content, but I do find they sound a bit different. The Dolby upmixer seems clearer but less aggressive to me, whereas the DTS one seems to add more of an overhead effect. Not sure how much of that is just in my head though...


----------



## MagnumX

Roger Dressler said:


> One of the key characteristics of lossless audio is that there's no variability imposed by codec options.
> ...
> 
> With a very good AV system, and well mastered content, compared with the levels perfectly matched, the difference between lossy and lossless is not nearly so stark. This has been the subject of various rigorous tests over the years. Such differences are all the more difficult to discern with a truly "level" comparison, where the listener is blinded from the knowledge of which codec is playing. Expectation bias is more powerful than good intentions on the part of the listener.


The one variability that remains when doing comparisons of any kind is the one you mentioned in the second part, LEVEL MATCHING. When I read about "HUGE" differences between DTS and DTS-Master Audio I can only hear one word in my mind and it's the full word for the acronym BS. There's almost always this implication that "poor" systems won't show this "huge" difference, but "MY" system is extra special and I have really good (magic) ears and it's just huge. Yooooge! Then the usual 4-8 guys click the AGREE button and frankly I want to vomit. Trying to get accurate and scientific information can be like pulling teeth sometimes. 

But then on the opposite extreme, if Dolby "recommends" something, you see the opposite. It's suddenly a new religion and putting that "ceiling" speaker high on the wall just RUINED Atmos for that poor soul because didn't they read it must be on the ceiling or bounced off it between exactly specified angles relative to the LP? Did we just waste the last year harping on this day in and day out for this guy to just put them NEAR the ceiling? It's just ruined. They will not get the sound the director intended the sound mixing guys to mix for them. They just won't get it! They certainly will NEVER get it if they use that horrible LOSSY garbage instead of the LOSSLESS track the director had in mind in 1963! Oh, it was mono back then, but in his mind he knew he wanted it turned into an Atmos track in the future and all the film grain removed too! 

Level matching (or rather the lack thereof) is the #1 mistake made in ALL comparisons of any equipment, formats, etc. There is no POINT to even a double blind test if the levels aren't matched for a given amp, speaker, etc. (and not doing double blind tests is the #2 mistake made in any true inquiry because people tend to pick the more expensive/whizz bang thing, especially if they just invested a large amount of money into it when they KNOW which one is which). People almost always "prefer" LOUDER over quieter. It's just a natural reaction because more detail is revealed at louder volumes and it keeps sounding "better" louder until you reach the point it bothers your ears. 

Back in college in my Psyche 101 class, they explained the famous "Pepsi Challenge" they had in the 1980s. The professor first duplicated the experiment for the entire class and took a poll. Pepsi won over Coke by about 8 to 1 even though almost half the class preferred one over the other in stated preference before taking the "test". The REASON so many chose Pepsi is simple. If you taste something more sweet first and then don't cleanse your palette and then try something less sweet, the less sweet product will taste far less sweet than it would if you tried it first (your taste buds are overloaded). So during the "Pepsi Challenge" at malls, etc. they ALWAYS (and I mean ALWAYS) gave you Pepsi first and then COKE on the "A" and "B" cups to screw your taste buds up so Coke would appear to taste worse even if you normally preferred it. This would then "shock" you that you chose Pepsi and at least temporarily get you to drink more Pepsi. It was rather ingenious, but also complete BS. Now some of us can tell Coke from Pepsi regardless and so there was no fooling us (no one said it gave perfect results), but it sure as heck skewed the results in Pepsi's favor. 

SACD titles do this all the time. The SACD version of the album on the one side of the disc is 3-5dB louder than the "CD Side" (assuming 2-channel tracks for both as comparing surround is apples/oranges). That way if you try and compare them and don't take measures to correct it, you'll tend to "prefer" the SACD version even if in reality you couldn't tell them apart if they were level matched. Now if Sony had true faith in their product, would they go to that bother to dupe you? No, of course not. They rigged it hoping this would get word of mouth going and sell more SACD players and titles. It didn't work because people didn't even bother to try it (come on; most people listen to those earbuds that iPods/iPhones come with and either don't know any better or couldn't care less even if you told them). But on the high-end, it works like a charm. Many Audiophiles don't know how to scientifically compare items correctly without bias. They just listen with those "golden ears" and say yes, the SACD sounds better! Put them in a correct test and they can't tell squat apart. 

This is just one example, of course, but it's one reason I'd take any "quality" comments with a few grains of salt and just because a company that sells something (for you know, MONEY/PROFIT) that doesn't mean they're going to tell you everything because (shock shock) they want to sell you something! Advertising is based around this desire to sell you something and tends to use language designed to get you excited about a product, even if the product is lackluster (yogurt). Put a celebrity selling that yogurt and tell you the difference it's going to make to your gut (both for bacteria and to shrink it!) and put some GREEK into it and say how much better yogurt tastes if it's more like sour cream in texture than you know... just regular old yogurt.


----------



## AndreNewman

Roger Dressler said:


> One of the key characteristics of lossless audio is that there's no variability imposed by codec options. There is only one lossless rendition -- that of the source file. In contrast, lossy audio runs the gamut of codecs (MP3, AAC, DD, DD+, DTS CA, DTS HD HR and HD MA). On top of that, even within the confines of a single codec, there may be huge variation in bitrates. Lastly, the final delivery codec you see may not represent the first time that signal was lossy coded in the delivery chain. There may have been additional distribution codecs cascaded (additional encode-decode cycles of lossy coding), particularly if we are talking about broadcast. We simply cannot be sure of the pedigree, an the poor results you report are the sad but true reality that can happen.
> 
> 
> 
> However, none of that may be relevant to the OP's question. I took the OP to be referring strictly to optical BD/UHD disc based media, as that is the only source relevant to his question of upgrading his equipment to play lossless Atmos. OP wrote: >>When i go 5.1.4 ... Also, i listen to dolby digital 5.1 over optical, will things sound better with dolby true hd lossless with atmos over hdmi


----------



## Roger Dressler

AndreNewman said:


> A lot of my work is in live sports where you are unable to control every aspect of the program so the artefacts show up more often, very few people listen critically to sports tv audio so it really doesn't matter much.


I'm of the opinion that very few people listen critically to any TV audio, and would not single out sports as being any lower on the totem pole.



> I would say that ac3 at maximum rate 640kbps really can't reproduce race car engine noise properly. I sometimes think that's a blessing but there are plenty who buy CDs of F1 engine noises and the star wars pod race has a good example of high quality F1 engine sounds mixed in.


Tests I was involved with found DD 640 kbps was indistinguishable from DTS CA 1.536 Mbps. Not as surprising as the numbers might suggest, owing to the significant differences in coding technologies. No F1 sounds were used, however. 

As you are versed in codec testing, have you tried taking the encoded/decoded PCM and subtracting it (sample aligned) from the source?


----------



## Lonewolf7002

Roger Dressler said:


> With a very good AV system, and well mastered content, compared with the levels perfectly matched, the difference between lossy and lossless is not nearly so stark. This has been the subject of various rigorous tests over the years. Such differences are all the more difficult to discern with a truly "level" comparison, where the listener is blinded from the knowledge of which codec is playing. Expectation bias is more powerful than good intentions on the part of the listener.


I agree with this, based off my own recent experience. I had an EAD Theatremaster preamp from 2000. It only supported DD and DTS. I've been very happy with it all this time, but recently replaced it with a Denon X3300W. I was happy that I can now listen to my blurays with the better, and lossless codecs. I haven't found any really noticeable improvement in quality. The change to the Denon was worth it for the extra features, but going to lossless didn't bring about a sound improvement off bluray. I can definitely hear a difference between low-bit rate streaming audio and high-bit rate or cd, but with high-bit rate compared to lossless there's been very little difference, if at all.




freinhar said:


> I did have an experience recently where the difference seemed huge - I was rewatching Fringe on Blu-Ray, which I hadn't seen since it first aired on TV. The first two seasons are in lossy DD, and the rest are in DTS-HD MA. I did not realise the difference in audio before I began watching, but it was immediately noticeable. I found the entire soundscape to be quite muddy during the first two seasons, and often struggled with dialogue during scenes with lots of stuff going on. Gunshots, explosions, etc. seemed to lack definition.
> 
> I was so struck by how clear, precise, and legible everything sounded as soon as I'd gotten into season three that it made the check the audio info, and that's when I noticed the show had finally made the move to lossless audio. I'm not sure you should expect this sort of difference for all content, but in this case I found it very noticeable.


I have to wonder, are the differences in quality between the seasons due just to the different codecs or did they get better equipment, cleaner source material, make better mixes from third season on? Seems odd that they would only include DD on the first two seasons and a better codec on the rest. Unless that's all they had available - a poorer quality mix for the first two seasons. As you've pointed out, you haven't noticed much difference before, so I'm guessing the differences are just due to the source/mix, as opposed to the two different codecs.


----------



## batpig

thebland said:


> I am just leaving *CEDIA* now.
> 
> Big winner in sound was Alcons Audio with a 13.4.6 configuration w/ a Trinnov Altitude . The LCR speakers feature a beefy 15" driver, midrange and a wide dispersion ribbon tweeters. Clear and loud. The demo clips of Passengers and The Man from UNCLE were some of the best demos I e heard. Loud and over. And Unbroken was excellent as well.
> 
> 9.1.6 seems to be where receivers are going and though the Trinnov Altitude supports 10 height channels, the majority set ups used six heights. When I asked about it, the Alcons calibrator said six heights seems to be the best option / compromise in rooms with Atmos. The demo room was approx 35' x 25' x 15 high. .
> 
> Sound stage and sense of space was just amazing in this room. Best of show... besting out the JBL synthesis demo.


Personally, I greatly preferred the JBL Synthesis system to the Alcons. As far as I know they were the only high channel count (>7.1.4) demos.

The larger room was a major advantage (getting those heights way up on the scaffolding) but the Synthesis setup was smoother and more refined. The Alcons was loud and dynamic, but I thought the high end was a little crispy/harsh vs. the Synthesis stuff. The Alcons were very impressive with how loud they could play without strain, easily filling up that huge room.

The Synthesis demo was a 15.1.10 setup with 8 subs (a pair of 15" subs in each corner), and I think the Alcons was actually an 11.1.6 with 4 subs (a pair of 21" behind the screen and a pair of 15" on the side walls). Both delivered an amazing sense of spatial immersion and seamless imaging that I've never heard matched by a 7.1.4 setup. But the smoothness and refinement of the Synthesis system was the winning ticket for me, obviously IMHO.

In terms of 7.1.4 setups, my favorites were the PMC room (just insane dynamics, the most seamless 3D immersion among 7.1.4 demos with awesome timbral cohesiveness, and the most visceral, concussive bass I've ever experienced) and the Meridian room (which they were really using to demonstrate the fact that they can now use other processors, the demo was running a Marantz 7704). The Starke Sound room was also pretty solid. The Emotiva demo was a clunker, the bass was horrible (flabby and thudding with no definition, sounded terribly miscalibrated or something). 

The PMC demo was really something else, they didn't have a dedicated separate sub but the 15" woofers with transmission line venting in the LCR speakers just destroyed the small room without a hint of distortion or strain. I've never felt bass like that, I could literally feel my shirt flapping and the air vibrating.... they demo'd the final scene in John Wick and the gunshots and car crashes were literally concussive. Insane.


----------



## healthnut

Most movies I watch sound at least acceptably good in my system, but I had people over for the Super Bowl, and the half time music was bright, shrill and etched: the worst sound I've heard in awhile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## freinhar

Lonewolf7002 said:


> I have to wonder, are the differences in quality between the seasons due just to the different codecs or did they get better equipment, cleaner source material, make better mixes from third season on? Seems odd that they would only include DD on the first two seasons and a better codec on the rest. Unless that's all they had available - a poorer quality mix for the first two seasons. As you've pointed out, you haven't noticed much difference before, so I'm guessing the differences are just due to the source/mix, as opposed to the two different codecs.


I think you are probably right. I have no evidence to suggest it was the codec that made the difference - perhaps they just decided to go with the better codec on the later seasons due to them having a better source mix available. It just stuck out to as a moment where I suddenly noticed a stark difference, but I wouldn't presume to put it down to the code.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

*Height speaker position*

There's a Emotiva RMC-1 with my name on it in the next year presumably (not in any hurry). And while last year it was mentioned that it would be 13.3, now it is confirmed that it will also do 15.1 for a full blown 9.1.6. (more is possible, but this is where I draw the line of diminishing returns)

Since my room is wide but of standard height (8') I have setup for 9.1.4 with Wides and Top Front + Top Rear since Top Middle speakers would be rather too close to front row (3') and MLP for my liking. Therefore I would fancy adding Front Height above the projection screen. These would be elevated about 22° (Top Fronts about 45° up). My thinking is this would enhance front to back transition of sound and also enhance the front stage.

Downside is this would mean connecting both subs (symmetrical between LCR) to one output. And not adding a third sub in the rear centre wall position. At least unless I use an extra box (miniDSP) for that. Which in turn might not work as intended once Unison is installed.

Opinions about Front Height vs Top Middle?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

erwinfrombelgium said:


> There's a Emotiva RMC-1 with my name on it in the next year presumably (not in any hurry). And while last year it was mentioned that it would be 13.3, now it is confirmed that it will also do 15.1 for a full blown 9.1.6. (more is possible, but this is where I draw the line of diminishing returns)
> 
> Since my room is wide but of standard height (8') I have setup for 9.1.4 with Wides and Top Front + Top Rear since Top Middle speakers would be rather too close to front row (3') and MLP for my liking. Therefore I would fancy adding Front Height above the projection screen. These would be elevated about 22° (Top Fronts about 45° up). My thinking is this would enhance front to back transition of sound and also enhance the front stage.
> 
> Downside is this would mean connecting both subs (symmetrical between LCR) to one output. And not adding a third sub in the rear centre wall position. At least unless I use an extra box (miniDSP) for that. Which in turn might not work as intended once Unison is installed.
> 
> Opinions about Front Height vs Top Middle?


I don't think TR, TF and FH will give you much, the angular separation will be very narrow. Just go TR, TM and TF. That will give you a nice 45 degree speaker separation from front to rear instead of 0, 35, 45, 125, 180.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Front Height would be @ 22° so it would be 0, 22, 45, 135, 180° elevation

22° is of course below the recommended 30 to 45°!

I could reposition (speakers are on-celing, no holes) for TF+TM+TR @ 35-40°, 75-80° and 135°. TM is 4' from front row, not 3' as I wrote in the other post. From MLP it's even further (+5'), so that will be ok.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Front Height would be @ 22° so it would be 0, 22, 45, 135, 180° elevation
> 
> 22° is of course below the recommended 30 to 45°!
> 
> I could reposition (speakers are on-celing, no holes) for TF+TM+TR @ 35-40°, 75-80° and 135°. TM is 4' from front row, not 3' as I wrote in the other post. From MLP it's even further (+5'), so that will be ok.


I don't think you will get much benefit from that FH set of speakers tbh. Why not do TF, TM, TR? You could always disconnect the TM pair of it doesn't work out.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

You already convinced me. TF+TM+TR it is! That's the way Dolby intended it anyway:

View attachment Dolby-Atmos-9.1.6-mounted.pdf


----------



## Nick4K

This weekend im going for the Marantz sr6011.

Most of the time I use my TV as media player because of the UHD movies.

But I want to test this weekend my new 5.1.2 setup.

Is this possible with a 1080P movie and Dolby Atmos ?

And is is possible with 4k at 30hz with Dolby Atmos?



Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## Nick4K

Nick4K said:


> This weekend im going for the Marantz sr6011.
> 
> Most of the time I use my TV as media player because of the UHD movies.
> 
> But I want to test this weekend my new 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> Is this possible with a 1080P movie and Dolby Atmos ?
> 
> And is is possible with 4k at 30hz with Dolby Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


Sorry I forgot to mention my laptop only has HDMI 1.4

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You already convinced me. TF+TM+TR it is! That's the way Dolby intended it anyway:


I would move the top middles and the side surrounds forward of where they are in that diagram. This will allow you to move the top fronts closer to the front L/R speakers to have a smoother transition between the base layer and height layer.


----------



## Selden Ball

Nick4K said:


> Sorry I forgot to mention my laptop only has HDMI 1.4
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


If your laptop has only 1.4 then you won't be able to use it to play 4K copy-protected movies, of course.

Dolby provides a few HD Atmos test videos on their own Web site at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

Many of Dolby's other HD trailers with Atmos soundtracks are available on demo-world.eu in their 2D demo folder. Be sure to download the ones with lossless soundtracks, not the ones with Dolby 5.1 audio.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

sdurani said:


> I would move the top middles and the side surrounds forward of where they are in that diagram. This will allow you to move the top fronts closer to the front L/R speakers to have a smoother transition between the base layer and height layer.


Thanks. 
TF = 40°
TM = 80°
TR = 135°
So I am pretty confident this is ok. 

I have worked a long time on the side angles of the Wides and Surrounds and they are incorporated in diffusion panels hence cannot be changed (Rear Surrounds to be added still). But there are no gaps, thanks to having 9 ear level speakers. My room is also wider than the Dolby layout so no speaker is to close to anyone.


----------



## Nick4K

Selden Ball said:


> If your laptop has only 1.4 then you won't be able to use it to play 4K copy-protected movies, of course.
> 
> Dolby provides a few HD Atmos test videos on their own Web site at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html
> 
> Many of Dolby's other HD trailers with Atmos soundtracks are available on demo-world.eu in their 2D demo folder. Be sure to download the ones with lossless soundtracks, not the ones with Dolby 5.1 audio.


I have bluray rips in MKV format, so that no problem. But is it possible to get 5.1.2 Dolby atmos by HDMI 1.4 ?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

Nick4K said:


> I have bluray rips in MKV format, so that no problem. But is it possible to get 5.1.2 Dolby atmos by HDMI 1.4 ?
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


All Atmos requires is bitstream HD audio (Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus). That's been supported since HDMI 1.3 (at least?). The Atmos metadata is embedded in the bitstream and will be decoded by an Atmos capable processor. 

So really anything that can stream HD audio is "Atmos compatible" as a player.

The HDMI version is honestly fairly irrelevant here EXCEPT if the Atmos track you want is on a 4K UHD disc or 4K UHD stream that is copy protected. 4K protected content requires HDMI 2.0 + HDCP 2.2 copyright certification.


----------



## Hopinater

I just read the review on the RSL C34E in ceiling speakers on Home Theater Review. At the end of the review the reviewer made the comment that in his experience he feels like in ceiling speakers work best if your ceiling are 9 ft in height or higher. Less than that he felt the reflective speakers work better. I have 8 foot ceilings and plan on getting in ceiling speakers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Hopinater said:


> I just read the review on the RSL C34E in ceiling speakers on Home Theater Review. At the end of the review the reviewer made the comment that in his experience he feels like in ceiling speakers work best if your ceiling are 9 ft in height or higher. Less than that he felt the reflective speakers work better. I have 8 foot ceilings and plan on getting in ceiling speakers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


You should be fine at 8 feet and the RSL in-ceilings are angled. Just make sure they fire toward the MLP.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Hopinater said:


> I just read the review on the RSL C34E in ceiling speakers on Home Theater Review. At the end of the review the reviewer made the comment that in his experience he feels like in ceiling speakers work best if your ceiling are 9 ft in height or higher. Less than that he felt the reflective speakers work better. I have 8 foot ceilings and plan on getting in ceiling speakers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


Sounds ridiculous to me. Bouncy speakers are a forced compromise for when you can't fit real speakers above you. My ceiling is 2.34meters and there's no way I would consider bouncing the sound off the ceiling since I have the option to put real speakers above me in the ceiling.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Hopinater said:


> I just read the review on the RSL C34E in ceiling speakers on Home Theater Review. At the end of the review the reviewer made the comment that in his experience he feels like in ceiling speakers work best if your ceiling are 9 ft in height or higher. Less than that he felt the reflective speakers work better. I have 8 foot ceilings and plan on getting in ceiling speakers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


Jensen 6x9 - Go old school


----------



## Jonas2

Hopinater said:


> I just read the review on the RSL C34E in ceiling speakers on Home Theater Review. At the end of the review the reviewer made the comment that in his experience he feels like in ceiling speakers work best if your ceiling are 9 ft in height or higher. Less than that he felt the reflective speakers work better. I have 8 foot ceilings and plan on getting in ceiling speakers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


Well, that was the reviewer's experience, YMMV. The effects might be better with higher ceilings - certainly, speakers would likely be harder to localize. That said, 8 foot is within the Dolby spec, albeit close to the minimum recommendation of 7.5'. And up to a max. of 14' - so maybe somewhere in between is the true sweet spot? Dunno. I, like you, have 8ft. ceilings with in-ceilings and LOVE it. Based on my reading of various user experiences, in-ceilings definitely seem to be favored over up-firing types. Go with the in-ceilings.


----------



## Hopinater

Thanks guys. That's what I was thinking but I figured you guys would know since so many of you have first hand experience. I appreciate all the replies.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Jonas2 said:


> That said, 8 foot is within the Dolby spec, albeit close to the minimum recommendation of 7.5'. And up to a max. of 14' - so maybe somewhere in between is the true sweet spot?


That ceiling height recommendation is only for up-firing (Atmos enabled) speakers. For ceiling mounted speakers, the recommendation is 2-3 times the height of the listener level speakers. So even with a 6.5-7 feet ceiling you can stay within Dolby Atmos specs if your base level speaker height is around 3 feet.

Ideal is probably close to a 12' ceiling (3 times 3.9', being the typical listener height mentioned in the Dolby's guidelines).


----------



## grendelrt

I had posted this in the acoustical treatments thread but realizes there is prob a large mass of ceiling users in this thread I should have asked Haha.

Measuring out my ceiling panel, I have 2 ceiling speakers (HTR7000) that are angled drivers for Atmos duty. I am using 1 x 3s to do the framing (so 2.5 in depth actual dimension) and was wondering if there was a guideline of how close I can get to the side of that speaker without interfering with it?


----------



## oldsteve

*Dolby Atmos 3.1.2*

I had to laugh. Just got an e-mail ad from Pioneer USA. They're touting their new model VSX-832 5ch receiver as the first one to offer Dolby Atmos 3.1.2 capability after a firmware update. I smell a game changer coming! Look at all the time and money we'll save on installation and no longer needed extra speakers. This could revolutionize the format! Soon the common man on the street will be familiar with the words "Dolby Atmos". The studios will probably feel obliged to add special 3.1.2 soundtracks to movies to keep the masses happy.


----------



## guitarguy316

so i have been running my denon x3300 in 5.1.2 with the 2 atmos speakers as front height. i get a higher dimension in the front but not that "overhead" sound. so my other option on this receiver is to do them at top middle. 

however, the atmos speakers i'm using are svs prime elevation. since they are angled, i can mount them about 9ft high where the sidewall and ceiling intersect. 

my question is, my seating around in the living is in the rear of the room (about 12x18) where the couch (sectional like) is along back wall. so should i really put them right in the middle of the room where they'd be putting sound in middle of room, OR should i move them more towards the rear of the room on the side wall...like how many feet in front of the sitting position? will this still work as top middle that far back?


----------



## chi_guy50

guitarguy316 said:


> so i have been running my denon x3300 in 5.1.2 with the 2 atmos speakers as front height. i get a higher dimension in the front but not that "overhead" sound. so my other option on this receiver is to do them at top middle.
> 
> however, the atmos speakers i'm using are svs prime elevation. since they are angled, i can mount them about 9ft high where the sidewall and ceiling intersect.
> 
> my question is, my seating around in the living is in the rear of the room (about 12x18) where the couch (sectional like) is along back wall. so should i really put them right in the middle of the room where they'd be putting sound in middle of room, OR should i move them more towards the rear of the room on the side wall...like how many feet in front of the sitting position? will this still work as top middle that far back?


The top middle speaker location is determined in reference to the main listening position (MLP). Recommended placement is between 65° and 100° elevation (see diagram below). You may want to experiment to find the best placement to your ears in your room, but most find that a few feet forward of the MLP--at around 80°--works best.












Lateral placement should ideally be aligned with your main L/R speakers (see diagram below). But that usually implies mounting to the ceiling, which it seems may not be feasible in your situation. Again, your best bet is to experiment with different locations to see what works best for you given the limitations presented.


----------



## Roger Dressler

oldsteve said:


> The studios will probably feel obliged to add special 3.1.2 soundtracks to movies to keep the masses happy.


Should be perfect for all the Phil Spector "wall of sound" recordings.


----------



## maikeldepotter

OKGeek said:


> Hi there. Planning the speakers layout for the HT in the living room and leaning toward 5.1.4 (with potential upgrade to 7.1.4). The viewing zone is almost square 14x14 (while the room itself has the opening to the kitchen). The couch is supposed to be 3 - 3'6 feet from the back wall. The ceilings are almost 10 feet high. This layout allows for TF ceiling speakers to be in accordance with Dolby specs (42-45 deg), while TR can only be up to 115 degrees back (if put right in the corner) or less. Is it better to stick with TM (ca 82-85 degrees) instead of TR, but assign them as TR in AVR, or simply put rear ceiling speakers as close to the back wall (going 110 - 115 deg) as possible and assign as TR?


For starters, you would never want to put Top Rear speakers in front of MLP.

Ideally, one would want to experiment with different lay-outs to find out what works best in the given room, with the given choice of speakers, and given one's personal preference. In your case (using 4 overhead locations with a typical 5.1.4 / 7.1.4 Atmos processor) you could opt for the generally recommended combination or try an alternative combination which some users - especially those with couches close to the rear wall - have reported to prefer. 

I have drawn some options in your diagram. The Top Front position at 65 degrees is just outside specs (30-55 degrees) but it puts them at equal MLP distance of the Top Rears at 115 degrees, and with only one row a more centered TF-TR positioning will improve 'right above your head' imaging. As you can see you could, without moving the speakers, also experiment with declaring these pairs as Top Middle and Rear Heights to see what works best for you. If possible, I would also move the overheads arrays to the inside so they are in-line with, or even bit narrower than the L/R fronts. 

Good luck!


----------



## mrtickleuk

maikeldepotter said:


> I have drawn some options in your diagram. The Top Front position at 65 degrees is just outside specs (30-55 degrees) but it puts them at equal MLP distance of the Top Rears at 115 degrees, and with only one row a more centered TF-TR positioning will improve 'right above your head' imaging. As you can see, you could without moving the speakers, also experiment with declaring this pair as Top Middle and Rear Heights to see what works best for you. If possible, I would also move the the overheads arrays to the inside so they are in-line with, or even bit narrower than the L/R fronts.


That's a very helpful annotation! 

Are there any problems putting Top Rear ceiling speakers hard up against the back wall, in terms of reflection from the back wall? In my room I was hoping to put them similar to your 115deg positions, so hard up against the back wall allowing for coving. Things will be a bit tight as it's a small room, but I'm determined to have 4 ceiling speakers come what may.

In my diagram the brown lines represent beams in the ceiling where it's not possible to put the ceiling speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

mrtickleuk said:


> Are there any problems putting Top Rear ceiling speakers hard up against the back wall, in terms of reflection from the back wall?


If you can put them close enough to the rear wall (max. about 1/2 foot measured from driver) there should be no problem at all.


----------



## mrtickleuk

maikeldepotter said:


> If you can put them close enough to the rear wall (max. about 1/2 foot measured from driver) there should be no problem at all.


Awesome, thanks. Won't be possible to get them that close anyway


----------



## maikeldepotter

mrtickleuk said:


> Awesome, thanks. Won't be possible to get them that close anyway


You might have misunderstood my post. You should put them either *close enough to* the rear wall, like no more than about 0.5 foot, or put them *far enough from * the rear wall, like at least 3 foot (assuming you are crossing them over to the sub at around 100 Hz).


----------



## mrtickleuk

maikeldepotter said:


> You might have misunderstood my post. You should put them either *close enough to* the rear wall, like no more than about 0.5 foot, or put them *far enough from * the rear wall, like at least 3 foot (assuming you are crossing them over to the sub at around 80 Hz, ).


Thankyou. My apologies, I didn't express myself clearly. I will put them as close as I can to the rear wall; the only thing between the edge of the speaker and the wall will be the coving, and I was planning to put the outside edge of the two rear ceiling speakers hard up against the edge of the coving. Hope that makes sense


----------



## guitarguy316

chi_guy50 said:


> The top middle speaker location is determined in reference to the main listening position (MLP). Recommended placement is between 65° and 100° elevation (see diagram below). You may want to experiment to find the best placement to your ears in your room, but most find that a few feet forward of the MLP--at around 80°--works best.
> 
> Lateral placement should ideally be aligned with your main L/R speakers (see diagram below). But that usually implies mounting to the ceiling, which it seems may not be feasible in your situation. Again, your best bet is to experiment with different locations to see what works best for you given the limitations presented.


thanks, i'm experimenting today before i install the mounts so they're just kinda sitting in a close position about 9-10ft high on the side walls (i'm using prime elevation angled speakers). 

with the placement 9ft or so high on the side wall, about how far forward from the listening position (in this case my couch directly in middle of room) should i put them? 0 (in line with seating) to 2 ft (ahead of seating) or less?


----------



## chi_guy50

guitarguy316 said:


> thanks, i'm experimenting today before i install the mounts so they're just kinda sitting in a close position about 9-10ft high on the side walls (i'm using prime elevation angled speakers).
> 
> with the placement 9ft or so high on the side wall, about how far forward from the listening position (in this case my couch directly in middle of room) should i put them? 0 (in line with seating) to 2 ft (ahead of seating) or less?


I think around one foot in front of the MLP should be about right. That should equate to an elevation angle of roughly 80°.


----------



## mdanderson

For manually setting the speaker distance for Atmos enabled speakers, the Dolby website says to use the distance between the Atmos speaker and where it reflects off the ceiling and then add to that measurement the distance from that point on the ceiling to the MLP. Is this what others are doing? Also, I did not see anything on Dolby's recommendations regarding crossover settings but I guess it would be dependent on the particular speaker used. Thanks.


----------



## SuperFist

Hopinater said:


> I just read the review on the RSL C34E in ceiling speakers on Home Theater Review. At the end of the review the reviewer made the comment that in his experience he feels like in ceiling speakers work best if your ceiling are 9 ft in height or higher. Less than that he felt the reflective speakers work better. I have 8 foot ceilings and plan on getting in ceiling speakers. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


I have an 8 foot ceiling as well and my makeshift reflective Dolby Atmos speakers sound awesome!

I think there's something to be said about sound that seems to be coming from above you but not actually being speaker-centric. It definitely adds to the ATMOSphere!


----------



## e90Mark

mdanderson said:


> For manually setting the speaker distance for Atmos enabled speakers, the Dolby website says to use the distance between the Atmos speaker and where it reflects off the ceiling and then add to that measurement the distance from that point on the ceiling to the MLP. Is this what others are doing? Also, I did not see anything on Dolby's recommendations regarding crossover settings but I guess it would be dependent on the particular speaker used. Thanks.


Do you have a link to that? Sounds weird, considering there already should be a distance setting separately for both speaker to MLP and speaker to ceiling.


----------



## mdanderson

e90Mark said:


> Do you have a link to that? Sounds weird, considering there already should be a distance setting separately for both speaker to MLP and speaker to ceiling.


Here is what I read in a pdf document from Dolby. Maybe I misinterpreted this. I guess you don't add the two measurements. Sorry about that. This is on page 14 near the bottom.

www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Jonas2

mdanderson said:


> Here is what I read in a pdf document from Dolby. Maybe I misinterpreted this. I guess you don't add the two measurements. Sorry about that. This is on page 14 near the bottom.
> 
> www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Hmmm. My interpretation is that you do add them!!


----------



## e90Mark

Are we referring to this line?



> When manually setting the distance for Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, make sure to include the distance from both (a) the speaker to the ceiling and (b) the ceiling to the listening position.


I think Dolby is just saying to not forget to set either distance setting. You should indeed have 2 distance settings for your Atmos speakers.


----------



## mrtickleuk

e90Mark said:


> Are we referring to this line?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Dolby is just saying to not forget to set either distance setting. You should indeed have 2 distance settings for your Atmos speakers.


The most important word being "include". So (a) and (b) must both be included in the "distance for Dolby Atmos enabled speakers". Ie the "distance for Dolby Atmos enabled speakers" must be at least (a) + (b).


----------



## batpig

Most auto-calibration programs should account for this automatically. On Denon/Marantz models for example there is an internal offset to compensate for the ceiling bounce when you designate the speaker as "Dolby Enabled", and then on more recent models there is a variable setting for ceiling height to give you a little more control over the compensation.

This type of processing should be implicit with the AVR being certified by Dolby for Atmos decoding and use of the Atmos enabled speakers.


----------



## Jonas2

mrtickleuk said:


> the most important word being "include". So (a) and (b) must both be included in the "distance for dolby atmos enabled speakers". Ie the "distance for dolby atmos enabled speakers" must be at least (a) + (b).


yes!


----------



## rxp91

Is there a quality tier list for Atmos movies? I've got a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers and I've been underwhelmed in real life content. Those Dolby Demo's like Amaze and Leaf sound amazing but in real content when everything around you is loud as hell, full of bass and vibrations I just do not notice the height effect unless I really concentrate. It seems to me that a well crafted "spooky" scene where objects are placed around you would be the show case but I've not seen one yet.

For reference - the IMAX system I noticed the height channels immediately in Kong. Wondering if it's to do with the fact that they place their huge speakers there just like the fronts/sides and I have small ceiling speakers. They're SPL matched with the others but surely that has an impact?


----------



## am2model3

My dolby atmos system upgrade is purchased and on the way to me! Just in time for the new 4k uhd movies coming out! Gotg2, wonder woman, transformers5, and pirates5. Cars3 is going 4k uhd! I get the feeling we will get last jedi this spring as first star wars 4k disc! 
Will be fun to run dolby surround and neural x for my 5.1 and 7.1 sources!! Ready to movie and game it up!


----------



## grendelrt

The new Zone of Enders remake for PS4 was announced today and is looking to have Dolby Atmos support. I think this is the first PS4 game with Atmos right? 
(Highlighted means Atmos in Japanese)








This will be interesting, I wonder if the in game option will overwrite the user settings. Atmos has to be bitstreamed to pass object data in the stream that the receiver needs. Uncompressed setting on PS4 passes LPCM, I dont think any games pass uncompressed Bitstream data currently.


----------



## fredxr2d2

grendelrt said:


> The new Zone of Enders remake for PS4 was announced today and is looking to have Dolby Atmos support. I think this is the first PS4 game with Atmos right?
> (Highlighted means Atmos in Japanese)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be interesting, I wonder if the in game option will overwrite the user settings. Atmos has to be bitstreamed to pass object data in the stream that the receiver needs. Uncompressed setting on PS4 passes LPCM, I dont think any games pass uncompressed Bitstream data currently.



I'm a little worried we'd have to switch to Bitstream(Dolby) and back again for different games.


----------



## grendelrt

fredxr2d2 said:


> I'm a little worried we'd have to switch to Bitstream(Dolby) and back again for different games.


Yeah that would suck, I am hoping there will be an option in the game that overwrites the user setting and outputs bitstream (may be a lossy stream , who knows)


----------



## helvetica bold

That's huge news, first PS4 Dolby Atmos game! I was worried Xbox One was only going to support Atmos. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sprins

grendelrt said:


> Atmos has to be bitstreamed to pass object data in the stream that the receiver needs. Uncompressed setting on PS4 passes LPCM, I dont think any games pass uncompressed Bitstream data currently.


If the PS4 will pass DD+ then Atmos is also possible. Does it though? I thought DTS, DD or LPCM were the options for games.

Would be great news though. But maybe the Japanese ad is in error...


----------



## zombipuppy

Ooof.. 1500+ page thread. Can anyone perhaps point me to any useful links for positioning my Dolby Atmos upward-firing front speakers to get the best effect? I only have the option of these speakers--no ceiling speakers, and no surround Atmos add-ons (my receiver is limited to 7.1).

I purchased angled Atmos Pioneer speakers from Amazon, and I can't seem to get the Atmos effect with my Denon X3300W receiver.

I'm about 13 feet from the TV's front floor speakers/Atmos speakers and have 9 foot ceilings. I've done some math and figured I need about a 54 degree angle for my Atmos speaker to reach the sitting area, but I still can't quite get the intended effect.

Anything I'm missing? Any insights at all, or quick links to point me in the right direction?

Thank you!

Super quick edit: any thoughts on an easy method to angle those speakers? I'm shoving all sorts of things underneath as a temporary measure and it's ugly as sin and insecure. Thanks!


----------



## darthray

zombipuppy said:


> Ooof.. 1500+ page thread. Can anyone perhaps point me to any useful links for positioning my Dolby Atmos upward-firing front speakers to get the best effect? I only have the option of these speakers--no ceiling speakers, and no surround Atmos add-ons (my receiver is limited to 7.1).
> 
> I purchased angled Atmos Pioneer speakers from Amazon, and I can't seem to get the Atmos effect with my Denon X3300W receiver.
> 
> I'm about 13 feet from the TV's front floor speakers/Atmos speakers and have 9 foot ceilings. I've done some math and figured I need about a 54 degree angle for my Atmos speaker to reach the sitting area, but I still can't quite get the intended effect.
> 
> Anything I'm missing? Any insights at all, or quick links to point me in the right direction?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Super quick edit: any thoughts on an easy method to angle those speakers? I'm shoving all sorts of things underneath as a temporary measure and it's ugly as sin and insecure. Thanks!



Some info for you here;
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
Hope this help a little, I do not use Enable speakers, so this the best I can do.
Other in general, the module are place on top of your main (if your main is not design as a Enable Speakers).


Ray


----------



## deano86

rxp91 said:


> Is there a quality tier list for Atmos movies? I've got a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers and I've been underwhelmed in real life content. Those Dolby Demo's like Amaze and Leaf sound amazing but in real content when everything around you is loud as hell, full of bass and vibrations I just do not notice the height effect unless I really concentrate. It seems to me that a well crafted "spooky" scene where objects are placed around you would be the show case but I've not seen one yet.
> 
> For reference - the IMAX system I noticed the height channels immediately in Kong. Wondering if it's to do with the fact that they place their huge speakers there just like the fronts/sides and I have small ceiling speakers. They're SPL matched with the others but surely that has an impact?


What type of receiver are you using? or more importantly, is it a receiver with Audyssey and are you using Dynamic EQ?


----------



## am2model3

I read dolby said 70degrees for atmos enabled. Also did u calibrate your atmos system? You can Also increase the db on atmos speakers to max them out that is what i plan to do. I previously maxed out my 5.1 rears and always heard thrm great. 
For movies and games im looking fwd to running 5.1 7.1 lpcm sources with dolby surround/neural x to get atmospherics when there is no true tracks provided
Remember xbox 2001 brought us 5.1 dd for all games? That was incredible and took me until 2005 to utilize it! Lol. Im not making same mistake with atmos, xbx x will bring us lotsa atmos and great ps4 may try as well. The upmixers will be great when needed.


----------



## zombipuppy

darthray said:


> Some info for you here;
> file:///C:/Users/corrine/AppData/Lo...tmos-Home-Theater-Installation-Guidelines.pdf
> Pages 10-13.
> 
> 
> Hope this help a little, I do not use Enable speakers, so this the best I can do.
> Other in general, the module are place on top of your main (if your main is not design as a Enable Speakers).
> 
> 
> Ray


Hi darthray. I think you accidentally shared a local file. Your link isn't working for me.



deano86 said:


> What type of receiver are you using? or more importantly, is it a receiver with Audyssey and are you using Dynamic EQ?


I am using a Denon X3300W with the Audyssey set up completed via an attached microphone. I am using Dynamic EQ. I tried to also manually adjust the Atmos speakers by about +5-8 dB as recommended by another forum poster based on Andrew Jones' of Pioneer's ideas.



am2model3 said:


> I read dolby said 70degrees for atmos enabled. Also did u calibrate your atmos system? You can Also increase the db on atmos speakers to max them out that is what i plan to do. I previously maxed out my 5.1 rears and always heard thrm great.
> For movies and games im looking fwd to running 5.1 7.1 lpcm sources with dolby surround/neural x to get atmospherics when there is no true tracks provided
> Remember xbox 2001 brought us 5.1 dd for all games? That was incredible and took me until 2005 to utilize it! Lol. Im not making same mistake with atmos, xbx x will bring us lotsa atmos and great ps4 may try as well. The upmixers will be great when needed.


Ah yes, so I did increase the Atmos volume manually after calibrating the Denon via Audyssey. The only testing I'm doing for the Atmos speakers and effects is from Atmos enabled demos and Atmos enabled media (4K Blurays, certain Netflix titles, etc).



Still trying to figure out how to get the best Atmos effect. The soundscape certainly feels wider in a way, but I can't quite say it's got more height.


----------



## unretarded

rxp91 said:


> Is there a quality tier list for Atmos movies? I've got a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers and I've been underwhelmed in real life content. Those Dolby Demo's like Amaze and Leaf sound amazing but in real content when everything around you is loud as hell, full of bass and vibrations I just do not notice the height effect unless I really concentrate. It seems to me that a well crafted "spooky" scene where objects are placed around you would be the show case but I've not seen one yet.
> 
> For reference - the IMAX system I noticed the height channels immediately in Kong. Wondering if it's to do with the fact that they place their huge speakers there just like the fronts/sides and I have small ceiling speakers. They're SPL matched with the others but surely that has an impact?



Crank then ceiling speakers up about 4db and see what happens......


There is a million things it could be....speaker style/location mismatch...directivity issues...reflective issues.....surround placement issues...etc etc.


4 db should cure most of that..... well, not cure.....overcome might be a better word.


I have mine cranked a few db since they have limited dispersion, I will be moving them to directly overhead since I only have a .2 system.


Turn them up 4 or db up top...you will notice then.....


----------



## Mashie Saldana

zombipuppy said:


> Hi darthray. I think you accidentally shared a local file. Your link isn't working for me.


He certainly did, use this link instead to find what you need:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html


----------



## zombipuppy

Mashie Saldana said:


> zombipuppy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi darthray. I think you accidentally shared a local file. Your link isn't working for me.
> 
> 
> 
> He certainly did, use this link instead to find what you need:
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html
Click to expand...

Thank you. I'm going to try a slight angle and will recalibrate Audyssey.


----------



## darthray

Mashie Saldana said:


> He certainly did, use this link instead to find what you need:
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html



Yes, I did a Oups
I did corrected my post before I saw that you have provided the right one.


Ray


----------



## richlife

zombipuppy said:


> Ooof.. 1500+ page thread. Can anyone perhaps point me to any useful links for positioning my Dolby Atmos upward-firing front speakers to get the best effect? I only have the option of these speakers--no ceiling speakers, and no surround Atmos add-ons (my receiver is limited to 7.1).
> 
> I purchased angled Atmos Pioneer speakers from Amazon, and I can't seem to get the Atmos effect with my Denon X3300W receiver.
> 
> I'm about 13 feet from the TV's front floor speakers/Atmos speakers and have 9 foot ceilings. I've done some math and figured I need about a 54 degree angle for my Atmos speaker to reach the sitting area, but I still can't quite get the intended effect.
> 
> Anything I'm missing? Any insights at all, or quick links to point me in the right direction?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Super quick edit: any thoughts on an easy method to angle those speakers? I'm shoving all sorts of things underneath as a temporary measure and it's ugly as sin and insecure. Thanks!


If your DAES are built-in to your fronts, much of this won't apply. 

A couple of things that might help. If you have DAES modules sitting on your front speakers, I've found that increasing the height of the modules helped. Instead of putting mine on my towers, they are on a wall unit (almost 3 feet higher). With 9 ft ceilings, this could be a factor. If your fronts are low (less than 4 ft towers), you may be getting sound from the DAES radiating directly to your listening positions which would interfere with the "beam" effect the DAES speakers are designed to provide. (I found that was a problem when I propped my front DAES too high -- I got direct sound more than the reflected beam.)

If you raise your DAES, be sure to keep them at least 3-4 from the ceiling (assuming you have flat ceilings). 

If your ceilings are soft, that will reduce their "reflectivity" (apparently that is not a real word). 

As for the angles, imagine a thin beam directed at 90* from the DAES to determine where the reflection "point" is on your ceiling. Then the thin beam should reflect off the ceiling at a 90* angle from the first "thin beam" to hit on your listening position. The path of the reflected "beam" should be pointed at your LP (or per Dolby, if multiple listening positions, each DAES speaker "beam" should point toward the opposite sides (ends) of your LPs). 

Furniture positions can affect your results if the furniture is large and reflective itself and in the "beam field". Leather furniture is surprisingly (to me at least) reflective.

Keep in mind that standard speakers tend to have a sound dispersion field of about 60* while DAES speakers may be more like 20 - 30*. That is what your are working with rather than a true "thin beam", so you have quite a lot of margin to work with -- especially after the bounce off the ceiling. 

In my case (thread listed in my signature), my ceiling is vaulted and I had to determine a correction for the ceiling angle. That's part of why my DAES speakers are placed so high. The tighter the "beam" (reflected dispersion) the tighter the sound received at the LP. When placed on my 4 ft towers, I could barely get any overhead effect. Moving them up solved that problem. Tweaking the angle using the "thin beam" concept really helped. I had to prop my DAES (because of the slanted ceiling) and literally found that 1/8" in the prop made a difference. 

Actually, your description makes me think you have DAES built-in, so you have to prop your entire fronts. If so, when you get the angle right, you may want to build a low angled platform on which to set the speakers. And then you can consider raising the level of the speakers if that seems appropriate. Finally, be sure to toe the fronts (and consequently the DAES) to face your LP. 

I hope something in all this may help.


----------



## zombipuppy

richlife said:


> If your DAES are built-in to your fronts, much of this won't apply.
> 
> A couple of things that might help. If you have DAES modules sitting on your front speakers, I've found that increasing the height of the modules helped. Instead of putting mine on my towers, they are on a wall unit (almost 3 feet higher). With 9 ft ceilings, this could be a factor. If your fronts are low (less than 4 ft towers), you may be getting sound from the DAES radiating directly to your listening positions which would interfere with the "beam" effect the DAES speakers are designed to provide. (I found that was a problem when I propped my front DAES too high -- I got direct sound more than the reflected beam.)
> 
> If you raise your DAES, be sure to keep them at least 3-4 from the ceiling (assuming you have flat ceilings).
> 
> If your ceilings are soft, that will reduce their "reflectivity" (apparently that is not a real word).
> 
> As for the angles, imagine a thin beam directed at 90* from the DAES to determine where the reflection "point" is on your ceiling. Then the thin beam should reflect off the ceiling at a 90* angle from the first "thin beam" to hit on your listening position. The path of the reflected "beam" should be pointed at your LP (or per Dolby, if multiple listening positions, each DAES speaker "beam" should point toward the opposite sides (ends) of your LPs).
> 
> Furniture positions can affect your results if the furniture is large and reflective itself and in the "beam field". Leather furniture is surprisingly (to me at least) reflective.
> 
> Keep in mind that standard speakers tend to have a sound dispersion field of about 60* while DAES speakers may be more like 20 - 30*. That is what your are working with rather than a true "thin beam", so you have quite a lot of margin to work with -- especially after the bounce off the ceiling.
> 
> In my case (thread listed in my signature), my ceiling is vaulted and I had to determine a correction for the ceiling angle. That's part of why my DAES speakers are placed so high. The tighter the "beam" (reflected dispersion) the tighter the sound received at the LP. When placed on my 4 ft towers, I could barely get any overhead effect. Moving them up solved that problem. Tweaking the angle using the "thin beam" concept really helped. I had to prop my DAES (because of the slanted ceiling) and literally found that 1/8" in the prop made a difference.
> 
> Actually, your description makes me think you have DAES built-in, so you have to prop your entire fronts. If so, when you get the angle right, you may want to build a low angled platform on which to set the speakers. And then you can consider raising the level of the speakers if that seems appropriate. Finally, be sure to toe the fronts (and consequently the DAES) to face your LP.
> 
> I hope something in all this may help.


Truly appreciate your detailed reply!

My current set up is with Atmos add-on modules on top of my front speakers. In other words, these aren't DAES single-unit speakers, but rather a separate piece of equipment. So when I say that I'm propping my Atmos speakers, I'm only propping the add-ons and not the entire front speakers.

I've taken into account the thin directed-beam of the Atmos speakers, and have also visualized and did some paper math regarding the proper amount of angle I need if I were to take into account a 90 degree bounce on the ceiling. Frankly, I think it's the distance from my LP to the speakers that's making this difficult. I'm sitting about 11-12 feet away.

Can I ask, how far are you or anyone here from their front Atmos upward firing speakers that hear the effect well?


----------



## am2model3

Ill be testing 10-15ft soon for listening position. 8ft ceilings


----------



## zombipuppy

am2model3 said:


> Ill be testing 10-15ft soon for listening position. 8ft ceilings


Great! Keep us updated


----------



## grendelrt

Need some help from anyone who has hung ceiling acoustic panels while running Atmos. I am trying to put up my panels and the Z clips I bought are just not working, i think its because of how tight the tolerance is and the wood or ceiling isnt perfectly flat. 

So my option now is to hang them using hooks and eye holes (any other options would be welcome), which would add about a 2" air gap and my panels are 3" making them 5" down from the ceiling total. Problem with this now is my atmos speakers are about 12" to the side of the where the panels are going, I used a laser pointer off my tweeter (they are angled tweeters) and it looks like at 12" away from the speaker the pointer is hitting about 12" down from the ceiling. So it seems like I am good, but I have no clue how sound radiates out of that speaker, which worries me that I might block sound. 

I am at an in pass now of whether I should scrap my current panels (which were a **** ton of work) and build something different. For those of you who have hung acoustic treatments between your Atmos speakers, how did you build them, depth, framed or un framed , etc. I am just looking for some understanding of what I should do at this point and any help would be appreciated.

Speaker in question , the line is possible mounting point


----------



## stikle

I bought acoustic foam and pinned them to the ceiling and walls with T pins. They've been hanging there (and the walls) for a year now. See the pic in my sig. Not the most elegant of solutions, but it certainly works.


----------



## grendelrt

stikle said:


> I bought acoustic foam and pinned them to the ceiling and walls with T pins. They've been hanging there (and the walls) for a year now. See the pic in my sig. Not the most elegant of solutions, but it certainly works.


Thanks, I am looking to do more absorption than what foam will do, I appreciate the response though.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

grendelrt said:


> Need some help from anyone who has hung ceiling acoustic panels while running Atmos. I am trying to put up my panels and the Z clips I bought are just not working, i think its because of how tight the tolerance is and the wood or ceiling isnt perfectly flat.
> 
> So my option now is to hang them using hooks and eye holes (any other options would be welcome), which would add about a 2" air gap and my panels are 3" making them 5" down from the ceiling total. Problem with this now is my atmos speakers are about 12" to the side of the where the panels are going, I used a laser pointer off my tweeter (they are angled tweeters) and it looks like at 12" away from the speaker the pointer is hitting about 12" down from the ceiling. So it seems like I am good, but I have no clue how sound radiates out of that speaker, which worries me that I might block sound.
> 
> I am at an in pass now of whether I should scrap my current panels (which were a **** ton of work) and build something different. For those of you who have hung acoustic treatments between your Atmos speakers, how did you build them, depth, framed or un framed , etc. I am just looking for some understanding of what I should do at this point and any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Speaker in question , the line is possible mounting point


Can't you just add some thin spacers between the ceiling and the Z clips?


----------



## jjackkrash

Just checking in to say installing and wiring in-ceilings was kind of a pain, but 5.1.4 rocks! We are really enjoying Atmos sound.


----------



## grendelrt

Mashie Saldana said:


> Can't you just add some thin spacers between the ceiling and the Z clips?


I think its a combination of the wood backing on the panel and the ceiling not being perfectly flat. I had one of the zclip holes using a stud and the rest using drywall anchors, not sure if I could add spacer and still use the anchors. But that's a good thought I will look into it, I am hoping to get some info on other peoples installations as well in case I need to redo my panels, thinking I will make them less wide so they are not near the speakers (maybe 24" instead of 12"). The biggest challenge I am seeing is getting them mounted close to the ceiling. I have about 3 boards of 48x24x2 of Roxul 60 left which is more than enough to make 2 more panels, so any info from peoples installs would be helpful.


----------



## miked2023

I recently setup a 5.1.2 system w/ the Denon 2400 (TFH). I noticed that on Blu-Rays encoded with ATMOS on the box (The Wall, Wick) ATMOS comes right up as a selection. But on a couple other BLU RAYSs that have TRU HD on the box (Dark Night, Live Die Repeat), and no mention of ATMOS - ATMOS/SURROUND is also a selection on the Denon (in addition to TRU HD). Seems weird. What is this and which one should I be using for my setup? Thank you!!


----------



## stikle

Atmos requires TrueHD, but you can have TrueHD with no Atmos.

For TrueHD only discs, you'll want to use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) for the most immersive experience. Or even TrueHD + DTS Neural:X Upmixer if you prefer the sound of that instead. The choice is up to you, there's no right answer for everyone. Personally, I prefer DSU.

DSU will "upmix" 2 channel through 7 channel sound to use all available speakers (minus wides) in the system.


----------



## sdurani

miked2023 said:


> I noticed that on Blu-Rays encoded with ATMOS on the box (The Wall, Wick) ATMOS comes right up as a selection. But on a couple other BLU RAYSs that have TRU HD on the box (Dark Night, Live Die Repeat), and no mention of ATMOS - ATMOS/SURROUND is also a selection on the Denon (in addition to TRU HD).


Atmos encoded soundtracks will automatically be decoded to Atmos. With non-Atmos soundtracks (2.0, 5.1, 7.1), your Denon gives you the option to use Dolby Surround upmixing to scale the number of channels in the soundtrack to the number of speakers in your set-up. Hence the Atmos/Surround selection: it's not Atmos, but it will upmix legacy soundtracks to your Atmos speaker layout.


----------



## miked2023

stikle said:


> Atmos requires TrueHD, but you can have TrueHD with no Atmos.
> 
> For TrueHD only discs, you'll want to use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) for the most immersive experience. Or even TrueHD + DTS Neural:X Upmixer if you prefer the sound of that instead. The choice is up to you, there's no right answer for everyone. Personally, I prefer DSU.
> 
> DSU/Neural:X will "upmix" 2 channel through 7 channel sound to use all available speakers (minus wides) in the system.



Makes sense. For Example instead of DTS HD MASTER, I would choose DTS HS + DS or DTS HD + Neural to take advantage of my TFH. But this title (Dark Knight) says TRU HD and 2nd option is ATMOS + Surround. I was just surprised and confused ATMOS even came up as an option since it's not on the box and I don't know if it was even avail when Dark Knight came out. Thanks!


----------



## miked2023

sdurani said:


> Atmos encoded soundtracks will automatically be decoded to Atmos. With non-Atmos soundtracks (2.0, 5.1, 7.1), your Denon gives you the option to use Dolby Surround upmixing to scale the number of channels in the soundtrack to the number of speakers in your set-up. Hence the Atmos/Surround selection: it's not Atmos, but it will upmix legacy soundtracks to your Atmos speaker layout.


Great. And it's still the uncompressed sound I assume. Not to get too of topic but is that what it also does with 5.1 when Dolby Digital + Surround is an option? Basically the same thing just a non TRU HD or DTS Master version? Thanks!


----------



## richlife

zombipuppy said:


> Truly appreciate your detailed reply!
> 
> My current set up is with Atmos add-on modules on top of my front speakers. In other words, these aren't DAES single-unit speakers, but rather a separate piece of equipment. So when I say that I'm propping my Atmos speakers, I'm only propping the add-ons and not the entire front speakers.
> 
> I've taken into account the thin directed-beam of the Atmos speakers, and have also visualized and did some paper math regarding the proper amount of angle I need if I were to take into account a 90 degree bounce on the ceiling. Frankly, I think it's the distance from my LP to the speakers that's making this difficult. I'm sitting about 11-12 feet away.
> *
> Can I ask, how far are you or anyone here from their front Atmos upward firing speakers that hear the effect well?*


My LP is 12' from my fronts. The DAES sit about 1 foot behind the fronts.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

stikle said:


> DSU/Neural:X will "upmix" 2 channel through 7 channel sound to use all available speakers (minus wides) in the system.


Neural:X will happily upmix to the Wides, DSU however won't.


----------



## Marc Alexander

stikle said:


> Atmos requires TrueHD, but you can have TrueHD with no Atmos.


Atmos does not require TrueHD. Atmos core can be lossless TrueHd or lossy Dolby Digital plus, 7.1 or 5.1.

Streamed Atmos on Vudu and Netflix are lossy.


----------



## sdurani

miked2023 said:


> And it's still the uncompressed sound I assume. Not to get too of topic but is that what it also does with 5.1 when Dolby Digital + Surround is an option? Basically the same thing just a non TRU HD or DTS Master version?


Upmixing doesn't change the type of source material. If the source was uncompressed PCM (like when you're playing a CD), then it doesn't suddenly become lossy MP3 when upmixed; it's still uncompressed PCM. Same goes for soundtracks that were delivered using lossless packing (TrueHD, DTS-MA) or hi-rez lossy compression (DD+, DTS-HRA) or legacy lossy compression (DD, DTS). Upmixing cannot change what those soundtracks originally were (lossy won't become lossless, lossless doesn't become lossy).


----------



## stikle

Mashie Saldana said:


> Neural:X will happily upmix to the Wides, DSU however won't.



Whoops. Ok then.



Marc Alexander said:


> Atmos does not require TrueHD. Atmos core can be lossless TrueHd or lossy Dolby Digital plus, 7.1 or 5.1.
> 
> Streamed Atmos on Vudu and Netflix are lossy.



He wasn't talking about streaming, he was talking about shiny discs...so DD+ is not a factor in this particular conversation.

But good add nonetheless.


----------



## batpig

miked2023 said:


> Makes sense. For Example instead of DTS HD MASTER, I would choose DTS HS + DS or DTS HD + Neural to take advantage of my TFH. But this title (Dark Knight) says TRU HD and 2nd option is ATMOS + Surround. I was just surprised and confused ATMOS even came up as an option since it's not on the box and I don't know if it was even avail when Dark Knight came out. Thanks!


It's not "ATMOS + Surround", it's "Atmos/Surround". It's just a quirk of the Denon/Marantz GUI menu nomenclature for the surround mode selection, when the receiver senses a TrueHD input it will show that option for decoding. When you select it, it will either lock onto Atmos if there's Atmos metadata present, or it will just decode the TrueHD if it's not Atmos and apply Dolby Surround upmixing.


----------



## miked2023

batpig said:


> It's not "ATMOS + Surround", it's "Atmos/Surround". It's just a quirk of the Denon/Marantz GUI menu nomenclature for the surround mode selection, when the receiver senses a TrueHD input it will show that option for decoding. When you select it, it will either lock onto Atmos if there's Atmos metadata present, or it will just decode the TrueHD if it's not Atmos and apply Dolby Surround upmixing.


Perfect. So in the case of Dark Knight (where I'm sure there isn't ATMOS present) it's essentially doing TRU + Surround Upmix which is what I want with my 5.1.2. Cool to hear from the famous BATPIG! Thank you!


----------



## batpig

miked2023 said:


> Perfect. So in the case of Dark Knight (where I'm sure there isn't ATMOS present) it's essentially doing TRU + Surround Upmix which is what I want with my 5.1.2. Cool to hear from the famous BATPIG! Thank you!


If you actually check the signal info once you've selected that option, it will show the actual input/output info (e.g. Dolby TrueHD as the signal with 5.1 or 7.1 channels lit up and then Dolby TrueHD + Dolby Surround as the output with all channels lit up).


----------



## chi_guy50

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Nalleh*  
_You don't need a Atmos movie, you have the Dolby Surround Upmixer  *There are many non-Atmos movies that sounds pretty amazing with DSU*. And it works on all movies/formats _



chi_guy50 said:


> As an illustration of the above statement, my wife and I are in the midst of re-re-watching the entire _Breaking Bad_ series (we followed the on-air episodes when they originally ran on AMC, then bought the complete series on Blu-ray, and are now streaming on Netflix in 4K and DD5.1) and yesterday viewed Fly (S3E10). That fly was realistically in our viewing room buzzing around over our heads in all directions. It was a thrilling experience, given the focal importance of that insect to the scenario, and really enhanced our enjoyment.
> 
> BTW, the third time through (and after having watched all the special features on BRD as well as three seasons of the _Better Call Saul_ backstory), our appreciation for the superb writing, acting, and production values of creator Vince Gilligan's _Breaking Bad_ only continues to grow. IMHO it ranks among the all-time best of American TV fare.


Yet another showcase clip for DSU on _Breaking Bad_'s DD5.1 soundtrack is the one-minute segment at timestamp 34:40 of S5E5 ("Dead Freight"). The sound of that freight train (interpreted by means of Foley together with a typically fantastic stylized musical accompaniment to enhance the natural effect) is stunningly realistic--first coming down the tracks as seen from the engine at three different camera angles, then heading straight for the Condor-mounted camera which sits above the tracks and swings to the side as the train roars past, and then passing overhead as seen from under the trestle.


----------



## mrtickleuk

stikle said:


> He wasn't talking about streaming, he was talking about shiny discs...so DD+ is not a factor in this particular conversation.


Oh, yes it is. _DD+ is a perfectly valid format for the shiny discs_. It might not be common, but it's valid. 

Over on the DTS:X side of things, there was consternation and furore in some quarters when people discovered that one particular documentary about people driving their cars too quickly*, was *lossy* DTS:X on the disc. People assumed there was no such thing, but they were wrong. See >this post


----------



## WynsWrld98

Any reason not to just leave the Dolby Surround Upmixing on for all sources? Anyone find they prefer some content without it? I like the idea of set and forget vs. having to remember to fiddle with things like this for everything I watch. I have a Denon X6300H on order, just wondering about setting it up for this settting.


----------



## ALtlOff

WynsWrld98 said:


> Any reason not to just leave the Dolby Surround Upmixing on for all sources? Anyone find they prefer some content without it? I like the idea of set and forget vs. having to remember to fiddle with things like this for everything I watch. I have a Denon X6300H on order, just wondering about setting it up for this settting.


None at all, I use it for everything except 2 channel.
Or DTS-X of course.

Same with Neural-X also, if you prefer it over DSU, just set it and forget it.


----------



## am2model3

I got my atmos speakers and receiver today!
Lol amazon sent me wrong item; instead of subwoofer i got a giant metal fan! Haha i will have to wait for the subwoofer. 5.1.4 atmos awaits soon!


----------



## rxp91

I thought I could crank it a few dB higher but then it's not natural sounding, but will try it.



deano86 said:


> What type of receiver are you using? or more importantly, is it a receiver with Audyssey and are you using Dynamic EQ?


SR6011 using Audyssey and Dynamic EQ - although I play at reference volume when watching movies.


----------



## AndreNewman

WynsWrld98 said:


> Any reason not to just leave the Dolby Surround Upmixing on for all sources? Anyone find they prefer some content without it? I like the idea of set and forget vs. having to remember to fiddle with things like this for everything I watch. I have a Denon X6300H on order, just wondering about setting it up for this settting.




I found some TV drama recordings had very muffled dialogue with Dolby upmixing on. Switching back to straight fixed it, I haven't dug deeper yet. Apart from that I leave it on all the time.
This is with a Yamaha 3050.


----------



## freinhar

WynsWrld98 said:


> Any reason not to just leave the Dolby Surround Upmixing on for all sources? Anyone find they prefer some content without it? I like the idea of set and forget vs. having to remember to fiddle with things like this for everything I watch. I have a Denon X6300H on order, just wondering about setting it up for this settting.


I have DSU on for all Dolby sources and DTS:N-X for all DTS sources and it always sounds great. Onkyo receiver.


----------



## BGLeduc

AndreNewman said:


> I found some TV drama recordings had very muffled dialogue with Dolby upmixing on. Switching back to straight fixed it, I haven't dug deeper yet. Apart from that I leave it on all the time.
> This is with a Yamaha 3050.


I am not sure I would say “muffled” but I have noted that certain content just seems to have improved clarity across the front w/o DSU. It is really just a case by case thing.


----------



## AndreNewman

BGLeduc said:


> I am not sure I would say “muffled” but I have noted that certain content just seems to have improved clarity across the front w/o DSU. It is really just a case by case thing.




For me it's usually ITV HD which has very poor audio at the best times. I've had, muffled is the right word, audio on Broadchurch was the last I remember. Have also had similar but not so bad in some episodes of Doctor Who, which is BBC 1HD.

I often think I should give up on off air tv and just wait to rent the bluray release!


----------



## deano86

rxp91 said:


> I thought I could crank it a few dB higher but then it's not natural sounding, but will try it.
> 
> 
> 
> SR6011 using Audyssey and Dynamic EQ - although I play at reference volume when watching movies.


I was asking about whether you are using Audyssey Dynamic EQ because AFAIK, Audyssey does NOT supply any boost to the ceiling or height speakers for Atmos... only supplies boost to the LFE and the listener level surrounds.. So, if your normal volume level is quite a ways from reference....-20, -25, etc... that can cause the top ceiling or heights to get lost in the surround bubble. Thus the typical recommendation to bump up the top speaker db levels. I use the Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 test tones and sound meter at my typical movie listening level and use the Denon Option menu speaker level offset feature to hopefully balance things out a bit more. As I do like the Dynamic EQ effect. Otherwise shutting off Dynamic EQ would remove this disparity also...


----------



## muzz

I only have 7' ceiling, but I still used 45° ceiling speaker setup from MLP cheap with cheap Micca MC-8 Speakers angled tweeters towards MLP, and it sounds terrific..they actually were pretty flat without the fancy Crossover unit on more expensive speakers..it's not a tuned enclosure, so....
I use DSU almost exclusively on Non Atmos content, and I'm very happy.
Folks that don't have perfect rooms, don't despair.


----------



## rxp91

deano86 said:


> I was asking about whether you are using Audyssey Dynamic EQ because AFAIK, Audyssey does NOT supply any boost to the ceiling or height speakers for Atmos... only supplies boost to the LFE and the listener level surrounds.. So, if your normal volume level is quite a ways from reference....-20, -25, etc... that can cause the top ceiling or heights to get lost in the surround bubble. Thus the typical recommendation to bump up the top speaker db levels. I use the Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 test tones and sound meter at my typical movie listening level and use the Denon Option menu speaker level offset feature to hopefully balance things out a bit more. As I do like the Dynamic EQ effect. Otherwise shutting off Dynamic EQ would remove this disparity also...


Ah - wasn't aware of that! Hopefully they fix that in a future firmware update.

I'm going to try running the ceilings a little hotter for actual atmos tracks and see how I go with that.


----------



## mrtickleuk

deano86 said:


> Thus the typical recommendation to bump up the top speaker db levels. I use the Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 test tones and sound meter at my typical movie listening level and use the Denon Option menu speaker level offset feature to hopefully balance things out a bit more. As I do like the Dynamic EQ effect. Otherwise shutting off Dynamic EQ would remove this disparity also...


This is a very good point, and one that I had certainly missed.

For the benefit of those of us without a sound meter - and I know this is only a rough guide - by how much do you increase your tops please? Tia


----------



## chi_guy50

Just to offer another data point: I have Dynamic EQ enabled by default (but Dynamic Volume off) and do not feel the need to increase the top-level speakers' levels one whit. Audyssey seems to do a bang-up job for my system's equalization needs.

I do, however, bump up my sub level (currently by 5.5 dB), and I used to increase the center level but no longer perceive the need since getting a more robust center-channel speaker.


----------



## Ricoflashback

am2model3 said:


> I got my atmos speakers and receiver today!
> Lol amazon sent me wrong item; instead of subwoofer i got a giant metal fan! Haha i will have to wait for the subwoofer. 5.1.4 atmos awaits soon!


EQ wise for Dolby Atmos and DTS:X - set the fan to the "low" setting. That should work for all your immersive soundtracks.


----------



## darfnader

erwinfrombelgium said:


> There's a Emotiva RMC-1 with my name on it in the next year presumably (not in any hurry). And while last year it was mentioned that it would be 13.3, now it is confirmed that it will also do 15.1 for a full blown 9.1.6. (more is possible, but this is where I draw the line of diminishing returns)



That's where you draw the line? Damn dude, that will sound like you're sitting in the middle of the stage!


----------



## Bond 007

BGLeduc said:


> I am not sure I would say “muffled” but I have noted that certain content just seems to have improved clarity across the front w/o DSU. It is really just a case by case thing.


Same here. DSU sometimes spreads the dialogue along the whole front stage and sounds terrible. Same with Enhanced and Neural X. Haven't been able to notice any pattern as to why it's only sometimes.


----------



## zombipuppy

richlife said:


> zombipuppy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly appreciate your detailed reply!
> 
> My current set up is with Atmos add-on modules on top of my front speakers. In other words, these aren't DAES single-unit speakers, but rather a separate piece of equipment. So when I say that I'm propping my Atmos speakers, I'm only propping the add-ons and not the entire front speakers.
> 
> I've taken into account the thin directed-beam of the Atmos speakers, and have also visualized and did some paper math regarding the proper amount of angle I need if I were to take into account a 90 degree bounce on the ceiling. Frankly, I think it's the distance from my LP to the speakers that's making this difficult. I'm sitting about 11-12 feet away.
> *
> Can I ask, how far are you or anyone here from their front Atmos upward firing speakers that hear the effect well?*
> 
> 
> 
> My LP is 12' from my fronts. The DAES sit about 1 foot behind the fronts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! Few questions:
1) How do you have your DAES modules a foot behind your front speakers? Are they on wall shelves?
2) How high is your ceiling?
3) About how much of an angle are the DAES positioned?

Thank you!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

darfnader said:


> That's where you draw the line? Damn dude, that will sound like you're sitting in the middle of the stage!


9.1.6 is indeed awesome and very immersive as I'm lucky enough to enjoy it in my HT.


----------



## Droogne

Hey, I'm wondering if you guys can give me some input on speaker height. Fronts need to be at ear height, but what about the side channels? I will be using pretty heavy floorstanders so raising them is pretty hard.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Droogne said:


> Hey, I'm wondering if you guys can give me some input on speaker height. Fronts need to be at ear height, but what about the side channels? I will be using pretty heavy floorstanders so raising them is pretty hard.


Place the base layer speakers at ear height. You are ok to install them a bit further up if that is required to get free line of sight while someone is sitting next to you.


----------



## carp

We watched King Arthur last night with some friends. I was VERY impressed with the Atmos sound, in fact it's one of the best I've heard. The whole way the movie was done from an audio perspective was so much fun, from the music to the bass to the surround. 

Maybe it was the mood I was in, but I completely disagree with critics on rotten tomatoes who all hated it. I was thoroughly entertained, and every one else (except for my wife who thought it was just ok) really liked it too.


----------



## Droogne

Mashie Saldana said:


> Place the base layer speakers at ear height. You are ok to install them a bit further up if that is required to get free line of sight while someone is sitting next to you.


So all 7 on ground level just at ear level? Is this also compatible with other surround formats?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Droogne said:


> So all 7 on ground level just at ear level? Is this also compatible with other surround formats?


Yes, and that's the height they always should have been anyway


----------



## gwsat

carp said:


> We watched King Arthur last night with some friends. I was VERY impressed with the Atmos sound, in fact it's one of the best I've heard. The whole way the movie was done from an audio perspective was so much fun, from the music to the bass to the surround.
> 
> Maybe it was the mood I was in, but I completely disagree with critics on rotten tomatoes who all hated it. I was thoroughly entertained, and every one else (except for my wife who thought it was just ok) really liked it too.


Thanks for the tip! I have been ambivalent about _King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,_ despite the availability of the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos treatment, because so many critics savaged it. Your comment, though, has made me decide to buy it from the Kaleidescape store and download it to my Kscape Strato. Even mediocre films are made better by Atmos and I have yet to see a Guy Ritchie film I didn't enjoy.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ Yep! Thanks to carp's review i'll be giving it a shot as well


----------



## Bond 007

Mashie Saldana said:


> 9.1.6 is indeed awesome and very immersive as I'm lucky enough to enjoy it in my HT.


You need a second sub.


----------



## AudioNo0b

I need some help regarding Atmos, Does "every" link in the chain have to be Atmos enabled to enjoy Atmos sound?
I currently have an LG Oled B7 and a Onkyo TX-NR555 both have Atmos and was wondering does my 4K blu ray player have to also support Atmos?

Thank you!


----------



## dvdmd1

AudioNo0b said:


> I need some help regarding Atmos, Does "every" link in the chain have to be Atmos enabled to enjoy Atmos sound?
> I currently have an LG Oled B7 and a Onkyo TX-NR555 both have Atmos and was wondering does my 4K blu ray player have to also support Atmos?
> 
> Thank you!


All Blu-Ray players do Atmos.You have to set the audio out to bitstream.Then your receiver will decode the Atmos track


----------



## Jonas2

AudioNo0b said:


> I need some help regarding Atmos, Does "every" link in the chain have to be Atmos enabled to enjoy Atmos sound?
> I currently have an LG Oled B7 and a Onkyo TX-NR555 both have Atmos and was wondering does my 4K blu ray player have to also support Atmos?


Yes (you're 4K player will support Atmos), and make sure that you've selected the Atmos track on whatever disk it is you are watching. Some are default to Atmos, but some are default to 5.1 so you won't get Atmos unless you've selected it in the disk's audio setup menu if it is one of those...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Bond 007 said:


> You need a second sub.


I need to go from one large to four smaller ones at some stage.


----------



## carp

gwsat said:


> Thanks for the tip! I have been ambivalent about _King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,_ despite the availability of the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos treatment, because so many critics savaged it. Your comment, though, has made me decide to buy it from the Kaleidescape store and download it to my Kscape Strato. Even mediocre films are made better by Atmos and I have yet to see a Guy Ritchie film I didn't enjoy.





audiofan1 said:


> ^^^ Yep! Thanks to carp's review i'll be giving it a shot as well




Aww crap I'm feeling the pressure now!  I hope you guys like it. If you don't like the intro scene with the LOTR size elephants then you are in for a long movie. If you think that first 5 minutes is completely bad a** then giddy up!


----------



## Bond 007

Mashie Saldana said:


> I need to go from one large to four smaller ones at some stage.


Even better.


----------



## jjackkrash

Mashie Saldana said:


> I need to go from one large to four smaller ones at some stage.


Or from one large to four _larger_ ones.


----------



## petetherock

Does anyone know if the new Baby Driver BR or 4K has Atmos?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

jjackkrash said:


> Or from one large to four _larger_ ones.


I wish, no way to get anything bigger up the stairs and into the room. We had 1" margin while holding the PB13 vertically.


----------



## showmak

petetherock said:


> Does anyone know if the new Baby Driver BR or 4K has Atmos?



According to IMDB, yes...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3890160/


----------



## petetherock

showmak said:


> According to IMDB, yes...
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3890160/


Thanks for that, but even though the movie was in Atmos, I still don't know if the BR disc has Atmos or do I have to buy the 4k disc for it. Worse.. maybe both discs won't have Atmos


----------



## pmeintel

petetherock said:


> Does anyone know if the new Baby Driver BR or 4K has Atmos?




No clue and Blu-ray.com states TBA 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

petetherock said:


> Thanks for that, but even though the movie was in Atmos, I still don't know if the BR disc has Atmos or do I have to buy the 4k disc for it. Worse.. maybe both discs won't have Atmos


The Blu-ray street date is October 10th, and I doubt Sony has sent out review screeners to critics yet.


----------



## petetherock

Josh Z said:


> The Blu-ray street date is October 10th, and I doubt Sony has sent out review screeners to critics yet.


I saw that, but I recently read on AVS, someone collected discs from Walmart?
Can't recall the thread, sorry..


----------



## Ted99

Mashie Saldana said:


> I need to go from one large to four smaller ones at some stage.


I'm using a miniDSP to drive 4 small (12") subs and one large (18") sub from a .1. The miniDSP time and level aligns 4 subs, but two of the 12" are equidistant from the MLP, so they are Y-connected. This is so that I can do 9.1.6 from the next gen consumer-grade processors.


----------



## am2model3

gonna install my atmos setup hopefully end of this week! 5.1.4 enabled . got an svs pb2000 subwoofer on the way. = )


----------



## Nick4K

I have a couple of questions about speaker placement. I know my room is far from ideal, but please help me with a proper setting.

I have already installed a 5.1 system from Boston Acoustics and bought 4 KEF HTS 2001(Eggs 100W) for my Dolby Atmos setup.

The ceiling height is 2,5meters, but is the extra height recommend with overhead speakers?

Where is the best place to setup my 4 eggs ?

Position 1 or 2 for the Rear Height ?
Position 3,4,5,6 for the Front Height ?









Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## ALtlOff

Mashie Saldana said:


> I wish, no way to get anything bigger up the stairs and into the room. We had 1" margin while holding the PB13 vertically.


Am I the only one whose brain went immediately to 4x PC13 Ultra's .....


----------



## mdanderson

am2model3 said:


> gonna install my atmos setup hopefully end of this week! 5.1.4 enabled . got an svs pb2000 subwoofer on the way. = )


I am trying out DAES this weekend as well. I am starting with just two up front on top of my main speakers. I don't have a prepro yet with more processing than my current Marantz SR5010. Would like to hear your impressions when you get done.


----------



## Selden Ball

Nick4K said:


> I have a couple of questions about speaker placement. I know my room is far from ideal, but please help me with a proper setting.
> 
> I have already installed a 5.1 system from Boston Acoustics and bought 4 KEF HTS 2001(Eggs 100W) for my Dolby Atmos setup.
> 
> The ceiling height is 2,5meters, but is the extra height recommend with overhead speakers?
> 
> Where is the best place to setup my 4 eggs ?
> 
> Position 1 or 2 for the Rear Height ?
> Position 3,4,5,6 for the Front Height ?


Sorry: I'm having trouble deciphering your drawing since it doesn't seem to show where your current speakers are.

Anyhow, Front Heights would normally be high up, directly above your main front speakers and Rear Heights would be in line with them but against the rear wall. Atmos has been found to work best if the overhead speakers are somewhat closer to the main listening position (about 45 degrees to the front or back) and designated as Top Front and Top Rear regardless of their actual positions.


----------



## Nick4K

Selden Ball said:


> Sorry: I'm having trouble deciphering your drawing since it doesn't seem to show where your current speakers are.
> 
> Anyhow, Front Heights would normally be high up, directly above your main front speakers and Rear Heights would be in line with them but against the rear wall. Atmos has been found to work best if the overhead speakers are somewhat closer to the main listening position (about 45 degrees to the front or back) and designated as Top Front and Top Rear regardless of their actual positions.


In the drawing I marked my 5.1 speakers by R(ear) and F(ront). I have a canopy bed so they are mounted between the corner poles. You can see it on the photo's in the original post.

The level of the rear speakers is about ear height, about 1,2m.

There are 2 height options for mounting the egg's:

*The height of the corner poles, 2meters above the ground.

Or

*I can mount them on the ceiling for extra height, 2,5meters.

Is this better for the Dolby Atmos effect?

Personally I think only the speaker angle is inportant. Because mounting them higher the only difference will be a lower volume in sound ? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## Nick4K

PS: if I can mount them exactly on a 45 degree angle of my ears, do I have to aim them to me or straight down ?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

zombipuppy said:


> Thanks for the reply! Few questions:
> 1) How do you have your DAES modules a foot behind your front speakers? Are they on wall shelves?
> 2) How high is your ceiling?
> 3) About how much of an angle are the DAES positioned?
> 
> Thank you!


Details with pics of my HT setup can be found in the "Vaulted Room" thread linked in my signature and here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...9-outstanding-ht-common-but-special-room.html . Read it if you want details or just scan through the pics. 

1) DAES sit on a wall unit behind the speakers.
2) Vaulted ceiling -- 8' just behind the DAES rising to 15-16' just behind LP. (Reflection "point" about 12'.)
3) Whatever angle is created by a block to raise the back edge 2 1/4 inches.

Basically, all that is useless info if you have a level ceiling.


----------



## Selden Ball

Nick4K said:


> PS: if I can mount them exactly on a 45 degree angle of my ears, do I have to aim them to me or straight down ?
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


They should be pointed toward your main listening position.

I'd suggest trying both locations if you can so you can find out which you prefer. The receiver's calibration procedure will adjust the power sent to the speakers so that their output is balanced.

In general, the recommendation is to provide as much vertical height as is convenient, in order to provide the best audible separation between ear-level and overhead sounds.


----------



## Nick4K

I want to use my laptop as mediaplayer. I found on the web VLC 3.0 and Windows mediaplayer support Dolby Atmos. I want to send with the hdmi cable to the receiver.

Will this work on Windows 10? Or do I need to buy the Dolby Atmos Acces app first?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Nick4K said:


> I want to use my laptop as mediaplayer. I found on the web VLC 3.0 and Windows mediaplayer support Dolby Atmos. I want to send with the hdmi cable to the receiver.
> 
> Will this work on Windows 10? Or do I need to buy the Dolby Atmos Acces app first?
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


To bitstream encoded Atmos doesn't need any update to Windows.


----------



## madbrain

I have a room with the following built-in speakers (which I didn't put in) :
- in-walls to the left and right of my fixed projection screen
- in-ceiling left, right and center near the back of the room

I have been using the in-wall pair as presence speakers with my old Yamaha receiver. The in-ceiling speakers are not in use.
I also have the following speakers :
- front pair
- center
- surround pair
- surround back pair
- 4 subs

Ie. total of 12 channels + 4 subs

What would be the most suitable config for Atmos to make use of all the channels, if possible ? 
Hopefully with a new pre-pro or receiver under $2K.


----------



## Selden Ball

Unfortunately, no current receiver supports 12 speakers. The max is 11: current Atmos receivers support either 2 or 4 overhead speakers plus 3, 5 or 7 ear-level speakers.

I'd suggest getting a current Yamaha receiver if you want to continue to use the in-wall speakers as presence speakers.

Your description implies that the in-walls to the sides of the screen might be best considered as ear-level speakers. It might be appropriate to designate them as "Front Wide" speakers for Atmos, depending on exactly where they're located. Unfortunately, the Front Wide position is not supported by any of the 2016 and 2017 receiver models. Some 2014 and 2015 models did and maybe some 2018 models will again. 

In other words, some of your existing speakers would be silent in an Atmos audio system: at least the in-ceiling center speaker and maybe the in-wall front speakers, too.

Edited to add:

To be somewhat more specific: the obvious Atmos speaker configuration using only some of the current speakers would be what's called a 7.1.2 speaker system: 7 ear level + 2 overheads (the pair of in-ceiling speakers at the rear of the room would be designated "Top Rear"). If the in-wall front speakers are up high, near the ceiling, they could be designated as "Front Height" and you could have a 7.1.4 speaker configuration. If they're down near ear-level, though, that's much too low. Treating them as if they were overhead speakers would cause a serious distortion of the soundfield. In the latter case, you might consider adding two more in-ceiling (or on-ceiling) speakers, positioned toward the front of the room to be "Top Front" speakers.


----------



## madbrain

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, no current receiver supports 12 speakers. The max is 11: current Atmos receivers support either 2 or 4 overhead speakers plus 3, 5 or 7 ear-level speakers.
> 
> I'd suggest getting a current Yamaha receiver if you want to continue to use the in-wall speakers as presence speakers.


Thank you very much for your reply. I'm not really married to the DSP sound fields and presence speakers. I think the current receiver can only amplify 7 channels also. So the 7 speakers + 2 presence never play all at once. Even with external amp I believe this is the case too, it just won't process 9 channels. More below.



> Your description implies that the in-walls to the sides of the screen might be best considered as ear-level speakers. It might be appropriate to designate them as "Front Wide" speakers for Atmos, depending on exactly where they're located. Unfortunately, the Front Wide position is not supported by any of the 2016 and 2017 receiver models. Some 2014 and 2015 models did and maybe some 2018 models will again.
> 
> In other words, some of your existing speakers would be silent in an Atmos audio system: at least the in-ceiling center speaker and maybe the in-wall front speakers, too.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> To be somewhat more specific: the obvious Atmos speaker configuration using only some of the current speakers would be what's called a 7.1.2 speaker system: 7 ear level + 2 overheads (the pair of in-ceiling speakers at the rear of the room would be designated "Top Rear"). If the in-wall front speakers are up high, near the ceiling, they could be designated as "Front Height" and you could have a 7.1.4 speaker configuration. If they're down near ear-level, though, that's much too low. Treating them as if they were overhead speakers would cause a serious distortion of the soundfield. In the latter case, you might consider adding two more in-ceiling (or on-ceiling) speakers, positioned toward the front of the room to be "Top Front" speakers.


The front in-wall speakers are a little higher than halfway vertically. Definitely higher than the main front, about 3 feet. They are close to the same vertical plane as the main front , so probably could not be used as front wides even if the receiver/preamp supported this configuration.

It sounds like 7.1.2 Atmos is the way to go for my HT room. I wonder if DTS:X or Auro3D would work any better with my room ? DTS:X can supposedly use any speaker configuration, but that's in theory only and their marketing. 
Seems like given that all these systems are object-based rather than channel-based, it's a little odd that there are still specific speaker configurations that are dictated. Preamps/receivers could allow you to place your speakers with a GUI, tell it where they are firing. Or even maybe detect all this with the mic-based calibration systems, at least if there were a couple mics. 

Since it seems I can't use these side in-walls for Atmos, I can find other uses for those in-wall speakers - I have just setup whole house audio with Chromecast audios and 13 zones which uses all the ceiling speakers that came with the house in other rooms, and some outside as well. The WHA currently does not play in the home theater room currently even though the HT room is one of the 2 speaker feed locations. So, the logical thing to do would be to use these in-walls in the HT room as the 14th WHA stereo zone rather than for HT.


----------



## Selden Ball

madbrain said:


> Thank you very much for your reply. I'm not really married to the DSP sound fields and presence speakers. I think the current receiver can only amplify 7 channels also. So the 7 speakers + 2 presence never play all at once. Even with external amp I believe this is the case too, it just won't process 9 channels. More below.
> 
> The front in-wall speakers are a little higher than halfway vertically. Definitely higher than the main front, about 3 feet. They are close to the same vertical plane as the main front , so probably could not be used as front wides even if the receiver/preamp supported this configuration.
> 
> It sounds like 7.1.2 Atmos is the way to go for my HT room. I wonder if DTS:X or Auro3D would work any better with my room ? DTS:X can supposedly use any speaker configuration, but that's in theory only and their marketing.


That claim is strictly misleading DTS marketing. DTS:X no more supports "any speaker configuration" than Atmos does. The actual implementation delivered to the home audience is even less flexible than Atmos, since it's not object based.



> Seems like given that all these systems are object-based rather than channel-based,


While DTS:X uses objects while a soundtrack is being mixed, the soundtracks actually being delivered on disc are channel based. Auro3D is channel based, too. Adding insult to injury, both use speaker location designations which aren't the same as are used by Atmos, leading to compromises when one implements a speaker layout. (E.G. What DTS:X calls "Front Height" refers to the same physical speaker location as what Atmos calls "Top Front".)


> it's a little odd that there are still specific speaker configurations that are dictated. Preamps/receivers could allow you to place your speakers with a GUI, tell it where they are firing. Or even maybe detect all this with the mic-based calibration systems, at least if there were a couple mics.


Using specific designations is another way of telling the receivers' decoding software where the speakers are physically located and is just a limitation in current DSP-based implementations of Atmos and DTS:X. Measuring speaker xyz positions requires more processing power and would increase the cost of receivers providing that feature. It is available in Trinnov Altitude pre/pros, which cost ~10x most receivers. Although top-of-the-line Yamaha receivers can measure speaker locations, that information is used only for their proprietary up-mixer software and not by their implementation of Atmos.


> Since it seems I can't use these side in-walls for Atmos, I can find other uses for those in-wall speakers - I have just setup whole house audio with Chromecast audios and 13 zones which uses all the ceiling speakers that came with the house in other rooms, and some outside as well. The WHA currently does not play in the home theater room currently even though the HT room is one of the 2 speaker feed locations. So, the logical thing to do would be to use these in-walls in the HT room as the 14th WHA stereo zone rather than for HT.


That seems quite reasonable to me.

FWIW, Denon AVR-X4300H (if still available) and AVR-X4400H receivers seem to be considered the "sweet spot" in Atmos-capable receivers at the moment. Of course, you should peruse their manuals carefully to find out if they provide the features you want. They're available for downloading at http://manuals.denon.com/avrx4300h/na/en and http://manuals.denon.com/avrx4400h/na/en


----------



## madbrain

Selden Ball said:


> That claim is strictly misleading DTS marketing. DTS:X no more supports "any speaker configuration" than Atmos does. The actual implementation delivered to the home audience is even less flexible than Atmos, since it's not object based.


That is too bad.



> While DTS:X uses objects while a soundtrack is being mixed, the soundtracks actually being delivered on disc are channel based. Auro3D is channel based, too. Adding insult to injury, both use speaker location designations which aren't the same as are used by Atmos, leading to compromises when one implements a speaker layout. (E.G. What DTS:X calls "Front Height" refers to the same physical speaker location as what Atmos calls "Top Front".)
> 
> Using specific designations is another way of telling the receivers' decoding software where the speakers are physically located and is just a limitation in current DSP-based implementations of Atmos and DTS:X. Measuring speaker xyz positions requires more processing power and would increase the cost of receivers providing that feature. It is available in Trinnov Altitude pre/pros, which cost ~10x most receivers. Although top-of-the-line Yamaha receivers can measure speaker locations, that information is used only for their proprietary up-mixer software and not by their implementation of Atmos.


I see, very interesting. I guess we would need to see much more powerful DSPs, and some medium that really transport audio objects.



> That seems quite reasonable to me.


Thanks !



> FWIW, Denon AVR-X4300H (if still available) and AVR-X4400H receivers seem to be considered the "sweet spot" in Atmos-capable receivers at the moment. Of course, you should peruse their manuals carefully to find out if they provide the features you want. They're available for downloading at http://manuals.denon.com/avrx4300h/na/en and http://manuals.denon.com/avrx4400h/na/en


Yes, I have read about those Denon models. Unfortunately, one critical feature for me that they are missing is a 5.1/7.1 analog input to analog to connect my SACD changer. No SACD changer exists with an HDMI output, sadly.
I have just recently acquired a Sony UBP-X800 single-disc player that can bitstream HDMI (even with my current 7-year old receiver). It sounds great, but it is just single disc. I also have a second Yamaha DVD-C750 5-disc changer which is both DVD-A and SACD. I was using both of these changers with a Zektor MAS-3 switch to switch between the 6-channel output of each of these changers. 18 RCA cables total - 6 to each of the 2 changers, 6 to the receiver. I hardly play DVD-A anymore and I sold most of my discs. I have unhooked the Yamaha DVD-C750 and will keep it as a backup unit if my Sony SCD-CE775 fails (the third 5-disc SACD changer in the house upstairs, another Sony SCD-CE775, has just failed ...). . I still purchase new SACDs, and I like the Sony changer especially because it doesn't require any display to be turned on to operate - no video output on it. Thus no need to turn on the projector with fan noise to operate the changer, which interferes with SACD quality. The Yamaha DVD-C750 changer is DVD based, and much of its control require the remote and display, by contrast.

As far as I can tell, this multi-channel input requirement limits me exclusively to Marantz receiver or prepros now for consumer-type gear. No one else has any. Except the outdated Denon 7200, and pricey Yamaha CX-A5100 prepro. If I upgrade now, it's going to be a toss between the Marantz SR6011 and SR7011 most likely for me. Or maybe a AV7703 prepro paired with the older 7.1 receiver to drive 7 channels, since it has a multi-channel input. And I can find another spare receiver on craigslist with multi-channel in for the overheads in 7.4.2 setup. A local Best buy had floor units of SR6011/7011 at reasonable prices last weekend, but only 15-day return policy, and I didn't have the new projector setup in the room yet (should arrive today!), so wouldn't have been able to test it all together, and thus I didn't bite. I may go back to BB this week end to see if they still have them. If they are gone, I will order online - there are refurb units or customer returns on Amazon from authorized dealers at reasonable cost. I'm leaning towards the SR7011 due to better DACs and room control.

Really wish Yamaha still had multi-channel ins on their receivers, but the CX-A5100 prepro is just too rich for me. I do feel like separate prepro makes sense with ever-changing digital technology, both audio and video.
The problem is that these prepros end up costing far more than receivers that pack everything in one unit like the 6011/7011. With HDMI 2.1 appearing next year, all receivers and prepros will depreciate massively as they'll be obsolete. And since most new receivers lack multi-channel inputs, these 2016/2017 models of receivers won't even be recyclable in the future as power amps, like older generations of receivers. Even if one is not connecting an SACD changer, it means that a lot of those units with still working amps will become paperweights. I don't know if the removal of those 6-8 RCA jacks if because of beancounters counting pennies, or something more nefarious about planned obsolescence.


----------



## Selden Ball

madbrain said:


> As far as I can tell, this multi-channel input requirement limits me exclusively to Marantz receiver or prepros now for consumer-type gear.


Your analysis is consistent with mine.


----------



## sdurani

madbrain said:


> DTS:X can supposedly use any speaker configuration, but that's in theory only and their marketing.


The DTS:X format uses egocentric rendering, where speaker locations and object placement are all based on a main listening position. So the format is designed to do what the marketing describes (map sounds based on listener location relative to the speakers). Whether this capability ever gets implemented in consumer electronics remains to be seen.


> Seems like given that all these systems are object-based rather than channel-based, it's a little odd that there are still specific speaker configurations that are dictated.


Think of them more as hybrid formats; combination of traditional channels and audio objects. Specific speaker configurations are dictated because old fashioned channels still exist in these formats AND because positional rendering of objects isn't a reality (yet).


> Preamps/receivers could allow you to place your speakers with a GUI, tell it where they are firing. Or even maybe detect all this with the mic-based calibration systems, at least if there were a couple mics.


That could theoretically help DTS:X (IF they ever do positional rendering) but not so much Atmos, since it uses a more allocentric approach to rendering, where speaker locations and object placement are not based on listener location but instead based on the locations of other speakers or objects (the theatrical and home versions of Atmos don't take listener location into account).


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> The DTS:X format uses egocentric rendering, where speaker locations and object placement are all based on a main listening position. So the format is designed to do what the marketing describes (map sounds based on listener location relative to the speakers). Whether this capability ever gets implemented in consumer electronics remains to be seen.


Interestingly, on Trinnov's Altitude the DTS:X codec allows virtually any combination of speakers out of a total of 30 possible speaker positions as long as the current maximum of 11 main channels is not exceeded...


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Interestingly, on Trinnov's Altitude the DTS:X codec allows allows virtually any combination of speakers out of a total of 30 possible speaker positions as long as the current maximum of 11 main channels is not exceeded...


How sure are you that the DTS:X decoder itself, rather than Trinnov re-mapping, is compensating for speaker placement?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> How sure are you that the DTS:X decoder itself, rather than Trinnov re-mapping, is compensating for speaker placement?


!00% sure. Before you can activate remapping (which depends on a 3D microphone measurements for determining the exact physical speaker positions) you need to give every speaker a specific DTS:X designation out of the 30 possibilities. With this designation the DTS:X codec determines what information goes to that speaker feed. The processor does not need to know the actual positions to complete this process. Remapping is a separate process that can be added after that, or not.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> With this designation the DTS:X codec determines what information goed to that speaker feed.


When you say "information", do you mean that the DTS:X decoder takes apart the contents of each channel and re-routes those particular sounds based on speaker designations?


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> When you say "information", do you mean that the DTS:X decoder takes apart the contents of each channel and re-routes those particular sounds based on speaker designations?


Yes, that is what I meant, as it is the only way I can think of how this is supposed to work.


----------



## chong67

I have a 7.1 system.

My Denon receiver does not have Atmos, but Dolby.

Yes when I download a W10 app called "Dolby Access", I can hear the nice demo thru the 7.1 system. I can hear the separation audio on each speaker. WOW!

Yet when I play a movie that has Atmos, there are a no audio.

I dont understand why.

Do you?


----------



## mdanderson

I have been trying out a pair of Klipsch 14SA speakers for a 5.1.2 setup and I have not had good results so far with hearing any overhead or object based effects. Here is a brief rundown of my setup. I do have the DAES on top of my main speakers.

I have a standard 8ft drywall ceiling and my room is about 13.5 by 14ft. The atmos speaker to ceiling distance is about 4ft 8inches and the ceiling to MLP is 7ft 10in. My crossovers for the DAES are 120hz. I do not have Audyssey on right now. I wanted to evalute the speakers without it for right now. I have tested out The Fifth Element and Passengers so far for Atmos.

I think the main problem I am having is where the sound is coming down from the ceiling to the MLP. I believe it is falling too short of the MLP. The only thing I know to do in that case would be to really raise the back of the Atmos speakers. I may go ahead and run Audyssey to see if it makes a difference. Thanks for any input or help.

*Update*: I did go ahead and run Audyssey and distances and levels look ok but it set my Front Dolby Left speaker at 3.8ft and the level at -10.5. I assume this should certainly be changed to be more in line with the Front Dolby Right speaker which is 9.7ft and a level of -2.5.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mdanderson said:


> *Update*: I did go ahead and run Audyssey and distances and levels look ok but it set my Front Dolby Left speaker at 3.8ft and the level at -10.5. I assume this should certainly be changed to be more in line with the Front Dolby Right speaker which is 9.7ft and a level of -2.5.


Nope. This should certainly be left as it was measured  . It has taken your entire room acoustics into account.


----------



## mdanderson

mrtickleuk said:


> Nope. This should certainly be left as it was measured  . It has taken your entire room acoustics into account.


Thanks for your input. I understand what you are saying about leaving it as measured, but I just discovered that I left my back surround speaker connected by mistake when I ran Audyssey. Audyssey must have picked this up and that is why it set the level so low and set the distance so short in the Front Dolby left speaker. I don't want Atmos info playing through my back surround speaker at the same time it is playing through the Front Dolby Atmos speakers. That is why I now have the back surround speaker disconnected . Am I wrong in thinking this way? Maybe I should now rerun Audyssey.

My receiver has only 7 processing channels for a 5.1.2 setup, but I am using an external amp to power the five main channels with the receiver powering the two Atmos speakers. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## Sevenfeet

OK, here's my situation. Granted, I don't have budget authority from the Missus yet, but this is what I'm thinking. My home theater is based on an existing bonus room over the garage of the house. And it loses some of its footprint to laundry room and a stairway to the garage. As a result, it's not a symmetrical shape but with room correction, I'm trying to do the best I can.

I've drawn up the following diagram, which isn't to scale but should be close enough to get an idea. The ceiling at it's height is a flat 12 ft tall drywall with barn style angles at the left and right sides which joins the side wall at about 9 ft of height. The existing speaker setup is a 5.1 although right now, there is no ".1" since the old subwoofer died and needs to be replaced.

What I'm trying to figure out will work are two upgrades. The first will be in-wall rear speakers behind the couch. The couch used to be against the wall but I brought it out from the wall 2 feet when the new LG OLED TV replaced the elderly 65" RPTV from Mitsubishi. Since most rear speakers have some amount of depth, I'm thinking in-walls might be a good solution to the problem. Of course, once they are in, they can't be moved or easily adjusted.

But the harder job from a construction standpoint would be in-ceiling speakers for Atmos compatibility. I've marked where in the ceiling they might sit. As you can see, the asymmetrical design of the room means that the right speakers are much further away from the center of the couch than the left speakers. It's not something that can be easily rectified and I'm hoping that room correction can largely solve how it performs.

But putting the speakers in the ceiling isn't that hard. Wiring them is a big problem. If the ceiling joists went from the back wall to the TV, then this would be really simple. But they go right-to-left which means that it may be easier to run the wire toward the windows, down the angled ceiling and then down the exterior wall until it gets to the garage underneath. After that, it's easy to run an exposed wire across the ceiling back to where the equipment shelf is next to the TV. The front Atmos speakers would have to cross joists in the ceiling to miss the fireplace and the window to get back to where the other wires are in the rear. Needless to say, this is a lot of drywall and drilling. My contractor is really good at this stuff (he did our entire kitchen renovation among other projects). But I'd love to hear from anyone on if someone had to do something similar with an existing space without open walls.

My dealer is recommending the Revel C763Ls for the ceilings. They are big and a bit expensive but I can get a good discount from them and from a height of 12 ft, it may end up being a better solution than smaller speakers. Again, I've love feedback on that. Recommended rears were also Revels. My main speakers are AV123 RS750s from 13 years ago....still in reasonably good shape. I'm hoping the Revels would effectively match with them.

Finally, I'd like to get dual subs at some point. One under the TV next to the center channel and one behind the couch. I'm leaning toward SVS but there isn't enough clearance behind the couch for either the PB13 or PB16 pointed directly at the couch. I may have to turn them sideways toward the left corner wall.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sevenfeet said:


> OK, here's my situation. Granted, I don't have budget authority from the Missus yet, but this is what I'm thinking. My home theater is based on an existing bonus room over the garage of the house. And it loses some of its footprint to laundry room and a stairway to the garage. As a result, it's not a symmetrical shape but with room correction, I'm trying to do the best I can.
> 
> I've drawn up the following diagram, which isn't to scale but should be close enough to get an idea. The ceiling at it's height is a flat 12 ft tall drywall with barn style angles at the left and right sides which joins the side wall at about 9 ft of height. The existing speaker setup is a 5.1 although right now, there is no ".1" since the old subwoofer died and needs to be replaced.
> 
> What I'm trying to figure out will work are two upgrades. The first will be in-wall rear speakers behind the couch. The couch used to be against the wall but I brought it out from the wall 2 feet when the new LG OLED TV replaced the elderly 65" RPTV from Mitsubishi. Since most rear speakers have some amount of depth, I'm thinking in-walls might be a good solution to the problem. Of course, once they are in, they can't be moved or easily adjusted.
> 
> But the harder job from a construction standpoint would be in-ceiling speakers for Atmos compatibility. I've marked where in the ceiling they might sit. As you can see, the asymmetrical design of the room means that the right speakers are much further away from the center of the couch than the left speakers. It's not something that can be easily rectified and I'm hoping that room correction can largely solve how it performs.
> 
> But putting the speakers in the ceiling isn't that hard. Wiring them is a big problem. If the ceiling joists went from the back wall to the TV, then this would be really simple. But they go right-to-left which means that it may be easier to run the wire toward the windows, down the angled ceiling and then down the exterior wall until it gets to the garage underneath. After that, it's easy to run an exposed wire across the ceiling back to where the equipment shelf is next to the TV. The front Atmos speakers would have to cross joists in the ceiling to miss the fireplace and the window to get back to where the other wires are in the rear. Needless to say, this is a lot of drywall and drilling. My contractor is really good at this stuff (he did our entire kitchen renovation among other projects). But I'd love to hear from anyone on if someone had to do something similar with an existing space without open walls.
> 
> My dealer is recommending the Revel C763Ls for the ceilings. They are big and a bit expensive but I can get a good discount from them and from a height of 12 ft, it may end up being a better solution than smaller speakers. Again, I've love feedback on that. Recommended rears were also Revels. My main speakers are AV123 RS750s from 13 years ago....still in reasonably good shape. I'm hoping the Revels would effectively match with them.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to get dual subs at some point. One under the TV next to the center channel and one behind the couch. I'm leaning toward SVS but there isn't enough clearance behind the couch for either the PB13 or PB16 pointed directly at the couch. I may have to turn them sideways toward the left corner wall.


In your less than ideal situation and given four Atmos "top" speakers, I would probably go the Front Height, Top Middle route, which is a legal Atmos layout.

Don't put the Top Middle right over your head at the MLP, but just ever so slightly forward of the seating location (about a foot). People have a hard time discerning where sound is coming from directly above or directly behind their heads.


----------



## petetherock

Josh Z said:


> The Blu-ray street date is October 10th, and I doubt Sony has sent out review screeners to critics yet.


Hey Josh,
It's less than two weeks away and no details?
I hope you are reviewing this as we speak 
I gotta make a decision to get the BR or the 4k, but I might swing for the 4k just to be sure I don't miss out on Atmos.. cheers.


----------



## usc1995

*Netflix Atmos content*

Has Netflix expanded their Atmos content since they rolled out support for it on the Xbox One S? I am planning to upgrade my Netflix plan to the 4k plan to access it but I don't want to bother until they have more content since I don't have a 4k display. Would anyone kindly give a report as to their current amount of content?


----------



## Selden Ball

chong67 said:


> I have a 7.1 system.
> 
> My Denon receiver does not have Atmos, but Dolby.
> 
> Yes when I download a W10 app called "Dolby Access", I can hear the nice demo thru the 7.1 system. I can hear the separation audio on each speaker. WOW!
> 
> Yet when I play a movie that has Atmos, there are a no audio.
> 
> I dont understand why.
> 
> Do you?


You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "play a movie". What's your player device? Are you playing from a disc or from a file? If the latter, what kind of file? What movie title shows this problem? What media player software are you using? What settings have you configured for its audio output? What kind of connection do you have between your computer and your receiver?

For one thing, you have to make sure your media player software is up to date. Old versions of the a/v decoder routine ffmpeg used by older media player products were buggy and could not handle Atmos metadata. They generated no output as a result. You also have to configure the audio output of your media player software to use WASAPI and passthrough, not DirectSound.


----------



## WynsWrld98

usc1995 said:


> Has Netflix expanded their Atmos content since they rolled out support for it on the Xbox One S? I am planning to upgrade my Netflix plan to the 4k plan to access it but I don't want to bother until they have more content since I don't have a 4k display. Would anyone kindly give a report as to their current amount of content?


How does one find Atmos content on the Netflix app?


----------



## usc1995

WynsWrld98 said:


> How does one find Atmos content on the Netflix app?




My understanding is that Atmos is currently only available on the Xbox One S and you must have a 4K subscription. I know the movie Okja is supposed to have Atmos as well as the Deathnote series but I am not sure of other titles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sevenfeet

Dan Hitchman said:


> In your less than ideal situation and given four Atmos "top" speakers, I would probably go the Front Height, Top Middle route, which is a legal Atmos layout.
> 
> Don't put the Top Middle right over your head at the MLP, but just ever so slightly forward of the seating location (about a foot). People have a hard time discerning where sound is coming from directly above or directly behind their heads.


That's an excellent suggestion but I've never seen a front height/overhead middle configuration. Are you sure? I'm reading the Atmos placement whitepaper from Dolby (updated Sept 2017) and I don't see it. Not that it's not possible...the whole point of Atmos is to be flexible with placing and let the processor work it out. A top middle could also reduce some of the thornier wiring problems a 4 overhead placement would have. Front heights would be easier to do in my configuration (although the wiring going down the garage stairwell wall would still require a scaffold on the stairs to get it installed properly). Front heights would also be up to 12 ft in the air which means mounting and placement could be a little tricky (but probably not so much).

I'm a little puzzled at the suggestion of placing the ceiling speakers a bit in front of the listener instead of right overhead, which is what I think the processor would be counting on. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sevenfeet said:


> That's an excellent suggestion but I've never seen a front height/overhead middle configuration. Are you sure? I'm reading the Atmos placement whitepaper from Dolby (updated Sept 2017) and I don't see it. Not that it's not possible...the whole point of Atmos is to be flexible with placing and let the processor work it out. A top middle could also reduce some of the thornier wiring problems a 4 overhead placement would have. Front heights would be easier to do in my configuration (although the wiring going down the garage stairwell wall would still require a scaffold on the stairs to get it installed properly). Front heights would also be up to 12 ft in the air which means mounting and placement could be a little tricky (but probably not so much).
> 
> I'm a little puzzled at the suggestion of placing the ceiling speakers a bit in front of the listener instead of right overhead, which is what I think the processor would be counting on. Can you elaborate?


The reason for moving the Top Middle to just in front of the listening position is the for the reason I mentioned about human hearing and sound localization. You could also place the Top Middle just slightly behind the MLP as well for the same reason. Having the Front Height up at 12 feet and aimed toward the MLP would make them almost like the front top locations for overheads in a commercial Atmos movie theater because they would be high above your head with a greater separation between them and the base front L/C/R layer than normal. 

You would want bookshelf type speakers on adjustable mounts that sonically match your Top Middle speakers.

Front Height, Top Middle is an acceptable four overhead speaker configuration and should work fine in your viewing area because you don't have enough space behind the MLP for the Rear Tops. Top Front, Top Middle is not as the angles of separation between speaker pairs are not great enough.


----------



## Josh Z

petetherock said:


> Hey Josh,
> It's less than two weeks away and no details?
> I hope you are reviewing this as we speak


Not me personally. Someone from our site will review it, but I'm not sure what the status is with screeners. 

The lack of specs on the studio press release is frustrating, I agree.


----------



## am2model3

finally got the 5.1.4 atmos/dts:x setup and tested! wow, sounds great. I got the pioneer elite atmos set enabled designed by andrew jones. denon 4300h receiver. Wonder Woman 4k UHD was great in atmos! titanfall from my PC was incredible! Going to try to watch/listen to transformers5 4k UHD tonight! great stuff! Also tested some dolby surround and NeuralX upmixing, sounded cool! the dolby access app on xbox has some nice test atmos videos! svs pb2000 subwoofer; that baby's got bass!


----------



## Spanglo

Josh Z said:


> Not me personally. Someone from our site will review it, but I'm not sure what the status is with screeners.
> 
> The lack of specs on the studio press release is frustrating, I agree.


The first BR that dropped has 5.1 audio. :frown:


----------



## petetherock

Spanglo said:


> The first BR that dropped has 5.1 audio. :frown:


So the BR disc has only 5.1? Nuts..


----------



## madbrain

So, I got a new Marantz SR7011 and set it up in 7.1.2 with top rear speakers (ceiling, down firing).
The receiver is capable of 7.1.4 using an external amp for the last 2 channels. I happen to have an external amp with 7 channels free, my old Yamaha RX-A1000 receiver with 7.1 input .
I don't have top middle or top front speakers in the ceiling, however.

I read about the possibility of using Dolby Atmos upwards firing speakers in the front. According to Dolby pictures, these would sit on top of the front speakers.
The thing is, my Energy Veritas 2.3 front speakers don't have a flat surface on top. Is there any other setup possibility to go to 7.1.4 ? Like maybe putting the Atmos FDL/FDR speakers on stands directly behind the main front ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

madbrain said:


> So, I got a new Marantz SR7011 and set it up in 7.1.2 with top rear speakers (ceiling, down firing).
> The receiver is capable of 7.1.4 using an external amp for the last 2 channels. I happen to have an external amp with 7 channels free, my old Yamaha RX-A1000 receiver with 7.1 input .
> I don't have top middle or top front speakers in the ceiling, however.
> 
> I read about the possibility of using Dolby Atmos upwards firing speakers in the front. According to Dolby pictures, these would sit on top of the front speakers.
> The thing is, my Energy Veritas 2.3 front speakers don't have a flat surface on top. Is there any other setup possibility to go to 7.1.4 ? Like maybe putting the Atmos FDL/FDR speakers on stands directly behind the main front ?


If you have no way of installing two more ceiling speakers, your next best option is Front Heights up near the wall/ceiling juncture aimed towards the MLP. In most situations that's doable. If not, trick the receiver into thinking you have Front and Rear Tops (doesn't really change much in terms of content and Audyssey will compensate for the speaker distances). 

Heights are sooooo much better than using Enabled pseudo-Atmos "ceiling-bouncers."


----------



## madbrain

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have no way of installing two more ceiling speakers, your next best option is Front Heights up near the wall/ceiling juncture aimed towards the MLP. In most situations that's doable. If not, trick the receiver into thinking you have Front and Rear Tops (doesn't really change much in terms of content and Audyssey will compensate for the speaker distances).
> 
> Heights are sooooo much better than using Enabled pseudo-Atmos "ceiling-bouncers."


It's not that I have no way to do it, it's just that I'm not willing to do it at the moment as that involved opening drywall and I'm not handy. I am in a high cost of living area, and the labor would be pricey vs the speakers themselves

Not sure what you mean by MLP - this is an acronym I have not encountered, other than Meridian Lossless Packing of DVD-Audio, but this is surely not what you meant here.


----------



## maikeldepotter

madbrain said:


> Not sure what you mean by MLP


Main Listening (or: Listener) Position.


----------



## madbrain

maikeldepotter said:


> Main Listening (or: Listener) Position.


Thanks. I do have a pair of in-wall speakers on the sides of the screen. They are higher than the front pair, but not so close to the ceiling.

The main front pair runs from 0-39" . The in-wall pair on the sides runs from 53" to 70" . And then there is space to the 93" ceiling.
I think this side pair was put originally by the previous owner/builder as rear surrounds. But this is the wall I chose for my screen when I moved in.
The wall accross from it has a door in the middle, so only a pull-down screen would work, and I had a perfectly good permanent screen that fit the room already when I moved in, hence the switcharoo.

Incidently, the two speakers that I am now using as "top rear" also have a third speaker in between. Those 3 speakers were likely used as main front pair, and center previously. I don't have any signal going to that middle speaker, don't think it can really be used for anything. Maybe Auro 3D in 10.1 setup, but then I would lose one of the other pairs, since my receiver only processes 11.1, not 12.1.
And I don't want to pay $200 for the Auro3D upgrade for my receiver anyway.


----------



## sdurani

madbrain said:


> Is there any other setup possibility to go to 7.1.4 ? Like maybe putting the Atmos FDL/FDR speakers on stands directly behind the main front ?


Yes, you can put the upfiring speakers within 3 feet of your front speakers. You can also try putting them on or near your side speakers if that gives you a better height effect. The last few times I heard set-ups with Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers, the sense of overhead imaging was quite good.


----------



## Sevenfeet

Dan Hitchman said:


> The reason for moving the Top Middle to just in front of the listening position is the for the reason I mentioned about human hearing and sound localization. You could also place the Top Middle just slightly behind the MLP as well for the same reason. Having the Front Height up at 12 feet and aimed toward the MLP would make them almost like the front top locations for overheads in a commercial Atmos movie theater because they would be high above your head with a greater separation between them and the base front L/C/R layer than normal.
> 
> You would want bookshelf type speakers on adjustable mounts that sonically match your Top Middle speakers.
> 
> Front Height, Top Middle is an acceptable four overhead speaker configuration and should work fine in your viewing area because you don't have enough space behind the MLP for the Rear Tops. Top Front, Top Middle is not as the angles of separation between speaker pairs are not great enough.


Yes, I see that now in the Dolby whitepaper. All X.1.2 configurations have the ceiling speakers a bit in front of the primary listener. That still makes an installation in that spot a bit difficult since I'll still having to dodge a window. One thing I've noticed is that while Dolby does recommend a 65 degree angle in front of the listener, 80 degrees and 100 degrees (which is slightly behind the MLP) are alternatives. 100 degrees might be ideal for this situation since it would be guaranteed from a wiring standpoint to miss the window to the left of the MLP, making construction easier.

There isn't a listed configuration for front heights + 2 overheads in the Dolby whitepaper but there are lots of weird hybrid configurations including reflective + overhead speakers so I guess there are a bunch of possibilities. [UPDATE: It's listed in the supported possibilities in the Marantz manual, page 67, so RTFM!)

One additional problem I see is that if I use front heights, they will be right above the front mains. But the room is asymmetrical so I have to consider putting the Atmos center right middle speaker either symmetrical to the ceiling (just above the love seat) or make it in line with the front height speaker. Not sure what to do here, but the Dolby whitepaper suggests keeping the ceiling speakers in line with the fronts.


----------



## am2model3

Wow just had a symphonic symphony of sound 5.1.4 listening to pirates caribbean 5 uhd 4k! Love hearing boat wood noises in height channels!
End scene in water ocean tunnel was excellent! Raining scene made me feel like in the rain! 

Started transformers4 atmos and wow love all the effects!


----------



## sdurani

Sevenfeet said:


> there are lots of weird hybrid configurations including reflective + overhead speakers so I guess there are a bunch of possibilities


Height speaker configurations aren't rigid for Atmos, which is why Dolby has such broad placement ranges in their guide. The goal is to hear the difference between sound around you vs sound above you. Everything beyond that comes down to personal preference. If you're doing a single pair of heights, I would heed Dan's advice and place them slightly forward of the listening position (not to comply with Dolby, but to take advantage of our human hearing).


----------



## Jonas2

am2model3 said:


> Wow just had a symphonic symphony of sound 5.1.4 listening to pirates caribbean 5 uhd 4k! Love hearing boat wood noises in height channels!
> End scene in water ocean tunnel was excellent! Raining scene made me feel like in the rain!
> 
> Started transformers4 atmos and wow love all the effects!


Welcome to Dolby Atmos......


----------



## Sevenfeet

sdurani said:


> Height speaker configurations aren't rigid for Atmos, which is why Dolby has such broad placement ranges in their guide. The goal is to hear the difference between sound around you vs sound above you. Everything beyond that comes down to personal preference. If you're doing a single pair of heights, I would heed Dan's advice and place them slightly forward of the listening position (not to comply with Dolby, but to take advantage of our human hearing).


Yeah, I guess that's the point of object-based surround sound. You could in theory put speakers in any or all of the potential possessions as long as the processor supported it. So having both front & rear heights plus six ceiling speakers for a total of 10 speakers in the air is indeed a potential thing.

And Atmos is designed to be a bit forgiving for home theaters. Some of my friends and family have dedicated rooms that were constructed specifically for home theaters, often with dedicated media closets, projectors and other features. Most of us don't have that luxury and have to make do. My room is one of those "make-do" situations with a less than idea room. The main goal of designing a room seems to be adhering to the angles of speakers in relation to the MLP since those metrics are the assumptions made by the processor.

The suggestion to go for front height speakers was inspired....I wish I had thought of it and I will certainly use it. It allows me to keep a goal for an Atmos theater of not only height effects but panning height effects (which doesn't really work as well with just two speakers in the sky). Despite a large flat surface for the ceiling, the barn style sections on the left and right side make Atmos-enabled speakers less desirable since I doubt I could control unwanted reflections. And speaking of reflections, there are no room treatments in this room save the carpet (which is due to be replaced) and a woven tapestry hung on the wall behind the couch. I could look into such treatments but nothing would survive the WAF test (save one place above the door to the kitchen to minimize noise leaking into my son's bedroom).

Next step in this journey is to examine speaker choices. Right now I have AV123 Rocket 750s and a RSC center channel purchased 15 years ago. I can't see replacing them at this point since there are other budget issues to solve first (Atmos speakers, new multichannel amp, new carpet), and they still sound good. My dealer is recommending Revel C763L's for the ceiling. They look good on paper and are well respected in Atmos implementations, have an enclosure and you can point the tweeter, but I have no idea if they match well sonically with the Rockets (known for a lush, laid back sound), much less would be appropriate sounding the room. They are larger than most in-ceilings but the ceiling is 12 ft high so that may work in their favor. The grills are paintable which is key since the entire room is painted tomato red.

But then I have to match that with proposed in-wall rears that I want to do. Revel makes a variety or choices for that so I'm not too worried (and again, if they match with the Rockets). But I'm seeing fewer choices for a height speaker. Their surround speakers don't seem to be appropriate for the application. Their bookshelf speakers are large and expensive and even if I went this route, I'd have to find a secure way to mount them and angle them properly. Companies like SVS make pre-angled solutions but I think I'd still have to position them correctly as opposed to mounting them flush to the wall given the 12 ft ceiling height. And I'd be looking at trying to sonically match a third vendor that's not a subwoofer (even more difficult...hopefully I'm not overthinking this). On a positive note, the 12 foot height is perfectly aligned to the listening angle for the MLP position according to Dolby Atmos recommendations (between 30-45 degrees, and I'm looking at about 35 degrees).


----------



## am2model3

using an xbox one s, wow, the dolby access app is great way to demo your system! The breaking glass demo is wild! red bull racing, and the forest/storm/nature demo! very cool.


----------



## PeterTHX

Spanglo said:


> The first BR that dropped has 5.1 audio. :frown:





petetherock said:


> So the BR disc has only 5.1? Nuts..



I don't know what you're expecting?

Sony now only has Atmos on the 4K UHD-BD version. 
Standard BD is usually 5.1 DTS-MA


----------



## am2model3

I have a small atmos 7.1.4 problem. On disneys new 4k uhd discs, audio says its 7.1.4 atmos and using xbox one s the player/receiver gives me error saying audio isnt supported. My denon 4300h is 9.2ch so i realize its short by 2ch but the uhd wont play sending atmos. When i switch to dolby true hd it sends 7ch signal but receiver does dolby true hd with dolby surround and doesnt process as atmos. My atmos works with transformers4 blu ray perfectly and atmos shows processing on receiver. Dolby surround or neural x is fine but its like the disney discs dont detect 11ch it shuts down atmos and has to go to 7ch dolby true hd?


----------



## am2model3

Its guardians galaxy2 and pirates4 uhd4k discs just came out


----------



## am2model3

My speakers are 5.1.4


----------



## Dan Hitchman

am2model3 said:


> I have a small atmos 7.1.4 problem. On disneys new 4k uhd discs, audio says its 7.1.4 atmos and using xbox one s the player/receiver gives me error saying audio isnt supported. My denon 4300h is 9.2ch so i realize its short by 2ch but the uhd wont play sending atmos. When i switch to dolby true hd it sends 7ch signal but receiver does dolby true hd with dolby surround and doesnt process as atmos. My atmos works with transformers4 blu ray perfectly and atmos shows processing on receiver. Dolby surround or neural x is fine but its like the disney discs dont detect 11ch it shuts down atmos and has to go to 7ch dolby true hd?


You may have to go into the disc's audio setup menu and select the Dolby Atmos track manually. Some studios default to a lower, channel-based track. 

The rear of the case has a printing error. It's like Warner's first Atmos discs where they erroneously called it a 7.1.4 Atmos track as well. Home Atmos mixes render out to a maximum of 24.1.10 at the moment.


----------



## am2model3

24.1.10! Wow! I will try the disc menu after i get in with dolby true hd. Thanks!


----------



## madbrain

sdurani said:


> Yes, you can put the upfiring speakers within 3 feet of your front speakers. You can also try putting them on or near your side speakers if that gives you a better height effect. The last few times I heard set-ups with Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers, the sense of overhead imaging was quite good.


Thanks. Putting them near the surround (side pair) wouldn't work with the floor plan. 
Putting them near the main front pair is more likely to be possible. Would look pretty weird, though. And not cat-friendly, not that any floorstanding speakers ever are, but upfiring speakers on stands might be most unstable. I have some old bookshelf speakers (Energy C-1) that are not in use and fairly decent sounding, so all I really need to try them for Atmos would be a stand to set them horizontally so they fire upwards. Does anyone know what kind of stand I might use to do this ?

Unfortunately, my AV rack in the front is too busy to put upfiring speakres permanently. Right now, I have my receiver, on the top left, then some space, then my center, more space, then HTPC. I could move the receiver and HTPC towards the center speaker, and that would leave some space on the sides, but it would look a bit weird, and would be bad for airflow, especially for the receiver. Could be tried temporarily though since I have spare speakers, wire and power amps. Might give it a shot this weekend.


----------



## BGLeduc

madbrain said:


> Thanks. Putting them near the surround (side pair) wouldn't work with the floor plan.
> Putting them near the main front pair is more likely to be possible. Would look pretty weird, though. And not cat-friendly, not that any floorstanding speakers ever are, but upfiring speakers on stands might be most unstable. I have some old bookshelf speakers (Energy C-1) that are not in use and fairly decent sounding, so all I really need to try them for Atmos would be a stand to set them horizontally so they fire upwards. Does anyone know what kind of stand I might use to do this ?


You don't really need anything special for stands, but you do want the up-firing speakers to at least be above seated ear level. 

Before I purchased actual AE up-firing speakers, I experimented with a pair of NHT Super Zero's just as you are proposing. The trick is to be able to adjust the angle of the AE speaker. It does not want to be facing straight up.

First I placed them on my entertainment center, laying on their backs but angled up with a Aurelx isolation pads. That seemed to work pretty well, but I wanted to raise them vertically plus get them closer to my L/R. I then put them on 28" Target stands with 6" square top plates, and placed the stands directly behind my main L/R channels. I kludged up what amounted to a kickstand with some wall mount hardware to get the angle right. That seemed to work well too. 

Good luck...it may or may not work well in your room, but since you already have speakers, it does not cost much to experiment.


----------



## madbrain

BGLeduc said:


> You don't really need anything special for stands, but you do want the up-firing speakers to at least be above seated ear level.
> 
> Before I purchased actual AE up-firing speakers, I experimented with a pair of NHT Super Zero's just as you are proposing. The trick is to be able to adjust the angle of the AE speaker. It does not want to be facing straight up.
> 
> First I placed them on my entertainment center, laying on their backs but angled up with a Aurelx isolation pads. That seemed to work pretty well, but I wanted to raise them vertically plus get them closer to my L/R. I then put them on 28" Target stands with 6" square top plates, and placed the stands directly behind my main L/R channels. I kludged up what amounted to a kickstand with some wall mount hardware to get the angle right. That seemed to work well too.
> 
> Good luck...it may or may not work well in your room, but since you already have speakers, it does not cost much to experiment.


You're right, I forgot about the angle. Not sure what I would be using for that.
Looks like a stand with adjustable angle would be best.
https://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Ad...sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=speaker+stand+atmos#Ask

The SVS Elevation speakers also look pretty good and could be wall or ceiling mounted in my room without opening drywall, but of course 10x the price. I would probably wall mount since I live in earthquake country. We had 5 in one day a couple weeks ago, low magnitude but epicenter was very close to my house in the hills. Really scared our kittens. It was their first.


----------



## sdurani

madbrain said:


> Would look pretty weird, though.


Doesn't have to be on a stand.


----------



## zombipuppy

BGLeduc said:


> You don't really need anything special for stands, but you do want the up-firing speakers to at least be above seated ear level.
> 
> Before I purchased actual AE up-firing speakers, I experimented with a pair of NHT Super Zero's just as you are proposing. The trick is to be able to adjust the angle of the AE speaker. It does not want to be facing straight up.
> 
> First I placed them on my entertainment center, laying on their backs but angled up with a Aurelx isolation pads. That seemed to work pretty well, but I wanted to raise them vertically plus get them closer to my L/R. I then put them on 28" Target stands with 6" square top plates, and placed the stands directly behind my main L/R channels. I kludged up what amounted to a kickstand with some wall mount hardware to get the angle right. That seemed to work well too.
> 
> Good luck...it may or may not work well in your room, but since you already have speakers, it does not cost much to experiment.


If I have a 5.1.2 (max) capable system, and my current Atmos upfiring speakers aren't giving me any height, is it advisable to try them on top of the surround speakers instead? My couch is right up against the back wall, as are my surround speakers. I'm using the very slightly angled Pioneer Atmos add-on modules. I'm willing to give it a shot, but I just want to know if Dolby Atmos allows configurations this way. Would I have to specify that these are *rear* Atmos speakers? Is that even possible?

Sorry if this is confusing..


----------



## BGLeduc

zombipuppy said:


> If I have a 5.1.2 (max) capable system, and my current Atmos upfiring speakers aren't giving me any height, is it advisable to try them on top of the surround speakers instead? My couch is right up against the back wall, as are my surround speakers. I'm using the very slightly angled Pioneer Atmos add-on modules. I'm willing to give it a shot, but I just want to know if Dolby Atmos allows configurations this way. Would I have to specify that these are *rear* Atmos speakers? Is that even possible?
> 
> Sorry if this is confusing..


Not sure about that one. I may have read somewhere that if you can only do .2, that the fronts are preferable, but I don't think the set-up options in your AVR would preclude using just rears for AE channels. My Anthem does allow me to specify the type and location of height speakers (AE Front/Rear, ceiling, high wall....).

I never tried a .2 rear only configuration in my room. I went from the two fronts to front and rear.

My rear layout is not too different than yours, although I do have a little more space from the back wall to my seated MLP. It is still early days for me with this set-up. At present, it seems that I am getting battier height effects from the front than the rears, but that is very much program specific. There is a Dolby Atmos trailer that you can find online through non-Dolby sources called Audiosphere, IIRC. That has given me the absolute best immersive sound in my room. It is mind blowing. I have yet to watch an actual film that produced sound that was as enveloping. What I took from that was that Atmos with AE speakers in my room does work, and works well, but it needs the right mix to produce those results.


----------



## am2model3

i have my old 5.1 dolby digital speaker system. If i split an optical audio signal and sent it to my old 5.1 and my new 5.1.4; would it sound cool to utilize all my speakers and make it a 10.1.4 system? 

for true hd and atmos stuff; i 'm sending it via HDMI. but for my optical audio content; thought it would be funny to try it out? = )


----------



## Selden Ball

am2model3 said:


> i have my old 5.1 dolby digital speaker system. If i split an optical audio signal and sent it to my old 5.1 and my new 5.1.4; would it sound cool to utilize all my speakers and make it a 10.1.4 system?
> 
> for true hd and atmos stuff; i 'm sending it via HDMI. but for my optical audio content; thought it would be funny to try it out? = )


While your results might be entertaining, it wouldn't be Atmos. Atmos soundtracks include "audio objects" which are sent to appropriate individual (or combinations of) speakers, both at ear-level and overhead, depending on where the person who mixed the soundtrack specified those sounds should be located.

The use of multiple receivers to produce a pseudo-Atmos soundfield is discussed in the thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## batpig

zombipuppy said:


> If I have a 5.1.2 (max) capable system, and my current Atmos upfiring speakers aren't giving me any height, is it advisable to try them on top of the surround speakers instead? My couch is right up against the back wall, as are my surround speakers. I'm using the very slightly angled Pioneer Atmos add-on modules. I'm willing to give it a shot, but I just want to know if Dolby Atmos allows configurations this way. Would I have to specify that these are *rear* Atmos speakers? Is that even possible?
> 
> Sorry if this is confusing..


Yes, you should be able to choose "Front Dolby" or "Surround Dolby" in a 5.1.2 setup. Either way the content is basically the same because there's only one pair of speakers producing all the overhead effects, anything elevated will come from them. 

The problem is likely that you are too far from the front speakers (being up against the back wall) and so you aren't hearing the overhead bounce clearly. Placing them directly to the sides may allow them to establish a better sense of overhead immersion since the ceiling bounce will be much closer to the listening position. Just make sure they're above ear level so you don't hear as much of the direct sound with them being closer.


----------



## ezrangel

I have some "height" speakers that are positioned at a 45 degree angle from my listining position in the ceiling. Is that enough to use in a dolby atmos 7.1.2 config? Or do I have to move them to a closer position (>65 degrees)?
Thanks for your comments.


----------



## zombipuppy

BGLeduc said:


> Not sure about that one. I may have read somewhere that if you can only do .2, that the fronts are preferable, but I don't think the set-up options in your AVR would preclude using just rears for AE channels. My Anthem does allow me to specify the type and location of height speakers (AE Front/Rear, ceiling, high wall....).
> 
> I never tried a .2 rear only configuration in my room. I went from the two fronts to front and rear.
> 
> My rear layout is not too different than yours, although I do have a little more space from the back wall to my seated MLP. It is still early days for me with this set-up. At present, it seems that I am getting battier height effects from the front than the rears, but that is very much program specific. There is a Dolby Atmos trailer that you can find online through non-Dolby sources called Audiosphere, IIRC. That has given me the absolute best immersive sound in my room. It is mind blowing. I have yet to watch an actual film that produced sound that was as enveloping. What I took from that was that Atmos with AE speakers in my room does work, and works well, but it needs the right mix to produce those results.


I've been using the XBOX One's Dolby Atmos app to do all my testing, but I'll try this one out too. Thank you!



batpig said:


> Yes, you should be able to choose "Front Dolby" or "Surround Dolby" in a 5.1.2 setup. Either way the content is basically the same because there's only one pair of speakers producing all the overhead effects, anything elevated will come from them.
> 
> The problem is likely that you are too far from the front speakers (being up against the back wall) and so you aren't hearing the overhead bounce clearly. Placing them directly to the sides may allow them to establish a better sense of overhead immersion since the ceiling bounce will be much closer to the listening position. Just make sure they're above ear level so you don't hear as much of the direct sound with them being closer.


I'm pretty sure the distance from my front speakers is indeed the problem (about 13 feet or so). Thank you for your input, I'll give it a shot!


----------



## petetherock

am2model3 said:


> Its guardians galaxy2 and pirates4 uhd4k discs just came out


Sadly Guardians is only for Prime members..


----------



## ggsantafe

sdurani said:


> Doesn't have to be on a stand.


Nice looking Kalimba!


----------



## batpig

I said this before with "Logan", but I'll say it again now for "Blade Runner: 2049"....

If anyone has access to a good Atmos theater nearby, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. 

Perhaps the best commercial cinema audio experience I've ever had. The Atmos audio (including the Hans Zimmer score) is used superbly to absolutely immerse you in the world. It's not over the top (pun intended) in terms of rockets and explosions, but the environmental effects, the urban soundscape, the way they use the sound design to envelop you in the space..... just amazing.

Also, the movie itself is spectacular. A true masterpiece and a more than worthy follow up to the original.

Seriously, go see it in an Atmos cinema (preferably Dolby Cinema so you get the great black levels too). Do it.


----------



## ergalthema

batpig said:


> I said this before with "Logan", but I'll say it again now for "Blade Runner: 2049"....
> 
> If anyone has access to a good Atmos theater nearby, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
> 
> Perhaps the best commercial cinema audio experience I've ever had. The Atmos audio (including the Hans Zimmer score) is used superbly to absolutely immerse you in the world. It's not over the top (pun intended) in terms of rockets and explosions, but the environmental effects, the urban soundscape, the way they use the sound design to envelop you in the space..... just amazing.
> 
> Also, the movie itself is spectacular. A true masterpiece and a more than worthy follow up to the original.
> 
> Seriously, go see it in an Atmos cinema (preferably Dolby Cinema so you get the great black levels too). Do it.


My only choice nearby with Atmos is also RPX 3D... I'm not big on 3D (especially for this film), so I might just wait until this is out on (hopefully 4K) Blu-ray.


----------



## sikclown

batpig said:


> I said this before with "Logan", but I'll say it again now for "Blade Runner: 2049"....
> 
> If anyone has access to a good Atmos theater nearby, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
> 
> Perhaps the best commercial cinema audio experience I've ever had. The Atmos audio (including the Hans Zimmer score) is used superbly to absolutely immerse you in the world. It's not over the top (pun intended) in terms of rockets and explosions, but the environmental effects, the urban soundscape, the way they use the sound design to envelop you in the space..... just amazing.
> 
> Also, the movie itself is spectacular. A true masterpiece and a more than worthy follow up to the original.
> 
> Seriously, go see it in an Atmos cinema (preferably Dolby Cinema so you get the great black levels too). Do it.


I agree wholeheartedly. Also if you have not watched it yet but the Final Cut remastered in HDR with Atmos is pretty breathtaking.


----------



## SuperFist

zombipuppy said:


> If I have a 5.1.2 (max) capable system, and my current Atmos upfiring speakers aren't giving me any height, is it advisable to try them on top of the surround speakers instead? My couch is right up against the back wall, as are my surround speakers. I'm using the very slightly angled Pioneer Atmos add-on modules. I'm willing to give it a shot, but I just want to know if Dolby Atmos allows configurations this way. Would I have to specify that these are *rear* Atmos speakers? Is that even possible?
> 
> Sorry if this is confusing..


You can only use the 5.1.2 Atmos setup on the front left and right speakers. It sounds AMAZING this way, giving you a full 360 degree ATMOSpheric soundstage that pretty much obviates the need for rear Atmos speakers; that is, as far as my setup is concerned. And I don't even have official Atmos presence speakers!


----------



## rjtww

For what it's worth, for those following along at home and wondering about two-speaker overhead placement (just two not four!) here's my two cents.

I have a Denon x3300W which maxes out at 5.2.2. I had a 5.2 setup until just a week ago and decided to give this whole Atmos thing a try. I didn't want to install permanent speakers and run wire in the ceiling (at least not yet), and have 8.5 foot walls and a cathedral ceiling going up to about 12.5 feet - so bouncing did not seem like the best option. I bought a pair of Dali Fazon Sats for overhead duty (relatively small and light, and most importantly mounted with just two screws and with a ball-and-socket mounting mechanism so they can point anywhere). However, I really wasn't sure where to put them -- front height speakers on wall? Or on ceiling, slightly forward of MLP, as per Dolby's recommended ceiling placement for 2 overhead Atmos speakers?

I initially thought I'd try to keep the actual ceiling pristine so fudged and installed the speakers at the top of the walls pointed toward the MLP. They were about a foot and a half in front of the MLP but a couple of feet to the outside of each front speaker location. I set the Denon to "top middle" for these speakers (thank you JD Smoothie!) I was hoping they'd be high enough to sound overhead and not so much to the side. Well, it wasn't bad but it wasn't great either... I listened to the recently released 4K version of the original Blade Runner (with Atmos) and on several of the rain scenes, the rain sound just wasn't quite overhead and was noticeable coming a bit from the side. Having said that, most if not all of the other effects I listened to, including the Atmos demo in the Xbox One S, were quite convincing even on the height speakers. But since when is pretty good, good enough? Lol!

So I re-mounted the speakers on the cathedral ceiling fairly close in alignment with the front L&R, and about three feet in front of the MLP (due to beam locations). I angled the speakers slightly back and in towards the MLP but not directly at the MLP. WOOHOO!! Definitely hit a sweet spot with this setup, the same rain effects are very convincing now overhead, and what's more I notice a really nice sense of "envelopment" all the time now. I even enjoy listening to music in "multi channel stereo" mode and think it sounds great. I also think that I'm in a small overlap zone that would be acceptable placement for the front two speakers in a 4-speaker overhead scheme, meaning I can add two more speakers in the back if I ever upgrade, without changing the fronts (and of COURSE I will upgrade eventually!!) So for me, bottom line, putting those speakers overhead as opposed to on-wall was definitely worth it. Just have to figure out how to hide the dangling wires now haha!!

Cheers
Rick


----------



## jsil

I'm getting ready to buy 4 ceiling speakers to do atmos. I've done some reading and some say the fronts should be between 2-3ft in front and 2-3ft behind MLP. I know that that the ceiling joist could be a problem in placement.


----------



## batpig

jsil said:


> I'm getting ready to buy 4 ceiling speakers to do atmos. I've done some reading and some say the fronts should be between 2-3ft in front and 2-3ft behind MLP. I know that that the ceiling joist could be a problem in placement.


You want to create a rough square at around 45 degree angles from your listening position (MLP). 2-3 ft in front / behind is likely too close though -- a good estimate is to just take the distance from your ears to the ceiling and then go forward/backward by that amount. For example, if ear height is 3.5ft and you have 8ft ceilings, you want the speakers about 4.5ft forward/backward from your MLP.

That gives enough "space" for them to image front to back, side to side, but still elevated enough to create a convincing overhead impression. 

Don't sweat it down to the inch, just get it pretty close to that rough guide and you'll be fine.


----------



## Jonas2

jsil said:


> I'm getting ready to buy 4 ceiling speakers to do atmos. I've done some reading and some say the fronts should be between 2-3ft in front and 2-3ft behind MLP. I know that that the ceiling joist could be a problem in placement.


Whatever the distance is from your ears to the ceiling should be the distance forward and rearward of the MLP to get you that "perfect" 45 degree angle. Does not need to be exact of course, there is play in either direction, but I'd try to stay within the Dolby recommended spread of angles. Depends of course on the direction your joists are running relative! (For me front to back was a non-issue, it was side to side that was not in my favor....!  ) And depending on the cutout diameter of your speaker, even if joists weren't ideal, it is likely you'd still land within the Dolby specs if you had to move in either direction.


----------



## jsil

Thanks for the reply. I can do about 4ft in front but the back about 3ft. Also how important is it to mix your other speakers?


----------



## Jonas2

jsil said:


> Thanks for the reply. I can do about 4ft in front but the back about 3ft. Also how important is it to mix your other speakers?


If that's all you can do, that's all you can do! It will still work. 

What exactly do you mean by "mix your other speakers"?


----------



## jsil

Sorry, mix different brands of speakers. I'm using KEF Q900, Q600c, and 3005 satellite for the rear.


----------



## Foundation42

batpig said:


> I said this before with "Logan", but I'll say it again now for "Blade Runner: 2049"....
> 
> If anyone has access to a good Atmos theater nearby, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
> 
> Perhaps the best commercial cinema audio experience I've ever had. The Atmos audio (including the Hans Zimmer score) is used superbly to absolutely immerse you in the world. It's not over the top (pun intended) in terms of rockets and explosions, but the environmental effects, the urban soundscape, the way they use the sound design to envelop you in the space..... just amazing.
> 
> Also, the movie itself is spectacular. A true masterpiece and a more than worthy follow up to the original.
> 
> Seriously, go see it in an Atmos cinema (preferably Dolby Cinema so you get the great black levels too). Do it.


Definitely agree! I saw it in Dolby Cinema and I'm looking for a chance to get back for a second viewing.


----------



## awblackmon

I did go see Blade Runner today. I was impressed with sound mix, visuals, story line. I will say this movie will punish subs in our home systems.


----------



## Jonas2

jsil said:


> Sorry, mix different brands of speakers. I'm using KEF Q900, Q600c, and 3005 satellite for the rear.


Never anything wrong with matching speakers, but sometimes budget or fitment might not allow for it. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to match the Atmos speakers to the rest of a set up. I've got quite the mixed bag of speakers and they sound very good together, but they do share some similar characteristics, which I think helps. I take it you are still thinking about which in-ceilings to purchase? Do you have a budget, and do you know specifically what limitations are up in your ceiling that might dictate a max. cutout sizes, etc.??


----------



## zombipuppy

SuperFist said:


> You can only use the 5.1.2 Atmos setup on the front left and right speakers. It sounds AMAZING this way, giving you a full 360 degree ATMOSpheric soundstage that pretty much obviates the need for rear Atmos speakers; that is, as far as my setup is concerned. And I don't even have official Atmos presence speakers!


I don't think that's actually the case. My Denon X3300W definitely allows a rear Atmos only setup, as pointed out by BGLeduc. Though I will say that every document Dolby has released has advised using only a front .2 setup for Atmos, so maybe that is what you're basing your post on.

I'm still struggling to find my sweet spot with these speakers. Next step is to try to elevate them a bit now that they're in the rear and against the wall. Gotta make do with what I have!


----------



## asarose247

@jsil

for my 8' ceiling .this 7 foot+ square around the mlp puts the TF and TR 3.5 ahead and behind, at 45 degrees
and 3.5 left and right


----------



## batpig

jsil said:


> Sorry, mix different brands of speakers. I'm using KEF Q900, Q600c, and 3005 satellite for the rear.


KEF makes a number of nice in ceiling speakers that will match your lower level speakers. Might as well stick with the brand.


----------



## jsil

Two questions do you need to line up with your fronts and how far apart should the TF and TR be from each other? Thanks for all your help.


----------



## batpig

jsil said:


> Two questions do you need to line up with your fronts and how far apart should the TF and TR be from each other? Thanks for all your help.


Dolby recommends they be in line with your FR/FL main speakers but it's not a hard and fast rule, some people (especially if you have the fronts really wide and/or you have a huge projector screen) choose to place them a bit inside of the mains. 

Whatever spacing you choose, both TF and TR should be on the same line from front-to-back.


----------



## gwsat

awblackmon said:


> I did go see Blade Runner today. I was impressed with sound mix, visuals, story line. I will say this movie will punish subs in our home systems.


Yeah, I saw _Blade Runner_ 2049 in the largest non IMAX theater at a local cineplex. Although, it had a first class audio system, some of the LFE was so low and sustained, it occasionally setup sympathetic vibrations from somewhere, even in a sealed theater. No matter, the soundtrack was wonderful and the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos disk will be a Day One purchase for me. Looking forward to discovering how my 7.2.4 audio system handles the Atmos treatment and what my Rythmik FV18 subs do with the LFE. I loved the film. It not only looked and sounded great it was a thoughtful, compelling sequel to its great predecessor.


----------



## animeking

Hi guys,

I was in a enthusiast AV store once and got a chance to listen to a dolby atmos demo in their listening room. During one of the scenes, (if I remember it was a solid blue background, with a Dolby Logo), a Dolby 5.1 track played, followed by an immediate switch to Atmos, where you can tell the height channels are in play.

I wonder which demo disc this scene is from? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I believe the store was playing an Atmos demo disc, but I'm not 100% sure.


----------



## sdurani

animeking said:


> During one of the scenes, (if I remember it was a solid blue background, with a Dolby Logo), a Dolby 5.1 track played, followed by an immediate switch to Atmos, where you can tell the height channels are in play.


Sounds like the January 2015 demo disc, which had 3 audio only tracks that alternated between heights off & on. Was played quite a lot at CEDIA that year. http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/


----------



## chong67

I just got a new receiver today that has Dolby Atmos support.

I play a few .mkv samples and it works great on my 7.1 system.

I can hear the audio separation, but the audio is still the same as my previous receiver.


----------



## animeking

sdurani said:


> Sounds like the January 2015 demo disc, which had 3 audio only tracks that alternated between heights off & on. Was played quite a lot at CEDIA that year. http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/




Thanks, Title 11 of Jan 2015 did the trick!

I wonder why that title isn't included in future demo discs?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## madbrain

sdurani said:


> Sounds like the January 2015 demo disc, which had 3 audio only tracks that alternated between heights off & on. Was played quite a lot at CEDIA that year. http://www.demo-world.eu/2015/04/18/dolby-atmos-blu-ray-demo-disc-jan-2015/


Where would one find those demo discs ?


----------



## RobScreene

chong67 said:


> I just got a new receiver today that has Dolby Atmos support.
> 
> 
> 
> I play a few .mkv samples and it works great on my 7.1 system.
> 
> 
> 
> I can hear the audio separation, but the audio is still the same as my previous receiver.




Atmos requires at least two height speakers to do anything.


----------



## maikeldepotter

RobScreene said:


> Atmos requires at least two height speakers to do anything.


Or wides...


----------



## Bond 007

maikeldepotter said:


> Or wides...


You sure about that? Doesn't make any sense to send height/overhead info to wides. Certainly wouldn't sound right.


----------



## SuperFist

zombipuppy said:


> I don't think that's actually the case. My Denon X3300W definitely allows a rear Atmos only setup, as pointed out by BGLeduc. Though I will say that every document Dolby has released has advised using only a front .2 setup for Atmos, so maybe that is what you're basing your post on.


Really!? I didn't know they allowed for a rear only setup. But yes, I was going by all the Atmos documentation I've read and seen. However, I would assume the "Atmos Magic" would be less effective with such a setup since our attention is usually on the movie in front of us initially and not behind us. If I were to guess, the Dolby Atmos technicians had that in mind when they designed it, hence the Dolby Atmos soundbars which are obviously setup in the front near the HDTV. 

Also, from my experience with the Atmos demos and the top Atmos soundtracks I've heard, the 5.1.2 front setup nearly makes the 2 back Atmos speakers unnecessary as it aurally appears to fill-in their absence in the soundstage. I find it missing nothing when following the object-oriented sound throughout the 360 degree soundstage, which I'm sure was their objective when they created Dolby Atmos.

I always tell those who don't really feel or hear that Dolby Atmos is working or doesn't sound quite right to _close their eyes_, especially when listening to the demos... that's when you KNOW!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Bond 007 said:


> You sure about that? Doesn't make any sense to send height/overhead info to wides. Certainly wouldn't sound right.


If you add wides to a 5.1 or 7.1 configuration, when playing an Atmos track on an Atmos capable AVR/processor, the Atmos decoder is activated to feed those wides with object steered sound. Without those wides (or overheads), all channels are already fed by the 5.1 or 7.1 downmix, and the decoder is shut down as it doesn't need to extract sound objects to feed additional speakers. In addition to that, but only with a a 5.1+wides base layer, the Atmos decoder duplicates surround bed channels into the wides.


----------



## chong67

Question. I got a new receiver yesterday just because of Atmos.

Yes, I do know that Atmos has the best audio separation.

Is this a marketing gimmick compare to DTS-HD, DTS-X, Lucas Sound, etc etc


----------



## Hellohowareyou

chong67 said:


> Question. I got a new receiver yesterday just because of Atmos.
> 
> Yes, I do know that Atmos has the best audio separation.
> 
> Is this a marketing gimmick compare to DTS-HD, DTS-X, Lucas Sound, etc etc


No. But like all things audio, the listening environment and sound source placement play the most important part.

Edit: DTS-X is the equivalent of Atmos from DTS. As fart as I am concerned, it's not a gimmick either.


----------



## animeking

madbrain said:


> Where would one find those demo discs ?




I just searched around this forum, but you could probably find it for sale online.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chong67

Hellohowareyou said:


> No. But like all things audio, the listening environment and sound source placement play the most important part.
> 
> Edit: DTS-X is the equivalent of Atmos from DTS. As fart as I am concerned, it's not a gimmick either.


Atmos came out few years ago. Another codec? comes out and we need to change receiver again?


----------



## chong67

madbrain said:


> Where would one find those demo discs ?


There are demo here: https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/


----------



## Hellohowareyou

chong67 said:


> Atmos came out few years ago. Another codec? comes out and we need to change receiver again?


Well, the philosophical answer to your question is "the only thing that will remain constant is change". And you can never be future proof, although you can always stop at where you are comfortable with. The "stereo" crowd is getting stronger everyday, and so is the "atmos" crowd. Most movies these days are released in Atmos/DTS-X audio and also do carry the "legacy" DTS, Dolby surround with them as well.


----------



## chong67

Hellohowareyou said:


> Well, the philosophical answer to your question is "the only thing that will remain constant is change". And you can never be future proof, although you can always stop at where you are comfortable with. The "stereo" crowd is getting stronger everyday, and so is the "atmos" crowd. Most movies these days are released in Atmos/DTS-X audio and also do carry the "legacy" DTS, Dolby surround with them as well.


That is true.

I didnt know DTS-X and Atmos are the same thing. I dont have any scientific measurement but I think Atmos has better distinct separation on the audio.


----------



## sdurani

madbrain said:


> Where would one find those demo discs ?


Check the link you quoted.


----------



## sdurani

animeking said:


> I wonder why that title isn't included in future demo discs?


The audio-only tracks were included in subsequent discs, except without the heights-on/heights-off aspect (i.e., the heights were always on).


----------



## Jonas2

chong67 said:


> I didnt know DTS-X and Atmos are the same thing. I dont have any scientific measurement but I think Atmos has better distinct separation on the audio.


I've also heard others refer to DTS-X as being "more aggressive", and I'd probably have to agree with that. At least in what Ive experienced (just a few tracks) - there seems to be more going to the height channels, and it's not always so subtle. Could just be the tracks themselves, I don't know if it's the actual implementation or not? That said, I was quite impressed with what I heard, gonna be some personal preference involved of course.


----------



## Hellohowareyou

chong67 said:


> That is true.
> 
> I didnt know DTS-X and Atmos are the same thing. I dont have any scientific measurement but I think Atmos has better distinct separation on the audio.





Jonas2 said:


> I've also heard others refer to DTS-X as being "more aggressive", and I'd probably have to agree with that. At least in what Ive experienced (just a few tracks) - there seems to be more going to the height channels, and it's not always so subtle. Could just be the tracks themselves, I don't know if it's the actual implementation or not? That said, I was quite impressed with what I heard, gonna be some personal preference involved of course.


Don't forget the placement of the "height/ceiling" speakers in Atmos vs DTS:X.

Most mainstream receivers assume ceiling speakers as suggested by Dolby labs in Atmos, in DTS:X it is front height and rear height. Front height being almost in the same vertical plane as the front LR speakers. Now if you have your speakers placed like an atmos in ceiling setup, playing DTS:X in that setup will sound different and perhaps a bit more aggressive because in general, front heights are farther away from the main listening position than the ceilings. A way to mitigate that is to perhaps reduce the height speaker gain when playing DTS-X, or some receivers also allow cross mixing to play DTS-X as Atmos or vice versa. My pioneer elite receiver has an app that allows you to quickly change each speaker gain on the fly. I suspect most other AVR's will have a similarly functioning app of their own.


----------



## animeking

sdurani said:


> The audio-only tracks were included in subsequent discs, except without the heights-on/heights-off aspect (i.e., the heights were always on).


Drat....that's what sold me on Atmos!


----------



## sdurani

animeking said:


> Drat....that's what sold me on Atmos!


The original Auro3D demo disc also included tracks with heights-on/heights-off (I feel like Mr. Miyagi whenever I type that). It's a really effective selling tool that highlights the most audible difference between surround sound and immersive audio.


----------



## animeking

sdurani said:


> The original Auro3D demo disc also included tracks with heights-on/heights-off (I feel like Mr. Miyagi whenever I type that). It's a really effective selling tool that highlights the most audible difference between surround sound and immersive audio.


Which month and year demo disc was this? If there was no month / year identifier, how can I identify which Auro3D this is?


----------



## sdurani

animeking said:


> Which month and year demo disc was this? If there was no month / year identifier, how can I identify which Auro3D this is?


There are only 2 Auro demo discs. The new one was released this year and says "Vol. 2" on the cover. The original one says "2014" on the cover: http://www.demo-world.eu/2014/10/16/auro-3d-2014-demonstration-disc/ (heights-on/heights-off is part of the last track - Auro-3D Demo)


----------



## madbrain

sdurani said:


> Check the link you quoted.


I did . Those discs are not available for download or purchase there, as far as I can tell.


----------



## madbrain

chong67 said:


> There are demo here: https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/


Thank you.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chong67 said:


> That is true.
> 
> I didnt know DTS-X and Atmos are the same thing. I dont have any scientific measurement but I think Atmos has better distinct separation on the audio.


They are similar but not the same.

Also, sorry to be picky but this is getting a bit annoying... it's DTS*:*X, *not* DTS-X.

These DTS systems use colons between the codec name and the "number of channels" with the X to indicate any number. Eg

DTS Neo:6
DTS Neo:X
DTS:X
DTS Neural:X
DTS Headphone:X

There is a pattern! Thanks


----------



## RonAlam

mrtickleuk said:


> They are similar but not the same.
> 
> Also, sorry to be picky but this is getting a bit annoying... it's DTS*:*X, *not* DTS-X.
> 
> These DTS systems use colons between the codec name and the "number of channels" with the X to indicate any number. Eg
> 
> DTS Neo:6
> DTS Neo:X
> DTS:X
> DTS Neural:X
> DTS Headphone:X
> 
> There is a pattern! Thanks


Did you really lose sleep on that?


----------



## mrtickleuk

RonAlam said:


> Did you really lose sleep on that?


None whatsoever.


----------



## Josh Z

mrtickleuk said:


> These DTS systems use colons between the codec name and the "number of channels" with the X to indicate any number. Eg


Which is ironic given that DTS:X is actually encoded as a limited 7.1.4 channels, rather than true audio objects. It ought to be called DTS:11.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> Which is ironic given that DTS:X is actually encoded as a limited 7.1.4 channels, rather than true audio objects. It ought to be called DTS:11.


On the consumer version, so far, that does indeed seem to be the case (although it's just the way they have done it for now). I'd agree for that!


----------



## gwsat

I had thought from the beginning of the 7.X.4 age that "DTS:X" and "Atmos" referred to lossless 7.X.4 (or .2) codecs. Not so. The lossless version of each codec has its own description, "DTS:X MA" for the lossless DTS version and "TrueHD Atmos" for the Dolby version. If what you see doesn't include the whole description for either format, you are getting the lossy version.


----------



## grendelrt

Hellohowareyou said:


> Don't forget the placement of the "height/ceiling" speakers in Atmos vs DTS:X.
> 
> Most mainstream receivers assume ceiling speakers as suggested by Dolby labs in Atmos, in DTS:X it is front height and rear height. Front height being almost in the same vertical place as the front LR speakers. Now if you have your speakers placed like an atmos in ceiling setup, playing DTS:X in that setup will sound different and perhaps a bit more aggressive because in general, front heights are further away from the main listening position than the ceilings. A way to mitigate that is to perhaps reduce the height speaker gain when playing DTS-X, or some receivers also allow cross mixing to play DTS-X as Atmos or vice versa. My pioneer elite receiver has an app that allows your to quickly change each speaker gain on the fly. I suspect most other AVR's will have a similarly functioning app of their own.


I really wish the receiver manufacturers would get their heads out of their butts and give us a way to fix that, all they have to do is give an option for each DTS and Atmos instead of making both use the same ceiling/height setting.


----------



## Alex solomon

I am making the switch from 5.1 to Atmos 5.1.4. I bought the Polk LSiM 5.1 setup (LSiM 707, 706 and 703) and now I need to buy 4 in-ceiling speakers and maybe buy two in-walls for surround and get rid of the 703 in favor of the in-walls. I need help making the right decision so I don't have any regrets anything once they are installed. The setup will be in my basement which measures 25 x 21 x 8. I am worried about some sound leaking to the immediate floor above or to my next door neighbors if I go in-walls. I live in a townhome. Should I research into some kind of sound isolation solution? 

Even though my room is moderately big, the distance from the rear wall to the MLP is about 4 feet. Please consider this when recommending speaker type and setup. 

1. Should I stick with Polk and get something like RC80i, MC60 series or maybe the V60 series in-ceiling speakers and Polk Audio RC85i / RC65i for surround and sell the LSiM 703 bookshelves? 
I am thinking here the 703 might just be an overkill for surround duty but if I keep the them I can avoid sound leak to my next door neighbors.

2. Buy the Micca M-8C and Micca M-8S from Amazon Or keep the Polk 703 for surround and add either 4 RSL C34E, KEF Ci130CR or KEF Ci160CR for Atmos duty ?

Also open to any other brand suggestion up to $250 per pair, as long as mixing the rear speakers does not have any impact performance/sound quality.

Should I go for 8" or 6" speakers for in-ceiling and in-walls surround speakers? I have an older SVS PB10-nsd subwoofer for bass duty for now. I have a plan to replace that with a used JL F112 or a 12" or 15" sub from one of the ID companies. Not sure which yet. Any advice /recommendation would be appreciated.


----------



## jjackkrash

In have 6 of these (2 surrounds and 4 overheads) in a 5.1.4 living room system with Sierra-2 LCR and Rythmik 15" ported sub:

https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...on-880-8-2-way-in-ceiling-speaker-pair/1.html

For the price and am very pleased with their performance and amiable tweeters. 

I built boxes to get less vibration/resonance from the drywall by fastening it to the joist (instead of just a hole in the drywall) and also to limit sound leaking. Honestly, through, with the subs you are looking at, I would not worry about the Cantons. The subs will leak _way_ more sound than the Canton's when crossed over at 80Hz placed in any location in the room unless you neuter the subs with the AVR.


----------



## jjackkrash

Ok, I missed budget, sorry, the Canton's are about $280 a pair with the 20% discount code.


----------



## usc1995

Alex solomon said:


> I am making the switch from 5.1 to Atmos 5.1.4. I bought the Polk LSiM 5.1 setup (LSiM 707, 706 and 703) and now I need to buy 4 in-ceiling speakers and maybe buy two in-walls for surround and get rid of the 703 in favor of the in-walls. I need help making the right decision so I don't have any regrets anything once they are installed. The setup will be in my basement which measures 25 x 21 x 8. I am worried about some sound leaking to the immediate floor above or to my next door neighbors if I go in-walls. I live in a townhome. Should I research into some kind of sound isolation solution?
> 
> Even though my room is moderately big, the distance from the rear wall to the MLP is about 4 feet. Please consider this when recommending speaker type and setup.
> 
> 1. Should I stick with Polk and get something like RC80i, MC60 series or maybe the V60 series in-ceiling speakers and Polk Audio RC85i / RC65i for surround and sell the LSiM 703 bookshelves?
> I am thinking here the 703 might just be an overkill for surround duty but if I keep the them I can avoid sound leak to my next door neighbors.
> 
> 2. Buy the Micca M-8C and Micca M-8S from Amazon Or keep the Polk 703 for surround and add either 4 RSL C34E, KEF Ci130CR or KEF Ci160CR for Atmos duty ?
> 
> Also open to any other brand suggestion up to $250 per pair, as long as mixing the rear speakers does not have any impact performance/sound quality.
> 
> Should I go for 8" or 6" speakers for in-ceiling and in-walls surround speakers? I have an older SVS PB10-nsd subwoofer for bass duty for now. I have a plan to replace that with a used JL F112 or a 12" or 15" sub from one of the ID companies. Not sure which yet. Any advice /recommendation would be appreciated.


I have a 7.2.4 setup with all Polk speakers in the RTi series. I went with the Polk MC80s for my Atmos in ceiling speakers and can easily recommend them. My only concern for you is that most of the ceiling speakers you are considering are not timbre matched for the LSI series but rather the RTi. You really should keep the base layer of speakers all from the same series as they are matched and are made to work together. Whether you need your ceiling speakers to be timbre matched is a greater question. I am not sure how critical that will be but something you should be aware of. Of course, the ceiling speakers Polk makes for the LSI series are considerably more expensive so I understand why you may not wish to go them. One thing I would encourage is to get the most capable speakers you can even for Atmos. When I first got my Atmos AVR I was eager to try it so I hooked up just what I had on hand - four satellite speakers from an old JBL HTIB. I thought they sounded great although I could hear some timbre shift in movies like Gravity. Those speakers also were not very good at reproducing mid-bass sounds. The 8" woofers on the MC80s really improved this and helped to provide a much fuller three dimensional sound. Most of the sound from the Atmos speakers is diffused ambient sound but my understanding is that as it becomes more and more common we should expect greater usage of those speakers by the film mixers so you will want to have capable speakers to reproduce those sounds as accurately as possible.


----------



## Kadath

Baby Driver is now my favorite Atmos mix. High high highly recommended.


----------



## RobScreene

chong67 said:


> That is true.
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt know DTS-X and Atmos are the same thing. I dont have any scientific measurement but I think Atmos has better distinct separation on the audio.



How can you tell? I only have a few DTS:X discs and none share an Atmos track. 

Are you referring to using the DTS Neural upmixer vs Dolby Surround upmixer on non-immersive discs?
Rob.


----------



## healthnut

grendelrt said:


> I really wish the receiver manufacturers would get their heads out of their butts and give us a way to fix that, all they have to do is give an option for each DTS and Atmos instead of making both use the same ceiling/height setting.




Actually, Yamaha has a work around: you can create separate patterns for DTS:X and Atmos with separate ceiling configurations for each. You have the option of designating the Atmos speakers as tops and the DTS:X speakers as heights, it works very well, though you do have to manually select the correct pattern each time you change surround configurations. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grendelrt

healthnut said:


> Actually, Yamaha has a work around: you can create separate patterns for DTS:X and Atmos with separate ceiling configurations for each. You have the option of designating the Atmos speakers as tops and the DTS:X speakers as heights, it works very well, though you do have to manually select the correct pattern each time you change surround configurations.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah it seems they are the only ones out of the normal consumer brands that have something, its surprising Denon, Onkyo, etc have nothing to help with this, it breaks basically every persons Atmos/DTS:X configuration, how much I dont know, but seems an easy flaw to fix.


----------



## gwsat

healthnut said:


> Actually, Yamaha has a work around: you can create separate patterns for DTS:X and Atmos with separate ceiling configurations for each. You have the option of designating the Atmos speakers as tops and the DTS:X speakers as heights, it works very well, though you do have to manually select the correct pattern each time you change surround configurations.





grendelrt said:


> Yeah it seems they are the only ones out of the normal consumer brands that have something, its surprising Denon, Onkyo, etc have nothing to help with this, it breaks basically every persons Atmos/DTS:X configuration, how much I dont know, but seems an easy flaw to fix.


Although I have normal hearing, I do not clam that my ears are particularly "Golden," so consider that when reading what follows. To my ears, good DTS:X soundtracks sound as good as native Atmos, although I have never bothered to change the designation of my in ceiling speakers from "Tops" to "Heights" on my Yamaha 3060 when setting up to hear a DTS:X soundtrack. I concede, however, that doing so would likely make the sound reproduction more accurate.


----------



## am2model3

i have been listening to a lot of movies and games on my new 5.1.4 atmos/dtsX system. wow, incredible stuff! 
the atmos movie discs always sound stellar. heights and overhead effects so cool. 

upmixed dolby surround and neural X are also great to enjoy until true mixes become available. StarWars7 sounded amazing with xwings and tiefighters and millennium falcon flying all over the place. 
ManOf Steel Atmos is incredible. 

i am running xbox one s. sometimes, the player gives me a disc error saying receiver can't decode the audio. (when it clearly does work with atmos) 
the beginning of a movie disc sometimes sends a weird signal. anyway, get into the movie by disabling atmos, then while the movie is in menu or playing; i went back to xbox settings, turned atmos setting back on; and it worked like a charm!
this worked with ManOfSteel 4KUHD disc; I took it into multi channel mode after my error; then i went back to settings and atmos back on, and then presto my receiver was getting the atmos signal confirmation. Odd error but cool to find a workaround. 

I really want to rewatch my entire movie collection now..... this is gonna be a wonderful winter! let it snow, let it snow!


----------



## usc1995

The Xbox has a lot of issues as a bluray player. I have glitches in playback with both UHD and 1080p discs and I have also had the issue of it saying my AVR can't decode the disc regardless if it is Atmos or not. These are Xbox issues not Atmos issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## maikeldepotter

usc1995 said:


> The Xbox has a lot of issues as a bluray player. I have glitches in playback with both UHD and 1080p discs and I have also had the issue of it saying my AVR can't decode the disc regardless if it is Atmos or not. These are Xbox issues not Atmos issues.


How about Netflix Amos content played through Xbox One? Same issues?


----------



## usc1995

I have yet to try the Netflix Atmos playback as I don’t have a 4K display and have not upgraded my Netflix account yet. Regular Netflix playback is generally fine although for me it only sends PCM to the AVR and from what some have reported in the Xbox threads they have had a difficult time getting it to bitstream as needed for Atmos. Some have had no issues whereas some have had problems. So far it has proven to be an inconsistent player and since I bought it just for movies (I am not a gamer) I have some regrets about my purchase. I had such a good run with the PS3 I thought the Xbox would be just as capable but at this point I wish I had just bought a regular UHD player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex solomon

jjackkrash said:


> In have 6 of these (2 surrounds and 4 overheads) in a 5.1.4 living room system with Sierra-2 LCR and Rythmik 15" ported sub:
> 
> https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...on-880-8-2-way-in-ceiling-speaker-pair/1.html
> 
> For the price and am very pleased with their performance and amiable tweeters.
> 
> I built boxes to get less vibration/resonance from the drywall by fastening it to the joist (instead of just a hole in the drywall) and also to limit sound leaking. Honestly, through, with the subs you are looking at, I would not worry about the Cantons. The subs will leak _way_ more sound than the Canton's when crossed over at 80Hz placed in any location in the room unless you neuter the subs with the AVR.


Thanks jjackkrash. I read somewhere, don't recall where, to put some insulation behind the speakers. http://www.homedepot.com/p/UltraTouch-16-in-x-48-in-Denim-Insulation-Multi-Purpose-Roll-6-Pack-60306-16482/202710055

Would that be good enough you think?


----------



## Alex solomon

usc1995 said:


> I have a 7.2.4 setup with all Polk speakers in the RTi series. I went with the Polk MC80s for my Atmos in ceiling speakers and can easily recommend them. My only concern for you is that most of the ceiling speakers you are considering are not timbre matched for the LSI series but rather the RTi. You really should keep the base layer of speakers all from the same series as they are matched and are made to work together. Whether you need your ceiling speakers to be timbre matched is a greater question. I am not sure how critical that will be but something you should be aware of. Of course, the ceiling speakers Polk makes for the LSI series are considerably more expensive so I understand why you may not wish to go them. One thing I would encourage is to get the most capable speakers you can even for Atmos. When I first got my Atmos AVR I was eager to try it so I hooked up just what I had on hand - four satellite speakers from an old JBL HTIB. I thought they sounded great although I could hear some timbre shift in movies like Gravity. Those speakers also were not very good at reproducing mid-bass sounds. The 8" woofers on the MC80s really improved this and helped to provide a much fuller three dimensional sound. Most of the sound from the Atmos speakers is diffused ambient sound but my understanding is that as it becomes more and more common we should expect greater usage of those speakers by the film mixers so you will want to have capable speakers to reproduce those sounds as accurately as possible.


I have used Mirage OM-R2 for rear and surround duty, with Revel F32, C32 and in another JBL L890 (my current speaker) LCR setup and I really didn't notice any timber shift. Would I notice that Atmos setup, I am not sure and that is why I asked here. You made some good argument for spending he cash now though just to be certain. While I can easily swap the other speakers, in-wall and in-ceiling are going to be there to stay.


----------



## jjackkrash

Alex solomon said:


> Thanks jjackkrash. I read somewhere, don't recall where, to put some insulation behind the speakers. http://www.homedepot.com/p/UltraTouch-16-in-x-48-in-Denim-Insulation-Multi-Purpose-Roll-6-Pack-60306-16482/202710055
> 
> Would that be good enough you think?


I have seen lots of conflicting reports on the benefits of insulation in general and in differences between types of insulation for sound purposes. I stuffed Roxul Safe & Sound in the joist behind and around the boxes, but I have no evidence that its helping or harming in any way. I did not put any insulation in the backer boxes themselves. I doubt insulation will _hurt_ anything unless its stuffed too tight.


----------



## Sevenfeet

An update on my home theater situation. Previously I had surmised doing four Atmos speakers in the ceiling and having to deal with a fair amount of construction grief with my existing room (12 ft barn ceiling, no attic access). But the biggest problem was that the angles were all wrong to support Atmos speakers behind the listener...not enough room against the back wall to get the angle right (and Atmos speaker placement is all about the angles). But Dan Hitchman made the great suggestion to combine front height speakers with one pair of overhead speakers.

So I went back to my local dealer with the diagram i posted earlier to get some ideas on an appropriate height speaker. I also wanted to redo my initial thought to doing in-wall rear surrounds since installation increases the cost of the project plus I can't really point them toward MLP, which is important in a tight space.

Since I was already going to buy the Revel C763L speaker for the overhead, the suggestion to keep this in the Revel family was to go with the M10/C10 speakers. The M10s have been around for nearly a decade, are tall, thin and best of all,, front ported which means I can place them directly against the wall. I can also put them off center pointing toward MLP.

As for the front heights, he suggested the C10s which is their center channel in the series....essentially the M10 turned sideways and they come with a wall mounting bracket that works well close to the ceiling. But when I got home, I'm thinking that the C10 is too wide for the application considering how much room laterally I have to work with. But there is a shorter speaker in the series, the M8 which looks like the perfect fit.

All this is dependent on my hearing them....I didn't have time for an extended audition since I spent most of my time with the C763L. And they crossover pretty high (about 110 hz). But unless someone has a better suggestion, I think I have a good choice.

In the meantime, I cam upon an idea of a makeshift Atmos-enabled speaker concept to tide me over until purchase and construction (which won't be until next year). Over a decade when AV123 was still in business, they made a small satellite based speaker system at the low end of their product line called Rocket Tykes. I had used them in recent years as satellite speakers in a kids playroom but their electronics were a little weird and my Denon receivers never liked them. One Denon receiver actually blew out twice trying to drive them (it was a lousy Denon product anyway). I had disconnected them from use since the Denon X2000 I have driving that room now really didn't like them, tripping to fault from time to time. And over the years, three of the speakers (including the center channel) had broken. 

But I decided to pull two off the wall and set them on top of my front mains in the home theater, using some Aurelex foam Mopads to seat them and point them properly to the ceiling. This isn't close to an ideal situation considering the ceiling in question (barn shaped, 12 ft high) and the drivers are pretty small compared to some Atmos-enabled speakers I've seen. But it's not terrible either....better than nothing! I'll need Audyssey to rebalance the room to take these speakers into account for proper levels but otherwise i think this can tide me over for awhile.


----------



## ShapelyTwig

Can you use any old speakers for Dolby Atmos? I have in-ceiling speakers that were installed from a previous owner.


----------



## chong67

RobScreene said:


> How can you tell? I only have a few DTS:X discs and none share an Atmos track.
> 
> Are you referring to using the DTS Neural upmixer vs Dolby Surround upmixer on non-immersive discs?
> Rob.


I play some of the demo here: https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/

I use my receiver to change some of the audio and also use my Windows 10 to change some of the audio setting and compare to 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos setting, the Atmos wins in louder noise and audio separation.


----------



## chong67

1. Are you all aware that in Windows 10, you have to download the Atmos thing from Microsoft app store called "Dolby Access", then you can see the drop down for Atmos in the Sound Properties?

2. My previous receiver did not have the Atmos but somehow it was able to play the "Dolby Access" demo. Is it simulated? Fake?

Now I can play anything Atmos on my new receiver.


----------



## Sevenfeet

ShapelyTwig said:


> Can you use any old speakers for Dolby Atmos? I have in-ceiling speakers that were installed from a previous owner.


I think the whitepaper on Dolby's website talks about re-using existing in ceiling speakers as long as they are of a decent quality and are located in the right place (placement is everything with Atmos).


----------



## BGLeduc

Kadath said:


> Baby Driver is now my favorite Atmos mix. High high highly recommended.


+1000000000

Loved it in the theater (non-Atmos), comletely blown away at home. I am running NHT AE speakers, and this was the first time that there were pronounced sound that seemed to come from the ceiling.


----------



## audiofan1

batpig said:


> I said this before with "Logan", but I'll say it again now for "Blade Runner: 2049"....
> 
> If anyone has access to a good Atmos theater nearby, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
> 
> Perhaps the best commercial cinema audio experience I've ever had. The Atmos audio (including the Hans Zimmer score) is used superbly to absolutely immerse you in the world. It's not over the top (pun intended) in terms of rockets and explosions, but the environmental effects, the urban soundscape, the way they use the sound design to envelop you in the space..... just amazing.
> 
> Also, the movie itself is spectacular. A true masterpiece and a more than worthy follow up to the original.
> 
> Seriously, go see it in an Atmos cinema (preferably Dolby Cinema so you get the great black levels too). Do it.


I just can't believe what I experienced! Yeah Logan was just off the charts for a cinema experience but this! This was on another level for bass and an Atmos mix period and did get a load of that Dolby Vision? I don't venture out much these days to the movies but was indeed one of those rare occasions were you want to even keep the stubs! Can't believe Mr. Scott did it yet again as this was the sequel of sequels


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kadath said:


> Baby Driver is now my favorite Atmos mix. High high highly recommended.


Until you hear Blade Runner 2049.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Hellohowareyou said:


> No. But like all things audio, the listening environment and sound source placement play the most important part.
> 
> Edit: *DTS-X is the equivalent of Atmos from DTS. As fart as I am concerned, it's not a gimmick either.*


It's just a lesser format stuck at 7.1.4. Dolby Atmos for the home allows for more objects and currently renders to 24.1.10.


----------



## mrtickleuk

audiofan1 said:


> I just can't believe what I experienced! Yeah Logan was just off the charts for a cinema experience but this! This was on another level for bass and an Atmos mix period and did get a load of that Dolby Vision? I don't venture out much these days to the movies but was indeed one of those rare occasions were you want to even keep the stubs! Can't believe Mr. Scott did it yet again as this was the sequel of sequels


That's great that you liked it (so did I!) but a little bit unfair to the director of Blade Runner 2049, *Denis Villeneuve* (who also was responsible for "Arrival") if you thought it was directed by Sir Ridley Scott (he's a Knight now not a Mr! ). So he didn't actually do it again, lol. He did it for Blade Runner; Denis Villeneuve did it for Blade Runner 2049 

I can't wait to see what Denis Villeneuve directs next. But he really really deserves the full credit for what he's created 

From imdb


> Denis Villeneuve noted that he's fully aware of the immense pressure he's under, and how hardcore fans of the original view the prospect of a new film: "I know that *every single fan will walk into the theater with a baseball bat*. I'm aware of that and I respect that, and it's okay with me because it's art. Art is risk, and I have to take risks. It's gonna be the biggest risk of my life but I'm okay with that. For me it's very exciting... It's just so inspiring, I'm so inspired. I've been dreaming to do sci-fi since I was 10 years old, and I said 'no' to a lot of sequels. I couldn't say 'no' to Blade Runner 2049. *I love it too much, so I said, 'Alright, I will do it and give everything I have to make it great*.'"


----------



## audiofan1

mrtickleuk said:


> That's great that you liked it (so did I!) but a little bit unfair to the director of Blade Runner 2049, *Denis Villeneuve* (who also was responsible for "Arrival") if you thought it was directed by Sir Ridley Scott (he's a Knight now not a Mr! ). So he didn't actually do it again, lol. He did it for Blade Runner; Denis Villeneuve did it for Blade Runner 2049
> 
> I can't wait to see what Denis Villeneuve directs next. But he really really deserves the full credit for what he's created
> 
> From imdb


 Indeed!


----------



## Josh Z

mrtickleuk said:


> I can't wait to see what Denis Villeneuve directs next.


Well, he was supposed to do a remake of Dune. But after the enormous box office failure of this movie, I doubt any studio will want to put him in charge of another big-budget sci-fi movie anytime soon.


----------



## madbrain

Josh Z said:


> Well, he was supposed to do a remake of Dune. But after the enormous box office failure of this movie, I doubt any studio will want to put him in charge of another big-budget sci-fi movie anytime soon.


I don't understand how one can call the #1 movie at the box office an "enormous box office failure".
Arrival was nominated for 8 oscars and won one, too, including best director. I'm sure he will get to direct big budget movies again.

Oh, and I would totally watch a remake of Dune by him.


----------



## mrtickleuk

madbrain said:


> I don't understand how one can call the #1 movie at the box office an "enormous box office failure".
> Arrival was nominated for 8 oscars and won one, too, including best director. I'm sure he will get to direct big budget movies again.


Agree 100%. It's only been out for one week and to call it an enormous failure confused is both ludicrously premature, and wrong.


----------



## CyclistMT

Josh Z said:


> Well, he was supposed to do a remake of Dune. But after the enormous box office failure of this movie, I doubt any studio will want to put him in charge of another big-budget sci-fi movie anytime soon.





madbrain said:


> I don't understand how one can call the #1 movie at the box office an "enormous box office failure".
> Arrival was nominated for 8 oscars and won one, too, including best director. I'm sure he will get to direct big budget movies again.
> 
> Oh, and I would totally watch a remake of Dune by him.


 


mrtickleuk said:


> Agree 100%. It's only been out for one week and to call it an enormous failure confused is both ludicrously premature, and wrong.


 

To be fair to Josh, he's not entirely wrong as ticket sales are not meeting studio execs expectations. However, I think the "failure" is with the studio execs since, much like the movie, the financial rewards are going to be a slow burn. This movie is not Transformers or Pirates (when they were good). Heck, it's not even Star Wars. The audience for this film is much different and more limited but Blade Runner 2049 will stay in our minds and hearts (and wallets through double/triple/etc. dips) for years to come while many of these other big blockbusters will have been long forgotten.


----------



## Josh Z

madbrain said:


> I don't understand how one can call the [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] movie at the box office an "enormous box office failure".


Listen, I loved the movie, but it is unmistakably a flop. It came in #1 at the box office on a weak weekend with negligible competition. It cost $150 million to make ($185 million before rebates) and only opened with $32 million, which is a full $20 million less than the studio conservatively estimated it would do. It's not doing tremendously better overseas. 

After marketing and distribution, the movie needs to gross 2.5x its production budget just to break even. That would put it at $375 million just to get out of the red. There is almost zero chance of that happening during its theatrical release. The movie would need to have 'Titanic'-style legs, holding its box office numbers with only small drops from week to week for a couple of months, for that to happen. That's a virtual impossibility in the current market, where a movie's fortunes are made or broken in the opening weekend - especially when the audience skewed 71% male and 63% over the age of 35. Theaters are already pulling it off their premium screens. 

None of this is a reflection on the quality of the movie. Sometimes good movies simply fail to capture a mass audience. The original Blade Runner was a box office bomb in its day too. 

We're getting a bit off-topic here, of course...


----------



## ShapelyTwig

The atmos is okay, but I feel like I need 4 speakers to really feel it.


----------



## audiofan1

Josh Z said:


> Listen, I loved the movie, but it is unmistakably a flop. It came in #1 at the box office on a weak weekend with negligible competition. It cost $150 million to make ($185 million before rebates) and only opened with $32 million, which is a full $20 million less than the studio conservatively estimated it would do. It's not doing tremendously better overseas.
> 
> After marketing and distribution, the movie needs to gross 2.5x its production budget just to break even. That would put it at $375 million just to get out of the red. There is almost zero chance of that happening during its theatrical release. The movie would need to have 'Titanic'-style legs, holding its box office numbers with only small drops from week to week for a couple of months, for that to happen. That's a virtual impossibility in the current market, where a movie's fortunes are made or broken in the opening weekend - especially when the audience skewed 71% male and 63% over the age of 35. Theaters are already pulling it off their premium screens.
> 
> None of this is a reflection on the quality of the movie. Sometimes good movies simply fail to capture a mass audience. The original Blade Runner was a box office bomb in its day too.
> 
> We're getting a bit off-topic here, of course...


As noted above this will be a slow burn,sometimes a studio just needs to make a good movie (which this was done in spades) for awards,acclaim etc.. and history has already shown just what this (as the one before it) movie will produce n the long term! It's also to soon to tell


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> Well, he was supposed to do a remake of Dune. But after the enormous box office failure of this movie, I doubt any studio will want to put him in charge of another big-budget sci-fi movie anytime soon.





Josh Z said:


> Listen, I loved the movie, but it is unmistakably a flop. It came in #1 at the box office on a weak weekend with negligible competition. It cost $150 million to make ($185 million before rebates) and only opened with $32 million, which is a full $20 million less than the studio conservatively estimated it would do. It's not doing tremendously better overseas.
> 
> After marketing and distribution, the movie needs to gross 2.5x its production budget just to break even. That would put it at $375 million just to get out of the red. There is almost zero chance of that happening during its theatrical release. The movie would need to have 'Titanic'-style legs, holding its box office numbers with only small drops from week to week for a couple of months, for that to happen. That's a virtual impossibility in the current market, where a movie's fortunes are made or broken in the opening weekend - especially when the audience skewed 71% male and 63% over the age of 35. Theaters are already pulling it off their premium screens.
> 
> None of this is a reflection on the quality of the movie. Sometimes good movies simply fail to capture a mass audience. The original Blade Runner was a box office bomb in its day too.
> 
> We're getting a bit off-topic here, of course...


I loved the sound design of _Blade Runner 2049_, although I did not get to see it in an Atmos equipped theater. No matter, I look forward to the UHD HDR Atmos disk and plan to buy it on Day One.

It's a shame that the new _Blade Runner_ has been such a boxoffice disappointment. Like you, I loved the film. I had feared from the first, though, that it might not appeal to the masses because of its close connection to its somewhat cerebral predecessor. I'm a _Blade Runner_ nerd, though, so the sequel had me at hello. _Blade Runner 2049_ is in the conversation for being my favorite film of 2017.


----------



## Josh Z

audiofan1 said:


> As noted above this will be a slow burn,sometimes a studio just needs to make a good movie (which this was done in spades) for awards,acclaim etc.. and history has already shown just what this (as the one before it) movie will produce n the long term! It's also to soon to tell


Unfortunately, movies don't get to be slow burns anymore. This one will probably be gone from theaters in a couple weeks, and the home media market is rapidly dying. It may become a cult movie over time like the original, but financially, its investors are already writing it off as a huge loss.


----------



## audiofan1

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, movies don't get to be slow burns anymore. This one will probably be gone from theaters in a couple weeks, and the home media market is rapidly dying. It may become a cult movie over time like the original, but financially, its investors are already writing it off as a huge loss.


 I'm just glad it was made


----------



## madbrain

Josh Z said:


> Listen, I loved the movie, but it is unmistakably a flop. It came in #1 at the box office on a weak weekend with negligible competition. It cost $150 million to make ($185 million before rebates) and only opened with $32 million, which is a full $20 million less than the studio conservatively estimated it would do. It's not doing tremendously better overseas.
> 
> After marketing and distribution, the movie needs to gross 2.5x its production budget just to break even. That would put it at $375 million just to get out of the red. There is almost zero chance of that happening during its theatrical release. The movie would need to have 'Titanic'-style legs, holding its box office numbers with only small drops from week to week for a couple of months, for that to happen. That's a virtual impossibility in the current market, where a movie's fortunes are made or broken in the opening weekend - especially when the audience skewed 71% male and 63% over the age of 35. Theaters are already pulling it off their premium screens.
> 
> None of this is a reflection on the quality of the movie. Sometimes good movies simply fail to capture a mass audience. The original Blade Runner was a box office bomb in its day too.
> 
> We're getting a bit off-topic here, of course...


I'm a male over 35 and right in the demographic. Love Blade Runner, but I have not actually watched the sequel yet, so can't comment on how good of a movie it might be. I watch a lot of movies, but don't follow the industry. I understand it may have cost more to make than it will return, but what I don't understand is why theaters would just stop showing it after one week. This seems rash ! I was waiting for my UHD 4K disc of the first movie to arrive and rewatch prior to watching the sequel. I just finished watching it. Thanks for alerting me about theaters pulling it off their premium screens - that is a shame. I'm definitely going to see the sequel very soon, probably later today in a Dolby theater. Is Dolby Cinema the best kind of screen to see it ? Looks like there aren't many such theaters near me in the first place. I have probably never been in one before.

To get back to Dolby Atmos, the Atmos soundtrack on the Blade runner 4K UHD disc was great, better than the 4K picture on the disc IMO.


----------



## Bond 007

It's a win-win for me.
I love the original Blade Runner so I get to see what sounds like a great sequel when it comes out on bluray and the freaks in Hollywood lose money.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, movies don't get to be slow burns anymore. This one will probably be gone from theaters in a couple weeks,


Wow, well I take a different view. It was not made to be a "blockbuster". Leave that term for the crap movies featuring fighting robots and fairground pirates rides, and meanwhile, once in a while, make for *us* a proper movie like this, for the real movie fans to love, and to win awards and critical acclaim. It's not all about every single movie making a profit individually, this is why Studios were created to ride out the peaks and troughs financially to be able to make good movies. 
As you say, if it needs to have "Titanic" sized audiences to break even (another dreadful film), then any financial failing is on the part of the execs for spending too much - but I don't call it a failure because clearly it needed this kind of money to be spent on it to look so good. You can see it on the screen. So I believe that they spent the money knowing they wouldn't get it back, they knew they weren't making a "Titanic" or film which would "reach across the genres" (which is what is needed to get that kind of audience), so they planned this.



> and the home media market is rapidly dying.


Opinion stated as fact.




madbrain said:


> I understand it may have cost more to make than it will return, but what I don't understand is why theaters would just stop showing it after one week. This seems rash !


Yes, it's a ludicrous idea.



> Thanks for alerting me about theaters pulling it off their premium screens - that is a shame.


Less of an "alert", more of a rash prediction, which is unlikely to happen . If it is happening, it's the cinema/theatre management being rash and not giving it a chance. Meanwhile we must have the films with fighting robots and fairground pirates rides showing simultaneously on ten screens out of twenty in the building, this is paramount, make sure you reduce the choice for the viewers 



> I'm definitely going to see the sequel very soon, probably later today in a Dolby theater. Is Dolby Cinema the best kind of screen to see it ? Looks like there aren't many such theaters near me in the first place. I have probably never been in one before.


There's only one in the whole of the UK, so not an option for me.

Atmos sound, I went to a special effort to see if in the only Dolby Atmos cinema for many miles and miles around. I'm very glad I did. I think you should prioritise seeing it not because "it might be gone" (I don't think it will), but because it's a brilliant film . I'm glad that most people here enjoyed it a lot, which is the most important thing to us here - not its total financial returns (which will not be fully known for a very, very long time).


----------



## healthnut

I saw the new Blade Runner recently, and IMHO its a masterpiece, low tickets sales or not. In my judgement, it’s superior, at least in some respects, to the original. Some of the best films are not made for mass audience approval, and I believe this to be of them. I’m confident those with the discriminating tastes of those who frequent this forum will appreciate it for what it is, and I, for one, hope many more films of this quality will be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## madbrain

mrtickleuk said:


> There's only one in the whole of the UK, so not an option for me.
> 
> Atmos sound, I went to a special effort to see if in the only Dolby Atmos cinema for many miles and miles around. I'm very glad I did. I think you should prioritise seeing it not because "it might be gone" (I don't think it will), but because it's a brilliant film . I'm glad that most people here enjoyed it a lot, which is the most important thing to us here - not its total financial returns (which will not be fully known for a very, very long time).


Looks like an Dolby Cinema/Atmos screen has been built at the nearest movie theater to my house, AMC Eastridge, only about 5 miles away. Woohoo ! It's not listed yet on the Dolby site, which is what I was going by earlier. But it is listed on the AMC site. Makes it easy to decide to see it. Looking forward to seeing it tonight.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

mrtickleuk said:


> There's only one in the whole of the UK, so not an option for me.


Really, where?

The only Dolby Cinema I'm aware of in the UK is the private screen at Dolby HQ.


----------



## am2model3

Loved the new bladerunner 2049! Great film
The blade runner 4kuhd disc was great, wow atmos sound i loved hearing rain and atmospherics
Preordered uhd2049 on amazon!

Atmos and dts x wow loving my 5.1.4 system


----------



## mrtickleuk

Mashie Saldana said:


> Really, where?
> 
> The only Dolby Cinema I'm aware of in the UK is the private screen at Dolby HQ.


Yes - that's the one I meant.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes - that's the one I meant.


For a second there I thought we had a commercial one opened.


----------



## djoberg

I just found this Thread a few days ago...wish I had found it sooner!

I upgraded my 4-year old Onkyo AVR to the Denon 4300 so I could set up a 5.1.4 system. I have about 45 UHD/HDR Blu-rays with either Atmos or DTS-X and I'm absolutely loving the sound. I went on a BINGE the last two days watching _Transformers: The Last Knight_, _Power Rangers_, _Mad Max: Fury Road_, _Blade Runner_ and several other releases.

I wasn't ambitious enough to install in-ceiling Atmos speakers (my "media room" was already finished off) so I went with the new SVS Prime Elevation speakers, mounting them on my SIDE walls (3.5' in Front of MLP and 3.5' in Back of MLP). They sound amazing! Here is a picture of my "humble" set up.
attachment.php


----------



## madbrain

madbrain said:


> Looks like an Dolby Cinema/Atmos screen has been built at the nearest movie theater to my house, AMC Eastridge, only about 5 miles away. Woohoo ! It's not listed yet on the Dolby site, which is what I
> was going by earlier. But it is listed on the AMC site. Makes it easy to decide to see it. Looking forward to seeing it tonight.


Just came back from watching the movie. Was extremely annoyed at the audio in this new Dolby Cinema screen. A few of the speakers used for vocals were clipping and making dialogue more difficult to hear than they should be. But the worst was one speaker that had completely out-of-place noises, hard to describe, but somewhere between a scratchy LP and RF interference. It seemed to come from the left side of the screen. I started noticing this during the previews and signaled it to theater staff. They had no one to fix it at this 11pm show. This was the last show of the day on any of their screens. They had other screens playing the movie (including IMAX screen), but they were already in progress. Hopefully they were not all playing in this horrible "Dolby LP" format. If the Dolby Vision picture wasn't so superb, I would have left and gotten a voucher or refund for another showing. This is actually what I should have done. The whole movie played like this. I was bewildered that nobody else complained. The one bad speaker was not playing the entire time, but maybe about 60% of the time. 
I will be writing to the theater manager (one was not present onsite this late) as they really should get this fixed, and I think owe me a proper showing. Maybe I should write to Dolby too, since it's their name on this mess too. I'm sure it's not easy calibrating and setting so many speakers, probably at least 70 for this room, but they need to get it right. This really spoiled the movie for me. Will be looking forward to another showing and watching the UHD disc with fewer speakers, but properly setup, at home. Oh, and without someone loudly snoring in the room, also. No cell phones went off tonight for a change, at least.


----------



## Alex solomon

Need help with Atmos speaker setup please. 

I am upgrading to Atmos 5.1.4. My MLP listening position (the only listening position I need to optimize for best performance), is located 4.5 feet from the rear wall, 7 feet from the side wall and 15 feet from the LCR and the TV. I am installing 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos and two Polk LSiM 703 bookshelves on a stand for surround. I am still debating 24" vs 31" stand for the Polks. I read somewhere Dolby recommends the side surrounds at ear height when seated. Is that correct? 

For the Atmos in-ceiling speakers, what would be the optimal location given my seating arrangement? My room is 21 x 25 x 8. Unfortunately, I could not move the MLP from where it is located now.


----------



## Jonas2

Alex solomon said:


> Need help with Atmos speaker setup please.
> 
> I am upgrading to Atmos 5.1.4. My MLP listening position (the only listening position I need to optimize for best performance), is located 4.5 feet from the rear wall, 7 feet from the side wall and 15 feet from the LCR and the TV. I am installing 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos and two Polk LSiM 703 bookshelves on a stand for surround. I am still debating 24" vs 31" stand for the Polks. I read somewhere Dolby recommends the side surrounds at ear height when seated. Is that correct?
> 
> For the Atmos in-ceiling speakers, what would be the optimal location given my seating arrangement? My room is 21 x 25 x 8. Unfortunately, I could not move the MLP from where it is located now.


Yes, at or slightly above ear height. I might opt for the 31" stand myself.

As for the in-ceilings, your fronts shouldn't be an issue. On your rears, of course it will depend on obstacles in the ceiling if any, and it's generally not advisable to place speakers too close to the walls if it can be avoided (and sometimes it can't be) - so I'd try to place the rears a foot, maybe 1.5 ft. to driver center off the rear wall in your situation. You're aiming for a measure of separation between the fronts and rears to get the intended effects so you don't want them too close to the MLP or you'll start to loose that.


----------



## petetherock

The Great Wall maybe short on the story and plot, but wow... the Atmos surround is superb.. I take my sonic hat off to the mixer..
Near the finale, there is a scene where the protagonists try to smuggle a beast in the tunnels under the palace, and you can hear the beast scurrying above..
There are also plenty of scenes showing off sound transitions between speakers..

If only they spent a little more paying the script writer.. this could have rivalled LOTR in spectacle and scale. They actually hand carved the palace out of real wood.. amazing detail.


----------



## Alex solomon

Jonas2 said:


> Yes, at or slightly above ear height. I might opt for the 31" stand myself.
> 
> As for the in-ceilings, your fronts shouldn't be an issue. On your rears, of course it will depend on obstacles in the ceiling if any, and it's generally not advisable to place speakers too close to the walls if it can be avoided (and sometimes it can't be) - so I'd try to place the rears a foot, maybe 1.5 ft. to driver center off the rear wall in your situation. You're aiming for a measure of separation between the fronts and rears to get the intended effects so you don't want them too close to the MLP or you'll start to loose that.


Ok, I just measured the distance from the MLP based on your recommendation. If I place the rear in-ceilings speakers 1.5 ft. from the rear wall, this would place them 6 feet away from MLP measured from 45 degree angle. Now, do I place the front in-ceilings 6 feet in front of the listening position, measured 45 degree angle from the MLP or should I place them half way from MLP and the front LCR speakers for the best possible atmos experience ? Thanks.


----------



## Jonas2

Alex solomon said:


> Ok, I just measured the distance from the MLP based on your recommendation. If I place the rear in-ceilings speakers 1.5 ft. from the rear wall, this would place them 6 feet away from MLP measured from 45 degree angle. Now, do I place the front in-ceilings 6 feet in front of the listening position, measured 45 degree angle from the MLP or should I place them half way from MLP and the front LCR speakers for the best possible atmos experience ? Thanks.


O.K., so I might be misunderstanding - but I thought you had said that from the MLP to the rear wall you had 4.5 feet......so how can you place them 6 feet back?  Sorry if I didn't catch it right!  If 6 ft. puts you at 45 degrees, that means your sitting ear height is only 24" with an 8' high ceiling......can't be accurate....

So, basically find the height from your sitting ear to the ceiling - whatever that measurement is - that is the measurement you use forward of and behind the MLP to achieve that Dolby 45 degree optimal angle. (Remember, it's a recommendation, not an absolute....). EX: my seated ear height is 45" from the floor. I also have 8' ceiling, so 96"-45"=51". That's exactly where I placed my front heights, 51" forward of MLP. Rears however could not go that far without being really close (too close) to the back wall, which would have looked weird, and might have had some negative effects, so had to compromise on the 45 degree angle. Still managed within the Dolby spec., but they are about 42-44" behind the MLP. 

Hope that helps a bit more!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I agree with Jonas2 and I'm "pretty close" to meeting the Dolby recommendation. My ceiling height is 92"...my seated ear height is 42" from the floor...92"-42"=50". My Height Speakers (SVS Prime Elevation speakers) are exactly 42" from the MLP (Front and Rear) on the SIDE walls right up to the ceiling, so I'm 8" short of meeting the exact standard. However, I didn't have a choice of moving them another 8" for I didn't have a stud to hit for installing my speaker bracket that the Prime Elevation speaker attaches to. As I said in an earlier post, they sound amazing so I think one has a little leeway when it comes to Height speaker placement.

For those of you with a similar situation as I had (where I didn't want to install in-ceiling speakers; I didn't want "bounce speakers"; and I really couldn't put the Prime speakers on my Front and Rear walls with my rear wall sitting behind the MLP approximately 14'), I'm here to tell you the SVS Prime Elevation speakers work incredibly well. In talking to the SVS Service reps (who KNOW their stuff when it comes to speakers!) prior to buying, they assured me that when they designed them they had SIDE WALLS in mind (or mounted to the CEILING or FRONT/REAR walls) and they tested it thoroughly before putting them on the market. They may not be as precise as in-ceiling speakers, but with many discrete and panning effects you would truly think they are "overhead" and not "off to the side."


----------



## Alex solomon

Jonas2 said:


> O.K., so I might be misunderstanding - but I thought you had said that from the MLP to the rear wall you had 4.5 feet......so how can you place them 6 feet back?  Sorry if I didn't catch it right!  If 6 ft. puts you at 45 degrees, that means your sitting ear height is only 24" with an 8' high ceiling......can't be accurate....
> 
> So, basically find the height from your sitting ear to the ceiling - whatever that measurement is - that is the measurement you use forward of and behind the MLP to achieve that Dolby 45 degree optimal angle. (Remember, it's a recommendation, not an absolute....). EX: my seated ear height is 45" from the floor. I also have 8' ceiling, so 96"-45"=51". That's exactly where I placed my front heights, 51" forward of MLP. Rears however could not go that far without being really close (too close) to the back wall, which would have looked weird, and might have had some negative effects, so had to compromise on the 45 degree angle. Still managed within the Dolby spec., but they are about 42-44" behind the MLP.
> 
> Hope that helps a bit more!


That helps a lot. Now I understand exactly where to place them. Sorry for the confusion. My seats consists of three HT recliner seats. If you measure straight from MLP (which is the center seat) to the rear wall straight, it is 4.5 feet. But if you measure from MLP to where the intend to install the in ceiling speakers, just behind and outside of the left and right seats, it measures 6 ft because I measured that diagonally from MLP to the in ceiling speakers... don't want to confuse you even more. and I get it now...Your explanation along with this from Yamaha 2070 owners manual helped a bit. Thanks for your help!


----------



## Josh Z

audiofan1 said:


> I'm just glad it was made


That's exactly the right attitude to have.



madbrain said:


> I understand it may have cost more to make than it will return, but what I don't understand is why theaters would just stop showing it after one week. This seems rash !


What do you expect them to do? If the auditoriums are empty or nearly empty, the theater is losing money by continuing to play the movie. Meanwhile, new movies open every week.

Blade Runner fell about 54% in attendance for its second week. Happy Death Day (which cost $4.8 million to make) sold twice as many tickets as Blade Runner this weekend. The theater needs to sell tickets, so of course Happy Death Day is going to take over the premium screens.



mrtickleuk said:


> Wow, well I take a different view. It was not made to be a "blockbuster". Leave that term for the crap movies featuring fighting robots and fairground pirates rides, and meanwhile, once in a while, make for *us* a proper movie like this, for the real movie fans to love, and to win awards and critical acclaim. It's not all about every single movie making a profit individually, this is why Studios were created to ride out the peaks and troughs financially to be able to make good movies.
> As you say, if it needs to have "Titanic" sized audiences to break even (another dreadful film), then any financial failing is on the part of the execs for spending too much - but I don't call it a failure because clearly it needed this kind of money to be spent on it to look so good. You can see it on the screen. So I believe that they spent the money knowing they wouldn't get it back, they knew they weren't making a "Titanic" or film which would "reach across the genres" (which is what is needed to get that kind of audience), so they planned this.


What a completely bizarre argument to make. Blade Runner cost $150 million to make, and about the same amount to market and distribute. Of course it was made to be a blockbuster. Nobody spends $300 million to make an art film that they don't expect anyone to see. The Hollywood studios are a business, not a charity. The executives have shareholders to answer to whenever they lose money. They make movies expecting a big return on their investment. If they don't get that return, people lose their jobs and the studio doesn't make that type of movie again.


----------



## madbrain

Josh Z said:


> What do you expect them to do? If the auditoriums are empty or nearly empty, the theater is losing money by continuing to play the movie. Meanwhile, new movies open every week.


Indeed, but my point is the production cost of movie vs how fast the studio gets its money back (or at all) should be irrelevant to a theater. They indeed just want to sell tickets. Are they paying studios more money per ticket for those big budget movies vs the small budget movies ? If not, as long as there is a significant number of viewers for the movie, the theaters should keep showing them.
Blade Runner still came in at number 2 in its second week. Anyway, this is has nothing to do with Atmos at this point, so we probably should move the discussion somewhere else, but I wouldn't know where.


----------



## OKGeek

*Speaker layout. To wall or not to wall.*

Was giving another thought on atmos speakers placement for those of us, who has non-ideal rooms, like couch close to the back wall, and came up to the following. Will try to lay it out in the simplifed way. Hope it helps.

1. Speaker placement for Atmos (as well, as other 3D formats like Auro or DTS) is about angles. The nature of human hearing is that it's angles (horizontal and vertical), what gives us the sense of separation between sound sources, not the position of sound source per se, neither the place where wall meets the ceiling. Imagine the bird, sitting on the tree 10 ft behind you and 10 ft up and chirping. Now another bird hanging in the air nearby the first. Can you tell the difference which one is sitting and which one is flying without looking? You got the point.

2. Hearing has some resolution limitations.
There is a limitation on our hearing resolution, when you think about the size and directivity of the sound source comparing to ourselves: for example we hardly can distinguish between sounds coming from 2 speakers 5 inches apart, being 5 inches close to each of them (angles are wide, but the distance is too close, comparing to the size of the head and speakers). So this approach has certain limitations for sure.

3. Speakers don't have to be always on the ceiling. It depends.
You can say: "Wait, wait, wait, most pictures with speakers layout for Atmos shows that all "elevation level" speakers are on-ceiling". Right. But not that fast. If you'd be asked to draw a single picture as an illustration, you'd end up with something similar: 
TF: 
distance from MLP to the screen is usually bigger, than from our head to ceiling, so TFs go ceiling to give you 45 deg
TR:
- quest for symmetry of TF and TR in relation of MLP is kinda the same as for Left and Right on the bed layer: better imaging, be it "front to back" or "left to right".
- our vertical hearing resolution is far lower, than horizontal: remember the range for bed layer is just 8 deg, while for elevation it's 15 deg, so more room for error in estimating the place behind the couch in "typical room". 
Thus TRs goes ceiling as well.

4. Start with mapping YOUR room to angles recommendations.
Having this. I see the starting point in the quest for perfect ATMOS in matching your room to the recommended angles layout. Attached is an example of the room, where you don't have enough space for TRs to go on-ceiling. You see, that TRs are hanging on the rear wall (which is usually called as Rear Height, but frankly has nothing to do with that, as it's about angles, not the actual place of the wall and the ceiling - remember example with bird in p.1?) and tilted a bit to address directivity of speakers. 

PS. For those having couch straight against the rear wall FH+TM seems to be the better answer, than TF+TR, due to p.2 (bed and elevation will be too close comparing to the size of ourselves) but please bear in mind - names of positions (FH, TR, TM etc.) are for angles, not the places where the ceiling technically meets the wall.

That's pretty it for now. I'll try follow this approach personally while building HT as a part of my living room. Will report back on what will be the outcome. Appreciate your feedback and comments.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> What a completely bizarre argument to make. Blade Runner cost $150 million to make, and about the same amount to market and distribute. Of course it was made to be a blockbuster. Nobody spends $300 million to make an art film that they don't expect anyone to see. The Hollywood studios are a business, not a charity. The executives have shareholders to answer to whenever they lose money. They make movies expecting a big return on their investment. If they don't get that return, people lose their jobs and the studio doesn't make that type of movie again.


I thought of this sad fact on Saturday when I went to see _Kingsman: The Golden Circle._ I saw it in the same cineplex in which I had seen _Blade Runner 2049_ the weekend before. _Blade Runner_ had already been evicted from the cineplex's largest non IMAX theater and banished to a smaller one in the bowels of the building. I understood the reasons, which you clearly stated in your post but I couldn't help but be a little sad over the boxoffice failure of such a wonderful film. It happens, I know, but it still hurts.

There may be a silver lining, though. Maybe the UHD HDR Atmos disk will be released earlier than it would have been if the film had been a financial success. Whenever it's released, it will be a day one buy for me. The sound design of the new _Blade Runner_ is spectacular.


----------



## Josh Z

madbrain said:


> Indeed, but my point is the production cost of movie vs how fast the studio gets its money back (or at all) should be irrelevant to a theater. They indeed just want to sell tickets. Are they paying studios more money per ticket for those big budget movies vs the small budget movies ? If not, as long as there is a significant number of viewers for the movie, the theaters should keep showing them.
> Blade Runner still came in at number 2 in its second week. Anyway, this is has nothing to do with Atmos at this point, so we probably should move the discussion somewhere else, but I wouldn't know where.


We're really sidetracking this thread so I don't want to prolong this discussion, but if you think about what you're saying, I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.

The point I'm making is that there isn't "a significant number of viewers for the movie." The movie is drastically underperforming expectations. People are not buying tickets. This past weekend, there was twice as much demand from viewers wanting to see Happy Death Day. Of course Blade Runner is going to get bumped. This Friday, Geostorm opens - and although IMO it looks like an absolutely terrible movie, it's a foregone conclusion that it will sell a lot more tickets than Blade Runner. The new Tyler Perry movie undoubtedly will as well.

The week after that is Jigsaw. Then Thor: Ragnarok. Then Justice League. How long do you expect theaters to hang onto Blade Runner when the audience has entirely moved on to other things competing for their attention?

And yes, movie theaters pay the majority of ticket sale income to the studio and keep very little for themselves. Theaters largely subsist on the income taken from overpriced popcorn, soda and snacks. Needless to say, if the theater isn't playing a movie that people want to see, nobody will buy those concessions. Hence the need to boot poorly-performing movies as soon as possible and replace them with new releases.


----------



## richlife

petetherock said:


> The Great Wall maybe short on the story and plot, but wow... the Atmos surround is superb.. I take my sonic hat off to the mixer..
> Near the finale, there is a scene where the protagonists try to smuggle a beast in the tunnels under the palace, and you can hear the beast scurrying above..
> There are also plenty of scenes showing off sound transitions between speakers..
> 
> If only they spent a little more paying the script writer.. this could have rivalled LOTR in spectacle and scale. They actually hand carved the palace out of real wood.. amazing detail.


I agree Pete. We just saw it last night and from the opening scene the audio just grabs you. The film does remind you of LOTR and could have been so much more with a decent script and a little more thought.


----------



## petetherock

The production values are nuts..
The hand carved wood..
The scene showing the inside of the tower of the Great Wall. Check out the extras.. Matt says it was shown for about a minute and took a very long to make. All real and not CGI..
I suppose they could recycle some of the costumes for their own TV series and period dramas..


----------



## richlife

petetherock said:


> The production values are nuts..
> The hand carved wood..
> The scene showing the inside of the tower of the Great Wall. Check out the extras.. Matt says it was shown for about a minute and took a very long to make. All real and not CGI..
> I suppose they could recycle some of the costumes for their own TV series and period dramas..


Did you happen to notice the number of "digital artists" listed in the credits. Armies upon armies.


----------



## gwsat

I agree that _The Great Wall_ had wonderful Atmos effects. Another recent example of a film with a demonstration quality TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is _Power Rangers._ Highly recommended!


----------



## petetherock

richlife said:


> Did you happen to notice the number of "digital artists" listed in the credits. Armies upon armies.


Yes but that scene showing the interior of the tower was real and hand made.. 
80% of the scenes had some CGI .. even so there were 500 extras ..


----------



## Diazp0328

Greetings all. I have some paradigms up front and am running Marantz 7011. I also have a set of Take Classics that are not being used. Is there any reason the Takes couldn't be put on top of my paradigms and angled up like all the other add on modules out there from Klipsch, pioneer, etc? Is there anything particularly special about those add on modules that the Takes do not have? 

Also, could I put the the two on top of my surrounds for a 5.1.4 setup? The surrounds are big enough to hold the takes. 

Because of the way my apt is I have the couch against the back wall. Surrounds at 90 degrees. About two feet above ear level. Ceiling is 8.8 ft high. 

Thanks!!


----------



## sdurani

Diazp0328 said:


> Is there anything particularly special about those add on modules that the Takes do not have?


Atmos-enabled speakers have peaks and a notch in the frequency response that give the impression of sound coming from above.


----------



## djoberg

gwsat said:


> I agree that _The Great Wall_ had wonderful Atmos effects. Another recent example of a film with a demonstration quality TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is _Power Rangers._ Highly recommended!


Ditto! I agree 150%!! 

I wrote a review for this (_Power Rangers_) on the "Blu-ray PQ Thread" and even though one is "supposed" to be writing a review on the PQ, I couldn't resist giving a big shout out for the Dolby Atmos mix. Here is the review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-801.html#post54926104


----------



## richlife

petetherock said:


> Yes but that scene showing the interior of the tower was real and hand made..
> 80% of the scenes had some CGI .. even so there were 500 extras ..


For sure! No disagreement from me. Simply adding that the whole movie was massive. That scene and others that might be real. And no slouch on the digital either. (I'll be watching it more than once even if just to listen -- but there is much to see also that you just can't get in one viewing.)


----------



## weekendtoy

Hi all.

I can't do in ceiling and I'd prefer not to do on ceiling.

I have Def. Tech (DT) 8060 speakers up front with a 26 degree angle to the MLP. Since DT makes an up firing module for this speaker and the angle is within Dolby specs, it seem natural to use up firing speakers in the front.

The MLP is 5' from the rear wall with 8' ceilings. This gives me a 50 degree angle at at the wall/ceiling to the MLP. Could it work to use rear heights, angled to the MLP with up firing front speakers?

Finally, if I went rear heights there would only be about a 4' distance to the side and rear surrounds. Would it be preferable to lower those surrounds about a foot to gain a little more separation between the heights and the surrounds?

Thanks.


----------



## zoetmb

Josh Z said:


> And yes, movie theaters pay the majority of ticket sale income to the studio and keep very little for themselves. Theaters largely subsist on the income taken from overpriced popcorn, soda and snacks. Needless to say, if the theater isn't playing a movie that people want to see, nobody will buy those concessions. Hence the need to boot poorly-performing movies as soon as possible and replace them with new releases.


Movie theaters completely getting screwed on the ticket income has been conventional wisdom and I've read in the past that they got as little as 5% in the opening weeks of a film (and today there are only opening weeks for most films), but if you look at AMC's financials, and AMC is the largest U.S. chain, it's simply not true. 

For the first two quarters of 2017, AMC had Admissions revenue of $1.5787 billion and Film Exhibition costs were $800.5 million (50.71%). So their film exhibition gross margin was 49.29% or $778.2 million which really isn't bad at all. Having said that, AMC lost $168.1 million over those two quarters, but that was largely due to acquisitions and debt service.

And FYI, Food and Beverages revenue was $769.3 million (31% of gross revenues).


----------



## Erod

A bit of advice would be very much appreciated. About to add Atmos to my 7.2 setup, and turn it into 7.2.4.

Two questions....

1. My dedicated theater has two rows of seating, with the back row against the back row with a fairly high ceiling. I'm not sure exactly where to install the four ceiling speakers and how to "point" the tweeters. Should they all be pointed at the MLP? Should the front two be pointed just in front of the MLP and the back two be pointed in between the rows? Need help here because I don't want to climb that ladder more than once. *With a high ceiling, should I just point all four straight down?*

2. I currently have matching brand speakers (Jamo) with dipoles on the sides and backs. I'm planning to by Polk MC80s and let the Anthem calibrate them together. Is that OK, or should I buy Jamo in-ceilings, too, to match timbre all the way around. Won't the ARC accomplish the same thing?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Sevenfeet

Erod said:


> A bit of advice would be very much appreciated. About to add Atmos to my 7.2 setup, and turn it into 7.2.4.
> 
> Two questions....
> 
> 1. My dedicated theater has two rows of seating, with the back row against the back row with a fairly high ceiling. I'm not sure exactly where to install the four ceiling speakers and how to "point" the tweeters. Should they all be pointed at the MLP? Should the front two be pointed just in front of the MLP and the back two be pointed in between the rows? Need help here because I don't want to climb that ladder more than once. *With a high ceiling, should I just point all four straight down?*
> 
> 2. I currently have matching brand speakers (Jamo) with dipoles on the sides and backs. I'm planning to by Polk MC80s and let the Anthem calibrate them together. Is that OK, or should I buy Jamo in-ceilings, too, to match timbre all the way around. Won't the ARC accomplish the same thing?
> 
> Thanks for your help.


First, read this, especially pages 7-9 and 26.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Every theater is different....mine is certainly a challenge I'm considering before construction. And did you mean "the back row is against the back WALL"? If so, you have my problem and it's unlikely you can put a set of rear Atmos speakers in since Atmos is all about the angles in relationship to the MLP position. Rear Atmos ceiling speakers must be behind the rear seating position, and that distance increases as the ceiling goes higher (right triangle calculations). There is some leeway in the angles you can choose (check the whitepaper) but ultimately, your Anthem is assuming that an installed pair of Atmos speakers are installed in a way that is aligned with the presentation it is generating.

That being said, if the tweeters can be pointed, the convention wisdom is to point them at the MLP but you want the overall sound to cover the range of your seats. The higher the ceiling, the easier this becomes as the sound disperses. Commercial movie theaters take advantage of this since the ceiling is often 20+ feet in the air.

Finally, your Anthem can't change a speaker's overall presentation...it can just make adjustments for peaks and valleys in the frequency range in relation to the measurements from the microphone positions. So you still want to try to match timbre between your speakers. That's harder when you cross brands but not impossible. Audition them and judge for yourself.


----------



## Selden Ball

Erod said:


> A bit of advice would be very much appreciated. About to add Atmos to my 7.2 setup, and turn it into 7.2.4.
> 
> Two questions....
> 
> 1. My dedicated theater has two rows of seating, with the back row against the back row with a fairly high ceiling. I'm not sure exactly where to install the four ceiling speakers and how to "point" the tweeters. Should they all be pointed at the MLP?


If you can't put the rearmost speakers behind your rearmost row of seating, put them where you can: behind the MLP. If they're too close to the heads of people who are seated in the rear row, you might have to turn down the Top Rear speakers' output when the rear row is being used.


> Should the front two be pointed just in front of the MLP and the back two be pointed in between the rows? Need help here because I don't want to climb that ladder more than once. *With a high ceiling, should I just point all four straight down?*


In general, you should optimize the soundfield for the person seated in the MLP, presumably you. Most people really don't have strong feelings about sound quality, especially when they're being distracted by the on-screen action.

One option is to point the speakers (tweeters) toward the opposite end of the row of seating. That's often called the "equal energy" configuration. People near the speakers are off-axis, thus getting a lower sound level, while those farther away, on axis, get a lower sound level due to distance.



> 2. I currently have matching brand speakers (Jamo) with dipoles on the sides and backs. I'm planning to by Polk MC80s and let the Anthem calibrate them together. Is that OK, or should I buy Jamo in-ceilings, too, to match timbre all the way around. Won't the ARC accomplish the same thing?
> 
> Thanks for your help.


To the extent that roomEQ (ARC, Ausyssey, MCACC, etc) is successful in flattening the speakers' frequency response, it does tend to result in dis-similar speakers sounding very similar, but it isn't perfect. If you can, using speakers with similar designs (and thus similar timbre) does tend to produce the best results.


----------



## Erod

Selden Ball said:


> If you can't put the rearmost speakers behind your rearmost row of seating, put them where you can: behind the MLP. If they're too close to the heads of people who are seated in the rear row, you might have to turn down the Top Rear speakers' output when the rear row is being used.
> 
> In general, you should optimize the soundfield for the person seated in the MLP, presumably you. Most people really don't have strong feelings about sound quality, especially when they're being distracted by the on-screen action.


I can accomplish this, but the back ceiling speakers will be very close to the wall (about six inches). Is that OK, or should I opt for installing them even with the heads in the back row. 

The speakers will still be about six feet above their head to each side.


----------



## Selden Ball

Erod said:


> I can accomplish this, but the back ceiling speakers will be very close to the wall (about six inches). Is that OK, or should I opt for installing them even with the heads in the back row.
> 
> The speakers will still be about six feet above their head to each side.


There always are compromises that have to be lived with. Dolby recommends aligning the overhead speakers with the front main speakers. Having them too close to the walls will result in reflections which sometimes can be undesirable, but not always. After all, bipole and dipole speakers make effective use of those reflections.


----------



## Erod

Sevenfeet said:


> First, read this, especially pages 7-9 and 26.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> Every theater is different....mine is certainly a challenge I'm considering before construction. And did you mean "the back row is against the back WALL"? If so, you have my problem and it's unlikely you can put a set of rear Atmos speakers in since Atmos is all about the angles in relationship to the MLP position. Rear Atmos ceiling speakers must be behind the rear seating position, and that distance increases as the ceiling goes higher (right triangle calculations). There is some leeway in the angles you can choose (check the whitepaper) but ultimately, your Anthem is assuming that an installed pair of Atmos speakers are installed in a way that is aligned with the presentation it is generating.
> 
> That being said, if the tweeters can be pointed, the convention wisdom is to point them at the MLP but you want the overall sound to cover the range of your seats. The higher the ceiling, the easier this becomes as the sound disperses. Commercial movie theaters take advantage of this since the ceiling is often 20+ feet in the air.
> 
> Finally, your Anthem can't change a speaker's overall presentation...it can just make adjustments for peaks and valleys in the frequency range in relation to the measurements from the microphone positions. So you still want to try to match timbre between your speakers. That's harder when you cross brands but not impossible. Audition them and judge for yourself.


Thanks for the response. I read through the material, some of which I've seen before, but much was new. 

My issue with Dolby's recommendations is that everything is written for a single lone dude sitting in his perfectly dimensional special Dolby room. I have a dedicated theater room that is ideal compared to most when it comes to dimensions, but it won't hold up to that scrutiny of Dolby.

When I've seen diagrams of two-rowed speaker placement in other places (like Acoustics Frontier), they have the rear ceiling speakers in line with the rear seating. I realize it's more ideal for the MLP, but it doesn't suggest the benefits are entirely lost for those in the rear seats. 

Again, thanks for the input. I many need to find some Jamo ceiling speakers instead of these Polks.


----------



## Erod

Selden Ball said:


> There always are compromises that have to be lived with. Dolby recommends aligning the overhead speakers with the front main speakers. Having them too close to the walls will result in reflections which sometimes can be undesirable, but not always. After all, bipole and dipole speakers make effective use of those reflections.


True, which brings up another point.


I just read that Dolby says dipoles should not be used in an Atmos set up. Seriously?


I can switch my Jamo back surrounds from dipole to bipole (there's a control on them), but I would have to swap my rear speakers back to proper right and left. I LOVE that dipole effect of swapping your rear speakers to get them in phase with the side surrounds.


Is this true about Atmos and dipoles?


----------



## Erod

Selden Ball said:


> There always are compromises that have to be lived with. Dolby recommends aligning the overhead speakers with the front main speakers. Having them too close to the walls will result in reflections which sometimes can be undesirable, but not always. After all, bipole and dipole speakers make effective use of those reflections.


True, which brings up another point.

I just read that Dolby says dipoles should not be used in an Atmos set up. Seriously?

I can switch my Jamo back surrounds from dipole to bipole (there's a control on them), but I would have to swap my rear speakers back to proper right and left. I LOVE that dipole effect of swapping your rear speakers to get them in phase with the side surrounds.

Is this true about Atmos and dipoles?


----------



## Selden Ball

Erod said:


> True, which brings up another point.
> 
> I just read that Dolby says dipoles should not be used in an Atmos set up. Seriously?
> 
> I can switch my Jamo back surrounds from dipole to bipole (there's a control on them), but I would have to swap my rear speakers back to proper right and left. I LOVE that dipole effect of swapping your rear speakers to get them in phase with the side surrounds.
> 
> Is this true about Atmos and dipoles?


Bi- and di-pole speakers were primarily designed to produce an ambient soundstage from early surround-sound audio mixes. Many (most?) early surround-sound soundtracks didn't have specific sounds coming from specific directions behind you. 

In contrast, Dolby now recommends monopole speakers for Atmos soundtracks so that your sound system can provide precise directionality: to the sides, behind you and above you. Placing sounds at specific xyz locations in the room, which is what audio objects are designed to do, requires that directionality. In contrast, bi- and di-pole speakers make use of wall reflections to smear out the soundstage. They are designed to provide a more "ambient" soundstage, which individual sounds coming from all around, not from a specific direction. That's not to say such speakers sound bad, just that they defeat one of the goals of Atmos. Ambience can still be designed into Atmos soundtracks, but it's done by using objects which are intentionally spread-out among the speakers instead of depending on the speakers to spread out the sound.


----------



## batpig

Actually bipoles are fine, and may be preferable in a small room and/or when speakers are close to listeners. Triad for example still recommends bipole speakers when there is


----------



## weekendtoy

Hi again,


Can anyone comment on my potential setup for rear Atmos speakers?


The MLP is 5' from the rear wall with 8' ceilings. This gives me a 50 degree angle at the wall/ceiling to the MLP. Could I use rear heights, angled towards the MLP. The front speakers would be up-firing Atmos Enabled Speakers.


Finally, with a 8' ceiling, I assume I would want at a maximum height, the side and rear surrounds at 4'.


----------



## batpig

Continuing my comment above, as an example reference this whitepaper from Dolby on HT installations: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf

Note the specific verbiage on surround channels:


----------



## batpig

weekendtoy said:


> Hi again,
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment on my potential setup for rear Atmos speakers?
> 
> 
> The MLP is 5' from the rear wall with 8' ceilings. This gives me a 50 degree angle at the wall/ceiling to the MLP. Could I use rear heights, angled towards the MLP. The front speakers would be up-firing Atmos Enabled Speakers.
> 
> 
> Finally, with a 8' ceiling, I assume I would want at a maximum height, the side and rear surrounds at 4'.


The brain isn't very sensitive to precise elevation cues behind your head. So there's more potential "wiggle room" on the rear heights/tops -- what's more important IMO is clear angular separation from back surrounds so they sound distinct. If you've got back surrounds on the back wall that are 5-6' up to clear the heads of the 2nd row listeners, then placing rear heights/tops only 2-3 feet above them may not be enough separation for them to be distinct spatially.

In terms of height, Dolby's general rule of thumbs is 1/2 room height. However, like anything, it's just a guideline, and you can "cheat" if you get better results by varying from the official guideline slightly. For example, in a small room being right at ear height could cause hot-spotting issues, so maybe 2' above is more optimal even if it means you "violate" the 1/2 room height rule. If you look at blogs from pros like Nyal Mellor on overhead/surround positioning, you can compensate for speakers being off spec by shifting other speakers as well to compensate and maintain the even coverage of the "dome of sound". So, for example, if your surrounds are a bit too high, you can "cheat" the overheads a bit further from the side/back walls to gain more separation from the surrounds.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> My issue with Dolby's recommendations is that everything is written for a single lone dude sitting in his perfectly dimensional special Dolby room. I have a dedicated theater room that is ideal compared to most when it comes to dimensions, but it won't hold up to that scrutiny of Dolby.


Dolby isn't going to scrutinize your set-up. If you want to take both rows into account, then treat them as a single listening area and place your height speakers forward & rearward of that area. For listeners in the front row, the forward speakers will appear like Top Fronts while the rearward pair will feel like Rear Heights (since they are farther away). For listeners in the back row, the forward pair will sound like Front Heights while the rearward pair will be like Top Rears. Slight inconsistency in service of a greater consistency: listeners in both rows will be able to separate overhead sounds that are forward of them and rearward of them.


Erod said:


> I LOVE that dipole effect of swapping your rear speakers to get them in phase with the side surrounds.


Then keep it; as long as you understand that sitting in the null of a speaker will compromise localization of specific sounds. Dipole surrounds will still give you general directionality (right-ish, left-ish) but won't give you the type of precise imaging you get from the monopoles in your front soundstage. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Personally, I would switch all 4 surrounds to bipole. But, if you "LOVE" how your 7.1 set-up sounds, then simply add heights to it. You'll continue to LOVE the resulting Atmos set-up.


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> Actually bipoles are fine, and may be preferable in a small room and/or when speakers are close to listeners.


Thankyou very much for clarifying this. I have a small room, and I have bipoles surround speakers to the sides and just behind my listening position. No other real choice.



> It's dipoles that are the big problem, because of the null zone where they are totally diffuse and can't image precise effects as well. I'm not sure where the conflation with bipoles happened but it's definitely not the case that bipoles are forbidden by Dolby.


Excellent.


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> Dolby isn't going to scrutinize your set-up. If you want to take both rows into account, then treat them as a single listening area and place your height speakers forward & rearward of that area. For listeners in the front row, the forward speakers will appear like Top Fronts while the rearward pair will feel like Rear Heights (since they are farther away). For listeners in the back row, the forward pair will sound like Front Heights while the rearward pair will be like Top Rears. Slight inconsistency in service of a greater consistency: listeners in both rows will be able to separate overhead sounds that are forward of them and rearward of them. Then keep it; as long as you understand that sitting in the null of a speaker will compromise localization of specific sounds. Dipole surrounds will still give you general directionality (right-ish, left-ish) but won't give you the type of precise imaging you get from the monopoles in your front soundstage. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Personally, I would switch all 4 surrounds to bipole. But, if you "LOVE" how your 7.1 set-up sounds, then simply add heights to it. You'll continue to LOVE the resulting Atmos set-up.


1. What if my back ceiling speakers will have to be a couple of inches from the back wall to accomplish that? My rear row is against the wall.

2. I'm going to switch it back to bipole, and swap the back speakers. I mean, how can I not? I'm sure this atmos (and dts:x) impact will far greater than what the dipole diffusion produced in my 7.2 setup. I must evolve

Thanks.


----------



## showmak

batpig said:


> Actually bipoles are fine, and may be preferable in a small room and/or when speakers are close to listeners. Triad for example still recommends bipole speakers when there is


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> What if my back ceiling speakers will have to be a couple of inches from the back wall to accomplish that? My rear row is against the wall.


Then you cannot accomplish that effect, at least for the back row. Might as well try to optimize the front row.


----------



## batpig

showmak said:


> How about using bipole speakers as wall or ceiling mounted speakers? Example...


Sure, with the surround/overhead speakers it's a question of selecting the right speaker to give you the coverage pattern you need for your listening area. For the same reasons you might choose a bipole on the side (close listening distance / need to cover two rows) you might choose a bipole for an overhead speaker.

If you watch this video on immersive audio with pro Anthony Grimani, he shows some example theaters in the later parts of the interview. Note that several of these theaters use Triad Bipole InWall Surrounds for BOTH the surround speakers and the overheads.


----------



## Erod

How close can my rear ceiling pair be to the back wall without causing issues? Could that quick reflection actually be good for the atmos sound?


----------



## djoberg

batpig said:


> Sure, with the surround/overhead speakers it's a question of selecting the right speaker to give you the coverage pattern you need for your listening area. For the same reasons you might choose a bipole on the side (close listening distance / need to cover two rows) you might choose a bipole for an overhead speaker.
> 
> If you watch this video on immersive audio with pro Anthony Grimani, he shows some example theaters in the later parts of the interview. Note that several of these theaters use Triad Bipole InWall Surrounds for BOTH the surround speakers and the overheads.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbqJkjfABQ&t=2387s


Thanks for the video link! I actually watched the whole thing late this afternoon and it was quite informative. I did question one point though that Mr. Grimani stressed. I'm speaking of his view where he highly favors a 9.1.2 setup over a 7.1.4 setup (when one is limited to 11 channels). He makes a good and valid point about the importance of another set of speakers between the Fronts and the Side Surrounds (to fill in the "void" between them), but I simply can't agree that this would take precedence over having two sets of Height speakers (Front and Rear). If I was reading Scott's face correctly, he was questioning the wisdom of this too.


----------



## eculley

This has probably been answered in a previous post, but I cannot find anything on the net. If I have a tv that does not decode atmos, can I still buy an atmos receiver and take advantage? Example: Buying the OLED B7A to save some money and later buying an atmos receiver to decode it? Or do I need a TV that actually supports the format?

Thanks!


----------



## logan456

*upfiring atlantic tech 44a*

I have a pioneer sc 95 and am using upfiring speakers. Before I ran the auto setup I set the distance of the speaker to the ceiling which is about 4 ft. When I ran the auto cal is set the speaker distance to the listening position to 15 ft which is way to far. The up firing speakers sit ontop of my front speakers which are about 7 ft from the listening position. Would it be better to just manually set the speaker distance on the upfiring speakers to 7 ft as well?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

eculley said:


> This has probably been answered in a previous post, but I cannot find anything on the net. If I have a tv that does not decode atmos, can I still buy an atmos receiver and take advantage? Example: Buying the OLED B7A to save some money and later buying an atmos receiver to decode it? Or do I need a TV that actually supports the format?
> 
> Thanks!


You basically need a receiver or pre-amp/processor (plus external amps with the latter) with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X decoding (preferably one that does at least 7.1.4 processing), extra speakers along with your basic 5.1 or 7.1 layout on or in the ceiling or high up on the walls for overhead effects, a UHD Blu-ray player (immersive audio is becoming more and more exclusive to UHD discs and you will have your bases covered), and Dolby Atmos or DTS: X discs.


----------



## eculley

Dan Hitchman said:


> You basically need a receiver or pre-amp/processor (plus external amps with the latter) with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X decoding (preferably one that does at least 7.1.4 processing), extra speakers along with your basic 5.1 or 7.1 layout on or in the ceiling or high up on the walls for overhead effects, a UHD Blu-ray player (immersive audio is becoming more and more exclusive to UHD discs and you will have your bases covered), and Dolby Atmos or DTS: X discs.


Yea I am more interested to know I have the option to go atmos later, even if I get the B7A OLED. After looking more into it, the C7A just adds atmos for the on-board speakers..


----------



## Josh Z

eculley said:


> Yea I am more interested to know I have the option to go atmos later, even if I get the B7A OLED. After looking more into it, the C7A just adds atmos for the on-board speakers..


Your TV doesn't need to support anything for audio. You plug your source device (Blu-ray player, streaming service, etc.) into the receiver first to decode the audio. Then the receiver passes the video portion of the signal to the TV for display. Ideally, you don't want to use the audio section in the TV at all.


----------



## Josh Z

logan456 said:


> I have a pioneer sc 95 and am using upfiring speakers. Before I ran the auto setup I set the distance of the speaker to the ceiling which is about 4 ft. When I ran the auto cal is set the speaker distance to the listening position to 15 ft which is way to far. The up firing speakers sit ontop of my front speakers which are about 7 ft from the listening position. Would it be better to just manually set the speaker distance on the upfiring speakers to 7 ft as well?


No, the auto-calc is fine. The "Distance" setting is not literally a measurement of physical distance between the speaker and the microphone. It's a measurement of the time delay it takes for the audio to reach the mic. If you're bouncing audio off the ceiling, it's going to take longer than another speaker pointed directly at the seat. This is normal. It's fine.


----------



## Sevenfeet

Erod said:


> How close can my rear ceiling pair be to the back wall without causing issues? Could that quick reflection actually be good for the atmos sound?


I think the answer gets back to "it depends". For example, the ceiling speaker I'm looking at is the Revel C763l. The design is angled both for the tweeter/midrange section and the flat paneled woofer is facing the opposite angle. So for positioning, you're supposed to point the tweeter side toward the MLP while the woofer panel plays out toward the wider room. But if the speaker is up against a wall, that woofer panel will be reflecting against that wall likely less than 2 feet away (or maybe a matter of inches). The speaker has a switch to compensate for this, probably just lowering the output since the wall reflection would unnecessarily amplify the output of the driver.

A speaker facing straight down or entirely angled back toward the MLP probably won't have as difficult a time.


----------



## djoberg

Josh Z said:


> No, the auto-calc is fine. The "Distance" setting is not literally a measurement of physical distance between the speaker and the microphone. It's a measurement of the time delay it takes for the audio to reach the mic. If you're bouncing audio off the ceiling, it's going to take longer than another speaker pointed directly at the seat. This is normal. It's fine.


You "beat me to it." I was going to answer him exactly as you did. I would only add that some are confused after a calibration is done to see that their subwoofer distance is measured at near "double" the actual distance to their MLP. But the same principle holds true for the sub as it does for each speaker, for it is (as you said) "a measurement of the time delay for the audio to reach the microphone."


----------



## richlife

Josh Z said:


> Your TV doesn't need to support anything for audio. You plug your source device (Blu-ray player, streaming service, etc.) into the receiver first to decode the audio. Then the receiver passes the video portion of the signal to the TV for display. Ideally, you don't want to use the audio section in the TV at all.


Yes, Atmos (and DTS:X) is all about audio and the tv used is irrelevant. We might someday see a TV that provide true Atmos/DTS:X management, but for the most part it's just not cost effective (for a tv manufacturer) nor is is likely that the Atmos/DTS:X management of such a tv would compare favorably to a dedicated audio receiver.


----------



## Selden Ball

eculley said:


> Yea I am more interested to know I have the option to go atmos later, even if I get the B7A OLED. After looking more into it, the C7A just adds atmos for the on-board speakers..


The feature needed to support Atmos in a TV is that the TV needs to be able to forward Dolby Digital Plus over ARC.

Some streaming services (e.g. Vudu) provide videos which include Atmos. All streamed soundtracks which include Atmos have soundtracks which are encoded using Dolby Digital Plus. If you decode those videos using an app that's inside a smart TV and you want to hear the Atmos effects, then that TV has to be a model which supports forwarding Dolby Digital Plus over ARC (Audio Return Channel) to the receiver. The receiver does the decoding of Atmos. The TV knows nothing about Atmos. It just has to pass it through undamaged.

Alternatively, you can get an external streaming device (e.g. Roku) and connect it to your receiver. In that case, the TV's audio capabilites are irrelevant.


----------



## Erod

Sevenfeet said:


> I think the answer gets back to "it depends". For example, the ceiling speaker I'm looking at is the Revel C763l. The design is angled both for the tweeter/midrange section and the flat paneled woofer is facing the opposite angle. So for positioning, you're supposed to point the tweeter side toward the MLP while the woofer panel plays out toward the wider room. But if the speaker is up against a wall, that woofer panel will be reflecting against that wall likely less than 2 feet away (or maybe a matter of inches). The speaker has a switch to compensate for this, probably just lowering the output since the wall reflection would unnecessarily amplify the output of the driver.
> 
> A speaker facing straight down or entirely angled back toward the MLP probably won't have as difficult a time.


This would be a simple round in-ceiling Polk speaker flushed, so it would fire straight down, EXCEPT that I can point the tweeter back toward the MLP. It would be only about four inches from the wall.

Perhaps the ARC would correct the speaker to handle any reflection amplification? 

If not, I'll have to put the back two Atmos speakers horizontally with the back row about where their lap is.


----------



## Selden Ball

Erod said:


> Perhaps the ARC would correct the speaker to handle any reflection amplification?


I have no experience with ARC, but I believe it would. I know Audyssey does.


----------



## usc1995

Erod said:


> This would be a simple round in-ceiling Polk speaker flushed, so it would fire straight down, EXCEPT that I can point the tweeter back toward the MLP. It would be only about four inches from the wall.
> 
> Perhaps the ARC would correct the speaker to handle any reflection amplification?
> 
> If not, I'll have to put the back two Atmos speakers horizontally with the back row about where their lap is.




I have four Polk MC80s as my Atmos speakers with the rear heights at 5 inches from the back wall and they work great. I have the tweeters aimed at my MLP and I am able to hear the rear Atmos effects just fine. I suppose there could be some reflections that smear the sound of the rear heights but the benefits of the those speakers far outweigh any negatives. That is the only position that made sense in my room and for me it works great. Atmos speaker placement has a lot of flexibility, don’t worry if your room doesn’t allow you to place the speakers in the precise spots listed in the guidelines as expanding the sound above you adds so much to the experience it is very much worth the effort.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Erod

Selden Ball said:


> I have no experience with ARC, but I believe it would. I know Audyssey does.


I've had xt32 for years. This will be my first go with ARC. I suspect they are virtually equal to my ears.


----------



## Erod

usc1995 said:


> I have four Polk MC80s as my Atmos speakers with the rear heights at 5 inches from the back wall and they work great. I have the tweeters aimed at my MLP and I am able to hear the rear Atmos effects just fine. I suppose there could be some reflections that smear the sound of the rear heights but the benefits of the those speakers far outweigh any negatives. That is the only position that made sense in my room and for me it works great. Atmos speaker placement has a lot of flexibility, don’t worry if your room doesn’t allow you to place the speakers in the precise spots listed in the guidelines as expanding the sound above you adds so much to the experience it is very much worth the effort.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thanks, good to know. 

I've also heard there is a benefit to pointing the four tweeters diagonally across the sitting area to the furthest seat from each.


----------



## djoberg

I just finished watching one of my all-time favorite "Blu-ray Demos"..._The Art of Flight_! What a treat it was having a 5.1.4 setup for this spectacular "snow-boarding" film. The musical score was simply AWESOME, even though this is NOT a Dolby Atmos mix. The up-mix by Dolby filled the room with crystal-clear music in the Height Channels, giving you a perfect "Dome of Sound." And of course it didn't hurt at all that it's one of the best 1080p releases for Picture Quality, with amazing cinematography from all around the globe. If you haven't seen (and heard) this before, and you have a Dolby Atmos audio setup, you've just got to give your EYES and EARS the pleasure they are craving. 

PS I hope you have a BIG SCREEN as well!!


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the video link! I actually watched the whole thing late this afternoon and it was quite informative. I did question one point though that Mr. Grimani stressed. I'm speaking of his view where he highly favors a 9.1.2 setup over a 7.1.4 setup (when one is limited to 11 channels). He makes a good and valid point about the importance of another set of speakers between the Fronts and the Side Surrounds (to fill in the "void" between them), but I simply can't agree that this would take precedence over having two sets of Height speakers (Front and Rear). If I was reading Scott's face correctly, he was questioning the wisdom of this too.


As would I. The "void" has windows, doors and other obstacles, even if I had the capability to put speakers there I would not, and for me 4 top speakers is a million miles more important than increasing the "bed" layer. 5.1, then 5.1.4, then 7.1.4. Then I might look at more, but to be honest, if I get to 7.1.4 I'd need to start spending more money on content to justify the investment in the 7.1.4.


----------



## chong67

I got a question.

Using these demo as example: https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/

Lets say you get a "5.1: or "7.1" or "Atmos" .mkv from above.

Do you tell your computer, for me it is Windows 10, and go to the Sound properties and put in "5.1" "7.1" or "Atmos" mode ?


----------



## rekbones

chong67 said:


> I got a question.
> 
> Using these demo as example: https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/
> 
> Lets say you get a "5.1: or "7.1" or "Atmos" .mkv from above.
> 
> Do you tell your computer, for me it is Windows 10, and go to the Sound properties and put in "5.1" "7.1" or "Atmos" mode ?


Those settings aren't really important, you first need a player capable of playing the lossless tracks like MPC-HC, PowerDVD or KODI are known examples of media players capable. It can be complicated with different sound card drivers, installed codex and the exact software/hardware required. Dolby True HD for lossless or DD+ for lossy is required over HDMI bitstreamed for ATMOS playback.


----------



## madbrain

rekbones said:


> Those settings aren't really important, you first need a player capable of playing the lossless tracks like MPC-HC, PowerDVD or KODI are known examples of media players capable. It can be complicated with different sound card drivers, installed codex and the exact software/hardware required. Dolby True HD for lossless or DD+ for lossy is required over HDMI bitstreamed for ATMOS playback.


For me, when using the Dolby Atmos Windows application, it only works if the Windows sound settings are set to use Atmos. However, that messes things up pretty badly for all other programs, with pauses in the audio when starting and stopping applications.

I haven't tried MKV with the other programs yet. My PowerDVD 14 can bitstream all DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD just fine. Don't think I have ever seen an (HD) Blu-ray disc with an Atmos track yet - and I got my Atmos-capable receiver very recently.


----------



## am2model3

Nice atmos upgrade! I also got the denon4300. I went 5.1.4 and have also been going wild listening to all my blu rays and uhds with atmos! Once you hear it you want to hear them all! Hehe
Listening to dolby true hd and dts hd with dolby surround and neural x is also a treat!! 
Great times ahead
I love hearing xwings tie fighters millennium falcon fly over my head from front, side , behind its fantastic 
And the true atmos movie tracks wow
Man of steel was amazing, wonder woman and transformers4&5! Sound makes me go wow did i just hear that?


----------



## James Stephens 2

Two more speakers? I have a 5.2.4 (Yamaha 2050) and am considering going to a 7.2.4 system. Anyone have any comments on the improvements I should expect in the sound with the two additional speakers? Recommended receiver that can power all the speakers? Thanks.


----------



## weekendtoy

James Stephens 2 said:


> Two more speakers? I have a 5.2.4 (Yamaha 2050) and am considering going to a 7.2.4 system. Anyone have any comments on the improvements I should expect in the sound with the two additional speakers? Recommended receiver that can power all the speakers? Thanks.


I would argue that adding the two rear surrounds is the most subtle of improvements to a surround speaker system, but albeit is an important addition for an immersive surround experience.


Recently I was watching Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Towards the beginning of the movie, when Rey and Finn flee the planet in the Millennium Flacon. There is the scene with the tie fighter and 'bullet's' fly in a circle around the room. I experimented toggling the downmix from 7.1 to 5.1. As the 'bullets' pan towards the rear, in a 5.1 downmix you can notice the gap as they move left to right. it's kinda like the sound is in one speaker and then the other. With the 7.1 enabled it's just smoother and the transition from the left and right side surrounds is more natural, the transition from left to right less jarring. It gives you a greater sense of the ship moving around the room.


----------



## chong67

madbrain said:


> For me, when using the Dolby Atmos Windows application, it only works if the Windows sound settings are set to use Atmos. However, that messes things up pretty badly for all other programs, with pauses in the audio when starting and stopping applications.
> 
> I haven't tried MKV with the other programs yet. My PowerDVD 14 can bitstream all DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD just fine. Don't think I have ever seen an (HD) Blu-ray disc with an Atmos track yet - and I got my Atmos-capable receiver very recently.


If you look in that demo track, there are .mkv (anything 1080p right? it must blu-ray) and it is Atmos track.

I only use Window Media Classic, no hardware players.

1. If I put my Windows 10 sound properties in ATMOS, my receiver will not allow me to do fake things like Orchestra, Concert Hall, Rock concert, etc. It say disabled on my screen and even STRAIGHT is disable. STRAIGHT means raw, I think, what comes out from your mkv.

If I put my Windows 10 sound properties in 5.1 or 7.1, then I do all all that Enhancer thing.

2. Is my Windows Media Classic doing all the audio decoding? Is it my Video card? Or is it my Windows 10 sound properties?


----------



## awblackmon

Recently I was watching Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Towards the beginning of the movie, when Rey and Finn flee the planet in the Millennium Flacon. There is the scene with the tie fighter and 'bullet's' fly in a circle around the room. I experimented toggling the downmix from 7.1 to 5.1. As the 'bullets' pan towards the rear, in a 5.1 downmix you can notice the gap as they move left to right. it's kinda like the sound is in one speaker and then the other. With the 7.1 enabled it's just smoother and the transition from the left and right side surrounds is more natural, the transition from left to right less jarring. It gives you a greater sense of the ship moving around the room.[/QUOTE]

I was running 7.2.4 with wides and no rear surrounds for awhile. I changed that up lately and am experimenting with 9.2.2 and I am liking the results so far. My room is pretty small. About 13x17x8.5. I have a very smooth front to side transition as you describe. My side surrounds are just behind my seating at about 110 degrees. The front wides give a nice fill as audio pans towards the back. Also with the back surrounds I get a full 360 wrap in the sound. For my room and my purposes I think I have found the perfect solution. 

As to the overhead sounds I am not really missing the other pair really. I never did get a lot of the "helicopter flying in circles" kind of experience with my room. Maybe the knee wall made a difference in how I perceived the overhead sounds. I have the same sense of above sound that I ever had with a larger bed effects in the audio. This pair is just in front of the listening MLP. About 70-80 degrees I'd say. They are hanging off the ceiling with speaker hangers so were easy to relocate for me. 

When I do any upmix in the audio I usually do it with the Nueral:x so I can have the front wides bring any matrixed wide sound to the mix. The rear surrounds do bring a contribution to the sound. I don't sit right on the back wall so having the back surrounds works out well for me. Those speakers are about 6 feet behind me and they sit about five feet from each other. I use in wall speakers and there is a door on one side of them and the stair well entrance on the other. So they got pushed it close to each other. Fronts are about 11 feet in front. With as small a room as I have I think I have been able to squeeze in a pretty decent theater. It has taken me awhile to get to this point of where the speakers are located. I like what I hear so far.


----------



## sdurani

James Stephens 2 said:


> Anyone have any comments on the improvements I should expect in the sound with the two additional speakers?


Depends on placement. If your surround speakers are already behind you and you add a pair of surround-back speakers between them, then you won't notice much difference (all the surround information will still be behind you). However, if you move your surrounds directly to your sides or slightly in front of your listening position, then you'll get side-vs-rear separation in the surround field that you can't easily get with only one pair of surrounds.


----------



## awblackmon

batpig said:


> Sure, with the surround/overhead speakers it's a question of selecting the right speaker to give you the coverage pattern you need for your listening area. For the same reasons you might choose a bipole on the side (close listening distance / need to cover two rows) you might choose a bipole for an overhead speaker.
> 
> If you watch this video on immersive audio with pro Anthony Grimani, he shows some example theaters in the later parts of the interview. Note that several of these theaters use Triad Bipole InWall Surrounds for BOTH the surround speakers and the overheads.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbqJkjfABQ&t=2387s


I just finished watching this episode. I pretty much have installed my system that Grimanni describes here for a 9.x.2 Rear speakers brought in a bit closer. Atmos speakers brought in a bit closer to the seating. It was a good episode.


----------



## madbrain

James Stephens 2 said:


> Two more speakers? I have a 5.2.4 (Yamaha 2050) and am considering going to a 7.2.4 system. Anyone have any comments on the improvements I should expect in the sound with the two additional speakers? Recommended receiver that can power all the speakers? Thanks.


I just setup a pair of SVS Prime Elevation as downfiring front height. Now running 7.4.4 - really 7.1.4 with 4 subs, since there is only one LFE channel technically, even though my receiver has 2 sub outputs, each of which I'm splitting to feed subs in each of the 4 corners of the room.
The additional front height pair makes a huge difference in the Atmos trailer demos that I listened to last night. I can now really hear high sounds going around the room in a circle. And it is not possible to exactly locate the sound to a single speaker in those demos at least. Very impressive. Have not listened to any movie in Atmos yet with the extra speakers - been too busy setting things up . I got new seating and changed my listening position to be closer to the front also. That was part of the improvement as well, not only the front height speakers.
I would say it was totally worth it for me to go to 4 top speakers. I have a pair of downfiring in-ceiling speakers for the rear.
Only downside is I have to use an extra amp for the extra 2 speakers. I am using my Marantz SR7011 as processor and amp for the first 9 speakers. My previous Yamaha RX-A1000 receiver is setup to power the last pair of speakers in zone 2. The RX-A1000 doesn't have a trigger input, so it is currently running full time and consuming power. I am solving this problem with the following two items :
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WV7GMA2/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004GIGTQ6/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Basically, this allows using the trigger of the main receiver/amp with any other amp that doesn't have a trigger input.
Ordered those last night from Amazon prime, to be delivered in just a few hours (free one day shipping). 
Much cheaper solution than using a Panamax M8-AV-PRO unit that has the same feature but has a $179 MSRP . Panamax unit will do the full 15 amps, whereas iOT relay only 12 amps, but that's not worth $100 extra.


----------



## James Stephens 2

Thanks all. In my situation, I have four speakers overhead in the ceiling, three in front, two SVS subs behind the couch and two more speakers on the back wall to the sides of the couch, but behind me by about 3.5 feet. I think I can find a place to put the two additional speakers directly to the sides of the couch, perhaps maybe a foot or two in front of the couch. 

Of course, getting those two additional speakers is going to be expensive(isn't it all) because my current Yamaha 2050 is a 9.2 processor. So, I will need a new receiver that does 11.2 and two additional in wall definitive technology speakers. Certainly a lot of money for little more bang, but I do enjoy slowly evolving and upgrading as I go. I just recently upgraded my projector to a Sony 285es 4k, so I will need to pause a bit or my wife will kill me. LOL. Still never hurts to start researching and planning.


----------



## awblackmon

James Stephens 2 said:


> Thanks all. In my situation, I have four speakers overhead in the ceiling, three in front, two SVS subs behind the couch and two more speakers on the back wall to the sides of the couch, but behind me by about 3.5 feet. I think I can find a place to put the two additional speakers directly to the sides of the couch, perhaps maybe a foot or two in front of the couch.
> 
> Of course, getting those two additional speakers is going to be expensive(isn't it all) because my current Yamaha 2050 is a 9.2 processor. So, I will need a new receiver that does 11.2 and two additional in wall definitive technology speakers. Certainly a lot of money for little more bang, but I do enjoy slowly evolving and upgrading as I go. I just recently upgraded my projector to a Sony 285es 4k, so I will need to pause a bit or my wife will kill me. LOL. Still never hurts to start researching and planning.


Yup. Research and plan and when the time comes you know what you want and/or know the price is right for some item and you grab it.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Hello!

Could someone tell me how/what would be best for my Atmosspeakers or how you should have done?

Should I point them directly at the MLP or straight down? Atm I have them pointing down. Are the tweeters to close?

My bedlayer tweeters are at 83cm (~2ft 8in) from the floor and my Atmos at 235cm (~7ft 8in). 

Thanks!

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> Should I point them directly at the MLP or straight down?


Do you point any of your other speakers at the MLP?


----------



## westbergjoakim

sdurani said:


> Do you point any of your other speakers at the MLP?


Only my frontspeakers.

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> Only my frontspeakers.


Then point your height speakers at the MLP (for the same reason you point your front speakers at the MLP).


----------



## awblackmon

westbergjoakim said:


> Hello!
> 
> Could someone tell me how/what would be best for my Atmosspeakers or how you should have done?
> 
> Should I point them directly at the MLP or straight down? Atm I have them pointing down. Are the tweeters to close?
> 
> My bedlayer tweeters are at 83cm (~2ft 8in) from the floor and my Atmos at 235cm (~7ft 8in).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


I have my Atmos speakers pointing to the MLP. They are just in front of the MLP and pointing to the center between the two seats actually. If I am watching a movie alone I slide the seat over so it is in the center of the room. Atmos speakers are then perfectly pointing down onto that seat. I am using only one pair. 9.2.2. Wides being used and one overhead Atmos pair.


----------



## VideoGrabber

One thing in the Dolby documents that always mystified me (including when I first read about it in Toole's book), is the reference to ITU-R BS.1116-1:



> All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically *3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level *for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).


Who has their seating with ear-level THAT high? 47-inches? Most seating I have encountered has ear level closer to 38-42"... depending on whether the seat is vertical or reclining. Seating that falls outside that range is even less.


----------



## freinhar

VideoGrabber said:


> One thing in the Dolby documents that always mystified me (including when I first read about it in Toole's book), is the reference to ITU-R BS.1116-1:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has their seating with ear-level THAT high? 47-inches? Most seating I have encountered has ear level closer to 38-42"... depending on whether the seat is vertical or reclining. Seating that falls outside that range is even less.


That's basically right on ear level for me, and I don't think my couch is particularly higher than usual. Guess I'm a pretty tall guy though.


----------



## Bond 007

freinhar said:


> That's basically right on ear level for me, and I don't think my couch is particularly higher than usual. Guess I'm a pretty tall guy though.


Very tall. I'm 6'1" and ear level for me is 38".


----------



## VideoGrabber

Thanks for the feedback! I was looking for a reality check here. I wouldn't be shocked to find there are some (tall) people, like freinhar, that this DOES apply to. (Though I would ask what height the seat is at? And do you need a ladder to get up to it?  )

However, the statement made was,



> _ ...ear level for the *average* seated listener_


And my question was, on what planet?  As Bond confirmed, even tall people are at ear levels WAY below that. So the implication I take from that statement is that the seating where they formulated that must be much higher than anything I am accustomed to. OR it is placed on risers.

I'm just trying to figure out how they justified that, since many other design considerations on speaker placement flow from that initial constraint.


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Thanks for the feedback! I was looking for a reality check here. I wouldn't be shocked to find there are some (tall) people, like freinhar, that this DOES apply to. (Though I would ask what height the seat is at? And do you need a ladder to get up to it?  )
> 
> However, the statement made was,
> 
> 
> 
> And my question was, on what planet?  As Bond confirmed, even tall people are at ear levels WAY below that. So the implication I take from that statement is that the seating where they formulated that must be much higher than anything I am accustomed to. OR it is placed on risers.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how they justified that, since many other design considerations on speaker placement flow from that initial constraint.


Could it be the average height of a sloped 3 row seating area (3', 4', 5')... ?


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> Could it be the average height of a sloped 3 row seating area (3', 4', 5')... ?


Yes! That certainly seems like a plausible explanation, at least. If they are including 3 row seating in their schema, you'd want to target the middle row... which would be elevated above the base. Thus pushing the 'average' up.

I vaguely recall looking at that ITU spec, way back when I first saw it referenced in Toole's seminar work. And I don't recall seeing any such mention. However, that was so many years ago that I really should go back and research it again. There may have been other assumptions that I failed to grasp at that time. Your comment may motivate me to do so.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Batpig write: _"If you watch this video on immersive audio with pro Anthony Grimani,"_



awblackmon said:


> I just finished watching this episode. I pretty much have installed my system that Grimanni describes here for a 9.x.2 Rear speakers brought in a bit closer. Atmos speakers brought in a bit closer to the seating. It was a good episode.


Has Grimani ever explained WHY he brings the rears and tops in a bit closer? (i.e., lateral separation.) I noticed he did not during that podcast.


----------



## batpig

I've spoken with pro installers who assume average seat height is 20", and then butt-to-ear distance is usually 24-28 inches depending how tall you are, so that spec doesn't seem too extreme.

I've got a fairly low couch (~18" cushion height) and I'm not tall, but if I'm sitting up straight my seated ear height is around 42". I happen to randomly have a tape measure at my desk and I just measured, seated upright in my office chair I have a butt-to-ear distance of 26".


----------



## batpig

VideoGrabber said:


> Has Grimani ever explained WHY he brings the rears and tops in a bit closer? (i.e., lateral separation.) I noticed he did not during that podcast.


I just cued up that portion of the video, on the back surrounds being narrower he says, "there's a lot of reasons for that in terms of the contrast between the side and the back and the effect of how you hear it from the back". So it sounds like the primary reason is to create more distinct side vs. rear separation, perhaps exaggerating the separation because our ears aren't as sensitive to precise localization of sounds directly behind. 

With respect to the tops being narrower and further in front than in the Dolby diagram, he specifically references the cinematic layout where the height arrays are aligned in between the L/R and C speakers and how placing them more in front "fills in the soundfield between the screen and the sides and backs". So the idea being that if a sound pans directly off the top of the screen and to the overheads, you will hear a smoother transition to the space above and in front of you.

Also a bit later he talks about how he prefers the surrounds (as do most pros) a bit higher than ear level. So bringing the overhead arrays inward also creates more angular separation vs. elevated surrounds on the side walls.


----------



## awblackmon

VideoGrabber said:


> Batpig write: _"If you watch this video on immersive audio with pro Anthony Grimani,"_
> 
> 
> 
> Has Grimani ever explained WHY he brings the rears and tops in a bit closer? (i.e., lateral separation.) I noticed he did not during that podcast.


I don't recall exactly why he does it. I did move mine in before I saw the pod cast. My experience with my knee walled room was positive. It moved the speakers away from the ceiling wall transition. I also raise the level on my Atmos speakers 2 db. For my room, again, that seems to be a positive move. My rear surround speakers are really close to one another because of the stairwell and bathroom doors pushing them together on the rear wall. They are about 4 feet apart. With my side surrounds at about 110 degrees this does give some serious separation between those sets. I raise the level on the rear speakers 2 db also. 

Going with the theory no two rooms are alike I tried experimenting with different methodologies. Many people say 4 speakers over head is best. For my desire to have wides in the configuration I have to agree with Grimani. They bring so much to the audio palette in my room. Going with 2 Atmos speakers really did not change much in what I hear compared to 4. The machine gun turrent motor seems to be not from the Atmos speakers but somewhere between those speakers and the rear and side surrounds and over head. Pretty much like Atmos is supposed to work. Use what speakers are there to get sound in the approximate place it is supposed to be. It has taken me quite awhile to get to this configuration and I have to say for my rooms environment it is working perfectly. Watching the opening sequence of Unbroken is pretty amazing to hear the environment of the bomber during the battle scene. Lots of overhead and all around you stuff goes on.

Now if the 8802a could do 13.1 I'd be all over another pair overhead. It doesn't so I do what I can and I like the results so far. Others may have a different experience in their room.


----------



## VideoGrabber

batpig said:


> I've spoken with pro installers who assume average seat height is 20", and then butt-to-ear distance is usually 24-28 inches depending how tall you are, so that spec doesn't seem too extreme.


That's interesting. I just checked, and my B2ED is 28".



> I've got a fairly low couch (~18" cushion height) and I'm not tall, but if I'm sitting up straight my seated ear height is around 42". I happen to randomly have a tape measure at my desk and I just measured, seated upright in my office chair I have a butt-to-ear distance of 26".


My LR couch seating has ear height at 39" sitting upright, and 36" reclined one notch. My HT recliners downstairs are @42" when vertical, and 39" reclined one notch. So, for me, TV @36" and movies @39" is nominal. Which is why it seemed as if 47" was so far off. I also noted that stadium-type seating sometimes used is even lower than recliners.

I never watch TV or movies in an office chair, but those DO put my ear height right at ~47-48".


----------



## awblackmon

batpig said:


> I just cued up that portion of the video, on the back surrounds being narrower he says, "there's a lot of reasons for that in terms of the contrast between the side and the back and the effect of how you hear it from the back". So it sounds like the primary reason is to create more distinct side vs. rear separation, perhaps exaggerating the separation because our ears aren't as sensitive to precise localization of sounds directly behind.
> 
> With respect to the tops being narrower and further in front than in the Dolby diagram, he specifically references the cinematic layout where the height arrays are aligned in between the L/R and C speakers and how placing them more in front "fills in the soundfield between the screen and the sides and backs". So the idea being that if a sound pans directly off the top of the screen and to the overheads, you will hear a smoother transition to the space above and in front of you.
> 
> Also a bit later he talks about how he prefers the surrounds (as do most pros) a bit higher than ear level. So bringing the overhead arrays inward also creates more angular separation vs. elevated surrounds on the side walls.


Thanks for the reminder. I was lazy and did not go back to the podcast. I am finding that much of what he says is true after changing my system to what he described BEFORE I watched the video. The podcast validated the decisions I made for my room.


----------



## VideoGrabber

batpig said:


> I just cued up that portion of the video, on the back surrounds being narrower he says,


Thanks for doing that! I would have sworn I sat through the whole thing, and I would have remembered such commentary. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm listening for... when a designer explains why he deviates from "conventional wisdom". But I must have left the room for some reason, and missed more than I realized. (Sometimes discussions do get a bit "rambly", and just cover well-worn territory. So I am not always "glued" to it.)



> "there's a lot of reasons for that in terms of the contrast between the side and the back and the effect of how you hear it from the back". So it sounds like the primary reason is to create more distinct side vs. rear separation, perhaps exaggerating the separation because our ears aren't as sensitive to precise localization of sounds directly behind.


I will have to think on that a bit.



> With respect to the tops being narrower and further in front than in the Dolby diagram, he specifically references the cinematic layout where the height arrays are aligned in between the L/R and C speakers and how placing them more in front "fills in the soundfield between the screen and the sides and backs". So the idea being that if a sound pans directly off the top of the screen and to the overheads, you will hear a smoother transition to the space above and in front of you.


That makes sense. It's actually what I would first imagine myself. Even though Dolby recommends the opposite.



> Also a bit later he talks about how he prefers the surrounds (as do most pros) a bit higher than ear level. So bringing the overhead arrays inward also creates more angular separation vs. elevated surrounds on the side walls.


Yes, I can easily agree with both of those. Thanks again.


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> I'm planning to by Polk MC80s and let the Anthem calibrate them together. Is that OK, or should I buy Jamo in-ceilings, too, to match timbre all the way around. Won't the ARC accomplish the same thing?





Selden Ball said:


> To the extent that roomEQ (ARC, Ausyssey, MCACC, etc) is successful in flattening the speakers' frequency response





Erod said:


> Perhaps the ARC would correct the speaker to handle any reflection amplification?





Selden Ball said:


> I have no experience with ARC, but I believe it would. I know Audyssey does.





Erod said:


> I've had xt32 for years. This will be my first go with ARC. I suspect they are virtually equal to my ears.



Ok guys...I can't read this anymore and didn't see where anybody else has corrected you. 

*ARC* stands for *A*udio *R*eturn *C*hannel and refers to the technology used to get audio from the TV back through the HDMI cable to a receiver (AVR) or sound bar from a smart TV app or a plugged in device such as a shiny disc player, Chromecast, or other such device.

It has nothing to do with room correction.

Erod - Audyssey XT32 _IS_ room correction built into receivers (Denon for example) Other brands use different room correction. For example, Pioneer uses MCACC in their AVRs. Onkyo used to use Audyssey, but dropped it 3 years ago or so for their "new" in-house created solution called "AccuEQ".

Back to your regular discussion.


----------



## thrang

stikle said:


> Ok guys...I can't read this anymore and didn't see where anybody else has corrected you.
> 
> *ARC* stands for *A*udio *R*eturn *C*hannel and refers to the technology used to get audio from the TV back through the HDMI cable to a receiver (AVR) or sound bar from a smart TV app or a plugged in device such as a shiny disc player, Chromecast, or other such device.
> 
> It has nothing to do with room correction.
> 
> Erod - Audyssey XT32 _IS_ room correction built into receivers (Denon for example) Other brands use different room correction. For example, Pioneer uses MCACC in their AVRs. Onkyo used to use Audyssey, but dropped it 3 years ago or so for their "new" in-house created solution called "AccuEQ"...


And Anthem uses.....?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

stikle said:


> It has nothing to do with room correction.


Actually ARC is unfortunately used as an acronym both for one of the less common room correction technologies AND Audio Return Channel.


----------



## Foundation42

stikle said:


> Ok guys...I can't read this anymore and didn't see where anybody else has corrected you.
> 
> *ARC* stands for *A*udio *R*eturn *C*hannel and refers to the technology used to get audio from the TV back through the HDMI cable to a receiver (AVR) or sound bar from a smart TV app or a plugged in device such as a shiny disc player, Chromecast, or other such device.
> 
> It has nothing to do with room correction.
> 
> Erod - Audyssey XT32 _IS_ room correction built into receivers (Denon for example) Other brands use different room correction. For example, Pioneer uses MCACC in their AVRs. Onkyo used to use Audyssey, but dropped it 3 years ago or so for their "new" in-house created solution called "AccuEQ".
> 
> Back to your regular discussion.


I think Anthem calls their room correction system 'ARC' for Anthem Room Correction (link). The first post in your list mentions Anthem, so I assume that is what the original poster has.


----------



## batpig

stikle said:


> It has nothing to do with room correction.


Except of course for *A*nthem *R*oom *C*orrection, also known as ARC, which is clearly what is being discussed in this context 

https://www.anthemav.com/anthem-room-correction.php


----------



## stikle

Heeeeyo...disregard all that then. I was apparently just practicing typing.

Boy is my face some color of red now.


----------



## batpig

Lol - that was quite a 4 person pile-on in a 4 minute span!  we were all jumping over each other to try and correct you 

We'll pretend this never happened


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> Heeeeyo...disregard all that then. I was apparently just practicing typing.
> 
> Boy is my face some color of red now.


Wait a minute, now. Did you just admit to an error AND apologize for your mistake?

Is that still a thing now? (If so, it's refreshing!)


----------



## mrtickleuk

stikle said:


> Heeeeyo...disregard all that then. I was apparently just practicing typing.
> 
> Boy is my face some color of red now.


Don't worry, we've all been there, I know I have! 

Anthem should have to change the name of their technology. Or HDMI should. Either.


----------



## stikle

I'm sure I would have NO idea what you're referring to. 

Working towards my own changes. I'm selling my house and buying a new one on the other side of the state. There's two basement rooms. I planning on knocking the wall between them out and finally having my own dedicated light controlled theater room. I forgot to take measurements when I walked through, but'll have them tomorrow after the inspection. The ceiling height may be a concern, so I'll just have to see how that pans out. I have to demo those two rooms anyway for the electricians, as the entire house needs rewired. At least that way I can easily get power and wiring where I want.


----------



## gwsat

mrtickleuk said:


> Don't worry, we've all been there, I know I have!
> 
> Anthem should have to change the name of their technology. Or HDMI should. Either.


Oh, yeah! I earned my Egg on the Face medal many years ago and have received a number of Oak Leaf Clusters since.


----------



## thrang

stikle said:


> Heeeeyo...disregard all that then. I was apparently just practicing typing.
> 
> Boy is my face some color of red now.


----------



## am2model3

I just finished StarWars4-6 with 5.1.4 DTS-HD+NeuralX; wow, that was fun! I love hearing xwings, tie fighters, star destroyers, and millenium falcon flying overhead front and rear!


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> I just setup a pair of SVS Prime Elevation as downfiring front height. Now running 7.4.4 - really 7.1.4 with 4 subs, since there is only one LFE channel technically, even though my receiver has 2 sub outputs, each of which I'm splitting to feed subs in each of the 4 corners of the room.
> The additional front height pair makes a huge difference in the Atmos trailer demos that I listened to last night. I can now really hear high sounds going around the room in a circle. And it is not possible to exactly locate the sound to a single speaker in those demos at least. Very impressive. Have not listened to any movie in Atmos yet with the extra speakers - been too busy setting things up . I got new seating and changed my listening position to be closer to the front also. That was part of the improvement as well, not only the front height speakers.
> I would say it was totally worth it for me to go to 4 top speakers. I have a pair of downfiring in-ceiling speakers for the rear.
> Only downside is I have to use an extra amp for the extra 2 speakers. I am using my Marantz SR7011 as processor and amp for the first 9 speakers. My previous Yamaha RX-A1000 receiver is setup to power the last pair of speakers in zone 2.


I'm considering the same scenario. I want four speakers in the sky but I don't have enough room between the couch and the rear wall to do it. Front heights were recommended as the answer in tandem with a single pair in the ceiling. I'd like to consider the SVS Prime Elevations but I need to figure out their angle down firing to see if they play on the spot on the wall I want. I have a 12 foot ceiling and I want them fairly close to the top if I can. MLP position is about 15 feet away.

Question for Madbrain....how hard was it to position the Prime Elevations for the correct angle in this application? The speakers have an inherit angle of 27 degrees according to SVS. I'm looking at placing them high on my wall over the TV, near the top of a 12 foot ceiling. The main listening position is about 14.5 feet away from said wall which works out to an needed angle of about 47 degrees. Just placing it in the included mounting bracket means I'm 20 degrees off....not a good plan regardless of how wide the dispersion field it.

[UPDATE] - I just worked out my flawed geometry. First, all the online calculators solve for is the angle inside the right triangle. I think I'm looking for the rest of the angle on the outside of the triangle which together equals 90 degrees. Second mistake is that the MLP is of course, not at floor height which means I need to compensate for the height of the ear of the listener. With that said, I think the height of the speakers needs to be about 11 feet in the air, which works our perfectly.


----------



## progprog

Sevenfeet said:


> I'm considering the same scenario. I want four speakers in the sky but I don't have enough room between the couch and the rear wall to do it.


Don't necessarily assume that's true. I just installed my four in-ceiling heights recently, and I was pretty concerned about how close the second pair was behind the listening area. They are, at most, 18" behind and out to the sides, so the angle of elevation is far outside the recommended range.

While I was happy with the results, I just discovered (by accident!) that I actually got _better _imaging when standing behind the MLP, i.e., when those heights are directly lateral to my ears. (The front heights are about 6'6" forward of those.)  Fortunately, my heights have pointable tweeters and I've been able to replicate the better positioning by pointing them to a spot about 2' in front of the MLP. Now I think I could have installed them directly to the sides of the MLP and been perfectly happy with their performance.

This is clearly not what the Dolby spec recommends. I recall once reading another post where a guy said he liked them more forward than recommended. Bottom line: each room is different and maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on adhering to all those precise angles in Dolby's diagrams. I just wish there were an easier way to experiment with placement before cutting holes in the ceiling!


----------



## Erod

How should I point my four tweeters in my ceiling speakers for two rows of seating? These are fairly high.


----------



## Sevenfeet

progprog said:


> Don't necessarily assume that's true. I just installed my four in-ceiling heights recently, and I was pretty concerned about how close the second pair was behind the listening area. They are, at most, 18" behind and out to the sides, so the angle of elevation is far outside the recommended range.
> 
> While I was happy with the results, I just discovered (by accident!) that I actually got _better _imaging when standing behind the MLP, i.e., when those heights are directly lateral to my ears. (The front heights are about 6'6" forward of those.)  Fortunately, my heights have pointable tweeters and I've been able to replicate the better positioning by pointing them to a spot about 2' in front of the MLP. Now I think I could have installed them directly to the sides of the MLP and been perfectly happy with their performance.
> 
> This is clearly not what the Dolby spec recommends. I recall once reading another post where a guy said he liked them more forward than recommended. Bottom line: each room is different and maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on adhering to all those precise angles in Dolby's diagrams. I just wish there were an easier way to experiment with placement before cutting holes in the ceiling!


Yes, every room is different. The problem is that I would think that the Atmos receiver or processor is making assumptions that an Atmos speaker is positioned within certain specifications. For my Marantz 7703 when going through the Audyssey configuration, it wants to know is a speaker is directed firing and if so, where (front, middle or rear). If the speaker is Atmos-enabled, then it wants to know the distance it is between the speaker and the ceiling. Then it can make assumptions since the Atmos enabled speaker is very likely sitting on top of the front mains or rear surrounds, and it can discern the distance since it already calculates that from the mains. Knowing two legs of the triangle means it can approximate the delays needed in order to make Atmos work without sounding off or weird.

Anyway, the ear of my couch (MLP) is 36" from the rear wall. According to Dolby I need about 10ft of distance given a ceiling height of 12 feet. for a rear ceiling speaker. Ear level is about 42" above the ground, which means that I only have 10 degrees of separation for a rear Atmos speaker. If I tried to close the 18 inch gap, my wife would kill the project (and I'd have problems with an adjacent love seat anyway). I could try it but I'm thinking the better solution is doing front heights and a single Atmos pair in the ceiling just ahead of the MLP pointed back. Dolby allows either 35 degrees forward, 10 degrees forward or 10 degrees behind the MLP using just two speakers. 10 degrees forward is my easiest solution (2.7 feet from MLP). And given my construction issues, installing two ceiling speakers is going to be very difficult, let along four. Front heights, by comparison will be a lot easier.


----------



## gwsat

am2model3 said:


> I just finished StarWars4-6 with 5.1.4 DTS-HD+NeuralX; wow, that was fun! I love hearing xwings, tie fighters, star destroyers, and millenium falcon flying overhead front and rear!


Although I believe there is no substitute for native lossless TrueHD Atmos/DTS:X MA audio, I agree that the DTS Neural:X DSU does a creditable job of matrixing DTS-HD MA 5.1 to 7.2.4. Its a lifesaver with the many many 5.1 soundtracks we still get.


----------



## PioManiac

gwsat said:


> Although I believe there is no substitute for native lossless TrueHD Atmos/DTS:X MA audio, I agree that the DTS Neural:X DSU does a creditable job of matrixing DTS-HD MA 5.1 to 7.2.4. Its a lifesaver with the many many 5.1 soundtracks we still get.


As a DTS-HD MA 6.1 native audio track on all my old Star Wars BD titles,
I was unable to get ANY sound out of my 4 Height/Presence speakers
with the Neural:X up-mixer engaged on my Yamaha RX-A3050.

I switched over to the Dolby Surround up-mixer and it was back to 7.4.4 audio again.

I've repeatedly asked others to confirm what I was finding with Neural:X on 6.1 DTS releases and no one has responded over the past year+
I believe the same thing happened to me on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy as well, with DTS 6.1 audio track.

I don't know if its just a Yamaha thing, or just an RX-A3050 thing, or is it just me.

:frown:


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> As a DTS-HD MA 6.1 native audio track on all my old Star Wars BD titles,
> I was unable to get ANY sound out of my 4 Height/Presence speakers
> with the Neural:X up-mixer engaged on my Yamaha RX-A3050.
> 
> I switched over to the Dolby Surround up-mixer and it was back to 7.4.4 audio again.
> 
> I've repeatedly asked others to confirm what I was finding with Neural:X on 6.1 DTS releases and no one has responded over the past year+
> I believe the same thing happened to me on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy as well, with DTS 6.1 audio track.
> 
> I don't know if its just a Yamaha thing, or just an RX-A3050 thing, or is it just me.
> 
> :frown:


Can't imagine that it's you. My Yamaha 3060 unfailingly gives me 7.2.4 when I use the DTS Neural:X DSU on any native DTS audio.


----------



## PioManiac

gwsat said:


> Can't imagine that it's you. My Yamaha 3060 unfailingly gives me 7.2.4 when I use the DTS Neural:X DSU on any native DTS audio.


Oh Neural:X upmixer works just fine for ALL my DTS-HD MA 5.1 or 7.1 Audio tracks
Try it with a *6.1* DTS-HD MA track and get back to me ASAP. (almost any older Star Wars Bluray)

Make sure you don't have the Enhanced DSP enabled
(not an option on the 2015 RX-A3050)

Dead silent height/presence speakers with Neural:X

Only DSU (Dolby Surround UpMix) works to expand 6.1 titles to 7.1.4

Help O-B GWSAT, You're My Only Hope !
(see what I did there?)


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> Oh Neural:X upmixer works just fine for ALL my DTS-HD MA 5.1 or 7.1 Audio tracks
> Try it with a 6.1 DTS-HD MA track and get back to me ASAP. (almost any older Star Wars Bluray)
> 
> Dead silent height/presence speakers
> 
> Only DSU works to expand 6.1 titles to 7.1.4


You have a point. Just put in my _Star Wars A New Hope_ BD, which has a DTS-HD MA 6.1 soundtrack. DTS Neural:X seemed not to activate my overhead speakers, although when I used either Yamaha's proprietary Enhanced DSP or the Dolby Surround DSU, the overheads were active. Clearly there is a bug when Neural:X is applied to native DTS-HD MA 6.1


----------



## Nalleh

PioManiac said:


> Oh Neural:X upmixer works just fine for ALL my DTS-HD MA 5.1 or 7.1 Audio tracks
> Try it with a *6.1* DTS-HD MA track and get back to me ASAP. (almost any older Star Wars Bluray)
> 
> Make sure you don't have the Enhanced DSP enabled
> (not an option on the 2015 RX-A3050)
> 
> Dead silent height/presence speakers with Neural:X
> 
> Only DSU (Dolby Surround UpMix) works to expand 6.1 titles to 7.1.4
> 
> Help O-B GWSAT, You're My Only Hope !
> (see what I did there?)


Tested with those movies, works fine on 6.1 here(Denon). However BIG difference in content in overheads between DSU and N:X. DSU had action almost all the time, music score for instance, while N:X could be silent for periods of time. But they did work.


----------



## PioManiac

gwsat said:


> You have a point. Just put in my _Star Wars A New Hope_ BD, which has a DTS-HD MA 6.1 soundtrack. DTS Neural:X seemed not to activate my overhead speakers, although when I used either Yamaha's proprietary Enhanced DSP or the Dolby Surround DSU, the overheads were active. Clearly there is a bug when Neural:X is applied to native DTS-HD MA 6.1












HUGE Thank You!

I've been trying to find someone else to test this for over a year, FINALLY I know it's not just me!

Next step,
is it the same for Denon and Marantz AVR's 
or is it just a Yamaha "thing" that needs a patch.


----------



## PioManiac

Nalleh said:


> Tested with those movies, works fine on 6.1 here(Denon). However BIG difference in content in overheads between DSU and N:X. DSU had action almost all the time, music score for instance, while N:X could be silent for periods of time. But they did work.


Finally I'm getting some serious input after a YEAR! 
Guess I was asking in the wrong threads. 

For DTS-HD MA *6.1* blurays like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, the preferred Up-Mixer is DSU>Neural:X 

:smile:


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> I just setup a pair of SVS Prime Elevation as downfiring front height.


One more question....how do you like the Prime Elevations for....you know, their sound? I'm seriously considering them not only for front height speakers but also as rear surrounds since their angle could solve a problem I've had for a long time in my theater.


----------



## LNEWoLF

PioManiac said:


> As a DTS-HD MA 6.1 native audio track on all my old Star Wars BD titles,
> I was unable to get ANY sound out of my 4 Height/Presence speakers
> with the Neural:X up-mixer engaged on my Yamaha RX-A3050.
> 
> I've repeatedly asked others to confirm what I was finding with Neural:X on 6.1 DTS releases and no one has responded over the past year+
> 
> I don't know if its just a Yamaha thing, or just an RX-A3050 thing, or is it just me.
> 
> :frown:


Rutt Rwoe,

Just checked Empire Strikes Back, Pioneer SC97, DSP Mode Direct, Auto, Neural X 7.1.4

Checked several chapters, no sound from elevation speakers. 

Initially I muted each of the ear level channels. Which I have done in the past. No sound. Then turned every ear level (all) speaker back on and put my ear up to elevation speakers, no sound.

For Pioneer their is a recent firmware update related to DTS playback.

I haven’t had the time to do this yet. But I will ask in the SC 95, 97 and 99 thread and see what others are experiencing since the firmware update.


----------



## PioManiac

LNEWoLF said:


> Rutt Rwoe,
> 
> Just checked Empire Strikes Back, Pioneer SC97, DSP Mode Direct, Auto, Neural X 7.1.4
> 
> Checked several chapters, no sound from elevation speakers.
> 
> Initially I muted each of the ear level channels. Which I have done in the past. Turned every ear level speaker on and put my ear up to elevation speakers, no sound.


Can OPEN, Worms EVERYWHERE!!!

:devil:


----------



## LNEWoLF

PioManiac said:


> Can OPEN, Worms EVERYWHERE!!!
> 
> :devil:


Was updating my post fir you.

About the pioneer firmware update.


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> One more question....how do you like the Prime Elevations for....you know, their sound? I'm seriously considering them not only for front height speakers but also as rear surrounds since their angle could solve a problem I've had for a long time in my theater.


I love them so far, they seem to blend well with the rest of my speakers which are mostly Energy Veritas.
I have only checked them on movies though, not really on music yet. I would not hesitate to use them as rear or side surrounds if I didn't have speakers already for those locations. The main concern is the price - $500 a pair is a bit steep for such small speakers (I chose piano black finish to match my Veritas).
I would of course not use them for front, as they are not full-range speakers.


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> I love them so far, they seem to blend well with the rest of my speakers which are mostly Energy Veritas.
> I have only checked them on movies though, not really on music yet. I would not hesitate to use them as rear or side surrounds if I didn't have speakers already for those locations. The main concern is the price - $500 a pair is a bit steep for such small speakers (I chose piano black finish to match my Veritas).
> I would of course not use them for front, as they are not full-range speakers.


I'd be curious how they sound for music.

I had first discounted this speaker but now I've come back to them since they seem to be the best solution for the angles of the room in relation to Dolby Atmos and DTS:X specs. They also have a better range than some solutions I've seen...you can easily cross them over at a standard 80 hz versus something higher. They should work well as front height speakers.

I could in theory use them in the ceiling for my central Atmos pair but the 27 degree angle actually doesn't work for me as well and I suspect my wife would prefer true in-ceilings.

And I just realized that they can solve by short distance from the MLP to the rear wall problem (36" distance). I'm a little squeamish on the price too....$500 a pair for the nice piano black ones. I'd go for the cheaper finish except that my existing Rocket 750s have lots of piano black.


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> Question for Madbrain....how hard was it to position the Prime Elevations for the correct angle in this application? The speakers have an inherit angle of 27 degrees according to SVS. I'm looking at placing them high on my wall over the TV, near the top of a 12 foot ceiling. The main listening position is about 14.5 feet away from said wall which works out to an needed angle of about 47 degrees. Just placing it in the included mounting bracket means I'm 20 degrees off....not a good plan regardless of how wide the dispersion field it.


I did not really worry about the angle at all when placing them. I consulted with my spouse on where they would look best in the room.
They turned out to sound pretty good that way, so I'm very happy. I have attached some photos of both front and back of my system.
Speaker wires have not been painted yet. New recliners came in last week - will be adding an 18" base to lift the rear 2 seats. They are modular so all 5 seats recline.

Even with all 12 LEDs on, the room is so dark that I had to use 2 second exposures on a tripod with my DSLR to get sharp enough pictures. 

Speakers are Energy Veritas 2.3 front, Veritas 2.0Ci center, PSB Image S5 side surrounds, Veritas 2.0Ri rear surrounds, some unknown speakers in the ceiling for the rear ceiling pair, and the SVS Prime Elevation for front height.
The in-wall speakers on the sides of the screen and directly underneath the Prime Elevation are not in use for home theater. I have them hooked up as a separate zone for my WHA system.

The 4 corner subs are Energy Reference 12 for front left, Polk PSW250 (8") for front right), BIC F-12 for rear left, Monoprice model 9723 (12") for rear right. Will be replacing that last one when I get the chance as it doesn't cut it for sound quality.


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> Oh Neural:X upmixer works just fine for ALL my DTS-HD MA 5.1 or 7.1 Audio tracks
> 
> Try it with a *6.1* DTS-HD MA track and get back to me ASAP. (almost any older Star Wars Bluray)
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure you don't have the Enhanced DSP enabled
> 
> (not an option on the 2015 RX-A3050)
> 
> 
> 
> Dead silent height/presence speakers with Neural:X
> 
> 
> 
> Only DSU (Dolby Surround UpMix) works to expand 6.1 titles to 7.1.4
> 
> 
> 
> Help O-B GWSAT, You're My Only Hope !
> 
> (see what I did there?)



Hi PioManiac,

How did I miss this a year ago! However, I have all the Star Wars collection and they are all in DTS-HD MA 6.1, if I remember correctly and not mistaken when I watched them with Neural:X activated, the height speakers were active.

I wish I was at home right now I could have tested it again. But will definitely do it later today. My setup is 5.1.4.


----------



## Craig Mecak

showmak said:


> Hi PioManiac,
> 
> How did I miss this a year ago! However, I have all the Star Wars collection and they are all in DTS-HD MA 6.1, if I remember correctly and not mistaken when I watched them with Neural:X activated, the height speakers were active.
> 
> I wish I was at home right now I could have tested it again. But will definitely do it later today. My setup is 5.1.4.


I've just tested Star Wars Episode III from my blu-ray boxed set, and can confirm that there is no height channel activity using Neural:X to up-mix the DTS-HD MA 6.1 audio track.

Switch to Dolby Surround, and the height speakers spring back to life.

I'm using an OPPO UDP-203 player into a Yamaha RX-A3060 with 7.1.4 speaker layout.

Methinks that DTS will need to issue an update to their Neural:X algorithm.

Cheers.


----------



## showmak

@PioManiac @Craig Mecak @gwsat

Guys,

I played Star Wars Episode I, II & III and as I said earlier, I'm not mistaken, the height channels are active when using Neural:X to up-mix the DTS-HD MA 6.1. They are also active while using DSU. I can hear sound coming from the four height/overhead speakers.

Tried both configurations as well, as Height and Overhead...


----------



## PioManiac

showmak said:


> @PioManiac @Craig Mecak @gwsat
> 
> Guys,
> 
> I played Star Wars and as I said earlier, I'm not mistaken, the height channels are active when using Neural:X to up-mix the DTS-HD MA 6.1. They are also active while using DSU.
> 
> Tried both configurations as well, as Height and Overhead...


Oh I get the same indication with on-screen speaker all icons lit up. (all 13 of them for me)
It's just nothing (or very little actual audio) coming from the speakers themselves. I don't even trust my ears so 
I reach up and place my fingers right on the mid range drivers of my height speakers and there is no vibration with Neural:X engaged for 6.1 DTS movies.

...as soon as I hit the sur-decoder button on the remote, the next option after N:X is the Dolby Surround upmixer and the speaker jumps to life!

I've since found confirmation on several websites that Neural:X is designed for up-mix of 5.1 or 7.1 DTS titles (no mention of 6.1 support)


----------



## showmak

@PioManiac

I can confirm 1000 times that my four height/overhead speakers are active while using Neural:X!!!


----------



## PioManiac

showmak said:


> @PioManiac
> 
> I can confirm 1000 times that my four height/overhead speakers are active while using Neural:X!!!


Oh, I believe you....but I think you may be the only one 
But do you notice its substantially louder with DSU?


----------



## Jonas2

showmak said:


> @*PioManiac*
> 
> I can confirm 1000 times that my four height/overhead speakers are active while using Neural:X!!!





PioManiac said:


> Oh, I believe you....but I think you may be the only one
> But do you notice its substantially louder with DSU?


I second what Showmak stated. And it might be a perception thing, but I'll say the overheads seem to used more "aggressively" in DTS vs. Dolby upmixing. Louder? Maybe, or perhaps it is just more info coming through the speakers more often.


----------



## PioManiac

@showmak What FW version do you have on your RX-A3050?
I can't recall, but is yours a Euro or Aussie model by chance?

It may even be a 7.1.4 vs 5.1.4 thing, just trying to narrow it down.


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> Oh, I believe you....but I think you may be the only one
> 
> But do you notice its substantially louder with DSU?



Neural:X is much louder than DSU and more aggressive...


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> @showmak What FW version do you have on your RX-A3050?
> 
> I can't recall, but is yours a Euro or Aussie model by chance?
> 
> 
> 
> It may even be a 7.1.4 vs 5.1.4 thing, just trying to narrow it down.



I'm on latest firmware 2.10 and I live in Middle East with 220V 50Hz.

Your last sentence makes sense!


----------



## Nalleh

PioManiac said:


> Oh I get the same indication with on-screen speaker all icons lit up. (all 13 of them for me)
> It's just nothing (or very little actual audio) coming from the speakers themselves. I don't even trust my ears so
> I reach up and place my fingers right on the mid range drivers of my height speakers and there is no vibration with Neural:X engaged for 6.1 DTS movies.
> 
> ...as soon as I hit the sur-decoder button on the remote, the next option after N:X is the Dolby Surround upmixer and the speaker jumps to life!
> 
> I've since found confirmation on several websites that Neural:X is designed for up-mix of 5.1 or 7.1 DTS titles (no mention of 6.1 support)


Hey now, you said no audio? Is it audio now?

Can you try to disable the surround backs?


----------



## am2model3

for what its worth, i'm using denon 4300h, and it lets me apply DSU or NeuralX to any Dolby or DTS signal I have been feeding it. (2ch, 5.1 or 7.1)

I have fed it Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and DolbyTrueHD, DolbyDigital5.1, stereo, PCM, etc. 

yup, star wars 1-6 is 6.1 dts audio; and when i listened to 4-6; i could hear height sounds via my 5.1.4 setup with DSU and NeuralX. Both sound great and different in their own ways. 
I am 5.1.4 enabled speakers; and for fun i put my ear on the upfiring and hear stuff all the time. 

Tip you probably know: I juice the db levels on the height channel speakers for more effect; thats a user preference. 
That is odd you are getting DSU to work but not NeuralX; must be software/firmware issue with your receiver? You might want to try another receiver if you want NeuralX? 

the denon 4300h had an update for DolbyVision and HLG; so that was impressive. I have been movie crazy since installing watching and listening to atmos and dts:X. its movie audio nirvana heaven for sure! the upmixers do a great job until we get new audio mixes later on. 

another tip: if the movie you listen to has a poor true atmos mix, try running it in 5.1 or 7.1 and using the upmixers...... i have heard a few that were not good. Just saw the Mummy 2017 blu ray with atmos and the scenes with overheads were 2-4 total; versus others like WonderWOman and Transformers5 UHD discs i could hear the heights.


----------



## stikle

PioManiac said:


> I've been trying to find someone else to test this for over a year, FINALLY I know it's not just me!



Wish I hadn't have missed this. All of my ShineyDiscs are buried in the storage unit pre-move. Curious as to whether it's a Yamaha issue or if my Denon would have the same results. Maybe one day I'll remember to check.



Sevenfeet said:


> I'd be curious how they sound for music.
> 
> I had first discounted this speaker but now I've come back to them since they seem to be the best solution for the angles of the room in relation to Dolby Atmos and DTS:X specs. They also have a better range than some solutions I've seen...you can easily cross them over at a standard 80 hz versus something higher.



I'm using all Primes for my front sound stage now. They sound excellent to my ears. While listening to The Imitation Game soundtrack, I was able to pick out transients from the piano in the left channel that I can't hear with my Sennheiser headphones. "Track 10 - Alone With Numbers" I believe.


----------



## juxtafras

Probably a dumb question but here goes: How much better are Atmos speakers when installed in the ceiling than the type you put on top of your front speakers and have bounce the sound off the ceiling? Is it 5% better or 100% better?

I'm getting an Atmos capable receiver and would like to get the extra benefit but I really don't want to pay to tear up sheetrock and run wiring if it isn't a huge difference. 

Is there much content that even uses Atmos sound? If so, how would I know if a movie or game was made to use it (on the disc rather than just pushing 5.1 or 7.1 through the Atmos speakers which wouldn't be a huge difference I assume)?


----------



## PioManiac

Nalleh said:


> Hey now, you said no audio? Is it audio now?
> 
> Can you try to disable the surround backs?


I felt no vibration of the mid driver with my finger tips, 
Don't trust the same test for the tweeters and if there is sound from them and can't get my ear close enough to confirm,
I would have to totally disable the rest of my speakers to make sure my ears were not playing tricks on me. 

The lights on the Yamaha menu and front panel indicate they are getting a signal, so I don't doubt there is "something" happening there,
I just have not found it it yet, with my ears or my finger tips.

I will admit I wasn't patient enough to wait for very long while playing any random tracks while testing, maybe 2 minutes tops during an action sequence,
I just know that I wasn't getting any results after a minute or two and had to try DSU to make sure my speakers were actually hooked up still.

I will try to disable my rear surrounds later today when I get home, making it a 5.1.4
Will also try changing my Speaker pattern I've setup for DTS:X to Overhead instead of Heights.

Perhaps we should all use a particular scene/chapter from a specific 6.1 title?
one that clearly produces an Elevation Speaker engagement in both DSU and N:X?


----------



## am2model3

ceiling speakers they say are best, but for you and i who dont' want to do the ceiling work, enabled upfiring works really great. 
i am 5.1.4 enabled and really love it. pioneer elites. I demoed ceiling speakers and bought enabled; honestly they are both good) ceiling speakers are great for large/tall rooms; smaller 8-10ft rooms enabled is fine. 

some blu ray movies are atmos (newer ones) and almost all 4K UHD movie discs have atmos or dts:X soundtracks. 
Dont worry though; all your current dvd and blu rays with 2ch, 5.1., 6.1, 7.1 audio will upmix to atmos (via dolby surround) and dtsX(via neural X) and can sound really good until your favorite movie gets a true new audio mix. 

the movie package will tell you what the audio track is, the movie disc options for audio will also tell you.


----------



## PioManiac

am2model3 said:


> That is odd you are getting DSU to work but not NeuralX; must be software/firmware issue with your receiver? You might want to try another receiver if you want NeuralX?


Just to be Clear, it's not that Neural:X doesn't work at all, it works 99% of the time
It just doesn't work on older Bluray's with a 6.1 DTS-HD sound track. 
...which is about 6 movies out the 600+ I own 

I'm not about to upgrade to a new $3k AVR just for 6 movies when everything else is working great,
Specially if a single click of a button fixes a handful of old Star Wars movies by using Dolby Surround Up-Mix instead


----------



## LNEWoLF

PioManiac said:


> Perhaps we should all use a particular scene/chapter from a specific 6.1 title?
> one that clearly produces an Elevation Speaker engagement in both DSU and N:X?


I was just about to suggest this.

Please include a miniute mark also.

How about Empire Strikes Back bluray DTS Master HD 6.1 audio mix.

Pio, it might be a good ideia to start a seperate thread on the subject. If your willing.

Working on updating to the current firmware ver. on my Pioneer AVR.


----------



## stikle

I happen to prefer DSU over N:X for everything. It's a personal preference. I've tried both multiple times, and that's the conclusion I've arrived at.


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> Just to be Clear, it's not that Neural:X doesn't work at all, it works 99% of the time
> It just doesn't work on older Bluray's with a 6.1 DTS-HD sound track.
> ...which is about 6 movies out the 600+ I own
> 
> I'm not about to upgrade to a new $3k AVR just for 6 movies when everything else is working great,
> Specially if a single click of a button fixes a handful of old Star Wars movies by using Dolby Surround Up-Mix instead


Agreed! The simple solution for upconverting DTS-HD MA 6.1 soundtracks to 7.x.4 with Yamaha 30X0 receivers is to simply use either the Dolby Surround or Enhanced upmixers instead of DTS Neural:X. Both sound just fine, to my ears at least with 6.1 soundtracks.


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> Perhaps we should all use a particular scene/chapter from a specific 6.1 title?
> 
> one that clearly produces an Elevation Speaker engagement in both DSU and N:X?



I would suggest Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, Chapter 20 (The Race) @ 00:55:03


----------



## showmak

gwsat said:


> Agreed! The simple solution for upconverting DTS-HD MA 6.1 soundtracks to 7.x.4 with Yamaha 30X0 receivers is to simply use either the Dolby Surround or Enhanced upmixers instead of DTS Neural:X. Both sound just fine, to my ears at least with 6.1 soundtracks.



Let's find out if the issue is with 7.x.4 setup. Hope Pio can do a test with 5.x.4 setup.

On my 5.1.4 setup, the Neural:X upmixer works flawlessly and sounds amazing on DTS-HD MA 6.1 sound track.

I have other movies with 6.1 audio track, I all give them a try...


----------



## PioManiac

LNEWoLF said:


> I was just about to suggest this.
> 
> Please include a miniute mark also.
> 
> How about Empire Strikes Back bluray DTS Master HD 6.1 audio mix.
> 
> Pio, it might be a good ideia to start a seperate thread on the subject. If your willing.
> 
> Working on updating to the current firmware ver. on my Pioneer AVR.


I was going to suggest SW Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) Opening scene,

#1 its right at the start, so no searching for time stamps
#2 its got a Ton of action all around in every direction
#3 its the First 6.1 Title I was going to use to Demo my system with 7.4.4 and 120" screen with my new JVC (last August 2016)


----------



## batpig

5.1.4 vs. 7.1.4 could make a difference -- if the base setup is 5.1 then the DTS soundtrack should decode as such with the back surround content divided equally between the side surrounds.

DTS:X looks for correlated content in the surround channel pairs to move overhead, so maybe when you have a mono back surround it barfs. When the 6.1 is first downmixed to 5.1 and then played back it works.


----------



## LNEWoLF

PioManiac said:


> I was going to suggest SW Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) Opening scene,
> 
> #1 its right at the start, so no searching for time stamps
> #2 its got a Ton of action all around in every direction
> #3 its the First 6.1 Title


That will work. Lets use that title as our reference point to verify if your elevation channels are producing sound.


----------



## PioManiac

batpig said:


> 5.1.4 vs. 7.1.4 could make a difference -- if the base setup is 5.1 then the DTS soundtrack should decode as such with the back surround content divided equally between the side surrounds.
> 
> DTS:X looks for correlated content in the surround channel pairs to move overhead, so maybe when you have a mono back surround it barfs. When the 6.1 is first downmixed to 5.1 and then played back it works.


I think you just nailed it, technically THAT makes the most sense!
and would explain why those with 5.1.4 setups report no problem...even with the same model AVR as I have.

I've got about 5 hours to go before I'm home to confirm.

Thanks for throwing a little AV*S*cience into the equation!


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> I was going to suggest SW Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) Opening scene,
> 
> 
> 
> #1 its right at the start, so no searching for time stamps
> 
> #2 its got a Ton of action all around in every direction
> 
> #3 its the First 6.1 Title I was going to use to Demo my system with 7.4.4 and 120" screen with my new JVC (last August 2016)
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoet1wS9osQ



This is a good suggestion.


----------



## am2model3

PioManiac said:


> Just to be Clear, it's not that Neural:X doesn't work at all, it works 99% of the time
> It just doesn't work on older Bluray's with a 6.1 DTS-HD sound track.
> ...which is about 6 movies out the 600+ I own
> 
> I'm not about to upgrade to a new $3k AVR just for 6 movies when everything else is working great,
> Specially if a single click of a button fixes a handful of old Star Wars movies by using Dolby Surround Up-Mix instead


amen! Sorry i am writing to this post from work (shame on me) so i was reading it all fast, and writing fast reply before lunch. 
As i was eating lunch my brain caught up and realized that 5.1 and 7.1 neural x works for you, but its just the odd 6.1 dts soundtracks that don't work. 6 very important films!! = ) and apparently Lord Of The Rings trilogy as well. I never realized these films had 6 channel soundtracks instead of 5 or 7; so oddly interesting. Such an odd bug that DTS 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks work with NeuralX but 6.1 does not. 
Glad DSU works for you!! 

Have you tried contacting Yamaha support about the 6.1 glitch with NeuralX?


----------



## PioManiac

am2model3 said:


> Have you tried contacting Yamaha support about the 6.1 glitch with NeuralX?


Not yet, it's not important enough to bother at this point, DSU works for 7.4.4 and that's all that mattered to me.
I'm guessing its a DTS root problem, since LNEWoLF said his 7.1.4 Pioneer AVR has the same issue.

Soon enough we'll probably see Disney releasing 4K/HDR/ATMOS UHD's for the entire Star Wars series.


----------



## am2model3

cool! since Disney is doing 4KUHD new movies now with Guardians2, Pirates5, and Cars3; I would have to think EpVIII LastJedi might be oddly the first StarWars 4K UHD release this coming spring!? = )


----------



## healthnut

The latest issue of Widescreen Review states that the only format making good use of the overheads is Auro. I’ve invested heavily in 4 dedicated ceiling speakers and a Yamaha 3060 receiver, and I have to admit, most movies don’t seem to use the overheads much. According the WWR, the studios admit that the soundtracks aren’t very enveloping, but cite budget issues as the reason. I certainly hope this situation improves, and Auro has almost no movie content, so I’m not sure it’s worth investing in it for the upmixer alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

healthnut said:


> The latest issue of Widescreen Review states that the only format making good use of the overheads is Auro. I’ve invested heavily in 4 dedicated ceiling speakers and a Yamaha 3060 receiver, and I have to admit, most movies don’t seem to use the overheads much. According the WWR, the studios admit that the soundtracks aren’t very enveloping, but cite budget issues as the reason. I certainly hope this situation improves, and Auro has almost no movie content, so I’m not sure it’s worth investing in it for the upmixer alone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I suggest you watch The Bourne film series, and if you don't notice aggressive overhead sounds then I would say something is wrong with you system or your speakers configuration.


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> I did not really worry about the angle at all when placing them. I consulted with my spouse on where they would look best in the room.
> They turned out to sound pretty good that way, so I'm very happy. I have attached some photos of both front and back of my system.
> Speaker wires have not been painted yet. New recliners came in last week - will be adding an 18" base to lift the rear 2 seats. They are modular so all 5 seats recline.
> 
> Even with all 12 LEDs on, the room is so dark that I had to use 2 second exposures on a tripod with my DSLR to get sharp enough pictures.
> 
> Speakers are Energy Veritas 2.3 front, Veritas 2.0Ci center, PSB Image S5 side surrounds, Veritas 2.0Ri rear surrounds, some unknown speakers in the ceiling for the rear ceiling pair, and the SVS Prime Elevation for front height.
> The in-wall speakers on the sides of the screen and directly underneath the Prime Elevation are not in use for home theater. I have them hooked up as a separate zone for my WHA system.
> 
> The 4 corner subs are Energy Reference 12 for front left, Polk PSW250 (8") for front right), BIC F-12 for rear left, Monoprice model 9723 (12") for rear right. Will be replacing that last one when I get the chance as it doesn't cut it for sound quality.


Nice room. Looks like you're nearly finished. I'm curious about your subwoofer issue...not that you have four subs...after all, this is the AVSForum.  But that all four subs are different. Are there any challenges from that?

It looks like that you have three receivers alongside your Marantz. Are you using them as amps? I'm doing that with two old receivers while I save up to buy a proper multi-channel amp.

This is the front of my theater room. AV123 Rocket 750s are the mains (and the rear surrounds) with the AV123 RSC200 center channel. I'm using a couple of old satellites as a faux Atmos-Enabled scenario until I get something proper and that's where the SVS Prime Elevations would come in. I'm looking to place them high on the wall, near the 12 foot ceiling, just inside the profile of the mains. And I'm debating using them for rears since I'm only going with five mains at the moment....since the rear wall is only 2 feet away from the couch, the angled speakers could solve some problems for me in terms of positioning.


----------



## PioManiac

One the best ATMOS mixes I've played recently, by one of AVS's own *FilmMixer *
was Power Rangers on 4K/UHD : http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-foruma-blu-ray-disc-reviews/2870705-power-rangers-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post53683937


----------



## sdrucker

healthnut said:


> The latest issue of Widescreen Review states that the only format making good use of the overheads is Auro. I’ve invested heavily in 4 dedicated ceiling speakers and a Yamaha 3060 receiver, and I have to admit, most movies don’t seem to use the overheads much. According the WWR, the studios admit that the soundtracks aren’t very enveloping, but cite budget issues as the reason. I certainly hope this situation improves, and Auro has almost no movie content, so I’m not sure it’s worth investing in it for the upmixer alone.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Auromatic's a worthwhile investment when you buy a new processor from D&M that has it included as part of the price  .

Of course Auro is making "good use" of the overheads through Auromatic 3D...they're always getting content from the L/R or surround copied to the heights at a lower db level, with some added effects. And since most native Auro content appears to be music, apart from a small number of BDs in Europe, how much native (mostly 9.1) content goes to the heights is a bit moot when there's not much to watch.

As to how much heights get activity in DTS:X or Atmos, that's up to the mixers use of those channels. Budget has little to do with it, since I doubt that it costs more to mix content to heights ot or objects than it does to copy music to rear or side surrounds once the studio pros have the mixing tools on hand. 


Perhaps one of our industry experts can speak more about this point, but keep in mind that there's something like 200 Atmos BluRay releases (almost all movies, only a few are music) and at least 50 DTS:X. But I have Atmos movies at home that make almost continuous use of heights, such as Hunting Games: Catching Fire, and others here have cited action movies with heavy heights action.


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> One the best ATMOS mixes I've played recently, by one of AVS's own *FilmMixer *
> was Power Rangers on 4K/UHD : http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-foruma-blu-ray-disc-reviews/2870705-power-rangers-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post53683937


Amen! I downloaded the _Power Rangers_ file from the Kaleidescape store to my Kscape strato when it first became available. Its Atmos effects are wonderful. I haven't heard better. As dumb as the movie is, the sound is so entertaining, I confess I have watched the film several times. Kudos to @Filmmaker!


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> Nice room. Looks like you're nearly finished. I'm curious about your subwoofer issue...not that you have four subs...after all, this is the AVSForum.  But that all four subs are different. Are there any challenges from that?


Thanks ! Yes, I'm nearly done. Mostly left with cosmetic issues around cable painting/hiding. I need to remove the old HDMI 1.4 cable and component cable too, but that involves taking off the anchors for all the rear speakers too as well as one of the satellite wires. Been too lazy to do that.

I went with 4 subs a couple years ago after reading this :
https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/multsubs_0.pdf

Was not a hard decision because some subs were very cheap (monoprice), and one (PSW250) was given to me free by a friend.
I already had 2 subs before, but one blew up (Boston VR500 - have the parts to repair it, not the skill).

The main challenge is to calibrate level. The new SR7011 receiver has 2 sub outputs and Audyssey helps with calibrating levels for 2 subs. I split each sub output in half to get to 4 subs. I use an SPL meter to help with calibrating each sub in each group. One of the subs is downfiring (Klipsch Reference 12) and all the others are side-firing. I am sure others

Once calibrated, the bass is much better and more uniform around the room. Not that it doesn't vary, but you can feel some sub bass from any of the seats, which wasn't the case with just 1 or 2 subs.



> It looks like that you have three receivers alongside your Marantz. Are you using them as amps? I'm doing that with two old receivers while I save up to buy a proper multi-channel amp.


Good eye. Yes, there are 4 receivers in that rack. The home theater is using Marantz SR7011 as primary 11.2 receiver and power amp to power the first 9 channels. The Yamaha RX-A1000 is used as Zone 2 to power the last 2 speakers. I use trigger out from the SR7011 and an iOT power relay to turn on the RX-A1000 only as needed. I also have the HDMI output of the RX-A1000 going to one of the HDMI inputs on the SR7011, so that I can get more inputs - more HDMI inputs (HD), more component inputs, and s-video (completely lacking on the SR7011). Right now there isn't any component attached to the RX-A1000, just speakers. I haven't maxed out the SR7011 input yet. Perhaps I never will. I still had to connected the monitor out of the RX-A1000 to the SR7011 to change the speaker setup through the GUI on my projector, so I left it hooked up.

The other 2 receivers are Pioneer Elite VSX-56 Ti and Denon AVR-2807 receivers. Those are used to power a portion of my WHA system as the downstairs speaker terminals end up in this HT room on the wall to the left of the screen. Each of those old receivers has a 7.1 multi-channel analog input . I use only 6 of the inputs, with 3 Chromecast audio connected to each. Thus, each of the old receiver powers 3 zones.
Those 2 receivers are on a Wifi smart plug to turn them on only as needed with an app with my smartphone and not waste power.
Note that the Chromecast audios downstairs are running on ethernet directly to my router, not Wifi.

The rest of the speaker terminals for the house are upstairs in my master bedroom. I have 3 more receivers up there (two are 7.1, one is 5.1) with 8 more Chromecast audios powering 8 more zones. The 3 receivers upstairs are also on another Wifi smart plug.
The Chromecast audios upstairs are running on ethernet with powerline AV1200.

There is one more Chromecast audio in my home office downstairs too. Total of 15 zone WHA system. 3 zones outside, 12 inside.

All the old receivers are either old units I recycled during various upgrades, or purchased very cheap on craigslist (about $100 each - I paid $95 for the AVR-2807 two weeks ago). You need old receivers with multi-channel analog inputs for this, as new ones don't have them anymore (except Marantz). Only one of the 6 receivers that power my WHA system has any HDMI at all - that's how old they are. But they sound great once the Chromecast audios are put in full-range mode, in combination with Tidal hifi lossless, and JRiver media center on an ODroid XU4/Bubble uPNP to play my local 1TB msic library.



> This is the front of my theater room. AV123 Rocket 750s are the mains (and the rear surrounds) with the AV123 RSC200 center channel. I'm using a couple of old satellites as a faux Atmos-Enabled scenario until I get something proper and that's where the SVS Prime Elevations would come in. I'm looking to place them high on the wall, near the 12 foot ceiling, just inside the profile of the mains. And I'm debating using them for rears since I'm only going with five mains at the moment....since the rear wall is only 2 feet away from the couch, the angled speakers could solve some problems for me in terms of positioning.


I think the Prime elevations would likely work for you. You may need to adjust the height. Perhaps don't put them too close to the ceiling if you want the sound to work best. My ceiling is only 8ft and I put my Prime under conduits on the side, I think 70" is the height of the bottom of my Prime speakers.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> ...there's something like 200 Atmos BluRay releases (almost all music)...


Almost all music?


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Almost all music?


 
Aggh, typo. I meant "almost all movies". Fixed. There must have a been a bug in the brain/keyboard interface 


I have had the release of REM's "Automatic for the People" in Atmos on my mind:
http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/post-and-broadcast/rem-in-atmos-for-the-people/47888


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Aggh, typo. I meant "almost all movies". Fixed.


While you're fixing it, change Hunting Game: Catching Fire to Hunger Games: Catching Fire.


----------



## PioManiac

batpig said:


> 5.1.4 vs. 7.1.4 could make a difference -- if the base setup is 5.1 then the DTS soundtrack should decode as such with the back surround content divided equally between the side surrounds.
> 
> DTS:X looks for correlated content in the surround channel pairs to move overhead, so maybe when you have a mono back surround it barfs. When the 6.1 is first downmixed to 5.1 and then played back it works.





PioManiac said:


> I think you just nailed it, technically THAT makes the most sense!
> and would explain why those with 5.1.4 setups report no problem...even with the same model AVR as I have.
> 
> I've got about 5 hours to go before I'm home to confirm.
> 
> Thanks for throwing a little AV*S*cience into the equation!


I just got home, poured me a bourbon
Setup Speaker Config, Back Surround = None

Load Star Wars with Neural:X 6.1 DTS-HD MA
Boom! All 4 Height Speakers working.

Mystery Solved!

Thanks Everyone,

I'll just keep my Back Surrounds active and use DSU for DTS 6.1 titles going forward
(Star Wars and Lord of the Rings Trilogy)

:wink:


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> While you're fixing it, change Hunting Game: Catching Fire to Hunger Games: Catching Fire.



Thank you, content checker...


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> Thanks ! Yes, I'm nearly done. Mostly left with cosmetic issues around cable painting/hiding. I need to remove the old HDMI 1.4 cable and component cable too, but that involves taking off the anchors for all the rear speakers too as well as one of the satellite wires. Been too lazy to do that.


That's a familiar theme.  I still have some detail bits from my last upgrade I haven't done. That being said, the TV wall is largely done...that is until I begin knocking more holes in the wall. That wall used to have about 20 4" holes in it after I discovered that it literally had no insulation in it....a real problem since the other side is the stairway to the garage. So my contractor opened up all those holes for an insulation company to come in and blow new cellulose in there, and then he sealed the work and painted. You cannot tell where he's been...I love his work. When I get the Primes, he's be back for the install.



> I went with 4 subs a couple years ago after reading this :
> https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/multsubs_0.pdf
> 
> Was not a hard decision because some subs were very cheap (monoprice), and one (PSW250) was given to me free by a friend.
> I already had 2 subs before, but one blew up (Boston VR500 - have the parts to repair it, not the skill).
> 
> The main challenge is to calibrate level. The new SR7011 receiver has 2 sub outputs and Audyssey helps with calibrating levels for 2 subs. I split each sub output in half to get to 4 subs. I use an SPL meter to help with calibrating each sub in each group. One of the subs is downfiring (Klipsch Reference 12) and all the others are side-firing. I am sure others
> 
> Once calibrated, the bass is much better and more uniform around the room. Not that it doesn't vary, but you can feel some sub bass from any of the seats, which wasn't the case with just 1 or 2 subs.


I've read parts of the Harman white paper. I agree with their assessment...it's just telling my wife she needs to invest in 4 subs! Right now, my old sub's amp blew so it's just a piece of furniture. I'll be lucky to get her to go along with one sub, much less two. So I'm thinking maybe one big sub as a starter and see if I can get another one at a later date.

None of your subs individually are that large but all together I imagine they move a fair amount of air. How low can you get decent output?

I had a friend who had the Boston VR500....bought it with his speakers over a decade ago and it failed recently. I helped him replace it with an SVS PC-2000



> Good eye. Yes, there are 4 receivers in that rack. The home theater is using Marantz SR7011 as primary 11.2 receiver and power amp to power the first 9 channels. The Yamaha RX-A1000 is used as Zone 2 to power the last 2 speakers. I use trigger out from the SR7011 and an iOT power relay to turn on the RX-A1000 only as needed. I also have the HDMI output of the RX-A1000 going to one of the HDMI inputs on the SR7011, so that I can get more inputs - more HDMI inputs (HD), more component inputs, and s-video (completely lacking on the SR7011). Right now there isn't any component attached to the RX-A1000, just speakers. I haven't maxed out the SR7011 input yet. Perhaps I never will. I still had to connected the monitor out of the RX-A1000 to the SR7011 to change the speaker setup through the GUI on my projector, so I left it hooked up.
> 
> The other 2 receivers are Pioneer Elite VSX-56 Ti and Denon AVR-2807 receivers. Those are used to power a portion of my WHA system as the downstairs speaker terminals end up in this HT room on the wall to the left of the screen. Each of those old receivers has a 7.1 multi-channel analog input . I use only 6 of the inputs, with 3 Chromecast audio connected to each. Thus, each of the old receiver powers 3 zones.
> Those 2 receivers are on a Wifi smart plug to turn them on only as needed with an app with my smartphone and not waste power.
> Note that the Chromecast audios downstairs are running on ethernet directly to my router, not Wifi.


This sounds familiar. Last year I made my first major HT upgrade in years by getting the Marantz 7703 pre-pro with no budget to get an amp to go along with it. The workaround was to use an existing two channel 100 wpc McCormack DNA 0.5 that I had in inventory to drive the front mains and then repurpose by tried and try Denon 3805 for the center and rear towers. These old receivers with 7 channel inputs can still serve a useful purpose. The Denon is set for a specific volume (it's own setting of +0 db) and then using the Pure Music circuit. Normally it and the old McCormack would be on 24/7 but I've had a Panamax M5300-EX power conditioner which I just discovered has a trigger for some of the power outputs. So the Marantz tells the Panamax to turn on/off the Denon/McCormack on those plugs to keep them from running all the time. I've been running like this for a year with no problems.

Then I began dabbling in Dolby Atmos by taking a couple of satellite speakers that AV123 made over a decade ago and repurposing them for this experiment. The sats used to be in the next room serving our kids playroom/sunroom and I discovered over the years that Denon receivers really don't like them. A Denon 1703 I used to have blew out twice running them and I finally replaced it with an X2000. The X2000 is more robust but the old sats would still push the receiver to overload occasionally and finally I disconnected them. But I didn't want to connect them to the Denon 3805 and possibly screw that up.

Enter the Onkyo TX-SR805 which is another old receiver I got from a friend I helped upgrade to a Denon X3400H recently. And yes, it's another quality old receiver (THX Ultra2) that has 7 channel inputs. It's currently sitting in the floor out of the picture driving the satellite as a "guinea pig". But so far no problems running it in this fashion. I'm not controlling this with the Panamax since I'm thinking it's life in this application will be short until I eventually get the Primes.



> The rest of the speaker terminals for the house are upstairs in my master bedroom. I have 3 more receivers up there (two are 7.1, one is 5.1) with 8 more Chromecast audios powering 8 more zones. The 3 receivers upstairs are also on another Wifi smart plug.
> The Chromecast audios upstairs are running on ethernet with powerline AV1200.
> 
> There is one more Chromecast audio in my home office downstairs too. Total of 15 zone WHA system. 3 zones outside, 12 inside.
> 
> All the old receivers are either old units I recycled during various upgrades, or purchased very cheap on craigslist (about $100 each - I paid $95 for the AVR-2807 two weeks ago). You need old receivers with multi-channel analog inputs for this, as new ones don't have them anymore (except Marantz). Only one of the 6 receivers that power my WHA system has any HDMI at all - that's how old they are. But they sound great once the Chromecast audios are put in full-range mode, in combination with Tidal hifi lossless, and JRiver media center on an ODroid XU4/Bubble uPNP to play my local 1TB msic library.


Our home is an iTunes/Apple Music house so Airplay rules for most applications (Marantz, Denon, three Apple TVs and an Airport Express). The music library is about 800 GB. most of it CD rips which works well with Airplay. The Oppo 205 in the home theater is new and I'm trying to feed it via USB through an old MacBook although I need to figure out a permanent solution (JRiver, Roon, Audrivana or something else.



> I think the Prime elevations would likely work for you. You may need to adjust the height. Perhaps don't put them too close to the ceiling if you want the sound to work best. My ceiling is only 8ft and I put my Prime under conduits on the side, I think 70" is the height of the bottom of my Prime speakers.


I have a lot of wall to work with.  I may not need to put them up at the very top but I think the angle of the speakers in relation to MLP will put the location somewhere between 10 and 11 ft. Which should be pretty great.


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> None of your subs individually are that large but all together I imagine they move a fair amount of air. How low can you get decent output?


Actually the Klipsch Reference 12 is 12", as is the BIC F-12 . 
Monoprice sub is 12" too. Only the PSW250 is 8" and undersized vs the others.
Even though the Monoprice is 12", it looks smaller than the 10" Boston VR500. And the amp is definitely not as good. It has a slight hum even without any audio cord plugged in.
I want to get rid of the the Monoprice.

If you mean to ask how low I can get frequency wise, I am not sure. How would I check ?



> I had a friend who had the Boston VR500....bought it with his speakers over a decade ago and it failed recently. I helped him replace it with an SVS PC-2000


My Boston VR500 was bought almost two decades ago, so definitely got my money's worth. The amp is still fine. It's the cone that needs replacement. I bought a repair kit on Amazon for like $20, just haven't gotten around to trying to fix it. Not handy enough. And labor cost here would be as much as a new sub. ..



> This sounds familiar. Last year I made my first major HT upgrade in years by getting the Marantz 7703 pre-pro with no budget to get an amp to go along with it. The workaround was to use an existing two channel 100 wpc McCormack DNA 0.5 that I had in inventory to drive the front mains and then repurpose by tried and try Denon 3805 for the center and rear towers. These old receivers with 7 channel inputs can still serve a useful purpose. The Denon is set for a specific volume (it's own setting of +0 db) and then using the Pure Music circuit. Normally it and the old McCormack would be on 24/7 but I've had a Panamax M5300-EX power conditioner which I just discovered has a trigger for some of the power outputs. So the Marantz tells the Panamax to turn on/off the Denon/McCormack on those plugs to keep them from running all the time. I've been running like this for a year with no problems.


All 5 receivers in my WHA system are set to 0 dB. The iOT relay is much cheaper than Panamax unit for trigger. Only $30 with the cable on Amazon. Of course it doesn't do power conditioning, and it's only 12 amps. But it's good enough to power my Yamaha RX-A1000 for speakers 10-11.



> Our home is an iTunes/Apple Music house so Airplay rules for most applications (Marantz, Denon, three Apple TVs and an Airport Express). The music library is about 800 GB. most of it CD rips which works well with Airplay. The Oppo 205 in the home theater is new and I'm trying to feed it via USB through an old MacBook although I need to figure out a permanent solution (JRiver, Roon, Audrivana or something else.


I only have a single Apple device, and that's an old iPad 2 which I use in my hot tub in a wet case. I can turn on my amps with an app, and use tidal to stream to Chromecasts. Or stream directly to the hot tub's built-in bluetooth speakers. But I don't like to have the audio right in my ears in the hot tub so I prefer to use the WHA system . Everything else is Android and PC in the house. I'm an engineer and like to build machines to my own specs. Have a Raspberry Pi and Odroid XU4 too. I hate the Apple walled garden and built-in obsolescence of the hardware, you are really not supposed to ever open them, even the Macs have soldered RAMs now. It's just so hostile to upgrades. I never buy a whole computer, just upgrade parts. Not a fan of laptops either since I can't build them myself  I have a work laptop (Lenovo PC) and it sits folded down in a docking station hooked up to a KVM whenever I use it, both at home and work. Ergonomics on small devices are not good enough for me, especially pointing devices. I hate trackpads. I like full size keyboards. Hate small touch screens on smartphones too. Larger ones are tolerable on tablets and cars. For pointing device on computers I use a large Kensington expert mouse trackball. Wouldn't think of ever using anything else.


----------



## showmak

PioManiac said:


> I just got home, poured me a bourbon
> 
> Setup Speaker Config, Back Surround = None
> 
> 
> 
> Load Star Wars with Neural:X 6.1 DTS-HD MA
> 
> Boom! All 4 Height Speakers working.
> 
> 
> 
> Mystery Solved!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Everyone,
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just keep my Back Surrounds active and use DSU for DTS 6.1 titles going forward
> 
> (Star Wars and Lord of the Rings Trilogy)
> 
> 
> 
> :wink:



So, should this issue be raised to Yamaha?

Did you try to hear the difference between N:X and DSU? In my case, N:X is louder and more aggressive than DSU...


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> Actually the Klipsch Reference 12 is 12", as is the BIC F-12 .
> Monoprice sub is 12" too. Only the PSW250 is 8" and undersized vs the others.
> Even though the Monoprice is 12", it looks smaller than the 10" Boston VR500. And the amp is definitely not as good. It has a slight hum even without any audio cord plugged in.
> I want to get rid of the the Monoprice.
> 
> If you mean to ask how low I can get frequency wise, I am not sure. How would I check ?


Well, I guess I'm looking at 12" not being that big since that's what I had before it broke and a lot of people around here are loading up on 15-18" monsters. It's easy to look up the performance specs for any of those subs individually but what I don't understand is whether multiple subs just allows those subs to play louder overall or do you actually measure deeper hz as measured by a meter?

As for the hum of the Monoprice, some amps have this issue based upon the electric current and you have a lot of things going on in that room. Emotiva makes a special device (CMX-2) that looks like a odd power strip but it designed to manage situations like this. I have one to handle a hum I had on my Parasound amp in my two channel rig and it helped to quiet it.



> All 5 receivers in my WHA system are set to 0 dB. The iOT relay is much cheaper than Panamax unit for trigger. Only $30 with the cable on Amazon. Of course it doesn't do power conditioning, and it's only 12 amps. But it's good enough to power my Yamaha RX-A1000 for speakers 10-11.


What IoT relay did you use? I'm curious since the Parasound amp for my two-channel rig is on 24/7 and due to its age has no trigger function. I'd like to figure out a solution to only turn it on when necessary that doesn't require buying another Panamax.



> I only have a single Apple device, and that's an old iPad 2 which I use in my hot tub in a wet case. I can turn on my amps with an app, and use tidal to stream to Chromecasts. Or stream directly to the hot tub's built-in bluetooth speakers. But I don't like to have the audio right in my ears in the hot tub so I prefer to use the WHA system . Everything else is Android and PC in the house. I'm an engineer and like to build machines to my own specs. Have a Raspberry Pi and Odroid XU4 too. I hate the Apple walled garden and built-in obsolescence of the hardware, you are really not supposed to ever open them, even the Macs have soldered RAMs now. It's just so hostile to upgrades. I never buy a whole computer, just upgrade parts. Not a fan of laptops either since I can't build them myself  I have a work laptop (Lenovo PC) and it sits folded down in a docking station hooked up to a KVM whenever I use it, both at home and work. Ergonomics on small devices are not good enough for me, especially pointing devices. I hate trackpads. I like full size keyboards. Hate small touch screens on smartphones too. Larger ones are tolerable on tablets and cars. For pointing device on computers I use a large Kensington expert mouse trackball. Wouldn't think of ever using anything else.


Oh well, we all have our preferences. I work in technology too, having began my career at Apple in the late 80s so that's always been my bias.  And Airplay has been pretty easy for my wife and daughter to understand. As for the "built-in obsolescence" argument, I would counter that most of that hardware is good for years longer than a typical machine. Apple supports the latest version of OS X on pretty creaky hardware...my 2010 MacBook Pro is still chugging away as supported hardware. And for older stuff, there is an active community to hack OS X for some a handful of older machines. I have two 2008 Mac Pros hacked to run OS X High Sierra working just peachy, one as my primary work machine and the other as one of the household servers (the other is a 2008 Dell Poweredge 2900 running Windows 2012 R2). And the MacBook in my HT rig that I'm testing as a potential feeder for the Oppo 205 is a 2009 MacBook, again hacked to run High Sierra.

Honestly, the newest machine in my house is my wife's 2013 MacBook Air. And the kids are running iOS 11 on creaky iPad Mini 2s and iPhone 5s. 

I don't mind building stuff...I've dabbled in Raspberry Pi and would like to build a dedicated MAME arcade machine at some point. I built a custom flight simulator PC for a friend last year on the X99 chipset (Broadwell-E) with dual Nvidia GTX1080 graphics cards to feed three curved 4K monitors.


----------



## Selden Ball

Sevenfeet said:


> Well, I guess I'm looking at 12" not being that big since that's what I had before it broke and a lot of people around here are loading up on 15-18" monsters. It's easy to look up the performance specs for any of those subs individually but what I don't understand is whether multiple subs just allows those subs to play louder overall or do you actually measure deeper hz as measured by a meter?


Neither.

A single sub generates standing waves: peaks and valleys (nulls) in low frequency response at various locations in the room. Particularly problematic frequencies are determined by the dimensions of the room. The sub has to be located in an appropriate location in order to provide the best response at the main listening position (resulting in peaks and nulls elsewhere in the room). A "sub crawl" (q.v.) often is used to find that appropriate location.

Multiple subs are placed in different appropriate locations in the room in order to fill in the dropouts experienced at positions other than the MLP.


----------



## Sevenfeet

Selden Ball said:


> Neither.
> 
> A single sub generates standing waves: peaks and valleys (nulls) in low frequency response at various locations in the room. Particularly problematic frequencies are determined by the dimensions of the room. The sub has to be located in an appropriate location in order to provide the best response at the main listening position (resulting in peaks and nulls elsewhere in the room). A "sub crawl" (q.v.) often is used to find that appropriate location.
> 
> Multiple subs are placed in different appropriate locations in the room in order to fill in the dropouts experienced at positions other than the MLP.


Thanks. That helps.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Sevenfeet said:


> Well, I guess I'm looking at 12" not being that big since that's what I had before it broke and a lot of people around here are loading up on 15-18" monsters.


A lot of that will simply depend on the volume of your room. What's large in one room will be undersized in another. [e.g., my planned HT downstairs based on a converted bedroom with 1800-cuFt, requires totally different bass handling than my "living room" upstairs, which is open on both sides to sunroom and kitchen, etc. With a volume over 8,000-cuFt.]



> It's easy to look up the performance specs for any of those subs individually but what I don't understand is whether multiple subs just allows those subs to play louder overall or do you actually measure deeper hz as measured by a meter?


In general, multi-subs will not extend the low end of your range. They will play louder AND balance out the peaks and dips around the room. But unless the truncation on the low end was due to cancellation (which could then be corrected or ameliorated), they won't dig any deeper. For that, you'll need bigger subs. [Or, depending on your goals, tactile transducers.]




> As for the "built-in obsolescence" argument, I would counter that most of that hardware is good for years longer than a typical machine. Apple supports the latest version of OS X on pretty creaky hardware...my 2010 MacBook Pro is still chugging away as supported hardware. And *for older stuff, there is an active community to hack OS X for some a handful of older machines. I have two 2008 Mac Pros hacked to run OS X High Sierra working just peachy*, one as my primary work machine.... And the MacBook in my HT rig that I'm testing as a potential feeder for the Oppo 205 is a 2009 MacBook, again hacked to run High Sierra.


This is a tangent, but I am happy to read that. I was thinking of dusting off my 2008* MBP I bought used a few years back, and used briefly. But was thinking it was probably stuck in ancient-ville, with no updates possible. Good to know that's not the case. Thanks for the tip! [* It's not any older than that, but may be a 2010. It's been 2 years now since I last powered it up, so my memory is foggy.]


----------



## sdurani

Sevenfeet said:


> I've read parts of the Harman white paper. I agree with their assessment...it's just telling my wife she needs to invest in 4 subs!


Maybe not. According to the Harman white paper, the least variance from seat to seat comes from 4 subwoofers at the midpoints of 4 walls (blue square below). 








Unfortunately, that configuration doesn't result in much output per sub (white dot below). 








2 subs at the midpoint of 2 opposite walls minimizes seat to seat variance almost as well (only 1dB away) compared to 4 subs (blue square below). 








However, you get a lot more output per sub (almost 5dB) when using 2 subs (white dot below). 








In fact, you get more output per sub (couple dB) than the configuration with 4 subs in 4 corners (white dot below). 








Seems 2 subs at the midpoint of 2 opposite walls yields the best bang for the buck; both for seat to seat consistency AND output per sub. At least according to the Harman paper. So, no need to tell your wife she needs to invest in 4 subs.


----------



## Jonas2

Am I the only one that feels this pressure to otherwise replace perfectly good blurays to chase Atmos content?  Some of the talk about various films makes me want to do so, or should I just be happy with the DSU / DTS upmixes? I'm just not sure what I'm missing!  Yeah, get the benefit of UHD, but the blurays ain't bad visually. Anyone else suffering from this?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> However, you get a lot more output per sub (almost 15dB) when using 2 subs (white dot below).


This seems counterintuitive to me -- you get more output with 2 subs than with 4 subs? 

Not disagreeing, just trying to understand. 

EDIT: reading the whitepaper as I'm thinking about this, Welti notes, "The LF generally goes down for larger numbers of subwoofers, possibly due to having more locations away from the corners." That doesn't explain why 2 subs at front/rear midpoints has more LF per sub than 4 subs at all 4 wall midpoints? Also comparing pos #4 (2 subs in 2 front corners) vs. pos #10 (4 subs in 4 corners) the LF factor is a couple dB lower. This is really interesting. But if I understand this correctly, that LF factor is normalized for the number of subs so it's a "per sub" measure, not a total output measure (i.e. you should still have more overall headroom w 4 subs vs. 2 right)?

EDIT 2: I just read the part where they measured in room vs. the statistical model, and it looks like the LF factor prediction, while it holds in the overall trend, doesn't hold up for certain similar pairings of 2 vs. 4 subs. For example, comparing pos #24 (2 subs in 2 front corners) vs. #28 (4 subs in 4 corners) the measured LF factor for the 2 subs is much lower than predicted, so the 4 subs / 4 corners has a measured LF factor 3-4dB higher than 2 subs / 2 corners. Same for #25 vs. #29 (2 subs at 1/4 + 3/4 width of front wall vs. 4 subs at 1/4 + 3/4 width on front AND rear walls). Interesting stuff.



> However, you get a lot more output per sub (almost 15dB) when using 2 subs (white dot below).


Was this a typo? Do you mean 5dB not 15dB? Or am I reading the graph wrong?


----------



## fredxr2d2

Jonas2 said:


> Am I the only one that feels this pressure to otherwise replace perfectly good blurays to chase Atmos content?  Some of the talk about various films makes me want to do so, or should I just be happy with the DSU / DTS upmixes? I'm just not sure what I'm missing!  Yeah, get the benefit of UHD, but the blurays ain't bad visually. Anyone else suffering from this?


I too am wondering about this...I'm looking into an Oppo (possibly for Christmas) and thinking about whether I should replace current blu's to chase some of that Atmos/DTS:X sound while I wait another year or two to upgrade my display to 4K.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> This seems counterintuitive to me -- you get more output with 2 subs than with 4 subs?


Even though I wrote "output per sub" 4 times, I probably should have bolded it to make sure it wasn't confused with combined/total output.


> Why would corner loading 4 subs result in less output?


The white paper shows that corner placement results in more output per sub than alternative placements. In the graph I posted from the paper, configurations 10 through 13 all use 4 subs. Note that 4 subs in 4 corners (configuration 10) results in the highest LF factor (output per sub) compared to all the other configurations that use the same number of subs. 

However, there is a general trend where the more subs you stuff into a room, the less each sub contributes to the overall output (probably because you end up with an increasing number of subs away from corners). In the graph, the first 3 configurations use 1 sub, the next 4 configurations use 2 subs; by the time you get to the other end of the graph, the last few configurations use 14 subs and 18 subs. Note the general trend of the LF factor. 










BTW, note that adding more subs (moving from left to right on the graph) doesn't correlate with seat to seat consistency (blue trace).


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Do you mean 5dB not 15dB? Or am I reading the graph wrong?


My mistake; I meant 5dB. Fixed in original post.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Even though I wrote "output per sub" 4 times, I probably should have bolded it to make sure it wasn't confused with combined/total output.


See my edited post, sorry, I was typing/editing and reading at the same time. I deleted my comment about corner loading since I realized I was looking at the wrong data point, and also added the comment below:



> But if I understand this correctly, that LF factor is normalized for the number of subs so it's a "per sub" measure, not a total output measure (i.e. you should still have more overall headroom w 4 subs vs. 2 right)?



"However, there is a general trend where the more subs you stuff into a room, the less each sub contributes to the overall output (probably because you end up with an increasing number of subs away from corners)"

Yup, I also saw this note as I was reading and added it to my post. However, I noticed that it looks like that prediction didn't actually hold in the actual in-room measured version when comparing similar matched pairs (e.g. 2 subs up front at 1/4 + 3/4 points vs. 4 subs front and back at the same points, the 2 subs measured several dB lower than the prediction for LF factor).


----------



## mrtickleuk

madbrain said:


> Spoiler


Nice room! The red door frame is vital, otherwise you'd never find your way out!


----------



## chi_guy50

Jonas2 said:


> Am I the only one that feels this pressure to otherwise replace perfectly good blurays to chase Atmos content?  Some of the talk about various films makes me want to do so, or should I just be happy with the DSU / DTS upmixes? I'm just not sure what I'm missing!  Yeah, get the benefit of UHD, but the blurays ain't bad visually. Anyone else suffering from this?


You are certainly not alone in your suffering, but I think this is just another symptom of upgraditis, and the recommended treatment will depend on the patient's particular state of health. 

The increased PQ of a UHD BRD over the image from an up-scaled 2K BRD (given a 4K display of average size and viewed from a typical distance) is only going to be incrementally better IMHO. I think the potential is there for more dramatic improvements, but they remain largely untapped until HDR authoring and technology mature (somewhat similar to the maturation of immersive audio for the home theater). Furthermore, I can't remember the last time I felt let down by the PQ/AQ of a BRD that had a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA soundtrack (whether native or upmixed to 7.1.4).

Having said that, I myself added a Sony XBR-65Z9D and an Oppo UHD-203 to my otherwise excellent HD setup this year and could not be happier with the decision. As for those shiny discs, you can always try renting (less than $5.00 a pop including shipping from 3D-BlurayRental.com with a monthly subscription) if you want to compare the UHD version with a particular BRD in your collection before deciding whether wholesale replacement is worthwhile to you.


----------



## madbrain

mrtickleuk said:


> Nice room! The red door frame is vital, otherwise you'd never find your way out!


LOL. Not sure why my contractor left that frame red, that was the old room color before we had it repainted a darker brown 7 years ago when we moved in. Actually, that door leads to a utility room with one of the two furnaces and water heaters in the house (others are in the garage), and we hardly ever need to go there. There is another door to it from the outside.

The actual entrance to the home theater room is a set of double doors, located to the right of the front seats, and not visible in the photos.


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> As for the hum of the Monoprice, some amps have this issue based upon the electric current and you have a lot of things going on in that room. Emotiva makes a special device (CMX-2) that looks like a odd power strip but it designed to manage situations like this. I have one to handle a hum I had on my Parasound amp in my two channel rig and it helped to quiet it.


Yes, that may well be, but the Monoprice sub was a $70 sub, and the CMX-2 is $119, so I'm not going to spend that money to try to fix that amp. None of the other 3 powered subs have this issue. Neither do any of the 4 receivers. IMO, it's just a bad amp design by Monoprice. I'm surprised by all the good reviews this sub has gotten.



> What IoT relay did you use? I'm curious since the Parasound amp for my two-channel rig is on 24/7 and due to its age has no trigger function. I'd like to figure out a solution to only turn it on when necessary that doesn't require buying another Panamax.


iOT relay :
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WV7GMA2/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

cable :
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004GIGTQ6/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

With this combo, you can essentially add a "trigger input" to any amp or receiver that lacks one. You still need a trigger output on your main preamp/receiver, though, but that's much more common. My Marantz SR7011 has two of them.



> Oh well, we all have our preferences. I work in technology too, having began my career at Apple in the late 80s so that's always been my bias.  And Airplay has been pretty easy for my wife and daughter to understand. As for the "built-in obsolescence" argument, I would counter that most of that hardware is good for years longer than a typical machine. Apple supports the latest version of OS X on pretty creaky hardware...my 2010 MacBook Pro is still chugging away as supported hardware. And for older stuff, there is an active community to hack OS X for some a handful of older machines. I have two 2008 Mac Pros hacked to run OS X High Sierra working just peachy, one as my primary work machine and the other as one of the household servers (the other is a 2008 Dell Poweredge 2900 running Windows 2012 R2). And the MacBook in my HT rig that I'm testing as a potential feeder for the Oppo 205 is a 2009 MacBook, again hacked to run High Sierra.
> 
> Honestly, the newest machine in my house is my wife's 2013 MacBook Air. And the kids are running iOS 11 on creaky iPad Mini 2s and iPhone 5s.
> 
> I don't mind building stuff...I've dabbled in Raspberry Pi and would like to build a dedicated MAME arcade machine at some point. I built a custom flight simulator PC for a friend last year on the X99 chipset (Broadwell-E) with dual Nvidia GTX1080 graphics cards to feed three curved 4K monitors.


I have worked at many large companies, but Apple is not one of them. I probably could not work for them due to my bias  I have never used Airplay. I still have some very old devices that still work in some of my desktop PCs, like 18 year old Ultra160 SCSI PCI cards. Have Firewire for my recording gear too in my PCs (ECHO Audiofire 12 and 8a), which Apple has eliminated. Even still have some floppy disks, with a USB floppy drive. And DDS-4 DAT tapes. The SCSI card is used to connect that HP DDS-4 drive. It also reads DDS-2 tapes and some of the first code I wrote in the late 1980s is on those tapes, backed up in the late 1990s. Tapes are still readable over 2 decades later. Can't say the same for the floppies ! My main PC at home is X99. Typically I upgrade the motherboard on some of them every 4-5 years. That involves changing CPU and RAM too, but often the rest of the devices (especially drives, displays) stay the same. Of course there have been exceptions when going from ISA bus to VLB, VLB to PCI, PCI to PCI-E ... I know Apple has messed with various hardware display connectors like VGA, ADC, DVI, and now Thunderbolt. I use a pair of nearly 10 year old HP LP3065 displays with dual-link DVI. 30" at 2560x1600. Still going strong. Not quite ready to go to 4K on my desktop yet. These HP LP3065 have built-in switches (3 inputs each) and I have several computers connected. Most of the 4K displays don't have the right number of inputs. Or the controls are horrible, having to touch to get into the menu 5 levels deep to change input. Or worse, controls in the back of the monitor on some new Samsung 4K display I was looking at ! Would have bought a pair of 4K monitors a while ago if the ergonomics weren't so stupid. Makes no sense whatsoever on huge 30" - 32" displays to save a few cm to avoid putting proper physical button controls. Yet here we are. Did I mention I hate touch screens ?


----------



## Sevenfeet

sdurani said:


> So, no need to tell your wife she needs to invest in 4 subs.


As it turns out, it's easiest for me to do a sub at the front midpoint (next to the center channel) and directly behind the MLP. So that works.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I noticed that it looks like that prediction didn't actually hold in the actual in-room measured version when comparing similar matched pairs (e.g. 2 subs up front at 1/4 + 3/4 points vs. 4 subs front and back at the same points, the 2 subs measured several dB lower than the prediction for LF factor).


Some 4-sub configurations measured higher LF than 2-sub configurations and vice-versa (config 26 vs configs 29 & 30). The LF still trends generally downwards as the number of subs increases (moving from left to right on the graph). The comparison I pointed to earlier (4 corners vs 2 midpoints) can't be confirmed one way or the other with the real-room part of the study since the 2-midpoint placement was not included (surprising, since Welti concluded it was one of the top 3 configs).


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> the 2-midpoint placement was not included (surprising, since Welti concluded it was one of the top 3 configs).


I think he said it was because there was a physical obstruction (e.g. A/V console) in the center of the front wall which prevented that placement.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> The comparison I pointed to earlier (4 corners vs 2 midpoints) can't be confirmed one way or the other with the real-room part of the study since the 2-midpoint placement was not included (surprising, since Welti concluded it was one of the top 3 configs).





batpig said:


> I think he said it was because there was a physical obstruction (e.g. A/V console) in the center of the front wall which prevented that placement.


I have no idea what the test conditions/constraints were, but it does seem odd, given the purpose of the exploration, not to just *move the A/V console*? Especially so, for one of the top 3 configs. If it were me, I'd want to empirically validate all the best predicted arrangements.


----------



## am2model3

Glad you figured out your neural x for 6.1 films!!
Good deal
Its fun to have both dsu and neuralx options, they both do it differently 

I just watched and listened to raiders of lost ark dts hd via neural x tonight. Wow!
Heard lots of cool sounds. Atmospherics aplenty
Like star wars ships overhead, the famous rolling boulder scene the rock sounds over your head! So cool i rewound it vcr style and listened again! So cool
Other areas throughout film were fantastic. Thunder was great, gun shots, spirits at end, etc. wind blowing in nepal.


----------



## audiofan1

Jonas2 said:


> Am I the only one that feels this pressure to otherwise replace perfectly good blurays to chase Atmos content?  Some of the talk about various films makes me want to do so, or should I just be happy with the DSU / DTS upmixes? I'm just not sure what I'm missing!  Yeah, get the benefit of UHD, but the blurays ain't bad visually. Anyone else suffering from this?


Nope your not alone and I really at the end of the day look at as one massive collection! Why,largely in part to the upmixers for audio and adding a 4k set(Sony 940e,which can take a standard bluray disc and give a nice HDR effect if used) with the Oppo 203 the video is just as good taken up to a higher resolution. Now having said that,their are a few titles I have no problem at all replacing due to rewatchabilty but mostly its new titles of which I've been buying more of and need to slow my role but man its just a good time for a nice home setup and worth every penny spent


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> I have no idea what the test conditions/constraints were, but it does seem odd, given the purpose of the exploration, not to just *move the A/V console*?


Or try the subs at the midpoints of opposite side walls.


----------



## richlife

Jonas2 said:


> Am I the only one that feels this pressure to otherwise replace perfectly good blurays to chase Atmos content?  Some of the talk about various films makes me want to do so, or should I just be happy with the DSU / DTS upmixes? I'm just not sure what I'm missing!  Yeah, get the benefit of UHD, but the blurays ain't bad visually. Anyone else suffering from this?


You are hardly alone as @audiofan1 and @chi_guy50 have said. My gut says rush out to replace, but my brain and wallet say "WHOA!". I fully agree that the upmixers with a good Atmos installation can provide just amazing full immersive audio if the soundtrack is DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD. (I'll refer again to The Lone Ranger with boots clumping across my non-existent ceiling (railway car roof). With our vaulted ceiling it is just STUNNING to have that sound in mid-air above our heads!) 

But I will replace any BR that is simply 5.1 (and naturally any lesser quality DVD that I value). And there are some that, if ever released in UHD with Atmos or DTS:X will immediately be bought no matter how old the original movie or what previous audio format was used (think Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings). At this point, I've held off buying The Hobbit at all just because I know the UHD may well be forthcoming.


----------



## gwsat

Watched my _Get Out_ UHD HDR DTS:X MA disk last night and was blown away. It was demonstration quality, among the best immersive soundtracks I have heard, whether DTS:X or Atmos. The movie is weirdly entertaining too.


----------



## petetherock

Oh Baby oh Baby..
The Atmos track on the Baby Driver is something to behold..
Nice tight plot, and some very serious driving.
But that Atmos track puts it amongst the best of 2017... and then some.
Kudos to the mixer..
This is what a modern musical sounds like..


----------



## DrockinWV

Hey guys!

Im looking for a few pointer in making sure that I have my new HT setup correctly. Recently just purchased a Marantz SR7011, Oppo UDP-203, and Klipsch RP-140SA for a 5.2.2 setup. Is there another way to get a full Atmos effect other than having the speaker placed on my towers? The ceiling for my room is roughly 9ft, but also has a ceiling fan between myself and the speakers, and Im worried it is messing with the sound quality.


----------



## Bogey808

richlife said:


> I fully agree that the upmixers with a good Atmos installation can provide just amazing full immersive audio if the soundtrack is DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD. With our vaulted ceiling it is just STUNNING to have that sound in mid-air above our heads!



I’ve a vaulted ceiling as well with exposed beams and have been trying to figure out the best way to implement ATMOS. Would you mind taking a moment to explain your ATMOS speaker setup? TIA. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

petetherock said:


> Oh Baby oh Baby..
> The Atmos track on the Baby Driver is something to behold..
> Nice tight plot, and some very serious driving.
> But that Atmos track puts it amongst the best of 2017... and then some.
> Kudos to the mixer..
> This is what a modern musical sounds like..


Bummer, only on the 4K UHD release  

I hate it when they don't put the Atmos track on the 1080p BD, especially on a new release where they aren't just repackaging the old Blu-ray release with its DTS-HD track.


----------



## Nalleh

WOW, just WOW !

Just watched Starship Troopers Traitor of Mars UHD and Atmos, and it is now on my top 3 list of best Atmos tracks, incredible presicion in pannings, a lot of surround use, and awsome heights effects too, just jawdropping. I was smiling the whole movie, even the ambiance in the starships was insanely natural. And the HDR picture was some of the best i have seen, the plasmamachines was off the chain cool.

A bit bad face animation and lipsync, but this movie was the surprice of the year for me. RECOMMENDED !!


----------



## madbrain

Nalleh said:


> WOW, just WOW !
> 
> Just watched Starship Troopers Traitor of Mars UHD and Atmos, and it is now on my top 3 list of best Atmos tracks, incredible presicion in pannings, a lot of surround use, and awsome heights effects too, just jawdropping. I was smiling the whole movie, even the ambiance in the starships was insanely natural. And the HDR picture was some of the best i have seen, the plasmamachines was off the chain cool.
> 
> A bit bad face animation and lipsync, but this movie was the surprice of the year for me. RECOMMENDED !!


How is the movie besides the sound and picture ?
Strangely, it doesn't have any rottentomatoes critics score. Did this skip theaters and go direct to disc ?

And which of the 2 UHD blu-ray discs did you get ?
UPC 043396516267
or
UPC 043396513914

Unless it was a streaming rental maybe?


----------



## Nalleh

madbrain said:


> How is the movie besides the sound and picture ?
> Strangely, it doesn't have any rottentomatoes critics score. Did this skip theaters and go direct to disc ?
> 
> And which of the 2 UHD blu-ray discs did you get ?
> UPC 043396516267
> or
> UPC 043396513914
> 
> Unless it was a streaming rental maybe?


A bit cheesy dialog, but i liked it. Actually more than the first.

It shouldn’t matter, and i guess you mean regular or steelbook?

Mine was the regular UHD, but both have HDR and Atmos, so your choise.


----------



## madbrain

Nalleh said:


> A bit cheesy dialog, but i liked it. Actually more than the first.
> 
> It shouldn’t matter, and i guess you mean regular or steelbook?
> 
> Mine was the regular UHD, but both have HDR and Atmos, so your choise.


Haven't seen the first one either so I can't really say. Didn't know the difference between those two UPC was the steelbook, that's just what my local Fry's was showing when I checked.


----------



## Nalleh

madbrain said:


> Haven't seen the first one either so I can't really say. Didn't know the difference between those two UPC was the steelbook, that's just what my local Fry's was showing when I checked.


I don’t know either, but that the only two i find, so.....


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> Well, I guess I'm looking at 12" not being that big since that's what I had before it broke and a lot of people around here are loading up on 15-18" monsters.


Following up on this again. I think it really has to do with the size of the room.
My room is 285" x 158" x 92" . Not even 8ft ceiling. 2307 cubic feet. I think having four 12" subs would be more than good enough for that size room. To be honest, I wasn't even aware they made 15" or 18" monster subs until your post. Makes sense for very large rooms. Not for mine; I think.

I went low budget on my subs.

My Boston VR500 blew up three years ago. Then I went on a sub shopping spree and got one for each corner.

Bought my BIC F-12 for $120 cash .
My Klipsch is actually a Sub-12 that I got for $200 at Fry's 3 years ago. Apparently this is better rated than Reference 12. It is downfiring. Discontinued model.
Monoprice 9723 was $86 + tax with free shipping . I was not happy with it and wanted to return it, but shipping it back at my expense would have cost about the same as the sub. 
And of course I got the 8" Polk PSW250 for $0 from a friend.

Basically, I spent < $500 for the four subs. The Monoprice sub is the weak one in the set. Even the 8" PSW250 with its 50W amp is better than the 12" Monoprice, IMO. It does not have a hum like the Monoprice sub amp.

The 15" monster subs cost at least that much for a single one. Klipsch R-115SW is on sale through today at Fry's for $500 . That's apparently a good deal, but still more than I would want to spend on one sub I think. It's massive also. I could fit 1 or 2, but not 4. Not that I would want to spend $2k on subs anyway.

It probably makes more sense for me to replace both the PSW250 and Monoprice 9723 subs with a pair of 12" subs in the $200 price range each. Or have my Boston VR500 repaired if I can find someone to do it affordably, and buy just one more 12" sub .


----------



## Erod

I don't have 19 hours to read this entire thread, so......

Looking for some tips now that my theater has been fully Atmosified to 7.2.4. Played around last night and listened to all sorts of stuff after running ARC on my Anthem 60. It really does get better the more you spend time with it. I LOVE seeing my NAD blue lights light up when a signal is being sent up to the high channels. 

But I know there are tricks and tips you folks have found. Do you turn up either of your height rows or change anything special to optimize anything?

Help a lazy brother out.

Thanks.


----------



## VideoGrabber

PioManiac said:


> On AVS Four subs (15" - 18") is what many call a "good start"
> ...only way to hit below 16Hz with Authority! (bass you can feel more than you can hear)


Tactile transducers are another option to consider.



> Total peak sub wattage *~13,000 watts*


And are a lot more "eco-friendly".


----------



## Josh Z

madbrain said:


> How is the movie besides the sound and picture ?
> Strangely, it doesn't have any rottentomatoes critics score. Did this skip theaters and go direct to disc ?


Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars is a direct-to-video animated feature. It's a follow-up to the DTV Starship Troopers: Invasion. It had some one-night-only theatrical screenings courtesy of Fathom Events, but no general theatrical release.


----------



## progprog

Erod said:


> I don't have 19 hours to read this entire thread, so......
> 
> Looking for some tips now that my theater has been fully Atmosified to 7.2.4. Played around last night and listened to all sorts of stuff after running ARC on my Anthem 60. It really does get better the more you spend time with it. I LOVE seeing my NAD blue lights light up when a signal is being sent up to the high channels.
> 
> But I know there are tricks and tips you folks have found. Do you turn up either of your height rows or change anything special to optimize anything?
> 
> Help a lazy brother out.
> 
> Thanks.


Chances are, ARC turned up your height channels relative to the others. Using an SPL, I ended up with mine a little higher than the ARC recommendation and felt I got better performance. Also, if you have aimable tweeters, it's worth experimenting with those a bit to see where you get the most continuous imaging. (Dolby Atmos test files like "Amaze" are handy for this.)


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars is a direct-to-video animated feature. It's a follow-up to the DTV Starship Troopers: Invasion. It had some one-night-only theatrical screenings courtesy of Fathom Events, but no general theatrical release.


Josh -- Who knew? Glad we have you here to share this kind of arcana with us. Every time I think that my film nerd credentials are top of the line I learn that they are not, often from you. I bow to your impeccable knowledge of film (no kidding).


----------



## Erod

progprog said:


> Chances are, ARC turned up your height channels relative to the others. Using an SPL, I ended up with mine a little higher than the ARC recommendation and felt I got better performance. Also, if you have aimable tweeters, it's worth experimenting with those a bit to see where you get the most continuous imaging. (Dolby Atmos test files like "Amaze" are handy for this.)


You're always good for some keen insight.

My MLP is about three feet closer to the front highs than the back, so I thought about turning up the backs by 2 dB. Perhaps ARC accounted for that distance already. (Just looked, all are set to +5 by ARC.)

Where near to get this atmos disc?


----------



## progprog

Erod said:


> You're always good for some keen insight.
> 
> My MLP is about three feet closer to the front highs than the back, so I thought about turning up the backs by 2 dB. Perhaps ARC accounted for that distance already. (Just looked, all are set to +5 by ARC.)
> 
> Where near to get this atmos disc?


I don't use the disc, though I'm sure it's not hard to find. I use *this file* from Dolby's website, and play it through my Oppo player. (If it's not obvious, there's a little download icon on the play window.)


----------



## Erod

progprog said:


> I don't use the disc, though I'm sure it's not hard to find. I use *this file* from Dolby's website, and play it through my Oppo player. (If it's not obvious, there's a little download icon on the play window.)


Cool, I'll try that.

Do you turn on the center spread on your Anthem?


----------



## progprog

Erod said:


> Cool, I'll try that.
> 
> Do you turn on the center spread on your Anthem?


Nope. I can hear a slight difference when I do, but I wouldn't call it an improvement, so I don't bother. But it may well be a room & setup dependent effect, so by all means, give it a try and use it if you like it. (BTW, _don't _use Dolby Volume....it cuts the heights channels.)


----------



## Erod

progprog said:


> Nope. I can hear a slight difference when I do, but I wouldn't call it an improvement, so I don't bother. But it may well be a room & setup dependent effect, so by all means, give it a try and use it if you like it. (BTW, _don't _use Dolby Volume....it cuts the heights channels.)


Dolby volume also castrates my two SVS subs. It's audio blasphemy.


----------



## madbrain

batpig said:


> Bummer, only on the 4K UHD release
> 
> I hate it when they don't put the Atmos track on the 1080p BD, especially on a new release where they aren't just repackaging the old Blu-ray release with its DTS-HD track.


Clearly they need to withhold features on the HD Blu-ray in order to make you pay more for the 4K release.


----------



## madbrain

PioManiac said:


> My room is about the same size as yours,
> On AVS Four subs (15" - 18") is what many call a "good start"
> ...only way to hit below 16Hz with Authority! (bass you can feel more than you can hear)
> 
> You know there's a Subwoofer section on AVS...right?
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/


Yes, sorry to hijack this thread. I think I'm going to resist the sirens of deep bass at least for now. Maybe on black friday/cyber monday I'll think about it again. I will be out of the country though, so if I do any sub shopping on those days, it will be from a hotel in Thailand or Vietnam.
Hope my pet sitter can be home to take delivery of monster subs, lol. In all seriousness though, I won't be spending $2K on 4 subs, even if they are each 18". Will head to the sub section now.

I think with 13,000 watts of sub power, I would have to upgrade my electrical system. I have 200 amps right now but would likely trip the main breaker if I ever decided to simultaneously charge my 2 electric cars while running the 2 central ACs, hot tub, sauna, induction cooktop, and double electric oven. Not to speak of any audio whatsoever. There are only like 8 receivers in the house powering 50+ speakers. And 6 subs in the house.


----------



## madbrain

progprog said:


> Nope. I can hear a slight difference when I do, but I wouldn't call it an improvement, so I don't bother. But it may well be a room & setup dependent effect, so by all means, give it a try and use it if you like it. (BTW, _don't _use Dolby Volume....it cuts the heights channels.)


What is Dolby volume and how does one make sure it's off ? I use a Marantz SR7011 . Don't remember seeing any setting by this name in there.
I have turned off all the various dynamic volume features, like night time. I'm a night owl and don't have neighbors anywhere near that could be bothered, plus my room is soundproofed anyway.


----------



## Sevenfeet

PioManiac said:


> My room is about the same size as yours,
> On AVS Four subs (15" - 18") is what many call a "good start"
> ...only way to hit below 16Hz with Authority! (bass you can feel more than you can hear)
> 
> You know there's a Subwoofer section on AVS...right?
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/
> 
> From one of my recent posts there:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2929060-i-want-feel-bass.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Three Words; *Rear Near Field*
> 
> I picked mine up dirt cheap, one discounted half price on closeout after the model line was discontinued.
> The second was a slightly used kijiji find for $250, 2000 watts each, Velodyne 15" with remote control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Up Front I run a pair of Funk Audio 18's (4800 peak watts each)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My room is ~2200^3 feet
> Total peak sub wattage ~13,000 watts


Holy cats! 

Well that is indeed a GOOD START!


----------



## madbrain

Josh Z said:


> Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars is a direct-to-video animated feature. It's a follow-up to the DTV Starship Troopers: Invasion. It had some one-night-only theatrical screenings courtesy of Fathom Events, but no general theatrical release.


Thanks, I had no idea. Bought a whole bunch of movies yesterday at Fry's due to the 3 for 2 promo code. We are talking 22 4K discs, $352 + tax.
Including this one and the original Starship troopers. Didn't realize this second one was animated, LOL. I love anime, but my husband not so much. And I'm the white guy, and he is asian, LOL. Guess I may be watching this disc alone. Seems like there is no 4K UHD release of the animated Starship troopers: invasion, is there ?


----------



## progprog

madbrain said:


> What is Dolby volume and how does one make sure it's off ? I use a Marantz SR7011 . Don't remember seeing any setting by this name in there.
> I have turned off all the various dynamic volume features, like night time. I'm a night owl and don't have neighbors anywhere near that could be bothered, plus my room is soundproofed anyway.


I don't know where the setting is on a Marantz, but it's bound to be there somewhere. (I hope I'm not going out on a non-existent limb here, since I haven't used Denon/Marantz for awhile....but I'm just assuming an Atmos-capable AVR has the Dolby Volume feature. )

If it's not a discrete button on the remote, I'd look in the general preferences or input setup.

EDIT: Just took a quick peek at the product page. Looks like they have "Audyssey Dynamic Volume." Don't know if it's the same thing, or if that's Audyssey's proprietary volume normalization that Marantz opted to use instead. Either way...turn it off.


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> Following up on this again. I think it really has to do with the size of the room.
> My room is 285" x 158" x 92" . Not even 8ft ceiling. 2307 cubic feet. I think having four 12" subs would be more than good enough for that size room. To be honest, I wasn't even aware they made 15" or 18" monster subs until your post. Makes sense for very large rooms. Not for mine; I think.


As I said before, my ceiling is 12ft. My room isn't exactly a square or rectangle but the basic dimension is 17'x22'. Given the laundry room that incurs the dimensions along with the barn ceiling, I estimate somewhere around 4300 sq ft. One thing I've learned is that I can't just depend on small subs to pressurize the room.



> I went low budget on my subs.
> 
> My Boston VR500 blew up three years ago. Then I went on a sub shopping spree and got one for each corner.
> 
> Bought my BIC F-12 for $120 cash .
> My Klipsch is actually a Sub-12 that I got for $200 at Fry's 3 years ago. Apparently this is better rated than Reference 12. It is downfiring. Discontinued model.
> Monoprice 9723 was $86 + tax with free shipping . I was not happy with it and wanted to return it, but shipping it back at my expense would have cost about the same as the sub.
> And of course I got the 8" Polk PSW250 for $0 from a friend.
> 
> Basically, I spent < $500 for the four subs. The Monoprice sub is the weak one in the set. Even the 8" PSW250 with its 50W amp is better than the 12" Monoprice, IMO. It does not have a hum like the Monoprice sub amp.
> 
> The 15" monster subs cost at least that much for a single one. Klipsch R-115SW is on sale through today at Fry's for $500 . That's apparently a good deal, but still more than I would want to spend on one sub I think. It's massive also. I could fit 1 or 2, but not 4. Not that I would want to spend $2k on subs anyway.
> 
> It probably makes more sense for me to replace both the PSW250 and Monoprice 9723 subs with a pair of 12" subs in the $200 price range each. Or have my Boston VR500 repaired if I can find someone to do it affordably, and buy just one more 12" sub .


Your solution sounds pretty good considering the room. And certainly economical. A good lesson for those trying to get the most with less.


----------



## madbrain

Sevenfeet said:


> As I said before, my ceiling is 12ft. My room isn't exactly a square or rectangle but the basic dimension is 17'x22'. Given the laundry room that incurs the dimensions along with the barn ceiling, I estimate somewhere around 4300 sq ft. One thing I've learned is that I can't just depend on small subs to pressurize the room.


I think you meant cubic feet, not square feet 



> Your solution sounds pretty good considering the room. And certainly economical. A good lesson for those trying to get the most with less.


Yes, I always go for best bang for the buck, not necessarily best of the best. I bought the home foreclosed from the bank in 2010 during the financial crisis when nobody else wanted to buy also. One of the best financial decisions I ever made for sure. I could never afford to buy anything close to this place now at current prices, and I certainly wouldn't have the room or budget to upgrade the home theater a little bit. Real estate in silicon valley is hugely expensive. Wish I could short it now like Dr Michael Burry did before (read / watch "the big short"). I think we are headed for another crisis, but no one will be able to really predict when. I love my place though, so I'm staying put.


----------



## madbrain

progprog said:


> I don't know where the setting is on a Marantz, but it's bound to be there somewhere. (I hope I'm not going out on a non-existent limb here, since I haven't used Denon/Marantz for awhile....but I'm just assuming an Atmos-capable AVR has the Dolby Volume feature. )
> 
> If it's not a discrete button on the remote, I'd look in the general preferences or input setup.
> 
> EDIT: Just took a quick peek at the product page. Looks like they have "Audyssey Dynamic Volume." Don't know if it's the same thing, or if that's Audyssey's proprietary volume normalization that Marantz opted to use instead. Either way...turn it off.


Yes, that one is already turned off. Thanks.


----------



## Sevenfeet

madbrain said:


> I think you meant cubic feet, not square feet


D'oh!!!



> Yes, I always go for best bang for the buck, not necessarily best of the best. I bought the home foreclosed from the bank in 2010 during the financial crisis when nobody else wanted to buy also. One of the best financial decisions I ever made for sure. I could never afford to buy anything close to this place now at current prices, and I certainly wouldn't have the room or budget to upgrade the home theater a little bit. Real estate in silicon valley is hugely expensive. Wish I could short it now like Dr Michael Burry did before (read / watch "the big short"). I think we are headed for another crisis, but no one will be able to really predict when. I love my place though, so I'm staying put.


The advantage was also having the capital to strike during an opportunity when everyone else is panicking.


----------



## madbrain

PioManiac said:


> Ask anyone who has experienced both,
> a vibration at your butt is nothing like sound pressure waves that hit your entire body,
> and when near field like my 4 subs, rattle you to the core and can actually blur your vision at reference levels.
> 
> Eco Friendly LOL!
> 
> I'm sorry but I drive a Supercharged 600HP Hemi, not a Toyota Prius


LOL. My very first car was a 2001 Prius. The list of vehicles I have driven includes 2001, 2007 and 2011 Prius, 2012 Leaf, 2015 Volt and 2017 Bolt. We still own the last 2. I think I have used maybe 12 gallons of gas for the whole year so far in my Volt, barely over one tank (a whole 8.5 gallons). The rest have been all-electric miles. Mostly from the 40 solar panels on the roof that have now completely paid back for themselves at the 7 year mark.


----------



## lovingdvd

*Still trying to find Chicago musical in Atmos...*



Frank714 said:


> *What’s it about?*
> ...
> *How does it sound remixed in Dolby Atmos?*
> 
> Marvelous! I have a 7.1.4 setup according to Dolby’s recommendations with overhead speakers whose tweeters (like my back surrounds) are angled towards the main listening position. Only the front speakers are somewhat in one straight line right below and within the 9’ width of my viewing screen(s).
> ...


Hey guys - does anyone know where I can find Chicago the musical in Dolby Atmos? It is listed in Amazon Japan, but when I try to check out it says it cannot ship to my address, presumably because I am in the U.S....? I've been checking on eBay and other places for months. Does anyone have one they would be interested in selling? Any info on how to get it would be much appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## madbrain

PioManiac said:


> My first car (in 79') was a 68' Charger, 440 4 speed,
> I'm an old fart now but never outgrew my need for speed.
> 
> My Hemi burns up 12 gallons on an afternoon at the track
> 
> I think I could almost be tempted by a Tesla Model S
> but it still doesn't sound like a V8 (music to my ears)


The quietness of electric cars is one of their huge plus, IMO. Great for an audiophile like me. Wish I could hookup an SACD player to my Bolt. There is a stereo external input, but no 5.1 input or HDMI input. My husband has a 15,000 CD collection that has not been ripped. We modded the car to put in a CD player the first week. He is the primary driver for the Bolt.

I think you would be surprised how quick those EVs can be.
I have never been to the race tracks but some have put the Bolt against the Tesla there.

https://insideevs.com/chevy-bolt-sets-ev-production-record-refuel-beats-every-tesla-video/

Tesla has had production quality problems. I wouldn't buy the S or the 3. Too much money. 

The Bolt actually has more range that some Teslas, too !
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/3/16089758/chevy-bolt-tesla-model-s-consumer-reports-range-test

Our fully loaded Bolt Premier was $47k out the door (including about 9% CA sales tax) in january. Would be closer to $42K now if we could have waited. We couldn't, had a crashed car to replace, so we paid the early adopter price. Less $7500 federal tax credit, $2500 CA state incentive, $500 utility incentive. This means you could get a fully loaded Bolt Premier in CA for a net of $31.5K now. And maybe about $5K less for the base model. There is no way you can get any Tesla at all for that price, not even a 5 year old used S. If you have never driven an EV, you just have to try. Don't waste your time with the Leaf though, that was an awful car. Fortunately had leased it. Returned it early.

And yes, I'm younger than you, but not young anymore, over 40. Just learned to drive much later than most people. I bought a home 4 years before I learned to drive. Had a home theater before I had a car, too.


----------



## VideoGrabber

PioManiac said:


> Ask anyone who has experienced both,
> a vibration at your butt is nothing like sound pressure waves that hit your entire body,


a) tactile transducers are not limited to vibrating butts. you're thinking of the old, seat-mounted 'butt kickers'.

b) just because they're not an option for you, doesn't mean they might not be for someone else.



> and when near field like my 4 subs, rattle you to the core and *can actually blur your vision* at reference levels.


Strangely enough, I actually have *zero* interest in having that happen.


----------



## petetherock

madbrain said:


> The quietness of electric cars is one of their huge plus, IMO. Great for an audiophile like me. Wish I could hookup an SACD player to my Bolt. There is a stereo external input, but no 5.1 input or HDMI input. My husband has a 15,000 CD collection that has not been ripped. We modded the car to put in a CD player the first week. He is the primary driver for the Bolt.
> 
> I think you would be surprised how quick those EVs can be.
> I have never been to the race tracks but some have put the Bolt against the Tesla there.
> 
> https://insideevs.com/chevy-bolt-sets-ev-production-record-refuel-beats-every-tesla-video/
> 
> Tesla has had production quality problems. I wouldn't buy the S or the 3. Too much money.
> 
> The Bolt actually has more range that some Teslas, too !
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/3/16089758/chevy-bolt-tesla-model-s-consumer-reports-range-test
> 
> Our fully loaded Bolt Premier was $47k out the door (including about 9% CA sales tax) in january. Would be closer to $42K now if we could have waited. We couldn't, had a crashed car to replace, so we paid the early adopter price. Less $7500 federal tax credit, $2500 CA state incentive, $500 utility incentive. This means you could get a fully loaded Bolt Premier in CA for a net of $31.5K now. And maybe about $5K less for the base model. There is no way you can get any Tesla at all for that price, not even a 5 year old used S. If you have never driven an EV, you just have to try. Don't waste your time with the Leaf though, that was an awful car. Fortunately had leased it. Returned it early.
> 
> And yes, I'm younger than you, but not young anymore, over 40. Just learned to drive much later than most people. I bought a home 4 years before I learned to drive. Had a home theater before I had a car, too.


EVs pack a real punch, but I am surprised the audiophiles here have yet to express concern over whether all that electric power generates EMFs that affect the speakers and other gear


----------



## progprog

VideoGrabber said:


> Strangely enough, I actually have *zero* interest in having that happen.


 I definitely second _that!_ (I kinda like the whole vision thing...especially when I'm watching movies.)


----------



## Mrjmc99

I feel like the screen to sound ratio in this tosh.0 video priceless, I was dying when I saw this clip. it's all about the sound, who cares what the movie looks like 

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/hdt844/tosh-0-cewebrity-profile---blind-film-critic

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

VideoGrabber said:


> Strangely enough, I actually have *zero* interest in having that happen.


And if that is truly happening, I'd maybe be a bit concerned about possible hearing damage being caused by those low frequencies too.... Dunno!


----------



## richlife

Bogey808 said:


> I’ve a vaulted ceiling as well with exposed beams and have been trying to figure out the best way to implement ATMOS. Would you mind taking a moment to explain your ATMOS speaker setup? TIA.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sorry for the late response, but actually the answer is in the first link of my sig. All the detail of my room and setup complete with pics. In case you can't see the sig (phone), this is the thread. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...9-outstanding-ht-common-but-special-room.html

Sorry again -- I'm not known for my short answers... 

Also, if you want crazy amazing, see @PioManiac's thread.


----------



## Josh Z

madbrain said:


> Including this one and the original Starship troopers. Didn't realize this second one was animated,


There were also two live-action DTV sequels.

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008)

They're pretty terrible. I haven't seen the animated ones, but haven't heard very good things about them either.


----------



## citsur86

Josh Z said:


> There were also two live-action DTV sequels.
> 
> Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
> Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008)
> 
> They're pretty terrible. I haven't seen the animated ones, but haven't heard very good things about them either.


All Starship Troopers that followed the original were unwatchable as far as i was concerned. The original is amazing IMO. Nothing about the sequels was on par with the original. Not the filming, props, special FX (they were special alright), acting, plot, etc. They didn't even try to hide the fact that the guns were made from plastic or cardboard. I remember being so distracted just from that I turned it off.


----------



## Josh Z

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - does anyone know where I can find Chicago the musical in Dolby Atmos? It is listed in Amazon Japan, but when I try to check out it says it cannot ship to my address, presumably because I am in the U.S....? I've been checking on eBay and other places for months. Does anyone have one they would be interested in selling? Any info on how to get it would be much appreciated. Thanks!


HMV Japan (now known as Lawson) will ship to the United States.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Movie_000000000043933/item_Chicago_6536822

The cover art looks different than the fancier one on Amazon Japan, but the listing mentions Atmos. This cover also matches the (sold out) listing on CD Japan, which more explicitly claims Atmos.

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/WHV-1000579886

I think perhaps the Amazon one has a slipcover that the other retailers don't.

FWIW, I ordered DVDs and Blu-rays from HMV a number of times under the old ownership. Just once since the Lawson acquisition. I didn't have any issues.


----------



## Pyronaut

I'm in the market for a new Atmos setup, but live in a small condo so I don't really need lots of boom. I'm currently using a 5.1 HTiB and it suits my purposes well, so I was looking to get the same for Atmos. Unfortunately, all the 5.1.2 Atmos HTiB setups I've seen have the up firing speakers on the fronts. I live in a 2 floor loft and the setup is such that the ceiling right above where I have my screen and front speakers is 2 floors high, so bouncing sound off it wouldn't really work. 

The 1st floor ceiling that the sound would bounce off of starts about 6ft/1.9M in front of the speakers/screen (and is about 7.5ft/2.3M high) so I'm assuming that would take it out of the range of the up firing speakers. It would, however, be over the rear speakers. 
*
Does anyone know if there exists an Atmos HTiB system that has interchangeable up firing speakers that I could put on the rear, or if I could jerry rig one to be able to do so?*

5.1.4 would probably be out of the question because of the front speaker issue, and I don't really want to do ceiling speakers because it's a concrete ceiling and I can't hide the cables.

It doesn't _have_ to be a HTiB system, but I'm looking to spend under $1000 so that usually means HTiB.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> I'm in the market for a new Atmos setup, but live in a small condo so I don't really need lots of boom. I'm currently using a 5.1 HTiB and it suits my purposes well, so I was looking to get the same for Atmos. Unfortunately, all the 5.1.2 Atmos HTiB setups I've seen have the up firing speakers on the fronts. I live in a 2 floor loft and the setup is such that the ceiling right above where I have my screen and front speakers is 2 floors high, so bouncing sound off it wouldn't really work.
> 
> The 1st floor ceiling that the sound would bounce off of starts about 6ft/1.9M in front of the speakers/screen (and is about 7.5ft/2.3M high) so I'm assuming that would take it out of the range of the up firing speakers. It would, however, be over the rear speakers.
> *
> Does anyone know if there exists an Atmos HTiB system that has interchangeable up firing speakers that I could put on the rear, or if I could jerry rig one to be able to do so?*
> 
> 5.1.4 would probably be out of the question because of the front speaker issue, and I don't really want to do ceiling speakers because it's a concrete ceiling and I can't hide the cables.
> 
> It doesn't _have_ to be a HTiB system, but I'm looking to spend under $1000 so that usually means HTiB.


If you are really satisfied with the speakers in your current HTiB system, then get a Dolby Atmos / DTS: X receiver and a couple of SVS Prime Elevation speakers and place them high on the walls on the sides of the room in the Atmos overhead positions (rather than on the ceiling). 

https://smile.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch (Buy from ListenUp in the seller list to the right... they're an authorized dealer based in Colorado with a good rep). This does up to 7.1.4 processing, will get an HDMI pass-through update to Dolby Vision support, and is on clearance. One of the best bangs vs buck immersive receivers.

https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation

The total would be just over your limit. Well worth it.

Then, go about updating your base speaker and sub system a little over time and BAM, you will have a kick-ass Atmos setup.


----------



## Redskin

Hey guys, I have a 5.2 setup that I am very happy with

-Era Design 5 speakers (no longer being made, but picture $1000 ish price range bookshelves
-Outlaw Audio LFM-1 EX subs (2)
-just bought a Denon 3300 but thinking of upgrading to the 4300 (I am within my return/exchange window, and the 3300 can only support 5.2.2 and from what I am reading 5.2.4 is the way to go.

Pretty low ceilings in a small room. I am thinking of mounting smaller speakers on the ceiling.

My question is...did any of you guys go with cheaper speakers for your Atmos speakers? I am thinking of picking these up these Peachtree Audio mB3 speakers for $100 for two pairs vs the $400 they originally went for. I normally wouldn't entertain going so cheap (and certainly wouldn't normally go with a single driver speaker but they would be pretty low profile, and am hoping they might match the sound signature of my Era speakers (same manufacturer)

https://www.ebay.com/i/222613415788?chn=ps&dispItem=1

Thanks!


----------



## progprog

******* said:


> Hey guys, I have a 5.2 setup that I am very happy with
> 
> -Era Design 5 speakers (no longer being made, but picture $1000 ish price range bookshelves
> -Outlaw Audio LFM-1 EX subs (2)
> -just bought a Denon 3300 but thinking of upgrading to the 4300 (I am within my return/exchange window, and the 3300 can only support 5.2.2 and from what I am reading 5.2.4 is the way to go.
> 
> Pretty low ceilings in a small room. I am thinking of mounting smaller speakers on the ceiling.
> 
> My question is...did any of you guys go with cheaper speakers for your Atmos speakers? I am thinking of picking these up these Peachtree Audio mB3 speakers for $100 for two pairs vs the $400 they originally went for. I normally wouldn't entertain going so cheap (and certainly wouldn't normally go with a single driver speaker but they would be pretty low profile, and am hoping they might match the sound signature of my Era speakers (same manufacturer)
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/i/222613415788?chn=ps&dispItem=1
> 
> Thanks!


The most important thing for the Atmos speakers is getting some that match up well with your existing speakers. Test that, if you can, before you commit to putting them in your ceiling. I think it's a mistake to think of them as just a small, ambiance-type addition. An important implementation of Atmos capability is the imaging of moving objects, and it doesn't work well if the tone changes significantly as the object moves between very different-sounding speakers.

As for the 4 or 2 heights option in your receiver, I always like trying to future-proof as much as possible. If the receiver upgrade isn't cost-prohibitive, I'd go for it.


----------



## Mre_man

progprog said:


> The most important thing for the Atmos speakers is getting some that match up well with your existing speakers. Test that, if you can, before you commit to putting them in your ceiling. I think it's a mistake to think of them as just a small, ambiance-type addition. An important implementation of Atmos capability is the imaging of moving objects, and it doesn't work well if the tone changes significantly as the object moves between very different-sounding speakers.
> 
> As for the 4 or 2 heights option in your receiver, I always like trying to future-proof as much as possible. If the receiver upgrade isn't cost-prohibitive, I'd go for it.


I think you'll be fine especially since everything below 80 hz will get crossed depending on your bass management settings. The room correction will resolve most of the issues. I have an 11.2.4 setup and all my speakers are timbre matched except my overheads. LCR, surrounds and subs are all from Bic Acoustech.

2 PL-930 towers
1 PL-28ii center
4 PL-66 surrounds
2 PL-200 subs

Ceiling speakers are 2 pairs of white JBL Control One all weather monitors that got 2 years ago. All the speakers except the subs of course from the Bic Acoustech line come with horn tweeters and the 2 speaker brands sound as if they were made by the same company. My receiver is a Marantz sr7009 and an Emotiva XPA Gen 3 powering the LCR's. The Marantz powers everything else. Once I calibrated everything both movies and music sounds amazing. 

My only concern with the model that you chose is will you be able to aim the speakers towards the MLP to create that bubble effect of audio bliss. If you can manage that I would go for it.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are really satisfied with the speakers in your current HTiB system, then get a Dolby Atmos / DTS: X receiver and a couple of SVS Prime Elevation speakers and place them high on the walls on the sides of the room in the Atmos overhead positions (rather than on the ceiling).
> 
> https://smile.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch (Buy from ListenUp in the seller list to the right... they're an authorized dealer based in Colorado with a good rep). This does up to 7.1.4 processing, *will get an HDMI pass-through update to Dolby Vision support*, and is on clearance. One of the best bangs vs buck immersive receivers.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation
> 
> The total would be just over your limit. Well worth it.
> 
> Then, go about updating your base speaker and sub system a little over time and BAM, you will have a kick-ass Atmos setup.



Already released on Sep 20.


----------



## ultrabubu

Recently I found this


----------



## batpig

Yup, that was posted in some Denon threads as well. Assuming this is legit, it appears the new Denon/Marantz flagships (Denon AVC-X8500H and Marantz AV8805) are going to feature 13ch processing, with 15.2ch pre-outs. Looks like they'll support 7.1.6 and 9.1.4 Atmos configs and 13.1ch Auro3D. 

Between this, Emotiva, and who knows what else is coming but still secret, looks like 2018 is going to be the year that (relatively) affordable >11ch processors really start to enter the market! 



ultrabubu said:


> Recently I found this


----------



## ggsantafe

Here's Johnny!!!!! In the Halloween spirit we watched "The Shining" last night via a Vudu stream and the audio track delivered in Dolby Surround was stunning - the immersive 3D audio was very compelling and definitely enhanced all of Kubrick's screen (scream) magic.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

I just setup my PSB XA speakers. Receiver is a Sony DN1080, TV XBR850E 65" and plaver is X800 (yeah, I'm a Sony fanboy). So far very impressed with Dolby Atmos. I've watched Guardians V2 and The 5th Element, both feature pretty decent DA tracks.


----------



## chi_guy50

ggsantafe said:


> Here's Johnny!!!!! In the Halloween spirit we watched "The Shining" last night via a Vudu stream and the audio track delivered in Dolby Surround was stunning - the immersive 3D audio was very compelling and definitely enhanced all of Kubrick's screen (scream) magic.


Similarly, we had saved the Blu-ray of Coppola's 1992 movie _Bram Stoker's Dracula_ (remastered in 4K with an Atmos soundtrack) for last night. It delivered the goods.:devil:


----------



## ALtlOff

Hey guys, was helping someone in another thread and don't remember the answer to this.n.a.

Can you setup an Atmos configuration with a Phantom Center?

I knows it seems like a simple and silly question, but since you can't do a single rear speaker, I didn't know if they would allow NO Center.


----------



## progprog

ALtlOff said:


> Hey guys, was helping someone in another thread and don't remember the answer to this.n.a.
> 
> Can you setup an Atmos configuration with a Phantom Center?
> 
> I knows it seems like a simple and silly question, but since you can't do a single rear speaker, I didn't know if they would allow NO Center.


You can, and it actually works pretty well.


----------



## thisisgroot

So I'm new to the forum and thought I'd post here being that my system is an atmos set up. Basement being done and finally purchased the surroundsound system is being installed was curious if I could get any feedback on this and I am a little bit confused about the rear speakers and the height of them.
Going for 110 inch screen Havent decided on the projector yet. But the sound is pretty much going to be this:
Receiver Anthem Mrx 1120
Front paradigm millennia Lp xl x 3
Ceiling paradigm p-65r x 4
Paradigm monitor sub 12
Rear Paradigm monitor surround 3 - x2

That's pretty much it for now sitting position will be 14 feet away from the screen my only confusion and this is mostly because of the way the walls are set up are the 2 Surround 3's , is it OK if these are in line to the ceiling rear atmos speakers or should they be further away from the line of the two ceiling rear speakers? and above ear level like 8 ft up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thisisgroot

Is there anywhere that I should adjust or should I add anything? Or I was also thinking of substituting the anthem which is fairly new and it was very good for an 11 channel receiver to a Yamaha which will be a tad cheaper


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## progprog

thisisgroot said:


> That's pretty much it for now sitting position will be 14 feet away from the screen my only confusion and this is mostly because of the way the walls are set up are the 2 Surround 3 , is it OK if these are parallel to the ceiling rear atmosti speakers and above ear level like 8 ft up?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your question is a little confusing. When you say "parallel to the ceiling rear atmos," do you mean that they are on the side walls, such that the two atmos speakers and the surrounds are all in a line across the room (side to side)? 

As for the height of the surround channels, it's not ideal to have them that high, because it diminishes separation from the heights channels and imaging isn't as spacious. But many people have these kinds of room limitations and have to place them higher than the Dolby recommendation. If you have to put them up high, try to create the best separation you can between them and the rear heights.


----------



## thisisgroot

progprog said:


> Your question is a little confusing. When you say "parallel to the ceiling rear atmos," do you mean that they are on the side walls, such that the two atmos speakers and the surrounds are all in a line across the room (side to side)?
> 
> 
> 
> As for the height of the surround channels, it's not ideal to have them that high, because it diminishes separation from the heights channels and imaging isn't as spacious. But many people have these kinds of room limitations and have to place them higher than the Dolby recommendation. If you have to put them up high, try to create the best separation you can between them and the rear heights.




Thanks for your response actually I can put them lower if I have to what would you recommend in terms of height?

Regards to The atmos ceiling, I have two speakers about 2 feet in front of the couch area and to others 2 feet and back

The surround 3 will be on the The wall 2 feet behind as well but I wasn't sure if I have to put them further away or is it OK if they are in the same line with the two ceiling speakers?

Yes I can put them lower what would be the recommended height, these are bidirectional speakers so I figured it would envelop the room very well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## progprog

thisisgroot said:


> Thanks for your response actually I can put them lower if I have to what would you recommend in terms of height?


The Dolby recommendation is to put them at ear level (when seated)....roughly the same height as the tweeters on your front speakers. Think of an Atmos setup as two layers of sound. The fronts, center, and surrounds are the ear level layer (some call this the bed layer). The pairs of Atmos speakers are the heights level. This configuration best allows the Atmos decoder to use your speakers to create an enveloping "sound bubble" where audio objects seem to move in three-dimensional space.



> Regards to The atmos ceiling, I have two speakers about 2 feet in front of the couch area and to others 2 feet and back


That's fairly compressed spacing. If you still have the option, more separation would be good. (For reference, using the 45 degree angle of elevation Dolby recommends puts them about 5' from the main listening position on an 8' ceiling.) Again, adequate separation is the goal, as that's what allows the system to properly image objects in space.



> The surround 3 will be on the The wall 2 feet behind as well but I wasn't sure if I have to put them further away or is it OK if they are in the same line with the two ceiling speakers?


"Surround 3"? I'm still not picturing what you're describing, but here's the general recommendation: The heights channels would typically be in line with your front channels...ie, looking from the back of the room, the left front speaker, left FR height, and left RR height are on an invisible line, and same with the right side. In a system that doesn't have a back pair, the surrounds go on the back wall, more widely spaced than the invisible line your fronts and heights are on.

If the space behind your seats is limited to two feet, it's especially important to get some separation between the surrounds and the rear heights channels. The best way to do that would be to lower the surrounds and move them out closer to the side walls (than the Atmos speakers). Moving the rear Atmos speakers forward a little would help as well.



> Yes I can put them lower what would be the recommended height, these are bidirectional speakers so I figured it would envelop the room very well
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again, the Dolby recommendation is ear level when seated. Many users have them a little higher so they're not blocked by seatbacks or other barriers. About 2/3 the way up the wall is a pretty decent compromise.


----------



## thisisgroot

progprog said:


> The Dolby recommendation is to put them at ear level (when seated)....roughly the same height as the tweeters on your front speakers. Think of an Atmos setup as two layers of sound. The fronts, center, and surrounds are the ear level layer (some call this the bed layer). The pairs of Atmos speakers are the heights level. This configuration best allows the Atmos decoder to use your speakers to create an enveloping "sound bubble" where audio objects seem to move in three-dimensional space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fairly compressed spacing. If you still have the option, more separation would be good. (For reference, using the 45 degree angle of elevation Dolby recommends puts them about 5' from the main listening position on an 8' ceiling.) Again, adequate separation is the goal, as that's what allows the system to properly image objects in space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Surround 3"? I'm still not picturing what you're describing, but here's the general recommendation: The heights channels would typically be in line with your front channels...ie, looking from the back of the room, the left front speaker, left FR height, and left RR height are on an invisible line, and same with the right side. In a system that doesn't have a back pair, the surrounds go on the back wall, more widely spaced than the invisible line your fronts and heights are on.
> 
> 
> 
> If the space behind your seats is limited to two feet, it's especially important to get some separation between the surrounds and the rear heights channels. The best way to do that would be to lower the surrounds and move them out closer to the side walls (than the Atmos speakers). Moving the rear Atmos speakers forward a little would help as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Dolby recommendation is ear level when seated. Many users have them a little higher so they're not blocked by seatbacks or other barriers. About 2/3 the way up the wall is a pretty decent compromise.



OK thanks a lot for your input this actually helps a lot but I think there was some confusion here I don't have any side speakers so this is a nine speaker configuration

It will be three in the front, four on the ceiling, and only two in the side back ( he's are the ones that I was saying would be on the same invisible line as the back left ceiling and right left ceiling, if I put those surround speakers about ear level in that same line is that ok?

I'm attaching a picture of the drywall that's up all the wiring is done

Regarding the space between the four atmos speakers I did keep the 8 feet apart which I was told was recommended?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thisisgroot

I have attached an image to show you the layout of the room
Blue is 3 front, red is the 4 ceiling, and green are the spots for the 2 surround 3 speakers 

https://www.paradigm.com/products-current/model=surround-3/page=overview

These two speakers are the ones I'm not sure what to do are you saying they should be at ear level on the direct left and direct right ? 

Shouldn't they be behind a little bit maybe if your level on the same line with the rear ceiling speakers?











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thisisgroot

This is ideally what I would like to have the two surround speakers










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OKGeek

thisisgroot said:


> This is ideally what I would like to have the two surround speakers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't do this, at it implies almost no separation between surrounds and top rears. You definitely need surrounds to be closer to ear level and may be a bit backward, if possible, (not 90 deg to side, more close to 110-120 deg) if it's 5.1.4 you're planning to do. 110-120 deg may help to cover the sound gap behind you. If it's not possible to move the speakers backward it always worth considering to move the couch forward 

Also think about increasing the distance from MLP to top fronts (moving them forward) and to top rears (moving them backward) along the ceiling. 45 deg is recommended, as was advised before, but if it's not possible, less angles might work well. What is the current distance from MLP precisely (not the couch area, as it rather vague definition) to top fronts and top rears?

I would also consider to put top fronts and top rears more inward, comparing to the distance between L and R to get better separation from sides.

Strongly recommend to watch Home Theater Geeks, series 233, with Scott Wilkinson and Anthony Grimani on 3D audio.


----------



## thisisgroot

OKGeek said:


> Don't do this, at it implies almost no separation between surrounds and top rears. You definitely need surrounds to be closer to ear level and may be a bit backward, if possible, (not 90 deg to side, more close to 110-120 deg) if it's 5.1.4 you're planning to do. 110-120 deg may help to cover the sound gap behind you. If it's not possible to move the speakers backward it always worth considering to move the couch forward
> 
> 
> 
> Also think about increasing the distance from MLP to top fronts (moving them forward) and to top rears (moving them backward) along the ceiling. 45 deg is recommended, as was advised before, but if it's not possible, less angles might work well. What is the current distance from MLP precisely (not the couch area, as it rather vague definition) to top fronts and top rears?
> 
> 
> 
> I would also consider to put top fronts and top rears more inward, comparing to the distance between L and R to get better separation from sides.
> 
> 
> 
> Strongly recommend to watch Home Theater Geeks, series 233, with Scott Wilkinson and Anthony Grimani on 3D audio.




Sorry what is MLP? So what you're saying is the surrounds should be like a show in the first picture? And a little bit more back? 
If I move the coach forward it will be right underneath the front ceiling speakers is that OK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thisisgroot

The space between the speakers is based on this diagram










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OKGeek

thisisgroot said:


> Sorry what is MLP?


MLP stands for Main Listening Position. It's where your head is, when you're looking the movie sitting in the middle of the couch.



thisisgroot said:


> So what you're saying is the surrounds should be like a show in the first picture? And a little bit more back?


Correct



thisisgroot said:


> If I move the coach forward it will be right underneath the front ceiling speakers is that OK?


In most cases the answer is "No, it's not OK". You need Top Fronts in front of you and Top Rears behind you. Something like "Side view of Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup" here.

PS. As you've already prewired for the ceiling speakers, the discussion seems to be theoretical. So just arrange the placement of surrounds as advised (at or slightly above ear level, so not to obstruct the sound with back of the couch) and enjoy


----------



## thisisgroot

OKGeek said:


> MLP stands for Main Listening Position. It's where your head is, when you're looking the movie sitting in the middle of the couch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most cases the answer is "No, it's not OK". You need Top Fronts in front of you and Top Rears behind you. Something like "Side view of Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup" here.
> 
> 
> 
> PS. As you've already prewired for the ceiling speakers, the discussion seems to be theoretical. So just arrange the placement of surrounds as advised (at or slightly above ear level, so not to obstruct the sound with back of the couch) and enjoy




Yes the ceiling is pretty much wired and yes that's what I will do the surround speakers be a little bit back and at ear level you are absolutely right

Projector is 14 feet from the screen 

Listening position 12 feet

My only problem is that right side the drywall went over the wiring and I think it's too short for me to move it i'm going to figure this out




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

@thisisgroot

This is the diagram you want to match as closely as possible for the best results.

Top Front and Top Rear are going to give you the best immersion. TF at 45 degrees and TR at 140 degrees or so is what you should shoot for.











Atmos is fairly forgiving though, hence the ranges (30-55 degrees and 125-150 degrees).

Placing the speakers where your green circles indicated is not a good spot for them. As OKGreek pointed out, you WANT separation between the bed layer (ear height speakers) and the Height Layer (overheads) in order for proper imaging to occur.

Take a look at my theater link in my signature for an example.

Granted, not every room can be set up optimally, but since you're in the drywall/cutting holes phase...do what you can to get the speakers in the correct place from the get-go. 

You'll thank us later.


----------



## Jonas2

thisisgroot said:


> Regards to The atmos ceiling, I have two speakers about 2 feet in front of the couch area and to others 2 feet and back


Although it appears you've already cut the holes, and run the wiring - I'd really reconsider the positioning. As already pointed out, you should go for greater separation between the front and back sets or else the intended effects will be lacking. You can always patch sheet rock. Is there another limiting factor preventing this?



thisisgroot said:


> The surround 3 will be on the The wall 2 feet behind as well but I wasn't sure if I have to put them further away or is it OK if they are in the same line with the two ceiling speakers?
> 
> Yes I can put them lower what would be the recommended height, these are bidirectional speakers so I figured it would envelop the room very well


I don't know that I'd put them too far behind - my local dealer does have an Atmos room with wall-mounted Prestige 25B, a somewhat similar concept to the Surround 3 design - they are I'd say about 2/3rds up the wall, but the Atmos speakers are much higher than that - it's not an 8' ceiling, so the separation is good. They are though pretty much in line with the listener, maybe a bit behind, not several feet. Be nice if you could do some experimentation before final placement, but in my opinion I'd get those speakers lower if you can.


----------



## Jonas2

thisisgroot said:


> Is there anywhere that I should adjust or should I add anything? Or I was also thinking of substituting the anthem which is fairly new and it was very good for an 11 channel receiver to a Yamaha which will be a tad cheaper


Keep the idea of a second subwoofer in your mind.

For a tad cheaper, I'd stick with the Anthem receiver - arguably better room correction system, unless the Yamaha has other features you need but find lacking in the Anthem. You speak of the Anthem in the past tense though "was a very good receiver"...not something you already have, is it?


----------



## thisisgroot

stikle said:


> @thisisgroot
> 
> 
> 
> This is the diagram you want to match as closely as possible for the best results.
> 
> 
> 
> Top Front and Top Rear are going to give you the best immersion. TF at 45 degrees and TR at 140 degrees or so is what you should shoot for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos is fairly forgiving though, hence the ranges (30-55 degrees and 125-150 degrees).
> 
> 
> 
> Placing the speakers where your green circles indicated is not a good spot for them. As OKGreek pointed out, you WANT separation between the bed layer (ear height speakers) and the Height Layer (overheads) in order for proper imaging to occur.
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at my theater link in my signature for an example.
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, not every room can be set up optimally, but since you're in the drywall/cutting holes phase...do what you can to get the speakers in the correct place from the get-go.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll thank us later.




Thank you for all of this so what is the recommended distance from the ceiling speakers from the front speakers?

I think it's fairly well set up the way it is based on the diagram

I'm gonna move the 2 sourround speakers further back on right and left wall and at a bit above ear heigh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

thisisgroot said:


> Thank you for all of this so what is the recommended distance from the ceiling speakers from the front speakers?
> 
> I think it's fairly well set up the way it is based on the diagram
> 
> I'm gonna move the 2 sourround speakers further back on right and left wall and at a bit above ear heigh.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


45º is the ideal angle for ATMOS/DTS:X

So what ever the distance from your ears to ceiling is, should be the same distance fore and aft of your ears.

Example:


----------



## Jonas2

thisisgroot said:


> Thank you for all of this so what is the recommended distance from the ceiling speakers from the front speakers?
> 
> I think it's fairly well set up the way it is based on the diagram
> 
> I'm gonna move the 2 sourround speakers further back on right and left wall and at a bit above ear heigh.


I think it's less about the distance of the height speakers from the mains, and more about the distance of the heights from the listener....


----------



## Mre_man

Haven't checked in since this thread started a couple years back ever since I completed my setup. Was catching up and since most of us have over 2 years experience with it at home I would like to ask for some opinions. What is the consensus of placing the TR speakers behind the surround back speakers? Due to the open layout of my family room and kitchen I had no choice but to place the surround backs 1 ft behind the mlp. From there my TR speakers are 4 ft behind the surround backs. All other speakers are within spec and I have good 8 ft of separation from the base and height layers. To me it sounds great but always had that doubt in the back of my head because of this unique setup.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jonas2 said:


> Although it appears you've already cut the holes, and run the wiring - *I'd really reconsider the positioning*. As already pointed out, you should go for greater separation between the front and back sets or else the intended effects will be lacking. *You can always patch sheet rock*. Is there another limiting factor preventing this?


I agree 100% with this. It's not too late, yet! A little bit of hassle now will be well worth it.


----------



## OKGeek

Jonas2 said:


> I think it's less about the distance of the height speakers from the mains, and more about the distance of the heights from the listener....


Yeah, that's for sure! That was the very reason, I've asked @thisisgroot for more precision in distances definition.
If he has 8ft ceiling and measured 2 ft front and 2 ft back from the *couch area*, rather than *listener position* itself, then given average depth of the couch around 3' 2'' he can get around 3' 6'' from MLP to Top fronts and Top rears, which is non ideal 52 deg, but still within the Dolby specs and can be feasible if a new ceiling pre-wiring is a NO GO.

Of course it's better to rewire and get closer to 45deg for TF and TR. That's nobrainer


----------



## madbrain

Watched Allied last night. Was surprised how well the DTS:Neural X worked on the DTS-HD 5.1 track. There was a scene where things really sounded like they were coming from above. Then one of the characters asked if there were people upstairs.
No, this doesn't have to do with Atmos, but does have to do with height speakers. Have a 7.1.4 setup (with 4 subs for LFE). I couldn't tell which ceiling speakers were playing this mind trick (front height or top rear) which is the way it should be.


----------



## zmacka

The dolby guide for 7.1.4 doesn't seem consistent.

As speaker 8 in top view is next to rear speaker 6, whereas in side elevation its positioned at 45 degrees from the listener.


----------



## thisisgroot

Thanks guys for all your input but basically it's now wired so I guess I'll have to hear how it sounds but I've got 14 feet to the projector 12 feet to the seating area The four ceiling speakers will sit about 8 feet apart above the couch three speakers in front of the screen and to surround speakers sitting a few feet back from the couch on each side at approximately ear level


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## progprog

thisisgroot said:


> Thanks guys for all your input but basically it's now wired so I guess I'll have to hear how it sounds but I've got 14 feet to the projector 12 feet to the seating area The four ceiling speakers will sit about 8 feet apart above the couch three speakers in front of the screen and to surround speakers sitting a few feet back from the couch on each side at approximately ear level
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey, thisisgroot....sorry I disappeared in the middle of your questions last night. Work night, you know....

I see you've gotten lots of advice, including suggestions about moving the height speakers. Believe me, I get the limitations of moving stuff like that once you've gotten this far. Honestly, I think the Atmos spec is _much_ more forgiving than all their diagrams and precise angles imply. So don't fret or second guess yourself at this point....I bet they'll sound great.  I don't recall if those Paradigm P65s have aimable tweeters, which can help fine tune the imaging, but even if they don't, I still suspect you'll be very happy with the performance from your heights channels.

Seems you've figured out the placement for the surrounds, too. (Which I think was your original question, right? lol) Between the Anthem receiver and Paradigm speakers, I think you're going to have a really nice theater room. Do keep us posted on how it turns out!


----------



## progprog

zmacka said:


> The dolby guide for 7.1.4 doesn't seem consistent.
> 
> As speaker 8 in top view is next to rear speaker 6, whereas in side elevation its positioned at 45 degrees from the listener.


Yeah, some of their diagrams are very confusing. Keep in mind, the top view is just that......it doesn't reflect vertical postiions of the speakers relative to one another. So the rear ceiling speakers and the surrounds look closer than they are, since their vertical separation is not reflected.


----------



## thisisgroot

progprog said:


> Hey, thisisgroot....sorry I disappeared in the middle of your questions last night. Work night, you know....
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've gotten lots of advice, including suggestions about moving the height speakers. Believe me, I get the limitations of moving stuff like that once you've gotten this far. Honestly, I think the Atmos spec is _much_ more forgiving than all their diagrams and precise angles imply. So don't fret or second guess yourself at this point....I bet they'll sound great.  I don't recall if those Paradigm P65s have aimable tweeters, which can help fine tune the imaging, but even if they don't, I still suspect you'll be very happy with the performance from your heights channels.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you've figured out the placement for the surrounds, too. (Which I think was your original question, right? lol) Between the Anthem receiver and Paradigm speakers, I think you're going to have a really nice theater room. Do keep us posted on how it turns out!




Yes thank you very much you guys were helpful even more than helpful but a lot of the verbiage was a little bit alien to me because I don't know much about this and it's very new to me so I was trying to cover her and everything at the same time trying to apply it. System has not moved at all the only thing I'm adjusting because I can based on recommendation is the surrounds I'm lowering them they were all the way up almost to the level of the ceiling speakers and now they will be at the ear level.

The p65 ? Are you referring to the front speakers? Those can't be moved I think because they are long and sit flush with the wall I think those are in perfect position they are on your side of the screen and underneath the screen


Yes I've actually heard this system similar to this with the four ceiling paradigms and it's mind blowing how good it sounds I don't have such a huge space actually the whole area for the theatre section is 
16 1/2 ftx13ft=214 sq ft




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## progprog

thisisgroot said:


> The p65 ? Are you referring to the front speakers? Those can't be moved I think because they are long and sit flush with the wall I think those are in perfect position they are on your side of the screen and underneath the screen


No, I was referring to your in-ceiling height speakers. I thought you originally said they were Paradigm P65-Rs. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Either way, though, ceiling speakers have a concentric design where the tweeter is mounted in the middle (and in front of) of the mid-driver, as shown here with the P65-R:










With some of these kinds of speakers, the tweeter is on a mount that allows you to point it somewhat, and many find it helpful to point them toward the listening positions. This can be helpful because high frequencies are much more directional than the lower ones. This isn't a necessary feature in heights speakers, but it can be used to fine-tune the imaging performance.


----------



## g.costanza

*No ceiling output on DTS X MA?*

I downloaded several Atmos and DTS-X clips from demo disc site, which I played from USB on my Panasonic 1080p blu ray player. The Atmos ones play fine with sound from the ceiling speakers, but not the DTS-X ones. I get audio from the other speakers (mains and side surrounds). The denon x3300w receiver shows DTS-X MSTR on the display while playing the clips. Any ideas? I have 2 top/front ceiling speakers. Also, the on-screen-display when pressing INFO on the Denon shows which speakers are playing. TFL and TFR do not light up on the dts-x clips. They do light up on the Atmos clips.


----------



## am2model3

Listening and watching StarWars1-3 6.1 DTS-HD with NeuralX, wow, amazing sounds on 5.1.4

also, another crazy film has 6.1, Terminator2! 
Atmos & DTS:X is worth it.


----------



## progprog

g.costanza said:


> I downloaded several Atmos and DTS-X clips from demo disc site, which I played from USB on my Panasonic 1080p blu ray player. The Atmos ones play fine with sound from the ceiling speakers, but not the DTS-X ones. I get audio from the other speakers (mains and side surrounds). The denon x3300w receiver shows DTS-X MSTR on the display while playing the clips. Any ideas? I have 2 top/front ceiling speakers. Also, the on-screen-display when pressing INFO on the Denon shows which speakers are playing. TFL and TFR do not light up on the dts-x clips. They do light up on the Atmos clips.


For what it's worth, I get weird and inconsistent playback with the DTS:X demo files as well. I have several of both types, and the Atmos demos always play perfectly. The DTS ones do everything from play perfectly to not play at all and even screw up my processor (so I have to power cycle to get it to recognize the next file codec ). I don't even try to play the DTS:X files anymore.


----------



## showmak

am2model3 said:


> Listening and watching StarWars1-3 6.1 DTS-HD with NeuralX, wow, amazing sounds on 5.1.4
> 
> also, another crazy film has 6.1, Terminator2!
> Atmos & DTS:X is worth it.


I totally agree...


----------



## Kadath

Dan Hitchman said:


> Until you hear Blade Runner 2049.


I liked it in the theater, not sure it will do any un-seating... Cause the new winner is War for the Planet of the Apes. The final battle sequence and


Spoiler



avalanche


 are seriously badass in 7.1.2


----------



## madbrain

showmak said:


> I totally agree...


All of these movies will be re-released on UHD discs with Atmos tracks at some point of course, if you are willing to pay up again for new discs.


----------



## jjackkrash

Kadath said:


> I liked it in the theater, not sure it will do any un-seating... Cause the new winner is War for the Planet of the Apes. The final battle sequence and
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> avalanche
> 
> 
> are seriously badass in 7.1.2


And in 5.1.4.  War does freaking kick ass.


----------



## Jonas2

jjackkrash said:


> And in 5.1.4.  War does freaking kick ass.


Yes it does! Hacksaw Ridge is fantastic in Atmos if you haven't seen that one yet!


----------



## guitarguy316

anyone used atmos headphones or the simulated atmos on xbox?


----------



## Mrjmc99

guitarguy316 said:


> anyone used atmos headphones or the simulated atmos on xbox?


No, but you have to pay for a license to use it after 30 days, which sucks.

Sent from my STV100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## mathisse

I am following this discussion with interest, I would like to create an Atmos room with configuration 7.2.4 via my new purchase Yamaha rx a3070 with external amplifier


----------



## progprog

mathisse said:


> I am following this discussion with interest, I would like to create an Atmos room with configuration 7.2.4 via my new purchase Yamaha rx a3070 with external amplifier


Do you have any of the speakers yet? I.e., are you currently 7.1...5.1...?


----------



## usc1995

maikeldepotter said:


> How about Netflix Amos content played through Xbox One? Same issues?


Since this question was asked last month I have updated my projector to a new-to-me JVC X550R (RS400) and updated my Netflix subscription to the 4K plan to get some of those sweet 4k streams and access to their Atmos content. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of Atmos content but there is a lot of potential for it on this platform. I have watched the following titles:

Okja - I didn't make it very far through this one since the movie was pretty boring to me. The Atmos content I heard was subtle and effective but nothing special to my ears.

Wheelman - This was a great example of how Atmos can really add ambiance. There weren't too many SOUNDS COMING FROM ABOVE moments but there was lots of echo, sirens, helicopters and ambiance as the protagonist is driving around downtown Chicago late at night. I thought it was really well done as it really captured the sounds of traffic and experience of driving in the downtown of a big city.

Death Note - I thought the Atmos on this was especially good. There was lots of rain/thunder sounds and plenty of action sounds coming from the Atmos speakers. The story was pretty good too although I couldn't help but feel it wasn't completely finished.

Overall I think the sound on the Atmos tracks was better than the usual 5.1 on most of the Netflix content. These movies were all Netflix Original titles so that may have something to do with it. I look forward to seeing some other studio movies presented in Atmos on Netflix and am curious how those fare compared to a UHD or bluray release. I am curious to see if anyone else has any opinions on the Neflix Atmos content. I am also to see if there are any other titles that I should check out.


----------



## sdrucker

Picked up the Hans Zimmer in Prague BluRay with the Dolby Atmos mix a few days ago on Amazon...if you want to hear music that uses the heights most of the time and is loaded with crazy/insane degrees of fast-paced instrumental solos, particularly with multiple guitar players showing off their talents in the orchestra (including Johnny Marr from The Smiths), along with the musical proficiency and coincidental eye candy of the women in the string section, this is your disc:


https://www.amazon.com/Hans-Zimmer-Live-Prague-Blu-ray/dp/B0757G5PXW


This is fantastic, but I'm really looking forward to REM's Automatic For the People hitting its release imminently...hopefully the first couple of many Atmos-based music releases in the following months...


----------



## progprog

sdrucker said:


> Picked up the Hans Zimmer in Prague BluRay with the Dolby Atmos mix a few days ago on Amazon...


Is it an actual Atmos mix, or do you mean upmixing with the DSU? I don't see anything in the listed specs that mentions Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

progprog said:


> Is it an actual Atmos mix, or do you mean upmixing with the DSU? I don't see anything in the listed specs that mentions Atmos.


It's the real thing. The menu on the BD offers Dolby Atmos.

Also see here:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hans-Zimmer-Live-in-Prague-Blu-ray/188217/


----------



## jjackkrash

Roger Waters the Wall in Atmos is_ fantastic_.


----------



## progprog

sdrucker said:


> It's the real thing. The menu on the BD offers Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Also see here:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hans-Zimmer-Live-in-Prague-Blu-ray/188217/


Nice! I'm sold.


----------



## sdrucker

jjackkrash said:


> Roger Waters the Wall in Atmos is_ fantastic_.


So I've heard, but it's from Roger Waters. I'd sooner buy Bose than fund his politics. LOL.


----------



## jjackkrash

sdrucker said:


> So I've heard, but it's from Roger Waters. I'd sooner buy Bose than fund his politics. LOL.


Ouch. You must _really_ dislike his politics. 

It is too bad though, that show was really an artistic feat to behold.


----------



## Lesmor

Just joined this thread today
I have checked page 1 and searched Google but cant find the answer to my questions so here is goes

Does anyone know what SPL the Dolby Atmos test tones are mastered in?

Does the Subwoofer tone use the same level or is it mastered for LFE and should be 10db higher?

Should I set my AVR MVC to Zero when running the tests?

Thanks in advance
Andy


----------



## Erod

I have a question about Center Spread for movies. Dolby Surround offers it as an option, and I'd like to better understand how it works.

There are times that the center channel seems too localized to me, especially with closeups of faces appear, and the voices seem like they aren't coming front each face as it should. Center Spread seems like it could solve that.

My questions are:

1. Do you use it?
2. Does it negatively affect the surround formatting of the disc in general?
3. Is there an effect within the center channel that allows it to play more heavily on the left or right specifically for a specific sound or voice?
4. Is it just splitting the overall center channel signal evenly across three speakers?
5. In Dolby Surround, does it bleed into the overhead channels, too, since that takes on ambient sounds from the mains?

Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> Is it just splitting the overall center channel signal evenly across three speakers?


Yes, and that's all it does (no info bled to the heights).


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> Yes, and that's all it does (no info bled to the heights).


Thanks. Do you use it?


----------



## progprog

Erod said:


> 1. Do you use it?


I have turned it on from time to time, but I don't leave it on all the time.

Have you just tried it yourself? Aside from how it works (which has been answered), you seem focused on how it impacts overall surround performance. But that's the kind of thing you can best determine by using it yourself, as I'm sure it really just comes down to personal preference.


----------



## Erod

progprog said:


> I have turned it on from time to time, but I don't leave it on all the time.
> 
> Have you just tried it yourself? Aside from how it works (which has been answered), you seem focused on how it impacts overall surround performance. But that's the kind of thing you can best determine by using it yourself, as I'm sure it really just comes down to personal preference.


I've listened to it, but I haven't run it through multiple sources in any sort of testing protocol.

I'm interested in understanding what it is actually doing first. Is it "faking" anything, or is it stripping or interfering with other signal in the mains. 

From what I'm gathering, it's just splitting the signal to the mains. Is that an even split, or is the center channel still handling the brunt of it? There's no variability to it in the setting. It's just on or off.

That sort of thing. You experts have often put these things through their proper paces before I arrive on the scene


----------



## progprog

Erod said:


> I've listened to it, but I haven't run it through multiple sources in any sort of testing protocol.
> 
> I'm interested in understanding what it is actually doing first. Is it "faking" anything, or is it stripping or interfering with other signal in the mains.
> 
> From what I'm gathering, it's just splitting the signal to the mains. Is that an even split, or is the center channel still handling the brunt of it? There's no variability to it in the setting. It's just on or off.
> 
> That sort of thing. You experts have often put these things through their proper paces before I arrive on the scene


Exactly...just splits some of the center channel signal to the mains. Probably much like adding a "mini phantom center" effect. But it seems to be a pretty small effect, with the center still carrying by far the brunt of it, as you say.


----------



## Erod

progprog said:


> Exactly...just splits some of the center channel signal to the mains. Probably much like adding a "mini phantom center" effect. But it seems to be a pretty small effect, with the center still carrying by far the brunt of it, as you say.


Thanks. That seems useful to me, and I'll bet it varies from source to source. 

I always hate it when the center channel is asked to take on too much sound effect in a movie. It often doesn't sound right when that is coming from the center of the room. It sounds kind of "tinny", especially on higher pitched small explosions that don't reach down to the subs enough.

I'm going to turn it on and leave it for a while and see if I can notice advantages or disadvantages. The Anthem employs so much so well, I'm thinking it might be a keeper setting.


----------



## Selden Ball

Erod said:


> Thanks. That seems useful to me, and I'll bet it varies from source to source.
> 
> I always hate it when the center channel is asked to take on too much sound effect in a movie. It often doesn't sound right when that is coming from the center of the room. It sounds kind of "tinny", especially on higher pitched small explosions that don't reach down to the subs enough.


This description suggests to me that you might want to consider raising the crossover frequency for your center channel speaker, moving the low frequencies to the subwoofer where they'll be better reproduced. Also, make sure the center speaker is tipped up (or down) so it points toward ear-level at your MLP.


> I'm going to turn it on and leave it for a while and see if I can notice advantages or disadvantages. The Anthem employs so much so well, I'm thinking it might be a keeper setting.


----------



## djoberg

Pyronaut said:


> I'm in the market for a new Atmos setup, but live in a small condo so I don't really need lots of boom. I'm currently using a 5.1 HTiB and it suits my purposes well, so I was looking to get the same for Atmos. Unfortunately, all the 5.1.2 Atmos HTiB setups I've seen have the up firing speakers on the fronts. I live in a 2 floor loft and the setup is such that the ceiling right above where I have my screen and front speakers is 2 floors high, so bouncing sound off it wouldn't really work.





Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are really satisfied with the speakers in your current HTiB system, then get a Dolby Atmos / DTS: X receiver and a couple of *SVS Prime Elevation speakers *and place them high on the walls on the sides of the room in the Atmos overhead positions (rather than on the ceiling).


I have the SVS Prime Elevation speakers mounted just as Dan Hitchman suggested and they sound incredible! Of course, my Home Theater allows me to have 5.1.4 setup, but if it didn't I would have gone with the SVS Prime Elevation speakers with a 5.1.2 setup. Here is a picture of my setup:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2312704&stc=1&d=1510252858


----------



## Erod

Selden Ball said:


> This description suggests to me that you might want to consider raising the crossover frequency for your center channel speaker, moving the low frequencies to the subwoofer where they'll be better reproduced. Also, make sure the center speaker is tipped up (or down) so it points toward ear-level at your MLP.


I keep it at 100Hz (which is what ARC prefers it to be, too). 

I'm not talking about the boomy stuff. I'm talking about that lone sound effect that tends to get played solely from center, right in your face. Often, it's "tinny" sounding, and I've noticed it from other rooms and setups, too. It's not bad, it just too localized, and the center spread could give it help so that it is coming more from the screen than the speaker.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Lesmor said:


> Does anyone know what SPL the Dolby Atmos test tones are mastered in?


Based on my measurements, they appear to be recorded at -15 dBFS* -20 dBFS*, which translates to 90 dB *85 dB* SPL in a calibrated system at Vol = 0. 



> Does the Subwoofer tone use the same level or is it mastered for LFE and should be 10db higher?


The LFE channel is recorded 10 dB lower than the main channels, so it will play at the same SPL as the other channels after calibration.



> Should I set my AVR MVC to Zero when running the tests?


I'd suggest setting the volume to -20* -10*, then you should see 70* 75* dB SPL for all the channels including subwoofer. 

I cannot figure out why Dolby recorded all these channels so high, but anyway we can adjust accordingly. 

*[ETA: The downloadable tones from Dolby website are same for the main channels, but the LFE levels are a mess. Only the 5.1.4 set has the LFE right. ]*


----------



## Lesmor

Roger Dressler said:


> Based on my measurements, they appear to be recorded at -15 dBFS, which translates to 90 dB SPL in a calibrated system at Vol = 0.
> 
> The LFE channel is recorded 10 dB lower than the main channels, so it will play at the same SPL as the other channels after calibration.
> 
> I'd suggest setting the volume to -20, then you should see 70 dB SPL for all the channels including subwoofer.
> 
> I cannot figure out why Dolby recorded all these channels so high, but anyway we can adjust accordingly.


Many thanks Rodger
Yes surprising 
I thought maybe 75db like most AVR's or perhaps at a max THX 85db at Vol = 0 

I will do as you advise and use -20 db and target 70db with my meter
Cheers
Andy


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Based on my measurements, they appear to be recorded at -15 dBFS, which translates to 90 dB SPL in a calibrated system at Vol = 0.
> 
> The LFE channel is recorded 10 dB lower than the main channels, so it will play at the same SPL as the other channels after calibration.
> 
> I'd suggest setting the volume to -20, then you should see 70 dB SPL for all the channels including subwoofer.
> 
> I cannot figure out why Dolby recorded all these channels so high, but anyway we can adjust accordingly.


Wow, thanks for confirming this! I had tried level matching with the test tones on the demo disc previously and I couldn't understand why the volumes were so high!


----------



## Lesmor

Roger Dressler said:


> Based on my measurements, they appear to be recorded at -15 dBFS, which translates to 90 dB SPL in a calibrated system at Vol = 0.
> 
> The LFE channel is recorded 10 dB lower than the main channels, so it will play at the same SPL as the other channels after calibration.
> 
> I'd suggest setting the volume to -20, then you should see 70 dB SPL for all the channels including subwoofer.
> 
> I cannot figure out why Dolby recorded all these channels so high, but anyway we can adjust accordingly.


Would it be worth having this added as a sticky in page 1?
If so how to you request it?


----------



## Nalleh

Roger Dressler said:


> Based on my measurements, they appear to be recorded at -15 dBFS, which translates to 90 dB SPL in a calibrated system at Vol = 0.
> 
> The LFE channel is recorded 10 dB lower than the main channels, so it will play at the same SPL as the other channels after calibration.
> 
> I'd suggest setting the volume to -20, then you should see 70 dB SPL for all the channels including subwoofer.
> 
> I cannot figure out why Dolby recorded all these channels so high, but anyway we can adjust accordingly.



Thanks for this. Good to know 



Lesmor said:


> Would it be worth having this added as a sticky in page 1?
> If so how to you request it?


Agreed, maybe the thread starter @markus767 could edit in in the first post .


----------



## markus767

Nalleh said:


> Agreed, maybe the thread starter @markus767 could edit in in the first post .


Sure. What test tones exactly are you referring to? @Roger Dressler How did you measure?


----------



## Nalleh

markus767 said:


> Sure. What test tones exactly are you referring to? @Roger Dressler How did you measure?


It’s the test tone clips on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disk, from 5.1.2 to 9.1.6, and you just play those tracks with a SPL meter to check channel levels, as you would with the AVR test tones.


----------



## markus767

Nalleh said:


> It’s the test tone clips on the Dolby Atmos Demo Disk, from 5.1.2 to 9.1.6, and you just play those tracks with a SPL meter to check channel levels, as you would with the AVR test tones.


There are a couple of versions of that disc so I'm not sure the information applies to all of them?


----------



## Nalleh

markus767 said:


> There are a couple of versions of that disc so I'm not sure the information applies to all of them?


True that  Best let Roger answere that


----------



## Selden Ball

I believe that the Atmos test tones available on Dolby's Web site are the same as are on some of the demo discs.

See https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## Lesmor

markus767 said:


> There are a couple of versions of that disc so I'm not sure the information applies to all of them?


For clarity i was referring to the Dolby Atmos September 2015 demo disc


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Sure. What test tones exactly are you referring to? @Roger Dressler How did you measure?


The test tones I checked were from the September 2015 Atmos demo disc, and from the Dolby website.

To determine the level, I first played the test tones from Spears&Munsil 2nd Edition, and confirmed 75 dBC SPL at MV=0. Then reduced the MV to -15 and confirmed SPL at 60 dB. Then played the Atmos tones, and read 75 dB SPL. This shows the Atmos tones are recorded 15 dB higher than the S&M tones. Hence 90 vs 75 dB "calibrations" from signals recorded -15 dBFS vs. -30 dBFS, respectively. LFE channels are recorded 10 dB lower in both cases to maintain same SPL after calibration.

You can use any MV setting you like, and as long as SPL-MV = 90, you're calibrated. In my earlier post, I suggested to use MV = -20 for an SPL of 70 dB. (70 - -20) = 90.  All of this assumes a THX style "relative level " volume scale, with 0 being reference. For "absolute level" volume controls, just pick a comfortable volume and match all the levels.

While S&M does not have height channels, I also compared against internal noise from the AVM 60, and there is good correlation in channel matching (albeit at different SPL). The channel matching can be seen to differ a dB or so here and there because Atmos noise is wideband and the other cal noises are bandlimited. Speaker response variations will thus introduce level variations.


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are really satisfied with the speakers in your current HTiB system, then get a Dolby Atmos / DTS: X receiver and a couple of SVS Prime Elevation speakers and place them high on the walls on the sides of the room in the Atmos overhead positions (rather than on the ceiling).
> 
> https://smile.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch (Buy from ListenUp in the seller list to the right... they're an authorized dealer based in Colorado with a good rep). This does up to 7.1.4 processing, will get an HDMI pass-through update to Dolby Vision support, and is on clearance. One of the best bangs vs buck immersive receivers.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation
> 
> The total would be just over your limit. Well worth it.
> 
> Then, go about updating your base speaker and sub system a little over time and BAM, you will have a kick-ass Atmos setup.


Thanks for the recommendation. I ordered the receiver but I'm a bit hesitant on the speakers, since a pair of them will be over half the cost of the receiver (a pair of the whites costs $500, as opposed to $400 for the blacks for some reason). The placement would be great for my room (trying to avoid ceiling speakers), but they put me a good chunk over budget. Are there any recommended cheaper ones that mount up in the corner in the same way and will do a similar job? Something for around $300/pair would be ideal. 

I know the SVS ones are probably great quality, but since the rest of my speakers are HTiB level I don't know if it makes sense to splurge on the overheads right now. I'd probably upgrade the speakers as a set later. Or maybe I should just wait and see if I can get a good Black Friday deal on them before I decide if I should bite the bullet or not.


----------



## dvdmd1

Pyronaut said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. I ordered the receiver but I'm a bit hesitant on the speakers, since a pair of them will be over half the cost of the receiver (a pair of the whites costs $500, as opposed to $400 for the blacks for some reason). The placement would be great for my room (trying to avoid ceiling speakers), but they put me a good chunk over budget. Are there any recommended cheaper ones that mount up in the corner in the same way and will do a similar job? Something for around $300/pair would be ideal.
> 
> I know the SVS ones are probably great quality, but since the rest of my speakers are HTiB level I don't know if it makes sense to splurge on the overheads right now. I'd probably upgrade the speakers as a set later. Or maybe I should just wait and see if I can get a good Black Friday deal on them before I decide if I should bite the bullet or not.


I have 2 pair of Prime Elevation Speakers up high on the sides of the walls and they sound fantastic !!!


----------



## chi_guy50

Pyronaut said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. I ordered the receiver but I'm a bit hesitant on the speakers, since a pair of them will be over half the cost of the receiver (a pair of the whites costs $500, as opposed to $400 for the blacks for some reason). The placement would be great for my room (trying to avoid ceiling speakers), but they put me a good chunk over budget. Are there any recommended cheaper ones that mount up in the corner in the same way and will do a similar job? Something for around $300/pair would be ideal.
> 
> I know the SVS ones are probably great quality, but *since the rest of my speakers are HTiB level I don't know if it makes sense to splurge on the overheads right now*. I'd probably upgrade the speakers as a set later. Or maybe I should just wait and see if I can get a good Black Friday deal on them before I decide if I should bite the bullet or not.


I think you are right to want to hold off on getting a more permanent solution for the overhead speakers until you are ready to start upgrading your 5.1 setup.

With that objective in mind, and given your budgetary concerns, I would recommend that you consider the Polk Audio OWM3 (or their larger brother, the OWM5). There are more than a few AVSForum posters who are using one or the other for their overhead speakers and are very satisfied with the performance. I myself have used both in various configurations (see my sig for my current setup) and can recommend them for quality and value. Their biggest benefit for your purposes is their versatility in that they can be mounted a multitude of ways including in a corner or at the intersection of wall and ceiling.

You can presently get a pair of OWM5's (in Black) at Polk Audio's eBay store for just $104.48 (plus sales tax, if applicable) or $65 for a pair of the OWM3's (also in Black). Both speakers are also available in white from various sources for slightly higher prices at present. Note that the the OWM3's are sold in pairs while the OWM5's come as singletons.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. I ordered the receiver but I'm a bit hesitant on the speakers, since a pair of them will be over half the cost of the receiver (a pair of the whites costs $500, as opposed to $400 for the blacks for some reason). The placement would be great for my room (trying to avoid ceiling speakers), but they put me a good chunk over budget. Are there any recommended cheaper ones that mount up in the corner in the same way and will do a similar job? Something for around $300/pair would be ideal.
> 
> I know the SVS ones are probably great quality, but since the rest of my speakers are HTiB level I don't know if it makes sense to splurge on the overheads right now. I'd probably upgrade the speakers as a set later. Or maybe I should just wait and see if I can get a good Black Friday deal on them before I decide if I should bite the bullet or not.


I would go with the Polk OWM5's as recommended above. Get the ebay store refurb ones and get two pairs. They'll hold you for now until you can look towards upgrading the entire speaker/sub system. Timbre matching (not the sub, that can be from any quality manufacturer based on room needs) is quite the ideal goal with immersive audio formats, especially.

Let us know if you need assistance with the receiver. Enjoy!


----------



## oldsteve

Pyronaut said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. I ordered the receiver but I'm a bit hesitant on the speakers, since a pair of them will be over half the cost of the receiver (a pair of the whites costs $500, as opposed to $400 for the blacks for some reason). The placement would be great for my room (trying to avoid ceiling speakers), but they put me a good chunk over budget. Are there any recommended cheaper ones that mount up in the corner in the same way and will do a similar job? Something for around $300/pair would be ideal.
> 
> I know the SVS ones are probably great quality, but since the rest of my speakers are HTiB level I don't know if it makes sense to splurge on the overheads right now. I'd probably upgrade the speakers as a set later. Or maybe I should just wait and see if I can get a good Black Friday deal on them before I decide if I should bite the bullet or not.


I'm in the same boat as you. I couldn't swing the cost of (2) pairs of the SVS Prime Elevation speakers at the present time. On the advice of a friend I purchased (2) pairs of the Dayton Audio 6 1/2" Indoor/Outdoor 8ohm speakers for $86.00 pair less a 10% off coupon. I couldn't be happier! They work great and were very easy to install . They come with a mounting bracket built on the speaker. I mounted them high on the wall and aimed them at the major seating area. These will definitely tide me over until I can afford the Prime Elevation ones! One other thing, you can get these in white at no extra cost.
https://www.parts-express.com/cat/patio-porch-deck-outdoor-speakers/97


----------



## Pyronaut

chi_guy50 said:


> I think you are right to want to hold off on getting a more permanent solution for the overhead speakers until you are ready to start upgrading your 5.1 setup.
> 
> With that objective in mind, and given your budgetary concerns, I would recommend that you consider the Polk Audio OWM3 (or their larger brother, the OWM5). There are more than a few AVSForum posters who are using one or the other for their overhead speakers and are very satisfied with the performance. I myself have used both in various configurations (see my sig for my current setup) and can recommend them for quality and value. Their biggest benefit for your purposes is their versatility in that they can be mounted a multitude of ways including in a corner or at the intersection of wall and ceiling.
> 
> You can presently get a pair of OWM5's (in Black) at Polk Audio's eBay store for just $104.48 (plus sales tax, if applicable) or $65 for a pair of the OWM3's (also in Black). Both speakers are also available in white from various sources for slightly higher prices at present. Note that the the OWM3's are sold in pairs while the OWM5's come as singletons.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I would go with the Polk OWM5's as recommended above. Get the ebay store refurb ones and get two pairs. They'll hold you for now until you can look towards upgrading the entire speaker/sub system. Timbre matching (not the sub, that can be from any quality manufacturer based on room needs) is quite the ideal goal with immersive audio formats, especially.
> 
> Let us know if you need assistance with the receiver. Enjoy!


Thanks guys. The OWM5s are really tempting at that price, but the fact that they're black wouldn't look very good on the corner of my my white walls/ceiling unfortunately.  
Why are white speakers always more expensive? I guess I'll just have to go with the OMW3s so I can get 2 pairs of the white ones. Atmos here I come!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Thanks guys. The OWM5s are really tempting at that price, but the fact that they're black wouldn't look very good on the corner of my my white walls/ceiling unfortunately.
> Why are white speakers always more expensive? I guess I'll just have to go with the OMW3s so I can get 2 pairs of the white ones. Atmos here I come!


Great! Here's how one member did a compromised overhead installation with the 3's. Just make sure you use the locations recommended by Dolby for Top Front and Top Rear, even if they are placed like that.


----------



## Pyronaut

oldsteve said:


> I'm in the same boat as you. I couldn't swing the cost of (2) pairs of the SVS Prime Elevation speakers at the present time. On the advice of a friend I purchased (2) pairs of the Dayton Audio 6 1/2" Indoor/Outdoor 8ohm speakers for $86.00 pair less a 10% off coupon. I couldn't be happier! They work great and were very easy to install . They come with a mounting bracket built on the speaker. I mounted them high on the wall and aimed them at the major seating area. These will definitely tide me over until I can afford the Prime Elevation ones! One other thing, you can get these in white at no extra cost.
> https://www.parts-express.com/cat/patio-porch-deck-outdoor-speakers/97


Interesting. I'll take a look at these as well. Thanks!


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> The test tones I checked were from the September 2015 Atmos demo disc, and from the Dolby website.
> 
> To determine the level, I first played the test tones from Spears&Munsil 2nd Edition, and confirmed 75 dBC SPL at MV=0. Then reduced the MV to -15 and confirmed SPL at 60 dB. Then played the Atmos tones, and read 75 dB SPL. This shows the Atmos tones are recorded 15 dB higher than the S&M tones. Hence 90 vs 75 dB "calibrations" from signals recorded -15 dBFS vs. -30 dBFS, respectively. LFE channels are recorded 10 dB lower in both cases to maintain same SPL after calibration.
> 
> You can use any MV setting you like, and as long as SPL-MV = 90, you're calibrated. In my earlier post, I suggested to use MV = -20 for an SPL of 70 dB. (70 - -20) = 90.  All of this assumes a THX style "relative level " volume scale, with 0 being reference. For "absolute level" volume controls, just pick a comfortable volume and match all the levels.
> 
> While S&M does not have height channels, I also compared against internal noise from the AVM 60, and there is good correlation in channel matching (albeit at different SPL). The channel matching can be seen to differ a dB or so here and there because Atmos noise is wideband and the other cal noises are bandlimited. Speaker response variations will thus introduce level variations.


Maybe those test signals are intended to be used with a 1 octave RTA. Will have a look at them when time permits.


----------



## jm10

Pyronaut said:


> Thanks guys. The OWM5s are really tempting at that price, but the fact that they're black wouldn't look very good on the corner of my my white walls/ceiling unfortunately.
> Why are white speakers always more expensive? I guess I'll just have to go with the OMW3s so I can get 2 pairs of the white ones. Atmos here I come!


You can paint them if you wish. Grill cloth can be replaced to white if you have the skills and time. I installed the OWM3 for testing and ended up leaving them there. By no means they are on par with my Monitor Audios, but do a decent job for those overhead sounds.

I crossed over them at 100Hz and since they are flush to my ceiling (concrete) I got a boost around that same frequency that Auto EQ took care. There is a review of them (with measurements) that show they have an increase in distortion around that frequency... just FYI. Since I already have a boost around that frequency, I did not care about the distortion increase. Also FYI, bellow that frequency they tend to disappear (no useful sound/SPL). Mounting them flush or very close to hard materials, is very useful for them.

Enjoy your new Atmos!


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Maybe those test signals are intended to be used with a 1 octave RTA. Will have a look at them when time permits.


That's a good thought. A 1/3-octave RTA, commonly used in commercial cinemas, will read 15 dB lower than the wideband level, thus producing 75 dB in each band (ignoring X-curve).


----------



## Pyronaut

jm10 said:


> Pyronaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks guys. The OWM5s are really tempting at that price, but the fact that they're black wouldn't look very good on the corner of my my white walls/ceiling unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are white speakers always more expensive? I guess I'll just have to go with the OMW3s so I can get 2 pairs of the white ones. Atmos here I come!
> 
> 
> 
> You can paint them if you wish. Grill cloth can be replaced to white if you have the skills and time. I installed the OWM3 for testing and ended up leaving them there. By no means they are on par with my Monitor Audios, but do a decent job for those overhead sounds.
> 
> I crossed over them at 100Hz and since they are flush to my ceiling (concrete) I got a boost around that same frequency that Auto EQ took care. There is a review of them (with measurements) that show they have an increase in distortion around that frequency... just FYI. Since I already have a boost around that frequency, I did not care about the distortion increase. Also FYI, bellow that frequency they tend to disappear (no useful sound/SPL). Mounting them flush or very close to hard materials, is very useful for them.
> 
> Enjoy your new Atmos!
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking about painting a set of OWM5s, but the cloth/mesh grill gave me pause. If replacing the grill isn't too hard I might give it a shot, since I can get cheap white speaker cloth on Amazon. I saw a discussion on the polk forums where someone just stapled them to the frame, and it looked like the OWM5 frame. Doesn't seem too hard to do.


----------



## chi_guy50

Pyronaut said:


> I was actually thinking about painting a set of OWM5s, but the cloth/mesh grill gave me pause. If replacing the grill isn't too hard I might give it a shot, since I can get cheap white speaker cloth on Amazon. I saw a discussion on the polk forums where someone just stapled them to the frame, and it looked like the OWM5 frame. Doesn't seem too hard to do.


Actually, Polk Audio has excellent customer service and if you purchase the OWM5's and then give them a call, they might be willing to send you a pair (or two) of replacement grills free of charge. You don't even necessarily have to tell them that you're looking to replace the black grills with white; just ask whether they could send you white replacement grills for your new speakers. It's worth a try.


----------



## Lesmor

Roger Dressler said:


> That's a good thought. A 1/3-octave RTA, commonly used in commercial cinemas, will read 15 dB lower that the wideband level, thus producing 75 dB in each band (ignoring X-curve).


After getting the feedback from here and having rerun the test tones I found -20 was too low
-15 is giving me 70 db on my SPL meter but 70 + 15 is 85db 
It looks to me like the Dolby Atmos disc is mastered to it give 85 rms with the MVC at 0 which is fine
As already mentioned it doesnt really matter as long as each speaker is balanced

The S&M gives guidance that it is mastered at -30 and with my MVC at 0 I do read 75db +/- 
It looks like the S&M disc is mastered to allow for 75 + 30 = 105 db

One think I have noticed using the S&M disc and the Dolby Atmos disc Audyssey always sets my centre 4 db high
Bringing that back to balanced has a profound effect on my system and sounds better for it


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> That's a good thought. A 1/3-octave RTA, commonly used in commercial cinemas, will read 15 dB lower than the wideband level, thus producing 75 dB in each band (ignoring X-curve).


Here's some test tones I've captured at the pre out of my AVR. MV was at -20dB.


----------



## Max Rockatansky

*Any recommendations for a 5.1.2 system under $1000?*

I've just purchased a Sony 65Z9D and would really like to get an inexpensive Atmos solution for a small room (13x13, 10' ceilings). I'd really love one that has wireless rear speakers (but not a dealbreaker in this price range, obviously). I'm working with:

Sony Z9D
Sony UBP-X800 Blu-ray Player
PS4 Pro
HD DirecTV receiver
Amazon Fire TV stick

Could you guys give me any suggestions? I'm really dizzy from reading hundreds of posts across several threads and could really use some guidance.
Thanks!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Max Rockatansky said:


> I've just purchased a Sony 65Z9D and would really like to get an inexpensive Atmos solution for a small room (13x13, 10' ceilings). I'd really love one that has wireless rear speakers (but not a dealbreaker in this price range, obviously). I'm working with:
> 
> Sony Z9D
> Sony UBP-X800 Blu-ray Player
> PS4 Pro
> HD DirecTV receiver
> Amazon Fire TV stick
> 
> Could you guys give me any suggestions? I'm really dizzy from reading hundreds of posts across several threads and could really use some guidance.
> Thanks!


What do you consider "inexpensive?" You have some very nice video equipment there, so I wouldn't skimp on the audio portion. That's just as important in the grand scheme... even if it is a small room.


----------



## Max Rockatansky

Dan Hitchman said:


> What do you consider "inexpensive?" You have some very nice video equipment there, so I wouldn't skimp on the audio portion. That's just as important in the grand scheme... even if it is a small room.


Thanks, Dan. I was looking for something under $1000. The Onkyo HT-S7800 and the Samsung HW-K950 were two that I've been reading up on. I also like the idea of getting a decent receiver in the $600 range and then buying speakers separately. One head unit in this range I bookmarked was the Sony STRDN1080.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Max Rockatansky said:


> Thanks, Dan. I was looking for something under $1000. The Onkyo HT-S7800 and the Samsung HW-K950 were two that I've been reading up on. I also like the idea of getting a decent receiver in the $600 range and then buying speakers separately. One head unit in this range I bookmarked was the Sony STRDN1080.
> 
> Your thoughts?


Get the receiver, then add speakers and a sub over time. Don't get it all in one fell swoop or you will end up being dissatisfied right from the start.

I would not buy a Sony receiver. Bad juju there. I would stay away from sound bars as they skimp on features you would normally see in a regular receiver: DTS: X, DTS-Master Audio lossless, DTS surround, etc. HDMI switching with Dolby Vision and HLG support, etc.

Try this Yamaha Aventage receiver instead. It has a better warranty too.

https://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-AVENT...pID=31gW3jnkO2L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## Dan Hitchman

@Max Rockatansky

As for speakers, a lot depends on your tastes: rock, pop, classical, jazz, country, etc... a little of all of the above. Music reproduction accuracy, especially vocals, is essential as movie soundtracks are highly synthesized. Classical vocal and piano realism can often times separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to speaker quality.


----------



## Max Rockatansky

Dan Hitchman said:


> @Max Rockatansky
> 
> As for speakers, a lot depends on your tastes: rock, pop, classical, jazz, country, etc... a little of all of the above. Music reproduction accuracy, especially vocals, is essential as movie soundtracks are highly synthesized.


I watch some TV, a lot of movies 3D and (now) 4K, and video gaming with the PS Pro. Are there any speakers I can pair with that Yamaha to get 5.1.2 at a reasonable price? What is your opinion of the Onkyo S7800? Is that another brand like Sony you think I should stay away from?


----------



## progprog

Max Rockatansky said:


> Thanks, Dan. I was looking for something under $1000. The Onkyo HT-S7800 and the Samsung HW-K950 were two that I've been reading up on. I also like the idea of getting a decent receiver in the $600 range and then buying speakers separately. One head unit in this range I bookmarked was the Sony STRDN1080.
> 
> Your thoughts?


Hi Max. I was going to respond yesterday when you were taling about this on the Z9D thread, but didn't have time.

I strongly agree with Dan's comment below. Compromising on all components just to hurry up and have them all at once results in a lot of regret and, inevitably, wasted money as you start replacing them relatively soon. 

You mentioned that you are moving next year. Here's an idea, even though it doesn't satisfy your desire to enjoy a full HT setup right now: How about just using your existing soundbar setup while you're in your current place? Enjoy your beautiful new TV while you continue to research speakers and receivers. Then, once you're in the new, bigger place, start with a good receiver that's capable of accommodating your future plans (Atmos, etc) and _the best pair of front speakers _you can possibly afford. 

With that setup alone, with which you can set up a nice phantom center and a good front soundstage, you'd have the start of a _*much *_better system than throwing together any $1000 HT-in-a-box solution you could buy now. Then formulate a plan to add surrounds, center, and heights speakers (in whatever order you prioritize) over time as you can afford the ones you want.

I know that slow-walking this may not sound too appealing right now, but short-shrifting the audio side of your HT would be a mistake. You spent a lot of money to get great video. You're going to want great sound as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Max Rockatansky said:


> I watch some TV, a lot of movies 3D and (now) 4K, and video gaming with the PS Pro. Are there any speakers I can pair with that Yamaha to get 5.1.2 at a reasonable price? What is your opinion of the Onkyo S7800? Is that another brand like Sony you think I should stay away from?


The Onkyo HTiB packs give you weak speakers, a flabby sub, and a very basic receiver. Also, you really need to use overhead speakers, not "enabled" for the best Atmos & X immersive reproduction. On ceiling or in-ceiling. If you would have a difficult time wiring to the ceiling, there are alternative approaches that are still 1,000 better than ceiling-bounce speakers.


----------



## Max Rockatansky

progprog said:


> Hi Max. I was going to respond yesterday when you were taling about this on the Z9D thread, but didn't have time.
> 
> I strongly agree with Dan's comment below. Compromising on all components just to hurry up and have them all at once results in a lot of regret and, inevitably, wasted money as you start replacing them relatively soon.
> 
> You mentioned that you are moving next year. Here's an idea, even though it doesn't satisfy your desire to enjoy a full HT setup right now: How about just using your existing soundbar setup while you're in your current place? Enjoy your beautiful new TV while you continue to research speakers and receivers. Then, once you're in the new, bigger place, start with a good receiver that's capable of accommodating your future plans (Atmos, etc) and _the best pair of front speakers _you can possibly afford.
> 
> With that setup alone, with which you can set up a nice phantom center and a good front soundstage, you'd have the start of a _*much *_better system than throwing together any $1000 HT-in-a-box solution you could buy now. Then formulate a plan to add surrounds, center, and heights speakers (in whatever order you prioritize) over time as you can afford the ones you want.
> 
> I know that slow-walking this may not sound too appealing right now, but short-shrifting the audio side of your HT would be a mistake. You spent a lot of money to get great video. You're going to want great sound as well.


Thanks, Prog, I get what you're saying. 

Right I now have the Sony HT-CT150 3D Sound Bar that I've been content with for my Panny 55 3D plasma for the last four years. But I am _dying_ to experience both real back channel surround again and this Atmos that I hear everyone raving about! 

The other consideration I have right now is that I have all the peripherals running through that old bar and it obviously is not 4K/HDR ready. The Z9D hasn't arrived yet and I can't recall at the moment how many input HDMIs I'm going to get and whether I should rely on the TV to run everything through or get a receiver for that.


----------



## progprog

Max Rockatansky said:


> Thanks, Prog, I get what you're saying.
> 
> Right I now have the Sony HT-CT150 3D Sound Bar that I've been content with for my Panny 55 3D plasma for the last four years. But I am _dying_ to experience both real back channel surround again and this Atmos that I hear everyone raving about!
> 
> The other consideration I have right now is that I have all the peripherals running through that old bar and it obviously is not 4K/HDR ready. The Z9D hasn't arrived yet and I can't recall at the moment how many input HDMIs I'm going to get and whether I should rely on the TV to run everything through or get a receiver for that.


The TV has four HDMI inputs. So it should accommodate your sources for the time being.

Believe me, I do get it that you're dying to experience a full Atmos setup. But honestly, a crappy version won't give you that experience and ultimately isn't worth it. Think about the TV you bought. If you could you have gotten that kind of PQ and feature set in a $600 Vizio from Costco, you would've saved a lot of money and just gotten the Vizio. But you can't. It costs a lot more to get the PQ you're getting with that Sony. Unfortunately, the same reality applies to the audio side. It just costs more to get a good Atmos experience.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Max Rockatansky said:


> Thanks, Prog, I get what you're saying.
> 
> Right I now have the Sony HT-CT150 3D Sound Bar that I've been content with for my Panny 55 3D plasma for the last four years. But I am _dying_ to experience both real back channel surround again and this Atmos that I hear everyone raving about!
> 
> The other consideration I have right now is that I have all the peripherals running through that old bar and it obviously is not 4K/HDR ready. The Z9D hasn't arrived yet and I can't recall at the moment how many input HDMIs I'm going to get and whether I should rely on the TV to run everything through or get a receiver for that.


I would also recommend holding off till you move and then get an audio system that will better match your situation at that time.


----------



## Erod

Max Rockatansky said:


> Thanks, Prog, I get what you're saying.
> 
> Right I now have the Sony HT-CT150 3D Sound Bar that I've been content with for my Panny 55 3D plasma for the last four years. But I am _dying_ to experience both real back channel surround again and this Atmos that I hear everyone raving about!
> 
> The other consideration I have right now is that I have all the peripherals running through that old bar and it obviously is not 4K/HDR ready. The Z9D hasn't arrived yet and I can't recall at the moment how many input HDMIs I'm going to get and whether I should rely on the TV to run everything through or get a receiver for that.


I made my recent entry into the Atmos world.

I gotta tell you, prepare to be a bit underwhelmed. I have a nice setup, but there just isn't enough material yet to really take advantage of it at the moment. You're fine to wait and get the gear you want when you want it. 

Yes, I like the impact of Dolby Surround to standard blu ray, and I am really enjoying the processing magic of my new Anthem 60. I also have enjoyed tinkering and learning to use ARC (after years of Audyssey). It's a great time.

But this notion that they can "place" a sound at an exact position in your room through some form of triangulated Atmos technology, well, the moviemakers aren't really doing that yet. There's an occasional flyover or bird chirping overhead, but not much beyond that. It's basically just improved 7.2 sound so far. 

The demo disc shows that it can do some pretty cool stuff, but so far, that's not really translating to movie mixing. And with the trend of younger America more interested in streaming through their phones, my concern is that there won't be enough push among the masses anytime soon to demand this sound technology. Meanwhile, television still has no plans to go to 1080p, let alone 4K, and the only UHD movies that come out are childish Marvel comic books. 

Add to all that, Hollywood is mired in empty theaters and a straight-to-DVD crises, not to mention the whole sexual-predator exposure epidemic. The industry is paralyzed right now from internal civil war and a coming power reshuffling.


----------



## progprog

Erod said:


> But this notion that they can "place" a sound at an exact position in your room through some form of triangulated Atmos technology, well, the moviemakers aren't really doing that yet. There's an occasional flyover or bird chirping overhead, but not much beyond that. It's basically just improved 7.2 sound so far.


Hmm...I think there are quite a few who would not share your assessment. But audio _is_ very subjective. If it's not something you hear in your setup, no one can disagree with you, and I understand your disappointment.



> Meanwhile, television still has no plans to go to 1080p, let alone 4K, and the only UHD movies that come out are childish Marvel comic books.


What?? Everything I watch on TV is HD....has been for quite some time. And we have an extensive collection of UHD movies at this point, very few of which are Marvel (or other superhero) movies.

I'm thinking part of your disappointment in Atmos _may_ have to do with content selection.


----------



## Erod

progprog said:


> Hmm...I think there are quite a few who would not share your assessment. But audio _is_ very subjective. If it's not something you hear in your setup, no one can disagree with you, and I understand your disappointment.
> 
> 
> What?? Everything I watch on TV is HD....has been for quite some time. And we have an extensive collection of UHD movies at this point, very few of which are Marvel (or other superhero) movies.
> 
> I'm thinking part of your disappointment in Atmos _may_ have to do with content selection.


HD, yes. 1080p, no. Television has no plans to even step up to 1080p, and there's already talk about 8K televisions. That's three generations, LOL. 

I have a TERRIFIC sound in my theater. I'm just saying that the Atmos, so far, is not being implemented to its ability except for a very few movies like Mad Max (which was a dreadfully bad film).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a junkie for this stuff, too. I just want the mixers to get busy and make Atmos a standard. 

With a perfectly symmetrical dedicated theater, I'm used to full sound. The heightened soundstage is very nice with Dolby Surround, but I somewhat already had that.

I am hopeful that once I get my direct monopole back surrounds in place this weekend, I'll get a bit more of an Atmos sound.


----------



## stikle

Max Rockatansky said:


> I'd really love one that has wireless rear speakers (but not a dealbreaker in this price range, obviously)



Well, good thing it's not a deal breaker, as there's no such thing as "wireless speakers". Either you have speaker wire coming from your AVR, or it's a wireless technology like Bluetooth, but the speaker still has to be plugged into power (think "wireless" subwoofers). Either way, you're not just going to have a speaker with zero wires going to it. 



progprog said:


> I strongly agree with Dan's comment below. Compromising on all components just to hurry up and have them all at once results in a lot of regret and, inevitably, wasted money as you start replacing them relatively soon.



I strongly agree with this as well. Take your time and plan out your purchases. Buy speakers that you've either heard in person or from a company that has a generous return policy. SVS, for example, offers 45 day in-home trial and will pay to pick them up if you don't like them.



Erod said:


> I made my recent entry into the Atmos world. I gotta tell you, prepare to be a bit underwhelmed.



And Max, I gotta tell you to disregard Erod's opinion. You will do yourself a disservice if you just say "Eh, Atmos is pointless because I read it in an Internet post".




Erod said:


> I have a nice setup, but there just isn't enough material yet to really take advantage of it at the moment.



There is a LOT of excellent Atmos material available now. If only you could hear what I hear in my room...and many other Atmos enabled rooms of posters in this thread.

Most people that are "underwhelmed" are either listening to less than stellar content or are suffering from room setup/calibration issues such as speaker angles and heights. And there is a big difference in results between Atmos up-firing speakers and in/on-ceiling mounted. I've heard them both and it's no contest: Ceiling > up-firing > no Atmos.




Erod said:


> But this notion that they can "place" a sound at an exact position in your room through some form of triangulated Atmos technology, well, the moviemakers aren't really doing that yet.



Incorrect. And tell that to our very own AVS sound re-recording mixer FilmMixer. Scratch that, don't bother him.




Erod said:


> There's an occasional flyover or bird chirping overhead, but not much beyond that. It's basically just improved 7.2 sound so far.



*VERY* incorrect.



Erod said:


> Meanwhile, television still has no plans to go to 1080p, let alone 4K, and the only UHD movies that come out are childish Marvel comic books. Add to all that, Hollywood is mired in empty theaters and a straight-to-DVD crises, not to mention the whole sexual-predator exposure epidemic. The industry is paralyzed right now from internal civil war and a coming power reshuffling.



None of this has anything to do with Atmos.

@Max Rockatansky - Erod is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I (and others) will tell you the payoff is huge if you assemble the right components and set your speakers up as close to the Dolby Atmos guidelines as possible.

And of course, this is all MY opinion.


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> HD, yes. 1080p, no. *Television has no plans to even step up to 1080p*



Odd, I get 1080 content from DirecTV. Yes, a lot of channels are still 720, but you can't make a blanket statement like that because it's simply not true.




Erod said:


> I am hopeful that once I get my direct monopole back surrounds in place this weekend, I'll get a bit more of an Atmos sound.



Angles and separation are everything. Your bed layer (your 5 or 7 channel surround) should be at ear height. I lowered mine TWICE before I got them to the correct height to provide enough separation between the bed layer and the overheads. And the overheads should be about 45 degrees and 135 degrees in a perfect world (assuming you are using a Top Front and Top Rear configuration).

Once I understood the importance of separation in creating the immersive bubble that is Atmos, got my speakers adjusted accordingly, and re-ran room calibration (Audyssey), it became truly amazing. The Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) benefited from it as well.

I implore you to re-examine your setup. You should not be underwhelmed in the least if everything is set up correctly.










If you don't have it and can find an affordable copy of Gravity: Diamond Luxe Edition, the Atmos mix is reference material and amazing. It has to be the Diamond Luxe version though.


----------



## Erod

stikle said:


> Odd, I get 1080 content from DirecTV. Yes, a lot of channels are still 720, but you can't make a blanket statement like that because it's simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angles and separation are everything. Your bed layer (your 5 or 7 channel surround) should be at ear height. I lowered mine TWICE before I got them to the correct height to provide enough separation between the bed layer and the overheads. And the overheads should be about 45 degrees and 135 degrees in a perfect world (assuming you are using a Top Front and Top Rear configuration).
> 
> Once I understood the importance of separation in creating the immersive bubble that is Atmos, got my speakers adjusted accordingly, and re-ran room calibration (Audyssey), it became truly amazing. The Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) benefited from it as well.
> 
> I implore you to re-examine your setup. You should not be underwhelmed in the least if everything is set up correctly.


You get 1080i from DirecTV, not 1080p. That is a big difference.

The bed sound in Atmos should be slightly above ear level, true. I have that, but I have bipoles for surrounds. I'm switching the rears this weekend to direct monopoles. I'm hoping that helps.


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> You get 1080i from DirecTV, not 1080p. That is a big difference.



It's not THAT big of a difference with today's upscaling technology, but you're correct. However, you're also still incorrect. DirecTV broadcasts PPV channels in 1080p, and also has 4K content available (not much, but it IS available). My DirecTV receiver has separate indicators for 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, and...1080p. I'm not paying to upgrade my DVR to watch 4K on one or two channels at this point that I don't care about anyway.











You should bone up on your facts man. My only point is that your post came off as factual gospel when it's not. But before we go splitting hairs on anything else, we're digressing and this is off-topic so I'm done.



Erod said:


> The bed sound in Atmos should be slightly above ear level, true. I have that, but I have bipoles for surrounds. I'm switching the rears this weekend to direct mobile monopoles. I'm hoping that helps.



Hey - I really hope so too! I originally had MY bed layer _way_ too high and that was my fault. You certainly shouldn't be disappointed with Atmos/DTS:X. You deserve to hear more. Hey that sounds like a slogan. I should submit it.

Also note the diagram above - the bed layer is AT ear-level, not slightly above. Although you're probably close enough...as long as there's separation.

And in case you missed my edit above regarding Gravity, go check it out.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Erod said:


> You get 1080i from DirecTV, not 1080p. That is a big difference.


Yes, it's double. Also, there are some 4K/Ultra HD broadcasts too. So it's not correct to say that resolution is in some not-yet-HD era.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Those who can already and those who are eyeing either Trinnov Altitude's or the upcoming Denon or Marantz flagships with 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos processing... you will _definitely_ want to use Front Wides, if possible.

There are Atmos mixes in the wild now that use Front Wides in very interesting ways (besides standard musical score audio bleed and lateral object movement) and the mixers definitely intended for those speaker locations to be timbre matched to at least the fronts.

Two titles off the top of my head: *RED (UHD Blu-ray)* and *Westworld*. 

_RED _has specific music instruments placed in the Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, and Front Wide Right. The score is dramatically widened. 

_Westworld_'s mix had something I've never experienced before... the music score comes out of the Front Wide Left and Front Wide Right, and _not_ the main front three. There are also specific music cues that wrap around into the surrounds (not just bleed). Only on-screen objects that make music, like the player piano, come out of the front three. A unique sonic presentation to say the least.

There may be more since I haven't heard all the Atmos mixes that have been released.

Besides those two, I have never come across a Dolby Atmos mix yet that has failed to make constant use of the Front Wides in some capacity... even more so than the overheads.


----------



## Jonas2

Dan Hitchman said:


> Those who can already and those who are eyeing either Trinnov Altitude's or the upcoming Denon or Marantz flagships with 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos processing. You will _definitely_ want to use Front Wides, if possible.
> 
> There are Atmos mixes in the wild now that use Front Wides in very interesting ways (besides standard musical score audio bleed and lateral object movement) and the mixers definitely intended for those speaker locations to be timbre matched to at least the fronts.
> 
> Two titles off the top of my head: *RED* and *Westworld*.
> 
> _RED _has specific music instruments placed in the Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, and Front Wide Right. The score is dramatically widened.
> 
> _Westworld_'s mix had something I've never experienced before... the music score comes out of the Front Wide Left and Front Wide Right, and _not_ the main front three. There are also specific music cues that wrap around into the surrounds (not just bleed). Only on-screen objects that make music, like the player piano, come out of the front three. A unique sonic presentation to say the least.
> 
> There may be more since I haven't heard all the Atmos mixes that have been released.
> 
> Besides those two, I have never come across a Dolby Atmos mix yet that has failed to make constant use of the Front Wides in some capacity... even more so than the overheads.


My kingdom, my kingdom for a room with more space for more speakers.....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jonas2 said:


> My kingdom, my kingdom for a room with more space for more speakers.....


Can the Anthem you bought process Front Wides? My 2015 Marantz 7702 mk II pre-amp can if I drop the rear surrounds (and keep four overheads). Some units with 11.1 processing gave you that alternate 7.1.4 option, others left it off. 

I'm seriously considering the Marantz pre-amp with 9.1.4 rendering capabilities because I would rather not have to choose between the two.

Off topic, I'm looking for a better power center for my system. How are you liking your Panamax 5400-PM?


----------



## Erod

stikle said:


> It's not THAT big of a difference with today's upscaling technology, but you're correct. However, you're also still incorrect. DirecTV broadcasts PPV channels in 1080p, and also has 4K content available (not much, but it IS available). My DirecTV receiver has separate indicators for 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, and...1080p. I'm not paying to upgrade my DVR to watch 4K on one or two channels at this point that I don't care about anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should bone up on your facts man. My only point is that your post came off as factual gospel when it's not. But before we go splitting hairs on anything else, we're digressing and this is off-topic so I'm done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey - I really hope so too! I originally had MY bed layer _way_ too high and that was my fault. You certainly shouldn't be disappointed with Atmos/DTS:X. You deserve to hear more. Hey that sounds like a slogan. I should submit it.
> 
> Also note the diagram above - the bed layer is AT ear-level, not slightly above. Although you're probably close enough...as long as there's separation.
> 
> And in case you missed my edit above regarding Gravity, go check it out.


The major networks have openly stated there are no plans to move to 1080p. That's what I'm referring to.

As far as speaker position, I've read that there is a general opinion that all speakers except the center channel are best positioned to be slightly higher than your ear level, especially if you have multiple people in the room watching. You don't want to be in the front row right seat and have a direct radiating tweeter pointed at your head. The important thing is that all the bed high frequencies be aimed into the same horizontal plane so that you get the bubble. 

That gets more challenging with my stadium seating in my room. What I intend to do (when i replace my back surrounds this weekend) is to aim those off the outside of my MLP chair about six inches above my head. Then attempt to aim the fronts the same way. My left and right surrounds are bipoles (for now), so I can't aim those. 

I'm still confused if I should have my four ceiling speaker tweeters aimed at the MLP. They're high up, so I could point them straight down, and I wonder if the object location of Atmos would be more effective that way. 

I get a very full sound in my room, which is dedicated and perfectly symmetrical. And I get some localized sounds above. I'm still waiting to get that bullet flying past my ear and *have an effect that plays to the right of the left seats and to the left of the right seats. *So far, I haven't heard anything that specific, but it is supposedly possible.


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are really satisfied with the speakers in your current HTiB system, then get a Dolby Atmos / DTS: X receiver and a couple of SVS Prime Elevation speakers and place them high on the walls on the sides of the room in the Atmos overhead positions (rather than on the ceiling).
> 
> https://smile.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch (Buy from ListenUp in the seller list to the right... they're an authorized dealer based in Colorado with a good rep). This does up to 7.1.4 processing, will get an HDMI pass-through update to Dolby Vision support, and is on clearance. One of the best bangs vs buck immersive receivers.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation
> 
> The total would be just over your limit. Well worth it.
> 
> Then, go about updating your base speaker and sub system a little over time and BAM, you will have a kick-ass Atmos setup.


So, the Denon freceiver came and I got nice and excited and went to hook up my HTiB speakers/sub to it as suggested. Stripped all the speaker connectors off so the bare wires would go into the receiver (the speakers originally had connectors that look kind of like LAN cable connectors). I hooked up the speakers and then I got to the sub and, wait, what the heck? Where is the connector to put my bare wire from the sub into? LOL. 
It looks like the receiver only has RCA connections for the sub, but my sub has two wires coming out of it like the rest of the speakers from the HTiB set. So I'm guessing I need to get a new powered sub? Or is there a way to get the sub to work with the receiver?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are really satisfied with the speakers in your current HTiB system, then get a Dolby Atmos / DTS: X receiver and a couple of SVS Prime Elevation speakers and place them high on the walls on the sides of the room in the Atmos overhead positions (rather than on the ceiling).
> 
> https://smile.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch (Buy from ListenUp in the seller list to the right... they're an authorized dealer based in Colorado with a good rep). This does up to 7.1.4 processing, will get an HDMI pass-through update to Dolby Vision support, and is on clearance. One of the best bangs vs buck immersive receivers.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation
> 
> The total would be just over your limit. Well worth it.
> 
> Then, go about updating your base speaker and sub system a little over time and BAM, you will have a kick-ass Atmos setup.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Denon freceiver came and I got nice and excited and went to hook up my HTiB speakers/sub to it as suggested. Stripped all the speaker connectors off so the bare wires would go into the receiver (the speakers originally had connectors that look kind of like LAN cable connectors). I hooked up the speakers and then I got to the sub and, wait, what the heck? Where is the connector to put my bare wire from the sub into? LOL.
> It looks like the receiver only has RCA connections for the sub, but my sub has two wires coming out of it like the rest of the speakers from the HTiB set. So I'm guessing I need to get a new powered sub? Or is there a way to get the sub to work with the receiver?
Click to expand...

Does the back of the sub have speaker level in's and out's or just a single pair of positive and negative speaker wire inputs?

What model is your current HTiB setup?


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> Does the back of the sub have speaker level in's and out's or just a single pair of positive and negative inputs?
> 
> What model is your current HTiB setup?


This is all there is. Just a measly pair of wires.

It's a Sony BDV-E280. I believe it's rated as 3 ohms for the speaker output, but the minimum Denon can do is 4 ohms. That shouldn't be a big deal right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the back of the sub have speaker level in's and out's or just a single pair of positive and negative inputs?
> 
> What model is your current HTiB setup?
> 
> 
> 
> This is all there is. Just a measly pair of wires.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you this, but it looks like a new sub is the second thing on the list that needs updating.

Do you have the budget for one now or will you have to wait?

What are your room dimensions again?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the back of the sub have speaker level in's and out's or just a single pair of positive and negative inputs?
> 
> What model is your current HTiB setup?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a Sony BDV-E280. I believe it's rated as 3 ohms for the speaker output, but the minimum Denon can do is 4 ohms. That shouldn't be a big deal right?
Click to expand...

If the receiver has an option to switch to 4 ohm speaker mode rather than adjusting automatically, make sure it is selected. 

Do not crank the volume until you get new speakers.


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hate to tell you this, but it looks like a new sub is the second thing on the list that needs updating.
> 
> Do you have the budget for one now or will you have to wait?
> 
> What are your room dimensions again?





Dan Hitchman said:


> If the receiver has an option to switch to 4 ohm speaker mode rather than adjusting automatically, make sure it is selected.
> 
> Do not crank the volume until you get new speakers.


Ah, that's too bad. It's gonna put me a little over budget, but I'll try to find a used sub or something. The viewing area of the room is about 4m x 3.6m (the full room about twice the length, but the rest is used for other purposes), so I don't need something that will shake the windows right now.

Thanks for the info about the speakers. It does have a manual setting for 4ohms, so I'll make sure to set it for that until I can upgrade my speakers too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to tell you this, but it looks like a new sub is the second thing on the list that needs updating.
> 
> Do you have the budget for one now or will you have to wait?
> 
> What are your room dimensions again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the receiver has an option to switch to 4 ohm speaker mode rather than adjusting automatically, make sure it is selected.
> 
> Do not crank the volume until you get new speakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, that's too bad. It's gonna put me a little over budget, but I'll try to find a used sub or something. The viewing area of the room is about 4m x 3.6m (the full room about twice the length, but the rest is used for other purposes), so I don't need something that will shake the windows right now.
> 
> Thanks for the info about the speakers. It does have a manual setting for 4ohms, so I'll make sure to set it for that until I can upgrade my speakers too.
Click to expand...

What do you think is a price range you could handle? Where are you located, generally speaking?


----------



## VideoGrabber

Dan Hitchman said:


> Those who can already and those who are eyeing either Trinnov Altitude's or the upcoming Denon or Marantz flagships with 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos processing... you will _definitely_ want to use Front Wides, if possible.


Would that also hold true for folks with older rigs that DO support front wides, even if they have to give up something else? (either one height pair, or the backs.) 




> There are Atmos mixes in the wild now that use Front Wides in very interesting ways (besides standard musical score audio bleed and lateral object movement) and the mixers definitely intended for those speaker locations to be timbre matched to at least the fronts.
> 
> Two titles off the top of my head: *RED* and *Westworld*.
> 
> _RED _has specific music instruments placed in the Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, and Front Wide Right. The score is dramatically widened.


Hey, Dan. Thanks for those tips! That's the first I've heard of that. Though I think it's worth mentioning to folks that you're talking exclusively about the 4K-UHD versions. Which I do happen to own on the WW, but I just checked, and of the TWO versions of RED I bought neither are Atmos. (The first Blu was lossy DD5.1, and the 2nd release is DTS-HD/MA5.1. I guess I'm supposed to run out and buy it a 3rd time.  ) But maybe nowadays it just goes without saying that if you want Atmos, you can forget regular Blu-rays or 3D's? And I just need to keep up. 




> Besides those two, I have never come across a Dolby Atmos mix yet that has failed to make constant use of the Front Wides in some capacity... even more so than the overheads.


Would that include even the ones that CINERAMAX was knocking here? A few examples...



> 13 Hours had *zero* width channel info.
> American Sniper is *a total dud* just bed channels.
> John Wick seemed *weak* on the use of widths.
> Lucy HDR had zero width channel info. [not quite (per sdrucker), see ~25min in.] [UHD-only]
> Minions *nada* on the widths.
> Ninja Turtles had *just a bit*, like Oblivion.
> The Professional, *no widths until* well into chapter 4. [UHD+remastered BD]
> Transformers 4 was pretty sparse on heights with *NO widths*


----------



## Dan Hitchman

VideoGrabber said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who can already and those who are eyeing either Trinnov Altitude's or the upcoming Denon or Marantz flagships with 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos processing... you will _definitely_ want to use Front Wides, if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that also hold true for folks with older rigs that DO support front wides, even if they have to give up something else? (either one height pair, or the backs.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are Atmos mixes in the wild now that use Front Wides in very interesting ways (besides standard musical score audio bleed and lateral object movement) and the mixers definitely intended for those speaker locations to be timbre matched to at least the fronts.
> 
> Two titles off the top of my head: *RED* and *Westworld*.
> 
> _RED _has specific music instruments placed in the Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, and Front Wide Right. The score is dramatically widened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Dan. Thanks for those tips! That's the first I've heard of that. Though I think it's worth mentioning to folks that you're talking exclusively about the 4K-UHD versions. Which I do happen to own on the WW, but I just checked, and of the TWO versions of RED I bought neither are Atmos. (The first Blu was lossy DD5.1, and the 2nd release is DTS-HD/MA5.1. I guess I'm supposed to run out and buy it a 3rd time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) But maybe nowadays it just goes without saying that if you want Atmos, you can forget regular Blu-rays or 3D's? And I just need to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides those two, I have never come across a Dolby Atmos mix yet that has failed to make constant use of the Front Wides in some capacity... even more so than the overheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would that include even the ones that CINERAMAX was knocking here? A few examples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13 Hours had *zero* width channel info.
> American Sniper is *a total dud* just bed channels.
> John Wick seemed *weak* on the use of widths.
> Lucy HDR had zero width channel info. [not quite (per sdrucker), see ~25min in.] [UHD-only]
> Minions *nada* on the widths.
> Ninja Turtles had *just a bit*, like Oblivion.
> The Professional, *no widths until* well into chapter 4. [UHD+remastered BD]
> Transformers 4 was pretty sparse on heights with *NO widths*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned, I can only comment on the titles I have heard and I haven't gotten around to those particular ones yet.

I do have Lucy, but I didn't watch it on my Atmos setup yet.

My processor allows for 7.1.4 with Front Wides if you give up surround backs. If you have a model that allows for that config, then definitely try it.

Some titles only have Atmos tracks on their UHD Blu-ray releases, like RED.


----------



## VideoGrabber

stikle said:


> Angles and separation are everything.


That certainly makes sense.




> Your bed layer (your 5 or 7 channel surround) should be at ear height.


Yet not everyone would agree with that extreme statement.




> If you don't have it and* can find an affordable copy* of Gravity: Diamond Luxe Edition, the Atmos mix is reference material and amazing. It has to be the Diamond Luxe version though.


I can see why you included the proviso about finding an affordable copy!  Looks like $50+, at the moment.  That's a 'bit' steep, after I already bought the Blu and 3D versions of the disc.


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> What do you think is a price range you could handle? Where are you located, generally speaking?


Right now I could probably justify around $100, maybe $150 if it was a really good deal on a sub that I'd still use later down the line.

I'm in Toronto.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

VideoGrabber said:


> stikle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angles and separation are everything.
> 
> 
> 
> That certainly makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your bed layer (your 5 or 7 channel surround) should be at ear height.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet not everyone would agree with that extreme statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have it and* can find an affordable copy* of Gravity: Diamond Luxe Edition, the Atmos mix is reference material and amazing. It has to be the Diamond Luxe version though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see why you included the proviso about finding an affordable copy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like $50+, at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a 'bit' steep, after I already bought the Blu and 3D versions of the disc.
Click to expand...

I would imagine Warner will be adding Gravity to their UHD Blu-ray roster soon. Certainly cheaper than the Diamond Luxe version now. 

It has a cool, hyper aggressive immersive mix.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Dan Hitchman said:


> Like I mentioned, I can only comment on the titles I have heard and I haven't gotten around to those particular ones yet.


Thanks. I wasn't sure whether you had, or not. I guess if there's only a dozen or less that don't, and Peter managed to find them all , that the point you were making would still mostly hold true.




> My processor allows for 7.1.4 with Front Wides if you give up surround backs. If you have a model that allows for that config, then definitely try it.


I had made note of that about your 7702 mkII a while back, and have my fingers crossed that the SR7009 I have in a box waiting for a room will also have that capability. I am a little worried that it will have it's own ideas, and make that decision automatically, w/o my input.




> Some titles only have Atmos tracks on their UHD Blu-ray releases, like RED.


Yeah, that trend is definitely bumming me out.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would imagine Warner will be adding Gravity to their UHD Blu-ray roster soon. Certainly cheaper than the Diamond Luxe version now.
> 
> It has a cool, hyper aggressive immersive mix.


I will be keeping my eyes open for that, and definitely appreciate your heads-up on it!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is a price range you could handle? Where are you located, generally speaking?
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I could probably justify around $100, maybe $150 if it was a really good deal on a sub that I'd still use later down the line.
> 
> I'm in Toronto.
Click to expand...

I would hold off for now. There are little to no subs in that price range I would remotely consider. I'm thinking SVS, HSU Research, Rhythmik, Outlaw Audio, etc.

You need to consider the greater volume of the room and not just the confines of your listening space as sound travels and propagates, especially lower frequency waves.


----------



## Jonas2

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can the Anthem you bought process Front Wides? My 2015 Marantz 7702 mk II pre-amp can if I drop the rear surrounds (and keep four overheads). Some units with 11.1 processing gave you that alternate 7.1.4 option, others left it off.
> 
> I'm seriously considering the Marantz pre-amp with 9.1.4 rendering capabilities because I would rather not have to choose between the two.
> 
> Off topic, I'm looking for a better power center for my system. How are you liking your Panamax 5400-PM?


I'm not right in front of it, but if I remember correctly, there is no option for front wides. I'd need a new processor in addition to a larger space.  Which makes me somewhat happy I'm limited to the space I have. One of these days though......

I do like the Panamax. I don't know that I'd buy it at full retail, I got it on sale from Crutchfield when they had it for a few hundred+ under MSRP so it was more stomachable. It does what I need it to, I like the look.


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would hold off for now. There are little to no subs in that price range I would remotely consider. I'm thinking SVS, HSU Research, Rhythmik, Outlaw Audio, etc.
> 
> You need to consider the greater volume of the room and not just the confines of your listening space as sound travels and propagates, especially lower frequency waves.


Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I'll try to find something used that was originally out of that price range. 
Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Pyronaut said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would hold off for now. There are little to no subs in that price range I would remotely consider. I'm thinking SVS, HSU Research, Rhythmik, Outlaw Audio, etc.
> 
> You need to consider the greater volume of the room and not just the confines of your listening space as sound travels and propagates, especially lower frequency waves.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I'll try to find something used that was originally out of that price range.
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

You may find decent sales during the Thanksgiving / Cyber Monday season... and Boxing Day in your neck of the woods. Though, I dare say you will still need to spend a bit more than your stated budget, but it would be well worth the investment.

Shop smart... buy once.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jonas2 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the Anthem you bought process Front Wides? My 2015 Marantz 7702 mk II pre-amp can if I drop the rear surrounds (and keep four overheads). Some units with 11.1 processing gave you that alternate 7.1.4 option, others left it off.
> 
> I'm seriously considering the Marantz pre-amp with 9.1.4 rendering capabilities because I would rather not have to choose between the two.
> 
> Off topic, I'm looking for a better power center for my system. How are you liking your Panamax 5400-PM?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not right in front of it, but if I remember correctly, there is no option for front wides. I'd need a new processor in addition to a larger space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes me somewhat happy I'm limited to the space I have. One of these days though......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do like the Panamax. I don't know that I'd buy it at full retail, I got it on sale from Crutchfield when they had it for a few hundred+ under MSRP so it was more stomachable. It does what I need it to, I like the look.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll look for sales. How is it noise-wise when the voltage regulation kicks in?


----------



## Erod

Question for those with in-ceiling height speakers.


Do you aim the tweeters to your MLP, or do you let them fire straight down? I have enough ceiling height so that I could do either.


----------



## carp

Erod said:


> Question for those with in-ceiling height speakers.
> 
> 
> Do you aim the tweeters to your MLP, or do you let them fire straight down? I have enough ceiling height so that I could do either.


If you have 1 row of seating aim them at the seat furthest away from the location of the speaker. That way the sound is louder than it would be to the person furthest away because they are on axis which will cause the ceiling effects to image better for people not in the sweet spot. Imaging will be fine for the sweet spot too because they are equally slightly off axis for both speakers. 

If you have 2 rows then aim the right speaker towards the back row left seat, so same concept.


----------



## Selden Ball

VideoGrabber said:


> I had made note of that about your 7702 mkII a while back, and have my fingers crossed that the SR7009 I have in a box waiting for a room will also have that capability. I am a little worried that it will have it's own ideas, and make that decision automatically, w/o my input.


The SR7009 has the same audio support as the MkII, but it does not have HDCP V2.2, so it does not support commercial 4K UHD video. To take advantage of 4K UHD Blu-rays, for example, you'll need to use a 4K disc player which has dual HDMI outputs, with its video HDMI cable going directly to a 4K TV and its audio HDMI cable going to the receiver.


----------



## Roger Dressler

markus767 said:


> Here's some test tones I've captured at the pre out of my AVR. MV was at -20dB.


What are the wideband RMS levels for #3 and #4 ? 

#4 (Atmos disc) changes with volume setting. Does that happen for #4 (internal noise) or is it fixed?


----------



## Jonas2

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks! I'll look for sales. How is it noise-wise when the voltage regulation kicks in?


The only thing I've ever heard from the unit is a very faint hum that is normal. I wouldn't want to sleep right next to it in a house of dead silence, but I can't hear it at all unless I'm literally inches away from it in my listening environment. Totally not an issue. 



Erod said:


> Question for those with in-ceiling height speakers.
> 
> Do you aim the tweeters to your MLP, or do you let them fire straight down? I have enough ceiling height so that I could do either.


I aim mine at the MLP, 1 row of seating (3 place couch). Have tried it both ways - and it might be all in my mind, but they sound slightly better to me aimed at MLP vs. straight down. It's not night and day though.  Just try both!


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> As far as speaker position, I've read that there is a general opinion that all speakers except the center channel are best positioned to be slightly higher than your ear level, especially if you have multiple people in the room watching. You don't want to be in the front row right seat and have a direct radiating tweeter pointed at your head. The important thing is that all the bed high frequencies be aimed into the same horizontal plane so that you get the bubble. *That gets more challenging with my stadium seating in my room.*



These are good points, and something that diagram doesn't take into account. It's not something I have to deal with in my current theater incarnation, but something I definitely have to take into account in the next couple months in the new house as I'm setting up the new theater. I'm going to be adding a second row of slightly raised seating, so that will be an interesting challenge to get right.



Erod said:


> I'm still confused if I should have my four ceiling speaker tweeters aimed at the MLP. They're high up, so I could point them straight down, and I wonder if the object location of Atmos would be more effective that way.



From everything I've heard/read is that you do want the tweeters pointed towards the MLP...in a single row situation. Looks like I've got more research ahead as well to try and figure out the right course of action for two rows. MLP is always going to be my priority since it's usually just me watching. The cats couldn't care any less. I'm more anal about the sound than any family/friends that will be coming over as they don't have anything remotely comparable to my system. Luckily I'll have plenty of time to tweak and adjust things.



VideoGrabber said:


> Yet not everyone would agree with that extreme statement.



Well, it's a guideline, but you are correct, there's no perfect answer for every room.



VideoGrabber said:


> I can see why you included the proviso about finding an affordable copy!  Looks like $50+, at the moment.  That's a 'bit' steep, after I already bought the Blu and 3D versions of the disc.



Yeah, that's crazy. Supply and demand I suppose.

I just looked up my Amazon order:

Ordered on January 9, 2015

Gravity: Special Edition [Blu-ray]
Sold by: Amazon.com LLC
*$18.49*
Condition: New


----------



## chi_guy50

stikle said:


> Yeah, that's crazy. Supply and demand I suppose.
> 
> I just looked up my Amazon order:
> 
> Ordered on January 9, 2015
> 
> Gravity: Special Edition [Blu-ray]
> Sold by: Amazon.com LLC
> *$18.49*
> Condition: New


I believe it's still available for even less than that price at Amazon.ca assuming you can qualify for free shipping.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe it's still available for even less than that price at Amazon.ca assuming you can qualify for free shipping.



Nice find! That's ~$13.32USD. Even with shipping that's a great price!


----------



## VideoGrabber

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe it's still available for even less than that price at Amazon.ca assuming you can qualify for free shipping.


That is a great find. Even with "International" shipping, that's still only $22 to the US. Much better than the $48+ available here.

Now I have to decide if I want to pony up for that, or do as Dan (Hitchman) suggested, and just wait for the inevitable(?) UHD release.

Thanks, chi_guy!


----------



## Erod

chi_guy50 said:


> I believe it's still available for even less than that price at Amazon.ca assuming you can qualify for free shipping.


Just bought it. Thanks.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Selden Ball said:


> The SR7009 has the same audio support as the MkII,


Very good to hear! 



> ...but it does not have HDCP V2.2, so it does not support commercial 4K UHD video. To take advantage of 4K UHD Blu-rays, for example, you'll need to use a 4K disc player which has dual HDMI outputs, with its video HDMI cable going directly to a 4K TV and its audio HDMI cable going to the receiver.


Thanks, Selden. Yes, I knew that going in, and it won't be a problem. But well worth mentioning, for any _others who might be considering an SR7009_ they may come across. It does have a few limitations (the other being no DTS:X), but if you can live with those it's a really nice unit, otherwise. (IMO)


----------



## Pyronaut

Dan Hitchman said:


> You may find decent sales during the Thanksgiving / Cyber Monday season... and Boxing Day in your neck of the woods. Though, I dare say you will still need to spend a bit more than your stated budget, but it would be well worth the investment.
> 
> Shop smart... buy once.


I love how I came in here looking for a HTiB setup and walked away with a stand-alone 11 channel receiver and discrete overhead speakers, and now looking for a new beefy sub after I already exceeded my budget, LOL. This isn't a cheap hobby but I'm sure it'll be worth it. Hoping the Black Friday sales will help me out. Luckily I don't have to worry about WAF just yet.


----------



## am2model3

Watched transformers 1&2 blu ray on my atmos dtsx 5.1.4. 1 has dolby true hd and sounds mostly like 5.1 with dsu and neural x, some heighths but not a lot. 2 has dts hd and wow it is a world of difference as far as sound track effects! Dts hd on neural x for part2 sounds incredible! Native ish heighth effects are awesome and plentiful! I rewound certain scenes just to hear the overheads wow! You really need to test diff films with diff track mixes. Amazing.


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> Just bought it. Thanks.



When you get it, note that you will have two versions available. The "Silent Space" version (sound effects only, no music) is cool but NOT in Atmos. Use the other for testing.


----------



## gwsat

Pyronaut said:


> I love how I came in here looking for a HTiB setup and walked away with a stand-alone 11 channel receiver and discrete overhead speakers, and now looking for a new beefy sub after I already exceeded my budget, LOL. This isn't a cheap hobby but I'm sure it'll be worth it. Hoping the Black Friday sales will help me out. Luckily I don't have to worry about WAF just yet.


That's called "Mission Creep," partner. Welcome to the club!


----------



## Roger Dressler

Roger Dressler said:


> What are the wideband RMS levels for #3 and #4 ?
> 
> #4 (Atmos disc) changes with volume setting. Does that happen for #4 (internal noise) or is it fixed?


The reason I ask, is that if the external Atmos noise varies with volume, then if you played it at MV=0, we'd see a graph more like this one. I created both signals in Adobe Audition and imported them into REW just to see how they'd line up on an equal footing. Bottom line, it would confirm the Atmos noise is a) wideband _white_, and b) it's printed at -15 dBFS.


----------



## mtrot

*Just got two Atmos "add on" speakers - is my setup correct?*

First, my receiver is Denon AVR X5200W. My speakers consist of front L/R, surrounds L/R, and the two new Pioneer Atmos add on speakers that are sitting on top of my front towers. The source is my Oppo 203 UHD Blu-ray player, which is set to bitstream to the Denon. So, I guess my system would be 4.0.2, correct? 

I bought a set of the Pioneer Atmos "add on" speakers and set them up the best I know how. The only way I could find in the setup process to be able to select "Dolby Front" was to select the 9.1 option in the speaker setup menu. I also had to "amp assign" the Height speakers to Dolby Front. I connected the Pioneer speakers to the far right speaker terminals as you look at the back of the receiver. As to the crossover setting for the Front Dolby speakers, there was no option in the setup menu to select 180Hz, so I selected 150Hz. Thus, when I view the active speakers via the "info" button on the Denon remote, I see Front L/R, Surrounds L/R, and Front Dolby L/R. I calibrated all the speakers to essentially the same level. As to the Distance setting for the Dolby add on speakers, I measured the distance up to the ceiling and back down to my listening position on the sofa(not sure if this is the proper way to measure the distance). 

So, I watched two Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies, Wonder Woman and Batman vs. Superman. The front display of the receiver shows "Atmos" while the movies are playing. I don't know if these are the best demos for Atmos, but I didn't really hear much sensation of sound being reflected off the ceiling. I did confirm that there was sound coming out of the Pioneer speakers. At the beginning of Batman vs Superman, there is a scene where bats are flying all around and squeaking, in which I thought I would hear those sounds coming from overhead, but I can't say that I do. So, I'm not sure I have this set up properly and/or whether the system is working right.

Any thoughts on whether I have this set up properly? Much thanks for any thoughts!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mtrot said:


> First, my receiver is Denon AVR X5200W. My speakers consist of front L/R, surrounds L/R, and the two new Pioneer Atmos add on speakers that are sitting on top of my front towers. The source is my Oppo 203 UHD Blu-ray player, which is set to bitstream to the Denon. So, I guess my system would be 4.0.2, correct?
> 
> I bought a set of the Pioneer Atmos "add on" speakers and set them up the best I know how. The only way I could find in the setup process to be able to select "Dolby Front" was to select the 9.1 option in the speaker setup menu. I also had to "amp assign" the Height speakers to Dolby Front. I connected the Pioneer speakers to the far right speaker terminals as you look at the back of the receiver. As to the crossover setting for the Front Dolby speakers, there was no option in the setup menu to select 180Hz, so I selected 150Hz. Thus, when I view the active speakers via the "info" button on the Denon remote, I see Front L/R, Surrounds L/R, and Front Dolby L/R. I calibrated all the speakers to essentially the same level. As to the Distance setting for the Dolby add on speakers, I measured the distance up to the ceiling and back down to my listening position on the sofa(not sure if this is the proper way to measure the distance).
> 
> So, I watched two Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies, Wonder Woman and Batman vs. Superman. The front display of the receiver shows "Atmos" while the movies are playing. I don't know if these are the best demos for Atmos, but I didn't really hear much sensation of sound being reflected off the ceiling. I did confirm that there was sound coming out of the Pioneer speakers. At the beginning of Batman vs Superman, there is a scene where bats are flying all around and squeaking, in which I thought I would hear those sounds coming from overhead, but I can't say that I do. So, I'm not sure I have this set up properly and/or whether the system is working right.
> 
> Any thoughts on whether I have this set up properly? Much thanks for any thoughts!


You just gotta bite the bullet and install on or in ceiling speakers and barring that, up high at the wall/ceiling juncture aimed toward the main listening position like this:










or...


----------



## djoberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> You just gotta bite the bullet and install on or in ceiling speakers and barring that, up high at the wall/ceiling juncture aimed toward the main listening position like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or...


I've chimed in before whenever a member is inquiring about Atmos speakers and I have to agree once again with Dan. His diagram (with 4 Atmos speakers) looks like this in REAL LIFE:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2318384&stc=1&d=1511146977


----------



## anothermib

I noticed that very few BD-3D disks offer an Atmos track, sometimes the 2D version or the UHD has it. Is there a technical reason for that, e.g. lack of storage space on the BD, or is it just marketing? How are you dealing with that - just use the upmixer or is there any other way/source for watching a movie in 3D and Atmos?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Johnico

Looking for suggestions. Id like to get a good Dolby Atmos Reciever with 9 powered channels. 
Possibly under $1500. I plan on installed 4 ceiling speakers along with two fronts, center and two rears with a velodyne powered sub.


----------



## djoberg

Johnico said:


> Looking for suggestions. Id like to get a good Dolby Atmos Reciever with 9 powered channels.
> Possibly under $1500. I plan on installed 4 ceiling speakers along with two fronts, center and two rears with a velodyne powered sub.


I bought the following Denon AVR right here (the price is incredible and the AVR is fantastic):

https://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX43...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## djoberg

anothermib said:


> I noticed that very few BD-3D disks offer an Atmos track, _sometimes the 2D version or the UHD has it_. Is there a technical reason for that, e.g. lack of storage space on the BD, or is it just marketing? How are you dealing with that - just use the upmixer or is there any other way/source for watching a movie in 3D and Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I put in BOLD LETTERS what I want to respond to. You say, "sometimes...the UHD has it (an Atmos track)." The fact is, the VAST MAJORITY of UHD Blu-rays have either a Dolby Atmos or a DTS:X mix. It is VERY RARE indeed if they don't. I have over 50 UHD Blu-rays and all but one have the Atmos or DTS:X mix.


----------



## Selden Ball

mtrot said:


> First, my receiver is Denon AVR X5200W. My speakers consist of front L/R, surrounds L/R, and the two new Pioneer Atmos add on speakers that are sitting on top of my front towers. The source is my Oppo 203 UHD Blu-ray player, which is set to bitstream to the Denon. So, I guess my system would be 4.0.2, correct?


Correct.


> I bought a set of the Pioneer Atmos "add on" speakers and set them up the best I know how. The only way I could find in the setup process to be able to select "Dolby Front" was to select the 9.1 option in the speaker setup menu. I also had to "amp assign" the Height speakers to Dolby Front. I connected the Pioneer speakers to the far right speaker terminals as you look at the back of the receiver. As to the crossover setting for the Front Dolby speakers, there was no option in the setup menu to select 180Hz, so I selected 150Hz.


When you run the Audyssey calibration, it'll find the optimal crossover frequency, which might be higher. You should not lower it.

For convenience, you can run the "Setup Assistant". It'll "lead you by the hand" to make sure all of your speakers and receiver features are setup correctly.

If you haven't already, you should look through Dolby's document on configuring Atmos speaker systems, which is available at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Among other things, it describes important speaker placement considerations when using upfiring, reflecting "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers. 



> Thus, when I view the active speakers via the "info" button on the Denon remote, I see Front L/R, Surrounds L/R, and Front Dolby L/R. I calibrated all the speakers to essentially the same level. As to the Distance setting for the Dolby add on speakers, I measured the distance up to the ceiling and back down to my listening position on the sofa(not sure if this is the proper way to measure the distance).


When you run the Audyssey calibration (either by itself or from the Setup Assistant), it'll find the optimal trim levels and distance settings.


> So, I watched two Dolby Atmos Blu-ray movies, Wonder Woman and Batman vs. Superman. The front display of the receiver shows "Atmos" while the movies are playing. I don't know if these are the best demos for Atmos, but I didn't really hear much sensation of sound being reflected off the ceiling. I did confirm that there was sound coming out of the Pioneer speakers. At the beginning of Batman vs Superman, there is a scene where bats are flying all around and squeaking, in which I thought I would hear those sounds coming from overhead, but I can't say that I do. So, I'm not sure I have this set up properly and/or whether the system is working right.
> 
> Any thoughts on whether I have this set up properly? Much thanks for any thoughts!


If you haven't already, please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ. It'll help you to get a good calibration. The instructions in the equipment's owner's manual are pathetically inadequate.

You might also consider downloading Dolby's Atmos test tone files which are available at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html 

You can put them on a USB thumb drive and play them through a Blu-ray player.


----------



## OKGeek

Johnico said:


> Looking for suggestions. Id like to get a good Dolby Atmos Reciever with 9 powered channels.
> Possibly under $1500. I plan on installed 4 ceiling speakers along with two fronts, center and two rears with a velodyne powered sub.


I would consider NAD 758 v3 plus some stereo amp to power 2 top rears. Dirac is definitely something worth trying. Check out 758 v3 thread for more details

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

djoberg said:


> I bought the following Denon AVR right here (the price is incredible and the AVR is fantastic):
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX43...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


The prices aren't incredible any more. The OP missed out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Johnico said:


> Looking for suggestions. Id like to get a good Dolby Atmos Reciever with 9 powered channels.
> Possibly under $1500. I plan on installed 4 ceiling speakers along with two fronts, center and two rears with a velodyne powered sub.


If you are in the U.S., call AV Science and ask for their price on a Marantz SR6012 receiver. Let them know you are an AVS Forum member. Right up your ally.


----------



## djoberg

Dan Hitchman said:


> The prices aren't incredible any more. The OP missed out.


Whoa! It was $799 when I posted that link a couple of hours ago; that was a fast DROP in price!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

djoberg said:


> Whoa! It was $799 when I posted that link a couple of hours ago; that was a fast DROP in price!


You snooze, you lose. Once new close-out stock diminished, it was a seller's market.


----------



## fredxr2d2

anothermib said:


> I noticed that very few BD-3D disks offer an Atmos track, sometimes the 2D version or the UHD has it. Is there a technical reason for that, e.g. lack of storage space on the BD, or is it just marketing? How are you dealing with that - just use the upmixer or is there any other way/source for watching a movie in 3D and Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It is just marketing. Right now, since I don't personally have 4K, I am buying the regular blu-rays and using the upmixer. 

Studios that are doing this are: Sony, Disney, Fox


----------



## progprog

fredxr2d2 said:


> It is just marketing. Right now, since I don't personally have 4K, I am buying the regular blu-rays and using the upmixer.
> 
> Studios that are doing this are: Sony, Disney, Fox


I'd agree that it's a marketing strategy, but perfectly understandable. That's just how things work, whether you're talking cars or video releases or anything else....the premium package at the premium price has the premium features.


----------



## anothermib

djoberg said:


> I put in BOLD LETTERS what I want to respond to. You say, "sometimes...the UHD has it (an Atmos track)." The fact is, the VAST MAJORITY of UHD Blu-rays have either a Dolby Atmos or a DTS:X mix. It is VERY RARE indeed if they don't. I have over 50 UHD Blu-rays and all but one have the Atmos or DTS:X mix.




That is a fair point. My question was mostly about the fact why it is not included in the 3D version, while being included in other versions. The UHD usually won't provide a 3D version, will it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

anothermib said:


> That is a fair point. My question was mostly about the fact why it is not included in the 3D version, while being included in other versions. The UHD usually won't provide a 3D version, will it?


Maybe overseas. However, you would probably need a region modified 3D Blu-ray player for that disc. 4k discs are region free.


----------



## Nick V

Question regarding Atmos modules:

I haven't seen any of the official Dolby Atmos system options that show a 5.1.2 system that uses Atmos modules on top of the Rear L/R speakers rather than the Front L/R. However, my Denon AVR-X3200 does allow for that option.

My Front L/R Speakers are slightly rounded (less stable with something on top of them) and are in the potential path of destruction for my 13 month old daughter to knock the modules off. She's been really good so far, but I would feel more comfortable with the Atmos modules sitting on top of my Surround L/R speakers that are behind the couch and out of her reach.

Is there a fundamental problem with a system that only uses rear Atmos modules? Will I get objectively worse performance from Atmos with my system set up in that way?


----------



## fredxr2d2

progprog said:


> I'd agree that it's a marketing strategy, but perfectly understandable. That's just how things work, whether you're talking cars or video releases or anything else....the premium package at the premium price has the premium features.


I understand why they are doing it, even if I disagree.

The problem, as I see it, is that they didn't all of a sudden stop producing 5.1 lossy soundtracks for DVD when blu-ray came out - they still put lossy 5.1 on DVDs (due to space). Yet, this new format comes out and now the 1080p blu is getting a 5.1 soundtrack when the UHD is getting an Atmos/DTS:X soundtrack even 1080p blu doesn't have space constraints like DVD did. That's the part that gets me upset.

All the same, the upmixers do quite a good job (so much so that my friends and I couldn't tell the difference between the default 5.1 DTS track on Kong: Skull Island and the Atmos on the same).


----------



## usc1995

Dan Hitchman said:


> Maybe overseas. However, you would probably need a region modified 3D Blu-ray player for that disc. 4k discs are region free.




My UHD copy of Passengers that I picked up at BestBuy came with the 3D copy as well. I know the UHD has Atmos but I have yet to watch the 3D copy to know if it is included there as well. Hopefully more movies are released this way as I love Atmos and have just started getting into 3D so I’d love both presentations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## helvetica bold

djoberg said:


> I've chimed in before whenever a member is inquiring about Atmos speakers and I have to agree once again with Dan. His diagram (with 4 Atmos speakers) looks like this in REAL LIFE:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2318384&stc=1&d=1511146977




Dan you get the SVS Elevation’s correct? I’ve been eyeing them. Thinking about an all SVS system.
Are your rear heights positioned behind the surround backs? I believe that’s Dolby’s reco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Dan you got the SVS Elevation’s correct? I’ve been eyeing them. Thinking about an all SVS system.
> Are your rear heights positioned behind the surround backs? I believe that’s Dolby’s reco.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unfortunately, the Elevations came out after I purchased the RBH bipoles I'm using right now as overheads. Grumble, grumble. I originally got the RBH's because they match my dark cherry red Paradigm Studio 20 bookshelf monitors I'm using for the base level surrounds and Paradigm was closing out the Studio range at a discount (they didn't have anything I could use that would match for Atmos use). My fronts are Paradigm Studio 100 towers and CC-690 center (one huge monster that requires two stands!).

I don't have rear speakers, but I do have sides a little further back since I'm doing a 7.1.4 layout with Front Wides and I have a processor that made me sacrifice rears for FW's and still have four overheads. That's why I'm eyeing the 2018 Denon/Marantz flagships that allow for 9.1.4 Atmos processing.

I've heard them and I've read other owners' reviews. They're impressive in their flexibility and sound/build quality for the money. You can mount them overhead on the ceiling as well with a nifty locking bracket you ask for at the time of purchase.


----------



## helvetica bold

Thanks Dan! Seriously it feels like I’ve been waiting forever to upgrade. Ever since the first Atmos title, Brave I knew Dolby was on to something. Now that the new Xbox One X supports Atmos for games and movies I’m ready. I was hoping SVS would have their prime satellites on sale this holiday to start the process but nothing yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

helvetica bold said:


> Thanks Dan! Seriously it feels like I’ve been waiting forever to upgrade. Ever since the first Atmos title, Brave I knew Dolby was on to something. Now that the new Xbox One X supports Atmos for games and movies I’m ready. I was hoping SVS would have their prime satellites on sale this holiday to start the process but nothing yet.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think they may have a small discount towards Thanksgiving or possibly Cyber Monday. Sometimes, the sales are on B-stock. They do list what kind, if any, cosmetic damage they may have. Those still get the fully warranty and often times if you're fast, you can buy returned items with NO cosmetic damage at all at a decent savings.


----------



## djoberg

helvetica bold said:


> Dan you get the SVS Elevation’s correct? I’ve been eyeing them. Thinking about an all SVS system.
> Are your rear heights positioned behind the surround backs? I believe that’s Dolby’s reco.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm the one that posted the "live picture" of my Dolby Atmos speaker setup with SVS Prime Elevation speakers mounted on the Side Walls. I decided to place the Rear Heights "just in front of my surrounds" based on the following recommendation by Dolby (you'll have to scroll down to the 2nd to the last diagram with a 5.1.4 setup with the Atmos speakers being in front of the rear surrounds...speakers numbered 6 & 7):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...aw2qyyC92YhXoTj40BVJklPg&ust=1511296530530741


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I should mention that in that Dolby setup they are using In-ceiling Speakers (they didn't even sell Prime Elevation speakers at the time of that diagram), but the same principle holds true for mounting them on the Side Walls. I didn't place my Rear Heights as close to the MLP as in that diagram though for I wanted both the Front and Rear Heights to be at an equal distance to my MLP. They are 42" from dead center, which means they are 7' apart. This makes for a broader dispersion and more realism when there are panning effects.


----------



## helvetica bold

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> I should mention that in that Dolby setup they are using In-ceiling Speakers (they didn't even sell Prime Elevation speakers at the time of that diagram), but the same principle holds true for mounting them on the Side Walls. I didn't place my Rear Heights as close to the MLP as in that diagram though for I wanted both the Front and Rear Heights to be at an equal distance to my MLP. They are 42" from dead center, which means they are 7' apart. This makes for a broader dispersion and more realism when there are panning effects.




Thanks and nice setup. I called SVS over the summer and they recommended placing the rear elevation behind the rear surround and I thought that was odd. But The tech on the phone said that was a Dolby spec. For future knowledge they don’t have to be behind correct?










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

helvetica bold said:


> Thanks and nice setup. I called SVS over the summer and they recommended placing the rear elevation behind the rear surround and I thought that was odd. But The tech on the phone said that was a Dolby spec. For future knowledge they don’t have to be behind correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I had stated, I did NOT put my Rear Height Speakers BEHIND my Rear Surrounds (for I wanted them to be at an equal distance to my MLP as my Front Height speakers. Here is the Dolby diagram setup that I went by (except I didn't put my Rear Heights that close to my MLP):

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2318678&stc=1&d=1511213634


----------



## helvetica bold

djoberg said:


> As I had stated, I did NOT put my Rear Height Speakers BEHIND my Rear Surrounds (for I wanted them to be at an equal distance to my MLP as my Front Height speakers. Here is the Dolby diagram setup that I went by (except I didn't put my Rear Heights that close to my MLP):
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2318678&stc=1&d=1511213634




Got it. The diagram you posted is the one I was familiar with. I didn’t know about the other diagram until I talked to SVS. It all comes down to room layout I suppose. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

helvetica bold said:


> For future knowledge they don’t have to be behind correct?


They should be where ever they give the best height effect, allowing you to clearly hear left vs right and front vs back directionality above you. The recommendations in the Atmos Install Guide are a good starting point, but don't follow them to the point of diminishing the height effect.


----------



## pppdx

New here, and have a question... i just got Denon AVR-X4300H in combination with Klipsch spakers, front back and on all speakers atmos speakers also.
So as far as configuration i think i am good.
I just got two 4k bluray dvds, that i would play through xbox one x.
Question is...how do i know i am indeed playing in atmos mode?
Will the avr say dolby atmos? 
I have not seen that option yet on the screen.
Thanks 
P


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pppdx said:


> New here, and have a question... i just got Denon AVR-X4300H in combination with Klipsch speakers, front back and on all speakers atmos speakers also.
> So as far as configuration i think i am good.
> I just got two 4k bluray dvds, that i would play through xbox one x.
> Question is...how do i know i am indeed playing in atmos mode?
> Will the avr say dolby atmos?
> I have not seen that option yet on the screen.
> Thanks
> P


First of all, the Xbox must be set to BITSTREAM audio via HDMI. If there is a SECONDARY AUDIO selection, this must be turned off. 

Then, if you are playing an Atmos track, the receiver will say Dolby Atmos in the display. Obviously, the receiver must know you have some sort of overhead, height, or "enabled" speakers attached to it for Atmos and X decoding to be engaged.

By the way, what Atmos speakers did you buy?


----------



## pppdx

Dan Hitchman said:


> First of all, the Xbox must be set to BITSTREAM audio via HDMI. If there is a SECONDARY AUDIO selection, this must be turned off.
> 
> Then, if you are playing an Atmos track, the receiver will say Dolby Atmos in the display. Obviously, the receiver must know you have some sort of overhead, height, or "enabled" speakers attached to it for Atmos and X decoding to be engaged.
> 
> By the way, what Atmos speakers did you buy?


Thanks!
I am new to xbox so need to see how i can do that.

In front i have R-28F with RP-140SA
In back i have R-26F with RP-14SA
Center right now is RP-25C.... but RP440C is arriving any day now
Sub is 12 inch R-12SW


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pppdx said:


> Thanks!
> I am new to xbox so need to see how i can do that.
> 
> In front i have R-28F with RP-140SA
> In back i have R-26F with RP-14SA
> Center right now is RP-25C.... but RP440C is arriving any day now
> Sub is 12 inch R-12SW


I highly recommend that you NOT use the RP-140SA's as "enabled" ceiling-bounce speakers. They work the best similarly to the SVS Prime Elevation speakers more-so than "enabled" mode on top of your main speakers. You should look at the pictures posted below and put them up at the wall/ceiling juncture in the Top Front, Top Rear positions on the side walls rather than the ceiling since I don't believe they have optional ceiling brackets like the Prime Elevations I just mentioned. 

Ceiling bounce speakers are the very, very last configuration you should be using.

You will want to wire the R-26F's as side surrounds even though they may be further rear than the typical 90 degree positions. Therefore, you would have a 5.1.4 layout.


----------



## Jonas2

pppdx said:


> New here, and have a question... i just got Denon AVR-X4300H in combination with Klipsch spakers, front back and on all speakers atmos speakers also.
> So as far as configuration i think i am good.
> I just got two 4k bluray dvds, that i would play through xbox one x.
> Question is...how do i know i am indeed playing in atmos mode?
> Will the avr say dolby atmos?
> I have not seen that option yet on the screen.
> Thanks
> P


ALSO - Make sure you ave the Dolby Atmos track selected in audio options for the disc - some discs default to Atmos, some default to 5.1 when the disc loads, so just be sure you're on the right one.


----------



## Johnico

Looking for very small rear speakers for my future Atmos 5.1.4 system. I want to use 4 Polk audio V60 ceiling speakers and Elac uni-fi Ub5 fronts with a Elac center UC5. I?m limited for size of rear speaker as my couch is backed up against the rear wall and certain conditions won?t allow for large bookshelf rears. 
Any suggestions?


----------



## batpig

Johnico said:


> Looking for very small rear speakers for my future Atmos 5.1.4 system. I want to use 4 Polk audio V60 ceiling speakers and Elac uni-fi Ub5 fronts with a Elac center UC5. I?m limited for size of rear speaker as my couch is backed up against the rear wall and certain conditions won?t allow for large bookshelf rears.
> Any suggestions?


Any chance you can get the couch off the back wall? Atmos aside, it's a pretty terrible place to sit acoustically, and obviously it makes implementing Atmos even more tricky since it's harder to get front vs. rear separation. Even if you could scoot it forward just 1-2ft it would give you some breathing room to work with. Then you could fit a pair of UB5's (or cheaper Debut series if you're budget limited) splayed out to the sides and angled in. 

You should also make sure you're treating the back wall behind your head with some absorption or else you'll be getting some nasty reflections from the surface right behind your ears that will impact clarity.

If you absolutely cannot move up from the rear wall, I'd probably go with a pair of bipole speakers mounted flush to the sides and a couple of feet above your head. That will spread the sound around and create the immersive surround field behind/around you and reduce hot-spotting that can be an issue being so close to the surround speakers.


----------



## Johnico

batpig said:


> Johnico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking for very small rear speakers for my future Atmos 5.1.4 system. I want to use 4 Polk audio V60 ceiling speakers and Elac uni-fi Ub5 fronts with a Elac center UC5. I?m limited for size of rear speaker as my couch is backed up against the rear wall and certain conditions won?t allow for large bookshelf rears.
> Any suggestions?
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance you can get the couch off the back wall? Atmos aside, it's a pretty terrible place to sit acoustically, and obviously it makes implementing Atmos even more tricky since it's harder to get front vs. rear separation. Even if you could scoot it forward just 1-2ft it would give you some breathing room to work with. Then you could fit a pair of UB5's (or cheaper Debut series if you're budget limited) splayed out to the sides and angled in.
> 
> You should also make sure you're treating the back wall behind your head with some absorption or else you'll be getting some nasty reflections from the surface right behind your ears that will impact clarity.
> 
> If you absolutely cannot move up from the rear wall, I'd probably go with a pair of bipole speakers mounted flush to the sides and a couple of feet above your head. That will spread the sound around and create the immersive surround field behind/around you and reduce hot-spotting that can be an issue being so close to the surround speakers.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Let me see if I can move couch forward but I think it?s gonna be tough to do. 
I?ll need to look into bipoles. Sucks.
I?ll post a pic of the room, it?s far from ideal to get good sound.


----------



## markus767

Roger Dressler said:


> What are the wideband RMS levels for #3 and #4 ?
> 
> #4 (Atmos disc) changes with volume setting. Does that happen for #4 (internal noise) or is it fixed?


The AVR test signal is fixed and doesn't change with MV. I didn't measure the RMS levels of the other signals. They can be easily recreated in REW if one wishes to.


----------



## Johnico

djoberg said:


> Johnico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking for suggestions. Id like to get a good Dolby Atmos Reciever with 9 powered channels.
> Possibly under $1500. I plan on installed 4 ceiling speakers along with two fronts, center and two rears with a velodyne powered sub.
> 
> 
> 
> I bought the following Denon AVR right here (the price is incredible and the AVR is fantastic):
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Denon-AVRX43...pID=41gUqVw3HZL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Click to expand...

All sold out. Do you think a refurbished one will be ok. They guarantee for 1 year ?


----------



## djoberg

Johnico said:


> All sold out. Do you think a refurbished one will be ok. They guarantee for 1 year ?


I personally have no problem whatsoever buying refurbished products if they are willing to give you a full warranty. In fact, the good thing about being refurbished is the manufacturer goes over it with a fine-toothed-comb to make sure it won't be returned again. I see that OneCall would be the retailer you'd be buying it from and that their rating is 100%....it doesn't get any better than that! Plus, it includes everything that comes with a brand new product. I would go for it, but that's just me.


----------



## Johnico

djoberg said:


> Johnico said:
> 
> 
> 
> All sold out. Do you think a refurbished one will be ok. They guarantee for 1 year ?
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have no problem whatsoever buying refurbished products if they are willing to give you a full warranty. In fact, the good thing about being refurbished is the manufacturer goes over it with a fine-toothed-comb to make sure it won't be returned again. I see that OneCall would be the retailer you'd be buying it from and that their rating is 100%....it doesn't get any better than that! Plus, it includes everything that comes with a brand new product. I would go for it, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

They will give me a one year warranty through Denon. New I would get three years. 
Still a good deal ?


----------



## djoberg

Johnico said:


> They will give me a one year warranty through Denon. New I would get three years.
> Still a good deal ?


No!


----------



## chi_guy50

Johnico said:


> They will give me a one year warranty through Denon. New I would get three years.
> Still a good deal ?


That's pretty much standard policy for these manufacturer-reburbished D+M units. Note that most major credit cards will add another year to the warranty coverage if you use their card for the purchase.

You can also find the refurbed X4300 at Accessories4Less, which offers free shipping AND will probably allow you to save about $70 on sales tax depending on your state of residence.


----------



## Johnico

chi_guy50 said:


> Johnico said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will give me a one year warranty through Denon. New I would get three years.
> Still a good deal ?
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much standard policy for these manufacturer-reburbished D+M units. Note that most major credit cards will add another year to the warranty coverage if you use their card for the purchase.
> 
> You can also find the refurbed X4300 at Accessories4Less, which offers free shipping AND will probably allow you to save about $70 on sales tax depending on your state of residence.
Click to expand...

I see at that site i can purchase an extended warranty. Might be worth it.


----------



## petetherock

Johnico said:


> Looking for very small rear speakers for my future Atmos 5.1.4 system. I want to use 4 Polk audio V60 ceiling speakers and Elac uni-fi Ub5 fronts with a Elac center UC5. I?m limited for size of rear speaker as my couch is backed up against the rear wall and certain conditions won?t allow for large bookshelf rears.
> Any suggestions?


Anthony Gallo?


----------



## Johnico

chi_guy50 said:


> Johnico said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will give me a one year warranty through Denon. New I would get three years.
> Still a good deal ?
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much standard policy for these manufacturer-reburbished D+M units. Note that most major credit cards will add another year to the warranty coverage if you use their card for the purchase.
> 
> You can also find the refurbed X4300 at Accessories4Less, which offers free shipping AND will probably allow you to save about $70 on sales tax depending on your state of residence.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I ordered it from here. Gonna get extended warranty as well. They are selling fast here too. What really sucks, I had a chance to buy a new one for $799 when they first dropped in price. You snooze ya loose.


----------



## chi_guy50

Johnico said:


> Thanks. I ordered it from here. Gonna get extended warranty as well. They are selling fast here too. What really sucks, I had a chance to buy a new one for $799 when they first dropped in price. You snooze ya loose.


Extended warranties are usually a waste of money (although I have on rare occasions purchased them myself). If there is a defect in your AVR it will generally manifest within the first 90 days under normal everyday use. A one-year warranty is pretty decent, and two years (if your credit card provides free extended coverage) should certainly be ample. There is some risk involved, of course, but not sufficient IMHO to merit paying for a separate extended warranty if more than a nominal cost. Bear in mind that many new AVR's (including the lower-tier models from Denon) come with only a one-year warranty.

BTW, as it happens, this afternoon I submitted a warranty claim through my VISA card coverage for a Logitech MX Master mouse that has malfunctioned after 16 months of use--four months outside of the manufacturer's warranty period. I expect I will get a full refund from VISA and just now purchased a new identical replacement for about the same amount.


----------



## Johnico

chi_guy50 said:


> Johnico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I ordered it from here. Gonna get extended warranty as well. They are selling fast here too. What really sucks, I had a chance to buy a new one for $799 when they first dropped in price. You snooze ya loose.
> 
> 
> 
> Extended warranties are usually a waste of money (although I have on rare occasions purchased them myself). If there is a defect in your AVR it will generally manifest within the first 90 days under normal everyday use. A one-year warranty is pretty decent, and two years (if your credit card provides free extended coverage) should certainly be ample. There is some risk involved, of course, but not sufficient IMHO to merit paying for a separate extended warranty if more than a nominal cost. Bear in mind that many new AVR's (including the lower-tier models from Denon) come with only a one-year warranty.
> 
> BTW, as it happens, this afternoon I submitted a warranty claim through my VISA card coverage for a Logitech MX Master mouse that has malfunctioned after 16 months of use--four months outside of the manufacturer's warranty period. I expect I will get a full refund from VISA and just now purchased a new identical replacement for about the same amount.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Ill have to think about buying the extended. My problem, Im not going to be able to hook up the RX for about 2 months as Im saving for the speakers. I just wanted to snag this rx before they were all gone. 1400 for the 4400 isnt worth it. 

Speakers- I listened to Martin Logans and SVS in Best Buy for my fronts and rear surround. Any thoughts to these over Elac?? I do need small rears. Center can match the front surround when i decide. 
I purchased 4 Sonance Mag6r from Best Buy for my Atmos ceilings on sale, 4 for about $250.


----------



## Huskyman

*Atmos install*

Have a Denon 4200 that can do 1 or 2 pairs of Atmos Speakers and considering installing one or two pairs.

The room is funky. As we are using it, the couch is hard up against a full wall in back, the viewing/component wall is 10' away and the viewing/components area is 20' wide with, while sitting, a half bath on the left and exterior wall & floor to ceiling speaker on the right. So reorienting from E-W to N-S won't work. 

It has an insulated, vaulted ceiling that follows the roofline, so upper side access is impossible. Wiring will have to be run on the ceiling which doesn't bother me much (considering the alternatives of removing the existing ceiling drywall). 

And because of the ceiling situation, I'm planning on using regular speakers on brackets rather than built-ins. As you can see from my signature, it's a full Polk system. Any thoughts on which ones? 

With all that, does having a 2nd set of Atmos speakers make sense with the attendant work and expense? 

Thanks guys/gals. Pics attached- room is somewhat torn up as we're moving into doing SOMETHING as I'm really tired of wires going all over the room!


----------



## progprog

Huskyman said:


> Have a Denon 4200 that can do 1 or 2 pairs of Atmos Speakers and considering installing one or two pairs.
> 
> The room is funky. As we are using it, the couch is hard up against a full wall in back, the viewing/component wall is 10' away and the viewing/components area is 20' wide with, while sitting, a half bath on the left and exterior wall & floor to ceiling speaker on the right. So reorienting from E-W to N-S won't work.
> 
> It has an insulated, vaulted ceiling that follows the roofline, so upper side access is impossible. Wiring will have to be run on the ceiling which doesn't bother me much (considering the alternatives of removing the existing ceiling drywall).
> 
> And because of the ceiling situation, I'm planning on using regular speakers on brackets rather than built-ins. As you can see from my signature, it's a full Polk system. Any thoughts on which ones?
> 
> With all that, does having a 2nd set of Atmos speakers make sense with the attendant work and expense?
> 
> Thanks guys/gals. Pics attached- room is somewhat torn up as we're moving into doing SOMETHING as I'm really tired of wires going all over the room!


Boy, that room is awfully tough for Atmos.  No space behind, vaulted and high in front. Too wide for sidewall-mounted....

I would just go with a single pair of heights, positioned a couple feet in front of the MLP. Or another possibility might be trying front Dolby-enabled heights paired with mid in-ceiling (or technically, on-ceiling, I guess). But over all, the 10' depth of the room, combined with the fact that it's all in front of the MLP, means there's probably just not enough space to get good separation and imaging from two sets of heights.


----------



## chi_guy50

Huskyman said:


> Have a Denon 4200 that can do 1 or 2 pairs of Atmos Speakers and considering installing one or two pairs.
> 
> The room is funky. As we are using it, the couch is hard up against a full wall in back, the viewing/component wall is 10' away and the viewing/components area is 20' wide with, while sitting, a half bath on the left and exterior wall & floor to ceiling speaker on the right. So reorienting from E-W to N-S won't work.
> 
> It has an insulated, vaulted ceiling that follows the roofline, so upper side access is impossible. Wiring will have to be run on the ceiling which doesn't bother me much (considering the alternatives of removing the existing ceiling drywall).
> 
> And because of the ceiling situation, I'm planning on using regular speakers on brackets rather than built-ins. As you can see from my signature, it's a full Polk system. Any thoughts on which ones?
> 
> With all that, does having a 2nd set of Atmos speakers make sense with the attendant work and expense?
> 
> Thanks guys/gals. Pics attached- room is somewhat torn up as we're moving into doing SOMETHING as I'm really tired of wires going all over the room!





progprog said:


> Boy, that room is awfully tough for Atmos.  No space behind, vaulted and high in front. Too wide for sidewall-mounted....
> 
> *I would just go with a single pair of heights, positioned a couple feet in front of the MLP.* Or another possibility might be trying front Dolby-enabled heights paired with mid in-ceiling (or technically, on-ceiling, I guess). But over all, the 10' depth of the room, combined with the fact that it's all in front of the MLP, means there's probably just not enough space to get good separation and imaging from two sets of heights.


I agree with progprog's suggestion. Assuming that you have no plans to upgrade your current setup, I would recommend you get a single pair of Polk Audio OWM3's (currently available in Black for around $65 or in White for $100) to complement the rest of your speakers.


----------



## jsgrise

Quick question about Atmos and Dynamic EQ. In 5.1 DEQ will boost the surround channels at lower volume, will DEQ boost TR/TF channels too?


----------



## rekbones

jsgrise said:


> Quick question about Atmos and Dynamic EQ. In 5.1 DEQ will boost the surround channels at lower volume, will DEQ boost TR/TF channels too?


From what I have read it does not. I turned it off for that very reason on my Marantz 7009 as even bringing up the tops a few db didn,t help and it always sounds better with DEQ off for ATMOS or the upmixer.


----------



## jarjar1

Hi everyone, I've read numerous posts on this forum but could not find an answer to my question. I currently have a klipsch 5.1.2 speakers system which includes in-ceiling klipsch 1650 speakers. I would like to upgrade the in ceiling speakers. 

I came across these in-ceiling speakers on sale and was wondering if they are suitable for dolby atmos and the current klipsch speakers (Definitive Technology DI 6.5R OR Polk MC60)?

Would I be better sticking with klipsch in ceiling?


----------



## richlife

Distributors have evidently dropped the prices on many 4k UHD discs old and new -- even some not yet released. Prices down to $9.99 and $14.99 are common. Great chance to pad your Atmos library. Amazon and Best Buy appear to have the same prices though Best Buy says "in store only". Go to Blu-Ray.com and click on 4K to see the items on sale. 

And Jumanji and Interstellar are coming out in Dec.! The first time I heard an Atmos disc on my system last year, my very first thought was on how great Jumanji would sound on this setup! Ishould have it Sunday.

Watch out when ordering 4K UHD discs at Amazon -- I found that some 4K disc showed up as Bluray in the order! Clicking on the title in the order in one case properly showed me the 4K item, but on Interstellar that click took me to the Bluray item. I removed Interstellar from the order -- I only want in in 4K UHD -- hopefully with Atmos.


----------



## jsgrise

rekbones said:


> From what I have read it does not. I turned it off for that very reason on my Marantz 7009 as even bringing up the tops a few db didn,t help and it always sounds better with DEQ off for ATMOS or the upmixer.


That's a shame, Audyssey should address that. Oh well...


----------



## Jonas2

jarjar1 said:


> Hi everyone, I've read numerous posts on this forum but could not find an answer to my question. I currently have a klipsch 5.1.2 speakers system which includes in-ceiling klipsch 1650 speakers. I would like to upgrade the in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I came across these in-ceiling speakers on sale and was wondering if they are suitable for dolby atmos and the current klipsch speakers (Definitive Technology DI 6.5R OR Polk MC60)?
> 
> Would I be better sticking with klipsch in ceiling?


Well, why exactly do you feel the need to upgrade? Do you feel the Klipsch are falling short? 

But to answer your question - YES, either of those speakers are fine for Atmos. I've got the DI8R, and I really like them. The DI6.5R will be similar (might be a bit better in the mids actually). Aesthetically, I prefer the DT over the Polk, but keep in mind, if you are direct replacing the speakers - the DefTec uses a smaller cutout diameter than your current Klipsch or the Polks, so there might be a fitment issue you'd need to address....?


----------



## usc1995

richlife said:


> Distributors have evidently dropped the prices on many 4k UHD discs old and new -- even some not yet released. Prices down to $9.99 and $14.99 are common. Great chance to pad your Atmos library. Amazon and Best Buy appear to have the same prices though Best Buy says "in store only". Go to Blu-Ray.com and click on 4K to see the items on sale.
> 
> 
> 
> And Jumanji and Interstellar are coming out in Dec.! The first time I heard an Atmos disc on my system last year, my very first thought was on how great Jumanji would sound on this setup! Ishould have it Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out when ordering 4K UHD discs at Amazon -- I found that some 4K disc showed up as Bluray in the order! Clicking on the title in the order in one case properly showed me the 4K item, but on Interstellar that click took me to the Bluray item. I removed Interstellar from the order -- I only want in in 4K UHD -- hopefully with Atmos.




Unfortunately, I don’t believe Interstellar will have an Atmos soundtrack. According to Blu-ray.com’s page for the 4k release it will be DTSHD only  http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Interstellar-4K-Blu-ray/187908/

I don’t believe Christopher Nolan has released any films with an Atmos or DTSX soundtrack yet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

usc1995 said:


> Unfortunately, I don’t believe Interstellar will have an Atmos soundtrack. According to Blu-ray.com’s page for the 4k release it will be DTSHD only  http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Interstellar-4K-Blu-ray/187908/
> 
> I don’t believe Christopher Nolan has released any films with an Atmos or DTSX soundtrack yet.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yeah, I had read that earlier but couldn't find the reference. For what I consider to be truly stupid reasons, my understanding is that Nolan refuses to work with Atmos (but how can I question a creative genius?). Fortunately, my A3060 does absolutely stunning upmix with DTS HD MA. 

And thanks for that link -- I'm not real proficient with Blu-Ray.com and couldn't find the forum entry. (Look at the bottom -- DUH!)

And BTW -- watch out for that Amazon link to Interstellar. I shows up only as Bluray -- no mention of 4K UHD. I emailed Amazon but have little hope for a response. Regardless, until the Amazon item SHOWS 4k UHD, I won't be ordering it.


----------



## stikle

usc1995 said:


> Unfortunately, I don’t believe Interstellar will have an Atmos soundtrack.
> I don’t believe Christopher Nolan has released any films with an Atmos or DTSX soundtrack yet.





richlife said:


> For what I consider to be truly stupid reasons, my understanding is that Nolan refuses to work with Atmos (but how can I question a creative genius?).



Nolan barely cares about surround sound in my experience.  The bluray Interstellar audio mix, in my opinion, sucked. And I could barely understand Bane (from Batman) when I was actually in a real theater.

Hopefully the audio has been remixed for the 4K release, for your sake.


----------



## jsgrise

stikle said:


> The bluray Interstellar audio mix, in my opinion, sucked.


I was just revisiting Interstellar yesterday using DSU and thought it sounded quite good. What didn't you like about the mix? or the editing?


----------



## bass addict

Does anyone have input regarding speaker placement with 2 rows of seating? 

I'm in the process of tearing apart my theater (again) for an Atmos and theme change and am upgrading surrounds and adding overheads. Speakers will be Volt 10's in side's, rears, and overhead; so they have a pretty wide dispersion pattern. 

My fear is; I was running Axioms QS8's which did a good job covering 2 rows of seating. The front row is the MLP and I don't want to sacrifice too much for the back row.  I'm afraid the Volts might not do as well? 

The current speaker placement is 2' behind the MLP which puts it around 115 degrees. Should I move this forward? The back seats get used a whole lot less than the front row but I do want the seating back there to have good sound when used.


----------



## Johnico

Installing my Atmos ceiling speakers (4) made by Sonance and the mid and twetter can be aimed. Should I direct them toward the seating area? Or straight down?


----------



## jsgrise

Johnico said:


> Installing my Atmos ceiling speakers (4) made by Sonance and the mid and twetter can be aimed. Should I direct them toward the seating area? Or straight down?


I would aim it toward the seating area or close to.


----------



## progprog

Johnico said:


> Installing my Atmos ceiling speakers (4) made by Sonance and the mid and twetter can be aimed. Should I direct them toward the seating area? Or straight down?


My heights also have aimable tweeters, and I found that I had to experiment with lots of combinations to get the best imaging around the MLP(s). So even though I've read suggestions that "straight down is best if your speakers have wide dispersion," as well as "aiming at the MLP is always best," I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all answer to your question.

It's a little tedious to keep re-aiming and testing, re-aiming and testing.......but I think you're most apt to end up with the best possible Atmos performance _in your particular room setup_ if you take the time to do it.


----------



## jsgrise

progprog said:


> My heights also have aimable tweeters, and I found that I had to experiment with lots of combinations to get the best imaging around the MLP(s). So even though I've read suggestions that "straight down is best if your speakers have wide dispersion," as well as "aiming at the MLP is always best," I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all answer to your question.
> 
> It's a little tedious to keep re-aiming and testing, re-aiming and testing.......but I think you're most apt to end up with the best possible Atmos performance _in your particular room setup_ if you take the time to do it.


Agreed, testing is the only way to find what's sounds best for your setup and yourself!

That being said, Dolby Atmos Theaters aim speakers at the audience:


----------



## jarjar1

I was looking for in-ceiling speakers for the basement and figured that I could transfer the one's I currently have to the basement and replace them with something that is considered upgraded to the klipsch.

The 1650 perform well for the price, but always wondered if more expensive speakers with greater bass and wider dispersion or perhaps a pivotable speaker, would improve the overall atmos experience.




Jonas2 said:


> Well, why exactly do you feel the need to upgrade? Do you feel the Klipsch are falling short?
> 
> But to answer your question - YES, either of those speakers are fine for Atmos. I've got the DI8R, and I really like them. The DI6.5R will be similar (might be a bit better in the mids actually). Aesthetically, I prefer the DT over the Polk, but keep in mind, if you are direct replacing the speakers - the DefTec uses a smaller cutout diameter than your current Klipsch or the Polks, so there might be a fitment issue you'd need to address....?


----------



## progprog

jsgrise said:


> Agreed, testing is the only way to find what's sounds best for your setup and yourself!
> 
> That being said, Dolby Atmos Theaters aim speakers at the audience:


Well yes....but that's a much bigger audience than most of us have in our living rooms....


----------



## jsgrise

progprog said:


> Well yes....but that's a much bigger audience than most of us have in our living rooms....


So do the mixing studios...


----------



## progprog

jsgrise said:


> So do the mixing studios...


Is there a point being argued? If you are suggesting that Atmos speakers must _always _be aimed at the listener because you see that in pictures of some Dolby facilities...okay. That's an opinion. Mine differs.


----------



## Jonas2

jarjar1 said:


> I was looking for in-ceiling speakers for the basement and figured that I could transfer the one's I currently have to the basement and replace them with something that is considered upgraded to the klipsch.
> 
> The 1650 perform well for the price, but always wondered if more expensive speakers with greater bass and wider dispersion or perhaps a pivotable speaker, would improve the overall atmos experience.


Well, if you've got a subwoofer, preferably subwoofers, in the mix - I wouldn't worry too, too much about the deeper bass response of the Atmos speakers, but wider dispersion and a pivoting feature may or may not improve the overall experience, depending on your space. I do have pivoting tweeters in the DefTechs, and I've not done any sort of measured or scientific analysis, but I think they sound slightly better aimed at the MLP as compared to aimed down. Could be psychoacoustics, and nothing more - useless without real measurements - but I'm happy.  I very much doubt upgrading the speakers would make the experience worse!


----------



## VideoGrabber

jsgrise said:


> So do the mixing studios...


That's a pretty illuminating photo! Do all Atmos mix suites follow that pattern... with the sides so far up the walls?

If so, then I would have to seriously question the Atmos recommendation for home of putting your side speakers right at ear level. I know the motivation is to maximize the separation between the sides and overheads, but ear level is going WAY too far, IMO. Assuming (yeah, I know  ) that you have *any* interest in hearing things the way they were when mixed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

VideoGrabber said:


> That's a pretty illuminating photo! Do all Atmos mix suites follow that pattern... with the sides so far up the walls?
> 
> If so, then I would have to seriously question the Atmos recommendation for home of putting your side speakers right at ear level. I know the motivation is to maximize the separation between the sides and overheads, but ear level is going WAY too far, IMO. Assuming (yeah, I know  ) that you have *any* interest in hearing things the way they were when mixed.


I've heard it's better for the home version (if you don't have taller than 8 foot ceilings) to have the base level surround drivers at just above seated ear height, not necessarily right _at_ ear level. You don't want your head blocking the sound to other viewers.

If the professional dubbing stage is trying to simulate a larger auditorium, I can see why the sides and rears are up higher.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've heard it's better for the home version (if you don't have taller than 8 foot ceilings) to have the base level surround drivers at just above seated ear height, not necessarily right _at_ ear level. You don't want your head blocking the sound to other viewers.


Allowing rear surrounds to be put at 1.25x ear height (Home Atmos guidelines) implicitly allows side surrounds to have some elevation as well ... 

Example (assuming squared speaker positions):


----------



## jsgrise

VideoGrabber said:


> That's a pretty illuminating photo! Do all Atmos mix suites follow that pattern... with the sides so far up the walls?
> 
> If so, then I would have to seriously question the Atmos recommendation for home of putting your side speakers right at ear level. I know the motivation is to maximize the separation between the sides and overheads, but ear level is going WAY too far, IMO. Assuming (yeah, I know  ) that you have *any* interest in hearing things the way they were when mixed.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I've heard it's better for the home version (if you don't have taller than 8 foot ceilings) to have the base level surround drivers at just above seated ear height, not necessarily right _at_ ear level. You don't want your head blocking the sound to other viewers.
> 
> If the professional dubbing stage is trying to simulate a larger auditorium, I can see why the sides and rears are up higher.





maikeldepotter said:


> Allowing rear surrounds to be put at 1.25x ear height (Home Atmos guidelines) implicitly allows side surrounds to have some elevation as well ...
> 
> Example (assuming squared speaker positions):
> 
> View attachment 2320812


Dolby seems to be confused about their own speaker placement. If you take a look at their 5.1.4 Setup Guide, the surround speakers should be at 90-110 degrees. 


In their ATMOS Setup Guideline, they recommand 110-120 degrees (p.20). 

Can some please explain?


----------



## maikeldepotter

jsgrise said:


> Dolby seems to be confused about their own speaker placement. If you take a look at their 5.1.4 Setup Guide, the surround speakers should be at 90-110 degrees.
> 
> 
> In their ATMOS Setup Guideline, they recommand 110-120 degrees (p.20).
> 
> Can some please explain?


That 1-page 5.1.4 Setup Guide seems to have its numbers wrong, as the diagram shows those side surrounds at the same position the Atmos Setup Guidline shows them, which is 110-120 degrees. The 90-110 range seems to be exclusively for lay-outs which include rears.


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> *Allowing* rear surrounds to be put at 1.25x ear height (Home Atmos guidelines) implicitly *allows* side surrounds to have some elevation as well ...


Of course that is true. However, I fear you may have missed my point. 

Dolby documents both _allowed_ and _preferred_ positions. And my comment was indicating that *preferring* them at ear level is a mistake. Not only for the reason that Dan stated (_"You don't want your head blocking the sound to other viewers."_), but more importantly because *it fails to correspond to what the mix engineer was hearing*.

I also don't think there's much disagreement amongst those installing such systems. 'Above ear-level' is pretty much the norm, from what I have observed. And often well above even that 1.25x "allowed" by the Dolby recs. (Clearly violated in that mix-studio photo.) The driving criteria seems instead to be keeping them low enough to maintain adequate separation from the ceiling speakers, to achieve the proper balance. 

What I was suggesting was that perhaps Dolby should not be recommending ear-level (in the home) as "preferred" in the first place.


----------



## jsgrise

VideoGrabber said:


> Do all Atmos mix suites follow that pattern... with the sides so far up the walls?


Some are even worst:












VideoGrabber said:


> What I was suggesting was that perhaps Dolby should not be recommending ear-level (in the home) as "preferred" in the first place.


Yup, I'm happy to have that discussion because I was about to cut my surrounds speaker stands to reach ear level. I'll leave them a couple inches high now


----------



## jsgrise

And so on...










My question is how can you mix 3D audio if, in some cases, all your speakers are on the same plane?


----------



## mrtickleuk

My floor-standing fronts are at *chest *height.
My centre speaker is *below the screen*, even lower than the fronts.

I bet lots of people have a similar situation.

For this reason I have my side surrounds at a height that is JUST above head height, as low as I could get them, to keep them _on the same plane_ (as recommended) as the fronts and centre.

I don't like the idea that you'd willingly create two different height planes for the "bed" layer, unless it was a compromise with immovable objects in the room forcing the height of your rears much higher than they should be.


----------



## richlife

stikle said:


> Nolan barely cares about surround sound in my experience. The bluray Interstellar audio mix, in my opinion, sucked. And I could barely understand Bane (from Batman) when I was actually in a real theater.
> 
> Hopefully the audio has been remixed for the 4K release, for your sake.


Yes, me too, but I think it would be unusual if it was not remixed for UHD, and...



jsgrise said:


> I was just revisiting Interstellar yesterday using DSU and thought it sounded quite good. What didn't you like about the mix? or the editing?


... given that and my consistent success with the A3060 resolving muddy or bad issues from various sources, as well as the quality of this movie, I have no real concerns with getting the UHD version regardless of mix. 

As for the topic at hand of the elevation of side surrounds, this has been a great discussion.



jsgrise said:


> ...
> 
> Yup, I'm happy to have that discussion because I was about to cut my surrounds speaker stands to reach ear level. I'll leave them a couple inches high now


I too am happy for it since I've been toying with (intended to) moving my bipolar sides (each in a reflecting corner -- see pics in my sig HT thread) down from a 5 1/2 feet center to 4 1/2 feet. Not a big difference, but still about 40% farther below my rear presence ceiling speakers (tweeters directed toward MLP) which I expect to actually matter. As was said earlier, it really is all about trying the options out and deciding on what YOU (or I) like.


----------



## healthnut

I’m attempting to get the 4k Cars 3 to output Dolby Atmos with no success, it simply defaults to Dolby Digital. There’s no surround option on the disc menu. I’ve verified object decoder is on in my 3060 and also confirmed that presence speakers are all enabled. I also double checked I have the 4k disc playing on my Panasonic 900 UHD player. I’ve toggled surround decoder, info, etc, all without success. Suggestions appreciated. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

healthnut said:


> I?m attempting to get the 4k Cars 3 to output Dolby Atmos with no success, it simply defaults to Dolby Digital. There?s no surround option on the disc menu. I?ve verified object decoder is on in my 3060 and also confirmed that presence speakers are all enabled. I also double checked I have the 4k disc playing on my Panasonic 900 UHD player. I?ve toggled surround decoder, info, etc, all without success. Suggestions appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They defaulted the disc audio to a lower quality track. You have to go into the disc's audio setup menu and choose the Atmos track.


----------



## jsgrise

Dan Hitchman said:


> They defaulted the disc audio to a lower quality track. You have to go into the disc's audio setup menu and choose the Atmos track.


I never understood why studios would default a lesser quality track, The Dark Knight blu-ray was like that and I never got it?!?

Please someone enlighten me!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jsgrise said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They defaulted the disc audio to a lower quality track. You have to go into the disc's audio setup menu and choose the Atmos track.
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why studios would default a lesser quality track, The Dark Knight blu-ray was like that and I never got it?!?
> 
> Please someone enlighten me!
Click to expand...

The track also suffers from Disney Home Video's current wave of dynamically compressed near-field mixes. 

It's like someone squashed it with a Night Mode.


----------



## jsgrise

Dan Hitchman said:


> The track also suffers from Disney Home Video's current wave of dynamically compressed near-field mixes.
> 
> It's like someone squashed it with a Night Mode.


Or could it be to play it safe with kids hearing since children is the targeted audience?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jsgrise said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The track also suffers from Disney Home Video's current wave of dynamically compressed near-field mixes.
> 
> It's like someone squashed it with a Night Mode.
> 
> 
> 
> Or could it be to play it safe with kids hearing since children is thehg targeted audience?
Click to expand...

Disney and PIXAR mixes used to be amazingly powerful, so I think it has more to do with them dumbing them down to sound good on a soundbar, not an audiophile system.

Guardians and Pirates also have squashed mixes.


----------



## Jonas2

jsgrise said:


> I never understood why studios would default a lesser quality track, The Dark Knight blu-ray was like that and I never got it?!?
> 
> Please someone enlighten me!


Game of Thrones Atmos editions are the same way......the ATMOS editions......


----------



## healthnut

Dan Hitchman said:


> They defaulted the disc audio to a lower quality track. You have to go into the disc's audio setup menu and choose the Atmos track.




True, it was defaulting to DD, but there was no option on the disc audio menu to fix this. The solution turned out to be pressing the Audio button on the Panasonic remote WHILE THE MOVIE WAS PLAYING and select Dolby Tru HD from the drop down menu. Hopefully this will help others who find themselves in a similar situation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TXKDUB

Need help with this small problem from the very smart people here on this forum. 


I have ROTEL RSP1098 and RMB 1555 and will be getting new speakers for Christmas/New Yr (Definitive Technology) BP9060 towers the CS9060 center, SR9080 Rear surround and the A90 ATMOS modules. 


Given the new ATMOS modules with this speaker purchase I have been told my current ROTEL equipment will need to be changed out in order to process the Dolby Atmos. The RSP1098 and RMB1555 won't be able to process. Not happy to hear that as that wasn't in the budget LOL
Please help with suggestions that I hope are cost effective (NOT EXPENSIVE) to remedy this situation. If it does take me getting updated equipment please offer a comparable solution in quality to the ROTEL


----------



## VideoGrabber

jsgrise said:


> My question is how can you mix 3D audio if, in some cases, all your speakers are on the same plane?


Well, you couldn't. But that's not the case here. The side surrounds are only 64% of the way up the walls. Here's the pic with some gamma boost, so you can see the speakers more clearly:










Interestingly though, I see in this case that while the sides are aimed at the MLP, some of the ceiling speakers appear to be facing out to the sides. The picture isn't lit well enough to be certain though.



mrtickleuk said:


> My floor-standing fronts are at *chest *height.
> My centre speaker is *below the screen*, even lower than the fronts. For this reason I have my side surrounds at a height that is JUST above head height, as low as I could get them, to keep them _on the same plane_ (as recommended) as the fronts and centre.


Assuming the front LCRs are behind the screen, the sides in the studio above are pretty close to the same level. I.e., behind-screen speakers in theaters are usually elevated ABOVE the centerline, about 2/3 of the screen height up. That's to ensure that the sound doesn't get lost below the feet of the rear seats. 



> I don't like the idea that you'd willingly create two different height planes for the "bed" layer, unless it was a compromise with immovable objects in the room forcing the height of your rears much higher than they should be.


Two completely separate height planes, no. However a bed layer that sloped gently up should not be a problem. And in a home theater with 2 or 3 rows of seating, it's almost mandatory.


----------



## noah katz

jsgrise said:


> I never understood why studios would default a lesser quality track, The Dark Knight blu-ray was like that and I never got it?!?
> 
> Please someone enlighten me!



Perhaps it's because an Atmos user is likely to be more tech-savvy than the average user and able to figure out how to get their desired soundtrack.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Dan Hitchman said:


> Disney and PIXAR mixes used to be amazingly powerful, so I think it has more to do with them dumbing them down to sound good on a soundbar, not an audiophile system.
> 
> Guardians and Pirates also have squashed mixes.


Thanks for that confirmation! You are the first person I have read comment on that deficiency, besides Martin Leibman (over at b-r.c):



> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales features a Dolby Atmos soundtrack that, compared to the Blu-ray's DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 lossless soundtrack... *isn't quite as good*. Well, maybe "good" isn't the right word. *It's not nearly as "dynamic." Not nearly as "punchy."* The track is certainly more than technically capable... But when the chips are down and the track is tasked with going full-throttle action and excitement, it can't match the vigor and tenacity (or low end engagement) that the DTS track has on offer. It's not puny, but it lacks the ultra-aggressive chops that the DTS track delivers. ... The top layer is generally used in modest support of action, but the DTS track does nearly as good a job with raw stage saturation.


If that really IS the case (compressing dynamic range for soundbars and living room TVs), hopefully it's not a trend. I don't think the studios are doing anyone any favors... including themselves. If the Atmos tracks start to become perceived to be of lesser quality, that will hurt them where it counts (UHD sales).


He doesn't echo that observation about the Atmos track on GOTG2 though:



> Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2's Dolby Atmos soundtrack marks a nice little improvement over the Blu-ray's DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 lossless soundtrack. This presentation plays with *a noticeably fuller and more robust stance*. Added overhead presence is rarely, if ever, significant, but what is significant is the sense of complimentary space. ... Action scenes, particularly various and intense space battles, offer *a more conclusive sound field* where the top layer again draws the listener in with increased detail, depth of field, and total immersion. ... Whether full-bodied music, faultless low end depth, or precise action effects, every square inch around the stage is saturated as needed, and the expectedly precise dialogue makes this is *a top-of-the-line reference Atmos track*.


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> Disney and PIXAR mixes used to be amazingly powerful, so I think it has more to do with them dumbing them down to sound good on a soundbar, not an audiophile system.
> 
> *Guardians and Pirates also have squashed mixes*.


Pirates sounded absolutely fantastic and boasted one of my top five Atmos mixes to date, I firmly believe most Atmos mixes are about 10db to hot already and Disney may just have it right


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audiofan1 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney and PIXAR mixes used to be amazingly powerful, so I think it has more to do with them dumbing them down to sound good on a soundbar, not an audiophile system.
> 
> *Guardians and Pirates also have squashed mixes*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pirates sounded absolutely fantastic and boasted one of my top five Atmos mixes to date, I firmly believe most Atmos mixes are about 10db to hot already and Disney may just have it right
Click to expand...

They are loud, but they are not nuanced. They come across as if heavier than normal dynamic compression was utilized.


----------



## Gus 2

Sorry about this non related topic any advice would be greatly appreciated. I just purchased a Yamaha rx a3060 and I was wondering if I can use my old Yamaha rx v1079 as a power amp to run a 11.1 setup (7.2.4 atmos)If I run the pre outs from the 3060 to one of the audio inputs(audio 1) on the 1079 will it work


----------



## jsgrise

Gus 2 said:


> Sorry about this non related topic any advice would be greatly appreciated. I just purchased a Yamaha rx a3060 and I was wondering if I can use my old Yamaha rx v1079 as a power amp to run a 11.1 setup (7.2.4 atmos)If I run the pre outs from the 3060 to one of the audio inputs(audio 1) on the 1079 will it work


Yes!


----------



## Gus 2

jsgrise said:


> Yes!


Thanks for the reply would I need to do any additional changes in the 1079 for example doing a factory reset,setting pure direct mode,input source ,amp assign?


----------



## jsgrise

Gus 2 said:


> Thanks for the reply would I need to do any additional changes in the 1079 for example doing a factory reset,setting pure direct mode,input source ,amp assign?


I would just put it in pure direct mode to make sure to EQ is applied and maybe some here could help with the level on the 1079...


----------



## Gus 2

jsgrise said:


> I would just put it in pure direct mode to make sure to EQ is applied and maybe some here could help with the level on the 1079...


Thanks Im hoping I wont lose any of the atmos processing by going this route as alternate to a 2 channel pre amp


----------



## jsgrise

Gus 2 said:


> Thanks Im hoping I wont lose any of the atmos processing by going this route as alternate to a 2 channel pre amp


Why would you? Your 1079 will just act as a external amp. All the processing is done in you 3060. A "2-channel pre-amp" is for stereo only


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> They are loud, but they are not nuanced. They come across as if heavier than normal dynamic compression was utilized.


 I've found most soundtracks as such to have a better dynamic range, some examples being Oblivion, Oz The great and Powerful and a few more. Pirates in particular was nuanced to the point of besting Master and Commander for ship creeks if you will and when going full tilt the immersion level was pin point and pans were multi dimensional ,I simply loved the sound design.


----------



## petetherock

I was just wondering:
In the recent Black Friday sale, I have acquired quite a few 4k discs with Atmos and I have compared them to the non-Atmos equipped BR, and I must say, the results truly vary. That also applies to discs with DTS-X.

Some were a true revelation, and the extra $$ put in was definitely worth it, but there were some that IMHO, demonstrated minimal difference.. It was not that they were bad, but it was not much better in sonic immersion, and I was disappointed.
I wonder if anyone has some discs which let them down?
And maybe some which were like a Picasso with a sonic brush?


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Of course that is true. However, I fear you may have missed my point.
> 
> Dolby documents both _allowed_ and _preferred_ positions. And my comment was indicating that *preferring* them at ear level is a mistake. Not only for the reason that Dan stated (_"You don't want your head blocking the sound to other viewers."_), but more importantly because *it fails to correspond to what the mix engineer was hearing*.
> 
> I also don't think there's much disagreement amongst those installing such systems. 'Above ear-level' is pretty much the norm, from what I have observed. And often well above even that 1.25x "allowed" by the Dolby recs. (Clearly violated in that mix-studio photo.) The driving criteria seems instead to be keeping them low enough to maintain adequate separation from the ceiling speakers, to achieve the proper balance.
> 
> What I was suggesting was that perhaps Dolby should not be recommending ear-level (in the home) as "preferred" in the first place.


The IMO most plausible cause for this discrepancy is that Dolby realized that the typical ATMOS overhead speaker locations were laterally too high to get satisfactory results with their DSU up-mixer (in my experience and that of some others, feeding extracted ambient cues (L/R out-of-phase info) to higher placed speakers works best with an Auro3D like setup, especially for the front heights). Dolby's Atmos Home Theater Guidelines might reflect their effort to find the best balance between Atmos and DSU performance: laterally lowering the top speakers for DSU by putting them in-line with the L/R mains (instead of the Lc/Rc positions), AND keep a minimum separation angle of 45 degrees with the side speakers for Atmos. For the average home theater that means putting the base speakers at ear level, so that became their recommendation for us 'home folks' ...


----------



## Nalleh

petetherock said:


> I was just wondering:
> In the recent Black Friday sale, I have acquired quite a few 4k discs with Atmos and I have compared them to the non-Atmos equipped BR, and I must say, the results truly vary. That also applies to discs with DTS-X.
> 
> Some were a true revelation, and the extra $$ put in was definitely worth it, but there were some that IMHO, demonstrated minimal difference.. It was not that they were bad, but it was not much better in sonic immersion, and I was disappointed.
> I wonder if anyone has some discs which let them down?
> And maybe some which were like a Picasso with a sonic brush?


You are correct. I would say at least half of the Atmos discs released to date is no better than many non Atmos discs played with DSU. And all three formats do this. A Atmos release is NOT a garantuee that it is a stellar track, it seems sometimes they just stick a Atmos sticker on it and call it a day.


----------



## jsgrise

I guess things will get better with time, as techniciens get accustomed to 3D audio. Like comparing a 5.1 mix from the 1990-2000s and one of today's.


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> I was just wondering:
> In the recent Black Friday sale, I have acquired quite a few 4k discs with Atmos and I have compared them to the non-Atmos equipped BR, and I must say, the results truly vary. That also applies to discs with DTS-X.
> 
> Some were a true revelation, and the extra $$ put in was definitely worth it, but there were some that IMHO, demonstrated minimal difference.. It was not that they were bad, but it was not much better in sonic immersion, and I was disappointed.
> I wonder if anyone has some discs which let them down?
> And maybe some which were like a Picasso with a sonic brush?


We recently watched Sony's 60th Anniversary UHD Blu-ray edition of The Bridge On the River Kwai in 4K/HDR and with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack. It was glorious.

For those who have been less than enthused about the spate of comic-book flicks churned out ad nauseum lately, this is a gem of a movie that really bears rewatching. Thank you, Sony, and more especially thank you, Sir David and Sir Alec, for a memorable artistic creation.


----------



## zero83

I have a question about some atmis speakers i want to get


I want to get the Onkyo SKH-410 dolby atmos enabled upfiring speakers.

I want to double check on placement.
My cieling is only 3 ft above my front speakers. Will this be sufficient for placing the atmos ones on top. I am sitting about 8 ft from my mains. The way the bounce will happen, is that the sound will be slightly in front. Will this be a problem? 
I have read through the dolby documentation and am still confused. Any advise.

Does anyone have these speakers?


----------



## jsgrise

zero83 said:


> I have a question about some atmis speakers i want to get
> 
> 
> I want to get the Onkyo SKH-410 dolby atmos enabled upfiring speakers.
> 
> I want to double check on placement.
> My cieling is only 3 ft above my front speakers. Will this be sufficient for placing the atmos ones on top. I am sitting about 8 ft from my mains. The way the bounce will happen, is that the sound will be slightly in front. Will this be a problem?
> I have read through the dolby documentation and am still confused. Any advise.
> 
> Does anyone have these speakers?


Honestly I would not invest in up-firing Atmos speakers. Can you install in or on ceiling speakers? Yes it can be more demanding, (wiring, plaster, etc) but the difference is night and day.


----------



## Erod

jsgrise said:


> Why would you? Your 1079 will just act as a external amp. All the processing is done in you 3060. A "2-channel pre-amp" is for stereo only


So if my Anthem pre-amp is capable of processing 7.2.4, I can go to 9.2.6 by just adding a 4-channel amp and speakers? How does the Anthem process those four additional channels? Where do I connect those additional channels on the Anthem?


----------



## jsgrise

Erod said:


> So if my Anthem pre-amp is capable of processing 7.2.4, I can go to 9.2.6 by just adding a 4-channel amp and speakers? How does the Anthem process those four additional channels? Where do I connect those additional channels on the Anthem?


No because your Anthem process 7.2.4 channels, not 9.2.6. You could replicate some channels, like side surrounds, if you have multiple rows. But it still would not had discrete channels.


----------



## zero83

jsgrise said:


> zero83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question about some atmis speakers i want to get
> 
> 
> I want to get the Onkyo SKH-410 dolby atmos enabled upfiring speakers.
> 
> I want to double check on placement.
> My cieling is only 3 ft above my front speakers. Will this be sufficient for placing the atmos ones on top. I am sitting about 8 ft from my mains. The way the bounce will happen, is that the sound will be slightly in front. Will this be a problem?
> I have read through the dolby documentation and am still confused. Any advise.
> 
> Does anyone have these speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly I would not invest in up-firing Atmos speakers. Can you install in or on ceiling speakers? Yes it can be more demanding, (wiring, plaster, etc) but the difference is night and day.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatley i cant put speakers in my ceiling. So the upfiring speakers are my only choice.

What about normal bookshelf speakers either mounted on a wall flush above my fronts, or angled up toward the cieling sitting on top of my fronts? 

Any thaughts on that?


----------



## jsgrise

zero83 said:


> Unfortunatley i cant put speakers in my ceiling. So the upfiring speakers are my only choice.
> 
> What about normal bookshelf speakers either mounted on a wall flush above my fronts, or angled up toward the cieling sitting on top of my fronts?
> 
> Any thaughts on that?


Yes, Front Heights would still be a lot better than the reflective speakers. I would also suggest to add Rear Height if you can swing it.


----------



## Erod

jsgrise said:


> No because your Anthem process 7.2.4 channels, not 9.2.6. You could replicate some channels, like side surrounds, if you have multiple rows. But it still would not had discrete channels.


That's exactly what I thought. Replicating speakers would alter the object placement of Atmos.

There are plenty of posts suggesting that you can add wides and heights by adding other 7.1 receivers or amps, but how would that be identified as discreet wides or heights? Made no sense to me.


----------



## jsgrise

Erod said:


> That's exactly what I thought. Replicating speakers would alter the object placement of Atmos.
> 
> There are plenty of posts suggesting that you can add wides and heights by adding other 7.1 receivers or amps, but how would that be identified as discreet wides or heights? Made no sense to me.


Because one receiver would take care of the bed plane (L, C, R, FW, S, SB) and the other the top plan (TF, TR). Now you just need to calibrate everything to go hand in hand. Would I jump into it? Sounds like a pain in the ass to me so I don't know...


----------



## Erod

jsgrise said:


> Because one receiver would take care of the bed plane (L, C, R, FW, S, SB) and the other the top plan (TF, TR). Now you just need to calibrate everything to go hand in hand. Would I jump into it? Sounds like a pain in the ass to me so I don't know...


But wouldn't the FW and TF in that scenario just be the same signal replicated? Yes, that sounds like a pain in the ass for sure with almost no payoff.


----------



## usc1995

Erod said:


> But wouldn't the FW and TF in that scenario just be the same signal replicated? Yes, that sounds like a pain in the ass for sure with almost no payoff.




It can be done but it is very complex. Take a look at Mashies thread where he uses multiple AVRs to accomplish 9.2.6. While complicated, it is much cheaper than something like a Trinnov that would otherwise be required. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...633-tower-cinema-budget-9-1-6-12x12-room.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## VideoGrabber

Nalleh said:


> ...it seems sometimes they just stick a Atmos sticker on it and call it a day.


I wish! About the Atmos sticker, that is. That would make it a whole lot easier, than doing a "Where's Waldo?" on the back of the case. 

They certainly don't make it easy, with their fine print, and tiny logos. A tiny logoized 'Dolby Audio', vs 'Dolby Atmos', hiding in the bushes. Gimme a break.


----------



## jsgrise

Erod said:


> But wouldn't the FW and TF in that scenario just be the same signal replicated?


They would be discrete channels since each receiver would process them as discrete channels.


----------



## Johnico

Can anyone recommend a 4K uhd HDMI cable 3 or 6 feet that will work well with Atmos and my Denon receiver Too many choices on amazon.


----------



## snpanago

Johnico said:


> Can anyone recommend a 4K uhd HDMI cable 3 or 6 feet that will work well with Atmos and my Denon receiver Too many choices on amazon.


Monoprice Premium Certified High Speed HDMI cables should be a consideration.


----------



## Jonas2

Johnico said:


> Can anyone recommend a 4K uhd HDMI cable 3 or 6 feet that will work well with Atmos and my Denon receiver Too many choices on amazon.


I went with the Belden-FE series from Blue Jeans Cable - not the cheapest, but very reasonable for what you get. They are a bit on the thick side, so tight bends BEWARE! But tight bends are normally not advisable anyway (sometimes can't be avoided and a cable with a thinner jacket might be better in that circumstance). These cables are well-built, solid fit - not too tight, but not sloppy loose like some.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Nalleh said:


> I would say at least half of the Atmos discs released to date is no better than many non Atmos discs played with DSU.


So does that imply that DSU is just really, really good? Or that those 50% of Atmos titles are rather mediocre?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Gus 2 said:


> Sorry about this non related topic any advice would be greatly appreciated. I just purchased a Yamaha rx a3060 and I was wondering if I can use my old Yamaha rx v1079 as a power amp to run a 11.1 setup (7.2.4 atmos)If I run the pre outs from the 3060 to one of the audio inputs(audio 1) on the 1079 will it work


Yes.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Erod said:


> But wouldn't the FW and TF in that scenario just be the same signal replicated?


No. Not with the proper pair of AVRs, properly configured.




> Yes, that sounds like a pain in the ass for sure...


Admittedly so. 




> ...with almost no payoff.


And again, no. There definitely IS a payoff, but whether the effort is worth it is up to each individual. But if you'd like to achieve something resembling what a Trinnov can provide, for vastly less coin, then it's gonna take some work on your part.

There is a whole thread dedicated to this topic. I'd suggest you check that out.

In a nutshell, if you want Wides, then it's best to start out with one of your two AVRs supporting them. (You can also matrix out Wides, but they won't contain object content that way.) Feed your HDMI signal to both (or cascade them), and have AVR#1 decode one pair of Height channels, but don't hook them up (send them to Pre-out). That pulls them out of that mix. Then have AVR#2 handle all 4 ceiling speakers.


----------



## Nalleh

VideoGrabber said:


> So does that imply that DSU is just really, really good? Or that those 50% of Atmos titles are rather mediocre?


Both!

Atmos CAN be spectacular, and DSU CAN be spectacular. But neither is a given. You simply don’t know until you see the movie and hear the audiotrack.

But try the movie «Into The Storm» in DSU or «Cloverfield», and you will be amazed at what DSU can do.


And yes, i have seen Atmos movies i wouldn’t even call 5.1 just by listening to it.


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> The IMO most plausible cause for this discrepancy is that Dolby realized that the typical ATMOS overhead speaker locations were laterally too high to get satisfactory results with their DSU up-mixer...


That is an interesting hypothesis. That pure Atmos could work as well (or better) with the height speakers pulled in more closely to the Lc/Rc positions, but DSU considerations led to better results in a broader configuration (possibly w/o damaging Atmos to any significant degree).

If that were true, then obviously pulling the heights out further to the sides will result in the bed-layer surrounds needing to move down to accomodate them.



> (in my experience and that of some others, feeding extracted ambient cues (L/R out-of-phase info) to higher placed speakers works best with an Auro3D like setup, especially for the front heights).


Are you suggesting that is what DSU is doing? 

[I have no clue what DSU is doing.  I had initially thought it may have been similar to PLIIz height extraction, using L/R sourcing the TF, and some combination of the side & back surrounds for TR. Then I found out DSU generates only a single height pair.  And then replicates that to both TF and TR. ]


----------



## jsgrise

VideoGrabber said:


> Then I found out DSU generates only a single height pair.  And then replicates that to both TF and TR.


Really? Man I never expected that?!! What about Neural:X?


----------



## Craig Mecak

jsgrise said:


> Really? Man I never expected that?!! What about Neural:X?


From what I can notice in my set up with Neural:X, different information IS sent to front/rear height speaker pairs.


----------



## jsgrise

Craig Mecak said:


> From what I can notice in my set up with Neural:X, different information IS sent to front/rear height speaker pairs.


I'm still having a hard time believe that DSU send the same content to the TF and TR, if true it's some real BS.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Nalleh said:


> But try the movie «Into The Storm» in DSU or «Cloverfield», and you will be amazed at what DSU can do.


Thanks! I definitely will. I just need to get a room finished first.


----------



## VideoGrabber

jsgrise said:


> I'm still having a hard time believe that DSU send the same content to the TF and TR...


I understand your reaction. I suppose it is possible I misinterpreted what Josh Zyber was saying, because it was in the context of a more complicated setup. But when I boldly stated my interpretation, no one contradicted me.

You can take a look starting here, and work your way back to Josh's comment, and forward to the followup discussion, here.

But yeah, I was surprised to hear that DSU generates just a single height pair, while Neural:X generates two pair. I had expected DSU to do the same, but I can't honestly say I have ever read anywhere what it actually does do (before the comment by JoshZ). It should at least do F/B and L/R positioning, one would think.


[*Addendum*: I found a decent discussion on DSU at the beginning by Dolby's Director of Home Theater. He describes things fairly well (though superficially), but while he says there is no _user contro_l of overhead F/B (as there is with ProLogic and descendants), he never says that there is no F/B. He actually claims that, _"The new algorithm we employ for Dolby Surround does a better job of extracting and separating elements of the mix—including ambient content—and *distributing them evenly throughout the soundstage*."_ {my emphasis} Which doesn't sound like L/R only to me. ]


----------



## VideoGrabber

Here's another bit of info, from a Dolby blog...



> Alan Seefeldt, a senior sound technology researcher at Dolby, explains that the Dolby® surround upmixer in a Dolby Atmos home theater analyzes non Dolby Atmos audio, “identifies diffuse, or nondirectional, components of the signal, [and distributes them] *evenly across all of the available loudspeakers, including those overhead*, to create a more immersive experience.” The Dolby surround upmixer leaves alone the directional components of the mix, such as dialogue and solo instruments, and preserves “the original spatial balance of the mix.” This results in what Seefeldt calls “a very high quality separation between these diffuse and directional components.”


I see nothing in there that suggests only a single pair of overheads are decoded. Actually, the opposite seems to be implied. [Again, the emphasis was added by me.] But it really doesn't say, either way. And maybe they were being elusive by design. I suppose even sending the same signal to both TFL and TRL would be considered "distributing them evenly".

It may be worth noting that the primary goal of DSU is to create a 3D ambient field, to enhance spaciousness... not synthesize specific locations for specific sounds.

Perhaps @Joshz can stop by and clarify (with better sources than I have found). Then we can stop speculating.


----------



## Craig Mecak

It's easy enough to test.

Capture the outputs of the Front/Rear height channels via the Pre-Outs on the AV Receiver and compare the Front waveforms to the Back waveforms via a programme like Audacity.


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Here's another bit of info, from a Dolby blog...
> 
> I see nothing in there that suggests only a single pair of overheads are decoded. Actually, the opposite seems to be implied. [Again, the emphasis was added by me.] But it really doesn't say, either way. And maybe they were being elusive by design. I suppose even sending the same signal to both TFL and TRL would be considered "distributing them evenly".
> 
> It may be worth noting that the primary goal of DSU is to create a 3D ambient field, to enhance spaciousness... not synthesize specific locations for specific sounds.
> 
> Perhaps @Joshz can stop by and clarify (with better sources than I have found). Then we can stop speculating.


No speculation needed as this issue has conclusively been addressed some year ago starting here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...surround-upmixing-thread-17.html#post47445817

I also did some verification myself here:



maikeldepotter said:


> Even with such listening test it will be difficult to reach conclusive results. The best way is to combine the signals of two overhead speakers on the same side (e.g. left top front and left top rear), and apply inverted polarity on one of the signals. If you get total electrical cancellation it means that the signals are identical.
> 
> This morning I performed such test: Mad Max, PCM from player, DSU activated, Ltf+Ltr combined with stereo-to-mono converter, polarity of one signal inverted. Result: total cancellation. No big deal, just good to know how things work. I still love Dolby


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> No speculation needed as this issue has conclusively been addressed some year ago starting here:
> 
> I also did some verification myself here:


Thanks for coming to the rescue, Maikel! I just don't know HOW I missed that in a 47,000 post thread. 

Still a bit surprising, but good to have the question resolved.

It does make my planning for a 6 ceiling-speaker install seem a bit silly, when


----------



## Erod

VideoGrabber said:


> No. Not with the proper pair of AVRs, properly configured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, no. There definitely IS a payoff, but whether the effort is worth it is up to each individual. But if you'd like to achieve something resembling what a Trinnov can provide, for vastly less coin, then it's gonna take some work on your part.
> 
> There is a whole thread dedicated to this topic. I'd suggest you check that out.
> 
> In a nutshell, if you want Wides, then it's best to start out with one of your two AVRs supporting them. (You can also matrix out Wides, but they won't contain object content that way.) Feed your HDMI signal to both (or cascade them), and have AVR#1 decode one pair of Height channels, but don't hook them up (send them to Pre-out). That pulls them out of that mix. Then have AVR#2 handle all 4 ceiling speakers.



So basically I'd need another 11.1 receiver that only is using the heights to make this work. How would my existing pre/pro (Anthem 60) know to use the Heights 1 output as the front wide discreet signals instead of the top front signals? How do you "assign" it as front wide discreet?


----------



## Erod

VideoGrabber said:


> Then I found out DSU generates only a single height pair.  And then replicates that to both TF and TR. ]


A good example of this is in "The Revenant".

Toward the end when Captain Henry gets up from the table and goes upstairs and walks across the ceiling speakers to get Fitzgerald's money, there's a very cool effect where his steps go from the FL speaker to the LS/LTF/LTB speakers to the RS/RTF/RTB speakers.

However, I do notice that the sound is equally in both the top left front and back speakers and then the top right front and back speakers. Atmos could do that more specifically.

I don't get the semi-angst some have over this "revelation" about DSU. If it is improving existing bluray discs with better sound (which it is), then what's the beef with it?  

I'm more disappointed so far with how hard it is to find a well-mixed Atmos disc. Most of them are less than inspiringly done.


----------



## mrtickleuk

maikeldepotter said:


> No speculation needed as this issue has conclusively been addressed some year ago starting here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...surround-upmixing-thread-17.html#post47445817
> 
> I also did some verification myself here:


Thankyou very much for re-posting that so quickly. You've probably saved a few hundred duplicate posts


----------



## Nalleh

Erod said:


> A good example of this is in "The Revenant".
> 
> Toward the end when Captain Henry gets up from the table and goes upstairs and walks across the ceiling speakers to get Fitzgerald's money, there's a very cool effect where his steps go from the FL speaker to the LS/LTF/LTB speakers to the RS/RTF/RTB speakers.
> 
> However, I do notice that the sound is equally in both the top left front and back speakers and then the top right front and back speakers. Atmos could do that more specifically.
> 
> I don't get the semi-angst some have over this "revelation" about DSU. If it is improving existing bluray discs with better sound (which it is), then what's the beef with it?
> 
> I'm more disappointed so far with how hard it is to find a well-mixed Atmos disc. Most of them are less than inspiringly done.


I have mentioned that exact scene before, and i played it in Neural:X. You should try it too, as it is incredible in N:X! So much better than DSU and Auromaric. After i heard it the first time, my jaw dropped, and i looked up and followed the steps, it was uncanny real! So i rewinded and tried it in DSU and Auromatic: not even close!


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> I have mentioned that exact scene before, and i played it in Neural:X. You should try it too, as it is incredible in N:X! So much better than DSU and Auromaric. After i heard it the first time, my jaw dropped, and i looked up and followed the steps, it was uncanny real! So i rewinded and tried it in DSU and Auromatic: not even close!


Unlike DSU, Neural:X generates different feeds for Front and Rear heights/tops.


----------



## Erod

Nalleh said:


> I have mentioned that exact scene before, and i played it in Neural:X. You should try it too, as it is incredible in N:X! So much better than DSU and Auromaric. After i heard it the first time, my jaw dropped, and i looked up and followed the steps, it was uncanny real! So i rewinded and tried it in DSU and Auromatic: not even close!


So is Neural now the winner? It seems DSU is preferred everywhere I read, but is the tide shifting?


----------



## Nalleh

maikeldepotter said:


> Unlike DSU, Neural:X generates different feeds for Front and Rear heights/tops.



Playing that scene makes that difference clear 



Erod said:


> So is Neural now the winner? It seems DSU is preferred everywhere I read, but is the tide shifting?


Well, in that scene N:X is the winner. That is BY FAR the best upmixing example i have heard! Make no mistake: N:X can be just as good as DSU, it all depends on the mix, and what each upmixer can draw out of it.
I my experience N:X works best on DTS HD tracks, while DSU works best on Dolby True HD tracks. And newer movies is better than old.

But that is generally speaking, not a rule.


----------



## sdrucker

maikeldepotter said:


> Unlike DSU, Neural:X generates different feeds for Front and Rear heights/tops.


Look on the bright side. You could have a single mono feed to ALL front and rear heights/tops, not just one mono to the left and one mono to the right (i.e. one feed to Ltf/Ltm/Ltr and one to Rtf/Rtm/Rtr).


----------



## Erod

Nalleh said:


> Playing that scene makes that difference clear
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in that scene N:X is the winner. That is BY FAR the best upmixing example i have heard! Make no mistake: N:X can be just as good as DSU, it all depends on the mix, and what each upmixer can draw out of it.
> I my experience N:X works best on DTS HD tracks, while DSU works best on Dolby True HD tracks. And newer movies is better than old.
> 
> But that is generally speaking, not a rule.


That would certainly make sense in terms of origin of the mix, but I never see that written anywhere in a formal publication.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> I never see that written anywhere in a formal publication.


Because lossless packing codecs cannot change the mix. Audio is mixed using uncompressed PCM. For delivering the mix losslessly on disc, the studio has a choice to pack the data by encoding in either DTS-MA or TrueHD. Since both are lossless, then by definition decoding those bitstreams back to PCM will result in tracks that are bit-for-bit identical to the original master. If the decoded PCM tracks are identical to the master, then they are identical to each other. Since they are identical, the upmixer has no idea what codec was used to pack them. So there is no way that DSU can behave differently with TrueHD than it does with DTS-MA.


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> Because lossless packing codecs cannot change the mix. Audio is mixed using uncompressed PCM. For delivering the mix losslessly on disc, the studio has a choice to pack the data by encoding in either DTS-MA or TrueHD. Since both are lossless, then by definition decoding those bitstreams back to PCM will result in tracks that are bit-for-bit identical to the original master. If the decoded PCM tracks are identical to the master, then they are identical to each other. Since they are identical, the upmixer has no idea what codec was used to pack them. So there is no way that DSU can behave differently with TrueHD than it does with DTS-MA.


Well, there you go. Thanks.

The two upmixers do work differently, which is often audibly noticeable, so I'm curious which is doing more work and which is more accurate. My presumption is that it just varies from disc to disc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I've been using DTS Neural: X as well since I have Front Wides. Sounds like DTS might have created the better upmixer in Neural: X, but Dolby created the superior true immersive format in Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> I'm curious which is doing more work and which is more accurate.


Using an Atmos track as a reference, compare its 7.1 version upmixed with both upmixers and see which one sounds more like the reference.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Using an Atmos track as a reference, compare its 7.1 version upmixed with both upmixers and see which one sounds more like the reference.


Taking an idea from http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2763785-ultimate-list-bass-movies-w-frequency-charts.html, shouldn't it be possible to measure the outputs, and then create charts of how different DSU was to the original, and also how different Neural:X was to the orignal?

(I'm not saying it would be easy, but nothing worthwhile is easy!)


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> Taking an idea from http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...mate-list-bass-movies-w-frequency-charts.html, shouldn't it be possible to measure the outputs, and then create charts of how different DSU was to the original, and also how different Neural:X was to the orignal?


Upmixers are designed to take advantage of all the speakers in a system. For example, extracting a centre output between two channels still leaves some residue in the original channels (the extraction isn't perfect). You usually can't hear the residue because the centre output is masking it. If you turn off the extracted centre, you'll hear it. But that's not a flaw since that's not how the upmixer was designed to operate. 

With that in mind, isolating a particular speaker feed (e.g., Left Top Middle) to measure how upmixing compares to native decoding won't give you the complete picture, especially with current upmixers that use multi-band steering (sounds from the Left Top Front and Left Top Rear could give the impression that you're hearing sound from the Left Top Middle even though measurements show otherwise).


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Because lossless packing codecs cannot change the mix. Audio is mixed using uncompressed PCM. For delivering the mix losslessly on disc, the studio has a choice to pack the data by encoding in either DTS-MA or TrueHD. Since both are lossless, then by definition decoding those bitstreams back to PCM will result in tracks that are bit-for-bit identical to the original master. If the decoded PCM tracks are identical to the master, then they are identical to each other. Since they are identical, the upmixer has no idea what codec was used to pack them. So there is no way that DSU can behave differently with TrueHD than it does with DTS-MA.


Unfortunately, there is evidence that (in some ways, at least) the upmixers can be indeed be influenced by the original lossless encoding method if the decoding is done in the receiver or pre/pro. When DTS:X firmware was first made available in D&M equipment, the Dolby Surround upmixer could not be applied to incoming DTS signals and the DTS Neural:X upmixer could not be applied to incoming Dolby signals. Both could be applied to PCM, though. (This was later fixed for D&M equipment. The initial shipment of DTS:X for Pioneer and other manufacturers' equipment, which happened after the D&M firmware fix, still had that same limitation. I haven't followed their threads carefully, so I dunno when, or even if, the firmware of those other manufacturers was ever fixed.)


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Upmixers are designed to take advantage of all the speakers in a system. For example, extracting a centre output between two channels still leaves some residue in the original channels (the extraction isn't perfect). You usually can't hear the residue because the centre output is masking it. If you turn off the extracted centre, you'll hear it. But that's not a flaw since that's not how the upmixer was designed to operate.
> 
> With that in mind, isolating a particular speaker feed (e.g., Left Top Middle) to measure how upmixing compares to native decoding won't give you the complete picture, especially with current upmixers that use multi-band steering (sounds from the Left Top Front and Left Top Rear could give the impression that you're hearing sound from the Left Top Middle even though measurements show otherwise).


Oh yes, I realise all that. Interpreting the graphs would be another matter. I was just talking about creating them.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, there is evidence that (in some ways, at least) the upmixers can be indeed be influenced by the original lossless encoding method if the decoding is done in the receiver or pre/pro. When DTS:X firmware was first made available in D&M equipment, the Dolby Surround upmixer could not be applied to incoming DTS signals and the DTS Neural:X upmixer could not be applied to incoming Dolby signals.


That's not what was being discussed. You're talking about the Dolby suite or DTS suite being loaded on both DSP chips, which prevented the codec from one company being used with the upmixer from the other company. The behavior being discussed had to do with whether an upmixer works best with the same company's codec.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, there is evidence that (in some ways, at least) the upmixers can be indeed be influenced by the original lossless encoding method if the decoding is done in the receiver or pre/pro. When DTS:X firmware was first made available in D&M equipment, the Dolby Surround upmixer could not be applied to incoming DTS signals and the DTS Neural:X upmixer could not be applied to incoming Dolby signals. Both could be applied to PCM, though. (This was later fixed for D&M equipment.


"fixed" is the wrong word, because it wasn't "broken"; the lack of cross-format upmixing functionality in the very early DTS:X firmware was because it wasn't ready yet.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've been using DTS Neural: X as well since I have Front Wides. Sounds like DTS might have created the better upmixer in Neural: X, but Dolby created the superior true immersive format in Atmos.



The home version of DTS:X is apparently frozen in amber as an imprint onto 7.x.4, so if you have more than a 7.x.4 system, all things being equal having an Atmos mix would be preferred due to higher resolution objects being pulled out. Right now that's mostly a high end thing, but as 7.x.6 and 9.x.4 becomes more mainstream, it's going to be more noticeable. Of course, it's not like there's anything in both DTS:X and Atmos to compare in an double-blind test.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Of course, it's not like there's anything in both DTS:X and Atmos to compare in an double-blind test.


There is the odd foreign language title from Asia or India that may contain both formats on one disc. Those are about the only examples I can find.


----------



## jsgrise

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is the odd foreign language title from Asia or India that may contain both formats on one disc. Those are about the only examples I can find.


India is in Asia


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jsgrise said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the odd foreign language title from Asia or India that may contain both formats on one disc. Those are about the only examples I can find.
> 
> 
> 
> India is in Asia
Click to expand...

I mentioned both as a differentiation of movie languages and styles. Bollywood is a thing unto itself.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdrucker said:


> The home version of DTS:X is apparently frozen in amber as an imprint onto 7.x.4, so if you have more than a 7.x.4 system, all things being equal having an Atmos mix would be preferred due to higher resolution objects being pulled out.


I agree and even if you have less than 7.x.4 Atmos is preferable due to the spatial coding technology to simulate more than 20 objects by moving them around in groups.

But just to clarify, although I accept it's not likely to change, this 7.x.4 resulting situation is just how most of the titles have been *authored*, so far. It's not a technical limitation of the home version of DTS:X, but a decision that seems to have been made on the authoring side. ref FilmMixer's post.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I mentioned both as a differentiation of movie languages and styles. Bollywood is a thing unto itself.


Any examples, for someone that might want to take one for the team and has a multi-region BD player?


----------



## sdrucker

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree and even if you have less than 7.x.4 Atmos is preferable due to the spatial coding technology to simulate more than 20 objects by moving them around in groups.
> 
> But just to clarify, although I accept it's not likely to change, this 7.x.4 resulting situation is just how most of the titles have been *authored*, so far. It's not a technical limitation of the home version of DTS:X, but a decision that seems to have been made on the authoring side. ref FilmMixer's post.


Very true, it's an authoring choice. But as Mr. Spock might say, a difference that makes no difference is...no difference. All I know is that due to that choice, any DTS:X disc you buy before any change to the authoring will always be a 7.x.4 mix outside of post-processing or speaker arrays. Whether it's in 2016, 2017 or 2027.

However, every single disc with Atmos will scale up to the number of speakers that your processor can render. That individual copy of Unbroken I picked up in the early days of Atmos can be played on a friend's 5.1.2 setup, a standard 7.1.4 setup, my 11.4.6 preset, or some master of the universe's Kaleidescape stream with up to a 24.1.10 layout in the same week, if the opportunity existed to test it that way. Game and match.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned both as a differentiation of movie languages and styles. Bollywood is a thing unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any examples, for someone that might want to take one for the team and has a multi-region BD player?
Click to expand...

Call of Heroes

The Founding of an Army


Off the top of my head.


----------



## Nalleh

sdrucker said:


> Of course, it's not like there's anything in both DTS:X and Atmos to compare in an double-blind test.





sdrucker said:


> Any examples, for someone that might want to take one for the team and has a multi-region BD player?



Sure, there is plenty  just remeber even if a title is available in several formats, you are not necesserely listening to the same mix. Right, @sdurani ?


Atmos and DTS:X:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Founding-of-an-Army-Blu-ray/191233/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Shock-Wave-4K-Blu-ray/186059/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Call-of-Heroes-3D-Blu-ray/170739/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Monkey-King-2-3D-Blu-ray/153590/

Lalaland US has Atmos, french has DTS:X.

Atmos and Auro:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Johnny-Mnemonic-Blu-ray/171964/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-4K-Blu-ray/153835/

Pixels US has Atmos, UK and DE has Auro 3D

Ghostbusters UHD US has Atmos, UK has Auro 3D
Inferno, US has Atmos, Scandinavian and Australian has Auro 3D
Passengers UHD US has Atmos, DE has Auro 3D(BD)
Spiderman Homecoming UHD US has Atmos, DE has Auro 3D (BD)


----------



## jsgrise

I was watching The Pacific Episode #6 tonight (I know I'm late) and I must admit that even in 5.1.2 (my Venere 2.0 and Wall are B/O) DSU made the experience very cool. I can't imagine with the 4 overheads and SB eventually! 

The Pacific has a terrific DTS-HD track!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nalleh said:


> Sure, there is plenty  just remember even if a title is available in several formats, you are not listening to the same mix. Right, @*sdurani* ?


Though, you can start to differentiate on a system like the one @*sdrucker* has at home using an Altitude processor as he has a larger than 7.1.4 layout. Consumer DTS: X is _only_ up to 7.1.4. 

There can be some issues, of course, depending on how the Dolby Atmos track was derived on the titles with two separate formats. That is, if the Atmos track was created from one of the other, basically, channel based immersive format masters rather than from scratch using the separate PCM sound elements. I would call DTS: X, as it stands, a channel-based format like Auro3D as there are no operational 3D objects in play.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jsgrise said:


> I was watching The Pacific Episode #6 tonight (I know I'm late) and I must admit that even in 5.1.2 (my Venere 2.0 and Wall are B/O) DSU made the experience very cool. I can't imagine with the 4 overheads and SB eventually!
> 
> The Pacific has a terrific DTS-HD track!


If this talk is turning up a deficiency in the Dolby Surround upmixer, then it sounds like you should switch to DTS Neural: X as soon as you have four or more overheads and/or Front Wides in play.


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Are you suggesting that is what DSU is doing?


This is how it's described in the Dolby paper (Next Generation Surround Decoding and Upmixing for Consumer and Professional Applications, November 2014):



> Furthermore, the 2-to-N upmixer can be used to create top surround channels from a legacy 5.1 mix. While a legacy 5.1 mix does not intrinsically carry height information, the upmixer can be used to *extract ambient or diffuse information from the input signals and steer it toward the top surround channels*. The result of spreading ambient content to top surround channels greatly improves the sense of envelopment. In the case of 2 top surround channels, the diffuse signal from both the left and right channels as well as the diffuse signal from left and right surround channels can be combined. In the case of four top surround channels, the diffuse signals can be combined or kept separate. If the diffuse signals from the front and back are kept separate then the top front receives only left and right ambience and the top rear only receives the left and right surround ambience.


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> That is an interesting hypothesis. That pure Atmos could work as well (or better) with the height speakers pulled in more closely to the Lc/Rc positions, but DSU considerations led to better results in a broader configuration (possibly w/o damaging Atmos to any significant degree). If that were true, then obviously pulling the heights out further to the sides will result in the bed-layer surrounds needing to move down to accomodate them.


Think about it. If DSU apparently works so good that in terms of immersiveness it can outperform a number of the native Atmos soundtracks out there, you might wonder why re-recording engineers do not make more use of this same Dolby Surround Upmixing technology in creating overhead feeds for their Atmos mixes. The answer might be just that: In their mixing studios (and commercial cinema's) DSU doesn't sound as good as in our home theaters, because the overhead arrays are positioned differently.

PS By comparison: Dolby Pro Logic IIz documentation mandated that front height speakers not be placed inside the left and right main speakers. I believe the reason for that was to prevent the front soundstage from 'collapsing' (become narrower).


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> Sure, there is plenty  just remeber even if a title is available in several formats, you are not listening to the same mix. Right, @sdurani ?
> 
> 
> Atmos and DTS:X:
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Founding-of-an-Army-Blu-ray/191233/
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Shock-Wave-4K-Blu-ray/186059/
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Call-of-Heroes-3D-Blu-ray/170739/
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Monkey-King-2-3D-Blu-ray/153590/
> 
> Lalaland US has Atmos, french has DTS:X.
> 
> Atmos and Auro:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Johnny-Mnemonic-Blu-ray/171964/
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-4K-Blu-ray/153835/
> 
> Pixels US has Atmos, UK and DE has Auro 3D
> 
> Ghostbusters UHD US has Atmos, UK has Auro 3D
> Inferno, US has Atmos, Scandinavian and Australian has Auro 3D
> Passengers UHD US has Atmos, DE has Auro 3D(BD)
> Spiderman Homecoming UHD US has Atmos, DE has Auro 3D (BD)


No DTS:X + Auro3D combo yet?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdrucker said:


> The home version of DTS:X is apparently frozen in amber as an imprint onto 7.x.4, so if you have more than a 7.x.4 system, all things being equal having an Atmos mix would be preferred due to higher resolution objects being pulled out. Right now that's mostly a high end thing, but as 7.x.6 and 9.x.4 becomes more mainstream, it's going to be more noticeable. Of course, it's not like there's anything in both DTS:X and Atmos to compare in an double-blind test.


Once the next wave of 13.1 AVRs appears, DTS:X and Neural:X will each fully utilize the extended 7.x.6 or 9.x.4 configurations. I'll be curious to see just how noticeable the difference will be. One rather obvious difference will be that Neural:X upmixing uses the wide outputs, while DSU, thus far anyway, has not.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Erod said:


> A good example of this is in "The Revenant".
> 
> Toward the end when Captain Henry gets up from the table and goes upstairs and walks across the ceiling speakers to get Fitzgerald's money, there's a very cool effect where his steps go from the FL speaker to the LS/LTF/LTB speakers to the RS/RTF/RTB speakers.
> 
> However, I do notice that the sound is equally in both the top left front and back speakers and then the top right front and back speakers. Atmos could do that more specifically.


Thanks for your observation.



> I don't get the semi-angst some have over this "revelation" about DSU. If it is improving existing bluray discs with better sound (which it is), then *what's the beef with it*?


Hang on... 3...2...1...



Nalleh said:


> I have mentioned that exact scene before... it is incredible in N:X! *So much better than DSU and Auromaric.* After i heard it the first time, my jaw dropped, and i looked up and followed the steps, it was uncanny real! So i rewinded and tried it in DSU and Auromatic: *not even close!*


:frown:


----------



## VideoGrabber

Erod said:


> The two upmixers do work differently, which is often audibly noticeable, so I'm curious which is doing more work and which is more accurate. My presumption is that it just varies from disc to disc.


It does vary between discs, but from the reviews that I have read, DSU tends to be more accurate, because it takes fewer chances. 

OTOH, NeuralX can produce more stunning results, BUT (as a consequence) it can also make some bizarre mistakes, that totally take you out of the experience. I'm referring to situations where e.g. an overhead signal should be stable in either front or back, but bounces back and forth between them. That's because the algorithm that N:X is using simply can't decide, since it doesn't have enough information to work with. Getting it wrong, and leaving it front OR back would be one thing, but ping-ponging back and forth will be rather distracting.


----------



## jsgrise

Dan Hitchman said:


> If this talk is turning up a deficiency in the Dolby Surround upmixer, then it sounds like you should switch to DTS Neural: X as soon as you have four or more overheads and/or Front Wides in play.


Indeed, I will compare both upmixers as soon as I get my overheads completed. One thing I did not enjoy from Neural:X is that it boost the Surrounds level. Add that to DEQ and it's a bit too much...


----------



## bobbino421

Question will the new tvs with 2.1 HDMI E-Arc work with Dolby Atmos?


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> Call of Heroes
> 
> The Founding of an Army
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head.


Try Helios from Hong Kong.. that fight scene in the underground car park... it's like Band of Brothers Epi 2 (assault on the 108mm guns) on steroids...


----------



## petetherock

Overheard III is another filled with ambient effects.. 
For a little DSU action, try Sparrow... it places you right in the middle of a street in Hong Kong. And there's the super hot Kelly Lin... 
Some sweet jazz too to demo on your speakers


----------



## jsgrise

petetherock said:


> Try Helios from Hong Kong.. that fight scene in the underground car park... it's like Band of Brothers Epi 2 (assault on the 108mm guns) on steroids...


Is the movie any good?


----------



## petetherock

jsgrise said:


> Is the movie any good?


Bought at full price when it first came out as a keeper, enuf said... but if you can understand their native language, it's filled with nuances. 
You can wait til Helios II is filmed to buy both, but it's nice on it's own.


----------



## chi_guy50

bobbino421 said:


> Question will the new tvs with 2.1 HDMI E-Arc work with Dolby Atmos?


Yes, the eARC technology is designed to allow transmission of the high-bitrate audio formats including DTS-HD MA, DTS:X, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Atmos, etc.

Of course, it remains to be seen how the various manufacturers will incorporate HDMI 2.1's features in their products. But, in principal, you should be able to send Dolby Atmos audio from your display to your AVR/SSP/soundbar over HDMI if both devices have the eARC feature.


----------



## Erod

VideoGrabber said:


> It does vary between discs, but from the reviews that I have read, DSU tends to be more accurate, because it takes fewer chances.
> 
> OTOH, NeuralX can produce more stunning results, BUT (as a consequence) it can also make some bizarre mistakes, that totally take you out of the experience. I'm referring to situations where e.g. an overhead signal should be stable in either front or back, but bounces back and forth between them. That's because the algorithm that N:X is using simply can't decide, since it doesn't have enough information to work with. Getting it wrong, and leaving it front OR back would be one thing, but ping-ponging back and forth will be rather distracting.


I spent a few hours with this in mind last night with several movies. I think I have a pretty good handle on it now as to where it stands. 

For this example, I'll refer again to _The Revenant_ (DTS Master HD) because it provides a great example of the debate between the two formats and their strengths and weaknesses. (I have an Anthem 60.)

Yes, there's no doubt that if you want object placement and effect, Neural:X is simply better. It has a far more discreet feel to specific sound, and is a pleasure to behold. Over and over again, you can hear it working to make pseudo Atmos out of non-Atmos, and it's to be commended for that. For those that prioritize that the most, it's the fairly clear choice. There's a crispness and detail to it. 

However....

Take the scene where the Pawnee indian is preparing the shelter for Glass in a windy plain with sparse trees to work with. With Neural:X, the individual sounds of each step and tree snap are distinct and located in the sound field, and wind wisps high over head in specific locations where it hits the trees. Very nice.

But when you switch to DSU....wow. You lose some object effect, but your soundstage explodes like you're suddenly sitting in a theater three times as big as your room, or to be more dramatic, like you're right there in the cold with Glass himself. The wind and air expands in your room to a much larger scale worthy of Yellowstone. Sounds effects aren't lost, but they're more muted, while the setting becomes its own character in the film. Music is bigger, space is bigger, and the sound bubble is fuller.

I went through a few discs last night - Rogue One, The Force Awakens, Revenant, Sherlock Holmes - and that held true for each to varying degrees.

I'm the type that will be driven crazy by this. I want to definitively like one over the other so I can set it and forget it. Not in my DNA. I'm about 60/40 in favor of DSU, but my real hope is that future mixes from both will evolve to take on strengths of each other. The real choice is a combination of both approaches. Perhaps even firmware updates for each application in the future for better processing?


----------



## Nalleh

^^^^ Agreed 

Another example: a while ago i watched Firewall with Harrison Ford on broadcast TV, and it was in 2.0 PCM and i used DSU in a 7.1.4 setup. It had a lot of rain and thunder and it was AMAZING!! I have seldom heard such believable rain and thunder from above and that from a upmixer using only a 2.0 track.

So you never know until you try it, and that’s prt of the fun


----------



## Josh Z

VideoGrabber said:


> I see nothing in there that suggests only a single pair of overheads are decoded. Actually, the opposite seems to be implied. [Again, the emphasis was added by me.] But it really doesn't say, either way. And maybe they were being elusive by design. I suppose even sending the same signal to both TFL and TRL would be considered "distributing them evenly".
> 
> It may be worth noting that the primary goal of DSU is to create a 3D ambient field, to enhance spaciousness... not synthesize specific locations for specific sounds.
> 
> Perhaps @Joshz can stop by and clarify (with better sources than I have found). Then we can stop speculating.


It looks like maikeldepotter already answered this before I caught up with the thread. 

For my own confirmation, I have a "Scatmos" 7.1.6 system using two extra AVRs to derive Top Middle channels between Top Front and Top Rear on each side using ProLogic II. When upmixing with DSU in my primary receiver, all sounds from Top Front Left and Top Rear Left collapse to Top Middle Left once PLII is applied. Same thing on the right. This tells me that the front and rear on each side of the room are mono. If DSU delivered discrete content to TFL and TRL, it would stay in those speakers, not be extracted to the center. 

Unfortunately, I cannot test Neural:X because my primary AVR is a 2014 model that only has Atmos, no DTS:X.


----------



## sdrucker

Roger Dressler said:


> Once the next wave of 13.1 AVRs appears, DTS:X and Neural:X will each fully utilize the extended 7.x.6 or 9.x.4 configurations. I'll be curious to see just how noticeable the difference will be. One rather obvious difference will be that Neural:X upmixing uses the wide outputs, while DSU, thus far anyway, has not.


Utilize, yes. Process all 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 channels simultaneously remains to be seen.


----------



## jake51

Quick question: My couch is right up against the back wall (the projector is hanging right above me)
Would there be any point in getting two rear Atmos speakers as there is zero space behind my seating position?
I get my Atmos AVR tomorrow and have installed the two front ceiling speakers


----------



## showmak

petetherock said:


> Try Helios from Hong Kong.. that fight scene in the underground car park... it's like Band of Brothers Epi 2 (assault on the 108mm guns) on steroids...


I have the Atmos version, at what minute is the scene you mentioned?


----------



## gwsat

Erod said:


> A good example of this is in "The Revenant".
> 
> Toward the end when Captain Henry gets up from the table and goes upstairs and walks across the ceiling speakers to get Fitzgerald's money, there's a very cool effect where his steps go from the FL speaker to the LS/LTF/LTB speakers to the RS/RTF/RTB speakers.
> 
> However, I do notice that the sound is equally in both the top left front and back speakers and then the top right front and back speakers. Atmos could do that more specifically.
> 
> I don't get the semi-angst some have over this "revelation" about DSU. If it is improving existing bluray discs with better sound (which it is), then what's the beef with it?
> 
> I'm more disappointed so far with how hard it is to find a well-mixed Atmos disc. Most of them are less than inspiringly done.





Nalleh said:


> I have mentioned that exact scene before, and i played it in Neural:X. You should try it too, as it is incredible in N:X! So much better than DSU and Auromaric. After i heard it the first time, my jaw dropped, and i looked up and followed the steps, it was uncanny real! So i rewinded and tried it in DSU and Auromatic: not even close!


I agree that using Neural:X for the scene in *The Revenant*, in which Captain climbs the stairs to the loft where his safe is located, creates sensational immersiveness. I compared how Neural:X worked on that scene to the Dolby Surround DSU and thought Neural:X was dramatically better. I can't explain it technically. All I am reporting is what my ears told me.


----------



## petetherock

Essentially it's the scene where the cops assault where the Indian/Pakistan terrorists are holed up in the basement carpark.
And the hot girl kicks their butt..


----------



## showmak

gwsat said:


> I agree that using Neural:X for the scene in *The Revenant*, in which Captain climbs the stairs to the loft where his safe is located, creates sensational immersiveness. I compared how Neural:X worked on that scene to the Dolby Surround DSU and thought Neural:X was dramatically better. I can't explain it technically. All I am reporting is what my ears told me.


Can you remind me at what minute is the scene? Long time watched it and almost forgot...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Once the next wave of 13.1 AVRs appears, DTS:X and Neural:X will each fully utilize the extended 7.x.6 or 9.x.4 configurations. I'll be curious to see just how noticeable the difference will be. One rather obvious difference will be that Neural:X upmixing uses the wide outputs, while DSU, thus far anyway, has not.


It doesn't sound like DTS: X will utilize anything greater than 7.1.4 processing, but any extra speakers will be addressed using Neural: X upmixing as is the case right now with 2015 A/V gear that could utilize the Front Wide positions. This seems to shed light on the supposition that DTS was never able to get 3D object rendering to work properly and they're having to fake something using matrix steering that Atmos can do natively with working 3D objects.

However, it is what it is. Though, given this deficiency with DTS: X I would hope more studios use Atmos rather than X in the future.

I'm interested to know how the various upmixers will work with beyond 7.1.4 layouts.


----------



## jsgrise

Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't sound like DTS: X will utilize anything greater than 7.1.4 processing, but any extra speakers will be addressed using Neural: X upmixing as is the case right now with 2015 A/V gear that could utilize the Front Wide positions. This seems to shed light on the supposition that DTS was never able to get 3D object rendering to work properly and they're having to fake something using matrix steering that Atmos can do natively with working 3D objects.
> 
> However, it is what it is. Though, given this deficiency with DTS: X I would hope more studios use Atmos rather than X in the future.
> 
> I'm interested to know how the various upmixers will work with beyond 7.1.4 layouts.


One thing I am curious about is how DTS Virtual:X will compare to DTS Neural:X? Will you be able to use Virtual:X if you have Height/Top speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jsgrise said:


> One thing I am curious about is how DTS Virtual:X will compare to DTS Neural:X? Will you be able to use Virtual:X if you have Height/Top speakers?


It seems like Virtual: X is more like a DSP soundfield or SRS surround of old. Take two speakers and "fake" a surround experience. Or if you have 5.1 or 7.1 and no extra speakers it will "simulate" having overhead information. Though, it's too early to know for sure.


----------



## showmak

petetherock said:


> Essentially it's the scene where the cops assault where the Indian/Pakistan terrorists are holed up in the basement carpark.
> 
> And the hot girl kicks their butt..



Got it. It starts at 00:22:00.


----------



## Erod

gwsat said:


> I agree that using Neural:X for the scene in *The Revenant*, in which Captain climbs the stairs to the loft where his safe is located, creates sensational immersiveness. I compared how Neural:X worked on that scene to the Dolby Surround DSU and thought Neural:X was dramatically better. I can't explain it technically. All I am reporting is what my ears told me.


Yep, but at the same time, scenes in The Revenant that are outside in the elements are far more immersive and spacious with DSU. Significantly so. 

If only either mode could provide both effects simultaneously.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> One thing I am curious about is how DTS Virtual:X will compare to DTS Neural:X?


Two different technologies. Virtual:X is a virtualizer (like Dolby Elevation processing built into Atmos Enabled upfiring modules). Neural:X is surround processing/upmixing.


> Will you be able to use Virtual:X if you have Height/Top speakers?


Virtual:X would serve no purpose in that situation (no need to simulate the height effect when you have speakers above you).


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> This is how it's described in the Dolby paper (Next Generation Surround Decoding and Upmixing for Consumer and Professional Applications, November 2014):


Since I am not an AES member, I have requested a copy of that paper from the ResearchGate site. Thanks for the reference.



> ...In the case of four top surround channels, the diffuse signals can be combined or kept separate. If the diffuse signals from the front and back are kept separate then the top front receives only left and right ambience and the top rear only receives the left and right surround ambience.


In my naivete, that's how I would have done it. And how I thought DSU actually *was* doing it. 



maikeldepotter said:


> Think about it. If DSU apparently works so good that in terms of immersiveness it can outperform a number of the native Atmos soundtracks out there, you might wonder why re-recording engineers do not make more use of this same Dolby Surround Upmixing technology in creating overhead feeds for their Atmos mixes. The answer might be just that: In their mixing studios (and commercial cinema's) *DSU doesn't sound as good as in our home theaters, because the overhead arrays are positioned differently*.


I like the way you think.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Erod said:


> ...Take the scene where the Pawnee indian is preparing the shelter for Glass in a windy plain with sparse trees to work with. With Neural:X, the individual sounds of each step and tree snap are distinct and located in the sound field, and wind wisps high over head in specific locations where it hits the trees. Very nice.
> 
> But when you switch to DSU....wow. You lose some object effect, but *your soundstage explodes like you're suddenly sitting in a theater three times as big as your room*, or to be more dramatic, like you're right there in the cold with Glass himself. The wind and air expands in your room to a much larger scale worthy of Yellowstone. Sounds effects aren't lost, but they're more muted, while the setting becomes its own character in the film. *Music is bigger, space is bigger, and the sound bubble is fuller*.


Thanks very much for the characterization!


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Since I am not an AES member, I have requested a copy of that paper from the ResearchGate site. Thanks for the reference.


Neither am I. If you google it you get a link to the document from which I cited (the AES version is dated a couple of months later and appears to differ a bit from this one):


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdrucker said:


> Utilize, yes. Process all 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 channels simultaneously remains to be seen.


What's the difference?



Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't sound like DTS: X will utilize anything greater than 7.1.4 processing, but any extra speakers will be addressed using Neural: X upmixing as is the case right now with 2015 A/V gear that could utilize the Front Wide positions.


How do the front wides sound in this case?



> This seems to shed light on the supposition that DTS was never able to get 3D object rendering to work properly and they're having to fake something using matrix steering that Atmos can do natively with working 3D objects.


I think that is a supposition.



> I'm interested to know how the various upmixers will work with beyond 7.1.4 layouts.


Me too. And that's where we started.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> This seems to shed light on the supposition that DTS was *never* able to get 3D object rendering to work properly and they're having to fake something using matrix steering that Atmos can do natively with working 3D objects.


Never? You yourself have pointed out DTS:X soundtracks (Ip Man 3, Independence Day) that have objects. Are they not being rendered during playback?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> *What's the difference?*



Maybe he means whether or not the new Denon/Marantz flagships will actually render discrete Atmos object layouts at 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 or if they will be using matrixing to derive any of the extra speakers beyond 7.1.4. I hope it would be the former and not the latter, especially with Atmos.



Roger Dressler said:


> *How do the front wides sound in this case?*


DTS: X Front Wides sound more like audio fill. Dolby Atmos Front Wides have a much more distinct sound. You can tell when something pans through them on the way to the other surrounds. Another couple of interesting uses have been the Atmos mixes of RED and Westworld where the music score instruments are placed discretely in those locations. In RED, all five frontal locations (FW L, L, C, R, FW R) have separate instruments to make a broad swath of music score. In Westworld, the primary music comes from the Front Wide Left & Right, the overheads, and the main level surrounds. The score does not emanate from the front L, C, R locations. 



Roger Dressler said:


> *I think that is a supposition.*


That seems to bearing out given all that we know so far. Otherwise, why use Neural: X to upmix a supposed immersive format? For whatever reason, there are seemingly no 3D objects being utilized in consumer DTS: X (though, they started out that way on a few like, as was pointed out, Ip Man 3), just 4 fixed overhead locations right now, and no rendering platform for such 3D objects. Even the Trinnov products are still stuck at 7.1.4. 

DTS: X was just not ready when they pushed it to market.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Never? You yourself have pointed out DTS:X soundtracks (Ip Man 3, Independence Day) that have objects. Are they not being rendered during playback?


It doesn't sound like it since the Trinnov is still only 7.1.4 and you have to duplicate speakers in order to go beyond that set configuration... unlike Dolby Atmos. 

Maybe they started by adding a few extra objects on top of the fixed 7.1.4 layout (some receiver displays were showing 7.1.4 + x amount of separate objects), but didn't get them to render correctly and gave up. That was one of the rumblings back when the format was first coming to market. :shrug:

Who the heck knows what's going to happen now that DTS was gobbled up. 

It's a clusterf--k no matter what. And if you want to move beyond 7.1.4 systems in your home (as I do), Dolby Atmos is what you should be asking for. Not a crippled format.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It doesn't sound like it since the Trinnov is still only 7.1.4 and you have to duplicate speakers in order to go beyond that set configuration... unlike Dolby Atmos.


What does the number of playback speakers have to do with object rendering?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> Maybe he means whether or not the new Denon/Marantz flagships will actually render discrete Atmos object layouts at 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 or if they will be using matrixing to derive any of the extra speakers beyond 7.1.4. I hope it would be the former and not the latter, especially with Atmos.


I see no reason why it would not be the former. Why the suspicion?



> DTS: X Front Wides sound more like audio fill. Dolby Atmos Front Wides have a much more distinct sound. You can tell when something pans through them on the way to the other surrounds.


I'm sure this is rather content dependent. Maybe there's a 7.1 mix with some clear panning from front to sides that could be checked.

Oh well, gotta get back to my LD player.


----------



## chi_guy50

jake51 said:


> Quick question: My couch is right up against the back wall (the projector is hanging right above me)
> *Would there be any point in getting two rear Atmos speakers as there is zero space behind my seating position?*
> I get my Atmos AVR tomorrow and have installed the two front ceiling speakers


The answer is yes, assuming you have room on the ceiling to the sides of the projector roughly in line with your front left and right speakers. Bear in mind that x.x.4 is a significant upgrade from x.x.2 for front-to-rear panning and overall envelopment overhead.

The rear height pair does not have to be literally to your rear. You can place them directly overhead (although you would be better served moving them just slightly forward to avoid hot-spotting).

Depending on your AVR model's Atmos implementation, you would then designate the two pairs either as Front Height plus Top Middle or as Top Front and Top Rear given the stipulation that speaker pair locations can not be contiguous.


----------



## sdrucker

Stuart said:
"Utilize, yes. Process all 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 channels simultaneously remains to be seen".
_ 9.1.4 channels simultaneously remains to be seen._




Roger Dressler said:


> What's the difference?



Roger,
What I was actually referring to was the difference between Neural:X (or 7.1.4 DTS:X with Neural:X flavored post-process upmixing) being able to access any of these channels to decode and/or upmix, vs. being able to decode and upmix to all of them at the same time..


By "access", I mean that it can be addressed by the codec. Not necessarily a given as DSU can't "address" wides or any screen speakers between the left/right and center, as we all know and lament. I don't doubt that Neural:X will be able to do SOMETHING to any one of the 13 channels if they were selected by the user for upmixing/processing, and there wasn't decoded content already going there.


However, that doesn't mean that that Neural:X or DTS:X can send content to all 13 of the channels at the same time, or anything with a higher channel count. Why would I say such a thing? Take the Altitude.


I may have 11.x.6, counting wides, that extra pair of side surrounds, and top middle speakers to go with the base 7 bed channels and two pairs of heights, but even the vaunted Altitude can't apply Neural:X or DTS:X to more than 11 of those speakers at a time. 


In practical terms, that means selecting wides and sacrificing rears, or top middles and sacrificing rears (although I've never tried that), or something more esoteric mostly intended for Auro layouts. AFAIK that applies whether you're using Neural:X for upmixing, or have decoded content with DTS:X. 


*Having a 7.1.4 rendering with DTS:X doesn't mean I can keep that 7.1.4 and upmix to wides or top middles. Unfortunately, it just doesn't. *So for you guys in the AVR world, if the Altitude can't use Neural:X for upmixing to send content to more than 11 speakers, why would we expect that the upcoming D&Ms will be able to do that?

That's leaving speaker arrays out of it as that's not a function of upmixing, but matrixing one input to multiple outputs by the user, which IS something we can do in the Altitude framework.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> So for you guys in the AVR world, if the Altitude can't use Neural:X for upmixing to send content to more than 11 speakers, why would we expect that the upcoming D&Ms will be able to do that?


Can the Altitude play back DTS:X tracks as 9.1.2 (Neural:X extracted wides)?


----------



## sdrucker

Roger Dressler said:


> What's the difference?
> 
> How do the front wides sound in this case?
> 
> I think that is a supposition.
> 
> Me too. And that's where we started.





sdurani said:


> Can the Altitude play back DTS:X tracks as 9.1.2 (Neural:X extracted wides)?



I believe so but I'll verify that when I'm home in a few hours.


----------



## sdurani

Tiny, wireless Atmos system: https://www.cepro.com/article/damso...tmos_wireless_surround_system_multiroom_audio


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Can the Altitude play back DTS:X tracks as 9.1.2 (Neural:X extracted wides)?


My Marantz 7702 mkII can use Neural: X to extract wides from DTS: X tracks, either in 9.1.2 or 5.1.4 + Front Wides configurations. It would be odd if the Altitude couldn't. But we shall soon find out.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdrucker said:


> However, that doesn't mean that that Neural:X or DTS:X can send content to all 13 of the channels at the same time, or anything with a higher channel count. Why would I say such a thing? Take the Altitude.
> 
> *Having a 7.1.4 rendering with DTS:X doesn't mean I can keep that 7.1.4 and upmix to wides or top middles. Unfortunately, it just doesn't. *So for you guys in the AVR world, if the Altitude can't use Neural:X for upmixing to send content to more than 11 speakers, why would we expect that the upcoming D&Ms will be able to do that?


I thought we were discussing the extended 7.x.6 and 9.x.4 configurations for the next ave of 13.1 AVRs. In that case, what happens in Altitude stays in Altitude. 

Considering all the effort going in to the next gen DSPs to enable 13.1 AVRs, it would all seem quite pointless if they were not able to use them. Simultaneously. I have every confidence that's what we'll see for both Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## sdrucker

Roger Dressler said:


> I thought we were discussing the extended 7.x.6 and 9.x.4 configurations for the next ave of 13.1 AVRs. In that case, what happens in Altitude stays in Altitude.
> 
> Considering all the effort going in to the next gen DSPs to enable 13.1 AVRs, it would all seem quite pointless if they were not able to use them. Simultaneously. I have every confidence that's what we'll see for both Atmos and DTS:X.


 
I think we can all agree that for Atmos, you're going to get something (native rendering to 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 ideally, as opposed to an MP-50 style matrixed solution). No question there or it would be utterly pointless. What we don't know is what will happen with DTS:X and Neural:X - if it will truly extend beyond an 11 channel processing - or if DSU will stay as the DSU we know on these upcoming 13.1 AVRs. 

All I'm saying is I'd have a wait and see attitude if you're going to get use of all those 13 speakers at the same time with DTS:X or Neural:X, or an array approach for that matter, at least until proven otherwise. I hope your confidence is right.

On that note, I'm off to test Sanjay's question about 9.1.2 when I get home...


----------



## Marc Alexander

Great discussions going on! I almost missed it as I had unsubscribed due to the tech support nature of the thread recently. Resubscribing.


----------



## javanpohl

Just watched A Christmas Horror story, and it may be my new favorite for upmixing. Blew my mind that it was a 5.1 mix. Can't recall if I was on DSU or DTS:X though. Coincidentally, Krampus may have been my previous favorite. 

Movie itself was ok, but definitely worth a watch if you like Trick R Treat style horror movies. It kinda fell apart at the end--seems like the writers couldn't quite figure out how to wrap everything up. Wasn't all that scary, well, aside from maybe the most effective jump-scare I've ever seen. I've never yelled "JESUS!!!" out during a movie before. I totally fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. Otherwise, the scare factor was decent but nothing to write home about.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdrucker said:


> All I'm saying is I'd have a wait and see attitude if you're going to get use of all those 13 speakers at the same time with DTS:X or Neural:X, or an array approach for that matter, at least until proven otherwise. I hope your confidence is right.


 

I hope others will adopt your "wait and hear" attitude.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> On that note, I'm off to test Sanjay's question about 9.1.2 when I get home...


Thanx. Remember to double check that remapping isn't on.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Why the suspicion?


You must have noticed by now that there are several "16-channel" processors that natively decode fewer channels and use various methods to fill the remaining outputs. That's not going to happen with D&M's 14-channel flagships, but I can understand where the suspicion comes from.


----------



## Nalleh

sdurani said:


> Tiny, wireless Atmos system: https://www.cepro.com/article/damso...tmos_wireless_surround_system_multiroom_audio


Haha, cute !

I wonder how it sounds


----------



## Roger Dressler

Roger Dressler said:


> I see no reason why it would not be the former. Why the suspicion?





sdurani said:


> You must have noticed by now that there are several "16-channel" processors that natively decode fewer channels and use various methods to fill the remaining outputs. That's not going to happen with D&M's 14-channel flagships, but I can understand where the suspicion comes from.


I agree re D&M, and just thought most folks held D&M in higher esteem than those others when it came to marketing messaging.

If someone has a D&M product that supports wides, try playing the downloaded 9.1.6 Atmos test signals. Must set the player to output PCM to deactivate Atmos and enable Neural:X. Then see where the wide channels come out.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Thanx. Remember to double check that remapping isn't on.


Just ran chaper 5 of Van Helsing in a 9.1.2 layout, with wides and one pair of heights (I did TF). I can tell you DTS:X works and indeed there’s extracting to the wides.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdrucker said:


> Just ran chaper 5 of Van Helsing in a 9.1.2 layout, with wides and one pair of heights (I did TF). I can tell you DTS:X works and indeed there’s extracting to the wides.


DTS:X on the Altitude is much more flexible than that. As long as you don't exceed the number of 11 main channels (the maximum DTS currently allows), even exotic configurations like the ones below get all speakers fed directly from the DTS:X decoder (no remapping, no arraying):








(L, R, Lc, Rc, Ls, Rs, Rc, Ltm, Rtm, Ch, Chr)















(L, C, R, Ls, Rs, Ltf, Rtf, Ltm, Rtm, Ltr, Rtr)








(L, C, R, Lrs, Rrs, Lh, Rh, Lhr, Rhr, Ltm, Rtm)


----------



## showmak

You gonna love the Atoms in American Assassin.


----------



## kevbo123

Had a quick scan of this thread and see a lot of people who either cannot or don't want to do ceiling mounted speakers and go with wall mounting on the sides instead. With a bracket and piece of wood you can extend outwards to the middle of the room and have the equivalent of a ceiling mount. See what I did for my 5.2.2 system (Top Middle).


----------



## maikeldepotter

kevbo123 said:


> Had a quick scan of this thread and see a lot of people who either cannot or don't want to do ceiling mounted speakers and go with wall mounting on the sides instead. With a bracket and piece of wood you can extend outwards to the middle of the room and have the equivalent of a ceiling mount. See what I did for my 5.2.2 system (Top Middle).


That's great! Make it telescopic and you can play with the width between your overheads to find the best sounding location ... 

Edit: Haha, I didn't look good enough to notice those brackets are back wall mounted. You would need an additional swivel to do what I suggested ....


----------



## dkuster

I need some advice on whether or not it even makes sense for me to attempt to implement ATMOS in my HT system.

My basement HT room is not large, approximately 19' long by 13' wide with (at most) an 8' ceiling. (Might be closer to 7.5' )

My speakers are all Vandersteen in a 7.0 configuration:

Model 5 -- L, R
VCC-5 -- C
VSM-1 -- L and R sides, L and R rears

The L-C-R tweeters are all at ear level, but per Richard Vandersteen's recommendations my 4 surrounds are mounted high on the walls. I'd say the tweeters are 12" to 18" from the ceiling.

Given this, I think my only plausible option is to go 7.0.2, with the L and R height speakers either placed high on the front wall or maybe in the ceiling above the front L, R speakers.

Any suggestions? If I placed them in the ceiling directly above my main speakers, the vertical distance between tweeters might be 4'. I'm not sure how much this would enhance the vertical sound stage (if at all)...

Thanks.


----------



## OKGeek

TXKDUB said:


> I have ROTEL RSP1098 and RMB 1555 and will be getting new speakers for Christmas/New Yr (Definitive Technology) BP9060 towers the CS9060 center, SR9080 Rear surround and the A90 ATMOS modules.
> 
> The RSP1098 and RMB1555 won't be able to process. Not happy to hear that as that wasn't in the budget LOL
> 
> Please help with suggestions that I hope are cost effective (NOT EXPENSIVE) to remedy this situation. If it does take me getting updated equipment please offer a comparable solution in quality to the ROTEL


1) RMB1555 doesn't care if it's Atmos or not, as it's just an amplifier with 5 RCA inputs and connectors for 5 speakers. Don't let names on connectors/RCA inputs confuse you, as they can amplify literally any channel coming from preamp/AVR

2) RSP-1098 is another story. It's 7.1 sound processor, which doesn't support Atmos even in 5.1.2 config. set aside 5.1.4 and beyond. So this one has to be replaced. As long as you don't need XLR balanced outputs etc, I personally see no point in purchasing preamp, because it normally will cost you more, than AVR with similar compatibilities.

Given you already have solid 5 channel amp, take a look at 11.1-channels AVR with all channels preamp capabilities, like NAD 758v3 or Denon 4400. Use 3 channels of 1555 for LCR, so to keep the most similar experience to what you already have, and 2 other channels to feed 2 heights. 

Both NAD and Denon has their own pros and cons. I'll go with NAD for Dirac room correction, but eventually it's up to you to decide.


----------



## sdurani

dkuster said:


> The L-C-R tweeters are all at ear level, but per Richard Vandersteen's recommendations my 4 surrounds are mounted high on the walls. I'd say the tweeters are 12" to 18" from the ceiling.


Are you willing to lower your 4 surround speakers to improve separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you?


> Any suggestions? If I placed them in the ceiling directly above my main speakers, the vertical distance between tweeters might be 4'. I'm not sure how much this would enhance the vertical sound stage (if at all)...


Will make it sound like you have a tall front soundstage but won't give you the overhead effect intended by Atmos/DTS:X. In your situation, I would lower the surrounds and do two pairs of heights in/on the ceiling (around 45° elevation forward & rearward of your main listening position).


----------



## dkuster

sdurani said:


> Are you willing to lower your 4 surround speakers to improve separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you? Will make it sound like you have a tall front soundstage but won't give you the overhead effect intended by Atmos/DTS:X. In your situation, I would lower the surrounds and do two pairs of heights in/on the ceiling (around 45° elevation forward & rearward of your main listening position).


Hmm, lowering the 4 surrounds would require tearing up (and then repairing) the sheet rock. The speaker cables are in-wall.

It's _possible_, but I was hoping I could get 80% of the way there without having to do that.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## sdurani

dkuster said:


> I was hoping I could get 80% of the way there without having to do that.


In that case, place the heights as far away from the surrounds as possible. Mount the first pair of heights mid-way between the fronts & sides; mount the second pair of heights mid-way between the sides & rears. With your surrounds that high up, you won't get the intended around-you vs above-you separation, but it will be better than nothing.


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> If DSU apparently works so good that in terms of immersiveness it can outperform a number of the native Atmos soundtracks out there...


I'd like to advance a new suggestion, that I haven't heard anyone posit before. 

Given that DSU generates only a single L/R height pair, and then distributes each side to all the speakers there. AND that it achieves very good results doing so (in terms of providing an ambient 3D sound field), I would suggest that* even those with AVRs with Atmos decoders supporting only 2 overhead channels (5.1.2, 7.1.2, or 9.1.2) should STILL install 4 overhead speakers*. And simply wire them up in series or parallel (as appropriate for their specific speaker impedances and AVR ability).

While that configuration won't take full advantage of the F/B possible in a full n.m.4 decoding system, it will provide a much more immersive DSU experience _(completely equivalent to those even having n.m.6-based systems!). _ And even with true-Atmos content, it will sound significantly better with 4 speakers, than with just 2... even when driven with only one set of L/R signals.


----------



## sdrucker

maikeldepotter said:


> DTS:X on the Altitude is much more flexible than that. As long as you don't exceed the number of 11 main channels (the maximum DTS currently allows), even exotic configurations like the ones below get all speakers fed directly from the DTS:X decoder (no remapping, no arraying).


 
Very true - but I didn't want to spoil the fun  . That first one with the screen speakers and apparently a mono center height and a mono rear height is...unique. Did you give that a listen?

View attachment 2322770

(L, R, Lc, Rc, Ls, Rs, Rc, Ltm, Rtm, Ch, Chr)
View attachment 2322772


View attachment 2322812

(L, C, R, Ls, Rs, Ltf, Rtf, Ltm, Rtm, Ltr, Rtr)

View attachment 2322824

(L, C, R, Lrs, Rrs, Lh, Rh, Lhr, Rhr, Ltm, Rtm)[/QUOTE]


----------



## jsgrise

One scene that would be interesting to use DSU/Neural:X on is the intro of the movie "Drive" where there is an helicopter flyover. Great movie, great soundtrack, should be ear candy upmixed.

I would do it but since my TR speakers are B/O for another 3-4 weeks, might as well be someone with a proper rig. :nerd:


----------



## Marc Alexander

kevbo123 said:


> Had a quick scan of this thread and see a lot of people who either cannot or don't want to do ceiling mounted speakers and go with wall mounting on the sides instead. With a bracket and piece of wood you can extend outwards to the middle of the room and have the equivalent of a ceiling mount. See what I did for my 5.2.2 system (Top Middle).


Good idea. I showed my wife and she gave it a thumbs down though, so low WAF.


----------



## petetherock

kevbo123 said:


> Had a quick scan of this thread and see a lot of people who either cannot or don't want to do ceiling mounted speakers and go with wall mounting on the sides instead. With a bracket and piece of wood you can extend outwards to the middle of the room and have the equivalent of a ceiling mount. See what I did for my 5.2.2 system (Top Middle).


Yeah... I did this before I got married.. 
Cutting into a concrete ceiling is serious work and very dusty!


----------



## kevbo123

Marc Alexander said:


> Good idea. I showed my wife and she gave it a thumbs down though, so low WAF.


I still neat to neaten up the cables and do some painting. Will post another pic when its all done. Maybe I can change her mind :wink:


----------



## javan robinson

So I've got my Denon 6300 running a Paradigm Monitor 7.1.4 setup w/ 4 Canton 880's for my atmos speakers (https://www.canton.us/archive/inceiling-880-8)

In my MLP, there are no Atmos speakers directly above me. My setup is positioned exactly like this except I have no Front Wide Speakers - http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7010/NA/EN/fig/Pict SP Layout 11.1 TR TF_DRDZILxnqjiedn.png

So after running Audyssey, my Cantons are set anywhere from -2db to -3.5db.

And when I watch movies it sounds great but...I think it can sound...greater! LoL. I have heard from others that bumping up the atmos channels a decibel or 2 is not a bad idea to make them more inclusive in the overall experience.

So when watching War of the Planet of the Apes the other day I bumped them all up to +1 when when the main volume was set at -5 and it was quite a riot. I believe I enjoyed it a lot better like this, but I've yet to watch any more films with them turned up this high to compare. 

I know that everything is subjective, but just wanted others opinions on this matter. I've also been thinking of installing 2 more atmos speakers directly above the MLP and just running them in parallel with either the front of the rear ones. Any thoughts on that? Or just wait to do it right with the 8500?

Thanks again!

Oh, and pics upon request if needed!


----------



## progprog

javan robinson said:


> I know that everything is subjective, but just wanted others opinions on this matter. I've also been thinking of installing 2 more atmos speakers directly above the MLP and just running them in parallel with either the front of the rear ones. Any thoughts on that? Or just wait to do it right with the 8500?
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> Oh, and pics upon request if needed!


I think you should use whatever sounds best to _you_! IMHO, many people get a little too caught up in dialing in very particular calibrations to create the right charts or report the right numbers, or whatever. But the whole point is to actually enjoy watching movies in your home theater, so if bumping up the heights helps you enjoy them more, go for it. 

I wouldn't advise adding another set of heights they way you describe. The point of an Atmos setup is to create a three-dimensional soundfield, and the processor does that using the information about where each of your speakers is located. If you double up some speakers so that certain channels have multiple locations, the processor no longer has accurate info and its imaging will be compromised.


----------



## VideoGrabber

VideoGrabber said:


> That is an interesting hypothesis. That pure Atmos could work as well (or better) with the height speakers pulled in more closely to the Lc/Rc positions, but DSU considerations led to better results in a broader configuration (possibly w/o damaging Atmos to any significant degree).
> 
> If that were true, then obviously pulling the heights out further to the sides will result in the bed-layer surrounds needing to move down to accomodate them.





maikeldepotter said:


> Think about it. If DSU apparently works so good that in terms of immersiveness it can outperform a number of the native Atmos soundtracks out there, you might wonder why re-recording engineers do not make more use of this same Dolby Surround Upmixing technology in creating overhead feeds for their Atmos mixes. The answer might be just that: In their mixing studios (and commercial cinema's) DSU doesn't sound as good as in our home theaters, because the overhead arrays are positioned differently.


One corollary I would take from this then is that if the optimal lateral separation between a pair of height speakers was X' for Atmos, and say X+2' for DSU, then I would go with the later. Not only because I have vastly more content w/o an Atmos encode than with (a measly 84 titles), but also because the later is likely to have less impact on Atmos, than the former on DSU.

Does that make sense to you as well?


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> Neither am I. If you google it you get a link to the document from which I cited (the AES version is dated a couple of months later and appears to differ a bit from this one):
> 
> View attachment 2322306


Apparently Google where you are is returning different results than the Google where I am, because tonmeister isn't showing up at all. 

Could you possibly just provide the link itself? Via PM if you're more comfortable with that? Thanks.


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> One corollary I would take from this then is that if the optimal lateral separation between a pair of height speakers was X' for Atmos, and say X+2' for DSU, then I would go with the later. Not only because I have vastly more content w/o an Atmos encode than with (a measly 84 titles), but also because the later is likely to have less impact on Atmos, than the former on DSU.
> 
> Does that make sense to you as well?


Yes, but I think you can do better than that:
- apply separation X (optimized for Atmos, resulting from lateral elevation of 45 degrees +1/2*surround elevation) for the overhead arrays
- put L/R fronts in line (front-to-back) with those overhead arrays
- positon the MLP so that L/R fronts are between 22 and 30 degrees azimuth
- enjoy both DSU and Atmos in their optimal form...


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Apparently Google where you are is returning different results than the Google where I am, because tonmeister isn't showing up at all.
> 
> Could you possibly just provide the link itself? Via PM if you're more comfortable with that? Thanks.


Here it is (please note that this is not exactly the same as the final? AES document):
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...pid=65&v=pdf&usg=AOvVaw3q-OG33Lw15tk50iG2Nag2

Hope it works, if not send me a PM.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdrucker said:


> Very true - but I didn't want to spoil the fun  . That first one with the screen speakers and apparently a mono center height and a mono rear height is...unique. Did you give that a listen?


Wish I could already....  My room/lab design contains a construction allowing speakers to move left and right, up-and-down (wall-mounted) and back-and-forth (ceiling) but I am running far behind schedule. The building market here has exploded since last year and I literally have to beg for the time of a constructor that needs to do the necessary tolerance calculations (don't want the whole thing collapsing on top of the audience ). Good things come slow... (but they still come!)


----------



## showmak

Another powerful Atmos, Annabelle Creation. Highly recommended.


----------



## alextr75

Hi

Wondering if I can get some input on which in-ceiling speakers might work well with a LCR of 2 x Polk Audio RtiA7 + CsiA6 to make an Atmos setup.

I also own two pairs of (4 speakers) Polk Audio FxiA4 and was initially planning on having one pair in the rear and mount one on the ceiling to have a 5.2.2.

But I was told they won't really work that well for Atmos given they are Dipole / Bipole.

So now I was thinking of adding 4 Polk Audio MC80 in the ceiling (because there is currently a good sale), and maybe keeping just two of the FxiA4 for the rear, so I end up with 5.2.4, with 4 in ceiling speaker and two FxiA4 in the back. 

Would that work, or do you think it might be better to also replace the rear FxiA4, and maybe completely go with in-ceiling / on-wall solution for the surrounds ? .. Selling a pair of FxiA4 would probably cover the cost for one pair of MC80 (at their current sale price) 

Also, do you think the MC80 would be a good match for the LCR setup I have ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Hi
> 
> Wondering if I can get some input on which in-ceiling speakers might work well with a LCR of 2 x Polk Audio RtiA7 + CsiA6 to make an Atmos setup.
> 
> I also own two pairs of (4 speakers) Polk Audio FxiA4 and was initially planning on having one pair in the rear and mount one on the ceiling to have a 5.2.2.
> 
> But I was told they won't really work that well for Atmos given they are Dipole / Bipole.
> 
> So now I was thinking of adding 4 Polk Audio MC80 in the ceiling (because there is currently a good sale), and maybe keeping just two of the FxiA4 for the rear, so I end up with 5.2.4, with 4 in ceiling speaker and two FxiA4 in the back.
> 
> Would that work, or do you think it might be better to also replace the rear FxiA4, and maybe completely go with in-ceiling / on-wall solution for the surrounds ? .. Selling a pair of FxiA4 would probably cover the cost for one pair of MC80 (at their current sale price)
> 
> Also, do you think the MC80 would be a good match for the LCR setup I have ?


Which Atmos receiver do you own?

I'm trying to figure out why you can only do 5.1.4. Do you also not have a way to have both side and rear surrounds in your room?

The MC80 inceilings match well with the RTi series. Get 4 of those for overheads.


----------



## chi_guy50

alextr75 said:


> Hi
> 
> Wondering if I can get some input on which in-ceiling speakers might work well with a LCR of 2 x Polk Audio RtiA7 + CsiA6 to make an Atmos setup.
> 
> I also own two pairs of (4 speakers) Polk Audio FxiA4 and was initially planning on having one pair in the rear and mount one on the ceiling to have a 5.2.2.
> 
> But I was told they won't really work that well for Atmos given they are Dipole / Bipole.
> 
> So now I was thinking of adding 4 Polk Audio MC80 in the ceiling (because there is currently a good sale), and maybe keeping just two of the FxiA4 for the rear, so I end up with 5.2.4, with 4 in ceiling speaker and two FxiA4 in the back.
> 
> Would that work, or do you think it might be better to also replace the rear FxiA4, and maybe completely go with in-ceiling / on-wall solution for the surrounds ? .. Selling a pair of FxiA4 would probably cover the cost for one pair of MC80 (at their current sale price)
> 
> Also, *do you think the MC80 would be a good match for the LCR setup I have ?*


The MC80's would work, but a better option (and bearing in mind that you are probably trying to stay on a limited budget) would be the RC80i's (currently--but perhaps for a very short time only--about $120 a pair at Amazon or Newegg). 

With the commitment we make to installing in-ceiling speakers, you want to make doubly sure that you get it right the first time. With this in mind, I went with the higher-end 80F/X-RT's for my setup, which includes the same L/C/R speakers that you are using. (Another potential higher-end candidate for you would be the V80's.)


----------



## javan robinson

progprog said:


> I think you should use whatever sounds best to _you_! IMHO, many people get a little too caught up in dialing in very particular calibrations to create the right charts or report the right numbers, or whatever. But the whole point is to actually enjoy watching movies in your home theater, so if bumping up the heights helps you enjoy them more, go for it.
> 
> I wouldn't advise adding another set of heights they way you describe. The point of an Atmos setup is to create a three-dimensional soundfield, and the processor does that using the information about where each of your speakers is located. If you double up some speakers so that certain channels have multiple locations, the processor no longer has accurate info and its imaging will be compromised.


Thanks Prog for the advice! I've bumped up the ceiling channels a bit and I'm rethinking of putting in more ceilings. At least until I have more channels to support it 

Thanks again!


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> Which Atmos receiver do you own?
> 
> I'm trying to figure out why you can only do 5.1.4. Do you also not have a way to have both side and rear surrounds in your room?
> 
> The MC80 inceilings match well with the RTi series. Get 4 of those for overheads.


I will be getting the Denon X4400H which is a 9.2 receiver. But from what I have read already, it seems like it can support 11.2 also if I was to add a cheap external 2 channel amp maybe. 

The bigger problem for placing speakers on side walls, is that on the right side wall (very close to rear wall), I have a big opening (72 wide) towards hallway. I am in the process of ordering a double door and closing it up, but I would still not be able to place a speaker in that area.

On the left wall, I have a fireplace, so again not much freedom for putting up speakers up there either.

Maybe I can draw and attach some diagram later if that will be more useful of describing things.

So far I only have the rear wall completely available, even the ceiling is not fully available for placing speakers, since if talking back to front, starting somewhere after the middle towards the front, I have some panels hung up with black velvet fabric to help with the projector picture quality.



chi_guy50 said:


> The MC80's would work, but a better option (and bearing in mind that you are probably trying to stay on a limited budget) would be the RC80i's (currently--but perhaps for a very short time only--about $120 a pair at Amazon or Newegg).
> 
> With the commitment we make to installing in-ceiling speakers, you want to make doubly sure that you get it right the first time. With this in mind, I went with the higher-end 80F/X-RT's for my setup, which includes the same L/C/R speakers that you are using. (Another potential higher-end candidate for you would be the V80's.)


Are the RC80 actually better than the MC80 ? Because the MC80 I can currently get for about $55 per speaker (though not sure for how long).
I have yet to check the price for RC80, will have some more time to look into this once home.

Either way then, I guess it is better to also replace the rear FxiA4 with the MC80 (or whatever alternative I end up getting) ?

Thanks !


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Atmos receiver do you own?
> 
> I'm trying to figure out why you can only do 5.1.4. Do you also not have a way to have both side and rear surrounds in your room?
> 
> The MC80 inceilings match well with the RTi series. Get 4 of those for overheads.
> 
> 
> 
> I will be getting the Denon X4400H which is a 9.2 receiver. But from what I have read already, it seems like it can support 11.2 also if I was to add a cheap external 2 channel amp maybe.
> 
> The bigger problem for placing speakers on side walls, is that on the right side wall (very close to rear wall), I have a big opening (72 wide) towards hallway. I am in the process of ordering a double door and closing it up, but I would still not be able to place a speaker in that area.
> 
> On the left wall, I have a fireplace, so again not much freedom for putting up speakers up there either.
> 
> Maybe I can draw and attach some diagram later if that will be more useful of describing things.
> 
> So far I only have the rear wall completely available, even the ceiling is not fully available for placing speakers, since if talking back to front, starting somewhere after the middle towards the front, I have some panels hung up with black velvet fabric to help with the projector picture quality.
> 
> 
> 
> chi_guy50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The MC80's would work, but a better option (and bearing in mind that you are probably trying to stay on a limited budget) would be the RC80i's (currently--but perhaps for a very short time only--about $120 a pair at Amazon or Newegg).
> 
> With the commitment we make to installing in-ceiling speakers, you want to make doubly sure that you get it right the first time. With this in mind, I went with the higher-end 80F/X-RT's for my setup, which includes the same L/C/R speakers that you are using. (Another potential higher-end candidate for you would be the V80's.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are the RC80 actually better than the MC80 ? Because the MC80 I can currently get for about $55 per speaker (though not sure for how long).
> I have yet to check the price for RC80, will have some more time to look into this once home.
> 
> Either way then, I guess it is better to also replace the rear FxiA4 with the MC80 (or whatever alternative I end up getting) ?
> 
> Thanks !
Click to expand...

If you can get the MC80's for $55 per, then they will be fine. They also have aimable tweeters.

Invest in new speakers all around that are 
sonically better than Polk's before increasing your budget for overheads. 

It sounds like you have a tough room. 5.1.4 may be your best option for now since only the upcoming flagship Denon and Marantz gear bring back the option for Front Wides.


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you can get the MC80's for $55 per, then they will be fine. They also have aimable tweeters.
> 
> Invest in new speakers all around that are
> sonically better than Polk's before increasing your budget for overheads.
> 
> It sounds like you have a tough room. 5.1.4 may be your best option for now since only the upcoming flagship Denon and Marantz gear bring back the option for Front Wides.


Yeah room is a bit tough, it was really designed as a living room, just using it mainly for watching movies.

I have to spent some time actually analyzing various Atmos setups. If the X4400H, even with an external amp cannot do Front Wides, I need to find out what 11.2 channel configuration it can actually do then. 

What is normally the best 7.2.4 setup /layout that people use ?

Do you have some recommendation as a next step up that is sonically better than the Polks ?

I was at one point in time, thinking about replacing Front L/R with a pair of Sierra 2, but it is an expensive endeavor, and gets more and more expensive if I want to then replace the complete set of surround speakers with timbre matching speakers with the Sierras, so ended up just wishful thinking outside my budget.


----------



## chi_guy50

alextr75 said:


> Are the RC80 actually better than the MC80 ? Because the MC80 I can currently get for about $55 per speaker (though not sure for how long).
> I have yet to check the price for RC80, will have some more time to look into this once home.
> 
> Either way then, I guess it is better to also replace the rear FxiA4 with the MC80 (or whatever alternative I end up getting) ?
> 
> Thanks !


If you want to go by Polk Audio's guidance regarding timbre-matching, they state specifically that the MC80 is matched to the TCi series and the *RC80i* is matched to the *RTi* series (note the similar nomenclature so designating). Also, the MC80 has a 3/4" tweeter while the RC80i has the same 1" silk/dome tweeter (in a 15-degree swivel mount) as do the RTi7 and CSi6.

I would not use either one in-wall, though. If you want to go the in-wall route for your rear surround speakers, I would choose something like Polk's RC85i.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can get the MC80's for $55 per, then they will be fine. They also have aimable tweeters.
> 
> Invest in new speakers all around that are
> sonically better than Polk's before increasing your budget for overheads.
> 
> It sounds like you have a tough room. 5.1.4 may be your best option for now since only the upcoming flagship Denon and Marantz gear bring back the option for Front Wides.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah room is a bit tough, it was really designed as a living room, just using it mainly for watching movies.
> 
> I have to spent some time actually analyzing various Atmos setups. If the X4400H, even with an external amp cannot do Front Wides, I need to find out what 11.2 channel configuration it can actually do then.
> 
> What is normally the best 7.2.4 setup /layout that people use ?
> 
> Do you have some recommendation as a next step up that is sonically better than the Polks ?
> 
> I was at one point in time, thinking about replacing Front L/R with a pair of Sierra 2, but it is an expensive endeavor, and gets more and more expensive if I want to then replace the complete set of surround speakers with timbre matching speakers with the Sierras, so ended up just wishful thinking outside my budget.
Click to expand...

That's easy.









A pair of Emotiva Airmotiv T2 towers to start. A C2 center and a pair of E1's later.

They're almost as good as the well regarded GoldenEar towers, but a lot less. You could tell they were trying to clone the sonic signature of the GE's. The Sierra 2's have a similar tweeter family of accordion-style metal ribbons.

Very solid reviews. They won't win any beauty contests, but they are bang vs buck champs. Their planar tweeters put out a more neutral frequency response than some metalic dome types.

If you wanted 5.1.4 plus the additional Front Wides then you will need to wait for 2018.
Denon X8500H
Marantz SR8012

Or the Marantz pre-amp

They will probably be north of $4,000.

Or try to find a 2015 era Denon or Marantz product with 7.1.4 processing. My Marantz 7702 mk ii can do such a layout.


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's easy.
> 
> A pair of Emotiva Airmotiv T2 towers to start. A C2 center and a pair of E1's later.
> 
> They're almost as good as the well regarded GoldenEar towers, but a lot less.
> 
> Very solid reviews. They won't win any beauty contests, but they are bang vs buck champs. Their planar tweeters put out a more neutral frequency response than some metalic dome types.
> 
> If you wanted 5.1.4 plus the additional Front Wides then you will need to wait for 2018.
> Denon X8500H
> Marantz SR8012
> 
> Or the Marantz pre-amp
> 
> They will probably be north of $4,000.


So what kind of setup is 7.2.4 that does not have Front Wides, that I can maybe do with the X4400H + ext 2 channel amp ?
I was actually really excited when I found out that with the X4400 that maybe by adding a cheaper Amp I can later also have 11.2 setup too.
Though not sure yet what kind of setups I can do with 7.2.4 with it, and whether it would be significantly better than the 5.2.4

Thanks for the tip for the Emotiva .. might be something I need to look into next Christmas .. I have spent enough this year, maybe just a tad below where I could get expelled from the house  Is Emotiva internet direct (order from their web site), or do they sell elsewhere too ?

I am guessing the E1 can be mounted as ceiling speakers too .. might be worthwhile then not investing anything for in-ceiling speakers for now.. so I don't end up with a bunch of Polks that I need to sell in a year  .. or so I don't end up patching ceiling holes and redoing whatever is needed to mount the E1s


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pair of Emotiva Airmotiv T2 towers to start. A C2 center and a pair of E1's later.
> 
> They're almost as good as the well regarded GoldenEar towers, but a lot less.
> 
> Very solid reviews. They won't win any beauty contests, but they are bang vs buck champs. Their planar tweeters put out a more neutral frequency response than some metalic dome types.
> 
> If you wanted 5.1.4 plus the additional Front Wides then you will need to wait for 2018.
> Denon X8500H
> Marantz SR8012
> 
> Or the Marantz pre-amp
> 
> They will probably be north of $4,000.
> 
> 
> 
> So what kind of setup is 7.2.4 that does not have Front Wides, that I can maybe do with the X4400H + ext 2 channel amp ?
> I was actually really excited when I found out that with the X4400 that maybe by adding a cheaper Amp I can later also have 11.2 setup too.
> Though not sure yet what kind of setups I can do with 7.2.4 with it, and whether it would be significantly better than the 5.2.4
> 
> Thanks for the tip for the Emotiva .. might be something I need to look into next Christmas .. I have spent enough this year, maybe just a tad below where I could get expelled from the house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Emotiva internet direct (order from their web site), or do they sell elsewhere too ?
> 
> I am guessing the E1 can be mounted as ceiling speakers too .. might be worthwhile then not investing anything for in-ceiling speakers for now.. so I don't end up with a bunch of Polks that I need to sell in a year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. or so I don't end up patching ceiling holes and redoing whatever is needed to mount the E1s
Click to expand...

Emotiva is either direct internet sales or via dealers.

https://emotiva.com/authorized-u-s-dealers/

I also updated my post right as you were responding. Worth another read.

I would recommend GoldenEar in-ceiling's as those are the closest in timbre to the Emotiva's and easiest to mount. The E1 is more of a wall speaker.

There are no other Dolby recommended base speaker layer configurations you can do with 7.1.4 processing unless you buy a luxury priced Trinnov Altitude processor with more speaker rendering options than normal gear.


----------



## usc1995

alextr75 said:


> Hi
> 
> Wondering if I can get some input on which in-ceiling speakers might work well with a LCR of 2 x Polk Audio RtiA7 + CsiA6 to make an Atmos setup.
> 
> I also own two pairs of (4 speakers) Polk Audio FxiA4 and was initially planning on having one pair in the rear and mount one on the ceiling to have a 5.2.2.
> 
> But I was told they won't really work that well for Atmos given they are Dipole / Bipole.
> 
> So now I was thinking of adding 4 Polk Audio MC80 in the ceiling (because there is currently a good sale), and maybe keeping just two of the FxiA4 for the rear, so I end up with 5.2.4, with 4 in ceiling speaker and two FxiA4 in the back.
> 
> Would that work, or do you think it might be better to also replace the rear FxiA4, and maybe completely go with in-ceiling / on-wall solution for the surrounds ? .. Selling a pair of FxiA4 would probably cover the cost for one pair of MC80 (at their current sale price)
> 
> Also, do you think the MC80 would be a good match for the LCR setup I have ?




I also have a Polk setup with RTi8 LR, CSi3 C, FXi6 SS and RTiA1 RS. I went with MC80s for my 4 Atmos speakers and the system sounds great. I cannot perceive any shift in timbre at all and since the MC80s have an aimable tweeter you can get them setup perfectly for your room. The FXi4s you have are fine for side surround use as when you put them in bipole mode they are not outputting the diffuse sound that could be a problem like dipoles would. Just place them slightly in front or slightly behind of the main listening position so the speakers are firing toward you and you will be fine. You will want to pickup some direct firing speakers for your rear surround if you decide to go 7.x.4 so maybe sell one pair of the FXI4s for those. I love my Polk setup and they provide a great bang for the buck.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## alextr75

usc1995 said:


> I also have a Polk setup with RTi8 LR, CSi3 C, FXi6 SS and RTiA1 RS. I went with MC80s for my 4 Atmos speakers and the system sounds great. I cannot perceive any shift in timbre at all and since the MC80s have an aimable tweeter you can get them setup perfectly for your room. The FXi4s you have are fine for side surround use as when you put them in bipole mode they are not outputting the diffuse sound that could be a problem like dipoles would. Just place them slightly in front or slightly behind of the main listening position so the speakers are firing toward you and you will be fine. You will want to pickup some direct firing speakers for your rear surround if you decide to go 7.x.4 so maybe sell one pair of the FXI4s for those. I love my Polk setup and they provide a great bang for the buck.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Thanks for the info, good to hear they are good match.

Thing is though ,I do not have an option to mount side surrounds as I explained in one of my posts earlier, so I am stuck with LCR, 4 ceiling (top front / top rear ?) and the rear / back surround on rear wall. So was hoping to keep the FxiA4 for the rear wall, but sounds like they may not work that well there if I understood you correctly.

I used to have a 7.2 setup with a pair of FxiA4 for side surrounds, and a pair for rear surrounds, but because of some reno, side surrounds are no longer an option (most of right side wall has a big opening soon to be a double door), so was hoping to just keep one pair for the rear wall. Though if they won't really work well for Atmos as rear surrounds (or whatever they are called in the Atmos terminology), maybe I should be looking at completely replacing them ... or waiting longer until I am able to afford some Emotivas .. (probably just wishful thinking ..)

Think I will spend some time learning what options are there for 5.2.4 Atmos setups, as well as 7.2.4 Atmos setups, figure out what the X4400H can do, and then also look at what choices does my room give me first ..before I can make solid decisions .. but a lot of valuable information so far ! Thanks for that again.


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> Emotiva is either direct internet sales or via dealers.
> 
> https://emotiva.com/authorized-u-s-dealers/
> 
> I also updated my post right as you were responding. Worth another read.
> 
> I would recommend GoldenEar in-ceiling's as those are the closest in timbre to the Emotiva's and easiest to mount. The E1 is more of a wall speaker.
> 
> There are no other Dolby recommended base speaker layer configurations you can do with 7.1.4 processing unless you buy a luxury priced Trinnov Altitude processor with more speaker rendering options than normal gear.


Good to hear they are close to the Sierra 2, I actually have not heard the Sierra 2s yet, only the Sierra 1 for a brief time, not sure if it had the same tweeter, but fell in love with the way it was presenting the voice of some female vocalists .. vs the RtiA7s.

Guess I will stick with 5.2.4 then for now .. not sure why all the hype about X4400H can drive 11 speakers too then (with an external amp that is) .. if I can't really use it for 7.2.4 Atmos, then not sure what it would be used for, maybe Zone 2 or something ..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emotiva is either direct internet sales or via dealers.
> 
> https://emotiva.com/authorized-u-s-dealers/
> 
> I also updated my post right as you were responding. Worth another read.
> 
> I would recommend GoldenEar in-ceiling's as those are the closest in timbre to the Emotiva's and easiest to mount. The E1 is more of a wall speaker.
> 
> There are no other Dolby recommended base speaker layer configurations you can do with 7.1.4 processing unless you buy a luxury priced Trinnov Altitude processor with more speaker rendering options than normal gear.
> 
> 
> 
> Good to hear they are close to the Sierra 2, I actually have not heard the Sierra 2s yet, only the Sierra 1 for a brief time, not sure if it had the same tweeter, but fell in love with the way it was presenting the voice of some female vocalists .. vs the RtiA7s.
> 
> Guess I will stick with 5.2.4 then for now .. not sure why all the hype about X4400H can drive 11 speakers too then (with an external amp that is) .. if I can't really use it for 7.2.4 Atmos, then not sure what it would be used for, maybe Zone 2 or something ..
Click to expand...

It is one of those newer receivers that dropped Front Wide rendering. As I mentioned, 2015 Denon/Marantz gear was the last time they offered two flavors of 7.1.4... with the other dropping rear surrounds and allowing Front Wides instead. They did that, so the 2018 flagship products would have more options. 

However, now is now and you have to buy a 7.1.4 product to also have the choice of 5.1.4. Your only other choice is the next level down that only does 5.1.2 processing.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you wanted 5.1.4 plus the additional Front Wides then you will need to wait for 2018.
> Denon X8500H
> Marantz SR8012
> 
> Or the Marantz pre-amp
> 
> They will probably be north of $4,000.
> 
> Or try to find a 2015 era Denon or Marantz product with 7.1.4 processing. My Marantz 7702 mk ii can do such a layout.


Yes, I think returning or selling the X4400 and replacing with a X6200 makes much more sense than a X8500 for a 5.1.4 + Wides layout.


----------



## usc1995

alextr75 said:


> Thanks for the info, good to hear they are good match.
> 
> Thing is though ,I do not have an option to mount side surrounds as I explained in one of my posts earlier, so I am stuck with LCR, 4 ceiling (top front / top rear ?) and the rear / back surround on rear wall. So was hoping to keep the FxiA4 for the rear wall, but sounds like they may not work that well there if I understood you correctly.
> 
> I used to have a 7.2 setup with a pair of FxiA4 for side surrounds, and a pair for rear surrounds, but because of some reno, side surrounds are no longer an option (most of right side wall has a big opening soon to be a double door), so was hoping to just keep one pair for the rear wall. Though if they won't really work well for Atmos as rear surrounds (or whatever they are called in the Atmos terminology), maybe I should be looking at completely replacing them ... or waiting longer until I am able to afford some Emotivas .. (probably just wishful thinking ..)
> 
> Think I will spend some time learning what options are there for 5.2.4 Atmos setups, as well as 7.2.4 Atmos setups, figure out what the X4400H can do, and then also look at what choices does my room give me first ..before I can make solid decisions .. but a lot of valuable information so far ! Thanks for that again.




Yeah, without side walls I don’t think the FXi4s will work well for rear surrounds unless you were willing to mount them on speaker stands. Direct firing bookshelf speakers on the back wall could work but more than likely you will want to put some on stands to the rear and side of the main listening position. I would try a basic 5.1 setup and see if the rear wall location for your rear surrounds is satisfactory to you. As long as you have the base layer at ear height (or just above) and the Atmos speakers in the ceiling then Atmos will sound good. That Denon should do both 5.2.4 and 7.2.4 (with an extra amp) well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## alextr75

usc1995 said:


> That Denon should do both 5.2.4 and 7.2.4 (with an extra amp) well.


Sorry I am a bit confused here, but maybe someone can explain things better .. may just be tired from a long day of work.
You are saying Denon can do 7.2. 4 fine (when I use an external amp for the last two channels), but from the posts below it seems like it can not really do 7.2.4 Atmos, so what kind of 7.2.4 does it do then ?
I am probably just a noob when it comes to Atmos still, so maybe why so confused, hopefully I will eventually start getting what you are trying to tell me 



Dan Hitchman said:


> If you wanted 5.1.4 plus the additional Front Wides then you will need to wait for 2018.
> Denon X8500H
> Marantz SR8012
> Or the Marantz pre-amp
> They will probably be north of $4,000.
> Or try to find a 2015 era Denon or Marantz product with 7.1.4 processing. My Marantz 7702 mk ii can do such a layout.





Dan Hitchman said:


> There are no other Dolby recommended base speaker layer configurations you can do with 7.1.4 processing unless you buy a luxury priced Trinnov Altitude processor with more speaker rendering options than normal gear.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> usc1995 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Denon should do both 5.2.4 and 7.2.4 (with an extra amp) well.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I am a bit confused here, but maybe someone can explain things better .. may just be tired from a long day of work.
> You are saying Denon can do 7.2. 4 fine (when I use an external amp for the last two channels), but from the posts below it seems like it can not really do 7.2.4 Atmos, so what kind of 7.2.4 does it do then ?
> I am probably just a noob when it comes to Atmos still, so maybe why so confused, hopefully I will eventually start getting what you are trying to tell me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted 5.1.4 plus the additional Front Wides then you will need to wait for 2018.
> Denon X8500H
> Marantz SR8012
> Or the Marantz pre-amp
> They will probably be north of $4,000.
> Or try to find a 2015 era Denon or Marantz product with 7.1.4 processing. My Marantz 7702 mk ii can do such a layout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no other Dolby recommended base speaker layer configurations you can do with 7.1.4 processing unless you buy a luxury priced Trinnov Altitude processor with more speaker rendering options than normal gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

NOTE: the diagrams used show a Dolby Atmos/DTS: X setup with overhead speakers in the optimal locations.

Okay, the Denon 4400 receiver can do up to 7.1.4 immersive surround processing. However, it can only do one 7.1.4 configuration if you add a stereo amp to power the Rear Immersive speakers:

Front LCR
Side Surround LR
Rear Surround LR
Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR










2015 Denons & Marantz units and the upcoming 2018 flagships can also do this 7.1.4 layout (5.1.4 + Front Wides):

Front LCR
Front Wide LR
Side Surround LR
Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR

Your room layout can do 5.1.4 and possibly 5.1.4 + Front Wides.

Here is a basic idea of the latter configuration:










Here is a standard 5.1.4 layout:


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> Okay, the Denon 4400 receiver can do up to 7.1.4 immersive surround processing. However, it can only do one 7.1.4 configuration if you add a stereo amp to power the Rear Immersive speakers:
> 
> Front LCR
> Side Surround LR
> Rear Surround LR
> Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR
> 
> 2015 Denons & Marantz units and the upcoming 2018 flagships can also do this 7.1.4 layout (5.1.4 + Front Wides):
> 
> Front LCR
> Front Wide LR
> Side Surround LR
> Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR
> 
> Your room layout can do 5.1.4 and possibly 5.1.4 + Front Wides.


Thank you for taking the time to find those diagrams, that really makes things much more clear.

That said, from what I can see then it seems like I can still theoretically get 7.1.4 Atmos with X4400H, just one where I have Rear Back surround instead of Front Wides, where maybe more expensive / flagship receivers can offer both.

I agree my room may not be able to do the 7.1.4 Atmos version that X4400 offers though, and may be more suitable for the second one (using Front Wides).

I just got confused when you said "There are no other Dolby recommended base speaker layer configurations you can do with 7.1.4 processing" thinking the Front Wides is the only 7.2.4 Atmos setup, and I need a flagship receiver to get it, where now if I understand correctly (if my room supports it that is), I could still have a 7.2.4 Atmos setup with the X4400, just one where it has Rear speakers as opposed to Front Wides.

Is the "Front Wides" version generally better than the "Rear surround speakers" or really it just depends on what the room fits best ?


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> NOTE: the diagrams used show a Dolby Atmos/DTS: X setup with overhead speakers in the optimal locations.
> 2015 Denons & Marantz units and the upcoming 2018 flagships can also do this 7.1.4 layout (5.1.4 + Front Wides):
> 
> Front LCR
> Front Wide LR
> Side Surround LR
> Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR
> 
> Your room layout can do 5.1.4 and possibly 5.1.4 + Front Wides.


Actually was just reading through the Dolby Atmos HT installation guide.

The setups with front wides, they are referring to as 9.1.4 or 9.1.2

The only 7.1.4 they have listed is one with side and rear surrounds (not using wides). 
I do not really see a setup of 7.1.4 in there that would use Front Wides + 4 ceiling speakers ,

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, the Denon 4400 receiver can do up to 7.1.4 immersive surround processing. However, it can only do one 7.1.4 configuration if you add a stereo amp to power the Rear Immersive speakers:
> 
> Front LCR
> Side Surround LR
> Rear Surround LR
> Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR
> 
> 2015 Denons & Marantz units and the upcoming 2018 flagships can also do this 7.1.4 layout (5.1.4 + Front Wides):
> 
> Front LCR
> Front Wide LR
> Side Surround LR
> Front & Rear Immersive Speakers LR
> 
> Your room layout can do 5.1.4 and possibly 5.1.4 + Front Wides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the "Front Wides" version generally better than the "Rear surround speakers" or really it just depends on what the room fits best ?
Click to expand...

If you don't have room for rear surrounds and only side surrounds (still called sides even if placed toward the rear positions) and can put in Front Wides, that can be ideal. Front Wides are used quite a bit and sometimes more than the overheads.

The reason Dolby doesn't show that config is because it was not an alternate 7.1.4 layout common to a lot of gear... outside of Denon and Marantz at the time and other very pricey immersive processors. It will come back, though.


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you don't have room for rear surrounds and only side surrounds (still called sides even if placed toward the rear positions) and can put in Front Wides, that can be ideal. Front Wides are used quite a bit and sometimes more than the overheads.
> 
> The reason Dolby doesn't show that config is because it was not an alternate 7.1.4 layout common to a lot of gear... outside of Denon and Marantz at the time and other very pricey immersive processors. It will come back, though.


Tried to make a simple sketch of the room.

You can see the top two thin black panels on the ceiling to help with projector image, there are 2 panels, but the one closer to the seating can be easily removed / detached if desired, to make more room for maybe Top Front Heights. You can also see the wide opening on the right, and fireplace on left.

Seating is just two armchairs for now, easily re-positioned, maybe getting replaced with some 3-seater at some point in the future.

Not sure what you think the best layout for this would be. Do not really have much room for sides, maybe on stands, but the one on the right would be a target for people opening the door.

Maybe just best to stick with 5.2.4 of LCR, 2 side surrounds on rear wall and 4 ceilings representing TFL,TFR, TRL, TRR and not be overly ambitious, as anything else seems like it may be pushing it.

Actually thinking about it, maybe the 5.2.4 + front wides would have worked perfect. Too bad they decided to support the 7.2.4 with Rear surround, but not the one with Front wides. Why they have done that I can not really understand. But the X4400H I found on sale, thought it might be a decent deal at least for us in Canada, I am guessing anything new and supporting 5.2.4 + wides would be much more expensive ... 

Top









And some perspective


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> Front Wides are used quite a bit and sometimes more than the overheads.


And exclusively with a 5.x.x+wides configuration, the Front Wides become even more active as the Atmos decoder feeds them with arrayed side surround bed channel info (providing a very unique cinemascopic effect, as Dolby has not even enabled such bed-channel-only arraying feature for the Trinnov Altitude processor when using multiple side and rear surrounds like it's done in the commercial cinema )


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's easy.
> 
> A pair of Emotiva Airmotiv T2 towers to start. A C2 center and a pair of E1's later.


Given that I have two 18" DIY subs (Dayton Audio UM18 in 4cf sealed boxes, potentially may move these to bigger ported boxes ..), do you think the T1 / C1 would sound just as well as the T2 / C2 ?

Or is there more to the difference between these in addition to just the low frequencies ?
Looks like it might be a bit more affordable that way.

Would the E1 also work as on-ceiling, or not quite ? From what I read it helps if tweeter direction can be adjusted, not sure if that is an option for the E1 really.

Maybe there is something better for ceilings that is timbre matching with the Emotiva Airmotiv ?


----------



## AndreNewman

Does anyone know where I might be able to get the IMAX Dolby ATMOS demo currently playing in Dolby Vision Cinemas? Well it was playing in Hilversum two weeks ago.

It looks like this one:
http://demo-uhd3d.com/fiche.php?cat=uhd&id=56
but longer and with more atmos ness.

It's the best ATMOS demo I've heard, panning effects and voices much like in the Gravity ATMOS mix and I'd like to know how my home setup compares.


----------



## maikeldepotter

alextr75 said:


> Actually thinking about it, maybe the *5.2.4 + front wides would have worked perfect*. Too bad they decided to support the 7.2.4 with Rear surround, but not the one with Front wides. Why they have done that I can not really understand. But the X4400H I found for close to $1000 (USD) on sale, thought it might be a decent deal at least for us in Canada, I am guessing anything new and supporting 5.2.4 + wides would be much more expensive ...


Oh yes, wides at 70d and surrounds at 120d, perfect! 









Edit: And if your AVR does not support wides, you could try using those same positions for side and rear surrounds in a 7.1.4 configuration. With clever positioning of your 4 overheads, and applying some slight (5-10d) elevation for the side and rear surrounds, you could make this work for DTS:X and Auro3D as well (assuming your vertical "ear -to - ceiling-speaker" distance is about 4'). If you choose to follow that route, you might want to check this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...about-format-agnostic-immersive-lay-outs.html


----------



## dkuster

dkuster said:


> I need some advice on whether or not it even makes sense for me to attempt to implement ATMOS in my HT system.
> 
> My basement HT room is not large, approximately 19' long by 13' wide with (at most) an 8' ceiling. (Might be closer to 7.5' )
> 
> My speakers are all Vandersteen in a 7.0 configuration:
> 
> Model 5 -- L, R
> VCC-5 -- C
> VSM-1 -- L and R sides, L and R rears
> 
> The L-C-R tweeters are all at ear level, but per Richard Vandersteen's recommendations my 4 surrounds are mounted high on the walls. I'd say the tweeters are 12" to 18" from the ceiling.
> 
> Given this, I think my only plausible option is to go 7.0.2, with the L and R height speakers either placed high on the front wall or maybe in the ceiling above the front L, R speakers.
> 
> Any suggestions? If I placed them in the ceiling directly above my main speakers, the vertical distance between tweeters might be 4'. I'm not sure how much this would enhance the vertical sound stage (if at all)...
> 
> Thanks.



Still trying to figure this out...

How about this --

I could convert from 7.0 to 5.0.2 by simply lowering my rear L and rear R speakers from high on the wall to ear level, and then configuring them as the two surround channels.

I would leave my two side speakers high up on the side wall and assign them as the .2 height channels. They are directly adjacent to the seating positions, and would be firing horizontally into the room not down towards the floor.

So maybe not ideal, but could this work??


----------



## inspector

I have an older AV receiver (Onkyo 608) that does 7.2. It has connections for front highs, really making it 9.2. I now have 7.1 and am using my Sammy K8500 (3D/4K) for pass through. My question is, could I connect 2 Atmos in-ceiling speakers to those front highs, will I then have 7.2.2? Also, if I play a Atmos disc, will I get audio through them.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Given that I have two 18" DIY subs (Dayton Audio UM18 in 4cf sealed boxes, potentially may move these to bigger ported boxes ..), do you think the T1 / C1 would sound just as well as the T2 / C2 ?
> 
> Or is there more to the difference between these in addition to just the low frequencies ?
> Looks like it might be a bit more affordable that way.
> 
> Would the E1 also work as on-ceiling, or not quite ? From what I read it helps if tweeter direction can be adjusted, not sure if that is an option for the E1 really.
> 
> Maybe there is something better for ceilings that is timbre matching with the Emotiva Airmotiv ?


I have a pretty nice HSU sub, but also have larger towers and a very large center speaker and I've found that the sound is still better than having smaller speakers and a sub. You get a wider range of frequency reproduction that way and not as much of a gap between what smaller speakers can handle and what usable frequencies the sub is good for. You would set a lower cross-over threshold with the fronts and center giving you more mid-bass that you might be missing otherwise (a weakness of most subs). Also, the T1's cabinets are a little too small and put the tweeter down lower. I think that was one of the things Emotiva tried to fix with the newer T2 besides an improved cross-over network.

As I mentioned above, GoldenEar in-ceiling's or even their SuperSats on adjustable brackets would probably be the closest timbre-wise to the Airmotiv line-up for overhead use. The E1 is better as a wall-hung surround.

The 4400 in a standard 5.1.4 configuration might be the cheapest route at this time. With more flexibility comes a higher price... unless you can find a lightly used Denon 6200 or an equivalent Marantz 7.1.4 receiver from their 2015 lineup. 

Have you considered framing out that opening and putting in just a normal sized door? You would then give yourself room to play with in terms of speaker and seat positioning... and keep the theater sound more contained, granting you an overall better experience.


----------



## alextr75

maikeldepotter said:


> Oh yes, wides at 70d and surrounds at 120d, perfect!
> 
> View attachment 2323964
> 
> 
> Edit: And if your AVR does not support wides, you could try using those same positions for side and rear surrounds in a 7.1.4 configuration. With clever positioning of your 4 overheads, and applying some slight (5-10d) elevation for the side and rear surrounds, you could make this work for DTS:X and Auro3D as well (assuming your vertical "ear -to - ceiling-speaker" distance is about 4'). If you choose to follow that route, you might want to check this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...about-format-agnostic-immersive-lay-outs.html


MLP ear height is I believe somewhere around 38-40" in my case (~ 3.25'). Ceiling is 8 feet high.

Slight elevation actually might come in handy. E.g. Fireplace on the left is about 4' high, so that left surround speaker in your diagram will be somewhat higher than MLP if put over the fireplace.

Also for rear surrounds, (if I want to keep wire routing inside the walls that is), I have some horizontal fire blocks about 4' from the floor, so might need to raise those speakers somewhat higher too anyway (wire is coming from top of wall cavity). Obviously if I ran the wire outside the wall (visible), I can place them lower too if desired.

For your suggestion about putting my side surrounds in wides position, that would put them in 70d azimuth, where the dolby installation guide specifies 90-110. Would that not be too far of from acceptable range ?


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a pretty nice HSU sub, but also have larger towers and a very large center speaker and I've found that the sound is still better than having smaller speakers and a sub. You get a wider range of frequency reproduction that way and not as much of a gap between what smaller speakers can handle and what usable frequencies the sub is good for. You would set a lower cross-over threshold with the fronts and center giving you more mid-bass that you might be missing otherwise (a weakness of most subs). Also, the T1's cabinets are a little too small and put the tweeter down lower. I think that was one of the things Emotiva tried to fix with the newer T2 besides an improved cross-over network.
> 
> As I mentioned above, GoldenEar in-ceiling's or even their SuperSats on adjustable brackets would probably be the closest timbre-wise to the Airmotiv line-up for overhead use. The E1 is better as a wall-hung surround.
> 
> The 4400 in a standard 5.1.4 configuration might be the cheapest route at this time. With more flexibility comes a higher price... unless you can find a lightly used Denon 6200 or an equivalent Marantz 7.1.4 receiver from their 2015 lineup.
> 
> Have you considered framing out that opening and putting in just a normal sized door? You would then give yourself room to play with in terms of speaker and seat positioning... and keep the theater sound more contained, granting you an overall better experience.


Looked around and there is actually a B-Stock refurbished Denon X6200W right now for a somewhat similar price to what I got the X4400 for. Though I'd have to have it shipped to my place. Who knows whether it is lightly used though 

I am not sure though whether buying refurbished is a good idea. Deal is apparently just until today, so I better make up my mind quickly  .. I do no think I can really get to own 11 speakers very soon anyway, so it would be more for future proofing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> Looked around and there is actually a B-Stock refurbished Denon X6200W right now from a Canadian store for a very similar price (~$1000 USD), though I'd have to have it shipped to my place. Who knows whether it is lightly used though
> 
> I am not sure though whether buying refurbished is a good idea. Deal is apparently just until today, so I better make up my mind quickly  .. I do no think I can really get to own 11 speakers very soon anyway, so it would be more for future proofing.


It depends on whether the refurb is a Marantz factory refurb and if they offer an extended warranty... some credit cards will also add a year or more to whatever warranty is given. Also, will the store allow you to return it within a reasonable time in case whatever fix had to be done is still having an issue. It could be a good tied-me-over if you're not stuck with it in case of a problem that crops up fairly quickly.


----------



## maikeldepotter

alextr75 said:


> For your suggestion about putting my side surrounds in wides position, that would put them in 70d azimuth, where the dolby installation guide specifies 90-110. Would that not be too far of from acceptable range ?


At those positions, sounds that are supposed to come from the side and rear (ITU 90-110 and 135-150), will still originate from the side and the rear (70 and 120 degrees) albeit a bit more forward than intended. However, since these sounds have no direct relation to visual cues on the screen, I very much doubt if this will negatively affect your overall experience. The advantage of such forward oriented layout is that - in the absence of wides - the gap between L/R fronts and side surrounds is better covered, as this is the region where we have more difficulty to perceive stable 'phantom images'.


----------



## alextr75

maikeldepotter said:


> At those positions, sounds that are supposed to come from the side and rear (ITU 90-110 and 135-150), will still originate from the side and the rear (70 and 120 degrees) albeit a bit more forward than intended. However, since these sounds have no direct relation to visual cues on the screen, I very much doubt if this will negatively affect your overall experience. The advantage of such forward oriented layout is that is - in the absence of wides - the gap between L/R fronts and side surrounds is better covered, as this is the region where we have more difficulty to perceive stable 'phantom images'.


If I understand this correctly, that would mean it may work somewhat better than the standard 7.2.4 setup with rear surrounds because it narrows that gap from L/R to side surrounds .. but is not really a 100% replacement for a dedicated 5.2.4+Wides with Receiver support, that is the later might still sound better because the receiver can send sound that is supposed to exist in that area properly to the wides .. where in the former I am not exactly sure what it would do . maybe split it between front L/R and the side surrounds ? ..Guess you could say in that case I would have "phantom" wides, similar to "phantom" center when a dedicated center channel is missing.


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> It depends on whether the refurb is a Marantz factory refurb and if they offer an extended warranty... some credit cards will also add a year or more to whatever warranty is given. Also, will the store allow you to return it within a reasonable time in case whatever fix had to be done is still having an issue. It could be a good tied-me-over if you're not stuck with it in case of a problem that crops up fairly quickly.


I just checked Denon Canada and warranty appears 90 days on refurb items (even though the store says Denon does 1 year on B-Stock). I might get lucky and it may work better and longer than the brand new X4400H, but I don't really feel comfortable gambling. 

Think I may just stay with the X4400 and maybe do what maikeldepotter was suggesting. Hoping by moving the side surround a bit forward, it may be a setup that ends up sounding somewhat in between what the two different 7.2.4 versions would do.


----------



## laubyasu

I have an in-ceiling 5.1 setup right now (front 3 speakers shown in attached picture) and recently got a new receiver that is Atmos enabled (Yamaha RX-V681). I'm curious if adding a couple of speakers in a way that would be fairly easy for me to accomplish would be worthwhile. Essentially, I could switch the front right and left channel speakers that are currently in my ceiling and hook them in to the front presence port on my receiver, then add two bookshelf speakers on the sides of my screen at listener height to serve as the new front left and right channels (I have a large built in entertainment center that has shelf space - I'd just need to drill a few holes to run speaker wire). That way, I'd have two new bookshelf speakers at listener height and convert the current right and left front speakers to "Atmos" capable in ceiling speakers. However, I'm curious if this would be effective or worthwhile. The in-ceiling speakers are in the front of the room, only about a foot in front of the screen near where the bookshelves would be. The Dolby website indicates that it's best in a 5.1.2 system to put the overheads basically right above the listener, which isn't an option for me. If I do this conversion, I'm going to have to use the existing front ceiling speakers. Accordingly, the in ceiling "Atmos" speakers would be a good 6 feet higher than the new bookshelf speakers, but only about a foot in front of them (which is about 11 feet in front of the listener, not overhead). It seems that this would give a good contrast in height between the front right and left channels and the 2 in-ceiling "Atmos" speakers, but the "Atmos" speakers wouldn't be right over the listener's head, but overhead and in front of the room closer to the screen. Does this ruin the benefit of Atmos or is it still worthwhile?

Another question I have is that if I do this, the in ceiling front center channel speaker would need to stay where it is. If I do that, then my center channel is at ceiling height (which works fine for me now - it's about a foot above the top of a 120" projector screen), but the new bookshelf speakers on each side of the screen would be at a lower height, more in line with the listener's ear level when seated. Would this cause a problem? I've had two houses with surround sound in the ceilings, so that's all I really know. I see plenty of pictures online with setups where the front 3 speakers are at different levels (over TV and lower down on sides of TV, etc.), so I'm assuming this isn't a huge deal.

I'd imagine a lot of people out there have similar 5.1 in ceiling setups since it is something that builders commonly will wire for people. Curious to know if anybody with a similar setup has any insight into converting that type of setup as I'm proposing.


I don't think it's too pertinent, but I currently have a Klipsch R-110SW subwoofer in the back right part of my room (by edge of couch, so in the "corner" of the seating area of the bonus room, but there is actually a good 5-feet to the back wall, with a work space behind the couch, so the sub isn't truly in the corner of the room). Whether I add the bookshelf speakers or not, I'm pretty sure I'm going to add another sub near the front left corner of the room, opposite my current sub. My current setup already has pretty good bass, but there are definitely differences depending on where you're seated and I've read that 2 subs offers a significant improvement. Accordingly, if I don't do the bookshelf speakers, I'll have a 5.2 system. If I do the bookshelf speakers, I'll have a 5.2.2 system. I doubt this changes anything in regards to whether it's worth adding bookshelf speakers and converting the in-ceiling front speakers to overhead presence speakers, but I'm only a moderately knowledgeable home theater enthusiast, so I figured I'd include this info just in case it does matter.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> I just checked Denon Canada and warranty appears 90 days on refurb items (even though the store says Denon does 1 year on B-Stock). I might get lucky and it may work better and longer than the brand new X4400H, but I don't really feel comfortable gambling.
> 
> Think I may just stay with the X4400 and maybe do what maikeldepotter was suggesting. Hoping by moving the side surround a bit forward, it may be a setup that ends up sounding somewhat in between what the two different 7.2.4 versions would do.


If you framed in a door in the right location, you may not have to do that. But, in the end, it depends on how much remodeling you want to add to your installation.


----------



## alextr75

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you framed in a door in the right location, you may not have to do that. But, in the end, it depends on how much remodeling you want to add to your installation.


Well I am not so much concerned with the fact I do not have a good place for side surrounds now, the reason for planning on putting them more forward is just to compensate for the lack of Front Wides.

If I can't really get close to the Front Wides experience, maybe I might as well stay with 5.2.4. I am not really sure to be honest if 7.2.4 with rear surround would be much better than just 5.2.4

Because I never really noticed enough improvement with 7.2 vs the 5.2 setup I have now (and have had before the 7.2), to be missing it.

I feel like though I would have enjoyed front wides more, so putting the side surrounds forward might have been just an attempt to somewhat compensate for the lack of wides.

Do you think that there is any possibility support for Front Wides might be added with a future firmware update, or its a hardware thing and can't really be added with software.


----------



## jsgrise

alextr75 said:


> Well I am not so much concerned with the fact I do not have a good place for side surrounds now, the reason for planning on putting them more forward is just to compensate for the lack of Front Wides.
> 
> If I can't really get close to the Front Wides experience, maybe I might as well stay with 5.2.4. I am not really sure to be honest if 7.2.4 with rear surround would be much better than just 5.2.4
> 
> Because I never really noticed enough improvement with 7.2 vs the 5.2 setup I have now (and have had before the 7.2), to be missing it.
> 
> I feel like though I would have enjoyed front wides more, so putting the side surrounds forward might have been just an attempt to somewhat compensate for the lack of wides.
> 
> Do you think that there is any possibility support for Front Wides might be added with a future firmware update, or its a hardware thing and can't really be added with software.


Where do you live in Canada? I might have my Marantz SR-7010 for sale...


----------



## Selden Ball

alextr75 said:


> Well I am not so much concerned with the fact I do not have a good place for side surrounds now, the reason for planning on putting them more forward is just to compensate for the lack of Front Wides.
> 
> If I can't really get close to the Front Wides experience, maybe I might as well stay with 5.2.4. I am not really sure to be honest if 7.2.4 with rear surround would be much better than just 5.2.4
> 
> Because I never really noticed enough improvement with 7.2 vs the 5.2 setup I have now (and have had before the 7.2), to be missing it.
> 
> I feel like though I would have enjoyed front wides more, so putting the side surrounds forward might have been just an attempt to somewhat compensate for the lack of wides.
> 
> Do you think that there is any possibility support for Front Wides might be added with a future firmware update, or its a hardware thing and can't really be added with software.


My impression is that Wides were dropped for several reasons, including both marketing and DSP memory constraints (i.e. cost). It's very unlikely that Wide functionality will be added to 2017 models with firmware updates. Instead that feature will be available in some of the higher-end units available during the 2018 model year. Apparently they'll be available in Q1 in D&M's flagship AVR-X8500H receiver and AV8805 pre/pro, for example, and likely will "trickle down" to some of their other models.


----------



## Marc Alexander

jsgrise said:


> Where do you live in Canada? I might have my Marantz SR-7010 for sale...


I would sell that X4400 and go with the SR-7010.

I am running 5.1.4 + Wides. For me, the Wides add more to the experience than having 4 discrete surrounds behind me (my side surrounds are bipolar and slightly behind the MLP, closer to 100°). I wish I had tried Wides earlier. I was intent on running 7.1.6 (ScAtmos) with Top Mids on my AV7702mkII. I choose/recommend Wides over Top Mids without reservations.


----------



## alextr75

jsgrise said:


> Where do you live in Canada? I might have my Marantz SR-7010 for sale...


PM-ed


----------



## Josh Z

AndreNewman said:


> Does anyone know where I might be able to get the IMAX Dolby ATMOS demo currently playing in Dolby Vision Cinemas? Well it was playing in Hilversum two weeks ago.


IMAX and Dolby are competitors. IMAX theaters have their own proprietary 12-channel immersive sound format. You won't find Atmos in an IMAX theater. Nor would a Dolby Cinema have IMAX branding.

Was the theater you went to IMAX or was it Dolby Cinema? They should be two separate things.


----------



## usc1995

alextr75 said:


> MLP ear height is I believe somewhere around 38-40" in my case (~ 3.25'). Ceiling is 8 feet high.
> 
> Slight elevation actually might come in handy. E.g. Fireplace on the left is about 4' high, so that left surround speaker in your diagram will be somewhat higher than MLP if put over the fireplace.
> 
> Also for rear surrounds, (if I want to keep wire routing inside the walls that is), I have some horizontal fire blocks about 4' from the floor, so might need to raise those speakers somewhat higher too anyway (wire is coming from top of wall cavity). Obviously if I ran the wire outside the wall (visible), I can place them lower too if desired.
> 
> For your suggestion about putting my side surrounds in wides position, that would put them in 70d azimuth, where the dolby installation guide specifies 90-110. Would that not be too far of from acceptable range ?




Are you able to flip the room to have the LCR on what is now the back wall? You could then place the SS on the side walls directly in front of the windows and place the RS on stands in front of the windows. Not sure if that will work for WAF or wiring considerations but you wouldn’t have the lack of side wall problem anymore. If not then Maikel’s suggestion of placing the side surround just in front of the MLP would work great and your angled bipole speakers at those positions would work well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## alextr75

usc1995 said:


> Are you able to flip the room to have the LCR on what is now the back wall? You could then place the SS on the side walls directly in front of the windows and place the RS on stands in front of the windows. Not sure if that will work for WAF or wiring considerations but you wouldn’t have the lack of side wall problem anymore. If not then Maikel’s suggestion of placing the side surround just in front of the MLP would work great and your angled bipole speakers at those positions would work well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Thanks, all good suggestions. But as I said I am not so trilled with the 7.2 setup using side surrounds / rear surrounds. I used to have that and was not that much better than 5.2. So redoing the room setup all around is not really worth it for me. 

I am really trying to see if I can actually be able to end up having a 7.2.4 with front wides as opposed rear surrounds, as I do believe I would probably like that more. 
I could put front wides in my current room as is, so the room is less of a problem for that, but I am still missing a receiver supporting 5.2.4 + wides. Looks like I rushed a little bit with the X4400, but it is still within the return window.

The idea about flipping things around actually is not bad at all .. but due to maybe helping with other things I have been thinking about, just not really sure I would take up on that yet


----------



## usc1995

alextr75 said:


> Thanks, all good suggestions. But as I said I am not so trilled with the 7.2 setup using side surrounds / rear surrounds. I used to have that and was not that much better than 5.2. So redoing the room setup all around is not really worth it for me.
> 
> I am really trying to see if I can actually be able to end up having a 7.2.4 with front wides as opposed rear surrounds, as I do believe I would probably like that more.
> I could put front wides in my current room as is, so the room is less of a problem for that, but I am still missing a receiver supporting 5.2.4 + wides. Looks like I rushed a little bit with the X4400, but it is still within the return window.
> 
> The idea about flipping things around actually is not bad at all .. but due to maybe helping with other things I have been thinking about, just not really sure I would take up on that yet




You may not need a receiver that can explicitly handle wides if you are willing to place the side surrounds just in front of the MLP as Maikel suggested. My side surrounds are just behind me and it was suggested to me to lower them a bit and move them to just in front of my current MLP as well in basically the same spot that Maikel is suggesting to you. Well I was very reluctant since my wiring is all in wall and it would require a bunch of drywall work I was not interested in but I did experiment by pushing my MLP back to just behind the side surrounds. I then ran some demos and they sounded really good. I am guessing we actually pick up more of that surround information when it comes from in front of our ears than behind. I didn’t keep my MLP there because it put me further from the screen than where I wanted to be but if I get the nerve to rerun my speaker wiring I may give it a shot. Lowering the side surround would also help my separation between the Atmos speakers and the bed layer but I don’t feel like cutting and patching drywall right now...I think you will be good whether you are able to purchase an AVR that can do wides or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## alextr75

I was doing some reading and if I understood things correctly Dolby Surround Upmixing does not generate any output for speakers that are configured as Front Wides, so I am thinking maybe best for me to just keep the new X4400H I got, and eventually just end up with 7.2.4 using Side and Rear surround (no wides), but maybe position the sides a bit to the front (about 70d as opposed to 90d), similar to what Maikel suggested earlier in this thread.

That said I am wondering what is the best position for the Top Front (and Top rear).
The picture below you can see the options I am looking at. At the ceiling in front of the projector there are two velvet panels attached to ceiling to help with projector picture (ceiling is otherwise white).

In his suggestion, the TF are what the green circles are below, and that would require me to move one of the velvet panels closer to the seating position to open up room to install those TF. That would mean I end up having a strip of white ceiling in between the two velvet panels (not sure that would look the best or how it would affect the projector picture quality). I could maybe instead cut holes in those Styrofoam panels without moving the whole panels, but I'd rather try to avoid that option if possible.

Or I could put them where the red circles are, which would require no moving of the panels, but the lateral angle is now less.

Or I could put them where the blue circles are, aiming for best lateral angle,but they would then not be in the same line as the front speakers when viewed from top.

The lateral angles from vertical line at MLP are shown at the second picture.

The Top Rear are at about 38 degrees, but the Top front would be Red: 35, Green: 55, Blue: Anywhere in between.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

alextr75 said:


> I was doing some reading and if I understood things correctly Dolby Surround Upmixing does not generate any output for speakers that are configured as Front Wides, so I am thinking maybe best for me to just keep the new X4400H I got, and eventually just end up with 7.2.4 using Side and Rear surround (no wides), but maybe position the sides a bit to the front (about 70d as opposed to 90d), similar to what Maikel suggested earlier in this thread.
> 
> That said I am wondering what is the best position for the Top Front (and Top rear).
> The picture below you can see the options I am looking at. At the ceiling in front of the projector there are two velvet panels attached to ceiling to help with projector picture (ceiling is otherwise white).
> 
> In his suggestion, the TF are what the green circles are below, and that would require me to move one of the velvet panels closer to the seating position to open up room to install those TF. That would mean I end up having a strip of white ceiling in between the two velvet panels (not sure that would look the best or how it would affect the projector picture quality). I could maybe instead cut holes in those Styrofoam panels without moving the whole panels, but I'd rather try to avoid that option if possible.
> 
> Or I could put them where the red circles are, which would require no moving of the panels, but the lateral angle is now less.
> 
> Or I could put them where the blue circles are, aiming for best lateral angle,but they would then not be in the same line as the front speakers when viewed from top.
> 
> The lateral angles from vertical line at MLP are shown at the second picture.
> 
> The Top Rear are at about 38 degrees, but the Top front would be Red: 35, Green: 55, Blue: Anywhere in between.


Well, if that makes your receiver ownership decision any clearer, you can always use DTS Neural: X instead of Dolby Surround as an upmixer. It uses Front Wides and some reports show that it has better overhead sound positioning.


----------



## usc1995

alextr75 said:


> I was doing some reading and if I understood things correctly Dolby Surround Upmixing does not generate any output for speakers that are configured as Front Wides, so I am thinking maybe best for me to just keep the new X4400H I got, and eventually just end up with 7.2.4 using Side and Rear surround (no wides), but maybe position the sides a bit to the front (about 70d as opposed to 90d), similar to what Maikel suggested earlier in this thread.
> 
> That said I am wondering what is the best position for the Top Front (and Top rear).
> The picture below you can see the options I am looking at. At the ceiling in front of the projector there are two velvet panels attached to ceiling to help with projector picture (ceiling is otherwise white).
> 
> In his suggestion, the TF are what the green circles are below, and that would require me to move one of the velvet panels closer to the seating position to open up room to install those TF. That would mean I end up having a strip of white ceiling in between the two velvet panels (not sure that would look the best or how it would affect the projector picture quality). I could maybe instead cut holes in those Styrofoam panels without moving the whole panels, but I'd rather try to avoid that option if possible.
> 
> Or I could put them where the red circles are, which would require no moving of the panels, but the lateral angle is now less.
> 
> Or I could put them where the blue circles are, aiming for best lateral angle,but they would then not be in the same line as the front speakers when viewed from top.
> 
> The lateral angles from vertical line at MLP are shown at the second picture.
> 
> The Top Rear are at about 38 degrees, but the Top front would be Red: 35, Green: 55, Blue: Anywhere in between.


The basic standard for placement of the Atmos speakers relative to the main listening position is at 45 degrees in front and to the rear. In my room with a 7.5 ft ceiling height I placed my Atmos speakers 3.5ft to the front and 3.5ft to the rear of my seated position. Its important to have a decent amount of distance between the front and rear speakers so you get good panning sounds from front to back.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

alextr75 said:


> Well I am not so much concerned with the fact I do not have a good place for side surrounds now, the reason for planning on putting them more forward is just to compensate for the lack of Front Wides.
> 
> If I can't really get close to the Front Wides experience, maybe I might as well stay with 5.2.4. I am not really sure to be honest if 7.2.4 with rear surround would be much better than just 5.2.4
> 
> Because I never really noticed enough improvement with 7.2 vs the 5.2 setup I have now (and have had before the 7.2), to be missing it.
> 
> I feel like though I would have enjoyed front wides more, so putting the side surrounds forward might have been just an attempt to somewhat compensate for the lack of wides.


Although Side Surrounds are supposed to be @+/-90-110° it's actually good practice to move them somewhat further ahead IF Rear Surrounds are present. It's well documented that +/-75° is fine. 70° is close enough. You will not be "compensating for the lack of Front Wides" but in stead you will be optimizing your 7.2 set-up.


----------



## ergalthema

So, I know my setup is far from ideal, but I think it sounds pretty decent... considering.

Can you check out this photo and let me know if you have any suggestions?
https://kuula.co/share/7lbqB?fs=1&vr=0&thumbs=1&chromeless=0&logo=0

Onkyo TX-NR646
Philharmonic Affordable Accuracy Monitors L/C/R
Polk Audio OWM3 side heights
Dayton Audio SUB-1000 10-Inch 100 Watt Powered Subwoofer 
Harman Kardon HKB Ls/Rs


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

laubyasu said:


> I have an in-ceiling 5.1 setup right now (front 3 speakers shown in attached picture) and recently got a new receiver that is Atmos enabled (Yamaha RX-V681). I'm curious if adding a couple of speakers in a way that would be fairly easy for me to accomplish would be worthwhile. Essentially, I could switch the front right and left channel speakers that are currently in my ceiling and hook them in to the front presence port on my receiver, then add two bookshelf speakers on the sides of my screen at listener height to serve as the new front left and right channels (I have a large built in entertainment center that has shelf space - I'd just need to drill a few holes to run speaker wire). That way, I'd have two new bookshelf speakers at listener height and convert the current right and left front speakers to "Atmos" capable in ceiling speakers. However, I'm curious if this would be effective or worthwhile. The in-ceiling speakers are in the front of the room, only about a foot in front of the screen near where the bookshelves would be. The Dolby website indicates that it's best in a 5.1.2 system to put the overheads basically right above the listener, which isn't an option for me. If I do this conversion, I'm going to have to use the existing front ceiling speakers. Accordingly, the in ceiling "Atmos" speakers would be a good 6 feet higher than the new bookshelf speakers, but only about a foot in front of them (which is about 11 feet in front of the listener, not overhead). It seems that this would give a good contrast in height between the front right and left channels and the 2 in-ceiling "Atmos" speakers, but the "Atmos" speakers wouldn't be right over the listener's head, but overhead and in front of the room closer to the screen. Does this ruin the benefit of Atmos or is it still worthwhile?
> 
> Another question I have is that if I do this, the in ceiling front center channel speaker would need to stay where it is. If I do that, then my center channel is at ceiling height (which works fine for me now - it's about a foot above the top of a 120" projector screen), but the new bookshelf speakers on each side of the screen would be at a lower height, more in line with the listener's ear level when seated. Would this cause a problem? I've had two houses with surround sound in the ceilings, so that's all I really know. I see plenty of pictures online with setups where the front 3 speakers are at different levels (over TV and lower down on sides of TV, etc.), so I'm assuming this isn't a huge deal.
> 
> I'd imagine a lot of people out there have similar 5.1 in ceiling setups since it is something that builders commonly will wire for people. Curious to know if anybody with a similar setup has any insight into converting that type of setup as I'm proposing.


I notice you didn't get any suggestions yet. That's because it's difficult to advise someone about the benefits of Atmos if that person is ok with in-ceiling LCR. LCR is critical.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

ergalthema said:


> So, I know my setup is far from ideal, but I think it sounds pretty decent... considering.
> 
> Can you check out this photo and let me know if you have any suggestions?
> https://kuula.co/share/7lbqB?fs=1&vr=0&thumbs=1&chromeless=0&logo=0
> 
> Onkyo TX-NR646
> Philharmonic Affordable Accuracy Monitors L/C/R
> Polk Audio OWM3 side heights
> Dayton Audio SUB-1000 10-Inch 100 Watt Powered Subwoofer
> Harman Kardon HKB Ls/Rs


Cool 3D picture!

Spread out L/R Fronts wider?
Add ceiling absorption?


----------



## unretarded

alextr75 said:


>



Just something to be aware of.......while running the ceiling speaker room centric is probably best if you are cutting holes or not depending on your set up.


I mounted my ceiling speakers per dolby and went room centric, problem is my seating is not room centric, which makes for a less than stellar experience.



If you room configuration is set or you have on the ceiling speakers I would highly recommend going seating centric and not room centric in the mounting locations. Even if it puts you out of spec with the dolby recommendations.


Having the seating not center left to right under the speakers makes for calibration and listening problems........the speakers really need to be centered over the seating left to right or the seating centered left to right under the ceiling speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ergalthema said:


> So, I know my setup is far from ideal, but I think it sounds pretty decent... considering.
> 
> Can you check out this photo and let me know if you have any suggestions?
> https://kuula.co/share/7lbqB?fs=1&vr=0&thumbs=1&chromeless=0&logo=0
> 
> Onkyo TX-NR646
> Philharmonic Affordable Accuracy Monitors L/C/R
> Polk Audio OWM3 side heights
> Dayton Audio SUB-1000 10-Inch 100 Watt Powered Subwoofer
> Harman Kardon HKB Ls/Rs


I would echo that the left/right speakers need to be spread out more.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would echo that the left/right speakers need to be spread out more.


Three on a matchstick! Funny, that was also my very first thought.


----------



## ergalthema

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Cool 3D picture!
> 
> Spread out L/R Fronts wider?
> Add ceiling absorption?





Dan Hitchman said:


> I would echo that the left/right speakers need to be spread out more.





chi_guy50 said:


> Three on a matchstick! Funny, that was also my very first thought.


there is some Distortion in the picture that makes them seem closer together, I think.it's a pretty big TV.and the seating is probably closer then it appears as well.I'm more concerned about the height and rear speakers.and I know the Rears looks strange with one on the side and one up right, but I reallyprefer the way they sound that way for some reason.


----------



## Jeigh07

Re-posting Here for more traffic ( I first posted on a 2016 Thread )

I want to make *7.1.2 Setup* happen *using 2 of the same receiver via HDMI*. I already own one TX-NR646 and all the speakers. 
Reason: 

Buying another NR646 or 656 will only set me back like $200. Selling NR646 and Buying a 9.1 Receiver will set me back like +$1000. 

Logic:

HDMI Split to make Atmos 7.1.2 between 2 Receivers

Receiver A1 and Receiver A2 are same model and brand. 
Onkyo TX-NR646 Atmos and DTS:X compatible

I will be using:

Home Theater PC, HD Audio Pass through with R8 270x Radeon GPU and Power DVD 2015
and SOWTECH 1X2 HDMI Splitter Version 1.4 to split the connection so that each Receiver gets 1 HDMI In

Speaker Layout 
Receiver A1 Set to 5.1.2 | Powered Layout is 3.1.2: Center, Front L, and Front R, Center Height L , Center Height R 
Receiver A2 Set to 7.1 Surround | Powered Layout is 4.0.0: Side L, Side R, Rear L, Rear R 

The other speakers each receiver is expecting to be connected will not be connected. 

My Assumptions: 
PC Sends Bitstream Audio Data - Receiver A and Receiver B both display "Atmos" on display and send power to speakers they are connected to. I may have latency issues. 

Question: Will this work as I have laid out? If not, why? 
Can it work with Receiver B as a 7.1 Non Atmos or DTS:X compatible speaker? If yes, why?



More info: This Receiver only has Pre outs for subs. 

Thanks for reading and thank you for your suggestions!


----------



## sdurani

Jeigh07 said:


> Will this work as I have laid out? If not, why?


The receiver that is configured for 7.1 will assume you have no height speakers and will therefore keep all the height information in the base layer. The receiver configured for 5.1.2 will send all the height information to the height layer, duplicating what you'll be hearing in the base layer. Height information will come from above you AND around you.


----------



## laubyasu

*Follow Up Question*



erwinfrombelgium said:


> I notice you didn't get any suggestions yet. That's because it's difficult to advise someone about the benefits of Atmos if that person is ok with in-ceiling LCR. LCR is critical.


Thanks for the response. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because I've had in ceiling for all 5 speakers in the past, that I'm not going to notice any Atmos benefit since I'm used to hearing audio from above or that even with my proposed changes, which would bring the left and front right channels down significantly lower, I'm still not going to notice any benefit since my center channel is still going to be a foot above the screen in the ceiling? Or something else?


----------



## Jeigh07

sdurani said:


> The receiver that is configured for 7.1 will assume you have no height speakers and will therefore keep all the height information in the base layer. The receiver configured for 5.1.2 will send all the height information to the height layer, duplicating what you'll be hearing in the base layer. Height information will come from above you AND around you.


Now I understand how Atmos works ( In terms of bubbles of sound ) and how one can listen to Atmos encoded things in 7.1 Sound field. With what you said in mind I propose this scenario:

( Changing the position of the Height Speakers from Center, to Front so that they bubble with Front Speakers of the same Receiver instead of the second receiver) 
Receiver A Set to 3.1.2 | Powering Fr R, Fr L, Center,* Fr Height L, Fr Height R* 
Receiver B Set to 7.1 | Powering Side L, Side R, Rear L, Rear R ( No Change from Before ) 

In this way the second receiver *might* be playing sound coming from the frontal Atmosphere. Example: I don't suspect a helicopter will be heavenly focused on the side or rear speakers from Receiver B when Front Low and Front Height are Focused. I would expect ambient simulated echo from the side speakers as well as the rear speakers. I would also expect said sound to increase in intensity as the helicopter starts to leave one side of the frontal atmosphere and get nearer to one side of the rectangular room ( L or R ). 

If my reasoning is correct then I can also surmise that both receivers can yield me - 5.1.4 by Placing Front Height(s) and Rear Height(s)

What do you think? Are we at that point where test data is warranted? 

Thank your for reading and thank you for your reply(s)


----------



## sdurani

Jeigh07 said:


> Changing the position of the Height Speakers from Center, to Front so that they bubble with Front Speakers of the same Receiver instead of the second receiver


When you configure a receiver for a single pair of heights, ALL the height information goes to those speakers (there's no where else for the height info to go). It's not like those speakers can only receive the front portion of the height information. Irrespective of whether you configure them as Front Height or Top Middle, those speakers will get ALL the height information. Which means the same height information that you hear from the surrounds of Receiver B will also be heard duplicated from your height speakers. I'm not telling you not to try it, just pointing out the obvious: height information will be coming from above you AND around you.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Jeigh07 said:


> Re-posting Here for more traffic ( I first posted on a 2016 Thread )
> 
> I want to make *7.1.2 Setup* happen *using 2 of the same receiver via HDMI*. I already own one TX-NR646 and all the speakers.


NO, you must purchase a 9ch AVR for 7.1.2.

I was going to suggest considering RAtmos to extract a mono rear surround but your AVR does not have analog pre-outs.

Edit: Your best bet is finding a Denon X4300H (can do 11.1 with external 2xh amp). Can be found new < $800. Used for less if you have some patience.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> When you configure a receiver for a single pair of heights, ALL the height information goes to those speakers (there's no where else for the height info to go). It's not like those speakers can only receive the front portion of the height information. Irrespective of whether you configure them as Front Height or Top Middle, those speakers will get ALL the height information.


Which does kind of beg the question... what's the point of the AVR offering 5 choices for positioning? FH, TF, TM, TR, and RH. No matter which you pick, you're indicating you'll get exactly the same thing.

If that isn't both misleading and confusing to consumers, I'm not sure what would be.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> Which does kind of beg the question... what's the point of the AVR offering 5 choices for positioning?


When more than one pair of heights is used, Height vs Top designations give the Atmos & DTS:X renderers an idea of where your speakers are located.


----------



## Marc Alexander

VideoGrabber said:


> Which does kind of beg the question... what's the point of the AVR offering 5 choices for positioning? FH, TF, TM, TR, and RH. No matter which you pick, you're indicating you'll get exactly the same thing.
> 
> If that isn't both misleading and confusing to consumers, I'm not sure what would be.


They must write the on-screen interface to support the entire AVR/AVP family. Most OSDs also provide visual indicators of physical location. 

Its only confusing for someone beginning to dive into technical details not the majority of users.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> When *more than one pair of heights* is used, Height vs Top designations give the Atmos & DTS:X renderers an idea of where your speakers are located.


Sure, but that's the point... *it's not possible* for more than one pair of heights to be used. You only get one (or none).


----------



## Marc Alexander

VideoGrabber said:


> Sure, but that's the point... *it's not possible* for more than one pair of heights to be used. You only get one (or none).


So why does it matter?


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> Sure, but that's the point... *it's not possible* for more than one pair of heights to be used. You only get one (or none).


In those (X.x.2) situations it doesn't matter. It used to matter when AVRs were transitioning to immersive audio: the Front Heights designation was the only one that was compatible with DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX. But now that the former was replace by Neural:X and the latter is history, the height speaker designations matter only when using more than one pair overhead.


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> When you configure a receiver for a single pair of heights, ALL the height information goes to those speakers (there's no where else for the height info to go). It's not like those speakers can only receive the front portion of the height information. Irrespective of whether you configure them as Front Height or Top Middle, those speakers will get ALL the height information. Which means the same height information that you hear from the surrounds of Receiver B will also be heard duplicated from your height speakers. I'm not telling you not to try it, just pointing out the obvious: height information will be coming from above you AND around you.





sdurani said:


> In those (X.x.2) situations it doesn't matter. It used to matter when AVRs were transitioning to immersive audio: the Front Heights designation was the only one that was compatible with DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX. But now that the former was replace by Neural:X and the latter is history, the height speaker designations matter only when using more than one pair overhead.


So either you have FH, TF, TM, TR or RH, you'll get the same height information if only using a pair? That's odd!

Well I guess you learn something everyday!


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> So either you have FH, TF, TM, TR or RH, you'll get the same height information if only using a pair?


Give it a try: configure for a single pair of heights, play the X.x.6 test track, see where the sounds end up.


----------



## pasender91

Hi Srudani,

Obviously all the height content will get to the only high speaker pair available.
But i believe that the actual mix will be different depending on which position it is assigned to.

Let me take an exemple assuming at one point in time 2 objects one in the back and one in the front:
- If declared as FH, the front object will be louder and the back one will be weaker
- If declared as TM, both objects will have the same level
- If declared as RH, the front object will be weaker and the back one will be louder

At the end, the mix ressult that we hear is different based on the declared position.
Conclusion => even with a .2, it is important to declare the speakers to the location they really are installed at. also, in this configuration, TM should be the optimal position.

Do you have any information or knowledge that my statements above are incorrect ?


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> Hi Srudani,
> 
> Obviously all the height content will get to the only high speaker pair available.
> But i believe that the actual mix will be different depending on which position it is assigned to.
> 
> Let me take an exemple assuming at one point in time 2 objects one in the back and one in the front:
> - If declared as FH, the front object will be louder and the back one will be weaker
> - If declared as TM, both objects will have the same level
> - If declared as RH, the front object will be weaker and the back one will be louder
> 
> At the end, the mix ressult that we hear is different based on the declared position.
> Conclusion => even with a .2, it is important to declare the speakers to the location they really are installed at. also, in this configuration, TM should be the optimal position.
> 
> Do you have any information or knowledge that my statements above are incorrect ?


Intended or perceived direction aside, why would the Atmos decoder change an objects' loudness when changing the speaker layout / set of speakers by which the object sound is reproduced?


----------



## Jeigh07

I feel fully satisfied with the answers given. Thanks to everyone that participated in this dialogue. I will be selling my TX-NR646 and buying a Denon AVR-X4300H !


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> Give it a try: configure for a single pair of heights, play the X.x.6 test track, see where the sounds end up.


Where can you can that X.X.6 test tarck?


----------



## newfmp3

This thread is a mess. Wow. It needs to be separated into different categories.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> Where can you can that X.X.6 test tarck?


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> Let me take an exemple assuming at one point in time 2 objects one in the back and one in the front:
> - If declared as FH, the front object will be louder and the back one will be weaker
> - If declared as TM, both objects will have the same level
> - If declared as RH, the front object will be weaker and the back one will be louder


That might seem reasonable, but that is not how downmixing works. Rather than thinking of channels and objects differently, instead think of channels as 'objects that don't move'. To that end, objects and channels downmix the same way. And when you're collapsing sounds from different locations into one pair of speakers, you're basically downmixing. 

Imagine you were playing back a 7.1-channel track on a 2-speaker set-up. With the logic you describe above, the Front channels would be the loudest, the Side channels would be quieter and the Rear channels would either be the quietest or not heard at all (because they are the farthest away from the Fronts). But that's not what happens. Sound from all three pairs downmix equally to the Fronts. The way channels downmix is also the way objects downmix.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> Yes the test tones for the Top Rear played equally loud on my Top Only setup.


Thanx for testing. The only reason I asked you to try it for yourself is because implementations sometimes vary and I wasn't sure whether you would end up with the same results I did (years ago on a Marantz 7702).


> I assume the same would happen if I change the assignation of my height channels.


Doesn't your AVR allow you to change the designation of your speakers to any of the 5 possible overhead locations? If so, you can set them to Front Height and re-test.


----------



## HarpNinja

Selden Ball said:


> You can wire the rear overhead speakers to the front overhead speakers and receiver "in series" and then run Audyssey again.
> Don't run them in parallel: that'll put more of a strain on the receiver's amps and would tend to make it go into protection mode.
> 
> More specifically, wire the + (red) receiver left Height binding post to the + binding of the front left overhead speaker, the - binding post of the front left speaker to the + binding post of the rear left overhead speaker, and then the - binding post of the rear left overhead speaker to the receiver's left Height - (black) binding post. Do the equivalent for the right-hand overhead speakers.
> 
> Then run Audyssey. The volume levels of the combined overheads will be different and need to be recalibrated.


Thank you!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> Objects are the only thing in the Wides position, since there is no such thing as Wide channels.


Right, which is why I was initially a bit confused at his results. 



> The Dolby 9.1.6 test tones are inconsistent when it comes to this. If you use the track downloaded from the Dolby website, then sounds at the Wides position will phantom image between the Fronts & Sides. If you use the track from the Dolby demo disc, then sounds at the Wides position snap to the Front speakers.
> 
> The "snap to speaker" feature is optional when encoding objects in an Atmos track. You can leave it Off on some objects (e.g. sounds panning from Front to Side) and turn it On for other objects (e.g., off-screen dialogue that you don't want to bleed into the Sides).


Thanks, Sanjay! So "SnapTo" is dynamic meta-data. Good to know.


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> Doesn't your AVR allow you to change the designation of your speakers to any of the 5 possible overhead locations? If so, you can set them to Front Height and re-test.


Yes it does, I will try shortly and get back to you with an answer.


----------



## VideoGrabber

alextr75 said:


> That said, I have been reading some (still going through old posts) in the DTS:X thread, and I read they sometimes FH/RH works better (instead of TF/TR) if I want to combine DTS:X/DTS:Neural X vs Atmos/DSU, so am still thinking about my options. I can not push my TR back more than 45, though I could maybe push the TF up to 50~55, but then again *maybe +/-45 can work ok for FH/FR too [you meant RH here], so maybe I'll just leave them at that.*


They can, and all things considered, I would recommend you do that. You'll have expanded surround-decoder configurational options that way.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> ...when you're collapsing sounds from different locations into one pair of speakers, you're basically downmixing.
> 
> Imagine you were playing back a 7.1-channel track on a 2-speaker set-up. With the logic you describe above, the Front channels would be the loudest, the Side channels would be quieter and the Rear channels would either be the quietest or not heard at all (because they are the farthest away from the Fronts). But that's not what happens. Sound from all three pairs downmix equally to the Fronts. The way channels downmix is also the way objects downmix.


That's a good example, and the only thing that might be added is that once Atmos is enabled, and the heights are pulled out of the beds, they remain in the height layer. I.e., say you were lacking RH speakers, that content wouldn't downmix back to the surround-back speakers again... even if *that's where it would have been* if left in the original mix.

Correct?


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> So "SnapTo" is dynamic meta-data.


Not sure what you mean by dynamic, but it is not something that can change on the fly. During encoding, objects can have the 'snap to speaker' flag set to On or Off. So Wides info in the 9.1.6 test track that you download was encoded differently than Wides info in the 9.1.6 test track on the demo disc.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> Not sure what you mean by dynamic, but it is not something that can change on the fly.


Yes, 'changing on the fly' is what I meant by dynamic. 



> During encoding, objects can have the 'snap to speaker' flag set to On or Off.


So an object either has this flag set permanently, or not. It can't change mid-stream. Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> That's a good example, and the only thing that might be added is that once Atmos is enabled, and the heights are pulled out of the beds, they remain in the height layer.


Correct. Sounds in the height layer downmix to whatever speakers are in the height layer; even if it is a single pair. That's because Atmos renders between two flat planes: base layer & height layer. Sounds at the very front or back of the height layer are still at the same height. This is different for DTS:X, which renders sounds in a dome. When height info moves forward or rearward, it is also moving up or down. So DTS:X will bleed sounds to the base layer when downmixing to fewer height speakers.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> So an object either has this flag set permanently, or not. It can't change mid-stream.


Exactly.


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> Correct. Sounds in the height layer downmix to whatever speakers are in the height layer; even if it is a single pair. That's because Atmos renders between two flat planes: base layer & height layer. Sounds at the very front or back of the height layer are still at the same height. This is different for DTS:X, which renders sounds in a dome. When height info moves forward or rearward, it is moving also moving up or down. So DTS:X will bleed sounds to the base layer when downmixing to fewer height speakers.


All that talk made me want to prepare for 6 overhead speakers. I will be running TF and TR until I D&M produce a receiver capable of at least 7.1.6. Then, I'll go TF-TM-TR, FH-TF-TR or FH-TM-TR. I'll post some pictures and measurements later if you guys can help me


----------



## Roger Dressler

VideoGrabber said:


> Yes, 'changing on the fly' is what I meant by dynamic.
> 
> So an object either has this flag set permanently, or not. It can't change mid-stream. Thanks.


"Snap" is a metadata flag that can be set for each frame of object audio. The mixer decides whether to change it over time. In that sense, it can be considered dynamic. Once a "snap decision"  is made, that remains permanent in the soundtrack.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> "Snap" is a metadata flag that can be set for each frame of object audio.


Learned something new. Until now I though the flag was for the life of the object.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Selden Ball said:


> You can wire the rear overhead speakers to the front overhead speakers and receiver "in series" and then run Audyssey again.
> Don't run them in parallel: that'll put more of a strain on the receiver's amps and would tend to make it go into protection mode.
> 
> More specifically, wire the + (red) receiver left Height binding post to the + binding of the front left overhead speaker, the - binding post of the front left speaker to the + binding post of the rear left overhead speaker, and then the - binding post of the rear left overhead speaker to the receiver's left Height - (black) binding post. Do the equivalent for the right-hand overhead speakers.


Sorry if I'm being thick, so that's just 3 cables?

like this?



Code:


+ (red) receiver left Height binding post  ---> + binding of Top Front Left
- (bla) receiver left Height binding post       - binding of Top Front Left ---> + binding of Top Rear Left
                                      ^                                          - binding of Top Rear Left ---+
                                      |                                                                        |
                                      +------------------------------------------------------------------------+


----------



## VideoGrabber

Selden Ball said:


> You can wire the rear overhead speakers to the front overhead speakers and receiver "in series" and then run Audyssey again.


 @HarpNinja. It is certainly well worth using all 4 speakers you have installed in your ceiling! 

One thing to keep in mind is that for non-Atmos content (most of what most of us have) you will be using the upmixer (DSU). And that will sound *exactly* the same with your 5.1.2 system as if you had a 5.1.6 system. That's because when DSU is engaged, it only decodes an x.y.2 pair, and sends that single L (or R) to ALL the speakers on that side.

The only time you will ever have any difference with a 5.1.4, or 5.1.6 system (or even n.m.10!) is with actual Atmos material. Then you will get some front/back discrimination.


----------



## VideoGrabber

mrtickleuk said:


> Sorry if I'm being thick, so that's just 3 cables?
> 
> like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> + (red) receiver left Height binding post  ---> + binding of Top Front Left
> - (bla) receiver left Height binding post       - binding of Top Front Left ---> + binding of Top Rear Left
> ^                                          - binding of Top Rear Left ---+
> |                                                                        |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+


That's not being thick at all. Yes, you've got it right (and nice diagram!). Just one linking cable is needed between the two speakers.

Parallel would require 4 cables total. With the extra pair either direct to the 2nd speaker, or branched off from the 1st speaker. But as was said, a parallel connection is hazardous to your AVR's health. It will drop the total impedance of a pair of 8 ohm speakers down to 4 ohms (and likely even less in portions of the spectrum). 

Whereas the series connection provides a 16 ohm load, which all AVRs should be able to handle.


----------



## VideoGrabber

jsgrise said:


> All that talk made me want to prepare for 6 overhead speakers. I will be running TF and TR until I D&M produce a receiver capable of at least 7.1.6.


Just keep in mind that the .6 upgrade will not sound any different on non-Atmos content that's upmixed by DSU. The extra speakers (and a .6 capable AVR) only buys you something with actual Atmos content. DSU (which if you're like most people you're likely to be using most of the time) only provides a .2 signal, then spans that across all the height speakers you have, on each side. Once you hit 4, you're there... unless you have a very deep room.


----------



## jsgrise

VideoGrabber said:


> Just keep in mind that the .6 upgrade will not sound any different on non-Atmos content that's upmixed by DSU. The extra speakers (and a .6 capable AVR) only buys you something with actual Atmos content. DSU (which if you're like most people you're likely to be using most of the time) only provides a .2 signal, then spans that across all the height speakers you have, on each side. Once you hit 4, you're there... unless you have a very deep room.


You are right about that, but I just feel like there is a hole to be filled between the Fronts and Top Fronts, at the top of the screen. I'm a bit OCD...

The vast majority would call me crazy I know.


----------



## VideoGrabber

jsgrise said:


> The vast majority would call me crazy I know.


Oh, I think you're in good company here. 

I'm currently obsessing over an optimal position for TF, at x or x+16" (because I have joists that constrain in-ceiling placement). When in reality, it likely won't make any significant difference either way. 

And after I do, I will then designate those TF speakers as FH , to take advantage of what the AVR can do with that position, but not others.


----------



## Pyronaut

alextr75 said:


> Wondering, given that I only have a 1080 display, but working on setting up a Dolby Atmos in my room, would a 4K Blu-Ray player be able to downscale the video (or maybe the receiver can) to 1080p so I could still watch the movie with Atmos sound track ?
> 
> I currently only have a 1080p projector, I will eventually upgrade to maybe some nicer 4K TV, but it would not be in the near future.
> 
> Maybe 4K Blu-Ray discs are not worth purchasing just for the Atmo track if I do not have a 4K TV, but I do have an opportunity to occasionally rent (or should I say borrow) some new 4K releases for free.


Just be careful about the player. Some won't down-convert HDR to SDR well, so the picture can look bad on a projector. I tested mine (Philips BDP7502) and the regular and UHD Blu-Rays looked the same on an Optoma projector, but I read an article by Josh Zyber where UHD discs from his Sony X800 looked pretty bad on his JVC projector.


----------



## batpig

Pyronaut said:


> Just be careful about the player. Some won't down-convert HDR to SDR well, so the picture can look bad on a projector. I tested mine (Philips BDP7502) and the regular and UHD Blu-Rays looked the same on an Optoma projector, but I read an article by Josh Zyber where UHD discs from his Sony X800 looked pretty bad on his JVC projector.


This is a good point that I'd like to see more attention paid to. It's a critical issue for people with 1080p PJ's trying to access Atmos / DTS:X tracks that are 4K UHD exclusive.

I had the Philips 4K BDP7501 and I noticed pretty major differences between the HDR BD and the regular BD. I now have the Sony X800 and it still looks different, although I find it better than the Philips. I see significant differences especially in the "apparent gamma", i.e. shadow detail, how dark shadows are, how bright (or clipped) highlights are, and all of those impacting overall apparent brightness of image. From what I've tested, the UHD always looks brighter overall, with "lifted" brightness/detail in shadows. (the attached photos are comparisons trying to show the differences, one from Blade Runner and the other from Fantastic Beasts, SDR on top and HDR on bottom).

Looks like you have the newer Philips model? I wonder if they've improved HDR/SDR conversion?


----------



## djoberg

I just watched the UHD version of _Oblivion_ tonight and the Dolby Atmos mix was INSANE!! There are numerous scenes with incredible panning effects with DRONES and Jack's SPACECRAFT flying in all directions, including "around in circles." I was thoroughly impressed with my SVS Prime Elevation speakers that are mounted high on the Side Walls; all the panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate!

Of course, the action in the fronts and surrounds was also phenomenal, as was the bass/LFE. I was so impressed that I turned it to Reference Level (most of the time I had it on -6) for the panning scenes and shots with explosions as well. I wish there was a thread dedicated to Dolby Atmos/DTS:X mixes so Blu-rays could be ranked...of all the Atmos and DTS:X Blus I've seen thus far, this has to be in the Top Three!!


----------



## Pyronaut

batpig said:


> This is a good point that I'd like to see more attention paid to. It's a critical issue for people with 1080p PJ's trying to access Atmos / DTS:X tracks that are 4K UHD exclusive.
> 
> I had the Philips 4K BDP7501 and I noticed pretty major differences between the HDR BD and the regular BD. I now have the Sony X800 and it still looks different, although I find it better than the Philips. I see significant differences especially in the "apparent gamma", i.e. shadow detail, how dark shadows are, how bright (or clipped) highlights are, and all of those impacting overall apparent brightness of image. From what I've tested, the UHD always looks brighter overall, with "lifted" brightness/detail in shadows. (the attached photos are comparisons trying to show the differences, one from Blade Runner and the other from Fantastic Beasts, SDR on top and HDR on bottom).
> 
> Looks like you have the newer Philips model? I wonder if they've improved HDR/SDR conversion?


I must say that I haven't done extensive testing because I only have 1 UHD disc right now as I only recently purchased the player (waiting for an order of others to arrive), but the disc I did test (Deadpool) looked basically the same to my eyes in the scenes I sampled - namely the taxi ride to the scrap yard battle, which demonstrates some good shadow level reproduction, as well as the start of the battle itself. One caveat is that I compared the UHD disc to the Netflix stream of the movie on the same player. Not the most scientific test, but it satisfied me that the player was doing the conversion well. I'll be playing around with more UHD movies on my projector in the coming weeks, so if I find different results I'll report back here. If it goes well then this player might be a good option for those who want to experience Atmos from a UHD disc on a 1080 screen.


----------



## showmak

I finished watching the whole episodes of The Pacific and what the Neural:X and DSU did to the overhead speakers was insane. The best ever war action movie with regard to the sound mixing I have ever experienced. One of my top picks for demoing overhead speakers. Don't miss it...


----------



## showmak

I finished watching the whole episodes of The Pacific and what the Neural:X and DSU did to the overhead speakers was insane. The best ever war action movie with regard to the sound mixing I have ever experienced. One of my top picks for demoing overhead speakers. Don't miss it...


----------



## jsgrise

showmak said:


> I finished watching the whole episodes of The Pacific and what the Neural:X and DSU did to the overhead speakers was insane. The best ever war action movie with regard to the sound mixing I have ever experienced. One of my top picks for demoing overhead speakers. Don't miss it...


What a coincidence, I just did too last night! The audio was excellent and like you said DSU really worked well. Bullets, planes and shells were flying everywhere!

10/10


----------



## djoberg

_Pacific Rim_ is also another Blu-ray with an incredible Dolby Atmos mix and would also be in the "Top Three" in my book. And the PQ (Picture Quality) is definitely Reference material too!


----------



## jsgrise

Good news, according to the UPS tracking I should receive my Venere 2.0 tonight so I can move the Venere 1.5s to the sides and ditch the Klipsch that I used as backup.

When I receive my second pair of height speakers (before Christmas hopefully), I will be running a 5.1.4 system for a while. The cost of going to 7.2.4 will be significant since I have to buy another pair of Venere 1.5 plus an external amp (Marantz MM7025).

My question is if there is a consensus on the best angle for the sides on a 5.x.x system? I have some latitude so I can put them anywhere from 90 to 120 degrees. Top Fronts are at 45 degrees and my Top Rears will be at 35 degrees from MLP and have zero latitude for them. 

I've attached some pics to show the room layout (14'x17')

Thanks!

EDIT: Damn it! UPS just delayed the delivery until tomorrow (hopefully).


----------



## batpig

djoberg said:


> _Pacific Rim_ is also another Blu-ray with an incredible Dolby Atmos mix and would also be in the "Top Three" in my book. And the PQ (Picture Quality) is definitely Reference material too!


Just to avoid confusion, the Atmos mix for Pacific Rim is ONLY on the 4K UHD version, NOT the regular Blu-ray. The Blu-ray has DTS-Master 7.1.


----------



## batpig

jsgrise said:


> My question is if there is a consensus on the best angle for the sides on a 5.x.x system? I have some latitude so I can put them anywhere from 90 to 120 degrees.


With a standard, monopole bookshelf speaker like the Venere 1.5, I would definitely recommend placing them to the sides and a bit behind (i.e. 10-20 degrees behind). 

First, with 5.1 vs. 7.1., the surrounds have to cover both rear and side imaging, so IMO you want them to be further back than 90 degrees. 

Second, a direct firing speaker blasting directly into your earhole from 90 degrees is distracting unless you have a huge room (which you don't). Placing them a bit behind and a bit above ear level helps them blend into the "wraparound surround field" more effectively in the rear hemisphere.


----------



## batpig

showmak said:


> I finished watching the whole episodes of The Pacific and what the Neural:X and DSU did to the overhead speakers was insane. The best ever war action movie with regard to the sound mixing I have ever experienced. One of my top picks for demoing overhead speakers. Don't miss it...


If you want war, you need to pick up a copy of Hacksaw Ridge. The second half of the movie is basically non stop battle, and the Atmos mix is out of this world, consensus reference quality stuff. You can hear artillery shells arcing overhead as bullets whiz by you and explosions surround you. It's intense.


----------



## Ted99

batpig said:


> With a standard, monopole bookshelf speaker like the Venere 1.5, I would definitely recommend placing them to the sides and a bit behind (i.e. 10-20 degrees behind).
> 
> First, with 5.1 vs. 7.1., the surrounds have to cover both rear and side imaging, so IMO you want them to be further back than 90 degrees.
> 
> Second, a direct firing speaker blasting directly into your earhole from 90 degrees is distracting unless you have a huge room (which you don't). Placing them a bit behind and a bit above ear level helps them blend into the "wraparound surround field" more effectively in the rear hemisphere.


I have my side surrounds placed a little forward of the 90 deg position: 1) to avoid the earhole blast you reference, and 2) To compensate for the loss of "wides" when I sold my AV7702 MkII (in anticipation of the 8500) and substituted a 4300 for the interim.


----------



## showmak

batpig said:


> If you want war, you need to pick up a copy of Hacksaw Ridge. The second half of the movie is basically non stop battle, and the Atmos mix is out of this world, consensus reference quality stuff. You can hear artillery shells arcing overhead as bullets whiz by you and explosions surround you. It's intense.


No question about that...

Here what I wrote 10 months ago...



showmak said:


> Last night I watched Hacksaw Ridge, and my intension was to get the taste of a good immersive sound as this movie was recommended one of the best for Atmos demoing. But for the first time, the story and the actions of the movie overwhelmed the enjoyment of the immersive sound, and I was continuously reminding myself to go back and focus on the sound.
> 
> What an amazing movie, story and sound!
> 
> Salute to Mel Gibson and Andrew Garfield.


----------



## batpig

Ted99 said:


> I have my side surrounds placed a little forward of the 90 deg position: 1) to avoid the earhole blast you reference, and 2) To compensate for the loss of "wides" when I sold my AV7702 MkII (in anticipation of the 8500) and substituted a 4300 for the interim.


but that implies you're using 7 base layer speakers? my comments were in reference to a 5ch base layer in which case having the surrounds forward of the 90 deg position means you're losing out on rear hemisphere surround coverage


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> If you want war, you need to pick up a copy of Hacksaw Ridge. The second half of the movie is basically non stop battle, and the Atmos mix is out of this world, consensus reference quality stuff. You can hear artillery shells arcing overhead as bullets whiz by you and explosions surround you. It's intense.


The scene in _Hacksaw Ridge,_ immediately before the first assault, which depicts a bombardment of the area from the 16 inch guns of a battleship is my go to LFE demo scene. I showed it to family members over Thanksgiving and they were impressed. It pounds chests and shakes chairs. Fun stuff!


----------



## djoberg

batpig said:


> Just to avoid confusion, the Atmos mix for Pacific Rim is ONLY on the 4K UHD version, NOT the regular Blu-ray. The Blu-ray has DTS-Master 7.1.


Yes, I should have thought of that. Truth is there are so few Atmos mixes on 1080p Blu-rays that I hardly ever think about it.



batpig said:


> If you want war, you need to pick up a copy of Hacksaw Ridge. The second half of the movie is basically non stop battle, and the Atmos mix is out of this world, consensus reference quality stuff. You can hear artillery shells arcing overhead as bullets whiz by you and explosions surround you. It's intense.


I agree! I just watched the 4K version of _Hacksaw Ridge_ recently and was reminded of just how good the Atmox mix is. This is yet another one that would be worthy of the "Top Three!" If anyone is actually keeping track, you have every right to charge me with being terrible at "Math," for I've probably mentioned 4 or 5 discs now that I deem worthy of the "Top Three."


----------



## sdurani

djoberg said:


> Truth is there are so few Atmos mixes on 1080p Blu-rays that I hardly ever think about it.


There are almost 200 titles on BD: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## djoberg

sdurani said:


> There are almost 200 titles on BD: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


Whoa! I had no idea...guess I need to "broaden my horizon" when it comes to movies! 

All kidding aside, thanks for the link! I only have a few 1080p releases with an Atmos mix, but if I ever decide to buy a 1080p Blu-ray in lieu of a UHD Blu-ray (which rarely happens these days), I will definitely check that thread.


----------



## chi_guy50

gwsat said:


> The scene in _Hacksaw Ridge,_ immediately before the first assault, which depicts a bombardment of the area from the 16 inch guns of a battleship is my go to LFE demo scene. I showed it to family members over Thanksgiving and they were impressed. It pounds chests and shakes chairs. *Fun stuff!*


That strikes me as a particularly ironic statement coming as it does on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day.


----------



## lovingdvd

Selden Ball said:


> Which model of D/M equipment do you have?


Marantz 8802A.



> In general, people here on AVS have concluded that configuring the overhead speakers as Top Front and Top Rear provides the best results. Their best physical locations are about 45 degrees in front of and behind the main listening position as measured from the height of your ears.


Thanks. Can you elaborate more on this? For instance, what was the consensus in terms of why people tend to prefer Top Front and Top Rear over "Heights"? Keeping in mind that I do actually have the traditional Top layout in-ceiling (as opposed to the Heights which tend to be high on the wall and closer to the front and rear of the room than Tops). Also does DTS:X seems to still work well with them as Tops rather than Heights since DTS:X favors Heights (I suppose)?

In the 8802A you can pick between 11.1 and Atmos. In Atmos you don't get to pick whether you have Tops or Heights. I assume it treats them as Tops when you select Atmos. Does anyone know what the difference is between choosing an Amp Assign of 11.1 and then picking Top Front/Top Height, as opposed to choosing an Amp Assign of "Atmos", and how these two choices affect the sound quality and results?



> If you haven't already, you should download Dolby's Atmos test tones. I think they'll help you to determine which speaker configuration works best for you. See https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


Thanks!


----------



## jsgrise

mattratcathat said:


> I guess now I need to figure how to know how many speakers were used in the mix.


Regardless, the mix are done with a 7.1 bed plus height objects. Atmos support up to 24 bed channels and 10 overhead channels.


----------



## Selden Ball

lovingdvd said:


> Marantz 8802A.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Can you elaborate more on this? For instance, what was the consensus in terms of why people tend to prefer Top Front and Top Rear over "Heights"? Keeping in mind that I do actually have the traditional Top layout in-ceiling (as opposed to the Heights which tend to be high on the wall and closer to the front and rear of the room than Tops).


It's really because that's what Dolby's test tones use. They provide audio objects which are positioned at the locations where the Top speakers are supposed to be. Tops are closer together than Heights. As a result, if you have Heights, the sounds are each "phantom imaged" between the front and back heights by having a proportionate amount of sound come from both front and back height speakers, blurring the image. If you have Top speakers, the sounds come only from those speakers. 


> Also does DTS:X seems to still work well with them as Tops rather than Heights since DTS:X favors Heights (I suppose)?


An annoyance is that DTS designates their speakers differently. Their DTS:X "Heights" are defined to be at the same physical positions as Dolby's "Tops." They are *not* at the tops of the walls like they were when DTS Neo:X was popular. (Scroll back in this thread. There are speaker layout diagrams just a few pages back.) Unfortunately, the A/V equipment that I'm familiar with (e.g. D&M) doesn't take this difference in nomenclature into account. In other words, to optimize the sound, you have to change the speaker designations and reload the Audyssey calibration. Reloading settings over the net takes about 15 minutes -- a big waste of time. Many people just set them as Tops and let it go.


> In the 8802A you can pick between 11.1 and Atmos.


Yup. The AV8802 was a 1st generation (2014) design which came out in January, 2015. Only its HDMI circuit board was upgraded to make the -A version. Its firmware was essentially unchanged.


> In Atmos you don't get to pick whether you have Tops or Heights. I assume it treats them as Tops when you select Atmos. Does anyone know what the difference is between choosing an Amp Assign of 11.1 and then picking Top Front/Top Height, as opposed to choosing an Amp Assign of "Atmos", and how these two choices affect the sound quality and results?


I'll have to leave it to someone else to go into those details.


----------



## sdurani

mattratcathat said:


> My understanding of Blu Ray is that it's 8 channels.


Only for uncompressed PCM. Bitstreams encoded via lossless packing or lossy compression can have much higher channel counts.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mattratcathat said:


> Very much a newbie here. Please excuse me if I use terms and specs incorrectly.
> 
> 
> I see common setups for Atmos systems as 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 and 7.1.4. My understanding of Blu Ray is that it's 8 channels.
> 
> Wouldn't that make a 5.1.2 setup the only one that's actually achievable with each speaker being discrete? I can see 5.1.4 being achievable with it being 2 height speakers on one channel. 7.1.X all 8 channels are taken up before height?
> 
> 
> Or are you guys using another source?


Channel based tracks go to 8 channels - One channel for each of 7 speakers and 1 sub.

Hybrid immersive approaches such as Dolby Atmos allow for much higher speaker counts. Home Atmos tops out at 34.1 discrete at the moment due to the use of 3D positional objects. 

The bed is a 7.1 core plus 2 static objects standing in for the two overhead bed channels of the theatrical Atmos mix with up to around 20 discrete pannable objects functional at one time. If the theatrical mix had more objects than that, the extra objects are grouped with the other closest objects in a process known as spatial compression.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Selden Ball said:


> An annoyance is that DTS designates their speakers differently. Their DTS:X "Heights" are defined to be at the same physical positions as Dolby's "Tops." They are *not* at the tops of the walls like they were when DTS Neo:X was popular. (Scroll back in this thread. There are speaker layout diagrams just a few pages back.) Unfortunately, the A/V equipment that I'm familiar with (e.g. D&M) doesn't take this difference in nomenclature into account. In other words, to optimize the sound, you have to change the speaker designations and reload the Audyssey calibration. Reloading settings over the net takes about 15 minutes -- a big waste of time. Many people just set them as Tops and let it go.


Lyngdorf has recently added a setting, "dts:X remapping" for the McIntosh MX160 and Lyngdorf MP-50 SSPs that tells the dts decoder that your TOPs are configured as HEIGHTs. A simple and effective solution that I hope others emulate.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> Atmos support up to 24 bed channels and 10 overhead channels.


Just to clear up the nomenclature: beds = channels. For example: the cinema version of Atmos includes 10 beds (L/C/R, 2 sides, 2 rears, 2 heights, LFE). The home version of Atmos includes 8 beds (L/C/R, 2 sides, 2 rears, LFE).


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos includes 8 beds (L/C/R, 2 sides, 2 rears, LFE).


What will happen when AVR will manage more than 7 bed channels (ie: front wides - 9.x.x)? Are the current ATMOS mix stuck with 7.1 core?


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> What will happen when AVR will manage more than 7 bed channels (ie: front wides - 9.x.x)?


Let's separate channels from speakers. There are 7.1 channels in a home Atmos mix. Each channel goes to its respective speaker. If you configure wides, then those speakers are fed by objects, since there is no such thing as wide channels.


> Are the current ATMOS mix stuck with 7.1 core?


Yes. The home and theatrical versions of Atmos were built on top of existing technology, so none of the existing channels were replaced by objects. Prior to Atmos, we had discrete 7.1 for home audio. Atmos simply added objects to that.


----------



## audiofan1

Marc Alexander said:


> Lyngdorf has recently added a setting, "dts:X remapping" for the McIntosh MX160 and Lyngdorf MP-50 SSPs that tells the dts decoder that your TOPs are configured as HEIGHTs. A simple and effective solution that I hope others emulate.


Interesting the the DTS:X test tones on say The Last Witch hunter reveal they were indeed mapping correctly?


----------



## thetman

Selden Ball said:


> It might be due to the particular soundtracks you've been listening to, but if the rear overheads don't seem loud enough, you should consider turning up their trim levels.
> 
> If you haven't already, you should download Dolby's Atmos test tones and use them to help adjust the speaker trim levels manually. See https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


ok I downloaded and listened to the Atmos samples. WOW! Unbelievable the reality of the sounds. the 360 degree panning around the room was excellent. Bugs, rain all sounded spot on and very realistic. I only wish they were longer and there was more of them. would love to have a bunch these to demo the room for guests when they come over.


----------



## Selden Ball

thetman said:


> ok I downloaded and listened to the Atmos samples. WOW! Unbelievable the reality of the sounds. the 360 degree panning around the room was excellent. Bugs, rain all sounded spot on and very realistic. I only wish they were longer and there was more of them. would love to have a bunch these to demo the room for guests when they come over.


Some additional Atmos test videos are available on demo-world.eu in their 2D section. Be sure to get the "lossless" versions. Click on the JPG on their individual pages to download the video. As I recall, one of the half-dozen or so videos has a problem. Sorry, though, I don't remember which one it was.

They have many previews and demos highlighting the various audio and video advances of the past few decades.

Several versions of Atmos demo discs have been given out for free by Dolby at various industry conventions. Some of those are being sold on e-bay.


----------



## thetman

Selden Ball said:


> Some additional Atmos test videos are available on demo-world.eu in their 2D section. Be sure to get the "lossless" versions. Click on the JPG on their individual pages to download the video. As I recall, one of the half-dozen or so videos has a problem. Sorry, though, I don't remember which one it was.
> 
> They have many previews and demos highlighting the various audio and video advances of the past few decades.
> 
> Several versions of Atmos demo discs have been given out for free by Dolby at various industry conventions. Some of those are being sold on e-bay.


thanks again I will check that site out. yes saw a few on eBay and also some torrent versions floating around. its too bad they just don't make them available.


----------



## jsgrise

Selden Ball said:


> Some additional Click on the JPG on their individual pages to download the video.


Man, thank you so much for pointing that out! I have tried for years to download from their website and never could figure it out lol 

MANY THANKS!

Downloaded a few ATMOS and DTS:X demos and the one I enjoyed the most Dolby's "Audiosphere", really shows what immersive audio can do with object placement, very cool!! I also really enjoy DTS:X "Out of the box".

Give it a shot!


----------



## Selden Ball

jsgrise said:


> Man, thank you so much for pointing that out! I have tried for years to download from their website and never could figure it out lol
> 
> MANY THANKS!


You're very welcome.


----------



## helvetica bold

Atmos for Last Jedi premiere is on another level?! 
“That included installation of a 70 ft. wide by 30 ft. high screen, a Dolby Vision high dynamic range projection system (and a full projection booth) and 193 speakers for 40 channels of Dolby Atmos immersive sound.”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...-dolbys-six-month-effort-prep-theater-1066044


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mrjmc99

helvetica bold said:


> Atmos for Last Jedi premiere is on another level?!
> “That included installation of a 70 ft. wide by 30 ft. high screen, a Dolby Vision high dynamic range projection system (and a full projection booth) and 193 speakers for 40 channels of Dolby Atmos immersive sound.”
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...-dolbys-six-month-effort-prep-theater-1066044
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unfortunately it looks like I'll have to wait for the last Jedi on uhd to hear it in Atmos. Right now the Atmos theaters near my house don't have any good seats available. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## tbaucom

Marc Alexander said:


> Lyngdorf has recently added a setting, "dts:X remapping" for the McIntosh MX160 and Lyngdorf MP-50 SSPs that tells the dts decoder that your TOPs are configured as HEIGHTs. A simple and effective solution that I hope others emulate.


Do you know if the intention is to also use this "remapping" feature when upmixing with Neural:X? I have asked in the upmixing thread what speaker designation people use for Neural:X but I haven't in this discussion. In my mind, it doesn't seem logical for DTS to design DTS:X around the height designation being at 45 degrees elevation and not do the same for their upmixer. 

I know it is just an upmixer but DTS still had to have something in mind when they designed it. IME, Neural:X does sound different depending on which designation is chosen.


----------



## Marc Alexander

audiofan1 said:


> Interesting the the DTS:X test tones on say The Last Witch hunter reveal they were indeed mapping correctly?


Dts 2016 demo disc dts:X 11.1 callout


tbaucom said:


> Do you know if the intention is to also use this "remapping" feature when upmixing with Neural:X? I have asked in the upmixing thread what speaker designation people use for Neural:X but I haven't in this discussion. In my mind, it doesn't seem logical for DTS to design DTS:X around the height designation being at 45 degrees elevation and not do the same for their upmixer.
> 
> I know it is just an upmixer but DTS still had to have something in mind when they designed it. IME, Neural:X does sound different depending on which designation is chosen.


Yes, this affects dts:X, Neural X, and I believe even NeoX. 

It has been discussed many times in both threads. In the spoiler below is a summary I cherrypicked from older posts. 



Spoiler



As previously reported by @joerod (a MX160 beta tester) a "dts remapping" option has been added which allows dts:X and Neural X be decoded as HEIGHTS even though TOPS are configured. This allows both Dolby and dts:X formats to be decoded properly.



ARROW-AV said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have an update regarding the issues with respect to the latest firmware update 3.0.0
> 
> Good news and bad news.
> 
> Bad news first... Further to the malfunctioning DTS Neural:X and Auro-2D, the playback/decoding functionality of the native encoded DTS:X is unfortunately also malfunctioning.
> 
> Specifics as per follows:
> 
> (1)SURROUNDS encoded DTS:X audio plays back / emanates out of both the SURROUNDS speakers and the FRONT L/R speakers
> 
> (2)FRONT HEIGHTS/TOPS encoded DTS:X audio plays back / emanates out of both the FRONT HEIGHTS/TOPS and the FRONT L/R speakers
> 
> (3)REAR HEIGHTS/TOPS encoded DTS:X audio plays back / emanates out of both the REAR HEIGHTS/TOPS and the BACK SURROUNDS speakers
> 
> I have filed an additional report with Lyngdorf regarding this.
> 
> The good news is that they are on the case regards resolving all of these issues; wherein, it would appear that these issues are not in fact their fault, but the blame resides with Analogue Devices who it would appear have right royally screwed up updating the respective chipset regards adding the DTS:X, Neural:X and Auro-2D functionality, where all three are malfunctioning! Good job Analogue Devices! Brilliant!
> 
> However, please be reassured by the fact that Lyngdorf took action immediately following receipt of my report and they are already making headway regarding fixing the various issues.
> 
> I will be sure to post updates on here as soon as I receive them.
> 
> :wink:
> .





Nalleh said:


> Did you try both «height» and «top» setups? Because it is a well known fact that DTS:X is encoded in a 7.1.4 setup with heights, not tops. And if you have a setup with tops, they will bleed down to the ear level speakers to try to phantom to where the heights would be.





cannga said:


> Marc, not an expert but this is how best I understood it, as confirmed to me by a pro (filmmixer): At least in *my* case of testing Theta Casablanca 7.1.4 using the DTS:X Demo Disc's channel call-out, 2 and 3 above is how it is supposed to be. Nothing wrong. Basically it's remapping function using available speakers to produce a particular sound in a particular position.
> 
> For example, with #2 , the channel call-out is asking for a sound directly above my front speaker (front height), let's say left front height. If my setup has a left front height speaker, that speaker alone would make sound. However... since my setup only has left top front, to reproduce a left front height sound, the Theta has to use left top front AND left main front to reproduce left front height sound. It's remapping at work. Hope this helps.





Marc Alexander said:


> Filmmixer explained this properly.
> 
> However, dts created this issue (yes, it's an issue) by following Dolby's nomenclature of HEIGHT and TOP for positioning, but mucking up the angles and screwing up manufacturers attempt for finding a proper universal placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To simplify,
> 
> Dolby's definition of TOPS is that they be placed ~45° & 135° and HEIGHTS ~30° & 150°.
> 
> Dts [in their infinite wisdom] defined TOPS at ~60° & 120° and HEIGHTS ~45° & 135°.
> 
> Dts:X does not have a placement which corresponds to Dolby's HEIGHTS at 30° & 150°.
> 
> Whether speakers are mounted on-wall, on-ceiling, or in-ceiling is of no consequence. Elevation Angle is what matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dts HEIGHTS and Dolby TOPS correspond. Unfortunately, if you chose TOPS Atmos would render properly (without phantom imaging) but dts:x would not. It HEIGHTS were selected, it was optimal for dts:X but not Atmos.
> 
> It was expected that manufacturers would rectify this. Has anyone tested the latest D+M (ADI) or Yamaha (TI) AVRs or firmware? Theta's (ADI) implementation did not and doesn't even have an option to select HEIGHTS and now Lyngdorf (ADI) has not.
> 
> The solution is easy (in my mind), always report to the dts decoder that HEIGHTS are deployed and not TOPS. No one [in their right minds, at least] is building around dts:X primarily and placing speakers at 60° & 120°
> 
> Until then, two separate configs have to be maintained and switched between (easy on Yamahas). This may end up the case if Lyngdorf does not address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos Tops fall close to DTS:X Heights. Problem is, if you designate that location as Tops in your AVR, it will be correct for Atmos but incorrect for DTS:X (which calls those same locations "Heights"). If you designate that location as Heights in your AVR, it will be correct for DTS:X but incorrect for Atmos (which calls those same locations "Tops"). Hence the compromise of one of the formats.
Click to expand...


----------



## tbaucom

Marc Alexander said:


> Yes, this affects dts:X, Neural X, and I believe even NeoX.


Thank you! This is the first confirmation I am aware of that Neural:X also expects overhead speakers with a physical location 45 degrees front/rear to be configured as "heights". I have experimented with both assignments and felt "height" sounded the best.


----------



## Marc Alexander

tbaucom said:


> Thank you! This is the first confirmation I am aware of that Neural:X also expects overhead speakers with a physical location 45 degrees front/rear to be configured as "heights". I have experimented with both assignments and felt "height" sounded the best.


Here's the link to view the full slide deck. 


sdurani said:


> Check out the DTS:X slides at the following link: http://58.64.214.132/wordpress/?p=92868
> 
> As with Atmos, there are two layers of speakers above the listeners: Heights and Tops. All 8 Heights all are evenly spaced on a ring at 45° elevation, all 4 Tops are evenly spaced on a ring at 60° elevation. I guess VOG can be considered a third layer, at 90° elevation.
> 
> The diagram of all 30 speaker locations shows the actual azimuth of each speaker (i.e., if the speaker in the diagram is 30° from centre, then it's DTS:X rendering assumption really is 30° azimuth).


----------



## lovingdvd

Marc Alexander said:


> Dts 2016 demo disc dts:X 11.1 calloutYes, this affects dts:X, Neural X, and I believe even NeoX.
> 
> It has been discussed many times in both threads. In the spoiler below is a summary I cherrypicked from older posts.
> 
> As previously reported by @joerod (a MX160 beta tester) a "dts remapping" option has been added which allows dts:X and Neural X be decoded as HEIGHTS even though TOPS are configured. This allows both Dolby and dts:X formats to be decoded properly.


Great info, thanks. I was just asking here the other day for clarification about this. I've had my setup for about 14 months. Its a 9.4.6 setup but I could only run it as 7.4.4 of 9.4.2, so I used 7.4.4. I chose the Amp Assign of 11.1 and designated my ceiling speakers as Front/Rear Heights. With hindsight I don't think that was correct, based on your info. My top ceiling pair is at 47 degrees, my top middle pair is at 130 degrees and my top rear pair is at 150 degrees.

I have been using my ceiling front and ceiling rear pairs, with the ceiling middle pair idle. So I suppose it was half-right to call these Heights, because the rear pair at 150 degrees is pretty close to the definition of heights (correct) while my front pair was more of a "top" but marked as height (incorrect).

This weekend I changed things around. I know have my rear ceiling pair as idle, and am using my ceiling middle pair as the "rear" since it is perfect for that behind the MLP. That is somewhat in front of the 2nd row seating (which is why I originally opted to use the rear pair as rears, to get it behind the 2nd row) but that's OK as I would much rather be set up for an optimal MLP (first row) experience, as the 2nd row is rarely used.

My top ceiling pair is at 45 degrees and my middle ceiling pair (behind the MLP and now configured as the "rear") is at 130 degrees. These are now set as Top Front and Top Rear. I suppose this is more optimal than having these set as heights, or using the top-front and real top-rear pair?

I think it sounds great, but its hard to know how much better compared to Height configuration without a quick way to A/B (which there's not).

Also I wonder what happens when the 8802A replacement comes out and I then pick up two more channels so I can then include the 3rd ceiling pair. I could then possibly have Top-Front, Top-Middle, and Rear-Height? I wonder if it would let us mix and match like that?? That said, I am thinking I would be better off sticking with the 4 ceiling speakers and using the extra 2 channels for my left/right Wides, which are also installed and have been sitting idle, waiting for the ability to add more channels.

Thoughts?


----------



## Marc Alexander

lovingdvd said:


> My top ceiling pair is at 45 degrees and my middle ceiling pair (behind the MLP and now configured as the "rear") is at 130 degrees. These are now set as Top Front and Top Rear. I suppose this is more optimal than having these set as heights, or using the top-front and real top-rear pair?


 Yes


> Also I wonder what happens when the 8802A replacement comes out and I then pick up two more channels so I can then include the 3rd ceiling pair. I could then possibly have Top-Front, Top-Middle, and Rear-Height? I wonder if it would let us mix and match like that?? That said, I am thinking I would be better off sticking with the 4 ceiling speakers and using the extra 2 channels for my left/right Wides, which are also installed and have been sitting idle, waiting for the ability to add more channels.
> 
> Thoughts?


I doubt it will let you choose TOP front & mid and HEIGHT for rear. I would lean towards 9.1.4. 

Speculating… if ADI truly releases a future update to the Griffin Lite decoding for the Emotiva RMC-1 (which Dan Lauffman posted) D+M should be positioned to offer the full 9.1.6 within the product's life-cycle. 

You may want to consider moving the third ceiling pair of heights to be 80°-100° and become your TOP MIDs once you have full 9.1.6.


----------



## laubyasu

After thinking about my original idea to convert my current 5.1 setup to a 5.2.2 Atmos setup and educating myself a bit more, I've decided my original "easy" retrofit wasn't going to provide much benefit, so I scrapped the idea and starting thinking about it more. While it will definitely take more work, I've determined that it would only be a moderate pain in the rear to actually run some speaker wire under the edges of my carpet and then up behind the wall to add a couple of new in-wall surround speakers. My surround speakers are currently in-ceiling, about a foot or two behind the main seating positions. If I convert my surrounds to new lower in-wall speakers that are about a foot above listener ear level, I can then use the current in-celing speakers as my Atmos speakers. This seems to be the absolute closest I can reasonably get to creating a 5.1.2 speaker placement as diagrammed on the Dolby website, without getting a divorce. If I do that, my two Atmos in-ceiling speakers would actually be about a foot or two behind the listeners. In a 5.1.2 setup, Dolby actually recommends that the overheads be placed in the ceiling slightly in front of the listeners. Since I like being married, that isn't going to happen. So my question is, would having my two in-ceiling Atmos speakers slightly behind the listeners instead of slightly in front of them pose a significant problem? It seems like it would be ok to me, but I thought maybe somebody with more Atmos knowledge might see an obvious flaw in that plan that I'm missing. My system sounds really good right now, but it seems that lowering the surrounds closer to where they should ideally be placed and then adding the ability to receive Atmos overhead content could improve it. However, I don't want to spend the time and money if there isn't going to be any improvement.

Thoughts?


----------



## jsgrise

laubyasu said:


> So my question is, would having my two in-ceiling Atmos speakers slightly behind the listeners instead of slightly in front of them pose a significant problem? [...] However, I don't want to spend the time and money if there isn't going to be any improvement.
> 
> Thoughts?


First of wall, you will improve your bed (5 ear level speakers) by lowering your surrounds versus right now having them in-ceiling. Also, my bet is that, although not ideal, having top middle slightly backward will get the job done and be an improvement over a basic 5.1. 

If you can swing another pair of in-ceiling in the future, you could re-assign your top middle to top rear.

Nothing is pretty much ideal in a HT, even dedicated room like I mine have constraints, so just enjoy!

EDIT: Worst case, you don't like the Atmos effect and disconnect your in-ceiling speakers. You will still enjoy the improvement of lowering the surrounds.


----------



## laubyasu

jsgrise said:


> First of wall, you will improve your bed (5 ear level speakers) by lowering your surrounds versus right now having them in-ceiling. Also, my bet is that, although not ideal, having top middle slightly backward will get the job done and be an improvement over a basic 5.1.
> 
> If you can swing another pair of in-ceiling in the future, you could re-assign your top middle to top rear.
> 
> Nothing is pretty much ideal in a HT, even dedicated room like I mine have constraints, so just enjoy!
> 
> EDIT: Worst case, you don't like the Atmos effect and disconnect your in-ceiling speakers. You will still enjoy the improvement of lowering the surrounds.


Thank you for the response! Another question: Are the signals for Atmos in ceiling speakers the same or different when you go from 2 to 4 speakers? The reason I ask is that I just got a new receiver that's Atmos enabled (which I bought for non-Atmos reasons). It's the reason I'm kind of on the potential upgrade to Atmos kick. I figure if I have a receiver that can do it, I might as well look into it. In any event, the receiver only does 5.1.2 or 7.1. There is no 5.1.4 option. Would it be possible to just split the signal for the .2 to go to 4 speakers instead of 2, or is the Atmos ceiling signal unique for each speaker? If that wouldn't work, no big deal, I could just stick to the 2 in ceiling speakers for a few years until I find an excuse to buy another receiver! As you alluded to, my current ceiling speakers are actually in a close to perfect position for the rear ceilings in a 4 speaker Atmos setup if I were to add 2 in the forward position in front of the listeners.


----------



## jsgrise

laubyasu said:


> Thank you for the response! Another question: Are the signals for Atmos in ceiling speakers the same or different when you go from 2 to 4 speakers? The reason I ask is that I just got a new receiver that's Atmos enabled (which I bought for non-Atmos reasons). It's the reason I'm kind of on the potential upgrade to Atmos kick. I figure if I have a receiver that can do it, I might as well look into it. In any event, the receiver only does 5.1.2 or 7.1. There is no 5.1.4 option. Would it be possible to just split the signal for the .2 to go to 4 speakers instead of 2, or is the Atmos ceiling signal unique for each speaker? If that wouldn't work, no big deal, I could just stick to the 2 in ceiling speakers for a few years until I find an excuse to buy another receiver! As you alluded to, my current ceiling speakers are actually in a close to perfect position for the rear ceilings in a 4 speaker Atmos setup if I were to add 2 in the forward position in front of the listeners.


On ATMOS track each top or height speaker will get his own signal. But, when using DSU on a regular 2.0, 5.1 or 7.1 track, all the top left speakers will get the same signal and same with the right speakers.

In the meantime, until you have a 5.1.4 capable receiver, you could definitely wire respectively your left and right sets of speakers in parallel or series depending on impedance.


----------



## laubyasu

jsgrise said:


> On ATMOS track each top or height speaker will get his own signal. But, when using DSU on a regular 2.0, 5.1 or 7.1 track, all the top left speakers will get the same signal and same with the right speakers.
> 
> In the meantime, until you have a 5.1.4 capable receiver, you could definitely wire respectively your left and right sets of speakers in parallel or series depending on impedance.


Thank you. I appreciate the help.


----------



## unretarded

Also, my receiver, which is a .2, which might not be the same as yours.......has settings to designate the top .2 speakers as front height,front top, middle top,rear top and rear height, dolby enabled front,dolby enabled rear........maybe yours will at least have designations for all 3 top positions in the configuration menu.


----------



## laubyasu

unretarded said:


> Also, my receiver, which is a .2, which might not be the same as yours.......has settings to designate the top .2 speakers as front height,front top, middle top,rear top and rear height, dolby enabled front,dolby enabled rear........maybe yours will at least have designations for all 3 top positions in the configuration menu.


Thanks. Yeah, mine only has a designation to turn them off, front height, or in ceiling (or rear surrounds for a non-Atmos 7.1 setup). There's no specificity for the precise in-ceiling location. My receiver is the Yamaha RX-V681BL. I think that since the only Atmos capability for my receiver is a 5.1.2 setup, the in-ceiling selection is probably designed for ceiling speakers that match the Dolby 5.1.2 diagram where the in-ceiling speakers are above and just barely in front of the listeners. Mine are probably only about 2-3 feet back from the Dolby recommended location for a 5.1.2 setup, which I can't imagine would cause a problem. Not sure, but I'm guessing the YPAO calibration would pick that up and adjust things accordingly. It seems close enough to me, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some critical aspect of how the Atmos sound is delivered, like sounds that should be coming from up and in front coming from behind and throwing everything off.


----------



## Marc Alexander

For those that missed the previous times this has been discussed…


sdurani said:


> When you configure a receiver for a single pair of heights, ALL the height information goes to those speakers (there's no where else for the height info to go). It's not like those speakers can only receive the front portion of the height information. Irrespective of whether you configure them as Front Height or Top Middle, those speakers will get ALL the height information. Which means the same height information that you hear from the surrounds of Receiver B will also be heard duplicated from your height speakers. I'm not telling you not to try it, just pointing out the obvious: height information will be coming from above you AND around you.





sdurani said:


> In those (X.x.2) situations it doesn't matter. It used to matter when AVRs were transitioning to immersive audio: the Front Heights designation was the only one that was compatible with DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX. But now that the former was replace by Neural:X and the latter is history, the height speaker designations matter only when using more than one pair overhead.


Where is @pasender91 BTW?


----------



## pasender91

I'm here Marc and Srudani 
I understood the explanation that was given.

It is not purely downmixing but rather matricing the sound based on the 3D location. Wherever the sound is sourced in 3D, front or back, in a .2 configuration the sound has to go somewhere so whether the speakers are configured Front Top or Rear it makes no difference. I get the point.

The situation i described is still valid on a .4 or .6, so we are all aligned.


----------



## T-Bone

Not sure if this has been asked before. If you look at the signature in my post you'll see images of my game room.

I currently have a 7.1 system. My side surrounds are adaptive dipoles where tweeters fire out of phase. Tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor. And I have 10 foot ceilings.

Rear surround tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor but they are tilted down so they aim right towards our heads 22 feet away.

The reason why I am conflicted on Atmos *in my room* is because when I listen to 7.1 tracks now, when things fly overhead directly over the seating area, it kind of sounds like they are overhead already. 

And the rain effect, like in the movie Gothika, sounds like it's all around us and you cannot pinpoint where the rain is coming from.

I'm guessing that's because of the Adaptive dipoles at the sides and the height above the seating position that gives it that diffused overhead sound.

I heard a buddy's Atmos system. But all of his speakers were direct firing And they were close to ear height. His room is much smaller than mine. And he did have ceiling mounted speakers.

Because a new Atmos receiver is a big chunk of change and I would need to go 7.1.2, just looking for a sanity check if anyone would expect a big Improvement in a room like mine.

-T


----------



## jsgrise

T-Bone said:


> Not sure if this has been asked before. If you look at the signature in my post you'll see images of my game room.
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 system. My side surrounds are adaptive dipoles where tweeters fire out of phase. Tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor. And I have 10 foot ceilings.
> 
> Rear surround tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor but they are tilted down so they aim right towards our heads 22 feet away.
> 
> The reason why I am conflicted on Atmos *in my room* is because when I listen to 7.1 tracks now, when things fly overhead directly over the seating area, it kind of sounds like they are overhead already.
> 
> And the rain effect, like in the movie Gothika, sounds like it's all around us and you cannot pinpoint where the rain is coming from.
> 
> I'm guessing that's because of the Adaptive dipoles at the sides and the height above the seating position that gives it that diffused overhead sound.
> 
> I heard a buddy's Atmos system. But all of his speakers were direct firing And they were close to ear height. His room is much smaller than mine. And he did have ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> Because a new Atmos receiver is a big chunk of change and I would need to go 7.1.2, just looking for a sanity check if anyone would expect a big Improvement in a room like mine.
> 
> -T


Atmos is more than about overheads, is about being able the place audio object in a 3D matrix. Dipole speakers advantage is to diffuse sound so you can't pinpoint where the sound is coming from. Disavantage of dipole is that when you need a precise sound coming from them, it sounds out of phase and blured. A good example of that is in the movie Birdman where the voice pan from center to left surround. Dipole speakers won't work with Atmos since it is based to phantom imaging.

Jumping to Atmos will definitely be an upgrade, but that will require wiring for in or on ceiling speakers (6 ideally - plan for the future). and replace your dipole side speakers.


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> The reason why I am conflicted on Atmos *in my room* is because when I listen to 7.1 tracks now, when things fly overhead directly over the seating area, it kind of sounds like they are overhead already.


Placing surround speakers high up can result in sounds imaging overhead. But it doesn't deliver the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. To do that, you need two layers of speakers: one around you and one above you. And that's where Atmos makes a difference.


----------



## chi_guy50

T-Bone said:


> Not sure if this has been asked before. If you look at the signature in my post you'll see images of my game room.
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 system. My side surrounds are adaptive dipoles where tweeters fire out of phase. Tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor. And I have 10 foot ceilings.
> 
> Rear surround tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor but they are tilted down so they aim right towards our heads 22 feet away.
> 
> The reason why I am conflicted on Atmos *in my room* is because when I listen to 7.1 tracks now, when things fly overhead directly over the seating area, it kind of sounds like they are overhead already.
> 
> And the rain effect, like in the movie Gothika, sounds like it's all around us and you cannot pinpoint where the rain is coming from.
> 
> I'm guessing that's because of the Adaptive dipoles at the sides and the height above the seating position that gives it that diffused overhead sound.
> 
> I heard a buddy's Atmos system. But all of his speakers were direct firing And they were close to ear height. His room is much smaller than mine. And he did have ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> Because a new Atmos receiver is a big chunk of change and I would need to go 7.1.2, just looking for a sanity check if anyone would expect a big Improvement in a room like mine.
> 
> -T


That's a nice looking multipurpose room; it's obvious that you've put quite a bit of effort into it. But the compromises in your HT layout--in particular the height of your surrounds and the distant location of your surround back speakers--will negatively impact on any immersive audio effect.

Assuming that you are not willing or able to relocate any of the current speakers, I still feel that you can benefit from adding overhead speakers if you are motivated to move to an Atmos setup. There may not be much vertical separation to be achieved, but one or two pairs of in-ceiling speakers installed a few feet behind and/or in front of the MLP (placed no wider than and perhaps even a bit narrower than the Front L/R) should still provide better coverage.


----------



## harrisu

Quick regarding Dolby Atmos Upconversion: I have 7.x.4 setup and using Yamaha 3050. If I set the avr to "Surround" mode, it converts 5.1/7.1 into 7.x.4 and gets ceiling speakers involved as well. 
Question: does using dolby atmos conversation take or reduce what would go into surroud/surroud back channels without it involved or it leaves all surround/surround back channels untouched and adds more activities into ceiling speakers?

I'm trying to understand what happens to surr/surr back speakers when atmos conversion is engaged.

Thanks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

harrisu said:


> Question: does using dolby atmos conversation take or reduce what would go into surround/surround back channels without it involved or it leaves all surround/surround back channels untouched and adds more activities into ceiling speakers?
> 
> I'm trying to understand what happens to surr/surr back speakers when atmos conversion is engaged.


When 5.1 is upmixed to 7.1.4, the Ls/Rs channels are replaced by decoded channels. In addition, new outputs are also decoded for Lb/Rb, and for the height speakers. In other words, 2 source channels become 6 new outputs. 

For all the details, see section 4.2 of this paper. Need to Google as shown:










To discuss this topic to your heart's content, join us in the *The Official Dolby Surround Upmixing Thread*


----------



## Selden Ball

harrisu said:


> Quick regarding Dolby Atmos Upconversion: I have 7.x.4 setup and using Yamaha 3050. If I set the avr to "Surround" mode, it converts 5.1/7.1 into 7.x.4 and gets ceiling speakers involved as well.
> Question: does using dolby atmos conversation take or reduce what would go into surroud/surroud back channels without it involved or it leaves all surround/surround back channels untouched and adds more activities into ceiling speakers?
> 
> I'm trying to understand what happens to surr/surr back speakers when atmos conversion is engaged.
> 
> Thanks.


A quibble: there is no such thing as "Atmos conversion" in the home. Soundtracks are distributed as Atmos. Speaker channels are utilized when various Atmos sound "objects" are defined to be in appropriate locations. Whether or not any particular speaker is active depends on the soundstage designed by the movie's mixer. Atmos soundstracks are shipped as 7.1 plus metadata, so Rear Surrounds usually are active even if no objects are defined to be in those locations.

Dolby Surround is the name of Dolby's upmixer. You can apply it to soundtracks which were not mixed using one of the 3D audio technologies (Atmos, DTS:X & Auro3D). DSU (Dolby Surround upmixer) causes sound to come from all of your speakers. It'll upmix to include Rear Surrounds when a soundtrack is 5.1 or less. If speaker channels are already in use by the original soundtrack, nothing is added to them, although some sounds are removed and moved to one or more of the un-occupied speaker channels.

Sounds in the form of reverberation effects can be added to already-occupied speaker channels if your A/V equipment includes some "room simulation" options.

I hope this clarifies things a little.


----------



## djoberg

I just purchased and watched _13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi_. I saw it last year but that was before I had my 5.2.4 setup. My, the Dolby Atmos mix was INSANE!! All of the panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate!!! I ended up turning it to REFERENCE LEVEL about half way through and nothing could have caused me to turn it down. 

Again, another contender for the "Top Three," if there was such a thing as a Dolby Atmos/DTS: X audio thread with "Movie Rankings."


----------



## jsgrise

djoberg said:


> I just purchased and watched _13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi_. I saw it last year but that was before I had my 5.2.4 setup. My, the Dolby Atmos mix was INSANE!! All of the panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate!!! I ended up turning it to REFERENCE LEVEL about half way through and nothing could have caused me to turn it down.
> 
> Again, another contender for the "Top Three," if there was such a thing as a Dolby Atmos/DTS: X audio thread with "Movie Rankings."


Nice! IMHO it is one of the best audio mix ever, pure demo material!


----------



## gwsat

I need some help concerning a DTS:X MA issue I discovered last night. Although This is the Dolby Atmos thread, I have come to respect the many posters here who know a lot about immersive audio generally. Thus I'll ask my question here in hopes that someone has an explanation for me.

I received my UHD HDR DTS:X MA copy of _Atomic Blonde_ and watched it last night. 

I thought the DTS:X audiotrack sounded just fine but noticed something that concerned me. My Yamaha 3060 receiver requires an external 2 channel amplifier to power two of the speakers in my 7.2.4 setup. I use an external 100w amp to power the rear two of the four height speakers that are in my ceiling. The external amp has activity lights on its front panel, which indicate when it is sending audio to the rear overhead speakers. I noticed that the this DTS:X MA soundtrack wasn't engaging those speakers. I was able to confirm that my setup is working just fine because when I engaged the Enhanced DSP on my 3060, the soundtrack started using the rear overhead speakers instead of just the two front ones..

In order to confirm that this wasn't a glitch in all DTS:S MA soundtracks, I played part of my UHD HDR DTS:X MA Jason Bourne disk and it activated all four overhead speakers when it played the native DTS:X MA soundtrack with no DSP added. I should add that none of the many TrueHD Atmos films I own exhibit any such weaknesses. All activate all four overhead speakers just fine.

Can anybody suggest what might be going on with the soundtrack of the _Atomic Blonde_ disk?


----------



## sdrucker

gwsat said:


> I need some help concerning a DTS:X MA issue I discovered last night. Although This is the Dolby Atmos thread, I have come to respect the many posters here who know a lot about immersive audio generally. Thus I'll ask my question here in hopes that someone has an explanation for me.
> 
> I received my UHD HDR DTS:X MA copy of _Atomic Blonde_ and watched it last night.
> 
> I thought the DTS:X audiotrack sounded just fine but noticed something that concerned me. My Yamaha 3060 receiver requires an external 2 channel amplifier to power two of the speakers in my 7.2.4 setup. I use an external 100w amp to power the rear two of the four height speakers that are in my ceiling. The external amp has activity lights on its front panel, which indicate when it is sending audio to the rear overhead speakers. I noticed that the this DTS:X MA soundtrack wasn't engaging those speakers. I was able to confirm that my setup is working just fine because when I engaged the Enhanced DSP on my 3060, the soundtrack started using the rear overhead speakers instead of just the two front ones..
> 
> In order to confirm that this wasn't a glitch in all DTS:S MA soundtracks, I played part of my UHD HDR DTS:X MA Jason Bourne disk and it activated all four overhead speakers when it played the native DTS:X MA soundtrack with no DSP added. I should add that none of the many TrueHD Atmos films I own exhibit any such weaknesses. All activate all four overhead speakers just fine.
> 
> Can anybody suggest what might be going on with the soundtrack of the _Atomic Blonde_ disk?



Can you point to a specific scene where Atomic Blonde is engaging front overheads bot not rears? I'll can check this on my Altitude tonight when I'm home, where there's both input and output processor meters with reported db levels.


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> I received my UHD HDR DTS:X MA copy of _Atomic Blonde_ and watched it last night.
> ..
> ..
> I noticed that the this DTS:X MA soundtrack wasn't engaging those speakers.



I can very easily test this as well now. Yes, chapter/time code would be good...especially since this is one of the few discs I have left at the house (moving).


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdrucker said:


> Can you point to a specific scene where Atomic Blonde is engaging front overheads bot not rears? I'll can check this on my Altitude tonight when I'm home, where there's both input and output processor meters with reported db levels.


Blu-ray review points to some overhead action scenes:



> The overhead component doesn't often offer any discrete effects but does help create a compelling sound field that opens up various environments with startling accuracy. Action scenes are made much more riveting by the intense engagement and aggression of gunfire, which pops and zips with plenty of power. The most startlingly detailed action scene comes in chapter 15 when music entirely gives way to shots and crashes, and the sole focus on action only allows the track to amplify the raw power on display. Additional effects, such as pressure underwater at the 82 minute mark or simple dialogue and music in more cavernous locations where reverberation and spacing are much more naturally pronounced, make a number of scenes practically reference quality.


----------



## sdrucker

Roger Dressler said:


> Blu-ray review points to some overhead action scenes:


 
Cool, I'll queue these up tonight for Atomic Blonde and let you guys know what I find for these two time sequences. One thing I do see sometimes is that you'll have those overheads firing away at a very low level on the inputs that you don't hear unless you're listening closer to reference. Meaning that there's some ambience, but for all practical purposes they're silent at normal listening.

There's a few DTS:X mixes where you get quite the opposite. The overheads are ALWAYS on for, say, Van Helsing, which I mostly bought for seeing Kate Beckinsale's ridiculous acting and...attire. You also see the same thing on the Atmos mix of REM's "Automatic for the People". Pretty much everything is going all of the time, including wides and my extra pair of side surrounds.

Actually am going to watch the original Ghostbusters in Atmos tonight...I know the mix is front-heavy, but I have a request to put that one on...


----------



## gwsat

I don't know what I would do without you guys. To amplify on my earlier post, I don't have the resources to actually confirm whether the front pair of overhead speakers were working when I was watching _Atomic Blonde_ but think they were. As explained earlier, I know that the rear overheads were silent because the activity lights on the external amp that drives them don't light up. I thought the front overheads were working, though, because the _Atomic Blonde_ audio sound field gave me the impression of immersion, something that doesn't happen if ceiling speakers aren't contributing.


----------



## Roger Dressler

gwsat said:


> I don't know what I would do without you guys. To amplify on my earlier post, I don't have the resources to actually confirm whether the front pair of overhead speakers were working when I was watching _Atomic Blonde_ but think they were. As explained earlier, I know that the rear overheads were silent because the activity lights on the external amp that drives them don't light up. I thought the front overheads were working, though, because the _Atomic Blonde_ audio sound field gave me the impression of immersion, something that doesn't happen if ceiling speakers aren't contributing.


I just received this report from someone with the disc:

>>CONFIRMED 7.1.4 
There is height audio present in all 4 height speakers in the opening scene.
Ronald Reagan speech, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".
Cheering crowd can be heard in all 4 height channels.


----------



## gwsat

Roger Dressler said:


> I just received this report from someone with the disc:
> 
> >>CONFIRMED 7.1.4
> There is height audio present in all 4 height speakers in the opening scene.
> Ronald Reagan speech, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".
> Cheering crowd can be heard in all 4 height channels.


----------



## jsgrise

gwsat said:


> Watched that scene twice earlier and it wouldn't activate my rear ceiling speakers either time, although a different DTS:X MA disk (_Jason Bourne_) and a bunch of TrueHD Atmos disks produced sound from all four overhead speakers without fail. Oh well, thanks for trying.


That is some weird stuff. If you had another player you could check to see if it's the player or your Yammy processor. Looking forward for an explanation.


----------



## Marc Alexander

gwsat said:


> Watched that scene twice earlier and it wouldn't activate my rear ceiling speakers either time, although a different DTS:X MA disk (_Jason Bourne_) and a bunch of TrueHD Atmos disks produced sound from all four overhead speakers without fail. Oh well, thanks for trying.


Are you just watching the LEDs to determine this? Generally there is threshold to activate activity LEDs that may not be being met. You could temporarily boost those channels to see if the LEDs activate.


----------



## jsgrise

Marc Alexander said:


> You could temporarily boost those channels to see if the LEDs activate.


Or use a ladder and stick your ear next to the speaker.


----------



## LNEWoLF

gwsat said:


> I don't know what I would do without you guys. To amplify on my earlier post, I don't have the resources to actually confirm whether the front pair of overhead speakers were working when I was watching _Atomic Blonde_ but think they were. As explained earlier, I know that the rear overheads were silent because the activity lights on the external amp that drives them don't light up. I thought the front overheads were working, though, because the _Atomic Blonde_ audio sound field gave me the impression of immersion, something that doesn't happen if ceiling speakers aren't contributing.


Try switching the amp from auto on (signal detection.) To stay on all the time.

It sounds like this movie may not be tripping the auto on threshhold for the signal.

Also verify the front display on your Yamaha AVR shows DTS X.


----------



## jcp2

jsgrise said:


> Or use a ladder and stick your ear next to the speaker.


Also, I use a Christmas Wrapping Paper tube to check my Ceiling Atmos speakers


----------



## jsgrise

jcp2 said:


> Also, I use a Christmas Wrapping Paper tube to check my Ceiling Atmos speakers


Very smart!


----------



## jcp2

jsgrise said:


> Very smart!


Wish I could take the credit for that idea... but, another crafty AVS'er posted that solution a while back somewhere  Saves me a lot of hassle breaking out the ladder.


----------



## richlife

T-Bone said:


> Not sure if this has been asked before. If you look at the signature in my post you'll see images of my game room.
> 
> I currently have a 7.1 system. My side surrounds are adaptive dipoles where tweeters fire out of phase. Tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor. And I have 10 foot ceilings.
> 
> Rear surround tweeters are about 7 feet off the floor but they are tilted down so they aim right towards our heads 22 feet away.
> 
> The reason why I am conflicted on Atmos *in my room* is because when I listen to 7.1 tracks now, when things fly overhead directly over the seating area, it kind of sounds like they are overhead already.
> 
> And the rain effect, like in the movie Gothika, sounds like it's all around us and you cannot pinpoint where the rain is coming from.
> 
> I'm guessing that's because of the Adaptive dipoles at the sides and the height above the seating position that gives it that diffused overhead sound.
> 
> I heard a buddy's Atmos system. But all of his speakers were direct firing And they were close to ear height. His room is much smaller than mine. And he did have ceiling mounted speakers.
> 
> Because a new Atmos receiver is a big chunk of change and I would need to go 7.1.2, just looking for a sanity check if anyone would expect a big Improvement in a room like mine.
> 
> -T


I also agree with @chi_guy50's comments and wanted to reinforce that I think you could definitely get Atmos benefits with your current 7.1 setup. Yours is not terribly different from mine at the start (see my sig thread) though my rears are not high -- my "possible" conflict is between my high side surrounds and my RPs. But there is definitely a huge difference between "overhead" sound due to your speakers/setup and Atmos immersion. (As a side, I would encourage planning for a future outlay for 7.1.4.) 

As you state, depending on the actual setup the dipoles might be problematic. Some dipoles can be reconfigured to bipole -- you might look into that. My sides are actually bipolar and don't cause any problems with precise Atmos imaging (at least, not that I can tell). That may have something to do with my bipole "corner" placement (pics in that thread). 

But my main point is that a 7.1 system with great overhead audio can be hugely improved with an Atmos setup. Because your rears (like mine) are so far back, the Atmos speakers will likely overcome that elevation -- especially with a 7.1.4 setup. My "effective" placement of the Front and Rear Presence speakers approximate the Dolby Atmos 45* placement (precise degree is not critical).

Last comment: I too was distinctly put off by the cost of upgrading to Atmos. At every step of the way from AVR to FPs to RPs to new separate RP amp to new wiring and even minor home remodel, I fought internally (and with LOML) over whether to go farther. And every step produced a better and more usable result. By the final implementation, it was then even justifiable (to us both) to double that investment with a new 65" LG OLED. Also consider the additional benefits of DTS:X, Dolby Vision and HLG that will (or can) go along with the Atmos improvements sort of "buried" in the cost. The net result is as close to a "future-proof" home theater upgrade as you can make in 2016/17 (and likely even 2018). So consider this encouragement if you can swing it and a warning -- as with all HT activity, one step always seems to lead to another. Looking back, I am (we are) delighted. The process of getting here produced a lot of difficult and somewhat painful decision making.


----------



## gwsat

LNEWoLF said:


> Try switching the amp from auto on (signal detection.) To stay on all the time.
> 
> It sounds like this movie may not be tripping the auto on threshhold for the signal.
> 
> Also verify the front display on your Yamaha AVR shows DTS X.


My 3060 does indeed indicate "DTS:X MA" when playing the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack. I ran the test tones in my 3060's Setup section and confirmed that my rear overheads (identified by Yamaha as "Rear Presence") are both operating properly and so are the other speakers in my 7.2.4 setup. 

My external amp does stay on all the time and the speakers it is attached to immediately reproduce the test tones. Also, when I engaged the "Enhanced" DSP on my 3060 while I was playing _Atomic Blonde,_ the rear overheads worked. There's just something about the native _Atomic Blonde_DTS:X MA soundtrack that my setup doesn't like. Fortunately it's not a big deal because I can get things back to normal by activating the Enhanced DSP. Anyway, I can't thank everybody enough for your suggestions about my, typically, nerdy problem.


----------



## Roger Dressler

gwsat said:


> There's just something about the native _Atomic Blonde_DTS:X MA soundtrack that my setup doesn't like.


Does it make any difference if you change the Yamaha's speaker settings for the rear heights to rear tops, or vice versa?


----------



## jsgrise

Roger Dressler said:


> Does it make any difference if you change the Yamaha's speaker settings for the rear heights to rear tops, or vice versa?


Maybe change your Presence definition from Top to Height or vice versa and see what happens?


----------



## T-Bone

Thanks to @jsgrise @sdurani @chi_guy50 and @richlife for replying.

So... I bit the bullet and ordered a 9-channel AVR (Onkyo RZ920). Got a good deal on it. I was already using a dedicated 7-channel amp for my 7.1, so now I have a sufficient number of amps to run a 7.1.4 setup.

As for side surrounds... I will evaluate the system with 4 ceiling speakers first... I may have to take some additional action on the side surrounds. 
1. I could lower them... I would have to find low profile speakers since I do not want folks walking into them (my current side surround speakers are 6.5" deep)... it would be a tight fit to walk between the seating area and the wall... I pnly have 30" width from d=seat to wall
2. I could also see about rewiring the tweeters to fire in-phase... to make them bipoles... to reduce the null
3. I could replace the the sides and sell my Onix Rockets RSS300s here on AVS. Same issue as #1 ... need low profile replacements

Overall, I think my first option is to possibly rewire the tweeters and leave sides where they are due to the narrow walkway path.

I think I will install 6 ceiling speakers... that way, I can demo both 7.1.4 and 7.1.2 and get some future proof in there.

Again, thanks for the feedback you provided. 

T


----------



## Marc Alexander

T-Bone said:


> I think I will install 6 ceiling speakers... that way, I can demo both 7.1.4 and 7.1.2 and get some future proof in there.


Very wise idea!


----------



## gwsat

jsgrise said:


> Maybe change your Presence definition from Top to Height or vice versa and see what happens?


I tried that but the rear presence speakers performed as I have described whether I had then defined as Top or Height: The _Atomic Blonde_ DTS:X soundtrack wouldn't trigger the rear ceiling speakers in either configuration but the _Jason Bourne_ DTS:X soundtrack worked normally with both configurations. It's a head scratcher.


----------



## brigham78

I'm new on here and might be in the wrong spot, might be asking questions out of my league but, here goes.

I'm finishing my basement as we speak. I have purchased 7 Klipsch 5502 in wall speakers for my surround sound as well as a 12" Klipsch sub for my basement theater room (20x24 dedicated room). Wall speakers were a must as I fear my kids destroying anything else. 

I have also wired for 4 ceiling speakers hoping to be able to add 4 Atmos speakers at some point in the future. I'm pretty green to the whole setup and don't know much of the terminology. I'm now at a point where I need to purchase an amp to run my system and am not sure what to buy. 

Budget is an issue for me but I don't want to buy an amp that won't do what I want it to either. I've kind of settled on the Sony STR-DN1080 based solely on reviews but, in doing more research it seems this isn't capable of running a 7.2.4 system but, rather only a 5.1.2. I'm wondering if there is a better amp without jumping into the $1500+ range that will run my full setup now and have the ability to add Dolby Atmos speakers in a year or 2 when I've forgotten how much I've already spent.

I've also read about adding a second amp, not sure the terminology, that would run some of the speakers that the primary amp won't power. Is this an option with that receiver? If I can do that, the price point of this is great, especially considering it's on a pretty good sale now.

Thanks


----------



## jsgrise

brigham78 said:


> I'm wondering if there is a better amp without jumping into the $1500+ range that will run my full setup now and have the ability to add Dolby Atmos speakers in a year or 2 when I've forgotten how much I've already spent.
> 
> I've also read about adding a second amp, not sure the terminology, that would run some of the speakers that the primary amp won't power. Is this an option with that receiver? If I can do that, the price point of this is great, especially considering it's on a pretty good sale now.
> 
> Thanks


Welcome to the rabbit hole! 

You could get a refurbished Marantz SR7011 for 999$ . This receiver will expand to 7.2.4 with a external 2-channel amp. It is a great receiver!


----------



## T-Bone

brigham78 said:


> I'm new on here and might be in the wrong spot, might be asking questions out of my league but, here goes.
> 
> I'm finishing my basement as we speak. I have purchased 7 Klipsch 5502 in wall speakers for my surround sound as well as a 12" Klipsch sub for my basement theater room (20x24 dedicated room). Wall speakers were a must as I fear my kids destroying anything else.
> 
> I have also wired for 4 ceiling speakers hoping to be able to add 4 Atmos speakers at some point in the future. I'm pretty green to the whole setup and don't know much of the terminology. I'm now at a point where I need to purchase an amp to run my system and am not sure what to buy.
> 
> Budget is an issue for me but I don't want to buy an amp that won't do what I want it to either. I've kind of settled on the Sony STR-DN1080 based solely on reviews but, in doing more research it seems this isn't capable of running a 7.2.4 system but, rather only a 5.1.2. I'm wondering if there is a better amp without jumping into the $1500+ range that will run my full setup now and have the ability to add Dolby Atmos speakers in a year or 2 when I've forgotten how much I've already spent.
> 
> I've also read about adding a second amp, not sure the terminology, that would run some of the speakers that the primary amp won't power. Is this an option with that receiver? If I can do that, the price point of this is great, especially considering it's on a pretty good sale now.
> 
> Thanks


You are in a tough spot. If you purchase that Sony you mentioned, then you will essentially be throwing that money away in a year or two when you do upgrade to 7.1.4 (assuming you cannot remove the Sony to another room in the house and use it there).

It's Christmas time and sales will be coming. And I already see prices fluctuating on 9.2 Channel receivers. You'll have to spend a little more. But that means you won't be throwing money away tomorrow. You can probably get a pretty decent 9.2 Channel for $1,000 or less in the next couple of weeks. That means the receiver will have 9 amplifiers. Which which means it will do 7.1.2 right away. 

Then in the future, all you have to do is add a 2-channel amplifier the power so that you can do a 7.1.4 set up.

It's cheaper to spend the money now versus "throwing away" Electronics.

-T


----------



## gene4ht

brigham78 said:


> I'm wondering if there is a better amp without jumping into the $1500+ range that will run my full setup now and have the ability to add Dolby Atmos speakers in a year or 2 when I've forgotten how much I've already spent.


Unfortunately, IMO, an AVR that would best meet your needs at $799 closeout pricing (Denon X4300H) new has been recently sold out everywhere. However, if you don't mind refurbished, it may be possible to find it at Accessories4Less (A4L). It's a 9 channel (5.2.4 or 7.2.2) AVR with the capability of adding a 2 channel amp later for a full 7.2.4 system and fits well within your budget. Good luck with your search!


----------



## unretarded

gwsat said:


> I tried that but the rear presence speakers performed as I have described whether I had then defined as Top or Height: The _Atomic Blonde_ DTS:X soundtrack wouldn't trigger the rear ceiling speakers in either configuration but the _Jason Bourne_ DTS:X soundtrack worked normally with both configurations. It's a head scratcher.


I would suspect the disk is the problem, disks have been known to have problems in the past.......sounds like you have eliminated most other possibilities.


----------



## unretarded

jcp2 said:


> Also, I use a Christmas Wrapping Paper tube to check my Ceiling Atmos speakers





I think I need a picture to visualize how that works.....just snap a selfie real quick......


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> I received my UHD HDR DTS:X MA copy of Atomic Blonde and watched it last night.
> ..
> ..
> I noticed that the this DTS:X MA soundtrack wasn't engaging those speakers.





stikle said:


> I can very easily test this as well now. Yes, chapter/time code would be good...especially since this is one of the few discs I have left at the house (moving).



I have verified that the DTS:X Master audio track has both Top Front & Top Rear sound. I simply muted the AVR driving the bed layer, leaving only the overheads being driven from the second AVR. The fronts have different audio from the rears.

Chapter 16 / 1:21:00



Spoiler



Starting from when the car goes underwater, both sets of overheads are active, providing bubbles, swishes, and other water sounds. They go silent when her head comes out of the water for a breath.


----------



## Roger Dressler

stikle said:


> I have verified that the DTS:X Master audio track has both Top Front & Top Rear sound. I simply muted the AVR driving the bed layer, leaving only the overheads being driven from the second AVR. The fronts have different audio from the rears.


Thanks, Seth. 

I wonder if someone with a Yamaha RX-A3060 (or any Yamaha for that matter) could see if they get the same missing channels. @Scott Simonian have you tried Atmoic Blonde? Not the beer, the movie.


----------



## gwsat

Roger Dressler said:


> Thanks, Seth.
> 
> I wonder if someone with a Yamaha RX-A3060 (or any Yamaha for that matter) could see if they get the same missing channels. @Scott Simonian have you tried Atmoic Blonde? Not the beer, the movie.


In case any other owners of 7.2.4 capable Yamaha receivers are worried, let me hasten to explain that although I have had my Yamaha 3060 since June 2016 _Atomic Blonde_ is the only title with immersive audio I have played that didn't work perfectly on my system.


----------



## Roger Dressler

gwsat said:


> In case any other owners of 7.2.4 capable Yamaha receivers are worried, let me hasten to explain that although I have had my Yamaha 3060 since June 2016 _Atomic Blonde_ is the only title with immersive audio I have played that didn't work perfectly on my system.


Perchance, do you have any other DTS:X titles?


----------



## gwsat

Roger Dressler said:


> Perchance, do you have any other DTS:X titles?


Yep, _*this post*_. I have a few other DTS:X MA titles too but can't recall what they are at the moment.


----------



## Chaunceybland

T-Bone said:


> You are in a tough spot. If you purchase that Sony you mentioned, then you will essentially be throwing that money away in a year or two when you do upgrade to 7.1.4 (assuming you cannot remove the Sony to another room in the house and use it there).
> 
> It's Christmas time and sales will be coming. And I already see prices fluctuating on 9.2 Channel receivers. You'll have to spend a little more. But that means you won't be throwing money away tomorrow. You can probably get a pretty decent 9.2 Channel for $1,000 or less in the next couple of weeks. That means the receiver will have 9 amplifiers. Which which means it will do 7.1.2 right away.
> 
> Then in the future, all you have to do is add a 2-channel amplifier the power so that you can do a 7.1.4 set up.
> 
> It's cheaper to spend the money now versus "throwing away" Electronics.
> 
> -T


A little help with that? I'm currently looking at the SR7011 myself and I'm unclear about the channels. I currently run a 7.1 system, can I only use 1 of the height channels? I see F,C,S,SB,H1,H2... Why would I need an external amp to run 7.1.4?


----------



## T-Bone

Chaunceybland said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in a tough spot. If you purchase that Sony you mentioned, then you will essentially be throwing that money away in a year or two when you do upgrade to 7.1.4 (assuming you cannot remove the Sony to another room in the house and use it there).
> 
> It's Christmas time and sales will be coming. And I already see prices fluctuating on 9.2 Channel receivers. You'll have to spend a little more. But that means you won't be throwing money away tomorrow. You can probably get a pretty decent 9.2 Channel for $1,000 or less in the next couple of weeks. That means the receiver will have 9 amplifiers. Which which means it will do 7.1.2 right away.
> 
> Then in the future, all you have to do is add a 2-channel amplifier the power so that you can do a 7.1.4 set up.
> 
> It's cheaper to spend the money now versus "throwing away" Electronics.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> A little help with that? I'm currently looking at the SR7011 myself and I'm unclear about the channels. I currently run a 7.1 system, can I only use 1 of the height channels? I see F,C,S,SB,H1,H2... Why would I need an external amp to run 7.1.4?
Click to expand...

The SR7011 is a 9.2 channel receiver... So that means it has 9 amplifiers. It supports 5.1.4 since it has enough amplifiers to power that system.

In your case, you want 7.1.4. Although the Marantz only has 9 amplifiers, it does the processing for 11 channels. So in order to have an 11 Channel system, you need 11 amplifiers. So that's why you need an external amplifier if you want to go 7.1.4.

But that Marantz will do 7.1.2 without an external amp. Which means only one set of height speakers.

-T

Edit.
The Marantz has pre outs for 11 channels.


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> I have verified that the DTS:X Master audio track has both Top Front & Top Rear sound. I simply muted the AVR driving the bed layer, leaving only the overheads being driven from the second AVR. The fronts have different audio from the rears.
> 
> Chapter 16 / 1:21:00
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Starting from when the car goes underwater, both sets of overheads are active, providing bubbles, swishes, and other water sounds. They go silent when her head comes out of the water for a breath.


Yup, all 4 worked on my viewing of that movie last night too (Denon AVR).


----------



## Craig Mecak

I have a Yamaha RX-A3060 and can confirm that DTS:X plays on the rear height channels on Atomic Blonde.

At roughly 1 minute into the movie, there is crowd cheering coming out of the rear top speakers. I stood on a chair and put my ear next to the right rear top speaker on my ceiling.

Then again at 9 minutes in, there is rain sound effects in the rear tops.


----------



## LNEWoLF

gwsat said:


> My 3060 does indeed indicate "DTS:X MA" when playing the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack. I ran the test tones in my 3060's Setup section and confirmed that my rear overheads (identified by Yamaha as "Rear Presence") are both operating properly and so are the other speakers in my 7.2.4 setup.
> 
> My external amp does stay on all the time and the speakers it is attached to immediately reproduce the test tones. Also, when I engaged the "Enhanced" DSP on my 3060 while I was playing _Atomic Blonde,_ the rear overheads worked. There's just something about the native _Atomic Blonde_DTS:X MA soundtrack that my setup doesn't like. Fortunately it's not a big deal because I can get things back to normal by activating the Enhanced DSP. Anyway, I can't thank everybody enough for your suggestions about my, typically, nerdy problem.


I’m not sure we are communicating effectivately 

[email protected]@king at this sell sheet for your Sonnace 2-100 amp
http://www.sonance.com/assets/media/files/downloads/Sonamp_Digital_Amps_Data_Sheet_120147.pdf


You said that your Sonnace amp lights one left one right for the rear elevation speakers. Does not come on for the movie Atomic Blonde. You verified that your Yamaha is receiving a DTS Master X signal. Thats a good sign. If you switch/add the DSP Mode to Enhanced you can now hear all four elevation speakers. I assume your sonnace amp l and r outputs light up also.

To me it’s possible that with this particular movie that the rear elevation output signal from your Yamaha AVR is not able to trigger the threshold to the auto on input signal sensor within the sonnace amp.

You have verified that it works correctly on all other movies. Works when you go into yout AVR test signals. Works with enhanced DSP Mode.

[email protected]@k in your owners manual for the sonnace amp. If the off selection turns off the auto function try that.

Or just try this.

To verify this. Should be simple to do. If the sonnace amp does indeed have three position selections for the input signal sensor.

On the back of your Sonnance 2-100 amp.

There is an input signal selection switch. 

Auto On

Voltage
Off
Audio

If you select the off position. That should disable the auto signal detection.

Now your amp should be on all the time. 

To turn the power to the amp on/off it [email protected]@k like there is a power button on the front that you can use.

I’m not familiar with this amp. So some of this is just a SWAG  or a familiar Navy term SNAFU... 

Good luck.......


----------



## LNEWoLF

[email protected]@king at the Sonnace owner manual page 7.

http://www.sonance.com/assets/media/files/downloads/Sonamp_2-100_and_12-50_Manual_100559.pdf

It works like I thought.

I noticed in auto mode it states it take 12 seconds to turn on from standby power mode once an audio signal is recieved/detected. (Potentially this could be causing the amp to stay in stand by mode and not turning on during the movie Atomic Blond.)

Put the “Auto On” signal switch in the center position to leave amp powered on all the time. Located on back of amp.

Play Atomic Blond do you now have sound coming from your rear elevation speakers?

Trigger Mode Control 2-100 & 12-50You can set the Sonamp amplifiers so that they will automatically turn ON when it receives an audio signal, when it receives a control voltage from an external source, or to remain on and not enter standby.NOTE: IF EITHER AUDIO OR VOLTAGE TRIGGERS ARE SELECTED, THE AMPLIFIER HAS A 12 SECOND CYCLE TIME FROM STANDBY TO PLAY AN AUDIO SIGNAL. THIS IS NORMAL AND REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE EU < .5 WATT ErP DIRECTIVE. (EC/1275/2008). SELECT OFF TO BYPASS THIS FEATURE. SEE POWER CONSUMPTION TABLE FOR IDLE POWER USE (SEE FIGURE 7). Auto On Triggering - Three Position SwitchAUDIOIn this mode, the amplifier will automatically turn ON when the minimum audio signal of 2.5 mV is detected at any of the inputs (Buss or LOCAL on the 12-50). This takes 12 seconds. The amplifier will turn OFF after 15 minutes of no input signal on any of the inputs.VOLTAGEWhen AUTO ON switch is in the left position, power will only turn on with a VOLTAGE of 3 to 30 volts AC or DC. Connect the trigger voltage source to the input of the voltage trigger using the left side of the green block connector. This takes 12 seconds. OFFWhen AUTO ON switch is in the center position, OFF, the amplifier will remain ON and will not go into standby mode.NOTE: WHEN THE AUTO ON SWITCH IS SET TO OFF THE AMPLIFIERS POWER SAVING FEATURE WILL BE DISABLED.12V Trigger OutputThe Sonamp has a 12V OUTPUT 2-wire screw connector found on the right side of the green block connector that provides 12V DC whenever the amplifier is ON. NOTE: THE CURRENT DRAW ON THE 12V TRIGGER OUTPUT CONNECTION SHOULD NOT EXCEED 200mA.


----------



## gwsat

@LNEWoLF -- Thanks for the tip about the Trigger Mode control switch on the back of my Sonamp 2-100. I thought that might work. When I checked it, I discovered that the trigger move switch was in Auto, which encouraged me to hope that changing it from Auto to Off might solve my _Atomic Blonde_ disk problem. Alas, it made not the slightest difference. On both settings the disk's DTS:X soundtrack would not activate the rear ceiling speakers when played Straight but would work just fine when I applied the Enhanced DSP. The silver lining to all this is that you taught me some things about my Sonamp 2-11 that I had not known.


----------



## LNEWoLF

gwsat said:


> @LNEWoLF -- Thanks for the tip about the Trigger Mode control switch on the back of my Sonamp 2-100. I thought that might work. When I checked it, I discovered that the trigger move switch was in Auto, which encouraged me to hope that changing it from Auto to Off might solve my _Atomic Blonde_ disk problem. Alas, it made not the slightest difference. On both settings the disk's DTS:X soundtrack would not activate the rear ceiling speakers when played Straight but would work just fine when I applied the Enhanced DSP. The silver lining to all this is that you taught me some things about my Sonamp 2-11 that I had not known.


Go long, one more throw of the pigskin.......

Just to verify. The picture of the back of the unit with the switch. Intially I thought the way it was labeled might have four positions.

In reading the manual. It has three.

The Auto On is just a label for what triggers the amp to turn on.

When viewed from the back you have three options.

Far left Voltage

Center Off

Far Right Audio

If the switch was in the center. Aligning with the Auto word on top and the Off Word on the bottom. It may have allready have been standby turned off. Just to verify, cycle the switch a couple times with the main power off. (Front panel button) You should feel a detent each time you move the switch in the back. Put it into the center detent position Off. Turn the sonnance amp on, button front panel. 

After it boots up......

Not too familiar with yammy AVR. Do you have a DSP Mode like Direct Auto. No enhanced mode. 

Just want the audio to play DTS Master X. Verify front of AVR displays DTS Master X.

A couple posts up someone confirmed with certain a time stamp that all four elevation speakers active.

When you play that timestamp.......

What are the lights left and right on the front of the sonnace displaying and what color are they.

Do you hear the rear elevation speakers at all?.....

On my Pioneer SC97 I can mute individual speakers in the Pioneer Av5 app. Basically turn off all ear level floor speakers, including sub. Makes it easy to isolate individual speaker, pairs or sets. Does yamaha have this feature?

Good luck.........


----------



## Dave-T

i assume most of you guys/gals are using some form of room correction for your atmos calibration? I use Audyessy and question is do any of you bump up the trim on the atmos speakers or leave it as what the calibration sets? For those that use Audyessy lets say you want your atmos speakers to be at -0.5 and all four atmos speakers have a different trim level and the lowest is -4.5. To get the -4.5 to -0.5 you would add +4. another speaker is -3.5 if you add +4 would be +.5. It is my understanding that you have to add the same value to all of the speakers or the algorithm gets screwed up is that correct? or do you just make all 4 atmos speakers -.05 and be done with it? I know it sounds like a stupid question but both ways sounded very different and not sure which is correct. The reason why I ask is because there has been a lot of discussion about people not being able to hear their atmos speakers and sometimes wonder if they are even working. With all of that said Audyessy is supposed to measure everything at 75db with the chirps and when all is done if you put your your volume at reference "0" you would be listening at 105db. So does messing with the trim levels screw everything up and actually take away from what the calibration is supposed to be?

Thanks and sorry for the wordy post.

dave-t


----------



## snpanago

Dave-T said:


> i assume most of you guys/gals are using some form of room correction for your atmos calibration? I use Audyessy and question is do any of you bump up the trim on the atmos speakers or leave it as what the calibration sets? For those that use Audyessy lets say you want your atmos speakers to be at -0.5 and all four atmos speakers have a different trim level and the lowest is -4.5. To get the -4.5 to -0.5 you would add +4. another speaker is -3.5 if you add +4 would be +.5. It is my understanding that you have to add the same value to all of the speakers or the algorithm gets screwed up is that correct? or do you just make all 4 atmos speakers -.05 and be done with it? I know it sounds like a stupid question but both ways sounded very different and not sure which is correct. The reason why I ask is because there has been a lot of discussion about people not being able to hear their atmos speakers and sometimes wonder if they are even working. With all of that said Audyessy is supposed to measure everything at 75db with the chirps and when all is done if you put your your volume at reference "0" you would be listening at 105db. So does messing with the trim levels screw everything up and actually take away from what the calibration is supposed to be?
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the wordy post.
> 
> dave-t


The speaker trim levels set by Audyssey after calibration can by adjusted to user preference without effectively changing the room correction. In fact, I manually adjust each speaker trim after calibration using a sound pressure level meter to 75db from the MLP, just to be sure.
Some movies have a little to offer to the overhead speakers. Still, you can adjust individual speaker trims to your taste, return them to "0" after your movie if you're concerned that the levels are too hot when watching (and listening) to your next movie.


----------



## helvetica bold

Great article from John Archer (Forbes) on Dolby Atmos games on Xbox. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...review-microsofts-secret-weapon/#10f43fc6198a


----------



## javan robinson

Dave-T said:


> i assume most of you guys/gals are using some form of room correction for your atmos calibration? I use Audyessy and question is do any of you bump up the trim on the atmos speakers or leave it as what the calibration sets? For those that use Audyessy lets say you want your atmos speakers to be at -0.5 and all four atmos speakers have a different trim level and the lowest is -4.5. To get the -4.5 to -0.5 you would add +4. another speaker is -3.5 if you add +4 would be +.5. It is my understanding that you have to add the same value to all of the speakers or the algorithm gets screwed up is that correct? or do you just make all 4 atmos speakers -.05 and be done with it? I know it sounds like a stupid question but both ways sounded very different and not sure which is correct. The reason why I ask is because there has been a lot of discussion about people not being able to hear their atmos speakers and sometimes wonder if they are even working. With all of that said Audyessy is supposed to measure everything at 75db with the chirps and when all is done if you put your your volume at reference "0" you would be listening at 105db. So does messing with the trim levels screw everything up and actually take away from what the calibration is supposed to be?
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the wordy post.
> 
> dave-t


I had a similar question a while ago - pertaining if Atmos/ceiling speakers users turned their ceilings up to hear the more or better.

And the answer is...Do what feels right! Lol.

The other answer to your question is - NO. You do NOT have to turn up all of the speakers evenly at all. Do what sounds right for your years.

For example on my 7.1.4 setup Audyssey set my 4 ceiling channels at anywhere from -4 to -1.5 I turned them all up a DB or 2 and when I really want to get into it I'll put all 4 ceiling speakers pretty close to zero.

It's all about what sounds good to you man


----------



## Dave-T

javan robinson said:


> I had a similar question a while ago - pertaining if Atmos/ceiling speakers users turned their ceilings up to hear the more or better.
> 
> And the answer is...Do what feels right! Lol.
> 
> The other answer to your question is - NO. You do NOT have to turn up all of the speakers evenly at all. Do what sounds right for your years.
> 
> For example on my 7.1.4 setup Audyssey set my 4 ceiling channels at anywhere from -4 to -1.5 I turned them all up a DB or 2 and when I really want to get into it I'll put all 4 ceiling speakers pretty close to zero.
> 
> It's all about what sounds good to you man


So did audyessy measure from the MLP the same distance and trim for all four of your atmos speakers? If not when you switched them all to 0 was the timing off? My 4 atmos speakers have 4 different trim values and the top front left is .5 further in distance the other three have the same distance measurement. If I moved everything to 0 for the trim will everything still sound right? If so then I am good. Thanks Dave


----------



## javan robinson

Dave-T said:


> So did audyessy measure from the MLP the same distance and trim for all four of your atmos speakers? If not when you switched them all to 0 was the timing off? My 4 atmos speakers have 4 different trim values and the top front left is .5 further in distance the other three have the same distance measurement. If I moved everything to 0 for the trim will everything still sound right? If so then I am good. Thanks Dave


Yes, I believe you're good Dave.

The DISTANCE should NEVER be changed. It is perfectly fine to change the LEVEL of the speaker(s) though and will not affect the sounds coming to your ears in any way as far as speed.

And my distances are all off a little bit and are not 100% congruent w/ the MLP. That's just how things are though - I got them as good as I could with the space that I have.

Whenever you are making the changes to your speaker levels however, make sure you are going to Setup > Speakers > Manual Setup > Channel Adjust.

There are a few different areas on the Denon to change the level of your speakers - always do it from the channel adjust.

Good luck and hope it works out great for you man!


----------



## jjackkrash

javan robinson said:


> There are a few different areas on the Denon to change the level of your speakers - always do it from the channel adjust.


I added 3dB to both the subwoofer and center in the "dialogue level adjust" and "subwoofer level adjust." Is this _no bueno_? What is the advantage of doing the same thing in the channel adjust instead? 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## javan robinson

jjackkrash said:


> I added 3dB to both the subwoofer and center in the "dialogue level adjust" and "subwoofer level adjust." Is this _no bueno_? What is the advantage of doing the same thing in the channel adjust instead?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Yes, that is very _no bueno_ indeed lol.

Reset those values to zero and make the adjustment in the channel levels. The channel levels have all of the channel levels + the sub and these are the master levels. Change them here always. If you want a better explanation, ask the guys in the receiver thread if you have the 2016 model - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-411.html#post55344422 .

I used to do the same thing as you, but then I learned!


----------



## flint350

*7.1.4 or 9.1.6*

Recently re-wired my HT and added 4 Atmos speakers in the proper positions (top frt and top rear) with MLP in center. In doing this, I disconnected the existing 2 front wides and 2 front heights, thinking they weren't necessary. However, it's simple to just reconnect them and I'm wondering if there's any point. That would mean 7.1.4 Atmos with front heights and wides available. So, I have room for a  9.1.6 setup if useful, but don't know what processor uses them all, or switches btwn 7.1.4 atmos and something using frt hts and wides. I have 2 heavy Denon avr's with the 140 watt x6200w doing the main work and the 150 watt 4520CI for extra speakers. Any suggested specific configs? Also, suggestions on keeping the secondary receiver from reacting to remote inputs for the other. I want it on for mains only in stereo and not switch settings when I change settings in the primary. 

Where does the extra channel processing come from for 15 speakers - I thought the Denons maxed at either 11.1 or 13.1 signals. My room is pretty large dedicated batcave 21' wide by 30' long and sitting position is about 12' from 127 X 54" scope screen. Quick diag:


----------



## Marc Alexander

flint350 said:


> Recently re-wired my HT and added 4 Atmos speakers in the proper positions (top frt and top rear) with MLP in center. In doing this, I disconnected the existing 2 front wides and 2 front heights, thinking they weren't necessary. However, it's simple to just reconnect them and I'm wondering if there's any point. That would mean 7.1.4 Atmos with front heights and wides available. So, I have room for a  9.1.6 setup if useful, but don't know what processor uses them all, or switches btwn 7.1.4 atmos and something using frt hts and wides. I have 2 heavy Denon avr's with the 140 watt x6200w doing the main work and the 150 watt 4520CI for extra speakers. Any suggested specific configs? Also, suggestions on keeping the secondary receiver from reacting to remote inputs for the other. I want it on for mains only in stereo and not switch settings when I change settings in the primary.
> 
> Where does the extra channel processing come from for 15 speakers - I thought the Denons maxed at either 11.1 or 13.1 signals. My room is pretty large dedicated batcave 21' wide by 30' long and sitting position is about 12' from 127 X 54" scope screen. Quick diag:


Remove the front Heights, keep the Wides. Start planning to buy the AVR-X8500H for a 9.1.4 setup. JMHO

Edit: You could also do what I have dubbed RAtmos. Configure the X6200 for 5.1.4 + Wides then use the 4520 to process side and rear surrounds. I use DPLII to extract a mono rear (feeding two back surrounds).


----------



## Dave-T

javan robinson said:


> Yes, I believe you're good Dave.
> 
> The DISTANCE should NEVER be changed. It is perfectly fine to change the LEVEL of the speaker(s) though and will not affect the sounds coming to your ears in any way as far as speed.
> 
> And my distances are all off a little bit and are not 100% congruent w/ the MLP. That's just how things are though - I got them as good as I could with the space that I have.
> 
> Whenever you are making the changes to your speaker levels however, make sure you are going to Setup > Speakers > Manual Setup > Channel Adjust.
> 
> There are a few different areas on the Denon to change the level of your speakers - always do it from the channel adjust.
> 
> Good luck and hope it works out great for you man!


Thank you appreciate it.


----------



## Erod

javan robinson said:


> I had a similar question a while ago - pertaining if Atmos/ceiling speakers users turned their ceilings up to hear the more or better.
> 
> And the answer is...Do what feels right! Lol.
> 
> The other answer to your question is - NO. You do NOT have to turn up all of the speakers evenly at all. Do what sounds right for your years.
> 
> For example on my 7.1.4 setup Audyssey set my 4 ceiling channels at anywhere from -4 to -1.5 I turned them all up a DB or 2 and when I really want to get into it I'll put all 4 ceiling speakers pretty close to zero.
> 
> It's all about what sounds good to you man


I get what you're saying, but I think Atmos is a bit different. I think it's critical to level all the speakers evenly at 75dB, except for the subs, which are more on individual preference. 

When you raise the level of your top speakers, you alter "object" placement. Unlike typical surround, Atmos plays a sound out of multiple speakers simultaneously to triangulate a location for a sound, so changing the level changes the location of that sound. That sound to your right just above your head is now to your right well above your head. Raising the level in a speaker pulls the object closer to that speaker.

_QUALIFIER: I think this will get more important as sound mixers get better and focus more on Atmos/DTS:X going forward. Frankly, most Atmos is uninspiring and I get no real sense that mixers are trying to "place" sounds very often at all._

Believe me, I struggle with this, too, because I often want to turn up my top speakers. Years in this hobby has taught me to listen to hear my speakers. The idea of Atmos is to get them to disappear altogether so you hear a sound in a location, not a sound from a speaker. I do raise my dialogue setting a bit, but that's not where the Atmos is coming from.

Of course, everybody should do absolutely what they want to do with their systems. I hope I don't sound arrogant in my opinions on this because I hate in when I feel overly lectured on this stuff, too.


----------



## gwsat

LNEWoLF said:


> Go long, one more throw of the pigskin.......
> 
> Just to verify. The picture of the back of the unit with the switch. Intially I thought the way it was labeled might have four positions.
> 
> In reading the manual. It has three.
> 
> The Auto On is just a label for what triggers the amp to turn on.
> 
> When viewed from the back you have three options.
> 
> Far left Voltage
> 
> Center Off
> 
> Far Right Audio
> 
> If the switch was in the center. Aligning with the Auto word on top and the Off Word on the bottom. It may have allready have been standby turned off. Just to verify, cycle the switch a couple times with the main power off. (Front panel button) You should feel a detent each time you move the switch in the back. Put it into the center detent position Off. Turn the sonnance amp on, button front panel.
> 
> After it boots up......
> 
> Not too familiar with yammy AVR. Do you have a DSP Mode like Direct Auto. No enhanced mode.
> 
> Just want the audio to play DTS Master X. Verify front of AVR displays DTS Master X.
> 
> A couple posts up someone confirmed with certain a time stamp that all four elevation speakers active.
> 
> When you play that timestamp.......
> 
> What are the lights left and right on the front of the sonnace displaying and what color are they.
> 
> Do you hear the rear elevation speakers at all?.....
> 
> On my Pioneer SC97 I can mute individual speakers in the Pioneer Av5 app. Basically turn off all ear level floor speakers, including sub. Makes it easy to isolate individual speaker, pairs or sets. Does yamaha have this feature?
> 
> Good luck.........


Thanks for your suggestions. Thanks to your earlier posts, which led me to the Sonamp user manual, I learned the meanings of each of the three positions on the switch on the rear of my Sonamp 2-100 power amp. I first checked them by sending test tones through the two rear ceiling speakers that the Sonamp controls. I confirmed that both the right and left setting on the switch introduced a delay in the Sonamp's operation when it first received a signal but that the center position leaves the amp and the speakers it controls active all the time. 

I then played my _Atomic Blonde_ disk again. My Yamaha 3060 showed that it was playing a DTS:X MA soundtrack which was right. The no DSU setting on my 3060 is designated "Straight" and I used it when I first started playing the disk. Even with the Sonamp and its speakers set to remain "On" all the time, the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack failed to activate my rear ceiling speakers. Only by applying the Yamaha "Enhanced" DSP to the disk's DTS:X MA soundtrack would the soundtrack activate my rear ceiling speakers. It's a nerdy problem, so I am pleased and grateful that it has seemed to bug you and others here almost as much as it bugged me.


----------



## jsgrise

gwsat said:


> It's a nerdy problem, so I am pleased and grateful that it has seemed to bug you and others here almost as much as it bugged me.


One problem I have with _Atomic Blonde_ is that there seems to have a 80-100Hz bloom in the soundtrack that bugs me quite a bit. It is the only movie I recall hearing it. Is it just me?


----------



## LNEWoLF

gwsat said:


> Thanks for your suggestions. Thanks to your earlier posts, which led me to the Sonamp user manual, I learned the meanings of each of the three positions on the switch on the rear of my Sonamp 2-100 power amp. I first checked them by sending test tones through the two rear ceiling speakers that the Sonamp controls. I confirmed that both the right and left setting on the switch introduced a delay in the Sonamp's operation when it first received a signal but that the center position leaves the amp and the speakers it controls active all the time.
> 
> I then played my _Atomic Blonde_ disk again. My Yamaha 3060 showed that it was playing a DTS:X MA soundtrack which was right. The no DSU setting on my 3060 is designated "Straight" and I used it when I first started playing the disk. Even with the Sonamp and its speakers set to remain "On" all the time, the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack failed to activate my rear ceiling speakers. Only by applying the Yamaha "Enhanced" DSP to the disk's DTS:X MA soundtrack would the soundtrack activate my rear ceiling speakers. It's a nerdy problem, so I am pleased and grateful that it has seemed to bug you and others here almost as much as it bugged me.


Your welcome gwsat,

For me, seek knowledge and never pass up a learning opportunity. 

Thanks for the adventure, take care gwsat.


----------



## huse0054

Quick question, could someone point me in the right direction. What is the (lowest cost) receiver or receiver/amp combo that will get me a Dolby Atmos 5.2.4 setup?

Not sure why this is so complicated for me. Thanks


----------



## stikle

huse0054 said:


> Quick question, could someone point me in the right direction. What is the (lowest cost) receiver or receiver/amp combo that will get me a Dolby Atmos 5.2.4 setup?



There are other options from Yamaha, Onkyo, etc. MY money goes to Denon. I feel like they make excellent products that meet my needs/wants.

That being said, take a look at the Denon AVR-S730H. It's the cheapest Denon in the lineup that supports Atmost & DTS:X. It has 7 internal amps, which will give you 5 bed layer channels plus two overheads with no other amp required.

Disregard the above. Bad info - not what the OP wanted.

I would also send a message to @jdsmoothie for his recommendations. He's an authorized vendor and will steer you in the right direction based on your needs.


----------



## batpig

huse0054 said:


> Quick question, could someone point me in the right direction. What is the (lowest cost) receiver or receiver/amp combo that will get me a Dolby Atmos 5.2.4 setup?
> 
> Not sure why this is so complicated for me. Thanks


Unfortunately your timing is a bit off, as for a couple of months recently the Denon X4300H was selling for $799 on closeout pricing brand new.

Right now your best bet is the Marantz SR6011 which is on sale for $749 as a refurb w/ one year warranty: https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...ch-x-110-watts-networking-a/v-receiver/1.html

This is assuming you need 4K support (HDCP 2.2) which eliminates the 2014 models, which was the first year of Atmos support. However, these models use older HDMI hardware and don't support DTS:X.


----------



## Nalleh

jsgrise said:


> One problem I have with _Atomic Blonde_ is that there seems to have a 80-100Hz bloom in the soundtrack that bugs me quite a bit. It is the only movie I recall hearing it. Is it just me?


I heard it too, incredible annoying boomy LFE soundtrack. I actually had to turn off my midbass module, turn down the LFE channels AND master volume. It was just droning away. Never heard such a irritable soundtrack before.


----------



## batpig

stikle said:


> That being said, take a look at the Denon AVR-S730H. It's the cheapest Denon in the lineup that supports Atmost & DTS:X. It has 7 internal amps, which will give you 5 bed layer channels plus two overheads with no other amp required.


He asked for 5.2.4, which the S730H doesn't support.


----------



## huse0054

Thanks for the replies and info, So I suppose it will have to be the SR6011 if I decide to purchase now, I will have to read up on the Marantz as I don't have much experience with them. Will pricing stay relatively the same for current receiver brands models until late in the year when the 2019 models come out? Basically If I buy now or wait until June I shouldn't expect pricing to differ from what I am currently seeing?


----------



## batpig

Prices on specific models will move around based on various factors, but as a general rule the entry level for 9ch capability is in the $700-900 range.


----------



## gwsat

jsgrise said:


> One problem I have with _Atomic Blonde_ is that there seems to have a 80-100Hz bloom in the soundtrack that bugs me quite a bit. It is the only movie I recall hearing it. Is it just me?





Nalleh said:


> I heard it too, incredible annoying boomy LFE soundtrack. I actually had to turn off my midbass module, turn down the LFE channels AND master volume. It was just droning away. Never heard such a irritable soundtrack before.


I don't have a mid-bass module, so didn't notice any 80-100Hz fluctuations. Consider the source, though. After the hell the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack gave me with my rear ceiling speakers, I wasn't in a mood to do much critical listening. I thought the dialog and LFE were just fine, though. That said, the DTS:X MA audio on this disk fell far short of being the best I ever heard. I should add that I've never had the slightest problem with the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on any disk I own and some of them have been spectacular.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> He asked for 5.2.4, which the S730H doesn't support.



Aw crap lol. You're right. Teach ME to try and be helpful while I'm not really paying attention at work. Oops.


----------



## showmak

jsgrise said:


> One problem I have with _Atomic Blonde_ is that there seems to have a 80-100Hz bloom in the soundtrack that bugs me quite a bit. It is the only movie I recall hearing it. Is it just me?


At what minute do you experience that?


----------



## Nalleh

showmak said:


> At what minute do you experience that?


From the first song.......


----------



## gwsat

Seeing what my questions about the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack have led to here, I feel like Doctor Frankenstein. "It's alive, it's alive!"


----------



## jsgrise

showmak said:


> At what minute do you experience that?





Nalleh said:


> From the first song.......


Exactly the same here. I don't think my system is the best in the world, but it's not a piece of crap either. I measure the room response, speaker placement and MLP up to 1/8", Audyssey ran with surgical precision, everything that I throw at it will sound pretty darn good if the source is right. 

IMHO there is something wrong with the soundtrack and that bass boom that drives me nuts!  



gwsat said:


> Seeing what my questions about the _Atomic Blonde_ soundtrack have led to here, I feel like Doctor Frankenstein. "It's alive, it's alive!"


I believe it is cursed or something


----------



## showmak

jsgrise said:


> Exactly the same here. I don't think my system is the best in the world, but it's not a piece of crap either. I measure the room response, speaker placement and MLP up to 1/8", Audyssey ran with surgical precision, everything that I throw at it will sound pretty darn good if the source is right.
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO there is something wrong with the soundtrack and that bass boom that drives me nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is cursed or something



Ok, I just checked it now. The song in the movie is Blue Monday by HEALTH and it starts at 00:01:07 and ends at 00:03:11

On my 5.1.4 setup there is no issue at all, I don't hear the boomy bass. However, playing the same song from Spotify at extreme quality the bass is quite boomy.


----------



## Jeigh07

Recently Purchased the AVR-X4300H like many people suggested as the entry to 7.2.4 Atmos. I have to say, Atmos is more than what I expected. It feels quite magical to me. I had been wanting to experience Atmos since Oct 2015. I got a hold of some demo content and was as a happy as that boy that yells OMG when he gets the Nintendo 64, albeit a little bit more contained. My first movie was Avatar 3D with Dolby Surround. Its an experience and joy I can hardly explain!


----------



## stikle

Jeigh07 said:


> My first movie was Avatar 3D with Dolby Surround. Its an experience and joy I can hardly explain!



Keep in mind that Dolby Surround is not Dolby Atmos. Once you hear true Atmos demo material (the beginning of Unbroken for example), you will be even more amazed. Congratulations on making the jump!


----------



## jsgrise

showmak said:


> Ok, I just checked it now. The song in the movie is Blue Monday by HEALTH and it starts at 00:01:07 and ends at 00:03:11
> 
> On my 5.1.4 setup there is no issue at all, I don't hear the boomy bass. However, playing the same song from Spotify at extreme quality the bass is quite boomy.


Funny, it is the opposite for me. When I stream Blue Monday by Health on TIDAL, it sounds pretty clean


----------



## jjackkrash

I loved the Atomic Blonde soundtrack on my system (4k UHD Blu Ray). It was fantastic; zero issues with sound quality.


----------



## showmak

jsgrise said:


> Funny, it is the opposite for me. When I stream Blue Monday by Health on TIDAL, it sounds pretty clean


I'm not saying the sound is not clean, it's clean but the bass is boomier than the movie's version.


----------



## weekendtoy

huse0054 said:


> Thanks for the replies and info, So I suppose it will have to be the SR6011 if I decide to purchase now, I will have to read up on the Marantz as I don't have much experience with them. Will pricing stay relatively the same for current receiver brands models until late in the year when the 2019 models come out? Basically If I buy now or wait until June I shouldn't expect pricing to differ from what I am currently seeing?


I doubt the 2016 SR6011 will go much, if any, lower then it is. The 2017 models are starting to be discounted and I would imagine further price drops are still coming.

From my experiences, if music playback is important to you then Marantz is the clear choice, however you'll pay a premium for that over a comparable (feature wise) Denon model.


----------



## zombyjunky

Help!

Trying to add Atmos to my existing setup and I need your assistance.

Current Setup:
LG B7 65" OLED
Pioneer LX-301 AVR
Martin Logan Motion 40 towers
Martin Logan Motion 30 center
B&W 686 S2 rears
Rythmik FV15HP Sub

My room is a smallish living room area that also acts as a home theater. Ceiling is 8 feet and there is a cross beam running across the ceiling half way through the room.

I am looking at possibly using the SVS Prime Elevation speakers mounted to the cross beam for Atmos. It will only be two speakers for a 5.1.2 setup as that is the max my AVR can do right now. My question is will the SVS speakers work with my setup? I know it is best to match timber but with surrounds it is not supposed to be as big of an issue. Also open to using in the ceiling speakers, but feel like it would be easier mounting something like the svs ones.

I am also open to using the Martin Logan AFX modules on my rear speakers, but heard it is not as good. Ceiling is flat except for the beam and made of drywall. I appreciate your expert (and not so expert) opinions. Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

zombyjunky said:


> Ceiling is 8 feet and there is a cross beam running across the ceiling half way through the room.


A couple of Motion 4i speakers mounted on the cross beam would give you the intended height effect AND match your L/C/R speakers.


----------



## richlife

zombyjunky said:


> Help!
> 
> Trying to add Atmos to my existing setup and I need your assistance.
> 
> Current Setup:
> LG B7 65" OLED
> Pioneer LX-301 AVR
> Martin Logan Motion 40 towers
> Martin Logan Motion 30 center
> B&W 686 S2 rears
> Rythmik FV15HP Sub
> 
> My room is a smallish living room area that also acts as a home theater. Ceiling is 8 feet and there is a cross beam running across the ceiling half way through the room.
> 
> I am looking at possibly using the SVS Prime Elevation speakers mounted to the cross beam for Atmos. It will only be two speakers for a 5.1.2 setup as that is the max my AVR can do right now. My question is will the SVS speakers work with my setup? I know it is best to match timber but with surrounds it is not supposed to be as big of an issue. Also open to using in the ceiling speakers, but feel like it would be easier mounting something like the svs ones.
> 
> I am also open to using the Martin Logan AFX modules on my rear speakers, but heard it is not as good. Ceiling is flat except for the beam and made of drywall. I appreciate your expert (and not so expert) opinions. Thanks!


When I first started up and testing Atmos options, I tried at least 5 different setups -- the last one was the charm! In my case for 7.2.2, I tried setting a couple of book shelf speakers 1) on the floor under an overhead railing, 2) mounted 3' higher on the railing and finally mounted to the sides of the railing using a screw to hold each small speaker. It was the last that sounded best, but it was blown away by my second attempt with 7.2.4. 

I realize your setup is smaller, but the main thing is any options that you think might work while doing the least amount of "damage" (be prepared for minor repairs) or to leave a mounting screw in place. That beam looks like it is just in front of you MLP. If so, you may want to try various placement (front edge, center, back edge of the beam). But from the pic, the near edge looks like it might be a better candidate.

With that beam, if you later want to upgrade to 5.1.4, you could have some interesting challenges. Again, experiment as best you can. When I finally hit the last setup in my room, the difference in sound was extraordinary. Mounting my final setup with DAES FP and in-ceiling RP totally blew me away! So much better than the test setup with book shelf speakers! Good luck.


----------



## kjenkins

After 18 months of reading this thread and watching all the videos provided, I am finally put the room and system back together this weekend.

I have seen numerous posts regarding placement of the atmos speakers in ceilings with angle issues but I don't recall much discussing tray ceiling installations. I watched the video where it is discussed about pulling the atmos speakers inside the straight line layout suggestions by dolby. 

Due to the width of my screen and the way the tray is set in from the walls , it looks like the atmos ceiling speakers will be at least 2 feet inside of the line from front to side to rear. Will this be acceptable to do it this way? Looking forward to any input before I go cutting into the ceiling.

Thanks
Keith J


----------



## maikeldepotter

kjenkins said:


> I watched the video where it is discussed about pulling the atmos speakers inside the straight line layout suggestions by dolby.


Which video is that?



> Due to the width of my screen and the way the tray is set in from the walls , it looks like the atmos ceiling speakers will be at least 2 feet inside of the line from front to side to rear. Will this be acceptable to do it this way? Looking forward to any input before I go cutting into the ceiling.


From your drawing it looks like the overheads are about 1.5 foot inside the L/R mains, ending up right in-between L/R mains and Center speaker. This lateral position will work quite well or even better for Atmos (see cinema Atmos lay-outs), but DSU will probably sound less spacious as compared to a wider positioning.

Are your two overhead pairs at resp. 45 and 135 degrees Atmos elevation? They look a bit close to each other. What is your ceiling height?


----------



## kjenkins

maikeldepotter said:


> Which video is that?
> 
> From your drawing it looks like the overheads are about 1.5 foot inside the L/R mains, ending up right in-between L/R mains and Center speaker. This lateral position will work quite well or even better for Atmos (see cinema Atmos lay-outs), but DSU will probably sound less spacious as compared to a wider positioning.
> 
> Are your two overhead pairs at resp. 45 and 135 degrees Atmos elevation? They look a bit close to each other. What is your ceiling height?


The video I was referring to is Home Theatre Geeks 233. I found it posted by batpig back on 10-18-17. 

I have not done the exact math yet on the 45/135 degree placement but will be doing that before I cut the sheetrock this morning. 

Ceilings are 106" inside the tray but I have risers for the seating so the first pair of overheads will be at 97" and rear pair at approx 90".


----------



## jsgrise

kjenkins said:


> Due to the width of my screen and the way the tray is set in from the walls , it looks like the atmos ceiling speakers will be at least 2 feet inside of the line from front to side to rear. Will this be acceptable to do it this way? Looking forward to any input before I go cutting into the ceiling.
> 
> 
> Keith J


I really like the spaciousness effect of having my ceiling speakers in line with the mains. First, when you use DSU, the ceiling are often used as an expansion of the LR speakers. I cannot comment if this will be good or bad for Atmos tracks, but the commercial theaters are indeed rigged more like your drawing.


----------



## sdurani

kjenkins said:


> Due to the width of my screen and the way the tray is set in from the walls , it looks like the atmos ceiling speakers will be at least 2 feet inside of the line from front to side to rear. Will this be acceptable to do it this way?


Yes, it will work, but if you can place them wider apart it will make it easier to hear left-vs-right separation above you.


kjenkins said:


> I have not done the exact math yet on the 45/135 degree placement but will be doing that before I cut the sheetrock this morning.


The math is easy: measure from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward & rearward of your main listening position is 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## gene4ht

kjenkins said:


> Due to the width of my screen and the way the tray is set in from the walls , it looks like the atmos ceiling speakers will be at least 2 feet inside of the line from front to side to rear. *Will this be acceptable* to do it this way?





sdurani said:


> *Yes, it will work*, but if you can place them wider apart it will make it easier to hear left-vs-right separation above you.


Agree with sdurani. My Atmos ceiling speakers are positioned inside the front to rear line due to soffits with no detectable ill effects.


----------



## kjenkins

sdurani said:


> Yes, it will work, but if you can place them wider apart it will make it easier to hear left-vs-right separation above you. The math is easy: measure from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward & rearward of your main listening position is 45 degrees elevation.


Thanks for reminding me of the math! I was thinking I needed to find an azimuth!!

It looks like I could go a little wider than my drawing but I was thinking I needed to stay off the vertical drop of the tray (same as if spacing off a back wall)??


----------



## Kadath

People get crazy about matching ideal layouts. Don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## Jonas2

Kadath said:


> People get crazy about matching ideal layouts. Don't sweat the small stuff.


Wise advice! I used to be the kind of person to sweat the small stuff, every little detail in pursuit of perfection, KNOWING it was not achievable. It took me a long time to overcome this mentality. And you know what? It's NICE....breathe easier. Get as close to optimal as you can with your circumstances, call it day, have a beer, and enjoy.

I just finished wiring for 7.x.x, to move from 5.2.4, KNOWING it wouldn't be anywhere near an optimal layout, but it's what I've got! Speakers will be a bit too close to each other and the listeners to give a perfect result, but I was playing around with some Atmos demo material just a short bit ago using my left surround to fill in for a right rear, and then the left rear since the speaker is 100% mobile - and it still sounded really good even missing speakers in places and being layed out not as well as it should. So, I'm quite optimistic that I'll enjoy the full end result when I can purchase the two rears sometime next year. 

Might not be exactly small stuff, but there was a time when I would have been beside myself thinking I just couldn't do it since it couldn't be "perfect".


----------



## gene4ht

Jonas2 said:


> Wise advice! I used to be the kind of person to sweat the small stuff, every little detail in pursuit of perfection, KNOWING it was not achievable. It took me a long time to overcome this mentality. And you know what? It's NICE....breathe easier. Get as close to optimal as you can with your circumstances, call it day, have a beer, and enjoy.
> 
> I just finished wiring for 7.x.x, to move from 5.2.4, KNOWING it wouldn't be anywhere near an optimal layout, but it's what I've got! Speakers will be a bit too close to each other and the listeners to give a perfect result, but I was playing around with some Atmos demo material just a short bit ago using my left surround to fill in for a right rear, and then the left rear since the speaker is 100% mobile - and it still sounded really good even missing speakers in places and being layed out not as well as it should. So, I'm quite optimistic that I'll enjoy the full end result when I can purchase the two rears sometime next year.
> 
> Might not be exactly small stuff, but there was a time when I would have been beside myself thinking I just couldn't do it since it couldn't be "perfect".


Yep...lots of analytical OCD types around these parts...including me! One eventually realizes that perfection is illusive...even in nature. Adapt and enjoy what's possible in your situation! And pass me a beer!


----------



## unretarded

Something I did not see mentioned is if your seating is room centric...?


Mine is not and I should have mounted the ceiling speakers seating centric, instead of room centric from left to right.......front to back is seating centric, so should the left and right.


----------



## gwsat

Kadath said:


> People get crazy about matching ideal layouts. Don't sweat the small stuff.


Indeed! As one of my favorite philosophers, whose name I can't remember right now, put it: "It ain't rocket science."


----------



## chi_guy50

gwsat said:


> Indeed! As one of my favorite philosophers, whose name I can't remember right now, put it: "It ain't rocket science."


Ironically, I believe that was Wernher von Braun.

https://youtu.be/5V7me25aNtI?t=14


----------



## jsgrise

Does someone know where to find a list of the Netflix titles available in Atmos? Thanks!


----------



## mbergh22

I have the denon s710w. I am looking to pull the trigger on a pair of dolby atmos speakers for it. I would be placing them on top of my polk audio monitor 60s, my room is 10x12. My bedroom. Ceiling is 8 feet. What would be a good pair to go with that isn't expensive? Would the pioneer ones be worth it? 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


----------



## SeattleDavis

Hey all, I recently discovered this place and have been blown away with all the help that people have given me. I was going to use Definitive or SVS speakers for a home theater renovation i am doing, buy was convinced that Klipsch makes more sense. 

I am making an unusual setup. RF-7 Towers, RC-7 Center, and RD-7 Surrounds. I want to add 4 Atmos speakers to that. I know nothing about Atmos. My thought was to get 4 RP-140SA with 2 in front and 2 in the back. For a Receiver I was thinking a Denon AVE-X4300H. 

My questions are whether those speakers will work for Atmos in my setup and whether a different receiver makes sense for the Atmos. My system would be 5.1.4 with no expectation to expand it.

Would greatly appreciate and suggestions or comments, especially about what I am doing wrong.


----------



## jcp2

SeattleDavis said:


> Hey all, I recently discovered this place and have been blown away with all the help that people have given me. I was going to use Definitive or SVS speakers for a home theater renovation i am doing, buy was convinced that Klipsch makes more sense.
> 
> I am making an unusual setup. RF-7 Towers, RC-7 Center, and RD-7 Surrounds. I want to add 4 Atmos speakers to that. I know nothing about Atmos. My thought was to get 4 RP-140SA with 2 in front and 2 in the back. For a Receiver I was thinking a Denon AVE-X4300H.
> 
> My questions are whether those speakers will work for Atmos in my setup and whether a different receiver makes sense for the Atmos. My system would be 5.1.4 with no expectation to expand it.
> 
> Would greatly appreciate and suggestions or comments, especially about what I am doing wrong.


I went from Paradigm 7.1 (15years old) to SVS Prime Towers; center; and 2 pairs of satellites for side and rear back. I went with 2 pairs of in ceiling speakers (vector research 8" aimable tweeters) I already had the SVS PC13 ultra, and Denon AVR 6200w. I have to say that the SVS system blew my mind. As far as Atmos speakers, I and many others would tell you to go in-celing for atmos, if you can. I believe the SVS speakers will cost you less, and are highly rated / liked. The Denon would be perfect for you, for 5.1.4. Atmos / DTS:X. To recap.... That system you mentioned should work very well. In- ceiling is best if possible. Good luck and welcome to the club

PS No, I don't work for SVS, but am completely sold on them.


----------



## jjackkrash

SeattleDavis said:


> For a Receiver I was thinking a Denon AVE-X4300H.
> 
> My questions are whether those speakers will work for Atmos in my setup and whether a different receiver makes sense for the Atmos. My system would be 5.1.4 with no expectation to expand it.


The 4300 on close out is unbeatable for the price. I have a 4300 running 5.1.4 as well in my living room and could not be happier. I am also running relatively inexpensive in-ceilings for Atmos over heads and surrounds (Canton 880s bought on close out from A4L) and think they do a fine job. I came in here for set up advice, and was linked this and its awesome:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

If you get the speakers placed correctly I think you will be happy.


----------



## jsgrise

Did some of you watch Blade Runner The Final Cut in Atmos? IF so, how is the Atmos track? Thinking of watching it tonight...


----------



## gwsat

jsgrise said:


> Did some of you watch Blade Runner The Final Cut in Atmos? IF so, how is the Atmos track? Thinking of watching it tonight...


Yes, I watched _Blade Runner The Final Cut_ in UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos quality and thought it looked and sounded great. _Blade Runner_ is one of my all time favorite films so this version really appeals to me.


----------



## jsgrise

gwsat said:


> Yes, I watched _Blade Runner The Final Cut_ in UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos quality and thought it looked and sounded great. _Blade Runner_ is one of my all time favorite films so this version really appeals to me.


Great, looking forward to watch it!


----------



## jjackkrash

I might watch BRFC tonight! I am really looking forward to it.


----------



## gwsat

jsgrise said:


> Great, looking forward to watch it!





jjackkrash said:


> I might watch BRFC tonight! I am really looking forward to it.


I have preordered _Blade Runner 2049_ in UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos quality. Can hardly wait to get it! I saw it in the theater and thought it was a terrific film, just as good as the original. I was surprised and disappointed by its box office performance. I guess there just aren't as many _Blade Runner_ nerds as I had thought.


----------



## jjackkrash

gwsat said:


> I have preordered _Blade Runner 2049_ in UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos quality. Can hardly wait to get it! I saw it in the theater and thought it was a terrific film, just as good as the original. I was surprised and disappointed by its box office performance. I guess there just aren't as many _Blade Runner_ nerds as I had thought.


I've got that on pre-order as well. I have not seen it; I missed it at our good theater so I decided to wait and watch watch it on my OLED on my Atmos set up at home.


----------



## showmak

Merry Christmas


----------



## T-Bone

showmak said:


> Merry Christmas



It's the Atmos thread... I will translate it









LF: "Merry Christmas"
Center: "Merry Christmas"
RF: "Merry Christmas"
RS: "Merry Christmas"
RBS: "Merry Christmas"
LBS: "Merry Christmas"
LS: "Merry Christmas"
TFL: "Merry Christmas"
TFR: "Merry Christmas"
TRL: "Merry Christmas"
TRR: "Merry Christmas"
SUB: "Merry Christmas"

-T


----------



## T-Bone

Just curious... Is anyone considering 9.x.2 Atmos? It seems like the vast majority of what I've read in the thread, if 11 channels is being used, is 7.x.4.

-T


----------



## unretarded

SeattleDavis said:


> Hey all, I recently discovered this place and have been blown away with all the help that people have given me. I was going to use Definitive or SVS speakers for a home theater renovation i am doing, buy was convinced that Klipsch makes more sense.
> 
> I am making an unusual setup. RF-7 Towers, RC-7 Center, and RD-7 Surrounds. I want to add 4 Atmos speakers to that. I know nothing about Atmos. My thought was to get 4 RP-140SA with 2 in front and 2 in the back. For a Receiver I was thinking a Denon AVE-X4300H.
> 
> My questions are whether those speakers will work for Atmos in my setup and whether a different receiver makes sense for the Atmos. My system would be 5.1.4 with no expectation to expand it.
> 
> Would greatly appreciate and suggestions or comments, especially about what I am doing wrong.



2 things I have found with Atmos........could just be personal preference so take the info as such.


You want the ceiling speakers to be seating centered and the widest dispersion possible for best results.


Having said that, mine are room centric and not very wide dispersion, which makes it less than optimal.

It still sounds very good and has good effects, it would just be better with them centered over the seating and if they had a wider dispersion pattern and with aimable tweeters.


----------



## Marc Alexander

22 to go @T-Bone 

Edit: actually 23


----------



## pasender91

T-Bone said:


> Just curious... Is anyone considering 9.x.2 Atmos? It seems like the vast majority of what I've read in the thread, if 11 channels is being used, is 7.x.4.
> 
> -T


7.x.4 has a big advantage over 9.1.2, it allows to have sound transitions on the top level from front to back , while this can"t be fully achieved with a .2


----------



## ShapelyTwig

Hey everyone,

I'm looking to build a home theater for my parents in their final home. My home theater is 7.1 but since my parents basement is completely unfinished I want to go the atmos route and install ceiling speakers.

I want to install 4 atmos speakers for 5.2.4. Any help with my questions would be greatly appreciated.


1. Are the Polk V60s decent for Atmos? Is there a better alternative for similar price i.e, $125-$175?

2. Do I need to buy a special enclosure for the ceiling speakers to prevent vibration?

3. Can Atmos be upscaled for all non atmos content? I ask because when I set my rear surrounds to atmos (they are ceiling mounted), there is no sound coming from them on non atmos blurays and streaming which is useless.

Thanks!


----------



## Jonas2

ShapelyTwig said:


> I'm looking to build a home theater for my parents in their final home. My home theater is 7.1 but since my parents basement is completely unfinished I want to go the atmos route and install ceiling speakers.


You are a good son! 



ShapelyTwig said:


> I want to install 4 atmos speakers for 5.2.4. Any help with my questions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 1. Are the Polk V60s decent for Atmos? Is there a better alternative for similar price i.e, $125-$175?


What are you planning for the mains and surrounds? In a PERFECT world, you'd stick with speakers in the same line up, or at least very similar to these for the height channels, though it is not the end of the world if you can't. Several blokes here do use the V60s and seem to like them. Another one to consider in that price range, a very popular speaker for several reasons, if the RSL C43E.



ShapelyTwig said:


> 2. Do I need to buy a special enclosure for the ceiling speakers to prevent vibration?


You can of course address vibration concerns in the structure, and an enclosure might help with that, but for Atmos speakers not sure I'd worry about it. I detect no vibration whatsoever in my system. YMMV. An enclosure however will help to contain sounds from bleeding into spaces above if that is a concern. It is not in mine, I'm in a single story, nothing above, and I also get little to no bleed into adjacent spaces all without back boxes. The only thing I've done is put 2 x 4 braces between the joists to stiffen things up a bit, but that was 95% to define a home for the speakers for keeping the insulation sheets out of their territory and 5% to give me something to add a screw on the other side of the sheetrock to compensate for the added weight of the speaker. Likely not necessary, but my sheetrock was nailed into place, and in a few spots shows signs of pulling loose, so I figured what the heck, can't hurt!  Again, YMMV.



ShapelyTwig said:


> 3. Can Atmos be upscaled for all non atmos content? I ask because when I set my rear surrounds to atmos (they are ceiling mounted), there is no sound coming from them on non atmos blurays and streaming which is useless.


Other way around.  Yes, non-Atmos content can be upmixed (upscaling is video...) to utilize all of the speakers, including height speakers, so long as your receiver has a Dolby Surround capability, and if it is Atmos capable, it should have that! Likely somewhere in your settings. Let us know what kind of receiver you have, and somebody here will be able to steer yo in the right direction.


----------



## ShapelyTwig

Jonas2 said:


> ShapelyTwig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking to build a home theater for my parents in their final home. My home theater is 7.1 but since my parents basement is completely unfinished I want to go the atmos route and install ceiling speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a good son!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShapelyTwig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to install 4 atmos speakers for 5.2.4. Any help with my questions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 1. Are the Polk V60s decent for Atmos? Is there a better alternative for similar price i.e, $125-$175?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you planning for the mains and surrounds? In a PERFECT world, you'd stick with speakers in the same line up, or at least very similar to these for the height channels, though it is not the end of the world if you can't. Several blokes here do use the V60s and seem to like them. Another one to consider in that price range, a very popular speaker for several reasons, if the RSL C43E.
> 
> 
> 
> ShapelyTwig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Do I need to buy a special enclosure for the ceiling speakers to prevent vibration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can of course address vibration concerns in the structure, and an enclosure might help with that, but for Atmos speakers not sure I'd worry about it. I detect no vibration whatsoever in my system. YMMV. An enclosure however will help to contain sounds from bleeding into spaces above if that is a concern. It is not in mine, I'm in a single story, nothing above, and I also get little to no bleed into adjacent spaces all without back boxes. The only thing I've done is put 2 x 4 braces between the joists to stiffen things up a bit, but that was 95% to define a home for the speakers for keeping the insulation sheets out of their territory and 5% to give me something to add a screw on the other side of the sheetrock to compensate for the added weight of the speaker. Likely not necessary, but my sheetrock was nailed into place, and in a few spots shows signs of pulling loose, so I figured what the heck, can't hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> ShapelyTwig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Can Atmos be upscaled for all non atmos content? I ask because when I set my rear surrounds to atmos (they are ceiling mounted), there is no sound coming from them on non atmos blurays and streaming which is useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, non-Atmos content can be upmixed (upscaling is video...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to utilize all of the speakers, including height speakers, so long as your receiver has a Dolby Surround capability, and if it is Atmos capable, it should have that! Likely somewhere in your settings. Let us know what kind of receiver you have, and somebody here will be able to steer yo in the right direction.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the quick reply.

I haven't picked out the rest of the hardware yet. I would like to go 5.1.4 or 5.2.4 but 9 channel receivers start at $900 so worst case I go 5.1.2.

I need to mount the surrounds in the ceiling as well because the projector will be positioned more towards the right of the room and I don't think my mother will appreciate seeing speakers on each side. 

I was going to build a double wall where tje projector will go so I can install the front towers inside the wall, although I'm not exactly clear on how that will work. The idea is that the subwoofer is the only exposed speaker.

I wasn't actually determined to go full Polk when I went with the V60s. I know it's recommend to have consistency in tone but my 7.1 setup has 3 different pairs of brand and I honestly can't notice the difference.

Would you recommend the C34Es over the V60s? I know Polk is pretty average overall.

I like the idea of adding some studs to stiffen the joists and I suppose when I get the speakers and begin to mount them that I will have a better sense of their stability. 

As for the atmos upmixing, I have the strdn1080 and when I did 5.1.2 I wasn't getting proper sound on regular content. My setup is geared for 7.1 so I was hasty when configuring it for a quick demo. I just wanted to know that upmixing is a real thing, otherwise why bother with atmos?


----------



## Krobar

T-Bone said:


> Just curious... Is anyone considering 9.x.2 Atmos? It seems like the vast majority of what I've read in the thread, if 11 channels is being used, is 7.x.4.
> 
> -T


I have the same indecision with my upcoming Atmos setup. I have to use in ceiling speakers with pointable tweeters, the room is a touch long and the area behind the seating is limited. Could I use in ceiling directed tweeter wides in 9.1.2 or would the more common 7.1.4 config be better? (Room layout attached; single row of seating is between the surrounds)


----------



## Selden Ball

Krobar said:


> I have the same indecision with my upcoming Atmos setup. I have to use in ceiling speakers with pointable tweeters, the room is a touch long and the area behind the seating is limited. Could I use in ceiling directed tweeter wides in 9.1.2 or would the more common 7.1.4 config be better? (Room layout attached; single row of seating is between the surrounds)


If all of your speakers (including Wides) are in-ceiling, then configuring some of them as Atmos overheads won't do much for the sound. The 3D audio effects that Atmos is designed to provide requires the maximum possible vertical separation between the "bed" speakers and the overhead speakers. With a 7.1.4 configuration you should have 7 speakers just slightly above ear level and 4 speakers overhead, in the ceiling. In other words, if the speakers all have to be overhead, then a 9.1 speaker configuration would be appropriate.

ETA:
Note that you wouldn't be missing any sounds. All of the sounds are provided in 7.1 speaker channels. Atmos metadata tells the Atmos decoder in the receiver which sounds to extract and redirect to other speakers.


----------



## Ted99

ShapelyTwig said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I'm looking to build a home theater for my parents in their final home. My home theater is 7.1 but since my parents basement is completely unfinished I want to go the atmos route and install ceiling speakers.
> 
> I want to install 4 atmos speakers for 5.2.4. Any help with my questions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 1. Are the Polk V60s decent for Atmos? Is there a better alternative for similar price i.e, $125-$175?
> 
> 2. Do I need to buy a special enclosure for the ceiling speakers to prevent vibration?
> 
> 3. Can Atmos be upscaled for all non atmos content? I ask because when I set my rear surrounds to atmos (they are ceiling mounted), there is no sound coming from them on non atmos blurays and streaming which is useless.
> 
> Thanks!


Suggest you future-proof at a low cost now by putting in a VOG speaker identical to the other overheads. D/M are now including Auro for free in their high end Receivers and a number of commenters have stated that Auromatic is their preferred upmixer for content without native Atmos or DTS:X. They also say it's superior for music. I have one in place now (also a center height) in anticipation of upgrading my 7.1.4 to 9.1.4 next year and using 13 ch Auro, as well. Just put it in, wire it and wait to see if you want it. Low cost and effort at this stage.


----------



## Jonas2

ShapelyTwig said:


> I haven't picked out the rest of the hardware yet. I would like to go 5.1.4 or 5.2.4 but 9 channel receivers start at $900 so worst case I go 5.1.2.


I would encourage you to strongly consider spending the extra $$$ and go with 5.x.4 vs. 5.x.2. Much more fulfilling experience! 



ShapelyTwig said:


> I need to mount the surrounds in the ceiling as well because the projector will be positioned more towards the right of the room and I don't think my mother will appreciate seeing speakers on each side.


Generally not recommended to do so IF you are going Atmos. You really want to have layer separation if at all possible - the 5-7 base layer speakers are intended to be placed at ear level or somewhat above ear level. 

Check out:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/home/dolby-atmos.html#2

Be sure to go to the "Documents" tab, and peruse the "Atmos for Home Theater" and "Atmos Installation Guide" papers to get some insight for your set up. What you DON'T want to do is spend time and money and effort for a mediocre outcome. Believe me, if you do it right, you're gonna be very pleased. 



ShapelyTwig said:


> I was going to build a double wall where tje projector will go so I can install the front towers inside the wall, although I'm not exactly clear on how that will work. The idea is that the subwoofer is the only exposed speaker.


Well, you might then want to consider in-wall (or on-wall) speakers in a single wall rather than trying to worry about that double-wall with towers! Save time, money that you can put towards the better receiver or speakers. Tower speakers were not designed to be enclosed in such a way as to be in between two walls the way I am envisioning what you are saying, though I might be interpreting incorrectly. Just keep in mind that the speakers will have the single, largest impact of anything on the sound quality of the system, so it is worthwhile to invest in good ones, PLUS, even the best speakers won't sound good if they are not placed properly. 

Is there an aversion to seeing the speakers, so you are trying to hide everything as best you can? Well, there are even in-wall subwoofers if you wanted to hide those! And not to stray too far, but I would also consider at least two subs - maybe not straight-away if the budget does not allow, but I'd at least consider the accommodations for one in the future AFA wiring, etc. 



ShapelyTwig said:


> I wasn't actually determined to go full Polk when I went with the V60s. I know it's recommend to have consistency in tone but my 7.1 setup has 3 different pairs of brand and I honestly can't notice the difference.


I'm with you there - like I mentioned, PERFECT world, which can be quite elusive. I've got three brands as well and they blend very nicely with each other, but share some similar characteristics, which is what Dolby recommends as an "aim for" if you can't exactly match. 



ShapelyTwig said:


> Would you recommend the C34Es over the V60s? I know Polk is pretty average overall.


Can't speak for direct experience, only basing off of what I have read. I personally am not a Polk fan, but a lot of people here are, and are satisfied with what they get out of them. Others are not! One thing though, I have yet to read any negative commentary about the C34E, and the company is a great company - extremely helpful should you need their support, and they make good products. 



ShapelyTwig said:


> I like the idea of adding some studs to stiffen the joists and I suppose when I get the speakers and begin to mount them that I will have a better sense of their stability.





ShapelyTwig said:


> As for the atmos upmixing, I have the strdn1080 and when I did 5.1.2 I wasn't getting proper sound on regular content. My setup is geared for 7.1 so I was hasty when configuring it for a quick demo. I just wanted to know that upmixing is a real thing, otherwise why bother with atmos?


Yes, upmixing is a real thing! I do it all the time. Sounds like you need to reconfigure the speakers, but it looks like this option is only available to you in the Movie mode and not music? Not exactly sure on your receiver. I suppose it is possible that it only puts content into the heights if it is an Atmos track? Might be a better answer directly from Sony.....


----------



## stikle

T-Bone said:


> Just curious... Is anyone considering 9.x.2 Atmos? It seems like the vast majority of what I've read in the thread, if 11 channels is being used, is 7.x.4.



In the majority of situations, I would always recommend x.x.*4* over x.x.*2*. You will get much better front to back overhead imaging with a Top Front/Top Rear configuration. I personally feel that 7.x.4 is the sweet spot for a standard configuration.

That being said, some people have gone over the top and added 2 or 3 extra AVRs to achieve 9.x.4 (or greater) true Atmos setups.


----------



## Krobar

Selden Ball said:


> If all of your speakers (including Wides) are in-ceiling, then configuring some of them as Atmos overheads won't do much for the sound. The 3D audio effects that Atmos is designed to provide requires the maximum possible vertical separation between the "bed" speakers and the overhead speakers. With a 7.1.4 configuration you should have 7 speakers just slightly above ear level and 4 speakers overhead, in the ceiling. In other words, if the speakers all have to be overhead, then a 9.1 speaker configuration would be appropriate.
> 
> ETA:
> Note that you wouldn't be missing any sounds. All of the sounds are provided in 7.1 speaker channels. Atmos metadata tells the Atmos decoder in the receiver which sounds to extract and redirect to other speakers.


Thanks Selden; sorry if I was unclear, my current 7.1 config is free standing fronts and on wall surround and backs as shown in the room layout so it is only new Atmos speakers which would be in ceiling with directed tweeter. Any further thoughts welcome.


----------



## nellie75

I have an Onkyo TX-NR757 in a 5.2.2 atmos configuration. Is it possible to make it 5.2.4 by adding an additional (low cost amp) to get the additional height speaker pair? Looking at the 5.2.4 receivers, its going to cost an additional $1000!!


----------



## Jonas2

nellie75 said:


> I have an Onkyo TX-NR757 in a 5.2.2 atmos configuration. Is it possible to make it 5.2.4 by adding an additional (low cost amp) to get the additional height speaker pair? Looking at the 5.2.4 receivers, its going to cost an additional $1000!!


It doesn't look like the receiver has 5.2.4 processing, just the 5.2.2, or 7.2.0 and no pre-outs to go to an external amp....


----------



## chi_guy50

nellie75 said:


> I have an Onkyo TX-NR757 in a 5.2.2 atmos configuration.* Is it possible to make it 5.2.4 by adding an additional (low cost amp) to get the additional height speaker pair?* Looking at the 5.2.4 receivers, its going to cost an additional $1000!!


No, that AVR's processing maxes out at 5.1.2 in an Atmos/DTS:X configuration.


----------



## davehale

gwsat said:


> Indeed! As one of my favorite philosophers, whose name I can't remember right now, put it: "It ain't rocket science."


Uh, that would be Popeye! I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam!


----------



## nellie75

Jonas2 said:


> It doesn't look like the receiver has 5.2.4 processing, just the 5.2.2, or 7.2.0 and no pre-outs to go to an external amp....


Thanks for the replies. Looks like I wont be doing a 5.1.4. From what I've read on the forums, a 5.1.2 set up isn't anywhere as good as a 5.2.4. I currently have 7.1 set up but got a couple of Yamaha in ceiling speakers with the intention of doing a 5.1.2. Sounds like I should just wait on this as Im going to have to spend a lot more on a receiver. Also, no need of drilling holes in a ceiling as I'd probably relocate one pair the day I go to 4 height speakers.


----------



## anothermib

jsgrise said:


> Does someone know where to find a list of the Netflix titles available in Atmos? Thanks!




Not sure if that has been answered already. I figured out that you can just type “atmos” in the netflix search field to get a list of titles. That list, however, is disappointingly short at this time. So far I did not come across any Atmos title that was not showing on that search result, so I imagine it is supposed to work that way. 

I don’t know why new movies that have Atmos tracks are not generally added in Atmos, but apparently that is not the case. Perhaps the license owners are asking for a very high premium that isn’t justifiable for them at this time.


----------



## jsgrise

anothermib said:


> Not sure if that has been answered already. I figured out that you can just type “atmos” in the netflix search field to get a list of titles. That list, however, is disappointingly short at this time. So far I did not come across any Atmos title that was not showing on that search result, so I imagine it is supposed to work that way.
> 
> I don’t know why new movies that have Atmos tracks are not generally added in Atmos, but apparently that is not the case. Perhaps the license owners are asking for a very high premium that isn’t justifiable for them at this time.


Thank you, that seems to work! Indeed, the count is pretty low, but hopefully new releases come in with Atmos


----------



## Jonas2

nellie75 said:


> Thanks for the replies. Looks like I wont be doing a 5.1.4. From what I've read on the forums, a 5.1.2 set up isn't anywhere as good as a 5.2.4. I currently have 7.1 set up but got a couple of Yamaha in ceiling speakers with the intention of doing a 5.1.2. Sounds like I should just wait on this as Im going to have to spend a lot more on a receiver. Also, no need of drilling holes in a ceiling as I'd probably relocate one pair the day I go to 4 height speakers.


Nothing wrong with waiting!  I'd recommend saving up the $$$ and buy a receiver that can do 11 channels; you could do 9 amplified and add a cheap amp for the extra 2, save some money. Or spend a bit more and kill all the birds with one *11 amplified channel receiver* stone.  Yes, it is more expensive, but then you've got one device to situate instead of two. Pros and cons to any approach!


----------



## sdurani

nellie75 said:


> From what I've read on the forums, a 5.1.2 set up isn't anywhere as good as a 5.2.4.


There's a lot of hyperbole on the forums. 4 overhead speakers let you hear front to back movement above you. Aside from that, the rest of it (anchoring sounds above you, left vs right separation, etc) can also be heard with 2 overhead speakers. Ironically, many who insist on 4 speakers in the height layer (where there isn't much sound) dismiss those same advantages when it comes to 4 surrounds in the base layer (where there is much more sound). 4 is better than 2, but it isn't anywhere near the make-or-break difference some make it out to be.


----------



## unretarded

While it is nice to plan ahead and make a solid purchase that will last for years, the sad fact is.........5 year old tech is hard to give away.

Same with computers.....I have a really nice laptop that works perfect, but it was made in the early 90`s and runs windows 3.1 with a 500 MB hard drive, while it was quality and stood the test of time, it is relegated to the collectable/novelty pile.


5 year old disk players/recievers etc might still be functional, but are outdated and if you purchased a 4k TV, renders them basically useless or turned into a garage radio......sadly long gone are the days of buying a quality item and it serving a useful 10 year run.


I purchased a 400 dollar receiver that does 5.1.2 to get a taste and if I get 3 or 4 years out of it before it is outdated I will be happy, it already has a year on it, by that time with the new wave of recievers/dolby vision etc, a receiver that does .4 or .6 will be pretty cheap to get if Atmos does not go the way of Betamax......I think Atmos is here to stay, especially with the upmixer feature.......but I am sure plenty of people though Betamax was the future.


Get what you can afford, enjoy it as things are changing so quickly it is likely to be outdated fairly quick......have fun.....I certainly do not feel like I am listening to a earbud compared to others........I might not have 9 base layer speakers and 6 overheads, but my room is full of sound and most people, including me are impressed with it and I am very satisfied with it.


----------



## anothermib

Hi, are you using Audyssey DEQ in an Atmos configration? Not sure if this is the best thread to post this question, but I guess all the expertise will be assembled here. 

DEQ isn’t perfect, but as I am listening to quite a range of volume levels I always found it convenient. The fact that it affects the levels of the rear speakers was a bit annoying, but generally tolerable. Now using it in my 7.2.4 configuration it turns a very natural “spacial” sound field without DEQ into something really strange and artificial. This becomes particularly apparent when listening to music using DSU at low volumes (say -50dB), but I have the impression it is an issue for movies as well. 

Is DEQ just not really usable for a 7.x.4 or could that issue be an indication for other issues with my configuration (e.g. speaker locations or trim levels)?


----------



## Kevnmin

Ted99 said:


> Suggest you future-proof at a low cost now by putting in a VOG speaker identical to the other overheads. D/M are now including Auro for free in their high end Receivers and a number of commenters have stated that Auromatic is their preferred upmixer for content without native Atmos or DTS:X. They also say it's superior for music. I have one in place now (also a center height) in anticipation of upgrading my 7.1.4 to 9.1.4 next year and using 13 ch Auro, as well. Just put it in, wire it and wait to see if you want it. Low cost and effort at this stage.


Interesting comment about others stating Auromatic upmixing being preferred over DSU for non Atmos or DTS:X.
I currently have a 7.3.4 setup using Denon X6200 which does have the option for the Auro upgrade. I've never thought about upgrading, but if others out there that have the Auro upgrade can offer your thoughts, I might be swayed to pay for the upgrade and add a VOG....Thoughts???


----------



## Jonas2

unretarded said:


> 5 year old disk players/recievers etc might still be functional, but are outdated and if you purchased a 4k TV, renders them basically useless or turned into a garage radio......sadly long gone are the days of buying a quality item and it serving a useful 10 year run.
> 
> Get what you can afford, enjoy it as things are changing so quickly it is likely to be outdated fairly quick......have fun.....I certainly do not feel like I am listening to a earbud compared to others........I might not have 9 base layer speakers and 6 overheads, but my room is full of sound and most people, including me are impressed with it and I am very satisfied with it.


About the only thing that stays relevant these days is a good amplifier! Signal in, sound out. Yeah, they throw fancy crap in some of them these days, touch panels, and whizbangs which might go outdated (or break), but a good, solid, basic amplifier......


----------



## Ted99

Kevnmin said:


> Interesting comment about others stating Auromatic upmixing being preferred over DSU for non Atmos or DTS:X.
> I currently have a 7.3.4 setup using Denon X6200 which does have the option for the Auro upgrade. I've never thought about upgrading, but if others out there that have the Auro upgrade can offer your thoughts, I might be swayed to pay for the upgrade and add a VOG....Thoughts???


Suggest you check out the Auro thread. It's not agnostic, but a lot of info there.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Kevnmin said:


> Interesting comment about others stating Auromatic upmixing being preferred over DSU for non Atmos or DTS:X.


I never paid for the Auro upgrade on my AV7702mkII or X4300H. When I purchased the Lyngdorf MP-50 Auro3D was included. Hands down I prefer Auromatic for music, upmixing 2.0, 4.0, or 5.1. Dolby Surround sounds better for music once Center Spread is enabled (vs disabled… thanks to Sanjay for this nugget). 

For movies I find that no upmixer fits all. I do often prefer Auromatic for upmixing for dialog driven movies. However, there is other upmixing in place as the Lyngdorf matrixing expands Auro 5.1.4 to a 7.1.6 layout in my setup.

Personally, I'm not paying $200 when I can simply enable Center Spread or use Neural X.


----------



## albiemanmike

WOW talk about massive head spin syndrome! I just got a Sony XBR-65X900E 4K HDR panel and didn’t consider my old Pioneer 7.1 AVR wouldn’t be able to support the new TV.............I know I’m dumb! But it has been a long while since I upgraded. The Sony replaced a Pioneer plasma 50” which was rock solid reliable but used a ton of power and put off tons of heat which was bad in summer. So anyway I purchased an unused open box Denon AVR-X2300W that will be here tomorrow and I am wondering how I should set it up? I currently have a 7.1 configuration with Boston Acoustics Front/Center, Bose Surround, and some inexpensive Pioneer satellite back surrounds with an Mirage powered sub. Can you use regular speakers for Atmos sound configuration? I usually am very good about reading through complete threads but I’m never getting through 1500+ pages here so my apologies for what are probably very frequent questions by newbie Atmos folks.


----------



## jjackkrash

albiemanmike said:


> So anyway I purchased an unused open box Denon AVR-X2300W that will be here tomorrow and I am wondering how I should set it up? I currently have a 7.1 configuration with Boston Acoustics Front/Center, Bose Surround, and some inexpensive Pioneer satellite back surrounds with an Mirage powered sub. Can you use regular speakers for Atmos sound configuration?


The X2300 will only process 7 channels, so you will have to give up the 2 rear surrounds to add 2 Atmos overhead speakers. And, yes, you can use regular speakers if you mount then overhead. Here is a good read on Atmos for home:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> There's a lot of hyperbole on the forums.


Surely you jest!  Here I had believed it to be a place where only moderate thoughts and well-reasoned information was politely exchanged. 



> 4 overhead speakers let you hear front to back movement above you. Aside from that, the rest of it (anchoring sounds above you, left vs right separation, etc) can also be heard with 2 overhead speakers.


Also worth noting that when using DSU to upmix non-Atmos content (the bulk of which is all that most of us will have for many years), only L/R is generated above. There is no F/B there. Each L (and R) signal is sent to all the height speakers you have on that side, whether it's 1, 2, 3, or even 5. I suspect this is a fact/limitation that not everyone is aware of.


----------



## unretarded

albiemanmike said:


> WOW talk about massive head spin syndrome! I just got a Sony XBR-65X900E 4K HDR panel and didn’t consider my old Pioneer 7.1 AVR wouldn’t be able to support the new TV.............I know I’m dumb! But it has been a long while since I upgraded. The Sony replaced a Pioneer plasma 50” which was rock solid reliable but used a ton of power and put off tons of heat which was bad in summer. So anyway I purchased an unused open box Denon AVR-X2300W that will be here tomorrow and I am wondering how I should set it up? I currently have a 7.1 configuration with Boston Acoustics Front/Center, Bose Surround, and some inexpensive Pioneer satellite back surrounds with an Mirage powered sub. Can you use regular speakers for Atmos sound configuration? I usually am very good about reading through complete threads but I’m never getting through 1500+ pages here so my apologies for what are probably very frequent questions by newbie Atmos folks.



Cliff notes version......


Wide dispersion/amiable tweeter speakers installed seating centric if in ceilings .........any speaker will work, the less dispersion it has the closer to directly overhead I would go.

A lot of people comment they need to bump the volume on the overheads a bit and I would suspect this is the reason above......if you mount bookshelf speakers on adjustable brackets then it opens up the aiming of them so exact location and dispersion characteristics of the speaker are less important.


----------



## Erod

VideoGrabber said:


> Surely you jest!  Here I had believed it to be a place where only moderate thoughts and well-reasoned information was politely exchanged.
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting that when using DSU to upmix non-Atmos content (the bulk of which is all that most of us will have for many years), only L/R is generated above. There is no F/B there. Each L (and R) signal is sent to all the height speakers you have on that side, whether it's 1, 2, 3, or even 5. I suspect this is a fact/limitation that not everyone is aware of.


I have heard discrete sounds above in non-Atmos content, but it's rare.

The Revenant is a good example.


----------



## gwsat

Erod said:


> I have heard discrete sounds above in non-Atmos content, but it's rare.
> 
> The Revenant is a good example.


I always apply the DTS Neural:X DSU to _The Revenant_ soundtrack's native DTS-HD MA 7.1 so I don't know how much of its excellent immersive effects would have been available if I had watched without applying the DSU. Will try it sometime.


----------



## T-Bone

So, how did you guys test your Atmos speakers before cutting holes in the ceilings, assuming you ceiling mounted them?

I am a bit perplexed on how to place them close to the ceiling in a spot that I want (based on the Dolby Atmos guidelines) so that I can hear how they sound before committing to cutting the ceiling. Since I've read different speakers have different dispersion characteristics. And if a speaker has a narrower dispersion, then I might have to place them closer to the seating area.

My only guess is using two 8 foot ladders that I have. And somehow getting the ceiling speakers on top of them and pointing down. My ceilings are 10-foot so the ladder technique may not be that great.

-T


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Also worth noting that when using DSU to upmix non-Atmos content (the bulk of which is all that most of us will have for many years), only L/R is generated above. There is no F/B there. Each L (and R) signal is sent to all the height speakers you have on that side, whether it's 1, 2, 3, or even 5. I suspect this is a fact/limitation that not everyone is aware of.


Yes, and also worth noting that despite that fact, DSU with only a Top Middle pair doesn't sound as good as DSU with Top Fronts/ Front Heights and Top Rears/ Rear Heights (reported by SCATMOS users who don't like the effect of all overhead sounds collapsing to the Top Middle pair when using PLII-movie center extraction).


----------



## Jonas2

T-Bone said:


> So, how did you guys test your Atmos speakers before cutting holes in the ceilings, assuming you ceiling mounted them?
> 
> I am a bit perplexed on how to place them close to the ceiling in a spot that I want (based on the Dolby Atmos guidelines) so that I can hear how they sound before committing to cutting the ceiling. Since I've read different speakers have different dispersion characteristics. And if a speaker has a narrower dispersion, then I might have to place them closer to the seating area.
> 
> My only guess is using two 8 foot ladders that I have. And somehow getting the ceiling speakers on top of them and pointing down. My ceilings are 10-foot so the ladder technique may not be that great.


I didn't do any ceiling testing myself, though I thought about how to go about this. Never did it, but interested to hear others' approach to doing so!  Keep in mind, they will sound different once installed in the ceiling as compared to on a ladder or somehow rigged another way. Short of some better advice on how to test, I would look at manufacturer data, if it is available, for their dispersion characteristics matched to a speaker of at least similar design to your other speakers and then check that math relative to the Dolby install specs. I probably wouldn't lose too much sleep over this.


----------



## unretarded

T-Bone said:


> So, how did you guys test your Atmos speakers before cutting holes in the ceilings, assuming you ceiling mounted them?
> 
> I am a bit perplexed on how to place them close to the ceiling in a spot that I want (based on the Dolby Atmos guidelines) so that I can hear how they sound before committing to cutting the ceiling. Since I've read different speakers have different dispersion characteristics. And if a speaker has a narrower dispersion, then I might have to place them closer to the seating area.
> 
> My only guess is using two 8 foot ladders that I have. And somehow getting the ceiling speakers on top of them and pointing down. My ceilings are 10-foot so the ladder technique may not be that great.
> 
> -T



Hang em from a string....something up to the task, such as fishing line or if needed 550 paracord, but hopefully the ceiling speakers are not over 500 pounds......

Some sort of wire might be the easiest to deal with.....


----------



## Canuck Sonido

anothermib said:


> Not sure if that has been answered already. I figured out that you can just type “atmos” in the netflix search field to get a list of titles. That list, however, is disappointingly short at this time. So far I did not come across any Atmos title that was not showing on that search result, so I imagine it is supposed to work that way.
> 
> I don’t know why new movies that have Atmos tracks are not generally added in Atmos, but apparently that is not the case. Perhaps the license owners are asking for a very high premium that isn’t justifiable for them at this time.


I guess the only concern here is what platform are you using Netflix on to get Dolby Atmos? 

Here's my situation and related questions:

My AVR is the Sony DN1080 which supports Dolby Amos. I have a 5.1.2 speaker config with DA height speakers being PSB XAs. These are placed at front of room on top of my L/R towers.

I have an ATV 4K connected to my AVR which doesn't yet support DA. Next, I have a 2017 Sony TV (930E) going to DN1080 via ARC. Does the Netflix app on Andoid TV support DA? Also someone mentioned that ARC does not support DA?? Is this correct?

Finally, my last possible option to enjoy DA is my Sony UP X800 which does support DA for 4K UHD disc playback, again not sure if the Netflix app (non-Android) running on the Sony X800 supports DA? If not, then I'm out-of-luck for DA until the ATV 4K gets DA support. How do I find out if the Netflix app on the X800 supports DA (Sony is useless)?


----------



## javan robinson

T-Bone said:


> So, how did you guys test your Atmos speakers before cutting holes in the ceilings, assuming you ceiling mounted them?
> 
> I am a bit perplexed on how to place them close to the ceiling in a spot that I want (based on the Dolby Atmos guidelines) so that I can hear how they sound before committing to cutting the ceiling. Since I've read different speakers have different dispersion characteristics. And if a speaker has a narrower dispersion, then I might have to place them closer to the seating area.
> 
> My only guess is using two 8 foot ladders that I have. And somehow getting the ceiling speakers on top of them and pointing down. My ceilings are 10-foot so the ladder technique may not be that great.
> 
> -T


Four friends, four chairs, duh!


----------



## jjackkrash

Canuck Sonido said:


> How do I find out if the Netflix app on the X800 supports DA (Sony is useless)? [/COLOR]


From Netflix help:

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066

The following devices support Dolby Atmos with Netflix:

Xbox One
Xbox One S
Xbox One X
2017 LG OLED TVs


----------



## Jbran23

I was referred here from the Speaker forum to ask about my particular setup and whether adding ATMOS speakers would be right for me. 

I currently have a 3.1 setup with RBH Impression series towers and center with a BASX-S10 sub. My AVR is a Denon S920W.

I want to add surrounds and possibly ATMOS speakers to my setup if budget allows for them. Question is, due to my living room situation (open concept) I think in ceiling speakers is my only choice for surrounds. Does this then effect the my ability to use ATMOS speakers properly due to lack of separation?


----------



## Canuck Sonido

jjackkrash said:


> From Netflix help:
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> The following devices support Dolby Atmos with Netflix:
> 
> Xbox One
> Xbox One S
> Xbox One X
> 2017 LG OLED TVs


Yeah read this on the Netflix site. So basically Dolby Atmos is dead format since only a small % of platforms actually support it. So why bother? 

What about Amazon Prime? Does anyone know if their streaming app support Dolby Atmos? And on what platforms?


----------



## javan robinson

Jbran23 said:


> I was referred here from the Speaker forum to ask about my particular setup and whether adding ATMOS speakers would be right for me.
> 
> I currently have a 3.1 setup with RBH Impression series towers and center with a BASX-S10 sub. My AVR is a Denon S920W.
> 
> I want to add surrounds and possibly ATMOS speakers to my setup if budget allows for them. Question is, due to my living room situation (open concept) I think in ceiling speakers is my only choice for surrounds. Does this then effect the my ability to use ATMOS speakers properly due to lack of separation?


I don't think so. They make some pretty good in-wall surrounds and you could still do in-ceilings and achieve the Atmos effect.

Example of in-wall surrounds https://www.crutchfield.com/p_714R3...a&awnw=g&awcr=47439331705&awdv=c&awug=9015409


----------



## Jbran23

javan robinson said:


> Jbran23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referred here from the Speaker forum to ask about my particular setup and whether adding ATMOS speakers would be right for me.
> 
> I currently have a 3.1 setup with RBH Impression series towers and center with a BASX-S10 sub. My AVR is a Denon S920W.
> 
> I want to add surrounds and possibly ATMOS speakers to my setup if budget allows for them. Question is, due to my living room situation (open concept) I think in ceiling speakers is my only choice for surrounds. Does this then effect the my ability to use ATMOS speakers properly due to lack of separation?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. They make some pretty good in-wall surrounds and you could still do in-ceilings and achieve the Atmos effect.
> 
> Example of in-wall surrounds https://www.crutchfield.com/p_714R3...a&awnw=g&awcr=47439331705&awdv=c&awug=9015409
Click to expand...

In-wall will not work in my setup as due to sitting position I have one wall a good distance away on the left and basically no wall to the right until u reach the front door/entryway.


----------



## javan robinson

Jbran23 said:


> In-wall will not work in my setup as due to sitting position I have one wall a good distance away on the left and basically no wall to the right until u reach the front door/entryway.


Gotcha, got pictures of your room? I bet there's some better ideas we can dream up...


----------



## T-Bone

javan robinson said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how did you guys test your Atmos speakers before cutting holes in the ceilings, assuming you ceiling mounted them?
> 
> I am a bit perplexed on how to place them close to the ceiling in a spot that I want (based on the Dolby Atmos guidelines) so that I can hear how they sound before committing to cutting the ceiling. Since I've read different speakers have different dispersion characteristics. And if a speaker has a narrower dispersion, then I might have to place them closer to the seating area.
> 
> My only guess is using two 8 foot ladders that I have. And somehow getting the ceiling speakers on top of them and pointing down. My ceilings are 10-foot so the ladder technique may not be that great.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Four friends, four chairs, duh!
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor 

-T


----------



## usc1995

Canuck Sonido said:


> I guess the only concern here is what platform are you using Netflix on to get Dolby Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my situation and related questions:
> 
> 
> 
> My AVR is the Sony DN1080 which supports Dolby Amos. I have a 5.1.2 speaker config with DA height speakers being PSB XAs. These are placed at front of room on top of my L/R towers.
> 
> 
> 
> I have an ATV 4K connected to my AVR which doesn't yet support DA. Next, I have a 2017 Sony TV (930E) going to DN1080 via ARC. Does the Netflix app on Andoid TV support DA? Also someone mentioned that ARC does not support DA?? Is this correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, my last possible option to enjoy DA is my Sony UP X800 which does support DA for 4K UHD disc playback, again not sure if the Netflix app (non-Android) running on the Sony X800 supports DA? If not, then I'm out-of-luck for DA until the ATV 4K gets DA support. How do I find out if the Netflix app on the X800 supports DA (Sony is useless)?




Only the Xbox One, S, X and 2017 LG OLEDs support Atmos from Netflix https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

Canuck Sonido said:


> Yeah read this on the Netflix site. So basically Dolby Atmos is dead format since only a small % of platforms actually support it. So why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> What about Amazon Prime? Does anyone know if their streaming app support Dolby Atmos? And on what platforms?




Atmos is not a dead format, more like an infant format. You can get Atmos tracks on BDs, UHDs, some Vudu movies and Netflix on the Xbox Ones. Atmos has been said to be coming on the Apple TV which will mean ITunes movies as well. Atmos presentations in the theaters are only growing as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ggsantafe

Canuck Sonido said:


> Yeah read this on the Netflix site. So basically Dolby Atmos is dead format since only a small % of platforms actually support it. So why bother?
> 
> What about Amazon Prime? Does anyone know if their streaming app support Dolby Atmos? And on what platforms?


According to a gear brain article I just read - Amazon Prime doesn't currently support Atmos streaming. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Dolby Atmos is a dead format. It remains pretty robust on the disc platform, the upmixers do a rather good job of expanding the sound bubble, and I expect that Netflix will gradually expand the number of devices (Roku?)that will support Atmos streaming.


----------



## jjackkrash

Canuck Sonido said:


> Yeah read this on the Netflix site. So basically Dolby Atmos is dead format since only a small % of platforms actually support it. So why bother?
> 
> What about Amazon Prime? Does anyone know if their streaming app support Dolby Atmos? And on what platforms?


Dead? Netflix _just started offering _Atmos. And the new--but very limited--Atmos content is _awesome_.

A few years ago, I thought Netflix was a dead platform because the video and audio feed was so bad, even compared to cable. Now, with bleeding edge equipment, I can stream 4k content in Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos and the picture and sound is freaking fantastic. That or I can watch 720p/stereo content on Comcast. 

Maybe break down and get an Xbox One off craigslist?


----------



## VideoGrabber

gwsat said:


> I always apply the DTS Neural:X DSU to _The Revenant_ soundtrack's native DTS-HD MA 7.1 so I don't know how much of its excellent immersive effects would have been available if I had watched without applying the DSU.


 I think you may be using DSU to refer to upmixing in general? When DSU specifically stands for Dolby Surround Upmixer. So while there is a Neural:X upmixer, there's not a Neural:X DSU.


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, and also worth noting that despite that fact, DSU with only a Top Middle pair doesn't sound as good as DSU with Top Fronts/ Front Heights and Top Rears/ Rear Heights (reported by SCATMOS users who don't like the effect of all overhead sounds collapsing to the Top Middle pair when using PLII-movie center extraction).


Yes, and I'm glad you added that. Even though only 2 channels are being rendered overhead with DSU, the fact that each side is arrayed across multiple speakers does have definite (audible) benefits. (Even w/o any F/B movement or discrimination.)


----------



## Redskin

Just picked up a pair of small bookshelf speakers for a 5.1.2 setup. I will be mounting them on the ceiling. It probably doesn't make a big difference, but I can't seem to find any information on how to orient the tweeter vs the woofer vs the listening position. 

Should it be front soundstage/woofer/tweeter/listener or front soundstage/ tweeter/woofer/listener or should the speaker be perpendicular with the tweeter inside or outside of the woofer. 

Thanks!
Greg


----------



## Canuck Sonido

usc1995 said:


> Atmos is not a dead format, more like an infant format. You can get Atmos tracks on BDs, UHDs, some Vudu movies and Netflix on the Xbox Ones. Atmos has been said to be coming on the Apple TV which will mean ITunes movies as well. Atmos presentations in the theaters are only growing as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I didn't think Atmos was actual tracks but rather meta data? Yes, I'm aware that DA is included on many 4K UHD discs (I have some great ones). I just spent $5k upgrading my HT setup for 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. I'm very disappointed that unless I play a disc, go to a theatre, own an LG or Xbox I can't experience DA. 90% of my viewing is streaming.


----------



## T-Bone

Canuck Sonido said:


> usc1995 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos is not a dead format, more like an infant format. You can get Atmos tracks on BDs, UHDs, some Vudu movies and Netflix on the Xbox Ones. Atmos has been said to be coming on the Apple TV which will mean ITunes movies as well. Atmos presentations in the theaters are only growing as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think Atmos was actual tracks but rather meta data? Yes, I'm aware that DA is included on many 4K UHD discs (I have some great ones). I just spent $5k upgrading my HT setup for 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. I'm very disappointed that unless I play a disc, go to a theatre, own an LG or Xbox I can't experience DA. 90% of my viewing is streaming.
Click to expand...

I saw Xbox One S consoles on sale for 199 just the other day. 500gb hard drive. And from the reviews I've seen, it's a pretty good 4K Blu-ray player.

And yeah, Atmos is metadata. I've got a bunch of Blu-rays that have Atmos on it.

-T


----------



## jjackkrash

I just ran "Atmos" in the Netflix search and these are the titles that popped up: Bright; Punisher; Godless; Dark; Death Note; Wheelman; Mudbound; Worm Wood; Okja; Blame!; Test Patterns; Silent.

I'm about to pop in Bright.


----------



## Jonas2

javan robinson said:


> Four friends, four chairs, duh!


Followed by a promise of beer and pizza.....



Jbran23 said:


> I want to add surrounds and possibly ATMOS speakers to my setup if budget allows for them. Question is, due to my living room situation (open concept) I think in ceiling speakers is my only choice for surrounds. Does this then effect the my ability to use ATMOS speakers properly due to lack of separation?


If in-ceilings are your only choice for surrounds, then go with the 5.1. It's generally not recommended to have heights for base channels if you are attempting Atmos. That said, with the right speakers, you might be able to pull of a 5.1.2 since the x.x.2 speakers would be more overhead and hopefully give you enough lateral separation to resolve the effect. You could certainly try it, but I would not make them permanent - test it out first if you can.



Canuck Sonido said:


> Yeah read this on the Netflix site. So basically Dolby Atmos is dead format since only a small % of platforms actually support it. So why bother?


That's just silly, kinda like saying Dolby Vision and HDR is dead. Atmos is an evolution, maybe a revolution! 



Canuck Sonido said:


> I didn't think Atmos was actual tracks but rather meta data? Yes, I'm aware that DA is included on many 4K UHD discs (I have some great ones). I just spent $5k upgrading my HT setup for 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. I'm very disappointed that unless I play a disc, go to a theatre, own an LG or Xbox I can't experience DA. 90% of my viewing is streaming.


It's called DSU.....take advantage of your height speakers with any track!


----------



## Tweeter2002

I did a Dolby Atmos search within Netflix and a couple of titles came up, anyone else see this as well. Currently on my hand held and can't access detailed menu settings in Netflix. Does anyone else see any movie titles pop up when searching Dolby Atmos


----------



## usc1995

Canuck Sonido said:


> I didn't think Atmos was actual tracks but rather meta data? Yes, I'm aware that DA is included on many 4K UHD discs (I have some great ones). I just spent $5k upgrading my HT setup for 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. I'm very disappointed that unless I play a disc, go to a theatre, own an LG or Xbox I can't experience DA. 90% of my viewing is streaming.




I am not sure what to tell you except this is the price we pay as early adopters. I am sure Netflix will add more devices that will be able to receive their Atmos streams but in the meantime you may want to pony up for a new Xbox if you want them now. In my opinion DSU is a worthwhile upgrade also that you are able to use on any source so you can at least enjoy that until more services adopt the format.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

VideoGrabber said:


> I think you may be using DSU to refer to upmixing in general? When DSU specifically stands for Dolby Surround Upmixer. So while there is a Neural:X upmixer, there's not a Neural:X DSU.


I have always used "DSU," perhaps inaccurately, as an acronym for Digital Sound Upmixer. Anyway, I think you understood that the upmixer I used was the DTS Neural:X upmixer. I use the Dolby Surround upmixer too when Matrixing a native Dolby TrueHD 5/7.1 soundtrack to 7.2.4.


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> I use the Dolby Surround upmixer too when Matrixing a native Dolby TrueHD 5/7.1 soundtrack to 7.2.4.



I don't know about your Yamaha, but on the Denon/Marantz AVRs we can also cross-upmix: DSU on DTS MA audio, and DTS Neural:X on Dolby TrueHD. This is great as it allows a person to use the upmixer of choice on whatever they are listening to.

Personally, I prefer DSU applied to everything. I've done more than a few tests listening to scenes with both DSU and Neural:X, and I always come back to preferring DSU.

Also...long live the Seth-o-Plex 1.0. I put every single component back in their boxes and am selling it all. Just kidding. Tomorrow is move day to the new house on the other side of the state. Hopefully I'll get the new theater up and running before too long.


----------



## sdurani

Canuck Sonido said:


> I'm very disappointed that unless I play a disc, go to a theatre, own an LG or Xbox I can't experience DA. 90% of my viewing is streaming.


Then Dolby Atmos is dead to you. Come to terms with that and move on. Dwelling on disappointment isn't going to do you any good.


----------



## unretarded

I would guess Netflix Atmos supported by win10 is just around the corner due to win10 native support for it now.....soon....very soon......


I have not tried it since last weeks update..........I am not sure what the disfunction would be on it not working since the way it is carried now is also supported by windows......unless a line of code has it disabled on the netflix`s end to prevent it.


----------



## Waboman

Did Microsoft pay NF for exclusive Atmos streaming? You'd think the Roku's and ATVS's would want this feature too.


----------



## Marc Alexander

It is odd to me that Netflix would limit devices that support Atmos. You would think that any devices that support bitstreaming DD+ would/should support it.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

sdurani said:


> Then Dolby Atmos is dead to you. Come to terms with that and move on. Dwelling on disappointment isn't going to do you any good.


Well I wouldn't call a few posts on AVS as dwelling on it and I'm sure I'll get over my frustrations. I do enjoy the new INXS audio disc with DA on my system. But again the industry only has itself to blame. The sad truth is only a small subset of consumers have the gear to enjoy surround sound let alone DA (people are not going to drill holes in their ceilings). I guess this is why the format isn't available except for a limited number of platforms (LG and Xbox) less incentive for them. 

Fortunately I did future proof somewhat as my system supports (or will support) both HDR10 and Dolby Vision with Sony rolling out DV to its X1 processor sets in early new year. DV is already supported on the ATV 4K. As for DA, Apple has said they will support it eventually, and hopefully that will include the Netflix app.


----------



## anothermib

Marc Alexander said:


> It is odd to me that Netflix would limit devices that support Atmos. You would think that any devices that support bitstreaming DD+ would/should support it.




I don’t think they are intentionally trying to limit the platforms. As you are saying - it wouldn’t make a lot of sense for them. 
They may just have been going for the low hanging fruit in terms of ease of implementation first. 
Apparently on many platforms the Atmos support is harder to implement than one would think. I leave it to people with more detailed knowledge than me to comment on the underlying reasons.


----------



## sdurani

Canuck Sonido said:


> But again the industry only has itself to blame.


Atmos is being adopted at a faster rate than Dolby Digital was, both at home and in commercial cinemas, so the industry is crediting itself with success rather than playing a blame game. When I said that Atmos is dead to you, I mean to you, not anyone else. So I'm not arguing with your claim that it is a dead format, just pointing out that it applies to your subjective experience based on source material (90% streaming). But your subjective experience doesn't make it an objective fact.


> The sad truth is only a small subset of consumers have the gear to enjoy surround sound let alone DA (people are not going to drill holes in their ceilings).


In that case, surround will never succeed; another dead format.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

sdurani said:


> Atmos is being adopted at a faster rate than Dolby Digital was at home


Right. What is your source for this statement? Dolby Atmos is still very much a niche market at home. Most people don't even know what it is. 



sdurani said:


> So I'm not arguing with your claim that it is a dead format, just pointing out that it applies to your subjective experience based on source material (90% streaming). But your subjective experience doesn't make it an objective fact. In that case, surround will never succeed; another dead format.


Who's arguing? It's not a subjective experience, it's reality; unless one owns an LG set or a Microsoft product they cannot experience Dolby Atmos via streaming.


----------



## Bond 007

stikle said:


> I don't know about your Yamaha, but on the Denon/Marantz AVRs we can also cross-upmix: DSU on DTS MA audio, and DTS Neural:X on Dolby TrueHD.


Works on Yamaha also.


----------



## PioManiac

stikle said:


> *I don't know about your Yamaha, but on the Denon/Marantz AVRs we can also cross-upmix*: DSU on DTS MA audio, and DTS Neural:X on Dolby TrueHD. This is great as it allows a person to use the upmixer of choice on whatever they are listening to.
> .


Actually Yamaha was the first to allow cross up-mixing, 
My 2015 Model RX-A3050 was able to cross mix without issue right away.

Early D/M ATMOS capable units could not apply DSU on a DTS audio track.
I'm pretty sure Denon/Marantz had to wait quite some time for that capability.
Link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1315.html

Yamaha was also the first (and still may be the only) to allow Two separate speaker configurations,
One specifically for Atmos (overhead) and one for DTS:X (height) that are switchable on the fly with different scene slots.


----------



## sdurani

Canuck Sonido said:


> What is your source for this statement?


Did a quick Google search:

https://www.residentialsystems.com/news/dolby-atmos-passes-adoption-milestones 












> Dolby Atmos is still very much a niche market.


What is your source for this statement?


> It's not a subjective experience, it's reality; unless one owns an LG set or a Microsoft product they cannot experience Dolby Atmos via streaming.


You don't count Vudu or Hulu Plus as "streaming"?


----------



## Canuck Sonido

sdurani said:


> Did a quick Google search:
> 
> https://www.residentialsystems.com/news/dolby-atmos-passes-adoption-milestones


From the Dolby site...hahaha! This references is about commercial theatres. Still waiting for source of your other statement that Dolby Atmos is being adopted in the home faster that DD? It's still very much a niche in the home until the industry gets its **** together. 


sdurani said:


> What is your source for this statement? You don't count Vudu or Hulu Plus as "streaming"?


Yep, they are streaming apps. What's your point?


----------



## gwsat

Canuck Sonido said:


> From the Dolby site...hahaha! This references is about commercial theatres. Still waiting for source of your other statement that Dolby Atmos is being adopted in the home faster that DD? It's still very much a niche in the home until the industry gets its **** together.
> 
> Yep, they [Vudu and Hulu Plus] are streaming apps. What's your point?


Clearly, if you read the link Sanjay posted, you didn't read it carefully enough. Here is a quote from the linked report: 



> More than 20 [Atmos enabled] titles are now available for over-the-top delivery by streaming-service providers like Vudu. More than 150 titles on Blu-ray Disc have featured a Dolby Atmos soundtrack, and more than 60 percent of the UHD Blu-ray media released include the format. This has encouraged wide adoption by the consumer electrics industry. To date, more than 75 AVR and home-theater-in-a-box (HTiB) solutions are available, and more than 45 soundbar and speaker models by more than 20 speaker manufacturers provide consumers with a variety of form factor options and price points. In addition, more than 35 mobile devices support Dolby Atmos.


If you will pardon some unsolicited advice, let me suggest that when you find yourself in a hole, it's a good idea to stop digging.


----------



## sdurani

Canuck Sonido said:


> This references is about commercial theatres.


At least I provided a reference. Seems you didn't click on the Residential Systems link.


> It's still very much a niche in the home until the industry gets its **** together.


You never provided a reference for your claim. Repeating the same claim doesn't turn it in to fact.


> Yep, they are streaming apps. What's your point?


Netflix isn't the only one streaming Atmos content. Just because you're limited to Netflix doesn't mean everyone else is. So just because Atmos is "dead" to you doesn't mean it is to everyone else.


----------



## DJ Lushious

How important is it to get aimable tweeters for in-ceiling speakers for an ATMOS system? My speakers are all Infinty and Crutchfield has these for a killer price. However, it doesn't appear that they have aimable tweeters.

I hope I am asking this in the right thread.


----------



## Jonas2

DJ Lushious said:


> How important is it to get aimable tweeters for in-ceiling speakers for an ATMOS system? My speakers are all Infinty and Crutchfield has these for a killer price. However, it doesn't appear that they have aimable tweeters.
> 
> I hope I am asking this in the right thread.


I think they help a bit; I have aimable ones, and I think it sounds just a bit better aimed at the listeners as opposed to just straight down. May or may not be a benefit depending on the dispersion characteristics of the speaker and your ability to place them within those Dolby specs., but it's a nice option to have, but I wouldn't let not having them ruin my day.


----------



## jcp2

DJ Lushious said:


> How important is it to get aimable tweeters for in-ceiling speakers for an ATMOS system? My speakers are all Infinty and Crutchfield has these for a killer price. However, it doesn't appear that they have aimable tweeters.
> 
> I hope I am asking this in the right thread.


I think it's quite important to be able to point the tweeters at MLP (especially if you have a wide room) I noticed a big difference when I aimed my tweeters after I researched. My room is 16' feet wide. Aiming them had a great effect on my enjoyment and experiences with Atmos and DSU movies. I think general consensus here at AVS to use tweeter aimable in ceiling speakers. Hope this helps.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

sdurani said:


> At least I provided a reference. Seems you didn't click on the Residential Systems link. You never provided a reference for your claim. Repeating the same claim doesn't turn it in to fact. Netflix isn't the only one streaming Atmos content. Just because you're limited to Netflix doesn't mean everyone else is. So just because Atmos is "dead" to you doesn't mean it is to everyone else.


Again your reference refers to adoption in commercial theatres even if the website is called Residential System. Your claim included adoption in homes and that's what I take issue with. Unless you can back up your claim regarding home use from an independent source (or any source for that matter)...it's BS.

Don't get me wrong I think DA is very cool otherwise I would not have invested in the hardware to support it. I'm disappointed that there aren't more sources to experience it and hope it doesn't die off due to lacklustre support from the industry like other media formats and content. E.g., 3D TVs, Bluray Audio, SACD, DVD-A etc... 

We'll have to see if Dolby Vision wins out over HDR10. 

As others already pointed out, this is what we get for being early adopters.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

gwsat said:


> Clearly, if you read the link Sanjay posted, you didn't read it carefully enough. Here is a quote from the linked report:
> 
> 
> 
> If you will pardon some unsolicited advice, let me suggest that when you find yourself in a hole, it's a good idea to stop digging.



Hopefully that article is out dated. I would think there are more than 20 titles with DA. Otherwise DTS-X of which there are more than 250 available titles wins. 

Again, we're talking home usage where DA is a niche most likely due to cost and unrealistic hardware requirements like drilling holes in ones ceiling to install overhead speakers. Ain't gonna happen except for that 1%.


----------



## sdurani

Canuck Sonido said:


> Your claim included adoption in homes and that's what I take issue with.


For the first couple years of release, Dolby Digital was being supported in homes on only one delivery medium: laserdisc. DD wouldn't show up on DVD until 1997. By comparison, within the first couple years of home Atmos being released, it was on BD, UHD, streaming and even some games. Lack of home delivery media kept DD from being adopted as widely as Atmos. You're free to look up dates and sales stats, but you're not going to find DD titles on LD being adopted in greater numbers than Atmos titles on BD. Not the fault of the audio formats, just the reality of the delivery media (LD wasn't adopted to the extent that BD was). 

Meanwhile, you still haven't offered anything to support your "dead format" claim. ALL the evidence points in the opposite direction, as more media, more hardware, more content providers, etc., keep expanding support for Atmos. Growth is not a sign of death. Good luck convincing anyone otherwise.


----------



## chi_guy50

Canuck Sonido said:


> Again your reference refers to adoption in commercial theatres even if the website is called Residential System. Your claim included adoption in homes and that's what I take issue with. Unless you can back up your claim regarding home use from an independent source (or any source for that matter)...it's BS.


Given that Dolby Atmos and DTS:X processing is already available via such mundane mediums as HTIB, soundbar, and headphone/mobile platforms--and with its implementation by most of the major CE manufacturers in even their mid- to lower-tier AVR's--it's hard to see any reason why a large (and growing) percentage of A/V consumers would not have the technology available to them in their home. 



Canuck Sonido said:


> We'll have to see if Dolby Vision wins out over HDR10*+*.


Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

chi_guy50 said:


> Given that Dolby Atmos and DTS:X processing is already available via such mundane mediums as HTIB, soundbar, and headphone/mobile platforms--and with its implementation by most of the major CE manufacturers in even their mid- to lower-tier AVR's--it's hard to see any reason why a large (and growing) percentage of A/V consumers would not have the technology available to them in their home.


Most consumers aren't A/V enthusiasts in that sense of the word. Everyone I know owns a TV, but very few have DA or even know what it is. But hopefully that will change once more streaming services / devices like Netflix, Amazon, ATV and Android TV support it. I'm not buying an Xbox just so I can hear rain failing from my ceiling.




chi_guy50 said:


> Fixed that for ya.


Thanks.


----------



## T-Bone

As my mom used to say all the time, wish in one hand and spit in the other. See which one fills up faster.

We can wait for content to come to us in the delivery form that we want, or we can go out and get the content today in a form that is not our first choice.

If I sunk all of my money into my home theater system, only to not watch my content because I did not want to buy a $200 Xbox One S, then shame on me. There's another story on avsforum about a guy who had multiple thousands of dollars in his home theater system, and was complaining that a $40 HDMI cable did not work for 4K at a 40-foot length or something like that. When you have that kind of dough sunk in a system, you splurge on the fiber cable for a hundred and seventy bucks.

Same is true for Content. I personally don't wait for content to come to me. I get the highest form content that I can get. And for me that's Blu-ray and UHD. A third of my collection has Atmos in it.

And Netflix is not going to be able to match an average 40 megabit data on disc for 1080p and lossless audio.

-T


----------



## javan robinson

Canuck Sonido said:


> Hopefully that article is out dated. I would think there are more than 20 titles with DA. Otherwise DTS-X of which there are more than 250 available titles wins.
> 
> Again, we're talking home usage where DA is a niche most likely due to cost and unrealistic hardware requirements like drilling holes in ones ceiling to install overhead speakers. Ain't gonna happen except for that 1%.


Dude you're crazy. And wrong.

I'm poor-ish, and black. And I drilled holes in my ceiling for my 4 Canton 880 Dolby Atmos speakers.

Go back in your hole !

DA forever !! Lololol


----------



## Tweeter2002

gwsat said:


> I have always used "DSU," perhaps inaccurately, as an acronym for Digital Sound Upmixer. Anyway, I think you understood that the upmixer I used was the DTS Neural:X upmixer. I use the Dolby Surround upmixer too when Matrixing a native Dolby TrueHD 5/7.1 soundtrack to 7.2.4.


When you use Dolby Surround or dts Neural do you notice a major drop off of treble and detail? On my CX-A5100 I have a major dropped of in detail when using it.


----------



## jcp2

javan robinson said:


> Dude you're crazy. And wrong.
> 
> I'm poor-ish, and black. And I drilled holes in my ceiling for my 4 Canton 880 Dolby Atmos speakers.
> 
> Go back in your hole !
> 
> DA forever !! Lololol


As a Canadian, on behalf of Canada, Please don't think we all are of same mind as Canuck Sonido.   He/ she may live in the frigid part of Canada and his/ her brain may not have thawed out yet.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

T-Bone said:


> As my mom used to say all the time, wish in one hand and spit in the other. See which one fills up faster.
> 
> We can wait for content to come to us in the delivery form that we want, or we can go out and get the content today in a form that is not our first choice.
> 
> If I sunk all of my money into my home theater system, only to not watch my content because I did not want to buy a $200 Xbox One S, then shame on me. There's another story on avsforum about a guy who had multiple thousands of dollars in his home theater system, and was complaining that a $40 HDMI cable did not work for 4K at a 40-foot length or something like that. When you have that kind of dough sunk in a system, you splurge on the fiber cable for a hundred and seventy bucks.
> 
> Same is true for Content. I personally don't wait for content to come to me. I get the highest form content that I can get. And for me that's Blu-ray and UHD. A third of my collection has Atmos in it.
> 
> And Netflix is not going to be able to match an average 40 megabit data on disc for 1080p and lossless audio.
> 
> -T


It's 2018 (well it will be in a few hours in my part the world). I'm not going to let a lazy industry dictate how I spend my disposable income. I've bought some 4K UHD discs and love them especially the ones with DA. Being an audio enthusiast (the reason I'm on AVS) I invested in the hardware required to enjoy the content I like especially surround music. The average consumer doesn't give a rat's ass about DA and unless the industry figures out how to tap into that market it won't succeed and will remain the niche that it is today.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

jcp2 said:


> As a Canadian, on behalf of Canada, Please don't think we all are of same mind as Canuck Sonido.   He/ she may live in the frigid part of Canada and his/ her brain may not have thawed out yet.


DA is even less available in Kanada than elsewhere since we don't have access to Vudu or Hulu. Heck, i can't even get Amazon Prime on my new Sony X800 4K bluray player. :-(


----------



## Canuck Sonido

javan robinson said:


> Dude you're crazy. And wrong.
> 
> I'm poor-ish, and black. And I drilled holes in my ceiling for my 4 Canton 880 Dolby Atmos speakers.
> 
> Go back in your hole !
> 
> DA forever !! Lololol


I guess nobody in the hood told you about these:


----------



## biga6761

javan robinson said:


> Dude you're crazy. And wrong.
> 
> I'm poor-ish, and black. And I drilled holes in my ceiling for my 4 Canton 880 Dolby Atmos speakers.
> 
> Go back in your hole !
> 
> DA forever !! Lololol


Me too! I'm poor-ish, and white from east Tennessee and the only holes in my ceiling are from the screws in the Omnimounts that hold the bookshelves I chose for overheads. ATMOS FTWF!!!! That's Flood The WORLD Forever BTW! 
Bwhahahaha.

I adopted very early and started collecting the speakers and amps needed before the first AVR's were even on the market. I could tell just by reading about DA that it was a game changer (IT IS) and that I wanted it. With all the options for adding the height speakers cutting holes in the ceiling is IMHO totally not required but it does pay to if possible. 4 bookshelves on mounts sure works great for me and anyone else who has been in my room. 



Tweeter2002 said:


> When you use Dolby Surround or dts Neural do you notice a major drop off of treble and detail? On my CX-A5100 I have a major dropped of in detail when using it.


No drop in detail or treble from my Marantz. Prob more the opposite truth be told, if anything I get more detail and much better immersion in my new-ish 3000cuft. dedicated space. But also worked just as well in my living room just a few months back.


----------



## T-Bone

Canuck Sonido said:


> javan robinson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you're crazy. And wrong.
> 
> I'm poor-ish, and black. And I drilled holes in my ceiling for my 4 Canton 880 Dolby Atmos speakers.
> 
> Go back in your hole !
> 
> DA forever !! Lololol
> 
> 
> 
> I guess nobody in the hood told you about these:
> 
> [iurl="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2338098&stc=1&d=1514752531"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
Click to expand...

Lol.

But actually, that is the way the industry has grabbed a hold to promote Atmos. Atmos enabled speakers that you do not have to put in the ceiling.

It's all about trade-offs. I still knew people back in the day that used Bose cubes because they did not want something blocky looking in their family room... Like the god-awful unsightly Towers 

I'm sure the manufacturers are going to sell a bunch of those Atmos enabled speakers.

-T


----------



## Canuck Sonido

T-Bone said:


> Lol.
> 
> But actually, that is the way the industry has grabbed a hold to promote Atmos. Atmos enabled speakers that you do not have to put in the ceiling.
> 
> It's all about trade-offs. I still knew people back in the day that used Bose cubes because they did not want something blocky looking in their family room... Like the god-awful unsightly Towers


Hahaha!! The sales pitch at the local audio store; "You'll need towers to go wth those height speakers"



T-Bone said:


> I'm sure the manufacturers are going to sell a bunch of those Atmos enabled speakers.
> 
> -T


That's what I did since there is no way in hell that wife was going to let me to drill holes in our living room ceiling. I opted for the PSB XAs since the rest of my 5.1 set up are PSB. Love them.


----------



## biga6761

Canuck Sonido said:


> I guess nobody in the hood told you about these:
> 
> View attachment 2338098


I bet they did tell him but then he read almost every word written about DA that says those are the worst way to implement DA (though still better than to not) and to go with actual height speakers. Then chose to follow that very good advice.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

biga6761 said:


> I bet they did tell him but then he read almost every word written about DA that says those are the worst way to implement DA (though still better than to not) and to go with actual height speakers. Then chose to follow that very good advice.


Agreed, and another reason DA will remain a niche:


----------



## PioManiac

I moved to 4K HDCP 2.2 HDMI 2.0 just about 2 years ago primarily to get more ATMOS content,
There were just too many 4K/UHD exclusives I would have missed out on if I would have stayed with 1080p bluray.

I started with the AVR, since I already enough speakers to do 7.4.6 
a short time later added a 4K JVC projector and Panasonic UB900.

Black Friday 2016 I added a 65" OLED,
I really liked the Netflix built in app on the OLED with DV titles, 
so when it hit 4K/UHD's I had to have that too, and added an Oppo 203.

I've got over 120 UHD's with ATMOS/DTS:X and about 30 of those with DV.
I recently added 3D to my JVC and started buying a lot of 3D movies now too,
a few had to be imported from the UK but SO worth it...about 40 3D's in my collection so far.

I have Netflix ATMOS access through my XBO and was totally impressed! 
Dark and The Punisher series were done really well, and there's 4 or 5 other titles that were good too.
So I'm probably going to upgrade my XBO to an S or X model (for 4K) soon if Netflix keeps expanding their ATMOS library.

Because I buy a lot of my hard disc media from amazon,
I signed up for amazon prime that also got me access to Amazon Prime Video through my LG OLED.

LOVE The Grand Tour in 4K HDR!!









BTW ...I'm in Canada


----------



## Canuck Sonido

PioManiac said:


> LOVE The Grand Tour in 4K HDR!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW ...I'm in Canada


Yeah Grand Tour is awesome. Looking forward to next series.


----------



## Jonas2

Canuck Sonido said:


> Agreed, and another reason DA will remain a niche:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2338112


Maybe, but that tool is awesome by the way. Worth every penny. Well, almost. It's a bit over-priced for what you get, but the quality is good and it makes a damn fine clean hole! 

Fortunately, wife and landlord didn't care about holes in ceiling (so long as I make it good when we leave the place....). You hardly even notice the speakers are there, and when you do, it's awesome.  Gives me a sense of accomplishment. 

We'll see if Atmos remains niche or not; sure a lot of folks may not opt for drilling holes in their ceilings for one reason or another, but they don't know what they are missing....


----------



## gwsat

Tweeter2002 said:


> When you use Dolby Surround or dts Neural do you notice a major drop off of treble and detail? On my CX-A5100 I have a major dropped of in detail when using it.


No. I have found that both Dolby Surround and Neural:X add a lot to non immersive soundtracks that have good sound design. Have not noticed any drop off of treble or any loss of detail. Of course, if the quality of the native 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack isn't good, neither upmixer does much good


----------



## PioManiac

Canuck Sonido said:


> Yeah Grand Tour is awesome. Looking forward to next series.


Season 2 started 4 weeks ago, new episode comes out every Friday 

Just watching the McLaren 720S from S2 E4 right now


----------



## Canuck Sonido

PioManiac said:


> Season 2 started 4 weeks ago, new episode comes out every Friday
> 
> Just watching the McLaren 720S from S2 E4 right now


I only watched S1 and S2 (3 episodes). Just checked Prime and the 4th episode is there. Thanks for the info I did not know they came out every Friday.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

Jonas2 said:


> Maybe, but that tool is awesome by the way. Worth every penny. Well, almost. It's a bit over-priced for what you get, but the quality is good and it makes a damn fine clean hole!
> 
> Fortunately, wife and landlord didn't care about holes in ceiling (so long as I make it good when we leave the place....). You hardly even notice the speakers are there, and when you do, it's awesome.  Gives me a sense of accomplishment.
> 
> We'll see if Atmos remains niche or not; sure a lot of folks may not opt for drilling holes in their ceilings for one reason or another, but they don't know what they are missing....


DA is very cool. Even with my lowly up firing height speakers I find it adds to the listening experience. Glad to see bands are releasing music with DA. If you're into it, check out the new INXS KICK:


----------



## jjackkrash

DJ Lushious said:


> How important is it to get aimable tweeters for in-ceiling speakers for an ATMOS system? My speakers are all Infinty and Crutchfield has these for a killer price. However, it doesn't appear that they have aimable tweeters.
> 
> I hope I am asking this in the right thread.


I have aimable tweeters in my Canton 880's I use for surrounds and overheads. I did not aim them at first and the results seemed good, however, once I aimed them I got a much smoother (less eq applied) result out of Audyssey. Subjectively, I think it sounds better now, but that is an unscientific non-A/B/X assessment.


----------



## PioManiac

No holes in my ceiling...I don't even have one 
(unfinished exposed TJI floor joists )

I used Bookshelf Speakers on swivel mounts that match the rest of my surround speakers,
Turned and Tilted all four so they are aimed at the MLP, the same way I have all my other speakers toed in.























































The spare pair of bookshelf speakers sitting on the floor standers
will go top center aimed down when the next gen 7.1.6 AVR arrives.


----------



## javan robinson

Canuck Sonido said:


> I guess nobody in the hood told you about these:
> 
> View attachment 2338098


Hey yeah those are the (usually) crappy DA upfiring speakers. As a fellow audio enthusiast, I do know about these as well.

Oh, and thanks for assuming that I'm from the hood I guess poor-ish+black would equal that.

Stupid ass.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

javan robinson said:


> Hey yeah those are the (usually) crappy DA upfiring speakers. As a fellow audio enthusiast, I do know about these as well.
> 
> Oh, and thanks for assuming that I'm from the hood I guess poor-ish+black would equal that.
> 
> Stupid ass.


Actually the XAs are pretty decent. An option for people who can't do the ceiling speaker thing.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

PioManiac said:


> No holes in my ceiling...I don't even have one
> 
> I used Bookshelf Speakers on swivel mounts that match the rest of my surround speakers,
> Turned and Tilted all four so they are aimed at the MLP, the same way I have all my other speakers toed in.


Nice Tele. What year?


----------



## PioManiac

Canuck Sonido said:


> Nice Tele. What year?


I'd like to say it's a 52' 
...but it's actually 2012 re-issue.


----------



## sdrucker

Canuck Sonido said:


> Actually the XAs are pretty decent. An option for people who can't do the ceiling speaker thing.


Agreed. With the guided waveguide built into the grill, and a design that emphasizes the elevation angle measured in the Canadian NRC, you get some nice simulation of height effects from the "bounce" off of the ceiling. As long as you have a flat ceiling they'll work well.

I used to have two pairs of them in my room before I wound up getting the PSB CS1000s to be my heights. Clearly these physical speakers are superior for getting precision effects above you to the Dolby enabled ones, but they're also aimable toward MLP thanks to a very flexible ceiling mounting capability.

As to music, I'm a big fan of the REM Automatic for the People that was mixed in Atmos. The more speakers you can render to, the more you get a sense of what multi-track recording really means.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

PioManiac said:


> I'd like to say it's a 52'
> ...but it's actually 2012 re-issue.


Haha! Very nice. I can only dream of owning a 52. I have 2004 American Ash Tele that is my goto guitar. Are you a Fender amp person as well? I collect vintage Fenders. Just picked up a mid 60s tweed is somewhat rough condition but I'll restore it.


----------



## Canuck Sonido

sdrucker said:


> Agreed. With the guided waveguide built into the grill, and a design that emphasizes the elevation angle measured in the Canadian NRC, you get some nice simulation of height effects from the "bounce" off of the ceiling. As long as you have a flat ceiling they'll work well.
> 
> I used to have two pairs of them in my room before I wound up getting the PSB CS1000s to be my heights. Clearly these physical speakers are superior for getting precision effects above you to the Dolby enabled ones, but they're also aimable toward MLP thanks to a very flexible ceiling mounting capability.
> 
> As to music, I'm a big fan of the REM Automatic for the People that was mixed in Atmos. The more speakers you can render to, the more you get a sense of what multi-track recording really means.


Nice. the reviews of the CS1000s are great. 

I love my PSBs. Would like to add a 2nd set of XAs but my AVR (Sony DN1080) only supports 5.2.2. :-(

I've heard good things about REM's AFTP in DA. I'll most likely pick it up if I can find for a reasonable cost.


----------



## Tweeter2002

gwsat said:


> No. I have found that both Dolby Surround and Neural:X add a lot to non immersive soundtracks that have good sound design. Have not noticed any drop off of treble or any loss of detail. Of course, if the quality of the native 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack isn't good, neither upmixer does much good


I notice a complete drop off of volume overall, especially with the center channel and dialog. I have to plead ignorance here, I get using the YPAO can be beneficial, but with both being equal, meaning settings are identical for say dts:neural and Dolby Digital standard mode. What I am hearing is a much more detailed sound stage compared to a much flatter response with Dolby Surround / dts: Neural.


----------



## muzz

My word, how many times can folks explain why Atmos is NOT a dead format?


----------



## snpanago

4 flush mounted ceiling speakers were (nearly) ridiculously easy to install and they blend into the home drywall ceiling nicely. Now getting the wires to the AVR hub is another story. Nevertheless, I’m blown away daily by Atmos/DTS:X/DSU/Neural:X surround sound from most program sources in my home theater. IMO, it is worth every bit of effort and can be within reach budget wise, if you can afford an AVR that is Atmos capable and can power at least 9 channels.


----------



## PioManiac

Molon_Labe said:


> Is the glare off of those subs distracting during a movie?


Never from the TV when I usually have a few lamps on, and certainly not from the center seat sweet spot, 
...and if it did bother me, it's nothing a small piece of velvet can't fix for when I drop the big screen 




















With scope movies (80% of my collection) I just raise the bottom of the screen ~9" and reflections are a non issue ...


----------



## Jonas2

snpanago said:


> 4 flush mounted ceiling speakers were (nearly) ridiculously easy to install and they blend into the home drywall ceiling nicely. Now getting the wires to the AVR hub is another story.


They were very easy to install in my case, but it would have been more of a challenge had I not had access to what was up above. Fortunately, I do have access to the "attic" so I was able to scope things out in detail and REALLY customize the location to achieve the best compromise of aesthetics and Dolby specs. The wiring was indeed more challenging, but even then, not too bad. The worst part for me was that the stud bays within the wall behind my AV gear where I had to drop the wires had been jam-packed with all of the waste sheet rock (apparently a common thing to do when this house was built, cheaper than hauling it to the dump!). It took me and a buddy around 3 hours to just break up the damn sheet rock and pull it all out of a pretty darned, small hole that we had cut for the interconnect face plate. 

I know the prospect of doing this is ominous for a lot of folks, but I seriously encourage people to at least look into it and prove to themselves that it CAN'T be done for some physical reason, or maybe a home-owner's rule, etc., before dismissing it entirely.


----------



## snpanago

Jonas2 said:


> I know the prospect of doing this is ominous for a lot of folks, but I seriously encourage people to at least look into it and prove to themselves that it CAN'T be done for some physical reason, or maybe a home-owner's rule, etc., before dismissing it entirely.


Ah, yes. The studs. But I can't agree with you more. Challenging, yes but not impossible, and oh so satisfying. You only need to do this once if you are in your home for a while.


----------



## DJ Lushious

jjackkrash said:


> I have aimable tweeters in my Canton 880's I use for surrounds and overheads. I did not aim them at first and the results seemed good, however, once I aimed them I got a much smoother (less eq applied) result out of Audyssey. Subjectively, I think it sounds better now, but that is an unscientific non-A/B/X assessment.





Jonas2 said:


> I think they help a bit; I have aimable ones, and I think it sounds just a bit better aimed at the listeners as opposed to just straight down. May or may not be a benefit depending on the dispersion characteristics of the speaker and your ability to place them within those Dolby specs., but it's a nice option to have, but I wouldn't let not having them ruin my day.





jcp2 said:


> I think it's quite important to be able to point the tweeters at MLP (especially if you have a wide room) I noticed a big difference when I aimed my tweeters after I researched. My room is 16' feet wide. Aiming them had a great effect on my enjoyment and experiences with Atmos and DSU movies. I think general consensus here at AVS to use tweeter aimable in ceiling speakers. Hope this helps.


Thanks for all of the replies and the helpful advice. I figured aimable tweeters was absolutely the way to go, but I was holding out hope, so I can fit within my budget.  

I was about ready to jump on Polk ceiling speakers, when I somehow managed upon these Russound speakers Best Buy is selling for *a pair* at $89.99.  Best Buy doesn't say so, but Russound's website say they have a "pivoting tweeter." Score!

I had read, either here or in another thread, timbre-matching isn't so important on the Atmos speakers, due to they're being "atmospheric."

Now to start planning placement and how I'm going to install these speakers!


----------



## jcp2

DJ Lushious said:


> Thanks for all of the replies and the helpful advice. I figured aimable tweeters was absolutely the way to go, but I was holding out hope, so I can fit within my budget.
> 
> I was about ready to jump on Polk ceiling speakers, when I somehow managed upon these Russound speakers Best Buy is selling for *a pair* at $89.99.  Best Buy doesn't say so, but Russound's website say they have a "pivoting tweeter." Score!
> 
> I had read, either here or in another thread, timbre-matching isn't so important on the Atmos speakers, due to they're being "atmospheric."
> 
> Now to start planning placement and how I'm going to install these speakers!


Good luck and welcome to the club. My ceiling speakers are not timbre matched to my bed channels and still blend great with Audyssey XT32.  Don't forget to check out the Dolby Atmos Install guide here : https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Jonas2

DJ Lushious said:


> I had read, either here or in another thread, timbre-matching isn't so important on the Atmos speakers, due to they're being "atmospheric."
> 
> Now to start planning placement and how I'm going to install these speakers!


Generally, yes, that's true - HOWEVER - even Dolby recommends timbre-matching for the heights, or at least speakers with similar characteristics to your base layer speakers. It really depends on the content of course, some content does not use them so much and I would agree with the "atmospheric" thing, but other content uses them more heavily. Good example is Game of Thrones with the Atmos track - the music plays VERY prominently into the height channels, so it's nice to have well-blended speakers. Or if you are into multi-channel music and upmixing into the heights (which I really like actually....).

Not the end of the world, but the more closely matched, the more enhanced the experience IMHO......


----------



## unretarded

I am raising my shields for the backlash that might happen.......


I am going to go ahead say I believe in ceilings are also a compromise.......aimable tweeters/mids made a big difference, but in ceilings are no different than in walls that are frowned upon.


----------



## T-Bone

unretarded said:


> I am raising my shields for the backlash that might happen.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to go ahead say I believe in ceilings are also a compromise.......aimable tweeters/mids made a big difference, but in ceilings are no different than in walls that are frowned upon.


I thought in wall and in-ceiling speakers were a compromise only for the bed Channels back in the day when there was no Atmos.

So for Atmos, if Dolby enabled speakers are frowned upon, and in-ceiling speakers are frowned upon, then what's left? I guess on wall speakers that are mounted on the ceiling. Well maybe like something Ascend makes the HTM 200 which is a sealed speaker and that could be ceiling mounted.

-T


----------



## jcp2

unretarded said:


> I am raising my shields for the backlash that might happen.......
> 
> 
> I am going to go ahead say I believe in ceilings are also a compromise.......aimable tweeters/mids made a big difference, but in ceilings are no different than in walls that are frowned upon.


in-ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters for Atmos are touted as the best for Top F/R. The reason that a lot of people use on ceiling or heights near ceiling is that in-ceiling speakers are not feasible or people don't feel capable to install them themselves.


----------



## unretarded

While not a perfect illustration, it shows the problem with non amiable tweeter/mid ceiling speakers.........which is made worse by lower ceilings found in most situations.











Like Atmos enabled, it takes a very specific set of criteria to make in ceilings as good as on ceilings.....


While lower frequencies are more omnidirectional and the amiable drivers help quite a bit, it still has to be less than perfect due to the nature of sound and orientation limits of the in ceiling design.


There is also the off axis response that is critical to speaker performance and there is a bunch of off axis happening with in ceilings.


Not in any way saying they will sound horrible and are not very good, just saying they are less than ideal and are a compromise for the sake of décor.


Also this gets compounded in .4, 2 rows of seating set ups as there becomes a huge area of off axis listening positions........ especially with lower ceilings that are the norm.


On ceiling speakers will allow a installation orientation that will put the on axis response across the maximum area of listening positions.


----------



## markmanner

*Height Speakers better than nothing?*

Hello, I currently have a 5.1 setup (see equipment description below), in a room (pic attached) that I would prefer not adding ceiling speakers. Using upward firing speakers to bounce off the ceiling may be hard, given no place to easily put them and the fact the ceiling is not smooth. I can put 2 speakers up high in the front of the room pointed at the listening position. I suppose these would be called 'height' speakers. Would doing that be better than what I have now, or would I be wasting my time if I can't do the ceilings/front reflection speakers? I have read the Dolby Atmos pdf and I note it says front height speakers aren't ideal. However, not ideal vs. real world experience may be different and I will appreciate your advice.
Best regards and Happy New Year.

Mark


----------



## snpanago

markmanner said:


> Hello, I currently have a 5.1 setup (see equipment description below), in a room (pic attached) that I would prefer not adding ceiling speakers. Using upward firing speakers to bounce off the ceiling may be hard, given no place to easily put them and the fact the ceiling is not smooth. I can put 2 speakers up high in the front of the room pointed at the listening position. I suppose these would be called 'height' speakers. Would doing that be better than what I have now, or would I be wasting my time if I can't do the ceilings/front reflection speakers? I have read the Dolby Atmos pdf and I note it says front height speakers aren't ideal. However, not ideal vs. real world experience may be different and I will appreciate your advice.
> Best regards and Happy New Year.
> Best
> Mark


As a huge proponent of in-ceiling or on-ceiling Atmos speakers, I looked at your room, base layer speakers, ceiling, and location of your A/V cabinet nerve center, while looking for placement options. Personally, I wouldn’t think the compromises you would make to avoid ceiling Atmos speaker placement are going to be worth it. I haven’t experienced Dolby enabled floor speakers to weigh in on this. 

I did the difficult (difficult only because I needed a drywall repair subcontractor and a handy woodworker to get the wires through studs) in-ceiling 4 overhead speaker Atmos upgrade in my own home. It was worth every effort and expense to experience 3D surround formats and their respective upmixers, DSU and Neural:X. I went to this trouble because, as far as I know, this is my final home and life is short. Good luck


----------



## markmanner

snpanago said:


> As a huge proponent of in-ceiling or on-ceiling Atmos speakers, I looked at your room, base layer speakers, ceiling, and location of your A/V cabinet nerve center, while looking for placement options. Personally, I wouldn’t think the compromises you would make to avoid ceiling Atmos speaker placement are going to be worth it. I haven’t experienced Dolby enabled floor speakers to weigh in on this.
> 
> I did the difficult (difficult only because I needed a drywall repair subcontractor and a handy woodworker to get the wires through studs) in-ceiling 4 overhead speaker Atmos upgrade in my own home. It was worth every effort and expense to experience 3D surround formats and their respective upmixers, DSU and Neural:X. I went to this trouble because, as far as I know, this is my final home and life is short. Good luck


Thanks for taking a look at this, I appreciate it.


----------



## chi_guy50

unretarded said:


> I am raising my shields for the backlash that might happen.......
> 
> 
> I am going to go ahead say I believe in ceilings are also a compromise.......aimable tweeters/mids made a big difference, but in ceilings are no different than in walls that are frowned upon.


In-ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters are no more a compromise per se than on-ceiling speakers, which by definition will lower the mounted elevation and thus decrease the vertical separation with the listener-level speakers.



jcp2 said:


> in-ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters for Atmos are touted as the best for Top F/R. The reason that a lot of people use on ceiling or heights near ceiling is that in-ceiling speakers are not feasible or people don't feel capable to install them themselves.


Precisely.


----------



## Jonas2

unretarded said:


> I am raising my shields for the backlash that might happen.......
> 
> I am going to go ahead say I believe in ceilings are also a compromise.......aimable tweeters/mids made a big difference, but in ceilings are no different than in walls that are frowned upon.


Are those shields holding?? 



T-Bone said:


> I thought in wall and in-ceiling speakers were a compromise only for the bed Channels back in the day when there was no Atmos.
> 
> So for Atmos, if Dolby enabled speakers are frowned upon, and in-ceiling speakers are frowned upon, then what's left? I guess on wall speakers that are mounted on the ceiling. Well maybe like something Ascend makes the HTM 200 which is a sealed speaker and that could be ceiling mounted.


I think it's a misconception that architectural speakers are not good, or as good. I think it REALLY depends on the circumstances. Architectural, especially in-walls have advantages over free-standing speakers like towers. There are really a lot of GOOD in-wall speakers that deliver fantastic sound. The real downsides more than sound quality is their semi-permanence / little ability to experiment with moving around, toe-in, etc., so the install needs to be pretty darn close to perfection to maximize their performance. I wouldn't call the right, high-quality speaker in the proper install a compromise. Sure, you can get crappy architectural speakers quite easily, but that can be said of any speaker.....



jcp2 said:


> in-ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters for Atmos are touted as the best for Top F/R. The reason that a lot of people use on ceiling or heights near ceiling is that in-ceiling speakers are not feasible or people don't feel capable to install them themselves.


YES. I will take in-ceilings in an 8' ceiling any day of the week over on-ceilings. There are plenty of good in-ceilings that have good dispersion characteristics. I'm very pleased with how my arrangement turned out. Could it sound better? Probably. Could it sounds worse? EASILY......


----------



## gwsat

Jonas2 said:


> YES. I will take in-ceilings in an 8' ceiling any day of the week over on-ceilings. There are plenty of good in-ceilings that have good dispersion characteristics. I'm very pleased with how my arrangement turned out. Could it sound better? Probably. Could it sounds worse? EASILY......


Yeah, my overhead speakers are installed in a 10 feet high ceiling. That's high enough to insure a nice wide dispersion, despite my overhead speakers having fixed tweeters. I have really liked how they have worked.


----------



## EdQ

markmanner said:


> Hello, I currently have a 5.1 setup (see equipment description below), in a room (pic attached) that I would prefer not adding ceiling speakers. Using upward firing speakers to bounce off the ceiling may be hard, given no place to easily put them and the fact the ceiling is not smooth. I can put 2 speakers up high in the front of the room pointed at the listening position. I suppose these would be called 'height' speakers. Would doing that be better than what I have now, or would I be wasting my time if I can't do the ceilings/front reflection speakers? I have read the Dolby Atmos pdf and I note it says front height speakers aren't ideal. However, not ideal vs. real world experience may be different and I will appreciate your advice.
> Best regards and Happy New Year.
> 
> Mark


Yes height speakers will work for Atmos. My room is 25 x 25 with vaulted ceilings. So there is no way other than using Height speakers. 
Even thought its not ideal, I get sounds around me. The first time I play the rain demo, I really thought it was coming from above.


----------



## markmanner

EdQ said:


> Yes height speakers will work for Atmos. My room is 25 x 25 with vaulted ceilings. So there is no way other than using Height speakers.
> Even thought its not ideal, I get sounds around me. The first time I play the rain demo, I really thought it was coming from above.


Hi, What are you using for your front height speakers, and how high up are they, and where in relation to your main L/R speakers? Thanks for the help,
Mark


----------



## EdQ

markmanner said:


> Hi, What are you using for your front height speakers, and how high up are they, and where in relation to your main L/R speakers? Thanks for the help,
> Mark


I am using 4 Polk S15 bookshelf speakers. The are inline with the Front speakers about 8 ft. above them.


----------



## Jeigh07

rontalley said:


> I might give this a go as I have a ProTools HD setup. Found what plug-ins I need here. I am not much on graphics but I am sure I can take screenshots or something of the positions and piece them together...or someone could help with the graphics?
> 
> http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...uction-to-working-in-dolbys-immersive-fo.html





pasender91 said:


> That's a grand idea .
> I don't have the toolset but i have ideas for the content
> 
> So below is my dream disc content, i'll be happy to participate to such a project but can't see other roles for me than Project Manager (that's my job) or Beta-Tester.
> 
> For the different Atmos audio tests, i would imagine the following tracks (all positions as (x,y,z)):
> 
> **** Single object
> 1) static positions, high up (1.0), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1) (1,-1,1) (-1,0,1) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (-1,1,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,1)
> 2) static positions, middle-high(0.5), 10 seconds in each: (-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5) (0,0,0.5) (1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5) (0,1,0.5) (1,1,0.5)
> 3) lateral high pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,1)=>(1,-1,1)=>(-1,-1,1) (-1,0,1)=>(1,0,1)=>(-1,0,1) (-1,1,1)=>(1,1,1)=>(-1,1,1)
> 4) lateral middle-high (0.5) pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,0.5)=>(1,-1,0.5)=>(-1,-1,0.5) (-1,0,0.5)=>(1,0,0.5)=>(-1,0,0.5) (-1,1,0.5)=>(1,1,0.5)=>(-1,1,0.5)
> 5) front-back high pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,1)=>(-1,1,1)=>(-1,-1,1) (0,-1,1)=>(0,1,1)=>(0,-1,1) (1,-1,1)=>(1,1,1)=>(1,-1,1)
> 6) front-back middle_high (0.5) pans, 10 seconds each: (-1,-1,0.5)=>(-1,1,0.5)=>(-1,-1,0.5) (0,-1,0.5)=>(0,1,0.5)=>(0,-1,0.5) (1,-1,0.5)=>(1,1,0.5)=>(1,-1,0.5)
> 7) Fly around high up (1.0): the object going around the reference in a circle
> 8) Fly around middle-high (0.5): the object going around the reference in a circle
> 9) Fly around low (0): the object going around the reference in a circle
> 
> **** Multiple objects
> Same as above but combining the objects of the previous tracks as 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, and finally 7&8&9.
> 
> All tracks would use a basic sound pattern repeating over, a 5 second sound of birds for example, or pink noise.
> 
> For video, if possible i believe the tracks should show the Dolby Atmos Monitor Application, this would show the object moving around and the signal level in standardized positions. Plan B would only be a static image explaining and showing the track content (i can help with that part).



Was this track of Atmos Test Patterns ever created? 
This is a conversation on a possible project between FilmMixer, BigScreen, Rontalley, Pasender91, and DanHitcham on Page 1000 on this thread


----------



## RxpSGR

Waboman said:


> Did Microsoft pay NF for exclusive Atmos streaming? You'd think the Roku's and ATVS's would want this feature too.


I contacted Netflix but did not help too much, but by letting them know, maybe changes in their service if enough people request it. Loving my 7.1.4 Atmos and would like Netflix to begin carrying it. If not, may be looking for an inexpensive xbox.


----------



## mbergh22

I just ordered the ELAC A4s to finish my 5.1.2 setup fornmy bedroom hime theater. I have the denon s710w and been wanting to do this for awhile.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


----------



## javan robinson

mbergh22 said:


> I just ordered the ELAC A4s to finish my 5.1.2 setup fornmy bedroom hime theater. I have the denon s710w and been wanting to do this for awhile.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Congrats! Welcome to the team!


----------



## Canuck Sonido

markmanner said:


> Hello, I currently have a 5.1 setup (see equipment description below), in a room (pic attached) that I would prefer not adding ceiling speakers. Using upward firing speakers to bounce off the ceiling may be hard, given no place to easily put them and the fact the ceiling is not smooth. I can put 2 speakers up high in the front of the room pointed at the listening position. I suppose these would be called 'height' speakers. Would doing that be better than what I have now, or would I be wasting my time if I can't do the ceilings/front reflection speakers? I have read the Dolby Atmos pdf and I note it says front height speakers aren't ideal. However, not ideal vs. real world experience may be different and I will appreciate your advice.
> Best regards and Happy New Year.
> 
> Mark


Wow very nice room and set up markmanner. I imagine the McIntosh and Wilsons are a great match.


----------



## pasender91

Jeigh07 said:


> Was this track of Atmos Test Patterns ever created?
> This is a conversation on a possible project between FilmMixer, BigScreen, Rontalley, Pasender91, and DanHitcham on Page 1000 on this thread


I'm afraid this initiative remained only at the "dream" stage, it never solidified


----------



## Jeigh07

pasender91 said:


> I'm afraid this initiative remained only at the "dream" stage, it never solidified


I think it might be more feasable at this point. Both Avid Pro Tools and Dolby Atmos Production Sweet are available for a 30 Day Trial. It seems to me that and a powerful computer + Atmos Enabled room is all one should need to make something. I can take a crack at it. Although, I have no experiencing mixing sounds, Google.com has all the experience I shall need. I have no clue how long it will take. 

If someone is knowledgeable on what software and hardware it actually takes to make an Atmos Mix with pink noise panning on the top speakers please comment. 

Pro- Tools

Atmos Production Sweet


----------



## Ted99

RxpSGR said:


> I contacted Netflix but did not help too much, but by letting them know, maybe changes in their service if enough people request it. Loving my 7.1.4 Atmos and would like Netflix to begin carrying it. If not, may be looking for an inexpensive xbox.


How does one contact Netflix?


----------



## unretarded

Ted99 said:


> How does one contact Netflix?


Goto Netflix.com....live chat....email...customer service.


I have contacted them several times about Atmos and was rather blunt.


The nicely state the options for receiving and point towards their help page and each time they do, I simply answer with...Yeah, but it only shows it works on ONE TV and a childs toy......


What about the millions of people who do not have this,.....sir the information can be found in the list of supported devices,......my reply again......you mean the ONE TV and the childs toy......


Stay on em....email....call....chat.......windows is all set to decode as are everyones recievers.........to put it mildly, they are slacking !


----------



## markmanner

Canuck Sonido said:


> Wow very nice room and set up markmanner. I imagine the McIntosh and Wilsons are a great match.


Hi, thanks for the comment. They work well together, for 2 channel music and surround (even though only 5.1). It sounds so good that I wonder whether adding the ATMOS ceiling/front speakers will really help.


----------



## citsur86

Will setting my amp assignment in my AVR with surround backs, but placing the surround backs at the rear height position completely destroy the atmos sound bubble? I've had it this way for a while, and it sounds good to me, but just wondering if I am perhaps not getting the best sound I could. I have front heights, top rears, and rear heights, but since my SR-6011 AVR can only do 4 height channels, the rear heights are assigned to the AVR as surround backs. Thanks!


----------



## TIll16

I'm getting ready to jump on the home theater train, but I'm having a hard time deciding on how I should set it up.

The room is about 18' deep by 40' wide, but most of that width isn't going to be related to the setup (e.g. future bar). The room is finished, but there are 4 speaker wire runs behind the ceiling drywall. I just need to figure out where the in-ceiling speakers will go. Based on the layout of the room all the speakers other than the LCR and sub will be in-ceiling. I'm going to need to go 5.1.x because there's HVAC in the way of any side surrounds.

So I guess the real question for this thread is what exactly is the right location for mid height speakers? The Dolby guide shows them slightly behind the MLP, but that would put them pretty close to the rear surrounds (which I could put about 3'-4' behind the MLP). Alternatively, the Denon setup guide has them approximately above the MLP. If I went 5.1.4 (or allowed for it in the future) I would probably add the R-14SAs on my existing R-280Fs.

Finally, I picked up a pair of 8" Monoprice Alpha in-ceiling speakers for the rear surrounds. Would I want to go with the same size for the height speakers or would it be a better idea to go with the matching 6.5"?

Really curious to see what your thoughts are on this.


----------



## jcp2

TIll16 said:


> I'm getting ready to jump on the home theater train, but I'm having a hard time deciding on how I should set it up.
> 
> The room is about 18' deep by 40' wide, but most of that width isn't going to be related to the setup (e.g. future bar). The room is finished, but there are 4 speaker wire runs behind the ceiling drywall. I just need to figure out where the in-ceiling speakers will go. Based on the layout of the room all the speakers other than the LCR and sub will be in-ceiling. I'm going to need to go 5.1.x because there's HVAC in the way of any side surrounds.
> 
> So I guess the real question for this thread is what exactly is the right location for mid height speakers? The Dolby guide shows them slightly behind the MLP, but that would put them pretty close to the rear surrounds (which I could put about 3'-4' behind the MLP). Alternatively, the Denon setup guide has them approximately above the MLP. If I went 5.1.4 (or allowed for it in the future) I would probably add the R-14SAs on my existing R-280Fs.
> 
> Finally, I picked up a pair of 8" Monoprice Alpha in-ceiling speakers for the rear surrounds. Would I want to go with the same size for the height speakers or would it be a better idea to go with the matching 6.5"?
> 
> Really curious to see what your thoughts are on this.


If your Side/ Rear surround channels for your 5.1.4 are in-ceiling, there's no point in trying to do Atmos. There needs to be at least 4' height difference from the bed (5.1 / 7.1) speakers and the height (Atmos / DTS:X) speakers. When you have side/rear surrounds in close height proximity to the top height speakers, the sounds will be muddled together with no separation.


----------



## chi_guy50

citsur86 said:


> *Will setting my amp assignment in my AVR with surround backs, but placing the surround backs at the rear height position completely destroy the atmos sound bubble?* I've had it this way for a while, and it sounds good to me, but just wondering if I am perhaps not getting the best sound I could. I have front heights, top rears, and rear heights, but since my SR-6011 AVR can only do 4 height channels, the rear heights are assigned to the AVR as surround backs. Thanks!


Completely destroy? Definitely not!

How much the sound bubble is negatively impacted will depend on the positioning of the SB in relation to the top-level speakers. Are they on the same horizontal plane? If so, that is certainly not desirable. OTOH, SB speakers are frequently placed higher in elevation than the rest of the surrounds (as are mine) in order to have a clear line of sight to the listeners' ears over chair backs or raised rear row seating.*

But if, as you say, it sounds good to you, then what's to worry?

BTW, there is no AVR currently on the market that can process more than four height channels (only a few hyper-expensive boutique SSP's offer this capability). In the next few months D+M will debut two flagship models that will do 7.1.6, but even then it remains to be seen whether you could run FH + TR + RH as current AVR processors do not allow for assignment of contiguous pairs (i.e., only FH + TM + RH would be feasible).

*ETA: Ideally (according to Dolby Laboratories) the rear speakers should not be more that 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.


----------



## TIll16

jcp2 said:


> If your Side/ Rear surround channels for your 5.1.4 are in-ceiling, there's no point in trying to do Atmos. There needs to be at least 4' height difference from the bed (5.1 / 7.1) speakers and the height (Atmos / DTS:X) speakers. When you have side/rear surrounds in close height proximity to the top height speakers, the sounds will be muddled together with no separation.


That's disappointing to hear... How about a 5.1.2 using just up-firing front height speakers? I would think they would have a differentiation since they would be several feet apart. Then I could downgrade from the Denon x4300 I was planning on to the x3300.


----------



## Jonas2

TIll16 said:


> That's disappointing to hear... How about a 5.1.2 using just up-firing front height speakers? I would think they would have a differentiation since they would be several feet apart. Then I could downgrade from the Denon x4300 I was planning on to the x3300.


The upfiring types seem to yield quite mixed results - from good to not good at all - it's the least preferred method, but better than zero. Maybe. I highly recommend becoming familiar with the Dolby documentation on Atmos before you make any decisions:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Is there NO way you can get the surround speakers down to ear-ish level, either on-wall, in-wall, on-stand type application?


----------



## jcp2

TIll16 said:


> That's disappointing to hear... How about a 5.1.2 using just up-firing front height speakers? I would think they would have a differentiation since they would be several feet apart. Then I could downgrade from the Denon x4300 I was planning on to the x3300.


Ideally, The only speakers that should be in/on ceiling are the ones used for Atmos. IE.. Top Front/ Top Middle / Top Rear. Side or Rear surrounds should be @ 36" - 42" off the floor. You should think about running a 3.1.2 or 3.1.4 system. The up firing Atmos add-on modules are fine, provided that you have no in-ceiling speakers used as Side/Rear back surrounds. If you have wires run already, use the speakers already assigned as rear surrounds and reassign them as Top Rear. Don't use them as rear surrounds. You could add two more in-ceiling speakers and place them in front of MLP or if not possible, right above MLP and set them as Top Front or Top middle. As per the Dolby guidelines.


----------



## TIll16

jcp2 said:


> Ideally, The only speakers that should be in/on ceiling are the ones used for Atmos. IE.. Top Front/ Top Middle / Top Rear. Side or Rear surrounds should be @ 36" - 42" off the floor. You should think about running a 3.1.2 or 3.1.4 system. The up firing Atmos add-on modules are fine, provided that you have no in-ceiling speakers used as Side/Rear back surrounds. If you have wires run already, use the speakers already assigned as rear surrounds and reassign them as Top Rear. Don't use them as rear surrounds. You could add two more in-ceiling speakers and place them in front of MLP or if not possible, right above MLP and set them as Top Front or Top middle. As per the Dolby guidelines.


3.1.4 is intriguing for my situation. How do most AVR's handle not having surrounds? Would a 7-channel AVR like the Denon x3300 be able to handle 3.1.4? I know it has the inputs for 7 speakers, but can you map where each speaker is to specify that the ones plugged in the surrounds are actually heights? Also, is there some kind of translation for non-Atmos content to use the height speakers for surround content in any way or would they be useless for other 5.1/7.1 content?

Thanks again for everyone's input!


----------



## jcp2

TIll16 said:


> 3.1.4 is intriguing for my situation. How do most AVR's handle not having surrounds? Would a 7-channel AVR like the Denon x3300 be able to handle 3.1.4? I know it has the inputs for 7 speakers, but can you map where each speaker is to specify that the ones plugged in the surrounds are actually heights? Also, is there some kind of translation for non-Atmos content to use the height speakers for surround content in any way or would they be useless for other 5.1/7.1 content?
> 
> Thanks again for everyone's input!


Maybe @ jdsmoothie can chime in here. he is far more knowledgeable than I. Also I'm on some pretty strong pain pills for a herniated disc, so I'm not always coherent enough to string together the proper sentences. Hopefully others will be able to help out more.  Give this thread a quick read http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2130226-3-1-2-5-1-rears-ceiling.html


----------



## Nick4K

Hi Guys, I bought a Marantz SR6011 because I wanted to update to a 5.1.4 setup. Can you help me with some question.

*How can I switch between audio 'upmixing' and the original track ?

For example Batman Begins audiotrack is 5.1 DTS HDMA 5.1 , the receiver does great work with 'upmixing' some of the sound overhead sound like it's really meant  Like the bats fly overhead and the sand falls down when little Bruce is in the water well. But how can I switch between upmixing and the original track ?

Our current room is really small (3,5 x 3meters), after hours of testing with speaker placement I'm really happy with the results. The Front speakers and also the TV stands 2,2m in front of the MLP and the rear speaker about 0,5 behind us. Despite the distance from rear to front is minimum I managed to place the Dolby Atmos overhead speakers just within the official measurements. I sounds I'm sitting in a wide atmosphere of sound, hearing sounds far away 

* The question is to choose between Flat/ Reference or the L/R bypass?

Flat is calibrated for small rooms, and speakers at close distance, but does it kill the bass ?



Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## biga6761

Nick4K said:


> Hi Guys, I bought a Marantz SR6011 because I wanted to update to a 5.1.4 setup. Can you help me with some question.
> 
> *How can I switch between audio 'upmixing' and the original track ?
> 
> For example Batman Begins audiotrack is 5.1 DTS HDMA 5.1 , the receiver does great work with 'upmixing' some of the sound overhead sound like it's really meant  Like the bats fly overhead and the sand falls down when little Bruce is in the water well. But how can I switch between upmixing and the original track ?
> 
> Our current room is really small (3,5 x 3meters), after hours of testing with speaker placement I'm really happy with the results. The Front speakers and also the TV stands 2,2m in front of the MLP and the rear speaker about 0,5 behind us. Despite the distance from rear to front is minimum I managed to place the Dolby Atmos overhead speakers just within the official measurements. I sounds I'm sitting in a wide atmosphere of sound, hearing sounds far away
> 
> * The question is to choose between Flat/ Reference or the L/R bypass?
> 
> Flat is calibrated for small rooms, and speakers at close distance, but does it kill the bass ?
> 
> 
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


The green and red sound mode buttons near the bottom of the remote will cycle through the modes available depending on the track being played. Pushing the green movie button while the movie/track is playing will give you the option of forcing stereo or the tracks native format or the native format plus upmixing.
As far as which Audyssey mode that is really up to you to listen and choose which suits your taste/room. If you find you like Flat but bass seems a bit weak you can always tweak your sub level a bit to bring it back up or if your not using DEQ you can activate the tone controls in the options menu and bring it back that way.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ted99

Jonas2 said:


> The upfiring types seem to yield quite mixed results - from good to not good at all - it's the least preferred method, but better than zero. Maybe. I highly recommend becoming familiar with the Dolby documentation on Atmos before you make any decisions:
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> Having used both upfiring and height speakers, I agree that on or at the ceiling is the better solution, if one can do it. BUT, the mixed results from upfiring speakers can mostly be attributed to simple geometry. The most common method for upfiring front speakers is placement on top of towers. Given the usual spec of 30 degrees for the upfiring speaker angle, geometry dictates where the reflected sweet spot will be. In my setup, with 9' ceilings and a 4' high tower, the reflected center spot at a 3' ear height is about 5.5' in front of the towers. If the MLP is a typical 9-10' away from the front towers, the atmos-enabled upfiring speakers are directed to a spot some 4' in front of the MLP--or about shoe level. Even with wide-dispersion speakers, there isn't much of the overhead sound reaching the MLP. On the other hand, if one places the atmos-enabled upfiring speakers on the top of a 24" table (such as the TV stand), the reflected sweet spot is about 7' in front of the speakers. Remember I have a 9' ceiling--if you have an 8' ceiling, these reflected sweet spots are even closer to the front wall and farther from the typical MLP. Another problem with low mounting the atmos-enabled speakers is ear-level leakage of what is supposed to be a sound emanating from the ceiling. My Atlantic Technology atmos-enabled speakers have sound deadening foam in front of the driver to help absorb this. My Pioneer atmos-enabled speakers don't have this, but they have an angle of about 20 degrees of the speaker. Of course, this makes the sweet spot problem even worse. I've concluded that if one cannot or will not move the MLP closer to the display (WAF problems, usually), the most effective use of the atmos-enabled upfiring speakers is for the Top Middle or Top Rear position. This has been discussed a lot in the dolby-enabled upfiring speaker forum. For those of you that thought you would never have a practical use for your High School Geometry class, you were wrong.


----------



## DJ Lushious

I've gotten in touch with my handyman about installing four in-ceiling speakers. I've been obsessing over the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 document and I am totally confused.

In their overhead diagram the TR speakers are behind the surround rears.

Then in their side view the TR speakers are in front of the surround rears.

So, which is the proper way? 

In my current 5.2 setup the surrounds are maybe 120-130 degrees behind the sweet spot, aligned with the fronts. Yeah, I have no idea if the TR should go in front of the surrounds, in line with the surrounds, or behind. Before I start tearing apart my plaster ceiling I absolutely want to get this right the first time.


----------



## jcp2

DJ Lushious said:


> I've gotten in touch with my handyman about installing four in-ceiling speakers. I've been obsessing over the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 document and I am totally confused.
> 
> In their overhead diagram the TR speakers are behind the surround rears.
> 
> Then in their side view the TR speakers are in front of the surround rears.
> 
> So, which is the proper way?
> 
> In my current 5.2 setup the surrounds are maybe 120-130 degrees behind the sweet spot, aligned with the fronts. Yeah, I have no idea if the TR should go in front of the surrounds, in line with the surrounds, or behind. Before I start tearing apart my plaster ceiling I absolutely want to get this right the first time.


Just make sure the tops (Front and Rear), fall between the angle measurements as indicated on the side view. My top Rear are in front of my rear surrounds and sound awesome. I'm running 7.1.4


----------



## snpanago

DJ Lushious said:


> I've gotten in touch with my handyman about installing four in-ceiling speakers. I've been obsessing over the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 document and I am totally confused.
> 
> In their overhead diagram the TR speakers are behind the surround rears.
> 
> Then in their side view the TR speakers are in front of the surround rears.
> 
> So, which is the proper way?
> 
> In my current 5.2 setup the surrounds are maybe 120-130 degrees behind the sweet spot, aligned with the fronts. Yeah, I have no idea if the TR should go in front of the surrounds, in line with the surrounds, or behind. Before I start tearing apart my plaster ceiling I absolutely want to get this right the first time.


The 4 overheads should be oriented and placed with respect to your main listening position (center of sofa). The surround speakers along the 5.2 base layers can be moved around (within parameters) according to your preference. My surround speakers are located behind my sofa more in line with my TR overheads in my 5.2.4 setup as a result of my room's limitation and sounds fantastic.


----------



## EdQ

citsur86 said:


> Will setting my amp assignment in my AVR with surround backs, but placing the surround backs at the rear height position completely destroy the atmos sound bubble? I've had it this way for a while, and it sounds good to me, but just wondering if I am perhaps not getting the best sound I could. I have front heights, top rears, and rear heights, but since my SR-6011 AVR can only do 4 height channels, the rear heights are assigned to the AVR as surround backs. Thanks!


Your bed channels should be around ear level. With that AVR I would just do 5.1.4


----------



## jjackkrash

DJ Lushious said:


> I've gotten in touch with my handyman about installing four in-ceiling speakers. I've been obsessing over the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 document and I am totally confused.
> 
> In their overhead diagram the TR speakers are behind the surround rears.
> 
> Then in their side view the TR speakers are in front of the surround rears.
> 
> So, which is the proper way?
> 
> In my current 5.2 setup the surrounds are maybe 120-130 degrees behind the sweet spot, aligned with the fronts. Yeah, I have no idea if the TR should go in front of the surrounds, in line with the surrounds, or behind. Before I start tearing apart my plaster ceiling I absolutely want to get this right the first time.




These guidelines are more comprehensive.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## john barlow

Ted99 said:


> Jonas2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The upfiring types seem to yield quite mixed results - from good to not good at all - it's the least preferred method, but better than zero. Maybe. I highly recommend becoming familiar with the Dolby documentation on Atmos before you make any decisions:
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> Having used both upfiring and height speakers, I agree that on or at the ceiling is the better solution, if one can do it. BUT, the mixed results from upfiring speakers can mostly be attributed to simple geometry. The most common method for upfiring front speakers is placement on top of towers. Given the usual spec of 30 degrees for the upfiring speaker angle, geometry dictates where the reflected sweet spot will be. In my setup, with 9' ceilings and a 4' high tower, the reflected center spot at a 3' ear height is about 5.5' in front of the towers. If the MLP is a typical 9-10' away from the front towers, the atmos-enabled upfiring speakers are directed to a spot some 4' in front of the MLP--or about shoe level. Even with wide-dispersion speakers, there isn't much of the overhead sound reaching the MLP. On the other hand, if one places the atmos-enabled upfiring speakers on the top of a 24" table (such as the TV stand), the reflected sweet spot is about 7' in front of the speakers. Remember I have a 9' ceiling--if you have an 8' ceiling, these reflected sweet spots are even closer to the front wall and farther from the typical MLP. Another problem with low mounting the atmos-enabled speakers is ear-level leakage of what is supposed to be a sound emanating from the ceiling. My Atlantic Technology atmos-enabled speakers have sound deadening foam in front of the driver to help absorb this. My Pioneer atmos-enabled speakers don't have this, but they have an angle of about 20 degrees of the speaker. Of course, this makes the sweet spot problem even worse. I've concluded that if one cannot or will not move the MLP closer to the display (WAF problems, usually), the most effective use of the atmos-enabled upfiring speakers is for the Top Middle or Top Rear position. This has been discussed a lot in the dolby-enabled upfiring speaker forum. For those of you that thought you would never have a practical use for your High School Geometry class, you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I had an issue with my Usher speakers being time aligned, the tweeter is in it's own raised enclosure. I went to the guitar store and bought four 36 inch monitor stands and placed my Marten/Logan Atmos speakers on the stands and I get great height effects. I actually prefer a louder integration of my Atmos channels so, I cranked up the volume a bit on the four Atmos speakers, ran the demo disc and voila! All is well with bouncy bounce Atmos speakers in our cinema.
Click to expand...


----------



## deano86

Nick4K said:


> * The question is to choose between Flat/ Reference or the L/R bypass?
> 
> Flat is calibrated for small rooms, and speakers at close distance, but does it kill the bass ?


Your thinking about the various Audyssey default options are incorrect. The Audyssey Flat and Reference curves have nothing to do with bass frequencies.. The Reference Curve is optimized for surround movie soundtracks in that it incorporates a slight high frequency rolloff.... which helps with overall sound field room performance ... reflection issues and such which can be a problem in typical home settings. The Flat curve simply eliminates this high frequency rolloff.


----------



## Selden Ball

deano86 said:


> The Flat curve simply eliminates this high frequency rolloff.


It also eliminates the "BBC" mid-frequency dip.


----------



## Ted99

john barlow said:


> Ted99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had an issue with my Usher speakers being time aligned, the tweeter is in it's own raised enclosure. I went to the guitar store and bought four 36 inch monitor stands and placed my Marten/Logan Atmos speakers on the stands and I get great height effects. I actually prefer a louder integration of my Atmos channels so, I cranked up the volume a bit on the four Atmos speakers, ran the demo disc and voila! All is well with bouncy bounce Atmos speakers in our cinema.
> 
> 
> 
> separate stands for the upfiring speakers are an excellent way to improve the geometry. The fronts can go where they belong and the upfiring speakers can be moved closer to the MLP and positioned above ear level. If the stands are located by the side walls and the upfiring speakers are toed in to direct the reflected sweet spot to the MLP, the reflection point on the ceiling is very likely to be in line with the Front L and R speakers. That is what the Dolby spec calls for. In fact, if one has Front Wides, their position might be just about exactly where the upfiring speakers should be located. Then, using towers with upfiring modules on top might be the ideal solution for 9.2.4. Carrying this one step farther, think of using identical tower/atmos combo speakers for Front Wide and Side surround or Rear surround. The geometry would likely be excellent.
Click to expand...


----------



## deano86

Selden Ball said:


> It also eliminates the "BBC" mid-frequency dip.


Ah yes... forgot about that! My room is pretty well set with acoustic panels, so Flat is the setting for me anyway.


----------



## ergalthema

This article refers to upmixing from 5.1 to Atmos with height, etc.:
http://www.klipsch.ca/blog/upmixing-with-dolby-atmos

However, my Onkyo NR646 doesn't seem to automatically do this. Is there a certain listen mode that uses Atmos to upmix?

I generally prefer to just stick to the source format, whatever that is. But I'm just curious.


----------



## PioManiac

ergalthema said:


> This article refers to upmixing from 5.1 to Atmos with height, etc.:
> http://www.klipsch.ca/blog/upmixing-with-dolby-atmos
> 
> However, my Onkyo NR646 doesn't seem to automatically do this. Is there a certain listen mode that uses Atmos to upmix?
> 
> I generally prefer to just stick to the source format, whatever that is. But I'm just curious.


Almost every Yamaha/Denon/Marantz model since 2015 offers some sort of up mix capability with Dolby Surround (aka DSU ) or Neural:X to get 7.1.4
If your AVR has a list of surround decoders or DSP modes at least one of those should appear in the same settings menu.

EDIT, a quick google turned up a list of user listening modes for an Onkyo NR646: You have both Dolby Surround and Neural:X 

So maybe its time you opened your users manual ? (or visit a thread for your specific model)

http://www.onkyo.com/manual/txnr646/adv/en/023.html


----------



## ergalthema

PioManiac said:


> Almost every Yamaha/Denon/Marantz model since 2015 offers some sort of up mix capability with Dolby Surround (aka DSU ) or Neural:X to get 7.1.4
> If your AVR has a list of surround decoders or DSP modes at least one of those should appear in the same settings menu.


It has a lot of DSP modes, but I'm not sure which one is part of Atmos.


----------



## PioManiac

ergalthema said:


> It has a lot of DSP modes, but I'm not sure which one is part of Atmos.


There is no such thing as "part of Atmos"

The are two major codec's for 7.1.4 native material

Dolby ATMOS
DTS:X

To UP-Mix other titles that are limited to DD or DTS 2.0,5.1 or 7.1 
to play on your upper speakers, you can apply one of two modes:

Dolby's version is called Dolby Surround
DTS's version is called Neural:X


----------



## ergalthema

PioManiac said:


> There is no such thing as "part of Atmos"
> 
> The are two major codec's for 7.1.4 native material
> 
> Dolby ATMOS
> DTS:X
> 
> To UP-Mix other titles that are limited to DD or DTS 2.0,5.1 or 7.1
> to play on your upper speakers, you can apply one of two modes:
> 
> Dolby's version is called Dolby Surround
> DTS's version is called Neural:X


Thanks. If you see the link I posted, it sounds like Atmos is upmixing.


----------



## PioManiac

ergalthema said:


> Thanks. If you see the link I posted, it sounds like Atmos is upmixing.


No, ATMOS is a native 7.1.4 track, That mode is for media encoded with ATMOS only. (AVR should be set to Straight, no post processing)

To replicate/simulate ATMOS overhead effects from a 5.1/7.1 media source you would select "Dolby Surround" (aka DSU or Dolby Surround Upmixer)

DTS:X is a native 7.1.4 track

Many prefer to use Neural:X to simulate DTS:X from a DTS 5.1/7.1 and expand to 7.1.4

Many AVR's will allow you to apply either Dolby Surround upmixer (aka DSU) or Neural:X to any content regardless of source.
Some have a restriction that keeps the upmixer capabilities within the same codec (Dolby=DSU) (DTS=Neural:X)


----------



## ergalthema

PioManiac said:


> No, ATMOS is a native 7.1.4 track, That mode is for media encoded with ATMOS only.
> 
> To replicate/simulate ATMOS overhead effects from a 5.1/7.1 media source you would select "Dolby Surround" (aka DSU or Dolby Surround Upmixer)
> 
> DTS:X is a native 7.1.4 track
> 
> Many prefer to use Neural:X to simulate DTS:X from a DTS 5.1/7.1 and expand to 7.1.4
> 
> Many AVR's will allow you to apply either Dolby Surround upmixer (aka DSU) ot Neural:X to cany content regardless of source.
> Some have a restriction that keeps the upmixer capabilities within the same codec (Dolby=DSU) (DTS=Neural:X)


Thanks for the clear answer. I thought that was the case, but the article confused me - especially since it was from Klipsch. These technologies are difficult enough to keep up with, so I get disappointed with misleading info.


----------



## mrtickleuk

ergalthema said:


> Thanks for the clear answer. I thought that was the case, but the article confused me - especially since it was from Klipsch. These technologies are difficult enough to keep up with, so I get disappointed with misleading info.


You're right - it's a very, very badly written article.  Not only does it conflate the Dolby Surround Upmixer (which Dolby Atmos AVRs also have, as an add-on extra), it even makes it worse by using the term "pure" Dolby Atmos - as if "pure" isn't a real word, as if there are two Atmoses, "pure" and "up-mixed". There aren't, as we've said and you now understand. There's Atmos, and then there's everything else.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention 

Here's a full list of corrections. From the terrible web page


> you don’t have to wait to experience the the (SIC) immersive, cinematic sound of Dolby Atmos thanks to “upmixing.”


Wrong, if you're upmixing you will NOT be experiencing the immersive, cinematic sound of Dolby Atmos! You'll be experiencing the (very good) immersive sound of the up-mixer called the Dolby Surround Upmixer.



> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SURROUND SOUND AND UPMIXED DOLBY ATMOS


There's no such thing. If it's upmixed, it's not Dolby Atmos, by definition. 

Just like colourised Laurel and Hardy films were not actually colour. They are black and white, with lots of processing having been done to them, and you are seeing the synthesized results. The only difference is that the DSU processing is done in real time.



> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UPMIXING AND “PURE” DOLBY ATMOS


The quotes are wrong. This should read: "THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UPMIXING, AND DOLBY ATMOS".



> “Pure" Dolby Atmos is only possible when source material is encoded (mixed and published) in Dolby Atmos technology. If you are looking at a Blu-Ray, it should be clearly labeled with the Dolby Atmos logo on the disc packaging.
> With a “pure” Dolby Atmos mix, you are hearing sound exactly as the (human) sound editor intended it.


Quotes wrong again. Remove "Pure" from both sentences.



> In order to upmix to Dolby Atmos, an algorithm in the receiver determines which sounds go to the Dolby Atmos channels based on frequency and phase correlation. Essentially, upmixing is a synthesized, yet very effective Dolby Atmos experience that draws from the original 5.1/7.1 mix.


False again. Should read: "In order to upmix using the Dolby Surround Upmixer to something which is a bit like but not Dolby Atmos, an algorithm in the receiver determines which sounds go to the HEIGHT channels based on frequency and phase correlation. Essentially, upmixing is a synthesized, yet very effective experience which is *like* Dolby Atmos *but it is not Dolby Atmos*, that draws from the original 5.1/7.1 mix.


----------



## djoberg

DJ Lushious said:


> I've gotten in touch with my handyman about installing four in-ceiling speakers. I've been obsessing over the Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 document and I am totally confused.
> 
> In their overhead diagram the TR speakers are behind the surround rears.
> 
> Then in their side view the TR speakers are in front of the surround rears.
> 
> So, which is the proper way?





jcp2 said:


> Just make sure the tops (Front and Rear), fall between the angle measurements as indicated on the side view. My top Rear are in front of my rear surrounds and sound awesome. I'm running 7.1.4


I too have my Height Rear speakers in FRONT of my Rear Surrounds. They also sound awesome! Here is my layout:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2341600&stc=1&d=1515271895


----------



## djoberg

I should mention that it's a bit confusing to know where to install your Height Speakers (for the Rear Heights, that is) if you go by Dolby Lab diagrams. I say this because they have conflicting set ups! I posted this several months ago:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1570.html#post55168042


----------



## zmacka

Well I just streamed via my Shield TV (Plex) ATMOS audio through my Yamaha 3070. Everything I was hoping for, wasn't sure it would work, has flawlessly.


----------



## T-Bone

Well, my ceiling speakers are on the way... four Polk MC60 in-ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters. I have a diagram too 

So, I sketched out my game room... nothing fancy, just used Visio. Atmos speakers are red... the black boxes are my existing 7.1 speakers. Mains are 40" from side walls.

I based the position on the Dolby Atmos spec... mainly, the atmos form a 45 degree vertical angle to row of seats. That puts them about 6 1/2 feet to front and to rear of the row since I have 10 foot ceilings.

As for being in-line with mains, well, I have some concerns that the atmos speakers would have been too close to side wall... so I pulled them in a bit to be 48" from side wall.

As I have mentioned before, sides and rears sit high on the wall (per my pics in my sig). I think I will lower sides... I can drop them 2 feet... that would still leave them 2 feet above the ear. Any lower and I think they would be too close to the viewer's ear.

Any issues with what I have? Thinking the 48" from side wall puts them in line with the seats 1 and 4. Atmos speakers (left side vs right side) would be separated by 9'-8"

-T


----------



## Jonas2

T-Bone said:


> As for being in-line with mains, well, I have some concerns that the atmos speakers would have been too close to side wall... so I pulled them in a bit to be 48" from side wall.


I definitely wouldn't worry about that. If you pushed them out in line with the mains, they are still 40" from the walls, let's be super conservative and say 3 feet. Just fine. That said, I think you're probably equally as fine leaving them where they are in your original plan. I don't have the same span as yours, but mine are also a bit inboard of the mains, and all but one of them are much closer to boundaries than yours, and the system still sounds great.


----------



## djoberg

T-Bone said:


> As I have mentioned before, sides and rears sit high on the wall (per my pics in my sig). I think I will lower sides... I can drop them 2 feet... that would still leave them 2 feet above the ear. Any lower and I think they would be too close to the viewer's ear.
> 
> Any issues with what I have? Thinking the 48" from side wall puts them in line with the seats 1 and 4. Atmos speakers (left side vs right side) would be separated by 9'-8"
> 
> -T


I was going to suggest that you move your "sides" down to only 1' above ear level until I noticed your ceilings are 10' high. You should be more than fine.

Before I set up my system for a 5.2.4 layout I had my Rear Surrounds 2' above ear level but with only having 8' ceilings the crew at SVS highly suggested I move them down to just above ear level (the Tweeter sits about 6" above ear level now). Otherwise there would be a definite compromise when trying to distinguish between overhead panning and discrete effects and the sounds on the horizontal level. With my set up as is the sound is amazing!

Good luck with yours and be sure to chime in with your impressions after it's all set up and you've had time to "listen" to some good Atmos/DTS:X mixes.


----------



## T-Bone

Jonas2 said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for being in-line with mains, well, I have some concerns that the atmos speakers would have been too close to side wall... so I pulled them in a bit to be 48" from side wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely wouldn't worry about that. If you pushed them out in line with the mains, they are still 40" from the walls, let's be super conservative and say 3 feet. Just fine. That said, I think you're probably equally as fine leaving them where they are in your original plan. I don't have the same span as yours, but mine are also a bit inboard of the mains, and all but one of them are much closer to boundaries than yours, and the system still sounds great.
Click to expand...




djoberg said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have mentioned before, sides and rears sit high on the wall (per my pics in my sig). I think I will lower sides... I can drop them 2 feet... that would still leave them 2 feet above the ear. Any lower and I think they would be too close to the viewer's ear.
> 
> Any issues with what I have? Thinking the 48" from side wall puts them in line with the seats 1 and 4. Atmos speakers (left side vs right side) would be separated by 9'-8"
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to suggest that you move your "sides" down to only 1' above ear level until I noticed your ceilings are 10' high. You should be more than fine.
> 
> Before I set up my system for a 5.2.4 layout I had my Rear Surrounds 2' above ear level but with only having 8' ceilings the crew at SVS highly suggested I move them down to just above ear level (the Tweeter sits about 6" above ear level now). Otherwise there would be a definite compromise when trying to distinguish between overhead panning and discrete effects and the sounds on the horizontal level. With my set up as is the sound is amazing!
> 
> Good luck with yours and be sure to chime in with your impressions after it's all set up and you've had time to "listen" to some good Atmos/DTS:X mixes.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the sanity check. I appreciate it. So it looks like I'm good to go with my overhead placement... I feel pretty good that I could be in line with the mains and still be okay.

-T


----------



## richlife

mrtickleuk said:


> ...*There's Atmos, and then there's everything else.*
> 
> ...


Catching up with this thread and I couldn't help but notice the above statement in *bold* which I consider the quote of the surround/immersive audio era! :devil:

Just to repeat: There's Atmos, and then there's everything else.

With a setup and configuration that provides excellent Atmos and DTS:X results (as well as outstanding simulated immersion using the upmixers), my personal observation is that while "everything else" can sound really good, only Atmos consistently sits at the top of the heap. While even Atmos can be limited due to poor editting/mixing, in most cases "consistently better" applies.


----------



## sdrucker

richlife said:


> Catching up with this thread and I couldn't help but notice the above statement in *bold* which I consider the quote of the surround/immersive audio era! :devil:
> 
> Just to repeat: There's Atmos, and then there's everything else.
> 
> With a setup and configuration that provides excellent Atmos and DTS:X results (as well as outstanding simulated immersion using the upmixers), my personal observation is that while "everything else" can sound really good, only Atmos consistently sits at the top of the heap. While even Atmos can be limited due to poor editting/mixing, in most cases "consistently better" applies.



Try it with > 7.1.4, starting with 9.1.4, 11.1.4, and upward. There's absolutely no comparison between Atmos and DTS:X (or anything else) for the spatial resolution you get with independently rendered content.


----------



## mrtickleuk

richlife said:


> Catching up with this thread and I couldn't help but notice the above statement in *bold* which I consider the quote of the surround/immersive audio era! :devil:
> 
> Just to repeat: There's Atmos, and then there's everything else.
> 
> With a setup and configuration that provides excellent Atmos and DTS:X results (as well as outstanding simulated immersion using the upmixers), my personal observation is that while "everything else" can sound really good, only Atmos consistently sits at the top of the heap. While even Atmos can be limited due to poor editting/mixing, in most cases "consistently better" applies.


----------



## batpig

Since it hasn't been mentioned here yet, Denon today finally published info on the upcoming flagship X8500H model (which will replace the X7200WA). Mentioning it specifically here because it has some pretty impressive abilities for immersive audio support. This is what I've gleaned from the manual and discussion so far (some of this confirming speculation from before):

1) 15.2ch pre-outs with 13ch simultaneous speaker support (also 13 internal amps!)

2) Can run Dolby Atmos in 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 layouts

3) For the first time, Dolby Surround appears to support Front Wide output (meaning you can also UPMIX to 9.1.4 using DSU).

4) That's important because it looks like DTS:X/Neural:X is limited to 11ch output, so you CAN'T use Neural:X to upmix to 9.1.4

5) Extensive support for mixed Auro3D + Atmos layouts... I believe this is the first ever "consumer level" processor that can handle full 13.1ch Auro3D (7.1 base layer + 5 heights + VOG) including the "Center Height" position, not just VOG (aka Top Surround). And because Auro3D can use the "Rear Height" speakers instead of the "Surround Height" speaker (same signal will be output), you can mix a 13.1ch Auro3D layout with either a 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 Atmos layout, using all 15 speaker connections, and the AVR will switch dynamically between 13.1ch Auro3D and 9.1.4/7.1.6 Atmos playback depending on the signal/source.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> For the first time, Dolby Surround appears to support Front Wide output (meaning you can also UPMIX to 9.1.4 using DSU).


Is that for 2-channel sources (spread diffuse content to 2 more speakers) or for 5.1/7.1 sources as well (extract a centre output between Fronts & Surrounds)?


----------



## asarose247

That! ^ does have one raising an eyebrow or 2 and thinking "Well, now . . ."

TY


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Is that for 2-channel sources (spread diffuse content to 2 more speakers) or for 5.1/7.1 sources as well (extract a centre output between Fronts & Surrounds)?


I don't know any specifics about the mechanism of extraction, just reading the charts/notes in the manual. But according to the manual Dolby Surround can be applied (as before) to 2ch or DTS/Dolby/PCM multich input signal types.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> And because Auro3D can use the "Rear Height" speakers instead of the "Surround Height" speaker (*same signal will be output*),


Is this confirmed ?

We have had this rear height/surround height available for some time, but i have always wondered if it is simply a rerouting of the surround height signal, or if it was altered for the new position(rear height). Other than what Audyssey does, of course.


----------



## richlife

Not attempting to promote anyone, but I just received this from AVScience:

Denon's New Flagship AVR-X8500H Receiver
Image
Features:

POWERFUL 13.2 CHANNEL HOME THEATER EXPERIENCE
The AVR-X8500H ushers in a leading-edge home theater experience with 13.2 channels that support the latest surround sound formats and 4K Ultra HD picture.

SUPPORTS THE LATEST SUROUND AUDIO FORMATS
Immerse yourself in multi-dimensional sound — the Denon AVR-X8500H powers Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D formats. Auro-3D will be enabled via future firmware update at no additional charge.

READY FOR THE FUTURE OF HOME THEATER
The AVR-X8500H’s advanced video section is fully compatible with the latest HDMI and HDCP 2.2 specifications and prepared for any 4K Ultra HD source. High Dynamic Range (HDR), Dolby Vision compatibility, Hybrid Log Gamma (HLG) and eARC (enhanced Audio Return Channel) are supported as well. You can also enjoy ultra-high-definition pictures from legacy analog and digital sources.

THE HEART OF YOUR WIRELESS NETWORK
Every sound, all your music, controlled effortlessly. Full wireless connectivity is provided via Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. The AVR-X8500H works with Apple Airplay and Amazon Alexa, bringing cutting-edge voice control and incredible sound to all your home entertainment. The built-in HEOS technology allows the AVR-X8500H to become the app-controlled heart of a whole-house wireless sound network.

PERFECT SET-UP FROM THE START
The AVR-X8500H easily guides you through the set-up process to ensure the most accurate configuration and lets you optimize all settings for the best possible sound and video quality. The most advanced Audyssey MultEQ XT32 room measurement system guarantees the best sound in every room.

Advanced HDMI
All eight HDMI inputs (including one on the front) and three HDMI outputs feature HDCP 2.2 compatibility and the latest HDMI specifications, including 4K Ultra HD 60Hz video, 4:4:4 Pure Color sub-sampling, High Dynamic Range (HDR) and 21:9 video, 3D, and BT.2020 pass-through support. It is even ready for Enhanced Audio Return Channel (eARC) for 3D audio playback through TV apps. The feature will be enabled via a future firmware update.

NEXT GENERATION VIDEO FORMATS
The AVR-X8500H supports High Dynamic Range (HDR) video format. It is even ready for Dolby Vision and HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma). Dolby Vision transforms the viewing experiences with astonishing brightness, contrast, and color. HLG offers HDR technology over broadcast content.

MSRP $3999

Now taking orders!




Call us toll-free at 877-823-4452 to speak to one of our friendly experts, or email us at [email protected] today.


----------



## javan robinson

Wait so no 8k on the 8500H?


----------



## batpig

javan robinson said:


> Wait so no 8k on the 8500H?


HDMI 2.1 hardware isn't quite ready, there will be a hardware upgrade program as they did with the prior flagships (Denon AVR-X7200W and Marantz AV8802) which both received an upgrade to HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 hardware (these designated with an "A" at the end of the model number). Once the hardware is ready then all units produced going forward will have the update, and older production units can be sent in for the upgrade if desired.

It's not like there's any 8K content to worry about right now anyway.


----------



## javan robinson

batpig said:


> HDMI 2.1 hardware isn't quite ready, there will be a hardware upgrade program as they did with the prior flagships (Denon AVR-X7200W and Marantz AV8802) which both received an upgrade to HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 hardware (these designated with an "A" at the end of the model number). Once the hardware is ready then all units produced going forward will have the update, and older production units can be sent in for the upgrade if desired.
> 
> It's not like there's any 8K content to worry about right now anyway.


Yeah, true. Just...futureproofing y'know.

Thank you for explaining!


----------



## sdurani

HDMI 2.1 specs were released a little over a month ago, so the industry hasn't even come up with certification testing yet. With that in mind, does anyone think there will be HDMI 2.1 hardware before CEDIA this year or CES next year? Are there any display devices with HDMI 2.1 announced for 2018?


----------



## PioManiac

I hope Yamaha steps up soon, not expecting "wides" but I could sure utilize 7.2.6,
(currently using FH + RH for ATMOS/DTS:X and already have matching speakers I can put Top Center)

BTW, I just upgraded my old XBOX One to an XBO X Scorpio
for 4K/HDR/ATMOS Gaming and Streaming 4K/HDR ATMOS titles from Netflix.

My 3 y/o XBO just got the ATMOS app for Netflix recently, but was limited to 1080p

The New X1X won't likely get used for 4K/UHD disc playback, already have an Oppo 203 and a Panasonic UB900 

But one thing I did find out is the new X already has the Hardware in place for HDMI 2.1

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/141-xbox-area/2867785-official-xbox-one-x-thread.html






I'll be the first to admit I'm not well versed in 2.1 at this point (yet) 
but at least one device in my room looks like it was "thinking ahead" 

:nerd:


----------



## alphaproject

This works for TrueHD and DTS-HD too. I believe it works better than the Xbox as well.


----------



## PioManiac

alphaproject said:


> This works for TrueHD and DTS-HD too. *I believe it works better than the Xbox as wel*l.


Perhaps I wasn't clear, my movie media of choice is 4K/UHD and Bluray movies on disc for ATMOS/DTS:X.
The XBO X is for 4K/HDR/ATMOS Gaming, but also plays *Netflix exclusive titles* in 4K/HDR and are now adding ATMOS titles too.

...and the only current access for those Netflix exclusives are through XBO consoles and 2017 LG OLED TV's Netflix app.


----------



## mbergh22

Got my A4s and what a difference! Even playing games on ps4 with dolby surround makes things sound better. And of course tried The Fifth Element intro and wow! I was blown away! 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Erod

Blade Runner 2049 received a perfect 100 score from Ralph Potts. Looking forward to something worth watching that finally utilizes this format fully.

Looking forward to _American Made_ tonight with DTS:X.


----------



## Mrjmc99

Erod said:


> Blade Runner 2049 received a perfect 100 score from Ralph Potts. Looking forward to something worth watching that finally utilizes this format fully.
> 
> Looking forward to _American Made_ tonight with DTS:X.


Blade runner is excellent in atmos, you will not be let down. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

The TrueHD Atmos treatment on _Blade Runner 2049_ is indeed excellent but I think the recently remastered UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of the original _Blade Runner_ (1982) is even better. I watched it again earlier today and it knocked my socks off. In the interest of fairness and balance, I intend to watch my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos copy of _Blade Runner 2049_ again this evening.


----------



## Redskin

I am setting up a 5.1.2 system. Doing exhaustive research on what angle to place my overhead speakers. I have a lot of flexibility so looking for the best placement. According to the attached Dolby recommendations, it looks like the placement of a 5.1.2 set-up is closer to the listening position than a 5.1.4 setup. 

What is better...angle of 65, 80 or 110 degrees, for my 5.1.2 set-up ? The picture places the speaker at 80 degrees, but I have also seen a conflicting Dolby document with the speaker in the picture at the 65 degree mark.

Any help would be MUCH appreciated!
Greg


----------



## PioManiac

Awesome ATMOS movement in the upper channels in IT 










Ralph gave the 4K/UHD near perfect scores for all around Picture (94) and ATMOS Audio (100) quality,
...and I fully agree!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-foruma-blu-ray-disc-reviews/2948384-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html

I'm not a huge fan of the Horror Genre, But Thoroughly enjoyed the Stranger Things series on Netflix 
"IT" had a very Stranger Things vibe, not your usual Horror film.

Strong LFE content made it a Triple win for me


----------



## snpanago

******* said:


> I am setting up a 5.1.2 system. Doing exhaustive research on what angle to place my overhead speakers. I have a lot of flexibility so looking for the best placement. According to the attached Dolby recommendations, it looks like the placement of a 5.1.2 set-up is closer to the listening position than a 5.1.4 setup.
> 
> What is better...angle of 65, 80 or 110 degrees, for my 5.1.2 set-up ? The picture places the speaker at 80 degrees, but I have also seen a conflicting Dolby document with the speaker in the picture at the 65 degree mark.
> 
> Any help would be MUCH appreciated!
> Greg


If you are never going to install a second pair of overheads and go 5.1.4, the two overheads would seem to me to be best placed at 80 degrees so that the tweeters are most easily directed to the MLP. Left to right overhead panning is nearly directly overhead; if you were considering 4 overheads, front to back panning would be best for placement forward and behind the MLP as per Dolby recs.


----------



## Redskin

snpanago said:


> If you are never going to install a second pair of overheads and go 5.1.4, the two overheads would seem to me to be best placed at 80 degrees so that the tweeters are most easily directed to the MLP. Left to right overhead panning is nearly directly overhead; if you were considering 4 overheads, front to back panning would be best for placement forward and behind the MLP as per Dolby recs.


Thanks for the advice. Never say never, but in the future, going .4 would require a new receiver and new speakers, and at that point, I would just move the current speakers to the best locations or .4. I think you are right. I was initially thinking 65 degrees, but looks like the middle ground of 80 degrees might be best for .2 setup.


----------



## batpig

******* said:


> I am setting up a 5.1.2 system. Doing exhaustive research on what angle to place my overhead speakers. I have a lot of flexibility so looking for the best placement. According to the attached Dolby recommendations, it looks like the placement of a 5.1.2 set-up is closer to the listening position than a 5.1.4 setup.
> 
> What is better...angle of 65, 80 or 110 degrees, for my 5.1.2 set-up ? The picture places the speaker at 80 degrees, but I have also seen a conflicting Dolby document with the speaker in the picture at the 65 degree mark.





snpanago said:


> If you are never going to install a second pair of overheads and go 5.1.4, the two overheads would seem to me to be best placed at 80 degrees so that the tweeters are most easily directed to the MLP. Left to right overhead panning is nearly directly overhead; if you were considering 4 overheads, front to back panning would be best for placement forward and behind the MLP as per Dolby recs.


I will add the caveat that you want to consider your ceiling height, because 80 degrees puts the speakers nearly directly overhead with most domestic ceiling heights and thus prone to hot-spotting and poor dispersion because the speakers are physically so close to you.

For example, if there's 5' from your ears to the ceiling, an 80deg angle places the overheads only about 10-11 inches forward. The person sitting the the left will be under one speaker which is only 5 feet away nearly directly on axis, but the other side's overhead speaker will probably be double the distance away and way off axis. So that speaker will dominate the overhead sound and "break the bubble" of immersion. If you slide those speakers a couple of feet forward (especially if you can aim the speakers and toe them in across the listening area) you gain some more space for the speakers to disperse the sound, more even dispersion and SPL/distance for the listeners on the couch, and reduce hot-spotting.

Said from experience with using Top Middle speakers in this position. Even if you will never go to 5.1.4, unless your ceiling is 10' or higher I would recommend pushing the two overheads at least 2-3 feet forward from your ears and toeing them in.


----------



## Yellbean

******* said:


> I am setting up a 5.1.2 system. Doing exhaustive research on what angle to place my overhead speakers. I have a lot of flexibility so looking for the best placement. According to the attached Dolby recommendations, it looks like the placement of a 5.1.2 set-up is closer to the listening position than a 5.1.4 setup.
> 
> What is better...angle of 65, 80 or 110 degrees, for my 5.1.2 set-up ? The picture places the speaker at 80 degrees, but I have also seen a conflicting Dolby document with the speaker in the picture at the 65 degree mark.
> 
> Any help would be MUCH appreciated!
> Greg


I run a 5.1.2 and installed my speakers at 80 degrees.


----------



## T-Bone

batpig said:


> ******* said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am setting up a 5.1.2 system. Doing exhaustive research on what angle to place my overhead speakers. I have a lot of flexibility so looking for the best placement. According to the attached Dolby recommendations, it looks like the placement of a 5.1.2 set-up is closer to the listening position than a 5.1.4 setup.
> 
> What is better...angle of 65, 80 or 110 degrees, for my 5.1.2 set-up ? The picture places the speaker at 80 degrees, but I have also seen a conflicting Dolby document with the speaker in the picture at the 65 degree mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snpanago said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are never going to install a second pair of overheads and go 5.1.4, the two overheads would seem to me to be best placed at 80 degrees so that the tweeters are most easily directed to the MLP. Left to right overhead panning is nearly directly overhead; if you were considering 4 overheads, front to back panning would be best for placement forward and behind the MLP as per Dolby recs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will add the caveat that you want to consider your ceiling height, because 80 degrees puts the speakers nearly directly overhead with most domestic ceiling heights and thus prone to hot-spotting and poor dispersion because the speakers are physically so close to you.
> 
> For example, if there's 5' from your ears to the ceiling, an 80deg angle places the overheads only about 10-11 inches forward. The person sitting the the left will be under one speaker which is only 5 feet away nearly directly on axis, but the other side's overhead speaker will probably be double the distance away and way off axis. So that speaker will dominate the overhead sound and "break the bubble" of immersion. If you slide those speakers a couple of feet forward (especially if you can aim the speakers and toe them in across the listening area) you gain some more space for the speakers to disperse the sound, more even dispersion and SPL/distance for the listeners on the couch, and reduce hot-spotting.
> 
> Said from experience with using Top Middle speakers in this position. Even if you will never go to 5.1.4, unless your ceiling is 10' or higher I would recommend pushing the two overheads at least 2-3 feet forward from your ears and toeing them in.
Click to expand...

I am going 7.x.4 so I won't have *******'s setup.

But your post got me to think... If someone was gonna do 5.x.2 (or 7.x.2) today, for example, knowing they would do x.x.4 several years down the road, you think it would be wise just to mount the top fronts at 45 degrees forward?

Seems like a good idea to go 45 degrees in that case... on paper, anyway, since I have little Atmos experience.

-T


----------



## batpig

******* said:


> But your post got me to think... If someone was gonna do 5.x.2 (or 7.x.2) today, for example, knowing they would do x.x.4 several years down the road, you think it would be wise just to mount the top fronts at 45 degrees forward?
> 
> Seems like a good idea to go 45 degrees in that case... on paper, anyway, since I have little Atmos experience.
> 
> -T


That's what I would do, especially if they were in-ceiling speakers (and thus difficult to relocate later).

You'll still hear stuff "above you" with the speakers at ~45deg elevation. Shoot, I might even be tempted to just install the x.x.4 speakers at +/- 45deg and run them as a paired array on each side with 5.1.2 so you get more even overhead coverage.


----------



## PioManiac

Or leave them Top Center and allow for future expansion to 7.1.6


----------



## Redskin

batpig said:


> I will add the caveat that you want to consider your ceiling height, because 80 degrees puts the speakers nearly directly overhead with most domestic ceiling heights and thus prone to hot-spotting and poor dispersion because the speakers are physically so close to you.
> 
> For example, if there's 5' from your ears to the ceiling, an 80deg angle places the overheads only about 10-11 inches forward. The person sitting the the left will be under one speaker which is only 5 feet away nearly directly on axis, but the other side's overhead speaker will probably be double the distance away and way off axis. So that speaker will dominate the overhead sound and "break the bubble" of immersion. If you slide those speakers a couple of feet forward (especially if you can aim the speakers and toe them in across the listening area) you gain some more space for the speakers to disperse the sound, more even dispersion and SPL/distance for the listeners on the couch, and reduce hot-spotting.
> 
> Said from experience with using Top Middle speakers in this position. Even if you will never go to 5.1.4, unless your ceiling is 10' or higher I would recommend pushing the two overheads at least 2-3 feet forward from your ears and toeing them in.


Thanks for the advice. This actually describes my situation exactly. My ceilings are just shy of 8' and speakers are on-ceiling (not in-ceiling) which drops the distance to my ears even further. Going with 80 degrees would put each speaker really close to it's closest listener on each side of the couch.

I think I'd does make a lot of sense pushing them further forward and towing them in as you suggest. I have had succes in the past with surround speakers, towing them in even further than the sweet spot to the opposite end of each couch which would point the furthest speaker more directly at the furthest seat and the closest speaker at more of an angle than its closest seat (if that makes sense)



Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

******* said:


> Thanks for the advice. This actually describes my situation exactly. My ceilings are just shy of 8' and speakers are on-ceiling (not in-ceiling) which drops the distance to my ears even further. Going with 80 degrees would put each speaker really close to it's closest listener on each side of the couch.
> 
> I think I'd does make a lot of sense pushing them further forward and towing them in as you suggest. I have had succes in the past with surround speakers, towing them in even further than the sweet spot to the opposite end of each couch which would point the furthest speaker more directly at the furthest seat and the closest speaker at more of an angle than its closest seat (if that makes sense)


Not only does that make sense, it's actually a recommended best practice known as "time/energy trading"


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> Awesome ATMOS movement in the upper channels in IT


I am a big Steven King fan but for some reason had not read _It._ Nevertheless, I saw the film in the theater the weekend it opened and bought the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos quality version when it became available last December. I agree that the film's Atmos soundtrack has very high quality. I also liked the film a lot from a dramatic perspective. I am anxious to see the sequel, _It: Chapter Two_, which will tell the rest of King's story. The sequel has been announced and is tentatively scheduled for release sometime in 2019.


----------



## showmak

I can't agree more...

Blade Runner (1982), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and IT (2017) they are one of the best Atmos sounding movies available...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

showmak said:


> I can't agree more...
> 
> Blade Runner (1982), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and IT (2017) they are one of the best Atmos sounding movies available...


Speaking of the great TrueHD Atmos soundtracks in _Blade Runner_ (1982) and _Blade Runner 2049_ I watched my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos versions of both yesterday and was as thrilled as ever. The quality of the Atmos audio of the original is nearly miraculous, given the film's age. Thanks for it are owed both to the team of audio engineers who remixed the original 1982 audio to Dolby TrueHD 5.1 for the 2007 _5-Disc Complete Collector's Edition_ and to those who remixed the 2007 audio to TrueHD Atmos for the 2017 UHD HDR version. It was great work in both cases.

I should add that I was equally impressed by the _Blade Runner 2049_ Atmos soundtrack. Here, though, the audio engineers had a lot more to work with. The quality of the audio when I saw it in the theater was wonderful.


----------



## showmak

gwsat said:


> Speaking of the great TrueHD Atmos soundtracks in _Blade Runner_ (1982) and _Blade Runner 2049_ I watched my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos versions of both yesterday and was as thrilled as ever. The quality of the Atmos audio of the original is nearly miraculous, given the film's age. Thanks for it are owed both to the team of audio engineers who remixed the original 1982 audio to Dolby TrueHD 5.1 for the 2007 _5-Disc Complete Collector's Edition_ and to those who remixed the 2007 audio to TrueHD Atmos for the 2017 UHD HDR version. It was great work in both cases.
> 
> 
> 
> I should add that I was equally impressed by the _Blade Runner 2049_ Atmos soundtrack. Here, though, the audio engineers had a lot more to work with. The quality of the audio when I saw it in the theater was wonderful.


What a coincidence, I also watched the both Blade Runner yesterday, I first watched the original and was blown away by the mix considering the age of the movie.


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> The TrueHD Atmos treatment on _Blade Runner 2049_ is indeed excellent but I think the recently remastered UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of the original _Blade Runner_ (1982) is even better. I watched it again earlier today and it knocked my socks off. In the interest of fairness and balance, I intend to watch my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos copy of _Blade Runner 2049_ again this evening.


Thanks. i also am not enamored with horror, but with this comment I'll go ahead and order IT.



PioManiac said:


> Awesome ATMOS movement in the upper channels in IT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph gave the 4K/UHD near perfect scores for all around Picture (94) and ATMOS Audio (100) quality,
> ...and I fully agree!
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-official-avs-foruma-blu-ray-disc-reviews/2948384-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of the Horror Genre, But Thoroughly enjoyed the Stranger Things series on Netflix
> "IT" had a very Stranger Things vibe, not your usual Horror film.
> 
> Strong LFE content made it a Triple win for me


Again, two votes I trust make this a gimme!

BTW, @PioManiac. I and others have been looking for that post you had in your sig thread (originally on p9) about your Atmos/DTS:X 3050 setup. Seems to have been moved or drifted. If you know the location offhand, would appreciate an update. Regardless, I have the thread open to search page by page...  (Edit: Done and fruitless.  I see some references to me and others such as this "PioManiac mentioned richlife in post _Deleted Posts_" leading me to wonder if you did some cleanup. Don't really know what the "Deleted Posts" is.)


----------



## PioManiac

richlife said:


> BTW, Pio. I and others have been looking for that post you had in your sig thread (originally on p9) about your Atmos/DTS:X 3050 setup. Seems to have been moved or drifted. If you know the location offhand, would appreciate an update. Regardless, I have the thread open to search page by page...


I lost my free photobucket account last year, so there is nothing left in that thread after my original post.
(that I have been piecing together from a second PB account that was paid a year in advance for extra storage space ($40)
...But even that one runs out for 3rd party hosting at the end of next month when the price will jump to $400. Not paying that!

A new rebuild page is in the works, this time I will be using AVS to host the pic's.

*http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1051263-unfinished-basement.html#post14338556*

But I no longer have the Atmos/DTS:X setup pictures that died with an old laptop 2 years ago.


----------



## unretarded

******* said:


> I am setting up a 5.1.2 system. Doing exhaustive research on what angle to place my overhead speakers. I have a lot of flexibility so looking for the best placement. According to the attached Dolby recommendations, it looks like the placement of a 5.1.2 set-up is closer to the listening position than a 5.1.4 setup.
> 
> What is better...angle of 65, 80 or 110 degrees, for my 5.1.2 set-up ? The picture places the speaker at 80 degrees, but I have also seen a conflicting Dolby document with the speaker in the picture at the 65 degree mark.
> 
> Any help would be MUCH appreciated!
> Greg



Having played with and used my .2 Atmos set up, I would go close to overhead with them and definatly not as wide as what is shown in that diagram, unless you have a very tall ceiling like at least 10 foot or more.

Using that Dolby diagram as a example with a standard low dispersion speaker it will blast out the user on the left of the couch while not getting much for the person on the right.

I would install them directly in line with the arms on both sides of that couch, possibly even closer together if you have a huge couch, and about 16 to 24 inches in front of where your ears will be when seated.


Mine are set up almost identical to that chart and the ceiling speakers are way way too far apart for a 8 foot ceiling. 6 foot of spacing tweeter to tweeter given the listening distance from ear to ceiling is more than enough for channel separation .


The overhead spacing on that chart is for more like a 10-14 foot ceiling and after playing with this.....closer to a 14 foot ceiling for that spacing.


Ear to ceiling on most applications is approx. 48 inches.......now translate that into sitting in the front of your room way to one side 4 foot from the mains.........take the far right of that couch listening position and move that to 4 foot from the front wall and that is the same orientation you are getting to the overheads......far from ideal.

Now take that same scenario and use a 12=14 foot ceiling......that puts you 8 -10 foot away and is right where you want to be........just like your mains are set, so should the ceiling speakers be set. 

If you were setting the MLP 4 foot front the front wall, you would not space your mains 8-10 feet apart and sit way to one side. But using that dolby chart with a 8 foot ceiling and a 6 to 8 foot wide front row, that is exactly what you are doing....


Disregard it is the ceiling and look directly up and think how you would set the speakers if they were mains.


If looking up from the center of the couch from the dolby chart on a 8 foor ceiling..or basically 48 inches away, you would set the speaker width at a max of 6 foot.....probably closer to 4 or 5 foot apart, especially if the speakers lack the ability to be toed in. The wider you make them closer to that dobly chart, the more hot spotting you will get on each side of the couch and the less sound you will get from the one farthest away.

This is biased towards down firing speakers.....adjustable tweeters/mids gives some more flexibility and regular boxed speakers mounted on ceiling that are able to be aimed give even more flexibility...leeway. From what I am saying.


The optimal solution to all of this is a exact duplication of the front sound stage which has a LCR configuration on the ceiling, but that does not exist....we are stuck with just a L/R ceiling configuration. The .6 Atmos spec allows for a F/C/B configuration as they envisioned rooms being longer than wider and I think they also envisioned dedicated high end rooms with much taller than normal residential ceiling/livingroom/basement heights.....


That Dolby chart is soo out of whack if you look at the 3 different views they show, the scale errors are HUGE between the 3 so they give a very distorted overall picture. If you take the bottom right pic and then scale it to the over head shot it would have the mains at almost the same floor location as the ceiling speakers......If you take that same side view pic and then look at the top left angled perspective, you will see the angled view shows like a 12 to 14 foot ceiling height. Those 3 pics on that chart are super bad and misleading as they should not even be together due to the massive scale differences....they give a super skewed perspective if you really study them.


----------



## Braccio69

Here's a good question for you guys. I have a Yamaha TRS-7810 7.1 avr. I will run a standard 7.1 with SL/SR ceiling mounted to the sides of MLP ~3' wider than front sound stage. With SB's inline with fronts for 7.1. I was thinking I can also run 2 more ceiling mounted 1-2' in front of MLP from the front presence {Yamahas Height equivalent} Then switch on avr from 7.1 to 5.1.2 for Atmos content. Thoughts?


----------



## Braccio69

Braccio69 said:


> Here's a good question for you guys. I have a Yamaha TRS-7810 7.1 avr. I will run a standard 7.1 with SL/SR ceiling mounted to the sides of MLP ~3' wider than front sound stage. With SB's inline with fronts for 7.1. I was thinking I can also run 2 more ceiling mounted 1-2' in front of MLP from the front presence {Yamahas Height equivalent} Then switch on avr from 7.1 to 5.1.2 for Atmos content. Thoughts?


Guess I should note my room dimensions  20x13 MLP and screen are centered on the 13. MLP is ~ 3 from rear wall, I can get another 1' possibly to make it 4' from rear wall .


----------



## richlife

PioManiac said:


> I lost my free photobucket account last year, so there is nothing left in that thread after my original post.
> (that I have been piecing together from a second PB account that was paid a year in advance for extra storage space ($40)
> ...But even that one runs out for 3rd party hosting at the end of next month when the price will jump to $400. Not paying that!
> 
> A new rebuild page is in the works, this time I will be using AVS to host the pic's.
> 
> *http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1051263-unfinished-basement.html#post14338556*
> 
> But I no longer have the Atmos/DTS:X setup pictures that died with an old laptop 2 years ago.


OUCH! Sorry to learn that. You had a really nice set of pics (instructions) there and I know it hurts to lose them. For myself, I will always be grateful. I honestly don't think I could go back and piece it all together without that guide. 

$400 -- no way that's justifiable! Good luck with putting what you want back together again. Your posts have been really special!


----------



## Redskin

unretarded said:


> Having played with and used my .2 Atmos set up, I would go close to overhead with them and definatly not as wide as what is shown in that diagram, unless you have a very tall ceiling like at least 10 foot or more.
> 
> Using that Dolby diagram as a example with a standard low dispersion speaker it will blast out the user on the left of the couch while not getting much for the person on the right.
> 
> I would install them directly in line with the arms on both sides of that couch, possibly even closer together if you have a huge couch, and about 16 to 24 inches in front of where your ears will be when seated.
> 
> 
> Mine are set up almost identical to that chart and the ceiling speakers are way way too far apart for a 8 foot ceiling. 6 foot of spacing tweeter to tweeter given the listening distance from ear to ceiling is more than enough for channel separation .
> 
> 
> The overhead spacing on that chart is for more like a 10-14 foot ceiling and after playing with this.....closer to a 14 foot ceiling for that spacing.
> 
> 
> Ear to ceiling on most applications is approx. 48 inches.......now translate that into sitting in the front of your room way to one side 4 foot from the mains.........take the far right of that couch listening position and move that to 4 foot from the front wall and that is the same orientation you are getting to the overheads......far from ideal.
> 
> Now take that same scenario and use a 12=14 foot ceiling......that puts you 8 -10 foot away and is right where you want to be........just like your mains are set, so should the ceiling speakers be set.
> 
> If you were setting the MLP 4 foot front the front wall, you would not space your mains 8-10 feet apart and sit way to one side. But using that dolby chart with a 8 foot ceiling and a 6 to 8 foot wide front row, that is exactly what you are doing....
> 
> 
> Disregard it is the ceiling and look directly up and think how you would set the speakers if they were mains.
> 
> 
> If looking up from the center of the couch from the dolby chart on a 8 foor ceiling..or basically 48 inches away, you would set the speaker width at a max of 6 foot.....probably closer to 4 or 5 foot apart, especially if the speakers lack the ability to be toed in. The wider you make them closer to that dobly chart, the more hot spotting you will get on each side of the couch and the less sound you will get from the one farthest away.
> 
> This is biased towards down firing speakers.....adjustable tweeters/mids gives some more flexibility and regular boxed speakers mounted on ceiling that are able to be aimed give even more flexibility...leeway. From what I am saying.
> 
> 
> The optimal solution to all of this is a exact duplication of the front sound stage which has a LCR configuration on the ceiling, but that does not exist....we are stuck with just a L/R ceiling configuration. The .6 Atmos spec allows for a F/C/B configuration as they envisioned rooms being longer than wider and I think they also envisioned dedicated high end rooms with much taller than normal residential ceiling/livingroom/basement heights.....
> 
> 
> That Dolby chart is soo out of whack if you look at the 3 different views they show, the scale errors are HUGE between the 3 so they give a very distorted overall picture. If you take the bottom right pic and then scale it to the over head shot it would have the mains at almost the same floor location as the ceiling speakers......If you take that same side view pic and then look at the top left angled perspective, you will see the angled view shows like a 12 to 14 foot ceiling height. Those 3 pics on that chart are super bad and misleading as they should not even be together due to the massive scale differences....they give a super skewed perspective if you really study them.


Thanks for the thoughtful response! I did just this today. The on-ceiling speakers are in line with the arm-rests of the couch, which is slightly inside of the Front L/R speakers and 2 feet in front of the listening position...pointed at the listening position.


----------



## Mudig

Anyone here have an Xbox One S or X? I enabled Dolby Atmos on the console as well as the TV, and ever since I did that, the games sound is out of sync(delayed) on my internal speakers for my C7. What can be the issue?


----------



## javan robinson

Mudig said:


> Anyone here have an Xbox One S or X? I enabled Dolby Atmos on the console as well as the TV, and ever since I did that, the games sound is out of sync(delayed) on my internal speakers for my C7. What can be the issue?


Hey Mudig,

I have the Xbox One X. But I have an AVR and an Atmos system. You said your internal speakers are delayed on your C7? If you have an AVR and Atmos then you need to disable your TV speakers and let your HT do the talking.

If you don't have an AVR or Atmos system, or Atmos compatible soundbar- then you should put your Xbox in DTS, not Atmos.


----------



## Mudig

javan robinson said:


> Hey Mudig,
> 
> I have the Xbox One X. But I have an AVR and an Atmos system. You said your internal speakers are delayed on your C7? If you have an AVR and Atmos then you need to disable your TV speakers and let your HT do the talking.
> 
> If you don't have an AVR or Atmos system, or Atmos compatible soundbar- then you should put your Xbox in DTS, not Atmos.


So it's just for if I have a sound system? My TV itself suggested to enable Atmos for the internal speakers though.


----------



## gorman42

I've tried reading the Dolby guides but I didn't find a reference to this. I shiver in fear at the idea of reading the TON of posts here... so I beg forgiveness if I ask a stupid question.

My ceiling is 9' and I have my front speakers at about 10 feet of distance, slightly angled toward the main listening point. If I placed Dolby Atmos enabled speakers on top of the front speakers, would the fact that they are slightly angled be "wrong" somehow? Furthermore, since all the Atmos enabled speakers I've seen have a fixed angle, what is the correct distance from the listening point to have them bounce from the ceiling toward the correct point?


----------



## richlife

gorman42 said:


> I've tried reading the Dolby guides but I didn't find a reference to this. I shiver in fear at the idea of reading the TON of posts here... so I beg forgiveness if I ask a stupid question.
> 
> My ceiling is 9' and I have my front speakers at about 10 feet of distance, slightly angled toward the main listening point. If I placed Dolby Atmos enabled speakers on top of the front speakers, would the fact that they are slightly angled be "wrong" somehow? Furthermore, since all the Atmos enabled speakers I've seen have a fixed angle, what is the correct distance from the listening point to have them bounce from the ceiling toward the correct point?


The angles related to the ceiling are somewhat forgiving -- I use them as guides or starting points. (In regards to the "toe-in" angle, I found a slight angle as you describe to be helpful for proper effect.) The built-in angle of the speaker assumes a "standard" 8' ceiling and (I assume) some average height of the front speakers (typical 42 - 48"?). So in the end, the best advice is to try positioning the DAES and adjust until you get the correct effect. The Atmos demos (particularly the audio-only circling helicopter) will be very helpful to determine "correct". Sound effects should generally be evenly distributed and NOT jump from speaker to speaker. (That latter is a sign of in incorrect Atmos setup.)

My room with its sloped ceiling was far more challenging than yours -- you may want to read more in my sig thread. Basically, I found that placement just inside my fronts, on top of a 6' wall unit, and toed in to the MLP worked best. But I also had to try propping the back edge of the speaker at various heights to get the best result. I started with flat as designed, jumped to 45* (very bad -- too much direct sound), then split the diff and adjusted in 1/8" increments. Took a while (up and down a step ladder) but the results were amazing. (I also tried different toe-in angles, but straight at the MLP was best.) 

You have 9' ceilings -- my slope effectively makes the "bounce" or "radiation" point at about 12 feet. So my using a 2x4 block to prop the back edge at 2 1/8" worked (carefully measured and recorded). Once completed, I used a long straight edge to figure the actual "bounce" angle. Not surprisingly, it is right at 45*. (Through it all, I had to accommodate the "hole" in my ceiling. Fortunately, the reflection point is just in front of the dormer opening.)


----------



## javan robinson

Mudig said:


> So it's just for if I have a sound system? My TV itself suggested to enable Atmos for the internal speakers though.


Correct. You need a sound system for Atmos. Your tv speakers will never output atmos.

But do not fret for there is a solution...get an atmos enabled system !!!


----------



## PioManiac

javan robinson said:


> Correct. You need a sound system for Atmos. Your tv speakers will never output atmos.
> 
> But do not fret for there is a solution...get an atmos enabled system !!!


Well Technically, the LG 65GV6 OLED does support 4.2 ATMOS built in,
But I think its only for built in Apps that support ATMOS, not through external sources like the XBO consoles.

http://www.lg.com/sa_en/tvs/lg-OLED65G7V










No it's not the typical ATMOS application HT enthusiasts prefer with actual Height Speakers,
But neither are ATMOS enabled Sound Bars or HeadPhones


----------



## Boirathor

This my 5.1.2 setup:

-Front mains: 9ft from MLP. Separation is 8.5ft
-Rears (sides): 7ft from MLP. Separation is about 11ft. Couch is stuck to the wall
-In-ceiling speakers: in line with the front mains. Ceiling height is 8.5ft. Speakers are separated 3.3ft from back wall. Separation is 8.5ft.

Questions:
1) are the in-ceilings too much pushed forward?
2) they are currently placed with tweeters outwards (they are dynaudio in-wall rectangular speakers). Is this ok or better to position them with tweeters in-wards?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mudig

javan robinson said:


> Correct. You need a sound system for Atmos. Your tv speakers will never output atmos.
> 
> But do not fret for there is a solution...get an atmos enabled system !!!


So you suggested to use DTS...is that better than the default audio setting I had on the Xbox( uncompressed sound)?


----------



## javan robinson

Mudig said:


> So you suggested to use DTS...is that better than the default audio setting I had on the Xbox( uncompressed sound)?


This is what your settings should look like - https://us.v-cdn.net/6025034/uploads/editor/kz/qn58m7yvdi2e.png

But as PioManiac said, you may be able to get some type of atmos through your TV speakers, though I would have no idea how that sounds or is supposed to work. I would suggest posting in the Oled C7 thread.

Good luck!


----------



## javan robinson

PioManiac said:


> Well Technically, the LG 65GV6 OLED does support 4.2 ATMOS built in,
> But I think its only for built in Apps that support ATMOS, not through external sources like the XBO consoles.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/sa_en/tvs/lg-OLED65G7V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not the typical ATMOS application HT enthusiasts prefer with actual Height Speakers,
> But neither are ATMOS enabled Sound Bars or HeadPhones


Crazy. I stand corrected(ish - because that isn't real Atmos! Lololol)


----------



## PioManiac

javan robinson said:


> Crazy. I stand corrected(ish - because that isn't real Atmos! Lololol)


If it comes with the Official ATMOS brand from Dolby, it's real.

It's just at a very "entry level" of ATMOS audio.

To say it's not "real" would be like telling those who only have a TV as their display,
that don't _Really_ have a "Home Theater", that needs a Projector and a 100"+ screen


----------



## javan robinson

PioManiac said:


> If it comes with the Official ATMOS brand from Dolby, it's real.
> 
> It's just at a very "entry level" of ATMOS audio.
> 
> To say it's not "real" would be like telling those who only have a TV as their display,
> that don't _Really_ have a "Home Theater", that needs a Projector and a 100"+ screen


Sure! Whatever you say! You are technically correct !

But that's like going to a buddy's house with Atmos headphones purchased from Wal-Mart (because any headphones are atmos capable), listening to them and saying "yep, that's real almost right there, amazing!" - nobody would say that!

But yes, someone could have a 9 inch tv and say that is their main display for home theatre but I doubt anyone would say "that's a real home theatre !"


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> It's just at a very "entry level" of ATMOS audio.


Indeed, a 2.0.2 speaker configuration is all that is needed to activate Atmos decoding. With that set-up playing an Atmos soundtrack, sounds intended for the base layer will be heard at ear height, sounds intended for the height layer will be heard from above ear height; thus fulfilling the minimum requirement of Atmos playback.


----------



## PioManiac

javan robinson said:


> Sure! Whatever you say! You are technically correct !
> 
> But yes, someone could have a 9 inch tv and say that is their main display for home theatre but I doubt anyone would say "that's a real home theatre !"


I know your intention, but as long as audio is coming from the ceiling
(reflective or direct) it's still ATMOS audio if it comes from above the listener.










a 9" TV , that's just being facetious. 

LOL! Even with a 65" main display, many HT enthusiasts would say to you "Nice TV, but where's your _Real_ Home Theater?"
...you know, where the image is the size of Four - 65" TV's? 

Immersive Audio is Great, but it's only half of HT equation.

I Love my 65" OLED, but when I drop the big screen down the room really transforms.
a 9 foot wide screen (viewed from just 8 feet away) is WAY more *immersive* than a 4'8" wide TV

The OLED is fine for weekday use as a TV, but on the weekends ...I LOVE my JVC for Movies/Gaming/Sports!










click if you dare...


Spoiler



Xmen Apocalypse on my 65" LG OLED









...JVC at 120"









65" OLED









...JVC at 120"









65" OLED









120" JVC









65" OLED









120" JVC


















....the rest of these are all JVC



























































































1080P Bluray upconverted to 4K in the Panasonic UB900









YouTube 4K video (through my Panasonic UB900 YouTube app)









Sports ...Come over and watch the big game vs Watching The BIG GAME!













With a 9 feet wide screen, the Cars on Forza 7 on my X1X are larger than me... 










and almost actual size when viewed from this angle...









o_0









Many would say *That's* a Home Theater vs having a "TV" in a room with surround sound.

...and don't even get me started on the importance of having multiple large capable subs 
I have the AVS minimum standard for bass-heads, a pair of 15's and a pair of 18's 



Spoiler































My room is good down to single digit frequencies and peaks at over 13K watts for Bass alone.


----------



## T-Bone

PioManiac said:


> javan robinson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! Whatever you say! You are technically correct !
> 
> But yes, someone could have a 9 inch tv and say that is their main display for home theatre but I doubt anyone would say "that's a real home theatre !"
> 
> 
> 
> I know your intention, but as long as audio is coming from the ceiling
> (reflective or direct) it's still ATMOS audio if it comes from above the listener.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a 9" TV , that's just being facetious.
> 
> LOL! Even with a 65" main display, many HT enthusiasts would say to you "Nice TV, but where's your _Real_ Home Theater?"
> ...you know, where the image is the size of Four - 65" TV's?
> 
> Immersive Audio is Great, but it's only half of HT equation.
> 
> I Love my 65" OLED, but when I drop the big screen down the room really transforms.
> a 9 foot wide screen (viewed from just 8 feet away) is WAY more *immersive* than a 4'8" wide TV
> 
> The OLED is fine for weekday use as a TV, but on the weekends ...I LOVE my JVC for Movies/Gaming/Sports!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> click if you dare...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Xmen Apocalypse on my 65" LG OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...JVC at 120"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 65" OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...JVC at 120"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 65" OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 120" JVC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 65" OLED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 120" JVC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....the rest of these are all JVC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1080P Bluray upconverted to 4K in the Panasonic UB900
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube 4K video (through my Panasonic UB900 YouTube app)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sports ...Come over and watch the big game vs Watching The BIG GAME!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a 9 feet wide screen, the Cars on Forza 7 on my X1X are larger than me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and almost actual size when viewed from this angle...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many would say *That's* a Home Theater vs having a "TV" in a room with surround sound.
> 
> ...and don't even get me started on the importance of having multiple large capable subs
> I have the AVS minimum standard for bass-heads, a pair of 15's and a pair of 18's
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My room is good down to single digit frequencies and peaks at over 13K watts for Bass alone.
Click to expand...

Sorry... You do not have a home theater. I pay homeless people to kick the back of my chair in my room... And talk during the movie. Now, that's what I call a home theater. 


-T


----------



## PioManiac

T-Bone said:


> Sorry... You do not have a home theater. I pay homeless people to kick the back of my chair in my room... And talk during the movie. Now, that's what I call a home theater.
> 
> 
> -T


I have twins that are Constantly Kicking the back of my Seat 


Spoiler















:grin:


----------



## dyslexic

showmak said:


> I can't agree more...
> 
> Blade Runner (1982), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and IT (2017) they are one of the best Atmos sounding movies available...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Blade Runner 2049 is amazing....i just rewired to 5.2.4 about 20 minutes ago....I will audessy the room tonite at around midnight when not a creature is stirring.....then Ill run blade runner 2049 and get to bed around 3:30am, but itll be worth it!


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> I have twins that are Constantly Kicking the back of my Seat
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :grin:


Good shot, partner! When I opened up the spoiler in your post and saw the photo of your "twins," I nearly spewed my morning coffee all over my computer.


----------



## mrtickleuk

gwsat said:


> Good shot, partner! When I opened up the spoiler in your post and saw the photo of your "twins," I nearly spewed my morning coffee all over my computer.


I thought it was going to be something like this:



Spoiler


----------



## gene4ht

PioManiac said:


> I have twins that are Constantly Kicking the back of my Seat





gwsat said:


> Good shot, partner! When I opened up the spoiler in your post and saw the photo of your "twins," I nearly spewed my morning coffee all over my computer.





mrtickleuk said:


> I thought it was going to be something like this:


Not only does this forum have excellent "learning and sharing" value...but great "entertainment" value as well!!!


----------



## enricoclaudio

Hi guys, looking for advise on future ATMOS setup. I have a 7.2 speaker setup with Ascend Acoustics Sierra Towers, Horizon Center, Sierra 2s and Sierra Lunas. A pair of Rythmik Audio F12SEs do the bass job in my 2700 cu ft room. I live in a 2 bed apartment (rental) so I can't do ceiling speakers due to fire sprinkle system regulations. My only option is to do Front Highs and Rear Highs as you can see in the photos. I'm planning on two pairs of SVS Prime Elevation or Focal Dome Flax all the way up to the top. Doing Atmos for me is not cheap because I need to pay $600 for the processor upgrade (Atmos card for Emotiva XMC-1 when available) + External amp ($500 for Emotiva A-500) + Speakers ($1000) so before pulling the trigger I want to be 100% sure that the locations I have for the speakers would work for Atmos. Any recommendation from you guys will be really appreciated. 

Thanks!!


----------



## tr4a

Enrico

I just added 4 KefQ50a's in Height mode for Dolby Atmos.
My listening position is up against the back wall. I installed
the back heights as "surround Heights" so that they could aim at
listeners ears instead of the front of the room. Today I discovered 
that Atmos does not use surround heights. So I reconfigured the amp
assign and reran Audyssey. After 25 years my room sounds amazing.
Just watched an episode of Amazon's "Electric Dreams" in DTS Neural X
and the height speakers created an envelope over the entire top of the room.

The Kef retail at $500 a pair and have built in keyhole mounts on the back.

Steve


----------



## citsur86

tr4a said:


> Enrico
> 
> 
> 
> I just added 4 KefQ50a's in Height mode for Dolby Atmos.
> 
> My listening position is up against the back wall. I installed
> 
> the back heights as "surround Heights" so that they could aim at
> 
> listeners ears instead of the front of the room. Today I discovered
> 
> that Atmos does not use surround heights. So I reconfigured the amp
> 
> assign and reran Audyssey. After 25 years my room sounds amazing.
> 
> Just watched an episode of Amazon's "Electric Dreams" in DTS Neural X
> 
> and the height speakers created an envelope over the entire top of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> The Kef retail at $500 a pair and have built in keyhole mounts on the back.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve




Can I ask what you mean when you say atmos does not use surround heights? My rear heights are actually configured as Rear surrounds since i have front heights and top rears configured as heights in my AVR, but as I understand it, I could chose to change amp assign to use the front heights and rear heights and assign them as actual heights without using the in ceiling speakers. 

How I have it set (with rear speakers physically in the height position):









How I could have it set if I didn’t want to use in ceiling speakers I have hooked up to preouts (and to my understanding would be used in Atmos playback):


















Is what you’re saying that if it were set to the latter, the rear speakers would have no output during Atmos playback? Just trying to understand, Thanks.


----------



## tr4a

citsur86 said:


> Can I ask what you mean when you say atmos does not use surround heights? My rear heights are actually configured as Rear surrounds since i have front heights and top rears configured as heights in my AVR, but as I understand it, I could chose to change amp assign to use the front heights and rear heights and assign them as actual heights without using the in ceiling speakers.
> 
> How I have it set (with rear speakers physically in the height position):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How I could have it set if I didn’t want to use in ceiling speakers I have hooked up to preouts (and to my understanding would be used in Atmos playback):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is what you’re saying that if it were set to the latter, the rear speakers would have no output during Atmos playback? Just trying to understand, Thanks.


I installed my "back" heights near my surrounds on the sides of the room.
Yesterday when I did the amp assign I put them as Surround height.
Found out that Dolby Atmos does not recognize surround heights.
DTS Neural X does. Changed the amp assign and works great on both
Atmos and Neural X.

You should have no problem with the way you have yours configured
since you have no surround heights.

Steve


----------



## citsur86

tr4a said:


> I installed my "back" heights near my surrounds on the sides of the room.
> 
> Yesterday when I did the amp assign I put them as Surround height.
> 
> Found out that Dolby Atmos does not recognize surround heights.
> 
> DTS Neural X does. Changed the amp assign and works great on both
> 
> Atmos and Neural X.
> 
> 
> 
> You should have no problem with the way you have yours configured
> 
> since you have no surround heights.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve




Ah I see. So by surround height you mean side height channels, not rear heights?


----------



## tr4a

citsur86 said:


> Ah I see. So by surround height you mean side height channels, not rear heights?


Yes based on amp assign not room location.

Steve


----------



## enricoclaudio

Thanks guys for the recommendations. The KEF Q50As are another option that I have to consider because their sound is very similar to the Sierra RAAL tweeter so most likely they would be a better match. Either way I need to wait until the XMC-1 Atmos card is available so finally we will know what speaker configurations it can handle.


----------



## gwsat

tr4a said:


> Enrico
> 
> I just added 4 KefQ50a's in Height mode for Dolby Atmos.
> My listening position is up against the back wall. I installed
> the back heights as "surround Heights" so that they could aim at
> listeners ears instead of the front of the room. Today I discovered
> that Atmos does not use surround heights. So I reconfigured the amp
> assign and reran Audyssey. After 25 years my room sounds amazing.
> Just watched an episode of Amazon's "Electric Dreams" in DTS Neural X
> and the height speakers created an envelope over the entire top of the room.
> 
> The Kef retail at $500 a pair and have built in keyhole mounts on the back.


I have a conventional Atmos setup with four speakers mounted in my 10 foot ceiling. I comment here because I too watched several episodes of _Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams_ on Amazon Prime today and the audio blew me away. I used a Roku Premier+ as the client for Amazon's streaming app. It only gives me DolbyDigital+ but when matrixed to 7.2.4 with the Dolby Surround DSU this show produced the best audio I have heard this side of honest to goodness TrueHD Atmos. By the way, the show is being shown in UHD HDR video quality so the video is as sensational as the audio. I'm not sure the show is for all tastes but it is well written and has a remarkably talented cast. I have already binged through the first five episodes.


----------



## tr4a

gwsat said:


> I have a conventional Atmos setup with four speakers mounted in my 10 foot ceiling. I comment here because I too watched several episodes of _Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams_ on Amazon Prime today and the audio blew me away. I used a Roku Premier+ as the client for Amazon's streaming app. It only gives me DolbyDigital+ but when matrixed to 7.2.4 with the Dolby Surround DSU this show produced the best audio I have heard this side of honest to goodness TrueHD Atmos. By the way, the show is being shown in UHD HDR video quality so the video is as sensational as the audio. I'm not sure the show is for all tastes but it is well written and has a remarkably talented cast. I have already binged through the first five episodes.


I have only watched the first. You are correct about the
picture quality. Amazon needs to do more 4K.

Looking forward to receiving my 4K Blade Runner 2049
tomorrow.


----------



## johnnymacIII

According to Dolby’s 2017 Home Theater Installation Guidlines, they say to place the surround speakers at the same height as the front speakers or no more than 1.25 times higher than the front speakers. Have any of you tried this? If so, what has been your experience compared to having them high enough to have a clear line of sight to all listeners? Thanks.


----------



## enricoclaudio

johnnymacIII said:


> According to Dolby’s 2017 Home Theater Installation Guidlines, they say to place the surround speakers at the same height as the front speakers or no more than 1.25 times higher than the front speakers. Have any of you tried this? If so, what has been your experience compared to having them high enough to have a clear line of sight to all listeners? Thanks.


My surrounds and surround back speakers are between 1.15 and 1.25 times higher than my front speakers and they sound amazing. I have completely 360 degrees sound. My system only lacks of top sound so to get fully 3D sound I'm thinking on adding 4 x Atmos high speakers.


----------



## PioManiac

gwsat said:


> I have a conventional Atmos setup with four speakers mounted in my 10 foot ceiling. I comment here because I too watched several episodes of *Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams* on Amazon Prime today and the audio blew me away. I used a Roku Premier+ as the client for Amazon's streaming app. It only gives me DolbyDigital+ but when matrixed to 7.2.4 with the Dolby Surround DSU this show produced the best audio I have heard this side of honest to goodness TrueHD Atmos. By the way, the show is being shown in UHD HDR video quality so the video is as sensational as the audio. I'm not sure the show is for all tastes but it is well written and has a remarkably talented cast. I have already binged through the first five episodes.





tr4a said:


> I have only watched the first. You are correct about the
> picture quality. Amazon needs to do more 4K.


I've had no luck searching for *Electric Dreams* on Amazon Prime Video  
I guess it's just not available in Canada yet? Too bad, it would be nice to have something good to watch other than The Grand Tour 
My primary reason for signing up was to get free 2 day shipping on my hard disc orders though, didn't expect much from their video service.


----------



## gwsat

PioManiac said:


> I've had no luck searching for *Electric Dreams* on Amazon Prime Video
> I guess it's just not available in Canada yet? Too bad, it would be nice to have something good to watch other than The Grand Tour
> My primary reason for signing up was to get free 2 day shipping on my hard disc orders though, didn't expect much from their video service.


Sorry you do not yet have _Electric Dreams_ available on Amazon Prime in Canada.

For good looking UHD HDR other than _The Grand Tour_ on Amazon Prime, try _Bosch._ I love the show because I am a Michael Connelly fan. His Harry Bosch is the most interesting cop character I have encountered. The Amazon show stars the always effective Titus Welliver as Bosch.

Like you, the primary moving force that convinced me to sign up for Amazon Prime was the free two day shipping of orders. I still buy a lot of disks from Amazon. Although Amazon Prime streaming is only a fringe benefit, I have found a lot to enjoy from it, including but not limited to _The Grand Tour_ and _Electric Dreams._


----------



## Erod

johnnymacIII said:


> According to Dolby’s 2017 Home Theater Installation Guidlines, they say to place the surround speakers at the same height as the front speakers or no more than 1.25 times higher than the front speakers. Have any of you tried this? If so, what has been your experience compared to having them high enough to have a clear line of sight to all listeners? Thanks.


That's tough to do with stadium seating like many of us have. I have aimable tweeters, so I just focus everything to right above the listening position.

Many believe that it's best to have the speakers aimed about a foot above ear level.


----------



## EdQ

enricoclaudio said:


> My surrounds and surround back speakers are between 1.15 and 1.25 times higher than my front speakers and they sound amazing. I have completely 360 degrees sound. My system only lacks of top sound so to get fully 3D sound I'm thinking on adding 4 x Atmos high speakers.


If you add Atmos, your surrounds will need to drop to ear level. 

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jive821

Hey all. 



I currently have a home theater mainly used for watching movies/TV. It is currently a 7.2 system with Sunfire CRW-3 for the LCR, Sunfire bipoles for the side and back surround and 2 Sunfire Subs, powered by a NAD m17 pre-amp and a Sunfire 7401 amp. I will soon be adding at least a pair of height speakers for a 7.2.2 system once NAD updates its module. The Sunfire amp only has 7 channels, and I will need to at least run 9. 

Question is: do I buy a dedicated 3 channel amp for the LCR and run everything else off my current Sunfire? Or some other options?


Thanks


----------



## Erod

EdQ said:


> If you add Atmos, your surrounds will need to drop to ear level.
> 
> Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk


So there is no such thing as Atmos in a movie theater?


----------



## PioManiac

Jive821 said:


> Hey all.
> 
> 
> 
> I currently have a home theater mainly used for watching movies/TV. It is currently a 7.2 system with Sunfire CRW-3 for the LCR, Sunfire bipoles for the side and back surround and 2 Sunfire Subs, powered by a NAD m17 pre-amp and a Sunfire 7401 amp. I will soon be adding at least a pair of height speakers for a 7.2.2 system once NAD updates its module. The Sunfire amp only has 7 channels, and I will need to at least run 9.
> 
> Question is: do I buy a dedicated 3 channel amp for the LCR and run everything else off my current Sunfire? Or some other options?
> 
> 
> Thanks


Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't look like your processor supports ATMOS audio decoding, 
I don't think you have pre-outs for any "Height" channels either....So it has Software and Hardware limitations.
Is that what you mean by module update?

The NADm17 is a 7.1 processor and adding extra amplifiers does not add mote channels to your system


----------



## Jive821

PioManiac said:


> Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't look like your processor supports ATMOS audio decoding,
> I don't think you have pre-outs for any "Height" channels either....So it has Software and Hardware limitations.
> Is that what you mean by module update?
> 
> The NADm17 is a 7.1 processor and adding extra amplifiers does not add mote channels to your system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. But Nad is releasing a MDC upgrade in the next month or 2 to upgrade the amp to support ATMOs and 4 additional channels. I'm just planning on the upgrade, getting the addtional height speakers in and looking at additional amplification for the addition channels. I'm just curious on the opinions, sonically, would it be better to get a dedicated amp for the main 3 channels and use my current 7 channel amp to run the remaining 6 channels.


----------



## batpig

johnnymacIII said:


> According to Dolby’s 2017 Home Theater Installation Guidlines, they say to place the surround speakers at the same height as the front speakers or no more than 1.25 times higher than the front speakers. Have any of you tried this? If so, what has been your experience compared to having them high enough to have a clear line of sight to all listeners? Thanks.


The guidelines are there to primarily promote as much separation between the lower level ring of speakers and the overhead layer of speakers. However, you should NOT blindly follow the guidelines if they will create other problems, for example not having clear line of sight to all listeners in a multi row environment. Or (another example) the room being narrow so surrounds at ear level will hot spot terribly for the non-center-seat listeners.

Pro installers don't blindly follow these rules. You definitely want the surrounds to be lower than with traditional non-Atmos surround, but don't lower them so far that they cause other problems. Common sense deviations from guidelines are cool. If you've got a two or three seat, single row theater with plenty of space such that you can place all the lower level speakers right at ear level and not have any line of sight issues, cool, go for it. But most people don't have that.

For example, here are some placement tips from pro installer / acoustics expert Nyal Mellor: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/


----------



## chi_guy50

Erod said:


> So there is no such thing as Atmos in a movie theater?


Consumer (HT) sound reproduction is a different application from the commercial cinema venue leading to differing guidelines, as attested to by the separate Dolby white papers:


Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines

vs.

Dolby Atmos Next-Generation Audio for Cinema (and, more specifically for cinema speaker placement, Dolby Atmos Specifications)


----------



## Erod

chi_guy50 said:


> Consumer (HT) sound reproduction is a different application from the commercial cinema venue leading to differing guidelines, as attested to by the separate Dolby white papers:
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines
> 
> vs.
> 
> Dolby Atmos Next-Generation Audio for Cinema (and, more specifically for cinema speaker placement, Dolby Atmos Specifications)


My point is, a lot of us have multi-row stadium seating in our dedicated rooms. Unless you lift your front speakers two feet, you can't get your base sound plane all at the same level. You can, however, aim your speakers (or tweeters) to a certain point. 

My front and side surround are level, but my rears are about a 1.5 feet higher. I know others have a third row, so their speakers are even higher than that.

Plus, I've heard Atmos in both scenarios, and I don't hear an audible improvement with speakers all at the same level. In fact, I think bipoles on the side channels are actually better than direct channels in that location. 

So far, most Atmos mixing is less than stellar, and "object" placement is more of a myth than an actuality right now. It can be done, but it isn't being done.


----------



## chi_guy50

Erod said:


> My point is, a lot of us have multi-row stadium seating in our dedicated rooms. Unless you lift your front speakers two feet, you can't get your base sound plane all at the same level. You can, however, aim your speakers (or tweeters) to a certain point.
> 
> My front and side surround are level, but my rears are about a 1.5 feet higher. I know others have a third row, so their speakers are even higher than that.


I consider the rear surround to be a separate issue from the rest of the listener-level speakers since, even without stadium seating, one has to cope with seatbacks interfering with the line of sight. For the record, I only have a single two-seat MLP, but my rear speakers are also elevated for this very reason.

As batpig points out above, necessary compromises aside, the principal consideration should be to establish adequate separation from the overhead speakers in order to achieve a distinguishable elevation to the sound bubble.


----------



## Erod

chi_guy50 said:


> I consider the rear surround to be a separate issue from the rest of the listener-level speakers since, even without stadium seating, one has to cope with seatbacks interfering with the line of sight. For the record, I only have a single two-seat MLP, but my rear speakers are also elevated for this very reason.
> 
> As batpig points out above, necessary compromises aside, the principal consideration should be to establish adequate separation from the overhead speakers in order to achieve a distinguishable elevation to the sound bubble.


Yes, my Atmost speakers are about 8 feet above my lower sound plane. My only issue is my rear heights are very close to the back wall, so they are vertically almost above my rears. I kind of regret that, but I didn't want them in front of the back row, so.....


----------



## gwsat

Erod said:


> Yes, my Atmost speakers are about 8 feet above my lower sound plane. My only issue is my rear heights are very close to the back wall, so they are vertically almost above my rears. I kind of regret that, but I didn't want them in front of the back row, so.....


I think most of us have to make compromises in where we place our speakers in a 7.2.4 setup, especially those of us who have our home theaters in a multipurpose room. Both my surround and back surround speakers are close to the back wall of my room. In order to make sure that the back surrounds were not closer to the MLP than the surrounds, which are at ear height, I mounted them a couple of feet higher than the surrounds. Fortunately my L-C-R speakers and subwoofers are symmetrically located at the front of my listening room and my overhead speakers are mounded in my 10 foot ceiling. Thanks to YPAO and REW, I have managed to tame this less than ideal setup in a way that produces very good sound with convincing surround and submersive effects, to my ears at least.


----------



## Erod

gwsat said:


> I think most of us have to make compromises in where we place our speakers in a 7.2.4 setup, especially those of us who have our home theaters in a multipurpose room. Both my surround and back surround speakers are close to the back wall of my room. In order to make sure that the back surrounds were not closer to the MLP than the surrounds, which are at ear height, I mounted them a couple of feet higher than the surrounds. Fortunately my L-C-R speakers and subwoofers are symmetrically located at the front of my listening room and my overhead speakers are mounded in my 10 foot ceiling. Thanks to YPAO and REW, I have managed to tame this less than ideal setup in a way that produces very good sound with convincing surround and submersive effects, to my ears at least.


I'm fortunate to have a symmetrical dedicated room, but it's still hard to get everything where I want it. Thanks to A/C ducts, a left side component cabinet, and all in-wall requirements from the wifey. 

I actually really like the sound of my room. I just wish the sound mixers would get more serious about Atmos/DTS:X. It seems very half-ass to me so far. Yes, it's fuller, but "object-based" it is not particularly. I have upmixed blurays that sound far better than many of my supposedly "Atmos" discs. 

_The Revenant_ sounds better upmixed than anything I've heard in Atmos so far. I'm hoping _Blade Runner 2049_ will change that this week.


----------



## T-Bone

Amen to the "not perfect" rooms 

Before I lower my sides, I am gonna see how it sounds. If Atmos with high adaptive dipoles sounds "good enough" then I probably won't lower them. 

-T


----------



## gene4ht

T-Bone said:


> Amen to the "not perfect" rooms
> 
> Before I lower my sides, I am gonna see how it sounds. If Atmos with high adaptive dipoles sounds "good enough" then I probably won't lower them.
> 
> -T


For room constraints...experimentation is the key....adapt as necessary...and fine tune to taste.


----------



## Bond 007

T-Bone said:


> Amen to the "not perfect" rooms
> 
> Before I lower my sides, I am gonna see how it sounds. If Atmos with high adaptive dipoles sounds "good enough" then I probably won't lower them.
> 
> -T


If you're like most of us you will always wonder how much better it will sound if you lower them. And eventually you will lower them.


----------



## unretarded

gene4ht said:


> ...experimentation is the key....adapt as necessary...and fine tune to taste.



That's pretty much my motto for everything in life .........


----------



## gerchy

Blade runner 2049 has some really good height effects! Added to the "test" pile! 
The 2019 version (Final Cut with Atmos soundtrack) isn't bad either.


----------



## gwsat

gerchy said:


> Blade runner 2049 has some really good height effects! Added to the "test" pile!
> The 2019 version (Final Cut with Atmos soundtrack) isn't bad either.


No kidding! The UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Blade Runner_ (1982) is one of the finest examples of a TrueHD Atmos mix I have heard, regardless of the age of the film. The UHD HDR treatment of the video was equally successful, it seems to me. Apparently much of the success for both the audio and video is owed to the 2007 5 disk BD release, the video for which which was remastered using a 4K scan and the audio remixed with the Dolby TrueHD 5.1 codec. The further upgrade on the UHD HDR TrueHD version of the film was nothing short of miraculous, to my eyes and ears at least.


----------



## showmak

Watch Zero Dark Thirty and appreciate Atmos.


----------



## richlife

T-Bone said:


> Amen to the "not perfect" rooms
> 
> Before I lower my sides, I am gonna see how it sounds. If Atmos with high adaptive dipoles sounds "good enough" then I probably won't lower them.
> 
> -T





gene4ht said:


> For room constraints...experimentation is the key....adapt as necessary...and fine tune to taste.





Bond 007 said:


> If you're like most of us you will always wonder how much better it will sound if you lower them. And eventually you will lower them.





gwsat said:


> No kidding! The UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Blade Runner_ (1982) is one of the finest examples of a TrueHD Atmos mix I have heard, regardless of the age of the film. The UHD HDR treatment of the video was equally successful, it seems to me. Apparently much of the success for both the audio and video is owed to the 2007 5 disk BD release, the video for which which was remastered using a 4K scan and the audio remixed with the Dolby TrueHD 5.1 codec. The further upgrade on the UHD HDR TrueHD version of the film was nothing short of miraculous, to my eyes and ears at least.


Damn! I was gonna say all this, but you guys said it first -- and probably better. "Thumbs Up" is really all I can offer!


----------



## gbaby

Erod said:


> I just wish the sound mixers would get more serious about Atmos/DTS:X. It seems very half-ass to me so far. Yes, it's fuller, but "object-based" it is not particularly. I have upmixed blurays that sound far better than many of my supposedly "Atmos" discs.
> 
> _The Revenant_ sounds better upmixed than anything I've heard in Atmos so far. I'm hoping _Blade Runner 2049_ will change that this week.


I thought Atmos was a half-ass gimmick when it was demoed to me using an Anthem AVP-60. It was not bad though, just gimmicky enough to be not worth me getting rid of my Bryston SP-3.


----------



## Erod

gbaby said:


> I thought Atmos was a half-ass gimmick when it was demoed to me using an Anthem AVP-60. It was not bad though, just gimmicky enough to be not worth me getting rid of my Bryston SP-3.


It's not a gimmick as a product. Mixers just aren't using it yet as they could and should.

The upmixing is actually really impactful on regular blurays in the meantime.


----------



## gbaby

Erod said:


> It's not a gimmick as a product. Mixers just aren't using it yet as they could and should.
> 
> The upmixing is actually really impactful on regular blurays in the meantime.


This is pure conjecture on my part, but perhaps mixers are having problems because 99% of the time, we don't hear in "object base" in real life. We hear basically at ear level. Even with airplanes, if it is above you, the low frequency of its engines seem to be omnipresent. I think a superior 7.1 or 7.2 mix is all one really needs. The movie "Dunkirk" proves this fact.


----------



## Craig Mecak

gbaby said:


> This is pure conjecture on my part, but perhaps mixers are having problems because 99% of the time, we don't hear in "object base" in real life. We hear basically at ear level. Even with airplanes, if it is above you, the low frequency of its engines seem to be omnipresent. I think a superior 7.1 or 7.2 mix is all one really needs. The movie "Dunkirk" proves this fact.


Can you point me to even ONE 7.2 mix that you know of?

I don't think you can.


----------



## gbaby

Craig Mecak said:


> Can you point me to even ONE 7.2 mix that you know of?
> 
> I don't think you can.


The .2 was for two subs. I know its not a mix. But, while we are at it, I put a second sub in my system, and outside of buying an SP-3, it was the best sonic improvement I have made. People have been saying this on this forum for years, and I experimented with it last year, and to say I am pleased is an understatement. If you have just one sub, try two. I thought it was a much better improvement than Atmos.


----------



## biga6761

gbaby said:


> This is pure conjecture on my part, but perhaps mixers are having problems because 99% of the time, we don't hear in "object base" in real life. We hear basically at ear level. Even with airplanes, if it is above you, the low frequency of its engines seem to be omnipresent. I think a superior 7.1 or 7.2 mix is all one really needs. The movie "Dunkirk" proves this fact.


Dunkirk is a overly loud clipped mess! 
This seems to be Nolan's bread n butter with TDK and TDKR being not quite as bad but very close. This loudness wars "wall of sound" approach he prefers is not the future of surround sound IMHO, but immersive audio sure is.
Everything you see in red is clipping and it's not limited to the LFE. As you can see it affects the entire front stage(LCR's) too. Film mixers know this should not be done yet Nolan's movies seem to be constant offenders and to hear him tell it he has no plans of stopping the "wall of sound"/too loud/clipped mess anytime soon.

Not trying to come across as rude here but even with a very high quality unit like the Anthem if not setup properly with the speakers properly placed Atmos or any immersive audio can seem underwhelming but you really should give it another shot on a known, well setup system before making your final judgement. A gimmick it is not and if you heard it setup properly, I doubt you would say so either.
Atmos FTW Mr. Nolan!









Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## gbaby

biga6761 said:


> Dunkirk is a overly loud clipped mess!
> This seems to be Nolan's bread n butter with TDK and TDKR being not quite as bad but very close. This loudness wars "wall of sound" approach he prefers is not the future of surround sound IMHO, but immersive audio sure is.
> Everything you see in red is clipping and it's not limited to the LFE. As you can see it affects the entire front stage(LCR's) too. Film mixers know this should not be done yet Nolan's movies seem to be constant offenders and to hear him tell it he has no plans of stopping the "wall of sound"/too loud/clipped mess anytime soon.
> 
> Not trying to come across as rude here but even with a very high quality unit like the Anthem if not setup properly with the speakers properly placed Atmos or any immersive audio can seem underwhelming but you really should give it another shot on a known, well setup system before making your final judgement. A gimmick it is not and if you heard it setup properly, I doubt you would say so either.
> Atmos FTW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


I have read another post on Dunkirk clipping on another site. However, I did not experience this using my SP-3 and Bryston and Krell power amps. In fact, that wall of sound you referred to is an accurate description of what I heard and it was devoid of distortion. At one point, I thought I had Atmos. As good as the Anthem AV-60 is with sound, it certainly is not better than its flagship the dv2. Not trying to brag about whose hand is bigger, but perhaps the clipping you heard was a limitation of the amps or subs, who knows. My sound was loud, clean and atmospheric.  I have seen this movie five times since last week. That's how much I enjoyed it.


----------



## gwsat

gbaby said:


> I have read another post on Dunkirk clipping on another site. However, I did not experience this using my SP-3 and Bryston and Krell power amps. In fact, that wall of sound you referred to is an accurate description of what I heard and it was devoid of distortion. At one point, I thought I had Atmos. As good as the Anthem AV-60 is with sound, it certainly is not better than its flagship the dv2. Not trying to brag about whose hand is bigger, but perhaps the clipping you heard was a limitation of the amps or subs, who knows. My sound was loud, clean and atmospheric.  I have seen this movie five times since last week. That's how much I enjoyed it.


I read the same posts you did. I have never experienced either clipping or distortion with the _Dunkirk_ soundtrack either. I have concluded that those of us who listen to movie soundtracks at no more than moderately loud listening levels are unlikely to be bothered by the problem. Like you, I have now watched my UHD HDR quality version of _Dunkirk_ multiple times. I still resent that Nolan won't allow the remixing of his soundtracks to TrueHD Atmos, though. So there's that. I do agree, however, that all of Nolan's 5.1 soundtracks sound remarkably good when matrixed to 7.2.4 using the DTS Neural:X upmixer.


----------



## biga6761

gbaby said:


> I have read another post on Dunkirk clipping on another site. However, I did not experience this using my SP-3 and Bryston and Krell power amps. In fact, that wall of sound you referred to is an accurate description of what I heard and it was devoid of distortion. At one point, I thought I had Atmos. As good as the Anthem AV-60 is with sound, it certainly is not better than its flagship the dv2. Not trying to brag about whose hand is bigger, but perhaps the clipping you heard was a limitation of the amps or subs, who knows. My sound was loud, clean and atmospheric.  I have seen this movie five times since last week. That's how much I enjoyed it.


I prob should have been more clear, that capture is an analysis strait from the disk and not played back through any gear.

Glad you enjoyed Dunkirk, I actually enjoyed the story too. On the audio side though I could definitely hear some clipping on several occasions, especially in the center channel. I worry more about how it treats my gear, as playing back massively clipped waveforms at high volume has to be bad news and a very different thing from overdriving an amp to clipping because it starts at the source and is passed through the DAC's and analog op amps above -0dbfs. How audible it is on your gear will prob depend on many factors though including but not limited to playback volume and system/speaker resolution. There are many members here who are better schooled than I on the subject but
I think there are instances of clipping prob being used on purpose to good effect, like in Interstellar, but it will normally be used to enhance the realism of specific effects(mics clip and even our ears can clip too, think space shuttle launch) and not so widely spread throughout a soundtrack(Dunkirk) and used to push the volume of effects higher or is a side effect of what's being recorded.


----------



## Gooddoc

Lots of movie talk here, but has anyone listened to the new Atmos studio music releases?

I installed Atmos for movies, but I have to say that after experiencing the latest REM Atmos remix, the music experience has me more excited. There have been a few studio discs recently released(I'm not talking "concert" releases), and I've heard a couple: REM- Automatic For the People, and Inxs - Kick 30th Anniversary reissue. As with movies, the skill of the mixers, and likely the content they have to work with, makes a big difference.

The REM disc is the best music experience I've ever heard from my system. Amazing.

Being a music guy more than movies, this was a huge surprise to me.


----------



## sdrucker

Gooddoc said:


> I installed Atmos for movies, but I have to say that after experiencing the latest REM Atmos remix, the music experience has me more excited. There have been a few studio discs recently released(I'm not talking "concert" releases), and I've heard a couple: REM- Automatic For the People, and Inxs - Kick 30th Anniversary reissue. As with movies, the skill of the mixers, and likely the content they have to work with, makes a big difference.
> 
> The REM disc is the best music experience I've ever heard from my system. Amazing.
> 
> Being a music guy more than movies, this was a huge surprise to me.


+1 on the REM, although I'm a big fan of the "concert" Hans Zimmer Live in Prague BD mixed in Atmos. I haven't heard about any other albums coming down the pike with Atmos in the studio album vein, though.


----------



## Gooddoc

sdrucker said:


> +1 on the REM, although I'm a big fan of the "concert" Hans Zimmer Live in Prague BD mixed in Atmos. I haven't heard about anything other albums coming down the pike with Atmos in the studio album vein, though.


I have that one on the way to me now. I've heard great reviews from everyone on that one and I'm looking forward to it.

I haven't heard anything pending either, but I keep beating the drum since I think many are not aware of the music side of things, and we need people listening to drive demand for more. It would be a shame if studios shied away since they think no one is interested. Particularly since the number of Atmos mixing and mastering stages are growing everyday. They just need a little nudge to create content in them .


----------



## VideoGrabber

biga6761 said:


> Dunkirk is a overly loud clipped mess!
> 
> This seems to be Nolan's bread n butter with TDK and TDKR being not quite as bad but very close. This loudness wars "wall of sound" approach he prefers is not the future of surround sound IMHO, but immersive audio sure is.
> 
> Everything you see in red is clipping and it's not limited to the LFE. As you can see it affects the entire front stage(LCR's) too. Film mixers know this should not be done yet Nolan's movies seem to be constant offenders and to hear him tell it *he has no plans of stopping* the "wall of sound"/too loud/clipped mess anytime soon.


I'd like to see an audiogram for Nolan. He may be both suffering from hearing loss, and contributing to it.


----------



## DaverJ

Gooddoc said:


> Lots of movie talk here, but has anyone listened to the new Atmos studio music releases?
> 
> I installed Atmos for movies, but I have to say that after experiencing the latest REM Atmos remix, the music experience has me more excited. There have been a few studio discs recently released(I'm not talking "concert" releases), and I've heard a couple: REM- Automatic For the People, and Inxs - Kick 30th Anniversary reissue. As with movies, the skill of the mixers, and likely the content they have to work with, makes a big difference.
> 
> The REM disc is the best music experience I've ever heard from my system. Amazing.
> 
> Being a music guy more than movies, this was a huge surprise to me.


Is the Atmos version only available on the $75 version of this album?


----------



## BearGator56

gene4ht said:


> For room constraints...experimentation is the key....adapt as necessary...and fine tune to taste.


I only have so many places I can cut holes in my ceiling... Lol

As I'm about to embark on the Atmos in-ceiling installation, that's what has me most concerned. If I do all this cutting and get them in there and it sounds like a hot mess.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Erod

gwsat said:


> No kidding! The UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Blade Runner_ (1982) is one of the finest examples of a TrueHD Atmos mix I have heard, regardless of the age of the film. The UHD HDR treatment of the video was equally successful, it seems to me. Apparently much of the success for both the audio and video is owed to the 2007 5 disk BD release, the video for which which was remastered using a 4K scan and the audio remixed with the Dolby TrueHD 5.1 codec. The further upgrade on the UHD HDR TrueHD version of the film was nothing short of miraculous, to my eyes and ears at least.


Blade Runner 2049, thus far, is the standard to meet for Atmos. 

This was the most aggressive and encompassing Atmos mix I've heard to date. For the first time (other than perhaps the flies at the end of Gravity), I heard what I would call "object-based" surround in my room, particularly in the scene with the small floating black probes in the scene where a new replicate is created.

There may be some other discs that demonstrate Atmos like this, but I won't sit through kiddie movies for it. No interest in seeing Guardians of the Galaxy.

And fair warning, your bass management system better be calibrated up to speed for this one. This movie is going to blow a lot of speakers.


----------



## gwsat

Erod said:


> Blade Runner 2049, thus far, is the standard to meet for Atmos.
> 
> And fair warning, your bass management system better be calibrated up to speed for this one. This movie is going to blow a lot of speakers.


As much as I loved the _Blade Runner 2049_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, I believe the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on the UHD HDR version of _Blade Runner_ (1982) is its equal. I agree, though, that the LFE of this film is incredible. The LFE in the opening scene shook my chair and rattled my plantation shutters. It wasn't quite as ridiculously excessive as the LFE in the opening scene of _Edge of Tomorrow_ but it deserves to be in the conversation. Anyway, it was great fun.


----------



## FilmMixer

Erod said:


> It's not a gimmick as a product. Mixers just aren't using it yet as they could and should.
> 
> 
> 
> The upmixing is actually really impactful on regular blurays in the meantime.




You’re surely entitled to your opinion. 

But I find it kind of insulting. That we don’t know how we can or should use the format..... 

It seems as if your criteria for a successful immersive experience is constant overhead activity (I am making a big assumption here but you keep bringing up the upmixers, which indeed make very constant use of the overheads...)

I’m not going to debate what you like. But you’ve made multiple comments about my community as a whole and our competence. 

I offer you an invitation that if you’re ever in LA you come for a mix and see what and how decisions are made on the mixing stage... Atmos offers a lot more than just overheads. 

Most users can’t expand their base speaker layout to be greater than the base layer (7.1). This is due to cost, space constraints and available products (only now are we getting 13 channel AVRs and processors....) so the only way to tell that objects are being used is to listen to what coming out of the overheads. 

While I understand this is the reality of Atmos at home, I think it’s foolish to use that as a metric for what mixers are doing with the format... as many have stated in the past, everyone benefits from immersive... take a look at the down mixes of theatrically mixed track (The Revenant for example...). Better and more detailed panning is just one benefit. 

Just my .02. But since I’m one of the only mixer involved I wanted to chime in


----------



## gene4ht

BearGator56 said:


> I only have so many places I can cut holes in my ceiling... Lol
> 
> As I'm about to embark on the Atmos in-ceiling installation, that's what has me most concerned. If I do all this cutting and get them in there and it sounds like a hot mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


For those who choose to install in ceiling speakers, this is probably the most reluctant/fearful task to undertake...due to not understanding how and where to cut, ceiling damage, installing in the wrong location, WAF, etc. etc. In reality, there are easy solutions. First, do your homework and review the 3D speaker/location guidelines (i.e. Dolby Atmos HT Installation Guidelines) so you'll have a basic understanding of the objective. Most importantly, don't let the OCD side of you take over...forget about exactly 45 degrees or 1.5' from this wall. This Atmos stuff is not rocket science...won't sound like a "hot mess" ...is very forgiving...and produces very good results with various room configurations and constraints as proven/evidenced by many members here. When ready to experiment...the question is always how....cut several dozen holes in my ceiling??? Taking a cue from members here...some have constructed a temporary simple framework near the ceiling with the ability to slide attached speakers to different positions. And the following recently came from member @*javan robinson* 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1589.html#post55403942

Regarding the actual cutting, if you're uncomfortable using a drywall saw, hire a handyman. Tip: Save the cutouts for possible patching in the future. Also if necessary, YouTube is your friend...excellent instruction for drywall repair...it's really pretty easy for the DIY'er, Bottom line...Just Do It! And of course, if there are specific questions about speaker selection and fishing speaker wire, there are many folks here willing to help. Good luck with your Atmos pursuit...a new dimension of excitement and immersion awaits you!


----------



## Erod

FilmMixer said:


> You’re surely entitled to your opinion.
> 
> But I find it kind of insulting. That we don’t know how we can or should use the format.....
> 
> It seems as if your criteria for a successful immersive experience is constant overhead activity (I am making a big assumption here but you keep bringing up the upmixers, which indeed make very constant use of the overheads...)
> 
> I’m not going to debate what you like. But you’ve made multiple comments about my community as a whole and our competence.
> 
> I offer you an invitation that if you’re ever in LA you come for a mix and see what and how decisions are made on the mixing stage... Atmos offers a lot more than just overheads.
> 
> Most users can’t expand their base speaker layout to be greater than the base layer (7.1). This is due to cost, space constraints and available products (only now are we getting 13 channel AVRs and processors....) so the only way to tell that objects are being used is to listen to what coming out of the overheads.
> 
> While I understand this is the reality of Atmos at home, I think it’s foolish to use that as a metric for what mixers are doing with the format... as many have stated in the past, everyone benefits from immersive... take a look at the down mixes of theatrically mixed track (The Revenant for example...). Better and more detailed panning is just one benefit.
> 
> Just my .02. But since I’m one of the only mixer involved I wanted to chime in


No offense to your industry, and I appreciate your response very much. Please let me provide more clarity of my point. I think this is largely a business decision because, as you pointed out, we represent a pretty small sliver of the consumer market at this time.

I'm not referring to overhead sounds, but rather this "object" surround that Atmos promises to be. With three-dimensional sound fields, that assumes that some form of triangulation is possible to place sound within our rooms in a specific location, not just left, right, above, or behind us. I mean a specific sound, such as a whisper that somebody in the front row will hear behind their left shoulder and somebody in the back left row will hear in front of them to their right. Location of sound, not just panning or fullness of sound.

I actually heard some of this in Blade Runner 2049, and that is promising to me. And as I stated earlier, I very much like how upmixing works with standard blu rays to make the sound fuller, particularly the music which is one of my favorite parts of any movie. 

I was lazy to use the word "lazy", so my apologies. Perhaps a better term would be "committing the time and resources to implement". Again, these are business decisions, I know, and I hope more consideration is given there. Sound is its own character in any film, no matter what Christopher Nolan thinks.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> I'm not referring to overhead sounds, but rather this "object" surround that Atmos promises to be. With three-dimensional sound fields, that assumes that some form of triangulation is possible to place sound within our rooms in a specific location, not just left, right, above, or behind us. I mean a specific sound, such as a whisper that somebody in the front row will hear behind their left shoulder and somebody in the back left row will hear in front of them to their right. Location of sound, not just panning or fullness of sound.


When you hear a sound phantom imaging between speakers, how do you know whether it is an audio object or just sound mixed to more than one channel?


----------



## Dave-T

Out of curiosity how many of you have back boxes on your in-ceiling atmos speakers? i was talking Bowers & Wilkins yesterday about back boxes for my CCm682 speakers I have four of them. Currently I have R-15 insulation teepeed over the speakers, nothing special. The Tech told me that using back boxes will definitely tighten up the sound because right now my whole ceiling is acting like a back box which is not the best case scenario. I asked about Dynabox which is retrofit but they are not the demotions as the B&W boxes. I was told that the Dynabox would work but the speakers may sound little different because those are not the damsons that B&W require for the speakers. I was also told if I do not want to use the B&W ones I can make my own. Doe anybody have any thoughts on this? It always seems that we try and get every ounce out of our systems to maximize our investment in our systems.


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> When you hear a sound phantom imaging between speakers, how do you know whether it is an audio object or just sound mixed to more than one channel?


I know the goal often is just mix sound to more channels to provide a fuller sound. Music, wind, rain, etc.

But Atmos, as I understand it, can theoretically play the same sound at different volumes from multiple speakers to triangulate it to a relatively specific place within a sound bubble. This was evident in Blade Runner.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> But Atmos, as I understand it, can theoretically play the same sound at different volumes from multiple speakers to triangulate it to a relatively specific place within a sound bubble.


Can the same sound not be mixed at different volumes in multiple channels to achieve the same result? Prior to Atmos, was it not possible to have the same sound come out of more than one speaker?


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> Can the same sound not be mixed at different volumes in multiple channels to achieve the same result? Prior to Atmos, was it not possible to have the same sound come out of more than one speaker?


Yes it was, but only in one horizontal plane of sound. With Atmos height channels, you can play that sound horizontally as before, but then lift it to a higher point with overhead speakers, too. 


I do wonder why they try to represent it with a "bubble" because there aren't any speakers under our feet. Yet, lol.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> Yes it was, but only in one horizontal plane of sound. With Atmos height channels, you can play that sound horizontally as before, but then lift it to a higher point with overhead speakers, too.


Earlier you lamented that _"mixers just aren't using it [Atmos] yet as they could and should"_ and clarified that you were _"not referring to overhead sounds, but rather this "object" surround that Atmos promises to be."_ How do you know mixers aren't using objects? What if a soundtrack with almost no height info, like _'American Sniper'_, has lots of objects in the mix, but almost none happen to be placed in the height layer? So when you complain that mixers aren't using the format as they should, do you mean not enough objects (how can you tell?) or do you really mean not enough sound above you?


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> Earlier you lamented that _"mixers just aren't using it [Atmos] yet as they could and should"_ and clarified that you were _"not referring to overhead sounds, but rather this "object" surround that Atmos promises to be."_ How do you know mixers aren't using objects? What if a soundtrack with almost no height info, like _'American Sniper'_, has lots of objects in the mix, but almost none happen to be placed in the height layer? So when you complain that mixers aren't using the format as they should, do you mean not enough objects (how can you tell?) or do you really mean not enough sound above you?



It has nothing to do with sound above us. It's about an entirely new approach to how sound is mixed altogether. Speaker location should virtually disappear as sound is located, not just played.

The general observation about Atmos so far - not from just me, but I would say MOST people - is that it really isn't being strategically implemented in soundtracks with much intent yet. The height channels are used but only really to make the sound "bigger", not object-based so much. 


Listen to the Dolby Atmos demo "Amaze". That is what Atmos is capable of from an atmospheric and location standpoint, and most of these movies labeled as "Atmos" sound absolutely nothing like that in terms of detail. Most Atmos movies just do a traditional 5.1 mix with overhead sound to expand music and wind. That's the dumbed-down version of what Atmos can do, and they don't sound any different than the upmixed blu ray movies.


Blade Runner 2049 did a terrific job. The "bubble" was very apparent throughout, and it showed the capabilities that are there. My hope is that as the consumer base and demand increases, it will be a higher priority. The Martian was also subtle, but good. Wonder Woman was lacking. The Revenant wasn't even Atmos, but it sounded more Atmos than most actual Atmos movies.


Content is finally expanding rapidly now, so I suspect the quality of Atmos will to.


----------



## richlife

Dave-T said:


> Out of curiosity how many of you have back boxes on your in-ceiling atmos speakers? i was talking Bowers & Wilkins yesterday about back boxes for my CCm682 speakers I have four of them. Currently I have R-15 insulation teepeed over the speakers, nothing special. The Tech told me that using back boxes will definitely tighten up the sound because right now my whole ceiling is acting like a back box which is not the best case scenario. I asked about Dynabox which is retrofit but they are not the demotions as the B&W boxes. I was told that the Dynabox would work but the speakers may sound little different because those are not the damsons that B&W require for the speakers. I was also told if I do not want to use the B&W ones I can make my own. Doe anybody have any thoughts on this? It always seems that we try and get every ounce out of our systems to maximize our investment in our systems.


This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure that a back box is necessary (despite any manufacturer's claim). Granted, large drivers may be an issue and that could include your CCm682s, but for most installations I don't think this would be an issue. The point of the insulation is to dampen the rearward sound waves. While it may not be perfect, the intent is to minimize any reverberations in your ceiling. Good in-ceiling speakers should have a solid frame around the drivers -- with the addition of sufficient insulation (at least R-15), the frame should block vibration in the ceiling. The "quote/unquote" 10" RSLs in my setup actually consist of two 4" drivers plus tweeter and with the backside insulation don't cause any significant ceiling vibration. 

I would think that with larger physical drivers (approaching true woofers), a back box would help to contain that ceiling vibration, but will it really stop it? Place your hand on any larger bookshelf speaker -- is there vibration? I'm definitely willing to be corrected/informed and this doesn't affect me in my circumstances. As I said, it's an interesting question.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> The general observation about Atmos so far - not from just me, but I would say MOST people - is that it really isn't being strategically implemented in soundtracks with much intent yet.


How do "MOST people" know that? It comes back to my earlier question: if you hear a sound floating between speakers, how do you know whether it is an object or not? There has been sound floating between speaker locations since the invention of stereo 80 years ago. The notion that mixers aren't taking advantage of objects is rather presumptuous, as though "MOST people" are able to listen to a soundtrack and tell which sounds are mixed into channels and which are mixed in as objects.


> Speaker location should virtually disappear as sound is located, not just played.


Speaker locations already disappear, otherwise stereophonic reproduction wouldn't have worked for all these decades. Whatever you're finding lacking in Atmos mixes has nothing to do with objects. You gave a good example of this yourself:


> Wonder Woman was lacking. The Revenant wasn't even Atmos, but it sounded more Atmos than most actual Atmos movies.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave-T said:


> Out of curiosity how many of you have back boxes on your in-ceiling atmos speakers? i was talking Bowers & Wilkins yesterday about back boxes for my CCm682 speakers I have four of them. Currently I have R-15 insulation teepeed over the speakers, nothing special. The Tech told me that using back boxes will definitely tighten up the sound because right now my whole ceiling is acting like a back box which is not the best case scenario. I asked about Dynabox which is retrofit but they are not the demotions as the B&W boxes. I was told that the Dynabox would work but the speakers may sound little different because those are not the damsons that B&W require for the speakers. I was also told if I do not want to use the B&W ones I can make my own. Doe anybody have any thoughts on this? It always seems that we try and get every ounce out of our systems to maximize our investment in our systems.


I made my own backer boxes for the four Polk Audio 80F/X-RT in-ceiling speakers I have installed to date (I have another pair in reserve). I built the enclosures out of Rigid Foam Insulation Board, which is exceedingly easy to cut to shape and serves dual purpose by shielding the speakers from both heat and dust or debris in the attic space overhead. This was a cheap and simple solution that has worked for me.


----------



## Dave-T

chi_guy50 said:


> I made my own backer boxes for the four Polk Audio 80F/X-RT in-ceiling speakers I have installed to date (I have another pair in reserve). I built the enclosures out of Rigid Foam Insulation Board, which is exceedingly easy to cut to shape and serves dual purpose by shielding the speakers from both heat and dust or debris in the attic space overhead. This was a cheap and simple solution that has worked for me.


Nice I like your solution! Did you do a DIY thread to show people how you did? Looks like something that may fit the need Io am looking for.


----------



## Erod

Dave-T said:


> Nice I like your solution! Did you do a DIY thread to show people how you did? Looks like something that may fit the need Io am looking for.


An effective cheap way to do this is to use the actual boxes the speakers came in to cover them, then spread loose insulation over the boxes.


----------



## mtbdudex

richlife said:


> This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure that a back box is necessary (despite any manufacturer's claim). Granted, large drivers may be an issue and that could include your CCm682s, but for most installations I don't think this would be an issue. The point of the insulation is to dampen the rearward sound waves. While it may not be perfect, the intent is to minimize any reverberations in your ceiling. Good in-ceiling speakers should have a solid frame around the drivers -- with the addition of sufficient insulation (at least R-15), the frame should block vibration in the ceiling. The "quote/unquote" 10" RSLs in my setup actually consist of two 4" drivers plus tweeter and with the backside insulation don't cause any significant ceiling vibration.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that with larger physical drivers (approaching true woofers), a back box would help to contain that ceiling vibration, but will it really stop it? Place your hand on any larger bookshelf speaker -- is there vibration? I'm definitely willing to be corrected/informed and this doesn't affect me in my circumstances. As I said, it's an interesting question.



If your in ceiling are located in drywall then effectively they are a IB configuration.
Some are ok if designed that way, some not.

My inceiling were worse, located on absorbent ceiling tiles. I was getting phase cancellation from that.
I did a little DIY, there even was a suggest backer box min cu ft spec for mine, I went slightly larger than that, added cross braces.
Definitely sounds clearer and helped lessen the sound transmission upstairs .













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Dave-T said:


> Out of curiosity how many of you have back boxes on your in-ceiling atmos speakers?


I currently do not...like yourself, my speakers are surrounded by R-15 to limit sound/vibration to the floor above and surrounding areas...no issue whatsoever with sound leakage to other areas.



richlife said:


> This is an interesting question, but I'm not sure that a back box is necessary (despite any manufacturer's claim).


I'm in agreement with richlife for the most part. My overall position is...it depends...it depends on (1) what is above (2) ceiling type and (3) what you listen to with the ceiling speakers. Those with living spaces above that would be adversely affected by sound leakage may want an enclosure to better/help/reduce/contain sound transmission. Those with suspended ceilings may need backer boxes to eliminate undesirable vibration. For those whose use is primarily movie Atmos sound effects, I don't feel it's necessary to "tighten up the sound" for wind, rain, birds, etc...IB works just fine. If however, one uses these overhead speakers predominantly for music, perhaps an enclosure will add value. If and when, Atmos music content becomes more mainstream, I may rethink this position and retrofit some inexpensive backer boxes...but for the present...not necessary. YMMV


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave-T said:


> Nice I like your solution! Did you do a DIY thread to show people how you did? Looks like something that may fit the need Io am looking for.


IMHO this is so simple, there's no need for instruction. Just take some measurements (allowing for ample clearance in all directions), cut to size (mitered edges is a nice touch, but not necessary), and tape the sides together using vent tape or similar product. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy.

Or you can take on a more elaborate project à la mtbdudex above depending on your needs and skill set (or motivation).


----------



## Dave-T

chi_guy50 said:


> IMHO this is so simple, there's no need for instruction. Just take some measurements (allowing for ample clearance in all directions), cut to size (mitered edges is a nice touch, but not necessary), and tape the sides together using vent tape or similar product. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy.
> 
> Or you can take on a more elaborate project à la mtbdudex above depending on your needs and skill set (or motivation).


Is the material flexible enough to get up a the hole I have cut already for the 8" speaker? I can then put together in the ceiling without chopping up the ceiling again with vent tape.


----------



## Dave-T

mtbdudex said:


> If your in ceiling are located in drywall then effectively they are a IB configuration.
> Some are ok if designed that way, some not.
> 
> My inceiling were worse, located on absorbent ceiling tiles. I was getting phase cancellation from that.
> I did a little DIY, there even was a suggest backer box min cu ft spec for mine, I went slightly larger than that, added cross braces.
> Definitely sounds clearer and helped lessen the sound transmission upstairs .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow those are serious you are not messing around, nice job.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave-T said:


> Is the material flexible enough to get up a the hole I have cut already for the 8" speaker? I can then put together in the ceiling without chopping up the ceiling again with vent tape.


Nope, hence the nomenclature "*rigid* foam."

Again, it all depends on your needs. In my case, I was working with an attic space; your application appears to be quite different and might require a somewhat different approach.


----------



## gene4ht

Dave-T said:


> Is the material flexible enough to get up a the hole I have cut already for the 8" speaker? I can then put together in the ceiling without chopping up the ceiling again with vent tape.


If your only concern is speaker protection from dust & debris, this has been a popular solution...no issue with retro fitting or extra cutting of drywall necessary.

https://www.amazon.com/OEM-Systems-...&qid=1516388558&sr=8-9&keywords=speaker+cover


----------



## enricoclaudio

Before pulling the trigger and through $2100 on Atmos upgrade in my living room, I'm going to try today Atmos in my bedroom (5.1.2) with a pair of SVS Prime Elevation that are "Out for delivery. I'm planning to set those as FH to see if I get good results. My receiver is a Marantz NR1606. I have a question: can I use the Prime Elevation speakers as Atmos add ON speakers as well?


----------



## imureh

enricoclaudio said:


> Before pulling the trigger and through $2100 on Atmos upgrade in my living room, I'm going to try today Atmos in my bedroom (5.1.2) with a pair of SVS Prime Elevation that are "Out for delivery. I'm planning to set those as FH to see if I get good results. My receiver is a Marantz NR1606. I have a question: can I use the Prime Elevation speakers as Atmos add ON speakers as well?




Yes Enrico, they would work fine as Add on as well but probably the effect not as good as in ceiling or on wall. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzrock

Dave-T said:


> Out of curiosity how many of you have back boxes on your in-ceiling atmos speakers? i was talking Bowers & Wilkins yesterday about back boxes for my CCm682 speakers I have four of them. Currently I have R-15 insulation teepeed over the speakers, nothing special. The Tech told me that using back boxes will definitely tighten up the sound because right now my whole ceiling is acting like a back box which is not the best case scenario. I asked about Dynabox which is retrofit but they are not the demotions as the B&W boxes. I was told that the Dynabox would work but the speakers may sound little different because those are not the damsons that B&W require for the speakers. I was also told if I do not want to use the B&W ones I can make my own. Doe anybody have any thoughts on this? It always seems that we try and get every ounce out of our systems to maximize our investment in our systems.




In my experience you will get the best performance with boxes. Speakers are engineered to perform with certain placement specifications hence in wall, on wall, etc. I’m of the opinion that it’s ideal to use the BfW boxes if possible. But definitely boxes. Compromises abound in our hobby and i choose to make as few as possible. Enough small ones eventually will really alter the performance of your system which also includes the “room” as part of the equation. No doubt there will be varying opinions and rationalizations to arrive at desired conclusions but i always start with trying to stay with specs/ mfr suggestions.


----------



## Dave-T

jazzrock said:


> In my experience you will get the best performance with boxes. Speakers are engineered to perform with certain placement specifications hence in wall, on wall, etc. I’m of the opinion that it’s ideal to use the BfW boxes if possible. But definitely boxes. Compromises abound in our hobby and i choose to make as few as possible. Enough small ones eventually will really alter the performance of your system which also includes the “room” as part of the equation. No doubt there will be varying opinions and rationalizations to arrive at desired conclusions but i always start with trying to stay with specs/ mfr suggestions.


That is exactly what Bowers & Wilkins said. They did not say I had to use their box but a box with the same exact dimensions if I want the speakers to play and sound like they are intended to do. I spent close to $3000 on 4 speakers with Tax, $600 per speaker before tax. I was told boxes in general would help with making the speakers sound more dynamic. If you think about the purpose of Atmos speakers that is exactly what they are dynamic sound effects. I have read post after post that some think Atmos speakers are not all that and a bag of chips. this is what me think if the speakers are not being installed 100% according to specs could be the reason why some people do not experience the wow factor. Just a thought and why i asked. I may bite the bullet and tear up the ceiling and do it the right way. patching big holes are not hard to do it is small ones that hard, at least for me.


----------



## midblue

Has anyone watched Godless on Netflix in Atmos yet? The series itself is amazing, but the Atmos presentation is one of the best I've heard, especially for a TV show. So many scenes stand out in my mind - bees buzzing around, horses thundering by, bassy and powerful storms... so much activity in the overheads. I looked forward to the scenes in Alice's barn especially, since the wind was always whipping around outside and blowing through the cracks in the wood. You can clearly hear the wind whirling in a circle around and above the listening position, very cool effect. Highly recommended!


----------



## gbaby

biga6761 said:


> I prob should have been more clear, that capture is an analysis strait from the disk and not played back through any gear.
> 
> ...On the audio side though I could definitely hear some clipping on several occasions, especially in the center channel. ...


If you are experiencing clipping I'd look down my audio chain as you should not hear any clipping from Dunkirk. It may be those Class D Crown amps, I'm not sure. But, again, you should not hear clipping in any channel.


----------



## gbaby

FilmMixer said:


> You’re surely entitled to your opinion.
> 
> But I find it kind of insulting. That we don’t know how we can or should use the format.....
> 
> It seems as if your criteria for a successful immersive experience is constant overhead activity (I am making a big assumption here but you keep bringing up the upmixers, which indeed make very constant use of the overheads...)
> 
> I’m not going to debate what you like. But you’ve made multiple comments about my community as a whole and our competence.
> 
> I offer you an invitation that if you’re ever in LA you come for a mix and see what and how decisions are made on the mixing stage... Atmos offers a lot more than just overheads.
> 
> Most users can’t expand their base speaker layout to be greater than the base layer (7.1). This is due to cost, space constraints and available products (only now are we getting 13 channel AVRs and processors....) so the only way to tell that objects are being used is to listen to what coming out of the overheads.
> 
> While I understand this is the reality of Atmos at home, I think it’s foolish to use that as a metric for what mixers are doing with the format... as many have stated in the past, everyone benefits from immersive... take a look at the down mixes of theatrically mixed track (The Revenant for example...). Better and more detailed panning is just one benefit.
> 
> Just my .02. But since I’m one of the only mixer involved I wanted to chime in


I personally think that you and other mixers are doing the best you can with the film material you are working with. But, the reality is that human beings don't hear in real life, "object base." On a given day, ask yourself how often you hear object base? Reality does not lend itself to object base which is why most folks seem underwhelmed with Atmos. Its not your fault. Dolby gave you a new codec and you are trying to do the best you can with it. Thats how I see it.


----------



## Erod

I would love to see _Master and Commander_ re-mastered in Dolby Atmos, UHD, and HDR.


----------



## BearGator56

gene4ht said:


> For those who choose to install in ceiling speakers, this is probably the most reluctant/fearful task to undertake...due to not understanding how and where to cut, ceiling damage, installing in the wrong location, WAF, etc. etc. In reality, there are easy solutions. First, do your homework and review the 3D speaker/location guidelines (i.e. Dolby Atmos HT Installation Guidelines) so you'll have a basic understanding of the objective. Most importantly, don't let the OCD side of you take over...forget about exactly 45 degrees or 1.5' from this wall. This Atmos stuff is not rocket science...won't sound like a "hot mess" ...is very forgiving...and produces very good results with various room configurations and constraints as proven/evidenced by many members here. When ready to experiment...the question is always how....cut several dozen holes in my ceiling??? Taking a cue from members here...some have constructed a temporary simple framework near the ceiling with the ability to slide attached speakers to different positions.


I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to do. It's not the cutting or wire-pulling I'm worried about. That's a pain in the rear, but it's expected. I just want to make sure it sounds the best it can with my speakers. Not too far out, not too close in. When we play around with the toe-in to get the best imaging from the front mains, it's a little here / a little there until we're satisfied. Once those ceiling holes are cut it's not like I have a lot of adjustment available. My speakers are Goldenear Invisia that are aimable, so that's going to be helpful. I can turn them as needed and adjust the tweeter.

My fronts will be fine, I think. I have an idea of where to place them and have a nice even wall-to-wall space to work with. To the rear is choked off by an angled fireplace. So the fronts will be 2.5 to 3' off the walls and slightly inside of the front mains, but the rears are likely the be another 2' in from there. I think the front Atmos will be about 3 to 4' in front of the listening position, and the rears will likely be 2 to 3' behind.


----------



## jazzrock

Dave-T said:


> That is exactly what Bowers & Wilkins said. They did not say I had to use their box but a box with the same exact dimensions if I want the speakers to play and sound like they are intended to do. I spent close to $3000 on 4 speakers with Tax, $600 per speaker before tax. I was told boxes in general would help with making the speakers sound more dynamic. If you think about the purpose of Atmos speakers that is exactly what they are dynamic sound effects. I have read post after post that some think Atmos speakers are not all that and a bag of chips. this is what me think if the speakers are not being installed 100% according to specs could be the reason why some people do not experience the wow factor. Just a thought and why i asked. I may bite the bullet and tear up the ceiling and do it the right way. patching big holes are not hard to do it is small ones that hard, at least for me.




It amazes me to read some of the perceptions folks have. And certainly there’s more than one way to execute things. But specifically speaking of a speakers performance, and wanting to leverage the best performance said speaker was designed to provide, it only makes sense to put them in an enclosure as intended. Again, ideally, the box that was made for tgem. But, as compromises are required, I would get as close to the B&W box as possible. I know it’s a pain reinstalling as you described but I’ve done crazier things to either correct something that wasn’t optimal or simply upgrade to elevate the level of performance. Little details are More often what make significant differences.

And ultimately what I was getting at is that glad to hear your willing to make the effort!!! Most would rationalize away the need to do it. 

Good luck!!


----------



## Dave-T

gbaby said:


> If you are experiencing clipping I'd look down my audio chain as you should not hear any clipping from Dunkirk. It may be those Class D Crown amps, I'm not sure. But, again, you should not hear clipping in any channel.


One thing I have noticed and some my call me crazy with my atmos speakers B&W CCM682 which require 50 to 150watts per channel. i was using a Rotel RMB-1565 class amp which put out 100watts x 5 channels with 8oHm speakers. I recently purchase a Rotel RMB-1585 for my bed channels and switched my Rotel RMB-1575 250watts x 5 channels with my Rotel RMB-1565 for Atmos channels. I sound from the Atmos speakers was a very noticeable difference. when I called up B&W and asked about back boxes we all discussed switching the smaller hotel amp with a larger hotel amp and what I was experiencing. The Tech told me that what i was experiencing was a wider range of sound because the speakers had more headroom and were getting the max amount of power the speakers could get. Since I do not play my system at reference I was told I would not blow my speakers. maybe people are not hearing the full range of the Atmos part of the soundtrack because they are under powering their speakers. Could the speakers or amp be clipping as well because they are underpowered? Both the Rotel RMB-1565 & 1575 are class D amps and I have never heard any clipping of the speakers or amp.


----------



## snpanago

BearGator56 said:


> I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to do. It's not the cutting or wire-pulling I'm worried about. That's a pain in the rear, but it's expected. I just want to make sure it sounds the best it can with my speakers. Not too far out, not too close in. When we play around with the toe-in to get the best imaging from the front mains, it's a little here / a little there until we're satisfied. Once those ceiling holes are cut it's not like I have a lot of adjustment available. My speakers are Goldenear Invisia that are aimable, so that's going to be helpful. I can turn them as needed and adjust the tweeter.
> 
> My fronts will be fine, I think. I have an idea of where to place them and have a nice even wall-to-wall space to work with. To the rear is choked off by an angled fireplace. So the fronts will be 2.5 to 3' off the walls and slightly inside of the front mains, but the rears are likely the be another 2' in from there. I think the front Atmos will be about 3 to 4' in front of the listening position, and the rears will likely be 2 to 3' behind.


Your concerns are understandable. I have the aimable Invisa HTR-7000 in ceiling speakers in my 5.2.4 HT setup. As long as you get CLOSE to the Dolby Atmos speaker placement recommendations, you will be happy and no doubt blown away by the performance of these in ceiling speakers. Due to room dimensions, sofa placement, and the ceiling stud locations, I got close enough to guidelines to have an amazing result.


----------



## Jonas2

snpanago said:


> Your concerns are understandable. I have the aimable Invisa HTR-7000 in ceiling speakers in my 5.2.4 HT setup. As long as you get CLOSE to the Dolby Atmos speaker placement recommendations, you will be happy and no doubt blown away by the performance of these in ceiling speakers. Due to room dimensions, sofa placement, and the ceiling stud locations, I got close enough to guidelines to have an amazing result.


Same here. Had to make certain compromises like what you've mentioned, front heights are *perfect* o), rears are within Dolby specs, but closer to MLP than perfect, and 3 of the 4 speakers are closer to boundaries than typically recommended, one is stuck in a corner eek, and it still sounds AWESOME. Could it sound better? Of course! Could it sound worse? Oh my, yes. After all, I could NOT have Atmos at all.......


----------



## enricoclaudio

Still waiting for UPS to deliver the SVS Prime Elevation speakers. System is ready with "It" Blue Ray loaded and Atmos soundtrack selected


----------



## gbaby

Dave-T said:


> ... Could the speakers or amp be clipping as well because they are underpowered? Both the Rotel RMB-1565 & 1575 are class D amps and I have never heard any clipping of the speakers or amp.


When they say "clip" they mean the signal is asking the amp to put out more sound at a certain frequency than it is capable so it (the amp) sends out a distorted signal and its called clipping the amp. The clipping is the major cause of blown speaker drivers. I cannot say what is causing the distortion in your system. I use to have problems such as yours until I purchased fully balanced professional Bryston and Krell gear. But, I started out with Sony receivers, Sony ES separates, Arcam AV9 and the Bryston SP3. My cables are all silver cables from bettercables.com. For you, if I had to guess at the culprit of your problem, I'd start with that Class D amp as I hear they clip harder than Class A/B amps. Or, it could be just a sub cable. I would definitely find the problem as there should be no clipping.


----------



## gwsat

enricoclaudio said:


> Still waiting for UPS to deliver the SVS Prime Elevation speakers. System is ready with "It" Blue Ray loaded and Atmos soundtrack selected


I assume your _It_ BD has the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. If it does, be prepared for a treat. I bought the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of the film and really liked the way it sounded.


----------



## gene4ht

gwsat said:


> I assume your _It_ BD has the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. If it does, be prepared for a treat. I bought the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of the film and really liked the way it sounded.


"IT" does (no pun intended)...Blade Runner 2049 does as well...Warner still provides the Atmos track on it's BD versions.


----------



## Dave-T

gbaby said:


> When they say "clip" they mean the signal is asking the amp to put out more sound at a certain frequency than it is capable so it (the amp) sends out a distorted signal and its called clipping the amp. The clipping is the major cause of blown speaker drivers. I cannot say what is causing the distortion in your system. I use to have problems such as yours until I purchased fully balanced professional Bryston and Krell gear. But, I started out with Sony receivers, Sony ES separates, Arcam AV9 and the Bryston SP3. My cables are all silver cables from bettercables.com. For you, if I had to guess at the culprit of your problem, I'd start with that Class D amp as I hear they clip harder than Class A/B amps. Or, it could be just a sub cable. I would definitely find the problem as there should be no clipping.


Sorry wrong person, I am not having issues with my speakers or amps.


----------



## gbaby

Dave-T said:


> Sorry wrong person, I am not having issues with my speakers or amps.


No problem.


----------



## enricoclaudio

gwsat said:


> I assume your _It_ BD has the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. If it does, be prepared for a treat. I bought the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of the film and really liked the way it sounded.


I got the speakers. Tried them as add ON on top of my B&W 685 S2 that I have in my bedroom setup. As add ON they add nothing. Waste of money. Then I tried them up high on the wall and definitely 100% improvement but still not what I was expecting. I felt the sound was too directional and it was coming from the wall up high, not from the ceiling which is what Atmos is all about. Atmos is 3D sound, in my case the sound is still 2D. Now I know why ceiling speakers is what is recommended. So the speakers are back in the box, return label in printed out and finally I'm convinced that to do Atmos the right way, has to be done with ceiling speakers which I can't do because I'm renting and I'm not allowed to drill holes on the ceiling due to fire code in my apt complex.


----------



## MNKhawaja

Hi guys, 

I recently invested in pair of KEF CL200QRs (ceiling speakers) for my Yamaha 3050 Doly Atmos. I've now got a 7.1.2 configuration. My speaker placement is pretty close to the Dolby Atmos recommended layout.

My speakers are connected to the Yamaha 'Extra SP; Front' terminal. Is this ok or should I be using the Rear terminal?

I've ran the YPAO calibration.

First thing I notice when I enable Dolby Surround is that the volume level drops i.e. the front and center are noticeably less loud. Is this normal?

I also haven't noticed much in the way of Atmos effects; could this be due to 'older' 5.1 material? I mostly stream from Apple TV or Netflix. Recently watched Rain Man/Big Trouble In Little China and those actually sounded better in the old 7.1 config. 

Am I missing something here?

Cheers


----------



## biga6761

gbaby said:


> If you are experiencing clipping I'd look down my audio chain as you should not hear any clipping from Dunkirk. It may be those Class D Crown amps, I'm not sure. But, again, you should not hear clipping in any channel.


How is that when it's recorded to the disk that way?

The clipping in Dunkirk manifests itself on my system in the form of harmonics/distortion that lead to crackling/break-up of voices/distorted sounding dialog in the center channel for one in a normally perfectly clear reference capable system. I could also hear more of the same on a few effects in the LR mains. But Dunkirk is definitely not the only one. 

For instance I could hear the clipping in the ship warps in ST Into Darkness or when Sarah Connor yells "the brakes are gone, ****" while on the bus in Treminator Genisis. There is clipping in the LR on Battle LA when the drone control ship rises up out of the ground starting with the right front then a couple seconds later in the left. You have very nice gear there gbaby and don't get me wrong I'm not knocking it by any means but at or near reference volume with these new ultra high resolution codecs if the clipping is recorded to the disk and your system is resolving enough in a treated room I'm not sure how you could keep from hearing it.
There are hundreds of movies that I can play back as loud as I like even over reference level and hear no such distortion or elements that have been pushed over the threshold of audible clipping/distortion but Dunkirk is just not one of them, nor I'm sure will it be the last. Take BR:2049 for example, the dialog and effects are as clean and clear as ever and I never heard even a sliver of distortion or clipping because just guessing (haven't seen it analyzed yet) there isn't any.
I have even read a couple experienced members have said it's the best Atmos track they have heard to this day and I would agree.

I do understand where you are coming from on the Crown's though. They are very neutral sounding to a point of sounding sterile like many class D amps are said to be. When I first made the switch to the Crowns I still had my Parasound amps and did a good bit of back and forth on the same speakers and found that in comparison the Parasounds glossed over details that were clearly audible on the Crowns. That was one reason I switched in the end was my system just resolved much more detail with the Marantz driving the Crowns on the same speakers. This of course can be a blessing and curse. It allows fine detail to be easily heard but sometimes that detail is clipping/distortion in the media whether it be music or films.

Sorry if this all seems like a rant directed at you, it's not and I'm not at all trying to start a debate with you here gbaby, just telling it how it went down in my room on my gear. Heck if you are happy with the audio when watching Dunkirk by all means rock out in bliss brother. That is my goal as well.
Like I said before I really liked Dunkirk and that is a big reason I wish the audio was not what it is. Everyone here prob knows I can't get enough Atmos and wish every soundtrack featured it but this issue goes beyond codec's and wishing Dunkirk had immersive audio. There have to be others who have been able to hear the effects of Mr. Nolans treatment of soundtracks and not just in Dunkirk. And he is not the only one of course, but he just seems to almost do it intentionally(and audibly trying to create some effect or stand out from others???). If in doing so, "the wall of sound" unlocked something missing from otherwise clean and clear soundtracks I could also understand that but that is far from what happens IMHO. It's has quite the opposite effect in reality and the excessive levels make the sound harsh and a bit distorted at times instead of just louder.

I'm not a mixer or expert like some here at avs and don't even record anything really but have had my own issues with clipping my Umik trying capture SpecLab plots of bass in movies so I do know how easy it is to get it wrong but I feel with the budget of these Nolan films(and others) and all the talent that works on the audio of said films that in 2017 things can and should be kept under -0dbfs and unclipped in the soundtrack. I can live with a mic being clipped when recording an effect or event but to push the level of said effect to a point of clipping is another matter indeed. They have the equipment and software to analyze and correct these level issues easily before committing them to the film. The effect of pushing the recorded levels so high when you have a normally clean sounding/highly resolving system, that you have worked hard to put together to resolve as much detail as possible, is startling and pulls you instantly out of the illusion of disbelief the movie is supposed to create. 

It really comes down to preference I guess and it just saddens me because I love Nolan films but really just don't like or agree with some of his audio choices. The tech is there(Atmos/Dts:x) and could easily be exploited to its full potential but is passed over for older codec's & poor techniques on what could otherwise be an audio and visual masterpiece just gets me(obviously, sorry gbaby). Also don't get me wrong Dunkirk audio was not a total mess or unwatchable but it did have its flaws and to me some of those flaws were audible. 

Hope you have a Happy New Year enjoying your very nice system gbaby. Thanks for putting up with my rant on Nolan.


----------



## thrang

Gooddoc said:


> Lots of movie talk here, but has anyone listened to the new Atmos studio music releases?
> 
> I installed Atmos for movies, but I have to say that after experiencing the latest REM Atmos remix, the music experience has me more excited. There have been a few studio discs recently released(I'm not talking "concert" releases), and I've heard a couple: REM- Automatic For the People, and Inxs - Kick 30th Anniversary reissue. As with movies, the skill of the mixers, and likely the content they have to work with, makes a big difference.
> 
> The REM disc is the best music experience I've ever heard from my system. Amazing.
> 
> Being a music guy more than movies, this was a huge surprise to me.


I'd like to try this, but I'm not a huge REM fan and you can't seem to get the Blu Ray on it's own, only as part of some collector set...if I'm wrong, please let me know...


----------



## thrang

Clipped sounds annoy me generally, but it doesn't have to be baked into the mix...elements such as synths can have clipped waveforms designed into them which, if used excessively, are grating. Used sparingly, it can be effective (the sound of K flying overhead toward the LAPD in one of the early sequences in BR2049 has a "nice" clipped synth effect). But when there's big soundtrack mashups with everything turned to 11 is when I reach for the stop button.

I haven't watched Dunkirk yet, but plan to this weekend - are there specific scenes where this clipping is apparent to some of you?


----------



## jjackkrash

I had a friend over last night who wanted a demo of my OLED. He was quick to point out he did not care about "surround sound" and just wanted to see the picture. I popped in the new Bladerunner and after about 5 minutes of glorious Atmos he was way more interested in the sound system than the OLED.


----------



## biga6761

thrang said:


> Clipped sounds annoy me generally, but it doesn't have to be baked into the mix...elements such as synths can have clipped waveforms designed into them which, if used excessively, are grating. Used paringly, it can be effective (the sound of K flying overhead toward the LAPD in one of the early sequences in BR2049 has a "nice" clipped synth effect). But when there's big soundtrack mashups with everything turned to 11 is when I reach for the stop button.
> 
> I haven't watched Dunkirk yet, but plan to this weekend - are there specific scenes where this clipping is apparent to some of you?


I've only watched it once and am not familiar enough with it yet to remember exactly what scenes I heard the clipping in but will give it another spin this weekend and report back. In general it's not the worst ST I have heard by a long shot but I did find a few offending parts sound wise and it is a very very loud mix so be prepared to run a lower MV than normal. I normally listen between -8 and reference but had to watch Dunkirk at -12 and that was still bordering on too loud. By comparison I watched BR:2049 at -2MV.


----------



## anothermib

midblue said:


> Has anyone watched Godless on Netflix in Atmos yet? The series itself is amazing, but the Atmos presentation is one of the best I've heard, especially for a TV show. So many scenes stand out in my mind - bees buzzing around, horses thundering by, bassy and powerful storms... so much activity in the overheads. I looked forward to the scenes in Alice's barn especially, since the wind was always whipping around outside and blowing through the cracks in the wood. You can clearly hear the wind whirling in a circle around and above the listening position, very cool effect. Highly recommended!




Is it now available in Atmos on Netflix or BD? The sound was great, but I had seen a 5.1 version only.


----------



## PioManiac

anothermib said:


> Is it now available in Atmos on Netflix or BD? The sound was great, but I had seen a 5.1 version only.


Do you have a 2017 LG OLED or XBOX ONE Console?

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066










You have to download the ATMOS app to your XBO, enable Bit Stream for audio, then select Dolby Atmos for Home Theater



















There's a couple ATMOS demo's , hope they add more soon...


----------



## anothermib

PioManiac said:


> Do you have a 2017 LG OLED or XBOX ONE Console?
> 
> 
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to download the ATMOS app to your XBO, enable Bit Stream for audio, then select Dolby Atmos for Home Theater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a couple ATMOS demo's , hope they add more soon...




Yes, I have the Xbox One. And in general Atmos works (e.g. for Bright). However, I just checked Godless is presented in 5.1 only and there doesn’t seem to be a hidden atmos track either. 










Availability may vary by country. Though I really can’t think of a reason why they would do that for their own productions. 

Anyways I envy you. The sound was really extraordinary in 5.1 as well, but I would have loved to see that one in Atmos.


----------



## tezster

jjackkrash said:


> I had a friend over last night who wanted a demo of my OLED. He was quick to point out he did not care about "surround sound" and just wanted to see the picture. I popped in the new Bladerunner and after about 5 minutes of glorious Atmos he was way more interested in the sound system than the OLED.


If you can believe it, the Atmos track on the UHD version of Blade Runner final cut is at least at good -and IMO even better- compared to BR:2049. Ridiculously crazy for a 35-year old catalog title to sound as good as it does.


----------



## biga6761

anothermib said:


> Yes, I have the Xbox One. And in general Atmos works (e.g. for Bright). However, I just checked Godless is presented in 5.1 only and there doesn’t seem to be a hidden atmos track either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Availability may vary by country. Though I really can’t think of a reason why they would do that for their own productions.
> 
> Anyways I envy you. The sound was really extraordinary in 5.1 as well, but I would have loved to see that one in Atmos.


Just a thought but be sure you have Atmos enabled under display and sound on the Xbox One when you search Netflix because if you don't everything shows up as only 5.1.
Also don't skip any of the game(Overwatch & Warcraft) or RedBull (The Fourth Phase) clips in the Dolby Access app either as all the clips have some nice effects and they all have some really strong deep bass & even a bit of ULF under 15hz. Good stuff indeed.


----------



## gwsat

I have a couple of points. First, I bought the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Blade Runner_ (1982) at the Kaleidescape store last October. I was so blown away the first time I saw it, I have rewatched it many times since. Its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is in a class with that of _Blade Runner 2049._ I promise.

Second, I don't have any of the devices that can decode Netflix's version of lossy Atmos. I have, however, listened to the lossy, streaming, version of Atmos encoded on some films in my Vudu library. The lossy streamed version sounds very good but should never be confused with lossless TrueHD Atmos audio, which is dramatically superior to streamed lossless Atmos, to my ears at least.


----------



## PioManiac

Just for clarification, all current Netflix ATMOS titles are all Netflix exclusives (not mainstream movie selections)
So there is no Hard Disc TrueHD/Dolby ATMOS sound track to compare it to.

Your ONLY option for these titles are DD 5.1 or ATMOS 7.1.4
and I'll take lossy 7.1.4 over DD 5.1 all day long. 

I get 95% of my ATMOS/DTS:X by purchasing hard disc media 4K/UHD and some older BD 1080 titles.

Netflix Exclusives that are VERY well done:

The Punisher and DarK (German import) ....that's 14/11 episodes of Bonus ATMOS content for under $14/mo



















The list of ATMOS releases on Netflix is growing and I'll gladly take all I can get!
Most also offer UHD/HDR and some even with DV (if played through a 2017 LG OLED)


----------



## gbaby

biga6761 said:


> How is that when it's recorded to the disk that way?
> 
> The clipping in Dunkirk manifests itself on my system in the form of harmonics/distortion that lead to crackling/break-up of voices/distorted sounding dialog in the center channel for one in a normally perfectly clear reference capable system. I could also hear more of the same on a few effects in the LR mains. But Dunkirk is definitely not the only one.
> 
> For instance I could hear the clipping in the ship warps in ST Into Darkness or when Sarah Connor yells "the brakes are gone, ****" while on the bus in Treminator Genisis. There is clipping in the LR on Battle LA when the drone control ship rises up out of the ground starting with the right front then a couple seconds later in the left. You have very nice gear there gbaby and don't get me wrong I'm not knocking it by any means but at or near reference volume with these new ultra high resolution codecs if the clipping is recorded to the disk and your system is resolving enough in a treated room I'm not sure how you could keep from hearing it.
> There are hundreds of movies that I can play back as loud as I like even over reference level and hear no such distortion or elements that have been pushed over the threshold of audible clipping/distortion but Dunkirk is just not one of them, nor I'm sure will it be the last. Take BR:2049 for example, the dialog and effects are as clean and clear as ever and I never heard even a sliver of distortion or clipping because just guessing (haven't seen it analyzed yet) there isn't any.
> I have even read a couple experienced members have said it's the best Atmos track they have heard to this day and I would agree.
> 
> I do understand where you are coming from on the Crown's though. They are very neutral sounding to a point of sounding sterile like many class D amps are said to be. When I first made the switch to the Crowns I still had my Parasound amps and did a good bit of back and forth on the same speakers and found that in comparison the Parasounds glossed over details that were clearly audible on the Crowns. That was one reason I switched in the end was my system just resolved much more detail with the Marantz driving the Crowns on the same speakers. This of course can be a blessing and curse. It allows fine detail to be easily heard but sometimes that detail is clipping/distortion in the media whether it be music or films.
> 
> Sorry if this all seems like a rant directed at you, it's not and I'm not at all trying to start a debate with you here gbaby, just telling it how it went down in my room on my gear. Heck if you are happy with the audio when watching Dunkirk by all means rock out in bliss brother. That is my goal as well.
> Like I said before I really liked Dunkirk and that is a big reason I wish the audio was not what it is. Everyone here prob knows I can't get enough Atmos and wish every soundtrack featured it but this issue goes beyond codec's and wishing Dunkirk had immersive audio. There have to be others who have been able to hear the effects of Mr. Nolans treatment of soundtracks and not just in Dunkirk. And he is not the only one of course, but he just seems to almost do it intentionally(and audibly trying to create some effect or stand out from others???). If in doing so, "the wall of sound" unlocked something missing from otherwise clean and clear soundtracks I could also understand that but that is far from what happens IMHO. It's has quite the opposite effect in reality and the excessive levels make the sound harsh and a bit distorted at times instead of just louder.
> 
> I'm not a mixer or expert like some here at avs and don't even record anything really but have had my own issues with clipping my Umik trying capture SpecLab plots of bass in movies so I do know how easy it is to get it wrong but I feel with the budget of these Nolan films(and others) and all the talent that works on the audio of said films that in 2017 things can and should be kept under -0dbfs and unclipped in the soundtrack. I can live with a mic being clipped when recording an effect or event but to push the level of said effect to a point of clipping is another matter indeed. They have the equipment and software to analyze and correct these level issues easily before committing them to the film. The effect of pushing the recorded levels so high when you have a normally clean sounding/highly resolving system, that you have worked hard to put together to resolve as much detail as possible, is startling and pulls you instantly out of the illusion of disbelief the movie is supposed to create.
> 
> It really comes down to preference I guess and it just saddens me because I love Nolan films but really just don't like or agree with some of his audio choices. The tech is there(Atmos/Dts:x) and could easily be exploited to its full potential but is passed over for older codec's & poor techniques on what could otherwise be an audio and visual masterpiece just gets me(obviously, sorry gbaby). Also don't get me wrong Dunkirk audio was not a total mess or unwatchable but it did have its flaws and to me some of those flaws were audible.
> 
> Hope you have a Happy New Year enjoying your very nice system gbaby. Thanks for putting up with my rant on Nolan.


Thanks for your post. I like your attitude. In any event, I would like to find out the origin of this clipping your are experiencing. Are you using EQ?


----------



## gbaby

anothermib said:


> Is it now available in Atmos on Netflix or BD? The sound was great, but I had seen a 5.1 version only.


I have found the blu-ray versions are always better sounding than Netflix due to compression. I'd buy it.


----------



## PioManiac

gbaby said:


> In any event, *I would like to find out the origin of this clipping* your are experiencing. Are you using EQ?


It's clearly been proven and mentioned in multiple threads, the *source* of the clipping is embedded *on the DISC itself*.
the chart of the frequency clipping (in RED) is from a computer program "Audacity" reading directly from the SOURCE.
It's not from a mic placed in someones room running reference levels on radioshack/wal-mart speakers. 










Every system that's calibrated properly will eventually "Clip" if enough volume is applied,
What most here are experiencing from Dunkirk is clipping before you even get up to reference levels.

Many soundtracks will allow capable systems to exceed reference levels without distortion,
That is not the case with Nolans' Dunkirk that will distort much sooner as you turn the volume up.

If your system does not "clip" you simply have a lower listening level than the rest of us.


----------



## PioManiac

gbaby said:


> I have found the blu-ray versions are always better sounding than Netflix due to compression. I'd buy it.


You can't buy Netflix exclusive ATMOS titles on Bluray


----------



## jjackkrash

PioManiac said:


> You can't buy Netflix exclusive ATMOS titles on Bluray


Three maybe four years ago I could not even watch Netflix because the video and audio feed was so bad, IMO. I really thought Netflix would be bankrupt by now because the quality was so bad. 

Now, I'll take Netflix video and audio in HDR/Dobly Vision and Atmos _over any non-UHD blue ray in existence_. It is shocking, really, how far Netflix has come with its streaming quality. (While Comcast/cable TV is still the same sh$t 720p / bad sound it had 10 years ago). 

My hat is truly off to Netflix.


----------



## muzz

It'll probably cost more $ in upcoming years to enjoy that, since Congress did away with regulations..
We'll see, they said they won't go after service like Netflix, but I seriously doubt it, and that will be passed on.."For XXX$ You get unlimited HD streaming..."
We'll see, I'm expecting more tiered packages personally.


----------



## gwsat

jjackkrash said:


> Three maybe four years ago I could not even watch Netflix because the video and audio feed was so bad, IMO. I really thought Netflix would be bankrupt by now because the quality was so bad.
> 
> Now, I'll take Netflix video and audio in HDR/Dobly Vision and Atmos _over any non-UHD blue ray in existence_. It is shocking, really, how far Netflix has come with its streaming quality. (While Comcast/cable TV is still the same sh$t 720p / bad sound it had 10 years ago).
> 
> My hat is truly off to Netflix.


I agree that streamed HDR, primarily on Netflix and Amazon, is excellent, close to BD quality. The only problem I have with them is that pristine lossless audio can be obtained only from BDs or bit for bit downloads of the files that are on BD via a service such as Kaleidescape. The drawback to streaming, for me at least, Is the audio, while decent, is still lossy.


----------



## PioManiac

muzz said:


> It'll probably cost more $ in upcoming years to enjoy that, since Congress did away with regulations..
> We'll see, they said they won't go after service like Netflix, but I seriously doubt it, and that will be passed on.."For XXX$ You get unlimited HD streaming..."
> We'll see, I'm expecting more tiered packages personally.


Actually there's going to be major competition from Disney soon,
especially when Disney merges with 20th Century Fox
...to add to their Empire like Pixar/Beuna Vista/Marvel/Lucasfilm holdings.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/11/16637732/disney-star-wars-marvel-pixar-streaming-service-netflix

Disney is likely to pull all their products from amazon too and setup their own online store,
It's already impossible to pre-order anything from Disney on amazon, I do that through Best Buy now.


----------



## muzz

Disney doesn't provide cable/ fiber internet service in MY neck of the woods, so I'm not sure how that matters?


----------



## PioManiac

muzz said:


> Disney doesn't provide cable/ fiber internet service in MY neck of the woods, so I'm not sure how that matters?


So how are you getting Netflix?


----------



## muzz

Netflix? Through Verizon FiOS, they are my ISP.
We have FiOS and Comcast cable here.


----------



## enricoclaudio

As I said before, the SVS Prime Elevation are on the way back to Amazon. They work really well as Front High speakers but that's not what I was planning on doing. As Add ON speakers they don't work at all because these are not designed to do that job. So after researching and looking to several up firing Atmos speakers, I found that the PSB Imagine XA Atmos Speaker, from an acoustical engineering point of view, looks very well designed because the grill is made in a way that avoid the sound to go forward which is the issue with the SVS Prime Elevation. I ordered a pair of the PSB Imagine XA to try it. I should get them next Thursday. Does anyone over here has experience with these PSB Imagine XA up firing Atmos speakers in particular?


----------



## PioManiac

muzz said:


> Netflix? Through Verizon FiOS, they are my ISP.
> We have FiOS and Comcast cable here.


My HDCable TV/Netflix/Amazon Prime Video, and the internet I'm typing this over right now, are supplied by my Cable provider.

Netflix/Amazon didn't have to install cable/fiber for me to use those services,
Pretty sure Disney won't have to either in order for me to use their service if/when it comes online.

Just scrolling through the built in apps on my OLED smart TV, 
I have access to Netflix, Amazon, Google Play Movies & Tv, Cineplex Store and Crackle through my wireless router
There's even more available through my XBO X if I download the apps for each service, it's only a week old and haven't had time.


----------



## muzz

Unless I'm mistaken, the Deregulation was for the ISP's, who supply service to our house... we'll see.


----------



## gbaby

PioManiac said:


> It's clearly been proven and mentioned in multiple threads, the *source* of the clipping is embedded *on the DISC itself*.
> the chart of the frequency clipping (in RED) is from a computer program "Audacity" reading directly from the SOURCE.
> It's not from a mic placed in someones room running reference levels on radioshack/wal-mart speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every system that's calibrated properly will eventually "Clip" if enough volume is applied,
> What most here are experiencing from Dunkirk is clipping before you even get up to reference levels.
> 
> Many soundtracks will allow capable systems to exceed reference levels without distortion,
> That is not the case with Nolans' Dunkirk that will distort much sooner as you turn the volume up.
> 
> If your system does not "clip" you simply have a lower listening level than the rest of us.


Regardless of whether the sound track was originally recorded to clip, it does not translate into any distortion or audible clipping on my rig. In fact some amps clip and the sound is pleasant whereas others clip and the sound is disastrous. These graphs mean nothing to me because I am not affected by what they supposedly represent.


----------



## PioManiac

gbaby said:


> Regardless of whether the sound track was originally recorded to clip, it does not translate into any distortion or audible clipping on my rig. In fact some amps clip and the sound is pleasant whereas others clip and the sound is disastrous. These graphs mean nothing to me because I am not affected by what they supposedly represent.


If I run my Master Volume at -20 I have zero distortion, zero clipping.

Clipping ONLY happens when you exceed the limitations of the sound tracks capabilities. 
For many of us, Reference Levels will do that on Nolan's titles where other titles do not.

The graphs mean nothing to anyone who doesn't crank their system up,
I suspect your system is not running at reference levels, or that you really understand what that means.


----------



## unretarded

gbaby said:


> Regardless of whether the sound track was originally recorded to clip, it does not translate into any distortion or audible clipping on my rig. In fact some amps clip and the sound is pleasant whereas others clip and the sound is disastrous. These graphs mean nothing to me because I am not affected by what they supposedly represent.


 It is there, it is in the recording, your system is being played at lower levels or is just not able to reproduce it or you are not able to hear it. Which a reproduction problem, in this case being a asset, rather than a draw back.


Until I got a bunch of huge subs, I could not hear/feel any of the below 10hz content, it does not mean it was not there, it just meant my system was not capable enough to reproduce it.


I have recordings that I though were very nice sound wise and were some of my favorites, now after using REW to get great FR I can not listen to some of them as they sound terrible now, my system at the time was just not able to produce what was in the recording properly, once it was, they sounded horrible. But the upside is some other music sounded even better and some that was so so, became outstanding.



Just because your system does not reproduce this does not mean it is not there, it is there. 

While the chart might be meaningless to you, it is a calibrated measurement like a calibrated air gauge. We can all stand around looking at the car tire speculating at what pressure it is or speculating on if it looks low on pressure.....until some one walks up with a calibrated air gauge and goes there is 28.2 PSI in there..... That graph/chart is like a calibrated air gauge, what it shows is what is in there........now if a system is able to reproduce that is another story, but it is 100% in there, this is without even getting into the human hearing aspect of it.

Just because one might not hear it, has no bearing on the fact it is there.

The function of hearing it, becomes a human hearing/reproduction function, not a function of it existing as it most certainly exists.


----------



## biga6761

gbaby said:


> Thanks for your post. I like your attitude. In any event, I would like to find out the origin of this clipping your are experiencing. Are you using EQ?


Yes sir, but only on the subs. I used to try and fight with Audyssey but gave up on
it(may go back and try it again when I upgrade processors again to something with the new Audyssey app as it gives full control over what is and how much it's eq'ed) for no room eq or any kind above 125hz or so. I have at times used the dsp in the DSI 2000 that powers my mains to eq them a bit but in my new room I worked hard to not need any eq above 500hz by treating the room instead of the speakers. My NHT 2.9's, 1.5's use Focused Image Geometry to minimize the rooms influnce from the get and do quite a good job by measuring almost ruler flat in room above 600hz or so. They are literally so flat that I have to work with the placement a bit to ensure a bit of roll off on the very top end or they can become a little fatiguing after a few hours but with good room treatment and placement no eq is required except in the 150-500hz area if i want.
All other speakers in the room were given the same "measure before final placement" treatment as well as tweaking of the acoustic treatments to optimize their response without eq.
But I am by nature a "tweaker" and a "what if'er" and waffle back and forth between giving Audyssey/manual eq another shot and just leaving it off, but every Audyssey run in the new room has only hurt my response from the best I can do just optimizing. 
I tried to build an extremely capable(well sort of extreme around here) 8-18" driver Single Bass Array IB in my new room and also run 3 near field 18's, 2 of which are Mbm's that are 2" from the couch sides and the um18-22 full Marty sub is 2" from the couch back. All of this allows me to run 100hz crossovers (maximizing dynamic range) on every speaker in the room and I have spent considerable hours working to get the smoothest hand off to the subs for more constructive combining in said crossover region. Each speaker including the heights have at least 450watts @4ohms available to them, the mains have 600 watts @4 and each driver in the IB gets about 500watts, with the MBM's splitting 1200watts and Marty about 1200watts. I use DSP on the subs to tame 2 small peaks that the SBA and NF's don't take care of and the room decay is well under 300ms until 40hz or so on down but never goes over 600 even down that low..

That was mostly my point in that last post, lol I may not have gotten across the clearest.(my fault for not being clearer) 
I have spent many hours setting up my gain stages to insure that even in WSC's with the maxium amount of redirrected bass, from all channels, that none of my amps clip, even the subs have limiters swt to clamp down before clipping. I also run all channel trims on the Marantz in the negative (below 0) so to not clip the op amps at reference and above. Then I use the amp attenuater's (gain knobs) to calibrate levels and then tweak them to ensure clipping is not possible at reference MV and beyond. No quick or easytask on a complex hybrid pro-sumer system that is -3db @ 7hz, easly capable of 125db+ at the MLP and has 10 channels.

The clipping I'm refering to hearing is encoded to the soundtrack disk, (see image of analysis i linked before) in the form of the folks in the mixing stage mastering the level so high that the signal goes over the digital maxium of -0dbfs. When this happens is does not matter how loud you play the signal back on your own gear it is clipped from the onset. Whether or not the clipping in the ST is intentional (like Interstellar or Iron Man's repulsor's) or not makes a huge difference in whether its audible as part of an effect or audible as just distortion. Intentional clipping can alter how an effect sounds because once clipped a waveform has a square/flat top instead of a smooth rounded top like an unclipped wave. It can also be used to raise the volume of an effect. Somethimes this distortion is used to enhance effects, like Iron Man repulsors would not sound right without the square tops and was a conscious decision on the mixers part, but the way the clipping is distributed through out Dunkirk and being that it is done in the entire front stage and LFE leads me to belive it was more for volume than enhancment, especially considering how Nolan likes to do things volume wise. As I said before I'm no mixer or professional but there is a tale-tale crack or crackling sound that square waves from clipping sine waves make when played back and is the reason it is sometimes use to "enhance" certain effects like the Iron Man's repulsors. Even if only clipped in the low freqs the higher freq harmonics can still make the clipping audible.
This "crack/crackling sound is what I'm reporting being able to hear in Dunkirk. Not sure exactly which scenes with only one viewing. Does it ruin the movie? No but it's there in the analysis and I feel there are times I could hear it on my rig seasoned the way it is. It in no way sounds as bad as it looks looking at the analysis so there is that. 

I get a little excited sometimes and prob should have just left this whole off topic clipping thing alone. But the thing I was trying to get across in my first post was that Atmos is Legit. Period. I do believe there are some gimmicky ways to implement Atmos that are for the masses but anyone with a dedicated space or at least dual purpose room should experience what 4 ceiling mounted bookshelf speakers or in ceiling speaker setup & calibrated properly and immersive audio can do. I haven't had a single person I know of that has experienced it that way in my room have your reaction and just wanted to try and change your mind. Instead we are having an off topic clipping discussion that like all other such will go nowhere. Lol sorry all.

So for everyone's sake lets just say I would really like for you to give Atmos another shot. It is the future and if you do ever upgrade it will be included in your next processor. It works, is awesome and will change your HT something killer when done "right".

I can hear encoded clipping if its in the soundtrack sometimes intentional sometimes not. It could be that I'm listening for it or more sensitive to it. I can't always hear it and sometimes it's worse than others. If you hear distortion in a movie and don't have your system cranked way too loud as to distort the speakers from amp clipping, you are probably hearing clipping in the soundtrack too. Playing back clipped sine waves cause drivers to behave non linearly tracking the signal and creates distortion in one form or another. If you never hear any distortion in movies(it's there at times) you are either unable to hear it for some reason, not listening loud enough or your system can't resolve enough detail to hear it IMHO. In these modern times with software we can see if a soundtrack clips and verify what we are hearing and all it takes is to look at the analysis and I can see what I heard in Dunkirk.

Again this is going nowhere and this is the Atmos thread (which I love) and I don't want to go off topic any further, upset you or anyone else.

I love Atmos, it changed my room back when it was just a dual purpose living room and I feel it's the best thing to ever happen to HT, I wish you felt the same brother. You have wonderful gear and a wonderful demeanor and I don't wish to make you think I feel otherwise. Dunkirk was a great film. I heard clipping in it a few times but mostly it didn't affect it too bad but i do wish it had an Atmos track on the UHD BR at least. Alas no one cares what I think and thats cool too. Thanks for not taking all this personal like i said i get a bit excited. Lmao

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dave-T

chi_guy50 said:


> I made my own backer boxes for the four Polk Audio 80F/X-RT in-ceiling speakers I have installed to date (I have another pair in reserve). I built the enclosures out of Rigid Foam Insulation Board, which is exceedingly easy to cut to shape and serves dual purpose by shielding the speakers from both heat and dust or debris in the attic space overhead. This was a cheap and simple solution that has worked for me.


So I made box with rigid foam and assembled the boxes in the ceiling. i made the box to the same specs that The B&w back boxes are. Do I pack insulation (R15 pink insulation) in the boxes or just leave it and put the speakers in the boxes. Thanks of the idea about the rigid foam worked perfect.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

Mhm you should be able to hear the clipping even at low volume if the sound mix itself clips, basically the sine wave hits the roof and becomes a square wave, this makes the speakers to be hold at X voltage like when you hook up a battery to a speaker is pushes the cone in one direction depending on the polarity. Play a square wave on whatever system and whatever volume, you should hear it's not good. Me personally haven't watched Dunkirk yet.


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave-T said:


> So I made box with rigid foam and assembled the boxes in the ceiling. i made the box to the same specs that The B&w back boxes are. Do I pack insulation (R15 pink insulation) in the boxes or just leave it and put the speakers in the boxes. Thanks of the idea about the rigid foam worked perfect.


Hmm, belt and suspenders? I wouldn't bother unless you feel that the R-value of the insulation board is not adequate to protect the speakers or if you want increased acoustical isolation for the rooms above.


----------



## T-Bone

I don't need sound isolation when I put in my ceiling speakers since the ceiling borders the Attic. But I I do have blown in insulation in my attic. So I saw this neat trick on YouTube on how to handle that. I guess in some respects, it's almost like putting the speaker in an enclosure since a fiberglass batting would form a pocket. 

https://youtu.be/IhA36hlW55A

-T


----------



## chi_guy50

T-Bone said:


> I don't need sound isolation when I put in my ceiling speakers since the ceiling borders the Attic. But I I do have blown in insulation in my attic. So I saw this neat trick on YouTube on how to handle that. I guess in some respects, it's almost like putting the speaker in an enclosure since a fiberglass batting would form a pocket.
> 
> https://youtu.be/IhA36hlW55A
> 
> -T


As Casey Stengel used to say, "it couldn't hoit."


----------



## Dave-T

chi_guy50 said:


> Hmm, belt and suspenders? I wouldn't bother unless you feel that the R-value of the insulation board is not adequate to protect the speakers or if you want increased acoustical isolation for the rooms above.


So this how I did. After I got it in the ceiling I used this tape and put everything together. I then used the tape to secure the box the the drywall in the ceiling for a airtight fit. whole project was $34.00. I ended up packing some insulation in the box.


----------



## DavidK442

enricoclaudio said:


> As I said before, the SVS Prime Elevation are on the way back to Amazon. They work really well as Front High speakers but that's not what I was planning on doing. As Add ON speakers they don't work at all because these are not designed to do that job. So after researching and looking to several up firing Atmos speakers, I found that the PSB Imagine XA Atmos Speaker, from an acoustical engineering point of view, looks very well designed because the grill is made in a way that avoid the sound to go forward which is the issue with the SVS Prime Elevation. I ordered a pair of the PSB Imagine XA to try it. I should get them next Thursday. Does anyone over here has experience with these PSB Imagine XA up firing Atmos speakers in particular?


Mark Henninger here at AVS did a review.
(I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I have not been following this exhausting thread.)

http://www.avsforum.com/psb-imagine-xa-dolby-atmos-elevation-speakers-review/

PSB may not have the cachet or pro-theater cred of other brands, but they have some serious engineering and a long history behind their products.


----------



## Gooddoc

thrang said:


> I'd like to try this, but I'm not a huge REM fan and you can't seem to get the Blu Ray on it's own, only as part of some collector set...if I'm wrong, please let me know...


Yeah, I wasn't an REM fan either. But this mix elevates the music to another level...IMO.

I don't think you're wrong. Pony up Cinderella


----------



## tr4a

Gooddoc said:


> Yeah, I wasn't an REM fan either. But this mix elevates the music to another level...IMO.
> 
> I don't think you're wrong. Pony up Cinderella


My copy of this is coming from Amazon today.

Just noticed that Target has it for $66 with free shipping.


----------



## thrang

Gooddoc said:


> Yeah, I wasn't an REM fan either. But this mix elevates the music to another level...IMO.
> 
> I don't think you're wrong. Pony up Cinderella


I must draw the line somewhere on these outrageous expenditures!


----------



## chi_guy50

Dave-T said:


> So this how I did. *After I got it in the ceiling I used this tape and put everything together.* I then used the tape to secure the box the the drywall in the ceiling for a airtight fit. whole project was $34.00. I ended up packing some insulation in the box.


That's a nice looking job!

But I'm guessing you have a background in constructing ships in a bottle if you actually managed to assemble it through the cut-out in the ceiling?

At any rate, you appear to be more dexterous than most of us.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a nice looking job!
> 
> But I'm guessing you have a background in constructing ships in a bottle if you actually managed to assemble it through the cut-out in the ceiling?


He said in post #47981 that he was physically in the ceiling (probably above it!) when he assembled it. He didn't do it from the room below.


----------



## Gooddoc

tr4a said:


> My copy of this is coming from Amazon today.
> 
> Just noticed that Target has it for $66 with free shipping.


Cool, looking forward to your impressions



thrang said:


> I must draw the line somewhere on these outrageous expenditures!


Splurge a little for once in your life!


----------



## Dave-T

mrtickleuk said:


> He said in post #47981 that he was physically in the ceiling (probably above it!) when he assembled it. He didn't do it from the room below.


I Live in a condo so I have not attic. I had to assembled the box through the hole in ceiling cut for the speaker. It was time consuming and tedious but worth it because no ceiling drywalling, patching, sanding or painting had to done. I jut finished watching a movie and creating those boxes definitely gives my atmos speakers more impact, I was skeptical at first but the DIY project has paid off. I guess the way I had before my whole ceiling was acting like a back box which is not good. Sound is definitely contained now.


----------



## gbaby

Quetzalcoalt said:


> Mhm you should be able to hear the clipping even at low volume if the sound mix itself clips, basically the sine wave hits the roof and becomes a square wave, this makes the speakers to be hold at X voltage like when you hook up a battery to a speaker is pushes the cone in one direction depending on the polarity. Play a square wave on whatever system and whatever volume, you should hear it's not good. Me personally haven't watched Dunkirk yet.


You seem to understand. But watch Dunkirk. I think you will like the sound.


----------



## gbaby

PioManiac said:


> If I run my Master Volume at -20 I have zero distortion, zero clipping.
> 
> Clipping ONLY happens when you exceed the limitations of the sound tracks capabilities.
> For many of us, Reference Levels will do that on Nolan's titles where other titles do not.
> 
> The graphs mean nothing to anyone who doesn't crank their system up,
> I suspect your system is not running at reference levels, or that you really understand what that means.


I don't think you understand clipping. It occurs when your amp is asked to play a frequency at a volume that exceeds the amps output capability so it sends out a distorted signal. You are confusing clipping with over modulation.


----------



## Ted99

enricoclaudio said:


> As I said before, the SVS Prime Elevation are on the way back to Amazon. They work really well as Front High speakers but that's not what I was planning on doing. As Add ON speakers they don't work at all because these are not designed to do that job. So after researching and looking to several up firing Atmos speakers, I found that the PSB Imagine XA Atmos Speaker, from an acoustical engineering point of view, looks very well designed because the grill is made in a way that avoid the sound to go forward which is the issue with the SVS Prime Elevation. I ordered a pair of the PSB Imagine XA to try it. I should get them next Thursday. Does anyone over here has experience with these PSB Imagine XA up firing Atmos speakers in particular?


Fairly early-on, I used the Atlantic Technology Dolby speakers, which also have a built-in foam for ear-level leakage. From appearance, the PSB speakers look to be better. The AT speakers have a 30 degree angle, which means that they need to be placed as close to floor level as possible to get the reflected bounce sweet spot at the MLP ear level. Even with the foam the AT speakers have (it's much shorter than that of the PSB), I still had ear-level leakage and needed to wrap some more foam around the AT speakers projecting above the front edge. Only using my eyeballs, the PSB speakers seem to have a steeper angle than 30 degrees and that is good for moving the reflected sweet spot closer to the MLP, but it does need higher foam and the PSB's seem to have that. The AT speakers have aimable tweeters and the angle can be made steeper than 30 degrees, which is good. All in all, from my experience with the AT Dolby speakers (and the Pioneer), the PSB's look to be better. I ended up putting my Front Dolby speakers (the AT) on top of the front wides to get them closer to the MLP to get the reflected sweet spot directed at the MLP. I put my Pioneers on top of the side surround towers and the 20 degree angle turns out to be perfect for mid-Dolby surrounds. I eventually changed out to direct-radiating Front and Rear height speakers at the wall/ceiling joint for my HT and moved the Dolby speakers to the Living Room. I have concrete ceilings in a Condo, so in-ceilings aren't possible.


----------



## davehale

T-Bone said:


> I don't need sound isolation when I put in my ceiling speakers since the ceiling borders the Attic. But I I do have blown in insulation in my attic. So I saw this neat trick on YouTube on how to handle that. I guess in some respects, it's almost like putting the speaker in an enclosure since a fiberglass batting would form a pocket.
> 
> https://youtu.be/IhA36hlW55A
> 
> -T


Liked that video. Becoming more and more motivated now to just get it done.


----------



## biga6761

gbaby said:


> I don't think you understand clipping. It occurs when your amp is asked to play a frequency at a volume that exceeds the amps output capability so it sends out a distorted signal. You are confusing clipping with over modulation.


There are both digital and analog clipping. 

Clipping is the byproduct of over modulation of the digital or analog signal. Clipping is the topping( and distortion) of a waveform which becomes a square wave analog or digital. When a digital signal is pushed too far/over modulated clipping of the peaks of the waveforms occur. This is why we say there is (digital) clipping in Dunkirk and yes it is a side effect of over modulation(pushing the level over the threshold) of the signal when encoding the soundtrack.

But you are correct about amp(analog or digital) clipping also. When an amp is pushed too far, clipping tops(and distorts) the waveform peak and creates a square wave in the same manner. Both forms of clipping essentially have the same result on the signal but originate at different times in the signal chain. You can keep the signal from clipping only on your end of the signal chain and can't control the other end where the content you are playing back was made for you to play back. When the signal is clipped during the process of being made you can never remove it on your end no matter how you treat the signal or whether or not you clip your amps.

Both amp clipping and signal clipping occur and are referred to as clipping even though they originate from 2 different sources of over modulation they have the same effect on the signal.. (ie distortion, reduction in dynamics, and both produce square waves instead of smooth waveform peaks) but only one can be prevented on your end.

This is my understanding of clipping in this context.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dave-T said:


> I Live in a condo so I have not attic. I had to assembled the box through the hole in ceiling cut for the speaker.
> [...]
> Sound is definitely contained now.


My apologies! I misunderstood quite spectacularly


----------



## Al Sherwood

T-Bone said:


> I don't need sound isolation when I put in my ceiling speakers since the ceiling borders the Attic. But I I do have blown in insulation in my attic. So I saw this neat trick on YouTube on how to handle that. I guess in some respects, it's almost like putting the speaker in an enclosure since a fiberglass batting would form a pocket.
> 
> https://youtu.be/IhA36hlW55A
> 
> -T


Hmmm, IMHO a poor tactic when it comes to shoving the drywall cut into the attic, reminds me of less than scrupulous drywall installers that stuff their cut ends into your wall instead of removing them from the jobsite! 

The blown insulation won't generally come pouring out of the ceiling like sand, and I would not want fiberglass insulation in direct contact with the speaker, I would use polyester fill more generally used for speakers...


----------



## T-Bone

Al Sherwood said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need sound isolation when I put in my ceiling speakers since the ceiling borders the Attic. But I I do have blown in insulation in my attic. So I saw this neat trick on YouTube on how to handle that. I guess in some respects, it's almost like putting the speaker in an enclosure since a fiberglass batting would form a pocket.
> 
> https://youtu.be/IhA36hlW55A
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, IMHO a poor tactic when it comes to shoving the drywall cut into the attic, reminds me of less than scrupulous drywall installers that stuff their cut ends into your wall instead of removing them from the jobsite!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The blown insulation won't generally come pouring out of the ceiling like sand, and I would not want fiberglass insulation in direct contact with the speaker, I would use polyester fill more generally used for speakers...
Click to expand...

When I do my speakers, I am going to slide the drywall out while holding the batting just in case any insulation drops. My only guess is the installer left the drywall in there in case the owner wanted to take out the speakers in the future, and then patch the hole. He know exactly where the drywall is I guess.

I bought fiberglass batting with paper on one side. So when I stuff my fiberglass batting in the ceiling, I will do it so the paper side faces the back of my speaker.

Also, in the video, he pushed it far enough up where it made a big pocket. So is the video the fiberglass probably won't be coming into contact with a speaker. When I do mind, I am going to push it far enough where it makes a big teepee or pocket.

-T


----------



## gbaby

biga6761 said:


> There are both digital and analog clipping.
> 
> Clipping is the byproduct of over modulation of the digital or analog signal. Clipping is the topping( and distortion) of a waveform which becomes a square wave analog or digital. When a digital signal is pushed too far/over modulated clipping of the peaks of the waveforms occur. This is why we say there is (digital) clipping in Dunkirk and yes it is a side effect of over modulation(pushing the level over the threshold) of the signal when encoding the soundtrack.
> 
> But you are correct about amp(analog or digital) clipping also. When an amp is pushed too far, clipping tops(and distorts) the waveform peak and creates a square wave in the same manner. Both forms of clipping essentially have the same result on the signal but originate at different times in the signal chain. You can keep the signal from clipping only on your end of the signal chain and can't control the other end where the content you are playing back was made for you to play back. When the signal is clipped on during the process of being made you can never remove it on your end no matter how you treat the signal or whether or not you clip your amps.
> 
> Both amp clipping and signal clipping occur and are referred to as clipping even though they originate from 2 different sources of over modulation they have the same effect on the signal.. (ie distortion, reduction in dynamics, and both produce square waves instead of smooth waveform peaks) but only one can be prevented on your end.
> 
> This is my understanding of clipping in this context.


Nice.


----------



## kokishin

Dave-T said:


> I Live in a condo so I have not attic. I had to assembled the box through the hole in ceiling cut for the speaker. It was time consuming and tedious but worth it because no ceiling drywalling, patching, sanding or painting had to done. I jut finished watching a movie and creating those boxes definitely gives my atmos speakers more impact, I was skeptical at first but the DIY project has paid off. I guess the way I had before my whole ceiling was acting like a back box which is not good. Sound is definitely contained now.


I live in a condo too and feel stymied by the ceiling. Would you post pics of your ceiling with the speaker boxes you built?

Thanks


----------



## Dave-T

kokishin said:


> I live in a condo too and feel stymied by the ceiling. Would you post pics of your ceiling with the speaker boxes you built?
> 
> Thanks


here are some pics of the what i did, my place and the materials. i could not get a picture of the inside of the ceiling because it is to dark up there. The boxes are not laid between studs like they would be in a normal house with would studs. I have metal beams and aluminum furring strips. The Beams go north to south and the furring stripes go left to right. I used the foam with the aluminum foil facers so I manipulate the foam board without breaking it. I then used the tape to interlock the foam together and the top to one of the sides. I also taped every edge of the foam before interlocking, i am perfectionist. I then slit the top piece so it would fold in half so I could fit in the speaker hole. The speakers are B&W CCM682 8" speakers. So the box looks like a long snake and when it was in the ceiling I taped the on side that wa snot taped to form the box. I then flipped the box over and taped all of the seams on top and insides to fortify the Box. I then used the same tape and secured the box to the ceiling drywall so it is air tight. i then put the Speaker cage in hole and secured the doglegs followed by packing r-15 pink insulation loosely with in the cage so it does n to touch the speaker. I then posed the speaker and put the grilles on. it was tedious but saved a ton of money because if I was to cut the ceiling to put the boxes in i would have needed to drywall, mudd, tape and sand. The whole job cost be $32.00.

Items used:

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Thermas...-Rigid-Foam-Insulation-Board-787264/100549260

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Nashua-...PIPHorizontal1_rr-_-301230073-_-100575721-_-N

** I attached the b&W back box dimensions as well
Let me know if you need anymore info.


----------



## kokishin

Dave-T said:


> here are some pics of the what i did, my place and the materials. i could not get a picture of the inside of the ceiling because it is to dark up there. The boxes are not laid between studs like they would be in a normal house with would studs. I have metal beams and aluminum furring strips. The Beams go north to south and the furring stripes go left to right. I used the foam with the aluminum foil facers so I manipulate the foam board without breaking it. I then used the tape to interlock the foam together and the top to one of the sides. I also taped every edge of the foam before interlocking, i am perfectionist. I then slit the top piece so it would fold in half so I could fit in the speaker hole. The speakers are B&W CCM682 8" speakers. So the box looks like a long snake and when it was in the ceiling I taped the on side that wa snot taped to form the box. I then flipped the box over and taped all of the seams on top and insides to fortify the Box. I then used the same tape and secured the box to the ceiling drywall so it is air tight. i then put the Speaker cage in hole and secured the doglegs followed by packing r-15 pink insulation loosely with in the cage so it does n to touch the speaker. I then posed the speaker and put the grilles on. it was tedious but saved a ton of money because if I was to cut the ceiling to put the boxes in i would have needed to drywall, mudd, tape and sand. The whole job cost be $32.00.
> 
> Items used:
> 
> https://www.homedepot.com/p/Thermas...-Rigid-Foam-Insulation-Board-787264/100549260
> 
> https://www.homedepot.com/p/Nashua-...PIPHorizontal1_rr-_-301230073-_-100575721-_-N
> 
> ** I attached the b&W back box dimensions as well
> Let me know if you need anymore info.


Wow! Looks great! You are a perfectionist! Thank you for taking the time to post the details and the pics!

I live in a high rise condo (22 stories). I've been told but have not confirmed the ceilings are concrete (my ceiling of course is my neighbor above's floor). I currently have Dolby Enabled speakers and they work pretty well. However, if the ceilings are NOT concrete, I may install ceiling speakers. (Screw the HOA!) I do try and be a good neighbor and not blast my HT past 10pm.

Enjoy your excellent work!


----------



## Dave-T

kokishin said:


> Wow! Looks great! You are a perfectionist! Thank you for taking the time to post the details and the pics!
> 
> I live in a high rise condo (22 stories). I've been told but have not confirmed the ceilings are concrete (my ceiling of course is my neighbor above's floor). I currently have Dolby Enabled speakers and they work pretty well. However, if the ceilings are NOT concrete, I may install ceiling speakers. (Screw the HOA!) I do try and be a good neighbor and not blast my HT past 10pm.
> 
> Enjoy your excellent work!


I have have concrete as well in building . I believe there is approx 1’5" or more of space with all of the plumping and electrical and then there is about ‘6 of concrete between each floor. Your place is probably the same way. Your plumping, HVAC and electrical have to be somewhere. If you have recessed lighting in your ceiling pop a bulb out and drop one of the cans and you can stick a hand up there which will give you an idea. If you have central air you need space for your HVAC and that is where it will be.


----------



## richlife

Dave-T said:


> here are some pics of the what i did, my place and the materials. i could not get a picture of the inside of the ceiling because it is to dark up there. The boxes are not laid between studs like they would be in a normal house with would studs. I have metal beams and aluminum furring strips. The Beams go north to south and the furring stripes go left to right. I used the foam with the aluminum foil facers so I manipulate the foam board without breaking it. I then used the tape to interlock the foam together and the top to one of the sides. I also taped every edge of the foam before interlocking, i am perfectionist. I then slit the top piece so it would fold in half so I could fit in the speaker hole. The speakers are B&W CCM682 8" speakers. So the box looks like a long snake and when it was in the ceiling I taped the on side that wa snot taped to form the box. I then flipped the box over and taped all of the seams on top and insides to fortify the Box. I then used the same tape and secured the box to the ceiling drywall so it is air tight. i then put the Speaker cage in hole and secured the doglegs followed by packing r-15 pink insulation loosely with in the cage so it does n to touch the speaker. I then posed the speaker and put the grilles on. it was tedious but saved a ton of money because if I was to cut the ceiling to put the boxes in i would have needed to drywall, mudd, tape and sand. The whole job cost be $32.00.
> 
> Items used:
> ...
> ** I attached the b&W back box dimensions as well
> Let me know if you need anymore info.


Great ingenuity! Love it!



kokishin said:


> Wow! Looks great! You are a perfectionist! Thank you for taking the time to post the details and the pics!
> 
> I live in a high rise condo (22 stories). I've been told but have not confirmed the ceilings are concrete (my ceiling of course is my neighbor above's floor). I currently have Dolby Enabled speakers and they work pretty well. However, if the ceilings are NOT concrete, I may install ceiling speakers. (Screw the HOA!) I do try and be a good neighbor and not blast my HT past 10pm.
> 
> Enjoy your excellent work!


Before going to a lot of trouble, I would suggest a LOT of work with various ways of re-positioning your DAES. Despite those who bash these speakers, I think most of the issues have to do with improper positioning or conditions (like sound absorbing ceiling tiles). I've found that really small adjustments (or sometimes larger) of Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers can have really amazing impacts on the sound. Adjust the height depending on your ceiling height, adjust the angle at the speaker back if they aren't placed at whatever "ideal height" (did you ever notice that all L/R main speakers are not the same height, but all DAES have a fixed angle?), adjust toe-in, adjust relative postion to main speakers and be as sure as you can that the reflection angle (ceiling bounce angle) relative to MLP is 45*. Use a good Atmos sound effects source (like the circling helicopter and "Amaze") to judge your results. 

For an example, see my sig HT thread.

Edit: My phrasing above may suggest that a 45* reflection angle is critical -- better stated "reasonably close to 45*". Precision may or may not give you improvement depending on the other factors. The main point is that the center of the speaker is pointed at a spot in the ceiling that will reflect down to your MLP -- not elsewhere in the room.


----------



## Bond 007

I can't do ceiling speakers so I have heights. Should heights be pointed down at the MLP or pointed straight out from the wall?


----------



## Dave-T

richlife said:


> Great ingenuity! Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> Before going to a lot of trouble, I would suggest a LOT of work with various ways of re-positioning your DAES. Despite those who bash these speakers, I think most of the issues have to do with improper positioning or conditions (like sound absorbing ceiling tiles). I've found that really small adjustments (or sometimes larger) of Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers can have really amazing impacts on the sound. Adjust the height depending on your ceiling height, adjust the angle at the speaker back if they aren't placed at whatever "ideal height" (did you ever notice that all L/R main speakers are not the same height, but all DAES have a fixed angle?), adjust toe-in, adjust relative postion to main speakers and be as sure as you can that the reflection angle (ceiling bounce angle) relative to MLP is 45*. Use a good Atmos sound effects source (like the circling helicopter and "Amaze") to judge your results.
> 
> For an example, see my sig HT thread.
> 
> Edit: My phrasing above may suggest that a 45* reflection angle is critical -- better stated "reasonably close to 45*". Precision may or may not give you improvement depending on the other factors. The main point is that the center of the speaker is pointed at a spot in the ceiling that will reflect down to your MLP -- not elsewhere in the room.


All good points about atmos add ons. i agree 100% exhaust all options of tweaking and maybe have someone come over and do a paid sound calibration before ditching what you have. Placing in-ceiling speakers in can get expensive if you are not doing to yourself. 1) running wire through the walls to ceiling, patching, taping mudding and painting. speakers never end up where you want them exactly and patching is typically needed. i think i moved mine 3 times to get right. I my situation I could not do add ons because I have all in wall speakers. My only concern with add ons in condo is how level is the ceiling? A ceiling in a condo is never put up as nice as in a single family home and I am talking about $1 million plus price range condos. how level does th ecfeling have to be for dolby atmos add on modules?


----------



## PioManiac

Bond 007 said:


> I can't do ceiling speakers so I have heights. Should heights be pointed down at the MLP or pointed straight out from the wall?


I have every ear level speaker toe'd in toward the MLP,
...So my 4 Height bookshelf speakers were no exception, also tilted down on swivel mounts











My setup with photos were posted earlier here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1591.html#post55410168










....or the link in my sig


----------



## Kain

Will it be okay if the two back surround speakers are in the two rear corners of the room rather than 1/4th and 3/4th lengths of the back wall?


----------



## Bond 007

Dave-T said:


> A ceiling in a condo is never put up as nice as in a single family home and I am talking about $1 million plus price range condos. how level does th ecfeling have to be for dolby atmos add on modules?


You'll be fine.


----------



## Bond 007

Kain said:


> Will it be okay if the two back surround speakers are in the two rear corners of the room rather than 1/4th and 3/4th lengths of the back wall?


Not ideal but okay.


----------



## Bond 007

PioManiac said:


> I have every ear level speaker toe'd in toward the MLP,
> ...So my 4 Height bookshelf speakers were no exception, also tilted down.


Thanks


----------



## kokishin

richlife said:


> Great ingenuity! Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> Before going to a lot of trouble, I would suggest a LOT of work with various ways of re-positioning your DAES. Despite those who bash these speakers, I think most of the issues have to do with improper positioning or conditions (like sound absorbing ceiling tiles). I've found that really small adjustments (or sometimes larger) of Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers can have really amazing impacts on the sound. Adjust the height depending on your ceiling height, adjust the angle at the speaker back if they aren't placed at whatever "ideal height" (did you ever notice that all L/R main speakers are not the same height, but all DAES have a fixed angle?), adjust toe-in, adjust relative postion to main speakers and be as sure as you can that the reflection angle (ceiling bounce angle) relative to MLP is 45*. Use a good Atmos sound effects source (like the circling helicopter and "Amaze") to judge your results.
> 
> For an example, see my sig HT thread.
> 
> Edit: My phrasing above may suggest that a 45* reflection angle is critical -- better stated "reasonably close to 45*". Precision may or may not give you improvement depending on the other factors. The main point is that the center of the speaker is pointed at a spot in the ceiling that will reflect down to your MLP -- not elsewhere in the room.


I've got the AJ Pioneer Elite speakers which have integrated DAE speakers (not add-ons) in a 5.1.4 configuration along with a SVS SB-2000 sub. I've had these speakers along with a Denon 6200 and Outlaw 7125 amp since the end of 2015 and feel I've got them dialed in pretty good. So I don't think there is much more I can do other than get new speakers. For example, the Dolby Atmos 747 demo sounds very realistic to me and my friends; almost scary. The helicopter demo seems slightly less realistic though. Watching the recent Wonder Woman Blu-ray, the fight scene where she slaps her wrist bracelets together blew my mind because the sound was so powerful and all encompassing.

My interest in ceiling speakers was just to understand how another condo owner dealt with the installation should I opt to upgrade my speakers in the future (e.g., Salk Sound speakers). Separately, I also listen to a lot of quad and 5.1 surround music. Overall, I am very pleased with the AJ Pioneer Elite speakers and my setup.


----------



## markmanner

*5.1.4 ceiling placement*



EdQ said:


> I am using 4 Polk S15 bookshelf speakers. The are inline with the Front speakers about 8 ft. above them.


Regarding my proposed 5.1.4 setup: 
I now have 4 Revel C763 speakers, a Rotel amp to power them, cables and wires, and a ceiling hole saw. I now need to drill some holes, and of course trepidation sets in! In looking at the Dolby Atmos guide, I see that from the listening position the front and rear ceiling speakers are recommended to be 30-55 degrees up. I can get about 60 degrees front and rear (there are some beams that constrain it a bit as does my seating position distance from the TV). My ceilings are 11'2", and the front speakers' tweeters are 4'10" tall, surrounds' tweeters are 3'4". When I place the ceilings at 60 degrees, front ceiling speakers are just a foot or so in front of the front L/R speakers, and the rear ceiling speakers are a foot or so behind the surrounds. My primary listening position is about 10 feet from the Sony TV screen. The Dolby Atmos materials for a 5.1.4 Overhead Speakers arrangement show a diagram that has the front ceiling speakers further away from the front L/R than I will have. I assume this is just a function of how far away the seating position is from the TV/ speakers, and not critical from the point of view of the sound of the ceilings.
Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Pic of the room as it is now attached.


----------



## Dave-T

markmanner said:


> Regarding my proposed 5.1.4 setup:
> I now have 4 Revel C763 speakers, a Rotel amp to power them, cables and wires, and a ceiling hole saw. I now need to drill some holes, and of course trepidation sets in! In looking at the Dolby Atmos guide, I see that from the listening position the front and rear ceiling speakers are recommended to be 30-55 degrees up. I can get about 60 degrees front and rear (there are some beams that constrain it a bit as does my seating position distance from the TV). My ceilings are 11'2", and the front speakers' tweeters are 4'10" tall, surrounds' tweeters are 3'4". When I place the ceilings at 60 degrees, front ceiling speakers are just a foot or so in front of the front L/R speakers, and the rear ceiling speakers are a foot or so behind the surrounds. My primary listening position is about 10 feet from the Sony TV screen. The Dolby Atmos materials for a 5.1.4 Overhead Speakers arrangement show a diagram that has the front ceiling speakers further away from the front L/R than I will have. I assume this is just a function of how far away the seating position is from the TV/ speakers, and not critical from the point of view of the sound of the ceilings.
> Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Pic of the room as it is now attached.


Would you be setting your atmos speakers as Front Height and Rear Height or Top Front and Top Rear? You may have better luck setting up height speakers instead of top speakers. On my 5.1.4 setup I went 45 degrees in front of the main listening position and 45 degrees behind the main listen position. My surrounds are out of spec because they are behind the MLP on the rear wall to the layout of my room. Check out this thread I linked and look at post #9 , Anthony Grimani who owns grimani systems knows his stuff. Anthony recommends 4' to 5'centered in the room.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2864441-atmos-5-1-4-ceiling-speaker-location.html


----------



## Jonas2

Al Sherwood said:


> Hmmm, IMHO a poor tactic when it comes to shoving the drywall cut into the attic, reminds me of less than scrupulous drywall installers that stuff their cut ends into your wall instead of removing them from the jobsite!


Oh yes, familiar with this.....discovered that the stud bays in my AV wall just happened to be the wall where the builders of my place dumped all of the shee trock scraps, some of them quite large. Cheaper than hauling it off to a dumpsite I guess was the reasoning. Discovered after cutting hole for my 6-gang wall plate, what is that, a hole maybe 4" x 10"? Had to hack and chop, bit by bit, tons of sheet rock and extract through this hole to clear the bay. Took a few hours, and LOTS of expletives to get it all out. The upside, the rest of the wall acts as a pretty nice sound barrier between spaces.....


----------



## gene4ht

Jonas2 said:


> Oh yes, familiar with this.....discovered that the stud bays in my AV wall just happened to be the wall where the builders of my place dumped all of the shee trock scraps, some of them quite large. Cheaper than hauling it off to a dumpsite I guess was the reasoning. Discovered after cutting hole for my 6-gang wall plate, what is that, a hole maybe 4" x 10"? Had to hack and chop, bit by bit, tons of sheet rock and extract through this hole to clear the bay. *Took a few hours, and LOTS of expletives to get it all out.* The upside, the rest of the wall acts as a pretty nice sound barrier between spaces.....


WOW...I'll bet!


----------



## Dave-T

Jonas2 said:


> Oh yes, familiar with this.....discovered that the stud bays in my AV wall just happened to be the wall where the builders of my place dumped all of the shee trock scraps, some of them quite large. Cheaper than hauling it off to a dumpsite I guess was the reasoning. Discovered after cutting hole for my 6-gang wall plate, what is that, a hole maybe 4" x 10"? Had to hack and chop, bit by bit, tons of sheet rock and extract through this hole to clear the bay. Took a few hours, and LOTS of expletives to get it all out. The upside, the rest of the wall acts as a pretty nice sound barrier between spaces.....


When I had to replace the HVAC system in my condo we found a six pack of beer cans in drywall.


----------



## Al Sherwood

Jonas2 said:


> Oh yes, familiar with this.....discovered that the stud bays in my AV wall just happened to be the wall where the builders of my place dumped all of the shee trock scraps, some of them quite large. Cheaper than hauling it off to a dumpsite I guess was the reasoning. Discovered after cutting hole for my 6-gang wall plate, what is that, a hole maybe 4" x 10"? Had to hack and chop, bit by bit, tons of sheet rock and extract through this hole to clear the bay. Took a few hours, and LOTS of expletives to get it all out. The upside, the rest of the wall acts as a pretty nice sound barrier between spaces.....





Dave-T said:


> When I had to replace the HVAC system in my condo we found a six pack of beer cans in drywall.


Pretty shoddy workmanship, maybe they think it is funny (beer cans)? I can't imagine paying after tax dollars only to find those surprises waiting for you!


----------



## bogoroh

So excited to start my Dolby Atmos home building !


----------



## markmanner

Dave-T said:


> Would you be setting your atmos speakers as Front Height and Rear Height or Top Front and Top Rear? You may have better luck setting up height speakers instead of top speakers.


Hi, I am not certain I know the difference between top and height when speaking of ATMOS 'overhead' speakers. Can you explain what you mean? I guess by 'top' you mean 'overhead', and by 'height' you mean the type of speaker that usually are on the wall up high above the front L/R speakers? Sorry for my confusion.
Mark


----------



## sdurani

markmanner said:


> I am not certain I know the difference between top and height when speaking of ATMOS 'overhead' speakers.


They're just the names of overhead speaker locations. The home Atmos format has 10 possible speaker locations above you arranged in 5 pairs. From front to back, their names are: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height.


----------



## markmanner

sdurani said:


> They're just the names of overhead speaker locations. The home Atmos format has 10 possible speaker locations above you arranged in 5 pairs. From front to back, their names are: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height.


Thanks. I think what I am going to do is probably most likely Top Front and Top Rear. I will try to get them as close to 45 deg. up from the MLP as I can.o


----------



## gene4ht

markmanner said:


> Hi, I am not certain I know the difference between top and height when speaking of ATMOS 'overhead' speakers. Can you explain what you mean? I guess by 'top' you mean 'overhead', and by 'height' you mean the type of speaker that usually are on the wall up high above the front L/R speakers? Sorry for my confusion.
> Mark


No worries...initially most newcomers are easily confused with the terminology. Different manufacturers (AVR's and Speaker's) alike, as well as the the codec folks (Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro) use these terms interchangeably...adding to the confusion. Generally speaking, Atmos uses the terms Top to describe ceiling mounted speakers that are in fact overhead (Top Front, Top Middle, and Top Rear) whereas Height speakers are those that are generally wall mounted above the front and/or rear surround speakers near or at the ceiling juncture...so your assumptions are correct. The following link defines and illustrates the Atmos speaker configurations and locations.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## sdurani

markmanner said:


> I will try to get them as close to 45 deg. up from the MLP as I can.


Easy way to find those locations: measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward & rearward of your listening position is 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## unretarded

sdurani said:


> Easy way to find those locations: measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward & rearward of your listening position is 45 degrees elevation.





What are your thoughts on using the equilateral triangle for overhead placements ?


----------



## sdurani

unretarded said:


> What are your thoughts on using the equilateral triangle for overhead placements ?


Don't know what that buys you. But, as long as you can hear left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation above you, you can use whatever approach you like.


----------



## carp

Kain said:


> Will it be okay if the two back surround speakers are in the two rear corners of the room rather than 1/4th and 3/4th lengths of the back wall?





Bond 007 said:


> Not ideal but okay.


Depends on your room size and where your main seat is in the room. I am a long way from my back wall, so putting the rear surrounds on the side walls at the back of the room works because that puts them at 140 degrees from my MLP.


----------



## unretarded

sdurani said:


> Don't know what that buys you. .





My though is it is a proven spacing and it eliminates ceiling height discrepancy issues.




a 45 degree angle to a 7 foot 9 inch ceiling will be different spacing than a 12 foot ceiling in overhead locations.


Where a equilateral triangle is always equilateral and remains equilateral no matter ceiling height.




All of this might be a non issue due to distance and dispersion...I don't know.




This is all from the perspective of giving advice to others here on the forum.......I like the ear to ceiling height thing for a 45 as it eliminates questions/variables of ceiling height.....it looks like 60 degrees is a equilateral triangle .


So the 45 degree thing might be a great happy medium/starting point for some one.


I am on here and like to help and answer questions, but want to give good general info, rather than just posting Dolby charts over and over.......


I have been here long enough to know you are one of the ones who knows quite a bit, soo who better to ask than you.....


----------



## Bond 007

carp said:


> Depends on your room size and where your main seat is in the room. I am a long way from my back wall, so putting the rear surrounds on the side walls at the back of the room works because that puts them at 140 degrees from my MLP.


Speaker stands could be a possibility too. Everything doesn't have to be wall mounted.


----------



## carp

Bond 007 said:


> Speaker stands could be a possibility too. Everything doesn't have to be wall mounted.


Agreed. 

For my speakers not very practical though because the bottoms are rounded (JBL scs8's).


----------



## Alanlee

markmanner said:


> Regarding my proposed 5.1.4 setup:
> I now have 4 Revel C763 speakers, a Rotel amp to power them, cables and wires, and a ceiling hole saw. I now need to drill some holes, and of course trepidation sets in! In looking at the Dolby Atmos guide, I see that from the listening position the front and rear ceiling speakers are recommended to be 30-55 degrees up. I can get about 60 degrees front and rear (there are some beams that constrain it a bit as does my seating position distance from the TV). My ceilings are 11'2", and the front speakers' tweeters are 4'10" tall, surrounds' tweeters are 3'4". When I place the ceilings at 60 degrees, front ceiling speakers are just a foot or so in front of the front L/R speakers, and the rear ceiling speakers are a foot or so behind the surrounds. My primary listening position is about 10 feet from the Sony TV screen. The Dolby Atmos materials for a 5.1.4 Overhead Speakers arrangement show a diagram that has the front ceiling speakers further away from the front L/R than I will have. I assume this is just a function of how far away the seating position is from the TV/ speakers, and not critical from the point of view of the sound of the ceilings.
> Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Pic of the room as it is now attached.


I am a bit of a coward when it comes to cutting holes in my ceiling, and when I got into Atmos, I was not sold on the my ability to point the speakers I was researching. The attached pix is what I finally installed. The sound is ok; I'm still not sure if I did the right thing.

I am also not sure how the speakers I used would fit into your décor.


----------



## DaveMcLain

Al Sherwood said:


> Pretty shoddy workmanship, maybe they think it is funny (beer cans)? I can't imagine paying after tax dollars only to find those surprises waiting for you!


You never know what you might find inside of a wall. A friend of mine who did a lot of rehab work in St Louis tore open an old plaster and lath wall and found a shotgun standing inside of the cavity. They just left it alone and covered it back up again! I wonder what the story was behind that being inside of the wall?


----------



## Jonas2

Bond 007 said:


> Speaker stands could be a possibility too. Everything doesn't have to be wall mounted.


My surrounds are on-walls speakers, on stands....

I actually had no choice in the matter due to the room layout. Not ideal, but it works, and I kinda like the mobility of being able to move them around for experimentation or just plain getting them out of the way when needed.


----------



## markmanner

Alanlee said:


> I am a bit of a coward when it comes to cutting holes in my ceiling, and when I got into Atmos, I was not sold on the my ability to point the speakers I was researching. The attached pix is what I finally installed. The sound is ok;...


Thanks, seeing how you placed your speakers is helpful.
I am going to drill a pilot hole and stick a camera up there and take a look today I think.


----------



## carp

DaveMcLain said:


> You never know what you might find inside of a wall. A friend of mine who did a lot of rehab work in St Louis tore open an old plaster and lath wall and found a shotgun standing inside of the cavity. They just left it alone and covered it back up again! I wonder what the story was behind that being inside of the wall?


Or in a drop ceiling. I used to have one before we had the basement refinished and I found a Penthouse from 1994 while running speaker wire. :laugh:


----------



## sdurani

unretarded said:


> My though is it is a proven spacing and it eliminates ceiling height discrepancy issues.


Proven at doing what? Meaning, what do you gain using that spacing for height speakers instead of, say, following Dolby's recommendations? For example: does it better replicate what the recording engineer heard overhead when mixing the Atmos track?


> a 45 degree angle to a 7 foot 9 inch ceiling will be different spacing than a 12 foot ceiling in overhead locations.


When you say "spacing", you mean left-right spread rather than elevation angle?


----------



## Gooddoc

tr4a said:


> My copy of this is coming from Amazon today.
> 
> Just noticed that Target has it for $66 with free shipping.


So...thoughts?


----------



## tr4a

Gooddoc said:


> So...thoughts?


The Dolby Atmos mix is interesting.
Some reviewers have complained about the mix being to much"front" only.
I didn't find that to be true. A very nice presentation of this album.
Nice open airy and detailed. A substantial improvement over the CD.
Had to fire up the only other Atmos music that I have Hans Zimmer which has much more
of a "surround" type of sound. The ability of the Zimmer disc to recreate a very large hall in
Prague was amazing.


----------



## Gooddoc

tr4a said:


> The Dolby Atmos mix is interesting.
> Some reviewers have complained about the mix being to much"front" only.
> I didn't find that to be true. A very nice presentation of this album.
> Nice open airy and detailed. A substantial improvement over the CD.
> Had to fire up the only other Atmos music that I have Hans Zimmer which has much more
> of a "surround" type of sound. The ability of the Zimmer disc to recreate a very large hall in
> Prague was amazing.


Thanks. Agreed to all.

I know it's probably not really a popular position, but I'm a bit tired of the Atmos "concert" releases that are really only "demo" discs once I've listened to them once or twice. It's not what I sit and listen to late at night to unwind. The Hans Zimmer disc is outstanding from an SQ and musicianship perspective, and although I appreciate music soundtracks, it's just not something I turn to listen to 99% of the time. I want more of the music I actually listen to remixed in Atmos, not "demo" discs.

But that's just me . If that kind of thing is your thing, please no offense meant in any way.


----------



## dschulz

PioManiac said:


> You can't buy Netflix exclusive ATMOS titles on Bluray


Sure you can. Stranger Things came out on Blu Ray, as did House of Cards. Probably others too.


----------



## PioManiac

dschulz said:


> Sure you can. Stranger Things came out on Blu Ray, as did House of Cards. Probably others too.


Those are not ATMOS titles on Netflix


----------



## dschulz

PioManiac said:


> Those are not ATMOS titles on Netflix


I need more coffee, my reading comprehension hasn't kicked in yet this morning...

Still, I suspect the Netflix Atmos content will also show up on Blu Ray.


----------



## thrang

Gooddoc said:


> Thanks. Agreed to all.
> 
> I know it's probably not really a popular position, but I'm a bit tired of the Atmos "concert" releases that are really only "demo" discs once I've listened to them once or twice. It's not what I sit and listen to late at night to unwind. The Hans Zimmer disc is outstanding from an SQ and musicianship perspective, and although I appreciate music soundtracks, it's just not something I turn to listen to 99% of the time. I want more of the music I actually listen to remixed in Atmos, not "demo" discs.
> 
> But that's just me . If that kind of thing is your thing, please no offense meant in any way.


...says the man who said I should buy the $75 REM package just for the Atmos concert for a band I don’t follow...


----------



## Gooddoc

thrang said:


> ...says the man who said I should buy the $75 REM package just for the Atmos concert for a band I don’t follow...


Haha! But the REM Atmos mix is not a concert, its a native studio remix. That's why I got so excited. It opened my eyes(ears) to the possibilities of more existing studio music being remixed in Atmos.


----------



## thrang

Gooddoc said:


> Haha! But the REM Atmos mix is not a concert, its a native studio remix. That's why I got so excited. It opened my eyes(ears) to the possibilities of more existing studio music being remixed in Atmos.


Semantics!


----------



## Gooddoc

thrang said:


> Semantics!


True, they both come on discs...


----------



## unretarded

sdurani said:


> Proven at doing what? Meaning, what do you gain using that spacing for height speakers instead of, say, following Dolby's recommendations? For example: does it better replicate what the recording engineer heard overhead when mixing the Atmos track? When you say "spacing", you mean left-right spread rather than elevation angle?






Good question, I have no idea if they used a .2, a .4, a .6 or full blown array of ceiling speakers and software just renders it down to whatever the end user has.....or the mixers location under the ceiling speakers.....or the distance from ear to ceiling as the few pictures I have seen usually show a pretty high ceiling in the mixing room.




Also the few pictures I have seen also show on ceiling speakers that are aimed at the mixing position, not in ceilings firing straight down..........the most troubling part of the few pictures I have seen of pro mixing rooms is they all look vastly different.


My best guess is they all have to conform to a spec like the theater that reproduces it does, but who knows.




I was referring to elevation angle or front to back.......




One thing is it must be a very forgiving spec as we see wildly different locations and speaker types posted here and it all seems to "work" for most people.


I think we will get a better idea now that we have a few affordable .6 AVR`s coming out, as I would imagine 6 ceiling speakers will better replicate a theater full of ceiling speakers better.


Hopefully we see even more as the HDMI 2.0 spec supposedly supports 32 channels.


----------



## sdurani

unretarded said:


> ...the most troubling part of the few pictures I have seen of pro mixing rooms is they all look vastly different.


And measure different as well: 












> I was referring to elevation angle or front to back...


In that case I don't understand the equilateral triangle part. Are you talking about a 60 degree elevation instead of 45 degrees elevation?


----------



## unretarded

sdurani said:


> And measure different as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case I don't understand the equilateral triangle part. Are you talking about a 60 degree elevation instead of 45 degrees elevation?



 Look at those measurements......




Now that I look at your question again, I see why you ask....


As that is a left to right spacing.


Pardon my confusion or spatial orientation dyslexia ......


----------



## sdrucker

Gooddoc said:


> Thanks. Agreed to all.
> 
> I know it's probably not really a popular position, but I'm a bit tired of the Atmos "concert" releases that are really only "demo" discs once I've listened to them once or twice. It's not what I sit and listen to late at night to unwind. The Hans Zimmer disc is outstanding from an SQ and musicianship perspective, and although I appreciate music soundtracks, it's just not something I turn to listen to 99% of the time. I want more of the music I actually listen to remixed in Atmos, not "demo" discs.


I can understand that, since I'm only a casual fan (if that) of Kraftwerk, but I bought their BD with the Dolby Atmos mix simply because it was Dolby Atmos. And I still have to bring myself to listen to it LOL. But until the music I like gets Atmos mixes, I'll pick and choose what I want to buy as a "demo". 

The upside of "demo" content is it can broaden your horizons. I've never paid much attention to film scores, but the dynamics and rich layers of sound (not to mention the eye candy of the talented and beautiful string section  ) make that Hans Zimmer Live in Prague BD incredibly exciting to listen to. I don't usually go through it in a single sitting, but when Johnny Marr of The Smiths joins the group, or on a cut like "160 BPM", it's compelling to experience (and exhausting in a good way). But until someone comes up with a Dolby Atmos mix of Springsteen, or Midnight Oil, or my really esoteric tastes like Gogol Bordello or Poi Dog Pondering (the best 17-member group with nearly 30 years of history you've probably never heard of)....it will do.

That REM mix is a "must have", since it not only opens up the soundstage, but has a range of music from some straight ahead rock to folky/acoustic. Maybe not for $66 or $75, but I'm a fan and also listen to the advanced resolution stuff or the outtakes. 

Who knows, I might even bite the bullet and buy a couple of 2L discs for Auro  ...since many of the Pure Audio discs also have an Atmos mix... 



> But that's just me . If that kind of thing is your thing, please no offense meant in any way.



Hey, Groundhog Day just came out in UHD+Atmos, and it's got a ton of film score music that makes the mix...keeping the heights busy through a majority of the movie...


----------



## Gooddoc

sdrucker said:


> I can understand that, since I'm only a casual fan (if that) of Kraftwerk, but I bought their BD with the Dolby Atmos mix simply because it was Dolby Atmos. And I still have to bring myself to listen to it LOL. But until the music I like gets Atmos mixes, I'll pick and choose what I want to buy as a "demo".
> 
> .....But until someone comes up with a Dolby Atmos mix of Springsteen, or Midnight Oil, or my really esoteric tastes like Gogol Bordello or Poi Dog Pondering (the best 17-member group with nearly 30 years of history you've probably never heard of)....it will do.
> 
> 
> Hey, Groundhog Day just came out in UHD+Atmos, and it's got a ton of film score music that makes the mix...keeping the heights busy through a majority of the movie...


The Zimmer disc is awesome, no doubt about that! But I'll keeping banging the drum for stuff I've listened to for years to be remixed into a glorious Atmos experience .

Thx for the Groundhog Day tip, I'll be sure to pick it up. I just got done with the original Blade Runner and have 2049 in the queue. Fantastic remix on the original for sure!


----------



## jjackkrash

sdrucker said:


> Hey, Groundhog Day just came out in UHD+Atmos, and it's got a ton of film score music that makes the mix...keeping the heights busy through a majority of the movie...


Such a great movie in so many ways.


----------



## chi_guy50

jjackkrash said:


> Such a great movie in so many ways.


You can say that again. (Get it?)


----------



## snpanago

tr4a said:


> The Dolby Atmos mix is interesting.
> Some reviewers have complained about the mix being to much"front" only.
> I didn't find that to be true. A very nice presentation of this album.
> Nice open airy and detailed. A substantial improvement over the CD.
> Had to fire up the only other Atmos music that I have Hans Zimmer which has much more
> of a "surround" type of sound. The ability of the Zimmer disc to recreate a very large hall in
> Prague was amazing.


I love Atmos for movies and I also have a collection of surround music CDs, SACDs, and DVD-As. The Hans Zimmer 2007 Prague Soundtrack is in my CD collection already. Would the Atmos mix (BluRay) be a worthy upgrade experience? Does the Dolby Surround Upmixer have any effect on CDs?


----------



## jjackkrash

chi_guy50 said:


> You can say that again. (Get it?)


Ned Ryerson. Needlenose Ned? Ned the Head? Come on buddy. Case Western High.

Ned Ryerson?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dave-T said:


> When I had to replace the HVAC system in my condo we found a six pack of beer cans in drywall.


Ok but - *did you drink it*?


----------



## tr4a

snpanago said:


> I love Atmos for movies and I also have a collection of surround music CDs, SACDs, and DVD-As. The Hans Zimmer 2007 Prague Soundtrack is in my CD collection already. Would the Atmos mix (BluRay) be a worthy upgrade experience? Does the Dolby Surround Upmixer have any effect on CDs?


I also have the CD of Live in Prague but from May 7, 2016. This is the same concert as the Blu-ray.
The Atmos version is a big upgrade.

The Dolby upmixer does a nice job of taking a 2 channel mix and outputting 5.2.4 in my room.
I have not yet tried it with CD's only 2 channel movies on Amazon.


----------



## snpanago

tr4a said:


> I also have the CD of Live in Prague but from May 7, 2016. This is the same concert as the Blu-ray.
> The Atmos version is a big upgrade.
> 
> The Dolby upmixer does a nice job of taking a 2 channel mix and outputting 5.2.4 in my room.
> I have not yet tried it with CD's only 2 channel movies on Amazon.


Sold! Pulled the trigger on this BD concert; looking forward to watching and hearing this on my system.


----------



## gwsat

I confess that the _Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague_ (2017) BD is intriguing. _*The Blu-ray.com review*_ was highly complimentary.


----------



## Bond 007

This one?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0757G5PXW/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


----------



## Bond 007

gwsat said:


> I confess that the _Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague_ (2017) BD is intriguing. _*The Blu-ray.com review*_ was highly complimentary.


I don't know. This doesn't sound real encouraging.

"I have to say that for the most part the Atmos channels tend to offer the spill of crowd noise more than any other single element."


----------



## bsweet0us

So, I've ordered my receiver (Marantz 6011) and currently working with a 5.1 system. I got 4 ATMOS-enabled speakers (2 Onkyo, 2 Pioneer Andrew Jones. Different brands because I found a deal for the four from someone who upgraded to in-ceiling speakers.) yesterday and took them out to make sure they would fit comfortably on top of my FLR and surround speakers. I'm concerned about how much to angle the FLR ATMOS speakers, however.


My room layout isn't ideal for ATMOS, but I'm still going to try. I say it isn't ideal because my sofa sits along the back wall of the room and my surround speakers are on shelves that sit inches behind the seating positions (and slightly above ear level) of the sofa. I plan on pointing the ATMOS speakers "facing" each other so the sound reflects essentially directly overhead of the seating positions.


I guess my question becomes, where should the sound from the FLR ATMOS speakers end up after reflection? Should the sound reflect off the ceiling and end up at the sofa or somewhere in front of it? I ask because Dolby suggests in/on-ceiling speakers be placed in front of (as well as behind) the MLP. Assuming down-firing speakers, the sound would end up directly below where the speaker is placed, correct? Therefore, up-firing ATMOS speakers should have the sound reflect off the ceiling and end up in front of the MLP, correct?


I've quickly looked at the Dolby ATMOS recommendations, but it's hard to tell if the reflections are going to hit the MLP or land in front of and behind it.


Thanks so much for your help and I'm looking forward to experiencing as immersive a sound experience as I can!


----------



## gwsat

Bond 007 said:


> I don't know. This doesn't sound real encouraging.
> 
> "I have to say that for the most part the Atmos channels tend to offer the spill of crowd noise more than any other single element."


I thought the review was very positive. Not only did its writer give the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack a rating of 5 Stars out of 5, its concluding sentence said, "Zimmer's sometimes unusual orchestrations are presented with brilliant precision and clarity throughout this presentation, though, and the mix is extremely winning, offering both clear separation but also an organic wholeness in tutti passages." I'm still tempted to go for it.


----------



## Bond 007

gwsat said:


> I thought the review was very positive. Not only did its writer give the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack a rating of 5 Stars out of 5, its concluding sentence said, "Zimmer's sometimes unusual orchestrations are presented with brilliant precision and clarity throughout this presentation, though, and the mix is extremely winning, offering both clear separation but also an organic wholeness in tutti passages." I'm still tempted to go for it.


I'm tempted too. Just sounds like Atmos doesn't add much over 7.1.


----------



## AndreNewman

gwsat said:


> I thought the review was very positive. Not only did its writer give the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack a rating of 5 Stars out of 5, its concluding sentence said, "Zimmer's sometimes unusual orchestrations are presented with brilliant precision and clarity throughout this presentation, though, and the mix is extremely winning, offering both clear separation but also an organic wholeness in tutti passages." I'm still tempted to go for it.




Sounds interesting enough to rent, cinema paradiso have it.


----------



## gene4ht

bsweet0us said:


> Therefore, up-firing ATMOS speakers should have the sound reflect off the ceiling and end up in front of the MLP, correct?


....end up in the *vicinity* of the MLP



bsweet0us said:


> I've quickly looked at the Dolby ATMOS recommendations, but it's hard to tell if the reflections are going to hit the MLP or land in front of and behind it.


Now that you have an understanding of the objectives, put the recommendations aside and experiment, experiment, and experiment. Experiment with speaker placement (position and angle) until the effects sound correct and realistic to to you at the MLP...you ears will tell you. The Dolby Atmos demo disc has a number of tracks that can assist you with this.


----------



## bucknuts07

*Atmos 5.1.4 or 7.1.4*

Have a few questions, and was hoping to get some feedback. I was able to get a new Denon 4300 a few days ago, for pretty cheap, so I purchased. Currently I have a 7.1 setup with Energy Rc-50 towers, Energy Rc-Lcr center, Energy Vs Surrounds, and Energy Rc-10 for the rear surrounds. Anyone here heard a 5.1.4 vs a 7.1.4 setup ? Trying to decide if I should just sell the Vs surrounds, or if 7.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 . That brings me to my next question. How do I hook up an external amp to the Denon 4300 ? I have my older Denon 2112 that's sitting in storage, but I'm trying to understand the best way to hook this up, and if its even worth the hassle. I just received 4 Rsl c-34 speakers for the ceiling, that I plan to install tomorrow. Last thing, my sub. I have an outlaw Lfm-1 plus, if I'm looking for more impactful base, should I buy a second Outlaw, or would one 15" sub be better . Room is probably 14 ft wide by 40 feet long, ceiling is 7ft 6 inches. Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

bsweet0us said:


> Should the sound reflect off the ceiling and end up at the sofa or somewhere in front of it?


The sound should reflect off the ceiling and end up at the listener's ears. Imagine a person at the front of your room holding a flashlight. You ask a friend to move a small hand mirror around the ceiling until you see the reflection of the flashlight. Problem is, the flashlight is aimed at the ceiling but not pointing at the location of the hand mirror (first reflection point). So you rotate & tilt the flashlight until it is pointing directly at the hand mirror, in order to maximize the amount of light bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you. 

To do this with upfiring speakers, sit in the main listening position with a SPL meter and play a test tone though the speaker. Have someone rotate & tilt the upfiring module until you get the highest reading on the SPL meter (differences might not be all that big). This way you know you've maximized the amount of sound bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you. IF tilting ends up being needed, place some shims under the upfiring module.


----------



## T-Bone

bucknuts07 said:


> Currently I have a 7.1 setup with Energy Rc-50 towers, Energy Rc-Lcr center, Energy Vs Surrounds, and Energy Rc-10 for the rear surrounds. Anyone here heard a 5.1.4 vs a 7.1.4 setup ? Trying to decide if I should just sell the Vs surrounds, or if 7.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4.


I did not directly compare 5.14 versus 7.1.4. in fact, I have yet to install my 4 Atmos speakers for my 7.1 system.

I found 7.1 to be a very large improvement over 5.1... Since 5.1 was really a compromise with one set of side speakers that handle side and rear sounds.

If you thought 7.1 was better than 5.1, then go 7.1.4. 

-T


----------



## bsweet0us

gene4ht said:


> ....end up in the *vicinity* of the MLP
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you have an understanding of the objectives, put the recommendations aside and experiment, experiment, and experiment. Experiment with speaker placement (position and angle) until the effects sound correct and realistic to to you at the MLP...you ears will tell you. The Dolby Atmos demo disc has a number of tracks that can assist you with this.


Thanks for the prompt reply. I appreciate the advice. I know it will take some experimentation, but that's half (more than half?) the fun, right!


----------



## bsweet0us

sdurani said:


> The sound should reflect off the ceiling and end up at the listener's ears. Imagine a person at the front of your room holding a flashlight. You ask a friend to move a small hand mirror around the ceiling until you see the reflection of the flashlight. Problem is, the flashlight is aimed at the ceiling but not pointing at the location of the hand mirror (first reflection point). So you rotate & tilt the flashlight until it is pointing directly at the hand mirror, in order to maximize the amount of light bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you.
> 
> To do this with upfiring speakers, sit in the main listening position with a SPL meter and play a test tone though the speaker. Have someone rotate & tilt the upfiring module until you get the highest reading on the SPL meter (differences might not be all that big). This way you know you've maximized the amount of sound bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you. IF tilting ends up being needed, place some shims under the upfiring module.


This is great advice. Is there an inexpensive yet reliable SPL meter you would recommend? I'd like to get the best experience possible, but already dropped a bit of cash and not looking to go much deeper.


----------



## sdurani

bsweet0us said:


> Is there an inexpensive yet reliable SPL meter you would recommend?


Do a search at Amazon for SPL meter; prices start under fifteen bucks.


----------



## stikle

You want an analog SPL meter, like the renowned (and discontinued) Radio Shack meter.

This one looks identical to that one except for the yellow coloring. And it's $5 cheaper than I paid way pack when:

Atlas ATLM7R Analog SPL Meter

Or heck, here's the actual Radio Shack SPL meter on eBay.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Bond 007 said:


> I'm tempted too. Just sounds like Atmos doesn't add much over 7.1.


 It gives you *Atmos*pheric sound; a feeling of immersion and a feeling that you're actually there. Exact what Atmos was designed to do.

Over 7.1, I truly don't understand. I thought that the only other version available was a 2.0 stereo CD. Apologies if I missed another 7.1 version that was previously available.

What did you expect from atmos - helicopters flying overhead and sound effects sweeping from front to back overhead?  It's not a movie and that wouldn't be faithfully and accurately reproducing the sounds that were there, which is what we all aim for is it not


----------



## mcmountainman

bucknuts07 said:


> Have a few questions, and was hoping to get some feedback. I was able to get a new Denon 4300 a few days ago, for pretty cheap, so I purchased. Currently I have a 7.1 setup with Energy Rc-50 towers, Energy Rc-Lcr center, Energy Vs Surrounds, and Energy Rc-10 for the rear surrounds. Anyone here heard a 5.1.4 vs a 7.1.4 setup ? Trying to decide if I should just sell the Vs surrounds, or if 7.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 . That brings me to my next question. How do I hook up an external amp to the Denon 4300 ? I have my older Denon 2112 that's sitting in storage, but I'm trying to understand the best way to hook this up, and if its even worth the hassle. I just received 4 Rsl c-34 speakers for the ceiling, that I plan to install tomorrow. Last thing, my sub. I have an outlaw Lfm-1 plus, if I'm looking for more impactful base, should I buy a second Outlaw, or would one 15" sub be better . Room is probably 14 ft wide by 40 feet long, ceiling is 7ft 6 inches. Thanks.


I'd go for 7.1.4 - Why not you have everything you need . As for the Denon you have to just hook up whatever speakers you want your extra amp to power , up to those pre outs on the Denon ( I did fronts ) Those cables then go to any stereo inputs on your old receiver ( DVD ,CD etc.. ) You also need to configure those settings in Amp Assign on the Denon . If that doesnt make sense better off posting on the Denon 4300 thread .


----------



## unretarded

I am disappointed that the bluray for Hans does not have Atmos plastered all over it, it is not in the description, nor is it in the specs.


Very sad how this is not being promoted.......remember how 5.1 was plastered all over everything when it first came out.




It is a severe lack of promotion IMHO.......of the entire Atmos platform across the entire spectrum.


No mention of upmixing anywhere either.......




"Feauring Dolby Atmos its like being there live.....hear the music like never before"




"Now available in *DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1* which upmixes to the ceiling speakers in Atmos comfigurations"




Sad that there is no marketing being done to speak of.....the masses for the most part have no idea about Atmos. I would say 95% of the people I talk to have never heard of it, but you mention the designation 5.1 and they are like, Oh yeah, I like surround sound......


----------



## sdurani

Bond 007 said:


> Just sounds like Atmos doesn't add much over 7.1.


It adds an entire height layer over (literally over) 7.1, turning a 2D ring of sound into a 3D bubble of sound.


----------



## Howard Shure

sdurani said:


> It adds an entire height layer over (literally over) 7.1, turning a 2D ring of sound into a 3D bubble of sound.


^^^ What he said! I just added atmos (5.1.4) and even my wife noticed and she’s not into this stuff at all. We were watching the movie King Arthur and she asked me why it sounded so much fuller. +1 for Atmos.


----------



## unretarded

Exactly^^^^^^^


This is what I keep telling people, while it is cool to play demo material that has the ceiling lit up with sound, it should sound like normal, just like being outside or just like it was really raining on the roof.




When set up properly and the mix is done right, it should just sound normal........which throws a lot of people off I guess.


----------



## Bond 007

bsweet0us said:


> This is great advice. Is there an inexpensive yet reliable SPL meter you would recommend? I'd like to get the best experience possible, but already dropped a bit of cash and not looking to go much deeper.


Make sure it is A/C weighted. Not just A.


----------



## Bond 007

mrtickleuk said:


> It gives you *Atmos*pheric sound; a feeling of immersion and a feeling that you're actually there. Exact what Atmos was designed to do.
> 
> Over 7.1, I truly don't understand. I thought that the only other version available was a 2.0 stereo CD. Apologies if I missed another 7.1 version that was previously available.
> 
> What did you expect from atmos - helicopters flying overhead and sound effects sweeping from front to back overhead?  It's not a movie and that wouldn't be faithfully and accurately reproducing the sounds that were there, which is what we all aim for is it not


There are no helicopters at the concert? I'll pass.


----------



## Nalleh

I watched the first 4 Transformers movies in UHD HDR and Atmos the last couple of days, and it was a joy to see them again in all their restored glory. Picture, surround, LFE was top notch on all of them, but Age Of Extintion just brought it to another level. This was the first Atmos BD released back in 2014, and it was also the first Atmos movie i watched the first weekend after installing my then new 7.1.4 Denon x5200 Atmos system. I was flabbergasted then, and i was last night too, when i watched it again. The Atmos track on this is sooo precise, dynamic, the LFE is insane, and the scene when they climb out on the cables is (still)one of the best Atmos demos to date! Such a fun revisit  I have seen most of the Atmos releases released so far, and this is still in my top 5 

Recommended


----------



## jjackkrash

bucknuts07 said:


> Trying to decide if I should just sell the Vs surrounds, or if 7.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 .


If you already have the 7 ear-level channels properly placed for Atmos, I don't see why you wouldn't just add 4 properly placed top speakers and call it a day. Here are the installation guiltiness to follow:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Dave-T

mrtickleuk said:


> Ok but - *did you drink it*?


No the workers did because the cans were empty


----------



## gwsat

Howard Shure said:


> ^^^ What he said! I just added atmos (5.1.4) and even my wife noticed and she’s not into this stuff at all. We were watching the movie King Arthur and she asked me why it sounded so much fuller. +1 for Atmos.


Yeah, although _King Arthur: Legend of the Sword_ was a near miss my Guy Ritchie's standards, it looked and sounded great. As dumb as the film is, I regard it as a guilty pleasure, in no little part because of its outstanding TrueHD Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## enricoclaudio

Hi guys. Got yesterday the pair of PSB Imagine XA Atmos Upfiring modules to try in my bedroom setup. I have a Marantz NR1606 so the best/max I can do is 5.1.2. This is a temporary setup because these speakers are moving into my living room for a full 7.2.4 Atmos setup as soon my XMC-1 gets the Atmos upgrade card. Like I mentioned before, I did try a pair of SVS Prime Elevation and didn't like them as up firing modules because I was getting too much sound front the speaker itself. I did try the SVS in a high wall configuration as well but the sound was too directional so didn't like it either. After lot of research found that the Imagine XA was one of the best add on modules so ordered one, ran Audyssey, check on "It" movie with Atmos soundtrack and it sounds definitely better than the SVS Prime Elevation but still I'm not 100% convinced if it's worth the money. Don't get me wrong, I get some ambience and a little bit of extra 3D effect but not what I was expecting from these speakers. Maybe is because I'm doing only 2 Atmos speakers instead of 4? My ceiling is 9 ft, flat, drywall with some sort of corrugated treatment so I don't know if this can affect the bouncing? Audyssey set the crossover at 60Hz for the Imagine XA so I changed it to 120Hz. I did increase the level for the two Atmos speakers by +4dB as well. I know add on modules are not ideal but it's the only way for me to do Atmos because I'm renting and due to fire code I'm not allowed to do ceiling speakers nor high speakers as well. If you guys have any extra advice, will be really appreciated.


----------



## richlife

enricoclaudio said:


> Hi guys. Got yesterday the pair of PSB Imagine XA Atmos Upfiring modules to try in my bedroom setup. I have a Marantz NR1606 so the best/max I can do is 5.1.2. This is a temporary setup because these speakers are moving into my living room for a full 7.2.4 Atmos setup as soon my XMC-1 gets the Atmos upgrade card. Like I mentioned before, I did try a pair of SVS Prime Elevation and didn't like them as up firing modules because I was getting too much sound front the speaker itself. I did try the SVS in a high wall configuration as well but the sound was too directional so didn't like it either. After lot of research found that the Imagine XA was one of the best add on modules so ordered one, ran Audyssey, check on "It" movie with Atmos soundtrack and it sounds definitely better than the SVS Prime Elevation but still I'm not 100% convinced if it's worth the money. Don't get me wrong, I get some ambience and a little bit of extra 3D effect but not what I was expecting from these speakers. *Maybe is because I'm doing only 2 Atmos speakers instead of 4?* My ceiling is 9 ft, flat, drywall with some sort of corrugated treatment so I don't know if this can affect the bouncing? Audyssey set the crossover at 60Hz for the Imagine XA so I changed it to 120Hz. I did increase the level for the two Atmos speakers by +4dB as well. I know add on modules are not ideal but it's the only way for me to do Atmos because I'm renting and due to fire code I'm not allowed to do ceiling speakers nor high speakers as well. If you guys have any extra advice, will be really appreciated.


Without question, 4 "ceiling" speakers for Atmos is better. Just as the oft stated fact that Atmos soundbars cannot equal a true 7.x.4 Atmos setup. Worry about the details when you move to your living room.


----------



## Jonas2

unretarded said:


> It is a severe lack of promotion IMHO.......of the entire Atmos platform across the entire spectrum.
> 
> Sad that there is no marketing being done to speak of.....the masses for the most part have no idea about Atmos. I would say 95% of the people I talk to have never heard of it, but you mention the designation 5.1 and they are like, Oh yeah, I like surround sound......


Ha! To that point, my brother recently referred to it as "Sony Atmos", wondering what it was....., well, what can you do? 



bucknuts07 said:


> anyone here heard a 5.1.4 vs a 7.1.4 setup ? Trying to decide if I should just sell the Vs surrounds, or if 7.1.4 is worth it over 5.1.4 .


I just made the move from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 - and yes, it was worth it. A game changer, or a deal breaker? Probably not, I'd still be happy with a 5.2.4 system, but if you've already got them, USE 'EM!  Adding the two rears, at least in system, really completed the "bubble", my wife really noticed it too, and she's not exactly a big audio/video person, but it was clear she appreciated what the two additional speakers had accomplished.


----------



## showmak

Conan the Barbarian (2011) sounded amazing in Atmos. The credits music was awesome too.


----------



## ggsantafe

enricoclaudio said:


> Hi guys. Got yesterday the pair of PSB Imagine XA Atmos Upfiring modules to try in my bedroom setup. I have a Marantz NR1606 so the best/max I can do is 5.1.2. This is a temporary setup because these speakers are moving into my living room for a full 7.2.4 Atmos setup as soon my XMC-1 gets the Atmos upgrade card. Like I mentioned before, I did try a pair of SVS Prime Elevation and didn't like them as up firing modules because I was getting too much sound front the speaker itself. I did try the SVS in a high wall configuration as well but the sound was too directional so didn't like it either. After lot of research found that the Imagine XA was one of the best add on modules so ordered one, ran Audyssey, check on "It" movie with Atmos soundtrack and it sounds definitely better than the SVS Prime Elevation but still I'm not 100% convinced if it's worth the money. Don't get me wrong, I get some ambience and a little bit of extra 3D effect but not what I was expecting from these speakers. Maybe is because I'm doing only 2 Atmos speakers instead of 4? My ceiling is 9 ft, flat, drywall with some sort of corrugated treatment so I don't know if this can affect the bouncing? Audyssey set the crossover at 60Hz for the Imagine XA so I changed it to 120Hz. I did increase the level for the two Atmos speakers by +4dB as well. I know add on modules are not ideal but it's the only way for me to do Atmos because I'm renting and due to fire code I'm not allowed to do ceiling speakers nor high speakers as well. If you guys have any extra advice, will be really appreciated.


You may want to refer to Sanjay's advice regarding placement of Upfiring modules - also looking at your picture, you may want to consider repositioning your center channel that currently sits above your screen - perhaps you could place it where your receiver is located and move the receiver to the right or left of it's current location.




sdurani said:


> The sound should reflect off the ceiling and end up at the listener's ears. Imagine a person at the front of your room holding a flashlight. You ask a friend to move a small hand mirror around the ceiling until you see the reflection of the flashlight. Problem is, the flashlight is aimed at the ceiling but not pointing at the location of the hand mirror (first reflection point). So you rotate & tilt the flashlight until it is pointing directly at the hand mirror, in order to maximize the amount of light bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you.
> 
> To do this with upfiring speakers, sit in the main listening position with a SPL meter and play a test tone though the speaker. Have someone rotate & tilt the upfiring module until you get the highest reading on the SPL meter (differences might not be all that big). This way you know you've maximized the amount of sound bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you. IF tilting ends up being needed, place some shims under the upfiring module.


----------



## enricoclaudio

I did try Sanjay's advice but not a big change. I'm thinking on returning the PSB Imagine XA speakers and finally come to the conclusion that add on speakers are not worthy for Atmos, period.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

I just got my first 2 atmos speakers from dali to make a modestly 5.1.2 and i can't wait to hook em up tomorrow. I have a questions about the angle they are pointed to. Listening position is around 3.5 meters or 11.5 feet. Should i put something on the back of them to make the angle bigger or it doesn't really matter that much ?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jonas2 said:


> Ha! To that point, my brother recently referred to it as "Sony Atmos", wondering what it was....., well, what can you do?


Ha! I like that. And Sony Vision to go with it. LOL.


----------



## showmak

Played the new album of Nils Frahm "All Melody" from my Tidal HiFi, using DSU on my 3050 and it was like setting in an articulating circular chamber with sounds coming from everywhere. Just marvelous...


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> The sound should reflect off the ceiling and end up at the listener's ears. Imagine a person at the front of your room holding a flashlight. You ask a friend to move a small hand mirror around the ceiling until you see the reflection of the flashlight. Problem is, the flashlight is aimed at the ceiling but not pointing at the location of the hand mirror (first reflection point). So you rotate & tilt the flashlight until it is pointing directly at the hand mirror, in order to maximize the amount of light bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you.
> 
> To do this with upfiring speakers, sit in the main listening position with a SPL meter and play a test tone though the speaker. Have someone rotate & tilt the upfiring module until you get the highest reading on the SPL meter (differences might not be all that big). This way you know you've maximized the amount of sound bouncing off the ceiling and reaching you. IF tilting ends up being needed, place some shims under the upfiring module.


Yay Sanjay! You've provided excellent methodology for my general description!


----------



## unretarded

enricoclaudio said:


> I did try Sanjay's advice but not a big change. I'm thinking on returning the PSB Imagine XA speakers and finally come to the conclusion that add on speakers are not worthy for Atmos, period.


 Return those...get some cheap light bookshelves and use those super glue gizmo as seen on TV wall hangers that stick, but do not mess up the paint and can removed doodads so you can go up top up front at the ceiling.




Dayton audio makes some that are like 30 bucks a pair, so if it ever did fall no biggie.....use 2 or 3 of the fancy picture hanger doodads.......


Here they are....


https://www.walmart.com/ip/Command-...cture hangars removable as seen on tv&veh=sem


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Hey guys, Long time no see. I was at a fellow forum member's place last weekend and He was wondering where I'd been... the answer is work & a 3 year old (lol). I'm excited to see the community is still going and that Denon just announced a receiver that can do 7.1.6 or 9.1.4... though I'm still waiting for when it gets to 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 for 2 or 3k with the assistance of external amps. I guess we'll see


----------



## gene4ht

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hey guys, Long time no see. I was at a fellow forum member's place last weekend and He was wondering where I'd been... the answer is work & a 3 year old (lol). I'm excited to see the community is still going and that Denon just announced a receiver that can do 7.1.6 or 9.1.4... though I'm still waiting for when it gets to 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 for 2 or 3k with the assistance of external amps. I guess we'll see


Welcome back Aris...good hearing from you again! I think it’ll be another 3 years before we’ll see that cababily in the 2-3k range...when Denon’s x8500h is on close out.


----------



## Howard Shure

gwsat said:


> Yeah, although _King Arthur: Legend of the Sword_ was a near miss my Guy Ritchie's standards, it looked and sounded great. As dumb as the film is, I regard it as a guilty pleasure, in no little part because of its outstanding TrueHD Atmos soundtrack.


Agreed! The tunnel scene at 1:19:45 is a great atmos demo. It’s all of maybe 20 seconds but the .4 is heavily used.


----------



## Yeahnah

Howard Shure said:


> Agreed! The tunnel scene at 1:19:45 is a great atmos demo. It’s all of maybe 20 seconds but the .4 is heavily used.


I bought the UHD today to test on my system. I actually really enjoyed the movie and can't wait to watch it again. 

I've had a bit of time now to settle in with my 5.1.2 setup and I'm not really convinced yet. I can never really tell that the Atmos speakers (in-ceiling) are actually doing anything, which is leading me to believe I need to either put back boxes on them, go to 5.1.4 or do both  I went up in the roof today to measure up the available space but after a few minutes up there it got far too hot and I had to come down, so I'll have to wait until cooler weather unfortunately.


----------



## jrsansing

unretarded said:


> Exactly^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> This is what I keep telling people, while it is cool to play demo material that has the ceiling lit up with sound, it should sound like normal, just like being outside or just like it was really raining on the roof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When set up properly and the mix is done right, it should just sound normal........which throws a lot of people off I guess.


The way I know its working is when my cat looks around the room trying to see what he's hearing. Atmos does that.


----------



## bucknuts07

So, I’ve never heard Atmos, but I decided to go straight for the jugular, and just got my 7.1.4 set up today.  My jaw is still on the floor. Last week I found a Denon 4300 for around 7 bills, already had energy rc-50s , energy rc-lcr, energy vs surrounds, and a pair of Rc 10s, and I pulled the trigger on 4 RSL c34 ceiling speakers . I’m just flat out amazed at the sound difference. Even watching King Arthur on HBO with Dts neural sounded amazing . Looking forward to checking out blade runner


----------



## humbland

Yeahnah said:


> I bought the UHD today to test on my system. I actually really enjoyed the movie and can't wait to watch it again.
> 
> I've had a bit of time now to settle in with my 5.1.2 setup and I'm not really convinced yet. I can never really tell that the Atmos speakers (in-ceiling) are actually doing anything, which is leading me to believe I need to either put back boxes on them, go to 5.1.4 or do both  I went up in the roof today to measure up the available space but after a few minutes up there it got far too hot and I had to come down, so I'll have to wait until cooler weather unfortunately.


After cruising this thread, I had some thoughts.
In 2014, we went from 7.2 to a 7.4.4 set up. INMO, it's been a terrific addition. 
For the 4 overheads, we used small surround speakers with adjustable gimbal mounts and a laser pointer to carefully align them to the MLP. If using the upfiring modules, you could probably position a hand mirror on the ceiling and use a laser pointer at the MLP, to get more precise localization. 
We had a spare AVR, but opted to go with an outboard stereo amp_ with a 12v trigger_ to pair with our Pioneer SC-97. They are inexpensive (ebay/Amazon), plus the 12v trigger makes powering the overheads "plug and play". 
The Atmos demo disks were helpful in the set up. After the initial MCACC Pro adjustments, I _manually boosted the overheads by 2.5 db._ This "awakened" the sound bubble. 
I concurr with most of the movie reviews. There have been a few with outstanding Atmos tracks (Transformers/Gravity). However, I think the sound engineers are still trying to figure out the best way to implement Atmos. Hoping that the move to 4K Blu-ray will jump start the audio. 
In the mean time, the Dolby upmixer is in constant use in our system. It really adds a lot to legacy movie mixes, not to mention added "realism" in live sporting events. Things like crowd sounds really help with listener immersion. Go Dubs!
My $.02


----------



## jjackkrash

bucknuts07 said:


> So, I’ve never heard Atmos, but I decided to go straight for the jugular, and just got my 7.1.4 set up today.  My jaw is still on the floor. Last week I found a Denon 4300 for around 7 bills, already had energy rc-50s , energy rc-lcr, energy vs surrounds, and a pair of Rc 10s, and I pulled the trigger on 4 RSL c34 ceiling speakers . I’m just flat out amazed at the sound difference. Even watching King Arthur on HBO with Dts neural sounded amazing . Looking forward to checking out blade runner


Both the original and 2049 in Atmos are freaking fantastic!

And good call on taking the Atmos leap of faith. Søren Kierkegaard approves this message.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

gene4ht said:


> Welcome back Aris...good hearing from you again! I think it’ll be another 3 years before we’ll see that cababily in the 2-3k range...when Denon’s x8500h is on close out.


Thanks!

Yes that's what I'm expecting as well, I can wait it out as my 7.1.4 setup doesn't leave much to be desired  It would just be great to fill those gaps in the sound field.


----------



## T-Bone

Finally added Atmos today... 7.1.4. was a cool day in Florida, so I took advantage. Ran wires thru my attic.

Photos attached. I used batting to keep the blown-in insulation out of the speaker.

I did not demo anything, although I ran the Atmos 7.1.4 channel check to make sure the Atmos speakers were working after I mounted them.

I need to add the grills, cleanup the room, then demo some material.

Came close to the Dolby recommendations... Had a joist in the way, so elevation angles are 48 degrees to the top front, and 47 degrees to the top Rear.

I posted before about pulling the tops a bit inward... And I did. Mains are separated by 11 feet. And top left/right are separated by 9'-8"... I originally was going to do a bit inward because I was concerned about the sidewall. But the group put those fears to rest. But then I realized I had some wiring from the ceiling cans and I did not want to be in line with power lines. So pulling them in a bit was enough to give me peace of mind and I was not to close to electrical wiring.

Speakers are Polk MC60 6 1/2" drivers with movable Tweeter... 

-T


----------



## snpanago

T-Bone said:


> Finally added Atmos today... 7.1.4. was a cool day in Florida, so I took advantage. Ran wires thru my attic.
> 
> Photos attached. I used batting to keep the blown-in insulation out of the speaker.
> 
> I did not demo anything, although I ran the Atmos 7.1.4 channel check to make sure the Atmos speakers were working after I mounted them.
> 
> I need to add the grills, cleanup the room, then demo some material.
> 
> Came close to the Dolby recommendations... Had a joist in the way, so elevation angles are 48 degrees to the top front, and 47 degrees to the top Rear.
> 
> I posted before about pulling the tops a bit inward... And I did. Mains are separated by 11 feet. And top left/right are separated by 9'-8"... I originally was going to do a bit inward because I was concerned about the sidewall. But the group put those fears to rest. But then I realized I had some wiring from the ceiling cans and I did not want to be in line with power lines. So pulling them in a bit was enough to give me peace of mind and I was not to close to electrical wiring.
> 
> Speakers are Polk MC60 6 1/2" drivers with movable Tweeter...
> 
> -T


Looks awesome and I know it’s going to blow you away!


----------



## gene4ht

T-Bone said:


> Finally added Atmos today... 7.1.4. was a cool day in Florida.
> 
> -T


Congrats! Sounded like a busy day for you but you’re about to be well rewarded! I continue to maintain that there is ample flexibility to accommodate room/ceiling constraints and variations from the Dolby guidelines. Many members here have successful installations with great Atmos performance can attest to that. There’s no doubt you’ll soon be among the Atmos proponents. BTW...in addition to Atmos capability, the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) is surprisingly good and will add new and immersive life for your non-Atmos titles. Many folks found themselves rewatching the older titles in their collections. Enjoy!


----------



## snpanago

gwsat said:


> I thought the review was very positive. Not only did its writer give the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack a rating of 5 Stars out of 5, its concluding sentence said, "Zimmer's sometimes unusual orchestrations are presented with brilliant precision and clarity throughout this presentation, though, and the mix is extremely winning, offering both clear separation but also an organic wholeness in tutti passages." I'm still tempted to go for it.


Watched and listened with my wife tonight on 5.2.4 setup and the room was alive with dynamic, clear, awesome performances. It seemed the Atmos provides fullness to the music, an airiness that you experience attending a live performance. Happy with the purchase.


----------



## gene4ht

snpanago said:


> Watched and listened with my wife tonight on 5.2.4 setup and the room was alive with dynamic, clear, awesome performances. It seemed the Atmos provides fullness to the music, an airiness that you experience attending a live performance. Happy with the purchase.


Purchased from Amazon today based on recommendations here...anxiously waiting to see and hear the Atmos version!


----------



## supersecretjim

Onkyo TX-RZ920, Definitive Technology BP2000 front pair, C/L/R 2000 Center Channel, Supercube III, 6x ProMonitor 80 (surround, Atmos front & rear overhead speakers. The Pro 80s replaced the BPX surrounds Ive been using for the past so many years, only because I decided to go back to direct speakers for surround, AND to have a matched set for surround & Atmos front/rear. 


I just finished wiring everything up, and am really impressed. I have no Atmos source material as I'm only running a standard Bluray player, but upconverting to Dolby surround and DTS-X sounds pretty damn good! I just watched a few minutes of Prometheus, and when they are in the cave with water falling from overhead...Wow, very convincing. I watched a bit from Avatar & that one has ambient sounds all over the place. By all means, worth pulling my old ProMonitor 80s out of the garage.


If you check out my Panoramic photo, I'm not using ceiling installed atmos speakers. I decided, for the sake of simplicity, to use my old surround location for the Atmos rears. Then I mounted a few feet directly below, the surround channel speakers. Almost equidistant from MLP I installed the Atmos front channel speakers. 


I found some downloads for both Atmos & DTS-X online. Can I play these from a USB drive plugged into rear of Onkyo unit and get surround that way? Id love to hear actual corporate demos through my system.


What do you guys think of my set up? I know its not text-book, but I think it should work. Plus, if I put speakers any further back, I think my wife would have freaked...Shes already unhappy about the rear speakers (surrounds) being mounted so low.


----------



## Kumate

Jonas2 said:


> Ha! To that point, my brother recently referred to it as "Sony Atmos", wondering what it was....., well, what can you do?
> 
> 
> 
> I just made the move from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 - and yes, it was worth it. A game changer, or a deal breaker? Probably not, I'd still be happy with a 5.2.4 system, but if you've already got them, USE 'EM!  Adding the two rears, at least in system, really completed the "bubble", my wife really noticed it too, and she's not exactly a big audio/video person, but it was clear she appreciated what the two additional speakers had accomplished.


How did you place them? I am curious. I have a 7.1.4 system and I just didn't like it. I can't put my finger on it but I believe its just how I have my room setup. If I sat on my couch with the 2 rear speakers positioned behind my couch (just to the back left and right) the sound was just directly in my ears. Felt to close. The back rear speakers barely fired in many movies and due to the overpowered rare speakers I rarely heard them. But just having the rear speakers on the back wall filled the room with surround. I have the ability to go back to 7.1.4 but I want to wait till there is a great deal on a set of speakers and I need to research more because I am doing something wrong or I just don't have the space for a 7.1.4 system.


----------



## Kumate

enricoclaudio said:


> Hi guys. Got yesterday the pair of PSB Imagine XA Atmos Upfiring modules to try in my bedroom setup. I have a Marantz NR1606 so the best/max I can do is 5.1.2. This is a temporary setup because these speakers are moving into my living room for a full 7.2.4 Atmos setup as soon my XMC-1 gets the Atmos upgrade card. Like I mentioned before, I did try a pair of SVS Prime Elevation and didn't like them as up firing modules because I was getting too much sound front the speaker itself. I did try the SVS in a high wall configuration as well but the sound was too directional so didn't like it either. After lot of research found that the Imagine XA was one of the best add on modules so ordered one, ran Audyssey, check on "It" movie with Atmos soundtrack and it sounds definitely better than the SVS Prime Elevation but still I'm not 100% convinced if it's worth the money. Don't get me wrong, I get some ambience and a little bit of extra 3D effect but not what I was expecting from these speakers. Maybe is because I'm doing only 2 Atmos speakers instead of 4? My ceiling is 9 ft, flat, drywall with some sort of corrugated treatment so I don't know if this can affect the bouncing? Audyssey set the crossover at 60Hz for the Imagine XA so I changed it to 120Hz. I did increase the level for the two Atmos speakers by +4dB as well. I know add on modules are not ideal but it's the only way for me to do Atmos because I'm renting and due to fire code I'm not allowed to do ceiling speakers nor high speakers as well. If you guys have any extra advice, will be really appreciated.


I had the def tech up firing speakers with my setup when I first got into Atmos and I was extremely UNIMPRESSED. I tried everything. I bought two more speakers for a 7.1.4 and it did improve the Atmos experience but was no where near the price of admission. I was new to Atmos and the showroom I heard the speakers in did not sound anything like it did in my home. So I took them back and just went all in with 4 ceiling speakers. The difference is amazing. I can hear everything. It blows away what I heard in the showroom. What's funny is that it was WAY cheaper putting ceiling speakers in for Atmos vice those upfiring ones.

As for your system I have two suggestions. The second suggestion is what I would do but I can see two options for your system.

Suggestion 1:
Since you are renting most places just require you patch up any holes you have in the walls before leaving (they repaint so dont have to pay). I would mount your TV. Raise it high enough so that your center speaker is below your TV. Can just sit it where the TV was. I would also try to space out your left and right channels. Right now you have so much sound just coming our right in front of you, losing that surround effect those speakers deserve. Buy a couple of shelves and put the L/R speakers in the corners or just use the hook mounts they came with (use Anchor screw/nails to support the weight) The anchors are very easy to use and perfect for drywall. This will space those speakers out so you feel like the sound is coming from the sides. I don't know what type of rear speakers you have but some Bi-polars would be great so fill the room more instead of just pure front directional speakers because those I assume would be poisition above your bed which loses it's surround effect. You could place them in the back corners with them pointing toward the center of your room for better effect. Lastly, I would just take back the Atmos speakers. Save your money. 5.1 in your bedroom, with the space is MORE then enough. That room is getting filled with sound and it's won't make that big of a difference, especially with so much sound coming from the front. That is what I would do with the current setup you have.

Suggestion 2: This is what I would pick. Take back everything you can while you can return it for full price. Just get an Atmos soundbar. With the size of your room the soundbar will give you 90% of what you are hearing out of your system. It honestly will probably sound a little better because it is meant to fill the room in ways that your bedroom looks pefect for. Sony/Samsung make decent sound bars that are 3.1.2 that you can also add some rear speakers on to give it that 5.1.2 feeling. BUT I would suggest buying and waiting for this.

http://www.avsforum.com/best-of-ces-sony-ht-z9f-3-1-soundbar-with-virtual-7-1-2-surround/

From what I have read this will probably be a game changer for sound bars. Being able to simulate a 7.1.2 system without requiring upfiring speakers or needing a ceiling to reflect will be perfect for anyone who doesn't have a dedicated room for a sound system. I would take back what you can and get this soundbar. It got amazing reviews at CES. When you are no longer renting that is when I would drop the money into a sound system. You will also know the demisions of your new man cave which will help you pick the right product to fit your room. Which will be better for you in the long run. Also this soundbar won't go to waste because you can place it in another room like a work out room or the kids play room or your bedroom for when you aren't wanting the full theater experience and want to just chill in bed. So still a great investment. 

This is what I would suggest. Atmos is amazing and worth the investment if you have the place to put it.


----------



## Kumate

supersecretjim said:


> Onkyo TX-RZ920, Definitive Technology BP2000 front pair, C/L/R 2000 Center Channel, Supercube III, 6x ProMonitor 80 (surround, Atmos front & rear overhead speakers. The Pro 80s replaced the BPX surrounds Ive been using for the past so many years, only because I decided to go back to direct speakers for surround, AND to have a matched set for surround & Atmos front/rear.
> 
> 
> I just finished wiring everything up, and am really impressed. I have no Atmos source material as I'm only running a standard Bluray player, but upconverting to Dolby surround and DTS-X sounds pretty damn good! I just watched a few minutes of Prometheus, and when they are in the cave with water falling from overhead...Wow, very convincing. I watched a bit from Avatar & that one has ambient sounds all over the place. By all means, worth pulling my old ProMonitor 80s out of the garage.
> 
> 
> If you check out my Panoramic photo, I'm not using ceiling installed atmos speakers. I decided, for the sake of simplicity, to use my old surround location for the Atmos rears. Then I mounted a few feet directly below, the surround channel speakers. Almost equidistant from MLP I installed the Atmos front channel speakers.
> 
> 
> I found some downloads for both Atmos & DTS-X online. Can I play these from a USB drive plugged into rear of Onkyo unit and get surround that way? Id love to hear actual corporate demos through my system.
> 
> 
> What do you guys think of my set up? I know its not text-book, but I think it should work. Plus, if I put speakers any further back, I think my wife would have freaked...Shes already unhappy about the rear speakers (surrounds) being mounted so low.


How is the subwoofer sounding for you? Supercube is a nice Sub but you have a large room (that bleeds out into your open space). Adding another subwoofer could make a huge difference in that space. Looks like you have the other aspects of your system well covered in your setup. Looks great for having large gatherings. Wife might not like it but I bet it will make all your guest be in awe when you show them, which will make the wife happy and proud of the house


----------



## Yeahnah

T-Bone said:


> Came close to the Dolby recommendations...


Dolby specifically say they do not recommend dipoles


----------



## T-Bone

Yeahnah said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Came close to the Dolby recommendations...
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby specifically say they do not recommend dipoles
Click to expand...

LOL. I know... 

-T


----------



## CanesFan

Experts, have a question that I have searched but don't really see an answer on. I have a dedicated theater with a current 6.1 setup. This Atmos bug has me itching to upgrade and add 4 ceiling speakers, but I only have the 1 surround back. Can you do a 6.1.4 or do I have to remove my center rear and add 2 surround backs? My system setup is a Marantz 6011, Sherbourn Tech amp that powers my mains, center, and side surrounds, speakers are Martin Logan SL3's for FL & FR, ML Cinema I center, and Magnepan MMG surrounds and rear center back, and an SVS PB12+ sub.

Thanks in advance for any advice. 
Mike


----------



## T-Bone

CanesFan said:


> Experts, have a question that I have searched but don't really see an answer on. I have a dedicated theater with a current 6.1 setup. This Atmos bug has me itching to upgrade and add 4 ceiling speakers, but I only have the 1 surround back. Can you do a 6.1.4 or do I have to remove my center rear and add 2 surround backs? My system setup is a Marantz 6011, Sherbourn Tech amp that powers my mains, center, and side surrounds, speakers are Martin Logan SL3's for FL & FR, ML Cinema I center, and Magnepan MMG surrounds and rear center back, and an SVS PB12+ sub.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
> Mike


Does the manual State your receiver support 6.1.4? If so, then you can do it. My Onkyo 920 support 6.1.4. It's a 2017 model. Stated that and then manual.

-T


----------



## Jonas2

Kumate said:


> How did you place them? I am curious. I have a 7.1.4 system and I just didn't like it. I can't put my finger on it but I believe its just how I have my room setup. If I sat on my couch with the 2 rear speakers positioned behind my couch (just to the back left and right) the sound was just directly in my ears. Felt to close. The back rear speakers barely fired in many movies and due to the overpowered rare speakers I rarely heard them. But just having the rear speakers on the back wall filled the room with surround. I have the ability to go back to 7.1.4 but I want to wait till there is a great deal on a set of speakers and I need to research more because I am doing something wrong or I just don't have the space for a 7.1.4 system.


The overall is fairly close to what Dolby recommends as far as positions go, distance might be another issue! My arrangement is less than ideal due to space constraints, but I went for it anyway. I would say that my rt. surround, and the rear surrounds are technically "too close" to the listeners, but that's the beauty of being able to control the levels and dialing them back a few dB to take away some of that closeness. My side surrounds are essentially at 90 degrees to the listeners, but aimed slightly forward, rears are in line with the mains which puts them nearly behind the corners of a 3-person couch, aimed not at the MLP, but rather at the spot between the MLP and a person to either side. Rears are about 5 feet away from the MLP from ear to tweeter - and these are not bad - you know they are there, but it isn't glaringly obvious. At least for my surrounds, that 5-6 foot distance seems to be about where you'd want them to not feel too present, they are monopoles, and point-source material does not lend itself well to monopoles that are really close. 

If you feel they are too close, dial back the levels and see what that gets you. Experiment a lot with the aim angles relative to the MLP if you can - my surrounds are all stand mounted so it makes this really easy for me, fortunately!


----------



## supersecretjim

Kumate said:


> How is the subwoofer sounding for you? Supercube is a nice Sub but you have a large room (that bleeds out into your open space). Adding another subwoofer could make a huge difference in that space. Looks like you have the other aspects of your system well covered in your setup. Looks great for having large gatherings. Wife might not like it but I bet it will make all your guest be in awe when you show them, which will make the wife happy and proud of the house


Bass sounds good. Id love to have another sub. Between the 15 inchers in each BP2000 and the little Supercube, it sounds pretty good. Sound pressure is not going to blow me out of the room...
When funds are available, a 2nd (bigger) sub is something thats already in my head.


----------



## batpig

CanesFan said:


> Experts, have a question that I have searched but don't really see an answer on. I have a dedicated theater with a current 6.1 setup. This Atmos bug has me itching to upgrade and add 4 ceiling speakers, but I only have the 1 surround back. Can you do a 6.1.4 or do I have to remove my center rear and add 2 surround backs? My system setup is a Marantz 6011, Sherbourn Tech amp that powers my mains, center, and side surrounds, speakers are Martin Logan SL3's for FL & FR, ML Cinema I center, and Magnepan MMG surrounds and rear center back, and an SVS PB12+ sub.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
> Mike


Atmos supports a single SB speaker, but DSU upmixing doesn?t. So if you use DSU to upmix non-Atmos material then the back surround will be silent. 

I think DTS Neural:X upmix does support the single back surround.


----------



## T-Bone

batpig said:


> CanesFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experts, have a question that I have searched but don't really see an answer on. I have a dedicated theater with a current 6.1 setup. This Atmos bug has me itching to upgrade and add 4 ceiling speakers, but I only have the 1 surround back. Can you do a 6.1.4 or do I have to remove my center rear and add 2 surround backs? My system setup is a Marantz 6011, Sherbourn Tech amp that powers my mains, center, and side surrounds, speakers are Martin Logan SL3's for FL & FR, ML Cinema I center, and Magnepan MMG surrounds and rear center back, and an SVS PB12+ sub.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos supports a single SB speaker, but DSU upmixing doesn?t. So if you use DSU to upmix non-Atmos material then the back surround will be silent.
> 
> I think DTS Neural:X upmix does support the single back surround.
Click to expand...

Is what you said about Dolby Surround upmixer in the specification somewhere? I searched and couldn't find anything. Although my Google skills may be lacking 

Just seems like that would be awfully short-sighted of the Dolby Surround upmixer. And, unless I am mistaken, it does not seem hard to implement upmixing with a single back speaker.

-T


----------



## batpig

T-Bone said:


> Is what you said about Dolby Surround upmixer in the specification somewhere? I searched and couldn't find anything. Although my Google skills may be lacking
> 
> Just seems like that would be awfully short-sighted of the Dolby Surround upmixer. And, unless I am mistaken, it does not seem hard to implement upmixing with a single back speaker.
> 
> -T


Although I don't know the reason for it, this caveat is specifically mentioned in the Dolby Atmos whitepapers that have been floating around for a while, along with the caveat about DSU not upmixing to Front Wide speakers. Anyway, I don't know how "short-sighted" this single omission is for Dolby considering how 7.1 has really replaced 6.1 as the standard, and dual SB speakers is the better way to do it.


----------



## Sean Spamilton

Does anyone know what exactly is the difference between using Top Rear and Rear heights are in a 7.2.4 scenario? 

Does using Rear Height somehow blend Atmos effects between surround rear and rear height vs. using discrete sounds for Top Rear? My Rear Heights / Top Rear are fixed in regards to their placement (the traditional Rear Height layout) and am just wondering what exactly gets changed depending on what you set them as.

Cheers!


----------



## T-Bone

batpig said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is what you said about Dolby Surround upmixer in the specification somewhere? I searched and couldn't find anything. Although my Google skills may be lacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems like that would be awfully short-sighted of the Dolby Surround upmixer. And, unless I am mistaken, it does not seem hard to implement upmixing with a single back speaker.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't know the reason for it, this caveat is specifically mentioned in the Dolby Atmos whitepapers that have been floating around for a while, along with the caveat about DSU not upmixing to Front Wide speakers. Anyway, I don't know how "short-sighted" this single omission is for Dolby considering how 7.1 has really replaced 6.1 as the standard, and dual SB speakers is the better way to do it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the image. 

It stated data DSU does not up mix audio to the center surround speaker. So you are correct.

But I guess the upmixer does not send audio to the center rear surround for sources that are 5.1 or less. Is that correct? 

Meaning if I have a true 6.1 system, I would imagine that the Dolby Surround upmixer would send audio to the ceiling speakers, but not make my rear center surround go silent?

When I say short-sighted, I said that because every receiver I have had had the ability to use the older Dolby up mixing and up mix to 6. 1 (what they used to call Dolby EX). Just seems odd that DSU took away that ability that they Dolby had before.

Anyway, thanks for the information. I learned something today 

-T


----------



## Roger Dressler

T-Bone said:


> But I guess the upmixer does not send audio to the center rear surround for sources that are 5.1 or less. Is that correct?


The way I read it, DSU ignores the Cs speaker regardless of the source format.



> Meaning if I have a true 6.1 system, I would imagine that the Dolby Surround upmixer would send audio to the ceiling speakers, but not make my rear center surround go silent?


If you are playing true 6.1 content in a 6.1.x (x>0) system, DSU should not interfere with the Cs channel. If x=0 (pure 6.1 system), DSU will not activate with 6.1 sources, so you're safe. 



> When I say short-sighted, I said that because every receiver I have had had the ability to use the older Dolby up mixing and up mix to 6. 1 (what they used to call Dolby EX). Just seems odd that DSU took away that ability that they Dolby had before.


Surround EX was a delivery format born in cinema, and those soundtracks were made available to home media. But whether in the cinema or at home, the intention was to reproduce that mono rear channel over at least 2 speakers, never just one (in spite of that, there indeed were products that had a single rear output). A mono rear speaker becomes directionally ambiguous -- easy to mistake as being in front, so was not favored especially in sparse speaker configurations like we have at home.


----------



## sdurani

Sean Spamilton said:


> Does anyone know what exactly is the difference between using Top Rear and Rear heights are in a 7.2.4 scenario?


When the Atmos decoder has to map audio objects to your speaker layout, it thinks the Rear Heights are above your Rear speakers and thinks the Top Rears are between your Rears & Sides. So designate your height layer speakers based on where they are compared to the base layer speakers. For example: if they're above your Front speakers, then they're Front Heights; if they're between the Fronts & Sides, then they're Top Fronts.


> Does using Rear Height somehow blend Atmos effects between surround rear and rear height vs. using discrete sounds for Top Rear?


Only if those sounds were intended to image between the height layer and base layer. But if the renderer needs to re-map a sound forward or rearward in the height layer, it will not use speakers in the base layer to do that. However, DTS:X will do that. Think of Atmos as having speakers in two flat planes (base layer, height layer) while DTS:X has them on a dome (so Tops are not only more inward than the Heights, like Atmos, but also higher up, unlike Atmos).


----------



## pasender91

Regarding the difference between Top Rear and Height Rear, Atmos content will be different as their reference angle are different, so objects are not positioned in the same way.
Top will take sounds from a 45° angle while Height will be 30°.

In one of the initial white papers from Dolby it is written that the speakers should be designated only from their angle, not the fact that they are on the wall or on the ceiling.
Point in case, at home i have my rears on the wall but the angle is 42°, so i designated them as Top Rear


----------



## chi_guy50

pasender91 said:


> Regarding the difference between Top Rear and Height Rear, Atmos content will be different as their reference angle are different, so objects are not positioned in the same way.
> Top will take sounds from a 45° angle while Height will be 30°.
> 
> In one of the initial white papers from Dolby it is written that the speakers should be designated only from their angle, not the fact that they are on the wall or on the ceiling.
> Point in case, at home i have my rears on the wall but the angle is 42°, so i designated them as Top Rear


And yet another, more practical factor to take into consideration regarding designation of the overhead speakers is their availability for the Auro and DTS codecs (Auro-3D/Auro-Matic and DTS:X/Neural:X) in addition to Dolby. For this trifold purpose, only the FH/RH combination will serve.


----------



## Bengali

Hi

This is probably asked before. Once Front Height speakers are setup. If you watch a blu ray that does not
produce Atmos sound channel, you then select Yamaha’s DSP sound mode? vs. just using the standard Dolby or DTS mode
without use of height speakers.

Seems to be mixed bag of reviews. Is the front height sound really subtle or makes great impact reality of height sound effect?


----------



## pasender91

Bengali said:


> Hi
> 
> This is probably asked before. Once Front Height speakers are setup. If you watch a blu ray that does not
> produce Atmos sound channel, you then select Yamaha’s DSP sound mode? vs. just using the standard Dolby or DTS mode
> without use of height speakers.
> 
> Seems to be mixed bag of reviews. Is the front height sound really subtle or makes great impact reality of height sound effect?


Rather than launching a proprietary DSP, the recommendation is to activate Dolby Surround mode, this will add content to your height speakers.
Sometimes it works better than others, but overall i find it does a good job, so it is always ON in my case


----------



## batpig

Bengali said:


> Hi
> 
> This is probably asked before. Once Front Height speakers are setup. If you watch a blu ray that does not
> produce Atmos sound channel, you then select Yamaha?s DSP sound mode? vs. just using the standard Dolby or DTS mode
> without use of height speakers.
> 
> Seems to be mixed bag of reviews. Is the front height sound really subtle or makes great impact reality of height sound effect?


A big variable into how well it works is how high the Heights are. If you?re just using a single pair of Front Heights mounted in the front wall a few feet above your mains and only achieving a ~15-20deg elevation angle don?t expect the overhead effect to be very impressive. The more they are actually over your head (ideally at least 30-45 deg up) the more effective it will be.


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> Think of Atmos as having speakers in two flat planes (base layer, height layer) while DTS:X has them on a dome (so Tops are not only more inward than the Heights, like Atmos, but also higher up, unlike Atmos).


A picture is worth... 

Two flat planes (Atmos) 









vs dome (DTS:X) 









That's the abstraction (how the renderer sees speaker locations). 
In reality, all the height speakers usually end up on the ceiling.


----------



## CBdicX

*THX speaker setup and DE speakers*

I have a THX speaker setp from Magnat, the Cinema Ultra THX set, and Audyssey will set all the speakers to 80Hz, did not have to change a thing, but the ATM 400 speakers are set a bit higher at 90HZ.


* Should a set them to 80Hz like the other speakers, or leave it a 90 or maybe even higher ? (nothing in the manual about XO)*
* The ATM 400 are Dolby certified but not THX certified.* 

https://www.magnat.de/de/home-cinema/cinema-ultra/


----------



## RockyZ

Hi folks, 

Was wondering if I can get some feedback on placement for my SVS prime elevation speakers for my 5.1.4 atmos setup. I picked up the Prime Elevation as a happy compromise with my wife who did not want ceiling speakers but was ok with them being wall mounted. My tv/living room is connected to my dining area with an odd shape. Please excuse the crude drawings on the pictures (and the messy couch). 


*Option #A* would be to place the primes on the walls of my TV area. It would have one set along sliding door wall and the other set on the hallway wall. Something like this:




My main concern is that the rear atmos speaker (the #2 in red box) is so much further behind the front left atmos. Would the audyssey correction on my Denon solve any issues with rear atmos being not parallel with its front counter part. 

*Option #B* would be to move the front atmos speakers above the L & R front channels and then moving the rear atmos speakers to the edge of the hallway wall. 







Any help is appreciated!


----------



## Erod

So far, the top three Atmos movies I've seen to date:

1. _Blade Runner 2049_
2. _Hacksaw Ridge_
3. _The Revenant_

Interestingly, _The Revenant_ is not in Atmos, but it sure sounds like it is.


----------



## Erod

RockyZ said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Was wondering if I can get some feedback on placement for my SVS prime elevation speakers for my 5.1.4 atmos setup. I picked up the Prime Elevation as a happy compromise with my wife who did not want ceiling speakers but was ok with them being wall mounted. My tv/living room is connected to my dining area with an odd shape. Please excuse the crude drawings on the pictures (and the messy couch).
> 
> 
> *Option #A* would be to place the primes on the walls of my TV area. It would have one set along sliding door wall and the other set on the hallway wall. Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My main concern is that the rear atmos speaker (the #2 in red box) is so much further behind the front left atmos. Would the audyssey correction on my Denon solve any issues with rear atmos being not parallel with its front counter part.
> 
> *Option #B* would be to move the front atmos speakers above the L & R front channels and then moving the rear atmos speakers to the edge of the hallway wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any help is appreciated!


If I was you, I would forget those front wall speakers and just go with the Option 2 red box locations. You'll get a nice effect.


The only upper four locations that would work for you IMO would be if you can ceiling mount them. 


Others might have some suggestions though.


----------



## gwsat

Erod said:


> So far, the top three Atmos movies I've seen to date:
> 
> 1. _Blade Runner 2049_
> 2. _Hacksaw Ridge_
> 3. _The Revenant_
> 
> Interestingly, _The Revenant_ is not in Atmos, but it sure sounds like it is.


I agree. The TrueHD Atmos soundtracks for both _Blade Runner 2049_ and _Hacksaw Ridge_ blew me away. In addition to their immersiveness, both have terrific LFE. _The Revenant_ also sounds wonderful, although it is "only" 7.1


----------



## T-Bone

Okay, I had a chance to demo material on my 7.1.4 setup (4 ceiling speakers, top front, and top rear).

After running AccuEq on my rz920, I boosted my back surrounds +2db, and Atmos +3db. Did not boost the sides. I do that since I like the effect.

Anyway, 7.1.4 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 in my room... and definitely noticeable. 

For non-Atmos content, I found that Neural X upmixer was better than DSU. Better in that more sounds were directed to Atmos speakers. For example, movie "2 Guns" has a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track... and had a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers. But neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.

I do not have any DTS X content. But I've got a boatload of Atmos content.

Native Atmos sounded good. 

Overall, impressed and happy with my setup 

-T


----------



## carp

T-Bone said:


> Okay, I had a chance to demo material on my 7.1.4 setup (4 ceiling speakers, top front, and top rear).
> 
> After running AccuEq on my rz920, I boosted my back surrounds +2db, and Atmos +3db. Did not boost the sides. I do that since I like the effect.
> 
> Anyway, 7.1.4 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 in my room... and definitely noticeable.
> 
> For non-Atmos content, I found that Neural X upmixer was better than DSU. Better in that more sounds were directed to Atmos speakers. For example, movie "2 Guns" has a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track... and had a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers. But neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.
> 
> I do not have any DTS X content. But I've got a boatload of Atmos content.
> 
> Native Atmos sounded good.
> 
> Overall, impressed and happy with my setup
> 
> -T



I do this too, bump up the rears and ceilings a couple db's and leave the sides alone.


----------



## T-Bone

carp said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I had a chance to demo material on my 7.1.4 setup (4 ceiling speakers, top front, and top rear).
> 
> After running AccuEq on my rz920, I boosted my back surrounds +2db, and Atmos +3db. Did not boost the sides. I do that since I like the effect.
> 
> Anyway, 7.1.4 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 in my room... and definitely noticeable.
> 
> For non-Atmos content, I found that Neural X upmixer was better than DSU. Better in that more sounds were directed to Atmos speakers. For example, movie "2 Guns" has a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track... and had a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers. But neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.
> 
> I do not have any DTS X content. But I've got a boatload of Atmos content.
> 
> Native Atmos sounded good.
> 
> Overall, impressed and happy with my setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do this too, bump up the rears and ceilings a couple db's and leave the sides alone.
Click to expand...

Great minds think alike 

-T


----------



## VideoGrabber

> ...neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.


The question is, do you WANT music overhead, just to have something there? (Hint: there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.) 




T-Bone said:


> ...a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers.


I can understand how it could seem understated, and unimpressive. However, if you could turn the Atmos speakers on and off, the difference in the immersive sound field might then be more obvious (you might hear it 'collapse', thus appreciating it's presence more). However if 'more is better', then I think you've found your upmixer of preference.




> Overall, impressed and happy with my setup


Excellante!


----------



## pasender91

*@rockyZ*
I believe option B will hold better results and a better immersion.

*@TBone*
Yes Neural:X will send more sound to top speakers than Dolby Surround, but is more always better ??
Neural:X top front sound is almost a basic copy of the main front speakers, not very smart compared to the Dolby Surround algorithm that analyzes the sound frequencies and decides to put sound on the top only if it makes sense...
As VideoGrabber said, this is not a "winner and loser" thing, but still my personal preference is clearly Dolby Surround, even if there is less content, i believe it is 'better' content


----------



## Erod

T-Bone said:


> Okay, I had a chance to demo material on my 7.1.4 setup (4 ceiling speakers, top front, and top rear).
> 
> After running AccuEq on my rz920, I boosted my back surrounds +2db, and Atmos +3db. Did not boost the sides. I do that since I like the effect.
> 
> Anyway, 7.1.4 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 in my room... and definitely noticeable.
> 
> For non-Atmos content, I found that Neural X upmixer was better than DSU. Better in that more sounds were directed to Atmos speakers. For example, movie "2 Guns" has a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track... and had a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers. But neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.
> 
> I do not have any DTS X content. But I've got a boatload of Atmos content.
> 
> Native Atmos sounded good.
> 
> Overall, impressed and happy with my setup
> 
> -T


As you tinker, I think you'll change your mind on a lot of this. I certainly did.

First, the DSU setting is more refined than the Neural:X mode. As you demo, you'll see it more and more. DSU adds more ambiance to your front sound stage by pulling atmospheric sound to the heights, not just louder gunshots and helicopters. It's just a more detailed and properly subtle approach to broadening the overall sound.

Second, if your system accurately sets volume and distance for all your speakers (or if you do it) so that you're getting a solid 75 dB from them all on testing, you should not change the volume of your backs or heights. By definition (and only a few discs do this well), Atmos is intended to triangulate sound through multiple speakers in your room for object placement. So if you raise the dB of your heights, you're pulling that object placement up higher than it should be. (Theoretically, if that bullet is supposed to whiz by your left ear, and you up your heights by 3 dB, now it's whizzing over your head instead.)

Atmos is supposed to make your speakers disappear more so that the sound is just "present" in a bubble. Less directional with more placement, so the concept goes.


----------



## gwsat

Erod said:


> As you tinker, I think you'll change your mind on a lot of this. I certainly did.
> 
> First, the DSU setting is more refined than the Neural:X mode. As you demo, you'll see it more and more. DSU adds more ambiance to your front sound stage by pulling atmospheric sound to the heights, not just louder gunshots and helicopters. It's just a more detailed and properly subtle approach to broadening the overall sound.
> 
> Second, if your system accurately sets volume and distance for all your speakers (or if you do it) so that you're getting a solid 75 dB from them all on testing, you should not change the volume of your backs or heights. By definition (and only a few discs do this well), Atmos is intended to triangulate sound through multiple speakers in your room for object placement. So if you raise the dB of your heights, you're pulling that object placement up higher than it should be. (Theoretically, if that bullet is supposed to whiz by your left ear, and you up your heights by 3 dB, now it's whizzing over your head instead.)
> 
> Atmos is supposed to make your speakers disappear more so that the sound is just "present" in a bubble. Less directional with more placement, so the concept goes.


I have habitually used DTS Neural:X to matrix native DTS-HD MA 5.1 audiotracks to 7.2.4. This has always worked well -- until last night. Last night I watched Quentin Tarantino's hugely entertaining _Jackie Brown_ (1997) again. Early on, though, I discovered that using Neural:X to upconvert its native DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack, produced an unpleasantly harsh sound. I then turned off Neural:X and the resulting native 5.1 was far better.

Based on your post, though, I'm sorry that I didn't try the Dolby Surround Upmixer before resorting to native 5.1. Maybe next time. Anyway, there is no fully satisfactory substitute for native TrueHD Atmos, to my ears at least.


----------



## Erod

gwsat said:


> I have habitually used DTS Neural:X to matrix native DTS-HD MA 5.1 audiotracks to 7.2.4. This has always worked well -- until last night. Last night I watched Quentin Tarantino's hugely entertaining _Jackie Brown_ (1997) again. Early on, though, I discovered that using Neural:X to upconvert its native DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack, produced an unpleasantly harsh sound. I then turned off Neural:X and the resulting native 5.1 was far better.
> 
> Based on your post, though, I'm sorry that I didn't try the Dolby Surround Upmixer before resorting to native 5.1. Maybe next time. Anyway, there is no fully satisfactory substitute for native TrueHD Atmos, to my ears at least.


Watch _The Revenant_ with DSU. It shines, especially when you switch back and forth with NeuralX.


----------



## DaverJ

Erod said:


> By definition (and only a few discs do this well), Atmos is intended to triangulate sound through multiple speakers in your room for object placement. So if you raise the dB of your heights, you're pulling that object placement up higher than it should be.


Thanks for your post, I've been thinking the same. My experiments with Neural X upmixing have been that the DTS version seems to make a more dynamic and noticeable sound "dome", but Dolby's more subtle approach appears more accurate and refined. With game systems that don't have the Atmos option (all but Xbox One and PC), I currently add the Neural X upmix becauses of the dynamic nature of videogaming -- although I might change my mind about this moving forward. For the two that have Atmos capabilities, I leave on Dolby Surround -- mostly for set-and-forget so the AVR switches to Atmos without having to change the console's bitstream settings.

I seem to remember a post mentioning a comment from Andrew Jones, recommending the Dolby height speakers (I believe the reflecting ones) to be raised somewhat, IIRC extra +3 to +5db. Is this incorrect, or was it a reference to make the soundfield higher?


----------



## BGLeduc

DaverJ said:


> Thanks for your post, I've been thinking the same. My experiments with Neural X upmixing have been that the DTS version seems to make a more dynamic and noticeable sound "dome", but Dolby's more subtle approach appears more accurate and refined. With game systems that don't have the Atmos option (all but Xbox One and PC), I currently add the Neural X upmix becauses of the dynamic nature of videogaming -- although I might change my mind about this moving forward. For the two that have Atmos capabilities, I leave on Dolby Surround -- mostly for set-and-forget so the AVR switches to Atmos without having to change the console's bitstream settings.
> 
> I seem to remember a post mentioning a comment from Andrew Jones, recommending the Dolby height speakers (I believe the reflecting ones) to be raised somewhat, IIRC extra +3 to +5db. Is this incorrect, or was it a reference to make the soundfield higher?


The quote from AJ is accurate, and I have read similar quotes from pro reviewers (Brent Butterworth reviewing the current NHT line up), but it is specific to up firing speakers. I personally have my DAE channels +5 vs. calibrated value. They create a great sense of height and envelopment in my room.


----------



## CBdicX

Funny to see in all 3 immersive forums, all users say that the specific format or upmixer is doing "better" then the other brands...........


----------



## gene4ht

CBdicX said:


> Funny to see in all 3 immersive forums, all users say that the specific format or upmixer is doing "better" then the other brands...........


Human nature...once invested in anything, it must be the best!


----------



## Kain

Will there be 9.1.6 processors in 2019 or maybe even later in 2018?


----------



## PioManiac

CBdicX said:


> Funny to see in all 3 immersive forums, all users say that the specific format or upmixer is doing "better" then the other brands...........


Don't forget those who claim all immersive audio is a "gimmick"
and does nothing other than suck money out of you wallet if you already have a 7.1 system.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Kain said:


> Will there be 9.1.6 processors in 2019 or maybe even later in 2018?



emotiva-rmc-1-speculation-thread

I hope so.


----------



## snpanago

Erod said:


> Watch _The Revenant_ with DSU. It shines, especially when you switch back and forth with NeuralX.


I had a similar revelation when watching The Lord of the Rings, Extended Edition, BD, DTS-MA. I elected to pair the audio with the Neural:X upmixer to stay consistent with DTS. I have a 5.2.4 setup with a Denon X7200WA AVR. The soundtrack sounded okay but I was expecting more with a film that had a great deal of action and exciting battle scenes and a sweeping music score.

About 3/4 through the movie, I changed the upmixer to DSU and the room came alive with the atmospheric bubble that I've become accustomed to. I don't know if this phenomena was a "one off" for this particular title, but it made me not trust using the Neural:X.


----------



## VideoGrabber

gene4ht said:


> Human nature...once invested in anything, it must be the best!


Imagine the dilemma of the poor soul who has invested in all 3!


----------



## gene4ht

VideoGrabber said:


> Imagine the dilemma of the poor soul who has invested in all 3!


Are you speaking from experience?


----------



## Erod

DaverJ said:


> Thanks for your post, I've been thinking the same. My experiments with Neural X upmixing have been that the DTS version seems to make a more dynamic and noticeable sound "dome", but Dolby's more subtle approach appears more accurate and refined. With game systems that don't have the Atmos option (all but Xbox One and PC), I currently add the Neural X upmix becauses of the dynamic nature of videogaming -- although I might change my mind about this moving forward. For the two that have Atmos capabilities, I leave on Dolby Surround -- mostly for set-and-forget so the AVR switches to Atmos without having to change the console's bitstream settings.
> 
> I seem to remember a post mentioning a comment from Andrew Jones, recommending the Dolby height speakers (I believe the reflecting ones) to be raised somewhat, IIRC extra +3 to +5db. Is this incorrect, or was it a reference to make the soundfield higher?


That's the guy that claims bouncing sound off the ceiling is better than actual ceiling speakers, which is utterly ridiculous. 

For DSU, Neural X, or enabled speakers, raising the level of the atmos speakers is perfectly fine. For atmos with ceiling speakers, I think it raises the placement level in an unintended manner. (I don't think sound placement is even possible with upfiring speakers anyway, so might as well crank those up.)

This whole thing will become clearer (hopefully) when sound mixers have a much bigger audience of Atmos customers to cater to. Right now, I feel like we're such a small niche that we don't always get their full attention. But it's getting better.


----------



## CBdicX

VideoGrabber said:


> Imagine the dilemma of the poor soul who has invested in all 3!


Oh, you see right through me.........

From the 3 that came with the Denon X6400H i like Auro (upmixer) the best, and even better then native Atmos or DTSX.
Just because Auro-Matic makes the best use of the (5) Hight channels.

In my case 4x bouncers (Magnat Cinema Ultra 400 ATM), and 2x VOG (2 mono speakers KEF R101 on the ceiling).........


----------



## CBdicX

Kain said:


> Will there be 9.1.6 processors in 2019 or maybe even later in 2018?



http://www.avsforum.com/stormaudio-...ontent-unsold&utm_source=AVSForum.com20180202


----------



## Sean Spamilton

Kain said:


> Will there be 9.1.6 processors in 2019 or maybe even later in 2018?


I think the Denon X8500 will do it too?

Edit: Nope, 7.1.6 though 

_The above facilitates the ability to run BOTH a 13ch Auro3D setup *and a 13ch (9.1.4 / 7.1.6) Atmos setup* without having to ruin positioning for one or the other. Because there are FOUR pairs of height speaker outputs (pre-out and speaker posts), with flexible assignment (including being able to assign Height4 to Front Wide output) you can do a complete Auro3D setup with five heights + VOG and still have another pair of height outputs for Top Middle or Front Wide use with Atmos._

http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x8500h-13.2ch-av-receiver


----------



## petetherock

Blade Runner + DSU
I watched this a while back in 5.1 and wow! God bless the mixer! Despite being 'only' a 5.1 TruHD mix, when you add that special DSU sauce.. it's transformed into something that rivals modern soundtracks.
The music by Vangelis is marvellous, and coupled with some very nice ambient cues coming from the surrounds, with great movement of sound from the lower to the top layer, this remains a very impressive piece of work in spite of it's age. I can't wait to try out the 2049 version...


----------



## anothermib

PioManiac said:


> Just for clarification, all current Netflix ATMOS titles are all Netflix exclusives (not mainstream movie selections)
> 
> So there is no Hard Disc TrueHD/Dolby ATMOS sound track to compare it to.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ONLY option for these titles are DD 5.1 or ATMOS 7.1.4
> 
> and I'll take lossy 7.1.4 over DD 5.1 all day long.
> 
> 
> 
> I get 95% of my ATMOS/DTS:X by purchasing hard disc media 4K/UHD and some older BD 1080 titles.
> 
> 
> 
> Netflix Exclusives that are VERY well done:
> 
> 
> 
> The Punisher and DarK (German import) ....that's 14/11 episodes of Bonus ATMOS content for under $14/mo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The list of ATMOS releases on Netflix is growing and I'll gladly take all I can get!
> 
> Most also offer UHD/HDR and some even with DV (if played through a 2017 LG OLED)




Just adding to the discussion we had the other week. I just checked and in the meantime “Godless” has been added to the Atmos list here as well. Apparently this is not automatically synchronized across all countries. 

What about that new Netflix SF show “altered carbon”? Is that presented in Atmos in the US? They have an Atmos logo in the closing titles, so it may be worth waiting.


----------



## OsoSolitario

(I asked some weeks ago in other thread but anyone answered me).

At present I have two side surround speakers and one back surround.
If I want to install two more side surround speakers (because my room is quite long & narrow), which solution is better, just doubling the side speakers adding two more speakers (from the same source channel), or better take the front wide channel and use it as one more side surround? (9.1.2 Atmos set up)

My question is because I don't know for sure If front wide channels are fine used as side surrounds or should use them only to "open" the soundstage of the main front speakers.


----------



## T-Bone

@VideoGrabber, @pasender91, @Erod

Thanks for the feedback/advice.

I have some time today to do some critical listening. I will try going back to level setting all the SPLs based on the Onkyo RZ920 AccuEq.

One thing that I will try today is to tun the setup with a 5.1.4 configuration instead of my current 7.1.4... mainly to observe the Atmos effect when my side surrounds (adaptive dipoles) are not used... since they do sit high on the wall... and dolby does not recommend bipoles/dipoles. 

If I get much better separation between the bed and height effects, then I have a choice to make: lower the sides (I posted about this before, and is fraught with issues), or stick with a 5.1.4. Unless the bed layer sounds worse with 2 missing speakers (I definitely noticed a big difference when I switched to 7.1 years ago).


*Side Note:*
How do AVRs work when saving their calibration information? In other words, if I run the AccuEQ setup based on a 7.1.4 configuration, can I then change the speaker config in the menu to 5.1.4 and NOT have to rerun the AccuEQ? I have not read anything about this... figured I'd ask.

-T


----------



## gwsat

petetherock said:


> Blade Runner + DSU
> I watched this a while back in 5.1 and wow! God bless the mixer! Despite being 'only' a 5.1 TruHD mix, when you add that special DSU sauce.. it's transformed into something that rivals modern soundtracks.
> The music by Vangelis is marvellous, and coupled with some very nice ambient cues coming from the surrounds, with great movement of sound from the lower to the top layer, this remains a very impressive piece of work in spite of it's age. I can't wait to try out the 2049 version...


The DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio mix for the 2007 BD of _Blade Runner_ was out of this world. It is no surprise, then, that when it was remixed to TrueHD Atmos 7.1.4 for the 2017 UHD HDR version, the result was simply sensational. I think it sounds as good as the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Blade Runner 2049._ All of this just goes to show that a film's great sound design is a gift that keeps on giving. Thanks to that, we now have the iconic Vangelis score from _Blade Runner_ preserved in a state of the art format.


----------



## T-Bone

Erod said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I had a chance to demo material on my 7.1.4 setup (4 ceiling speakers, top front, and top rear).
> 
> After running AccuEq on my rz920, I boosted my back surrounds +2db, and Atmos +3db. Did not boost the sides. I do that since I like the effect.
> 
> Anyway, 7.1.4 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 in my room... and definitely noticeable.
> 
> For non-Atmos content, I found that Neural X upmixer was better than DSU. Better in that more sounds were directed to Atmos speakers. For example, movie "2 Guns" has a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track... and had a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers. But neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.
> 
> I do not have any DTS X content. But I've got a boatload of Atmos content.
> 
> Native Atmos sounded good.
> 
> Overall, impressed and happy with my setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> As you tinker, I think you'll change your mind on a lot of this. I certainly did.
> 
> First, the DSU setting is more refined than the Neural:X mode. As you demo, you'll see it more and more. DSU adds more ambiance to your front sound stage by pulling atmospheric sound to the heights, not just louder gunshots and helicopters. It's just a more detailed and properly subtle approach to broadening the overall sound.
> 
> Second, if your system accurately sets volume and distance for all your speakers (or if you do it) so that you're getting a solid 75 dB from them all on testing, you should not change the volume of your backs or heights. By definition (and only a few discs do this well), Atmos is intended to triangulate sound through multiple speakers in your room for object placement. So if you raise the dB of your heights, you're pulling that object placement up higher than it should be. (Theoretically, if that bullet is supposed to whiz by your left ear, and you up your heights by 3 dB, now it's whizzing over your head instead.)
> 
> Atmos is supposed to make your speakers disappear more so that the sound is just "present" in a bubble. Less directional with more placement, so the concept goes.
Click to expand...

Ah... I see what you mean. While watching War for the Planet of the Apes this morning, I turned off my external amplifier that drives my bed speakers. My AVR drove my 4 Atmos speakers.

There is one scene where a bunch of snow is moving and the wind is howling. With DSU, the wind was raised into the atmos speakers. With Neural X, no wind in the atmos speakers.

In this example, with a bed speakers off, it was clearly a night and day difference between the up-mixers. Neural X really did sound like it was taking a lot of sound from the front speakers and throwing them to the ceiling. Whereas DSU was more selective in what it pulled up.

BTW, I reset my speakers so that the dB levels are what my Onkyo computed during calibration.

-T


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

OsoSolitario said:


> (I asked some weeks ago in other thread but anyone answered me).
> 
> At present I have two side surround speakers and one back surround.
> If I want to install two more side surround speakers (because my room is quite long & narrow), which solution is better, just doubling the side speakers adding two more speakers (from the same source channel), or better take the front wide channel and use it as one more side surround? (9.1.2 Atmos set up)
> 
> My question is because I don't know for sure If front wide channels are fine used as side surrounds or should use them only to "open" the soundstage of the main front speakers.


It depends...

Have you considered axing the one back surround? It's not good practice anyway to have single back surround directly behind the listener as this may create confusing imaging like you don't know if the sound is coming from behind or from in front.

You could then redesign the L/R side surrounds as L/R back surrounds and add new side surrounds ahead of the listener. You can put sides surrounds @ 75° from axis (15° ahead of listener) if back surrounds are present. This would be my choice in a long narrow room, certainly if the "new" back surrounds are @ 120° off axis.

The L/R wide channels AFAIK have two functions: provide a wider soundstage (aural widescreen) by controlling the sound that otherwise would be reflective. And also panning objects. As such, they are different from the surround channels and a worthwhile addition to 7.1

Which are your options in positioning speakers?


----------



## Erod

T-Bone said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I had a chance to demo material on my 7.1.4 setup (4 ceiling speakers, top front, and top rear).
> 
> After running AccuEq on my rz920, I boosted my back surrounds +2db, and Atmos +3db. Did not boost the sides. I do that since I like the effect.
> 
> Anyway, 7.1.4 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 in my room... and definitely noticeable.
> 
> For non-Atmos content, I found that Neural X upmixer was better than DSU. Better in that more sounds were directed to Atmos speakers. For example, movie "2 Guns" has a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track... and had a car chase scene where DSU added basically nothing to the atmos speakers. But neural X had the music soundtrack and sound effects in the atmos speakers.
> 
> I do not have any DTS X content. But I've got a boatload of Atmos content.
> 
> Native Atmos sounded good.
> 
> Overall, impressed and happy with my setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> As you tinker, I think you'll change your mind on a lot of this. I certainly did.
> 
> First, the DSU setting is more refined than the Neural:X mode. As you demo, you'll see it more and more. DSU adds more ambiance to your front sound stage by pulling atmospheric sound to the heights, not just louder gunshots and helicopters. It's just a more detailed and properly subtle approach to broadening the overall sound.
> 
> Second, if your system accurately sets volume and distance for all your speakers (or if you do it) so that you're getting a solid 75 dB from them all on testing, you should not change the volume of your backs or heights. By definition (and only a few discs do this well), Atmos is intended to triangulate sound through multiple speakers in your room for object placement. So if you raise the dB of your heights, you're pulling that object placement up higher than it should be. (Theoretically, if that bullet is supposed to whiz by your left ear, and you up your heights by 3 dB, now it's whizzing over your head instead.)
> 
> Atmos is supposed to make your speakers disappear more so that the sound is just "present" in a bubble. Less directional with more placement, so the concept goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah... I see what you mean. While watching War for the Planet of the Apes this morning, I turned off my external amplifier that drives my bed speakers. My AVR drove my 4 Atmos speakers.
> 
> There is one scene where a bunch of snow is moving and the wind is howling. With DSU, the wind was raised into the atmos speakers. With Neural X, no wind in the atmos speakers.
> 
> In this example, with a bed speakers off, it was clearly a night and day difference between the up-mixers. Neural X really did sound like it was taking a lot of sound from the front speakers and throwing them to the ceiling. Whereas DSU was more selective in what it pulled up.
> 
> BTW, I reset my speakers so that the dB levels are what my Onkyo computed during calibration.
> 
> -T
Click to expand...

Very cool. It's totally fine to raise those ceiling speakers for non-Atmos if you like it. That's not object placement, so it doesn't matter. Might even broaden your soundstage.

I also have bipole/dipole speakers on my side surrounds, which I prefer anyway so they don't scream directly into my ears.. You have to set them to bipole though because you don't want diffuse sound. I had them in my rears, too, but changed those to monopole.

You're like me. I have to fight the urge to "hear" my speakers. Atmos is supposed to make them disappear.


----------



## OsoSolitario

Thanks for quoting *erwinfrombelgium*,

If I have only a single surround back speaker is because I can't double it (there's an outdoor door and a window on the back wall, so the surround back speaker fit just between).

Side surrounds (at present dipoles) and main armchair are far nearly 5 meters from the front speakers... so there's a lot of space in between (with other seats and sofas). If you think front wide channel works mostly as L R main speakers improvement, maybe replicate the side surrounds (2>4) will be a better proposal...


----------



## Al Sherwood

CBdicX said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/stormaudio-...ontent-unsold&utm_source=AVSForum.com20180202


Interesting and certainly welcome but no pricing for the 16 channel unit...

I welcome more competition in the area, it would be nice to see the process come down a bit!


----------



## markmanner

*Ceiling Speaker Placement advice*

Hi, I have 4 Revel speakers ready to place in the ceiling to convert my 5.1 HT setup to a 5.1.4, and need to decide where to drill. I have a diagram of my room below, and would appreciate advice on where to put the ceiling speakers. Here are some measurements and notes:

1. TV screen and L/R/C speakers are 9.3' from MLP. L/R Surrounds are 6.5' from MLP. From MLP, the angle to the front L/R speakers is about 30 degrees measured using TV at 0 degrees, and from MLP to the Surrounds, the angle is about 120 degrees measured from TV as 0 degrees. I don't want to move further back, and if I did, the R/L Surrounds, which can't be moved any further back due to door/openings in the room, would end up even with or in front of the MLP. L/R fronts tweeters are slightly higher than MLP ear level, and Surrounds tweeter at ear level.
2. My ceilings are a bit over 11' tall, this combined with my relatively close MLP to the TV and F/L/C primary speakers, makes it difficult to get the recommended 45 degree front and rear angles from the MLP to the ceiling speakers. A 45 degree angle toward the front puts the ceiling L/R pair pretty close to the primary L/R front speakers. If I put the Front ceilings at 55 degrees up from plane of TV/front speakers and rear ceilings equivalent to the rear, I would have a 70 degree spread over the MLP between the ceiling speaker pairs. They would be 10.5' away from the MLP, 65 degrees up from the L/F speakers, and 2.5' linear distance from the L/R front speakers in the direction of the MLP. A bit less than 7' linear distance from the MLP. The rear ceiling speakers would be 3.5' behind the Surrounds. The closeness to the front L/R speakers and the fact the rear ceiling speakers are behind the surrounds are what is concerning me. Maybe I should be concerned about something else!

Diagram and pictures of the room attached. Thanks for the advice.
Mark


----------



## snpanago

markmanner said:


> Hi, I have 4 Revel speakers ready to place in the ceiling to convert my 5.1 HT setup to a 5.1.4, and need to decide where to drill. I have a diagram of my room below, and would appreciate advice on where to put the ceiling speakers. Here are some measurements and notes:
> 
> 1. TV screen and L/R/C speakers are 9.3' from MLP. L/R Surrounds are 6.5' from MLP. From MLP, the angle to the front L/R speakers is about 30 degrees measured using TV at 0 degrees, and from MLP to the Surrounds, the angle is about 120 degrees measured from TV as 0 degrees. I don't want to move further back, and if I did, the R/L Surrounds, which can't be moved any further back due to door/openings in the room, would end up even with or in front of the MLP. L/R fronts tweeters are slightly higher than MLP ear level, and Surrounds tweeter at ear level.
> 2. My ceilings are a bit over 11' tall, this combined with my relatively close MLP to the TV and F/L/C primary speakers, makes it difficult to get the recommended 45 degree front and rear angles from the MLP to the ceiling speakers. A 45 degree angle toward the front puts the ceiling L/R pair pretty close to the primary L/R front speakers. If I put the Front ceilings at 55 degrees up from plane of TV/front speakers and rear ceilings equivalent to the rear, I would have a 70 degree spread over the MLP between the ceiling speaker pairs. They would be 10.5' away from the MLP, 65 degrees up from the L/F speakers, and 2.5' linear distance from the L/R front speakers in the direction of the MLP. A bit less than 7' linear distance from the MLP. The rear ceiling speakers would be 3.5' behind the Surrounds. The closeness to the front L/R speakers and the fact the rear ceiling speakers are behind the surrounds are what is concerning me. Maybe I should be concerned about something else!
> 
> Diagram and pictures of the room attached. Thanks for the advice.
> Mark


From what I know, perhaps you are too concerned about the distance of the ceiling speakers to the front soundstage and to the surrounds. I believe that as long as the base layer of speakers are close to ear level, you should have the satisfactory separation from the height layer to achieve the Atmos 3D surround bubble in the MLP.


----------



## biga6761

anothermib said:


> Just adding to the discussion we had the other week. I just checked and in the meantime “Godless” has been added to the Atmos list here as well. Apparently this is not automatically synchronized across all countries.
> 
> What about that new Netflix SF show “altered carbon”? Is that presented in Atmos in the US? They have an Atmos logo in the closing titles, so it may be worth waiting.


Yes AC is in Atmos in the US. But I must admit to not being that impressed with the sound so far. The bass has been a bit hit or miss and weak at that. The height effects have been restricted to atmospherics and have been very sparse. Its almost as if the mixers weren't familiar with Atmos and how to use it. I'm to Ep.5 and it is getting a bit better though.
Now the visuals on the other hand are stunning. AC was shot in 6.5k and all editing and mastering done in 4k and man does it show with zero grain and razor sharp detail. I also like the story quite a bit and found it deeply layered and pretty well acted.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

markmanner said:


> Hi, I have 4 Revel speakers ready to place in the ceiling to convert my 5.1 HT setup to a 5.1.4, and need to decide where to drill. I have a diagram of my room below, and would appreciate advice on where to put the ceiling speakers. Here are some measurements and notes:
> 
> 1. TV screen and L/R/C speakers are 9.3' from MLP. L/R Surrounds are 6.5' from MLP. From MLP, the angle to the front L/R speakers is about 30 degrees measured using TV at 0 degrees, and from MLP to the Surrounds, the angle is about 120 degrees measured from TV as 0 degrees. I don't want to move further back, and if I did, the R/L Surrounds, which can't be moved any further back due to door/openings in the room, would end up even with or in front of the MLP. L/R fronts tweeters are slightly higher than MLP ear level, and Surrounds tweeter at ear level.
> 2. My ceilings are a bit over 11' tall, this combined with my relatively close MLP to the TV and F/L/C primary speakers, makes it difficult to get the recommended 45 degree front and rear angles from the MLP to the ceiling speakers. A 45 degree angle toward the front puts the ceiling L/R pair pretty close to the primary L/R front speakers. If I put the Front ceilings at 55 degrees up from plane of TV/front speakers and rear ceilings equivalent to the rear, I would have a 70 degree spread over the MLP between the ceiling speaker pairs. They would be 10.5' away from the MLP, 65 degrees up from the L/F speakers, and 2.5' linear distance from the L/R front speakers in the direction of the MLP. A bit less than 7' linear distance from the MLP. The rear ceiling speakers would be 3.5' behind the Surrounds. The closeness to the front L/R speakers and the fact the rear ceiling speakers are behind the surrounds are what is concerning me. Maybe I should be concerned about something else!
> 
> Diagram and pictures of the room attached. Thanks for the advice.
> Mark


Hi Mark,

Nice room and nice speakers. Most members including me would love 11' ceilings!

It's all about the angles and the separation provided by these angles. It's no problem at all if this puts the Top Front close to the Front L/R. And it's no problem if the Top Rear are behind the floor standing surrounds. The latter wil enhance the sound bubble greatly.


----------



## anothermib

biga6761 said:


> Yes AC is in Atmos in the US. But I must admit to not being that impressed with the sound so far. The bass has been a bit hit or miss and weak at that. The height effects have been restricted to atmospherics and have been very sparse. Its almost as if the mixers weren't familiar with Atmos and how to use it. I'm to Ep.5 and it is getting a bit better though.
> 
> Now the visuals on the other hand are stunning. AC was shot in 6.5k and all editing and mastering done in 4k and man does it show with zero grain and razor sharp detail. I also like the story quite a bit and found it deeply layered and pretty well acted.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk




Thanks. Too bad that they didn’t make full use of the sound capability. But if they are presenting it in Atmos I probably will still go for that. 
I have read the books several years ago and I recall that I liked them a lot. The design looks very “Blade Runner”, not exactly what I imagined from the books, but it seems to be well executed. I just hope they get past those clumsy explanations of the world they had in the pilot.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Erod said:


> That's the guy that claims bouncing sound off the ceiling is better than actual ceiling speakers, which is utterly ridiculous.


I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.

I would agree with you for sure that ceiling speakers, properly installed in ideal conditions, will sound better than upfiring. The problem is that not everybody has ideal conditions, and not all ceiling speakers are installed properly. Simply saying 'I've got ceiling speakers', guarantees you nothing. (Obvious concerns are narrow dispersion, non-aimability, and placement outside the speaker's beam-width. Leading to maximal enjoyment by the family dog, laying on the floor between the seats and the screen.  )

In _some specific situations_, upfiring speakers may actually sound better, IF they are carefully installed to ensure where their reflected sounds will be delivered. So I don't think it's fair to make such a blanket claim.



> (I don't think sound placement is even possible with upfiring speakers anyway, ...)


It is, though it's unlikely to be quite as precise. I would certainly encourage anyone who could do so to do in-ceilings (which I think is your goal as well). But if the situation prevents someone from doing in or on-ceiling, or high on the walls, I'd hate to see them lose out completely on an immersive sound field, simply because they've heard that upfiring sources were never as good as 'the real thing'.


----------



## muzz

It's still pretty early in the Atmos/DTS:X world, I believe more will take advantage, and pay more attention to detail as time goes on.


----------



## markmanner

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Nice room and nice speakers. Most members including me would love 11' ceilings!
> 
> It's all about the angles and the separation provided by these angles. It's no problem at all if this puts the Top Front close to the Front L/R. And it's no problem if the Top Rear are behind the floor standing surrounds. The latter wil enhance the sound bubble greatly.


Thanks SNPANAGO and ERWINFROMBELGIUM, I appreciate the comments. I will stop worrying about what I was worrying about, and start worrying about how to get the speaker cables run through the ceiling!
Best regards,
Mark


----------



## howard68

What devices now output Dolby Atmos on netflix 
My roku ultra still not working


----------



## T-Bone

markmanner said:


> erwinfrombelgium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Nice room and nice speakers. Most members including me would love 11' ceilings!
> 
> It's all about the angles and the separation provided by these angles. It's no problem at all if this puts the Top Front close to the Front L/R. And it's no problem if the Top Rear are behind the floor standing surrounds. The latter wil enhance the sound bubble greatly.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks SNPANAGO and ERWINFROMBELGIUM, I appreciate the comments. I will stop worrying about what I was worrying about, and start worrying about how to get the speaker cables run through the ceiling!
> Best regards,
> Mark
Click to expand...

Nice room.

Well, just be thankful you're not like me. I spent most of a Saturday making calculations looking up last minute research. Marking the ceiling locations down to the closest inch. And to Pat myself on the back, I got it down to the nearest eighth of an inch from each the front wall and sidewall.

OCD? Maybe









Besides, a 70-degree spread between top front and top rear speakers is not bad. It is still within the Dolby recommendation.

You got very nice looking ceilings. Don't screw up 

-T

Edit:. I know I didn't have to be that precise. But I did it anyway.


----------



## OsoSolitario

markmanner said:


> Thanks SNPANAGO and ERWINFROMBELGIUM, I appreciate the comments. I will stop worrying about what I was worrying about, and start worrying about how to get the speaker cables run through the ceiling!
> Best regards,
> Mark


Having in mind the ceiling geometry (raffles and frames), I think it not will be too difficult to hide cabling under new decorative (styrofoam or plaster) moldings next the old ones.


----------



## markmanner

OsoSolitario said:


> Having in mind the ceiling geometry (raffles and frames), I think it not will be too difficult to hide cabling under new decorative (styrofoam or plaster) moldings next the old ones.


Hopefully can run them in the ceiling itself over to the side and then in the molding (or next to it as you say).



T-Bone said:


> Nice room.
> 
> You got very nice looking ceilings. Don't screw up


Uh oh, I am doomed now!


----------



## unretarded

markmanner said:


> Maybe I should be concerned about something else!
> 
> Mark





My take from playing around with this is forget the rest of the room and speakers.....make the ceiling speakers seating centric........downside, which is inherent to all "In" ceiling speakers is you lock in the seating position so if you ever re arrange the room its a problem......that's why I advocate for on ceiling speakers since they are easily relocated for any reason.


----------



## jjackkrash

howard68 said:


> What devices now output Dolby Atmos on netflix
> My roku ultra still not working


The following devices support Dolby Atmos with Netflix:

Xbox One
Xbox One S
Xbox One X
2017 LG OLED TVs


----------



## unretarded

jjackkrash said:


> The following devices support Dolby Atmos with Netflix:
> 
> Xbox One
> Xbox One S
> Xbox One X
> 2017 LG OLED TVs




Or as I like to phrase it when calling/Emailing customer service every other week.........




"You mean a childs toy and one TV, I hardly call that supported".....


----------



## jjackkrash

unretarded said:


> Or as I like to phrase it when calling/Emailing customer service every other week.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You mean a childs toy and one TV, I hardly call that supported".....



I will say, the boy is playing Destiny II on the One X on a 2016 Oled right now in 5.1.4, and it is flat out sick how awesome it is. Its a _long_ way from Asteroids and Space Invaders on my Atari 2600.


----------



## Jonas2

jjackkrash said:


> I will say, the boy is playing Destiny II on the One X on a 2016 Oled right now in 5.1.4, and it is flat out sick how awesome it is. Its a _long_ way from Asteroids and Space Invaders on my Atari 2600.


Though I bet those classics would sound awesome in Atmos.......


----------



## gene4ht

jjackkrash said:


> I will say, the boy is playing Destiny II on the One X on a 2016 Oled right now in 5.1.4, and it is flat out sick how awesome it is. Its a _long_ way from Asteroids and Space Invaders on my Atari 2600.





Jonas2 said:


> Though I bet those classics would sound awesome in Atmos.......


Ahh...yes...and even PacMan...better yet Pong!


----------



## Jonas2

unretarded said:


> My take from playing around with this is forget the rest of the room and speakers.....make the ceiling speakers seating centric........downside, which is inherent to all "In" ceiling speakers is you lock in the seating position so if you ever re arrange the room its a problem......that's why I advocate for on ceiling speakers since they are easily relocated for any reason.


I think this is a very good point that probably gets overlooked more often than not. A man cave is one thing, but a room that the missus likes to redecorate and change up periodically? Yeah, another story! One really does need to be certain they aren't changing seating anytime soon if going in-ceiling. I have the fortune (?) of my room offering only one arrangement, so it was a no-brainer...


----------



## BearGator56

Jonas2 said:


> I think this is a very good point that probably gets overlooked more often than not. A man cave is one thing, but a room that the missus likes to redecorate and change up periodically? Yeah, another story! One really does need to be certain they aren't changing seating anytime soon if going in-ceiling. I have the fortune (?) of my room offering only one arrangement, so it was a no-brainer...


I think I'm "fortunate" enough to have an oddly built room that doesn't allow for a different option. My SO thought I was crazy making a "must have" a squared or rectangular room for the home theatre setup. 

Too many houses in the modern era have crazy caverns and bookshelves built into the walls. Wound up with most of what I wanted and a room that was pre-wired for surround. Just have a fireplace in the back corner that cuts off the ability to have a "squared up" Atmos. 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## DVDMike

If a TV's specs say it has "ATMOS", what does this mean, anything? I'm sure it doesn't have 13 pre-outs from an ATMOS decoder. Is it just marketing hype?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

OsoSolitario said:


> Thanks for quoting *erwinfrombelgium*,
> 
> If I have only a single surround back speaker is because I can't double it (there's an outdoor door and a window on the back wall, so the surround back speaker fit just between).
> 
> Side surrounds (at present dipoles) and main armchair are far nearly 5 meters from the front speakers... so there's a lot of space in between (with other seats and sofas). If you think front wide channel works mostly as L R main speakers improvement, maybe replicate the side surrounds (2>4) will be a better proposal...


Dipole speakers are not to spec in the Dolby Atmos guidelines...

And who says surround "back" speakers need to go against the rear wall? Put a pair of them around +/- 120° if you can, add a pair of direct speakers around 75° and you are good. No wides needed. Much better sound bubble. I will do this myself in my current living room as there's a wood burner behind the couch. I have a pair of surrounds @120° (5.1 set) but I can add speakers ahead of MLP.


----------



## biga6761

DVDMike said:


> If a TV's specs say it has "ATMOS", what does this mean, anything? I'm sure it doesn't have 13 pre-outs from an ATMOS decoder. Is it just marketing hype?


No it means it can stream Atmos from it's built in apps thru ARC, as of now being Netflix and Vudu.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kain

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Dipole speakers are not to spec in the Dolby Atmos guidelines...
> 
> And who says surround "back" speakers need to go against the rear wall? Put a pair of them around +/- 120° if you can, add a pair of direct speakers around 75° and you are good. No wides needed. Much better sound bubble. I will do this myself in my current living room as there's a wood burner behind the couch. I have a pair of surrounds @120° (5.1 set) but I can add speakers ahead of MLP.


If all my surrounds are bipolar (sides and backs), will that be okay according to Dolby Atmos guidelines? Doesn't Dolby recommend monopoles for all surround positions with Atmos? The reason I am thinking of getting bipoles for all my surround speakers (the Klipsch RP-250S) is because I have a small room and the sides and backs will be quite close to the seating position. Monopoles would sound too directional and beamy and close distances while bipolar surrounds would diffuse the sound which can be advantageous at close distances (unless you think otherwise).


----------



## DVDMike

biga6761 said:


> No it means it can stream Atmos from it's built in apps thru ARC, as of now being Netflix and Vudu.


Okay. I can get atmos on vudu from my $650 m series 60” Visio through arc. And I don’t recall that being in the specs. So I figured all 4k TVs that had arc would support it. Now I know better.


----------



## snpanago

Kain said:


> If all my surrounds are bipolar (sides and backs), will that be okay according to Dolby Atmos guidelines? Doesn't Dolby recommend monopoles for all surround positions with Atmos? The reason I am thinking of getting bipoles for all my surround speakers (the Klipsch RP-250S) is because I have a small room and the sides and backs will be quite close to the seating position. Monopoles would sound too directional and beamy and close distances while bipolar surrounds would diffuse the sound which can be advantageous at close distances (unless you think otherwise).


I believe monopoles were the recs once Dolby Digital 5.1 was able to send discrete signals to the base layer of speakers. The monopoles are definitely more important when listening to music that was recorded in surround for playback in your HT. I personally get great results in my 5.2.4 setup with my surrounds being tripoles predominately playing movies but also surround music as well; I bet you'd be happy with your bipolar surrounds, too.


----------



## T-Bone

snpanago said:


> Kain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all my surrounds are bipolar (sides and backs), will that be okay according to Dolby Atmos guidelines? Doesn't Dolby recommend monopoles for all surround positions with Atmos? The reason I am thinking of getting bipoles for all my surround speakers (the Klipsch RP-250S) is because I have a small room and the sides and backs will be quite close to the seating position. Monopoles would sound too directional and beamy and close distances while bipolar surrounds would diffuse the sound which can be advantageous at close distances (unless you think otherwise).
> 
> 
> 
> I believe monopoles were the recs once Dolby Digital 5.1 was able to send discrete signals to the base layer of speakers. The monopoles are definitely more important when listening to music that was recorded in surround for playback in your HT. I personally get great results in my 5.2.4 setup with my surrounds being tripoles predominately playing movies but also surround music as well; I bet you'd be happy with your bipolar surrounds, too.
Click to expand...

I did a lot of testing today on my system. I have adaptive dipoles as my side surrounds (only the tweeters fire out of phase). Sure, I get diffuse sounds out of the Tweeter, like rain effects. But since the woofers fire in phase, I find them to be fairly localizable when listening to channel check content (a person's voice emits radiates through one speaker at a time), and pink noise, as an example.

In my case (pictures in my game room link, not that anyone has to look) that the drivers or angled 15? off access to the main face of the speaker. So I get a additive effect with the woofers, so my guess is I am getting a lobe directly into my seating area. I don't have a null in the typical sense, apparently.

Overall, I'm going to keep my adaptive dipoles. I still get good separation between the height effect and the side surrounds, and their fairly localizable... But I realize a monopole would be even more localizable.

Besides, shame on Dolby for changing the spec after we mounted our speakers 

-T


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> erwinfrombelgium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dipole speakers are not to spec in the Dolby Atmos guidelines...
> 
> And who says surround "back" speakers need to go against the rear wall? Put a pair of them around +/- 120? if you can, add a pair of direct speakers around 75? and you are good. No wides needed. Much better sound bubble. I will do this myself in my current living room as there's a wood burner behind the couch. I have a pair of surrounds @120? (5.1 set) but I can add speakers ahead of MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> If all my surrounds are bipolar (sides and backs), will that be okay according to Dolby Atmos guidelines? Doesn't Dolby recommend monopoles for all surround positions with Atmos? The reason I am thinking of getting bipoles for all my surround speakers (the Klipsch RP-250S) is because I have a small room and the sides and backs will be quite close to the seating position. Monopoles would sound too directional and beamy and close distances while bipolar surrounds would diffuse the sound which can be advantageous at close distances (unless you think otherwise).
Click to expand...

Bipoles are totally fine w Atmos and often recommended for smaller rooms for exactly the reason you described. Because there is no null zone they still are effectively direct radiating, just wider dispersion and a bit more diffuse / enveloping. With a larger room where you have enough space for monopoles to image properly you should use those.


----------



## OsoSolitario

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Dipole speakers are not to spec in the Dolby Atmos guidelines...
> 
> And who says surround "back" speakers need to go against the rear wall? Put a pair of them around +/- 120° if you can, add a pair of direct speakers around 75° and you are good. No wides needed. Much better sound bubble. I will do this myself in my current living room as there's a wood burner behind the couch. I have a pair of surrounds @120° (5.1 set) but I can add speakers ahead of MLP.


Thanks again for your feedback.
I show some pictures. As some said, a picture is worth a thousand words...

As you can see, my room is not a simple rectangle box, so I only can get one back surround speaker (which works very fine, any complaint with it!!). Side surrounds are on each side of the main armchair. This picture shows only the left side surround and surround back speaker:










This wide view of the room shows how far the surrounds are against the front speakers. Because that I want to fit one more side surround on the mark point:










Same proposal, but on the opposite wall:










My question was simple. Can Atmos manage four side surround speakers? If yes, *how*?

If the proposal goes on, I will change the dipoles for five DIY monopoles... I will not start to build them ultil to know if I can manage this new speaker layout.


----------



## mrtickleuk

DVDMike said:


> Okay. I can get atmos on vudu from my $650 m series 60” Visio through arc. And I don’t recall that being in the specs. So I figured all 4k TVs that had arc would support it. Now I know better.


Indeed - as you surmised, it's not in the ARC spec. Anything getting any form of DD+ (including DD+ which contains Atmos data) over ARC is doing it *outside the specs*, so if it works, you are lucky; if it doesn't work, well it wasn't in the spec anyway


----------



## DVDMike

mrtickleuk said:


> Indeed - as you surmised, it's not in the ARC spec. Anything getting any form of DD+ (including DD+ which contains Atmos data) over ARC is doing it *outside the specs*, so if it works, you are lucky; if it doesn't work, well it wasn't in the spec anyway


I guess I lucked out with my purchase. Because I do have a 7.3.4 atmos setup in that room. I’ll look for that spec on my next tv purchase.


----------



## showmak

Last night I watched Dredd and I was really impressed with the Atmos sound with plenty of LFE. It's on my favorite list of Atmos movies.


----------



## DaverJ

showmak said:


> Last night I watched Dredd and I was really impressed with the Atmos sound with plenty of LFE. It's on my favorite list of Atmos movies.


Which version of Dredd has Atmos?


----------



## showmak

DaverJ said:


> Which version of Dredd has Atmos?


4K UHD from Lionsgate


----------



## gene4ht

DaverJ said:


> Which version of Dredd has Atmos?


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dredd-4K-Blu-ray/176582/


----------



## biga6761

*Cloverfield 3 (The Cloverfield Paradox) (2018) in Atmos on Netflix Today*

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-movies-concerts-music-discussion/2946288-cloverfield-3-god-particle-2018-a.html

Produced by J.J. Abrams' company Bad Robot and presented in Atmos on Netflix. First watchers report good things especially the low freq's and ULF.
Starting it now, will edit this post once finished.

Edit: Watched Clov. 3 yesterday and thought it was okay but nothing that special in terms of content or plot. The audio was pretty good though with decent use of the Atmos platform but still by no means top notch. Bass was deep and quite strong at times but yet in still not best of the best quality or equal to the first film or anything. I'm planning a rewatch with the wife and like a couple movies from last year(2017) hope to be a bit more impressed 2nd time around. Will update again after watching again.


Also finished Altered Carbon on Netflix in Atmos last night and I personally loved it. The visuals are for lack of better word Simply Staggering as is the overall image quality and clarity. Shot in 6.5k then edited and mastered in all 4k, even in 1080p on my Panny PJ, it's one of the sharpest and clearest transfers I've seen yet. Gorgeous comes to mind.
The Atmos left a good bit to be desired though. The height and even the surround channel use was very minimal and limited to atmospherics when used. The bass is mixed sparsely and low in level when present. I had to add +5db to both sub outs on my Marantz which is more than I've ever had to add for any show or movie and is more in line with my 2ch music sub out levels. There is a bit of oddly placed ULF in some of the later episodes though. 
Overall I loved the story and really liked AC's visual presentation but found the use of Atmos to be one of the worst I've experienced in my room to date, not that it sounded bad per say but it simply didn't take hardly any advantage of the platform. I believe it could be as simple as lack of Atmos mixing experience that plagues AC but then with the lack of simple side surround use I'm unsure of that prognosis. AC is a must watch in my book and it will see multiple viewings from me simply because there is too much detail to take it all in on the first viewing.


----------



## SoundChex

gene4ht said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dredd-4K-Blu-ray/176582/



Interestingly it looks like the included BD copy is the 2D|3D DTS-HDMA 7.1| Neo:X 11.1 (optimized) that was the original [1080p] release. If you have the time to test, it would useful to know how closely the Atmos remix follows the "Director's intent" (sic) as instanced by playing the DTS-HDMA 7.1| Neo:X 11.1 soundtrack using the DTS Neural:X remapper|upmixer...?!  


_


----------



## gene4ht

SoundChex said:


> Interestingly it looks like the included BD copy is the 2D|3D DTS-HDMA 7.1| Neo:X 11.1 (optimized) that was the original [1080p] release. If you have the time to test, it would useful to know how closely the Atmos remix follows the "Director's intent" (sic) as instanced by playing the DTS-HDMA 7.1| Neo:X 11.1 soundtrack using the DTS Neural:X remapper|upmixer...?!
> 
> 
> _


Unfortunately, I don't own this 4k version...only looked it up for the OP.


----------



## Erod

VideoGrabber said:


> I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
> 
> I would agree with you for sure that ceiling speakers, properly installed in ideal conditions, will sound better than upfiring. The problem is that not everybody has ideal conditions, and not all ceiling speakers are installed properly. Simply saying 'I've got ceiling speakers', guarantees you nothing. (Obvious concerns are narrow dispersion, non-aimability, and placement outside the speaker's beam-width. Leading to maximal enjoyment by the family dog, laying on the floor between the seats and the screen.  )
> 
> In _some specific situations_, upfiring speakers may actually sound better, IF they are carefully installed to ensure where their reflected sounds will be delivered. So I don't think it's fair to make such a blanket claim.
> 
> 
> 
> It is, though it's unlikely to be quite as precise. I would certainly encourage anyone who could do so to do in-ceilings (which I think is your goal as well). But if the situation prevents someone from doing in or on-ceiling, or high on the walls, I'd hate to see them lose out completely on an immersive sound field, simply because they've heard that upfiring sources were never as good as 'the real thing'.


A highly reflective ceiling is generally a bad thing for sound in a home theater. You don't want those kinds of reflections.


Yet, upfiring speakers rely on that very thing. So, you're getting all sorts of reflections off your ceiling, from wanted Atmos effects to unwanted reflections from your LCR and surrounds. It seems to me these reflections will cause a great deal of sound confusion, and dull any Atmos effect you might create. 


I just don't think you can play billiards with sound and get any kind of real Atmos effect. I agree that ceiling speakers not properly placed have lots of issues, too, but when they're done right, it's just night and day better than the enabled variety.


----------



## batpig

The Dredd 4K remaster is DTS:X, not Atmos ///// EDIT I'M TOTALLY WRONG, BRAIN FART


----------



## javan robinson

Did anyone watch the new Cloverfield Paradox in Atmos on Netflix? I had a few pops and clicks throughout my experience - other than that it sounded great. Also popped during "Bright", hmm..


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The Dredd 4K remaster is DTS:X, not Atmos
> 
> ... which makes sense, because the original was one of only a handful of movies encoded with DTS Neo:X 11ch matrix audio.


Have you checked the reviews? 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dredd-4K-Blu-ray/176582/#Review 

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/45399/dreddultrahdbluray.html


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Have you checked the reviews?
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dredd-4K-Blu-ray/176582/#Review
> 
> https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/45399/dreddultrahdbluray.html


WTF

Did I just dream that it was done in DTS:X?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Did I just dream that it was done in DTS:X?


Lionsgate does have a few titles (5) in DTS:X, but most of their immersive releases (40 - including Dredd) are in Atmos.


----------



## T-Bone

javan robinson said:


> Did anyone watch the new Cloverfield Paradox in Atmos on Netflix? I had a few pops and clicks throughout my experience - other than that it sounded great. Also popped during "Bright", hmm..


Pops and clicks? Like a static sounding pop in the speaker?

-T


----------



## javan robinson

T-Bone said:


> Pops and clicks? Like a static sounding pop in the speaker?
> 
> -T


Yes, pops and clicks. I know what you're thinking - but it isn't the system. Anything from 2 channel audio, to XBox, to Amazon Instant Video, to UHD Discs in 7.2.4 Atmos, to Nintendo Switch sounds perfect and I never get any distortion, pops etc.

It's only happened on Bright and Cloverfield, both on Netflix, both in Atmos.


----------



## usc1995

javan robinson said:


> Yes, pops and clicks. I know what you're thinking - but it isn't the system. Anything from 2 channel audio, to XBox, to Amazon Instant Video, to UHD Discs in 7.2.4 Atmos, to Nintendo Switch sounds perfect and I never get any distortion, pops etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only happened on Bright and Cloverfilked, both on Netflix, both in Atmos.




I have heard similar sounds watching DARK and was a little worried it was my system but now that I think about it I have only heard those pops when viewing Netflix. Interesting...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## javan robinson

usc1995 said:


> I have heard similar sounds watching DARK and was a little worried it was my system but now that I think about it I have only heard those pops when viewing Netflix. Interesting...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Glad to know that I'm not the only one!

And yeah, it has to be something with the amount of data that's being streamed during 4k/HDR/Atmos titles, right? That can't be healthy! lol (easy)


----------



## stikle

Howdy my Atmos bretheren!

I am WAY overthinking this and it's probably just fine... I guess I'm just looking for some affirmation that it'll be ok.

In my new theater room (build link in sig) I am limited where I can put my overhead speakers by joist runs and HVAC. I'm going to be mounting my overheads up in the ceiling with just the drivers poking out below the sheetrocked joists so I can maximize the head room - I only have 7' below the ceiling joists. I would have liked them one run over to the outsides, but I have an air return on the one side and...warm air in on the other.

Front to back is no problem so I can get the proper angles. I just feel that where they will be ending up that they are pushed in too close to center. However, I _think_ I'll be ok since A] the Mirages are wide dispersion and B] TF L/R are the same and TR L/R are the same (...right?) so front/back panning will still be ok.

I kinda like my front L/R to be out from the TV more for more separation, so they won't exactly be in line with the overheads. My old house was the same - they weren't in line either, and it sounded great. But maybe moving them in towards the TV wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

One positive to this is that it will increase separation between the overheads and the bed layer.

This isn't to scale, but gives an idea of the distances. Thoughts?


----------



## VideoGrabber

Erod said:


> A highly reflective ceiling is generally a bad thing for sound in a home theater. You don't want those kinds of reflections.


And yet quite a few HTs don't have treated ceilings, and somehow get away with it. Not that it may not have some negative impact, but the human hearing system is more adaptable than you seem to believe it to be. Not to mention millions of living rooms, where home stereo has flourished over decades.




> Yet, upfiring speakers rely on that very thing. So, you're getting all sorts of reflections off your ceiling, from wanted Atmos effects to unwanted reflections from your LCR and surrounds. It seems to me these reflections will cause a great deal of sound confusion, and dull any Atmos effect you might create.


Well, if you aim your LCRs at the ceiling, you'd certainly be correct. 




> I just don't think you can play billiards with sound and get *any* kind of* real* Atmos effect.


And that's OK. I can accept that we have a difference of opinion on that subject. Perhaps some day you will get a chance to hear a well set-up reflective Atmos system, and find yourself surprised it's not as bad as you expected it would be.

Either way, I'd still prefer to avoid discouraging those without other options from even trying it. Their mileage may vary from yours.


----------



## Erod

VideoGrabber said:


> And yet quite a few HTs don't have treated ceilings, and somehow get away with it. Not that it may not have some negative impact, but the human hearing system is more adaptable than you seem to believe it to be. Not to mention millions of living rooms, where home stereo has flourished over decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you aim your LCRs at the ceiling, you'd certainly be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's OK. I can accept that we have a difference of opinion on that subject. Perhaps some day you will get a chance to hear a well set-up reflective Atmos system, and find yourself surprised it's not as bad as you expected it would be.
> 
> Either way, I'd still prefer to avoid discouraging those without other options from even trying it. Their mileage may vary from yours.



I agree that reflections are overstated in small theater rooms. It's overthought. However, ceiling reflections are generally considered among the least desirable. 

My general opinion on Atmos is it is overrated at this point. And I have a fairly ideal dedicated home theater with 14-foot ceilings and symmetrical dimensions, with speakers in the specific locations they should be. Perfect for all dispersion considerations.

Is it better? Yes. It is really all that cool? Sure, it's a nice touch. Is it changing the experience of watching a movie altogether? No, not hardly, at least not yet.

This notion of "placement" of sound is not really happening yet. There isn't a three-dimensional specific bubble yet that can put a bird just outside your left shoulder or send a bullet flying by your ear. .

So far, I'd describe it as a fuller sound with the obvious overhead addition of sound and a general widening of the overall soundstage. That's a cool thing, but it's not light years beyond 7-channel DTS Master HD by any means. It's about a 10% improvement right now, if that.


----------



## Bond 007

Erod said:


> Is it better? Yes. It is really all that cool? Sure, it's a nice touch. Is it changing the experience of watching a movie altogether? No, not hardly, at least not yet.
> 
> That's a cool thing, but it's not light years beyond 7-channel DTS Master HD by any means.


I agree. It just doesn't have the "WOW!" factor for me that a lot of people express.


----------



## Erod

Bond 007 said:


> I agree. It just doesn't have the "WOW!" factor for me that a lot of people express.



For one thing, it's not a "bubble" as they claim. How can it be a bubble with no speakers below you?


I think sound mixers are the key. So far, I don't think they've really designed sound for this concept all that much. And not all movies lend themselves to that kind of approach. 


I do notice that, with a good processor, sound is cleaner and more atmospheric with a good Atmos disc. I hope that trend continues.


----------



## gwsat

Bond 007 said:


> I agree. It just doesn't have the "WOW!" factor for me that a lot of people express.


I agree. I've made clear here that I am an Atmos fan and also a UHD HDR video quality fan. As nice as both upgrades are, though, in my estimation, neither provides the impact I remember experiencing when first beholding the improvement of 1080P BD quality video over 480 and 5.1 audio over 2.0.


----------



## SouthernCA

OsoSolitario said:


> Thanks again for your feedback.
> I show some pictures. As some said, a picture is worth a thousand words...
> 
> As you can see, my room is not a simple rectangle box, so I only can get one back surround speaker (which works very fine, any complaint with it!!). Side surrounds are on each side of the main armchair. This picture shows only the left side surround and surround back speaker:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This wide view of the room shows how far the surrounds are against the front speakers. Because that I want to fit one more side surround on the mark point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same proposal, but on the opposite wall:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was simple. Can Atmos manage four side surround speakers? If yes, *how*?
> 
> If the proposal goes on, I will change the dipoles for five DIY monopoles... I will not start to build them ultil to know if I can manage this new speaker layout.


Looks like you have your sub in your coffee table? Where did you find that? Thanks in advance. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

Erod said:


> For one thing, it's not a "bubble" as they claim. How can it be a bubble with no speakers below you?


Technically, a bubble does not have to be a perfectly round Sphere 










Even my Yamaha AV controller App uses a hemisphere "Bubble" representation















 Love my Yamaha's ...they were doing ATMOS-like DSP with Presence speakers Many years before ATMOS/DTS:X made it to Home Theater.

They even had the first 11.2 Channel AVR (7.2 + 4 Presence speakers) with 11 built in Amps a Decade ago...The RX-Z-11 



















The 90 pound behemoth was around $5K back then, a lot of money for 2008!


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> For one thing, it's not a "bubble" as they claim. How can it be a bubble with no speakers below you?



Ever blow a bubble from one of those kids toys? What happens when the bubble lands on a flat table? Does it cease to become a bubble in that instant because it's only half of a sphere? Wait...sphere...atmosphere...atmos...Atmos! 

See what I did there? 

Anyway, I agree that so far I haven't heard over the shoulder and by my ear sounds either.

Would I go back to NO Atmos? Not a chance.


----------



## DaverJ

I prefer the term "dome" instead of "bubble".


----------



## PioManiac

You guys need to try the invisible boy scene from Goosebumps. 

I've had several movies with similar effects, sometimes wondering it it was someone upstairs in my home.
Horror flicks often use sound ques around the room/ceiling when scenes get dark.

...most recently, the movie "IT" when the kid's enter the Well-House.
Awesome example of well placed audio.


----------



## Erod

stikle said:


> Ever blow a bubble from one of those kids toys? What happens when the bubble lands on a flat table? Does it cease to become a bubble in that instant because it's only half of a sphere? Wait...sphere...atmosphere...atmos...Atmos!
> 
> See what I did there?
> 
> Anyway, I agree that so far I haven't heard over the shoulder and by my hear sounds either.
> 
> Would I go back to NO Atmos? Not a chance.


Very true, but the Dolby Atmos logo is a sphere.


----------



## PioManiac

If this bluray scene doesnt work for you, your system is broken. 








Over the past two years I must played over 300 ATMOS titles, 
there have been plenty of movies that had "over the shoulder check, that was Freaking Cool" moments.

I should have probably kept a running list of them and logged specific scenes/timestamps for Non-Believers to try.
It's out there, otherwise ATMOS would have died by now.

Netflix is pumping out ATMOS for their exclusives like crazy lately! (if you have an XBO console)

The German Import "Dark" in the very first episode has a hanging/suicide scene where you can actually hear the weight pulling on the rope
and creaking the rafters in the old barn directly coming from the front left upper corner of your room. Totally creeped me out ! 
I have an exposed wood beam in my basement man cave, in the same exact location as my front height speaker where the sound was coming from.


----------



## OsoSolitario

SouthernCA said:


> Looks like you have your sub in your coffee table? Where did you find that? Thanks in advance.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


No, is not the subwoofer but the projector!! An Epson TW9200 (the european version of the 5030UB):


----------



## mrtickleuk

biga6761 said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-movies-concerts-music-discussion/2946288-cloverfield-3-god-particle-2018-a.html
> 
> Produced by J.J. Abrams' company Bad Robot and presented in Atmos on Netflix. First watchers report good things especially the low freq's and ULF.
> Starting it now, will edit this post once finished.


Strange. Reading other comments on the 4k hdr thread, I got the impression that whilst it might have looked and sounded nice, it's an absolute stinker of a movie. The Bass thread people liked the bass. Are you saying it's Oscar material?


----------



## biga6761

mrtickleuk said:


> Strange. Reading other comments on the 4k hdr thread, I got the impression that whilst it might have looked and sounded nice, it's an absolute stinker of a movie. The Bass thread people liked the bass. Are you saying it's Oscar material?


No sir, not at all. Lol I just ment in terms of the Atmos track, bass and pic quality. Movie was just ok IMHO. Oscar material...Hardly.


----------



## Jonas2

Erod said:


> Is it better? Yes. It is really all that cool? Sure, it's a nice touch. Is it changing the experience of watching a movie altogether? No, not hardly, at least not yet.
> 
> This notion of "placement" of sound is not really happening yet. There isn't a three-dimensional specific bubble yet that can put a bird just outside your left shoulder or send a bullet flying by your ear. .
> 
> So far, I'd describe it as a fuller sound with the obvious overhead addition of sound and a general widening of the overall soundstage. That's a cool thing, but it's not light years beyond 7-channel DTS Master HD by any means. It's about a 10% improvement right now, if that.





Bond 007 said:


> I agree. It just doesn't have the "WOW!" factor for me that a lot of people express.


I still find it quite WOW!, at least in my system.  But I'm easy to entertain.  Certain episodes of Game of Thrones make very good use of Atmos and I have found some excellent placement of sounds in the those tracks. Of course, it's not happening all the time, but when it does, I find it most impressive.


----------



## snpanago

Bond 007 said:


> I agree. It just doesn't have the "WOW!" factor for me that a lot of people express.


Wow, that's not my experience whatsoever. WOW! is precisely what family and guests say when experiencing movies in my HT. Whether its a bubble or sphere, to me, it has been the greatest advancement in home audio over the past 36 years. 

In 1982, I was excited to get stereo at home with VHS/Betamax movies connected to my 2 channel receiver. Then, a couple of years later, I got a charge out of NBC broadcasting Miami Vice in stereo via an FM radio simulcast. Stereo televisions followed thereafter. Then came AVRs with Dolby Surround, Dolby Pro-Logic, DPLII, Dolby Digital, DTS, etc., with bass management, subwoofer outputs, until we get to 3D audio. To enjoy these formats, I've had 5.1, 7.1, and now a 5.2.4 setup. I am glad I've lived this long to experience home entertainment with the best audio immersion I've ever heard, including public cinemas and IMAX theaters. I might suggest that those who've adopted Dolby Atmos in their homes who don't have a WOW experience, especially with titles reviewed and well-known to kick butt with this format, should reexamine their setup and calibration.


----------



## SouthernCA

OsoSolitario said:


> No, is not the subwoofer but the projector!! An Epson TW9200 (the european version of the 5030UB):


Wow. That is a powerful projector. 4k?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## thrang

Erod said:


> For one thing, it's not a "bubble" as they claim. How can it be a bubble with no speakers below you?


----------



## biga6761

PioManiac said:


> The German Import "Dark" in the very first episode has a hanging/suicide scene where you can actually hear the weight pulling on the rope
> and creaking the rafters in the old barn directly coming from the front left upper corner of your room. Totally creeped me out !
> I have an exposed wood beam in my basement man cave, in the same exact location as my front height speaker where the sound was coming from.


I loved this scene too Pio, as hard as it is to watch someone do this to themselves the effect is in my top 10 ever for height use. It snapped my head around to that spot in the room instantly and even gave me the chills hearing the rope and wood as he swang. This is the kind of effect that I hope will become more common as mixer learn to better exploit the platform.

As for folk not hearing these effects as mobile "objects" placed in different parts of the room, I think it comes down to setup and RC eq to get the best results. I got extremely lucky when I first setup Atmos back 2 houses ago in that effects moved all through the room and were completely free of the speakers and their placement. When I moved to a new place and set up my system again, unchanged other than the room, the effect was gone and effects seemed bound to the speakers killing the amazement of the immersion and "object" movement. It took several Audy runs and some placement tweaks of all the speakers not just the heights to get the movement of "objects" back like it was before. It really comes down to how closely you can come to Dolby's recommendations for speaker placement and then getting the RC eq to come out right, which can take many runs until everything all of a sudden comes into place and "objects" begin to flow through the room as intended. 
This is something I'm still working on in my new dedicated room and trust me it can be frustrating trying to find the missing link that puts it all inplace and renders the effect properly. My advice is to tweak one step at a time and keep detailed notes of what changes you make, stopping to listen to an Atmos clip you are familiar with (and use the same one everytime) after each change and then deciding if said change was in the right direction or not. I think it important to start with RC like Audyssey off and go as far as you can with optimization before running any RC.

I like to start by getting the best possible stereo imaging in 2ch first from all the speakers in the room treating each pair( and even the center alone summed if possible) as though you were going to listen to them in 2ch stereo. Because of the way Atmos sometimes/often uses phase and delay to create the height effect's and "object" movement, all of the speakers(not just the heights) need to be optimized to get the best "object" movement. 

Since sometimes/often sound from all of the speakers is what creates the sense of the "objects" moving I feel it is important to approach each set of speakers as a stereo pair(both mains together first just like you would listen to 2ch music then move to the side surrounds then the rear surrounds then each pair of heights. The easiest way to do this with a receiver is just to switch the speaker wires to the front mains set of binding posts working your way through the pairs/ with a pre-amp you can just move the signal cables to the pair of inputs on your amp for each pair of speakers) first because if each pair images to the best of their ability for music it will translate over to movie soundtracks just as well. This approach is how I was finally able to bring the amazing "object" movement of my first house to the second and is the same approach I'm taking to the new room now. Only after getting each pair of speakers sounding their best together with 2ch music and also checking them all together with multichannel music do I attempt RC with Audyssey and sometimes after all that work RC will get it right first run but most times it takes a few runs.

It takes time, patients, many measurements, keeping good notes of progress (whether good or bad) and finally a good RC run to bring it all together, but once optimized the marketing promises of objects moving all through the room and even through you (unanchored to the speakers) start to become possible. Once you have heard it properly do it's thing it's hard to do without it again and I will personally spend hours to get it if I lose it. This is my whole reasoning for coming up with a way to get there again when moving to a new place.
I look back now and think how fortunate I was that my first setup in that old house fell into place, worked as intended and sounded so damn good or I may not have ever known what the platform was capable of. In thinking about it, this process of optimizing with music working in stereo pairs may even be more important for those who can't stick closely to Dolby's specs for placement as I couldn't in my last place. Also I don't want anyone to get me wrong and think that you can get as good of imaging and depth on every pair as you can your front mains, it's just not going to happen. But what you can do is produce the best possible result for every pair and give Atmos(and Audyssey) the best head start possible and I have found this to be the key to getting the best object movement and Atmos effects in all 3 of the rooms I have set it up in.

I hope everyone gets to experience the things I have from Atmos in my room. When it's right it's crazy impressive but there is also the use of the platform from the mixing perspective and I also wish there were more examples of the kind of effects Pio mentioned above in "Dark" because these are the most enjoyable and impressive parts of Atmos IMHO. 

Hopefully others can use the method I outline here to get more from their Atmos setup but I'm sure there are other and possibly even better ways that pro's use to get where I end up. I just thought I would share that I have previously attained the effect Pio posted about above and am very close to there again in my new space. I just have a bit more work to do.


----------



## Erod

thrang said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, it's not a "bubble" as they claim. How can it be a bubble with no speakers below you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but....


----------



## jjackkrash

I ordered and we watched the MIB Trilogy in 4K/HDR and with Atmos sound. I really thought the video and audio was fantastic.


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> Yeah, but....



Since you won't let it go, I'll point out the obvious...

...you're looking at the Atmos logo from the top down. As in *Atmos*pheric.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

biga6761 said:


> ...
> 
> Hopefully others can use the method I outline here to get more from their Atmos setup but I'm sure there are other and possibly even better ways that pro's use to get where I end up. I just thought I would share that I have previously attained the effect Pio posted about above and am very close to there again in my new space. I just have a bit more work to do.


Did you instal passive room treatments?

I have been reading about Dirac Unison, which can use other speakers in the set (subwoofer and other) in assistance to the "main" speaker. But stil, they are adamant that high frequency reflections and reverberations have to be treated with old school passive treatments. But they claim Unison is a great solution for any problem up to 500 Hz.


----------



## Ted99

I need some advice about Bipole side surrounds. I have a small room 14' L x 12' W and my current side surrounds are towers with the tweeters at ear level, but only 40" from those tweeters to the L & R ears, respectively, of the two room occupants. 11.1 speaker array. The side surround sounds are easily localized to the speaker location. There were some comments earlier regarding the use of Bipoles for side surrounds as being better for speakers that are close to the listener's ears. Did I understand that correctly? When I look at Bipoles, it looks like there is a null at 90 degrees, which would be good for avoiding localization, but will the 45 degree drivers still be audible at at my 40" distance?


----------



## biga6761

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Did you instal passive room treatments?
> 
> I have been reading about Dirac Unison, which can use other speakers in the set (subwoofer and other) in assistance to the "main" speaker. But stil, they are adamant that high frequency reflections and reverberations have to be treated with old school passive treatments. But they claim Unison is a great solution for any problem up to 500 Hz.


Yes i sir do. My SBA infinite baffle requires that I use heavy thick absorption(16" with a 6"air gap) covering the entire back wall and I also use 8 total ATS acoustics 2x4' panels as well as 4 Aura bass traps. Im still bulding the 16" thick rear absorber with an air gap of 6" behind it. As of now its about 1/2 what I would like it to be.
Another area I'm soon to do something about is a bit of diffusion in the room.

I would love to implement Dirac but until a processor with it built in makes it to market that is not in the $10grand+ segment and has Atmos and Dts:x, I would be stuck useing 2 of the MiniDsp solutions and that is $2grand+ i would rather put toward the new processor with some other features I want also. I'm starting to very strongly consider going with at least one or the Minidsp 88A's for the bed channels and then just manually eq'ing the heights. 

I'm content with the Av7702 for the time being until all the next generation of processors make it to market to see if Dirac makes into any of them. I keep hoping D&M will transition away from Audyssey to Dirac but i certinly not holding my breath.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## biga6761

Ted99 said:


> I need some advice about Bipole side surrounds. I have a small room 14' L x 12' W and my current side surrounds are towers with the tweeters at ear level, but only 40" from those tweeters to the L & R ears, respectively, of the two room occupants. 11.1 speaker array. The side surround sounds are easily localized to the speaker location. There were some comments earlier regarding the use of Bipoles for side surrounds as being better for speakers that are close to the listener's ears. Did I understand that correctly? When I look at Bipoles, it looks like there is a null at 90 degrees, which would be good for avoiding localization, but will the 45 degree drivers still be audible at at my 40" distance?


Edited for correction. Thanks @batpig

From what I think I know, Lol, the use of bipoles is great for dealing with hotspotting like you are experiencing and(edit starts here) according to Dolby are ok for Atmos/immersive audio. It is Dipoles that are not recommended.(end edit) I have read about some folks who have used bipoles from their existing setup when transitioning to immersive audio with decent results but you may want to dig into the dolby setup recommendations and do some googling on the subject before making a decision.
Another thing to consider is to try experimenting with a range of delay/distance settings on your side surrounds to see if you can alleviate any of the localization/hotspotting you are experiencing. It may help diffuse the sound enough.
I would think Dolby took your use case into consideration when developing Atmos for the home and i would think Dts did the same. If you watch the little intro 1st track on the Dolby Atmos demo disks the mixing stage they show them sitting in with the consumer gear has the side surrounds only a bit further away, if any, then they are in your setup. Just something to consider.

I sat within 4ft of my side surrounds in my last house and was able to use off-axis positioning and delay/distance settings to keep from having any hotspotting issues.

Hopefully someone with more bipole and Atmos experience will chime in here also. Good luck in your search for a solution.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Erod

stikle said:


> Since you won't let it go, I'll point out the obvious...
> 
> ...you're looking at the Atmos logo from the top down. As in *Atmos*pheric.


 
How do you know it's not from the bottom looking up?

LOL

This is one of the more unique discussions I've ever had on this forum.


----------



## Erod

biga6761 said:


> From what I think I know, Lol, the use of bipoles is great for dealing with hotspotting like you are experiencing but are not recommend by Dolby for Atmos/immersive audio. I have read about some folks who have used bipoles from their existing setup when transitioning to immersive audio with descent results but you may want to dig into the dolby recommendations and do some googling on the subject before making a decision.
> Another thing to consider is to try experimenting with a range of delay/distance settings on your side surrounds to see if you can alleviate any of the localization/hotspotting you are experiencing. It may help diffuse the sound enough.
> I would think Dolby took your use case into consideration when developing Atmos for the home and i would think Dts did the same. If you watch the little intro 1st track on the Dolby Atmos demo disks the mixing stage they show them sitting in with the consumer gear has the side surrounds only a bit further away, if any, then they are in your setup. Just something to consider.
> 
> I sat within 4ft of my side surrounds in my last house and was able to use off-axis positioning and delay/distance settings to keep from having any hotspotting issues.
> 
> Hopefully someone with more bipole and Atmos experience will chime in here also. Good luck in your search for a solution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk


This is interesting and something I've never thought of.

If the idea is to create a spherical sound field, shouldn't all speaker distances be set to mimic a bubble in that sense? Perhaps take an average of all of your speaker distances and set each speaker to perform to that average distance?

With ARC, it doesn't set distances for you. You have to measure and input those yourself.


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> How do you know it's not from the bottom looking up?



Because the atmosphere is above the Earth, not below it silly. 

That's all I have...I'm done.


----------



## PioManiac

I've found that if you make a significant effort to control your environment before hand,
Room Correction (and Video Calibration) steps become much easier, and barely need a tweak to fine tune.

My room has no drywall surfaces at all. Velvet/material was stapled directly over insulated stud walls.
At first the intention was to control light reflections and make the room darker for projector use.

But it also doubled as sound reflection control in addition to providing bass traps all around the room.
I also have large bookcases on every wall that function as stands for surround speakers/lamps and my projector
But also serve as diffusion breaks for otherwise large flat surfaces.

as a musician I take audio pretty seriously
and my room is also my guitar den when not used for Movies/Gaming/TV/Music.

I used 100% free floating matched speakers for all locations and moved them to positions that worked best prior to running any software
...as a result my room correction software (YPAO) really didn't have to do much calibrating at all.


----------



## healthnut

Erod said:


> I agree that reflections are overstated in small theater rooms. It's overthought. However, ceiling reflections are generally considered among the least desirable.
> 
> My general opinion on Atmos is it is overrated at this point. And I have a fairly ideal dedicated home theater with 14-foot ceilings and symmetrical dimensions, with speakers in the specific locations they should be. Perfect for all dispersion considerations.
> 
> Is it better? Yes. It is really all that cool? Sure, it's a nice touch. Is it changing the experience of watching a movie altogether? No, not hardly, at least not yet.
> 
> This notion of "placement" of sound is not really happening yet. There isn't a three-dimensional specific bubble yet that can put a bird just outside your left shoulder or send a bullet flying by your ear. .
> 
> So far, I'd describe it as a fuller sound with the obvious overhead addition of sound and a general widening of the overall soundstage. That's a cool thing, but it's not light years beyond 7-channel DTS Master HD by any means. It's about a 10% improvement right now, if that.




I envy you your 14 foot ceilings. That’s still within Atmos specs, and according to Dennis Foley from Acoustic Solutions, the minimum ideal acoustic ceiling height. If i could raise my under 8 ft height to 14 economically, Is be all over it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Erod

healthnut said:


> I envy you your 14 foot ceilings. That’s still within Atmos specs, and according to Dennis Foley from Acoustic Solutions, the minimum ideal acoustic ceiling height. If i could raise my under 8 ft height to 14 economically, Is be all over it
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It's nice to have. I have a very slight cathedral portion to my upper side walls that terminate to a flat ceiling. That probably produces some mild reflection issues. Otherwise, it's symmetrical, so it makes things pretty easy. I also wish I would have installed my rear heights further from the back wall, but I think I'll be in a 9.2.6 room in a few years anyway, so I'll just leave them and add another pair between the front and back heights later.


----------



## biga6761

Erod said:


> This is interesting and something I've never thought of.
> 
> If the idea is to create a spherical sound field, shouldn't all speaker distances be set to mimic a bubble in that sense? Perhaps take an average of all of your speaker distances and set each speaker to perform to that average distance?
> 
> With ARC, it doesn't set distances for you. You have to measure and input those yourself.


Technically yes, the distances should be kept at the correct distance to set the proper delay but in experimenting with an acceptable range of distances, like you would setting the delay between 2 subs with one closer to the MLP in a multi sub setup with multiple rows to find the most even coverage in all seats, you may be able to focus the direct and reflected sound to curtail some of the hotspotting. 
Please don't take me to mean this is "the" solution but what do you have to lose trying it before making a speaker change. I got the idea by looking at Audyssey results as it will sometimes come back with distances that are nowhere near the actual distance but in doing so can sound amazing. Manually moving the speaker distances in the fashion Audyssey does worked well for me in my previous room. This could be because that room was not as heavily treated as my new room though I have deployed this with similar, though slightly diminished effect, in my new dedicated space. It has cinder block walls, so similar to what @PioManiac did in his room, I covered 100% of the walls and ceiling in dark navy blue interlock fabric(for 2 reasons, it was easier than trying to get all the walls ready for paint and to give the best projected image quality) similar to what thick polo shirts are made from and this adds an extra layer of very mild absorption that I didn't have before. I have also added a few more panels since the last room so the diminished effectiveness could have to do with there being less reflected energy in this room but I can't be certain yet as I have only been moved since the first week of November and I'm still working through the room.

I would approach the range of delay by starting with + and - .5ft of the proper distance and listen for a day or so to each then work from there in whichever direction seemed to make the most/best difference. I would not go beyond about 3ft to 5ft in either direction though because going too far could become detrimental to sound quality instead of helping. You may also want to try turning your side surrounds a bit off axis in both directions, at the same time you try the delay ranges. Be sure to keep good notes along the way as this process of trial and error can take considerable time and it is easy to forget what you did last if a couple days pass between changes. 
Experimentation is key and if you work at it you may find a good compromise that will tame your issue. This could all need to take place before or after running ARC to get the best effect but I would imagine you would want to find the best setup you can before running ARC so that it can correct the direct and reflected response at the mlp and other seats. 

There will inevitably be compromises you must decide on, meaning you may remove the problem at the MLP only to have it move to another row if you have 2. My new room is the first time I have had 2 rows myself and it adds to the complexity a good bit if you are trying to optimize more than just the MLP. I'm fortunate in that 90% of my rooms use is with only me in the room so I can focus on the MLP but the other seats still must be taken into consideration for when others are present. I also find it very useful being able to use REW to measure what each change does to the response of the surrounds as well as working with music as I noted before to find the best stereo sound while working with the delay ranges and off axis positioning. Also use the same song and movie clips everytime to check your progress and resist the urge to use different ones in your experiments. That's not to say don't watch or listen to anything else, just not when first testing new configs for the first time because using the same content will give your audio memory a chance to aid you in where you stand in your process.

Good luck and I can't stress enough how important keeping good notes in some way like a HT journal is and you probably will want to write down your current settings incase you want to go back or you can't find a solution through your experiments. Feel free to PM me if you want to take the discussion further or if I can help you in anyway. 
I'm by no means a pro as I have mentioned in the forums before but have developed a few methods that have helped me get to the final goal. I'm more than happy sharing them if they can help others find setup bliss also. 

One final word of warning about how long this process can take, be prepared to spend a fair amount of time and be sure to try a multitude of config changes, notating what you find positive and negative about each, before settling on a final setup or speaker change because I have had instances where I thought I had "IT' only to find another little tweak that pushed it over the top a few days later. I would think if you can find a way of setting your current surrounds up that would eliminate your hotspotting issues it would leave you with a more capable system than going to a smaller wall mounted bipole. That is unless you were considering other bipole towers like def tech's of similar, but considering Dolby's recommendations monopoles should work best.


----------



## batpig

Ted99 said:


> I need some advice about Bipole side surrounds. I have a small room 14' L x 12' W and my current side surrounds are towers with the tweeters at ear level, but only 40" from those tweeters to the L & R ears, respectively, of the two room occupants. 11.1 speaker array. The side surround sounds are easily localized to the speaker location. There were some comments earlier regarding the use of Bipoles for side surrounds as being better for speakers that are close to the listener's ears. Did I understand that correctly? When I look at Bipoles, it looks like there is a null at 90 degrees, which would be good for avoiding localization, but will the 45 degree drivers still be audible at at my 40" distance?





biga6761 said:


> From what I think I know, Lol, the use of bipoles is great for dealing with hotspotting like you are experiencing but are not recommend by Dolby for Atmos/immersive audio. I have read about some folks who have used bipoles from their existing setup when transitioning to immersive audio with descent results but you may want to dig into the dolby recommendations and do some googling on the subject before making a decision.


This answer is not accurate -- there is some confusion here between DIpoles and BIpoles. 

Bipoles are totally fine for Atmos, and in fact specifically recommended for smaller room as discussed in Ted99's original quote. For example, Triad (which serves a big chunk of the pro installer market and worked closely with Dolby on the development of home Atmos) specs bipole surrounds for distances


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> I need some advice about Bipole side surrounds. I have a small room 14' L x 12' W and my current side surrounds are towers with the tweeters at ear level, but only 40" from those tweeters to the L & R ears, respectively, of the two room occupants. 11.1 speaker array. The side surround sounds are easily localized to the speaker location. There were some comments earlier regarding the use of Bipoles for side surrounds as being better for speakers that are close to the listener's ears.


Before buying bipole speakers, move your current side surround towers slightly forward so that they are 75-80 degrees from centre and aim them at the listener farthest away. Re-run calibration and take a listen to see if they are still distracting. This should also give you greater side-vs-rear separation in the surround field.


----------



## Ted99

@batpig and @sdurani this is excellent advice. Yes, I was aware of the difference between Bi-poles and Di-poles and ruled out the Dipoles for the reason you have given. In doing Google research on this issue, I've seen how the diffraction from the two in-phase angled speakers manages to combine at the 90 degree point and results in a very wide dispersion pattern and is direct-radiating. I'm going to take sdurani's advice to move the side surrounds to the 75 degree point (they are at 85 degrees now) and make them off-axis as mentioned by @biga6761 by pointing them at the farthest listener (sdurani's advice). Another good thing about this, in addition to partially filling the hole that taking the wides out (sold the 7702MkII waiting for the X8500), is that one listener will not shade the other listener. Also, I can still use my full range towers as side surrounds, as contrasted to bass-deficient Bipoles. There is a lot of action in the side surrounds and I believe that they deserve as large a speaker as possible. Bipoles will be the fall back.


----------



## biga6761

batpig said:


> This answer is not accurate -- there is some confusion here between DIpoles and BIpoles.


Thank you Sir BatPig. Nice work on all your Denon endevors and is even more impressive when you consider you are unpaid in anyway.

This is exactly why I started that post with "From what I think I know" because it has been at least 3 years since I first read the Dolby recommendations. I think I may have even read them before the first processor/receivers hit the market and have only scanned them a few times since. I remember reading that about Triad now that you mention it and I'll fully read all of the recommendations again to hopefully get it straight in my head. Sorry if I mislead anyone about Bipoles and have edited my post for correctness.


----------



## CBdicX

batpig said:


> Bipoles are totally fine w Atmos and often recommended for smaller rooms for exactly the reason you described. Because there is no null zone they still are effectively direct radiating, just wider dispersion and a bit more diffuse / enveloping. With a larger room where you have enough space for monopoles to image properly you should use those.


If you have a Dipole you could swop the + and - wire, then the Dipole will act as a Bipole and not having to deal with the null zone, or am i wrong ?


----------



## mons0160

I am looking for some speaker configuration/ assignment advice. I have attached a couple pictures of my theater/gaming/ kids playroom and a to-scale drawing for reference. We just 'finished' our basement over the new year, so ignore the finer details of the hanging light fixture... 

I currently have this setup as a 6.1.2 (no center channel- coming once i find one that will look nice mounted on the wall). 

My question is on my surrounds. The layout seems not ideal. Due to the limitations of the room, the best spot for them was mounted on the soffit (as pictured) which is ~4ft above listening position. I am wondering if having them at that height, only ~6in shorter then my ceiling speakers, would really mess with the Atmos effects of item placement in space. Unfortunately I can't really change my speaker layouts all that much, just their assignment. As you can see my rears barely made the cut next to our toy globe and Barbie's horse pasture. If i did change to Bose's to ceiling/ heights, then my rears would be my surrounds, but they'd still have to remain in that rear position about 5ft behind the couch.

With my layout, am I better off with a 5.1.4 or a 7.1.2 setup? is one configuration regarded more ideal than the other? We are mainly gaming and watching movies/tv. So I'd prefer to get the most bang for my buck in terms of speaker utilization and effects.

THANKS!!


----------



## sdurani

mons0160 said:


> My question is on my surrounds. The layout seems not ideal. Due to the limitations of the room, the best spot for them was mounted on the soffit (as pictured) which is ~4ft above listening position. I am wondering if having them at that height, only ~6in shorter then my ceiling speakers, would really mess with the Atmos effects of item placement in space.


Your Side Surrounds are placed where the Top Middle speakers should go. Since the Sides are the next speaker over from the Fronts, they should sound as similar as possible. To that end, I would mount the Klipsch bookshelf speakers on the side walls: the left one above or below the light switch next to the door; the right one directly opposite. I would get another pair of the same bookshelf speakers for the Rears, aiming them towards the listening area. The 2 Bose speakers can stay where they are and be designated as Top Middles.


----------



## OsoSolitario

CBdicX said:


> If you have a Dipole you could swop the + and - wire, then the Dipole will act as a Bipole and not having to deal with the null zone, or am i wrong ?


On a dipole classic design (2 tweeters + 2 woofers) that you are talking about may be right, but there's lot of other dipole designs that only comes with 1 woofer + 2 tweeters on each side or 1 woofer + 1 tweeter on one side and a full range driver on the other side. Also some dipoles comes with variable phase control for woofers in order to keep a punchy bass: Under 250Hz both woofers work on phase but over these frequency one of them works on phase and the other out of phase.

So before to try swap the polarity of drivers, we should check out the actual design of our dipole speakers.


----------



## Doug Schiller

Not sure if this is the forum for it but has anyone had issues with Atmos on the Xbox One X?

I was watching Netflix today and Atmos didn’t kick in like it normally does.
The Dolby App which shouldn’t let you demo without it, was playing the demo videos but my receiver still said PCM.


----------



## biga6761

Doug Schiller said:


> Not sure if this is the forum for it but has anyone had issues with Atmos on the Xbox One X?
> 
> I was watching Netflix today and Atmos didn’t kick in like it normally does.
> The Dolby App which shouldn’t let you demo without it, was playing the demo videos but my receiver still said PCM.


I have had this happen. Double check all audio settings are correct if you haven't already, but if so try powering down the Xbox and unplugging it for 15 seconds. This usually takes care of it for me. I have to do the same thing from time to time to get the controllers to sync or when the Wifi stops working on the Xbox itself and won't sign in to Xbox live. Hopefully this will sort you out as it has for me.


----------



## howard68

I have had my 6200 not accept Dolby Atmos sometimes 
I unplug it and give it 10 seconds plug it back in and Atmos comes back


----------



## CBdicX

OsoSolitario said:


> On a dipole classic design (2 tweeters + 2 woofers) that you are talking about may be right, but there's lot of other dipole designs that only comes with 1 woofer + 2 tweeters on each side or 1 woofer + 1 tweeter on one side and a full range driver on the other side. Also some dipoles comes with variable phase control for woofers in order to keep a punchy bass: Under 250Hz both woofers work on phase but over these frequency one of them works on phase and the other out of phase.
> 
> So before to try swap the polarity of drivers, we should check out the actual design of our dipole speakers.


 
I use the Magnat Dipole RD 200 on my backwall as i do not like the far bigger "normal" speakers in that spot.
As they are THX certified the tweeters are out of phase acording to Magnat.
The two Dipoles bounce both with one tweeter from the side walls, the other tweeter fire in "open space".
If i do the DTSX "call out" i do hear them very much to the sides instade where they hang now, think thats the wall bounce.

I did the wire swop, run Audyssey, and then Audyssey came with two speakers out of phase, the RD 200 
So even the tweeters are intended out of phase, i find it strange that when i swop the wires so they are in phase, Audyssey tells me they are out of phase.
So whats going on with this speaker ?


----------



## OsoSolitario

CBdicX said:


> I use the Magnat Dipole RD 200 on my backwall as i do not like the far bigger "normal" speakers in that spot.
> As they are THX certified the tweeters are out of phase acording to Magnat.
> The two Dipoles bounce both with one tweeter from the side walls, the other tweeter fire in "open space".
> If i do the DTSX "call out" i do hear them very much to the sides instade where they hang now, think thats the wall bounce.
> 
> I did the wire swop, run Audyssey, and then Audyssey came with two speakers out of phase, the RD 200
> So even the tweeters are intended out of phase, i find it strange that when i swop the wires so they are in phase, Audyssey tells me they are out of phase.
> So whats going on with this speaker ?


Don't believe (with eyes closed) every sentence Audyssey would tell you during calibrating our set-up. Is not unusual to see tall speakers or ones with strange tweeters array shown as out of phase on Audyssey (and other systems, MCACC included) when calibrating. Audyssey microphone wants a point source sound from speakers... so those which are different from that are usually shown as out of phase.

Your Magnat has two tweeters on each opposite sides and a woofer between them. Despite tweeters would be both on phase, is an strange array for a speaker.


----------



## CBdicX

OsoSolitario said:


> Don't believe (with eyes closed) every sentence Audyssey would tell you during calibrating our set-up. Is not unusual to see tall speakers or ones with strange tweeters array shown as out of phase on Audyssey (and other systems, MCACC included) when calibrating. Audyssey microphone wants a point source sound from speakers... so those which are different from that are usually shown as out of phase.
> 
> Your Magnat has two tweeters on each opposite sides and a woofer between them. Despite tweeters would be both on phase, is an strange array for a speaker.


 
Think i was not clear.
Audyssey is ok when i wire the Magnat as it must be, + to +, - to -.
Then according to Magnat the tweeters will be out of phase to meet THX specs for a Dipole speaker.
So when i swop the wires, + to -, - to +, the tweeters should be in phase, as in the standard setup they are out of phase.
But when i do a new setup with the swopped wires, Audyssey will give a *X* for phase on both Magnats, but then they should be in phase......


----------



## T-Bone

CBdicX said:


> OsoSolitario said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe (with eyes closed) every sentence Audyssey would tell you during calibrating our set-up. Is not unusual to see tall speakers or ones with strange tweeters array shown as out of phase on Audyssey (and other systems, MCACC included) when calibrating. Audyssey microphone wants a point source sound from speakers... so those which are different from that are usually shown as out of phase.
> 
> Your Magnat has two tweeters on each opposite sides and a woofer between them. Despite tweeters would be both on phase, is an strange array for a speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think i was not clear.
> Audyssey is ok when i wire the Magnat as it must be, + to +, - to -.
> Then according to Magnat the tweeters will be out of phase to meet THX specs for a Dipole speaker.
> So when i swop the wires, + to -, - to +, the tweeters should be in phase, as in the standerd setup they are out of phase.
> But when i do a new setup, Audyssey will give a *X* for phase on both Magnats.
Click to expand...

I'll preface my statement with "I could be wrong."

If you swap the wires on the back of the speaker, sure, it will be out of phase with other speakers in the room. But I don't know why you would do that with your speakers. Your tweeters is fire out of phase with each other on the particular speaker. So swapping the wires is not going to change this tweeters from firing out of phase with each other on the speaker.

I guess I don't know what you were trying to accomplish.

-T


----------



## Craig Mecak

T-Bone said:


> I'll preface my statement with "I could be wrong."
> 
> If you swap the wires on the back of the speaker, sure, it will be out of phase with other speakers in the room. But I don't know why you would do that with your speakers. Your tweeters is fire out of phase with each other on the particular speaker. So swapping the wires is not going to change this tweeters from firing out of phase with each other on the speaker.
> 
> I guess I don't know what you were trying to accomplish.
> 
> -T


The tweeters are intentionally wired out of phase INSIDE THE SPEAKER CABINET. You would have to crack open the speaker to re-wire them in phase. Doing what you are doing by simply changing the wiring phase externally won't work.


----------



## T-Bone

Craig Mecak said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll preface my statement with "I could be wrong."
> 
> If you swap the wires on the back of the speaker, sure, it will be out of phase with other speakers in the room. But I don't know why you would do that with your speakers. Your tweeters is fire out of phase with each other on the particular speaker. So swapping the wires is not going to change this tweeters from firing out of phase with each other on the speaker.
> 
> I guess I don't know what you were trying to accomplish.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> The tweeters are intentionally wired out of phase INSIDE THE SPEAKER CABINET. You would have to crack open the speaker to re-wire them in phase. Doing what you are doing by simply changing the wiring phase externally won't work.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Changing the polarity of the positive and negative audio cables won't do anything to make the tweeters fire in phase.

-T


----------



## CBdicX

T-Bone said:


> I'll preface my statement with "I could be wrong."
> 
> If you swap the wires on the back of the speaker, sure, it will be out of phase with other speakers in the room. But I don't know why you would do that with your speakers. Your tweeters is fire out of phase with each other on the particular speaker. So swapping the wires is not going to change this tweeters from firing out of phase with each other on the speaker.
> 
> I guess I don't know what you were trying to accomplish.
> 
> -T


I think you cleared it up for me.
I thought both tweeters are out of phase, you say one of the two is out of phase.
Think also thats why they have specific Left and Right on them.
As i use them as surround on the back wall, thought maybe i could get a better effect when i had them in phase, but thats not going to happen with a wire swop then.


----------



## whipit

biga6761 said:


> I would love to implement Dirac but until a processor with it built in makes it to market that is not in the $10grand+ segment and has Atmos and Dts:x, I would be stuck useing 2 of the MiniDsp solutions and that is $2grand+ i would rather put toward the new processor with some other features I want also. I'm starting to very strongly consider going with at least one or the Minidsp 88A's for the bed channels and then just manually eq'ing the heights.



Here's a list of receivers that may fit the bill. I haven't researched in detail but you may want to take a look at these units.

https://www.dirac.com/buy-products-with-dirac-live-from-our-partners/


----------



## Ted99

The Polk FXiA4 and FXiA6 surround speakers come with a switch for Bipole or Dipole use.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

whipit said:


> Here's a list of receivers that may fit the bill. I haven't researched in detail but you may want to take a look at these units.
> 
> https://www.dirac.com/buy-products-with-dirac-live-from-our-partners/


I think the only one priced for mortal folks doing 7.1.4 is the Arcam AV860 which is a cool device but for roughly the same price the upcoming Emotiva RMC-1 will do 4 extra channels...


----------



## mons0160

sdurani said:


> Your Side Surrounds are placed where the Top Middle speakers should go. Since the Sides are the next speaker over from the Fronts, they should sound as similar as possible. To that end, I would mount the Klipsch bookshelf speakers on the side walls: the left one above or below the light switch next to the door; the right one directly opposite. I would get another pair of the same bookshelf speakers for the Rears, aiming them towards the listening area. The 2 Bose speakers can stay where they are and be designated as Top Middles.


Since everything is wired in-wall adding speakers is just something that would have to come at a future date if at all, since I'd rather not bastardize the whole look by now running visible wires all around. 

Would the recommendation be to run this as a 5.1.4 with no proper rears opposed to a 7.1.2 with the elevated surrounds as it is in this current configuration?

I'm just curious of the trade offs between how much content out there would utilize one configuration over the other and to what respect those elevated surrounds really mess with the 'object placement'. I dont believe Audyssey corrects for this(?)


----------



## sdurani

mons0160 said:


> Would the recommendation be to run this as a 5.1.4 with no proper rears opposed to a 7.1.2 with the elevated surrounds as it is in this current configuration?


Yes, even though a 5.1 set-up should have the surrounds closer to your sides rather than behind you (but behind you is better than nothing).


> I'm just curious of the trade offs between how much content out there would utilize one configuration over the other and to what respect those elevated surrounds really mess with the 'object placement'. I dont believe Audyssey corrects for this(?)


Audyssey can compensate for distance (by adjusting delay and level) but cannot correct for placement. The point of Atmos is to separate sounds coming from around you versus sounds coming from above you. How are you going to hear that separation when your surround speakers and height speakers are ALL at/near the ceiling?


----------



## usc1995

CBdicX said:


> I use the Magnat Dipole RD 200 on my backwall as i do not like the far bigger "normal" speakers in that spot.
> As they are THX certified the tweeters are out of phase acording to Magnat.
> The two Dipoles bounce both with one tweeter from the side walls, the other tweeter fire in "open space".
> If i do the DTSX "call out" i do hear them very much to the sides instade where they hang now, think thats the wall bounce.
> 
> I did the wire swop, run Audyssey, and then Audyssey came with two speakers out of phase, the RD 200
> So even the tweeters are intended out of phase, i find it strange that when i swop the wires so they are in phase, Audyssey tells me they are out of phase.
> So whats going on with this speaker ?




Not to go too far off topic but is that shot of the speaker on the wall in your room? I like what you are doing with the records as art. Do you have a build thread you could link or share any more photos? I would love to see more of the room.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dimanata2007

Howdy. My HT room is 12x16 ft, 8ft ceiling. What would be a better option for the front height speakers, a pair of wide dispersion surrounds like Klipsch RS-7 








or a pair of conventional small bookshelf speakers like Klipsch R-15m? 








If the RS-7 would work better, since they are wide dispersion, do I need to worry about reflection off the side walls? How wide or how close to the corners do I mount them? Do I really need to mount them right under the ceiling or 5-6' off the floor is acceptable?
Thanks.


----------



## CBdicX

dimanata2007 said:


> Howdy. My HT room is 12x16 ft, 8ft ceiling. What would be a better option for the front height speakers, a pair of wide dispersion surrounds like Klipsch RS-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or a pair of conventional small bookshelf speakers like Klipsch R-15m?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the RS-7 would work better, since they are wide dispersion, do I need to worry about reflection off the side walls? How wide or how close to the corners do I mount them? Do I really need to mount them right under the ceiling or 5-6' off the floor is acceptable?
> Thanks.


If your side walls are both on the same distance to the RS-7, this should word fine.
I like the "bounce" effect as it give the impression that the speakers are in the surround spot, even they are on the back wall like mine Dipoles.


----------



## mons0160

sdurani said:


> Yes, even though a 5.1 set-up should have the surrounds closer to your sides rather than behind you (but behind you is better than nothing). Audyssey can compensate for distance (by adjusting delay and level) but cannot correct for placement. The point of Atmos is to separate sounds coming from around you versus sounds coming from above you. How are you going to hear that separation when your surround speakers and height speakers are ALL at/near the ceiling?




When setting up my speakers does it make a difference if I designate the Bose speakers I had mounted on my soffit as top rears or rear heights? Do rear heights still count as part of the Atmos speakers? My Denon 4300h has a designation for both types.


----------



## sdurani

mons0160 said:


> When setting up my speakers does it make a difference if I designate the Bose speakers I had mounted on my soffit as top rears or rear heights? Do rear heights still count as part of the Atmos speakers? My Denon 4300h has a designation for both types.


Designate them Top Rears (Rear Heights is for overhead speakers that are at or near the back wall).


----------



## T-Bone

Saw IT it today... Blu-ray Edition with Atmos.

WoW. Such enveloping sound. Made the upgrade to Atmos definitely worth it.

-T


----------



## gene4ht

T-Bone said:


> Saw IT it today... Blu-ray Edition with Atmos.
> 
> WoW. Such enveloping sound. Made the upgrade to Atmos definitely worth it.
> 
> -T


Welcome to Atmos and 3D sound! "IT" is definitely one of the better Atmos mixes and demo worthy!


----------



## PioManiac

gene4ht said:


> Welcome to Atmos and 3D sound! "IT" is definitely one of the better Atmos mixes and demo worthy!


The 4K/UHD looked Stunning on my 65" OLED in Dolby Vision, reference quality disc all around. Fantastic ATMOS!
When I re-spun IT again yesterday, it was on the JVC at 120" and felt substantially more Creepy 
at nearly 4X the size with all the lights off in the basement cave 










So Much AWESOMENESS!!!


----------



## gene4ht

PioManiac said:


> The 4K/UHD looked Stunning on my 65" OLED in Dolby Vision,* reference quality disc all around.* Fantastic ATMOS!
> When I re-spun IT again yesterday, it was on the JVC at 120" and felt substantially more Creepy
> at nearly 4X the size with all the lights off in the basement cave
> 
> So Much AWESOMENESS!!!


Agreed! A 100"+ image is stunning and takes it to an entirely new immersive level!


----------



## kokishin

PioManiac said:


> The 4K/UHD looked Stunning on my 65" OLED in Dolby Vision, reference quality disc all around. Fantastic ATMOS!
> When I re-spun IT again yesterday, it was on the JVC at 120" and felt substantially more Creepy
> at nearly 4X the size with all the lights off in the basement cave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Much AWESOMENESS!!!


Noticed you have a Panny DMP-UB900 and Oppo UPD-203. Which one do you prefer?


----------



## PioManiac

kokishin said:


> Noticed you have a Panny DMP-UB900 and Oppo UPD-203. Which one do you prefer?


LOL! I have an XBO X Scorpio too and I Love them ALL!

Each has a place in my system for different reasons.

The UB900 was first, the best player for JVC projectors at the time (mid 2016)
Fantastic 4K/UHD and 4K up-conversion of 1080p Blurays.

When I added a 65" OLED, I had to have a Dolby Vision capable 4K player too.
So the Oppo 203 was the Best available unti for that, also plays audio SACD's
...and has a Region Free mod for my imported UK 3D blurays for the JVC.

The XBO X is the only current unit that plays 4K Netflix ATMOS titles.
...Plus awesome 4K/HDR/ATMOS Games! 

Forza 7 at ~9' wide makes the cars almost life size


----------



## jjackkrash

I watched Zero Dark Thirty in 4k/Atmos last night. I really like the opening with the black screen and just multiple audio news feeds about the attacks unfolding with the events and playing over each other. In Atmos, they all came from different places and it _really_ added an element of organized chaos to the opening. I loved what Atmos did for that opening scene.


----------



## kokishin

PioManiac said:


> LOL! I have an XBO X Scorpio too and I Love them ALL!
> 
> Each has a place in my system for different reasons.
> 
> The UB900 was first, the best player for JVC projectors at the time (mid 2016)
> Fantastic 4K/UHD and 4K up-conversion of 1080p Blurays.
> 
> When I added a 65" OLED, I had to have a Dolby Vision capable 4K player too.
> So the Oppo 203 was the Best available unti for that, also plays audio SACD's
> ...and has a Region Free mod for my imported UK 3D blurays for the JVC.
> 
> The XBO X is the only current unit that plays 4K Netflix ATMOS titles.
> ...Plus awesome 4K/HDR/ATMOS Games!
> 
> Forza 7 at ~9' wide makes the cars almost life size


You've got UHD covered as well as various permutations. 

Check back in with you when 8K upgrade cycle starts.


----------



## G-Rex

I am finally doing the Atmos upgrade. I am installing 2 Katherine Egglestonworks in-wall/on-wall speakers on the rear portion of angled cathedral sloping ceiling. A finished cavity will be built on the sides and in back of the speaker, creating a finished space. The speakers have ports on the front face of the speaker only. I may have custom speaker cloth grills made or stretch fabric across the entire speaker cavity so the install looks unobtrusive, clean and finished. In the alternative, I may do metal with fine pinholed custom grills and then have them painted to match the multicolored black and gold ceiling paint. 

*Note that 2 more Katherine Atmos speakers will be mounted high up above the screen on the wall angled down at the listener. 

http://www.centrecircleaudio.com.my/ViewCatalog.asp?ID=39&CatId=16&RowId=8&Sortid=&

They will be installed at the approx location where the tweeter points to the listener’s head when reclined. I can put them higher up on the ceiling and built a tilt down on the engraved speaker so the angle is aimed a bit more down at the listener. I know, not text book, but I need to work with the constrains of the room. Should sound excellent due to the quality of the speaker and large dispersion pattern of the drivers (Esotar tweeters). 

Any advice or suggestions are welcome. 

*Do you think the speakers should be mounted higher on the angled ceiling, closer to being above the listener (a foot or so behind the listener)? To do this, I would build the box deeper, and mount the speaker at a slight angle down in the box down so the tweeter points downward a bit more (as opposed to flush with the ceiling which sends the speaker at a lower position on the ceiling and a bit more behind the viewer)? Maybe 3’ or so behind the reclined listener.

The concern would be, with the face of the speaker at a slight angle in the box, the mid/woofer driver would be pushed deeper in the box so there would be a risk of cabinet interaction (reflection,distortion). Not so much with the tweeter because it would be pushed a bit out of the box, beyond the plane of the ceiling.


----------



## gene4ht

kokishin said:


> Noticed you have a Panny DMP-UB900 and Oppo UPD-203. Which one do you prefer?





PioManiac said:


> Each has a place in my system for different reasons.


I'm largely in agreement with PioManiac...

I also have three UHD players and from a pure image perspective, one would be hard pressed to say that image quality varies dramatically...4K and upscaled 4K just looks good period. The differences are in the feature sets, speed of operation, support capability, and perceived build quality. The Panny DMP-UB900, however, does have one nice feature called the "Dynamic Range Slider" that can simply and easily adjust brightness for HDR content...particularly useful for projector owners. Otherwise, feature needs, personal preferences, and budget would be the determining factors.


----------



## pasender91

dimanata2007 said:


> Howdy. My HT room is 12x16 ft, 8ft ceiling. What would be a better option for the front height speakers, a pair of wide dispersion surrounds like Klipsch RS-7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or a pair of conventional small bookshelf speakers like Klipsch R-15m?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the RS-7 would work better, since they are wide dispersion, do I need to worry about reflection off the side walls? How wide or how close to the corners do I mount them? Do I really need to mount them right under the ceiling or 5-6' off the floor is acceptable?
> Thanks.


Hi, 

R-15m definitely.

To explain why, let me just copy below a short extract from Dolby Atmos installation guide ... 
"Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback."


----------



## kokishin

gene4ht said:


> I'm largely in agreement with PioManiac...
> 
> I also have three UHD players and from a pure image perspective, one would be hard pressed to say that image quality varies dramatically...4K and upscaled 4K just looks good period. The differences are in the feature sets, speed of operation, support capability, and perceived build quality. The Panny DMP-UB900, however, does have one nice feature called the "Dynamic Range Slider" that can simply and easily adjust brightness for HDR content...particularly useful for projector owners. Otherwise, feature needs, personal preferences, and budget would be the determining factors.


Thanks. I own an Oppo 103 mostly because I play SACD's and DVD-A's as well as BD's. Will probably go with the 203 when I upgrade to 4K.


----------



## dimanata2007

CBdicX said:


> If your side walls are both on the same distance to the RS-7, this should word fine.
> I like the "bounce" effect as it give the impression that the speakers are in the surround spot, even they are on the back wall like mine Dipoles.


If I mount the RS-7 directly above the fronts the left RS will be about 1.5 ft from the side wall and the right one will be about 3-3.5 ft from the right wall. Due to the sub and furniture placement I can't move my fronts neither left or right. My main listening position is off center, so fronts and TV are off set to the left. Should I mount the left RS lets say 2-2.5 ft from the side wall to equalize the left-to-right distance a bit or they have to be exactly at the same distance from the side wall?



pasender91 said:


> Hi,
> 
> R-15m definitely.
> 
> To explain why, let me just copy below a short extract from Dolby Atmos installation guide ...
> "Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback."


I've seen it, but the RS-7 are neither dipoles or bipoles, they are WDST (Wide Dispersion Surround Technology) hybrids, all drivers fire at the same time, like a bipole, but they are designed to give a more diffuse sound, like a dipole.


----------



## CBdicX

dimanata2007 said:


> If I mount the RS-7 directly above the fronts the left RS will be about 1.5 ft from the side wall and the right one will be about 3-3.5 ft from the right wall. Due to the sub and furniture placement I can't move my fronts neither left or right. My main listening position is off center, so fronts and TV are off set to the left. Should I mount the left RS lets say 2-2.5 ft from the side wall to equalize the left-to-right distance a bit or they have to be exactly at the same distance from the side wall?.



You can try, think Audyssye will take care of the tiny differents in distance, the same distance would be perfect but think you are ok.........


----------



## Mrjmc99

jjackkrash said:


> I watched Zero Dark Thirty in 4k/Atmos last night. I really like the opening with the black screen and just multiple audio news feeds about the attacks unfolding with the events and playing over each other. In Atmos, they all came from different places and it _really_ added an element of organized chaos to the opening. I loved what Atmos did for that opening scene.


The integration scenes are amazing as well, I thought the chains were coming out of the ceiling.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dchabby

so I finally caved in and bought an atmos receiver and some in ceiling speakers and cant wait to try them out !

Thing is that my current location for the theatre area is temporary and I don't want to put holes in the ceiling but really want to try out atmos so I can be rest assured that I will like it and keep the receiver and speakers.

Is there a somewhat easy way to secure speakers on/close to the ceiling that is temporary and non invasive to the ceiling ?

Speakers are Polk RC60i if that matters - https://www.amazon.ca/Polk-Audio-RC...pID=41uukWBTF9L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## gene4ht

dchabby said:


> so I finally caved in and bought an atmos receiver and some in ceiling speakers and cant wait to try them out !
> 
> Thing is that my current location for the theatre area is temporary and I don't want to put holes in the ceiling but really want to try out atmos so I can be rest assured that I will like it and keep the receiver and speakers.
> 
> *Is there a somewhat easy way to secure speakers on/close to the ceiling that is temporary and non invasive to the ceiling ?*
> 
> Speakers are Polk RC60i if that matters - https://www.amazon.ca/Polk-Audio-RC...pID=41uukWBTF9L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


Your question comes up fairly often. Some members have constructed simple to elaborate frames (using 2x2's, 2x4's, metal channels, ladder supports, etc.) near their ceilings with the ability to slide speakers along the frames. However, a very simple and least expensive method was posted by @*javan robinson* last December...cost = pizza and beer 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1589.html#post55403942


----------



## Roger Dressler

G-Rex said:


> I am finally doing the Atmos upgrade. I am installing 2 Katherine Egglestonworks in-wall/on-wall speakers on the rear portion of angled cathedral sloping ceiling.
> 
> *Note that 2 more Katherine Atmos speakers will be mounted high up above the screen on the wall angled down at the listener.
> 
> They will be installed at the approx location where the tweeter points to the listener’s head when reclined.
> 
> *Do you think the speakers should be mounted higher on the angled ceiling, closer to being above the listener (a foot or so behind the listener)?


As for speaker positions, I would suggest finding the ideal positions, then see if those work or conflict with the physical room. 

Project the locations from the listener's head (reclining if that's the normal condition). From that position, find the compass headings for ±45° and ±135°. From each heading, look at an elevation of 45°. Put your laser pointer in a swivel-head tripod.  Can the speakers be mounted anywhere near those locations? If so, that's a good start. 

As for aiming, I am of the school that speakers should aim at the listeners. In your case, if the dispersion is particularly wide, that reduces this concern. In addition, if there's only one listening position (??) then the off-axis issues of response or level rolloff are less of an issue, no one is there. And finally, the room EQ will help compensate for issues like off-axis rolloff and even some cavity resonance that is not tamed by stuffing absorption around the speaker's cabinet.


----------



## guitarguy316

I ran audyssey today on my denon x3300. For the overhead speakers, I?m using svs prime elevation. Do people normally add a little extra to the overhead to really bring them out? Maybe up the audyssey output by 3dB?


----------



## T-Bone

guitarguy316 said:


> I ran audyssey today on my denon x3300. For the overhead speakers, I?m using svs prime elevation. Do people normally add a little extra to the overhead to really bring them out? Maybe up the audyssey output by 3dB?


I used to religiously boost my surrounds two to three DB. Cuz I like the effect. And then I did that with my Atmos ceiling speakers too.

But now I don't. Mainly because with the Atmos, boosting the the levels would change where the sound comes from in terms of height above me according to the feedback I received here.

I am very happy with the atmos effects I'm getting now.... And all of the speakers are calibrated for the same DB at the listening position.

-T


----------



## tezster

guitarguy316 said:


> I ran audyssey today on my denon x3300. For the overhead speakers, I?m using svs prime elevation. Do people normally add a little extra to the overhead to really bring them out? Maybe up the audyssey output by 3dB?


I boost my height channels trim for a couple of reasons:


They are the least capable speakers in my setup
They aren't pointed directly at the MLP, so they're not providing ideal on-axis response
I use Dynamic EQ regularly, which boosts LFE and surround channel content at volumes below reference, but it doesn't increase levels of the overhead channels.
Dolby Surround Upmixer tends to be quite subtle when it comes to overhead channel utilization.
My surrounds are mounted at standing ear height, instead of being lower (closer to seated ear height), as recommended for an Atmos configuration. So increasing the overhead trim helps with creating artificial separation.
I simply like it better that way


----------



## G-Rex

Roger Dressler said:


> As for speaker positions, I would suggest finding the ideal positions, then see if those work or conflict with the physical room.
> 
> Project the locations from the listener's head (reclining if that's the normal condition). From that position, find the compass headings for ±45° and ±135°. From each heading, look at an elevation of 45°. Put your laser pointer in a swivel-head tripod.  Can the speakers be mounted anywhere near those locations? If so, that's a good start.
> 
> As for aiming, I am of the school that speakers should aim at the listeners. In your case, if the dispersion is particularly wide, that reduces this concern. In addition, if there's only one listening position (??) then the off-axis issues of response or level rolloff are less of an issue, no one is there. And finally, the room EQ will help compensate for issues like off-axis rolloff and even some cavity resonance that is not tamed by stuffing absorption around the speaker's cabinet.


Hello Roger, Thanks for the response. Due to the 3 different intersecting flat angled planes of the ceiling, there is very few spaces where the speakers can be mounted up front. Last time I measured, I recall the available location was about 35 degrees from the listener’s reclined position. So about 10 degrees off/less than ideal, but the speakers are very high up and with a good tilt down, they may sound very good (I would think). They do need to be closer than the spec specifies though. Only about 4’ will separate the 2 Katherine cabinets that are installed on their side. I will map things out with the laser one more time before holes are cut into the ceiling, but again, that can only help so much due to the constraints of the room 

As far as the rear Atmos speakers go, if I mounted them at the text book 145 degrees, they would be 1) too low due to the sloping downward ceiling and 2) getting too close to the back surrounds that are only a few feet away. Due to the sloped ceiling angle, the tweeters may be aimed too low if installed at the 145 degree location. This is why I was thinking of cheating them forward a bit, to about 130 degrees, which will get the speakers away from the back surrounds, make them higher up on the ceiling, and bring the tweeter trajectory towards the listener. I think if I move them further forward and more overhead, I may be getting too far out of spec. 

There is only one large curved row of 4 chairs with wedges, so the chairs span across maybe 13’ or so. So there are 4 listening positions. So I was thinking of mounting them a bit further apart than the front Atmos speakers, which will help compensate for the narrower Atmos sound field up front.


----------



## Roger Dressler

G-Rex said:


> Hello Roger, Thanks for the response. Due to the 3 different intersecting flat angled planes of the ceiling, there is very few spaces where the speakers can be mounted up front. Last time I measured, I recall the available location was about 35 degrees from the listener’s reclined position. So about 10 degrees off/less than ideal, but the speakers are very high up and with a good tilt down, they may sound very good (I would think).


I agree. 35 degrees is more than enough to perceive a distinct height effect.



> As far as the rear Atmos speakers go, if I mounted them at the text book 145 degrees, they would be 1) too low due to the sloping downward ceiling and 2) getting too close to the back surrounds that are only a few feet away. Due to the sloped ceiling angle, the tweeters may be aimed too low if installed at the 145 degree location. This is why I was thinking of cheating them forward a bit, to about 130 degrees, which will get the speakers away from the back surrounds, make them higher up on the ceiling, and bring the tweeter trajectory towards the listener. I think if I move them further forward and more overhead, I may be getting too far out of spec.


Actually, IMHO, 130 is closer to my goal than 145 (I suggested 135), so 130 is great.



> There is only one large curved row of 4 chairs with wedges, so the chairs span across maybe 13’ or so. So there are 4 listening positions. So I was thinking of mounting them a bit further apart than the front Atmos speakers, which will help compensate for the narrower Atmos sound field up front.


Further apart is not a problem. No matter where the speaker is, it will be difficult to localize once the show starts.  Keeping them distinct from the other surrounds is the main point.


----------



## CBdicX

usc1995 said:


> Not to go too far off topic but is that shot of the speaker on the wall in your room? I like what you are doing with the records as art. Do you have a build thread you could link or share any more photos? I would love to see more of the room.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Hi, here is my setup, i do use Auro 3D for 95% of Music, TV and 100% for movies, and thats Auro 3D with VOG.
The VOG speakers are KEF T101, the other speakers and Subwoofer are all the Magnat Cinema Ultra THX serie. 
The receiver is a Denon X6400H.


Sorry to mention Auro in this Atmos forum.......


----------



## kokishin

CBdicX said:


> Hi, here is my setup, i do use Auro 3D for 95% of Music, TV and 100% for movies, and thats Auro 3D with VOG.
> The VOG speakers are KEF T101, the other speakers and Subwoofer are all the Magnat Cinema Ultra THX serie.
> The receiver is a Denon X6400H.
> 
> 
> Sorry to mention Auro in this Atmos forum.......


Nice setup but I think you needs a bigger, brighter clock.


----------



## CBdicX

kokishin said:


> nice setup but i think you needs a bigger, brighter clock.


lol


----------



## G-Rex

Roger Dressler said:


> I agree. 35 degrees is more than enough to perceive a distinct height effect.
> 
> Actually, IMHO, 130 is closer to my goal than 145 (I suggested 135), so 130 is great.
> 
> Further apart is not a problem. No matter where the speaker is, it will be difficult to localize once the show starts.  Keeping them distinct from the other surrounds is the main point.


Good to hear that the front Atmos speakers will be perceived as a height channel, due to their angle and height. In a reclined position on the 15” riser, the front Atmos speakers are still 8’ above the listener and 15’ away. So not a bad angle to perceive height. 

I was typing late and made a bit of a miscalculation re the 130 deg back position. That is getting me too close to the back surrounds, which as you mentioned, is critical. Maybe I should cheat the angle up a bit to ensure speaker separation with the surrounds. 100 deg is almost over head (12” behind the listener), 110 deg is about 24” behind) 120 deg is about 24” behind. 130 deg is getting too close to the back surrounds due to the angled ceiling lowering them as the go back into the room. 

The higher the speakers are on the ceiling, the more likely I will need to position them with a slight downward tilt in the box. The mid/woofer interaction with the acoustic foam lined cabinet shouldnt be too big a concern. At 100 deg or so I would need to tilt them, and as I get closer 115 or 120 degrees I would not.


----------



## guitarguy316

tezster said:


> guitarguy316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ran audyssey today on my denon x3300. For the overhead speakers, I?m using svs prime elevation. Do people normally add a little extra to the overhead to really bring them out? Maybe up the audyssey output by 3dB?
> 
> 
> 
> I boost my height channels trim for a couple of reasons:
> 
> 
> They are the least capable speakers in my setup
> They aren't pointed directly at the MLP, so they're not providing ideal on-axis response
> I use Dynamic EQ regularly, which boosts LFE and surround channel content at volumes below reference, but it doesn't increase levels of the overhead channels.
> Dolby Surround Upmixer tends to be quite subtle when it comes to overhead channel utilization.
> My surrounds are mounted at standing ear height, instead of being lower (closer to seated ear height), as recommended for an Atmos configuration. So increasing the overhead trim helps with creating artificial separation.
> I simply like it better that way
Click to expand...

What?s a good start at boosting based on my results? Add +3dB to each?


----------



## jjackkrash

kokishin said:


> Nice setup but I think you needs a bigger, brighter clock.


Flavor Flav!


----------



## usc1995

CBdicX said:


> Hi, here is my setup, i do use Auro 3D for 95% of Music, TV and 100% for movies, and thats Auro 3D with VOG.
> The VOG speakers are KEF T101, the other speakers and Subwoofer are all the Magnat Cinema Ultra THX serie.
> The receiver is a Denon X6400H.
> 
> 
> Sorry to mention Auro in this Atmos forum.......




Thanks for posting the pictures! I think the wall of album art looks really good and makes a really interesting accent wall. To me the return of big album art is the best part of the vinyl resurgence. I have read that Auro is the best of the upmixers for music but I have yet to experience it for myself. I guess you are in Europe? I think Auro is much more popular over there than here in the US as I don’t know anyone with a proper Auro setup. Thanks for sharing!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

usc1995 said:


> Thanks for posting the pictures! I think the wall of album art looks really good and makes a really interesting accent wall. To me the return of big album art is the best part of the vinyl resurgence. I have read that Auro is the best of the upmixers for music but I have yet to experience it for myself. I guess you are in Europe? I think Auro is much more popular over there than here in the US as I don’t know anyone with a proper Auro setup. Thanks for sharing!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Indeed Auro is relative popular in Europ, problem is content but Auro-Matic compensates for the lack of content.
I play all my movies with Auro-Matic, Atmos, DD, DTS, DTSX.
The problem i have with Auro and Stereo (music) is that Auro 2 and 3D puts to much signal to the Fronts L/R.
For Music ok, but for Stereo TV channels its not nice, talk is coming from L/R instade the Center, i use DSU for TV stereo channels, but then no VOG.
Also Auro 3D laks Surround Back because for 99% Auro receivers Auro 10.1 is used, Auro 13.1 has Surround Back but there is only one Denon receiver at the moment with Auro 13.1, and thats the expecive X8500H.


----------



## stikle

I decided to hook up all of my speakers at this point in time to figure out final positions. I also discovered I had two wires labeled the same so I fixed that. I brought in two of the seats so I could test the riser height as well as front to back seating positions.

I decided that I needed to raise the rear back surrounds a bit because they were being blocked by the rear seats. I've never had two rows before, so it's an interesting challenge figuring out where the speakers need to be to best cover both. I also decided to move the surround L/R speakers towards the rear just a little to provide better imaging to the rear row.










The overhead load bearing beam and support post will be removed as they have been relocated to the front wall. Ignore the small speakers above the L/R - they were temporary until I brought out the real L/R. 

I am really happy overall at this point. Even with no carpet, room treatments, or finished walls, it's sounding _really_ good after a little Audyssey magic.










And also, Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague really is pretty special. I'm a big fan of his work so I picked this up when it was mentioned earlier in this thread. It's the first thing I demod when I got everything functional. It sounds really, really good.


----------



## unretarded

While a borderline horror/thriller movie..........the surround/upmixing for ceiling/surrounds is outstanding.


This takes place under ground and the use of surrounds and the ceiling speakers is over the top, best upmixed sound I have ever heard.....the ceiling speakers and surrounds are very active.


This was watched on DVD, if you have this title or see it cheap, it well worth it for the sound...it is over the top for sure.


----------



## usc1995

javan robinson said:


> Glad to know that I'm not the only one!
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, it has to be something with the amount of data that's being streamed during 4k/HDR/Atmos titles, right? That can't be healthy! lol (easy)




So today I was watching Altered Carbon episode 3 and there were lots of pops and clicks to the point it was very distracting. I changed the audio stream from Dolby Atmos to the regular English audio stream and the pops and clicks went away. If I changed it back to Atmos then the pops and clicks returned. I exited out of the Netflix app by starting the Amazon app and then returned to the Netflix app to try again. This time there were no pops and clicks and I could watch the episode fine. There definitely some issue with the Netflix Atmos streams that is not there with their other content.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## muzz

I've never noticed pops and clicks during a movie or show, although I usually listen at -10 or above......weird.


----------



## PioManiac

stikle said:


> I decided to hook up all of my speakers at this point in time to figure out final positions. I also discovered I had two wires labeled the same so I fixed that. I brought in two of the seats so I could test the riser height as well as front to back seating positions.
> 
> I decided that I needed to raise the rear back surrounds a bit because they were being blocked by the rear seats. I've never had two rows before, so it's an interesting challenge figuring out where the speakers need to be to best cover both. I also decided to move the surround L/R speakers towards the rear just a little to provide better imaging to the rear row.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overhead load bearing beam and support post will be removed as they have been relocated to the front wall. Ignore the small speakers above the L/R - they were temporary until I brought out the real L/R.
> 
> I am really happy overall at this point. Even with no carpet, room treatments, or finished walls, it's sounding _really_ good after a little Audyssey magic.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also, Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague really is pretty special. I'm a big fan of his work so I picked this up when it was mentioned earlier in this thread. It's the first thing I demod when I got everything functional. It sounds really, really good.


Good Job on NOT putting a projector and temporary screen up,
that has been proven to stall room progress significantly if you're not careful.

10 Years and counting for me  
(I still have open exposed TJI floor joists for a ceiling in my basement cave)

Turned out alright for me though because I upgraded from my original 7.1 HD HDMI 1.3 to 7.4.4 4K/UHD HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2
and I have a feeling that 7.1.6 ATMOS is just around the corner now (and HDMI 2.1)

You may want to pre-wire for 6 ceiling speakers if you haven't already.


----------



## jjackkrash

PioManiac said:


> Good Job on NOT putting a projector and temporary screen up,
> that has been proven to stall room progress significantly if you're not careful.
> 
> 10 Years and counting for me
> (I still have open exposed TJI floor joists for a ceiling in my basement cave)


OMG, I hate seeing this. I broke down and dropped an OLED and an Ascend/Rythmik 5.1.4 Atmos system in my living room mid-basement-build. Now my basement is just sitting there now with T&G exposed and a new JVC PJ and new 11 channel receiver sitting in a box growing old and obsolete. At least I got the electrical sub panel in and the mini-split installed. I need to call my buddy to get the rest of the wiring done so we can get the sheet rockers out. 

Damn, now I am depressed.


----------



## mrtickleuk

PioManiac said:


> Good Job on NOT putting a projector and temporary screen up,
> that has been proven to stall room progress significantly if you're not careful.
> 
> 10 Years and counting for me
> (I still have open exposed TJI floor joists for a ceiling in my basement cave)


Wow, you are so right about that! The problem for me is that it's my living room, so life has to continue in the room whilst things are, erm, "in progress".


----------



## Warbird7

Why does my DENON AVR-X8500H display "Dolby Surround" instead of "Dolby Atmos" while watching Netflix ATMOS content like "Altered Carbon" on my XboxOne S, even though it clearly sounds like its playing in Atmos mode?


----------



## jjackkrash

Warbird7 said:


> Why does my DENON AVR-X8500H display "Dolby Surround" instead of "Dolby Atmos" while watching Netflix ATMOS content like "Altered Carbon" on my XboxOne S, even though it clearly sounds like its playing in Atmos mode?


Did you download the Atmos App on the XBOXOne S? The Denon might be upmixing to simulated Atmos.


----------



## PioManiac

jjackkrash said:


> Did you download the Atmos App on the XBOXOne S? The Denon might be upmixing to simulated Atmos.


My Yamaha displays ATMOS on my the front panel during Netflix ATMOS titles through my XBO X
regardless of whether the audio is set to "Straight" or having "Dolby Surround" upmix engaged.

...So I tend to leave it on Dolby Surround so any non ATMOS content automatically gets played on all speakers.
Kind of a one-size-fits-all set it and forget it solution.


I've posted screen shots of all the XBO ATMOS settings for Netflix and Disc playback in this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/141-xbox-area/2951892-xbox-one-x-dolby-atmos-blu-ray-playback.html#post55557274










:nerd:


----------



## richlife

PioManiac said:


> Good Job on NOT putting a projector and temporary screen up,
> that has been proven to stall room progress significantly if you're not careful.
> 
> 10 Years and counting for me
> (I still have open exposed TJI floor joists for a ceiling in my basement cave)
> 
> Turned out alright for me though because I upgraded from my original 7.1 HD HDMI 1.3 to 7.4.4 4K/UHD HDMI 2.0a/HDCP 2.2
> and I have a feeling that 7.1.6 ATMOS is just around the corner now (and HDMI 2.1)
> 
> You may want to pre-wire for 6 ceiling speakers if you haven't already.


Interesting comments here and in the following responses. Just yesterday after years and years (at least 10) of considering options, locations and "yes or no", we finally decided that, yes -- we will, within the next year or two, sell and move from our "permanent" home of 25 years. Slightly sad and depressed to give up on all that we have loved for so long, but also quite excited about the many options this may present. 

A good example that I never even considered while thinking of such a move, is the option that opens to start from "scratch" with a new dedicated HT! My living room has been great for this, but now most anything is open from new equipment (at the time needed which will be approximately when I figured my "future-proof" would expire) to a dedicated HT room -- unlike 25 years ago, this time we have a better idea of "what can be". (25 years ago it was a 13" CRT sitting on a shelf and a nice stereo now all long gone.)

So yeah, Pio (and others) -- I'll be sure to watch out for that "temporary" solution. Thanks! 

@PioManiac -- notice that I edited to say what I meant from the start -- "new dedicated HT".


----------



## mtbdudex

Warbird7 said:


> Why does my DENON AVR-X8500H display "Dolby Surround" instead of "Dolby Atmos" while watching Netflix ATMOS content like "Altered Carbon" on my XboxOne S, even though it clearly sounds like its playing in Atmos mode?




It works for me, Atmos on my basement Xbox1x into the 8500H and also my family room Xbox1s into my 4300H .
Go to your audio settings in the Xbox ...
FWIW, cloverfield Paradox was awesome in Atmos including front wides 



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## helvetica bold

Those of you with an Xbox and Battlefield 1 is Dolby Atmos supported? As far as I know its only supported on PC?


----------



## markmanner

*!*



markmanner said:


> Hi, thanks for the comment. They work well together, for 2 channel music and surround (even though only 5.1). It sounds so good that I wonder whether adding the ATMOS ceiling/front speakers will really help.


'


Just got my front and rear top speakers installed (still need to patch, paint and install grillsl). I ran Audyssey on it, and tried a few movies. WOW! I thought my 5.2 system sounded pretty good before, but this is over the top! (pun intended). I am pretty impressed with the improvement in the experience with the ATMOS overhead speakers installed. It was a very tough install in my very old and solidly built house (1891), due to having to drill into a plaster and lath ceiling, and then route the wires with no access from above (the media room is on the main floor, with 2nd finished level above. However, it was worth it. Even my spouse, who isn't particularly into this, thought it sounded great. Pic of part of the install below, and of the room before starting the install, and a diagram of where the speakers ended up.
Thanks for the help given me by members of this forum.
Best,
Mark


----------



## DaverJ

helvetica bold said:


> Those of you with an Xbox and Battlefield 1 is Dolby Atmos supported? As far as I know its only supported on PC?


PC only. 

This thread might be of interest:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/141-xbox-area/2941270-dolby-atmos-gaming-thread.html


----------



## gene4ht

markmanner said:


> Just got my front and rear top speakers installed (still need to patch, paint and install grillsl). I ran Audyssey on it, and tried a few movies. WOW! I thought my 5.2 system sounded pretty good before, but this is over the top! (pun intended). I am pretty impressed with the improvement in the experience with the ATMOS overhead speakers installed. It was a very tough install in my very old and solidly built house (1891), due to having to drill into a plaster and lath ceiling, and then route the wires with no access from above (the media room is on the main floor, with 2nd finished level above. However, it was worth it. Even my spouse, who isn't particularly into this, thought it sounded great. Pic of part of the install below, and of the room before starting the install, and a diagram of where the speakers ended up.
> Thanks for the help given me by members of this forum.
> Best,
> Mark


Congrats and welcome to Atmos! Great job on the install...especially with the added work necessary for the plaster and lath ceiling! Not only will you enjoy the Atmos mixes but the added benefit of the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) will have you revisiting your non Atmos titles.


----------



## Warbird7

Thanks for all the feedback guys...



mtbdudex said:


> It works for me, Atmos on my basement Xbox1x into the 8500H and also my family room Xbox1s into my 4300H. Go to your audio settings in the Xbox ...





jjackkrash said:


> Did you download the Atmos App on the XBOXOne S? The Denon might be upmixing to simulated Atmos.





PioManiac said:


> My Yamaha displays ATMOS on my the front panel during Netflix ATMOS titles through my XBO X
> regardless of whether the audio is set to "Straight" or having "Dolby Surround" upmix engaged.


Let me be a little more clear:
- I have the Atmos App on my XboxOne S.
- The XboxOne S is set to Atmos/Bitstream for Audio/BlueRay.
- Atmos BlueRay discs show in info as SOUND/SIGNAL as "DolbyAtmos / DolbyAtmos-TrueHD" (see Gravity screenshot below)
- Netflix flicks with Atmos encoding show in info as SOUND/SIGNAL as "DolbySurround/PCM" (see Carbon screenshot below)

The issue is NetFlix Atmos flick "Altered Carbon" has content in the ceiling speakers, but it is hard to tell if its by design or a result of upmixing.


----------



## unretarded

Warbird7 said:


> Thanks for all the feedback guys...
> 
> Let me be a little more clear:
> .



If the front of the AVR does not show Atmos, its not Atmos......


----------



## DaverJ

Warbird7 said:


> Why does my DENON AVR-X8500H display "Dolby Surround" instead of "Dolby Atmos" while watching Netflix ATMOS content like "Altered Carbon" on my XboxOne S, even though it clearly sounds like its playing in Atmos mode?


Is your Netflix subscription the UltraHD plan?


----------



## batpig

Warbird7 said:


> Let me be a little more clear:
> - I have the Atmos App on my XboxOne S.
> - The XboxOne S is set to Atmos/Bitstream for Audio/BlueRay.
> - Atmos BlueRay discs show in info as SOUND/SIGNAL as "DolbyAtmos / DolbyAtmos-TrueHD" (see Gravity screenshot below)
> - Netflix flicks with Atmos encoding show in info as SOUND/SIGNAL as "DolbySurround/PCM" (see Carbon screenshot below)
> 
> The issue is NetFlix Atmos flick "Altered Carbon" has content in the ceiling speakers, but it is hard to tell if its by design or a result of upmixing.





unretarded said:


> If the front of the AVR does not show Atmos, its not Atmos......


Also note that the receiver is reporting the input signal as 7.1ch PCM, which means the Xbox has already decoded the audio (so if there was Atmos, the receiver can't see it).

It's possible this is a settings issue on the Xbox (since it should theoretically be bitstreaming the Dolby Digital Plus audio from Netflix) and it's also possible it's just an HDMI handshake glitch. In the latter case, doing a "soft reset" where you unplug all the HDMI cables and then pull the power plugs for a few minutes, then plug everything back in, could clear it up.


----------



## Warbird7

batpig said:


> Also note that the receiver is reporting the input signal as 7.1ch PCM, which means the Xbox has already decoded the audio (so if there was Atmos, the receiver can't see it).
> 
> It's possible this is a settings issue on the Xbox (since it should theoretically be bitstreaming the Dolby Digital Plus audio from Netflix) and it's also possible it's just an HDMI handshake glitch. In the latter case, doing a "soft reset" where you unplug all the HDMI cables and then pull the power plugs for a few minutes, then plug everything back in, could clear it up.


Thank You Sir 



unretarded said:


> If the front of the AVR does not show Atmos, its not Atmos......


Right, I was reaching...



DaverJ said:


> Is your Netflix subscription the UltraHD plan?


Bingo DaverJ ! I had the HD plan. Now it works.

*Solved: Let it be known henceforth ... Atmos content is only available in the Netflix "Ultra HD" subscription plan.*


----------



## PioManiac

Warbird7 said:


> Thank You Sir
> 
> 
> Right, I was reaching...
> 
> 
> Bingo DaverJ ! I had the HD plan. Now it works.
> 
> *Solved: Let it be known henceforth ... Atmos content is only available in the Netflix "Ultra HD" subscription plan.*


Wait Wut? there's a non 4K/HDR/DV/ATMOS version of Netflix?


----------



## Warbird7

PioManiac said:


> Wait Wut, there's a non 4K/HDR/DV/ATMOS version of Netflix?
> Why


Guess my Ears are bigger than my Eyes.
I mean who else would spend many thousands of $ enabling four itty bitty additional speakers to get atmos,
And only have a VT60 for visuals?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Warbird7 said:


> Guess my Ears are bigger than my Eyes.
> I mean who else would spend many thousands of $ enabling four itty bitty additional speakers to get atmos,
> And only have a VT60 for visuals?


People who can't spend all the money all at the same time?


----------



## dschulz

Warbird7 said:


> Guess my Ears are bigger than my Eyes.
> I mean who else would spend many thousands of $ enabling four itty bitty additional speakers to get atmos,
> And only have a VT60 for visuals?


And what, pray tell, is better than a VT60 for visuals? I wouldn't swap my plasma for anything short of a dedicated room with a projector.


----------



## theaterofpain

I would like to point out that Atmos is so yesterday... the new frontier will be Flooros or Groundos (also by Dolby, of course), where you better be prewired to accept a bass-centric track firing up from where your feet are. I'm kidding... or am I? There will be proprietary speakers that Dolby licenses that will attach to the bottom of your existing tower speaks and shoot the sound along the floor and then, magically, the sound waves will travel up (after you install a patented ramp in front of your feet, of course).


----------



## PioManiac

theaterofpain said:


> I would like to point out that Atmos is so yesterday... the new frontier will be Flooros or Groundos (also by Dolby, of course), where you better be prewired to accept a bass-centric track firing up from where your feet are. I'm kidding... or am I? There will be proprietary speakers that Dolby licenses that will attach to the bottom of your existing tower speaks and shoot the sound along the floor and then, magically, the sound waves will travel up (after you install a patented ramp in front of your feet, of course).


Actually Bass-Shakers and Crowsons have that covered already 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/1450832-official-crowson-tactile-motion-actuators-thread.html

You can't hear higher frequencies from below you, (unless you are in a screened lawn chair and have ears in your arse LOL!)


----------



## PioManiac

dschulz said:


> And what, pray tell, is better than a VT60 for visuals? I wouldn't swap my plasma for anything short of a dedicated room with a projector.


----------



## theaterofpain

PioManiac said:


> Actually Bass-Shakers and Crowsons have that covered already


I wasn't thinking of transducers... I meant like a bass channel (a step before normal LFE crossovers) being shot at your face so that you can HEAR the stuff on a floor (not feel it like a transducer) mirrored on the screen. The point I was trying to make is that although Atmos makes sense we can take it to extremes like back into the realm of Smellovision... eventually there will be water shot into your face and back plungers like at those 4D amusement park theaters. The question then is if Atmos will be the last evolution in home theaters tech before we go to VR and neural implants.


----------



## PioManiac




----------



## Warbird7

dschulz said:


> And what, pray tell, is better than a VT60 for visuals? I wouldn't swap my plasma for anything short of a dedicated room with a projector.


Yes well, perhaps it would be better to say the Ears are still catching up to the Eyes. I just got my TC-P60VT60 a month ago, have been looking for five years. I am stunned by the clarity. It s like Elon said about no atmospheric aberrations when looking at Starman in the Roadster. Its so real it looks fake. But I gush...

More productively...I want to point out one issue I'm chasing as a result of not having a HDPC 2.2 compliant panel. I'm getting a random HDPC 2.2 error from the XboxOne S (see pix). I haven't tracked the cause down quite yet. It goes away after a hard Xbox reset (hold the power button down).
It occurs when I'm switching back and forth between the NetFlix App and the BlueRay App (with a 4K disc loaded). I noticed it before upgrading NetFlix to UltraHD. I believe its the BlueRay App looking for a handshake with the TV. Need to research HDCP 2.2...

EDIT: I'm veering off [Dolby Atmos] thread topic here


----------



## m. zillch

theaterofpain said:


> I wasn't thinking of transducers... I meant like a bass channel (a step before normal LFE crossovers) being shot at your face so that you can HEAR the stuff on a floor


There have already been surround [or do we call it "immersive" these days?] sound systems on the market that ideally needed floor speakers firing up at the listener from below.








Ambisonics is probably one of the better known versions but very few people had the means to set it up in this sort of deluxe configuration.


----------



## mrtickleuk

m. zillch said:


> There have already been surround [or do we call it "immersive" these days?] sound systems on the market that ideally needed floor speakers firing up at the listener from below.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambisonics is probably one of the better known versions but very few people had the means to set it up in this sort of deluxe configuration.


That's not deluxe, that looks like a prison cell!


----------



## theaterofpain

Hilarious.... so this company has a corresponding 30 channel (is that how many speaker this cell has) processor and authors its own 30 channel media for distribution to those folks to have this ridiculous tripping hazard of a setup? Or, is it just a 7.1.4 setup that just sends the same two surround audio channels to like 15 of the speakers?


----------



## kokishin

m. zillch said:


> There have already been surround [or do we call it "immersive" these days?] sound systems on the market that ideally needed floor speakers firing up at the listener from below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambisonics is probably one of the better known versions but very few people had the means to set it up in this sort of deluxe configuration.


From a Japanese website. Use the google or bing translator:
http://www.ais.riec.tohoku.ac.jp/Lab2/3Dsound/index.html


----------



## PioManiac

mrtickleuk said:


> That's not deluxe, that looks like a prison cell!


x2!

immediately had a Harley Quinn flashback


----------



## snpanago

mrtickleuk said:


> That's not deluxe, that looks like a prison cell!


I think I saw Hannibal Lecter in this in The Silence of the Lambs.


----------



## m. zillch

theaterofpain said:


> Hilarious.... so this company has a corresponding 30 channel (is that how many speaker this cell has) processor and authors its own 30 channel media for distribution to those folks to have this ridiculous tripping hazard of a setup? Or, is it just a 7.1.4 setup that just sends the same two surround audio channels to like 15 of the speakers?


Well although I was technically a dealer for it at one point [only because a few very expensive processors liked adding it to their giant kitchen sink list of acronyms for bragging rights: CDDVDBDHDCDDVDASACDPROLOGICIIEXZBINAURALSteeringLogic7UHJ] I don't know too much about it. Similarly to Dolby Atmos you told it how many speakers you had and where they were and it would intelligently remap what goes where. The added channels were matrixed into the recording.

For people into classical music many Nimbus recordings, at least at the time, were said to be Ambisonic encoded but a few rock albums used it too, including one by Paul McCartney and this one:
[For those of you without Ambisonic decoding try using Dolby Pro-Logic IIx Music mode for at least some sense of what it would sound like.]


----------



## Erod

m. zillch said:


> There have already been surround [or do we call it "immersive" these days?] sound systems on the market that ideally needed floor speakers firing up at the listener from below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ambisonics is probably one of the better known versions but very few people had the means to set it up in this sort of deluxe configuration.


The sharks could fit through those holes way too easily. No thanks.


----------



## Ricoflashback

snpanago said:


> I think I saw Hannibal Lecter in this in The Silence of the Lambs.


"While watching a Dolby Atmos movie, I ate his liver with a can of Fava Beans and a fine Chianti....ffffffffffffffff"


----------



## SoundChex

_*Looking less like a prison cell...*_

The NHK-JEITA 8K4K TV exhibit at CEATEC Japan 2012 appears intended to show the _room geometry feasibility_ of including an SHV display *plus 22.2 speakers* in an "average family living room" circa 2020.













Note that the 22.2 speaker config at the show is apparently a "DSP processing" variation from the nominal Hamasaki 22.2 layout, occasioned by the need to apply "Dialogue Lift" compensation consequent to use of a direct view display . . . and the missing ceiling!









It appears both the *MPEG-H 3D Audio* and *Dolby AC-4* codecs are still competing for use by NHK...?!




> *Standard Hamasaki 22.2 speaker layout...*



_


----------



## theaterofpain

When your speakers are twice as tall as your display you know the priorities are skewed and you're just an audio guy. Similarly, here on AVS we have the "problem" of folks whose frontal square footage of their audio setup is twice as large as their screen's square footage. Again, nothing wrong with it except you get classified as loving audio more than video. A 50/50 mix prevents Jack from being a dull boy.


----------



## awblackmon

Uh oh. My theater room isn't tall enough to the NHK setup. I think I am just under 8 feet. Those towers looked much taller.


----------



## VideoGrabber

theaterofpain said:


> Hilarious.... so this company has a corresponding 30 channel (is that how many speaker this cell has) processor and authors its own 30 channel media for distribution to those folks to have this ridiculous tripping hazard of a setup? Or, is it just a 7.1.4 setup that just sends the same two surround audio channels to like 15 of the speakers?


Come on, guys.  Can you really not grasp the concept of *a research lab, testing out concepts*?

Why all the juvenile mockery? 



> ...for distribution to those folks to have this ridiculous tripping hazard of a setup


No one ever made such a claim.


----------



## Nalleh

32 channels? Pish-posh, here’s 64  











https://www.avinteractive.com/news/genelec-surrey-uni-16-07-2013/


----------



## T-Bone

So I am wondering aloud. Where is the point of diminishing returns for Atmos in the home?

We know that we hear sounds in front of us and to the side of us much more easily compared to sounds behind us. So seems like the more speakers we add behind us, even if on the ceiling or any Dome cage, only give us an incremental Improvement compared to speakers in front of us.

-T


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Did you notice this?*

For the Top Fronts and Top Rears, Dolby's Home Atmos guidelines specifies an azimuth range of resp. 30d-60d and 120d-150d. 








While not explicitly mentioned, one can only assume that the narrowest positions (30d and 150d azimuth) apply to the lowest elevations (resp. 30d and 150d), and the widest positions (60d and 120d azimuth) apply to the highest elevations (resp. 55d and 125d). The resulting minimum lateral elevations amount to 40d-45d, which is very close to the 45d from the Theatrical Atmos guidelines.

But also, and I didn't notice that before, the corresponding normal elevations (MLP perspective) are between 25d and 35d, which is remarkably identical to the Auro3D range for Front and Surround heights... Coincidence? 

I personally believe not. I think that the optimal speaker positions for DSU might be very similar to those that apply for optimal playback of natively 3D-recorded Auro3D tracks and Auromatic. They both use spatial cues / reverberant sound sent to height speakers (either natively recorded with some Auro3D tracks, or extracted/added with DSU and Auromatic). 

As Atmos is originally developed for the Cinema where DSU does not exist, these considerations are obviously not included in its original design. This might be the very reason for the discrepancies in overhead array positioning (wide at home versus much narrower in mixing studios and cinema's), and surround speaker height (ear level at home, versus much higher at mixing studios and cinema's).


----------



## Nalleh

^^^ Well, Wilfried has always said that Atmos would work exellent in a Auro spec setup, but not the other way around. Maybe he was right


----------



## maikeldepotter

Nalleh said:


> ^^^ Well, Wilfried has always said that Atmos would work exellent in a Auro spec setup, but not the other way around. Maybe he was right


Yes, and DSU might even sound better on a typical Auro set-up as compared to one that's optimized for Atmos playback...


----------



## T-Bone

maikeldepotter said:


> For the Top Fronts and Top Rears, Dolby's Home Atmos guidelines specifies an azimuth range of resp. 30d-60d and 120d-150d.
> [iurl="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2361014&stc=1&d=1518607513"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> While not explicitly mentioned, one can only assume that the narrowest positions (30d and 150d azimuth) apply to the lowest elevations (resp. 30d and 150d), and the widest positions (60d and 120d azimuth) apply to the highest elevations (resp. 55d and 125d).
> 
> Interestingly, the resulting minimum lateral elevations amount to 40d-45d, which is very close to Theatrical Atmos guidelines (45d). And, the corresponding normal elevations (MLP perspective) are between 25d and 35d, which is identical to the Auro3D range for Front and Surround heights... Coincidence?


Seems to me you might like that movie with Mel Gibson called conspiracy theory 

-T


----------



## maikeldepotter

T-Bone said:


> Seems to me you might like that movie with Mel Gibson called conspiracy theory
> 
> -T


I wish we would have had some real "conspiracy" amongst Dolby/DTS/Auro, so we would have ended up with better compatible layouts ...


----------



## Kadath

T-Bone said:


> So I am wondering aloud. Where is the point of diminishing returns for Atmos in the home?


I think 7.1.4 is really the limit for most homes. It gives a solid hemisphere of sound and anything beyond that is just trying to fill in gaps that may not really be there.


----------



## PioManiac

Kadath said:


> I think 7.1.4 is really the limit for most homes. It gives a solid hemisphere of sound and anything beyond that is just trying to fill in gaps that may not really be there.


I'm holding off upgrading my current 3 y/o 7.2.4 AVR in hopes Yamaha comes out with a 7.2.6 within the next year or two (and HDMI 2.1)
Currently using Front and Rear Heights (30º Front/45º Rear) and I already have an extra pair of matched speakers I could use for the Overhead middle position.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

Well depending on how crazy you are, you can build 30 channel atmos if you want, it depends on how many speakers for YOU is high enough. Some may say that they are doing fine with 5.1.4 others might want a 7.1.4, some people have 8 to 16 subwoofers in their home theater. The limit is how many speakers YOU want. Like for me the perfect i would ever build (if i had the money and space of course ) is a 9.4.6 and a 200 inch screen, maybe after 2 years i might be able to build one of those or it may take 5, 7 or 10 years, it really depends on many things.


----------



## Ladeback

PioManiac said:


> I'm holding off upgrading my current 3 y/o 7.2.4 AVR in hopes Yamaha comes out with a 7.2.6 within the next year or two (and HDMI 2.1)
> Currently using Front and Rear Heights (30º Front/45º Rear) and I already have an extra pair of matched speakers I could use for the Overhead middle position.


Marantz and Denon are coming out soon with a 13.2 Pre/Pro and AVR that will do 7.2.6. I think the Denon AVR X8500h is out, but is not cheap nor is the Marantz AV8805.


----------



## snpanago

Has anyone here started with an x.y.4 Atmos system, then later upgraded to x.y.6, that can describe the value added audio experience? Thanks.


----------



## PioManiac

Ladeback said:


> Marantz and Denon are coming out soon with a 13.2 Pre/Pro and AVR that will do 7.2.6. I think the Denon AVR X8500h is out, but is not cheap nor is the Marantz AV8805.


I know, that's why I'm waiting for Yamaha to follow suit, only brand I've used for the past 3 (close to 4) Decades.
I suspect 7.2.6 may show up in their next Flagship Pre-Pro first. (CX-A5200 is coming soon)


----------



## Ted99

T-Bone said:


> So I am wondering aloud. Where is the point of diminishing returns for Atmos in the home?
> 
> We know that we hear sounds in front of us and to the side of us much more easily compared to sounds behind us. So seems like the more speakers we add behind us, even if on the ceiling or any Dome cage, only give us an incremental Improvement compared to speakers in front of us.
> 
> -T


Exactly. I just purchased the new Denon X8500 for a great price from AVS and I'm suspecting that using 13.2 Auromatic for legacy material and 9.2.4 (wides) for Atmos will hit the point of diminishing returns. My overhead's physical location are in the Auro configuration.


----------



## Erod

Kadath said:


> I think 7.1.4 is really the limit for most homes. It gives a solid hemisphere of sound and anything beyond that is just trying to fill in gaps that may not really be there.


I think a 9.2.6 is the ideal configuration for home, and I'm not even sure about the additional two heights.


Sound behind us is not heard particularly well, but I think well-implemented wides up front would do wonders for the sound stage.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> For the Top Fronts and Top Rears, Dolby's Home Atmos guidelines specifies an azimuth range of resp. 30d-60d and 120d-150d.


The idea is still to place them in line with the front L/R speakers, which should fall within those broad azimuth ranges (if they don't, something might be wrong with placement).


> But also, and I didn't notice that before, the corresponding normal elevations (MLP perspective) are between 25d and 35d, which is remarkably identical to the Auro3D range for Front and Surround heights... Coincidence?


Yes. Neither format renders based on angles (only DTS:X does). FH & RH locations for both formats are high up on walls, so it is no surprise that they would end up with roughly the same elevation range. As with the azimuth numbers, angles are provided for emotional support, but placement is really based on the location of base layer speakers.


----------



## andresm1126

I tried searching this thread but couldn't find anything similar to my situation. I'm wondering if Atmos speakers are even worth it with my current setup, I have a 5.1 setup right now in my living room with my TV mounted on our mantle, since the mantle runs the length of the wall I have my LCR speakers on it as well (Wife refuses to do floorstanding speakers), because of this my speakers are quite a bit high and fairly apart (one on each corner of the wall) and setting the atmos speakers on top of them would put them way too close to the ceiling.
With this in mind and knowing that ceiling speakers are not an option, would it be ok for me to place the atmos speakers next to the main L/R speakers instead of the top? They would essentially be between the the L/R speaker and the center channel.

Attached is a rough picture of my setup, drawn very quickly while at work lol


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> I think a 9.2.6 is the ideal configuration for home, and I'm not even sure about the additional two heights.


I went from 5.1 to 7.1 to 11.1 (Audyssey DSX) to Atmos/DTS:X 7.2.4 to 9.3.4.

My opinion is that 4 overheads (TF/TR) is quite good if you can get them in the right place. I haven't heard 6 overheads and am not planning for them (at least I wasn't until this very moment). Adding wides to fill in that (perceived in my mind) gap opens the sound stage up more in my particular room.

So at this point, I think that the ideal home solution for most people would be 7.x.4.

That being said... Dangit @Nalleh! "What if...". 

I just realized I have an extra 2 channel amp I was never going to use again.

So I hooked it up to the 6200 Height 1 preouts, amp assigned them to Top Middle, and hooked up a couple old Klipsch speakers and...son of a gun. I can do 9.3.6! Now I have to go find two more matching Mirages. 

The weird thing is that the 9.1.6 test tones from the Sept Dolby Atmos demo disc duplicates TF to TM and TR to TM. However, as far as I can tell, in the Unbroken demo, TM is discrete. There's one point where a Zero flies from TM to TR and standing underneath them it sure sounds sounds like the start of that sound is only in TM, not TF or TR. Maybe the test tones are borked.

Anyway...overkill FTW.


----------



## SimpleTheater

PioManiac said:


> I'm holding off upgrading my current 3 y/o 7.2.4 AVR in hopes Yamaha comes out with a 7.2.6 within the next year or two (and HDMI 2.1)
> Currently using Front and Rear Heights (30º Front/45º Rear) and I already have an extra pair of matched speakers I could use for the Overhead middle position.


I already have 7.2.4 only because I couldn't wait any longer for 7.2.6. I have two rows of seats and only the front row has Atmos setup correctly (ceiling speakers in front and behind). The rear seats have them all in front, and while OK, I find myself sitting in the front row all the time now. I used to prefer to be in the rear row because of how deep bass would vibrate the riser where the 2nd row seats are placed, but it's not worth what I'm missing with the ceiling speakers front and back.

I'm still anxiously awaiting 7.2.6.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

snpanago said:


> Has anyone here started with an x.y.4 Atmos system, then later upgraded to x.y.6, that can describe the value added audio experience? Thanks.


Monsieur Hugo has tested this, not at home but with a Trinnov Altitude using only tracks from Lucy. I recall he wrote that from 7.1.4 to 9.1.4 was an altogether subtle but still noticeable upgrade, like a aural widescreen. But going from there to 9.1.6 was very subtle and much less noticeable. 

So 9.1.4 gets my vote for the point of diminishing returns.

Needless to say, I am ready and would prefer 9.1.6... Over-engineering has it's merits!


----------



## stikle

SimpleTheater said:


> I'm still anxiously awaiting 7.2.6.



You could go an unconventional route and make it work instead of waiting...


----------



## Ladeback

stikle said:


> You could go an unconventional route and make it work instead of waiting...


The Denon AVR x8500h is out now if you have the coin to pay for it. It will do 7.2.6. Ebay seems to have the best price that I have seen on line.


----------



## PioManiac

Ladeback said:


> The Denon AVR x8500h is out now if you have the coin to pay for it. It will do 7.2.6. Ebay seems to have the best price that I have seen on line.


The guy in the Van parked in the alley around the corner can beat ebay's pricing all day long,
but I won't buy electronics from either, only Authorized Dealers for me or you may not have support or Warranty coverage.

Buyer Beware


----------



## chi_guy50

PioManiac said:


> The guy in the Van parked in the alley around the corner can beat ebay's pricing all day long,
> but I won't buy electronics from either, only Authorized Dealers for me or you may not have support or Warranty coverage.
> 
> Buyer Beware


Caveat emptor, indeed!


----------



## jjackkrash

Ladeback said:


> The Denon AVR x8500h is out now if you have the coin to pay for it. It will do 7.2.6. Ebay seems to have the best price that I have seen on line.


You have to call to get the best prices on receivers from authorized dealers. They won't be posted online. Call JD at AV Science (he's a prolific forum poster) or call Electronics Expo. Both are authorized dealers and have good prices on new gear.


----------



## Ladeback

PioManiac said:


> The guy in the Van parked in the alley around the corner can beat ebay's pricing all day long,
> but I won't buy electronics from either, only Authorized Dealers for me or you may not have support or Warranty coverage.
> 
> Buyer Beware


Ebay has dealers that come with the same warranty from a local dealer. You just have to go through them. I have two Integra AVR's that I got from a local dealer and now do not work and they do not sell Integra anymore because of all the problems. My current Pre/Pro is a Integra 60.5 that I got on ebay over 2 or 3 years ago and have had no problems. I bought it new with a warranty, which is now I think passed and at a lot lower cost. The other place I have looked at is https://www.accessories4less.com/ for equipment and they give at least a one year warranty. Now they don't have the 8500 yet, but will soon I bet after it has been out a while.


----------



## sdrucker

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Monsieur Hugo has tested this, not at home but with a Trinnov Altitude using only tracks from Lucy. I recall he wrote that from 7.1.4 to 9.1.4 was an altogether subtle but still noticeable upgrade, like a aural widescreen. But going from there to 9.1.6 was very subtle and much less noticeable.
> 
> So 9.1.4 gets my vote for the point of diminishing returns.
> 
> Needless to say, I am ready and would prefer 9.1.6... Over-engineering has it's merits!


Been there, done that. At the first CEDIA demo I went to with Atmos in 2014, the Procella rep (the folks putting on the initial "high channel count" configuration) said that in his opinion, 9.1.6 was the "sweet spot" because you'd get more coherent overhead imagery while enhancing the front to side soundstage panning. Now, I'm not so sure...

I started with 7.1 when I first got my Altitude 32/24 channel 2 1/2 years ago. In order, we've done:
7.1.4 - with Dolby AE speakers
9.1.4 - adding wides at about 50-60 degrees
9.1.6 - replacing Dolby AEs with three pairs of horizontal and vertically adjustable ceiling mounted speakers
11.1.6 - adding a second pair of side surrounds at 70-75, having wides 45-50, and moving the existing sides to 105-110 degrees
13.1.6 - adding a pair of bookshelves to serve as "screen centers" between L/C and R/C at about 15 degrees

Of all of these, I would put going to 11.1.6 as the area representing the "optimal" point of adding speakers relative to sound. Why? Leaving aside the replacing of AE "bounce speakers" with physical speakers (no contest there once you've had both in your room):

For one thing, the top middle helps stabilize the overhead image from front to rear. But more than that, sometimes the top middle is used to produce sound that hovers between the height and floor layer. One movie I saw that on in particular was "Kingsman: Golden Circle", where the music score was discernible to the left of MLP using the top middle and side surround speakers. If anything, those top middles got more play than wides, and sometimes even the top rears LOL.

Wides - I was in love with them because they might help pull out the front sidestage and add dimensionality, and I drank the Kool-Aid of some guys on the $20K threads that raved about how much they added to what we heard in front and to the side of us (think ST: Into Darkness or Unbroken). However, depending on the mix they're used somewhere between "sometimes" and "never". If anything, the side surround 1 pairs, a/k/a the most frontward of the side surrounds, have more activity, which is sometimes discrete from what's in the wides (and often independent of it). 

I like having the extra pair of side surrounds because it also liberates me from needing my sides at 90 degrees, which IMO helps prevent a focus effect immediately to the side of the listener. While you have a phantom surround there, if you can do an array between the two pairs of sides for an upmixer or non-Atmos codecs, it produces a nice effect. Even better for Atmos.

In fact, if I had to only choose between "side surround 1" and "wides", and my processor supported both, I might take that side surround 1. But I agree with Hugo, and by extension Batpig, that the top middles add more IF you define "value" as being played more often. But the wides are nice on something like Westworld, the REM mix, and Mad Max (among others). Because the Westworld mix is so forward oriented, you could almost say that so heavily using the wides and side surround 1, while the true sides and rears don't do much, is "cheating" compared to typical movies, but at least they're busy!

Screen center - a vanity thing I added because I had the available channels, and the speakers I added were timbre-matched to my mains and could be picked up used from a local dealer of my speaker brand. They add some additional specialization for selected movies (War for POTA, where some sounds that were buried in the mains got pulled into the screen center more detectibly) and for the REM mix, where you get instruments pulled completely into the screen centers. Occasionally for something like the Oblivion pod fight scene and some other movies like Hacksaw Ridge. Not used as much as I had thought at first, though.

So....in the mainstream world, I think 7.1.6 is the current "value for the money" sweet spot, followed by 9.1.6 with wides or preferably the "side surround 1" if your technology can support it. But if you can do it, 11.1.6 is where I'd try to end up. Anything more than that is special purpose or for large rooms IMO, even if you DO have a Trinnov.

This is just my opinion...so take that for what it's worth. This is also an Atmos oriented POV; maybe you want a compromise layout ala The Cinema Designer or Maikeldepotter if you value Auro. And if I had a multi-row vs. a single row of three seats, I might feel differently...


----------



## mtbdudex

sdrucker said:


> Been there, done that. At the first CEDIA demo I went to with Atmos in 2014, the Procella rep (the folks putting on the initial "high channel count" configuration) said that in his opinion, 9.1.6 was the "sweet spot" because you'd get more coherent overhead imagery while enhancing the front to side soundstage panning. Now, I'm not so sure...
> 
> I started with 7.1 when I first got my Altitude 32/24 channel 2 1/2 years ago. In order, we've done:
> 7.1.4 - with Dolby AE speakers
> 9.1.4 - adding wides at about 50-60 degrees
> 9.1.6 - replacing Dolby AEs with three pairs of horizontal and vertically adjustable ceiling mounted speakers
> 11.1.6 - adding a second pair of side surrounds at 70-75, having wides 45-50, and moving the existing sides to 105-110 degrees
> 13.1.6 - adding a pair of bookshelves to serve as "screen centers" between L/C and R/C at about 15 degrees
> 
> Of all of these, I would put going to 11.1.6 as the area representing the "optimal" point of adding speakers relative to sound. Why? Leaving aside the replacing of AE "bounce speakers" with physical speakers (no contest there once you've had both in your room):
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, the top middle helps stabilize the overhead image from front to rear. But more than that, sometimes the top middle is used to produce sound that hovers between the height and floor layer. One movie I saw that on in particular was "Kingsman: Golden Circle", where the music score was discernible to the left of MLP using the top middle and side surround speakers. If anything, those top middles got more play than wides, and sometimes even the top rears LOL.
> 
> Wides - I was in love with them because they might help pull out the front sidestage and add dimensionality, and I drank the Kool-Aid of some guys on the $20K threads that raved about how much they added to what we heard in front and to the side of us (think ST: Into Darkness or Unbroken). However, depending on the mix they're used somewhere between "sometimes" and "never". If anything, the side surround 1 pairs, a/k/a the most frontward of the side surrounds, have more activity, which is sometimes discrete from what's in the wides (and often independent of it).
> 
> I like having the extra pair of side surrounds because it also liberates me from needing my sides at 90 degrees, which IMO helps prevent a focus effect immediately to the side of the listener. While you have a phantom surround there, if you can do an array between the two pairs of sides for an upmixer or non-Atmos codecs, it produces a nice effect. Even better for Atmos.
> 
> In fact, if I had to only choose between "side surround 1" and "wides", and my processor supported both, I might take that side surround 1. But I agree with Hugo, and by extension Batpig, that the top middles add more IF you define "value" as being played more often. But the wides are nice on something like Westworld, the REM mix, and Mad Max (among others). Because the Westworld mix is so forward oriented, you could almost say that so heavily using the wides and side surround 1, while the true sides and rears don't do much, is "cheating" compared to typical movies, but at least they're busy!
> 
> Screen center - a vanity thing I added because I had the available channels, and the speakers I added were timbre-matched to my mains and could be picked up used from a local dealer of my speaker brand. They add some additional specialization for selected movies (War for POTA, where some sounds that were buried in the mains got pulled into the screen center more detectibly) and for the REM mix, where you get instruments pulled completely into the screen centers. Occasionally for something like the Oblivion pod fight scene and some other movies like Hacksaw Ridge. Not used as much as I had thought at first, though.
> 
> So....in the mainstream world, I think 7.1.6 is the current "value for the money" sweet spot, followed by 9.1.6 with wides or preferably the "side surround 1" if your technology can support it. But if you can do it, 11.1.6 is where I'd try to end up. Anything more than that is special purpose or for large rooms IMO, even if you DO have a Trinnov.
> 
> 
> This is just my opinion...so take that for what it's worth. This is also an Atmos oriented POV; maybe you want a compromise layout ala The Cinema Designer or Maikeldepotter if you value Auro. And if I had a multi-row vs. a single row of three seats, I might feel differently...



Stuart;
Your my benchmark, having gone thru your “3D sound” journey of growth, exploration, experience, and maturity.

Very articulate post, I bet the words just appeared on screen as you typed.

With my HT 3.0, using the 8500H I will utilize 7.1.6 / 9.1.4 ability. 

For my 2 row 18.5 feet deep HT, hmmmm, 11.1.6, yes there’s a possible for a side1 between my wides and base sides , but with a narrow room 14.5 feet wide I’d have to make speaker pockets in the wall like I did earlier for my wides in 2013.

If the 2021 Denon lineup includes a new flagship AVR, 3 years from now, where via processor expectations of growth it can handle 11.1.6, yep I’d do it as HT 3.5
Too soon to start a new 2021 flagship processor wishlist ... 

Btw, thx for comments in the Audyssey Facebook group.
Mike R


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

mtbdudex said:


> Stuart;
> Your my benchmark, having gone thru your “3D sound” journey of growth, exploration, experience, and maturity.
> 
> Very articulate post, I bet the words just appeared on screen as you typed.


I've always been a focused writer, but thanks! Just a lot of practice. And thanks for the vote of confidence about the "journey". I try not to forget that a little more than four years ago I had a Denon 4311 with Audyssey Pro/XT32 and a 5.1 setup, and only got on this process when I picked up a $500 Sherwood R-972 and jumped into the hobby in earnest with the birth of Atmos. 



> With my HT 3.0, using the 8500H I will utilize 7.1.6 / 9.1.4 ability.
> 
> For my 2 row 18.5 feet deep HT, hmmmm, 11.1.6, yes there’s a possible for a side1 between my wides and base sides , but with a narrow room 14.5 feet wide I’d have to make speaker pockets in the wall like I did earlier for my wides in 2013.


My own room's barely 15' wide and 20' long, so it IS possible. However, it depends on your speaker's depth - I've got nothing that's deeper than 9" other than my mains, which are about 15" deep. I'd be careful to plan where those speakers are going to go before I do that work. In my case I had freestanding towers for my wides and sides (Imagine Ts and Imagine T2) so it was easy to just move them.



> If the 2021 Denon lineup includes a new flagship AVR, 3 years from now, where via processor expectations of growth it can handle 11.1.6, yep I’d do it as HT 3.5
> Too soon to start a new 2021 flagship processor wishlist ...


It's NEVER too early


----------



## CBdicX

stikle said:


> I went from 5.1 to 7.1 to 11.1 (Audyssey DSX) to Atmos/DTS:X 7.2.4 to 9.3.4.
> 
> My opinion is that 4 overheads (TF/TR) is quite good if you can get them in the right place. I haven't heard 6 overheads and am not planning for them (at least I wasn't until this very moment). Adding wides to fill in that (perceived in my mind) gap opens the sound stage up more in my particular room.
> 
> So at this point, I think that the ideal home solution for most people would be 7.x.4.
> 
> That being said... Dangit @*Nalleh*! "What if...".
> 
> I just realized I have an extra 2 channel amp I was never going to use again.
> 
> So I hooked it up to the 6200 Height 1 preouts, amp assigned them to Top Middle, and hooked up a couple old Klipsch speakers and...son of a gun. I can do 9.3.6! Now I have to go find two more matching Mirages.
> 
> The weird thing is that the 9.1.6 test tones from the Sept Dolby Atmos demo disc duplicates TF to TM and TR to TM. However, as far as I can tell, in the Unbroken demo, TM is discrete. There's one point where a Zero flies from TM to TR and standing underneath them it sure sounds sounds like the start of that sound is only in TM, not TF or TR. Maybe the test tones are borked.
> 
> Anyway...overkill FTW.


 
Is the X6200W a 13 channel pre-out model ?
So if i understand you correct, you can do 7.1.6 with the 6400 if you use a external amp to drive the Top Middle speakers ?


----------



## Sven Gunderson

Hi Guys,

a friend of mine , wants to install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos / DTS:X

and we are thinking to use wide dispursement speakers for Top Front en Top Rear . With the last , directly above the MLP , because the couch is (completely) against the wall (he doesn't want any space between the couch and the wall)

Q1: Do you agree on the placement ?

Q2: Am I correct to assume that the config in the AVR should be FRont Height and Rear Height , for proper DTS:X soundprocessing ?

(he is looking at in-ceiling Focals, to match with his Focal 9* floorstanders and at Emotiva processor + 5 or 7 ch power amp) 


Many thanks in advance for your help !


----------



## stikle

CBdicX said:


> Is the X6200W a 13 channel pre-out model ?



No, it has 11 channel pre-outs.



CBdicX said:


> So if i understand you correct, you can do 7.1.6 with the 6400 if you use a external amp to drive the Top Middle speakers ?



No, not quite. The X6200W has 9 internal amps, which would be 7.x.2 (or 5.x.4). You can go to 7.x.4 using an external 2 channel amp. That was my original configuration, and why I had a spare amp.

Here's what I'm doing now: My X6200W internal amps are driving L/C/R + Wides + SL/SR + RSL/RSR = 9 channels of internal amplification for the bed layer. Then I used the Height 1 pre-outs configured as Top Middle to go to my 2 channel amp to power TM. End result = 11 channels.

I have subwoofers connected to the Sub 1 and Sub 2 pre-outs. I used a Y splitter on Sub 1 to connect a third subwoofer at the rear of the room.

My X4200W is providing internal amplification to Top Front L/R and Top Rear L/R equaling 4 channels.

Voila' = 9.3.6! 

Pertinent X6200W configuration screens:

Amp Assign:










Speaker config:


----------



## CBdicX

stikle said:


> No, it has 11 channel pre-outs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not quite. The X6200W has 9 internal amps, which would be 7.x.2 (or 5.x.4). You can go to 7.x.4 using an external 2 channel amp. That was my original configuration, and why I had a spare amp.
> 
> Here's what I'm doing now: My X6200W internal amps are driving L/C/R + Wides + SL/SR + RSL/RSR = 9 channels of internal amplification for the bed layer. Then I used the Height 1 pre-outs configured as Top Middle to go to my 2 channel amp to power TM. End result = 11 channels.
> 
> I have subwoofers connected to the Sub 1 and Sub 2 pre-outs. I used a Y splitter on Sub 1 to connect a third subwoofer at the rear of the room.
> 
> My X4200W is providing internal amplification to Top Front L/R and Top Rear L/R equaling 4 channels.
> 
> Voila' = 9.3.6!
> 
> Pertinent X6200W configuration screens:
> 
> Amp Assign:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaker config:



Clear, i was on the wrong track


----------



## camd5pt0

Never thought I'd be able to dive into Atmos, but I did. My wireless Sony 5.1 sound bar system sounded great, but will end up in the bedroom.

Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 set-up
Denon x4300h 9.2ch
Andrew Jones designed series speakers
Pioneer SP-C22 Center Channel
Pioneer SP-FS52 Floor standing mains
Pioneer SP-BS22-LR Bookshelf rears
Pioneer SW-10 400W Powered Subwoofer (x2 adding another soon)
Polk Audio Atrium 5 (x4 ceiling mounted)








Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

camd5pt0 said:


> Never thought I'd be able to dive into Atmos, but I did. My wireless Sony 5.1 sound bar system sounded great, but will end up in the bedroom.
> 
> Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 set-up
> Denon x4300h 9.2ch
> Andrew Jones designed series speakers
> Pioneer SP-C22 Center Channel
> Pioneer SP-FS52 Floor standing mains
> Pioneer SP-BS22-LR Bookshelf rears
> Pioneer SP-T22A-LR Atmos enabled (for .2 heights)
> Pioneer SW-10 400W Powered Subwoofer (x2 adding another soon)
> Polk Audio Atrium 5 (x4 ceiling mounted)
> View attachment 2362074


Looks like you're going to be busy this weekend.....


----------



## showmak

Cold Skin 2017 has some cool overhead actions.


----------



## batpig

camd5pt0 said:


> Never thought I'd be able to dive into Atmos, but I did. My wireless Sony 5.1 sound bar system sounded great, but will end up in the bedroom.
> 
> Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 set-up
> Denon x4300h 9.2ch
> Andrew Jones designed series speakers
> Pioneer SP-C22 Center Channel
> Pioneer SP-FS52 Floor standing mains
> Pioneer SP-BS22-LR Bookshelf rears
> Pioneer SP-T22A-LR Atmos enabled (for .2 heights)
> Pioneer SW-10 400W Powered Subwoofer (x2 adding another soon)
> Polk Audio Atrium 5 (x4 ceiling mounted)
> View attachment 2362074
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


May I ask why you got the Atmos modules when you have 4 Polk Atrium to mount on the ceiling? The Atriums on the ceiling will be the x.x.4, the Atmos modules aren't needed. 

That should be a terrific budget setup, the Pioneer speakers are very highly rated for the price point. I would consider going with a better sub though, there's no need to "match" the subwoofer brand to the other speakers.


----------



## camd5pt0

batpig said:


> May I ask why you got the Atmos modules when you have 4 Polk Atrium to mount on the ceiling? The Atriums on the ceiling will be the x.x.4, the Atmos modules aren't needed.
> 
> That should be a terrific budget setup, the Pioneer speakers are very highly rated for the price point. I would consider going with a better sub though, there's no need to "match" the subwoofer brand to the other speakers.


When I bought the speakers the other day, I bought the modules but after finding out I can't use them to mount on the ceiling, I went a different route. Effectively I can do either .2 or .4 if I keep them.
And I have the Atrium 5 on the way.
The sub will be enough for me, the Klipsch wireless sub looked tempting but I decided against it. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

camd5pt0 said:


> When I bought the speakers the other day, I bought the modules but after finding out I can't use them to mount on the ceiling, I went a different route. Effectively I can do either .2 or .4 if I keep them.


I wouldn't keep them, just use the four ceiling speakers. Physical ceiling speakers are superior to the Atmos up-firing speakers.


----------



## Ray77085

batpig said:


> I wouldn't keep them, just use the four ceiling speakers. Physical ceiling speakers are superior to the Atmos up-firing speakers.


I completely agree that the physical in ceiling speakers are far more superior than the up-firing atmos speakers. I have a pair of pioneer and onkyo up-firing speakers and I just could not get any decent sound out of them. Nothing bounced off ceiling and I tried different positions / settings. Bought 4 overhead in ceiling speakers and "WOW" jack pot.


----------



## camd5pt0

Ray77085 said:


> I completely agree that the physical in ceiling speakers are far more superior than the up-firing atmos speakers. I have a pair of pioneer and onkyo up-firing speakers and I just could not get any decent sound out of them. Nothing bounced off ceiling and I tried different positions / settings. Bought 4 overhead in ceiling speakers and "WOW" jack pot.


Thanks both of you. They are going back this weekend. When I get the Atrium 5, do I aim them straight down, or at the listening area. Also, is the idea to make it so you can't pinpoint the area sound comes from our should they be present. Audyssey multeq xt32 I would hope balance it out, just want to know before I manual adjust things.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cuzed2

If anyone is interested; I have some ATMOS BRs available here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/213-p...etc/2956972-14-atmos-br-titles-available.html


----------



## OKGeek

Hey guys, spending about a year in Atmos thread I see that lots of people (me including) can be completely lost with all these angles, guidelines and placement restrictions. So inspired by several AVSers, I've put most of it into a simple calc, where everyone can put their room dimensions, distances to speakers and screen and see how far this setup is out of or within the specs.


----------



## pasender91

Nice spreadsheet, was able to check all my parameters are within norms , except my Front Height which are a bit low with 23° angle only, but i really don't have a better placement solution for them  

Now i have another question to the experts and pros, linked to my tests in 7.1.6 with the Denon 8500 ...
In Atmos cinema there is a 7.1.2 bed converted to 7.1 in Atmos HC.
As documented by Dolby, the overhead bed (the .2 part) gets converted into 2 objects fixed in space in Atmos HC.
What they don't document is the location and size for those 2 objects 
This could be important to understand how this overhead bed gets rendered with a .4 or .6 configuration.
Does someone know what is the location and size for those 2 objects ?


----------



## sixtytooneratio

Can I purchase a non atmos receiver???? Purchased a Sony 75" 900e recently but my Onkyo TX NR818 doesn't support UHD. I love the Onkyo and it works flawlessly but I want a receiver that supports UHD. I really don't want dolby atmos but if I have to purchase a receiver that has it can I utilize the receiver without using Atmos??? Needs,4 hdmi inputs,1 component input,minimum 100 wpc, would prefer Denon because of Audessey but need to know if Onkyo's sound correction is just as good. 7:1 setup is plenty.
Thanks for any suggestions and help in advance.
Len


----------



## pasender91

Yes sure, it is perfectly fine to use an Atmos receiver in a standard 5.1 or 7.1 setup, Atmos is just an optional sound mode.
Regarding the Denon vs Onkyo question my strong belief is that Audissey is a much better EQ solution compared to AccuEQ from Onkyo, so i would go the Denon route for sure ...


----------



## T-Bone

sixtytooneratio said:


> Can I purchase a non atmos receiver???? Purchased a Sony 75" 900e recently but my Onkyo TX NR818 doesn't support UHD. I love the Onkyo and it works flawlessly but I want a receiver that supports UHD. I really don't want dolby atmos but if I have to purchase a receiver that has it can I utilize the receiver without using Atmos??? Needs,4 hdmi inputs,1 component input,minimum 100 wpc, would prefer Denon because of Audessey but need to know if Onkyo's sound correction is just as good. 7:1 setup is plenty.
> Thanks for any suggestions and help in advance.
> Len


Regarding a Denon versus Onkyo correction, I would vote Onkyo. I had a Denon x3100 for several years. It never got the subwoofer correct.

Now I have an Onkyo RZ 920. It gets the sub woofer right every time.

With the Denon, it was not smart enough to realize I had a subwoofer in my room. Even though it sent it signals and got signals back. But the powers-that-be programmed the denon to set my speakers to large. Meaning no crossover. As a software engineer, I find that implementation too stupid for words.

At least the Onkyo detected I had a subwoofer. Although it put the Crossover for my Mains a little lower than I wanted. So I manually set the crossover to 80 Hertz.

I'm sure you can read up on the different types of Correction in the receiveth forum.

-T


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Nice spreadsheet, was able to check all my parameters are within norms , except my Front Height which are a bit low with 23° angle only, but i really don't have a better placement solution for them
> 
> Now i have another question to the experts and pros, linked to my tests in 7.1.6 with the Denon 8500 ...
> In Atmos cinema there is a 7.1.2 bed converted to 7.1 in Atmos HC.
> As documented by Dolby, the overhead bed (the .2 part) gets converted into 2 objects fixed in space in Atmos HC.
> What they don't document is the location and size for those 2 objects
> This could be important to understand how this overhead bed gets rendered with a .4 or .6 configuration.
> Does someone know what is the location and size for those 2 objects ?


I believe it's Top Middle. Home Atmos coding, as given to consumer A/V manufacturers, has no way of arraying the bed information as in a commercial theater with multiple individual speakers at Front Surround, Side Surround, Rear Surround, and Overhead positions. Now, on Dolby's own commercial cinema processor, home Atmos _can_ array bed channels just like the pro Atmos version, so it's not an impossible task. Dolby just has to get off its ass and give their distributors, especially those like Trinnov, Steinway, Denon, etc., the software to do it.


----------



## pasender91

Dan Hitchman said:


> I believe it's Top Middle. Home Atmos coding, as given to consumer A/V manufacturers, has no way of arraying the bed information as in a commercial theater with multiple individual speakers at Front Surround, Side Surround, Rear Surround, and Overhead positions. Now, on Dolby's own commercial cinema processor, home Atmos _can_ array bed channels just like the pro Atmos version, so it's not an impossible task. Dolby just has to get off its ass and give their distributors, especially those like Trinnov, Steinway, Denon, etc., the software to do it.


You may be right for the location, but don't forget there is a size parameter for objects.
If their size is more than 0 then the signal will definitely "spill" onto the other Top or Height positions as well.
The Dolby documentation also suggest the Overhead bed (transformed to 2 objects) will spill into the surrounds ...


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdrucker said:


> Wides - I was in love with them because they might help pull out the front sidestage and add dimensionality, and I drank the Kool-Aid of some guys on the $20K threads that raved about how much they added to what we heard in front and to the side of us (think ST: Into Darkness or Unbroken). However, *depending on the mix they're used somewhere between "sometimes" and "never"*. If anything, the side surround 1 pairs, a/k/a the most frontward of the side surrounds, have more activity, which is sometimes discrete from what's in the wides (and often independent of it).


I wouldn't disagree with you on this (especially since DSU *never* puts anything there), but I wonder if you'd feel the same if the Wides had all the content extracted out from between the front & sides (matrix-wise). Do you have the capability to try that option with the Trinnov? And have you?


----------



## VideoGrabber

stikle said:


> Here's what I'm doing now: My X6200W internal amps are driving L/C/R + Wides + SL/SR + RSL/RSR = 9 channels of internal amplification for the bed layer. Then I used the Height 1 pre-outs configured as Top Middle to go to my 2 channel amp to power TM. End result = 11 channels.
> 
> My X4200W is providing internal amplification to Top Front L/R and Top Rear L/R equaling 4 channels.
> 
> Voila' = 9.3.6!


Just to be clear, isn't that a "sorta" .6 setup? I.e. the TM also play all TF+TR content, and the TF and TR also play (some) TM content.


----------



## smurraybhm

T-Bone said:


> Regarding a Denon versus Onkyo correction, I would vote Onkyo. I had a Denon x3100 for several years. It never got the subwoofer correct.
> 
> Now I have an Onkyo RZ 920. It gets the sub woofer right every time.
> 
> With the Denon, it was not smart enough to realize I had a subwoofer in my room. Even though it sent it signals and got signals back. But the powers-that-be programmed the denon to set my speakers to large. Meaning no crossover. As a software engineer, I find that implementation too stupid for words.
> 
> At least the Onkyo detected I had a subwoofer. Although it put the Crossover for my Mains a little lower than I wanted. So I manually set the crossover to 80 Hertz.
> 
> I'm sure you can read up on the different types of Correction in the receiveth forum.
> 
> -T


No offense, but you need to do some reading on how Audyssey works and what to do after you have completed your speaker calibration. Not the thread to dive into RC here, but just telling the prospective buyer to do some homework. Plus you had a receiver with XT, the jump to XT32 is significant in sound quality and D&M has made it available on more models. Then there's the app that came out last year for the higher tier models. 

Hey, but your happy so that's great. Back to Atmos.


----------



## T-Bone

smurraybhm said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding a Denon versus Onkyo correction, I would vote Onkyo. I had a Denon x3100 for several years. It never got the subwoofer correct.
> 
> Now I have an Onkyo RZ 920. It gets the sub woofer right every time.
> 
> With the Denon, it was not smart enough to realize I had a subwoofer in my room. Even though it sent it signals and got signals back. But the powers-that-be programmed the denon to set my speakers to large. Meaning no crossover. As a software engineer, I find that implementation too stupid for words.
> 
> At least the Onkyo detected I had a subwoofer. Although it put the Crossover for my Mains a little lower than I wanted. So I manually set the crossover to 80 Hertz.
> 
> I'm sure you can read up on the different types of Correction in the receiveth forum.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but you need to do some reading on how Audyssey works and what to do after you have completed your speaker calibration. Not the thread to dive into RC here, but just telling the prospective buyer to do some homework. Plus you had a receiver with XT, the jump to XT32 is significant in sound quality and D&M has made it available on more models. Then there's the app that came out last year for the higher tier models.
> 
> Hey, but your happy so that's great. Back to Atmos.
Click to expand...

Nope. I get to go off track to rebutt.

I read the thread. I know how it works, thank you very much. And it doesn't matter how it works. What matters if Denon software made me tell the harware that I really do have a sub... and that I want to use it for LFE, and not my mains. 

Any reason supplied by Auddesy/Denon to explain why I have to do that as a user is, well, just silly.

But hey, onkyo smashes Denon.

Now, back to Atmos.

- T


----------



## VideoGrabber

SimpleTheater said:


> I already have 7.2.4 only because I couldn't wait any longer for 7.2.6. I have two rows of seats and only the front row has Atmos setup correctly (ceiling speakers in front and behind). The rear seats have them all in front, and while OK, I find myself sitting in the front row all the time now. I used to prefer to be in the rear row because of how deep bass would vibrate the riser where the 2nd row seats are placed, but it's not worth what I'm missing with the ceiling speakers front and back.
> 
> I'm still anxiously awaiting 7.2.6.


While you're waiting, could you install another set of ceiling speakers farther back (behind the 2nd row), and route TR to those? That would leave the current rear speakers unused temporarily (to be designated as TM later), but may give you a better back row experience in the meantime.


----------



## gene4ht

VideoGrabber said:


> While you're waiting, could you install another set of ceiling speakers farther back (behind the 2nd row), and route TR to those? That would leave the current rear speakers unused temporarily (to be designated as TM later), but may give you a better back row experience in the meantime.


This is exactly how my 6 speakers are installed for two rows of seating. This will allow you to configure TF & TR for either row as desired by simply switching speaker connections at the AVR, or TF & TR for both rows, and/or as VG suggests...implementing TM later.


----------



## DJ Lushious

Well, I am officially a card-carrying member of the ATMOS surround sound club as of yesterday. I had my handyman friend come over and cut out four holes in my ceiling and do an unrelated modification to my living room. I'm glad I hired him to do it; my ceiling consisted of 2" of drywall with 4" of plaster.

I followed Dolby's 5.1.4 setup guide, measuring 45 degrees on front/back and working between whatever the ceiling boards (what are they called?) would allow.

Mad Max: Fury Road was my inaugural ATMOS experience. There wasn't necessarily a lot of focused overhead sounds, but, from what I could hear, it was a lot of atmospheric sounds and sounds to fill the listening space (explosions encompassing all around, screaming engines, score, etc.). Having never heard ATMOS before, I would hope this is what I would should be hearing?

I tried the Insects tech demo on the Xbox One X next and it made specific use of the ceiling speakers. Birds chirping and the wind were very apparent sounds I heard come from above.

What are some other must-experience ATMOS movies/games to show off a new setup?


----------



## ergalthema

DJ Lushious said:


> Well, I am officially a card-carrying member of the ATMOS surround sound club as of yesterday. I had my handyman friend come over and cut out four holes in my ceiling and do an unrelated modification to my living room. I'm glad I hired him to do it; my ceiling consisted of 2" of drywall with 4" of plaster.
> 
> I followed Dolby's 5.1.4 setup guide, measuring 45 degrees on front/back and working between whatever the ceiling boards (what are they called?) would allow.
> 
> Mad Max: Fury Road was my inaugural ATMOS experience. There wasn't necessarily a lot of focused overhead sounds, but, from what I could hear, it was a lot of atmospheric sounds and sounds to fill the listening space (explosions encompassing all around, screaming engines, score, etc.). Having never heard ATMOS before, I would hope this is what I would should be hearing?
> 
> I tried the Insects tech demo on the Xbox One X next and it made specific use of the ceiling speakers. Birds chirping and the wind were very apparent sounds I heard come from above.
> 
> What are some other must-experience ATMOS movies/games to show off a new setup?


Blade Runner 2049


----------



## Erod

ergalthema said:


> Blade Runner 2049


Yep, and....
Oblivion
Hacksaw Ridge
The Martian
The Revenant (not Atmos, but sounds more Atmos than most Atmos)


----------



## sdrucker

VideoGrabber said:


> I wouldn't disagree with you on this (especially since DSU *never* puts anything there), but I wonder if you'd feel the same if the Wides had all the content extracted out from between the front & sides (matrix-wise). Do you have the capability to try that option with the Trinnov? And have you?


I've done speaker arrays with upmixers, such as taking the left/right mains and copying it at a reduced level to the wides, as well as tried the same thing with the side surround. For upmixing, especially for Auromatic, that works just fine if you're careful about taming the Auro "reverb" effect. With DSU, at least for me, the effect of adding the mains at the reduced level worked better than the surrounds (i.e. made the stage a little wider and wraparound than feeling like more of a rectangle imposed on the room). You can do the same trick with some of the higher end pre/pros (Datasat), or possibly with the MiniDSP 88A as a customized preset. There's not post-process matrix extraction with the Trinnov; their 3D remapping is used for a different purpose (using multiple speakers to achieve a specific speaker layout configuration as an ideal).

To be honest, that's enough for me; I know the Steinway MP-50 does some averaging of mains and surrounds to get wides, but I don't feel a burning need to have a ScAtmos type extraction of wides or even use the ability to sacrifice rears to get a wides extraction with Neural:X. I've tested the latter and the improvement is marginal. Of course, I've got quite capable mains (PSB Imagine T3) that can throw off a wide soundstage, so my experience might be different than someone with some bookshelves up front.

Haven't done the speaker copying to wides with Atmos because I'd prefer to have the object panning/passthrough as intended by the mixer.


----------



## DaverJ

DJ Lushious said:


> What are some other must-experience ATMOS movies/games to show off a new setup?


On Xbox One, try Gears of War 4 - Act 1, Chapter 3 ("New Friends") - this section has occasional dropships that fly overhead throughout. You'll feel like if you look up at your ceiling you'll see the bottom of airplane as it passes over!


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdrucker said:


> I've done speaker arrays with upmixers, such as taking the left/right mains and copying it at a reduced level to the wides, as well as tried the same thing with the side surround. For upmixing, especially for Auromatic, that works just fine if you're careful about taming the Auro "reverb" effect. With DSU, at least for me, the effect of adding the mains at the reduced level worked better than the surrounds (i.e. made the stage a little wider and wraparound than feeling like more of a rectangle imposed on the room).
> 
> To be honest, that's enough for me...


Thanks! Good to know.



> Haven't done the speaker copying to wides with Atmos because I'd prefer to have the object panning/passthrough as intended by the mixer.


Yes, I think I'd share that preference, when the wides are actually being used, with consciously selected content. It's when they got shut down that I'd feel bad.


----------



## OsoSolitario

sdrucker said:


> I've done speaker arrays with upmixers, such as taking the left/right mains and copying it at a reduced level to the wides, as well as tried the same thing with the side surround. For upmixing, especially for Auromatic, that works just fine if you're careful about taming the Auro "reverb" effect. With DSU, at least for me, the effect of adding the mains at the reduced level worked better than the surrounds (i.e. made the stage a little wider and wraparound than feeling like more of a rectangle imposed on the room). You can do the same trick with some of the higher end pre/pros (Datasat), or possibly with the MiniDSP 88A as a customized preset. There's not post-process matrix extraction with the Trinnov; their 3D remapping is used for a different purpose (using multiple speakers to achieve a specific speaker layout configuration as an ideal).
> 
> To be honest, that's enough for me; I know the Steinway MP-50 does some averaging of mains and surrounds to get wides, but I don't feel a burning need to have a ScAtmos type extraction of wides or even use the ability to sacrifice rears to get a wides extraction with Neural:X. I've tested the latter and the improvement is marginal. Of course, I've got quite capable mains (PSB Imagine T3) that can throw off a wide soundstage, so my experience might be different than someone with some bookshelves up front.
> 
> Haven't done the speaker copying to wides with Atmos because I'd prefer to have the object panning/passthrough as intended by the mixer.


So, how to proceed if we want to add one more set of side surround speakers (because we had a long room with various seat rows)? Do you prefer doubling the sides or just add the front wides as "new" side surrounds?


----------



## batpig

Erod said:


> Yep, and....
> Oblivion
> Hacksaw Ridge
> The Martian
> The Revenant (not Atmos, but sounds more Atmos than most Atmos)


You should be explicit that several of these titles (e.g. Oblivion and The Martian) are Atmos on 4K only. Don't want to create potential confusion with someone grabbing the regular BD.

Other great Atmos titles include Mad Max Fury Road and John Wick (still among of the best), Hacksaw Ridge, and (if you care about Atmos effects and not the quality of the movie) both Power Rangers and The Great Wall have intense Atmos soundtracks with tons of overhead activity.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> You should be explicit that several of these titles (e.g. Oblivion and The Martian) are Atmos on 4K only. Don't want to create potential confusion with someone grabbing the regular BD.
> 
> Other great Atmos titles include Mad Max Fury Road and John Wick (still among of the best), Hacksaw Ridge, and (if you care about Atmos effects and not the quality of the movie) both Power Rangers and The Great Wall have intense Atmos soundtracks with tons of overhead activity.


That's a good analysis, I think, both technically and critically.


----------



## markmanner

In the FWIW category, I really like using Oblivion as an ATMOS demo (only had the ATMOS part of my system done for a couple weeks, so I am new). I have BR 2049 and re-do of the original BR, Mad Max and several of the others mentioned here, and they sound great too. However, there are several scenes in Oblivion that are just great (one in particular beginning when the drone in Tech 49's house activates followed by a 3 drone chase scene). 
M.


----------



## Sven Gunderson

Sven Gunderson said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> a friend of mine , wants to install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos / DTS:X
> 
> and we are thinking to use wide dispursement speakers for Top Front en Top Rear . With the last , directly above the MLP , because the couch is (completely) against the wall (he doesn't want any space between the couch and the wall)
> 
> Q1: Do you agree on the placement ?
> 
> Q2: Am I correct to assume that the config in the AVR should be FRont Height and Rear Height , for proper DTS:X soundprocessing ?
> 
> (he is looking at in-ceiling Focals, to match with his Focal 9* floorstanders and at Emotiva processor + 5 or 7 ch power amp)
> 
> 
> Many thanks in advance for your help !




*Anybody?


----------



## T-Bone

Sven Gunderson said:


> Sven Gunderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> a friend of mine , wants to install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos / DTS:X
> 
> and we are thinking to use wide dispursement speakers for Top Front en Top Rear . With the last , directly above the MLP , because the couch is (completely) against the wall (he doesn't want any space between the couch and the wall)
> 
> Q1: Do you agree on the placement ?
> 
> Q2: Am I correct to assume that the config in the AVR should be FRont Height and Rear Height , for proper DTS:X soundprocessing ?
> 
> (he is looking at in-ceiling Focals, to match with his Focal 9* floorstanders and at Emotiva processor + 5 or 7 ch power amp)
> 
> 
> Many thanks in advance for your help !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anybody?
Click to expand...

Someone may have a better reply than me. But I see this as the same issue as someone who wants to do 7.1 bed layer with the couch against the back wall. 7.1 just doesn't work well. And 5.1 would be better.

I would think with that setup constraint of seating, you might just be better off doing x.x.2 Atmos configuration.

Like I said, someone might have a better reply.

-T


----------



## Sven Gunderson

T-Bone said:


> Someone may have a better reply than me. But I see this as the same issue as someone who wants to do 7.1 bed layer with the couch against the back wall. 7.1 just doesn't work well. And 5.1 would be better.
> 
> I would think with that setup constraint of seating, you might just be better off doing x.x.2 Atmos configuration.
> 
> Like I said, someone might have a better reply.
> 
> -T


Thanks ! 

and the x.x.2 , would that be Topfronts , or Top Middle / Rears ?


----------



## pasender91

With couch against the wall, i agree that .2 is enough, Top Middle installed 1m in front of the couch is the best compromise i believe


----------



## Sven Gunderson

pasender91 said:


> with couch against the wall, i agree that .2 is enough, top middle installed 1m in front of the couch is the best compromise i believe


merci !


----------



## Nalleh

4 heights is ALWAYS better than 2, no matter how close to the rear wall you are. Just my opinion


----------



## deano86

Nalleh said:


> 4 heights is ALWAYS better than 2, no matter how close to the rear wall you are. Just my opinion


+1.... I agree, if you have the capability to add 4 ceiling speakers, even if they aren't quite in the "recommended" locations.... so be it. Install the 4... I guarantee, you will be able to make them work for you!


----------



## Sven Gunderson

deano86 said:


> +1.... I agree, if you have the capability to add 4 ceiling speakers, even if they aren't quite in the "recommended" locations.... so be it. Install the 4... I guarantee, you will be able to make them work for you!


I was thinking the same, I have my couch also against the wall and the rear surrounds on stands on the corners of the couch, my MLP is in the middle 

And even though my head is about 10-15CM from the wall, I clearly hear a lot sound (effects) from 'behind' 


Gracias !


----------



## jk246

markmanner said:


> In the FWIW category, I really like using Oblivion as an ATMOS demo (only had the ATMOS part of my system done for a couple weeks, so I am new). I have BR 2049 and re-do of the original BR, Mad Max and several of the others mentioned here, and they sound great too. However, there are several scenes in Oblivion that are just great (one in particular beginning when the drone in Tech 49's house activates followed by a 3 drone chase scene).
> M.


Great movie- it's unfortunate that even though it was shot in 5k and 4k (effects in 2k), edit was done in 2k, then upscaled for the 4k release. (If Bluray is your source, it's great, if 4k is your source it's a bit disappointing, but still a great movie).

jk


----------



## jk246

batpig said:


> You should be explicit that several of these titles (e.g. Oblivion and The Martian) are Atmos on 4K only. Don't want to create potential confusion with someone grabbing the regular BD.
> 
> Other great Atmos titles include Mad Max Fury Road and John Wick (still among of the best), Hacksaw Ridge, and (if you care about Atmos effects and not the quality of the movie) both Power Rangers and The Great Wall have intense Atmos soundtracks with tons of overhead activity.


Something of note with The Martian, Extended Version in 4K (I haven't seen anything except the Extended Version in 4K)- while the included theatrical release disc plays correctly, the extended version slowly drifts out of lip-sync throughout the course of the movie- close to 1.5 seconds by the end of the movie- very disappointing. There are reports that some copies manufactured in the US play the extended version properly (on my copy, there's a small sticker on the back of the box near the bottom that says 'Disc made in Mexico') but a friend of mine in the biz tells me that most discs are manufactured outside of the US. Especially disappointing to me because I really like this movie.

jk


----------



## usc1995

jk246 said:


> Something of note with The Martian, Extended Version in 4K (I haven't seen anything except the Extended Version in 4K)- while the included theatrical release disc plays correctly, the extended version slowly drifts out of lip-sync throughout the course of the movie- close to 1.5 seconds by the end of the movie- very disappointing. There are reports that some copies manufactured in the US play the extended version properly (on my copy, there's a small sticker on the back of the box near the bottom that says 'Disc made in Mexico') but a friend of mine in the biz tells me that most discs are manufactured outside of the US. Especially disappointing to me because I really like this movie.
> 
> 
> 
> jk




I have experienced this as well but only on playback via my Xbox One S. I also had problems with playback of Lucy. I have not had problems playing The Martian via my LG 870. What player are you using? I feel like the problem is with the Xbox and that is why I bought the LG.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Soupy1970

T-Bone said:


> Nope. I get to go off track to rebutt.
> 
> I read the thread. I know how it works, thank you very much. And it doesn't matter how it works. What matters if Denon software made me tell the harware that I really do have a sub... and that I want to use it for LFE, and not my mains.
> 
> Any reason supplied by Auddesy/Denon to explain why I have to do that as a user is, well, just silly.
> 
> But hey, onkyo smashes Denon.
> 
> Now, back to Atmos.
> 
> - T


But you said you went into Onkyo and still raised the Crossover. Why is it so hard to go into Denon and change the speaker to your preference of small? I think Denon did that becasue people with large speakers were freaking out. In the end, you have to change preferences to your liking. What really matters is which EQ's better.


----------



## T-Bone

Soupy1970 said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I get to go off track to rebutt.
> 
> I read the thread. I know how it works, thank you very much. And it doesn't matter how it works. What matters if Denon software made me tell the harware that I really do have a sub... and that I want to use it for LFE, and not my mains.
> 
> Any reason supplied by Auddesy/Denon to explain why I have to do that as a user is, well, just silly.
> 
> But hey, onkyo smashes Denon.
> 
> Now, back to Atmos.
> 
> - T
> 
> 
> 
> But you said you went into Onkyo and still raised the Crossover. Why is it so hard to go into Denon and change the speaker to your preference of small? I think Denon did that becasue people with large speakers were freaking out. In the end, you have to change preferences to your liking. What really matters is which EQ's better.
Click to expand...

Onkyo:
"Hey T-Bone, your system is setup. Nice sub... I detected one. BTW, I set your speakers all to small since you have a subwoofer. Your XO on some speakers were based on room response. Feel free to adjust to your liking."

Denon:
"Hey T-Bone, your system is setup. You sure you have a subwoofer? I pinged it and received a response, but cannot really know for certain if it was a subwoofer. To play it safe, I set your speakers to Large (i.e. no subwoofer). Your system will behave as if it is missing a subwoofer.

It's your system, so you will know better than I if a subwoofer is present. If you really do have a subwoofer, please set your speakers to Small so that I can use it. I know what you're thinking. I have no explanation."

-T


----------



## unretarded

Erod said:


> Yep, and....
> Oblivion
> Hacksaw Ridge
> The Martian
> The Revenant (not Atmos, but sounds more Atmos than most Atmos)



And like the Revenant, The Cave movie lights up the top speakers like crazy for a upmixed DVD it is crazy good sound wise.


----------



## sdrucker

markmanner said:


> In the FWIW category, I really like using Oblivion as an ATMOS demo (only had the ATMOS part of my system done for a couple weeks, so I am new). I have BR 2049 and re-do of the original BR, Mad Max and several of the others mentioned here, and they sound great too. However, there are several scenes in Oblivion that are just great (one in particular beginning when the drone in Tech 49's house activates followed by a 3 drone chase scene).
> M.


It's a relative oldie, but I like that drone race scene (I want to say Chapter 11) to show off all my Atmos speakers as well for movies. Or those screen centers that I added to my setup anyway  ..along with War for the POTA and the REM disc.


----------



## camd5pt0

batpig said:


> May I ask why you got the Atmos modules when you have 4 Polk Atrium to mount on the ceiling? The Atriums on the ceiling will be the x.x.4, the Atmos modules aren't needed.
> 
> That should be a terrific budget setup, the Pioneer speakers are very highly rated for the price point. I would consider going with a better sub though, there's no need to "match" the subwoofer brand to the other speakers.


I did ditch the Atmos enabled speakers and went with Atrium 5. Also thanks to you, after much research, I ditched the Pioneer sw10 sub and went with SVS PB 2000 and SVS SoundPath Subwoofer Isolation System. Ohh and I also have X4400H instead now, actually 2 of them. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jk246

usc1995 said:


> I have experienced this as well but only on playback via my Xbox One S. I also had problems with playback of Lucy. I have not had problems playing The Martian via my LG 870. What player are you using? I feel like the problem is with the Xbox and that is why I bought the LG.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I have an Oppo UDP-203... did you happen to check the back of the disc box to see if it has the 'Disc made in Mexico' label? The reports I read also mentioned that the lip sync issue didn't always occur every time the disc is played.

I watched about 1/2 of Lucy last night without problem. I'll report back here if it occurs when I watch the 2nd half.

jk


----------



## muzz

Lucy 4K/Atmos plays fine here on my 203(and on my Sammy 8500 through the Oppo input),where exactly do you see where it's pressed?


----------



## usc1995

jk246 said:


> I have an Oppo UDP-203... did you happen to check the back of the disc box to see if it has the 'Disc made in Mexico' label? The reports I read also mentioned that the lip sync issue didn't always occur every time the disc is played.
> 
> 
> 
> I watched about 1/2 of Lucy last night without problem. I'll report back here if it occurs when I watch the 2nd half.
> 
> 
> 
> jk




Yes, my disc is made in Mexico. I watched it with the LG and did not have a problem when I first got the new player. I watched it three times with the Xbox and had problems every time. That experience and the subsequent experience with Lucy suggested to me it was the player but maybe it wasn’t.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

muzz said:


> Lucy 4K/Atmos plays fine here on my 203(and on my Sammy 8500 through the Oppo input),where exactly do you see where it's pressed?




My copy of Lucy was also pressed in Mexico.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

jk246 said:


> I have an Oppo UDP-203... did you happen to check the back of the disc box to see if it has the 'Disc made in Mexico' label? The reports I read also mentioned that the lip sync issue didn't always occur every time the disc is played.
> 
> I watched about 1/2 of Lucy last night without problem. I'll report back here if it occurs when I watch the 2nd half.
> 
> jk


My Mexican Lucy, zero issues with my Oppo 203.....



muzz said:


> Lucy 4K/Atmos plays fine here on my 203(and on my Sammy 8500 through the Oppo input),where exactly do you see where it's pressed?


Back of the disc package, not the cardboard, the actual disc package itself, towards bottom. At least on mine!


----------



## jk246

Jonas2 said:


> My Mexican Lucy, zero issues with my Oppo 203.....
> 
> 
> 
> Back of the disc package, not the cardboard, the actual disc package itself, towards bottom. At least on mine!


Somehow this part of the thread seems to have gone off the tracks... the "Disc made in Mexico" label was specifically about "The Martian- Extended Edition", the actually extended edition disc only has multiple reports of lip sync issues, not the theatrical release disc that's also included in the box. 

Lucy plays fine so far in my Oppo UDP-203 but I've only watched the first 1/2 at this point. USC1995 had problems with Lucy, which may not even be related to The Martian problem.

jk


----------



## OKGeek

Hi, Sven



Sven Gunderson said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> a friend of mine , wants to install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos / DTS:X
> 
> and we are thinking to use wide dispursement speakers for Top Front en Top Rear . With the last , directly above the MLP , because the couch is (completely) against the wall (he doesn't want any space between the couch and the wall)
> 
> Q1: Do you agree on the placement ?


Though not all dimensions are specified on the picture (like ceiling height), it's hard to say for sure. I've made an assumption on ceiling height (280cm) and few other dimensions. Please see full report attached (prepared with HT calc in my signature). 

At glance:
bed layer
1) front Left/Right are quite narrow (just 19 degrees separation to center). Move sofa forward to improve L to R separation for better imaging
2) side surrounds seems to be on spec. Moving sofa forward will allow to move them apart to the side walls and decrease hot spotting for those sitting not in the middle of the couch

height level
1) Top Fronts. Though longitudinal elevation around 55 deg is in spec for both Atmos and DTS:X, speakers are too narrow (see azimuth and lateral elevation degrees). Don't be fooled by Atmos configs in cinema (where side surrounds are elevated so high, that they have to put atmos speakers narrower to ensure lateral separation between layers) and by Dolby pictures for home (speakers in line with mains), as the answer varies depending on ceiling height. 

Spread them out a bit (see estimated placement options for Top Fronts in the right part of report). I would prefer those positions closer to the screen, so to ensure better separation between Top Fronts and second pair of heights. Plus if your friend decides to move couch forward, he'll be able to get Top Front + Top Rear without drilling new holes in the ceiling 

2) Top Rears. Frankly, while the couch is against the wall, they in fact Top Middle (whatsoever you chose in AVR). So same thing as for TopFronts - longitudinal elevation is OK, but spread them out inline with Top Fronts.

All in all, moving couch forward for about 100 cm is good in many ways for sound, but I see the point that it may not work in given situation, particularly due to the glass doors on the left.



Sven Gunderson said:


> Q2: Am I correct to assume that the config in the AVR should be FRont Height and Rear Height , for proper DTS:X soundprocessing ?


In the end of the day it depends on the AVR. I'm not aware of Atmos or DTS:X supporting FrontHeight + TopMiddle configuration, though Denon allows you to use it at least for Atmos. In any case go 4 ceiling, not 2 and play with different assignment in AVR.



Sven Gunderson said:


> (he is looking at in-ceiling Focals, to match with his Focal 9* floorstanders and at Emotiva processor + 5 or 7 ch power amp)
> 
> Many thanks in advance for your help !


Q3: (it was not asked, but implied in the picture) Shall I use widedisp speakers for Top Fronts and not widedisp Top Middle? 

A3: Given necessity to spread out top middle, I would consider both pairs to be widedisp.


----------



## Kevnmin

Just wanted to ask a spin-off question from the recent posts with couch against a back wall and ceiling speaker configuration/callout. 
Currently I have one room where I have my main 3 front stage and then the surrounds are in ceiling(and subs of course). The ceiling surrounds are in line with the couch and placed about a foot beyond the ends of the couch.
I've just recently installed a Denon AVR-X1300. I'm toying with the idea of assigning the surrounds as top rears or top middles instead of surrounds to take advantage of ATMOS & DTS:X. Will I lose too much information that normally would be sent to the surrounds? Or will the processing of the AVR send 'enough' information to top rear/middle to account for no surrounds???

Like I said, just asking for opinions if anyone's ever done anything with a bed front 3 and then a pair of ceilings for top config. Any info anyone would like to share would be much appreciated.


----------



## T-Bone

Kevnmin said:


> Just wanted to ask a spin-off question from the recent posts with couch against a back wall and ceiling speaker configuration/callout.
> Currently I have one room where I have my main 3 front stage and then the surrounds are in ceiling(and subs of course). The ceiling surrounds are in line with the couch and placed about a foot beyond the ends of the couch.
> I've just recently installed a Denon AVR-X1300. I'm toying with the idea of assigning the surrounds as top rears or top middles instead of surrounds to take advantage of ATMOS & DTS:X. Will I lose too much information that normally would be sent to the surrounds? Or will the processing of the AVR send 'enough' information to top rear/middle to account for no surrounds???
> 
> Like I said, just asking for opinions if anyone's ever done anything with a bed front 3 and then a pair of ceilings for top config. Any info anyone would like to share would be much appreciated.


Assuming your AVR will let you do a 3.1.2, I would say don't do it. I have not experimented with that particular configuration. But there was a huge amount of information that flows to the surround speakers. So you are going to ignore all of that information since you don't have surrounds, and your AVR will send you just a pittance of sound to the atmos speakers.

Is there any way that you can wire speakers to the side of the sofa? Then at least you can do a 5.1.2 system

-T


----------



## Kevnmin

T-Bone said:


> Assuming your AVR will let you do a 3.1.2, I would say don't do it. I have not experimented with that particular configuration. But there was a huge amount of information that flows to the surround speakers. So you are going to ignore all of that information since you don't have surrounds, and your AVR will send you just a pittance of sound to the atmos speakers.
> 
> Is there any way that you can wire speakers to the side of the sofa? Then at least you can do a 5.1.2 system
> 
> -T


Your response is pretty much confirming the outcome I was fearing if I were to attempt a 3.1.2. 
To answer your other question about speakers on the side... Maybe, and only maybe, if I could afford to buy the wife a Ferrari, would she relinquish the permission to add side speakers. Hah, the joys of compromise.


----------



## T-Bone

Kevnmin said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming your AVR will let you do a 3.1.2, I would say don't do it. I have not experimented with that particular configuration. But there was a huge amount of information that flows to the surround speakers. So you are going to ignore all of that information since you don't have surrounds, and your AVR will send you just a pittance of sound to the atmos speakers.
> 
> Is there any way that you can wire speakers to the side of the sofa? Then at least you can do a 5.1.2 system
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is pretty much confirming the outcome I was fearing if I were to attempt a 3.1.2.
> To answer your other question about speakers on the side... Maybe, and only maybe, if I could afford to buy the wife a Ferrari, would she relinquish the permission to add side speakers. Hah, the joys of compromise. /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

I understand how that goes. 

You can probably get a decent set for $100 for a pair. Plus the speaker wire.

I have to tell you, I really am surprised how much better Atmos is then not having it. I think I mentioned early in this thread that I demoed a buddy's system. And I was shocked how good it sounded. I think my system sounds every bit as good as his with respect to Atmos.

It's got a wow factor kind of like when you add a subwoofer to a system for the first time. We start realizing what we were missing.

-T


----------



## stikle

Mo speakers, mo bettah!


----------



## Solarium

I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?


----------



## Erod

Solarium said:


> I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?


There are many, but I went with DefTech DI6.5R speakers. Make sure you have aimable tweeters.


----------



## T-Bone

Solarium said:


> I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?


True about matching... I went with Polk MC60 6.5" @ 58 bucks each x 4. Lifetime warranty. 

My AVR crossed them at 80 hz like it did for my 4 surround speakers. And that's my preferred crossover.

Anyway, they sound great.

-T


----------



## snpanago

Solarium said:


> I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?


GoldenEar Invisa HTR 7000. These aren’t cheap but neither is getting speaker wires through ceiling and wall studs and then repairing and painting drywall. Their performance as Atmos speakers in my HT leaves no regret.


----------



## sahil0909

Seems like this is the thread to post my question in, For all of you that have been in this thread since the start and have seen all the atmos options e.t.c, what in your opinion is the best possible atmos setup at the cheapest possible cost? Even a 5.1.2 would be good enough at the beginning but i think the option to upgrade to 5.1.4 would be amazing! So what's your opinion? Also might i add, i can't really use overhead speakers, so i think atmos enabled speakers are the best option for me.

Thanks


----------



## camd5pt0

sahil0909 said:


> Seems like this is the thread to post my question in, For all of you that have been in this thread since the start and have seen all the atmos options e.t.c, what in your opinion is the best possible atmos setup at the cheapest possible cost? Even a 5.1.2 would be good enough at the beginning but i think the option to upgrade to 5.1.4 would be amazing! So what's your opinion? Also might i add, i can't really use overhead speakers, so i think atmos enabled speakers are the best option for me.
> 
> Thanks


IDK what receiver you have, but my Denon allows for all types of config, even mixed. If you're able to use Front Height, do that. And then go Rear Height. I set up my system as 5.0.2 and it sounded great! So great that I stayed up till 3am wiring and mounting the Rear Heights. The sound is noticeably fuller, and better special effect.
I have done bounce, it sounded great even though my ceiling is vaulted. In my experience aiming the speaker overhead for height had better immersion and clarity.


----------



## bjhess

Solarium said:


> I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?


I just had 4 KEF Ci160.2QR installed to go with my MB Quart base layer. No regrets, though admittedly they are so new that I haven't listened to much yes. Seems like a decent match for the base layer at this point.


----------



## Solarium

snpanago said:


> GoldenEar Invisa HTR 7000. These aren’t cheap but neither is getting speaker wires through ceiling and wall studs and then repairing and painting drywall. Their performance as Atmos speakers in my HT leaves no regret.


I was actually looking at their website. $2000 for 4 atmos speakers seems a lot to spend, considering I got my pair of CM10 S2's for $1800. How are they compared to the $300 Invisa 650's?


----------



## snpanago

Solarium said:


> I was actually looking at their website. $2000 for 4 atmos speakers seems a lot to spend, considering I got my pair of CM10 S2's for $1800. How are they compared to the $300 Invisa 650's?


This, I cannot say. I don’t know how anyone compares in ceiling speakers in person; you have to go by specs, reviews, and your own budget.


----------



## sahil0909

camd5pt0 said:


> IDK what receiver you have, but my Denon allows for all types of config, even mixed. If you're able to use Front Height, do that. And then go Rear Height. I set up my system as 5.0.2 and it sounded great! So great that I stayed up till 3am wiring and mounting the Rear Heights. The sound is noticeably fuller, and better special effect.
> I have done bounce, it sounded great even though my ceiling is vaulted. In my experience aiming the speaker overhead for height had better immersion and clarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2365798


Thanks for the reply, unfortunately i don't really have the option of going overhead speakers! If your experience with atmos enabled speakers was also great, then i think that should be good enough. Which atmos enabled speakers did you use if i may ask?

Also, i don't have a reciever, i don't have anything as of yet. i see you have the denon avr x4400h, does it work with both atmos as well as dts x? earlier about 2015-16 there was a problem i was reading about where in order for dts:x to work well you would have to change the speaker config from TF AND TR TO FH AND FR, but the problem was that in this setting atmos wouldn't work as well, as atmos worked best with TF AND TR. Is that fixed now? Can you watch both atmos and dts:x flawlessly? Thanks


----------



## camd5pt0

sahil0909 said:


> Thanks for the reply, unfortunately i don't really have the option of going overhead speakers! If your experience with atmos enabled speakers was also great, then i think that should be good enough. Which atmos enabled speakers did you use if i may ask?
> 
> Also, i don't have a reciever, i don't have anything as of yet. i see you have the denon avr x4400h, does it work with both atmos as well as dts x? earlier about 2015-16 there was a problem i was reading about where in order for dts:x to work well you would have to change the speaker config from TF AND TR TO FH AND FR, but the problem was that in this setting atmos wouldn't work as well, as atmos worked best with TF AND TR. Is that fixed now? Can you watch both atmos and dts:x flawlessly? Thanks


I'm able to watch both flawlessly yes. I can use any config of height, enabled, top with DTS X and Atmos. Just that in a top config, I won't be able to use Auro3D, I rather not loose that for the time being.

I used the Atrium 5 speakers, not enabled, but I did aim them at the ceiling as you can see in the pic. I did try to account for the variance in ceiling height, and it sounded great! Still experimenting, as I aimed them as true heights now, overhead.


----------



## sahil0909

camd5pt0 said:


> I'm able to watch both flawlessly yes. I can use any config of height, enabled, top with DTS X and Atmos. Just that in a top config, I won't be able to use Auro3D, I rather not loose that for the time being.
> 
> I used the Atrium 5 speakers, not enabled, but I did aim them at the ceiling as you can see in the pic. I did try to account for the variance in ceiling height, and it sounded great! Still experimenting, as I aimed them as true heights now, overhead.


That's awesome! i was actually looking at the pioneer andrew jones dolby atmos enabled speakers with atmos built in to the floor standing as well as bookshelf speakers. They seem the the best and most well reviewed speakers with atmos for the price!

The AVR seems awesome, do you know of any other avr with atmos/dts:x as well as 9 channels to allow 4 atmos speakers while being cheaper than this X4400H AVR?


----------



## camd5pt0

sahil0909 said:


> That's awesome! i was actually looking at the pioneer andrew jones dolby atmos enabled speakers with atmos built in to the floor standing as well as bookshelf speakers. They seem the the best and most well reviewed speakers with atmos for the price!
> 
> The AVR seems awesome, do you know of any other avr with atmos/dts:x as well as 9 channels to allow 4 atmos speakers while being cheaper than this X4400H AVR?


Love these speakers!! I did buy the modules but didn't use them. Lots of bass in the mains! Deep when set to large speaker size. Did that until I receive shipment of my sub.
Read your PM!!


----------



## Bond 007

sahil0909 said:


> That's awesome! i was actually looking at the pioneer andrew jones dolby atmos enabled speakers with atmos built in to the floor standing as well as bookshelf speakers. They seem the the best and most well reviewed speakers with atmos for the price!
> 
> The AVR seems awesome, do you know of any other avr with atmos/dts:x as well as 9 channels to allow 4 atmos speakers while being cheaper than this X4400H AVR?


Yamaha RX-A 2050, 2060, 2070.


----------



## gene4ht

Solarium said:


> I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. *What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?*


Your question has been a reoccurring one for the past couple of years. There are at least a few threads dedicated to answering. And as you’ve seen, there is a different answer for every respondent. And the answers range from $50 to $500 each. Naturally, every owner will recommend their choice. Epiphany...one size does not fit all.

The conventional wisdom answer is…it depends. It depends on your room characteristics (constraints, acoustics, design), your ceiling (type, height, angles), budget, WAF, etc. The answers to these will determine which speaker type (in/on ceiling or DAES) and/or characteristics (FR, dispersion, aimable) are best for your room. Furthermore, equally if not more important than the speaker itself, are proper installation and location. Together, these will determine the quality and effectiveness of Atmos performance.

My recommendation is to minimally familiarize yourself with the Dolby Atmos guidelines and at least some of the comments in this and the Atmos speaker threads. You will see that regardless of brand, cost, and characteristics; most have found satisfactory Amos performance. Also, most agree that having Atmos is better than not. Maximizing performance, however, requires experimentation over time in your own environment.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1649609-best-ceiling-speakers-atmos-88.html

Below are several responses I’ve posted over the past two years. Of course, these are my observations and opinions…others may differ.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1345.html#post44606737

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1812.html#post55361608


----------



## sahil0909

Bond 007 said:


> Yamaha RX-A 2050, 2060, 2070.


Thanks for the reply, what about performance wise how do the yamaha 2060 and 2070 compare to the x4400h denon?
thanks


----------



## Bond 007

sahil0909 said:


> Thanks for the reply, what about performance wise how do the yamaha 2060 and 2070 compare to the x4400h denon?
> thanks


I prefer Yamaha. Others may not. Try posting in the AVR threads.


----------



## sahil0909

Bond 007 said:


> I prefer Yamaha. Others may not. Try posting in the AVR threads.


Fair answer thanks alot buddy


----------



## markmanner

Solarium said:


> I'm upgrading from 5.1 to 7.1.4, and I heard that the atmos speakers don't have to match the bottom speakers. What are some recommendations for 4 atmos speakers?


I don't think they have to exactly match. In my case, I couldn't get a brand match since my base speaker maker doesn't make in ceilings. My system sounds really super now, so at least in my situation they don't have to be the same brand. I do think that you have to try to find something that is somewhat compatible with your base layer. I ended up with some Revel speakers that had 6.5" drivers to match more or less the size of my mid-range drivers in my center and surrounds. Some people want larger drivers in the ceiling, but what I got worked for me, even with my fairly large base level speakers (see sig below). You should think about what might be compatible and not worry too much about it. Some careful thought about placement is probably more important. Good luck!
Mark


----------



## Solarium

I don't have a fairly large room, about 17x18', went to bestbuy to get a quote on the in ceiling installation fee. They told me that my room is probably too small for 4 atmos, and that 2 atmos should be plenty enough. Having 2 atmos speakers would increase my budget (probably 2 of the Sonance R1CSUR's), than having 4 (I'm aiming for x4 of the GoldenEar Invisa HTR 7000's).

Which options do you guys think is the better one?


----------



## Jonas2

Solarium said:


> I don't have a fairly large room, about 17x18', went to bestbuy to get a quote on the in ceiling installation fee. They told me that my room is probably too small for 4 atmos, and that 2 atmos should be plenty enough. Having 2 atmos speakers would increase my budget (probably 2 of the Sonance R1CSUR's), than having 4 (I'm aiming for x4 of the GoldenEar Invisa HTR 7000's).
> 
> Which options do you guys think is the better one?


Depending on where your seating is, BestBuy is full of it! My room is 16' x 13' and accommodates 4 speakers just fine. Front are placed more or less per the Dolby spec. and the rears, while not PERFECT per the Dolby spec.. are still within their recommendations, and the effects are excellent. You've got plenty of room for 4 speakers (and you want this if you can do it, vs. just 2) IF your seating is not against the back wall or something like that? Don't sell it short with 2 speakers, go 4 if you can.

You do not need to spend that much for 4 Atmos speakers......


----------



## snpanago

Jonas2 said:


> Depending on where your seating is, BestBuy is full of it! My room is 16' x 13' and accommodates 4 speakers just fine. Front are placed more or less per the Dolby spec. and the rears, while not PERFECT per the Dolby spec.. are still within their recommendations, and the effects are excellent. You've got plenty of room for 4 speakers (and you want this if you can do it, vs. just 2) IF your seating is not against the back wall or something like that? Don't sell it short with 2 speakers, go 4 if you can.
> 
> You do not need to spend that much for 4 Atmos speakers......


Everything he said. 4 atmos speakers over 2....you only want to do this once.

You don’t need to spend this much for atmos speakers, but if they are within budget, you wouldn’t regret it. They play deep and loud and can match my base speakers.


----------



## F-n-T

There right!..you don't have to pay that much..I have for micca 8 inch ceiling speakers....a little over $40, look on amazon.


----------



## gene4ht

Solarium said:


> I don't have a fairly large room, about 17x18', went to bestbuy to get a quote on the in ceiling installation fee. They told me that my room is probably too small for 4 atmos, and that 2 atmos should be plenty enough. Having 2 atmos speakers would increase my budget (probably 2 of the Sonance R1CSUR's), than having 4 (I'm aiming for x4 of the GoldenEar Invisa HTR 7000's).
> 
> Which options do you guys think is the better one?


Please reread my post above as well as those from others. It appears you are falling prey to and being misinformed by a sales person with llimited knowledge.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Solarium said:


> I don't have a fairly large room, about 17x18', went to bestbuy to get a quote on the in ceiling installation fee. They told me that my room is probably too small for 4 atmos, and that 2 atmos should be plenty enough.


As others have said - no, no, no. The effect with four speakers is *completely different*. The results with only two speakers is less than half as good.

My room is small (15feet by 11.6 feet), but I'd never consider only two ceiling speakers.


----------



## jjackkrash

Solarium said:


> I don't have a fairly large room, about 17x18', went to bestbuy to get a quote on the in ceiling installation fee. They told me that my room is probably too small for 4 atmos, and that 2 atmos should be plenty enough.


17' x 18' is not too small, but speaker placement does depend on seating.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

2 pairs of these would be as easy to install as one; installing the speakers is a cake walk, the only rub is running wires depending on what's in and above the ceiling:

https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...ton-885-8-2-way-in-celing-speaker-pair/1.html


----------



## richlife

sahil0909 said:


> That's awesome! i was actually looking at the pioneer andrew jones dolby atmos enabled speakers with atmos built in to the floor standing as well as bookshelf speakers. They seem the the best and most well reviewed speakers with atmos for the price!
> 
> The AVR seems awesome, do you know of any other avr with atmos/dts:x as well as 9 channels to allow 4 atmos speakers while being cheaper than this X4400H AVR?


I have the upgraded Andrew Jones' ELAC A4s (basically the same as those Pioneers) as front heights in my difficult room. Outstanding results (see my signature link for much more). I totally agree with two other comments. Take the time to "fit" the DAES speakers to your room and (especially) take the time to check out the high end Yamaha AVRs.



Solarium said:


> I don't have a fairly large room, about 17x18', went to bestbuy to get a quote on the in ceiling installation fee. They told me that my room is probably too small for 4 atmos, and that 2 atmos should be plenty enough. Having 2 atmos speakers would increase my budget (probably 2 of the Sonance R1CSUR's), than having 4 (I'm aiming for x4 of the GoldenEar Invisa HTR 7000's).
> 
> Which options do you guys think is the better one?


As several others said -- find another dealer, or at least a "sales"man who is honest. I don't ever remember in any of the Atmos related forums seeing anyone who prefers x.x.2 over x.x.4. And many have x.x.4 in 12 foot spaces or smaller.


----------



## robc1976

Thinking about going atmos and have a few questions/concerns.

I run 11.2 A-DSX system in fully treated room, fully soundproof room. The ceiling has 4 layers of 5/8" drywall ect so in ceiling speakers I am not even considering. I will be using the klipsch elevation speakers.

Do I get rid of my heights and put elevations on my side surrounds and wide's or SB? 

My system is almost timber matched expect heights/SB.

Room is treated above listening position, side walls, rear walls ect (fully treated) will this effect the reflections of the atmos speakers? 

Fronts - RF7II
Wides - RF7II
Surrounds - RF7II
Center - RC64II
Heights - RB61II
Surround back - RB61II
(2) 15" subs

I have a Denon 7200WA (13.2 pre-outs) fed to (2) XPA-5

I keep seeing different opinions on setups

I want a 9.2.4 but have no idea where to put these elevations speakers. I am guessing the height channels are deleted and you use 9.2 (front, wide, surround, suround back, center, subs and put elevations speakers on 4 of these? My surround back can't be very low since my 2nd row seating is on a 12" riser...so elevations will be a no go on those.

Here are elevation speakers I will use









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

To add to post above ^^^, I have heard you can actually use the height speakers as (2) of the 4 atmos speakers as long as they are angled down towards listening position then I could just put 2 elevation speakers on the surrounds and deleted the surround back channel because I think the x7200wa is only capable of 7.2.4 which is fine. If I kept the surround back it would be 9.2.4.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jjackkrash

robc1976 said:


> The ceiling has 4 layers of 5/8" drywall ect so in ceiling speakers I am not even considering.


Holy crap. That's got to be heavy, especially layered with green glue!


----------



## robc1976

jjackkrash said:


> Holy crap. That's got to be heavy, especially layered with green glue!


It actually broke a drywall lift, had to get a heavy duty lift lol

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

I would do on ceiling speakers .........




While many levels of acceptable can be had with other options, the ideal location will always be the ceiling.......with in ceiling or on ceiling , with a slight advantage to the on ceiling for changes and aimability .


----------



## robc1976

unretarded said:


> I would do on ceiling speakers .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While many levels of acceptable can be had with other options, the ideal location will always be the ceiling.......with in ceiling or on ceiling , with a slight advantage to the on ceiling for changes and aimability .


I was thinking that, I can run wires in wall with conduit. I have a lot of panels that may interfered. Where are these placed? 









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

robc1976 said:


> I was thinking that, I can run wires in wall with conduit. I have a lot of panels that may interfered. Where are these placed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Graph above is my current setup

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

robc1976 said:


> I was thinking that, I can run wires in wall with conduit. I have a lot of panels that may interfered. Where are these placed?


Here are the Dolby Guidelines. Maybe you can make it work without too much trouble:


----------



## robc1976

stikle said:


> Here are the Dolby Guidelines. Maybe you can make it work without too much trouble:


Wow! Lots of options

1. My height speakers in front are in perfect angle but set up like dsx (in between front and wide). With atmos do they have to be right above the front? 

2. 7.2.4 is basically 7.2 (front, wide's, center, surrounds)with (4) ceiling speakers and I am guessing those 2 height speakers are (2) of the ceiling speakers.

I have $3200 invested in wide's so really want to keep those and will delete the surround back, so put another ceiling speaker I will put in middle and that will make (4).

So basically what your saying, (correct me if wrong) is keep my system the way it is and instead of surround back have (2) ceiling speakers (in front of MLP or over MLP or behind MLP) and the height speakers I already have are the other 2 ceiling speakers for total of (4).

Fronts
Wide's
Center
Height (2 ceiling speakers)
Surround
(2) speakers over mlp (2 ceiling speakers)
2 subs



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Solarium

Jonas2 said:


> Depending on where your seating is, BestBuy is full of it! My room is 16' x 13' and accommodates 4 speakers just fine. Front are placed more or less per the Dolby spec. and the rears, while not PERFECT per the Dolby spec.. are still within their recommendations, and the effects are excellent. You've got plenty of room for 4 speakers (and you want this if you can do it, vs. just 2) IF your seating is not against the back wall or something like that? Don't sell it short with 2 speakers, go 4 if you can.
> 
> You do not need to spend that much for 4 Atmos speakers......


I looked at the dolby atmos guide and this is what I came up with.

The problem with my "dedicated" home theater room is that it overlooks a high ceiling living room. There's no other room that is available. I thought the best solution to this is to place my TV and thus my front L/C/R speakers facing away from this balcony area to fire at the back wall. I would put a sound dampening drape over the balcony area, hanging from a railing from the ceiling so that it could be opened/closed depending on the situation. Another drape would be hung over the door opening (should I go for a door instead?)

Below I came up with a rudimentary schematic of what my speaker placement will be, the in-ceiling atmos speakers in red. There's an attic over the ceiling, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to install. I'll be getting probably a B&W CM1 speaker for the back surrounds, and the Golden Ear Invisa 650/HTR 7000 for the in-ceiling speakers, and possibly another SVS SB-13 Ultra for a 2 sub setup (although 1 might be plenty already for this room).

What do you guys think of this? Any improvements? What kind of acoustic treatments would I need for this room?


----------



## OKGeek

Solarium said:


> I looked at the dolby atmos guide and this is what I came up with.
> ...
> What do you guys think of this? Any improvements? What kind of acoustic treatments would I need for this room?


In general, layout of speakers looks fine, but it really depends on the true distances. To get more definitive answer, can you adjust the scheme, so to show us the distances from speakers and MLP to side and to the rear (or front, whatsoever is easier for you) walls together with specifying the ceiling height.

As per acoustic treatments, the back wall may require some absorbers and few bass traps in the rear corners, but I would measure the room response prior to make any decision - there is a chance, that opening to the high ceiling will eliminate some problems typical for average room or introduce new ones.

Some time ago I've made a post in Acoustic Treatment Thread , which you may find useful.


----------



## OKGeek

robc1976 said:


> 1. My height speakers in front are in perfect angle but set up like dsx (in between front and wide). With atmos do they have to be right above the front?


Well, it depends. To be "above the front" is the averaged simplified recommendation for some typical room, but this definition is so broad, that doesn't help. Dolby specs (as DTS:X and Auro 3D) for home theatre actually recommends specific angles of elevation, so depending on the room dimensions and MLP location your heights might work very well for Top Front duties. Don't be caught by ceiling vs on-wall placement, or width between speakers (see my post on this) as it's about angles first.



robc1976 said:


> 2. 7.2.4 is basically 7.2 (front, wide's, center, surrounds)with (4) ceiling speakers and I am guessing those 2 height speakers are (2) of the ceiling speakers.
> 
> I have $3200 invested in wide's so really want to keep those and will delete the surround back, so put another ceiling speaker I will put in middle and that will make (4).
> 
> So basically what your saying, (correct me if wrong) is keep my system the way it is and instead of surround back have (2) ceiling speakers (in front of MLP or over MLP or behind MLP) and the height speakers I already have are the other 2 ceiling speakers for total of (4).


For the second pair of heights I would aim for behind MLP, not "in front" or "over MLP" (be it on ceiling or on the rear wall, provided you can get enough separation to bed layer). 

You can play with the calc in my signature to get more specific answer on how your layout matches against specs and what is the most suitable location for Top Rears. Feel free to PM.


----------



## Lesmor

OKGeek said:


> Well, it depends. To be "above the front" is the averaged simplified recommendation for some typical room, but this definition is so broad, that doesn't help. Dolby specs (as DTS:X and Auro 3D) for home theatre actually recommends specific angles of elevation, so depending on the room dimensions and MLP location your heights might work very well for Top Front duties. Don't be caught by ceiling vs on-wall placement, or width between speakers (see my post on this) as it's about angles first.
> 
> 
> 
> For the second pair of heights I would aim for behind MLP, not "in front" or "over MLP" (be it on ceiling or on the rear wall, provided you can get enough separation to bed layer).
> 
> You can play with the calc in my signature to get more specific answer on how your layout matches against specs and what is the most suitable location for Top Rears. Feel free to PM.


Cant seem to link to a calculator it only takes me to your thread?


----------



## OKGeek

Lesmor said:


> Cant seem to link to a calculator it only takes me to your thread?


Hi. The latest version of calc is attached to the first post of the thread.


----------



## Lesmor

OKGeek said:


> Hi. The latest version of calc is attached to the first post of the thread.


Ah misunderstood the link
I have got it now I very much appreciate the effort that has gone into this


----------



## OKGeek

Lesmor said:


> Ah misunderstood the link
> I have got it now I very much appreciate the effort that has gone into this


Thanks. Enjoy. Hope it helps to get better feeling on what is implied by all these recommendations, guidelines etc.


----------



## Jonas2

Solarium said:


> I looked at the dolby atmos guide and this is what I came up with.
> 
> The problem with my "dedicated" home theater room is that it overlooks a high ceiling living room. There's no other room that is available. I thought the best solution to this is to place my TV and thus my front L/C/R speakers facing away from this balcony area to fire at the back wall. I would put a sound dampening drape over the balcony area, hanging from a railing from the ceiling so that it could be opened/closed depending on the situation. Another drape would be hung over the door opening (should I go for a door instead?)


I think you're on the right track. Hey, it's what you have to work with, I'd trade with you if I could!  I think you can get some good results in this space. I can't speak to the sound dampening with regards to the railing and open adjacency, though I would door off or at least curtain off that opening, like you are thinking. 



Solarium said:


> Below I came up with a rudimentary schematic of what my speaker placement will be, the in-ceiling atmos speakers in red. There's an attic over the ceiling, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to install. I'll be getting probably a B&W CM1 speaker for the back surrounds, and the Golden Ear Invisa 650/HTR 7000 for the in-ceiling speakers, and possibly another SVS SB-13 Ultra for a 2 sub setup (although 1 might be plenty already for this room).
> 
> What do you guys think of this? Any improvements? What kind of acoustic treatments would I need for this room?


Thumbs up on the second sub. Yes, one might be enough, but two will offer a smoother performance across all of the listening positions. It's challenging to get a single sub perfectly placed in all but the best spaces and designs. 

I would also consider a large area rug to help combat reflections off of the floor.


----------



## richlife

Jonas2 said:


> I think you're on the right track. Hey, it's what you have to work with, I'd trade with you if I could!  I think you can get some good results in this space. I can't speak to the sound dampening with regards to the railing and open adjacency, though I would door off or at least curtain off that opening, like you are thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Thumbs up on the second sub. Yes, one might be enough, but two will offer a smoother performance across all of the listening positions. It's challenging to get a single sub perfectly placed in all but the best spaces and designs.
> 
> I would also consider a large area rug to help combat reflections off of the floor.


I agree with Jonas2, but I would make that curtain a ceiling to floor in front of the railing.


----------



## camd5pt0

Can't wait to get home and do an unboxing


----------



## Solarium

OKGeek said:


> In general, layout of speakers looks fine, but it really depends on the true distances. To get more definitive answer, can you adjust the scheme, so to show us the distances from speakers and MLP to side and to the rear (or front, whatsoever is easier for you) walls together with specifying the ceiling height.
> 
> Per the dolby guidelines, I just have to put the ceiling speaker aligned with the main L/R speakers (in a straight vertical line) right? I'm debating on the location of the L/R speakers still, because I might want to add a 100" projector screen later on when 4k projector prices drop. So based off of that I'm thinking it'll at least by 87 inches (from the screen width itself) plus a few more due to the side panels. Ugh but the problem with that I'll have to really move the sitting area back to maintain that equilateral triangle from the L/R to the listening area.
> 
> As per acoustic treatments, the back wall may require some absorbers and few bass traps in the rear corners, but I would measure the room response prior to make any decision - there is a chance, that opening to the high ceiling will eliminate some problems typical for average room or introduce new ones.
> 
> Some time ago I've made a post in Acoustic Treatment Thread , which you may find useful.


I've meant to take a look at that acoustic treatment thread, but the video is soooo long!  I think I'll eventually get there though, better to do this myself than to hire some guy who is ripping me off.



Jonas2 said:


> I think you're on the right track. Hey, it's what you have to work with, I'd trade with you if I could!  I think you can get some good results in this space. I can't speak to the sound dampening with regards to the railing and open adjacency, though I would door off or at least curtain off that opening, like you are thinking.
> 
> Thumbs up on the second sub. Yes, one might be enough, but two will offer a smoother performance across all of the listening positions. It's challenging to get a single sub perfectly placed in all but the best spaces and designs.
> 
> I would also consider a large area rug to help combat reflections off of the floor.


I'm thinking of putting the curtain in front of the railing with the glass, at least to decrease those glass from vibrating. Also, because of the railing and the glass panels, I was thinking of putting the sub in the back right corner. If I get 2 subs, then I guess I'll put the other one in the back left corner. Would putting the subs in the back of the room instead in the front with the main's conflict with the overall sound? Thanks again


----------



## OKGeek

Solarium said:


> Per the dolby guidelines, I just have to put the ceiling speaker aligned with the main L/R speakers (in a straight vertical line) right?


Not exactly. Per dolby guidelines you have to put ceiling speakers within 30-60 degrees of azimuth (see p.9 of Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines). Given 30-55 deg limits of longitudinal elevation (p.8 of the same document), it may end up inline within the main L/R or not, depending on exact location of L/R speakers and ceiling height.

Ceiling speakers in-line with L/R is one of those simplification which led me to creation of Home Theater Calc (see my signature). Another my favorite simplification is that Front Height shall be high on wall and Top Front shall be on ceiling. It's about angles, not the about physical object which you attach height speaker to.



Solarium said:


> I'm debating on the location of the L/R speakers still, because I might want to add a 100" projector screen later on when 4k projector prices drop. So based off of that I'm thinking it'll at least by 87 inches (from the screen width itself) plus a few more due to the side panels. Ugh but the problem with that I'll have to really move the sitting area back to maintain that equilateral triangle from the L/R to the listening area.


To get true theatrical experience, distance from seating area to the screen shall be determined not only by angle between L/R mains, but by screen height as well: usually 2.5-3.0x image height for 2.40:1 picture (see nice diagram created by Erik Garci, showing cinema equivalent of such distance).


----------



## F-n-T

robc1976 said:


> Thinking about going atmos and have a few questions/concerns.
> 
> I run 11.2 A-DSX system in fully treated room, fully soundproof room. The ceiling has 4 layers of 5/8" drywall ect so in ceiling speakers I am not even considering. I will be using the klipsch elevation speakers.
> 
> Do I get rid of my heights and put elevations on my side surrounds and wide's or SB?
> 
> My system is almost timber matched expect heights/SB.
> 
> Room is treated above listening position, side walls, rear walls ect (fully treated) will this effect the reflections of the atmos speakers?
> 
> Fronts - RF7II
> Wides - RF7II
> Surrounds - RF7II
> Center - RC64II
> Heights - RB61II
> Surround back - RB61II
> (2) 15" subs
> 
> I have a Denon 7200WA (13.2 pre-outs) fed to (2) XPA-5
> 
> I keep seeing different opinions on setups
> 
> I want a 9.2.4 but have no idea where to put these elevations speakers. I am guessing the height channels are deleted and you use 9.2 (front, wide, surround, suround back, center, subs and put elevations speakers on 4 of these? My surround back can't be very low since my 2nd row seating is on a 12" riser...so elevations will be a no go on those.
> 
> Here are elevation speakers I will use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



I had those and could not get them to work...i tried all angles ...forward...backward...just didn't work I even removed my ceiling fan because i thought that was blocking the sound waves :serious: I eventually went to 4 ceiling speakers with a new denon 6400....i never looked back 
I still have those and use them as side surround ...Fantastic sound coming out of them!


----------



## F-n-T

Solarium said:


> I looked at the dolby atmos guide and this is what I came up with.
> 
> The problem with my "dedicated" home theater room is that it overlooks a high ceiling living room. There's no other room that is available. I thought the best solution to this is to place my TV and thus my front L/C/R speakers facing away from this balcony area to fire at the back wall. I would put a sound dampening drape over the balcony area, hanging from a railing from the ceiling so that it could be opened/closed depending on the situation. Another drape would be hung over the door opening (should I go for a door instead?)
> 
> Below I came up with a rudimentary schematic of what my speaker placement will be, the in-ceiling atmos speakers in red. There's an attic over the ceiling, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to install. I'll be getting probably a B&W CM1 speaker for the back surrounds, and the Golden Ear Invisa 650/HTR 7000 for the in-ceiling speakers, and possibly another SVS SB-13 Ultra for a 2 sub setup (although 1 might be plenty already for this room).
> 
> What do you guys think of this? Any improvements? What kind of acoustic treatments would I need for this room?


I would put up heavy drapes and throw down an area rug like everyone has said and be done with it....i have heavy black out drapes on both sides of the room and area rug down. Man what a difference it made!!

Good Luck!


----------



## T-Bone

Solarium said:


> OKGeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general, layout of speakers looks fine, but it really depends on the true distances. To get more definitive answer, can you adjust the scheme, so to show us the distances from speakers and MLP to side and to the rear (or front, whatsoever is easier for you) walls together with specifying the ceiling height.
> 
> Per the dolby guidelines, I just have to put the ceiling speaker aligned with the main L/R speakers (in a straight vertical line) right? I'm debating on the location of the L/R speakers still, because I might want to add a 100" projector screen later on when 4k projector prices drop. So based off of that I'm thinking it'll at least by 87 inches (from the screen width itself) plus a few more due to the side panels. Ugh but the problem with that I'll have to really move the sitting area back to maintain that equilateral triangle from the L/R to the listening area.
> 
> As per acoustic treatments, the back wall may require some absorbers and few bass traps in the rear corners, but I would measure the room response prior to make any decision - there is a chance, that opening to the high ceiling will eliminate some problems typical for average room or introduce new ones.
> 
> Some time ago I've made a post in Acoustic Treatment Thread , which you may find useful.
> 
> 
> 
> I've meant to take a look at that acoustic treatment thread, but the video is soooo long! /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif I think I'll eventually get there though, better to do this myself than to hire some guy who is ripping me off.
> 
> 
> 
> Jonas2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're on the right track. Hey, it's what you have to work with, I'd trade with you if I could! /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif I think you can get some good results in this space. I can't speak to the sound dampening with regards to the railing and open adjacency, though I would door off or at least curtain off that opening, like you are thinking.
> 
> Thumbs up on the second sub. Yes, one might be enough, but two will offer a smoother performance across all of the listening positions. It's challenging to get a single sub perfectly placed in all but the best spaces and designs.
> 
> I would also consider a large area rug to help combat reflections off of the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking of putting the curtain in front of the railing with the glass, at least to decrease those glass from vibrating. Also, because of the railing and the glass panels, I was thinking of putting the sub in the back right corner. If I get 2 subs, then I guess I'll put the other one in the back left corner. Would putting the subs in the back of the room instead in the front with the main's conflict with the overall sound? Thanks again
Click to expand...

I might have lost the bubble on your issue. I think initially you were going to have your display me of the railing?

What do you think about putting your display against the wall... Then you can have an acoustic type cloth hanging down by the railing... and then the main listening Position will be about 2 feet in front of the acoustic cloth.

That was capture a lot of the sound coming off the LCR. 

-T


----------



## Jonas2

Solarium said:


> If I get 2 subs, then I guess I'll put the other one in the back left corner. Would putting the subs in the back of the room instead in the front with the main's conflict with the overall sound? Thanks again


Not necessarily. There are memebrs here that have done this to good effect. It really depends room to room. Mine are on the side walls, opposing each other - it's all I could do, and it is NOT ideal, but it sounds pretty good overall, measures decently, far from perfect. It turns out the back of my room is the BEST location by measurement, but I can't use it. Now, I don't know how true this is - but it does make sense to me; in speaking with a rep. from JL audio at an event last year, the ideal situation is to place subs within the same plane as the mains (or as close as possible) from an _integration_ stand point. I'll let others comment on the accuracy of that statement....


----------



## robc1976

OKGeek said:


> Well, it depends. To be "above the front" is the averaged simplified recommendation for some typical room, but this definition is so broad, that doesn't help. Dolby specs (as DTS:X and Auro 3D) for home theatre actually recommends specific angles of elevation, so depending on the room dimensions and MLP location your heights might work very well for Top Front duties. Don't be caught by ceiling vs on-wall placement, or width between speakers (see my post on this) as it's about angles first.
> 
> 
> 
> For the second pair of heights I would aim for behind MLP, not "in front" or "over MLP" (be it on ceiling or on the rear wall, provided you can get enough separation to bed layer).
> 
> You can play with the calc in my signature to get more specific answer on how your layout matches against specs and what is the most suitable location for Top Rears. Feel free to PM.


My surround back are on rear wall positioning is prefect to mlp, actually set with lazer to ears at seated position just like the heights. My heights are actually over the front because of my projector screen.

So basically my surround back could be rear heights, and my front heights are the front heights. I am guessing A-DSX produces the sound different then ATMOS? If not where is the difference? What would I gain. I think (have to look) atmos wide's are at 70 degrees where A-DSX is at 60 degrees. Also believe there rear heights may be spread more apart. My room and system where built for this configuration and speakers are in this exact position. Wild I really need to change anything?









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

You can see my surround backs here, 1st row MLP is right under projector. Speakers are perfectly centered edge though it doesn't look like it, also angled.









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

Bad pics, but here are front heights and rear surround back









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ki11abee

Man with a nice room setup like that, id put some money to get in wall ceiling speaker for ATMOS 100%


----------



## robc1976

ki11abee said:


> Man with a nice room setup like that, id put some money to get in wall ceiling speaker for ATMOS 100%


It has 4 layers of 5/8" drywall, with 2 layers of green glue and 4 layers of sound insulation. Not even thinking about running wire thru ceiling unfortunately.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ki11abee

robc1976 said:


> It has 4 layers of 5/8" drywall, with 2 layers of green glue and 4 layers of sound insulation. Not even thinking about running wire thru ceiling unfortunately.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Man thats tough. Maybe just drill some small satellites up there then? Not as clean as them being flat, but they would work.


----------



## OKGeek

robc1976 said:


> My surround back are on rear wall positioning is prefect to mlp, actually set with lazer to ears at seated position just like the heights. My heights are actually over the front because of my projector screen.
> 
> So basically my surround back could be rear heights, and my front heights are the front heights. I am guessing A-DSX produces the sound different then ATMOS? If not where is the difference? What would I gain. I think (have to look) atmos wide's are at 70 degrees where A-DSX is at 60 degrees. Also believe there rear heights may be spread more apart. My room and system where built for this configuration and speakers are in this exact position. Wild I really need to change anything?


1) Given the elevation of surround back, they might work well as rear heights, especially given on/in-ceiling is no go for you
2) Dolby's range for wides is 50 to 70 degrees azimuth, so your 60 deg works just fine
3) While you eliminate surround back now, I would try to pull sides a bit to the back and see if it sounds better
4) I would put rear heights inline with front heights

On the difference of sound, produced by A-DSX and Dolby Atmos:
a) A-DSX is not a standard for encoding of immersive audio, but just an upmixer: it sends sound to specific channels, which are originally not part of the soundtrack. Dolby equivalent is Dolby Surround Upmixer or DSU
b) speakers location seems to be cross-compatible across A-DSX and Dolby Atmos, to the extent, that A-DSX doesn't support Rear height

so the main reason you'll get different sound is because of a) and not b).


----------



## sdurani

robc1976 said:


> I am guessing A-DSX produces the sound different then ATMOS?


DSX is room simulation processing based on concert hall acoustics. It copies the front L/R channels into the wides & front heights and adds reverb (that wasn't in the source material) to simulate side wall & proscenium reflections in order to give the impression of a larger space. By comparison, Atmos simply decodes what's in an Atmos soundtrack (nothing is added). Sounds heard above you are sounds intended (mixed) to be heard above you, not something generated by post-processing in your receiver. However, to hear sounds above you, it helps to have the height speakers above you. Placing them high up on the front wall will give the impression of a taller front soundstage but not the overhead localization that Atmos & DTS:X are intending to deliver.


----------



## Soupy1970

robc1976 said:


> I was thinking that, I can run wires in wall with conduit. I have a lot of panels that may interfered. Where are these placed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I would think those panels would interfere with reflective speakers too. I think the idea speaker for your setup would be the Klipsch AW-650. You can find them for under $300 a pair on Ebay. Just make sure your ceiling is at minimum 8ft for on ceiling speakers. http://www.klipsch.com/products/aw-650-outdoor-speaker

*EDIT:* I just saw your other photos. To get Atmos to work you will need to lower your surround speakers to ear level to get good sepration from the atmos speakers. If left as is, I don't think Atmos will work for you becasue you have to many speakers abover ear level.


----------



## robc1976

Soupy1970 said:


> I would think those panels would interfere with reflective speakers too. I think the idea speaker for your setup would be the Klipsch AW-650. You can find them for under $300 a pair on Ebay. Just make sure your ceiling is at minimum 8ft for on ceiling speakers. http://www.klipsch.com/products/aw-650-outdoor-speaker
> 
> *EDIT:* I just saw your other photos. To get Atmos to work you will need to lower your surround speakers to ear level to get good sepration from the atmos speakers. If left as is, I don't think Atmos will work for you becasue you have to many speakers abover ear level.


My surrounds are RF7II floor standing speaker exactly at ear height. Those are surround back speakers (book shelves) and they can't be at rear height since rear seats are 12".higher than front row seating.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> DSX is room simulation processing based on concert hall acoustics. It copies the front L/R channels into the wides & front heights and adds reverb (that wasn't in the source material) to simulate side wall & proscenium reflections in order to give the impression of a larger space. By comparison, Atmos simply decodes what's in an Atmos soundtrack (nothing is added). Sounds heard above you are sounds intended (mixed) to be heard above you, not something generated by post-processing in your receiver. However, to hear sounds above you, it helps to have the height speakers above you. Placing them high up on the front wall will give the impression of a taller front soundstage but not the overhead localization that Atmos & DTS:X are intending to deliver.


Good, my heights are near ceiling angled exactly at MLP

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

OKGeek said:


> 1) Given the elevation of surround back, they might work well as rear heights, especially given on/in-ceiling is no go for you
> 2) Dolby's range for wides is 50 to 70 degrees azimuth, so your 60 deg works just fine
> 3) While you eliminate surround back now, I would try to pull sides a bit to the back and see if it sounds better
> 4) I would put rear heights inline with front heights
> 
> On the difference of sound, produced by A-DSX and Dolby Atmos:
> a) A-DSX is not a standard for encoding of immersive audio, but just an upmixer: it sends sound to specific channels, which are originally not part of the soundtrack. Dolby equivalent is Dolby Surround Upmixer or DSU
> b) speakers location seems to be cross-compatible across A-DSX and Dolby Atmos, to the extent, that A-DSX doesn't support Rear height
> 
> so the main reason you'll get different sound is because of a) and not b).


I would for sure put rear heights exactly in love with front heights.

You said put sides back, you mean my "surrounds correct" they do sound amazing but moving may make them sound better. They are at 110 degrees and 15ft from MLP...picture mindless

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> Placing them high up on the front wall will give the impression of a taller front soundstage but *not* the overhead localization that Atmos & DTS:X are intending to deliver.





robc1976 said:


> Good, my heights are near ceiling angled exactly at MLP


"Good" as in you don't want the overhead directionality that is the intent of Atmos?


----------



## robc1976

robc1976 said:


> I would for sure put rear heights exactly in love with front heights.
> 
> You said put sides back, you mean my "surrounds correct" they do sound amazing but moving may make them sound better. They are at 110 degrees and 15ft from MLP...picture mindless
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Accidentally posted lol! 

Cont:

Makes them seem like they are real close to mlp. I was thinking morning surrounds to the sides more 90degrees or 100 degrees so seating doesn't reflect.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> "Good" as in you don't want the overhead directionality that is the intent of Atmos?


Oh I misread that lol you want heights lower then ? Easily done

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> "Good" as in you don't want the overhead directionality that is the intent of Atmos?


Also, question on the processing. If say I am watching a uhd disk acid its not atmos will all the speakers still have sound? DSX still does.

Big one here, how about with gaming? If its not atmos will I still have the sound? 

Does it just goes back to 7.2? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

robc1976 said:


> Oh I misread that lol you want heights lower then ? Easily done


Other way 'round. The DSX placement diagram you posted shows the heights at 45 degrees elevation. To find that location, measure from your ears to the ceiling; that same distance forward of you is 45 degrees elevation. Your height speakers are nowhere near that location on the ceiling. The only reason I bring this up is because that happens to be the same elevation that can satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. The DSX placement diagram you posted shows the heights at 45 degrees elevation. To find that location, measure from your ears to the ceiling; that same distance forward of you is 45 degrees elevation. Your height speakers are nowhere near that location on the ceiling. The only reason I bring this up is because that happens to be the same elevation that can satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X.


That's exactly where mine are my MLP was placed in room off that exact math, I know it sounds crazy but one MLP was established the rest of the room was designed off mlp location ect

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. The DSX placement diagram you posted shows the heights at 45 degrees elevation. To find that location, measure from your ears to the ceiling; that same distance forward of you is 45 degrees elevation. Your height speakers are nowhere near that location on the ceiling. The only reason I bring this up is because that happens to be the same elevation that can satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X.


Actually I take that back, you may br right. I had to move MLP for 2nd row of seating and my protector screen. This is a really good point. Going to measure in a few. Very curious now

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

robc1976 said:


> Also, question on the processing. If say I am watching a uhd disk acid its not atmos will all the speakers still have sound? DSX still does.


Yes, all the speakers will have sound. The difference is that DSX will generate reverb & early reflections (that were not in the recording) to feed the additional speakers. By comparison, the Dolby and DTS upmixers will only extract sounds from the recording itself to feed the additional speakers.


> Big one here, how about with gaming? If its not atmos will I still have the sound?


Sound is sound. It will still come from all the speakers. Gaming doesn't use a special type of audio that cannot be upmixed.


> Does it just goes back to 7.2?


No. Whenever a format is released that uses a new speaker layout, it is always shipped with an upmixer that scales legacy content to the new layout. When 7.1 speaker layouts started to become popular, Dolby came out with PLIIx to scale legacy 2-channel and 5.1 sources to 7.1 speakers. When Atmos and DTS:X came out, both companies bundled upmixers with those formats to scale legacy content to the new layouts that included height speakers.


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> Other way 'round. The DSX placement diagram you posted shows the heights at 45 degrees elevation. To find that location, measure from your ears to the ceiling; that same distance forward of you is 45 degrees elevation. Your height speakers are nowhere near that location on the ceiling. The only reason I bring this up is because that happens to be the same elevation that can satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X.


Wait a sec, ear height is exactly 41" and ceiling is 96" so 55". Are you saying my height speaker should be at 55" or 55"in front of me, confused but VERY interested in this caculation. I always thought they where to high.

I was talking about distance on other post.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> Yes, all the speakers will have sound. The difference is that DSX will generate reverb & early reflections (that were not in the recording) to feed the additional speakers. By comparison, the Dolby and DTS upmixers will only extract sounds from the recording itself to feed the additional speakers. Sound is sound. It will still come from all the speakers. Gaming doesn't use a special type of audio that cannot be upmixed. No. Whenever a format is released that uses a new speaker layout, it is always shipped with an upmixer that scales legacy content to the new layout. When 7.1 speaker layouts started to become popular, Dolby came out with PLIIx to scale legacy 2-channel and 5.1 sources to 7.1 speakers. When Atmos and DTS:X came out, both companies bundled upmixers with those formats to scale legacy content to the new layouts that included height speakers.


Okay, I have had DSX for so long and all speakers always had sound ect I thought it was possibly that when a non atmos source your atmos speakers wouldn't fire/sound and that would suck.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

robc1976 said:


> Bad pics, but here are front heights and rear surround back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


IMO the Front Heights are to low > I suggest having them @30° elevation on-ceiling or even better around 45° elevation and set them as Top Front

I also think the Rear Surrounds would work better when spread wider apart.

Check out Roger Dressler's 7.1.4 set-up:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2890641-deadwood-ii-theater-lives.html


----------



## robc1976

robc1976 said:


> Wait a sec, ear height is exactly 41" and ceiling is 96" so 55". Are you saying my height speaker should be at 55" or 55"in front of me, confused but VERY interested in this caculation. I always thought they where to high.
> 
> I was talking about distance on other post.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Oh you want heights on ceilings, don't see how I can do that, mounting a book shelf to ceiling is going to be hard lol

That's why with A dsx you just Mount them close to celing angled towards MLP

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Get Volts or other coaxials on ceiling.


----------



## robc1976

erwinfrombelgium said:


> IMO the Front Heights are to low > I suggest having them @30° elevation on-ceiling or even better around 45° elevation and set them as Top Front
> 
> I also think the Rear Surrounds would work better when spread wider apart.
> 
> Check out Roger Dressler's 7.1.4 set-up:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...uction/2890641-deadwood-ii-theater-lives.html


Yes, I agree set apart is better, I had to move them in a bit because of the diffuser location but where they are is almost where dsx suggested and never agreed with that. Father apart for sure.

My heights are inches front the ceiling, can't really go up much higher? Unless your saying mounting the book shelves to the ceiling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

robc1976 said:


> Wait a sec, ear height is exactly 41" and ceiling is 96" so 55". Are you saying my height speaker should be at 55" or 55"in front of me, confused but VERY interested in this caculation.


I'm not saying that. The Audyssey DSX diagram you posted says 45 degrees elevation for the height speakers. I'm just explaining how to find that location, because it happens to be a speaker location that both Atmos and DTS:X share (i.e., a pair of speakers at that location can satisfy multiple formats). Atmos doesn't really give a specific azimuth, but DTS:X shares the same exact elevation AND azimuth for the front heights as Audyssey DSX: 45 degrees up and 45 degrees out (from centre). 

The calculation for elevation is easy: a right triangle with one 90 degree angle and two 45 degree angles (which means the two sides opposite those angles are the same as well). So, viewed from the side, if the ceiling is 55" above you, then a speaker on the ceiling 55" away from the MLP will have 45 degrees elevation. However, when you spread those height speakers 45 degrees out from centre, they are no longer be 55" in front of you. Viewed from above, those speakers are now on an imaginary line 39" forward of the MLP, spread 78" apart. 39" forward of you and 39" from centre gives you 45 degrees azimuth, exactly what your DSX diagram (and the DTS:X renderer) specify.


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> I'm not saying that. The Audyssey DSX diagram you posted says 45 degrees elevation for the height speakers. I'm just explaining how to find that location, because it happens to be a speaker location that both Atmos and DTS:X share (i.e., a pair of speakers at that location can satisfy multiple formats). Atmos doesn't really give a specific azimuth, but DTS:X shares the same exact elevation AND azimuth for the front heights as Audyssey DSX: 45 degrees up and 45 degrees out (from centre).
> 
> The calculation for elevation is easy: a right triangle with one 90 degree angle and two 45 degree angles (which means the two sides opposite those angles are the same as well). So, viewed from the side, if the ceiling is 55" above you, then a speaker on the ceiling 55" away from the MLP will have 45 degrees elevation. However, when you spread those height speakers 45 degrees out from centre, they are no longer be 55" in front of you. Viewed from above, those speakers are now on an imaginary line 39" forward of the MLP, spread 78" apart. 39" forward of you and 39" from centre gives you 45 degrees azimuth, exactly what your DSX diagram (and the DTS:X renderer) specify.


Wow okay, just to be sure I have this correct.

Measure 39" forward of mlp (towards projector screen) then measure 39" to left then 39" to right and those 2 spots on ceiling will be location of height speakers? That seems really close to Mlp though? Can I use a bookshelf for this? I can make bracket to work.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

robc1976 said:


> That's why with A dsx you just Mount them close to celing angled towards MLP


Actually even DSX recommends a 45 degree elevation for height speakers.


----------



## robc1976

batpig said:


> Actually even DSX recommends a 45 degree elevation for height speakers.


Oh I agree, but was told by audussey if you can't achieve that put them on front wall as high up.

This what confuses me here ave apparently there are some very knowledgeable people here so going to ask.

1. If you look at the graph the height speakers go in between front and wide and the face of all speakers at same circular plain. My wide's, fonts center are on that plain but heights are not, to far back...so is the reason why because they are to far back? So possibly moving these to ceiling would actually move them to that plain? 

They just seems very close to mlp, ufc they are audyseey can take care of that.

I do hear effects on ceiling, has scared people in movies thinking something was crawling on ceiling lol! 

Just 39" out 39" to left as right seems close. Maybe its not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

robc1976 said:


> Measure 39" forward of mlp (towards projector screen) then measure 39" to left then 39" to right and those 2 spots on ceiling will be location of height speakers?


That's where your DSX height speakers should have been all this time (at least according to the DSX diagram you posted). Mirror that behind you and you've got the locations for all 4 height speakers for Atmos & DTS:X.


> That seems really close to Mlp though?


OK to spread them apart if you prefer. Ultra-precise speaker locations are not used when mixing these soundtracks, so you need not be any more precise when playing back those soundtracks at home. 45 degrees elevation & azimuth are starting points. Adjust to taste.


> Can I use a bookshelf for this? I can make bracket to work.


You mean bookshelf speakers? That would be optimal, since you can adjust the brackets to aim the speakers towards the listening area. Certainly better than in-ceiling speakers that end up pointing straight down at an arbitrary spot on the carpet where no listeners are sitting.


----------



## robc1976

sdurani said:


> That's where your DSX height speakers should have been all this time (at least according to the DSX diagram you posted). Mirror that behind you and you've got the locations for all 4 height speakers for Atmos & DTS:X. OK to spread them apart if you prefer. Ultra-precise speaker locations are not used when mixing these soundtracks, so you need not be any more precise when playing back those soundtracks at home. 45 degrees elevation & azimuth are starting points. Adjust to taste. You mean bookshelf speakers? That would be optimal, since you can adjust the brackets to aim the speakers towards the listening area. Certainly better than in-ceiling speakers that end up pointing straight down at an arbitrary spot on the carpet where no listeners are sitting.


I am so glad I came to this thread, I always thought the heights where to far back to get the effect. Okay, doing this tonight possibly. Your help is VERY much appreciated. 

My atmos setup will be like this 7.2.4

Fronts
Center
Wide's
Front heights
Surrounds
Rear heights
2 subs

1. Atmos surrounds say directly out to sides of mlp, mine are at 110 degrees back so angled back a bit. I do have 2nd row seating but not used much. If out to sides I would get much less reflection off seats. They are about 6" above seatback to elevate them. If I put them more to the sides I can have all floorstanding speakers (6) on floor. My riser was built so my ear height when reclined is exactly at tweeter height.....thoughts? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mattygeee

I am about to dive into the Atmos fray. Just picked up a Yamaha RX-A2040 and I was having some electrical work done in my basement so I had the guys pull speaker wire for 2 ceiling height speakers (front mounted) and 2 rear surrounds (behind the listener) in the ceiling. Due to the way the room is laid out I decided to try using ceiling speakers as rear surrounds. Now I'm wondering how the AVR will treat these speakers and if there would be an actual difference between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4? Does my question make sense?

I know, the best bet will be to play around with this myself and obviously I will but just thought I'd ask the people who may have been there. 
*
*


----------



## Soupy1970

mattygeee said:


> I am about to dive into the Atmos fray. Just picked up a Yamaha RX-A2040 and I was having some electrical work done in my basement so I had the guys pull speaker wire for 2 ceiling height speakers (front mounted) and 2 rear surrounds (behind the listener) in the ceiling. Due to the way the room is laid out I decided to try using ceiling speakers as rear surrounds. Now I'm wondering how the AVR will treat these speakers and if there would be an actual difference between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4? Does my question make sense?
> 
> I know, the best bet will be to play around with this myself and obviously I will but just thought I'd ask the people who may have been there.


My guess is that 5.1.4 is going to sound better. The only way to know is to try them both ways. You should be able to run Room EQ as Back surrounds, save the file, then switch the speaker wire to the top rear output and run Room EQ again saving file. Then you can swap back and forth uploading the saved confiq.


----------



## Jonas2

mattygeee said:


> I am about to dive into the Atmos fray. Just picked up a Yamaha RX-A2040 and I was having some electrical work done in my basement so I had the guys pull speaker wire for 2 ceiling height speakers (front mounted) and 2 rear surrounds (behind the listener) in the ceiling. Due to the way the room is laid out I decided to try using ceiling speakers as rear surrounds. Now I'm wondering how the AVR will treat these speakers and if there would be an actual difference between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4? Does my question make sense?
> 
> I know, the best bet will be to play around with this myself and obviously I will but just thought I'd ask the people who may have been there.


Ideally, you do not blend ceiling-based surrounds with an Atmos arrangement - you'd prefer to have the Atmos speakers significantly height separated from the base-layer speakers, of which the surrounds are a part. The positioning is also different - the ceiling speakers for a 7.1.2 will land your height above to slightly in front of your seating position - your rears may or may not end up in the right place to *convert* them to a 5.1.4, but even if they were, your front pair would then not be at the right placement, you'd want them further forward.

Of course there will be a difference between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4 - rear surrounds / middle heights vs. front / rear heights will be getting different info. The question is, which one will YOU prefer? In my opinion, the only way to test this is if the speakers are properly placed.


----------



## unretarded

Netflix....in Atmos thru win10 Netflix app....it has arrived and works !!!!!!


----------



## mattygeee

Just to be clear. I have 2 ceiling speakers that are between the listener and the front channels. They are placed slightly narrower width-wise than the fronts. Probably 1-2 between the listener and the fronts. 

The rear ceiling speakers are about the same narrower width than the fronts and surrounds but behind the listener about 4 feet or so. 



Jonas2 said:


> mattygeee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am about to dive into the Atmos fray. Just picked up a Yamaha RX-A2040 and I was having some electrical work done in my basement so I had the guys pull speaker wire for 2 ceiling height speakers (front mounted) and 2 rear surrounds (behind the listener) in the ceiling. Due to the way the room is laid out I decided to try using ceiling speakers as rear surrounds. Now I'm wondering how the AVR will treat these speakers and if there would be an actual difference between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4? Does my question make sense?
> 
> I know, the best bet will be to play around with this myself and obviously I will but just thought I'd ask the people who may have been there.
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally, you do not blend ceiling-based surrounds with an Atmos arrangement - you'd prefer to have the Atmos speakers significantly height separated from the base-layer speakers, of which the surrounds are a part. The positioning is also different - the ceiling speakers for a 7.1.2 will land your height above to slightly in front of your seating position - your rears may or may not end up in the right place to *convert* them to a 5.1.4, but even if they were, your front pair would then not be at the right placement, you'd want them further forward.
> 
> Of course there will be a difference between 7.1.2 and 5.1.4 - rear surrounds / middle heights vs. front / rear heights will be getting different info. The question is, which one will YOU prefer? In my opinion, the only way to test this is if the speakers are properly placed.
Click to expand...


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Looks like you ceiling speakers are in perfect position for Top Front and Top Rear hence 5.1.4 is the way to go.

But do not forget that Side Surrounds can go slightly in front of MLP (70-80° off axis) when Rear Surrounds are present (around 120-140° off axis). Once again, check out Roger Dressler's 7.1.4 set-up!


----------



## r4w

Hi!

I'm new here and I'm trying to set up my first Atmos 5.1.4 system in my new home (they're still building it), all the measurements of the lounge are metric (mm).

The floorplan is attached to the post, as I can't put it in line.

The main sofa will be placed close to the radiator/window "W2" (at around 200 mm from it) and that will be my main listening position.

I was thinking to have the read heights installed from around 500 mm from the back wall and the front heights at around 1700 mm from them.
I'm pretty sure it's not ideal but I can't think of another placement at this time.

I would appreciate any suggestions you can provide and examples of placements 

Thank you in advance!

Cheers!


----------



## r4w

Pardon my English  It was "I'm new here"! It seems I can't edit it, can I?


----------



## richlife

r4w said:


> Pardon my English  It was "I'm new here"! It seems I can't edit it, can I?


Look at the bottom of your own post -- first in the line of buttons is "Edit". Of course, you have to be logged in first.

(Just edited to fix sloppy wording.  )


----------



## r4w

richlife said:


> Look at the bottom of your own post -- first in the line of buttons is "Edit". Of course, you have to be logged in first.
> 
> (Just edited to fix sloppy wording.  )


It seems I don't have this "power" yet 

---
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may not edit your posts
---


----------



## richlife

r4w said:


> It seems I don't have this "power" yet
> 
> ---
> You may post new threads
> You may post replies
> You may post attachments
> You may not edit your posts
> ---


Ah yes. You did say "new". Read more threads and post good stuff or good questions -- it doesn't take that much to get to "Edit". (Of course, what do I know -- I've been here "long time".) So to help out with that ...

That's a tough layout you show in the pic and trying to jive it with your comments is, well, also tough... Do you mean to say that the couch positions in your attachment are not correct? (You refer to the main couch near W2.) So you are trying to set up your HT along the length of the room rather than the width (that's actually what I would recommend)? Will you instead have the two couches and chair as in the layout shown and in that position? If so, I would move the rear heights back behind the listening position and the front heights just about where you suggest or even closer to the screen. Try to keep the speakers within an evenly distributed bubble around the MLP. In other words, away from those end walls. (Personally, I would try to position your 5.1.4 around that tv to main couch axis -- say about 2 - 2.5m wide with height a little inwards of fronts and rear surrounds. )

Curiosity question: Looks like this could be an energy efficient home? (300mm walls, low enegy lamp.) Is that right? Also, some folks will have trouble dealing in mm -- you might consider citing "1700 mm" as "1700mm (1.7m)", etc. US residents in particular find it easy to convert a meter to 3 ft (yeah, yeah -- 39+"). So your room is roughly 18x11'? (For those with difficulty handling mm and meters, google "meters to feet" or "millimeters to feet".)


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

It's not such a bad room, on one condition: move the bloody door so you have a symmetric set-up!!


----------



## Kain

In a small room, 12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high, is it worth it to go 7.1.4 over 5.1.4? The back surrounds will be roughly 3-4 ft behind the side surrounds. Is this too close or will it be okay? Also, the side surrounds will be directly to the sides of the seating position due to the narrow width of the room. I wonder if they would be too close the seating position and might sound overpowering?


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> In a small room, 12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high, is it worth it to go 7.1.4 over 5.1.4? The back surrounds will be roughly 3-4 ft behind the side surrounds. Is this too close or will it be okay? Also, the side surrounds will be directly to the sides of the seating position due to the narrow width of the room. I wonder if they would be too close the seating position and might sound overpowering?


If the surround are going to near the back of the room I wouldn?t worry about 7ch and just do a good 5.1.4 setup. Especially so if your couch is against the back wall (hopefully it?s not as this is a bad acoustic position). 

However if you can move the surrounds a bit forward you can easily execute this alternate 7.1ch base layout, which will give really nice wraparound surround. 

In a room that small I would probably use bipolar surround speakers to mitigate hotspotting and improve dispersion.


----------



## Solarium

Anyone heard about the KEF in-ceiling THX speakers? I can get them for a discount for $500 each, which puts them at the same price as the golden ear HTR 7000's. How do they compare?


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> If the surround are going to near the back of the room I wouldn?t worry about 7ch and just do a good 5.1.4 setup. Especially so if your couch is against the back wall (hopefully it?s not as this is a bad acoustic position).
> 
> However if you can move the surrounds a bit forward you can easily execute this alternate 7.1ch base layout, which will give really nice wraparound surround.
> 
> In a room that small I would probably use bipolar surround speakers to mitigate hotspotting and improve dispersion.


Thanks.

Will there be any issue if the two back surrounds are in the two rear corners of the room instead of 1/4 and 3/4 lengths of the back wall?

Lastly, by placing the two side surround speakers in front of the listening position, do you "mess" with the director's intent of where certain surround effects are placed?


----------



## snpanago

Solarium said:


> Anyone heard about the KEF in-ceiling THX speakers? I can get them for a discount for $500 each, which puts them at the same price as the golden ear HTR 7000's. How do they compare?


I haven't heard them personally but the reviews are excellent. However I don't believe they have aimable tweeters so that might sway you away from them if I am correct. The HTR 7000s have angled tweeters that need to be mounted in a way that the tweeters are aimed toward the main listening position.


----------



## r4w

richlife said:


> Ah yes. You did say "new". Read more threads and post good stuff or good questions -- it doesn't take that much to get to "Edit". (Of course, what do I know -- I've been here "long time".) So to help out with that ...
> 
> That's a tough layout you show in the pic and trying to jive it with your comments is, well, also tough... Do you mean to say that the couch positions in your attachment are not correct? (You refer to the main couch near W2.) So you are trying to set up your HT along the length of the room rather than the width (that's actually what I would recommend)? Will you instead have the two couches and chair as in the layout shown and in that position? If so, I would move the rear heights back behind the listening position and the front heights just about where you suggest or even closer to the screen. Try to keep the speakers within an evenly distributed bubble around the MLP. In other words, away from those end walls. (Personally, I would try to position your 5.1.4 around that tv to main couch axis -- say about 2 - 2.5m wide with height a little inwards of fronts and rear surrounds. )
> 
> Curiosity question: Looks like this could be an energy efficient home? (300mm walls, low enegy lamp.) Is that right? Also, some folks will have trouble dealing in mm -- you might consider citing "1700 mm" as "1700mm (1.7m)", etc. US residents in particular find it easy to convert a meter to 3 ft (yeah, yeah -- 39+"). So your room is roughly 18x11'? (For those with difficulty handling mm and meters, google "meters to feet" or "millimeters to feet".)


First of all thanks for the help!
I have described where the sofa is going to be as the floor plan provided is from the builder itself and the forniture is purely for demonstration only.
In order to answer you and @erwinfrombelgium, I'm forced to go by the length of the room as the builder doesn't allow me to move the door anywhere else or have it to open towards the hall, in order to simplify the surround speaker location.

The backup plan is to have one single sofa close to W2 and maybe a chair on its right side.
I'm aware it's not ideal but I have to work with it.
Would be the positioning as I have described earlier OK or can I do better?

I would expect to be a quite energy efficient home and well insulated, the builder is, at least, famous for the home quality.
Apologises for the metering system, but yeah using google makes it simple to convert.

I really appreciated @erwinfrombelgium drawing, if you can help me further with the other room layout, I would be very grateful


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

You are kidding, surely? It's your money... You simply demand the dooropening to be moved a meter.

I earn my money from building management. Would rather like to be a bit more creative in my day job but such is life... What do you need? All I did was provide you with a 2 minute sketch... But if you can't even get to move a door in a non-supportive wall, that's where it ends!


----------



## Jonas2

Kain said:


> Also, the side surrounds will be directly to the sides of the seating position due to the narrow width of the room. I wonder if they would be too close the seating position and might sound overpowering?


If you are using monopoles, depending on how close they are, you will likely notice them. You can drop them a few dB in the receiver to compensate somewhat. Bipole speakers / mounting slightly higher up on the wall (if that's what you're doing) can help too.



Solarium said:


> Anyone heard about the KEF in-ceiling THX speakers? I can get them for a discount for $500 each, which puts them at the same price as the golden ear HTR 7000's. How do they compare?


Heard about them, yes. (Good things.) Heard them directly? No. Can't tell you how they compare to the Golden Ear either, sorry! Pretty useless response here. BUT I can tell you that you don't need to spend $500.00 / speaker to get a great Atmos experience that will sound very nice. I'm not one to criticize folks spending lots of $$$ on good speakers, but just don't feel that you HAVE to do so, especially if you're budget constrained. Save $$$, buy more subwoofers....


----------



## richlife

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Looks like you ceiling speakers are in perfect position for Top Front and Top Rear hence 5.1.4 is the way to go.
> 
> But do not forget that Side Surrounds can go slightly in front of MLP (70-80° off axis) when Rear Surrounds are present (around 120-140° off axis). Once again, check out Roger Dressler's 7.1.4 set-up!





r4w said:


> First of all thanks for the help!
> I have described where the sofa is going to be as the floor plan provided is from the builder itself and the forniture is purely for demonstration only.
> In order to answer you and @erwinfrombelgium, I'm forced to go by the length of the room as the builder doesn't allow me to move the door anywhere else or have it to open towards the hall, in order to simplify the surround speaker location.
> 
> The backup plan is to have one single sofa close to W2 and maybe a chair on its right side.
> I'm aware it's not ideal but I have to work with it.
> Would be the positioning as I have described earlier OK or can I do better?
> 
> I would expect to be a quite energy efficient home and well insulated, the builder is, at least, famous for the home quality.
> Apologises for the metering system, but yeah using google makes it simple to convert.
> 
> I really appreciated @erwinfrombelgium drawing, if you can help me further with the other room layout, I would be very grateful


I like @erwinfrombelgium's sketch too, but I would move the rear's in from the side walls a little. Notice he has the listening position forward slightly. And, yes, ideally get that door moved -- even if just a foot, but closer to the full door width is better. 

Thanks for verifying the energy efficiency. The construction looks much like my house, that's why my interest. Thick walls/insulation -- my roof has 10" (@25mm) insulation -- R39. Numerous other energy features. It's paid off well over the past 25 years.


----------



## richlife

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Looks like you ceiling speakers are in perfect position for Top Front and Top Rear hence 5.1.4 is the way to go.
> 
> But do not forget that Side Surrounds can go slightly in front of MLP (70-80° off axis) when Rear Surrounds are present (around 120-140° off axis). Once again, check out Roger Dressler's 7.1.4 set-up!





r4w said:


> First of all thanks for the help!
> I have described where the sofa is going to be as the floor plan provided is from the builder itself and the forniture is purely for demonstration only.
> In order to answer you and @erwinfrombelgium, I'm forced to go by the length of the room as the builder doesn't allow me to move the door anywhere else or have it to open towards the hall, in order to simplify the surround speaker location.
> 
> The backup plan is to have one single sofa close to W2 and maybe a chair on its right side.
> I'm aware it's not ideal but I have to work with it.
> Would be the positioning as I have described earlier OK or can I do better?
> 
> I would expect to be a quite energy efficient home and well insulated, the builder is, at least, famous for the home quality.
> Apologises for the metering system, but yeah using google makes it simple to convert.
> 
> I really appreciated @erwinfrombelgium drawing, if you can help me further with the other room layout, I would be very grateful


I like @erwinfrombelgium's sketch too, but I would move the rear's in from the side walls a little. Notice he has the listening position forward slightly. And, yes, ideally get that door moved -- even if just a foot, but closer to the full door width is better. 

Thanks for verifying the energy efficiency. The construction looks much like my house, that's why my interest. Thick walls/insulation -- my roof has 10" (@25mm) insulation -- R39. Numerous other energy features. It's paid off well over the past 25 years.


----------



## r4w

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You are kidding, surely? It's your money... You simply demand the dooropening to be moved a meter.
> 
> I earn my money from building management. Would rather like to be a bit more creative in my day job but such is life... What do you need? All I did was provide you with a 2 minute sketch... But if you can't even get to move a door in a non-supportive wall, that's where it ends!


Here it seems the houses are based on "model" and going outside or thinking outside the model is a problem for them.
You're right it's my money, I have even open a complaint but I don't expect anything from it, as it has been denied almost ANY modification so far.
But I'll surely ask again.
Moving the door will require moving the radiator position too.

Anyway, tn the worst case scenario, how can I place the speakers using the length of the room instead?

Thanks!


----------



## jeff43

r4w said:


> Anyway, tn the worst case scenario, how can I place the speakers using the length of the room instead?
> 
> Thanks!


As a general rule you want to be sitting on a stool smack dab in the middle of your speakers with a couple of exceptions. However, that simply is not possible in most situations so, if you follow the general rules for angling your speakers, there is a decent amount of flexibility. Just make sure you're able to angle speakers towards the main listening position. That's why having ceiling speakers with the ability to angle the tweeter is a nice plus. The point? Decide the viewing position first, try to make sure your seating position is directly in the front of the TV which, ideally, should be in the middle of the wall. That's when you decide speaker placement. It's a plus to have speakers symmetrically placed within the room but your goal is to have the speakers placed as symmetrically as possible around the viewing position. 

With this Atmos setup, you probably have a receiver that will be able to measure distances of the speakers and internally balance the entire system really well. If moving the door is impractical, considering moving the TV to another wall. Your plan as is, while not ideal, is fine as your receiver will help maximize the sound from the viewing positions you choose when you finish the setup. If you stay with your current plan, I would place the TV between the middle of the door opening and wall, with speaker placement based on the main listening position. For a 5.1.4 system I think there's no issue with your plan at all but a 7.1.2 system would be little trickier. You may have to sacrifice the seating against the side wall by centering the TV between the door and wall for a more ideal speaker placement.

Personally, if this was my room, I would probably center the TV between the door and wall, do a 5.1.4 system and have my couch/chairs off the back wall as far as practical. Although this may cause you to lose seating in the TV area, it will free up some square footage on the other end of the room which may be nice. No matter what you chose, you'll have a nice system.


----------



## Ted99

Kain said:


> In a small room, 12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high, is it worth it to go 7.1.4 over 5.1.4? The back surrounds will be roughly 3-4 ft behind the side surrounds. Is this too close or will it be okay? Also, the side surrounds will be directly to the sides of the seating position due to the narrow width of the room. I wonder if they would be too close the seating position and might sound overpowering?


Completely agree with the advice given by @batpig. I have a room much like yours 12' wide x 14' x 9' and I have a 15 speaker setup: 9.2.4 for Atmos and 13.2 for Auro, automatically switched by my Denon X8500. When I initially had a 7.2.4 setup, the nearness of the side walls initially caused problems with being able to localize side surround sounds as point sources when I had them at 90 degrees. Using advice from batpig and others, I moved the side surrounds to the 70 to 80 degree position, as shown in his diagram, and aimed each tower speaker side surround at the far seat of the two-position seating and the point source localaization was MUCH reduced. With the New Denon, I got wides for Atmos and moved the side surrounds back to the 90 degree position. I moved the former tower sides to the wide position and got bi-poles for the side surrounds, which eliminated the point localization problem with the 90 degree position.


----------



## richlife

r4w said:


> Here it seems the houses are based on "model" and going outside or thinking outside the model is a problem for them.
> You're right it's my money, I have even open a complaint but I don't expect anything from it, as it has been denied almost ANY modification so far.
> But I'll surely ask again.
> Moving the door will require moving the radiator position too.
> 
> *Anyway, tn the worst case scenario, how can I place the speakers using the length of the room instead?
> *
> Thanks!


As I said in my first reply, to me that is the BEST case scenario from the perspective of HT. 

As for the builder, I suspected from your first posts that the refusal to adjust is a contract situation. For a completely custom build, it's easy to demand what you want. When there is a "standard" model, any deviation can result in excessive cost for the builder/developer (or perhaps the buyer) as the cascade of "contracts" with "contractors" expands. (This is from my perspective of US development -- my assumption is that countries in Europe might have even tighter requirements.)


----------



## gwsat

I realized earlier today that I can find good 7.2.4 immersive audio in unexpected places sometimes. I was watching my recording of last night's Dallas Mavericks OKC Thunder NBA game and during the post game wrap up, the Fox Sports native DD 5.1 audio upconverted to 7.2.4 by my receiver's builtin Dolby Surround Upmixer, produced wonderful surround and immersive effects. I never would have expected it but tripping and falling over it was fun.


----------



## zaleon

Hey Guys and Gals,

Great forum! Just looking to see if you guys have any advice on the following setup. So I'm going to have a new house built soon and its basically a spec house so I can't do too much customizing, but I am able to do whatever I want as far as low-voltage wiring to it. I'm wanting to do surround sound wiring as a part of that in the Great Room and am thinking of going with a 7.1.4 setup. However, I was concerned if the Dolby Atmos in-ceiling speakers would work correctly with the vaulted ceiling in this room or if I could get the proper placement on the surround sound speakers for that matter.

The local dealer doesn't recommend I do Atmos at all and just go with a traditional 7.1 setup, but I want to get a second opinion for sure. I've attached pictures I captures from a video of another house with the same floor plan on YouTube, so sorry about the quality. I've also attached the floor plan.

The Great Room is 17' x 17' with a 10' ceiling and opens up to the front foyer and adjacent kitchen with 8' ceilings.

Any suggestions appreciated!


----------



## Erod

zaleon said:


> Hey Guys and Gals,
> 
> Great forum! Just looking to see if you guys have any advice on the following setup. So I'm going to have a new house built soon and its basically a spec house so I can't do too much customizing, but I am able to do whatever I want as far as low-voltage wiring to it. I'm wanting to do surround sound wiring as a part of that in the Great Room and am thinking of going with a 7.1.4 setup. However, I was concerned if the Dolby Atmos in-ceiling speakers would work correctly with the vaulted ceiling in this room or if I could get the proper placement on the surround sound speakers for that matter.
> 
> The local dealer doesn't recommend I do Atmos at all and just go with a traditional 7.1 setup, but I want to get a second opinion for sure. I've attached pictures I captures from a video of another house with the same floor plan on YouTube, so sorry about the quality. I've also attached the floor plan.
> 
> The Great Room is 17' x 17' with a 10' ceiling and opens up to the front foyer and adjacent kitchen with 8' ceilings.
> 
> Any suggestions appreciated!



You can absolutely do Atmos in that room if you can flush mount speakers in the ceiling that have aimable tweeters. If you're talking about the billiard-ball "enabled" variety, don't waste your money.


----------



## r4w

jeff43 said:


> As a general rule you want to be sitting on a stool smack dab in the middle of your speakers with a couple of exceptions. However, that simply is not possible in most situations so, if you follow the general rules for angling your speakers, there is a decent amount of flexibility. Just make sure you're able to angle speakers towards the main listening position. That's why having ceiling speakers with the ability to angle the tweeter is a nice plus. The point? Decide the viewing position first, try to make sure your seating position is directly in the front of the TV which, ideally, should be in the middle of the wall. That's when you decide speaker placement. It's a plus to have speakers symmetrically placed within the room but your goal is to have the speakers placed as symmetrically as possible around the viewing position.
> 
> With this Atmos setup, you probably have a receiver that will be able to measure distances of the speakers and internally balance the entire system really well. If moving the door is impractical, considering moving the TV to another wall. Your plan as is, while not ideal, is fine as your receiver will help maximize the sound from the viewing positions you choose when you finish the setup. If you stay with your current plan, I would place the TV between the middle of the door opening and wall, with speaker placement based on the main listening position. For a 5.1.4 system I think there's no issue with your plan at all but a 7.1.2 system would be little trickier. You may have to sacrifice the seating against the side wall by centering the TV between the door and wall for a more ideal speaker placement.
> 
> Personally, if this was my room, I would probably center the TV between the door and wall, do a 5.1.4 system and have my couch/chairs off the back wall as far as practical. Although this may cause you to lose seating in the TV area, it will free up some square footage on the other end of the room which may be nice. No matter what you chose, you'll have a nice system.


Thank you! I have a Yamaha A/V 7.2 at the moment, which comes with its microphone for adjusting the speakers to room, so all good from that point of view.
However, if I put the TV in the the middle of the door opening, I will have big issues in placing the left surround speaker, which will go surely after the bay window.
This was my idea on how to use the room, moving the TV to the other wall and make things more symmetric.
Having the opportunity, somehow, to put some ceiling speakers, I'm now looking for the best placement for them, especially how far they should go close to the rear wall, trying to avoid to have them straight over the sofa (I was thinking about 40/50 cm, 1.3 / 1.6 ft).
Is that fine?


----------



## r4w

richlife said:


> As I said in my first reply, to me that is the BEST case scenario from the perspective of HT.
> 
> As for the builder, I suspected from your first posts that the refusal to adjust is a contract situation. For a completely custom build, it's easy to demand what you want. When there is a "standard" model, any deviation can result in excessive cost for the builder/developer (or perhaps the buyer) as the cascade of "contracts" with "contractors" expands. (This is from my perspective of US development -- my assumption is that countries in Europe might have even tighter requirements.)


This plan was my idea from the start, front and rear speaker are in the corner but it was just to show where they are, I'm looking to put them on wall/shelf as I have a small child running around the house.

You're right, they thing that moving around stuff is more money and can cause confusion, therefore any sort of change is denied.
I just got another refusal to my complaint.


----------



## richlife

r4w said:


> This plan was my idea from the start, front and rear speaker are in the corner but it was just to show where they are, I'm looking to put them on wall/shelf as I have a small child running around the house.
> 
> You're right, they thing that moving around stuff is more money and can cause confusion, therefore any sort of change is denied.
> I just got another refusal to my complaint.


Now we're talking!  To me, the question now is whether the room is yours to setup as you wish, or do you have a significant person who insists on a significant opinion? In either case, for myself, I would lobby for making that couch the central piece of furniture. With 4.9 meter room length, center the couch (as best can be allowing clearance for the door to open and accepting limits to that opening) across the small width of the room. (In my case, I would replace the door completely with a heavy curtain at the entrance which eliminates the issue.) Again, I don't like speaker placements in corners, so move the fronts to half way to the tv and the rear surrounds a corresponding distance inward. With a 5.1.4 setup, that would give you a good, deep sound field. Alternatively, you could consider moving the couch further forward to clear the door swing and wall mounting the rears just outside the door swing. (A curtain would really help with that.)

I assume you already have the couch. With that problem, we actually traded the couch for two recliners making the whole setup easier. With rears on the back wall and moving the couch forward, you would potentially have room behind the couch for two small, but comfortable chairs or keep the couch to the rear and add chairs in front. Obviously, I'm looking at this as more HT room than living room. If the latter -- well, that's a problem most of us deal with. 

As for your diagram, nothing really wrong with that other than I would still move the speakers out of the corners. Tight corners and walls just do strange things to side reflections.


----------



## richlife

zaleon said:


> Hey Guys and Gals,
> 
> Great forum! Just looking to see if you guys have any advice on the following setup. So I'm going to have a new house built soon and its basically a spec house so I can't do too much customizing, but I am able to do whatever I want as far as low-voltage wiring to it. I'm wanting to do surround sound wiring as a part of that in the Great Room and am thinking of going with a 7.1.4 setup. However, I was concerned if the Dolby Atmos in-ceiling speakers would work correctly with the vaulted ceiling in this room or if I could get the proper placement on the surround sound speakers for that matter.
> 
> The local dealer doesn't recommend I do Atmos at all and just go with a traditional 7.1 setup, but I want to get a second opinion for sure. I've attached pictures I captures from a video of another house with the same floor plan on YouTube, so sorry about the quality. I've also attached the floor plan.
> 
> The Great Room is 17' x 17' with a 10' ceiling and opens up to the front foyer and adjacent kitchen with 8' ceilings.
> 
> Any suggestions appreciated!





Erod said:


> You can absolutely do Atmos in that room if you can flush mount speakers in the ceiling that have aimable tweeters. If you're talking about the billiard-ball "enabled" variety, don't waste your money.


I totally agree this can be a good Atmos room. But depending on your seating plan, I would also consider mounting nice-looking wood "bookshelf" speakers directly on those beams. 

It's clear to me that your "dealer" would consider my HT impossible -- check my signature HT thread. I have had footsteps through the air above my head crossing that vaulted space. (Train roof in The Lone Ranger.)


----------



## gene4ht

zaleon said:


> Hey Guys and Gals,
> 
> Great forum! Just looking to see if you guys have any advice on the following setup. So I'm going to have a new house built soon and its basically a spec house so I can't do too much customizing, but I am able to do whatever I want as far as low-voltage wiring to it. I'm wanting to do surround sound wiring as a part of that in the Great Room and am thinking of going with a 7.1.4 setup. However, I was concerned if the Dolby Atmos in-ceiling speakers would work correctly with the vaulted ceiling in this room or if I could get the proper placement on the surround sound speakers for that matter.
> 
> The local dealer doesn't recommend I do Atmos at all and just go with a traditional 7.1 setup, but I want to get a second opinion for sure. I've attached pictures I captures from a video of another house with the same floor plan on YouTube, so sorry about the quality. I've also attached the floor plan.
> 
> The Great Room is 17' x 17' with a 10' ceiling and opens up to the front foyer and adjacent kitchen with 8' ceilings.
> 
> Any suggestions appreciated!





Erod said:


> You can absolutely do Atmos in that room if you can flush mount speakers in the ceiling that have aimable tweeters. If you're talking about the billiard-ball "enabled" variety, don't waste your money.


I am in agreement with  @*Erod* , your local dealer obviously is more comfortable with traditional 7.1 configurations and likely lacks 3D sound (Atmos/DTS:X/Auro) knowledge and experience. There are many members here who have successful Atmos installations in homes with similar ceilings. The recommendation to avoid Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES) is on point. Although possible, it's more difficult to obtain good performance in angled/sloping ceilings for reflective type speakers. In any case, familiarizing yourself with the Dolby Installation Guidelines will be beneficial. If you have the interest and are a capable DIY'er, by all means continue to visit this and other build threads for moving forward. If not, I suggest contacting a knowledgeable Home Theater Installer for further information and guidance. Good luck with your pursuit!

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## r4w

richlife said:


> Now we're talking!  To me, the question now is whether the room is yours to setup as you wish, or do you have a significant person who insists on a significant opinion? In either case, for myself, I would lobby for making that couch the central piece of furniture. With 4.9 meter room length, center the couch (as best can be allowing clearance for the door to open and accepting limits to that opening) across the small width of the room. (In my case, I would replace the door completely with a heavy curtain at the entrance which eliminates the issue.) Again, I don't like speaker placements in corners, so move the fronts to half way to the tv and the rear surrounds a corresponding distance inward. With a 5.1.4 setup, that would give you a good, deep sound field. Alternatively, you could consider moving the couch further forward to clear the door swing and wall mounting the rears just outside the door swing. (A curtain would really help with that.)
> 
> I assume you already have the couch. With that problem, we actually traded the couch for two recliners making the whole setup easier. With rears on the back wall and moving the couch forward, you would potentially have room behind the couch for two small, but comfortable chairs or keep the couch to the rear and add chairs in front. Obviously, I'm looking at this as more HT room than living room. If the latter -- well, that's a problem most of us deal with.
> 
> As for your diagram, nothing really wrong with that other than I would still move the speakers out of the corners. Tight corners and walls just do strange things to side reflections.


You're right, my wife will not allow me to put the sofa in the middle of the room or close to the TV, so well it seems I have again to work with "restrictions".
We had the idea to replace the door with a sliding door more than a curtain, unfortunately it's something we have to see after the house is completed.
We have already a couch but it's not that the problem, meaning that the problem is its position which will remain as it's in the picture.
Would be the attachment placement for the surround and Atmos speakers OK or are the front height too far from the couch?
I was planning to have the surrounds a bit in the corner on brackets, so that I could position them to my listening position, but I shouldn't have any problems to have them on the back wall too if this is best.

Cheers!


----------



## gene4ht

r4w said:


> You're right, my wife will not allow me to put the sofa in the middle of the room or close to the TV, so well it seems I have again to work with "restrictions".
> We had the idea to replace the door with a sliding door more than a curtain, unfortunately it's something we have to see after the house is completed.
> We have already a couch but it's not that the problem, meaning that the problem is its position which will remain as it's in the picture.
> *Would be the attachment placement for the surround and Atmos speakers OK* or are the front height too far from the couch?
> I was planning to have the surrounds a bit in the corner on brackets, so that I could position them to my listening position, but I shouldn't have any problems to have them on the back wall too if this is best.
> 
> Cheers!


As recommended to the previous poster, familiarization with the Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines would also be very beneficial.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## richlife

r4w said:


> You're right, my wife will not allow me to put the sofa in the middle of the room or close to the TV, so well it seems I have again to work with "restrictions".
> We had the idea to replace the door with a sliding door more than a curtain, unfortunately it's something we have to see after the house is completed.
> We have already a couch but it's not that the problem, meaning that the problem is its position which will remain as it's in the picture.
> Would be the attachment placement for the surround and Atmos speakers OK or are the front height too far from the couch?
> I was planning to have the surrounds a bit in the corner on brackets, so that I could position them to my listening position, but I shouldn't have any problems to have them on the back wall too if this is best.
> 
> Cheers!


Wives can be funny like that.  Fortunately, our arrangement was satisfactory to mine. But she still takes the opportunities when they come along to poke at how the living room arrangement is "set around the tv/speakers". Honestly, you have no idea how much time and effort that took to accomplish. Or the DIY work I've had to do to on modifications to permit this arrangement and hide the evidence! 

Given the sofa location, I think your Atmos are about right. Do check out those Dolby guidelines, it's pretty clear and quite flexible. Ideally, you would move the couch forward some and the front heights forward about the same with the rear heights remaining in place. Your biggest problem may be the rear heights dominating, but YPAO will help you with that. While you are looking up the Dolby guidelines, add "sub crawl" to your search list if you aren't already familiar with it. That will help you find better options for sub placement if needed (the location you indicate could be that "best" place -- a sub crawl would help confirm that). 

Once you get into the room, experimentation with placement options will be your best tool. But as you indicate, you ideally need to identify places for the Atmos speakers now. Try to be as flexible as possible with installing them. Run the wires now but try to leave actually mounting the speakers until you are in and can try to "test" positioning -- perhaps adjusting along the joists. Allow plenty of extra wire! I had to go through some odd maneuvers to find the right Atmos locations and others here have described even building temporary "speaker scaffolding" to try various options. If you are the DIY type, that helps a lot -- otherwise you may want to find some help from a friend or professionally. 

Lastly, yes, the idea of a sliding door could be good. Depending on your decor (or your wife's), I've seen some really nice looking ones. And you may have the options of wall-mounting a sliding door actually in that room or in the adjoining room.


----------



## zaleon

Hey Guys, thanks for your replies. Gene4ht I think you are correct in that this dealer just hasn't done much Dolby Atmos installations and is not familiar with how it works really. My original plan was to just to get him to do the wiring and the in-ceiling presence speakers and I could add the surround speakers. receivers, etc. after I move in. However, his price seemed pretty reasonable for the ceiling speakers that I thought about letting him do them all and that's when we got into the discussion of weather it would work in that type of room.

The speakers he quoted for in the ceiling are the Klipsch KL-CDT3650-C with Klipsch KL-IK-650-C pre-construction bracket. Now I haven't used Klipsch in like 10-15 years when they first got into the PC surround sound market and they were awful for me, but this dealer insist 98% of theaters in the U.S. use them and they are great now. Even though his price was good, Klipsch still seems overpriced compared to very similar specced products from other companies. For the record, I think the same thing about Sony. 

I don't mind picking out speakers and buying them after I move in, but I think the in-ceiling speakers would be a real pain to get installed compared to the others since they are 10+ feet in the air.

I guess my concern after reading the Dolby guidelines is I didn't really want the speakers on the ground in that room, but they recommend them by at ear level which is around 3.9 feet. I assume the aimable tweeters that were referred to, alleviates this requirement?

The other issue I would have is figuring out the proper angles for each speaker and having them aligned properly around the room due to the way the room is broken up.


----------



## zaleon

richlife said:


> I totally agree this can be a good Atmos room. But depending on your seating plan, I would also consider mounting nice-looking wood "bookshelf" speakers directly on those beams.
> 
> It's clear to me that your "dealer" would consider my HT impossible -- check my signature HT thread. I have had footsteps through the air above my head crossing that vaulted space. (Train roof in The Lone Ranger.)


Richlife,

Where did you place your forward presence speakers? I saw the two above the others, but not the other 2 for the .4.


----------



## richlife

zaleon said:


> Richlife,
> 
> Where did you place your forward presence speakers? I saw the two above the others, but not the other 2 for the .4.


Is this question about my signature HT thread? Best place to ask/discuss is in that thread.

But my front presence are on top of the wall unit -- barely visible about 3 ft over my front mains. The rear presence are in-ceiling in the dining room behind my MLP.


----------



## robc1976

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Looks like you ceiling speakers are in perfect position for Top Front and Top Rear hence 5.1.4 is the way to go.
> 
> But do not forget that Side Surrounds can go slightly in front of MLP (70-80° off axis) when Rear Surrounds are present (around 120-140° off axis). Once again, check out Roger Dressler's 7.1.4 set-up!


Your saying side surrounds can go a bit in front of MPL, I am guessing that wouldn't work if your using wide's? My wide's are at 60 degrees so surrounds would be to close. My door is in the 70-80 degree mark but this interests me. I have surrounds at 110 degrees (slightly angled back from MLP) would love to move surrounds to 90-95 degree mark and more to sides.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

I am switching from 11.2 DSX to atmos and using my surround back speakers as Atmos rear heights, will be spreading them out farther apart but want to know if its okay to keep the rear height speakers on the rear wall? My front heights are in perfect place.

1. I have 2 rows of seating and putting rear heights exactly at 45 degress means rear seats get no sound and are only 1ft back where they "should" go.

2. They will be exact height of front heights hanging from ceiling.

Here is a pic of them, will of course be spread out farther, this was for A-DSX.









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

robc1976 said:


> Your saying side surrounds can go a bit in front of MPL, I am guessing that wouldn't work if your using wide's? My wide's are at 60 degrees so surrounds would be to close. My door is in the 70-80 degree mark but this interests me. I have surrounds at 110 degrees (slightly angled back from MLP) would love to move surrounds to 90-95 degree mark and more to sides.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yes, but the question was 7.1.2 or 5.1.4, no Wides mentioned. With Wides @60° in the set, there would be no point in forwarding the Side Surrounds ahead of MLP. 90-95° will work better than 110° (if Rear Surrounds are present), although the sound path can potentially be blocked by the adjacent listener if the Surround is @ ear height.

Regarding those Rear Surrounds being turned into Rear Heights: I do think these are to low where they are now, far lower than 30° it seems.


----------



## r4w

gene4ht said:


> As recommended to the previous poster, familiarization with the Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines would also be very beneficial.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


I have reviewed the Dolby document, their website and even saw a lot of installations, however my "agreement" with the builder consent me to position the speakers now rather than later (meaning I don't have to break/fix the ceiling of my new house as soon as I get in!).
I understand that I can play with it and move things around later on, but I'm trying to get it as right as possible.




richlife said:


> Wives can be funny like that.  Fortunately, our arrangement was satisfactory to mine. But she still takes the opportunities when they come along to poke at how the living room arrangement is "set around the tv/speakers". Honestly, you have no idea how much time and effort that took to accomplish. Or the DIY work I've had to do to on modifications to permit this arrangement and hide the evidence!
> 
> Given the sofa location, I think your Atmos are about right. Do check out those Dolby guidelines, it's pretty clear and quite flexible. Ideally, you would move the couch forward some and the front heights forward about the same with the rear heights remaining in place. Your biggest problem may be the rear heights dominating, but YPAO will help you with that. While you are looking up the Dolby guidelines, add "sub crawl" to your search list if you aren't already familiar with it. That will help you find better options for sub placement if needed (the location you indicate could be that "best" place -- a sub crawl would help confirm that).
> 
> Once you get into the room, experimentation with placement options will be your best tool. But as you indicate, you ideally need to identify places for the Atmos speakers now. Try to be as flexible as possible with installing them. Run the wires now but try to leave actually mounting the speakers until you are in and can try to "test" positioning -- perhaps adjusting along the joists. Allow plenty of extra wire! I had to go through some odd maneuvers to find the right Atmos locations and others here have described even building temporary "speaker scaffolding" to try various options. If you are the DIY type, that helps a lot -- otherwise you may want to find some help from a friend or professionally.
> 
> Lastly, yes, the idea of a sliding door could be good. Depending on your decor (or your wife's), I've seen some really nice looking ones. And you may have the options of wall-mounting a sliding door actually in that room or in the adjoining room.


Thanks, I will see what I can do with the sofa but I expect a fight coming for it. 
I'll definitely look for "sub crawl", the sub location is not definitive at all.
I'm trying to figure out the best location of the surrounds, as for the ceiling speakers, I get to have the electric conduits put down by the builder and so I have to determine cables exit.
Unfortunately I don't have much time left to decide positioning, so that's why I'm asking for expert advice 

Thank you again!


----------



## robc1976

robc1976 said:


> I am switching from 11.2 DSX to atmos and using my surround back speakers as Atmos rear heights, will be spreading them out farther apart but want to know if its okay to keep the rear height speakers on the rear wall? My front heights are in perfect place.
> 
> 1. I have 2 rows of seating and putting rear heights exactly at 45 degress means rear seats get no sound and are only 1ft back where they "should" go.
> 
> 2. They will be exact height of front heights hanging from ceiling.
> 
> Here is a pic of them, will of course be spread out farther, this was for A-DSX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Also, can I use Surround back instead of rear height? In 7.2.4? 

My set up

Fronts
Center
Wide's
Front heights
Surounds
Surround back or rear heights

Reason I ask is because I have a perfect place to mouth surround back

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

You can use Surround Back and Wides, but it would be a 9.2.2 set-up.

but:
-Some of the 11.2 AVR's don't support Wides
-Wides are not used in DSU (Dolby Upmixer)
-Only 2 Top/Height speakers is not ideal because 2 speakers don't form a "plane" where sounds can be positioned anywhere inside the boundaries of the 4 ceiling speakers in 7.2.4

Can you move the Wides a little bit towards MLP and set them as Side Surrounds @ 65-80°? That would be my idea.


----------



## richlife

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You can use Surround Back and Wides, but it would be a 9.2.2 set-up.
> 
> but:
> -Some of the 11.2 AVR's don't support Wides
> -Wides are not used in DSU (Dolby Upmixer)
> -Only 2 Top/Height speakers is not ideal because 2 speakers don't form a "plane" where sounds can be positioned anywhere inside the boundaries of the 4 ceiling speakers in 7.2.4
> 
> Can you move the Wides a little bit towards MLP and set them as Side Surrounds @ 65-80°? That would be my idea.


I agree with both of erwin's posts. Since you're ready to move speakers, I would move all the upper presence/height speakers up as high as possible, somewhat wider in the rear as you said, and turn the rears on their sides with the horns inward (or try them out to see what your prefer. Point them inward some toward the MLP. As for all other positioning and how you define them to your AVR (surround, height or presence), the only real answer is to take the time to try out the options. Try to not move or change anything permanently until you're happy with the result.


----------



## richlife

r4w said:


> I have reviewed the Dolby document, their website and even saw a lot of installations, however my "agreement" with the builder consent me to position the speakers now rather than later (meaning I don't have to break/fix the ceiling of my new house as soon as I get in!).
> I understand that I can play with it and move things around later on, but I'm trying to get it as right as possible.
> 
> Thanks, I will see what I can do with the sofa but I expect a fight coming for it.
> I'll definitely look for "sub crawl", the sub location is not definitive at all.
> I'm trying to figure out the best location of the surrounds, as for the ceiling speakers, I get to have the electric conduits put down by the builder and so I have to determine cables exit.
> Unfortunately I don't have much time left to decide positioning, so that's why I'm asking for expert advice
> 
> Thank you again!


You filled in some gaps here that we were only guessing at (but were close).  If you can keep your in-ceiling speakers 300 - 400 mm away from your side walls and about where we've discussed, your should be good. Worst case, yes, you end up patching later. (I'm doing a lot of that on walls in closets, etc. right now -- took me years to get around to it. Living rooms are different -- constant pressure to "make it right".) A lot depends on which way your joists run. I had to compromise on where I wanted the speakers due to joists (one side too small 6" from wall, the other had speakers closer together than I wanted -- I chose the latter, farther from the walls. Did it matter -- who know, it sounds fine!). But still leave extra wire at the end.

"Expert advice" is iffy. Opinions based on experiences. Add a little luck and you'll be fine.


----------



## robc1976

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You can use Surround Back and Wides, but it would be a 9.2.2 set-up.
> 
> but:
> -Some of the 11.2 AVR's don't support Wides
> -Wides are not used in DSU (Dolby Upmixer)
> -Only 2 Top/Height speakers is not ideal because 2 speakers don't form a "plane" where sounds can be positioned anywhere inside the boundaries of the 4 ceiling speakers in 7.2.4
> 
> Can you move the Wides a little bit towards MLP and set them as Side Surrounds @ 65-80°? That would be my idea.


I have 

RF7II wide's
RF7II surrounds

If I use wide's as front surrounds I would not be using surrounds I currently have and don't want to get rid of any of my RF7II I love them lol! Unless there is both front surrounds and side surrounds? I can move the wide's easily

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

erwinfrombelgium said:


> You can use Surround Back and Wides, but it would be a 9.2.2 set-up.
> 
> but:
> -Some of the 11.2 AVR's don't support Wides
> -Wides are not used in DSU (Dolby Upmixer)
> -Only 2 Top/Height speakers is not ideal because 2 speakers don't form a "plane" where sounds can be positioned anywhere inside the boundaries of the 4 ceiling speakers in 7.2.4
> 
> Can you move the Wides a little bit towards MLP and set them as Side Surrounds @ 65-80°? That would be my idea.


I have a denon 7200WA it supports wide's. Here is shot of back. I don't see side surrounds input unless it uses the wide input? 

Its says "wide/height #2 " and height #1 .

Guessing height #1 is front heights and "height #2 " is rear height? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

The "side surrounds" are the SURROUND outputs (not inputs).

If you only have one pair of heights you can reassign "Front Wide/Height2" to run the wide speakers, or you can power them externally via the pre-outs (at least 2 speakers need to be externally amplified for an 11ch setup anyway because that receiver only has 9 amps).


----------



## robc1976

Okay, I am new to atmos, I understand it but I am not as knowledgeable as people in this thread. I am more of a sound panel guy add have had A-dsx since 2011 so not on the up and up on this.

Can somebody suggest a configuration

Room dimensions:

Width = 26ft
Length 32'
Height 8'
Fully treated room
Mlp is at 38% from rear wall (50% is terrible for bass response)

*Can not do in ceiling speakers, and rear heights can go on rear wall but not in ceiling in rear. 45 degee elevation is only a 1 foot from wall so on wall is nearly 45 degrees. Front heights are exactly placed at 45 degrees now.

**Here are my speakers, I want to use them all (front heights have to be in set-up). I just made wood brackets for them. I have 2nd row of seating and can only use bookshelf speakers (surround back, heights ect on those. My all wood dvd cabinet I can anchor book shelves to if that helps (would be 1.5" above ear level 2nd row and 2.5 ft above 1st row)

Speakers/gear:

(6) floor standing RF7II 
(4) Bookshelf RB61II
(1) center RF64II
(2) elemental subs with 1500 watt O-audio amp
(2) Emotiva XPA-5 amps
(2) Denon 7200WA receiver

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated! 


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

batpig said:


> The "side surrounds" are the SURROUND outputs (not inputs).
> 
> If you only have one pair of heights you can reassign "Front Wide/Height2" to run the wide speakers, or you can power them externally via the pre-outs (at least 2 speakers need to be externally amplified for an 11ch setup anyway because that receiver only has 9 amps).


Thank you batpig

Want to be sure I have this straight, basically 9.2.2 system is DSX if I am not mistaken not Atmos or can you use a 9.2.2 as atmos? Really want to keep my wide's

I have (6) RF7II floorstanding speakers (4) bookshelfs speakers and center that I want to use in this system and so far only way is to go 9.2.2 it seems but that is basically DSX speaker placement with atmos processing isn't it? 

Right now I have:

Wide's in heights pre out slot like you state

Heights in the heights pre-out
Center in center pre-out
Surround in surround preout
Fronts in front pre out
Surround back in receiver

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## awblackmon

I have settled (for now) to run a 9.2.2 system. I love wides and decided I was getting more out of them than what a second pair of Atmos speakers was offering. I just don't want to give them up. I may in the future drop the rear surrounds and move that output to a second overhead pair. But right now I am really pleased with the results the 9.2.2 are offering. When I play the opening scene of Unbroken it is really amazing hearing all the machinery above and around me.

I like the wides during the playback of Atmos films and during the upmixing using DTS. I realize DSU doesn't do wides so turn on the DTS up mix to cover the wides. The result of overhead in my theater turns out a bit nicer even during Dolby 5.1 or 7.1 films without Atmos. For DTS 5.1 and 7.1 I really get a nice audio ride from the soundtrack.

There is a lot of comparing 2 vs. 4 overhead speakers. My room is pretty small. About 13x17 so the 2 overhead speakers are woking just fine in that space at my listening position.


----------



## Invader3

Hi everyone. I just upgraded to a new Onkyo receiver (TX-RZ820) , and I'm a but confused on how I should configure the speaker settings. My surrounds and back surround are all in ceiling speakers. Should I set up in the Onkyo menu as 7.1 or 7.1.2, or 5.1.2?


----------



## robc1976

awblackmon said:


> I have settled (for now) to run a 9.2.2 system. I love wides and decided I was getting more out of them than what a second pair of Atmos speakers was offering. I just don't want to give them up. I may in the future drop the rear surrounds and move that output to a second overhead pair. But right now I am really pleased with the results the 9.2.2 are offering. When I play the opening scene of Unbroken it is really amazing hearing all the machinery above and around me.
> 
> I like the wides during the playback of Atmos films and during the upmixing using DTS. I realize DSU doesn't do wides so turn on the DTS up mix to cover the wides. The result of overhead in my theater turns out a bit nicer even during Dolby 5.1 or 7.1 films without Atmos. For DTS 5.1 and 7.1 I really get a nice audio ride from the soundtrack.
> 
> There is a lot of comparing 2 vs. 4 overhead speakers. My room is pretty small. About 13x17 so the 2 overhead speakers are woking just fine in that space at my listening position.


I'am same, I will not give up my wide's

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Invader3 said:


> Hi everyone. I just upgraded to a new Onkyo receiver (TX-RZ820) , and I'm a but confused on how I should configure the speaker settings. My surrounds and back surround are all in ceiling speakers. Should I set up in the Onkyo menu as 7.1 or 7.1.2, or 5.1.2?


The assumption is you will not be implementing Atmos (5.1.2) as your surrounds and back surrounds would be incorrectly located in the ceiling. Also, the 820 has 7 amps and not capable of expanding to 9 amps so 7.1.2 is not an option. Therefore, if your surrounds are to remain in the ceiling, your only choice is to run a 7.1 configuration...Front Left, Center, Front Right, Surround Left, Surround Right, Surround Back Left, and Surround Back Right. If you decide to implement Atmos for a 5.1.2 configuration, it will be necessary to provide Left and Right Surround speakers at or slightly above ear level near the sides of your seating (not in the ceiling) and forego the back surround ceiling speakers. The ceiling surrounds will then become the Atmos overhead speakers and if not already...need to be relocated in the ceiling above or slightly forward of the seating positions. Further Atmos installation guidelines can be found below...

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

And for further assistance with configuring your AVR, please visit the 820 dedicated thread at....

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...7-channel-network-av-receivers-announced.html


----------



## Invader3

Ok, thanks for the clarification. These more advanced setups with Atmos and height speakers are new to me.

The four surround and back surround speakers are basically right above the seating area. I went with in-ceilings due to lack of decent placement options for the surrounds, plus having two little kids running around who would surely bump into any speaker stands.


----------



## gene4ht

Invader3 said:


> Ok, thanks for the clarification. These more advanced setups with Atmos and height speakers are new to me.
> 
> The four surround and back surround speakers are basically right above the seating area. I went with in-ceilings due to lack of decent placement options for the surrounds, plus having two little kids running around who would surely bump into any speaker stands.


Completely understand. Should you want to implement Atmos in the future, it will be necessary to have sufficient vertical separation between the side surrounds and the ceiling mounted overhead speakers to obtain acceptable performance. Since you elude to speaker stands for surrounds, I take it there are unavailable walls or wall space on which to mount side surrounds. Barring delaying Atmos until the kids are a bit older, perhaps others here can suggest creative solutions they may have implemented. Good luck with your installation and pursuits.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

robc1976 said:


> Okay, I am new to atmos, I understand it but I am not as knowledgeable as people in this thread. I am more of a sound panel guy add have had A-dsx since 2011 so not on the up and up on this.
> 
> Can somebody suggest a configuration
> 
> Room dimensions:
> 
> Width = 26ft
> Length 32'
> Height 8'
> Fully treated room
> Mlp is at 38% from rear wall (50% is terrible for bass response)
> 
> *Can not do in ceiling speakers, and rear heights can go on rear wall but not in ceiling in rear. 45 degee elevation is only a 1 foot from wall so on wall is nearly 45 degrees. Front heights are exactly placed at 45 degrees now.
> 
> **Here are my speakers, I want to use them all (front heights have to be in set-up). I just made wood brackets for them. I have 2nd row of seating and can only use bookshelf speakers (surround back, heights ect on those. My all wood dvd cabinet I can anchor book shelves to if that helps (would be 1.5" above ear level 2nd row and 2.5 ft above 1st row)
> 
> Speakers/gear:
> 
> (6) floor standing RF7II
> (4) Bookshelf RB61II
> (1) center RF64II
> (2) elemental subs with 1500 watt O-audio amp
> (2) Emotiva XPA-5 amps
> (2) Denon 7200WA receiver





robc1976 said:


> Thank you batpig
> 
> Want to be sure I have this straight, basically 9.2.2 system is DSX if I am not mistaken not Atmos or can you use a 9.2.2 as atmos? Really want to keep my wide's
> 
> I have (6) RF7II floorstanding speakers (4) bookshelfs speakers and center that I want to use in this system and so far only way is to go 9.2.2 it seems but that is basically DSX speaker placement with atmos processing isn't it?


OK, let's assume you want to keep Wides then. 

Actually, the recommended 9.x.2 DSX is different from 9.x.2 Atmos because DSX is using Front Heights while Atmos 9.x.2 is favoring Top Middle...

To do this, can you move a bookshelf pair from Front Height position to the side wall, as high as possible, preferably just ahead of MLP (+/- 80°) or more or less half way between the floor standing Wides and Surrounds? Set them as Top Middle in Atmos.

Finish by widening your Rear Surrounds, I would even keep them as high as they are, but you can experiment by testing these as low as ear height (tweeter on same height as the towers).

I added the standard 9.1.2 guideline drawing from Dolby. Top speakers, when facing the front, should lateraly ideally be 45° higher than the ear level Surrounds (your towers) but at least 30° higher than the Surrounds. 










So no, you cannot keep Front Height! Some sacrifices are needed in order to reach audio nirvana...


----------



## jjackkrash

Invader3 said:


> Ok, thanks for the clarification. These more advanced setups with Atmos and height speakers are new to me.
> 
> The four surround and back surround speakers are basically right above the seating area. I went with in-ceilings due to lack of decent placement options for the surrounds, plus having two little kids running around who would surely bump into any speaker stands.


If you could get/add 2 _ear-level_ speakers to the sides of the listening area you might be able to run 5.1.4 with your current set up, depending on where the overheads are located.


----------



## Invader3

jjackkrash said:


> If you could get/add 2 _ear-level_ speakers to the sides of the listening area you might be able to run 5.1.4 with your current set up, depending on where the overheads are located.


I think with my new Onkyo TX-RZ820 receiver my options are 7.1 or 5.1.2, unless I'm misunderstanding something.


----------



## jjackkrash

Invader3 said:


> I think with my new Onkyo TX-RZ820 receiver my options are 7.1 or 5.1.2, unless I'm misunderstanding something.


Ok, my bad. You would need 9 channels of processing to do what I suggested. If you do not have any ear-level surrounds, then I personally would keep the designation in the receiver as 7.1 and not 5.1.2.


----------



## Invader3

jjackkrash said:


> Ok, my bad. You would need 9 channels of processing to do what I suggested. If you do not have any ear-level surrounds, then I personally would keep the designation in the receiver as 7.1 and not 5.1.2.


Yeah. With the way our living room lays out, including windows on the side walls, it would be tough to place surrounds near ear level. Maybe I'll just stick with 7.1 for now.


----------



## gene4ht

Invader3 said:


> Yeah. With the way our living room lays out, including windows on the side walls, it would be tough to place surrounds near ear level. Maybe I'll just stick with 7.1 for now.


You'll be surprised how fast kids grow! The Great Carnac sees speaker stands and a wonderful Atmos experience awaiting you in the near future!


----------



## Invader3

gene4ht said:


> You'll be surprised how fast kids grow! The Great Carnac sees speaker stands and a wonderful Atmos experience awaiting you in the near future!


Yes, although I guess I'd have to upgrade my receiver again, otherwise I'll have two fairly useless speakers in my ceiling.


----------



## gene4ht

Invader3 said:


> Yes, although I guess *I'd have to upgrade my receiver *again, otherwise I'll have two fairly useless speakers in my ceiling.


I would leave the ceiling speakers where they are...using them for the 7.1 system for the time being. When ready for Atmos you'll be all set for a 5.X.4, 7.X.4, or maybe even a 9.X.4 system. Regardless, upgrading your AVR need not be a negative or budget buster. When ready, sell the 820 (eBay, Craigslist, classifieds here) and upgrade to a more capable AVR...especially at close out prices. Add side surround speakers and you'll have a great Atmos system!


----------



## Invader3

gene4ht said:


> I would leave the ceiling speakers where they are...using them for the 7.1 system for the time being. When ready for Atmos you'll be all set for a 5.X.4, 7.X.4, or maybe even a 9.X.4 system. Regardless, upgrading your AVR need not be a negative or budget buster. When ready, sell the 820 (eBay, Craigslist, classifieds here) and upgrade to a more capable AVR...especially at close out prices. Add side surround speakers and you'll have a great Atmos system!


Sounds good. The 820 sounds awesome in 7.1 anyway. Also listened to some music in stereo this afternoon and it is very musical.

Thanks for the help and advice.


----------



## gene4ht

Invader3 said:


> Sounds good. The 820 sounds awesome in 7.1 anyway. Also listened to some music in stereo this afternoon and it is very musical.
> 
> Thanks for the help and advice.


I know...I've got the 920! Enjoy!


----------



## robc1976

erwinfrombelgium said:


> OK, let's assume you want to keep Wides then.
> 
> Actually, the recommended 9.x.2 DSX is different from 9.x.2 Atmos because DSX is using Front Heights while Atmos 9.x.2 is favoring Top Middle...
> 
> To do this, can you move a bookshelf pair from Front Height position to the side wall, as high as possible, preferably just ahead of MLP (+/- 80°) or more or less half way between the floor standing Wides and Surrounds? Set them as Top Middle in Atmos.
> 
> Finish by widening your Rear Surrounds, I would even keep them as high as they are, but you can experiment by testing these as low as ear height (tweeter on same height as the towers).
> 
> I added the standard 9.1.2 guideline drawing from Dolby. Top speakers, when facing the front, should lateraly ideally be 45° higher than the ear level Surrounds (your towers) but at least 30° higher than the Surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no, you cannot keep Front Height! Some sacrifices are needed in order to reach audio nirvana...


I just custom made brackets for height speakers, painted them, and hung them at 45 degree.

Think I am going to try neo X for now. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

erwinfrombelgium said:


> OK, let's assume you want to keep Wides then.
> 
> Actually, the recommended 9.x.2 DSX is different from 9.x.2 Atmos because DSX is using Front Heights while Atmos 9.x.2 is favoring Top Middle...
> 
> To do this, can you move a bookshelf pair from Front Height position to the side wall, as high as possible, preferably just ahead of MLP (+/- 80°) or more or less half way between the floor standing Wides and Surrounds? Set them as Top Middle in Atmos.
> 
> Finish by widening your Rear Surrounds, I would even keep them as high as they are, but you can experiment by testing these as low as ear height (tweeter on same height as the towers).
> 
> I added the standard 9.1.2 guideline drawing from Dolby. Top speakers, when facing the front, should lateraly ideally be 45° higher than the ear level Surrounds (your towers) but at least 30° higher than the Surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no, you cannot keep Front Height! Some sacrifices are needed in order to reach audio nirvana...


My buddies theatre is close to mine but with less treatments and he prefers my theater over his atmos....I still take that with grain of salt because he doesn't calibrate like I do...I am almost obsessed with it lol

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaxon1

Hello i have a qustion were to put the dolby Atmos speakers becouse i have youst around 6.55ft ceiling hight.
Should i go after the picture 45? recomendation anyway you think.? or should i put theme a little further forward or more towards me..? Whit my ceiling hight in mind.? I now i have not the ideal hight but would realy want to have some atmos in the ceiling.. 5.2.4. The rooms lenght is 20ft and 10ft wide.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Go with the angles, but choose the speakers wisely. Coaxial designs (with the tweeter behind the center of the woofer, or on a small subframe in front of the woofer) are best on short listening distances. Aimable tweeters are also a good idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> DSX is room simulation processing based on concert hall acoustics. It copies the front L/R channels into the wides & front heights and adds reverb (that wasn't in the source material) to simulate side wall & proscenium reflections in order to give the impression of a larger space. By comparison, Atmos simply decodes what's in an Atmos soundtrack (nothing is added). Sounds heard above you are sounds intended (mixed) to be heard above you, not something generated by post-processing in your receiver. However, to hear sounds above you, it helps to have the height speakers above you. Placing them high up on the front wall will give the impression of a taller front soundstage but not the overhead localization that Atmos & DTS:X are intending to deliver.


Just broadening this discussion out a little.... It's this 'adding something that wasn't originally there' which makes me dislike DSX. Sometimes it works very well and other times you get inappropriate stuff in the height/overhead speakers. Atmos upmixing (DSU) is less 'showy' but always seems more accurate, in so far as upmixing could be described as accurate. Recently, I have gone back, for some movies, to using just the original format in which they were mixed, 5.1 or 7.1, with no upmixing at all. In the old days when Atmos was just getting off the ground (see what I did there?) it was sort of heretical to consider NOT using DSU to upmix to all those extra new speakers on the ceiling. Now that Atmos mixes are more commonplace and the tech is maturing nicely as mixers gain experience with it, I am finding that, more and more, I am tending to enjoy the glorious overhead sounds from a full-on Atmos mix and just using 5.1 or 7.1 (as the mixer intended originally) for 'flat' mixes.


----------



## scarabaeus

Sound Mixing and Sound Editing to a movie in 5.1??? How disappointing.


----------



## JeffChap

scarabaeus said:


> Sound Mixing and Sound Editing to a movie in 5.1??? How disappointing.




No kidding! Plus that was the first movie I watched with my new SVS PB12-NSD sub. I thought it was horrible and I'd made a mistake until I realized how badly the LFE sounded in that movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

scarabaeus said:


> Sound Mixing and Sound Editing to a movie in 5.1??? How disappointing.


It is. But what I find even more disappointing is the way more and more Atmos mixes are being confined to the UHD disk releases. I understand the marketing reasoning behind this, to give the premium sound mix with the premium video and thus add value to the UHD package, but not everyone wants to pay the extra for UHD releases, and those of us with PJs may even believe that UHD is not yet 'ready' for the currently available PJs (due to lack of nits). It seems a pity that those with Blu-ray 1080p based systems should be denied the pleasures of Atmos sound simply because they currently have no desire for UHD.

As more and more movies are object mixed, Atmos or DTS:X, maybe this will change as it would seem especially churlish for the distributors to deliberately take the time and effort to downgrade a 'standard' object mix to 5.1 or 7.1 just for the 1080p Blu-ray, effectively crippling the audio performance potential of the movie.


----------



## dchabby

folks - just recently went to 7.2.4 from a 7.2 and had 18' x 12' to work with in a much larger room.

Looks like I will be moving my theatre into a dedicated bedroom which will be about 12.5' x 11' once all the soundproofing is done.

I'm thinking 5.2.4 will be more appropriate in this size room as my seating will most likely be up against the back wall or pretty close to it, what do you think ?

And it may not make much difference but which wall would you suggest putting the screen on for the best speaker placement ?


----------



## relish

robc1976 said:


> My buddies theatre is close to mine but with less treatments and he prefers my theater over his atmos....I still take that with grain of salt because he doesn't calibrate like I do...I am almost obsessed with it lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


This has worked best for me. I had speakers set up as front heights and just moved them yesterday high up on the side walls. Tested using Batman vs.Superman the Rain scene and when Lois took the helicopter. This setup sounded so much better and the sound seemed to come from above. The front height set up was ok. But I prefer the side wall set up.


----------



## gwsat

scarabaeus said:


> Sound Mixing and Sound Editing to a movie in 5.1??? How disappointing.


I cannot help but resent Nolan's stubborn, not to mention, to my mind at least, mindless refusal to allow the audio for the home theater editions of his films to be remixed using TrueHD Atmos. Credit where credit is due, though. The sound designs and mixing for all of Nolan's films are brilliant. As we all know if they aren't good no amount of remixing will make them so. Still as good as the DTS-HD MA 5.1 _Dunkirk_ audio was, it could have been made better by being remixed to TrueHD Atmos. compare the 51. audio on the 2007 _Blade Runner_ BD with the _*remixed Atmos version of the 2017 UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version*_ and you will see what I mean.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Just broadening this discussion out a little.... It's this 'adding something that wasn't originally there' which makes me dislike DSX. Sometimes it works very well and other times you get inappropriate stuff in the height/overhead speakers. Atmos upmixing (DSU) is less 'showy' but always seems more accurate, in so far as upmixing could be described as accurate. Recently, I have gone back, for some movies, to using just the original format in which they were mixed, 5.1 or 7.1, with no upmixing at all. In the old days when Atmos was just getting off the ground (see what I did there?) it was sort of heretical to consider NOT using DSU to upmix to all those extra new speakers on the ceiling. Now that Atmos mixes are more commonplace and the tech is maturing nicely as mixers gain experience with it, I am finding that, more and more, I am tending to enjoy the glorious overhead sounds from a full-on Atmos mix and just using 5.1 or 7.1 (as the mixer intended originally) for 'flat' mixes.


Keith, what's up!?

Hadn't seen photos of your finished cinema barn, it looks incredible! 

I see you ended up sticking with Tannoy for surrounds/overheads, weren't you originally planning to go with the JBL SCS speakers?

Are the back surrounds hidden behind panels on the rear wall? Perhaps one of the reasons you don't miss the DSU upmixing is that the surrounds are fairly elevated more like a commercial cinema?


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

dchabby said:


> folks - just recently went to 7.2.4 from a 7.2 and had 18' x 12' to work with in a much larger room.
> 
> Looks like I will be moving my theatre into a dedicated bedroom which will be about 12.5' x 11' once all the soundproofing is done.
> 
> I'm thinking 5.2.4 will be more appropriate in this size room as my seating will most likely be up against the back wall or pretty close to it, what do you think ?
> 
> And it may not make much difference but which wall would you suggest putting the screen on for the best speaker placement ?


Depends how many people you want to put inside. If the outside seats are to close to the side wall, I'd go for the wider front wall.

And you can definitely do 7.2.4. Just put the Side Surrounds ahead of MLP, around +/- 75°. Rear Surrounds in the rear corners. And plenty of thick absorption behind the seats.

The person from the pics above, the honorable K. Barnes, previous' room was just like that and he ended up with 7.2.4. But now he has the Barnes' Barn...


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith, what's up!?


Hey buddy! You can possibly guess from seeing those pics where I have been hiding for the past several months 



batpig said:


> Hadn't seen photos of your finished cinema barn, it looks incredible!


Thank you! It took some getting there, mainly due to 'creative difficulties' with my installer  But all is well that ends well and the finished HT is something I am very happy with.



batpig said:


> I see you ended up sticking with Tannoy for surrounds/overheads, weren't you originally planning to go with the JBL SCS speakers?


Yes that was the plan but the JBLs had 'worldwide distribution problems' and I couldn't get hold of them for love nor money. Having always liked Tannoy's Dual Concentric designs, I opted for four of their Pro line speakers for surrounds. Also, I repurposed my old Tannoy Di6DC speakers as overheads. They are so on-spec for Atmos, Dolby might have designed them themselves  To have waited for JBL would have delayed the theater too much and caused logistical problems for my installers. So I now have three big JBL 3677s up front, hidden behind the screen, and eight Tannoys making up the total. Dirac Live does a good job of getting them to all play nice together.



batpig said:


> Are the back surrounds hidden behind panels on the rear wall?


Yes they are. Also hidden back there are the dual Submersives. All of the floor level speakers are hidden other than the two side surrounds with which we had logistical issues due to an awkwardly placed fire exit door which I have to have in order to comply with UK building code. The 4 overheads just disappear into the blackness above 



batpig said:


> Perhaps one of the reasons you don't miss the DSU upmixing is that the surrounds are fairly elevated more like a commercial cinema?


I think this may well be the case. My objective with the room was to recreate, as far as is possible, the experience of a 'real' cinema. This led me to the JBLs for the LCR set, JBL being, for me anyway, the 'true' sound of a commercial theater. I also wanted the overheads to be up high, as they are in a commercial space and the height of the cowshed, prior to starting the build, facilitated this. My ceiling height is about 15 feet, with a cloud across the broad centre/rear area and the overhead Tannoys are suspended from the framework which supports the cloud. Overall, the sound is really terrific and I am very pleased with it.


----------



## Jaxon1

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Go with the angles, but choose the speakers wisely. Coaxial designs (with the tweeter behind the center of the woofer, or on a small subframe in front of the woofer) are best on short listening distances. Aimable tweeters are also a good idea.


Ok
Im thinking on puting up klipsch rp-140sa in the ceiling becouse the other speakers is klipsch and i can't cut hole in the ceiling.
And directed towards the first listening position


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I cannot help but resent Nolan's stubborn, not to mention, to my mind at least, mindless refusal to allow the audio for the home theater editions of his films to be remixed using TrueHD Atmos. Credit where credit is due, though. The sound designs and mixing for all of Nolan's films are brilliant. As we all know if they aren't good no amount of remixing will make them so. Still as good as the DTS-HD MA 5.1 _Dunkirk_ audio was, it could have been made better by being remixed to TrueHD Atmos. compare the 51. audio on the 2007 _Blade Runner_ BD with the _*remixed Atmos version of the 2017 UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version*_ and you will see what I mean.


 I agree with you. One story about the movie that I especially liked here in the UK was this one: the makers of the movie invited World War II veterans to a special showing of the movie (*Dunkirk*) in London. Afterwards, some of the veterans were interviewed and asked what they thought of the movie. One old boy, who had been at the Dunkirk landings, said the movie captured very well the sense of being there at the time, but that the actual experience of being on the beach wasn't as loud as the movie! 

I agree with him - Nolan's soundtracks are nothing if not _loud_. *The Dark Knight Rises* is one of the very few movies I have seen where I really needed earplugs. And I am not one of the "it's too loud" brigade - I usually listen at 'home reference' of -5dB.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Jaxon1 said:


> Ok
> Im thinking on puting up klipsch rp-140sa in the ceiling becouse the other speakers is klipsch and i can't cut hole in the ceiling.
> And and directed towards the first listening position


I am no longer into commercial speakers so I had to look these up. So you want to use Dolby Atmos enabled speakers designed to position on top of larger speakers on the ceiling... Ok, what are the specs of these? Oh wait, the spec sheet says _Conforms to Dolby Atmos Specification_. 

Perfect, then. 

You could build DIYSG Volt's at the risk that your other speakers would be needing replacement due to "incoherences" afterwards..


----------



## deano86

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree with you. One story about the movie that I especially liked here in the UK was this one: the makers of the movie invited World War II veterans to a special showing of the movie (*Dunkirk*) in London. Afterwards, some of the veterans were interviewed and asked what they thought of the movie. One old boy, who had been at the Dunkirk landings, said the movie captured very well the sense of being there at the time, but that the actual experience of being on the beach wasn't as loud as the movie!
> 
> I agree with him - Nolan's soundtracks are nothing if not _loud_. *The Dark Knight Rises* is one of the very few movies I have seen where I really needed earplugs. And I am not one of the "it's too loud" brigade - I usually listen at 'home reference' of -5dB.


And unfortunately, with Dunkirk winning Oscars for both sound editing and mixing, there probably won't be much incentive for Nolan to change his ways. It's weird... as he is obviously an exceptional talent and a brilliant filmmaker.... just not with embracing the latest object audio formats!


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> Sound Mixing and Sound Editing to a movie in 5.1??? How disappointing.


Would you be likewise disappointed if a black & white movie won best cinematography?


----------



## Ladeback

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I am no longer into commercial speakers so I had to look these up. So you want to use Dolby Atmos enabled speakers designed to position on top of larger speakers on the ceiling... Ok, what are the specs of these? Oh wait, the spec sheet says _Conforms to Dolby Atmos Specification_.
> 
> Perfect, then.
> 
> You could build DIYSG Volt's at the risk that your other speakers would be needing replacement due to "incoherences" afterwards..


So you are saying the Volt 8's would sound good with Klipsch speakers maybe? I older Klipsch speakers and was looking at a cheaper better speaker to use for a Atmos and surrounds. I was thinking the Volt 8's or 10's. Maybe some day I will change to the 1099's or 1299's for LCR.


----------



## scarabaeus

sdurani said:


> Would you be likewise disappointed if a black & white movie won best cinematography?


If the gray scale has high dynamic range, no problem. 8 bit with banding, not so much.

(Edit: Actually, I did like the cinematography of Sin City, and that was approx. 2 bit gray scale depth. So, there are exceptions, and it depends.)


----------



## F-n-T

gwsat said:


> I cannot help but resent Nolan's stubborn, not to mention, to my mind at least, mindless refusal to allow the audio for the home theater editions of his films to be remixed using TrueHD Atmos. Credit where credit is due, though. The sound designs and mixing for all of Nolan's films are brilliant. As we all know if they aren't good no amount of remixing will make them so. Still as good as the DTS-HD MA 5.1 _Dunkirk_ audio was, it could have been made better by being remixed to TrueHD Atmos. compare the 51. audio on the 2007 _Blade Runner_ BD with the _*remixed Atmos version of the 2017 UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version*_ and you will see what I mean.


My god gwsat, your absolutely right!...what a shame to not ever here this movie in Atmos!!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Ladeback said:


> So you are saying the Volt 8's would sound good with Klipsch speakers maybe? I older Klipsch speakers and was looking at a cheaper better speaker to use for a Atmos and surrounds. I was thinking the Volt 8's or 10's. Maybe some day I will change to the 1099's or 1299's for LCR.


IMO you cannot go wrong with sealed Volt 10 (ported Volt 10 is a bit large for ceiling mounting) or ported Volt 8. Should blend well with the Klipsch as I used to find Klipsch rather forward sounding. But it has been ages since I auditioned Klipsch (pre-Atmos), to be honest. 

The useful conical dispersion of the Volt is 70° so some aiming is preferable as Dolby writes that you need 90° dispersion for Atmos speakers pointed downwards.

The trouble with Atmos *enabled* speakers in a solitary position is they don't reach down to 80Hz. They normally don't need to because they are meant to be put on top of a bass capable speaker and the AVR wil send the lower, less-directional frequencies (80-200Hz) to that bigger speaker instead!

So if Klipsch is telling us they can be used as Surround speaker, I need to see some figures. Otherwise, it's BS.


----------



## Jonas2

batpig said:


> Hadn't seen photos of your finished cinema barn, it looks incredible!


That's an understatement!  Thanks for posting - I always find theaters like that to be really inspirational, a reminder of one of my goals in life. 



kbarnes701 said:


> But all is well that ends well and the finished HT is something I am very happy with.
> 
> Overall, the sound is really terrific and I am very pleased with it.


REALLY nice! My sincere kudos to a job well done. 

Are you adopting? I'm only 48..... I promise I will just stay in the theater and I won't make a mess....


----------



## sdurani

scarabaeus said:


> If the gray scale has high dynamic range, no problem. 8 bit with banding, not so much.
> 
> (Edit: Actually, I did like the cinematography of Sin City, and that was approx. 2 bit gray scale depth. So, there are exceptions, and it depends.)


Apparently the sound editors & mixers at the Academy feel the same way about sound and don't let the number of channels or lack of objects determine what they consider the best mix of the year. Over the last few years that means sometimes Atmos mixes win (Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road, Hacksaw Ridge) and other times 5.1 mixes win (Whiplash, Dunkirk). A good mix is a good mix.


----------



## Ladeback

erwinfrombelgium said:


> IMO you cannot go wrong with sealed Volt 10 (ported Volt 10 is a bit large for ceiling mounting) or ported Volt 8. Should blend well with the Klipsch as I used to find Klipsch rather forward sounding. But it has been ages since I auditioned Klipsch (pre-Atmos), to be honest.
> 
> The useful conical dispersion of the Volt is 70° so some aiming is preferable as Dolby writes that you need 90° dispersion for Atmos speakers pointed downwards.
> 
> The trouble with Atmos *enabled* speakers in a solitary position is they don't reach down to 80Hz. They normally don't need to because they are meant to be put on top of a bass capable speaker and the AVR wil send the lower, less-directional frequencies (80-200Hz) to that bigger speaker instead!
> 
> So if Klipsch is telling us they can be used as Surround speaker, I need to see some figures. Otherwise, it's BS.


My Klipsch speakers are over 20 years old. My front L/R are KPS-400's the surrounds are RS-3's and my center is a newer RC-7. I thinking of moving RS-3's to the back and use Volt 8's or 10's for side surrounds and Atmos later down the road.


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Apparently the sound editors & mixers at the Academy feel the same way about sound and don't let the number of channels or lack of objects determine what they consider the best mix of the year. Over the last few years that means sometimes Atmos mixes win (Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road, Hacksaw Ridge) and other times 5.1 mixes win (Whiplash, Dunkirk). A good mix is a good mix.


Here we agree entirely. The quality of the sound design and mix are the most important factors, by far, in the ultimate quality of any film's audio, the codec used to mix it notwithstanding. My problem with Nolan's refusal to allow the audio in his films to to be remixed using the TrueHD Atmos codec for their home theater editions is that his uniformly fine sound design and editing could be made so much better by applying the Atmos codec. Too bad, too bad!


----------



## robc1976

relish said:


> This has worked best for me. I had speakers set up as front heights and just moved them yesterday high up on the side walls. Tested using Batman vs.Superman the Rain scene and when Lois took the helicopter. This setup sounded so much better and the sound seemed to come from above. The front height set up was ok. But I prefer the side wall set up.


My heights are on ceiling but spread out a bit. Put surrounds at 93 degrees and surround back spread out further.

Insane is the only word I have

Very crappy phone pic









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaxon1

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Jaxon1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok
> Im thinking on puting up klipsch rp-140sa in the ceiling becouse the other speakers is klipsch and i can't cut hole in the ceiling.
> And and directed towards the first listening position
> 
> 
> 
> I am no longer into commercial speakers so I had to look these up. So you want to use Dolby Atmos enabled speakers designed to position on top of larger speakers on the ceiling... Ok, what are the specs of these? Oh wait, the spec sheet says _Conforms to Dolby Atmos Specification_.
> 
> Perfect, then. /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
> 
> You could build DIYSG Volt's at the risk that your other speakers would be needing replacement due to "incoherences" afterwards../forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

so you say that it's not good to put up the Klipsch Rp-140sa speaker in the ceiling or do you think it works?


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Apparently the sound editors & mixers at the Academy feel the same way about sound and don't let the number of channels or lack of objects determine what they consider the best mix of the year. Over the last few years that means sometimes Atmos mixes win (Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road, Hacksaw Ridge) and other times 5.1 mixes win (Whiplash, Dunkirk). A good mix is a good mix.




Some perspective...

Branches nominate in their categories only (except best picture, for which every voting member gets to put in their top five picks.)

So the sound branch is responsible for nominating the two awards (along with best picture.). 

For the Oscar, all voting members of the Academy get to vote for all awards. (the actors branch is the largest, with the sound branch being in the top 4 in terms of size.)

I agree that Dunkirk did a great job of helping to tell the story with its mix and editing... (and I agree with most in that I thought it was WAY too loud...). I remember seeing the film and how stressful and tension filled the track made the experience... which was well executed in that regard..

For better or worse, it’s one of the reasons musicals and war films tend to win in years they are nominated..... those “kind” of tracks represent a large percentage of the visceral impact of those genres, and are easily remembered when the Academy sits down to fill out their final ballots. 

As a member of the Academy, we were spoiled with a plethora of good tracks this year to chose from. ... it wasn’t an easy year by any means.... which is a good thing for fans of excellent soundtracks.


----------



## Ricoflashback

FilmMixer said:


> Some perspective...
> 
> Branches nominate in their categories only (except best picture, for which every voting member gets to put in their top five picks.)
> 
> So the sound branch is responsible for nominating the two awards (along with best picture.).
> 
> For the Oscar, all voting members of the Academy get to vote for all awards. (the actors branch is the largest, with the sound branch being in the top 4 in terms of size.)
> 
> I agree that Dunkirk did a great job of helping to tell the story with its mix and editing... (and I agree with most in that I thought it was WAY too loud...). I remember seeing the film and how stressful and tension filled the track made the experience... which was well executed in that regard..
> 
> For better or worse, it’s one of the reasons musicals and war films tend to win in years they are nominated..... those “kind” of tracks represent a large percentage of the visceral impact of those genres, and are easily remembered when the Academy sits down to fill out their final ballots.
> 
> As a member of the Academy, we were spoiled with a plethora of good tracks this year to chose from. ... it wasn’t an easy year by any means.... which is a good thing for fans of excellent soundtracks.


And the Oscar winner for "Best Sound Contribution To The AVS Forum" goes to....drum roll please....FilmMixer! This is FilmMixer's third AVS Forum Oscar. Accepting on behalf of FilmMixer is ..... :grin:


----------



## jjackkrash

FilmMixer said:


> I agree that Dunkirk did a great job of helping to tell the story with its mix and editing... (and I agree with most in that I thought it was WAY too loud...). I remember seeing the film and how stressful and tension filled the track made the experience... which was well executed in that regard..


There is ongoing discussion of Dunkirk in one of the movie "bass" threads in the subwoofer sub-forum about how much of the track is intentionally clipped, which, as I understand it, substantially limits the soundtrack's dynamic range. Can you give your perspective on this issue?

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...vies-w-frequency-charts-193.html#post55797670

I had actually thought Bladerunner was going to be a no-brainer for all the sound awards; as an outsider, it was really surprising to me that a clipped 5.1 track actually won the sound awards with Bladerunner 2049 in the mix (which is maybe the best sounding movie I have ever experienced).


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> ...what I find even more disappointing is the way more and more Atmos mixes are being confined to the UHD disk releases.


I agree, though I'd pick a somewhat different word than _'disappointing'_. 



> I understand the marketing reasoning behind this, to give the premium sound mix with the premium video and thus add value to the UHD package,


Yes, but my response would probably be more cynical.  As in, they're desperately trying to gather every small factor they can, to boost UHD sales. Certainly upconverts of 2K DI isn't it. There already isn't any reason not to include the Atmos track on the regular BRs, and it would be beneficial to and enjoyable by everyone owning Atmos-equipped AVRs (that they already paid a pretty penny for). I remember when Atmos came out, and there was NO content... and we were all assured that the content *would* come. And it has. What we were NOT initially told was that in addition to buying expensive new AVRs, that all (well, almost all) of that promised content would cost us even more. And of course not, because that could have immediately hammered a nail into the whole 'chicken and egg' scenario, before it ever got off the ground.



> ...but not everyone wants to pay the extra for UHD releases,


Oh, *so very true*. Even though I have three 4K-screens, and one faux-4K PJ, I'm not willing to pay the premium for '2K-UHD'. Don't worry though, after all the upconverts have been mined out, the studios will eventually find a way to re-issue real 4K versions (go back to source materials and do proper 4K DI's, maybe even regen'ing the CGI, which is all retained as computer scripts), *and sell them all over again.* Sweeeet! (That's assuming that streaming hasn't killed optical media by then.)



> ...and those of us with PJs may even believe that UHD is not yet 'ready' for the currently available PJs (due to lack of nits).


Oh you nit-picker, you.  But don't forget! There's still WCG! I'm happy to pay significantly extra for every disc, just for that! 



> It seems a pity that those with Blu-ray 1080p based systems should be denied the pleasures of Atmos sound simply because they currently have no desire for UHD.


Enthusiastic agreement there. I just don't see it changing.



> As more and more movies are object mixed, Atmos or DTS:X, maybe this will change as it would seem especially churlish for the distributors to deliberately take the time and effort to downgrade a 'standard' object mix to 5.1 or 7.1 just for the 1080p Blu-ray, effectively crippling the audio performance potential of the movie.


Ah, well. I'm not sure what might lead you to harbor such hopes. They seem very unrealistic to me, and born of wishful thinking.  It's not like the _"time and effort to deliberately cripple the audio"_ will actually involve much time OR effort. That could be done* virtually automatically*, just by leaving the base layer, and stripping off the Atmos meta-data stream. Are you suggesting that they actually now have professionals *manually doing separate remixes for BR*, that just use the 5.1/7.1 channels?  [I'm not saying they aren't, because I have no information either way. But I'd be pretty surprised if that were the case.]


But hey, I'm a pessimist (or maybe a pragmatist) and you're an optimist. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Jaxon1 said:


> so you say that it's not good to put up the Klipsch Rp-140sa speaker in the ceiling or do you think it works?


As I explained in the other post, "Atmos Enabled" speakers do not need bass as they rely on the supporting larger speaker for that. When they are used in a "diffuse" maner, you will not notice that the bass between, say 80-200 Hz is not provided by them but by the larger speaker because it sits in the vicinity of said speaker. But if you do use it solitalerely, you risk that you hear the bass from Atmos is coming from a different position than from above. It could work, or it could not work. 

Which setting would you use on the AVR? Dolby enabled or overhead speakers? The bass management is different in both situations.

IMO, Atmos overhead speakers should be capable of 80 Hz.


----------



## mrtickleuk

F-n-T said:


> My god gwsat, your absolutely right!...what a shame to not ever hear this movie in Atmos!!


"ever" is a very long time. You can't predict the future. I'm optimistic.


----------



## Jaxon1

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Jaxon1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you say that it's not good to put up the Klipsch Rp-140sa speaker in the ceiling or do you think it works?
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained in the other post, "Atmos Enabled" speakers do not need bass as they rely on the supporting larger speaker for that. When they are used in a "diffuse" maner, you will not notice that the bass between, say 80-200 Hz is not provided by them but by the larger speaker because it sits in the vicinity of said speaker. But if you do use it solitalerely, you risk that you hear the bass from Atmos is coming from a different position than from above. It could work, or it could not work.
> 
> Which setting would you use on the AVR? Dolby enabled or overhead speakers? The bass management is different in both situations.
> 
> IMO, Atmos overhead speakers should be capable of 80 Hz.
Click to expand...

Ok
Thanks...


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> As more and more movies are object mixed, Atmos or DTS:X, maybe this will change as* it would seem especially churlish* for the distributors to deliberately take the time and effort to downgrade a 'standard' object mix to 5.1 or 7.1 just for the 1080p Blu-ray, effectively crippling the audio performance potential of the movie.


I see I did actually have one question for you, which I failed to ask. 

Why will it seem _'especially churlish'_ in the future, but doesn't already seem churlish right now? 

I.e., how does quantity of object-mixed content alter the equation in any way? They're crippling it right now, and smiling all the way to the bank. Nobody is complaining that they're not making Atmos content available on BR, that they haven't_ already produced_ for the theatrical release, and UHD for home distribution.

[ If the Atmos meta-data couldn't be fit on the discs, and required significantly more space (like UHD video does), then they'd have a legitimate justification. But that is not the case. So I fear we are all just p!ssing in the wind here.  (time to don my shades) ]


----------



## VideoGrabber

relish said:


> This has worked best for me. I had speakers set up as front heights and just moved them yesterday high up on the side walls. Tested using Batman vs.Superman the Rain scene and when Lois took the helicopter. This setup sounded so much better and the sound seemed to come from above. The front height set up was ok. But I prefer the side wall set up.


This is an interesting observation, that I have not heard before. Where on the side walls did you move your FH's? 

And did you re-aim them at the MLP (rather than straight out)?


----------



## sdurani

Saving Private Ryan (20th anniversary edition) announced for 4K UHD release on May 8th with Dolby Vision HDR and a Dolby Atmos remix.


----------



## jjackkrash

sdurani said:


> Saving Private Ryan (20th anniversary edition) announced for 4K UHD release on May 8th with Dolby Vision HDR and a Dolby Atmos remix.


I can't believe its been 20 years. Wow. I'm totally stoked to see this flick in Atmos and HDR, but feel a bit miffed I'm getting so old.


----------



## Ricoflashback

jjackkrash said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saving Private Ryan (20th anniversary edition) announced for 4K UHD release on May 8th with Dolby Vision HDR and a Dolby Atmos remix.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe its been 20 years. Wow. I'm totally stoked to see this flick in Atmos and HDR, but feel a bit miffed I'm getting so old. /forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
Click to expand...

This was the go to movie of its time for a Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack. It still sounds great after all these years. 

Looking forward to the Atmos release.


----------



## dchabby

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Depends how many people you want to put inside. If the outside seats are to close to the side wall, I'd go for the wider front wall.
> 
> And you can definitely do 7.2.4. Just put the Side Surrounds ahead of MLP, around +/- 75°. Rear Surrounds in the rear corners. And plenty of thick absorption behind the seats.
> 
> The person from the pics above, the honorable K. Barnes, previous' room was just like that and he ended up with 7.2.4. But now he has the Barnes' Barn...



I have a standard size 3 seat couch that I plan on using in the room so would that suggest going with a longer side wall ?


----------



## Soupy1970

dchabby said:


> I have a standard size 3 seat couch that I plan on using in the room so would that suggest going with a longer side wall ?


Either way it's going to be cramped for rear speakers. You might even possible get away with 5.1.2. Pull your couch a few feet off the back wall. That still doesn't give you much room for rear ceiling (sound reflections off back wall will be bad) IMO your better off puting your mains on the wide wall spread out. This will also give you a little room to spread out your surrounds. Maybe put the surrounds a little behind/side of you toed in so some of the sound comes from behind you. 5.1.2 with ceiling right above you is my recomendation, or pull the couch 1/3 of the way into the room . Then you can might be able cram 7.1.4 in there.


----------



## oldsteve

*Dolby Atmos*

I was surprised that the Netflix rental of "Darkest Hour"actually included the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. It isn't a real active soundtrack but it was nice that they provided it. I've had many rentals in the past where they replaced the original soundtrack with a dumb-downed version.


----------



## kbarnes701

deano86 said:


> And unfortunately, with Dunkirk winning Oscars for both sound editing and mixing, there probably won't be much incentive for Nolan to change his ways. It's weird... as he is obviously an exceptional talent and a brilliant filmmaker.... just not with embracing the latest object audio formats!


Even worse is that he hasn't really embraced even 7.1. My other gripe with some of his movies is the aspect ratio changing. Those of us with fixed CIH screens have a real dilemma with movies that do that. Do we watch in 1.85:1 and get the widescreen sections really small, or do we watch in 2.39:1 and have the 1.85 sections bleed off the screen? Neither is satisfactory. It was even more irritating with Dunkirk because they produced a regular 2.39 version for theaters that couldn't project the IMAX/2.39 mix, which they could have released on disc for HT use, but they decided we'd have the 'theatrical' version even though Blu-ray will clearly only be used in a HT! They could have given us the choice, using seamless branching, as they do with Director's Cut versions etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jonas2 said:


> That's an understatement!  Thanks for posting - I always find theaters like that to be really inspirational, a reminder of one of my goals in life.
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY nice! My sincere kudos to a job well done.
> 
> Are you adopting? I'm only 48..... I promise I will just stay in the theater and I won't make a mess....


Haha. Many thanks for the kind remarks BTW. TBH, the room looks better in real life than in those photos. The photos were kindly taken for me by one of the members of AV Forums here in the UK who came along for a demo and they do give a feel for what it is like to be in there. One of my major concerns was to get as good an Atmos result as I could, within the confines of 7.x.4 (which I personally think is more than enough for a room of that size).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Apparently the sound editors & mixers at the Academy feel the same way about sound and don't let the number of channels or lack of objects determine what they consider the best mix of the year. Over the last few years that means sometimes Atmos mixes win (Gravity, Mad Max: Fury Road, Hacksaw Ridge) and other times 5.1 mixes win (Whiplash, Dunkirk). A good mix is a good mix.


Yes, even a massive Atmos fan like me can't disagree with that. HST, I'd love to see _every _movie getting a good object mix (emphasis on 'good'). It has been such a massive step forward in movie sound that I'd just love to have every new release with Atmos or DTS:X sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Yes, but my response would probably be more cynical.  As in, they're desperately trying to gather every small factor they can, to boost UHD sales. Certainly upconverts of 2K DI isn't it. There already isn't any reason not to include the Atmos track on the regular BRs, and it would be beneficial to and enjoyable by everyone owning Atmos-equipped AVRs (that they already paid a pretty penny for). I remember when Atmos came out, and there was NO content... and we were all assured that the content *would* come. And it has. What we were NOT initially told was that in addition to buying expensive new AVRs, that all (well, almost all) of that promised content would cost us even more. And of course not, because that could have immediately hammered a nail into the whole 'chicken and egg' scenario, before it ever got off the ground.


Good point well made. We are in agreement on this, even though we perhaps look at it in slightly different ways. 




VideoGrabber said:


> Oh, *so very true*. Even though I have three 4K-screens, and one faux-4K PJ, I'm not willing to pay the premium for '2K-UHD'. Don't worry though, after all the upconverts have been mined out, the studios will eventually find a way to re-issue real 4K versions (go back to source materials and do proper 4K DI's, maybe even regen'ing the CGI, which is all retained as computer scripts), *and sell them all over again.* Sweeeet! (That's assuming that streaming hasn't killed optical media by then.)


You cynic you! As if..... 



VideoGrabber said:


> Ah, well. I'm not sure what might lead you to harbor such hopes. They seem very unrealistic to me, and born of wishful thinking.  It's not like the _"time and effort to deliberately cripple the audio"_ will actually involve much time OR effort. That could be done* virtually automatically*, just by leaving the base layer, and stripping off the Atmos meta-data stream. Are you suggesting that they actually now have professionals *manually doing separate remixes for BR*, that just use the 5.1/7.1 channels?  [I'm not saying they aren't, because I have no information either way. But I'd be pretty surprised if that were the case.]
> 
> 
> But hey, I'm a pessimist (or maybe a pragmatist) and you're an optimist. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.


Again, good point well made. Perhaps its just wishful thinking on my part. But I hope not. I really would like to see Atmos mixes on all Blu-rays. Or maybe for UHD releases to be more sensibly priced. If they really do want to see UHD take off, then the current disc prices aren't helping them in that regard.

Given that most home content is still consumed on DVD, it seems odd to more or less price their premier format of UHD out of the market. If people baulk at paying the extra for Blu-ray, then it seems unlikely they will pay the extra-extra for UHD.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> I see I did actually have one question for you, which I failed to ask.
> 
> Why will it seem _'especially churlish'_ in the future, but doesn't already seem churlish right now?
> 
> I.e., how does quantity of object-mixed content alter the equation in any way? They're crippling it right now, and smiling all the way to the bank. Nobody is complaining that they're not making Atmos content available on BR, that they haven't_ already produced_ for the theatrical release, and UHD for home distribution.
> 
> [ If the Atmos meta-data couldn't be fit on the discs, and required significantly more space (like UHD video does), then they'd have a legitimate justification. But that is not the case. So I fear we are all just p!ssing in the wind here.  (time to don my shades) ]


I think you are right. It *is* churlish now.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Saving Private Ryan (20th anniversary edition) announced for 4K UHD release on May 8th with Dolby Vision HDR and a Dolby Atmos remix.


Thanks for that info Sanjay. This will be a 'must have', UHD or not. I can see the point of limiting the Atmos track to a remixed or remastered version of a movie. It costs significant money to remaster a movie (I imagine) so it seems reasonable that we should pay more. My gripe is the cynical use of original Atmos tracks to bolster UHD disc sales, which deprives so many people of the extra pleasure of an Atmos mix with their movie. Still, I guess complaining that Hollywood is just out to make money is like complaining that it's cold in winter.


----------



## Sanjay

kbarnes701 said:


> Haha. Many thanks for the kind remarks BTW. TBH, the room looks better in real life than in those photos. The photos were kindly taken for me by one of the members of AV Forums here in the UK who came along for a demo and they do give a feel for what it is like to be in there. One of my major concerns was to get as good an Atmos result as I could, within the confines of 7.x.4 (which I personally think is more than enough for a room of that size).


Just curious. But is there a particular reason for keeping the picture framed so low.? Wouldn't a slightly higher picture be better?


----------



## Ricoflashback

oldsteve said:


> I was surprised that the Netflix rental of "Darkest Hour"actually included the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. It isn't a real active soundtrack but it was nice that they provided it. I've had many rentals in the past where they replaced the original soundtrack with a dumb-downed version.


The same can be said for Redbox rentals. I’ve been pleasantly surprised with multiple Dolby Atmos tracks from recent, plain old Blu-ray releases.


----------



## kbarnes701

Sanjay said:


> Just curious. But is there a particular reason for keeping the picture framed so low.? Wouldn't a slightly higher picture be better?


Good question and observation Sanjay. The center of the screen is at exactly the same height as my eyes, when seated. I find that this gives the least fatiguing result since the eyes tend to rest just slightly below the horizontal. If the eye is required to look up then muscles are involved in holding that position which eventually becomes tiring to the eye.

While the screen is set, therefore, quite low, I think that it is exaggerated by the photographs and also by the fact that it is a 2.39:1 CIH screen. If it was a regular 16:9 screen the bottom would still be where it is now, but it would appear more 'normal' I think. With the screen center at eye height, it is exceptionally immersive and involving and several guests (from the UK forum) have commented that they were surprised by the screen position but, on experiencing it, would want their own screens in a similar place if possible. I find that the outstanding visual immersion beautifully complements the terrific audio immersion gained from the 7.1 and Atmos speaker layout.

When you get over to the UK and come and visit us, I am sure you will agree


----------



## relish

VideoGrabber said:


> This is an interesting observation, that I have not heard before. Where on the side walls did you move your FH's?
> 
> And did you re-aim them at the MLP (rather than straight out)?


Originally, i had them up high on the front wall near the ceiling. I did get some hight effect. But after reading other post and seeing it mentioned to try them also high on the side walls. I am using my Klipsch elevation speakers. They are angled down towards my MLP.


----------



## Sanjay

kbarnes701 said:


> Good question and observation Sanjay. The center of the screen is at exactly the same height as my eyes, when seated. I find that this gives the least fatiguing result since the eyes tend to rest just slightly below the horizontal. If the eye is required to look up then muscles are involved in holding that position which eventually becomes tiring to the eye.
> 
> While the screen is set, therefore, quite low, I think that it is exaggerated by the photographs and also by the fact that it is a 2.39:1 CIH screen. If it was a regular 16:9 screen the bottom would still be where it is now, but it would appear more 'normal' I think. With the screen center at eye height, it is exceptionally immersive and involving and several guests (from the UK forum) have commented that they were surprised by the screen position but, on experiencing it, would want their own screens in a similar place if possible. I find that the outstanding visual immersion beautifully complements the terrific audio immersion gained from the 7.1 and Atmos speaker layout.
> 
> When you get over to the UK and come and visit us, I am sure you will agree


I think I get what you mean. Just that one would think, with a recliner, the position of the head/eyes is automatically tilted slightly upwards. In any case, your theater and the picture look stunning. I'm sure you never tire of watching movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

Sanjay said:


> I think I get what you mean. Just that one would think, with a recliner, the position of the head/eyes is automatically tilted slightly upwards. In any case, your theater and the picture look stunning. I'm sure you never tire of watching movies.


I don't have recliners. I prefer 'proper' cinema seats  Part of the reason for that is what you say - if the eyes have to incline upwards when using the recliner it can cause eye fatigue.

I think in many ways this is similar to the endless discussions about the 'correct' place to put Atmos speakers. We know there is actually a lot of latitude with this and it can be a matter of personal preference, or practicality or all sorts of other reasons. Same with screen position and size I think. I prefer to sit with my eye level on the horizontal center of the screen at at the same distance from the screen as the latter is wide. In my case I sit 11.5 feet from a screen which is 11.5 feet wide (2.39:1 format). A lot of people, including my installers, say this is too close, or not close enough or whatever. But as is evidenced by the way people choose their seats in an empty cinema, they all have different preferences. You and I, of course, _know for a fact_ that the ONLY place to sit is the center of the row opposite the side speaker array where there is no toe-in on the side speaker 

Thanks for the compliment on the HT - you are right, I never tire of watching movies in there. It is a truly wonderful experience for someone like me who just loves movies. My very own cinema, without having to leave the house! It's all thanks to you and many others here on AVS who opened my eyes to what is possible and who guided me all the way. Guys like you, batpig, Roger, FilmMixer, AustinJerry, and many many more - you know who you are! Thanks to you all.


----------



## kbarnes701

I should give a shoutout to Markus767 on that list too. Although he and I fell out irrevocably years ago, I have learned so much from his posts here on AVS and he deserves some credit.


----------



## gakbw

Sanjay said:


> I think I get what you mean. Just that one would think, with a recliner, the position of the head/eyes is automatically tilted slightly upwards. In any case, your theater and the picture look stunning. I'm sure you never tire of watching movies.


Hi Guys,

I am looking for suggestion, In my basement I have currently 110"Inch fixed frame screen on the wall,Top of the screen from ceiling 15" inches below And bottom of the screen 4 feet from floor, Both sides 9'' inches gap from side walls. I am planing upgrade to 120" inches screen, But 120" inches screen top edge touches ceiling, So that my bottom part would be same 4 feet height, So that my screen will be above the floor tower speakers. And sides gap reduces from 9" inches to 4" inches and we have white colored ceiling and 8 feet height from floor. My question is if screen top edge touches to ceiling any reflection issues and any other issues ? If some one walking top floor screen may get vibrations and etc. Please suggest me if you have any idea! Thanks in Advance.


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> Sanjay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I get what you mean. Just that one would think, with a recliner, the position of the head/eyes is automatically tilted slightly upwards. In any case, your theater and the picture look stunning. I'm sure you never tire of watching movies./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am looking for suggestion, In my basement I have currently 110"Inch fixed frame screen on the wall,Top of the screen from ceiling 15" inches below And bottom of the screen 4 feet from floor, Both sides 9'' inches gap from side walls. I am planing upgrade to 120" inches screen, But 120" inches screen top edge touches ceiling, So that my bottom part would be same 4 feet height, So that my screen will be above the floor tower speakers. And sides gap reduces from 9" inches to 4" inches and we have white colored ceiling and 8 feet height from floor. My question is if screen top edge touches to ceiling any reflection issues and any other issues ? If some one walking top floor screen may get vibrations and etc. Please suggest me if you have any idea! Thanks in Advance.
Click to expand...

Not that I am the forum police, but that question has nothing to do with receivers/Atmos. I'm sure you can find the right Forum to post that question. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

LOL. I have been conflating Sanjay with Sanjay (sdurani).  No harm done of course but I should pay closer attention. In my defence, I have known Sanjay for many years but only recently met Sanjay. So now I have two buddies called Sanjay!


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> Saving Private Ryan (20th anniversary edition) announced for 4K UHD release on May 8th with Dolby Vision HDR and a Dolby Atmos remix.


Will this be a 4K lift from the celuloid, or an upmix from a 2K source? Please excuse my ignorance in this matter, but how does one remix with Atmos? Do the original sound masters have overhead data?


----------



## VideoGrabber

jjackkrash said:


> I can't believe its been 20 years. Wow. I'm totally stoked to see this flick in Atmos and HDR, but feel a bit miffed I'm getting so old.


Time does seem to fly. And getting old miffs me too.

But it does beat the alternative.


----------



## Selden Ball

Ted99 said:


> Will this be a 4K lift from the celuloid, or an upmix from a 2K source?


That depends on what camera was used for the photography. Also, in some cases visual effects are still being done at only 2K.



> Please excuse my ignorance in this matter, but how does one remix with Atmos? Do the original sound masters have overhead data?


The original sound masters include a separate track for each and every sound effect. In consultation with the director, the person doing the mix has to decide where in the audio environment each sound should be. Some sounds are naturally better coming from overhead. Birds and helicopters are a couple of obvious ones.


----------



## VideoGrabber

relish said:


> Originally, i had them up high on the front wall near the ceiling. I did get some hight effect. But after reading other post and seeing it mentioned to try them also *high on the side walls*. I am using my Klipsch elevation speakers. They are angled down towards my MLP.


Thanks. When I asked, _"Where on the side walls did you move your FH's?"_, I was imprecise.  I meant horizontally, not vertically. I.e., how far out from the front wall did they slide over onto the side walls?


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> My other gripe with some of his movies is the aspect ratio changing. Those of us with fixed CIH screens have a real dilemma with movies that do that. Do we watch in 1.85:1 and get the widescreen sections really small, or do we watch in 2.39:1 and have the 1.85 sections bleed off the screen? Neither is satisfactory.


I think almost everyone with a CIH screen has chosen the later. Even if it negatively affects 'director's intent' (and some would claim it doesn't).



> It was even more irritating with Dunkirk because they produced *a regular 2.39 version for theaters that couldn't project the IMAX/2.39 mix*, which they could have released on disc for HT use, but they decided we'd have the 'theatrical' version even though Blu-ray will clearly only be used in a HT! They could have given us the choice, using seamless branching, as they do with Director's Cut versions etc.


I am wondering though if that would have been anything different than just cropping the mixed version? I mean, we're not talking about anamorphically encoded DVDs any more.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't have recliners. I prefer 'proper' cinema seats  Part of the reason for that is what you say - if the eyes have to incline upwards when using the recliner it can cause eye fatigue.


But if someone reclines, their eyes then move up. So then they'd have to look down, right? (Which doesn't apply to you, since you don't have recliners.) 

I did wonder if you have the seats bolted to steel plates, or if there's any tendency for them to tip over. I suspect that's one reason why some of us go with recliners rather than stadium seating... the need to attach them to the floor (which you have solved neatly).




> I think in many ways this is similar to the endless discussions about the 'correct' place to put Atmos speakers. We know there is actually a lot of latitude with this...


I don't know about latitude, but with that size screen, you've certainly got plenty of longitude!


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

dchabby said:


> I have a standard size 3 seat couch that I plan on using in the room so would that suggest going with a longer side wall ?


In that case, both options can work IMO. With longer side walls, you could move the couch a bit more forward so that the Rear Surrounds are closer to their +/- 135° optimal position (though 105° is fine with Front Surrounds in the +/- 75° position, try to have not less than 30° between these)


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> I think almost everyone with a CIH screen has chosen the later. Even if it negatively affects 'director's intent' (and some would claim it doesn't).
> 
> 
> 
> I am wondering though if that would have been anything different than just cropping the mixed version? I mean, we're not talking about anamorphically encoded DVDs any more.


Yes, this is a good point. When they shoot the movies I have noticed that the cameras show the entire frame, with 'cropping marks' to show what is inside a 2.39:1 screen format and what is outside it in a 1.85:1 format. For some IMAX movies I am sure the director shoots the full frame and then just crops it for the 2.39 version, which of course is something we can do ourselves at home. We then still have the 'director's intent' for that version of the movie. Nolan must have done this for the 2.39:1 version he made for theaters which couldn't cater for anything else.

But some movies, I think, will suffer if we crop them ourselves. Guillermo del Toro said, IIRC, that he made Pacific Rim specifically in 1.85:1 because he felt that the subject matter (Godzilla!) needed the screen height more than the screen width. If I have recalled this correctly then if we cropped it at home to fit a CIH 2.39:1 screen, we would be cropping off the top of Godzilla's head in many of the scenes. 

Incidentally, if you have a PJ with a blanking feature, using that to blank off the top and bottom of the image and then screening it with the PJ set for 2.39:1 movies, gives you a widescreen version with nothing bleeding off the top and bottom. Sacrilege? Possibly, but just sayin'.....

Sorry for the OT guys.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> But if someone reclines, their eyes then move up. So then they'd have to look down, right? (Which doesn't apply to you, since you don't have recliners.)
> 
> I did wonder if you have the seats bolted to steel plates, or if there's any tendency for them to tip over. I suspect that's one reason why some of us go with recliners rather than stadium seating... the need to attach them to the floor (which you have solved neatly).


Yes my seats are designed to be bolted down, like regular cinema seats. In fact that is what they are - the sort you find in high-end preview theaters and screening rooms. They do 'rock' a little for added comfort and wriggleability.




VideoGrabber said:


> I don't know about latitude, but with that size screen, you've certainly got plenty of longitude!


LOL


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> ...how does one remix with Atmos? Do the original sound masters have overhead data?


Modern soundtracks are archived as Pro Tools sessions, with individual elements and instructions on how to mix them into the finished soundtrack. This allows mixers to go back in and move certain sounds to the height layer. Older soundtracks are saved as separate 5.1 dialogue, music and effects stems. While not as flexible as having access to individual elements, mixers are still able to use extraction tools to move sound effects around (without affecting dialogue & music, like upmixing at home would).


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I have been conflating Sanjay with Sanjay (sdurani).


You're not alone. Getting PMs and e-mail asking how I like gear I've never owned.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You're not alone. Getting PMs and e-mail asking how I like gear I've never owned.


I will be more vigilant in future and be sure not to confuse my Sanjays any more


----------



## Jdforsy

Hi all - I’m currently setting up a new 5.1.2 system in my living room. I’m considering the The RSL c34e but they are directional. Dolby Atmos guidelines have the heights at a much shallower angle for a .2 setup compared to a .4. Are the directional rsl speakers at too steep of an angle for a . 2 setup?


----------



## youthman

Well...it looks like I'm ready to begin the journey of moving to Atmos.

My theater room is 13' x 19' with 10' ceilings. Ceiling has 6 Can Lights installed.

My current setup is (3) Klipsch LaScalas & (4) Klipsch RSW-15 subs behind a 150" Diagonal Seymour Center Stage XD Screen.

My surrounds are (4) Klipsch RS-62 II Wide Dispersion Speakers

My receiver is an older Onkyo TX-NR5008

So in order to upgrade, I will need to purchase a receiver and possibly a 2ch amp but I mainly am interested in getting help with speaker placement.

I'm looking at buying 4 Klipsch CDT-5650-C II Speakers for my Atmos speakers.

I have been advised that Atmos now recommends your surrounds to be placed close to ear height. If you look at the first photo below, the right side surround is mounted directly in front of a sliding glass door via a custom steel fabricated mount that drops down behind and through the curtain so that the speaker "floats". The bottom of the speaker is 6' high because it is in the direct path as you walk into the room and I didn't want people's face to hit the speaker and getting hurt (ok I didn't want my speakers getting hit with someone's face and damaging the speaker LOL). 

I don't think there is any way to lower the surround back speakers due to the entrance door.

Just looking for advice as Atmos is completely new to me.






























This is an older photo before upgrading my projector and moving it outside the room but it shows you a better view of the current placement of my surrounds.


----------



## Soupy1970

youthman said:


> Well...it looks like I'm ready to begin the journey of moving to Atmos.
> 
> My theater room is 13' x 19' with 10' ceilings. Ceiling has 6 Can Lights installed.
> 
> My current setup is (3) Klipsch LaScalas & (4) Klipsch RSW-15 subs behind a 150" Diagonal Seymour Center Stage XD Screen.
> 
> My surrounds are (4) Klipsch RS-62 II Wide Dispersion Speakers
> 
> My receiver is an older Onkyo TX-NR5008
> 
> So in order to upgrade, I will need to purchase a receiver and possibly a 2ch amp but I mainly am interested in getting help with speaker placement.
> 
> I'm looking at buying 4 Klipsch CDT-5650-C II Speakers for my Atmos speakers.
> 
> I have been advised that Atmos now recommends your surrounds to be placed close to ear height. If you look at the first photo below, the right side surround is mounted directly in front of a sliding glass door via a custom steel fabricated mount that drops down behind and through the curtain so that the speaker "floats". The bottom of the speaker is 6' high because it is in the direct path as you walk into the room and I didn't want people's face to hit the speaker and getting hurt (ok I didn't want my speakers getting hit with someone's face and damaging the speaker LOL).
> 
> I don't think there is any way to lower the surround back speakers due to the entrance door.
> 
> Just looking for advice as Atmos is completely new to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an older photo before upgrading my projector and moving it outside the room but it shows you a better view of the current placement of my surrounds.


Your fronts look raised too, hopefully someone else has been in this sitation and chimes in. Besides the advice I gave in the Klipsch thread. One option (I know you won't like it) is to ditch the rear surrounds all together. That is 2 less locations to deal with. I have always heard 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2, so your benfiting some by picking Atmos over rears. I know it's not much help, I'll let the others chime in more on the height issue of the rest of the speakers.


----------



## youthman

Actually, I'm not opposed to removing the Surround Back speakers. I don't feel I hear the rear surrounds that much anyways. The front speakers are angled down towards the front row and I have considered flipping them upside down so that the horn is in line with my ears.


----------



## gene4ht

Soupy1970 said:


> *I have always heard 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2*, so your benfiting some by picking Atmos over rears. I know it's not much help, I'll let the others chime in more on the height issue of the rest of the speakers.





youthman said:


> Actually, I'm not opposed to removing the Surround Back speakers. * I don't feel I hear the rear surrounds that much anyways.* The front speakers are angled down towards the front row and I have considered flipping them upside down so that the horn is in line with my ears.


It's a fact that there is far more activity in the side surrounds.than the rears. And I think most of us can bear witness to it. But since my rears are already installed and I have the capability for 7.2.4, I made a decision to leave the rears in place. Perhaps mixers will begin utilizing the rears more in the future.


----------



## Ladeback

I'm looking at buying 4 Klipsch CDT-5650-C II Speakers for my Atmos speakers.

I have been advised that Atmos now recommends your surrounds to be placed close to ear height. If you look at the first photo below, the right side surround is mounted directly in front of a sliding glass door via a custom steel fabricated mount that drops down behind and through the curtain so that the speaker "floats". The bottom of the speaker is 6' high because it is in the direct path as you walk into the room and I didn't want people's face to hit the speaker and getting hurt (ok I didn't want my speakers getting hit with someone's face and damaging the speaker LOL). 

I don't think there is any way to lower the surround back speakers due to the entrance door.

Just looking for advice as Atmos is completely new to me.



I do not have Atmos yet, but am planning to do it for my build. Interesting that they say that the surrounds should be lower to hear height. In the AV store a friend of mine works they have the surrounds about the height you have and the rears maybe higher in their dedicated HT. The Atmos speakers in that room are very noticeable and you can hear the separation from them and the side and rear surrounds. Their room is around 12.5'x22'x8'. I am trying to model my room kind of like it.

How high is your ceiling?

I was also looking at the Klipsch CDT-5650-C II Speakers since I have all Klipsch speakers as well.

I like you your home theater. Do the curtains help with acoustics?


----------



## Kain

sdurani said:


> Saving Private Ryan (20th anniversary edition) announced for 4K UHD release on May 8th with Dolby Vision HDR and a Dolby Atmos remix.


Oh man, YES!


----------



## jk246

youthman said:


> The bottom of the speaker is 6' high because it is in the direct path as you walk into the room and I didn't want people's face to hit the speaker and getting hurt (ok I didn't want my speakers getting hit with someone's face and damaging the speaker LOL).


Finally!!! A man that has the courage to speak the truth!!! If only Diogenes had lived to see this day!!!

Faces heal; speakers don't; and anyways, chicks dig scars.


----------



## gwsat

jk246 said:


> Finally!!! A man that has the courage to speak the truth!!! If only Diogenes had lived to see this day!!!
> 
> Faces heal; speakers don't; and anyways, chicks dig scars.


Thanks for that! You gave me my laugh of the day and it's only 10:15 AM local time. Who says we nerds can't be funny?


----------



## batpig

Jdforsy said:


> Hi all - I’m currently setting up a new 5.1.2 system in my living room. I’m considering the The RSL c34e but they are directional. Dolby Atmos guidelines have the heights at a much shallower angle for a .2 setup compared to a .4. Are the directional rsl speakers at too steep of an angle for a . 2 setup?


You can easily rotate the speakers to aim them inwards, so even in this application the angled baffle will be beneficial IMO. Those speakers have wide dispersion, I would place them a 2-3 feet in front of the listening area and then rotate them so they are firing across the seating area. That will put the closest listener (e.g. right side listener vs. right side speaker) more off axis so they will be less prone to hot-spotting problems.


----------



## chi_guy50

gwsat said:


> Thanks for that! You gave me my laugh of the day and it's only 10:15 AM local time. *Who says we nerds can't be funny?*


You mean intentionally?


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> But some movies, I think, will suffer if we crop them ourselves. Guillermo del Toro said, IIRC, that he made Pacific Rim specifically in 1.85:1 because he felt that the subject matter (Godzilla!) needed the screen height more than the screen width. If I have recalled this correctly then if we cropped it at home to fit a CIH 2.39:1 screen, we would be cropping off the top of Godzilla's head in many of the scenes.


There are kaiju in the movie, but not Godzilla. 

Oddly enough the 2014 _*Godzilla *_film was shot 2.40 anamorphic (God I would love an Atmos re-release on UHD), along with _*Kong: Skull Island*_ and the Japanese have been doing likewise with their Toho _Godzilla_ films since the mid '60s. 

_*Pacific Rim: Uprising*_ is also anamorphic 2.40 - I think Del Toro just doesn't like widescreen (like the weak sauce Whedon excuse "it's for the 3D" why _Avengers_ 1 is 1.85 when ALL the other Marvel films are 2.40 and mostly 3D.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> There are kaiju in the movie, but not Godzilla.


Indeed you are right. I'm mixing my monsters 



PeterTHX said:


> Oddly enough the 2014 _*Godzilla *_film was shot 2.40 anamorphic (God I would love an Atmos re-release on UHD), along with _*Kong: Skull Island*_ and the Japanese have been doing likewise with their Toho _Godzilla_ films since the mid '60s.


Sure. I'm just repeating what del Toro said. Personally I can never see a good reason for shooting a movie in 1.85:1. 



PeterTHX said:


> _*Pacific Rim: Uprising*_ is also anamorphic 2.40 - I think Del Toro just doesn't like widescreen (like the weak sauce Whedon excuse "it's for the 3D" why _Avengers_ 1 is 1.85 when ALL the other Marvel films are 2.40 and mostly 3D.


Yep. Agreed. Sneaky dudes


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, this is a good point. When they shoot the movies I have noticed that the cameras show the entire frame, with 'cropping marks' to show what is inside a 2.39:1 screen format and what is outside it in a 1.85:1 format. For some IMAX movies I am sure the director shoots the full frame and then just crops it for the 2.39 version, which of course is something we can do ourselves at home. We then still have the 'director's intent' for that version of the movie. Nolan must have done this for the 2.39:1 version he made for theaters which couldn't cater for anything else.


Agreed.



> But some movies, I think, will suffer if we crop them ourselves. Guillermo del Toro said, IIRC, that he made Pacific Rim specifically in 1.85:1 because he felt that the subject matter (Godzilla!) needed the screen height more than the screen width. If I have recalled this correctly then if we cropped it at home to fit a CIH 2.39:1 screen, we would be cropping off the top of Godzilla's head in many of the scenes.


Enthusiastically agreed... however, that's a totally different scenario. In the former, the expanded height content is an enhancement, designed for effect. And always controlled such that nothing critical is ever out of the primary frame. But in the later, PacRim was filmed at 1.85, to be viewed at 1.85. Cropping that wouldn't just run the danger of maybe cropping something important. It totally changes the entire character of the film. The director there WANTED the height 100% of the time. Attempting to view that at 2.35 is * always* cropping "something important". 

Mutilating 1.85 to fit a scope screen isn't any different in nature than cropping 1.85 to 4:3 for "full-frames". Just a different day, a different axis. Jamming a square peg into a round hole is rarely a good idea.  It elevates the importance of the frame above the work of art.


----------



## VideoGrabber

youthman said:


> I have been advised that Atmos now recommends your surrounds to be placed close to ear height.


Close_*r*. Dolby often mentions "at ear height", but most aren't going that extreme, for a variety of very good reasons. I have heard that rec may be changed.



> ...the right side surround is mounted directly in front of a sliding glass door via a custom steel fabricated mount that drops down behind and through the curtain so that the speaker "floats". The bottom of the speaker is 6' high because it is in the direct path as you walk into the room and I didn't want people's face to hit the speaker and getting hurt (ok I didn't want my speakers getting hit with someone's face and damaging the speaker LOL).


A wise man... who still has all his teeth.  But you could still make Atmos work quite well, simply by pulling in the two rows of heights more closely than you might otherwise. I.e., ON the ceiling, far enough apart to image left & right, but far enough from the sides so they remain distinct. You might be surprised to see the number of professional Atmos mix studios with their "ear level" surrounds even higher than yours are. So don't give up hope on that count.



> I don't think there is any way to lower the surround back speakers due to the entrance door.


Well I would agree... you can't, unless you mounted one speaker ON the door itself. But it shouldn't be necessary to go to that extent.


----------



## VideoGrabber

youthman said:


> The front speakers are angled down towards the front row and I have considered flipping them upside down so that the horn is in line with my ears.


I'm not sure I'd recommend that change, since the improvement in front (if any) may be greatly outweighed by the deterioration in the back.


----------



## Nima

robc1976 said:


> My heights are on ceiling but spread out a bit. Put surrounds at 93 degrees and surround back spread out further.
> 
> Insane is the only word I have
> 
> Very crappy phone pic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I am trying to do something similar with Klipsch RB51 (4 Atmos from ceiling pointed to MLP). How high is your ceiling? Any problems with separation top to bottom layer?


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Enthusiastically agreed... however, that's a totally different scenario. In the former, the expanded height content is an enhancement, designed for effect. And always controlled such that nothing critical is ever out of the primary frame. But in the later, PacRim was filmed at 1.85, to be viewed at 1.85. Cropping that wouldn't just run the danger of maybe cropping something important. It totally changes the entire character of the film. The director there WANTED the height 100% of the time. Attempting to view that at 2.35 is * always* cropping "something important".
> 
> Mutilating 1.85 to fit a scope screen isn't any different in nature than cropping 1.85 to 4:3 for "full-frames". Just a different day, a different axis. Jamming a square peg into a round hole is rarely a good idea.  It elevates the importance of the frame above the work of art.


All concurred. HST I just wish all directors would adopt 2.39:1 as their standard. 1.85:1 to me looks too much like TV and I want cinema to be widescreen. They introduced cinemascope etc in the 50s specifically to combat the competition from TV and, for me anyway, Scope is how movies are meant to look. 

Having said all that, we have to respect the director's intent. I just wish his or her intent was 'Scope!


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Close_*r*. Dolby often mentions "at ear height", but most aren't going that extreme, for a variety of very good reasons. I have heard that rec may be changed.


Dolby has always recommended the floor level speakers be at ear height, but it does bring significant practical problems with it. One of the main ones is that when the side surrounds are at the ends of the row, the speakers are blocked by the people sitting in the chairs. I raised my side surrounds and rear surrounds to be 'just above' head height so that nobody will ever block them. It doesn't seem to have diminished my Atmos experience any.



VideoGrabber said:


> Well I would agree... you can't, unless you mounted one speaker ON the door itself. But it shouldn't be necessary to go to that extent.


I did that in my last HT - mounted a side surround on a door. It worked out just fine.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby has always recommended the floor level speakers be at ear height, but it does bring significant practical problems with it. One of the main ones is that when the side surrounds are at the ends of the row, the speakers are blocked by the people sitting in the chairs. I raised my side surrounds and rear surrounds to be 'just above' head height so that nobody will ever block them. It doesn't seem to have diminished my Atmos experience any.
> 
> 
> 
> *I did that in my last HT - mounted a side surround on a door. It worked out just fine.*


LOL! I was going to suggest to @youthman to do just that in his theater...but refrained. I was anticipating the glut of varying responses to that recommendation! As I've commented in previous posts, most if not all of us have room constraints of some type. With the exception of the most OCD among us, a compromise (for practical or other reasons) to the guidelines is the typical solution. I really don't see a right or wrong in either scenario...it's our our choice and our theaters. And to my knowledge and experiences, the compromised solutions have also yielded very acceptable results.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> LOL! I was going to suggest to @youthman to do just that in his theater...but refrained. I was anticipating the glut of varying responses to that recommendation! As I've commented in previous posts, most if not all of us have room constraints of some type. With the exception of the most OCD among us, a compromise (for practical or other reasons) to the guidelines is the typical solution. I really don't see a right or wrong in either scenario...it's our our choice and our theaters. And to my knowledge and experiences, the compromised solutions have also yielded very acceptable results.


Agreed. It worked out just fine for me. I had little choice in my old Hobbit Theater as it was very small. Mounting the side surround to the door wasn't all that difficult and I managed to conceal the wire neatly as well, which was a bonus albeit not essential. There's always a way....


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. It worked out just fine for me. I had little choice in my old Hobbit Theater as it was very small. *Mounting the side surround to the door wasn't all that difficult and I managed to conceal the wire neatly as well, which was a bonus albeit not essential.* There's always a way....


Since I'm comfortable with DIY'ing, mounting the speaker to a door would not deter me either. Although OT, I'm curious how you concealed the wiring...would you mind PM'ing me how it was done? Of course, wireless speakers are available now! Thanks!


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> All concurred. HST I just wish all directors would adopt 2.39:1 as their standard. 1.85:1 to me looks too much like TV and I want cinema to be widescreen. They introduced cinemascope etc in the 50s specifically to combat the competition from TV and, for me anyway, Scope is how movies are meant to look.
> 
> Having said all that, we have to respect the director's intent. I just wish his or her intent was 'Scope!


I think that's a completely legitimate preference, which anyone would have trouble arguing against. If directors DID start doing all films in scope, I think it would make quite a few people very happy.

OTOH, I tend to suspect that part of the reason for that preference is people having ideally-sized scope screens (for their spaces), perfectly suited for scope films. Other AR's then get diminished, because they're not as good a fit, on their screens.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby has always recommended the floor level speakers be at ear height,...


Have they? Always, I mean. For surrounds? Or just since they invented Atmos?

I have this nagging recollection of them recommending surround speaker heights considerably higher [up to 2-3 feet above ear level, on a side wall], back in BA times (Before Atmos).

Did I just imagine that?


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Since I'm comfortable with DIY'ing, mounting the speaker to a door would not deter me either. Although OT, I'm curious how you concealed the wiring...would you mind PM'ing me how it was done? Of course, wireless speakers are available now! Thanks!


PM sent.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> I think that's a completely legitimate preference, which anyone would have trouble arguing against. If directors DID start doing all films in scope, I think it would make quite a few people very happy.
> 
> OTOH, I tend to suspect that part of the reason for that preference is people having ideally-sized scope screens (for their spaces), perfectly suited for scope films. Other AR's then get diminished, because they're not as good a fit, on their screens.


Yes, again I agree. With the zoom and focus etc in the PJ memory, it's easy to change AR but there is always a compromise somewhere along the way. I have automated masking as well to add to the complexity. My 1.85 movies are projected correctly, but they seem quite small compared with the full-width 2.39 movies. Of course, that was the original intention of 'Scope - to be a much bigger picture, so I'm doing it right, but I'd still be happier if there were no modern 1.85 movies at all. Wishful thinking again... 

We're getting way OT here and will be upsetting people (rightly) soon. In a feeble attempt to bring it back to topic, I do think that a 2.39 movie, filling the whole width of my field of vision gives a highly immersive image to complement the highly immersive audio of an Atmos movie. Total immersion of sound and vision - perfect!


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Have they? Always, I mean. For surrounds? Or just since they invented Atmos?
> 
> I have this nagging recollection of them recommending surround speaker heights considerably higher [up to 2-3 feet above ear level, on a side wall], back in BA times (Before Atmos).
> 
> Did I just imagine that?


Sorry - I did mean 'always since Atmos'. Before Atmos they recommended them higher up, but back then people were also using dipoles and bipoles to create a sense of immersion. Now we have so many discrete channels, monopoles rule the day, with their ability to be more precise, which suits object-based mixes.

But mounting side surrounds at ear height is a problem for many people. It's better to have everyone have a line of sight to all the speakers than to slavishly follow guidelines IMO, if those guidelines prevent that. TBH I think we do a lot of overthinking of many of the things we discuss in these threads


----------



## batpig

In term of surround height, almost no CEDIA pro installers actually do ear height from what I've seen (even in immersive setups, which is the norm these days). Nyal's basic advice in his blog boils down to "lower than they used to be, but not so low as to cause other problems". That seems to work out usually to 1-2 feet above ear level. 

When you're dealing with domestic sized spaces, you have to deal with issues of dispersion, coverage of the listening area, hot-spotting / uneven SPL for closer vs. farther listeners, human heads/bodies blocking the sound, etc. I think for most people, raising them above ear level enough to give "line of sight" to all potential listeners is a good bet. If your room is especially narrow, you may have to raise them up a big higher to mitigate hot-spotting and improve consistency of SPL across the seating area. 

Whatever you do, as long as you then place the overhead speakers so there is a decent amount of angular separation from the surrounds (i.e. filling in the overhead bubble) you'll be fine and have a great immersive experience.


----------



## Scott-C

batpig said:


> ...Whatever you do, as long as you then place the overhead speakers so there is a decent amount of angular separation from the surrounds (i.e. filling in the overhead bubble) you'll be fine and have a great immersive experience.


 @batpig, would you mind elaborating on what you mean by _angular separation from the surrounds_? What does this mean in terms of where to (and to not) place ceiling height speakers for Atmos, relative to the side and rear surrounds?

This is particularly intriguing to me, as I am in the planning stages of adding Atmos height (ceiling) speakers to my dedicated HT. I'm trying to determine placement, and number of speakers (among other things). I'm considering as many as ten ceiling speakers but there are so many variables to consider. And with that many speakers in my room, placement options may be limited. Note: if it helps to provide context, I'm giving a little consideration to possibly purchasing a Trinnov Altitude so that I can make use of all of them, discretely or at least via one of the upmixers like DSU. I recall reading something about the Altitude maybe functioning better with 10 heights, as opposed to less..

Thanks for any help you can provide, and apologies if this has been previously addressed (happy to refer back to something previously written and would appreciate a tip as to where to look!).


----------



## robc1976

Nima said:


> I am trying to do something similar with Klipsch RB51 (4 Atmos from ceiling pointed to MLP). How high is your ceiling? Any problems with separation top to bottom layer?


Ceiling is 8ft, no problems at all. Sounds great

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

@ Scott-C ....

Check out this screenshot (below) from the Dolby Cinema installation guidelines whitepaper: http://www.associationdesmixeurs.fr...0/Dolby-Atmos-Cinema-Technical-Guidelines.pdf

This is from the perspective of someone standing in the rear of the room -- the surround arrays are on the side wall, the overhead arrays are on the ceiling. When I talk about angular separation, I'm referring to the red arrow I drew into the diagram, basically the difference between the elevation angle of the surround vs the elevation angle of the overhead speakers. 

One of the points of immersive audio is to differentiate between sounds *around you* vs. sounds *above you*. So let's say you have your surrounds way high up near the ceiling on the side walls (as was typical with many older 5.1/7.1 home theaters). If your overhead speakers are spread out on the ceiling to where they are close to the side walls, that separation will be minimal and your brain won't be able to tell if a sound came from the surround or the overhead speaker because their effective elevation angle is too similar (and our brains aren't great at precise directional pinpointing behind us or above us). So the idea is that if you have to elevate the surrounds on the side/rear walls for some of the reasons noted above, then you should also "squeeze" or "cheat inwards" the overhead speakers to maintain that separation.

In the cinema they define this as (45+E/2), where the overhead elevation (when viewed from the back) should be 45 degrees plus half the surround elevation. So, if the surrounds are elevated only 10 degrees, then (45 + (10/2)) = 50 degrees elevation for the overheads. If you raise up the surrounds so they are 20 degrees elevated, then the overheads squeeze inwards a bit and now should be at 55 degrees.













> I'm considering as many as ten ceiling speakers but there are so many variables to consider. And with that many speakers in my room, placement options may be limited.


Remember that the overheads / surrounds in Atmos are arrays organized into lines. So from the perspective of what I discussed above, all you're talking about is the lateral (side to side) spread of the two lines (L/R arrays) of overhead speakers. So in that sense, it doesn't matter if you have 4, 6, or 10 overheads, they all move together as an array.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Or simpler, instead of 0+45+90+45+0° = 180° angles, also ok is 30+30+60+30+30° = 180° overhead from side to side


----------



## Scott-C

Thanks @batpig! Very informative and clear. When I get home, I'm going to figure out what that means for placement of my overhead speakers (aside: leaning towards RSL C34Es). My surrounds are slightly above seated ear level. I can't recall exactly how much above, but I will guesstimate about 12". Ceiling is about 7.5'. I'll do some calculating and determine what that means for overhead placement, utilizing 45+(E/2).



> Remember that the overheads / surrounds in Atmos are arrays organized into lines. So from the perspective of what I discussed above, all you're talking about is the lateral (side to side) spread of the two lines (L/R arrays) of overhead speakers. So in that sense, it doesn't matter if you have 4, 6, or 10 overheads, they all move together as an array.


Yes, that's what I've always heard too, though there is a bit of chatter in the Trinnov thread about squeezing in the Top Middles a bit more towards the MLP. I haven't resolved in my head if that will make sense in my room, but intuitively, it's an intriguing thought, especially since I will optimize the sound in my room for the MLP. :grin: On the other hand, I'm concerned about what that might do to overhead Atmos pans...it might sound unusual if they are not in a linear array. Any thoughts on this concept?


----------



## Scott-C

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Or simpler, instead of 0+45+90+45+0° = 180° angles, also ok is 30+30+60+30+30° = 180° overhead from side to side


 @erwinfrombelgium, I think you hit on what I was describing in my previous post - thanks! I am wondering which way is better, sonically, given my room and circumstances.

Is it safe to assume that overhead speaker angular separation, as a concept, is even more important when considering proximity of overhead speakers to the left / right mains? Said another way, is it better to keep greater angular separation from the front L/R and less from the rear surrounds, if equivalent angular separation is not possible?


----------



## batpig

Scott-C said:


> Said another way, is it better to keep greater angular separation from the front L/R and less from the rear surrounds, if equivalent angular separation is not possible?


Well, this is now a slightly different topic as when you're talking about front speakers and rear surrounds, you're talking about a side-view perspective (front to back) vs. what we were discussing earlier which was the width spacing of the overhead arrays vs. the side-wall surround elevation (side to side separate, viewed from the rear).

In a commercial cinema, the front-most speakers in the height arrays are just above the screen, so I don't think you need a huge amount of separation when you're talking about a Trinnov with 3-5 pairs of overheads (vs. most people being stuck with only two pairs, front/rear). 

IMO, in terms of front-to-back spacing don't overcomplicate it when you're talking about that many speakers. Figure out how far forward the front-most pair can go, then how far rearward the rear-most pair can go, and then space the others evenly in between those front/rear boundaries.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

I have read here often that Rear Surrounds should preferably be placed further apart, not closer. Like @+/-135° which means 90° between them. I haven't added the Rear Surrounds myself yet but I have followed this guideline in my plan. It seems if you put them closer, they don't provide a stereo effect. Makes sense as we are not very good in accurately detecting sound from behind.

Have you posted pics or plans from your room yet?


----------



## Soupy1970

Another option for @youthman is to go with a center rear if his AVR allowes that. His room looks narrow enough and the wide dispersion of his RS speker should be perfect. Just put one of the speakers dead center in back.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry - I did mean 'always since Atmos'. Before Atmos they recommended them higher up,


Thanks for confirming that. I did have a specifc reason for asking, and wasn't just being pedantic. It kind of bugged me after Atmos came out, that the Dolby documents referred back to 5.1 and 7.1, and claimed _"at ear level, as we have *always* recommended."_ So it sounded to me like they were trying to rewrite history, for their convenience. Every recommendation I had seen said several feet above ear level (for the reasons you cited), but of course with Atmos that now longer maintains adequate differentiation from ceiling speakers at home. So the sides needed to move down, to accommodate that. Dolby seemed unwilling to admit that fact.



> but back then people were also using dipoles and bipoles to create a sense of immersion. Now we have so many discrete channels, monopoles rule the day, with their ability to be more precise, which suits object-based mixes.


I agree that monopoles do rule the day now, when it is possible to use them. Unfortunately, in many small(er) HT's there is so little space beyond the end listener in each row that bipoles are often necessary to avoid problems of localization, and excess volume. And utilized by many pro's.



> But mounting side surrounds at ear height is a problem for many people. It's better to have everyone have a line of sight to all the speakers than to slavishly follow guidelines IMO, if those guidelines prevent that.


From what I have seen, every room designer would agree with that. So much so that I thought I had hard a rumor that Dolby themselves were considering revising their recommendation, because no one was following it. 




> TBH I think we do a lot of overthinking of many of the things we discuss in these threads


Well, sure... but then what would we have to talk about?


----------



## VideoGrabber

Soupy1970 said:


> Another option for @youthman is to go with a center rear if his AVR allowes that. His room looks narrow enough and the wide dispersion of his RS speker should be perfect. Just put one of the speakers dead center in back.


Almost always a bad idea.


----------



## Soupy1970

VideoGrabber said:


> Almost always a bad idea.


Moreso than not having rears at all? One of his options was considering removing the rears all together. I was thinking a center rear might be a better option.


----------



## T-Bone

Soupy1970 said:


> VideoGrabber said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost always a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreso than not having rears at all? One of his options was considering removing the rears all together. I was thinking a center rear might be a better option.
Click to expand...

I would rather have no rear surrounds compared to having one Center rear.

I did some testing with my system when I put in my speakers in 2004. I experimented with a center rear channel on my back wall. And sure enough, the observations I read in avsforum were correct. Having a speaker directly behind me made it sound like the sound was coming from in front of me.

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


>


It's also perhaps worth mentioning this: look at the different perspectives (of all the speakers) that someone sitting on the extreme left end of the middle row and the center of the middle row will see. Look how these angles which are being discussed are different for those two listeners. Yet I bet everyone who comes out of that theater will say they had a terrific Atmos experience. I think this shows that, as Dolby techs said way way back in time, 'it's hard to not get a good Atmos experience'. It doesn't seem to be as critical, guys, as some think and millimetre precision isn't needed. Sure, follow the guidelines where it is possible, but if for whatever reason you can't, don't sweat it too much. Do as batpig suggests and get the best angular separation you can and you will get a good, immersive experience. Then put on some movies, sit back and *enjoy!*


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Thanks for confirming that. I did have a specifc reason for asking, and wasn't just being pedantic. It kind of bugged me after Atmos came out, that the Dolby documents referred back to 5.1 and 7.1, and claimed _"at ear level, as we have *always* recommended."_ So it sounded to me like they were trying to rewrite history, for their convenience. Every recommendation I had seen said several feet above ear level (for the reasons you cited), but of course with Atmos that now longer maintains adequate differentiation from ceiling speakers at home. So the sides needed to move down, to accommodate that. Dolby seemed unwilling to admit that fact.


I didn't know that. I don't think I ever read a Dolby guideline before Atmos  I always used the ITU diagrams for placement of my speakers, plus some commonsense. Before Atmos I had my surrounds up quite high, and they were tripoles. Always sounded pretty darn good.




VideoGrabber said:


> I agree that monopoles do rule the day now, when it is possible to use them. Unfortunately, in many small(er) HT's there is so little space beyond the end listener in each row that bipoles are often necessary to avoid problems of localization, and excess volume. And utilized by many pro's.


Sure. Mind you, HST, I don't worry too much about the (occasional) viewer in my end seats  Most don't care anyway and are still blown away by 'a proper cinema but at home'. Of course, for *my *seat.... 



VideoGrabber said:


> From what I have seen, every room designer would agree with that. So much so that I thought I had hard a rumor that Dolby themselves were considering revising their recommendation, because no one was following it.


That seems to make sense. I can't see how _anyone _with more than one seat in their HT can set the side surrounds at ear height and not cause a problem with line of sight if there's more than one person watching the movie.




VideoGrabber said:


> Well, sure... but then what would we have to talk about?


Haha. Good point.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Almost always a bad idea.


A really bad idea. The way our brain works, the sound from dead center rear will appear to be coming from in front of the listener. The exact opposite of what is intended.


----------



## Scott-C

kbarnes701 said:


> It's also perhaps worth mentioning this: look at the different perspectives (of all the speakers) that someone sitting on the extreme left end of the middle row and the center of the middle row will see. Look how these angles which are being discussed are different for those two listeners. Yet I bet everyone who comes out of that theater will say they had a terrific Atmos experience. I think this shows that, as Dolby techs said way way back in time, 'it's hard to not get a good Atmos experience'. It doesn't seem to be as critical, guys, as some think and millimetre precision isn't needed. Sure, follow the guidelines where it is possible, but if for whatever reason you can't, don't sweat it too much. Do as batpig suggests and get the best angular separation you can and you will get a good, immersive experience. Then put on some movies, sit back and *enjoy!*


 @kbarnes701, that’s great perspective. Being a neurotic home theater fan does not make this easy, however!
@batpig, yes, I realize I asked a different question there...it just sort of popped into my head while I was pondering your response to my earlier question. Thanks again for all the great info!


----------



## T-Bone

Thanks, @batpig.

I just ran some calculations and it looks like according to the diagram I do have proper angular separation. So that's good.

For the folks not really sure how low their surround speakers should be, I can share my experience. 

First, from the main listening position, my ceiling speakers top front are 48? elevation angle. Top rear are 47? elevation angle.

I have adaptive dipoles at my sides. The center of the speaker face is 26 and 1/2 in above the ear. The top of the speaker is 7 feet above the ground. But I figure the calculations are best based on the center of the speaker face. Which is about where the woofers are. I have 10 foot ceilings. 

When I first posted about not having atmos, I had remarked in this thread that it did sound like sounds were coming from above me based on my side surrounds. That's because my side surrounds are above the ear, naturally. . 

But once I went Atmos, I realize that there is a big difference between having overhead speakers compared to high mounted side surrounds. 

I get pretty good separation between sides and top. I can definitely hear when sounds are coming out of my ceiling speakers. Like Mad Max Fury Road on Blu-ray... when the gal fires a shotgun at the rock ceiling. I could hear the Rock and debris coming from my ceiling.

Anyway, I am glad I did not lower my side surrounds. I could have gone one foot lower, then it might be kind of tight for people walking by the seating area. So I left them as is.

Anyway, like the advice given a lot in here, try to get close to the recommendations. It's never going to be perfect. And Atmos really is a cool upgrade.

-T


----------



## gakbw

Hello All,

I am planning to set up atmos inceiling speakers 5.2.2 is best or 5.2.4 is best? If I wanted to go 5.2.2! Those 2 atmos speakers where I need to install in front of my seating area or exactly top over head or behind the seating area? Please advise perfect position for 5.2.2 HT config. Thanks in advance!


----------



## snpanago

gakbw said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I am planning to set up atmos inceiling speakers 5.2.2 is best or 5.2.4 is best? If I wanted to go 5.2.2! Those 2 atmos speakers where I need to install in front of my seating area or exactly top over head or behind the seating area? Please advise perfect position for 5.2.2 HT config. Thanks in advance!


5.2.4 is best if you’re going to go to the trouble of wiring overhead ceiling speakers to your AVR. If you need to go with only 2 overheads, they should be a bit in front of the seating area as this guideline recommends https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html Pick option 2 for overhead setup.


----------



## wilsonj

I've currently have a 7.1 speaker system and thinking of upgrading to 4 atmos speakers. I've read through quite a few pages, but the thread is rather extensive.

I have a couple questions that I couldn't get definitive answers on.

1. How important is it to timbre match the atmos speakers ? I have Triad silver LCRs and Triad dipole surrounds. Hard to justify what Triad recommend for atmos. At about $4K AUD for 4 speakers. (I'd rather spend a quarter of that if possible.) so would something a little cheaper work fine ?

2. Which brings me to angling speakers. Are direct downward facing ok ? Or should they be angled ? Or direct with movable tweeters ?

I've already moved my sides and rears down from about 3 foot above ear level to nearer 1.5-2 foot in anticipation. 

Cheers
Jamie


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott-C said:


> @kbarnes701, that’s great perspective. Being a neurotic home theater fan does not make this easy, however!


Well, Scott.... nobody said it was easy LOL  

But seriously, it really is hard to screw Atmos up. Overthinking the difficulties perhaps puts many off from trying, and then they miss out on a terrific step forward in home theater sound. Heck, you can get a fabulous Atmos experience with NO speakers on the ceiling at all if you use the upfiring speakers. My advice to everyone is to follow the general suggestions in this thread, which distil down to some fairly simple 'rules', not to overthink it, and then just enjoy all that immersion!


----------



## kbarnes701

wilsonj said:


> I've currently have a 7.1 speaker system and thinking of upgrading to 4 atmos speakers. I've read through quite a few pages, but the thread is rather extensive.
> 
> I have a couple questions that I couldn't get definitive answers on.
> 
> 1. How important is it to timbre match the atmos speakers ? I have Triad silver LCRs and Triad dipole surrounds. Hard to justify what Triad recommend for atmos. At about $4K AUD for 4 speakers. (I'd rather spend a quarter of that if possible.) so would something a little cheaper work fine ?


Do you use some form of room EQ such as Audyssey or Dirac Live? If you do, don't fret 'timbre matching'. Your EQ system will bring all the speakers into line, following their target curve.

You will be surprised at how little work the overhead speakers actually do, even in a good Atmos mix. I can isolate my floor level and Atmos speakers with a button press on my remote control which makes it easy to listen to just the Atmos speakers - really, most of the time, there isn't all that much going on up there. They are just not working all that hard. I would spend less than the Triads cost and get some decent alternatives that have wide dispersion, per Dolby guidelines.



wilsonj said:


> 2. Which brings me to angling speakers. Are direct downward facing ok ? Or should they be angled ? Or direct with movable tweeters ?


Angle them towards the listening area. If you think about it, you have been angling speakers towards the listening area ever since you had a HT. Why would it be different just because the speakers are on the ceiling? Would you point any of your other speakers to a random place in the room where nobody is sitting?

I was one of the very first Atmos adopters and have experimented significantly with speakers and placement and angles etc and have come to the conclusion that angling towards MLP gives the best overall result.



wilsonj said:


> I've already moved my sides and rears down from about 3 foot above ear level to nearer 1.5-2 foot in anticipation.
> 
> Cheers
> Jamie


Good call. It is important to get some separation between the overheads and surrounds, as discussed just above.


----------



## Scott-C

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, Scott.... nobody said it was easy LOL
> 
> But seriously, it really is hard to screw Atmos up. Overthinking the difficulties perhaps puts many off from trying, and then they miss out on a terrific step forward in home theater sound. Heck, you can get a fabulous Atmos experience with NO speakers on the ceiling at all if you use the upfiring speakers. My advice to everyone is to follow the general suggestions in this thread, which distil down to some fairly simple 'rules', not to overthink it, and then just enjoy all that immersion!


Thanks again. I'm really looking forward to the upgrade. I met with the electrician last night (the pre-wiring will happen in conjunction with a kitchen renovation we are doing) and we notionally determined how to wire for the speakers, and now I think I'm in position to order the stuff I'll need. I built my dedicated HT in 2006 and there really haven't been any significant upgrades since, so the move to Atmos (and 4K/HDR, at some point) is going to make for fun times.

By the way, your HT is beautiful! Edit: maybe the pic I saw is an illustration...not sure if it's finished. But the concept is awesome!


----------



## Soupy1970

T-Bone said:


> Thanks, @batpig.
> 
> I just ran some calculations and it looks like according to the diagram I do have proper angular separation. So that's good.
> 
> For the folks not really sure how low their surround speakers should be, I can share my experience.
> 
> First, from the main listening position, my ceiling speakers top front are 48? elevation angle. Top rear are 47? elevation angle.
> 
> I have adaptive dipoles at my sides. The center of the speaker face is 26 and 1/2 in above the ear. The top of the speaker is 7 feet above the ground. But I figure the calculations are best based on the center of the speaker face. Which is about where the woofers are. I have 10 foot ceilings.
> 
> When I first posted about not having atmos, I had remarked in this thread that it did sound like sounds were coming from above me based on my side surrounds. That's because my side surrounds are above the ear, naturally. .
> 
> But once I went Atmos, I realize that there is a big difference between having overhead speakers compared to high mounted side surrounds.
> 
> I get pretty good separation between sides and top. I can definitely hear when sounds are coming out of my ceiling speakers. Like Mad Max Fury Road on Blu-ray... when the gal fires a shotgun at the rock ceiling. I could hear the Rock and debris coming from my ceiling.
> 
> Anyway, I am glad I did not lower my side surrounds. I could have gone one foot lower, then it might be kind of tight for people walking by the seating area. So I left them as is.
> 
> Anyway, like the advice given a lot in here, try to get close to the recommendations. It's never going to be perfect. And Atmos really is a cool upgrade.
> 
> -T


I'm glad it worked out for you. I think the standard for measuring speaker height has always been to the center of the tweeter.


----------



## rxp91

Quick thoughts on ceiling speakers.

I bought some cheapo "E-Audio" ones off ebay. audyssey told me I needed to cross them over at 150 and 120hz. These were actually great for the Dolby Atmos demo clips which seem to use high frequency locatable sounds but I had a subpar experience in actual movies. I just didn't feel they added anything. In hindsight it was no surprise any of the overhead directionals in the 80-150hz were getting sent to the sub where you could locate it!

I've now picked up some Ci 160QR KEF. They've got a Uni-Q tweeter with wave guide for great dispersion. Auddssey says -3db point is 40hz so I can cross at 80hz. I could instantly tell this was much better, especially in Balindo music video (how many of us have seem that video purely because of Atmos?!).

My LCR speakers are B&W 803s/HTM3s. Auddssey helps timbre matching with KEF speakers especially as I sit nearfield and can use Flat as a response.

Lesson of the story is don't cheap out with ceiling modules. Not sure you need much else than a -3db point to 70hz for movies but those KEF's are fantastic value.


----------



## T-Bone

Soupy1970 said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, @batpig.
> 
> I just ran some calculations and it looks like according to the diagram I do have proper angular separation. So that's good.
> 
> For the folks not really sure how low their surround speakers should be, I can share my experience.
> 
> First, from the main listening position, my ceiling speakers top front are 48? elevation angle. Top rear are 47? elevation angle.
> 
> I have adaptive dipoles at my sides. The center of the speaker face is 26 and 1/2 in above the ear. The top of the speaker is 7 feet above the ground. But I figure the calculations are best based on the center of the speaker face. Which is about where the woofers are. I have 10 foot ceilings.
> 
> When I first posted about not having atmos, I had remarked in this thread that it did sound like sounds were coming from above me based on my side surrounds. That's because my side surrounds are above the ear, naturally. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif.
> 
> But once I went Atmos, I realize that there is a big difference between having overhead speakers compared to high mounted side surrounds.
> 
> I get pretty good separation between sides and top. I can definitely hear when sounds are coming out of my ceiling speakers. Like Mad Max Fury Road on Blu-ray... when the gal fires a shotgun at the rock ceiling. I could hear the Rock and debris coming from my ceiling.
> 
> Anyway, I am glad I did not lower my side surrounds. I could have gone one foot lower, then it might be kind of tight for people walking by the seating area. So I left them as is.
> 
> Anyway, like the advice given a lot in here, try to get close to the recommendations. It's never going to be perfect. And Atmos really is a cool upgrade.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad it worked out for you. I think the standard for measuring speaker height has always been to the center of the tweeter.
Click to expand...

Recrunched the numbers based on Tweeter height at 31" above ear... Still good with angular separation... With 1 degree to spare .

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

Scott-C said:


> Thanks again. I'm really looking forward to the upgrade. I met with the electrician last night (the pre-wiring will happen in conjunction with a kitchen renovation we are doing) and we notionally determined how to wire for the speakers, and now I think I'm in position to order the stuff I'll need. I built my dedicated HT in 2006 and there really haven't been any significant upgrades since, so the move to Atmos (and 4K/HDR, at some point) is going to make for fun times.
> 
> By the way, your HT is beautiful! Edit: maybe the pic I saw is an illustration...not sure if it's finished. But the concept is awesome!


Thanks!

Yes it is finished and I have been enjoying some fantastic movies in there for several months now.

I have attached a couple of pics of the room.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But seriously, it really is hard to screw Atmos up.


I've missed hearing that line. Still encouraging after all these years (and true).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I've missed hearing that line. Still encouraging after all these years (and true).


Haha. I think I've used it twice on the same page of the thread just above  But yeah - that was what Dolby said right from the get-go and, as you say, it's still as true as it ever was. It's worth repeating because this thread can sometimes get lost in a sea of complexity and it could put some people off trying Atmos. I'd always advocate following the Dolby guidelines where possible, but where it isn't possible, deviation is allowed!

TOW, I just followed your advice here in my HT. I spent a few hours the other day angling the overheads towards MLP. I've had them bang on spec, pointing down since the HT was built. You will recall I am using Tannoy Di6DCs for the overheads, which are spot on for Dolby recommendations and I had them pointing directly down (they have 90 degree dispersion). But I saw a post of yours last week where you made the point that it is odd to have speakers pointing to a random spot in the floor where nobody sits, and we don't do that with other speakers. So I moved mine and yes, I prefer them pointing to MLP. More precision, less diffusion. If anyone is interested I updated my build thread (link below) with the details.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, Scott.... nobody said it was easy LOL
> 
> But seriously, it really is hard to screw Atmos up. Overthinking the difficulties perhaps puts many off from trying, and then they miss out on a terrific step forward in home theater sound. Heck, you can get a fabulous Atmos experience with NO speakers on the ceiling at all if you use the upfiring speakers. My advice to everyone is to follow the general suggestions in this thread, which distil down to some fairly simple 'rules', not to overthink it, and then just enjoy all that immersion!


Ditto! Best advice in the forum! Except for the most OCD among us, don't get hung up on a few centimeters or degrees and suffer from analysis paralysis. Per Nike...just "Do It" and get ready for a new immersive experience!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If anyone is interested I updated my build thread (link below) with the details.


Noticed you watched Power Rangers. Atmos mix is courtesy of our own FilmMixer (his mix lets you know right away that you're listening to an Atmos track).


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Noticed you watched Power Rangers. Atmos mix is courtesy of our own FilmMixer (his mix lets you know right away that you're listening to an Atmos track).


Sanjay -- I agree that the _Power Rangers_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, which was mixed by our own @Filmmaker is demonstration class. I never would have bought the movie otherwise but its wonderful audio has proved to be money very well spent.

I also agree with the statements by you and others in recent posts that it's pretty hard to screw up an Atmos setup. The best policy, it seems to me, is don't over think it. Instead just sit back and enjoy.


----------



## Keith AP

Looks like I'm now ready to expand to Atmos .4. Been reading here on various setups, and I would like your thoughts on 1) placement of four Atmos speakers given my attached floor plan, and 2) various options for AVR configuration.

Some specifics; I'm planning on purchasing 4 SVS Prime Elevation speakers, and the couch is against the back wall. I'm attempting to create distance from all speakers for optimal effect. I believe the AVR configuration options available will be either a) front height and top middle, b) front height and rear height, c) top rear and top front regardless of where the speakers are physically located.

I see a few options for speaker placement (labels are tagged physical position only):
a) FHL/FHR and RHL/RHR (all at junction of ceiling to wall)
b) FHL/FHR (junction of ceiling to wall) and TML/TMR (above seats or pushed slightly forward)
c) TFL/TFR (above front speakers or pulled slightly towards seating) and TML/TMR (above seats or pushed slightly forward)

I'm hoping to get a leg up from your firsthand experience on positioning - then fiddle with the AVR configuration for best personal sound.

"It really is hard to screw Atmos up." Don't want to be the first!


----------



## gakbw

snpanago said:


> 5.2.4 is best if you’re going to go to the trouble of wiring overhead ceiling speakers to your AVR. If you need to go with only 2 overheads, they should be a bit in front of the seating area as this guideline recommends https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html Pick option 2 for overhead setup.


Thank you snpanago! If I go with 2 atmos based on Dolby link exactly above head 65 to 100 degree angle need to install, And my speakers has tweeter which will tilt. So in that case tweeter which side I need to face Screen side or rear view side or middle ?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Noticed you watched Power Rangers. Atmos mix is courtesy of our own FilmMixer (his mix lets you know right away that you're listening to an Atmos track).


Yep. I loved it. The movie itself is nothing special IMO but it is extremely well done I think. And Marc's mix is sublime. As you say, you're only a minute into the movie and you know you're watching an Atmos mix  I've watched the movie twice now, so on reflection maybe I enjoyed it more than I thought I had. Second viewing was after I'd re-angled my overhead speakers - if there's a movie that for sure lets you hear the difference, it's this one.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Sanjay -- I agree that the _Power Rangers_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, which was mixed by our own @Filmmaker is demonstration class. I never would have bought the movie otherwise but its wonderful audio has proved to be money very well spent.
> 
> I also agree with the statements by you and others in recent posts that it's pretty hard to screw up an Atmos setup. The best policy, it seems to me, is don't over think it. Instead just sit back and enjoy.


+1 Those of us who were very early adopters of Atmos agonised, analysed and spent sleepless nights (probably) worrying about a couple of degrees here and an inch there. You can follow it all in this thread. But then it gradually began to dawn on us that perhaps we really were overthinking it. Never has speaker positioning been such a hot topic. Whereas few, before Atmos, had studied ITU charts and THX charts, moving our speakers two inches to the left or 5 degrees more forward, suddenly angles and locations and dimensions assumed a life of their own. Pages and pages of the thread were devoted to it. One of the diagrams showing 'approved speaker positions and angles) became so iconic it received its own name (the oft-posted diagram!).

I guess it was all worthwhile because for those who came to Atmos later, we'd been there, done that and got the diagram to prove it. So it enabled later-comers to benefit from the angst and analysis and to get their setup sounding sweet with far less pain. The big lesson learned was: (sorry, Sanjay, here it is again) "it's hard to not get Atmos right".


----------



## snpanago

gakbw said:


> Thank you snpanago! If I go with 2 atmos based on Dolby link exactly above head 65 to 100 degree angle need to install, And my speakers has tweeter which will tilt. So in that case tweeter which side I need to face Screen side or rear view side or middle ?


Aim tweeters toward the listeners on your seating. Again, if you can swing 4 overheads, highly recommended!


----------



## gakbw

snpanago said:


> Aim tweeters toward the listeners on your seating. Again, if you can swing 4 overheads, highly recommended!


Thanks snpanago, So I need set tweeter to be middle so that it will point over head of the listener, And Yes! I agree with you 4 over head atoms set up is best, No doubt about it, But again I need to run cables through ceiling to AVR is bit tough, we did not ran pre-wires, So installation cost involved, And also I need to buy 2 channel amp to run additional atmos speakers, because I had Rotel rap 1580 which will support 7.1 channels, But I have already had 5.2.2 set up connected. So need additional amp. Some additional cost involved  And I am not sure with additional cost I can see the big difference. But this is not the right group ask this questions, I thinking about to add furman 20 pfi elite power conditioner which is my dealer refereed which will enhance sound and video quality and also provide surge protection, I am thinking adding power conditioner vs 2 more atmos which is the best the option.


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> snpanago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5.2.4 is best if you?re going to go to the trouble of wiring overhead ceiling speakers to your AVR. If you need to go with only 2 overheads, they should be a bit in front of the seating area as this guideline recommends https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html Pick option 2 for overhead setup.
> 
> 
> 
> If I go with 2 atmos based on Dolby link exactly above head 65 to 100 degree angle need to install.
Click to expand...

Based on my research and understanding, if you ever consider going with more than two ceiling speakers in the future, if it were me, I would put those 2 speakers right over the listening position. 90?. Not 65 not 100. Placing the overheads at 65 degrees or 100 degrees today will put them in the wrong location if you ever want to go with for ceiling speakers.

Then again, you might be absolutely certain you are never going to have more than two speakers in the ceiling. I never thought I was going to have a 4K projector. I never thought I was ever going to get at Atmos. But here I am today with both 

-T


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> Based on my research and understanding, if you ever consider going with more than two ceiling speakers in the future, if it were me, I would put those 2 speakers right over the listening position. 90?. Not 65 not 100. Placing the overheads at 65 degrees or 100 degrees today will put them in the wrong location if you ever want to go with for ceiling speakers.
> 
> Then again, you might be absolutely certain you are never going to have more than two speakers in the ceiling. I never thought I was going to have a 4K projector. I never thought I was ever going to get at Atmos. But here I am today with both
> 
> -T


Ha ha  Thanks T-Bone! Make sense. And also as I asked Tweeter also to be down face to the listener at exactly 90 degree angle?


----------



## wilsonj

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you use some form of room EQ such as Audyssey or Dirac Live? If you do, don't fret 'timbre matching'. Your EQ system will bring all the speakers into line, following their target curve.
> 
> You will be surprised at how little work the overhead speakers actually do, even in a good Atmos mix. I can isolate my floor level and Atmos speakers with a button press on my remote control which makes it easy to listen to just the Atmos speakers - really, most of the time, there isn't all that much going on up there. They are just not working all that hard. I would spend less than the Triads cost and get some decent alternatives that have wide dispersion, per Dolby guidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> Angle them towards the listening area. If you think about it, you have been angling speakers towards the listening area ever since you had a HT. Why would it be different just because the speakers are on the ceiling? Would you point any of your other speakers to a random place in the room where nobody is sitting?
> 
> I was one of the very first Atmos adopters and have experimented significantly with speakers and placement and angles etc and have come to the conclusion that angling towards MLP gives the best overall result.
> 
> 
> 
> Good call. It is important to get some separation between the overheads and surrounds, as discussed just above.


Thanks so much for the replies.

So just to be clear, when you say angle the speakers, angling the tweeter is sufficient. More expensive to get an angled speaker, which is what Triad are suggesting.
I was thinking about the atlantic technology IC-6 OBA. Seems designed for the job. 3D printing an enclosure and lining with dynamat.

Are there any other list favourites I should consider ?


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my research and understanding, if you ever consider going with more than two ceiling speakers in the future, if it were me, I would put those 2 speakers right over the listening position. 90?. Not 65 not 100. Placing the overheads at 65 degrees or 100 degrees today will put them in the wrong location if you ever want to go with for ceiling speakers.
> 
> Then again, you might be absolutely certain you are never going to have more than two speakers in the ceiling. I never thought I was going to have a 4K projector. I never thought I was ever going to get at Atmos. But here I am today with both /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif Thanks T-Bone! Make sense. And also as I asked Tweeter also to be down face to the listener at exactly 90 degree angle?
Click to expand...

If you can name the Tweeter, the name it right towards the listening position. My tweeters are amiable up to 15?.

I have mine aimed towards the center of the seating position as I recall. I have four seats. So all of the tweeters are aimed right between the two Center seats.


But I could be mistaken. That's because I did experiment and aim the Left and right ceiling speakers towards the left-most seat in my room. And the right ceiling speakers with aim towards the rightmost seat in the room.

I put the grills back on so I cannot confirm at the moment.

-T


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> If you can name the Tweeter, the name it right towards the listening position. My tweeters are amiable up to 15?.
> 
> I have mine aimed towards the center of the seating position as I recall. I have four seats. So all of the tweeters are aimed right between the two Center seats.
> 
> 
> But I could be mistaken. That's because I did experiment and aim the Left and right ceiling speakers towards the left-most seat in my room. And the right ceiling speakers with aim towards the rightmost seat in the room.
> 
> I put the grills back on so I cannot confirm at the moment.
> 
> -T


That's interesting ! If you don't mind can you able post your theater pictures.


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can name the Tweeter, the name it right towards the listening position. My tweeters are amiable up to 15?.
> 
> I have mine aimed towards the center of the seating position as I recall. I have four seats. So all of the tweeters are aimed right between the two Center seats.
> 
> 
> But I could be mistaken. That's because I did experiment and aim the Left and right ceiling speakers towards the left-most seat in my room. And the right ceiling speakers with aim towards the rightmost seat in the room.
> 
> I put the grills back on so I cannot confirm at the moment.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting ! If you don't mind can you able post your theater pictures.
Click to expand...

I have a link and all of my post. Says game room pics. If you're on your phone, change to desktop view and then you'll see the link.

They are a couple years old but still pretty accurate. They don't show my Atmos speakers. Search this thread because I did post my Atmos speakers. And their location in ceiling.

-T


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> I have a link and all of my post. Says game room pics. If you're on your phone, change to desktop view and then you'll see the link.
> 
> They are a couple years old but still pretty accurate. They don't show my Atmos speakers. Search this thread because I did post my Atmos speakers. And their location in ceiling.
> 
> -T


Thank you sir! Sounds like you have very cool theater! I did not able to find your atmos speakers pics in this forum, 1626 pages  And I have only 1 question what's the projector screen size you have?


----------



## F-n-T

T-Bone said:


> Then again, you might be absolutely certain you are never going to have more than two speakers in the ceiling. I never thought I was going to have a 4K projector. I never thought I was ever going to get at Atmos. But here I am today with both
> 
> -T


Amen!! :grin:


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> Thank you sir! Sounds like you have very cool theater! I did not able to find your atmos speakers pics in this forum, 1626 pages  And I have only 1 question what's the projector screen size you have?


silver ticket screen 16x9 11'-4" diagonal (135"):
https://www.amazon.com/STR-169135-S...sr=8-2-spons&keywords=silver+ticket+135&psc=1

Link to game room pics:
http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=2387089

Atmos speakers i posted - (post #48110 of 48753 Old 01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1604.html#post55590188

-T



F-n-T said:


> Amen!! :grin:




-T


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> silver ticket screen 16x9 11'-4" diagonal (135"):
> https://www.amazon.com/STR-169135-S...sr=8-2-spons&keywords=silver+ticket+135&psc=1
> 
> Link to game room pics:
> http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=2387089
> 
> Atmos speakers i posted - (post #48110 of 48753 Old 01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1604.html#post55590188
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T


Great theater! Looks like perfect atmos set up you made. Thanks for sharing nice pics, I just had one more question is how much ideal distance need to maintain front and rear atmos speakers. And you had nice movie poster frames? where did you get those and I was searching to buy dts or dolby big poster, But no luck


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> silver ticket screen 16x9 11'-4" diagonal (135"):
> https://www.amazon.com/STR-169135-S...sr=8-2-spons&keywords=silver+ticket+135&psc=1
> 
> Link to game room pics:
> http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=2387089
> 
> Atmos speakers i posted - (post #48110 of 48753 Old 01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1604.html#post55590188
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Great theater! Looks like perfect atmos set up you made. Thanks for sharing nice pics, I just had one more question is how much ideal distance need to maintain front and rear atmos speakers. And you had nice movie poster frames? where did you get those and I was searching to buy dts or dolby big poster, But no luck/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment 

To determine the ideal distance, first I picked a degree setting. So I was shooting for 45 degrees in front of the position, and 45? behind the position.

So now the math becomes easy When using 45 degrees (the ideal degrees). When you are sitting in your chair at the listening position, measure the distance from your ear to the ceiling. In my case it was 82 in. Because I have 10 foot ceilings. That means the front speakers in the ceiling had to be 82 in in front of the listening position. And the rear ceiling speakers had to be 82 inches behind the listening position.

Movie poster frames are aluminum from Amazon. Got them on sale for $30 each. 36 Long 24 wide.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00J7ANXAI/ref=oh_aui_i_sh_in_o1_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1

They are back up to $60 each Now. But at 30 bucks, they were a steal.

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

wilsonj said:


> Thanks so much for the replies.
> 
> So just to be clear, when you say angle the speakers, angling the tweeter is sufficient. More expensive to get an angled speaker, which is what Triad are suggesting.
> I was thinking about the atlantic technology IC-6 OBA. Seems designed for the job. 3D printing an enclosure and lining with dynamat.
> 
> Are there any other list favourites I should consider ?


Where the overheads are installed IN ceiling, as opposed to ON ceiling, angling the tweeter should be fine. While I am sure that Triads are fine speakers, I wouldn't be wanting to spend thousands of dollars on ceiling speakers unless money really was no object. The Atlantic Tech speaker you mention seems to be good to me. The makers say it has been especially designed for Atmos etc and has 'wide dispersion' which is what you want. Unfortunately, as with almost all 'consumer' speakers, the makers decline to give proper specs with polar frequency response charts etc, but AT is a reputable manufacturer so if they say the speaker has the wide dispersion Dolby recommend, then they probably do. 

Personally, I prefer Pro speakers and am especially fond of the Tannoy range and their Dual Concentric (coax) designs, which have many benefits and are especially suited to Atmos use (disclosure: I use them in my HT). They are much better value for money than the often hyped-up consumer ranges, and Tannoy have a wide range of speakers suitable for pretty much any installation.

Best of all, they give proper specs for all their speakers. An example of what I mean is attached.

This is the data sheet for their 12 inch dual concentric in-ceiling speaker. Just look at the depth of information they give. Makes me wonder why consumer manufacturers refuse to share their data 

That is a pretty 'serious' in-ceiling speaker but their range has many more to choose from. Just a thought anyway.


----------



## gakbw

Thanks a ton for all the detailed explanations!


----------



## DaveMcLain

kbarnes701 said:


> +1 Those of us who were very early adopters of Atmos agonised, analysed and spent sleepless nights (probably) worrying about a couple of degrees here and an inch there. You can follow it all in this thread. But then it gradually began to dawn on us that perhaps we really were overthinking it. Never has speaker positioning been such a hot topic. Whereas few, before Atmos, had studied ITU charts and THX charts, moving our speakers two inches to the left or 5 degrees more forward, suddenly angles and locations and dimensions assumed a life of their own. Pages and pages of the thread were devoted to it. One of the diagrams showing 'approved speaker positions and angles) became so iconic it received its own name (the oft-posted diagram!).
> 
> I guess it was all worthwhile because for those who came to Atmos later, we'd been there, done that and got the diagram to prove it. So it enabled later-comers to benefit from the angst and analysis and to get their setup sounding sweet with far less pain. The big lesson learned was: (sorry, Sanjay, here it is again) "it's hard to not get Atmos right".


I think this is 100% correct. In my situation I have a normal living room that's about 18ft by 25 with a 7.1.4 setup using Monoprice in wall and in ceiling speakers powered by a Yamaha receiver. The speaker positions are close to where they should be according to the Dolby diagram but not perfect. This is just because of the layout of the room and the compromises to the positioning that I had to make when placing the speakers. With that said I think it sounds really nice and watching movies with Atmos is amazingly immersive. After doing some calibration I don't think its worth sweating the speaker placement all that much.


----------



## kbarnes701

DaveMcLain said:


> I think this is 100% correct. In my situation I have a normal living room that's about 18ft by 25 with a 7.1.4 setup using Monoprice in wall and in ceiling speakers powered by a Yamaha receiver. The speaker positions are close to where they should be according to the Dolby diagram but not perfect. This is just because of the layout of the room and the compromises to the positioning that I had to make when placing the speakers. With that said I think it sounds really nice and watching movies with Atmos is amazingly immersive. After doing some calibration I don't think its worth sweating the speaker placement all that much.


S'right. Even a less than 'perfect' Atmos is way better than no Atmos at all. Enjoy!


----------



## gwsat

I watched _*Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*_ yesterday and loved it. Its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is demonstration class. Highest recommendations! Better yet, it is a sneaky good film, which kind of surprised me. Bottom line, both my money and time were well spent.


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> I watched _*Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*_ yesterday and loved it. Its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is demonstration class. Highest recommendations! Better yet, it is a sneaky good film, which kind of surprised me. Bottom line, both my money and time were well spent.


Hmph! I know you streamed that, but I'm miffed because Amazon won't ship mine until 3/20. 

Oh well, thanks for the brief comments -- I didn't necessarily expect a "good film", so you comment adds more anticipation. Glad to hear that and glad to know you enjoyed it.


----------



## T-Bone

gwsat said:


> I watched _*Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*_ yesterday and loved it. Its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is demonstration class. Highest recommendations! Better yet, it is a sneaky good film, which kind of surprised me. Bottom line, both my money and time were well spent.





richlife said:


> gwsat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched _*Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*_ yesterday and loved it. Its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is demonstration class. Highest recommendations! Better yet, it is a sneaky good film, which kind of surprised me. Bottom line, both my money and time were well spent.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmph! I know you streamed that, but I'm miffed because Amazon won't ship mine until 3/20. /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
> 
> Oh well, thanks for the brief comments -- I didn't necessarily expect a "good film", so you comment adds more anticipation. Glad to hear that and glad to know you enjoyed it.
Click to expand...

Where did you stream it and get true HD audio with Atmos? I thought streamed content only went as high as Dolby Digital Plus (and Atmos).

Then again, I Stream very little content, and stick mainly with Bluray.

-T


----------



## gwsat

richlife said:


> Hmph! I know you streamed that, but I'm miffed because Amazon won't ship mine until 3/20.
> 
> Oh well, thanks for the brief comments -- I didn't necessarily expect a "good film", so you comment adds more anticipation. Glad to hear that and glad to know you enjoyed it.


No, I didn't stream it. I downloaded it from _*Kaleidescape*_ and watched it on my Kscape system. Films downloaded from the Kscape store are bit for bit copies of their UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos disk counterparts. What encouraged me to buy _Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle_ was the surprisingly positive response to it from IMDb voters, who have given it an average vote of 7.1 Stars out of 10. The deal was sealed when I saw that 76 percent of the critics whose reviews of the film were collected on the Rotten Tomatoes site rated it "Fresh." Anyway, it's is a lot of fun.


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> No, I didn't stream it. I downloaded it from _*Kaleidescape*_ and watched it on my Kscape system. Films downloaded from the Kscape store are bit for bit copies of their UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos disk counterparts. What encouraged me to buy _Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle_ was the surprisingly positive response to it from IMDb voters, who have given it an average vote of 7.1 Stars out of 10. The deal was sealed when I saw that 76 percent of the critics whose reviews of the film were collected on the Rotten Tomatoes site rated it "Fresh." Anyway, it's is a lot of fun.


Ok, I see. I didn't know anything about Kalaidescape and assumed it was a streaming service. Now I've looked it up -- and thanks for the link.


----------



## wilsonj

kbarnes701 said:


> Where the overheads are installed IN ceiling, as opposed to ON ceiling, angling the tweeter should be fine. While I am sure that Triads are fine speakers, I wouldn't be wanting to spend thousands of dollars on ceiling speakers unless money really was no object. The Atlantic Tech speaker you mention seems to be good to me. The makers say it has been especially designed for Atmos etc and has 'wide dispersion' which is what you want. Unfortunately, as with almost all 'consumer' speakers, the makers decline to give proper specs with polar frequency response charts etc, but AT is a reputable manufacturer so if they say the speaker has the wide dispersion Dolby recommend, then they probably do.
> 
> Personally, I prefer Pro speakers and am especially fond of the Tannoy range and their Dual Concentric (coax) designs, which have many benefits and are especially suited to Atmos use (disclosure: I use them in my HT). They are much better value for money than the often hyped-up consumer ranges, and Tannoy have a wide range of speakers suitable for pretty much any installation.
> 
> Best of all, they give proper specs for all their speakers. An example of what I mean is attached.
> 
> This is the data sheet for their 12 inch dual concentric in-ceiling speaker. Just look at the depth of information they give. Makes me wonder why consumer manufacturers refuse to share their data
> 
> That is a pretty 'serious' in-ceiling speaker but their range has many more to choose from. Just a thought anyway.


Thanks again for the suggestions.
I agree, whilst Triad are fine speakers, it is hard for me right now to justify the cost of their inceiling speakers. As good as they might be.
Actually I think I have settled on these https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/ They are more than reasonably priced, have the mid drives angled as well as a moveable tweeter.
They also show the speaker's polar dispersion.

Working on Dolby's recommendations I can fit the front in ok, however the rears will be closer than ideal, so I think pointing them back to the back wall might work best.

Here is the proposed position for the back speakers. I'd like them further out, but the a/c return is in the way. 

Back wall is about 3.5 foot from seated head position. 










Here is a pic of the side speakers. I've moved them down the height of the speakers. Thinking I might flip them so the tweeters are down lower again. Can't easily move them lower as the covers won't allow it.


----------



## kbarnes701

wilsonj said:


> Thanks again for the suggestions.
> I agree, whilst Triad are fine speakers, it is hard for me right now to justify the cost of their inceiling speakers. As good as they might be.
> Actually I think I have settled on these https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/ They are more than reasonably priced, have the mid drives angled as well as a moveable tweeter.
> They also show the speaker's polar dispersion.


They look good to me. They have the phase coherence that I like about coaxial designs like my Tannoys, and the manufacturer specifically says they are good for Atmos etc. And, deep joy, they show a polar FR diagram! I think you have solved your problem. 



wilsonj said:


> Working on Dolby's recommendations I can fit the front in ok, however the rears will be closer than ideal, so I think pointing them back to the back wall might work best.


Not sure if that is a good idea. You will be getting reflected sound off the back wall and I think that will confuse things and give you a very diffuse sound. How much is 'closer than ideal'? The positioning really isn't all that critical IME. If you really believe that they would work best aimed at the back wall, then I would urge you to try them both ways before you commit. But would you ever, for example, envisage pointing your surround speakers towards a wall just because you couldn't accommodate precise ITU positioning? 



wilsonj said:


> Here is the proposed position for the back speakers. I'd like them further out, but the a/c return is in the way.
> 
> Back wall is about 3.5 foot from seated head position.
> 
> 
> Here is a pic of the side speakers. I've moved them down the height of the speakers. Thinking I might flip them so the tweeters are down lower again. Can't easily move them lower as the covers won't allow it.


Your images came out as placeholders - can you send them again please?


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^^

It may be time to bring out the (in)famous Oft Posted Diagram.










How do your proposed ceiling speakers locations fit with these angles?


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> It may be time to bring out the (in)famous Oft Posted Diagram.


So let me jump in with a quick question here - referring to this diagram.

If my couch is up against the back wall, and I'm adding .4 Atmos to the room, would it be best to install at the top middle (directly overhead) and front height locations? Then experiment with the AVR Atmos speaker choices for best sound.

Seems that would be best practice in providing separation.


----------



## kbarnes701

Keith AP said:


> So let me jump in with a quick question here - referring to this diagram.
> 
> If my couch is up against the back wall, and I'm adding .4 Atmos to the room, would it be best to install at the top middle (directly overhead) and front height locations? Then experiment with the AVR Atmos speaker choices for best sound.
> 
> Seems that would be best practice in providing separation.


I am sure that would work. You would be able to use FH+TM or FH+RH or TF+RH or TM+RH (although nobody can seem to hear any significant differences and I am unsure if you are permitted TM+RH - it's been a while since I did all those experiments). But you might also consider ceiling mounting for TF and TR, with the TR pair slightly forward of MLP. This might give you greater angular separation between the rear overheads and the surrounds. The angular separation is important, otherwise you may find it hard to distinguish the overhead sounds from the sounds coming from the rear surrounds. If you are using ON-ceiling speakers, you could perhaps experiment with locations before committing, but this becomes difficult/impossible if you are opting for IN-ceiling speakers.

Just remember - it's hard not to make Atmos work well


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> I am sure that would work. You would be able to use FH+TM or FH+RH or TF+RH or TM+RH (although nobody can seem to hear any significant differences and I am unsure if you are permitted TM+RH - it's been a while since I did all those experiments). But you might also consider ceiling mounting for TF and TR, with the TR pair slightly forward of MLP. This might give you greater angular separation between the rear overheads and the surrounds. The angular separation is important, otherwise you may find it hard to distinguish the overhead sounds from the sounds coming from the rear surrounds. If you are using ON-ceiling speakers, you could perhaps experiment with locations before committing, but this becomes difficult/impossible if you are opting for IN-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Just remember - it's hard not to make Atmos work well


Thanks for that. My plan is surface mounting the speakers.

I'll look into the actual separation between the surrounds and top middle location - and what ceiling mounting in lieu of FH might result in. I just now thought about the notion of installing some sort of temporary "tracks" front to back along the ceiling allowing the speakers to be slid into various locations for experimenting.


----------



## kbarnes701

Keith AP said:


> Thanks for that. My plan is surface mounting the speakers.
> 
> I'll look into the actual separation between the surrounds and top middle location - and what ceiling mounting in lieu of FH might result in. I just now thought about the notion of installing some sort of temporary "tracks" front to back along the ceiling allowing the speakers to be slid into various locations for experimenting.


Tracks are a wonderful idea. This would allow you to experiment freely and determine the ideal location by listening. If you have one of the Atmos demo discs, this would be ideal. If not, you can download the trailers from the net.


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> Tracks are a wonderful idea. This would allow you to experiment freely and determine the ideal location by listening. If you have one of the Atmos demo discs, this would be ideal. If not, you can download the trailers from the net.


Don't have a demo disc, I'll search for the trailers and pull them down. Thanks.


----------



## Jaxon1

Hello what do you guy's think of the placement of the dolby atmos speakers klipsch rp-140sa onceiling and the surround speakers klipsch rp-250s..? Should i replace theme or is this ok for 5.2.4 and i have youst 6.5ft ceiling hight.
Any suggestion appriciates..


----------



## Soupy1970

Jaxon1 said:


> Hello what do you guy's think of the placement of the dolby atmos speakers klipsch rp-140sa onceiling and the surround speakers klipsch rp-250s..? Should i replace theme or is this ok for 5.2.4 and i have youst 6.5ft ceiling hight.
> Any suggestion appriciates..


klipsch rp-140sa on ceiling would not be a good idea with your already too low 6.5ft ceiling height. You would lose another 7 inches in height.


----------



## Keith AP

Jaxon1 said:


> Hello what do you guy's think of the placement of the dolby atmos speakers klipsch rp-140sa onceiling and the surround speakers klipsch rp-250s..? Should i replace theme or is this ok for 5.2.4 and i have youst 6.5ft ceiling hight.
> Any suggestion appriciates..


Hey Jaxon, I am considering those Klipsch RP-140sa as a possible ceiling speaker...how did you mount those flush with only the single slot on the back...or have I gotten that wrong?


----------



## sdurani

Keith AP said:


> If my couch is up against the back wall, and I'm adding .4 Atmos to the room, would it be best to install at the top middle (directly overhead) and front height locations?


Any chance of rotating the set-up 90 degrees so that the screen is on the 11'6" wall? This will allow you to pull the couch away from the back wall.


----------



## Jaxon1

Soupy1970 said:


> Jaxon1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello what do you guy's think of the placement of the dolby atmos speakers klipsch rp-140sa onceiling and the surround speakers klipsch rp-250s..? Should i replace theme or is this ok for 5.2.4 and i have youst 6.5ft ceiling hight.
> Any suggestion appriciates..
> 
> 
> 
> klipsch rp-140sa on ceiling would not be a good idea with your already too low 6.5ft ceiling height. You would lose another 7 inches in height.
Click to expand...

Couldent do it in another way. Can not have inceiling..:-(


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Any chance of rotating the set-up 90 degrees so that the screen is on the 11'6" wall? This will allow you to pull the couch away from the back wall.


I wondered that too - and it would help him with the bass, although he is sitting very near-field to the subs so maybe they are actually good where they are anyway as he will be hearing the direct sound of the subs. If you recall, in my old Hobbit Theater, you suggested I move the seats just a couple of feet from the back wall, which I did, and it improved the sound considerably. It also had the side-benefit of getting me nearer to the screen (for more immersion) and paved the way for me to go from 5.1 to 7.1 (and then to 7.x.4).


----------



## Jaxon1

Keith AP said:


> Jaxon1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello what do you guy's think of the placement of the dolby atmos speakers klipsch rp-140sa onceiling and the surround speakers klipsch rp-250s..? Should i replace theme or is this ok for 5.2.4 and i have youst 6.5ft ceiling hight.
> Any suggestion appriciates..
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Jaxon, I am considering those Klipsch RP-140sa as a possible ceiling speaker...how did you mount those flush with only the single slot on the back...or have I gotten that wrong?
Click to expand...

I took out the the element and drilled a small hole and screwed them into the ceiling..


----------



## Keith AP

sdurani said:


> Any chance of rotating the set-up 90 degrees so that the screen is on the 11'6" wall? This will allow you to pull the couch away from the back wall.


That was one of my considerations; turns out the screen width and the size of the PSA speakers requires every bit of the 13'+ wall. I thought about building a screen wall too (on the shorter wall) so the speakers could be placed behind, unfortunately that results in essentially the same room depth as the current, so I'd have to go to a smaller screen to pull off the rotation.


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> I wondered that too - and it would help him with the bass, although he is sitting very near-field to the subs so maybe they are actually good where they are anyway as he will be hearing the direct sound of the subs. If you recall, in my old Hobbit Theater, you suggested I move the seats just a couple of feet from the back wall, which I did, and it improved the sound considerably. It also had the side-benefit of getting me nearer to the screen (for more immersion) and paved the way for me to go from 5.1 to 7.1 (and then to 7.x.4).


I just may have to pull the couch away, maybe a foot, from the back wall too see what impact this has to the sound and image, though the screen view angle is presently running 33-36 degrees per side.


----------



## sdurani

Keith AP said:


> I'd have to go to a smaller screen to pull off the rotation.


Then go with a smaller screen and move the seating closer so that the viewing angle stays the same.


----------



## Keith AP

sdurani said:


> Then go with a smaller screen and move the seating closer so that the viewing angle stays the same.


Hmm, I'll give that some serious thought. Rotating the room configuration also gives me an option to go the transparent screen route that I've also wanted to try.


----------



## kbarnes701

Keith AP said:


> I just may have to pull the couch away, maybe a foot, from the back wall too see what impact this has to the sound and image, though the screen view angle is presently running 33-36 degrees per side.


I favour, for a 2.39:1 screen, a viewing distance that has a ratio of 1:1, so if the screen is x feet wide, then the viewing distance is also x feet.

Moving away from the back wall can benefit the bass a lot since you are otherwise sitting pretty much exactly where the sound wave hits the back wall, reverses direction and starts moving the opposite way. It can also be very beneficial to treat the back wall extensively wherever possible. With your ultra-near-field sub placement, you may not have a problem in that regard however.

Certainly it would allow you to choose a TF+TR Atmos combination if you could create a little more space there. The rearmost pair could be just slightly in front of MLP, which (in my old, small room) turned out better than having them directly overhead.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Then go with a smaller screen and move the seating closer so that the viewing angle stays the same.


I often hear this, but IMO it isn't the same. The viewing angle stays the same but the image on screen is still smaller. For example, if a close-up of someone's head is 4 feet high, moving closer gives the same viewing angle, but the head is now 3 feet high (on the smaller screen). Maths tells us it's the same thing, but it isn't so to our brains. If it was, we could all watch on an iPad positioned 12 inches in front of us.

HST, when I moved a foot or two closer to the screen in the Hobbit Theater, the greater immersion did compensate very well.


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> I favour, for a 2.39:1 screen, a viewing distance that has a ratio of 1:1, so if the screen is x feet wide, then the viewing distance is also x feet.
> 
> Moving away from the back wall can benefit the bass a lot since you are otherwise sitting pretty much exactly where the sound wave hits the back wall, reverses direction and starts moving the opposite way. It can also be very beneficial to treat the back wall extensively wherever possible. With your ultra-near-field sub placement, you may not have a problem in that regard however.
> 
> Certainly it would allow you to choose a TF+TR Atmos combination if you could create a little more space there. The rearmost pair could be just slightly in front of MLP, which (in my old, small room) turned out better than having them directly overhead.


So I understand, you're suggesting with the couch pulled forward, you would place the TR in front of MLP (towards the screen)? Wouldn't that create too close a relationship to the TF, or is that now FH location-wise?


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> I often hear this, but IMO it isn't the same. The viewing angle stays the same but the image on screen is still smaller. For example, if a close-up of someone's head is 4 feet high, moving closer gives the same viewing angle, but the head is now 3 feet high (on the smaller screen). Maths tells us it's the same thing, but it isn't so to our brains. If it was, we could all watch on an iPad positioned 12 inches in front of us.
> 
> HST, when I moved a foot or two closer to the screen in the Hobbit Theater, the greater immersion did compensate very well.


Thanks for all this feedback, it has me re-thinking. If I were to consider rotating the room and build a screen wall, I can keep the same screen size (or go even larger), pull the couch closer to meet the 1:1 distance criteria (as I can do now), and provide for various Atmos setup configurations. The subs might find their way up front with the LCR, so not apples-to-apples anymore.


----------



## kbarnes701

Keith AP said:


> So I understand, you're suggesting with the couch pulled forward, you would place the TR in front of MLP (towards the screen)? Wouldn't that create too close a relationship to the TF, or is that now FH location-wise?


I would place the TR *slightly* in front of MLP. Just moving them from directly over my head to slightly in front of me improved the 'Atmos effect' (for me).


----------



## kbarnes701

Keith AP said:


> Thanks for all this feedback, it has me re-thinking. If I were to consider rotating the room and build a screen wall, I can keep the same screen size (or go even larger), pull the couch closer to meet the 1:1 distance criteria (as I can do now), and provide for various Atmos setup configurations. The subs might find their way up front with the LCR, so not apples-to-apples anymore.


I think rotating the room is a great idea. Sanjay can often spot room improvements that others have failed to see. He did the same with my old room and it transformed it.


----------



## wilsonj

kbarnes701 said:


> They look good to me. They have the phase coherence that I like about coaxial designs like my Tannoys, and the manufacturer specifically says they are good for Atmos etc. And, deep joy, they show a polar FR diagram! I think you have solved your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if that is a good idea. You will be getting reflected sound off the back wall and I think that will confuse things and give you a very diffuse sound. How much is 'closer than ideal'? The positioning really isn't all that critical IME. If you really believe that they would work best aimed at the back wall, then I would urge you to try them both ways before you commit. But would you ever, for example, envisage pointing your surround speakers towards a wall just because you couldn't accommodate precise ITU positioning?
> 
> 
> 
> Your images came out as placeholders - can you send them again please?


Yes, thanks to photobucket, you now need to install an extension in chrome to view the pics. I've attached pictures to the post as well.


----------



## wilsonj

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> It may be time to bring out the (in)famous Oft Posted Diagram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do your proposed ceiling speakers locations fit with these angles?


Fronts fall at 53 degrees, however the rears only 117 degrees. Given the speaker design they would shoot over the seating position somewhat.

I'm not sure how well I could pin point sounds coming form behind me anyway, and certainly not any stereo imaging. That's why I figured bouncing off the back wall would be best. It kinda "extends" the room.
Anyway, as I obviously haven't tried it it is just speculation. 

I really wish my room was larger...

Cheers
Jamie


----------



## Keith AP

kbarnes701 said:


> I think rotating the room is a great idea. Sanjay can often spot room improvements that others have failed to see. He did the same with my old room and it transformed it.


That's what's great about these forums - all the diverse ideas and experiences. Thanks to all again - time for more research and put a measured, step-wise plan together.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Maths tells us it's the same thing, but it isn't so to our brains. If it was, we could all watch on an iPad positioned 12 inches in front of us.


There was a Japanese study about it: it did work (test subjects didn't know if the screen had gotten bigger or moved closer), but the effect started to break down when the screen was closer than 4 feet away (for some test subjects, the screen needed to be almost two feet away before they realized it was getting closer, not getting bigger).


----------



## rxp91

kbarnes701 said:


> Maths tells us it's the same thing, but it isn't so to our brains. If it was, we could all watch on an iPad positioned 12 inches in front of us.


Funny you should say that - I'm in a long distance relationship and when I'm at my wife's I miss my OLED so use a Galaxy Book 12 with a clamp mount on a chair to position the screen 6-7 inches away from my eyes (think VR). If the room is perfectly dark you cannot tell you are watching a tiny tablet screen. The key is to get rid of visual clues. Only thing is you have to use headphones.

I've also dumped a JVC front projection setup in favour of sitting closer to a 65" OLED. It really is the same if you just have a floating black picture. Nearfield also takes care of a ton of room issues.


----------



## rxp91

sdurani said:


> There was a Japanese study about it: it did work (test subjects didn't know if the screen had gotten bigger or moved closer), but the effect started to break down when the screen was closer than 4 feet away (for some test subjects, the screen needed to be almost two feet away before they realized it was getting closer, not getting bigger).



Do you have a name for the study? I'd be interested in that after years of experimenting myself!


----------



## sdurani

rxp91 said:


> Do you have a name for the study? I'd be interested in that after years of experimenting myself!


It was almost a decade ago and I don't remember the title of the paper. I didn't get into the details, just jumped to the end to read their conclusions.


----------



## Jonas2

rxp91 said:


> Funny you should say that - I'm in a long distance relationship and when I'm at my wife's I miss my OLED so use a Galaxy Book 12 with a clamp mount on a chair to position the screen 6-7 inches away from my eyes (think VR). If the room is perfectly dark you cannot tell you are watching a tiny tablet screen. The key is to get rid of visual clues. Only thing is you have to use headphones.


Certainly interesting. I wonder, how much is psychological though? Simply *knowing* I think for some people would disallow them from having a reasonable experience until they retrained their brains!


----------



## helvetica bold

From the sound of it (pun intended  ) A Quiet Place might be a real showcase for Atmos! 
http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...t-place-say-its-a-monster-flick-for-the-ages/

https://twitter.com/rejects/status/...t-place-say-its-a-monster-flick-for-the-ages/


----------



## rxp91

Jonas2 said:


> Certainly interesting. I wonder, how much is psychological though? Simply *knowing* I think for some people would disallow them from having a reasonable experience until they retrained their brains!


I really like the show Gotham, it's always feels so cinematic and "big frame/IMAX" when I saw it on my 120" projector, then 65" LG OLED @ 1m away. So decided to watch it on the tablet at 6 inches but slightly zoomed to fill the aspect ratio of the Galaxy Book 12. After a beer and 20 mins in I totally lost the idea I was watching it on a tiny tablet and it just immersed me. Windows Sonic's virtual 7.1 and a pair of Sony MDR-1000x helps with the best audio you can get.

That's another thing I wish Dolby would implement - a software based decoder for PC's so that you can do virtual atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

wilsonj said:


> Fronts fall at 53 degrees, however the rears only 117 degrees. Given the speaker design they would shoot over the seating position somewhat.


Fronts are in-spec. Rears are 8 degrees out of spec. I can't see that being too much of a worry TBH.



wilsonj said:


> I'm not sure how well I could pin point sounds coming form behind me anyway, and certainly not any stereo imaging. That's why I figured bouncing off the back wall would be best. It kinda "extends" the room.


Dolby has never given any advice or recommendation to aim any of the overhead speakers at the wall, and I have never heard of anyone doing this. Personally I would no more aim my overheads at a wall than I would my surrounds, or any other speaker. Speakers should be aimed at MLP IMO. What you are proposing might work, but more likely will give a confused mess of sound somewhere behind and over your head, which really kinda defeats the purpose of object mixing's precision of sound placement in the room. IMO. If you are keen to do this, I'd experiment before you commit.



wilsonj said:


> Anyway, as I obviously haven't tried it it is just speculation.
> 
> I really wish my room was larger...
> 
> Cheers
> Jamie


I know that feeling. My last theater, the Hobbit Theater, well you can guess from the name  It was less than 11 feet square. But, after much experimentation and help from AVS members, I got a superb result in there, with a full 7.2.4 Atmos system and a good screen size and PJ.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> There was a Japanese study about it: it did work (test subjects didn't know if the screen had gotten bigger or moved closer), but the effect started to break down when the screen was closer than 4 feet away (for some test subjects, the screen needed to be almost two feet away before they realized it was getting closer, not getting bigger).


Amazing. Seems to me I'd always know if an object on the screen was 3 feet tall or 4 feet tall. If the Japanese experience was solid, people are wasting their time with huge screens. Just move your seats closer to the small screen! We may as well abandon our PJs and get a 55 inch TV and just sit closer to it!  I don't really buy this one Sanjay


----------



## showmak

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is finished and I have been enjoying some fantastic movies in there for several months now.
> 
> 
> 
> I have attached a couple of pics of the room.


Wow amazing room.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Seems to me I'd always know if an object on the screen was 3 feet tall or 4 feet tall.


Sure, but as @rxp91 said it's usually due to visual cues rather than the image itself. In a perfectly dark room, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. At some point you'll notice that your eyes are focusing on something closer, and that's when the effect will break down. Same with folks saying they can hear the location of a subwoofer. It's usually due to aural cues (higher order harmonics, something nearby rattling, etc) rather than the bass itself.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Sure, but as @rxp91 said it's usually due to visual cues rather than the image itself. In a perfectly dark room, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. At some point you'll notice that your eyes are focusing on something closer, and that's when the effect will break down. Same with folks saying they can hear the location of a subwoofer. It's usually due to aural cues (higher order harmonics, something nearby rattling, etc) rather than the bass itself.


Call me skeptical  I hear what you're saying but sitting closer to a smaller screen just doesn't, to me, seem the same as sitting further away from a larger screen. If it did, I'd be using a 60 inch TV and be sitting 52 inches away from it (1:1 ratio). It would be much cheaper than a PJ and AT screen  And I could get away with a smaller room too. 

Of course, for those who really can't tell any difference this is a real win-win. Forget the complexity and cost of a PJ setup - just get a decently large TV and drag the seats closer to it.


----------



## kbarnes701

rxp91 said:


> I really like the show Gotham, it's always feels so cinematic and "big frame/IMAX" when I saw it on my 120" projector, then 65" LG OLED @ 1m away. So decided to watch it on the tablet at 6 inches but slightly zoomed to fill the aspect ratio of the Galaxy Book 12. After a beer and 20 mins in I totally lost the idea I was watching it on a tiny tablet and it just immersed me. Windows Sonic's virtual 7.1 and a pair of Sony MDR-1000x helps with the best audio you can get.
> 
> That's another thing I wish Dolby would implement - a software based decoder for PC's so that you can do virtual atmos.


I really don't get this.  If watching the movie on a tablet from 6 inches is the same experience, why are you spending money on projectors and big OLED TVs? Seems to me an amazing value-for-money result if all you need is a tablet and some cans


----------



## Oil of OLED

Hi everyone — over the weekend I ordered a Denon x4300h, 5.0 RSL speakers and a Yahama sub. I'm looking to add 4 upfiring atmos modules to round out the system.

Are the cheap Onkyo ones good enough? Or should I shell out more for the ELAC or KEFs? They will be 7-8 feet from a flat and reflective ceiling and placed atop (or alongside) the R/L and surround RSLs.


----------



## richlife

kbarnes701 said:


> Amazing. Seems to me I'd always know if an object on the screen was 3 feet tall or 4 feet tall. If the Japanese experience was solid, people are wasting their time with huge screens. Just move your seats closer to the small screen! We may as well abandon our PJs and get a 55 inch TV and just sit closer to it!  I don't really buy this one Sanjay





kbarnes701 said:


> I really don't get this.  If watching the movie on a tablet from 6 inches is the same experience, why are you spending money on projectors and big OLED TVs? Seems to me an amazing value-for-money result if all you need is a tablet and some cans


I agree completely, but I guess that's why the "ideal" viewing distance for 55" is 4-5 ft. Not MY ideal, but to each their own. I normally sit about 12' ft from my 65" and may move up a couple feet for a special movie or game, but moving to 8' introduces eye strain for me. For get the tablet at 6"!


----------



## kbarnes701

Oil of OLED said:


> Hi everyone — over the weekend I ordered a Denon x4300h, 5.0 RSL speakers and a Yahama sub. I'm looking to add 4 upfiring atmos modules to round out the system.
> 
> Are the cheap Onkyo ones good enough? Or should I shell out more for the ELAC or KEFs? They will be 7-8 feet from a flat and reflective ceiling and placed atop (or alongside) the R/L and surround RSLs.


Shell out more for the Kefs etc. I have personally heard the Kefs - Dolby used them at their London HQ demos, at the launch of Atmos, and they gave such a terrific result that the audience (journalists and AV pros) actually preferred the upfirers to the physical speakers on the ceiling! (This was in their 'home setup' room).

I have no experience of the ELAC but I can pretty much bet that they are better than the Onkyos, which have not been well reviewed by most.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> I really don't get this.


Nor me. Using two eyes, binocular vision, we have all sorts of ways of judging distance although some of them, such as stereopsis, get sketchy when the object is two dimensional. From wikipedia: "Binocular cues include stereopsis, eye convergence, disparity, and yielding depth from binocular vision through exploitation of parallax"


----------



## Oil of OLED

kbarnes701 said:


> Shell out more for the Kefs etc. I have personally heard the Kefs - Dolby used them at their London HQ demos, at the launch of Atmos, and they gave such a terrific result that the audience (journalists and AV pros) actually preferred the upfirers to the physical speakers on the ceiling! (This was in their 'home setup' room).
> 
> I have no experience of the ELAC but I can pretty much bet that they are better than the Onkyos, which have not been well reviewed by most.


Thanks for the response! I will look into the ELACs and other options as the KEFs appear to be out of my budget.


----------



## gene4ht

Oil of OLED said:


> Hi everyone — over the weekend I ordered a Denon x4300h, 5.0 RSL speakers and a Yahama sub. I'm looking to add 4 upfiring atmos modules to round out the system.
> 
> Are the cheap Onkyo ones good enough? Or should I shell out more for the ELAC or KEFs? They will be 7-8 feet from a flat and reflective ceiling and placed atop (or alongside) the R/L and surround RSLs.


Of the DAES type Atmos speakers, the Onkyo SKH-410's have been the least favored by owners and reviewers alike. I would not hesitate to suggest Elac as Andrew Jones likely had some influence on their design. In any case, you may want to visit this Amazon link to see what other options may fit your needs and budget.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...efix=dolby+atmos+e,aps,150&crid=3DLRE9L9CWMLJ


----------



## jjackkrash

kbarnes701 said:


> Call me skeptical  I hear what you're saying but sitting closer to a smaller screen just doesn't, to me, seem the same as sitting further away from a larger screen. If it did, I'd be using a 60 inch TV and be sitting 52 inches away from it (1:1 ratio). *It would be much cheaper than a PJ and AT screen*  And I could get away with a smaller room too.
> 
> Of course, for those who really can't tell any difference this is a real win-win. Forget the complexity and cost of a PJ setup - just get a decently large TV and drag the seats closer to it.


Its tough to hide 3 JBL 4722n's and 2 stacks of Seaton 18's behind a 60 inch TV.


----------



## gene4ht

jjackkrash said:


> Its tough to hide 3 JBL 4722n's and 2 stacks of Seaton 18's behind a 60 inch TV.


LOL! Honey...I shrunk my JBL’s and Seatons!


----------



## Oil of OLED

gene4ht said:


> Of the DAES type Atmos speakers, the Onkyo SKH-410's have been the least favored by owners and reviewers alike. I would not hesitate to suggest Elac as Andrew Jones likely had some influence on their design. In any case, you may want to visit this Amazon link to see what other options may fit your needs and budget.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...efix=dolby+atmos+e,aps,150&crid=3DLRE9L9CWMLJ


Got it. It will be a bit tough to mount the ELACs atop the compact RSLs, but I suppose I can just install a shelf that places the two speakers side-by-side?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

kbarnes701 said:


> Call me skeptical  I hear what you're saying but sitting closer to a smaller screen just doesn't, to me, seem the same as sitting further away from a larger screen. If it did, I'd be using a 60 inch TV and be sitting 52 inches away from it (1:1 ratio). It would be much cheaper than a PJ and AT screen  And I could get away with a smaller room too.
> 
> Of course, for those who really can't tell any difference this is a real win-win. Forget the complexity and cost of a PJ setup - just get a decently large TV and drag the seats closer to it.


Well we are sitting 8' from a 65" OLED and it is working perfectly. Sure the ideal screen size at the distance for 4K content is 85" but until we have affordable OLED's/MicroLED's at that size this will do. The immersion is excellent though but that is most likely due to the black levels and the 9.1.6 sound in this small room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Oil of OLED said:


> Got it. It will be a bit tough to mount the ELACs atop the compact RSLs, but I suppose I can just install a shelf that places the two speakers side-by-side?


Yes you can. Dolby say that the upfirers can be up to 3 feet from its 'home' speaker. Audyssey, or whatever you use, will sort out the delays etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mashie Saldana said:


> Well we are sitting 8' from a 65" OLED and it is working perfectly. Sure the ideal screen size at the distance for 4K content is 85" but until we have affordable OLED's/MicroLED's at that size this will do. The immersion is excellent though but that is most likely due to the black levels and the 9.1.6 sound in this small room.


My preferred ratio of seating distance to screen width (for 2.39:1 screen) is 1:1. So for a 65 inch (diagonal) TV to give me the same sort of experience as I get sitting 11.5 feet from my 11.5 foot wide screen, I would be sitting 56 inches (4.5ft) from it. But I still hold the view that 138 inches from a 138 inch wide screen does _not _give the same experience as 56 inches from a 56 inch wide screen. 

Sitting 96 inches from a 65 inch (diagonal) screen would be way too far away for me. But seating distance is a very personal thing, as you see in movie theaters when some choose to sit right at the back and others right at the front and some in the center.


----------



## thewonderer

Hoping for some Atmos advice from here.

I'm considering getting a Denon AVR-X4400H so I can go from a 5.1 setup to a 5.1.4 setup. I considered going with atmos speakers sitting on top of my current speakers, but due to a support beam in the ceiling placed down the centre, it wouldn't work. I'll need to lower one side of the ceiling down, so each side of the beam is the same height. My problem is the size of my room and placement of my listening spot. As the room is 4m by 4m approx, I have the seating at the back wall, I can't place the ceiling speakers behind the seats like in the dolby guides. If I move the seating forward a metre (3ft) then the room space gets much smaller.

So I'm not sure if anyone has setup ceiling atmos speakers (the far rear ones) directly above the seating / back wall and then the forward one in front of the seating position. Will I be wasting my time and money trying to get atmos working with the current seating arrangement?

Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

thewonderer said:


> Hoping for some Atmos advice from here.
> 
> I'm considering getting a Denon AVR-X4400H so I can go from a 5.1 setup to a 5.1.4 setup. I considered going with atmos speakers sitting on top of my current speakers, but due to a support beam in the ceiling placed down the centre, it wouldn't work. I'll need to lower one side of the ceiling down, so each side of the beam is the same height. My problem is the size of my room and placement of my listening spot. As the room is 4m by 4m approx, I have the seating at the back wall, I can't place the ceiling speakers behind the seats like in the dolby guides. If I move the seating forward a metre (3ft) then the room space gets much smaller.
> 
> So I'm not sure if anyone has setup ceiling atmos speakers (the far rear ones) directly above the seating / back wall and then the forward one in front of the seating position. Will I be wasting my time and money trying to get atmos working with the current seating arrangement?
> 
> Thanks.


You won't be wasting your time or money IMO. One of the Dolby recommended placement options is for a Front Height (FH), Rear height (RH) configuration, where the speakers are mounted at the top of the front and rear walls, so you could consider that. However, angular separation between the floor level speakers and the overhead speakers is very important, so if you are sitting right up against the back wall then there likely won;t be enough separation between your surrounds and your overheads.

I have considerable experience of working with small rooms. My last HT was smaller than yours (3m x 3m) yet I managed to get a full 7.x.4 setup in there, plus two Seaton Submersive subs. And I managed to pull my seats about 2.5 feet away from the back wall. The room sounded superb (it was also very heavily treated which I consider to be essential and especially in a small room).

If you could move your seating forward a little it brings several benefits. Your bass will be improved, as will your immersion as you sit closer to the screen. You could then do what I did and use a TF+TR setup with the front overheads within Dolby's guidelines for TF (see the diagram I posted recently) and the rear overheads a little in front of MLP. This worked very well indeed and the 'Atmos effect' was terrific.

If you really can't move your seating forward a little, then I'd recommend you use a TF+TR configuration with the TF within spec and the TR just ahead of the seating position as I did. This will give you the all-important angular separation and I can tell you from direct personal experience that it will sound fabulous.

Don't let perfect become the enemy of good - even a slightly compromised Atmos is way better than no Atmos at all. Go for it!


----------



## thewonderer

T-Bone said:


> Finally added Atmos today... 7.1.4. was a cool day in Florida, so I took advantage. Ran wires thru my attic.
> 
> Photos attached. I used batting to keep the blown-in insulation out of the speaker.
> 
> I did not demo anything, although I ran the Atmos 7.1.4 channel check to make sure the Atmos speakers were working after I mounted them.
> 
> I need to add the grills, cleanup the room, then demo some material.
> 
> Came close to the Dolby recommendations... Had a joist in the way, so elevation angles are 48 degrees to the top front, and 47 degrees to the top Rear.
> 
> I posted before about pulling the tops a bit inward... And I did. Mains are separated by 11 feet. And top left/right are separated by 9'-8"... I originally was going to do a bit inward because I was concerned about the sidewall. But the group put those fears to rest. But then I realized I had some wiring from the ceiling cans and I did not want to be in line with power lines. So pulling them in a bit was enough to give me peace of mind and I was not to close to electrical wiring.
> 
> Speakers are Polk MC60 6 1/2" drivers with movable Tweeter...
> 
> -T


Nice setup. Considering getting ATMOS setup in my 12ft by 12ft room. Can I ask why you didn't choose the Polk MC80 over the 60? Is the 80 a bit of overkill? Are you happy with the MC60s and the way you can adjust the tweeter direction?

Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^ 

@thewonderer.

I say to put the TR's 'a little in front of MLP' because originally I had the TR directly over my head but I found, maybe because the separation between rear surrounds and TR wasn't enough, that moving the TR to just slightly in front of MLP gave me a better sense of sounds moving around above me, especially from front to back and back to front. It worked really well for me and I suspect it will for you too. I did literally hours and hours of listening tests using the Dolby demo discs and the disc with the Dolby test tones on it.


----------



## T-Bone

thewonderer said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally added Atmos today... 7.1.4. was a cool day in Florida, so I took advantage. Ran wires thru my attic.
> 
> Photos attached. I used batting to keep the blown-in insulation out of the speaker.
> 
> I did not demo anything, although I ran the Atmos 7.1.4 channel check to make sure the Atmos speakers were working after I mounted them.
> 
> I need to add the grills, cleanup the room, then demo some material.
> 
> Came close to the Dolby recommendations... Had a joist in the way, so elevation angles are 48 degrees to the top front, and 47 degrees to the top Rear.
> 
> I posted before about pulling the tops a bit inward... And I did. Mains are separated by 11 feet. And top left/right are separated by 9'-8"... I originally was going to do a bit inward because I was concerned about the sidewall. But the group put those fears to rest. But then I realized I had some wiring from the ceiling cans and I did not want to be in line with power lines. So pulling them in a bit was enough to give me peace of mind and I was not to close to electrical wiring.
> 
> Speakers are Polk MC60 6 1/2" drivers with movable Tweeter...
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Nice setup. Considering getting ATMOS setup in my 12ft by 12ft room. Can I ask why you didn't choose the Polk MC80 over the 60? Is the 80 a bit of overkill? Are you happy with the MC60s and the way you can adjust the tweeter direction?
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I went with the mc60 because they were smaller diameter. And in case I wanted to upgrade ceiling speakers in the future, it would be easier to find a speaker that was larger than the mc60 diameter. Because my plan was to go 8 inch Driver n the future if I was going to upgrade at all.

After I installed the mc60 speakers, my Onkyo receiver calibration set them up with 80 Hertz crossover. So that is perfect for me. There was no need to go with an 8-inch driver now that I'm looking back on it. Because the six and a half inch driver is performing to exactly what I needed it to do... Since I generally cross my speakers over at 80 Hertz anyway. So the extra size drive would have been wasted money.

The tweeters aim about 15 degrees. So that was a nice benefit. I do have them aimed at the seating area.

I'm quite happy with this because. They sound fantastic.

-T

Edit. 
I compared the frequency response of both speakers on the Polk website. So I knew before I purchased that I did not need the extended base found on the MC80.


----------



## thewonderer

kbarnes701 said:


> You won't be wasting your time or money IMO. One of the Dolby recommended placement options is for a Front Height (FH), Rear height (RH) configuration, where the speakers are mounted at the top of the front and rear walls, so you could consider that. However, angular separation between the floor level speakers and the overhead speakers is very important, so if you are sitting right up against the back wall then there likely won;t be enough separation between your surrounds and your overheads.
> 
> I have considerable experience of working with small rooms. My last HT was smaller than yours (3m x 3m) yet I managed to get a full 7.x.4 setup in there, plus two Seaton Submersive subs. And I managed to pull my seats about 2.5 feet away from the back wall. The room sounded superb (it was also very heavily treated which I consider to be essential and especially in a small room).
> 
> If you could move your seating forward a little it brings several benefits. Your bass will be improved, as will your immersion as you sit closer to the screen. You could then do what I did and use a TF+TR setup with the front overheads within Dolby's guidelines for TF (see the diagram I posted recently) and the rear overheads a little in front of MLP. This worked very well indeed and the 'Atmos effect' was terrific.
> 
> If you really can't move your seating forward a little, then I'd recommend you use a TF+TR configuration with the TF within spec and the TR just ahead of the seating position as I did. This will give you the all-important angular separation and I can tell you from direct personal experience that it will sound fabulous.
> 
> Don't let perfect become the enemy of good - even a slightly compromised Atmos is way better than no Atmos at all. Go for it!


Thanks very much. This gives me real hope that I can do it and will have to start explaining to the misses why I need this setup vs my 5.1, lol.

I did some exact measurements this morning. The room is 4m wide, with the opening doors on the mid right section when facing the TV. The room is 4.2 in depth. Ceiling is 2.5m in height, and the beam is about 20cm lower. Not perfect, but as you say, good is still better than no Atmos (except for the bank account). I currently have Tannoy DC6 SE fronts and DC6 book shelf rears with a denon 3313CI amp. To get 5.1.4 i figure the Denon AVR-X4400h is the way to go. I don't want a downgrade in overall sound quality but wish there was a 5.1.4 amp that didn't cost so much.

So I can move the seating (sofa) forward a foot or two. Will take time getting use to but benefit is I won't need to get a 65" 2018 OLED, can get that 55" one instead. I don't think I can do height speakers as the doors on the right and air con mounted on the left wall will get in the way. Acoustically, the right wall is bare brick and the rest is gyprock/plaster board. Not ideal again. I think if I can go with ceiling speakers (POLK MC60 are my preferred and will ship to Australia at a good price), that would be my idea. My general understanding is the height speakers need to have 45 degree angle to the listening position. I will read more about that as the seating would not be forward enough. I read the MC60 can have the tweeter angle adjusted. Not sure how close I can put ceiling speakers to the back wall.

Thanks.


----------



## grendelrt

For those gaming on windows 10, is there any negative to leaving dolby atmos enabled in the windows sound settings? Final Fantasy xv has atmos support but it must be enabled in windows sound settings (vs 7.1 which other programs override with bit streaming out). 

Trying to discern what windows does with 7.1 and lower content when this is enabled. My receiver typically reports pcm + dds or dd + dds when sending a non atmos signal and up mixing with dolby surround. When you enable atmos in windows my receiver is reporting dolby surround with no sound format attached. I checked the input channels and it is 7.1 input beinng up mixed to 11.1 on non atmos games. When I boot up ffxv it reports atmos as well as expected.


----------



## kbarnes701

thewonderer said:


> To get 5.1.4 i figure the Denon AVR-X4400h is the way to go. I don't want a downgrade in overall sound quality but wish there was a 5.1.4 amp that didn't cost so much.


As an alternative you could look at the secondhand market, or end-of-line units that have been replaced by the latest models. So long as the spec meets your needs in terms of channels, Atmos etc, there's nothing to choose between them sonically. Modern electronics make vanishingly small differences to sound quality. The single most important component that has a huge effect on SQ is the room itself. (See below).



thewonderer said:


> Acoustically, the right wall is bare brick and the rest is gyprock/plaster board. Not ideal again.


No non-purpose-designed room is perfect. If it is at all possible I would consider adding some acoustic treatment panels, especially at the 'first reflection' points. These panels can look attractive and come in a wide range of colours. It is also very easy to make your own if you have basic DIY skills and a few tools. Acoustic treatments will be the single biggest bang for the buck you will ever get in terms of SQ. The room's importance cannot be overstated. The room has the biggest influence on the sound you hear - more so than even the quality of your speakers. Four or six judiciously placed panels will bring more sonic improvement than any new electronics or new speakers.




thewonderer said:


> I think if I can go with ceiling speakers (POLK MC60 are my preferred and will ship to Australia at a good price), that would be my idea. My general understanding is the height speakers need to have 45 degree angle to the listening position. I will read more about that as the seating would not be forward enough.


Look at the diagram I posted a few posts back. Don't over-worry if you can't meet the exact angles. And don't let it deter you from going down the Atmos route. Atmos is very forgiving of less-than-ideal speaker locations and even when you can't meet the specs exactly, some Atmos is always better than no Atmos.



thewonderer said:


> I read the MC60 can have the tweeter angle adjusted. Not sure how close I can put ceiling speakers to the back wall.
> 
> Thanks.


Angling the tweeter towards MLP is good. If your surrounds are already close to the back wall, don't put your overheads close to the back wall. You need good angular separation between floor level and ceiling level to appreciate the sounds coming from over your head. If the angular separation is small, it is hard to tell if the sound is coming from the surrounds or the rear overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

IMO and IME people still worry far too much over meeting precise locations for overhead speakers. Dolby themselves have said, more than once, that it is not critical and that it is hard to make Atmos *not* work. 

I wonder if the people fretting over a degree here or an inch there applied the same thinking to the location of their floor level speakers? How many people decided *not *to have a 5.1 or 7.1 system because they could not meet precise ITU angles? Very few I bet. I'm fairly sure that what most people did was put their speakers where they could, not even measuring the angles and distances from each other or from MLP. They put the speakers where they 'looked about right' for a good 5.1 or 7.1 result, then sat back and amazed themselves with how good it all sounded. 

Well guys, it's the same with Atmos! Sure, if you can meet the Dolby guidelines (and that is what they are - _guidelines_) then of course, do so. But, just as you didn't abandon 5.1 or 7.1 because your front L & R speakers weren't exactly at 30 degrees from MLP, so it's the same with Atmos. Use commonsense. And remember that just as an imperfect 5.1 system is way better than a mono or stereo system (for movies) so is an imperfect Atmos system way better than no Atmos at all.

Enjoy!


----------



## healthnut

kbarnes701 said:


> Call me skeptical  I hear what you're saying but sitting closer to a smaller screen just doesn't, to me, seem the same as sitting further away from a larger screen. If it did, I'd be using a 60 inch TV and be sitting 52 inches away from it (1:1 ratio). It would be much cheaper than a PJ and AT screen  And I could get away with a smaller room too.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, for those who really can't tell any difference this is a real win-win. Forget the complexity and cost of a PJ setup - just get a decently large TV and drag the seats closer to it.




According to research, the audio is more critical to the experience than the video. If this is the case, then the conventional wisdom of positioning front speakers in an equilateral triangle might be very difficult with a display very close to your eyes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## westbergjoakim

kbarnes701 said:


> I have considerable experience of working with small rooms. My last HT was smaller than yours (3m x 3m) yet I managed to get a full 7.x.4 setup in there, plus two Seaton Submersive subs. And I managed to pull my seats about 2.5 feet away from the back wall. The room sounded superb (it was also very heavily treated which I consider to be essential and especially in a small room).


Do you have any pictures of the rear side of your room and how your speakers where set up there? Or anything else that can give an idé for the placement


Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

I think I have posted this before, but......in the old motor home we had a TV in the bedroom that approx. a 9 inch screen about 8 foot away. Once you were 20 minutes into a movie in the pitch black room and depending on your ADD level your eyes would become transfixed on the image and anything that brought you out of the movie sort of took a sec to adjust back to the scale of things.




When you lost yourself in the movie/image the brain was able to disregard everything else other than the picture and it did not seem like watching a 9 inch screen from 8 feet away.....hard explain, once you disengaged from watching it , it took a few seconds to focus in, sort of like taking your sunglasses off out side after hours....it takes a bit realign.




Very odd feeling, recalibrating like that, the girlfriend did not like it, said it felt like what she described as "Hitting the reset button " .....


----------



## kbarnes701

westbergjoakim said:


> Do you have any pictures of the rear side of your room and how your speakers where set up there? Or anything else that can give an idé for the placement
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


Follow the diagram as closely as you can. In my room the front and rear overhead speakers are at 45 degrees, in line with Dolby recommendations. But my room is purpose-designed from scratch so I could position them wherever I wanted to. If you can't follow the guidelines, get as close as you can and it's more than likely you will get a good result.


----------



## westbergjoakim

kbarnes701 said:


> Follow the diagram as closely as you can. In my room the front and rear overhead speakers are at 45 degrees, in line with Dolby recommendations. But my room is purpose-designed from scratch so I could position them wherever I wanted to. If you can't follow the guidelines, get as close as you can and it's more than likely you will get a good result.


I have a 7.2.4-setup right now, but the sofa/head around 75cm from the back wall. I think it sounds good, but I'm not sure about my rear surrounds. I was meaning pictures in your old theater, to see if I could get some tips from there about them/rear side of my room. 

I have my sides at 70/75° and my rears at both sides of the sofa pointing at opposite seat.

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Amazing. Seems to me I'd always know if an object on the screen was 3 feet tall or 4 feet tall. If the Japanese experience was solid, people are wasting their time with huge screens. Just move your seats closer to the small screen! We may as well abandon our PJs and get a 55 inch TV and just sit closer to it!


Au contraire!

One thing I think is being overlooked is that regardless of what the perceptual impact of closer viewing may be, if you start pulling the screen in closer, you're going to wind up with someone sitting in your lap. 

I.e., the angles may still be acceptable for the central viewer, while deteriorating rapidly for those in either side seat. Part of the reason why people sit farther away watching TV in their living rooms is due to exactly that. Too close and people are _"crowding around the boob tube"._


----------



## rxp91

kbarnes701 said:


> I really don't get this.  If watching the movie on a tablet from 6 inches is the same experience, why are you spending money on projectors and big OLED TVs? Seems to me an amazing value-for-money result if all you need is a tablet and some cans


It's not identical - it gets you immersed.

And it is great value for money! My wife has a 50" Samsung LCD but I'd rather watch things I love on the tablet. The tablet has been a recent revelation - the reason I have an OLED obviously for communal watching and better sound. You also get a much larger viewing angle - but soon as the 22" Asus Pro OLED is out that will go away, can't wait to get that.

On the point about value for money - I've really taken that idea close to home with the 65" OLED and completely dropped using my JVC RS49 which I'll sell soon. In fact I was lusting after a 77" OLED but realising that I can get the same viewing angle by just moving my viewing distance from 1m to 0.7m it's saved me a ton of money. And not upgrading projectors every 3 years will save me a ton more and the picture quality is so much better.

Now of course if you have a proper multirow theater and entertain a lot then a PJ is great. But if not just sit closer - in my house hold it's normally only me that cares about any of this stuff anyway and I've realised I don't need to optimise every seat for a flat bass response, viewing angle etc cause no one else cares. My wife is happy watching the latest block busters on a plane screen - great viewing angle on those actually but shame about the blacks!

And the varying seating distance works great with Atmos if you have Auddssey. I've taken measurements at 4 different distances and upload them on the fly from my iPhone. Hoping in the future they'll let you save the settings on the actual receiver with instant switching but for now it's a 30 second job. I use those old school TV rotating stands to toe in the tweeters to the correct listening position also. So you get a decent atmos experience in a multi distance seating arranagement!


----------



## kbarnes701

westbergjoakim said:


> I have a 7.2.4-setup right now, but the sofa/head around 75cm from the back wall. I think it sounds good, but I'm not sure about my rear surrounds. I was meaning pictures in your old theater, to see if I could get some tips from there about them/rear side of my room.
> 
> I have my sides at 70/75° and my rears at both sides of the sofa pointing at opposite seat.
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk


Ah, sorry. I don't have any pictures of my old room. The front overheads were within Dolby spec and the rear overheads were slightly forward of MLP, which I arrived at after a lot of listening tests. They were configured as TF+TR. Worked very well indeed.

I set my side surrounds slightly in front of MLP - at about 80 degrees and the rear surrounds were on the back wall more or less in line with the front L&R. All the floor level speakers were more or less in line with ITU, although that was by happy accident as much as design! 

The main thing is to get as much angular separation between the overheads and floor level speakers as you can.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Au contraire!
> 
> One thing I think is being overlooked is that regardless of what the perceptual impact of closer viewing may be, if you start pulling the screen in closer, you're going to wind up with someone sitting in your lap.
> 
> I.e., the angles may still be acceptable for the central viewer, while deteriorating rapidly for those in either side seat. Part of the reason why people sit farther away watching TV in their living rooms is due to exactly that. Too close and people are _"crowding around the boob tube"._


Good point.


----------



## kbarnes701

rxp91 said:


> It's not identical - it gets you immersed.
> 
> And it is great value for money! My wife has a 50" Samsung LCD but I'd rather watch things I love on the tablet. The tablet has been a recent revelation - the reason I have an OLED obviously for communal watching and better sound. You also get a much larger viewing angle - but soon as the 22" Asus Pro OLED is out that will go away, can't wait to get that.
> 
> On the point about value for money - I've really taken that idea close to home with the 65" OLED and completely dropped using my JVC RS49 which I'll sell soon. In fact I was lusting after a 77" OLED but realising that I can get the same viewing angle by just moving my viewing distance from 1m to 0.7m it's saved me a ton of money. And not upgrading projectors every 3 years will save me a ton more and the picture quality is so much better.
> 
> Now of course if you have a proper multirow theater and entertain a lot then a PJ is great. But if not just sit closer - in my house hold it's normally only me that cares about any of this stuff anyway and I've realised I don't need to optimise every seat for a flat bass response, viewing angle etc cause no one else cares. My wife is happy watching the latest block busters on a plane screen - great viewing angle on those actually but shame about the blacks!
> 
> And the varying seating distance works great with Atmos if you have Auddssey. I've taken measurements at 4 different distances and upload them on the fly from my iPhone. Hoping in the future they'll let you save the settings on the actual receiver with instant switching but for now it's a 30 second job. I use those old school TV rotating stands to toe in the tweeters to the correct listening position also. So you get a decent atmos experience in a multi distance seating arranagement!


Horses for courses. But it's not for me - I like the biggest screen I can fit in my HT, and I sit the same distance from it as the screen (2.39:1) is wide. For me that is perfection, with maximum immersion but no need to 'ping pong' your head from side to side to take in the whole image.


----------



## Lesmor

I have been adding LED lights above my acoustic cloud which became a bit awkward so I removed the panels

So it is now or never to finally address my Dolby Atmos speakers
I bought a Denon 7200WA when they were first released and as I had Front Height and Rear Height high up near the ceiling already installed that is what I stuck with

My room is 6 X 5.2M ( 20' X 17' 3" ) 
MLP is 2.280 M (7'6")
Ear height 0.900 ( 2'9")

My issue being the FH angle from the MLP is 22 deg so very shallow and I am sure my Dolby Atmos experience is being compromised
Rear Height is 147 deg from MLP that works fine as Rear Height or Top rear
This is using the infamous Dolby Graph showing someone seated in the dead centre of the room

So a couple of questions if I may
It occurs to me that these angles are only true on the centerline of the MLP once you spread the speakers from that angle to the left and right all bets are off

In a Dolby cinema there are overheads above each row of seats in line with the surrounds
Does this mean that the same signal is sent to each pair of overheads ?
i.e object placement is between the mains and one pair of overheads,in other words there is no overhead "panning" as such 
If this is the case in a "Home Atmos" setup with a single row of seats would you only really need a pair of "Top Middle" speakers

Finally should ceiling speakers be in line with the L/R or perhaps 25% in from the room width

Apologies in advance as I am aware that a consensus is that you can't get a bad Atmos experience but before I use my holesaw I need to be certain that this time I have the best one I can get
Thanks for your patience
Cheers
Andy


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> I have been adding LED lights above my acoustic cloud which became a bit awkward so I removed the panels
> 
> So it is now or never to finally address my Dolby Atmos speakers
> I bought a Denon 7200WA when they were first released and as I had Front Height and Rear Height high up near the ceiling already installed that is what I stuck with
> 
> My room is 6 X 5.2M ( 20' X 17' 3" )
> MLP is 2.280 M (7'6")
> Ear height 0.900 ( 2'9")
> 
> My issue being the FH angle from the MLP is 22 deg so very shallow and I am sure my Dolby Atmos experience is being compromised
> Rear Height is 147 deg from MLP that works fine as Rear Height or Top rear
> This is using the infamous Dolby Graph showing someone seated in the dead centre of the room
> 
> So a couple of questions if I may
> It occurs to me that these angles are only true on the centerline of the MLP once you spread the speakers from that angle to the left and right all bets are off
> 
> In a Dolby cinema there are overheads above each row of seats in line with the surrounds
> Does this mean that the same signal is sent to each pair of overheads ?
> i.e object placement is between the mains and one pair of overheads,in other words there is no overhead "panning" as such
> If this is the case in a "Home Atmos" setup with a single row of seats would you only really need a pair of "Top Middle" speakers
> 
> Finally should ceiling speakers be in line with the L/R or perhaps 25% in from the room width
> 
> Apologies in advance as I am aware that a consensus is that you can't get a bad Atmos experience but before I use my holesaw I need to be certain that this time I have the best one I can get
> Thanks for your patience
> Cheers
> Andy


Hey Andy. There is most definitely front to rear panning in the overheads. Do you have the Dolby Atmos test disc? If so, you can use that to ascertain that there is front-rear/rear-front as well as lateral panning. 

I dislike, personally FH+RH as IMO the necessary angular separation between front mains and rear surrounds is compromised too much. But, if someone has to do it that way, it will still be better than nothing. The angle of 22 degrees for the front heights is too shallow IMO and won;t give the angular separation we are talking about.

Dolby recommend the overheads be in line with FL and FR and that is how mine are (and were in the Hobbit Theater too). For me this works well. Some people, with very wide rooms have reported a benefit on bringing the overheads closer together laterally. I doubt it makes a massive difference. Try to concentrate on angular separation as this seems to be the really critical factor in getting a good experience.

Angling the overheads (or the tweeters if in-ceiling) towards MLP is important IME. I have listened extensively with my overheads (90 degree dispersion coaxial Tannoys) pointing directly down, per Dolby, but can report, after changing them to point towards MLP, that the latter is, for me, much better. The difference is that straight down gives a more 'diffuse' effect whereas angling them to MLP gives a more 'precise' effect. I am an imaging junkie so I prefer 'precise' but others may have a different view of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

BTW, did removing the cloud give you any negatives? I have a large ceiling cloud but still have my overheads mounted on the ceiling. In my case, the cloud is suspended from the very high ceiling and the overheads are at each 'corner' of the cloud (roughly speaking). This may not be possible for everyone. In Dolby's London HQ 'home demo room' they have acoustic panels mounted more or less directly on the ceiling and their overheads are mounted in cut-outs in the cloud (IIRC). That also works well. (As you'd expect at Dolby HQ!).


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey Andy. There is most definitely front to rear panning in the overheads. Do you have the Dolby Atmos test disc? If so, you can use that to ascertain that there is front-rear/rear-front as well as lateral panning.
> 
> I dislike, personally FH+RH as IMO the necessary angular separation between front mains and rear surrounds is compromised too much. But, if someone has to do it that way, it will still be better than nothing. The angle of 22 degrees for the front heights is too shallow IMO and won;t give the angular separation we are talking about.
> 
> Dolby recommend the overheads be in line with FL and FR and that is how mine are (and were in the Hobbit Theater too). For me this works well. Some people, with very wide rooms have reported a benefit on bringing the overheads closer together laterally. I doubt it makes a massive difference. Try to concentrate on angular separation as this seems to be the really critical factor in getting a good experience.
> 
> Angling the overheads (or the tweeters if in-ceiling) towards MLP is important IME. I have listened extensively with my overheads (90 degree dispersion coaxial Tannoys) pointing directly down, per Dolby, but can report, after changing them to point towards MLP, that the latter is, for me, much better. The difference is that straight down gives a more 'diffuse' effect whereas angling them to MLP gives a more 'precise' effect. I am an imaging junkie so I prefer 'precise' but others may have a different view of course.


Hi Keith
Glad you responded as I didn't want to ask in, and spoil, your cowshed thread over on AVF plus this is dedicated to the Dolby Atmos Home theater side of things

Firstly yes I do have the Atmos demo disc but I don't get that sense of overhead panning

So yes the 22 deg angle has always bugged me so time to sort it
I am inclined to go Top Middle along with my Rear Heights which pass as angled on spec for either RH or Top rear

On writing that though I just realised if I changed my mind on the rear heights and added Top rear in ceiling in the future then Top Middle and Top Rear are not acceptable 

What would be your thoughts on Top Middle and Rear heights?

If I had the height ( ceiling is 8 feet) I would definitely consider the coaxial Tannoys, but I am now looking at in ceiling with movable tweeters
Thanks again
Andy


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, did removing the cloud give you any negatives? I have a large ceiling cloud but still have my overheads mounted on the ceiling. In my case, the cloud is suspended from the very high ceiling and the overheads are at each 'corner' of the cloud (roughly speaking). This may not be possible for everyone. In Dolby's London HQ 'home demo room' they have acoustic panels mounted more or less directly on the ceiling and their overheads are mounted in cut-outs in the cloud (IIRC). That also works well. (As you'd expect at Dolby HQ!).


Hi Keith cross posted
As I also took down my projector I haven't listened to anything with the cloud removed 
There is one benefit though its a helluva lot brighter in the room now with the panels removed

I used GIK 424 panels along with the GIK brackets so the face of the cloud is 170mm ( 7 inches) from the ceiling


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Hi Keith
> Glad you responded as I didn't want to ask in, and spoil, your cowshed thread over on AVF plus this is dedicated to the Dolby Atmos Home theater side of things


No worry about disrupting the Cowshed thread Andy - it's fairly quiet in there now 



Lesmor said:


> Firstly yes I do have the Atmos demo disc but I don't get that sense of overhead panning


Then I suspect, as you do I think, that FH speaker placement. It's too close, angular-wise, to the fronts.



Lesmor said:


> So yes the 22 deg angle has always bugged me so time to sort it
> I am inclined to go Top Middle along with my Rear Heights which pass as angled on spec for either RH or Top rear
> 
> On writing that though I just realised if I changed my mind on the rear heights and added Top rear in ceiling in the future then Top Middle and Top Rear are not acceptable


Nope. Adjacent pairs are no-go.



Lesmor said:


> What would be your thoughts on Top Middle and Rear heights?


I think I would go for TF and RH, with the TF somewhat in front of MLP. Or you could designate them as TM - there seems to be, at least currently, no audible difference however you designate the pairs. But whatever you do, I think you need a pair in front of you and a pair behind you, if possible. If that isn't possible, then go for whatever you can.



Lesmor said:


> If I had the height ( ceiling is 8 feet) I would definitely consider the coaxial Tannoys, but I am now looking at in ceiling with movable tweeters
> Thanks again
> Andy


Should be fine. As thing stand, the overheads don't carry much of the load TBH. Often they are completely silent for most of the time. This may change in the future as mixers get bolder.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Hi Keith cross posted
> As I also took down my projector I haven't listened to anything with the cloud removed
> There is one benefit though its a helluva lot brighter in the room now with the panels removed
> 
> I used GIK 424 panels along with the GIK brackets so the face of the cloud is 170mm ( 7 inches) from the ceiling


Good cloud  

Another idea, depending on how handy you are, would be to construct your own panels, with a space within them for the overhead speakers. This should be fairly easy with a few lengths of the appropriate timber, some Rockwool, and some fabric. As the fabric on the panels is acoustically transparent, the speakers would sit neatly in the cutouts and be totally concealed. That 7 inch depth should be enough. You could cannibalise the GK panels for the rockwool and the fabric and just make the frames. I'll try to do a sketch of what I mean if it isn't clear from the description.

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^^^

This is what I have in mind. 










That would be a 'standard' 1200 x 600 panel. Just cover with AT fabric in the usual way, once made. If the face of the panel is 7 inches from the ceiling, there should be plenty of room for a decent speaker in there. Just an idea. The speaker could be a anywhere in the panel of course - in the middle as shown, or in one of the corners. Anywhere. The panel will still work well as an absorber and so will Atmos!


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> This is what I have in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a 'standard' 1200 x 600 panel. Just cover with AT fabric in the usual way, once made. If the face of the panel is 7 inches from the ceiling, there should be plenty of room for a decent speaker in there. Just an idea. The speaker could be a anywhere in the panel of course - in the middle as shown, or in one of the corners. Anywhere. The panel will still work well as an absorber and so will Atmos!


I like that idea 
I made my own panels about 8 years ago so it is a possibility
my cloud is narrow only 1.9 meter (6 feet) wide but I could add a couple more with speakers installed
that would mean unfortunately have to re-do the downlighting which of course could also be installed into acoustic panels I would also have to take into consideration fire safety

Food for thought


----------



## gwsat

I have a not strictly Atmos related question to ask but thought I would ask it here anyway because of the laudable depth of home theater knowledge so many of you have. 

Like most people who have their home theater setup in a multipurpose room, mine is full of compromises. Fortunately, I was able to configure my system, using REW, in a way that produces wonderful audio. Dialog is clear, and surround and Atmos effects are convincing. The Pièce De Résistance in my system has been my twin Rythmik FV18 subwoofers which provide wonderful LFE and make everything sound better. My difficulty is my listening room, which doubles as my family room. I have a large set of windows, covered by plantation shutters, along most of one wall and the door to the adjoining master bedroom is directly opposite one of my subs' 18 inch drivers. That sub and the door are 17 feet apart but its driver fires directly toward the door. Also, that sub is only 4 feet from the wall with the windows and plantation shutters.

My problem arises when I am playing films whose soundtracks have a lot of ultra low frequencies, think _Blade Runner 2049_ or _War of the Worlds._ The joy I get from feeling the impact on my chest and the vibration in my chair is marred to a degree by the audible sympathetic vibrations that are setup in both my plantation shutters and bedroom door. they literally shake.

Before I get to my question, let me further explain that my subs flank my TV screen and each one is only about 7 feet from the MLP and I love it. I did REW configuration with them in this position and am loath to move them and have to run REW all over. In any event, the FV18s are big and I really don't have anyplace else to put them.

Finally my question: does anyone have a suggestion for any kind of audio traps I could rig, which would serve to block ultra low frequencies from my plantation shutters and bedroom door. Finally, it isn't a huge deal because only a few films have enough ULF to set them off and the benefit I get from the offending ULF in the films that do dig that low outweighs the occasional sounds from the sympathetic vibrations they set off. Besides, I set it all off with these huge deep digging subs. Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted. A photo of my L-C-R speakers and subs is attacked.


----------



## lovingdvd

*Will use of the front Wide speakers become more popular in Atmos mixes?*

Now that I have front Wides to complete my 9.4.4 home setup, thanks to the Marantz 8805, I'm really looking forward to Atmos mixes that make more use out of the Wide speakers. This is a great upgrade, however it would be nice if there was more material that took advantage of these. With the exception of some select titles, the Wides go mostly unused during playback, which is a shame. A few titles like Westworld, which direct a lot of the music to the Wides instead of the L/R, are real standouts.

Do you guys think that over time we'll see mixes that make use of the Wides become more prelevant? Since it is relatively rare at this point for folks to have Atmos, let along Wides with Atmos, I wonder if the sound producers have enough incentive to take on the (presumably) extra work to design with the Wides in mind. Also my understanding is that a different Atmos mix is made for home on the 4K and Blu-ray discs. If the release in the theaters made use of the Wides there, would this automatically get passed down to the Atmos home version put on the discs? Or might that get dropped in the process.

I think we have some Hollywood Atmos sound mixers on the forum (sorry, can't recall the AVS names, anyone remember??) so perhaps they will chime in as well. I'd love to hear their take on whether film makers are recognizing that now Wides are making it into home use and if this will be taken into account, so perhaps we'll see more and more creative uses of this. Thanks!


----------



## Lesmor

gwsat said:


> I have a not strictly Atmos related question to ask but thought I would ask it here anyway because of the laudable depth of home theater knowledge so many of you have.
> 
> Like most people who have their home theater setup in a multipurpose room, mine is full of compromises. Fortunately, I was able to configure my system, using REW, in a way that produces wonderful audio. Dialog is clear, and surround and Atmos effects are convincing. The Pièce De Résistance in my system has been my twin Rythmik FV18 subwoofers which provide wonderful LFE and make everything sound better. My difficulty is my listening room, which doubles as my family room. I have a large set of windows, covered by plantation shutters, along most of one wall and the door to the adjoining master bedroom is directly opposite one of my subs' 18 inch drivers. That sub and the door are 17 feet apart but its driver fires directly toward the door. Also, that sub is only 4 feet from the wall with the windows and plantation shutters.
> 
> My problem arises when I am playing films whose soundtracks have a lot of ultra low frequencies, think _Blade Runner 2049_ or _War of the Worlds._ The joy I get from feeling the impact on my chest and the vibration in my chair is marred to a degree by the audible sympathetic vibrations that are setup in both my plantation shutters and bedroom door. they literally shake.
> 
> Before I get to my question, let me further explain that my subs flank my TV screen and each one is only about 7 feet from the MLP and I love it. I did REW configuration with them in this position and am loath to move them and have to run REW all over. In any event, the FV18s are big and I really don't have anyplace else to put them.
> 
> Finally my question: does anyone have a suggestion for any kind of audio traps I could rig, which would serve to block ultra low frequencies from my plantation shutters and bedroom door. Finally, it isn't a huge deal because only a few films have enough ULF to set them off and the benefit I get from the offending ULF in the films that do dig that low outweighs the occasional sounds from the sympathetic vibrations they set off. Besides, I set it all off with these huge deep digging subs. Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted. A photo of my L-C-R speakers and subs is attacked.


You need a lot of treatment depth to even dent LFE soundwaves
I would say the best you could do is try and plug the window recess with some removable 4" deep custom sized acoustic panels maybe leave a 1/2" gap at the side and top to aid removal
Of course none of this may be practicable in a multifunction room


----------



## carp

gwsat said:


> I have a not strictly Atmos related question to ask but thought I would ask it here anyway because of the laudable depth of home theater knowledge so many of you have.
> 
> Like most people who have their home theater setup in a multipurpose room, mine is full of compromises. Fortunately, I was able to configure my system, using REW, in a way that produces wonderful audio. Dialog is clear, and surround and Atmos effects are convincing. The Pièce De Résistance in my system has been my twin Rythmik FV18 subwoofers which provide wonderful LFE and make everything sound better. My difficulty is my listening room, which doubles as my family room. I have a large set of windows, covered by plantation shutters, along most of one wall and the door to the adjoining master bedroom is directly opposite one of my subs' 18 inch drivers. That sub and the door are 17 feet apart but its driver fires directly toward the door. Also, that sub is only 4 feet from the wall with the windows and plantation shutters.
> 
> My problem arises when I am playing films whose soundtracks have a lot of ultra low frequencies, think _Blade Runner 2049_ or _War of the Worlds._ The joy I get from feeling the impact on my chest and the vibration in my chair is marred to a degree by the audible sympathetic vibrations that are setup in both my plantation shutters and bedroom door. they literally shake.
> 
> Before I get to my question, let me further explain that my subs flank my TV screen and each one is only about 7 feet from the MLP and I love it. I did REW configuration with them in this position and am loath to move them and have to run REW all over. In any event, the FV18s are big and I really don't have anyplace else to put them.
> 
> Finally my question: does anyone have a suggestion for any kind of audio traps I could rig, which would serve to block ultra low frequencies from my plantation shutters and bedroom door. Finally, it isn't a huge deal because only a few films have enough ULF to set them off and the benefit I get from the offending ULF in the films that do dig that low outweighs the occasional sounds from the sympathetic vibrations they set off. Besides, I set it all off with these huge deep digging subs. Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted. A photo of my L-C-R speakers and subs is attacked.



I use weather stripping in the doors in my HT room. It make a HUGE difference. The door at the top of the stairs needed more than that because so much bass builds up in that half stair case. I replaced it with a solid core door and now it only makes any kind of rattling noise when I'm doing an all hell breaking loose demo with 9 18" subs. 

My guess is that you would be fine with just the weather stripping since your door probably isn't in a staircase. 

If this sounds like something you would like to try let me know and I can take a picture of the type of weather stripping that I like to use.


----------



## ddgdl

Atmos questions about placement and construction for the gurus here:

1) I have a low ceiling (7'6" before drywall, so roughly 7'4" after), and one row of seating. I have a 9.1.6 setup, but my in-ceiling atmos speakers are all RBH VA-615, for which I cannot find any dispersion characteristics or stats, though they do have aimable tweeters. Assuming the worst ---- that they have a very narrow dispersion and that the tweeter cannot be aimed sufficiently ---- has anyone come up with or seen a way of installing an in-ceiling speaker in an angled box/enclosure extending down from the ceiling a bit? I was imagining a wedge shape of some sort, almost like you might see with a recessed spot light.

2) My room dimensions before drywall and treatments is 16'7" x 11' x 7'6", with a 20" false front wall for the AT screen. After treatments, the dimensions will be (roughly) 16'3" (minus the 20" screen wall) x 10'7" x 7'4". MLP is at 10' from the AT screen. I have drawn out the room on the attached graph paper- each square represents 5." My question concerns the TF/FH, TM and TR/RH layout. I have drawn in 2 layouts on this graph paper- the outside TF/FR, TM, and TR/RH are where Dolby and DTS specs say they should be, in line with the front LCR. The second TF/FH, TM, and TR/RH layout are the inside set, with the TM forward of the MLP and closer to the TF/FH, with both TF/FH and TR/RH closer to the listener---but perhaps too close to make the TM meaningful at all. Thoughts?


----------



## latexii

What's the lowest good frequency to atmos speaker ? what are benefits 60hz vs 150hz in atmos use ? Is there any smart rule / golden midway and explanation for this ? I could attach small speakers right away to my own ceiling (JBL Control Pro), but i also have larger ones which needs a bit more customization for ceiling mounts.


----------



## Lesmor

ddgdl said:


> Atmos questions about placement and construction for the gurus here:
> 
> 1) I have a low ceiling (7'6" before drywall, so roughly 7'4" after), and one row of seating. I have a 9.1.6 setup, but my in-ceiling atmos speakers are all RBH VA-615, for which I cannot find any dispersion characteristics or stats, though they do have aimable tweeters. Assuming the worst ---- that they have a very narrow dispersion and that the tweeter cannot be aimed sufficiently ---- has anyone come up with or seen a way of installing an in-ceiling speaker in an angled box/enclosure extending down from the ceiling a bit? I was imagining a wedge shape of some sort, almost like you might see with a recessed spot light.
> 
> 2) My room dimensions before drywall and treatments is 16'7" x 11' x 7'6", with a 20" false front wall for the AT screen. After treatments, the dimensions will be (roughly) 16'3" (minus the 20" screen wall) x 10'7" x 7'4". MLP is at 10' from the AT screen. I have drawn out the room on the attached graph paper- each square represents 5." My question concerns the TF TM and TR layout. I have drawn in 2 layouts on this graph paper- the outside TF TM and TR are where Dolby and DTS specs say they should be, in line with the front LCR. The second TF TM and TR layout are the inside set, with the TM forward of the MLP and closer to the TF, with both TF and TR closer to the listener---but perhaps too close to make the TM meaningful at all. Thoughts?


From what I am reading it looks like you are using adjacent pairs TH and TM (TM TR) which is against the Dolby standard 
As I understand it TM should only be used on its own or with Front Height and Rear Height positioned speakers


----------



## Lesmor

latexii said:


> What's the lowest good frequency to atmos speaker ? what are benefits 60hz vs 150hz in atmos use ? Is there any smart rule / golden midway and explanation for this ? I could attach small speakers right away to my own ceiling (JBL Control Pro), but i also have larger ones which needs a bit more customization for ceiling mounts.


I did read somewhere that in ceiling speakers should be capable down to 60Hz
I can't provide any more information than that


----------



## ddgdl

Lesmor said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos questions about placement and construction for the gurus here:
> 
> 1) I have a low ceiling (7'6" before drywall, so roughly 7'4" after), and one row of seating. I have a 9.1.6 setup, but my in-ceiling atmos speakers are all RBH VA-615, for which I cannot find any dispersion characteristics or stats, though they do have aimable tweeters. Assuming the worst ---- that they have a very narrow dispersion and that the tweeter cannot be aimed sufficiently ---- has anyone come up with or seen a way of installing an in-ceiling speaker in an angled box/enclosure extending down from the ceiling a bit? I was imagining a wedge shape of some sort, almost like you might see with a recessed spot light.
> 
> 2) My room dimensions before drywall and treatments is 16'7" x 11' x 7'6", with a 20" false front wall for the AT screen. After treatments, the dimensions will be (roughly) 16'3" (minus the 20" screen wall) x 10'7" x 7'4". MLP is at 10' from the AT screen. I have drawn out the room on the attached graph paper- each square represents 5." My question concerns the TF TM and TR layout. I have drawn in 2 layouts on this graph paper- the outside TF TM and TR are where Dolby and DTS specs say they should be, in line with the front LCR. The second TF TM and TR layout are the inside set, with the TM forward of the MLP and closer to the TF, with both TF and TR closer to the listener---but perhaps too close to make the TM meaningful at all. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I am reading it looks like you are using adjacent pairs TH and TM (TM TR) which is against the Dolby standard
> As I understand it TM should only be used on its own or with Front Height and Rear Height positioned speakers
Click to expand...

That part is easily fixed by just designating TF and TR as FH and RH though.


----------



## T-Bone

latexii said:


> What's the lowest good frequency to atmos speaker ? what are benefits 60hz vs 150hz in atmos use ? Is there any smart rule / golden midway and explanation for this ? I could attach small speakers right away to my own ceiling (JBL Control Pro), but i also have larger ones which needs a bit more customization for ceiling mounts.


They recommend full range speakers just like all of the other speakers in the room.

150 Hertz is not full range. 60 hertz would be. I guess technically a full range speaker is 20 Hertz to 20k Hertz. But knowing that we have subwoofers, and 80 Hertz crossover is the THX recommendation and most people cross at 80 Hertz, get a ceiling speaker that goes just below 80 Hertz.

-T


----------



## Lesmor

ddgdl said:


> That part is easily fixed by just designating TF and TR as FH and RH though.


Agreed so why did you designate them as TF TR instead of FH RH in the OP then there would have been no confusion


----------



## ddgdl

Lesmor said:


> Agreed so why did you designate them as TF TR instead of FH RH in the OP then there would have been no confusion


Edited for clarity, thanks. Any ideas about which of the two placements would be better?


----------



## usc1995

ddgdl said:


> Edited for clarity, thanks. Any ideas about which of the two placements would be better?




My room is about the same width and I have my Atmos speakers at about 22 inches from the wall to the center of the ceiling speaker. I wouldn’t want to go much wider as it becomes harder to distinguish the Atmos from the side surround especially since we are both height limited. I think at 25 inches from the wall (the narrower configuration you have drawn up) you should be good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

lovingdvd said:


> Do you guys think that over time we'll see mixes that make use of the Wides become more prelevant? Since it is relatively rare at this point for folks to have Atmos, let along Wides with Atmos, I wonder if the sound producers have enough incentive to take on the (presumably) extra work to design with the Wides in mind.


My opinion, just my opinion, is that I doubt very much that we will see more mixes that actively use wides. It's a niche within a niche within a niche. I only ever see talk of wides here in this forum, and I don't know anyone in real life who has them, even though I know several people other than me who have systems with separate speakers.


----------



## ddgdl

usc1995 said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edited for clarity, thanks. Any ideas about which of the two placements would be better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My room is about the same width and I have my Atmos speakers at about 22 inches from the wall to the center of the ceiling speaker. I wouldn’t want to go much wider as it becomes harder to distinguish the Atmos from the side surround especially since we are both height limited. I think at 25 inches from the wall (the narrower configuration you have drawn up) you should be good.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight!


----------



## gwsat

Lesmor said:


> You need a lot of treatment depth to even dent LFE soundwaves
> I would say the best you could do is try and plug the window recess with some removable 4" deep custom sized acoustic panels maybe leave a 1/2" gap at the side and top to aid removal
> Of course none of this may be practicable in a multifunction room





carp said:


> I use weather stripping in the doors in my HT room. It make a HUGE difference. The door at the top of the stairs needed more than that because so much bass builds up in that half stair case. I replaced it with a solid core door and now it only makes any kind of rattling noise when I'm doing an all hell breaking loose demo with 9 18" subs.
> 
> My guess is that you would be fine with just the weather stripping since your door probably isn't in a staircase.
> 
> If this sounds like something you would like to try let me know and I can take a picture of the type of weather stripping that I like to use.


Thanks to you both for your suggestions. As matters stand, I think I am going to live with what I have. The occasional ULF induced rattles notwithstanding, I am getting the best sound reproduction from my system that I ever had and this includes LFE.


----------



## gene4ht

mrtickleuk said:


> My opinion, just my opinion, is that I doubt very much that we will see more mixes that actively use wides.* It's a niche within a niche within a niche.* I only ever see talk of wides here in this forum, and I don't know anyone in real life who has them, even though I know several people other than me who have systems with separate speakers.


I tend to agree. The general market has yet to be even aware of...much less embrace 3D sound (Atmos/DTS:X/Auro). Wides are even more obscure. At least for the time being, wides are likely to remain the domain of the most devout enthusiast among us.


----------



## lovingdvd

mrtickleuk said:


> My opinion, just my opinion, is that I doubt very much that we will see more mixes that actively use wides. It's a niche within a niche within a niche. I only ever see talk of wides here in this forum, and I don't know anyone in real life who has them, even though I know several people other than me who have systems with separate speakers.





gene4ht said:


> I tend to agree. The general market has yet to be even aware of...much less embrace 3D sound (Atmos/DTS:X/Auro). Wides are even more obscure. At least for the time being, wides are likely to remain the domain of the most devout enthusiast among us.


Yes, I tend to agree with you guys, which is my concern. Hopefully that does not turn out the case and they do embrace wides. Even though it is very likely to always remain very niche inside of a niche as you say.

I do find it interesting that Westworld went out of their way to mix their sound specifically for wides. I could understand if this was a movie shown in the theaters and they just carried that forward to the home Atmos mix. But as a TV series, how many people did they expect to be able to hear it in the wides like they mixed. This is just a total guess, but it doesn't seem like there could be more than a few hundred home theaters in the world equipped to reproduce this as they intended it to be heard. So why go through the trouble? Don't get me wrong, I've very glad they did, and I hope others follow in their tracks.


----------



## gene4ht

lovingdvd said:


> Yes, I tend to agree with you guys, which is my concern. Hopefully that does not turn out the case and they do embrace wides. Even though it is very likely to always remain very niche inside of a niche as you say.
> 
> I do find it interesting that Westworld went out of their way to mix their sound specifically for wides. I could understand if this was a movie shown in the theaters and they just carried that forward to the home Atmos mix. But as a TV series, how many people did they expect to be able to hear it in the wides like they mixed. This is just a total guess, but it doesn't seem like there could be more than a few hundred home theaters in the world equipped to reproduce this as they intended it to be heard. So why go through the trouble? Don't get me wrong, I've very glad they did, and I hope others follow in their tracks.


I think many of Hollywood's mixers are still on the learning curve relative to 3D sound...all driven by demand of course. A good indicator of demand for "wide" mixes will be when mainstream mid range AVR and processor designers build in the capability...software/content should then follow.

Edit: The exception being our own @*FilmMixer*


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> My question concerns the TF/FH, TM and TR/RH layout.


Have you gone beyond drywall or is there still time to flip the room around? Where is the entrance? Also, what are the shaded flat rectangles in your drawing? Windows or treatments?


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> Have you gone beyond drywall or is there still time to flip the room around? Where is the entrance? Also, what are the shaded flat rectangles in your drawing? Windows or treatments?


Entrance is in the back right corner, between the SS and BS just next to the shading. A/V rack is in on the back wall, left corner---which, oops, I just realized now is where shading for one of the back absorption panels appears. So that will have to be moved...

Shading is absorption treatments (1" + 6mil plastic + 1" on the whole front wall, 48" x 24" x 2" panels on the side and back wall). The squares labeled "Geo" are Auralex Geofusers --- diffusion. The room has not even been framed yet, but the dimensions can't be changed. What were you thinking, regarding flipping the room? Two of the three walls (the front wall and the left wall, in the current diagram) are exterior cement walls. Flipping the room 90deg leaves too short of a throw for any decent sized screen, unless I built a projection room into the next room over- but even still that would only get me an 11'-12' throw at most, and would create a lot of audio issues with having speakers too close to the back of the seating, I would think. What were your thoughts?

Edit: I've added a revised layout photo showing the AV rack location (which extends into a hallway in the mechanical room) and the door, as well as moving the back absorption panel and deleting out the first TF/FH, TM, and TR/RH locations based on the recommendations I've received here and elsewhere to go with the narrower setup.


----------



## mrtickleuk

lovingdvd said:


> Yes, I tend to agree with you guys, which is my concern. Hopefully that does not turn out the case and they do embrace wides. Even though it is very likely to always remain very niche inside of a niche as you say.
> 
> I do find it interesting that Westworld went out of their way to mix their sound specifically for wides. I could understand if this was a movie shown in the theaters and they just carried that forward to the home Atmos mix. But as a TV series, how many people did they expect to be able to hear it in the wides like they mixed. This is just a total guess, but it doesn't seem like there could be more than a few hundred home theaters in the world equipped to reproduce this as they intended it to be heard. So why go through the trouble? Don't get me wrong, I've very glad they did, and I hope others follow in their tracks.


Perhaps it's just the way Atmos works. There's an object that goes "over there", and if you have a speaker handy the Atmos decoder in your AVR will use it, if you don't the Atmos decoder in your AVR will have to make the sound appear there using your other speakers.


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> I've added a revised layout photo showing the AV rack location (which extends into a hallway in the mechanical room) and the door, as well as moving the back absorption panel and deleting out the first TF/FH, TM, and TR/RH locations based on the recommendations I've received here and elsewhere to go with the narrower setup.


Thanx for the revised layout with the door and rack. When I said flip the room, I meant 180 degrees (I thought the shaded rectangles were windows). But, since the door and rack are at the bottom of the drawing, better to keep those room irregularities behind the listeners (where our human hearing is not so hot). So let's stick to your original orientation. 

For smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips), I would place the listeners' ears (not the seat backs) around 1/3rd room length (5'5") from the back wall. Consider putting the equipment rack at the midpoint of the back wall; maybe even putting the projector on top of it instead of hanging it from the ceiling. 

Rear speakers should be spread at least 7 feet apart on the back wall (to make it easier to hear stereo separation behind you). Side speakers should be about a foot or so forward of the listeners (for better side vs rear separation in the surround field). I would centre the woofers of your L/R speakers 21" in from the side walls (will help cancel some room resonances). Wides can be mid-way between the Fronts & Sides. 

Overhead speakers will be fine in-line with the L/R speakers. For one row of seating, two pairs should be enough, each pair placed about 4' to 4.5' forward and rearward of the listeners. If you insist on doing three pairs overhead, then TM can go a couple feet forward of the listeners and the TF can be about 4' forward of that. Labeling your speakers FH & RH will tell the Atmos renderer that those speakers are at the very front & back of your speaker layout (which they aren't, so stick to TF & TR labels). 

As for the in-ceiling speakers you've chosen, I would put them into a box and treat them like a bookshelf speaker that can be mounted on the ceiling using swivel mounts and aimed toward the listening area.


----------



## lovingdvd

gene4ht said:


> I think many of Hollywood's mixers are still on the learning curve relative to 3D sound...all driven by demand of course. A good indicator of demand for "wide" mixes will be when mainstream mid range AVR and processor designers build in the capability...software/content should then follow.
> 
> Edit: The exception being our own @*FilmMixer*


Yes, I'd love to know @FilmMixer 's thoughts on the subject. Also I would like to know if a movie is already mixed for objects to go into the Wides for its theatrical release, if it means that this also automatically will make it's way into the home Atmos release on the 4K disc. Or if film mixers have to purposely redo this when making the home mix, in which case I hope they carry that forward to the home release.


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've added a revised layout photo showing the AV rack location (which extends into a hallway in the mechanical room) and the door, as well as moving the back absorption panel and deleting out the first TF/FH, TM, and TR/RH locations based on the recommendations I've received here and elsewhere to go with the narrower setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanx for the revised layout with the door and rack. When I said flip the room, I meant 180 degrees (I thought the shaded rectangles were windows). But, since the door and rack are at the bottom of the drawing, better to keep those room irregularities behind the listeners (where our human hearing is not so hot). So let's stick to your original orientation.
> 
> For smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips), I would place the listeners' ears (not the seat backs) around 1/3rd room length (5'5") from the back wall. Consider putting the equipment rack at the midpoint of the back wall; maybe even putting the projector on top of it instead of hanging it from the ceiling.
> 
> Rear speakers should be spread at least 7 feet apart on the back wall (to make it easier to hear stereo separation behind you). Side speakers should be about a foot or so forward of the listeners (for better side vs rear separation in the surround field). I would centre the woofers of your L/R speakers 21" in from the side walls (will help cancel some room resonances). Wides can be mid-way between the Fronts & Sides.
> 
> Overhead speakers will be fine in-line with the L/R speakers. For one row of seating, two pairs should be enough, each pair placed about 4' to 4.5' forward and rearward of the listeners. If you insist on doing three pairs overhead, then TM can go a couple feet forward of the listeners and the TF can be about 4' forward of that. Labeling your speakers FH & RH will tell the Atmos renderer that those speakers are at the very front & back of your speaker layout (which they aren't, so stick to TF & TR labels).
> 
> As for the in-ceiling speakers you've chosen, I would put them into a box and treat them like a bookshelf speaker that can be mounted on the ceiling using swivel mounts and aimed toward the listening area.
Click to expand...

Thank You- I have mapped this out and it looks pretty good. Some changes you suggest can't be made (the AV rack, for example, can't be moved), but for the most part they work. I have a few concerns though:

1) Now the screen width (111" in 2.40) to seating distance (109.5" to eyeballs) ratio is slightly less than 1. I think the FOV is 50deg with this seating distance. Hopefully not a problem, but might be.

2) With the SS at 100deg to the MLP, there is 40 deg separation between the wides and SS, and 50 between the SS and BS. If I move the SS forward of the MLP, and the wides closer to the front, that shifts the separation to led than 30deg and more than 70deg, respectively. Wouldn't it be better to have the current separation between wides/SS/BS?

3) For the immediate future, I intend to run 9.2.4, rather than 9.2.6, given the 13ch limitation of current mainstream processors. I just want to install the TM for the future when 15ch processing is (hopefully) more mainstream. Since I am building the room now and have all 6 overheads, I was hoping to be able to install the .6 but prioritize the .4 arrangement since that is what will be used for the foreseeable future. Any modifications to your recommendations in light of that?


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Then I suspect, as you do I think, that FH speaker placement. It's too close, angular-wise, to the fronts.


I don't disagree, but I think I'd explain it differently. I.e., shift the focus a bit. Instead of looking at an angle that is too small, consider the one that's too large.

Unless you have at least a .6 system, with TM filling in the middles, the angular sweep between Andy's FH @22d and RH @147d is simply too broad to support F-to-B pans. That's 125d, too wide to phantom well and with nothing in between to support the sound image, it collapses in the discontinuity. That's how I'd visualize it, anyway. 

Adding a TM pair (still well forward of the MLP), even if just with a summing mixer and stereo amp, may be another way to address the problem effectively.


----------



## Lesmor

VideoGrabber said:


> I don't disagree, but I think I'd explain it differently. I.e., shift the focus a bit. Instead of looking at an angle that is too small, consider the one that's too large.
> 
> Unless you have at least a .6 system, with TM filling in the middles, the angular sweep between Andy's FH @22d and RH @147d is simply too broad to support F-to-B pans. That's 125d, too wide to phantom well and with nothing in between to support the sound image, it collapses in the discontinuity. That's how I'd visualize it, anyway.
> 
> Adding a TM pair (still well forward of the MLP), even if just with a summing mixer and stereo amp, may be another way to address the problem effectively.


I appreciate the input and explanation 
Things are actually worse than that because my Front Heights are behind the Left and Right mains
This is definitely being addressed this week the difficulty is pulling the trigger on position and speaker choice

I am leaning towards the Top front minimum distance position of 1.050 m ( 3'6" ) giving 55 deg angle from the MLP
I am sure Atmos is flexible enough for me to designate that as either TM if I decide to keep my Front heights for a .6 

1.4 m (4'6") in from the sidewall in line with my L/R and RB Surrounds
Main reason being in case I change from Rear heights to Top Rear at some time in the future

Only having a 8 foot ceiling I am inclined to go for in-ceiling for TF although I keep coming back to on-ceiling for flexibility 

Speakers built into my ceiling cloud is definitely appealing but as things stand I dont have the width and going wider obscures my downlighters


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> Now the screen width (111" in 2.40) to seating distance (109.5" to eyeballs) ratio is slightly less than 1. I think the FOV is 50deg with this seating distance.


You've already bought the screen?


> With the SS at 100deg to the MLP, there is 40 deg separation between the wides and SS, and 50 between the SS and BS.


The Wides are not going to be as active as you might believe, so it will help to have the Sides slightly forward of the MLP. You can also spread the Rears a little more apart, though 60 degrees separation between the Sides & Rears is typical.


> Since I am building the room now and have all 6 overheads, I was hoping to be able to install the .6 but prioritize the .4 arrangement since that is what will be used for the foreseeable future. Any modifications to your recommendations in light of that?


Rear overhead pair can stay 4'-4.5' behind you with both configurations. It gets a little tricky in front of you. If you're using just TR+TF, then TF should be roughly the same distance in front of you as TR is behind you. But if you're doing TR+TM+TF, then TM should be a couple feet forward of the MLP and TF should be a few feet forward of TM (to take advantage of that space). 3 overhead pairs isn't merely dropping TM between existing TR+TF locations, just as going from 2 surrounds to 4 surrounds isn't just adding a pair of Rears (the Sides should move forward as well). Wire is cheap, so before adding drywall you can run speaker wire for two TF locations (one with TM in mind and one without). Once you live with a 9.1.4 set-up, you might find that you don't need a 3rd pair above you after all.


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> You've already bought the screen? The Wides are not going to be as active as you might believe, so it will help to have the Sides slightly forward of the MLP. You can also spread the Rears a little more apart, though 60 degrees separation between the Sides & Rears is typical. Rear overhead pair can stay 4'-4.5' behind you with both configurations. It gets a little tricky in front of you. If you're using just TR+TF, then TF should be roughly the same distance in front of you as TR is behind you. But if you're doing TR+TM+TF, then TM should be a couple feet forward of the MLP and TF should be a few feet forward of TM (to take advantage of that space). 3 overhead pairs isn't merely dropping TM between existing TR+TF locations, just as going from 2 surrounds to 4 surrounds isn't just adding a pair of Rears (the Sides should move forward as well). Wire is cheap, so before adding drywall you can run speaker wire for two TF locations (one with TM in mind and one without). Once you live with a 9.1.4 set-up, you might find that you don't need a 3rd pair above you after all.


Thanks Sanjay- I figured that would be the answer re: the TM placement, but was hoping I was wrong and the experts might be able to find a magic sweet spot position for me 

As to your other questions- no I haven't purchased the screen already, so of course I could shrink it to accommodate the viewing distance, though then I would run into issues of having my L and R speakers behind the screen while also being >22 deg from the listener.


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> I could shrink it to accommodate the viewing distance, though then I would run into issues of having my L and R speakers behind the screen while also being >22 deg from the listener.


OK, let's crunch some numbers. If you end up placing your ears 5'5" (1/3rd room length) from the back wall (for smoother frequency response), that leaves you with 10'10" to the front wall. You mentioned having your acoustically transparent screen about 20" from the front wall, so that puts your eyeballs 9' from the screen. 

Assuming you place your L/R speakers right behind the screen and 21" in from the side walls (to cancel some resonances), that gives them a 7' separation or a 43° spread (close enough to the ±22° that you mentioned). That's pretty typical for most movie theatres. Wides will make the soundstage appear...wider. 

The screen needs to be wide enough that the frame doesn't end up blocking the tweeters of the L/R speakers. With those speakers 7' apart, you could do a screen 8' wide, which would give you a 48° viewing angle. Or do a wider screen if you're comfortable with a larger viewing angle.


----------



## Ted99

mrtickleuk said:


> My opinion, just my opinion, is that I doubt very much that we will see more mixes that actively use wides. It's a niche within a niche within a niche. I only ever see talk of wides here in this forum, and I don't know anyone in real life who has them, even though I know several people other than me who have systems with separate speakers.


I'm in that niche and I really like the way wides fill in the hole between my sides at 95 degrees and the fronts in native Atmos, even when the mixer has not made conscious use of wide objects. Once Denon implements a firmware upgrade to my X8500 I'll get a chance to use the 13.1 Auromatic upmixer. If I like that, I'll move my side surrounds to the 80 degree position to help fill the "hole" all the time and in all Cocecs and forget the wides until and if mixers start using it for objects.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Only having a 8 foot ceiling I am inclined to go for in-ceiling for TF although I keep coming back to on-ceiling for flexibility


IKWYM. I moved my first set of Atmos speakers (Tannoy Di5DC) at least three times before I was completely happy. Nightmare if I'd have installed in-ceiling designs. Impossible in fact - once the holes are cut there's no going back. Or not without a lot of work. My ceiling in the hobbit room wasn't much higher than yours and I got a really great Atmos effect in there. I think the treatments helped a lot with that. I also liked the 90 degree dispersion of the little Tannoys and think that helped too. I always had them angled at MLP. The room was so small I couldn't follow Dolby guidelines to the letter - the front pair were in spec but my rear pair were actually just slightly in front of MLP (the third or even fourth position before I settled on it). I did extensive testing on how to designate them and in the end came to the conclusion that there was little to no audible difference however you designated them, so I just settled for TF+TR. There might have been some audible differences when upmixing - IIRC, DSU favored TF+TR and Neural:X favored FH+RH - but obviously in both cases the physical location of the speakers was the same.

If I were in your position, I'd probably go with on-ceiling designs rather than in-ceiling, just because with the latter you have to be 100% sure before you commit.

EDIT to add: I think the best location for the rear pair, slightly in front of MLP, may well have been because of the greater angular separation between the rearmost overheads and my rear surrounds. With more space behind me, I;d have mounted the rearmost pair slightly behind MLP, which in fact was where I had them in the first place. Since you have more room behind you than I did, don't take my word for the 'best' location - experiment (which you can't if you opt for in-ceilings). Angular separation is key.

One other thing I'd suggest, if you go for on-ceiling designs - experiment with the location *before *you bury the wires in the ceiling, not *after*, like I did, d'oh, thus creating a shedload more work patching and refinishing the ceiling after moving the wires.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> There might have been some audible differences when upmixing - IIRC, DSU favored TF+TR and Neural:X favored FH+RH - but obviously in both cases the physical location of the speakers was the same.


With DSU it makes no difference how you designate your overheads, as it currently produces only two discrete overhead channels: Left overhead array and Right overhead array.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> With DSU it makes no difference how you designate your overheads, as it currently produces only two discrete overhead channels: Left overhead array and Right overhead array.


I'm sure we used to say that there was a difference in designation between the two upmixers (DSU vs Neural:X) but it was a long time ago so there is every chance I am misremembering. Maybe it was a difference between *Atmos *which favored TF+TR and *DTS:X *which favored FH+RH? I really can't remember now, and in my new HT it is irrelevant because I have the space to mount them in accordance with Dolby guidelines and designate them TF+TR.


----------



## Roger Dressler

ddgdl said:


> I could shrink it to accommodate the viewing distance, though then I would run into issues of having my L and R speakers behind the screen while also being >22 deg from the listener.


Just to throw another thought into your mind, for a 2.35 screen a 1:1 width/distance ratio is very comfortable IMHO (a 53 deg FOV). IOW, don't go too small.

As for the L/R speakers, there is no rule that says if you use an AT screen the L/R speakers have to be behind it. I have mine outside the screen for a 60 deg spread, which I think is quite good spatially, even when playing 16:9 movies. The ventriloquist effect is very powerful in resolving any difference of opinion wrt sounds tied to onscreen images. 

The primary benefit of AT screens is to place the center speaker back there. Unless your speakers are built into a baffle wall, you could experiment with L/R placement to see which you prefer.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Just to throw another thought into your mind, for a 2.35 screen a 1:1 width/distance ratio is very comfortable IMHO (a 53 deg FOV). IOW, don't go too small.


Seconded. For me, 1:1 (for a 'Scope screen) is perfect. It gives just the right amount of immersion for me. Any closer and I start to 'ping-pong' my eyes, any further and I feel too far away for a fully immersive experience. Immersive visually, immersive sonically = fantastic movie experience


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> OK, let's crunch some numbers. If you end up placing your ears 5'5" (1/3rd room length) from the back wall (for smoother frequency response), that leaves you with 10'10" to the front wall. You mentioned having your acoustically transparent screen about 20" from the front wall, so that puts your eyeballs 9' from the screen.
> 
> Assuming you place your L/R speakers right behind the screen and 21" in from the side walls (to cancel some resonances), that gives them a 7' separation or a 43° spread (close enough to the ±22° that you mentioned). That's pretty typical for most movie theatres. Wides will make the soundstage appear...wider.
> 
> The screen needs to be wide enough that the frame doesn't end up blocking the tweeters of the L/R speakers. With those speakers 7' apart, you could do a screen 8' wide, which would give you a 48° viewing angle. Or do a wider screen if you're comfortable with a larger viewing angle.



I was playing around with the numbers and locations this afternoon and came to the same result- so I think that will work. Of course, as Roger notes, I can move the LCR around a bit once in the room, and can test the location of the wides, side surrounds and back surrounds with enough wire pulled behind the walls. My biggest concern was always the Atmos arrangement, but of course everything is related. Much appreciated all!


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> IKWYM. I moved my first set of Atmos speakers (Tannoy Di5DC) at least three times before I was completely happy. Nightmare if I'd have installed in-ceiling designs. Impossible in fact - once the holes are cut there's no going back. Or not without a lot of work. My ceiling in the hobbit room wasn't much higher than yours and I got a really great Atmos effect in there. I think the treatments helped a lot with that. I also liked the 90 degree dispersion of the little Tannoys and think that helped too. I always had them angled at MLP. The room was so small I couldn't follow Dolby guidelines to the letter - the front pair were in spec but my rear pair were actually just slightly in front of MLP (the third or even fourth position before I settled on it). I did extensive testing on how to designate them and in the end came to the conclusion that there was little to no audible difference however you designated them, so I just settled for TF+TR. There might have been some audible differences when upmixing - IIRC, DSU favored TF+TR and Neural:X favored FH+RH - but obviously in both cases the physical location of the speakers was the same.
> 
> If I were in your position, I'd probably go with on-ceiling designs rather than in-ceiling, just because with the latter you have to be 100% sure before you commit.
> 
> EDIT to add: I think the best location for the rear pair, slightly in front of MLP, may well have been because of the greater angular separation between the rearmost overheads and my rear surrounds. With more space behind me, I;d have mounted the rearmost pair slightly behind MLP, which in fact was where I had them in the first place. Since you have more room behind you than I did, don't take my word for the 'best' location - experiment (which you can't if you opt for in-ceilings). Angular separation is key.
> 
> One other thing I'd suggest, if you go for on-ceiling designs - experiment with the location *before *you bury the wires in the ceiling, not *after*, like I did, d'oh, thus creating a shedload more work patching and refinishing the ceiling after moving the wires.


Cheers Keith
I believe the Tannoys are discontinued now ?
I was looking at JBL control one Pro's but I don't think they go down to 60Hz any feedback would be appreciated

Ideally I would love to use my existing Ken Kreisel Quattro front heights flat on the ceiling to maintain a low profile but so far I can't find a suitable way to mount them + the screw threads are imperial while UK brackets are metric
Andy


----------



## ddgdl

Roger Dressler said:


> Just to throw another thought into your mind, for a 2.35 screen a 1:1 width/distance ratio is very comfortable IMHO (a 53 deg FOV). IOW, don't go too small.
> 
> As for the L/R speakers, there is no rule that says if you use an AT screen the L/R speakers have to be behind it. I have mine outside the screen for a 60 deg spread, which I think is quite good spatially, even when playing 16:9 movies. The ventriloquist effect is very powerful in resolving any difference of opinion wrt sounds tied to onscreen images.
> 
> The primary benefit of AT screens is to place the center speaker back there. Unless your speakers are built into a baffle wall, you could experiment with L/R placement to see which you prefer.


My room is so narrow that there isn't much additional spread I can get- even if I move my L and R to the corners, I only get around a 52deg spread (and some terrible other problems, of course, since my speakers would have to be aimed parallel to the walls to get that close). Anyways, thanks to all for their help (don't want to get too off the Atmos track and screw up this thread).


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe it was a difference between *Atmos *which favored TF+TR and *DTS:X *which favored FH+RH? I really can't remember now, and in my new HT it is irrelevant because I have the space to mount them in accordance with Dolby guidelines and designate them TF+TR.


 
Yes, for DTS:X most favor the FH+RH designation as it avoids leakage to base level speakers. Positionally though, DTS:X's FH+RH are closest to Atmos's TF+TR.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, for DTS:X most favor the FH+RH designation as it avoids leakage to base level speakers. Positionally though, DTS:X's FH+RH are closest to Atmos's TF+TR.


Thanks. That must have been what I was thinking of. Apologies for any confusion.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Cheers Keith
> I believe the Tannoys are discontinued now ?


Yes, unfortunately that is the case. The DVS range seems to be the nearest equivalent I think.



Lesmor said:


> I was looking at JBL control one Pro's but I don't think they go down to 60Hz any feedback would be appreciated


They are well reviewed but you're right - they only go to 80Hz. Mind you, so did my Di5DCs and they were excellent overhead speakers. IIRC I crossed them at 100Hz.



Lesmor said:


> Ideally I would love to use my existing Ken Kreisel Quattro front heights flat on the ceiling to maintain a low profile but so far I can't find a suitable way to mount them + the screw threads are imperial while UK brackets are metric
> Andy


You can get Imperial > Metric adapters. But unless a speaker has been specifically designed to be mounted on a bracket, I've never had a really satisfactory result, personally.


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> I can move the LCR around a bit once in the room, and can test the location of the wides, side surrounds and back surrounds with enough wire pulled behind the walls.


Yup, good to experiment. The only reason I suggested those particular seating & speaker locations was for smoother frequency response (no-cost way of giving a big head start to the room correction in your receiver).


----------



## VideoGrabber

mrtickleuk said:


> My opinion, just my opinion, is that I doubt very much that we will see more mixes that actively use wides. It's a niche within a niche within a niche. I only ever see talk of wides here in this forum, and I don't know anyone in real life who has them, even though I know several people other than me who have systems with separate speakers.





gene4ht said:


> I tend to agree. The general market has yet to be even aware of...much less embrace 3D sound (Atmos/DTS:X/Auro). Wides are even more obscure. At least for the time being, wides are likely to remain the domain of the most devout enthusiast among us.





lovingdvd said:


> Yes, I tend to agree with you guys, which is my concern. Hopefully that does not turn out the case and they do embrace wides. Even though it is very likely to always remain very niche inside of a niche as you say.


When every AVR manufacturer drops support for Wides in their products (and only resurrects them in a $5k unit), that's not really a good sign. 

On the upside, there actually are a fair number of Blu-rays (and UHDs) that DO contain worthwhile wide content. It just may be difficult to know which do and which don't. Cineramax started a thread here at AVS, to which a few others contributed and I sorted out the list. You may want to check some of those out.

[NB: also, it's possible to create your own wide content, using several techniques (Neo:X and Neural:X for non Atmos; and MiniDSP, mixing, and DPLII center extraction for everything). That is discussed here as well.]


----------



## VideoGrabber

lovingdvd said:


> I do find it interesting that Westworld *went out of their way to mix their sound specifically for wides*. I could understand if this was a movie shown in the theaters and they just carried that forward to the home Atmos mix. But as a TV series, how many people did they expect to be able to hear it in the wides like they mixed. This is just a total guess, but it doesn't seem like there could be more than a few hundred home theaters in the world equipped to reproduce this as they intended it to be heard. So* why go through the trouble*? Don't get me wrong, I've very glad they did, and I hope others follow in their tracks.


Trailblazers? 

But I think you may be exaggerating the "trouble" they went to, or the effort expended. It's not *that *much harder to pull certain content out to the wides, rather than dumping it all in the fronts. And it's completely compatible, because that's where it will fall back anyway, in the nominal situation where wides are not available. I.e., no one will be 'hurt' by such a placement decision... they simply will have no clue it was even done.

But I agree the mix engineer has to be aware of the possibilities, and be willing to consider broadening the soundstage in their mix. Unless they are willing to do so, and create enhanced content that can not currently be enjoyed by many, there won't really be any motivation for end-users to buy into it (and go to the trouble of installing an extra pair of speakers). What would be the point? And thus no reason for AVR manufacturers to include that option in their gear. And the circle is complete, since that option is not even available. The usual 'chicken or the egg' scenario.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Lesmor said:


> From what I am reading it looks like you are using adjacent pairs TH and TM (TM TR) which is against the Dolby standard


Is it really against the standard? Or is it just that AVR manufs don't enable that configuration?



> As I understand it TM should only be used on its own or with Front Height and Rear Height positioned speakers


Interesting. This is the first time I have ever heard that interpretation. I suspect a fair number of people have FH/TF + TM + RH/TR configurations. As in, *everybody* with a x.y.6 installation.


----------



## VideoGrabber

T-Bone said:


> They recommend full range speakers just like all of the other speakers in the room.
> 
> 150 Hertz is not full range. 60 hertz would be. I guess technically a full range speaker is 20 Hertz to 20k Hertz. But knowing that we have subwoofers, and 80 Hertz crossover is the THX recommendation and most people cross at 80 Hertz, get a ceiling speaker that goes just below 80 Hertz.


Correct. Bass management is going to be rolling off content below that point to ALL the satellite speakers. So a ceiling speaker does not need to be any more capable than the rest of your ear-plane satellites.

It may be worth noting though that DE speakers don't attempt to bounce anything below 150 Hz. So the conclusion one could draw from that is that would certainly be acceptable, even if not quite as good as direct-radiating 80 Hz speakers overhead.


----------



## VideoGrabber

mrtickleuk said:


> I only ever see talk of wides here in this forum, and *I don't know anyone in real life who has them*, ...


Wait! What? Are the inhabitants of this forum not 'real people'?  

The next thing you know, you'll be saying we're 'fake friends'.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> ...since the door and rack are at the bottom of the drawing, better to keep those room irregularities behind the listeners (where our human hearing is not so hot). So let's stick to your original orientation.


A good collection of suggestions. Basically a complete room analysis in a nutshell.











> For smoother frequency response (fewer/smaller peaks & dips), I would place the listeners' ears (not the seat backs) around 1/3rd room length (5'5") from the back wall.


This is wise counsel, and many overlook the significant acoustic benefits that can be obtained for free, simply by properly chosen seating positions. However, this also has the effect of moving his MLP one foot closer to the screen than he originally intended. That may also affect his chosen screen size, which is worth mentioning. I.e., it is possible his viewing angle might then be too wide for his preference.



> Consider putting the equipment rack at the midpoint of the back wall; maybe even putting the projector on top of it...


Do you feel that the increase in noise from not only an in-room EQ rack, but combined with the closer proximity, is worth the benefit gained from widening the SB speakers? I understand where you're going with the the distribution of speakers around the periphery, but since he will have wides, moving the SS back a bit to compensate for the narrower SB should preserve your intent. And from what I have seen other designers (such as Grimani) do, narrowing the SB's isn't necessarily a bad thing. Especially if he used bipoles in those locations, which would contribute to rear stereo soundfield separation.

Alternately, he could mitigate some of that if he could move the rack as you suggested, but still embed it in the wall, as he originally planned. The feasibility of that would depend on what's on the other side. But my concern would be an "in room" rack install would create problems with rear access to wiring, that he didn't have before.



> Rear speakers should be spread at least 7 feet apart on the back wall (to make it easier to hear stereo separation behind you). Side speakers should be about a foot or so forward of the listeners (for better side vs rear separation in the surround field). I would centre the woofers of your L/R speakers 21" in from the side walls (will help cancel some room resonances). Wides can be mid-way between the Fronts & Sides.


Addressed above.



> Labeling your speakers FH & RH will tell the Atmos renderer that those speakers are at the very front & back of your speaker layout (which they aren't, so stick to TF & TR labels).


But doesn't that then create the issue that TF/TR are not usable in those AVR configurations where FH/RH would be? How differently does the Atmos decoder actually treat those 2 designations?



> As for the in-ceiling speakers you've chosen, I would put them into a box and treat them like a bookshelf speaker that can be mounted on the ceiling using swivel mounts and aimed toward the listening area.


This is an intriguing idea, and I would agree that with those speakers, in those locations, it would not be advisable to aim them downwards. OTOH, when you consider how low his ceiling already is (7'3), I'm not sure that hanging speakers even lower will be good, either aesthetically or pragmatically? Also, such ceiling speakers are designed to operate in a flush surface-mount configuration. The suggested alternative would result in SBIR, and create undesirable interference dips somewhere in the 150-300 Hz range.

One alternative that may be worth consideration would be swapping out his RBH VA-615's, for the VA-615L variants. Those incorporate angled bass drivers that would allow for proper flush mounting. And he could then just rotate them to aim them at the MLP.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Ha ha. From my earlier response tonight, we now see what happens when someone starts replying, decides they're too exhausted to finish coherently, then returns after getting a good 'nights' sleep. 



ddgdl said:


> 1) Now the screen width (111" in 2.40) to seating distance (109.5" to eyeballs) ratio is slightly less than 1. I think the FOV is 50deg with this seating distance. Hopefully not a problem, but might be.


As has been pointed out, a 1:1 ratio is considered optimal by some folks. For myself, 1.1 is preferred. Some others actually go as close as 2x SH, which puts them at 0.833 w/d!  And they love it. The only person who can make this decision for you, is you. So be sure to spend some time evaluating it. (Also, if it does turn out your screen is a bit too big for your taste, you are not legally obligated to fill it! I.e., you could zoom it down a bit. It's really hard to make that shift in the opposite direction though.  )




ddgdl said:


> 2) With the SS at 100deg to the MLP, there is 40 deg separation between the wides and SS, and 50 between the SS and BS. If I move the SS forward of the MLP, and the wides closer to the front, that shifts the separation to led than 30deg and more than 70deg, respectively. Wouldn't it be better to have the current separation between wides/SS/BS?


I think so. But that assumes you really do have active wides. If much of your film viewing is normal Blu-ray, w/o Atmos, and you select DSU, your wides cease to exist. In that case, you could choose Neural:X, or Neo:X to extract and fill those wides, but the ambient/immersive overhead dome won't be as "natural". However, lots of folks prefer the extra activity there, that DTS provides and DSU does not.




ddgdl said:


> 3) For the immediate future, I intend to run 9.2.4, rather than 9.2.6, given the 13ch limitation of current mainstream processors. I just want to install the TM for the future when 15ch processing is (hopefully) more mainstream. Since I am building the room now and have all 6 overheads, I was hoping to be able to install the .6 but prioritize the .4 arrangement since that is what will be used for the foreseeable future. Any modifications to your recommendations in light of that?


Good questions. See comments below.




sdurani said:


> The Wides are not going to be as active as you might believe, so it will help to have the Sides slightly forward of the MLP.


True, if you're relying exclusively on Atmos to drive them (and with DSU they get nothing at all). OTOH, with other processors, or by extracting wides from F+S pairs, they *can* be active at all times.




sdurani said:


> Rear overhead pair can stay 4'-4.5' behind you with both configurations. It gets a little tricky in front of you. If you're using just TR+TF, then TF should be roughly the same distance in front of you as TR is behind you. But if you're doing TR+TM+TF, then TM should be a couple feet forward of the MLP and TF should be a few feet forward of TM (to take advantage of that space). 3 overhead pairs isn't merely dropping TM between existing TR+TF locations, just as going from 2 surrounds to 4 surrounds isn't just adding a pair of Rears (the Sides should move forward as well). Wire is cheap, so before adding drywall you can run speaker wire for two TF locations (one with TM in mind and one without).


I'd agree with all of that. But if one started with the recommended positions for TM + TR, while that wouldn't be optimal, it would still provide a F/B experience. Then later added TF ~4' further ahead: a) that would still be a 34d elevation (certainly acceptable, IF aimed at MLP, and not downfiring), and b) would pull the acoustic height layer forward, broadening the perspective. Or start with the extended-TF +recommended-TR instead.

If the OP has the speakers already, he could just install them all, and see which he prefers now as his TF... TF or TM. Then engage the 3rd pair once the supporting AVR becomes available. In the interim, I might suggest activating them all, by filling the TM in with a simple mixer and stereo amp. People who have taken that approach have reported it does make the top layer more stable, and pans smoother. But if someone is only ever going to do TF+TR, I'd agree that +/- 45d would make the most sense. (Lastly, if he does wind up doing on-ceiling rather than in-ceiling, he could just move the TF later... as long as he planned ahead, and had the cabling ready to go, as you suggested. A couple small holes from a mounting bracket should't be that hard to repair.)




sdurani said:


> Once you live with a 9.1.4 set-up, you might find that you don't need a 3rd pair above you after all.


That is certainly true. Of course it is also possible that way you will never know what you're missing.


----------



## VideoGrabber

I just thought of this, and am posting it separately, so it doesn't get overlooked in the collection above.



> If the OP has the speakers already, he could just install them all, and see which he prefers now as his TF... TF or TM.



Of course if @ddgdl wants to use the 615's he may already own (?), then in-ceiling would NOT be recommended for either TF or TR. On-ceiling (+ aiming) would be required for those. OTOH, he could get away with mounting them as TM speakers in-ceiling, due to their proximity to the MLP. That may help ameliorate a bit of the visual overhead 'clutter', where it counts the most.


----------



## ddgdl

VideoGrabber said:


> I just thought of this, and am posting it separately, so it doesn't get overlooked in the collection above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP has the speakers already, he could just install them all, and see which he prefers now as his TF... TF or TM.
> 
> 
> Of course if @ddgdl wants to use the 615's he may already own (?), then in-ceiling would NOT be recommended for either TF or TR. On-ceiling (+ aiming) would be required for those. OTOH, he could get away with mounting them as TM speakers in-ceiling, due to their proximity to the MLP. That may help ameliorate a bit of the visual overhead 'clutter', where it counts the most.
> 
> 
> 
> I do already own the 615s. Unfortunately, purchased them at a time when I could have purchased the 615Ls for the same price, but didn't know any better (sigh).
Click to expand...


----------



## VideoGrabber

ddgdl said:


> I do already own the 615s. Unfortunately, purchased them at a time when I could have purchased the 615Ls for the same price, but didn't know any better (sigh).


That's certainly understandable. I've done the same myself. You can't always know ahead of time what the constraints will be. But if you decline to buy something when you have an opportunity, the results could be worse.


In this case though, you may be OK. Somewhere I had seen a question , _"...whether anyone had done an angled box through drywall (i'm imagining a wedge shape) to aim a speaker at the listener"_, and that may be an idea worth pursuing.

With the grill, those RBH units are only 9" in diameter. If you give yourself a 3" safety edge to work with, you could cut out a 15" square, mount the speaker in it, and then do some side-trim to wrap it at a 15d angle. That would be only a 4" drop, at the lowest point (with 0" at the other end). That would be the sleekest approach.

Alternately, you might consider just building an angled box/shell to hold them, and not cut *any* holes in your ceiling at all. The depth of those speakers is only 4" itself. Angling them would add something to their depth (dependent on magnet diameter). Maybe allow 3" at one end, and 7" at the other. [At the angle these will be tilted, you'll only be reducing the 4" depth in the center by ~1.5" at the edge. So a min 2.5" is still needed, plus probably ~0.5" for the magnet-factor.] 

That would make moving them later, or adjusting their positions for any number of reasons, a lot easier to do. You could make them look quite nice, and not have much drop on your current 7'4 ceiling. And if you built that as an enclosed frame, with an angle-adjustable face-plate, you could still do some aim tweaking. (I might have some concern about edge diffraction though, with a lip around the edges... so perhaps not wise, if it's not really needed. Can you tell I'm thinking out loud here?  )

(My only remaining concern would be that the speakers require some back-loading, with a minimum volume in whatever they are enclosed in. Possibly a couple cubic feet. I'd ask RBH about that.)

By removing the speaker to gain access, you could then hide the ceiling mounting screws inside, using something as simple as small L-brackets. If there was no back, you'd want a gasket to seal the edges contacting the ceiling. (I'm trying to think of ways to keep it as slimline as possible, w/o embedding it in the ceiling. You could of course do a completely sealed full box... it would just be a bit thicker.)

Keeping the boxes square to the room should not be a big problem, because while you couldn't toe-in the woofers, the tweeters are aimable. You've already solved the worst problem of illuminating the floor with your low & mid frequencies. If you were willing to have the visible boxes skewed, you could always aim them anywhere you wanted. But you may be able to do some good, low-profile, Atmos ceiling speakers this way, using the drivers you already have.


----------



## ddgdl

VideoGrabber said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do already own the 615s. Unfortunately, purchased them at a time when I could have purchased the 615Ls for the same price, but didn't know any better (sigh).
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly understandable. I've done the same myself. You can't always know ahead of time what the constraints will be. But if you decline to buy something when you have an opportunity, the results could be worse.
> 
> 
> In this case though, you may be OK. Somewhere I had seen a question /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif, _"...whether anyone had done an angled box through drywall (i'm imagining a wedge shape) to aim a speaker at the listener"_, and that may be an idea worth pursuing.
> 
> With the grill, those RBH units are only 9" in diameter. If you give yourself a 3" safety edge to work with, you could cut out a 15" square, mount the speaker in it, and then do some side-trim to wrap it at a 15d angle. That would be only a 4" drop, at the lowest point (with 0" at the other end). That would be the sleekest approach.
> 
> Alternately, you might consider just building an angled box/shell to hold them, and not cut *any* holes in your ceiling at all. The depth of those speakers is only 4" itself. Angling them would add something to their depth (dependent on magnet diameter). Maybe allow 3" at one end, and 7" at the other. [At the angle these will be tilted, you'll only be reducing the 4" depth in the center by ~1.5" at the edge. So a min 2.5" is still needed, plus probably ~0.5" for the magnet-factor.]
> 
> That would make moving them later, or adjusting their positions for any number of reasons, a lot easier to do. You could make them look quite nice, and not have much drop on your current 7'4 ceiling. And if you built that as an enclosed frame, with an angle-adjustable face-plate, you could still do some aim tweaking. (I might have some concern about edge diffraction though, with a lip around the edges... so perhaps not wise, if it's not really needed. Can you tell I'm thinking out loud here? /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif )
> 
> (My only remaining concern would be that the speakers require some back-loading, with a minimum volume in whatever they are enclosed in. Possibly a couple cubic feet. I'd ask RBH about that.)
> 
> By removing the speaker to gain access, you could then hide the ceiling mounting screws inside, using something as simple as small L-brackets. If there was no back, you'd want a gasket to seal the edges contacting the ceiling. (I'm trying to think of ways to keep it as slimline as possible, w/o embedding it in the ceiling. You could of course do a completely sealed full box... it would just be a bit thicker.)
> 
> Keeping the boxes square to the room should not be a big problem, because while you couldn't toe-in the woofers, the tweeters are aimable. You've already solved the worst problem of illuminating the floor with your low & mid frequencies. If you were willing to have the visible boxes skewed, you could always aim them anywhere you wanted. But you may be able to do some good, low-profile, Atmos ceiling speakers this way, using the drivers you already have.
Click to expand...

I like the angled idea. I should note I also have the RBH backer cans for each speaker, which may mean I can get away with just trim around the front.


----------



## Lesmor

VideoGrabber said:


> Is it really against the standard? Or is it just that AVR manufs don't enable that configuration?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. This is the first time I have ever heard that interpretation. I suspect a fair number of people have FH/TF + TM + RH/TR configurations. As in, *everybody* with a x.y.6 installation.


Well if you want to be pedantic then you are correct 
Nothing stops you filling your ceiling with as many speakers pairs as you want
The point I was making is a Denon AVR won't allow you to select a Top front / Top middle or Top rear / Top middle combination

Upto the last month or so no mainstream AVR's supported .6 (so limitations may have now changed) you had to go with high end or bastardising two AVR's
so it's hardly everybody


----------



## Ladeback

Lesmor said:


> Well if you want to be pedantic then you are correct
> Nothing stops you filling your ceiling with as many speakers pairs as you want
> The point I was making is a Denon AVR won't allow you to select a Top front / Top middle or Top rear / Top middle combination
> 
> Upto the last month or so no mainstream AVR's supported .6 (so limitations may have now changed) you had to go with high end or bastardising two AVR's
> so it's hardly everybody



I thought and had read that the new Denon AVR-X8500H could do 7.1.6. or 9.1.4. It is a 13 channel receiver and speaker connections for three rows of height speakers.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> Do you feel that the increase in noise from not only an in-room EQ rack, but combined with the closer proximity, is worth the benefit gained from widening the SB speakers?


Nice to have the flexibility to spread the Rear speakers if needed. The OP was going to have an in-wall rack in the room anyway, I simply suggested moving it to a different location. What's going to be in the rack that will be noisy?


> I understand where you're going with the the distribution of speakers around the periphery, but since he will have wides, moving the SS back a bit to compensate for the narrower SB should preserve your intent.


My intent is to make it easier for listeners to hear stereo separation behind them. I don't see how narrowing the separation accomplishes that.


> How differently does the Atmos decoder actually treat those 2 designations?


It treats them as though they're different locations. The Atmos demo disc contains speaker ID test tones for TF/TR locations. If you designate your speakers TF/TR, then those test tones will come from their respective speakers. If you change the designation to FH/RH, then the test tones will phantom image inward (the renderer thinks those speakers are farther away).


> OTOH, when you consider how low his ceiling already is (7'3), I'm not sure that hanging speakers even lower will be good, either aesthetically or pragmatically?


Why not? They'll be farther away then the Sides speakers. So if those are OK then so should the Tops.


> The suggested alternative would result in SBIR, and create undesirable interference dips somewhere in the 150-300 Hz range.


Then that will happen with every speaker placed at or near a boundary. A small piece of absorption can kill the reflection causing the boundary cancellation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ladeback said:


> I thought and had read that the new Denon AVR-X8500H could do 7.1.6. or 9.1.4. It is a 13 channel receiver and speaker connections for three rows of height speakers.


Yes, it can do 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos processing/rendering. _However_, I guess it looks like the upmixer formats weren't updated at the same time. If you go 9.1.4 and want Front Wides, the upmixers, even DTS Neural: X, won't upmix to those two locations. Now, if you trick the receiver into a 5.1.4 plus Front Wides or 9.1.2 configuration via the amp assign setup menu then Front Wides will be created for DTS: X and non-immersive, channel-only soundtracks. It may be 2019 when these new flagship D+M units get a firmware update to address the upmixing to 9.1.4 situation. This upmixer problem may also be an issue with the Top Middle set of speakers in a 7.1.6 configuration where only the Top front and Top rear speakers get sound.


----------



## Selden Ball

Lesmor said:


> The point I was making is a Denon AVR won't allow you to select a Top front / Top middle or Top rear / Top middle combination
> 
> Upto the last month or so no mainstream AVR's supported .6 (so limitations may have now changed) you had to go with high end or bastardising two AVR's
> so it's hardly everybody


Their manuals claim that the AVR-X8500H and AV8805 do allow TF+TM+TR as a valid combination of overhead speaker designations. (See the bottom entry on page 231 of the AVR-8500H manual: screengrab attached.) How much sound actually gets sent to the TM speakers in that situation, though, I dunno.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Their manuals claim that the AVR-X8500H and AV8805 do allow TF+TM+TR as a valid combination of overhead speaker designations. (See the bottom entry on page 231 of the AVR-8500H manual: screengrab attached.) How much sound actually gets sent to the TM speakers in that situation, though, I dunno.


I would imagine the two fixed objects designated as the overhead bed channels of the 7.1.2 theatrical channel bed (Dolby doesn't call it a 9.1 channel bed anymore) would get placed in the Top Middle location of a 7.1.6 configuration if they weren't set during the near-field session with a wide sizing metadata parameter to bleed into the other overhead speakers.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> The OP was going to have an in-wall rack in the room anyway, I simply suggested *moving it to a different location*.


You suggested placing the PJ on top. How could he do so without moving the rack INTO the room? 




> What's going to be in the rack that will be noisy?


Cooling fans?




> It treats them as though they're different locations. The Atmos demo disc contains speaker ID test tones for TF/TR locations. If you designate your speakers TF/TR, then those test tones will come from their respective speakers. If you change the designation to FH/RH, then the test tones will phantom image inward (the renderer thinks those speakers are farther away).


Thanks! Phantom imaging TF/TR signals inward would be correct, if the speakers really were located in the places you told Atmos they were. Since they are not, the sound field 'shrinks', and becomes more constricted. That explains what happens to folks who do select FH/RH for compatibility with other decoders, even though their speakers are mounted at TF/TR locations.

Is the converse also true? I.e., if you really had FH/RH speakers, but told Atmos they were at TF/TR locations, would it then attempt to phantom FH/RH content *outward*? My understanding was that Atmos never moved height-layer content down into the base plane, so I'm not sure how that could be achieved w/o employing the lower-layer speakers. Spectral-dependent temporal delays?




> Then that will happen with every speaker placed at or near a boundary. A small piece of absorption can kill the reflection causing the boundary cancellation.


a) of course it will. b) worth making the OP aware of, if he gives up the 'baffle wall' that a flush-mount ceiling install provides.


----------



## ddgdl

Sorry for all the back and forth - the AV rack placement is fixed anyways, so all your debates are moot


----------



## Mac7eod

Selden Ball said:


> Their manuals claim that the AVR-X8500H and AV8805 do allow TF+TM+TR as a valid combination of overhead speaker designations. (See the bottom entry on page 231 of the AVR-8500H manual: screengrab attached.) How much sound actually gets sent to the TM speakers in that situation, though, I dunno.


I have a 7.2.6 set-up on the Denon AVR-X8500 and the top middle speakers are quite noticeable with the right movie (e.g. Bladerunner 2049).


----------



## VideoGrabber

Lesmor said:


> Well if you want to be pedantic then you are correct


I believe I would have still been correct, regardless of any desire to be pedantic or not. 



> Nothing stops you filling your ceiling with as many speakers pairs as you want


Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.



> The point I was making is *a Denon AVR won't allow you to select *a Top front / Top middle or Top rear / Top middle combination.


No, you could not have been making that point, since you never mentioned Denon at all. Perhaps that is the point you wanted to make, but failed to.


----------



## VideoGrabber

ddgdl said:


> Sorry for all the back and forth - the AV rack placement is fixed anyways, so all your debates are moot


No need to apologize. And the 'debates' are rarely moot.

When one of us takes the time to answer an individual's questions (as Sanjay and I did for yours), they're not just providing information to that single person. They are providing information to an entire community to benefit from. I've learned a million things here that way, in the 18 years I've been visiting, reading about solutions to *other people's* problems. A fair amount has been from Sanjay.

He gave you some very good information, in a very concise package, and I wanted to follow up to check and see if other considerations would alter those at all. He's a very smart guy, with a lot of experience. What you describe as a debate, I look at as a conversation. Some of the things he suggested genuinely surprised me, so I inquired further. But some of the things he told you were also an education for me, so I always value his postings here. Nothing I wrote was intended to challenge or criticize him. And if he told me he felt it so, I would offer to apologize for expressing myself poorly.

[NB: I personally think it's rarely advisable to put a rack of equipment inside an HT, if there's a way to avoid it. Noise and heat being the two primary negatives. Which is why I politely asked for confirmation. Sanjay of course may have a completely different perspective, and I never suggested I was right or he was not. I did point out one place where he said one thing, and later indicated he hadn't. That's a simple matter of fact, and can't possibly be debated.]


----------



## VideoGrabber

Dan Hitchman said:


> _However_, I guess it looks like the upmixer formats weren't updated at the same time. If you go 9.1.4 and want Front Wides, the upmixers, even DTS Neural: X, won't upmix to those two locations.


Yikes! 



> It may be 2019 when these new flagship D+M units get a firmware update to address the upmixing to 9.1.4 situation..


Double Yikes!

If I had bought one of these, let's just say that information would not put a smile on my face.  If not  .


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> No need to apologize. And the 'debates' are rarely moot.
> 
> When one of us takes the time to answer an individual's questions (as Sanjay and I did for yours), they're not just providing information to that single person. They are providing information to an entire community to benefit from. I've learned a million things here that way, in the 18 years I've been visiting, reading about solutions to *other people's* problems. A fair amount has been from Sanjay.
> 
> He gave you some very good information, in a very concise package, and I wanted to follow up to check and see if other considerations would alter those at all. He's a very smart guy, with a lot of experience. What you describe as a debate, I look at as a conversation. Some of the things he suggested genuinely surprised me, so I inquired further. But some of the things he told you were also an education for me, so I always value his postings here. Nothing I wrote was intended to challenge or criticize him. And if he told me he felt it so, I would offer to apologize for expressing myself poorly.
> 
> [NB: I personally think it's rarely advisable to put a rack of equipment inside an HT, if there's a way to avoid it. Noise and heat being the two primary negatives. Which is why I politely asked for confirmation. Sanjay of course may have a completely different perspective, and I never suggested I was right or he was not. I did point out one place where he said one thing, and later indicated he hadn't. That's a simple matter of fact, and can't possibly be debated.]


I echo your remarks about AVS being a terrific place to learn from. I also echo your remarks about Sanjay's contribution's here. In my last HT, the level of quality I achieved in both sound and image was in no small way due to Sanjay's advice and help. He often has a knack of seeing thing from a perspective I had missed. His knowledge is such that every one of his posts is always worth reading IMO, even if they are addressing problems one does not (currently) have.

I also echo your remarks (there's a lot of echo in this post - maybe it needs some treatments!) about not having the rack inside the HT if at all possible. In my last HT it was in a closet outside the HT itself and this brings numerous benefits with it: no issue from LEDs winking all the time; no heat from amps; no noise from fans; no need to worry what equipment looks like; no speaker placements compromised by the need to consider the rack's own placement; etc.

In the new HT I do have the rack in the rear corner of the HT. It was unavoidable unfortunately for various reasons. There are no (audible) fans in the rack and since my speakers are so sensitive these days, requiring the amps to work so very little, no noticeable heat is generated. I addressed the problem of the numerous LEDs with a pack of Lightdims, which I can heartily recommend. I applied these over each LED and display, sometimes using two Lightdims on one LED, so bright they were. This means there is now zero light pollution from the rack but I can still (just) see that everything is on and working (if all the cinema lights are off, as when watching a film). I'd still prefer it to be outside the cinema, but it isn't currently causing me any problems.


----------



## pasender91

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would imagine the two fixed objects designated as the overhead bed channels of the 7.1.2 theatrical channel bed (Dolby doesn't call it a 9.1 channel bed anymore) would get placed in the Top Middle location of a 7.1.6 configuration if they weren't set during the near-field session with a wide sizing metadata parameter to bleed into the other overhead speakers.


Hi Dan, i asked exactly the same a while back, which i believe is a fair and interesting question.
The only response was an humoristic one ...

I assume the same as you, but assumptions are not as good as verified information 
It is important to know where this overhead bed is going, can someone in the know provide insight ?


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> You suggested placing the PJ on top. How could he do so without moving the rack INTO the room?


Taller cut-out when placing the rack in the wall.


> Cooling fans?


Buy consumer gear that doesn't have cooling fans. More common than not.


> Is the converse also true? I.e., if you really had FH/RH speakers, but told Atmos they were at TF/TR locations, would it then attempt to phantom FH/RH content *outward*?


No, Atmos won't phantom outward, just inward. However, DTS:X will do that, bleeding height info down to the Front & Rear speakers to create phantom FH/RH when the overhead speakers are labeled TF/TR.


> My understanding was that Atmos never moved height-layer content down into the base plane, so I'm not sure how that could be achieved w/o employing the lower-layer speakers. Spectral-dependent temporal delays?


Then the sound would phantom image outward AND downward, which is not where the Atmos FH/RH speakers are. It works for DTS:X because their FH/RH are outward and downward of their TF/TR. Flat height layer vs dome height layer.


> a) of course it will. b) worth making the OP aware of, if he gives up the 'baffle wall' that a flush-mount ceiling install provides.


You feel it is worth making the OP aware about SBIR when it comes to ceiling speakers but not a single word to make him aware of the exact same problem when it comes to the L/C/R speakers? Why all the concern for speakers that will be reproducing the least amount of content while ignoring the speakers that will be reproducing most of the content in the soundtrack?


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> It is important to know where this overhead bed is going, can someone in the know provide insight ?


Bed = channel. A channel should array to all its respective speakers (Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds, Top Surrounds).


----------



## ddgdl

First, to echo what has been said above, this forum is a wonderful place to learn. I've been learning here for many years longer than I've had an account, and I suspect I will always keep learning new things from people like Sanjay and others.



sdurani said:


> You feel it is worth making the OP aware about SBIR when it comes to ceiling speakers but not a single word to make him aware of the exact same problem when it comes to the L/C/R speakers? Why all the concern for speakers that will be reproducing the least amount of content while ignoring the speakers that will be reproducing most of the content in the soundtrack?


Just to address this quickly- I am aware of SBIR. I don't know whether it was cut off of the drawing I took, but the entire front wall will be treated with 1" Linacoustic + 6mil plastic + 1" Linacoustic. But I recognize that probably isn't the point you are trying to make.


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> I am aware of SBIR. I don't know whether it was cut off of the drawing I took, but the entire front wall will be treated with 1" Linacoustic + 6mil plastic + 1" Linacoustic.


The boundary cancellation notch in your situation will end up around 160-220 Hz, depending on how close the speakers are to the front wall. A couple inches of Linacoustic is not going to do a good job of absorbing that. You'd be better off with 4 inches of OC703 or similar:
https://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm


> I recognize that probably isn't the point you are trying to make.


It's not just SBIR. Ever since Atmos showed up, people have suddenly become concerned about things like dispersion and off-axis response when it comes to speakers that will be getting the least use. In one of the AVS podcasts with Scott Wilkinson, home theatre designer Anthony Grimani makes light of these new-found concerns, especially since they rarely (if ever) popped up when discussing speakers that carry the bulk of the soundtrack. My point was that SBIR concerns for ceiling speakers is a low priority and more than compensated for by the ability to aim speakers towards the listeners.


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> The boundary cancellation notch in your situation will end up around 160-220 Hz, depending on how close the speakers are to the front wall. A couple inches of Linacoustic is not going to do a good job of absorbing that. You'd be better off with 4 inches of OC703 or similar:
> https://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm


Thank you. After taking your advice and moving the seating to 5'5" off the rear wall, I cannot move the screen wall out further than 20" and still have sufficient throw for the screen size I am aiming for. My L & R are 15.5" deep, and my front SVS SB13-Ultra, which ideally would be positioned below the center, is 17.4" w x 18.5" d. The SVS means that I can't go over 2" on the front wall, though of course I could move the SVS out from behind the screen to another location. But even if I did that, 4" of 703 would put the L and R almost right up against the 703 (they are rear ported) and right up against the screen.

Perhaps the answer is to shrink the screen width by 2", pull the screen wall out to 22", and put the SVS out in the room instead of behind the wall, in order to fit 4" of 703?


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> Perhaps the answer is to shrink the screen width by 2", pull the screen wall out to 22", and put the SVS out in the room instead of behind the wall, in order to fit 4" of 703?


No need to change any of those things. Speakers radiate low frequencies in almost every direction, reflecting off nearby boundaries. If one of these reflections combines with the direct sound from the speaker such that it is out of phase at a certain frequency, then that will result in a cancellation at that frequency. If you absorb that reflection, then it can't combine with the direct sound to create the cancellation. That reflection isn't the size of your entire front wall. 

If you were sitting in your main listening position looking at your L/R speakers and someone moved a hand mirror between the left & centre speakers, the mirror would eventually land at a spot where you would see the reflection of your left speaker. A piece of absorption at that spot would get rid of the reflection that was going to create the boundary cancellation. Pretty straightforward. If you're using bookshelf speakers up front, then a 2'x2'x4" absorber would be all you needed. For a tower speaker, a taller 2'x4'x4" absorber. To be extra sure, I would cover the space between the L/C/R speakers with the thicker broadband absorption. You can still use your regular Linacoustic sandwich everywhere else (though I'm not sure how broadband their absorption will be). 

The boundary cancellation for your sub will be around 190Hz, way above the crossover point, so no need to worry about it.


----------



## Manoroid

Hey everyone! Possibly answer this question. 

I sit about 10 ft away from these speakers and I can hear the overhead but I hear it up front towards the tv. I experimented buy moving them up in the photo and it feels now like it's over head. I see pictures of systems with atmos add ons and they sit way farther than I do. I'm a doing something wrong. 

I'm using on a 5.1.2 system.









Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Buy consumer gear that doesn't have cooling fans. More common than not.


Indeed. For those who want the value and power of 'pro' amplification, often the fans can be disconnected entirely in a consumer situation as the amps will never be driven to the max for hours on end, as they are designed to be. Some Pro amps (eg Crown IIRC) have fans which only turn on if required, and again, they are rarely required in a domestic situation. I know you know all this, Sanjay, but am just putting it out there because it would be a pity if some were put off the many benefits of Pro amps because they are unduly worried about fan noise. Of course, as we all agree, moving the rack to a closet outside the HT obviates all these issues anyway.




sdurani said:


> Why all the concern for speakers that will be reproducing the least amount of content while ignoring the speakers that will be reproducing most of the content in the soundtrack?


Absolutely. I have watched this growing concern over the entire length of this large thread - people who would just put their main speakers where they would best fit, or where they 'seemed about right', never once measuring an angle, suddenly become paranoid about azimuths and elevations and angular separations and so on. And as you say, for the speakers making the smallest contribution. How this fever gripped us all (I include myself) is anyone's guess. Maybe it was because Atmos represented the biggest step-forward in HT sound for years for most of us, and we were passionate to 'get it right'? I am not advocating a slap-dash approach - but sometimes the level of overthinking just goes too far IMO. At the very least, the same considerations should be given to ALL the speakers as they are for the overhead speakers.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Bed = channel. A channel should array to all its respective speakers (Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds, Top Surrounds).



Unfortunately, there currently is no consumer Atmos renderer that arrays bed channels to multiple Side Surrounds (SS1, SS, SS2) or multiple Rear Surrounds (RS1, RS RS2).


----------



## pasender91

Srudani, Maikeldepotter, the situation is slightly more complex.

The overhead bed is NOT present on the HomeCinema version of the Atmos mix. (7.1.2 bed in Cinema, only 7.1 in HomeCinema)
*What happens at production time is that the 2 overhead channels are CONVERTED into 2 objects that are alive during the whole movie and at a fixed position.*

It means they will be processed as objects, so based on their location and size, they could be rendered by any of the Atmos speakers.
This is why knowing their location and size is key to understand by which speakers they will be rendered in a .2 .4 or .6 configuration.


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> It means they will be processed as objects, so based on their location and size, they could be rendered by any of the Atmos speakers.
> This is why knowing their location and size is key to understand by which speakers they will be rendered in a .2 .4 or .6 configuration.


Dolby defines a "bed object" as _"An object with positional metadata that does not change over time and is described by a pre-defined speaker position."_ This is how theatrical height channels are delivered on home Atmos. Since these objects are tied to speakers, not location, each can array to up to 5 overhead speakers. 

What you're describing above is what Dolby calls a "dynamic object", whose positional metadata can vary over time and is described by x,y,z coordinates. Your description is correct, but those kind of objects are not how the cinema height channels are delivered on home Atmos.


----------



## Ted99

Too true on the use of Professional amps with their fans disconnected. I've used a pair of Pro Carver 250w stereo amps because of their XLR inputs, but disconnected the noisy fans, without any problem whatsoever.


----------



## Sven Gunderson

3 questions in regards to : in ceiling speaker placement 

1- My friend wants to install 4 in ceiling speakers (Focal) 

2- Dolby says the acceptable angle is 65* to 100*

So in case of 4 in ceiling speakers, with his living room layout (see attachm)

put the rear top's against the wall , and aim them the MLP (due to the fact that his couch is against the wall , the angle will not be within Dolby's angle standards


image.png


Question 1: Does he has to mirrow the top fronts , in the matter of angle ?

Or can he put the top fronts a bit further ? See top fronts > red squares (Assuming Audessey will fix distance/latency)



Question 2: the top's need be physically closer than the surround speakers ( ' Cone Format' / having a smaller footprint than the surrounds) 

Is there a guideline for that , in the sense of ratio? (he is asking me for X / Y measurements)

I have asked for input on his suggested blueprint before , but only got 4 answers in regards to using two or four in-ceiling speakers, hence I'm reposting and specifically asking about the placement of the speakers

(Question 3: Am I correct in advising him to purchase aimable in-ceiling speakers ?)

Thanks a lot for any input !

Kind Regards, Sven


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Dolby defines a "bed object" as _"An object with positional metadata that does not change over time and is described by a pre-defined speaker position."_ This is how theatrical height channels are delivered on home Atmos. Since these objects are tied to speakers, not location, each can array to up to 5 overhead speakers.
> 
> What you're describing above is what Dolby calls a "dynamic object", whose positional metadata can vary over time and is described by x,y,z coordinates. Your description is correct, but those kind of objects are not how the cinema height channels are delivered on home Atmos.


All that said, I'm not sure it's safe to assume that the overhead "bed channel" from the cinematic presentation will be arrayed across all the active/present height speakers.

It certainly COULD be how it works, but as Maikel points out, that's NOT how it works for side/back surrounds even on Trinnov AFAIK. If you've actually tested/confirmed this behavior then awesome, but I think people are just looking for a conclusive answer. I certainly assumed that surrounds would be array with a Trinnov, for example, prior to hearing feedback from Stuart that it didn't work that way.

The surround arrays are just an academic point for any non-Trinnov user, but the height array behavior is relevant to nearly any Atmos user.


----------



## Soupy1970

Sven Gunderson said:


> 3 questions in regards to : in ceiling speaker placement
> 
> 1- My friend wants to install 4 in ceiling speakers (Focal)
> 
> 2- Dolby says the acceptable angle is 65* to 100*
> 
> So in case of 4 in ceiling speakers, with his living room layout (see attachm)
> 
> put the rear top's against the wall , and aim them the MLP (due to the fact that his couch is against the wall , the angle will not be within Dolby's angle standards
> 
> 
> image.png
> 
> 
> Question 1: Does he has to mirrow the top fronts , in the matter of angle ?
> 
> 
> 
> Or can he put the top fronts a bit further ? See top fronts > red squares (Assuming Audessey will fix distance/latency)
> 
> 
> 
> Question 2: the top's need be physically closer than the surround speakers ( ' Cone Format' / having a smaller footprint than the surrounds)
> 
> Is there a guideline for that , in the sense of ratio? (he is asking me for X / Y measurements)
> 
> I have asked for input on his suggested blueprint before , but only got 4 answers in regards to using two or four in-ceiling speakers, hence I'm reposting and specifically asking about the placement of the speakers
> 
> (Question 3: Am I correct in advising him to purchase aimable in-ceiling speakers ?)
> 
> Thanks a lot for any input !
> 
> Kind Regards, Sven


Can he moved the couch forward just past the the red squares. Then put side surrounds just before the glass door where the short wall is, and the other on the right wall. Then he has room for rear surrounds, and top rears. This should put his couch about 10 feet from screen which is plenty.


----------



## batpig

Sven Gunderson said:


> 3 questions in regards to : in ceiling speaker placement
> 
> 1- My friend wants to install 4 in ceiling speakers (Focal)
> 
> 2- Dolby says the acceptable angle is 65* to 100*
> 
> So in case of 4 in ceiling speakers, with his living room layout (see attachm)


Sven - a few points:

1. The 65-100 deg angle recommendation is for Top Middle only; when you are doing a 4 ceiling speaker layout, they should be designated as Top Front + Top Rear, so ideally you're shooting more for the +/- 45 deg elevation. The fact that he's sitting further back doesn't really change that, as Atmos is room-centric in how it renders. Think of it like sitting further back in the theater.

2. If at all possible, try to scoot the couch away from the back wall as much as you can.

3. Try to get the Top Rear speakers behind the seating if at all possible. Obviously, with the couch that far back, you won't be able to achieve the same angle rearward as the Top Front speakers (but again think of it like sitting further back). But speakers firing directly down on top of your head can be overbearing given the typical domestic ceiling height. Placing them a bit behind -- even if only 20-30cm -- will sound better and present clearer "above and behind you" imaging. They'll still have good separation from the surrounds which will be much lower elevation in the back corners.

4. Given that the Top Rear will be a bit closer, you can definitely "cheat" the Top Front a bit further forward to maintain angular separation so you hear clear front vs. rear overhead sounds. It will also help close the "gap" to the front soundstage as sounds pan up off screen. So your Top Rear speakers would end up around 100-110 deg elevation (10-20 deg behind) and you can place your Top Front around 35-40 deg elevation (i.e. a bit further forward than 45 degrees) to maintain good spacing.

5. I would NOT get different speakers with different dispersion. Don't overcomplicate this -- use the same speaker at all four spots, all angled / aimable, and aim them in across the listening area.

I adjusted your diagram slightly to illustrate what I'm saying:


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> Too true on the use of Professional amps with their fans disconnected. I've used a pair of Pro Carver 250w stereo amps because of their XLR inputs, but disconnected the noisy fans, without any problem whatsoever.


Yes, in a domestic situation this will almost always be OK. Pro amps are designed for a very hard life, maxed out for hours on end. These conditions are almost never present in a domestic environment, so the fans are superfluous. An alternative, for those who worry about these things, is to replace the noisy original fans with something quieter. It isn't really necessary but it might bring peace of mind to some users.

Since replacing my 86dB sensitive speakers with 99dB sensitive speakers, my amps lope along more or less on 'tickover'. After a boisterous movie with the old speakers, the amps would get slightly hot (tightly stacked in my rack). But with the new speakers the amps barely get warm to the touch. So this is another factor in the mix. I reckon I am getting Reference from less than 32 watts these days. And that's for sustained peaks - usually more like 8 watts are called for.


----------



## kbarnes701

Sven Gunderson said:


> 3 questions in regards to : in ceiling speaker placement
> 
> 1- My friend wants to install 4 in ceiling speakers (Focal)
> 
> 2- Dolby says the acceptable angle is 65* to 100*
> 
> So in case of 4 in ceiling speakers, with his living room layout (see attachm)
> 
> put the rear top's against the wall , and aim them the MLP (due to the fact that his couch is against the wall , the angle will not be within Dolby's angle standards
> 
> 
> image.png
> 
> 
> Question 1: Does he has to mirrow the top fronts , in the matter of angle ?
> 
> Or can he put the top fronts a bit further ? See top fronts > red squares (Assuming Audessey will fix distance/latency)
> 
> 
> 
> Question 2: the top's need be physically closer than the surround speakers ( ' Cone Format' / having a smaller footprint than the surrounds)
> 
> Is there a guideline for that , in the sense of ratio? (he is asking me for X / Y measurements)
> 
> I have asked for input on his suggested blueprint before , but only got 4 answers in regards to using two or four in-ceiling speakers, hence I'm reposting and specifically asking about the placement of the speakers
> 
> (Question 3: Am I correct in advising him to purchase aimable in-ceiling speakers ?)
> 
> Thanks a lot for any input !
> 
> Kind Regards, Sven


Batpig has given you a comprehensive answer. I'd just add that if George moved his seat forward so that his ears were about 1.6m from the rear wall, he'd be sitting at approximately 1/3 of the length of the room. This would have a beneficial effect on the bass. Also, that seating position would put his eyes approximately 3.4m from the screen. You don't give a dimension for the width of the room but it appears to be about 3m, so a 3.4m viewing distance for hosn screen size would be pretty perfect IMO.

If he does that, then as Batpig says, he can use conventional TF+TR speaker layout, and be close enough to Dolby guidelines for location as makes no difference.


----------



## whiskeyjack9

I posted this in the Speaker forum but thought I would try here as well.

I have a current 5.1 system. I can upgrade to a 5.1.2 system. The .2 can not be in ceiling speakers. Would .2 be better as Front Upward firing speakers or Front Height speakers (rear upward and rear height not possible).

What would be the proper placement for each? I can' set the front upward firing speakers on top of my current LR Fronts as they do not have a flat top.

Thanks for any and all replies.


----------



## batpig

whiskeyjack9 said:


> I posted this in the Speaker forum but thought I would try here as well.
> 
> I have a current 5.1 system. I can upgrade to a 5.1.2 system. The .2 can not be in ceiling speakers. Would .2 be better as Front Upward firing speakers or Front Height speakers (rear upward and rear height not possible).
> 
> What would be the proper placement for each? I can' set the front upward firing speakers on top of my current LR Fronts as they do not have a flat top.
> 
> Thanks for any and all replies.


Physical height speakers are superior to fake height speakers. Especially if you have only 2, where the virtual bounce heights will struggle harder to create a convincing sense of overhead envelopment.

Can you post a diagram and/or photos of the room so we can visualize? The "proper placement" for the two heights would be as high as you can get them (in terms of elevation angle) so there is separation from the lower level speakers and a clear sensation of "over your head" effects.

If you can't do in-ceiling, an option you may not have considered is high up on the side walls firing down and across the listening area. The issue with "Front Height" speakers for most people in typical domestic sized rooms is that it's hard to mount high enough on the front wall to get that real sense of overhead action. This method places the speakers at a much higher effective elevation angle.


----------



## alextr75

Hi, a quick question regarding surround speakers height.

I will be setting up a 7.1.4 setup soon in 17x20x8 room, with Q100 for the 7 bed channels, and 4 on-ceiling speakers (Focal Sibs). My side surrounds will be placed slightly ahead of MLP (about 80 degrees), but they will also have to be placed higher than MLP, due to fireplace on one side, and door on another. So they will likely end up maybe about 1.5 foot or so higher than MLP.

I still wonder whether I should place the rear surrounds as same height as side surrounds, or should I place them same height as fronts / MLP.

One reason I am not so sure about this is because while Atmos recommends ear height, the non-atmos 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks are designed for having the surrounds higher up.

I am not sure whether these days there are more movies with Atmos vs without, I would guess the later. If so then, would not having the 7 speakers at ear height have an adverse effect on the intended experience for those soundtracks ? That is why I wonder if I should also slightly raise the rears for a somewhat compromised setup.

How are people dealing with this? If your speakers are at ear height, how do you find regular 5.1. or 7.1 movies sound like ?


----------



## jeesus1888

Sorry for interrupting, but does this setup will work 7.1.2 also ok ?
I cannot put lower Left and Right Surround Speakers. 
2 speakers will be on ceiling


----------



## Sven Gunderson

kbarnes701 said:


> Batpig has given you a comprehensive answer. I'd just add that if George moved his seat forward so that his ears were about 1.6m from the rear wall, he'd be sitting at approximately 1/3 of the length of the room. This would have a beneficial effect on the bass. Also, that seating position would put his eyes approximately 3.4m from the screen. You don't give a dimension for the width of the room but it appears to be about 3m, so a 3.4m viewing distance for hosn screen size would be pretty perfect IMO.
> 
> If he does that, then as Batpig says, he can use conventional TF+TR speaker layout, and be close enough to Dolby guidelines for location as makes no difference.


Thanks ! Will pass the info along 

KR, Sven


----------



## Sven Gunderson

batpig said:


> Sven - a few points:
> 
> 1. The 65-100 deg angle recommendation is for Top Middle only; when you are doing a 4 ceiling speaker layout, they should be designated as Top Front + Top Rear, so ideally you're shooting more for the +/- 45 deg elevation. The fact that he's sitting further back doesn't really change that, as Atmos is room-centric in how it renders. Think of it like sitting further back in the theater.
> 
> 2. If at all possible, try to scoot the couch away from the back wall as much as you can.
> 
> 3. Try to get the Top Rear speakers behind the seating if at all possible. Obviously, with the couch that far back, you won't be able to achieve the same angle rearward as the Top Front speakers (but again think of it like sitting further back). But speakers firing directly down on top of your head can be overbearing given the typical domestic ceiling height. Placing them a bit behind -- even if only 20-30cm -- will sound better and present clearer "above and behind you" imaging. They'll still have good separation from the surrounds which will be much lower elevation in the back corners.
> 
> 4. Given that the Top Rear will be a bit closer, you can definitely "cheat" the Top Front a bit further forward to maintain angular separation so you hear clear front vs. rear overhead sounds. It will also help close the "gap" to the front soundstage as sounds pan up off screen. So your Top Rear speakers would end up around 100-110 deg elevation (10-20 deg behind) and you can place your Top Front around 35-40 deg elevation (i.e. a bit further forward than 45 degrees) to maintain good spacing.
> 
> 5. I would NOT get different speakers with different dispersion. Don't overcomplicate this -- use the same speaker at all four spots, all angled / aimable, and aim them in across the listening area.
> 
> I adjusted your diagram slightly to illustrate what I'm saying:


Thanks a bunch, for your comprehensive answers(s) !

KR, Sven


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> All that said, I'm not sure it's safe to assume that the overhead "bed channel" from the cinematic presentation will be arrayed across all the active/present height speakers.
> 
> It certainly COULD be how it works, but as Maikel points out, that's NOT how it works for side/back surrounds even on Trinnov AFAIK. If you've actually tested/confirmed this behavior then awesome, but I think people are just looking for a conclusive answer. I certainly assumed that surrounds would be array with a Trinnov, for example, prior to hearing feedback from Stuart that it didn't work that way.
> 
> The surround arrays are just an academic point for any non-Trinnov user, but the height array behavior is relevant to nearly any Atmos user.


So the question is whether those 2 cinematic overhead bed objects even exist in consumer version of Atmos. It could be that in the transition from the cinematic soundtrack to the home version, those static overhead bed objects are translated into dynamic objects with a fixed size and location. For this to verify conclusively, one should know of a soundtrack/scene in which overhead bed channels were used in the cinematic version, and that also has consumer version with which the overhead behavior can be checked on an Altitude. Zapping through the Mad Max FR disk, I could not find one example where all of the 5 overhead pairs were receiving the same or similar appearing signal. In cases where music was playing through the overheads it was mostly the TM and TF pair being active, highest levels mostly in the TM pair. Sometimes also the TR pair was included but at significantly lower level, and the FH and RH were not receiving any signal during those scenes. So either the re-recording engineer did not use the overhead bed channels in his mix, or consumer Atmos does not have such overhead bed channels, and they end up being reproduced by only a portion of the overhead speakers ....


----------



## Sven Gunderson

jeesus1888 said:


> Sorry for interrupting, but does this setup will work 7.1.2 also ok ?
> I cannot put lower Left and Right Surround Speakers.
> 2 speakers will be on ceiling


This is not 7.1.2, it's 5.1.2...

I have two Front Height speakers on the front Wall and my two rear heights , are as on your picture , on the sides , works like a charm 

In my previous house I had them regularly , but do to a having none-rectangular room , the sound wasn't so get as it is now

But I don't have any experience with 5.1.2 , could be that there is avlid argument to have them always from : front-height , or top-middle (in-ceiling)


----------



## jeesus1888

Thanks for that info.
Im waiting now new tv, after that new receiver and then i will buy side speakers. 
Not so many speakers to putt on wall, i think i will go with SVS Prime Elevation.

E:

My setup will be 7.1.2 
2 speakers will put to the ceiling


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> So either the re-recording engineer did not use the overhead bed channels in his mix, or consumer Atmos does not have such overhead bed channels, and they end up being reproduced by only a portion of the overhead speakers ....


Height channels are optional for theatrical Atmos, so it is usually objects up there, which means it might be difficult finding a soundtrack to test how theatrical height channels are translated to home. Even the first Atmos release on Blu-ray (Transformers 4) had no height channels, just objects overhead.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that said, I'm not sure it's safe to assume that the overhead "bed channel" from the cinematic presentation will be arrayed across all the active/present height speakers.
> 
> It certainly COULD be how it works, but as Maikel points out, that's NOT how it works for side/back surrounds even on Trinnov AFAIK. If you've actually tested/confirmed this behavior then awesome, but I think people are just looking for a conclusive answer. I certainly assumed that surrounds would be array with a Trinnov, for example, prior to hearing feedback from Stuart that it didn't work that way.
> 
> The surround arrays are just an academic point for any non-Trinnov user, but the height array behavior is relevant to nearly any Atmos user.
> 
> 
> 
> So the question is whether those 2 cinematic overhead bed objects even exist in consumer version of Atmos. It could be that in the transition from the cinematic soundtrack to the home version, those static overhead bed objects are translated into dynamic objects with a fixed size and location. For this to verify conclusively, one should know of a soundtrack/scene in which overhead bed channels were used in the cinematic version, and that also has consumer version with which the overhead behavior can be checked on an Altitude. Zapping through the Mad Max FR disk, I could not find one example where all of the 5 overhead pairs were receiving the same or similar appearing signal. In cases where music was playing through the overheads it was mostly the TM and TF pair being active, highest levels mostly in the TM pair. Sometimes also the TR pair was included but at significantly lower level, and the FH and RH were not receiving any signal during those scenes. So either the re-recording engineer did not use the overhead bed channels in his mix, or consumer Atmos does not have such overhead bed channels, and they end up being reproduced by only a portion of the overhead speakers ....
Click to expand...

On a separate note, even though the Trinnov does not have the ability to array the surround channel beds of a home Atmos mix, it does not mean it's not possible... just that Dolby has failed to provide the proper coding to Trinnov for some reason.

Dolby's commercial Atmos processor can in fact array bed surround channels when decoding a consumer Atmos track.

As to why a re-recording mixer would forget to set the sizing of a stereo pair of fixed overhead objects (acting as stand-ins for the overhead channel beds) to array properly...

It could be because an awful lot of home theater Atmos post mixing bays only utilize four overheads and the mixers sometimes overlook that consumer Atmos goes to 24.1.10 not just 7.1.4. Often times they're only monitoring the near-field version on 7.1.4 systems, which is a mistake IMHO.

At least that's my layman's assumption as to the use of overhead beds in a consumer mix.


----------



## batpig

I hesitate to "ASS-U-ME" about what the pros are doing or thinking about, but I also wonder if the fact (is it a fact?) that they are monitoring the mixes on 7.1.4 speaker layouts is also the reason for the paucity of content in the Front Wide speakers. 

You would think that the wides would still light up with pans (e.g. a spaceship sweeping from the screen channels to the rear of the room) but since getting the X8500H and running 9.1.4, I've found this often isn't the case. Situations where it seems that the wides would be active even if the mixer didn't do it "on purpose" just because a sound transitions from screen channels to surrounds end up with zero sound there.

Side note -- I mentioned this in other threads, but since I'm talking about it here, I'll note that "Spider-Man Homecoming" is among the best Atmos mixes I've heard to date, the wides are nearly *constantly* active with music, ambient effects, objects panning through, etc. Unfortunately the mix is only on the 4K UHD disc, but it's the absolute epitome of what Atmos should be -- the individual speaker activity isn't obvious from the listening position, but when you stick your ear up to the speakers they are all working and creating a cohesive bubble of sound. Plus, the movie is tons of fun! Highly recommended especially for people with 9ch ear level layers who want to hear what a mix that fully utilizes the wides sounds like!


----------



## whiskeyjack9

batpig said:


> Physical height speakers are superior to fake height speakers. Especially if you have only 2, where the virtual bounce heights will struggle harder to create a convincing sense of overhead envelopment.
> 
> Can you post a diagram and/or photos of the room so we can visualize? The "proper placement" for the two heights would be as high as you can get them (in terms of elevation angle) so there is separation from the lower level speakers and a clear sensation of "over your head" effects.
> 
> If you can't do in-ceiling, an option you may not have considered is high up on the side walls firing down and across the listening area. The issue with "Front Height" speakers for most people in typical domestic sized rooms is that it's hard to mount high enough on the front wall to get that real sense of overhead action. This method places the speakers at a much higher effective elevation angle.


Thank you for your reply. My room configuration is very close to the diagram you posted (except for Speaker placement). My rear surrounds in my 5.1 set up are placed on the side just a few feet behind the MLP. The top of the rear surrounds is at the ceiling level. My ceiling is 9 foot tall. I had to place them here because the room extends about another 20 feet behind the MLP.

Since my rear surrounds are already side mounted I think placing two more on the sides might not be the best placement for acoustic and aesthetic reasons.

If I do place Front Heights as high as I can (which would be putting the top of the speakers up against the 9 foot ceiling), should they be in Line with the Main LR speakers and angled down toward the MLP or otherwise?

Thanks again for any and all replies.


----------



## batpig

If your surrounds are already 9 feet up, you're starting with a very compromised layout for Atmos. 

Regardless of what you do, the speakers should be angled towards the MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

alextr75 said:


> Hi, a quick question regarding surround speakers height.
> 
> I will be setting up a 7.1.4 setup soon in 17x20x8 room, with Q100 for the 7 bed channels, and 4 on-ceiling speakers (Focal Sibs). My side surrounds will be placed slightly ahead of MLP (about 80 degrees), but they will also have to be placed higher than MLP, due to fireplace on one side, and door on another. So they will likely end up maybe about 1.5 foot or so higher than MLP.
> 
> I still wonder whether I should place the rear surrounds as same height as side surrounds, or should I place them same height as fronts / MLP.
> 
> One reason I am not so sure about this is because while Atmos recommends ear height, the non-atmos 5.1 or 7.1 soundtracks are designed for having the surrounds higher up.
> 
> I am not sure whether these days there are more movies with Atmos vs without, I would guess the later. If so then, would not having the 7 speakers at ear height have an adverse effect on the intended experience for those soundtracks ? That is why I wonder if I should also slightly raise the rears for a somewhat compromised setup.
> 
> How are people dealing with this? If your speakers are at ear height, how do you find regular 5.1. or 7.1 movies sound like ?


I think the first consideration is a common-sense one. If you mount the surrounds at ear height, will everyone in the HT have 'line of sight' to them, or will some members of the audience block the sound to other members? If this is the case, then go higher so that the problem resolves itself. But only as high as needed to fix this issue. In the old days of non-immersive audio, we tended to mount our surrounds up high so that we could get some sort of impression of sound above us as well as around us. Now we have physical speakers on the ceiling, this isn't required any more.

Also, bringing the surrounds down towards ear level (note, towards, not to) increases the separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers, and this will heighten (NPI) the sense of sounds above us as well as sounds around us. In my HT my surrounds are just enough above ear level to give everyone line of sight and this works just fine.

I would position all the surrounds at the same height if I were you. You do not want a sound which pans all around the surrounds to be going 'up and down' as it traverses the different sets of surround speakers. This is especially important for Atmos movies, since in those, sounds can be placed anywhere in three dimensions and some sounds will be at ear level, some way up high and some in between.

Wherever you end up putting your surrounds, be sure to bear in mind that you need a good degree of separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers to give you the best 'Atmos effect'. In your room, I'd expect you will get a very good Atmos experience - enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

whiskeyjack9 said:


> Thank you for your reply. My room configuration is very close to the diagram you posted (except for Speaker placement). My rear surrounds in my 5.1 set up are placed on the side just a few feet behind the MLP. The top of the rear surrounds is at the ceiling level. My ceiling is 9 foot tall. I had to place them here because the room extends about another 20 feet behind the MLP.
> 
> Since my rear surrounds are already side mounted I think placing two more on the sides might not be the best placement for acoustic and aesthetic reasons.
> 
> If I do place Front Heights as high as I can (which would be putting the top of the speakers up against the 9 foot ceiling), should they be in Line with the Main LR speakers and angled down toward the MLP or otherwise?
> 
> Thanks again for any and all replies.


Is there really no way you can bring those surrounds down lower than 9 feet (the height of the ceiling)? If you can't, then I wonder if it is worthwhile to go for an Atmos setup at all. If your Atmos speakers and your surround speakers are all at the same height, it will be impossible to distinguish between sounds around you and sounds above you. This more or less defeats the purpose of Atmos and you may be better off just enjoying the best 5.1 sound you can in this particular room.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> I hesitate to "ASS-U-ME" about what the pros are doing or thinking about, but I also wonder if the fact (is it a fact?) that they are monitoring the mixes on 7.1.4 speaker layouts is also the reason for the paucity of content in the Front Wide speakers.
> 
> You would think that the wides would still light up with pans (e.g. a spaceship sweeping from the screen channels to the rear of the room) but since getting the X8500H and running 9.1.4, I've found this often isn't the case. Situations where it seems that the wides would be active even if the mixer didn't do it "on purpose" just because a sound transitions from screen channels to surrounds end up with zero sound there.
> 
> Side note -- I mentioned this in other threads, but since I'm talking about it here, I'll note that "Spider-Man Homecoming" is among the best Atmos mixes I've heard to date, the wides are nearly *constantly* active with music, ambient effects, objects panning through, etc. Unfortunately the mix is only on the 4K UHD disc, but it's the absolute epitome of what Atmos should be -- the individual speaker activity isn't obvious from the listening position, but when you stick your ear up to the speakers they are all working and creating a cohesive bubble of sound. Plus, the movie is tons of fun! Highly recommended especially for people with 9ch ear level layers who want to hear what a mix that fully utilizes the wides sounds like!


I would actually believe that most home mixes are created utilizing Pro Tools' Dolby Atmos Production Suite since the price of admission to Atmos is a lot cheaper where if you have a powerful enough computer you can monitor up to 22 speaker layouts without an expensive external Atmos RMU box.

Some mixers may be using the option of speaker zoning rather than per speaker object panning and tracking automation... again, because many are using 7.1.4 speaker suites and not a larger set up that has arrays of overhead, side, and rear wall surrounds.

That would strip off much of the theatrical metadata instructions to objects if translating from a cinema to home mix or if creating a strictly home based mix from scratch (if a movie or TV show never had an Atmos mix to begin with).

It's a complicated piece of software and probably only the most skilled engineers would know how to configure the Pro Tools Suite for optimal results.


----------



## sdrucker

maikeldepotter said:


> So the question is whether those 2 cinematic overhead bed objects even exist in consumer version of Atmos. It could be that in the transition from the cinematic soundtrack to the home version, those static overhead bed objects are translated into dynamic objects with a fixed size and location. For this to verify conclusively, one should know of a soundtrack/scene in which overhead bed channels were used in the cinematic version, and that also has consumer version with which the overhead behavior can be checked on an Altitude. Zapping through the Mad Max FR disk, I could not find one example where all of the 5 overhead pairs were receiving the same or similar appearing signal. In cases where music was playing through the overheads it was mostly the TM and TF pair being active, highest levels mostly in the TM pair. Sometimes also the TR pair was included but at significantly lower level, and the FH and RH were not receiving any signal during those scenes. So either the re-recording engineer did not use the overhead bed channels in his mix, or consumer Atmos does not have such overhead bed channels, and they end up being reproduced by only a portion of the overhead speakers ....


To your point, can you point to any Atmos mixes where FH and TF speakers are both receiving content simultaneously that wasn’t identical for all audible purposes? That is, object panning between those speakers (or from an associated floor speaker below) in a .8 or .10 height setup?


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would actually believe that most home mixes are created utilizing Pro Tools' Dolby Atmos Production Suite since the price of admission to Atmos is a lot cheaper where if you have a powerful enough computer you can monitor up to 22 speaker layouts without an expensive external Atmos RMU box.
> 
> Some mixers may be using the option of speaker zoning rather than per speaker object panning and tracking automation... again, because many are using 7.1.4 speaker suites and not a larger set up that has arrays of overhead, side, and rear wall surrounds.
> 
> That would strip off much of the theatrical metadata instructions to objects if translating from a cinema to home mix or if creating a strictly home based mix from scratch (if a movie or TV show never had an Atmos mix to begin with).
> 
> It's a complicated piece of software and probably only the most skilled engineers would know how to configure the Pro Tools Suite for optimal results.


 @FilmMixer has repeatedly stated that mixers don’t mix to speaker layouts, but rather assign dynamic objects using XYZ coordinates in the metadata (and I ass-u-me level front and rear heights in using the static height stereo pair) following their personal preferences. The 7.1.4, 9.1.6, etc. is supposedly only relevant to monitoring, not placement for Atmos rendering per se. I could see how this can drive circular reasoning - you place objects where you can hear them, and use or don’t use dynamic objects accordingly - but this gets into the art of how mixes are converted from cinema to home Atmos, at a minimum.


----------



## alextr75

kbarnes701 said:


> I think the first consideration is a common-sense one. If you mount the surrounds at ear height, will everyone in the HT have 'line of sight' to them, or will some members of the audience block the sound to other members? If this is the case, then go higher so that the problem resolves itself. But only as high as needed to fix this issue. In the old days of non-immersive audio, we tended to mount our surrounds up high so that we could get some sort of impression of sound above us as well as around us. Now we have physical speakers on the ceiling, this isn't required any more.
> 
> Also, bringing the surrounds down towards ear level (note, towards, not to) increases the separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers, and this will heighten (NPI) the sense of sounds above us as well as sounds around us. In my HT my surrounds are just enough above ear level to give everyone line of sight and this works just fine.
> 
> I would position all the surrounds at the same height if I were you. You do not want a sound which pans all around the surrounds to be going 'up and down' as it traverses the different sets of surround speakers. This is especially important for Atmos movies, since in those, sounds can be placed anywhere in three dimensions and some sounds will be at ear level, some way up high and some in between.
> 
> Wherever you end up putting your surrounds, be sure to bear in mind that you need a good degree of separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers to give you the best 'Atmos effect'. In your room, I'd expect you will get a very good Atmos experience - enjoy!




Thanks for all the detailed information. In my case it would only be one row of seats (possibly a three-seater), so no problems with line of sight towards rear surrounds.

But placing the side surrounds at ear height might be a challenge. I have a double door on the right side wall, albeit I could place it on a stand against the panel of the door that does not get that much use and is usually closed. So it is definitely a possibility but requires an extra speaker stand and manually moving it every time that double door does indeed need to be fully opened. If I was to place them mounted on the wall ahead of the door, then I have a fireplace on the opposing wall which then requires raising the height, isn't that fun  I have to either way find accept some compromise for the side surrounds.

But I am not sure if I got the point of my question across too well, I am aware for Atmos it is best to have everything at same and ear height, and allows for best separation from overheads.

And while this will work really good when watching Atmos movies, my main concern would be though, is that if in majority of cases we are watching movies that do not have Atmos sound track, we are now all of a sudden finding ourselves in a spot where we are watching a 7.1 movie, using only 7 speakers, but due to our Atmos setup, these speakers are now all of at ear height, where for these movies and sound tracks it was recommended to have these speakers higher ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would actually believe that most home mixes are created utilizing Pro Tools' Dolby Atmos Production Suite since the price of admission to Atmos is a lot cheaper where if you have a powerful enough computer you can monitor up to 22 speaker layouts without an expensive external Atmos RMU box.
> 
> Some mixers may be using the option of speaker zoning rather than per speaker object panning and tracking automation... again, because many are using 7.1.4 speaker suites and not a larger set up that has arrays of overhead, side, and rear wall surrounds.
> 
> That would strip off much of the theatrical metadata instructions to objects if translating from a cinema to home mix or if creating a strictly home based mix from scratch (if a movie or TV show never had an Atmos mix to begin with).
> 
> It's a complicated piece of software and probably only the most skilled engineers would know how to configure the Pro Tools Suite for optimal results.
> 
> 
> 
> @FilmMixer has repeatedly stated that mixers don’t mix to speaker layouts, but rather assign dynamic objects using XYZ coordinates in the metadata (and I ass-u-me level front and rear heights in using the static height stereo pair) following their personal preferences. The 7.1.4, 9.1.6, etc. is supposedly only relevant to monitoring, not placement for Atmos rendering per se. I could see how this can drive circular reasoning - you place objects where you can hear them, and use or don’t use dynamic objects accordingly - but this gets into the art of how mixes are converted from cinema to home Atmos, at a minimum.
Click to expand...

That could be, but I'm also going by what I read in the Atmos plug-in manual and what I saw at NAB last year.


----------



## kbarnes701

alextr75 said:


> Thanks for all the detailed information. In my case it would only be one row of seats (possibly a three-seater), so no problems with line of sight towards rear surrounds.


You're welcome! OK, so that's one issue out of the way 



alextr75 said:


> But placing the side surrounds at ear height might be a challenge. I have a double door on the right side wall, albeit I could place it on a stand against the panel of the door that does not get that much use and is usually closed. So it is definitely a possibility but requires an extra speaker stand and manually moving it every time that double door does indeed need to be fully opened. If I was to place them mounted on the wall ahead of the door, then I have a fireplace on the opposing wall which then requires raising the height, isn't that fun  I have to either way find accept some compromise for the side surrounds.


OK - compromise is normal for HT  In my old HT I had a double door in the way as well. I solved it by mounting the speaker onto the door itself. However, this maybe be a step too far for your wife/partner/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other . Would mounting it on a stand and moving it when the other door of the pair needed to be opened, be a problem? TBH I wouldn't sweat it too much so long as the surrounds don't go up to approaching the ceiling. You do need separation between surrounds and overheads, so get as much as is possible in your circumstances. 



alextr75 said:


> But I am not sure if I got the point of my question across too well, I am aware for Atmos it is best to have everything at same and ear height, and allows for best separation from overheads.
> 
> And while this will work really good when watching Atmos movies, my main concern would be though, is that if in majority of cases we are watching movies that do not have Atmos sound track, we are now all of a sudden finding ourselves in a spot where we are watching a 7.1 movie, using only 7 speakers, but due to our Atmos setup, these speakers are now all of at ear height, where for these movies and sound tracks it was recommended to have these speakers higher ?


Well, a speaker can't be in two places at once, so at some point you have to make a decision as to which is best. Personally, I'd shoot for my surrounds to be a little above ear height. This should work well for 5.1/7.1 and also for Atmos. Will you be intending to upmix 7.1 to the ceiling speakers (using Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) or DTS:Neural X)? If so, then you will be basically using your ceiling speakers all the time, so this would point to the surrounds being at, or just above, ear height. 

In my HT, my surrounds are just above ear height (to give line of sight to everyone) and I often watch 5.1 or 7.1 movies these days in their 'native' formats (without upmixing) and I can't say I have heard any issues with having the surrounds at just above ear height, all the same height, when I watch a 7.1 movie. This layout also serves me very well for Atmos and DTS:X movies too, so if it i a compromise, it's one that works well.


----------



## alextr75

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, a speaker can't be in two places at once, so at some point you have to make a decision as to which is best. Personally, I'd shoot for my surrounds to be a little above ear height. This should work well for 5.1/7.1 and also for Atmos. Will you be intending to upmix 7.1 to the ceiling speakers (using Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) or DTS:Neural X)? If so, then you will be basically using your ceiling speakers all the time, so this would point to the surrounds being at, or just above, ear height.


I am not sure about this yet, as I have not tried one. Originally I was thinking I will probably like the effect and have it on all the time, but read a lot recently about opposing views and opinions, and other often find they prefer the original track played as intended, and that upmixing often sometimes blurs some of the channels, or in general has an adverse effect. So I am thinking I will try both, but I would bet I would end up watching them in native format, just because I am an OCD like that sometimes.



kbarnes701 said:


> In my HT, my surrounds are just above ear height (to give line of sight to everyone) and I often watch 5.1 or 7.1 movies these days in their 'native' formats (without upmixing) and I can't say I have heard any issues with having the surrounds at just above ear height, all the same height, when I watch a 7.1 movie. This layout also serves me very well for Atmos and DTS:X movies too, so if it i a compromise, it's one that works well.


How much above ear hear height is that ? A foot, less ? In my case putting it over the fire place I would think would likely be about 18" higher than MLP, though I would have to measure once at home for a more accurate number. I am not sure about your height ceiling either, maybe it is higher still allowing you to get a good separation with overheads.

I may be able to place the side surrounds on a stand, especially if the only other option I present to my "significant other" is mounting on the door itself  But at this point even if so, I still wonder if I should raise them a bit, just so I get a happy medium for both Atmos and original 7.1 soundtracks. Just not sure how much is enough or too much yet.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> That could be, but I'm also going by what I read in the Atmos plug-in manual and what I saw at NAB last year.


You might find this interesting from the Trinnov thread (my answer and the post immediately above it from FM):
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...516103-trinnov-altitude-136.html#post55820072


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That could be, but I'm also going by what I read in the Atmos plug-in manual and what I saw at NAB last year.
> 
> 
> 
> You might this interesting from the Trinnov thread (my answer and the post immediately above it from FM):
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...516103-trinnov-altitude-136.html#post55820072
Click to expand...

According to the latest version of the Atmos Pro Tools plug-in, the built in software RMU I/O can let you monitor 22 speaker locations. I guess you use daughter card interfaces with Pro Tools compatible digital converters to listen to those mixes.

Regardless of how Filmmixer makes an Atmos track, there are multiple ways of configuring object behavior in the software; some more "theatrical" than others. That could be one reason some home mixes are better than others and engage more of the speakers when an object movement is recorded for a particular Atmos session.


----------



## kbarnes701

alextr75 said:


> I am not sure about this yet, as I have not tried one. Originally I was thinking I will probably like the effect and have it on all the time, but read a lot recently about opposing views and opinions, and other often find they prefer the original track played as intended, and that upmixing often sometimes blurs some of the channels, or in general has an adverse effect. So I am thinking I will try both, but I would bet I would end up watching them in native format, just because I am an OCD like that sometimes.


It's a definite possibility you may prefer the native format. Upmixing is a very personal thing IMO, with some loving it and some hating it. Do you regularly upmix 5.1 to 7.1? If so, then you may feel the same about using DSU or Neural X. These days I do it on a movie by movie basis. Some movies upmix superbly, almost as if the upmixer really knows what sounds to put up there on the ceiling. Other movies, less so, with some distracting stuff put there. Overall I like DSU and it gets it right a heck of a lot of the time. I find Neural X is good for demoing to others, but is too 'in your face' (aggressive) for regular use.




alextr75 said:


> How much above ear hear height is that ? A foot, less ? In my case putting it over the fire place I would think would likely be about 18" higher than MLP, though I would have to measure once at home for a more accurate number. I am not sure about your height ceiling either, maybe it is higher still allowing you to get a good separation with overheads.


Yes my ceiling is very high (you can see it if you click my HT Build thread in my sig, if you wish) so I have more latitude to put my surrounds up a but. HST, I doubt if 18 inches above ears would ruin the Atmos effect. It's more about angular separation than height difference as such, so it will also depend on the angular relationship between your surrounds and the overheads. If you can get plenty of angular separation with the surrounds 18 inches above ears, I think you will be good to go.



alextr75 said:


> I may be able to place the side surrounds on a stand, especially if the only other option I present to my "significant other" is mounting on the door itself  But at this point even if so, I still wonder if I should raise them a bit, just so I get a happy medium for both Atmos and original 7.1 soundtracks. Just not sure how much is enough or too much yet.


Certainly raising them a bit won't harm Atmos. A sure-fire way to get approval for the stands from your SO is to say "I am thinking of mounting a speaker on the door". After the "You have to be ****ing kidding" conversation has taken place, then you quietly say, "Well I suppose I could use a small stand instead...". Guaranteed to work or I'll refund your money


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> According to the latest version of the Atmos Pro Tools plug-in, the built in software RMU I/O can let you monitor 22 speaker locations. I guess you use daughter card interfaces with Pro Tools compatible digital converters to listen to those mixes.
> 
> Regardless of how Filmmixer makes an Atmos track, there are multiple ways of configuring object behavior in the software; some more "theatrical" than others. That could be one reason some home mixes are better than others and engage more of the speakers when an object movement is recorded for a particular Atmos session.


For the truly curious:
https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/ho...by-atmos-production-suite-and-mastering-suite


I wonder if there's any technical forums that are publicly readable which get into these issues with mix decisions WRT using objects with Atmos beyond what FM has posted on this thread.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> For the truly curious:
> https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/ho...by-atmos-production-suite-and-mastering-suite
> 
> 
> I wonder if there's any technical forums that are publicly readable which get into these issues with mix decisions WRT using objects with Atmos beyond what FM has posted on this thread.


There are at least a couple pro audio forums out there that get into the weeds. 

Here's a basic overview manual of the Pro Tools Dolby Atmos Production Suite:

http://developerdownload.dolby.com/docs/Dolby_Atmos_Production_Suite_guide.pdf

Note that it now includes built-in playback rendering and monitoring for 22 channels without an RMU unit licensed and built from Dolby's particular turn-key partners.

The cost of mixing in Atmos has definitely dropped, though you still have to have separate Dolby Mastering suite in order to take the rendered Atmos file and turn it into a usable Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus track for Blu-ray or streaming. That can still be very pricey. You seemingly still have to rent or lease a Dolby cinema RMU device to create a cinema DCP Atmos track plus have your dubbing stage certified by Dolby. 

The Production Suite and Mastering Suite plus standard Pro Tools HD and their interface hardware along with speakers/subs/amps is all you need for in-house consumer Atmos track creation. About $10,000

I just wish they would build-in Dolby TrueHD encoding of the final Atmos file to the Production Suite without needing separate software since it seems to be geared toward home theater and VR production more than anything anyway. And create a PC version of the plug-in.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> According to the latest version of the Atmos Pro Tools plug-in, the built in software RMU I/O can let you monitor 22 speaker locations. I guess you use daughter card interfaces with Pro Tools compatible digital converters to listen to those mixes.
> 
> Regardless of how Filmmixer makes an Atmos track, there are multiple ways of configuring object behavior in the software; some more "theatrical" than others. That could be one reason some home mixes are better than others and engage more of the speakers when an object movement is recorded for a particular Atmos session.


What exactly are you referring to? And I saw your earlier comment about losing “theatrical metadata....”

What are you referring to when you say object behavior?

I haven’t been in a room yet designed for mixing, not designing or mastering, in Atmos that doesn’t have an RMU in it... and for the last couple of years RMU’s have been able to be dual booted in both “theatrical” and “home theater modes,” the later of which allows you to monitor spacial coding payback of an Atmos mix. 

And there is no software RMU built in (and it’s not really referred to a software “RMU”...). Pro Tools now includes built in planners which can either feed an RMU or a local renderer. 

An RMU is almost always needed because you must also must print object renders (taking the objects and mixing them down to 7.1 channels for each stem....) these can then be used to derive other deliverables and also useful to use for Auro, etc.

As I’ve mentioned before the Dolby software products are designed for design and editing rooms, not for mixing. You can certainly use it to mix or up mix legacy tracks, etc... but I haven’t been onto a mix stage (large or small) that uses it for that purpose.... especially because the mixing workflow usually requires a second pro tools to be used as a recorder.... most of the pro tools recorders are now 128 channel dual MADI systems. 

I haven’t exactly followed what you and Stewart are discussing... but I think there seems to be a lot of focus on the mixing tools, and techniques, that really don’t factor into how the format is implemented in the home..... maybe you can give me some areas and questions for which you need clarity.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> What exactly are you referring to? And I saw your earlier comment about losing “theatrical metadata....”
> 
> What are you referring to when you say object behavior?
> 
> I haven’t been in a room yet designed for mixing, not designing or mastering, in Atmos that doesn’t have an RMU in it... and for the last couple of years RMU’s have been able to be dual booted in both “theatrical” and “home theater modes,” the later of which allows you to monitor spacial coding payback of an Atmos mix.
> 
> And there is no software RMU built in (and it’s not really referred to a software “RMU”...). Pro Tools now includes built in planners which can either feed an RMU or a local renderer.
> 
> An RMU is almost always needed because you must also must print object renders (taking the objects and mixing them down to 7.1 channels for each stem....) these can then be used to derive other deliverables and also useful to use for Auro, etc.
> 
> As I’ve mentioned before the Dolby software products are designed for design and editing rooms, not for mixing. You can certainly use it to mix or up mix legacy tracks, etc... but I haven’t been onto a mix stage (large or small) that uses it for that purpose.... especially because the mixing workflow usually requires a second pro tools to be used as a recorder.... most of the pro tools recorders are now 128 channel dual MADI systems.
> 
> I haven’t exactly followed what you and Stewart are discussing... but I think there seems to be a lot of focus on the mixing tools, and techniques, that really don’t factor into how the format is implemented in the home..... maybe you can give me some areas and questions for which you need clarity.


Maybe I'm misreading the manual I linked to above, but it looked like you could create an Atmos mix from within the $299 Production Suite and monitor the finished mix using the Rendering software plug-in as part of the Pro Tools Atmos suite and output to a maximum of 22 speakers for monitoring without needing a hardware RMU (home theater or cinema unit) with a solid stand-alone computer. Though, you then had to use the Mastering Suite turn-key package to convert the recorded file to a usable Blu-ray, streaming, or VR compatible track... the catch. The whole bundle of Dell Mastering computer, Production and Mastering Suites, and IO cards was about $10,000. Not including PT HD and standard digital I/O hardware from Avid or third-party vendors. 

It looked like you had various ways of grouping speakers into "zones" in each Atmos file session setup and object panning depending on what type of Atmos track and layout you wanted to spit out. 

We were musing about why certain objects in particular soundtracks seemed to "skip over" certain speakers like the Front Wides (one example) as they were being moved around the room, how bed channels and overhead bed objects were behaving in a home mix or conversion from a cinema mix, etc. Some end users with Trinnov setups were noticing this on the speaker activity read-out screen as well. 

You, obviously, have *a lot* more experience than any of us about Atmos for cinema and the home and I defer to your professional input.


----------



## pasender91

It is quite funny that we're referring to the ProTools documentation, circling back to the question of the overhead bed.

To quote it : "With home theater rendering, bed input signals that are not specifically reserved in an output bed configuration are treated as objects, with a fixed position in space. These static objects are combined with dynamic moving objects, and all of these are processed by spatial coding, to produce the final output signal."

It is a fact that the Cinema 7.1.2 bed becomes a 7.1 on the TrueHD (BR or BR-UHD)
The overhead bed (the .2 part) becomes 2 objects with a fixed position, and those static objects are mixed with the dynamic ones.
So they will be rendered as standard objects.
But the documentation misses an important point, WHICH LOCATION ?
That was my earlier question ...


----------



## mrtickleuk

Why are we suddenly using the term "overhead bed"? That is a contradiction in terms, and sounds absolutely ridiculous to me! Please tell me it's not an industry recommendation?  

A bed is something you lie on; it must be *below*.

Something overhead should never ever be called a "*bed*"! We need a NEW term for any overhead layer. The word "bed" has already been taken, for the ear-level channels. Pick something different to describe the overhead speakers please


----------



## T-Bone

mrtickleuk said:


> Why are we suddenly using the term "overhead bed"? That is a contradiction in terms, and sounds absolutely ridiculous to me! Please tell me it's not an industry recommendation? /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> 
> A bed is something you lie on; it must be *below*.
> 
> Something overhead should never ever be called a "*bed*"! We need a NEW term for any overhead layer. The word "bed" has already been taken, for the ear-level channels. Pick something different to describe the overhead speakers please /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif


You know, I was wondering about that too. Up until now I always heard bed refer to the speakers that are on a single plane... The same plane where the listeners ears are.

First time I saw "overhead bed" I was like What??

-T


----------



## thrang

mrtickleuk said:


> Why are we suddenly using the term "overhead bed"? That is a contradiction in terms, and sounds absolutely ridiculous to me! Please tell me it's not an industry recommendation?
> 
> A bed is something you lie on; it must be *below*.
> 
> Something overhead should never ever be called a "*bed*"! We need a NEW term for any overhead layer. The word "bed" has already been taken, for the ear-level channels. Pick something different to describe the overhead speakers please


Bunk bed?

Canopy?


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> Why are we suddenly using the term "overhead bed"? That is a contradiction in terms, and sounds absolutely ridiculous to me! Please tell me it's not an industry recommendation?
> 
> A bed is something you lie on; it must be *below*.
> 
> Something overhead should never ever be called a "*bed*"! We need a NEW term for any overhead layer. The word "bed" has already been taken, for the ear-level channels. Pick something different to describe the overhead speakers please


Bed = Channel.


----------



## mrtickleuk

thrang said:


> Bunk bed?


Haha, but that dilutes "bed" and would mean you'd have to say "top bunk" or "bottom bunk" and wouldn't actually use the word bed most of the time 



thrang said:


> Canopy?


Excellent! Like in a forest, high above you. 

I like it, and it's a completely different word.



chi_guy50 said:


> Bed = Channel.


Nope not for clearly identifying overhead vs ear level. 

I'm off to fit my Canopy Speakers into my ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Haha, but that dilutes "bed" and would mean you'd have to say "top bunk" or "bottom bunk" and wouldn't actually use the word bed most of the time
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! Like in a forest, high above you.
> 
> I like it, and it's a completely different word.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope not for clearly identifying overhead vs ear level.
> 
> I'm off to fit my Canopy Speakers into my ceiling.


Other than a personal view about the use of a particular word, has anyone been confused or misled buy the term 'overhead bed'? If not, then it doesn't really matter what it's called IMO, so long as everyone understands what is meant. I mean, there are plenty of words in the English language that have more than one meaning - bark, nails, pool, bolt, season, draft, squash, racket, bay, beef, habit, quack, sole, club etc etc etc... It is usually the context which governs how the word is understood. In an Atmos thread, I think everyone would understand that 'bed' didn't mean the thing you sleep in, or the thing you put flowers in. And if the word 'bed' is prefaced with 'floor level' or 'overhead' then it seems to me to particularly clear what is meant.

As for naming speakers (not channels), what's wrong with 'floor/ear level speakers' and 'overhead speakers'? Why invent a new term 'canopy speakers' that in truth means nothing to anyone? 

But don't mind me... my bark is worse than my bite  Yes, I am a tree 

Groot.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> Nope not for clearly identifying overhead vs ear level.


In Atmos terminology, bed has always been synonymous with channel. The cinema version of Atmos has 10 beds: yes, the two Top Surrounds and LFE are beds. The home version has 8 beds (7.1). The term "bed" has never had anything to do with speakers at ear height. That was a miss-use which seems to have stuck with some people. But if you read any of the Dolby documentation or talk to any mixer, you'll see that bed = channel. Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## mtbdudex

Lots of lively talk this morning about beds, so much Tapatalk picked up on it and targeted an ad  , you all are being categorized for $$ 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richlife

sdurani said:


> In Atmos terminology, bed has always been synonymous with channel. The cinema version of Atmos has 10 beds: yes, the two Top Surrounds and LFE are beds. The home version has 8 beds (7.1). The term "bed" has never had anything to do with speakers at ear height. That was a miss-use which seems to have stuck with some people. But if you read any of the Dolby documentation or talk to any mixer, you'll see that bed = channel. Nothing more complicated than that.


Actually, thanks for that clarification. I'm not completely ignorant of HT/Surround Audio/Atmos, but I had the same understanding as @mrtickleuk and others. Channel to me was associated with each individual (for the most part) speaker and bed was the basic "level" of those speaks associated with AC3, DTS and the follow-up iterations through 7.1 or whatever. I didn't "get" the notes about "Bed = Channel" until this explanation. Just missed it all somehou. So many thanks.


----------



## T-Bone

sdurani said:


> mrtickleuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope not for clearly identifying overhead vs ear level.
> 
> 
> 
> In Atmos terminology, bed has always been synonymous with channel. The cinema version of Atmos has 10 beds: yes, the two Top Surrounds and LFE are beds. The home version has 8 beds (7.1). The term "bed" has never had anything to do with speakers at ear height. That was a miss-use which seems to have stuck with some people. But if you read any of the Dolby documentation or talk to any mixer, you'll see that bed = channel. Nothing more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Yup. You are right. Again 

I just went back and read the Dolby white paper and sure enough, bed equals Channel. Always has been I reckon.

-T


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> I just went back and read the Dolby white paper and sure enough, bed equals Channel. Always has been I reckon.


I wish they had never introduced the term "bed". Ended up creating unnecessary confusion. I try to avoid using that word. Would have been better if they'd stuck to familiar terms, like channel and object.


----------



## batpig

Yeah, I myself fall into the trap of referring to the immersive layout as having a "bed layer" vs. the "overhead layer" -- to me this makes more logical sense to refer to ear level vs. height speakers respectively. But it creates unnecessary confusion.


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> Yeah, I myself fall into the trap of referring to the immersive layout as having a "bed layer" vs. the "overhead layer" -- to me this makes more logical sense to refer to ear level vs. height speakers respectively. But it creates unnecessary confusion.


If even you fell into the trap, it makes me feel better. Looks like I misunderstood "bed" to be referring to physical positions and it's not. Apologies for the diversion that, but it's been useful all the same 

So a non-bed sound in Atmos context would be an object-based sound and not a channel-based sound?
If so, there can be no such thing as a "bed _speaker_" by definition, is that correct? Since the speaker can emit both bed sounds and object sounds. Thus, no need for canopies.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> I wish they had never introduced the term "bed". Ended up creating unnecessary confusion. I try to avoid using that word. Would have been better if they'd stuck to familiar terms, like channel and object.


Just guessing, but I think the choice of the term "bed" instead of channel was intended to convey a distinction in use case. In the film sound world for many decades, a channel is the one and only, complete, conveyance of sound to a speaker. Now, in Atmos, the speakers may receive signals from both channels and objects -- in other words, these "channels" no longer represent the totality of the sound driving the speaker. The function has changed, the name change follows that.

The "bed" is composed of the bedrock sound elements -- the music, the ambience, any spatial effects requiring multiple speakers e.g. reverb or decorrelated effects. Even the dialog is commonly in the bed. That's most of the soundtrack -- but not all of it.

Objects come into play when sounds are positioned or panned to smaller subsets of the bed speaker arrays -- this is the new territory enabled by Atmos that is not possible to achieve with the bed channels alone. 

Perhaps I am grasping for logic where none exists. Wouldn't be the first time...


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps I am grasping for logic where none exists.


Whatever, coming from you makes it _pro logic_...


----------



## maikeldepotter

My take on this:

All beds are channels, but not all channels are beds. Beds contain static objects, and can contain dynamic objects. Channels that are not beds, carry dynamic objects only....


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> My take on this:
> 
> All beds are channels, but not all channels are beds. Beds contain static objects, and can contain dynamic objects. Channels that are not beds, carry dynamic objects only....


I do not see how beds can carry objects. IOW, I object. 

Let's keep it simple. Beds are never objects, and objects are never beds. 
Channels and beds are structurally identical. Only their rolls differ, subtly.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Whatever, coming from you makes it _pro logic_...


Hahaha. Excellent!


----------



## mtbdudex

I see there’s a lot of text based discussion going on about beds, objects, etc.
A simple picture adds greatly .

What would help is a 3D isometric view of a 2 row HT with ... 7.1 traditional speaker layout in solid boxes, then the added Atmos speakers in dotted boxes... then how sound “information “ is moved and what we hear.

Traditional full spectrum frequency sound, Atmos Meta-data sound.
Via DSU, via Atmos... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Perhaps I am grasping for logic where none exists.


Actually, that's the most logical explanation of "bed" I've seen so far. I can understand professionals in the industry wanting to make the distinction. As for us hobbyists, the terms "channel" and "object" are fine to describe what makes up the consumer version of Atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Let's keep it simple. Beds are never objects, and objects are never beds.
> Channels and beds are structurally identical. Only their rolls differ, subtly.


Part of the (my) confusion could be caused by using terminology used in the A-chain (the re-recording and encoding phase, where _beds and objects_ are created) to try and describe the B-chain (the decoding and post-processing phase, where those _beds and objects_ get translated into _feeds and signals_). It's the B-chain where the Atmos decoder can combine beds and objects into feeds, that serve as inputs for the processor/AVR to post-process them into the respective outputs/ speaker signals. The (at least my) confusion starts when the term _channel_ is being used for those B-chain _feeds_ or _signals_.


----------



## Kevnmin

*Top Middle Location*

I have some new ceiling speakers I'm going to install for top middles. I'm curious as to thoughts on how far out in front of the listening position I could locate them with AVR configuration to top middle, i.e. what would be the maximum suggested distance forward of the listening position with configuration of room as noted below.
Current configuration is 5.2. with standard 8' ceiling height. The rear surrounds are in ceiling already, that can't change. They're located about 1 foot behind listening position and about two feet out laterally from ends of couch.

Any thoughts and offerings are much appreciated.


----------



## T-Bone

Kevnmin said:


> I have some new ceiling speakers I'm going to install for top middles. I'm curious as to thoughts on how far out in front of the listening position I could locate them with AVR configuration to top middle, i.e. what would be the maximum suggested distance forward of the listening position with configuration of room as noted below.
> Current configuration is 5.2. with standard 8' ceiling height. The rear surrounds are in ceiling already, that can't change. They're located about 1 foot behind listening position and about two feet out laterally from ends of couch.
> 
> Any thoughts and offerings are much appreciated.


Is it possible to add 2 speakers to the side, and a hair back (90 < sides < 100) of the listening position... to make that you new 5.2... then the ceiling mounted speakers you have now can be configured to be Top Rear atmos speakers?

-T


----------



## Kevnmin

T-Bone said:


> Is it possible to add 2 speakers to the side, and a hair back (90 < sides < 100) of the listening position... to make that you new 5.2... then the ceiling mounted speakers you have now can be configured to be Top Rear atmos speakers?
> 
> -T


Unfortunately no. 
My better half, aka- Commander in Chief, has long since informed me there will be no speakers in any walls or on bookshelfs, stands, etc...

I guess I should state this is just our family room, her room if you will, where I get to watch what she wants to watch. Flip side of that is, my room is the dedicated theater room with 7.3.4. 
I'm just wanting to get a bit more spacial sound out the family room and was thinking top middle might be the ticket with the layout as it stands.

I'm open to other ideas though...


----------



## sdurani

Kevnmin said:


> I'm open to other ideas though...


Stick with a 5.1 set-up. The point of Atmos is separate sounds around you from sounds above you. You can't get that separation with your surrounds at ceiling height. Would be like wanting to do a surround sound set-up with the caveat being that you can only place speakers on the front wall.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Part of the (my) confusion could be caused by using terminology used in the A-chain (the re-recording and encoding phase, where _beds and objects_ are created) to try and describe the B-chain (the decoding and post-processing phase, where those _beds and objects_ get translated into _feeds and signals_).


It's understandable. Again, looking at cinema sound history, the speaker-feed signals were often carried directly on the delivery media, e.g. 6-track mag, 5.1 digital. OTOH, 35 mm optical carried Lt/Rt which became LCRS speaker feeds in the cinema processor, so the concept of distinctly different delivery channels vs. speaker feed channels has also been with us a long time. 

There's no question that sometimes we must use care to distinguish between delivery channels and amplifier channels.


----------



## cyberlocc

Hey guys, so I need a experienced hand setting up Atmos in this room. I have to make a back surround compromise of some type. 

So here is the 2 options I came up with. Ceiling height is 7'6".

Pic 1. In this pic, the Backs are 3 foot behind the couch back (so like 3' 6-8" from ears). However, they have to be ceiling mounted, So I can use Bipoles or Monopoles, and I can turn them upside down so tweeter is at about 10 inches down from the ceiling. The backs are proper width apart. I can angle the speakers down, however they will still be high up on lowish ceilings. The side surrounds can be 5ft to tweeters (or a tad lower, optimal placement, and they are Bipole)



Pic 2. In this pic, the Backs are 3 foot behind the couch back (so like 3' 6-8" from ears). However they have to be wall mounted, they now have to be Monopoles, and the entire layout of the backs is shifted from center of the room to center of the couch. They are also now 9' apart (outside edge to outside edge, 8' 5" guess tweeter to tweeter) they can be toed in however. They can now be the same height as the sides, (tad over MLP height). I can go back a little further with this arrangement, about 7 inches further back would be doable. I can also pull the couch a tad forward if needed, buying another 3-4"s. 

I cannot ceiling install the Atmos speakers, but I am planing to use very low depth speakers, (Klipsch on walls or in ceilings that have a DIY base) so 2 inches from the ceiling give or take.

So which do you guys think would be better? Is it even worth going 7.2.2? Or just stay 5.2.2, and forgo the backs completely?


----------



## Soupy1970

cyberlocc said:


> Hey guys, so I need a experienced hand setting up Atmos in this room. I have to make a back surround compromise of some type.
> 
> So here is the 2 options I came up with. Ceiling height is 7'6".
> 
> Pic 1. In this pic, the Backs are 3 foot behind the couch back (so like 3' 6-8" from ears). However, they have to be ceiling mounted, So I can use Bipoles or Monopoles, and I can turn them upside down so tweeter is at about 10 inches down from the ceiling. The backs are proper width apart. I can angle the speakers down, however they will still be high up on lowish ceilings. The side surrounds can be 5ft to tweeters (or a tad lower, optimal placement, and they are Bipole)
> 
> 
> 
> Pic 2. In this pic, the Backs are 3 foot behind the couch back (so like 3' 6-8" from ears). However they have to be wall mounted, they now have to be Monopoles, and the entire layout of the backs is shifted from center of the room to center of the couch. They are also now 9' apart (outside edge to outside edge, 8' 5" guess tweeter to tweeter) they can be toed in however. They can now be the same height as the sides, (tad over MLP height). I can go back a little further with this arrangement, about 7 inches further back would be doable. I can also pull the couch a tad forward if needed, buying another 3-4"s.
> 
> I cannot ceiling install the Atmos speakers, but I am planing to use very low depth speakers, (Klipsch on walls or in ceilings that have a DIY base) so 2 inches from the ceiling give or take.
> 
> So which do you guys think would be better? Is it even worth going 7.2.2? Or just stay 5.2.2, and forgo the backs completely?


Option 2 for 7.2.2, or option 1 and go 5.2.4 would be even better. Use the rear surround location as top rears. You really need to get your side surrounds as low as possible with a 7.6' ceiling (no more than 1/2 wall height, but as close to ear level as possible). Trust me I have a low ceiling too. You may want to consider good outdoor speakers as well as on ceiling mounted speakers. They can be amiable to a larger degree. You would also benefit by centering your couch.


----------



## cyberlocc

Soupy1970 said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, so I need a experienced hand setting up Atmos in this room. I have to make a back surround compromise of some type.
> 
> So here is the 2 options I came up with. Ceiling height is 7'6".
> 
> Pic 1. In this pic, the Backs are 3 foot behind the couch back (so like 3' 6-8" from ears). However, they have to be ceiling mounted, So I can use Bipoles or Monopoles, and I can turn them upside down so tweeter is at about 10 inches down from the ceiling. The backs are proper width apart. I can angle the speakers down, however they will still be high up on lowish ceilings. The side surrounds can be 5ft to tweeters (or a tad lower, optimal placement, and they are Bipole)
> 
> 
> 
> Pic 2. In this pic, the Backs are 3 foot behind the couch back (so like 3' 6-8" from ears). However they have to be wall mounted, they now have to be Monopoles, and the entire layout of the backs is shifted from center of the room to center of the couch. They are also now 9' apart (outside edge to outside edge, 8' 5" guess tweeter to tweeter) they can be toed in however. They can now be the same height as the sides, (tad over MLP height). I can go back a little further with this arrangement, about 7 inches further back would be doable. I can also pull the couch a tad forward if needed, buying another 3-4"s.
> 
> I cannot ceiling install the Atmos speakers, but I am planing to use very low depth speakers, (Klipsch on walls or in ceilings that have a DIY base) so 2 inches from the ceiling give or take.
> 
> So which do you guys think would be better? Is it even worth going 7.2.2? Or just stay 5.2.2, and forgo the backs completely?
> 
> 
> 
> Option 2 for 7.2.2, or option 1 and go 5.2.4 would be even better. Use the rear surround location as top rears. You really need to get your side surrounds as low as possible with a 7.6' ceiling (no more than 1/2 wall height, but as close to ear level as possible). Trust me I have a low ceiling too. You may want to consider good outdoor speakers as well as on ceiling mounted speakers. They can be amiable to a larger degree. You would also benefit by centering your couch.
Click to expand...

I could flip the side surrounds upside down to get them lower, and lower them a little. Biggest issue there is baby lol. However I can likely get them where they need to be though. 

My biggest concerns with option 2 we're the offset, and with 5.2.4 how much would be missed by the backs? Is there alot of behind you content in the backs? 

I was looking at a few speakers, there is Klipsch in walls with an aimable tweeter but they they are little deeper than I'd like 3.5", but thought that was an option. But non angled ones if I use on wall or in ceilings I can build angled bases. 

I can't center the couch for a few reasons. 1 its a sectional, just didn't draw that to keep things simpler, forgot to mention that in this thread (I did in the other thread when using option 1 pic for something else) 2 there is a desk on the door side wall, that extends to the door, so there is already only 2' and some change between that and the couch. There is a window on that wall in front of the desk that overlooks our businesses shop, so it's a psudeo home office and the living room, so can't be moved. 

On top of that, the MLP or the door side seat of the couch is a recliner and my seat 😛 there is a console in the center seat no one sits there usually (it does fold up when need be) and wife and children don't don't care about perfect audio or video. So the current "Center seat" is MLP, and center of the TV and 110 inch PJ screen and my seat hahaha. 

So even if it was moveable to the left, the best seat in the house would go to a center console where no one would ever sit.

Also another idea, I just had.

With option 2 would it be better to use Bipoles? And have them face the same way as the sides do? So for something like this.

they would make for great "Zone 2" or all channel music, as they would spread sound into the Dining room, which is why the first pics show that opening and 25ft, that is the dining room and kitchen on the other side of the first pictures. I tried to get the wife to let me put up another 4ft shelving wall like is on the door side, she said no lololol. She doesn't like the one that is already there but its load bearing .

There is 1 other option, and that is to have the Left surround mounted on the wall, toed in to center. And have the left in the wall/shelf thing that is on the right side. This would leave the backs on either side of the room with serious toe in needed however?


----------



## Soupy1970

cyberlocc said:


> I could flip the side surrounds upside down to get them lower, and lower them a little. Biggest issue there is baby lol. However I can likely get them where they need to be though.
> 
> My biggest concerns with option 2 we're the offset, and with 5.2.4 how much would be missed by the backs? Is there alot of behind you content in the backs?
> 
> I was looking at a few speakers, there is Klipsch in walls with an aimable tweeter but they they are little deeper than I'd like 3.5", but thought that was an option. But non angled ones if I use on wall or in ceilings I can build angled bases.
> 
> I can't center the couch for a few reasons. 1 its a sectional, just didn't draw that to keep things simpler, forgot to mention that in this thread (I did in the other thread when using option 1 pic for something else) 2 there is a desk on the door side wall, that extends to the door, so there is already only 2' and some change between that and the couch. There is a window on that wall in front of the desk that overlooks our businesses shop, so it's a psudeo home office and the living room, so can't be moved.
> 
> On top of that, the MLP or the door side seat of the couch is a recliner and my seat 😛 there is a console in the center seat no one sits there usually (it does fold up when need be) and wife and children don't don't care about perfect audio or video. So the current "Center seat" is MLP, and center of the TV and 110 inch PJ screen and my seat hahaha.
> 
> So even if it was moveable to the left, the best seat in the house would go to a center console where no one would ever sit.
> 
> Also another idea, I just had.
> 
> With option 2 would it be better to use Bipoles? And have them face the same way as the sides do? So for something like this.
> 
> they would make for great "Zone 2" or all channel music, as they would spread sound into the Dining room, which is why the first pics show that opening and 25ft, that is the dining room and kitchen on the other side of the first pictures. I tried to get the wife to let me put up another 4ft shelving wall like is on the door side, she said no lololol. She doesn't like the one that is already there but its load bearing .
> 
> There is 1 other option, and that is to have the Left surround mounted on the wall, toed in to center. And have the left in the wall/shelf thing that is on the right side. This would leave the backs on either side of the room with serious toe in needed however?


5.2.4 would be better then 7.2.2 especially if your rears were going to be top mounted. 9 ft is enough spread for rears though. 
Would these work for you? They have great sound and can be aimed anyway you like. They can be had closer to $200 a pair if you call around or hit Ebay. https://www.crutchfield.com/p_714AW...4O37FRvcET2M2iE34MqBcDK3kgD9LwDRoCZ4AQAvD_BwE


----------



## thewonderer

kbarnes701 said:


> As an alternative you could look at the secondhand market, or end-of-line units that have been replaced by the latest models. So long as the spec meets your needs in terms of channels, Atmos etc, there's nothing to choose between them sonically. Modern electronics make vanishingly small differences to sound quality. The single most important component that has a huge effect on SQ is the room itself. (See below).
> 
> 
> I think I am going to pick up a refurb Yamaha RX-A 2070 model. So as it's local sale, I won't have to deal with import/ customs/0 warranty.
> 
> 
> No non-purpose-designed room is perfect. If it is at all possible I would consider adding some acoustic treatment panels, especially at the 'first reflection' points. These panels can look attractive and come in a wide range of colours. It is also very easy to make your own if you have basic DIY skills and a few tools. Acoustic treatments will be the single biggest bang for the buck you will ever get in terms of SQ. The room's importance cannot be overstated. The room has the biggest influence on the sound you hear - more so than even the quality of your speakers. Four or six judiciously placed panels will bring more sonic improvement than any new electronics or new speakers.
> 
> I think I will move the sofa about 50 to 75cm forward from the back wall and move the rear speakers into the corner a bit more. They will be 20 cm from each side of the wall. Then, looking at the ATMOS 5.1.4 setup diagram, I will place the ceiling speakers in line with the front speakers (which are about 50cm from the side wall) and then about the same distance from the back wall. I've attached a quick diagram of my plan... There won't be too much space between the rear surrounds and the rear ceiling speakers as the sofa would move to far forward. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the diagram I posted a few posts back. Don't over-worry if you can't meet the exact angles. And don't let it deter you from going down the Atmos route. Atmos is very forgiving of less-than-ideal speaker locations and even when you can't meet the specs exactly, some Atmos is always better than no Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Angling the tweeter towards MLP is good. If your surrounds are already close to the back wall, don't put your overheads close to the back wall. You need good angular separation between floor level and ceiling level to appreciate the sounds coming from over your head. If the angular separation is small, it is hard to tell if the sound is coming from the surrounds or the rear overheads.


I'll know more about ceiling mounts once i get my stud finder. If my ceiling speakers are approx 50 to 75cm from the back and side wall, will that be ok in terms of refractive sound? I would be interested in knowing if I need some of those mounting sound frames which hopefully the misses will like / not mind. Going to search around to see if some insulation is worth putting over the ceiling speakers when they are inserted into the ceiling.

Many thanks for all your advice and support.


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> If my ceiling speakers are approx 50 to 75cm from the back and side wall, will that be ok in terms of refractive sound?


Based on your diagram, I would move each height pair closer together, around 1m in from the side walls. The height pair rearward of the seating should be as close to the back wall as possible to give a better sense sound behind you. The height pair forward of the seating should be around 1.5m in front of you. 

Not sure what you mean by "refractive sound", but if that hasn't been a concern for the 5 speakers in the base layer, then don't worry about it for the speakers in the height layer.


----------



## thewonderer

sdurani said:


> thewonderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my ceiling speakers are approx 50 to 75cm from the back and side wall, will that be ok in terms of refractive sound?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your diagram, I would move each height pair closer together, around 1m in from the side walls. The height pair rearward of the seating should be as close to the back wall as possible to give a better sense sound behind you. The height pair forward of the seating should be around 1.5m in front of you.
> ____________
> I thought the rear height/ceiling had to be in front of the rear surround speakers because the atmos sound track will assume that... In the dolby diagram is shows the cueing speakers being online with the front speakers going down the room.
> 
> Refractive, well I meant the sound vouching / reflecting odd the side walls from the ceiling speakers...
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> ____________
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "refractive sound", but if that hasn't been a concern for the 5 speakers in the base layer, then don't worry about it for the speakers in the height layer.
Click to expand...

I realise the atmos notes are a best practice guide. Trying to keep them as close as possible.

Rest of my reply is in the above text. First time I used phone to reply...


----------



## cyberlocc

Soupy1970 said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could flip the side surrounds upside down to get them lower, and lower them a little. Biggest issue there is baby lol. However I can likely get them where they need to be though.
> 
> My biggest concerns with option 2 we're the offset, and with 5.2.4 how much would be missed by the backs? Is there alot of behind you content in the backs?
> 
> I was looking at a few speakers, there is Klipsch in walls with an aimable tweeter but they they are little deeper than I'd like 3.5", but thought that was an option. But non angled ones if I use on wall or in ceilings I can build angled bases.
> 
> I can't center the couch for a few reasons. 1 its a sectional, just didn't draw that to keep things simpler, forgot to mention that in this thread (I did in the other thread when using option 1 pic for something else) 2 there is a desk on the door side wall, that extends to the door, so there is already only 2' and some change between that and the couch. There is a window on that wall in front of the desk that overlooks our businesses shop, so it's a psudeo home office and the living room, so can't be moved.
> 
> On top of that, the MLP or the door side seat of the couch is a recliner and my seat 😛 there is a console in the center seat no one sits there usually (it does fold up when need be) and wife and children don't don't care about perfect audio or video. So the current "Center seat" is MLP, and center of the TV and 110 inch PJ screen and my seat hahaha.
> 
> So even if it was moveable to the left, the best seat in the house would go to a center console where no one would ever sit.
> 
> Also another idea, I just had.
> 
> With option 2 would it be better to use Bipoles? And have them face the same way as the sides do? So for something like this.
> 
> they would make for great "Zone 2" or all channel music, as they would spread sound into the Dining room, which is why the first pics show that opening and 25ft, that is the dining room and kitchen on the other side of the first pictures. I tried to get the wife to let me put up another 4ft shelving wall like is on the door side, she said no lololol. She doesn't like the one that is already there but its load bearing /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif.
> 
> There is 1 other option, and that is to have the Left surround mounted on the wall, toed in to center. And have the left in the wall/shelf thing that is on the right side. This would leave the backs on either side of the room with serious toe in needed however?
> 
> 
> 
> 5.2.4 would be better then 7.2.2 especially if your rears were going to be top mounted. 9 ft is enough spread for rears though.
> Would these work for you? They have great sound and can be aimed anyway you like. They can be had closer to $200 a pair if you call around or hit Ebay. https://www.crutchfield.com/p_714AW...4O37FRvcET2M2iE34MqBcDK3kgD9LwDRoCZ4AQAvD_BwE
Click to expand...

So I actually made a thread with all the possibilities lol.

I was wondering if 9ft was too much spread for rears? With them 3 feet back?

So 5.2.4 is also an interesting idea. However I keep falling back to the logic of missing alot. 

So I'm out of the surround movie loop. But I am very much a gamer, and in the loop there. I would never ever ever give up my back's for gaming. Hearing footsteps behind me is of the upmost imporantance, but that's another setup I don't game on the PJ, so this system doesn't need it. 

But I can't help thinking that for movies. There is limited stuff above you, I feel like there would be more going on behind you? Is there really not in the soundtracks? Or does the sides take care of that aspect in 5.2.4? 

I know that common setup is to have sides behind the MLP in 5.1, however I cannot do that, there is a door in the way, it's just not an option. Unless they were way more than 110 degrees back. In my current case they have to be at like 80-85 degrees. Which I read from Floyd Toole is perfect for them, in a 7.1 setup and using Bipoles. 

So I can move the couch a bit and get close to 90 degrees, however they are now not rearward. So if it's going to shoot sounds that are meant to be behind you, that would ruin immersion more when it is in front of you, then a helicopter at ear level to me. Obvsiouly depending how much those channels are used in movies. As I have trained myself to pinpoint those rear sounds for gaming. (I was actually already good at that, growing up in a bad niebhorhood that was a needed skill ).


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> I thought the rear height/ceiling had to be in front of the rear surround speakers because the atmos sound track will assume that... In the dolby diagram is shows the cueing speakers being online with the front speakers going down the room.


If following the guidelines is important to you, then keep the ceiling speakers in line with your L/R speakers and place all of them in front of your surround speakers. Instead of hearing front to back movement overhead, you'll instead hear slightly-in-front to more-in-front movement above you.


> Refractive, well I meant the sound vouching / reflecting odd the side walls from the ceiling speakers...


Over 90% of the soundtrack will be coming from the speakers in the base layer and all your speakers in the base layer are at/near walls; some are near 2 walls. If this vouching/reflecting is not a concern for the most important speakers in your system, then it won't be an issue for the least used speakers in your system (i.e., no issue with placing heights near walls).


----------



## cyberlocc

sdurani said:


> Over 90% of the soundtrack will be coming from the speakers in the base layer.


Haha! This actually sparks a question I had in another thread of mine trying to figure out base layer layout. 

This statement had me thinking. Everywhere I look, I see people saying 5.1.2 is better than 7.1 and that 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2. 

However as I said in the other thread, I from a gaming perspective call bull. In gaming, 7.1.x is irreplaceable, Backs rule the format, I need to hear people behind me.

In real life, how much do you hear above you? How much do you hear behind you? I would say you hear 50x as much stuff behind as you do below in daily life. So how could 5.1.x ever be better than 7.1.x? You are taking sounds behind you, and merging them to the side of you, fine, but with Atmos you are just taking the sounds above and merging them to around. 

To me the only true way to get a valid answer is which is more. If back channels contain 10% of the track, that will be merged in to the sides, VS Atmos heights, which will be 2% of the track, obviously that 10% is the winner. Not saying those numbers are accurate, just throwing numbers, has anyone tested the numbers?

I am not trying to compare Atmos to DD, I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.


----------



## David Susilo

cyberlocc said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 90% of the soundtrack will be coming from the speakers in the base layer.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha! This actually sparks a question I had in another thread of mine trying to figure out base layer layout.
> 
> This statement had me thinking. Everywhere I look, I see people saying 5.1.2 is better than 7.1 and that 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2.
> 
> However as I said in the other thread, I from a gaming perspective call bull. In gaming, 7.1.x is irreplaceable, Backs rule the format, I need to hear people behind me.
> 
> In real life, how much do you hear above you? How much do you hear behind you? I would say you hear 50x as much stuff behind as you do below in daily life. So how could 5.1.x ever be better than 7.1.x? You are taking sounds behind you, and merging them to the side of you, fine, but with Atmos you are just taking the sounds above and merging them to around.
> 
> To me the only true way to get a valid answer is which is more. If back channels contain 10% of the track, that will be merged in to the sides, VS Atmos heights, which will be 2% of the track, obviously that 10% is the winner. Not saying those numbers are accurate, just throwing numbers, has anyone tested the numbers?
> 
> I am not trying to compare Atmos to DD, I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.
Click to expand...

In real life, sound come from everywhere. Try having sound absorbers only on the ceiling but none around you. It feels weird. Sound from above you enables you to sonically know whether you’re inside a room or outdoors. 

Overall, this is perhaps only a personal preference, but I prefer 5.1.4 over 7.1.2.


----------



## Jonas2

cyberlocc said:


> Haha! This actually sparks a question I had in another thread of mine trying to figure out base layer layout.
> 
> This statement had me thinking. Everywhere I look, I see people saying 5.1.2 is better than 7.1 and that 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2.
> 
> However as I said in the other thread, I from a gaming perspective call bull. In gaming, 7.1.x is irreplaceable, Backs rule the format, I need to hear people behind me.
> 
> In real life, how much do you hear above you? How much do you hear behind you? I would say you hear 50x as much stuff behind as you do below in daily life. So how could 5.1.x ever be better than 7.1.x? You are taking sounds behind you, and merging them to the side of you, fine, but with Atmos you are just taking the sounds above and merging them to around.
> 
> To me the only true way to get a valid answer is which is more. If back channels contain 10% of the track, that will be merged in to the sides, VS Atmos heights, which will be 2% of the track, obviously that 10% is the winner. Not saying those numbers are accurate, just throwing numbers, has anyone tested the numbers?
> 
> I am not trying to compare Atmos to DD, I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.


It is all quite dependent on the content. For ATMOS content, the preference by and large by my readings of opinions is that 5.1.2/4 is the winner over 7.1.0. Keep in mind, ATMOS content is trying to take at least some advantage of the overhead speakers. Don't know about 5.1.4 vs. 7.1.2, I've seen a bit less of that. This seems such a sticking point since receivers that put an extra 2 amplified channels and the additional processing in tend to cost significantly more than one with just 9 processed/amplified channels. However, throw music listening into the fray, and DSU capabilities for non-Atmos content, and I think the overheads offer a more pleasing sense of immersion than just rears. The only solution: 7.x.4..... Yes, spending the extra money is worth it in my opinion, IF you've got a space to accommodate it.


----------



## sdurani

cyberlocc said:


> Everywhere I look, I see people saying 5.1.2 is better than 7.1 and that 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2.


That's their subjective preference, even though they're stating it as objective superiority. Nothing wrong with people (even most people) preferring 5.1.4 over 7.1.2. You're not required to follow the herd. However, there are valid reasons for doing 5.1 in the base layer, like if there is not enough space behind you for the rear speakers. With a limit of 9 speakers, I would do: 3 fronts, 2 sides, 2 rears, 2 heights. But that's just me. Would be a boring forum if everyone agreed.


> In gaming, 7.1.x is irreplaceable, Backs rule the format, I need to hear people behind me.


I went 7.1 in 1991, so I've gotten too used to it to be willing to sacrifice two of those speakers for heights (though no problem adding more speakers).


> In real life, how much do you hear above you? How much do you hear behind you?


Doesn't really matter, since we're listening to an artificial construct (movie soundtracks) rather than real life. Real life could be teeming with sounds above you, but if movie mixers don't taking advantage of overhead sound placement, then having lots of height speakers won't be of much use. Same with rear speakers. Fortunately for you, gaming tends to make good use of all the speakers around you.


> I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.


Agreed.


----------



## cyberlocc

David Susilo said:


> In real life, sound come from everywhere. Try having sound absorbers only on the ceiling but none around you. It feels weird. Sound from above you enables you to sonically know whether you’re inside a room or outdoors.
> 
> Overall, this is perhaps only a personal preference, but I prefer 5.1.4 over 7.1.2.



That is very true. I meant more direct sounds VS ambience, however as you said that ambience does give us a presence change. The echos of a room vs the open of outdoors. Birds chirping, wind whirling, ECT. Very good point indeed. 

However that Sparks another question. Do movie creators take those things into account? Do they add that onto the track? Does the .2 or more so the .4 to you add that feeling of being outside? Or the echos of a warehouse, make you close your eyes and feel like you are there? I honestly didn't think of that aspect, and you make a very good point. 



Jonas2 said:


> It is all quite dependent on the content. For ATMOS content, the preference by and large by my readings of opinions is that 5.1.2/4 is the winner over 7.1.0. Keep in mind, ATMOS content is trying to take at least some advantage of the overhead speakers. Don't know about 5.1.4 vs. 7.1.2, I've seen a bit less of that. This seems such a sticking point since receivers that put an extra 2 amplified channels and the additional processing in tend to cost significantly more than one with just 9 processed/amplified channels. However, throw music listening into the fray, and DSU capabilities for non-Atmos content, and I think the overheads offer a more pleasing sense of immersion than just rears. The only solution: 7.x.4...../forum/images/smilies/wink.gif Yes, spending the extra money is worth it in my opinion, IF you've got a space to accommodate it.


Agreed it is very dependent on the content. I also think you are likely correct Atmos movies, will try to make use of those overheads as best as they can. However do they go to the extent of birds chirping? For sonic location like above? 

Also what about the rears? Are they neglected in that? 

I think to touch on content as well, that's why I brought up Genres. In gaming I wouldn't trade postionable audio for the life of me, when someone is behind me I need to know. I could see this across movie immersion as well, in a Horror flick, I could see behind you sounds adding to the scare factor. Above sounds not so much. However in a drama, I could see placing yourself in the rain of scene a better immersion.

The monetary factor is kind of where I am. We see 7 channels, then we see 9 channels being a double in price jump, and then we see 11 jumping up again about the same. Where is that sweet spot. Obviously we would all love to have 64 Atmos speakers all around us lol, but that isn't feasible. 

You said the extra money is great if you have the space, but the space to accommodate which? The space for 5.1.2? The space for 7.1.2 the space for 5.1.4, 7.1.4? 64 speakers?? 😛. 



Jonas2 said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha! This actually sparks a question I had in another thread of mine trying to figure out base layer layout.
> 
> This statement had me thinking. Everywhere I look, I see people saying 5.1.2 is better than 7.1 and that 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2.
> 
> However as I said in the other thread, I from a gaming perspective call bull. In gaming, 7.1.x is irreplaceable, Backs rule the format, I need to hear people behind me.
> 
> In real life, how much do you hear above you? How much do you hear behind you? I would say you hear 50x as much stuff behind as you do below in daily life. So how could 5.1.x ever be better than 7.1.x? You are taking sounds behind you, and merging them to the side of you, fine, but with Atmos you are just taking the sounds above and merging them to around.
> 
> To me the only true way to get a valid answer is which is more. If back channels contain 10% of the track, that will be merged in to the sides, VS Atmos heights, which will be 2% of the track, obviously that 10% is the winner. Not saying those numbers are accurate, just throwing numbers, has anyone tested the numbers?
> 
> I am not trying to compare Atmos to DD, I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all quite dependent on the content. For ATMOS content, the preference by and large by my readings of opinions is that 5.1.2/4 is the winner over 7.1.0. Keep in mind, ATMOS content is trying to take at least some advantage of the overhead speakers. Don't know about 5.1.4 vs. 7.1.2, I've seen a bit less of that. This seems such a sticking point since receivers that put an extra 2 amplified channels and the additional processing in tend to cost significantly more than one with just 9 processed/amplified channels. However, throw music listening into the fray, and DSU capabilities for non-Atmos content, and I think the overheads offer a more pleasing sense of immersion than just rears. The only solution: 7.x.4...../forum/images/smilies/wink.gif Yes, spending the extra money is worth it in my opinion, IF you've got a space to accommodate it.
Click to expand...




sdurani said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere I look, I see people saying 5.1.2 is better than 7.1 and that 5.1.4 is better than 7.1.2.
> 
> 
> 
> That's their subjective preference, even though they're stating it as objective superiority. Nothing wrong with people (even most people) preferring 5.1.4 over 7.1.2. You're not required to follow the herd. However, there are valid reasons for doing 5.1 in the base layer, like if there is not enough space behind you for the rear speakers. With a limit of 9 speakers, I would do: 3 fronts, 2 sides, 2 rears, 2 heights. But that's just me. Would be a boring forum if everyone agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> In gaming, 7.1.x is irreplaceable, Backs rule the format, I need to hear people behind me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went 7.1 in 1991, so I've gotten too used to it to be willing to sacrifice two of those speakers for heights (though no problem adding more speakers).
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, how much do you hear above you? How much do you hear behind you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't really matter, since we're listening to an artificial construct (movie soundtracks) rather than real life. Real life could be teeming with sounds above you, but if movie mixers don't taking advantage of overhead sound placement, then having lots of height speakers won't be of much use. Same with rear speakers. Fortunately for you, gaming tends to make good use of all the speakers around you.
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...

All good points. 

So that's what I'm really trying to figure out, what do the movie makers really leverage and to what degree? Do they seriously leverage Heights, and Semi Leverage backs, vice versa, neither, depends on genre? ugh I need an 11 channel reciever 😛.


----------



## thewonderer

sdurani said:


> thewonderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the rear height/ceiling had to be in front of the rear surround speakers because the atmos sound track will assume that... In the dolby diagram is shows the cueing speakers being online with the front speakers going down the room.
> 
> 
> 
> If following the guidelines is important to you, then keep the ceiling speakers in line with your L/R speakers and place all of them in front of your surround speakers. Instead of hearing front to back movement overhead, you'll instead hear slightly-in-front to more-in-front movement above you.
> 
> 
> 
> Refractive, well I meant the sound vouching / reflecting odd the side walls from the ceiling speakers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over 90% of the soundtrack will be coming from the speakers in the base layer and all your speakers in the base layer are at/near walls; some are near 2 walls. If this vouching/reflecting is not a concern for the most important speakers in your system, then it won't be an issue for the least used speakers in your system (i.e., no issue with placing heights near walls).
Click to expand...

Thank you for letting me know this. My head and mind have been so set on the dolby diagram that to stray away from that is hard to get round. 

It makes sense to have the rear ceiling atmos speakers as far behind you as possible so you feel it really is behind and coming forward or the opposite. 

If my rear surrounds are in front of the rear atmos, say pointing straight at the listeners ears rather than from behind (which I have them set to) then that would work.


----------



## Parafly9

Hey there peeps, I have a few questions, having just installed my ceiling speakers to finish off 5.1.2 with my TX-NR646. 

I currently only have two input devices, a Chromecast (regular) and a PS4 Pro. 

My TV is an 2014 Vizio 70" 1080p M series. Eventually I am going to upgrade it to a 4k HDR tv, just waiting for the right price. 

Anyway, I want to try out some Atmos content, and I'm finding it difficult to find. The only thing I found so far (that worked) was the free Atmos mini set on Vudu. That actually pinged the light blue on my PS4 (using Bitstream, it didn't work on LPCM audio output settings). I also tried Vudu streaming to Chromecast and that didn't work. 

So here are some questions I have : 

1. Is there a list of what video providers have Atmos content and on what platforms (i.e. Vudu on PS4)
2. Do you have any good recommendations for sample movies? I saw some movies like Pacific Rim are supposed to be Atmos in Vudu but when I click on the HDX it just shows Dolby 5.1, at least on the PS4. 
3. Is there a difference between the chromecast and chromecast ultra when it comes to audio? I know the Ultra supports 4k streaming but I don't currently have the 4k set in my living room. Do both support Atmos and DD content? 
4. My use cases are mostly - video games occasionally and movies. I don't watch any TV really at all. Most movies are either from Netflix or from Amazon VOD through the PS4.


----------



## Jonas2

cyberlocc said:


> The monetary factor is kind of where I am. We see 7 channels, then we see 9 channels being a double in price jump, and then we see 11 jumping up again about the same. Where is that sweet spot. Obviously we would all love to have 64 Atmos speakers all around us lol, but that isn't feasible.
> 
> You said the extra money is great if you have the space, but the space to accommodate which? The space for 5.1.2? The space for 7.1.2 the space for 5.1.4, 7.1.4? 64 speakers?? 😛.
> 
> So that's what I'm really trying to figure out, what do the movie makers really leverage and to what degree? Do they seriously leverage Heights, and Semi Leverage backs, vice versa, neither, depends on genre? ugh I need an 11 channel reciever 😛.


I can't speak for Atmos content in regards to game, but I'd think that being a gamer, and you've already indicated you need those rears, that 7.1.4 is your ticket. I'd imagine 4 height channels that allow for the ability to pan front to rear/rear to front could be important for audible cues very much like what your rears provide. But I dunno - need gamers with Atmos to chime in on that. 

I think the general sweetspot for movies is 5.1.4, but 7.1.4 is what I would always recommend if a space and a wallet can tolerate it. Keep in mind, don't need to do it all up front! You can do this in stages, whatever you decide to do, with a bit of planning. You're right though - where does the "madness" end? Dunno. Can't gaze into a crystal ball. Receivers with 64 channels on the horizon????


----------



## kbarnes701

thewonderer said:


> I'll know more about ceiling mounts once i get my stud finder. If my ceiling speakers are approx 50 to 75cm from the back and side wall, will that be ok in terms of refractive sound? I would be interested in knowing if I need some of those mounting sound frames which hopefully the misses will like / not mind. Going to search around to see if some insulation is worth putting over the ceiling speakers when they are inserted into the ceiling.
> 
> Many thanks for all your advice and support.


Hi - Sanjay has beaten me to it with his customary excellent advice. I have nothing to add, other than if you mean by 'refractive' sound, sounds which are *reflected * off the walls or ceilings due to the proximity of the speakers to them, then I wouldn't worry about it at this stage. Short of treating the wall/ceiling behind the relevant speakers, there isn't much you can do about it. It isn't likely to be too much of a worry for the content that the Atmos speakers carry anyway. Here's some reading for you which explains it in more detail: http://www.gikacoustics.com/speaker-boundary-interference-response-sbir/


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> If my rear surrounds are in front of the rear atmos, say pointing straight at the listeners ears rather than from behind (which I have them set to) then that would work.


It will work either way. In the base layer, placing your two surround speakers in the back corners of the room will result in greater envelopment due to the reflective surfaces nearby. In the height layer, placing one pair of overhead speakers as far behind you as possible will improve front-to-back panning above you. No need to unnecessarily complicate things further than that.


----------



## kbarnes701

cyberlocc said:


> I am not trying to compare Atmos to DD, I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.


Atmos is really about much more than helicopters and rain scenes. Obviously helicopters etc will often be above you, and so will their engine sounds. That is an obvious use for speakers on the ceiling. But the point of Atmos is that it creates a *three-dimensional* soundstage, with some sounds at ear level, some right above you at ceiling level and _at all points in between_. The overhead speakers work with the ear level speakers to create this 3 dimensional effect, just as your front speakers work with your surround speakers to create an unbroken 'field of sound' around you. By enabling the mixer to use objects when mixing, he has much greater flexibility and precision when placing sounds anywhere in the 'dome of sound' all around you, including above you. It's a common mistake for people to think that the ceiling speakers are only there to reproduce the sound of things immediately above you, like helicopters and thunder. With Atmos, the entire experience is far more three-dimensional. Of course, it also excels when helicopters are about


----------



## cyberlocc

Parafly9 said:


> Hey there peeps, I have a few questions, having just installed my ceiling speakers to finish off 5.1.2 with my TX-NR646.
> 
> I currently only have two input devices, a Chromecast (regular) and a PS4 Pro.
> 
> My TV is an 2014 Vizio 70" 1080p M series. Eventually I am going to upgrade it to a 4k HDR tv, just waiting for the right price.
> 
> Anyway, I want to try out some Atmos content, and I'm finding it difficult to find. The only thing I found so far (that worked) was the free Atmos mini set on Vudu. That actually pinged the light blue on my PS4 (using Bitstream, it didn't work on LPCM audio output settings). I also tried Vudu streaming to Chromecast and that didn't work.
> 
> So here are some questions I have :
> 
> 1. Is there a list of what video providers have Atmos content and on what platforms (i.e. Vudu on PS4)
> 2. Do you have any good recommendations for sample movies? I saw some movies like Pacific Rim are supposed to be Atmos in Vudu but when I click on the HDX it just shows Dolby 5.1, at least on the PS4.
> 3. Is there a difference between the chromecast and chromecast ultra when it comes to audio? I know the Ultra supports 4k streaming but I don't currently have the 4k set in my living room. Do both support Atmos and DD content?
> 4. My use cases are mostly - video games occasionally and movies. I don't watch any TV really at all. Most movies are either from Netflix or from Amazon VOD through the PS4.


Ouch, buy an Xbox S/X. That's what I am going to do, As I also have a PS4 and found out the same I'm about to tell you. PS4 sucks for Atmos lol, no Atmos games, Netflix has quite a bit of Atmos content, not on PS4, mostly Atmos is on UHD blurays which your PS4 cannot play. 

I am not sure about Vudu, as I got mixed answers googling, however I am in the same boat, no 4k TV yet and my PJ being 4k is a ways off. 

Xbox can downscale the UHD blurays, Netflix will allow Atmos at 1080p, from what I have seen Vudu will not. Vudu offers Atmos on it's UHD copies and only when played as UHD.

Netflix only allows Atmos on Xbox S/X and PC a Chromecast ultra won't help sadly. All roads lead to Xbox 😞.


----------



## cyberlocc

kbarnes701 said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to compare Atmos to DD, I am simply comparing in an Atmos format, Height Vs Backs, I mean how many helicopters or rain scenes can 1 movie have? Then how many times is there stuff behind you? I feel like the later is greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos is really about much more than helicopters and rain scenes. Obviously helicopters etc will often be above you, and so will their engine sounds. That is an obvious use for speakers on the ceiling. But the point of Atmos is that it creates a *three-dimensional* soundstage, with some sounds at ear level, some right above you at ceiling level and _at all points in between_. The overhead speakers work with the ear level speakers to create this 3 dimensional effect, just as your front speakers work with your surround speakers to create an unbroken 'field of sound' around you. By enabling the mixer to use objects when mixing, he has much greater flexibility and precision when placing sounds anywhere in the 'dome of sound' all around you, including above you. It's a common mistake for people to think that the ceiling speakers are only there to reproduce the sound of things immediately above you, like helicopters and thunder. With Atmos, the entire experience is far more three-dimensional. Of course, it also excels when helicopters are about /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
Click to expand...

I know that is the intention of Atmos, and I bet that works very very well, with 64 speakers 😛. 

But with a few height channels, and a base layer, how well could that really work? 

To me this is increased by the fact that Atmos wants monopoles, so in a small room they are not that dispersed, I can hear a sound in the left surround and say yep that came from right there. I personally won't be using Monopoles however the case still stands. 

I live by the same logic, as all the pro reviewers I have read do, if you want sound from somewhere put a speaker there. The reflected speakers are gimmicy junk, by every single pro review I have seen, and the same would apply to anything in the field between base and heights. If there was 1 or 2 speakers between the surrounds and heights, a litteral dome of speakers I could understand that more so. 

Having used alot of "Virtual" 7.1 headsets in my day, and seeing first hand that doesn't really work I guess leaves me jaded. Maybe those headsets do work for some, as people buy them. However in my attempts I still hear 2 speakers right there and right there. 

Do you feel like that really works? Maybe it does, I'm not saying your wrong, I haven't tried it yet, I am going to soon. I am just starting why I feel it wont. I feel like that's the Dolby koolaid, 100% but I also feel like the same Dolby koolaid, is telling people that ground level speakers make good height channels and sound bars can replace full surround systems. Those things just are not true.

Now that's not to say that Atmos isn't good or more immersive. Especially as sonic location which I never thought of before. Just saying I'm not really buying this place the sound anywhere in the room stuff Dolby is pushing, I don't see how that is possible.


----------



## Parafly9

cyberlocc said:


> Ouch, buy an Xbox S/X. That's what I am going to do, As I also have a PS4 and found out the same I'm about to tell you. PS4 sucks for Atmos lol, no Atmos games, Netflix has quite a bit of Atmos content, not on PS4, mostly Atmos is on UHD blurays which your PS4 cannot play.
> 
> I am not sure about Vudu, as I got mixed answers googling, however I am in the same boat, no 4k TV yet and my PJ being 4k is a ways off.
> 
> Xbox can downscale the UHD blurays, Netflix will allow Atmos at 1080p, from what I have seen Vudu will not. Vudu offers Atmos on it's UHD copies and only when played as UHD.
> 
> Netflix only allows Atmos on Xbox S/X and PC a Chromecast ultra won't help sadly. All roads lead to Xbox 😞.


Vudu on PS4 definitely plays Atmos when I played the test tracks yesterday> the blue atmos light on the receiver lit up and everything (interestingly, only when I had it set to Bitstream Dolby, it didn't work at all when picked Linear PCM). 

I'd imagine it can't be that far behind to add support to Ps4 etc.??

Edit: The One S does everything fine as far as UHD and Atmos - I have no intention to get an xbox for gaming, so it's safe to skip the ONeX version? 

Also - Roku or anything like that doesn't work either with Atmos? It's really just xbox?


----------



## cyberlocc

Parafly9 said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch, buy an Xbox S/X. That's what I am going to do, As I also have a PS4 and found out the same I'm about to tell you. PS4 sucks for Atmos lol, no Atmos games, Netflix has quite a bit of Atmos content, not on PS4, mostly Atmos is on UHD blurays which your PS4 cannot play.
> 
> I am not sure about Vudu, as I got mixed answers googling, however I am in the same boat, no 4k TV yet and my PJ being 4k is a ways off.
> 
> Xbox can downscale the UHD blurays, Netflix will allow Atmos at 1080p, from what I have seen Vudu will not. Vudu offers Atmos on it's UHD copies and only when played as UHD.
> 
> Netflix only allows Atmos on Xbox S/X and PC a Chromecast ultra won't help sadly. All roads lead to Xbox 😞.
> 
> 
> 
> Vudu on PS4 definitely plays Atmos when I played the test tracks yesterday> the blue atmos light on the receiver lit up and everything (interestingly, only when I had it set to Bitstream Dolby, it didn't work at all when picked Linear PCM).
> 
> I'd imagine it can't be that far behind to add support to Ps4 etc.??
> 
> Edit: The One S does everything fine as far as UHD and Atmos - I have no intention to get an xbox for gaming, so it's safe to skip the ONeX version?
> 
> Also - Roku or anything like that doesn't work either with Atmos? It's really just xbox?
Click to expand...

Vudus Atmos will work with PS4, the issue is Vudu only puts Atmos tracks with 4k video. It doesn't allow Atmos on 1080p nor UHD to downscale to 1080p afaik.

PS4 supports Atmos that is not the problem. PS4 does not have a UHD bluray player, it will never play a UHD disc. Most of the Atmos content is on UHD Discs only. So in that sense PS4 Pro, at least the model you have will never "cacth up".

Netflix is a lincensing issue, Netflix only lincenses Xbox One S and X, PC and LG oled TV's from 2017 onward, I'm postive there is money involved in that situation, as we have seen in the past. From past experience Sony are cheap and refuse to pay for stuff like that, whether PS4 will ever have Atmos on Netflix IDK but the outlook isn't good. 

As for the One S yes, it all works on the One S. The one S has a UHD drive so you can Buy/Rent UHD Blu rays with Atmos tracks. You can skip the X and get the S. 

As for Roku, Chromecast ECT. IDK the main thing your looking for on that front is Netflix Atmos, which once again, I can guarantee is a paid feature on the businesses side. A PC can play Netflix with Atmos, however it has to be Windows 10 and it has to be the Netflix app, there is no physical reason for either, once again it's a paid ability game. 

I have no idea about Amazon's Atmos support. Also I could be wrong about Vudu being 4k only you could try, and let me know as well. I know for a fact that Atmos tracks are on UHD Vudu movies only. Whether they can/will downscale to 1080 or not, I am not positive everything I have read says they won't. I have not tried however.

Then again, they likely won't play at all, as I think Vudu UHD copies won't play without HDCP 2.2 which you won't have without a 4k TV.


----------



## Parafly9

Thanks so much for the detailed response!

Yeah on Vudu other titles that were listed online as being Atmos did not show up as Atmos, however the Dolby Atmos test product thing DID do Atmos even in 1080p. 

I do have a PC in an adjacent room. I suppose i could pull an HDMI cable through the ceiling to my receiver which is in an adjacent closet. Or use a laptop with hdmi. but that's a real pain in the ass. 

One more unrelated Atmos question I haven't seen the answer to - what do the overhead (height) speakers do in other surround sound modes? I was watching Ferdinand with my kids earlier and I heard sound coming from the overhead speaker even though it was cast through Google Play Movies, but I think it was only 5.1 content.


----------



## stikle

cyberlocc said:


> I know that is the intention of Atmos, and I bet that works very very well, with 64 speakers 😛.
> 
> But with a few height channels, and a base layer, how well could that really work?



It also works very, very well with "only" 11 speakers (7.x.4). I've had most every incarnation of audio in my life (mono, stereo, Pro Logic, Dolby Digital 5.1, DD 6.1 EX, DD 7.1, Audyssey 11.1, Dolby Atmos 7.(1, 2, & 3).4, and when my current theater build is done, Atmos 9.3.6. Atmos is hands down, the best technological innovation since DD 5.1.

One of my old managers came over and heard my 7.2.4 system and immediately went out and bought an Onkyo HTiB 5.1.2 system. That particular one uses upfiring speakers (ceiling reflective). When I went over to his house and heard demo material that I'm familiar with, I was surprised to hear that it sounded quite good in his particular room. The overhead effects were definitely present, but I'd estimate only 70% of the way to actual overhead speakers. Still, it worked, and he was really happy.



cyberlocc said:


> To me this is increased by the fact that Atmos wants monopoles, so in a small room they are not that dispersed, I can hear a sound in the left surround and say yep that came from right there. I personally won't be using Monopoles however the case still stands.



Atmos is fairly forgiving. Personally, I use unique wide dispersion speakers (Mirage Omnipolar) because I really like their sound. And they work very well to my ear, as well as to every single person that's heard my setup. Enough so that I could have bought any speakers for this new project and didn't. I hunted down more of them (now discontinued) to finish off my theater.



cyberlocc said:


> I live by the same logic, as all the pro reviewers I have read do, if you want sound from somewhere put a speaker there.



So...you've never heard a phantom center channel created by left and right speakers? Or left right panning where there's no speakers between them and yet the sound can move all across the front sound stage?



cyberlocc said:


> The reflected speakers are gimmicy junk, by every single pro review I have seen



Ah...you read it on the Internet, therefore it's true. "gimmicy junk" - not so much. Less than optimal and inferior to actual overhead speakers? Most definitely.



cyberlocc said:


> and the same would apply to anything in the field between base and heights. If there was 1 or 2 speakers between the surrounds and heights, a litteral dome of speakers I could understand that more so.



Again, back to phantom imaging...in the same way a phantom center channel can be created with only two speakers, the same thing works on a vertical plane. Then add the horizontal plane, and you all of a sudden have a 3D axis to work with. Technology changes and improves. You don't _need_ to have speakers in every single place for sound to appear to come from it.

As Morpheus put it:












cyberlocc said:


> Having used alot of "Virtual" 7.1 headsets in my day, and seeing first hand that doesn't really work I guess leaves me jaded. Maybe those headsets do work for some, as people buy them. However in my attempts I still hear 2 speakers right there and right there.



I've never tried headsets like that, but you can't compare them to an actual Atmos system. You're being jaded by an apples to engine block comparison.



cyberlocc said:


> Do you feel like that really works?



YES!



cyberlocc said:


> *I haven't tried it yet*, I am going to soon.



Those are the key words.



cyberlocc said:


> I am just starting why I feel it wont.



It seems like you're asking questions and going into this having already decided it won't work. I implore you to set aside your predisposition and trust the many of us here that were early adopters who have put the time and effort into playing around with Atmos technology. In a properly set up room, Atmos is incredible. Also, you get the added benefit to being able to use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (replaces Dolby PLII/x). It will breath new life into most all non-Atmos content.



cyberlocc said:


> Just saying I'm not really buying this place the sound anywhere in the room stuff Dolby is pushing, I don't see how that is possible.


In the words of Quatto:


----------



## sdurani

cyberlocc said:


> But with a few height channels, and a base layer, how well could that really work?


Depends on what you mean by "work". A 5.1.2 set-up will give you a front soundstage, a surround field and a height layer. That's 3-dimensional sound. You'll hear left vs right, front vs back and up vs down. Without using 64 speakers. Of course, the more speakers you add, the more precise the localization becomes. But that doesn't mean that a 5.1.2 set-up won't give you a 3D soundfield.


> The reflected speakers are gimmicy junk, by every single pro review I have seen, and the same would apply to anything in the field between base and heights.


Almost every time I've heard upfiring speakers, not only was there sound coming from above, but there was also vertical phantom imaging floating between ear height and the ceiling. All with no speakers above. If the demos you've heard sounded like "gimmicky junk", then they weren't set up properly.


> Just saying I'm not really buying this place the sound anywhere in the room stuff Dolby is pushing, I don't see how that is possible.


No one (not even Dolby) claims that you can get sound "anywhere in the room" using too few speakers. Even with basic 5.1, a single pair of surround speakers can't be at two places simultaneously (at your sides AND behind you). Which is why 7.1 came about. Same with the height layer. Want sound anywhere? Place speakers everywhere. Dolby never claimed that Atmos somehow defied the physics of sound reproduction.


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> Dolby never claimed that Atmos somehow defied the physics of sound reproduction.



But will it power my car? (Dolby Atmos Mr. Fusion)


----------



## cyberlocc

stikle said:


> It also works very, very well with "only" 11 speakers (7.x.4). I've had most every incarnation of audio in my life (mono, stereo, Pro Logic, Dolby Digital 5.1, DD 6.1 EX, DD 7.1, Audyssey 11.1, Dolby Atmos 7.(1, 2, & 3).4, and when my current theater build is done, Atmos 9.3.6.


Sounds fun 9.3.6 . 



stikle said:


> Atmos is fairly forgiving. Personally, I use unique wide dispersion speakers (Mirage Omnipolar) because I really like their sound. And they work very well to my ear, as well as to every single person that's heard my setup. Enough so that I could have bought any speakers for this new project and didn't. I hunted down more of them (now discontinued) to finish off my theater.


Good to know the wide dispersion work well. 



stikle said:


> So...you've never heard a phantom center channel created by left and right speakers? Or left right panning where there's no speakers between them and yet the sound can move all across the front sound stage?


I have, I also fully know that there is no speaker in the center and sound doesn't appear to come from the center to me. I do not think that phantom centers are a good idea at all. 



stikle said:


> Ah...you read it on the Internet, therefore it's true. "gimmicy junk" - not so much. Less than optimal and inferior to actual overhead speakers? Most definitely.


Less than optimal and inferior to correct speakers, especially when touted as working well and most marketing suggestions that is the correct way to do Atmos. Not many people are selling Atmos Ceiling speakers, they are selling ceiling reflected speakers. Which A. couldn't possibly be guaranteed to get the sound in the correct place, and go against the idea of everything, that everyone learns when getting into audio. Positional Audio, using reflections? Hmm is this not what has caused Bose to be hated on horridly for years and years? Yet now Dolby does it and everyone's on board? Strange. 



stikle said:


> Again, back to phantom imaging...in the same way a phantom center channel can be created with only two speakers, the same thing works on a vertical plane. Then add the horizontal plane, and you all of a sudden have a 3D axis to work with. Technology changes and improves. You don't _need_ to have speakers in every single place for sound to appear to come from it.


Phantom center channels do not work, IMO. So you want me to believe in phantom channels in between when they have not worked in the past? I think, people may tell themselves they work for them, as a compromise, as that is what they are a severe compromise. That is what we call a Placebo Effect, I do not have the luxury. 




stikle said:


> It seems like you're asking questions and going into this having already decided it won't work. I implore you to set aside your predisposition and trust the many of us here that were early adopters who have put the time and effort into playing around with Atmos technology. In a properly set up room, Atmos is incredible. Also, you get the added benefit to being able to use the Dolby Surround Upmixer (replaces Dolby PLII/x). It will breath new life into most all non-Atmos content.


I'm not saying it wont work, of course it will work, it will add new effects, new dimensions, as there is new speakers. 

I'm saying, this Virtual dome and sounds from any position inside of the dome, ya I am not buying that. No more than a 5.1 sound bar, or 7.1 headphones or phantom channels. Those are gimmicks, they work if you force yourself to try and make them work. Then again some people have different types of positional awareness. 

Some peoples mind, can trick sight to hearing or vice versa, another words, close your eyes and without the video Ques, try and point the speakers locations, however with your eyes on the screen, your brain can trick your mind into the sound from a different location. I can not do that, I can tell you where the speakers are eyes closed or open. 

It all comes down to Virtual Speakers, and Virtual Surround, I do not believe in it, to me at least, with my Sight and Hearing it doesn't work.



sdurani said:


> No one (not even Dolby) claims that you can get sound "anywhere in the room" using too few speakers. Even with basic 5.1, a single pair of surround speakers can't be at two places simultaneously (at your sides AND behind you). Which is why 7.1 came about. Same with the height layer. Want sound anywhere? Place speakers everywhere. Dolby never claimed that Atmos somehow defied the physics of sound reproduction.


Maybe we are not reading the same thread? Because from what I am reading, thats exactly what I'm being told lol.


----------



## LNEWoLF

sdurani said:


> Almost every time I've heard upfiring speakers, not only was there sound coming from above, but there was also vertical phantom imaging floating between ear height and the ceiling. All with no speakers above. If the demos you've heard sounded like "gimmicky junk", then they weren't set up properly.


Couldn’t have stated it any better. Youse a poet 


I experience the MaGic of psychoacoustics everyday with my 7.1.4 DAES. 


Movies, music and concerts all sound amazing. With both Atmos and DTS X the added bonus of having the Dolby Surround and DTS Neural X upmixers makes the jump to 7.1.4 even more worthwhile.


Good luck.....


----------



## stikle

cyberlocc said:


> It all comes down to Virtual Speakers, and Virtual Surround, I do not believe in it, to me at least, with my Sight and Hearing it doesn't work.



Fair point. I have a good friend that 3D at the movie theater does not work for. He's not color blind, the effect just doesn't do anything for him. Meanwhile, I almost fell out of my seat looking over the cliff in Avatar.


----------



## sdurani

cyberlocc said:


> So you want me to believe in phantom channels in between when they have not worked in the past?


You don't have to believe anything you don't want to. However, IF a phantom centre image didn't work, then 2-speaker stereo wouldn't have been a viable playback set-up for the last 80 years.


> Maybe we are not reading the same thread? Because from what I am reading, thats exactly what I'm being told lol.


By whom? lol


----------



## Solarium

I'm thinking of putting up a temporary wall/modular wall over my balcony area for my HT loft to isolate the sound more. Is there a certain company you guys recommend? The reason I don't want to drywall over the balcony area is that it may lower the resale value of the house. I was previously leaning toward a heavy curtain, but I think a temporary wall will do better as far as sound isolation.

This is my original post, with pictures included:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2961696-speaker-placement-open-loft.html#post55854836

Also, I got my atmos speakers, decided to go with Goldenears HTR-7000 x4. Per the Dolby Atmos website, the recommended width from the MLP is about the same width as the front L/R speakers, should be about 45 degrees diagonally, and 45 degrees vertically shooting toward the MLP. I'm about to drill some holes in my ceiling for them, any recommendations on the positioning besides those?


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> However, IF a phantom centre image didn't work, then 2-speaker stereo wouldn't have been a viable playback set-up for the last 80 years.



On a related side-note, the intro to "Money" by Pink Floyd has some of the most amazing stereo imaging I've ever heard. The sounds are even more lefter and righter than my left and right speakers. It blew me away the first time I heard the song in my car.


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> The sounds are even more lefter and righter than my left and right speakers.


Oh yeah, I've heard that effect every so often: sounds extending outside the L/R speakers, even when there are no wides nor surrounds to help stretch out the soundstage.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> You don't have to believe anything you don't want to. However, IF a phantom centre image didn't work, then *2-speaker stereo wouldn't have been a viable playback set-up for the last 80 years*.


Very well put.

If someone doesn't believe that stereo sound works, it's difficult to know how to have a conversation.


----------



## Parafly9

What do Atmos speakers do when there isn't atmos content playing. Are they just quiet. or are they used other audio encoding methods?


----------



## kbarnes701

cyberlocc said:


> I know that is the intention of Atmos, and I bet that works very very well, with 64 speakers 😛.


I don't have to 'bet' that it works as I have heard it actually working 'very very well'. 



cyberlocc said:


> But with a few height channels, and a base layer, how well could that really work?


Well, all the 7.1.4 setups I have heard (and I have heard quite a few, including Dolby's own systems at their London HQ)), which are well set up, work very, very well. I don't know which systems and setups you have been listening to of course. It's possible they have not been set up very well in which case, one would not expect them to work very well, just like anything else which is not set up properly. But if you go to someplace where they have properly set up a 7.1.4, or 5.1.4 system, then you will hear for yourself how well it works.



cyberlocc said:


> I live by the same logic, as all the pro reviewers I have read do, if you want sound from somewhere put a speaker there.


Nothing beats a physical speaker, but you seem to have not heard of phantom imaging. You must surely have heard stereo music systems where there is a totally solid and believable image slap bang in the centre of the left and right speakers, despite there being no speaker at that location.



cyberlocc said:


> The reflected speakers are gimmicy junk, by every single pro review I have seen,


Then we have been reading different reviews. But better than reviews on the internet, I was at Dolby's London HQ for the press launch of Atmos. There, they have a room set up just like a typical domestic HT setup. They used domestic equipment and speakers for the demo (Kef speakers IIRC with Kef upfiring modules). They also had 4 physical speakers in the ceiling. The demo was set up so they could instantly switch between the physical ceiling speakers and the upfiring speakers. The audience, overwhelmingly AV professionals of one kind or another, _actually preferred the sound of the upfirers to the physical speakers_. Twice. The physical speakers give a more 'precise' sound and the upfirers give a more 'diffuse' sound, but both give a convincing Atmos performance. In one test, half the audience could not reliably tell which speakers were playing, whether the physical or the upfirers!



cyberlocc said:


> and the same would apply to anything in the field between base and heights. If there was 1 or 2 speakers between the surrounds and heights, a literal dome of speakers I could understand that more so.


Not the case. In my own HT, and in the good demo rooms I have been in, there is a definite 'layering' of the sound, from right up on the ceiling, to down at ear level and locations in between. This was also the case with the upfirers at Dolby.



cyberlocc said:


> Having used alot of "Virtual" 7.1 headsets in my day, and seeing first hand that doesn't really work I guess leaves me jaded. Maybe those headsets do work for some, as people buy them. However in my attempts I still hear 2 speakers right there and right there.


Atmos is nothing like 'virtual' surround sound systems.



cyberlocc said:


> Do you feel like that really works?


No. I *know *from personal experience that it really works.



cyberlocc said:


> Maybe it does, I'm not saying your wrong,* I haven't tried it yet*,


Whoa there! You haven't tried it yet??? Yet you are posting all of the above as just speculation then? I urge you to experience home Atmos for yourself and then post again with your views after having heard it.



cyberlocc said:


> I am going to soon. I am just starting why I feel it wont.


So you've decided already that it won't work, even though you haven't heard it?



cyberlocc said:


> I feel like that's the Dolby koolaid, 100% but I also feel like the same Dolby koolaid, is telling people that ground level speakers make good height channels and sound bars can replace full surround systems. Those things just are not true.


I'd need to see some links to where Dolby have said that a soundbar 'can replace full surround systems'. 



cyberlocc said:


> Now that's not to say that Atmos isn't good or more immersive. Especially as sonic location which I never thought of before. Just saying I'm not really buying this place the sound anywhere in the room stuff Dolby is pushing, I don't see how that is possible.


Well, because you don't see how something is possible, doesn't mean that it is not possible. If you believe this huge thread, inhabited by knowledgeable hobbyists who in some cases have spent 6 figures on their HTs, plus industry professionals, including those who work in Hollywood mixing rooms and sound studios, plus professionals who have been instrumental in actually inventing certain aspects of modern cinema sound, plus AV professionals of varying kinds ... if you believe that all of those people have been hoodwinked by Dolby's 'Koolaid', and that Atmos cannot possibly work - even though you haven't heard it - then all I can say is 'stick with 5.1'.


----------



## kbarnes701

Parafly9 said:


> What do Atmos speakers do when there isn't atmos content playing. Are they just quiet. or are they used other audio encoding methods?


When you watch an Atmos movie, properly decoded by your AVR, the overhead speakers play when the sound mixer has placed content in them. If the mixer has not placed content in the overhead speakers (a creative decision) then the overhead speakers are silent.

However, all Atmos and DTS:X AVRs come with upmixing technology. In the case of Dolby, this is called Dolby Surround Upmixer. In the case of DTS:X it is called DTS Neural:X. They work like the upmixers you are familiar with where sound is extracted from, say, a 2 channel source and upmixed to all the speakers in the system or when a 5.1 track uses a 7.1 system via its upmixer. So all of your legacy content in 2ch, 5ch or 7ch form can use all the speakers in your system, including the overheads, via DSU or Neural:X, using complex algorithms to determine how sounds are extracted and where they are placed. They work remarkably well IMO.


----------



## cyclones22

sdurani said:


> Almost every time I've heard upfiring speakers, not only was there sound coming from above, but there was also vertical phantom imaging floating between ear height and the ceiling. All with no speakers above. If the demos you've heard sounded like "gimmicky junk", then they weren't set up properly.


This is truth. Yes, I'm biased because I chose not to drill holes in my ceiling or mount speakers as heights in my house. But then again, these "pro reviewers" are also biased. They're all going into the listening session expecting certain things and knowing the speaker configuration. You want to know if your Dolby AE setup is configured correctly? Sit someone down in your home theater who has no idea what Atmos is. Don't even explain what you're doing except that you want to play a few clips to demonstrate your home theater. It's exactly what I have done many times for visitors and EVERY SINGLE TIME, the folks I have demoed for swear that they're hearing noises coming from the ceiling (they are) but are amazed there aren't any speakers that they can see. No information ahead of time and no pre-conceived notions. That's the true test and my setup passes time and time again.


----------



## thewonderer

sdurani said:


> thewonderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my rear surrounds are in front of the rear atmos, say pointing straight at the listeners ears rather than from behind (which I have them set to) then that would work.
> 
> 
> 
> It will work either way. In the base layer, placing your two surround speakers in the back corners of the room will result in greater envelopment due to the reflective surfaces nearby. In the height layer, placing one pair of overhead speakers as far behind you as possible will improve front-to-back panning above you. No need to unnecessarily complicate things further than that.
Click to expand...

Many thanks. Glad I won't be installing my polk mc60 for a few more weeks. Wouldnt like to have a ceiling full of holes where I made a mistake, lol. 

My impression was that an atmos soundtrack assumed the rear surrounds were behind the rear ceiling, but now I'm coming round to understanding that atmos speakers and surrounds are 2 different entities. I figured originally the would make the sound come from the rear surround, travel to the rear ceiling, then front ceiling and the front surround...


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> Wouldnt like to have a ceiling full of holes where I made a mistake, lol.


Even if you had been off by a couple feet here and there, speakers mounted above you will sound like they're above you, not some other direction. You wouldn't have made a mistake because Atmos placement is quite forgiving that way. Now that you've improved the separation in the height layer, your overhead speakers will give you a clear sense of left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement above you. Once up and running, you're in for a treat.


----------



## markmanner

cyberlocc said:


> ...Do you feel like that really works? Maybe it does, I'm not saying your wrong, I haven't tried it yet, I am going to soon. I am just starting why I feel it wont. I feel like that's the Dolby koolaid, 100% but I also feel like the same Dolby koolaid, is telling people that ground level speakers make good height channels and sound bars can replace full surround systems. Those things just are not true.
> 
> Now that's not to say that Atmos isn't good or more immersive. Especially as sonic location which I never thought of before. Just saying I'm not really buying this place the sound anywhere in the room stuff Dolby is pushing, I don't see how that is possible.


I suppose a hundred speakers everywhere would be better if you had the equipment to run it, but I can say that my 5.2.4 setup sounds just great. Very immersive with stuff flying around everywhere on lots of different movies. I added the 4 ATMOS speakers not expecting a lot, but I got a lot! I agree with you that some of the marketing stuff about sound bars replacing surround systems is a bit much, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
YMMV, particularly given your predisposition to thinking it won't sound good. 
Best,
Mark


----------



## mrtickleuk

markmanner said:


> I suppose *a hundred speakers* everywhere would be better if you had the equipment to run it,


Not just that, it's not very comfortable! Not a very relaxing environment


----------



## markmanner

mrtickleuk said:


> Not just that, it's not very comfortable! Not a very relaxing environment


Yes, that looks pretty unpleasant!


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WAF alert!


----------



## T-Bone

cyclones22 said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every time I've heard upfiring speakers, not only was there sound coming from above, but there was also vertical phantom imaging floating between ear height and the ceiling. All with no speakers above. If the demos you've heard sounded like "gimmicky junk", then they weren't set up properly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is truth. Yes, I'm biased because I chose not to drill holes in my ceiling or mount speakers as heights in my house. But then again, these "pro reviewers" are also biased. They're all going into the listening session expecting certain things and knowing the speaker configuration. You want to know if your Dolby AE setup is configured correctly? Sit someone down in your home theater who has no idea what Atmos is. Don't even explain what you're doing except that you want to play a few clips to demonstrate your home theater. It's exactly what I have done many times for visitors and EVERY SINGLE TIME, the folks I have demoed for swear that they're hearing noises coming from the ceiling (they are) but are amazed there aren't any speakers that they can see. No information ahead of time and no pre-conceived notions. That's the true test and my setup passes time and time again.
Click to expand...

As someone who had the option of installing ceiling speakers (240 bucks total plus my time for 4 speakets), I would have liked to try the bounce method... but they are so dang expensive.

-T


----------



## Soupy1970

For the bounce method to work you have to have more things properly aligned then that of in ceiling speakers. In ceiling is more forgiving of proper setup. I think many people are just put off by Drilling holes in their ceiling, but if you factor cost of even hiring a person to come patch all the holes that may be necessary to run wire, it can still be cheaper. You can reuse the piece you cut out to put back in as fill, then fill the seam, and sand. Mine was a plastered ceiling. My plasterer after I patched everything back with drywall, came and refinished the whole entire ceiling to look new (not just the patch areas) for $300 including materials. But I ripped out whole sections as I was rewiring all 11 speakers in the room and running RCA cables to Sub locations, I even installed 9 can lights. Shoot, a handy man that knows how to hang drywall, can rip out the whole room for a remodel for what some of these Atmos enabled speakers cost. 

My point is, it's not really as difficult, or costly as some might think. And you will never know you hacked up your walls and ceilings to run wires. Save your speaker cut outs for if you ever decide to take them out and seal those holes as well, but a sheet of drywall is cheap if needed.


----------



## Scott-C

sdurani said:


> Oh yeah, I've heard that effect every so often: sounds extending outside the L/R speakers, even when there are no wides nor surrounds to help stretch out the soundstage.


Madonna: Immaculate Collection has always provided this effect to great extent, at least in my room. It's amazing how wide the front soundstage is, extending way beyond the physical left and right speakers. If you haven't heard this CD, I'd recommend giving it a listen. Almost every song on the CD will play way wider than the room (2-channel listening). And the soundstage is incredibly deep, too, often extending 90 degrees to the sides of my ears or even a bit deeper at times.


----------



## Lesmor

Scott-C said:


> Madonna: Immaculate Collection has always provided this effect to great extent, at least in my room. It's amazing how wide the front soundstage is, extending way beyond the physical left and right speakers. If you haven't heard this CD, I'd recommend giving it a listen. Almost every song on the CD will play way wider than the room (2-channel listening). And the soundstage is incredibly deep, too, often extending 90 degrees to the sides of my ears or even a bit deeper at times.


That was the CD I was going to suggest for those who claim they don't hear phantom speakers
I don't know why Q Sound didn't catch on
Its awesome hearing sounds from the side and rear of the room from"speakers" that don't actually exist


----------



## sdurani

Soupy1970 said:


> You can reuse the piece you cut out to put back in as fill, then fill the seam, and sand. Mine was a plastered ceiling.


If you angle the saw blade when cutting, the piece you cut out will be slightly larger on top than bottom, keeping it from falling through. You can push it in and slide it to the side, storing it next to the hole indefinitely (so you don't misplace the cut out piece). If and when the hole needs to be patched, just reach in and slide the piece back (it won't fall through), then patch as usual.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> That was the CD I was going to suggest for those who claim they don't hear phantom speakers
> I don't know why Q Sound didn't catch on
> Its awesome hearing sounds from the side and rear of the room from"speakers" that don't actually exist


I find it extraordinary that some people apparently 'can't hear' a phantom center image from a good stereo system, properly set up. If the content is a mono sound, coming equally from a left and right speaker equidistant from the listener (where the speakers are in phase with each other), how would it be possible _not _to hear that sound directly between the two speakers? Putting it another way, how would it be possible to hear the left speaker playing the sound and the right speaker playing the sound, as two distinct sound sources?

I came to AV after a lifetime of stereo 'hi-fi'. I still only listen to 2ch music on my 2ch system (just my preference). And I never cease to be amazed at the solidity of the centre image. I also frequently hear the kind of pyscho-acoustic effects you mention where the soundstage extends beyond the left and right speakers and also behind and in front of the central point.

Of course, it only works for a single listener, sitting between the two speakers. For AV we really require a centre speaker since much of the time more than one listener is in the room. And with 7.1 we don't need to rely on psychoacoustics to hear sound around and behind us. And with Atmos, ditto for sound above us. But phantom imaging is a totally legitimate and, I thought, totally understood concept.

Incidentally, you may well have marvelled at the famous (in the AV world) scene in *Master & Commander, The Far Side of the World*, where one could swear that the sound of footsteps above the listener, on deck, are coming from the ceiling, above us, even though we had a 5.1 system at the time. I bet that scene is even better now if one upmixes with DSU or Neural:X, and of course would be better yet if there was an Atmos remix of the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If you angle the saw blade when cutting, the piece you cut out will be slightly larger on top than bottom, keeping it from falling through. You can push it in and slide it to the side, storing it next to the hole indefinitely (so you don't misplace the cut out piece). If and when the hole needs to be patched, just reach in and slide the piece back (it won't fall through), then patch as usual.


Excellent tip, Sanjay. I have used that method on walls too (when making holes to fish wires, although one has to retrieve the piece then. It makes making good really easy - all that's needed is a skim of plaster or filler and a lick of paint and the wall is good as new.


----------



## LNEWoLF

T-Bone said:


> As someone who had the option of installing ceiling speakers (240 bucks total plus my time for 4 speakets), I would have liked to try the bounce method... but they are so dang expensive.
> 
> -T


I intially experimented several years ago with a pair of JBL E-10 bookshelf speakers I owned. I set them on top of my front speakers. Guesstomated the angle. Performed a calibration. Was surprised when I heard sounds from above. 


Knowing that the certified DAES would perform better as they have circuity built into them to help to re enforce the psychoacoustic effect. Purchased the Pioner DAES on sale for 75.00 a pair.


VERY impressed with them they perform VERY well for their intended purpose. With both Dolby Atmos, Dolby Surround, DTS X and DTS Neural X.


Amazon has the Pioneer DAES on sale regularly for 99.00 a pair. So for 200 you would have a X.X.4 system setup.


Good luck.


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> I find it extraordinary that some people apparently 'can't hear' a phantom center image from a good stereo system, properly set up. If the content is a mono sound, coming equally from a left and right speaker equidistant from the listener (where the speakers are in phase with each other), how would it be possible _not _to hear that sound directly between the two speakers? Putting it another way, how would it be possible to hear the left speaker playing the sound and the right speaker playing the sound, as two distinct sound sources?



There is a small percentage of the population that are not able to hear/experience psychoacoustic effects. Due to the shape of their ears.


Fortunately physical speakers located above may help some.


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally, you may well have marvelled at the famous (in the AV world) scene in *Master & Commander, The Far Side of the World*, where one could swear that the sound of footsteps above the listener, on deck, are coming from the ceiling, above us, even though we had a 5.1 system at the time. I bet that scene is even better now if one upmixes with DSU or Neural:X, and of course would be better yet if there was an Atmos remix of the movie.


Absolutely hear sailor's running across the deck above you in that movie and also shouting from the rigging in the distance far right
there are quite a few films with phantom sounds, voices, coming from above the last couple Harry Potter movies with voldemort is a good example


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> There is a small percentage of the population that are not able to hear/experience psychoacoustic effects. Due to the shape of their ears.


Do you have a link to more information on people who cannot hear a phantom center image in a properly set-up stereo system? I am interested to learn more about this as, to me, it seems impossible, regardless of ear shape. So long as the listener has two properly working ears, in the usual place on the head, it seems impossible to _not_ hear a center image in the circumstances described. Thanks.

As a stable center image is a fundamental requirement for a stereo speaker setup, the inability to hear it would mean those people were unable to enjoy stereo music. I've never come across anyone (until yesterday) who suffered from this problem. I am wondering what they _do _hear when they listen to a stereo source? And since phantom imaging is so important, even with m/ch recordings, what do they hear when they watch a movie in 5.1 or 7.1 or an Atmos configuration?


----------



## Jonas2

cyberlocc said:


> To me this is increased by the fact that Atmos wants monopoles, so in a small room they are not that dispersed, I can hear a sound in the left surround and say yep that came from right there. I personally won't be using Monopoles however the case still stands.


Dolby recommends the use of monopoles or bipoles. Just not dipoles. So, I think you're good to go!


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent tip, Sanjay. I have used that method on walls too (when making holes to fish wires, *although one has to retrieve the piece then*.



One could also drill a drywall screw into the center of the piece and affix a line to it before cutting out the hole. Easy retrieval. Going further, one could lower the drywall cutout to the bottom of the space and tie the line to the basket of the speaker (or whatever else is going into said hole). Always know where it is, always retrievable.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> One could also drill a drywall screw into the center of the piece and affix a line to it before cutting out the hole. Easy retrieval. Going further, one could lower the drywall cutout to the bottom of the space and tie the line to the basket of the speaker (or whatever else is going into said hole). Always know where it is, always retrievable.


Good points. Of course, when cutting holes etc for wire fishing, as soon as the wires are in place, the holes are repaired, so no chance of losing the drywall piece. Although I have known a very clumsy AV fan step on a piece and crush it when doing the fishing  No names, no pack drill...


----------



## Roger Dressler

Lesmor said:


> That was the CD I was going to suggest for those who claim they don't hear phantom speakers
> I don't know why Q Sound didn't catch on


It caused problems for radio broadcasters because the Q-Sound processed channels do not fold down to mono cleanly. They exhibit unpleasant comb filter colorations. That means pop music would need dual release formats. Economically nonviable and operationally unmanageable.


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> If you angle the saw blade when cutting, the piece you cut out will be slightly larger on top than bottom, keeping it from falling through. You can push it in and slide it to the side, storing it next to the hole indefinitely (so you don't misplace the cut out piece). If and when the hole needs to be patched, just reach in and slide the piece back (it won't fall through), then patch as usual.





kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent tip, Sanjay. I have used that method on walls too (when making holes to fish wires, although one has to retrieve the piece then. It makes making good really easy - all that's needed is a skim of plaster or filler and a lick of paint and the wall is good as new.





stikle said:


> One could also drill a drywall screw into the center of the piece and affix a line to it before cutting out the hole. Easy retrieval. Going further, one could lower the drywall cutout to the bottom of the space and tie the line to the basket of the speaker (or whatever else is going into said hole). Always know where it is, always retrievable.


There are many on these threads who are hesitant, reluctant, WAF restrained, etc. to fish wire, cut holes, install wall/ceiling speakers, etc. due to fear of the unknown. Those of us who have a bit of drywall repair experience or have a handyman at our disposal understand that it is not at all difficult or expensive to undertake...also YouTube is your friend. The excellent tips above prompted me to wonder if there was a sticky or dedicated thread for compiling such helpful DIY kinds of information...just thinking out loud.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> There are many on these threads who are hesitant, reluctant, WAF restrained, etc. to fish wire, cut holes, install wall/ceiling speakers, etc. due to fear of the unknown. Those of us who have a bit of drywall repair experience or have a handyman at our disposal understand that it is not at all difficult or expensive to undertake...also YouTube is your friend. The excellent tips above prompted me to wonder if there was a sticky or dedicated thread for compiling such helpful DIY kinds of information...just thinking out loud.


You make a good point. With Atmos, most people on this thread want to use physical speakers I think. Even if they are *on*-ceiling designs, there is still the issue of how to get the wires from the amps/AVR to the speakers and this may involve cutting into drywall. If they are *in*-ceiling designs then you have the wiring issue _plus_ the separate issue of cutting large holes in the drywall.

As you say, YouTube is an excellent resource for hints and tips on how to do these jobs. Also, a good set of wire-fishing rods is essential for pulling wires through ceilings or walls. I think that many people have a natural fear of ripping their home to bits, even though these jobs are well within the capabilities of most DIY-ers with some basic tools.

I wonder how many people would love to have Atmos but have not gone for it due to a worry of how to mount and wire the overhead speakers? Of course, for many of these (with suitable ceilings and ceiling heights) the Atmos-enabled speakers are a great alternative. But they have gotten such a bad press (often from people who haven't heard them and from people like the Audioholics guys who really should know better than to decry AE speakers, again without having heard them (originally) just to feed their own prejudices) that many have been deterred from even considering them. 

Honestly guys, Atmos-enabled speakers are a *great *alternative if you can't, for whatever reason, mount physical speakers.


----------



## stikle

gene4ht said:


> There are many on these threads who are hesitant, reluctant, WAF restrained, etc. to fish wire, cut holes, install wall/ceiling speakers, etc. due to fear of the unknown.



That was me. I measured approximately 4,362 times before drilling the first pilot hole in my perfect wall. I was really hesitant to break out the spade bit to make a hole big enough to fish the speaker wire.

Now? 

Repeat after me:



> Mud fixes all.



Go forth and cut, you non-Atmos heathens!


----------



## smashr

Long time 5.1 user, recent 7.1 setup, currently planning 7.1.4 atmos setup. 

Details of my temporary 7.1 setup are attached in IMG_1066, IMG_1067, and IMG_1069.

1. I know my Surround-Backs are too high on the wall to get good separation from Atmos speakers, so they'll need to come down to ~50" off the ground or so to match the side surrounds. This of course means I'll need to switch to in-wall speakers, which stinks because I like these bookshelfs and they are a recent purchase. Oh well, the price we pay.

2. As you see, my left side surround is ever so slightly in front of the 90deg mark from the MLP. (81deg off center line). These are bipole surrounds, so hoping this is okay. I have not watched a ton with this set up so far, but it certainly sounds fine. 

3. Any other thoughts on improvements for the base layer?

Details of the proposed ceiling speakers are in IMG_1090. This gets a little trickier, because in my infinite wisdom, I had can lights installed pretty much where I want to have ceiling speakers. I've identified three spots for the Top Front Right and Top Back Right speakers. If I put the front speakers 68" forward of the MLP, creating a nice 43deg longitudinal elevation, then they can only get 48" wide from the MLP, making it a tight 53deg lateral elevation from the MLP, even higher from the right side of the couch. If I put the front speakers only 49" forward of the MLP, then I can get them wider, at least on the right side. The left side can only be about 48" wide due to the bulkhead regardless of forward position. I could get creative and mount a speaker ON the bulkhead, but then we are getting into mismatched pairs L to R. 



Code:


                              TF1	TF2	TF3
azimuth, deg	                35	44	54
normal elevation, deg         	38	43	37
longitudinal elevation, deg	43	53	53
lateral elevation            	53	53	43

Similar situation for the Top Back Right:



Code:


                           	TB1	TB2	TB3
azimuth, deg              	137	146	136
normal elevation, deg         	42	37	33
longitudinal elevation, deg	129	138	138
lateral elevation           	53	53	43

Attaching a screenshot of the immersive spreadsheet with Top Fronts in TF1 and Top Backs in TB2 which is where I would have cited them to try and optimize the longitudinal elevation.

Open to any thoughts or opinions here!


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> Thank you for the compliment
> 
> To determine the ideal distance, first I picked a degree setting. So I was shooting for 45 degrees in front of the position, and 45? behind the position.
> 
> So now the math becomes easy When using 45 degrees (the ideal degrees). When you are sitting in your chair at the listening position, measure the distance from your ear to the ceiling. In my case it was 82 in. Because I have 10 foot ceilings. That means the front speakers in the ceiling had to be 82 in in front of the listening position. And the rear ceiling speakers had to be 82 inches behind the listening position.
> 
> Movie poster frames are aluminum from Amazon. Got them on sale for $30 each. 36 Long 24 wide.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00J7ANXAI/ref=oh_aui_i_sh_in_o1_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> They are back up to $60 each Now. But at 30 bucks, they were a steal.
> 
> -T


Hi T-bone,

Based on above calculation ceiling Dolby atoms speakers between front and rear speakers distance should be approximately 14 feet? which is 82 inches front + 82 inches rear from listing position total distance between both ceiling speakers 164 inches correct?


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the compliment 🙂
> 
> To determine the ideal distance, first I picked a degree setting. So I was shooting for 45 degrees in front of the position, and 45? behind the position.
> 
> So now the math becomes easy When using 45 degrees (the ideal degrees). When you are sitting in your chair at the listening position, measure the distance from your ear to the ceiling. In my case it was 82 in. Because I have 10 foot ceilings. That means the front speakers in the ceiling had to be 82 in in front of the listening position. And the rear ceiling speakers had to be 82 inches behind the listening position.
> 
> Movie poster frames are aluminum from Amazon. Got them on sale for $30 each. 36 Long 24 wide.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00J7ANXAI/ref=oh_aui_i_sh_in_o1_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> They are back up to $60 each Now. But at 30 bucks, they were a steal.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Hi T-bone,
> 
> Based on above calculation ceiling Dolby atoms speakers between front and rear speakers distance should be approximately 14 feet? which is 82 inches front + 82 inches rear from listing position total distance between both ceiling speakers 164 inches correct?
Click to expand...

No, that is not exactly correct. Dolby is saying 45 degrees to the front and 45° to the Rear as ideal.

I'm saying in my room with my ear 38 in from the floor with 10-foot ceilings, then that comes to 82 in to the front and 82 in the rear.

If I had 9-foot ceilings, then the distance to the front in inches and the distance to the rear in inches would not be 82". . Although I would still shoot fir 45 degrees to the front and 45° to the rear.

-T


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you have a link to more information on people who cannot hear a phantom center image in a properly set-up stereo system? I am interested to learn more about this as, to me, it seems impossible, regardless of ear shape. So long as the listener has two properly working ears, in the usual place on the head, it seems impossible to _not_ hear a center image in the circumstances described. Thanks.
> 
> As a stable center image is a fundamental requirement for a stereo speaker setup, the inability to hear it would mean those people were unable to enjoy stereo music. I've never come across anyone (until yesterday) who suffered from this problem. I am wondering what they _do _hear when they listen to a stereo source? And since phantom imaging is so important, even with m/ch recordings, what do they hear when they watch a movie in 5.1 or 7.1 or an Atmos configuration?


*My apologies, *


*I was in a rush when I responded to your post. On my way to an appointment.*


*I meant to share/emphasize that there is/are a small number of people that are not able to hear/experience psychoacoustic effects from above. Unfortunately I left out the words emphasizing ABOVE from my previous post.*


*Due to the design of their ear. As it relates to the pinna. The shape of your ear that helps to funnel sound toward your eardrum.*


*I learned of this thru one of the Dolby Atmos video interviews with Brett Crockett and Craig Eggers from Dolby. It might be in this video. Or another one. Good luck, it’s in one if them. *


*



*


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> No, that is not exactly correct. Dolby is saying 45 degrees to the front and 45° to the Rear as ideal.
> 
> I'm saying in my room with my ear 38 in from the floor with 10-foot ceilings, then that comes to 82 in to the front and 82 in the rear.
> 
> If I had 9-foot ceilings, then the distance to the front in inches and the distance to the rear in inches would not be 82". . Although I would still shoot fir 45 degrees to the front and 45° to the rear.
> 
> -T


Thanks, But I am confusing. I have 8 foot ceiling room, And I would like know average how many feets difference between from front and rear speakers? I understand that dolby recommends from listing ear position 45 degrees front and rear side 45 degrees distance from listing position. But if 45 degrees front and rear side distance equals to how many feets between front and rear speakers?


----------



## thewonderer

sdurani said:


> thewonderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldnt like to have a ceiling full of holes where I made a mistake, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you had been off by a couple feet here and there, speakers mounted above you will sound like they're above you, not some other direction. You wouldn't have made a mistake because Atmos placement is quite forgiving that way. Now that you've improved the separation in the height layer, your overhead speakers will give you a clear sense of left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement above you. Once up and running, you're in for a treat.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I'm pretty excited. To be installing my ceiling speaker soon. As the room has a support beam in the middle they of the room which is 20cm lower that the ceiling, and one side is 17cm different in height (don't ask, Australian old houses) I'll be taking down the ceiling so both sides are the same height (2.5m). I know off topic a little but anything working putting in the ceiling before the speakers go in? Insulation over the speakers, or leave as is. Thanks.


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not exactly correct. Dolby is saying 45 degrees to the front and 45° to the Rear as ideal.
> 
> I'm saying in my room with my ear 38 in from the floor with 10-foot ceilings, then that comes to 82 in to the front and 82 in the rear.
> 
> If I had 9-foot ceilings, then the distance to the front in inches and the distance to the rear in inches would not be 82". . Although I would still shoot fir 45 degrees to the front and 45° to the rear.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, But I am confusing. I have 8 foot ceiling room, And I would like know average how many feets difference between from front and rear speakers? I understand that dolby recommends from listing ear position 45 degrees front and rear side 45 degrees distance from listing position. But if 45 degrees front and rear side distance equals to how many feets between front and rear speakers?
Click to expand...

8 feet ceiling is 96 inches. Assuming your ears are 38" from the floor, 96 - 38 = 58 inches.

Assuming you're trying to hit the 45 degree mark recommended by Dolby, speakers are 58 in in front of the listening position, and 58 inch behind the listening position... So you have a total of 116 in between the front and rear speakers.

-T


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> I know off topic a little but anything working putting in the ceiling before the speakers go in? Insulation over the speakers, or leave as is.


I would put a little insulation over/around the speakers instead of leaving the empty cavity as is.


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> I would put a little insulation over/around the speakers instead of leaving the empty cavity as is.


Agreed...I did so...especially to help minimize sound transmission to other parts of the house...as per the speaker's installation recommendations.


----------



## Azekecse

sdurani said:


> Even if you had been off by a couple feet here and there, speakers mounted above you will sound like they're above you, not some other direction. You wouldn't have made a mistake because Atmos placement is quite forgiving that way. Now that you've improved the separation in the height layer, your overhead speakers will give you a clear sense of left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement above you. Once up and running, you're in for a treat.


You are absolutely correct Sdurani, the Atmos config is very forgiving. I've tried 7.2.2 Dolby Atmos, then increased to 7.2.4, and if you find the right Dolby Atmos media, the sound can be very immersive and enveloping. YMMV of course, but I certainly enjoy Dolby Atmos even if sometimes, I need to implement Dolby Neural X. As sound Engineers become more familiar with Atmos, I believe they will provide better Atmos mixes. This is not marketing scheme to me, this is a significant improvement in sound immersion, which is well worth the investment if you have the equipment, room location and budget. You would just need to ensure that your speakers are properly calibrated, i.e distances, levels, crossovers, etc.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke


----------



## sdurani

Azekecse said:


> YMMV of course, but I certainly enjoy Dolby Atmos even if sometimes, I need to implement Dolby Neural X.


Agreed, Dolby Neural X can sound enjoyable when applied to Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## gakbw

Thanks T.Bone! Great explanation👍 It’s cleared now.


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> Thanks T.Bone! Great explanation👍 It’s cleared now.


You are welcome. But I cannot take credit for that. I have to thank @sdurani since I believe he was the one that i recall made the math real simple for 45 degrees.

-T


----------



## duckymomo

The "Magnepull XP1000-LC Wire Pulling System" worked really well for me running wires for all 11 speakers through walls and ceiling. Two of them were exterior walls with spray foam.


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> My apologies,
> 
> 
> I meant to share/emphasize that there is/are a small number of people that are not able to hear/experience psychoacoustic effects from above. Unfortunately I left out the words emphasizing ABOVE from my previous post.


All clear now, thanks. Human hearing is weaker from behind us and from above us, compared with from in front of us, so I can imagine that some people might struggle to hear sounds from the former locations. No reason for those people not to turn up the volume on the overhead speakers though, to help them with it, I guess.


----------



## Scott-C

duckymomo said:


> The "Magnepull XP1000-LC Wire Pulling System" worked really well for me running wires for all 11 speakers through walls and ceiling. Two of them were exterior walls with spray foam.


Thanks; I was unaware of the existence of that system. It sounds like it would work very well, under the right conditions.


----------



## Erod

Azekecse said:


> You are absolutely correct Sdurani, the Atmos config is very forgiving. I've tried 7.2.2 Dolby Atmos, then increased to 7.2.4, and if you find the right Dolby Atmos media, the sound can be very immersive and enveloping. YMMV of course, but I certainly enjoy Dolby Atmos even if sometimes, I need to implement Dolby Neural X. As sound Engineers become more familiar with Atmos, I believe they will provide better Atmos mixes. This is not marketing scheme to me, this is a significant improvement in sound immersion, which is well worth the investment if you have the equipment, room location and budget. You would just need to ensure that your speakers are properly calibrated, i.e distances, levels, crossovers, etc.
> 
> Peace and blessings,
> 
> Azeke


You can't apply Neural:X to Atmos. 

Atmos is Atmos. Neural:X is an upmixer like DSU, and those only apply when Atmos or DTS:X aren't present in the track.


----------



## gakbw

T-Bone said:


> You are welcome. But I cannot take credit for that. I have to thank @sdurani since I believe he was the one that i recall made the math real simple for 45 degrees.
> 
> -T


Thanks to you SDurani  Today we are going install in-ceiling 2 more Dolby atmos speakers as per recommendations, I found total ceiling height 8.2 feet (117 inches) and ear level is 43 inches , and we have can lights between 120 inches to 150 inches from rear atmos speakers which was installed earlier, I cannot install near can lights and because many power lines and furnace lines are running So I can install at 102 inches distance from rear speakers or next option is I need move forward to by pass can lights around 162 inches. So Can I install at 102 inches from rear speakers (or) next option is 162 inches? So which option is good for better atmos experience?


----------



## Selden Ball

Erod said:


> You can't apply Neural:X to Atmos.
> 
> Atmos is Atmos. Neural:X is an upmixer like DSU, and those only apply when Atmos or DTS:X aren't present in the track.


A quibble: my understanding is that Neural:X can be applied to DTS:X. As currently provided to consumers, except for a very few titles, DTS:X soundtracks are shipped as channel-based audio encodings without objects (unlike Atmos), so upmixing can enhance it to use speaker channels not included in the actual soundtrack. (Front Wides, in particular)


----------



## Erod

Selden Ball said:


> A quibble: my understanding is that Neural:X can be applied to DTS:X. As currently provided to consumers, except for a very few titles, DTS:X soundtracks are shipped as channel-based audio encodings without objects (unlike Atmos), so upmixing can enhance it to use speaker channels not included in the actual soundtrack. (Front Wides, in particular)


Hmmm. That seems so conceptually different than Atmos. Maybe that's the reason DTS:X is so slow out of the gate.


----------



## stikle

Azekecse said:


> I need to implement Dolby Neural X.





sdurani said:


> Agreed, Dolby Neural X can sound enjoyable when applied to Atmos soundtracks.





Erod said:


> You can't apply Neural:X to Atmos.
> 
> Atmos is Atmos. Neural:X is an upmixer like DSU, and those only apply when Atmos or DTS:X aren't present in the track.



^ this.

Also, Neural:X is DTS's upmixer, not Dolby's Surround Upmixer (DSU)...

One demerit for Sanjay.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> You can't apply Neural:X to Atmos.


I thought Dolby Neural X could be applied to everything.


stikle said:


> Also, Neural:X is DTS's upmixer, not Dolby's Surround Upmixer (DSU)...


When did Neural X change companies?


----------



## sdrucker

stikle said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Also, Neural:X is DTS's upmixer, not Dolby's Surround Upmixer (DSU)...
> 
> One demerit for Sanjay.


 
Not that I've ever tried this  ...but couldn't you set the player to PCM rather than bitstream, and force the core 7.1 track without metadata to be sent to your processor? In that case I would think you'd be able to apply Neural:X to the PCM content.

Granted you lose the benefit of the actual Atmos decoding using the metadata, as well as the "bed" content directed to the heights as a stereo pair, though.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> A quibble: my understanding is that Neural:X can be applied to DTS:X. As currently provided to consumers, except for a very few titles, DTS:X soundtracks are shipped as channel-based audio encodings without objects (unlike Atmos), so upmixing can enhance it to use speaker channels not included in the actual soundtrack. (Front Wides, in particular)


Might be easier to think if it as "parts" of Neural:X being used as a step in DTS:X decoding. When upmixing is applied to 2 surround channels, it creates 4 surround outputs (sides & rears). When upmixing is applied to 2 front channels, it can create 3 front outputs (L/C/R). 

When a DTS:X track is being decoded, it sends channels and objects down different paths. Channels are downmixed or upmixed (using those 2-in/4-out and 2-in/3-out parts of Neural:X) to conform to the speaker layout. Objects are mapped to the same layout. Both paths are combined for final output. Since scaling the channels to match the speaker configuration is a step in the decoding process, it's a little different than applying Neural:X as an upmixer to an already-decoded signal. But you're right, the scaler being used during decoding is Neural:X.


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> When did Neural X change companies?



Umm...never? It's always been a DTS technology. DTS:X & DTS Neural:X vs. Dolby Atmos and Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU).


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Not that I've ever tried this  ...but couldn't you set the player to PCM rather than bitstream, and force the core 7.1 track without metadata to be sent to your processor?


I think Yamaha allows you to do this at the flick of a switch. For soundtracks that have little to no overhead content, upmixing the 7.1 core might yield a more enjoyable/immersive experience (despite original intent).


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Agreed, Dolby Neural X can sound enjoyable when applied to Atmos soundtracks.





sdurani said:


> I thought Dolby Neural X could be applied to everything. When did Neural X change companies?


I'm not sure if I'm misreading what you wrote, you're pulling people's legs or having a "senior moment", but Neural:X has always been a DTS product, which was first shipped in conjunction with DTS:X. In many ways it's a follow-on to their previous upmixers, Neo:6 and Neo:X. Neural Audio Corporation was bought by DTS in 2009. (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Audio_Corporation)


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Also, Neural:X is DTS's upmixer, not Dolby's Surround Upmixer (DSU)...
> 
> One demerit for Sanjay.


Sanjay was taking the mick...


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> I'm not sure if I'm misreading what you wrote, you're pulling people's legs or having a "senior moment"


You're not misreading and I'm not a senior.


----------



## batpig

You actually CAN apply DTS Neural:X to "Atmos" in the sense that you can force Atmos to play as the 7.1 Dolby TrueHD channel "core", and then use Neural:X to upmix that as it would any other 7.1 track.

Like Sanjay says, some people find this subjectively preferable because you get MOAR sound coming from the overhead speakers.


----------



## Soupy1970

Denon allows you to choose either upmixer with either Dolby, or DTS. So yeah, you can use Neural X with True HD, or DSU with DTS HD MA, or any of the lesser formats. But I don't think you can change DTS X to Dolby, or Atmos to DTS.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay was taking the mick...


But not in a mean way. Just a little forum fun (at my expense).


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> You're not misreading and I'm not a senior.


Oh. OK. 

But I _am_ a senior (in that sense, anyhow, although I'm also a Junior but not a junior) so....


----------



## Soupy1970

IMHO Neural X is the better upmixer.


----------



## batpig

Soupy1970 said:


> Denon allows you to choose either upmixer with either Dolby, or DTS. So yeah, you can use Neural X with True HD, or DSU with DTS HD MA, or any of the lesser formats. But I don't think you can change DTS X to Dolby, or Atmos to DTS.


Because Denon allows the Atmos track to be decoded as 7.1 TrueHD (i.e. forcing the AVR to ignore the Atmos metadata), you CAN apply Neural:X to a native Atmos track (it becomes 7.1 + upmixing). 

Native DTS:X does not allow this, it's structurally different as it's not encoded as "7.1+objects" and it has this intertwined processing path Sanjay described above where the channel based portions can have Neural:X upmixing applied to expand to additional speakers. So it can't be decoded as "7.1 but ignore the rest of the metadata" like Atmos.


----------



## stikle

Hey, it's 5 o'clock somewhere, right? @stikle looks at the liquor cabinet


----------



## stikle

Soupy1970 said:


> IMHO Neural X is the better upmixer.


I've tried both multiple times and still prefer DSU. I'm glad D+M released that cross pollination update a while back so we both get our way.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> so....


So, yes, it was the middle option of the three you mentioned.


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> So, yes, it was the middle option of the three you mentioned.



Ah...I get it. It was a test on a slow Wednesday morning to see if we were still passing on correct information. Do we get gold stars?


----------



## kbarnes701

Soupy1970 said:


> IMHO Neural X is the better upmixer.





stikle said:


> I've tried both multiple times and still prefer DSU. I'm glad D+M released that cross pollination update a while back so we both get our way.


Since with any upmixer, there's no real 'right or wrong' (content is being extracted and redirected to speakers that were never in the original mix), choice of upmixer seems to me to be just a preference thing (as you say, but not Soupy, who presents it slightly more affirmatively, albeit still as just an opinion).

Like you I have conducted very extensive listening tests and, also like you, have concluded that DSU is 'better' than Neural:X, for me at any rate.

I find DSU to be more 'natural', less aggressive and more 'accurate' in sending content to the appropriate place. By contrast, Neural:X seems to be more aggressive and initially this does sound exciting and more fulfilling. But as the movie progresses, Neural:X can be just too much, and its aggression also occasionally causes it to 'get it wrong' and put inappropriate content in some of the overhead speakers.

If I wanted to demo upmixing to someone, I'd probably choose Neural:X. But for watching an entire movie, I'd choose DSU. That said, I have occasionally used Neural:X where the content has been such that not much was happening over my head using DSU and I wanted more oomph.

These days, now there are many more Atmos discs being released, I find that more and more I tend to watch movies in their native format. If I have friends over for a movie night, however, I always upmix using DSU* (usually) so they get more bang for their buck. And to all my friends, sounds coming from over their heads is something they have never experienced before, so it blows them away usually. 

*If the movie isn't Atmos of course.


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> It was a test on a slow Wednesday morning to see if we were still passing on correct information.


No test. Just saw Dolby Neural X and couldn't resist playing along. Like the old saying: _"Without David Lee Roth, it's not really the Beatles."_ The few times I've used that line, most people get it. Every so often, I get corrected.


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> I think Yamaha allows you to do this at the flick of a switch. For soundtracks that have little to no overhead content, upmixing the 7.1 core might yield a more enjoyable/immersive experience (despite original intent).


Yep, I have a few DTS:X MA titles on which the overhead action is weak enough to be improved by using one of the upmixers, Dolby Surround or Neural:X. I've never felt a need to do that with any TrueHD Atmos titles, though.


----------



## sdurani

gakbw said:


> Can I install at 102 inches from rear speakers (or) next option is 162 inches? So which option is good for better atmos experience?


Difficult to figure out where those speaker locations when described in relation to the rear speakers. Instead, how far behind YOU will these rear height speakers be?


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> Like the old saying: _"Without David Lee Roth, it's not really the Beatles."_



Hahaha! I've never heard that one.


----------



## smashr

smashr said:


> Long time 5.1 user, recent 7.1 setup, currently planning 7.1.4 atmos setup.
> 
> Details of my temporary 7.1 setup are attached in IMG_1066, IMG_1067, and IMG_1069.
> 
> 1. I know my Surround-Backs are too high on the wall to get good separation from Atmos speakers, so they'll need to come down to ~50" off the ground or so to match the side surrounds. This of course means I'll need to switch to in-wall speakers, which stinks because I like these bookshelfs and they are a recent purchase. Oh well, the price we pay.
> 
> 2. As you see, my left side surround is ever so slightly in front of the 90deg mark from the MLP. (81deg off center line). These are bipole surrounds, so hoping this is okay. I have not watched a ton with this set up so far, but it certainly sounds fine.
> 
> 3. Any other thoughts on improvements for the base layer?
> 
> Details of the proposed ceiling speakers are in IMG_1090. This gets a little trickier, because in my infinite wisdom, I had can lights installed pretty much where I want to have ceiling speakers. I've identified three spots for the Top Front Right and Top Back Right speakers. If I put the front speakers 68" forward of the MLP, creating a nice 43deg longitudinal elevation, then they can only get 48" wide from the MLP, making it a tight 53deg lateral elevation from the MLP, even higher from the right side of the couch. If I put the front speakers only 49" forward of the MLP, then I can get them wider, at least on the right side. The left side can only be about 48" wide due to the bulkhead regardless of forward position. I could get creative and mount a speaker ON the bulkhead, but then we are getting into mismatched pairs L to R.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> TF1	TF2	TF3
> azimuth, deg	                35	44	54
> normal elevation, deg         	38	43	37
> longitudinal elevation, deg	43	53	53
> lateral elevation            	53	53	43
> 
> Similar situation for the Top Back Right:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> TB1	TB2	TB3
> azimuth, deg              	137	146	136
> normal elevation, deg         	42	37	33
> longitudinal elevation, deg	129	138	138
> lateral elevation           	53	53	43
> 
> Attaching a screenshot of the immersive spreadsheet with Top Fronts in TF1 and Top Backs in TB2 which is where I would have cited them to try and optimize the longitudinal elevation.
> 
> Open to any thoughts or opinions here!


Bump. Pics in original post. Any thoughts here?


----------



## gakbw

sdurani said:


> Difficult to figure out where those speaker locations when described in relation to the rear speakers. Instead, how far behind YOU will these rear height speakers be?


Thanks Sdurani, Currently my rear speakers above overhead, Now I am planning to add 2 more front atmos speakers, so to install front atmos speakers I have options are I can maintain distance between front and rear speakers 102 inches or 168 inches , It means between front and rear speakers distance will be 102 inches or 168 inches I have only these options. then I can move my sofa between front and rear speakers. I have 8.2 feet ceiling and my ear level is 43 inches from floor. See the attachment


----------



## gakbw

sdurani said:


> Difficult to figure out where those speaker locations when described in relation to the rear speakers. Instead, how far behind YOU will these rear height speakers be?


Thanks Sdurani, Currently my rear speakers above overhead, Now I am planning to add 2 more front atmos speakers, so to install front atmos speakers I have options are I can maintain distance between front and rear speakers 102 inches or 168 inches , It means between front and rear speakers distance will be 102 inches or 168 inches I have only these options. then I can move my sofa between front and rear speakers. I have 8.2 feet ceiling and my ear level is 43 inches from floor. See the attachment


----------



## Azekecse

stikle said:


> ^ this.
> 
> Also, Neural:X is DTS's upmixer, not Dolby's Surround Upmixer (DSU)...
> 
> One demerit for Sanjay.


I'll take the demerit for Sanjay, since I initiated this conversation :nerd:.


----------



## sdurani

gakbw said:


> It means between front and rear speakers distance will be 102 inches or 168 inches I have only these options.


102 inches separation would give you a better sense of sounds overhead.


----------



## gakbw

sdurani said:


> 102 inches separation would give you a better sense of sounds overhead.


Great! And 102 inches falls under 55 degree angle from my listing position. So it's perfect?


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Because Denon allows the Atmos track to be decoded as 7.1 TrueHD (i.e. forcing the AVR to ignore the Atmos metadata), you CAN apply Neural:X to a native Atmos track (it becomes 7.1 + upmixing).
> 
> Native DTS:X does not allow this, it's structurally different as it's not encoded as "7.1+objects" and it has this intertwined processing path Sanjay described above where the channel based portions can have Neural:X upmixing applied to expand to additional speakers. So it can't be decoded as "7.1 but ignore the rest of the metadata" like Atmos.


Not sure why Denon chose not to offer a similar "decode it as 7.1" mode for DTS:X, but there's no technological aspect of DTS:X that would prevent it. And if one really wants to upmix DTS:X 7.1, then use a multi-channel UHD player and output as PCM. It's a hassle, but it at least proves the point.


----------



## gakbw

Hello All,

What are the best atmos sound enabled movie disks available in the market?


----------



## T-Bone

gakbw said:


> Hello All,
> 
> What are the best atmos sound enabled movie disks available in the market?


I was really impressed with the 2017 version of It. On Blu-ray.

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

T-Bone said:


> I was really impressed with the 2017 version of It. On Blu-ray.
> 
> -T


I agree. I watched it only last night and was totally blown away by the creative use of Atmos overheads. By contrast, the night before I watched *Mission Impossible Rogue Nation *and there is hardly any use of the overheads at all. It's still very variable and depends on the mixer and his experience with object-based audio I guess. Another good one is *Sabin's Power Rangers*, mixed by our very own @FilmMixer. Later movies tend to be better than the early Atmos movies, as one might expect. We all clamoured for the 4th Transformers movie (the first Atmos blu-ray) and then, when we got it, we all complained at the almost total lack of overhead action  

Of course, Atmos is about much more than the overhead speakers - especially citing the amazing precision of the placement of sounds in the entire soundfield. But yeah - we took the time, trouble and expense to put speakers on our ceilings, so *we want overhead action!!*


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I agree. I watched it only last night and was totally blown away by the creative use of Atmos overheads. By contrast, the night before I watched *Mission Impossible Rogue Nation *and there is hardly any use of the overheads at all. It's still very variable and depends on the mixer and his experience with object-based audio I guess. Another good one is *Sabin's Power Rangers*, mixed by our very own @FilmMixer. Later movies tend to be better than the early Atmos movies, as one might expect. We all clamoured for the 4th Transformers movie (the first Atmos blu-ray) and then, when we got it, we all complained at the almost total lack of overhead action
> 
> Of course, Atmos is about much more than the overhead speakers - especially citing the amazing precision of the placement of sounds in the entire soundfield. But yeah - we took the time, trouble and expense to put speakers on our ceilings, so *we want overhead action!!*


I watched _Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation_ again yesterday and agree that the overhead speakers were somewhat underused. About the only time they kicked were in scenes involving aircraft or high speed street chases at their loudest. That said, the surround effects were remarkable, some of the best I have heard. 

I also agree that _Power Rangers_ has one of the best, if not the very best, TrueHD Atmos soundtracks extant. I need to watch _IT_ again and refresh my recollection of its Atmos audio. At this remove, I have no clear memory of anything about the film's soundtrack beyond generally having liked it.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I watched _Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation_ again yesterday and agree that the overhead speakers were somewhat underused. About the only time they kicked were in scenes involving aircraft or high speed street chases at their loudest. That said, the surround effects were remarkable, some of the best I have heard.


I agree - _MIRN_ has a very good and highly enjoyable soundtrack overall, but I am not sure what Atmos is bringing to the party with it: it would probably sound very similar in its TrueHD form.



gwsat said:


> I also agree that _Power Rangers_ has one of the best, if not the very best, TrueHD Atmos soundtracks extant. I need to watch _IT_ again and refresh my recollection of its Atmos audio. At this remove, I have no clear memory of anything about the film's soundtrack beyond generally having liked it.


*It* makes very good use of the overheads throughout the movie. It's especially noticeable whenever the Clown appears to do his evil deeds. The mixer has put parts of the music score up in the overheads (the weird sounding parts oftentimes) and a lot of the special sound effects which accompany the action when the Clown is about. I think pretty much every time the Clown appears, the overheads light up, as well as with some of the atmospheric sounds such as thunder and various noises-off. A highly recommended Atmos experience.

EDIT: I just checked on IMDb and the re-recording mixer for *It* is Chris Jenkins, who is also credited for *Mad Max: Fury Road*, which is another movie that has a good Atmos mix. He is also credited for *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice* , *Justice League*, *The Book of Eli*, *Fast & Furious*, *300: Rise of an Empire*, *Safe House*,* Sucker Punch*, *300*, and many more movies which all have exceptionally good sound, so a true heavyweight of the art. Also credited as re-recording mixer for *It* is Michael Keller, whose filmography includes* Patriot's Day*, *Deepwater Horizon*, *Divergent*, *Iron Man 3*, plus some of the aforementioned too. All of those movies, from memory, feature outstandingly good sound, so these guys are ones to look out for IMO. Along, of course, with our own @FilmMixer (Marc Fishman for those who want to check his filmography) who also has a slew of outstanding mixes to his credit.


----------



## sdrucker

Maybe us hard-core Atmos enthusiasts should start screening upcoming releases on IMDB for studios and re-recording mixers before we buy a new disc with Atmos ☺ , so we have some idea what we're getting based on a previous track record...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Maybe us hard-core Atmos enthusiasts should start screening upcoming releases on IMDB for studios and re-recording mixers before we buy a new disc with Atmos ☺ , so we have some idea what we're getting based on a previous track record...


Well I do that sort of thing already TBH. The guys 'behind' the movie are as important (more important?) to me than the upfront names, with the obvious exception of Director (who is always important). If a movie has a score from one of my handful of favourite composers, for example, that alone often steers me towards it. Then there's the re-recording mixer and the sound designers - since for me the sound is at least half the movie, this is very important and again I look out for my favourites. Also important, for me, is the cinematographer, as well as the editor. Nothing is guaranteed of course, but 'backing your favourites' is at least a step on the path to avoiding disappointment.


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> We all clamoured for the 4th Transformers movie



Hey now, don't lump me in with the rest of you. I have not, and will not ever clamor for a Transformers movie.

Well, unless it's made by Seth Green.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Hey now, don't lump me in with the rest of you. I have not, and will not ever clamor for a Transformers movie.


LOL. I was only referring to the quality of the sound. Love them or hate them, there's no denying that Michael Bay's movies have fabulous production values. And they're not *all* bad you know... I enjoyed* Pain & Gain* for example. And *The Island*. And *Bad Boys I & II*. And* The Rock*. They're popcorn movies of course, but sometimes that is exactly what I want. Sure, I can watch *Casablanca *endlessly. And *Brief Encounter*. And thousands of 'worthy' movies. But sometimes all we want is just 2 hours of escapist _entertainment_.


----------



## mons0160

smashr said:


> Long time 5.1 user, recent 7.1 setup, currently planning 7.1.4 atmos setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Details of my temporary 7.1 setup are attached in IMG_1066, IMG_1067, and IMG_1069.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I know my Surround-Backs are too high on the wall to get good separation from Atmos speakers, so they'll need to come down to ~50" off the ground or so to match the side surrounds. This of course means I'll need to switch to in-wall speakers, which stinks because I like these bookshelfs and they are a recent purchase. Oh well, the price we pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. As you see, my left side surround is ever so slightly in front of the 90deg mark from the MLP. (81deg off center line). These are bipole surrounds, so hoping this is okay. I have not watched a ton with this set up so far, but it certainly sounds fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Any other thoughts on improvements for the base layer?
> 
> 
> 
> Details of the proposed ceiling speakers are in IMG_1090. This gets a little trickier, because in my infinite wisdom, I had can lights installed pretty much where I want to have ceiling speakers. I've identified three spots for the Top Front Right and Top Back Right speakers. If I put the front speakers 68" forward of the MLP, creating a nice 43deg longitudinal elevation, then they can only get 48" wide from the MLP, making it a tight 53deg lateral elevation from the MLP, even higher from the right side of the couch. If I put the front speakers only 49" forward of the MLP, then I can get them wider, at least on the right side. The left side can only be about 48" wide due to the bulkhead regardless of forward position. I could get creative and mount a speaker ON the bulkhead, but then we are getting into mismatched pairs L to R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> TF1TF2TF3
> 
> azimuth, deg                354454
> 
> normal elevation, deg         384337
> 
> longitudinal elevation, deg435353
> 
> lateral elevation            535343
> 
> 
> 
> Similar situation for the Top Back Right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> TB1TB2TB3
> 
> azimuth, deg              137146136
> 
> normal elevation, deg         423733
> 
> longitudinal elevation, deg129138138
> 
> lateral elevation           535343
> 
> 
> 
> Attaching a screenshot of the immersive spreadsheet with Top Fronts in TF1 and Top Backs in TB2 which is where I would have cited them to try and optimize the longitudinal elevation.
> 
> 
> 
> Open to any thoughts or opinions here!




That is gonna be tits when all setup. Very nice. I also like to see the spreadsheet/ Visio diagram. Makes it much easier when things are to scale. 

I think it all looks solid. Any reason why you can just set those rears on a shelf back? A floating shelf or toy shelf would serve just fine. If you like the speakers you just bought, then save the cash and the hassle of the doing the in-walls. 
I like a seamless look myself but I have a multi purpose room like you and I have mine on one of those standard Ikea (or something similar) cubby deals about 5ft behind the couch. It’s absolutely packed with kids toys, so to be honest, you can hardly notice the speakers sitting there and the height is just about right. Plus my SO didn’t mind because it serves for more than just speaker needs. 

Maybe I didn’t notice, but where are you keeping all your AV equipment? Be sure to factor in a conduit or some extra spendy cords if you are running a good distance between equipment.


----------



## smashr

mons0160 said:


> That is gonna be tits when all setup. Very nice. I also like to see the spreadsheet/ Visio diagram. Makes it much easier when things are to scale.
> 
> I think it all looks solid. Any reason why you can just set those rears on a shelf back? A floating shelf or toy shelf would serve just fine. If you like the speakers you just bought, then save the cash and the hassle of the doing the in-walls.
> I like a seamless look myself but I have a multi purpose room like you and I have mine on one of those standard Ikea (or something similar) cubby deals about 5ft behind the couch. It’s absolutely packed with kids toys, so to be honest, you can hardly notice the speakers sitting there and the height is just about right. Plus my SO didn’t mind because it serves for more than just speaker needs.
> 
> Maybe I didn’t notice, but where are you keeping all your AV equipment? Be sure to factor in a conduit or some extra spendy cords if you are running a good distance between equipment.


Thanks; appreciate it. We push the couch back to the back wall when not in use for TV/movies so that makes moving the bookshelf speakers down impractical. I'll probably just go with in-walls as I think the wife will like that better anyways. AV equipment is in the stand below the center channel, so not too bad as far as distances, and I have some good in-wall cable from monoprice to get it there.

Any thoughts on optimizing longitudinal elevation compared to lateral elevation? the 43deg front / 138deg rear seems ideal for longitudinal elevation, but I'm a bit concerned about the lateral elevation being in the mid 50s at the very top end of the spec. Of course I have the exact opposite problem if I bring them one joist closer. 53ish degrees longitudinally, but can get wider.


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Not sure why Denon chose not to offer a similar "decode it as 7.1" mode for DTS:X


As far as I know, it's a licensing issue. I don't think it's a Denon thing.

DTS:X is also structurally different than Atmos. For Atmos all you have to do is ignore the metadata and it's a 7.1 Dolby TrueHD track. A typical DTS:X track is going to be 7.1.4 channels so the processor would first have to fully decode it and fold down to 7.1, and then hand that 7.1 PCM track to the processing block for upmixing. My understanding of how the Neural:X upmixing is "interwoven" into the DTS:X decoding is what prevents that on a technical level.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Well I do that sort of thing already TBH. The guys 'behind' the movie are as important (more important?) to me than the upfront names, with the obvious exception of Director (who is always important).


 Why am I not surprised?  After one of my own exchanges with @*FilmMixer*, I realized I actually didn't have any movies in Atmos that he mixed for the home, so I didn't have a basis to follow his comment about using wides. Thus I promptly went out and picked up The Dark Tower, and also plan to buy Fury when it comes out in UHD Atmos (which I don't have in BD, but I've seen the clip of tank battles on demos at CEDIA a few years ago).



> If a movie has a score from one of my handful of favourite composers, for example, that alone often steers me towards it.


I never used to think like that, but then I picked up Hans Zimmer's Live in Prague BD in Atmos and have developed an enhanced appreciation for what film scores bring to a movie. Never went as far as cinematographers, but I am going to pay more attention to re-recording mixers in the future before I decide what to buy for the Atmos content and what to just rent on Netflix or wait for HBO to show.

Don't get me wrong: probably 80% of the Atmos releases I have (somewhere closer to 50 now) I buy because of the title, either a movie we saw or something I want to have. It's the remaining 20% I'll buy based on a good reviews from users here or from a 95+ rating from Ralph Potts.

Sometimes you'll surprise yourself by trying something new: not that I'm about to go and watch The Great Wall or TMNT due to Atmos, but I picked up Luca Turulli's Rhapsody Prometheus thnks to comments on the Surround Sound sub-forum on AVS about this immersive mix, and I'm glad I did. It's a music only BD.

Who would have thought that an Italian metal band that performed material that's loosely a cross between Bohemian Rhapsody-era Queen and The Scorpions would sound so good?  Anybody that complains that they're not getting their money's worth out of their 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 setup, let alone my 13.x.6, should get this. You've got a vocal choir moving around both inside the screen (my screen centers) and to/from the wides, solo piano notes showing up in the wides and front pair of surrounds, and dual guitars being played in the wides and side surround, as well active fairly active top middles. Pretty much crazy object use, and voicing that is near lifelike on some of the cuts.

Here's a sample (some of the singing is deep/random jibberish in Latin, but don't let that hold you back):




 


> Then there's the re-recording mixer and the sound designers - since for me the sound is at least half the movie, this is very important and again I look out for my favourites. Also important, for me, is the cinematographer, as well as the editor. Nothing is guaranteed of course, but 'backing your favourites' is at least a step on the path to avoiding disappointment.


Agreed. That's what separates the consumer from the enthusiast. LOL.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> As far as I know, it's a licensing issue. I don't think it's a Denon thing.


IMHO, since any DTS:X decoder is allowed to extract only the 7.1 version (like if you do not have any height speakers enabled), there is no licensing barrier to that -- just the lack of a button to make it easy to do. And since DTS does not restrict what post processing may be applied to decoded DTS codecs, I do not see any licensing issue there, either. Even the D&M products can apply DSU to DTS-HD MA 5.1, right? I can do that in my Anthem unit.



> DTS:X is also structurally different than Atmos. For Atmos all you have to do is ignore the metadata and it's a 7.1 Dolby TrueHD track. A typical DTS:X track is going to be 7.1.4 channels so the processor would first have to fully decode it and fold down to 7.1, and then hand that 7.1 PCM track to the processing block for upmixing.


Firstly, with Atmos bistreams, the legacy 7.1 decoder is ignoring a lot more than just metadata. It is also ignoring audio payload, i.e. audio objects that are delivered separate from the complete 7.1 downmix.

Structurally, DTS:X is much the same as Atmos. DTS:X is based on the same "core plus extension" concept they have used for many years. If a product does not support immersive audio, the standard 7.1 (or 5.1) audio decoder DSP plays only the complete 7.1 mix from the bitstream and ignores the extension which carries the height channels/objects. It does not require full decoding and downmixing.



> My understanding of how the Neural:X upmixing is "interwoven" into the DTS:X decoding is what prevents that on a technical level.


WRT to immersive rendering of native immersive soundtracks, you can think of Neural:X as DTS's version of spatial coding. Neither of which operate at all unless the decoder is in "immersive" mode. For anything up to and including "flat earth" 7.1 output, the legacy decoders (7.1 TrueHD and 7.1 DTS-HD MA) as we've been using prior to immersive modes are all that is running. If that were not true, there would be no backwards compatibility of the immersive bitstreams with earlier AVRs.


----------



## batpig

I certainly defer to your expertise, Roger. I could certainly see it being an issue where DTS told the manufacturers that they don't want non-DTS upmixing applied to a DTS:X track.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> I certainly defer to your expertise, Roger. I could certainly see it being an issue where DTS told the manufacturers that they don't want non-DTS upmixing applied to a DTS:X track.


I agree that is a distinct possibility. 

[ETA]I just did some digging and a) DTS allows third party upmixers to be used with any DTS codec, and b) if an immersive speaker layout is in effect, the AVR is not permitted to decode to a non-immersive speaker layout. So, for example, in a Trinnov system, a DTS-X decoded 7.1.4 presentation could be further processed by Trinnov's spatial remapping, etc.

You were correct -- it is a licensing thing.  

But we of wily ways can still get awound it, if we're weely motivated.


----------



## am2model3

The auto calibration set my atmos speakers to 100hz on the crossover; but i read that 150hz or higher can make your atmos channels really stand out. 
I tested last night 150hz and 200hz and settled with 200hz; it helped the atmos height channels stand out more. = ) has anyone tried this? i recommend if you really like your height channels.


----------



## T-Bone

am2model3 said:


> The auto calibration set my atmos speakers to 100hz on the crossover; but i read that 150hz or higher can make your atmos channels really stand out.
> I tested last night 150hz and 200hz and settled with 200hz; it helped the atmos height channels stand out more. = ) has anyone tried this? i recommend if you really like your height channels.


No ... Did not try it. I do not know why that would be a good thing. I have mine crossed at 80 hz... The AVR did that for me. There is a lot of sound between 80 and 200 in the Atmos tracks. Why would you want to send that to your subwoofer?

-T


----------



## batpig

We have to be clear when you talk about "atmos speakers" are you referring to the up-firing bounce modules, or physical ceiling speakers. 

For the up-firing speakers, the higher crossover is recommended since (1) the bass won't "beam" as much as the higher freqs and (2) those speakers are generally not designed to reproduce much below 200Hz.

For physical height/ceiling speakers, that doesn't apply.


----------



## T-Bone

Yes. Good point. I just assumed he had ceiling speakers. But yeah, the up firing are designed for high crossover. Due to the narrow beam as you stated.

-T


----------



## Scott-C

sdrucker said:


> ...Luca Turulli's Rhapsody Prometheus thnks to comments on the Surround Sound sub-forum on AVS about this immersive mix, and I'm glad I did. It's a music only BD.
> 
> Who would have thought that an Italian metal band that performed material that's loosely a cross between Bohemian Rhapsody-era Queen and The Scorpions would sound so good?  Anybody that complains that they're not getting their money's worth out of their 9.1.4 or 7.1.6 setup, let alone my 13.x.6, should get this. You've got a vocal choir moving around both inside the screen (my screen centers) and to/from the wides, solo piano notes showing up in the wides and front pair of surrounds, and dual guitars being played in the wides and side surround, as well active fairly active top middles. Pretty much crazy object use, and voicing that is near lifelike on some of the cuts.
> 
> Here's a sample (some of the singing is deep/random jibberish in Latin, but don't let that hold you back):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXW_2ECC67I...


Thanks for that link. I just may have to pick that up!


----------



## pdasterly

picked up rc-64 iii and going to get rf-7 iii, my question is for the rear surrounds. Atmos spec wants monopole speakers, so which would be correct choice for rears?
system is 5.2.4


----------



## kbarnes701

pdasterly said:


> picked up rc-64 iii and going to get rf-7 iii, my question is for the rear surrounds. Atmos spec wants monopole speakers, so which would be correct choice for rears?
> system is 5.2.4


All of Kilpsch's speakers are likely to be similarly voiced, so if you choose any of their bookshelf range you should get a very nice match and some good sound. I am no expert by any means on Klipsch, but their R-15M or RP-160M would seem to be a good choice - especially the latter which has a similar woofer (6.5 inch) to your center speaker. If the 160M is too big, then the smaller 15M would be good as well IMO.

What are you using for your 4 overheads?


----------



## pdasterly

yes, i have 4 overheads currently
i was thinking rp-160m instead of rp-250s




kbarnes701 said:


> All of Kilpsch's speakers are likely to be similarly voiced, so if you choose any of their bookshelf range you should get a very nice match and some good sound. I am no expert by any means on Klipsch, but their R-15M or RP-160M would seem to be a good choice - especially the latter which has a similar woofer (6.5 inch) to your center speaker. If the 160M is too big, then the smaller 15M would be good as well IMO.
> 
> What are you using for your 4 overheads?


----------



## batpig

pdasterly said:


> picked up rc-64 iii and going to get rf-7 iii, my question is for the rear surrounds. Atmos spec wants monopole speakers, so which would be correct choice for rears?
> system is 5.2.4


Atmos recommendations also allow for bipoles, especially in a smaller room and/or when the speakers will be fairly close to the listeners so a monopole won't have room to image properly.

It would help if you could provide more details, e.g. room size / layout, will you be wall-mounting the surrounds, etc?

If it's a smaller room and you want to flush mount on the walls, Klipsch makes dedicated surround speakers for this:


----------



## kbarnes701

pdasterly said:


> yes, i have 4 overheads currently
> i was thinking rp-160m instead of rp-250s


RP-160 would be my choice - I am sure you will be fine with anything from Klipsch's monopole range. As batpig says above, there's no real reason not to use bipoles, but my own personal preference is for monopoles in a modern 11 channel system.


----------



## pdasterly

i get to start with blank sheet, room is 11 wide x 16 long x 7 1/2 ceiling, surrounds can be wall mounted or i can get speaker stands, i prefer wall mounting them to keep out the way




batpig said:


> Atmos recommendations also allow for bipoles, especially in a smaller room and/or when the speakers will be fairly close to the listeners so a monopole won't have room to image properly.
> 
> It would help if you could provide more details, e.g. room size / layout, will you be wall-mounting the surrounds, etc?
> 
> If it's a smaller room and you want to flush mount on the walls, Klipsch makes dedicated surround speakers for this:


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Atmos recommendations also allow for bipoles, especially in a smaller room and/or when the speakers will be fairly close to the listeners so a monopole won't have room to image properly.


Agreed about Dolby recommendations. A dual concentric monopole (like my Tannoys) will be in phase right from the driver so they would image just fine even at close range. Not disagreeing with you at all - just mentioning dual concentrics coz I have a love affair with them


----------



## batpig

pdasterly said:


> i get to start with blank sheet, room is 11 wide x 16 long x 7 1/2 ceiling, surrounds can be wall mounted or i can get speaker stands, i prefer wall mounting them to keep out the way


In an 11 ft wide room, I would DEFINITELY go with the flush-mounted bipole type surrounds like the image I posted above. 

With a room that narrow, a side-wall mounted monopole surround will be tough to place properly such that you don't get bad hot-spotting (especially for a listener seated off to the side). Plus, the dedicated surrounds mount flush and don't stick out very far vs. a bookshelf which will stick out. This looks cleaner and also increases placement flexibility (e.g. if you're worried about bumping into the bookshelf that's jutting out when you try to walk around the seats). 

Also, if you're only doing 5.1.4 (although I would point out you could easily do 7.1.4 with a 16' long room) the wider dispersion of the bipole type speaker will help "spread" the surround field along the side/rear walls to enhance the immersion of the surround field.

Frankly, for a room that narrow I would also consider in-wall speakers for surrounds, so you maximize the width you have.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed about Dolby recommendations. A dual concentric monopole (like my Tannoys) will be in phase right from the driver so they would image just fine even at close range. Not disagreeing with you at all - just mentioning dual concentrics coz I have a love affair with them


Oh I know it 

Personally I have a bit of a love/hate with monopole side surrounds -- even in my room which is about 15.5' wide I can sometimes "hear the speaker" where a discrete effect pops a bit too much and breaks the surround immersion. It was worse when I had the surrounds directly to the sides, moving them slightly behind mitigated the issue, but I still get some hot-spotting where the side surround jumps out a bit too much. 

This happened when I was using KEF satellites which are dual concentric, and my current Triad Bronze LCR's. Although, having said all that, I'm suspicious it has more to do with room acoustics since I always seem to notice it more on my left surround vs. my right surround, which makes me think it might not be inherent to the speakers vs. an artifact of my room geometry on the back left side :/


----------



## pdasterly

are those R-5650-S II ? what about PRO-180RPW?
i would need to upgrade receiver, i havr rx-a2060



batpig said:


> In an 11 ft wide room, I would DEFINITELY go with the flush-mounted bipole type surrounds like the image I posted above.
> 
> With a room that narrow, a side-wall mounted monopole surround will be tough to place properly such that you don't get bad hot-spotting (especially for a listener seated off to the side). Plus, the dedicated surrounds mount flush and don't stick out very far vs. a bookshelf which will stick out. This looks cleaner and also increases placement flexibility (e.g. if you're worried about bumping into the bookshelf that's jutting out when you try to walk around the seats).
> 
> Also, if you're only doing 5.1.4 (although I would point out you could easily do 7.1.4 with a 16' long room) the wider dispersion of the bipole type speaker will help "spread" the surround field along the side/rear walls to enhance the immersion of the surround field.
> 
> Frankly, for a room that narrow I would also consider in-wall speakers for surrounds, so you maximize the width you have.


----------



## batpig

pdasterly said:


> are those R-5650-S II ? what about PRO-180RPW?


Yes, that's the model. I just googled Klipsch In-Wall speakers and looked for the comparable "R" series model with bipole tweeter array. I'm honestly not familiar with all the Klipsch models so I would suggest you seek out some Klipsch experts for more specific recommendations  If you did go with an in-wall you'd probably be fine with the monopole model as long as it wasn't DIRECTLY to the sides blasting into your ear holes (e.g. slightly behind the seating on the side wall for 5.1 base layer or even slightly in front for a 7.1 base layer). 



pdasterly said:


> i would need to upgrade receiver, i havr rx-a2060


Ah, bummer! I never understood why Yamaha hamstrung the A20X0 models by giving them 9 amps but NOT allowing them to expand to 11 channels with an external amp, they are only of the only 9ch Atmos receivers that can't expand to 11 channels.


----------



## Soupy1970

I agree with Batpig about going inwall. But if you decide you must have a bookshelf, then look for old stock of the RB-61 II from last year. Or go with the RB-81 II (overkill for 11Ft wide room)
that is still being sold. They are both front ported. I'm not sure why Klipsch didn't stick with front ports on the new models.


----------



## pdasterly

ok, gonna get the in-walls, they are a tad more expensive but its just money


----------



## Soupy1970

pdasterly said:


> ok, gonna get the in-walls, they are a tad more expensive but its just money


Call around, you should be able to pick them up for $225 or so. Start with Sound Distributors, then pick a few others off the dealer list. 
http://www.klipsch.com/authorized-online-dealers


----------



## pdasterly

which are best?



Soupy1970 said:


> I agree with Batpig about going inwall. But if you decide you must have a bookshelf, then look for old stock of the RB-61 II from last year. Or go with the RB-81 II (overkill for 11Ft wide room)
> that is still being sold. They are both front ported. I'm not sure why Klipsch didn't stick with front ports on the new models.





batpig said:


> Yes, that's the model. I just googled Klipsch In-Wall speakers and looked for the comparable "R" series model with bipole tweeter array. I'm honestly not familiar with all the Klipsch models so I would suggest you seek out some Klipsch experts for more specific recommendations  If you did go with an in-wall you'd probably be fine with the monopole model as long as it wasn't DIRECTLY to the sides blasting into your ear holes (e.g. slightly behind the seating on the side wall for 5.1 base layer or even slightly in front for a 7.1 base layer).
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, bummer! I never understood why Yamaha hamstrung the A20X0 models by giving them 9 amps but NOT allowing them to expand to 11 channels with an external amp, they are only of the only 9ch Atmos receivers that can't expand to 11 channels.





Soupy1970 said:


> Call around, you should be able to pick them up for $225 or so. Start with Sound Distributors, then pick a few others off the dealer list.
> http://www.klipsch.com/authorized-online-dealers


----------



## Soupy1970

pdasterly said:


> which are best?


If you can swing it, the PRO-160RPW will match your other speakers the best. They retail for $499, so shoot for $300 phone price. The R-5650-W II would be the next pick, it basically has the same woofer/tweeter design, but has the old style horn shape/material. That one retails for $349, and should be able to get for $200 if you call around. Keep in mind these are hypothetical prices as i'm no dealer. It's not unreasonable to get at least 40% off.


----------



## cyberlocc

Okay guys, so I am going to shoot for 7.2.4, however my back's have to be ceiling mounted, I can lower them down about 3-4 inches off the ceiling though. 

I will either build brackets or buy some, to angle them like 45 degrees, to make them pointed directly at the MLP height, they can be 3-4' back maybe more. 

Is this going to destroy the Atmos experience? I have tried and tried to find another way, but behind them is an opening into another room, and on one side there is shelving built into the wall, with a breakfast nook. So there is already only 5 feet of walking space on the other side. 

So the speakers will either be lopsided, or they have to go on the ceiling. 

The ceiling is 7'6", so low to top it all off. I will be using Klipsch RP on walls on the ceiling, so 2 inches deep off the ceiling.

As a gamer, I really want/need the 7, so just going 5.2.4 isn't really ideal for me, unless 7 in my case will completely destroy Atmos.

The side surrounds will be about 1ft above MLP height maybe less, as from what I have been reading that is the way CEDIA is saying it needs to be, and also because if not done speakers would be blocked by heads.

I can flip the speakers upside down if it will help, they will be Klipsch 150ms as the backs. 

I have tried to find another way, but I just don't see any other realisitc options. Oustide if placing speakers on the far walls and toed in, this will put them 11' apart, where the fronts are 8' apart. They could then be ear level, 1 in a shelf the other on a wall, severly angled inward and ear level.


----------



## pdasterly

going with PRO-180RPW
think of stepping up to rx-a3070 as well


Soupy1970 said:


> If you can swing it, the PRO-160RPW will match your other speakers the best. They retail for $499, so shoot for $300 phone price. The R-5650-W II would be the next pick, it basically has the same woofer/tweeter design, but has the old style horn shape/material. That one retails for $349, and should be able to get for $200 if you call around. Keep in mind these are hypothetical prices as i'm no dealer. It's not unreasonable to get at least 40% off.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Oh I know it


 Yes, I am all dewey eyed at the sight of a lovely coax... all that phase coherence drives me mad with desire... LOL.



batpig said:


> Personally I have a bit of a love/hate with monopole side surrounds -- even in my room which is about 15.5' wide I can sometimes "hear the speaker" where a discrete effect pops a bit too much and breaks the surround immersion. It was worse when I had the surrounds directly to the sides, moving them slightly behind mitigated the issue, but I still get some hot-spotting where the side surround jumps out a bit too much.


Yes, IKWYM, although personally I don't find it to be an issue. I do like the 'precise' sort of sound rather than the 'diffuse' sort of sound, but there are good arguments either way. If the surrounds are somewhat forward to MLP (as IMO they ought to be in a 7.x.x system) then one can always aim them so they 'cross over' in front of MLP (energy trading) to reduce the hotspotting a bit.



batpig said:


> This happened when I was using KEF satellites which are dual concentric, and my current Triad Bronze LCR's. Although, having said all that, I'm suspicious it has more to do with room acoustics since I always seem to notice it more on my left surround vs. my right surround, which makes me think it might not be inherent to the speakers vs. an artifact of my room geometry on the back left side :/


Yes, good point. As you know, my room is very heavily treated (over-treated according to some) so maybe this is a reason that the hotspotting doesn't bother me much, or indeed at all. The side surrounds are roughly 7 to 7.5 feet from my ears. I do sometimes notice what you call above 'a discrete effect [popping] a bit too much', but it doesn't worry me or bring me out of the movie. Sometimes I wonder if it was in fact intentional.


----------



## Soupy1970

^IMO, I prefer a little localization myself. Otherwise we would be operating in multi channel stereo


----------



## kbarnes701

Soupy1970 said:


> ^IMO, I prefer a little localization myself. Otherwise we would be operating in multi channel stereo


IKWYM but it isn't, I think, quite what batpig was meaning. He too wants a proper surround sound field but doesn't want to be pulled out of the movie by a surround speaker suddenly 'making itself heard'. As you know, the aim with a good, well balanced and set up system, is that the speakers totally 'disappear' and are replaced just by 'sounds in the room'. The aim is that you will never actually 'hear' a speaker or be able to localise it - but you will of course be able to localise individual sounds in the room (imagining). At least this is my interpretation of batpig's remarks - no doubt he will correct me if I am off beam.

I think that sometimes, the mixer has put a sound so prominently into a particular speaker that you do hear it as if emanating from the speaker, rather than just 'appearing in space in the room'. This, of course, would be deliberate intent and isn't a room, setup or speaker-induced error. In fact only last night I had this experience when watching *Zombieland*. At one point during the movie, everything is realtively quiet and then suddenly a guitar chord appears right slap bang in the left front speaker. I couldn't help but glance towards the speaker. Almost immediately the rest of the rock music track comes in, spread nicely over the front soundstage, and all is back to normal. I assume, but don't know, that the particular music track was mixed originally this way, with that huge chord in the left speaker, but it certainly took me out of the movie for a second or two, and I know that my speakers, room and setup are all good. Thankfully, this effect is very rare.


----------



## Soupy1970

kbarnes701 said:


> IKWYM but it isn't, I think, quite what batpig was meaning. He too wants a proper surround sound field but doesn't want to be pulled out of the movie by a surround speaker suddenly 'making itself heard'. As you know, the aim with a good, well balanced and set up system, is that the speakers totally 'disappear' and are replaced just by 'sounds in the room'. The aim is that you will never actually 'hear' a speaker or be able to localise it - but you will of course be able to localise individual sounds in the room (imagining). At least this is my interpretation of batpig's remarks - no doubt he will correct me if I am off beam.
> 
> I think that sometimes, the mixer has put a sound so prominently into a particular speaker that you do hear it as if emanating from the speaker, rather than just 'appearing in space in the room'. This, of course, would be deliberate intent and isn't a room, setup or speaker-induced error. In fact only last night I had this experience when watching *Zombieland*. At one point during the movie, everything is realtively quiet and then suddenly a guitar chord appears right slap bang in the left front speaker. I couldn't help but glance towards the speaker. Almost immediately the rest of the rock music track comes in, spread nicely over the front soundstage, and all is back to normal. I assume, but don't know, that the particular music track was mixed originally this way, with that huge chord in the left speaker, but it certainly took me out of the movie for a second or two, and I know that my speakers, room and setup are all good. Thankfully, this effect is very rare.


Yeah, I was exaggerating


----------



## Ted99

pdasterly said:


> i get to start with blank sheet, room is 11 wide x 16 long x 7 1/2 ceiling, surrounds can be wall mounted or i can get speaker stands, i prefer wall mounting them to keep out the way


I wholeheartedly endorse @batpig's recommendation. In my 12' wide room, I had too much point source localization with tower monopoles for side surrounds--alleviated some with positioning at 80 degrees and pointing at opposite seat. Wall mounted bipoles completely cured the problem.


----------



## pdasterly

Ted99 said:


> I wholeheartedly endorse @batpig's recommendation. In my 12' wide room, I had too much point source localization with tower monopoles for side surrounds--alleviated some with positioning at 80 degrees and pointing at opposite seat. Wall mounted bipoles completely cured the problem.


freakin upgrade itis, im trying to get my friend to buy my receiver so i can get yamaha rx-3070 so i can get inwall bipoles on sides and inwall monopoles in rear. I ordered rc-64 iii and will get rf-7 iii next month or 2

upgrading from klipsch f-20 towers, b-20 bookshelves, c-20 center and i have s-10 surrounds


----------



## kbarnes701

/RANT 

On a totally different issue, AFAICR every Warner's Atmos disc also features a totally pointless DTS-HD MA track as well as the Atmos track. WB discs are notorious for their below average bitrates (for video) and if they did away with this unnecessary DTS-HD MA soundtrack it would give them more space on the disc to raise the bitrate a bit. Those who don't have AVRs that can decode Atmos metadata will happily play the core TrueHD track, so nobody misses out and we all get a potentially better picture quality.

/RANT OFF


----------



## Sanjay

kbarnes701 said:


> /RANT
> 
> On a totally different issue, AFAICR every Warner's Atmos disc also features a totally pointless DTS-HD MA track as well as the Atmos track. WB discs are notorious for their below average bitrates (for video) and if they did away with this unnecessary DTS-HD MA soundtrack it would give them more space on the disc to raise the bitrate a bit. Those who don't have AVRs that can decode Atmos metadata will happily play the core TrueHD track, so nobody misses out and we all get a potentially better picture quality.
> 
> /RANT OFF


Now don't go expecting too much from Warner. This is after all the same studio that released many, many blu-rays, even A titles with just lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. In fact there are many titles from Warner, that till date only available with lossy audio.

PS: Paramount is another laggard in this regard. I can't believe that they have the first three Mission Impossible movies only available with lossy DD 5.1 audio till date.


----------



## Ted99

kbarnes701 said:


> /RANT
> 
> On a totally different issue, AFAICR every Warner's Atmos disc also features a totally pointless DTS-HD MA track as well as the Atmos track. WB discs are notorious for their below average bitrates (for video) and if they did away with this unnecessary DTS-HD MA soundtrack it would give them more space on the disc to raise the bitrate a bit. Those who don't have AVRs that can decode Atmos metadata will happily play the core TrueHD track, so nobody misses out and we all get a potentially better picture quality.
> 
> /RANT OFF


Yes, I made the mistake, once, of not checking the "audio setup" in the startup menu and ended listening to the DTS-HD track. For some reason, the Receiver/BR Player didn't make an automatic selection of Atmos.


----------



## Ted99

pdasterly said:


> freakin upgrade itis, im trying to get my friend to buy my receiver so i can get yamaha rx-3070 so i can get inwall bipoles on sides and inwall monopoles in rear. I ordered rc-64 iii and will get rf-7 iii next month or 2
> 
> upgrading from klipsch f-20 towers, b-20 bookshelves, c-20 center and i have s-10 surrounds


It might be even worse. If you are sitting close to the rear wall, Bipoles might be a good idea for the rear surrounds, also.


----------



## pdasterly

Ted99 said:


> It might be even worse. If you are sitting close to the rear wall, Bipoles might be a good idea for the rear surrounds, also.


true


----------



## Ted99

Those Klipsh Pro-7800-S-THX speakers in @batpig's post look like the ultimate solution.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> Yes, I made the mistake, once, of not checking the "audio setup" in the startup menu and ended listening to the DTS-HD track. For some reason, the Receiver/BR Player didn't make an automatic selection of Atmos.


That's another thing that irritates me - when the disc doesn't default to the best codec.


----------



## pdasterly

Ted99 said:


> Those Klipsh Pro-7800-S-THX speakers in @batpig's post look like the ultimate solution.


PRO-180RPW or PRO-7800-S-THX


----------



## westbergjoakim

Do you have a layout of your new room where you have your speakers positioned and where they are pointing/aiming?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## pdasterly

crude










westbergjoakim said:


> Do you have a layout of your new room where you have your speakers positioned and where they are pointing/aiming?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Here you go. Note that I am in the process of moving the Top Front ceiling speakers forwards towards the screen. The overhead speakers are angled towards MLP, which isn't shown in the drawing. There are now 5 seats and MLP is the center seat, in line with the room center.


----------



## pdasterly

goals, gonna print this out for contractor


kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go. Note that I am in the process of moving the Top Front ceiling speakers forwards towards the screen. The overhead speakers are angled towards MLP, which isn't shown in the drawing. There are now 5 seats and MLP is the center seat, in line with the room center.


----------



## westbergjoakim

kbarnes701 said:


> Here you go. Note that I am in the process of moving the Top Front ceiling speakers forwards towards the screen. The overhead speakers are angled towards MLP, which isn't shown in the drawing. There are now 5 seats and MLP is the center seat, in line with the room center.


Thanks mate! Are your sides aimed straight forward or against your MLP? You had your sides a litte in front of the seating in your old HT - which one did you like best and/or was better soundwise, or was that just a compromise? Why are you moving your top fronts forward?

Thanks!

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## tknx

When the Atmos guide gives you a range of 90 to 110 degrees for a side surround - is the ideal position in the middle at 100?


----------



## sdurani

tknx said:


> When the Atmos guide gives you a range of 90 to 110 degrees for a side surround - is the ideal position in the middle at 100?


Atmos didn't replace existing speaker placements, just built on top of them. So, surround speaker placement follows the same conventions as before. For a 7.1 base layer, side surrounds can be directly to your sides or even slightly forward of your listening position (80-90 degrees) for greater side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. For a 5.1 base layer, the single pair of surrounds should at a compromise location (110-120 degrees) between where the sides & rears would have been.


----------



## kbarnes701

westbergjoakim said:


> Thanks mate! Are your sides aimed straight forward or against your MLP? You had your sides a litte in front of the seating in your old HT - which one did you like best and/or was better soundwise, or was that just a compromise? Why are you moving your top fronts forward?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


The side surrounds are shown incorrectly in the schematic. They are forward of the position shown (this drawing was the initial drawing and we then modified it as we did the work). In a 7.x.x system IMO the side surrounds should be forward of MLP - ideally at 80 degrees if possible. There is no need for them to give coverage _behind _MLP as the rear surrounds are there for that. All speakers should be angled towards MLP, including overheads, unless there is a good reason not to. My front LCR speakers are not angled due to their considerable size and the fact they have to fit behind the screen where there isn't much space. The front speakers are raised off the ground on concrete supports so that the center of the horn is slightly above ear height. The dual subwoofers (at the rear wall - hard to spot in the drawing) are raised on blocks to counteract the relevant height mode. 

I am moving the TF speakers forward a little a) because I can and b) because it will give more separation between the TF and TR. There seems to be no good reason not to do this so I am doing it. There is nothing really wrong with the Atmos presentation as it is, but I have a bee in my bonnet about this now and it isn't all that difficult to move them. And since I have recently added additional absorption on the high side walls and part of the sloping ceiling I have to recalibrate anyway with Dirac, so if I am moving these speakers, now is the time to do it.

I'd take a quick look at Post #1 in my build thread to get a better idea of the space and that will make more sense of the above


----------



## tknx

sdurani said:


> tknx said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Atmos guide gives you a range of 90 to 110 degrees for a side surround - is the ideal position in the middle at 100?
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos didn't replace existing speaker placements, just built on top of them. So, surround speaker placement follows the same conventions as before. For a 7.1 base layer, side surrounds can be directly to your sides or even slightly forward of your listening position (80-90 degrees) for greater side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. For a 5.1 base layer, the single pair of surrounds should at a compromise location (110-120 degrees) between where the sides & rears would have been.
Click to expand...

Ok but if you are placing speakers in that 80-90 range , which is ideal? 80? 85? 90?


----------



## sdurani

tknx said:


> Ok but if you are placing speakers in that 80-90 range , which is ideal? 80? 85? 90?


Like asking what volume level is ideal. The very reason ranges are given (even in the Atmos install guide) is to accommodate personal preference. Place those speakers where they sound ideal to you. No one else can decide that for you. Don't be afraid to trust yourself.


----------



## kbarnes701

tknx said:


> Ok but if you are placing speakers in that 80-90 range , which is ideal? 80? 85? 90?


As Sanjay says, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' within a stated range. The main thing is, with a system that has rear surrounds, is to 'fill the gap' between the front LCR set and the rear surrounds, in a sensible way. With a 5.1 system, one puts the surrounds slightly behind the MLP so that there is some sense of sound from behind the listener, as well as to the sides. In a 7.1 system we already have the 'behind' covered so you can move the side surrounds forward a little to better fill the gap between fronts and rear surrounds. I'd go for 80 degrees if you can (no doors etc in the way) and see how that works out for you. Angle the surrounds towards MLP - if they are 'hotspotting' then point the right surround slightly towards the left side of MLP and the left surround slightly towards the right side of MLP. This will give a better presentation for a whole row of listeners, at no detriment to the money seat.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

This is the ITU speaker placement guide for a 7.1 system:










See how their side surrounds nicely fill the space between the fronts and the rear surrounds? And note how they suggest that anywhere in the shaded area will be OK for the side and rear surrounds. A big range of options.


----------



## T-Bone

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> This is the ITU speaker placement guide for a 7.1 system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how their side surrounds nicely fill the space between the fronts and the rear surrounds? And note how they suggest that anywhere in the shaded area will be OK. A big range of options.


I don't like that diagram 🙂

If I have a 7.1 bed layer, and the audio engineers are producing sounds that are supposed to be on the side of me, then the speaker at 60° offset is not going to sound like it's on the side of me.

That 60° speaker placement may be fine for filling the gap for sounds that pan from the front then to the 60° speaker and then to the back surrounds.

For a 7.1 bed layer, I have found that 90 degrees angle works best for me.

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

T-Bone said:


> I don't like that diagram 🙂
> 
> If I have a 7.1 bed layer, and the audio engineers are producing sounds that are supposed to be on the side of me, then the speaker at 60° offset is not going to sound like it's on the side of me.
> 
> That 60° speaker placement may be fine for filling the gap for sounds that pan from the front then to the 60° speaker and then to the back surrounds.
> 
> For a 7.1 bed layer, I have found that 90 degrees angle works best for me.
> 
> -T


As we are saying, it's a question of what works best for the individual, within the stated ranges. I have extensively tried 90 degrees and 80 degrees and for me, in my room, with my rears placed where they were, 80 degrees was much more enveloping. With the sides at 90 degrees, the differentiation between sounds from the rear surrounds and the side surrounds wasn't so great - with the sides at 80 degrees, much better. But YMMV - it depends on the room, the placement of the other speakers and preference. As Sanjay said, this is why they quote a _range_ of potential positions.


----------



## T-Bone

kbarnes701 said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like that diagram 🙂
> 
> If I have a 7.1 bed layer, and the audio engineers are producing sounds that are supposed to be on the side of me, then the speaker at 60° offset is not going to sound like it's on the side of me.
> 
> That 60° speaker placement may be fine for filling the gap for sounds that pan from the front then to the 60° speaker and then to the back surrounds.
> 
> For a 7.1 bed layer, I have found that 90 degrees angle works best for me.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> As we are saying, it's a question of what works best for the individual, within the stated ranges. I have extensively tried 90 degrees and 80 degrees and for me, in my room, with my rears placed where they were, 80 degrees was much more enveloping. With the sides at 90 degrees, the differentiation between sounds from the rear surrounds and the side surrounds wasn't so great - with the sides at 80 degrees, much better. But YMMV - it depends on the room, the placement of the other speakers and preference. As Sanjay said, this is why they quote a _range_ of potential positions.
Click to expand...

Sure, I understand the ranges. Maybe I have not seen that diagram before. But I don't remember seeing anything from Dolby that recommended that range for the bed layer. Maybe they did and I just missed it.

-T


----------



## Ricoflashback

Soupy1970 said:


> ^IMO, I prefer a little localization myself. Otherwise we would be operating in multi channel stereo


Well for me, in my smaller man cave, monopoles as side surrounds were a "no go." They were replaced with Dipoles - Paradigm ADP 590's. 

When I had monopoles as side surrounds in my narrow theater room - - the were, quite frankly, obnoxious. Flat out, in your face, "see me, hear me NOW" effect. It was like someone shot a rubber band at the side of your face when they went off. 

I can handle direct, discrete sounds behind me, behind me up high or high up front, but for my situation, more than a little too much localization for me. All theaters and tastes are different.


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> I don't remember seeing anything from Dolby that recommended that range for the bed layer.


As Keith said, that recommendation is from ITU, not Dolby. If adhering to Dolby recommendations is a priority, then stick to their speaker placement ranges. Understand that some of us see those recommendations as a starting point and end up eventually adjusting to taste (even if it means going outside those placement ranges).


----------



## kbarnes701

T-Bone said:


> Sure, I understand the ranges. Maybe I have not seen that diagram before. But I don't remember seeing anything from Dolby that recommended that range for the bed layer. Maybe they did and I just missed it.
> 
> -T


Dolby didn't re-invent surround sound when they developed Atmos. What has always worked for 7.1 will still work even though we have added a layer of speakers above our heads. The ITU layout is a standard industry layout for 5.1/7/1, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. THX, for example, recommends the side surrounds at 90 degrees, as per the diagram below from their website.










As I said earlier, in my room putting the side surrounds at 80 degrees gave the best sense of envelopment, which nicely complements the sense of immersion from the overhead layer, but, within reason, there are no hard and fast rules and every room and every listener is different. I would just urge people to keep an open mind on speaker layout, within the various guidelines, and experiment to find the result that suits them best.

What seems immediately apparent to me from the THX recommendation is how close the side surrounds and the rear surrounds are to each other, and what a large gap there is between the fronts and the side surrounds. Phantom imaging will help close that gap, but having a physical speaker in the gap will always work better.


----------



## Azekecse

kbarnes701 said:


> That's another thing that irritates me - when the disc doesn't default to the best codec.


Yes absolutely, but I always check to be sure...Trust but verify. I recall that once I was listening to music in stereo and didn't revert back to a Dolby Movie Mode, while watching a movie, silly me


----------



## johnnygrandis

Finished with the fronts Atmos speakers, boy those back Atmos is gonna be a compromise but will do my best


----------



## kbarnes701

johnnygrandis said:


> Finished with the fronts Atmos speakers, boy those back Atmos is gonna be a compromise but will do my best


Difficult to tell from the photo but could you mount one of the rears on the stair cheek somehow?


----------



## OsoSolitario

kbarnes701 said:


> What seems immediately apparent to me from the THX recommendation is how close the side surrounds and the rear surrounds are to each other, and what a large gap there is between the fronts and the side surrounds. Phantom imaging will help close that gap, but having a physical speaker in the gap will always work better.


THX seems pretty silent since Atmos is everywhere. No signal of Atmos speaker layout with THX "touch" or THX modes in Atmos receivers/processors....


----------



## tknx

The problem is I am running speaker wire to in-walls and in-ceilings. It is relatively cleansheet, so I can get the placements where I want them. The negative is: no chance to adjust placement after the fact. So getting placement as good as possible is basically going to be it.


The fact that ITU and Dolby have different speaker placements is just a whole kettle of worms I am not going into. Atmos should be able to handle it since it would "know" the speakers are at 60 and 120 or whatever and approximate a phantom for a direct side speaker, but who knows?


So I'll probably stick with Atmos definitions for now.


----------



## johnnygrandis

kbarnes701 said:


> Difficult to tell from the photo but could you mount one of the rears on the stair cheek somehow?


Yes thats the plan


----------



## kbarnes701

johnnygrandis said:


> Yes thats the plan


I think that would work pretty well then. Good luck with it!


----------



## kbarnes701

tknx said:


> The problem is I am running speaker wire to in-walls and in-ceilings. It is relatively cleansheet, so I can get the placements where I want them. The negative is: no chance to adjust placement after the fact. So getting placement as good as possible is basically going to be it.
> 
> 
> The fact that ITU and Dolby have different speaker placements is just a whole kettle of worms I am not going into. Atmos should be able to handle it since it would "know" the speakers are at 60 and 120 or whatever and approximate a phantom for a direct side speaker, but who knows?


While I am sure you will find the result more than satisfactory, be aware that AVRs don't have 'positional rendering' in the sense they 'know' where the Atmos speakers are actually located. They just 'assume' you have put them in the recommended locations (just as all surround sound methods have in the past for the floor level speakers).


----------



## batpig

tknx said:


> Ok but if you are placing speakers in that 80-90 range , which is ideal? 80? 85? 90?


Like others have said, there's no substitute for personal experience / preference. 

However, in most rooms, exactly 90 degrees can be a bit obnoxious if you have a regular (direct firing) speaker pointed straight at you directly from the sides. I found that really exacerbated hot-spotting from the surrounds, and slightly behind or slightly in front helps alleviate that. 

Most of the "surrounds at 90 degrees" recs were from the "olden days" when it was assumed you'd be using dipoles for side surrounds, so positioning at 90deg put you in the null and allowed you to hear mostly reflected energy (mimicking the more diffuse sound from the array of high, wall-mounted surrounds in a commercial theater). In a typical domestic room, having a standard direct-firing speaker blasting into your ear-hole from 6-7 feet away isn't ideal.

Obviously there are caveats, and it depends on the room, but IMO unless you have a huge room (giving the speaker plenty of room to image) or you mount the speaker a few feet above ear level (to avoid it blasting directly into your ear) you don't want to place a direct-firing speaker at 90 degrees, for that placement I'd want a bipole/dipole type with side-firing drivers.


----------



## gene4ht

tknx said:


> When the Atmos guide gives you a range of 90 to 110 degrees for a side surround - is the ideal position in the middle at 100?





sdurani said:


> Atmos didn't replace existing speaker placements, just built on top of them. So, surround speaker placement follows the same conventions as before. For a 7.1 base layer, side surrounds can be directly to your sides or even slightly forward of your listening position (80-90 degrees) for greater side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. For a 5.1 base layer, the single pair of surrounds should at a compromise location (110-120 degrees) between where the sides & rears would have been.





tknx said:


> Ok but if you are placing speakers in that 80-90 range , which is ideal? 80? 85? 90?





sdurani said:


> Like asking what volume level is ideal. The very reason ranges are given (even in the Atmos install guide) is to accommodate personal preference. *Place those speakers where they sound ideal to you. No one else can decide that for you. Don't be afraid to trust yourself.*





kbarnes701 said:


> *As Sanjay says, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' within a stated range.* The main thing is, with a system that has rear surrounds, is to 'fill the gap' between the front LCR set and the rear surrounds, in a sensible way. With a 5.1 system, one puts the surrounds slightly behind the MLP so that there is some sense of sound from behind the listener, as well as to the sides. In a 7.1 system we already have the 'behind' covered so you can move the side surrounds forward a little to better fill the gap between fronts and rear surrounds. I'd go for 80 degrees if you can (no doors etc in the way) and see how that works out for you. Angle the surrounds towards MLP - if they are 'hotspotting' then point the right surround slightly towards the left side of MLP and the left surround slightly towards the right side of MLP. This will give a better presentation for a whole row of listeners, at no detriment to the money seat.





tknx said:


> The problem is *I am running speaker wire to in-walls* and in-ceilings. It is relatively cleansheet, so I can get the placements where I want them. The negative is: *no chance to adjust placement after the fact*. So getting placement as good as possible is basically going to be it.





batpig said:


> *Like others have said, there's no substitute for personal experience / preference.*


You've been given excellent advice. Since no one else is willing to say it...I will. It's time to take you OCD hat off and just do it. If you are able to temporarily run wire on the outside of your walls, try experimenting to ascertain what "sounds right" and appeals to you. Otherwise, pick a position...you have an wonderful immersive experience awaiting you.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^^

+1. Also, an excellent suggestion to temporarily run external wire, until he has become totally happy with whatever position(s) he has settled on. Easy, cheap, effective


----------



## tknx

Hard to test when the walls are down, dust is everywhere, I don't live there, etc... It is part of a whole house remodel, so opportunities to test are few and windows between subcontractors can be crazy narrow without delaying everything and running up bills. Anyway, i get not being OCD or whatever.


But even the recs I am getting here don't even match what Dolby is saying at all.


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


Fronts - 22-30 degrees
Sides - 90-110 degrees (here people are suggesting 80?)
Rears - 135-150 degrees
Then ceilings on the same line as the fronts but at 45 degree vertical angles from the listener.
My plan was to put in DIYSG Volt-8s or 10s in boxes in the walls and ceilings (the rears might have to go in angled boxes because of dispersion angles). I'll be using my Salks as front channels.



I'll probably just pick measurements that work with the room constraints (doors, etc) and just deal with it if it isn't perfect. But it would be nice to have an idea what is informing these ranges besides providing a bit of flexibility. I'll do some calculations and see what I get for placements tomorrow I guess.


----------



## gene4ht

tknx said:


> Hard to test when the walls are down, dust is everywhere, I don't live there, etc... It is part of a whole house remodel, so opportunities to test are few and windows between subcontractors can be crazy narrow without delaying everything and running up bills. Anyway, i get not being OCD or whatever.


While the walls are down, run/fish "internal" speaker wiring to the furthest point...just remember to note/record wire locations. When the drywall has been completed, area cleaned of dust and debris, and contractors have vacated...then experiment and conduct testing with speaker locations with temporary "external" speaker wire...or even possibly wait until you move in. Once you decide on/determine final speaker location, just fish the internal wiring back to that location. 



tknx said:


> But even the recs I am getting here don't even match what Dolby is saying at all.


The Dolby guidelines are just that...guidelines. Every room/environment has its unique constraints...doors, windows, fireplaces, room openings, etc...we all have them. The "take away" here is to attempt to work within the guidelines where possible but understand that there is flexibility to deviate from the guidelines to accommodate constraints...personal as well as physical ones. Most of us have...and the resulting performance has still been very good. Deviations of a foot or two or 10-15 degrees for example have been found to be very forgiving. 



tknx said:


> *I'll probably just pick measurements that work with the room constraints (doors, etc) and just deal with it if it isn't perfect.* But it would be nice to have an idea what is informing these ranges besides providing a bit of flexibility. I'll do some calculations and see what I get for placements tomorrow I guess.


Yes...that's the summation of the collective experience here.


----------



## kbarnes701

@tknx. @gene4ht is giving good heads-up here IMO  The suggestion to get the contractors to lay in plenty of cable is a good one. Cable is cheap and the best time to install it is when there are no walls already. As he says, lay on enough to reach the end of the possible location places and then it is an easy job to fish it back once you have finished your experiments. Or, if you have just a couple of options, get the contractor to wire for both - cable is cheap .

Also, if you think you may ever change the setup to include more speakers, eg wides, get them cabled for at the same time. Much easier and cheaper than a retrofit.

Most of all, stop worrying too much about small differences. Dolby specify a *range* because every room is different - anything within the range is OK by Dolby. 

Fronts - 22-30 degrees
Sides - 90-110 degrees (here people are suggesting 80?)
Rears - 135-150 degrees
Then ceilings on the same line as the fronts but at 45 degree vertical angles from the listener.

All of the above will give you good results. I would urge you to consider 80 degrees for side surrounds when you have rear surrounds, but if the most important thing for you is to follow Dolby guidelines, then put them at 90 degrees. You certainly won't want them further back! But be aware of @batpig's remarks about having monopoles at 90 degrees. If you are using monopoles, you will almost certainly find they work better for you at 80 degrees. If you really want to stick with 90 degrees, then consider bipoles. But be aware that Dolby recommend monopoles! All HTs involve compromise - even those built from the ground up. You just have to learn to live with that, and to decide which of the many compromises you will make are most/least important to you.

With a ground-up build like you are doing, I am sure you will get a fantastic result.


----------



## Selden Ball

OsoSolitario said:


> THX seems pretty silent since Atmos is everywhere. No signal of Atmos speaker layout with THX "touch" or THX modes in Atmos receivers/processors....


According to their manuals, Onkyo/Integra's high-end receiver and pre/pro models, like the DRX-R1 and PR-RZ5100 do include THX surround modes. They're irrelevant when playing Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks, though.


----------



## Selden Ball

thnx be generous with the pre-wired cables.

In addition to the speaker locations you've been frustrating over, don't forget to run speaker cables for Front Wide and Top Middle overhead positions. Even if you don't use them initially, running them now is much easier than fishing them later. Also, run a conduit from where the A/V equipment will be to where the projector and TV will be. You'll need to be able to add and replace HDMI and networking cables connecting those locations to one another.


----------



## Soupy1970

kbarnes701 said:


> Sides - 90-110 degrees (here people are suggesting 80?)
> 
> All of the above will give you good results. I would urge you to consider 80 degrees for side surrounds when you have rear surrounds, but if the most important thing for you is to follow Dolby guidelines, then put them at 90 degrees. You certainly won't want them further back! But be aware of @*batpig* 's remarks about having monopoles at 90 degrees. If you are using monopoles, you will almost certainly find they work better for you at 80 degrees. If you really want to stick with 90 degrees, then consider bipoles. But be aware that Dolby recommend monopoles! All HTs involve compromise - even those built from the ground up. You just have to learn to live with that, and to decide which of the many compromises you will make are most/least important to you.


Ok, you have convinced me to try 80 degrees instead of 90. I have Klipsch with some pretty big horns (see pic). How Do you suggest I aim them? straight, or toed toward opposite seat? Also how much forward (in feet) am I aiming for?


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> thnx be generous with the pre-wired cables.
> 
> In addition to the speaker locations you've been frustrating over, don't forget to run speaker cables for Front Wide and Top Middle overhead positions. Even if you don't use them initially, running them now is much easier than fishing them later. Also, run a conduit from where the A/V equipment will be to where the projector and TV will be. You'll need to be able to add and replace HDMI and networking cables connecting those locations to one another.



+1.

Good call on the conduit Selden. A nice, effective and cheap conduit is the 1.25 inch plastic plumbing. Works well and has plenty of room for big HDMI connectors.


----------



## kbarnes701

Soupy1970 said:


> Ok, you have convinced me to try 80 degrees instead of 90. I have Klipsch with some pretty big horns (see pic). How Do you suggest I aim them? straight, or toed toward opposite seat? Also how much forward (in feet) am I aiming for?


 I'm not familiar with Klipsch speakers at all so aiming them may depend on whether the horn is 'aggressive' or not. As they are currently aimed right down your ears, I am guessing they aren't  It's easy to experiment with floor-standers, so I'd try them not aimed at all, aimed at MLP and aimed towards the opposite seat (maybe not *at *it but towards it) and see which sounds best to you. Remember to re-run any room EQ after you've moved them (and re-aimed them if you experiment).

I can't really say what 80 degrees would be in terms of feet without knowing the dimensions of the room and where the money seat is in it - but somewhere near that Dark Knight poster looks about right from here, but it's hard to say coz the photo will be giving some distortion. It isn't critical anyway - the main objective is to a) get them away from firing right into your ears (and the ears of whoever sits in the left and right side seats!) and b) to better fill the gap between the mains and the rear surrounds.

What you are looking for when you have done it is a) less of an ear-drilling by not having those nice horns aimed right down your ear canal and b) a greater sense of envelopment with a good 7.1 soundtrack. Note how front to rear/ rear to front pans are 'smoother' and how the sound doesn't 'jump' from the front speakers to the surrounds, but moves seamlessly around the room. Please report back with your findings and see if we agree


----------



## gene4ht

Selden Ball said:


> thnx be generous with the pre-wired cables.
> 
> In addition to the speaker locations you've been frustrating over, don't forget to run speaker cables for Front Wide and Top Middle overhead positions. Even if you don't use them initially, running them now is much easier than fishing them later. Also, run a conduit from where the A/V equipment will be to where the projector and TV will be. You'll need to be able to add and replace HDMI and networking cables connecting those locations to one another.





kbarnes701 said:


> +1.
> 
> Good call on the conduit Selden. A nice, effective and cheap conduit is the 1.25 inch plastic plumbing. Works well and has plenty of room for big HDMI connectors.


Absolutely agree...wire and PVC are inexpensive...cheap investments now makes life so much easier down the line.


----------



## batpig

Soupy1970 said:


> Ok, you have convinced me to try 80 degrees instead of 90. I have Klipsch with some pretty big horns (see pic). How Do you suggest I aim them? straight, or toed toward opposite seat? Also how much forward (in feet) am I aiming for?


Is that cheap egg crate foam I'm seeing everywhere? Tsk tsk.... 

Since your speakers are free-standing, just experiment. You've got that luxury to be able to play around.


----------



## tknx

Selden Ball said:


> thnx be generous with the pre-wired cables.
> 
> In addition to the speaker locations you've been frustrating over, don't forget to run speaker cables for Front Wide and Top Middle overhead positions. Even if you don't use them initially, running them now is much easier than fishing them later. Also, run a conduit from where the A/V equipment will be to where the projector and TV will be. You'll need to be able to add and replace HDMI and networking cables connecting those locations to one another.



Thanks Seldon. I think my plan is to run conduits all the way back with tons of wires to potentially go to a 9.2.6 system at some point. I don't think I will ever get there given the mixes use of the room, but seems like an easy bit of future proofing. More likely to go with a dedicated Erskine build at that point!

A couple of thoughts / questions:



So the recommendation seems to be to move the sides a bit forward - advantage in filling in that front wide spot a bit as well as not having the sound muffled by people sitting next to you. The speaker height is typically deemed at 2 ft above ear level (so lets say 54 inches - 30" average for male/female + 24"). Is that height not enough to clear people's heads?
In rears, the dispersion of the Volts is about 45 degrees, so you start getting out of the range pretty quick without angling - annoying for a long room with in-walls. I am not wedded to the Volts, so whatever makes sense.

I've made a calculator on google to figure out where potential placements might be:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AFlhVt4jFoGjlZCfQJg-9u5z21SqeqCCaD7ioKIA8mI/edit?usp=sharing


Just need to play with it a bit more.


----------



## thewonderer

sdurani said:


> thewonderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know off topic a little but anything working putting in the ceiling before the speakers go in? Insulation over the speakers, or leave as is.
> 
> 
> 
> I would put a little insulation over/around the speakers instead of leaving the empty cavity as is.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have some for each of my speakers. Will be installing in the next few weeks. I have to take down one side of the ground floor ceiling as the originals owners didn't care that one half of the ceiling is lower than the other half. There is a beam going through the middle of the ceiling to support the upper level of the house. It protrudes into the room space by about 20cm down and 20cm width. 

Once both ceilings are same height, I will install 2 speakers on each side. Previously you said that the spacing between left and right speaker was too far. Think they were approx 3m apart on a 4m room. So now I think 2m apart will work better and suit the room dimensions nicely. 

Not by my pc so can't put diagram up of updated placement. Think I can get away with the dead centre of the rear ceiling being 1m in from each side. This will give a 2m space between the left and right speakers and for the rear the dead centre will be approx 50cm from the back wall. So the edge of the mc60 polk will be 40cm from the rear wall. 

This is for a room that is 4.2m long and 4m wide. I also plan on putting 4 downlights which are dimmable in line with the speakers running the length of the room. 2 speakers and 2 led on the left and 2 speakers and 2 led on the right. Should look neat. Will make sure speaker cables are as far away from the led lights and cables as possible. 

Hope this sounds OK... Thanks

I've updated my room design to reflect the changes. Hopefully the attached PDF looks OK.


----------



## Soupy1970

batpig said:


> Is that cheap egg crate foam I'm seeing everywhere? Tsk tsk....
> 
> Since your speakers are free-standing, just experiment. You've got that luxury to be able to play around.


Lol, yeah I was just trying it out. I removed the ones behind side surrounds since that picture was taken. It had good reviews on Amazon, but doesn't work very well according to REW. It helps a little on the ceilings in the right locations, but definitely not worth buying again. I have insulation in the movie posters, but I couldn't hang them low enough to catch any early reflections. I plan on building some real ones soon to match the wall/ceiling colors and hang them in the right locations.


----------



## batpig

Cheap egg crate foam isn't dense enough to absorb broadband meaningfully. If it was the really dense, 4" thick Auralex StudioFoam panels then maybe, but those are outrageously expensive vs. a simply DIY solution filled with Roxul rockwool or O-C fiberglass. At best the egg crate foam will tame some high frequencies (e.g. some flutter echo on vocals) but it's going to do more harm than good on first reflections and be totally insufficient for SBIR (placing them behind the speakers).

The room looks great though!


----------



## sdurani

Soupy1970 said:


> I plan on building some real ones soon to match the wall/ceiling colors and hang them in the right locations.


When you move your side speakers slightly forward of you, sit down in your main listening position and have somebody move a hand mirror along the side walls of the room. Where ever you see the opposite side speaker, place an absorber (or diffuser). Do the same with the rear speakers. Will help maintain left vs right separation in the surround field.


----------



## Soupy1970

batpig said:


> Cheap egg crate foam isn't dense enough to absorb broadband meaningfully. If it was the really dense, 4" thick Auralex StudioFoam panels then maybe, but those are outrageously expensive vs. a simply DIY solution filled with Roxul rockwool or O-C fiberglass. At best the egg crate foam will tame some high frequencies (e.g. some flutter echo on vocals) but it's going to do more harm than good on first reflections and be totally insufficient for SBIR (placing them behind the speakers).
> 
> The room looks great though!


Thanks. I'm embarrassed to say, I paid $160 for 16 of the 12x12 corner bass traps off Amazon too. Those things didn't help at all. I took before and after REW sweeps and not a ounce of difference. All the reviews are full of it. https://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-Foa...TF8&qid=1522799194&sr=8-2&keywords=bass+traps


----------



## kbarnes701

Soupy1970 said:


> Thanks. I'm embarrassed to say, I paid $160 for 16 of the 12x12 corner bass traps off Amazon too. Those things didn't help at all. I took before and after REW sweeps and not a ounce of difference. All the reviews are full of it. https://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-Foa...TF8&qid=1522799194&sr=8-2&keywords=bass+traps


Beware of anyone selling so-called acoustic absorption unless they also show data supporting their claims. As you have discovered the hard way, this sort of cheap foam does next to nothing, and of course, this would be why the vendor publishes no data showing their alleged effectiveness. 

It is a great pity, because using this sort of rubbish could put people off treating their rooms properly, and so depriving them of the biggest, cheapest, most effective upgrade they can make to their sound quality: treating the single most influential and important 'component' in the system - the room. 

It is very easy to make effective absorbers using timber, acoustically transparent cloth and some good quality rockwool (again, look for data sheets before buying). They work out very cheap per panel, compared with buying commercial products and also have the benefit of enabling you to make custom sizes. No special tools or woodworking skills are needed either - just a workspace and some basic hand tools that most will already own. It's the most effective (and most cost-effective) upgrade anyone can make.


----------



## asarose247

^ + a googleplex

a few basic hand tools, 
a pneumatic staple gun is mandatory

and a custom fit and finish . . .


----------



## kbarnes701

asarose247 said:


> ^ + a googleplex
> 
> a few basic hand tools,
> a pneumatic staple gun is mandatory


I've made dozens of panels using just a regular, decent quality staple gun. This is the one I use. 

You do get through thousands of staples though, so a big box is definitely mandatory


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

While talking about acoustic absorption material, what do you think about this ?


----------



## kbarnes701

Quetzalcoalt said:


> While talking about acoustic absorption material, what do you think about this ?
> 
> https://youtu.be/pABvTWSxOes


I think you should avoid this guy's YT videos. 

His tests are useless, his choice of absorbers more so. To create acoustic treatments you need to make broadband absorbers. These will absorb the frequency range you are targeting evenly across the spectrum. You obviously want to minimize the attenuation one frequency and not another. There's no need to use silly materials like towels and cushions: rockwool is cheap enough and you get data sheets with it showing the precise characteristics of the material you have chosen.

We are way off topic so should either give up on this discussion or move it someplace else.


----------



## batpig

The whole towel thing is stupid, I hate that this video gets shared so much. It's no easier, and barely cheaper, than simply going to Home Depot and picking up a pack of Roxul rockwool batts ($50 for a dozen) or find a local HVAC supplier who will sell you some other insulation material like rigid fiberglass boards.

The rest of the materials cost (timber for building the frames, fabric for covering them, staple gun) is identical cost / effort. 

You really want to sit there sewing together old towels just to save a few dollars??


----------



## thewonderer

I've updated my 5.1.4 room design.

How does this look for a 4 by 4m room?


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> How does this look for a 4 by 4m room?


As discussed earlier, your Top Rear speakers should be as far back as possible.


----------



## thewonderer

sdurani said:


> thewonderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this look for a 4 by 4m room?
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed earlier, your Top Rear speakers should be as far back as possible.
Click to expand...

Understood. The diagram isn't quite to scale. 

A question I do have about atmos speakers and rear surrounds is, do the atmos rears and the rear surrounds have separate panning? So if something comes from the back in a movie, do they mix the sound track so that the rear speakers then the rear atmos pan to the front atmos and front speakers? Or are they kept separate... Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

thewonderer said:


> A question I do have about atmos speakers and rear surrounds is, do the atmos rears and the rear surrounds have separate panning? So if something comes from the back in a movie, do they mix the sound track so that the rear speakers then the rear atmos pan to the front atmos and front speakers? Or are they kept separate... Thanks.


Depends on where the sound is. If the sound is floating between the base layer and the height layer, then speakers in both layers behind you will be used. If the sound is a car going from back to front, then the sound effect will only be panned in the base layer (no need to use heights). Sounds can also be panned vertically, like if a helicopter is taking off.


----------



## pdasterly

which thx speakers for 7.1.4 atmos
PRO-7502-S-THX - surround speaker
or
PRO-7502-L-THX - LRC speaker


----------



## kbarnes701

pdasterly said:


> which thx speakers for 7.1.4 atmos
> PRO-7502-S-THX - surround speaker
> or
> PRO-7502-L-THX - LRC speaker


There doesn't seem to be much to choose between them, based on their spec sheets. Ideally, an Atmos overhead speaker should have 90 degree dispersion if it is to conform to Dolby guidelines. How important that is, if the speakers can be aimed towards MLP, is moot. OTOH, if the speakers are in-ceiling designs and cannot be aimed towards MLP, personally I'd stick with something which has the 90 degree dispersion if possible. Or maybe choose an in-ceiling design with aimable tweeters.


----------



## JRock3x8

not sure if this is the right place to post this - I've read about chaining together multiple AVR's to make Atmos.

My setup is / would be 7.2.4

I already know I would have to buy at least 1 new AVR because my current AVR doesn't have a line out for Atmos - my Onkyo 656 only allows 5.2.2 and only through a software switch of remapping the side channels for height (or ceiling) channel.

I'm known as a bit of a cheapie... so lower cost (with acceptable quality) solutions would be appreciated. I am by no means an audiophile but I can recognize the difference between the $100 soundbar package you get at Walmart and my 7 Triad speakers


----------



## kbarnes701

JRock3x8 said:


> not sure if this is the right place to post this - I've read about chaining together multiple AVR's to make Atmos.
> 
> My setup is / would be 7.2.4
> 
> I already know I would have to buy at least 1 new AVR because my current AVR doesn't have a line out for Atmos - my Onkyo 656 only allows 5.2.2 and only through a software switch of remapping the side channels for height (or ceiling) channel.
> 
> I'm known as a bit of a cheapie... so lower cost (with acceptable quality) solutions would be appreciated. I am by no means an audiophile but I can recognize the difference between the $100 soundbar package you get at Walmart and my 7 Triad speakers


Not sure what your objective is here. As you have to buy a new AVR anyway, why do you need to 'chain together multiple AVRs'? Just buy the new AVR that has the features you need for 11 channels of Atmos. Mostly these will require a second 2ch amp as they only have onboard amplification for 9 channels, but can do 11 channel processing, so you need to process the 11 channels in the AVR but feed two of them out to a separate 2ch power amp to give you 11 channels of output.

You could use the amps in you old AVR for the extra 2 channels of power by feeding the 2 relevant outputs of your Atmos AVR into the relevant line-in sockets of your old AVR and that would save you the cost of buying a new 2ch amp. But you could probably sell the old AVR for enough to buy a decent 2ch amp anyway - you don't need masses of power for the overhead speakers.

If you are thinking you could somehow use the Onkyo with its 7 channels of Atmos processing and add another similar AVR with another 7 channels of Atmos processing, and then somehow hook them up into some sort of Franken-AVR to give you 7.2.4, I'd say it isn't possible and even if it was, you'd achieve nothing worthwhile from attempting it.

I'd sell the Onkyo and get an Atmos AVR that can process 11 channels for 7.x.4 and add an inexpensive 2 ch amp. Alternatively get one of the Atmos AVRs that can process AND power 11 channels, but these aren't cheap. Probably cheaper to go for an Atmos AVR than can process 11 channels but needs the 2 ch amp to power the 'last two' channels.


----------



## JRock3x8

Because 7.2.4 AVRs cost $1000 last time I checked. 

My onkyo cost $250. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

JRock3x8 said:


> Because 7.2.4 AVRs cost $1000 last time I checked.
> 
> My onkyo cost $250.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are using a 250 dollar AVR with a set of Triad speakers?

I can see no way to chain together a pair of cheap 5.x.2 AVRs to get a 7.x.4 Atmos system. Sorry.


----------



## JRock3x8

kbarnes701 said:


> You are using a 250 dollar AVR with a set of Triad speakers?
> 
> I can see no way to chain together a pair of cheap 5.x.2 AVRs to get a 7.x.4 Atmos system. Sorry.


oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.

This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.


----------



## deano86

JRock3x8 said:


> Because 7.2.4 AVRs cost $1000 last time I checked.
> 
> My onkyo cost $250.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You wanna play??... You gotta pay!!


----------



## kbarnes701

JRock3x8 said:


> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.


Then use the solution you've seen and you are all set.



JRock3x8 said:


> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.


Maybe there's another forum that might suit your needs better? Best of luck with it all.


----------



## T-Bone

JRock3x8 said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using a 250 dollar AVR with a set of Triad speakers?
> 
> I can see no way to chain together a pair of cheap 5.x.2 AVRs to get a 7.x.4 Atmos system. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
Click to expand...

There is a dedicated thread for using multiple avrs to do Advanced Atmos. I don't know it offhand but I've read it.

-T


----------



## ggsantafe

JRock3x8 said:


> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.


You might start here: 
avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2321145-beyond-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html

and display a little more respect for forum members who have provided invaluable knowledge and advice for many years.


----------



## ddgdl

ggsantafe said:


> JRock3x8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> You might start here:
> avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2321145-beyond-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html
> 
> and display a little more respect for forum members who have provided invaluable knowledge and advice for many years.
Click to expand...

Especially when he is wrong about being able to chain together two 5.x.2 receivers to make an even remotely accurate 7.x.4


----------



## kbarnes701

ggsantafe said:


> You might start here:
> avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2321145-beyond-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html
> 
> and display a little more respect for forum members who have provided invaluable knowledge and advice for many years.


Yes, back in this (Atmos) thread somewhere, Scott Simonian and Nalleh proposed a 'Scatmos' system (Scott's name for it IIRC) but I think his objective was different to that of JRock3x8. Maybe Scott and Nalleh's ideas could be adapted into a solution using two Onkyo 656 AVRs. TBH I can't see how it would work personally, but that's not to say it won't work of course  Scott and Nalleh were primarily concerned with creating a 7.x.6 system and were starting with higher-end 7.x.4 AVRs to begin with.

If it is possible to use two cheap 5.x.2 AVRs to create an Atmos 7.x.6 system which functions in the way Dolby intended Atmos to work, then that extends Scott/Nalleh's original concept nicely.

I think it is beyond the scope of the current thread, so maybe the one you linked to is the place for this sort of discussion?


----------



## helvetica bold

What do you guys think about the KEF Q100s as the base for a 5.1.4 system? 
I might mix them with SVS Elevation speakers for heights of course. 
I know I have to listen to them for myself but they’re on sale at Amazon. I had my eye on the new Elacs but from what I’ve read the Q100s might be slightly better. Elacs just seem to be popular right now. Thoughts? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, back in this (Atmos) thread somewhere, Scott Simonian and Nalleh proposed a 'Scatmos' system (Scott's name for it IIRC) but I think his objective was different to that of JRock3x8. Maybe Scott and Nalleh's ideas could be adapted into a solution using two Onkyo 656 AVRs. TBH I can't see how it would work personally, but that's not to say it won't work of course  Scott and Nalleh were primarily concerned with creating a 7.x.6 system and were starting with higher-end 7.x.4 AVRs to begin with.
> 
> If it is possible to use two cheap 5.x.2 AVRs to create an Atmos 7.x.6 system which functions in the way Dolby intended Atmos to work, then that extends Scott/Nalleh's original concept nicely.
> 
> I think it is beyond the scope of the current thread, so maybe the one you linked to is the place for this sort of discussion?


On th assumption that 5.x.2 receivers only have the top middle speaker designation (?), it seems proper 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 would not be possible. Now, I think he could do 7.1.2 if the LCR were run on one AVR and the back four and top two were run on the other.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> Especially when he is wrong about being able to chain together two 5.x.2 receivers to make an even remotely accurate 7.x.4


Indeed, neither AVR will render to 4 heights. Also, if one of the AVRs is configured for 7.1, then ALL the height information will be duplicated in the base layer (since that AVR has no height speakers configured to remove the height info from the base layer).


----------



## gene4ht

helvetica bold said:


> *What do you guys think about the KEF Q100s as the base for a 5.1.4 system?*
> I might mix them with SVS Elevation speakers for heights of course.
> I know I have to listen to them for myself but they’re on sale at Amazon. I had my eye on the new Elacs but from what I’ve read the Q100s might be slightly better. Elacs just seem to be popular right now. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You may be better served visiting and posting in the KEF and Elac specific threads...i.e.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2968202-kef-q100-sale-vs-elac-debut2-0-b5-2-a.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2963720-kef-q100-vs-elac-debut-6-2-a.html


----------



## Jonas2

JRock3x8 said:


> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.


No, it's not that. 

It is just that you need the processor to decode and handle the appropriate number of channels you want to drive. If that is 7.x.4, then you've gotta have a processor that can handle all of those channels and get the right info to the right place!

I'm sure you can do so kind of multi-receiver combo like you are talking about, especially if all you need is additional amplification. But without the proper processing, I don't know how you could end up with anything except for some kind of pesudo-Atmos system. What was it that you saw, can you point us to it?


----------



## asarose247

SCATMOS hookup and 40 ft^2 cloud


----------



## thrang

JRock3x8 said:


> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.


LOL, most people can't get the normal crap to work right...who has time to teach Frankenstein table manners? (not you, the kludge...)

This really deserves its own thread, thats all...post the link here and interested people will wander there.


----------



## cyberlocc

Jonas2 said:


> JRock3x8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not that.
> 
> It is just that you need the processor to decode and handle the appropriate number of channels you want to drive. If that is 7.x.4, then you've gotta have a processor that can handle all of those channels and get the right info to the right place!
> 
> I'm sure you can do so kind of multi-receiver combo like you are talking about, especially if all you need is additional amplification. But without the proper processing, I don't know how you could end up with anything except for some kind of pesudo-Atmos system. What was it that you saw, can you point us to it?
Click to expand...

It has been done kind of, there is a thread about which was linked above. The addintional recievers are not for amplification, they are using Dolby Pro Logic to turn 2 heights into 4, and 4 into 6 and 4 into 8, ECT. It's really interesting actually.

He may be able to adapt it to work for his needs, there was some talk of doing that in the thread not sure how it turned out though. However as someone pointed out above, it can't create height channels. 

They started with 7.1.2 and turned that into 7.1.6 by using 3 AVRs and Dolby Pro Logic.

Here is the link again if you want to check it out. Neat stuff really. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...p-immersive-audio.html#/topics/2321145?page=1


----------



## cyberlocc

Also wanted to add, a solution to the 2 receivers problem maybe? It was something I was thinking about. 

Maybe someone with 2 receivers could try it or give a idea of what it couldn't work if it can't?

I am under the impression that Atmos sends all possible signals no matter what correct? The PC/Blu-ray player whatever doesn't know you don't have 9.2.6 receiver does it?

So if this is the case what is stopping you from using 2 7 channel receivers. So let's say an HTPC source, you could then wire a HDMI from the HTPC and into a splitter splliting the signal into 2. 1 goes into each AVR. AVR 1 is set to use 7.1, AVR 2 is set to 3.1.4 (is this possible?) You can now use AVR 2s speakers as just not there, maybe hook them up for Calibration then connect them back to AVR 1. 

You are now splliting the processing between 2 receivers which are both receiving the same audio signals. I have see. Similar in that other thread however with talks of use Zone 2 outputs (though that makes everything stereo doesn't it?)

Edit: I have done some reading on threads here. And it was stated this does work, however you will have sound stage issues. However that statement was made about using reciever 2 to add surround backs, if all Atmos speakers are ran through AVR2 that should not be an issue. 

Especially if the same fronts are used in both setups for Calibration. I guess it may send surround sounds to Atmos speakers that don't belong there, so maybe it will only work for adding the .2 in 7.1.2, would have to try. 

One galring downside would of course be that you would have to turn up each receiver if you wanted to raise the volume ECT, but a Harmony hub could take care of that easy enough.

However with enough receivers and proper wiring wiring you could build a pretty big system like that 😛.


----------



## ddgdl

There is no way to get actual 7.1.4 out of two 5.1.2 receivers, as repeatedly stated. The only way to get accurate 7.1.4 out of two receivers is to have two nine-channel atmos receivers, one with 7.1.2 capability and one with 5.1.4. But that will be a ridiculous headache for no reason when atmos receivers capable of decoding 11 channels already exist and are relatively cheap. In fact, many 9 channel atmos receivers have 11 channel processing, and all you need to add is a 2 channel amp. 

Bottom line, it's not possible to do what the poster was trying to do (5.1.2 times 2 for 7.1.4). Any and all permutations of this have been investigated and addressed in the Beyond 7.1.4 thread.


----------



## ddgdl

cyberlocc said:


> Also wanted to add, a solution to the 2 receivers problem maybe? It was something I was thinking about.
> 
> Maybe someone with 2 receivers could try it or give a idea of what it couldn't work if it can't?
> 
> I am under the impression that Atmos sends all possible signals no matter what correct? The PC/Blu-ray player whatever doesn't know you don't have 9.2.6 receiver does it?
> 
> So if this is the case what is stopping you from using 2 7 channel receivers. So let's say an HTPC source, you could then wire a HDMI from the HTPC and into a splitter splliting the signal into 2. 1 goes into each AVR. AVR 1 is set to use 7.1, AVR 2 is set to 3.1.4 (is this possible?) You can now use AVR 2s speakers as just not there, maybe hook them up for Calibration then connect them back to AVR 1.
> 
> You are now splliting the processing between 2 receivers which are both receiving the same audio signals. I have see. Similar in that other thread however with talks of use Zone 2 outputs (though that makes everything stereo doesn't it?)
> 
> Edit: I have done some reading on threads here. And it was stated this does work, however you will have sound stage issues. However that statement was made about using reciever 2 to add surround backs, if all Atmos speakers are ran through AVR2 that should not be an issue.
> 
> Especially if the same fronts are used in both setups for Calibration. I guess it may send surround sounds to Atmos speakers that don't belong there, so maybe it will only work for adding the .2 in 7.1.2, would have to try.
> 
> One galring downside would of course be that you would have to turn up each receiver if you wanted to raise the volume ECT, but a Harmony hub could take care of that easy enough.
> 
> However with enough receivers and proper wiring wiring you could build a pretty big system like that 😛.


Won't work- there are no 7 channel atmos receivers that have 4 atmos channels


----------



## cyberlocc

Ya if you can do 3.1.4 then that idea wouldn't work. I wasn't sure if that worked on or not seen people talk about it forgot what the verdict was.

I wouldn't say that 11 chanel recievers are cheap per see lol. 1500 dollars is a pretty penny to slot of people.

Easy way for the guy that was asking. Look up the HTPC sound proccessors you can build a 16 channel for under a grand and then you need a bunch if amps and a bunch of patience lol.

If you can find the right sound card, may be able to do it pretty cheap. Don't plan on it being wife friendly though, or easy to use even for you lol. By the time you buy amps and everything though, you'd of been better off buying the receiver.


----------



## Selden Ball

11 channel 2015 model year receivers, like the Denon AVR-X6200W or Marantz SR7010, can do either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 and are substantially discounted when they're available. (If you don't want DTS:X, you could use 2014 models, which are even less.) Combining two of them to provide 9.1.4 would be much less expensive than the 13 channel devices currently available. We do not yet know if this fall's AVR-X4500H or Marantz SR7013 will provide 13 channels, but it seems likely that those new models will still cost more than twice what the 2015 models will cost by then. However, as previously mentioned, such non-standard configurations probably would be best discussed in the thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## gene4ht

Or for those in no particular hurry and have the patience, similar offerings for the 8500 will be available in 2-3 years.


----------



## Solarium

What do you guys think of these? I'm debating to build a wall over my balcony area for my HT (thread here) or to get this. Building the wall will significantly lower the resale value of the house so I may have to break it down when I move out, but these accordion doors can be opened and closed and will be left in there. The only thing that I'm concerned about is whether they provide sufficient sound isolation. But then again, this HT won't be completely sound proof due to the design of the house anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

Solarium said:


> What do you guys think of these? I'm debating to build a wall over my balcony area for my HT (thread here) or to get this. Building the wall will significantly lower the resale value of the house so I may have to break it down when I move out, but these accordion doors can be opened and closed and will be left in there. The only thing that I'm concerned about is whether they provide sufficient sound isolation. But then again, this HT won't be completely sound proof due to the design of the house anyway.


The doors have an STC rating of 45/E90. On the face of it that is a useful attenuation of sound. However... there is no mention that I can see of the frequency range the STC applies to so it may mean very little. It may well give you a 45dB attenuation of frequencies from 2000Hz upwards and nothing below that, which would be essentially useless. 

Also, and this is the biggie - *STC only considers frequencies down to 125 Hz*. Most sound nuisance complaints are from noise sources that are _below 125Hz_ - and in a HT there is a lot of content below 125Hz. I spent in the tens of thousands of dollars area to create sound containment in my HT and it is very, very difficult and a highly specialized area. Bass in particular is very, very difficult to contain (think of those kids in cars with their bass boxes - the bass is all you can hear at the lights since it passes clean through the car). I would say those doors will do nothing whatsoever to attenuate bass, so you may as well not fit them in the first place and seek a cheaper solution. There is almost nothing, IME and IMO you can do in your current situation to isolate sound from your proposed HT, unfortunately, based on the information provided.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^ On the doors website, note this case history:

_"A principal from an elementary school in New Hampshire wanted to be able to divide a large classroom in half to be able to support both a Kindergarten and 1st Grade class. The principal contacted Soundproofing Accordion Doors, a division of All Noise Control.

"The school approached us with what they wanted to do and a list of requirements and specs. They wanted something that was moveable when needed, sturdy, and soundproof between two different classrooms.

"Our team recommended an Accordion Door with an STC of 45. We explained that STC stood for “Sound Transmission Control” and that the higher the STC, the better the product would be at absorbing and/or blocking sound. We configured that an STC of 45 would be the best solution for a classroom divider that would consist of a good amount of “chatter”, kids yelling and screaming, and teachers trying to conduct daily educational lessons.

"Upon the installation, the principal was extremely satisfied with the ability to separate the large classroom and also the ability for each class to be able to hold their own daily educational activities with a small amount of sound between the two sides."_

That would be a great use for that product. Not too high a noise level to begin with and almost zero component below 125Hz, since all of the noise was the human voice, and kids' voices at that. So the product itself is fine, just not for the use you need it for. Sorry.


----------



## richlife

JRock3x8 said:


> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.


Most of the people sharing here have also shared in those "alternative" threads -- 



cyberlocc said:


> *It has been done kind of,* there is a thread about which was linked above. The addintional recievers are not for amplification, they are using Dolby Pro Logic to turn 2 heights into 4, and 4 into 6 and 4 into 8, ECT. It's really interesting actually.
> 
> He may be able to adapt it to work for his needs, there was some talk of doing that in the thread not sure how it turned out though. However as someone pointed out above, it can't create height channels.
> 
> They started with 7.1.2 and turned that into 7.1.6 by using 3 AVRs and Dolby Pro Logic.
> 
> Here is the link again if you want to check it out. Neat stuff really.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...p-immersive-audio.html#/topics/2321145?page=1


This is the point, basically, that the JRock is ignoring -- it's not Atmos, it's "kind of". I can get "kind of" too -- and it sure ain't Atmos! Atmos "objects" are embedded information in the pcm stream that are extracted and properly placed by the Atmos decoder. No Atmos decoder, no object detection and (at best) only psuedo-Atmos-surround audio. 

As for the statement that there is no Atmos AVR for less than $1000 -- not true. Just looking at the line I know: https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-v681_u/index.html .

Current option: $499.95.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XY6DJV7/ref=sr_ob_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1523285142&sr=8-3


----------



## cyberlocc

richlife said:


> JRock3x8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.
> 
> This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the people sharing here have also shared in those "alternative" threads --
> 
> 
> 
> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It has been done kind of,* there is a thread about which was linked above. The addintional recievers are not for amplification, they are using Dolby Pro Logic to turn 2 heights into 4, and 4 into 6 and 4 into 8, ECT. It's really interesting actually.
> 
> He may be able to adapt it to work for his needs, there was some talk of doing that in the thread not sure how it turned out though. However as someone pointed out above, it can't create height channels.
> 
> They started with 7.1.2 and turned that into 7.1.6 by using 3 AVRs and Dolby Pro Logic.
> 
> Here is the link again if you want to check it out. Neat stuff really.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...p-immersive-audio.html#/topics/2321145?page=1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the point, basically, that the JRock is ignoring -- it's not Atmos, it's "kind of". I can get "kind of" too -- and it sure ain't Atmos! Atmos "objects" are embedded information in the pcm stream that are extracted and properly placed by the Atmos decoder. No Atmos decoder, no object detection and (at best) only psuedo-Atmos-surround audio.
> 
> As for the statement that there is no Atmos AVR for less than $1000 -- not true. Just looking at the line I know: https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-v681_u/index.html .
> 
> Current option: $499.95.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XY6DJV7/ref=sr_ob_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1523285142&sr=8-3
Click to expand...

2 things. 

1. Atmos does not and cannot run over PCM, firstly source devices do not have Atmos decoding. Secondly if they did you would still be limited to 8 channels one of those bieng LFE, thus 5.1.2 would be the max. Atmos is bitstreamed.

A PCM stream means that that source already decoded the sound and sends channel specific packets. Which doesn't happen in Atmos right now. 

2. That is a 5.1.2 receiver, and they can be had with Atmos cheaper than that, the 1000 dollar statement was in regards to him wanting 7.1.4, as he already stated he has a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver. For a 9 channel or 11 channel Atmos it will cost you 1000+


----------



## richlife

cyberlocc said:


> 2 things.
> 
> 1. Atmos does not and cannot run over PCM, firstly source devices do not have Atmos decoding. Secondly if they did you would still be limited to 8 channels one of those bieng LFE, thus 5.1.2 would be the max. Atmos is bitstreamed.
> 
> A PCM stream means that that source already decoded the sound and sends channel specific packets. Which doesn't happen in Atmos right now.
> 
> 2. That is a 5.1.2 receiver, and they can be had with Atmos cheaper than that, the 1000 dollar statement was in regards to him wanting 7.1.4, as he already stated he has a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver. For a 9 channel or 11 channel Atmos it will cost you 1000+


Mea culpa. I thought I was muddling the pcm comment -- recovering from knee replacement. Good to have the correct. 


As for 2, I missed that his receiver is Atmos capable -- again, mea culpa.


----------



## cyberlocc

richlife said:


> cyberlocc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 things.
> 
> 1. Atmos does not and cannot run over PCM, firstly source devices do not have Atmos decoding. Secondly if they did you would still be limited to 8 channels one of those bieng LFE, thus 5.1.2 would be the max. Atmos is bitstreamed.
> 
> A PCM stream means that that source already decoded the sound and sends channel specific packets. Which doesn't happen in Atmos right now.
> 
> 2. That is a 5.1.2 receiver, and they can be had with Atmos cheaper than that, the 1000 dollar statement was in regards to him wanting 7.1.4, as he already stated he has a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver. For a 9 channel or 11 channel Atmos it will cost you 1000+
> 
> 
> 
> Mea culpa. I thought I was muddling the pcm comment -- recovering from knee replacement. Good to have the correct.
> 
> 
> As for 2, I missed that his receiver is Atmos capable -- again, mea culpa.
Click to expand...

All good 🙂 was just filling in the blanks with the second part in case others missed that part.


----------



## kbarnes701

richlife said:


> Mea culpa. I thought I was muddling the pcm comment -- recovering from knee replacement. Good to have the correct.
> 
> 
> As for 2, I missed that his receiver is Atmos capable -- again, mea culpa.


_Culpa tua_ or not, you still have the basis of it right: what the guy wants to do can't be done. What can be done is the 'Scatmos' thing invented by @Scott Simonian and also pioneered by @Nalleh here on AVS, but they start with a 7.x.4 AVR if memory serves and then use a clever workaround to derive two additional height channels to give 7.x.6. As Sanjay and others have pointed out in this thread, starting with a 5.x.2 Atmos AVR isn't going to work for what the guy wants to do. It was worthwhile him asking the question, but then he seemed to get annoyed that people were telling him it isn't going to work. Still, this is the wrong thread for it anyway and if he is going to get anywhere with the idea, the other thread he's been linked to is the best place to look for advice.


----------



## Jonas2

*Side Surround Location*

My room situation is unfortunate in that right side surround speaker has to be fairly close to the listeners, and all surrounds are monopoles on stands for a few reasons. Originally placed them at 100 or so-ish degrees, angled forward to "shoot" the sound just past the closest listener and to help avoid hot-spotting. 90 degrees just not an option, too direct on the right side (left no problem as it can be pushed out to any distance, thanks to no wall, and these things are on stands).

Finally had some time to experiment Saturday/yesterday a bit with re-locating my side surround speakers.Went with the approximately 80 degrees, aimed more or less at the listener opposite the speaker - so now no blockage for anybody on the 3-person couch. (which is usually just ME anwyay.....).

Still in the early stages, but I've gotta say - I think I'm liking this arrangement. Although it does not necessarily place the speakers further from the MLP, it definitely reduces the hot-spotting. Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be. Much better than the 100 degree location. This move also increased the separation between the rear surrounds, so the sound field just seems to be generally more uniform with test clips that aim to exploit the entire surround field. I don't know if that makes sense or not? Otherwise I'd have to say that there is a slight "front of the room bias", which makes some sense. 

I'm pretty sure 90 degrees is the sweet spot, all else being more or less "perfect" - but if this is not an option for you, or you're in a similar boat as me - SERIOUSLY be sure and try this 80-degree-ish location if you haven't, and you've got monopoles at least. More testing to be done, but I'm liking this so far. So thanks to all the discussion throughout this and other threads of this potential. Why did I wait so long?


----------



## gene4ht

Jonas2 said:


> My room situation is unfortunate in that right side surround speaker has to be fairly close to the listeners, and all surrounds are monopoles on stands for a few reasons. Originally placed them at 100 or so-ish degrees, angled forward to "shoot" the sound just past the closest listener and to help avoid hot-spotting. 90 degrees just not an option, too direct on the right side (left no problem as it can be pushed out to any distance, thanks to no wall, and these things are on stands).
> 
> Finally had some time to experiment Saturday/yesterday a bit with re-locating my side surround speakers.Went with the approximately 80 degrees, aimed more or less at the listener opposite the speaker - so now no blockage for anybody on the 3-person couch. (which is usually just ME anwyay.....).
> 
> Still in the early stages, but I've gotta say - I think I'm liking this arrangement. Although it does not necessarily place the speakers further from the MLP, it definitely reduces the hot-spotting. Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be. Much better than the 100 degree location. This move also increased the separation between the rear surrounds, so the sound field just seems to be generally more uniform with test clips that aim to exploit the entire surround field. I don't know if that makes sense or not? Otherwise I'd have to say that there is a slight "front of the room bias", which makes some sense.
> 
> I'm pretty sure 90 degrees is the sweet spot, all else being more or less "perfect" - but if this is not an option for you, or you're in a similar boat as me - SERIOUSLY be sure and try this 80-degree-ish location if you haven't, and you've got monopoles at least. *More testing to be done, but I'm liking this so far. So thanks to all the discussion throughout this and other threads of this potential.* Why did I wait so long?


I think this is the key advice and learnings from most of the experienced folks in this and other threads...very few people have perfect rooms, experimentation is a must for best results, surrround/3D sound is very forgiving, and it's hard to do bad Atmos. I'm sure everyone is appreciative of your testimonial and successful proof of the recommendations provided by AVS members.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jonas2 said:


> My room situation is unfortunate in that right side surround speaker has to be fairly close to the listeners, and all surrounds are monopoles on stands for a few reasons. Originally placed them at 100 or so-ish degrees, angled forward to "shoot" the sound just past the closest listener and to help avoid hot-spotting. 90 degrees just not an option, too direct on the right side (left no problem as it can be pushed out to any distance, thanks to no wall, and these things are on stands).
> 
> Finally had some time to experiment Saturday/yesterday a bit with re-locating my side surround speakers.Went with the approximately 80 degrees, aimed more or less at the listener opposite the speaker - so now no blockage for anybody on the 3-person couch. (which is usually just ME anwyay.....).
> 
> Still in the early stages, but I've gotta say - I think I'm liking this arrangement. Although it does not necessarily place the speakers further from the MLP, it definitely reduces the hot-spotting. Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be. Much better than the 100 degree location. This move also increased the separation between the rear surrounds, so the sound field just seems to be generally more uniform with test clips that aim to exploit the entire surround field. I don't know if that makes sense or not? Otherwise I'd have to say that there is a slight "front of the room bias", which makes some sense.
> 
> I'm pretty sure 90 degrees is the sweet spot, all else being more or less "perfect" - but if this is not an option for you, or you're in a similar boat as me - SERIOUSLY be sure and try this 80-degree-ish location if you haven't, and you've got monopoles at least. More testing to be done, but I'm liking this so far. So thanks to all the discussion throughout this and other threads of this potential. Why did I wait so long?


Good news that this is working well for you. I agree with all you say other than that 90 degrees is the sweet spot. I personally don't think it is ever the best place: in a 5.1 setup you really need the surrounds slightly behind you, to give an impression of sounds from behind as well as around you, and in a 7.1 system, placing the surrounds slightly in front of you, as you have found, very nicely 'fills the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds, so giving more envelopment and immersion. Energy trading (aiming the left speaker towards the right-side listener and vice-versa) also helps reduce or even eliminate any hotspotting.

Of course, HT is all about compromise and even when building a room from the ground up, as I did, one still has to compromise. In my case, my fire exit door (mandated by UK Laws) is slap bang at 80 degrees from MLP so I couldn't locate a speaker there (the building inspector wouldn't allow it to be mounted o nthe door itself). If I had been doing the construction myself I'd have ignored them and mounted it on the door, but I was using a reputable firm of installers so couldn;t really expect them to break code. It doesn't worry me as my surround speakers (coaxial, wide dispersion Tannoys) seem to work very well at 90 degrees.


----------



## Jonas2

kbarnes701 said:


> Good news that this is working well for you. I agree with all you say other than that 90 degrees is the sweet spot. I personally don't think it is ever the best place: in a 5.1 setup you really need the surrounds slightly behind you, to give an impression of sounds from behind as well as around you, and in a 7.1 system, placing the surrounds slightly in front of you, as you have found, very nicely 'fills the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds, so giving more envelopment and immersion. Energy trading (aiming the left speaker towards the right-side listener and vice-versa) also helps reduce or even eliminate any hotspotting.


Yes, I should re-qualify that - the 90 degrees - definitely only in a 7.1 arrangement, not 5.1.  And perhaps only if there is one person (unless the speakers are high enough to clear heads, which mine are not). 90 degrees really does have a lot going against it, but I would still recommend experimenting with it one is able to do so. 

It really was something to listen to the reduction in hot-spotting, yet to have that sound seemingly exactly where it needed to be. It wasn't perfect *all* the time, but a definite improvement and on the average, was spot-on, as least so was my perception! Acoustics really is fascinating.


----------



## sdurani

Jonas2 said:


> Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be.


Know the feeling: in a dark room you can point to where certain sounds are but not were the speakers are. That's what stereophonic reproduction is supposed to be. Even with the side speakers slightly forward of the listening position, it's surprising how much imaging continues to localize directly to the sides (despite no speakers being there).


----------



## cfraser

[I got Atmos-OT in another thread so am looking for some opinions in the proper place now. ]

I'm wondering what you guys recommend for a new Atmos ceiling/height speaker installation. I have 4 ceiling speakers now, re-purposed regular bookshelf speakers, but I installed them some years ago and there are now speakers that I believe would allow me to do a better coverage/installation job.

The room is 12'Wx18'Lx9'H. The room is fully treated for the base 7.1 speaker installation; 2 subs, all there's room for. Two "gotchas" for your consideration: the Front LCR are 6' from the front wall and can't be moved. There is a "cloud" ~half way between the LCR line and the MLP (pretend it's just me); this treatment does far more than I ever thought it would, and I really really want to leave it there, so pretend it's also immovable. The MLP is roughly 2/3 of the way down the room, so say this is roughly the 7.1 word picture going down the length of the room:

Front wall/sub - 6' - LCR - 3' - cloud - 3' - MLP/surrounds - 6' - Back wall/surrounds/sub (Hope that helps...)

I am also willing to (plan to actually) buy a new pre-pro/AVR. So if you think what I want is 6 ceiling/height speakers, don't be afraid to say it, I can only do 4 now. But considering the size of the room and that it already looks like a speaker breeding pen, I'd prefer to keep it to 4. I would also be getting new overhead speakers, in-ceiling not an option, so surface-mount of some form again.

Here's what's bugging me: See that 6' "gap" between the front wall and the LCR line. Does it need to have coverage? It doesn't now, and if it should have, heights rather than ceiling? Would coverage there be more of a "frill" rather than a necessity? Something to add in later, but it would require a 13.1 pre-pro so best at least _considered _now.

If 4 overhead speakers are enough, would you put them symmetrically on either side of the cloud? (That's roughly how they are now.) Or how about over the LCR and side surrounds? Do I need overheads behind the MLP? The rear surrounds seem adequate, but IDK, haven't tried another option. Thanks.

One other thing: right now the overhead speakers are powered by 2xstereo amps. Excessive, and I sure could use any freed-up space if I removed them. So I was thinking I could get a new AVR and use it to power just the overhead speakers, and power all the other speakers with the existing separate amps. As you know, going past 11.1 (4 overheads) gets you into another league of pre-pro/AVR pricing, with somewhat less choice for now, so it really needs to be worthwhile to do that (whatever you think "worthwhile" means...).


----------



## alextr75

I finally got to securing the 4 top speakers to the ceiling yesterday, and only now realized I may be doing this wrong, so wanted to clarify something.

Let's say for simplicity ear height to ceiling distance is 5 feet. Top Front Left (TFL) for example is 5 feet to the left of MLP Ears position, 5 feet forward and of course 5 feet up to ceiling.

If having an orthogonal view from the side of the room / (side view similar to the attached picture from the Dolby guidelines), you would see the speaker having a 45 elevation. E.g. if looking from left side of room, you would see the speaker 5 feet left, and 5 feet up resulting in an angle of 45 degrees.

But if you actually calculate the elevation based on horizontal distance from MLP to the point just below the speaker, you would get horizontal distance 7.07 feet (sqrt(5^2 + 5^2)), which then with the distance to ceiling of 5 feet, would result in an elevation of only 35 degrees which is closer to the minimum of the recommended range (30-55).

So which one is it, do I have it at 45, or do I have at 35 ?

I went along with calculating elevation from side view like in that pic, and thought I have it at 45, but it now makes me wonder if it is too far back, because not sure if the lateral distance also affects the calculation of the elevation. If it does, then maybe I needed to pull back the Top Fronts, and push front the Top rears somewhat closer to MLP.


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> If 4 overhead speakers are enough, would you put them symmetrically on either side of the cloud?


No, symmetrically on either side of the MLP.


----------



## Jonas2

sdurani said:


> Know the feeling: in a dark room you can point to where certain sounds are but not were the speakers are. That's what stereophonic reproduction is supposed to be. Even with the side speakers slightly forward of the listening position, it's surprising how much imaging continues to localize directly to the sides (despite no speakers being there).


Yes! Precisely this. It's almost unreal!


----------



## camd5pt0

Here's my setup, 5.1.4. it amazes me, that the front stage, is always throwing sound off the screen in Atmos. It sounds like sound is literally coming from where no speaker is in position. Definitely a 3D affect. My surrounds, often sounds like sound is directly behind me. It literally makes me look at the speaker in confusion, when it is flexing it's spatial effect. I even often rewind to experience the magic, Even after a couple months with it.
It may be the height speakers too in tandem but it works! I was worried height speakers were holding me back from Atmos experience. Now I worry that overhead placement won't hold up to my current experience. 
I move in a couple months and will have the ability to mount overhead. IDK if I will because I don't want to lose Auro 3D, it's awesome for music playback to me.

I certainly am gearing up for 7.1.4. just waiting for Fry's to carry a sale on my bookshelf speakers.


----------



## alextr75

alextr75 said:


> I finally got to securing the 4 top speakers to the ceiling yesterday, and only now realized I may be doing this wrong, so wanted to clarify something.
> 
> Let's say for simplicity ear height to ceiling distance is 5 feet. Top Front Left (TFL) for example is 5 feet to the left of MLP Ears position, 5 feet forward and of course 5 feet up to ceiling.
> 
> If having an orthogonal view from the side of the room / (side view similar to the attached picture from the Dolby guidelines), you would see the speaker having a 45 elevation. E.g. if looking from left side of room, you would see the speaker 5 feet left, and 5 feet up resulting in an angle of 45 degrees.
> 
> But if you actually calculate the elevation based on horizontal distance from MLP to the point just below the speaker, you would get horizontal distance 7.07 feet (sqrt(5^2 + 5^2)), which then with the distance to ceiling of 5 feet, would result in an elevation of only 35 degrees which is closer to the minimum of the recommended range (30-55).
> 
> So which one is it, do I have it at 45, or do I have at 35 ?
> 
> I went along with calculating elevation from side view like in that pic, and thought I have it at 45, but it now makes me wonder if it is too far back, because not sure if the lateral distance also affects the calculation of the elevation. If it does, then maybe I needed to pull back the Top Fronts, and push front the Top rears somewhat closer to MLP.


Hopefully these attached pictures will clarify somewhat what I am wondering about.

This is how more or less I am ending up having the speakers set up, plus a few inches here and there.

There is a Top view, Side view and Perspective. The overhead speakers are attached satellite speakers hanging from the ceiling (as opposed to in-ceiling speakers), so in the sketch they are shown as somewhat lower than the ceiling (about 7 inches below).

In the Top view you can see there are blue lines and one green line (all on horizontal plane). Basically what I wondered is that if I am just using the side view for reference, the elevation there is 45 degrees (4' forward, 4' up).
But if I use the green line (MLP to Speaker), and calculate elevation from that line, elevation would be ~33 degrees (6.2' forward, 4' up)

This is what I am not sure about, is my setup according to the guidelines, closer to the recommended 45 degrees, or closer to 33 (which would require pulling all of them closer to MLP) ?


----------



## Ladeback

alextr75 said:


> Hopefully these attached pictures will clarify somewhat what I am wondering about.
> 
> This is how more or less I am ending up having the speakers set up, plus a few inches here and there.
> 
> There is a Top view, Side view and Perspective. The overhead speakers are attached satellite speakers hanging from the ceiling (as opposed to in-ceiling speakers), so in the sketch they are shown as somewhat lower than the ceiling (about 7 inches below).
> 
> In the Top view you can see there are blue lines and one green line (all on horizontal plane). Basically what I wondered is that if I am just using the side view for reference, the elevation there is 45 degrees (4' forward, 4' up).
> But if I use the green line (MLP to Speaker), and calculate elevation from that line, elevation would be ~33 degrees (6.2' forward, 4' up)
> 
> This is what I am not sure about, is my setup according to the guidelines, closer to the recommended 45 degrees, or closer to 33 (which would require pulling all of them closer to MLP) ?



I am not an expert or have Atmos yet, but I would think the rear height speakers would need to be moved more toward the seats more and not on top of the rear surrounds. I would think there would be some interference there and not get the full effect of the rears. I take it this is a small room form the looks of the drawing. Going with standard angles and distances may be hard to do. Are you able to adjust the height speakers to different locations?


----------



## camd5pt0

I did just buy a pair of Klipsch 4" Reference Bookshelf Speakers R14m to complete 7.1.4.
Wondering if I should buy another set to match the side surround, replacing the pioneers but IDK cause they sound great


----------



## richlife

camd5pt0 said:


> I did just buy a pair of Klipsch 4" Reference Bookshelf Speakers R14m to complete 7.1.4.
> Wondering if I should buy another set to match the side surround, replacing the pioneers but IDK cause they sound great


After reading your posts and seeing your setup, I wonder if you have the Atmos demos? It appears you are getting "good" audio effects, but are they consistent with the reality intended? Specifically the demos named "Amaze" and "Helicoptor Demo" (audio only). These are excellent for allowing you to detect the audio path of the key elements (a bird and a helicoptor) and whether they are in an appropriate position (bird circling around you at about ear level and helicoptor circling overhead) and doing so smoothly without seeming to jump from speaker to speaker or other anomaly.

As has been stated rather often recently, it's actually pretty easy to get good Atmos effects and enjoy the immersion without having to agonize over exact distance or angle, but whether the effects are real-world accurate ("sound right") can be something of a challenge without a known demo. Getting rain overhead is fairly easy, but does it actually drip off the edge of the umbrella in front or pound on it immediately over your head can be more difficult to determine. I was surprised when I first got my Atmos setup. John Wick clearly had great effects, but only after I tweaked position, orientation, etc. based on the demo did I actually detect those nuances of rain on the umbrella. 

BTW, those demos are from the "Dolby Atmos", Sept 2015 demo disc, but are also downloadable from numerous online sources.


----------



## alextr75

Ladeback said:


> I am not an expert or have Atmos yet, but I would think the rear height speakers would need to be moved more toward the seats more and not on top of the rear surrounds. I would think there would be some interference there and not get the full effect of the rears. I take it this is a small room form the looks of the drawing. Going with standard angles and distances may be hard to do. Are you able to adjust the height speakers to different locations?


Well that is partially why I am asking how that angle is calculated.

According to the guidelines
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
That elevation angle needs to be 45, which mine may or may not be, depending how that angle needs to be calculated.

The overheads on top of the rear speakers is also a slight concern I also share, but in the picture attached to the post (taken from guidelines I just linked to), the overheads also seem to be placed on top of the rear speakers, which is very similar to what I have. But that is why I am asking here if someone that is more of an expert confirms whether this is correct or wrong.

I guess the benefit is I could try them as Rear Heights if I want to, but yeah the concern is not enough distance from rear speakers. I would say probably about 33 degree separation (rears are at ear height).

But I can probably move them forward (closer to MLP) if needed, just a few screw holes to patch, and may need going to Attic to add some new support boards to screw into if no joist present, but not sure if that is then going to make the angle less than the recommended 45.


----------



## Ted99

Jonas2 said:


> Yes, I should re-qualify that - the 90 degrees - definitely only in a 7.1 arrangement, not 5.1.  And perhaps only if there is one person (unless the speakers are high enough to clear heads, which mine are not). 90 degrees really does have a lot going against it, but I would still recommend experimenting with it one is able to do so.
> 
> It really was something to listen to the reduction in hot-spotting, yet to have that sound seemingly exactly where it needed to be. It wasn't perfect *all* the time, but a definite improvement and on the average, was spot-on, as least so was my perception! Acoustics really is fascinating.


Another good thing about the 80 degree position in 7.1 is filling the hole between the fronts and side surrounds. This is a great benefit of "wides", but they only receive a direct signal in native Atmos and a derived signal in Neural. With my X8500, I can chose to have wides or an extra pair of overheads (7.6.1). Until mixers make more use of the "wide" object in Atmos, I think the 80 degree position; which works in all codecs, might be the better choice than wides.


----------



## mid_life_crisis

camd5pt0 said:


> Here's my setup, 5.1.4. it amazes me, that the front stage, is always throwing sound off the screen in Atmos. It sounds like sound is literally coming from where no speaker is in position. Definitely a 3D affect. My surrounds, often sounds like sound is directly behind me. It literally makes me look at the speaker in confusion, when it is flexing it's spatial effect. I even often rewind to experience the magic, Even after a couple months with it.
> It may be the height speakers too in tandem but it works! I was worried height speakers were holding me back from Atmos experience. Now I worry that overhead placement won't hold up to my current experience.
> I move in a couple months and will have the ability to mount overhead. IDK if I will because I don't want to lose Auro 3D, it's awesome for music playback to me.
> 
> I certainly am gearing up for 7.1.4. just waiting for Fry's to carry a sale on my bookshelf speakers.


This seriously unfortunate room and layout is a great example of how amazing this technology is.
I finally got my setup installed last night. It's a decent sized room (16 long by 14 wide) and came prewired for ceiling speakers in the four corners of the room. I have a complete mishmash of speakers because I had most of them already and, with my failing hearing, it would be a waste to spend money worrying about all the speakers having the same sound. There's a BA sub and center channel, a pair of Klipsch towers, and the ceiling sets are new Yamahas with aimable tweeters (well reviewed) that I picked up for a sweet deal at Best Buy over the weekend. The rears are the surround speakers and the fronts are high Atmos speakers. There is nothing optimal about this arrangement but it works. It's all run by a new Denon AVR-S930H that I purchased based off of advice from some friendly folks here on this forum (thanks!). I finished up kind of late and only had time to watch a few minutes of an episode of Grimm where masks on a wall start talking to a guy who is losing his mind (I chose the episode because I wanted to see how the setup handled a particular fight scene). Two characters are talking and most of the sound is from the center channel, as it should be. The sane character walks off screen and the masks start talking to the guy who's losing it. The effect was amazing. I couldn't localize the sound to the Atmos speakers, but they were clearly being used to make the sound dance from mask to mask while at the same time coming from that entire wall. Very creepy, well done effect. I can't wait to watch a movie that's more recent. I'm thinking "Thor - Ragnarok" should be a great first run.


----------



## richlife

alextr75 said:


> Well that is partially why I am asking how that angle is calculated.
> 
> According to the guidelines
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> That elevation angle needs to be 45, which mine may or may not be, depending how that angle needs to be calculated.
> 
> The overheads on top of the rear speakers is also a slight concern I also share, but in the picture attached to the post (taken from guidelines I just linked to), the overheads also seem to be placed on top of the rear speakers, which is very similar to what I have. But that is why I am asking here if someone that is more of an expert confirms whether this is correct or wrong.
> 
> I guess the benefit is I could try them as Rear Heights if I want to, but yeah the concern is not enough distance from rear speakers. I would say probably about 33 degree separation (rears are at ear height).
> 
> But I can probably move them forward (closer to MLP) if needed, just a few screw holes to patch, and may need going to Attic to add some new support boards to screw into if no joist present, but not sure if that is then going to make the angle less than the recommended 45.


Again, I would point to my post just ahead of yours -- do you have demos to "test" your setup? It's fine to chase "specs" and "guidelines", but a very real consideration is whether you need them. Concerned about that angle? Do the demos indicate a hole in your surround bubble or is it in your head? Good luck to you.


----------



## cfraser

sdurani said:


> No, symmetrically on either side of the MLP.


Yes, that's the same position "we" decided a few years ago.  Unfortunately, not doable then with the gear I wanted to use (and did use), and I don't even think it's doable with the more flexible-mounting speakers I have in mind.

Things I didn't mention are nuisances like doorways (affects potential high wall mounting options). And that the cloud obviously isn't zero width. It would be almost impossible to clear the cloud without having any speaker practically directly over the MLP...that's the pair that would be "symmetrically in front" of the MLP. [In your pic, my cloud would be almost exactly where the Ltf/Rtf is.] So I wouldn't want another pair "symmetrically behind" the MLP with that. The "in front" pair could be on the front wall side of the cloud, which would essentially place them over the LCR line in order to clear the cloud. The cloud is ~5" thick and is spaced ~4" from the 9' ceiling, and ~room wide. I'm not even talking about Dolby Atmos angles, those wouldn't even be close to recommended, I'm just talking about physical mounting possibilities regardless of angles.

The cloud is a real problem. Removing it is much less desirable (for me) than having the overhead speakers in the first place, so I did the best I could to work around it and just think I could do better. I'll have to look around for other speaker-mounting options, haven't seen much that might work to drop speakers about a foot (say) that doesn't require me to drill into speaker boxes. If you think of anything...

Edit: Looking at it again, I think I could mount a ceiling pair almost over the LCR line (but a little closer to the MLP than that), and another ceiling pair symmetrically behind the MLP. Looking at the angles (via taped strings), it doesn't seem that bad after all. Would work OK with speakers I have in mind. Would probably work better than what I have. Would look less ugly for a start...


----------



## sdurani

alextr75 said:


> That elevation angle needs to be 45, which mine may or may not be, depending how that angle needs to be calculated.


The fact that Dolby encourages upfiring speakers, which paint broad swaths of height information on the ceiling, should be an indicator that height placement doesn't _"need to be"_ precise. 45 degrees is just a starting point, which can be adjusted between 30 and 55 degrees elevation (according to the Atmos install guide you linked to).


> I can probably move them forward (closer to MLP) if needed, just a few screw holes to patch, and may need going to Attic to add some new support boards to screw into if no joist present, but not sure if that is then going to make the angle less than the recommended 45.


Before moving anything, live with the system for a while and enjoy some Atmos & DTS:X soundtracks. After that, IF you feel the height effect is lacking, then move the height speakers closer to the listening position.


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> The cloud is ~6" thick and is spaced ~4" from the 9' ceiling, and ~room wide.


What is the front to back depth of the cloud? Is it the full 6' from your L/C/R speakers to your listening position?


----------



## camd5pt0

richlife said:


> After reading your posts and seeing your setup, I wonder if you have the Atmos demos? It appears you are getting "good" audio effects, but are they consistent with the reality intended? Specifically the demos named "Amaze" and "Helicoptor Demo" (audio only). These are excellent for allowing you to detect the audio path of the key elements (a bird and a helicoptor) and whether they are in an appropriate position (bird circling around you at about ear level and helicoptor circling overhead) and doing so smoothly without seeming to jump from speaker to speaker or other anomaly.
> 
> As has been stated rather often recently, it's actually pretty easy to get good Atmos effects and enjoy the immersion without having to agonize over exact distance or angle, but whether the effects are real-world accurate ("sound right") can be something of a challenge without a known demo. Getting rain overhead is fairly easy, but does it actually drip off the edge of the umbrella in front or pound on it immediately over your head can be more difficult to determine. I was surprised when I first got my Atmos setup. John Wick clearly had great effects, but only after I tweaked position, orientation, etc. based on the demo did I actually detect those nuances of rain on the umbrella.
> 
> BTW, those demos are from the "Dolby Atmos", Sept 2015 demo disc, but are also downloadable from numerous online sources.


Yes I definitely have the demos, the effects are real world seemingly. My wife and others thought it was raining outside during the rain scene at the beginning of IT. I told her it wasn't but she actually got up to look lol. The helicopter demo is nice it melts into the other speaker rather than jumping. I know my setup may not look ideal but the sound is lol. The heights in overhead position I'll try when I move soon. I think I'll get a better overhead and pan affect. I guess I'd have to hear a reference setup to compare to intended but as far as I know, it has to be close.


----------



## richlife

camd5pt0 said:


> Yes I definitely have the demos, the effects are real world seemingly. *My wife and others thought it was raining outside during the rain scene at the beginning of IT. I told her it wasn't but she actually got up to look lol.* The helicopter demo is nice it melts into the other speaker rather than jumping. I know my setup may not look ideal but the sound is lol. The heights in overhead position I'll try when I move soon. I think I'll get a better overhead and pan affect. I guess I'd have to hear a reference setup to compare to intended but as far as I know, it has to be close.


*I love it!* We've had similar experiences. That and other effects drive my dog nuts! Poor little guy -- he's pretty much given up. Last night when I started watching Game of Thrones again, he just got up and left -- my wife came in to get his bed. He just doesn't like the battle sounds and strange dogs hidden in the room somewhere. 

Good luck with your overheads and please let us know who it works out. Not too many (right, @kbarnes701?) get the chance to redo their HT once established as well as yours.


----------



## alextr75

richlife said:


> Again, I would point to my post just ahead of yours -- do you have demos to "test" your setup? It's fine to chase "specs" and "guidelines", but a very real consideration is whether you need them. Concerned about that angle? Do the demos indicate a hole in your surround bubble or is it in your head? Good luck to you.





sdurani said:


> The fact that Dolby encourages upfiring speakers, which paint broad swaths of height information on the ceiling, should be an indicator that height placement doesn't _"need to be"_ precise. 45 degrees is just a starting point, which can be adjusted between 30 and 55 degrees elevation (according to the Atmos install guide you linked to). Before moving anything, live with the system for a while and enjoy some Atmos & DTS:X soundtracks. After that, IF you feel the height effect is lacking, then move the height speakers closer to the listening position.


Thanks, all good advice. I wish I had the setup complete yet, still need to purchase that receiver. I got the Denon X4400H for Boxing Week end of last year for a good price, but returned it unopened in order to first upgrade the speakers. I now have all speakers but still waiting for the receiver to become available at that some price I had it at the time. Just does not feel right paying more now, knowing I actually already had it for less.

Figured I might as well setup the speakers these days, so that they are ready for testing whenever I eventually get that receiver.

I did not get a good clear explanation yet though, how Dolby calculates that 45 angle, yes it is a staring point, but how exactly is it determined, (whether from the green line up as in my sketch), or from the side view. But I guess what I need to take from all these answers is that it does not really matter. What matters is how it will sound once setup, which I will have to wait for some time longer unfortunately. Unless I give up, and shell out about $200 more than what I paid last time for the AVR.


----------



## cfraser

sdurani said:


> What is the front to back depth of the cloud? Is it the full 6' from your L/C/R speakers to your listening position?


The cloud is 2' depth. So, more accurately cloud-wise than what I said before:

Front LCR line - 2' - [2' cloud] - 2' - MLP - 6' - Rear surrounds

If I mounted something like SVS Elevations flush to the ceiling, they are just deep enough to clear the cloud, and could be angled at the MLP. But if I put a pair at the back edge of the cloud, they'd be not far from overhead of the MLP, and a symmetrically spaced pair behind the MLP...both pairs would only be ~3' apart. Seems not much better than just using a single pair, but IDK. What do you think of a pair on the front edge of the cloud aimed at the MLP (so ~4' from the MLP), and another pair 3-4' behind the MLP? Thanks.

Edit: what I said there about "deep enough to clear the cloud" is a red herring I think, so forget I said it...


----------



## sdurani

alextr75 said:


> I did not get a good clear explanation yet though, how Dolby calculates that 45 angle, yes it is a staring point, but how exactly is it determined, (whether from the green line up as in my sketch), or from the side view.


It's not the green line, but instead the imaginary left-to-right line on the ceiling that the speakers are on, perpendicular to the red line in your sketch.


> I guess what I need to take from all these answers is that it does not really matter. What matters is how it will sound once setup...


Exactly. The idea is to have a convincing impression of sounds above you and meaningful separation from sounds around you. Whatever height speaker placement gets you there is the one to use, even if it ends up being no height speakers physically above you (i.e., upfiring speakers). 

One of the reasons that surround sound caught on is because surround speaker placement was reasonably flexible. You could place a pair of speakers pretty much anywhere around you and it would still deliver the impression of things happening outside the front soundstage. Same with immersive audio. The tight 45-degree circle with DTS:X, the upfiring speakers with Atmos, the high-wall mounted speakers with Auro; they ALL work (to the extent that they all deliver the impression of things happing above you).


----------



## sdurani

cfraser said:


> Front LCR line - 2' - [2' cloud] - 2' - MLP - 6' - Rear surrounds


I don't see a problem doing by-the-book height speaker placement in your room. The Dolby diagram I posted in an earlier reply to you showed overhead speakers at 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the main listening position. If we assume seated ear height is roughly 3 feet, then the distance to your 9-foot ceiling is around 6 feet. That same 6-foot distance forward & rearward of the main listening position is 45 degrees elevation. From your description, nothing is stopping you from placing speakers at those locations. I would pull them in slightly closer, maybe 5 feet forward & rearward. Even that won't interfere with the cloud.


----------



## Solarium

kbarnes701 said:


> The doors have an STC rating of 45/E90. On the face of it that is a useful attenuation of sound. However... there is no mention that I can see of the frequency range the STC applies to so it may mean very little. It may well give you a 45dB attenuation of frequencies from 2000Hz upwards and nothing below that, which would be essentially useless.
> 
> Also, and this is the biggie - *STC only considers frequencies down to 125 Hz*. Most sound nuisance complaints are from noise sources that are _below 125Hz_ - and in a HT there is a lot of content below 125Hz. I spent in the tens of thousands of dollars area to create sound containment in my HT and it is very, very difficult and a highly specialized area. Bass in particular is very, very difficult to contain (think of those kids in cars with their bass boxes - the bass is all you can hear at the lights since it passes clean through the car). I would say those doors will do nothing whatsoever to attenuate bass, so you may as well not fit them in the first place and seek a cheaper solution. There is almost nothing, IME and IMO you can do in your current situation to isolate sound from your proposed HT, unfortunately, based on the information provided.


I doubt it would contain bass either, the bottom of these accordion doors are about 1/2 inch off of the floor, so the bass would definitely escape. What is the point of sound containment, how much is it dedicated to bass, and how much is it to 
higher frequencies? I was trying to prevent echo to the rest of the house, but if bass containment is important of course I would have to concentrate on that too. The other solution is to build a wall *over* the railing. I had a guy come over to do an estimate, and he can build a custom wall over the railing and as well as custom doors for the opening on the side, then put some wooden panels over the glass on the railing, for $2800. Would you say that's a decent price? Would you think this is a proper solution? Do you use some kind of isolation material underneath the door frames to prevent bass from leaking out beneath the doors? What about windows, I have curtains over them, but I'm not sure what would glass do to the sound. This is turning out to be much more of a hassle than I originally thought... initially I was thinking about sound dampening curtains in front of the railing lol. How much are you supposed to spend on acoustic treatment and sound containment vs on speakers and amps?


----------



## cfraser

^ Those accordion doors do prevent the effects of echo. Even the very cheapest ones, with a small gap at the bottom. I bought some cheapies from HD to test some things with REW a few years ago. They make a very noticeable diff! Considering how cheap they can be, I doubt there's any other "treatment" that gives more bang for the buck. If you go strictly by measurements that is, and depending how large the doorways and outside areas are, etc. etc. Be wary that even these thin "doors" can result in an HT room becoming VERY hot, depending (11ch of Class A amps here, = bad idea).

I have one less SB13 Ultra than you, and another smaller "smoothing" sub. Single detached house, "fully treated" HT room on main floor, neighbor's house is 25' away. I run my FR as basically as flat as I can get it (REW) i.e. no bass/LFE boost, I'm not really a "bass nut". Even at modest listening levels, the neighbors can "hear" the bass. It travels right through the ground, no way to stop it. We're built on rock. Maybe it won't happen with sand. i.e. very hard to stop the conduction of LF sounds


----------



## camd5pt0

richlife said:


> *I love it!* We've had similar experiences. That and other effects drive my dog nuts! Poor little guy -- he's pretty much given up. Last night when I started watching Game of Thrones again, he just got up and left -- my wife came in to get his bed. He just doesn't like the battle sounds and strange dogs hidden in the room somewhere.
> 
> Good luck with your overheads and please let us know who it works out. Not too many (right, @kbarnes701?) get the chance to redo their HT once established as well as yours.


Lol even my neice whom is 2, had a confused look on her face when I plan the rain demo. It was quite funny lol. 
Yes I certainly will update my experience since I haven't heard anyone who tried both, so I guess you're right. 
I live in an apartment, so my setting will change from time to time, so that's why I have the chance to redo lol.


----------



## gene4ht

richlife said:


> *I love it!* We've had similar experiences. That and other effects drive my dog nuts! Poor little guy -- he's pretty much given up. Last night when I started watching Game of Thrones again, he just got up and left -- my wife came in to get his bed. He just doesn't like the battle sounds and strange dogs hidden in the room somewhere.
> 
> Good luck with your overheads and please let us know who it works out. Not too many (right, @*kbarnes701* ?) get the chance to redo their HT once established as well as yours.


Then I won't mention watching thriller and horror movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

Solarium said:


> I doubt it would contain bass either, the bottom of these accordion doors are about 1/2 inch off of the floor, so the bass would definitely escape. What is the point of sound containment, how much is it dedicated to bass, and how much is it to
> higher frequencies? I was trying to prevent echo to the rest of the house, but if bass containment is important of course I would have to concentrate on that too. The other solution is to build a wall *over* the railing. I had a guy come over to do an estimate, and he can build a custom wall over the railing and as well as custom doors for the opening on the side, then put some wooden panels over the glass on the railing, for $2800. Would you say that's a decent price? Would you think this is a proper solution? Do you use some kind of isolation material underneath the door frames to prevent bass from leaking out beneath the doors? What about windows, I have curtains over them, but I'm not sure what would glass do to the sound. This is turning out to be much more of a hassle than I originally thought... initially I was thinking about sound dampening curtains in front of the railing lol. How much are you supposed to spend on acoustic treatment and sound containment vs on speakers and amps?


Sound containment in an existing building is very, very difficult to achieve. You won't do it for $2,800. You might get somewhere with 10 times that budget. Basically, the way to contain sound in an existing building is to build a 'room within a room' which is properly isolated from the structures of the existing building. You have to use specialist construction techniques, using Genie Clips for isolation, special flexible channels to attach to the clips, then timber on top of the channel, then two layers of acoustic drywall with Green Glue or Tecsound matting between them. 

As soon as one part of the building touches another - eg a stud or a joist - then bass will travel along it to the room the other side. For windows - bass travels through glass as though the glass isn't there. I don't want to come across as negative, but I would forget the idea of sound containment in the space you are working with. Whatever you do, it won't be effective, you will be disappointed and you will have wasted your money.

Your alternatives, short of moving house, are to get used to listening at lower volumes, try to listen at times when your family or neighbors are not home, use headphones. Modern AVRs have technology which helps you listen at lower volumes while still preserving the balance between soft and loud sounds, so you don't miss part of the content. It isn't great, but it helps in circumstances like yours.

We are way off topic in this thread so if you want to pursue it more, I suggest moving it to one of the various sound containment threads here on AVS.


----------



## sdurani

Forrest Gump 4K UHD announced yesterday, for release June 12th, includes new Atmos re-mix. Considering the original was essentially a 3.1 mix (5.1 with practically nothing in the surround channels), will be interesting to hear how immersive the re-mix is.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Forrest Gump 4K UHD announced yesterday, for release June 12th, includes new Atmos re-mix. Considering the original was essentially a 3.1 mix (5.1 with* practically nothing in the surround channels*), will be interesting to hear how immersive the re-mix is.


A bit like quite a few Atmos mixes then.  I am continually amazed at how little use is made of the overhead speakers in many movies. I know there's much more to Atmos than sounds overhead, but the latter is the one really obvious way that the mixer can make his mark with Atmos. Yet we still see movies where there is actual screen action taking place above the listener's perspective, yet nothing at all in the speakers up there. 

I expect, and hope, it will change as the concept develops.


----------



## jazzrock

sdurani said:


> Forrest Gump 4K UHD announced yesterday, for release June 12th, includes new Atmos re-mix. Considering the original was essentially a 3.1 mix (5.1 with practically nothing in the surround channels), will be interesting to hear how immersive the re-mix is.




We should at least hear the feather floating atop the trees.....


----------



## sdurani

jazzrock said:


> We should at least hear the feather floating atop the trees.....


LOUDLY, or it's a bad Atmos mix!


----------



## batpig

No interest in watching that movie again, and an Atmos remix isn't compelling enough reason to change my mind 

Let's instead celebrate the amazing slate of 4K/HDR re-issues of legendary legacy titles coming our way soon with immersive remixes:

May 08 - Saving Private Ryan (Atmos) 
May 15 - Gladiator (DTS:X)
May 15 - Braveheart (Atmos)
May 22 - The Matrix (TBD according to Blu-ray.com, but I can't imagine them NOT doing an immersive mix)
May 22 - Fury (Atmos, remixed by FilmMixer who did the original 5.1 mix!)
May 22 - Jurassic Park collection (DTS:X)

Interesting that Paramount went with DTS:X for Gladiator but Atmos for Braveheart.

Combined with the theatrical releases of Avengers: Infinity War, Solo, and Deadpool 2, it's going to be a BUSY next couple of months for movies!!


----------



## sdurani

And re-issues of some not-so-legendary legacy titles: Source Code (Atmos), Incredible Hulk (DTS:X), Patriot (Atmos), Mama Mia! (DTS:X), Escape Plan (Atmos). Beats a poke in the eye.


----------



## SteveTheGeek

When you think about how much we were complaining here a couple of years ago about the lack of content!


----------



## sdurani

Yeah, I remember it hovering at 4 titles for a while and it was like a dam broke.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I remember it hovering at 4 titles for a while and it was like a dam broke.


And remember all the doom-mongers who said that was proof it would *never* take off. And how DTS would whup its ass with DTS:X. And how it was 'just a matter of time' before we saw a _flood _of Auro movie releases. And, best of all in light of the success of Atmos, *everything *that Audioholics said about immersive audio, and who would want to put speakers_ on their ceiling_ - and how it was _obvious _that Atmos-enabled speakers were nothing but a_ complete joke_. The crow those guys have eaten...


----------



## DaveMcLain

Solarium said:


> I doubt it would contain bass either, the bottom of these accordion doors are about 1/2 inch off of the floor, so the bass would definitely escape. What is the point of sound containment, how much is it dedicated to bass, and how much is it to
> higher frequencies? I was trying to prevent echo to the rest of the house, but if bass containment is important of course I would have to concentrate on that too. The other solution is to build a wall *over* the railing. I had a guy come over to do an estimate, and he can build a custom wall over the railing and as well as custom doors for the opening on the side, then put some wooden panels over the glass on the railing, for $2800. Would you say that's a decent price? Would you think this is a proper solution? Do you use some kind of isolation material underneath the door frames to prevent bass from leaking out beneath the doors? What about windows, I have curtains over them, but I'm not sure what would glass do to the sound. This is turning out to be much more of a hassle than I originally thought... initially I was thinking about sound dampening curtains in front of the railing lol. How much are you supposed to spend on acoustic treatment and sound containment vs on speakers and amps?





kbarnes701 said:


> And remember all the doom-mongers who said that was proof it would *never* take off. And how DTS would whup its ass with DTS:X. And how it was 'just a matter of time' before we saw a _flood _of Auro movie releases. And, best of all in light of the success of Atmos, *everything *that Audioholics said about immersive audio, and who would want to put speakers_ on their ceiling_ - and how it was _obvious _that Atmos-enabled speakers were nothing but a_ complete joke_. The crow those guys have eaten...


I just wish it would have been allowed to "take off" more on regular Blu Ray releases instead of being used mostly only on UHD releases....


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> May 22 - The Matrix (TBD according to Blu-ray.com, but I can't imagine them NOT doing an immersive mix)


Back cover art on Amazon shows Dolby Atmos & Dolby Vision.


----------



## kbarnes701

DaveMcLain said:


> I just wish it would have been allowed to "take off" more on regular Blu Ray releases instead of being used mostly only on UHD releases....


Yes, you and me both. Of course, we can see this from the marketing perspective of the companies behind the discs. They've made an investment in delivering UHD quality discs to the market, and naturally they want us to buy those discs in preference to regular Blu-rays, the latter given to us for free when we buy the UHD. So a good incentive to get us to buy the UHD package is to include Atmos along with the better PQ of 4K, HDR, WCG etc. We get a premium package with the best quality image and sound currently available.

Looked at another way, a UHD package is terrific value: we get the UHD movie, plus a Blu-ray movie, and very often a set of good bonus 'extras', all for the price of a movie theater ticket or less, where the latter is for a single showing only of course.

But sure, I too would like to see Atmos spread far and wide, not restricted to those who can afford the extra cost of the UHD package. I'd also like to see the price of UHD packages reduced so there is less of a gap between them and the Bluray package. While I'm on the subject, I'd like to see world peace too 

I'd also add that, since I finally got my PJ set properly for UHD, HDR and WCG, I am astonished at the step forward it represents. Part of that step forward for me is the Atmos sound, so I can see myself buying a lot more UHD discs in the future. I guess that one day, UHD will be to Blu-ray what Blu-ray has become to DVD, and UHD will be the natural choice of the enthusiast market, with Blu-ray relegated to the more casual user.


----------



## humbland

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, you and me both. Of course, we can see this from the marketing perspective of the companies behind the discs. They've made an investment in delivering UHD quality discs to the market, and naturally they want us to buy those discs in preference to regular Blu-rays, the latter given to us for free when we buy the UHD. So a good incentive to get us to buy the UHD package is to include Atmos along with the better PQ of 4K, HDR, WCG etc. We get a premium package with the best quality image and sound currently available.
> 
> Looked at another way, a UHD package is terrific value: we get the UHD movie, plus a Blu-ray movie, and very often a set of good bonus 'extras', all for the price of a movie theater ticket or less, where the latter is for a single showing only of course.
> 
> But sure, I too would like to see Atmos spread far and wide, not restricted to those who can afford the extra cost of the UHD package. I'd also like to see the price of UHD packages reduced so there is less of a gap between them and the Bluray package. While I'm on the subject, I'd like to see world peace too
> 
> I'd also add that, since I finally got my PJ set properly for UHD, HDR and WCG, I am astonished at the step forward it represents. Part of that step forward for me is the Atmos sound, so I can see myself buying a lot more UHD discs in the future. I guess that one day, UHD will be to Blu-ray what Blu-ray has become to DVD, and UHD will be the natural choice of the enthusiast market, with Blu-ray relegated to the more casual user.


I've been on the fence about upgrading our PJ set up to 4K. Things are changing so fast that I don't want to invest $10k and be left in the dust. Atmos has been a big upgrade to Blu-ray. Sadly, we are still in a 1080p world

"I finally got my PJ set properly for UHD, HDR and WCG, I am astonished at the step forward it represents."

From my reading, that is difficult to achieve. What is your set up?


----------



## kbarnes701

humbland said:


> I've been on the fence about upgrading our PJ set up to 4K. Things are changing so fast that I don't want to invest $10k and be left in the dust. Atmos has been a big upgrade to Blu-ray. Sadly, we are still in a 1080p world
> 
> "I finally got my PJ set properly for UHD, HDR and WCG, I am astonished at the step forward it represents."
> 
> From my reading, that is difficult to achieve. What is your set up?


I am sending HDR to my Epson 5040 from my Panasonic UB900 disc player, but using SDR in the PJ***, with a highly customised gamma curve. In Digital Cinema mode, this mode uses the P3 filter and so I am getting 4K resolution (faux-K in the case of my PJ), HDR and WCG but without having to suffer the very dark image that a lot of PJ users complain about with UHD. It helps that the Epson is a very 'bright' PJ, and I do have to use High Lamp Mode with these settings. However, the result is stunning and a clear upgrade over 1080p, here anyway. 

***My understanding is that not all PJs allow SDR to be used when an HDR input is being received, but the Epson does. A workaround, AIUI, is to use a HD Fury Linker in between source and PJ if the PJ doesn't allow SDR to be used this way. 

We are straying very much off topic. I recommend you Google _HarperVision_ (named after @Dave Harper, an ISF calibrator who pioneered this creative way to use tone mapping in the PJ). You'll find good info from him here on AVS.


----------



## humbland

kbarnes701 said:


> I am sending HDR to my Epson 5040 from my Panasonic UB900 disc player, but using SDR in the PJ***, with a highly customised gamma curve. In Digital Cinema mode, this mode uses the P3 filter and so I am getting 4K resolution (faux-K in the case of my PJ), HDR and WCG but without having to suffer the very dark image that a lot of PJ users complain about with UHD. It helps that the Epson is a very 'bright' PJ, and I do have to use High Lamp Mode with these settings. However, the result is stunning and a clear upgrade over 1080p, here anyway.
> 
> ***My understanding is that not all PJs allow SDR to be used when an HDR input is being received, but the Epson does. A workaround, AIUI, is to use a HD Fury Linker in between source and PJ if the PJ doesn't allow SDR to be used this way.
> 
> We are straying very much off topic. I recommend you Google _HarperVision_ (named after @Dave Harper, an ISF calibrator who pioneered this creative way to use tone mapping in the PJ). You'll find good info from him here on AVS.


Thanks. While I aplaud the creativity, the "work around" solution just reinforces my instinct to "wait and see"...
We have a Sharp Z30K DLP with a Darbee/mCable enhancement. Super sharp/detailed picture with good contrast. 
In our dual screen set up, we need powered lens controls/lens memory. Hoping for a 4K DLP with HDR (laser?) and powered controls. Maybe late 2018 or sometime in 2019
If 4K content were more widespread, then I might be more motivated. However, "enhanced" 1080p on a 110" or 125" screen from 15 feet looks great. 
I wish that the studios would release Atmos and DTS:X on regular Blu-ray. Fortunately the new processing algorithms work great and the legacy mixes sound terrific. Grateful...


----------



## kbarnes701

humbland said:


> Thanks. While I aplaud the creativity, the "work around" solution just reinforces my instinct to "wait and see"...
> We have a Sharp Z30K DLP with a Darbee/mCable enhancement. Super sharp/detailed picture with good contrast.
> In our dual screen set up, we need powered lens controls/lens memory. Hoping for a 4K DLP with HDR (laser?) and powered controls. Maybe late 2018 or sometime in 2019
> If 4K content were more widespread, then I might be more motivated. However, "enhanced" 1080p on a 110" or 125" screen from 15 feet looks great.
> I wish that the studios would release Atmos and DTS:X on regular Blu-ray. Fortunately the new processing algorithms work great and the legacy mixes sound terrific. Grateful...


The main benefits of UHD don't lie in a significantly superior resolution but rather in the benefits HDR and WCG bring.

It's not so much a 'workaround' as it is just doing what the various inbuilt (into the PJ) HDR modes do - they just give a different tone mapping, which is what my settings do. I can also use the PJ's inbuilt HDR mode right 'out of the box' and the result is good - just that the alternative tone mapping solution is better.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The Matrix (TBD according to Blu-ray.com...


Their normally reliable list is missing Braveheart and Matrix, even though press releases for both mention Atmos.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> May 22 - The Matrix (TBD according to Blu-ray.com, but I can't imagine them NOT doing an immersive mix)
> 
> May 22 - Fury (Atmos, remixed by FilmMixer who did the original 5.1 mix!)




2 things. 

I can confirm your first comment 

I did not do the Atmos up-mix on Fury.. it was done by Paul Ottosson, whom I mixed the film with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## humbland

kbarnes701 said:


> The main benefits of UHD don't lie in a significantly superior resolution but rather in the benefits HDR and WCG bring.
> 
> It's not so much a 'workaround' as it is just doing what the various inbuilt (into the PJ) HDR modes do - they just give a different tone mapping, which is what my settings do. I can also use the PJ's inbuilt HDR mode right 'out of the box' and the result is good - just that the alternative tone mapping solution is better.


I get it.
I'm more of a "plug and play" guy. 
Sometimes tough here at AVS where most of the people live on the "bleeding edge"


----------



## batpig

humbland said:


> "I finally got my PJ set properly for UHD, HDR and WCG, I am astonished at the step forward it represents."
> 
> From my reading, that is difficult to achieve. What is your set up?


I will make a quick post, since this is off-topic... The key, as Keith mentioned, is to manage the "tone mapping" of the HDR to match the light output capabilities of the display. No PJ can achieve the peak brightness of flat panels to truly show the full detail in specular highlights, but you can still benefit from the expanded dynamic range vs. SDR and of course the expanded color gamut.

All HDR is about tone mapping to the display capabilities -- left at defaults with most PJ's, the image is way too dark because HDR by default "expects" more light output capability than the PJ can provide. But when you adjust the gamma to properly account for the display capabilities the results are terrific. You get some clipping / roll-off of extreme highlights, of course, since the PJ can't get that bright, but the rest of the image looks "correct" and you get those rich colors and increased contrast.

I just upgraded last week to a JVC RS400 which was calibrated by THX pro Gregg Loewen for SDR and HDR, and I can tell you the HDR looks phenomenal with the custom gamma he calibrated for the PJ. You don't have to invest $10K if you want a stop-gap solution, as the JVC and even the Epson models like what Keith has can do quite well with HDR once calibrated. Now I feel free to purchase 4K content for the immersive tracks without the PQ compromises I had previously.

There are also other solutions on the player side, for example the Oppo 203 has a tone mapping feature that lets the player do the correction first, so the PJ thinks it's getting SDR but still preserves the 4K resolution and WCG data.


----------



## richlife

Walk away for a day and SO many interesting/informative posts to read and comment on.... (Actually, hardly "walking" away -- "hobbling" would be appropriate. Now two weeks since second total knee replacement. Recent dramatic improvement (with typical brief setebacks), but "hobbling with device" is still the best I can do yet. These forums have been wonderfully diverting and helpful with my recovering!)



batpig said:


> No interest in watching that movie again, and an Atmos remix isn't compelling enough reason to change my mind
> 
> Let's instead celebrate the amazing slate of 4K/HDR re-issues of legendary legacy titles coming our way soon with immersive remixes:
> 
> May 08 - Saving Private Ryan (Atmos)
> May 15 - *Gladiator* (DTS:X)
> May 15 - *Braveheart* (Atmos)
> May 22 - *The Matrix* (TBD according to Blu-ray.com, but I can't imagine them NOT doing an immersive mix)
> May 22 - Fury (Atmos, remixed by FilmMixer who did the original 5.1 mix!)
> May 22 - *Jurassic Park* collection (DTS:X)
> 
> Interesting that Paramount went with DTS:X for Gladiator but Atmos for Braveheart.
> 
> Combined with the theatrical releases of Avengers: Infinity War, Solo, and Deadpool 2, it's going to be a BUSY next couple of months for movies!!


Thank you! I checkup spottily, so some new info for me. The *bold* items are movies I had on DVD that I recently divested with the intend to re-buy when available in UHD, Atmos/DTS:X.



DaveMcLain said:


> I just wish it would have been allowed to "take off" more on regular Blu Ray releases instead of being used mostly only on UHD releases....


So true, but for my part I'm so glad I was able to devote the time/resources to my 4K Atmos setup. I think Atmos is a major key -- UHD is a "plus". I feel no need to re-buy In the Heart of the Sea or Everest -- would be nice, but will require major discounting. Key DVD replacement has way greater priority. 



kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, you and me both. Of course, we can see this from the marketing perspective of the companies behind the discs. They've made an investment in delivering UHD quality discs to the market, and naturally they want us to buy those discs in preference to regular Blu-rays, the latter given to us for free when we buy the UHD. So a good incentive to get us to buy the UHD package is to include Atmos along with the better PQ of 4K, HDR, WCG etc. We get a premium package with the best quality image and sound currently available.
> 
> Looked at another way, a UHD package is terrific value: we get the UHD movie, plus a Blu-ray movie, and very often a set of good bonus 'extras', all for the price of a movie theater ticket or less, where the latter is for a single showing only of course.
> 
> But sure, I too would like to see Atmos spread far and wide, not restricted to those who can afford the extra cost of the UHD package. I'd also like to see the price of UHD packages reduced so there is less of a gap between them and the Bluray package. *While I'm on the subject, I'd like to see world peace too
> *
> I'd also add that, since I finally got my PJ set properly for UHD, HDR and WCG, I am astonished at the step forward it represents. Part of that step forward for me is the Atmos sound, so I can see myself buying a lot more UHD discs in the future. I guess that one day, UHD will be to Blu-ray what Blu-ray has become to DVD, and UHD will be the natural choice of the enthusiast market, with Blu-ray relegated to the more casual user.


Agree. It would have been more palatable had those few Atmos BRs not been released before the decision was made. The "premium" package deal makes sense, but we know that Atmos "makes" a movie. I would like to see Atmos (ok, or DTS:X to a lesser extent) become the standard for all BRs -- both HD and UHD. 

OK, and "world peace" too! 



humbland said:


> I get it.
> I'm more of a "plug and play" guy.
> Sometimes tough here at AVS where most of the people live on the "bleeding edge"


I forget with all my "bitching" than most of my setup is literally "bleeding edge" when compared to the real world. We do indeed live in an isolated cocoon here on AVSFORUM. Where else do we need to specify whether we mean "real world bleeding edge" or "AVSFORUM bleeding edge"!


----------



## kbarnes701

humbland said:


> I get it.
> I'm more of a "plug and play" guy.
> Sometimes tough here at AVS where most of the people live on the "bleeding edge"


Oh don't worry... _everyone_ on AVS started like that....


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> 2 things.
> 
> I can confirm your first comment
> 
> I did not do the Atmos up-mix on Fury.. it was done by Paul Ottosson, whom I mixed the film with.


Thanks for the corrections Marc! 

The Matrix in Atmos is extremely exciting, so glad to get confirmation. That movie, along with Saving Private Ryan, are probably the two most popular "I wish they would remix this in Atmos" movies around! So exciting times!

And sorry for the mis-attribution of the Atmos remix on Fury to you, I had it in my head somehow that you were doing the BD remix. Still exciting since that is a spectacular sounding movie!


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Now I feel free to purchase 4K content for the immersive tracks without the PQ compromises I had previously.


Same here. Initially I was buying UHD discs but watching them in 1080p just so I could get the Atmos mix. Then I got a 4K capable PJ and started watching UHD discs in UHD but wasn't very happy with the PQ I was getting, so I stopped buying UHD completely, even though the associated Blu-ray of the movie didn't have an Atmos track.

But now, I am buying UHD discs again, both for the Atmos audio, but now also for the significant PQ benefits I am seeing from HDR and WCG, and even resolution, although the latter is the least important part for me.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. Initially I was buying UHD discs but watching them in 1080p just so I could get the Atmos mix. Then I got a 4K capable PJ and started watching UHD discs in UHD but wasn't very happy with the PQ I was getting, so I stopped buying UHD completely, even though the associated Blu-ray of the movie didn't have an Atmos track.
> 
> But now, I am buying UHD discs again, both for the Atmos audio, but now also for the significant PQ benefits I am seeing from HDR and WCG, and even resolution, although the latter is the least important part for me.


What frustrates me concerning HDR and WCG is that they could be used almost as effectively with 1080P BDs as they are with 4K versions but the studios won't allow it. But that is enough of that, for this way lies madness.


----------



## m. zillch

I agree with the earlier discussion: you don't necessarily need all channels of amplification built into just one receiver but you definitely need the proper Dolby Atmos processing in at least one of them if considering using two AVRs.

Although not as common today as it was a decade or more ago, some AVRs have "multi channel (5/6/7) RCA inputs jack packs" which allows one to repurpose the AVR as a multi channel (5/6/7) power amp. This is a great way to recycle an old design AVR: you connect the preamp outs of a new Dolby Atmos AVR which has the processing capability for more channels than it itself can amplify on its own.


----------



## cfraser

m. zillch said:


> I agree with the earlier discussion: you don't necessarily need all channels of amplification built into just one receiver but you definitely need the proper Dolby Atmos processing in at least one of them if considering using two AVRs.
> 
> Although not as common today as it was a decade or more ago, some AVRs have "multi channel (5/6/7) RCA inputs jack packs" which allows one to repurpose the AVR as a multi channel (5/6/7) power amp. This is a great way to recycle an old design AVR: you connect the preamp outs of a new Dolby Atmos AVR which has the processing capability for more channels than it itself can amplify on its own.


Or IMO somewhat better, an even older "flagship" AVR with separate amplifier inputs, that used to be common enough, I still see them for sale quite cheaply because they're pre-HDMI. Would be fine to use with an Atmos AVR, perhaps power 4 overhead speakers with it.

Well, you guys sure are enthusiastic about Atmos. I actually came here for ideas/advice because I'm looking to _decrease _my installed Atmos-specific (i.e. the overhead amps/speakers) hardware "investment" by a factor of almost 10 (and to re-purpose the gear more...appropriately). I honestly think it would be just as good re height effects as what I have now. I overdid it, expected "more" overhead effects based on demos and some early stuff. It's like a lot of older films (not always _that _old) re-mixed for 5.1 that are really more like 3.1. Do you get the feeling this is changing, more/better use of the overheads? I _do _like the Atmos processing itself though, very nice IMO.


----------



## kbarnes701

cfraser said:


> Do you get the feeling this is changing, more/better use of the overheads?


Maybe slowly, over time, as mixers gain more confidence with object-based mixing and as Directors realise the creative potential for immersing the audience fully into the story. When 5.1 was first introduced, the use of the surrounds was very different to what it is today, with just 'ambient' sounds being placed in the surround speakers. Now, we have far more use of entirely discrete sounds in the surrounds, as well as ambience. I am sure that this is what will happen with Atmos but not overnight.

I share your sense of disappointment. I watched *13 Hours* yesterday and even with Michael Bay at the helm, a Director who generally does fabulous sound in his movies, I wasn't fully satisfied. There are numerous moments in this movie where RPGs and Mortars etc are being fired at buildings, with resulting huge explosions and massive showers of debris everywhere. What I want to hear is that debris 'raining down' on me, with sounds 'starting' way up over my head and descending to the floor. Now I know that in real life, debris doesn't actually make a noise as it falls to the ground - but this isn't real life - it is a simulation of real life, exaggerated for effect and impact, and I feel that the overheads could have been used more to give that impression and to involve me more, and frighten me more, generally enhancing the feeling of 'being there' (which TBH Bay does pretty well in this movie).

Even discounting that, there are also numerous moments in the movie where on-screen action is above your head, going off the top of the screen, and to my mind, this cries out for some sounds in the overhead speakers, but all we get is the occasional 'whoosh' or some ambient music.

It's early days though, and we enthusiasts are a demanding lot.


----------



## automata21

Hi guys, I just setup svs prime elevation speaker as front height and side height speaker (can’t do rear because of space constraints and no ceiling as renting). What speaker config should I select for atmos for 7.1.4 in marantz 6012. Currently I have set them as front height plus top middle. Is this correct?


----------



## kbarnes701

automata21 said:


> Hi guys, I just setup svs prime elevation speaker as front height and side height speaker (can’t do rear because of space constraints and no ceiling as renting). What speaker config should I select for atmos for 7.1.4 in marantz 6012. Currently I have set them as front height plus top middle. Is this correct?


Yes that is fine. In reality, not many can hear any great difference between the different speaker designations. The differences seem to come from the physical placement of the speakers on the ceiling, which doesn't apply in your case. 

I'm a little confused as to what 'side height' means. The Atmos designations are Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. Do you mean that you have your Atmos-Enabled-Speakers as your front L&R pair and your Side-Surround pair? If so then you need to be sure you are connecting the side surround speakers so that the 'main' connections are wired to the side surround speaker outlets in the AVR and the 'height' connections are wired to the Height 2 connections on the AVR, then set the speaker designations in the AVR as FH+TM.


----------



## Nick4K

richlife said:


> Most of the people sharing here have also shared in those "alternative" threads --
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point, basically, that the JRock is ignoring -- it's not Atmos, it's "kind of". I can get "kind of" too -- and it sure ain't Atmos! Atmos "objects" are embedded information in the pcm stream that are extracted and properly placed by the Atmos decoder. No Atmos decoder, no object detection and (at best) only psuedo-Atmos-surround audio.
> 
> As for the statement that there is no Atmos AVR for less than $1000 -- not true. Just looking at the line I know: https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-v681_u/index.html .
> 
> Current option: $499.95.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XY6DJV7/ref=sr_ob_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1523285142&sr=8-3


Marantz sr6011

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

automata21 said:


> Hi guys, I just setup svs prime elevation speaker as front height and side height speaker (can’t do rear because of space constraints and no ceiling as renting). What speaker config should I select for atmos for 7.1.4 in marantz 6012. Currently I have set them as front height plus top middle. Is this correct?


If you don't have any obstructions near the ceiling and four Elevations, it would be better to have four side heights in the Top Front and Top Rear locations and designate them as such in the receiver.

They aren't where they would normally be on the ceiling, but I notice that Front Heights aren't as immersive. You get more overhead sensation when you place Heights as described.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes that is fine. In reality, not many can hear any great difference between the different speaker designations. The differences seem to come from the physical placement of the speakers on the ceiling, which doesn't apply in your case.
> 
> I'm a little confused as to what 'side height' means. The Atmos designations are Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear and Rear Height. Do you mean that you have your Atmos-Enabled-Speakers as your front L&R pair and your Side-Surround pair? If so then you need to be sure you are connecting the side surround speakers so that the 'main' connections are wired to the side surround speaker outlets in the AVR and the 'height' connections are wired to the Height 2 connections on the AVR, then set the speaker designations in the AVR as FH+TM.


My assumption is that he has a pair high on the front wall (Front Height) firing forward and downwards, and then a pair mounted high on the side walls firing down and across (what he calls "Side Height") as in this image:


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> My assumption is that he has a pair high on the front wall (Front Height) firing forward and downwards, and then a pair mounted high on the side walls firing down and across (what he calls "Side Height") as in this image:


I thought the speakers were Atmos-enabled upfirers? I think he needs to give us more information


----------



## batpig

The Prime Elevation speakers can be used as up-firing but their primary target use case is people who can't (or just don't want to) mount speakers in the ceiling, but are willing to mount speakers high up on the walls. They have a flush mounting bracket and an angled face to aim the sound downwards. 

If you look at the product page they are clearly marketing it as a physical height speaker, not an up-firing module: https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> The Prime Elevation speakers can be used as up-firing but their primary target use case is people who can't (or just don't want to) mount speakers in the ceiling, but are willing to mount speakers high up on the walls. They have a flush mounting bracket and an angled face to aim the sound downwards.
> 
> If you look at the product page they are clearly marketing it as a physical height speaker, not an up-firing module: https://www.svsound.com/pages/prime-elevation


Thanks. So he has two pairs of these and is mounting a pair at the front (FH) and a pair in the middle of the room, high up (TM)? And he wants to designate them as FH+TM? I'd imagine that would work OK. It's no different from when I had Height speakers in the old DSX days, except I had to use angled brackets to direct the sound down from the ceiling towards MLP. These SVS speakers are a cleverer design and would be easier to mount. The 'side heights' are way out of spec for Atmos as they should be in line with the front L&R more or less, but as it is difficult not to make Atmos work then he should be OK.


----------



## automata21

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you don't have any obstructions near the ceiling and four Elevations, it would be better to have four side heights in the Top Front and Top Rear locations and designate them as such in the receiver.
> 
> They aren't where they would normally be on the ceiling, but I notice that Front Heights aren't as immersive. You get more overhead sensation when you place Heights as described.


Yes , I am not getting that sensation from front heights. There is no immersion. If I place them as image how will I mark them in receiver?


----------



## automata21

batpig said:


> My assumption is that he has a pair high on the front wall (Front Height) firing forward and downwards, and then a pair mounted high on the side walls firing down and across (what he calls "Side Height") as in this image:


Yes that’s how I have them currently. In AVR I have marked them as FH+TM. I don’t get immersion from front height though and looking on how I can improve.


----------



## batpig

automata21 said:


> Yes , I am not getting that sensation from front heights. There is no immersion. If I place them as image how will I mark them in receiver?


Top Front + Top Rear. Doesn't matter that they're literally on the side walls, one pair will be above and in front, the other pair above and behind, so Top Front + Top Rear is correct


----------



## automata21

batpig said:


> Top Front + Top Rear. Doesn't matter that they're literally on the side walls, one pair will be above and in front, the other pair above and behind, so Top Front + Top Rear is correct


Thanks, let me try them that way and report back.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

automata21 said:


> Yes , I am not getting that sensation from front heights. There is no immersion. If I place them as image how will I mark them in receiver?


Top Front, Top Rear with the distance between the two pairs determined by Dolby's recommendations of the Top Front and Top Rear overhead locations.


----------



## automata21

Dan Hitchman said:


> Top Front, Top Rear with the distance between the two pairs determined by Dolby's recommendations of the Top Front and Top Rear overhead locations.


Thanks, I will configure them this way. I probably should have discussed here before drilling now have to fill few holes before drilling again 😊. The excitement of atmos made me try them even though I am renting.


----------



## cfraser

kbarnes701 said:


> ...Now I know that in real life, debris doesn't actually make a noise as it falls to the ground...


Perhaps I shouldn't ask...HT construction related? 

Since you got a bit involved in the SVS Elevation discussion, those are what I was actually considering replacing my current overhead speakers with. Like in the "big picture" just above that shows 4 of them, roughly in the same fore-aft positions (per _sdurani _the other day) except mine would be on the ceiling instead of walls. I'll think about walls though, though ceiling would actually be easier and neater (wiring-wise) for me using existing channel etc.

The shape/brackets of these Elevations should make them quite flexible. Wish they had them a few years ago. I have absolutely zero experience with these speakers, never even saw one in real life before. I have made no absolute decisions about actually changing anything re my Atmos overheads yet, just reading about ideas and what other people are doing. But I think I can do "better" than what I did a few years ago, now that "we" (the HT community) have a better idea what we're dealing with, what counts and what's important in reality vs in theory.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> And re-issues of some not-so-legendary legacy titles: Source Code (Atmos), Incredible Hulk (DTS:X), Patriot (Atmos), Mama Mia! (DTS:X), Escape Plan (Atmos). Beats a poke in the eye.


Good grief, Mamma Mia in any format *is* a poke in the eye!


----------



## carp

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe slowly, over time, as mixers gain more confidence with object-based mixing and as Directors realise the creative potential for immersing the audience fully into the story. When 5.1 was first introduced, the use of the surrounds was very different to what it is today, with just 'ambient' sounds being placed in the surround speakers. Now, we have far more use of entirely discrete sounds in the surrounds, as well as ambience. I am sure that this is what will happen with Atmos but not overnight.
> 
> I share your sense of disappointment. I watched *13 Hours* yesterday and even with Michael Bay at the helm, a Director who generally does fabulous sound in his movies, I wasn't fully satisfied. There are numerous moments in this movie where RPGs and Mortars etc are being fired at buildings, with resulting huge explosions and massive showers of debris everywhere. What I want to hear is that debris 'raining down' on me, with sounds 'starting' way up over my head and descending to the floor. Now I know that in real life, debris doesn't actually make a noise as it falls to the ground - but this isn't real life - it is a simulation of real life, exaggerated for effect and impact, and I feel that the overheads could have been used more to give that impression and to involve me more, and frighten me more, generally enhancing the feeling of 'being there' (which TBH Bay does pretty well in this movie).
> 
> Even discounting that, there are also numerous moments in the movie where on-screen action is above your head, going off the top of the screen, and to my mind, this cries out for some sounds in the overhead speakers, but all we get is the occasional 'whoosh' or some ambient music.
> 
> It's early days though, and we enthusiasts are a demanding lot.



I agree with you guys that they could do so much more with the overhead channels. However, one movie gives me hope - BR 2049. It is what I hoped Atmos would be when I first heard about it. As you konw, on many (most actually) Atmos movies if you turn everything off except the ceiling speakers it's surprising how little content there actually is. Not so with 2049. Multiple scenes have a LOT coming out of the overheads and it is in no way subtle. For overall sound quality it is my all time favorite movie. It doesn't hurt that the movie itself is one of the very best that I have seen in years.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

carp said:


> I agree with you guys that they could do so much more with the overhead channels. However, one movie gives me hope - BR 2049. It is what I hoped Atmos would be when I first heard about it. As you konw, on many (most actually) Atmos movies if you turn everything off except the ceiling speakers it's surprising how little content there actually is. Not so with 2049. Multiple scenes have a LOT coming out of the overheads and it is in no way subtle. For overall sound quality it is my all time favorite movie. It doesn't hurt that the movie itself is one of the very best that I have seen in years.


Not that it is a better movie by any stretch, but _Gravity_'s Dolby Atmos mix is also ear-gasmic. Those two titles, especially, show the potential of immersive audio if two craps are given to the audio post sessions. Too many engineers still look upon immersive audio as 7.1 with a little kick rather than an entirely new 3D palette from which to craft a wrap around sound scape.


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not that it is a better movie by any stretch, but _Gravity_'s Dolby Atmos mix is also ear-gasmic. Those two titles, especially, show the potential of immersive audio if two craps are given to the audio post sessions. Too many engineers still look upon immersive audio as 7.1 with a little kick rather than an entirely new 3D palette from which to craft a wrap around sound scape.


I agree. the _Gravity_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is without peer when it comes to immersive effects. The film's audio makes another character out of space. The audio during the opening minutes of the film, in which three astronauts are working outside their spacecraft, is awe inspiring.


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> I agree with you guys that they could do so much more with the overhead channels. However, one movie gives me hope - BR 2049. It is what I hoped Atmos would be when I first heard about it. As you konw, on many (most actually) Atmos movies if you turn everything off except the ceiling speakers it's surprising how little content there actually is. Not so with 2049. Multiple scenes have a LOT coming out of the overheads and it is in no way subtle. For overall sound quality it is my all time favorite movie. It doesn't hurt that the movie itself is one of the very best that I have seen in years.


Agreed. I am finding more and more that the newer Atmos releases are making better use of the format. I got the remastered UHD version of *Oblivion *recently and the sound there is a significant step up from my Blu-ray.


----------



## carp

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not that it is a better movie by any stretch, but _Gravity_'s Dolby Atmos mix is also ear-gasmic. Those two titles, especially, show the potential of immersive audio if two craps are given to the audio post sessions. Too many engineers still look upon immersive audio as 7.1 with a little kick rather than an entirely new 3D palette from which to craft a wrap around sound scape.





gwsat said:


> I agree. the _Gravity_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is without peer when it comes to immersive effects. The film's audio makes another character out of space. The audio during the opening minutes of the film, in which three astronauts are working outside their spacecraft, is awe inspiring.


I don't own the Atmos version of Gravity, I did buy the 3D version for 5 bucks. I don't like 3D, but I did like it with Gravity. I've heard Atmos demos of Gravity at friends houses a long time ago, but you have me wanting to watch the whole movie at home. 




kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I am finding more and more that the newer Atmos releases are making better use of the format. I got the remastered UHD version of *Oblivion *recently and the sound there is a significant step up from my Blu-ray.



I agree the surround effects are great, but I did have to bump up the bass compared to the blu ray which was weird.


----------



## helvetica bold

How’s Edge of Tomorrow, Atmos mix? I think it only on Vudu, correct? Seems like that would be great in Atmos and there was never a UHD disk release.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## camd5pt0

helvetica bold said:


> How’s Edge of Tomorrow, Atmos mix? I think it only on Vudu, correct? Seems like that would be great in Atmos and there was never a UHD disk release.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for mentioning, I just bought it. 4k HDR and Atmos, on my Project Scorpio. Not my 65ks8500 or PS4 Pro.


----------



## harrisu

carp said:


> I agree with you guys that they could do so much more with the overhead channels. However, one movie gives me hope - BR 2049. It is what I hoped Atmos would be when I first heard about it. As you konw, on many (most actually) Atmos movies if you turn everything off except the ceiling speakers it's surprising how little content there actually is. Not so with 2049. Multiple scenes have a LOT coming out of the overheads and it is in no way subtle. For overall sound quality it is my all time favorite movie. It doesn't hurt that the movie itself is one of the very best that I have seen in years.


Carp, yesterday we (my wife and I) watched IT movie. This is the first movie that made me appreciate what ATMOS can do. Insane. I didn't turn off all the floor speakers but I could totally tell that ceiling speakers were utilized very effectively. Its a scary movie wand all together how the had the special effects was just jaw dropping. The dynamics were insane (thx to our 4722n). I think you are gonna love it. The bass is to die for. My wife doesn't care about bass and sound much but even she was amazed. She even asked me if I had the transducers installed under the seats. I laughed and said nope. Just 2 Mini Marty with UXL 18 doing the job on suspended floor. Don't need transducers. So you can imagine how crazy this movie can get. You have NF setup so you are in for a treat of you haven't watched this title. Not saying its a great move to watch but for sound effects, its a must. 

Here is the best part, I rented it from Netflix. Its awesome to see that now Netflix has Atmos. BR 2049 was also ATMOS from netflix. Just wish if they could some how make it obvious which ones are atmos on their site.


----------



## harrisu

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. I am finding more and more that the newer Atmos releases are making better use of the format. I got the remastered UHD version of *Oblivion *recently and the sound there is a significant step up from my Blu-ray.


Is the title ATMOS? Link please?


----------



## richlife

harrisu said:


> Is the title ATMOS? Link please?


https://www.amazon.com/Oblivion-Blu..._0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1523823639&sr=8-1-spons

Examine the chart at bottom of the back cover -- "English Dolby Atmos". And $10 less than my purchase several months ago.


----------



## weekendtoy

Hi all. I'm curious if it's generally preferable to use heights vs. up-firing speakers. I set up 7.1.4 ATMOS system over the winter using rear heights (SVS Prime Elevation) and up-firing (Def. Tech A60) speakers in the front. 

I seem to be getting better effect with the rear heights and could easily install the same up front.


----------



## dvdmd1

I have 4 prime elevations with my 7.2.4 setup.Use to have the upfiring onkyos but these prime elevations blows them out the waiter.definitley go with the height vs upfiring.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

weekendtoy said:


> Hi all. I'm curious if it's generally preferable to use heights vs. up-firing speakers. I set up 7.1.4 ATMOS system over the winter using rear heights (SVS Prime Elevation) and up-firing (Def. Tech A60) speakers in the front.
> 
> I seem to be getting better effect with the rear heights and could easily install the same up front.


Go with the Front Heights like your rears.


----------



## amdar

I have 4 SVS Prime Elevations speakers, installed in front and back of the wall(close to the ceiling). For Dolby ATMOS movies , i have setup my receiver's amp assign to Top Front & Top Rear mode. When i watch DTS X movies, i switch receiver's amp assign to Front Height and Rear Height.


----------



## carp

harrisu said:


> Carp, yesterday we (my wife and I) watched IT movie. This is the first movie that made me appreciate what ATMOS can do. Insane. I didn't turn off all the floor speakers but I could totally tell that ceiling speakers were utilized very effectively. Its a scary movie wand all together how the had the special effects was just jaw dropping. The dynamics were insane (thx to our 4722n). I think you are gonna love it. The bass is to die for. My wife doesn't care about bass and sound much but even she was amazed. She even asked me if I had the transducers installed under the seats. I laughed and said nope. Just 2 Mini Marty with UXL 18 doing the job on suspended floor. Don't need transducers. So you can imagine how crazy this movie can get. You have NF setup so you are in for a treat of you haven't watched this title. Not saying its a great move to watch but for sound effects, its a must.
> 
> Here is the best part, I rented it from Netflix. Its awesome to see that now Netflix has Atmos. BR 2049 was also ATMOS from netflix. Just wish if they could some how make it obvious which ones are atmos on their site.



Oh yes, I agree that the audio in It is very well done! I actually kind of forgot about that... it's not quite 2049 but it's a lot of fun. I just wish I had liked the movie! 

Being on a suspended floor changes everything, I bet your 2 subs gave more tactile feel than all 9 of my 18's. I _might_ have you in that pressurization feel but even if that's true I'll trade you!


----------



## cyberlocc

harrisu said:


> carp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you guys that they could do so much more with the overhead channels. However, one movie gives me hope - BR 2049. It is what I hoped Atmos would be when I first heard about it. As you konw, on many (most actually) Atmos movies if you turn everything off except the ceiling speakers it's surprising how little content there actually is. Not so with 2049. Multiple scenes have a LOT coming out of the overheads and it is in no way subtle. For overall sound quality it is my all time favorite movie. It doesn't hurt that the movie itself is one of the very best that I have seen in years. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Carp, yesterday we (my wife and I) watched IT movie. This is the first movie that made me appreciate what ATMOS can do. Insane. I didn't turn off all the floor speakers but I could totally tell that ceiling speakers were utilized very effectively. Its a scary movie wand all together how the had the special effects was just jaw dropping. The dynamics were insane (thx to our 4722n). I think you are gonna love it. The bass is to die for. My wife doesn't care about bass and sound much but even she was amazed. She even asked me if I had the transducers installed under the seats. I laughed and said nope. Just 2 Mini Marty with UXL 18 doing the job on suspended floor. Don't need transducers. So you can imagine how crazy this movie can get. You have NF setup so you are in for a treat of you haven't watched this title. Not saying its a great move to watch but for sound effects, its a must.
> 
> Here is the best part, I rented it from Netflix. Its awesome to see that now Netflix has Atmos. BR 2049 was also ATMOS from netflix. Just wish if they could some how make it obvious which ones are atmos on their site.
Click to expand...


Grrrr now you going to make me go Buy IT 😞. We saw it in theaters, as homage to throwback seeing the OG as kids. 

We were not impressed tbh. We expected more, it wasn't anywhere near the OG really. It wasn't bad really, just a let down more than anything. Alas I guess that's usually the case with most things in life that base on nostalgia. 

Now you say it has good Atmos, I gotta buy it and try lol.


----------



## murlidher

amdar said:


> I have 4 SVS Prime Elevations speakers, installed in front and back of the wall(close to the ceiling). For Dolby ATMOS movies , i have setup my receiver's amp assign to Top Front & Top Rear mode. When i watch DTS X movies, i switch receiver's amp assign to Front Height and Rear Height.


When you switch like this, don't you have to run the audyssey again as I believe it will reset your speaker settings? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## cyberlocc

murlidher said:


> amdar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have 4 SVS Prime Elevations speakers, installed in front and back of the wall(close to the ceiling). For Dolby ATMOS movies , i have setup my receiver's amp assign to Top Front & Top Rear mode. When i watch DTS X movies, i switch receiver's amp assign to Front Height and Rear Height.
> 
> 
> 
> When you switch like this, don't you have to run the audyssey again as I believe it will reset your speaker settings?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Someone said earlier in the thread you can save Audyssey profiles to USB and then just swicth between them.

I actually am going to see how well that works tommorow lol. I backed up my config on my 2300 before returning it with hopes that I won't have to run Audyssey again lol.


----------



## weekendtoy

Dan Hitchman said:


> Go with the Front Heights like your rears.



Thanks to everyone who responded to my query above. At this point I plan on proceeding with the installation of the front heights and ditch the up-firing speakers.


----------



## sid369

Hi all, Very new to HT and just set everything up, I have a denon 3300w receiver and using a 5.1.2 atmos set up. I have bought 2 polk OWC 3 atmos speakers, after running audyssey it set the atmos speakers at 150hz, i did go in and changed the levels on them slightly. I was only able to demo some content though Xbox one X atmos app which have a few trailers and really liked it, but I do want to ask placement question, these are on ceiling and have mounted them just in front of the seating position but they and about 4 feet out to each side, and aligned with te front speaker as show on the Dolby diagrams. Is this the right placement or do i need to bring them in a bit?


----------



## cfraser

To those who have the SVS Prime Elevations as Atmos overheads:

I'm going to guess that most of you don't use Elevations in your other speaker positions i.e. you have mixed speaker types. Do you have any issues with the overhead sound blending in with your other speakers when the Atmos speaker mapping overlaps types?

Right now my (4) overheads are Paradigm Studio Ref 20s. They're about a foot deep, moderately heavy, and were a bit of a pig to mount overhead. Due to their mounts, and some other things, positioning was only moderately flexible and they couldn't be "exactly" where I wanted. But they match the other speakers (mostly!), I thought that might be more important (a few years ago) than it probably is in reality for overheads.

The Elevations are much smaller, and presumably would have a significantly higher detected XO than the 20s (40Hz), but I don't think that matters. Just by looking at the Elevation driver types and other specs, I get the _feeling _they would blend in not too badly with the Paradigms. Or is "blending" over-rated when it comes to overheads? Any thoughts?


----------



## dvdmd1

cfraser said:


> To those who have the SVS Prime Elevations as Atmos overheads:
> 
> I'm going to guess that most of you don't use Elevations in your other speaker positions i.e. you have mixed speaker types. Do you have any issues with the overhead sound blending in with your other speakers when the Atmos speaker mapping overlaps types?
> 
> Right now my (4) overheads are Paradigm Studio Ref 20s. They're about a foot deep, moderately heavy, and were a bit of a pig to mount overhead. Due to their mounts, and some other things, positioning was only moderately flexible and they couldn't be "exactly" where I wanted. But they match the other speakers (mostly!), I thought that might be more important (a few years ago) than it probably is in reality for overheads.
> 
> The Elevations are much smaller, and presumably would have a significantly higher detected XO than the 20s (40Hz), but I don't think that matters. Just by looking at the Elevation driver types and other specs, I get the _feeling _they would blend in not too badly with the Paradigms. Or is "blending" over-rated when it comes to overheads? Any thoughts?


I have for prime elevations,Front height and middle height configuration and they sound great with Atmos and with non Atmos sound tracks.I get a top layer sound field and a lower sound field which blends in nicely !!


----------



## amdar

cfraser said:


> To those who have the SVS Prime Elevations as Atmos overheads:
> 
> I'm going to guess that most of you don't use Elevations in your other speaker positions i.e. you have mixed speaker types. Do you have any issues with the overhead sound blending in with your other speakers when the Atmos speaker mapping overlaps types?
> 
> Right now my (4) overheads are Paradigm Studio Ref 20s. They're about a foot deep, moderately heavy, and were a bit of a pig to mount overhead. Due to their mounts, and some other things, positioning was only moderately flexible and they couldn't be "exactly" where I wanted. But they match the other speakers (mostly!), I thought that might be more important (a few years ago) than it probably is in reality for overheads.
> 
> The Elevations are much smaller, and presumably would have a significantly higher detected XO than the 20s (40Hz), but I don't think that matters. Just by looking at the Elevation driver types and other specs, I get the _feeling _they would blend in not too badly with the Paradigms. Or is "blending" over-rated when it comes to overheads? Any thoughts?


I am using Pioneer SP-PK52FS Andrew Jones 5.1 and SVS elevations for height. I haven't touched the Audyssey calibration settings for crossover , levels and didn't notice any issues with overhead sound blending.


----------



## amdar

cyberlocc said:


> Someone said earlier in the thread you can save Audyssey profiles to USB and then just swicth between them.
> 
> I actually am going to see how well that works tommorow lol. I backed up my config on my 2300 before returning it with hopes that I won't have to run Audyssey again lol.


I run Audyssey calibration settings with Front Height/Rear Height and note down the settings.
Then i run Audyssey calibration settings with Top Front/Top Rear.
I went back and manually setup Amp Assign to Front Height/Rear Height and corresponding crossover/level/bass/distance settings. 

After that whenever i manually switch amp assign to Top Front/Top Rear or Front Height/Rear Height, my Denon receiver brings the correponding calibration settings. I know it is not a clean way, but it works for me


----------



## murlidher

amdar said:


> I run Audyssey calibration settings with Front Height/Rear Height and note down the settings.
> Then i run Audyssey calibration settings with Top Front/Top Rear.
> I went back and manually setup Amp Assign to Front Height/Rear Height and corresponding crossover/level/bass/distance settings.
> 
> After that whenever i manually switch amp assign to Top Front/Top Rear or Front Height/Rear Height, my Denon receiver brings the correponding calibration settings. I know it is not a clean way, but it works for me


I guess audyssey does little more then hidden settings. Can someone confirm if mere changing the above said settings are enough?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

I posted this in the UK on my build thread, but was so overwhelmed by the quality of this disc, I am compelled to repeat it here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Oh boy oh boy oh boy, oh boy.*

At the weekend I bought the 4K remastered, with Dolby Atmos sound, version of* Blade Runner The Final Cut* on UHD disc.

If you haven't seen Blade Runner in remastered 4K with Dolby Atmos, you haven't seen Blade Runner!

From the very first notes of the wonderful Vangelis score, you know you are in for something very special.

The 4K remaster reveals details and textures you have never seen before. I audibly gasped at the early flyovers of 2019 Los Angeles - never before have I seen such crisp detail, adding a new sense of reality to these images. HDR proves its mettle with the inkiest of blacks, fabulous shadow detail and crisp whites. In a highly graded movie like this, WCG doesn't get much opportunity to shine. But it's the sheer retrieval of detail that wowed me the most. A fabulous effort on the part of Warner Bros. 

*But if the image quality blows you away, just wait till you hear the Atmos re-mix.* From the first seconds of the movie, your jaw will drop as various flying craft pass over your head, come in low from left and right, circle the room. Disembodied voices from advertising vehicles swoosh over your head, and move perfectly in line with what you are seeing on screen as they come in from Top Front Right, to all over the entire overhead soundstage, to disappear via Top Rear Left. In the Tyrell Corporation building, announcements hover above you, coming from the ceilings in the space you are watching on screen.

The score has elements continuously mixed overhead and with the ear level speakers to give a fuller presentation than you have ever heard before, and elements of the score have been remixed with sound effects to create a slightly surreal, 'other world' feeling. Perfect. 

Out in the streets, the intensity of the sounds of the large crowds of people swirl all around you, with astonishing clarity, enabling you not to just hear a general 'hubbub' of voices, but dozens of _individual _voices combining to make the whole. 

And the rain! For a movie in which the rain never stops, the Atmos remix adds an entire new dimension, literally. Take the scene where Deckard is sitting in his vehicle and revel in the sound of heavy rain forcefully hitting the roof of the vehicle as he checks in with control. You are just in the vehicle with him. And every other time the action moves to a rain-filled scene, you are totally immersed with the sound of the relentless rain beating down from above and from all around.

In one scene, Deckard and Rachel make a visit to Sebasitan's flat and they take the elevator. The camera remains on the ground floor and as Deckard and Rachel talk as the elevator takes them up several floors, you distinctly hear their conversation and the elevator motor sounds rise gradually from floor level, to mid level to the very top of the screen.

I could go on for pages about this Atmos mix. The overhead speakers are engaged almost constantly throughout the entire movie, whether with small ambient noises, elements of the score, light ambient sounds, or whether full-bodied, full-blooded sounds of flying vehicles, rainstorms, thunder, sound effects and more. This is a go-to disc to demonstrate why you installed Atmos in the first place.

If you enjoy this movie - and who doesn't? - and you don't have the 4K restoration, I urge you to go out right now and buy it. You will not be disappointed!


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> If you enjoy this movie - and who doesn't? - and you don't have the 4K restoration, *I urge you to go out right now and buy it.* You will not be disappointed!


Hi Keith! Totally agree! There are those who have commented that this is at least equal to if not better than BR2049. I think you've single handedly replaced Warner's marketing department with your review!


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Hi Keith! Totally agree! There are those who have commented that this is at least equal to if not better than BR2049.


Personally, I prefer this disc to that of *Blade Runner 2049*. IMO the Atmos sound is better on this version of *Blade Runner The Final Cut* than it is on the 2049 disc. This may be some sort of prejudice though as I find the original movie to be far superior to the 2049 movie, which I personally believe was overhyped. Just my own opinion of course.



gene4ht said:


> I think you've single handedly replaced Warner's marketing department with your review!


LOL. I'd better prepare my invoice then....


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^

I did follow up my initial comments on my build thread with this post in reply to a member:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can pretty much guarantee you will think this is money well-spent. It is one of the very best Atmos movies in my 100-odd collection of immersive audio discs. Ironically, the best use of Atmos in my collection (possibly) is on a movie made 35 years ago! Yet so many current movies leave us wanting more, or even wondering why they bothered mixing it with Atmos in the first place. 

*Blade Runner The Final Cut* in this latest incarnation shows just what a difference a good Atmos mix can make to the enjoyment of a movie. I have lost count of how many times I have seen Blade Runner over the years (I probably watch it at least once every year) but this was genuinely like seeing it for the first time - it is that good. The sense of immersion is just perfect in every scene, thanks to this new Atmos mix. You are almost *in* the movie, rather than simply watching it - a _participant _almost rather than an _onlooker_. 

Only one sour note (that is nothing at all to do with the movie itself), I think it is shameful that those who do not have or want a UHD player or display should be denied the pleasure of this Atmos remix. It is so good it ought to be available on the Blu-ray 1080p platform as well so that all fans of this iconic movie can benefit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it something when a new Atmos mix of a 35-year-old movie should cause so much excitement, while many current presentations leave us cold? I also remember my Atmos remix of *Bram Stoker's Dracula* causing me to think similarly at the time of its release, in the early days of Atmos on disc. Both the latter and the UHD disc of The Final Cut are shining examples of how a good Atmos (re)mix can add so much to our pleasure and involvement and immersion in the movie.


----------



## Droogne

Would it be possible to integrate extra height channels into a 11.2 Atmos setup which already has 2x Rear- and 2x Front-Height Channels. Just wondering actually. Not really sure it would change anything, buuuut I'm wondering because I'm gonna invest in some decent height channel speakers, so it would be nice to buy al 6x of them if it would be worth anything. Those new height channels would probably end up being run through a processor, so I have the option to integrate the input channel of both Front and Rear Height channels into 1 combined signal which I can feed to Side Heights. 

My room is ca 4m wide x 4.5 deep, and the side surrounds and heights would be at same location, which is to the sides of the main couch which is around 2 meters from the main speakers/tv. 

Thanks in advance


----------



## Ted99

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally, I prefer this disc to that of *Blade Runner 2049*. IMO the Atmos sound is better on this version of *Blade Runner The Final Cut* than it is on the 2049 disc. This may be some sort of prejudice though as I find the original movie to be far superior to the 2049 movie, which I personally believe was overhyped. Just my own opinion of course.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I'd better prepare my invoice then....


Did Atmos come up automatically, or did you have to go into the menu to select?


----------



## Lesmor

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally, I prefer this disc to that of *Blade Runner 2049*. IMO the Atmos sound is better on this version of *Blade Runner The Final Cut* than it is on the 2049 disc. This may be some sort of prejudice though as I find the original movie to be far superior to the 2049 movie, which I personally believe was overhyped. Just my own opinion of course.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I'd better prepare my invoice then....


Totally agree re the Hype surrounding *Blade Runner 2049* watched once and sold on the disc and that's first for me

It put me off even trying the remastered *Blade Runner The Final Cut* which I could have got at a fair price but after your review it is back on my hit list


----------



## cyberlocc

Lesmor said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I prefer this disc to that of *Blade Runner 2049*. IMO the Atmos sound is better on this version of *Blade Runner The Final Cut* than it is on the 2049 disc. This may be some sort of prejudice though as I find the original movie to be far superior to the 2049 movie, which I personally believe was overhyped. Just my own opinion of course.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I'd better prepare my invoice then.... /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree re the Hype surrounding *Blade Runner 2049* watched once and sold on the disc and that's first for me
> 
> It put me off even trying the remastered *Blade Runner The Final Cut* which I could have got at a fair price but after your review it is back on my hit list
Click to expand...

Kind of the same way. I got 2049, due to suggestions here. Full disclosure, never wacthed BRs, none of them, heard they were good always meant to wacth them just never happened. 

So last night I started wacthing 2049, and I only got 1/3 of the way through got bored and turned it off lol. In it's defense, I have a headcold, and it was late at night. 

I'm going to give it another shot, however from what I seen it got a tad boring to me 😞. 

However his stellar review, I'll get BR remaster as I never seen it anyway.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> At the weekend I bought the 4K remastered, with Dolby Atmos sound, version of* Blade Runner The Final Cut* on UHD disc.
> 
> If you haven't seen Blade Runner in remastered 4K with Dolby Atmos, you haven't seen Blade Runner!


I agree. It is a near miracle. The sound engineers remixed the original _Blade Runner_ (1982) soundtrack to 5.1 in 2007, when the 1080 BD of the film was produced and it sounded great. Then, they topped themselves by remixing the 2007 version's DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio to 7.2.4 in 2017 for the UHD HDR rerelease, using the TrueHD Atmos codec. As you pointed out, the haunting Vangelis score has never sounded as beautiful. I don't own an Atmos movie whose soundtrack I like more, regardless of its age.


----------



## fatallerror

Sorry for posting this here but here more people will see it. I'm currently headphones watcher but planning to have a simple setup for occasional movie watching and playing games. I have a small place to do this so I'm wondering if I should choose a simple cheap 5.1 system like Klipsch Quintet or a cheap 5.1.2 system like focal sib evo 5.1.2. But the problem is that it's an angled ceiling room and not sure if I can use upward-firing speakers or ceiling speakers, I attached a side view of the room with the dimensions and pasted the Dolby illustration and with an arrow where I think speakers could be placed. Ceiling is hard wood and nothing above the listening area, lamp is there but outside of the listening area. 
Can I use Atmos setup here or forget it and stick to 5.1? if I can then upward-firing speakers or ceiling speakers? Thank you in advance


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> Did Atmos come up automatically, or did you have to go into the menu to select?


AFAICR it came up as the default audio choice.


----------



## kbarnes701

cyberlocc said:


> Kind of the same way. I got 2049, due to suggestions here. Full disclosure, never wacthed BRs, none of them, heard they were good always meant to wacth them just never happened.
> 
> So last night I started wacthing 2049, and I only got 1/3 of the way through got bored and turned it off lol. In it's defense, I have a headcold, and it was late at night.
> 
> I'm going to give it another shot, however from what I seen it got a tad boring to me 😞.
> 
> However his stellar review, I'll get BR remaster as I never seen it anyway.


The first act of 2049 is, IMO. very slow. But it does pick up somewhat after that. But it will never be the movie that *Blade Runner* was. As someone who has never seen it, you are in for an amazing experience if you get the UHD version.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I agree. It is a near miracle. The sound engineers remixed the original _Blade Runner_ (1982) soundtrack to 5.1 in 2007, when the 1080 BD of the film was produced and it sounded great. Then, they topped themselves by remixing the 2007 version's DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio to 7.2.4 in 2017 for the UHD HDR rerelease, using the TrueHD Atmos codec. As you pointed out, the haunting Vangelis score has never sounded as beautiful.* I don't own an Atmos movie whose soundtrack I like more, regardless of its age.*


I am inclined to agree with you! Those mixers (for the UHD version) are ones to watch out for IMO!


----------



## fredxr2d2

I will chime in with my unwanted opinion: the first Blade Runner (which I've seen three times now) is boring and dull and 2049 was a welcome sequel that bested the original in being actually interesting to watch and has an amazing Atmos soundtrack with bass that my fiancee described as "distracting."

Now I await the tarring and feathers!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I also remember my Atmos remix of *Bram Stoker's Dracula* causing me to think similarly at the time of its release, in the early days of Atmos on disc.


I remember there being lots of skepticism that Atmos re-mixes of catalogue titles were simply going to be a money grab (getting people to re-buy old movies). When Sony released _*Dracula*_ and _*5th Element*_, opinions immediately flipped. Turned out that the Atmos re-mixes genuinely added to those movies.


----------



## gwsat

fredxr2d2 said:


> I will chime in with my unwanted opinion: the first Blade Runner (which I've seen three times now) is boring and dull and 2049 was a welcome sequel that bested the original in being actually interesting to watch and has an amazing Atmos soundtrack with bass that my fiancee described as "distracting."
> 
> Now I await the tarring and feathers!


Not at all! I think most _Blade Runner_ nerds understand that the film and its sequel, _Blade Runner_ 2049 are not for all tastes. I am particularly sensitive to your point of view because I didn't bother to see the original _Blade Runner_ in the theater in the '80s and didn't become a fan until after I bought and watched the _*Blade Runner 5 Disk Complete Collectors Edition*_ in 2007. After that I was hooked.


----------



## kbarnes701

fredxr2d2 said:


> I will chime in with my unwanted opinion: the first Blade Runner (which I've seen three times now) is boring and dull and 2049 was a welcome sequel that bested the original in being actually interesting to watch and has an amazing Atmos soundtrack with bass that my fiancee described as "distracting."
> 
> Now I await the tarring and feathers!


Liking, or disliking, anything, is purely personal preference, so no tar of feathers from me 

You're out of line with most people's views of the original *Blade Runner* movie, but that's OK of course. But I don't think there can be any question that the Atmos track in the UHD version of the original movie, easily bests that of the 2049 movie.

BTW, I didn't dislike 2049 at all. In fact I like it. It's just that I don't think it is nearly as good as the original, Nor will it be nearly as influential. Nor talked about much 35 years after its release.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I remember there being lots of skepticism that Atmos re-mixes of catalogue titles were simply going to be a money grab (getting people to re-buy old movies). When Sony released _*Dracula*_ and _*5th Element*_, opinions immediately flipped. Turned out that the Atmos re-mixes genuinely added to those movies.


Yep. I am often fairly skeptical about remixing the sound on 'classic' movies. I have a number of movies which originally featured stereo, or even mono soundtracks, which have been remixed to 5.1 and they are just awful. When watching them I usually revert back to the original mono or stereo. But the movies we are mentioning here are in a different category altogether and the remix, as you say, genuinely adds to the experience. I hope they make more like this - I don't mind double-dipping for such a big step forward in my enjoyment. I only watched *Blade Runner The Final Cut* last night and already I can't wait to see it again!


----------



## LNEWoLF

Best Buy still has buy three 4K select titles for $50 

[email protected]@k in their weekly ad. Click link within ad and select the three 4K movies you want.


I purchased Blade Runner 2047, original Blade Runner and Dunkirk. All for $50 and free shipping.


Good luck.


Was blown away by both Dunkirk 4K and Blade Runner 2049 4K


This weekend hoping to watch Blade Runner 4K


----------



## sdurani

fredxr2d2 said:


> I will chime in with my unwanted opinion: the first Blade Runner (which I've seen three times now) is boring and dull and 2049 was a welcome sequel that bested the original in being actually interesting to watch and has an amazing Atmos soundtrack with bass that my fiancee described as "distracting."


While I didn't find the original "boring and dull", I did prefer the sequel (though it could have shaved off at least half an hour from its running time). The original asked some uncomfortable questions about slavery (what does it take to be considered 'human'). I liked that the sequel expanded those questions to include AI.


----------



## Ted99

kbarnes701 said:


> AFAICR it came up as the default audio choice.


Thanks--You and I have both groused about Atmos not always being the default choice. It may be a studio thing.

On your review, just ordered the BB $50 threefer. Now I'll own the original and the sequel.


----------



## Selden Ball

Droogne said:


> Would it be possible to integrate extra height channels into a 11.2 Atmos setup which already has 2x Rear- and 2x Front-Height Channels. Just wondering actually. Not really sure it would change anything, buuuut I'm wondering because I'm gonna invest in some decent height channel speakers, so it would be nice to buy al 6x of them if it would be worth anything. Those new height channels would probably end up being run through a processor, so I have the option to integrate the input channel of both Front and Rear Height channels into 1 combined signal which I can feed to Side Heights.
> 
> My room is ca 4m wide x 4.5 deep, and the side surrounds and heights would be at same location, which is to the sides of the main couch which is around 2 meters from the main speakers/tv.
> 
> Thanks in advance


You might want to consider upgrading to a receiver (Denon AVR-X8500H) or pre/pro (Marantz AV8805) which directly supports 6 overhead speaker channels. 

Information about how to use multiple receivers to simulate 6 overhead channels is available in the thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## Geordon

*How do I play downloaded Atmos files?*

I have a Marantz AV8805 and Panasonic UB900, but I don't think either one can play Atmos audio tracks directly from the USB ports. Or am I missing something? If I want to actually hear the files in Atmos 7.x.x, what device do you recommend I get to play them, and what file types should I be pulling down?

Thank you,

Geordon


----------



## Droogne

Geordon said:


> I have a Marantz AV8805 and Panasonic UB900, but I don't think either one can play Atmos audio tracks directly from the USB ports. Or am I missing something? If I want to actually hear the files in Atmos 7.x.x, what device do you recommend I get to play them, and what file types should I be pulling down?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Geordon


Not a lot of devices can.. I use an eminent 7760 mediaplayer which is very cheap and plays all my Atmos files perfectly. Do you mean only the audio? Not sure there are files out there..


----------



## DaveMcLain

Were there any 3D titles that were also released with an immersive soundtrack such as Dolby Atmos, DTS:X etc?


----------



## usc1995

DaveMcLain said:


> Were there any 3D titles that were also released with an immersive soundtrack such as Dolby Atmos, DTS:X etc?




Batman v. Superman and San Andreas are the only titles I own in both Atmos and 3D but I am sure there are more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## camd5pt0

so I bought another 2 speakers for SBL, SBR. I have 5.1.4 now, I am hoping 7.1.4 is worth it??

Can someone please link a really inexpensive 2 channel amp to power them? Thinking about the 70$ ones on Amazon.


----------



## pasender91

Geordon said:


> I have a Marantz AV8805 and Panasonic UB900, but I don't think either one can play Atmos audio tracks directly from the USB ports. Or am I missing something? If I want to actually hear the files in Atmos 7.x.x, what device do you recommend I get to play them, and what file types should I be pulling down?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Geordon


I have a Panasonic UB700 and it DOES play Atmos Demos from a USB stick 
So i think you're safe, the UB900 should be able to play Atmos from USB ...


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> so I bought another 2 speakers for SBL, SBR. I have 5.1.4 now, I am hoping 7.1.4 is worth it??
> 
> Can someone please link a really inexpensive 2 channel amp to power them? Thinking about the 70$ ones on Amazon.


https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/audio-source-amp-100-amplifier-7-2004.html

Quite a few members have recommended this amp. 

The latest version of the amp is available on Amazon for $132.

https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/ref=dp_ob_title_ce


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> I have a Panasonic UB700 and it DOES play Atmos Demos from a USB stick
> So i think you're safe, the UB900 should be able to play Atmos from USB ...


My UB900 does too. And so does my Oppo 103.


----------



## gene4ht

camd5pt0 said:


> so I bought another 2 speakers for SBL, SBR. I have 5.1.4 now, I am hoping 7.1.4 is worth it??
> 
> Can someone please link a really inexpensive 2 channel amp to power them? Thinking about the 70$ ones on Amazon.





kbarnes701 said:


> https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/audio-source-amp-100-amplifier-7-2004.html
> 
> Quite a few members have recommended this amp.
> 
> The latest version of the amp is available on Amazon for $132.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/ref=dp_ob_title_ce


As @*kbarnes701* suggests, the AudioSource 100 appears to be the most popular and most often recommended by members here. If you are in the U.S. and in no particular hurry, the AudioSource goes on sale periodically from Amazon and Crutchfield for between $109 and $119.


----------



## Ted99

gene4ht said:


> As @*kbarnes701* suggests, the AudioSource 100 appears to be the most popular and most often recommended by members here. If you are in the U.S. and in no particular hurry, the AudioSource goes on sale periodically from Amazon and Crutchfield for between $109 and $119.


I can highly recommend the Emotiva BasX A-100 for slightly more


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/audio-source-amp-100-amplifier-7-2004.html
> 
> Quite a few members have recommended this amp.
> 
> The latest version of the amp is available on Amazon for $132.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/ref=dp_ob_title_ce


Awesome! Thank you!


----------



## camd5pt0

gene4ht said:


> As @*kbarnes701* suggests, the AudioSource 100 appears to be the most popular and most often recommended by members here. If you are in the U.S. and in no particular hurry, the AudioSource goes on sale periodically from Amazon and Crutchfield for between $109 and $119.


Nice I am not in a hurry, I will keep my eye on it. I move after next month and will start the new layout there.


----------



## deano86

DaveMcLain said:


> Were there any 3D titles that were also released with an immersive soundtrack such as Dolby Atmos, DTS:X etc?



In addition to the already mentioned Batman V Superman and San Andreas.. there is Enchanted Kingdom, Ghost in the Shell, Jupiter Ascending, Pan, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and TMNT Out of Shadows, Terminator Genisys, The Great Wall, Transformers Age of Extinction, Transformers The Last Knight. I myself have many others in which I mux the 2D Atmos soundtrack onto the 3D video.. The most famous being Gravity.... along with Justice League, Kong Skull Island, Fantastic Beasts, Wonder Woman... etc..


----------



## camd5pt0

I forgot to ask, if using 2ch external amp, will it be a fixed volume? Or will it scale like normal with master volume?


----------



## gene4ht

camd5pt0 said:


> I forgot to ask, if using 2ch external amp, will it be a fixed volume? Or will it scale like normal with master volume?


In typical operation, set external amp volume to near max, then scale with master volume control.


----------



## unretarded

Just replaced my bic fh-6 lcr`s ceiling speakers which had a 60x80 degree horn loaded tweeter.....very directional, with a set of bic d62-3lcr`s 3 way`s.


FH-6LCR














D62-3LCR













The slimmer D62-3LCR looks better and the 3 way with no horn has way better dispersion. I guess I was used to the directional horns up there as it was very pronounced that the sound was coming from the ceiling with the horns. The dispersion of the 3 ways cuts way down on being directional, which I am not sure yet is a good thing.


It seems to blend better and I am starting to get used to it, but still miss that directionality, I know high dispersion is recommended, but even with them cranked up, it is hard at times to tell where all the sound is coming from. With the horns it was very easy to hear and tell the sound was coming from above.


As with most things it takes time to adapt, but I can certainly see where people might think the ceiling speakers are not doing much, even when cranked up with high dispersion speakers. It does make it hard to say that's coming from above as it blends soo well and just becomes part of the entire sound field, which is maybe what is supposed to happen. 


I am finding they really need cranked up to get that overhead feel when a lot of action is happening.....in certain scenes where there is not much other than overhead activity its not bad, but when the action really cranks up, the high dispersion overheads seem to get lost in all the other sounds.


Just some observations to report in about, this is a 5.1.2 system with the ceiling speakers about 20 inches in front of the MLP, set as top middle, which they are in about the middle of the room and close to the middle between the fronts and backs.

I have ran them as top front, much more pronounced volume in them that way.....top middle, best balance of sound and as top rears, much less pronounced in that setting, even tried front high wall and rear high wall, but that was completely wrong sounding.


I can see where low dispersion horns would be bad for a .4 system, but I am thinking for a .2 system, they might not be all bad or perhaps a low dispersion might even be better.....which is highly subjective, but might not be a bad option to try for those who feel the top are not active enough and want more...........what the downside is soo far I am not sure.....just a couple days now with the high dispersion 3 ways........I will report back in with more observations later.


EDIT:

The FH-6`s were sealed and the D62-3`s are ported, I will say having more bass up top is nice and a upgrade in that respect, much better with bass up top.


----------



## riley3245

Had a few questions for you guys. Hoping you can help the new guy out. I currently have a B & W/SVS 5.1 in walll surround sound and was thinking about adding 2 in ceiling speakers. I’m worried that my living room is too small for Atmos. The room is only 12 x 15 and I have limited options for speaker placement. Finally, I would prefer to have all my movies on my Apple TV and not have a physical DVD or player. I’m not totally against those,but would rather not have them if I could. 

1: Is there a minimum amount of space needed for Atmos to work properly. Is my 12 x 15 room ok, or is that too small to benefit from in ceiling Atmos speakers. 

2: Is a Blu Ray player necessary or can I get the same or similar quality from digital players like Apple TV. I’m pretty sure I can get 5.1 audio from digital movies. I’m just not sure about Atmos 5.1.2. 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> I forgot to ask, if using 2ch external amp, will it be a fixed volume? Or will it scale like normal with master volume?


The volume will, as gene4ht says, go up and down with the master volume on your AVR. 

If your external amp has volume controls (or even better, output gain controls) you will need to set this properly to create a cohesive gain structure throughout the system. It's OK to start with this set at very close to Maximum and work from there if you find there is any need to (eg your room EQ system sets 'odd' levels - much higher or lower than you were expecting). Chances are the Max setting will be fine.

AFAIK, nobody who used the Audiosource amp has reported any problems (and this was a popular choice back in the early days of this thread).


----------



## kbarnes701

riley3245 said:


> Had a few questions for you guys. Hoping you can help the new guy out. I currently have a B & W/SVS 5.1 in walll surround sound and was thinking about adding 2 in ceiling speakers. I’m worried that my living room is too small for Atmos. The room is only 12 x 15 and I have limited options for speaker placement. Finally, I would prefer to have all my movies on my Apple TV and not have a physical DVD or player. I’m not totally against those,but would rather not have them if I could.
> 
> 1: Is there a minimum amount of space needed for Atmos to work properly. Is my 12 x 15 room ok, or is that too small to benefit from in ceiling Atmos speakers.


That room will be fine. My last HT was tiny - about 11 ft x 11 ft x 8.5 ft and I got terrific Atmos sound in it with a 7.x.4 system. If you are going for just two ceiling speakers, I'd mount them just ahead of MLP. And remember what Dolby said: it is real hard to make Atmos NOT work. 

I can't comment on the second part of your question as I am a 'physical media' type guy, but I am sure someone will chime in for you.

So yes, go ahead with the ceiling speakers - they will add a considerable amount of extra pleasure by giving you more immersion in and more involvement with, the on-screen action.


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> The volume will, as gene4ht says, go up and down with the master volume on your AVR.
> 
> If your external amp has volume controls (or even better, output gain controls) you will need to set this properly to create a cohesive gain structure throughout the system. It's OK to start with this set at very close to Maximum and work from there if you find there is any need to (eg your room EQ system sets 'odd' levels - much higher or lower than you were expecting). Chances are the Max setting will be fine.
> 
> AFAIK, nobody who used the Audiosource amp has reported any problems (and this was a popular choice back in the early days of this thread).


On thank you both, I suppose the 50w per channel is enough to power the 2 height bookshelves. My x4400h is 125w per 2ch. IDK it is for 9 ch. But I'm guessing it's adequate? I don't listen to my material near reference volume lol apartment life.


----------



## riley3245

kbarnes701 said:


> That room will be fine. My last HT was tiny - about 11 ft x 11 ft x 8.5 ft and I got terrific Atmos sound in it with a 7.x.4 system. If you are going for just two ceiling speakers, I'd mount them just ahead of MLP. And remember what Dolby said: it is real hard to make Atmos NOT work.
> 
> I can't comment on the second part of your question as I am a 'physical media' type guy, but I am sure someone will chime in for you.
> 
> So yes, go ahead with the ceiling speakers - they will add a considerable amount of extra pleasure by giving you more immersion in and more involvement with, the on-screen action.


Thanks kbarnes701. I’ get those ceiling speaker up and runnning.


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> On thank you both, I suppose the 50w per channel is enough to power the 2 height bookshelves. My x4400h is 125w per 2ch. IDK it is for 9 ch. But I'm guessing it's adequate? I don't listen to my material near reference volume lol apartment life.


Yes you will be fine with that. It's probably more or less what most m/ch AVRs deliver anyway when running all-channels-driven. In truth, and assuming you have a subwoofer in the system, the overhead speakers are not currently over-taxed. Almost all the sound still comes from the LCR/sub set and the overheads 'supplement' it with various effects, ambient sounds and so on. Many listeners are surprised, if they isolate their ceiling speakers during Atmos playback, at just how little work they have to do. 

As regards overall power, if you can listen at the levels you like to use, and you hear no obvious distortions, then you have enough power.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

riley3245 said:


> Had a few questions for you guys. Hoping you can help the new guy out. I currently have a B & W/SVS 5.1 in walll surround sound and was thinking about adding 2 in ceiling speakers. I’m worried that my living room is too small for Atmos. The room is only 12 x 15 and I have limited options for speaker placement. Finally, I would prefer to have all my movies on my Apple TV and not have a physical DVD or player. I’m not totally against those,but would rather not have them if I could.
> 
> 1: Is there a minimum amount of space needed for Atmos to work properly. Is my 12 x 15 room ok, or is that too small to benefit from in ceiling Atmos speakers.
> 
> 2: Is a Blu Ray player necessary or can I get the same or similar quality from digital players like Apple TV. I’m pretty sure I can get 5.1 audio from digital movies. I’m just not sure about Atmos 5.1.2.
> 
> Thanks for the help.


As for your second question:

While some streaming content has Dolby Atmos, it is in a lossy compressed form. If you want the best sound (and picture), you need to use Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray discs. UHD Blu at the very least because immersive audio is quickly becoming an exclusive feature of UHD media content.

Certain players are dropping in price. The Sony X700 player is supposed to have Dolby Vision support soon.


----------



## TViewer2000

I currently have a 5.2.2 setup in my living room. I have klipsch speakers all around including the in-ceiling speakers (RIC-65). The in-ceiling speakers were installed per Dolby's recommend angles from the MLP. Anyway I've been watching some ATMOS movies (Fifth Element and Dunkirk) and I hear the benefit of the ATMOS channels. I wonder if the in-ceiling speaker is not up to the task for ATMOS related content. I can hear the speaker if I am directly underneath it, but once I move away from it I no longer can hear it. I calibrated the system so everything should be set correctly. So are there certain in-ceiling speakers that I need to get instead? I thought I had to stay with the same manufacturer for speakers but I'm just not hearing the benefit of ATMOS which is disappointing since I keep hearing that it is an awesome experience. Any help or advice would be appreciated.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TViewer2000 said:


> I currently have a 5.2.2 setup in my living room. I have klipsch speakers all around including the in-ceiling speakers (RIC-65). The in-ceiling speakers were installed per Dolby's recommend angles from the MLP. Anyway I've been watching some ATMOS movies (Fifth Element and Dunkirk) and I hear the benefit of the ATMOS channels. I wonder if the in-ceiling speaker is not up to the task for ATMOS related content. I can hear the speaker if I am directly underneath it, but once I move away from it I no longer can hear it. I calibrated the system so everything should be set correctly. So are there certain in-ceiling speakers that I need to get instead? I thought I had to stay with the same manufacturer for speakers but I'm just not hearing the benefit of ATMOS which is disappointing since I keep hearing that it is an awesome experience. Any help or advice would be appreciated.


For one thing, Dunkirk does not have a Dolby Atmos track. You can only upmix it.

As to the speakers, they may not be designed for the task of Atmos ceiling speakers based on their straight down and narrow driver pattern. If you want inexpensive, better suited in-ceilings, you should go with RSL Speakers' in-ceiling model. They have angled drivers that you aim toward the MLP and have received good reviews for budget Atmos speakers. Decent mid bass response too.

Klipsch does have Reference ceiling speakers with swivel mini horn tweeters, but they are quite a bit more.


----------



## kbarnes701

TViewer2000 said:


> I currently have a 5.2.2 setup in my living room. I have klipsch speakers all around including the in-ceiling speakers (RIC-65). The in-ceiling speakers were installed per Dolby's recommend angles from the MLP. Anyway I've been watching some ATMOS movies (Fifth Element and Dunkirk) and I hear the benefit of the ATMOS channels. I wonder if the in-ceiling speaker is not up to the task for ATMOS related content. I can hear the speaker if I am directly underneath it, but once I move away from it I no longer can hear it. I calibrated the system so everything should be set correctly. So are there certain in-ceiling speakers that I need to get instead? I thought I had to stay with the same manufacturer for speakers but I'm just not hearing the benefit of ATMOS which is disappointing since I keep hearing that it is an awesome experience. Any help or advice would be appreciated.


Try angling the speakers towards MLP. This may be difficult with in-ceiling designs unless they have aimable tweeters. That you can hear the speaker from directly underneath it reinforces the idea that aiming it will make an improvement. We have always aimed our speakers towards the listening area and, really, there is no reason why Atmos should suddenly 'unwrite' that rule. 

With room EQ there is no real need to use the speakers from a single maker. The room EQ system, Audyssey etc, will tonally match all the speakers in the system as it gets them to comply with a single target frequency response curve. So there's no need to fear getting good speakers from elsewhere.

Also be aware that many, many discs mastered in Atmos so far have not necessarily made very good use of Atmos for overhead effects. Some have made almost NO use of the overhead speakers at all. So the best way to audition the effect is probably to use the Atmos demos from Dolby. You can download these off the net and copy them to a USB stick. I'd personally try this before swapping speakers as it is free.

One other thing, although you have calibrated, try playing test tones through the system and measuring the SPL of the overheads with an SPL meter. An SPL app will do as you don't need great accuracy - just to be able to check the levels of the overheads relative to the ear level speakers. You can download SPL apps for free from the Apple or Google app stores.

EDIT: given the confusion over *Dunkirk*, you definitely have the AVR set properly? You are bitstreaming the TrueHD content? And when you press the info button for your AVR it is showing Atmos as being the decoded codec? And Dolby Surround Upmixer for non-Atmos movies like *Dunkirk*. Sorry if this is an egg-sucking lesson


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> For one thing, Dunkirk does not have a Dolby Atmos track. You can only upmix it.


Good point Dan.  It upmixed really well here though, so he should hear plenty of noise from above. I wonder if he has the AVR set properly? Hmmm... I'll add that to my reply to him.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Try angling the speakers towards MLP. This may be difficult with in-ceiling designs unless they have aimable tweeters. That you can hear the speaker from directly underneath it reinforces the idea that aiming it will make an improvement. We have always aimed our speakers towards the listening area and, really, there is no reason why Atmos should suddenly 'unwrite' that rule.
> 
> With room EQ there is no real need to use the speakers from a single maker. The room EQ system, Audyssey etc, will tonally match all the speakers in the system as it gets them to comply with a single target frequency response curve. So there's no need to fear getting good speakers from elsewhere.
> 
> Also be aware that many, many discs mastered in Atmos so far have not necessarily made very good use of Atmos for overhead effects. Some have made almost NO use of the overhead speakers at all. So the best way to audition the effect is probably to use the Atmos demos from Dolby. You can download these off the net and copy them to a USB stick. I'd personally try this before swapping speakers as it is free.
> 
> One other thing, although you have calibrated, try playing test tones through the system and measuring the SPL of the overheads with an SPL meter. An SPL app will do as you don't need great accuracy - just to be able to check the levels of the overheads relative to the ear level speakers. You can download SPL apps for free from the Apple or Google app stores.


I looked up the OP's speakers and their limited design seems to make them ill suited to the task of Atmos overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> I looked up the OP's speakers and their limited design seems to make them ill suited to the task of Atmos overheads.


I looked them up too but couldn't find any specifications for them on the Klipsch site. On the face of it a ceiling speaker with a 6.5 inch driver and a tweeter ought to be OK for Atmos. Not ideal I'd agree for sure, but you'd expect it to make some sort of noise 

What is it about them that makes them 'ill-suited'? Is it their dispersion characteristics? Their FR? Or just the lack of an aimable tweeter (which isn't really a requirement if the dispersionm is good).

Edit. Here we go - I found some (basic) specs ... I can't see anything there that would make me think this was a speaker that was especially unsuitable for Atmos. C'mon Dan - spill the beans - what have you found?


----------



## Ted99

camd5pt0 said:


> On thank you both, I suppose the 50w per channel is enough to power the 2 height bookshelves. My x4400h is 125w per 2ch. IDK it is for 9 ch. But I'm guessing it's adequate? I don't listen to my material near reference volume lol apartment life.


Before I bought the X8500, I was using the X4400 in 11.1.4 with an outboard amp for L & R to get the 11 ch of amplification. The Denon amps were fine for my location with listening levels suitable for a high rise condo


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> I looked them up too but couldn't find any specifications for them on the Klipsch site. On the face of it a ceiling speaker with a 6.5 inch driver and a tweeter ought to be OK for Atmos. Not ideal I'd agree for sure, but you'd expect it to make some sort of n8oise
> 
> What is it about them that makes them 'ill-suited'? Is it their dispersion characteristics? Their FR? Or just the lack of an aimable tweeter (which isn't really a requirement if the dispersionm is good).
> 
> Edit. Here we go - I found some (basic) specs ... I can't see anything there that would make me think this was a speaker that was especially unsuitable for Atmos. C'mon Dan - spill the beans - what have you found?


Anecdotal evidence along with pictures and specs of those models. It's what the OP stated along with my own experience with speakers like that. The dispersion pattern is too narrow. That's why there is such a steep volume and intensity drop off once he moves away from directly underneath these speakers.

That's why I mentioned the RSL in-ceiling's. They make up for it with an angled driver unit.


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> For one thing, Dunkirk does not have a Dolby Atmos track. You can only upmix it.





kbarnes701 said:


> Good point Dan.  It upmixed really well here though, so he should hear plenty of noise from above. I wonder if he has the AVR set properly? Hmmm... I'll add that to my reply to him.


Indeed! I have a love/hate attitude toward Christopher Nolan's soundtracks. I hate that he stubbornly refuses to let the soundtracks for the disk versions of his films be remixed using the TrueHD Atmos codec. What bothers me most is that Nolan's refusal to allow the wonderful sound designs of his films to be remixed using anything but the DTS-HD MA 5.1 codec deprives us of the ability to hear them at their best on disk. Upmixing using one of the several excellent upmixers these days gives the _Dunkirk_ DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack a reasonably satisfactory faux 7.2.4 output but it falls far sort of what it could have been if the soundtrack had been remixed using the Dolby TrueHD Atmos codec in the first place.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Anecdotal evidence along with pictures and specs of those models. It's what the OP stated along with my own experience with speakers like that. The dispersion pattern is too narrow. That's why there is such a steep volume and intensity drop off once he moves away from directly underneath these speakers.
> 
> That's why I mentioned the RSL in-ceiling's. They make up for it with an angled driver unit.


OK thanks. Definitely need a very wide dispersion pattern if they are aimed down to the floor.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Indeed! I have a love/hate attitude toward Christopher Nolan's soundtracks. I hate that he stubbornly refuses to let the soundtracks for the disk versions of his films be remixed using the TrueHD Atmos codec. What bothers me most is that Nolan's refusal to allow the wonderful sound designs of his films to be remixed using anything but the DTS-HD MA 5.1 codec deprives us of the ability to hear them at their best on disk. Upmixing using one of the several excellent upmixers these days gives the _Dunkirk_ DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack a reasonably satisfactory faux 7.2.4 output but it falls far sort of what it could have been if the soundtrack had been remixed using the Dolby TrueHD Atmos codec in the first place.


Totally agree. Mind you, with each (recent) Nolan movie I go off him more and more. I loved *The Prestige* and *Memento*. And *Batman Begins*. Then with *The Dark Knight*, I started to see some bloat and a tendency to be self-referential. I disliked *Interstellar* as I thought it was pretentious and was _meh_ about *Inception*. I really disliked *The Dark Knight Rises*. *Dunkirk* is the first for a while that I actually enjoyed very much.

Agree with you about his blind spot wrt to sound. I can't understand it. And so many of his more recent movies are just so ridiculously *loud*. TDKR in the IMAX theatre I saw it in was deafening. In London they gave a special screening to some surviving Dunkirk WWII veterans. Afterwards a reporter collared an old gent and asked him if he thought the movie captured what it was like to be at Dunkirk. The old vet replied, "It was very accurate I think, but the real battle wasn't as loud..." 

Incidentally, I was thinking of buying the UHD version of The Prestige, but in typical Nolan fashion, it doesn't support an Atmos or DTS:X mix, so I haven't bothered. Seems he is against anything other than 5.1 even on remastered UHD discs.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^^

Re-reading that post, it's a sad reflection on my mania for collecting movies that I have all of those on disc, including the ones I say I'm not even that keen on


----------



## TViewer2000

Dan Hitchman said:


> For one thing, Dunkirk does not have a Dolby Atmos track. You can only upmix it.
> 
> As to the speakers, they may not be designed for the task of Atmos ceiling speakers based on their straight down and narrow driver pattern. If you want inexpensive, better suited in-ceilings, you should go with RSL Speakers' in-ceiling model. They have angled drivers that you aim toward the MLP and have received good reviews for budget Atmos speakers. Decent mid bass response too.
> 
> Klipsch does have Reference ceiling speakers with swivel mini horn tweeters, but they are quite a bit more.


Are you referring to the RSL C34E? That's probably the range I'm looking at for speakers right now if that is the case. If it makes it so I can hear ATMOS then I'll gladly get them. Looks like there is a 30 day audition period so I guess I can verify if there is that big of a difference. Just will have to upgrade the AVR at some point to take advantage of the rear ATMOS speakers that are just sitting there. :frown:




kbarnes701 said:


> Try angling the speakers towards MLP. This may be difficult with in-ceiling designs unless they have aimable tweeters. That you can hear the speaker from directly underneath it reinforces the idea that aiming it will make an improvement. We have always aimed our speakers towards the listening area and, really, there is no reason why Atmos should suddenly 'unwrite' that rule.
> 
> With room EQ there is no real need to use the speakers from a single maker. The room EQ system, Audyssey etc, will tonally match all the speakers in the system as it gets them to comply with a single target frequency response curve. So there's no need to fear getting good speakers from elsewhere.
> 
> Also be aware that many, many discs mastered in Atmos so far have not necessarily made very good use of Atmos for overhead effects. Some have made almost NO use of the overhead speakers at all. So the best way to audition the effect is probably to use the Atmos demos from Dolby. You can download these off the net and copy them to a USB stick. I'd personally try this before swapping speakers as it is free.
> 
> One other thing, although you have calibrated, try playing test tones through the system and measuring the SPL of the overheads with an SPL meter. An SPL app will do as you don't need great accuracy - just to be able to check the levels of the overheads relative to the ear level speakers. You can download SPL apps for free from the Apple or Google app stores.
> 
> EDIT: given the confusion over *Dunkirk*, you definitely have the AVR set properly? You are bitstreaming the TrueHD content? And when you press the info button for your AVR it is showing Atmos as being the decoded codec? And Dolby Surround Upmixer for non-Atmos movies like *Dunkirk*. Sorry if this is an egg-sucking lesson



Yes, the receiver is receiving the TRUEHD and the blue light is displayed showing it is receiving and decoding the ATMOS signal. I haven't done the manual SPL readings in awhile since when I tried to manually adjust my older Yamaha receiver the YPAO settings would go away (or at least that's what it appeared to do when I messed with the settings). Not sure if Onkyo is similar when manual adjustments are made after calibration is performed.


----------



## richlife

Lesmor said:


> Totally agree re the Hype surrounding *Blade Runner 2049* watched once and sold on the disc and that's first for me
> 
> It put me off even trying the remastered *Blade Runner The Final Cut* which I could have got at a fair price but after your review it is back on my hit list


 @kbarnes701 A little late to the party on this one, but Ken I totally agree with both your review posts on Blade Runner The Final Cut UHD! Thank you for putting my thoughts so clearly and so eloquently. I have the UHDs for both Blade Runners and totally agree that The Final Cut is reference Atmos (as well as 4k) material. Completely blown away with that opening scene. I wasn't totally prepared to it and had to start it over again just to fully experience and enjoy it. Right through the end (and Rutger Hauer's dying soliloquy was an immersive audio delight!), as you said, this became my favorite Atmos disc. 

I didn't dislike Blade Runner 2049 but I was quite disappointed after all the hype. A couple of days later, I started to watch it again because I have faith in all the positive comments in these forums -- but I fell asleep about an hour in (hiding the toy) and haven't got back to it since. That says a lot. So does the fact that The Final Cut is well ahead on my re-play list.



kbarnes701 said:


> https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/audio-source-amp-100-amplifier-7-2004.html
> 
> Quite a few members have recommended this amp.
> 
> The latest version of the amp is available on Amazon for $132.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/ref=dp_ob_title_ce





TViewer2000 said:


> Are you referring to the RSL C34E? That's probably the range I'm looking at for speakers right now if that is the case. If it makes it so I can hear ATMOS then I'll gladly get them. Looks like there is a 30 day audition period so I guess I can verify if there is that big of a difference. Just will have to upgrade the AVR at some point to take advantage of the rear ATMOS speakers that are just sitting there. :frown:
> 
> Yes, the receiver is receiving the TRUEHD and the blue light is displayed showing it is receiving and decoding the ATMOS signal. I haven't done the manual SPL readings in awhile since when I tried to manually adjust my older Yamaha receiver the YPAO settings would go away (or at least that's what it appeared to do when I messed with the settings). Not sure if Onkyo is similar when manual adjustments are made after calibration is performed.


In my sig, you can see that I have the AudioSouce in my HT setup and I highly recommend them. I want to play around more with the crossover point they suggest, but haven't had any dissatisfaction with the results to make it a priority. I do want to note that the original AMP100VS amps (pre- about Aug/Sep 2017) showed some difficulty with the amp staying active (powered on) when used for Rear Presence as I have it in my Atmos setup. There are times in many Atmos mixes when the sound level for RP is just not enough to trigger those earlier amps. That was totally corrected with an engineering fix late last year and I have never had a problem at all. Some of these older versions may still be in channels like Amazon or other distributors. If you get one, call AudioSource and they will arrange to swap out or apply to fix to your new purchase. Better yet, do as I did -- buy direct from AudioSource so that you for sure get the new fix. They will meet the current Amazon price.


----------



## camd5pt0

richlife said:


> @kbarnes701 A little late to the party on this one, but Ken I totally agree with both your review posts on Blade Runner The Final Cut UHD! Thank you for putting my thoughts so clearly and so eloquently. I have the UHDs for both Blade Runners and totally agree that The Final Cut is reference Atmos (as well as 4k) material. Completely blown away with that opening scene. I wasn't totally prepared to it and had to start it over again just to fully experience and enjoy it. Right through the end (and Rutger Hauer's dying soliloquy was an immersive audio delight!), as you said, this became my favorite Atmos disc.
> 
> I didn't dislike Blade Runner 2049 but I was quite disappointed after all the hype. A couple of days later, I started to watch it again because I have faith in all the positive comments in these forums -- but I fell asleep about an hour in (hiding the toy) and haven't got back to it since. That says a lot. So does the fact that The Final Cut is well ahead on my re-play list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my sig, you can see that I have the AudioSouce in my HT setup and I highly recommend them. I want to play around more with the crossover point they suggest, but haven't had any dissatisfaction with the results to make it a priority. I do want to note that the original AMP100VS amps (pre- about Aug/Sep 2017) showed some difficulty with the amp staying active (powered on) when used for Rear Presence as I have it in my Atmos setup. There are times in many Atmos mixes when the sound level for RP is just not enough to trigger those earlier amps. That was totally corrected with an engineering fix late last year and I have never had a problem at all. Some of these older versions may still be in channels like Amazon or other distributors. If you get one, call AudioSource and they will arrange to swap out or apply to fix to your new purchase. Better yet, do as I did -- buy direct from AudioSource so that you for sure get the new fix. They will meet the current Amazon price.


I have received great recommendation for this, but I am sold on it. Thanks, glad to hear no trouble with this amp. Amazon reviews did have me a little worried. I think my x4400h came with some 12v trigger cables? or maybe I watched an unboxing of something and confusing the two. But I want to try that method of keeping it powered on with the AVR.


----------



## richlife

camd5pt0 said:


> On thank you both, I suppose the 50w per channel is enough to power the 2 height bookshelves. My x4400h is 125w per 2ch. IDK it is for 9 ch. But I'm guessing it's adequate? I don't listen to my material near reference volume lol apartment life.


I actually missed this post in the first pass, but followed your name back. I was also a bit concerned for the 50W per channel. Absolutely NOT an issue. I have the AudioSource set just a slight bit back from Max (I just don't like setting any amp to max whether it will ever get that level input or not) and have not had to touch it since installed last Sept. 

Edit: My Yamaha's YPAO incorporates the AudioSource as the Rear Presence without blinking. All good.


----------



## kbarnes701

TViewer2000 said:


> Are you referring to the RSL C34E? That's probably the range I'm looking at for speakers right now if that is the case. If it makes it so I can hear ATMOS then I'll gladly get them. Looks like there is a 30 day audition period so I guess I can verify if there is that big of a difference. Just will have to upgrade the AVR at some point to take advantage of the rear ATMOS speakers that are just sitting there. :frown:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the receiver is receiving the TRUEHD and the blue light is displayed showing it is receiving and decoding the ATMOS signal. I haven't done the manual SPL readings in awhile since when I tried to manually adjust my older Yamaha receiver the YPAO settings would go away (or at least that's what it appeared to do when I messed with the settings). Not sure if Onkyo is similar when manual adjustments are made after calibration is performed.


Onkyo won't lose your calibration if you change the levels.


----------



## stikle

camd5pt0 said:


> I think my x4400h came with some 12v trigger cables?



No, they don't come with trigger cables as most of the general population has no need for them.



camd5pt0 said:


> But I want to try that method of keeping it powered on with the AVR.



It works well - that's how I control my external 2 channel Onkyo amp.

Trigger cables are cheap and nothing special, just a mono cable vs stereo. (That being said, I've never actually tried a stereo cable...it might work, but for $8 I'd just get the right one.)


----------



## gene4ht

stikle said:


> No, they don't come with trigger cables as most of the general population has no need for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works well - that's how I control my external 2 channel Onkyo amp.
> 
> Trigger cables are cheap and nothing special, just a mono cable vs stereo. (That being said, I've never actually tried a stereo cable...it might work, but for $8 I'd just get the right one.)


Hi Seth...It appears we use the same Onkyo M-5010 2 ch amp...I use a mono cable as well...and can confirm that it works...although I don't have first hand experience, I've read that others had problems with stereo cables.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Totally agree. Mind you, with each (recent) Nolan movie I go off him more and more. I loved *The Prestige* and *Memento*. And *Batman Begins*. Then with *The Dark Knight*, I started to see some bloat and a tendency to be self-referential. I disliked *Interstellar* as I thought it was pretentious and was _meh_ about *Inception*. I really disliked *The Dark Knight Rises*. *Dunkirk* is the first for a while that I actually enjoyed very much.
> 
> Agree with you about his blind spot wrt to sound. I can't understand it. And so many of his more recent movies are just so ridiculously *loud*. TDKR in the IMAX theatre I saw it in was deafening. In London they gave a special screening to some surviving Dunkirk WWII veterans. Afterwards a reporter collared an old gent and asked him if he thought the movie captured what it was like to be at Dunkirk. The old vet replied, "It was very accurate I think, but the real battle wasn't as loud..."
> 
> Incidentally, I was thinking of buying the UHD version of The Prestige, but in typical Nolan fashion, it doesn't support an Atmos or DTS:X mix, so I haven't bothered. Seems he is against anything other than 5.1 even on remastered UHD discs.


I confess, I have drunk far more of the Nolan Kool-Aid than I should have done. I have upgraded my HD copy of every Nolan film available in UHD HDR to that format, their lack of TrueHD Atmos soundtracks notwithstanding. I like Nolan's films enough to overlook the audio weakness of the UHD HDR versions of them. The _Batman Trilogy_ and _Interstellar_ are four of my all time favorite films. In fact, I like all of Nolan's films a lot, just some more than others. Nevertheless, I too passed on the 4K version of _The Prestige._ I paid $19.99 for the HD version, so not paying another $29.99 for the UHD HDR version with no audio upgrade was an easy decision.

In the spirit of full disclosure I should explain that all of the Nolan UHD HDR upgrades I own came from the Kaleidescape store and were downloaded to my Kscape system. Because I already owned the Kscape HD versions of the films, Kscape sold the UHD HDR upgrades at a discount. Kscape doesn't have the UHD HDR version of _The Prestige,_ though, so to upgrade, I would have to buy the disk from Amazon at full bull retail. Thanks but no thanks.

I know some think we are obsessive about TrueHD Atmos audio but they are wrong, wrong, wrong!


----------



## camd5pt0

stikle said:


> No, they don't come with trigger cables as most of the general population has no need for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works well - that's how I control my external 2 channel Onkyo amp.
> 
> Trigger cables are cheap and nothing special, just a mono cable vs stereo. (That being said, I've never actually tried a stereo cable...it might work, but for $8 I'd just get the right one.)


appreciate the knowlege , I may even have one of the mono cables from my photography gear, controls an off camera flash for the sync.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I confess, I have drunk far more of the Nolan Kool-Aid than I should have done. I have upgraded my HD copy of every Nolan film available in UHD HDR to that format, their lack of TrueHD Atmos soundtracks notwithstanding. I like Nolan's films enough to overlook the audio weakness of the UHD HDR versions of them. The _Batman Trilogy_ and _Interstellar_ are four of my all time favorite films. In fact, I like all of Nolan's films a lot, just some more than others. Nevertheless, I too passed on the 4K version of _The Prestige._ I paid $19.99 for the HD version, so not paying another $29.99 for the UHD HDR version with no audio upgrade was an easy decision.
> 
> In the spirit of full disclosure I should explain that all of the Nolan UHD HDR upgrades I own came from the Kaleidescape store and were downloaded to my Kscape system. Because I already owned the Kscape HD versions of the films, Kscape sold the UHD HDR upgrades at a discount. Kscape doesn't have the UHD HDR version of _The Prestige,_ though, so to upgrade, I would have to buy the disk from Amazon at full bull retail. Thanks but no thanks.
> 
> I know some think we are obsessive about TrueHD Atmos audio but they are wrong, wrong, wrong!


LOL. They are. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. *The Prestige* is one of my favourite movies but I just plain won't pay the extra for the UHD version without a sound upgrade as well. HST, the reviews say the PQ on the UHD disc is simply superb, as it apparently is on *Batman Begins* too. But these UHD discs are pretty expensive and I kinda feel cheated if they don't come with an immersive sound upgrade to accompany their superior image.


----------



## cfraser

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. They are. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. *The Prestige* is one of my favourite movies but I just plain won't pay the extra for the UHD version without a sound upgrade as well.


I also have an "unreasonable" liking for that film. It is _very _high on my "can't go wrong, watch again" list. Not a "comfort" movie per se, but one I know I'll always enjoy. And I don't like to watch that many movies more than twice, why I'm very picky about what I buy on UHD if I've already seen the movie at least twice. IOW the UHD has to be really good, gotta have something to captivate me more than just PQ. Otherwise the UHD will go into the rack to collect dust like so many of the BDs I upgraded from DVD and then never watched again... (but that's me, I'm sure nobody else has unwatched BDs or even DVDs sitting around for more than a decade )


----------



## richlife

gwsat said:


> ...
> 
> I know some think we are obsessive about TrueHD Atmos audio but they are wrong, wrong, wrong!


Wha... Huh?!



cfraser said:


> I also have an "unreasonable" liking for that film. It is _very _high on my "can't go wrong, watch again" list. Not a "comfort" movie per se, but one I know I'll always enjoy. And I don't like to watch that many movies more than twice, why *I'm very picky about what I buy on UHD* if I've already seen the movie at least twice. IOW the UHD has to be really good, gotta have something to captivate me more than just PQ. Otherwise the UHD will go into the rack to collect dust like so many of the BDs I upgraded from DVD and then never watched again... (but that's me, *I'm sure nobody else has unwatched* BDs or even *DVDs sitting around for more than a decade* )


Very picky -- I've started renting almost all first time views. If after that viewing I want to see it again and I'm interested in seeing the extras, I add the UHD to my buy list. (And feel absolutely *cheated* if it doesn't have an Atmos or at least a DTSX soundtrack.) We just watched *Hickok* -- not buying that one! I'm a lifelong western fan and I would have bought this if I didn't have the rental option. Don't know where I saw a good review of this film, but totally disagree from storyline, to acting, to direction. YOMV, but the biggest western disappointment I had in years. 

As far as those DVDs, we just "downsized" by unloading about 100. Maybe 10 because I will buy again in UHD (ie. Jumanji, Gladiator), but the rest because I'm not watching DVD quality if there is a good (even if seen before) 4K Atmos disc available.


----------



## usc1995

riley3245 said:


> Had a few questions for you guys. Hoping you can help the new guy out. I currently have a B & W/SVS 5.1 in walll surround sound and was thinking about adding 2 in ceiling speakers. I’m worried that my living room is too small for Atmos. The room is only 12 x 15 and I have limited options for speaker placement. Finally, I would prefer to have all my movies on my Apple TV and not have a physical DVD or player. I’m not totally against those,but would rather not have them if I could.
> 
> 1: Is there a minimum amount of space needed for Atmos to work properly. Is my 12 x 15 room ok, or is that too small to benefit from in ceiling Atmos speakers.
> 
> 2: Is a Blu Ray player necessary or can I get the same or similar quality from digital players like Apple TV. I’m pretty sure I can get 5.1 audio from digital movies. I’m just not sure about Atmos 5.1.2.
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Apple TV does not currently bitstream so you won't be able to get Atmos from the ATV. Atmos has been promised as an upgrade to the 4k ATV but so far it is not availalble. As far as streaming goes the only sources I know of are Netflix (Xbox One, S and X only) and Vudu. For Netflix you have to have their top end 4k streaming plan and for Vudu you also need to be streaming to a 4k display.


----------



## camd5pt0

riley3245 said:


> Had a few questions for you guys. Hoping you can help the new guy out. I currently have a B & W/SVS 5.1 in walll surround sound and was thinking about adding 2 in ceiling speakers. I’m worried that my living room is too small for Atmos. The room is only 12 x 15 and I have limited options for speaker placement. Finally, I would prefer to have all my movies on my Apple TV and not have a physical DVD or player. I’m not totally against those,but would rather not have them if I could.
> 
> 1: Is there a minimum amount of space needed for Atmos to work properly. Is my 12 x 15 room ok, or is that too small to benefit from in ceiling Atmos speakers.
> 
> 2: Is a Blu Ray player necessary or can I get the same or similar quality from digital players like Apple TV. I’m pretty sure I can get 5.1 audio from digital movies. I’m just not sure about Atmos 5.1.2.
> 
> Thanks for the help.


I have 5.1.4 in 11.6"x13" and I am about to go 7.1.4 in 10.6"x13". I would say you are OK! It is me you should be worried about lol.

as far as streaming, xbox one x in my case is the best, because it does it all. Stream atmos, 4k, hdr from VUDU and Netflix. My TV and other devices are hit and miss on the features from the same content.


----------



## unretarded

While I demand Atmos from the newer releases, I just picked up over 600 DVD`s a while back and I am finding gold in some of the old upmixed sound tracks.........some of them are much better than Atmos content where Atmos was simply used to sell the disk and was half hearted at best. Some of the older tracks compare with the top Atmos tracks when upmixed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TViewer2000 said:


> Are you referring to the RSL C34E? That's probably the range I'm looking at for speakers right now if that is the case. If it makes it so I can hear ATMOS then I'll gladly get them. Looks like there is a 30 day audition period so I guess I can verify if there is that big of a difference. Just will have to upgrade the AVR at some point to take advantage of the rear ATMOS speakers that are just sitting there. :frown:


Yes, I'm talking about RSL's edgeless in-ceiling model that they advertise as Atmos friendly.

I would aim the drivers thusly:

Facing the screen wall: the right overhead speaker toward the farthest left seat and the left overhead speaker toward the farthest right seat... mirrored angles, of course.

The opposite for the rear overheads.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Not a Atmos question, but I have my old AVR as external for Atmos speakers 

Does the old AVR use the previous settings for the speakers when hooked up or is it just power and the new receiver handling the rest?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## isabuschina

usc1995 said:


> Apple TV does not currently bitstream so you won't be able to get Atmos from the ATV. Atmos has been promised as an upgrade to the 4k ATV but so far it is not availalble. As far as streaming goes the only sources I know of are Netflix (Xbox One, S and X only) and Vudu. For Netflix you have to have their top end 4k streaming plan and for Vudu you also need to be streaming to a 4k display.


Are you able to output atmos when streaming Netflix to a 1080p display if you subscribe to the 4k plan? I currently have only the 1080p plan and don't own a 4k display, but if I can get atmos from some of the Netflix originals by upgrading the plan then I will do so.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

westbergjoakim said:


> Not a Atmos question, but I have my old AVR as external for Atmos speakers
> 
> Does the old AVR use the previous settings for the speakers when hooked up or is it just power and the new receiver handling the rest?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


If you're repurposing an old receiver as an amplifier, you just want the old receiver acting ONLY as an amplifier. That means zero out all settings, no extra processing, leave it at a fixed volume. The new receiver will be the processor / pre-amp so it will manage all the settings. 

You want to set the old receiver to be as "out of the way" possible so the only job it's doing is receiving an analog RCA input and then amplifying it via the speaker outputs. In other words, zero out any speaker levels and distances, turn the volume way up and don't touch it again, probably put it in DIRECT mode to bypass any digital processing.


----------



## usc1995

isabuschina said:


> Are you able to output atmos when streaming Netflix to a 1080p display if you subscribe to the 4k plan? I currently have only the 1080p plan and don't own a 4k display, but if I can get atmos from some of the Netflix originals by upgrading the plan then I will do so.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk


Unfortunately, I am not sure. I only have one device capable of streaming Atmos or 4K from Netflix (Xbox One S) and it is attached to my 4Ke JVC projector. I would assume that since I do not see the option to stream in 4K from Netflix on any of my other 1080P tvs (Amazon Fire TV first gen and an ATV 3) that Netflix would not show the 4K Atmos streams to you when viewing on a 1080p tv via an Xbox. Perhaps someone else with an Xbox One attached to a 1080p TV can chime in if it is an option? I know for a fact that Vudu would not present the 4k stream with Atmos as an option when I had my Xbox attached to my old 1080p projector. My desire for more and more Atmos content led me to buy an Xbox for the UHD playback capability since there are many Atmos tracks only available on UHD even though I am not a gamer which then led me to buy a 4K (e-shift) projector to be able to enjoy the 4K discs I was now buying. If all the Atmos content was also available in regular old HD I would not have bothered with 4K but here I am.


----------



## westbergjoakim

batpig said:


> If you're repurposing an old receiver as an amplifier, you just want the old receiver acting ONLY as an amplifier. That means zero out all settings, no extra processing, leave it at a fixed volume. The new receiver will be the processor / pre-amp so it will manage all the settings.
> 
> You want to set the old receiver to be as "out of the way" possible so the only job it's doing is receiving an analog RCA input and then amplifying it via the speaker outputs. In other words, zero out any speaker levels and distances, turn the volume way up and don't touch it again, probably put it in DIRECT mode to bypass any digital processing.


Thanks! I think I have the old settings left so I will do that.

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

isabuschina said:


> Are you able to output atmos when streaming Netflix to a 1080p display if you subscribe to the 4k plan? I currently have only the 1080p plan and don't own a 4k display, but if I can get atmos from some of the Netflix originals by upgrading the plan then I will do so.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk




I do thru windows 10, Atmos does not require anything 4K, just the high end 4K plan from Netflix. I needed it for 3 devices anyway, so I already had the big plan.



Netflix over the internet thru the windows 10 PC out to the receiver to decode it into Atmos. You can use Xbox and something else........it shows what is supported on the Netflix site.


----------



## sid369

Can someone help me with my 5.1.2 specifically atmos speaker placement. I am using a denon 3300w, in a 20X20 room in the basement. I bought the polk OWM 3 atmos speakers and so should install them right above the seating position a few feet apart on each side? should it be directly above or a bit to the front of the seating position.

I watched a few netflix atmos shows through my xbox one x and I can hear the atmos speakers and they show that they are active but not had an experience where I was wowed by it, It could be the way atmos was implemented on the show. My receiver put it at 150hz crossover and right now I have them as top middle.


----------



## kbarnes701

sid369 said:


> Can someone help me with my 5.1.2 specifically atmos speaker placement. I am using a denon 3300w, in a 20X20 room in the basement. I bought the polk OWM 3 atmos speakers and so should install them right above the seating position a few feet apart on each side? should it be directly above or a bit to the front of the seating position.


I would put them slightly in front of MLP, in line with the Front Left and Front Right, or even inboard a little in a 20 ft wide room, depending on where your mains are located. Our hearing is not all that great with sounds coming from behind us, or from directly above us, so putting them slightly ahead of MLP helps with that. If they are aimable in any way, then aim them in the general direction of the listening area.



sid369 said:


> I watched a few netflix atmos shows through my xbox one x and I can hear the atmos speakers and they show that they are active but not had an experience where I was wowed by it, It could be the way atmos was implemented on the show. My receiver put it at 150hz crossover and right now I have them as top middle.


Bear in mind that Atmos content varies greatly in how much use they make of the overhead speakers. My advice would be to download the (free) Atmos trailers and use those as a guide to how well your speakers are doing.

150Hz is a rather high crossover and would suggest that the speakers are not all that capable (sorry, not trying to be snippy here). It may be worth considering something in the future that has a better overall FR.


----------



## Ted99

camd5pt0 said:


> appreciate the knowlege , I may even have one of the mono cables from my photography gear, controls an off camera flash for the sync.


It can be hit or miss whether the stereo cables will work. I can confirm that they do work Denon to Emotiva.


----------



## Mr.G

sid369 said:


> Can someone help me with my 5.1.2 specifically atmos speaker placement. I am using a denon 3300w, in a 20X20 room in the basement. I bought the polk OWM 3 atmos speakers and so should install them right above the seating position a few feet apart on each side? should it be directly above or a bit to the front of the seating position.
> 
> I watched a few netflix atmos shows through my xbox one x and I can hear the atmos speakers and they show that they are active but not had an experience where I was wowed by it, It could be the way atmos was implemented on the show. My receiver put it at 150hz crossover and right now I have them as top middle.


As suggested by 'kbarnes' download the Atmos demos and put them on a USB thumb drive then plug into your Xbox One X. These will certainly highlight your Atmos speakers.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## gene4ht

Ted99 said:


> It can be hit or miss whether the stereo cables will work. I can confirm that they do work Denon to Emotiva.


Agreed...it’s likely due to the difference in size/location/relative position of the contact points between the stereo cable pins and the device connectors. In any case, it’s probably best to use a mono cable to avert the possibility of a mismatch.


----------



## Soupy1970

TViewer2000 said:


> Are you referring to the RSL C34E? That's probably the range I'm looking at for speakers right now if that is the case. If it makes it so I can hear ATMOS then I'll gladly get them. Looks like there is a 30 day audition period so I guess I can verify if there is that big of a difference. Just will have to upgrade the AVR at some point to take advantage of the rear ATMOS speakers that are just sitting there. :frown:


If you have Klipsch all the way around you might want to look at the Klipsch CDT-5800-C, or the CDT-5650-C. They are a bit more in price, but should match your other speakers better and work good for Atmos. The woofer and tweeter are aimable. The 8" is about $225 if you call around, and the 6" about $200.


----------



## F-n-T

I bought the RSL C34E ceiling speakers...2 only to be exact for top middle. they produced good sound above, but when i moved up to the to the Dennon 6400, I needed 4 ceiling speakers, so i decided to go bigger and went with the mica M-8 https://www.amazon.com/Micca-M-8C-Ceiling-Speaker-Pivoting/dp/B002YPS6T6 and never looked back. they sound fantastic with my Klipsch setup!!


----------



## DaveMcLain

deano86 said:


> In addition to the already mentioned Batman V Superman and San Andreas.. there is Enchanted Kingdom, Ghost in the Shell, Jupiter Ascending, Pan, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and TMNT Out of Shadows, Terminator Genisys, The Great Wall, Transformers Age of Extinction, Transformers The Last Knight. I myself have many others in which I mux the 2D Atmos soundtrack onto the 3D video.. The most famous being Gravity.... along with Justice League, Kong Skull Island, Fantastic Beasts, Wonder Woman... etc..


This is very good to know thank you.


----------



## travisvt419

Hey everyone, anybody using the speakercraft aim series for there ceiling speakers? I have four of the Aim 273's (Aim 7 Three series 2) in my 5.1.4 set up and am looking for some advice on how best to aim these speakers. I have them physically in the ceiling as close as I could get them to the Dolby recommendations, but the rears are a little closer to the MLP. I have been running this setup for a few months now and am really enjoying it but I still feel I am missing out on the WOW factor of the ceiling speakers and I am wondering if it is due to how i have the speakers aimed. I have a denon 4400 and ran audyssey32 for calibration. If anybody is familiar with these speakers they can be aimed just about any direction and that is where I am unsure how/where to aim. The center line of tweeters can both rotate and swivel. Should the line of tweeters be parallel to the MLP or perpendicular to get the best sound from them? Should I rotate the cone and tweeters directly at the MLP? I have searched online without much luck on how best to use these speakers in an Atmos set up.

Link to the website for the speakers:

http://www.speakercraft.com/product...er-w-aluminum-woofer-arc-tweeter-array-AIM273


Thank you for any tips or advice!


----------



## deano86

travisvt419 said:


> Hey everyone, anybody using the speakercraft aim series for there ceiling speakers? I have four of the Aim 273's (Aim 7 Three series 2) in my 5.1.4 set up and am looking for some advice on how best to aim these speakers. I have them physically in the ceiling as close as I could get them to the Dolby recommendations, but the rears are a little closer to the MLP. I have been running this setup for a few months now and am really enjoying it but I still feel I am missing out on the WOW factor of the ceiling speakers and I am wondering if it is due to how i have the speakers aimed. I have a denon 4400 and ran audyssey32 for calibration. If anybody is familiar with these speakers they can be aimed just about any direction and that is where I am unsure how/where to aim. The center line of tweeters can both rotate and swivel. Should the line of tweeters be parallel to the MLP or perpendicular to get the best sound from them? Should I rotate the cone and tweeters directly at the MLP? I have searched online without much luck on how best to use these speakers in an Atmos set up.
> 
> Link to the website for the speakers:
> 
> http://www.speakercraft.com/product...er-w-aluminum-woofer-arc-tweeter-array-AIM273
> 
> 
> Thank you for any tips or advice!


Well, you are the one looking for your "Wow"factor so the only person who can tell you what that is.... is you. Adjust them one way .... play a familiar test passage then adjust them the other ... trust your ears man! It's your room.... More than anything, I find that if you happen to be using Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and listen at moderate volumes.. then you need to adjust up your height speakers a few dbs....since Audyssey does not boost those speakers at lower volumes like it does for your main surround speakers and subs...


----------



## camd5pt0

deano86 said:


> Well, you are the one looking for your "Wow"factor so the only person who can tell you what that is.... is you. Adjust them one way .... play a familiar test passage then adjust them the other ... trust your ears man! It's your room.... More than anything, I find that if you happen to be using Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and listen at moderate volumes.. then you need to adjust up your height speakers a few dbs....since Audyssey does not boost those speakers at lower volumes like it does for your main surround speakers and subs...


Funny you mention boosting the height speakers, I certainly needed to. I came to that conclusion on my own, Sounds much better.
I run the Denon X4400H


----------



## m. zillch

stikle said:


> (That being said, I've never actually tried a stereo cable...it might work, but for $8 I'd just get the right one.)


A stereo mini plug cable, instead of mono, will work fine as a trigger signal cable if that's what one happens to have on hand.

It's the _other_ direction that doesn't work: a mono cable can't be safely substituted for applications which specify you need a stereo cable.


----------



## travisvt419

camd5pt0 said:


> Funny you mention boosting the height speakers, I certainly needed to. I came to that conclusion on my own, Sounds much better.
> I run the Denon X4400H


How much did you end up boosting the heights - I assume you ran audyssey?


----------



## camd5pt0

travisvt419 said:


> How much did you end up boosting the heights - I assume you ran audyssey?


Quite a bit, check the difference


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally, I was thinking of buying the UHD version of The Prestige, but in typical Nolan fashion, it doesn't support an Atmos or DTS:X mix, so I haven't bothered. Seems he is against anything other than 5.1 even on remastered UHD discs.





kbarnes701 said:


> *The Prestige* is one of my favourite movies but I just plain won't pay the extra for the UHD version without a sound upgrade as well. HST, the reviews say the PQ on the UHD disc is simply superb, as it apparently is on *Batman Begins* too. But these UHD discs are pretty expensive and I kinda feel cheated if they don't come with an immersive sound upgrade to accompany their superior image.



I just can't help myself sometimes. Ordered this today despite what I said last week....


----------



## sid369

kbarnes701 said:


> I would put them slightly in front of MLP, in line with the Front Left and Front Right, or even inboard a little in a 20 ft wide room, depending on where your mains are located. Our hearing is not all that great with sounds coming from behind us, or from directly above us, so putting them slightly ahead of MLP helps with that. If they are aimable in any way, then aim them in the general direction of the listening area.
> 
> 
> 
> Bear in mind that Atmos content varies greatly in how much use they make of the overhead speakers. My advice would be to download the (free) Atmos trailers and use those as a guide to how well your speakers are doing.
> 
> 150Hz is a rather high crossover and would suggest that the speakers are not all that capable (sorry, not trying to be snippy here). It may be worth considering something in the future that has a better overall FR.


I am not sure what I m getting those high crossover settings, even for my mains its giving me a 200z crossover, but the same speakers as surrounds are set at40 hz. I will ask about it in the denon owners forum. I have played a few atmos demo through the Xbox one x atmos app and the surrounds sounds great and I am sure the ceilings do too, but nothing where I have been able to say just the ceilings were active for a particular scene. 

I may need to might have to up the (levels DB) a bit, would +3db a good start?


----------



## kbarnes701

sid369 said:


> I am not sure what I m getting those high crossover settings, even for my mains its giving me a 200z crossover, but the same speakers as surrounds are set at40 hz. I will ask about it in the denon owners forum.


The FR will depend to some extent on the position of the speakers in the room, but those XOs seem to be way too high for comfort. Can your sub even play 200Hz well?



sid369 said:


> I have played a few atmos demo through the Xbox one x atmos app and the surrounds sounds great and I am sure the ceilings do too, but nothing where I have been able to say just the ceilings were active for a particular scene.


TBH the overhead speakers should rarely draw attention to themselves, any more than the other speakers should, but do try downloading the Atmos trailers and demos as you can be sure that they have been mixed properly for Atmos. It will be even rarer that just the overheads are playing on their own, with nothing coming from the ear level speakers. In fact, AFAICR I have never heard that. All the speakers in the system will blend together to create a cohesive three dimensional soundstage, if the system is properly set up.



sid369 said:


> I may need to might have to up the (levels DB) a bit, would +3db a good start?


Yes, that would be OK. Bear in mind that, strictly speaking, all the speakers should play exactly the same loudness though. If you bump up the level of any, then you run the risk of upsetting the 'balance' between them and this can affect the imaging. For example, a sound that is meant to 'hover' between the ear level speakers and the overheads will tend to be too close to the ceiling if the overhead speakers have been goosed. Similarly, if a sound is meant to image halfway between the FL speaker and the Left Side Surround speaker, it will be out of position if the side surrounds are playing too loudly. The mixer assumes all the speakers are calibrated to the same SPL. You can test the levels with a SPL meter and a test disc. If you don't have a SPL meter you can use a phone App, since absolute accuracy isn't all that important if all you are doing is testing _relative _levels. 

Having said all that, remember it's _your _system, in _your _room, paid for with _your _money, so set it up to suit _you_. If you prefer the overheads raised by 3dB, then raise them by 3dB. Just be aware of what you are doing and any potential consequences, that's all.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

One other observation wrt to the issue of the overheads not being very 'obvious'. Try _upmixing_ a regular DTS-HD MA or TrueHD track with either Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural:X. On most movies, the upmixer will cause the overheads to make noise pretty much all the time, so the effect from above will be much more obvious than it is with most Atmos tracks (albeit not 'accurate' and, ultimately, much less satisfying). If you still can't hear the overheads making their contribution, then chances are something isn't right in the setup.

Lots of movies will give the overheads a good workout when using DSU or Neural:X, but if you have it, try the opening, pre-title sequence on the Blu-ray of *Spectre*. During the fight in the helicopter you will hear amazing overhead effects from the helicopter as it swooshes left and right, all around the room and over your head much of the time. A lot of people who have heard this in my HT comment on it and many say it is _better _than a true Atmos disc. Certainly, the upmixer does a fabulous job of extracting and steering the sounds.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> TBH the overhead speakers should rarely draw attention to themselves, any more than the other speakers should, but do try downloading the Atmos trailers and demos as you can be sure that they have been mixed properly for Atmos. It will be even rarer that just the overheads are playing on their own, with nothing coming from the ear level speakers. In fact, AFAICR I have never heard that. All the speakers in the system will blend together to create a cohesive three dimensional soundstage, if the system is properly set up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be OK. Bear in mind that, strictly speaking, all the speakers should play exactly the same loudness though. If you bump up the level of any, then you run the risk of upsetting the 'balance' between them and this can affect the imaging. For example, a sound that is meant to 'hover' between the ear level speakers and the overheads will tend to be too close to the ceiling if the overhead speakers have been goosed. Similarly, if a sound is meant to image halfway between the FL speaker and the Left Side Surround speaker, it will be out of position if the side surrounds are playing too loudly. The mixer assumes all the speakers are calibrated to the same SPL. You can test the levels with a SPL meter and a test disc. If you don't have a SPL meter you can use a phone App, since absolute accuracy isn't all that important if all you are doing is testing _relative _levels.
> 
> 
> 
> Having said all that, remember it's _your _system, in _your _room, paid for with _your _money, so set it up to suit _you_. If you prefer the overheads raised by 3dB, then raise them by 3dB. Just be aware of what you are doing and any potential consequences, that's all.




This has always been my understanding as well, that overhead levels are so important. People talk about overhead effects all the time feeling like that’s what atmos is, but do I understand correctly that objects are placed in the room in the same(but much simpler) way a 2ch system will create a phantom image of a singer in the center of the room? To oversimplify, I mean traditional panning techniques, except between bed and height speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> This has always been my understanding as well, that overhead levels are so important. People talk about overhead effects all the time feeling like that’s what atmos is, but do I understand correctly that objects are placed in the room in the same(but much simpler) way a 2ch system will create a phantom image of a singer in the center of the room? To oversimplify, I mean traditional panning techniques, except between bed and height speakers?


Yes, while the overhead speakers and overhead effects are very important steps forward for Atmos, it's only one benefit among many. In addition, the much greater precision with which objects can be placed permits a startlingly good three-dimensional soundfield, thus enhancing all movies, including those which don't have much scope for use of overhead speakers at all. HST, since the overhead speakers are the new kids on the block, naturally people do want to hear them in use!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

It is definitely natural to want a good return on investment. I just think the point gets lost sometimes. 
Anyway, I know you’re kind of an ambassador for Atmos, and you’ve been very kind and helpful to many. I have a question about placing my rsl C34e’s which will arrive today. I made a post elsewhere that I will copy and paste for your perusal later today.


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> It is definitely natural to want a good return on investment. I just think the point gets lost sometimes.
> Anyway, I know you’re kind of an ambassador for Atmos, and you’ve been very kind and helpful to many. I have a question about placing my rsl C34e’s which will arrive today. I made a post elsewhere that I will copy and paste for your perusal later today.


They are an interesting design with their sloping driver arrangement and aimable tweeter. Very nice dispersion pattern too - right on spec for Atmos. A sketch is always useful when asking for positioning advice - doesn't need to be anything fancy.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> They are an interesting design with their sloping driver arrangement and aimable tweeter. Very nice dispersion pattern too - right on spec for Atmos. A sketch is always useful when asking for positioning advice - doesn't need to be anything fancy.




Sure thing. I have sketches and room pics. Will be busy for awhile.


----------



## gene4ht

Polyrythm1k said:


> It is definitely natural to want a good return on investment. I just think the point gets lost sometimes.
> Anyway, *I know you’re kind of an ambassador for Atmos*, and you’ve been very kind and helpful to many. I have a question about placing my rsl C34e’s which will arrive today. I made a post elsewhere that I will copy and paste for your perusal later today.


Even now, the general public knows and understands little about Atmos. And even for those that do, many of those have not really heard Atmos properly set up...whether it be at a dealer installation or at a friend's home. @*kbarnes701* had an advantage and is the exception. IIRC, from the onset, he had the opportunity to see and hear Atmos properly set up...at Dolby Labs no less. Keith, it would be great if you could point to your early postings of your visit!


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, that would be OK. Bear in mind that, strictly speaking, all the speakers should play exactly the same loudness though. If you bump up the level of any, then you run the risk of upsetting the 'balance' between them and this can affect the imaging. For example, a sound that is meant to 'hover' between the ear level speakers and the overheads will tend to be too close to the ceiling if the overhead speakers have been goosed. Similarly, if a sound is meant to image halfway between the FL speaker and the Left Side Surround speaker, it will be out of position if the side surrounds are playing too loudly. The mixer assumes all the speakers are calibrated to the same SPL. You can test the levels with a SPL meter and a test disc. If you don't have a SPL meter you can use a phone App, since absolute accuracy isn't all that important if all you are doing is testing _relative _levels.
> 
> Having said all that, remember it's _your _system, in _your _room, paid for with _your _money, so set it up to suit _you_. If you prefer the overheads raised by 3dB, then raise them by 3dB. Just be aware of what you are doing and any potential consequences, that's all.


I took this advice and made improvements in my setup. I was previously +3db on front height. Yes it stood out more, but the speaker blend makes sense. I ran my Audyssey XT32 8 locations instead of 6. I ran it without the speaker grills as I leave them off now, corrected the placement of surround right to be ear level as surround left is.

And used Front Height and Top Middle (instead of Rear Height) since I'm on the back wall. So it seemed more appropriate (the pic I posted above isn't updated, all top channels are pointing down to the ear)

The difference was amazing, gave me wow factor so over again. I could tell the sound came thru with effect, with less effort if that makes sense. My test content showed improvements in 3D sound.


----------



## gene4ht

camd5pt0 said:


> I took this advice and made improvements in my setup. I was previously +3db on front height. Yes it stood out more, but the speaker blend makes sense. I ran my Audyssey XT32 8 locations instead of 6. I ran it without the speaker grills as I leave them off now, corrected the placement of surround right to be ear level as surround left is.
> 
> And used Front Height and Top Middle (instead of Rear Height) since I'm on the back wall. So it seemed more appropriate (the pic I posted above isn't updated, all top channels are pointing down to the ear)
> 
> *The difference was amazing, gave me wow factor so over again. I could tell the sound came thru with effect, with less effort if that makes sense. My test content showed improvements in 3D sound.*


As has been constantly iterated throughout this thread, it's all about proper set up...each environment is different...so it takes some experimentation/trial and error to optimize and get you there.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Even now, the general public knows and understands little about Atmos. And even for those that do, many of those have not really heard Atmos properly set up...whether it be at a dealer installation or at a friend's home. @*kbarnes701* had an advantage and is the exception. IIRC, from the onset, he had the opportunity to see and hear Atmos properly set up...at Dolby Labs no less. Keith, it would be great if you could point to your early postings of your visit!


Thanks gene...

Yes, I was very fortunate to be invited to Dolby's London HQ on two occasions. What I heard there also formed the basis of Atmos in my own HT.

Here are the reviews that you mention, of both visits:

Dolby Atmos For Home, Personal Views and Two Reviews of Experiences at Dolby London HQ.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

One more makes 5 posts...


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> They are an interesting design with their sloping driver arrangement and aimable tweeter. Very nice dispersion pattern too - right on spec for Atmos. A sketch is always useful when asking for positioning advice - doesn't need to be anything fancy.




Ugh...I lost a multi quote reply to you and gene. Just know that we seem to agree. 

The Rsl seemed to me a perfect marriage of things. The 15deg baffle will match my sloped ceiling of 10deg left to right. The great dispersion, and excellent CS made the decision easy. 

Is this thread ask for my pics and sketches, or should I start a new one. Seems appt here?


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> TBH the overhead speakers should rarely draw attention to themselves, any more than the other speakers should, but do try downloading the Atmos trailers and demos as you can be sure that they have been mixed properly for Atmos. It will be even rarer that just the overheads are playing on their own, with nothing coming from the ear level speakers. In fact, AFAICR I have never heard that. All the speakers in the system will blend together to create a cohesive three dimensional soundstage, if the system is properly set up.


Completely true - the speakers in an Atmos configuration are designed to play together all the time when they have content directed to them by the renderer. It's fun to meter watch or turn off the amp for the 7 basic floor level speakers, but don't expect to hear a full movie from just the heights with either Atmos or DTS:X. If we did the mixer needs to find a second career LOL...



> Yes, that would be OK. Bear in mind that, strictly speaking, all the speakers should play exactly the same loudness though. If you bump up the level of any, then you run the risk of upsetting the 'balance' between them and this can affect the imaging. For example, a sound that is meant to 'hover' between the ear level speakers and the overheads will tend to be too close to the ceiling if the overhead speakers have been goosed. Similarly, if a sound is meant to image halfway between the FL speaker and the Left Side Surround speaker, it will be out of position if the side surrounds are playing too loudly. The mixer assumes all the speakers are calibrated to the same SPL. You can test the levels with a SPL meter and a test disc. If you don't have a SPL meter you can use a phone App, since absolute accuracy isn't all that important if all you are doing is testing _relative _levels.


That comment about verifying SPL levels for all speakers individually, ideally with your bass management activated to remove bass energy that's not of interest when it's redirected to subs in your system, and turning off fancy processing (i.e. DEQ) is IMO the #1 takeaway of what you can do to make sure that your room is properly ready for Atmos. 

Even with my Trinnov toy, you're not really capturing the mixer's intent by just taking the levels you get out of your room EQ software/firmware for granted if you use bass mangement. At least as a starting point...

#2 is amiable tweeters and direct on-axis sound at MLP....




> Having said all that, remember it's _your _system, in _your _room, paid for with _your _money, so set it up to suit _you_. If you prefer the overheads raised by 3dB, then raise them by 3dB. Just be aware of what you are doing and any potential consequences, that's all.


 
Oh sure, it's preference at the end of the day. But IMO you start with reference as a baseline nd go from there...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Even with my Trinnov toy, you're not really capturing the mixer's intent by just taking the levels you get out of your room EQ software/firmware for granted if you use bass mangement.


I am not understanding your point here... can you elaborate please?


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> Ugh...I lost a multi quote reply to you and gene. Just know that we seem to agree.
> 
> The Rsl seemed to me a perfect marriage of things. The 15deg baffle will match my sloped ceiling of 10deg left to right. The great dispersion, and excellent CS made the decision easy.
> 
> Is this thread ask for my pics and sketches, or should I start a new one. Seems appt here?


Here is fine since it's an Atmos question.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not understanding your point here... can you elaborate please?


No I was referring to making sure that your speakers post cal are indeed capable of playing at the same SPL based on the level set, with bass management and room EQ enabled, before we play actual content. 

Meaning that if a mixer tends to, for example, have the top middles 3 db below, say, the top fronts, but the levels for the top middles were set by an Audyssey or other room EQ another -3 db below the top fronts when you test the speakers using pink noise and an SPL meter with bass management on (using whatever method you have to play pink noise with room EQ and bass management on), you’re actually not fully capturing how the soundfield is supposed to sound. At least as “reference”.

So I was agreeing with your point about speaker levels with Atmos. Make sense?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not understanding your point here... can you elaborate please?


He owns a Trinnov.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> He owns a Trinnov.


And the sky is blue, at least when clouds aren’t in the way. It’s not ALL about Trinnov, you know


----------



## thewonderer

I am in the final stages of installing my 4 ceiling speakers. I realised after tapping with my finger the ceiling plaster board that it sends a fair but of noise through to the bedroom above.

I figured I can squeeze in some wool insulation into the cavity using the 200mm hole for the speakers. Maybe 2 layers. Are there any issues with sounds quality with packing quite a bit of insulation above the speakers? They're polk mc60's. 

Was consider using the speaker box as a frame around the speaker and using some cotton sheeting around the speaker before putting the insulation on top of that. Don't want to muffle the sound.... 

I also found out that the walls have sound insulation in when I tired to push my yellow tongue down. Just bounced off the insulation 😞 not an easy job hiding and feeding wires. 

Any suggestions appreciated.


----------



## sid369

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> One other observation wrt to the issue of the overheads not being very 'obvious'. Try _upmixing_ a regular DTS-HD MA or TrueHD track with either Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural:X. On most movies, the upmixer will cause the overheads to make noise pretty much all the time, so the effect from above will be much more obvious than it is with most Atmos tracks (albeit not 'accurate' and, ultimately, much less satisfying). If you still can't hear the overheads making their contribution, then chances are something isn't right in the setup.
> 
> Lots of movies will give the overheads a good workout when using DSU or Neural:X, but if you have it, try the opening, pre-title sequence on the Blu-ray of *Spectre*. During the fight in the helicopter you will hear amazing overhead effects from the helicopter as it swooshes left and right, all around the room and over your head much of the time. A lot of people who have heard this in my HT comment on it and many say it is _better _than a true Atmos disc. Certainly, the upmixer does a fabulous job of extracting and steering the sounds.


I did raise my levels on the atmos speakers, keep in mind this is my first time setting up a HT. and on top of that I went with 5.1.2 so I am not going to say how much level i increased as I will be frowned upon, but I tested the spectre scene on amazon prime, it is showing a PCM input signal and I did have in movie - multi+ dolby surround, and yes that opening scene helicopter swooshing left and right were very obvious. Any other content that you would recommend on netflix or amazon prime that I can test by using the dolby surround umpire or DTS rural:X, by the way which between the two should be used?

I wonder what the implications would be for turning the levels up so high, it does sound alright for now.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Ok guys, at the risk of oversharing, I’m gonna bomb this thread with a pile of stuff. I’ve seen it repeated over and over that it’s harder to mess Atmos up than get it right. So...
Not sure how to ask my question but, here goes. 
My Rsl C34e’s just showed up today! I’ve pored over as much literature as I can find, and had decided on my locations. Except one thing. My ceiling has a 10deg rise from left to right. My mains are 8’-6” apart, so I’m using that as my Atmos spacing to maintain the “square” over my head. The problem is due to the rise, the square turns into a trapezoid when viewed from above, effectively shortening the distance between the top right front/rear Atmos speakers. So question one is, in the attached picture, where do I choose for the right side Atmos speakers to maintain the geometry? 1,2,3, or somewhere along the “2”axis?









Second question is tied to the first. 

In this picture, we’re looking at the back of the room, so the left side of the pic is the right side of the room(just worked out when I was doodling).








So, “C” is an imaginary ceiling height of 9’. This is derived from the height of the left side of my room. “E” is showing the 4.25’ distance from center to each of the Atmos locations, and illustrating the angle between the LP and speakers, on what would be a flat ceiling. 

“D” is actually my ceiling. As you can see, 4.25’ from center shortens the angle to and places that speaker at location “A”. To maintain the correct geometry to the LP, the speaker should be in location “B”, at 5.25’ but this places it outside of the imaginary line above the right front. 
So.... what should I do here? I have 12 can lights. So, do I have the speakers follow their “lines” and potentially mess up my experience, put them where they need to go and have them look random( don’t care too much), and have odd spacing with the lights. Waf is pretty high , and she doesn’t much care either way. From what I’ve read, it’s hard to get this wrong, BUT I only want to cut up my ceiling once. 
I emailed Dolby, but they informed me that they don’t have any direct user support. 
I will add pics of the room for reference. Pics or it didn’t happen, right? I can can doodle on the pics to show where I’ve picked as well. 
Thanks guys, I hope my doodles are clear enough. Am I splitting hairs?
Oh yeah, 7.3.4


----------



## Drew1204

Hi guys,

I just ordered 4 KEF CI200QR speakers for atmos!

I have a few questions regarding the best placement.

My room is a large room with vaulted ceilings. I am sitting horizontal with the vaulted ceiling so the speakers will be aimed towards me more than if they were flat. 

The front part of the room is 25 feet apart, but the main listening stage is 14 feet wide by about 25 feet long. Towards the back of the room, it is more narrow at 11 feet wide. I have side surround at 90 degrees and rear surround at about 135 degrees. 

At the MLP the ceiling is about 12-13+ feet high from my ears. (vaulted ceilings about 16 feet high)

I plan on placing the front height speakers at about 9 or 10 feet from the MLP, and I plan on placing the rear about 8 or 9 feet from the MLP.

I am confused on whether to put the front height speakers 4 feet from the walls, or 3.5 feet or 3 feet from the walls. If I do 4 feet, then the spread in the front will be 6 feet, 3.5 feet is 7 feet or 3 feet from the walls is 8 feet of spread. I know the KEF Ci200QR have really great dispersion, as well as my ceilings being 16+ feet high.

On the left side front and rear I can match the distances from the wall, either 3 feet, 3.5 feet or 4 feet. 

In the rear, the reason I want to go with 8 feet from the MLP is because there is a second wall in the rear that starts at about 9 feet back, so if I put the right rear height speaker 8 feet away I can get away from the start of that wall a bit. If I did 7 feet behind the MLP I could get even further away from the start of the wall. 6 feet to the rear, even further away from the wall, but 6 feet doesn't seem far enough away from the MLP with 16 feet ceilings. The main wall is 25 feet from the screen, or about 12-13 feet from the MLP.

For the right rear side I am going to try to place the right rear height in line with the right front height so you would be able to draw a rectangle and things would be spaced out equally. 

The rear is 11 feet wide instead of 14-- for the most part the best I can do is to go forward away from the right rear side wall otherwise the soundstage becomes too narrow since I heard you really need to be at least 3 feet from side walls. 

If I go 4 feet from the left side wall in for the left front and rear channel, and 1 foot to the right of the wall for the right rear height channel then the spread is 6 feet, same as the front and it is a matching rectangle. 

If I go 3.5 feet from the left side wall for the left front and rear channel, and 6 inches to the right of the wall for the right rear height channel the spread is 7 feet and matches the front height channels in a rectangle. 

If I went with 3 feet from the left rear wall, and 0 feet from the side wall on the right then the spread is 8 feet and matches the front in a rectangle (and went with say 7 feet from the MLP that would still get me about 2 feet from that right rear wall beginning).

So here are a few different options:

A) 4 feet from the front and rear left wall, 1 foot from the rear right channel wall = 6 foot spread.
B) 3.5 feet from the front and rear left wall, 6 inches from the rear right channel wall = 7 foot spread.
C) 3 feet from the front and rear left wall, 0 inches from the rear right channel wall = 8 foot spread. 

Then I have to figure out the distance to go from the MLP front to back. 

1) 8 feet forward, 8 feet back (this is 1 foot away from the right rear side wall corner)
2) 8 feet forward, 7 feet back (this is 2 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)
3) 8 feet forward, 6 feet back (this is 3 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

4) 9 feet forward, 8 feet back (this is 1 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)
5) 9 feet forward 7 feet back (this is 2 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)
6) 9 feet forward, 6 feet back (this is 3 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

7) 10 feet forward, 8 feet back(this is 1 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)
8) 10 feet forward, 7 feet back (this is 2 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)
9) 10 feet forward, 6 feet back (this is 3 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

I sit about 2 feet further from the front than I do the rear, and that rear corner wall starts 8.5 feet into the room from the rear. This is why I am leaning towards a more staggered layout with at least 1 foot further towards the front such as combination A5, A7, A8 or B2, B5, B7 or B8.

Which combination would be the best placement knowing the size of the room (ABC, 123456789), having the high ceilings with the wide dispersion KEF Ci200QR speakers? 

I left out the other 45 degree positions because 7 feet forward / back and 6 feet forward / back don't seem like enough distance for the room size but maybe I am wrong. 

EDIT: I think the Ci200QR have an adjustable tweeter so having that rear right height speaker being a bit closer to the wall might not be too big of a deal if I can adjust the tweeter to point towards the MLP and the angle of the vaulted ceiling also helps to point the speaker away from the wall as well. So maybe #7 , #8 or #4 could be best since they have the most distance front to back. Still not sure on A, B or C. 

Thank you for helping!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> No I was referring to making sure that your speakers post cal are indeed capable of playing at the same SPL based on the level set, with bass management and room EQ enabled, before we play actual content.
> 
> Meaning that if a mixer tends to, for example, have the top middles 3 db below, say, the top fronts, but the levels for the top middles were set by an Audyssey or other room EQ another -3 db below the top fronts when you test the speakers using pink noise and an SPL meter with bass management on (using whatever method you have to play pink noise with room EQ and bass management on), you’re actually not fully capturing how the soundfield is supposed to sound. At least as “reference”.
> 
> So I was agreeing with your point about speaker levels with Atmos. Make sense?


Not sure. Why would the mixer set one lot of speakers 3dB below the others? Post calibration all the speakers should read the same SPL. Most room EQ systems will set them pretty accurately IME.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> He owns a Trinnov.


LOL. That probably explains it then. No wonder I didn't understands his point. I own a Marantz


----------



## kbarnes701

thewonderer said:


> I am in the final stages of installing my 4 ceiling speakers. I realised after tapping with my finger the ceiling plaster board that it sends a fair but of noise through to the bedroom above.
> 
> I figured I can squeeze in some wool insulation into the cavity using the 200mm hole for the speakers. Maybe 2 layers. Are there any issues with sounds quality with packing quite a bit of insulation above the speakers? They're polk mc60's.
> 
> Was consider using the speaker box as a frame around the speaker and using some cotton sheeting around the speaker before putting the insulation on top of that. Don't want to muffle the sound....
> 
> I also found out that the walls have sound insulation in when I tired to push my yellow tongue down. Just bounced off the insulation 😞 not an easy job hiding and feeding wires.
> 
> Any suggestions appreciated.


I'd definitely see a doctor about the yellow tongue 

You won't get much sound attenuation no matter what you pack around the speakers TBH. The room above is always going to hear them.

If you get a decent set of wire fishing rods, you shouldn't have much trouble fishing the wires through the insulation in the walls. A bigger potential issue is if the builder put cross-braces between the uprights and you need to get the wire past those. There are loads of YouTube videos on wire fishing which should give you some ideas of the problems involved, along with some solutions.


----------



## kbarnes701

sid369 said:


> I did raise my levels on the atmos speakers, keep in mind this is my first time setting up a HT. and on top of that I went with 5.1.2 so I am not going to say how much level i increased as I will be frowned upon, but I tested the spectre scene on amazon prime, it is showing a PCM input signal and I did have in movie - multi+ dolby surround, and yes that opening scene helicopter swooshing left and right were very obvious. Any other content that you would recommend on netflix or amazon prime that I can test by using the dolby surround umpire or DTS rural:X, by the way which between the two should be used?


Most 'action' type movies will have a lot of content in the overheads when using the upmixers. Which you use is just personal preference as they both work slightly differently and you may prefer one to the other. I find that DSU is best overall but is less 'showy' than Neural:X. The latter is more aggressive than DSU and this is good for a quick demo but gets wearing for a whole movie, IME. YMMV.



sid369 said:


> I wonder what the implications would be for turning the levels up so high, it does sound alright for now.


Basically what I said in my earlier post: you might upset the 'balance' in the soundstage. But if it sounds good to you, then it is good. After prolonged listening you may find that the overheads are too prominent and you may feel the need to turn them down at that stage.


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> Thanks guys, I hope my doodles are clear enough. Am I splitting hairs?


Nice drawings etc - thanks. TBH, I wouldn't overthink this. For starters, there's nothing you can do about the ceiling - it is what it is. Second, a foot of distance is about 1ms of delay, which is likely inaudible anyway. Third, your room EQ will automatically adjust for the distance and level differences anyway. Just put the speakers where you plan to do and they will work fine IMO. Keep an eye on the recommended angles from MLP and try to stay within them - it doesn't look like that is going to be a big problem from the drawings. I'm sure you have seen the recommended angles diagram before but in case not, here it is again:










All rooms have compromises but remember what Dolby say about it being hard to get Atmos _not _to work!


----------



## T-Bone

Polyrythm1k said:


> Ok guys, at the risk of oversharing, I’m gonna bomb this thread with a pile of stuff. I’ve seen it repeated over and over that it’s harder to mess Atmos up than get it right. So...
> Not sure how to ask my question but, here goes.
> My Rsl C34e’s just showed up today! I’ve pored over as much literature as I can find, and had decided on my locations. Except one thing. My ceiling has a 10deg rise from left to right. My mains are 8’-6” apart, so I’m using that as my Atmos spacing to maintain the “square” over my head. The problem is due to the rise, the square turns into a trapezoid when viewed from above, effectively shortening the distance between the top right front/rear Atmos speakers. So question one is, in the attached picture, where do I choose for the right side Atmos speakers to maintain the geometry? 1,2,3, or somewhere along the “2”axis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second question is tied to the first.
> 
> In this picture, we’re looking at the back of the room, so the left side of the pic is the right side of the room(just worked out when I was doodling).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, “C” is an imaginary ceiling height of 9’. This is derived from the height of the left side of my room. “E” is showing the 4.25’ distance from center to each of the Atmos locations, and illustrating the angle between the LP and speakers, on what would be a flat ceiling.
> 
> “D” is actually my ceiling. As you can see, 4.25’ from center shortens the angle to and places that speaker at location “A”. To maintain the correct geometry to the LP, the speaker should be in location “B”, at 5.25’ but this places it outside of the imaginary line above the right front.
> So.... what should I do here? I have 12 can lights. So, do I have the speakers follow their “lines” and potentially mess up my experience, put them where they need to go and have them look random( don’t care too much), and have odd spacing with the lights. Waf is pretty high , and she doesn’t much care either way. From what I’ve read, it’s hard to get this wrong, BUT I only want to cut up my ceiling once.
> I emailed Dolby, but they informed me that they don’t have any direct user support.
> I will add pics of the room for reference. Pics or it didn’t happen, right? I can can doodle on the pics to show where I’ve picked as well.
> Thanks guys, I hope my doodles are clear enough. Am I splitting hairs?
> Oh yeah, 7.3.4


You may be overthinking it 🙂

Others can chime in if I'm wrong, but this is the way I see it. For the moment, forget that you have a sloped ceiling. And forget the trapezoid. From a top-down view, meaning you are actually above your ceiling looking down into your room, there is no notion of a sloped ceiling. You just have a simple two-dimensional View. So from the top down view, pick the Four Points where you want to mount your ceiling speakers.

I think it really is that simple. You just need to ensure that you are adhering to the Dolby specifications, as best you can. You're AVR will get the timing right because the distances will be slightly different to the listening position. But that is the job of your AVR to reconcile.

I think the bigger issue is based on the type of speaker mounting. Since you are going in-ceiling speakers, then the speakers on one side of the room will be pointing away from the listening position because of the slope... By 10 degrees according to your calculations.

But the 10° slope is not an issue at all IMO. Your speaker drivers are already angled. So I think all you have to do is rotate the ceiling speaker such that the drivers are pointing to the listening position. The 10° slope ceiling is not going to make any difference in your particular case I believe.

I hope that helps.

-T


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> He owns a Trinnov.





sdrucker said:


> And the sky is blue, at least when clouds aren’t in the way. It’s not ALL about Trinnov, you know


Is it true, Stu? Do you _really _own a Trinnov? :wink:


----------



## helvetica bold

Pretty cool little article on Netflix's AV Lab. Touches on Netflix's commitment to Atmos and Dolby Vision. 
https://hometheaterreview.com/behind-the-scenes-at-netflixs-av-lab/


----------



## amdar

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks gene...
> 
> Yes, I was very fortunate to be invited to Dolby's London HQ on two occasions. What I heard there also formed the basis of Atmos in my own HT.
> 
> Here are the reviews that you mention, of both visits:
> 
> Dolby Atmos For Home, Personal Views and Two Reviews of Experiences at Dolby London HQ.


Thanks Kbarnes701. I changed the amp assign to Front Height and Top middle as my seating area is very close to the back wall. Atmos sound is much better now.


----------



## tezster

helvetica bold said:


> Pretty cool little article on Netflix's AV Lab. Touches on Netflix's commitment to Atmos and Dolby Vision.
> https://hometheaterreview.com/behind-the-scenes-at-netflixs-av-lab/


Hopefully, this means more streaming devices currently on the market will start to support both Atmos + DV output within the Netflix App


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Most 'action' type movies will have a lot of content in the overheads when using the upmixers. Which you use is just personal preference as they both work slightly differently and you may prefer one to the other. I find that DSU is best overall but is less 'showy' than Neural:X. The latter is more aggressive than DSU and this is good for a quick demo but gets wearing for a whole movie, IME. YMMV.


Like you, I'v gone back and forth between Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X to matrix native 5.1 audio to 7.2.4. Also like you, I have come to prefer Dolby Surround most of the time. I have found that it does a consistent job of producing reasonably convincing immersive effects from native 5.1 sources. As is always the case, how good it sounds is a function of how good the basic sound design was.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Like you, I'v gone back and forth between Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X to matrix native 5.1 audio to 7.2.4. Also like you, I have come to prefer Dolby Surround most of the time. I have found that it does a consistent job of producing reasonably convincing immersive effects from native 5.1 sources. As is always the case, how good it sounds is a function of how good the basic sound design was.


Absolutely. Neural:X is great for when you want to demo 'overhead' effects, but I find it just too aggressive for regular use. DSU seems to be 'natural' and constantly amazes me at how well it extracts and steers.


----------



## gene4ht

gwsat said:


> Like you, I'v gone back and forth between Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X to matrix native 5.1 audio to 7.2.4. Also like you, I have come to prefer Dolby Surround most of the time. I have found that it does a consistent job of producing reasonably convincing immersive effects from native 5.1 sources. As is always the case, how good it sounds is a function of how good the basic sound design was.





kbarnes701 said:


> Absolutely. Neural:X is great for when you want to demo 'overhead' effects, but I find it just too aggressive for regular use. DSU seems to be 'natural' and constantly amazes me at how well it extracts and steers.


+1

I think it's a matter of personal taste and preference. I'm firmly in the DSU camp...for me..."natural" and "unobtrusive" are the perfect descriptors.


----------



## gwsat

gene4ht said:


> +1
> 
> I think it's a matter of personal taste and preference. I'm firmly in the DSU camp...for me..."natural" and "unobtrusive" are the perfect descriptors.


Using Dolby Surround or Neural:X to matrix 5.1 to 7.2.4 has another benefit, I think. To my ears at least it not only provides some faux immersion to 5.1 sources, it makes the surround effects better too.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Not sure. Why would the mixer set one lot of speakers 3dB below the others? Post calibration all the speakers should read the same SPL. Most room EQ systems will set them pretty accurately IME.


PM sent. I'll try to explain more privately.


----------



## gene4ht

gwsat said:


> Using Dolby Surround or Neural:X to matrix 5.1 to 7.2.4 has another benefit, I think. To my ears at least it not only provides some faux immersion to 5.1 sources, it makes the surround effects better too.


Agreed...and regardless of preference, both upmixers serve to further our appreciation and enjoyment of 3D sound.


----------



## howard68

Atmos pre rendering 7.4! !!!
Hi all 
There is much talk in the denon 8500 forum about thor3 and star wars being mixed and pre rendering to only 7.1.4
If this is true and becomes the normal mix 
we will never get passed 7.1.4 and the denon 8500 will not have a way tp use its 9.2.4 or 7.2.6 
I hope people will make it known that we don't want Dolby Atmos Lite


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice drawings etc - thanks. TBH, I wouldn't overthink this. For starters, there's nothing you can do about the ceiling - it is what it is. Second, a foot of distance is about 1ms of delay, which is likely inaudible anyway. Third, your room EQ will automatically adjust for the distance and level differences anyway. Just put the speakers where you plan to do and they will work fine IMO. Keep an eye on the recommended angles from MLP and try to stay within them - it doesn't look like that is going to be a big problem from the drawings. I'm sure you have seen the recommended angles diagram before but in case not, here it is again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All rooms have compromises but remember what Dolby say about it being hard to get Atmos _not _to work!




Thanks Keith! I do have a catalog of images, and have read the atmos white papers as well as the very in depth guide. I appreciate your time and input. I think my takeaway here is, my gut is right and I should proceed as planned. Then I can focus on important stuff. Like building my library!!! And enjoying it all. 
Thanks again.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

T-Bone said:


> You may be overthinking it 🙂
> 
> Others can chime in if I'm wrong, but this is the way I see it. For the moment, forget that you have a sloped ceiling. And forget the trapezoid. From a top-down view, meaning you are actually above your ceiling looking down into your room, there is no notion of a sloped ceiling. You just have a simple two-dimensional View. So from the top down view, pick the Four Points where you want to mount your ceiling speakers.
> 
> I think it really is that simple. You just need to ensure that you are adhering to the Dolby specifications, as best you can. You're AVR will get the timing right because the distances will be slightly different to the listening position. But that is the job of your AVR to reconcile.
> 
> I think the bigger issue is based on the type of speaker mounting. Since you are going in-ceiling speakers, then the speakers on one side of the room will be pointing away from the listening position because of the slope... By 10 degrees according to your calculations.
> 
> But the 10° slope is not an issue at all IMO. Your speaker drivers are already angled. So I think all you have to do is rotate the ceiling speaker such that the drivers are pointing to the listening position. The 10° slope ceiling is not going to make any difference in your particular case I believe.
> 
> I hope that helps.
> 
> -T




Thanks t-bone,
I appreciate the input. As I mentioned to Keith, it sounds like I’m going on the right direction already, and you guys have confirmed many of my thoughts. Agreed about speaker angle. When I spoke with Joe at Rsl , we both agreed that aiming them straight down would orient them basically flat. I may experiment, just because I’ll have to know. Lol.


----------



## sdrucker

howard68 said:


> Atmos pre rendering 7.4! !!!
> Hi all
> There is much talk in the denon 8500 forum about thor3 and star wars being mixed and pre rendering to only 7.1.4
> If this is true and becomes the normal mix
> we will never get passed 7.1.4 and the denon 8500 will not have a way tp use its 9.2.4 or 7.2.6
> I hope people will make it known that we don't want Dolby Atmos Lite


As one of the commenters on the Denon X8500 thread, let's take a deep breath for a minute.

So far, we're taking about a handful of films that are "suspect" as 7.1.4 only Atmos mixes, i.e. that won't scale further to the number of speakers you have as technology improves (or more people can afford a Trinnov Altitude ). As near as we can tell, the vast majority of released BD and UHD films with Atmos make variable use of 7.1.4+wides, top middles, etc. according to the taste of the mixer, NOT a hard-wired 7.1.4 "print to physical channel" limit. 

As I stated on the thread, The Last Jedi is just one movie that's apparently "printed" to 7.1.4. Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and Cars 3 have also been mentioned as not using top middles or wides at this point in time. Another movie, Wonder Woman, which appeared to be 7.1.4 only, has sporadically used, infrequent content in wides, but is essentially a "blink or you'll miss it" Atmos release beyond that 7.1.4.

I'd put the care that a mixer puts in how ambient effects, panning, and movement around the soundstage ahead of the worry about a limit that only a few people can detect consistently on a small number of discs. Likewise having a quality set of speakers that allow you to enjoy at least 7.1.4, with on-axis response aimed at MLP, before worrying incessantly about a "first world problem". At least until we have further idea of whether these are isolated cases from one or two studios or it's become a trend for a large number of films TBD.

More to the point is also the degree to which your movies are upmixed (which don't use wides currently anyway, except for Neural:X with the proper configuration within the 11 channel limit) and just what you like. I wouldn't let this issue stop you from buying the best 7.1.4 to 9.1.4/7.1.6 or better processor that meets your budget .


----------



## UK Dreamer

....but it’s that last little bit that is worrying me now....

I have wired for 9.x.4, and was fully expecting to make use of all of my speaker count - not just a subset. While this may get resolved - eventually - I am now beginning to second guess myself wrt which processor I should opt for.

If there are studios out there where ‘printing’ 7.1.4 becomes the norm, I am wondering whether I’d be better served ‘downgrading’ my system to 7.x.4 - it sure opens up many more possibilities, processor wise.

The rumour that DTS are going to up their 11 channel limit on Neural X is just that - a rumour, so to pay nearly double the price for a 13 channel processor over similarly spec’d 11 channel processors in the hope that DTS Neural X will allow full use of a system is a hell of a gamble - and this is before the price hikes from D&M have taken place!

I am amazed that Dolby even allow the ‘printing’ of 7.1.4 material, it pretty much goes against the grain of what Atmos was supposed to be about. I would have thought that the likes of D&M, and others that are sure to follow, with large channel count processors/amps would be applying pressure via Dolby to halt the practice - after all, what would be the point of such high-end processors if they become neutered by the studios actions? The high count processors, without alternative upmixing, would become redundant.

IMO

So, I’m left wondering whether to buy a simple 11 channel processor, and wait it out for a year or two before taking the plunge with a higher channel count - and this, despite being a huge advocate and, up until now, fan of the Marantz 8805, which I had always planned on installing in my cinema (to the point of actually starting the owners thread over on the UK AVF site)! I’m wondering whether I’d be better served just buying a cheapy 7704 or even the NAD 758 as a pre/pro and hanging back on the larger expense of the Marantz or RMC.


----------



## kbarnes701

UK Dreamer said:


> So, I’m left wondering whether to buy a simple 11 channel processor, and wait it out for a year or two before taking the plunge with a higher channel count - and this, despite being a huge advocate and, up until now, fan of the Marantz 8805, which I had always planned on installing in my cinema (to the point of actually starting the owners thread over on the UK AVF site)! I’m wondering whether I’d be better served just buying a cheapy 7704 or even the NAD 758 as a pre/pro and hanging back on the larger expense of the Marantz or RMC.


Being an early adopter of anything always carries a risk. If you want to be totally sure then you have to buy a 7.x.4 unit. OTOH if you want to have the best that _might _come along in the future, then you have to take the risk that it may never happen. Only the individual can decide where his priorities lie.

Personally, I agree with Stuart above - at this time it is not something worth worrying about. It seems that there are a small handful of discs limited to 7.x.4 and we have no way of knowing if this trend will continue or not, hence my comments above. I agree with you that it is contrary to the whole concept of Atmos, which was designed as a scalable solution which will use the speakers it finds in the system (up to its limit). As such I'd be surprised, and dismayed, to see the practice of limiting it to 7.x.4 become the norm.

It isn't something that will concern me TBH. I have a 7.x.4 system and am fairly convinced that unless the room is much huger than even large typical HTs, no additional speakers are required in order to provide a seamless surround sound experience (assuming proper setup, high quality speakers etc of course). I too prewired for additional ceiling speakers and wide speakers, but since completing the HT I just fail to see what improvements more speakers would bring me. This may be a 'blind spot' in me of course and many people argue persuasively that more speakers add to the seamlessness of the surround sound. However, the size of the room is critical - adding more and more speakers until they are practically touching each other just doesn't seem, to me, the way to go.

Having said all that, basically I agree with your sentiments - Atmos for the home should not arbitrarily be restricted by whoever takes the decision to 'print' the Blu-rays.


----------



## cfraser

kbarnes701 said:


> ...I agree with you that it is contrary to the whole concept of Atmos, which was designed as a scalable solution which will use the speakers it finds in the system (up to its limit). As such I'd be surprised, and dismayed, to see the practice of limiting it to 7.x.4 become the norm....


I was wanting to ask about this, so thanks for mentioning it. I don't understand how something that has assigned/fixed channels is in fact still Atmos, as we were meant to understand it. Except for the fact that Dolby can call whatever it wants Atmos, I guess.

7.1.4 "Atmos" with assigned channels is really 11.1 AFAIC.


----------



## Nima

That's another reason for me to stick with my planned 5.1.4 + Wides configuration.


----------



## kbarnes701

cfraser said:


> I was wanting to ask about this, so thanks for mentioning it. I don't understand how something that has assigned/fixed channels is in fact still Atmos, as we were meant to understand it. Except for the fact that Dolby can call whatever it wants Atmos, I guess.
> 
> 7.1.4 "Atmos" with assigned channels is really 11.1 AFAIC.


Dolby didn't make the decision not to do positional rendering nor the decision on how many outputs the AVRs would have - these were decisions made by the AVR manufacturers themselves. I'd love, for example, proper positional rendering based on the info collected by the setup routine. That would solve so many of the 'where should I install my speakers' issues. But I digress...

Because it is scalable, if Atmos finds you have 7.1.6 then it will render to 7.1.6. If it finds you have 9.1.6 then it will render to that, up to however many speakers it permits - I forget, is it 34 in home Atmos? Atmos broke the channels/speakers link completely which is one of the reasons it is such a big advance. In the old days, each speaker required a 'channel' so a two channel system (stereo) had two speakers, a 5 channel system (5.1) had 5 speakers etc. Now, that link has been broken - we have Atmos and it will use however many speakers it finds in the system, from two to 34 or whatever the limit is.


----------



## kbarnes701

cfraser said:


> 7.1.4 "Atmos" with assigned channels is really 11.1 AFAIC.


It isn't because if you get more speaker, say 9.x.6, then it will use all of them***. An 11.1 system can only use 11.1 no matter how many more speakers you add.

*** If your processor supports it of course.


----------



## sid369

Is there a thread or site where it lists all the movies that gives you enhanced listening experience using either DSU or DTS-X Neural.


----------



## kbarnes701

On the subject of 11.1, last night I watched the UHD disc of *The Bourne Legacy.* I am more enthusiastic about this movie than most, including almost all the critics, and I have double dipped it as I get more and more into UHD/HDR/WCG. The upgraded soundtrack isn't Atmos, it is DTS:X. But boy - what a fabulous effort it is. It totally monsters the (already very good) DTS-HD MA track on the regular Blu-ray. Just everything about it is stellar. The score, the effects, the explosions, the action scenes - all have an amazing extra vitality thanks to this upgraded track. And the overheads get to play more or less right through the movie. The score is beautifully handled too - it is incredibly powerful but never verges into the aggressive. Highly recommended sonic experience.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> On the subject of 11.1, last night I watched the UHD disc of *The Bourne Legacy.* I am more enthusiastic about this movie than most, including almost all the critics, and I have double dipped it as I get more and more into UHD/HDR/WCG. The upgraded soundtrack isn't Atmos, it is DTS:X. But boy - what a fabulous effort it is. It totally monsters the (already very good) DTS-HD MA track on the regular Blu-ray. Just everything about it is stellar. The score, the effects, the explosions, the action scenes - all have an amazing extra vitality thanks to this upgraded track. And the overheads get to play more or less right through the movie. The score is beautifully handled too - it is incredibly powerful but never verges into the aggressive. Highly recommended sonic experience.


I share your enthusiasm for _The Bourne Legacy._ In fact, in some ways I like it better than some of the Jason Bourne centric films. Its weakness is that its complex, "science" oriented plot (Who knew about "Blues" and :Reds?") requires more than ordinary dedication to penetrate. Once that's done, though, it it a treat.

I bought the upgrade of _The Bourne Legacy_ from BD quality to UHD HDR quality from the Kaleidescape store and downloaded it to my Kscape Strato. Although Kscape downloads are bit for bit copies of the files encoded on the corresponding disks, the studio gave Kscape only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio with the UHD HDR version of the film. No matter, when matrixed to 7.2.4 using the Dolby Surround upmixer, it sounds thrilling on my system. I know I am not quite getting the quality DTS:X MA could deliver but the film's sound design is so wonderful, it is a treat anyway. This all goes to prove what we have discussed before: Sound design is the most important element making up a movie's soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I share your enthusiasm for _The Bourne Legacy._ In fact, in some ways I like it better than some of the Jason Bourne centric films. Its weakness is that its complex, "science" oriented plot (Who knew about "Blues" and :Reds?") requires more than ordinary dedication to penetrate. Once that's done, though, it it a treat.


Good heavens... that's TWO of us who like it then  Yeah, I can't see why it was panned so universally. The story isn't bad, the action is good and the score is wonderful. Acting is OK too - with many of the usual Bourne lot plus Ed Norton, Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner of course. And the sound on this new DTS:X mix is just sublime. Nuanced, powerful, explosive when required, perfect dialogue prioritisation.



gwsat said:


> I bought the upgrade of _The Bourne Legacy_ from BD quality to UHD HDR quality from the Kaleidescape store and downloaded it to my Kscape Strato. Although Kscape downloads are bit for bit copies of the files encoded on the corresponding disks, the studio gave Kscape only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio with the UHD HDR version of the film.


That is rather mean of them.




gwsat said:


> No matter, when matrixed to 7.2.4 using the Dolby Surround upmixer, it sounds thrilling on my system. I know I am not quite getting the quality DTS:X MA could deliver but the film's sound design is so wonderful, it is a treat anyway. This all goes to prove what we have discussed before: Sound design is the most important element making up a movie's soundtrack.


Yep. The Bourne movies are good for sound. Even the first one was pretty good if my memory serves and that is getting on for 20 years old now. IU do like these movies. I may have to double dip the entire set.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> (Who knew about "Blues" and :Reds?")


Just spotted that... Blues and Greens for Aaron Cross. Blues and Reds are for Thomas Anderson (better known as Neo)  Now there's a series of movies that could benefit from a UHD/Atmos makeover. I think the first one got one in fact but not the other two. ICBW


----------



## cfraser

kbarnes701 said:


> It isn't because if you get more speaker, say 9.x.6, then it will use all of them***. An 11.1 system can only use 11.1 no matter how many more speakers you add.
> 
> *** If your processor supports it of course.


But I thought some people were saying that some new Atmos mixes were "fixed" to 7.1.4 (those are the only ones I was talking about), as shown on some disc cases. Can you explain this, if it's not too much trouble? I obviously must be misunderstanding something about this...because it seems like 11 speakers, in an "understood" configuration just as 5.1 and 7.1 configurations are "understood". I also thought some people said any speakers more than the 11 wouldn't get used, and thus all the "consternation" for those who can do 13+ for Atmos.


----------



## batpig

Keith may not be aware of what is a fairly recent development (well, really it's our knowledge of it that is recent). A few selected quotes below (mostly FilmMixer, who is a unique authority on the topoc) from the Denon AVR-X8500H thread where this has been a recent topic of discussion (since this is where people are experimenting with 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 speaker layouts). Also credit to people like Stu who have Trinnovs and can monitor the output meters and verify whether there's content in every channel.

The TL;DR my understanding of the current situation is that certain studios, on certain titles, are "pre-printing" the Atmos mixes as 7.1.4 which are essentially 7.1 mixes with 4 fixed objects for height effects. For example, Star Wars: The Last Jedi when played back on a 9.1.6 setup will have absolutely 0 activity in the FW or TM speakers. The 4 fixed object outputs are assigned to a specific speaker location, so even if something pans from Top Front to Top Rear it will NOT make noise in the Top Middle speaker as it moves through that point in space. This seems to be the explanation for some Atmos movies that have inexplicably little (or no) activity in the FW / TM speakers (like Wonder Woman, GotG2). 



FilmMixer said:


> It is my understanding that Dolby added the ability in the last year or so (at least that is when I first heard about it) to render out an Atmos mix in 7.1.4 "channels," which would really be the equivalent of 4 static overhead objects in addition to the 7.1 base layer. Similar to how a majority of DTS:X tracks have been delivered so far.
> 
> My loose understanding is that they added this new functionality, alongside a new way to "wrap" the audio into a single file, in order to be able to move Atmos mixes around in the same way as a channel based 5.1 mix (i.e. you can take the new file and drop it directly onto a Pro Tools session and it opens as 12 mono channels..).
> 
> This would/does greatly simply the workflow for an OTT/streaming/broadcast service.... I would surmise it was necessary to move the codec froward as AC-4 and live applications come into play over the next couple of years...
> 
> It very well may be that Disney decided to render out the Atmos mix on the title being discussed... if so I could speculate that they are doing so in making pre-emptive plans for their streaming service...
> 
> I must be clear that my last 2 statements are PURE SPECULATION and I am not stating that the title in question is, indeed, a 7.1.4 channel render.. but I do know that is now a possibility with the codec.





sdurani said:


> Predictability. For low bandwidth uses, being able to cap the bitrate at a defined number is helpful. No surprises, like suddenly going from 2 objects to 14 objects. One way to do that is to pre-render to a fixed number of channels that doesn't change over the duration of the program. Once you have printed the soundtrack to X.x.X number of channels, you can do a lossy encode for streaming/broadcast/cable/satellite and a lossless encode of BD & UHD.





FilmMixer said:


> Just to be clear there is no extra mixing involved.
> 
> It simply is another step during delivery/“mastering”.... it wouldn’t change the mix process.
> 
> That’s now (with this development) the beauty of both immersive formats... mix once, deliver as needed....
> 
> You still mix/record bed and objects with metadata, regardless of how it is to be delivered.
> 
> I also believe a handful of Netflix shows have also been delivered as renders, but it is my understanding that there were delivered as 9.1.6.
> 
> I didn’t really know this was starting to become common on optical media.... I expected it/am not surprised for streaming services.





sdurani said:


> Objects can be assigned locations in 3D space (x,y,z coordinates) or speaker locations (TF, TR, etc). If they're assigned a speaker location, then they'll play from wherever that speaker is placed (no need to use the "snap to" feature).





FilmMixer said:


> I did a little research today.
> 
> It looks as if Universal and WB have also been delivering this way on certain titles. So Disney isn’t alone as I found out. That is what my source told me, and he is someone who was very high up at one of these studies. He would know...
> 
> Just to be clear...
> 
> These are studio decisions... the addition of the functionality is important for work flow moving forward..... what a studio does with those tools is their decision.
> 
> The only thing I can suggest is to let the studios know you won’t support their titles if they continue to do this.
> 
> As consumers we can express our gripes with our wallets.


----------



## sdrucker

To clarify one point in Batpig’s summary of the non-use of speakers beyond 7.1.4:
The Last Jedi - zero use of FWs or TMs
GotG2 - zero use of FWs, moderate (i.e. sporadic ambient or sound effects) use of TMs
Wonder Woman - extremely short (1-5 seconds at a time) use of FWs, zero use of TMs
Thor Ragnarok - zero use of FWs or TMs, mentioned by other Trinnov users on the Altitude thread


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Disappointing state of affairs to say the least.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> . I'd love, for example, proper positional rendering based on the info collected by the setup routine. That would solve so many of the 'where should I install my speakers' issues. But I digress....


Yes, imagine if the calibration mic was actually a, um pentaphonic 3D mic [I made that up]. You set up all your speakers in really rough approximate positions and then the system pings the speakers and triangulates where they are and it remaps where objects go during play back. Cool. "Dolby Atmos PRO", _coming next year to a home theater near you _ [fingers crossed]


----------



## gakbw

Hello All, I am using rap 1580 + RMB 1585 for my 5.2.4 HT configuration, RMB 1585 5 channels amp using it for front towers, center and front atmos channels, Rap 1580 using it for rear surround channels and rear atmos channels! Please see the attached RAP 1580 settings screen shot, we have Ceiling front right and Ceiling front left options are showing in the rap settings! But my front atmos speakers connected to center back right and center back left! And my rear atmos speakers connected to Ceiling rear right and Ceiling rear left! But my concern is the same way my front atmos speakers also needs to connect Ceiling front right and Ceiling frony left correct? But my installer says Rap 1580 does n’t have ceiling 4 atmos channels options to connect, So it does not matter by names But speakers does the same sound even we connected front atmos speakers to center back right and left! I would like to check with group what ever my Installer explanation is correct?


----------



## Drew1204

Hi guys,



I just ordered 4 KEF CI200QR speakers for atmos!



I have a few questions regarding the best placement.



My room is a large room with vaulted ceilings. I am sitting horizontal with the vaulted ceiling so the speakers will be aimed towards me more than if they were flat. 



The front part of the room is 25 feet apart, but the main listening stage is 14 feet wide by about 25 feet long. Towards the back of the room, it is more narrow at 11 feet wide. I have side surround at 90 degrees and rear surround at about 135 degrees. 



At the MLP the ceiling is about 12-13+ feet high from my ears. (vaulted ceilings about 16 feet high)



I plan on placing the front height speakers at about 9 or 10 feet from the MLP, and I plan on placing the rear about 8 or 9 feet from the MLP.



I am confused on whether to put the front height speakers 4 feet from the walls, or 3.5 feet or 3 feet from the walls. If I do 4 feet, then the spread in the front will be 6 feet, 3.5 feet is 7 feet or 3 feet from the walls is 8 feet of spread. I know the KEF Ci200QR have really great dispersion, as well as my ceilings being 16+ feet high.



On the left side front and rear I can match the distances from the wall, either 3 feet, 3.5 feet or 4 feet. 



In the rear, the reason I want to go with 8 feet from the MLP is because there is a second wall in the rear that starts at about 9 feet back, so if I put the right rear height speaker 8 feet away I can get away from the start of that wall a bit. If I did 7 feet behind the MLP I could get even further away from the start of the wall. 6 feet to the rear, even further away from the wall, but 6 feet doesn't seem far enough away from the MLP with 16 feet ceilings. The main wall is 25 feet from the screen, or about 12-13 feet from the MLP.



For the right rear side I am going to try to place the right rear height in line with the right front height so you would be able to draw a rectangle and things would be spaced out equally. 



The rear is 11 feet wide instead of 14-- for the most part the best I can do is to go forward away from the right rear side wall otherwise the soundstage becomes too narrow since I heard you really need to be at least 3 feet from side walls. 



If I go 4 feet from the left side wall in for the left front and rear channel, and 1 foot to the right of the wall for the right rear height channel then the spread is 6 feet, same as the front and it is a matching rectangle. 



If I go 3.5 feet from the left side wall for the left front and rear channel, and 6 inches to the right of the wall for the right rear height channel the spread is 7 feet and matches the front height channels in a rectangle. 



If I went with 3 feet from the left rear wall, and 0 feet from the side wall on the right then the spread is 8 feet and matches the front in a rectangle (and went with say 7 feet from the MLP that would still get me about 2 feet from that right rear wall beginning).



So here are a few different options:



A) 4 feet from the front and rear left wall, 1 foot from the rear right channel wall = 6 foot spread.

B) 3.5 feet from the front and rear left wall, 6 inches from the rear right channel wall = 7 foot spread.

C) 3 feet from the front and rear left wall, 0 inches from the rear right channel wall = 8 foot spread. 



Then I have to figure out the distance to go from the MLP front to back. 



1) 8 feet forward, 8 feet back (this is 1 foot away from the right rear side wall corner)

2) 8 feet forward, 7 feet back (this is 2 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

3) 8 feet forward, 6 feet back (this is 3 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)



4) 9 feet forward, 8 feet back (this is 1 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

5) 9 feet forward 7 feet back (this is 2 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

6) 9 feet forward, 6 feet back (this is 3 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)



7) 10 feet forward, 8 feet back(this is 1 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

8) 10 feet forward, 7 feet back (this is 2 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)

9) 10 feet forward, 6 feet back (this is 3 feet away from the right rear side wall corner)



I sit about 2 feet further from the front than I do the rear, and that rear corner wall starts 8.5 feet into the room from the rear. This is why I am leaning towards a more staggered layout with at least 1 foot further towards the front such as combination A5, A7, A8 or B2, B5, B7 or B8.



Which combination would be the best placement knowing the size of the room (ABC, 123456789), having the high ceilings with the wide dispersion KEF Ci200QR speakers? 



I left out the other 45 degree positions because 7 feet forward / back and 6 feet forward / back don't seem like enough distance for the room size but maybe I am wrong. 



EDIT: I think the Ci200QR have an adjustable tweeter so having that rear right height speaker being a bit closer to the wall might not be too big of a deal if I can adjust the tweeter to point towards the MLP and the angle of the vaulted ceiling also helps to point the speaker away from the wall as well. So maybe #7 , #8 or #4 could be best since they have the most distance front to back. Still not sure on A, B or C. Leaning towards 3.5 - 4 feet from side walls for 6-7 feet of L to R distance. 



Thank you for helping!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Keith may not be aware of what is a fairly recent development (well, really it's our knowledge of it that is recent). A few selected quotes below (mostly FilmMixer, who is a unique authority on the topoc) from the Denon AVR-X8500H thread where this has been a recent topic of discussion (since this is where people are experimenting with 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 speaker layouts). Also credit to people like Stu who have Trinnovs and can monitor the output meters and verify whether there's content in every channel.
> 
> The TL;DR my understanding of the current situation is that certain studios, on certain titles, are "pre-printing" the Atmos mixes as 7.1.4 which are essentially 7.1 mixes with 4 fixed objects for height effects. For example, Star Wars: The Last Jedi when played back on a 9.1.6 setup will have absolutely 0 activity in the FW or TM speakers. The 4 fixed object outputs are assigned to a specific speaker location, so even if something pans from Top Front to Top Rear it will NOT make noise in the Top Middle speaker as it moves through that point in space. This seems to be the explanation for some Atmos movies that have inexplicably little (or no) activity in the FW / TM speakers (like Wonder Woman, GotG2).


Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to compile those quotes. Interesting development. I can't say it is something I am going to lose much sleep over - Atmos has revolutionised my listening pleasure, regardless of how it is being delivered.

EDIT: Of course, this is easy for me to say as I don't have Top Middle speakers and I don't have Wide speakers (just the wiring for them). I guess if I had installed these speakers and then discovered that some Atmos movies don't actually use them, I'd think a little differently about it


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Yes, imagine if the calibration mic was actually a, um pentaphonic 3D mic [I made that up]. You set up all your speakers in really rough approximate positions and then the system pings the speakers and triangulates where they are and it remaps where objects go during play back. Cool. "Dolby Atmos PRO", _coming next year to a home theater near you _ [fingers crossed]


Yes, in the very early days we did think that it was going to work that way and there was much disappointment expressed in this thread when it was discovered that the AVR manufacturers had decided that, after all, we were to put our overhead speakers in pre-determined positions to fit in with the AVR, rather than the AVR fitting in with our speakers. On reflection, it isn't something that has worried me much, since first of all we had been doing it that way for years with our 7.1 systems and second, the result was stellar in any case. But yes, it would be a good step forward if the AVR makers did allow proper positional rendering. I'm not going to hold my breath though...


----------



## Nima

sdrucker said:


> To clarify one point in Batpig’s summary of the non-use of speakers beyond 7.1.4:
> The Last Jedi - zero use of FWs or TMs
> GotG2 - zero use of FWs, moderate (i.e. sporadic ambient or sound effects) use of TMs
> Wonder Woman - extremely short (1-5 seconds at a time) use of FWs, zero use of TMs
> Thor Ragnarok - zero use of FWs or TMs, mentioned by other Trinnov users on the Altitude thread


What about that special configuration 5.1.4 + wides (as detailed in that specific thread) where the wides and rears form a surround array. Has anyone tested those movies with that configuration?


----------



## pasender91

Sorry Nima, but as Sdrucker mentioned FW are silent on those movies, that includes your configuration as well


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Keith may not be aware of what is a fairly recent development (well, really it's our knowledge of it that is recent). A few selected quotes below (mostly FilmMixer, who is a unique authority on the topoc) from the Denon AVR-X8500H thread where this has been a recent topic of discussion (since this is where people are experimenting with 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 speaker layouts). Also credit to people like Stu who have Trinnovs and can monitor the output meters and verify whether there's content in every channel.
> 
> The TL;DR my understanding of the current situation is that certain studios, on certain titles, are "pre-printing" the Atmos mixes as 7.1.4 which are essentially 7.1 mixes with 4 fixed objects for height effects. For example, Star Wars: The Last Jedi when played back on a 9.1.6 setup will have absolutely 0 activity in the FW or TM speakers. The 4 fixed object outputs are assigned to a specific speaker location, so even if something pans from Top Front to Top Rear it will NOT make noise in the Top Middle speaker as it moves through that point in space. This seems to be the explanation for some Atmos movies that have inexplicably little (or no) activity in the FW / TM speakers (like Wonder Woman, GotG2).


Wow, this is really bad news for enthusiasts and AVR/processor manufacturers trying to sell 9.x.6 or higher speaker channel counts.

Do we know how many discs and streaming titles are affected?

"Voting with your wallet" probably doesn't work as streaming is (becoming) the driving factor.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

batpig said:


> Keith may not be aware of what is a fairly recent development (well, really it's our knowledge of it that is recent). A few selected quotes below (mostly FilmMixer, who is a unique authority on the topoc) from the Denon AVR-X8500H thread where this has been a recent topic of discussion (since this is where people are experimenting with 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 speaker layouts). Also credit to people like Stu who have Trinnovs and can monitor the output meters and verify whether there's content in every channel.


How does this affect users who are doing the FH, RH Dolby Atmos approach with no in-ceiling speakers? Will the content slated for TF/TR be steered to FH/RH?

I see in my Marantz AV8805 manual that with a Dolby Atmos input, there is supposed to be content output in the FW channels. Is this correct? If the DA mix does not include content in the FWs, can the Dolby upmixer be used to create this content or no? 

Just installed FWs. Hmph!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess if I had installed these speakers and then discovered that some Atmos movies don't actually use them, I'd think a little differently about it


Imagine if you'd installed 30+ speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Nima said:


> What about that special configuration 5.1.4 + wides (as detailed in that specific thread) where the wides and rears form a surround array.


In those situations, the Side channels are split to the Surround speakers and Wide speakers, so the Wides are constantly active (with Side channel content, not Wides content).


----------



## Selden Ball

JonnyFive54950 said:


> How does this affect users who are doing the FH, RH Dolby Atmos approach with no in-ceiling speakers? Will the content slated for TF/TR be steered to FH/RH?
> 
> I see in my Marantz AV8805 manual that with a Dolby Atmos input, there is supposed to be content output in the FW channels. Is this correct?


If objects are defined by the person who mixed the soundtrack to have locations in the vicinity of the Front Wide positions, then yes.


> If the DA mix does not include content in the FWs, can the Dolby upmixer be used to create this content or no?
> 
> Just installed FWs. Hmph!


Unfortunately, no.

Dolby Surround cannot be applied to Atmos soundtracks. By definition, Atmos uses all of the available speakers, leaving nothing for the upmixer to do. The audio processor has no way to know that a particular soundtrack doesn't actually position sound objects where they would make use of all of the speakers.


----------



## kingwiggi

JonnyFive54950 said:


> How does this affect users who are doing the FH, RH Dolby Atmos approach with no in-ceiling speakers? Will the content slated for TF/TR be steered to FH/RH?


From what I heard and saw on the Altitude meters the steering from TR to RH worked fine whilst watching THOR Ragnorok 7.1.4. I need to re-watch SW TLJ with the meters up to see what happens there.

I have TF, TM & RH installed in my room.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Imagine if you'd installed 30+ speakers.


Then I would be incandescent in my First World Problem ranting I am sure 

Do you think there is any advantage in a HT to having so many speakers? I am unconvinced but would value your view. My take on it is that very few HTs are big enough to warrant it, and while I agree with the batpig's famous remark that "mo' speakers = mo better", he made that remark in the context, IIRC, of installing four on the ceiling not two. The size of the room must surely be relevant, in that the benefit of multiple speakers will diminish as the room gets smaller? Or is it that it is always going to be better to have a physical speaker where a phantom would otherwise image? I can see the logic of that, but we have had stereo with a phantom center for decades and, if properly set up, the phantom center is rock-solid image-wise. Interesting.


----------



## JonnyFive54950

Selden Ball said:


> Dolby Surround cannot be applied to Atmos soundtracks. By definition, Atmos uses all of the available speakers, leaving nothing for the upmixer to do. The audio processor has no way to know that a particular soundtrack doesn't actually position sound objects where they would make use of all of the speakers.


I see in the AV8805 manual that Dolby Surround upmixer can be applied to a multi channel PCM signal. So what if I had the player do the decoding and export PCM, then apply the upmixer? I wonder if this will activate the FWs?


----------



## Selden Ball

JonnyFive54950 said:


> I see in the AV8805 manual that Dolby Surround upmixer can be applied to a multi channel PCM signal. So what if I had the player do the decoding and export PCM, then apply the upmixer? I wonder if this will activate the FWs?


Unfortunately, no.

The Dolby Surround upmixer explicitly excludes the Front Wide speakers. 

The DTS Neural:X upixer does make use of the Front Wides, but, of course, upmixing a multichannel PCM soundtrack won't reproduce the experience you'd get from the corresponding Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## batpig

Nima said:


> What about that special configuration 5.1.4 + wides (as detailed in that specific thread) where the wides and rears form a surround array. Has anyone tested those movies with that configuration?





pasender91 said:


> Sorry Nima, but as Sdrucker mentioned FW are silent on those movies, that includes your configuration as well


pasender -- that's not correct. When you drop the SB speakers, the FW speakers can be active nearly constantly. 

With native Atmos, it actually changes the positional assumptions so the side surround bed is split between the FW and Surround speakers. With non-Atmos material, you can use Neural:X to feed the FW speakers a signal.


----------



## sdurani

JonnyFive54950 said:


> How does this affect users who are doing the FH, RH Dolby Atmos approach with no in-ceiling speakers? Will the content slated for TF/TR be steered to FH/RH?


If you are doing TF/TR, then sounds slated for TF/TR will render to those locations. 











If you are doing FH/RH, then sounds slated for TF/TR will render inward of those locations.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think there is any advantage in a HT to having so many speakers? I am unconvinced but would value your view. My take on it is that very few HTs are big enough to warrant it, and while I agree with the batpig's famous remark that "mo' speakers = mo better", he made that remark in the context, IIRC, of installing four on the ceiling not two. The size of the room must surely be relevant, in that the benefit of multiple speakers will diminish as the room gets smaller? Or is it that it is always going to be better to have a physical speaker where a phantom would otherwise image? I can see the logic of that, but we have had stereo with a phantom center for decades and, if properly set up, the phantom center is rock-solid image-wise. Interesting.


When you get a really good, native Atmos track with tons of object action (like Spider-Man: Homecoming or Mad Max FR) then the extra speakers really do help to stabilize the soundfield and make the bubble that much more immersive. 

It's definitely in the realm of "diminishing returns" beyond the 7.1.4 core layout, so it's not a dramatic difference. But the more gaps you fill with actual speakers the more precise and cohesive the overall soundfield gets. Especially as you have multiple seats + multiple rows. 

Obviously there's a point where it gets ridiculous, but having experienced >11ch action now with my X8500H, and hearing from people like Stu with Trinnovs or those like Nalleh and Manni who've done the multi-AVR approach, I'm confident that even a small room any reasonably critical listener would appreciate the jump from say 7.1.4 to 9.1.6... you get another pair of listener level speakers and another pair of overheads to make things even more seamless.

All that said... from a practical perspective, with many Atmos mixes seemingly being treated as "7.1 + heights" for home delivery, and DTS:X being literally 7.1.4 channel mixes, and DSU not upmixing to the wides, and Neural:X not upmixing beyond 11 channels..... 7.1.4 is really the gold standard moving forward and anything beyond that is luxury gravy with limited utility.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think there is any advantage in a HT to having so many speakers?


Yes. The more speakers you have, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field (for ALL listeners). Eventually you'll reach the point of diminishing returns, where adding more speakers will not result in an audible difference.


> The size of the room must surely be relevant, in that the benefit of multiple speakers will diminish as the room gets smaller? Or is it that it is always going to be better to have a physical speaker where a phantom would otherwise image?


The latter, as long as the difference between phantom image and hard source is audible. I don't see the relevance of room size: e.g., 30 degrees separation is 30 degrees separation, whether you're in a large or small room.


> I can see the logic of that, but we have had stereo with a phantom center for decades and, if properly set up, the phantom center is rock-solid image-wise.


True. Even off-axis listeners can hear a rock-solid image. But that phantom centre will be at a different location for each listener. The only way to lock those sounds to a room location (the middle of the soundstage) is to replace the phantom centre with a hard source, so everyone hears those sounds exactly between the L/R speakers. And that's the approach that Atmos uses: sounds are rendered to a room location, irrespective of where the listener is located. Mo speakers = mo better.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> When you get a really good, native Atmos track with tons of object action (like Spider-Man: Homecoming or Mad Max FR) then the extra speakers really do help to stabilize the soundfield and make the bubble that much more immersive.
> 
> It's definitely in the realm of "diminishing returns" beyond the 7.1.4 core layout, so it's not a dramatic difference. But the more gaps you fill with actual speakers the more precise and cohesive the overall soundfield gets. Especially as you have multiple seats + multiple rows.
> 
> Obviously there's a point where it gets ridiculous, but having experienced >11ch action now with my X8500H, and hearing from people like Stu with Trinnovs or those like Nalleh and Manni who've done the multi-AVR approach, I'm confident that even a small room any reasonably critical listener would appreciate the jump from say 7.1.4 to 9.1.6... you get another pair of listener level speakers and another pair of overheads to make things even more seamless.
> 
> All that said... from a practical perspective, with many Atmos mixes seemingly being treated as "7.1 + heights" for home delivery, and DTS:X being literally 7.1.4 channel mixes, and DSU not upmixing to the wides, and Neural:X not upmixing beyond 11 channels..... 7.1.4 is really the gold standard moving forward and anything beyond that is luxury gravy with limited utility.


Thanks batpig. I am quite unreasonably happy with my 7.x.4 setup and don't seem to have any gaps that I feel need filling (Roger D could give you a less biased view!) but can appreciate your comments above. Your final paragraph is especially telling I think and makes me feel intolerably smug - LOL!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yes. The more speakers you have, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field (for ALL listeners). Eventually you'll reach the point of diminishing returns, where adding more speakers will not result in an audible difference. The latter, as long as the difference between phantom image and hard source is audible. I don't see the relevance of room size: e.g., 30 degrees separation is 30 degrees separation, whether you're in a large or small room. True. Even off-axis listeners can hear a rock-solid image. But that phantom centre will be at a different location for each listener. The only way to lock those sounds to a room location (the middle of the soundstage) is to replace the phantom centre with a hard source, so everyone hears those sounds exactly between the L/R speakers. And that's the approach that Atmos uses: sounds are rendered to a room location, irrespective of where the listener is located. Mo speakers = mo better.


Thanks Sanjay. All makes sense. Of course, being entirely selfish I only really care about *my *seat, so some of the benefits would be lost here anyway. My point about room size was that in a small room (eg my last HT) if I had gone with a lot mo' speakers, they'd have been practically touching each other.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Of course, being entirely selfish I only really care about *my *seat, so some of the benefits would be lost here anyway.


The situation with Wides is confounded by Atmos' snap-to feature. Prior to Atmos, if you turned off your Wides, you'd hear those same sounds floating between your fronts & sides (like hearing a phantom centre when you turn your centre speaker off). If you try that now, some (much) of the Wides content ends up in the Front L/R speakers, resulting in a reduction in soundstage width that is clearly audible. So even for one seat, Wides are beneficial.


> My point about room size was that in a small room (eg my last HT) if I had gone with a lot mo' speakers, they'd have been practically touching each other.


I would scale the size of the speakers (not number of speakers) to room size. So, speaker count remains the same, but you don't use large commercial cinema sized speakers for your Hobbit theatre.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The situation with Wides is confounded by Atmos' snap-to feature. Prior to Atmos, if you turned off your Wides, you'd hear those same sounds floating between your fronts & sides (like hearing a phantom centre when you turn your centre speaker off). If you try that now, some (much) of the Wides content ends up in the Front L/R speakers, resulting in a reduction in soundstage width that is clearly audible. So even for one seat, Wides are beneficial.


Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Currently Atmos discs make up about 10% of my total content. Maybe, once this percentage increases, I should consider wides then. I am already wired for them so it isn't going to be difficult to fit them in.




sdurani said:


> I would scale the size of the speakers (not number of speakers) to room size. So, speaker count remains the same, but you don't use large commercial cinema sized speakers for your Hobbit theatre.


Good point. If I had my JBLs in the Hobbit Theater, I'd have had to listen from outside the room as it would either be me, or them, in there


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> pasender -- that's not correct. When you drop the SB speakers, the FW speakers can be active nearly constantly.
> 
> With native Atmos, it actually changes the positional assumptions so the side surround bed is split between the FW and Surround speakers. With non-Atmos material, you can use Neural:X to feed the FW speakers a signal.


I haven’t done any testing where I dropped surround backs, but there’s no reason to doubt this based on previous tests that other folks have done here.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Currently Atmos discs make up about 10% of my total content. Maybe, once this percentage increases, I should consider wides then. I am already wired for them so it isn't going to be difficult to fit them in.


I think my TrueHD Atmos titles also comprise about ten percent of my collection. Of the 300 films I have downloaded to my Kaleidescape system, 35 have Atmos audio. I don't have a convenient way to quickly determine the percentage of of my disks that have Atmos audio. Most but not all of them are duplicated on my Kscape setup anyway.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I think my TrueHD Atmos titles also comprise about ten percent of my collection. Of the 300 films I have downloaded to my Kaleidescape system, 35 have Atmos audio. I don't have a convenient way to quickly determine the percentage of of my disks that have Atmos audio. Most but not all of them are duplicated on my Kscape setup anyway.


My estimate was a little off in fact... it is more like 7% here. I have about 1500 movies on Blu-ray in total with about 100 in immersive audio (mostly Atmos, a few DTS:X). Of course, the number of Atmos/DTS:X titles is growing all the time, especially now I have found a way to get great HDR results from my PJ and so am buying more UHD discs these days.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> All that said... from a practical perspective, with many Atmos mixes seemingly being treated as "7.1 + heights" for home delivery, and DTS:X being literally 7.1.4 channel mixes, and DSU not upmixing to the wides, and Neural:X not upmixing beyond 11 channels..... 7.1.4 is really the gold standard moving forward and anything beyond that is luxury gravy with limited utility.


 
I'd call 7.1.4 more of a "silver standard". It's a necessary but not (IMO) sufficient configuration you'd want for Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. Why?


1) While there "many" mixes that are treated as "7.1+heights", some of them are using the top middles as well. Guardians of the Galaxy 2, for example, or Kingsman: Silver Service. IMO the top middles are used more frequently than wides, based on the 60ish Atmos discs I have. It's not black and white as that.

2) Conversely, there are movies that do make use of wides pretty extensively, such as War for the POTA, Spiderman Homecoming, Blade Runner 2049 etc. 

3) So, if you "really" want to cover the bases with Atmos, I'd want to have 9.1.6 as my standard. Everything else is "gravy", but it's useful gravy up to perhaps 11.x.6 if not 13.x.6. You might say why? Because for certain rooms - multi-row, or ones with AT screens and a wide seating angle, you'll fill in gaps with a second pair of side surrounds (front of the side surround SS1, or behind the side surround SS2). 

And with an AT screen of sufficient width, you're providing added immersion inside the screen IF you have the mains located not behind the AT screen, but just outside them, and use screen centers. I can certainly hear the difference between having and not having screen centers on a movie like War, Hacksaw Ridge, or the REM "Automatic for the People" disc. Room size has nothing to do with it...angles and on-axis response with direct sound do.

It's not just me saying this....see this document, which is essentially the approach that The Cinema Designer is taking for immersive room design as best practice:
http://cedia.co.uk/cda_/images/Course_Notes/Immersive Audio for Multiple Listeners.pdf

Not everyone can do this, needless to say. And while I'd love to make some facetious statement like buy a Trinnov or go home, I realize that for 95%+ of the people reading this, they're not going to spend more than $3 to $5K max for a pre/pro.

So....here's my thinking
a) If you have a TV, 7.1.6 is where I'd start, but 9.1.6 is where I'd want to be. Hence the X8500 today, and the Emotiva RMC-1 with Dirac tomorrow IF it has native 9.1.6 Atmos rendering AND Dirac of all channels in a single box solution
b) If you want to make up for the "deficit" of DSU not upmixing to wides, or the "printed' 7.1.4 mixes we've identified to date (two to three pre-rendered at a minimum, more that are 7.1.4 for all practical purposes like Wonder Woman, with sporadic to negligible use of wides), if I could I'd get the Storm Audio ISP, used Datasat RS20i, or Altitude 16, possibly the MP-50. All of these can have a preset or setting you can set up where you can use speaker arrays with either copied channels or some sort of 'average' phantoming between pairs of speakers with content, with different degrees of flexibility
c) If you have an AT screen and a multi-row theatre, nothing less than 9.1.6 IMO and preferably 11.1.6 in the right room, as a design principle IF you can afford it

Needless to say, Sanjay's comment about speaker angles being a driver of number of speakers, along with speaker size, has guided my own feeling. And none other than Adam Pelz, a leading HT designer/calibrator, has a lab that's marginally larger than my own 20x15x9 room, and is running 13.x.8. It's about sound gaps and angles; keeping in mind that based on budget and observed room performance, you may feel differently.

Anyway, that's some of the thinking as I've moved from a 5.1 room with a TV to a 13.x.6 in a dedicated space and PJ over the past few years.

So @*kbarnes701* - I'd think about that Emotiva RMC-1 pre-order when the product looks like it's actually dropping ...or at least the X8500's Marantz equivalent. Maybe for at least 30 seconds between movies in the Cowshed...


----------



## batpig

I don't think any of what you said contradicts my comment which was qualified as "practical perspective" based on real world " limited utility". 

Everything you said is true.... but you're talking about a limited subset of content (native Atmos tracks) and then an even more limited subset of that first subset (native Atmos tracks which really take advantage of the extra speakers). 

Considering the massive investment required to go beyond 7.1.4, I'm still sticking with my conclusion.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> So @*kbarnes701* - I'd think about that Emotiva RMC-1 pre-order when the product looks like it's actually dropping ...or at least the X8500's Marantz equivalent. Maybe for at least 30 seconds between movies in the Cowshed...


 I remain unconvinced I'm afraid, Stu. Not that I disagree with a word you say in your post - just that I feel no need for more than 7.x.4 here. Others may have different requirements of course. I could easily go to 9.x.6 since I had the Cowshed pre-wired for this, but currently I just feel no need given the quality of sound I am getting. And what the batpig says above is further convincing me too.

I suspect that a lot of people who are splashing their hard-earned on the new Denon and other units capable of much more than 7.x.4 have ignored the single most important component in their system, wrt to SQ. The one component that has way, way more impact than how many channels one has, or how much one has spent on electronics. The one component that is usually ignored, or placed far too far down the pecking order. And the one that costs a trivial sum compared with units like Trinnovs and so on. 

I refer, of course, to the room itself. My ethos has always been, and will always be, that the _room_ is where you make the most difference to the quality of the sound. Designing the room for SQ and then treating it fully with acoustic panels will create the biggest impact on the SQ by far. You can have 9.x6 or 11.x,10 or whatever combination you want; you can use vastly expensive Trinnovs, or fairly expensive Denons or Emotivas, but if you place them in a poorly-treated, or, horror or horrors, an untreated room, then sound quality is just something to dream about, not to experience.

In designing my own HT, most of the money was spent on the room itself, and its acoustic treatments, along with 'diaphragmatic walls' and proper placement of all speakers and subs. The sound is superlative. Of course, if one takes such a room and then goes to 9.x.6 or beyond, then the combination of good room and good tech will sound even better, arguably. But my heart sinks when I see rooms like that with poor or no treatments, poor basic design and so on.

This is not to disagree with the content of your post, but to broaden it out. People fretting about the number of Atmos speakers they have will get them nowhere if the room itself is poor. So my advice is, as ever, spend the most money where it makes the most difference and only consider spending money on electronics once there is little else one can do to improve the room.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Everything you said is true.... but you're talking about a limited subset of content (native Atmos tracks) and then an even more limited subset of that first subset (native Atmos tracks which really take advantage of the extra speakers).


 
Fair enough, BP. It depends on how you define "limited subset". Does 200+ UHD and/or BD discs define limited? I don't know. If I had to make a WAG, of those 60 or so Atmos discs I've got, I'd guess that probably 1/3 use 9.x.6 in a way you'd notice, another 20% or so use the front side surrounds along with wides and top middles (although not all as consistently), maybe another 15% use everything in a way that's audible, and the rest are actually 7.1.4 or 7.1.6 as either a "print" or due to mixer tastes for audio object placement. I really don't know how off those numbers are, but it's just my intuition. And obviously this varies depend on what you've chosen to buy.



> Considering the massive investment required to go beyond 7.1.4, I'm still sticking with my conclusion.


That also depends on how you define "massive". Is going from an Onkyo 5.1.2 AVR to a Denon X8500 "massive" when you factor in speaker choice? For many here, possibly, but for others it's what you'd spend on a pair of subs. Is going from a 7.1.4 Denon you bought at Best Buy with DefTech Dolby AE speakers to an Altitude 16 and JBL M2s, I don't think anyone here would argue against that.


----------



## batpig

My one postscript / caveat to my comments above is that if DTS can deliver on >11ch upmix with Neural:X, it will be a game changer for those like me with a 9.1.4 type setup. The addition of the "fill" from having those wide speakers fed content is really impressive, and being able to utilize those speakers for the 90%+ of content that is NOT native Atmos will shift the calculus implicit in my stance.

My position is mostly informed by the practical realities of how often you can actually utilize the extra speakers, as opposed to arguing that they don't bring audible benefit. When they are fully utilized, it sounds awesome. 

But I just can't in good conscience argue that going beyond 7.1.4 is in any way a "good value" when such a small proportion of real world content will even make use of them.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> My one postscript / caveat to my comments above is that if DTS can deliver on >11ch upmix with Neural:X, it will be a game changer for those like me with a 9.1.4 type setup. The addition of the "fill" from having those wide speakers fed content is really impressive, and being able to utilize those speakers for the 90%+ of content that is NOT native Atmos will shift the calculus implicit in my stance.



Don't underestimate what a speaker array might mean either as a way to fill those gaps. But that's a budget thing.



> But I just can't in good conscience argue that going beyond 7.1.4 is in any way a "good value" when such a small proportion of real world content will even make use of them.



Quite true. If good value is the bottom line, 7.1.4 is the stopping point. That's a money vs. quality thing, just like any other product you might buy ("price you'd pay given the quality"). 


If a standard to try to hit the majority of what Atmos CAN provide is what you can aim at, I'd say it's 9.1.6 as the stopping point. If you want something like 90% of what a scalable Atmos mix can provide based on what the technology is capable of, well....that's where the 11.x.6 and 13x.6 come in before you're off in CEDIA demo territory or a Rob Hahn room...


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I remain unconvinced I'm afraid, Stu. Not that I disagree with a word you say in your post - just that I feel no need for more than 7.x.4 here. Others may have different requirements of course. I could easily go to 9.x.6 since I had the Cowshed pre-wired for this, but currently I just feel no need given the quality of sound I am getting. And what the batpig says above is further convincing me too.



I can't tell you how to spend your money, and clearly your priority in an absolute way is correct for you. Your goal is to replicate a cinema in a personal space for an HT-only environment. A well-engineered, purpose built room with top level professional design will undoubtedly beat a receiver in a pre-existing room with bare walls, windows, and concrete floors. I think that's a truism.




> In designing my own HT, most of the money was spent on the room itself, and its acoustic treatments, along with 'diaphragmatic walls' and proper placement of all speakers and subs. The sound is superlative. Of course, if one takes such a room and then goes to 9.x.6 or beyond, then the combination of good room and good tech will sound even better, arguably. But my heart sinks when I see rooms like that with poor or no treatments, poor basic design and so on.



Agreed to the latter two sentences in particular, and certainly the paragraph shows you've accomplished your goals. 




> This is not to disagree with the content of your post, but to broaden it out. People fretting about the number of Atmos speakers they have will get them nowhere if the room itself is poor. So my advice is, as ever, spend the most money where it makes the most difference and only consider spending money on electronics once there is little else one can do to improve the room.



The only quibble I'd have with you here is that not many reading this post will be able to achieve what you have. Certainly a Dennis Erskine or Nyal Mellor engineered room would match design principles with measured goals in the room design, and a Rob Hahn type Theatre of the Month will hit the design and Atmos immersion principles. 


But pragmatically, many of us here don't have the ability to do pre-built rooms and achieve the level where there is little else to improve the acoustics before investing in electronics. So there may be a tradeoff in reality between how far we must go to achieve "acoustic nirvana". I don't think even you would tell readers here to stick with a 5.1 room and achieve specific goals with room treatment before even thinking of 3D audio....


----------



## cfraser

sdrucker said:


> I don't think even you would tell readers here to stick with a 5.1 room and achieve specific goals with room treatment before even thinking of 3D audio....


I would. And I have. Also to people with 7' (or less!) ceilings. I'm certainly no expert, but I know what I don't like. If somebody asks. Otherwise, I don't even mention their blown drivers (very common). Nor mention quality above quantity. But as my installer friend says: "people want what they want, and the only way to stay in business is to give it to them. And they don't want treatments."


----------



## sdrucker

cfraser said:


> I would. And I have. Also to people with 7' (or less!) ceilings. I'm certainly no expert, but I know what I don't like. If somebody asks. Otherwise, I don't even mention their blown drivers (very common). Nor mention quality above quantity. But as my installer friend says: "people want what they want, and the only way to stay in business is to give it to them. And they don't want treatments."


 
Blown tweeter is clearly catastrophic for audio, and ceiling heights are an issue for immersive 3D audio sound except in special cases (flat ceilings and some less than recommended use of Dolby AE speakers, possibly). 


As to the rest, I think you're getting into the area of generally accepted principles, and best practices vs. minimal requirements (which IMO any serious A/V enthusiast should consider or they're just a consumer with a wallet LOL). Treatments don't have to be overt - as anybody that's read Floyd Toole will tell you. Even good, plush carpeting covering critical areas and bookshelves in the right place to act as diffusors are better than nothing. No substitute for a completely engineered room by a pro and/or multiple subs properly placed for mode cancelling properties based on measurement, of course.


As Keith would say, what you can do cheaply to address room problems, or acknowledging there's a problem based on measurement, is better than just waving them away altogether. The only question is how absolute you can go.


----------



## cfraser

^ Of course you're right. I forgot a  in my previous post.

The thing is to not ask an engineer about _anything _technical if you're afraid of crying in front of witnesses. You should hear what I say about my own stuff. In private.


----------



## sdrucker

cfraser said:


> ^ Of course you're right. I forgot a  in my previous post.
> 
> The thing is to not ask an engineer about _anything _technical if you're afraid of crying in front of witnesses. You should hear what I say about my own stuff. In private.


Same here - I was dreading having AVSers over to hear my room because for all the gear and a pro involved in the calibration setup, I had physical compromises due to hi-rise living and condo rules. Enough that I felt that I had to add an asterisk compared to the HT of the month we see as gold standards. But the positive feedback I got for what they heard when I did Atmos and music demos from the guys I've had over (maybe four now) was gratifying.  So I suppose that getting as far as you can get given your circumstances and budget is all we can really do, unless you're an absolutist.

I've been known to compare enthusiasts to a herd of cats running down a sidewalk. Meaning that I have an idea of what "generally accepted" measurement, placement and room goals might be, but there's probably a good 1/2 dozen different opinions about some of the same issues. And they can run in similar but non-parallel directions


----------



## cfraser

^ Stupid reality.

I made a dumb error which I'm in the process of correcting, practically cooked myself out of my room due to "too many" (not really a thing...) amps mostly running in Class A. Not easy to change ventilation/cooling in a main floor house room. Never even thought of it, until after I was done my (first) Atmos installation, when the balanced was tipped out of my favor. Couldn't stand another summer with the way it was.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to compile those quotes. Interesting development. I can't say it is something I am going to lose much sleep over - Atmos has revolutionised my listening pleasure, regardless of how it is being delivered.
> 
> EDIT: Of course, this is easy for me to say as I don't have Top Middle speakers and I don't have Wide speakers (just the wiring for them). I guess if I had installed these speakers and then discovered that some Atmos movies don't actually use them, I'd think a little differently about it


Although I don't always, I'm going on record as agreeing with Keith on this one. I've followed Mike's 9200 wish list thread for two years in anticipation of life beyond 7.2.4. I have had TF, TM, and TR's installed and have been wired for wides for over a year now. Even before recent developments, I made a decision to sit this one out. I'm completely satisfied with 7.2.4 and have no problem hopping off the leading/bleeding edge and wait for 13/15 channel expansion to stabilize/mature and abundant content to arrive in a few years. To that end, I will be skipping the 8500 and keeping my 920 or picking up the 8012 later this year. Well, Keith, that's at least two of us!


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> But I just can't in good conscience argue that going beyond 7.1.4 is in any way a "good value" when such a small proportion of real world content will even make use of them.


This is an *excellent* point and regarding such recordings we should come up with a term for this. . . .*Atmos Lite*.

I actually predicted this two years ago, or more specifically I predicted that there would be an idiot button on the Atoms mixing console labelled "Just do it". It takes in any standard existing 7.1 mix and it inserts interpolated stuff for the ceiling. The mixer then sweetens it to taste and signs off on it. Done.


----------



## sdrucker

m. zillch said:


> This is an *excellent* point and regarding such recordings we should come up with a term for this. . . .*Atmos Lite*.



Hey, I came up with that brand name first on the X8500 thread. I need to patent this before someone at Dolby thinks of it. LOL.  But Hugo can patent his version, which was "Atmos Light". Imagine the lawsuits flying over the spelling. Yikes...




> I actually predicted this two years ago, or more specifically I predicted that there would be an idiot button on the Atoms mixing console labelled "Just do it". It takes in any standard existing 7.1 mix and it inserts interpolated stuff for the ceiling. The mixer then sweetens it to taste and signs off on it. Done.



The scary thing is that there used to be a few people here that wondered why mixers just didn't assign everything as if there were only a 7.1.4 layout, even though (as FilmMixer pointed out periodically) that's not how mixers worked given the 3D audio locations that were possible. But now you have to wonder if this was someone's idea of Occam's razor - if the vast majority of potential users only have a 7.1.4 layout, and monitoring might be heavily 7.1.4, well, why waste the "time" to do anything else? 


Obviously not in the spirit of what Atmos was intended to be, but why should that stop anyone? And I could still see someone at, say, Disney (which has the printed to 7.1.4 The Last Jedi) thinking ahead to the day when they could have that $249.99 8K boxed set with Atmos Platinum....


Joking aside, this is really still isolated cases. It may be systematic (more exactly, become systematic) that there is or will be a common use of "print to 7.1.4" even for UHD because of the streaming/reduced bandwidth issue as a primary deliverable. But we really don't know if this is still at the "think the worst and it will happen" level of paranoia or something real, to do an Invasion of the Body Snatchers on real Atmos as the norm...


----------



## mtbdudex

Stuart do you have Netflix?
Altered Carbon is a very recent 10 part series, HDR and Atmos, a good one. Is Streaming Atmos limited ? I’m curious if it’s beyond 7.1.4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

mtbdudex said:


> Stuart do you have Netflix?
> Altered Carbon is a very recent 10 part series, HDR and Atmos, a good one. Is Streaming Atmos limited ? I’m curious if it’s beyond 7.1.4.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes. But I haven’t checked this out yet. Maybe this weekend?


----------



## mtbdudex

sdrucker said:


> Yes. But I haven’t checked this out yet. Maybe this weekend?



Great, whether we want it or not, streaming is the future. I’m a physical media guy, but consumers trends dictate .











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

mtbdudex said:


> Great, whether we want it or not, streaming is the future. * I’m a physical media guy*, but consumers trends dictate .


Yep...me too...approaching 3000 disks in the collection now. But the consumer market is comprised of iPhones now...anytime and anywhere...content over immersion and quality...unfortunately, we're a vanishing breed. Just ask your kids! Handwriting has been on the wall for awhile now.


----------



## sdrucker

gene4ht said:


> Yep...me too...approaching 3000 disks in the collection now. But the consumer market is comprised of iPhones now...anytime and anywhere...content over immersion and quality...unfortunately, we're a vanishing breed. Just ask your kids! Handwriting has been on the wall for awhile now.


Then why are there over 200 UHD releases with Atmos in what, barely two years since the format came out? And the release schedule is slowly accelerating. There apparently is still a discernible market segment that buys BD and UHD physical discs and may be relatively price inelastic. I can see DVD domestically disappearing in favor of streaming in the next few years, though.


----------



## gene4ht

sdrucker said:


> Then why are there over 200 UHD releases with Atmos in what, barely two years since the format came out? And the release schedule is slowly accelerating. There apparently is still a discernible market segment that buys BD and UHD physical discs and may be relatively price inelastic. I can see DVD domestically disappearing in favor of streaming in the next few years, though.


I'm in agreement with you Stu! However, in answer to your question, Andy Warhol probably said it best. At the moment, BD/UHD offers the pinnacle of audio/visual quality. For the market segment comprised of us enthusiasts, this 15 min will surely pass when streaming quality improves with increases in speed and bandwidth.


----------



## Spanglo

mtbdudex said:


> Stuart do you have Netflix?
> Altered Carbon is a very recent 10 part series, HDR and Atmos, a good one. Is Streaming Atmos limited ? I’m curious if it’s beyond 7.1.4.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Netflix Atmos is 5.1.4.

Altered Carbon was well done. Dark was really good too, and Lost in Space.

atmosonnetflix.com


----------



## Craig Mecak

Spanglo said:


> Netflix Atmos is 5.1.4.
> 
> Altered Carbon was well done. Dark was really good too, and Lost in Space.
> 
> atmosonnetflix.com


Where do you get the information that Netflix's Atmos is limited to 5.1.4?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I don't think any of what you said contradicts my comment which was qualified as "practical perspective" based on real world " limited utility".
> 
> Everything you said is true.... but you're talking about a limited subset of content (native Atmos tracks) and then an even more limited subset of that first subset (native Atmos tracks which really take advantage of the extra speakers).
> 
> Considering the massive investment required to go beyond 7.1.4, I'm still sticking with my conclusion.


And I am still agreeing with you about it  Given all the points you made, going beyond 7.x.4 is a niche within a niche within a niche. The extra cost is almost certainly going to be better deployed elsewhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> My one postscript / caveat to my comments above is that if DTS can deliver on >11ch upmix with Neural:X, it will be a game changer for those like me with a 9.1.4 type setup. The addition of the "fill" from having those wide speakers fed content is really impressive, and being able to utilize those speakers for the 90%+ of content that is NOT native Atmos will shift the calculus implicit in my stance.
> 
> My position is mostly informed by the practical realities of how often you can actually utilize the extra speakers, as opposed to arguing that they don't bring audible benefit. When they are fully utilized, it sounds awesome.
> 
> But I just can't in good conscience argue that going beyond 7.1.4 is in any way a "good value" when such a small proportion of real world content will even make use of them.


Good point about Neural:X. But for those of us who dislike Neural:X and who favour DSU, the benefit disappears. There is no way I would want to start using Neural:X for all my upmixing - the benefits of utilising the wides would be heavily counteracted by the negatives (for me) of using Neural:X (too aggressive, less good steering etc than DSU). So I'd be back where I started - I'd have wides that would never play with DSU (93% of my total discs) and which would only play with Atmos (7% of my discs currently), while thje Neural:X potential would never be realised. Of course, for those who don't feel the same way as I do about Neural:X. as you say, this could be a game changer.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> The only quibble I'd have with you here is that not many reading this post will be able to achieve what you have. Certainly a Dennis Erskine or Nyal Mellor engineered room would match design principles with measured goals in the room design, and a Rob Hahn type Theatre of the Month will hit the design and Atmos immersion principles.


Yes, it is true that not many will be able to achieve their ultimate goal, for all manner of reasons. (For me, it was lack of a suitable space, until we moved house). But we are discussing the rarefied world of dedicated rooms here. I think it very unlikely that many will want to go to 16 speakers or more in a living-room style HT, and even 12 speakers can become a problem in that regard. So those who are contemplating going for 16 or more speaker setups will almost always have a dedicated room, and in that sense there is no reason they cannot treat it properly with absorption, diffusion etc.



sdrucker said:


> But pragmatically, many of us here don't have the ability to do pre-built rooms and achieve the level where there is little else to improve the acoustics before investing in electronics.


Well, as I say, I can't see 16+ speakers being likely in a living room environment TBH. And if it does happen, than that is a niche within a niche within a niche within a niche  So barely worth considering really.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I don't think even you would tell readers here to stick with a 5.1 room and achieve specific goals with room treatment before even thinking of 3D audio....


Actually, Stu, I would.  I would much prefer an oustanding 5.1 system in a properly treated room than a 7.x.4 system in an untreated or badly treated room. The former will sound better. The room is the most important part of the system, always, regardless of what you put in it.


----------



## kbarnes701

cfraser said:


> I would. And I have. Also to people with 7' (or less!) ceilings. I'm certainly no expert, but I know what I don't like. If somebody asks. Otherwise, I don't even mention their blown drivers (very common). Nor mention quality above quantity. But as my installer friend says: "people want what they want, and the only way to stay in business is to give it to them. And they don't want treatments."


100% with you on this. But again, I am only talking dedicated rooms. If people don't want treatments in a dedicated room, personally, I'd turn their job down if I was an installer since I would know I couldn't deliver an outstanding result for them. In a living room, I can understand why people don't want treatments, but then I am pretty sure they won't want 16 or 20 speakers either


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Although I don't always, I'm going on record as agreeing with Keith on this one. I've followed Mike's 9200 wish list thread for two years in anticipation of life beyond 7.2.4. I have had TF, TM, and TR's installed and have been wired for wides for over a year now. Even before recent developments, I made a decision to sit this one out. I'm completely satisfied with 7.2.4 and have no problem hopping off the leading/bleeding edge and wait for 13/15 channel expansion to stabilize/mature and abundant content to arrive in a few years. To that end, I will be skipping the 8500 and keeping my 920 or picking up the 8012 later this year. Well, Keith, that's at least two of us!


LOL. Agreed  (I thought you and I often did see eye to eye BTW). I am not ruling anything out - just sitting it out as you say. I am getting completely unreasonable pleasure from my HT right now, watching movie after movie and still marvelling at how good it looks and sounds. I take on board all the points raised in this interesting discussion and I am sure that mo' speakers may well = mo' better for many (most) people. But we are not even sure at this stage what will happen with content - already we are seeing discs limited to 7.x.4 for example. From what FilmMixer said, there are very good practical reasons why this might catch on and if so, there will be little point in adding more speakers IMO. Batpig also put his finger on it in his post above I think. Stu won't be satisfied until he has a speaker attached to every single output on his processor (I forget what he has but it was pretty expensive ) 

Content is what matters - if the content doesn't support 9.x.6 and beyond, then there is no point to it. My hobby is watching movies, not chasing hardware. TOW, I am sure we all know people who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and have barely a shelf of discs to play on it  _Their_ hobby is equipment and they use the discs to play the equipment. My hobby is movies and I use the equipment to play the discs.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> But now you have to wonder if this was someone's idea of Occam's razor - if the vast majority of potential users only have a 7.1.4 layout, and monitoring might be heavily 7.1.4, well, why waste the "time" to do anything else?


I don't think they will ever do this. If they worked on what the vast majority of potential users has, they'd mix for the 2 inch speakers in TVs. They don't and won't.

I think you are getting carried away Stu when you suggest that the 'vast majority of potential users 'only' have 7.1.4. The vast majority of users have TV sets. After that they _might_ have a soundbar. After that they _might_ have 5.1. After that, we are in a niche within a niche etc etc (I need that on a macro).


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> Great, whether we want it or not, streaming is the future. I’m a physical media guy, but consumers trends dictate .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The average Joe will always go for convenience over quality. When you watch stuff on a 42 inch TV, that makes sense too. It happened with music also. But there will always be an enthusiast market who will want the best possible quality and that is a physical disc. The ever-growing popularity of streaming won't mean that physical media will disappear. There's room for everything - just as most people drive Chevvies and Fords and so on, there will always be Ferraris as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> I'm in agreement with you Stu! However, in answer to your question, Andy Warhol probably said it best. At the moment, BD/UHD offers the pinnacle of audio/visual quality. For the market segment comprised of us enthusiasts, this 15 min will surely pass when streaming quality improves with increases in speed and bandwidth.


Even if streaming in ultra high quality becomes practical, I will _still_ want a physical product in my hand. There are other reasons than quality of reproduction for wanting a physical disc. For starters, I _own_ it. I can sell it, give it away, lend it to friends etc. And it will always be _mine_. I won't wake up one morning and find the server owner has decided to delete half of my content - this has already happened as we know. And there will always be enough of us to ensure that this demand is met. Look at vinyl sales....


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think they will ever do this. If they worked on what the vast majority of potential users has, they'd mix for the 2 inch speakers in TVs. They don't and won't.
> 
> I think you are getting carried away Stu when you suggest that the 'vast majority of potential users 'only' have 7.1.4. The vast majority of users have TV sets. After that they _might_ have a soundbar. After that they _might_ have 5.1. After that, we are in a niche within a niche etc etc (I need that on a macro).


“Vast majority” of potential Atmos or DTS:X users, who will likely have that Best Buy Denon, Onkyo or Yamaha for under $2000. And they’ll have at most 7.1.4, which could be 5.1.2 or (shudder 😊) a sound bar. In that context, 7.1.4 is a “gold standard”, relatively speaking. But if you’re calling discussing >7.1.4 being “carried away”, I think you’re on the wrong forum. LOL.

Speaking of “carried away”, I know some big-eared guy from the UK with small cinema speakers (JBL 3677) in a domestic setting, that previously had Seaton Submersives in a Hobbit Room.  . Now there’s a niche within a niche within a niche within... (the macro just got into a loop  ) . Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s your room.

Obviously in the real world, your point is taken. But this is AVS and it’s a hobby, so there’s room for differing tastes and opinions.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> ‘Vast majority’ of potential ‘Atmos’ users, who will likely have that Best Buy Denon, Onkyo or Yamaha for under $2000. And they’ll have at most 7.1.4, which could be 5.1.2 or (shudder 😊) a sound bar. In that context, 7.1.4 is a “gold standard”, relatively speaking. But if you’re calling discussing >7.1.4 being “carried away”, I think you’re on the wrong forum. LOL.


Discusing 7.x.4 isn't being 'carried away'. Saying it is the 'vast majority' of the 'potential audience' for the product of the mixer *is* being carried away. Atmos users are a tiny, tiny percentage of the 'potential' buyers of Blu-ray. Most people are still buying DVD or streaming. But yeah, if you mean the vadt majority of people who have Atmos systems, then it will be 5.x.2, 7.x.2. 7.x.4 etc for sure.



sdrucker said:


> Speaking of “carried away”, I know some big-eared guy from the UK with small cinema speakers (JBL 3677) in a domestic setting, that previously had Seaton Submersives in a Hobbit Room.  . Now there’s a niche within a niche within a niche within... (the macro just got into a loop  )


 Indeed. But it wasn't me who was saying that the 'vast majority' of people who consume Blu-rays had 7.x.4 systems either. But I may have misunderstood what you said - it wouldn't be the first time 



sdrucker said:


> Obviously in the real world, your point is taken. But this is AVS and it’s a hobby, so there’s room for differing tastes and opinions.


Of course. But the number of people who have Atmos systems, and the number who have 7.x.4 or more, and the number who just watch their discs on a TV isn't a matter of taste or opinion, but a matter of fact. And the fact is, the 'vast majority' don't. Remember you didn't initially say it was the 'vast majority of Atmos users' - you said it was the vast majority of people who were the target audience of the mixer.  I think


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Agreed  (I thought you and I often did see eye to eye BTW).


Can't agree with you 100%...else people will talk! So...maybe...99%!



kbarnes701 said:


> I am not ruling anything out - just sitting it out as you say. I am getting completely unreasonable pleasure from my HT right now, watching movie after movie and still marvelling at how good it looks and sounds. I take on board all the points raised in this interesting discussion and I am sure that mo' speakers may well = mo' better for many (most) people. But we are not even sure at this stage what will happen with content - already we are seeing discs limited to 7.x.4 for example. From what FilmMixer said, there are very good practical reasons why this might catch on and if so, there will be little point in adding more speakers IMO. Batpig also put his finger on it in his post above I think. Stu won't be satisfied until he has a speaker attached to every single output on his processor (I forget what he has but it was pretty expensive )


Agreed...



kbarnes701 said:


> Content is what matters - if the content doesn't support 9.x.6 and beyond, then there is no point to it.


Agreed...



kbarnes701 said:


> My hobby is watching movies, not chasing hardware. TOW, I am sure we all know people who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and have barely a shelf of discs to play on it  *Their hobby is equipment and they use the discs to play the equipment.* My hobby is movies and I use the equipment to play the discs.


LOL! Funniest thing I've heard in a while!


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Discusing 7.x.4 isn't being 'carried away'. Saying it is the 'vast majority' of the 'potential audience' for the product of the mixer *is* being carried away. Atmos users are a tiny, tiny percentage of the 'potential' buyers of Blu-ray. Most people are still buying DVD or streaming.


Sure they are. But some (a small percentage currently, but otherwise why bother to have Atmos mixes if it’s a majority rules world?) will have an Atmos processor, UHD/BD player, supporting speakers etc. Potential means just that. Potential. No connotations about market size.



> Indeed. But But the number of people who have Atmos systems, and the number who have 7.x.4 or more, and the number who just watch their discs on a TV isn't a matter of taste or opinion, but a matter of fact. And the fact is, the 'vast majority' don't. Remember you didn't initially say it was the 'vast majority of Atmos users' - you said it was the vast majority of people who were the target audience of the mixer.


Atmos was implied. That’s a necessary prerequisite for purposes of this discussion to have meaning. This is the Atmos thread, after all.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Even if streaming in ultra high quality becomes practical, I will _still_ want a physical product in my hand. There are other reasons than quality of reproduction for wanting a physical disc. For starters, I _own_ it. I can sell it, give it away, lend it to friends etc. And it will always be _mine_. I won't wake up one morning and find the server owner has decided to delete half of my content - this has already happened as we know. And there will always be enough of us to ensure that this demand is met. Look at vinyl sales....


Maybe this is where we disagree...a bit. The ownership of physical property has its merits but how often does one actually exercise these "advantages?" Understanding that ownership affords a choice to exercise, I personally have never exercised the choice on my VHS or LD collection. My kids have asked..."Who would want them?" Kidding aside, my point is that streaming is destined to be the primary method of content distribution. And although a market for physical discs may still exist for us enthusiasts, enthusiasts will no doubt acquiesce and fully embrace streaming in time while the demand for discs continue to decline. It's likely the reason Oppo made a decision to exit the player market.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> But I just can't in good conscience argue that going beyond 7.1.4 is in any way a "good value" when such a small proportion of real world content will even make use of them.





m. zillch said:


> This is an *excellent* point and regarding such recordings we should come up with a term for this. . . .*Atmos Lite*.


Like @batpig I wouldn't argue that going beyond 7.x.4 makes economic sense. In the interest of full disclosure, I confess that my current 7.2.4 setup is as far as I plan to go, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm comfortable with that, though. We Atmos fans are already in a small minority of home theater owners, even if we have only a 5.1.2 setup and those who have more than 7.2.4 are in a small minority. Thus, rather that "Atmos Lite" I would refer to the 7.1.4 limited version as "Atmos" and call the full bore version that can take advantage of many more speakers, "Atmos+," or the like.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Joking aside, this is really still isolated cases.


One would think the opposite, based on some of the _"sky is falling"_ type posts over the last few days.


----------



## Ted99

Spanglo said:


> Netflix Atmos is 5.1.4.
> 
> Altered Carbon was well done. Dark was really good too, and Lost in Space.
> 
> atmosonnetflix.com


I thought Netflix Atmos streaming was limited to new LG TV's and the XBox platforms. Is it all platforms, now?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The vast majority of users have TV sets. After that they _might_ have a soundbar. After that they _might_ have 5.1.


Rather than having to make this disclaimer repeatedly, can we start from a different premise? When discussing Atmos, let's assume the discussion is about Atmos users. So when someone says that there are likely more 5.1.2 set-ups than 7.1.4 set-ups, it shouldn't be necessary to remind everyone yet again that most consumers don't have an immersive audio layout. We know that already. When discussing the vast majority of Atmos set-ups, non-Atmos users are not part of the discussion.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

batpig said:


> My one postscript / caveat to my comments above is that if DTS can deliver on >11ch upmix with Neural:X, it will be a game changer for those like me with a 9.1.4 type setup. The addition of the "fill" from having those wide speakers fed content is really impressive, and being able to utilize those speakers for the 90%+ of content that is NOT native Atmos will shift the calculus implicit in my stance.
> 
> My position is mostly informed by the practical realities of how often you can actually utilize the extra speakers, as opposed to arguing that they don't bring audible benefit. When they are fully utilized, it sounds awesome.
> 
> But I just can't in good conscience argue that going beyond 7.1.4 is in any way a "good value" when such a small proportion of real world content will even make use of them.


It turns out my multi-AVR setup broke the 11ch limit for Neural:X by accident and it works great. :nerd:

I have now enjoyed 9.1.6 for over a year, some Atmos content is indeed lacking in wides usage but I mainly put that down to bad mixes. Anything else is covered by Neural:X. Where Wides are natively supported it is indeed very nice.

I completely missed the lack in TM content in the Disney movies but that again is an accidental side effect of my matrixing setup.

My immersive collection now consists of 178 Atmos/57 DTS:X movies as well as a few TV series in Atmos as well. The HT isn't collecting dust. :grin:


----------



## cfraser

Re SVS Prime Elevations mounted on the ceiling: should these be angled towards the MLP in the x,y plane? Pretend the MLP is a "point" or single listener, since it's mostly me who cares...if that really changes the answer. The speakers (4) will be positioned so their angled fronts are directed towards the MLP in the z plane, as best as possible, to be well within the preferred angles.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Rather than having to make this disclaimer repeatedly, can we start from a different premise? When discussing Atmos, let's assume the discussion is about Atmos users. So when someone says that there are likely more 5.1.2 set-ups than 7.1.4 set-ups, it shouldn't be necessary to remind everyone yet again that most consumers don't have an immersive audio layout. We know that already. When discussing the vast majority of Atmos set-ups, non-Atmos users are not part of the discussion.


I shall go immediately and slap my own arse as hard as I can


----------



## mrtickleuk

gene4ht said:


> Just ask your kids! *Handwriting has been on the wall* for awhile now.


That's "graffiti". You should make your kids scrub it off if you catch them!


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I shall go immediately and slap my own arse as hard as I can



Whatever turns you on, Keith.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Whatever turns you on, Keith.


----------



## gene4ht

mrtickleuk said:


> That's "graffiti". You should make your kids scrub it off if you catch them!


LOL!!! I will be watching and exercising any necessary parenting skills...thank you!


----------



## howard68

So I want to be an X box to get access to Dolby Atmos on Netflix 
Can any of them do it on 1080p tv?


----------



## mzs22

Just receive my second pair of atmos speakers, thought I would just stick with a 7.2.2 setup but after hearing how four should be a minimum to really take advantage of it I decided to pull the trigger on two more. Anxious to see how big of difference it really makes. My only concern is my surround speakers are only about two feet below the ceiling, 7.5 ft ceiling height.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mzs22 said:


> Just receive my second pair of atmos speakers, thought I would just stick with a 7.2.2 setup but after hearing how four should be a minimum to really take advantage of it I decided to pull the trigger on two more. Anxious to see how big of difference it really makes. My only concern is my surround speakers are only about two feet below the ceiling, 7.5 ft ceiling height.


Find a way to lower the main layer surrounds. Probably to just above seated head height. That will greatly improve separation between the ground layer and overhead layer of speakers and improve the sensation of immersion.


----------



## mzs22

Dan Hitchman said:


> Find a way to lower the main layer surrounds. Probably to just above seated head height. That will greatly improve separation between the ground layer and overhead layer of speakers and improve the sensation of immersion.


All my speaker wire are ran through the walls. My theater room is in my basement two of the walls probably wouldn't be that bad but the left surround speaker is on an outside cement wall which might be a little harder. I would most likely have to add speaker wire. Didn't know if that would affect the sound.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mzs22 said:


> All my speaker wire are ran through the walls. My theater room is in my basement two of the walls probably wouldn't be that bad but the left surround speaker is on an outside cement wall which might be a little harder. I would most likely have to add speaker wire. Didn't know if that would affect the sound.


If you use electrical wire nuts (one on the positive, one on the negative bare wires) and electrical grade tape tightly wound around the splices to elongate those wires, you'll be fine.


----------



## gene4ht

mzs22 said:


> All my speaker wire are ran through the walls. My theater room is in my basement two of the walls probably wouldn't be that bad but the left surround speaker is on an outside cement wall which might be a little harder. I would most likely have to add speaker wire. Didn't know if that would affect the sound.





Dan Hitchman said:


> If you use electrical wire nuts (one on the positive, one on the negative bare wires) and electrical grade tape tightly wound around the splices to elongate those wires, you'll be fine.


Dan’s suggestion is a good one...

An alternate method of joining wire is soldering and using heat shrink tubing to insulate if you know someone with the skills and tools. In either case/method, there is zero effect on sound quality.


----------



## mzs22

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you use electrical wire nuts (one on the positive, one on the negative bare wires) and electrical grade tape tightly wound around the splices to elongate those wires, you'll be fine.


Great ! I was hoping that would not be an issue. Now my only issue would be the wall that my left surround speaker is on, there is foam board insulation behind the drywall, so not really sure how to run the wire down farther. I could go on the outside of the drywall and down to the new speaker locations and find some way to hide the exposed wires.


----------



## gene4ht

mzs22 said:


> Great ! I was hoping that would not be an issue. Now my only issue would be the wall that my left surround speaker is on, there is foam board insulation behind the drywall, so not really sure how to run the wire down farther. I could go on the outside of the drywall and down to the new speaker locations and find some way to hide the exposed wires.


Typically drywall is attached to 2x4's or similar framing with the foam board inserted between the vertical framing and glued/attached to the exterior concrete wall. In any case, there is likely enough of a gap between the drywall and foam board to allow the passage of speaker wire. To install the extended wiring, expand the original speaker wire hole if necessary and bore a similar size second hole below the original hole at the desired level. Then using a tool called fish tape or wire (Home Depot/Lowes/Menards/Harbor Freight), insert the tape/wire into one hole until it reaches the second hole. Attach the speaker wire to the fish tape and pull everything back through. Tip 1: If the distance between the two holes is not very great, perhaps an unwound coat hanger or something similar will suffice. Tip 2: Some builders utilize thin plastic between the drywall and insulation to act an air and/or vapor barrier...just wanted to mention this should you encounter it.

A second or alternative method is to actually cut a narrow swatch/path/groove down the drywall between the original and second speaker locations, insert the speaker wiring, and then repair the drywall by taping, mudding, and painting. Tip: Rather than inserting the speaker wire directly into the groove, some folks have passed the wire through a small hollow tube...i.e. 1/2" PVC or the like. 

Although these methods may appear difficult, both methods are actually simple for the DIY'er or hired handyperson. As Dan suggested, increasing the distance between the base and overhead speaker layers will dramatically improve Atmos accuracy and imaging. Good luck with your installation.


----------



## mzs22

gene4ht said:


> Typically drywall is attached to 2x4 or similar framing with the foam board inserted between the vertical framing and glued/attached to the exterior concrete wall. In any case, there is likely enough of a gap between the drywall and foam board to allow the passage of speaker wire. To install the extended wiring, expand the original speaker wire hole if necessary and bore a similar size second hole below the original hole at the desired level. Then using a tool called fish tape or wire (Home Depot/Lowes?Menards/Harbor Freight), insert the tape/wire into one hole until it reaches the second hole. Attach the speaker wire to the fish tape and pull everything back through. Note: If the distance between the two holes is not very great, perhaps an unwound coat hanger or something similar will suffice.
> 
> A second or alternative method is to actually cut a narrow swatch/path/groove down the drywall between the original and second speaker locations, insert the speaker wiring, and then repair the drywall by taping, mudding, and painting.
> 
> Although these methods may appear difficult, both methods are actually simple for the DIY'er or hired handyperson. As Dan suggested, increasing the distance between the base and overhead speaker layers will dramatically improve Atmos accuracy and imaging. Good luck with your installation.


When we first built that room that was the only wall and it had to be skim coated and re textured so I did just cut into the existing drywall to run the speaker wire. there is not 2x4s behind the drywall I want to say maybe 1x2s The other interior walls are 2x4s.


----------



## gene4ht

mzs22 said:


> When we first built that room that was the only wall and it had to be skim coated and re textured so I did just cut into the existing drywall to run the speaker wire. there is not 2x4s behind the drywall I want to say maybe 1x2s The other interior walls are 2x4s.


Even better...glad you were able to find an acceptable solution!


----------



## mzs22

Now my speakers are mounted six feet high, would dropping them down 1ft be enough? Think if I went any lower might not look the best. My surrounds are Klipsch RS-42II


----------



## gene4ht

mzs22 said:


> Now my speakers are mounted six feet high, would dropping them down 1ft be enough? Think if I went any lower might not look the best. My surrounds are Klipsch RS-42II


The Dolby Atmos guidelines recommend at or slightly above ear level. Although 5' may not be ideal aesthetically, the objective is to provide adequate separation between the surrounds and overheads so that objects in space can be accurately placed. Insufficient separation will result in inaccurate imaging in this regard. Although there is some flexibility, it's better to stay as close as possible to the guidelines...especially with low (under 8') ceilings. I also have Klipsch surrounds, RS-62II's...as I have two rows of seating with the second row on a riser, the bottom of my 62's are at exactly 4 feet. At that height, they obviously look low but deliver outstanding performance. Somehow in my darken theater, no one notices where they're mounted...just how good the immersive effects are.


----------



## FilmMixer

Spanglo said:


> Netflix Atmos is 5.1.4.
> 
> 
> 
> Altered Carbon was well done. Dark was really good too, and Lost in Space.
> 
> 
> 
> atmosonnetflix.com




It is my understanding that Netflix at the minimum is broadcasting 7.1.4 Atmos. 

I spoke to two people today that delivered shows in that format. 

I will confirm with them next week.


----------



## mzs22

gene4ht said:


> The Dolby Atmos guidelines recommend at or slightly above ear level. Although 5' may not be ideal aesthetically, the objective is to provide adequate separation between the surrounds and overheads so that objects in space can be accurately placed. Insufficient separation will result in inaccurate imaging in this regard. Although there is some flexibility, it's better to stay as close as possible to the guidelines...especially with low (under 8') ceilings. I also have Klipsch surrounds, RS-62II's...as I have two rows of seating with the second row on a riser, the bottom of my 62's are at exactly 4 feet. At that height, they obviously look low but deliver outstanding performance. Somehow in my darken theater, no one notices where they're mounted...just how good the immersive effects are.


My ceiling height is right at 7ft 9" I could drop the bottom of the speakers to 4ft , Going to have to find another spot for my DVD storage, right now it sits under my right surround. Had to move it once allready when I got my dual PB16s! which was probably the best upgrade I did so far,but I am enjoying the benefit of the two atmos speakers so four should be really niceAtlantic Technology makes a really good atmos speaker!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mzs22 said:


> Now my speakers are mounted six feet high, would dropping them down 1ft be enough? Think if I went any lower might not look the best. My surrounds are Klipsch RS-42II




I agree with Gene here. It will be worth the effort. They might look too low, but you’ll get used to it, and once you’re “immersed” it won’t matter at all. Fwiw, the original spec for surrounds is no more than 1.25x the height of the mains. Ie: 39”x1.25=48.75. I have seen a revised version that recommends up to 1.5 iirc. This is to better allow clearance of people’s heads and seat backs And still maintain good imaging across more seats.


----------



## mzs22

Polyrythm1k said:


> I agree with Gene here. It will be worth the effort. They might look too low, but you’ll get used to it, and once you’re “immersed” it won’t matter at all. Fwiw, the original spec for surrounds is no more than 1.25x the height of the mains. Ie: 39”x1.25=48.75. I have seen a revised version that recommends up to 1.5 iirc. This is to better allow clearance of people’s heads and seat backs And still maintain good imaging across more seats.


I will be installing my atmos speakers tomorrow and should be able to get started on lowering my surrounds also. Still don't have my amp to add to my system so I can power the rear atmos.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mzs22 said:


> I will be installing my atmos speakers tomorrow and should be able to get started on lowering my surrounds also. Still don't have my amp to add to my system so I can power the rear atmos.




One step at a time right? I have all my Atmos speakers but no avr or cables... soon.


----------



## mzs22

Polyrythm1k said:


> One step at a time right? I have all my Atmos speakers but no avr or cables... soon.


That reminds me I have my rca cables coming for my amp tomorrow! I have some nice 6ft rca cables but ordered some 3ft ones. Don't want all that extra cable hanging. I should have my amp in a couple weeks so I might just not use my rear surrounds until then. I originally ordered the amp to power my rear atmos but will probably use it to power my front towers and use the receivers amps to power everything else.


----------



## Spanglo

Ted99 said:


> I thought Netflix Atmos streaming was limited to new LG TV's and the XBox platforms. Is it all platforms, now?


It's avail on windows 10 PC now too.



Craig Mecak said:


> Where do you get the information that Netflix's Atmos is limited to 5.1.4?





FilmMixer said:


> It is my understanding that Netflix at the minimum is broadcasting 7.1.4 Atmos.
> 
> I spoke to two people today that delivered shows in that format.
> 
> I will confirm with them next week.


Netflix is delivering the Atmos content with DD+ 5.1. If it were 7 channels, wouldn't the audio be TrueHD and not DD+?


----------



## FilmMixer

Spanglo said:


> It's avail on windows 10 PC now too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netflix is delivering the Atmos content with DD+ 5.1. If it were 7 channels, wouldn't the audio be TrueHD and not DD+?



No. 

DD+ is capable of 7.1 also. 

As I said I spoke who two people who have delivered shows to Netflix. 7.1.4 on both. 

You can not do Atmos without a 7.1.2 bed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Dan’s suggestion is a good one...
> 
> An alternate method of joining wire is soldering and using heat shrink tubing to insulate if you know someone with the skills and tools. In either case/method, there is zero effect on sound quality.


+1. A joint in a speaker wire is fine, so long as it is a good joint. Applies to all connections really I guess. Audiofools say it degrades the SQ but obviously it doesn't.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mzs22 said:


> That reminds me I have my rca cables coming for my amp tomorrow! I have some nice 6ft rca cables but ordered some 3ft ones. Don't want all that extra cable hanging. I should have my amp in a couple weeks so I might just not use my rear surrounds until then. I originally ordered the amp to power my rear atmos but will probably use it to power my front towers and use the receivers amps to power everything else.




Yeah, this is a good chance to get an amp for your mains(if that’s ever been a point of interest). I use a Yamaha p2500s for mine, and will use a Denon x4400. Crowns get love too and pro amps can be had for less. But some don’t like the looks.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. A joint in a speaker wire is fine, so long as it is a good joint. Applies to all connections really I guess. Audiofools say it degrades the SQ but obviously it doesn't.


If this were the case, all residential and commercial wiring at the switches and receptacles joined with wire nuts would be degraded...not to mention all the solder joints securing components on a printed circuit board.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> If this were the case, all residential and commercial wiring at the switches and receptacles joined with wire nuts would be degraded...not to mention all the solder joints securing components on a printed circuit board.


Exactly. But you know what 'audiophiles' are like. They will swear that any sort of join in the wire will degrade the sound. Some even say that if one speaker cable is 3ft shorter than another, you can hear the degraded sound in terms of poor imaging etc. LOL. 

It's a bit OT, but here's a reply I gave to someone who was concerned that a cable length difference of about 20 inches would cause a problem:

_The speed of light in vacuum is 2.998 × 108 m/s, which is approximately equal to 1 ft/ns. In cable, the speed of an electrical signal is about 2/3 of this, or about 8 in/ns. 

So for 100 feet of cable, the signal will take 150 nanoseconds to go from one end to the other. That is 150 thousand millionths of one second.
So for 1ft of cable, the signal ‘travel time’ will be 1.5 nanoseconds.

For your half metre of cable difference, the sound will be delayed by 1.5 ft (approx.) which is 2.2ns. Or 2.2 thousand millionths of one second. IOW, the sound from the shorter cable will arrive at your ears roughly 2.2ns before the sound from the longer cable.

The Hass Effect states: When a sound is followed by another sound separated by a sufficiently short time delay, listeners perceive a single fused auditory image. This ‘sufficiently short time’ is 2ms. 2 thousands of one second.

So for sounds which arrive within 2ms of each other, the brain hears them as a single sound.

Light travels 299,792,458 metres in one second. Signal travels 2/3 of that speed - 199,861,638 metres in 1 second. So you’d need a cable 99,930 m long for a delay of 2ms – the shortest delay you could actually hear. That means you’d have to have one cable 62 miles (99,930m) longer than the other for you to hear the issue. I am betting that 0.5m won’t actually be audible therefore ._

*62 miles* of additional cable for an audible difference! 

BTW, I'm no mathematician, so my figures may be off - but the principle holds good. The cable would need to be _miles _longer than its stablemate for any difference to be heard.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Exactly. But you know what 'audiophiles' are like. They will swear that any sort of join in the wire will degrade the sound. Some even say that if one speaker cable is 3ft shorter than another, you can hear the degraded sound in terms of poor imaging etc. LOL.
> 
> It's a bit OT, but here's a reply I gave to someone who was concerned that a cable length difference of about 20 inches would cause a problem:
> 
> _The speed of light in vacuum is 2.998 × 108 m/s, which is approximately equal to 1 ft/ns. In cable, the speed of an electrical signal is about 2/3 of this, or about 8 in/ns.
> 
> So for 100 feet of cable, the signal will take 150 nanoseconds to go from one end to the other. That is 150 thousand millionths of one second.
> So for 1ft of cable, the signal ‘travel time’ will be 1.5 nanoseconds.
> 
> For your half metre of cable difference, the sound will be delayed by 1.5 ft (approx.) which is 2.2ns. Or 2.2 thousand millionths of one second. IOW, the sound from the shorter cable will arrive at your ears roughly 2.2ns before the sound from the longer cable.
> 
> The Hass Effect states: When a sound is followed by another sound separated by a sufficiently short time delay, listeners perceive a single fused auditory image. This ‘sufficiently short time’ is 2ms. 2 thousands of one second.
> 
> So for sounds which arrive within 2ms of each other, the brain hears them as a single sound.
> 
> Light travels 299,792,458 metres in one second. Signal travels 2/3 of that speed - 199,861,638 metres in 1 second. So you’d need a cable 99,930 m long for a delay of 2ms – the shortest delay you could actually hear. That means you’d have to have one cable 62 miles (99,930m) longer than the other for you to hear the issue. I am betting that 0.5m won’t actually be audible therefore ._
> 
> *62 miles* of additional cable for an audible difference!
> 
> BTW, I'm no mathematician, so my figures may be off - but the principle holds good. The cable would need to be _miles _longer than its stablemate for any difference to be heard.


OT is not necessarily a bad thing...it's sometimes needed or required to break up monotony, provide additional understanding, or offer a welcomed diversion. In this case, for me, it did two things...(1) interjected some humor and (2) saved me the trouble of having to look up the definition of "audiofool." Thanks Keith! And now back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## mrtickleuk

gene4ht said:


> and (2) saved me the trouble of having to look up the definition of "audiofool." Thanks Keith! And now back to our regularly scheduled program.


I really love "audiofool", hadn't heard it before, will use it a lot


----------



## gene4ht

mrtickleuk said:


> I really love "audiofool", hadn't heard it before, will use it a lot


+1 LOL...me too! But you "chaps" in the UK have always had a way with words and language...Winston Churchill in particular!


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. A joint in a speaker wire is fine, so long as it is a good joint. Applies to all connections really I guess. *Audiofools say it degrades the SQ but obviously it doesn't*.


[bold emphasis mine to show what part I'm addressing]

Interestingly these same people say the input selector knob, the speaker output pair selector [A, B, and A+B], and all the dozens if not hundreds of solder points *inside* their gear is above reproach, however if you suggest to them using external versions of these they are always trash talked as being "sound degraders", at least if their use is to conduct a blind comparison test.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I shall go immediately and slap my own arse as hard as I can





gene4ht said:


> Even better...glad you were able to find an acceptable solution!





Polyrythm1k said:


> I agree with Gene here. It will be worth the effort.


Don't know what more I can add that hasn't already been expressed.


----------



## Spanglo

FilmMixer said:


> No.
> 
> DD+ is capable of 7.1 also.
> 
> As I said I spoke who two people who have delivered shows to Netflix. 7.1.4 on both.
> 
> You can not do Atmos without a 7.1.2 bed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yes, one of my atmos demo discs has both TrueHD and DD+ 7.1 tracks, so that makes sense. 

When you say that you can not do atmos without a 7.1.2 bed, is that from an authoring or streaming perspective? 

I guess my confusion comes from reports from other xbox and PC users that the atmos audio streams were inputting DD+ 5.1. Also I've seen rips of some the shows and they're DD+ 5.1 with atmos. Which is strange, because I didn't think it was possible to do atmos with less than 7 channels either, but it works. 

Information from Netflix is very limited on the subject. I see no mention of the actual channels delivered anywhere on their site.


----------



## FilmMixer

Spanglo said:


> Yes, one of my atmos demo discs has both TrueHD and DD+ 7.1 tracks, so that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> When you say that you can not do atmos without a 7.1.2 bed, is that from an authoring or streaming perspective?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my confusion comes from reports from other xbox and PC users that the atmos audio streams were inputting DD+ 5.1. Also I've seen rips of some the shows and they're DD+ 5.1 with atmos. Which is strange, because I didn't think it was possible to do atmos with less than 7 channels either, but it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Information from Netflix is very limited on the subject. I see no mention of the actual channels delivered anywhere on their site.




On Netflix the Atmos stream is separate than the 5.1 DD+ on a given program. It’s one reason why not all devices that pass through DD+ over HDMI or ARC aren’t yet able to pass Atmos. 

As you’re aware when you decide Atmos on a processor it simply say Atmos, not DD+ or True HD or 5.1, etc.. 

There is no DD+ 5.1 with Atmos.... Dolby packages multiple payloads in one stream, so the 5.1 “core” is separate than the Atmos mix (a simplified explanation for discussion purposes only). But Netflix uses separate stream as I’ve been told. 

Again as I’ve stated twice now I’ve spoken to two people in the last week and they both delivered 7.1.4 to Netflix. 

Netflix Atmos is not 5.1.4. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## richlife

Sorry but after an abundantly filled 3 days, I'm just catching up and this was such a fascinating and entertaining (even, at times, amusing) topic. And ya'll know I always have an opinion...



kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think they will ever do this. If they worked on what the vast majority of potential users has, they'd mix for the 2 inch speakers in TVs. They don't and won't.
> 
> I think you are getting carried away Stu when you suggest that the 'vast majority of potential users 'only' have 7.1.4. The vast majority of users have TV sets. After that they _might_ have a soundbar. After that they _might_ have 5.1. After that, we are in a niche within a niche etc etc (I need that on a macro).


Quite and appropriate comment. I think that most of us in these forums (and especially something as deep as "Atmos") forget that we are truly the bleeding edge. Some (including myself) are somewhat to the back of that edge and some have trouble keeping them selves whole (as in bleeding from severed.. -- oh, never mind). So when it comes to "vast majority" and "niche within a niche", we might just take time to remember who we really are. 



gwsat said:


> Like @batpig I wouldn't argue that going beyond 7.x.4 makes economic sense. In the interest of full disclosure, I confess that my current 7.2.4 setup is as far as I plan to go, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm comfortable with that, though. We Atmos fans are already in a small minority of home theater owners, even if we have only a 5.1.2 setup and those who have more than 7.2.4 are in a small minority. Thus, rather that "Atmos Lite" I would refer to the 7.1.4 limited version as "Atmos" and call the full bore version that can take advantage of many more speakers, "Atmos+," or the like.


+1 And BTW, if streaming were all your Kaliedescape, I would be willing to jump today. But cost and being in the hinterlands (default


----------



## mzs22

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yeah, this is a good chance to get an amp for your mains(if that’s ever been a point of interest). I use a Yamaha p2500s for mine, and will use a Denon x4400. Crowns get love too and pro amps can be had for less. But some don’t like the looks.


I decided to go with the Emotiva Basx A-300, don't know a whole lot bout the Emotivas but looks to be a pretty nice amp for the price. It's on pre order right now so I won't have it for a little while, I thought those amps have been around for a little while so not sure why it would be on pre order?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> don't know what more i can add that hasn't already been expressed.


roflmao.


----------



## mtbdudex

Keith look who I met and chatted with tonight .... Stuart’s a good guy.. 









We were at Arts gtg, I’ll let Stuart give details as I’m driving home after dropping him off at the Battle Creek Amtrak 


















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

mtbdudex said:


> Keith look who I met and chatted with tonight .... Stuart’s a good guy..
> 
> We were at Arts gtg, I’ll let Stuart give details as I’m driving home after dropping him off at the Battle Creek Amtrak
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Great to meet you in person too, and chat about Atmos and the hobby.

I’ll do a writeup of my impression of Art’s room once I’m back in Chicago later tonight, and have a chance to reread his “Recent Updates” and stacked Sony PJ build thread. Let’s just say he chose wisely across the board...

EDIT: commented on Art’s meet thread.


----------



## cheyne2525

*Rear Surround Speaker Use in a 7.1.4 setup*

Hello all, I'm just hoping to get a little clarification on which speakers are active and being used during Atmos playback for a 7.1.4 setup. I'm running a 7.1.4 system and i noticed that when watching movies with Atmos soundtracks, it appears that the rear surround speakers are not active/producing sound, only the rear height channels are. Is this the norm or do i have something not configured correctly? I'm running a Marantz SR-7009 paired with an Outlaw 5000 to run the 11 Andrew Jones Pioneer speakers; the source and display are an Oppo UDP-203 and an LG 55" OLED C6. Any tips are appreciated here as i apparently only know enough about the ins and outs of the AV world to get myself into trouble, lol.


----------



## Jonas2

kbarnes701 said:


> Exactly. But you know what 'audiophiles' are like. They will swear that any sort of join in the wire will degrade the sound. Some even say that if one speaker cable is 3ft shorter than another, you can hear the degraded sound in terms of poor imaging etc. LOL.
> 
> It's a bit OT, but here's a reply I gave to someone who was concerned that a cable length difference of about 20 inches would cause a problem:
> 
> _The speed of light in vacuum is 2.998 × 108 m/s, which is approximately equal to 1 ft/ns. In cable, the speed of an electrical signal is about 2/3 of this, or about 8 in/ns.
> 
> So for 100 feet of cable, the signal will take 150 nanoseconds to go from one end to the other. That is 150 thousand millionths of one second.
> So for 1ft of cable, the signal ‘travel time’ will be 1.5 nanoseconds.
> 
> For your half metre of cable difference, the sound will be delayed by 1.5 ft (approx.) which is 2.2ns. Or 2.2 thousand millionths of one second. IOW, the sound from the shorter cable will arrive at your ears roughly 2.2ns before the sound from the longer cable.
> 
> The Hass Effect states: When a sound is followed by another sound separated by a sufficiently short time delay, listeners perceive a single fused auditory image. This ‘sufficiently short time’ is 2ms. 2 thousands of one second.
> 
> So for sounds which arrive within 2ms of each other, the brain hears them as a single sound.
> 
> Light travels 299,792,458 metres in one second. Signal travels 2/3 of that speed - 199,861,638 metres in 1 second. So you’d need a cable 99,930 m long for a delay of 2ms – the shortest delay you could actually hear. That means you’d have to have one cable 62 miles (99,930m) longer than the other for you to hear the issue. I am betting that 0.5m won’t actually be audible therefore ._
> 
> *62 miles* of additional cable for an audible difference!
> 
> BTW, I'm no mathematician, so my figures may be off - but the principle holds good. The cable would need to be _miles _longer than its stablemate for any difference to be heard.


WAIT.....so, you're saying that SCIENCE actually matters with audio.......????


----------



## Selden Ball

cheyne2525 said:


> Hello all, I'm just hoping to get a little clarification on which speakers are active and being used during Atmos playback for a 7.1.4 setup. I'm running a 7.1.4 system and i noticed that when watching movies with Atmos soundtracks, it appears that the rear surround speakers are not active/producing sound, only the rear height channels are. Is this the norm or do i have something not configured correctly? I'm running a Marantz SR-7009 paired with an Outlaw 5000 to run the 11 Andrew Jones Pioneer speakers; the source and display are an Oppo UDP-203 and an LG 55" OLED C6. Any tips are appreciated here as i apparently only know enough about the ins and outs of the AV world to get myself into trouble, lol.


My guess is that something is not configured correctly.

What Amp Assign are you using? (You need to have selected 11.1 channel before doing the Audyssey calibration; your description is consistent with having selected either 9.1 or Atmos. Never, ever, select the "Atmos" amp assign option. It specifies an amp/speaker configuration that almost nobody has. It was eliminated as an option in later years.)

Which speakers are shown to be active on the right-hand-side of the OSD when you press the Info button on the remote when you don't hear the Rear Surround speakers?
(If not configured correctly, it'll show the Rear Surrounds as NOT active.)

Which speakers are being powered by the external amp? 
If it's connected to the Front speakers, the Fronts should be configured as "preamp", so that the receiver's amps get reconfigured to drive the rear overheads, for example.


----------



## gwsat

richlife said:


> +1 And BTW, if streaming were all your Kaliedescape, I would be willing to jump today. But cost and being in the hinterlands (default


----------



## cheyne2525

Selden Ball said:


> My guess is that something is not configured correctly.
> 
> What Amp Assign are you using? (You need to have selected 11.1 channel before doing the Audyssey calibration; your description is consistent with having selected either 9.1 or Atmos. Never, ever, select the "Atmos" amp assign option. It specifies an amp/speaker configuration that almost nobody has. It was eliminated as an option in later years.)
> 
> Which speakers are shown to be active on the right-hand-side of the OSD when you press the Info button on the remote when you don't hear the Rear Surround speakers?
> (If not configured correctly, it'll show the Rear Surrounds as NOT active.)
> 
> Which speakers are being powered by the external amp?
> If it's connected to the Front speakers, the Fronts should be configured as "preamp", so that the receiver's amps get reconfigured to drive the rear overheads, for example.





Thanks for the tips, that confirms a lot of what i was thinking. I already had the Marantz set up for 11.1, not Atmos (the pre-outs it made me have to use for the 2 rear height speakers were somehow faulty and had what i suspect to have been a ground loop somewhere). I just recently recalibrated the Audyssey setup on it though because my room had changed around a little bit and i wanted to do a full 8-point position test anyway (my prev. go around i was in a hurry and i only did 3 positions), so maybe i need to go back into my settings and double check everything. To answer your Q about which speakers show active when hitting the info button, it is the 2 rear surround speakers that show as NOT active on the speaker diagram, the rear height speakers are active though. I am using the Outlaw amp to power the L/C/R speakers for my front soundstage, everything else is hooked up to the Marantz; i do have some audio cables that i was planning to use to pre-out 2 more channels from the Marantz over to the 2 channels not in use on the Outlaw.


----------



## Selden Ball

cheyne2525 said:


> Thanks for the tips, that confirms a lot of what i was thinking. I already had the Marantz set up for 11.1, not Atmos (the pre-outs it made me have to use for the 2 rear height speakers were somehow faulty and had what i suspect to have been a ground loop somewhere). I just recently recalibrated the Audyssey setup on it though because my room had changed around a little bit and i wanted to do a full 8-point position test anyway (my prev. go around i was in a hurry and i only did 3 positions), so maybe i need to go back into my settings and double check everything. To answer your Q about which speakers show active when hitting the info button, it is the 2 rear surround speakers that show as NOT active on the speaker diagram, the rear height speakers are active though. I am using the Outlaw amp to power the L/C/R speakers for my front soundstage, everything else is hooked up to the Marantz; i do have some audio cables that i was planning to use to pre-out 2 more channels from the Marantz over to the 2 channels not in use on the Outlaw.


You might give the Setup Assistant a try. It'll test each of the speakers as part of the process. Select the 11/13 config. It'll discover which speakers aren't connected.


----------



## ultrabubu

Hi guys!
I’m about to mount the six atmos ceiling speakers for an 9.1.4(7.1.6) configuration and I’m not sure what’s the best horizontal separation in the width between the left and right row; the Dolby installation guidelines say to line up the ceilings with the fronts that give you a side-to-side separation of 0,5 to 0,7 of the width of the overall layout; 0,5 of the width means in my room that the ceilings will go on a line between the center and the front right and left; if I take the 0,7 of the width they are pretty lined up with the fronts; I see in many pictures with Atmos setups that the ceilings are most between the lines from the center and fronts but what I also saw that on this atmos setups, the surrounds are positioned pretty high from the flor; on the Dolby recomandation pics you see the fronts and ceilings lined up but the floorhight of the bed layer is pretty low; so, what are your suggestions on this?
I appreciate any help


----------



## Ted99

mzs22 said:


> I decided to go with the Emotiva Basx A-300, don't know a whole lot bout the Emotivas but looks to be a pretty nice amp for the price. It's on pre order right now so I won't have it for a little while, I thought those amps have been around for a little while so not sure why it would be on pre order?


All of Emotiva's recent amps have used a modular design for the different power capabilities and for the power supplies. As a consequence, they have been mixing and matching amps and corresponding power supplies for different configurations. The A-300 is a new mix and match offering higher power for the three amps and really hits the spot for people wanting to off-load some power from their Receiver's amps. Unlike Emotiva's line of 200w amps, the BasX line amps are not plug-in modules.


----------



## Mr.G

If the home version of Dolby Atmos only supports 4 ceiling speakers why do people install more than that?


----------



## sdurani

Mr.G said:


> If the home version of Dolby Atmos only supports 4 ceiling speakers why do people install more than that?


The home version of Atmos supports up to 10 speakers overhead. The recent Denon/Marantz flagships support 6 overhead speaker locations; Trinnov processors support all 10.


----------



## Mr.G

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos supports up to 10 speakers overhead. The recent Denon/Marantz flagships support 6 overhead speaker locations; Trinnov processors support all 10.


Interesting. Why doesn't the Dolby Atmos website show a 10 speaker configuration?


----------



## sdurani

Mr.G said:


> Why doesn't the Dolby Atmos website show a 10 speaker configuration?


That's a question for Dolby (or their webmaster). It's always been in their Atmos Install guide, though the diagram has changed over time:


----------



## batpig

Mr.G said:


> Interesting. Why doesn't the Dolby Atmos website show a 10 speaker configuration?


Probably because only Trinnov processors can do anything more than 6 overheads. The full 24.x.10 layout is shown in whitepapers though.

It looks like the diagram on the right:











The 9.1.6 layout is shown on their website: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html


----------



## batpig

cheyne2525 said:


> To answer your Q about which speakers show active when hitting the info button, it is the 2 rear surround speakers that show as NOT active on the speaker diagram, the rear height speakers are active though. I am using the Outlaw amp to power the L/C/R speakers for my front soundstage, everything else is hooked up to the Marantz


You have something configured wrong in the Amp Assign menu. When using an external amp for LCR you need to make sure the amp is configured for 11ch amp assign and the "Pre-out" sub setting is configured as "Front" so the processor knows to dedicate the 9 internal amps to the other speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Probably because only Trinnov processors can do anything more than 6 overheads. The full 24.x.10 layout is shown in whitepapers though.


It’s interesting that even in Trinnov-land, I doubt there are very many users with eight, let alone all 10 speaker configurations. After the six overheads, it’s more likely you’ll have wides, then one or more pairs of front or rearward side surrounds, and maybe the Lc/Rc center. Or so I’ve heard. Short of a small auditorium at a trade show I’ve never read about all 10 heights being in use at the same time outside of the Dolby or Trinnov labs.


----------



## cheyne2525

batpig said:


> You have something configured wrong in the Amp Assign menu. When using an external amp for LCR you need to make sure the amp is configured for 11ch amp assign and the "Pre-out" sub setting is configured as "Front" so the processor knows to dedicate the 9 internal amps to the other speakers.


 Ok, so.. my thanks to mr. Selden Ball and mr. Batpig, their input was confirmed and the settings on the Marantz just needed to be adjusted. I had incorrectly assumed that all of the pre-outs ran hot since i had read on some other forums of other people doing the whole separates thing for all of their spkr channels and only used the Marantz to process the audio signal; that said, it probably didn't help that i was a little hazy on exactly how the amp assign settings changed around which internal amps were active. I ended up seeing an option in the 11.1 menu setup to either 1. - pre-out the front L/R spkrs, 2. - pre-out the front wide spkrs (which i don't have), or, 3. - pre-out both the front and the front wide - When i chose option 3 it solved the problem and the rear spkrs were activated. 
I wanted to give a shout on this ASAP because my Atmos-sphere (LOL) just went from having a meager Paris Hilton ass to a juicy Jennifer Lopez Ass, i have found the missing link, located the final puzzle piece, obtained the one ring to rule them all.....In short, the change was amazing. 
My soundfield now feels like it has full coherency and balance and is gap-free. After i made the change I watched 'The Martian' which is a movie that i've probably watched at least 20 or 30 times since i've owned it so i know it very well, and the differences in sound quality/object placement/field cohesion were immediately apparent. 
Now, i have 2 final Q's since i'm not totally certain what determines which pre-outs are hot on this Marantz; I currently have the center channel being pre-out to the Outlaw amp, so in this setup is it actually being run by the Marantz or the Outlaw? And also, i want to pre-out my surround right and left speakers to the Outlaw as well so i'm just curious on the best option going forward. Any and all thoughts/tips on this are welcome.


----------



## kbarnes701

cheyne2525 said:


> i wanted to give a shout on this asap because my atmos-sphere (lol) just went from having a meager paris hilton ass to a juicy jennifer lopez ass, i have found the missing link, located the final puzzle piece, obtained the one ring to rule them all....


lol!


----------



## batpig

cheyne2525 said:


> Now, i have 2 final Q's since i'm not totally certain what determines which pre-outs are hot on this Marantz; I currently have the center channel being pre-out to the Outlaw amp, so in this setup is it actually being run by the Marantz or the Outlaw? And also, i want to pre-out my surround right and left speakers to the Outlaw as well so i'm just curious on the best option going forward. Any and all thoughts/tips on this are welcome.


The pre-outs are all hot, the only thing you have to do is tell the AVR which are the two channels which MUST be powered by external amp (necessary to run 11 speakers with a 9ch amp). Once you cover those first two, the remaining 9 can be internally or externally amped as you desire. There are no additional settings to configure.

So just hook up RCA's from the AVR to the external amp for whatever channels you want to run off the Outlaw, and connect the speakers to the Outlaw, and calibrate w Audyssey.


----------



## dschulz

batpig said:


> Probably because only Trinnov processors can do anything more than 6 overheads. The full 24.x.10 layout is shown in whitepapers though.
> 
> It looks like the diagram on the right:


I keep forgetting to ask, is there a version of the document on the right that has the locations labeled? Reading the white paper, it gets a little confusing as to which speakers are where when they get into the various extra side surrounds and extra screen channel speakers.


----------



## kingwiggi

sdrucker said:


> I’ve never read about all 10 heights being in use at the same time outside of the Dolby or Trinnov labs.


Ash Sharma has 13 upward firing Atmos modules plus he has a q-sys core so they can be pretty much re-purposed to use any layout on the fly.


----------



## cheyne2525

batpig said:


> The pre-outs are all hot, the only thing you have to do is tell the AVR which are the two channels which MUST be powered by external amp (necessary to run 11 speakers with a 9ch amp). Once you cover those first two, the remaining 9 can be internally or externally amped as you desire. There are no additional settings to configure.
> 
> So just hook up RCA's from the AVR to the external amp for whatever channels you want to run off the Outlaw, and connect the speakers to the Outlaw, and calibrate w Audyssey.


Thanks for the clarification on all of that sir, much obliged. The last 2 yrs has been a pretty steep learning curve for me with understanding all the A/V world ins and outs but i finally think that, with a little help from the fine members of this forum and others, i'm starting to get a pretty decent handle on it.


----------



## spawn calibur

I'm getting the* SVS Prime Elevation* speakers today and they recommend having them on side or rear as height which is different from front height that I've seen. I'm planning on having them as rear height since my side of room is curved. On my Denon 5.1.2 setup what do I set the "Amp Assign" to when there is no rear height option. Should I set it to "Front Height" or "Top Middle"? Does it actually matter? 
~ Thanks


----------



## Mr.G

batpig said:


> Probably because only Trinnov processors can do anything more than 6 overheads. The full 24.x.10 layout is shown in whitepapers though.
> 
> It looks like the diagram on the right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9.1.6 layout is shown on their website: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html


Thanks BP. One of the reasons (besides being a newbie to Atmos) I was asking about overheads was because of a comment made by FilmMixer a few days ago.

He mentioned friends in the sound mixing business had delivered a movie in 7.1.4 Atmos mix to Netflix.

Then there were the comments about prerendering to 7.1.4 Atmos on Blu-rays so naturally I was thinking does anyone own a receiver that utilizes more than 4 ceiling speakers? Then after further reading I came across the Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch Flagship AVR Thread. So I'm just trying to catch up on a subject that is somewhat confusing to me.


----------



## DaveMcLain

Mr.G said:


> Thanks BP. One of the reasons (besides being a newbie to Atmos) I was asking about overheads was because of a comment made by FilmMixer a few days ago.
> 
> He mentioned friends in the sound mixing business had delivered a movie in 7.1.4 Atmos mix to Netflix.
> 
> Then there were the comments about prerendering to 7.1.4 Atmos on Blu-rays so naturally I was thinking does anyone own a receiver that utilizes more than 4 ceiling speakers? Then after further reading I came across the Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch Flagship AVR Thread. So I'm just trying to catch up on a subject that is somewhat confusing to me.


If the mix is prerendered to 7.1.4 Atmos will a receiver with say 6 overhead speakers simply maxtrix the sound and fill all of them because those height speakers are in the Atmos spec?


----------



## batpig

DaveMcLain said:


> If the mix is prerendered to 7.1.4 Atmos will a receiver with say 6 overhead speakers simply maxtrix the sound and fill all of them because those height speakers are in the Atmos spec?


From what we learned, one of the output options for the mix is to assign object to specific fixed speaker locations (e.g. Top Front) vs. putting them at a specific location in space and letting the render use the available speakers.

For those mixes that are "pre-rendered" to 7.1.4 with specifically assigned speaker locations, then "in between" speakers won't make noise even if an object pass through that point in space (e.g. traveling from Top Front Left to Top Rear Left will skip the Top Middle Left speaker). 

If the objects aren't fixed to a specific speaker location, then the Top Middle will make noise as sounds pass through them.

So it depends on how the final output is created.

It seems we've got a few studios who are doing this in a somewhat inconsistent fashion. For example, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" is pure 7.1.4, and any extra speakers like Front Wide or Top Middle will remain silent. However, other titles (like Guardians of the Galaxy 2) appear to be more "7.1 + heights" where the 7ch ear level is fixed to the 7.1 speaker layout but the height layer isn't, so the Front Wide speakers are silent but sounds still end up in the Top Middle speakers in the height layer.


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> From what we learned, one of the output options for the mix is to assign object to specific fixed speaker locations (e.g. Top Front) vs. putting them at a specific location in space and letting the render use the available speakers.
> 
> For those mixes that are "pre-rendered" to 7.1.4 with specifically assigned speaker locations, then "in between" speakers won't make noise even if an object pass through that point in space (e.g. traveling from Top Front Left to Top Rear Left will skip the Top Middle Left speaker).
> 
> If the objects aren't fixed to a specific speaker location, then the Top Middle will make noise as sounds pass through them.
> 
> So it depends on how the final output is created.
> 
> It seems we've got a few studios who are doing this in a somewhat inconsistent fashion. For example, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" is pure 7.1.4, and any extra speakers like Front Wide or Top Middle will remain silent. However, other titles (like Guardians of the Galaxy 2) appear to be more "7.1 + heights" where the 7ch ear level is fixed to the 7.1 speaker layout but the height layer isn't, so the Front Wide speakers are silent but sounds still end up in the Top Middle speakers in the height layer.


''

In the instance of Last Jedi where the mix has specifically assigned speaker locations, will speakers configured as front or rear height make any sound?


----------



## batpig

From what we know/surmise, yes, no sound is going to be thrown away. The FH/RH speakers will still reproduce the sound although I'm betting there is some intermixing in order to phantom image the sounds inward slightly.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> From what we learned, one of the output options for the mix is to assign object to specific fixed speaker locations (e.g. Top Front) vs. putting them at a specific location in space and letting the render use the available speakers.
> 
> For those mixes that are "pre-rendered" to 7.1.4 with specifically assigned speaker locations, then "in between" speakers won't make noise even if an object pass through that point in space (e.g. traveling from Top Front Left to Top Rear Left will skip the Top Middle Left speaker).
> 
> If the objects aren't fixed to a specific speaker location, then the Top Middle will make noise as sounds pass through them.
> 
> So it depends on how the final output is created.
> 
> It seems we've got a few studios who are doing this in a somewhat inconsistent fashion. For example, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" is pure 7.1.4, and any extra speakers like Front Wide or Top Middle will remain silent. However, other titles (like Guardians of the Galaxy 2) appear to be more "7.1 + heights" where the 7ch ear level is fixed to the 7.1 speaker layout but the height layer isn't, so the Front Wide speakers are silent but sounds still end up in the Top Middle speakers in the height layer.





batpig said:


> From what we know/surmise, yes, no sound is going to be thrown away. The FH/RH speakers will still reproduce the sound although I'm betting there is some intermixing in order to phantom image the sounds inward slightly.


It's starting to sound like a bit of a mess to me (NPI). The elegant beauty of the original concept was that the mixer placed a sound just where he wanted it, and then Atmos used whatever speakers it found in the system to do its best to reproduce that sound in the intended location. Now it seems that on some movies at least, objects are assigned to specific speakers instead (much like in pre-Atmos days, reducing it to a more channel-based-like system). Worse, we have no way of knowing which movies do it which way. And worse still, it seems that those which pre-render to 7.1.4 are limited to 7.1.4 and people who have laid out good money for AVRs which can go beyond 7.x.4 will be wasting that money, at least on the pre-rendered 7.x.4 discs (whatever they happen to be). 

None of this is Dolby's fault of course but rather that of the hardware manufacturers and/or disc manufacturers who seem intent on crippling the original aims of what is/was an amazingly innovative step forward in movie audio at home.

So, I admit I am not 100% up to speed on these latest developments, but I know you are, so is the above gripe on or off target do you think?


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> *None of this is Dolby's fault of course* but rather that of the hardware manufacturers and/or disc manufacturers who seem intent on crippling the original aims of what is/was an amazingly innovative step forward in movie audio at home.
> 
> So, I admit I am not 100% up to speed on these latest developments, but I know you are, so is the above gripe on or off target do you think?


Slightly off target, in my humble opinion . Firstly, why would you include that "of course"? Dolby is *not* a company that is beyond reproach; I don't see any justification for including "of course" in that sentence. It implies that the default position is that they are thought of as whiter than white. *Everyone *should be under suspicion at the start, no-one gets a free pass; then we work through the evidence we have to pin down who is actually guilty.

Secondly, I'd say that bit of it is definitely Dolby's fault, for providing the "output as a fixed x.y.z" capability in the system. If it wasn't there, then the current mess would not exist.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> *Everyone *should be under suspicion at the start, no-one gets a free pass; then we work through the evidence we have to pin down who is actually guilty.


Not necessary to cast such a wide net. Dolby is only guilty of providing mixing tools. If an Atmos soundtrack makes little to no use of the height layer, of course that's not Dolby's fault. Same with pre-rendered soundtracks.


> I'd say that bit of it is definitely Dolby's fault, for providing the "output as a fixed x.y.z" capability in the system. If it wasn't there, then the current mess would not exist.


If it wasn't there, studios would use someone else's mixing tools. You can't force a mixer to keep sounds constantly moving. Imagine what that requirement would do for dialogue. The ability to tack a sound to a certain location is not unreasonable.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> If it wasn't there, studios would use someone else's mixing tools. You can't force a mixer to keep sounds constantly moving. Imagine what that requirement would do for dialogue. The ability to tack a sound to a certain location is not unreasonable.


That's true but the dialogue is already covered in the centre channel which is already fixed


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> It's starting to sound like a bit of a mess to me (NPI). The elegant beauty of the original concept was that the mixer placed a sound just where he wanted it, and then Atmos used whatever speakers it found in the system to do its best to reproduce that sound in the intended location. Now it seems that on some movies at least, objects are assigned to specific speakers instead (much like in pre-Atmos days, reducing it to a more channel-based-like system). Worse, we have no way of knowing which movies do it which way. And worse still, it seems that those which pre-render to 7.1.4 are limited to 7.1.4 and people who have laid out good money for AVRs which can go beyond 7.x.4 will be wasting that money, at least on the pre-rendered 7.x.4 discs (whatever they happen to be).
> 
> None of this is Dolby's fault of course but rather that of the hardware manufacturers and/or disc manufacturers who seem intent on crippling the original aims of what is/was an amazingly innovative step forward in movie audio at home.
> 
> So, I admit I am not 100% up to speed on these latest developments, but I know you are, so is the above gripe on or off target do you think?


You're not off target. I think FilmMixer was on to something when he was mentioning creating Atmos mixes that are low bitrate streaming friendly. Why spend the time and money in making two separate home Atmos versions when you can just go with the lesser of the two types of Atmos: fully 3D and system scaleable with objects and a higher bitrate for disc usage or print-out-to-limited-and-fixed-locations with a lower bitrate for streaming companies? 

And before everyone states, well it's only Disney or sometimes Warner Brothers, I must remind you that Disney has the lion's share of the physical disc market and soon streaming. It may be a matter of time before they all "follow the leader." 

Give them an out, and a studio will take it. Dolby gave them that out.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> That's true but the dialogue is already covered in the centre channel which is already fixed


Dialogue isn't limited to the centre channel (see Gravity). In any case, the inability to park sounds at a certain location would be intolerable in a mixing suite.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dan Hitchman said:


> Give them an out, and a studio will take it. Dolby gave them that out.


Indeed


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> You're not off target. I think FilmMixer was on to something when he was mentioning creating Atmos mixes that are low bitrate streaming friendly. Why spend the time and money in making two separate home Atmos versions when you can just go with the lesser of the two types of Atmos: fully 3D and system scaleable with objects and a higher bitrate for disc usage or print-out-to-limited-and-fixed-locations with a lower bitrate for streaming companies?
> 
> And before everyone states, well it's only Disney or sometimes Warner Brothers, I must remind you that Disney has the lion's share of the physical disc market and soon streaming. It may be a matter of time before they all "follow the leader."
> 
> Give them an out, and a studio will take it. Dolby gave them that out.




I’ll reply to you’re earlier points later. 

In the end Dolby need/needs to start building tools to prepare for increased mobile applications, limited bandwidth streaming and the launch of ATSC 3.0. 

Putting the blame on Dolby for what a studio does with its tools is misguided. These things needed to happen for the future. 

Dolby certainly doesn’t want to be seen as limiting their codec for arbitrary reasons. While they can certainly get involved with the studios, in the end they have little to no say about each studios policies. 

But it certainly won’t help if their competition isn’t seen as being constrained if more content providers decide to go this route more and more (and to be clear at this point DTS is limited by a max channel count... that will soon change as I understand it.). A little strange that things would seem to be moving towards the middle for both companies, albeit from opposite sides of the pond.)

I got wind that some providers were doing the channel renders almost exactly a year ago. 

As I am finding out he software to do channel outputs is t ready yet. So my information about the software suite wasn’t totally correct (alpha/beta stages as I understand it.)

Might be a ways off (the new software does transcode the .atmos flies into a wrapper that can be dragged directly into a workstation track..). 

But there are other ways to get a channel bake... and at this point in time I takes a little bit of effort and then to do so with an RMU. 

Regardless of the toolset or software the fact is that I am not sure why some titles have been done this way. 

I haven’t had much, if any, interaction with Dolby in the last couple of years... the codecs use has grown so quickly it’s not a super special deal like it used to be. I don’t think there is now any post facility in LA doing mainstream broadcast or feature work that doesn’t have at least one Atmos room. 

I’m getting ready to start my fourth Atmos in the past 16 months, and my first one for OTT.... since this is the first since the whole 7.1.4 thing has reared it’s head I’m sure I’ll get quite an education. 

At this point I too would like to see optical media contain the Atmos mix with it being rendered. 

At this point we’re only talking about a few titles. 

We will see what happens over the next three to four months. 

And it might not be a popular option (cause I am certainly a HUGE proponent of wides) but I suspect many of the content providers think 7.1.4 is truly an immersive experience and might not take the “outage/complaint” to heart. 

Interesting times.


----------



## pasender91

Well FilmMixer, at least , if you want, you can relay to your contacts in studios and Dolby what we (HC enthousiasts) think about this 7.1.4 pre-rendering !!  
We want full Atmos, nothing else


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Slightly off target, in my humble opinion . Firstly, why would you include that "of course"? Dolby is *not* a company that is beyond reproach; I don't see any justification for including "of course" in that sentence. It implies that the default position is that they are thought of as whiter than white. *Everyone *should be under suspicion at the start, no-one gets a free pass; then we work through the evidence we have to pin down who is actually guilty.


Which part of the decision to 'pre-render' to a default 7.x.4 was Dolby's? Has Dolby changed the spec for Atmos in some way? If so, what way?



mrtickleuk said:


> Secondly, I'd say that bit of it is definitely Dolby's fault, for providing the "output as a fixed x.y.z" capability in the system. If it wasn't there, then the current mess would not exist.


I do not have enough tech expertise to know if you are right or wrong in that statement, bit no doubt someone will chime in.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Indeed


No they didn't, as Sanjay and Marc have explained. The decision to pre-render to 7.x.4 is not a Dolby decision. It is a decision elsewhere, down the line. What you are saying is that a hammer can be used to knock in nails or to kill someone. If it is used to kill someone, you're saying the company that made the hammer is partly responsible for the murder.


----------



## pasender91

kbarnes701 said:


> Which part of the decision to 'pre-render' to a default 7.x.4 was Dolby's? Has Dolby changed the spec for Atmos in some way? If so, what way?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have enough tech expertise to know if you are right or wrong in that statement, bit no doubt someone will chime in.



Let me be the one .... The feature used has always been in Atmos, from day one. It is a flag for objects called "snap to".
If this flag is activated, then the object at position X.Y.Z will be rendered by the nearest speaker ONLY instead of being matrixed to the 2 3 or 4 nearest ones.

I can understand how collapsing all objects to 4 objects at fixed positions can help save and control bandwidth usage for streaming, this is not nice but understandable.
But to activate the "snap to" flag is beyond my understanding, it doesn't help in controlling bandwidth, it is only annoying users by preventing the sound to "spill" onto nearby speakers 
For example, for a fixed object at TF-R location:
- for a config with TF-R, then in both cases TF-R reproduces the object.
- for a config with FH-R, "snap to" sends it all to FH-R, but without it FH-R would play it but some sound would also go to FW-R, SUR-R, and RH-R. Why they want to prevent that is what i fail to understand ...


----------



## UK Dreamer

By ‘rendering’ to 7.1.4, that ‘object’ is no longer an object, but simply a part of the 7.1.4 mix. Therefore it’s taking up no extra bandwidth.

Each object, while its active, will take up at least as much bandwidth as a channel - in fact, a little more, as the metadata added to the ‘sound’ itself will add to the data requirement. Have a few objects active at the same time, and the bandwidth required over a 7.1.4 render, could easily double.

So I get it, for streaming services; but for those of us using shiny discs as our media of choice, it smacks of laziness and cost cutting by the studios. A blu-ray, whether vanilla or UHD, has plenty of bandwidth available for the full monty Atmos stream. There are simply some people within the studio world making cost-based ‘the consumer will never know’, crass decisions.


----------



## pasender91

I respectfully think you're wrong 
Bluray can only have a 7.1 bed, in this case we are talking about "7.1 + 4 objects in a fixed location", this is the way this "Atmos Light" is distributed.
It is with this limitation to 4 objects that they limit and control the bandwidth, compared to the 20 objects a real Atmos soundtrack can contain ...


----------



## UK Dreamer

pasender91 said:


> I respectfully think you're wrong
> Bluray can only have a 7.1 bed, in this case we are talking about "7.1 + 4 objects in a fixed location", this is the way this "Atmos Light" is distributed.
> It is with this limitation to 4 objects that they limit and control the bandwidth, compared to the 20 objects a real Atmos soundtrack can contain ...


Well yes. The Dolby True HD part of Atmos forms the 7.1 - but then the .4 is generally taken to represent 4 overhead 'channels', or speaker positions - these are taken to be 'fixed' in space since that is how we build theatres - the speakers don't move, but objects move from one to another (and phantom in between). The metadata needed to create these 4 fixed positions is negligible, and can be thought of, for simplicities sake, as simply 4 overhead channels - which happens to be where we've placed (some) of our speakers - in this case, say, TF and TR.

When we start moving objects around, the increase in metadata required to do so is what I was referring to in my previous post - and it is this increase in data that the studios are avoiding (IMO for reasons of cost alone) by 'rendering' to 7.1.4.

Note: I'm not an AV pro, or even Audio expert - so my terminology may be wide of the mark, and I may be referring to things by the wrong name - but my argument that limiting a track to 7.1.4 instead of allowing a free-flowing Atmos track is simply down to reducing bandwidth and costs still stands - and there is no reason why a full-fat Atmos track cannot be encoded onto any BluRay, vanilla or UHD.


----------



## Geordon

Geordon said:


> I have a Marantz AV8805 and Panasonic UB900, but I don't think either one can play Atmos audio tracks directly from the USB ports. Or am I missing something? If I want to actually hear the files in Atmos 7.x.x, what device do you recommend I get to play them, and what file types should I be pulling down?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Geordon


I found an older post about the potential of using MPC-HC with a Microsoft Surface Pro and the mini-DisplayPort. I recalled buying a male mini-DP to female HDMI from NewEgg on one of their "freebie" rebate deals, and dug it up. Downloaded MPC-HC and installed on my Surface Pro 4 with Windows 10. Added an HDMI cable to the chain and plugged into the front port on my AV8805. Worked like a charm! 

One very simple free media player install, no additional tweaks, and I have wonderful Atmos and DTS:X coming from my tablet.

Thought I would pass this on to anyone else overlooking a simple solution they may already own.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pasender91 said:


> Well FilmMixer, at least , if you want, you can relay to your contacts in studios and Dolby what we (HC enthousiasts) think about this 7.1.4 pre-rendering !!
> We want full Atmos, nothing else


Can we get an A-men! up in here?


----------



## FilmMixer

pasender91 said:


> Let me be the one .... The feature used has always been in Atmos, from day one. It is a flag for objects called "snap to".
> 
> If this flag is activated, then the object at position X.Y.Z will be rendered by the nearest speaker ONLY instead of being matrixed to the 2 3 or 4 nearest ones.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand how collapsing all objects to 4 objects at fixed positions can help save and control bandwidth usage for streaming, this is not nice but understandable.
> 
> But to activate the "snap to" flag is beyond my understanding, it doesn't help in controlling bandwidth, it is only annoying users by preventing the sound to "spill" onto nearby speakers
> 
> For example, for a fixed object at TF-R location:
> 
> - for a config with TF-R, then in both cases TF-R reproduces the object.
> 
> - for a config with FH-R, "snap to" sends it all to FH-R, but without it FH-R would play it but some sound would also go to FW-R, SUR-R, and RH-R. Why they want to prevent that is what i fail to understand ...




“Snap to” wasn’t designed for creating “static” mixes. 

It has zero to do with creating a rendered output. 

And “matrixed” isn’t exactly a term I would use...

Maybe getting away from phantom imaging is a more appropriate description. That would be a reason.... or to reduce the chance of comb filtering. Or if I want to make sure a sound is rock solid in its location by guaranteeing it only comes from one speaker instead of two... when you’re talking about rooms with 48 or more speakers you might want to do that with sound effects like individual rain drops, or specific instruments in a music mix... Or ....

Many reasons why he feature exists. 

That being said... 

I’ve never seen a mixer use it in a mix. Not once. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

UK Dreamer said:


> When we start moving objects around, the increase in metadata required to do so is what I was referring to in my previous post - and it is this increase in data that the studios are avoiding (IMO for reasons of cost alone) by 'rendering' to 7.1.4.



Metadata is very small in terms of data requirements. It’s the audio of the objects that take up space. 

On average an Atmos encode adds between 20-25% to the size of the file. 

So taking 12-16 objects and turning it into 4 is a very large space saving measure. 

Again. I’ve no understanding of why this is being done by some parties. 

If I haven’t been explicitly clear in my other posts please know I am making certain assumptions. 

Workflow is one reason why a company could choose to do this, not just to save space or bandwidth. If you create a channel based master, it CAN be used downstream for other purposes (AC-4, mobile, etc...). That would create a savings in terms of creating new masters, doing QC, etc. but that being said it might reduce the footprint of a TrueHD encode by a significant amount. 

I am as surprised as everyone else that this has happened on BR/UHD... but it doesn’t surprise me when I see a company like Disney doing it knowing they are about to launch a streaming service of their own.


----------



## UK Dreamer

FilmMixer said:


> Metadata is very small in terms of data requirements. It’s the *audio of the objects* that take up space.
> 
> On average an Atmos encode adds between 20-25% to the size of the file.
> 
> So taking 12-16 objects and turning it into 4 is a very large space saving measure.


Indeed, I explicitly mentioned that in my earlier post, but omitted from the last - my bad.



> Again. I’ve no understanding of why this is being done by some parties.
> 
> If I haven’t been explicitly clear in my other posts please know I am making certain assumptions.
> 
> Workflow is one reason why a company could choose to do this, not just to save space or bandwidth. If you create a channel based master, it CAN be used downstream for other purposes (AC-4, mobile, etc...). That would create a savings in terms of creating new masters, doing QC, etc. but that being said it might reduce the footprint of a TrueHD encode by a significant amount.
> 
> I am as surprised as everyone else that this has happened on BR/UHD... but it doesn’t surprise me when I see a company like Disney doing it knowing they are about to launch a streaming service of their own.


Absolutely. The bandwidth saving is just one element - but the cost savings are there to be had by streamlining towards the lowest common denominator, while still being able to claim it's 'Atmos'!

But we (the enthusiasts) know better!


----------



## dwa247

I have been thinking about doing a 9.1.6 Atmos setup in the near future when the Emotiva RMC-1 comes out, but now I'm having second thoughts after reading that some Atmos soundtracks are limited to 7.1.4. Does anyone know if there is a list of discs that are locked to 7.1.4? That is something I would like to see and keep updated on.


----------



## stikle

Hey Marc-



FilmMixer said:


> I’m getting ready to start my fourth Atmos in the past 16 months, and my first one for OTT.... since this is the first since the whole 7.1.4 thing has reared it’s head I’m sure *I’ll get quite an education*.



Out of curiosity, ARE there classes available to you as a Professional to teach you how to mix using a new new technology such as Atmos or DTS:X? How do you learn to best utilize it - trial and error and seeing what works and what doesn't?



FilmMixer said:


> (cause I am certainly a HUGE proponent of wides)



As am I. Do you get to make decisions like "I'm going to use wides in this mix because I'm the one doing it!"? Do you have to go to the studio and ask if they want specific things like that? Does the studio just send the job over and say "make it Atmosy", or do they send audio specs over as well?

I've just always been really curious about the workflow from that standpoint. It's always sounded like an fun and interesting career! Or doing foley...that might be fun too.

Anyway, thanks as always for your participation and insight here.


----------



## FilmMixer

stikle said:


> Hey Marc-
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, ARE there classes available to you as a Professional to teach you how to mix using a new new technology such as Atmos or DTS:X? How do you learn to best utilize it - trial and error and seeing what works and what doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> As am I. Do you get to make decisions like "I'm going to use wides in this mix because I'm the one doing it!"? Do you have to go to the studio and ask if they want specific things like that? Does the studio just send the job over and say "make it Atmosy", or do they send audio specs over as well?
> 
> 
> 
> I've just always been really curious about the workflow from that standpoint. It's always sounded like an fun and interesting career! Or doing foley...that might be fun too.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, thanks as always for your participation and insight here.



There are no classes. Most of us have been doing his for a long time, and it’s a very small community. 

Atmos was really the first “radical” change we’ve had in this business since the introduction of digital sound on film (DD, SDDS and DTS...). And even then 6 track mixes had been happening for a long time. Because of this Dolby was very involved for the first two or three years. We had years where we were experimenting (Iosono, Auro etc...). But Dolby developed the tools and workflow with the sound community. 

Like anything new it did and does take time to get your head wrapped around what you can do, what you can’t do and sometimes what you shouldn’t do. Trial and error? Yes. 

Asking others what they do and listening to what others have done is always inspiring... 

Mixers have relationships with directors and producers. Our job is to help the director get his vision on screen. 

That’s why they come to us. They know our work and others we’ve worked with. Relationships are the driving factor in who gets hire. 

It’s rare that I’ve had a director give me specific direction about how to do our job. We give them choices sometimes and discuss intent of the scene, intent of the sound, etc. but it’s all a team effort...

In the end it’s our discretion and our taste in how we use the tools given. If it’s not we will try something else... but in the end it’s us (mixers) who make the thousands and thousands of decisions that are required when mixing a sound track. The director then works through the film with us to make it exactly like they envisioned it. 

The studios has zero say in how we mix a track. They do usually have an opportunity to come hear he final mix and give notes to the director. 

Depends on the studio depends on the director. 

They will tell us what they want delivered (5.1, 7.1 Atmos, etc). That’s it. 

It is a fantastic career and I’ve been incredibly lucky. I love what I do and am thrilled everyday I get to work.


----------



## jjackkrash

@FilmMixer (sorry for the brief off topic) but in another thread a member made the claim that the vast majority (i.e. close to all)


----------



## m. zillch

jjackkrash said:


> @FilmMixer (sorry for the brief off topic) but in another thread a member made the claim that the vast majority (i.e. close to all)


----------



## notnyt

You said there's not a lot of content below 27hz, which is just wrong. Feeding full range material to a low excursion ported speaker that's tuned somewhere in the 30hz range is bad news. The filter is vital to protect it from over excursion from low frequency content found in modern movies.

I can't believe this is still being debated after you were presented with heaps of spectrographs and sound track analysis.


----------



## m. zillch

notnyt said:


> You said there's not a lot of content below 27hz, which is just wrong.


No I said "27 Hz,* or so*", and he was talking about filtering his front mains, I assumed with a sub running in the system too, but I might have been wrong about that.

Dolby says in their white paper on Atmos, re. the front, main screen speakers:

"2.3 Frequency Range: 40 Hz to 16 kHz, +3/_–6 dB_" { although the digital transmission ch. can go much lower, just like the LFE can go down to 3 Hz.}

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


----------



## notnyt

m. zillch said:


> No I said 27 Hz,* or so*, and he was talking about filtering his front mains, I assumed with a sub too but i might have been wrong about that.
> 
> Dolby says in their white paper on Atmos, re. the front main screen speakers:
> 
> "2.3 Frequency Range: 40 Hz to 16 kHz, +3/–6 dB"
> 
> "https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


Oh, "or so". That changes everything... rofl.

You're also quoting minimum requirements for a cinema screen speaker.


----------



## Uppsalaing

This is an Atmos thread...


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Metadata is very small in terms of data requirements. It’s the audio of the objects that take up space.
> 
> On average an Atmos encode adds between 20-25% to the size of the file.
> 
> So taking 12-16 objects and turning it into 4 is a very large space saving measure.
> 
> Again. I’ve no understanding of why this is being done by some parties.
> 
> If I haven’t been explicitly clear in my other posts please know I am making certain assumptions.
> 
> Workflow is one reason why a company could choose to do this, not just to save space or bandwidth. If you create a channel based master, it CAN be used downstream for other purposes (AC-4, mobile, etc...). That would create a savings in terms of creating new masters, doing QC, etc. but that being said it might reduce the footprint of a TrueHD encode by a significant amount.
> 
> I am as surprised as everyone else that this has happened on BR/UHD... but it doesn’t surprise me when I see a company like Disney doing it knowing they are about to launch a streaming service of their own.


Hi Marc

Not sure how this "new" 7.1.4 rendering scheme works. Did Dolby extend bed channels from 9.1 to 11.1 or is this a special metadata flag that makes 2 objects static?
If bandwidth is a concern there always was the option to print just the bed channels and still label it as an Atmos track, correct?


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Hi Marc
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how this "new" 7.1.4 rendering scheme works. Did Dolby extend bed channels from 9.1 to 11.1 or is this a special metadata flag that makes 2 objects static?
> 
> If bandwidth is a concern there always was the option to print just the bed channels and still label it as an Atmos track, correct?



Since it must be backwards compatibly you can reasonably assume that you would simply take the 4 overhead rendered channels and then “pan” them to the appropriate location. 

I am only working on limited knowledge about what has happened and how some shows have been delivered. 

So a lot of what I have said is speculation on my part (I hope I have made that clear in my posts...)

I am not sure of the reasons why Disney, or WB, or (name the studio) have produced these tracks. 

As I mentioned in one of my follow up posts there new software that allows software channel rendering and it isn’t “done” yet... 

So some of the people I spoke with have ended up recording the 7.1.4 output of the RMU... 

I am working on a few facts. 

1. There are indeed titles that are “locked” 7.1.4 (not only are some labeled as such, but some users have confirmed the static object activity on processors that support greater than 11 channels and have meters to confirm that.)

2. There is indeed the new ability to wrap the .atmos file into a new container and these new files can be dragged directly onto a Pro Tools session timeline. This is a big step forward in workflow from a “post mix” perspective. 

3. AC-4 is around the corner. Streaming Atmos is gaining traction. Channel based workflow makes sense for this (channel renders are much easier to work with). In addition reducing the object count to four could potentially reduce artifacts when using lossy encoders..

4. I know that colleagues have been delivering 7.1.4 channel renders of their Atmos mixes. I cannot confirm that those same renders are what have been encoded into an Atmos stream and broadcast/authored/used. 

There has been no fundamental change to Atmos. 

Not in the mixing workflow, or bed size. 

There has not been an option to encode a track with less than 12 objects. Obviously if there is no audio in 8 of the objects it significantly reduces the bandwidth needed. I am not exposed to much use of the authoring software, so while I state that as fact, it could have indeed changed, but it would still have to produce content that is full compatible with the codec as it launched years ago.

Like everyone else, I’m working on a lot of anecdotal information and working backwards. 

I hope to have some informed and concrete answers about why it appears some content creators have decided to release content in 7.1.4 over the next few weeks. 

MY OPINION (AND MY SPECULATION) ONLY is that the people in change of what gets released on home video, in certain situations, see a 7.1.4 encode as sufficient for having an satisfactory immersive experience for their customers and in reaching that conclusion have decided to streamline the workflow to accommodate that (and in doing so you create one master that is easily transportable and hard to mess up (having objects with static metadata allows for much easier ending and conforming, leaving little room for error.... it could also theoretically lead to a less artifact prone decode (although that hasn’t really been a problem it COULD be seen as a benefit).

In the end we all need to see if this is indeed that way forward and then consumers (and CEs) will need to decide if greater than 11 channels is viable and or necessary for them individually.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> I am not sure of the reasons why Disney, or WB, or (name the studio) have produced these tracks.


The speculation that is being done with streaming in mind (fixed/capped bitrate) seems to make the most sense.


----------



## markus767

@FilmMixer Thanks, that clears it up for me. Please let us know when new information becomes available.


----------



## johnnygrandis

Finally finished installing the Atmos speakers and the Anthem AV60, very pleased and the intergration is awesome


----------



## duckymomo

Well if this 7.1.4 atmos becomes a thing, native >11.1 channel processors may note be a worth the money without matrixed/channel routing options. 

I really like matrixed wides and it's great not worrying about the scarcity of native wide content. Haven't had a chance to test matrized top middles.


----------



## gwsat

johnnygrandis said:


> Finally finished installing the Atmos speakers and the Anthem AV60, very pleased and the intergration is awesome


If it sounds as great as it looks, you are going to be a happy camper.


----------



## DaveMcLain

FilmMixer said:


> There are no classes. Most of us have been doing his for a long time, and it’s a very small community.
> 
> Atmos was really the first “radical” change we’ve had in this business since the introduction of digital sound on film (DD, SDDS and DTS...). And even then 6 track mixes had been happening for a long time. Because of this Dolby was very involved for the first two or three years. We had years where we were experimenting (Iosono, Auro etc...). But Dolby developed the tools and workflow with the sound community.
> 
> Like anything new it did and does take time to get your head wrapped around what you can do, what you can’t do and sometimes what you shouldn’t do. Trial and error? Yes.
> 
> Asking others what they do and listening to what others have done is always inspiring...
> 
> Mixers have relationships with directors and producers. Our job is to help the director get his vision on screen.
> 
> That’s why they come to us. They know our work and others we’ve worked with. Relationships are the driving factor in who gets hire.
> 
> It’s rare that I’ve had a director give me specific direction about how to do our job. We give them choices sometimes and discuss intent of the scene, intent of the sound, etc. but it’s all a team effort...
> 
> In the end it’s our discretion and our taste in how we use the tools given. If it’s not we will try something else... but in the end it’s us (mixers) who make the thousands and thousands of decisions that are required when mixing a sound track. The director then works through the film with us to make it exactly like they envisioned it.
> 
> The studios has zero say in how we mix a track. They do usually have an opportunity to come hear he final mix and give notes to the director.
> 
> Depends on the studio depends on the director.
> 
> They will tell us what they want delivered (5.1, 7.1 Atmos, etc). That’s it.
> 
> It is a fantastic career and I’ve been incredibly lucky. I love what I do and am thrilled everyday I get to work.


I was under the impression that the Atmos tools make it easier to adapt a given mix from a theater to a home setting is this true or do you still do a different new mix for the home video release?


----------



## FilmMixer

DaveMcLain said:


> I was under the impression that the Atmos tools make it easier to adapt a given mix from a theater to a home setting is this true or do you still do a different new mix for the home video release?



Depends on the studio. Most studios now do near field remastering from the theatrical Atmos printmaster session. 

Or they can use that same master and make a home Atmos file..

To be clear for everyone.... the mix workflow doesn’t change if one was to render out a channel based 7.1.4. It still contains all the objects and their intended panned positions.... with obvious limitations in moving past 7.1.4 playback.


----------



## richlife

FilmMixer said:


> ...
> 
> It is a fantastic career and I’ve been incredibly lucky. I love what I do and am thrilled everyday I get to work.


Thank you, sir, for taking the time to share all this with us here and in other threads. Very nice to get the fact and speculation (all clearly noted) to better understand this fascinating capability/technology.

I limited my quote simply because, as a former career counselor and later manager of people in a tech arena, I understand how very important job/career satisfaction is (or can be) for anyone. You specific comment makes me very happy for you. I was fortunate enough to share much of that through most of my career(s). Found it hard to believe that they paid me to work...!


----------



## batpig

Marc -- since you're active now, I'll ask a related question which you probably will have to speculate on the answer.... (but your speculation is more informed than the rest of ours!)

What do you think is going on with the "almost 7.1.4" mixes like Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy 2 which for the most part play in 7.1.4, with the FW speakers virtually silent, but have occasional sounds that pan through TM? 

In some of these case it seems weird that the wides don't light up at all during intense action scenes where there are clear front-to-back pans that seem like they should pan through the FW speakers... 

Do you think it's likely that these are being output as basically 7.1ch beds with the only object use being in the height layer?


----------



## DrDon

Bickering removed.

Discuss the topic and not each other!


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> What do you think is going on with the "almost 7.1.4" mixes like Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy 2 which for the most part play in 7.1.4, with the FW speakers virtually silent, but have occasional sounds that pan through TM?
> 
> In some of these case it seems weird that the wides don't light up at all during intense action scenes where there are clear front-to-back pans that seem like they should pan through the FW speakers...


Wonder Woman has very occasional 1-second or 2-second bursts of sound in the FW speakers. Makes me wonder if it is some sort of encoding or decoding error. Would anyone deliberately mix that way?


----------



## Kain

For Atmos, is the bed 7.1.2 in commercial theaters and 7.1.0 (only objects for ceiling speaker effects) for home releases?


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Marc -- since you're active now, I'll ask a related question which you probably will have to speculate on the answer.... (but your speculation is more informed than the rest of ours!)
> 
> What do you think is going on with the "almost 7.1.4" mixes like Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy 2 which for the most part play in 7.1.4, with the FW speakers virtually silent, but have occasional sounds that pan through TM?
> 
> In some of these case it seems weird that the wides don't light up at all during intense action scenes where there are clear front-to-back pans that seem like they should pan through the FW speakers...
> 
> Do you think it's likely that these are being output as basically 7.1ch beds with the only object use being in the height layer?


Just the 9.1 channel bed and no objects at all?


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

Wait what ?! I was reading the past 2 pages.

Sooooo Atmos on blu ray discs si a gimmick ? I though atmos is medatada that the processor encodes depending on how many speakers you have and the distance from the main listening position.
How can a mix be limited to .4 ? Also about the front wides. 

So Cinema Atmos differs from BD atmos ? Then why the heck do we need 13 / 15+ channels, if the BD atmos is limited to 11 speakers.

Atmos was supposed to be able to add up to 32 speakers, and the metadata should utilise every single speaker your processor can decode.

I couldn't find the video i wanted to show but found another that should work.






Look how they show the helicopter and how each speaker is firing depending on its location.


----------



## batpig

markus767 said:


> Just the 9.1 channel bed and no objects at all?


I don't think that's possible for home delivery. At minimum, 7.1 + two fixed objects for a stereo pair of "overhead beds". 

You do still hear front/rear separation though so I don't think it's that...


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> For Atmos, is the bed 7.1.2 in commercial theaters and 7.1.0 (only objects for ceiling speaker effects) for home releases?


Basically yes. My understanding is that theatrical Atmos has 9 channels (the standard 7 plus L/R overhead beds) + objects. However, for home delivery (and for backwards compatibility) it piggybacks as an extension to a 7.1 channel based track, so any sound in the heights (or front wides or any other speaker besides the 7.1 bed) by definition has to be objects.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

This pdf from dolbys site.

Read 3rd page the section for the home theater.

"A Dolby Atmos movie can be played back on nearly any speaker configuration in the home. You’ll be able to hear the placement and movement of sound in a Dolby Atmos movie whether you have a system with five speakers on the floor and two overhead or 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead (the current maximum for a Dolby Atmos supersystem) or any variety between."

Also on their site i read about the cinema atmos, they say that there is a normal mix of 9.1(which i don't understand *) that they call the "bed" that has the music from the movie and maybe some other small effects. But everything else should be object oriented. 

* This should work like this: left surround array of speakers is considered the left surround so the music content will be played on all left surround array of speakers at the same volume as the mix was created at. Same for the right and back and center including the voices. And everything else we hear should be object based.

I'm confused.


----------



## FilmMixer

Quetzalcoalt said:


> This pdf from dolbys site.
> 
> 
> 
> Read 3rd page the section for the home theater.
> 
> 
> 
> "A Dolby Atmos movie can be played back on nearly any speaker configuration in the home. You’ll be able to hear the placement and movement of sound in a Dolby Atmos movie whether you have a system with five speakers on the floor and two overhead or 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead (the current maximum for a Dolby Atmos supersystem) or any variety between."
> 
> 
> 
> Also on their site i read about the cinema atmos, they say that there is a normal mix of 9.1(which i don't understand *) that they call the "bed" that has the music from the movie and maybe some other small effects. But everything else should be object oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> * This should work like this: left surround array of speakers is considered the left surround so the music content will be played on all left surround array of speakers at the same volume as the mix was created at. Same for the right and back and center including the voices. And everything else we hear should be object based.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused.



Nothing to be confused about. 

Home Atmos supports 24 floor level speakers and 10 overhead speakers. 

When taking the theatrical atmos mix (which is a 9.1 bed plus up to 118 objects) it gets encoded as a 7.1 + objects. The 2 overhead array channels from the 9.1 theatrical mix get encoded as objects. The other objects (up to 118) get encoded into at a minimum 12 objects using a technique branded “spatial coding.”

That’s the way it has been. That’s the way it will be moving forward. 

What is being discussed is that it APPEARS that some tittles have been rendered (playing back the Atmos master and re-recording it while being output as a 7.1.4 mix... you could just as easily do it as a 9.1.6 or 24.1.10 if you wanted...)

That’s it. 

The sky is not falling.


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Just the 9.1 channel bed and no objects at all?




You’ve now mentioned encoding atmos using only the bed and no objects twice in the last 24 hours. 

Curious why you are intimating that... 

Are you insinuating that there are companies doing that ? 

Are you inferring that Dolby is indeed allowing that ? 

Curious.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> What is being discussed is that it APPEARS that some tittles have been rendered (playing back the Atmos master and re-recording it while being output as a 7.1.4 mix... you could just as easily do it as a 9.1.6 or 24.1.10 if you wanted...)
> 
> That’s it.
> 
> The sky is not falling.


 
What further confuses things - correct me if I'm wrong here - is that it appears that there "may" be some titles that are output as 9.1.6 (Westworld Season 1 I want to say, but I'll watch the first hour tonight and check) or 7.1.6 (GotG2) along with 7.1.4 ones like Last Jedi. And there other titles that are dominantly using 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 or whatever, but not entirely.


Drawing the line - or even whether we "should" draw the line - between print to save space and artistic intent is not going to be easy.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> You’ve now mentioned encoding atmos using only the bed and no objects twice in the last 24 hours.
> 
> Curious why you are intimating that...
> 
> Are you insinuating that there are companies doing that ?
> 
> Are you inferring that Dolby is indeed allowing that ?
> 
> Curious.


Just thinking out loud


----------



## FilmMixer

markus767 said:


> Just thinking out loud




What would be the point of doing so? (Doing that I mean, not thinking out loud )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

sdrucker said:


> What further confuses things - correct me if I'm wrong here - is that it appears that there "may" be some titles that are output as 9.1.6 (Westworld Season 1 I want to say, but I'll watch the first hour tonight and check) or 7.1.6 (GotG2) along with 7.1.4 ones like Last Jedi. And there other titles that are dominantly using 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 or whatever, but not entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing the line - or even whether we "should" draw the line - between print to save space and artistic intent is not going to be easy.



I’m looking forward to seeing what is really going on. Seems to be a recent occurrence... 

Again I must point again out I don’t assume it is to save space... but to reduce potential errors, and create one master that can be easily used for many purposes. 

Those are compelling arguments a studio might make when the market for > 7.1.4 is very small, even as immersive audio becomes much more mainstream. 

Might not be a popular comment to make, but just trying to throw out all the variables that might be discussed when such things are decided upon. 

All just my .02.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> Again I must point again out I don’t assume it is to save space... but to reduce potential errors, and create one master that can be easily used for many purposes.
> 
> 
> Those are compelling arguments a studio might make when the market for > 7.1.4 is very small, even as immersive audio becomes much more mainstream.


Let's be real. There's maybe a few thousand people worldwide with > 7.1.4 processors, and with the exception of the Denon/Marantzes and Emotiva, almost all of them AFAIK offer the ability to do speaker arrays or matrixing or something to get content to the top middle or wides in some form. It's not like Trinnov 32 users are suddenly going to go and sell their units because The Last Jedi is 7.1.4. Even if this became a norm (which I don't think it will in a dominant way), there's ways to compensate, if not as far as we'd like for immersive sound.

If there really is a process that takes the size of a 7.1.4+ market into account, those are legitimate possibilities you mention, in the "no big loss" to most potential buyers (if the UHD buyers are even paying attention on average that they have Dolby Atmos, when they play their movies over the OLED TV with a soundbar LOL). I've always been amazed that the whole idea of Atmos was to scalable to speaker layouts that only Trinnov, until very recently, could do. If anything, that was the anomaly, not a hypothetical trend toward confirming the most common denominator and printing in the 7.1.4 to 9.1.6 range.

It would not be an illogical business decision for studios, especially with mass market titles like Last Jedi or Wonder Woman, to consider turning what's basically a universal, scalable format to product tiers (my not-so-joking "Atmos Lite" and "Atmos Platinum") that they can exploit if there's a need. Frankly, being in a marketing consulting field myself, that's exactly what I would do if I were a suit, if I could: reserve a "premium level of service" for people that are willing to pay for it, bundled with the next technology to come along like 8K. 

Consumer-friendly and a slap in the face to us? No question.



> Might not be a popular comment to make, but just trying to throw out all the variables that might be discussed when such things are decided upon.
> All just my .02.


If popularity here mattered to the powers that be, we'd be speculating about the Oppo 303  .


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> What would be the point of doing so? (Doing that I mean, not thinking out loud )
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Probably the same reasons as printing to 7.1.4. After all objects end up in a monophonic channel. If you know that the object is static then it can be handled like any other static channel.


----------



## youthman

Well I'm excited to finally be moving towards Dolby Atmos! I ordered my Atmos speakers and am awaiting the arrival of the Denon AVR-X6400H receiver. I know I will be looking for advice from you guys that already have moved to Atmos and Auro-3D so I'm excited to take my home theater to the next level. I thought I would document my journey along the way


----------



## mrtickleuk

youthman said:


> Well I'm excited to finally be moving towards Dolby Atmos! I ordered my Atmos speakers and am awaiting the arrival of the Denon AVR-X6400H receiver.


Enjoy it (I'm sure you will!). I don't think you needed to spend all that money on REW and its own microphone unless you were planning on such detailed measurements that you are committed to room treatments. This is because Denon has Audyssey built in which will perform those same (or better) room corrections, and it comes with the mic you need. Can't fault your enthusiasm though!


----------



## youthman

Thanks mrtickleuk. REW is free, the mic is only $100. In my recent use of Audyssey, it didn't do a very good job. It removed a lot of the detail from my center channel. My current receiver the Onkyo TX-NR5008 was a flagship in it's day and has Audyssey XT32 as well. I can't help but believe that a $20 plastic Audyssey mic would not be as accurate as a $100 mic that has been recommended by people way smarter than I.


----------



## gwsat

youthman said:


> Thanks mrtickleuk. REW is free, the mic is only $100. In my recent use of Audyssey, it didn't do a very good job. It removed a lot of the detail from my center channel. My current receiver the Onkyo TX-NR5008 was a flagship in it's day and has Audyssey XT32 as well. I can't help but believe that a $20 plastic Audyssey mic would not be as accurate as a $100 mic that has been recommended by people way smarter than I.


I see that you have four subs in your setup so I agree that REW and a UMIK-1 will be a good investment for you. Be warned, though, REW is a rabbit hole from which no one escapes. Fortunately, there are a lot of REW experts who post in the REW thread and several of the subwoofer threads. Those guys saved my like when I was using REW to tame my setup. Good luck!


----------



## youthman

Thanks gwsat. Yes, I'm running (4) Klipsch RSW-15's behind my 150" AT Screen. I'm currently reviewing a pair of SVS Dual SB-16's, but will also be reviewing in the near future Dual PB-16's, a Klipsch R-115SW as well as a Power Sound Audio S3601. I figure being able to see what is going on in the room or at least see on paper how the subs are performing would be beneficial.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

youthman said:


> Thanks mrtickleuk. REW is free, the mic is only $100. In my recent use of Audyssey, it didn't do a very good job. It removed a lot of the detail from my center channel. My current receiver the Onkyo TX-NR5008 was a flagship in it's day and has Audyssey XT32 as well. I can't help but believe that a $20 plastic Audyssey mic would not be as accurate as a $100 mic that has been recommended by people way smarter than I.


Well read this thread.


----------



## youthman

Thanks Quetzalcoalt. Seems like the various receiver mics are very inconsistent. The thread didn't say how they compared to something like the UMIK-1 but I would hope that the UMIK-1 would fair better.


----------



## Fazzz

Not sure if anyone has checked out the The Commuter with Liam Neeson on Blu Ray, but surprisingly good Atmos track. Really good use of the height channels at the end - maybe even better than Justice League, which was really good. An under-the-radar good movie on top of that so definitely recommend checking it out.


----------



## yepimonfire

Even if the majority of Atmos setups are likely to be 7-11 speaker feeds, it just doesn't make sense to encode objects with snap to speaker and then mix it as if it's channel based. This is the same failure dts x has suffered and completely ruins the whole point of object based mixing.

Aren't you able to import a truehd Atmos track into your DAW and take a look at what's going on? It'd be interesting to see if they're actually doing that or not.


FilmMixer said:


> I’m looking forward to seeing what is really going on. Seems to be a recent occurrence...
> 
> Again I must point again out I don’t assume it is to save space... but to reduce potential errors, and create one master that can be easily used for many purposes.
> 
> Those are compelling arguments a studio might make when the market for > 7.1.4 is very small, even as immersive audio becomes much more mainstream.
> 
> Might not be a popular comment to make, but just trying to throw out all the variables that might be discussed when such things are decided upon.
> 
> All just my .02.


Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


----------



## mzs22

Fazzz said:


> Not sure if anyone has checked out the The Commuter with Liam Neeson on Blu Ray, but surprisingly good Atmos track. Really good use of the height channels at the end - maybe even better than Justice League, which was really good. An under-the-radar good movie on top of that so definitely recommend checking it out.


Just received the 4k blu ray from amazon,haven't had a chance to watch it yet. Did watch Den of thieves ,not atmos but the gun shots sounded really good!


----------



## mzs22

I lowered all my surround speakers from a height of about 7ft down to about 5ft ,sounds good! Not that it didn't sound good before. I recently purchased two more atmos speakers,going from two to four. Still waiting for my new amp so I can get everything up and running.


----------



## FilmMixer

yepimonfire said:


> Even if the majority of Atmos setups are likely to be 7-11 speaker feeds, it just doesn't make sense to encode objects with snap to speaker and then mix it as if it's channel based. This is the same failure dts x has suffered and completely ruins the whole point of object based mixing.
> 
> Aren't you able to import a truehd Atmos track into your DAW and take a look at what's going on? It'd be interesting to see if they're actually doing that or not.
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk



I didn’t say they were using snap to speaker. I explained why the feature might be useful. 

And many people keeps speaking about mixing and authoring like they are the same thing. 

They aren’t. It’s important to clarify that distinction. 

Mixing with objects still has many benefits even if the final encode is a locked 7.1.4. 

You cannot import a TrueHD track into a DAW, Atmos or otherwise. 

You can play the track back through a decoder and capture the PCM... but there is no need. Stuart was able to confirm with the meters in his Trinnov that the 7.1.4 encode in said title was indeed 7.1.4. 

In the end the whys and how’s aren’t important. 

I suggest anybody upset with the practice should directly contact the studios releasing content in said format. 

In the end that is where the decisions comes from. 

Not Dolby. 

If there are enough consumers who say they won’t be buying discs because of it and they is enough of a volume of said emails maybe it will go up he food chain.


----------



## FilmMixer

yepimonfire said:


> Even if the majority of Atmos setups are likely to be 7-11 speaker feeds, it just doesn't make sense to encode objects with snap to speaker and then mix it as if it's channel based. This is the same failure dts x has suffered and completely ruins the whole point of object based mixing.
> 
> Aren't you able to import a truehd Atmos track into your DAW and take a look at what's going on? It'd be interesting to see if they're actually doing that or not.
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk



I didn’t say they were using snap to speaker. I explained why the feature might be useful. 

And many people keeps speaking about mixing and authoring like they are the same thing. 

They aren’t. It’s important to clarify that distinction. 

Mixing with objects still has many benefits even if the final encode is a locked 7.1.4. 

You cannot import a TrueHD track into a DAW, Atmos or otherwise. 

You can play the track back through a decoder and capture the PCM... but there is no need. Stuart was able to confirm with the meters in his Trinnov that the 7.1.4 encode in said title was indeed 7.1.4. 

In the end the whys and how’s aren’t important. 

I suggest anybody upset with the practice should directly contact the studios releasing content in said format. 

In the end that is where the decisions comes from. 

Not Dolby. 

If there are enough consumers who say they won’t be buying discs because of it and they is enough of a volume of said emails maybe it will go up he food chain.


----------



## yepimonfire

If not snap to speaker then how would you limit it?


FilmMixer said:


> I didn’t say they were using snap to speaker. I explained why the feature might be useful.
> 
> And many people keeps speaking about mixing and authoring like they are the same thing.
> 
> They aren’t. It’s important to clarify that distinction.
> 
> Mixing with objects still has many benefits even if the final encode is a locked 7.1.4.
> 
> You cannot import a TrueHD track into a DAW, Atmos or otherwise.
> 
> You can play the track back through a decoder and capture the PCM... but there is no need. Stuart was able to confirm with the meters in his Trinnov that the 7.1.4 encode in said title was indeed 7.1.4.
> 
> In the end the whys and how’s aren’t important.
> 
> I suggest anybody upset with the practice should directly contact the studios releasing content in said format.
> 
> In the end that is where the decisions comes from.
> 
> Not Dolby.
> 
> If there are enough consumers who say they won’t be buying discs because of it and they is enough of a volume of said emails maybe it will go up he food chain.


Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

yepimonfire said:


> If not snap to speaker then how would you limit it?
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk




I discussed this in an earlier post.

Snap to speaker is a mixing tool. 

If you used “snap to speaker” on an object (and it is a PER OBJECT parameter) a sound panning over head in a circle it would jump around in a system with only 4 overhead locations. That’s not what is being discussed. It was really designed for a theatrical setting where you have access to a large number of speakers (I’ve mixed in rooms with 52 available speakers). 

You can play back a home Atmos mix on anywhere from a 2.x.2 to 24.x.10 output system. If you want to capture that output as 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 you simply set the rendering engine to the appropriate desired format and capture it (either by doing a linear capture and recording of said output or with other tools.) The overheads have assumed locations within the codec and you can then take those predefined positions and use those numerical value to set the panners for the appropriate objects. The bed channels are already defined positions within the codec. As I postulated earlier you might do this for a number of reasons (workflow, bandwidth, artifact reduction, etc...)

That is one way to do it. I believe there are others either currently available or coming soon in the authoring and mastering software. 

You’re confusing a mixing tool (snap to speaker) with a way to output and author an Atmos master. 

That’s not a criticism. It is a distinction that wouldn’t be clear to most enthusiasts as a deep understanding of the production workflow isn’t really that important to enjoying and understanding how the home versions works (except to illustrate the differences...)

IMO it’s fairly irrelevant how it is done (rendering to channels...

Here’s where we stand today :

We have seen a handful of titles released that are labeled 7.1.4. 

And it’s been confirmed that is what is indeed on said discs. 

I haven’t heard of this becoming the new norm for optical discs from most studios.


----------



## pasender91

Thanks for the clarification Marc, so just 4 objects at fixed locations, with content "computed" from the X objects in the original mix, that's quite easy to understand finally.
Hoping this doesn't become mainstream ...


----------



## Roger Dressler

FilmMixer said:


> It is a distinction that wouldn’t be clear to most enthusiasts as a deep understanding of the production workflow isn’t really that important to enjoying and understanding how the home versions works (except to illustrate the differences...)
> 
> IMO it’s fairly irrelevant how it is done (rendering to channels...


Hi Marc,
Just to say that I think the issue of snap got brought into the discussion for 2 reasons:
1) Snap is a mixer decision, and that relates with artistic intent.
2) Snap was allegedly involved in certain cases where a wide speaker presenting certain proscenium music folds into the front speakers when wides are not present (as opposed to phantom imaging from fronts/sides). 

While 2) is not a parallel case to the one at hand, where Atmos titles appear to underutilize available wide or top speakers -- the question of snap might be related to whether this "7.1.4" result is somehow an expression of the mixer's intent. Your explanations ought to make it abundantly clear the answer is no.


----------



## Nalleh

Well, after all this talk about Atmos Lite, i tested Netflix earlier from XBOX ONE X and Atmos. Both Altered Carbon and Cloverfield Paradox had sound coming from Top Middle AND Wides, so it worked in 9.1.6.

So Netflix at least, is NOT limited to 7.1.4.


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> Well, after all this talk about Atmos Lite, i tested Netflix earlier from XBOX ONE X and Atmos. Both Altered Carbon and Cloverfield Paradox had sound coming from Top Middle AND Wides, so it worked in 9.1.6.
> 
> So Netflix at least, is NOT limited to 7.1.4.


Aren't you doing a mixed AVR setup with two different receivers creating different sets of outputs? Wouldn't that confound the conclusion?


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Aren't you doing a mixed AVR setup with two different receivers creating different sets of outputs? Wouldn't that confound the conclusion?


Yes, but a 9.1.2 setup still has proper Wides, agreed?
And a 7.1.6 setup still has proper Top Middle, correct?


----------



## sdurani

Old guilty pleasure of mine, The Quick and the Dead, announced for 4K UHD release July 17th, with new Atmos track. Stylized western by Sam Raimi that already had an excellent 5.1 surround mix. Hope they weren't timid with the Atmos re-mix.


----------



## batpig

Nalleh said:


> Yes, but a 9.1.2 setup still has proper Wides, agreed?
> And a 7.1.6 setup still has proper Top Middle, correct?


Hmm, true.... 

When you play a "confirmed" 7.1.4 title like The Last Jedi does it only play in 7.1.4?


----------



## mrtickleuk

youthman said:


> Thanks mrtickleuk. REW is free, the mic is only $100. In my recent use of Audyssey, it didn't do a very good job. It removed a lot of the detail from my center channel. My current receiver the Onkyo TX-NR5008 was a flagship in it's day and has Audyssey XT32 as well.


Interesting. Have you read the detail Audyssey FAQ on this forum? There are lots of variables to tweak and hints and tips to follow to get the best of out it, and the differences can be astonishing



> I can't help but *believe *that a $20 plastic Audyssey mic would not be as accurate as a $100 mic that has been recommended by people way smarter than I.


Ah, well there's your problem  You based that opinion on the $20 which is not the case. I'd want scientific evidence, not just a belief, that the Audyssey mic is only $20, and I'd remember that the cost of something is not always an indicator of how good it is.  this page from six years ago quotes $75 for a replacement. So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the 2018 price is exactly the same as your $100 mic. That gives a more interesting comparison between the two systems, if the cost of the mic is so important to your decision.


----------



## Jonas2

sdurani said:


> Old guilty pleasure of mine, The Quick and the Dead, announced for 4K UHD release July 17th, with new Atmos track. Stylized western by Sam Raimi that already had an excellent 5.1 surround mix. Hope they weren't timid with the Atmos re-mix.


AWESOME! I love this movie! I've never seen it in any surround format. Looking forward to this. Though I wonder, how effective will Atmos be for it?


----------



## Drew1204

I have 18 foot valued ceilings. Room width is about 14 feet. 

Should I put the speakers 3.5 or 4 feet in from the side walls for atmos? 3.5 feet in from side walls = 7 feet of spread. 4 feet from walls = 6 feet of spread. 

I’m going to be using the Ci200QR for the in ceiling speakers so diffusion of sound should not be an issue. 

Thank you! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UK Dreamer

Drew1204 said:


> I have 18 foot valued ceilings. Room width is about 14 feet.
> 
> Should I put the speakers 3.5 or 4 feet in from the side walls for atmos? 3.5 feet in from side walls = 7 feet of spread. 4 feet from walls = 6 feet of spread.
> 
> I’m going to be using the Ci200QR for the in ceiling speakers so diffusion of sound should not be an issue.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It’ll make a negligible difference. Atmos guidelines suggest overhead speakers ought to be placed in-line with your LCR speakers, but a few inches either way is not going to be noticeable. As long as there is good angular separation between your surrounds and overheads you will get a good Atmos effect.

If it were me, and I couldn’t get my overheads in-line with my LCR, I would just imagine a semi-circle created by my side surrounds and overhead speakers - and spread them evenly, placing them at 60 degrees from each other, or thereabouts - this isn’t an exact science, and there is a tendency to overthink a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Have fun!


----------



## yepimonfire

My main concern is how that will translate to other setups besides what it's mixed for. For example, I play back a 7.1.4 limited track on a 5.1.2 setup, would an object panning across the front and rear heights be appropriately phantomed between the fronts and surrounds as well as TM or will it collapse into the TM? I noticed some "collapsing" with GOTG 2 before I even knew about them doing this with Atmos mixes. Now I wonder if it was just the mix or their channel limiting vudu.


FilmMixer said:


> I discussed this in an earlier post.
> 
> Snap to speaker is a mixing tool.
> 
> If you used “snap to speaker” on an object (and it is a PER OBJECT parameter) a sound panning over head in a circle it would jump around in a system with only 4 overhead locations. That’s not what is being discussed. It was really designed for a theatrical setting where you have access to a large number of speakers (I’ve mixed in rooms with 52 available speakers).
> 
> You can play back a home Atmos mix on anywhere from a 2.x.2 to 24.x.10 output system. If you want to capture that output as 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 you simply set the rendering engine to the appropriate desired format and capture it (either by doing a linear capture and recording of said output or with other tools.) The overheads have assumed locations within the codec and you can then take those predefined positions and use those numerical value to set the panners for the appropriate objects. The bed channels are already defined positions within the codec. As I postulated earlier you might do this for a number of reasons (workflow, bandwidth, artifact reduction, etc...)
> 
> That is one way to do it. I believe there are others either currently available or coming soon in the authoring and mastering software.
> 
> You’re confusing a mixing tool (snap to speaker) with a way to output and author an Atmos master.
> 
> That’s not a criticism. It is a distinction that wouldn’t be clear to most enthusiasts as a deep understanding of the production workflow isn’t really that important to enjoying and understanding how the home versions works (except to illustrate the differences...)
> 
> IMO it’s fairly irrelevant how it is done (rendering to channels...
> 
> Here’s where we stand today :
> 
> We have seen a handful of titles released that are labeled 7.1.4.
> 
> And it’s been confirmed that is what is indeed on said discs.
> 
> I haven’t heard of this becoming the new norm for optical discs from most studios.


Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

Jonas2 said:


> I wonder, how effective will Atmos be for it?


The original 5.1 mix made aggressive use of the surrounds (lots of ambience, buzzing insects, bullets ricocheting, etc). Hopefully the Atmos re-mix will be in the spirit of the original mix.


----------



## batpig

yepimonfire said:


> My main concern is how that will translate to other setups besides what it's mixed for. For example, I play back a 7.1.4 limited track on a 5.1.2 setup, would an object panning across the front and rear heights be appropriately phantomed between the fronts and surrounds as well as TM or will it collapse into the TM? I noticed some "collapsing" with GOTG 2 before I even knew about them doing this with Atmos mixes. Now I wonder if it was just the mix or their channel limiting vudu.
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


The discussion about these 7.1.4 tracks is only really relevant to people with >11ch setups, if you have fewer than 11 speakers it will downmix correctly just like any other soundtrack (e.g. playing 7.1 track on a 5.1 speaker setup). The overhead content will just fold down from 4 channels to 2 channels so you'll get left/right separation but no front/rear overhead separation with a x.x.2 setup. 

The lower level speakers won't be used to phantom the overhead sounds forward/rearward, anything in the height layer will stay in the height layer with Atmos. That's true for all Atmos tracks, not just these specific tracks under discussion.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Hmm, true....
> 
> When you play a "confirmed" 7.1.4 title like The Last Jedi *does it only play in 7.1.4*?


Yup


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Old guilty pleasure of mine, The Quick and the Dead, announced for 4K UHD release July 17th, with new Atmos track. Stylized western by Sam Raimi that already had an excellent 5.1 surround mix. Hope they weren't timid with the Atmos re-mix.


Excellent movie. Great cast too, and of course, superbly directed. I will be buying this for the Atmos track!


----------



## Droogne

Is there an affordable way to an Atmos setup using AVP/AVR with pre-outs. I was hoping to buy an atmos capable AVP with XLR pre-outs, but that seems very expensive (not helped by the fact that there are none for sale second hand). Would it be possible to get good results using a decent 7.1 AVP (not atmos capable) with XLRs, combined with an atmos capable AVP/R (with regular RCA preouts, which is very affordable as there a lot for sale second hand). I would split the HDMI signal fully into both AVP/Rs. The 7.1 would take all ground level speakers, and the atmos AVP would take over the 4x height channels. Would it work? Or would the 7.1 also need to get a true "atmos" signal to integrate well with the atmos height channels? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Great cast too...


Yeah, I sometimes forget all the talent that was in that movie: Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leo DiCaprio, Gary Sinise, Lance Henriksen, David Keith, Tobin Bell (Jigsaw), Pat Hingle, Woody Strode, etc.


----------



## Droogne

Is there an "affordable" way to get Atmos and XLR pre-outs for the main 7 speakers? The 11 channel Atmos AVP/Rs with XLR pre-outs are way to expensive for me, and I was really hoping to get balanced pre-outs to my Xilicas. Could I split the HDMI signal into two signals, with one going to a 7 channel AVP (not atmos capable, but with XLR pre-outs) for the ground level speakers, and the second identical HDMI signal to an Atmos capable AVP/R to process the Atmos height effects? Would this work? I'm not sure how much the ground level channels of an Atmos mix differ from a regular 7.1, so I'm not sure if this kind of setup would integrate well. I have an UMIK 1/REW if this would help set something like this up. 

Thanks in advance


----------



## kbarnes701

Droogne said:


> Is there an "affordable" way to get Atmos and XLR pre-outs for the main 7 speakers? The 11 channel Atmos AVP/Rs with XLR pre-outs are way to expensive for me, and I was really hoping to get balanced pre-outs to my Xilicas. Could I split the HDMI signal into two signals, with one going to a 7 channel AVP (not atmos capable, but with XLR pre-outs) for the ground level speakers, and the second identical HDMI signal to an Atmos capable AVP/R to process the Atmos height effects? Would this work? I'm not sure how much the ground level channels of an Atmos mix differ from a regular 7.1, so I'm not sure if this kind of setup would integrate well. I have an UMIK 1/REW if this would help set something like this up.
> 
> Thanks in advance


Do you have some sort of noise in the signal? Just wondering why you need XLR.

Atmos requires a bitstreamed output from the player and I can't see a way you could split the HDMI signal to send the 7 + subs ear level signals to one place and the overheads to another.


----------



## Droogne

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you have some sort of noise in the signal? Just wondering why you need XLR.
> 
> Atmos requires a bitstreamed output from the player and I can't see a way you could split the HDMI signal to send the 7 + subs ear level signals to one place and the overheads to another.


Yes I do have an awful amount of noise, which is why I'm thinking about XLRs. Will of course be testing some other things before I would go for something as expensive as an AVP with XLR pre-outs, but I want to know my options. And I could be wrong (I'm no expert, at all), but isnt it possible to duplicate the HDMI output from your source into 2x exact signals? With a device/adapter.

Also, I'm basing this on someone who did the same thing, but to expand his amount of height channels from 2 to 4. He added an extra AVR which only processed/amplified height channels, no ground level speakers.


----------



## m. zillch

Droogne said:


> Yes I do have an awful amount of noise.


There are a lot of misunderstandings about XLRs and noise. Balanced connections can't do anything to reduce the inherent noise of the electronic devices themselves, called thermal or Johnson noise, and they can't reduce the noise embedded in the recording itself. These noises are common and are usually described as "hiss", much like the noise a human makes through their teeth: "ssssssss". 

Sometimes, but not often, the low level signals we conduct from one device to another in a home system gets corrupted during the transfer because stray RFI and EMI gets picked up by the wire which accidentally acts as an antenna. _This _is the kind of noise XLR/balanced connections helps thwart (or actually cancels out) called "common mode noise". It is typically a hum or a buzz but not usually hiss and it is not a frequent concern for short runs we typically see in a home. It is much more problematic in a studio or stage setting where long runs are common, especially with the weak, low level signal of a mic which is more easily corrupted, and this is why XLR/balanced connections are usually found in professional settings.

Unfortunately people think "I have noise and I know pro's use XLRs to reduce noise so if I switch to that I'll reduce my noise." Usually this is not the case and limiting one's selection of devices to only ones with balanced (e.g. XLR) connections will be expensive.


----------



## Droogne

m. zillch said:


> There are a lot of misunderstandings about XLRs and noise. Balanced connections can't do anything to reduce the inherent noise of the electronic devices themselves, called thermal or Johnson noise, and they can't reduce the noise embedded in the recording itself. These noises are common and are usually described as "hiss", much like the noise a human makes through their teeth: "ssssssss".
> 
> Sometimes, but not often, the low level signals we conduct from one device to another in a home system gets corrupted during the transfer because stray RFI and EMI gets picked up by the wire which accidentally acts as an antenna. This is the kind of noise XLR helps thwart (or actually cancels out) called "common mode noise". It is typically a hum or a buzz but not usually hiss and it is not a frequent concern for short runs we typically see in a home. It is much more problematic in a studio or stage setting where long runs are common, especially with the weak, low level signal of a mic which is more easily corrupted, and this is why XLRs are usually found in professional settings.
> 
> Unfortunately people think "I have noise and I know pro's use XLRs to reduce noise so if I switch to that I'll reduce my noise." Usually this is not the case and limiting one's selection of devices to only ones with balanced (XLR) connections will be expensive.


Thanks for the explanation, makes a lot of sense! I was not really under the impression that XLR was better for the home, but I did think it might have somthing to do with the *BEEP* I'm having. I have 2x times between AVP and Amp that I'm changing from balanced to unbalanced. I'm checking tomorrow if I can reduce the noise by using a balanced cable between processor and amp (instead of a balanced=>unbalanced adapter). 

That aside, what would do you think my proposed "setup" would give. Would a regular 7.1 integrate with a set of Atmos processed heights?


----------



## m. zillch

Droogne said:


> . I'm checking tomorrow if I can reduce the noise by using a balanced cable between processor and amp (instead of a balanced=>unbalanced adapter).
> 
> That aside, what would do you think my proposed "setup" would give. Would a regular 7.1 integrate with a set of Atmos processed heights?


Let us know the results of the test.

Sorry, I'm no authority on your second question so I'll decline to answer, but generally "splitting" HDMI successfully without conflicting handshake agreements is sketchy.


----------



## DaveMcLain

m. zillch said:


> There are a lot of misunderstandings about XLRs and noise. Balanced connections can't do anything to reduce the inherent noise of the electronic devices themselves, called thermal or Johnson noise, and they can't reduce the noise embedded in the recording itself. These noises are common and are usually described as "hiss", much like the noise a human makes through their teeth: "ssssssss".
> 
> Sometimes, but not often, the low level signals we conduct from one device to another in a home system gets corrupted during the transfer because stray RFI and EMI gets picked up by the wire which accidentally acts as an antenna. This is the kind of noise XLR helps thwart (or actually cancels out) called "common mode noise". It is typically a hum or a buzz but not usually hiss and it is not a frequent concern for short runs we typically see in a home. It is much more problematic in a studio or stage setting where long runs are common, especially with the weak, low level signal of a mic which is more easily corrupted, and this is why XLRs are usually found in professional settings.
> 
> Unfortunately people think "I have noise and I know pro's use XLRs to reduce noise so if I switch to that I'll reduce my noise." Usually this is not the case and limiting one's selection of devices to only ones with balanced (XLR) connections will be expensive.


XLR is really the type of connector used generally but not always consisting of three pins and cables that are directional. Balanced connections can also be made using TRS style phone plugs and sometimes this is handy when space is limited such as in a patch bay. Balanced connections can be low Z mic or line level either -10 or +4 depending on the application. XLR connectors are handy for professional applications because they can lock in place but sometimes this can be a mixed blessing. Sometimes XLR's were used for speaker connections in countries that require speakers to be grounded but I think that most of that's been replaced by Speakon connectors.


----------



## bkeeler10

Droogne said:


> That aside, what would do you think my proposed "setup" would give. Would a regular 7.1 integrate with a set of Atmos processed heights?


The 7.1 processor would play all the sounds in the track, including the sounds that would go overhead from an Atmos processor (they get folded down). Then the processor running the overheads would also play that content. IOW the overhead content would get played from the floor-level speakers and the overheads. If that's an acceptable compromise, then you can do it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## elfeoblu

hi there... I have been having some fun with my new Denon AVR4400 atmos receiver. I 'm running it as 5.1.4. My room is not ideal- my couch is against the back wall- 12 feet away from the TV- ceiling is 9 feet tall...ceiling is flat.
I tried Front Height and Dolby enable surrounds (ELAC sitting on top of the surrounds on each side of my couch). This was ok. Can't say that I can hear sounds from above...and I set my Denon to Front Height and Dolby Surrounds...
then I got curious about the Klipsch atmos modules and I got a pair and placed them on top of the left and right front speakers. They looked fantastic-nice design. but I can't say that this set up worked better than when I had the Front Height speakers...so I returned them and reconnected the FH speakers...
but I'm wondering if placing 2 bookshelf speakers on the back wall-at the same height as the Front Height and aimed down at the couch would give me a better atmos (and DTS-X) experience than using my current ELAC? or should I place them instead high on the side walls aiming at the listening position or just in front of it, and select Surround Height if there is such a setting in my Denon or just call them Rear Height? hmm..maybe I'm just overcomplicating things.I have 4 identical Paradigm Atoms..
what would be your opinion for a simple but effective 5.1.4 system?

thanks a lot for any info
E


----------



## Droogne

m. zillch said:


> Let us know the results of the test.
> 
> Sorry, I'm no authority on your second question so I'll decline to answer, but generally "splitting" HDMI successfully without conflicting handshake agreements is sketchy.


Will do! I did think about the "handshake" thing, but it did work out for that other guy (I'm forgettig his name, or post. I'll have a look around.)


----------



## Droogne

bkeeler10 said:


> The 7.1 processor would play all the sounds in the track, including the sounds that would go overhead from an Atmos processor (they get folded down). Then the processor running the overheads would also play that content. IOW the overhead content would get played from the floor-level speakers and the overheads. If that's an acceptable compromise, then you can do it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Makes sense. In my situation it would not be worth it. Only reason why I would go to something like this, is to improve quality. Reducing noise (if that would be it) in trade for a less wel configured is not worth the hassle (or money). I think I'd better stick with what I have (and save up) and wait to upgrade my SR7011 to something like a Marantz AV8805. Very costly, but not compromise. Really sucks that AVPs are so much more expensive than the all in one AVRs... I have amplification for every seperate channel, so the 9 amps in the SR7011 are useless.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Droogne said:


> Yes I do have an awful amount of noise, which is why I'm thinking about XLRs.


While this is unfortunately not the right thread for such a chat, I'd be keen to help you with your noise problem -- or at least offer an ear. Feel free to pm me or direct me to a thread (do you have a theater build thread?) where we can discuss as a group. 

Just what is the primary noise issue you are facing? Hum, hiss, buzz, clicks, pops???


----------



## Kadath

From the HDR thread, probably bears noting here too. Regarding SPR:


cmdrdredd said:


> LFE is pretty powerful during the battles yes. Raging seas, explosions, rumble of tanks etc


Definitely great bass here. 
Do NOT go in expecting much from the height channels tho. It seemed like they just took the directional detail from previous versions into Atmos instead of creating new object based data.


----------



## sdurani

Source Code came out yesterday on 4K UHD. The Atmos re-mix is getting pretty good reviews: 

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/57124/sourcecodesourcecodeultrahdbluray.html 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Source-Code-4K-Blu-ray/200132/


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> Source Code came out yesterday on 4K UHD. The *Atmos re-mix is getting pretty good reviews:
> *
> https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/57124/sourcecodesourcecodeultrahdbluray.html
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Source-Code-4K-Blu-ray/200132/


Thanks Sanjay! This is obviously welcomed news! Looking forward to "The Quick And The Dead." I don't know about 4K UHD rental availability in the rest of the country, but I've been availing myself to rentals (Family Video) for at least six months now...for me, a try before buy benefit.


----------



## chi_guy50

gene4ht said:


> Thanks Sanjay! This is obviously welcomed news! Looking forward to "The Quick And The Dead."* I don't know about 4K UHD rental availability in the rest of the country*, but I've been availing myself to rentals (Family Video) for at least six months now...for me, a try before buy benefit.


No matter where you live, as long as you have USPS mail service you can rent UHD Blu-rays at a reasonable rate from 3D Blu-ray Rental, among a handful of other disc-by-mail sources. 

I have been using them for the past two years and, as it so happens, just got email notification earlier this afternoon that Source Code 4K is on its way to me.


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> No matter where you live, as long as you have USPS mail service you can rent UHD Blu-rays at a reasonable rate from 3D Blu-ray Rental, among a handful of other disc-by-mail sources.
> 
> I have been using them for the past two years and, as it so happens, just got email notification earlier this afternoon that Source Code 4K is on its way to me.


B&M rental is still more convenient for me...5 min away...every Tuesday...no waiting. I dropped my subscription to Netflix long ago and have not yet jumped on the "streaming" train. The other advantage is I'm able to purchase these titles in about six months at significantly less than retail...usually in pristine condition as there are literally no other 4K users around me. When Family Video goes the way of the Dodo, I'll likely turn to 3D Blue-ray Rentals...but thanks!


----------



## jjackkrash

sdurani said:


> Old guilty pleasure of mine, The Quick and the Dead, announced for 4K UHD release July 17th, with new Atmos track. Stylized western by Sam Raimi that already had an excellent 5.1 surround mix. Hope they weren't timid with the Atmos re-mix.


"Sam Raimi" and "timid" are not words that generally go together.


----------



## Droogne

Roger Dressler said:


> While this is unfortunately not the right thread for such a chat, I'd be keen to help you with your noise problem -- or at least offer an ear. Feel free to pm me or direct me to a thread (do you have a theater build thread?) where we can discuss as a group.
> 
> Just what is the primary noise issue you are facing? Hum, hiss, buzz, clicks, pops???


Yeah I know  My first question was very on topic, but it kinda derailed hehe. Thanks for the offer! Can definetely use some input. Ill PM you  Will be back with some more on topic Atmos related questions for sure! For example DIY height channels. More about that later


----------



## Droogne

Roger Dressler said:


> While this is unfortunately not the right thread for such a chat, I'd be keen to help you with your noise problem -- or at least offer an ear. Feel free to pm me or direct me to a thread (do you have a theater build thread?) where we can discuss as a group.
> 
> Just what is the primary noise issue you are facing? Hum, hiss, buzz, clicks, pops???


Yeah I know  My first question was very on topic, but it kinda derailed hehe. Thanks for the offer! Can definitely use some input. Ill PM you  Will be back with some more on topic Atmos related questions for sure! For example DIY height channels. More about that later


----------



## Smiling Android

I am about on install in ceiling speakers for my 5.1.2 2 row home theater and I bought these oval shaped speakers with woofer and tweeter mounted at a 40 degree angle for wide dispersion that fires down and backwards/forward depending on the way you mount them. I am deciding on whether I should mount these:

1) in between the 2 rows of seats (2nd row is the main listening position), at 65 degree for Top Middle Atmos, firing the speaker down and backwards towards the MLP, OR
2) just slightly behind the 2nd row MLP, at 100 degree Top Middle Atmos, firing down and forward towards the first row.
3) Would #1 and #2 sound slightly different for my MLP? I am assuming it will but how different would it be, i.e. more enveloping from the front with #1 or more enveloping from the rear for #2 .
4) and if in the future I wanted to upgrade to a 5.1.4 set up, will #1 or #2 be better so that I don't need to relocate the original .2

I have read Acoustic Frontiers take on speaker placement for 2 rows HTs (their article DOLBY ATMOS: DISPERSION REQUIREMENTS FOR CEILING SPEAKERS) - I'm tempted to follow their speaker placement which is in front of the seats at 65 degrees

Thanks, plenty of questions so any help is appreciated. Sorry I can't attach URLs or pics as I have less than 5 posts (had them in here but couldn't post with the links and picture attached.


----------



## Shizzlenits

I'm trying to plan my Atmos upgrade and have run into a question. I've seen it recommended that you don't use bipole/dipole speakers as your surrounds if you're doing an Atmos setup with in-ceiling height speakers. Can anyone explain why that is? I realize that the bipole speakers make it difficult to determine the exact location of your surrounds, but I don't see how that would affect the height channels. Those speakers will still be on the ceiling. What am I missing?

I'd like to use bipole for surrounds because the speakers will be mounted extremely close to MLP. You could reach out and touch them while sitting in the outside seats. I feel like the 180 degree sound diffusion will be extremely beneficial there... but I still want to do Atmos 5.2.4. Is this doable?


----------



## Smiling Android

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm trying to plan my Atmos upgrade and have run into a question. I've seen it recommended that you don't use bipole/dipole speakers as your surrounds if you're doing an Atmos setup with in-ceiling height speakers. Can anyone explain why that is? I realize that the bipole speakers make it difficult to determine the exact location of your surrounds, but I don't see how that would affect the height channels. Those speakers will still be on the ceiling. What am I missing?
> 
> I'd like to use bipole for surrounds because the speakers will be mounted extremely close to MLP. You could reach out and touch them while sitting in the outside seats. I feel like the 180 degree sound diffusion will be extremely beneficial there... but I still want to do Atmos 5.2.4. Is this doable?


According to Acoustic Frontiers:

"Make sure surround speaker locations work for the speakers you are using and their coverage pattern.* Don’t use dipoles for spatial audio, as* by design they do not provide consistent coverage or support localization in the dipole “null”. If you are using narrow dispersion horns for surrounds then make sure will provide adequate coverage of each seating row. This is not really a new requirement, but with spatial audio being able to localize discrete effects in the surround field is more important."


----------



## Shizzlenits

Smiling Android said:


> According to Acoustic Frontiers:
> 
> "Make sure surround speaker locations work for the speakers you are using and their coverage pattern.* Don’t use dipoles for spatial audio, as* by design they do not provide consistent coverage or support localization in the dipole “null”. If you are using narrow dispersion horns for surrounds then make sure will provide adequate coverage of each seating row. This is not really a new requirement, but with spatial audio being able to localize discrete effects in the surround field is more important."


Yeah I assumed as much for dipole... but wondering specifically what the issue is with bipole. They have no "null" zone like dipoles, so I the sound would still sound as if it was coming from the left and right. You just wouldn't be able to pinpoint exactly where the speaker is (which is preferable, to me). With actual in-ceiling height speakers, shouldn't that be fine?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Shizzlenits said:


> Yeah I assumed as much for dipole... but wondering specifically what the issue is with bipole. They have no "null" zone like dipoles, so I the sound would still sound as if it was coming from the left and right. You just wouldn't be able to pinpoint exactly where the speaker is (which is preferable, to me). With actual in-ceiling height speakers, shouldn't that be fine?




Bipoles can have null zones too. But the reason not to use them is because the ceiling speakers use the bed speakers to phantom image the “objects” into the room. Since bipole/dipoles aren’t very accurate with imaging, they don’t work the best for Atmos. I’ve heard of people using them, but personally I wouldn’t. The caveat however is that your surrounds are super close. Tough call.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Polyrythm1k said:


> Bipoles can have null zones too. But the reason not to use them is because the ceiling speakers use the bed speakers to phantom image the “objects” into the room. Since bipole/dipoles aren’t very accurate with imaging, they don’t work the best for Atmos. I’ve heard of people using them, but personally I wouldn’t. The caveat however is that your surrounds are super close. Tough call.


Yeah. =/

I feel like being distracted by monopole surrounds right by your face might be worse than slightly less accurate Atmos positioning. But then I wonder if I'm wasting my money on doing an Atmos setup at all.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Shizzlenits said:


> Yeah. =/
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like being distracted by monopole surrounds right by your face might be worse than slightly less accurate Atmos positioning. But then I wonder if I'm wasting my money on doing an Atmos setup at all.




Definitely not a waste. 
My friend has an Atmos setup with bipoles and he loves it. I personally think that di/bipoles should go away, but this is just my opinion and I understand where they can be useful (think small room). It’s easy to split hairs with this stuff and if you already have the speakers, why not try? It might everything you want!


----------



## usc1995

Shizzlenits said:


> Yeah. =/
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like being distracted by monopole surrounds right by your face might be worse than slightly less accurate Atmos positioning. But then I wonder if I'm wasting my money on doing an Atmos setup at all.




I have a smaller room that is only 10.5 ft wide and I use bipoles for my LR surrounds in my 7.2.4 setup. They work great and I don’t feel like I am missing anything by not having monopoles in those positions. Monopoles in my setup would definitely be too direct. Atmos is great and as long as you have separation between your height speakers and the bed layer you will be fine. Go for it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Shizzlenits

usc1995 said:


> I have a smaller room that is only 10.5 ft wide and I use bipoles for my LR surrounds in my 7.2.4 setup. They work great and I don’t feel like I am missing anything by not having monopoles in those positions. Monopoles in my setup would definitely be too direct. Atmos is great and as long as you have separation between your height speakers and the bed layer you will be fine. Go for it!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Awesome. Thanks for the input, that helps put my mind at ease.

How "deep" is your room, if you don't mind me asking? My seats are nearly against the rear wall so people have recommended that I go 5.2.4 instead of 7.2.4.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Shizzlenits said:


> Awesome. Thanks for the input, that helps put my mind at ease.
> 
> 
> 
> How "deep" is your room, if you don't mind me asking? My seats are nearly against the rear wall so people have recommended that I go 5.2.4 instead of 7.2.4.




That definitely makes sense.


----------



## usc1995

Shizzlenits said:


> Awesome. Thanks for the input, that helps put my mind at ease.
> 
> 
> 
> How "deep" is your room, if you don't mind me asking? My seats are nearly against the rear wall so people have recommended that I go 5.2.4 instead of 7.2.4.




My room is 15.5 ft deep. My rear heights are only about 2.5 ft from the back wall and my couch about 5.5 ft from the back wall. You should try to get your seats at least a couple of feet off the back wall if possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Shizzlenits

usc1995 said:


> My room is 15.5 ft deep. My rear heights are only about 2.5 ft from the back wall and my couch about 5.5 ft from the back wall. You should try to get your seats at least a couple of feet off the back wall if possible.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


My seats are 16" from the back wall, which puts viewer's head approximately 7.5' from the screen, which is a 77" OLED. I dare not move the seats any closer. 

It's a tight space... but when the lights are off, you can't tell the difference. As long as I pick the right speakers.

Finding decent subs that aren't 20+ inch depth ain't easy. I can tell you that.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Shizzlenits said:


> My seats are 16" from the back wall, which puts viewer's head approximately 7.5' from the screen, which is a 77" OLED. I dare not move the seats any closer.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tight space... but when the lights are off, you can't tell the difference. As long as I pick the right speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Finding decent subs that aren't 20+ inch depth ain't easy. I can tell you that.




Try these!
https://www.svsound.com/products/pc-2000


----------



## Shizzlenits

Polyrythm1k said:


> Try these!
> https://www.svsound.com/products/pc-2000


Hmm... could work, but I might have to use bookshelf speakers instead of towers for L/R to fit them.

This was my layout plan (with some help from other users in the audio theory forum):












Since the PC-2000's are so tall, they won't fit under the TV and would need to go outside the L/R channels. That might make it impossible to use floorstanders outside the TV without bowing them in, partially obstructing the screen. No bueno.

I guess my best bet is to make sure I buy from a retailer that has a generous return policy...

*edit:* added a better image.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Shizzlenits said:


> Hmm... could work, but I might have to use bookshelf speakers instead of towers for L/R to fit them.
> 
> 
> 
> This was my layout plan (with some help from other users in the audio theory forum):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the PC-2000's are so tall, they won't fit under the TV and would need to go outside the L/R channels. That might make it impossible to use floorstanders outside the TV without bowing them in, partially obstructing the screen. No bueno.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my best bet is to make sure I buy from a retailer that has a generous return policy...




Stupid popcorn machine...lmao!!!! 

What if you put the PC’s behind the couch? Lots of guys like near field subs. Iirc the pc’s are 16” which would mean you might wanna scoot the couch up just a touch. Not 5 or 6 inches though. Actually, you could probably use only one, and lay it down on its side.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Polyrythm1k said:


> Stupid popcorn machine...lmao!!!!
> 
> What if you put the PC’s behind the couch? Lots of guys like near field subs. Iirc the pc’s are 16” which would mean you might wanna scoot the couch up just a touch. Not 5 or 6 inches though. Actually, you could probably use only one, and lay it down on its side.


Powered recliners. 

Though bottom right corner probably has enough clearance... or I could lay on its side like you suggest... hmm...


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Shizzlenits said:


> Powered recliners.
> 
> 
> 
> Though bottom right corner probably has enough clearance... or I could lay on its side like you suggest... hmm...




Do you have any speakers yet? You mentioned possibly having to use bookshelf speakers. In such a small space, a BS speaker might be the way to go(just playing devils advocate). Could even mount them on the subs, like a powered tower. The pc2k’s are flat on top and rear ported(vs top porting) and only 34” tall. Might support an ultra bookshelf at close to the right height. Usually the best place for a sub isn’t the best place for a speaker, but I’m thinking the room is small enough that the limited placement options might not change in room response that much. Basically won’t matter. SVS pays shipping both ways too so it’s pretty much risk free. 
FWIW, I’m just brainstorming out loud, outside the “box”.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Polyrythm1k said:


> Do you have any speakers yet? You mentioned possibly having to use bookshelf speakers. In such a small space, a BS speaker might be the way to go(just playing devils advocate). Could even mount them on the subs, like a powered tower. The pc2k’s are flat on top and rear ported(vs top porting) and only 34” tall. Might support an ultra bookshelf at close to the right height. Usually the best place for a sub isn’t the best place for a speaker, but I’m thinking the room is small enough that the limited placement options might not change in room response that much. Basically won’t matter. SVS pays shipping both ways too so it’s pretty much risk free.
> FWIW, I’m just brainstorming out loud, outside the “box”.




I haven’t purchased anything yet, currently just using the cheap Energy Take Classic 5.1 system from my old game room. I’m looking to upgrade in the next few weeks, so I could definitely just go with bookshelves if need be. Even on their own stand, they’d be able to fit next to the PC-2000’s.

I just wasn’t sure if bookshelves were the best way to go, even in a smaller space. Really I just want the best setup possible with the room I’ve got. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

Kadath said:


> From the HDR thread, probably bears noting here too. Regarding SPR:
> 
> 
> Definitely great bass here.
> Do NOT go in expecting much from the height channels tho. It seemed like they just took the directional detail from previous versions into Atmos instead of creating new object based data.


From what I see on the Altitude’s meters, Saving Private Ryan is entirely a 7.1.6 soundtrack with zero use of wides, discrete front side surrounds, or my left/right centers (screen centers). After watching the opening D-Day scene, it seems that the top middles are used liberally for overhead effects (e.g. bullets overhead), but top front and rears are carrying ambience at a very low level.

Don’t get me wrong, the battle is still extremely intense, but the sides and rear surrounds (along with the top middles) are carrying the immersion here. However, the way the mix works, the imaging of sounds to these locations is still so well defined that you’re not going to be disappointed - especially from the climatic battle starting with the slow rumble of the Tigers into Tom Hanks’ unit position. So while this no Hacksaw Ridge when it comes to using the Atmos presence speaker palette in a SOTA mix, it’s still highly enjoyable.


----------



## jazzrock

sdrucker said:


> From what I see on the Altitude’s meters, Saving Private Ryan is entirely a 7.1.6 soundtrack with zero use of wides, discrete front side surrounds, or my left/right centers (screen centers). Watching the opening D-Day scene, and the top middles are used liberally for overhead effecta (e.g. bullets overhead), but top front and rears are carrying ambience at a very low level.
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t get me wrong, the battle is still extremely intense, but the sides and rear surrounds (along with the top middles) are carrying the immersion here. However, the way the mix works, the imaging of sounds to these locations is still so well defined that you’re not going to be disappoined - especially from the climatic battle starting with the slow rumble of the Tigers into Tom Hanks’ unit position.




Would someone pls provide a link to the referenced “HDR thread”?


----------



## Ricoflashback

Polyrythm1k said:


> Bipoles can have null zones too. But the reason not to use them is because the ceiling speakers use the bed speakers to phantom image the “objects” into the room. Since bipole/dipoles aren’t very accurate with imaging, they don’t work the best for Atmos. I’ve heard of people using them, but personally I wouldn’t. The caveat however is that your surrounds are super close. Tough call.


I can definitely confirm that bipoles work great for side surround speakers IF they are very close to the listening area in a Dolby Atmos configuration. Mine is 7.1.4 (FH/RH) and 9.1.2 with Front Wides for DTS Neo X (older AVR).

I have a smaller man cave and with monopole side surrounds, they were "in you face" all the time and way too intrusive. It was like someone slapping you in the face every time they went off. Let's just say that in smaller areas, they can tend to be overbearing and not provide that "envelope of sound" and immersion you are looking for.


----------



## Mr.G

jazzrock said:


> Would someone pls provide a link to the referenced “HDR thread”?


Just follow the referenced links backwards.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...les-will-updated-often-1122.html#post56158668


----------



## jazzrock

Mr.G said:


> Just follow the referenced links backwards.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...les-will-updated-often-1122.html#post56158668


Thank you


----------



## gwsat

sdrucker said:


> From what I see on the Altitude’s meters, Saving Private Ryan is entirely a 7.1.6 soundtrack with zero use of wides, discrete front side surrounds, or my left/right centers (screen centers). After watching the opening D-Day scene, it seems that the top middles are used liberally for overhead effecta (e.g. bullets overhead), but top front and rears are carrying ambience at a very low level.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong, the battle is still extremely intense, but the sides and rear surrounds (along with the top middles) are carrying the immersion here. However, the way the mix works, the imaging of sounds to these locations is still so well defined that you’re not going to be disappointed - especially from the climatic battle starting with the slow rumble of the Tigers into Tom Hanks’ unit position. So *while this no Hacksaw Ridge when it comes to using the Atmos presence speaker palette in a SOTA mix*, it’s still highly enjoyable.


Those are high marks indeed. The TrueHD Atmos for _Hacksaw Ridge_ is my go to Atmos demonstration track.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> From what I see on the Altitude’s meters, Saving Private Ryan is entirely a 7.1.6 soundtrack with zero use of wides, discrete front side surrounds, or my left/right centers (screen centers). After watching the opening D-Day scene, it seems that the top middles are used liberally for overhead effects (e.g. bullets overhead), but top front and rears are carrying ambience at a very low level.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong, the battle is still extremely intense, but the sides and rear surrounds (along with the top middles) are carrying the immersion here. However, the way the mix works, the imaging of sounds to these locations is still so well defined that you’re not going to be disappointed - especially from the climatic battle starting with the slow rumble of the Tigers into Tom Hanks’ unit position. So while this no Hacksaw Ridge when it comes to using the Atmos presence speaker palette in a SOTA mix, it’s still highly enjoyable.


These fixed printouts have got to stop!!!! ARGH!!!!!!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Ricoflashback said:


> I can definitely confirm that bipoles work great for side surround speakers IF they are very close to the listening area in a Dolby Atmos configuration. Mine is 7.1.4 (FH/RH) and 9.1.2 with Front Wides for DTS Neo X (older AVR).
> 
> I have a smaller man cave and with monopole side surrounds, they were "in you face" all the time and way too intrusive. It was like someone slapping you in the face every time they went off. Let's just say that in smaller areas, they can tend to be overbearing and not provide that "envelope of sound" and immersion you are looking for.




I’m glad you shared that. I can definitely see how monopoles would be like that in a small space. I did mention(or implied at least) that they could be more appt in a small space. In a room that is wider though, I would still go for monopoles, however in your case(s) maybe not.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> These fixed printouts have got to stop!!!! ARGH!!!!!!


Saving Private Ryan is a legacy pre-Atmos mix, so there's no richer number of dynamic objects getting dumbed down to a print to 7.1.4 or 7.1.6 necessarily. You could just have a very conservative mixer that created 7.1 + two static overhead objects, put those in the top middles, and put the extra ambience very subtly raised into the top fronts and top rears to provide a hint of elevation.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’m glad you shared that. I can definitely see how monopoles would be like that in a small space. I did mention(or implied at least) that they could be more appt in a small space. In a room that is wider though, I would still go for monopoles, however in your case(s) maybe not.


Agreed. I tried it both ways (first with monopoles) and would encourage anyone to stick with the Dolby Atmos guidelines as much as possible. I have an older 70's house with a narrow man cave where my HT is setup. As many posters have commented before, it's pretty hard not to enjoy Dolby Atmos soundtracks or mess things up too bad unless you go way over the edge from Atmos recommendations. 

And then, of course, there is the AVS Forum and great posters who share their Dolby Atmos experiences and can walk anyone down a ledge where they went too far!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Saving Private Ryan is a legacy pre-Atmos mix, so there's no richer number of dynamic objects getting dumbed down to a print to 7.1.4 or 7.1.6 necessarily. You could just have a very conservative mixer that created 7.1 + two static overhead objects, put those in the top middles, and put the extra ambience very subtly raised into the top fronts and top rears to provide a hint of elevation.


Whether it be a home Atmos remix or not, you can still do a full consumer 24.1.10 track or even a theatrical grade mix in case it ever was re-released in theaters. Though, it's nice to be able to monitor the mix on a large cinema Atmos dubbing stage, if they just used dynamic, 3D objects it would expand out as was originally intended. 

Something's going on here and I have a hunch they're doing exactly what has been theorized: making a streaming friendly mix and just dumping that on the disc.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Whether it be a home Atmos remix or not, you can still do a full consumer 24.1.10 track or even a theatrical grade mix in case it ever was re-released in theaters. Though, it's nice to be able to monitor the mix on a large cinema Atmos dubbing stage, if they just used dynamic, 3D objects it would expand out as was originally intended.
> 
> Something's going on here and I have a hunch they're doing exactly what has been theorized: making a streaming friendly mix and just dumping that on the disc.




Dan. 

Having done a few legacy remixes for Atmos, I can tell you that I didn’t put much into the wides due to the limited separation of the stems I had to work with. If a mixer wants to maintain a very strict adherence to the original mix (meaning they don’t want to add new sounds or reverbs) their choices can be very limited (and they may or may not have a lot of separation (FX and background might be mixed together for example...)

Your hunch is incorrect.

While I’m not at liberty to discuss specifics or titles, I can confirm that it doesn’t have anything to do with workflow, bandwidth or laziness. I tried to offer possible reasons when we started this discussion but they weren’t the reasons behind the encodes being discussed. The discs are as intended, and not because they were trying to streamline the process.... as a matter of fact, as I found out when doing research, it takes a little more effort to produce a 7.1.4 render than not. 

I surely added a lot to the discussion in thinking out loud so I feel compelled to comment. 

But here are my wrap up points about it... 

If anyone KNOWS that a certain title is 7.1.4 and has a system capable of 9.1.4, or 9.1.6 or 7.1.6 (or greater in a Trinnov setup) they should simply pass on it IF they can’t find a way to enjoy the mix in 7.1.4. 

Their loss IMO... 

These discs are as intended and produced this way for a reason. DTS:X tracks have been “limited” to 7.1.4 when the codec supports 9.1.6 or 7.1 plus objects or ?????.... doesn’t mean I don’t buy a disc because I may or may not have a 13 or 15 channel system some day. Or pass on a title like “Dunkirk” because it’s “only” 5.1. 

A good mix is a good mix. 

If the creatives responsible for sending a disc onto the market have decided 7.1.4 is adequate (even when the codec is capable or more) then the consumer can decide with their wallets if they do or don’t want to buy. 

Just my.02.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.
> 
> Having done a few legacy remixes for Atmos, I can tell you that I didn’t put much into the wides due to the limited separation of the stems I had to work with. If a mixer wants to maintain a very strict adherence to the original mix (meaning they don’t want to add new sounds or reverbs) their choices can be very limited (and they may or may not have a lot of separation (FX and background might be mixed together for example...)
> 
> Your hunch is incorrect.
> 
> While I’m not at liberty to discuss specifics or titles, I can confirm that it doesn’t have anything to do with workflow, bandwidth or laziness. I tried to offer possible reasons when we started this discussion but they weren’t the reasons behind the encodes being discussed. The discs are as intended, and not because they were trying to streamline the process.... as a matter of fact, as I found out when doing research, it takes a little more effort to produce a 7.1.4 render than not.
> 
> I surely added a lot to the discussion in thinking out loud so I feel compelled to comment.
> 
> But here are my wrap up points about it...
> 
> If anyone KNOWS that a certain title is 7.1.4 and has a system capable of 9.1.4, or 9.1.6 or 7.1.6 (or greater in a Trinnov setup) they should simply pass on it IF they can’t find a way to enjoy the mix in 7.1.4.
> 
> Their loss IMO...
> 
> These discs are as intended and produced this way for a reason. DTS:X tracks have been “limited” to 7.1.4 when the codec supports 9.1.6 or 7.1 plus objects or ?????.... doesn’t mean I don’t buy a disc because I may or may not have a 13 or 15 channel system some day. Or pass on a title like “Dunkirk” because it’s “only” 5.1.
> 
> A good mix is a good mix.
> 
> If the creatives responsible for sending a disc onto the market have decided 7.1.4 is adequate (even when the codec is capable or more) then the consumer can decide with their wallets if they do or don’t want to buy.
> 
> Just my.02.


That is definitely a possibility for some remixes from older or somewhat older titles that may have few elements to work with, etc. Thanks for the insight.

What are we supposed to make of modern Atmos tracks that were or are translated to home video with a fixed printout? Disney's titles, a few Warner Brothers, etc.? What could be going on there? A remix is one thing, a brand new Atmos track from a native cinema mix is another IMHO. There have also been more than one comment on what Disney is doing with their fairly recent anemic sounding mixes, aside from using printouts. 

Two hits that are leaving me scratching my head.


----------



## DaveMcLain

Dan Hitchman said:


> That is definitely a possibility for some remixes from older or somewhat older titles that may have few elements to work with, etc. Thanks for the insight.
> 
> What are we supposed to make of modern Atmos tracks that were or are translated to home video with a fixed printout? Disney's titles, a few Warner Brothers, etc.? What could be going on there? A remix is one thing, a brand new Atmos track from a native cinema mix is another IMHO. There have also been more than one comment on what Disney is doing with their fairly recent anemic sounding mixes, aside from using printouts.
> 
> Two hits that are leaving me scratching my head.


Are the licensing costs lower for a disk with a fixed mix vs one that's not when using Atmos?


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> If anyone KNOWS that a certain title is 7.1.4 and has a system capable of 9.1.4, or 9.1.6 or 7.1.6 (or greater in a Trinnov setup) they should simply pass on it IF they can’t find a way to enjoy the mix in 7.1.4.
> 
> Their loss IMO...


I couldn’t agree more. Sure, Saving Private Ryan is a mediocre employment of home Atmos for a high(er) channel count system, being an effective 7.1.6 mix, but so what? The way the side and rear surrounds are mixed, possibly with a barely audible use of top fronts and rears to provide a greater illusion of elevation, is so effective in creating an immersion bubble that it would a mistake to avoid the film for not being “Atmos enough”.

I could say the same about Logan, a film released in Cinema Atmos, and available from Fox in UHD/Atmos since late May, 2017. That movie is about 90% 7.1.6, but there a few crucial scenes where wides come in for emphasis. And that well predates the era of streamed Atmos on Netflix or the whole idea of “Atmos Lite”.

In essence, Atmos Lite has existed for quite some time, and it’s more likely due to mixer decision - although I still don’t put it past Disney to be holding out on their films for marketing/financial thinking because they’re Disney 😊. So if we want to boycott the studios on principle, it is what it is.

Not that people should avoid higher channel count processors. Otherwise you miss out on the movies that DO have liberal use of objects and benefit from the scalability of Atmos, like Mad Max, Blade Runner 2049, Unbroken etc.


----------



## howard68

Atmos Lite is going to be a real problem! 
I so want to upgrade 9.2.6
The system is supposed to support 24.2.10 
It is intended to be great !
However this downmixing is now showing the limatations of streaming mix and we're going to pay a big price limited atmos should not be on the uhd disc at the expence of true surround sound fans


----------



## sdrucker

Good news, Atmos fans. Source Code is at least a robust 9.1.6, with the wides seeming to carry part of the music score between the fronts and side surrounds. Maybe not discrete as native Atmos in the special effects sense of object passthrough, but plenty of sound there from the score, and use of ambience (e.g. from sounds of a train) in all three pairs of heights I have in the first 15 minutes. Even a few tasty bits of synapses movement for my screen centers at about 17:20. Score on for Atmos as it should be on a legacy mix.


----------



## FilmMixer

DaveMcLain said:


> Are the licensing costs lower for a disk with a fixed mix vs one that's not when using Atmos?



These are Atmos mixes. 

Period. 

There aren’t two versions. And unless you have some inside knowledge I do not there isn’t a licensing fee paid by content creators. 

As I explained these discs are as intended, and not an offshoot of technical limitations or new workflow. 

There have only been a handful of titles that have been released this way. And they are labeled as such as far as I know. 

I would venture to say this will represent a very small fraction of disc titles in the future.... I’ve seen at least 6 new Atmos mixing rooms come on line in the last year, and the amount of content being produced is growing at a very aggressive rate. 

Disney is only one company. I think the other titles with almost no wide use are just that... just like not every disc uses surrounds or LFE in abundance, neither will all Atmos titles use wides or overheads all the times, on in some cases ever in the case of wides. 

But I would venture to say it will be the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Droogne

If one uses height channels in an Atmos surround (as ceiling speakers), how much space should there be at least between the front and height channel?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Droogne said:


> If one uses height channels in an Atmos surround (as ceiling speakers), how much space should there be at least between the front and height channel?




Overhead heights should be 2 to 3 times the height of the mains. Per Dolby, H3 equals 2 to 3 times H1.


----------



## Droogne

Polyrythm1k said:


> Overhead heights should be 2 to 3 times the height of the mains. Per Dolby, H3 equals 2 to 3 times H1.


Ok, just wanted to be sure! Planning on putting a second pair of my DIY LaScalas on top of the fronts (with a sort of speaker raiser between them).. I also wanted to raise the front LaScalas a bit, and was not sure that was a good idea as my roof is only 2,4m high. But a 110cm height for the midrange horn of the front, and around 220-230 cm for the height channel will work right? Awesome.


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> Dan.
> 
> Having done a few legacy remixes for Atmos, I can tell you that I didn’t put much into the wides due to the limited separation of the stems I had to work with. If a mixer wants to maintain a very strict adherence to the original mix (meaning they don’t want to add new sounds or reverbs) their choices can be very limited (and they may or may not have a lot of separation (FX and background might be mixed together for example...)
> 
> Your hunch is incorrect.
> 
> While I’m not at liberty to discuss specifics or titles, I can confirm that it doesn’t have anything to do with workflow, bandwidth or laziness. I tried to offer possible reasons when we started this discussion but they weren’t the reasons behind the encodes being discussed. The discs are as intended, and not because they were trying to streamline the process.... as a matter of fact, as I found out when doing research, it takes a little more effort to produce a 7.1.4 render than not.
> 
> I surely added a lot to the discussion in thinking out loud so I feel compelled to comment.
> 
> But here are my wrap up points about it...
> 
> If anyone KNOWS that a certain title is 7.1.4 and has a system capable of 9.1.4, or 9.1.6 or 7.1.6 (or greater in a Trinnov setup) they should simply pass on it IF they can’t find a way to enjoy the mix in 7.1.4.
> 
> Their loss IMO...
> 
> These discs are as intended and produced this way for a reason. DTS:X tracks have been “limited” to 7.1.4 when the codec supports 9.1.6 or 7.1 plus objects or ?????.... doesn’t mean I don’t buy a disc because I may or may not have a 13 or 15 channel system some day. Or pass on a title like “Dunkirk” because it’s “only” 5.1.
> 
> A good mix is a good mix.
> 
> If the creatives responsible for sending a disc onto the market have decided 7.1.4 is adequate (even when the codec is capable or more) then the consumer can decide with their wallets if they do or don’t want to buy.


IF a "real" Atmos mix exists then why does the consumer only get a "dumbed-down" version? For the consumer being able to "vote with his wallet" he would need to have a choice between these mixes, not only the the choice between "dumbed-down" and nothing


----------



## vodil

*Which rears are these*

For practical reasons my rear speakers are not very far behind the listening point, but are 8 ft high. 
I currently have this configured at a 7.2.4 system with ceiling fronts and centers, but I was wondering if it were not better characterized as a 5.2.4 layout.

Any advice ?


----------



## sdurani

Incredibles 
June 
4K 
Atmos 










Also available in Best Buy exclusive steelbook (above).


----------



## Jonas2

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm trying to plan my Atmos upgrade and have run into a question. I've seen it recommended that you don't use bipole/dipole speakers as your surrounds if you're doing an Atmos setup with in-ceiling height speakers. Can anyone explain why that is? I realize that the bipole speakers make it difficult to determine the exact location of your surrounds, but I don't see how that would affect the height channels. Those speakers will still be on the ceiling. What am I missing?
> 
> I'd like to use bipole for surrounds because the speakers will be mounted extremely close to MLP. You could reach out and touch them while sitting in the outside seats. I feel like the 180 degree sound diffusion will be extremely beneficial there... but I still want to do Atmos 5.2.4. Is this doable?


Bipoles might be a good idea with that kind of proximity to the listeners, and it is the dipole that is recommend against by Dolby, not bipoles. That close, yeah, you'll know a monopolar speaker is there.



Shizzlenits said:


> I feel like being distracted by monopole surrounds right by your face might be worse than slightly less accurate Atmos positioning. But then I wonder if I'm wasting my money on doing an Atmos setup at all.


No, I don't believe you are wasting your money. I have a less-than-ideal space for any kind of theater. While folks with REAL theaters might find it disappointing, I did the best I could do with my space, and it is AWESOME, in my humble opinion. Perfect, no, and I know that, but it still delivers a great, and fun experience that just can not be matched without simply DOING IT. The Atmos is wonderful. 

If in doubt, experiment on the cheap to test the effects of placement, etc., before you invest a lot of money. Do it all in a temporary fashion. Or you can start hi-end, but just make sure it is returnable if you are not satisfied with the results. 



Polyrythm1k said:


> Definitely not a waste.
> My friend has an Atmos setup with bipoles and he loves it. I personally think that di/bipoles should go away, but this is just my opinion and I understand where they can be useful (think small room). It’s easy to split hairs with this stuff and if you already have the speakers, why not try? It might everything you want!


YES. 



usc1995 said:


> I have a smaller room that is only 10.5 ft wide and I use bipoles for my LR surrounds in my 7.2.4 setup. They work great and I don’t feel like I am missing anything by not having monopoles in those positions. Monopoles in my setup would definitely be too direct. Atmos is great and as long as you have separation between your height speakers and the bed layer you will be fine. Go for it!


YES. 



Shizzlenits said:


> How "deep" is your room, if you don't mind me asking? My seats are nearly against the rear wall so people have recommended that I go 5.2.4 instead of 7.2.4.


Might not be a bad idea - 5.x.4 still delivers magnificently. 7.x.4 rounds it out nicely, but it is an incremental upgrade, so do not feel too bad if you can't do this. I went from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4, and I'm very glad I did, but I now know what I'd be missing had I not done it, not the end of the world! 



Ricoflashback said:


> I can definitely confirm that bipoles work great for side surround speakers IF they are very close to the listening area in a Dolby Atmos configuration. Mine is 7.1.4 (FH/RH) and 9.1.2 with Front Wides for DTS Neo X (older AVR).
> 
> I have a smaller man cave and with monopole side surrounds, they were "in you face" all the time and way too intrusive. It was like someone slapping you in the face every time they went off. Let's just say that in smaller areas, they can tend to be overbearing and not provide that "envelope of sound" and immersion you are looking for.


Yes. What I would recommend as others have, finally taking that advice, was to move the monopoles to the 80 degree position (from the roughly 90-100 degree position) and aim them at the listener furthest away. In my case a 3 person couch. This significantly reduced the localization and does a wonderful job of placing those side-surround sounds right where they need to be! Experimentation is a good thing. 



Polyrythm1k said:


> I’m glad you shared that. I can definitely see how monopoles would be like that in a small space. I did mention(or implied at least) that they could be more appt in a small space. In a room that is wider though, I would still go for monopoles, however in your case(s) maybe not.


I have found that with my particular monopolar speakers, 6-7 feet from the nearest listener is the magic distance at which they disappear FWIW.....


----------



## Shizzlenits

Jonas2 said:


> Bipoles might be a good idea with that kind of proximity to the listeners, and it is the dipole that is recommend against by Dolby, not bipoles. That close, yeah, you'll know a monopolar speaker is there.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't believe you are wasting your money. I have a less-than-ideal space for any kind of theater. While folks with REAL theaters might find it disappointing, I did the best I could do with my space, and it is AWESOME, in my humble opinion. Perfect, no, and I know that, but it still delivers a great, and fun experience that just can not be matched without simply DOING IT. The Atmos is wonderful.
> 
> If in doubt, experiment on the cheap to test the effects of placement, etc., before you invest a lot of money. Do it all in a temporary fashion. Or you can start hi-end, but just make sure it is returnable if you are not satisfied with the results.
> 
> 
> 
> YES.
> 
> 
> 
> YES.
> 
> 
> 
> Might not be a bad idea - 5.x.4 still delivers magnificently. 7.x.4 rounds it out nicely, but it is an incremental upgrade, so do not feel too bad if you can't do this. I went from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4, and I'm very glad I did, but I now know what I'd be missing had I not done it, not the end of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. What I would recommend as others have, finally taking that advice, was to move the monopoles to the 80 degree position (from the roughly 90-100 degree position) and aim them at the listener furthest away. In my case a 3 person couch. This significantly reduced the localization and does a wonderful job of placing those side-surround sounds right where they need to be! Experimentation is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I have found that with my particular monopolar speakers, 6-7 feet from the nearest listener is the magic distance at which they disappear FWIW.....


Thanks for the input. Gonna move forward with bipole surrounds in my little baby media room. =)


----------



## gene4ht

Jonas2 said:


> Bipoles might be a good idea with that kind of proximity to the listeners, and it is the dipole that is recommend against by Dolby, not bipoles. That close, yeah, you'll know a monopolar speaker is there.
> 
> No, I don't believe you are wasting your money. I have a less-than-ideal space for any kind of theater. While folks with REAL theaters might find it disappointing,* I did the best I could do with my space, and it is AWESOME, in my humble opinion. Perfect, no, and I know that, but it still delivers a great, and fun experience that just can not be matched without simply DOING IT. The Atmos is wonderful.*
> 
> If in doubt, experiment on the cheap to test the effects of placement, etc., before you invest a lot of money. Do it all in a temporary fashion. Or you can start hi-end, but just make sure it is returnable if you are not satisfied with the results.
> 
> Might not be a bad idea - 5.x.4 still delivers magnificently. 7.x.4 rounds it out nicely, but it is an incremental upgrade, so do not feel too bad if you can't do this. I went from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4, and I'm very glad I did, but I now know what I'd be missing had I not done it, not the end of the world!
> 
> Yes. What I would recommend as others have, finally taking that advice, was to move the monopoles to the 80 degree position (from the roughly 90-100 degree position) and aim them at the listener furthest away. In my case a 3 person couch. This significantly reduced the localization and does a wonderful job of placing those side-surround sounds right where they need to be! Experimentation is a good thing.
> 
> I have found that with my particular monopolar speakers, 6-7 feet from the nearest listener is the magic distance at which they disappear FWIW.....


+1

I concur with Jonas2...all excellent suggestions and advice...experimentation with your environment and situation is the key to maximizing performance.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> ....Saving Private Ryan is a mediocre employment of home Atmos for a high(er) channel count system, *being an effective 7.1.6 mix*....
> 
> I could say the same about Logan, a film released in Cinema Atmos, and available from Fox in UHD/Atmos since late May, 2017. *That movie is about 90% 7.1.6*.....


Curious Stu, you only have 6 overheads right? So these films you are referring to as "7.1.6", are you sure there's only front/middle/rear outputs or is it really more accurate to call them "7.1+height" mixes? I'm wondering if they would expand further in the height layer if you had 8 or 10 overheads.

What I'm getting at is that there's a class of Atmos tracks that appear to be standard 7.1 in the base layer (no objects) where you don't hear anything in the wides even in active scenes with objects panning around .... it's one thing if the mixer makes an intentional decision (as Marc described above on that one legacy remix) to not place something like a musical score in the wides, but you'd think if objects were being used in the base layer then you'd get pass-through sounds in the wides just coincidentally. But many of these mixes (e.g. Thor Ragnarok, and now SPR per your reports) have absolutely zero sounds in the wides, so I'm assuming they're outputting as a straight 7ch ear level bed (for whatever reason).

But the height layer.... since by definition the only way to get height sounds with home Atmos is via objects, perhaps it just means that they are creating a 7.1 mix with height effects (objects) and you're only hearing it as 7.1.6 because you only have 3 pairs of overheads?


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> While I’m not at liberty to discuss specifics or titles, I can confirm that it doesn’t have anything to do with workflow, bandwidth or laziness. I tried to offer possible reasons when we started this discussion but they weren’t the reasons behind the encodes being discussed. The discs are as intended, and not because they were trying to streamline the process.... as a matter of fact, as I found out when doing research, it takes a little more effort to produce a 7.1.4 render than not.


Marc - always appreciate your insider feedback! So now that you've dismissed your earlier speculation as to the reason for these 7.1.4 / 7.1+heights type mixes.... maybe I missed it, but did you clarify what the REAL reason for these is? Simply creative decisions? (in the same way that for example Nolan chooses to create a 5.1 mix vs. a 7.1?)


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Curious Stu, you only have 6 overheads right? So these films you are referring to as "7.1.6", are you sure there's only front/middle/rear outputs or is it really more accurate to call them "7.1+height" mixes? I'm wondering if they would expand further in the height layer if you had 8 or 10 overheads.


Good point - I'm actually running front heights, top middles, and top rears based on the recommendations from Trinnov about defining the height layer based on speaker angles. I can try some of these mixes and do a temporary switch of the "top middles" to "top fronts" and see if both front height and top front pairs are active. And likewise for the rears in the other direction (i.e. relabeling top middles to top rears and my actual top rears to "rear heights"). It's easy to test using the Speaker Configuration.

However, I don't currently have a way to go beyond .6 to .8 on heights, so I can't tell whether what I'm proposing as a quick test will create other artifacts (like collapsing a missing top middle into fronts or something). 

@*appelz* : you're running a lab with 13.x.8, aren't you? Can you look at Saving Private Ryan or another film that seems to be 7 channels + height layers and find if you're getting a different use of the number of overheads with .6 vs. .8?



> But the height layer.... since by definition the only way to get height sounds with home Atmos is via objects, perhaps it just means that they are creating a 7.1 mix with height effects (objects) and you're only hearing it as 7.1.6 because you only have 3 pairs of overheads?


That's what I think. But it's not uniform - see The Last Jedi, where it's all about the height level front and rear pairs even for a .6 height layout.


I have a 7.1.4 preset. SPR would be an interesting test because it seems it's the top middle that are far more active than the top front or rears. I'll take a WAG that in 7.1.4 it will simply be played in both front and rears equally, but you never know.


----------



## am2model3

the movie sound files vary in quality; just because the film disc says Atmos or DTS:X; doesn't mean its a quality audio track. 



listen to spare change UHD movie reviews; some discs are just bad height audio mixes; and in those cases; sometimes your upmixer DSU/NeuralX can give you a more fun time listening to your movie!


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Marc - always appreciate your insider feedback! So now that you've dismissed your earlier speculation as to the reason for these 7.1.4 / 7.1+heights type mixes.... maybe I missed it, but did you clarify what the REAL reason for these is? Simply creative decisions? (in the same way that for example Nolan chooses to create a 5.1 mix vs. a 7.1?)


Not Marc, but personally I think a lot of what we're finding, given the lag between when a mix for Home Atmos is developed vs. the UHD/streaming release, is simply that we're more aware of what's going on because more of us are buying Atmos content, and I'm in particular obsessive about whipping out my Altitude's Input meter on every disc we watch at home  . 

My own $0.02 is that it's a combination of things: creative choice of how to use objects, the degree of separation in movie stems that's usable, maybe the idea that less is preferable to more with spatial encoding (if that's variable), etc. It could just be that the uber-busy/high potential for content audibly scalable to 24.1.10 is just rare in practice. That's leaving our friends at Disney out of it, with their preferences for certain mixes to be "7.1.4 Dolby Atmos".

To put more things in perspective, for all the Atmos discs I've got, I have to look at two music discs - REM's Automatic for the People and Luca Terulli's Rhapsody - to find something that's heavily if not constantly busy outside of a 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 context.

Unfortunately the only people that really know if some mix can truly make use .of the entire 24.x.10 palette are the folks at Dolby or the Trinnov lab  . I read on the Trinnov Audio FB page that they have a lab with the entire set of speakers possible in Atmos aimed at a single seat 

Only thing is someone else will have to look at Braveheart, which is coming out tomorrow (5/15): I'm probably not going to buy it because I'm not enough of a fan just to get it for the Atmos mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> These are Atmos mixes.
> 
> Period.
> 
> There aren’t two versions. And unless you have some inside knowledge I do not there isn’t a licensing fee paid by content creators.
> 
> As I explained these discs are as intended, and not an offshoot of technical limitations or new workflow.
> 
> There have only been a handful of titles that have been released this way. And they are labeled as such as far as I know.
> 
> I would venture to say this will represent a very small fraction of disc titles in the future.... I’ve seen at least 6 new Atmos mixing rooms come on line in the last year, and the amount of content being produced is growing at a very aggressive rate.
> 
> Disney is only one company. I think the other titles with almost no wide use are just that... just like not every disc uses surrounds or LFE in abundance, neither will all Atmos titles use wides or overheads all the times, on in some cases ever in the case of wides.
> 
> But I would venture to say it will be the exception rather than the rule.



Are these new mixing rooms starting to utilize more than, say, 7.1.4 or is that an exception to the rule and they are mostly using what would be considered that "minimum" home Atmos layout for remixing/monitoring? Thanks!


----------



## Erod

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’m glad you shared that. I can definitely see how monopoles would be like that in a small space. I did mention(or implied at least) that they could be more appt in a small space. In a room that is wider though, I would still go for monopoles, however in your case(s) maybe not.


What would you consider "wider"? How many feet from the listening position?

I have a room that is 15 feet wide by 22 feet long, with 14 foot ceilings. I have bipoles on my sides in a 7.2.4 room. Three seats in the front row with the outside seats about 5 feet from the side channels, and I don't want them screaming into the ears of those outside seats.


----------



## Ladeback

Erod said:


> What would you consider "wider"? How many feet from the listening position?
> 
> I have a room that is 15 feet wide by 22 feet long, with 14 foot ceilings. I have bipoles on my sides in a 7.2.4 room. Three seats in the front row with the outside seats about 5 feet from the side channels, and I don't want them screaming into the ears of those outside seats.


So the outside edge of the seats are 5' away? My current room is only 14' wide and side surrounds are about 5' or less from my ear in a wide chair and it is about a 1' behind my main row of two with table between them and they don't bother me. They are also about 2' above a person's ear sitting the chairs.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Erod said:


> What would you consider "wider"? How many feet from the listening position?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a room that is 15 feet wide by 22 feet long, with 14 foot ceilings. I have bipoles on my sides in a 7.2.4 room. Three seats in the front row with the outside seats about 5 feet from the side channels, and I don't want them screaming into the ears of those outside seats.




Well when I said wider, I meant just about anything wider than the rooms we were talking about at the time. Around 10’ iirc. I guess in general I’d say 14’ or 15’ would be where wider begins, but obviously it would matter how many seats across. Depends...
IMO it’s more than distance that would determine what you should use. Speaker type, positioning, dB level, and preferences would also factor in. For example, in my room which is similar to yours at 16x23, I’ve always used monopoles for surrounds. I’ve always taken care to position them and level match and they’ve never given me anything but seamless front to back, side to side imaging. I have noticed some soundtracks with hotter surround info can draw attention but it hasn’t been many and would hardly say the speakers were screaming. In your case 5’ to the speakers from the outside positions is probably a bit close but in my room I only really care about one seat(it’s a living room). If I demo for someone they can have my seat, so the 8’ distance works.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are these new mixing rooms starting to utilize more than, say, 7.1.4 or is that an exception to the rule and they are mostly using what would be considered that "minimum" home Atmos layout for remixing/monitoring? Thanks!




One was a stage reconfigured as 7.1.4, which is doing only broadcast work. 

All of the others were 9.1.6 or more. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> One was a stage reconfigured as 7.1.4, which is doing only broadcast work.
> 
> All of the others were 9.1.6 or more.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Cool. Thanks!


----------



## asarose247

.02 from a more simplistic POV wrt ATMOS / DSU immersion /created sound bubble. . 

on a 5.2.4 system, the beauty in the ear of the beholder . . 

a favorite tune





or maybe :

https://youtu.be/BLEEGnA8vQ8?t=245


----------



## Dws6

What is everyone’s opinion on minimum atmos speaker spacing? I know about the angles to the seating but I have some limitations on placement and trying to decide what is the best option. 
Currently I will be approx 64” wide in the rear location and about 48” front to back. So approx 2’ in front of the seat, 2’ behind.
The yellow represents current in ceilings basically above the seats. Green represents where I could place them 2’ behind the seats but due to the return, I have to bring them closer together. Approx 2’ further in per side. (64” center of speaker to speaker in width / 32” on each side of the projector)
The blue represents where I can place the fronts. 2’ in front of the seats (4’ spacing from rear atmos to front atmos location.) 
Do I do the blue and yellow to be symmetrical but not behind the seat or go blue and green to get behind the seats. I could also bring the blues closer together to match the rear greens symmetry but they would not line up with the mains. Opinions please!










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ladeback

Dws6 said:


> What is everyone’s opinion on minimum atmos speaker spacing? I know about the angles to the seating but I have some limitations on placement and trying to decide what is the best option.
> Currently I will be approx 64” wide in the rear location and about 48” front to back. So approx 2’ in front of the seat, 2’ behind.
> The yellow represents current in ceilings basically above the seats. Green represents where I could place them 2’ behind the seats but due to the return, I have to bring them closer together. Approx 2’ further in per side. (64” center of speaker to speaker in width / 32” on each side of the projector)
> The blue represents where I can place the fronts. 2’ in front of the seats (4’ spacing from rear atmos to front atmos location.)
> Do I do the blue and yellow to be symmetrical but not behind the seat or go blue and green to get behind the seats. I could also bring the blues closer together to match the rear greens symmetry but they would not line up with the mains. Opinions please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How far back is your seating? For 92" screen you could be as close as 9 ' from eyes to screen. Would that get your seating between the blue and yellow more?


----------



## Dws6

Ladeback said:


> How far back is your seating? For 92" screen you could be as close as 9 ' from eyes to screen. Would that get your seating between the blue and yellow more?




The design changed and screen is now 120”. The problem moving the seats up is there is a null there from a room mode and sounds horrible. Seats are right at about 10’ from the screen currently. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

Dws6 said:


> What is everyone’s opinion on minimum atmos speaker spacing? I know about the angles to the seating but I have some limitations on placement and trying to decide what is the best option.
> Currently I will be approx 64” wide in the rear location and about 48” front to back. So approx 2’ in front of the seat, 2’ behind.
> The yellow represents current in ceilings basically above the seats. Green represents where I could place them 2’ behind the seats but due to the return, I have to bring them closer together. Approx 2’ further in per side. (64” center of speaker to speaker in width / 32” on each side of the projector)
> The blue represents where I can place the fronts. 2’ in front of the seats (4’ spacing from rear atmos to front atmos location.)
> Do I do the blue and yellow to be symmetrical but not behind the seat or go blue and green to get behind the seats. *I could also bring the blues closer together to match the rear greens symmetry but they would not line up with the mains.* Opinions please!


Of those options, I think the last one is the obvious choice. There is no mandate to having the overheads line up with the mains, whereas a symmetrical alignment of the two overhead pairs--front to back and side to side--is a strong consideration for optimal coverage.


----------



## Dws6

chi_guy50 said:


> Of those options, I think the last one is the obvious choice. There is no mandate to having the overheads line up with the mains, whereas a symmetrical alignment of the two overhead pairs--front to back and side to side--is a strong consideration for optimal coverage.




Thank you! What is your opinion on the spacing of 4’ separation front to back and 64” side to side? Do you feel this will give adequate separation? I feel like the wide dispersion characteristics of these speakers may help offset my challenges. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trumpen

Its been very interesting to follow this discussion about Atmos. I got a little curious myself and decided to do a little test with my setup, to see what movies made use of my front heights. Saving Private Ryan, Dredd and Oblivion were among the movies where I got zero activity through the front heights. Source Code, Gravity and Zero Dark Thirty all made great use of them, with ambience, dialogue, discrete effects and music really opening up the sound stage. (Imo Zero Dark Thirty is one of the best Atmos tracks available). On the other hand a movie like Hacksaw Ridge used them really sparingly and very directionally for a bullet whizz here and there and some rubble falling. The Last Jedi was music only, and very low at that.

I tested this by turning up the channel and standing next to the speaker, since my Marantz 6011 doesn't let me see what speakers are actually active. Interesting nonetheless.


----------



## gene4ht

Trumpen said:


> Its been very interesting to follow this discussion about Atmos. I got a little curious myself and decided to do a little test with my setup, to see what movies made use of my front heights. Saving Private Ryan, Dredd and Oblivion were among the movies where I got zero activity through the front heights. Source Code, Gravity and Zero Dark Thirty all made great use of them, with ambience, dialogue, discrete effects and music really opening up the sound stage. (Imo Zero Dark Thirty is one of the best Atmos tracks available). On the other hand a movie like Hacksaw Ridge used them really sparingly and very directionally for a bullet whizz here and there and some rubble falling. The Last Jedi was music only, and very low at that.
> 
> *I tested this by turning up the channel and standing next to the speaker, since my Marantz 6011 doesn't let me see what speakers are actually active. Interesting nonetheless.*


An easier way to do this, particularly if you have banana plugs, is to disconnect the bed speakers at the AVR.


----------



## Trumpen

gene4ht said:


> An easier way to do this, particularly if you have banana plugs, is to disconnect the bed speakers at the AVR.


I'm a cheapass and don't have banana plugs on all my terminals.


----------



## gene4ht

Trumpen said:


> I'm a cheapass and don't have banana plugs on all my terminals.


LOL! When you win the lottery, you may want to consider these...makes life alot easier.

https://www.amazon.com/Mediabridge-...26502864&sr=8-4&keywords=speaker+banana+plugs


----------



## chi_guy50

Dws6 said:


> Thank you! *What is your opinion on the spacing of 4’ separation front to back* and 64” side to side? Do you feel this will give adequate separation? I feel like the wide dispersion characteristics of these speakers may help offset my challenges.


It seems tight and certainly not ideal under most circumstances, but then you didn't indicate whether any more drastic changes were feasible.

If it is an option, I would recommend that you consider moving the front pair forward to increase the separation.

Bear in mind, however, that the primary consideration should be the elevation angles. The below diagram shows the recommended ranges for the various overhead speaker pairs. Something in the range of 35° to 60° fore and aft (measured from ear level at the MLP to the plane of the overhead speaker pair) would be optimal, although there are many other configurations that are workable depending on the layout of your room.


----------



## sdg4vfx

Few questions re using a ceiling (mounted) speakers for Atmos ...

If the tweeter has a directional dispersion, like say a Ribbon Tweeter, should the speaker be placed so the dispersion spread is front-to-back or side-to-side?

Do Atmos speakers benefit from a nice mid-range or are Atmos signals primarily in the high end?

When looking at the Dolby.com "official" Atmos placement diagrams for HT, the Atmos ceiling speakers are placed quite far apart, outside the seating area. Is that considered standard? If so, then should ceiling mounted atmos speakers be angled towards the listening position or left flush with the ceiling?

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/do...-2-setups.html
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/do...-4-setups.html


----------



## batpig

sdg4vfx said:


> Few questions re using a ceiling (mounted) speakers for Atmos ...
> 
> If the tweeter has a directional dispersion, like say a Ribbon Tweeter, should the speaker be placed so the dispersion spread is front-to-back or side-to-side?
> 
> Do Atmos speakers benefit from a nice mid-range or are Atmos signals primarily in the high end?
> 
> When looking at the Dolby.com "official" Atmos placement diagrams for HT, the Atmos ceiling speakers are placed quite far apart, outside the seating area. Is that considered standard? If so, then should ceiling mounted atmos speakers be angled towards the listening position or left flush with the ceiling?
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/do...-2-setups.html
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/do...-4-setups.html


1. The goal is to hear the sound at the seating area, right? So aim the speaker such that the dispersion covers the seating as evenly as possible. 

2. Like every channel output, the signal going to the overhead speakers can be full range. So the question doesn't really make sense, you want a speaker that is comparable in performance to your surround speakers.

3. Many people end up placing them a bit narrower than Dolby recommends, but yes as above you should aim your speakers if possible.


----------



## sdg4vfx

batpig said:


> 1. The goal is to hear the sound at the seating area, right? So aim the speaker such that the dispersion covers the seating as evenly as possible.
> 
> 2. Like every channel output, the signal going to the overhead speakers can be full range. So the question doesn't really make sense, you want a speaker that is comparable in performance to your surround speakers.
> 
> 3. Many people end up placing them a bit narrower than Dolby recommends, but yes as above you should aim your speakers if possible.


Thanks for the reply.

2. Glad to hear that Atmos speakers should be full range - after addition reading I eventually found that. What led to my asking is that the vast majority of the advertised-as-Atmos ceiling speakers I've seen only go down to 120hz, a surprising number don't even go that low (saw a couple that only went down 180hz).

1&3. So if I understand correctly ...
- "aim-able" speakers with greater distance between them is preferred
- if you can't aim your speakers then placing them a bit narrower is acceptable

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html

Part of the confusion is that the Dolby.com guides only offer Atmos ceiling speaker angle information for the front to back angle (the second image down the page). It would be helpful if there was a similar guide for the optimal L/R side angle for Atmos ceiling speakers.

Also, the diagram at the bottom of the page called "Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 Ceiling Speaker Perspective" is misleading. It shows the ceiling mounted Atmos speakers placed past (L/R) the listening area, flush to the ceiling and explicitly stating that the speakers should be "placed as shown relative to your primary seating position" - with no mention of (or visual reference of) rotation to aim the speakers towards the primary seating position.


----------



## Dws6

chi_guy50 said:


> It seems tight and certainly not ideal under most circumstances, but then you didn't indicate whether any more drastic changes were feasible.
> 
> If it is an option, I would recommend that you consider moving the front pair forward to increase the separation.
> 
> Bear in mind, however, that the primary consideration should be the elevation angles. The below diagram shows the recommended ranges for the various overhead speaker pairs. Something in the range of 35° to 60° fore and aft (measured from ear level at the MLP to the plane of the overhead speaker pair) would be optimal, although there are many other configurations that are workable depending on the layout of your room.




I can move the front pair forward. There are another pair mounted in the front installed by the builder in a 30deg roof slope that sit exactly like the front heights in your illustration show. They are being used currently for atmos but will not be in the new design which is why I didn’t show them. 
I can locate the front pair just about anywhere but I was assuming the relationship to the rear set was most important so I was planning to keep the distances front to rear equal. I can push the rear ones back further but another foot or so they will be against the back wall. I can certainly push the fronts forward more then the rears too. 
Looking at your diagram, the minimum angle separation is 70deg. 55 deg max on 2 and 125 deg min on 4. There is no way I can get that. I think the most I can get to be equal distant front to rear is 3’ each way. So 6’ separation. That might give me about 60 deg V above listening position. Would it be better to offset the fronts further forward the the rears are back so they are not equidistant? 
I need a laser pointer.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

sdg4vfx said:


> If the tweeter has a directional dispersion, like say a Ribbon Tweeter, should the speaker be placed so the dispersion spread is front-to-back or side-to-side?


Batpig's assessment would be the same as mine for a single row of listeners however if you have two or more rows there could be a complication that placing the tweeters with their wider dispersion running horizontally, L to R, not Up and Down, would cause their perceived brightness to differ for the front row listeners vs the back row listeners.

I'm curious, is there a speaker currently being marketed for this application with ribbon tweeters?
---

I suspect speakers that go lower in frequency than was discussed aren't as common because many customers balk at their larger size for ceiling placement.


----------



## camd5pt0

I forgot to upload this the other day. I know I'm crazy for stepping up to 7.1.4 from 5.1.4 in a shoebox work of space. I guess my pic not accurate since the couch is big.


----------



## Craig Mecak

m. zillch said:


> Batpig's assessment would be the same as mine for a single row of listeners however if you have two or more rows there could be a complication that placing the tweeters with their wider dispersion running horizontally, L to R, not Up and Down, would cause their perceived brightness to differ for the front row listeners vs the back row listeners.
> 
> I'm curious, is there a speaker currently being marketed for this application with ribbon tweeters?
> ---
> 
> I suspect speakers that go lower in frequency than was discussed aren't as common because many customers balk at their larger size for ceiling placement.


There are these ribbon tweeter speakers from GoldenEar :

https://www.goldenear.com/products/supersat-series


----------



## m. zillch

Craig Mecak said:


> There are these ribbon tweeter speakers from GoldenEar :
> 
> https://www.goldenear.com/products/supersat-series


Thanks but they don't seem to market it as being suitable for Dolby Atmos top speakers though, AFAICT.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Disclaimer - I have not read all 1661 pages of this thread.  

I have a few questions that I'm hoping the Atmos experts can help explain. 

If I move from a 5.1.2 set up to a 5.1.4 set up, the additional pair of speakers to make up the .4 .... is that discrete information, or is that just the same signal as the .2 set up? 

If I'm sitting in an optimal position in the room for a 5.1.2 set up then why would I want to move to a 5.1.4 set up? What benefits would I gain? I always assumed the additional speakers were so that other listeners in different seating positions could experience simiilar sound. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I'm contemplating adding Atmos to my set up, but I just want someone knowledgeable to explain what benefits I would get moving to .4 as opposed to .2

I live in a flat, I have dipole surrounds which are very close to me, but raised higher than I'd like. I don't know if adding Atmos speakers above my seating area would be beneficial in my case or if I need a larger space.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Incredibles
> June
> 4K
> Atmos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also available in Best Buy exclusive steelbook (above).


Oh wow! Thanks for this info Sanjay. That movie promised to be an amazing Atmos experience. So many opportunities to deploy the overhead speakers - I hope they took all of them!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> That movie promised to be an amazing Atmos experience.


The original soundtrack certainly has the potential to be an amazing Atmos experience, but considering recent Atmos mixes from Disney.... well, I guess we'll find out in a month.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The original soundtrack certainly has the potential to be an amazing Atmos experience, but considering recent Atmos mixes from Disney.... well, I guess we'll find out in a month.


Ah - where's the 'I feel deflated' emoji! I hadn't realised it's Disney till you mentioned it. If they can't/won't deliver a fantastic Atmos mix of this movie, then there's no hope for them.

Mind you, as we keep on reminding ourselves, Atmos is about much more than overhead effects, important though they are. As a case in point, I watched *The Greatest Showman* last night (UHD/Atmos) and there is very, very little use of the overhead speakers, but what a mix! The sound in this movie is amazing - played at 'home reference' (-5dB) via my JBLs and Tannoys, it just has to be the next best thing to sitting in a theater on Broadway. At one point I closed my eyes and imagined I was doing just that and the sound was wholly convincing - my HT had become a theater on Broadway! The big JBLs help as they are often used for 'live' performances, so they sound authentic, but the movie mix is spectacular. Not much use of overheads because, I guess, there really isn't all that much opportunity for the mixer as the action is mostly 'grounded', so the right creative decision. I much prefer this sort of mix to one where the overheads are used 'artificially' just because they are there.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *The Greatest Showman* last night (UHD/Atmos) and there is very, very little use of the overhead speakers, but what a mix!


Felt the same about _*American Sniper*_: awesome mix despite negligible use of overhead speakers.


----------



## am2model3

your 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 question: my father has 5.1.2 and my home is 5.1.4. The difference is an increased effect of DolbyAtmos and DTS:X. 

Your sound should be fuller, richer, and the dome of sound expanded to envelope you better. (2 height speakers in front of you can only do so much; if you have 2 in front and 2 in back, you are enveloped.) 

My dad's 5.1.2 is great but i definently prefer my 5.1.4. (imagine 5.1.6 or 7.1.6 on the new 13ch receivers) 

When i watch movies and play games, its amazing how much more i can hear now from my old 5.1. The surround sound effect is almost seamless; its not channel based anymore, its object based. So cars and helicopters fly around you very smoothly, and the helicopters overhead is the coolest effect. Rain drops overhead, and other atmospherics, etc. I listen to all my favorite movies; and the sound that goes from front to back or back to front i would describe as it used to jump; the effect was still cool; but now the effect is very smooth and seamless; it jumps less and it feels like it actually moves smoothly and that adds to the immersion as you watch. 



I watched a movie last night; hitmans bodyguard; the blu ray has atmos on it; the helicopters flying around sounded so good!


----------



## am2model3

some movies coming out now; the atmos or dtsX mixes can be disappointing if they dont use the heights. 



in those cases, tell your receiver to use the upmixers; you at least get a little more simulation effect from the signal. 

I have heard terrible Atmos mix movies; and heard great 5 or 7ch upmixed Atmos movies.


----------



## batpig

Stephan Mire said:


> If I move from a 5.1.2 set up to a 5.1.4 set up, the additional pair of speakers to make up the .4 .... is that discrete information, or is that just the same signal as the .2 set up?


It's all discrete -- the idea with object-based audio is that a sound can move around and the processor will use the available speakers to render that sound. If something travels overhead from front to rear, how can a single pair of speakers create that overhead pan? Just like going from 5.1 to 7.1 allows the surround mix to differentiate between sounds to the side vs. the rear, two pairs of overheads allow front vs. rear separation of overhead sounds.



Stephan Mire said:


> If I'm sitting in an optimal position in the room for a 5.1.2 set up then why would I want to move to a 5.1.4 set up? What benefits would I gain? I always assumed the additional speakers were so that other listeners in different seating positions could experience simiilar sound.


See above -- greater precision in locating sounds, ability to do front-to-back panning / separation vs. just side-to-side, and greater envelopment.


----------



## kbarnes701

am2model3 said:


> some movies coming out now; the atmos or dtsX mixes can be disappointing if they dont use the heights.
> 
> 
> 
> in those cases, tell your receiver to use the upmixers; you at least get a little more simulation effect from the signal.
> 
> I have heard terrible Atmos mix movies; and heard great 5 or 7ch upmixed Atmos movies.


There will be Atmos movies where there really isn't much scope for the mixer to put content into the overhead speakers. We just mentioned a couple right above - *The Greatest Showman* and *American Sniper*. In the former, much of the action takes place on stage in a theater setting, or later in the movie in the Big Top, or is simply people talking (or singing since it's a musical) to each other in rooms. In American Sniper, well, it's a movie mostly about a sniper and snipers operate at ground level mostly.

In these circumstances, you can have a really fabulous Atmos mix, with great precision and imagining etc, but very little need for anything coming from over your head.

Now that I am accustomed to listening to Atmos mixes (I have about 100 in my collection to date) I am finding that the upmixers can create an artificiality which isn't necessarily all that pleasing. Sure, it sounds 'impressive' for a while, but on prolonged listening I find it can be wearing, and as I say, 'artificial'. This isn't the case for all upmixed movies of course, but it is for many of them. When I do upmix, I use DSU as Neural:X is just way over the top for my taste - good for demoing that you have overhead speakers but not so good after 5 or 10 minutes. Of course, upmixers are always a personal preference so YMMV.

As FilmMixer said a couple of pages back, "a good mix is a good mix", be it in 5.1 (eg Dunkirk), 7.1 (eg the Bourne movies) or Atmos/DTS:X. The decision as to which format to use is a creative decision made by the Director and his team and sometimes that decision is that there really isn't much content to put into the overheads.

Not a criticism of you or your preferences - just a different perspective.

EDIT:

There is one scene in The Greatest Showman where the overhead speakers do spring to life very dramatically 


Spoiler



when Barnum's theater burns down towards the end of the movie. In those scenes there are dramatic noises from overhead as the building burns and collapses


 showing that the mixer was using the overheads creatively to very good effect, matching the on-screen action really well.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> As FilmMixer said a couple of pages back, "a good mix is a good mix", be it in 5.1 (eg Dunkirk), 7.1 (eg the Bourne movies) or Atmos/DTS:X. The decision as to which format to use is a creative decision made by the Director and his team and sometimes that decision is that there really isn't much content to put into the overheads.


What @Filmmaker said earlier and you repeated is something we should all keep in mind, I think. Great sound design, such as that used for _Dunkirk_, still sounds great, even if the codec used is only DTS-HD MA 5.1. Conversely, the most carefully conceived 7.2.4 TrueHD Atmos mix can't make an audiotrack sound good if it wasn't well designed in the first place.

CAVEAT: Although I concede that _Dunkirk_ sounds great despite being limited to 5.1, I still resent Christopher Nolan's stubborn refusal to allow his wonderful sound designs to be shown at their best by remixing them to 7.2.4 using the TrueHD Atmos codec.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> What @Filmmaker said earlier and you repeated is something we should all keep in mind, I think. Great sound design, such as that used for _Dunkirk_, still sounds great, even if the codec used is only DTS-HD MA 5.1. Conversely, the most carefully conceived 7.2.4 TrueHD Atmos mix can't make an audiotrack sound good if it wasn't well designed in the first place.
> 
> CAVEAT: Although I concede that _Dunkirk_ sounds great despite being limited to 5.1, I still resent Christopher Nolan's stubborn refusal to allow his wonderful sound designs to be shown at their best by remixing them to 7.2.4 using the TrueHD Atmos codec.


+1 to both your points there!


----------



## appelz

sdrucker said:


> @*appelz* : you're running a lab with 13.x.8, aren't you? Can you look at Saving Private Ryan or another film that seems to be 7 channels + height layers and find if you're getting a different use of the number of overheads with .6 vs. .8?


I haven't been home more than 24 hours in a week for a few months, but as soon as I get some time back in the Lab, I will definitely check this out.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> It's always been in their Atmos Install guide, though the diagram has changed over time:


Kind of interesting to note that that even with all 10, none are located at FH or RH (front & rear walls).


----------



## VideoGrabber

batpig said:


> *The pre-outs are all hot*, the only thing you have to do is tell the AVR which are the two channels which MUST be powered by external amp (necessary to run 11 speakers with a 9ch amp).


The SR7009 (and others) has 13 pre-outs, but only 11 decoders. So two of those pre-outs (1-pair, either FW, SB, H1, or H2) always have to be dead (disabled).


----------



## Stephan Mire

Can someone please advise me on a 5.1.2 set up - I live in a flat, so I don't have a huge space, but I'm currently running 5.1 - using dipole surrounds on the rear wall. My couch is almost right up against the back wall - I'm sitting about 3 meters away from my TV. 

As far as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Atmos speakers for 5.1.2 (on walls, or inceiling, whichever) need to be mounted a bit forward from my seating area on the ceiling? Not directly above my couch position? Or does it not really matter too much/ are we splitting hairs?

If I look at the diagram posted a few messages above, it looks like a 5.1.4 set up could work in space because the first Atmos pair is far forward from my couch position, which means I can install another pair of Atmos speakers basically above my dipole spealers. 

Could that work? Or should I draw a diagram to better show what I mean?


----------



## Stephan Mire

batpig said:


> It's all discrete -- the idea with object-based audio is that a sound can move around and the processor will use the available speakers to render that sound. If something travels overhead from front to rear, how can a single pair of speakers create that overhead pan? Just like going from 5.1 to 7.1 allows the surround mix to differentiate between sounds to the side vs. the rear, two pairs of overheads allow front vs. rear separation of overhead sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> See above -- greater precision in locating sounds, ability to do front-to-back panning / separation vs. just side-to-side, and greater envelopment.


Thanks for explaining so clearly! When you said object based (as opposed to channel based) it kind of clicked for me. Thanks again.


----------



## Trumpen

Stephan Mire said:


> Can someone please advise me on a 5.1.2 set up - I live in a flat, so I don't have a huge space, but I'm currently running 5.1 - using dipole surrounds on the rear wall. My couch is almost right up against the back wall - I'm sitting about 3 meters away from my TV.
> 
> As far as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Atmos speakers for 5.1.2 (on walls, or inceiling, whichever) need to be mounted a bit forward from my seating area on the ceiling? Not directly above my couch position? Or does it not really matter too much/ are we splitting hairs?
> 
> If I look at the diagram posted a few messages above, it looks like a 5.1.4 set up could work in space because the first Atmos pair is far forward from my couch position, which means I can install another pair of Atmos speakers basically above my dipole spealers.
> 
> Could that work? Or should I draw a diagram to better show what I mean?


Make sure your reciever can run the setup you want. It sounds to me like you're going to use Top Front and Top Middle. My Marantz 6011 can't use this setup forexample.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Trumpen said:


> Make sure your reciever can run the setup you want. It sounds to me like you're going to use Top Front and Top Middle. My Marantz 6011 can't use this setup forexample.


I have the 7011... it's funny, I only have a 5.1 system at present but have a 9 channel receiver that is expandable to 11.  

Top Front and Top Middle? I'm not very clued up on this... I'm just trying to figure out if I can install 2 pairs of Atmos speakers in my room using the Dolby recommended positioning.


----------



## Trumpen

Stephan Mire said:


> I have the 7011... it's funny, I only have a 5.1 system at present but have a 9 channel receiver that is expandable to 11.
> 
> Top Front and Top Middle? I'm not very clued up on this... I'm just trying to figure out if I can install 2 pairs of Atmos speakers in my room using the Dolby recommended positioning.


If im understanding you correctly, the answer is yes, but. You won't be able to place to 2 set of speakers as top, because your receiver only allows Top front and Top rear. You can however do Front heights and Top middle.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Trumpen said:


> If im understanding you correctly, the answer is yes, but. You won't be able to place to 2 set of speakers as top, because your receiver only allows Top front and Top rear. You can however do Front heights and Top middle.


Okay, but Front heights and Top middle? Is that still for Atmos? Or something else?


----------



## Trumpen

Stephan Mire said:


> Okay, but Front heights and Top middle? Is that still for Atmos? Or something else?


I would recommend you read up on how Atmos/DTSX works, but yes, they would be employed for object-based mixes.

Edit: Check your PMs Stephan.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Trumpen said:


> I would recommend you read up on how Atmos/DTSX works, but yes, they would be employed for object-based mixes.


Sorry, I am unfamiliar with some of the terminology. Top Front and Top rear vs Front height and Top middle?


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> Kind of interesting to note that that even with all 10, none are located at FH or RH (front & rear walls).


Yup, the pic is at odds with the Atmos install guide: _"The left front height and right front height speakers should be mounted on the front wall (instead of on the ceiling) in line with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference. This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers."_


----------



## sdurani

Stephan Mire said:


> Sorry, I am unfamiliar with some of the terminology. Top Front and Top rear vs Front height and Top middle?


The consumer version of Atmos includes 5 possible speaker pair locations overhead. From front to back, they are: Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, Rear Height.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stephan Mire said:


> Can someone please advise me on a 5.1.2 set up - I live in a flat, so I don't have a huge space, but I'm currently running 5.1 - using dipole surrounds on the rear wall. My couch is almost right up against the back wall - I'm sitting about 3 meters away from my TV.
> 
> As far as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Atmos speakers for 5.1.2 (on walls, or inceiling, whichever) need to be mounted a bit forward from my seating area on the ceiling? Not directly above my couch position? Or does it not really matter too much/ are we splitting hairs?
> 
> If I look at the diagram posted a few messages above, it looks like a 5.1.4 set up could work in space because the first Atmos pair is far forward from my couch position, which means I can install another pair of Atmos speakers basically above my dipole spealers.
> 
> Could that work? Or should I draw a diagram to better show what I mean?


Yes 5.x.4 will work in your space. Put the top front pair about 1m from the front wall, in line with the main L&R speakers. Then put the top rear pair slightly in front of your head when in MLP, also in line with the mains. Designate them in the AVR as TF+TR. I had a room of almost identical dimensions and that setup worked very well indeed for me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stephan Mire said:


> Sorry, I am unfamiliar with some of the terminology. Top Front and Top rear vs Front height and Top middle?


Your AVR, assuming it has enough channels to run 5.x.4 will have Atmos/overhead speaker designations as in the diagram posted above by Sanjay. You will have the choice of using the Top Front + Top Rear designations, or alternatively the FH+TM designations. In my almost identically sized room I used TF+TR and it worked very well so that is what I would recommend.


----------



## mtbdudex

Not to rehash the 7.1.4 fixed mix issue more, but this may affect me / others and not sure if covered here, or I missed it as this thread moved fast.

My HT is at 9.2.4 via the X8500H.
7.1 plus front wides, then ceiling is front heights (those are legacy from my 4520CI), with added TM.

If the 7.1.4 fixed mix is using TF and TR as Stuart / others have noted, then in essence my ceiling is missing 3D audio as sound won’t be scaled thru FH and TM like it may if object vector based (correct term?).

My ceiling speakers are assigned where they physically are.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

mtbdudex said:


> If the 7.1.4 fixed mix is using TF and TR as Stuart / others have noted, then in essence my ceiling is missing 3D audio as sound won’t be scaled thru FH and TM like it may if object vector based (correct term?).


The TF & TR content won't be scaled to additional speakers but they will be re-mapped to your speaker locations. TF content should phantom image between your FH & TM speakers, which is where TF speakers would have been. TR content cannot image any further back than your rear-most overhead speakers, so all the TR content will end up in your TM speakers. You can use the speaker identification tracks on any of the Atmos demo discs to verify how those signals are played back. They are the same type of static objects used in pre-rendered 7.1.4 tracks. In any case, you definitely won't be "missing" any of the overhead sounds; just a matter of which speakers they come from.


----------



## mtbdudex

sdurani said:


> The TF & TR content won't be scaled to additional speakers but they will be re-mapped to your speaker locations. TF content should phantom image between your FH & TM speakers, which is where TF speakers would have been. TR content cannot image any further back than your rear-most overhead speakers, so all the TR content will end up in your TM speakers. You can use the speaker identification tracks on any of the Atmos demo discs to verify how those signals are played back. They are the same type of static objects used in pre-rendered 7.1.4 tracks. In any case, you definitely won't be "missing" any of the overhead sounds; just a matter of which speakers they come from.




Sanjay, I made a quick visual








Is my understanding wrong?
Green shows a sound object following a 3d vector path from front to rear. The Atmos processing unit then would move that sound from speaker to speaker along that path with appropriate spl as it's handoff / moved thru the defined time interval that event happens.

Red shows a sound following a fixed speaker to speaker based mapping of the sounds, from front to rear here. The Atmos processing unit then would move that sound from same defined speaker to same defined speaker per the sound mixer defined time interval that event happens. 

Q: Does the Atmos processor know how to interpolate different ceiling speakers there or missing?
If so, then what’s the difference between a vector based object and a speaker based one from a end user viewpoint?
Obviously from a sound mixer creation viewpoint vastly different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VideoGrabber

Shizzlenits said:


> I'm trying to plan my Atmos upgrade and have run into a question. I've seen it recommended that you *don't use bipole*/dipole speakers as your surrounds if you're doing an Atmos setup with in-ceiling height speakers.


Oft repeated warning about *bi*-poles, but untrue. Direct from Dolby... _"An* ideal* listener-level setup will include monopole* or bipole* speaker designs. Dolby does not recommend the use of dipole speakers for use at the listener level;"_

I think people just get the two mixed up. For speakers that are far enough away, monopoles will work better. But for side-surrounds that are close to end-row listeners, *bipoles will often be best*, not just acceptable. Same for back-surrounds, when there's not much "back". Bipoles are still single-point sources, just with much wider dispersion.


----------



## mtbdudex

VideoGrabber said:


> Oft repeated warning about *bi*-poles, but untrue. Direct from Dolby... _"An* ideal* listener-level setup will include monopole* or bipole* speaker designs. Dolby does not recommend the use of dipole speakers for use at the listener level;"_
> 
> 
> 
> I think people just get the two mixed up. For speakers that are far enough away, monopoles will work better. But for side-surrounds that are close to end-row listeners, *bipoles will often be best*, not just acceptable. Same for back-surrounds, when there's not much "back". Bipoles are still single-point sources, just with much wider dispersion.




FYI, if you own di-poles and want to use them, it’s not difficult to re-purpose them as bi-poles. You re-wire one side so they are both in-phase , look at your xover inside. Listen before - at the center null , then after as confirmation.
I did that twice .... 

Here is as today, repurposed 1996 Atlantic Technology 350’s









Next week these veneer volt-8’s coaxial will be there 








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephan Mire

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes 5.x.4 will work in your space. Put the top front pair about 1m from the front wall, in line with the main L&R speakers. Then put the top rear pair slightly in front of your head when in MLP, also in line with the mains. Designate them in the AVR as TF+TR. I had a room of almost identical dimensions and that setup worked very well indeed for me.


My room is VERY small, but to better show everything, please look at the photos I've attached. 

It really is a small space. If you could be so kind, could you draw an X where I should install the overhead speakers whether for 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 although I think you might agree, 5.1.4 probably isn't possible or at the very least wouldn't be ideal in this space.

Edit : please note, the acoustic panels you see on the ceiling will be taken down so that I have more space to install speakers for Atmos. I definitely will not be installing in-ceiling speakers, but rather on-wall, something like the Boston Bravo 20

https://images.crutchfieldonline.co...0/378/products/2012/40/065/g065BRAV20W-F.jpeg

Please give me your thoughts and thanks to all who have tried to help to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stephan Mire said:


> My room is VERY small, but to better show everything, please look at the photos I've attached.
> 
> It really is a small space. If you could be so kind, could you draw an X where I should install the overhead speakers whether for 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 although I think you might agree, 5.1.4 probably isn't possible or at the very least wouldn't be ideal in this space.


It will work. Not perfectly but 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good'.

I'd put the rear overheads just behind that acoustic panel and the front overheads just in front of it. You will probably need to lower your surrounds to create more separation from the overheads.


----------



## Stephan Mire

kbarnes701 said:


> It will work. Not perfectly but 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good'.
> 
> I'd put the rear overheads just behind that acoustic panel and the front overheads just in front of it. You will probably need to lower your surrounds to create more separation from the overheads.


I agree that my dipole surrounds are a bit high up, but I'm not sure if I can do anything about that because the acoustic panels are in the way at the rear. If I lower the panels at the rear I could get then move the surrounds down too but then coverage is not ideal, so I guess it's a compromise.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stephan Mire said:


> I agree that my dipole surrounds are a bit high up, but I'm not sure if I can do anything about that because the acoustic panels are in the way at the rear. If I lower the panels at the rear I could get then move the surrounds down too but then coverage is not ideal, so I guess it's a compromise.


Leave them where they are initially and see if you think they are causing problems with being close to the overheads. If not, you're good. If they are 'masking' the rear overheads, as I suspect they might, then consider dropping them down to just above ear height. Maybe you could mount them _onto _the panels (I've done that before and it worked) or maybe you could slightly relocate the panels? Whatever you do, don't get rid of the panels! 

EDIT: If you turned the two 'middle' panels at the back onto their other sides, so they were 'vertical' rather than 'landscape', might that give you enough space to get the surrounds in alongside them? Hard to say from the photo.


----------



## lengjai

So if I'm using Atmos Headphone on my Xbox 1X does that mean I'm getting proper Atmos when watching 4K UHD discs that support it?


----------



## Stephan Mire

kbarnes701 said:


> Leave them where they are initially and see if you think they are causing problems with being close to the overheads. If not, you're good. If they are 'masking' the rear overheads, as I suspect they might, then consider dropping them down to just above ear height. Maybe you could mount them _onto _the panels (I've done that before and it worked) or maybe you could slightly relocate the panels? Whatever you do, don't get rid of the panels!
> 
> EDIT: If you turned the two 'middle' panels at the back onto their other sides, so they were 'vertical' rather than 'landscape', might that give you enough space to get the surrounds in alongside them? Hard to say from the photo.


Thanks for your suggestions! Appreciate the time. Do you think the Boston Bravo 20 speakers will work well for Atmos on the ceiling? They come with brackets for mounting on the ceiling. 

Finally, I just marked Xs on my pic... is this where you would advise them to go if going 5.1.4?


----------



## Bond 007

lengjai said:


> So if I'm using Atmos Headphone on my Xbox 1X does that mean I'm getting proper Atmos when watching 4K UHD discs that support it?


Do the headphones have 11 speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stephan Mire said:


> Thanks for your suggestions! Appreciate the time. Do you think the Boston Bravo 20 speakers will work well for Atmos on the ceiling? They come with brackets for mounting on the ceiling.


I don't see why not. Their spec doesn't give the dispersion, so I'd aim them towards the seating area rather than have them pointing down towards the floor.




Stephan Mire said:


> Finally, I just marked Xs on my pic... is this where you would advise them to go if going 5.1.4?


Yes. Just make sure they are not partially obscured by your acoustic ceiling panel.

Please come back, when you've installed it all, and let us have your thoughts.  It's always interesting to me, as someone who for years had a very small room (but enjoyed fantastic results in it), to see how others with small rooms get on. Kudos to you as well for recognising the value of treating the room acoustically.


----------



## sdurani

mtbdudex said:


> Does the Atmos processor know how to interpolate different ceiling speakers there or missing?


Yes, it renders based on whatever speakers are configured. But this approach isn't anything new. 35 years ago if you configured your old Pro Logic decoder for no centre speaker, it would split the centre channel to your left & right speakers (i.e., playback was adjusted based on "speakers there or missing").


> If so, then what’s the difference between a vector based object and a speaker based one from a end user viewpoint?


With dynamic objects overhead, individual sounds can be moved. With static objects overhead (mimicking channels), the entire channel with all its contents has to be moved (no separating out individual sounds).


----------



## dysmartguy2005

I don't know if this is the right forum to ask about this but did Dolby release a new demo disc for 2018 at CES this year? The reason I ask is because I'm looking for the new Nature's Fury Atmos clip. I went to a best buy the other day and it sounds amazing! I know its on the LG Dolby app on LG OLED TVs but did anyone have access to a high quality version with TrueHD and/or Blu-ray 4K quality? I seen several people on YouTube play it on their atmos soundbars reviews that were sponsored by Dolby and playing it off a USB drive so I did not know if they were keeping it super exclusive or sending out to certain insiders. If anybody has access to it, let me know please  Thanks


----------



## PeteG

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes 5.x.4 will work in your space. Put the top front pair about 1m from the front wall, in line with the main L&R speakers. Then put the top rear pair slightly in front of your head when in MLP, also in line with the mains. Designate them in the AVR as TF+TR. I had a room of almost identical dimensions and that setup worked very well indeed for me.


This is my idea too, right now I have blue tape where my ceiling speakers *might* go. Was looking at an Denon 6400 or wait for Yamaha's new 3080 with surround:AI.


----------



## chi_guy50

dysmartguy2005 said:


> I don't know if this is the right forum to ask about this but did Dolby release a new demo disc for 2018 at CES this year? The reason I ask is because I'm looking for the new Nature's Fury Atmos clip. I went to a best buy the other day and it sounds amazing! I know its on the LG Dolby app on LG OLED TVs but did anyone have access to a high quality version with TrueHD and/or Blu-ray 4K quality? I seen several people on YouTube play it on their atmos soundbars reviews that were sponsored by Dolby and playing it off a USB drive so I did not know if they were keeping it super exclusive or sending out to certain insiders. If anybody has access to it, let me know please  Thanks



You can find the Nature's Fury clip for downloading here. It is a 1080p .mkv file and the audio is in a lossy DD+ container, but it is the same Dolby Atmos mix that you would find in lossless TrueHD.


----------



## dysmartguy2005

chi_guy50 said:


> You can find the Nature's Fury clip for downloading here. It is a 1080p .mkv file and the audio is in a lossy DD+ container, but it is the same Dolby Atmos mix that you would find in lossless TrueHD.



Thanks! The audio is fantastic on it! The video is not great tho but I guess I can deal with it. The one at the store was 4K HDR. Any chance Dolby will release a new Dolby demo disc this year with all these amazing clips in 4K HDR?


----------



## lengjai

Bond 007 said:


> Do the headphones have 11 speakers?


Very helpful. What I mean is there any real benefit of the Dolby Atmos Headphone mode on the Xbox 1S/X when listening to BD/UHD that have Atmos tracks?


----------



## Fazzz

Just noticed Saving Private Ryan is now out on 4K blu ray with a Dolby Atmos track. It doesn't specifically say if the Atmos track is just on the 4K disc or if it's on both the 4K and 1080p disc. I'm assuming it's just on the 4K. Has anyone bought this and can confirm?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Saving-Private-Ryan-4K-Blu-ray/200172/#Overview


----------



## usc1995

Fazzz said:


> Just noticed Saving Private Ryan is now out on 4K blu ray with a Dolby Atmos track. It doesn't specifically say if the Atmos track is just on the 4K disc or if it's on both the 4K and 1080p disc. I'm assuming it's just on the 4K. Has anyone bought this and can confirm?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Saving-Private-Ryan-4K-Blu-ray/200172/#Overview




DTS HD on the Blu-ray 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bond 007

lengjai said:


> Very helpful. What I mean is there any real benefit of the Dolby Atmos Headphone mode on the Xbox 1S/X when listening to BD/UHD that have Atmos tracks?


It's marketing gimmickry. If you think it sounds better use it.


----------



## VideoGrabber

deano86 said:


> ...I find that if you happen to be using Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and listen at moderate volumes.. then you need to adjust up your height speakers a few dbs....since *Audyssey does not boost those speakers at lower volumes* like it does for your main surround speakers and subs...


An interesting comment. I had heard the opposite, as an explanation for why a system using PLII to extract a TM from a TF and TR pair could not have Dynamic EQ enabled. DEQ in the heights would throw things off.


----------



## howard68

Has anyone got any experience of Emotiva and the demos of rmc1? 
I am almost about to get the denon 8500
What is the concensus on emotiva


----------



## Ted99

usc1995 said:


> DTS HD on the Blu-ray
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Just viewed the UHD version rental from 3DBR. I didn't find that the soundtrack was much, if any, better with Atmos. OTH, the picture was fantastic.


----------



## deano86

VideoGrabber said:


> An interesting comment. I had heard the opposite, as an explanation for why a system using PLII to extract a TM from a TF and TR pair could not have Dynamic EQ enabled. DEQ in the heights would throw things off.


Easy enough to verify for yourself on your default Audysey calibrated system. In my instance, with a Denon 5200; I simply play the Dolby Atmos test tones at a typical lower master volume level... ex -20 or -30 with Aydyssey Dynamic EQ engaged and with all the Option channel offsets set a 0. Then get your meter out and check all your ear level speakers' db readings against your height speaker readings. 

My height speakers are all way down when compared to the ear level speaker readings at those lower master volumes. This, in my opinion, shows that Audyssey Dynamic EQ does nothing with Height speakers... which IMO, is a major flaw that I would hope gets fixed. Again, I have no idea if this is isolated to only certain receiver/pre-pro manufacturers or models. And obviously for those who can listen at closer to reference master volume levels, this is a non issue.


----------



## Trumpen

Bond 007 said:


> Do the headphones have 11 speakers?


Do you have 11 ears?


----------



## VideoGrabber

deano86 said:


> Easy enough to verify for yourself on your default Audysey calibrated system. In my instance, with a Denon 5200; I simply play the Dolby Atmos test tones at a typical lower master volume level... ex -20 or -30 with Aydyssey Dynamic EQ engaged and with all the Option channel offsets set a 0. Then get your meter out and check all your ear level speakers' db readings against your height speaker readings.
> 
> My height speakers are all way down when compared to the ear level speaker readings at those lower master volumes. This, in my opinion, shows that Audyssey Dynamic EQ does nothing with Height speakers... which IMO, is a major flaw that I would hope gets fixed. Again, I have no idea if this is isolated to only certain receiver/pre-pro manufacturers or models. And obviously for those who can listen at closer to reference master volume levels, this is a non issue.


Thanks, Dean. I agree that an empirical test would be the best way to determine this for other AVRs (I have a pair of Marantz's, so wouldn't expect them to differ from your Denon). I'm not in a position to do this right away, but when I do I'll go a bit further, and instead of just listening (metering) for detectable volume shifts, I will use a spectrum analyzer to examine the output to the heights with Audyssey DEQ on and off.

I agree with you that not DEQ'ing the heights would be an oversight, though in the case of DPLII extraction of the .6 it would be a boon. I believe it was JoshZ who reported years ago that after setting up a common Audyssey profile for TF and TR (so center extraction worked), that then engaging DEQ threw things off again. Which is why your post caught my eye.


----------



## pasender91

Trumpen said:


> Do you have 11 ears?


You have 2 eyes, so does your screen have only 2 pixels ??

Even with only 2 ears, you can locate sound directions, so having 11 speakers or even more makes sense ...


----------



## sdg4vfx

sdg4vfx said:


> ...
> 
> 1&3. So if I understand correctly ...
> - "aim-able" speakers with greater distance between them is preferred
> - if you can't aim your speakers then placing them a bit narrower is acceptable
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html
> 
> ... the diagram at the bottom of the page called "Dolby Atmos 5.1.2 Ceiling Speaker Perspective" is misleading. It shows the ceiling mounted Atmos speakers placed past (L/R) the listening area, flush to the ceiling and explicitly stating that the speakers should be "placed as shown relative to your primary seating position" - with no mention of (or visual reference of) rotation to aim the speakers towards the primary seating position.


Ok, so I finally found the missing link (well, the missing link for me ...) in a doc called the "Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guide".
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

The unexpectedly wide placement of the ceiling speakers shown in the Dolby diagrams makes sense based on this ... 
"the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."

(No mention in the doc of the obvious third option - no-aimable speakers with less the 45 degrees dispersion can be mounted closer together.)

Also, this implies that any "advertised" Dolby Atmos ceiling speaker - w/o aimble tweeters - should have at least a 45 degree dispersion pattern. That's a wider dispersion than normal and it seems very, very unlikely that most of the advertised DA ceiling speakers actually have that. Doesn't help of course that most speaker specs don't even mention the width of the dispersion pattern ...


----------



## BearGator56

m. zillch said:


> Thanks but they don't seem to market it as being suitable for Dolby Atmos top speakers though, AFAICT.


To have a more full range speaker it would need to be the 50 or 60 series, but that would be awkward looking as they're pretty long. GE recommends the xover on the 30 series at 120. I'm using those as side surrounds.

They have in-ceiling options that could be made to work with a box. I have the Invisia 7000 as Atmos and they sound great. 

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk


----------



## JLevy1978

howard68 said:


> Has anyone got any experience of Emotiva and the demos of rmc1?
> I am almost about to get the denon 8500
> What is the concensus on emotiva


I went to axpona and they demoed 9.4.6 and it was phenomenal. On the other hand, release date has been imminent for a while and still nothing in sight. Excellent product but, vaporware until release day


----------



## Geordon

m. zillch said:


> Thanks but they don't seem to market it as being suitable for Dolby Atmos top speakers though, AFAICT.


For elevations, you would want the Invisa Series


----------



## m. zillch

Yes, I see their solution for the generally asymmetrical radiation pattern of ribbon tweeter designs, not desirable for ceiling speakers entertaining multiple rows of listeners, is to use *two* and angle them for Atmos applications for a wider coverage on both planes, seen here in this Invisa SPS-652:


----------



## batpig

JLevy1978 said:


> I went to axpona and they demoed 9.4.6 and it was phenomenal. On the other hand, release date has been imminent for a while and still nothing in sight. Excellent product but, vaporware until release day


Talked to Dan at the Emotiva booth at CEDIA back in Sep 17, they were demoing the RMC-1 with a lower channel count setup (can't remember if it was 5.1.4 or 7.1.4). He claimed the RMC was ready to be released and was just waiting to clear some final hurdles with certifications or something, and he expected it to be released by end of year or early in 2018.

So, in other words, Emotiva gonna Emotiva


----------



## BearGator56

m. zillch said:


> Yes, I see their solution for the generally asymmetrical radiation pattern of ribbon tweeter designs, not desirable for ceiling speakers entertaining multiple rows of listeners, is to use *two* and angle them for Atmos applications for a wider coverage on both planes, seen here in this Invisa SPS-652:


Well, there always the 7000









Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

chi_guy50 said:


> You can find the Nature's Fury clip for downloading here. It is a 1080p .mkv file and the audio is in a lossy DD+ container, but it is the same Dolby Atmos mix that you would find in lossless TrueHD.


Thanks for that link. I had seen this clip in Dolby's HQ, and was hoping it would come home in some fashion. 

Just played the mkv on my Oppo, and the Oppo info reported the audio was TrueHD 5.1, not DD+.


----------



## chi_guy50

Roger Dressler said:


> Thanks for that link. I had seen this clip in Dolby's HQ, and was hoping it would come home in some fashion.
> 
> Just played the mkv on my Oppo, and the Oppo info reported the audio was TrueHD 5.1, not DD+.


Could you please check that again, Roger?

The web site lists it as DD+ and both my Oppo UDP-203 and Denon AVR-X8500H confirm it.

Regardless, it's a very nice demo and one of my Atmos favorites.


----------



## snpanago

BearGator56 said:


> Well, there always the 7000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk


Lucky enough to have these in my 5.2.4 set up and I can't imagine better in-ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos playback.


----------



## BearGator56

snpanago said:


> Lucky enough to have these in my 5.2.4 set up and I can't imagine better in-ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos playback.


Same here! The Goldenear stuff is amazing. 

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

It looks like Netflix finally has a title that isn’t one of their originals in Atmos...GOTG 2








I checked my the app for my Pioneer SC95 and it shows Atmos as the input signal and Atmos for the output signal. It sounds decent but I need to watch more to compare it with the UHD. It would be really awesome if more of the big studio content that Netflix gets shows up with the Atmos track when it is produced with one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

chi_guy50 said:


> Could you please check that again, Roger? The web site lists it as DD+ and both my Oppo UDP-203 and Denon AVR-X8500H confirm it.


In my Oppo 203 it does indeed report DD+ 5.1! 

In the Oppo 93, it reports TrueHD 5.1

The AVM 60 just says Atmos in all cases


----------



## DaveMcLain

usc1995 said:


> It looks like Netflix finally has a title that isn’t one of their originals in Atmos...GOTG 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I checked my the app for my Pioneer SC95 and it shows Atmos as the input signal and Atmos for the output signal. It sounds decent but I need to watch more to compare it with the UHD. It would be really awesome if more of the big studio content that Netflix gets shows up with the Atmos track when it is produced with one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I checked that title using my Roku 4 and it shows it being in 5.1... I wonder when their Roku app will be updated to play Atmos tracks because Atmos works via the Roku from Vudu. I don't have a UHD Netflix package though so maybe that's why its only showing 5.1.


----------



## Ted99

DaveMcLain said:


> I checked that title using my Roku 4 and it shows it being in 5.1... I wonder when their Roku app will be updated to play Atmos tracks because Atmos works via the Roku from Vudu. I don't have a UHD Netflix package though so maybe that's why its only showing 5.1.


Big disappointment that Roku has not done a deal with Netflix to enable Atmos. If it doesn't happen soon, I'll be looking to replace my Roku in the HT with a streamer that does Atmos. I know that PC, and X-Box do it. Any other platforms?


----------



## usc1995

DaveMcLain said:


> I checked that title using my Roku 4 and it shows it being in 5.1... I wonder when their Roku app will be updated to play Atmos tracks because Atmos works via the Roku from Vudu. I don't have a UHD Netflix package though so maybe that's why its only showing 5.1.




Yeah you need an Xbox One, certain LG tv or the updated Windows 10 app with a UHD subscription to get Atmos on Netflix. I watched it on my Xbox One S. One other interesting thing is this was just in HD and not UHD like the Blu-ray version. I watched most of it last night and the soundtrack was not as dynamic as the UHD version like a lot of Netflix streams. I have noticed that the soundtracks on their original shows to be a lot better than the stuff they get from the other studios. Hopefully this will improve.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## howard68

I have been on to Roku about Dolby Atmos they keep saying the Ultra cannot do it 
However I get Atmos for VUDU 
They are Lazy 
I am going to get an X box to get Atmos from NETFLIX 
Roku need to sort this out it is not ultra if ic can't to Atmos out


----------



## Mr.G

howard68 said:


> I have been on to Roku about Dolby Atmos they keep saying the Ultra cannot do it
> However I get Atmos for VUDU
> They are Lazy
> I am going to get an X box to get Atmos from NETFLIX
> Roku need to sort this out it is not ultra if ic can't to Atmos out


Complain to Netflix - this is where the problem lies. There are many streamers including the Apple TV 4K that can't get Atmos from Netflix.

No one understands why it has taken Netflix so long to move beyond its exclusivity with LG and Xbox products.


----------



## howard68

I have complained to both companies 
HOWEVER Roku people don't seem to know what the player can do !!!!!!!!!!
I have been told it cannot do Atmos 
It can via Vudu


----------



## howard68

Xbox and Dolby Atmos 
Can any of the X box output Netflix Dolby Atmos and do 1080 p ? 
Many thanks 
Howard


----------



## showmak

howard68 said:


> Xbox and Dolby Atmos
> Can any of the X box output Netflix Dolby Atmos and do 1080 p ?
> Many thanks
> Howard


Get Nvidia Shield TV


----------



## usc1995

howard68 said:


> Xbox and Dolby Atmos
> Can any of the X box output Netflix Dolby Atmos and do 1080 p ?
> Many thanks
> Howard




Xbox One, One S and One X can do Atmos with Netflix IF you have the 4K UHD level subscription 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

The 4K / HDR / Atmos streaming landscape is a PITA right now. So many devices that are only partially activated with these features.

My Sony X800 4K BDP happily streams Netflix in 4K and HDR, but no Atmos.... but the Vudu app doesn't support 4K streaming at all (required for Atmos).

I could get a newer Roku to unlock 4K/HDR/Atmos streaming off Vudu, but no Atmos support for Netflix!

Frustrating that it's hard to find an all-in-one solution for 4K / HDR / Atmos playback. Considering an Xbox since it seems to offer the broadest support. :/


----------



## chi_guy50

showmak said:


> Get Nvidia Shield TV



But that would not help OP since Netflix does not currently feature Atmos via the Shield TV.


----------



## chi_guy50

howard68 said:


> Xbox and Dolby Atmos
> Can any of the X box output Netflix Dolby Atmos and do 1080 p ?
> Many thanks
> Howard


Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X are supported by Netflix for Atmos.

I have never owned the Xbox, but I would assume that you can set the desired resolution output in the device's video settings.


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> The 4K / HDR / Atmos streaming landscape is a PITA right now. So many devices that are only partially activated with these features.
> 
> My Sony X800 4K BDP happily streams Netflix in 4K and HDR, but no Atmos.... but the Vudu app doesn't support 4K streaming at all (required for Atmos).
> 
> I could get a newer Roku to unlock 4K/HDR/Atmos streaming off Vudu, but no Atmos support for Netflix!
> 
> Frustrating that it's hard to find an all-in-one solution for 4K / HDR / Atmos playback. Considering an Xbox since it seems to offer the broadest support. :/


My experience with the Xbox has been a mixed bag but is now getting better. I bought it expecting a the same value proposition I got when I first purchased the PS3 as my bluray player. When I bought the Xbox it was the cheapest UHD player on the market and featured support for both 4k Netflix, 4k Amazon Prime Video and 4k Vudu. I had a number of issues with the UHD playback as different movies would have lip synch issues and other issues that had me really doubting my purchase. I also had issues with Vudu crashing frequently. Slowly over time the updates have addressed most of my issues and I am generally pretty happy. My two biggest issues are that no matter what the source is it always outputs in 4k even if I am watching an HD video and in Netflix it always outputs in HDR even when the source videos are just SDR. I am not sure if that is a Netflix issue or an Xbox issue but I don't care for it. Before I had a custom gamma curve created for my JVC projector it was awful but now I have everything working ok. The fact that I chose the one device that gets Atmos on Netflix makes me feel even better about the purchase.


----------



## aron7awol

deano86 said:


> Easy enough to verify for yourself on your default Audysey calibrated system. In my instance, with a Denon 5200; I simply play the Dolby Atmos test tones at a typical lower master volume level... ex -20 or -30 with Aydyssey Dynamic EQ engaged and with all the Option channel offsets set a 0. Then get your meter out and check all your ear level speakers' db readings against your height speaker readings.
> 
> My height speakers are all way down when compared to the ear level speaker readings at those lower master volumes. This, in my opinion, shows that Audyssey Dynamic EQ does nothing with Height speakers... which IMO, is a major flaw that I would hope gets fixed. Again, I have no idea if this is isolated to only certain receiver/pre-pro manufacturers or models. And obviously for those who can listen at closer to reference master volume levels, this is a non issue.


I just did a quick test by ear on my Denon X4400H by playing the Atmos 7.1.4 test tones with MV at -40. What's strange is it was only my Top Fronts that were much lower than the other speakers. My Top Rears (which are powered by a stereo amp connected via preouts) were loud like the other speakers. This warrants further testing with my SPL meter. I'll post the results after I get a chance to do a full test.


----------



## Selden Ball

Roger Dressler said:


> In my Oppo 203 it does indeed report DD+ 5.1!
> 
> In the Oppo 93, it reports TrueHD 5.1
> 
> The AVM 60 just says Atmos in all cases


I haven't checked this particular video yet, but many Atmos demo downloads include both DD+ and Dolby TrueHD soundtracks, either of which can be selected when played from USB on my Sony BDP S6500 Blu-ray player.


----------



## Solarium

Finally installed my Golden Ears HTR-7000 x4's in ceiling, looking great! They are about 4 feet from the MLP each, any further would be too close to the wall. The thing is that they are directed 30 degrees downwards, so they are firing ABOVE the MLP where my head would be. To get to the ear level, they would be way too far, past the wall. Would that affect the SQ much this way?


----------



## sdrucker

A surprise on the Atmos front: Red Sparrow makes extensive use of both heights and wides, mostly for the music score. It’s “natural”, to quote the Ralph Potts review, where you feel you’re sitting inside the score. All three pairs of my heights are engaged here, at the same time, as are my wides and front side surrounds. Maybe some mixer had the object size parameter set really high LOL....

They’re heavily active for scenes with music, but there’s occasional non-musical activity in my front side surround or wides in a few places, such as the chase scene where Nash flees the police in Moscow, and where sparrow school recruits pass by a gun range. There’s even a few scenes where you get some low bass in the mix, but it’s more as part of the orchestral themes you here throughout the movie than any explosions or rumbles.

It’s no action flick like Blade Runner, but you certainly get your money’s worth for a 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 setup in my opinion. And Jennifer Lawrence, of course . I wish more movies used the Atmos palette for music the way that they did here - often the music is just in the L/R mains or maybe the wides or side surrounds for many mixes.


----------



## stikle

chi_guy50 said:


> You can find the Nature's Fury clip for downloading here. It is a 1080p .mkv file and the audio is in a lossy DD+ container, but it is the same Dolby Atmos mix that you would find in lossless TrueHD.





Roger Dressler said:


> Just played the mkv on my Oppo, and the Oppo info reported the audio was TrueHD 5.1, not DD+.


A good tool to have in your bag is MediaInfo - it's free and very informative.

I looked at Nature's Fury with it (below). Note the information it provides - bitrate, number of objects, number of channels, and codec (E-AC-3 being DD+).


----------



## gwsat

sdrucker said:


> A surprise on the Atmos front: Red Sparrow makes extensive use of both heights and wides, mostly for the music score. It’s “natural”, to quote the Ralph Potts review, where you feel you’re sitting inside the score. All three pairs of my heights are engaged here, at the same time, as are my wides and front side surrounds. Maybe some mixer had the object size parameter set really high LOL....
> 
> They’re heavily active for scenes with music, but there’s occasional non-musical activity in my front side surround or wides in a few places, such as the chase scene where Nash flees the police in Moscow, and where sparrow school recruits pass by a gun range.
> 
> It’s no action flick like Blade Runner, but you certainly get your money’s worth for a 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 setup in my opinion. And Jennifer Lawrence, of course . I wish more movies used the Atmos palette for music the way that they did here - often the music is just in the L/R mains or maybe the wides or side surrounds.


I loved _Red Sparrow_ and have already watched it a couple of times. I read all the books upon which the film is based and can report that Jennifer Lawrence was Dominika Egorova to the life: smart, elegant, gorgeous, and a stone killer when the occasion called for it. 

Alas, I didn't get the TrueHD Atmos audio. I bought the UHD HDR version of _Red Sparrow_ at the Kaleidescape store and downloaded it to my Kscape system. Unfortunately, Kscape doesn't always get top of the line immersive audio from the studios, although the video files are always bit for bit copies of the video files encoded on the corresponding UHD HDR disks.

When I have watched the film, I have matrixed its native DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio to 7.2.4 by using either the Dolby Surround or Neural:X upmixers. The _Red Sparrow_ audio sounds terrific this way but native TrueHD Atmos 7.2.4 would no doubt have sounded even better. The silver lining to this is that the studios sometimes make TrueHD Atmos available to Kscape later, in which case Kscape offers the upgraded audio to its customers at no additional charge.


----------



## aron7awol

Confirmed with further testing that Dynamic EQ on my Denon X4400H does not affect my Top Fronts, but it does affect my Top Rears. At my normal listening level (-10dB MV) I have a ~2dB difference between the pairs of speakers. I ended up bumping my trims on the Top Fronts by 2dB to compensate. This isn't a perfect solution, as it won't be enough in cases where MV is lower, and might be a bit too much when MV is higher, but it's good enough since my listening level is pretty consistent.


----------



## batpig

aron7awol said:


> Confirmed with further testing that Dynamic EQ on my Denon X4400H does not affect my Top Fronts, but it does affect my Top Rears. At my normal listening level (-10dB MV) I have a ~2dB difference between the pairs of speakers. I ended up bumping my trims on the Top Fronts by 2dB to compensate. This isn't a perfect solution, as it won't be enough in cases where MV is lower, and might be a bit too much when MV is higher, but it's good enough since my listening level is pretty consistent.


Whoah, that's a pretty big discovery! I asked Chris Kyriakakis directly about this and he stated explicitly that DEQ doesn't apply the surround boost to overheads, just surrounds. So the 2dB difference between the front/rear pairs disappears when you disable DEQ?

This has extra implication for people who don't have their "rear" overhead speakers physically behind them, for example if you're sitting close to the back wall so the "top rear" is directly overhead and the "top front" is well in front, it will make the hot-spotting more egregious for the listeners close to the TR speakers.


----------



## PeteG

batpig said:


> This has extra implication for people who don't have their "rear" overhead speakers physically behind them, for example if you're sitting close to the back wall so the "top rear" is directly overhead and the "top front" is well in front, it will make the hot-spotting more egregious for the listeners close to the TR speakers.


This will be my situation, got my ceiling speakers in and will order my receiver soon. I have a 7.1 but the rear surrounds are just in back of me, but close to the ceiling. Any advice for a better setup with ceiling speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

The Matrix came in, and I’m giving it five stars for high channel count. Clean bill of immersive health, with audible activity pretty much everywhere on my 13.x.6 setup at times. Movement all over the place in scene 1, as well as plenty of music score and ambience in the wides and front side surrounds. Plenty of overhead use as well.

Here's an Input screenshot, about 7 minutes in. The top lines in green, yellow or occasionally red for each bar are db peaks, and the scale is relative to FS:


----------



## djoberg

kbarnes701 said:


> These SVS speakers are a cleverer design and would be easier to mount. The 'side heights' are way out of spec for Atmos as they should be in line with the front L&R more or less, but as it is difficult not to make Atmos work then he should be OK.


When I ordered my SVS Prime Elevation speakers a Customer Rep encouraged me to put them on my side walls. So I did! And guess what? They sound very good...at times I would swear they are directly overhead! Here is pic of my setup (I posted this many months ago):


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2407580&stc=1&d=1527298059


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> A surprise on the Atmos front: Red Sparrow makes extensive use of both heights and wides, mostly for the music score. It’s “natural”, to quote the Ralph Potts review, where you feel you’re sitting inside the score. All three pairs of my heights are engaged here, at the same time, as are my wides and front side surrounds. Maybe some mixer had the object size parameter set really high LOL....
> 
> They’re heavily active for scenes with music, but there’s occasional non-musical activity in my front side surround or wides in a few places, such as the chase scene where Nash flees the police in Moscow, and where sparrow school recruits pass by a gun range. There’s even a few scenes where you get some low bass in the mix, but it’s more as part of the orchestral themes you here throughout the movie than any explosions or rumbles.
> 
> It’s no action flick like Blade Runner, but you certainly get your money’s worth for a 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 setup in my opinion. And Jennifer Lawrence, of course . I wish more movies used the Atmos palette for music the way that they did here - often the music is just in the L/R mains or maybe the wides or side surrounds for many mixes.


I am not so keen on music being mixed at a loud level in the overhead speakers, or the surrounds. A little folding into those speakers adds a certain amount of ambience, but it sounds as if Red Sparrow has a ton of music 'up there'. How is this natural? When was the last time you went to a concert and the tuba was over your head and the violins behind you? And then to make matters worse, you report that they barely use the overheads for actual overhead effects! The movie hasn't been released here in the UK yet, so I will have to reserve final judgement but it doesn't sound promising, from your report.


----------



## kbarnes701

djoberg said:


> When I ordered my SVS Prime Elevation speakers a Customer Rep encouraged me to put them on my side walls. So I did! And guess what? They sound very good...at times I would swear they are directly overhead! Here is pic of my setup (I posted this many months ago):
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2407580&stc=1&d=1527298059


Glad it's working for you! "It's hard to get Atmos to not work....."


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not so keen on music being mixed at a loud level in the overhead speakers, or the surrounds. A little folding into those speakers adds a certain amount of ambience, but it sounds as if Red Sparrow has a ton of music 'up there'. How is this natural? When was the last time you went to a concert and the tuba was over your head and the violins behind you? And then to make matters worse, you report that they barely use the overheads for actual overhead effects! The movie hasn't been released here in the UK yet, so I will have to reserve final judgement but it doesn't sound promising, from your report.


The music isn't aggressively loud from the surrounds or heights; it's considerably lower but still audible when I solo those speakers. You just don't get much explosions or SFX in the heights, but that's also a function of the way the plot enfolds.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> The music isn't aggressively loud from the surrounds or heights; it's considerably lower but still audible when I solo those speakers. You just don't get much explosions or SFX in the heights, but that's also a function of the way the plot enfolds.


Ah so. When you said 'heavily active' then I think I misinterpreted you. I took it to mean that there was significant musical content up there, but maybe what you were saying was that the overheads were active for a lot of the time, but it was just ambient stuff up there? That's OK by me - it's how the mixer often puts musical ambience into the surrounds as well. Done with a light touch this does enhance the presentation. But done heavily (there's that word) it, for me, spoils the presentation.

I'm looking forward to getting this disc when it is released here.


----------



## m. zillch

sdrucker said:


> The Matrix came in, and I’m giving it five stars for high channel count. Clean bill of immersive health, with audible activity pretty much everywhere on my 13.x.6 setup at times.


What software is that you are using to show these levels? Looks nifty: I want it! Thanks in advance.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> What software is that you are using to show these levels? Looks nifty: I want it! Thanks in advance.


I think Stu mentioned once that he has a Trinnov, so I'd guess that it is the software that runs the Trinnov.


----------



## m. zillch

Well it seems a waste for me to buy a complete Trinnov system just to get the software so I think I'll hold off for now, but only because I don't want to be _wasteful_, mind you!


----------



## youthman

I'm excited to finally be able to enjoy Immersive Audio after installing 4 Klipsch CDT-5800-C II Atmos In-Ceiling Speakers for a 7.2.4 system. Check out the install below


----------



## snpanago

Solarium said:


> Finally installed my Golden Ears HTR-7000 x4's in ceiling, looking great! They are about 4 feet from the MLP each, any further would be too close to the wall. The thing is that they are directed 30 degrees downwards, so they are firing ABOVE the MLP where my head would be. To get to the ear level, they would be way too far, past the wall. Would that affect the SQ much this way?


Those speakers, as you know, don't have amiable tweeters per se, but as you turn the entire speaker prior to tightening the screws, the tweeters should point toward the MLP (as best you can). Can't be precise with the directionality to the ears, but it doesn't have to be. The dispersion of each speaker is great enough that you won't lose the Atmos 3D bubble in the least.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I think Stu mentioned once that he has a Trinnov, so I'd guess that it is the software that runs the Trinnov.


The Trinnov Optimizer software that's part of the Altitude, to be exact. It has a Processor tab with the Input meters I'm looking at for seeing what's decoded by Atmos and scaling to my layout.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

howard68 said:


> Xbox and Dolby Atmos
> Can any of the X box output Netflix Dolby Atmos and do 1080 p ?
> Many thanks
> Howard



Does the Xbox not supersample to 1080p?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

usc1995 said:


> Yeah you need an Xbox One, certain LG tv or the updated Windows 10 app with a UHD subscription to get Atmos on Netflix. I watched it on my Xbox One S. One other interesting thing is this was just in HD and not UHD like the Blu-ray version. I watched most of it last night and the soundtrack was not as dynamic as the UHD version like a lot of Netflix streams. I have noticed that the soundtracks on their original shows to be a lot better than the stuff they get from the other studios. Hopefully this will improve.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Its not going to be as dynamic because its being carried via Dolby Digital Plus on Netflix vs the Dolby TruHD on the UHD Blu.


----------



## VideoGrabber

gwsat said:


> Alas, I didn't get the TrueHD Atmos audio. I bought the UHD HDR version of _Red Sparrow_ at the Kaleidescape store...
> 
> When I have watched the film, I have matrixed its native DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio to 7.2.4 by using either the Dolby Surround or Neural:X upmixers.


Just a couple minor points. The BR discs are DTS-HD MA 7.1, not 5.1. And upmixing using DSU will only get you to 7.2.2, not 7.2.4. All 4 speakers will be active, but DSU has no F/B separation. Each side is a mono mix. As it would be for .6, or even .10.


----------



## howard68

The x box and dolby atmos and 1080 p 
I have an old Kuro and still not sure about what to replace it with 
I have an HDFURY to access atmos on Vudu as it is only in UHD 
Can any speak to the output of x box on netflix for atmos


----------



## howard68

The matrix in atmos is really good


----------



## gene4ht

youthman said:


> I'm excited to finally be able to enjoy Immersive Audio after installing 4 Klipsch CDT-5800-C II Atmos In-Ceiling Speakers for a 7.2.4 system. Check out the install below



Congrats on your progress into 3D audio Mike! And as many here will tell you, it's hard to get Atmos wrong! With the Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro demo material you have, there is no question you have a great immersive experience awaiting/welcoming you. Relative to good 3D sound reference movie content, quality varies greatly between titles and studios...from very little use of Atmos speakers to only ambient sounds/music to generous and expansive usage of the overheads. At this time, Atmos has the lead in total number of titles, followed by significantly fewer DTS:X titles, with Auro pulling up the rear with mostly European music titles. I will defer to others to recommend their favorites.

I will make the following predictions: (1) Although 3D sound and sound mixing is still maturing, there is little doubt that you will find 3D sound to be a significant audio immersive upgrade from your current system configuration and (2) relative to your later comparison between the Denon X6400H and the Marantz SR8012, I've compared the two and prefer the 8012 in terms of SQ and sound signature and predict that you will too. Although the 8012 and 6400 are "marketing wise" positioned at the same level, IMO realistically and likely the 8012's sonic performance is closer to the 8500 than the 6400. As always...YMMV.


----------



## youthman

gene4ht said:


> Congrats on your progress into 3D audio Mike! And as many here will tell you, it's hard to get Atmos wrong! With the Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro demo material you have, there is no question you have a great immersive experience awaiting/welcoming you. Relative to good 3D sound reference movie content, quality varies greatly between titles and studios...from very little use of Atmos speakers to only ambient sounds/music to generous and expansive usage of the overheads. At this time, Atmos has the lead in total number of titles, followed by significantly fewer DTS:X titles, with Auro pulling up the rear with mostly European music titles. I will defer to others to recommend their favorites.
> 
> I will make the following predictions: (1) Although 3D sound and sound mixing is still maturing, there is little doubt that you will find 3D sound to be a significant audio immersive upgrade from your current system configuration and (2) relative to your later comparison between the Denon X6400H and the Marantz SR8012, I've compared the two and prefer the 8012 in terms of SQ and sound signature and predict that you will too. Although the 8012 and 6400 are "marketing wise" positioned at the same level, IMO realistically and likely the 8012's sonic performance is closer to the 8500 than the 6400. As always...YMMV.


Thanks Gene. My son and I just finished watching our first Atmos movie...Sicario. It sounded INCREDIBLE! Not just because of the Atmos, but the entire setup. The Dual SVS PB16's handled explosions with precision and authority. The Parasound Halo A52+ paired with the Denon 6400 was awesome. It truly was an immersive experience. My son said during the explosion, he felt like he was in the explosion instead of having the explosion in front of him. There were times during Sicario that dirt was falling from above and the Atmos delivered!


----------



## cheyne2525

*Q regarding co-locating subs*

Hello all! I have included some pics below of the Atmos setup i have in the den of my house for people to reference here; i just had some Q's on what my best option would be for whre to place 2 Subwoofers in that setup. I plan on upgrading to a wider couch before long so i really only have 2 placement options to work with.
The 1st option (and the more desirable one for me because it frees up room space and hides them from view) would be to co-locate them behind the TV (which i'm upgrading soon as well from a 55" to a 65" or 77"). In that position they would be elevated about 3.5 or 4 ft off the ground on the cabinetry's surface top and the inside edges of the 2 subs would be almost directly in line w/ the outer edges of the center channel on either side of it (and about 3 feet behind it). You can see in pic # 4 that the dimensions of the cabinetry area behind the tv where i would be placing the 2 subs has about 5.5 ft of space to work with and the Bic F12 subs are about 15 inches wide; that would give me roughly 3 feet of space between them.
Option # 2 would be to place them on the floor on either side of the couch and a little forward of it near at the edge of the cabinetry - you can see in pic # 3 that that's where i had one sub positioned prior to it's current location behind the tv.
My Q's are as follows: **would locating the subs as described in option #1 be beneficial in helping to mediate potential room modes? (my research about room modes and sub placement seems to indicate that it might and the one sub i currently have sounds better in that location) **would there be any distortion/cross cancellation/lobing or anything else to worry about with the subs being that close together? 
Lastly, if neither of those 2 options are ideal then i would be open to suggestions on any other potential arrangements, so long as it doesn't negatively impact the W.A.F. (wife acceptance factor), lol. Any other tips are also appreciated as well, i always learn some good info when i've posted here in the past, so thanks in advance!


----------



## gene4ht

cheyne2525 said:


> Hello all! I have included some pics below of the Atmos setup i have in the den of my house for people to reference here; i just had some Q's on what my best option would be for whre to place 2 Subwoofers in that setup. I plan on upgrading to a wider couch before long so i really only have 2 placement options to work with.
> The 1st option (and the more desirable one for me because it frees up room space and hides them from view) would be to co-locate them behind the TV (which i'm upgrading soon as well from a 55" to a 65" or 77"). In that position they would be elevated about 3.5 or 4 ft off the ground on the cabinetry's surface top and the inside edges of the 2 subs would be almost directly in line w/ the outer edges of the center channel on either side of it (and about 3 feet behind it). You can see in pic # 4 that the dimensions of the cabinetry area behind the tv where i would be placing the 2 subs has about 5.5 ft of space to work with and the Bic F12 subs are about 15 inches wide; that would give me roughly 3 feet of space between them.
> Option # 2 would be to place them on the floor on either side of the couch and a little forward of it near at the edge of the cabinetry - you can see in pic # 3 that that's where i had one sub positioned prior to it's current location behind the tv.
> My Q's are as follows: **would locating the subs as described in option #1 be beneficial in helping to mediate potential room modes? (my research about room modes and sub placement seems to indicate that it might and the one sub i currently have sounds better in that location) **would there be any distortion/cross cancellation/lobing or anything else to worry about with the subs being that close together?
> Lastly, if neither of those 2 options are ideal then i would be open to suggestions on any other potential arrangements, so long as it doesn't negatively impact the W.A.F. (wife acceptance factor), lol. Any other tips are also appreciated as well, i always learn some good info when i've posted here in the past, so thanks in advance!


Many people incorrectly approach sub placement by aesthetics, furniture governance, convenience, WAF, etc. However, maximizing and optimizing sub(s) performance are matters of "correct" placement in a given room. In "most" cases, these are mutually exclusive...it's "usually" one or the other. Some of us have room constraints that compromise sub placement and therefore performance but most of us are also enthusiasts who strive to obtain the best possible results.

Having said this, to assist with your questions and best serve you, I would recommend reviewing an excellent post by @*mthomas47* at the link below. It's a lengthy read, so you may initially want to scroll down through the guide to gain familiarity or stop at a section of interest. Should you have further questions, it would be appropriate to post them in that thread. Good luck with your pursuit!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


----------



## cheyne2525

cheyne2525 said:


> Hello all! I have included some pics below of the Atmos setup i have in the den of my house for people to reference here; i just had some Q's on what my best option would be for whre to place 2 Subwoofers in that setup. I plan on upgrading to a wider couch before long so i really only have 2 placement options to work with.
> The 1st option (and the more desirable one for me because it frees up room space and hides them from view) would be to co-locate them behind the TV (which i'm upgrading soon as well from a 55" to a 65" or 77"). In that position they would be elevated about 3.5 or 4 ft off the ground on the cabinetry's surface top and the inside edges of the 2 subs would be almost directly in line w/ the outer edges of the center channel on either side of it (and about 3 feet behind it). You can see in pic # 4 that the dimensions of the cabinetry area behind the tv where i would be placing the 2 subs has about 5.5 ft of space to work with and the Bic F12 subs are about 15 inches wide; that would give me roughly 3 feet of space between them.
> Option # 2 would be to place them on the floor on either side of the couch and a little forward of it near at the edge of the cabinetry - you can see in pic # 3 that that's where i had one sub positioned prior to it's current location behind the tv.
> My Q's are as follows: **would locating the subs as described in option #1 be beneficial in helping to mediate potential room modes? (my research about room modes and sub placement seems to indicate that it might and the one sub i currently have sounds better in that location) **would there be any distortion/cross cancellation/lobing or anything else to worry about with the subs being that close together?
> Lastly, if neither of those 2 options are ideal then i would be open to suggestions on any other potential arrangements, so long as it doesn't negatively impact the W.A.F. (wife acceptance factor), lol. Any other tips are also appreciated as well, i always learn some good info when i've posted here in the past, so thanks in advance!



Included below is a basic layout of the den that my home theater area is located in. The shape of it is a bit strange in that it isn't really a true square or a rectangle. With viewers facing the tv the room opens up in the right rear area, and in the common area behind it i have about double the amount of space as i do in front of it. Hopefully this gives more room detail in addition to the pics.


----------



## kbarnes701

youthman said:


> Thanks Gene. My son and I just finished watching our first Atmos movie...Sicario. It sounded INCREDIBLE! Not just because of the Atmos, but the entire setup. The Dual SVS PB16's handled explosions with precision and authority. The Parasound Halo A52+ paired with the Denon 6400 was awesome. It truly was an immersive experience. My son said during the explosion, he felt like he was in the explosion instead of having the explosion in front of him. There were times during Sicario that dirt was falling from above and the Atmos delivered!


If you enjoy the original *Blade Runner*, I recommend you get the UHD 4K remaster with Atmos sound. It is like seeing the movie for the first time all over again. And the use of Atmos is just incredible, from the very first moments of the movie. 

I envy you starting from the beginning and rediscovering all your favourite movies over again, this time with the added benefit of immersive sound. It's the start of a terrific journey!


----------



## VideoGrabber

deano86 said:


> I find that if you happen to be using Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and listen at moderate volumes.. then you need to adjust up your height speakers a few dbs....since *Audyssey does not boost those speakers* at lower volumes like it does for your main surround speakers and subs...





aron7awol said:


> Confirmed with further testing that Dynamic EQ on my Denon X4400H does not affect my Top Fronts, but *it does affect my Top Rears*. At my normal listening level (-10dB MV) I have a ~2dB difference between the pairs of speakers. I ended up bumping my trims on the Top Fronts by 2dB to compensate.





batpig said:


> Whoah, that's a pretty big discovery! I asked Chris Kyriakakis directly about this and he stated explicitly that *DEQ doesn't apply the surround boost to overheads*, just surrounds. So the 2dB difference between the front/rear pairs disappears when you disable DEQ?


I find this fascinating. When @Joshz was setting up his ScAtmos system, *he reported being unable to use DEQ* due to it's action to the ceiling speakers throwing off center extraction. While Chris' says that shouldn't be happening... confirmed by Dean's experience. And now completely different results being reported by Aron. 

I'd agree with Dean's comment that this appears to be a mistake/oversight, notwithstanding Chris indicating it's supposed to be that way. While those listening at reference level don't need DEQ, many don't always listen that loud, so most will be using DEQ (to good effect on the remaining channels). Considering how many listen at say MV -10, it's not surprising the number of reports of underwhelming Atmos overhead performance, since it's being disadvantaged.


----------



## J_P_A

I’ve joined the club! I got my ATMOS ceiling speakers installed last night and watched the remastered Matrix. Now I have to dig through my movies to find anything with an ATMOS track  I should probably add the trim to the new speakers first....... but I doubt I will


----------



## snpanago

J_P_A said:


> I’ve joined the club! I got my ATMOS ceiling speakers installed last night and watched the remastered Matrix. Now I have to dig through my movies to find anything with an ATMOS track  I should probably add the trim to the new speakers first....... but I doubt I will


Don’t just limit yourself to Atmos titles. The Dolby Surround upmixer will surprise and delight you with your existing library of non-Atmos encoded movies.


----------



## J_P_A

snpanago said:


> Don’t just limit yourself to Atmos titles. The Dolby Surround upmixer will surprise and delight you with your existing library of non-Atmos encoded movies.


I need to figure out how to use it. It took five minutes or so last night to get ATMOS to play from my PS4to my Marantz 7703. I was a little surprised that it didn’t default to ATMOS or show an easy selection for upmixong.


----------



## snpanago

J_P_A said:


> I need to figure out how to use it. It took five minutes or so last night to get ATMOS to play from my PS4to my Marantz 7703. I was a little surprised that it didn’t default to ATMOS or show an easy selection for upmixong.


Your Marantz remote must have a button for movie sound modes to press and display on screen. There you can select the native Surround mode or upmixer of your choosing.


----------



## J_P_A

That sounds right. Im sure the first movie is more complicated because the PS4 didn’t (or doesn’t?) automatically bitstream the audio. It took a bit of Googling to figure that out. I’m sure it’s simple once I know the secret handshake


----------



## snpanago

J_P_A said:


> That sounds right. Im sure the first movie is more complicated because the PS4 didn’t (or doesn’t?) automatically bitstream the audio. It took a bit of Googling to figure that out. I’m sure it’s simple once I know the secret handshake


I didn’t mention setting the sounce to bitstream since you were able to enjoy Atmos decoding on your Marantz. You shouldn’t have to do much when playing Atmos titles going forward.


----------



## aron7awol

Did some additional testing of Dynamic EQ with MV @ -20dB and subs disabled to try to minimize the impact on the bass boost of DEQ on the data. I can definitely confirm on my Denon X4400H, the side surrounds, surround backs, and top rears all got a boost of ~4dB when DEQ was enabled. The LCR and top fronts did not.

I could see the Atmos speakers being excluded from the boost completely, but for one pair to get it but not the other is clearly a bug, and a pretty bad one IMO. As I stated in a previous post, I use preouts for my Top Rears, which may be part of reproducing this bug.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Did some additional testing of Dynamic EQ with MV @ -20dB and subs disabled to try to minimize the impact on the bass boost of DEQ on the data. I can definitely confirm on my Denon X4400H, the side surrounds, surround backs, and top rears all got a boost of ~4dB when DEQ was enabled. The LCR and top fronts did not.
> 
> I could see the Atmos speakers being excluded from the boost completely, but for one pair to get it but not the other is clearly a bug, and a pretty bad one IMO. As I stated in a previous post, I use preouts for my Top Rears, which may be part of reproducing this bug.


By my read Audyssey themselves (in their use of the words "our" and "we") have done some private research on equal loudness compensation as it relates to direction which would explain why the various surrounds are treated differently than fronts, furthermore it is quite possible that tops, sides, and rear surrounds are treated differently from each other:

"In our research on loudness we found that human perception of loudness falls off faster behind us than it does in front. So, Dynamic EQ compensates for that using a human loudness spatial model that looks at the master volume setting and makes the appropriate adjustment to the level of the surrounds. This is designed for content where the overall surround impression should remain the same at all volume levels: i.e. surround movies and music. . . .

. . . You can't really simulate Dynamic EQ manually. The amount of bass boost and surround compensation depends not only on the playback volume, but also changes dynamically with the content.

Best regards,

Chris Kyriakakis

CTO, Audyssey"

It is also a dynamic process so in any testing of it one would have to be sure they were using the exact same level in the input signal for all channels simultaneously, i.e. the bass boosts it applies will vary in level based on both the incoming signal's fluctuations of level as well as the user's MV setting.


----------



## otranto300

*Beaming Atmos*

will these Atmos soundbars (no rears), such as the new LG and Sony lineups, do a decent job of competing against a real setup with ceiling and rears speakers? 

If it's close enough, then most people are ok with that.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> By my read Audyssey themselves (in their use of the words "our" and "we") have done some private research on equal loudness compensation as it relates to direction which would explain why the various surrounds are treated differently than fronts, furthermore it is quite possible that tops, sides, and rear surrounds are treated differently from each other:
> 
> "In our research on loudness we found that human perception of loudness falls off faster behind us than it does in front. So, Dynamic EQ compensates for that using a human loudness spatial model that looks at the master volume setting and makes the appropriate adjustment to the level of the surrounds. This is designed for content where the overall surround impression should remain the same at all volume levels: i.e. surround movies and music. . . .
> 
> . . . You can't really simulate Dynamic EQ manually. The amount of bass boost and surround compensation depends not only on the playback volume, but also changes dynamically with the content.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis
> 
> CTO, Audyssey"
> 
> It is also a dynamic process so in any testing of it one would have to be sure they were using the exact same level in the input signal for all channels simultaneously, i.e. the bass boosts it applies will vary in level based on both the incoming signal's fluctuations of level as well as the user's MV setting.


*Audyssey Marketing-Speak Translation*
"human loudness spatial model": y=0.22x
"changes dynamically with the content": boosts lower frequencies more than higher frequencies

The only thing "dynamic" about it is the simple linear relationship between volume and boost. It boosts side surrounds, rear surrounds, and rear heights equally, so where's the "spatial model"?


----------



## Mr.G

howard68 said:


> The Matrix in Atmos is really good


Good to see this 4K title just experienced a decent price drop on Amazon.


----------



## highmr

aron7awol said:


> Did some additional testing of Dynamic EQ with MV @ -20dB and subs disabled to try to minimize the impact on the bass boost of DEQ on the data. I can definitely confirm on my Denon X4400H, the side surrounds, surround backs, and top rears all got a boost of ~4dB when DEQ was enabled. The LCR and top fronts did not.
> 
> I could see the Atmos speakers being excluded from the boost completely, but for one pair to get it but not the other is clearly a bug, and a pretty bad one IMO. As I stated in a previous post, I use preouts for my Top Rears, which may be part of reproducing this bug.


I was thinking that the Denon was possibly boosting for rear surround first, then combining rear surround into rear height if you didn't have rear surround, but then I noticed that you have a 7.1.4 system.
Is it possible that you could test a direct wire connection to the rear height speakers?


----------



## sdrucker

Latest movie up for the Trinnov meter look for Atmos immersion: Fury.

So far (maybe 20 minutes in while I popped it into the Oppo while I had a spare half hour), the mix may come across as 7.1.4 to many of you, particularly with a 9.1.4 setup. But....I'm seeing the top middles get pulled in at times for ambience (e.g. tank treads in the background) and of all things, the screen centers (Lc/Rc) seem to get a lot of ambient activity, including some passthrough of the music score. Actually, they light up more than anything other than the 7 beds and the top front/ rears. That's a nice effect if you have them behind an AT screen, with the mains either on the edge or just outside the screen, since it helps action be a little more localized inside the physical space of the screen than from just the center channel. The only movie close to this usage might be War for the POTA, or the music discs like REM's Automatic for the People. And given that it's a movie with tanks, the mix isn't shy in using LFE. 

And you do get wides about 10 minutes in...


----------



## mzs22

Mr.G said:


> Good to see this 4K title just experienced a decent price drop on Amazon.


Thought it was priced kinda high! Just ordered it now!!


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> By my read Audyssey themselves (in their use of the words "our" and "we") have done some private research on equal loudness compensation as it relates to direction which would explain why the various surrounds are treated differently than fronts, furthermore it is quite possible that tops, sides, and rear surrounds are treated differently from each other:
> 
> "*In our research on loudness we found that human perception of loudness falls off faster behind us than it does in front*. So, Dynamic EQ compensates for that using a human loudness spatial model that looks at the master volume setting and makes the appropriate adjustment to the level of the surrounds. This is designed for content where the overall surround impression should remain the same at all volume levels: i.e. surround movies and music. . . .
> 
> . . . You can't really simulate Dynamic EQ manually. The amount of bass boost and surround compensation depends not only on the playback volume, but also changes dynamically with the content.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis
> 
> CTO, Audyssey"
> 
> It is also a dynamic process so in any testing of it one would have to be sure they were using the exact same level in the input signal for all channels simultaneously, i.e. the bass boosts it applies will vary in level based on both the incoming signal's fluctuations of level as well as the user's MV setting.


Unfortunately, the part I bolded isn't true. Dynamic EQ was based on this flawed premise, which is why so many people have so much trouble with it. The reality is that humans do not hear sounds from behind as well as from the front, so as the sounds from behind get quieter, they get even harder to hear. But the perception of the sound 'falling away faster' is not correct. So the surrounds/rear surrounds get an additional, unwanted boost from Dynamic EQ, which is complained about universally. The ideal solution would be to split DEQ so that the user could choose the bass boost (wanted) and turn off the surround boost (unwanted). Despite this having been asked of Audyssey numerous times, it was never addressed. Maybe they didn't want to admit they got it wrong in the first place, or maybe they couldn't be bothered to fix it, who knows?

This was all discussed ad infinitum in the original Audyssey thread - it's OT here so the discussion would be best transferred to that thread if anyone wants to continue it. What _is _relevant here is that there now seems to be _another _problem with DEQ that relates to Atmos speakers. My advice is, if possible, switch to Dirac Live and get (affordable) SOTA room EQ which offers a superior result to Audyssey with none of these issues.


----------



## carp

I watched The Matrix 4K last night with a bunch of friends. It really does live up to the hype. Movies like this and BR 2049 and a very short list of others are what I was expecting when Atmos for HT was first announced. It's too bad that most sound mixers IMO are either:

a) lazy
b) lack competence
c) aren't allowed to do it how they would want to?

I wasn't even in the sweet spot last night and I still felt completely immersed... bullets flying by/over/through me etc. It made all the recent Marvel/Star Wars movies sound boring in comparison. After everyone left I tried some scenes in the main seat. Ridiculously good. 

The bass was fantastic too. I did have to bump it up just a bit, but that's not a problem at all.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately, the part I bolded isn't true. Dynamic EQ was based on this flawed premise, which is why so many people have so much trouble with it.
> 
> This was all discussed ad infinitum in the original Audyssey thread - it's OT here so the discussion would be best transferred to that thread if anyone wants to continue it.


Just in case one wants to wade deeper into this topic, I'd suggest landing in the FAQ thread at *my post*, then taking an excursion up- and down-stream as far as desired. It was a hot topic.


----------



## m. zillch

m. zillch said:


> "*In our research on loudness we found that human perception of loudness falls off faster behind us than it does in front*." . . .Chris Kyriakakis





kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately, the part I bolded isn't true. Dynamic EQ was based on this flawed premise, which is why so many people have so much trouble with it. The reality is that humans do not hear sounds from behind as well as from the front, so as the sounds from behind get quieter, they get even harder to hear. But the perception of the sound 'falling away faster' is not correct.


Might you recall the paper which determined their premise was flawed in this way? Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Just in case one wants to wade deeper into this topic, I'd suggest landing in the FAQ thread at *my post*, then taking an excursion up- and down-stream as far as desired. It was a hot topic.


Gosh.. the sheer _nostalgia_ of it all


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Might you recall the paper which determined their premise was flawed in this way? Thanks.


Are there normally papers describing things that don't happen?


----------



## m. zillch

So the "evidence" that he's wrong is based on general concensus, yes?


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> So the "evidence" that he's wrong is based on general concensus, yes?


Probably best to read the many posts in the referenced thread rather than relitigate the topic here. Feel free to raise new questions there.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Gosh.. the sheer _nostalgia_ of it all


Not to mention that XT32 and the Audyssey suite of DEQ, Dynamic Volume, LFE containment etc. long since have ceased to be SOTA tools, but rather a finished product that's on an island relative to mixed phase room EQ methods, high resolution target curve editing, and switching between multiple presets. The Audyssey mobile app was a nice add-on, but IIRC still only 1/3 octave curve editing.

On second thought, it's on a big island. Maybe 'a separate continent' is a better analogy ☺


----------



## batpig

aron7awol said:


> *Audyssey Marketing-Speak Translation*
> "human loudness spatial model": y=0.22x
> "changes dynamically with the content": boosts lower frequencies more than higher frequencies
> 
> The only thing "dynamic" about it is the simple linear relationship between volume and boost. It boosts side surrounds, rear surrounds, and rear heights equally, so where's the "spatial model"?


While I agree that this topic is out of scope for this thread, wanted to make a quick clarification on this point...

As discussed above, Dynamic EQ has two separate components: loudness compensation and surround boost

The loudness compensation component is absolutely dynamic as described in the quote, adjusting not only based on master volume offset but also dynamically with the content.

The surround boost portion however is as you describe, a direct relationship between master volume and the constant dB boost applied.


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> The surround boost portion however is as you describe, a direct relationship between master volume and the constant dB boost applied.


I can see why they might have chosen this route. Doing it this way prevents pumping and breathing artifacts as would be seen if instead using dynamic level control based on content, e.g. some compressors.

If they are too aggressive with their fixed surround boost at least a consumer could dial down all the surround levels to compensate when using Dyn EQ, whereas pumping and breathing artifacts are obtrussive and can't be fixed.


----------



## aron7awol

batpig said:


> While I agree that this topic is out of scope for this thread, wanted to make a quick clarification on this point...
> 
> As discussed above, Dynamic EQ has two separate components: loudness compensation and surround boost
> 
> The loudness compensation component is absolutely dynamic as described in the quote, adjusting not only based on master volume offset but also dynamically with the content.
> 
> The surround boost portion however is as you describe, a direct relationship between master volume and the constant dB boost applied.


When you say "loudness compensation", I assume you are referring to an effect of Dynamic EQ, and not the dynamic range compression of Dynamic Volume? Are you referring to something in addition to the increase in loudness as frequency decreases? Is there a post or somewhere else you can refer me to that shows what exactly changes dynamically with the content?


----------



## kbarnes701

Another astonishingly good Atmos track hit my UHD player yesterday. *Fury*. 

Besides being an excellent film, you have to hear this Atmos presentation to believe it. It is stellar in every way. There is great overhead content, amazingly precise effects of battle sounds, shells whizzing across the soundstage, full, deep, scary bass as they hit their targets and the general sounds of warfare are ever-present. It is truly an outstanding disc from Sony and one of the best Atmos movies I have in my collection.

Isn't it interesting that so many of the truly stellar Atmos releases on disc are in the form of _upgrades _rather than original releases. I am thinking *Bram Stoker's Dracula*, *The Fifth Element*, *Blade Runner* and now *Fury*. Others will have more such movies on their favourite lists too, I am sure.

So if you want a truly stellar Atmos experience, accompanying a superb movie, and you haven't got the UHD of *Fury* in your collection, my advice is to run, don't walk, to your nearest store, or to your Amazon etc account and _buy this disc_!

IIRC, our very own @FilmMixer was the re-recording mixer on this movie. Marc, were you in any way involved in this latest disc version? I always really enjoyed the sound on the original Blu-ray release, and I never saw the movie in a commercial cinema - but this latest release on UHD is a sonic feast!


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> Another astonishingly good Atmos track hit my UHD player yesterday. *Fury*.
> .......


This is not a movie that struck me as interesting. But I may very well have to give it a try based on your post. 

I'm a pretty tough sell on upgrades, at least I'm pretty tough to impress with them. E.g., after I went through all the trouble to add acoustic treatments to my room, I was pretty let down by the difference they made. But so far I'm impressed with ATMOS.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Another astonishingly good Atmos track hit my UHD player yesterday. *Fury*.
> 
> Besides being an excellent film, you have to hear this Atmos presentation to believe it. It is stellar in every way. There is great overhead content, amazingly precise effects of battle sounds, shells whizzing across the soundstage, full, deep, scary bass as they hit their targets and the general sounds of warfare are ever-present. It is truly an outstanding disc from Sony and one of the best Atmos movies I have in my collection.
> 
> Isn't it interesting that so many of the truly stellar Atmos releases on disc are in the form of _upgrades _rather than original releases. I am thinking *Bram Stoker's Dracula*, *The Fifth Element*, *Blade Runner* and now *Fury*. Others will have more such movies on their favourite lists too, I am sure.
> 
> So if you want a truly stellar Atmos experience, accompanying a superb movie, and you haven't got the UHD of *Fury* in your collection, my advice is to run, don't walk, to your nearest store, or to your Amazon etc account and _buy this disc_!
> 
> IIRC, our very own @FilmMixer was the re-recording mixer on this movie. Marc, were you in any way involved in this latest disc version? I always really enjoyed the sound on the original Blu-ray release, and I never saw the movie in a commercial cinema - but this latest release on UHD is a sonic feast!


Thanks for the tip about the new TrueHD Atmos version of _Fury_! Until I saw your post, I had no idea that our boy @FilmMixer had mixed that one. I bought the UHD HDR quality version of the film from the Kaleidescape store in 2016. Back then, though, it had only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio, although even that was quite good. Nevertheless, I have ordered the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos disk from Amazon, which should arrive on Thursday. Looking forward to hearing the TrueHD Atmos audio mix on this one! _Fury_ is a fine film but an exceedingly dark one. I think I have steeled myself sufficiently to watch it again, though

Speaking of @FilmMixer, his TrueHD Atmos mix on _Power Rangers_ is great. Unfortunately, though, the film itself is pretty thin gruel.


----------



## gwsat

i just found the _*Blu-ray.com review of the Fury TrueHD Atmos soundtrack*_. The reviewer summarized his findings concerning the soundtrack by saying, "This is an absolutely stellar Atmos mix."


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> IIRC, our very own @FilmMixer was the re-recording mixer on this movie. Marc, were you in any way involved in this latest disc version? I always really enjoyed the sound on the original Blu-ray release, and I never saw the movie in a commercial cinema - but this latest release on UHD is a sonic feast!


Not FM, but he had said awhile back that he only did the standard 2D audio mix for consumers, with the Atmos mix done by a colleague:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1644.html#post56022994


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Besides being an excellent film...


One of the few movies where Shia LaBeouf turns in a real performance (i.e., doesn't play himself).


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> This is not a movie that struck me as interesting. But I may very well have to give it a try based on your post.
> 
> I'm a pretty tough sell on upgrades, at least I'm pretty tough to impress with them. E.g., after I went through all the trouble to add acoustic treatments to my room, I was pretty let down by the difference they made. But so far I'm impressed with ATMOS.


*Fury *is a good war movie, IMO of course. Certainly worth a look - and with this new Atmos track (on disc) an outstandingly great sounding movie too!

I'm surprised that room treatments did not make a very noticeable improvement in your room. This is not the place to discuss it, but I have some experience with treating rooms, so if you want to continue the discussion I'd be happy to pick it up via PM or a different thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> i just found the _*Blu-ray.com review of the Fury TrueHD Atmos soundtrack*_. The reviewer summarized his findings concerning the soundtrack by saying, "This is an absolutely stellar Atmos mix."


And he is absolutely right!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Not FM, but he had said awhile back that he only did the standard 2D audio mix for consumers, with the Atmos mix done by a colleague:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1644.html#post56022994


Ah, thanks Stu. So presumably this was originally released as a non-Atmos movie, with Marc doing the mix, and the disc got a new Atmos mix done by, er, the other guy? 

I just checked the link - the 'other guy' was Paul Ottosson who has won not one but three Oscars *(Zero Dark Thirty,* *The Hurt Locker* and* Spider-Man 2*). Wow. For anyone, like me, who 'follows' highly talented guys this is another one to add to the list. Certainly I recall those three movies as having excellent sound.

I don't really understand the IMDb cast & crew listings - they list Marc as the re-recording mixer, and then list Paul also further down the list where he is also credited as sound designer and sound supervisor. Does this mean they are jointly responsible for the mix, or is one the 'lead' mixer and the other the 'support' mixer, or what? Maybe Marc will see this and help me out here.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> One of the few movies where Shia LaBeouf turns in a real performance (i.e., doesn't play himself).


So you didn't rate his outings with Bumble Bee then?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So you didn't rate his outings with Bumble Bee then?


Actually, his acting wasn't bad in those movies, just that he was playing himself again. He was in a movie that was similar to Rear Window, where playing his yammering neurotic self happen to fit the role perfectly. But seeing that same character in every other role gets old quickly. That's why I found his performance in Fury so refreshing. The boy can act IF he has the right director guiding (restraining) him. Not unlike Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Actually, his acting wasn't bad in those movies, just that he was playing himself again. He was in a movie that was similar to Rear Window, where playing his yammering neurotic self happen to fit the role perfectly. But seeing that same character in every other role gets old quickly. That's why I found his performance in Fury so refreshing. The boy can act IF he has the right director guiding (restraining) him. Not unlike Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, etc.


 Yes, I agree. And also about Robin Williams. Remember him in Nolan's *Insomnia*, where he played the really creepy guy, Walter Finch? Changed my view of him did that role.


----------



## FilmMixer

kbarnes701 said:


> sdrucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not FM, but he had said awhile back that he only did the standard 2D audio mix for consumers, with the Atmos mix done by a colleague:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...d-home-theater-version-1644.html#post56022994
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, thanks Stu. So presumably this was originally released as a non-Atmos movie, with Marc doing the mix, and the disc got a new Atmos mix done by, er, the other guy?
> 
> I just checked the link - the 'other guy' was Paul Ottosson who has won not one but three Oscars *(Zero Dark Thirty,* *The Hurt Locker* and* Spider-Man 2*). Wow. For anyone, like me, who 'follows' highly talented guys this is another one to add to the list. Certainly I recall those three movies as having excellent sound.
> 
> I don't really understand the IMDb cast & crew listings - they list Marc as the re-recording mixer, and then list Paul also further down the list where he is also credited as sound designer and sound supervisor. Does this mean they are jointly responsible for the mix, or is one the 'lead' mixer and the other the 'support' mixer, or what? Maybe Marc will see this and help me out here. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Keith et al...

Thanks again for the kind words for the work that we did on Fury. 

Paul and I mixed the film originally. 

Paul did the home theater Atmos remaster. And he also did the Atmos mixes on ZDT and the Spider-Man trilogy. 

For a vast majority of films and broadcast shows (>95%) the mix is handled by two mixers 

One does dialog and music, the other sound effects, backgrounds/ambiences and foley. It’s becoming quite common for sound designers to also mix on the effects side of the desk. 

Occasionally we have a third mixer that will mix only music. And on other shows one mixer will handle it all.. 

But again it’s mostly two mixers on.

I mostly sit in the dialog/music chair...

Most of the Atmos remixes are done by one person.... 

As I have mentioned before the catalog releases do tend to be very active and “atmos-y” for various reasons. 

Most obviously it’s becuase the focus is very much about mixing for the format. In addition when your hands are tied to 5.1 or 7.1 stems you tend to move the surrounds up into the ceiling, so they become active for a large majority of the run time of the film.


----------



## BearGator56

Watched Fury and Saving Private Ryan this weekend. Both hit the mark with lots of great surround and Atmos. Got Deadpool on tap for this week and looking to get John Wick and Hacksaw Ridge (Amazon has both less than 17 bucks right now).

Not much of a Matrix guy, but with what I've been hearing about it through these threads it may be one to get.


----------



## kbarnes701

FilmMixer said:


> Keith et al...
> 
> Thanks again for the kind words for the work that we did on Fury.
> 
> Paul and I mixed the film originally.
> 
> Paul did the home theater Atmos remaster. And he also did the Atmos mixes on ZDT and the Spider-Man trilogy.
> 
> For a vast majority of films and broadcast shows (>95%) the mix is handled by two mixers
> 
> One does dialog and music, the other sound effects, backgrounds/ambiences and foley. It’s becoming quite common for sound designers to also mix on the effects side of the desk.
> 
> Occasionally we have a third mixer that will mix only music. And on other shows one mixer will handle it all..
> 
> But again it’s mostly two mixers on.
> 
> I mostly sit in the dialog/music chair...
> 
> Most of the Atmos remixes are done by one person....
> 
> As I have mentioned before the catalog releases do tend to be very active and “atmos-y” for various reasons.
> 
> Most obviously it’s becuase the focus is very much about mixing for the format. In addition when your hands are tied to 5.1 or 7.1 stems you tend to move the surrounds up into the ceiling, so they become active for a large majority of the run time of the film.


As ever, Marc, your insights are, to someone obsessed with movies like me, always illuminating. Thanks for taking the time. When it all comes together, like it does in *Fury*, movie watching is really a very deep joy.


----------



## gwsat

FilmMixer said:


> As I have mentioned before the catalog releases do tend to be very active and “atmos-y” for various reasons.
> 
> Most obviously it’s becuase the focus is very much about mixing for the format. In addition when your hands are tied to 5.1 or 7.1 stems you tend to move the surrounds up into the ceiling, so they become active for a large majority of the run time of the film.


Marc -- Thanks as always for your valuable insights. What I have quoted above explains a lot. I thought your remixing of the originally non immersive _Zero Dark Thirty_ using the TrueHD Atmos codec was stunningly effective. I also give high marks to whoever remixed the original _Blade Runner_ from its 2007 vintage BD's 5.1 to TrueHD Atmos standards. Despite the film's age, its soundtrack is demonstration quality.

In stark contrast, the TrueHD Atmos track on the UHD HDR quality version of the recently released _Annihilation_ disappointed me. My disappointment stemmed not from the effectiveness of the immersive effects when they were used, they suited me just fine, but by them not being used in scenes, which it seemed to me called for them. I should add that your TrueHD Atmos mix for _Power Rangers_ didn't seem to suffer from this failing.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

@kbarnes701
I wonder if this trend you’ve noticed has anything to do with that the movies you mentioned have pretty stellar tracks to begin with. Better stems or something like that I wonder?


----------



## grendelrt

VideoGrabber said:


> I find this fascinating. When @Joshz was setting up his ScAtmos system, *he reported being unable to use DEQ* due to it's action to the ceiling speakers throwing off center extraction. While Chris' says that shouldn't be happening... confirmed by Dean's experience. And now completely different results being reported by Aron.
> 
> I'd agree with Dean's comment that this appears to be a mistake/oversight, notwithstanding Chris indicating it's supposed to be that way. While those listening at reference level don't need DEQ, many don't always listen that loud, so most will be using DEQ (to good effect on the remaining channels). Considering how many listen at say MV -10, it's not surprising the number of reports of underwhelming Atmos overhead performance, since it's being disadvantaged.


Sorry if this conversation ended and I am late to the party, but for people who listen at non reference, what are some possible ways to help minimize this issue. Would it be a combination of either turning off DEQ and raising bass levels or leaving DEQ on and turning up the DEQ offset to minimize it and bump the top speakers. I personally listen around -9db and have noticed the top speakers not performing as expected but when I do atmos demos that are mainly top speaker heavy it sounds fine (helicopter demo).


----------



## markmanner

grendelrt said:


> Sorry if this conversation ended and I am late to the party, but for people who listen at non reference, what are some possible ways to help minimize this issue. Would it be a combination of either turning off DEQ and raising bass levels or leaving DEQ on and turning up the DEQ offset to minimize it and bump the top speakers. I personally listen around -9db and have noticed the top speakers not performing as expected but when I do atmos demos that are mainly top speaker heavy it sounds fine (helicopter demo).


FWIW, I listen at less than reference mostly, and I have DEQ turned off and Audyssey set to Flat, and my subs boosted 4-6db. I like the way it sounds overall this way.
Mark


----------



## grendelrt

markmanner said:


> FWIW, I listen at less than reference mostly, and I have DEQ turned off and Audyssey set to Flat, and my subs boosted 4-6db. I like the way it sounds overall this way.
> Mark


Yeah I may need to try that, but I already bump the subs 4-5db with DEQ on lol


----------



## markmanner

grendelrt said:


> Yeah I may need to try that, but I already bump the subs 4-5db with DEQ on lol


Go to 11!


----------



## duckymomo

grendelrt said:


> Sorry if this conversation ended and I am late to the party, but for people who listen at non reference, what are some possible ways to help minimize this issue. Would it be a combination of either turning off DEQ and raising bass levels or leaving DEQ on and turning up the DEQ offset to minimize it and bump the top speakers. I personally listen around -9db and have noticed the top speakers not performing as expected but when I do atmos demos that are mainly top speaker heavy it sounds fine (helicopter demo).


The demos were meant to be loud and draw attention to the tops. Not all content was mixed to have that same effect. 

If you want sound from the tops to be louder all the time, you'll probably have to turn them up. 

For the bass at volumes below reference, I find a Harman curve to work well.


----------



## camd5pt0

I have 5.1.4 connected at the moment. I want to mitigate not having the correct sound level using Dynamic EQ. If I run Audyssey XT32, should I set to normal volume I use (60) and then use DB meter to adjust the top to same DB all around?


----------



## davearm

Hey folks, looking for some advice about upgrading to Atmos.

I currently run a 5.1 system with a matched set of Atlantic Technology HT speakers. I reached out to Atlantic Technology via online chat to ask about which of their speakers would match best with my system when I'm ready for Atmos. (In my room I can do either the Dolby-enabled "bouncers" or direct-firing height speakers -- in-ceiling is the only option off the table due to the more complicated install).

The AT rep's advice was that their 44-DA "bouncers" would outperform a regular set of their fronts or surrounds mounted high and angled to the MLP. I thought that was surprising. Seems the conventional wisdom is that all else equal, high-mounted direct-firing speakers outperform bouncers. And it makes sense; the bouncers are basically a workaround for situations where proper placement of direct-firing height or in-ceiling speakers isn't feasible (that's how I understand it anyway).

Perhaps the most interesting thing he said was that bouncing the sound off of the ceiling and floor is crucial for the optimal Atmos effect. I had never really heard that before. I mentioned that a commercial movie theater produces Atmos with a series of high-mounted, direct-firing speakers, not by bouncing sound off the ceiling. He said they actually take those speakers and angle them in many different directions to create the bounce effect.

At that point I was getting pretty dubious, and feeling like the guy was trying to sell me a set of the 44-DA's even though proper height speakers ought to sound better.

Curious to hear what folks think about the AT guy's take.


----------



## camd5pt0

I'm curious about sound objects. The bed layer, can these so sound objects? Or does this function and is the same as traditional sound channel?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

davearm said:


> Hey folks, looking for some advice about upgrading to Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> I currently run a 5.1 system with a matched set of Atlantic Technology HT speakers. I reached out to Atlantic Technology via online chat to ask about which of their speakers would match best with my system when I'm ready for Atmos. (In my room I can do either the Dolby-enabled "bouncers" or direct-firing height speakers -- in-ceiling is the only option off the table due to the more complicated install).
> 
> 
> 
> The AT rep's advice was that their 44-DA "bouncers" would outperform a regular set of their fronts or surrounds mounted high and angled to the MLP. I thought that was surprising. Seems the conventional wisdom is that all else equal, high-mounted direct-firing speakers outperform bouncers. And it makes sense; the bouncers are basically a workaround for situations where proper placement of direct-firing height or in-ceiling speakers isn't feasible (that's how I understand it anyway).
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most interesting thing he said was that bouncing the sound off of the ceiling and floor is crucial for the optimal Atmos effect. I had never really heard that before. I mentioned that a commercial movie theater produces Atmos with a series of high-mounted, direct-firing speakers, not by bouncing sound off the ceiling. He said they actually take those speakers and angle them in many different directions to create the bounce effect.
> 
> 
> 
> At that point I was getting pretty dubious, and feeling like the guy was trying to sell me a set of the 44-DA's even though proper height speakers ought to sound better.
> 
> 
> 
> Curious to hear what folks think about the AT guy's take.




Sorry, but I think the guy from AT was taking some creative liberties, and should not be giving advice. I’ve read a lot of literature including Dolby’s white papers and what he said about how it works, and especially in theater is just wrong.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Marc -- Thanks as always for your valuable insights. What I have quoted above explains a lot. I thought your remixing of the originally non immersive _Zero Dark Thirty_ using the TrueHD Atmos codec was stunningly effective. I also give high marks to whoever remixed the original _Blade Runner_ from its 2007 vintage BD's 5.1 to TrueHD Atmos standards. Despite the film's age, its soundtrack is demonstration quality.
> 
> In stark contrast, the TrueHD Atmos track on the UHD HDR quality version of the recently released _Annihilation_ disappointed me. My disappointment stemmed not from the effectiveness of the immersive effects when they were used, they suited me just fine, but by them not being used in scenes, which it seemed to me called for them. I should add that your TrueHD Atmos mix for _Power Rangers_ didn't seem to suffer from this failing.


Entirely agree. So far, some of the best Atmos tracks have been on re-visited movies. *Blade Runner* is probably the best example I have in my collection. Of the new movies, I agree with you about *Power Rangers* too, but then the mixes Marc has worked on have all been very good IIRC. He's one of the mixers who seemed to 'get' Atmos right from the off.


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> @kbarnes701
> I wonder if this trend you’ve noticed has anything to do with that the movies you mentioned have pretty stellar tracks to begin with. Better stems or something like that I wonder?


Could be. I am not tech savvy enough wrt to how the process works to know but it's entirely possible, I guess, that in the process of deciding which movies to remix to Atmos, they take movies that were pretty good, sound-wise, to begin with.


----------



## sdurani

camd5pt0 said:


> I'm curious about sound objects. The bed layer, can these so sound objects? Or does this function and is the same as traditional sound channel?


Having trouble parsing your questions. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus audio objects (sounds that are assigned locations in 3D space rather than being mixed into channels). Objects can move around OR remain fixed at a certain location (i.e., objects can mimic channels).


----------



## yepimonfire

With home Atmos all bed channels are converted to objects with fixed coordinates to better utilize spatial coding. This is also why a 7.1 bed with objects can be contained in a 5.1 DD+ stream. You still get a 7.1 bed even with a 5.1 mix down because those rear surrounds are objects.


sdurani said:


> Having trouble parsing your questions. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus audio objects (sounds that are assigned locations in 3D space rather than being mixed into channels). Objects can move around OR remain fixed at a certain location (i.e., objects can mimic channels).


Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


----------



## camd5pt0

sdurani said:


> Having trouble parsing your questions. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus audio objects (sounds that are assigned locations in 3D space rather than being mixed into channels). Objects can move around OR remain fixed at a certain location (i.e., objects can mimic channels).


Ok thanks,I wasn't sure if sound could jump around in the 3d space on the 7.1 channel, as in 7.1 can be objects as well.
So it's important to have as many object speakers, as this is where the new tech flexes is muscle as I understand it.


----------



## sdurani

camd5pt0 said:


> Ok thanks,I wasn't sure if sound could jump around in the 3d space on the 7.1 channel, as in 7.1 can be objects as well.
> So it's important to have as many object speakers, as this is where the new tech flexes is muscle as I understand it.


From the time stereo was invented 80 years ago, we've heard sounds image between speaker locations. If you have enough channels, you don't need objects to make sounds "jump around in 3D space". Question is, how many channels is enough? 9.1.6? More?


----------



## sdurani

Sony is releasing Bad Boys I & II collection in 4K UHD on September 4th: _"Presented in unique, must-own packaging, both films are* fully restored from their original camera negatives* and presented with High Dynamic Range and all-new Dolby Atmos audio tracks."_


----------



## Roger Dressler

yepimonfire said:


> With home Atmos all bed channels are converted to objects with fixed coordinates to better utilize spatial coding. This is also why a 7.1 bed with objects can be contained in a 5.1 DD+ stream. You still get a 7.1 bed even with a 5.1 mix down because those rear surrounds are objects.


I think you have oversimplified the process. Home Atmos does not convert all bed channels to objects. Channels always remain present in the delivered bitstreams, if for nothing else, legacy support. 

Please review "25.3.3 Spatial coding in the authoring chain" of the Dolby_Atmos_Production_Suite_guide.pdf, captioned below, for further details.



> *25.3.3 Spatial coding in the authoring chain*
> 
> Spatial coding is present at two distinct stages in the Dolby Atmos authoring chain: during monitoring of the mix, and when encoding the Dolby Atmos master file set.
> 
> At the first stage (monitoring and mastering), spatial coding occurs as a real-time emulation process running on the Dolby Atmos Renderer during monitoring of the mix. Here, the mixer can listen to the effect of spatial coding while making adjustments to the mix for near-field presentation. The Dolby Atmos Renderer software generates a Dolby Atmos master file set (including the top-level .atmos file), which still carries the full set of up to 128 signals, and therefore contains the mixing decisions for home theater or VR, but has not yet been processed by spatial coding.
> 
> At the second stage (encoding), spatial coding is finally applied to the original beds and objects as part of the encoding process by a software tool (such as Dolby Media Encoder). This tool reads the .atmos (or .damf) file, applies spatial coding to create the same clustered objects heard during the first stage of Dolby Atmos authoring, and then encodes the clustered objects into the delivery codec format (in the Dolby Media Encoder, the delivery codec format is specified in the job setup). The Encoder generates a coded bitstream that consists of objects and one or more bed channels. The encoded bitstream can then be delivered to consumer playback devices.
> 
> Supported delivery codecs include:
> 
> • Dolby TrueHD: In this case, the spatially coded objects are losslessly delivered to consumer playback devices. Typically, the Dolby TrueHD encoder creates a bitstream containing the spatially coded objects, a 7.1-ch render of the objects, and 5.1-ch and 2-ch downmixes. The 7.1, 5.1 and 2-ch presentations are backward-compatible with legacy Dolby TrueHD decoders. A Dolby Atmos-capable Dolby TrueHD decoder losslessly reverses the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects. Dolby TrueHD also supports independent 7.1, 5.1, and 2-channel presentations of 7.1.
> 
> • Dolby Digital Plus: In this case, the spatially coded objects are rendered to a backwards compatible 5.1 or 7.1 core mix and side metadata is generated to extract the individual objects from the mix. The core mix is encoded with Dolby Digital Plus in a backward compatible manner and can be played back directly by older Dolby Digital Plus decoders. This is a lossy process due to the downmixing process, as well as the subsequent lossy coding of the base mix.
> 
> For both Dolby True HD and Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams with a 7.1-ch core, the legacy 5.1 and stereo playback will be derived from the legacy layer of the mix. The 5.1 legacy layer is generated during encoding as a downmix from the 7.1 rendering of the spatially coded signals, using Dolby Pro Logic IIx or Lo/Ro downmix rules. For Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams with a 5.1-ch core, the 5.1-ch audio is generated during encoding by rendering the spatially coded signals to 5.1 channels. Stereo downmixing is performed based on downmixing of the 5.1 layer, according to standard two-channel downmixing equations.


----------



## Kain

Looks like Dolby wants to restrict the ways you can upmix Dolby tracks (2.0, 5.1, 7.1, etc.). They want to restrict it in the way that you can ONLY use the Dolby Surround upmixer on Dolby tracks instead of also Neural:X and Auro-Matic (like it is now).


----------



## Enovare

*Dolby to Restrict Non Native Up mixing on Atmos Products*

New Dolby mandate that restricts how you will be able to up mix native Dolby content that will take effect on all NEW Atmos-based products (ie. receivers, processors and soundbars) coming in 2019 and current 2018 products that are able to receive firmware updates.


----------



## sdrucker

Enovare said:


> New Dolby mandate that restricts how you will be able to up mix native Dolby content that will take effect on all NEW Atmos-based products (ie. receivers, processors and soundbars) coming in 2019 and current 2018 products that are able to receive firmware updates.


At least one company, Datasat, has supposedly already implemented this intentional cross-codec constraint. See page 3: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2404710&d=1526753399


----------



## sdurani

Enovare said:


> New Dolby mandate that restricts how you will be able to up mix native Dolby content that will take effect on all NEW Atmos-based products (ie. receivers, processors and soundbars) coming in 2019 and current 2018 products that are able to receive firmware updates.


The restriction only applies to licensed upmixers (Neural:X, Auro-Matic) and height virtualizers (Virtual:X). Does not apply to proprietary upmixers (AnthemLogic, Yamaha DSP modes, Logic7 Immersive, etc). 

Discussed around 6 weeks ago in another thread, starting at post # 500: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...rmc-1-speculation-thread-17.html#post56063188


----------



## Jonas2

Kain said:


> Looks like Dolby wants to restrict the ways you can upmix Dolby tracks (2.0, 5.1, 7.1, etc.). They want to restrict it in the way that you can ONLY use the Dolby Surround upmixer on Dolby tracks instead of also Neural:X and Auro-Matic (like it is now).
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOR1qlcGdjc





Enovare said:


> New Dolby mandate that restricts how you will be able to up mix native Dolby content that will take effect on all NEW Atmos-based products (ie. receivers, processors and soundbars) coming in 2019 and current 2018 products that are able to receive firmware updates.



Why so??? (Sorry, I didn't watch the vid., in case it's explained there.....)


----------



## Erod

How long until Dolby restricts HDR10 or HDR10+ the same way?

This is the crap that is ruining this hobby's future. Overcomplicating an already too complicated market for the average consumer.

Dolby might kill the very market its trying to control.


----------



## CBdicX

*Atmos advice speaker setup*


Hi, would a Front Height / Top middle / Rear Height give the same "Atmos" effect compared to Top Front / Top Middle / Top Rear ?
Or will it not matter for Dolby ?


Thanks.


----------



## petetherock

It seems that Dolby knows it has DTS-X beat, and is now trying to corner the market with less than friendly overtures?
I agree, it will not be good to have one dominant force, and with Dolby Vision also sprinting out of the posts, we may see Dolby as the dominant player for the next few years..


----------



## Uppsalaing

Aren't most non-ceiling/non-3D-Sound soundtracks DTS anyway? Those are the ones we'd want to upmix, right? So Dolby's decision wouldn't matter as only applies to it's Dolby content, correct?


----------



## J_P_A

I tried the ATMOS up mixer on some music last night for the first time, and I've got to say I was amazed at how well it works. I started off listening while I was filling nail holes in my ATMOS speaker boxes, and I realized I didn't hear much in the way of vocals from them with my head just inches away. The processor does a fantastic job of putting the vocals up front, and moving everything else around the room. 

I'm usually let down by "upgrades" to my AV equipment, but so far this one is really delivering.


----------



## kbarnes701

Uppsalaing said:


> Aren't most non-ceiling/non-3D-Sound soundtracks DTS anyway? Those are the ones we'd want to upmix, right? So Dolby's decision wouldn't matter as only applies to it's Dolby content, correct?


Yes - you will still be able to use DSU on DTS tracks it seems, but not be able to use Neural:X on TrueHD tracks. I only use DSU anyway so it doesn't really affect me. Unless, of course, DTS retaliates 

Meanwhile, I won't be updating my AVR firmware anyway unless the unit stops working without it


----------



## kbarnes701

Erod said:


> How long until Dolby restricts HDR10 or HDR10+ the same way?
> 
> This is the crap that is ruining this hobby's future. Overcomplicating an already too complicated market for the average consumer.
> 
> Dolby might kill the very market its trying to control.


I wonder what their reasoning is - does anyone know why they are taking this step? On the face of it, it seems petty to restrict the use of upmixers that we all already have in our units. I personally only use DSU since I prefer it to Neural:X, but I'd still like to have the choice. I rarely do FW updates on equipment that is working properly anyway, so nothing will change at this end, but I'd like to know why Dolby felt the need to take this step. If DTS retaliate and forbid DSU on DTS tracks, then I would be forced back into the situation from a couple of years ago when we could only use DSU on Dolby tracks and Neural:X on DTS tracks - before the AVR manufacturers (or D&M specifically) fixed it with a FW update.


----------



## kbarnes701

You guys always cost me money! Despite a solemn pledge to myself _not _to double-dip on UHD movies I already own on Blu-ray, I find myself incapable of resisting *The Matrix*. And this comes one day after I succumbed to *Gladiator*, and a few days after *Fury*. All thanks to the great reviews I am seeing here. I wonder if there is effective therapy for _Duplicodippus Irrationalis_?


----------



## showmak

You want one hour and forty minute of immersive audio and crazy bass? Watch The Hurricane Heist (2018). 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5360952/


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I wonder what their reasoning is - does anyone know why they are taking this step? On the face of it, it seems petty to restrict the use of upmixers that we all already have in our units. I personally only use DSU since I prefer it to Neural:X, but I'd still like to have the choice. I rarely do FW updates on equipment that is working properly anyway, so nothing will change at this end, but I'd like to know why Dolby felt the need to take this step. If DTS retaliate and forbid DSU on DTS tracks, then I would be forced back into the situation from a couple of years ago when we could only use DSU on Dolby tracks and Neural:X on DTS tracks - before the AVR manufacturers (or D&M specifically) fixed it with a FW update.


Like you, I generally use the Dolby Surround upmixer in preference to DTS Neural:X. I think they both work well but generally prefer DSU, even for DTS audiotracks.



kbarnes701 said:


> You guys always cost me money! Despite a solemn pledge to myself _not _to double-dip on UHD movies I already own on Blu-ray, I find myself incapable of resisting *The Matrix*. And this comes one day after I succumbed to *Gladiator*, and a few days after *Fury*. All thanks to the great reviews I am seeing here. I wonder if there is effective therapy for _Duplicodippus Irrationalis_?


I bought the UHD HDR _Gladiator_ disk and although its soundtrack is DTS:X MA 7.2.4 and not TrueHD Atmos, it provides wonderfully immersive audio. 

My UHD HDR _Fury_ disk is out for delivery, so I plan to watch it today or this evening. Even the DTS-HD MA 5.1 version sounded great when I upmixed it to 7.2.4., so I'm really looking forward to hearing it in all its lossless TrueHD Atmos 7.2.4 glory.


----------



## usc1995

showmak said:


> You want one hour and forty minute of immersive audio and crazy bass? Watch The Hurricane Heist (2018).
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5360952/




Is it in Atmos on the BD or is it only on the UHD?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Uppsalaing

kbarnes701 said:


> You guys always cost me money! Despite a solemn pledge to myself _not _to double-dip on UHD movies I already own on Blu-ray, I find myself incapable of resisting *The Matrix*. And this comes one day after I succumbed to *Gladiator*, and a few days after *Fury*. All thanks to the great reviews I am seeing here. I wonder if there is effective therapy for _Duplicodippus Irrationalis_?


A good reality check is to ask yourself how many times you have rewatched your existing copy... If it is several times, then an upgrade might make sense, if not then it probably doesn't make sense unless the existing disc was very bad and that was the reason not to rewatch (unlikely)...


----------



## sdurani

usc1995 said:


> Is it in Atmos on the BD or is it only on the UHD?


Atmos on both: BD & UHD.


----------



## usc1995

sdurani said:


> Atmos on both: BD & UHD.




Great! I will try and get it from Netflix then. I really wish they rented UHDs....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## showmak

sdurani said:


> Atmos on both: BD & UHD.


 @usc1995

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hurricane-Heist-4K-Blu-ray/203256/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Hurricane-Heist-Blu-ray/204061/

Enjoy it


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I bought the UHD HDR _Gladiator_ disk and although its soundtrack is DTS:X MA 7.2.4 and not TrueHD Atmos, it provides wonderfully immersive audio.


Yes, so I read. My original copy has a fairly average track IIRC so the DTS:X should be a significant improvement. I saw this movie at the cinema and recall it as sounding good at the time. I'm told the PQ is a step up on the UHD disc as well.


My UHD HDR _Fury_ disk is out for delivery, so I plan to watch it today or this evening. Even the DTS-HD MA 5.1 version sounded great when I upmixed it to 7.2.4., so I'm really looking forward to hearing it in all its lossless TrueHD Atmos 7.2.4 glory.[/QUOTE]

You are in for a real treat. The tank battle scenes are truly awesome. Just listen out for those shells over your head and see if you can resist the urge to duck 

K


----------



## kbarnes701

Uppsalaing said:


> A good reality check is to ask yourself how many times you have rewatched your existing copy... If it is several times, then an upgrade might make sense, if not then it probably doesn't make sense unless the existing disc was very bad and that was the reason not to rewatch (unlikely)...


Yes, good call. I generally watch most of the discs I buy multiple times anyway, and the ones I am double-dipping right now are some of my favorite movies. I love *Fury, Gladiator* and* The Matrix*, so while the expense isn't trivial, I am sure I will forget the cost as I revel in the upgrades to PQ and SQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Sony is releasing Bad Boys I & II collection in 4K UHD on September 4th: _"Presented in unique, must-own packaging, both films are* fully restored from their original camera negatives* and presented with High Dynamic Range and all-new Dolby Atmos audio tracks."_


More temptation


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> More temptation


As much for the _"fully restored from their original camera negatives"_ as the new Atmos re-mix.


----------



## Selden Ball

Uppsalaing said:


> Aren't most non-ceiling/non-3D-Sound soundtracks DTS anyway? Those are the ones we'd want to upmix, right? So Dolby's decision wouldn't matter as only applies to it's Dolby content, correct?


Most streamed soundtracks use some form of Dolby encoding, though. The restriction can be gotten around if the soundtrack is decoded from Dolby to multichannel LPCM in the player device, but many players only decode to 2.0. not to 5.1 or 7.1.


----------



## Uppsalaing

Selden Ball said:


> Most streamed soundtracks use some form of Dolby encoding, though. The restriction can be gotten around if the soundtrack is decoded from Dolby to multichannel LPCM in the player device, but many players only decode to 2.0. not to 5.1 or 7.1.


Interesting and very good point... The Apple TV decodes to multichannel PCM, so I suppose that might help...
It seems as if Dolby wants to do with Atmos what it has done with Dolby Vision... i.e. control the chain from source/mastering to display/playback...


----------



## Selden Ball

Uppsalaing said:


> Interesting and very good point... The Apple TV decodes to multichannel PCM, so I suppose that might help...
> It seems as if Dolby wants to do with Atmos what it has done with Dolby Vision... i.e. control the chain from source/mastering to display/playback...


But remember this actually has nothing to do with Atmos. It's just for upmixing non-Atmos soundtracks to make use of overhead or Front-Wide speakers. That's why decoding to LPCM is a viable (although inconvenient) option. Decoding Atmos to LPCM eliminates the Atmos objects. That might be desirable in some cases, though, when an Atmos soundtrack doesn't use the overheads as much as you'd like.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> As much for the _"fully restored from their original camera negatives"_ as the new Atmos re-mix.


Absolutely. I love both those movies but the versions I have are less than brilliant. With a full picture restoration AND Atmos, they are going to be an awesome watch. So much movie goodness appearing lately....


----------



## aron7awol

CBdicX said:


> *Atmos advice speaker setup*
> 
> 
> Hi, would a Front Height / Top middle / Rear Height give the same "Atmos" effect compared to Top Front / Top Middle / Top Rear ?
> Or will it not matter for Dolby ?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


The answer to this question depends on how you define "Front Height" and "Top Front". It seems like most people here define them based on whether they are on the front wall or the ceiling, but really, without knowing the dimensions of the room and where the MLP is in the room, that definition really tells us very little about the angles of the speakers relative to the MLP, which IMO is the most important aspect of speaker placement.

Denon receivers appear to make slightly different assumptions on angle between the two:









What that translates to as far as real-world performance depending on whether you select "Front Height" or "Top Front" in a Denon receiver for a pair of speakers in a particular location, I'm not exactly sure. What I do know from my own testing is that having Atmos speakers at the ideal 45 degree azimuth and 45 degree elevation angles sounds significantly more immersive and fluid for moving objects. This is regardless of whether, at those angles, they end up on your front wall, side wall, or ceiling. Where they end up will depend on the dimensions of the room and the position of the MLP. IMO that is the single best location for that speaker in that room, and which barrier it falls on, or whether it is in line with the mains, none of that matters.

I've been wanting to start a good discussion on this. I think it is a hugely important matter, as I see countless numbers of new setups where people are placing speakers based on them needing to line up with the mains, and are ending up with compromised setups because of it. As many people have observed, it is really difficult to end up with an Atmos setup that doesn't sound great, but this is AVS. Here we don't shoot for "sounds great", we shoot for "sounds the best it possibly can".

IMO the "lining up with the mains" is complete nonsense. That only tells you the lateral distance from the MLP, essentially only a single leg of the right triangle which defines the angle. What good is that, and why is that even remotely important? We hear sounds coming from an angle relative to us, therefore that is what matters.

Here's my Atmos speaker placement advice. Go to the MLP. Turn 45 degrees. Go up 45 degrees. Where are you pointing? That's where the speaker should go, if possible. Period. End of story.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> The restriction only applies to licensed upmixers (Neural:X, Auro-Matic) and height virtualizers (Virtual:X). Does not apply to proprietary upmixers (AnthemLogic, Yamaha DSP modes, Logic7 Immersive, etc).
> 
> Discussed around 6 weeks ago in another thread, starting at post # 500: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...rmc-1-speculation-thread-17.html#post56063188


I was wondering if you (or anyone else, for that matter) has seen the actual License Terms? I ask because of what I saw that Gene DellaSala posted:



> Here at Audioholics, we got our hands on a copy of a new mandate from Dolby that was recently sent to ALL of their licensee partners with the following guidelines:
> 
> o Native Dolby Atmos content *shall NOT be up-mixed, surround or height virtualized* by any 3rd party competitor upmixer (ie. DTS or Auro-3D).
> 
> o Channel-Based DD/DD+, Dolby TrueHD 5.1 and 7.1 codecs *shall not be height virtualized* by any 3rd party upmixer (ie. DTS). (This implies *height virtualization without height speakers*. DTS has this capability but Auro-3D does not).


I can't say I'm very concerned about the first part, since I'm not aware of any AVR that can re-upmix Native Atmos content in the first place. And why would you want to? 

OTOH, the processing of channel-based DD/DD+/TrueHD content could be a genuine concern. But the way it was posted at Audioholics limits only "height virtualizing", and not upmixing, or surround virtualizing. I.e., limiting those restrictions to systems not actually having height speakers in the first place. There *seems* to be two distinct sets of restrictions in place, but that may be bogus, due to faulty reporting.

I'm not seeing any of that differentiation being mentioned here.


----------



## VideoGrabber

usc1995 said:


> Great! I will try and get it from Netflix then. I really wish they rented UHDs....


One possible caution is that this is from Lionsgate, and they have been known to release *a separate rental-disc version, with Atmos stripped off*, on many of their films.


----------



## VideoGrabber

aron7awol said:


> IMO the "lining up with the mains" is complete nonsense. ...why is that even remotely important?


I believe the intent is that when a sound originates in the front-base, and proceeds overhead to the back, that the image tracks linearly. It doesn't perceptually "bow out" or "skew in". Is that nonsense?



> Here's my Atmos speaker placement advice. Go to the MLP. Turn 45 degrees. Go up 45 degrees. Where are you pointing? That's where the speaker should go, if possible. Period. End of story.


I assume after you've done that for the front pair, you rotate and repeat for the rear pair. Then what do you do about the .6 pair in the middle? Perhaps the story has an Epilogue?


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> I'm not aware of any AVR that can re-upmix Native Atmos content in the first place. And why would you want to?


Matrix upmixing could be useful when playing back pre-rendered 7.1.4 Atmos tracks on layouts that have additional speakers and/or include Wides. DTS:X has this functionality built into their decoder, which will come in handy whenever they go past their 11.1 limit (e.g., scaling a DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtrack to a 9.1.6 layout).


> But the way it was posted at Audioholics limits only "height virtualizing", and not upmixing, or surround virtualizing. I.e., limiting those restrictions to systems not actually having height speakers in the first place. There *seems* to be two distinct sets of restrictions in place, but that may be bogus, due to faulty reporting.
> 
> I'm not seeing any of that differentiation being mentioned here.


You quoted a link I posted to another thread where I mentioned that the upmix restriction wasn't required until 2019, because the licensing guidelines explicitly state that cross codec upmixing and surround virtualization for non-Atmos content is permitted for 2018. However, 3rd party height virtualizing is not permitted effective immediately. None of it will be permitted starting 2019.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> Matrix upmixing could be useful when playing back pre-rendered 7.1.4 Atmos tracks on layouts that have additional speakers and/or include Wides.


Yes, I think I wasn't looking at that quite right when I wrote my comment, since that's exactly what I'm planning to do in my setup under construction: take 7.x.4 to 9.x.6. The .6 via ScAtmos, and extracting wides from F&S centers, and combining that with actual objects in the wide position with true Atmos content. Since I'm doing that adhoc, it wouldn't be impacted, but I can see how packaged solutions could be very desirable. I appreciate the correction.



> You quoted a link I posted to another thread where I mentioned that the upmix restriction wasn't required until 2019, because *the licensing guidelines explicitly state that cross codec upmixing and surround virtualization for non-Atmos content is permitted for 2018*. However, 3rd party height virtualizing is not permitted effective immediately. None of it will be permitted starting 2019.


I did take the time to read thru that entire 6-week interval, but I must have missed this specific point. But I'm glad to at least see it confirmed that the license _explicitly_ permitted it for 2018. Thanks for that.

I am confused though how they could justify removing it from 2018 AVRs in a 2019 firmware update, which usually also incorporate bug fixes. I guess they could do so if they partitioned it as an independent option, so you could only get some Dolby-exclusive enhancement by agreeing to accept the downgrade too. But for folks waiting on some promised future update, like Auro 13.1 support (? not really following the X8500), tying that to a Dolby *downgrade* doesn't seem either fair or reasonable.


----------



## aron7awol

VideoGrabber said:


> I believe the intent is that when a sound originates in the front-base, and proceeds overhead to the back, that the image tracks linearly. It doesn't perceptually "bow out" or "skew in". Is that nonsense?


Yes, that is nonsense, because being in line with the mains does not determine whether the object sounds like it is moving linearly. It will track linearly only if the angular separation of the speakers matches the assumptions made by the renderer. My main point on the whole "in line with the mains" issue, and to me, what proves that it is nonsense, is that it simply does not define the angle of the speaker. In almost every room, the only way to hit the proper angles *and* be in line with the mains would be to suspend the speaker in mid-air, and that's just impractical. But really, what benefit does being in line with mains have, anyway? The renderer can't possibly make an assumption that speakers are in line with the mains, because that would result in angles that vary from room to room, and the renderer has to make angular assumptions. I feel like this may need some illustrations to explain fully; maybe I'll have to take the time to draw some up at some point.

Maybe think of it as similar to the fact that in a perfect world, all of your speakers would be equidistant from you, but we have delay and level-matching to compensate for the fact that it just isn't practical in most cases. You wouldn't go and compromise all of your speaker angles just to make them equidistant. The angles being correct is far more important.



VideoGrabber said:


> I assume after you've done that for the front pair, you rotate and repeat for the rear pair. Then what do you do about the .6 pair in the middle? Perhaps the story has an Epilogue?


Yes, and that was intended to be an example for a simple .4 case. Of course, when you start getting into more complicated setups like multi-row setups, there are compromises that need to be made, where you can optimize for the most consistent soundstage for all seats, or optimize for the best soundstage for a single seat or row. In the simple .6 case you speak of, my interpretation of the ITU layouts is that the Top Middle pair should be 90 degrees to the left and right, and have the same 45-degree elevation angle.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> I am confused though how they could justify removing it from 2018 AVRs in a 2019 firmware update, which usually also incorporate bug fixes.


The change is for all previous years' receivers and pre-pros. So, for example, if a manufacturer issues a firmware upgrade or bug fix for a 2017 or 2016 product, they should also update the product to the current licensing specifications. The idea being to have all licensed products conformed to the same/latest spec if possible.


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> Here's my Atmos speaker placement advice. Go to the MLP. Turn 45 degrees. Go up 45 degrees. Where are you pointing? That's where the speaker should go, if possible. Period. End of story.


45 degrees azimuth & elevation is exactly where the DTS:X renderer assumes their Height speaker to be. But that's not the Atmos rendering assumption, since Atmos doesn't use angles nor does it render relative to listener location. So your placement advice is not quite "end of story". At least not for Atmos.


aron7awol said:


> The renderer can't possibly make an assumption that speakers are in line with the mains, because that would result in angles that vary from room to room...


And that's exactly what happens with Atmos. For example: the Atmos rendering assumptions for the Top Front speakers are midway between the Fronts & Sides (front to back) and splitting the L/C/Rs (left to right). That's where the renderer thinks those speakers are; in every set-up, in every room. That's how the format maintains consistency when translating from room to room. If a sound is mixed to render 1/3rd of the way from front to back, then that's where it will render in an Atmos movie theatre and an Atmos home set-up; irrespective of listener location. As you said, this will result in angles that vary from room to room.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> The change is for *all previous years'* receivers and pre-pros. So, for example, if a manufacturer issues a firmware upgrade or bug fix for a 2017 or 2016 product, they should also update the product to the current licensing specifications. The idea being to have all licensed products conformed to the same/latest spec if possible.


Wow. That's vastly worse than I had been imagining.  I can see where that might be attractive to Dolby, or another license authority. I can't see where it would be to anyone else.

When I decide to purchase a product, I look at it's features and capabilities, and select something that meets my needs. I buy an AVR for example, not because it's a 30 pound box that occupies about 1 cubic foot (it's intrinsic characteristics), but because it can do specific things. Many of which are licensed capabilities. What (I think) you're suggesting is that simply by changing licensing terms *after the fact*, that ANY such capability can be taken away, at any time. And the end-user is left with a product that is *worse* than it was when they bought it. This is a new concept to me.

In the long run, I can't see how this would be good even for Dolby. Consumer animosity isn't exactly an asset.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> What (I think) you're suggesting is that simply by changing licensing terms *after the fact*, that ANY such capability can be taken away, at any time. And the end-user is left with a product that is *worse* than it was when they bought it. This is a new concept to me.


Doesn't this happen on smart phones and other devices? I read about people complaining when a feature disappears.


> In the long run, I can't see how this would be good even for Dolby.


Makes for consistency in how their technologies operate. Not unreasonable. Personally, I don't agree with their decision, especially after a lifetime of them promoting the notion of codec-agnostic processing, but it is their decision to make.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Doesn't this happen on smart phones and other devices? I read about people complaining when a feature disappears. Makes for consistency in how their technologies operate. Not unreasonable. Personally, I don't agree with their decision, especially after a lifetime of them promoting the notion of codec-agnostic processing, but it is their decision to make.


Let's not forget Oppo dropping ISO support from the 93/95s with a mandatory firmware update either (at least if you wanted bug fixes and other incremental firmware improvements).


----------



## m. zillch

VideoGrabber said:


> I believe the intent is that when a sound originates in the front-base, and proceeds overhead to the back, that the image tracks linearly. It doesn't perceptually "bow out" or "skew in". Is that nonsense?


That makes sense to me. 

Our perception is not as keen to picking out exact localization points for overhead objects but still it makes sense to follow a standard.


----------



## aron7awol

sdurani said:


> 45 degrees azimuth & elevation is exactly where the DTS:X renderer assumes their Height speaker to be. But that's not the Atmos rendering assumption, since Atmos doesn't use angles nor does it render relative to listener location. So your placement advice is not quite "end of story". At least not for Atmos. And that's exactly what happens with Atmos. For example: the Atmos rendering assumptions for the Top Front speakers are midway between the Fronts & Sides (front to back) and splitting the L/C/Rs (left to right). That's where the renderer thinks those speakers are; in every set-up, in every room. That's how the format maintains consistency when translating from room to room. If a sound is mixed to render 1/3rd of the way from front to back, then that's where it will render in an Atmos movie theatre and an Atmos home set-up; irrespective of listener location. As you said, this will result in angles that vary from room to room.


Can you please share where this is documented? Everything I've seen to date suggests that the Atmos layouts are based on the ITU layouts:
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.2051-0-201402-S!!PDF-E.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103100_103199/10319002/01.01.01_60/ts_10319002v010101p.pdf


----------



## grendelrt

sdrucker said:


> Let's not forget Oppo dropping ISO support from the 93/95s with a mandatory firmware update either (at least if you wanted bug fixes and other incremental firmware improvements).


For the opposite remember when Sony dropped Other OS Unix support from the PS3 a couple years after it came out, they got sued in a huge class action suit and lost.


----------



## aron7awol

sdurani said:


> For example: the Atmos rendering assumptions for the Top Front speakers are midway between the Fronts & Sides (front to back) and splitting the L/C/Rs (left to right). That's where the renderer thinks those speakers are; in every set-up, in every room. That's how the format maintains consistency when translating from room to room. If a sound is mixed to render 1/3rd of the way from front to back, then that's where it will render in an Atmos movie theatre and an Atmos home set-up; irrespective of listener location. As you said, this will result in angles that vary from room to room.


This doesn't match up with the angles shown in Dolby's home theater installation guidelines:
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Those show specific angles for top fronts and top rears, and they are 30-60 (centered on 45) for the top fronts and 120-150 (centered on 135) for the top rears. This is along with 45 degree elevation angles for both, and the standard 30 degree angle for the base layer fronts. Those angles do not result in the Top Fronts being halfway between the fronts and sides.

This isn't the case with Dolby's reference 7.1.4 layout, either. They are much closer to the sides than the fronts in that layout:









With all this being the case, if the Atmos renderer actually makes the assumptions you claim it does (and I'd still like to see the evidence to back it up), then that means that the installation guidelines and the reference layout both result in compromised performance since they aren't matching the renderer's assumptions.


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> This doesn't match up with the angles shown in Dolby's home theater installation guidelines:


Keep in mind that it is intended to be a guideline for installers, not a description of Atmos decoding.


> Those show specific angles for top fronts and top rears, and they are 30-60 (centered on 45) for the top fronts and 120-150 (centered on 135) for the top rears.


Those are ranges, not specific angles. For example, the Top Middle speakers can be anywhere from 65 degrees elevation to 100 degrees elevation. At which "specific angle" in that 35-degree range does the Atmos decoder assume the Top Middle speakers are?


> With all this being the case, if the Atmos renderer actually makes the assumptions you claim it does (and I'd still like to see the evidence to back it up), then that means that the installation guidelines and the reference layout both result in compromised performance since they aren't matching the renderer's assumptions.


In order for the Atmos decoder to render based on azimuth and elevation angles relative to the listener, audio objects would have to be encoded with those angles. But if you look at an Atmos panning tool, you'll see that an object (yellow dot in pic below) is encoded instead with x,y,z coordinates. 










No elevation angle, no azimuth angle, not even a listener location. During decoding, those coordinates tell the renderer where the object should image left to right, front to back, top to bottom in the room. As you predicted, angle relative to listener location (where ever that might be) will therefore change from room to room. 

Same with the Atmos mixing suite (pic below), where there is no listener location (even mixing console location) indicated, meaning objects don't have coordinates based on azimuth and elevation angles relative to the listener. Angles are simply not part of the Atmos system. 










If you want to place Top Front speakers based on Atmos rendering assumptions, then they should go mid way between the Fronts & Sides, splitting the gaps between L/C/R speakers. See middle of above pic for where the rendering engine assumes the speakers are located (relative to each other). 

The intent of the Atmos install guide is not to slavishly follow the format's rendering assumptions. Instead, it is to offer recommendations for good playback. In consumer systems, that could suggest spreading the overhead speakers wider apart, in line with the Front L/R speakers, to make it easier to hear stereo separation above us (where our human hearing is not so good). 

Typical Atmos dubbing stages have their surrounds way above ear height when mixing the soundtrack, but the install guide recommends placing surrounds as close to ear height as possible, for greater around-you vs above-you separation. Personally, I don't see how those recommendations will _"result in compromised performance"_. YMMV.


----------



## bytor

I have an old 5.1 receiver that only decodes regular Dolby Digital and DTS. When I'm selecting the audio on The Last Jedi for example, does it matter if I select Dolby Atmos or Dolby Digital Plus? Or will my receiver just decode the core 5.1 of the Atmos signal giving me the same thing as if I select the 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus? They sound similar but just wanted to be sure I'm selecting the right one because Atmos shows a higher bitrate so I've been using that.


----------



## kbarnes701

bytor said:


> I have an old 5.1 receiver that only decodes regular Dolby Digital and DTS. When I'm selecting the audio on The Last Jedi for example, does it matter if I select Dolby Atmos or Dolby Digital Plus? Or will my receiver just decode the core 5.1 of the Atmos signal giving me the same thing as if I select the 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus? They sound similar but just wanted to be sure I'm selecting the right one because Atmos shows a higher bitrate so I've been using that.


Dolby 'Atmos' is embedded in the TrueHD bitstream and as such is lossless. DD+ is lossy. So you want to be playing the TrueHD track. Nothing is lost - when you play the TrueHD track in your AVR you get the entire content, but if you swap to an Atmos-capable AVR, then it will be able to handle the Atmos metadata buried in the TrueHD track and you will get the additional benefits of Atmos, including sounds from above you. So yes, always play the lossless TrueHD track when you can.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that
> 
> [SNIP....]
> 
> Typical Atmos dubbing stages have their surrounds way above ear height when mixing the soundtrack, but the install guide recommends placing surrounds as close to ear height as possible, for greater around-you vs above-you separation. Personally, I don't see how those recommendations will _"result in compromised performance"_. YMMV.


Very lucid explanation Sanjay. I know we have seen these diagrams before, but I, for one, had kinda forgotten about them and it's good to get a 'refresher' on it. I remember this question being raised at the presser in Dolby, London, and their tech guy, JJ, explaining it much the same as you did above, making it clear that chasing down 'angles' was a red herring.


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> If you want to place Top Front speakers based on Atmos rendering assumptions, then they should go mid way between the Fronts & Sides, splitting the gaps between L/C/R speakers. See middle of above pic for where the rendering engine assumes the speakers are located (relative to each other).
> 
> The intent of the Atmos install guide is not to slavishly follow the format's rendering assumptions. Instead, it is to offer recommendations for good playback. In consumer systems, that could suggest spreading the overhead speakers wider apart, in line with the Front L/R speakers, to make it easier to hear stereo separation above us (where our human hearing is not so good).


This is a really great explanation, that I think anyone could benefit from. You posted something similar last year I believe, and at that time it opened my eyes. It is a perspective (reality) that I suspect a lot of people are not aware of. I know I wasn't, until I read your explanation last time around. 

For folks having seen only the Dolby Guidelines docs, I could see how they could come to the same conclusions about relevance of angles that Aron has. It appears to be angular-centric at it's foundation, but it's really not. That's just one point of view it can be seen from, as guidance for installation.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> This is a really great explanation, that I think anyone could benefit from. You posted something similar last year I believe, and at that time it opened my eyes. It is a perspective (reality) that I suspect a lot of people are not aware of. I know I wasn't, until I read your explanation last time around.
> 
> For folks having seen only the Dolby Guidelines docs, I could see how they could come to the same conclusions about relevance of angles that Aron has. It appears to be angular-centric at it's foundation, but it's really not. That's just one point of view it can be seen from, as guidance for installation.


Yes, I think people mostly look at the installation guides along with the 'oft-posted diagram' showing potential speaker placements and then get very focused on angles as a result. In many ways it is inevitable because people are asking where to put their speakers, not for an explanation of how Atmos works. But as they made clear at Dolby, London, and as Sanjay's lucid post above demonstrates, there isn't even a listener position specified in those diagrams, so immediately angles become a non-starter as they will change depending on room size and MLP.

I have to come back to my old schtick that too many people overthink this business of where best to put their overhead speakers. It's been repeated ad nauseam that Dolby themselves say it is 'hard to get it to not work' and if people just focus on getting the best separation they can between their overheads and their floor level speakers, while keeping an eye on the guidelines, they will get a great result. 

Interestingly, we have had 5.1 and 7.1 for years now, and never once, prior to Atmos, did whole threads spring up where the main issue was 'where do I put my speakers?', with people agonising over the minutiae of angles relative to MLP. I can't recall endless discussions about ITU placement guides for 5.1 and people worrying themselves to death if their mains were at 39 degrees and not 30 degrees and so on. People used the guidelines as just that, _guidelines_, and placed their speakers where best they could and then sat back and enjoyed their surround sound. My advice is to the same this time around


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Interestingly, we have had 5.1 and 7.1 for years now, and never once, prior to Atmos, did whole threads spring up where the main issue was 'where do I put my speakers?', with people agonising over the minutiae of angles relative to MLP. I can't recall endless discussions about ITU placement guides for 5.1 and people worrying themselves to death if their mains were at 39 degrees and not 30 degrees and so on. People used the guidelines as just that, _guidelines_, and placed their speakers where best they could and then sat back and enjoyed their surround sound.


While at first glance, I agree this may *seem* rather surprising. As you point out, speaker positioning never generated this much angst before.

And yet (I think) the explanation for that is pretty simple... many (most?) people putting in overhead speakers are mounting them IN the ceiling. That's a pretty big commitment, with the hole drilling, and then patching required if you get it wrong, and have to move them. THAT is all brand-new. And since you can't just move/adjust or tweak them, people quite naturally want to "get it right" the first time.

For (lucky) folks who can mount their overheads ON the ceiling, instead of IN (which basically requires a taller ceiling to start with, a luxury that many don't have), this isn't nearly as big of a deal. With decent brackets, they can be mounted and still adjusted. Even moving the bracket itself isn't any ordeal... just a couple small screw holes. But get out that saw  for a huge 8" diameter hole in your ceiling, and it's _"measure twice, cut once"._ Or here in the forum, ask a million Q's and obsess over it.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> While at first glance, I agree this may *seem* rather surprising. As you point out, speaker positioning never generated this much angst before.
> 
> And yet (I think) the explanation for that is pretty simple... many (most?) people putting in overhead speakers are mounting them IN the ceiling. That's a pretty big commitment, with the hole drilling, and then patching required if you get it wrong, and have to move them. THAT is all brand-new. And since you can't just move/adjust or tweak them, people quite naturally want to "get it right" the first time.
> 
> For (lucky) folks who can mount their overheads ON the ceiling, instead of IN (which basically requires a taller ceiling to start with, a luxury that many don't have), this isn't nearly as big of a deal. With decent brackets, they can be mounted and still adjusted. Even moving the bracket itself isn't any ordeal... just a couple small screw holes. But get out that saw  for a huge 8" diameter hole in your ceiling, and it's _"measure twice, cut once"._ Or here in the forum, ask a million Q's and obsess over it.


Very good points. I am in the 'on ceiling' camp so haven't had to address cutting holes in my ceiling, thankfully. 

A good tip when cutting holes in the ceiling is to always make the cut at a 45 degree 'inward sloping' angle. Then the cut-out piece will fit right back into the hole and support itself if required, making replacing it an easier job. Just mud over it afterwards, a splash of paint and the repair is invisible. Another good tip is to keep the cut-out piece inside the ceiling, between the joists, so that you always know where it is if you need it again.

I attach a precision drawing showing what I mean....


----------



## Erod

Are most of you increasing the trim levels for your ceiling Atmos speakers after calibration?


----------



## kbarnes701

Erod said:


> Are most of you increasing the trim levels for your ceiling Atmos speakers after calibration?


Well, I'm not. I'd advise caution. One of the benefits of Atmos is the precision placement of sounds in a three dimensional landscape. To do this it uses all of the available speakers, combining those on the floor with those on the ceiling. So, if a sound is meant to image at, say, 3/4 of the height of the room, most of the sound will come from the floor speakers and some of the sound from the ceiling speakers. If the latter are too loud, the sound will image much higher than intended, spoiling the intent of the movie's creators.

Obviously, it's your cinema and your money, so you can do whatever you wish. If you want to emphasise that you have speakers above your head, then increasing their level will do that, albeit to the detriment of the intended effect. It's similar to boosting the surrounds so that you 'know' they're there. Would you do that? Most people, I think, want their speakers to 'disappear', just leaving 'sounds' in the room to create an overall impression of 'being there'. If you are in that camp, then I'd suggest leaving the speakers at the level your room EQ (Audyssey etc) set them at, or if you don't have an automated room EQ setup, set thm with the SPL meter so they all read the same level from MLP. That will give you a 'balanced' sound.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> For folks having seen only the Dolby Guidelines docs, I could see how they could come to the same conclusions about relevance of angles that Aron has.


I was one of those folks. When the home version of Atmos initially arrived, the best we had to go on was the Denon diagram showing the placement ranges for the overhead speakers. So naturally, I concluded that Atmos rendering was based on angles. (Turned out to be true for DTS:X.)


> It appears to be angular-centric at it's foundation, but it's really not. That's just one point of view it can be seen from, as guidance for installation.


Speaker placement recommendations have typically been described using angles relative to the listener and it probably was a good thing that the Atmos install guide didn't break that tradition (might have added unnecessary confusion).


----------



## Erod

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, I'm not. I'd advise caution. One of the benefits of Atmos is the precision placement of sounds in a three dimensional landscape. To do this it uses all of the available speakers, combining those on the floor with those on the ceiling. So, if a sound is meant to image at, say, 3/4 of the height of the room, most of the sound will come from the floor speakers and some of the sound from the ceiling speakers. If the latter are too loud, the sound will image much higher than intended, spoiling the intent of the movie's creators.
> 
> Obviously, it's your cinema and your money, so you can do whatever you wish. If you want to emphasise that you have speakers above your head, then increasing their level will do that, albeit to the detriment of the intended effect. It's similar to boosting the surrounds so that you 'know' they're there. Would you do that? Most people, I think, want their speakers to 'disappear', just leaving 'sounds' in the room to create an overall impression of 'being there'. If you are in that camp, then I'd suggest leaving the speakers at the level your room EQ (Audyssey etc) set them at, or if you don't have an automated room EQ setup, set thm with the SPL meter so they all read the same level from MLP. That will give you a 'balanced' sound.


I agree with you on this. Raising them will "lift" the sound in an unintended way.

However, I read more and more how folks are disappointed with how Atmos is being mixed, and that it isn't object-based as advertised, so they're opting for a fuller traditional surround sound until things change.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby 'Atmos' is embedded in the TrueHD bitstream and as such is lossless. DD+ is lossy. So you want to be playing the TrueHD track. Nothing is lost - when you play the TrueHD track in your AVR you get the entire content, but *if you swap to an Atmos-capable AVR, then it will be able to handle the Atmos metadata buried in the TrueHD track *and you will get the additional benefits of Atmos, including sounds from above you. So yes, always play the lossless TrueHD track when you can.



Just to be overly pedantic, the objects and metadata are in an extension file tacked on to the TrueHD 7.1 "core." Audio in the core is subjected to a real-time reverse phase cancellation pass to eliminate any sounds that are equivalent to the core and the objects. The "stripped" core becomes the channel bed and the 3D objects with metadata tags replace those same sounds in the core. So, bed + extension file = Dolby Atmos track.


----------



## kbarnes701

Erod said:


> I agree with you on this. Raising them will "lift" the sound in an unintended way.
> 
> However, I read more and more how folks are disappointed with how Atmos is being mixed, and that it isn't object-based as advertised, so they're opting for a fuller traditional surround sound until things change.


Well, as I said earlier, it's up to the individual how he decides to set his own system, paid for with his own money. But I don't want to second-guess the mixer and mess about with the levels on an individual movie basis, setting them how *I* think they *ought* to sound. Do you do that with the surrounds? Do you say to yourself_ "I think the mixer set the surrounds a bit too low on this movie, so I will give them a 3dB boost..." _ No? Nor me. And personally, I see no reason to do that with the 'surrounds' up above my head. 

Atmos hasn't meant that suddenly every movie has perfect sound, any more than it did with 5.1 or 7.1. A good mix is a good mix and a bad one a bad one. If you play the 4K remaster of the original *Blade Runner,* for example, you will be blown away by how well the overheads are used. That is a good mix. If you play the first Atmos disc released (*Transformers Age of Extinction*) you will be disappointed with the use of the overheads. No amount of increasing their level will turn that mix into a stellar Atmos mix (although, overhead use apart, it is a terrific mix).


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just to be overly pedantic, the objects and metadata are in an extension file tacked on to the TrueHD 7.1 "core." Audio in the core is subjected to a real-time reverse phase cancellation pass to eliminate any sounds that are equivalent to the core and the objects. The "stripped" core becomes the channel bed and the 3D objects with metadata tags replace those same sounds in the core. So, core + extension file = Dolby Atmos track.


Do you think that answer would have been helpful to the guy who asked the question?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think that answer would have been helpful to the guy who asked the question?



Perhaps because when someone asks them a similar question, they'll know the scoop, the skinny, the down-low, the whole enchilada.


----------



## Jonas2

Erod said:


> Are most of you increasing the trim levels for your ceiling Atmos speakers after calibration?



Nope. 




kbarnes701 said:


> Well, as I said earlier, it's up to the individual how he decides to set his own system, paid for with his own money. But I don't want to second-guess the mixer and mess about with the levels on an individual movie basis, setting them how *I* think they *ought* to sound. Do you do that with the surrounds? Do you say to yourself_ "I think the mixer set the surrounds a bit too low on this movie, so I will give them a 3dB boost..." _ No? Nor me. And personally, I see no reason to do that with the 'surrounds' up above my head.



Agree. Assumptions are dangerous, but I'm going to assume the sound mixers are also assuming we are using out hardware in a *typical* (ha, ha....) fashion; letting our devices doing the math the way they were designed to, if you will, and so mix the levels accordingly. Lots of assumptions there......


Watched Saving Private Ryan in Atmos just yesterday, and I thought everything was so well done in the sound mix, wouldn't have wanted to mess with anything.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Very good points. I am in the 'on ceiling' camp so haven't had to address cutting holes in my ceiling, thankfully.


That's a great situation to be in!

If you think back to how you positioned your floor-level speakers, I suspect that after you plopped them down somewhere that looked 'reasonable' to start, you later moved them... if not to a new 'improved' spot, then at least to experiment with options. I also believe that will many remember that getting them positioned at floor level wasn't hard, but they didn't get it right instantly. That knowledge can generate some concern.

It would be good if people could do the same empirical testing with ceiling speakers, and I have recommended to people really worried about making a 'bad choice', that they obtain some small satellites and hang them temporarily for testing... moving them to various locations, to see what impact that has. It's more work, and it's far from a precise demonstration of what the final speakers will sound like. But listening to the *relative* differences can often be informative. With the final results being even better.



> A good tip when cutting holes in the ceiling is to always make the cut at a 45 degree 'inward sloping' angle. Then the cut-out piece will fit right back into the hole and support itself if required, making replacing it an easier job.


Ah, yes. The 'pumpkin trick'. A good tip for sure.



> Just mud over it afterwards, a splash of paint and the repair is invisible. Another good tip is to keep the cut-out piece inside the ceiling, between the joists, so that you always know where it is if you need it again.


This is a good opportunity for me to display my lack of knowledge/experience. Once you've done the repair as suggested, if the new location determined winds up partially *overlapping the old one*, what negative consequences might one anticipate then?



> I attach a precision drawing showing what I mean....


 Hilarious!


----------



## sdurani

bytor said:


> I have an old 5.1 receiver that *only decodes regular Dolby Digital and DTS*. When I'm selecting the audio on The Last Jedi for example, does it matter if I select Dolby Atmos or Dolby Digital Plus?


Doesn't matter, since your receiver will only decode the legacy Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Things like Atmos, Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD are not applicable to your old 5.1 receiver, so don't worry about them.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just to be overly pedantic,


Oh, I think I can out-pedantize you. 



> ...the objects and metadata are in an extension file tacked on to the TrueHD 7.1 "core."


They can't possibly be in a separate "file", as you've described. They have to be mixed within the stream itself... otherwise Atmos couldn't be streamed at all.



> Audio in the core is subjected to a real-time reverse phase cancellation pass...


So which is it? A pass, or real-time? 



> The "stripped" core becomes the channel bed and the 3D objects with metadata tags replace those same sounds in the core.


Huh? Why would they *replace them* in the core? After they've already been extracted.

See how much more 'illuminating' this is to the original questioner?  Some salsa on the side of your enchilada.


----------



## aron7awol

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that it is intended to be a guideline for installers, not a description of Atmos decoding. Those are ranges, not specific angles. For example, the Top Middle speakers can be anywhere from 65 degrees elevation to 100 degrees elevation. At which "specific angle" in that 35-degree range does the Atmos decoder assume the Top Middle speakers are? In order for the Atmos decoder to render based on azimuth and elevation angles relative to the listener, audio objects would have to be encoded with those angles. But if you look at an Atmos panning tool, you'll see that an object (yellow dot in pic below) is encoded instead with x,y,z coordinates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No elevation angle, no azimuth angle, not even a listener location. During decoding, those coordinates tell the renderer where the object should image left to right, front to back, top to bottom in the room. As you predicted, angle relative to listener location (where ever that might be) will therefore change from room to room.
> 
> Same with the Atmos mixing suite (pic below), where there is no listener location (even mixing console location) indicated, meaning objects don't have coordinates based on azimuth and elevation angles relative to the listener. Angles are simply not part of the Atmos system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to place Top Front speakers based on Atmos rendering assumptions, then they should go mid way between the Fronts & Sides, splitting the gaps between L/C/R speakers. See middle of above pic for where the rendering engine assumes the speakers are located (relative to each other).
> 
> The intent of the Atmos install guide is not to slavishly follow the format's rendering assumptions. Instead, it is to offer recommendations for good playback. In consumer systems, that could suggest spreading the overhead speakers wider apart, in line with the Front L/R speakers, to make it easier to hear stereo separation above us (where our human hearing is not so good).
> 
> Typical Atmos dubbing stages have their surrounds way above ear height when mixing the soundtrack, but the install guide recommends placing surrounds as close to ear height as possible, for greater around-you vs above-you separation. Personally, I don't see how those recommendations will _"result in compromised performance"_. YMMV.


I have in the past read through the entire Dolby Atmos Production Suite guide, so these are not new to me, nor do they cause me to draw the same conclusions that you do. The panner plug-in defines pan locations with x(-100 to 100), y(-100 to 100), and z(0-100 because 0 represents ear-level) *relative to the center of the virtual room.* I'm not sure why, based on that, you draw the conclusion that there is no listener location. To me, it suggests that the listener location is the center of the virtual room. If you have a virtual room which has dimensions, a listening position in the middle of the room, and speakers located within that room, then there are angles between the LP and each speaker.

Here is the 7.1.4 physical layout in the Atmos renderer:









Those top speakers are not in line with the fronts and halfway between the fronts and sides. From where do you draw the conclusion that that would be the ideal location for Atmos speakers? I apologize if you already posted that and I missed it.

As far as Dolby recommending ranges of angles for speaker locations, I don't feel that the fact that there is a range somehow means the angle doesn't matter or that there isn't a single ideal angle. To me, it just suggests that there is some room for error in speaker placement, which I do agree with. I also agree that Atmos is really difficult to make sound less than great. However, I personally made the switch from my Atmos speakers being in line with my LR and at 45 degree elevation angle, to being 45 degree azimuth and 45 degree elevation angle, and the difference is very significant, for the better. I would highly suggest you try that layout before dismissing it. I've tested every one of the Atmos demos with both layouts, and in every case, panning objects move much more linearly and the entire envelope of sound is far more immersive.


----------



## cfraser

^ I honestly don't see much diff between your 7.1.4 speaker layout pic and Sanjay's pic. I'm moving my Atmos ceiling speakers around soon, and want to do it for the "last" time, why I'm interested. A little diff in the top rears, but not much. I think Dolby showed angles mostly because of the elevation aspect, ceiling heights vary dramatically.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Perhaps because when someone asks them a similar question, they'll know the scoop, the skinny, the down-low, the whole enchilada.


I think you were right first time


----------



## kbarnes701

Jonas2 said:


> Agree. Assumptions are dangerous, but I'm going to assume the sound mixers are also assuming we are using out hardware in a *typical* (ha, ha....) fashion; letting our devices doing the math the way they were designed to, if you will, and so mix the levels accordingly. Lots of assumptions there......


This is why messing with the soundtrack isn't a good idea IMO. The mixer has absolutely no idea where the content will be reproduced when it gets to the home. So he is 'playback environment agnostic' and he makes no assumptions at all about the playback space. He can't start to mix on the basis of 'what most people do' or he'd mix for the best sound possible from a soundbar


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> Doesn't this happen on smart phones and other devices?


Yes I suppose it does, or has. I'm not completely sure, because I don't patronize companies that pull those antics.



> I read about people complaining when a feature disappears.


So presumably that meant they were not happy about it. And it didn't matter. :frown:

I think my problem is simply that I'm getting too damn old.  I can remember a time when no manufacturer would even consider a consumer-hostile move such as this. Once a customer has bought and paid for a product, the manuf. may add some enhanced capability later, *but they can't take anything away*. I paid for it, and they're sure not going to give me a refund. I guess those are 'the olden days' now. We're evidently in a new time when people really don't give a **** any more, and manufs can get away with whatever they please. They ship and sell products that don't even work yet, or aren't finished. And people buy _promises_ that they will... some day.  And shrug their shoulders when something is stolen from them.

From my POV this change by Dolby is an anti-competitive and monopolistic action. Not to mention violating warranties of implied merchantability, and fitness for purpose. Since such a change makes it UNFIT for it's previous purpose. It certainly does nothing to enhance Dolby's brand value. But there's really not much point in me getting bent out of shape about it, if no one else cares. What I can do (and will) is protect myself by ensuring I don't buy products with known defects, that require firmware updates. And make sure my current ones can't get them. [And to be clear, I consider Dolby enforcing new license terms on NEW 2019 products that haven't been sold yet, to be a completely different situation. I may not like that, but then I go in with my eyes open. I get to make a choice. I have NO choice here.]


And TBH, I'd use DSU over the other options anyway... even if Dolby wasn't slamming the door in my face. What concerns me more is that* this could motivate DTS to take a similar action to retaliate*. And why shouldn't they? Which would mean that suddenly my large library of BR's with mostly DTS-HD MA 5.1/7.1 content could no longer be upmixed by DSU.  That would not make me a happy camper. 

No more so than the folks who will be hit by this decision by Dolby. Who have decided that Neural:X is THEIR upmixer of choice, and have their AVR set to automatically engage whenever the source isn't Atmos or DTS:X. _"Oops, sorry! That worked yesterday, but not today."_ Or people who preferred Auromatic upmixing for music/concerts. If those happen to be in DD/DD+/TrueHD then they're just SOL.

Oh, well. I'll just say this makes me lose a lot of respect for Dolby as a company. 'Do the Right Thing', and 'The customer comes first', are apparently just old-fashioned notions.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> This is a good opportunity for me to display my lack of knowledge/experience. Once you've done the repair as suggested, if the new location determined winds up partially *overlapping the old one*, what negative consequences might one anticipate then?


We're agreed about the additional problems raised by in-ceiling speakers.

WRT to the question above, I'd suggest that moving the speakers by such a small distance is probably pointless and any differences will be inaudible. Of course, there could be big _perceived_ differences  I doubt if moving the speakers by 6 inches or so would be worth the effort.




VideoGrabber said:


> Hilarious!


 Are you casting aspersions on my technical drawing skills and my highly accurate and detailed diagram?  LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Doesn't matter, since your receiver will only decode the legacy Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Things like Atmos, Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD are not applicable to your old 5.1 receiver, so don't worry about them.


Ah - very good spot! I certainly missed that. I'd forgotten that there must still be AVRs out there that can't decode lossless audio.

At least it means Dan's enchilada isn't quite as whole as he thought it was


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> I think my problem is simply that I'm getting too damn old.  I can remember a time when no manufacturer would even consider a consumer-hostile move such as this. Once a customer has bought and paid for a product, the manuf. may add some enhanced capability later, *but they can't take anything away*. I paid for it, and they're sure not going to give me a refund.


I sympathise with your POV (I'm probably older than you as well ). But they won't be taking anything away from me because I just disabled FW updates in my AVR. The unit is about 3 years old now, so I doubt if there are any bugs that still need fixing - certainly none are apparent - so there's no real downside to me just leaving it 'as is' and continuing to enjoy DSU on everything and even Neural:X on Dolby content if the mood so takes me. 

I can't get too excited about the notion of them 'taking something away' really: when I bought my AVR, DSU only worked on Dolby content and Neural:X only worked on DTS content (after the FW update that enabled DTS:X IIRC). There was no 'cross pollination'. This came via a FW update later. So I did go in 'with my eyes open' I guess, but having got what I want, there is NFW I am going to let them take it away from me


----------



## bytor

Thanks for the information everyone. What I don’t understand though is if even my very old receiver can play the 5.1 core from a Dolby Atmos track, what is the point of the studio including a separate 5.1 Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital Plus track on the disc?


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> You guys always cost me money! Despite a solemn pledge to myself _not _to double-dip on UHD movies I already own on Blu-ray, I find myself incapable of resisting *The Matrix*. And this comes one day after I succumbed to *Gladiator*, and a few days after *Fury*. All thanks to the great reviews I am seeing here. I wonder if there is effective therapy for _Duplicodippus Irrationalis_?


Umm thanks to you mainly, I've bought movies I wouldn't have bought. Like Blade Runner 2049, Dunkirk, Saving Private Ryan, Fury. So yeaaaahhh lol.


----------



## gwsat

camd5pt0 said:


> Umm thanks to you mainly, I've bought movies I wouldn't have bought. Like Blade Runner 2049, Dunkirk, Saving Private Ryan, Fury. So yeaaaahhh lol.


The UHD HDR version of _Dunkirk_ has only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. That's true for the home editions of all other Christopher Nolan films too. Why does Nolan refuse to allow his soundtracks for home theater to be remixed using the TrueHD Atmos codec? Don't ask me, I stopped trying to figure out why he did it years ago, for this way lay madness.


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> The panner plug-in defines pan locations with x(-100 to 100), y(-100 to 100), and z(0-100 because 0 represents ear-level) *relative to the center of the virtual room.* I'm not sure why, based on that, you draw the conclusion that there is no listener location. To me, it suggests that the listener location is the center of the virtual room.


The home version of Atmos uses a different numbering system (-100 to 100 is replaced by 0 to 1), which puts 0 at the front left corner of the room. By your logic above, that would make the front left corner the listener location. 










Also, the next time you go to an Atmos movie theatre, check out the toe in of all the side and rear surround speakers. You'll notice that they are all aimed towards a particular row (or two). The surround pair directly to the sides of that particular row is not toed in but instead point straight across. That's the sweet spot. But it is not at the centre of the room. It's usually around 2/3 room length; roughly where the console would be if that same room was used for mixing.


> If you have a virtual room which has dimensions, a listening position in the middle of the room, and speakers located within that room, then there are angles between the LP and each speaker.


Sure, but those angles will vary from room to room, depending on shape.


> Those top speakers are not in line with the fronts and halfway between the fronts and sides. From where do you draw the conclusion that that would be the ideal location for Atmos speakers?


Where did I say that it would be the _"ideal location"_ for overhead speakers? In fact, it's the other way 'round: I explained why the Atmos install guide makes reasonable departures from the format's rendering assumptions. So while the renderer assumes those speakers are in line with the gap between the L/C/Rs (as your pic shows), there are valid reasons for deviating from that and instead mounting them wider apart, in line with the L/R speakers. 

Also, the pic you posted is of a graphical user interface intended to give a general idea of where the speakers are in relation to each other and the room. It wasn't intended to be taken literally: e.g.., the Atmos renderer doesn't assume the LFE speaker is directly in front of the Centre speaker, as the graphic shows. If the graphical representations of the speakers are off by a few pixels, that doesn't mean the renderer has changed. The main point is that there is no indication that those speakers are at 45 degrees azimuth & elevation.


> I don't feel that the fact that there is a range somehow means the angle doesn't matter or that there isn't a single ideal angle.


In that case, my previous question still stands: in the 35-degree range for the Top Middle speaker, what is the _"single ideal angle"_? If you don't know the rendering assumption for that speaker pair, then you can answer with which single elevation angle is acoustically ideal.


> I would highly suggest you try that layout before dismissing it.


Where did I dismiss it? You keep arguing against things I never said. All I did was point out why your absolutist approach was not _"Period. End of story."_ There is more to the story and it includes more than one notion of what is ideal.


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> Umm thanks to you mainly, I've bought movies I wouldn't have bought. Like Blade Runner 2049, Dunkirk, Saving Private Ryan, Fury. So yeaaaahhh lol.


Haha. I like to spread the pain/pleasure around


----------



## camd5pt0

gwsat said:


> The UHD HDR version of _Dunkirk_ has only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. That's true for the home editions of all other Christopher Nolan films too. Why does Nolan refuse to allow his soundtracks for home theater to be remixed using the TrueHD Atmos codec? Don't ask me, I stopped trying to figure out why he did it years ago, for this way lay madness.


Yes I'm aware, I have The Dark Knight, and the sound is amazing using DTS Neural X. Sounds 3d, I'm ok with it, though I prefer native immersive sound.


----------



## showmak

I watched Jumanji (1995) and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) both in Atmos and I was not disappointed at all.


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, I'm not. I'd advise caution. One of the benefits of Atmos is the precision placement of sounds in a three dimensional landscape. To do this it uses all of the available speakers, combining those on the floor with those on the ceiling. So, if a sound is meant to image at, say, 3/4 of the height of the room, most of the sound will come from the floor speakers and some of the sound from the ceiling speakers. If the latter are too loud, the sound will image much higher than intended, spoiling the intent of the movie's creators.


First may I apologise in advance for my pedantry here, especially if I'm about to be wrong  Only doing it because someone else was doing it too! But if the ceiling speakers are too loud, doesn't that make it sound closer to you - lower down, not higher up?



bytor said:


> Thanks for the information everyone. What I don’t understand though is if even my very old receiver can play the 5.1 core from a Dolby Atmos track, what is the point of the studio including a separate 5.1 Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital Plus track on the disc?


That's a good question. 

With Dolby, Atmos data is wrapped around either a TrueHD core, and then there can be an alternative "fall-back" DD track inside that. But you only see the "fall-back" DD track if your receiver doesn't support TrueHD.
This DD track it not efficiently encoded like with DTS, which stores the differences between the lossy 5.1 core and the lossless HD audio version to store the lossless HD audio version. It is completely separately encoded taking up the full disc space as normal, but masked if your receiver can understand TrueHD.

So, since the DD version is separate, by offering it as a separate track anyway, instead of embedded as the "fall-back" track which will be hidden and inaccessible to everyone with an Atmos receiver, you offer people the choice and allow them to select it if they want it. Maybe that's why they do it that way.

Contrast this with DTS which needs to decode the lossy core in order to decode the lossless DTS-MA track, so they are a symbiotic pair.

Here's my "russian dolls" diagram attempt from the DTS:X thread last year which attempt lay this out:









HTH


----------



## bytor

mrtickleuk said:


> With Dolby, Atmos data is wrapped around either a TrueHD core, and then there can be an alternative "fall-back" DD track inside that. But you only see the "fall-back" DD track if your receiver doesn't support TrueHD.
> This DD track it not efficiently encoded like with DTS, which stores the differences between the lossy 5.1 core and the lossless HD audio version to store the lossless HD audio version. It is completely separately encoded taking up the full disc space as normal, but masked if your receiver can understand TrueHD.
> 
> So, since the DD version is separate, by offering it as a separate track anyway, instead of embedded as the "fall-back" track which will be hidden and inaccessible to everyone with an Atmos receiver, you offer people the choice and allow them to select it if they want it. Maybe that's why they do it that way.


I see, thank you. So there should be no audible difference between the Atmos track and the Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 track on my old 5.1 Dolby Digital receiver unless the two tracks are mastered differently for some reason? I suppose it makes sense to offer the regular 5.1 track to people with Atmos receivers if they have the room on the disc anyway.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bytor said:


> I see, thank you. So there should be no audible difference between the Atmos track and the Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 track on my old 5.1 Dolby Digital receiver unless the two tracks are mastered differently for some reason? I suppose it makes sense to offer the regular 5.1 track to people with Atmos receivers if they have the room on the disc anyway.


Yes that is my understanding (happy to be corrected by the cognoscenti)


----------



## VideoGrabber

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos uses a different numbering system (-100 to 100 is replaced by 0 to 1), which puts 0 at the front left corner of the room. By your logic above, that would make the front left corner the listener location. \


That isn't a very friendly thing to do... switch coordinate systems on the guy, then tell him his numerical logic is flawed.  I think his intention was pretty clear that he is taking the midpoint, whether that is designated as 0.0 or 50 or 0.5 or whatever.


A more important consideration though, and where Aron may be going wrong, is conflating that mid-point location as listener-centric, when it's not (necessarily, though a listener COULD be there). It's also not room-centric either. The bounding box' that Atmos uses, and the renderer diagrams represent, is 'soundfield-centric'. I.e., defined by where the peripheral-most speakers are located. Atmos knows where the speakers are (distance and general direction), but has no way to know where the walls behind them are located (could be inches or yards away).

The problem is that while that's how the renderer works (an abstracted coordinate system), that's not how WE work. We think in terms of either room-centric or listener-centric (MLP). And sometimes even get those confused.  But as you've pointed out, that's not how the rendering engine operates. And the Dolby-provided installation guidelines do not directly map between the two coordinate systems.




> If you don't know the rendering assumption for that speaker pair, then *you can answer* with which single elevation angle is acoustically ideal.


I think this is a typo, and you meant "can't" answer (if you *don't* know).


----------



## stikle

Uppsalaing said:


> A good reality check is to ask yourself how many times you have rewatched your existing copy... If it is several times, then an upgrade might make sense, if not then it probably doesn't make sense unless the existing disc was very bad and that was the reason not to rewatch (unlikely)...





kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, good call. I generally watch most of the discs I buy multiple times anyway, and the ones I am double-dipping right now are some of my favorite movies. I love Fury, Gladiator and The Matrix, so while the expense isn't trivial, I am sure *I will forget the cost as I revel in the upgrades to PQ and SQ.*


 @Uppsalaing - You're clearly new in these parts. Pro tip: Don't try and talk Keith off the ledge. He's got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell.


----------



## showmak

I watched Black Panther but it was weird, where I normally set the volume for Atmos movies at -15db, I had to crank up the volume to -5db for Black Panther and still was not matching the other movies and the audio was kind of weak.

Anybody experienced the same or can try?


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> Well, I'm not. I'd advise caution. One of the benefits of Atmos is the precision placement of sounds in a three dimensional landscape. To do this it uses all of the available speakers, combining those on the floor with those on the ceiling. So, if a sound is meant to image at, say, 3/4 of the height of the room, most of the sound will come from the floor speakers and some of the sound from the ceiling speakers. If the latter are too loud, the sound will image much higher than intended, spoiling the intent of the movie's creators.
> 
> Obviously, it's your cinema and your money, so you can do whatever you wish. If you want to emphasise that you have speakers above your head, then increasing their level will do that, albeit to the detriment of the intended effect. It's similar to boosting the surrounds so that you 'know' they're there. Would you do that? Most people, I think, want their speakers to 'disappear', just leaving 'sounds' in the room to create an overall impression of 'being there'. If you are in that camp, then I'd suggest leaving the speakers at the level your room EQ (Audyssey etc) set them at, or if you don't have an automated room EQ setup, set thm with the SPL meter so they all read the same level from MLP. That will give you a 'balanced' sound.


A quick question about this. I’ve been playing around with my setup now that I have my ATMOS speakers in, and I’ve noticed there is a difference in the trims I get when using a meter vs setting them so that they ‘sound’ the same. That’s not surprising considering the spatial response of our hearing, but what I do find surprising is when I play clips that are intended to move objects around the room, they are smoother (for lack of a better word) when I use trims set by ear. For example, I have an ATMOS demo disc that includes a clip of a bird flying around the room. When I set the trims using a meter, the bird Sounds like it’s moving further away as it pans around behind me and then gets closer as it pans back to the front. But when I use the the trims that sound equal, the bird seems to fly around at about the same distance. 

This actually reminds me that one of my first AVRs that just had levels and distance settings recommended setting the trims based on making the perceived loudness the same for all speakers. The manual didn’t even suggest using an SPL meter. Of course that’s been years ago, and maybe the translator didn’t know what an SPL meter was, but it’s interesting none the less. 

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

sdurani said:


> ...
> 
> Also, the next time you go to an Atmos movie theatre, check out the toe in of all the side and rear surround speakers. You'll notice that they are all aimed towards a particular row (or two). The surround pair directly to the sides of that particular row is not toed in but instead point straight across. That's the sweet spot. But it is not at the centre of the room. It's usually around 2/3 room length; roughly where the console would be if that same room was used for mixing. Sure, but those angles will vary from room to room, depending on shape. Where did I say that it would be the _"ideal location"_ for overhead speakers? In fact, it's the other way 'round: I explained why the Atmos install guide makes reasonable departures from the format's rendering assumptions. So while the renderer assumes those speakers are in line with the gap between the L/C/Rs (as your pic shows), there are valid reasons for deviating from that and instead mounting them wider apart, in line with the L/R speakers.
> 
> ...


If you look at Page 17 for the cinema atmos spec you will see that you can build two types of an atmos cinema. On the left diagram each speaker is position like that because each speaker is receiving a dedicated singal. Problem is that most cinemas want to spend less money to construct it and use the second method that is on the right. They send the same signal to 2 speakers. Its basically duplicating the sound, so they can't be aimed at the same spot so they aim one of the speakers at a front row and the next one at the back row.
This minimizes the cost of a more expensive processor. Also they can use a mono amplifier for the paired 2 speakers. But this is for the cinema not for the home. if you have 9.x.6 you have to aim each speaker at the center of the main listening position, unless you go balls and buy 60 speakers with a cinema processor tHen you can either buy a 32 channel processor instead of a 64, and use the paired method to hook up 64 speakers. 
Oh this is also the same a for the atmos speakers. It's on Page 21 but also read page 20. 
Heck for best just read the whole thing 

Sorry for my english, i can't explain technical stuff easily =/.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> First may I apologise in advance for my pedantry here, especially if I'm about to be wrong  Only doing it because someone else was doing it too! But if the ceiling speakers are too loud, doesn't that make it sound closer to you - lower down, not higher up?


Yes you could well be right. But regardless, the point is that futzing with the levels in the overhead speakers upsets the intent of the mixer (one way or another).


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> A quick question about this. I’ve been playing around with my setup now that I have my ATMOS speakers in, and I’ve noticed there is a difference in the trims I get when using a meter vs setting them so that they ‘sound’ the same. That’s not surprising considering the spatial response of our hearing, but what I do find surprising is when I play clips that are intended to move objects around the room, they are smoother (for lack of a better word) when I use trims set by ear. For example, I have an ATMOS demo disc that includes a clip of a bird flying around the room. When I set the trims using a meter, the bird Sounds like it’s moving further away as it pans around behind me and then gets closer as it pans back to the front. But when I use the the trims that sound equal, the bird seems to fly around at about the same distance.


I think this is a preference thing. The problem is, we have no way of knowing how the mixer _intended_ it to sound. Maybe the bird is supposed to sound further away as it pans around behind you? What we do know (I think) is that in the mixing suite, the speakers will all be set (calibrated) to the correct levels in some sort of scientific way (SPL meter?) and not 'by ear'. So I ass-u-me that the mixer is as hearing-deficient with sounds from above as you and I are, so he mixes the sound subjectively (that is is his job after all - to decide if it sounds right _to him_) so that the amount of sound he places in the overhead speakers takes account of our hearing deficiency. IOW, he puts more sound above to compensate for the hearing deficiency, but the speakers are still at their calibrated levels. By increasing the level of the overheads during playback, the mixer's intent will not be realised simply because he has already 'balanced' the sound anyway, and so we will hear more 'up top' than he intended. Does that convoluted explanation make sense?

Having said all that, if you prefer the way it sounds when you goose the overhead speakers, so be it. Your money, your room, your gear, your ears, your choice. Personally, I try to get the system calibrated to replicate as closely as I can the mixer's intent. This way, I'm not second-guessing and I know that every disc I play will sound as accurate as I can get it. Setting by ear or preference really means that it will need to be reset for every movie and I don't want to do that.

It's perhaps easier to use the PQ as an example. If you calibrate your display and you watch a movie which has a green cast to it (eg *The Matrix*), you have no worries that 'something is wrong' because your properly calibrated system faithfully reproduces what the content creators intended - in this case, a green cast. The next movie you watch might have a yellow cast (anything directed by Steven Soderbergh ) but again you will know that is what was intended. OTOH, if you set up the PJ by eye, you can never be sure if the green (or yellow) cast is intentional or a quirk of your system, so when *The Matrix* comes out all green, you may feel tempted to tweak the color controls of your PJ to remove the green. And end up with the movie not looking the way it should. 

For me, it's the same with the sound. I may not _like_ the way the sound is mixed, but at least it is the way it was mixed, and not the way I have chosen to randomly remix it myself by goosing some of my speakers so they are no longer calibrated.


----------



## Lesmor

@kbarnes701
As always Keith a great post and an enjoyable read


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> @kbarnes701
> As always Keith a great post and an enjoyable read


:eeksurprise: Why, thank you!


----------



## J_P_A

@kbarnes701
Keith, that’s exactly how I’ve calibrated since I bought my first SPL meter (that first AVR aside) Setting it up by ear always seemed too subjective. However, I recently noticed the same phenomena when playing games - granted, this may be a complete apples to oranges comparison. I don’t spend a great deal of time playing games, anymore, but I did notice that in FPS games if there is a localized sound source, something like a hissing pipe or a radio on a desk, spinning the character around would give the same close, far, close effect. As I understand it, in games these sounds are rendered dynamically. So it’s not based on how a mixer wanted it. 

At any rate, I’m not arguing the point. I’m sure the intent is to set surrounds using an SPL meter. I’m just trying to reconcile my few sparse samples with that. I may play around with my trims a little just for fun, but I have a feeling my OCD will make me set them back with a meter.


----------



## Ted99

gwsat said:


> The UHD HDR version of _Dunkirk_ has only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. That's true for the home editions of all other Christopher Nolan films too. Why does Nolan refuse to allow his soundtracks for home theater to be remixed using the TrueHD Atmos codec? Don't ask me, I stopped trying to figure out why he did it years ago, for this way lay madness.


I gave my newly-added Auromatic 13.1 update on my Denon X8500 it's first workout with the Netflix 2K BR release of "12 Strong". Like Dunkirk, it's DTS-HD 5.1. Lots of Holywood Hokum on the battle scenes (been there, done that), but if there were ever a film that deserved DTS:X or Atmos, this is it. I toggled between DTS-HD and Auromatic to hear the differences. Auromatic did not magically add much overhead sounds to the MLRS rockets flying overhead, but there was more "volume" to the sound field. The most noticeable difference was in the background music. With Auromatic, the music was simply "there", rather than eminating from speakers. There was no artificiality to the sound that could become tiring over time, so I'll leave my X8500 set to use 13.1 Auromatic for all non-native Atmos or DTS:X discs.


----------



## gwsat

Like Keith, I usually watch my copies of movies with TrueHD Atmos audio multiple times. That lets me at least rationalize the expense involved. This was one of the reasons I bought into the decidedly impractical but nevertheless wonderful Kaleidescape Strato-Terra Server system. I also have a large and growing larger collection of UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos/DTS:X MA disks and more are coming out all the time. He he! What can I say? I'm a movie nerd.


----------



## sdurani

VideoGrabber said:


> It's also not room-centric either. The bounding box' that Atmos uses, and the renderer diagrams represent, is 'soundfield-centric'. I.e., defined by where the peripheral-most speakers are located. Atmos knows where the speakers are (distance and general direction), but has no way to know where the walls behind them are located (could be inches or yards away).


True, the planes that make up the base layer and height layer are bounded by speaker locations. I tend to refer to the rendering as room-centric only because the cinema & home versions of Atmos start from the premise that all the speakers will be at room boundaries. And usually they are.


> I think this is a typo, and you meant "can't" answer (if you *don't* know).


No, I was asking him where the ideal elevation angle was for the Top Middle speakers, either based on rendering assumptions *or* based on acoustics. So if he didn't know the rendering assumption, he could explain why his chosen elevation angle was acoustically ideal.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Like Keith, I usually watch my copies of movies with TrueHD Atmos audio multiple times. That lets me at least rationalize the expense involved. This was one of the reasons I bought into the decidedly impractical but nevertheless wonderful Kaleidescape Strato-Terra Server system. I also have a large and growing larger collection of UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos/DTS:X MA disks and more are coming out all the time. He he! What can I say? I'm a movie nerd.


I am such a movie nerd that I will often watch movies repeatedly but look out for different things each time. For example, the first time I will try to take it all in one pass. Now and then the movie is more complex and a couple of watchings reveal things missed the first time around. After that, I will watch and focus on, say, the score if it is by one of my favourite composers. Next time I may focus on how the movie was edited. Another time on the cinematography, especially for my favorite DPs. Sometimes on a couple of things at once. Obviously I don't do this for every movie I own, but for those that merit repeated viewings. I have plenty of movies I have seen more than 9 times for example (I keep a database, true nerd style, and record what I watch and when. For those interested, the very best such database, IMO, is DVDpedia from Bruji Software, but it is Mac-only and I switched away from that platform a while back. So now I use a Windows program called Movie Label Pro, which is also pretty good. I find that when the number of discs owned exceeds 1,000 or more, some form of tracking of them is useful).


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> Any thoughts on this?


Initial calibration using a meter, final tweaking using your ears. For example, a meter will get all 4 surrounds to the same SPL level. But the 2 side speakers are pointing into your ear canals, making them sound subjectively louder. Sounds from the 2 rear speakers have to get around your ear flaps, making them sound subjectively quieter. The SPL meter isn't aware of those human idiosyncrasies. So tweaking the speakers, including the heights, by ear can be helpful (as you've discovered).


----------



## Joshua Chmiel

showmak said:


> I watched Black Panther but it was weird, where I normally set the volume for Atmos movies at -15db, I had to crank up the volume to -5db for Black Panther and still was not matching the other movies and the audio was kind of weak.
> 
> Anybody experienced the same or can try?


I haven't personally watched the movie yet. However in the ultimate list of bass movies thread many are complaining of not only that movie but movies in general being released by Disney lately of butchered sound.


----------



## sdurani

Quetzalcoalt said:


> Problem is that most cinemas want to spend less money to construct it and use the second method that is on the right.


That hasn't been my experience. I've been to around 16 Atmos cinemas in my local area and they all appear to have aimed all their speakers using the first method. I'm sure there are theatres that use the second method, but I haven't seen them locally.


> Sorry for my english, i can't explain technical stuff easily =/.


Your English is better than most native speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Initial calibration using a meter, final tweaking using your ears. For example, a meter will get all 4 surrounds to the same SPL level. But the 2 side speakers are pointing into your ear canals, making them sound subjectively louder. Sounds from the 2 rear speakers have to get around your ear flaps, making them sound subjectively quieter. The SPL meter isn't aware of those human idiosyncrasies. So tweaking the speakers, including the heights, by ear can be helpful (as you've discovered).


Interesting. Because of the difference between speaker placement in the mix studio and at home, the mixer won't have 'compensated'*** for the way our hearing is deficient (from behind and above) or keener (from the side directly into ears)? Is that the theory? I just have mine calibrated to be all the same SPL and haven't noticed any anomalies, and haven't tweaked (up or down) any of the surrounds. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying it would be better to add a couple or so dB to the overheads and the rears?

***_ My earlier post makes it clear (I hope) what I mean by this._


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I am such a movie nerd that I will often watch movies repeatedly but look out for different things each time. For example, the first time I will try to take it all in one pass. Now and then the movie is more complex and a couple of watchings reveal things missed the first time around. After that, I will watch and focus on, say, the score if it is by one of my favourite composers. Next time I may focus on how the movie was edited. Another time on the cinematography, especially for my favorite DPs. Sometimes on a couple of things at once. Obviously I don't do this for every movie I own, but for those that merit repeated viewings. I have plenty of movies I have seen more than 9 times for example (I keep a database, true nerd style, and record what I watch and when. *For those interested, the very best such database, IMO, is DVDpedia from Bruji Software, but it is Mac-only* and I switched away from that platform a while back. So now I use a Windows program called Movie Label Pro, which is also pretty good. I find that when the number of discs owned exceeds 1,000 or more, some form of tracking of them is useful).


I am an old time Mac guy. I bought my first Mac laptop, a PowerBook G4, in 2003, and have stuck with them ever since. My current one is a 13 inch MacBook Pro Retina, which I bought in December 2013. It has been going strong ever since so I am interested in the DVDpedia program. It is available in the Mac App Store for $19.99. Based on your strong recommendation, I am considering buying it. 

Most of my movies are on my Kaleidescape system, which has an excellent database of its own. I also own most of those films on disk too and a lot of others, though, so it would be useful to be able catalogue them effectively. Will DVDpedia be able to find most titles I own in its database and allow me to put those in my personal DB without a lot of typing? If so, I will probably buy it.

I apologize for straying off topic but did so because I suspect a lot of other posters here also own a bunch of movies on disk and might be interested to learn abut cataloging programs.


----------



## aron7awol

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos uses a different numbering system (-100 to 100 is replaced by 0 to 1), which puts 0 at the front left corner of the room. By your logic above, that would make the front left corner the listener location.


As VideoGrabber said, you changed coordinate systems and then tried to apply what I said in terms of one coordinate system to the new one. Of course that didn't make sense.



sdurani said:


> So while the renderer assumes those speakers are in line with the gap between the L/C/Rs (as your pic shows), there are valid reasons for deviating from that and instead mounting them wider apart, in line with the L/R speakers.
> 
> Also, the pic you posted is of a graphical user interface intended to give a general idea of where the speakers are in relation to each other and the room. It wasn't intended to be taken literally: e.g.., the Atmos renderer doesn't assume the LFE speaker is directly in front of the Centre speaker, as the graphic shows. If the graphical representations of the speakers are off by a few pixels, that doesn't mean the renderer has changed.


I only posted that pic in response to the pic you had posted of a screenshot of the Atmos Monitor GUI, which you then claimed as evidence of the renderer's assumptions, saying "See middle of above pic for where the rendering engine assumes the speakers are located (relative to each other)." Do either of these GUIs accurately represent assumptions that the renderer is making? I wouldn't assume them to, as you seem to be doing.



sdurani said:


> If you don't know the rendering assumption for that speaker pair, then you can answer with which single elevation angle is acoustically ideal.


If I don't know the rendering assumptions, then of course I can't know what is ideal. The point I've been trying to make all along is that I want to match the rendering assumptions as closely as I can. I just don't think we can deduce rendering assumptions from a GUI representation, which you seem to be doing. Instead, I have used the ITU layouts that I have read previously that the Atmos layouts are based on as the best guess at the renderer's assumed layout. If there is some other indication somewhere of exactly what assumptions the renderer is making, I would love to see them. I haven't found any documentation of them outside of the ITU layouts.



VideoGrabber said:


> A more important consideration though, and where Aron may be going wrong, is conflating that mid-point location as listener-centric, when it's not (necessarily, though a listener COULD be there). It's also not room-centric either. The bounding box' that Atmos uses, and the renderer diagrams represent, is 'soundfield-centric'. I.e., defined by where the peripheral-most speakers are located. Atmos knows where the speakers are (distance and general direction), but has no way to know where the walls behind them are located (could be inches or yards away).


I'm not necessarily saying that the renderer is assuming there is a person sitting in the middle, but we can translate the assumptions it is making (if we know them) for a particular listener location in a particular room, and the resulting soundfield based on speaker locations. The soundfield is often at least partially dictated by the room dimensions since speakers are almost always mounted on walls/ceiling rather than suspended. Really, the reason angles are used in speaker layouts is to achieve consistent soundfields in different rooms, isn't it? I know where my LP is in my room, and if I know the renderer's assumptions, I can place my speakers in position to best match them. Those assumptions don't necessarily have to be defined by angle; if an assumption of the renderer is something relative, such as "the side surround is exactly half-way between the front and the rear surround" then I can still match that in my room. 



VideoGrabber said:


> The problem is that while that's how the renderer works (an abstracted coordinate system), that's not how WE work. We think in terms of either room-centric or listener-centric (MLP). And sometimes even get those confused.  But as you've pointed out, that's not how the rendering engine operates. And the Dolby-provided installation guidelines do not directly map between the two coordinate systems.


It being an abstracted coordinate system doesn't affect my goal to match the renderer's assumptions as closely as possible. As an example to try to explain where I'm coming from, imagine a sound object which is intended to sound like it is moving linearly in space from one speaker to a second speaker then to a third speaker. If the second speaker is assumed to be equidistant from other two, the sound would spend the same amount of time moving between the first and second, and second and third. However, if the distances were assumed to be different, the time spent moving between them would need to be adjusted to compensate, in order for the sound to appear to move linearly. This is a simple 2D example, but I think it at least illustrates that there still need to be assumptions on locations of speakers, even if they are relative.



My biggest issue, which I brought up in my (admittedly too aggressive) first post, was seeing a lot of advice on this forum that people should place their Atmos speakers in line with their mains, as one of the most important things, which, due to the need in most rooms for speakers to be mounted on walls/ceiling, was resulting in setups that were IMO compromised.

I feel that the most important thing is to match the renderer's assumptions as closely as possible. The Dolby AC-4 documentation is the best information I've found that I believe defines the speaker layouts that Atmos uses. That documentation states that the AC-4 layouts are based on the ITU layouts, which are themselves clearly documented. If anyone has any documentation that those are not the correct layouts, or any other documentation of what assumptions the renderer is making, please share.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I am an old time Mac guy. I bought my first Mac laptop, a PowerBook G4, in 2003, and have stuck with them ever since. My current one is a 13 inch MacBook Pro Retina, which I bought in December 2013. It has been going strong ever since so I am interested in the DVDpedia program. It is available in the Mac App Store for $19.99. Based on your strong recommendation, I am considering buying it.


It is really very, very good. I tried a lot of the Windows programs of this sort and none is better than DVDpedia. Also, Conor and Nora, the devs, are amazingly responsive to queries and suggestions for improvements etc. I can't recommend it highly enough for OS-X users. I believe you can try it out for free - but it is limited to 50 movies or so. Maybe you have to download it from their own site for that?

Amazingly, I took over a year to make the switch from Mac to Windows because I really didn't want to lose DVDpedia! That's how much I valued it. If you ever have to contact Bruji, say hello to Conor for me! 



gwsat said:


> Most of my movies are on my Kaleidescape system, which has an excellent database of its own. I also own most of those films on disk too and a lot of others, though, so it would be useful to be able catalogue them effectively. Will DVDpedia be able to find most titles I own in its database and allow me to put those in my personal DB without a lot of typing? If so, I will probably buy it.


Hardly any typing. Movies are added from their own database and fields populated by scraping IMDb. So all you need to do is type in the first part of the movie's title usually. 



gwsat said:


> I apologize for straying off topic but did so because I suspect a lot of other posters here also own a bunch of movies on disk and might be interested to learn abut cataloging programs.


Yes, agreed.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> It is really very, very good. I tried a lot of the Windows programs of this sort and none is better than DVDpedia. Also, Conor and Nora, the devs, are amazingly responsive to queries and suggestions for improvements etc. I can't recommend it highly enough for OS-X users. I believe you can try it out for free - but it is limited to 50 movies or so. Maybe you have to download it from their own site for that?
> 
> Amazingly, I took over a year to make the switch from Mac to Windows because I really didn't want to lose DVDpedia! That's how much I valued it. If you ever have to contact Bruji, say hello to Conor for me!
> 
> Hardly any typing. Movies are added from their own database and fields populated by scraping IMDb. So all you need to do is type in the first part of the movie's title usually.
> 
> Yes, agreed.


Keith -- I have now downloaded and installed the trial version of DVDpedia from _*the developers' site*_. Haven't had a chance to use it yet but it looks promising. Thanks again for the tip! If anybody else gets into this, would appreciate hearing about it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

mrtickleuk said:


> With Dolby, Atmos data is wrapped around either a TrueHD core, and then there can be an alternative "fall-back" DD track inside that. But you only see the "fall-back" DD track if your receiver doesn't support TrueHD.
> 
> So, since the DD version is separate, by offering it as a separate track anyway, instead of embedded as the "fall-back" track which will be hidden and inaccessible to everyone with an Atmos receiver, you offer people the choice and allow them to select it if they want it. Maybe that's why they do it that way.


As you say, the fallback track is normally hidden. If there's a DD track visible, it could be a different mix than was generated by the downmix of the Atmos track for the TrueHD version. (ETA: It could also be one in the same -- just exposing access to the compatible DD5.1 track which is needed for optical disc formats.)



bytor said:


> I see, thank you. So there should be no audible difference between the Atmos track and the Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 track on my old 5.1 Dolby Digital receiver unless the two tracks are mastered differently for some reason? I suppose it makes sense to offer the regular 5.1 track to people with Atmos receivers if they have the room on the disc anyway.


They will probably sound different -- depending on how carefully one listens. 

The 5.1 inside the Atmos track is a downmix of the Atmos elements whereas the separate 5.1 is more likely the version mixed specifically for 5.1 cinemas. It will of course have much in common, but it may have subtle differences in balance and other aspects. They may have been done in different studios at different times, especially if we're looking at re-releases where the Atmos mix was created some years later.


----------



## carp

sdurani said:


> Initial calibration using a meter, final tweaking using your ears. For example, a meter will get all 4 surrounds to the same SPL level. But the 2 side speakers are pointing into your ear canals, making them sound subjectively louder. Sounds from the 2 rear speakers have to get around your ear flaps, making them sound subjectively quieter. The SPL meter isn't aware of those human idiosyncrasies. So tweaking the speakers, including the heights, by ear can be helpful (as you've discovered).





kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. Because of the difference between speaker placement in the mix studio and at home, the mixer won't have 'compensated'*** for the way our hearing is deficient (from behind and above) or keener (from the side directly into ears)? Is that the theory? I just have mine calibrated to be all the same SPL and haven't noticed any anomalies, and haven't tweaked (up or down) any of the surrounds. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying it would be better to add a couple or so dB to the overheads and the rears?
> 
> ***_ My earlier post makes it clear (I hope) what I mean by this._


I've always wondered about this. I have suspected that we do indeed need to bump up the rear wall and ceiling speakers for this very reason. Subjectively I prefer the rear wall surrounds up 3 db's and the rear ceiling up 1.5 db's, so to me it doesn't matter much which way is right.. but still I am curious.

How would they know exactly how much to compensate for this?

Hmmm an interesting experiment might be to do some measuring during the Amazing Life demo when the bird flies around the room. Find the spot in the room (assuming your MLP isn't in this spot) where your head would be the exact distance from a side surround speaker and a rear surround speaker, and be 90 degrees from the side surround speaker and level match the two speakers with avr test tone. 

Next, take a measurement 1 meter (or 1 foot or whatever) from the side speaker and the rear speaker when the bird passes each speaker. If they are still level matched then that would mean that mixers (or more accurately that particular mixer) did not adjust for the fact that we hear sounds more loudly directly from the side - or they intended the bird to be louder at one part of the room than another.... 

I'm sure there are all kinds of holes in my thinking here... but I still may try it.


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> Initial calibration using a meter, final tweaking using your ears. For example, a meter will get all 4 surrounds to the same SPL level. But the 2 side speakers are pointing into your ear canals, making them sound subjectively louder. Sounds from the 2 rear speakers have to get around your ear flaps, making them sound subjectively quieter. The SPL meter isn't aware of those human idiosyncrasies. So tweaking the speakers, including the heights, by ear can be helpful (as you've discovered).


This notion that SPL meters are just to get into the ballpark and then one should adjust trim levels to taste seems quite common on this forum but I just want to go on record to say that I completely disagree, assuming one believes themselves to have a normal hearing audience:



m. zillch said:


> Humans are notoriously_ horrible_ as SPL meters because their hearing is different, person to person, and very biased based on direction of the sound stimulus exposure and elevation above/below the horizontal plane, often being different with their L ear to their R ear, by *many tens of dB* depending on frequency, direction, etc.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our HRTF [head related transfer function] varies greatly by individual largely due to the unique size and shape of our pinna, our outer ear, and to a lesser extent our head and even torsos.
> 
> Properly positioned, reasonably good omni-directional mics [typical of modern SPL meters] on the other hand don't suffer nearly as much from this error of *many *dB variation humans have, depending on direction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is why doing AVR/prepro calibration by mic and meter is the way to go despite so many in this forum, I believe the vast majority actually, feeling "they know better and trust their ears" so they override the results.** If their goal is high-fidelity, aka high accuracy to what Dolby etc. intended and reproducing exactly what the recording engineers heard during production, they are wrong to do it by ear:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [This image above is just a random sample of one typical individual for their horizontal exposure plane. We all have our own, unique polar responses.]
> 
> Assuming one uses dead center forward as a reference level, 0 dB, and they face forward as the test signal is sent to the various surround channels, they will overly boost the surrounds to compensate for their hearing loss in each particular direction and for that dominant ear by the number of dB down from 0dB shown in the polar response.
> 
> *Question:* Based on this human's polar response (above) how would they set their left rear surround speaker at 210 degrees if done by ear, not meter; i.e. how inaccurately will they set that speaker's trim level compared to what the recording engineers who made the movie actually heard in their calibrated room?
> 
> *Answer:* _+5dB too high._


----------



## Tomas2

m. zillch said:


> ...Humans are notoriously horrible as SPL meters


Nonsense 

First of all, I had to explain to m.zillch why we (professionals) use Pink Noise for SPL calibrations...then gave him/her a detailed procedure to achieve +/- .1 dB (SPL) match. Much better than my pro SPL meter could achieve.

_"Toole and Olive, on the other hand, in their 1988 study used pink noise for their acoustic signal source and determined that a 5 kHz resonance, with Q = 1 was just detectible at .25 dB."_

_"They found *pink noise* to be the most revealing signal"_

Cheers


----------



## m. zillch

Tomas2 said:


> Nonsense


Your failure to quote my full sentence shows you are disingenuous. With regards to calibrating a multi-channel surround system by ear vs. by meter I stand by my* full* sentence:


m. zillch said:


> Humans are notoriously_ horrible_ as SPL meters because their hearing is different, person to person, and very biased based on direction of the sound stimulus exposure and elevation above/below the horizontal plane, often being different with their L ear to their R ear, by *many tens of dB* depending on frequency, direction, etc.]





Tomas2 said:


> First of all, I had to explain to m.zillch why we (professionals) use Pink Noise for SPL calibrations


Excuse me? "You had to explain to me"? Baloney. I've been calibrating multi-channel rooms since possibly before you were even born. [Hafler setups in the 1970s]. 



Tomas2 said:


> then gave him/her a detailed procedure to achieve +/- .1 dB (SPL) match. Much better than my pro SPL meter could achieve.


I'm still waiting for your evidence based science showing your calibration by ear was more accurate than your meter.


----------



## J_P_A

This puts a little wrinkle into things. I was aware of the HRTF, but I was not aware that it varies so greatly from person to person. If that’s the case, then even setting trims to the same levels as the mixer doesn’t guarantee you hear what the mixer intended. Unless you happen to have the same HRTF as the mixer, what you hear may be drastically different than what the mixer heard, even with identical setups.


----------



## J_P_A

carp said:


> I've always wondered about this. I have suspected that we do indeed need to bump up the rear wall and ceiling speakers for this very reason. Subjectively I prefer the rear wall surrounds up 3 db's and the rear ceiling up 1.5 db's, so to me it doesn't matter much which way is right.. but still I am curious.
> 
> How would they know exactly how much to compensate for this?
> 
> Hmmm an interesting experiment might be to do some measuring during the Amazing Life demo when the bird flies around the room. Find the spot in the room (assuming your MLP isn't in this spot) where your head would be the exact distance from a side surround speaker and a rear surround speaker, and be 90 degrees from the side surround speaker and level match the two speakers with avr test tone.
> 
> Next, take a measurement 1 meter (or 1 foot or whatever) from the side speaker and the rear speaker when the bird passes each speaker. If they are still level matched then that would mean that mixers (or more accurately that particular mixer) did not adjust for the fact that we hear sounds more loudly directly from the side - or they intended the bird to be louder at one part of the room than another....
> 
> I'm sure there are all kinds of holes in my thinking here... but I still may try it.


If I’m understanding what you’re getting at, this is why I found the audio in FPS games so surprising. I’ve always set my levels with a meter, and I’ve always wondered why the panned effects in movies get quieter behind me. However, once I started noticing it in games, where the intent of the mixer was no longer part of the question, it made me wonder if I was doing something wrong in my setup. I’ve even questioned my hearing at times. 

I need to dig out some games and give this another try. It will be interesting to hear if this effect is as noticeable as I remember it being or not.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Because of the difference between speaker placement in the mix studio and at home, the mixer won't have 'compensated'*** for the way our hearing is deficient (from behind and above) or keener (from the side directly into ears)? Is that the theory?


That theory never occurred to me. It's much simpler. I have had the same experience as @*J_P_A*: the omnidirectional mic on my SPL meter yields different results than my two ears & brain. As he mentioned, adjusting trims by ear resulted in audibly smoother pans. Same here. All we did is adjust the trims so that the 4 surrounds were perceived at equal level. Nothing more complicated than that.


> If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying it would be better to add a couple or so dB to the overheads and the rears?


Only if your human hearing doesn't match a SPL meter.


----------



## m. zillch

J_P_A said:


> This puts a little wrinkle into things. I was aware of the HRTF, but I was not aware that it varies so greatly from person to person. If that’s the case, then even setting trims to the same levels as the mixer doesn’t guarantee you hear what the mixer intended. Unless you happen to have the same HRTF as the mixer, what you hear may be drastically different than what the mixer heard, even with identical setups.


My main point wasn't so much that we all have different HRTFs [true] but rather that we all share some things in common regarding differing sensitivities based on direction. One generalization is that our sensitivity to sound from behind us is not as good as it is to sound in front of and to the sides of us. Just think about the shape of the ear and how the cup of it obviously aims_ forward_ to better focus the sound from our _forward_ hemisphere. 

So if we face forward and set the speaker trims by ear for the speakers behind us so that they seem to be the same perceptual loudness as the front center speaker we will be mis-calibrating our room and will end up setting the rear speakers _too loudly _by about 5 to 6 dB.

Edit to add: It differs by frequency but for the range where we are most sensitive to small changes, around 3-4KHz, it shows as being about 5dB down for rear sounds here too for this person's right ear:








[Note the scale used in this graph is different. Each concentric ring is still a 5 dB change but the outer ring here is "10".]


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> As VideoGrabber said, *you* changed coordinate systems and then tried to apply what I said in terms of one coordinate system to the new one.


*I* didn't change the Atmos coordinate system, Dolby did. This is a format designed for movie theatres, where seating spans the width & length of the room, so its object renderer wasn't conceived with a listener location in mind. The fact that 0 happened to be at the middle of the room for the theatrical version of Atmos doesn't mean that the renderer sees it as the listener location.


> Do either of these GUIs accurately represent assumptions that the renderer is making?


They're accurate to the extent they show that the Tops are splitting the L/C/Rs and are between the Fronts, Sides & Rears. They're not accurate to the pixel.


> I just don't think we can deduce rendering assumptions from a GUI representation, which you seem to be doing.


I posted them to show two things: no indication of a listener location and no indication of 45/45 placement.


> Really, the reason angles are used in speaker layouts is to achieve consistent soundfields in different rooms, isn't it?


Yes, which is why the Atmos install guide continues to use them even if they deviate from the rendering assumptions or result in surrounds being lower than at typical mixing stages.


> It being an abstracted coordinate system doesn't affect my goal to match the renderer's assumptions as closely as possible.


Yes, the entire thing is an abstraction. Imagine two planes: the base layer is 0 and the height layer is 1. The four corners of the base layer are the Fronts and Rears. Between them are the Centre, the Sides, and the Centre Rear. Two speakers fill each gap between those 8 speakers for a total of 24 speakers in the base layer. 

The height layer has 5 pairs, with each pair evenly spaced from front to back (y = 0, .25, .5, .75, 1). The left/right arrays split the gaps between the L/C/Rs (x = .25 & .75). Where you place an object in an Atmos cinema is where it ends up in a home Atmos set-up. If a sound is supposed to image between the L and C speakers, it will image at that location, irrespective of where the listener is.


> My biggest issue, which I brought up in my (admittedly too aggressive) first post, was seeing a lot of advice on this forum that people should place their Atmos speakers in line with their mains, as one of the most important things, which, due to the need in most rooms for speakers to be mounted on walls/ceiling, was resulting in setups that were IMO compromised.


Understand that your idea of compromise is someone else's idea of sounding good. Not a question of right or wrong, just different priorities.


> I feel that the most important thing is to match the renderer's assumptions as closely as possible.


That's a valid approach and one that was attractive to me initially. After all, you have to place speakers somewhere; why not place them were the renderer expects them to be. Sounds logical. Besides, not like it would be more difficult or costs more to place them at a rendering assumptions that some place else. 

But what if someone tried it and found alternate placement that they preferred? Unlike you, maybe matching the renderer's assumptions is not the most important thing. Their highest priority might be enjoyment; even at the expense of "accuracy". If they've visited Atmos mixing rooms, then they noticed that speaker placement doesn't always match rendering assumptions. (Same is true for DTS:X mixing rooms.) If that's not happening when Atmos mixes are being created, then the notion of accuracy gets a little blurrier, calling into question how important it is to match the Atmos decoder's rendering assumptions during playback. 

Which doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue it. Just understand that there are valid reasons to using a different approach to placement.


----------



## sdurani

carp said:


> How would they know exactly how much to compensate for this?


Listen and experiment. I used chapter 11 of the old Disney movie _'Mission to Mars'_, where the mission commander's voice circles the room. Or use pink noise, or the bird flapping that circles the room in the Atmos trailer that J_P_A mentioned. After playing around with the trims, all 4 surrounds should sound like they are at the same level, even if your meter tells you otherwise.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That theory never occurred to me. It's much simpler. I have had the same experience as @*J_P_A*: the omnidirectional mic on my SPL meter yields different results than my two ears & brain. As he mentioned, adjusting trims by ear resulted in audibly smoother pans. Same here. All we did is adjust the trims so that the 4 surrounds were perceived at equal level. Nothing more complicated than that. Only if your human hearing doesn't match a SPL meter.


I am still struggling to understand. If I am following you properly, you are saying that we should calibrate the system such that all speakers output the same level and then change the calibrated levels of the surround/overhead speakers. The reason for the change is that our hearing is deficient with sounds from behind us (our ear flap is in the way) and from above us (our ears point horizontally forward) while sounds from the side surrounds are magnified as these speakers point directly at our ears. Is that a fair summary of what you were saying?

If it is... The mixer, it is safe to assume, has the same limitations as everyone else, in terms of not hearing sounds so well from behind and above and hearing sounds more readily from sources pointing directly at his ears. He also has a properly calibrated setup where all the speakers have been set to the correct levels. So when he does the mix, the mixer will not hear a sound from behind as well as sounds from in front, so in order to get the subjective result he wants, he will increase the level of the sound coming from behind him until he is satisfied. Same with sounds from above and sounds from the side (although the latter will be reduced in level). The mixer will carefully balance all the speakers such that he gets the overall result he is seeking.

If the above is correct, then we should definitely _not_ raise/lower the levels of the surrounds, simply because they have already been properly set _in the mix_. Thus the mixer will already have added xdB to the rear surrounds (for example) and if we then add a further xdB, they will be too prominent. 

You say, and I agree, that your ears do not hear sounds the same way as an omnidirectional mic, but then neither do the mixer's. If our speakers and his speakers are calibrated prior to mixing/listening, then all required adjustments have been made by the mixer and it is important that our calibrated speakers are left 'untouched by human ear.'

Which part of how I understand it isn't correct?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Listen and experiment. I used chapter 11 of the old Disney movie _'Mission to Mars'_, where the mission commander's voice circles the room. Or use pink noise, or the bird flapping that circles the room in the Atmos trailer that J_P_A mentioned. After playing around with the trims, all 4 surrounds should sound like they are at the same level, even if your meter tells you otherwise.


But, but, but.... if the mixer, when mixing the track, thought to himself _"Hmmm - the sounds from behind me aren't as loud as I'd like them to be - that will be my ear flaps getting in the way - so I will raise the levels a little ... hmmm... that's better...." _ and then _you_ also raise the levels on a pink noise test (which hasn't been subjectively changed by a human being wrt to each set of speakers) then you will hear the speakers you adjusted as louder than the mixer intended. Won't you?


----------



## kbarnes701

I seem to have entered a parallel universe where calibration is unimportant and all we need to do is play some pink noise and adjust our trims until all speakers 'sound the same' to us, subjectively. What has been the point of using sophisticated room EQ systems such as Dirac Live, which set all speakers to a pre-determined and consistent level? We may as well not bother with level setting that way if we are then going to ignore the calibrated result and just 'set by ear' so that all speakers 'sound the same'.

Surely the whole point of calibrating is that we end up with a standard, one which the mixer can safely assume we are all using, and then he mixes accordingly? The mixer gets the balance right and when the result is reproduced on a properly calibrated system, it sounds the way the mixer intended, with all the deficiencies of human hearing already accounted for when the mix was made.

Have all my assumptions about the need to calibrate, since my very first days in AV, when I read the already huge Audyssey thread from Post #1 to the (then) end, been wrong?


----------



## Mrjmc99

I believe that the UHD of 12 strong has an atmos mix. I watched the regular BR of 12 strong with neural:x, it did an amazing job of extracting the height information, there were multiple scenes when they were at the base with helicopters flying over head, the sound was isolated the height channels. I was amazed at how well it worked. I don't remember if the rocket scene had a lot of height use, I want to say yes, but can't remember for sure.

Running a denon x4300 with 7.2.4


Ted99 said:


> I gave my newly-added Auromatic 13.1 update on my Denon X8500 it's first workout with the Netflix 2K BR release of "12 Strong". Like Dunkirk, it's DTS-HD 5.1. Lots of Holywood Hokum on the battle scenes (been there, done that), but if there were ever a film that deserved DTS:X or Atmos, this is it. I toggled between DTS-HD and Auromatic to hear the differences.  Auromatic did not magically add much overhead sounds to the MLRS rockets flying overhead, but there was more "volume" to the sound field. The most noticeable difference was in the background music. With Auromatic, the music was simply "there", rather than eminating from speakers. There was no artificiality to the sound that could become tiring over time, so I'll leave my X8500 set to use 13.1 Auromatic for all non-native Atmos or DTS:X discs.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## VideoGrabber

Roger Dressler said:


> The 5.1 inside the Atmos track is a downmix of the Atmos elements whereas the separate 5.1 is more likely the version mixed specifically for 5.1 cinemas. It will of course have much in common, but it may have subtle differences in balance and other aspects. They may have been done in different studios at different times, especially if we're looking at re-releases where the Atmos mix was created some years later.


Thanks for this. It answers a question plaguing some online BD reviewers, who I read complaining that there's no reason to include a separate DD track, since it's already embedded within the Atmos track. Their concern was wasting space, that may better have been used to bump the bitrate on the video. Of course, if they're different, it's possible that the separate audio track might actually be slightly better.

I'd consider this policy to be in-keeping with the way studios on catalog titles will include the original mono tracks on many classic films. So you not only have the "new, improved" version, but also as it was originally heard. Which makes sense.


----------



## ggsantafe

kbarnes701 said:


> I seem to have entered a parallel universe where calibration is unimportant and all we need to do is play some pink noise and adjust our trims until all speakers 'sound the same' to us, subjectively. What has been the point of using sophisticated room EQ systems such as Dirac Live, which set all speakers to a pre-determined and consistent level? We may as well not bother with level setting that way if we are then going to ignore the calibrated result and just 'set by ear' so that all speakers 'sound the same'.
> 
> Surely the whole point of calibrating is that we end up with a standard, one which the mixer can safely assume we are all using, and then he mixes accordingly? The mixer gets the balance right and when the result is reproduced on a properly calibrated system, it sounds the way the mixer intended, with all the deficiencies of human hearing already accounted for when the mix was made.
> 
> Have all my assumptions about the need to calibrate, since my very first days in AV, when I read the already huge Audyssey thread from Post #1 to the (then) end, been wrong?


I've been following this discussion and reflecting on the ongoing reference vs. preference debate that seems inherent in all the comments regarding reproducing the director/sound mixer, etc intent. Also - the AVS community includes a distinct subset of the general population that pursues audio and/or video (perhaps obsessively!) perfection. Calibration provides an objective result - and assumes, that at least at the MLP, "*with all the deficiencies of human hearing already accounted for when the mix was made*" However - let's consider this - not all of us have the same hearing deficiencies. I had my hearing tested about a year ago, and the results indicated that my left ear did not hear a certain range of frequencies as well as my right ear. So - wouldn't it make sense for me to fiddle with my calibrated results and boost speaker levels on and above the left side of my room to compensate for "my" hearing deficiencies. Of course I have now deviated from an objective (in my case, Audyssey) reference calculation, but for my ears (disregarding the hearing issues of my spouse, or anyone else who may be in the room) I am now hearing a more balanced and clearly personalized soundtrack.


----------



## J_P_A

m. zillch said:


> My main point wasn't so much that we all have different HRTFs [true] but rather that we all share some things in common regarding differing sensitivities based on direction. ...........


^^Snipped just to clarify which post I'm responding to, not necessarily to emphasize a certain part of the post.

I realize this wasn't your primary point, but it struck me as a pertinent corollary consider the current topic in the thread. 



kbarnes701 said:


> But, but, but.... if the mixer, when mixing the track, thought to himself _"Hmmm - the sounds from behind me aren't as loud as I'd like them to be - that will be my ear flaps getting in the way - so I will raise the levels a little ... hmmm... that's better...." _ and then _you_ also raise the levels on a pink noise test (which hasn't been subjectively changed by a human being wrt to each set of speakers) then you will hear the speakers you adjusted as louder than the mixer intended. Won't you?


This relates to my point above. If each person has a wide variation of perceived loudness compared to their piers, then it's safe to assume the mixer perceives sounds behind them differently than you or me. In that case, level matching with a meter, even to the same trims the mixer uses, doesn't guarantee that you and I hear the same things that the mixer did when he/she mixed the film. 

Here again, I'm not arguing that one should or should not set their trims in any particular way. I'm only trying to understand why I have consistently perceived the sound mix in movies as too quiet from my rear surrounds.


----------



## Ted99

Mrjmc99 said:


> I believe that the UHD of 12 strong has an atmos mix. I watched the regular BR of 12 strong with neural:x, it did an amazing job of extracting the height information, there were multiple scenes when they were at the base with helicopters flying over head, the sound was isolated the height channels. I was amazed at how well it worked. I don't remember if the rocket scene had a lot of height use, I want to say yes, but can't remember for sure.
> 
> Running a denon x4300 with 7.2.4
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


Thanks for that report on Neural:X. That was my "go to" choice before Auromatic. I discounted the helicopter scenes as an indicator of upmixing for the overheads because every time I noticed a helicopter, it was in sight lines and not directly overhead, as were the MLRS launches. Auromatic did lift the helicopters to the wall-ceiling joint where my height speakers are located, but they didn't make it to the VOG--nor did the MLRS launches. For Atmos, I believe that the mixer would have to put sound in the four overheads to get a true overhead sound and I don't think any of the upmixers can do this. I did not compare Neural or DSU to 13.1 Auromatic--a project for another day.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If I am following you properly, you are saying that *we* should calibrate the system such that all speakers output the same level and then change the calibrated levels of the surround/overhead speakers. The reason for the change is that our hearing is deficient with sounds from behind us (our ear flap is in the way) and from above us (our ears point horizontally forward) while sounds from the side surrounds are magnified as these speakers point directly at our ears. Is that a fair summary of what you were saying?


*We* shouldn't do anything if *we* don't want to. I'm explaining what I do and why I do it. Without prompting from me, seems someone else in this thread did the exacts same thing and also ended up preferring the results. But that doesn't mean the group at large has to follow, especially if it doesn't result in audible benefits to them.


> You say, and I agree, that your ears do not hear sounds the same way as an omnidirectional mic, but then neither do the mixer's. If our speakers and his speakers are calibrated prior to mixing/listening, then all required adjustments have been made by the mixer and it is important that our calibrated speakers are left 'untouched by human ear.'


That's perfect advice for you, but not for me. When I listen to the same sound go around the room in the Atmos trailer or _'Mission to Mars'_, the sound appears to be alternating between appearing closer and farther away (the subjective effect of getting louder and quieter). Was that intended by the mixer in both cases? Nothing on-screen suggests that for _'Mission to Mars'_ (the Atmos trailer has no visual reference for the wing flapping sound). Adjusting trims by ear gives me consistent subjective levels and mitigates the near/far effect. To paraphrase the old cliché: if preferring that result makes me wrong, then I don't want to be right.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The mixer, it is safe to assume, has the same limitations as everyone else, in terms of not hearing sounds so well from behind and above and hearing sounds more readily from sources pointing directly at his ears.


Quick aside: IF the research Toole cites is to be believed, mixers have worse hearing than the average person (occupational hazard).


kbarnes701 said:


> But, but, but.... if the mixer, when mixing the track, thought to himself _"Hmmm - the sounds from behind me aren't as loud as I'd like them to be - that will be my ear flaps getting in the way - so I will raise the levels a little ... hmmm... that's better...." _ and then _you_ also raise the levels on a pink noise test (which hasn't been subjectively changed by a human being wrt to each set of speakers) then you will hear the speakers you adjusted as louder than the mixer intended. Won't you?


Mixing choices will compensate for the mixer's hearing but not mine. Also, he'll usually be mixing with a different speaker layout than mine: e.g., he will have an array of Rear speakers stretched out corner to corner on the back wall while I'll only have two Rear speakers not spread that wide apart.


kbarnes701 said:


> I seem to have entered a parallel universe where calibration is unimportant and all we need to do is play some pink noise and adjust our trims until all speakers 'sound the same' to us, subjectively.


Like entering a universe where people season food to taste even if the recipe doesn't call for it. You can adhere strictly to the recipe, I'll adjust it to my preference. That's the beauty of this parallel universe: we each get to do what we want.


----------



## kbarnes701

ggsantafe said:


> However - let's consider this - not all of us have the same hearing deficiencies. I had my hearing tested about a year ago, and the results indicated that my left ear did not hear a certain range of frequencies as well as my right ear. So - wouldn't it make sense for me to fiddle with my calibrated results and boost speaker levels on and above the left side of my room to compensate for "my" hearing deficiencies.


Yes that would make perfect sense but it's not quite the point I was making. I was trying to make the point that there is an objective standard, and this standard is that all speakers in a system are calibrated to the same level. Sanjay's point was that it is a good idea to then adjust the levels by ear. Doing so then guarantees that you are no longer hearing what the mixer intended you to hear because a) he will already have adjusted the level to cater for human hearing deficiencies which apply to everyone (eg not hearing sounds so well when they originate behind us) and b) by changing the levels arbitrarily, you will be adding to or subtracting from the adjustment the mixer has already made. 

You are talking about _individual_ human hearing problems, eg deafness in one ear. I was talking about hearing deficiencies which are characteristic of _all_ human beings.


----------



## Tomas2

m. zillch said:


> I'm still waiting for your evidence based science showing your calibration by ear was more accurate than your meter.


 per some of the above post, we are not adding a couple of dB SPL to any monitor, the objective is a perfectly matched system.

Here is my test equipment:

*NTI MiniSPL*
https://www.nti-audio.com/Portals/0/data/en/MiniSPL-Measurement-Microphone-Product-Data.pdf








*NTI ML1*
https://www.nti-audio.com/en/products/minilyzer-ml1









Typically for midfield surround mixing we use pro grade 2 or 3-way powered monitors which are excellent point source radiators. To start the calibration I generate a tone at -20 dBFS from the DAW and adjust each channel audio DA so each monitor input is exactly +4dBu (~1.23 Vrms). Then I generate pink noise -20 dBFS (which BTW has constant peaks close to -10 dBFS) and using my SPL meter adjust each monitor input sensitivity control to the target dBSPL from the MLP.

_*do not use a tone to calibrate, the meter SPL readings will not be accurate, plus our hearing threshold is optimal with pink noise_
_*another thing to note, with pink noise, perceptually when we detect a difference we don't know which is louder of the two...rather it's a change in character of the sound that's apparent..somewhat like a change in pitch._

After doing the above, via the DAW control surface I mute all five surrounds with the monitor select buttons. Resting my index fingers atop any two of the five I can quickly bounce between any two speaker combinations. Usually I can find two that are perceptually the same from the start. Others will be different, remember, if I can hear a difference there is a difference. If that were not the case, then the initial metering and adjustment(s) would have an outcome below my perception threshold. 

Per Dr Toole's research regarding pink noise and a JND threshold, it pretty much matches my scientific observations...and kept in mind a calibration within .25 dBSPL is a highly refined match/balance.


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> This relates to my point above. If each person has a wide variation of perceived loudness compared to their piers, then it's safe to assume the mixer perceives sounds behind them differently than you or me. In that case, level matching with a meter, even to the same trims the mixer uses, doesn't guarantee that you and I hear the same things that the mixer did when he/she mixed the film.


No it doesn't. But changing them does guarantee that you are not hearing the mix the mixer intended you to hear. The objective with a calibrated system is to get as close as you can to the original sound, ie what the mixer mixed. Nobody can guarantee being able to do that, but that doesn't negate the value of trying to. It's pretty much the entire point of calibrating.



J_P_A said:


> Here again, I'm not arguing that one should or should not set their trims in any particular way. I'm only trying to understand why I have consistently perceived the sound mix in movies as too quiet from my rear surrounds.


Neither am I arguing that there is only one way to set up a system. As I said earlier, it's your system, your ears, your money etc... I'm just discussing calibration really and the value of trying to recreate at home, as closely as possible, what the mixer heard when he mixed the movie. To me, going for a free-for-all where the calibration is thrown out of the window and levels are arbitrarily set for preference is not the ideal route to take. But I'm not telling others what to do with their own systems/money/hearing etc etc. 

So long as everyone realises that the moment they deviate from a calibrated result, they are entering their own world, which is likely not that of the content creators, that's fine. To use a video analogy again, it is rather like having your PJ professionally calibrated to give you a perfect Rec 709 or BT2020 result, and then deciding that you like reds really, really saturated, and turning up the gain in the CMS for red. That's fine if that's what you prefer, but it isn't what the director intended you to see.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> *We* shouldn't do anything if *we* don't want to. I'm explaining what I do and why I do it. Without prompting from me, seems someone else in this thread did the exacts same thing and also ended up preferring the results. But that doesn't mean the group at large has to follow, especially if it doesn't result in audible benefits to them. That's perfect advice for you, but not for me. When I listen to the same sound go around the room in the Atmos trailer or _'Mission to Mars'_, the sound appears to be alternating between appearing closer and farther away (the subjective effect of getting louder and quieter). Was that intended by the mixer in both cases? Nothing on-screen suggests that for _'Mission to Mars'_ (the Atmos trailer has no visual reference for the wing flapping sound). Adjusting trims by ear gives me consistent subjective levels and mitigates the near/far effect. To paraphrase the old cliché: if preferring that result makes me wrong, then I don't want to be right.


This is a good argument for preference. But I thought we were discussing the objective issue of how the system is set up. I still maintain that if the mixer, like all of us, hears sounds from behind less well, he will have already applied the boost you describe and so there should be no need to boost again. Additional boosting might be subjectively pleasing, but it is still deviating from the content creator's intent. If the latter isn't a priority then that's fine. But it's not what I spent so much time and money building a HT for. I want to get as close to the original as possible, and calibration is the best way we have of achieving that. If the obsessives on AVS are happy for their systems to sound 'just the way I like it' then I am surprised. I thought they were, like me, trying to recreate the real cinematic experience at home.

But hey, people can do what they want with their own stuff. I have a friend for whom I did a full picture calibration on his TV and got him as close to a perfect result as it's possible to get - the image was beautiful. Next time I visited him he had the TV back on 'torch mode'. It's the way he likes it he said. Nobody can argue with that 

EDIT: I'd also point to the inherent danger of using one particular audio track as the tool for setting up the entire system, but that's a whole different topic


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

howard68 said:


> The x box and dolby atmos and 1080 p
> I have an old Kuro and still not sure about what to replace it with
> I have an HDFURY to access atmos on Vudu as it is only in UHD
> Can any speak to the output of x box on netflix for atmos



Any OLED should do as well if not better than your Kuro. As well as some of the top Sony models with FALD. They don't have quite as good of a black level, but with HDR you wouldn't know it.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I still maintain that if the mixer, like all of us, hears sounds from behind less well, he will have already applied the boost you describe and so there should be no need to boost again.


Does that mean the two clips I mentioned were supposed to sound like they're moving closer/farther as they circle the room? Was that the intent?


> But it's not what *I* spent so much time and money building a HT for. *I* want to get as close to the original as possible...


Somewhere out there is your counterpart saying *they* spent so much time and money building their HT because *they* want to get maximum enjoyment possible. Do you feel that your subjective preference is objectively superior?


> I thought they were, like me, trying to recreate the real cinematic experience at home.


Which is the "real" cinematic experience? 












kbarnes701 said:


> I'm just discussing calibration really and the value of trying to recreate at home, as closely as possible, what the mixer heard when he mixed the movie.


That's quite a premise to start from. How do you know what the mixer heard when he mixed the movie?


> To me, going for a free-for-all where the calibration is thrown out of the window and levels are arbitrarily set for preference is not the ideal route to take.


It's not a binary choice of extremes: adhere strictly to calibrated levels vs a complete free-for-all. There is a grey area in between those extremes where you set initial levels using a meter and then adjust a couple dB here and there to taste. That couple of dB might even be within the meter's error tolerance.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Does that mean the two clips I mentioned were supposed to sound like they're moving closer/farther as they circle the room? Was that the intent?


How do you know it wasn't the intent? This is the problem with setting the system up subjectively. Using agreed calibrations circumvents the whole issue of subjectivity.



sdurani said:


> Somewhere out there is your counterpart saying *they* spent so much time and money building their HT because *they* want to get maximum enjoyment possible. Do you feel that your subjective preference is objectively superior?


Not at all. But is it not safe to assume that people who feel sufficiently passionate about home cinema that they spend their time on a forum such as AVS want to get something which is close to the original intent?



sdurani said:


> That's quite a premise to start from. How do you know what the mixer heard when he mixed the movie?


We don't. That is precisely why we have calibrated standards, so that we don't need to. If a mixer decides that a sound should be very quiet and over my left shoulder, I want it very quiet and over my left shoulder. I don't need to know exactly how he heard it. What I do know is that he made the sound as loud/quiet as he wanted it and he placed it where he wanted it. If I arbitrarily increase the level of my rear surrounds and reduce the level of my side surrounds, that sound will not be where the mixer intended it to be nor of the loudness he wanted it to be. Now if people believe they prefer the sound to image further back than the mixer wanted it, and of a different loudness, then that's their business. So long as they know they have no longer got a calibrated system.




sdurani said:


> It's not a binary choice of extremes: adhere strictly to calibrated levels vs a complete free-for-all. There is a grey area in between those extremes where you set initial levels using a meter and then adjust a couple dB here and there to taste. That couple of dB might even be within the meter's error tolerance.


Once you deviate from the calibrated levels, you _are_ in a free-for-all. It denies the very purpose of calibration to say "I didn't like the calibrated result so I changed it". To me that IS binary. Either you have a calibrated system or you don't.


----------



## kbarnes701

OMG - they are multiplying! Do they both have Trinnovs as well?


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> How do you know what the mixer heard when he mixed the movie?


*Answer:* We use a calibration system, the same (or similar) one the mixers themselves used to set up their production rooms, where each of the speakers plays a standardized test signal and then an accurate SPL meter makes an *unbiased* assessment of what levels need to be raised or lowered to calibrate to the same standard as the room it was mixed in.
---

Kbarnes701, it is refreshing to me to hear that you "get it". As my signature discusses, the goal of high fidelity (aka high accuracy) is to as closely replicate the sound (or image when discussing video) that the artists intended. Just because we can't (usually) get our hands on the original master and literally hear/see it in the same room as where they created it doesn't mean the goal of reproducing it as accurately as we can in our homes should be thrown out the window, IMHO.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> OMG - they are multiplying! Do they both have Trinnovs as well?


LOL, I think the "Like" button is acting up. On my browser it had some weird thing like "ARG-2 Undefined", and you get two of me . 

Obligatory tweaking goes here:
Come on, Keith, get an Altitude and end the pain : You don't know what you're missing until you have the ability to tweak target curves by speaker with simple adjustments in almost real time, and you have 29 presets to tweak each of your output channels for preference...and that's leaving out the joys of meter watching. We're calling you  ….join us on the Dark Side...

(just kidding, I couldn't resist), 

I'm at an R training for data science workshop or I'd comment on this discussion, but it seems you and Sanjay have it well in hand.


----------



## Tomas2

m. zillch said:


> *Answer:* We use a calibration system, the same (or similar) one the mixers themselves used to set up their production rooms, where each of the speakers plays a standardized test tone signal and then an accurate SPL meter makes an *unbiased* assessment of what levels need to be raised or lowered to calibrate to the same standard as the room it was mixed.


Nope, we use pink noise for optimal accuracy. I just posted a detailed calibration procedure with an end result within .25 dBSPL. That is a highly refined calibration.

Test tones are counter productive ...sans electrical interface (unity).


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> ---
> 
> Kbarnes701, it is refreshing to me to hear that you "get it". As my signature discusses, the goal of high fidelity (aka high accuracy) is to as closely replicate the sound (or image when discussing video) that the artists intended. Just because we can't (usually) get our hands on the original master and literally hear/see it in the same room as where they created it doesn't mean the goal of reproducing it as accurately as we can in our homes should be thrown out the window, IMHO.


TBH I am amazed the discussion is even taking place. I know it's a dangerous thing to do, but I ass-u-med that the majority of people on AVS, and in this thread, just took it as read that we calibrated our systems. 

As the English hi-fi manufacturer, Quad, put it decades ago with the strapline that defined their company ethos: "The closest approach to the original sound".


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> LOL, I think the "Like" button is acting up. On my browser it had some weird thing like "ARG-2 Undefined", and you get two of me .


OMG. You have broken the internet  I'm not sure I can take two of you LOL 



sdrucker said:


> Obligatory tweaking goes here:
> Come on, Keith, get an Altitude and end the pain : You don't know what you're missing until you have the ability to tweak target curves by speaker with simple adjustments in almost real time, and you have 29 presets to tweak each of your output channels for preference...and that's leaving out the joys of meter watching. We're calling you  ….join us on the Dark Side...
> 
> (just kidding, I couldn't resist),


Haha. Imagine me with a Trinnov! I'd have taken a hammer to it, out of frustration, after less than a week. Not to mention I actually enjoy watching movies. You know, from beginning to end, uninterrupted by mobile phones, popcorn munching, chattering, texting and Trinnoving 



sdrucker said:


> I'm at an R training for data science workshop or I'd comment on this discussion, but it seems you and Sanjay have it well in hand.


Oh yes  All in good spirit.


----------



## kbarnes701

Tomas2 said:


> Nope, we use pink noise for optimal accuracy. I just posted a detailed calibration procedure with an end result within .25 dBSPL. That is a highly refined calibration.
> 
> Test tones are counter productive ...sans electrical interface (unity).


But you do agree that calibration is of paramount importance?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> How do you know it wasn't the intent?


Because it isn't supported by the visual in _'Mission to Mars'_.


> But is it not safe to assume that people who feel sufficiently passionate about home cinema that they spend their time on a forum such as AVS want to get something which is close to the original intent?


People on the other side are equally passionate about maximizing enjoyment of their home cinemas, though they might not believe they can divine original intent the way you can.


> I don't need to know exactly how he heard it.


So much for original intent. The mixer could have been sitting in a null or have hearing idiosyncrasies that you don't have. The mix would be compensating for those things even if you don't need to. The Newell measurements I posted show more than a few dB of variance between various cinemas and dubbing stages. When calibrating a system, which of those are you being accurate to?


> Once you deviate from the calibrated levels, you _are_ in a free-for-all.


Calibrating levels gets you within a range, because the equipment being used has tolerances. A couple dB of adjustment would still put you well within the 6dB range of those dubbing stage measurements. If variations like that exist when the content is being created, then calibration of the home playback system won't get you "as close as possible" to all of those variations simultaneously. Still a good idea to do it, just understand that you're being accurate to a range, not a precise number.


----------



## m. zillch

Tomas2 said:


> Nope, we use pink noise for optimal accuracy.
> Test tones are counter productive ...sans electrical interface (unity).


I was using "test tone" generically to mean a calibration test *signal* but since this seems to cause a misunderstanding or you I've modified the post.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Because it isn't supported by the visual in _'Mission to Mars'_. People on the other side are equally passionate about maximizing enjoyment of their home cinemas, though they might not believe they can divine original intent the way you can. So much for original intent. The mixer could have been sitting in a null or have hearing idiosyncrasies that you don't have. The mix would be compensating for those things even if you don't need to. The Newell measurements I posted show more than a few dB of variance between various cinemas and dubbing stages. When calibrating a system, which of those are you being accurate to? Calibrating levels gets you within a range, because the equipment being used has tolerances. A couple dB of adjustment would still put you well within the 6dB range of those dubbing stage measurements. If variations like that exist when the content is being created, then calibration of the home playback system won't get you "as close as possible" to all of those variations simultaneously. Still a good idea to do it, just understand that you're being accurate to a range, not a precise number.


I find it easier to explain my position using video as an analogy. We have no way of knowing what the guy mastering the video is seeing. He uses a monitor which costs many times that of our PJs or TVs. We have no way to see what he sees and we cannot see through his eyes. He may even have some form of color blindness for all we know. What we know is that he is working from a monitor that has been calibrated to a known standard. When we calibrate our own displays, we follow that standard as closely as we can. We will never achieve the same standard as the Pro monitor which costs 10 times what our own display cost. However, we will calibrate our monitor so that we can get as close as possible to the original, even though we cannot know what the original was. That is the point of calibrating. If, when we have finished, we put on a movie and think to ourselves "I don't like the color of that apple. It doesn't look like my idea of an apple at all" and we change the colors until the apple in the movie looks like _our_ apple, then we have done two things: we have negated/denied the entire point of calibrating in the first place and we have an apple that "looks nice" but looks nothing like it is intended to look. Even worse, when we watch the next movie, we now decide that the red of the strawberry doesn't 'look right', most likely because we messed it up when we 'corrected' the apple the day before, so we now have to adjust the controls yet again, and so on for every movie we watch.

To me, this is the entire point of calibrating, both for image and audio. I doubt anyone is going to win me over with a preference argument, so it's possibly time to bring the discussion (with me at any rate) to an end. I will continue to adhere to calibrated standards, others may prefer to set everything by ear or by eye. As you rightly say, enjoyment is the most important factor in using our systems so if people, like my pal, want eye-searingly red apples, and that's what they enjoy seeing, I'm certainly not going to stop them


----------



## J_P_A

kbarnes701 said:


> How do you know it wasn't the intent?


Not to beat a dead horse* here, but this is why I keep coming back to the video game example. It eliminates the mixer's intent part of this because the sounds are rendered in-game based on the position of your character. 

I went back and found a scene in the latest DOOM release on PS4 where there is a hissing steam vent. With trims set using a meter, the sound gets quieter went the vent is behind me vs when I'm facing it. Now I suppose it's possible the game engine tapers the sound off for some reason, it seems odd that it would only do it for the rears and not smoothly transition from the sides to the back.

At any rate, I think you're right that we're not going to change anyone's mind. For my part, I'm at least reassured to know that I'm not alone in hearing this wondering if adjustments are warranted. I still don't know what I'll do in the long run (OCDs are a terrible thing to deal with  ), but it's been helpful for me to see others have considered it.

*Ironically, this is probably the most used preface to beating a dead horse!


----------



## m. zillch

Tomas2 said:


> Per Dr Toole's research regarding pink noise and a JND threshold, it pretty much matches my scientific observations...and kept in mind a calibration within .25 dBSPL is a highly refined match/balance.


You have mischaracterized/misapplied Toole's findings in several regards. For one thing in that study he only used speakers placed in front and/or headphones, _never_ speakers mounted behind the listener nor at elevated heights as we would need to adjust the levels for when setting up Atmos. Secondly, while I agree pink noise is generally a good and relatively easy to come by test tone signal, that's *not* what he was using when he found a .25 dB level discrimination JND, at least at a specific room reproduction level, under laboratory conditions. Instead he was using pink noise vs. pink noise with a .25dB resonance at 5 kHz and a broad Q of 1.

Did he provide evidence people can detect level differences of pink noise of .25 dB? No. Had he used that test signal he'd probably find it was more like ~.5dB, or so, as has been found in other studies. Heck, I'm pretty sure the free NIOSH app in my iphone could easily trump that consistency level of discrimination _difference_ [it reads in .1dB increments] even though it's _absolute_ SPL level accuracy is said to be +/- 1dB, out of the box [although you can calibrate it to a reference meter if you want to make it even better still].

Did he find this best case scenario minimum detection threshold [not really so much of full bandwidth level differences but rather EQ alteration] applied to speakers mounted _behind_ the listeners? No, he didn't test that.

Dr. @Floyd Toole, have I accurately described your fine work?


----------



## m. zillch

J_P_A said:


> Not to beat a dead horse* here, but this is why I keep coming back to the video game example.


I don't know if its true but I've read that unlike the film industry the game industry does _not_ use well calibrated facilities nor rigid standardization for multi-channel sound. If that's true then "winging it", per game, makes sense since what's being sent your way is all over the map from the get go.  [I'm not a gamer so I can't speak to this issue with any certainty but just thought I'd mention what I've heard.]


----------



## Tomas2

FWIW, in the post production / mixing phase...typical calibration targets range 79-85 dBSPL. 79 is an excellent mix room calibration target. It puts the mix engineer in a perceptual feedback loop, where overall dynamic range is slightly compressed and long term average dialogue is slightly elevated. In a 85 dBSPL cal room, a consumer surround re-mix will have too much dynamic range (action scenes are too loud) and the average dialogue level is subjectively very low.

This elevated average dialogue volume is normalized (-31 LKFS) by properly settling the Dolby Digital control word DN. The mix long term average dialogue level is measured (LKFS) and properly set in the encoder and this DN metadata instructs your decoder how much equal de emphasis is applied for all surround channels (not just the center channel).

So in the end, what matters is that ALL the surrounds match as closely as possible. If you calibrate - 30 dBFS = 75 dBSPL or 70 dBSPL things will be fine.

LKFS = *L*oudness *K*-weighted *F*ull *S*cale (digital)


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> Not to beat a dead horse...


----------



## Tomas2

m. zillch said:


> Did he find this best case scenario minimum detection threshold [not really so much of full bandwidth level differences but rather EQ alteration] applied to speakers mounted _behind_ the listeners? No, he didn't test that.


The whole premise of this debate was it possible to perceive a smaller difference than my pro SPL meter can resolve. You can take it to the bank that i can.

The meter left ~ .5 to 1 dB slop.

If you know what your listening for, ~ +/- .1 dB is just perceptible. Dr Toole's research was in the ballpark of my findings, hence why I included his numbers. FWIW I don't subscribe to some of the Dr's observations. One being the so called 'circle of confusion'. For the most experienced recording engineers, these pros are not that ignorant.

Have a nice day


----------



## markmanner

sdrucker said:


> Obligatory tweaking goes here:
> Come on, Keith, get an Altitude and end the pain : You don't know what you're missing until you have the ability to tweak target curves by speaker with simple adjustments in almost real time, and you have 29 presets to tweak each of your output channels for preference...and that's leaving out the joys of meter watching. We're calling you  ….join us on the Dark Side...
> 
> .


Hi, the Altitude sounds very interesting. However, for someone with a 5.2.4 setup (perhaps expandable to 7.2.4 in my current environment), would it make sense? In other words, is its primary benefit its ability to utilize many more channels, or is the primary benefit the processing of what you have?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Mark


----------



## sdrucker

markmanner said:


> Hi, the Altitude sounds very interesting. However, for someone with a 5.2.4 setup (perhaps expandable to 7.2.4 in my current environment), would it make sense? In other words, is its primary benefit its ability to utilize many more channels, or is the primary benefit the processing of what you have?
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> Mark


I could see a few benefits. Not to hijack the thread, but whether they are worth it for you is a judgment call for your room's situation:

1) You can have more flexibility for what that 5.2.4 might be - e.g. you could have a possible heights configuration that your processor might not support (e.g. top front and top middles). However, the real value is if you can expand the channel count a bit more. For example, you might have 7.2.4, but you might decide to have wides rather than rears. Or go to 9.2.4, and decide if you want wide or front side surrounds for Atmos, and have a second pair of speakers for one of the more esoteric speaker locations within the 24.1.10 Atmos configuration. Or both wides and front side surrounds. Another example, left/right screen centers inside an AT screen that gives you a little more "object feel" inside the screen vs. just outside of it from the mains. Those are just a few examples, and aren't necessarily simple answers so much as being a methodology to solve specific room issues, account for multiple rows of seats, etc.

2) Remapping - that's an algorithm that will measure the physical location of your speakers (azimuth and elevation, i.e. horizontal and vertical angles) and use a form of post processing to utilize your speakers to replicate an idealized configuration for an Atmos, DTS:X, Auro etc. Really designed when you don't have perfect speaker placements, but you can use it for some unusual things, like taking two top middles and creating a VOG in Auro

3) Trinnov Optimizer for EQ - EQs in both the time and frequency domain, by separating out direct from indirect (reflected) sound and using a combination of FIR and IIR filters

4) Presets - lots of presets for specific things you want to do, such as a 2.0 configuration vs. the standard one you use, or different presets for different target curves (think movies vs. music)

5) Speaker arrays - you can do things like copy your mains or side surrounds at a reduced level to wides you might have for upmixer use

I could say more but you might want to follow up on any questions in the dedicated Trinnov Altitude thread. Personally if you wanted to look at the Altitude, I'd get the Altitude 16 and think about how you could use the set of 16 channels for your needs most optimally. Warning: it's NOT cheap.

Note to Keith: before you would hammer the Trinnov due to frustration, I'll point out the Altitude 16 has a Configuration/Calibration wizard to set things to defaults before any endless fiddling you want to do.

Back to our usual program...

.


----------



## dschulz

I gather that Apple announced Atmos support in the next version of tvOS. 

I thought the Apple TV hardware supported only PCM output for audio, not bitstream, so I'm puzzled as to how Atmos support will be accomplished. Hopefully more news will shed some light on this.


----------



## mtbdudex

dschulz said:


> I gather that Apple announced Atmos support in the next version of tvOS.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Apple TV hardware supported only PCM output for audio, not bitstream, so I'm puzzled as to how Atmos support will be accomplished. Hopefully more news will shed some light on this.



More here
 https://www.macrumors.com/2018/06/04/apple-tv-4k-gaining-atmos/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> We have no way of knowing what the guy mastering the video is seeing.


OK, so let's dispense with the 'original intent' argument since we cannot perceive what was seen/heard and have no way of knowing what he was thinking (intending).


> What we know is that he is working from a monitor that has been calibrated to a known standard.


That calibration still falls within a range (Delta E) and is still checked by eye afterwards using program material. As a THX certified calibrator once told me _"you're measuring an imperfect device using an imperfect device"_. So there can be deviations within that range without it suddenly becoming a free-for-all.


> However, we will calibrate our monitor so that we can get as close as possible to the original, even though we cannot know what the original was.


How do you get as close as possible to an unknown?


> I doubt anyone is going to win me over with a preference argument...


But that's just it: no one is trying to win you over. It is you who has taken issue with (even minor) tweaking of calibrated levels. No one has taken issue with you leaving your calibrated levels alone.


> As you rightly say, enjoyment is the most important factor in using our systems so if people, like my pal, want eye-searingly red apples, and that's what they enjoy seeing, I'm certainly not going to stop them


You're doing it again, equating minor tweaking to "eye-searingly" exaggerated results. If you feel like you've entered a parallel universe, then it seems you've exited a binary one. There are gradations here, not just all or nothing.


----------



## markmanner

sdrucker said:


> I could see a few benefits. Not to hijack the thread, but whether they are worth it for you is a judgment call for your room's situation:
> 
> 1) ........
> 
> Back to our usual program...
> 
> .


Thanks very much for the helpful reply, I will do some reading on the Trinnov thread.
Best,
Mark


----------



## Nalleh

^^ I agree with @sdurani here. After calibration, i see no problem with, and often adjust levels by ear, even after checking them with SPL meter. I always have, and now it makes sense why, with the difference between a omndirectional microfone vs our «directional» ear. I could almost care less about creator intent, if i did, i wouldn’t use upmixers, and if it doesn’t sound right to ME, and it does sound right when adjusted to my liking, why should i keep listening to a setup i don’t like ??


----------



## m. zillch

Tomas2 said:


> If you know what your listening for, ~ +/- .1 dB is just perceptible.


Nope.


----------



## Tomas2

With pink noise, that's a yep !

Enjoy the emperors new clothes


----------



## m. zillch

Tomas2 said:


> With pink noise, that's a yep !
> 
> Enjoy the emperors new clothes



Would you like to make a gentleman's bet that you can't do it under double blind conditions [Foobar ABX]?

[I can upload two files of pink noise, correlated or uncorrelated, your pick, with a .2dB level difference.]


----------



## mrtickleuk

Nalleh said:


> ^^ I agree with @sdurani here. After calibration, i see no problem with, and often adjust levels by ear, even after checking them with SPL meter. I always have, and now it makes sense why, with the difference between a omndirectional microfone vs our «directional» ear. I could almost care less about creator intent, if i did, i wouldn’t use upmixers, and if it doesn’t sound right to ME, and it does sound right when adjusted to my liking, why should i keep listening to a setup i don’t like ??


You don't have to, it's your choice, but you'll have to keep adjusting. Enjoy your eye-searingly red apples. (h/t to @kbarnes701 for that excellently written post)


----------



## Nalleh

mrtickleuk said:


> You don't have to, it's your choice, but you'll have to keep adjusting. Enjoy your eye-searingly red apples. (h/t to @kbarnes701 for that excellently written post)


I do not adjust my red with SPL meter or my ears


----------



## J_P_A

mrtickleuk said:


> You don't have to, it's your choice, but you'll have to keep adjusting. Enjoy your eye-searingly red apples.........


That's missing the point. As @sdurani has mentioned a few times, it's not an all or nothing type change, and it doesn't require adjustment for every bit of content you play. It's a matter of adjusting for the HRTF (i.e., make all the speakers _sound_ equal rather than _measure_ that way), and for those that like the tweak the results are more pleasing for all (or at least the majority) of content played. Sure, there's always going to be an outlier, but there is content that sounds terrible on a calibrated system as well.

In either case, I think both @kbarnes701 and @sdurani have both done a good job of arguing the merits without letting this descend into a poo flinging contest....... like most discussions on the internet tend to


----------



## sdurani

Nalleh said:


> I always have, and now it makes sense why, with the difference between a omndirectional microfone vs our «directional» ear.


The "two ears" comment I posted was paraphrased from Toole. Here are some quotes from the horse's mouth: 

_"Two ears and a brain are much 'smarter' than a microphone and analyzer."_ 

_"Because, compared to two ears and a brain, a microphone is a 'dumb' device. It accepts sounds from any angle, at any time, and treats them equally. In contrast, a human distinguishes between direct sounds and later arrivals (the precedence effect and forward masking), and between sounds from one direction and those from another (binaural discrimination)."_ 

_"Steady-state measurements in a room are not definitive because the physical interaction of sounds at a microphone is very different from the perceptions arising in two ears and a brain."_


----------



## sdurani

J_P_A said:


> I think both @*kbarnes701* and @*sdurani* have both done a good job of arguing the merits without letting this descend into a poo flinging contest.......


I probably shouldn't let the cat out of the bag and reduce the entertainment value but Keith and I are good friends outside this forum. Passionate arguments, yes. Poo flinging, never.


----------



## Roger Dressler

ggsantafe said:


> However - let's consider this - not all of us have the same hearing deficiencies. I had my hearing tested about a year ago, and the results indicated that my left ear did not hear a certain range of frequencies as well as my right ear. So - wouldn't it make sense for me to fiddle with my calibrated results and boost speaker levels on and above the left side of my room to compensate for "my" hearing deficiencies. Of course I have now deviated from an objective (in my case, Audyssey) reference calculation, but for my ears (disregarding the hearing issues of my spouse, or anyone else who may be in the room) I am now hearing a more balanced and clearly personalized soundtrack.


It makes perfect sense for you to adjust an individual speaker's level or even EQ if that helps overcome a hearing imbalance. I've been talking with someone who has rather marked loss in one ear and he was amazed how well this worked for him (not so much for a room full of people). 

Quite distinct to this, I'd also mention that unless the auto-EQ microphone is placed exactly where one's ears sit, there may be deficiencies imposed to rear speaker sound as it encounters seat headrests. But raising levels in the high frequencies to try to compensate for seat occlusion may be worse than the disease, as it will color the sound bouncing around the room. IOW, if one is very keen to have uniform timbre from the rear speakers, do not block them with high-back seats.


----------



## ggsantafe

Roger Dressler said:


> It makes perfect sense for you to adjust an individual speaker's level or even EQ if that helps overcome a hearing imbalance. I've been talking with someone who has rather marked loss in one ear and he was amazed how well this worked for him (not so much for a room full of people).
> 
> Quite distinct to this, I'd also mention that unless the auto-EQ microphone is placed exactly where one's ears sit, there may be deficiencies imposed to rear speaker sound as it encounters seat headrests. But raising levels in the high frequencies to try to compensate for seat occlusion may be worse than the disease, as it will color the sound bouncing around the room. IOW, if one is very keen to have uniform timbre from the rear speakers, do not block them with high-back seats.


And to expand a bit on my original post - not everyone perceives a "calibrated" audio or video system the same way. In my case - I had verifiable results that confirmed some hearing loss in my left ear - how many other folks out there may have undiagnosed hearing and/or vision issues for that matter. In the case of someone who has a certain level of color blindness, or other vision problems - a calibrated TV may look awful to them, but additional tweaks can produce an image that they find more appealing.

For those who have perfect hearing and vision - I'd still support the "tweak to preference" approach. Start from a calibrated base and adjust to taste. The Audyssey thread has played out a similar scenario for years - especially with regards to boosting subwoofer levels.


----------



## petetherock

The good news is that the Apple 4K TV has joined the Atmos fold.. lossy perhaps ?


----------



## batpig

petetherock said:


> The good news is that the Apple 4K TV has joined the Atmos fold.. lossy perhaps ?


Of course it will be lossy, it's streaming.


----------



## Mrjmc99

This quote cracks me up "With the addition of Dolby Atmos, Apple said that this makes the Apple TV 4K the only streaming box with support for both 4K and Atmos."

So the Nvidia shield, Xbox one s, and a handful of other devices don't exist anymore? 

Gotta love apple inventing things that already exist.


batpig said:


> Of course it will be lossy, it's streaming.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## thrang

Mrjmc99 said:


> This quote cracks me up "With the addition of Dolby Atmos, Apple said that this makes the Apple TV 4K the only streaming box with support for both 4K and Atmos."
> 
> So the Nvidia shield, Xbox one s, and a handful of other devices don't exist anymore?
> 
> Gotta love apple inventing things that already exist.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


I don’t believe you have the quote right, if you are referring to Apple’s keynote...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> OK, so let's dispense with the 'original intent' argument since we cannot perceive what was seen/heard and have no way of knowing what he was thinking (intending). That calibration still falls within a range (Delta E) and is still checked by eye afterwards using program material. As a THX certified calibrator once told me _"you're measuring an imperfect device using an imperfect device"_. So there can be deviations within that range without it suddenly becoming a free-for-all. How do you get as close as possible to an unknown? But that's just it: no one is trying to win you over. It is you who has taken issue with (even minor) tweaking of calibrated levels. No one has taken issue with you leaving your calibrated levels alone. You're doing it again, equating minor tweaking to "eye-searingly" exaggerated results. If you feel like you've entered a parallel universe, then it seems you've exited a binary one. There are gradations here, not just all or nothing.


As always, you make good points. I still find some of them difficult to grasp though. You have mentioned a couple of times, for example, the margin of error wrt to the measuring mic. So what? If my mic is accurate +/-2dB, it doesn't matter at all for the purpose we are discussing. Let's say it is -2dB - it will be -2dB for _every_ speaker measurement, so the relative levels will all be accurate. And it is the _relative_, not absolute, levels we are discussing. The mic might tell me it is setting the speakers to 75dB when it is really 73dB but it will be 73dB for every speaker. So I don't see the relevance of the margin of error.

You also say that it is 'only minor tweaking' but any deviation from a reference makes it non-reference. And regardless, you say it is OK to set the relative levels of the speakers by ear, using test tones or content, so all the speakers sound subjectively the same. If setting by ear is good enough, then why bother with a calibration at all - just use ears! Another problem with this is that while our ears are very fine _listening_ instruments, they are pretty poor _measuring_ instruments. (I know we have some members with golden ears who would dispute this, but it is nonetheless true for the large majority. Measuring instruments OTOH measure the same, day in day out, unaffected by tiredness, mood etc).

Do you think we have done this to death yet? We're not going to agree and we seem to be going around in circles. As you know, I have always valued highly your input and observations and that isn't going to change because we sometimes disagree


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> In either case, I think both @kbarnes701 and @sdurani have both done a good job of arguing the merits without letting this descend into a poo flinging contest....... like most discussions on the internet tend to


Oh Sanjay and I go way back and we are friends. I have learned a huge amount from him and he has been of immeasurable help to me in suggesting adjustments I could try in my own HT, almost all of which were beneficial. Like friends do, we can disagree with each other sometimes without it degenerating into personal attacks. In this particular discussion there are no real right or wrong positions and it is up to the individual to decide how best to set up his system. 

The problem, I think, of advocating a 'set it by ear' approach is that this may well work fine and dandy for a very experienced listener. We have two other such listeners, diametrically opposed, in the current discussion for example. But most people are not golden-eared Pros who have vast experience of many different rooms and speakers and setups. They are just interested amateurs (like me). Without the vast breadth of experience which Pros have, it is difficult or even impossible for the keen amateur to know 'what sounds best'. So they have to resort to 'what I like'. Now there is nothing wrong with that - as Nalleh said earlier, why listen to something you don't like? 

The problem that stems from that though, IMO, is that a person may like what they hear _even more _if the system is set up in a better way, without personal bias. Aiming just for 'what you like most' is a shot in the dark whereas aiming for a properly calibrated 'standard' is aiming to hit a specific target, not just claiming that whatever you happened to hit was the target. So with preference, there are as many 'targets' as there are people. With reference, there is one.

Also, one has to wonder why people calibrate and then don't like the result. (I am assuming the calibration skills of the listener are adequate, and automated systems make it more likely than not). Could it be that something else is wrong? Is their room somehow distorting their sound due to unwanted reflections, modes etc? Are their speakers or speaker locations deficient in some way? And so on. I am not pointing any fingers here, nor disrespecting anyone's setup BTW - just asking questions to which the answers may be important. If so, then the underlying problems are the real issue, not the calibration.

Finally (and I do think we've done this to death), the professional approach, AIUI, is to have the mixing room calibrated. The calibration, again AIUI, ensures that all speakers play at a specific level. Does the mixer then come into the room and listen to a track and then decide that he needs to adjust the levels of some of the calibrated speakers? One assumes not. What he does, if he feels a sound from behind isn't loud enough is, _he raises the level in the mix_. There should be no need for us to raise it again when we play the content back.


----------



## kbarnes701

BTW, I don't use the term 'golden ears' in a derogatory sense, as it is often used. I mean it in a more literal sense. Some people have amazing listening capabilities. Most, unfortunately, don't, me included.


----------



## kbarnes701

ggsantafe said:


> And to expand a bit on my original post - not everyone perceives a "calibrated" audio or video system the same way. In my case - I had verifiable results that confirmed some hearing loss in my left ear - how many other folks out there may have undiagnosed hearing and/or vision issues for that matter. In the case of someone who has a certain level of color blindness, or other vision problems - a calibrated TV may look awful to them, but additional tweaks can produce an image that they find more appealing.


Yes, nobody could sensibly disagree with that. I, for one, was ass-u-ming for the purposes of the discussion that the playing field was level. Sometimes it isn't as you rightly point out.



ggsantafe said:


> For those who have perfect hearing and vision - I'd still support the "tweak to preference" approach. Start from a calibrated base and adjust to taste. The Audyssey thread has played out a similar scenario for years - especially with regards to boosting subwoofer levels.


Yes but that's because Audyssey does such a poor job of getting the bass right. . When people tweak their bass, post-Audyssey, they are actually getting their bass response to more closely approach the Harman Curve - IOW, 'reference'  But let's not start a debate on the merits of Audyssey in this thread or we'll all be banned


----------



## showmak

So, when I trigger the pink noise in my RX-3050 should I keep the master volume to “0” and then start adjusting the level of each speaker? And what dB I should adjust to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If my mic is accurate +/-2dB, it doesn't matter at all for the purpose we are discussing.


If my tweaking falls within that ±2dB margin of error, I'm still within the range of calibration, not in some free-for-all zone. And the adjustments being discussed are a couple dB here and there.


> You also say that it is 'only minor tweaking' but any deviation from a reference makes it non-reference.


Only if it is a number, not a range. Even going back to your video analogy, peak brightness is a range (12-16fl?), Delta E is a range (less than 3? It will never be 0).


> If setting by ear is good enough, then why bother with a calibration at all - just use ears!


Like saying if you're going to have salt & pepper on the table, why bother cooking with recipes. One gets you in range, the other does final adjustment. I see them as complimentary rather than either/or.


> Do you think we have done this to death yet? We're not going to agree and we seem to be going around in circles.


You'll be shocked to know I disagree. Rather than repeating ourselves, the argument is getting refined. We don't know what the mixer was thinking/intending, so we can't use that as the goal of calibration. You're not trying to get "as close as possible" to the rooms where these soundtracks were mixed because you're using Dirac to get much smoother response than any of the cinemas & dubbing stages that Newell measured. And your target doesn't look like the x-curve. Since you've heard both, which sounds better: your room or Dolby's reference room in Soho? What if I ask someone unbiased, like Roger? 

So after all that arguing, I think we can agree that rather than calibrate to any of the above goals, we should be calibrating to a reference standard; even if the people creating the content aren't as successful at getting there. But what if the standard is a range rather than a number? Even worse, what if there is more than one standard (like with HDR video)? Our fundamental disagreement comes down to binary vs range: you believe it is black & white, I see it as shades of grey (albeit in a narrow range). As usual, we can agree to disagree on that. I still think this was a very healthy discussion to revisit.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You're not trying to get "as close as possible" to the rooms where these soundtracks were mixed because you're using Dirac to get much smoother response than any of the cinemas & dubbing stages that Newell measured. And your target doesn't look like the x-curve.* Since you've heard both, which sounds better: your room or Dolby's reference room in Soho? What if I ask someone unbiased, like Roger?*


Hahaha. LOL.  Unfair low blow...  OK, I concede. Can hardly do anything else since we both know what Roger thought about Dolby's reference room vs the humble Cowshed Theater. And which, gratifyingly for me, he preferred 



sdurani said:


> So after all that arguing, I think we can agree that rather than calibrate to any of the above goals, we should be calibrating to a reference standard; even if the people creating the content aren't as successful at getting there. But what if the standard is a range rather than a number? Even worse, what if there is more than one standard (like with HDR video)? Our fundamental disagreement comes down to binary vs range: you believe it is black & white, I see it as shades of grey (albeit in a narrow range). As usual, we can agree to disagree on that. I still think this was a very healthy discussion to revisit.


I think that is an admirable summary. And I guess if all we are really talking about is 2dB either way, it doesn't really matter much TBH.

I hope that nobody following casually along has come to the conclusion that setting entirely by ear is fine (or indeed that slavishly following a calibration is fine).
Probably not.

Good and useful discussion though. I'll get the beers in this time


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> I still find some of them difficult to grasp though. You have mentioned a couple of times, for example, the margin of error wrt to the measuring mic. So what? If my mic is accurate +/-2dB, it doesn't matter at all for the purpose we are discussing. Let's say it is -2dB - it will be -2dB for _every_ speaker measurement, so the relative levels will all be accurate. And it is the _relative_, not absolute, levels we are discussing. The mic might tell me it is setting the speakers to 75dB when it is really 73dB but it will be 73dB for every speaker. So I don't see the relevance of the margin of error. . . .
> 
> . . . Another problem with this is that while our ears are very fine _listening_ instruments, they are pretty poor _measuring_ instruments. (I know we have some members with golden ears who would dispute this, but it is nonetheless true for the large majority. Measuring instruments OTOH measure the same, day in day out, unaffected by tiredness, mood etc).


Once again _you_ get it.

A rule of audiophilia 101, preached by many professional audio reviewers in magazines, is "Whatever is inexpensive and convenient is automatically inferior". Take for example an automatic turntable. True, most that have been released are sort of primitive, mediocre designs but there's a reason high end designers won't even look into making good ones: in the 1960/70's when they showed the buying public how sensors and tonearm moving mechanisms can be designed such that the tone arm has literally zero contact with them during play (so any argument "it impedes the arm's free motion" has to be thrown out the window) _it just didn't matter_. *Frankenstein's montser voice*: "Grr, me audiophile. Auto BAD!" 

For setting trim levels the free mics that came with the AVR/prepro are just fine because their error is consistent measurement to measurement, as you said. We don't care so much about being spot on accurate for the absolute level, what we care about is the relative levels. But anything that's "free" or "automatic" must be inherently "bad" and convincing the public otherwise is an uphill battle.



kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, I don't use the term 'golden ears' in a derogatory sense, as it is often used. I mean it in a more literal sense. Some people have amazing listening capabilities. Most, unfortunately, don't, me included.


There's no amount of training or expertise you can give a person to make them "un-hear" the ~5-6 dB insensitivity to sounds in our rear hemisphere of hearing, we* all* share in common, compared to our front hemisphere exposure, largely due to how the outer ear, the pinna, both blocks sounds from the rear causing a "shadow" while simultaneously acting as an acoustical amplifier, a horn [similar to the original hearing aids called "ear trumpets", or how one might cup their ear as in your avatar image] for boosting sounds from the front. Anyone who sits in their MLP and sets their rear speaker levels_ by ear _will unavoidably dial in this error. This seems plain as day to me and what I don't get is why people here aren't understanding this.


----------



## Roger Dressler

showmak said:


> So, when I trigger the pink noise in my RX-3050 should I keep the master volume to “0” and then start adjusting the level of each speaker? And what dB I should adjust to?


If the unit has already calibrated the speaker levels, and you just want to see how well it matches the SPLs at the listening position, set the noise level to a convenient SPL on the meter. (Analog SPL meters are easiest to read at 60 or 70 dB, as 65/75 are at the end of the display range.) Digital SPL meters are equally difficult to read regardless of the absolute level, as they require active brain participation to deduce an average level.  IOW, use any SPL you like as long as it's sufficiently above the noise floor of the room.

Then step the noise through each channel and take a mental note or write them down. How much deviation do you see? Adjust accordingly.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Once again _you_ get it.
> 
> A rule of audiophilia 101, preached by many professional audio reviewers in magazines, is "Whatever is inexpensive and convenient is automatically inferior". Take for example an automatic turntable. True, most that have been released are sort of primitive, mediocre designs but there's a reason high end designers won't even look into making good ones: in the 1960/70's when they showed the buying public how sensors and tonearm moving mechanisms can be designed such that the tone arm has literally zero contact with them during play (so any argument "it impedes the arm's free motion" has to be thrown out the window) _it just didn't matter_. *Frankenstein's montser voice*: "Grr, me audiophile. Auto BAD!"
> 
> For setting trim levels the free mics that came with the AVR/prepro are just fine because their error is consistent measurement to measurement, as you said. We don't care so much about being spot on accurate for the absolute level, what we care about is the relative levels. But anything that's "free" or "automatic" must be inherently "bad" and convincing the public otherwise is an uphill battle.
> 
> 
> There's no amount of training or expertise you can give a person to make them "un-hear" the ~5-6 dB insensitivity to sounds in our rear hemisphere of hearing (we all share in common) compared to our front hemisphere exposure, largely due to how the outer ear, the pinna, both blocks sounds from the rear causing a "shadow", while simultaneously acting as an acoustical amplifier, a horn [similar to the original hearing aids called "ear trumpets", or how one might cup their ear as in your avatar image] for boosting sounds from the front. Anyone who sits in their MLP and sets their rear speaker levels_ by ear _will unavoidably dial in this error. This seems plain as day to me and what I don't get is why people here aren't understanding this.


I think of one my main points was one which Sanjay and I didn't follow through on much and you raise it in your last paragraph above. That is, the mixer has the same hearing 'deficiencies' *** as everyone else and as such, he hears sounds from behind much less well than sounds from in front. My point was that, because of this, he will have _already _increased the levels from rear surrounds to take account of his hearing deficiency there. So there is no need to raise the levels again - the level we need for a 'balanced' sound has already been baked into the mix. If we additionally boost the rear surrounds, then those sounds will be too loud. 

*** I hesitate to call them 'deficiencies' since they apply to all human beings - maybe 'characteristics' is better. But we all know what I mean I think.


----------



## citsur86

Mrjmc99 said:


> This quote cracks me up "With the addition of Dolby Atmos, Apple said that this makes the Apple TV 4K the only streaming box with support for both 4K and Atmos."
> 
> So the Nvidia shield, Xbox one s, and a handful of other devices don't exist anymore?
> 
> Gotta love apple inventing things that already exist.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk





thrang said:


> I don’t believe you have the quote right, if you are referring to Apple’s keynote...


The quote was "...Apple TV 4K is the only streaming player to be both Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos Certified."
@Mrjmc99 - I don't believe the Nvidia shield nor the Xbox One S is Dolby Vision capable. Roku Ultra is also not Dolby Vision capable. Having said that, they are being strategic with their working. LG OLED TVs, including my B7A can stream Dolby Vision and Atmos, but only from Netflix and via ARC.


----------



## Roger Dressler

On the matter of listeners with hearing loss. Their hearing loss remains the same whether they are in a home theater or a commercial cinema. But let’s not discuss the effects or remedies for hearing loss further as it is tangential to the crux of the discussion on calibration.

On the matter of listeners with atypical HRTFs, such as greater reduction of frequencies > 1 kHz from the rear than others, those listeners have only ever heard their own HRTFs all their lives. Their brains are calibrated to their HRTFs. They hear a certain spectral and spatial balance in nature, and that’s what sounds, err, natural. If the playback system is warped to cancel their HRTFs, the result will no longer sound natural. 



sdurani said:


> We don't know what the mixer was thinking/intending, so we can't use that as the goal of calibration.


Brian Vessa of Sony Pictures put it this way: “What the mixer intended is what he heard.” What I take away from that is our obligation at home is to replicate the sound in the room, not the interpretation in his brain.



sdurani said:


> You're not trying to get "as close as possible" to the rooms where these soundtracks were mixed because you're using Dirac to get much smoother response than any of the cinemas & dubbing stages that Newell measured.


While we certainly are not interested in replicating any response errors as may exist in a given dub stage, our ability to achieve smooth response should not be seen as counter to the goal of accurate soundtrack reproduction.



sdurani said:


> And your target doesn't look like the x-curve. Since you've heard both, which sounds better: your room or Dolby's reference room in Soho? What if I ask someone unbiased, like Roger?


Hehe, he said unbiased…

Anyway, having heard all three rooms in the span of the same week, I’d say Keith’s room sounds more like Dolby’s SF cinema than their Soho cinema, owing to the smoother HF response in SF. What – Dolby’s two best cinemas don’t even sound alike? Let’s take this in perspective – they do sound very much alike overall, spatially, dynamically, bass-ally, just that the top octave is rather bright in Soho and not in SF. 



sdurani said:


> So after all that arguing, I think we can agree that rather than calibrate to any of the above goals, we should be calibrating to a reference standard; even if the people creating the content aren't as successful at getting there. But what if the standard is a range rather than a number?


The SMPTE standard for SPL calibration has no tolerance range. And I would add that ±2 dB would allow for a significant change in balance among the speakers. Just try it yourself. Reduce the surrounds, or just the center channel, by 4 dB.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> That is, the mixer has the same hearing 'deficiencies' *** as everyone else and as such, he hears sounds from behind much less well than sounds from in front. My point was that, because of this, he will have _already _increased the levels from rear surrounds to take account of his hearing deficiency there. So there is no need to raise the levels again - the level we need for a 'balanced' sound has already been baked into the mix. If we additionally boost the rear surrounds, then those sounds will be too loud..


^Yup! 

My goal is high fidelity. High truthfulness. High accuracy. Faithful replication to what the artist who made the movie experienced and intended me to experience. I don't want to hype up my surround level by 5 to 6 dB; I want to perfectly replicate it as accurately as possible (within my budget and room constraints). Because this concept is so fundamental it is the topic of my signature.



You are exactly right that the mixer also has a, roughly, 5-6dB insensitivity to sounds from the rear so s/he _already_ dialed in the appropriate, corrective boost when making the movie's mix by ear. Applying the insensitivity to rear sounds correction twice, once by the mixer and once by the listener, is clearly wrong. It artificially makes the home rendition about 5 to 6 dB too loud in the rear compared to what was intended. People are absolutely entitled to do that if that's what they like but they cross a line if they say, "There is no one correct rear level for high fidelity." Thanks to home calibration and embedded test signals in the hardware/software, designed to address this very topic, _there is._


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> What I take away from that is our obligation at home is to replicate the sound in the room, not the interpretation in his brain.


IF we know how it sounds in his room.


> While we certainly are not interested in replicating any response errors as may exist in a given dub stage, our ability to achieve smooth response should not be seen as counter to the goal of accurate soundtrack reproduction.


It's not a matter of being counter, just getting within tolerance. If something was built down to the inch, what do you gain by creating one at home down to the millimeter? You could be off by a few millimeters and still be within range of the original.


> Hehe, he said unbiased…


To the extent that it was Keith's home theatre, not yours.


> Just try it yourself.


The difference is audible, otherwise why tweak levels. But does that tweak mean you've gone from calibrated to free-for-all? Especially when that calibration was done with imperfect instruments. When you used to use XTZ to measure, each "measurement" was an average of 3 successive sweeps, because the same microphone in the same location could yield different results with each sweep. I don't see these numbers as absolutes in the real world. YMMV.


----------



## howard68

It is still very frustrating that to get Dolby Atmos and dolby vision is so hard
I am about to get an X box just to get access to Dolby Atmos 
Why is it not standard across the streaming devices


----------



## J_P_A

@Roger Dressler, thanks for the well thought out post!

This whole business just bugs me. On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense that the mixers (and in my experience it seems to be the majority of them) would make the rears noticeably lower. Is this something they're taught in "mixing school," and there is some fundamental reason for it? Is it something that's a result of the tools the mixers are using, e.g., their mixing software just says take this sound at X dB and pan it to the back, and the mixer doesn't actually consider it any further than that?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

From initial feedback, it seems like Disney has borked yet another Dolby Atmos mix. This time, it's The Incredibles UHD Blu-ray. Since they left the previous DTS MA 5.1 track on the disc, this is painfully obvious.

WTF is going on over there??


----------



## Tomas2

sdurani said:


> ... Especially when that calibration was done with imperfect instruments.


Members on this forum can rest assured that pro grade mixing rooms are carefully calibrated to within a fraction of a dB. The target maybe different, but the match is very tight.

*Blind Testing a 1 dB Level Difference*
https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=1

Per the 440 Hz test tone, most will find that they can perceive a 1 dB delta. Some may note it easier to hear an increase vs a decrease. Most (using the tab atop the page) will find it very difficult to perceive .5 dB change. Now this is with a tone, with pink noise the threshold will be significantly lower 

When calibrating, each speaker is solo-ed (with pink noise) and the SPL meter is pointed directly at the speaker, using this method and a pro meter, end result will typically resolve to a 1 dB match. Like the meter my head is not in a vice, one can achieve .5 dB match or *better*.

The meter gets you to the target SPL, and the superior response of our ear/brain can further refine the match. Typical targets 79-85 dBSPL.


----------



## m. zillch

Before this field was called "audio" it was called "high fidelity". Before that it was called "sound reproduction". Our goal is to reproduce sound, not alter it. 

Here's an analogy with image not sound: A copier machine [old people like me call it a Xerox  ]. It is an "image reproduction" machine. Say you have a photograph by a famous photographer, say Ansel Adams, and you want to duplicate it with the machine to proudly hang in your home because you respect the photographer's art. Do you want the copy to be discernably different or do you want it to be so good and so accurate, with such great_ fidelity _that no matter how closely you look at it with the unaided eye you just can't tell which is the copy and which is original? Clearly the answer is the latter.

Now a person comes along and says "I have invented the world's best image copier, it is essentially "perfect" to the eye, and I can provide whatever evidence to back that claim you request, but there is a stipulation for use: you are forbidden to ever compare the copy to the original in the same room, side by side. The rule is you must only compare them by memory, looking at one, then traveling into another room to view the other. Do this as much as you please.

Question: Does our goal of perfect, indistinguishable replication now get thrown out the window and instead we resort to "I like to apply salt and pepper to taste so my copies have a certain sharpness, contrast, shadow detail, and vividness I find most pleasing"?_ Heck no!_ 

Just because direct comparisons in audio are also usually difficult because we can't get our hands on the original master/room doesn't mean the ideal goal of as perfect reproduction as is humanly possible should be abandoned.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> ^Yup!
> 
> My goal is high fidelity. High truthfulness. High accuracy. Faithful replication to what the artist who made the movie experienced and intended me to experience. I don't want to hype up my surround level by 5 to 6 dB; I want to perfectly replicate it as accurately as possible (within my budget and room constraints). Because this concept is so fundamental it is the topic of my signature.


I love that signature. It sums up my own position very well. As you may have guessed from my reference to Quad's old strapline (the closest approach to the original sound), I've been messing about with hi-fi for a good many decades, and that strapline has always been my goal. Have I always achieved it? No, of course not. Does that stop me from trying to achieve it? No, of course not. But like you, what I want to hear is what the creators of the content wanted me to hear. As Roger lucidly puts it - not what they heard, for that is impossible. But what the sound in the room at the time was. Sometimes, I may not like what I hear, but that's just tough. I'd rather hear all the warts and all than add my own 'gloss' to the sound (like the tube amp guys sometimes want to do). Sure you can get a 'pleasant sound' that way, even from bad recordings. But when you change the content like that, to sound 'nice', you also lose the great joy of the truly excellent recordings, because you have also made them sound 'nice' too. Just give me the greatest transparency to the source as I can get and I am happy. 




m. zillch said:


> You are exactly right that the mixer also has a, roughly, 5-6dB insensitivity to sounds from the rear so s/he _already_ dialed in the appropriate, corrective boost when making the movie's mix by ear. Applying the insensitivity to rear sounds correction twice, once by the mixer and once by the listener, is clearly wrong. It artificially makes the home rendition about 5 to 6 dB too loud in the rear compared to what was intended. People are absolutely entitled to do that if that's what they like but they cross a line if they say, "There is no one correct rear level for high fidelity." Thanks to home calibration and embedded test signals in the hardware/software, designed to address this very topic, _there is._


To quote you - "Yup!"


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> From initial feedback, it seems like Disney has borked yet another Dolby Atmos mix. This time, it's The Incredibles UHD Blu-ray. Since they left the previous DTS MA 5.1 track on the disc, this is painfully obvious.
> 
> WTF is going on over there??


That's disappointing! Indeed, as Vince Lombardi so eloquently asked, _*"What the hell's going on out here?"*_ 

I bought from the Kaleidescape store and downloaded to my Kaleidescape system the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _The Incredibles_ earlier today and will watch tonight. Disney butchered the _Black Panther_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. It didn't entirely ruin my listening experience but was disappointing anyway. Fingers crossed that the soundtrack for _The Incredibles_ is better than that. I will report my impressions after I watch my copy of _The Incredibles._


----------



## kbarnes701

J_P_A said:


> @Roger Dressler, thanks for the well thought out post!
> 
> This whole business just bugs me. On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense that the mixers (and in my experience it seems to be the majority of them) would make the rears noticeably lower. Is this something they're taught in "mixing school," and there is some fundamental reason for it? Is it something that's a result of the tools the mixers are using, e.g., their mixing software just says take this sound at X dB and pan it to the back, and the mixer doesn't actually consider it any further than that?


Mixing is an art more than a science IMO. That is why there are great mixers and not-so-great mixers. It is a subjective process. They take the sounds provided to them and they, well, _mix _them together to achieve a whole, to achieve something that sounds 'right' to them and which, in their view, reflects the intent of the Director. If they feel that the rear surrounds need to be louder in a particular scene, to do justice to the Director's vision, then they make them louder. To achieve this, they use their ears. They don't need to use instruments because the room they are working in has been _calibrated_. Well, that's what I think they do anyway  As we have our very own, very good mixer in the thread(and one of the few to 'get' Atmos right from the get-go IMO, I am sure he will jump in to correct me, or to add the things I will have missed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> From initial feedback, it seems like Disney has borked yet another Dolby Atmos mix. This time, it's The Incredibles UHD Blu-ray. Since they left the previous DTS MA 5.1 track on the disc, this is painfully obvious.
> 
> WTF is going on over there??


Who knows? And additionally their tracks for* Black Panther* and the latest* Star Wars *movie are recorded several dB lower than they should be, requiring the listener to turn up the MV way beyond where it normally sits. OK, not the end of the world, but why?

I was really, really looking forward to *Incredibles 2* so reading your remarks are especially saddening to me. All I can say is WTF!


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> That's disappointing! Indeed, as Vince Lombardi so eloquently asked, _*"What the hell's going on out here?"*_
> 
> I bought from the Kaleidescape store and downloaded to my Kaleidescape system the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _The Incredibles_ earlier today and will watch tonight. Disney butchered the _Black Panther_ TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. It didn't entirely ruin my listening experience but was disappointing anyway. Fingers crossed that the soundtrack for _The Incredibles_ is better than that. I will report my impressions after I watch my copy of _The Incredibles._


I haven't got *Black Panther* yet as it isn't yet released in the UK, but I have it on pre-order. How bad is the sound? I have read that it is just a very low level, but is there anything else amiss? I often find Disney tracks to be bass-light and somehow unsatisfying. In fact, I may even just stop buying them altogether as they usually disappoint me recently.


----------



## Roger Dressler

J_P_A said:


> This whole business just bugs me. On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense that the mixers (and in my experience it seems to be the majority of them) would make the rears noticeably lower. Is this something they're taught in "mixing school," and there is some fundamental reason for it? Is it something that's a result of the tools the mixers are using, e.g., their mixing software just says take this sound at X dB and pan it to the back, and the mixer doesn't actually consider it any further than that?


Well, it is true that mixers do focus on what's on the screen. That's where the action is. There's no conspiracy in schools or in the mixing tools. If Mozart were mixing movies, he'd say: "There is just as much surround, Majesty, as required. Neither more nor less." 

It may be worth nothing that until Atmos, cinemas have 3 dB less peak output capability in the surround channels than the screen channels. And weaker bass in some cases. That would not impede the mixer from panning a mid-level sound around the room at equal levels -- the flying bird for example.


----------



## m. zillch

J_P_A said:


> This whole business just bugs me. On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense that the mixers (and in my experience it seems to be the majority of them) would make the rears noticeably lower. Is this something they're taught in "mixing school," and there is some fundamental reason for it? Is it something that's a result of the tools the mixers are using, e.g., their mixing software just says take this sound at X dB and pan it to the back, and the mixer doesn't actually consider it any further than that?


If I could step in I'll tell you that as new technologies arrive there is push from the marketing department to tell the engineers to hype it up to bash listeners over the head to be sure they can, um, "appreciate it".

When stereo was introduced many criticized it as being "pink pong stereo". "Look everyone, now the sound is from the left! Look, now its from the right!" It took some time before the engineers learned how to make things realistic.

When subs became _de rigeur_ we had too much boom [in fact many customers I've dealt with fundamentally think "Oh no, not for me; I hate those boomy, one-note, cars that sound like junk. Subs are bad." [Sad that the misuse and poor calibration of them can give them a bad name.  ]

When surround came to be there were many examples of "Look everyone, doesn't it sound like we are in a cathedral?. . . For every single scene. Cool!"

A rule of thumb that some followed, *before we had calibration to do it right*, was to follow the "less is more rule". In a nutshell, if you are consciously aware your sub is making noise and the surrounds are making noise, *constantly* throughout the entire movie, then you almost certainly have them running too hot (high level). A simplistic workaround was to use the "take it away trick": Dial them in to the highest level possible where although you can't quite pick them out as distinct sound sources you *do* notice when they are quickly severed via a kill switch. 

This is one of the reasons why I have an _instantaneous_ kill switch on my sub so I can instantly kill it, and then bring it back without turn on delay, without having to negotiate any on screen menus nor memorize any sub trim levels I've set. I use one of these for this purpose and ignore the video ports. I highly recommended it to all.


----------



## VideoGrabber

ggsantafe said:


> However - let's consider this - not all of us have the same hearing deficiencies. I had my hearing tested about a year ago, and the results indicated that my left ear did not hear a certain range of frequencies as well as my right ear. So - wouldn't it make sense for me to fiddle with my calibrated results and boost speaker levels on and above the left side of my room to compensate for "my" hearing deficiencies.


Not really. 

The reason is that you experience the world through whatever hearing loss you have. That is what's 'normal' to you. If it is deficient, then _you should correct your overall hearing_... not try to compensate for it with your HT audio system. That may make more sense if you were using headphones.

Note I said "should". Of course you don't have to, especially if you watch movies in your HT all by yourself. In a group, such modifications then subject everyone else to boosted bands that may sound harsh or excessive to them, just to balance out your losses. Does that sound like a good idea?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> From initial feedback, it seems like Disney has borked yet another Dolby Atmos mix. This time, it's The Incredibles UHD Blu-ray.


Low volume level? Pre-rendered? Compressed dynamics? Rolled off bass? Or all of the above?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Low volume level? Pre-rendered? Compressed dynamics? Rolled off bass? Or all of the above?


Volume, dynamics, bass, surround activity. 

I would have no idea if it's another print-out since I'm not a Trinnov owner, but I would bet it is going from past Disney tracks.


----------



## enricoclaudio

Mrjmc99 said:


> This quote cracks me up "With the addition of Dolby Atmos, Apple said that this makes the Apple TV 4K the only streaming box with support for both 4K and Atmos."
> 
> So the Nvidia shield, Xbox one s, and a handful of other devices don't exist anymore?
> 
> Gotta love apple inventing things that already exist.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk





thrang said:


> I don’t believe you have the quote right, if you are referring to Apple’s keynote...


Apple's keynote was referring to Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, which is totally true due the fact that the Apple TV 4K is the only streaming device that supports DV and Atmos.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> It's not a matter of being counter, just getting within tolerance. If something was built down to the inch, what do you gain by creating one at home down to the millimeter? You could be off by a few millimeters and still be within range of the original.


I'm quite happy to see home theaters that sound better than cinemas. We do not need to replicate the undesirable characteristics of PA speakers, nor the background noise of an audience, nor the bass leakage from the neighbor, in order to properly replicate a movie soundtrack. Which is not to say dub stages suffer in these ways -- I suspect most do not. I’m just saying to the extent room EQ does a better job smoothing responses, it’s all good for the end result.



> The difference is audible, otherwise why tweak levels. But does that tweak mean you've gone from calibrated to free-for-all?


No. "Free for all" is probably an extreme version of uncalibrated. Possibly you've gone from calibrated to uncalibrated -- but maybe not. Maybe the calibration is not correct.

One of the things that seems to have remained true over many years is that once a room has been calibrated, one should not declare it is “done” until one listens to it rigorously. There’s just no substitute. If what you’re saying is that yes, you’ve played those familiar panned excerpts in many a room and have encountered cases where the surrounds were too recessed, and clicking them up a dB or 2 brought them into the norm, I would highly endorse that intervention. Then I'd see if there is some reason the "calibration" process failed to achieve that result.



> When you used to use XTZ to measure, each "measurement" was an average of 3 successive sweeps, because the same microphone in the same location could yield different results with each sweep.


If the measurement hardware or process are insufficient or improper, all bets are off. I have been assuming the SPL measurements are being done correctly, which is, admittedly, a significant assumption, one that bears further discussion wrt to mic placement, averaging time, and frequency range. Though probably not in this thread.


----------



## aron7awol

sdurani said:


> They're accurate to the extent they show that the Tops are splitting the L/C/Rs and are between the Fronts, Sides & Rears. They're not accurate to the pixel. I posted them to show two things: no indication of a listener location and no indication of 45/45 placement. Yes, which is why the Atmos install guide continues to use them even if they deviate from the rendering assumptions or result in surrounds being lower than at typical mixing stages. Yes, the entire thing is an abstraction. Imagine two planes: the base layer is 0 and the height layer is 1. The four corners of the base layer are the Fronts and Rears. Between them are the Centre, the Sides, and the Centre Rear. Two speakers fill each gap between those 8 speakers for a total of 24 speakers in the base layer.
> 
> The height layer has 5 pairs, with each pair evenly spaced from front to back (y = 0, .25, .5, .75, 1). The left/right arrays split the gaps between the L/C/Rs (x = .25 & .75). Where you place an object in an Atmos cinema is where it ends up in a home Atmos set-up. If a sound is supposed to image between the L and C speakers, it will image at that location, irrespective of where the listener is.


Do you actually know that all of this is true, though? Do you actually know that these are the assumptions that the renderer is making, or are you yourself making assumptions based on the GUI representations? As I've asked before, can you please post the documentation which actually states this? The only documentation I've seen is that Atmos is based on Dolby AC-4, which is based on the ITU layouts.



sdurani said:


> Understand that your idea of compromise is someone else's idea of sounding good. Not a question of right or wrong, just different priorities. That's a valid approach and one that was attractive to me initially. After all, you have to place speakers somewhere; why not place them were the renderer expects them to be. Sounds logical. Besides, not like it would be more difficult or costs more to place them at a rendering assumptions that some place else.
> 
> But what if someone tried it and found alternate placement that they preferred? Unlike you, maybe matching the renderer's assumptions is not the most important thing. Their highest priority might be enjoyment; even at the expense of "accuracy".


My highest priority actually is enjoyment, as well. It's just that, in my experience, the best accuracy has equaled the most enjoyment. In this particular case, I have tried "in line with the mains" and I have tried 45/45, and the latter is far more enjoyable.


----------



## showmak

Roger Dressler said:


> If the unit has already calibrated the speaker levels, and you just want to see how well it matches the SPLs at the listening position, set the noise level to a convenient SPL on the meter. (Analog SPL meters are easiest to read at 60 or 70 dB, as 65/75 are at the end of the display range.) Digital SPL meters are equally difficult to read regardless of the absolute level, as they require active brain participation to deduce an average level.  IOW, use any SPL you like as long as it's sufficiently above the noise floor of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> Then step the noise through each channel and take a mental note or write them down. How much deviation do you see? Adjust accordingly.


Thank you Roger for the explanation.


----------



## showmak

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't got *Black Panther* yet as it isn't yet released in the UK, but I have it on pre-order. How bad is the sound? I have read that it is just a very low level, but is there anything else amiss? I often find Disney tracks to be bass-light and somehow unsatisfying. In fact, I may even just stop buying them altogether as they usually disappoint me recently.


The audio is very weak and the bass is not as punchy as other movies. I needed to increase the volume by 10 dB to get close to other movies, however the audio gets louder but it still lacks dynamics.


----------



## m. zillch

I think a pertinent question is when the mixer rotates a knob, moves a slider, draws on a graphics tablet, or whatever it is they do to make the sound of the helicopter (or whatever) fly around the back hemisphere from L ear to R ear, does it or does it not automatically insert any level and/or average human HRTF EQ correction based on its direction? That is, does the system act agnostically and ignores known, common HRTFs (such as lowered sensitivity to rear sounds)?

@Roger Dressler, might you know? Thanks.


----------



## aron7awol

kbarnes701 said:


> That is, the mixer has the same hearing 'deficiencies' *** as everyone else and as such, he hears sounds from behind much less well than sounds from in front. My point was that, because of this, he will have _already _increased the levels from rear surrounds to take account of his hearing deficiency there. So there is no need to raise the levels again - the level we need for a 'balanced' sound has already been baked into the mix. If we additionally boost the rear surrounds, then those sounds will be too loud.
> 
> *** I hesitate to call them 'deficiencies' since they apply to all human beings - maybe 'characteristics' is better. But we all know what I mean I think.


The other part of this is that maybe the mixer didn't (and probably shouldn't) increase the levels of or use specific EQ on his rear surrounds to counteract his human hearing "deficiency". After all, in the real world, when an object making a sound at a constant volume moves behind us, that is exactly what it sounds like to us, "deficiency" and all.


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> The only documentation I've seen is that Atmos is based on Dolby AC-4, which is based on the ITU layouts.


Atmos predates AC-4, which is an ultra low bit rate audio compression technology (same quality as DD+ at half the bitrate). One isn't based on the other. 

Don't know if you've looked through the Atmos production suite guide, but it shows how objects are encoded. Atmos is an encode/decode technology. If objects aren't encoded with angles relative to the listener then those aspects aren't relevant during decoding (rendering). 

http://developerdownload.dolby.com/docs/Dolby_Atmos_Production_Suite_guide.pdf


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> The other part of this is that maybe the mixer didn't (and probably shouldn't) increase the levels of or use specific EQ on his rear surrounds to counteract his human hearing "deficiency". After all, in the real world, when an object making a sound at a constant volume moves behind us, that is exactly what it sounds like to us, "deficiency" and all.


That's a good point I was going to bring up once I got a comment on what Atmos does. It may be that we come to expect a drop of 5 to 6 dB from the back and if it does *not* occur we experience it as "although I can no longer see it, the object sounds like it has moved in closer to me".


----------



## aron7awol

sdurani said:


> Atmos predates AC-4, which is an ultra low bit rate audio compression technology (same quality as DD+ at half the bitrate). One isn't based on the other.


AC-4 also includes immersive audio and uses the ITU layouts:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103100_103199/10319002/01.01.01_60/ts_10319002v010101p.pdf

If Atmos is not actually based on AC-4, then I accept that.



sdurani said:


> Don't know if you've looked through the Atmos production suite guide, but it shows how objects are encoded. Atmos is an encode/decode technology. If objects aren't encoded with angles relative to the listener then those aspects aren't relevant during decoding (rendering).
> 
> http://developerdownload.dolby.com/docs/Dolby_Atmos_Production_Suite_guide.pdf


I've read that production suite guide cover-to-cover multiple times. Please don't re-hash the same argument re:angles.

Here's the question I keep asking: Do you have any proof of any assumptions that the Atmos renderer is making in regards to position of speakers (whether that is in terms of angle relative to a LP, position relative to each other, or anything else), or are your own assumptions solely based on the GUI representations of speaker layouts in the Atmos mixing software? You threw out many assumptions as far as speakers being assumed by the renderer to be halfway between others, or splitting the room up equally, etc. Do you have any actual proof of any of that? If you do, great, but please share it!


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> I think a pertinent question is when the mixer rotates a knob, moves a slider, draws on a graphics tablet, or whatever it is they do to make the sound of the helicopter (or whatever) fly around the back hemisphere from L ear to R ear, does it or does it not automatically insert any level and/or average human HRTF EQ correction based on its direction? That is, does the system act agnostically and ignores known, common HRTFs (such as lowered sensitivity to rear sounds)?


There are no human compensations built in to these surround panners. Every output channel is treated equally.


----------



## m. zillch

Roger Dressler said:


> There are no human compensations built in to these surround panners. Every output channel is treated equally.


Excellent info. Thanks.
---

Sdurani and J_P_A, I believe you were some of the people mentioning the circling helicopter is "too quiet" when in the rear of the theater, yes? Assuming Mr. Dressler's info is correct then the level for the helicopter _should be_ _perceived_ as lower when it swings around the back half of the theater. This is because typical humans have a lowered sensitivity to rear sounds especially at our most sensitive frequencies 3.5-4kHz.

This lower _*perceived*_ loudness should also be true:

A) In a commercial cinema playing that scene
B) In real life when a helicopter flies around behind you yet stays at the same distance

That's how I see it at least.


----------



## Roger Dressler

aron7awol said:


> Here's the question I keep asking: Do you have any proof of any assumptions that the Atmos renderer is making in regards to position of speakers (whether that is in terms of angle relative to a LP, position relative to each other, or anything else), or are your own assumptions solely based on the GUI representations of speaker layouts in the Atmos mixing software?


I hope Sanjay does not mind me chiming in, but just wanted to say that yes, the Atmos renderer has certain known relationships between coordinates and speakers. For example, in the theatrical format (cube of +/-100) xyz of (0,100,0) points to the center speaker. All main speakers are at Z=0. All ceiling speakers are at z=100. All Left side speakers have x=-100, and Right side are x=100. Etc.

L,C,R speakers are always defined for all 3 dimensions. Speakers in the surround arrays have two dimensions standardized, but the third remains to be determined during the cinema installation process, so that the renderer will know where each speaker lives. 

Dolby does not publish a chart showing the coordinates of the speakers, as a) this depends somewhat on the installation as just mentioned, and b) it is not important for anyone to know. However, it can be seen when operating the panner. 

Is this at all what you were looking for?


----------



## aron7awol

Roger Dressler said:


> I hope Sanjay does not mind me chiming in, but just wanted to say that yes, the Atmos renderer has certain known relationships between coordinates and speakers. For example, in the theatrical format (cube of +/-100) xyz of (0,100,0) points to the center speaker. All main speakers are at Z=0. All ceiling speakers are at z=100. All Left side speakers have x=-100, and Right side are x=100. Etc.
> 
> L,C,R speakers are always defined for all 3 dimensions. Speakers in the surround arrays have two dimensions standardized, but the third remains to be determined during the cinema installation process, so that the renderer will know where each speaker lives.
> 
> Dolby does not publish a chart showing the coordinates of the speakers, as a) this depends somewhat on the installation as just mentioned, and b) it is not important for anyone to know. However, it can be seen when operating the panner.
> 
> Is this at all what you were looking for?


Partially, yes, but the speakers I am most interested in are Top Fronts and Top Rears. I understand that they are z=100, but what about x and y?


----------



## Mrjmc99

I pulled it straight from the linked article a few posts up, maybe they had it wrong there. I didn't watch or read the keynote.


thrang said:


> I don’t believe you have the quote right, if you are referring to Apple’s keynote...


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mrjmc99

This is true, I believe the quote was misrepresented in the article linked above. Fake news 

I will agree that none of the devices I referred to support dolby vision yet, so that would be a true statement, but won't really matter if you are forced to buy everything through the iTunes store, a large portion of the users out there won't want to do that, but others will, so it has its place.


citsur86 said:


> The quote was "...Apple TV 4K is the only streaming player to be both Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos Certified."
> 
> @Mrjmc99 - I don't believe the Nvidia shield nor the Xbox One S is Dolby Vision capable. Roku Ultra is also not Dolby Vision capable. Having said that, they are being strategic with their working. LG OLED TVs, including my B7A can stream Dolby Vision and Atmos, but only from Netflix and via ARC.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't got *Black Panther* yet as it isn't yet released in the UK, but I have it on pre-order. How bad is the sound? I have read that it is just a very low level, but is there anything else amiss? I often find Disney tracks to be bass-light and somehow unsatisfying. In fact, I may even just stop buying them altogether as they usually disappoint me recently.


I didn't think the TrueHD Atmos audio for _Black Panther_ was bad but did think it could have been a lot better. I generally watch films with my AVR set at -10 dB below reference. Because I had been forewarned, I watched _Black Panther_ at -5 dB below reference. That worked reasonably well, although I thought the dynamic range could have been better. Bottom line, the movie was so much fun and looked so good that I forgave its audio for its failings.

Fearing the worst, I watched _The Incredibles_ earlier and thought its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack was a bit better than the _Black Panther_ audio was. I set my AVR at -7-5 below reference and that worked reasonably well. In the scenes with lots of action, the audio almost always had excellent LFE as well as effective surround and immersive effects. My only complaint was, I regretted that the mixer had not given us that sort of thing a little more frequently. Anyway, Disney or not, both soundtracks are just fine. They could have been better, though.


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> Sdurani and J_P_A, I believe you were some of the people mentioning the circling helicopter is "too quiet" when in the rear of the theater, yes? Assuming Mr. Dressler's info is correct then the level for the helicopter _should be_ _perceived_ as lower when it swings around the back half of the theater. This is because typical humans have a lowered sensitivity to rear sounds especially at our most sensitive frequencies 3.5-4kHz.


If you have the Dolby Atmos demo disc, that helicopter demo track is quite useful. Normally it circulates in the height speakers, but if you turn them off, it makes a smooth circle through the main speakers. It should measure and sound very even throughout. It does so here, FWIW.


----------



## Roger Dressler

aron7awol said:


> Partially, yes, but the speakers I am most interested in are Top Fronts and Top Rears. I understand that they are z=100, but what about x and y?


I believe the x would be +/- 50 for the Tsr/Tsl respectively, but I do not know what the endpoints are for any arrays.


----------



## imureh

gwsat said:


> I didn't think the TrueHD Atmos audio for _Black Panther_ was bad but did think it could have been a lot better. I generally watch films with my AVR set at -10 dB below reference. Because I had been forewarned, I watched _Black Panther_ at -5 dB below reference. That worked reasonably well, although I thought the dynamic range could have been better. Bottom line, the movie was so much fun and looked so good that I forgave its audio for its failings.
> 
> 
> 
> Fearing the worst, I watched _The Incredibles_ earlier and thought its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack was a bit better than the _Black Panther_ audio was. I set my AVR at -7-5 below reference and that worked reasonably well. In the scenes with lots of action, the audio almost always had excellent LFE as well as effective surround and immersive effects. My only complaint was, I regretted that the mixer had not given us that sort of thing a little more frequently. Anyway, Disney or not, both soundtracks are just fine. They could have been better, though.




I thought so too that it was mixed quite low. Good to know that others with powerful subs are feeling the same 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

I plan on winning the lottery next week so I can fly Sanjay, Keith, and Roger in when it's time to calibrate my audio. You've been forewarned.


----------



## thrang

Mrjmc99 said:


> This is true, I believe the quote was misrepresented in the article linked above. Fake news
> 
> I will agree that none of the devices I referred to support dolby vision yet, so that would be a true statement, but won't really matter if you are forced to buy everything through the iTunes store, a large portion of the users out there won't want to do that, but others will, so it has its place.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


Why would you be forced to buy everything through the iTunes Store?


----------



## Shizzlenits

Noob question time...

So with regard to Atmos and DTS-X upscaling from standard 5.1/7.1 sources... are there any receivers that have a setting to do this "automatically" without manually selecting the option? My A/V equipment is in a closet so it's kind of a pain to change stuff like that. All my movies are run from a Plex server, and my rips only have one audio track (the highest available on the disc). 

I'm in the market for a new receiver, and I'd like one that would automatically upscale, say, Inception, to Atmos (or DTS-X) if I select it from my Plex library. Is this possible? If so, is it any receiver, or are there specific models that do this?


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> Do you have any proof of any assumptions that the Atmos renderer is making in regards to position of speakers (whether that is in terms of angle relative to a LP, position relative to each other, or anything else), or are your own assumptions solely based on the GUI representations of speaker layouts in the Atmos mixing software?


The only other resource is the Atmos SDK (software developers kit), which I am not allowed to post. Meanwhile, you can always confirm with Dolby:


kbarnes701 said:


> Very lucid explanation Sanjay. I know we have seen these diagrams before, but I, for one, had kinda forgotten about them and it's good to get a 'refresher' on it. I remember this question being raised at the presser in Dolby, London, and their tech guy, JJ, explaining it much the same as you did above, making it clear that chasing down 'angles' was a red herring.


----------



## kbarnes701

showmak said:


> The audio is very weak and the bass is not as punchy as other movies. I needed to increase the volume by 10 dB to get close to other movies, however the audio gets louder but it still lacks dynamics.


Thanks. Much like the other Disney movies then. Such a pity.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I didn't think the TrueHD Atmos audio for _Black Panther_ was bad but did think it could have been a lot better. I generally watch films with my AVR set at -10 dB below reference. Because I had been forewarned, I watched _Black Panther_ at -5 dB below reference. That worked reasonably well, although I thought the dynamic range could have been better. Bottom line, the movie was so much fun and looked so good that I forgave its audio for its failings.
> 
> Fearing the worst, I watched _The Incredibles_ earlier and thought its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack was a bit better than the _Black Panther_ audio was. I set my AVR at -7-5 below reference and that worked reasonably well. In the scenes with lots of action, the audio almost always had excellent LFE as well as effective surround and immersive effects. My only complaint was, I regretted that the mixer had not given us that sort of thing a little more frequently. Anyway, Disney or not, both soundtracks are just fine. They could have been better, though.


Thanks for the info. I may cancel my Black Panther pre-order then and wait until it is in the bargain bin before I buy it. I'll stick with Incredibles 2 because I have been waiting a long time for a sequel!


----------



## sdurani

aron7awol said:


> Partially, yes, but the speakers I am most interested in are Top Fronts and Top Rears. I understand that they are z=100, but what about x and y?


Your own common sense and simple math will give you the answers. Atmos is, if anything, symmetrical. All the GUIs show the height arrays splitting the L/C/Rs, meaning that they're at the quarter points. There's your x. They're evenly spaced front to back, which puts the TF/TR speakers also at quarter points. There's your y. You can plug that into the cinema or home numbering system to get coordinates. Nothing more complicated than that.


----------



## howard68

So the incredibleis uhd has a bad Atmos lite mix ?


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for the info. I may cancel my Black Panther pre-order then and wait until it is in the bargain bin before I buy it. I'll stick with Incredibles 2 because I have been waiting a long time for a sequel!


Keep in mind that _Incredibles 2_ is a Disney movie too. This mean's it's a good bet that its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack will be somewhat disappointing. That said, I'll probably buy it anyway because of Brad Bird's track record and the film's stellar cast.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Shizzlenits said:


> So with regard to Atmos and DTS-X upscaling from standard 5.1/7.1 sources... are there any receivers that have a setting to do this "automatically" without manually selecting the option? My A/V equipment is in a closet so it's kind of a pain to change stuff like that. All my movies are run from a Plex server, and my rips only have one audio track (the highest available on the disc).
> 
> I'm in the market for a new receiver, and I'd like one that would automatically upscale, say, Inception, to Atmos (or DTS-X) if I select it from my Plex library. Is this possible? If so, is it any receiver, or are there specific models that do this?


Most AVRs will let you express your default upmixing preference for both stereo and multichannel sources. You can select among Dolby Surround, Neural:X, and usually a couple others depending on the AVR. But you cannot select Atmos or DTS:X, as those are native immersive formats, not upmixers.


----------



## Shizzlenits

Roger Dressler said:


> Most AVRs will let you express your default upmixing preference for both stereo and multichannel sources. You can select among Dolby Surround, Neural:X, and usually a couple others depending on the AVR. But you cannot select Atmos or DTS:X, as those are native immersive formats, not upmixers.


Perfect! My old Yamaha 5.1 receiver doesn't have any such automatic upmixing preferences. That is great to hear.

I'm specifically looking at the Denon X4400H and Marantz SR6012. Is it safe to assume that either of these AVR's have this automatic upmixing preference?


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Keep in mind that _Incredibles 2_ is a Disney movie too. This mean's it's a good bet that its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack will be somewhat disappointing. That said, I'll probably buy it anyway because of Brad Bird's track record and the film's stellar cast.


Yes, I expect it to be less than great sound, but I so want this movie I will overlook it. With *Black Panther*, I am more _meh _over it, so will get it when it's real cheap. 

I've waited 14 years for a follow-up to the *Incredibles *and I won't let Disney deny me it


----------



## kbarnes701

Shizzlenits said:


> Perfect! My old Yamaha 5.1 receiver doesn't have any such automatic upmixing preferences. That is great to hear.
> 
> I'm specifically looking at the Denon X4400H and Marantz SR6012. Is it safe to assume that either of these AVR's have this automatic upmixing preference?


My Marantz does so I assume that one will as well. As Roger says, for genuine Atmos/DTS:X tracks you will have to select it, usually from the menu on the disc.


----------



## Shizzlenits

kbarnes701 said:


> My Marantz does so I assume that one will as well. As Roger says, for genuine Atmos/DTS:X tracks you will have to select it, usually from the menu on the disc.


Huh. I rip my discs with MakeMKV and only select the best audio track to copy. If a film has DTS-X or Atmos, that's the only audio track in the file. Surely I won't still have to select the setting from the AVR, right? I assumed the AVR would just see the Atmos track and play in Atmos, since there is no other audio track in the file.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shizzlenits said:


> Huh. I rip my discs with MakeMKV and only select the top audio track. If a film has DTS-X or Atmos, that's the only audio track in the file. Surely I won't still have to select the setting from the AVR, right? I assumed the AVR would just see the Atmos track and play in Atmos.


No - if you have ripped it and there is only the TrueHD (Atmos) track in the MKV, then it will play automatically (not much choice to do otherwise). So you are good to go.


----------



## Shizzlenits

kbarnes701 said:


> No - if you have ripped it and there is only the TrueHD (Atmos) track in the MKV, then it will play automatically (not much choice to do otherwise). So you are good to go.


Niiiice. So the dream is possible. Select any of my movies in Plex and automatically play with immersive audio, either natively or through upmixing, without having to mess with AVR settings.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shizzlenits said:


> Niiiice. So the dream is possible. Select any of my movies in Plex and automatically play with immersive audio, either natively or through upmixing, without having to mess with AVR settings.


Yep. So long as you don't want to swap upmixers, you will be fully automated


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Yep. So long as you don't want to swap upmixers, you will be fully automated


I think that means (or soon will mean) you can opt for DSU upmixing anytime the source is 7.1 or below, any codec. If you were to set the default to Neural:X, it may not operate when Dolby soundtracks are played.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> I think that means (or soon will mean) you can opt for DSU upmixing anytime the source is 7.1 or below, any codec. If you were to set the default to Neural:X, it may not operate when Dolby soundtracks are played.


Good point. Although it will here, since FW updates on my Marantz have now been disabled 

But who would set the default to Neural:X anyway?


----------



## Roger Dressler

aron7awol said:


> Partially, yes, but the speakers I am most interested in are Top Fronts and Top Rears. I understand that they are z=100, but what about x and y?


Having read the earlier posts, I can see this is headed down the wrong path. What if you knew the exact coordinates of the top speakers? The coordinates are not directly related to the physical locations for the speakers. For example, the Right screen speaker is at (100, 100, 0), the bottom right front corner of the operative coordinate system. Does that mean it is best to place the right speaker in the right corner of the room on the floor? No. So forget about using renderer assumptions to inform speaker positions.

If you are using top speakers, tell the decoder to decode top speakers. Signals are perfect. That's step 1.

Then place the top speakers for best spatial effect for you or your audience. The best location is influenced by many physical factors and preferences (room dimensions, seating area, base speaker locations...). But a great place to start is Dolby's Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines (July 2016). P. 7 states:



> The overhead speakers should be at a height (shown as H3 in Figure 2) between two and three times the vertical position of the listener-level speakers. The angle of elevation from the listening position to the left top front/right top front and left top rear/right top rear overhead speakers in a 7.1.4 reference layout should be 45 degrees. This may be adjusted between 30 and 55 degrees if needed, as shown in Figure 2. Figures 3 and 4 show the preferred locations of the four overhead speakers as seen from above. The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds.


Yes, there are vagaries therein, hence the dozens of pages of AVS chat that ensues.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

m. zillch said:


> If I could step in I'll tell you that as new technologies arrive there is push from the marketing department to tell the engineers to hype it up to bash listeners over the head to be sure they can, um, "appreciate it".
> 
> 
> 
> When stereo was introduced many criticized it as being "pink pong stereo". "Look everyone, now the sound is from the left! Look, now its from the right!" It took some time before the engineers learned how to make things realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> When subs became _de rigeur_ we had too much boom [in fact many customers I've dealt with fundamentally think "Oh no, not for me; I hate those boomy, one-note, cars that sound like junk. Subs are bad." [Sad that the misuse and poor calibration of them can give them a bad name.  ]
> 
> 
> 
> When surround came to be there were many examples of "Look everyone, doesn't it sound like we are in a cathedral?. . . For every single scene. Cool!"
> 
> 
> 
> A rule of thumb that some followed, *before we had calibration to do it right*, was to follow the "less is more rule". In a nutshell, if you are consciously aware your sub is making noise and the surrounds are making noise, *constantly* throughout the entire movie, then you almost certainly have them running too hot (high level). A simplistic workaround was to use the "take it away trick": Dial them in to the highest level possible where although you can't quite pick them out as distinct sound sources you *do* notice when they are quickly severed via a kill switch.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I have an _instantaneous_ kill switch on my sub so I can instantly kill it, and then bring it back without turn on delay, without having to negotiate any on screen menus nor memorize any sub trim levels I've set. I use one of these for this purpose and ignore the video ports. I highly recommended it to all.











lol, made me think of this.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Volume, dynamics, bass, surround activity.
> 
> I would have no idea if it's another print-out since I'm not a Trinnov owner, but I would bet it is going from past Disney tracks.


It's dangerous to assume, but Disney's reputation on Atmos seems to speak for itself so far.

Not going to buy Incredibles, so another Trinnov owner will have to check it for Atmos immersiveness this time.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> nfluenced by many physical factors and preferences (room dimensions, seating area, base speaker locations...). But a great place to start is Dolby's Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines (July 2016). P. 7 states:
> 
> _"The overhead speakers should be at a height (shown as H3 in Figure 2) between two and three times the vertical position of the listener-level speakers. The angle of elevation from the listening position to the left top front/right top front and left top rear/right top rear overhead speakers in a 7.1.4 reference layout should be 45 degrees. This may be adjusted between 30 and 55 degrees if needed, as shown in Figure 2. Figures 3 and 4 show the preferred locations of the four overhead speakers as seen from above. The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds."_
> 
> Yes, there are vagaries therein, hence the dozens of pages of AVS chat that ensues.


Well, that's what I did in the Cowshed. Just followed those guidelines. And it seems to have worked out OK. 

I could follow them pretty much to the letter, due to the room size and layout etc, but it's useful to stress, once again, that Dolby give a *flexible range* of options - _"between two and three times the vertical position", "This may be adjusted between 30 and 55 degrees if needed", " horizontal width should be about the same", "separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width"_. All these 'vagaries' give people considerable scope. I think the big problem, echoed all through this thread, is that people overthink it. Dolby give these ranges, presumably, because Atmos will work pretty well regardless of where in the range you fall. Obsessing over millimetres is futile IMO. HST, obviously, like I did, if you can get the precise layout, then go for it. If you can't, and are within those ranges, then go for that, sit back and enjoy.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> It's dangerous to assume, but Disney's reputation on Atmos seems to speak for itself so far.
> 
> Not going to buy Incredibles, so another Trinnov owner will have to check it for Atmos immsersiveness this time.


Oh Stuart! I really think you should take one for the team on this  Now I will have to buy the disc 'blind'.


----------



## howard68

Just watched the incredibles and think it was a big missed opportunity 
I am going to listen to it from my blu ray and see if it is better !!
Really want to know if it used FW ?
And bass seemed off


----------



## m. zillch

Roger Dressler said:


> If you have the Dolby Atmos demo disc,.


I don't, however the fact that helicopters have a _strong_ bass content may change matters compared to things with higher frequency content because our lowered sensitivity to rear sounds isn't 5 to 6 dB for frequencies under 1 kHz:



m. zillch said:


> here too for this person's right ear:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Note the scale used in this graph is different. Each concentric ring is still a 5 dB change but the outer ring here is "10".]


On this demo disc is there provided text or instructions which suggest, paraphrased, "Use the sound of the helicopter to adjust your rear speaker levels"? Or is it merely one of several "check this out" sort of demo sequences?


----------



## Mrjmc99

If they limit atmos to only work on the iTunes store.


thrang said:


> Why would you be forced to buy everything through the iTunes Store?


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh Stuart! I really think you should take one for the team on this  Now I will have to but the disc 'blind'.


I can't buy everything  . We OD'd on Incredibles when it first came out with a young child at the time. And my wife would kill me if I bought this and our pre-K son got addicted to it. We have another trouble with him getting obsessed with the two Ghostbusters films after I bought the UHDs for the better picture and Atmos...


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> For example, the Right screen speaker is at (100, 100, *0*), the bottom right front corner of the operative coordinate system. Does that mean it is best to place the right speaker in the right corner of the room on the *floor*? No.


Just a quick reminder that z = 0 is the base layer, not the floor. In the home Atmos numbering system, the floor is -1 to signify that 0 is above it. Since it is an abstraction, the base layer can be at ear height or above ear height or even a tilted plane (e.g., if you have stadium seating) or trapezoidal shaped (if the Fronts & Rears have different spread). Also, the corners of the base layer need not be the corners of the room.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think the big problem, echoed all through this thread, is that people overthink it.


That used to be me, a few years back in this thread.


kbarnes701 said:


> Now I will have to but the disc 'blind'.


Do what to the disc?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I can't buy everything  .


Pah! I won't take this from the Trinnov-owning classes. Of course you can!




sdrucker said:


> We OD'd on Incredibles when it first came out with a young child at the time. And my wife would kill me if I bought this and our pre-K son got addicted to it. We have another trouble with him getting obsessed with the two Ghostbusters films after I bought the UHDs for the better picture and Atmos...


It's a better excuse than the appeal to poverty, I'll grant you that


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That used to be me, a few years back in this thread.


Oh, and me for sure. I agonised over it. But over time, and over numerous small changes of location for my overhead speakers, and with the help of the contributors to this thread, I came to accept what I had been told almost from the day of release of the very first Atmos disc: "It's hard to make Atmos _not _work..."



sdurani said:


> Do what to the disc?


Sorry. *Buy* it blind! And normally, you are so good at reading what I meant and not what I wrote


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> On this demo disc is there provided text or instructions which suggest, paraphrased, "Use the sound of the helicopter to adjust your rear speaker levels"? Or is it merely one of several "check this out" sort of demo sequences?


Nope. No narrative of any sort. They are just demo tracks, pure and simple. They can help with setup I guess - especially the 'circling helicopter' track because it will soon highlight any major deficiencies. But here, with all my speakers calibrated just the way Dirac Live calibrated them, and no subsequent tweaks, it sounds pretty much the way I think it is meant to sound - like there's a helicopter over my head. Well, a recording of a helicopter really.


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> I don't, however the fact that helicopters have a _strong_ bass content may change matters compared to things with higher frequency content because our lowered sensitivity to rear sounds isn't 5 to 6 dB for frequencies under 1 kHz:


This helicopter sample has very little bass. 



> On this demo disc is there provided text or instructions which suggest, paraphrased, "Use the sound of the helicopter to adjust your rear speaker levels"? Or is it merely one of several "check this out" sort of demo sequences?


There is no text of any kind. I think it is there as Dolby used it to show the effectiveness of the upfiring speakers at trade shows. Of all the circular pans I have heard, this one is particularly easy to track by ear and by SPL meter, and that makes it unusually handy for the issue at hand. It is also set up to play in both Atmos and 7.1 systems.

If the speakers are balanced first with test tones, the helicopter will exhibit very close level matching (channel balance), and will be heard as such under optimal conditions. It is included in both their 2015 and 2016 demo discs. Unfortunate that these discs are so hard to get.


----------



## m. zillch

I realize Youtube is just stereo, but is this the helicopter scene we are talking about?


----------



## m. zillch

or this?


----------



## m. zillch

Or this? [Searching for "Dolby helicopter" brings up a lot so I can't tell.]


----------



## sotwell

i rented 2 UHD movies on Vudu this weekend, Annihilation and Jumanji both are listed as Atmos. But i could never get atmos to my receiver. I tried the Atmos Experince Bundle on Vudu with "Silent" and "Leaf" and i could indeed get Atmos on my receiver. Any ideas on why the movies are not coming across as atmos?


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh Stuart! I really think you should take one for the team on this  Now I will have to buy the disc 'blind'.


You won't regret having bought _The Incredibles,_ its somewhat weak Atmos audio notwithstanding. Until I saw it again last evening, I had forgotten just how wonderful it is. Having to put up with its slightly subpar Atmos soundtrack was a small price to pay for being able to see this great film again, this time with beautiful UHD HDR video.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> You won't regret having bought _The Incredibles,_ its somewhat weak Atmos audio notwithstanding. Until I saw it again last evening, I had forgotten just how wonderful it is. Having to put up with its slightly subpar Atmos soundtrack was a small price to pay for being able to see this great film again, this time with beautiful UHD HDR video.


We may be at cross purposes. I was referring to *Incredibles 2* not the original. It isn't available on disc in the UK at this time anyway. I didn't know they had re-released a UHD version of the original movie. Off to investigate now... I love that film.

EDIT: Oh yes! Ordered!


----------



## howard68

Is your vudu player set to uhd and tv 
The vudu dolby demos will play on 1080p 
However to get Atmos films to play you have to have a uhd tv 
I had to get a hd fury to access dolby atmos on my roku ultra 
Regards
Howard


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> We may be at cross purposes. I was referring to *Incredibles 2* not the original. It isn't available on disc in the UK at this time anyway. I didn't know they had re-released a UHD version of the original movie. Off to investigate now... I love that film.
> 
> EDIT: Oh yes! Ordered!


I am going to be semi careful with _Incredibles 2._ I will wait for some feedback about the quality of the movie before I make up my mind. Given its stellar cast and Brad Bird's talent, though, I suspect I'll end up buying it despite Disney's Dolby Lite soundtrack.


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> Or this? [Searching for "Dolby helicopter" brings up a lot so I can't tell.]


Sorry, no. It's this one: Audio only helicopter


----------



## m. zillch

Thanks. At least I get a good idea of what it must be like now.


----------



## showmak

gwsat said:


> I didn't think the TrueHD Atmos audio for _Black Panther_ was bad but did think it could have been a lot better. I generally watch films with my AVR set at -10 dB below reference. Because I had been forewarned, I watched _Black Panther_ at -5 dB below reference. That worked reasonably well, although I thought the dynamic range could have been better. Bottom line, the movie was so much fun and looked so good that I forgave its audio for its failings.
> 
> 
> 
> Fearing the worst, I watched _The Incredibles_ earlier and thought its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack was a bit better than the _Black Panther_ audio was. I set my AVR at -7-5 below reference and that worked reasonably well. In the scenes with lots of action, the audio almost always had excellent LFE as well as effective surround and immersive effects. My only complaint was, I regretted that the mixer had not given us that sort of thing a little more frequently. Anyway, Disney or not, both soundtracks are just fine. They could have been better, though.


I watched Star Wars: The Last Jedi and needed to set my AVR at -8 dB to get satisfied with the audio, the mix is very good though.


----------



## howard68

The problem with disney atmos is thay they also pre render to 7.2.4 only


----------



## kbarnes701

howard68 said:


> The problem with disney atmos is thay they also pre render to 7.2.4 only


That isn't a problem for most people though. But the poor dynamics, light bass, low mastering level of the sound etc are a problem for all of us. It's now reached the point for me where I'm not even bothering buying the latest Disney UHD releases when they come out. They are too expensive to end up with an inferior product. So I am waiting for titles like _Black Panther_ to reach the bargain bin before I give them my cash. The weird thing is why this is happening at all. Disney would, I'd guess, be able to afford to get these things right. And there's no lack of negative comment in the reviews, so they must surely be aware that they have these issues?


----------



## howard68

I will not be buying any more Disney uhd blu ray movies until I get a review that they have got a good sound track now !


----------



## Craig Mecak

Shizzlenits said:


> Niiiice. So the dream is possible. Select any of my movies in Plex and automatically play with immersive audio, either natively or through upmixing, without having to mess with AVR settings.



I believe what you want is what Yamaha offer in their RX-A3070 receiver, and beyond, and its siblings, RX-A2070 etc.



It has an AUTO Surround Mode, which will play Dolby ATMOS or DTS:X when present, but engage an appropriate UpMixer when a lesser signal is input (7.1, 5.1 or 2.0).


----------



## Shizzlenits

Craig Mecak said:


> I believe what you want is what Yamaha offer in their RX-A3070 receiver, and beyond, and its siblings, RX-A2070 etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It has an AUTO Surround Mode, which will play Dolby ATMOS or DTS:X when present, but engage an appropriate UpMixer when a lesser signal is input (7.1, 5.1 or 2.0).


Interesting, though I was hoping to stay with Denon/Marantz.

Does anyone know if the Denon X4400H has any such functionality? I wasn't able to find anything in the documentation online.


----------



## T-smith

showmak said:


> You want one hour and forty minute of immersive audio and crazy bass? Watch The Hurricane Heist (2018).
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5360952/


I rented this BD from Redbox just to have something to watch Tuesday and liked the Atmos track so much I ended up ordering the UHD disk. 


Its amazing how a movie called Hurricane Heist can have such great audio but every single Disney Marvel track is subpar


----------



## vegout

Shizzlenits said:


> Interesting, though I was hoping to stay with Denon/Marantz.
> 
> Does anyone know if the Denon X4400H has any such functionality? I wasn't able to find anything in the documentation online.


It has Auro 3-D which does a pretty good job, as described from the Auro-3d Website:

-----------
Auro-3D® uses the standard 5.1 / 7.1 horizontal speaker array as its base, then we add a Height layer directly above those corner speakers at around 30 degrees, just as we do in the cinema. As long as you have space directly above the speakers in your Surround sound setup you can easily install an Auro-3D® Height layer. In its simplest configuration (Auro 9.1) this means adding only four extra speakers, one above each corner speaker – no ceiling speakers needed. We do offer the ‘top layer’ with ceiling speakers as well, but only recommend this for larger home theatres / cinemas. So with an Auro-3D upgrade, and four Height speakers, you can enjoy the most natural, immersive sound experience, turning your favourite music and films from your collection into a completely new immersive sound experience. And even without the Height speakers, our Auro-Matic® algorithm will upmix stereo sources into an incredibly natural Surround sound experience for the home theatre.
-----------


----------



## JLevy1978

Highdefdigest just did a studio rankings based on how they feel each studio does 4k. Not only did they give disney lowest marks but, they also stated that they reached out to disney asking specifically about the audio. Hopefully disney comments back. My guess is no


----------



## Bond 007

Disney was bought years ago and has gone downhill ever since.


----------



## deano86

Shizzlenits said:


> Interesting, though I was hoping to stay with Denon/Marantz.
> 
> Does anyone know if the Denon X4400H has any such functionality? I wasn't able to find anything in the documentation online.


Yes, of course it does... virtually every receiver/ prepro manufacturer and model has some sort of source, input signal auto sound mode default association... This is not a special feature...


----------



## deano86

Bond 007 said:


> Disney was bought years ago and has gone downhill ever since.


Huh? I thought that Disney is buying everyone else?? Other networks, movie studios etc....


----------



## m. zillch

It's weird when people get angry when the space ship in the movie "didn't have enough bass". Might I remind everyone space ships in movies aren't real so there is no "accuracy" in question; it is merely the arbitrary decisions of the people who created the artificial sound [plus in the vacuum of space there is no sound anyways. ]

Have you ever noticed how they often make sure there's dead silence before explosions? That's also to make the KA-BOOM more impactful and gives it more contrast to the rest of the movie. Example:





Heck if *every* scene is just one bass heavy explosion after another there's no dramatic impact at the climax of the movie! Maybe they went "lightly" on one scene so that when they really need it it's more impactful?

Analogously with image: "I didn't like Shrek. His particular shade of green skin tone looked _way_ off and not very realistic at all". Shrek is CGI. We have no way of telling if what we see is "accurate".


----------



## Bond 007

deano86 said:


> Huh? I thought that Disney is buying everyone else?? Other networks, movie studios etc....


I think you're right. Maybe it's that everything Disney has acquired has gone downhill. Lucasfilm certainly has.


----------



## Shizzlenits

deano86 said:


> Yes, of course it does... virtually every receiver/ prepro manufacturer and model has some sort of source, input signal auto sound mode default association... This is not a special feature...


My current receiver is over 8 years old and has no such setting, so this is all new to me. 

I just don't want to have to buy and test several AVR's to find the one I want (9.1, automatic upmixing of 5.1/7.1 without using remote, automatic playback of Atmos/DTS:X without using remote, and Audyssey XT32).


----------



## kbarnes701

JLevy1978 said:


> Highdefdigest just did a studio rankings based on how they feel each studio does 4k. Not only did they give disney lowest marks but, they also stated that they reached out to disney asking specifically about the audio. Hopefully disney comments back. My guess is no


The article is *linked here* for those interested. Thanks for mentioning it - it;s a useful summary of where we are currently at.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shizzlenits said:


> My current receiver is over 8 years old and has no such setting, so this is all new to me.
> 
> I just don't want to have to buy and test several AVR's to find the one I want (9.1, automatic upmixing of 5.1/7.1 without using remote, automatic playback of Atmos/DTS:X without using remote, and Audyssey XT32).


If you want XT32 you are pretty much limited to D&M nowadays, of the major players. You may want to also consider an AVR with Dirac Live, eg one of the new NADs. Dirac Live is a more sophisticated and more up-to-date room EQ solution to XT32, with more flexible options too.

AFAIK all modern AVRs will give you the other features you need (but not all will do 9.1 using internal amps, so make sure the one you opt for can). Some AVRs have 7 channels of amplification built-in but can do 9.x with an added 2ch external amp. To get the best from Atmos, you might want to consider a unit that can do 7.x.4 (11 channels of amplification - either all inbuilt like the new flagship D&M units, or with 9 inbuilt and the capability of adding an external 2ch amp for the other two). If you specify your budget, it may be possible to make specific recommendations.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bond 007 said:


> Disney was bought years ago and has gone downhill ever since.


It's a sad indictment of their capabilities when other studios are releasing *back-catalogue* titles that have totally fabulous Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks (_Blade Runner The Final Cut, Fury, King Kong, The Matrix, Bram Stoker's Dracula_ etc), yet Disney can't even manage it on *brand new* releases (_Star Wars The Last Jedi, Black Panther, Thor Ragnarok_).


----------



## m. zillch

Shizzlenits said:


> I just don't want to have to buy and test several AVR's to find the one I want (9.1, automatic upmixing of 5.1/7.1 without using remote, automatic playback of Atmos/DTS:X without using remote, and Audyssey XT32).


There are generally two kinds of AVR settings: global [works universally for all inputs] and local [works for that currently selected input and stays that way *at least assuming* the incoming format/resolution stays the same]. You may need to engage settings the way you like them for _each_ individual input initially with the remote, but then it will [fingers crossed] work the way you like it from then on. . . . unless you change something or do a factory reset.


----------



## Shizzlenits

kbarnes701 said:


> If you want XT32 you are pretty much limited to D&M nowadays, of the major players. You may want to also consider an AVR with Dirac Live, eg one of the new NADs. Dirac Live is a more sophisticated and more up-to-date room EQ solution to XT32, with more flexible options too.
> 
> AFAIK all modern AVRs will give you the other features you need (but not all will do 9.1 using internal amps, so make sure the one you opt for can). Some AVRs have 7 channels of amplification built-in but can do 9.x with an added 2ch external amp. To get the best from Atmos, you might want to consider a unit that can do 7.x.4 (11 channels of amplification - either all inbuilt like the new flagship D&M units, or with 9 inbuilt and the capability of adding an external 2ch amp for the other two). If you specify your budget, it may be possible to make specific recommendations.


Yeah, I've been looking into all the D/M models that do what you say. They actually don't have one that does 7.1 internally with 9 channel processing anymore. I think the Marantz 50xx series used to, but it's been strictly 7.1 for several years. That would actually be optimal for me since it'll probably be about a year before I add the heights. Oh well.

I've pretty much narrowed it down to the Denon X4400H or the Marantz 6012. It's my understanding that the Marantz HDAM's won't do much for me since my usage will be 100% home theater, so I've been leaning towards the Denon since it has slightly higher wattage per channel (125w vs 110w). However, if the Marantz has better/different auto-upmixing options than the Denon, that would absolutely influence my decision. I'd like to avoid needing to do returns if possible, as I'll likely be ordering refurb from A4L.

Room is too small for 11.1 so I only need 9 channels total. This is my upgrade plan:


----------



## Lesmor

Shizzlenits said:


> Yeah, I've been looking into all the D/M models that do what you say. They actually don't have one that does 7.1 internally with 9 channel processing anymore. I think the Marantz 50xx series used to, but it's been strictly 7.1 for several years. That would actually be optimal for me since it'll probably be about a year before I add the heights. Oh well.
> 
> I've pretty much narrowed it down to the Denon X4400H or the Marantz 6012. It's my understanding that the Marantz HDAM's won't do much for me since my usage will be 100% home theater, so I've been leaning towards the Denon since it has slightly higher wattage per channel (125w vs 110w). However, if the Marantz has better/different auto-upmixing options than the Denon, that would absolutely influence my decision. I'd like to avoid needing to do returns if possible, as I'll likely be ordering refurb from A4L.


Perhaps the Denon AVR X8500H ?
13 internal amps and 13 ch processing


----------



## Shizzlenits

Lesmor said:


> Perhaps the Denon AVR X8500H ?
> 13 internal amps and 13 ch processing


Way overkill! I only need 9 channels (see my above edit).


----------



## snpanago

Shizzlenits said:


> Way overkill! I only need 9 channels (see my above edit).


If you can find Denon’s previous flagship, the X7200wa, you will be happy. 9 channels of amplification, Audyssey xt32, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, both of their upmixers, and passes HDR and DV (with fw updates).


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> It's a sad indictment of their capabilities when other studios are releasing *back-catalogue* titles that have totally fabulous Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks (_Blade Runner The Final Cut, Fury, King Kong, The Matrix, Bram Stoker's Dracula_ etc), yet Disney can't even manage it on *brand new* releases (_Star Wars The Last Jedi, Black Panther, Thor Ragnarok_).


Absolutely! There is no excuse for the shoddy job Disney has been doing on it TrueHD Atmos titles when we know that the UHD HDR editions of old films like _Blade Runner_ (1982) now have demonstration quality TrueHD Atmos audio. Enough of this, though, for this way lies madness.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shizzlenits said:


> I've pretty much narrowed it down to the Denon X4400H or the Marantz 6012. It's my understanding that the Marantz HDAM's won't do much for me since my usage will be 100% home theater, so I've been leaning towards the Denon since it has slightly higher wattage per channel (125w vs 110w).


The difference between 125 watts and 110 watts is, in practical terms, effectively zero. Remember you have to double the watts to get a 3dB increase in SPL, so the difference between a 125w amp and a 250 watt amp will give you 3dB more. A 15 watt difference will give you about a fifth of a dB more which is inaudible to almost 100% of the population. And in practical terms, is really nothing at all. So don't let that small wattage difference hold any sway at all over which unit you choose.




Shizzlenits said:


> However, if the Marantz has better/different auto-upmixing options than the Denon, that would absolutely influence my decision. I'd like to avoid needing to do returns if possible, as I'll likely be ordering refurb from A4L.


As far as I know, they are the same in that respect.



Shizzlenits said:


> Room is too small for 11.1 so I only need 9 channels total. This is my upgrade plan:


Is it smaller than 10.5 ft x 10.5 ft x 8.5 ft? That was the size of my last (fully acoustically treated) HT and it had 7.2.4 Atmos with dual Seaton Submersive subs and it sounded magnificent. So you may only want 7.x.2 or 5.x.4, but I doubt your room is too small to enjoy 7.x.4  Atmos is a better experience with 4 overhead speakers, so I'd urge you to consider that. Maybe choose an AVR that can handle 9 channels internally plus two more with external amplification. Then you have an upgrade path - start with 5.x.4 or 7.x.2 and upgrade later to 7.x.4. If it was me, I'd choose 5.x.4 and add the rear surrounds later, but that is just a personal choice.


----------



## Shizzlenits

snpanago said:


> If you can find Denon’s previous flagship, the X7200wa, you will be happy. 9 channels of amplification, Audyssey xt32, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, both of their upmixers, and passes HDR and DV (with fw updates).


Mmmm. I've set some alerts. 




kbarnes701 said:


> Is it smaller than 10.5 ft x 10.5 ft x 8.5 ft? That was the size of my last (fully acoustically treated) HT and it had 7.2.4 Atmos with dual Seaton Submersive subs and it sounded magnificent. So you may only want 7.x.2 or 5.x.4, but I doubt your room is too small to enjoy 7.x.4  Atmos is a better experience with 4 overhead speakers, so I'd urge you to consider that. Maybe choose an AVR that can handle 9 channels internally plus two more with external amplification. Then you have an upgrade path - start with 5.x.4 or 7.x.2 and upgrade later to 7.x.4. If it was me, I'd choose 5.x.4 and add the rear surrounds later, but that is just a personal choice.


Interesting. Most of the advice I got on here was to go 5.2.4 since 7.2.4 would mean the person sitting in the far left seat would be able to reach out and literally touch both the side and rear surround speakers. I'm definitely doing 4 overheads.

Both the Denon X4400 and Marantz SR6012 can indeed be pushed to 7.2.4 with an external amp though. So I guess I'll at least have the option if I go with one of those. That would just be so much speaker in such a small space!


----------



## meli

markus767 said:


> Not sure whether this has already been discussed or not but the Dolby 5.1.x E-AC3 file renders the surrounds between front and surrounds?



I wonder if Dolby ever fixed that?


----------



## CBdicX

*Dolby Enabled or Direct Fire.*


Hi,


i switched from 6 on ceiling speakers to 2 ceiling speakers Top Middle exact above the MLP, and 4 Dolby Enabled or 4 Height speakers.
I had 6 KEF T101 and i did not like the sound from them.


So i have the choise between adding to the Top Middle 4 Height speakers or 4 DE speakers.
Using DE speakes is the easy way and best looking, special on the front.
The speakers i use are Magnat Cinema Ultra 400 ATM and they have a Direct and Dolby Enabled switch so they can be used both ways.


But what would be a better option "on paper" to use in this situation in combination with the Top Middle speakers ?
The receiver is a Denon AVC X8500H.


Just want to get some more ideas and input about this setup, never had the option to do 6 Height speakers before, thx !


----------



## m. zillch

If the _only_ concern is sound quality, direct fire.


----------



## kbarnes701

Shizzlenits said:


> Interesting. Most of the advice I got on here was to go 5.2.4 since 7.2.4 would mean the person sitting in the far left seat would be able to reach out and literally touch both the side and rear surround speakers. I'm definitely doing 4 overheads.
> 
> Both the Denon X4400 and Marantz SR6012 can indeed be pushed to 7.2.4 with an external amp though. So I guess I'll at least have the option if I go with one of those. That would just be so much speaker in such a small space!


Good call to use the 4 overheads. I only just saw your room diagram. Yes, in your circumstances there, maybe 5.x.4 is the best option (although personally I only really care about MLP and don't worry about people in outlier seats). But that's just me  You should get a great result with 4 speakers overhead.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> *Dolby Enabled or Direct Fire.*
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> i switched from 6 on ceiling speakers to 2 ceiling speakers Top Middle exact above the MLP, and 4 Dolby Enabled or 4 Height speakers.
> I had 6 KEF T101 and i did not like the sound from them.
> 
> 
> So i have the choise between adding to the Top Middle 4 Height speakers or 4 DE speakers.
> Using DE speakes is the easy way and best looking, special on the front.
> The speakers i use are Magnat Cinema Ultra 400 ATM and they have a Direct and Dolby Enabled switch so they can be used both ways.
> 
> 
> But what would be a better option "on paper" to use in this situation in combination with the Top Middle speakers ?
> The receiver is a Denon AVC X8500H.
> 
> 
> Just want to get some more ideas and input about this setup, never had the option to do 6 Height speakers before, thx !


4 physical speakers is the best choice if you can accommodate them. HST, the Dolby Enabled speakers are also a good choice and have their own benefits (ease of installation, aesthetics etc), assuming your ceiling is suitable. Having heard both physical and DE speakers in a direct A-B blind comparison at Dolby's London HQ, I can say that DE speakers are in no way a bad choice. Many of the audience of AV professionals, journalists etc could not tell whether the speakers playing were the physical speakers or the DE speakers, and the majority actually preferred the DE speakers! In audio terms, I find the physical speakers give a more 'precise' imaging of sounds overhead and the DE speakers give a more 'diffuse' effect. Both can sound very good and, as we found at Dolby, some prefer one, some the other.

Personally I prefer the physical speakers, but in my room that is my only option anyway due to the construction and design of the room. But if I had a more 'regular' sort of room, or a living room setup, I would be happy with DE speakers, especially in a living room where aesthetics are more important.

So really it is up to you and your preference. If you go with DE speakers, don't feel that you have accepted an 'inferior' option.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> 4 physical speakers is the best choice if you can accommodate them. HST, the Dolby Enabled speakers are also a good choice and have their own benefits (ease of installation, aesthetics etc), assuming your ceiling is suitable. Having heard both physical and DE speakers in a direct A-B blind comparison at Dolby's London HQ, I can say that DE speakers are in no way a bad choice. Many of the audience of AV professionals, journalists etc could not tell whether the speakers playing were the physical speakers or the DE speakers, and the majority actually preferred the DE speakers! In audio terms, I find the physical speakers give a more 'precise' imaging of sounds overhead and the DE speakers give a more 'diffuse' effect. Both can sound very good and, as we found at Dolby, some prefer one, some the other.
> 
> Personally I prefer the physical speakers, but in my room that is my only option anyway due to the construction and design of the room. But if I had a more 'regular' sort of room, or a living room setup, I would be happy with DE speakers, especially in a living room where aesthetics are more important.
> 
> So really it is up to you and your preference. If you go with DE speakers, don't feel that you have accepted an 'inferior' option.


Thanks Keith for this clear explenation !
Would you think, or know, if it matters in effects to do the DE option in combination with the Top Middle compared to FH / TM / RH ?


Think my ceiling is ok for DE as i have a flat concrete hard popcorn ceiling.
In the past i had some good results with DE but did not used Top Middle as that was not possible then.
Would the "height sound" not be to much concentrated above the MLP and i will miss out on fly over objects like planes ect. with DE and TM ?


Thanks for your time


----------



## BPlayer

CBdicX said:


> Think my ceiling is ok for DE as i have a flat concrete hard popcorn ceiling.


Can you explain "popcorn ceiling"? Is the ceiling completely flat or does it have stucco applied (rough surface). If the latter then sound wave will tend to scatter rather than bouncing clean with DE speakers. This would not be optimal.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith for this clear explenation !


You're welcome. Of course, after Brexit, I won't be able to reply to you LOL 



CBdicX said:


> Would you think, or know, if it matters in effects to do the DE option in combination with the Top Middle compared to FH / TM / RH ?


I'd guess it will be fine. Speaking from a 'purist' POV, I'd have to say keep with all the same type of speaker, whether it's physical or DE. But as it's "hard to make Atmos _not_ work" I'd bet that combining the two types of speaker isn't really a problem.



CBdicX said:


> Think my ceiling is ok for DE as i have a flat concrete hard popcorn ceiling.


It should be OK. At Dolby they have an acoustically treated ceiling cloud, but what they did was put in some 'hard' panels at the reflection points of the DE speakers. Nice idea and it worked really well, so even those with 'difficult' ceilings could accommodate that I'd think. The main issue I think is that the ceiling really needs to be flat.



CBdicX said:


> In the past i had some good results with DE but did not used Top Middle as that was not possible then.
> Would the "height sound" not be to much concentrated above the MLP and i will miss out on fly over objects like planes ect. with DE and TM ?


No - the DE speakers give just as good an impression of height as the physical speakers in my experience. The majority of people at the Dolby demos thought the DE speakers gave a _better_ impression of height!



CBdicX said:


> Thanks for your time


You're welcome!


----------



## kbarnes701

BPlayer said:


> Can you explain "popcorn ceiling"? Is the ceiling completely flat or does it have stucco applied (rough surface). If the latter then sound wave will tend to scatter rather than bouncing clean with DE speakers. This would not be optimal.


Agreed, but it's probably OK. That's why I mentioned the idea of using flat reflective panels on the ceiling. At Dolby they were, IIRC, quite small - maybe about 2ft by 2ft and were placed where the upfiring sound would 'focus'. Worked really well. They had an acoustic ceiling cloud but just replaced some of the absorber panels with hard ones. Neat idea that many could copy.

As @m. zillch mentions above (and I agree) - ideally one would go with physical speakers anyway, but it isn't always possible. And TBH, IMO, even a less than perfect Atmos is still going to be way better than no Atmos at all.


----------



## CBdicX

BPlayer said:


> Can you explain "popcorn ceiling"? Is the ceiling completely flat or does it have stucco applied (rough surface). If the latter then sound wave will tend to scatter rather than bouncing clean with DE speakers. This would not be optimal.



Here a pic of a popcorn ceiling (not my ceiling), think you mean this is not optimal.
I did read compared to a smooth surface this popcorn will create a bigger sound field but a bit more diffuse.
And don't forget i do have 2 Top Middle speakers above the MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Here a pic of a popcorn ceiling (not my ceiling), think you mean this is not optimal.
> I did read compared to a smooth surface this popcorn will create a bigger sound field but a bit more diffuse.
> And don't forget i do have 2 Top Middle speakers above the MLP.


I wouldn't worry too much about it personally. If the choice is DE with that ceiling or no Atmos at all, or just two overhead speakers, I think I would go with the DE. It may not be perfect or ideal, but it will still be better than not having Atmos. 'Don't let perfect be the enemy of good' [(c) @sdurani]


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> You're welcome. Of course, after Brexit, I won't be able to reply to you LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I'd guess it will be fine. Speaking from a 'purist' POV, I'd have to say keep with all the same type of speaker, whether it's physical or DE. But as it's "hard to make Atmos _not_ work" I'd bet that combining the two types of speaker isn't really a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be OK. At Dolby they have an acoustically treated ceiling cloud, but what they did was put in some 'hard' panels at the reflection points of the DE speakers. Nice idea and it worked really well, so even those with 'difficult' ceilings could accommodate that I'd think. The main issue I think is that the ceiling really needs to be flat.
> 
> 
> 
> No - the DE speakers give just as good an impression of height as the physical speakers in my experience. The majority of people at the Dolby demos thought the DE speakers gave a _better_ impression of height!
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome!



Thanks Keith,


think i will try DE first with the TM speakers and see how the effect is, this is the easy way and best looking.
If its not what i want or espect i can try the Height option.
Thats the nice thing of the ATM400 speakers, they can be used both ways with the filter switch.


----------



## Ted99

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Keith,
> 
> 
> think i will try DE first with the TM speakers and see how the effect is, this is the easy way and best looking.
> If its not what i want or espect i can try the Height option.
> Thats the nice thing of the ATM400 speakers, they can be used both ways with the filter switch.


With DE speakers, be very careful with the reflected angles. A simple geometry diagram will determine if the reflected "beam" is actually aimed at the MLP. In my setup, with the MLP some 10' from the front tower speakers, DE speakers on top of the towers (60") with a 30 degree angle have a sweet spot some 3' in front of the MLP. I had to put the DE speakers on the top of the TV cabinet (24") and prop up the rear by 10 degrees to get the geometry to work.


----------



## CBdicX

Ted99 said:


> With DE speakers, be very careful with the reflected angles. A simple geometry diagram will determine if the reflected "beam" is actually aimed at the MLP. In my setup, with the MLP some 10' from the front tower speakers, DE speakers on top of the towers (60") with a 30 degree angle have a sweet spot some 3' in front of the MLP. I had to put the DE speakers on the top of the TV cabinet (24") and prop up the rear by 10 degrees to get the geometry to work.



Thanks.
I have a laser pointer and i can point it in the angle of the speaker to the ceiling and let my wife hold a mirror there and see if the laser will hit the MLP.
And she "LOVES" helping me with speakers...........  


Advantage of popcorn ceiling is that the refected sound has a bigger area.


----------



## Ted99

CBdicX said:


> Thanks.
> I have a laser pointer and i can point it in the angle of the speaker to the ceiling and let my wife hold a mirror there and see if the laser will hit the MLP.
> And she "LOVES" helping me with speakers...........
> 
> 
> Advantage of popcorn ceiling is that the refected sound has a bigger area.


A very elegant solution. Yes, the act of reflecting will make a beam more diffuse and I agree that a popcorn ceiling can add more diffusion. A densely "popcorned" ceiling, such as mine were before I had it all scraped off, will do more attenuation than diffusion if the popcorning medium is a soft material, as mine was. I think the best ceiling treatment is the "fake trowel swirls" using compound that dries hard. But any of this has very little effect, as Keith has pointed out.


----------



## m. zillch

The problem with using EQ to mimic HRTF cues for direction perception is that no two people are identical; like fingerprints we each have our own unique HRTF. Here for example are two people's perception, top graph and bottom graph, for varying elevations above the horizon from a sound source 2 meters away to the subject's (listener's) left:








_"Head-related transfer functions (HRTF) for two subjects illustrating spectral colouration for increasing source elevation in the lateral plane. The sound was located 2 meters to the left of the subject and was moved from ear level (0 degrees) to an elevation 30 degrees above ear level (solid line: 0 degrees; long dashes: 10 degrees; short dashes: 20 degrees; dotted line: 30 degrees). From G. Kendall & W. Martens, "Simulating the cues of spatial hearing in natural environments,"_

Although there are some general similarities notice how different the two people are? What most HRTF sound direction manipulators do is take an average of dozens or hundreds of people and then find an average curve to sell to all of us. Can you imagine if shoe stores decided "After measuring thousands of feet we have found this one size is the average so we now only sell it. Our brilliant new method is called 'one-size fits all' ". That works out just fine for many people but not so well for others.

In additional to how well they nail the directional cues there's also this question: "Did they preserve a realistic tonal balance for the sound?". If you play the sound of a helicopter from various directions (a sort of cacophonous source we don't worry too much about) vs. a violin solo (where we are keen to subtle manipulations away from a proper, neutral frequency balance) one might get very different results person to person. "Wow, it _really does _sound like the violinist is playing directly over my head but why did he retune his instrument?"

Dolby Enabled technology may work spectacularly well for some listeners in the audience [especially ones with average size and shaped ears], at least for some sound sources in some directions, but not all.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> ideally one would go with physical speakers anyway, but it isn't always possible. And TBH, IMO, even a less than perfect Atmos is still going to be way better than no Atmos at all.


Totally agreed. Also different strokes for different folks. If your top concern is spaciousness, ambiance, and general immersion, four Dolby enabled speakers, front and back, may even _trump_ two direct firing ceiling speakers, for example. 

Six possible priorities (off the top of my head) may each require different approaches:

- optimal spaciousness, ambiance, and general sound field immersion for a centrally placed listener
- pin-point localization (imaging) of overflying objects for a centrally placed listener
- accurate tonal balance for the immersive component of the overall sound for a centrally placed listener

- optimal spaciousness, ambiance, and general sound field immersion for _a large group of differently placed listeners in the audience
_- pin-point localization (imaging) of overflying objects _for a large group of differently placed listeners in the audience_
- accurate tonal balance for the immersive component of the overall sound _for a large group of differently placed listeners in the audience_


----------



## am2model3

dolby is going to restrict upmixing to only dolby sources, and none others like NeuralX and Auro3D. bad dolby


----------



## silver-eye

well, no more updates for my receiver


----------



## CBdicX

silver-eye said:


> well, no more updates for my receiver


Indeed.
I have the great Denon X8500H and it still will do X upmixing, so i turned off auto updates.


With the 13 channels i must say that Dolby is the one and only that makes use of all 13 channels.
DTS will not use my Top Middle channels, Auro "needs" Height and VOG and also will not use TM.
So for me its Dolby on all movies (and Dolby is on 90% of the content) and i like the "clear" sound of Dolby the best.
But i do not like the idea that Dolby will make a choise for me.
Do not hope that DTS will go the same road, but think when Dolby gets this working DTS will follow.
Auro has almost no content so they will rely on X upmixing.


----------



## mrtickleuk

CBdicX said:


> Indeed.
> I have the great Denon X8500H and it still will do X upmixing, so i turned off auto updates.
> 
> With the 13 channels i must say that Dolby is the one and only that makes use of all 13 channels.
> DTS will not use my Top Middle channels, Auro "needs" Height and VOG and also will not use TM.
> So for me its Dolby on all movies (and Dolby is on 90% of the content) and i like the "clear" sound of Dolby the best.
> But i do not like the idea that Dolby will make a choise for me.


I can't understand why people can't see what is happening, and why they are sleep-walking into it. Dolby is a company that wants to impose watertight and restrictive licensing conditions on all its ecosystem and everything we do with it. Both on the audio side, with this first restriction (who knows what is coming next). And also on the video side, where they want total end-to-end control with their Dolby Vision, and tight licensing to display manufacturers - who are not allowed to do any processing whatsoever to the dolby signal even thought it's in their product. There might be advantages and disadvantages to the enjoyment/quality of the experience in the home, but at what cost: freedom and consumer choice. Sometimes I find the sycophantic genuflecting of the company very uncomfortable and disconcerting to witness on this forum (particularly in the video threads). If they succeed in their goal of creating a monopoly in both audio and video it will NOT be a good thing for the consumer. Just IMHO.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> I can't understand why people can't see what is happening, and why they are sleep-walking into it. Dolby is a company that wants to impose watertight and restrictive licensing conditions on all its ecosystem and everything we do with it. Both on the audio side, with this first restriction (who knows what is coming next). And also on the video side, where they want total end-to-end control with their Dolby Vision, and tight licensing to display manufacturers - who are not allowed to do any processing whatsoever to the dolby signal even thought it's in their product. There might be advantages and disadvantages to the enjoyment/quality of the experience in the home, but at what cost: freedom and consumer choice. Sometimes I find the sycophantic genuflecting of the company very uncomfortable and disconcerting to witness on this forum (particularly in the video threads). If they succeed in their goal of creating a monopoly in both audio and video it will NOT be a good thing for the consumer. Just IMHO.


What's your solution though? Boycott Dolby? 

I don't know, but I bet Dolby has invested considerable money into R&D to bring us the best home cinema audio we have ever experienced. It's natural that it will want to protect that investment I guess. It's how a free market works. Dolby has two main competitors, DTS and Auro, and really it's up to them to provide a better product that will give Dolby a run for its money, not for Dolby to wind back in some way because their competition is not stepping up to the plate. The fact that neither of them has been capable of developing a superior product speaks volumes.

I have to say that, personally, it doesn't really worry me. Dolby has a proven track record, going back decades, of innovation in the AV arena and I am massively benefiting from it every time I venture into my HT. The experience has never been better. I don't really crave the 'freedom of choice' of an inferior set of products.

Does this make me a sycophantic genuflecting sleep-walker? If it does, I can live with it


----------



## Uppsalaing

kbarnes701 said:


> What's your solution though? Boycott Dolby?
> 
> ...


That's a difficult one as movies come with whatever soundtrack they have... What I do think is useful is to avoid paying a premium for Dolby models of equipment and to support the better alternatives...


I bought a new Panasonic UHD player and decided to get the middle non-Dolby Vision model and avoid paying the premium for the top end Dolby Vision model... As I use a projector, it was an easy decision, but I did trade away 'future proofing'... I wonder whether or not my next TV will be Dolby Vision... To be honest, on the video side it's an easier decision as very little content is shot with HDR in mind, much less with Dolby Vision... it's really only an add on, like 3D conversions and such... Anyway, the standard is HDR10...


For audio, it seems we don't have much choice in terms of content, but can choose our equipment.


----------



## CBdicX

mrtickleuk said:


> I can't understand why people can't see what is happening, and why they are sleep-walking into it. Dolby is a company that wants to impose watertight and restrictive licensing conditions on all its ecosystem and everything we do with it. Both on the audio side, with this first restriction (who knows what is coming next). And also on the video side, where they want total end-to-end control with their Dolby Vision, and tight licensing to display manufacturers - who are not allowed to do any processing whatsoever to the dolby signal even thought it's in their product. There might be advantages and disadvantages to the enjoyment/quality of the experience in the home, but at what cost: freedom and consumer choice. Sometimes I find the sycophantic genuflecting of the company very uncomfortable and disconcerting to witness on this forum (particularly in the video threads). If they succeed in their goal of creating a monopoly in both audio and video it will NOT be a good thing for the consumer. Just IMHO.



Its Dolby (at the moment) that ticks all the boxes, and sure they want a firm grip on the market and there products.
Its DTS and Auro that are loosing this battle, they need to step up, Dolby is here and is not going away.


And Dolby is doing a good job on picture and audio quality, and if the name says Dolby, DTS or Auro, i don't care, i want at least all my speakers to work......


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> What's your solution though? Boycott Dolby?


I don't have one  Not so sure it's a "problem" currently as such, only that it might be one in the future.



> Does this make me a sycophantic genuflecting sleep-walker? If it does, I can live with it


Indeed  But you can't genuflect and walk at the same time . I probably laid that on a bit too thick. I've been enjoying dolby audio since I had cassettes with Dolby B noise reduction on. It's mainly some of the video threads that give me the uneasy feeling. If anyone dares to criticise dolby vision, sometimes they all descend like wolves


----------



## kbarnes701

Uppsalaing said:


> That's a difficult one as movies come with whatever soundtrack they have... What I do think is useful is to avoid paying a premium for Dolby models of equipment and to support the better alternatives...


Isn't that shooting yourself a bit in the foot though? If you decide to avoid a specific unit because it has some advanced Dolby tech, and that tech really takes off, you could end up being unable to take advantage and/or having to buy yet another piece of gear to do so.



Uppsalaing said:


> I bought a new Panasonic UHD player and decided to get the middle non-Dolby Vision model and avoid paying the premium for the top end Dolby Vision model... As I use a projector, it was an easy decision, but I did trade away 'future proofing'... I wonder whether or not my next TV will be Dolby Vision... To be honest, on the video side it's an easier decision as very little content is shot with HDR in mind, much less with Dolby Vision... it's really only an add on, like 3D conversions and such... Anyway, the standard is HDR10...
> 
> 
> For audio, it seems we don't have much choice in terms of content, but can choose our equipment.


Well I was a very early adopter of UHD disc players, so my Panasonic UB900 can't do DV anyway. And of course, neither can my PJ. But I'd want my next player to be DV-capable so that I could take advantage of the latest and, potentially, best tech. If that means Dolby get to rule the world, well so be it. Maybe it will spur DTS on to greatness...


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> I don't have one  Not so sure it's a "problem" currently as such, only that it might be one in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed  But you can't genuflect and walk at the same time . I probably laid that on a bit too thick. I've been enjoying dolby audio since I had cassettes with Dolby B noise reduction on. It's mainly some of the video threads that give me the uneasy feeling. If anyone dares to criticise dolby vision, sometimes they all descend like wolves


Ah well, that's fanboyism, which is never attractive. I have absolutlely zero experience of Dolby Vision. It seems like a good idea to me - having the image adapt dynamically - but I haven't even seen a demo. None of my current gear is DV-ready anyway, and I don't change gear very often. Well, as infrequently as I can really, so I can't see that changing any time soon.

Meanwhile, here's me in my best sycophantic genuflecting mode thanking Dolby for Atmos ....


----------



## gwsat

I am ambivalent about Dolby. On the audio side, I thought PLIIx, which would matrix any source to 7.1 was nearly a miracle. Now, though, we have Dolby Surround, which will matrix any source to 7.2.4. Fortunately, DTS's Neural:X does the same thing. If Dolby decides to disable its Surround upmixer for any codec but its own, I will just shift to Neural:X when required and move on. I know I may be losing a little something but it's nothing I will worry about.

On the video side, my decision was made for me before I knew what Dolby Vision was. My Sony 940D UHD HDR display, which I bought in 2016, is not DV compliant and can't be made to be. So what, though? I love the job HDR10 does of rendering HDR. I know that DV is theoretically better and that I will at some future time replace my 940D with a DV capable display. In the meantime, though, who, me worry?


----------



## Roger Dressler

gwsat said:


> If Dolby decides to disable its Surround upmixer for any codec but its own, I will just shift to Neural:X when required and move on.


I think it's the other way round. Dolby is not permitting other upmixers to be applied to Dolby codecs. DSU remains usable with every other codec.


----------



## gwsat

Roger Dressler said:


> I think it's the other way round. Dolby is not permitting other upmixers to be applied to Dolby codecs. DSU remains usable with every other codec.


Thanks for the correction! If that is how it turns out to be, I won't have a bit of trouble. DSU is my default upmixer for all codecs already.


----------



## Uppsalaing

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn't that shooting yourself a bit in the foot though? If you decide to avoid a specific unit because it has some advanced Dolby tech, and that tech really takes off, you could end up being unable to take advantage and/or having to buy yet another piece of gear to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I was a very early adopter of UHD disc players, so my Panasonic UB900 can't do DV anyway. And of course, neither can my PJ. But I'd want my next player to be DV-capable so that I could take advantage of the latest and, potentially, best tech. If that means Dolby get to rule the world, well so be it. Maybe it will spur DTS on to greatness...



A lot of folks seem to be buying Dolby Vision equipment simply for 'future proofing' or to have the highest end product, but without benefit.


What would be the point of paying more and getting a DV disc player unless you think you'll downgrade to a TV from a projector? But i've seen a lot of people buy the new DV enabled UB820 player for a couple hundred dollars extra than the non-DV UB420, even though they use projectors and don't need the analogue outputs and won't be able to use DV... I think part is simply to buy a premium product with dolby branding because they feel it is important to be on this bandwagon...



To each their own, but for those of us who are weary of closed systems and these tactics it makes sense to not spend extra to support a technology that could constrain our options...


For example, I have an AppleTV4K, but I only rent movies from itunes snd only buy movies on disc. It's that kind of thing.


Now if I was spending a lot of money on a processor that would be a big part of my system, I would want it to allow for most of the likely future standards. But for a disc player, there is no reason to give these guys an extea couple of hundred that tell them to make potentially more restrictive systems...


I'm just saying that people who are concerned should be smart with their purchases.


----------



## snpanago

Uppsalaing said:


> A lot of folks seem to be buying Dolby Vision equipment simply for 'future proofing' or to have the highest end product, but without benefit.


Will projectors not enable or include Dolby Vision in the future? Is this only a feature of emissive displays?


----------



## David Susilo

It will be a very long time before home projector can do HDR10 let alone Dolby Vision.


----------



## jjackkrash

Dolby Vision is noticeably better than regular HDR on my OLED displays.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I am ambivalent about Dolby. On the audio side, I thought PLIIx, which would matrix any source to 7.1 was nearly a miracle. Now, though, we have Dolby Surround, which will matrix any source to 7.2.4. Fortunately, DTS's Neural:X does the same thing. If Dolby decides to disable its Surround upmixer for any codec but its own, I will just shift to Neural:X when required and move on. I know I may be losing a little something but it's nothing I will worry about.


The only issue with that, for me at least, is that Neural:X is so much more aggressive than DSU and after a short time I find it 'wearing'. It draws attention to itself too much. This is good when you wish to demo the effect of upmixed sound from above but can become tiresome for an entire movie. I am hoping that DTS don't retaliate and we end up in the position where we can only use DSU with Dolby encoded material and Neural:X with that from DTS.

In any event, I have disabled FW updates on my Marantz, so this entire issue isn't going to affect me until I am either forced to do a FW update for something I absolutely need, or until I have to replace the AVR altogether.


----------



## Uppsalaing

snpanago said:


> Will projectors not enable or include Dolby Vision in the future? Is this only a feature of emissive displays?


 My understanding is that this will not be possible for the forseeable future not only due to the limited brightness of projectors (which limits HDR to some extent), but also because the DolbyVision processing has no way to know or measure the brightness of the projected image.


----------



## mtbdudex

David Susilo said:


> It will be a very long time before home projector can do HDR10 let alone Dolby Vision.




I saw dual Sony 5000’s at Art S gtg , pretty cool... even then 250 nits max. Pj screen reflecting tech is challenging HDR .
But this is a audio thread not a video thread 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Uppsalaing said:


> My understanding is that this will not be possible for the forseeable future not only due to the limited brightness of projectors (which limits HDR to some extent), but also because the DolbyVision processing has no way to know or measure the brightness of the projected image.


This is my understanding as well. It remains to be seen HOW and IF the technology challenge to dynamically measure brightness at the screen can be resolved by projectors...until then...no DV for PJ’s.


----------



## jjackkrash

Uppsalaing said:


> My understanding is that this will not be possible for the forseeable future not only due to the limited brightness of projectors (which limits HDR to some extent), but also because the DolbyVision processing has no way to know or measure the brightness of the projected image.


Dolby Vision is available in commercial cinemas that use projectors right now. 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/platforms/dolby-cinema.html


----------



## snpanago

jjackkrash said:


> Dolby Vision is available in commercial cinemas that use projectors right now.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/platforms/dolby-cinema.html


Thank you for this reminder. I'm not an owner of a projector, but this is what confused me as to why DV (and HDR in general) wouldn't be in the cards for future upgrade in projector based home theaters.


----------



## Ted99

Uppsalaing said:


> My understanding is that this will not be possible for the forseeable future not only due to the limited brightness of projectors (which limits HDR to some extent), but also because the DolbyVision processing has no way to know or measure the brightness of the projected image.


It's exactly for this reason that my JVC RS600 is the last front projector I will purchase. It'll do until something like the Sammy micro-LED "wall" is less than $20K


----------



## jjackkrash

snpanago said:


> Thank you for this reminder. I'm not an owner of a projector, but this is what confused me as to why DV (and HDR in general) wouldn't be in the cards for future upgrade in projector based home theaters.


HDR is available in reasonably price home projectors right now. I'd spend some time on the over-$3K projector forums if you want to learn about HDR in PJ's and the tech's current limitations. Peak brightness is a problem with most home projectors and HDR, but that does not mean the PJ's are not projecting in HDR or that there are not some compromises available: E.g.,:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...2950608-hdr-uhd-bluray-waveform-analysis.html


----------



## Uppsalaing

*Apologies for taking things off topic*

Sorry for taking things off topic with my HDR/projector talk... Back to Atmos...

Have any of you changed the way you treat your rooms accoustically because of Atmos?


----------



## mrtickleuk

jjackkrash said:


> Dolby Vision is available in commercial cinemas that use projectors right now.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/platforms/dolby-cinema.html


At the risk of dragging back off-topic, that's *not* dolby vision, which is a home system for consumers. The vision part of "dolby cinema" is a completely *different *system. 

Now back to audio


----------



## thetman

T-smith said:


> I rented this BD from Redbox just to have something to watch Tuesday and liked the Atmos track so much I ended up ordering the UHD disk.
> 
> 
> Its amazing how a movie called Hurricane Heist can have such great audio but every single Disney Marvel track is subpar


this is on my list soon to watch. watched Annihilation last night. holy crap the Atmos was out of control at certain times with the soundtrack. I don't think I ever heard my ceiling speakers play so loud other than Transformers extinction.


----------



## jjackkrash

mrtickleuk said:


> At the risk of dragging back off-topic, that's *not* dolby vision, which is a home system for consumers. The vision part of "dolby cinema" is a completely *different *system.
> 
> Now back to audio


From the link:

"Dramatic Imaging: Dolby Vision™ HDR was designed for the cinema to deliver incredible color, a million-to-one contrast ratio, and twice the brightness of standard screens. Powered by dual-laser projection technology and engineered for a consistent experience, Dolby Vision lets you see more of the story." 

***

I am not sure what "Dolby Vision™ HDR" is referring to other than "Dolby Vision."


----------



## batpig

jjackkrash said:


> From the link:
> 
> "Dramatic Imaging: Dolby Vision™ HDR was designed for the cinema to deliver incredible color, a million-to-one contrast ratio, and twice the brightness of standard screens. Powered by dual-laser projection technology and engineered for a consistent experience, Dolby Vision lets you see more of the story."
> 
> ***
> 
> I am not sure what "Dolby Vision™ HDR" is referring to other than "Dolby Vision."


The commercial Dolby Vision product is NOT the same thing as consumer DV. The commercial version is authored for a fixed, much lower peak brightness than the consumer version -- which not only is authored on much brighter monitors, but also (the key differentiator from HDR10) is a dynamic system that requires active feedback from the display to report its capabilities.

The issue with DV and consumer projectors isn't just the limited peak brightness -- that can be handled with a fixed HDR system by creating a custom gamma / tone mapping calibrated to your specific PJ/screen capabilities. Rather, it's the dynamic aspect of DV, which, in order to work properly, requires the display to report its capabilities to the source so the full DV compliant signal chain "knows" the display capabilities and can dynamically map the HDR accordingly.

With PJ's the capabilities cannot be known in advance, because people will have different screen types, different screen sizes, different throw distances, etc. This all makes DV fairly pointless as a concept for projection setups, so it's more reasonable to rely on a fixed HDR system like HDR10 and just calibrate the PJ for proper tone mapping / gamma.

Here's a good article on the current state of HDR: https://www.projectorreviews.com/home-theater-and-projectors-the-technical-side/the-state-of-hdr/


----------



## jjackkrash

batpig said:


> Here's a good article on the current state of HDR: https://www.projectorreviews.com/home-theater-and-projectors-the-technical-side/the-state-of-hdr/


Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. It sure is confusing when they use the exact same term with a TM for different products.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> rce so the full DV compliant signal chain "knows" the display capabilities and can dynamically map the HDR accordingly.
> 
> With PJ's the capabilities cannot be known in advance, because people will have different screen types, different screen sizes, different throw distances, etc. This all makes DV fairly pointless as a concept for projection setups, so it's more reasonable to rely on a fixed HDR system like HDR10 and just calibrate the PJ for proper tone mapping / gamma.


+1. And very good it can be too. Since I got my Epson 6040 properly tone-mapped for UHD discs (using SDR in the PJ) my 4k pleasure is boundless. And not only am I getting the benefits of improved resolution, but also the (more significant) benefits of HDR and WCG, plus, on most discs the glories of immersive sound too! Bliss!


----------



## gene4ht

batpig said:


> The commercial Dolby Vision product is NOT the same thing as consumer DV. The commercial version is authored for a fixed, much lower peak brightness than the consumer version -- which not only is authored on much brighter monitors, but also (the key differentiator from HDR10) is a dynamic system that requires active feedback from the display to report its capabilities.
> 
> The issue with DV and consumer projectors isn't just the limited peak brightness -- that can be handled with a fixed HDR system by creating a custom gamma / tone mapping calibrated to your specific PJ/screen capabilities. Rather, it's the dynamic aspect of DV, which, in order to work properly, requires the display to report its capabilities to the source so the full DV compliant signal chain "knows" the display capabilities and can dynamically map the HDR accordingly.
> 
> With PJ's the capabilities cannot be known in advance, because people will have different screen types, different screen sizes, different throw distances, etc. This all makes DV fairly pointless as a concept for projection setups, so it's more reasonable to rely on a fixed HDR system like HDR10 and just calibrate the PJ for proper tone mapping / gamma.
> 
> Here's a good article on the current state of HDR: https://www.projectorreviews.com/home-theater-and-projectors-the-technical-side/the-state-of-hdr/



This is exactly what my understanding is after readings from experts over the past year and what I expressed in my previous post relative to "consumer" grade projectors. Most believe DV will not likely come to fruition for "consumer" projectors unless the technological challenge of "dynamically" reporting brightness at the screen under varying conditions mentioned by batpig above can be overcome elegantly and inexpensively...possible but remains to be seen.


----------



## Domcorleone

Is anyone with a Dolby Atmos setup using a soundbar? I cannot set up a typically Center L/R speaker system in my place but I can do a passive soundbar. Does anyone have any recommendations for a passive soundbar that I can pair with atmos speakers?


----------



## batpig

Domcorleone said:


> Is anyone with a Dolby Atmos setup using a soundbar? I cannot set up a typically Center L/R speaker system in my place but I can do a passive soundbar. Does anyone have any recommendations for a passive soundbar that I can pair with atmos speakers?


There are no special requirements for "pairing" a soundbar with Atmos speakers -- a passive soundbar is, by definition, simply your front three LCR screen channels fused into a single (bar shaped) enclosure. 

So it's no different in principle than doing Atmos with any other LCR front speaker setup. Many companies (including Triad, Atlantic Technology, etc) make excellent passive LCR soundbars that will pair well with other speakers in their lineup for surrounds/overheads. 

The big question is what are your options for the other speakers? Will your surrounds be in-wall speakers, and the Atmos in-ceiling?


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. And very good it can be too. Since I got my Epson 6040 properly tone-mapped for UHD discs (using SDR in the PJ) my 4k pleasure is boundless. And not only am I getting the benefits of improved resolution, but also the (more significant) benefits of HDR and WCG, plus, on most discs the glories of immersive sound too! Bliss!


Out of curiosity, what was your solution for HDR tone mapping? Sounds like you are doing the tone mapping upstream, and sending SDR+WCG to the PJ? Are you doing this in the UHD BDP, or do you have an external VP (e.g. Lumagen) handling it?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Out of curiosity, what was your solution for HDR tone mapping? Sounds like you are doing the tone mapping upstream, and sending SDR+WCG to the PJ? Are you doing this in the UHD BDP, or do you have an external VP (e.g. Lumagen) handling it?


I'm sending HDR to the PJ but running a highly customised gamma in the PJ. The PJ is set to SDR although it is receiving HDR from the Panasonic UB900. By using SDR in the PJ I overcome the brightness problems with PJs/HDR. The end result is that I get BT2020, full HDR/WCG with a really gorgeous image. I am given to understand that my method is not always possible, unless one has a HD Fury device, because not all PJs will let you force the SDR mode when a HDR signal is being received, but the Epson 6040 does. I can't remember 100% how I set up the UB900 but IIRC it is in 'standard' HDR mode.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> .


 
Hi Keith,

do you think Height speakers need to be of the same "quality" as the Fronts and Center speaker, or can this be a lower quality speaker as they get far less output and this is of a different content as the 7.1 layer.

This is the speaker i am looking for to do the 4 Height channels together with the 2 Kef T101 as TM.

https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/needle-alu/needle-alu-super/needle-alu-sat

My other speakers are a complete Magnat Cinema Ultra set, they have a nice Height/DE speaker, the ATM400, but will set me back 1000 euro for the 4 !


Thanks,
Dick


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> 
> do you think Height speakers need to be of the same "quality" as the Fronts and Center speaker, or can this be a far lower quality speaker as they get far less output and this is of a different content as the 7.1 layer.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dick


The word 'quality' is the issue here I think. I certainly think that one should use speakers of good 'quality' for all of the surrounds, including the overheads. But there is no reason that the overheads should be the same size as the Mains, nor need they have the same dynamic capabilities in terms of power handling. LF response, ultimate SPL capability etc. Indeed, even in professional cinemas etc nobody is using, AFAIK, the same speakers all round. Take my own room - it would be impossible to have 4 x JBL 3677s on the ceiling! 

So IMO what you need on the ceiling are speakers that are of good quality, have a frequency response that goes down to at least half an octave or an octave below your chosen crossover point (if possible), have a wide polar dispersion (per Dolby spec) if possible or be aimable to MLP if not, have sufficient power handling and loudness capabilities for the task at hand and be of a suitable size for the installation.

I very much like coaxial design speakers and use pro-design Tannoy Di6DC for my overheads (now discontinued) since these solve many of the problems at a stroke. WRT to power handling etc, mine are pro designs so they can play very loud all day long anyway, but as you say, there isn't a huge demand on the overheads at this time. This may change later as mixers become more familiar with Atmos though.

So really, my recommendation is to choose overhead speakers the way you'd choose any other speakers. Look at what they have to do, the power they need to handle to do it, a smooth FR going as low as necessary relevant to the chosen XO point, sufficient sensitivity for the amps paired with them, etc etc. Since you are using EQ on the speakers there is no need, IMO, to worry about 'timbre matching' since the EQ will sort that out and bring the speakers into line with the chosen target curve.

I would definitely not treat the overheads as a 'poor relation' but equally I am mindful of the amount of work they have to do, which TBH isn't all that much. If it is a practical possibility, it might be a good idea to use speakers from the same range as one uses for the side and rear surrounds. I have bigger speakers for my floor level surrounds, but they are coaxial designs from Tannoy, just like my overhead speakers and this seems to work well. I also aim my overhead Tannoys towards MLP even though they have 90 degree dispersion. I see no downside in aiming speakers towards MLP and we have always done this with all other speakers so I see no good reason why speakers above us should be different. If you want to use in-ceiling designs, go for a very wide dispersion design, or ones with aimable tweeters.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> The word 'quality' is the issue here I think. I certainly think that one should use speakers of good 'quality' for all of the surrounds, including the overheads. But there is no reason that the overheads should be the same size as the Mains, nor need they have the same dynamic capabilities in terms of power handling. LF response, ultimate SPL capability etc. Indeed, even in professional cinemas etc nobody is using, AFAIK, the same speakers all round. Take my own room - it would be impossible to have 4 x JBL 3677s on the ceiling!
> 
> So IMO what you need on the ceiling are speakers that are of good quality, have a frequency response that goes down to at least half an octave or an octave below your chosen crossover point (if possible), have a wide polar dispersion (per Dolby spec) if possible or be aimable to MLP if not, have sufficient power handling and loudness capabilities for the task at hand and be of a suitable size for the installation.
> 
> I very much like coaxial design speakers and use pro-design Tannoy Di6DC for my overheads (now discontinued) since these solve many of the problems at a stroke. WRT to power handling etc, mine are pro designs so they can play very loud all day long anyway, but as you say, there isn't a huge demand on the overheads at this time. This may change later as mixers become more familiar with Atmos though.
> 
> So really, my recommendation is to choose overhead speakers the way you'd choose any other speakers. Look at what they have to do, the power they need to handle to do it, a smooth FR going as low as necessary relevant to the chosen XO point, sufficient sensitivity for the amps paired with them, etc etc. Since you are using EQ on the speakers there is no need, IMO, to worry about 'timbre matching' since the EQ will sort that out and bring the speakers into line with the chosen target curve.
> 
> I would definitely not treat the overheads as a 'poor relation' but equally I am mindful of the amount of work they have to do, which TBH isn't all that much. If it is a practical possibility, it might be a good idea to use speakers from the same range as one uses for the side and rear surrounds. I have bigger speakers for my floor level surrounds, but they are coaxial designs from Tannoy, just like my overhead speakers and this seems to work well. I also aim my overhead Tannoys towards MLP even though they have 90 degree dispersion. I see no downside in aiming speakers towards MLP and we have always done this with all other speakers so I see no good reason why speakers above us should be different. If you want to use in-ceiling designs, go for a very wide dispersion design, or ones with aimable tweeters.


Hi Keith,

i was not talking about on/in ceiling speakers.

I tried the ATM400 as DE together with the Kef T101 i have on the ceiling as TM, but did not like the effect.
So i will go for FH, TM and RH instade, and i can use the ATM speakers as DE or Direct with a switch.
The ATM 400 will be of the same serie as the other speakers, but will this be so much "better" to justify a +/- 800 euro differents compared to the Needle speaker i have in the link ?


( think i am looking for convermation to spent + 800 euro's or not)


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> i was not talking about on/in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I tried the ATM400 as DE together with the Kef T101 i have on the ceiling as TM, but did not like the effect.
> So i will go for FH, TM and RH instade, and i can use the ATM speakers as DE or Direct with a switch.
> The ATM 400 will be of the same serie as the other speakers, but will this be so much "better" to justify a +/- 800 euro differents compared to the Needle speaker i have in the link ?


Oh, sorry Dick. Well, the same advice applies really. Where is the link you mention - I'll check them out.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh, sorry Dick. Well, the same advice applies really. Where is the link you mention - I'll check them out.


 https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/needle-alu/needle-alu-super/needle-alu-sat

and here the ATM 400 a different cookie....


https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra-aeh-400-atm


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/needle-alu/needle-alu-super/needle-alu-sat
> 
> and here the ATM 400 a different cookie....
> 
> 
> https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra-aeh-400-atm


I don't think there's much doubt that the ATM 400 is a much more sophisticated design, with a superior spec. Whether it is is worth the extra cash I don't know.

I don't very much like the spec of the 'needle' speaker. It has a sensitivity of 88dB, which is on the low side for me (I love the dynamism of highly sensitive speakers) coupled with a power handling of only 45/70 watts. The FR only goes down to 75Hz (but in typical consumer loudspeaker fashion, this is stated with no qualifying dB rolloff so it isn't helpful - is it 3dB down at 75Hz, 10dB down - what?). Ideally this would mean you'd cross over at 150Hz which I think is too high. The tweeter is specified as 'very light PC dome'. WTF? What does that tell us? Nothing!

The ATM 400 is similar sensitivity at 89dB but has power handling of up to 120 watts. The FR goes down to 45Hz (again, no qualifiers specified) so a XO of 90Hz would be ideal. And it is a coaxial design! Which, of course, I love. I am guessing it is much more expensive because it has a much higher spec, uses superior components and has that special Atmos tech inside it which a good DE speaker presumably needs. I would probably be happy with this speaker as a surround or overhead speaker.

If I could only choose from these two speakers I would choose the ATM 400. But that is mainly because I think the 'needle' is pretty low spec. TBH, I wouldn't buy either personally. Have you considered Pro speakers at all? These usually give you proper specs, much better value, higher power handling/sensitivity etc and cost less. If aesthetics are a main consideration though, they may not suit.

These are the speakers I use for surrounds. They are fabulous, and not expensive. They are a 'slim' design, so easy to incorporate into most rooms. But they don't look fantastic I agree.

https://www.tannoy.com/Categories/Tannoy/DEFINITION-INSTALL/DC8i-CUSTOM/p/P0CFA

I'd also be happy with these, or their smaller bothers, as overheads. I already had the Di6DCs though, which is why I used them in my room.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't think there's much doubt that the ATM 400 is a much more sophisticated design, with a superior spec. Whether it is is worth the extra cash I don't know.
> 
> I don't very much like the spec of the 'needle' speaker. It has a sensitivity of 88dB, which is on the low side for me (I love the dynamism of highly sensitive speakers) coupled with a power handling of only 45/70 watts. The FR only goes down to 75Hz (but in typical consumer loudspeaker fashion, this is stated with no qualifying dB rolloff so it isn't helpful - is it 3dB down at 75Hz, 10dB down - what?). Ideally this would mean you'd cross over at 150Hz which I think is too high. The tweeter is specified as 'very light PC dome'. WTF? What does that tell us? Nothing!
> 
> The ATM 400 is similar sensitivity at 89dB but has power handling of up to 120 watts. The FR goes down to 45Hz (again, no qualifiers specified) so a XO of 90Hz would be ideal. And it is a coaxial design! Which, of course, I love. I am guessing it is much more expensive because it has a much higher spec, uses superior components and has that special Atmos tech inside it which a good DE speaker presumably needs. I would probably be happy with this speaker as a surround or overhead speaker.
> 
> If I could only choose from these two speakers I would choose the ATM 400. But that is mainly because I think the 'needle' is pretty low spec. TBH, I wouldn't buy either personally. Have you considered Pro speakers at all? These usually give you proper specs, much better value, higher power handling/sensitivity etc and cost less. If aesthetics are a main consideration though, they may not suit.
> 
> These are the speakers I use for surrounds. They are fabulous, and not expensive. They are a 'slim' design, so easy to incorporate into most rooms. But they don't look fantastic I agree.
> 
> https://www.tannoy.com/Categories/Tannoy/DEFINITION-INSTALL/DC8i-CUSTOM/p/P0CFA
> 
> I'd also be happy with these, or their smaller bothers, as overheads. I already had the Di6DCs though, which is why I used them in my room.


Thanks for you kind advice Keith 


I will go with the ATM 400, its also what will happen *between* the ears when i start to use the Needle speaker.
With the ATM 400 i will be sure its not the speaker that will fail.
And indeed the Needle will be set as 150 Hz, think the ATM will be set as 80 or 90 Hz, much more into range with the other speakers of the Cinema line.


Now going up the ladder.........


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Thanks for you kind advice Keith


You're welcome Dick 



CBdicX said:


> I will go with the ATM 400, its also what will happen *between* the ears when i start to use the Needle speaker.
> With the ATM 400 i will be sure its not the speaker that will fail.
> And indeed the Needle will be set as 150 Hz, think the ATM will be set as 80 or 90 Hz, much more into range with the other speakers of the Cinema line.
> 
> 
> Now going up the ladder.........


I think the ATM 400 looks like a pretty good speaker for the purpose. Don't forget to let us know how they work out for you!


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> *Don't forget to let us know how they work out for you![/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I will sure do, think i can do this tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Thanks !


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't forget to let us know how they work out for you!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will sure do, think i can do this tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Thanks !
Click to expand...

Ooh - that's quick! Hope it all goes well.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for the info. I may cancel my Black Panther pre-order then and wait until it is in the bargain bin before I buy it. I'll stick with Incredibles 2 because I have been waiting a long time for a sequel!


I feel the same way about the new Tomb Raider too.. it's not bad, but not worth the initial asking price. Get it at a discount on Black Friday perhaps.. and the first hour seems to be a chapter entitled "how many ways can you cause hurt to Lara Croft"..


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I feel the same way about the new Tomb Raider too.. it's not bad, but not wow the initial asking price. Get it at a discount on Black Friday perhaps.. and the first hour seems to be a chapter entitled "how many ways can you cause hurt to Lara Croft"..


They are too expensive to accept less than 100% IMO. I also got very excited to see that _Die Hard_ is being released in UHD, but then was deflated to discover that the soundtrack hadn't been upgraded to an immersive format. So I won't be buying that one again either. I'd like the improved PQ, but I think we deserve an Atmos mix as well, like some of the recently re-released classics (eg_ Blade Runner_).


----------



## sdrucker

OK, so I took one more for AVS and picked up The Incredibles on UHD/Atmos. It’s barely a 7.1.4 mix, with occasional use of the top middles to accentuate a fire in a building or rain overhead, let alone anything more immersive. The top middles get pulled in briefly after the initial interviews with the heroes, though, so it isn’t pre-rendered to 7.1.4, at least. 

No wides or the extra Atmos presence speakers I have light up at all. And all the usual Disney complaints (low dynamic range, not much bass, etc.) still apply.

OTOH it’s a cartoon that’s deliberately (IMO) filmed and mixed to evoke the feel of classics, so expecting much activity in music scenes or what sfx there are is possibly optimistic, even with an Atmos remix.

Move on, nothing to hear...you’ll be just as good with a Netflix rental LOL. Returning it to Best Buy and picking up something else to test that I don’t have


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> OK, so I took one more for AVS and picked up The Incredibles on UHD/Atmos. It’s barely a 7.1.4 mix, with occasional use of the top middles to accentuate a fire in a building or rain overhead, let alone anything more immersive. The top middles get pulled in briefly after the initial interviews with the heroes, though, so it isn’t pre-rendered to 7.1.4, at least.
> 
> No wides or the extra Atmos presence speakers I have light up at all. And all the usual Disney complaints (low dynamic angle, not much bass, etc.) still apply.
> 
> OTOH it’s a cartoon that’s deliberately (IMO) filmed and mixed to evoke the feel of classics, so expecting much activity in music scenes or what sfx there are is possibly optimistic, even with an Atmos remix.
> 
> Move on, nothing to hear...you’ll be just as good with a Netflix rental LOL. Returning it to Best Buy and picking up something else to test that I don’t have


Thanks for the review Stu. The original mix was/is terrific, so it seems there is nothing to be gained from 'upgrading' to the UHD version. It is interesting that you say that the usual Disney issues crop up, because I don't recall the original of this movie having any problems at all with the sound, so maybe when they come to remaster it for Atmos, this is where the problems arise? 

I just checked out the bluray.com review of this movie and they compare the 4K Atmos mix with the standard DTS mix and recommend you choose the standard DTS over the Atmos!

So the question is, WTF are Disney doing when they come to do their Atmos mixes? They seem, in this case anyway, to have taken a terrific sound track and neutered it. It confirms my decision to steer clear of Disney product until it appears in the bargain bin.

EDIT:

Compare this review of the original DTS track with that of the new Atmos track to see the extent of Disney's fall from grace:

_"The Incredibles' *rock-em, sock-em DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 ES surround track* is even better, if you can believe it. Dialogue slides, sails and slices through the most chaotic scenes, mingling perfectly with whatever rumbling ruckus stirs the Parrs into action. Crisp, clean voices and intuitively prioritized effects are given the full attention they require, and effortlessly slip from one channel to the next with the utmost ease. *LFE output is bold and brassy, packing brick-cracking punch* come clobberin' time, heroic heft whenever robots are lobbed or destruction reigns from the heavens, and commanding presence with every downbeat of Michael Giacchino's toe-tapping score. The rear speakers answer the track's call to arms too, filling the soundfield with the mundane click-clacking and fluorescent-bulb hum of Bob's office, the rustle and bustle of Syndrome's island jungle, and the piercing wheen of bladed hovercraft. Ambience prevails at all times, acoustics are convincing, and directionality is wonderfully precise. *Simply put, everything from the track's arresting dynamics to its extraordinary immersiveness is as flawless and faithful* as Pixar purists have come to expect from Disney's lossless audio mixes. I know it's all subjective, but I couldn't get enough."_

I know it's a different reviewer for each version, but even so.... (my bolding BTW).


----------



## petetherock

IMHO you get more from a DSU upped Big Hero Six


----------



## CBdicX

*with 6 Height speakers nothing from Front and Rear.*


I was playing around with Atmos, NeuralX and Auro 3D and had strange behavior from Dolby and DTS.
As soon as i run with 6 Height speakers, DE, Top or Top and Height, Dolby and DTS will only use the Top Middle and DE Surround speaker to do the Height effects, and nothing (absolute 0 !!) from the Front-Rear Height, DE or Top speakers.
As soon as i take the middle speakers out, then Front and Rear are used again.
*Auro has no problems, it will use Front and Rear speakers together with the VOG speaker (TS) so nothing "wrong" there.*


Very strange that as soon as the Height speakers go from 4 to 6, Dolby and DTS will put all the Height effects into the Middle speakers, and nothing to Front and Rear.
This is tested (over and over again ) on a Denon AVC X8500H.


----------



## howard68

Have you tryout the dolby 9.2.6 test demo
Will it demo the independent 6 hight speakers


----------



## Mr.G

petetherock said:


> I feel the same way about the new Tomb Raider too.. it's not bad, but not worth the initial asking price. Get it at a discount on Black Friday perhaps.. and the first hour seems to be a chapter entitled "how many ways can you cause hurt to Lara Croft"..


Actually I thought it was more like "Watch Lara Croft run! Run Lara Run!"


----------



## mrtickleuk

jjackkrash said:


> Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. It sure is confusing when they use the exact same term with a TM for different products.


Indeed, my thanks too to @batpig for jumping in quickly and it was all sorted in 3 posts, yay  Next time I'll try to remember the thing about dynamic metadata.


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> The commercial version is authored for a fixed, much lower peak brightness than the consumer version -- which not only is authored on much brighter monitors, but also (the key differentiator from HDR10) is a dynamic system that requires active feedback from the display to report its capabilities.


Hmm. . . we had cameras built into certain high end projectors before [I think to focus automatically, IIRC] so I can see them coming back, this time to assess screen brightness to calibrate Dolby Vision.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> OK, so I took one more for AVS and picked up The Incredibles on UHD/Atmos. It’s barely a 7.1.4 mix, with occasional use of the top middles to accentuate a fire in a building or rain overhead, let alone anything more immersive. The top middles get pulled in briefly after the initial interviews with the heroes, though, so it isn’t pre-rendered to 7.1.4, at least.
> 
> No wides or the extra Atmos presence speakers I have light up at all. And all the usual Disney complaints (low dynamic range, not much bass, etc.) still apply.
> 
> OTOH it’s a cartoon that’s deliberately (IMO) filmed and mixed to evoke the feel of classics, so expecting much activity in music scenes or what sfx there are is possibly optimistic, even with an Atmos remix.
> 
> Move on, nothing to hear...you’ll be just as good with a Netflix rental LOL. Returning it to Best Buy and picking up something else to test that I don’t have


:frown:


Just as I suspected. 



Damn it, Disney Home Video, WTF is wrong with you guys??!!!


----------



## usc1995

Dan Hitchman said:


> :frown:
> 
> 
> Just as I suspected.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn it, Disney Home Video, WTF is wrong with you guys??!!!




At least the original DTS HDMA mix was pretty good so I would choose that track and use Neural X. Needless to say I won’t bother picking up the UHD for this one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

usc1995 said:


> At least the original DTS HDMA mix was pretty good so I would choose that track and use Neural X. Needless to say I won’t bother picking up the UHD for this one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



If whichever Mickey Mouse engineer they have working over there had some small inkling what what he/she was doing, the Dolby Atmos mix should be far and away superior and we wouldn't have to put up with this crap. If mixes that stink up the joint are the new policy at DHV because some child might have his pure widdle ears hurt or a POS soundbar won't get damaged, an engineer with some huevos rancheros should push back.


----------



## usc1995

Dan Hitchman said:


> If whichever Mickey Mouse engineer they have working over there....



Ha! I see what you did there...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## howard68

Until I get word that the uhd has a good Atmos soundtrack I will no longer buy ahead of time 
I have been burned to many times now


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> If whichever Mickey Mouse engineer they have working over there had some small inkling what what he/she was doing, the Dolby Atmos mix should be far and away superior and we wouldn't have to put up with this crap. If mixes that stink up the joint are the new policy at DHV because some child might have his pure widdle ears hurt or a POS soundbar won't get damaged, an engineer with some huevos rancheros should push back.


Avenger: Infinity War is coming out on UHD with Atmos, as per Blu-ray.com. No release date is shown, but since this will be a good test of whether Disney simply has some mixes that just happened to be neutered to 7.1.4/7.1.6 (if you're lucky), or it's more of a policy.

Still wonder if there's some scheme in Mouseland to do the Atmos Platinum I was half-seriously joking about, with an eye toward for the future with more immersive Atmos reserved for some unknown time.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Avenger: Infinity War is coming out on UHD with Atmos, as per Blu-ray.com. No release date is shown, but since this will be a good test of whether Disney simply has some mixes that just happened to bee neutered to 7.1.4/7.1.6 (if you're lucky), or it's more of a policy.
> 
> Still wonder if there's some scheme in Mouseland to do the Atmos Platinum I was half-seriously joking about, with an eye toward for the future with more immersive Atmos reserved for some unknown time.


Disney video has already released titles on UHD Blu-ray that had native Atmos mixes and to a one the near-field versions have basically been print-outs with neutered audio. 

This audio mutilation started a couple years back, notibly with Age of Ultron. They're continuing now on UHD Blu-ray and Atmos is the next format to be bludgeoned to death. 

The only good thing is that they were too lazy this time to f with the included 5.1 Blu-ray mix from before and left it intact.


----------



## stikle

Sidebar: Comcast Offers $65 Billion in Cash to Buy Fox and Screw Disney


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Sidebar: Comcast Offers $65 Billion in Cash to Buy Fox and Screw Disney


Yup. Iger and Universal's top exec are not buddies. If Uni can mess up Disney's bid, then blood has been spilled.

However, these mega consolidations are as anti-consumer as can be.

At the very least, Uni might be more willing to release catalog titles on disc than Disney (who has a horrible track record), though they may look like arse.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Avenger: Infinity War is coming out on UHD with Atmos, as per Blu-ray.com. No release date is shown, but since this will be a good test of whether Disney simply has some mixes that just happened to bee neutered to 7.1.4/7.1.6 (if you're lucky), or it's more of a policy.


The original Avengers movie had a weak soundtrack as well IIRC. And Thor Ragnarok was hopelessly neutered too. IDK about it being 'policy' (surely nobody would have a _policy _to produce rubbish soundtracks?) but it definitely seems to be consistent.

You are doing us a great service, Stu, by analysing these movies for us, thank you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> The only good thing is that they were too lazy this time to f with the included 5.1 Blu-ray mix from before and left it intact.


That's another thing that makes no sense - what is the point of taking up disc space with a standard DTS/TrueHD 5.1/7.1 track when the disc already has an Atmos track?

As it happens, given their dire Atmos tracks, it is useful - but it still makes no sense to me to include it.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> That's another thing that makes no sense - what is the point of taking up disc space with a standard DTS/TrueHD 5.1/7.1 track when the disc already has an Atmos track?


Because then the disc will present a carefully crafted legacy mix, originating from the mix actually heard in most cinemas, rather than the more "mechanical" downmix of the Atmos mix, an outcome which is not given near the level of scrutiny and artistic finesse as the original 5.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Because then the disc will present a carefully crafted legacy mix, originating from the mix actually heard in most cinemas, rather than the more "mechanical" downmix of the Atmos mix, an outcome which is not given near the level of scrutiny and artistic finesse as the original 5.1.


So is the 5.1 version of the TrueHD track not the same as the 5.1 version in the Atmos track?

I don't understand this. When they mix an Atmos movie - let's take _The Incredibles 2_ as an example - isn't the mix 'carefully crafted'? I'd have thought it would be. If it was, then surely the 'core' TrueHD version is the same as any other TrueHD version isn't it? So what is the point of putting the Atmos mix on the disc, _as well as_ the 5.1 'core' as a separate track? Why are they not identical?

And what is this 'Atmos downmix'? I thought that there was one basic track - TrueHD - and the 'Atmos part' was metadata included with it and decoded by an Atmos-enabled AVR? If that is the case, why is the core TrueHD track inferior to the TrueHD track presented separately?

What am I not understanding?? It seems that what you are saying is that the Atmos tracks are inferior in some way to the basic 5.1.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> So is the 5.1 version of the TrueHD track not the same as the 5.1 version in the Atmos track?


No. (Technically, that could be done -- one can render an Atmos mix to a 5.1 output, then put it on the disc as a separate track, but that would not be useful especially when an original 5.1, already studio approved, is on the shelf.) 



> I don't understand this. When they mix an Atmos movie - let's take _The Incredibles 2_ as an example - isn't the mix 'carefully crafted'? I'd have thought it would be.


I assume it was. These mixers take great pride in their work.



> If it was, then surely the 'core' TrueHD version is the same as any other TrueHD version isn't it?


No. The compatible core is a fold-down of the bed and objects, done in such a way as to be reversible for the home Atmos presentation. This is not how a cinema 5.1/7.1 mix is created.



> And what is this 'Atmos downmix'? I thought that there was one basic track - TrueHD - and the 'Atmos part' was metadata included with it and decoded by an Atmos-enabled AVR? If that is the case, why is the core TrueHD track inferior to the TrueHD track presented separately?


The core track is not automatically inferior, but to whatever extent it differs from a hand tuned 7.1, it is a different mix. Remember, what is being downmixed in a home version are the bed plus the objects (spatially coded if needed). If a studio mixes a movie in Atmos, then creates the 5.1/7.1 versions, it starts with the elements that made the Atmos mix. It does not use spatially coded/combined object elements in that process. The mixers have much more control over the process than is possible in the downmix process.



> What am I not understanding?? It seems that what you are saying is that the Atmos tracks are inferior in some way to the basic 5.1.


If by "basic 5.1" you mean a 5.1 mixed on a dubbing stage for cinema release, then no, neither is inferior. I am assuming each represents exactly what the producers intended. The issue I am discussing is that there is more than one path to creating a 5.1 version for consumer media, and that might mean one is better than the other.


----------



## usc1995

kbarnes701 said:


> So is the 5.1 version of the TrueHD track not the same as the 5.1 version in the Atmos track?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this. When they mix an Atmos movie - let's take _The Incredibles 2_ as an example - isn't the mix 'carefully crafted'? I'd have thought it would be. If it was, then surely the 'core' TrueHD version is the same as any other TrueHD version isn't it? So what is the point of putting the Atmos mix on the disc, _as well as_ the 5.1 'core' as a separate track? Why are they not identical?
> 
> 
> 
> And what is this 'Atmos downmix'? I thought that there was one basic track - TrueHD - and the 'Atmos part' was metadata included with it and decoded by an Atmos-enabled AVR? If that is the case, why is the core TrueHD track inferior to the TrueHD track presented separately?
> 
> 
> 
> What am I not understanding?? It seems that what you are saying is that the Atmos tracks are inferior in some way to the basic 5.1.




For the Inredibles the original DTS HDMA mix was really good and they have included it on the UHD. This is a benefit to the consumer since it is apparently much better than the Atmos mix. Curiously, Disney also lists a TrueHD soundtrack. From blu-ray.com:

Audio
English: Dolby Atmos
English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (48kHz, 24-bit)
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 ES Matrix
English: Dolby Digital 2.0
French: Dolby Digital 5.1 EX
Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1 EX

While I agree that a separate legacy True HD or DTS HDMA mix isn’t necessary since the core of the the Atmos or DTSX mix should be there, many older titles were released with a DTSHD mix originally. We know the core of a new Atmos mix won’t be DTSHDMA so they include it too. More options is more better to me. I just wish the UHD would always default to the Atmos or DTSX mix when available and not TrueHD or (gasp!) Dolby Digital as I have sometimes experienced.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

howard68 said:


> Have you tryout the dolby 9.2.6 test demo
> Will it demo the independent 6 hight speakers



I tried on all 3 formats the same Atmos test track *Dolby Audiosphere*.
Dolby and DTS fail to play Front and Rear Height, Auro will.
For Dolby the X8500H says its a Atmos track, Auro and DTS show a 7.1 track.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> No. (Technically, that could be done -- one can render an Atmos mix to a 5.1 output, then put it on the disc as a separate track, but that would not be useful especially when an original 5.1, already studio approved, is on the shelf.)
> 
> I assume it was. These mixers take great pride in their work.
> 
> No. The compatible core is a fold-down of the bed and objects, done in such a way as to be reversible for the home Atmos presentation. This is not how a cinema 5.1/7.1 mix is created.
> 
> The core track is not automatically inferior, but to whatever extent it differs from a hand tuned 7.1, it is a different mix. Remember, what is being downmixed in a home version are the bed plus the objects (spatially coded if needed). If a studio mixes a movie in Atmos, then creates the 5.1/7.1 versions, it starts with the elements that made the Atmos mix. It does not use spatially coded/combined object elements in that process. The mixers have much more control over the process than is possible in the downmix process.
> 
> If by "basic 5.1" you mean a 5.1 mixed on a dubbing stage for cinema release, then no, neither is inferior. I am assuming each represents exactly what the producers intended. The issue I am discussing is that there is more than one path to creating a 5.1 version for consumer media, and that might mean one is better than the other.


Sorry Roger - I am being extraordinarily dense on this. I still don't get it. All my understanding of Atmos has been that it is carried in a TrueHD track, with metadata that allows the 'Atmos part' to be extracted by my AVR's Atmos decoder. But you seem to be saying, if I understand you (and you would know a thousand times more about this than me, or indeed most people) that there is a 'compatible core' which is not the TrueHD track at all. 

What does it mean when you say that the studio 'creates the 5.1/7.1 versions' where the mixers have less control due to some downmixing process? What is downmixed, and why? I had believed they made an Atmos track for release into cinemas and that what we get on disc is essentially that track, albeit possibly adjusted in some small ways for home consumption. Those who don't have an Atmos decoder get the 'core' track, which is 7.1 and those who do get the full fat Atmos. So how can the 7.1 TrueHD be any different to the Atmos track (other than the metadata which carries the immersive part of the content?

Please reply as if you are explaining this to a 4 year old who knows nothing at all 

Or, if you prefer, point me to somewhere on the internet where I can read up about it. It seems that all my understanding of how Atmos is presented to us on disc is incorrect...


----------



## kbarnes701

usc1995 said:


> For the Inredibles the original DTS HDMA mix was really good and they have included it on the UHD. This is a benefit to the consumer since it is apparently much better than the Atmos mix. Curiously, Disney also lists a TrueHD soundtrack.


It's only a benefit when the studio is Disney, because their Atmos tracks are poor. With other studios it wouldn't be a benefit at all, since those who don't have an Atmos AVR would just get the 7.1 track. (Or that's what I thought until I read Roger's last two posts.)


----------



## Wahid Hadi

Is it fine to use RP-250SA for side speakers in a 7.1.4 setup?


----------



## howard68

On the dolby atmos demo disc it has a call out for the 6 top speakers 
You need to try it out 
You should get each speaker to make a sound


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> Sorry Roger - I am being extraordinarily dense on this. I still don't get it. All my understanding of Atmos has been that it is carried in a TrueHD track, with metadata that allows the 'Atmos part' to be extracted by my AVR's Atmos decoder. But you seem to be saying, if I understand you (and you would know a thousand times more about this than me, or indeed most people) that there is a 'compatible core' which is not the TrueHD track at all.


Sorry if I am causing confusion. The core is indeed a real 7.1 TrueHD track. It is a 7.1-ch render of the complete soundtrack. The Atmos bitstream additionally carries any audio objects and related metadata needed to reconstitute the Atmos presentation. 



> What does it mean when you say that the studio 'creates the 5.1/7.1 versions' where the mixers have less control due to some downmixing process? What is downmixed, and why?


The downmix (aka the 7.1-ch render) is part of the process the TrueHD encoder uses to package the Atmos source into the structured deliverables that comprise the consumer Atmos bitstream (the core, objects, and metadata). The core ensures legacy compatibility.



> I had believed they made an Atmos track for release into cinemas and that what we get on disc is essentially that track, albeit possibly adjusted in some small ways for home consumption.


Correct -- adjusted in ways small and sometimes apparently larger.



> Those who don't have an Atmos decoder get the 'core' track, which is 7.1 and those who do get the full fat Atmos. So how can the 7.1 TrueHD be any different to the Atmos track (other than the metadata which carries the immersive part of the content?


Absent other options, you're correct. If the disc has only an Atmos track, the TrueHD 7.1 available to consumers would indeed be that of the core. No choice. 

The case we (or maybe just I) have been discussing is that certain Atmos discs elect to include a separate 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack, and may be coded with DD, DTS, DTS-HD MA, or TrueHD. That soundtrack is not derived by the same rendering process that produced the core of the Atmos bitstream. It is only present because of its different origins.



> Or, if you prefer, point me to somewhere on the internet where I can read up about it. It seems that all my understanding of how Atmos is presented to us on disc is incorrect...


Some of this is discussed in the *Dolby Atmos Production Suite Guide*, see p.191 for example.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> The compatible core is a fold-down of the bed and objects, done in such a way as to be *reversible* for the home Atmos presentation. This is not how a cinema 5.1/7.1 mix is created.


Keith, the reversible nature of the fold-downs is key to the difference being discussed. You already know about the nested structure: at the core of an Atmos track is a 7.1 mix; at the core of the 7.1 mix is a 5.1 mix; at the core of the 5.1 mix is a 2.0 mix. Each one of these nested tracks contains all the contents of the movie soundtrack. So the contents of the 2.0 track can be re-arranged to get a 5.1 mix; the contents of the 5.1 track can be re-arranged to get a 7.1 mix; the contents of the 7.1 mix can be re-arranged to get the Atmos mix. 

But what if you could take the original elements (individual dialogue, music and effects pieces) and do a dedicated 5.1 mix that did not have to be compatible with more or fewer channels and instead could be optimized specifically for 5.1 playback? Wouldn't that sound a little different than the 5.1-channel fold-down of an Atmos mix? Which is why there are separate 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos mixes for cinema. Each mix optimized for a specific playback configuration.


----------



## Mrjmc99

I'm not quite sure what I'm missing. I have watched about half of the incredibles uhd and it had made excellent use of the entire sound field. Panning is excellent, use of overhead is great, seems like a good mix to me. I'm running an x4300h with 7.2.4, watching it with dynamic volume set to medium.


sdrucker said:


> OK, so I took one more for AVS and picked up The Incredibles on UHD/Atmos. It’s barely a 7.1.4 mix, with occasional use of the top middles to accentuate a fire in a building or rain overhead, let alone anything more immersive. The top middles get pulled in briefly after the initial interviews with the heroes, though, so it isn’t pre-rendered to 7.1.4, at least.
> 
> No wides or the extra Atmos presence speakers I have light up at all. And all the usual Disney complaints (low dynamic range, not much bass, etc.) still apply.
> 
> OTOH it’s a cartoon that’s deliberately (IMO) filmed and mixed to evoke the feel of classics, so expecting much activity in music scenes or what sfx there are is possibly optimistic, even with an Atmos remix.
> 
> Move on, nothing to hear...you’ll be just as good with a Netflix rental LOL. Returning it to Best Buy and picking up something else to test that I don’t have


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

Mrjmc99 said:


> I'm not quite sure what I'm missing. I have watched about half of the incredibles uhd and it had made excellent use of the entire sound field. Panning is excellent, use of overhead is great, seems like a good mix to me. I'm running an x4300h with 7.2.4, watching it with dynamic volume set to medium.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


Hi, I was talking about were a few things: how much the overheads in a .4 or .6 layout seemed to be used, and the degree to which speakers above and beyond the 7.x.4 configuration with two pairs of heights were being utilized as part of the ability of the Dolby Atmos renderer to scale up to the set of speakers you are using (assuming that they are assigned valid designations within the 24.x.10 consumer Atmos layout).

The latter in particular tells how much top middles and wides - speakers which are now available for Atmos in the Denon X8500 (it can do 7.1.6 or 9.1.4), or certain other processors that can handle 9.1.6 or higher - are being used. I have a Trinnov Altitude, with an extra front pair of side surrounds and left/right centers, on top of the 9.1.6 layout, for a total of 13.x.6. My Altitude can also monitor the direct decoding of the Inputs on a speaker by speaker basis, so I can tell just how much Atmos is actually getting scaled beyond straight 7.1.4, as you have it in your X4300.

My observation watching Incredibles was that the mix mostly used the bed 7.1.4 speakers, and brought in the height speakers for some special effects (mostly things like fires, rainfall, and movement overhead). Compared to other mixes I've got, such as Saving Private Ryan (SPR), The Last Jedi, or even such legacy movies as Ghostbusters, the height speakers weren't used nearly as much, so to the degree to which heights add to the experience, the mix was a mediocre illustration of that effect IMO. 

In fact, if you play the standard DTS-ES 6.1 mix that's also included, and apply the DSU or Neural:X upmixer to get heights content, it's arguably a better listening experience. That's rare for an Atmos release. 

Beyond that, the top middles in this Atmos mix of The Incredibles are used relatively infrequently compared to, say, SPR, and none of the other extra Atmos presence speakers I have get used at all.

Why does this matter to you? There's been much angst in the A/V enthusiast world about mainstream DSP-based processors only being 7.1.4, and not allowing the full 3D audio immersion that Atmos is supposedly capable of. Having an affordable X8500 that can do 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 may offer a better experience than 7.1.4. Likewise my PC/software-based hi-end Altitude is unrestricted by DSP limitations and can render pretty much to anything I lay out within my 24 channel license.

What we've been doing is looking at specific movies to see whether they're truly scalable to higher layouts (think Mad Max, Source Code, Gravity, Hacksaw Ridge), merely have a conservative mixing of consumer Atmos (movies that mostly are 7.1.4 or 7.1.6, but have occasional use of wides or other Atmos presence speakers), or are apparently pre-rendered to 7.1.4 or 7.1.6 and don't ever use anything else. Apparently films that are mixed in Atmos and being released by Disney are almost all exclusively "pre-rendered".

This doesn't matter if you're just using 7.1.4, although I still think The Incredibles underutilizes the heights compared to most other Atmos movies (I'm not the first person to say that here either). But it matters if you've invested in 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 or even greater and the mixes can't use the extra speakers beyond 7.1.4 because they've been hard-coded/wired to only use the 7.1.4/7.1.6 layout. 

In that sense, for most of us, it's debatable that these mixes are "neutered" or underutilizing what Atmos can do. But think of it this way: maybe a few years from now, you might be able to buy a Denon/Marantz that can do 9.1.6 or more. If Atmos releases use object passthrough consistently, then you can play back a disc you bought in 2014 like Unbroken and the renderer can scale the decoding up to your layout. If the mix is pre-rendered to just 7.1.4, you don't get to use the scaling-up property. As hobbyists, many of us would consider that a problem.


----------



## batpig

Mrjmc99 said:


> watching it with dynamic volume set to medium.


I think Dynamic Volume is a key variable here -- DV is, by nature, going to restrict dynamic range. It makes soft sounds louder and loud sounds softer, so there is less variation between a quiet dialogue scene and a loud explosion.

Leaving aside the "7.1.4 print" stuff which only affects a tiny fraction of end users with >11ch setups, the key complaints with these Disney mixes are:

1. the volume is low, they often have to be turned up louder than a typical mix to get the same overall volume
2. even when you crank the volume to compensate, they have reduced dynamics 

Both of the above issues would be mitigated significantly when using Dynamic Volume.

If you pop in one of the Disney mixes, turn off Dyn Vol so you get the full dynamic range, and then crank up the volume to a healthy level... then (without adjusting the volume on the AVR) swap to a killer Atmos mix like Mad Max Fury Road, John Wick, Hacksaw Ridge, either Blade Runner, etc. you will hear the difference in volume / dynamics.

That said, as with many things on enthusiast forums, some of the "problems" are IMO somewhat exaggerated. Not every movie soundtrack has to smash you in the face constantly with overwhelming bass and dynamic surround effects, if a studio and/or director prefers to have a mix that is a bit more front heavy, and not totally maxed out in dynamics, that's a viable creative decision. 

And once you crank up the volume to compensate for the first issue above, IMO they are still good, fun mixes, even if not as bruising and balls-to-the-wall as others. I thoroughly enjoyed Thor: Ragnarok for example, never once did I feel like I was missing something... it was a fun mix with some excellent overhead effects when the situation called for it, plus it helps that it's an awesome, fun movie. If the movie is good (as I think most of the Marvel/Disney stuff is) then it's not going to ruin my enjoyment when the mix is on the soft/tame side. Will I whip those specific movies out for the system demo when someone comes over? Nah, definitely not. But I'd rather watch a good movie with an OK mix than go back to the days of 3 years ago when we were scrounging for garbage like Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles just to get an Atmos mix.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> The case we (or maybe just I) have been discussing is that certain Atmos discs elect to include a separate 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack, and may be coded with DD, DTS, DTS-HD MA, or TrueHD. That soundtrack is not derived by the same rendering process that produced the core of the Atmos bitstream. It is only present because of its different origins.


Bingo. This is the part that was confusing me and/or that I wasn't understanding. Thank you for your patience! 





Roger Dressler said:


> Some of this is discussed in the *Dolby Atmos Production Suite Guide*, see p.191 for example.


Thanks. I will take a look.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Keith, the reversible nature of the fold-downs is key to the difference being discussed. You already know about the nested structure: at the core of an Atmos track is a 7.1 mix; at the core of the 7.1 mix is a 5.1 mix; at the core of the 5.1 mix is a 2.0 mix. Each one of these nested tracks contains all the contents of the movie soundtrack. So the contents of the 2.0 track can be re-arranged to get a 5.1 mix; the contents of the 5.1 track can be re-arranged to get a 7.1 mix; the contents of the 7.1 mix can be re-arranged to get the Atmos mix.
> 
> But what if you could take the original elements (individual dialogue, music and effects pieces) and do a dedicated 5.1 mix that did not have to be compatible with more or fewer channels and instead could be optimized specifically for 5.1 playback? Wouldn't that sound a little different than the 5.1-channel fold-down of an Atmos mix? Which is why there are separate 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos mixes for cinema. Each mix optimized for a specific playback configuration.


Perfect! Thanks Sanjay - a lucid explanation that clarifies my lack of previous understanding. A useful (and free!) education from you and Roger.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> And once you crank up the volume to compensate for the first issue above, IMO they are still good, fun mixes, even if not as bruising and balls-to-the-wall as others. I thoroughly enjoyed Thor: Ragnarok for example, never once did I feel like I was missing something... it was a fun mix with some excellent overhead effects when the situation called for it, plus it helps that it's an awesome, fun movie. If the movie is good (as I think most of the Marvel/Disney stuff is) then it's not going to ruin my enjoyment when the mix is on the soft/tame side. Will I whip those specific movies out for the system demo when someone comes over? Nah, definitely not. But I'd rather watch a good movie with an OK mix than go back to the days of 3 years ago when we were scrounging for garbage like Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles just to get an Atmos mix.


An excellent post if I may say so. I agree with almost everything in it, other than the sentences above about _Thor Ragnarok_. When I played it here, I immediately noticed the lack of SPL at my usual -5dB listening level. No problem, I thought - just turn up the MV so it gets to the 'right' (perceived level) for me. But even having done that, I still immediately noticed the severe lack of dynamics (and deep bass as it happens, but that's a different story). 

Now my system is exceptional in terms of its dynamism - I have these big (some would say brash), extremely sensitive JBLs up front - powered by substantial external amplifiers - and one of the things these speakers are noted for, and remarkable for, is their extremely dynamic performance. Sounds go from a whisper to a roar in a fraction of a second, and back again. The sense of 'life' which this gives the performance is astonishing. However, with _Thor Ragnarok_ I didn't get this sense of life or the sheer, visceral pleasure that I expect in 'action' scenes, where the sounds sound, to me, as if they are actually in the room, and not emanating from speakers. IOW, I was not as 'involved' with the movie.

I agree with you that this is a fun movie, but for me my pleasure was greatly diminished by this strangely 'neutered' soundtrack. 

On a side note, I often find that it is only big, highly sensitive speakers, played at or close to Reference Level, which give me the sense of excitement, 'life' and 'realism' I crave. When listening to fairly insensitive speakers, I often find that they are strangely lacking in dynamism, so it may be that some people are more susceptible to this effect than others, or it may be that most people don't get much opportunity to listen to big, highly sensitive speakers and see what they are perhaps missing. For me, the combination of very sensitive speakers (eg 100 dB per watt) and massive amplification is my drug of choice.


----------



## kbarnes701

On an entirely different topic, some of us have been enthusing about the fantastic back-catalog Atmos releases we have been seeing lately (eg _Blade Runner_). At the weekend I watched the 60th anniversary edition of _The Bridge on the River Kwai_, a David Lean masterpiece. For the anniversary this has been reissued in UHD with an Atmos soundtrack. I have to say it is the best I have ever seen this movie. The UHD, HDR, WCG gives an extremely impressive image quality and the Atmos soundtrack is handled with remarkable sensitivity (I often prefer the original mono or stereo on 'classic' movies) and definitely adds to the overall pleasure this great movie can give.

This got me thinking about other great movies that could benefit from similar restoration and/or sound remixes and the one that is right at the top of my wish list is _Apocalypse Now_. When I first saw this movie in the great Odeon cinema in Leicester Square, London, decades ago, it was the sound which amazed me most at the time. It was my first experience of hearing sounds coming at me from all directions, notably an amazing helicopter flyover which started at the back of the room and swept, loud and low, to the front. I think every head in the cinema turned to follow the sound! If this movie doesn't get a UHD/Atmos release, and soon, there is no justice


----------



## Mrjmc99

Thanks for the feedback, I rarely get the watch movies without the use of dynamic volume due to having a small child and a wife who doesn't like loud content, every now and then I have the house to myself and can turn off all of the dynamic volume features and "let loose". I will likely not be going beyond 11 chanel atmos any time soon so I guess I won't be affected by the 7.1.4 mixes for now. In a sense it's more of a slap in the face of those who invested heavily in their audio setup than anything else. Maybe it will take one of the top Disney execs getting a beyond 11 chanel atmos setup at their home and noticing what's missing before anything changes, or it just won't change, who knows.

Thank you both for your responses.


batpig said:


> I think Dynamic Volume is a key variable here -- DV is, by nature, going to restrict dynamic range. It makes soft sounds louder and loud sounds softer, so there is less variation between a quiet dialogue scene and a loud explosion.
> 
> Leaving aside the "7.1.4 print" stuff which only affects a tiny fraction of end users with >11ch setups, the key complaints with these Disney mixes are:
> 
> 1. the volume is low, they often have to be turned up louder than a typical mix to get the same overall volume
> 2. even when you crank the volume to compensate, they have reduced dynamics
> 
> Both of the above issues would be mitigated significantly when using Dynamic Volume.
> 
> If you pop in one of the Disney mixes, turn off Dyn Vol so you get the full dynamic range, and then crank up the volume to a healthy level... then (without adjusting the volume on the AVR) swap to a killer Atmos mix like Mad Max Fury Road, John Wick, Hacksaw Ridge, either Blade Runner, etc. you will hear the difference in volume / dynamics.
> 
> That said, as with many things on enthusiast forums, some of the "problems" are IMO somewhat exaggerated. Not every movie soundtrack has to smash you in the face constantly with overwhelming bass and dynamic surround effects, if a studio and/or director prefers to have a mix that is a bit more front heavy, and not totally maxed out in dynamics, that's a viable creative decision.
> 
> And once you crank up the volume to compensate for the first issue above, IMO they are still good, fun mixes, even if not as bruising and balls-to-the-wall as others. I thoroughly enjoyed Thor: Ragnarok for example, never once did I feel like I was missing something... it was a fun mix with some excellent overhead effects when the situation called for it, plus it helps that it's an awesome, fun movie. If the movie is good (as I think most of the Marvel/Disney stuff is) then it's not going to ruin my enjoyment when the mix is on the soft/tame side. Will I whip those specific movies out for the system demo when someone comes over? Nah, definitely not. But I'd rather watch a good movie with an OK mix than go back to the days of 3 years ago when we were scrounging for garbage like Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles just to get an Atmos mix.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> This got me thinking about other great movies that could benefit from similar restoration and/or sound remixes and the one that is right at the top of my wish list is _Apocalypse Now_.


If there was ever a catalogue title primed for an immersive audio remix, this is it.


----------



## mtbdudex

kbarnes701 said:


> On an entirely different topic, some of us have been enthusing about the fantastic back-catalog Atmos releases we have been seeing lately (eg _Blade Runner_). At the weekend I watched the 60th anniversary edition of _The Bridge on the River Kwai_, a David Lean masterpiece. For the anniversary this has been reissued in UHD with an Atmos soundtrack. I have to say it is the best I have ever seen this movie. The UHD, HDR, WCG gives an extremely impressive image quality and the Atmos soundtrack is handled with remarkable sensitivity (I often prefer the original mono or stereo on 'classic' movies) and definitely adds to the overall pleasure this great movie can give.
> 
> 
> 
> This got me thinking about other great movies that could benefit from similar restoration and/or sound remixes and the one that is right at the top of my wish list is _Apocalypse Now_. When I first saw this movie in the great Odeon cinema in Leicester Square, London, decades ago, it was the sound which amazed me most at the time. It was my first experience of hearing sounds coming at me from all directions, notably an amazing helicopter flyover which started at the back of the room and swept, loud and low, to the front. I think every head in the cinema turned to follow the sound! If this movie doesn't get a UHD/Atmos release, and soon, there is no justice




Yep, I was in College 1982, humanities class, they showed Apocalypse Now in the auditorium for $1. Sound was crappy, but I left in a haze at the movie and it’s story / message. Went back the next day, saw it again for another $1.
Wish I kept the report I turned in , seen it countless times since, but never had the same epiphany moment.
Blind buy if UHDBR with Atmos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> If there was ever a catalogue title primed for an immersive audio remix, this is it.



Lionsgate and American Zoetrope would be fools not to put a call into Walter Murch and see if he would supervise a full Atmos remix. Not some 7.1.4 streaming print-out, but a full theatrical Atmos mix that could be the basis for a 24.1.10 home version.


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> Yep, I was in College 1982, humanities class, they showed Apocalypse Now in the auditorium for $1. Sound was crappy, but I left in a haze at the movie and it’s story / message. Went back the next day, saw it again for another $1.
> Wish I kept the report I turned in , seen it countless times since, but never had the same epiphany moment.
> Blind buy if UHDBR with Atmos.


Yes, blind buy for me too. I think I have bought every version of the movie there is, but this is one I wouldn't mind octuple-dipping on! Imagine it in fantastic 4K HDR/WCG with a blistering Atmos track ... I think the best re-release I have ever bought is the UHD/Atmos _Blade Runner The Final Cut_ - but _Apocalypse Now_ would trump even that I think.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Now my system is exceptional in terms of its dynamism - I have these big (some would say brash), extremely sensitive JBLs up front - powered by substantial external amplifiers - and one of the things these speakers are noted for, and remarkable for, is their extremely dynamic performance. Sounds go from a whisper to a roar in a fraction of a second, and back again. The sense of 'life' which this gives the performance is astonishing. However, with _Thor Ragnarok_ I didn't get this sense of life or the sheer, visceral pleasure that I expect in 'action' scenes, where the sounds sound, to me, as if they are actually in the room, and not emanating from speakers. IOW, I was not as 'involved' with the movie.
> 
> I agree with you that this is a fun movie, but for me my pleasure was greatly diminished by this strangely 'neutered' soundtrack.
> 
> On a side note, I often find that it is only big, highly sensitive speakers, played at or close to Reference Level, which give me the sense of excitement, 'life' and 'realism' I crave. When listening to fairly insensitive speakers, I often find that they are strangely lacking in dynamism, so it may be that some people are more susceptible to this effect than others, or it may be that most people don't get much opportunity to listen to big, highly sensitive speakers and see what they are perhaps missing. For me, the combination of very sensitive speakers (eg 100 dB per watt) and massive amplification is my drug of choice.


Hmmm...good to talk with you again Keith. Been a long time since we exchanged posts . I am too lazy to go back and refresh my memory of conversations long past, but I recall talking with you about big sensitive speakers many moons ago and you were not yet a convert. But memory foggy, haha.

Regardless, glad to read you have found the benefits of huge dynamic range speakers. If I recall correctly, you used to sport M&K's??? What you running now??

My first taste of dynamics were some inexpensive Chase speakers, then I moved up to JTR & Danley. Great dynamics and SQ with those two, but still with various bothersome SQ issues. I'm running JBL M2's the past 4 years or so(with JBL pro monitors for surrounds) and don't expect to move away from them. JBL/Harman makes some really well designed speakers. Hard to beat.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> An excellent post if I may say so. I agree with almost everything in it, other than the sentences above about _Thor Ragnarok_. When I played it here, I immediately noticed the lack of SPL at my usual -5dB listening level. No problem, I thought - just turn up the MV so it gets to the 'right' (perceived level) for me. But even having done that, I still immediately noticed the severe lack of dynamics (and deep bass as it happens, but that's a different story).
> 
> Now my system is exceptional in terms of its dynamism - I have these big (some would say brash), extremely sensitive JBLs up front - powered by substantial external amplifiers - and one of the things these speakers are noted for, and remarkable for, is their extremely dynamic performance. Sounds go from a whisper to a roar in a fraction of a second, and back again. The sense of 'life' which this gives the performance is astonishing. However, with _Thor Ragnarok_ I didn't get this sense of life or the sheer, visceral pleasure that I expect in 'action' scenes, where the sounds sound, to me, as if they are actually in the room, and not emanating from speakers. IOW, I was not as 'involved' with the movie.
> 
> I agree with you that this is a fun movie, but for me my pleasure was greatly diminished by this strangely 'neutered' soundtrack.
> 
> On a side note, I often find that it is only big, highly sensitive speakers, played at or close to Reference Level, which give me the sense of excitement, 'life' and 'realism' I crave. When listening to fairly insensitive speakers, I often find that they are strangely lacking in dynamism, so it may be that some people are more susceptible to this effect than others, or it may be that most people don't get much opportunity to listen to big, highly sensitive speakers and see what they are perhaps missing. For me, the combination of very sensitive speakers (eg 100 dB per watt) and massive amplification is my drug of choice.



Why are some very expeceive speaker systems rated (far) below 90 dB, and they get the best reviews concerning exact the things you talk about ?


In the past i used Klipsch RP thats rated at 98 dB but did not like them at all. 
Sounded to me just like the American with the funny red/blond hair that talkes about whipping countries off the face of the Earth  LOL


Peronal i think dB rating has nothing to do if a speaker will sound exciting or not, if so a lot of speaker brands will never be sold again.
Think its also the way a person (individual listner) interacts with a specific speaker / speaker brand, below or over the 90 dB


----------



## Roger Dressler

Gooddoc said:


> Hmmm...good to talk with you again Keith. Been a long time since we exchanged posts .
> 
> Regardless, glad to read you have found the benefits of huge dynamic range speakers. If I recall correctly, you used to sport M&K's??? What you running now??
> 
> My first taste of dynamics were some inexpensive Chase speakers, then I moved up to JTR & Danley. Great dynamics and SQ with those two, but still with various bothersome SQ issues. I'm running JBL M2's the past 4 years or so(with JBL pro monitors for surrounds) and don't expect to move away from them. JBL/Harman makes some really well designed speakers. Hard to beat.


Keith is running JBLs, and I can attest to the dynamics. A wonderful system. See post 3 of his *detailed thread*.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Hmmm...good to talk with you again Keith. Been a long time since we exchanged posts . I am too lazy to go back and refresh my memory of conversations long past, but I recall talking with you about big sensitive speakers many moons ago and you were not yet a convert. But memory foggy, haha.
> 
> Regardless, glad to read you have found the benefits of huge dynamic range speakers. If I recall correctly, you used to sport M&K's??? What you running now??
> 
> My first taste of dynamics were some inexpensive Chase speakers, then I moved up to JTR & Danley. Great dynamics and SQ with those two, but still with various bothersome SQ issues. I'm running JBL M2's the past 4 years or so(with JBL pro monitors for surrounds) and don't expect to move away from them. JBL/Harman makes some really well designed speakers. Hard to beat.


Hey buddy! Long time no type. Great to see you here. Yes I recall these discussions we had. Well, I am a convert now for sure. I am using JBL 3677s as my LCR set. For a dedicated home theater (no music listening as such) I love these speakers. Love them. Love their dynamic capabilities, their amazing mid-bass. Their presence. Everything. The 3677s are an old design, and way less costly than your M2s, but probably share more in common than in differences, if you see what I mean. They are not for everyone, but in a decent size room, for movie use only, I just love them. Paired with some serious amplifier power, they are just amazing.

ETA:

I just checked out your amazing M2s. I would love to hear those used in anger! I also love the spec for the Recommended Amplifier Power - 1,200 Watts into 8 ohms!!  Wow!


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Why are some very expensive speaker systems rated (far) below 90 dB, and they get the best reviews concerning exact the things you talk about ?


There follows a lot of rambling from someone who has been in this game for more decades than he cares to remember 

Many of the speakers you reference will be 'hi-fi' speakers I guess. Hi-fi is a different world. Setting aside all the hype and audiofoolery prevalent in that arena, hi-fi speakers are typically used in living rooms, in plain sight. For that reason they have to be designed with appearance and size and aesthetics in mind. Now as you probably know, there are some trade-offs in speaker design: if you want really deep bass, you have to have a big boxes. If you want small boxes, you sacrifice deep bass. If you want high sensitivity, you need big boxes or you get little bass. If you want deeper bass AND small boxes, then you get insensitivity. And so on. All these are generalisations but they hold good in most cases, and in all cases if cost is also a factor. So it's bass, sensitivity, size - choose any two. If you want bass and sensitivity, the size will be large. If you want small size and good bass, the sensitivity will be low. If you want small size and sensitivity, the bass will be weak. Etc.

You mention that some of these speakers are very expensive - well sure they are. Because it is much harder to make a speaker play deep bass from a smaller cabinet and also much harder to make a small cabinet with decent bass into a sensitive speaker. Hard = expensive. Also, because these speakers are used in plain sight, they need to look nice and are often covered with very expensive veneers. These veneers frequently cost more than all of the drivers and electronics inside the speaker.

One thing we can say for certain is that with speakers, expensive does not automatically = great. Often it is the other way around. Toole mentions in his book some blind tests where cheap (a few hundred dollars) speakers were compared against expensive (thousands of dollars) speakers, and you can guess which were preferred - yes, the cheap ones. So don't equate cost with quality when it comes to speakers. 

Also, you have to look at the history of loudspeaker design. Back in the day, amplifier power was limited. So speakers needed to be very sensitive to play loud enough. Nowadays amp power is cheap, so speaker designers don't need to worry so much about sensitivity. And they can make smaller cabinets, which are better in living rooms. Especially small European living rooms (where some of these hi-fi speakers originate). And these smaller cabinets need less veneer, so they are cheaper. And so on. Also, if you make the speakers less sensitive, you also mask some of the system noise that may otherwise be audible - a big help to speaker designers who believe their speakers will be partnered with lower cost electronics (most people buying cheaper amps etc also buy cheaper speakers). 

You will see, below, why amplifiers and speakers have to be considered together. You can't discuss one without discussing the other.

Now if you remove a lot of these constraints, things happen. If it no longer matters what the speaker looks like (because it will be hidden behind a screen for example) it doesn't need any expensive veneers. It can just be painted wood or MDF more likely). Automatically half the cost has disappeared. Also, if the speaker is hidden, it can be large. That means it is easy to make it sensitive and also to give it deep bass. And we are talking movie theater speakers here in this thread of course, and they have some requirements all of their own. For example, they really need to be able to play cleanly at Reference Level (105dB peaks) and so they need the power handling to do this. Many hi-fi speakers have a combination of insensitivity (say 82dB/watt) AND lowish power handling (say 100 watts) which makes it _impossible _for them to play at Reference at all. Most of these problems vanish if a) the speaker can be fugly, b) it can be large, c) it is very sensitive.

Now all of the above came pouring out because you used the 'danger word' _expensive_ in your comment. Forget price and look at (listen to) the speaker. Especially if all of the above applies to you (you can have big ugly speakers etc etc).



CBdicX said:


> In the past i used Klipsch RP thats rated at 98 dB but did not like them at all.


Well, without commenting on that particular speaker, which I have never heard, let me say that sensitivity is not some sort of guarantee of quality. There are sensitive speakers that sound like crap, just as there are insensitive speakers that sound like crap, and vice-versa.




CBdicX said:


> Peronal i think dB rating has nothing to do if a speaker will sound exciting or not,


However, many people do think the opposite of what you said there (me (and Gooddoc) included. Consider what speakers are trying to do. They are trying to replicate a real life experience (a lot of the time and as far as is possible). If you go to listen to a live band (I mean an acoustic band - eg a brass band) or a live orchestra, it has a 'live' sound to it, agreed? There is 'something' about that sound that makes it feel 'live'. Well, one thing that makes it feel that way is the dynamic range. 

The dynamic range (the ratio of softest sound to loudest sound) of real life is _huge_. It can range from the sound a butterfly makes as it flies by your ear to the sound of a bomb going off in a train station (something I have personal experience of). That is one huge dynamic range. Now, if you restrict that range in some way, then you lose a lot of the 'live' or 'real life' effect. There are many people who believe that highly sensitive speakers can reproduce this sort of dynamic range much more readily than insensitive speakers. Also, if the speakers are highly sensitive, they are much easier to drive, and so, if partnered with a powerful amp, the amp will have way more headroom. So it won't 'run out of steam' as the demand on it gets great. This means that it will be more capable of handling a much greater dynamic range than if your amp is struggling along trying to drive insensitive speakers (and especially where the power handling of the insensitive speaker is also limited, so you can't just buy an amp twice as powerful to compensate for the struggle it has having trying to drive the insensitive speaker). If your powerful amp has lots of 'spare capacity' (headroom) you can see why it will not struggle to reproduce the loudest sounds, with ease and grace. If the amp is struggling to drive an insensitive speaker, then what happens is that it will try to 'compress' the sound into the range it can handle. And another way of saying that is that the sound will be _less dynamic_ because the dynamic range has been constricted. So the combination of a powerful amp and a sensitive speaker is a real winner.



CBdicX said:


> if so a lot of speaker brands will never be sold again.


A lot of speaker brands HAVE never been sold again. I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head. Some of these will be great speakers, but too expensive, too big, marketed too badly, etc etc. There are many ways for a speaker brand to fail, and often it has nothing to do with the quality of the product.



CBdicX said:


> Think its also the way a person (individual listner) interacts with a specific speaker / speaker brand, below or over the 90 dB


I try to keep personal, individual preferences out of any discussion because there is no consistent logic really there. A personal preference is just that. You like chocolate ice cream, I like strawberry. You can't say I am wrong and I can't say you are. But acoustics and loudspeaker design isn't driven by personal preference but by science. I have tried to give my personal take on the science in this post. I am no scientist so not everything I say will be agreed by everyone, but at least I have tried to give objective reasons for my statements, which can be verified independently and repeatably. It is objective to refer to the relationship between speaker size, sensitivity, power handling capability, bass extension etc. It is objective to refer to speaker/amp compression as the amp reaches the limit of its headroom.

In summary, all I can say is try to get some good listening experience of a sensitive speaker (99dB/watt plus) combined with a powerful amp, in a system that is well set up and see if you don't agree that there is just more 'dynamism' to the sound - a more 'live' sound if you will. More like 'life'. If you are ever over in the UK, come and see me and I'll give you a demo for as many hours as you care to listen 

*EDIT*

At risk of making a very long post even longer, here's a quick rundown of my JBL 3677 LCR set of speakers, which may shed some light on some of the comments above, and may explain why I chose these speakers in the first place.

The 3677s are very big (30 inches high and 26 inches wide) and very ugly. I would not want them in my living room, or indeed any place I had to look at them for long. They can handle 250 watts of continuous pink noise, all day long. Their sensitivity is 99 dB (1W, 1m). They are, of course, a horn design, with a 1 inch pure titanium diaphragm compression driver and a 15 inch LF driver. Their nominal impedance is 8 ohms.

They are powered with amplifiers which are rated at 200 watts per channel into 8 ohms. As can be seen from the above spec, these speakers are going to be easy to drive. In regular use, with desired peaks of about 102 dB in my HT ('home Reference'), I am going to be using barely 15 watts of amplifier power most of the time. So one can see that I have huge reserves of power, and the speakers can handle that power, and that neither the speaker nor the amps are ever going to be working all that hard. This means that they can very easily handle the fairly large dynamic range found in many movie soundtracks, where the sound can go from a whisper to a jet-plane engine in a fraction of a second. Toole says in his book, Sound Reproduction,_ "Realistic dynamic range, which includes “loud,” can be beautiful when it is not compromised by power compression, and the distressed sounds of amplifiers and loudspeakers operating at or beyond their output limits."_. So my objective was to ensure that my speakers and amplifiers were working well within their 'comfort zones' nowhere near their limits. 

Now contrast that with a system using less sensitive speakers, with reduced power handling ability and a smaller amplifier. If the speakers are rated at 82 dB (1W, 1m), and can handle 100 watts of continuous pink noise and the amplifier they are partnered with can achieve 80 watts per channel (a typical AVR power output) we can see that there may be some problems when trying to achieve realistic levels. That 102 dB for peaks that I mentioned is going to soak up every last drop of power from the amp. All of the headroom has been used. The inevitable conclusion is that the dynamic range will be compromised by the amps, the speakers or both. This will make the sound 'less exciting' or less 'realistic' or less 'dynamic' and it is all being brought about because the speaker sensitivity is low. If you changed nothing but the speakers, and chose instead some with a sensitivity of 100 dB (1W, 1m) you can see immediately what a difference this would make to the potential dynamics of the system.

Of course, you may say that you don't want to hit peaks of 102 dB or anywhere near to that. Well that's fine and is a personal choice but then, by definition, you are compromising the sound since when it was created the intention was that it would be played back at an average level of 85 dB, with peaks of 105 dB. The engineer knew that the ratio of the softest whisper to the roar of the jet engine would fall within a certain range. By playing back at a much lower level, that ratio goes out of the window and you either can't hear the whisper at all, or it is too loud relative to the jet engine and/or the jet engine is too soft compared the whisper. Worse, some will have to use some form of compression via a 'loudness control' or 'dynamic volume' control in order to hear all of the soundtrack at all. Another way of looking at is that if you play an orchestral work at 'background level' you will still hear it and be able to follow the tune but it will be dynamically unrewarding. 

I apologise for the rambling, long post, and especially so as it is off topic (although we all want our Atmos theaters to sound as good as possible of course, and a major part of that is speaker choice).


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Keith is running JBLs, and I can attest to the dynamics. A wonderful system. Details in post 3 of his *detailed thread*.


Thank you Roger! Your endorsement of my Cowshed is so important to me. You have vast experience of listening, and of listening in many, many different rooms, many of them professionally designed and set up. Way, way more than I have of course. And while I was delighted with the sound of my cinema once it was finished (and all the of the equipment choices were my own, not the install company's who fought me all the way) and the acoustic treatment design was also mostly my own, you can never be totally sure that it has all worked out as well as you hoped. Well, that is until someone who really knows the business turns up one day, all the way from the States, and has a good, extended listen! This 'second opinion' is so helpful and valuable and I thank you for making the effort to break your schedule and travel up from London to see us out here in the countryside of rural England. I can't wait for you to visit us again, maybe on your way to Scotland (something Mrs Roger mentioned while you were here).


----------



## kbarnes701

For anyone interested in Roger's kind appraisal of my Cowshed Theater sound setup,* this link *should take you to Post No 5 of my build thread.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> There follows a lot of rambling from someone who has been in this game for more decades than he cares to remember
> ................



*I can only say WOW !!!!!*
I do have to read this once again, but thanks for clearing this for me and picking your brain


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> *I can only say WOW !!!!!*
> I do have to read this once again, but thanks for clearing this for me and picking your brain


Good luck with it Dick!


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey buddy! Long time no type. Great to see you here. Yes I recall these discussions we had. Well, I am a convert now for sure. I am using JBL 3677s as my LCR set. For a dedicated home theater (no music listening as such) I love these speakers. Love them. Love their dynamic capabilities, their amazing mid-bass. Their presence. Everything. The 3677s are an old design, and way less costly than your M2s, but probably share more in common than in differences, if you see what I mean. They are not for everyone, but in a decent size room, for movie use only, I just love them. Paired with some serious amplifier power, they are just amazing.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> I just checked out your amazing M2s. I would love to hear those used in anger! I also love the spec for the Recommended Amplifier Power - 1,200 Watts into 8 ohms!!  Wow!


Took a look at your HT thread Keith! Amazing! Definitely like your design choices and your focus on performance over aesthetics.

Most folks just assume their system can effortlessy reproduce reference level audio - meaning no dynamic compression at and above reference(It's good to have some headroom since some mixes are much louder and demanding than others) - but I think few can. The movie industry follows standards much more than the music industry, but it's not perfect. As you note, audio free from compression sounds more "live" since the dynamic peaks are more accurately reproduced.

I've run compression sweeps on the M2's, so I know for sure there is no compression well above reference level. These are at the LP, full range with no room EQ and as you can see, no compression to the limits of my gain structure. I don't need to go louder than this, so my gain structure is optimized only to this volume. Very, very few consumer speakers can do this, most would be showing compression and begging for mercy below 100dB. The black line is simply showing the natural FR tilt that happens with a well designed loudspeaker when placed in a room.









You 3677's would show similar results, just not down into the 20's . The M2's are designed to dig a bit deeper. This is why your speaker choice was spot on!! Congrats.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Took a look at your HT thread Keith! Amazing! Definitely like your design choices and your focus on performance over aesthetics.


Thanks GD. I had a specific budget in mind so I wanted the money to go into picture and sound quality. Because I believe the _room_ is the single most important factor in the sound end-result, a disproportionate sum was spent on that aspect. I then had to make some careful choices with regard to equipment. I already had all the electronics and I bought the JBLs secondhand off a friend 'in the business'. I couldn't get hold of the JBLs I wanted to use for surrounds (a worldwide shortage just when I needed them!) so I went for the Tannoys (to avoid delaying completion) and I am pleased with the result.



Gooddoc said:


> I've run compression sweeps on the M2's, so I know for sure there is no compression well above reference level. These are at the LP, full range with no room EQ and as you can see, no compression to the limits of my gain structure. I don't need to go louder than this, so my gain structure is optimized only to this volume. Very, very few consumer speakers can do this, most would be showing compression and begging for mercy below 100dB. The black line is simply showing the natural FR tilt that happens with a well designed loudspeaker when placed in a room.


Fantastic chart! I can't imagine those M2s ever running our of headroom in anything like a 'normal' room  123 dB capability - 1200 watts of recommended power!! The 'effortlessness' is addictive isn't it!

I long since lost most of my enthusiasm for 'consumer speakers' - for a room primarily for the reproduction of movie soundtracks anyway (where size, aesthetics etc are of less importance). They are just too restricted and constricted for me. And way too expensive for what they are. And usually totally lacking in any meaningful specification info. 




Gooddoc said:


> Your 3677's would show similar results, just not down into the 20's . The M2's are designed to dig a bit deeper. This is why your speaker choice was spot on!! Congrats.


Thanks again. The HT certainly gives me huge amounts of pleasure - and being pretty well sound-contained, I can use the SPLs I like any time of the day or night. A side benefit of all the sound containment stuff is, of course, that the room is exceptionally quiet too - again something that helps with dynamic range.


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks GD. I had a specific budget in mind so I wanted the money to go into picture and sound quality. Because I believe the _room_ is the single most important factor in the sound end-result, a disproportionate sum was spent on that aspect. I then had to make some careful choices with regard to equipment. I already had all the electronics and I bought the JBLs secondhand off a friend 'in the business'. I couldn't get hold of the JBLs I wanted to use for surrounds (a worldwide shortage just when I needed them!) so I went for the Tannoys (to avoid delaying completion) and I am pleased with the result.


Agreed, your room construction is fantastic!



kbarnes701 said:


> Fantastic chart! I can't imagine those M2s ever running our of headroom in anything like a 'normal' room  123 dB capability - 1200 watts of recommended power!! The 'effortlessness' is addictive isn't it!


 That's full range. Crossed over with subs they have significantly higher capabilities. But as you say, it's about the effortlessness in the SPL range I listen, not necessarily the maximum output.



kbarnes701 said:


> I long since lost most of my enthusiasm for 'consumer speakers' - for a room primarily for the reproduction of movie soundtracks anyway (where size, aesthetics etc are of less importance). They are just too restricted and constricted for me. And way too expensive for what they are. And usually totally lacking in any meaningful specification info.


 This ^^^. Over the years I have become very objective about this hobby. I want to know specs and objective measurements based on scientific data. Of course there are limits to that, and I don't discount the subjective aspects, but the ears and brain are too easily bamboozled by our preconceived bias to be entirely relied upon. I purchased the M2's based on the objective data and it has proven to be the right approach











kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks again. The HT certainly gives me huge amounts of pleasure - and being pretty well sound-contained, I can use the SPLs I like any time of the day or night. A side benefit of all the sound containment stuff is, of course, that the room is exceptionally quiet too - again something that helps with dynamic range.


I'm very happy for you Keith! That is a dream theater you built and would be what I would like to have myself. Congrats!


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> The only issue with that, for me at least, is that Neural:X is so much more aggressive than DSU and after a short time I find it 'wearing'. It draws attention to itself too much. This is good when you wish to demo the effect of upmixed sound from above but can become tiresome for an entire movie.


No argument there, and anyone having selected DSU as their upmixer of choice isn't going to be impacted on that, by this retroactive change.




> I am hoping that DTS don't retaliate and we end up in the position where we can only use DSU with Dolby encoded material and Neural:X with that from DTS.


Ah, and there's the rub. We can all 'hope' for that, but that's certainly a possible response from DTS. And what would they have to lose from taking such a position? It's hard to fault reciprocity as being unfair.

Considering that *the vast majority of previously existing Blu-ray content has DTS encoding, locking out DSU as an upmixer for all of that* is going to make people pretty unhappy. (Especially folks like me, who bought an AVR with Atmos, but no DTS:X or Neural:X. Because Atmos+DSU were all that was needed, and BOTH were available.)




> In any event, I have disabled FW updates on my Marantz, so this entire issue isn't going to affect me until I am either forced to do a FW update for something I absolutely need, or until I have to replace the AVR altogether.


While I can't fault that as a pragmatic approach, I do wonder if such passivity is to any of our benefit? I.e., I'm not saying we should be "up in arms", but rather couldn't Dolby customers (that care) at least let Dolby know that we're not happy with this new decision they have made? I suspect that complete silence may be interpreted as no one caring at all. It sees to me that 'heading this off at the pass' (i.e., a proactive response), would be more effective than waiting until later to speak up, and express concerns. Once it's a 'done deal', and vendors have implemented the new restrictions, getting those reversed will be vastly more difficult that preventing it in the first place. IMO.

Also, if a firmware update DOES come along with some slick new functionality you'd really like (tied to a 'poison pill'), might you not be less sanguine about the choice then? You've expressed reasons for disliking Neural:X, but it could wind up the *only* immersive upmixer you'll be 'allowed' to use on all your DTS-encoded Blu-rays.


My beef is that if somebody sells me something, and I pay for it, I own it. I'm not OK with them coming back later and taking part of it away, by retroactively changing licensing terms. Others seem more accepting of that, but I never will be. In my book, that's just wrong.


----------



## gwsat

Do some of you use DSU/Neural:X only when you are playing audio that doesn't have native immersion or do you use one of them all the time? In my case, I always play TrueHD Atmos and DTS:X MA soundtracks "Straight," with no additional processing. I almost always use DSU to upconvert lossless 5.1/7/1 audio to 7.2.4, though.


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> Do some of you use DSU/Neural:X only when you are playing audio that doesn't have native immersion or do you use one of them all the time? In my case, I always play TrueHD Atmos and DTS:X MA soundtracks "Straight," with no additional processing. I almost always use DSU to upconvert lossless 5.1/7/1 audio to 7.2.4, though.


You can't apply an upmixer to a native object-based format.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Ah, and there's the rub. We can all 'hope' for that, but that's certainly a possible response from DTS. And what would they have to lose from taking such a position? It's hard to fault reciprocity as being unfair.
> 
> Considering that *the vast majority of previously existing Blu-ray content has DTS encoding, locking out DSU as an upmixer for all of that* is going to make people pretty unhappy. (Especially folks like me, who bought an AVR with Atmos, but no DTS:X or Neural:X. Because Atmos+DSU were all that was needed, and BOTH were available.)


I agree. I have disabled FW updates on my AVR (Marantz) so for the foreseeable future, these shenanigans don't affect me personally. But it seems to be a backwards step to me to restrict the free choice of upmixers.




VideoGrabber said:


> While I can't fault that as a pragmatic approach, I do wonder if such passivity is to any of our benefit? I.e., I'm not saying we should be "up in arms", but rather couldn't Dolby customers (that care) at least let Dolby know that we're not happy with this new decision they have made? I suspect that complete silence may be interpreted as no one caring at all. It sees to me that 'heading this off at the pass' (i.e., a proactive response), would be more effective than waiting until later to speak up, and express concerns. Once it's a 'done deal', and vendors have implemented the new restrictions, getting those reversed will be vastly more difficult that preventing it in the first place. IMO.


Dolby doesn't have any 'consumer' customers so I doubt that the end-user opinions matter all that much to them. Not saying I agree or disagree with that, just making the observation.



VideoGrabber said:


> Also, if a firmware update DOES come along with some slick new functionality you'd really like (tied to a 'poison pill'), might you not be less sanguine about the choice then? You've expressed reasons for disliking Neural:X, but it could wind up the *only* immersive upmixer you'll be 'allowed' to use on all your DTS-encoded Blu-rays.


Sure. But I am not seeing much likelihood of any FW update on my 3 year old unit being 'necessary'. They won't bring great new features to it because they are reserved for new models, and all the probably bugs seem to have been ironed out now. They may offer FW updates that do very little - I remember when I had an Onkyo everyone getting very excited about a FW update. The only difference it brought was to Chinese menus! If it happens, I'll have to decide at the time. But there's no real prospect of me changing this AVR unless it fails beyond repair or there is some new game-changer on the horizon, which isn't likely right now.



VideoGrabber said:


> My beef is that if somebody sells me something, and I pay for it, I own it. I'm not OK with them coming back later and taking part of it away, by retroactively changing licensing terms. Others seem more accepting of that, but I never will be. In my book, that's just wrong.


Oh I agree with you. Taking away features you thought you'd bought and paid for is wrong. I'm just being pragmatic about it and how it affects/doesn't affect people in my situation.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Do some of you use DSU/Neural:X only when you are playing audio that doesn't have native immersion or do you use one of them all the time? In my case, I always play TrueHD Atmos and DTS:X MA soundtracks "Straight," with no additional processing. I almost always use DSU to upconvert lossless 5.1/7/1 audio to 7.2.4, though.


I'm not sure what 'processing' you can apply to a native Atmos or DTS:X track. You can't apply any upmixer to them on my AVR and I thought this was universally true BICBW.

WRT to applying upmixing to standard TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks, I used to _always _apply DSU to _everything_. But recently I have had a change of view. I noticed when watching many native Atmos tracks that the overheads are silent for much of the time, yet despite this the sound is exceptionally entertaining, involving, precise and so on, with the overheads kicking in as required. This got me thinking about how I was using DSU, so more recently I have been watching many of the 5.1 and 7.1 TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks 'natively' without upmixing at all. The way the Director intended me to, if you will.

I am doing it on a movie-by-movie basis. If the overheads seem to be dominating when DSU is in play, and I can hear them all the time, I tend to turn DSU off. If the overheads kick in now and then to add some worthwhile additional immersion (eg rain, thunder, obvious overhead action etc) then I leave DSU on. I can usually tell which it's going to be in the first few minutes of the movie. Often, way too much of the score, for example, seems to come from above with DSU and this is distracting IMO, so DSU is better turned off for movies like that. Last night I watched the fairly good Woody Harrelson movie _Transsiberian_, and for this I left DSU turned on and it added a very nice extra layer (literally) of entertainment to the sound track. If I am in doubt as top what to do I leave the upmixing off.

It's all a bit hit and miss as you can imagine but it works for me. Not the best solution for everyone though I am sure. And some movies just seem to make magical use of DSU and it should be on for the entire movie - _Spectre_ springs to mind. Just play the opening sequence with the fight in the chopper with DSU enabled and see what I mean


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> This ^^^. Over the years I have become very objective about this hobby. I want to know specs and objective measurements based on scientific data. Of course there are limits to that, and I don't discount the subjective aspects, but the ears and brain are too easily bamboozled by our preconceived bias to be entirely relied upon. I purchased the M2's based on the objective data and it has proven to be the right approach.


Same here. Good specs for speakers are very revealing. Yet they are almost never available with 'consumer' speakers and I do wonder why. The manufacturers must take measurements, one assumes, so why keep them to themselves? Unless they are revealing things they'd rather not share of course  Can't do that with 'pro' speakers - hard to imagine any professional buying speakers without checking out the detailed specs to see how they meet the requirements at hand. When I looked at the detailed specs for my Tannoy surrounds, I knew pretty much just how they would sound, and when they had been installed I was neither surprised nor disappointed. Plus of course, the specs that don't directly affect the sound as such, but which are still very important - eg power handling capacity, sensitivity, amplification requirements, dispersion characteristics etc (I guess that last one does affect how they sound, depending on how they are used).

This has been an interesting discussion, albeit largely off topic, and I hope the thread contributors haven't minded us straying too much.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> WRT to applying upmixing to standard TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks, I used to _always _apply DSU to _everything_. But recently I have had a change of view.
> 
> ... I have been watching many of the 5.1 and 7.1 TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks 'natively' without upmixing at all. The way the Director intended me to, if you will.


Yes, sometimes I too want to omit the height speakers altogether. That poses a problem in that when playing 5.1 content over 7.1 speakers, the rears fall silent, and the resulting "forward surround" effect is not really what the director intended either. The intention was the surrounds come from _surround_ speakers, which I do not have. 

My solution to that for the last 10 years was quite simple and effective -- upmix 5.1 to 7.1 with PLIIx. To do that now I either use DSU in the Anthem with a speaker config that has no height speakers, or I play through the SSP-800 with PLIIx.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Same here. Good specs for speakers are very revealing. Yet they are almost never available with 'consumer' speakers and I do wonder why. The manufacturers must take measurements, one assumes, so why keep them to themselves? Unless they are revealing things they'd rather not share of course  Can't do that with 'pro' speakers - hard to imagine any professional buying speakers without checking out the detailed specs to see how they meet the requirements at hand.
> (snip)
> This has been an interesting discussion, albeit largely off topic, and I hope the thread contributors haven't minded us straying too much.


Agreed this is largely off topic, but I should point out that the Soundstage Network site has multiple measures of anechoic chamber performance for selected speakers, ranging from on/off axis frequency response (up to 75 degrees off-axis), to THD distortion, impedance variation, phase performance, and departure from linearity. So depending on the measurements you want, it's not strictly true that there aren't consumer speakers with specs that objectively measure performance.

Link is here:
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=18

They measure at the same NRC facility where Floyd Toole worked earlier in his career. I chose all my PSB Imagine speakers based on their performance specs, which was handy when I was looking for a 3D audio height speaker that I could use that was timbre-matched and otherwise was robust with my existing speaker line. Turns out PSB had a CS1000 outdoor speaker which could be mounted with brackets on the ceiling, and then horizontally or vertically adjusted for good on-axis tweeter performance. Couldn't have don't it without the NRC folks giving me information for evaluating the choices I was considering.

Not quite the spinoramas that JBL Synthesis uses (and IMO the Synthesis line with the SDP-75 pre/pro's support of anechoic chamber performance filters is really the gold standard for what to have in a well-engineered HT if budget or WAF isn't a concern), but at the very least their site is a guide for considering alternative speaker choices and comparing performance where you have an interest in assessment.


----------



## gwsat

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, sometimes I too want to omit the height speakers altogether. That poses a problem in that when playing 5.1 content over 7.1 speakers, the rears fall silent, and the resulting "forward surround" effect is not really what the director intended either. The intention was the surrounds come from _surround_ speakers, which I do not have.
> 
> My solution to that for the last 10 years was quite simple and effective -- upmix 5.1 to 7.1 with PLIIx. To do that now I either use DSU in the Anthem with a speaker config that has no height speakers, or I play through the SSP-800 with PLIIx.


Yamaha solves the problem in a way that has been perfectly satisfactory for me. If I am listening to a 5.1 soundtrack and don't want to use DSU/Neural:X to matrix the 5.1 audio to 7.2.4 and use the "Straight" setting instead, Yamaha still routes the audio to all seven base layer speakers in my system. As I said, I have liked this solution.


----------



## Jish9

Subscribed


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Agreed this is largely off topic, but I should point out that the Soundstage Network site has multiple measures of anechoic chamber performance for selected speakers, ranging from on/off axis frequency response (up to 75 degrees off-axis), to THD distortion, impedance variation, phase performance, and departure from linearity. So depending on the measurements you want, it's not strictly true that there aren't consumer speakers with specs that objectively measure performance.
> 
> Link is here:
> https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=18
> 
> They measure at the same NRC facility where Floyd Toole worked earlier in his career. I chose all my PSB Imagine speakers based on their performance specs, which was handy when I was looking for a 3D audio height speaker that I could use that was timbre-matched and otherwise was robust with my existing speaker line. Turns out PSB had a CS1000 outdoor speaker which could be mounted with brackets on the ceiling, and then horizontally or vertically adjusted for good on-axis tweeter performance. Couldn't have don't it without the NRC folks giving me information for evaluating the choices I was considering.
> 
> Not quite the spinoramas that JBL Synthesis uses (and IMO the Synthesis line with the SDP-75 pre/pro's support of anechoic chamber performance filters is really the gold standard for what to have in a well-engineered HT if budget or WAF isn't a concern), but at the very least their site is a guide for considering alternative speaker choices and comparing performance where you have an interest in assessment.


That is a useful site, but their measurements and specs fall far short of the details of those of Pro speakers from the likes of JBL and Tannoy. Check out this data sheet for example for my Di6DC overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, sometimes I too want to omit the height speakers altogether. That poses a problem in that when playing 5.1 content over 7.1 speakers, the rears fall silent, and the resulting "forward surround" effect is not really what the director intended either. The intention was the surrounds come from _surround_ speakers, which I do not have.
> 
> My solution to that for the last 10 years was quite simple and effective -- upmix 5.1 to 7.1 with PLIIx. To do that now I either use DSU in the Anthem with a speaker config that has no height speakers, or I play through the SSP-800 with PLIIx.


Neat. With my side surrounds at the 90 degree position (due to that darn fire door) I don't have quite so much of the same issue, but your point is a good one of course.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> That is a useful site, but their measurements and specs fall far short of the details of those of Pro speakers from the likes of JBL and Tannoy. Check out this data sheet for example for my Di6DC overheads.


Not sure I agree with respect to the basic frequency response plot and on/off axis FR, or impedance, based on what Soundstage is measuring, WRT mains or the floor layer of surrounds, but the polar plots and DI plots for your Tannoys are interesting. What are the rings supposed to represent on the polars - directivity performance for specific frequencies at db levels departing from FS (i.e. 0 and db below 0), as you depart from perfect on-axis performance (0 degrees)?

I think that we can agree that given your objectives - loosely, to reproducing the reference-level dynamic range of a cinema in your personal HT, at the highest level of sound isolation - you've accomplished your goal.


----------



## tbaucom

gwsat said:


> Yamaha solves the problem in a way that has been perfectly satisfactory for me. If I am listening to a 5.1 soundtrack and don't want to use DSU/Neural:X to matrix the 5.1 audio to 7.2.4 and use the "Straight" setting instead, Yamaha still routes the audio to all seven base layer speakers in my system. As I said, I have liked this solution.


When you do this, yamaha is simply copying the surrounds to the rears there is no matrixing going on.


----------



## Craig Mecak

tbaucom said:


> When you do this, yamaha is simply copying the surrounds to the rears there is no matrixing going on.


Yes, but isn't this more preferable considering what we're talking about?

The surround signal will now phantom image between the left surround and left rear surround, emulating a physical speaker there, just where the director wanted the surround signal to come from in a 5.1 source.


----------



## gwsat

tbaucom said:


> When you do this, yamaha is simply copying the surrounds to the rears there is no matrixing going on.


According to Wikipedia anyway, the definition of "matrixing" is "Matrix decoding is an audio technology where a finite number of discrete audio channels (e.g., 2) are decoded into a larger number of channels on play back (e.g., 5)." That's close enough to what I was describing, how the Yamaha sends 5.1 audio to all 7 base layer speakers, to satisfy me.


----------



## tbaucom

Craig Mecak said:


> Yes, but isn't this more preferable considering what we're talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> The surround signal will now phantom image between the left surround and left rear surround, emulating a physical speaker there, just where the director wanted the surround signal to come from in a 5.1 source.




Perhaps. Personally, I would use Neo:6 in gswat case. Changing speaker config isn’t necessary and it actually pulls the sounds that should be behind the listener to that position rather than making a copy of what is to the sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

tbaucom said:


> Perhaps. Personally, I would use Neo:6 in gswat case. Changing speaker config isn’t necessary and it actually pulls the sounds that should be behind the listener to that position rather than making a copy of what is to the sides.


The mode gswat is using is much like the "remap" mode DTS uses to phantom image the surround channels from a pair of side and rear speakers. It works and you do get a better rendition of 5.1 than presenting the surrounds from the direct sides. 

HST I'm with you -- I think it's better to use a logic decoder to extract the directional cues in the surround channels for presentation of 4 side/rear speakers. After all, that's a big part of the benefit we gained by going from 5.1 to 7.1. 

This topic may have run its course, but if not, may I suggest we take it to the DSU upmixing thread?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Not sure I agree with respect to the basic frequency response plot and on/off axis FR, or impedance, based on what Soundstage is measuring, WRT mains or the floor layer of surrounds, but the polar plots and DI plots for your Tannoys are interesting. What are the rings supposed to represent on the polars - directivity performance for specific frequencies at db levels departing from FS (i.e. 0 and db below 0), as you depart from perfect on-axis performance (0 degrees)?


I like to see more data than just frequency response data, useful though that is. The Tannoy data sheet has all that plus the polar response charts, plus dispersion, sensitivity, crossover, driver info, directivity factor, rated max SPL (average and peak), power handling (average and peak), recommended amp power, detailed distortion data, etc, all of which is required information IMO before being able to be certain that the speaker can deliver what the user is seeking.

The polar charts show how the various frequencies will balance depending on the position of the listener relative to the speaker. As you know, it isn't possible to have a constant directivity for every audible frequency which means that every listener will get a different level and frequency response, depending on where their seat is. So the polar charts show those differences, for vertical and horizontal axes. Ideally, every listener will hear every frequency at the identical level to every other listener, giving every listener the same spectral balance. The charts show how that ideal is actually portrayed in real life. I tend to see this as a measure of the care and attention that has gone into the speaker's design, given that I don't really care about any other listener other than me. But in practical terms, a good directivity factor may also make it easier to position speakers in less than ideal rooms, and is fairly important for anyone who does care about the other seats, ensuring that each listener gets the same, or similar spectral balance as every other. 

I do think these detailed charts and specs are important and do wonder why few 'consumer' manufacturers give them, as I am pretty certain, or I'd definitely hope, that they have them when developing the speaker.

Not everyone can use pro speakers, I freely grant. But for anyone with a dedicated cinema room, they become possible and I certainly recommend people consider them at least. Especially as they invariably represent much better value for money. (As ever with me, all my remarks relate to home cinema _only _- not home music reproduction, which has different requirements, as discussed earlier).



sdrucker said:


> I think that we can agree that given your objectives - loosely, to replacing the reference-level dynamic range of a cinema in your personal HT, at the highest level of sound isolation - you've accomplished your goal.


Yes, my objective isn't the same as everyone else's, and it is important to point that out. You have summed up my personal objective well


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> I do think these detailed charts and specs are important and do wonder why few 'consumer' manufacturers give them, as I am pretty certain, or I'd definitely hope, that they have them when developing the speaker.


One reason we don't see detailed specs from _all _makers is because the way to do them ideally is in an anechoic chamber and one of those large enough to measure the speaker on all axes, at one and two meter distances, is expensive.

The dedicated facilities built for this by say the NRC and Haman Labs, as examples, I believe cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> One reason we don't see detailed specs from _all _makers is because the way to do them ideally is in an anechoic chamber and one of those large enough to measure the speaker on all axes, at one and two meter distances, is expensive.
> 
> The dedicated facilities built for this by say the NRC and Haman Labs, as examples, I believe cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Good point. I can see how this could be an issue for smaller manufacturers for sure. Can they not rent the facilities? But surely the mainstream consumer manufacturers, eg Kef, B&W to name a couple of brands whose speakers I have personally enjoyed in the past, in my 'audiophile' days, can afford this sort of investment? And if not, how do they develop their speakers? Just by ear? 

Here, for example, is a link to a B&W speaker that costs about $20,000 *each*. Yet there isn't a chart or a graph or any mention at all of any of the important parameters that the pro makers routinely include. The B&W page for this hugely expensive speaker has some broad information on recommended amplifier power, distortion figures etc, but that's all. It also has some beautiful photographs of the speakers. When this speaker was developed, did B&W really not have any measurements to guide them, and if they did take measurements, why so coy in letting the buyer see them? It's a 40 grand investment for a pair of these! 

I am not saying, of course, that these speakers are poor quality, or even poor value for money since I have never heard them. They may sound sublime (in a treated room). But why no detailed information when Tannoy, for example, can provide this for speakers that are less than 400 bucks each?


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. I can see how this could be an issue for smaller manufacturers for sure. Can they not rent the facilities?


There are several alternative ways to measure a speaker but they aren't quite as good plus you can't advertise "as measured in anechoic conditions" unless you _really_ did it that way.

Renting a facility is sometimes used but ideally a designer wants to be able to make small tweaks, bit by bit, and then measure the results of each incremental change and this can take months.

Another option is to use "God's anechoic chamber", i.e. the great outdoors, but then you have to deal with crickets and birds. One interesting approach is to bring a firearm to the session. Immediately prior to the recording the firearm is discharged. The loud bang terrifies all local birds, insects, etc. so they freeze in their tracks and shut up. . . .for about a half minute or so. When Edgar Villchur of AR, Acoustic Research, made anechoic recordings of the Fine Arts Quartet for one of their "Live vs. Recorded" demonstrations of their AR-3 speakers they used this very method:








In a performance hall the anechoic recordings were then demonstrated in A/B fashion to show off their speaker's high accuracy in one of their many "Live vs. recorded" concerts in the 60's. Initially they made it a very pendantic A vs. B presentation but they soon discovered the audience would gasp in disbelief and excitement when they instructed the musicians to _pretend_ to play by sliding their bows back and forth _but raised half an inch above the strings_ and then slowly, one by one, pull their bows fully away to expose that _they_ weren't the source the audience was hearing at that moment at all, it was the AR-3s!









Others before AR often failed at live vs. recorded demos both because of their low quality gear and because they used traditional recordings which of course include the reverberation of the original recording space's acoustics, so when played back against the live musicians makes the _double_ reverb [original recording venue reverberation plus secondary play back room reverberation] stand out like a sore thumb.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> There are several alternative ways to measure a speaker but they aren't quite as good plus you can't advertise "as measured in anechoic conditions" unless you _really_ did it that way.
> 
> Renting a facility is sometimes used but ideally a designer wants to be able to make small tweaks, bit by bit, and then measure the results of each incremental change and this can take months.
> 
> Another option is to use "God's anechoic chamber", i.e. the great outdoors, but then you have to deal with crickets and birds. One interesting approach is to bring a firearm to the session. Immediately prior to the mic measurement the firearm is discharged. The loud bang terrifies all local birds, insects, etc. so they freeze in their tracks and shut up. . . .for about a half minute or so. When Edgar Villchur of AR, Acoustic Research, made anechoic recordings of the Fine Arts Quartet for one of their "Live vs. Recorded" demonstrations of their AR-3 speakers they used this very method:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a performance hall the anechoic recordings were then demonstrated in A/B fashion to show off their speaker's high accuracy in one of their many "Live vs. recorded" concerts in the 60's. Initially they made it a very pendantic A vs. B presentation but they soon discovered the audience would gasp in disbelief and excitement when they instructed the musicians to _pretend_ to play by sliding their bows back and forth _but raised half an inch above the strings_ and then slowly, one by one, pull their bows fully away to expose that _they_ weren't the source the audience was hearing at that moment at all, it was the AR-3s!


Excellent story, well recounted! I'd have loved a pair of those speakers. In the late 70s, early 80s I had a pair of the legendary 'BBC' LS3/5A speakers - still some of the very best I have ever owned.

BTW, I wonder if anyone has any Atmos questions?


----------



## m. zillch

Quasi-anechoic speaker measurements made outdoors by others:


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Here, for example, is a link to a B&W speaker that costs about $20,000 *each*. Yet there isn't a chart or a graph or any mention at all of any of the important parameters that the pro makers routinely include. The B&W page for this hugely expensive speaker has some broad information on recommended amplifier power, distortion figures etc, but that's all. It also has some beautiful photographs of the speakers. When this speaker was developed, did B&W really not have any measurements to guide them, and if they did take measurements, why so coy in letting the buyer see them?


I can't speak to why and when they divulge all their measurements but I know B&W have their own anechoic chamber albeit a small one and said to only be good down to 200Hz:









For full range work they rent one in North London at the Building Research Establishment. Here it is getting setup by a B&W technician to measure an early prototype of their 801:


----------



## Tomas2

Dynaudio's Jupiter is a 13 x 13 x 13m Free Field Impulse Measurement Room


----------



## bkeeler10

Two thoughts on the question of why consumer gear is almost always thin on data. First, they may consider certain performance characteristics part of the "secret sauce" to their sound. Just speculation there.

The second I personally have been in discussions about, having worked for a speaker company that makes consumer speakers. The thought goes that the average consumer doesn't know how to interpret the data, or they may "know just enough to be dangerous." Misinterpretation of the data or obsession with one particular data point out of context by your potential customers could chase them away from your product.

In the commercial world this is less likely since those products are almost always specified by experienced and qualified people who do this for a living.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Uppsalaing

m. zillch said:


> One reason we don't see detailed specs from _all _makers is because the way to do them ideally is in an anechoic chamber and one of those large enough to measure the speaker on all axes, at one and two meter distances, is expensive.
> 
> The dedicated facilities built for this by say the NRC and Haman Labs, as examples, I believe cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Only 'slightly' more expensive than some of the AVS rooms 
Waiting for someone to start _'The Anechoic Home Theater Build Thread'_... with Atmos...


----------



## sdrucker

Uppsalaing said:


> Only 'slightly' more expensive than some of the AVS rooms
> Waiting for someone to start _'The Anechoic Home Theater Build Thread'_... with Atmos...


Keith...for your next Cowshed? 😜


----------



## howard68

Hi 
Amazon cube is out today !
Can any one test if it will give dolby atmos sound out on Netflix ?


----------



## kbarnes701

howard68 said:


> Hi
> Amazon cube is out today !
> Can any one test if it will give dolby atmos sound out on Netflix ?


The spec says it supports Atmos so if the content is there, then one would expect it would. Sadly not yet out in the UK AFAIK, so no chance of testing one here.


----------



## howard68

The cube and dolby atmos 
I need to know that it can output atmos 
At the moment only x box and lg tv do atmos from Netflix 
Just about to get an X box 
The cube is half the price


----------



## Ted99

howard68 said:


> Hi
> Amazon cube is out today !
> Can any one test if it will give dolby atmos sound out on Netflix ?


I bitched to Roku about why I couldn't get Atmos on Netflix from my Roku Ultra. Roku replied that the Ultra is "capable" of doing Atmos, but Netflix has not enabled it on the Roku device. So far, Netflix has only enabled it, as reported, on the XboxOne series, most recent LG TV's and HTPC running W-10. My most recent check on the Netflix site does not show any additional devices supported, yet. This is a Netflix issue. Must be $ involved here, somewhere. I want a streamer for 4K and Atmos to feed my Denon X8500, but I do NOT want the cumbersome interface of the XBox, so I'm waiting to see if Netflix will enable Atmos on any streamers. I'm hoping that the Apple TV 4K will be added this fall, when the ATV 4K gets an update to it's OS for Atmos. In any event, I'll be purchasing a new streamer to replace the Roku whenever a manufacturer does whatever is needed for Netflix to enable Atmos.


----------



## howard68

Hi ted 
I totally agree with you 
I want a streaming devices that streams Atmos from Netflix 
My Roku can stream Atmos from vudu 
It can't be hard for netflix to sort this out !!!!
Regards Howard


----------



## batpig

The Netflix Atmos FAQ still only lists LG OLED displays, Xbox, and Windows 10 PCs running the Netflix app as supporting Atmos: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066

It's all on Netflix at this point, clearly many of these other devices like the Roku Ultra are capable of bitstreaming DD+ but Netflix hasn't updated their app support ....


----------



## usc1995

Looks like Netflix Atmos is coming to more devices. AVS member RJVR23 reports it showing up on his Sony TV https://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-n...x-introduces-dolby-atmos-select-titles-4.html Also the ATV4k announcement shows titles from Netflix in its Atmos announcement here https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-4k/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Kaido

What's the cheapest 5.1.4 receiver available today? Having a bear of a time searching through various vendor websites & resellers for 5.1.4 support. So far, have found the Onkyo TX-NR646 for $300. Wattage isn't much of an issue, just want to get my feet wet with Atmos!


----------



## m. zillch

Kaido said:


> What's the cheapest 5.1.4 receiver available today? Having a bear of a time searching through various vendor websites & resellers for 5.1.4 support. So far, have found the Onkyo TX-NR646 for $300.


"The TX-NR646 is a 5.2.1 " -cnet [I think they mean 5.1.2]


----------



## rekbones

Kaido said:


> What's the cheapest 5.1.4 receiver available today? Having a bear of a time searching through various vendor websites & resellers for 5.1.4 support. So far, have found the Onkyo TX-NR646 for $300. Wattage isn't much of an issue, just want to get my feet wet with Atmos!


You need a 9.1 channel amp to support 5.1.4 unfortunately 9 ch and budget don't go together. 5.1.2 is fairly common in most 7.1 AVR's made today. It actually costs very little to go from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 often just needing to add a second 2 ch amp.


----------



## mr stroke

Kaido said:


> What's the cheapest 5.1.4 receiver available today? Having a bear of a time searching through various vendor websites & resellers for 5.1.4 support. So far, have found the Onkyo TX-NR646 for $300. Wattage isn't much of an issue, just want to get my feet wet with Atmos!


https://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-Certif...=UTF8&qid=1529650995&sr=8-1&keywords=TX-NR787


Just added this to my 5.1.4 Atmos set up, and happy so far


----------



## m. zillch

mr stroke said:


> Just added this to my 5.1.4 Atmos set up, and happy so far


Looks like a sound decision. [That's a little joke. "Onkyō" means "sound" in Japanese.. *Den*ki-*On*kyō, "Denon", means "electric sound".]


----------



## DaveMcLain

bkeeler10 said:


> Two thoughts on the question of why consumer gear is almost always thin on data. First, they may consider certain performance characteristics part of the "secret sauce" to their sound. Just speculation there.
> 
> The second I personally have been in discussions about, having worked for a speaker company that makes consumer speakers. The thought goes that the average consumer doesn't know how to interpret the data, or they may "know just enough to be dangerous." Misinterpretation of the data or obsession with one particular data point out of context by your potential customers could chase them away from your product.
> 
> In the commercial world this is less likely since those products are almost always specified by experienced and qualified people who do this for a living.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I think're right in that most people don't understand "voicing" of speakers and that what is done to make speakers sound "good" isn't going to make them appear "flat" from 20-20K....


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> The Netflix Atmos FAQ still only lists LG OLED displays, Xbox, and Windows 10 PCs running the Netflix app as supporting Atmos: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> It's all on Netflix at this point, clearly many of these other devices like the Roku Ultra are capable of bitstreaming DD+ but Netflix hasn't updated their app support ....


Several of my movies available from Vudu have Atmos audio. I confirmed some time ago that my Premiere+ will bitstream Atmos audio from Vudu just fine. This leads me to conclude that the inability of the Premiere+ and Ultra to bitstream Atmos from Netflix is not Roku's fault.


----------



## Kaido

m. zillch said:


> "The TX-NR646 is a 5.2.1 " -cnet [I think they mean 5.1.2]


Ah, I think the Amazon description is incorrect then, thanks.


----------



## howard68

I do think it has to be Netflix thing 
Just need to let us access Atmos !!!


----------



## usc1995

Kaido said:


> What's the cheapest 5.1.4 receiver available today? Having a bear of a time searching through various vendor websites & resellers for 5.1.4 support. So far, have found the Onkyo TX-NR646 for $300. Wattage isn't much of an issue, just want to get my feet wet with Atmos!




Pioneer has a new 9 channel receiver with an MSRP of $799 https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Elite+Receivers/VSX-LX303

That and the aforementioned Onkyo 787 are the best deals going for new receivers that are 5.2.4 capable. It was only a year ago when you couldn’t get a 9 channel receiver new for under $1k so things are getting cheaper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

gwsat said:


> Several of my movies available from Vudu have Atmos audio. I confirmed some time ago that my Premiere+ will bitstream Atmos audio from Vudu just fine. This leads me to conclude that the inability of the Premiere+ and Ultra to bitstream Atmos from Netflix is not Roku's fault.


Yes, that's the point. Atmos audio is supported from other apps (especially Vudu) on many devices. It's not a hardware / capability issue from the media box companies, it's a licensing issue with Netflix.


----------



## m. zillch

I had no idea how inexpensive bare bone Atmos receivers are. Check out the Onkyo HT-R494 (5.1.2) for example.


----------



## gene4ht

m. zillch said:


> I had no idea how inexpensive bare bone Atmos receivers are. Check out the Onkyo HT-R494 (5.1.2) for example.



Not really surprised. It's not a popular position in the high end/flagship AVR threads but IMO, very good Atmos results can be obtained very inexpensively. My personal Atmos exploratory journey began two years ago with an Onkyo 636 ($250) and Micca ($40) in ceiling speakers. The critical learning since then is that any AVR with an Atmos decoder and most speakers properly installed and positioned will yield very good results. I've upgraded my AVR only recently but have retained the Micca's as I've found no compelling reason to replace them. The higher end AVR's with 9.X.6 capability and promise of HDMI 2.1 do not yet appeal to me as content is scarce. In 2-3 years, when ample content is available and HDMI 2.1 matures, my interest will no doubt return. In the meantime, I'm no longer a leading/bleeding edge enthusiast and subscribe to the adage of not investing in electronics that quickly decline in function and value. To put all this in perspective, the difference between an Onkyo HT-R494 or even an upstream model and flagship AVR can buy a 4K projector, a 70" flat panel display, several UHD players, a good 7 channel amp, etc. Just my .02 and of course YMMV.


----------



## m. zillch

What I'm thinking is maybe a dirt cheap, $180 Atmos 5.1.2 AVR trumps a state of the art,~ $1000ish *non*-Atmos 7.1 AVR, if output level is kept within the bounds of the weaker Atmos unit's amps? Hmm . . .


----------



## gene4ht

m. zillch said:


> What I'm thinking is maybe a dirt cheap, $180 Atmos 5.1.2 AVR trumps a state of the art,~ $1000ish *non*-Atmos 7.1 AVR, if output level is kept within the bounds of the weaker Atmos unit's amps? Hmm . . .


Agreed...very realistic with efficient speakers and/or for small to medium sized rooms. I would also bet most would prefer the immersive qualities of Atmos over rear surrounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Not really surprised. It's not a popular position in the high end/flagship AVR threads but IMO, very good Atmos results can be obtained very inexpensively. My personal Atmos exploratory journey began two years ago with an Onkyo 636 ($250) and Micca ($40) in ceiling speakers. The critical learning since then is that any AVR with an Atmos decoder and most speakers properly installed and positioned will yield very good results. I've upgraded my AVR only recently but have retained the Micca's as I've found no compelling reason to replace them. The higher end AVR's with 9.X.6 capability and promise of HDMI 2.1 do not yet appeal to me as content is scarce. In 2-3 years, when ample content is available and HDMI 2.1 matures, my interest will no doubt return. In the meantime, I'm no longer a leading/bleeding edge enthusiast and subscribe to the adage of not investing in electronics that quickly decline in function and value. To put all this in perspective, the difference between an Onkyo HT-R494 or even an upstream model and flagship AVR can buy a 4K projector, a 70" flat panel display, several UHD players, a good 7 channel amp, etc. Just my .02 and of course YMMV.





m. zillch said:


> What I'm thinking is maybe a dirt cheap, $180 Atmos 5.1.2 AVR trumps a state of the art,~ $1000ish *non*-Atmos 7.1 AVR, if output level is kept within the bounds of the weaker Atmos unit's amps? Hmm . . .


Yes. Modern SS electronics contribute vanishingly small differences to the sound quality we actually hear. So, with one caveat, the only thing that matters in the choice of AVR is the _features _set. If the unit has the features one needs, then it is as good as any other, audio-wise. The caveat is this: if you are using the internal amps of the AVR then you need to ensure that there is sufficient power for the unit to drive the speakers to the required SPLs without running into clipping.

This means that choosing the cheapest AVR, so long as it has the _features _you need, is the way to go (so long as it has enough power). This leaves money available to upgrade the things that really do make a difference to what we hear - the room, the speakers and/or the subs - mostly of course, the room.

This is one of the reasons I always choose an AVR over a 'Processor' even though all my amplification is external. The AVR is always hugely cheaper than the equivalent AVP and the latter brings no audible sonic improvements. It is an example of the sheer _chutzpah _of the manufacturers that they have the nerve to charge _*more* _for taking away the amplifiers! But then there are always people who will pay the extra I guess - if it costs more, it has to be better, right?


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. I can see how this could be an issue for smaller manufacturers for sure.* Can they not rent the facilities?* But surely the mainstream consumer manufacturers, eg Kef, B&W to name a couple of brands whose speakers I have personally enjoyed in the past, in my 'audiophile' days, can afford this sort of investment? And if not, how do they develop their speakers? Just by ear?
> 
> Here, for example, is a link to a B&W speaker that costs about $20,000 *each*. Yet there isn't a chart or a graph or any mention at all of any of the important parameters that the pro makers routinely include. The B&W page for this hugely expensive speaker has some broad information on recommended amplifier power, distortion figures etc, but that's all. It also has some beautiful photographs of the speakers. When this speaker was developed, did B&W really not have any measurements to guide them, and if they did take measurements, why so coy in letting the buyer see them? It's a 40 grand investment for a pair of these!
> 
> I am not saying, of course, that these speakers are poor quality, or even poor value for money since I have never heard them. They may sound sublime (in a treated room). But why no detailed information when Tannoy, for example, can provide this for speakers that are less than 400 bucks each?


I have been to the Dynaudio testing facility:
http://peteswrite.blogspot.com/2018/05/dynaudio-factory-visit.html and that costs a cool half million Euros..
So not everyone has such a large place and they have no intention of renting it out to others..
So only certain companies can afford this kind of place.. B&W has one too, although it isn't quite the same. Cheers


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> I have been to the Dynaudio testing facility:
> http://peteswrite.blogspot.com/2018/05/dynaudio-factory-visit.html and that costs a cool half million Euros..
> So not everyone has such a large place and they have no intention of renting it out to others..
> So only certain companies can afford this kind of place.. B&W has one too, although it isn't quite the same. Cheers



These photos are impressive - as is the cost of the facility. I can well imagine that manufacturers won't rent out the facility to their competitors! I wondered if there was some sort of 'industry facility' that might fill the gap, but maybe there isn't. I also wonder how speaker manufacturers manage to develop speakers if they have no access to proper measuring facilities during development. Those who do should, I guess, be able to produce better speakers for less money (since the development time must be much shorter than doing it iteratively, by ear). I'd love to have a prowl round one of these facilities - must have been a good couple of days for you I'd imagine 

Edit - I just checked your blog article (very interesting BTW) - it's* 5 million Euros* not half a million (that's almost $6 million USD)!! So it's easy to see why smaller manufacturers are going to be locked out of this. I'd still like to see them publish the specs for their creations though


----------



## harrisu

@kbarnes701, I have Yamaha 3050 which supports all 11 channels. I do have 4 on ceiling. AVR also supports Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. do you prefer to play movies in their native code or upgrade to Atmos or DTS:X? Considering there are very few movies with Atmos (renting from Netflix), I feel like I spent a lot of money and barely getting much out of it. So now wondering if up-converting all the movies to atmos using upmixer is a better option or doing so makes it worse?


----------



## johnnygrandis

@harrisu, surely the Dolby upmixer does a really god job on several non Atmos materiale in my little cave. I dont do any streaming but if you count in the Atmos releases in 4K remastered its really many "new" titles with Atmos sound. Harry potter (DTS-X) The Matrix and not to forget the awesome Fury just to mention some great "new" content with superb immersive sound


----------



## Ted99

Widescreen Review's latest magazine has an editorial on the sorry state of Studio implementation of Atmos (and 4K). It echos all of the comments in this thread.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes. Modern SS electronics contribute vanishingly small differences to the sound quality we actually hear. So, with one caveat, the only thing that matters in the choice of AVR is the _features _set.


I'm _generally_ of the same mind however one "feature" _does_ heavily impact sound quality: room correction EQ. Since an inexpensive, $180 Atmos AVR isn't going to have pre-outs you are locked to the quality of its EQ/processing and although I was a dealer for most of these brands, for many years, and have a good feel for what Audyssey and YPAO bring to the table I never carried Onkyo and I know little about what it does.
---

One thought I had was to add an LOC, Line out convertor (active not passive), which brings down the speaker level outputs down to preamp level turning the AVR effectively into an AVP as you called it. From there I can add whatever EQ I want and I already have most of the outboard amplification on hand. 

I realize this is not ideal [even with a "perfect" LOC I'd still be passing through the first amp and gaining its faint hum, hiss, and distortion, albeit fairly innocuous, I suspect], but it is certainly less expensive from where I sit.


----------



## kbarnes701

harrisu said:


> @kbarnes701, I have Yamaha 3050 which supports all 11 channels. I do have 4 on ceiling. AVR also supports Dolby Atmos and DTS:X. do you prefer to play movies in their native code or upgrade to Atmos or DTS:X? Considering there are very few movies with Atmos (renting from Netflix), I feel like I spent a lot of money and barely getting much out of it. So now wondering if up-converting all the movies to atmos using upmixer is a better option or doing so makes it worse?


Upmixing is a very personal thing and some like the effect and some hate it. Whichever camp you are in, I urge you to experiment with both DSU and Neural:X. Some movies respond really well to upmixing, others less so. So I use the native DTS-HD MA or TrueHD 5.1/7.1 tracks sometimes, and other times I upmix. My preferred upmixer is DSU as, to me, it is more 'natural' and less aggressive and often works amazing well, sometimes even better than some native Atmos tracks. Neural:X is more 'showy' and more aggressive, which is great for demonstrating the effect but not as satisfying over a while movie (IMO). Other people hold the opposite view.

You have a great receiver there, so my advice would be to experiment with both upmixers, over a variety of movies and see how you feel about them. If you have the non-Atmos versions of _Spectre_ and _Oblivion_, try those with DSU and/or Neural:X. The first scenes of _Spectre_ (the helicopter fight) are especially good for evaluating how much you like the upmixed effect. In _Oblivion _listen to the way that Jack's space vehicle swoops around the room, over and around you, when it comes in to land at the sports stadium. Also, try the scene where he goes down into the old library.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> Widescreen Review's latest magazine has an editorial on the sorry state of Studio implementation of Atmos (and 4K). It echos all of the comments in this thread.


Do keep in mind that WSR is incredibly biased against Dolby, and has been for a long time. They will take any opportunity to make negative comments about Atmos, including, in the past, printing much information which was factually incorrect, and never corrected in any subsequent issues (right up to the time I cancelled my subscription renewal).


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> I'm _generally_ of the same mind however one "feature" _does_ heavily impact sound quality: room correction EQ. Since an inexpensive, $180 Atmos AVR isn't going to have pre-outs you are locked to the quality of its EQ/processing and although I was a dealer for most of these brands, for many years, and have a good feel for what Audyssey and YPAO bring to the table I never carried Onkyo and I know little about what it does.


Very important point and one I should have made for myself. A good 'feature' to insist on when choosing the AVR is the room EQ. I should have added something like 'when choosing, go for the cheapest AVR that has all the features you need, _including good room EQ_, plus enough power to drive the speakers cleanly to the required levels'.

My own EQ is independent of the AVR (Dirac Live) which is how I guess I forgot about it.




m. zillch said:


> One thought I had was to add an LOC, Line out convertor (active not passive), which brings down the speaker level outputs down to preamp level turning the AVR effectively into an AVP as you called it. From there I can add whatever EQ I want and I already have most of the outboard amplification on hand.
> 
> I realize this is not ideal [even with a "perfect" LOC I'd still be passing through the first amp and gaining its faint hum, hiss, and distortion, albeit fairly innocuous, I suspect], but it is certainly less expensive from where I sit.


Why not just use the AVR preouts? Since all my amplification is external, one 'feature' which is _essential _for me is a full set of preouts. But since I use Dirac Live, I can ignore the inbuilt room EQ. And the power amp section of the AVR. So for me, the important feature set would be different to that for a lot of people, who would want good room EQ above all else for example.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Why not just use the AVR preouts? .


Well, sure, but $180 Atmos AVRs don't have a full set of preouts, if any, so you'd have to add them yourself:

https://www.audiocontrol.com/car-audio/factory-system-upgrade/lc6i/
---

For those who don't know AudioControl, a company I carried and think well of, it has nothing to do with the mid-fi company Audio Source but people often mistake one for the other. AudioControl make Dirac capable $6k AVPs/AVRs and professional, ANSI certified calibration/measurement gear such as my trusty SA-3050a RTA I owned and loved for many years. Their gear's specs and performance are top notch.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Well, sure, but $180 Atmos AVRs don't have a full set of preouts, if any, so you'd have to add them yourself:
> 
> https://www.audiocontrol.com/car-audio/factory-system-upgrade/lc6i/


Good point 
---



m. zillch said:


> For those who don't know AudioControl, a company I carried and think well of, it has nothing to do with the mid-fi company Audio Source but people often mistake one for the other. AudioControl make Dirac capable $6k AVPs/AVRs and professional, ANSI certified calibration/measurement gear such as my trusty SA-3050a RTA I owned and loved for many years. Their gear's specs and performance are top notch.


Yes, I looked at one of their Dirac-capable AVRs some time ago. Impressive unit.


----------



## helvetica bold

FYI-Jurassic World in the Dolby Cinema is Atmos on steroids. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ted99

kbarnes701 said:


> Do keep in mind that WSR is incredibly biased against Dolby, and has been for a long time. They will take any opportunity to make negative comments about Atmos, including, in the past, printing much information which was factually incorrect, and never corrected in any subsequent issues (right up to the time I cancelled my subscription renewal).


Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I've e-mailed "editorgary" twice in the past 6 months complaining about the editorial content of WSR. The first was to point out that half of the editorial content in several recent issues had been BR reviews and that I had subscribed to what I thought was a hardware magazine. The second was to point out the dearth of equipment reviews (the precipitating issue was one in which there was only one equipment review and it was for a POWER CONDITIONER), and "churning" in articles dealing with video quality. Today, the magazine has added Home Theater Design to it's masthead and the last three issues have featured near or actual magabuck professional installations. I think your experience with the Cowshed (and mine) is that one can get very good, or World-class, performance for real-people money. I initially subscribed to the magazine for it's reviews of mid/upper-tier HT equipment. Not the ridiculously-priced stuff found in 2-channel mags, but stuff I would consider buying, if a case could be made (examples are my JVC RS600 and Denon X8500). The mag piqued my interest in Auro, with their constant featuring of Wilfred VonBalen, so I was really interested in the X8500 implementing Auro 13.1. I've just ordered a German Disc of Blade Runner 2049 in Auro 11.1 and I'm going to do a back to back comparison of it and my Atmos disc. I've already decided that I prefer Auromatic for my upmixer on legacy BR, because of the way the music soundtrack is handled--and let's face it, the point that was being made in the WSR editorial is that studio implementation of Atmos/DTS:X is pretty poor, in general. So, for the time being, I'm just enhancing the music soundtrack. I don't know who the target audience is for today's WSR (It isn't me). On your point about cancelling your subscription, I've decided to just let mine die at it's end.


----------



## harrisu

kbarnes701 said:


> Upmixing is a very personal thing and some like the effect and some hate it. Whichever camp you are in, I urge you to experiment with both DSU and Neural:X. Some movies respond really well to upmixing, others less so. So I use the native DTS-HD MA or TrueHD 5.1/7.1 tracks sometimes, and other times I upmix. My preferred upmixer is DSU as, to me, it is more 'natural' and less aggressive and often works amazing well, sometimes even better than some native Atmos tracks. Neural:X is more 'showy' and more aggressive, which is great for demonstrating the effect but not as satisfying over a while movie (IMO). Other people hold the opposite view.
> 
> You have a great receiver there, so my advice would be to experiment with both upmixers, over a variety of movies and see how you feel about them. If you have the non-Atmos versions of _Spectre_ and _Oblivion_, try those with DSU and/or Neural:X. The first scenes of _Spectre_ (the helicopter fight) are especially good for evaluating how much you like the upmixed effect. In _Oblivion _listen to the way that Jack's space vehicle swoops around the room, over and around you, when it comes in to land at the sports stadium. Also, try the scene where he goes down into the old library.


Thx. I agree. Best is to try it out. The only issue is that this works with movies you own and willing to spend some good time to see how DSU/DTS-X works with it. I rent movies from Netflix. Doing the A/B will spoil the 
movie. I agree thought that there is no other way besides it. I guess better to leave my AVR to straight mode which plays the tract as its recorded on the disc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I've e-mailed "editorgary" twice in the past 6 months complaining about the editorial content of WSR. The first was to point out that half of the editorial content in several recent issues had been BR reviews and that I had subscribed to what I thought was a hardware magazine. The second was to point out the dearth of equipment reviews (the precipitating issue was one in which there was only one equipment review and it was for a POWER CONDITIONER), and "churning" in articles dealing with video quality. Today, the magazine has added Home Theater Design to it's masthead and the last three issues have featured near or actual magabuck professional installations. I think your experience with the Cowshed (and mine) is that one can get very good, or World-class, performance for real-people money. I initially subscribed to the magazine for it's reviews of mid/upper-tier HT equipment. Not the ridiculously-priced stuff found in 2-channel mags, but stuff I would consider buying, if a case could be made (examples are my JVC RS600 and Denon X8500). The mag piqued my interest in Auro, with their constant featuring of Wilfred VonBalen, so I was really interested in the X8500 implementing Auro 13.1. I've just ordered a German Disc of Blade Runner 2049 in Auro 11.1 and I'm going to do a back to back comparison of it and my Atmos disc. I've already decided that I prefer Auromatic for my upmixer on legacy BR, because of the way the music soundtrack is handled--and let's face it, the point that was being made in the WSR editorial is that studio implementation of Atmos/DTS:X is pretty poor, in general. So, for the time being, I'm just enhancing the music soundtrack. I don't know who the target audience is for today's WSR (It isn't me). On your point about cancelling your subscription, I've decided to just let mine die at it's end.


We share similar views on this. I too just let my subscription die, some time ago. It was the bias I couldn't get along with. I believe there was some longstanding disagreement between the owner of WSR and Dolby. Some of their Atmos content was clearly factually in error and misleading and even when this was pointed out, no corrections were forthcoming. I came to the conclusion that I could find better ways to spend my money.


----------



## kbarnes701

harrisu said:


> Thx. I agree. Best is to try it out. The only issue is that this works with movies you own and willing to spend some good time to see how DSU/DTS-X works with it. I rent movies from Netflix. Doing the A/B will spoil the
> movie. I agree thought that there is no other way besides it. I guess better to leave my AVR to straight mode which plays the tract as its recorded on the disc.


I do urge you to give DSU a try on your next few rentals. It can very good indeed on many movies.


----------



## umenon

I have a Denon x2300W receiver that supports DTS:X and Atmos. My speaker config is 5.1.2

I have a strange problem with using Neural:x to upmix 2.0 or 5.1 sources.

DD 2.0 -> Dolby Surround selected -> upmixes to 5.1.2

DD 5.1 -> Dolby Surround selected -> upmixes to 5.1.2

DD 2.0 -> Neural:X selected -> upmixes to 5.1 (no audio from height speakers)

DD 5.1 -> Neural:X selected -> upmixes to 5.1 (no audio from height speakers)

There does not appears to be anything in Settings I can tweak to fix this. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## harrisu

kbarnes701 said:


> I do urge you to give DSU a try on your next few rentals. It can very good indeed on many movies.


Ok sure. Let's see how that goes. Are you using 88-a? My ceiling are not room corrected. The only thing I have done for ceiling speakers is set the delays.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> We share similar views on this. I too just let my subscription die, some time ago. It was the bias I couldn't get along with. I believe there was some longstanding disagreement between the owner of WSR and Dolby. Some of their Atmos content was clearly factually in error and misleading and even when this was pointed out, no corrections were forthcoming. I came to the conclusion that I could find better ways to spend my money.


More than that, Gary Reber’s review equipment includes a Trinnov Altitude (not sure if it’s 32 channels or the 16 he supposedly asked for in his June/July 2016 review), but he apparently has a 7.2.4 layout configured for an Auro-3D layout  .

See his comments here, in the October, 2017 Editor’s Couch:
https://wsrpdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/22...951130&Signature=6r9GLDtRFaV1llVwF6CrWR8Dq7A=

He explicitly says that he chose to follow the Auro recommendations for height placement: front heights located above the mains, rear heights above the surrounds. However, in the context of the article, it’s clear that by surrounds he’s referring to side surrounds, not back surrounds. 

If he indeed is deliberately listening to Atmos content with an Auro layout, even with the Altitude’s Remapping capabilities and advanced, flexible Speaker Configurations, IMO he’s setting up Atmos to fail. That far off Dolby spec, who knows how well 3D Remapping might be working for front to rear/rear to front panning, for one thing, even with his tweeters angled at MLP.

To truly do an Atmos disc justice for uncovering how mixers utilize the consumer Atmos skillset, you’d want a reference level setup with a more conventional Atmos configuration. I’d at least start with 9.1.6, and have a 7.1.6, 9.1.4, and baseline 7.1.4 layout as Altitude presets. That way you’re capturing overhead immersion where top middles are used for stability and higher resolution immersion (or even dominant as in Saving Private Ryan), as well as wides or front side surrounds for object pullout outside the 7 bed channels. He may have two subs, but if he’s indeed using a 16 channel unit now, that’s easy to address with a MiniDSP, or a Xilica or Q-Sys external box for multiple sub management.

Until he does so, I’d take his reviews with a few pounds of salt as anything other than one man’s opinion with an off-label setup of his own insistence, apparently.


----------



## kbarnes701

harrisu said:


> Ok sure. Let's see how that goes. Are you using 88-a? My ceiling are not room corrected. The only thing I have done for ceiling speakers is set the delays.


I'm using twin 88As (see my sig). I doubt if the overheads need much in the way of EQ TBH, but I had to do mine to satisfy my OCD  As well as setting the delays (very important) I'd also check and set the levels of the overheads too if I were you.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> More than that, Gary Reber’s review equipment includes a Trinnov Altitude (not sure if it’s 32 channels or the 16 he supposedly asked for in his June/July 2016 review), but he apparently has a 7.2.4 layout configured for an Auro-3D layout  .
> 
> See his comments here, in the October, 2017 Editor’s Couch:
> https://wsrpdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/22...951130&Signature=6r9GLDtRFaV1llVwF6CrWR8Dq7A=
> 
> He explicitly says that he chose to follow the Auro recommendations for height placement: front heights located above the mains, rear heights above the surrounds. However, in the context of the article, it’s clear that by surrounds he’s referring to side surrounds, not back surrounds.
> 
> If he indeed is deliberately listening to Atmos content with an Auro layout, even with the Altitude’s Remapping capabilities and advanced, flexible Speaker Configurations, IMO he’s setting up Atmos to fail. That far off Dolby spec, who knows how well 3D Remapping might be working for front to rear/rear to front panning, for one thing, even with his tweeters angled at MLP.
> 
> To truly do an Atmos disc justice for uncovering how mixers utilize the consumer Atmos skillset, you’d want a reference level setup with a more conventional Atmos configuration. I’d at least start with 9.1.6, and have a 7.1.6, 9.1.4, and baseline 7.1.4 layout as Altitude presets. That way you’re capturing overhead immersion where top middles are used for stability and higher resolution immersion (or even dominant as in Saving Private Ryan), as well as wides or front side surrounds for object pullout outside the 7 bed channels. He may have two subs, but if he’s indeed using a 16 channel unit now, that’s easy to address with a MiniDSP, or a Xilica or Q-Sys external box for multiple sub management.
> 
> Until he does so, I’d take his reviews with a few pounds of salt as anything other than one man’s opinion with an off-label setup of his own insistence, apparently.


Good info, Stu. It doesn't surprise me as he was a massive Auro fanboy right from the get-go. He sure called that right huh? I hope he enjoys his handful of Auro movies


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It doesn't surprise me as he was a massive Auro fanboy right from the get-go.


Massive DTS fanboy before that. As long as it isn't Dolby...


----------



## Khaile

*Top front or Top Middle?*

Hey all

REcently upgraded from a 5.2 to a 5.2.2 with in-ceiling speakers. I installed them for top fronts but after thinking about it and looking at many example diagrams, if I only have 2 atmos speakers, should I really place the atmos speakers where they would be top middle instead? Will it make any auditorial difference if I change my configuration now?

I only see top middle in .2 formats whereas I see top rear and top fronts in .4 formats.


----------



## dfa973

Khaile said:


> REcently upgraded from a 5.2 to a 5.2.2 with in-ceiling speakers. I installed them for top fronts but after thinking about it and looking at many example diagrams, if I only have 2 atmos speakers, should I really place the atmos speakers where they would be top middle instead?


A 5.2.2 setup calls only for Top Middle speaker placement, per Dolby recommendations.

A 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 setup calls only for Top Front & Top Rear speaker placement (of course, you must have the required space behind the MLP...). If you can't put the speakers on/in the ceiling, you can use a Front Height & Rear Height placement - as a compromise solution. Front Height & Rear Height is also a good solution for DTS:X and Auro-3D, since none of these formats need speakers on/in ceiling, except the VOG of the Auro-3D.

A 5.2.6 or 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 setup calls for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speaker placement. You can use instead of Top Front & Top Rear the Front Height & Rear Height, keeping the Top Middle in place, as a compromise. Also, this is the one way to extend the initial 5.2.2 setup to 5.2.6 or 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 later, by adding the Front Heights & Rear Heights, if you can't put speakers on/in the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> Hey all
> 
> REcently upgraded from a 5.2 to a 5.2.2 with in-ceiling speakers. I installed them for top fronts but after thinking about it and looking at many example diagrams, if I only have 2 atmos speakers, should I really place the atmos speakers where they would be top middle instead? Will it make any auditorial difference if I change my configuration now?
> 
> I only see top middle in .2 formats whereas I see top rear and top fronts in .4 formats.


Top Middle is best if you only have two overhead speakers. As yours are in-ceiling speakers, how much hassle is it for you to move them now, considering you have made the holes in the ceiling already? How much difference it will make will depend how far you move them. Can you send a drawing showing the position of the current speakers relative to the MLP and the boundary walls? It can just be a freehand sketch so long as the positions are reasonably accurate. Depending on where you actually installed the speakers, there may be little to no benefit of moving them. It will depend on your room size, where you sit and which of the range of potential positions for TF that you actually used.


----------



## Khaile

dfa973 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> REcently upgraded from a 5.2 to a 5.2.2 with in-ceiling speakers. I installed them for top fronts but after thinking about it and looking at many example diagrams, if I only have 2 atmos speakers, should I really place the atmos speakers where they would be top middle instead?
> 
> 
> 
> A 5.2.2 setup calls only for Top Middle speaker placement, per Dolby recommendations.
> 
> A 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 setup calls only for Top Front & Top Rear speaker placement (of course, you must have the required space behind the MLP...). If you can't put the speakers on/in the ceiling, you can use a Front Height & Rear Height placement - as a compromise solution. Front Height & Rear Height is also a good solution for DTS:X and Auro-3D, since none of these formats need speakers on/in ceiling, except the VOG of the Auro-3D.
> 
> A 5.2.6 or 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 setup calls for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speaker placement. You can use instead of Top Front & Top Rear the Front Height & Rear Height, keeping the Top Middle in place, as a compromise. Also, this is the one way to extend the initial 5.2.2 setup to 5.2.6 or 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 later, by adding the Front Heights & Rear Heights, if you can't put speakers on/in the ceiling.
Click to expand...




kbarnes701 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey all
> 
> REcently upgraded from a 5.2 to a 5.2.2 with in-ceiling speakers. I installed them for top fronts but after thinking about it and looking at many example diagrams, if I only have 2 atmos speakers, should I really place the atmos speakers where they would be top middle instead? Will it make any auditorial difference if I change my configuration now?
> 
> I only see top middle in .2 formats whereas I see top rear and top fronts in .4 formats.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve attached a side view photo of my setup. The ceiling speakers are designated as top front because when I sit and decline, they are more at a 45 degree angle from me.
> 
> I can move the ceiling speakers to the next tile (I have a drop ceiling).
> 
> What do you all recommend? Or I can move my LP closer but then that might throw off the angle of my bookshelf surrounds.
Click to expand...


----------



## dfa973

Khaile said:


> I’ve attached a side view photo of my setup. The ceiling speakers are designated as top front because when I sit and decline, they are more at a 45-degree angle from me.


Yes, 45 degrees are for Top Front.
65 degrees for Top Middle only in a 5.2.2 setup and 90 degrees for Top Middle in a 9.2.6 setup.
You can consider that 45 degrees angle for Top Front only IF you have also the Top Rears (at 135 degrees).
As long as you do not have the Top Rears, you must assign the Top speakers as Top Middle - *I am not sure that you can assign in the AVR setup a Top Front with only a 7.2/5.2.2 receiver...*
If you think that the 45 angle will ruin your Atmos experience (it will not), you can experiment by assigning those Top Front speakers as Front Heights.

Note: your Side Surrounds are higher than normal, you need more separation from the Top layer, they should be no higher than 1.25 ear height.


----------



## Couch potato blight

I am pulling cables for a 5.x.4 configuration. MLP will be about 10’ to 12’ from the screen, ceiling is 7’ 10” high. Where do I put the speakers in the ceiling? My reading of the dolby spec says about 6’ in front of and the same distance behind the MLP, and in line with the front left and right floorstanders. Is this correct?


----------



## Khaile

dfa973 said:


> A 5.2.2 setup calls only for Top Middle speaker placement, per Dolby recommendations.
> 
> A 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 setup calls only for Top Front & Top Rear speaker placement (of course, you must have the required space behind the MLP...). If you can't put the speakers on/in the ceiling, you can use a Front Height & Rear Height placement - as a compromise solution. Front Height & Rear Height is also a good solution for DTS:X and Auro-3D, since none of these formats need speakers on/in ceiling, except the VOG of the Auro-3D.
> 
> A 5.2.6 or 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 setup calls for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speaker placement. You can use instead of Top Front & Top Rear the Front Height & Rear Height, keeping the Top Middle in place, as a compromise. Also, this is the one way to extend the initial 5.2.2 setup to 5.2.6 or 7.2.6 or 9.2.6 later, by adding the Front Heights & Rear Heights, if you can't put speakers on/in the ceiling.





kbarnes701 said:


> Top Middle is best if you only have two overhead speakers. As yours are in-ceiling speakers, how much hassle is it for you to move them now, considering you have made the holes in the ceiling already? How much difference it will make will depend how far you move them. Can you send a drawing showing the position of the current speakers relative to the MLP and the boundary walls? It can just be a freehand sketch so long as the positions are reasonably accurate. Depending on where you actually installed the speakers, there may be little to no benefit of moving them. It will depend on your room size, where you sit and which of the range of potential positions for TF that you actually used.





dfa973 said:


> Yes, 45 degrees are for Top Front.
> 65 degrees for Top Middle only in a 5.2.2 setup and 90 degrees for Top Middle in a 9.2.6 setup.
> You can consider that 45 degrees angle for Top Front only IF you have also the Top Rears (at 135 degrees).
> As long as you do not have the Top Rears, you must assign the Top speakers as Top Middle - *I am not sure that you can assign in the AVR setup a Top Front with only a 7.2/5.2.2 receiver...*
> If you think that the 45 angle will ruin your Atmos experience (it will not), you can experiment by assigning those Top Front speakers as Front Heights.



I Have denon avrs730h and they allow me to designate them the tops as either rear middle or front. 

But should I move them? It’ll take some time but I am willing to move them for a better experience.

And yes, my surrounds are higher than normal, I’m going to bring them down to ear level soon.


----------



## dfa973

Couch potato blight said:


> I am pulling cables for a 5.x.4 configuration. MLP will be about 10’ to 12’ from the screen, ceiling is 7’ 10” high. Where do I put the speakers in the ceiling? My reading of the dolby spec says about 6’ in front of and the same distance behind the MLP, and in line with the front left and right floorstanders. Is this correct?


Respect the angles, not the distances.
Top Front at 45 degrees on/in the ceiling.
Top Rear at 135 degrees on/in the ceiling.
All four Top speakers preferable with aimable tweeters if mounted in the ceiling.
The distances are derived from the angles and the ceiling height and are relevant only for *your* room.


----------



## dfa973

Khaile said:


> I Have denon avrs730h and they allow me to designate them the tops as either rear middle or front.


Are you sure?
*Do not confound Top Front with Front Height!*
7.2 receivers should not allow you to assign any Top speaker as Top Front or Top Rear, only to Top Middle or Front Height.



Khaile said:


> But should I move them? It’ll take some time but I am willing to move them for a better experience.


If you can put them at 65 degrees instead of 45, do it!


----------



## Couch potato blight

dfa973 said:


> Respect the angles, not the distances.
> Top Front at 45 degrees on/in the ceiling.
> Top Rear at 135 degrees on/in the ceiling.
> All four Top speakers preferable with aimable tweeters if mounted in the ceiling.
> The distances are derived from the angles and the ceiling height and are relevant only for *your* room.


Thanks, I think I have that right then, I calculated the distances at 45 and 135 from ear height at MLP. I am thinking Klipsch CDT-3650, which are aimable.


----------



## Khaile

dfa973 said:


> Are you sure?
> *Do not confound Top Front with Front Height!*
> 7.2 receivers should not allow you to assign any Top speaker as Top Front or Top Rear, only to Top Middle or Front Height.
> 
> 
> If you can put them at 65 degrees instead of 45, do it!


My avr which is a 7.2 allow me to assign those two channels as front height, top middle and top front (also rear surround and front Dolby enabled)


----------



## dfa973

Khaile said:


> My avr which is a 7.2 allow me to assign those two channels as front height, top middle and top front (also rear surround and front Dolby enabled)


Oh..., this is news to me...

In that case, you do not need to change anything, keep the speakers at 45 and assign them as Top Front!
Case closed.


----------



## Khaile

dfa973 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> My avr which is a 7.2 allow me to assign those two channels as front height, top middle and top front (also rear surround and front Dolby enabled)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..., this is news to me...
> 
> In that case, you do not need to change anything, keep the speakers at 45 and assign them as Top Front!
> Case closed.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Like you, I know all the recommendations from Dolby for 5.1.2 ONLY show top middle in ceiling speakers. 

I am willing to move them.


----------



## dfa973

Khaile said:


> Are you sure? Like you, I know all the recommendations from Dolby for 5.1.2 ONLY show top middle in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I am willing to move them.


Yes, Top Middle is the right position for 5.1.2, but you can make a test, watch for example a movie with a very good overhead Atmos soundtrack, like Gravity or Blade Runner 2049 with both assignations, Top Front and then Top Middle, with the speakers mounted in the same position (Top Front, 45degrees) and see what assignment works better.


----------



## sdurani

Ted99 said:


> ...the point that was being made in the WSR editorial is that studio implementation of Atmos/DTS:X is pretty poor, in general.


Pretty poor compared to what? The studios' (almost non-existent) implementation of Auro? Did the WSR editorial ever put their point in context?


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve attached a side view photo of my setup. The ceiling speakers are designated as top front because when I sit and decline, they are more at a 45 degree angle from me.
> 
> I can move the ceiling speakers to the next tile (I have a drop ceiling).
> 
> What do you all recommend? Or I can move my LP closer but then that might throw off the angle of my bookshelf surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that ceiling - I'd move them and redesignate them as TM. Do let us know how you get on. Remember if you use an automated room EQ like Audyssey etc, you will need to re-run it after moving and re-designating them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> Pretty poor compared to what? The studios' (almost non-existent) implementation of Auro? Did the WSR editorial ever put their point in context?


The editorial cited some Studios for less than engaging use of Atmos, and some for excellent use. The comparison was for Atmos to Atmos, with the variable being the releasing Studio. No other codecs were mentioned. I recommend the editorial for more detail.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> ...the point that was being made in the WSR editorial is that studio implementation of Atmos/DTS:X is pretty poor, in general.





Ted99 said:


> The editorial cited some Studios for less than engaging use of Atmos, and some for excellent use. The comparison was for Atmos to Atmos, with the variable being the releasing Studio. No other codecs were mentioned. I recommend the editorial for more detail.


You mentioned that the WSR review of Atmos implementation came to the conclusion that it was '_pretty poor, *in genera*_l'. That doesn't sound right to me. Obviously, as with any other aspect of movie-making, there will be some movies/studios/directors/cinematographers/etc/etc who do things better than others. But the Atmos movies I have heard in commercial cinemas have, by and large, been a better experience than they would have been without the additional benefits of Atmos. By this I mean things like immersion, precision placement of sounds, overall greater involvement of the viewer/listener with the movie and so on. I just don't think it is right, in my experience, to say that *in general* the use of Atmos has been *pretty poor*. 

I have watched far more Atmos movies at home than in commercial cinemas and here it is more of a mixed bag I agree (or maybe I am less selective about which movies I watch at home compared with a 50 mile round-trip drive and $30 cost to see a movie in town). My HT is pretty good (see the link in my sig for more information) so I think I am able to judge pretty well how well Atmos is implemented on disc. Like I say, it is more of a mixed bag with some movies making very little use of the benefits of an object-based mix, while others make terrific use of them.

Also, now that mixers are gaining familiarity, I have noticed that more and more recent movie Atmos mixes are top notch. Additionally, some of the back catalog movies which have been revisited (eg _The Matrix, Blade Runner_) have astonishingly good Atmos mixes which significantly improve on the entire experience of watching the movie over again. Again, I would not say that _in general _the new content coming our way fails to make good use of Atmos. 

Now I am no longer a subby to WSR so I have not seen the article and am only going on your precis of their comments. But, knowing their anti-Dolby bias, it would not come as a massive surprise to me to read reviews that managed to look for negatives far more than they looked for positives, where Atmos is concerned. If/when the article appears freely online, I'll take a look at it of course, and may need to revise my comments accordingly.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am no longer a subby to WSR so I have not seen the article and am only going on your precis of their comments. But, knowing their anti-Dolby bias, it would not come as a massive surprise to me to read reviews that managed to look for negatives far more than they looked for positives, where Atmos is concerned.


And there could be additional reasons for his conclusion about Atmos mixes:


sdrucker said:


> Gary Reber’s review equipment includes a Trinnov Altitude (not sure if it’s 32 channels or the 16 he supposedly asked for in his June/July 2016 review), but he apparently has a 7.2.4 layout *configured for an Auro-3D layout*  .
> 
> He explicitly says that he chose to follow the Auro recommendations for height placement: front heights located above the mains, rear heights above the surrounds. However, in the context of the article, it’s clear that by surrounds he’s referring to side surrounds, not back surrounds.
> 
> If he indeed is deliberately listening to Atmos content with an Auro layout, even with the Altitude’s Remapping capabilities and advanced, flexible Speaker Configurations, IMO *he’s setting up Atmos to fail*.


----------



## Ted99

^^^ The editorial was about Home use, not theater and the main thrust was WRT studio use of the overheads with Atmos, not whether Atmos was more or less superior to other codecs. Again, I'm just reporting on the existence of the Editorial, and that it's assertions are much in the same vein as comments in this thread: Some Studios do better than others in the use of overheads with Atmos. Criticize the Editorial after you have read it, not my reporting on it's existence.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> And there could be additional reasons for his conclusion about Atmos mixes:


Yes, good point. To deliberately set up one's HT with speaker placement going against all Dolby advice (not to mention the consensus of places like this thread) and then complain that _"Atmos is, in generally, implemented pretty poorly by the movie makers and studios"_, is beyond farcical.

It just confirms that WSR is no longer a credible source or worth reading. Ted99's damning report of the content of the current issue confirms it too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, good point. To deliberately set up one's HT with speaker placement going against all Dolby advice (not to mention the consensus of places like this thread) and then complain that _"Atmos is, in generally, implemented pretty poorly by the movie makers and studios"_, is beyond farcical.
> 
> It just confirms that WSR is no longer a credible source or worth reading. Ted99's damning report of the content of the current issue confirms it too.



Reber drank the Auro koolaid. 



Now, that said, we need to voice our displeasure at these fixed Atmos print-outs and other such nonsense. We can't keep moving backwards.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> ^^^ The editorial was about Home use, not theater and the main thrust was WRT studio use of the overheads with Atmos, not whether Atmos was more or less superior to other codecs. Again, I'm just reporting on the existence of the Editorial, and that it's assertions are much in the same vein as comments in this thread: Some Studios do better than others in the use of overheads with Atmos. Criticize the Editorial after you have read it, not my reporting on it's existence.


TBH it seems barely worth reading. Someone who deliberately incorrectly sets up his overhead speakers for Atmos and who then complains that the use of the overhead speakers is 'pretty poor in general' doesn't really seem to be a credible source. Similarly, to assert that 'some studios do it better than others' is also not really what one would call ground-breaking editorial news. Who'd have thought?! Maybe he'll turn restaurant critic and wisely inform us that 'some are better than others'


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Now, that said, we need to voice our displeasure at these fixed Atmos print-outs and other such nonsense. We can't keep moving backwards.


Absolutely. Although it doesn't affect me personally, any attempt to give us less than the technology is capable of is bad news.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, good point. To deliberately set up one's HT with speaker placement going against all Dolby advice (not to mention the consensus of places like this thread) and then complain that _"Atmos is, in generally, implemented pretty poorly by the movie makers and studios"_, is beyond farcical.


Not that I want to defend a magazine I haven't read in years, but I am reminded of Dolby's insistence that Atmos is hard to mess up even if you put the speakers outside their recommended guidelines.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Not that I want to defend a magazine I haven't read in years, but I am reminded of Dolby's insistence that Atmos is hard to mess up even if you put the speakers outside their recommended guidelines.


Hey Josh - long time no type.

There's a difference between _'hard to mess up'_ and _'deliberately doing it wrong'_. Also, one might expect more from a professional reviewer than from, say, an enthusiastic amateur. This greater expectation might include an attempt to set up a system so that it can deliver its best potential performance, rather than deliberately crippling it.

For example, I am sure that if you were reviewing, say, a modestly-priced AVR, you would not partner it with speakers that are known to be enormously difficult to drive nor if reviewing a consumer-grade amplifier whose principle performance parameters were specified by its maker into an 8 ohm load would you test it while driving a 2 ohm load and then report that the amplifier was not 'stable' or exhibited worse than expected distortion figures? IOW, you would use the equipment in the way the maker was expecting it to be used, and then you'd evaluate it accordingly. That isn't how WSR seems to be reviewing Atmos for the Home.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> There's a difference between _'hard to mess up'_ and _'deliberately doing it wrong'_. Also, one might expect more from a professional reviewer than from, say, an enthusiastic amateur. This greater expectation might include an attempt to set up a system so that it can deliver its best potential performance, rather than deliberately crippling it.


That publication's anti-Dolby bias is well known and I'm not arguing it. However, I don't believe that putting speakers in the Front Height and Rear Height positions rather than Top Front and Top Rear is "deliberately crippling" Atmos. FH and RH are allowable positions in Atmos. Do to room limitations, my own height speakers are positioned that way.


----------



## dfa973

Josh Z said:


> However, I don't believe that putting speakers in the Front Height and Rear Height positions rather than Top Front and Top Rear is "deliberately crippling" Atmos. FH and RH are allowable positions in Atmos.


Agree!
Today, with many AVR's supporting Atmos, DTS:X and even Auro-3D, you are forced to make a compromise in placing the speakers in the room, so that you can make use of the three 3D sound formats, without using a lot more speakers and switches.

1. Atmos is the only format that recommends Top (overhead) mounted speakers. The exception is the VOG channel of Auro-3D. Indeed, if you can't do Top speakers for Atmos, Front/Rear Heights are allowed (not ideal, but OK).
2. DTS:X does not have a specific official position but favors Front/Rear Heights. Mixing studios are practicaly based Front/Rear Heights.
3. Auro-3D is officialy based only on Front/Rear Heights, no Top speakers with the exception of VOG (only for Auro-3D 11.1 or more).

So, since the DTS:X and Auro-3D have a very similar layout and Atmos allows also Front/Rear Heights, using 
Front/Rear Heights for all 3 formats is the only way. *I would not blame WSR for this.*


----------



## kbarnes701

There seems to be a bit of confusion. If one wishes to hear sounds from _overhead_, where would it be best to place the speakers: _over your head_, or at the _front/back of the room_?

Gary Reber positioned his speakers at the _front_ and towards the_ back _of the room and then complains that he doesn't really hear sounds from _over his head_ very well when he plays an Atmos track. 

Worse, according to Stu, who has a good handle on this, GR has positioned the RH pair of his ceiling speakers above the _side surrounds_ (not the rear surrounds), which is not a Dolby recommended location for any type of Home Atmos setup. And then he blames the _studios _for 'not implementing Atmos' well.

This is Gary Reber's speaker layout (the Auro 3D recommended layout):










As can be seen, when using this layout for Atmos reproduction, it does not comply with ANY of Dolby's Home Atmos speaker layout recommendations. Using this layout for Atmos will NOT give good 'overhead implementation' as GR has discovered. But the fault lies with his choice of speaker layout, not with Atmos implementation by the studios.

At the very least one would expect a credible reviewer to use a speaker layout recommended by Dolby before attempting criticism of how well, or how badly, Atmos is working. To attempt to shove the blame onto the studios is an abrogation of a reviewer's responsibility to at least play fairly.

Of course, this is an entirely separate discussion to the one which has featured in this thread many times: how some movies use Atmos better than others. In order to meaningfully discuss that issue, one needs to ensure that one's system is set up in accordance with _Dolby's guidelines_, _not Auro 3-D's guidelines_! It is no different from a reviewer setting his system up for Atmos, then playing an Auro 3-D soundtrack and complaining that Auro doesn't work very well.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> That publication's anti-Dolby bias is well known and I'm not arguing it. However, I don't believe that putting speakers in the Front Height and Rear Height positions rather than Top Front and Top Rear is "deliberately crippling" Atmos. FH and RH are allowable positions in Atmos. Do to room limitations, my own height speakers are positioned that way.


We're a little at cross-purposes I think. GR didn't put his speakers in the FH+RH locations, which, as you rightly say, is a recognised Atmos setup, endorsed by Dolby. He has used the *Auro 3-D *locations, with his 'Rear Height' speakers located above his side surrounds (see diagram in other post). Having set his system up for _Auro_, he then goes on to complain that _Atmos_ isn't working very well _with regard to use of the overheads_. Well, no, it won't.

I am guessing that you have set up with Dolby recommended FH+RH locations. And in any event, you are not reviewing Atmos from that setup and (AFAIK) complaining that the overhead effects are 'poorly implemented, in general, by the studios'. It isn't the same discussion that has been held in this thread, which is that some movies make better use of Atmos than others. The latter is obvious - just as some movies make better use of lighting than others, or editing or etc. GR has set up for one system and then feels able to comment on another different system and that is the problem I have with it. Sure, complain about Atmos implementation for ever and a day - but first make sure that you are listening to it on a system which has been set up in accordance with the manufacturer's own guidelines, not those of a totally different manufacturer.


----------



## Khaile

I got my setup configured how I want it to! 5.2.2 setup in a fairly small room. 

I have a problem tho: if I’m watching something by myself, the side surrounds are great but if I have someone next to me, one of he sides will be blocked by someone. Will this influence audio quality? I haven’t don’t a test yet but I assume it will. How do you get around this given that Dolby recommends surrounds at ear level? 

Here is a side view of my setup. You can kinda see the in ceiling speakers


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> There seems to be a bit of confusion. If one wishes to hear sounds from _overhead_, where would it be best to place the speakers: _over your head_, or at the _front/back of the room_?


Even with speakers in the Front Height and Rear Height positions, sounds will image over your head.



> Worse, according to Stu, who has a good handle on this, GR has positioned the RH pair of his ceiling speakers above the _side surrounds_ (not the rear surrounds), which is not a Dolby recommended location for any type of Home Atmos setup.


I agree, that's not ideal. However, we all have to work with the rooms we have. If, for example, his seating is against the back wall and he doesn't have space behind him, height speakers above the surrounds may be the only viable option. 

I'm not trying to defend things written in the magazine, which I haven't read in years, but I don't think it's fair to demonize him for putting his height speakers in a compromised layout when Dolby has often boasted of Atmos' flexibility and stated that exact precision is not really important.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Even with speakers in the Front Height and Rear Height positions, sounds will image over your head.


Which will be better for sounds over your head? Speakers over your head or speakers on the walls?

Not everyone can put speakers on or in their ceiling, but let's not pretend that that practical limitation voids commonsense. Sometimes a compromise cannot be avoided, but that doesn't suddenly stop it being a compromise.




Josh Z said:


> I agree, that's not ideal. However, we all have to work with the rooms we have. If, for example, his seating is against the back wall and he doesn't have space behind him, height speakers above the surrounds may be the only viable option.


Indeed they might. But one assumes he has a back wall to his room and that is where RH speakers are meant to go for Dolby. But this misses the point: he can place his speakers anywhere he sees fit - but having decided to place them in an Auro 3-D layout, it lacks credibility to then complain about how well, or not, _Atmos_ might work, using that layout which is not recommended by *anyone *for Atmos. 

I wonder how he would judge a comment from me, who has a 'classic' Home Atmos overhead speaker layout, that when I listen to Auro 3-D via that layout I am less than impressed?



Josh Z said:


> I'm not trying to defend things written in the magazine, which I haven't read in years, but I don't think it's fair to demonize him for putting his height speakers in a compromised layout when Dolby has often boasted of Atmos' flexibility and stated that exact precision is not really important.


I think criticism of him is entirely legitimate when he sets himself up as a supposedly serious review source but then fails to adhere to the recommended standards or guidelines for that which he is reviewing. It is reasonable to expect higher standards of those who purport to be professionals, and who charge money to access their output, than of the guy in the street. To set up for Auro 3-D and then use that setup to play Atmos content is perfectly fine - his money, his room, his ears. What is not fine is to then criticise Dolby on the basis that what he hears is, in his view, sub-standard and to then publish that view while at the same time failing to mention that his setup is compromised.

It is no different to writing a review of a Blu-ray disc and complaining that the mix 'lacks bass' while failing to mention that you have a 200 watt 8 inch subwoofer. It is misleading at best, duplicitous at worst.

Regardless, the very fact this is occupying so much discussion time here is evidence that WSR is 'controversial' in its content to say the least. HST, if you want a good hardware review of a power conditioner, I am told it is the place to be...  After all, we all know what a fantastic difference it makes to the sound when one 'conditions' one's 'power'


----------



## sdurani

dfa973 said:


> Atmos is the only format that recommends Top (overhead) mounted speakers.


ALL the DTS:X speakers above ear level are mounted overhead. With a typical 8' ceiling, DTS:X Height speakers would be at the corners of a 7' x 7' square overhead and DTS:X Top speakers would be at the corners of a 4' x 4' square overhead. 











> So, since the DTS:X and Auro-3D have a very similar layout...


DTS:X has NO height speaker locations similar to Auro3D that are high up on walls directly above base layer speakers. The lowest height layer with DTS:X is at 45 degrees elevation, which means ceiling mounting in almost all domestic sized rooms. It's the Auro speaker layout that is odd-man-out. By comparison, DTS:X and Atmos have 4 (maybe 6) overhead speaker locations that are very similar:


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> I don't believe that putting speakers in the Front Height and Rear Height positions rather than Top Front and Top Rear is "deliberately crippling" Atmos. FH and RH are allowable positions in Atmos.


Agreed, it is not crippling, but you are reducing the effectiveness of Atmos by relying on phantom images overhead instead of hard sources (speakers). 

Dolby placement diagrams for 7.1 had the Sides between 90-110 degrees and the Rears between 135-150 degrees. One could place the Sides at 110 and the Rears at 135, remaining within allowable positions while shrinking the separation to only 25 degrees (that too, in the surround field, where our human hearing is not so discriminating about location). 

It's not crippling, but it will minimize side-vs-rear separation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of a 7.1-speaker set-up. You can then use this layout show that 7.1 mixes are pretty poor in general because they don't sound much better than 5.1 mixes.


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> I got my setup configured how I want it to! 5.2.2 setup in a fairly small room.
> 
> I have a problem tho: if I’m watching something by myself, the side surrounds are great but if I have someone next to me, one of he sides will be blocked by someone. Will this influence audio quality? I haven’t don’t a test yet but I assume it will. How do you get around this given that Dolby recommends surrounds at ear level?
> 
> Here is a side view of my setup. You can kinda see the in ceiling speakers


Move your surrounds back a little - they will still comply with ITU etc recommendations for 5.1 speaker placement. That will also give you an impression of sounds coming from behind as well, for greater envelopment. 

Raise them a little if you wish - Dolby says you can go 1.25 times the height of the L&R speakers. It's important that every listener has 'line of ear' to each speaker.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> Move your surrounds back a little - they will still comply with ITU etc recommendations for 5.1 speaker placement. That will also give you an impression of sounds coming from behind as well, for greater envelopment.
> 
> 
> 
> Raise them a little if you wish - Dolby says you can go 1.25 times the height of the L&R speakers. It's important that every listener has 'line of ear' to each speaker.




Yep. I’ve seen exactly what you describe Keith. Here’s a diagram for reference.








In my case I relocated the sides from almost 7’ down to a tweeter height of 55”. This is about 1.45x the height of my mains. They are at about 110deg and coverage is great.


----------



## Khaile

kbarnes701 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got my setup configured how I want it to! 5.2.2 setup in a fairly small room.
> 
> I have a problem tho: if I’m watching something by myself, the side surrounds are great but if I have someone next to me, one of he sides will be blocked by someone. Will this influence audio quality? I haven’t don’t a test yet but I assume it will. How do you get around this given that Dolby recommends surrounds at ear level?
> 
> Here is a side view of my setup. You can kinda see the in ceiling speakers
> 
> 
> 
> Move your surrounds back a little - they will still comply with ITU etc recommendations for 5.1 speaker placement. That will also give you an impression of sounds coming from behind as well, for greater envelopment.
> 
> Raise them a little if you wish - Dolby says you can go 1.25 times the height of the L&R speakers. It's important that every listener has 'line of ear' to each speaker.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to move them back a little. As you can see I’ve got that wall to work around. I can’t raise them however as they are on stands that aren’t adjustable.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Khaile said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to move them back a little. As you can see I’ve got that wall to work around. I can’t raise them however as they are on stands that aren’t adjustable.




So you have anything around there you could put under the stands? Concrete blocks, old encyclopedias etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to move them back a little. As you can see I’ve got that wall to work around. I can’t raise them however as they are on stands that aren’t adjustable.


Just moving them back to about 110 degrees might give you a direct line to all the various ears, and it will help with envelopment anyway in a 5.1 system. If it doesn't, I'd urge you to consider new stands, or some way to raise them up a little - having some of the speakers blocked by the audience isn't going to give a fabulous, immersive, enveloping experience. As always, HT is always a series of compromises, so just do the best you can.


----------



## umenon

umenon said:


> View attachment 2420422
> 
> I have a Denon x2300W receiver that supports DTS:X and Atmos. My speaker config is 5.1.2
> 
> I have a strange problem with using Neural:x to upmix 2.0 or 5.1 sources.
> 
> DD 2.0 -> Dolby Surround selected -> upmixes to 5.1.2
> 
> DD 5.1 -> Dolby Surround selected -> upmixes to 5.1.2
> 
> DD 2.0 -> Neural:X selected -> upmixes to 5.1 (no audio from height speakers)
> 
> DD 5.1 -> Neural:X selected -> upmixes to 5.1 (no audio from height speakers)
> 
> There does not appears to be anything in Settings I can tweak to fix this. Any help is appreciated.


Updating my own post ...
Denon released a firmware (June 2018) for the x2300W and other models in that lineup. Now I am getting 5.1.2 audio for Neural X.

What is strange is that Denon receivers do not offer any indicators (on unit or TV screen) regarding which speakers are active. The only way to find out is through the mobile App. A lot of folks may be assuming that their overheads are working (while they very well may not be).


----------



## Khaile

kbarnes701 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to move them back a little. As you can see I’ve got that wall to work around. I can’t raise them however as they are on stands that aren’t adjustable.
> 
> 
> 
> Just moving them back to about 110 degrees might give you a direct line to all the various ears, and it will help with envelopment anyway in a 5.1 system. If it doesn't, I'd urge you to consider new stands, or some way to raise them up a little - having some of the speakers blocked by the audience isn't going to give a fabulous, immersive, enveloping experience. As always, HT is always a series of compromises, so just do the best you can.
Click to expand...

What if I place them on acoustic foam pads? I can stack them. That might give me an extra 3 inches.


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> What if I place them on acoustic foam pads? I can stack them. That might give me an extra 3 inches.


Anything that raises the height will be fine. I see no reason why those pads wouldn't work. Long term, new stands might be the best solution, but first I'd experiment with a free, or low-cost, solution and see if it gives you the improvement you're looking for.


----------



## Khaile

kbarnes701 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I place them on acoustic foam pads? I can stack them. That might give me an extra 3 inches.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything that raises the height will be fine. I see no reason why those pads wouldn't work. Long term, new stands might be the best solution, but first I'd experiment with a free, or low-cost, solution and see if it gives you the improvement you're looking for.
Click to expand...

Pic is an update. Not sure if it’s a placebo effect but seems to sound better and more enveloping!


----------



## deano86

Khaile said:


> Pic is an update. Not sure if it’s a placebo effect but seems to sound better and more enveloping!


And its a much better use of those foam pads than what they are sold to do originally!


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> Pic is an update. Not sure if it’s a placebo effect but seems to sound better and more enveloping!


 That's what one would expect. Result!


----------



## kbarnes701

deano86 said:


> And its a much better use of those foam pads than what they are sold to do originally!


LOL  Indeed!


----------



## Khaile

deano86 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pic is an update. Not sure if it’s a placebo effect but seems to sound better and more enveloping!
> 
> 
> 
> And its a much better use of those foam pads than what they are sold to do originally!/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

I know right. They are more there now for design and aesthetics than utility honestly


----------



## Chuck666

See pic. Pic taken from listening position. 12'

I'm updating a Bose mini cube based 5.0 system to 5.0.2 Atmos phase one. Then adding a Polk SW, if needed, to make a 5.1.2 scheme. The cubes are hilighted with green lines...

The new Onkyo 410's are shown on the shelf above the MU8000. The new Yammy 670 comes next week. The media area is 14'x12'x9' ceiling. 

I intend to continue using the "virtual front cinema" scheme. 

I'm 75 and have normal 30-50% hearing loss, no aides used.

Let the advice and roasting begin.... LOL


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> See pic. Pic taken from listening position. 12'
> 
> I'm updating a Bose mini cube based 5.0 system to 5.0.2 Atmos phase one. Then adding a Polk SW, if needed, to make a 5.1.2 scheme. The cubes are hilighted with green lines...
> 
> The new Onkyo 410's are shown on the shelf above the MU8000. The new Yammy 670 comes next week. The media area is 14'x12'x9' ceiling.
> 
> I intend to continue using the "virtual front cinema" scheme.
> 
> I'm 75 and have normal 30-50% hearing loss, no aides used.
> 
> Let the advice and roasting begin.... LOL


Hey Chuck. I'll kick it off - I don't know a thing about Yamaha units (other than that they're pretty nice) so I have no idea what 'virtual front cinema' is. However, I have a couple of observations:



I'd say you are definitely in need of a subwoofer, as the Bose speakers will have pretty much zero LF output.

As you are posting in an Atmos thread, I'd expect you'd want to be using Atmos. However, an Atmos 5.x.2 setup really requires one set of ceiling speakers (or a pair of Atmos-Enabled Speakers for upfiring), recommended to be mounted in a Top Middle position. You can use the pair you have as heights, above your front speakers the way you have them set up currently, but you won't get very much separation between sounds around you and above you. Atmos needs speakers _above _you. 

Can you mount any speakers on the ceiling at all?

You are sitting a long way from that size of screen. Can you move closer (for much better immersion and involvement?).

What are you trying to achieve, beyond the setup you already have?


----------



## Chuck666

Thanks Kbarnes for starting.

The Onkyo 410s are upfiring speakers, Atmos certified. And, are on the shelf as I noted and at 6' in height. The Bose base modules actually have pretty good bass output. You may not be familiar with the AccouticMass configuration. The feeds from the AVR go thru passive bass modules and then to the L, C, R and LS and RS cubes. I think you missed the two "white cubes" (the surrounds) on the far left and right. I've had these for about 22 years and the cost $1200 back in 1996. Effectively, I have two passive (unpowered) SWs. A larger one for the mains and a smaller one for the surrounds. You can see the larger one in pic on the left edge of the credenza on the front wall...

My goal was to see what Atmos sounded like and how "cool" it was.. LOL I need things to do to keep my ole engineering mind working.

I understand what you meant by a more immersive experience. Out of picture is a 3 person couch on the right and two swivel rockers on the left. Really can't go forward and still have walk about room.. The 82" screen fills my field of vision from the throne, LOL, very well.

Thanks for your thoughts. 

More please.......


----------



## sdurani

Chuck666 said:


> The Onkyo 410s are upfiring speakers, Atmos certified. And, are on the shelf as I noted and at 6' in height.


That's too high for those upfiring modules. The strongest part of their reflection will come down several feet in front of you. For better overhead effect, those upfiring modules should be closer to ear height and tilted a bit so that they are aimed at their main reflection point on the ceiling midway between them and you.


> Effectively, I have two passive (unpowered) SWs. A larger one for the mains and a smaller one for the surrounds.


Neither of those are *sub*woofers but instead the common woofer for their respective mini-cube speaker sets. If you add the Polk subwoofer you're considering, it will probably help with the bottom octave, which is currently not being reproduced by your system (Bose Acoustimass modules roll off below 40-50Hz).


----------



## Chuck666

Thank you Sanjay.

That was one of my concerns is where to put the 410's. Thought higher was better to get stronger reflection. Now, that makes an issue for me to redo. They are too large to sit on top of the double front cubes at ear level. Is it better for them to be back from the main listening area or more forward? And, if I wall mount them; they might get partially blocked by the TV, unless they are very directional and narrow beamed? Any recommendations or tricks? I have two windows (see pic) on each side of the TV. Can they go 3' wider on the other side of each window? Or are two more stands a solution?

Thanks, again.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> Thanks Kbarnes for starting.


You;re welcome. Please call me Keith 



Chuck666 said:


> The Onkyo 410s are upfiring speakers, Atmos certified. And, are on the shelf as I noted and at 6' in height. The Bose base modules actually have pretty good bass output. You may not be familiar with the AccouticMass configuration. The feeds from the AVR go thru passive bass modules and then to the L, C, R and LS and RS cubes. I think you missed the two "white cubes" (the surrounds) on the far left and right. I've had these for about 22 years and the cost $1200 back in 1996. Effectively, I have two passive (unpowered) SWs. A larger one for the mains and a smaller one for the surrounds. You can see the larger one in pic on the left edge of the credenza on the front wall...
> 
> My goal was to see what Atmos sounded like and how "cool" it was.. LOL I need things to do to keep my ole engineering mind working.


OK. I didn't realise that the 410s are AE speakers. However they are mounted in the wrong place. Dolby recommends that AE modules be no more than 3 feet from their 'corresponding' speaker, so where you have them won't give you a terrific sense of overhead activity. If you can mount them much closer to the L and R speakers, they will work better for you.

The Bose modules you mention will be meant to compensate for 'regular' bass which cannot be achieved by the tiny speakers themselves. While this may well give you the effect of a 'normally sized' bookshelf speaker in a much less visually intrusive package, it won;t give you any real bass - the sort of bass a subwoofer is designed to give you. So I am pretty sure you won't be getting much below about 40Hz, if that. A sub should give you decent bass extension down to at least 20Hz (and deeper yet if you choose a bigger, more capable model - SVS do a good range at decent prices). As things stand you are missing a lot of the main 'excitement' factor of many movies, which is what a good subwoofer will add. I would be astounded if the addition of a decent sub didn't bring a huge smile to your face.



Chuck666 said:


> I understand what you meant by a more immersive experience. Out of picture is a 3 person couch on the right and two swivel rockers on the left. Really can't go forward and still have walk about room.. The 82" screen fills my field of vision from the throne, LOL, very well.


OK - that's good then. I wasn't aware that the screen was so huge 



Chuck666 said:


> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> More please.......


Again, you are welcome. I'd urge you to consider a real subwoofer. SVS let you buy one, test it at home and then return it on their dollar if you don't like it, so it's an easy trial for you. I;d also look at ways you can move those AE modules to bring them more into spec.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That's too high for those upfiring modules. The strongest part of their reflection will come down several feet in front of you. For better overhead effect, those upfiring modules should be closer to ear height and tilted a bit so that they are aimed at their main reflection point on the ceiling midway between them and you. Neither of those are *sub*woofers but instead the common woofer for their respective mini-cube speaker sets. If you add the Polk subwoofer you're considering, it will probably help with the bottom octave, which is currently not being reproduced by your system (Bose Acoustimass modules roll off below 40-50Hz).


Darn  I really ought to read ahead more  But yes, we are in total agreement here.


----------



## sdurani

Chuck666 said:


> I think you missed the two "white cubes" (the surrounds) on the far left and right.


I missed that too. Surrounds aren't supposed to be placed on the front wall; they're supposed to surround you (placed along your sides, slightly rearward of your seating position). As for the upfiring modules:


Chuck666 said:


> Can they go 3' wider on the other side of each window? Or are two more stands a solution?


Yes, they can be within 3' of the main speakers, either on shelves or small speaker stands that put the upfiring modules around ear height. In either case, I would angle them towards the listening area.


----------



## Chuck666

Thanks Sanjay and Keith.

Didn't realize that there is a woofer and subwoofer; now I get it. Only took 40 years to learn, LOL... I have a 10" Polk coming Sunday to try. $100. What the heck!

Turns out I can get the 410's to set a top the L and R mains. Looks silly; but will let me try the concept..  Angling may be a challenge; I'll update the picture, soon.

Virtual Front Cinema.........This is one of the reasons I use Yamaha AVRs. I could not find anyone else who does it. The white cubes are indeed surround speakers just higher than me seated.... I did not want surrounds behind me; since I did not want to go into the attic in Arizona. Wireless connects seemed not effective, also. I stumbled upon this choice in the Yamaha user's guide when I updated last Fall to my current 4K setup and had to replace my AVR. I like to describe it as a virtual sound bar!!!!!!!! It works surprisingly well and produces great effect sounds when available. And is one of my concerns about the Atmos scheme?

This is great stuff. 

Geezerville.


----------



## Chuck666

Chuck666 said:


> Thanks Sanjay and Keith.
> 
> Didn't realize that there is a woofer and subwoofer; now I get it. Only took 40 years to learn, LOL... I have a 10" Polk coming Sunday to try. $100. What the heck!
> 
> Turns out I can get the 410's to set a top the L and R mains. Looks silly; but will let me try the concept..  Angling may be a challenge; I'll update the picture, soon.
> 
> Virtual Front Cinema.........This is one of the reasons I use Yamaha AVRs. I could not find anyone else who does it. The white cubes are indeed surround speakers just higher than me seated.... I did not want surrounds behind me; since I did not want to go into the attic in Arizona. Wireless connects seemed not effective, also. I stumbled upon this choice in the Yamaha user's guide when I updated last Fall to my current 4K setup and had to replace my AVR. I like to describe it as a virtual sound bar!!!!!!!! It works surprisingly well and produces great effect sounds when available. And is one of my concerns about the Atmos scheme?
> 
> This is great stuff.
> 
> Geezerville.


Here it is with the right 410 atop the right main.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> Thanks Sanjay and Keith.
> 
> Didn't realize that there is a woofer and subwoofer; now I get it. Only took 40 years to learn, LOL... I have a 10" Polk coming Sunday to try. $100. What the heck!


 We all started somewhere buddy  I am sure that a sub will be a good thing - but I am not sure that one for 100 bucks will be man enough for the job. Try it and see anyway. But check out the SVS website. 



Chuck666 said:


> Turns out I can get the 410's to set a top the L and R mains. Looks silly; but will let me try the concept..  Angling may be a challenge; I'll update the picture, soon.


There's always a way.  Try it any old how as a temporary measure. If there's an audible improvement, worry about how to make it permanent later.



Chuck666 said:


> Virtual Front Cinema.........This is one of the reasons I use Yamaha AVRs. I could not find anyone else who does it. The white cubes are indeed surround speakers just higher than me seated.... I did not want surrounds behind me; since I did not want to go into the attic in Arizona.


This I can understand. But... as Sanjay says, you are not hearing what you are meant to be hearing. A 5.1 soundtrack has been designed to give an enveloping experience with sounds coming from all around you, often matching the onscreen action. By placing the surrounds in front of you (the worst possible place) you are seriously restricting your potential enjoyment. Again, try them with wires trailing over the floor - if you agree that the sound is waaaaaay better with them in the right place, then worry about a neat and permanent solution later. Don't forget to re-run YPAO when you move any speakers (including the AE) or add the subwoofer or you won't get a good result. You will need to enable bass management in your AVR (usually this just means 'telling' it, in Setup, that you have a subwoofer attached).




Chuck666 said:


> Wireless connects seemed not effective, also. I stumbled upon this choice in the Yamaha user's guide when I updated last Fall to my current 4K setup and had to replace my AVR. I like to describe it as a virtual sound bar!!!!!!!! It works surprisingly well and produces great effect sounds when available. And is one of my concerns about the Atmos scheme?


Atmos is way, way, way better than any virtual surround type of system - BUT you will need to give it a fair crack of the whip by ensuring that your setup is optimally arranged.



Chuck666 said:


> This is great stuff.
> 
> Geezerville.


LOL. Anyone who comes to this thread with an open mind, as you have, will get good advice which should result in greater enjoyment of their movies. And that's what it's all about - not gear, not speakers, not technology - _enjoyment_!


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Anyone who comes to this thread with an open mind, as you have, will get good advice which should result in greater enjoyment of their movies. And that's what it's all about - not gear, not speakers, not technology - _enjoyment_!



+1 Keith...clearly the best advice provided in these threads!


----------



## Chuck666

kbarnes701 said:


> We all started somewhere buddy  I am sure that a sub will be a good thing - but I am not sure that one for 100 bucks will be man enough for the job. Try it and see anyway. But check out the SVS website.
> 
> Going to stay cheap on this one for now.......... Test it Sunday..
> 
> 
> There's always a way.  Try it any old how as a temporary measure. If there's an audible improvement, worry about how to make it permanent later.
> 
> I know you're right and I'm going to step up to the plate this weekend and redo....
> 
> This I can understand. But... as Sanjay says, you are not hearing what you are meant to be hearing. A 5.1 soundtrack has been designed to give an enveloping experience with sounds coming from all around you, often matching the onscreen action. By placing the surrounds in front of you (the worst possible place) you are seriously restricting your potential enjoyment. Again, try them with wires trailing over the floor - if you agree that the sound is waaaaaay better with them in the right place, then worry about a neat and permanent solution later. Don't forget to re-run YPAO when you move any speakers (including the AE) or add the subwoofer or you won't get a good result. You will need to enable bass management in your AVR (usually this just means 'telling' it, in Setup, that you have a subwoofer attached).
> 
> Thanks on the YPAO tip..
> 
> Atmos is way, way, way better than any virtual surround type of system - BUT you will need to give it a fair crack of the whip by ensuring that your setup is optimally arranged.
> 
> I'm sure it is. Won't know to next week...
> 
> LOL. Anyone who comes to this thread with an open mind, as you have, will get good advice which should result in greater enjoyment of their movies. And that's what it's all about - not gear, not speakers, not technology - _enjoyment_!


Thanks.

So, I'm going to tear it up this weekend, bored, LOL. I'm going to reset the surrounds and hide most of the wires.. I have one very bad condition that you cannot see in the pics..... On my left side behind me is an open kitchen that connects to the front room. So, I will have to mount the LS up to about 6.5 feet so guests don't hit their heads on that one speaker...... Two questions, is 6.5 feet off the floor too high?? I can match that height on the right or put down to ear level? 
Opinions please????????

Happy start of the fourth....


----------



## Roger Dressler

Chuck666 said:


> On my left side behind me is an open kitchen that connects to the front room. So, I will have to mount the LS up to about 6.5 feet so guests don't hit their heads on that one speaker...... Two questions, is 6.5 feet off the floor too high?? I can match that height on the right or put down to ear level?


6.5' will work fine. I used to have my Ls/Rs up on shelves just a foot below the 8' ceiling. Did that for years, and it worked well. Ear level is too low for surrounds in a 5.1 system. Keep them both at the same level if you can.


----------



## deano86

aron7awol said:


> I just did a quick test by ear on my Denon X4400H by playing the Atmos 7.1.4 test tones with MV at -40. What's strange is it was only my Top Fronts that were much lower than the other speakers. My Top Rears (which are powered by a stereo amp connected via preouts) were loud like the other speakers. This warrants further testing with my SPL meter. I'll post the results after I get a chance to do a full test.


Just as an update to this.....

Quite a while ago, I found ... or I thought that I found, that "both" sets of my Height speakers were NOT being boosted by Dynamic EQ. And after some more of the recent conversations, I submitted an actual question to Ask Audyssey support regarding this discrepancy. After a couple week delay a rep from Ask Audyssey apologized and starting looking into my query. His initial answers were that indeed boost should also be applied to the Height speakers if using a proper implementation of Dynamic EQ in the receiver. I then asked if there could be differences in implementation between manufacturers or even specific models? He then forwarded my concern to Denon itself. The most recent response from Denon according Audyssey support was that Dynamic EQ is working properly for the Height speakers in their testing. 

This then prompted me to rerun my Audyssey calibration and start from scratch so to speak and double check my findings. And after my latest calibration and checking the Dolby Atmos test tones in Atmos sound mode, I find that my receiver is doing the exact same thing that Aron7awol has found! My Rear Heights are now actually being boosted the same db as the rears, surrounds and subwoofer! But.. my Front Heights continue to lack any boost whatsover... This creates a huge imbalance in the Atmos sound field! Especially at lower Master Volume levels. For example at a relatively lower Master volume level of -30, the boost difference is a whopping 8db! 

According to the latest email from Audyssey, Denon has asked what my firmware level is. I will reply with that info along with my most recent finding that the Front Heights most definitely do not receive any Dynamic EQ boost ... and I will mention that has been confirmed by Aron7awol with his Denon 4400. 

More to come... 

Dean


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> 6.5' will work fine. I used to have my Ls/Rs up on shelves just a foot below the 8' ceiling. Did that for years, and it worked well. Ear level is too low for surrounds in a 5.1 system. Keep them both at the same level if you can.


Ear level is too low for surrounds in a *5.1* system, but not in an *Atmos *system (assuming all speakers have line of sight to all ears). Just expanding on what you said, for Chuck's benefit really. 

[*Chuck *- the idea in a 5.1 system is to elevate the surrounds to give the impression of some sounds coming from above as well as around the listener. In an Atmos system we have speakers above the listener anyway, so there is no need to raise the surrounds. HST, all surrounds need line of sight/ear to all listeners, so mounting the surrounds at ear level - even in an Atmos system - can cause a problem with line of sight. In that case, raise the surrounds until the problem goes away. In your case, you have a physical limitation on the room but, as Roger says, you will be OK with the surrounds at 6.5 ft anyway.]


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> +1 Keith...clearly the best advice provided in these threads!


And often, in the general melee and thirst for knowledge, forgotten  I sometimes think people spend so much time and energy obsessing over the minutiae of setup, specs and systems that they forget why they are doing this in the first place - which is for greater _enjoyment _of their movies and/or music. I guess it's a bit like the guy said: when you are up to your a$$ in alligators, it's sometimes hard to remember that you're there to drain the swamp


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> And often, in the general melee and thirst for knowledge, forgotten  I sometimes think people spend so much time and energy obsessing over the minutiae of setup, specs and systems that they forget why they are doing this in the first place - which is for greater _enjoyment _of their movies and/or music. I guess it's a bit like the guy said: when you are up to your a$$ in alligators, it's sometimes hard to remember that you're there to drain the swamp



LOL! Yep...many of us, in our enthusiasm, innocently take our eye off the ball and fall prey to the "chase the holy grail " syndrome. But mom always said, there are always two sides to every coin. This hobby and in particular this forum offer the opportunity to share our knowledge and enthusiasm with like minded others to maximize our enjoyment as well as camaraderie. Truth be told, I am periodically absent from these threads and actually watch a movie or two!


----------



## lax01

deano86 said:


> This then prompted me to rerun my Audyssey calibration and start from scratch so to speak and double check my findings. And after my latest calibration and checking the Dolby Atmos test tones in Atmos sound mode, I find that my receiver is doing the exact same thing that Aron7awol has found! My Rear Heights are now actually being boosted the same db as the rears, surrounds and subwoofer! But.. my Front Heights continue to lack any boost whatsover... This creates a huge imbalance in the Atmos sound field! Especially at lower Master Volume levels. For example at a relatively lower Master volume level of -30, the boost difference is a whopping 8db!
> 
> According to the latest email from Audyssey, Denon has asked what my firmware level is. I will reply with that info along with my most recent finding that the Front Heights most definitely do not receive any Dynamic EQ boost ... and I will mention that has been confirmed by Aron7awol with his Denon 4400.
> 
> More to come...
> 
> Dean


Dare I ask, what is the Dolby Atmos test tones in Atmos sound mode? Is that something the higher end Denon units have? Never seen anything like that on my S720W


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Ear level is too low for surrounds in a *5.1* system, but not in an *Atmos *system (assuming all speakers have line of sight to all ears).


But at ear height the person sitting to your left and right will block the sound.

In commercial theaters they are not just slightly above seated ear height they are above_ standing_ height but maybe that's mostly so audience members don't steal the surround speakers!


----------



## deano86

lax01 said:


> Dare I ask, what is the Dolby Atmos test tones in Atmos sound mode? Is that something the higher end Denon units have? Never seen anything like that on my S720W


No, they are not internal. I am referring to the Atmos test tones included on the Dolby Atmos demo discs..


----------



## Josh Z

m. zillch said:


> In commercial theaters they are not just slightly above seated ear height they are above_ standing_ height but maybe that's mostly so audience members don't steal the surround speakers!



Commercial theaters have much higher ceilings the the typical home. Dolby's recommendation for putting the surround speakers at ear level at home was to ensure that there's enough separation distance between the ground layer and the height layer. In the home environment, if you raise your surrounds a few feet over your ear level, those speakers will be too close to the height speakers. This isn't an issue in a commercial theater.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> But at ear height the person sitting to your left and right will block the sound.
> 
> In commercial theaters they are not just slightly above seated ear height they are above_ standing_ height but maybe that's mostly so audience members don't steal the surround speakers!


Yes, line of sight trumps everything. I find that I can avoid issues by raising my surrounds just enough to give line of sight and still remain within Dolby's Atmos guidelines for height of surrounds.

I don't think it's meaningful to compare commercial cinema setups with HT setups. The former has to cater for hundreds of listeners, the latter rarely more than half a dozen. And as Josh points out, in a commercial cinema, angular separation between surrounds and overheads is guaranteed by the much higher ceiling height (vis-a-vis most HTs).


----------



## Parchin

Guys is there any sound quality and performance difference between 7.2.4 or 5.1.4 atmos with 4 overhead ceiling speakers and hybrid (2 front ceiling speakers and 2 rear atmos enabled spekaers) ? In theorically there must be some difference but I m not an expert so practically does it worth for ceiling work?my seating distance is about 15 f..Should I start cabling or just use 2 atmos enabled speaker at the rear side?


----------



## m. zillch

"You'll get the best sound when the front and surround speakers are at or slightly above your ear level when you're seated. Wall-mounted surrounds can be higher, but no speakers—especially Dolby Atmos enabled modules—should be higher than half the height of your wall."
---
"Left and Right Surround Speakers

Surround speakers create a lifelike sense of spaciousness, providing ambient sound within movies. Place them slightly to the rear of and angled toward your seating position, ideally just above ear level"

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html

"As in the past, the placement of all listener-level speakers should follow these recommendations, which are based on ITU-R BS.775-3:
• The speakers located in the front of the room shall be used as a reference point. All speakers in the listener plane should ideally be equidistant from the listener position. If this is not possible, compensating for distance may be used to time align the arrival of audio from each speaker to the listener.
• All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1).
If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical or impossible, the rear speakers may be positioned higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers."

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5-1-2-setups.html


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> I do think these detailed charts and specs are important...


I definitely agree.



> ...and do wonder why few 'consumer' manufacturers give them, as I am pretty certain, or I'd definitely hope, that they have them when developing the speaker.


I suspect it is because their preference is to market them based on subjective, rather than objective criteria. I.e., engineering has them, but marketing doesn't use them.

The other reason is likely that, in the absence of consumer demand for them, they'd rather not be bothered. I have, on occasion, found that a manuf. that doesn't publish them, WILL make them available upon request. But that is far more the exception, than the rule it should be.


----------



## kbarnes701

Parchin said:


> Guys is there any sound quality and performance difference between 7.2.4 or 5.1.4 atmos with 4 overhead ceiling speakers and hybrid (2 front ceiling speakers and 2 rear atmos enabled spekaers) ? In theorically there must be some difference but I m not an expert so practically does it worth for ceiling work?my seating distance is about 15 f..Should I start cabling or just use 2 atmos enabled speaker at the rear side?


There will be a difference but it will still sound better than having no Atmos. If this is the only way you can implement Atmos, go ahead. There is no rule that says you can't mix'n'match the way you describe. Ideally, you'd want 4 speakers on or in the ceiling but not everyone can accommodate that. I'd much rather have what you describe than just a x.x.2 Atmos system.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, I wonder if anyone has any Atmos questions?


Yes, of course. But they've wandered off, in search of a Dolby Atmos thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Yes, of course. But they've wandered off, in search of a Dolby Atmos thread.


----------



## Parchin

Thanks for the replies


----------



## Chuck666

Updated my install per your forums recommendations.

Mains at 39", AEs at 45" and Surrounds at 46".

Still waiting for SW.

Let it rain with thoughts?????????


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> Updated my install per your forums recommendations.
> 
> Mains at 39", AEs at 45" and Surrounds at 46".
> 
> Still waiting for SW.
> 
> Let it rain with thoughts?????????



You've been busy. How's it sounding, Chuck?


----------



## Chuck666

Keith,

I have not tried a atmos BD or mp4 Atmos file yet. SW is out for delivery, yay.......

Don't know what to expect from the surrounds. Seem subdued to me even after running the config app. Don't know how to judge? Suggestions? 

How do you test the 5.0 (in my case) setup?

Generally, sound better than before; at least the dialogue is clearer.

The mains are set to large and so are the AE speakers. The center and surrounds are set to SMALL, all correct?

Listening to Pandora jazz right now.... My woofers are great, LOL.............


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> I have not tried a atmos BD or mp4 Atmos file yet. SW is out for delivery, yay.......
> 
> Don't know what to expect from the surrounds. Seem subdued to me even after running the config app. Don't know how to judge? Suggestions?


Well they will sound different now they are behind you. YPAO should have set them properly - but if you think they should be a little louder then there's no harm in raising their trim levels in your Yamaha setup menu for speakers. Sounds from behind us aren't as easily heard as sounds from in front, and you also have less than perfect hearing, so don't be afraid to set it up so it sounds good to *your* ears. Also be sure you are demoing with a disc that has good surround activity. Many don't. A good action movie usually has good surround activity in the 'louder' scenes.



Chuck666 said:


> How do you test the 5.0 (in my case) setup?


Use the test tones in your AVR with a SPL meter. If you don't have a SPL meter but you do have a smartphone, download a free SPL meter app. It is good enough for this purpose. The aim is that all your speakers are playing the same dB level when measured from MLP.



Chuck666 said:


> Generally, sound better than before; at least the dialogue is clearer.


Good progress then.



Chuck666 said:


> The mains are set to large and so are the AE speakers. The center and surrounds are set to SMALL, all correct?


No - they should all be set to large until you get your subwoofer in - then you will need to set them all to small in order to enable bass management.



Chuck666 said:


> Listening to Pandora jazz right now.... My woofers are great, LOL.............


----------



## Chuck666

Keith, thanks for the quick reply. Oh, I decided to adopt you; the papers in the mail....... LOL

I do have an SPL meter and will try that during my bored time. Ha

I'll correct the small/large item. YPAO doesn't change that; I thought is did that during testing?

Are there NO test discs for either setup?

I'll update when the SW shows up.

Later.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> Keith, thanks for the quick reply. Oh, I decided to adopt you; the papers in the mail....... LOL


You won't regret it. I'm clean and fully house-trained. 



Chuck666 said:


> I do have an SPL meter and will try that during my bored time. Ha


YPAO will have done a good job but it's always worth checking. Trust but verify as one of your countrymen was fond of saying...



Chuck666 said:


> I'll correct the small/large item. YPAO doesn't change that; I thought is did that during testing?


No - that is something you have to choose. It's critical if you include a subwoofer because the AVR needs to separate the LF signal to the sub and the rest of the frequency range to the mains/surrounds. The way it knows to do this is when you set the speakers to small. That way, it 'knows' you must have a sub in the system. 'Small' and 'large' are really misnomers - even if your mains are huge (like mine - 29 inches wide) they still need setting as 'small'.



Chuck666 said:


> Are there NO test discs for either setup?


Oh sure. Spears & Munsil do one. Some of your movie discs include basic setup tones etc - any SONY movies usually do for example - just hit 7669 (it's the keys that spell Sony) in the menus and the test menu should come up. But the basic test tones in your AVR are good enough for setting levels.




Chuck666 said:


> I'll update when the SW shows up.
> 
> Later.


Excellent. Remember I am in UK time, so if I disappear I will be watching a movie and then going to bed


----------



## red_dobe

Need some help. I have atmos front module speakers. I have tried raising the back of the speakers 1,2, 3, inches but does not sound any different. What made a difference was I turned them 180 degrees to face the back wall and with the double bounce I could actually hear some sound that seems to come from the ceiling. I sit about 12 feet from the front speakers and other people sit about 6 feet from speakers. It is not a home theater room. It is just a family all purpose room. Any ideas or should I be happy and leave it alone?




Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

red_dobe said:


> Need some help. I have atmos front module speakers. I have tried raising the back of the speakers 1,2, 3, inches but does not sound any different. What made a difference was I turned them 180 degrees to face the back wall and with the double bounce I could actually hear some sound that seems to come from the ceiling.


Could you attach a photo of your setup? Not clear what you meant at the moment.

EDIT:



red_dobe said:


> Need some help. I have atmos front module speakers. I have tried raising the back of the speakers 1,2, 3, inches but does not sound any different.* What made a difference was I turned them 180 degrees to face the back wall *and with the double bounce I could actually hear some sound that seems to come from the ceiling.


This is the part I wasn't clear about. The front modules should face the back wall - that is, they will be facing the listener but pointing up at the ceiling. How did you have them mounted before?

The setup should resemble this:


----------



## red_dobe

This is how it seems to work now.









Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

red_dobe said:


> This is how it seems to work now.
> Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


That is the correct way to use the module. I assume that before, you had it pointed away from the listening position towards the wall behind the main speaker?

You are all set, but if you have used an automated room-eq system such as Audyssey etc, you will need to re-run it to take account of the new position of the module.


----------



## yepimonfire

How much of an improvement is 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2? Trying to decide if I should upgrade or not. Currently have a 5.2.2 system, seating is near the back wall so it would be a top middle/top front or height config. 

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

yepimonfire said:


> How much of an improvement is 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2? Trying to decide if I should upgrade or not. Currently have a 5.2.2 system, seating is near the back wall so it would be a top middle/top front or height config.
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


Having four (or more) overhead speakers allows the overhead sounds to pan from front-to-back in addition to side-to-side. This effect is noticeable even if the rear-most overhead speakers can't be placed very far (if at all) behind the seating.


----------



## kbarnes701

yepimonfire said:


> How much of an improvement is 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2? Trying to decide if I should upgrade or not. Currently have a 5.2.2 system, seating is near the back wall so it would be a top middle/top front or height config.
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


4 speakers above you is a significant improvement. With two overheads you get the benefit of pans from side to side, but with 4 overheads you also add pans from front to rear with Atmos.

Selden beat me to it while I was typing, I see!


----------



## Dolus

It is quite hard to determine which way the speaker is facing. It is like those trick pictures where people see different things 
I've outlined the speakers two different ways to show what I mean.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dolus said:


> It is quite hard to determine which way the speaker is facing. It is like those trick pictures where people see different things :nerd:
> I've outlined the speakers two different ways to show what I mean.


Brilliantly done. OK - for the avoidance of doubt, there is one way and one way alone for a front Atmos module speaker to be positioned, and that is on top of, or close to, it's 'corresponding' main speaker, with the driver facing towards the listener, but angled upwards so that it also points to the ceiling. In this position the connections will also likely be at the back, near the wall, invisible to the seated listener. I'm find it kind of unreal that we need to discuss this


----------



## Lesmor

yepimonfire said:


> How much of an improvement is 5.1.4 vs 5.1.2? Trying to decide if I should upgrade or not. Currently have a 5.2.2 system, seating is near the back wall so it would be a top middle/top front or height config.
> 
> Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk


I don't think you can have/select Top Front / Top Middle it would need to be Front Height / Top Middle


----------



## Navyship

I was hoping to get some feedback on a few changes to my system. I currently have a 5.1 system, and have decided to add Atmos and Bipolar sides to improve the overall system. This is my question, I currently have in walls for my rear side and will be installing Kliptsh RP250's as side bi poles. 

My rear in walls/bi poles are approx. 8 Ft high from the floor. I am adding 4 SVS elevation speakers above both in walls/bi poles near my ceilings (9ft high from the floor). 

Once installed there will be a 6 inch space between the speakers and my SVS. I figured since they are different channels and will produce different sounds, the atoms speakers should not interfere with the other speakers. Hope I am not confusing anyone in trying to explain my install. Has anyone done something like this before, and what if any problems will this cause.


----------



## red_dobe

@Dolus
It is pointed in the direction of the first example. I know it is pointed the wrong way (towards the wall), but I was getting slight effects pointed toward the listener. Like I said, I shimmed the rear of the speaker (large end , wall side) up to 3 inches in increments when it was pointed, driver facing the listener and it did not help, then I read somewhere were someone else tried it (driver facing wall) and I thought what the hell, it's not doing very much this way, and it helped my set up alot. When I turned it towards the wall I had a 50% increase in volume (being able to hear sounds from the upfiring speakers). This is why I am asking for help. I know it is wrong, but it works and I am asking for ideas on what to do to set them up right.



Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## alextr75

Hi

I am hoping to maybe get some advice on this, as I'd rather just do one final correction.

Attached is a lateral picture of the setup I am dealing with, it is fairly small room, so don't have too much room to play with.
Initially I had placed the top rear and top front at close to 45 degrees from MLP.

But due to some new sofa's with high back support, I also had to raise the back surrounds. That brought them fairly close to the top rear (which I guess could also considered rear-heights). While the sound is still fairly good, I am thinking it is getting fairly different to tell a difference between the top rear and back surround.

So now I am thinking of moving the top rear to either POS 1 or POS2 and need some help deciding on this.

POS 1 is about 2 feet forward, and maybe makes most sense, as I could simply have the ceiling speakers as top rear and top front, and could also maybe move my seating a bit to the front to in order to still have equal angles to front and rear (albeit I don't mind the rears maybe being a bit closer).
But I am still not quite sure if that would have enough separation from the back surrounds.

Alternative is POS 2, that would make the most separation from back surrounds, but it is getting very close to the top front. I think in that case I'd have to set them up as Top Middle and Top Front, which I am not quite sure but I don't think it is a valid combination. So maybe Top Middle and Front Heights ? Anyhow, this second option is getting somewhat complicated for me, as I'm not sure if it gets too close to the Top Fronts (Only 4 feet away), and I'd like to avoid moving the front further away from MLP (closer to screen). And I wonder if Top Front is generally a better option to have vs Front Heights.

Any advice / ideas on what you think might work better ?

Thanks in advance !


----------



## dfa973

Navyship said:


> I was hoping to get some feedback on a few changes to my system. I currently have a 5.1 system, and have decided to add Atmos and Bipolar sides to improve the overall system. This is my question, I currently have in walls for my rear side and will be installing Kliptsh RP250's as side bi poles.
> 
> My rear in walls/bi poles are approx. 8 Ft high from the floor. I am adding 4 SVS elevation speakers above both in walls/bi poles near my ceilings (9ft high from the floor).
> 
> Once installed there will be a 6 inch space between the speakers and my SVS. I figured since they are different channels and will produce different sounds, the atoms speakers should not interfere with the other speakers. Hope I am not confusing anyone in trying to explain my install. Has anyone done something like this before, and what if any problems will this cause.


1. Bipoles/dipoles are NOT recommended in a Dolby Atmos setup.
2. You must lower the sides/rears speakers, you must have larger separation from the Top layer to the bed layer.
3. You can have the sides and the rear higher than the Left-Center-Right speakers, but not more than 1.25, see the attachment.




alextr75 said:


> Initially I had placed the top rear and top front at close to 45 degrees from MLP.


The Tops angles are good.
You can have rears and sides higher than LCR by 1.25 - see the attachment.
Measure and see that you have the proper height of rears. No need to be exact 1.25.
From the posted picture, you may not need any major modification. Keep the Tops at that 45 angle. Do not move them forward, their fine like that.


----------



## Jish9

Navyship said:


> I was hoping to get some feedback on a few changes to my system. I currently have a 5.1 system, and have decided to add Atmos and Bipolar sides to improve the overall system. This is my question, I currently have in walls for my rear side and will be installing Kliptsh RP250's as side bi poles.
> 
> My rear in walls/bi poles are approx. 8 Ft high from the floor. I am adding 4 SVS elevation speakers above both in walls/bi poles near my ceilings (9ft high from the floor).
> 
> Once installed there will be a 6 inch space between the speakers and my SVS. I figured since they are different channels and will produce different sounds, the atoms speakers should not interfere with the other speakers. Hope I am not confusing anyone in trying to explain my install. Has anyone done something like this before, and what if any problems will this cause.


Bipole/dipole speakers can be used as surrounds or rears, but not for ATMOS height speakers. While there is not much information in the height channels, you do need adequate separation from the bed channels for the sound to be distinct; otherwise it will sound like it is just coming from the bed channel. As you have in wall rears you are limited in speaker placement. With the SVS I would play around with the position including on the ceiling (inside the space between the rears if they are far enough apart) or on the side walls where the wall meets the ceiling aimed at the listener. Once again there is very little information in the height channels and you may find that going to ATMOS for your size room and configuration just doesn't add enough to warrant the cost.


----------



## easystar

Wanted to get some input on going from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 with in-ceiling speakers. With the release of the Marantz 8805 and the soon to be released (maybe) Emotiva RMC-1, there are options now that aren't crazy expensive. I jumped on 7.1.4 when Atmos was first introduced without even hearing a demo or even know what I was doing. I lucked out, the in-ceiling speakers all wound up in their ideal spots for my low 7 foot ceiling and I've been very happy with it. I get a lot of use out of my system and use the upmixers 100% of the time when there is no Atmos/DTS:X. But I've a bad case of upgradeitis. My fear is spending on the upgrade and putting 2 more holes in my ceiling and not noticing much of a difference. Or worse, getting hotspotting from the 2 additional Top Middle speakers. This fear is compounded by what I've read of the "7.1.4 print" mixes like The Last Jedi. Makes upgrading less enticing. Any opinions, positive or negative or neutral experiences? My ceiling speakers are GoldenEar HTR 7000. I would stick with the same for the Top Middle of course.


----------



## Jish9

easystar said:


> Wanted to get some input on going from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 with in-ceiling speakers. With the release of the Marantz 8805 and the soon to be released (maybe) Emotiva RMC-1, there are options now that aren't crazy expensive. I jumped on 7.1.4 when Atmos was first introduced without even hearing a demo or even know what I was doing. I lucked out, the in-ceiling speakers all wound up in their ideal spots for my low 7 foot ceiling and I've been very happy with it. I get a lot of use out of my system and use the upmixers 100% of the time when there is no Atmos/DTS:X. But I've a bad case of upgradeitis. My fear is spending on the upgrade and putting 2 more holes in my ceiling and not noticing much of a difference. Or worse, getting hotspotting from the 2 additional Top Middle speakers. This fear is compounded by what I've read of the "7.1.4 print" mixes like The Last Jedi. Makes upgrading less enticing. Any opinions, positive or negative or neutral experiences? My ceiling speakers are GoldenEar HTR 7000. I would stick with the same for the Top Middle of course.


What you have to keep in mind is that there is little actual content that is encoded in 9.1.6 for home cinema use. That perhaps MAY change in the future, but looking doubtful right now. Depending on how far in front and behind your current height channels are with respect to the MLP, then you may benefit from having a middle height channel set that will help to pan the sound from front to rear. Not because of how the audio is mixed as there is very little, but via an outboard DSP that you could then use to matrix the front height channels into the middle height channels and add some delay to create the effect. You can test this out with a smaller but different pair of speakers with the front height signal split in two to see if you like the effect without cutting holes in your ceiling. If so, then your disease has unfortunately advanced to a stage II which can only be remedied with some infusion of audio gear in the hopes that it goes into remission. Best of luck.


----------



## jer181

Hey everyone,

I'm looking for some help when it comes to in ceiling speakers.

I currently have a 5.1.4 system as I wanted to install ceiling speakers for future when I upgrade my receiver. (currently using a Pioneer SC-67, 9.2).

Just wondering in the mean time without the Atmos capable receiver, how should I set things up? Would the ceiling speakers act as a front high and rears?

thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

Jish9 said:


> What you have to keep in mind is that there is little actual content that is encoded in 9.1.6 for home cinema use. That perhaps MAY change in the future, but looking doubtful right now. Depending on how far in front and behind your current height channels are with respect to the MLP, then you may benefit from having a middle height channel set that will help to pan the sound from front to rear. Not because of how the audio is mixed as there is very little, but via an outboard DSP that you could then use to matrix the front height channels into the middle height channels and add some delay to create the effect. You can test this out with a smaller but different pair of speakers with the front height signal split in two to see if you like the effect without cutting holes in your ceiling. If so, then your disease has unfortunately advanced to a stage II which can only be remedied with some infusion of audio gear in the hopes that it goes into remission. Best of luck.


I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.

This is the room - you can see the front pair of overheads in the 'blue' image, and the rear pair in the second 'red' image - both pairs suspended from the ceiling cloud. Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

jer181 said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I'm looking for some help when it comes to in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I currently have a 5.1.4 system as I wanted to install ceiling speakers for future when I upgrade my receiver. (currently using a Pioneer SC-67, 9.2).
> 
> Just wondering in the mean time without the Atmos capable receiver, how should I set things up? Would the ceiling speakers act as a front high and rears?
> 
> thanks!


??? What is your current speaker layout for the 5.1.4 system? That description implies you already have 4 speakers on the ceiling. If you do then, so long as the ceiling speakers are more or less within the Atmos Home spec, then you are good to go when you change your AVR for an Atmos-capable unit.

Follow this guide for overhead speaker placement:


----------



## jer181

kbarnes701 said:


> ??? What is your current speaker layout for the 5.1.4 system? That description implies you already have 4 speakers on the ceiling. If you do then, so long as the ceiling speakers are more or less within the Atmos Home spec, then you are good to go when you change your AVR for an Atmos-capable unit.
> 
> Follow this guide for overhead speaker placement:


Hello, yes I currently have 4 overhead speakers. I am just finishing up my some what dedicated home theater. My question is how to set them up in the mean time until my funds recover and I can get a Atmos-capable unit?

I actually didn't realize that there was an Atmos home spec for the speakers. (they are KEF Cil-60CR)


----------



## kbarnes701

jer181 said:


> Hello, yes I currently have 4 overhead speakers. I am just finishing up my some what dedicated home theater. My question is how to set them up in the mean time until my funds recover and I can get a Atmos-capable unit?
> 
> I actually didn't realize that there was an Atmos home spec for the speakers. (they are KEF Cil-60CR)


Set them up the way your current AVR allows - probably Front and/or Rear Heights using a proprietary setting in the AVR (eg Audyssey DSX for Front Height). You'd get better advice in the thread for your AVR. However you do it it will be a compromise if you have the speakers already on or in the ceiling because the only two formats for using speakers laid out as in the Dolby diagram are Atmos and DTS:X (unless you count the content-free zone that is Auro-3D).

If you visit Dolby's Home Atmos website, there are various guides and recommendations there for the setting up of a Home Atmos system, including the positioning of the speakers. Alternatively, this thread has much information.


----------



## jer181

kbarnes701 said:


> ??? What is your current speaker layout for the 5.1.4 system? That description implies you already have 4 speakers on the ceiling. If you do then, so long as the ceiling speakers are more or less within the Atmos Home spec, then you are good to go when you change your AVR for an Atmos-capable unit.
> 
> Follow this guide for overhead speaker placement:


BTW your theater is AMAZING!!!! 

how did you finish your screen wall?


----------



## Jish9

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.
> 
> This is the room - you can see the front pair of overheads in the 'blue' image, and the rear pair in the second 'red' image - both pairs suspended from the ceiling cloud. Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound/QUOTE]
> 
> Keith, I think an argument can be made for multi-row seating and middle height channels; but most of the rooms I see on here are barely large enough to employ 7.1 let alone 9.x.6. I have yet to implement ATMOS myself and am thinking about the middle height channels, but will test everything out first before I start cutting into the ceiling. Love the aesthetics of your room BTW and am completely enamored by that screen.


----------



## kbarnes701

jer181 said:


> BTW your theater is AMAZING!!!!


Thanks! 



jer181 said:


> how did you finish your screen wall?


Most of the screen wall is taken up by the AT screen (11.5ft wide CIH 2.39:1 screen). The rest is some sort of velvet -like material over timber battens. The void behind the screen is filled with a ton of rockwool (and the three JBL 3677 speakers mounted on concrete blocks) plus huge bass traps in the corners.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jish9 said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.
> 
> This is the room - you can see the front pair of overheads in the 'blue' image, and the rear pair in the second 'red' image - both pairs suspended from the ceiling cloud. Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound
> 
> 
> 
> Keith, I think an argument can be made for multi-row seating and middle height channels; but most of the rooms I see on here are barely large enough to employ 7.1 let alone 9.x.6. I have yet to implement ATMOS myself and am thinking about the middle height channels, but will test everything out first before I start cutting into the ceiling. Love the aesthetics of your room BTW and am completely enamored by that screen.
Click to expand...

Yes, if a HT is long enough to have two or three rows of seats then an argument can be made. But most don't have multiple rows, or if they do, one of the rows is occupied most of the time. My view is to cater for MLP - get the sound for MLP really good and let the other seats fall in line. Most of the other audience members care very little about sound quality and are usually just pumped to be in a home theater with a huge screen and 'good sound'. Which brings me back to just 4 overheads. Others will disagree of course and want as many speakers as their AVR allows for. But also bear in mind the issue about the studios restricting Atmos to 7.x.4 as well. If that gains traction then anything more than 7.x.4 is going to be largely pointless. Again this is just my personal view and others will have mileages that vary.

WRT to the screen in your HT, my advice is to go for the absolute biggest screen you can accommodate and sit at a 1:1 ratio from it, where the 1 is the width of the (2.39) screen. So for example I sit 11.5 feet from my 11.5 feet wide screen and the sense of immersion is fabulous. Add to that the immersive audio and it's more like being *in* the movie than watching the movie


----------



## sdurani

Jish9 said:


> ...most of the rooms I see on here are barely large enough to employ 7.1 let alone 9.x.6.


Most of the 7.1 set-ups I've seen here have enough space between the Fronts & Sides to place another pair (Wides) in the gap. Likewise, if you have two pairs of speakers above you, there is enough gap to add a third pair (Top Middles) in between. 9.1.6 doesn't require a larger room than 7.1.4, since the additional speakers go between existing speakers. You're increasing the density of the speaker layout, not its size.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, if a HT is long enough to have two or three rows of seats then an argument can be made. But most don't have multiple rows, or if they do, one of the rows is occupied most of the time. My view is to cater for MLP - get the sound for MLP really good and let the other seats fall in line. Most of the other audience members care very little about sound quality and are usually just pumped to be in a home theater with a huge screen and 'good sound'. Which brings me back to just 4 overheads. Others will disagree of course and want as many speakers as their AVR allows for. But also bear in mind the issue about the studios restricting Atmos to 7.x.4 as well. If that gains traction then anything more than 7.x.4 is going to be largely pointless. Again this is just my personal view and others will have mileages that vary.
> 
> WRT to the screen in your HT, my advice is to go for the absolute biggest screen you can accommodate and sit at a 1:1 ratio from it, where the 1 is the width of the (2.39) screen. So for example I sit 11.5 feet from my 11.5 feet wide screen and the sense of immersion is fabulous. Add to that the immersive audio and it's more like being *in* the movie than watching the movie


There you go again 😊. Have you actually HEARD a room that’s greater than 7.1.4, let alone 7.1.6? 

(Disclaimer: Keith and I have known each other dating back to our mutual Audyssey days. Not intended to insult him, and we both take as well as give feedback. He’s also a widely respected poster with gravitas in his Atmos experience from early invites to the Dolby Atmos rollout in London, so he’s somewhat fair game)

While I think the impact of extra immersion is less than the improvements in dynamic range that you’ve achieved, the studio “neutering” of Atmos to 7.1.4 is, aside from some Bolluxed Disney mixes, still anecdotal short of hands-on input meter testing of the decoded and rendered tracks and a tracking study.

What we can agree on is that studios and mixers can make more ambitious, more consistently practiced use of 7.1.6, 9.1.6 and beyond. But you’ll also be up against the condition of the content’s stems, personal mixer tastes (see where music scores go in native Atmos as a case in point), the subject matter (see Terminator Genesis only using wides and front side surrounds on the most over the top scenes), etc.

Sure, it can be inconsistent and underwhelming at times, but we still have Gravity, The Matrix, Fury, Hacksaw Ridge, Source Code, hell even Red Sparrow to show us there’s still a future for higher channel count Atmos for rooms of moderate size (LT 3500 cubic feet), where it’s about spacing, speaker type and angles rather than just being big. I see it as loosely similar to 1080p vs 4K in the sense of more resolution vs. “lost” content in 7.1.4. At least if Disney doesn’t “ruin” Fox, anyway 😊.

I do agree about the 1.0 screen distance paradigm though. I’m happy enough at 1.3, but if I could do it over, there’s something to be said for going big in 20:20 hindsight.

Off to endlessly fiddle, happy Fourth to those of us in the US...


----------



## easystar

Jish9 said:


> What you have to keep in mind is that there is little actual content that is encoded in 9.1.6 for home cinema use. That perhaps MAY change in the future, but looking doubtful right now. Depending on how far in front and behind your current height channels are with respect to the MLP, then you may benefit from having a middle height channel set that will help to pan the sound from front to rear. Not because of how the audio is mixed as there is very little, but via an outboard DSP that you could then use to matrix the front height channels into the middle height channels and add some delay to create the effect. You can test this out with a smaller but different pair of speakers with the front height signal split in two to see if you like the effect without cutting holes in your ceiling. If so, then your disease has unfortunately advanced to a stage II which can only be remedied with some infusion of audio gear in the hopes that it goes into remission. Best of luck.



The TF to TR distance is 10 ft. Seems like a distance to warrant Top Middle. I’m going to try your suggestion to test top middle.

So are you also saying that the available Atmos mixes are “7.1.4 print” and majority of TM is matrixed? I thought Atmos was supposed to scale to the capabilities of the system?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## easystar

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the room - you can see the front pair of overheads in the 'blue' image, and the rear pair in the second 'red' image - both pairs suspended from the ceiling cloud. Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound.




Wow. That’s one fine room. Must be amazing in there! May I inquire how far apart your TF and TR are?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carp

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the screen wall is taken up by the AT screen (11.5ft wide CIH 2.39:1 screen). The rest is some sort of velvet -like material over timber battens. The void behind the screen is filled with a ton of rockwool (and the three JBL 3677 speakers mounted on concrete blocks) plus huge bass traps in the corners.



Almost sounds like you are describing my front wall. That's where our similarities end though, super jealous of how nice your room looks and especially the high ceilings. 

JBL's 4722's, before putting in the pink fluffy:

























Lots of velvet. Lots. :laugh: Makes the 158" screen look small somehow....


----------



## dfa973

easystar said:


> .........My fear is spending on the upgrade and putting 2 more holes in my ceiling *and not noticing much of a difference*. Or worse, getting hotspotting from the 2 additional Top Middle speakers. This fear is compounded by what* I've read of the "7.1.4 print" mixes* like The Last Jedi.


If you can and have the budget DO IT!

Good reasons to go from 4 to 6 overheads:
1. better resolution and fidelity of sound objects placement in the 3D audio space - _regardless of how much seats do you have_.
2. 2-3 rows of seats (if you have them) _"need"_ 6 overheads.

Yes, maybe some soundtracks do not scale beyond 7.1.4 because some sound engineer (or studio) has decided to snap objects to channels, but does not mean that all of them do that and most soundtracks contain unbound object-based sounds and are rendered to the maximum assigned Top speakers that are available (2, 4, 6, whatever).




Jish9 said:


> What you have to keep in mind is that there is little actual content that is *encoded* in 9.1.6 for home cinema use.


Unless the studio has decided so, Atmos soundtracks *are not encoded* to a specific channel-based configuration (like most DTS:X soundtracks are). So, the renderer can scale to whatever number of Top speakers you have assigned/available, with some limitations of course. 

So it means that if you have a 9.1.6 Atmos setup and the soundtrack is not bound to a specific layout, the objects will be positioned in the 3D space using all available speakers (within the limits of the Dolby Atmos renderer rules, of course), so *you will benefit* from better/more precise sound placement, movement, and fidelity to what sound engineer has mixed.

*Dolby Atmos is a scalable 3D sound system if the soundtrack allows that and it has to what to scale (enough DSP power, enough channels and the right assigned speakers).
*


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> There you go again 😊. Have you actually HEARD a room that’s greater than 7.1.4, let alone 7.1.6?


Oh lord yes. I've good experience of a room that has 12 overheads (6 pairs). But it also has 18 rows of seats, with about 20 seats per row  And yes, it sounds fantastic. But of course, that is a commercial room not a home room.

What I question is not whether we can accommodate 6 overheads (3 pairs) at home because I know we can. In my own room, wired for 3 pairs, there is ample room for a TM pair for example. But, of necessity, the three pairs of speakers will be quite close together and I wonder just how much a physical additional pair in the middle will improve things when phantom imaging can work very well in this sort of space. How much extra enjoyment of the system will the additional pair bring? I'm not saying it will be zero, note. But will it be enough to warrant the expense? I am very skeptical that it will, in most HTs.

I don't think we should dismiss the value of phantom imaging in a domestic space. For decades we have had a superbly solid soundstage using phantom imaging in our two channel stereo systems. Indeed, we only really need a center speaker in our HTs because we have more than one listener and a solid phantom 'center' will only work for a single listener. That works for music but not movies. Of course, this is also an argument for extra physical speakers above our heads in the HT as well as in front of us, I realize and accept that. But there is also a vast difference in the importance of imaging in front of the listener (in a HT) and over the listener's head, where the sounds are much more vaguely placed. I may also be guilty (I usually am) of concentrating only on my own seat (where phantoming will work well) and leaving the guys in the cheap seats to fend for themselves. But that is always the way with me - I focus on my seat.



sdrucker said:


> (Disclaimer: Keith and I have known each other dating back to our mutual Audyssey days. Not intended to insult him, and we both take as well as give feedback. He’s also a widely respected poster with gravitas in his Atmos experience from early invites to the Dolby Atmos rollout in London, so he’s somewhat fair game)


LOL. Indeed. A lively discussion, with ample disagreement, but always friendly.  The best sorts of friends often disagree about many, many things! In this sort of discussion you are far more focused on hardware while I am more focused on movies. That difference of focus will inevitably lead us to find different solutions for our individual rooms.



sdrucker said:


> While I think the impact of extra immersion is less than the improvements in dynamic range that you’ve achieved, the studio “neutering” of Atmos to 7.1.4 is, aside from some Bolluxed Disney mixes, still anecdotal short of hands-on input meter testing of the decoded and rendered tracks and a tracking study.


Oh agreed fully. It is no more than a trend, and not even confirmed as that, at this time. But we all know how studios will cheap out if they can and cut corners if they think they can get away with it. Atmos for the home must represent a tiny income stream for them I'd guess (how many people do we know, outside of this thread, who have _speakers on their ceilings_)? Let's hope that this neutering doesn't take hold and become the norm. Even I, who don't see a need for more than 4 overheads (currently) object to the format being neutered.



sdrucker said:


> What we can agree on is that studios and mixers can make more ambitious, more consistently practiced use of 7.1.6, 9.1.6 and beyond. But you’ll also be up against the condition of the content’s stems, personal mixer tastes (see where music scores go in native Atmos as a case in point), the subject matter (see Terminator Genesis only using wides and front side surrounds on the most over the top scenes), etc.


Agreed.



sdrucker said:


> Sure, it can be inconsistent and underwhelming at times, but we still have Gravity, The Matrix, Fury, Hacksaw Ridge, Source Code, hell even Red Sparrow to show us there’s still a future for higher channel count Atmos for rooms of moderate size (LT 3500 cubic feet), where it’s about spacing, speaker type and angles rather than just being big. I see it as loosely similar to 1080p vs 4K in the sense of more resolution vs. “lost” content in 7.1.4. At least if Disney doesn’t “ruin” Fox, anyway 😊.


Good thing you added 'loosely' there  In fact the benefit of 4K, as you know, doesn't so much lie in increased resolution (which is often barely noticeable) but in HDR and WCG, and those benefits ARE lost in 1080p. In 7.1.4 nothing is 'lost' compared with 9.1.6 - all the content is there. And yes, those movies you mention are great examples of the benefits of Atmos and I am confident we will have more and more of them. Maybe _hopeful _is better than _confident _in this context  



sdrucker said:


> I do agree about the 1.0 screen distance paradigm though. I’m happy enough at 1.3, but if I could do it over, there’s something to be said for going big in 20:20 hindsight.
> 
> Off to endlessly fiddle, happy Fourth to those of us in the US...


Yes indeed. A very Happy Independence Day to you all! Enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

easystar said:


> The TF to TR distance is 10 ft. Seems like a distance to warrant Top Middle. I’m going to try your suggestion to test top middle.
> 
> So are you also saying that the available Atmos mixes are “7.1.4 print” and majority of TM is matrixed? I thought Atmos was supposed to scale to the capabilities of the system?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Atmos does. But it can only work with what is encoded onto the disc. If the studios cripple the disc, there's not much that Dolby can do about it. This is the worry for people who are thinking of spending the extra cash for a 9..x.6 system - if the discs that are coming along are forced to 7.x.4, then the benefits of 9.x.6 are neutered. So far it's no more than a possible trend - we need to wait a while to see how it works out. If I had to make a decision _today _on whether to go 9.x.6 then I'd go for it - it may cost more and add more complexity but at least you will be ready if we see proper 9.x.6 content coming along. (Or content that makes proper use of 9.x.6 layouts I should say really.) If you went 7.x.4 then changing it later to 9.x.6 is going to be much more of a problem. 

An alternative is to do what I did and go with 7.x.4 but wire for 9.x.6. All I need to do if I want to go 9.x.6 is change my AVR to one that supports it and add the extra speakers into the spaces pre-wired for them. Not too hard.


----------



## kbarnes701

easystar said:


> Wow. That’s one fine room. Must be amazing in there! May I inquire how far apart your TF and TR are?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks. They are about 10 feet apart.


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> Almost sounds like you are describing my front wall. That's where our similarities end though, super jealous of how nice your room looks and especially the high ceilings.
> 
> JBL's 4722's, before putting in the pink fluffy:
> 
> 
> Lots of velvet. Lots. :laugh: Makes the 158" screen look small somehow....


Very nice too.  As you say, similar at the front. I was especially lucky with the ceiling height, as the original cowshed had a very high roof. Not only does a high ceiling benefit the bass, but it also gives me plenty of separation between the floor level speakers and the overheads, for a really nice 'Atmos effect'. I do have a large, suspended acoustic cloud which dominates the central area of the room (the overhead speakers are attached to the edges of the cloud) but the room is 'open' to the roof above the cloud if you see what I mean.


----------



## Navyship

Ok, so to be clear you are saying bi poles are not recommended in any positions (sides or rear surround position) when using the Atmos setup. I should use only front firing speakers for my surround sides and rears. 

So if I replaced the sides bi poles with a set of SVS height speakers that would be better? I should also lower the rear in walls and sides to gain more separation?


----------



## dfa973

Navyship said:


> Ok, so to be clear you are saying bi poles are not recommended in any positions (sides or rear surround position) when using the Atmos setup.


Yes, no bipoles/dipoles in ANY channel. _EDIT: I was wrong, bipoles are OK for Atmos!
_


Navyship said:


> I should use only front firing speakers for my surround sides and rears.


Yes, monopoles, standard speakers. _EDIT: also your bipoles are OK!_


Navyship said:


> So if I replaced the sides bi poles with a set of SVS height speakers that would be better?


Yes. _EDIT: no need to replace them, your bipoles are OK!_


Navyship said:


> I should also lower the rear in walls and sides to gain more separation?


Yes.


----------



## Jish9

dfa973 said:


> If you can and have the budget DO IT!
> 
> Good reasons to go from 4 to 6 overheads:
> 1. better resolution and fidelity of sound objects placement in the 3D audio space - _regardless of how much seats do you have_.
> 2. 2-3 rows of seats (if you have them) _"need"_ 6 overheads.
> 
> Yes, maybe some soundtracks do not scale beyond 7.1.4 because some sound engineer (or studio) has decided to snap objects to channels, but does not mean that all of them do that and most soundtracks contain unbound object-based sounds and are rendered to the maximum assigned Top speakers that are available (2, 4, 6, whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the studio has decided so, Atmos soundtracks *are not encoded* to a specific channel-based configuration (like most DTS:X soundtracks are). So, the renderer can scale to whatever number of Top speakers you have assigned/available, with some limitations of course.
> 
> So it means that if you have a 9.1.6 Atmos setup and the soundtrack is not bound to a specific layout, the objects will be positioned in the 3D space using all available speakers (within the limits of the Dolby Atmos renderer rules, of course), so *you will benefit* from better/more precise sound placement, movement, and fidelity to what sound engineer has mixed.
> 
> *Dolby Atmos is a scalable 3D sound system if the soundtrack allows that and it has to what to scale (enough DSP power, enough channels and the right assigned speakers).
> *


100% agreed, and if you read my previous posts I make reference to this fact. What I find odd is that in the setups I have heard, in some very expensive rooms, the middle row of height channels simply remain silent during most ATMOS enabled movies. In one instance the setup was with a Datasat which can only do 7.x.4, but the rest were Trinnov and still nothing. This is what leads me to believe that this encoding, printing, or whatever you want to call it is more prevalent than we are aware of.


----------



## Ted99

Jish9 said:


> 100% agreed, and if you read my previous posts I make reference to this fact. What I find odd is that in the setups I have heard, in some very expensive rooms, the middle row of height channels simply remain silent during most ATMOS enabled movies. In one instance the setup was with a Datasat which can only do 7.x.4, but the rest were Trinnov and still nothing. This is what leads me to believe that this encoding, printing, or whatever you want to call it is more prevalent than we are aware of.


You mentioned the Denon X8500, which allows one the choice of 7.1.6 or 9.1.4, where the extra two are "wides". That's the choice I made. Some Atmos mixes have native wides and for non-Atmos, the Neural upmixer matrixes to them.


----------



## howard68

Has anyone got a list of conferm Atmos mixed blu rays that use FW or TM in a 9.2.6 mix ? 
I am going to get a Denon 8500 and want to conferm content 

Thx


----------



## usc1995

Navyship said:


> Ok, so to be clear you are saying bi poles are not recommended in any positions (sides or rear surround position) when using the Atmos setup. I should use only front firing speakers for my surround sides and rears.
> 
> So if I replaced the sides bi poles with a set of SVS height speakers that would be better? I should also lower the rear in walls and sides to gain more separation?




Bipoles are fine for surround speakers and can even be preferable to monopoles in a narrower room to prevent hot spotting for the listeners sitting near the speakers. Dolby only recommends against dipoles as the diffusive nature of their sound can muddy the sound eliminating the precision that Atmos requires. Here is Dolby’s quote:

Note: Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback.

Dolby says nothing about bipoles and there are a number of users on AVS using bipoles with Atmos to great effect. Page 6 at the bottom https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

Navyship said:


> Ok, so to be clear you are saying bi poles are not recommended in any positions (sides or rear surround position) when using the Atmos setup. I should use only front firing speakers for my surround sides and rears.





dfa973 said:


> Yes, no bipoles/dipoles in ANY channel.


You've said this multiple times and it's wrong.

Bipoles and Dipoles are NOT the same thing and should NOT be conflated. 

Bipoles are totally fine for surrounds and even overheads, and are even recommended over monopoles by many installers / speaker mfgrs (e.g. Triad) when there isn't a lot of distance between the speaker and the listener, which is a typical scenario in many domestic HT's. 

Top pros like Erskine Group, Shawn Byrne (SierraMikeBravo here on AVS), Tony Grimani, etc. all deploy bipoles for surrounds and/or overheads in HT's that don't have adequate distance for monopoles to image properly and cover the seating area. Triad (which worked closely with Dolby on the development of home Atmos) switched their surround offerings from dipole to bipole as the default/standard offering. They recommend using bipoles for surrounds when there is less than 6' from the surrounds to the listeners, and even recommend using their bipole surrounds as overheads in a room with low ceilings. 

Dipoles don't work for Atmos because of the null zone which makes them too diffuse (by design). Bipoles however are still direct-firing speakers, just with a wider dispersion... but when listeners will be too close to the speaker they improve coverage / reduce hot-spotting by not having the tweeters pointed directly at the listener. Plus, they are explicitly mentioned as being fine to use in Dolby Atmos whitepaper for home installation. 

For example, top of page 5 in this official Dolby installation guideline: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf



> Many people currently have 5.1 or 7.1 systems with a subwoofer and either five or seven speakers
> positioned at about ear level. Many of these speakers will work without a problem in a Dolby Atmos
> system. *An ideal listener-level setup will include monopole or bipole speaker designs. Dolby does not
> recommend the use of dipole speakers for use at the listener level*; the highly diffuse sound patterns
> of dipole speakers interfere with the accurate positioning of sounds in the three-dimensional
> soundstage that is Dolby Atmos.


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> Has anyone got a list of conferm Atmos mixed blu rays that use FW or TM in a 9.2.6 mix ?
> I am going to get a Denon 8500 and want to conferm content
> 
> Thx


Yes, there are many Atmos mixes on disc that make good use of all the available speakers. The FW speakers aren't always used as aggressively as the overhead array but they still add a lot in quite a few mixes. Some notable examples which use the full capabilities of Atmos are Mad Max: Fury Road, Gravity, Spider-man Homecoming, Blade Runner (original and 2049), John Wick 1 & 2, The Matrix 4K remaster, Hacksaw Ridge, the Westworld Season One 4K set, Power Rangers.... just a few off the top of my head that are top notch.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> Yes, there are many Atmos mixes on disc that make good use of all the available speakers. The FW speakers aren't always used as aggressively as the overhead array but they still add a lot in quite a few mixes. Some notable examples which use the full capabilities of Atmos are Mad Max: Fury Road, Gravity, Spider-man Homecoming, Blade Runner (original and 2049), John Wick 1 & 2, The Matrix 4K remaster, Hacksaw Ridge, the Westworld Season One 4K set, Power Rangers.... just a few off the top of my head that are top notch.


I endorse the recommendations that you made above. Every film you mentioned has a wonderful TrueHD Atmos soundtrack. Were it that all immersive audio was as good as it is in those films.


----------



## howard68

Thanks for the list 
Almost got the cash for the Denon


----------



## Navyship

batpig said:


> You've said this multiple times and it's wrong.
> 
> Bipoles and Dipoles are NOT the same thing and should NOT be conflated.
> 
> Bipoles are totally fine for surrounds and even overheads, and are even recommended over monopoles by many installers / speaker mfgrs (e.g. Triad) when there isn't a lot of distance between the speaker and the listener, which is a typical scenario in many domestic HT's.
> 
> Top pros like Erskine Group, Shawn Byrne (SierraMikeBravo here on AVS), Tony Grimani, etc. all deploy bipoles for surrounds and/or overheads in HT's that don't have adequate distance for monopoles to image properly and cover the seating area. Triad (which worked closely with Dolby on the development of home Atmos) switched their surround offerings from dipole to bipole as the default/standard offering. They recommend using bipoles for surrounds when there is less than 6' from the surrounds to the listeners, and even recommend using their bipole surrounds as overheads in a room with low ceilings.
> 
> Dipoles don't work for Atmos because of the null zone which makes them too diffuse (by design). Bipoles however are still direct-firing speakers, just with a wider dispersion... but when listeners will be too close to the speaker they improve coverage / reduce hot-spotting by not having the tweeters pointed directly at the listener. Plus, they are explicitly mentioned as being fine to use in Dolby Atmos whitepaper for home installation.
> 
> For example, top of page 5 in this official Dolby installation guideline: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater.pdf


According to Dolby, using bi poles for my sides are acceptable, I’m so confused! They don’t recommend di poles though.


----------



## dfa973

Navyship said:


> According to Dolby, using bi poles for my sides are acceptable, I’m so confused! They don’t recommend di poles though.


My bad, I was wrong about bipoles, bipoles are OK (thanks @batpig) You have bipoles for sides if I remember right, so you are OK. 

You must resolve the separation between the bed channels and the top channels.


----------



## Molon_Labe

@kbarnes701 - Your room turned out great M8. Well done.


----------



## Hopinater

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.
> 
> This is the room - you can see the front pair of overheads in the 'blue' image, and the rear pair in the second 'red' image - both pairs suspended from the ceiling cloud. Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound.


I agree molon_labe... Kbarnes that is a beautiful looking room. Well done.


----------



## T-Bone

Let's not forget Adaptive Di-poles (ADP) where just the tweeters fire out of phase (woofers are essentially bi-poles). Most sounds from the surrounds are emitted from the woofers anyway.

If DSU is not smart enough to move the rain effects from the surrounds to the overhead speakers, then ADP speakers provide wonderful envelopment. I remember how I was amazed with the rain effects in Gothika way before I had Atmos. 

I thought about rewiring my crossover to make my side around completely bipolar. I decided it was more trouble than it was worth. Just throwing it out there. In case anyone has adaptive dipole. No need to rush out and change them.

Dolby does not specifically state ADP as not recommended 🙂

-T


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> What I question is not whether we can accommodate 6 overheads (3 pairs) at home because I know we can. In my own room, wired for 3 pairs, there is ample room for a TM pair for example. But, of necessity, the three pairs of speakers will be quite close together and I wonder just how much a physical additional pair in the middle will improve things when phantom imaging can work very well in this sort of space.


Spacing between the speakers is tied to number of speakers. For example: going from 5.1 to 7.1 isn't simply a matter of adding Rears. Sides typically move forward, changing the spacing between them and the Fronts. Likewise, re-configuring from 2 overhead pairs to 3 overhead pairs isn't just a matter of adding Top Middles in between. Instead, adding a third overhead pair is an opportunity to move your front & rear pairs farther apart, since you're no longer relying on a phantom image directly overhead. IF you choose spacing based on number of overhead speakers, then they won't end up too close together. The greater spread will provide better coverage and will really separate overhead sounds in front of you vs behind you vs directly above.


----------



## sdurani

Jish9 said:


> 100% agreed, and if you read my previous posts I make reference to this fact. What I find odd is that in the setups I have heard, in some very expensive rooms, the middle row of height channels simply remain silent during most ATMOS enabled movies. In one instance the setup was with a Datasat which can only do 7.x.4, but the rest were Trinnov and still nothing.


That might be a result of speaker designations. When using 3 pairs overhead, designating them Front Height/Top Middle/Rear Height will result in all 3 pairs producing sound even with pre-rendered 7.1.4 Atmos tracks.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> @kbarnes701 - Your room turned out great M8. Well done.


Cheers, Buddy! Those JBLs!! Oh yes


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Spacing between the speakers is tied to number of speakers. For example: going from 5.1 to 7.1 isn't simply a matter of adding Rears. Sides typically move forward, changing the spacing between them and the Fronts. Likewise, re-configuring from 2 overhead pairs to 3 overhead pairs isn't just a matter of adding Top Middles in between. Instead, adding a third overhead pair is an opportunity to move your front & rear pairs farther apart, since you're no longer relying on a phantom image directly overhead. IF you choose spacing based on number of overhead speakers, then they won't end up too close together. The greater spread will provide better coverage and will really separate overhead sounds in front of you vs behind you vs directly above.


Very good point and one I had not considered previously.


----------



## howard68

What is happening with the pre rendering blu rays 7.1.4 like all the Disney films 😞
Do you get no sound from TM in a 7.2.6 set up ?


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> Spacing between the speakers is tied to number of speakers. For example: going from 5.1 to 7.1 isn't simply a matter of adding Rears. Sides typically move forward, changing the spacing between them and the Fronts. Likewise, re-configuring from 2 overhead pairs to 3 overhead pairs isn't just a matter of adding Top Middles in between. Instead, adding a third overhead pair is an opportunity to move your front & rear pairs farther apart, since you're no longer relying on a phantom image directly overhead. IF you choose spacing based on number of overhead speakers, then they won't end up too close together. The greater spread will provide better coverage and will really separate overhead sounds in front of you vs behind you vs directly above.





kbarnes701 said:


> Very good point and one I had not considered previously.



Two years ago (prior to current information/learnings), when I wired and installed my TF, TM, and TR's to accommodate "two rows" of seating, my TF's are positioned 45 degrees forward of my first row, TM's between the two rows, and TR's 45 degrees rearward of my second row. Surrounds are bi poles and positioned in line with the TM's. Although I have yet to invest in a Datasat, Trinnov, or 8500, I've experimented with designating each and then both rows as the MLP by repositioning speaker wiring at the AVR. In doing so with various AVR's, I've also rerun RC (Audyssey and AccuEQ) with varying results. Just wanted to share what I did with physical configuration at this time/point and will elaborate on my impressions/conclusions on a later post.


----------



## sdurani

Navyship said:


> They don’t recommend di poles though.


Dipoles surrounds are a solution to a problem. IF your room is narrow, listeners on either end of the couch will have the Side speakers firing right into their ear canals from a couple feet away, providing a constant distraction while trying to enjoy a movie. Dipoles can be an effective solution to that problem since those listeners will be sitting in an acoustical null. Being in the null doesn't mean they get no sound from the Side speakers, just that the directionality will be leftish/rightish rather than the hard-left/hard-right localization of monopoles. Basically minimizing distraction by trading a little directionality (that too, where our human hearing is least acute at sensing directionality - at our sides). The home Atmos format doesn't require listeners to be distracted. If dipole surrounds result in a more enjoyable, less distracting Atmos experience, then use them.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Cheers, Buddy! Those JBLs!! Oh yes



I knew you would enjoy them. Seriously, the before and after of what you did with that space is truly impressive buddy. Sadly, I am no longer a JBL Pro Cinema owner. I reworked the room into a game room with a theater vs a dedicated theater room. I had to move my seats forward which were to close for the 4722's to image properly. I sold the (3) 4722's and (8) SCS 8's as a package. We also plan to downsize once the last two boys graduate high school, so the timing was right. I will surely miss the setup I had. Trying to decide if I want to retain Atmos or not with the new speakers. Honestly, I haven't been overwhelmed with the content thus far. When its done properly, it is very impressive. Sadly, those titles are far and few between. I might just be sticking with a conventional 7 speaker layout plus my subs.




kbarnes701 said:


> Very good point and one I had not considered previously.



He always has good points  A true asset to the community.


----------



## HarpNinja

I have a Denon 2200. If I picked up something like a Marantz 6011, could I use them together to get 5.1.6?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> That might be a result of speaker designations. When using 3 pairs overhead, designating them Front Height/Top Middle/Rear Height will result in all 3 pairs producing sound even with pre-rendered 7.1.4 Atmos tracks.


Stuart (or some other kind Trinnov user) can you test this? Find a 7.1.4 print track and reassign the x.x.6 overheads as FH+TM+RH vs TF+TM+TR and see if sound comes out of the TM speakers (assuming Atmos is attempting to phantom image for the TF/TR locations).


----------



## batpig

HarpNinja said:


> I have a Denon 2200. If I picked up something like a Marantz 6011, could I use them together to get 5.1.6?


The Marantz already has 11ch capability so it can run a 5.1.4 setup on its own and a full 7.1.4 setup with a 2ch (minimum) external amp. No need to complicate things with another receiver, you should only worry about those kind of shenanigans if you're looking to go beyond 11ch (and don't want to pony up for a more expensive unit).

Just sell or repurpose the old AVR and if you want to go to 11ch get an external amp.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Stuart (or some other kind Trinnov user) can you test this? Find a 7.1.4 print track and reassign the x.x.6 overheads as FH+TM+RH vs TF+TM+TR and see if sound comes out of the TM speakers (assuming Atmos is attempting to phantom image for the TF/TR locations).


Will do: I'll pull The Last Jedi later today and check both cases.

Edit—put on Scene 1 of TLJ in my setup (.6 overheads, no 3D remapping in my test preset), which we know to be a 7.1.4 “print” of a native consumer Atmos mix. I tried both configurations (TF/TM/TR and FH/TM/RH), and in neither case did I get any Input Meter processing in the Top Middles. Just the front and rear overheads, period.

OTOH, I’m running a native Atmos setup, with no speaker arrays was set up when I run Atmos, so if nothing is rendered to the top middles, they’re completely silent. 

However, it’s important to note that someone with a Datasat RS20i or a Trinnov set to decode to less than all of the possible channels in the Speaker Configuration could have their processor decode to 7.1.4 with front and rear overheads, and simply copy the front or rear to the top middles (possibly at a reduced level or added delay). In that case, you’ll hear “more” than on the plain native decoding to 7.1.4. Rendering with 3D object metadata is NOT the same thing as signal copying, of course.

The difference is that currently, for a Datasat (or a Lyngdorf) owner, you can ONLY decode to 11 channels (7.1.4) and could do copying to extra speakers as you see fit. In the Trinnov Altitude or possibly the newer Storm Audio ISP, it becomes more of a choice: render to native layout up to your speaker/channel license limit, or render to less than the native possible layout and copy speakers.

Hmmm...maybe I need a Disney preset - 7.1.4 plus copied channels. LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I knew you would enjoy them.


Love them! Your experience with them was instrumental in my decision to choose them for my room. )

Seriously, the before and after of what you did with that space is truly impressive buddy. Sadly, I am no longer a JBL Pro Cinema owner. I reworked the room into a game room with a theater vs a dedicated theater room. I had to move my seats forward which were to close for the 4722's to image properly. I sold the (3) 4722's and (8) SCS 8's as a package. We also plan to downsize once the last two boys graduate high school, so the timing was right. I will surely miss the setup I had. [/QUOTE]

I bet! But times change, circumstances change and our lives change with them. I had the opportunity to move house... the house we now live in came along... it had this big, unused cowshed... the rest is just what you'd expect!



Molon_Labe said:


> Trying to decide if I want to retain Atmos or not with the new speakers. Honestly, I haven't been overwhelmed with the content thus far. When its done properly, it is very impressive. Sadly, those titles are far and few between. I might just be sticking with a conventional 7 speaker layout plus my subs.


Personally, I wouldn't be without immersive audio and especially Atmos. I hear what you are saying, but would add that Atmos is a relatively young format and mixers are now getting more familiar with object mixes, and as they do I expect it to get better and better. A bit like the way 5.1/7.1 matured over time, to the point where good surround sound, making good use of all the speakers, is now the norm and not the exception. But hey - a really good 7.1 setup isn;t too shabby either 



Molon_Labe said:


> He always has good points  A true asset to the community.


[Sanjay - look away now.... ]

Ain't that the truth! And a clear and lucid way of making these points too. I owe a huge debt to a lot of AVS-ers, and Sanjay's name is right up there at the top of the list.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I bet! But times change, circumstances change and our lives change with them. I had the opportunity to move house... the house we now live in came along... it had this big, unused cowshed... the rest is just what you'd expect!


True, but you also had a little help from your friends to push you the extra mile and not allow you to fall into complacency. If I had GBP for every time you had said that your room was perfect and couldn't get any better back in the old Audyssey Pro days in the hobbit theatre...  .

I still think you can improve your set to, say, 9.1.6 or 11.1.6, in the "you don't appreciate what you're missing until you hear it" sense with the right degree of speaker separation, placement, 3D audio content, and choice of gear as the "icing on the cake", but you're entitled to merely enjoy movies after all the work you've done in the past year, and the praise from people we mutually respect as validation. And I can't stress enough that 3D audio immersion is only part of the picture, but not the only part of the picture relative to the rigorous work you undertook to replicate the cinema experience to your standards.



> Personally, I wouldn't be without immersive audio and especially Atmos. I hear what you are saying, but would add that Atmos is a relatively young format and mixers are now getting more familiar with object mixes, and as they do I expect it to get better and better. A bit like the way 5.1/7.1 matured over time, to the point where good surround sound, making good use of all the speakers, is now the norm and not the exception. But hey - a really good 7.1 setup isn;t too shabby either


 
Sure. and I can't see closing Pandora's Box and reverting to 7.1.4 now either. However, we all have different needs...and for some content from **cough** Disney, a legacy 2D 6.1/7.1 mix may well be overall a better experience for you than native Atmos, as per The Incredibles. There, the DSU upmix from 7.1 to 7.1.4 is just more icing than necessity, but still nice icing to have if you can't take the less interesting (IMO) native Atmos mix. However, we can hope that as time goes by, we'll get better use of the Atmos mixing suite by mixers and less sparing utilization of the overheads beyond the proof-of-concept static overhead objects. 


I wish there were some sort of generally accepted principles for movie mixing that could point the way for mixers to put music scores in the wides, pan objects overhead from front to middle to sides, and the like, but that's wishful thinking.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally, I wouldn't be without immersive audio and especially Atmos. I hear what you are saying, but would add that Atmos is a relatively young format and mixers are now getting more familiar with object mixes, and as they do I expect it to get better and better. A bit like the way 5.1/7.1 matured over time, to the point where good surround sound, making good use of all the speakers, is now the norm and not the exception.


You beat me to it. These are still such early days of Atmos audio mixes, too many of them are underwhelming. Fortunately, though, they are getting better all the time (with the exception of Disney's of course).


----------



## awblackmon

I read some great input here and come seeking some. Presently I have this speaker configuration. LCR speakers. Left wide and right wide. Side surrounds. The side surrounds are back behind my listening position. Somewhere about 110 degrees. Rear surround. The rear surrounds are in walls positioned about four feet apart due to the room layout. So I would guess them to be about 170 and 200 degrees. (Golly I hope I am clear so far). I have one pair of overhead speakers at about 45 degrees configured as TF speakers. 

So I have 7.1.2 with wide speakers added in. 9.1.2 if you will. Despite blu-rays being released with 7.1.4 locked audio what might I be missing if I went with dropping the back surrounds, kept the wides and added another pair overhead as TR? I like what the wides bring to the sound when playing back DTS tracks and decoding them with the DTS up converter. Also when playing back Atoms discs that do include wides I really like the added panning ability from front to side. 

I have noticed that the immersive audio is really maturing. I watched Laura Croft Tomb Raider and have to say the mix was pretty amazing. Compared to some older Atmos mixes this really seemed to nail the immersive experience much better. 

What say you? Drop back surrounds and add TR? Keep Back surrounds and stay with TF only? Thanks so much for the input.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> True, but you also had a little help from your friends to push you the extra mile and not allow you to fall into complacency. If I had GBP for every time you had said that your room was perfect and couldn't get any better back in the old Audyssey Pro days in the hobbit theatre...  .


Oh sure. 'Encouragement' is always welcome. As for the room, well that room really couldn't get any better. I had done everything to it that could be done, in the confines of a room 10.5ft x 10.5ft x 8.4ft. Oh I see what you mean - you mean along the way! Along the way I kept saying it couldn't get better and then it did - is that what you mean? LOL. Did I do that? Did I _really _do that? 



sdrucker said:


> I still think you can improve your set to, say, 9.1.6 or 11.1.6, in the "you don't appreciate what you're missing until you hear it" sense with the right degree of speaker separation, placement, 3D audio content, and choice of gear as the "icing on the cake" ....


Stu, I really don't know how to break this to you... but not everyone actually _wants _a Trinnov.  I know you are deeply in love with yours and have an evangelical zeal that is unsurpassed in my experience on AVS  But electronics for me are just a means to an end. Just about features. And until I feel a need for speaker remapping and endless opportunities to change settings, track by track being 'normal' for the Trinnovisti it seems, and mo' speakers than there are sticks to shake (clue: likely _never_), I am going to be content with my humble Marantz.  Of course, if you tire of your Altitude when the new 64.10.32 'Stratosphere' unit comes along and want to offer it 'free to good home', then I'll be happy to pay the carriage 



sdrucker said:


> However, we can hope that as time goes by, we'll get better use of the Atmos mixing suite by mixers and less sparing utilization of the overheads beyond the proof-of-concept static overhead objects.


I am confident that this will happen. I think mixers have done a great job so far in getting on top of a learning curve that throws much of what they were familiar with out of the window, to be replaced by a whole new way of working. Now they have familiarity with object mixes, I suspect we will see more and more stellar soundtracks coming along - in the vein of those recently mentioned here.


----------



## kbarnes701

awblackmon said:


> I read some great input here and come seeking some. Presently I have this speaker configuration. LCR speakers. Left wide and right wide. Side surrounds. The side surrounds are back behind my listening position. Somewhere about 110 degrees. Rear surround. The rear surrounds are in walls positioned about four feet apart due to the room layout. So I would guess them to be about 170 and 200 degrees. (Golly I hope I am clear so far). I have one pair of overhead speakers at about 45 degrees configured as TF speakers.
> 
> So I have 7.1.2 with wide speakers added in. 9.1.2 if you will. Despite blu-rays being released with 7.1.4 locked audio what might I be missing if I went with dropping the back surrounds, kept the wides and added another pair overhead as TR? I like what the wides bring to the sound when playing back DTS tracks and decoding them with the DTS up converter. Also when playing back Atoms discs that do include wides I really like the added panning ability from front to side.
> 
> I have noticed that the immersive audio is really maturing. I watched Laura Croft Tomb Raider and have to say the mix was pretty amazing. Compared to some older Atmos mixes this really seemed to nail the immersive experience much better.
> 
> What say you? Drop back surrounds and add TR? Keep Back surrounds and stay with TF only? Thanks so much for the input.


If you have to make that choice, I'd go for dropping the rear surrounds and adding two more overheads. With the side surrounds placed where you have them, you're already getting some coverage behind you as well as around you. But with only two overhead speakers, you are getting side to side panning effects but no front to back effects at all. IMO the enjoyment will be greater if you have 4 overheads. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> —put on Scene 1 of TLJ in my setup (.6 overheads, no 3D remapping in my test preset), which we know to be a 7.1.4 “print” of a native consumer Atmos mix. I tried both configurations (TF/TM/TR and FH/TM/RH), and in neither case did I get any Input Meter processing in the Top Middles. Just the front and rear overheads, period.


Weird. I tried Thor on a 5.1.6 set-up (Datasat) and it phantom imaged the TF & TR channels between the FH/TM/RH speakers. Same with the 7.1.4 test tones from the Dolby demo disc.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Weird. I tried Thor on a 5.1.6 set-up (Datasat) and it phantom imaged the TF & TR channels between the FH/TM/RH speakers. Same with the 7.1.4 test tones from the Dolby demo disc.


I don’t have Thor, but I can try Last Jedi in 5.1.6 and report back, after trying some cases like the two 7.x.6 I did already, as well as my existing 13.x.6 and 7.x.4 preset.

Edit: Tried Last Jedi with top front/top middle/top rears as well as front heights/top middle/rear heights in 5.1.6. Nothing's getting played from the top middles at all. At times you get the same content from front and rear overheads, but on some action scenes there's movement from front to rear (e.g. explosions only being heard in the rear overheads when I solo just the overhead layer).

I may break down and buy Thor just to test out whether it's truly 7.1.4 "preprinted" or there's some subtle activity in the top middles showing up after all. Right now, I have the 2014 and 2015 Dolby Atmos demo discs, but they don't have test tones, and the Dolby site's test tones page for Atmos only has the Amaze and Leaf trailers  . Not sure if I want to download the Demo World zipcruncher.exe on a laptop I'm using for work. With the Altitude test tones for each channel, I haven't really needed their tones for my particular room setup.

A couple of hypotheses I can throw out for you:
a) Thor - or for that matter the 7.1.4 Dolby test tones disc - has authoring or 3D object metadata locations in that scale the top front and rears (or front height and rear heights) to pull into the top middles, and Last Jedi doesn't.

b) IF Thor and Last Jedi are rendered the same way to a 7.1.4 "print" format, then Trinnov has a different implementation than Datasat, Marantz etc. of the Atmos code at this point (July, 2018), and you don't get a "printed" 7.1.4 mix pulling object locations using the top middles in any of the .6 overhead configurations I tested. But for some reason you're setting it elsewhere. 

Meaning that at least for The Last Jedi, on my system the content is indeed directed to a front and rear pair of overheads, and there's no scaling to layout to produce any top middles content - what I think Sanjay is referring to as "phantom image" in native Atmos (as opposed to just the same content being played from front and rear and a phantom sound image being overhead, but not actually played by the top middle speakers). 

Sanjay - do you have Last Jedi in 5.1.6 to test and see if you're getting the same effect for Top Middles in 5.1.6? Or is anyone hearing something rendered to the top middles with Last Jedi on the flagship Denon/Marantz that can do 7.1.6, and can confirm it by soloing (playing alone) just the .6 layer?


----------



## psychdoctor

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.
> 
> This is the room - you can see the front pair of overheads in the 'blue' image, and the rear pair in the second 'red' image - both pairs suspended from the ceiling cloud. Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound.


What seats are those if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## psychdoctor

This may have been asked but I would like to ask the experts here how they integrated speakers for both Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D. I have this set up now in 11.2 speaker placement now.










will the Front Heights and Rear Heights work for Atmos? I know they do for Auro-3D.


----------



## awblackmon

kbarnes701 said:


> If you have to make that choice, I'd go for dropping the rear surrounds and adding two more overheads. With the side surrounds placed where you have them, you're already getting some coverage behind you as well as around you. But with only two overhead speakers, you are getting side to side panning effects but no front to back effects at all. IMO the enjoyment will be greater if you have 4 overheads. Just my 2 cents.


That is where I am leaning to. I was playing clips after doing some adjustments to my system and could hear the left to right overhead pans very clearly. I got to asking myself what about forward or back pans? I really cannot hear the rear surrounds that well from my seat. So if that is the case maybe I just need to move on from them and upgrade my system to 4 overhead speakers. I think your two pence input is good. Thanks. 

I lived in England back in 1969 to 1971. Loved it there. The people are great and the history I learned about was amazing. American schools weren't big on English history which isn't any surprise. So being exposed to more of it and to the English version of common histories was something I really enjoyed. I came away with a great appreciation of British Cinema. I still like British produced films and TV. So wish I could get BBC London instead of BBC America. I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for it. American PBS doing British productions just doesn't do it for me. Fish and Chips are the best!


----------



## usc1995

psychdoctor said:


> This may have been asked but I would like to ask the experts here how they integrated speakers for both Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D. I have this set up now in 11.2 speaker placement now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> will the Front Heights and Rear Heights work for Atmos? I know they do for Auro-3D.




You may want to check out this thread as I haven’t seen much discussion about Auro compatibility in this thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...about-format-agnostic-immersive-lay-outs.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I don’t have Thor, but I can try Last Jedi in 5.1.6 and report back, after trying some cases like the two 7.x.6 I did already, as well as my existing 13.x.6 and 7.x.4 preset.
> 
> Edit: Tried Last Jedi with top front/top middle/top rears as well as front heights/top middle/rear heights in 5.1.6. Nothing's getting played from the top middles at all. At times you get the same content from front and rear overheads, but on some action scenes there's movement from front to rear (e.g. explosions only being heard in the rear overheads when I solo just the overhead layer).
> 
> I may break down and buy Thor just to test out whether it's truly 7.1.4 "preprinted" or there's some subtle activity in the top middles showing up after all. Right now, I have the 2014 and 2015 Dolby Atmos demo discs, but they don't have test tones, and the Dolby site's test tones page for Atmos only has the Amaze and Leaf trailers  . Not sure if I want to download the Demo World zipcruncher.exe on a laptop I'm using for work. With the Altitude test tones for each channel, I haven't really needed their tones for my particular room setup.
> 
> A couple of hypotheses I can throw out for you:
> a) Thor - or for that matter the 7.1.4 Dolby test tones disc - has authoring or 3D object metadata locations in that scale the top front and rears (or front height and rear heights) to pull into the top middles, and Last Jedi doesn't.
> 
> b) IF Thor and Last Jedi are rendered the same way to a 7.1.4 "print" format, then Trinnov has a different implementation than Datasat, Marantz etc. of the Atmos code at this point (July, 2018), and you don't get a "printed" 7.1.4 mix pulling object locations using the top middles in any of the .6 overhead configurations I tested. But for some reason you're setting it elsewhere.
> 
> Meaning that at least for The Last Jedi, on my system the content is indeed directed to a front and rear pair of overheads, and there's no scaling to layout to produce any top middles content - what I think Sanjay is referring to as "phantom image" in native Atmos (as opposed to just the same content being played from front and rear and a phantom sound image being overhead, but not actually played by the top middle speakers).
> 
> Sanjay - do you have Last Jedi in 5.1.6 to test and see if you're getting the same effect for Top Middles in 5.1.6? Or is anyone hearing something rendered to the top middles with Last Jedi on the flagship Denon/Marantz that can do 7.1.6, and can confirm it by soloing (playing alone) just the .6 layer?


What did you think of the movie, Stu? 



Spoiler



Just kidding


----------



## kbarnes701

psychdoctor said:


> What seats are those if you don't mind me asking?


They are called Signature Club. Details here.

They are very comfortable, well made and they 'tip up' like 'real' cinema seats, which appealed to me  They are also compact and allowed me to squeeze in an extra seat in my one and only row. They are used in small commercial cinemas and viewing rooms generally.


----------



## dfa973

awblackmon said:


> Side surrounds. The side surrounds are back behind my listening position. Somewhere about 110 degrees.


110 degree is OK, but with rears they should be more like 90 degrees - see the attachment - more separation with the rears.



awblackmon said:


> Rear surround. The rear surrounds are in walls positioned about four feet apart due to the room layout. So I would guess them to be about 170 and 200 degrees.


Around 135 degrees would be much better, but I see that your room has limits.
How about the rears height?
You said that you don't hear them very well. The rears are too low? Sides and rears are allowed to seat at a higher position (1.25) than the ear level (LCR level) - see the second attachment.


----------



## HarpNinja

I have to move really fast on it, but have a potential great deal on a Onkyo TX-NR787 to replace my Denon 2200. This should work for 5.2.4 comparatively well, right? I am wired for 5.2.4 with in ceiling speakers.

My only concern is if AccuEQ is on par with Audyssey MultiXT. It appears they have a THX equivalent of dynamic eq and dynamic volume, which is super helpful.

Thanks!


----------



## Ted99

gwsat said:


> You beat me to it. These are still such early days of Atmos audio mixes, too many of them are underwhelming. Fortunately, though, they are getting better all the time (with the exception of Disney's of course).


This is where I am. At the moment, I'm using 9.1.4 (wides). When mixers start using the full capabilities of Atmos and more studio releases are either 4K or 2K with Atmos, I think 7.1.6 may be a better choice. But, for now, I think the upmixer's use of wides in bed channels is a better use of those 13 ch of processing in my X8500 than a middle set of heights (in my case, it would be a rear set of heights as I have the Auro speaker configuration).


----------



## gene4ht

HarpNinja said:


> I have to move really fast on it, but have a potential great deal on a Onkyo TX-NR787 to replace my Denon 2200. This should work for 5.2.4 comparatively well, right? I am wired for 5.2.4 with in ceiling speakers.
> 
> My only concern is if AccuEQ is on par with Audyssey MultiXT. It appears they have a THX equivalent of dynamic eq and dynamic volume, which is super helpful.
> 
> Thanks!



Audyssey marketing has been very successful and members here are predominantly Audyssey users resulting in mostly favorable reviews for Audyssey. Further, room correction in general is dependent on room acoustics and personal taste and preference. Here are two reviews that provide little known perspectives for AccuEQ....


From Home Theater Review:
*AccuEQ
*Over the past few years, Onkyo and Integra have made the switch from being Audyssey licensees to introducing their own room correction system dubbed AccuEQ. Early implementations of the system were lacking, to say the least, since they applied no EQ to the front speakers or the subwoofer. Newer versions have improved greatly, though, and in its current form AccuEQ is actually pretty good. One thing that sets the system apart is that it runs two rounds of measurements. The first round is used to adjust levels, delays, and crossovers, whereas the second is used to calculate EQ curves. In my experience, unlike earlier implementations of AccuEQ, the newer version of the software actually performs most of its correction on the bass frequencies, for the most part leaving the upper mids and high frequencies alone. It does struggle somewhat to set crossover frequencies properly, though, so be prepared to tweak those manually.


From AVS member Molon_Labe:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...nkyo-tx-rz1100-tx-rz3100-65.html#post55008768


----------



## HarpNinja

gene4ht said:


> Audyssey marketing has been very successful and members here are predominantly Audyssey users resulting in mostly favorable reviews for Audyssey. Further, room correction in general is dependent on room acoustics and personal taste and preference. Here are two reviews that provide little known perspectives for AccuEQ....
> 
> 
> From Home Theater Review:
> *AccuEQ
> *Over the past few years, Onkyo and Integra have made the switch from being Audyssey licensees to introducing their own room correction system dubbed AccuEQ. Early implementations of the system were lacking, to say the least, since they applied no EQ to the front speakers or the subwoofer. Newer versions have improved greatly, though, and in its current form AccuEQ is actually pretty good. One thing that sets the system apart is that it runs two rounds of measurements. The first round is used to adjust levels, delays, and crossovers, whereas the second is used to calculate EQ curves. In my experience, unlike earlier implementations of AccuEQ, the newer version of the software actually performs most of its correction on the bass frequencies, for the most part leaving the upper mids and high frequencies alone. It does struggle somewhat to set crossover frequencies properly, though, so be prepared to tweak those manually.
> 
> 
> From AVS member Molon_Labe:
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...nkyo-tx-rz1100-tx-rz3100-65.html#post55008768


In the couple minutes research I've had, it seems this is a new version, AccuEQ Advanced. I might just give it a shot and hold onto the 2200 until I decide if it is worth the switch.


----------



## gene4ht

HarpNinja said:


> In the couple minutes research I've had, it seems this is a new version, AccuEQ Advanced. I might just give it a shot and hold onto the 2200 until I decide if it is worth the switch.


 Just a thought....if you're considering the 787, you may also want to give consideration to the 820 which on special at this time as well.


Edit: Oops...never mind...787 nine channels...820 only 7.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> What did you think of the movie, Stu?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Just kidding


If you mean Last Jedi, a pale reflection of much more compelling plots and characters in the original trilogy, Revenge of the Sith, and Rogue One. The heroes are bland, Kylo Ren is far too emo and unstable, and the old Empire or the Jedi could take care of the First Order and the Resistance in an afternoon. And Luke Skywalker, ugh. Personally I liked Solo considerably more, but I don’t think classic SW fans are the target audience for Jedi these days.


----------



## psychdoctor

kbarnes701 said:


> They are called Signature Club. Details here.
> 
> They are very comfortable, well made and they 'tip up' like 'real' cinema seats, which appealed to me  They are also compact and allowed me to squeeze in an extra seat in my one and only row. They are used in small commercial cinemas and viewing rooms generally.


You entire system and HT set-up is simply fantastic.


----------



## gene4ht

HarpNinja said:


> In the couple minutes research I've had, it seems this is a new version, AccuEQ Advanced. I might just give it a shot and hold onto the 2200 until I decide if it is worth the switch.



If you have never experienced Onkyo's sound signature and decide to give the 787 a "shot," be prepared for a clean, clear, crisp sound quality along with more "powerful" bass response.


----------



## rgould1669

I got my Atmos all set up pioneer elite receiver 303 5.1.4 front floor speakers B&w 683 center B&w 600 series. 2 rear B&w book shelf 686 on stands . 4 sonan vp62r ceiling speakers. 12” sub. I run the speaker set up on the pioneer and it sets all speakers to large. Should I have them all to large. It sounds good set that way but want to set to best settings.thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

psychdoctor said:


> Your entire system and HT set-up is simply fantastic.


Thank you. It's been quite the journey, from a 'Hobbit Theater' in a tiny (10.5ft square room) to the Cowshed. I couldn't have done it without the help, advice, encouragement, expertise and willingness-to-share of all the many guys on AVS who have inspired and guided me. Now, I can indulge my love of movies every night of the week!


----------



## kbarnes701

rgould1669 said:


> I got my Atmos all set up pioneer elite receiver 303 5.1.4 front floor speakers B&w 683 center B&w 600 series. 2 rear B&w book shelf 686 on stands . 4 sonan vp62r ceiling speakers. 12” sub. I run the speaker set up on the pioneer and it sets all speakers to large. Should I have them all to large. It sounds good set that way but want to set to best settings.thanks.


I am not familiar with Pioneer units, but generally, on every AVR I have ever used, you need to set the speakers to 'small' in order to engage bass management. Most auto-EQ systems require you to do this yourself as the automated routine doesn't. Once you set to 'small' (which has no relevance to the actual speaker size) you will enable bass management and should be able to set a crossover (the frequency at which the mains and surrounds hand off to the sub). Try 80Hz to begin with. Ideally, you should set the XO so that it extends a full octave below the natural roll off of the speaker - so if your speakers roll off at 45 Hz, set the XO to 90Hz. Often this is impractical with many speakers/subs though.


----------



## Molon_Labe

HarpNinja said:


> In the couple minutes research I've had, it seems this is a new version, AccuEQ Advanced. I might just give it a shot and hold onto the 2200 until I decide if it is worth the switch.


I had Audyssey via many flavors over the years with Denon/Marantz with last being the Marantz 8802a, ARC via Anthem AVM60, Dirac Live via MiniDSP 88a, and now Onkyo AccuEQ. I rate them as Dirac, AccuEQ, ARC, and then Audyssey. The AccuEQ was so close to Dirac that I didn't bother wiring up Dirac Live again since the Onkyo is just plug and play. Dirac Live is more of a hobby than a room correction requiring a lot of fiddling and stuff. When it works it works amazing, but it was just a headache with the external amps, cables, etc. The Onkyo just works. One measurement and I was done. To say I was shocked, amazed, and dumb-founded would be an understatement. Big fan now.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I have Audyssey via many flavors with last being the Marantz 8802a, ARC via Anthem AVM60, Dirac Live via MiniDSP 88a, and now the Onkyo AccuEQ. I rate them as Dirac, AccuEQ, ARC, and then Audyssey. The AccuEQ was so close to Dirac that I didn't bother wiring up Dirac Live again since the Onkyo is just plug and play. To say I was shocked, amazed, and dumb founded would be an understatement.


Wow. That is some endorsement! Audyssey seems to be falling behind these days - very long time since any serious updates.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. That is some endorsement! Audyssey seems to be falling behind these days - very long time since any serious updates.


Yeah Keith I was shocked. I bought the Onkyo because I was looking to move my Anthem unit and go back to Dirac. I was wanting a simple "receiver" with the features I wanted with no regard to bells and whistles since I was going to use Dirac Live. The Onkyo 1100 fit the bill with the lowest cost. For giggles, I ran the room correction (I almost didn't because I thought AccuEQ was going to be laughable). Tight, amazing bass. Midrange was hitting hard and the highs were perfect. Vocals and voice dialog on the center channel was spot on. Audyssey always required me to bump the center channel by a couple of db and do the "distance tweak for bass" and then bump the gain by 4 to 5 db. This shows Audyssey overall lacking in my book. Audyssey was like a wet blanket over the mids. Sorry, that is my opinion. It really was on-par with Dirac but Dirac was a bit more seamless. You know what I mean since you have heard Dirac. However, the bass was better with AccuEQ. It was a toss but Onkyo won for simplicity in setup. They got bludgeoned for their HDMI failures and overheating a couple years ago. Its a shame because they are rock solid and AccuEQ destroys Audyssey, which is the fan favorite here on AVS. I am glad I took a blind chance. 

Sorry to derail the Atmos discussion....back to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> I had Audyssey via many flavors over the years with Denon/Marantz with last being the Marantz 8802a, ARC via Anthem AVM60, Dirac Live via MiniDSP 88a, and now Onkyo AccuEQ. I rate them as Dirac, AccuEQ, ARC, and then Audyssey. The AccuEQ was so close to Dirac that I didn't bother wiring up Dirac Live again since the Onkyo is just plug and play. Dirac Live is more of a hobby than a room correction requiring a lot of fiddling and stuff. When it works it works amazing, but it was just a headache with the external amps, cables, etc. The Onkyo just works. One measurement and I was done. To say I was shocked, amazed, and dumb-founded would be an understatement. Big fan now.





kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. That is some endorsement! Audyssey seems to be falling behind these days - very long time since any serious updates.



I've also used Audyssey and all its flavors thru XT32 and have always found it a bit lacking for my preference...mids in particular. Molon_Labe is one of the few users who have experiences with other RC systems and puts AccuEQ in perspective. As I mentioned in my previous post, the effectiveness of RC is dependent on a room's acoustic properties and one's personal tastes and preference. At this time, in my room, I also prefer AccuEQ Advanced.


----------



## camd5pt0

Hello all. Feels great to be back.
I had packed up my sound equipment for the move. Finally on 4th of July, I setup the speakers for my Atmos configuration of 7.1.4.
Nothing special by the likes of what I've seen in this thread, but it sounds amazing. The rears I will toe in slightly, and hide the wires if I find some good clips. 
I live in an apartment so I can't get too fancy yet.
Even in a small room, all of these speakers make my 65 in TV look small.


----------



## Molon_Labe

camd5pt0 said:


> Hello all. Feels great to be back.
> I had packed up my sound equipment for the move. Finally on 4th of July, I setup the speakers for my Atmos configuration of 7.1.4.
> Nothing special by the likes of what I've seen in this thread, but it sounds amazing. The rears I will toe in slightly, and hide the wires if I find some good clips.
> I live in an apartment so I can't get too fancy yet.
> Even in a small room, all of these speakers make my 65 in TV look small.


Don't worry about what other's have. If your enjoying it, that is all that matters. I will say this....I am betting that your single or have a VERY understanding wife


----------



## am2model3

great speaker layout! enjoy that 7.1.4! i love my 5.1.4


----------



## camd5pt0

Molon_Labe said:


> Don't worry about what other's have. If your enjoying it, that is all that matters. I will say this....I am betting that your single or have a VERY understanding wife


LMAO I have great WAF  I can do what I want, because I get her what she wants and take care of her.


am2model3 said:


> great speaker layout! enjoy that 7.1.4! i love my 5.1.4


Thank you!! I just moved up from 5.1.4 which sounds amazing in fact I'm still using it . My external amp comes in Saturday, and will hook up to my x4400h.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> I had Audyssey via many flavors over the years with Denon/Marantz with last being the Marantz 8802a, ARC via Anthem AVM60, Dirac Live via MiniDSP 88a, and now Onkyo AccuEQ. I rate them as Dirac, AccuEQ, ARC, and then Audyssey. The AccuEQ was so close to Dirac that I didn't bother wiring up Dirac Live again since the Onkyo is just plug and play. Dirac Live is more of a hobby than a room correction requiring a lot of fiddling and stuff. When it works it works amazing, but it was just a headache with the external amps, cables, etc. The Onkyo just works. One measurement and I was done. To say I was shocked, amazed, and dumb-founded would be an understatement. Big fan now.





kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. That is some endorsement! Audyssey seems to be falling behind these days - very long time since any serious updates.


No love for the app? Audyssey has gotten my sound right were I want it via the app! All Audyssey ever really needed since XT32 was more user control and the app has it in spades


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Yeah Keith I was shocked. I bought the Onkyo because I was looking to move my Anthem unit and go back to Dirac. I was wanting a simple "receiver" with the features I wanted with no regard to bells and whistles since I was going to use Dirac Live. The Onkyo 1100 fit the bill with the lowest cost. For giggles, I ran the room correction (I almost didn't because I thought AccuEQ was going to be laughable). Tight, amazing bass. Midrange was hitting hard and the highs were perfect. Vocals and voice dialog on the center channel was spot on. Audyssey always required me to bump the center channel by a couple of db and do the "distance tweak for bass" and then bump the gain by 4 to 5 db. This shows Audyssey overall lacking in my book. Audyssey was like a wet blanket over the mids. Sorry, that is my opinion. It really was on-par with Dirac but Dirac was a bit more seamless. You know what I mean since you have heard Dirac. However, the bass was better with AccuEQ. It was a toss but Onkyo won for simplicity in setup. They got bludgeoned for their HDMI failures and overheating a couple years ago. Its a shame because they are rock solid and AccuEQ destroys Audyssey, which is the fan favorite here on AVS. I am glad I took a blind chance.
> 
> Sorry to derail the Atmos discussion....back to our regularly scheduled programming.


I have always been a big fan of Onkyo. Amazing bang for the buck. I only switched away from them to Denon when Onkyo dropped Audyssey, which I was using at the time. Now I use outboard Dirac Live, I am 'AVR agnostic' wrt to room EQ, so Onkyo would be back on my list if I changed units. And from what you say, they really have got on top of their room EQ system now too!


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> I've also used Audyssey and all its flavors thru XT32 and have always found it a bit lacking for my preference...mids in particular. Molon_Labe is one of the few users who have experiences with other RC systems and puts AccuEQ in perspective. As I mentioned in my previous post, the effectiveness of RC is dependent on a room's acoustic properties and one's personal tastes and preference. At this time, in my room, I also prefer AccuEQ Advanced.


Audyssey's biggest problem, IMO, is their stubborn insistence that a 'flat' curve is what is required, when we all know very well that a 'Harman curve' (smooth approx 6dB rolloff from LF to HF) is the curve that most people prefer.


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> Hello all. Feels great to be back.
> I had packed up my sound equipment for the move. Finally on 4th of July, I setup the speakers for my Atmos configuration of 7.1.4.
> Nothing special by the likes of what I've seen in this thread, but it sounds amazing. The rears I will toe in slightly, and hide the wires if I find some good clips.
> I live in an apartment so I can't get too fancy yet.
> Even in a small room, all of these speakers make my 65 in TV look small.


A few well-placed acoustic treatment panels would do wonders for your sound at a very modest cost.


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> A few well-placed acoustic treatment panels would do wonders for your sound at a very modest cost.


Thank you much Keith! I believe you. Because even when I had just 2ch set up, I kept hearing certain sounds behind me and it made me look.
Do you have suggestion where I should place them?
If you have Samsung phone, I can send you a 360 degrees photo


----------



## Molon_Labe

camd5pt0 said:


> Thank you much Keith! I believe you. Because even when I had just 2ch set up, I kept hearing certain sounds behind me and it made me look.
> Do you have suggestion where I should place them?
> If you have Samsung phone, I can send you a 360 degrees photo



First reflection points is where you want to start. Sit in the MLP and have your wife walk with a mirror. When you can see the speaker in the mirror, that is your first reflection point. Typically this will be the most beneficial. Don't forget the ceiling and floors either. Absorb or diffuse those first points and you will see an immdediate difference. Just do a search on room treatments. You will have days of reading but the first reflection points give the most bang for the buck.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> Have you tried Dirac Live, ARC, or any of the others? Sometimes you don't know what your missing until you know what your missing.


 I was close to giving one of the three a try and still wouldn't mind. What i did do is upgrade my Acoustic panels with the GIK Alpaha and Impression line (absorption and diffusion ) and added a third sub to the rear of the room. I swapped out the Marantz 8802a for the 8805 got the app and have achieved a system balance I really am enjoying. I have my mains corrected up to 500hz while all other channels up to 5000hz this is using the reference curve with midrange compensation set to off for all channels, I then added a 3db house curve to the subs starting around 35hz and its been just about perfect. I'm a fan of the Onkyo's sound as my brother in law has one with the original Accu eq and I was impressed with its sound do to its simplicity and ease of use after the calibration when we listened I was more than impressed and glad to hear that they have continued to tweak it.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> The 8805 has a lot to love. I am a big fan of the Denon/Marantz sound signature. They have a "warmth" to their default presentation. I know people will say that it is nonsense, but my ears are convinced having done A/B comparisons with the same speakers in the same room. Some receivers, specifically Yamaha, came across a bit forward and bright to my room accoustics/speakers. Denon was a lot more laid back. Glad your liking the new Marantz.


 Hoping its the last one for quite sometime, it has sparked the interest of trying some different support gear as its 2/ch performance(default presentation) is very,very good and that has always translated to better multi/ch as well. glad to see the downsizing still kept you around as I'd thought your theater room had become a full fledged game room


----------



## Hopinater

Molon_Labe said:


> Yeah Keith I was shocked. I bought the Onkyo because I was looking to move my Anthem unit and go back to Dirac. I was wanting a simple "receiver" with the features I wanted with no regard to bells and whistles since I was going to use Dirac Live. The Onkyo 1100 fit the bill with the lowest cost. For giggles, I ran the room correction (I almost didn't because I thought AccuEQ was going to be laughable). Tight, amazing bass. Midrange was hitting hard and the highs were perfect. Vocals and voice dialog on the center channel was spot on. Audyssey always required me to bump the center channel by a couple of db and do the "distance tweak for bass" and then bump the gain by 4 to 5 db. This shows Audyssey overall lacking in my book. Audyssey was like a wet blanket over the mids. Sorry, that is my opinion. It really was on-par with Dirac but Dirac was a bit more seamless. You know what I mean since you have heard Dirac. However, the bass was better with AccuEQ. It was a toss but Onkyo won for simplicity in setup. They got bludgeoned for their HDMI failures and overheating a couple years ago. Its a shame because they are rock solid and AccuEQ destroys Audyssey, which is the fan favorite here on AVS. I am glad I took a blind chance.
> 
> Sorry to derail the Atmos discussion....back to our regularly scheduled programming.


Well this is a surprise. I really didn't expect to be reading positive endorsements for Onkyo's calibration setup anytime soon. I use to really like Onkyo back in the day but switched to Marantz and Denon for all the obvious reasons... but you're right, Audyssey kills the mid range. I've started eyeing my next AVR and Onkyo was not in the consideration but now you have me rethinking things. Thanks for post.


----------



## HarpNinja

So, I am getting 5.1.4 set up tonight after being 5.1.2. What movie should I watch to wow me in adding top backs?


----------



## dvdmd1

HarpNinja said:


> So, I am getting 5.1.4 set up tonight after being 5.1.2. What movie should I watch to wow me in adding top backs?


Blade Runner 2049,Mad Max Fury Road,John Wick,1-2 to start with.,Hacksaw Ridge


----------



## CBdicX

*Why just Top Middle or Dolby Enabled Surround in use on Atmos ?*

When i run a Atmos test file its only using my selected "middle" speakers, not my Front and Rear Heights.
*When i de-activate Top Middle or DE Surround, it will use the FH and RH speakers.*

(the test file is *dolby-audiosphere-lossless*-www.demolandia.net)

Why is this ?

The receiver is the 13 channel Denon X8500H, and when i use info, all 13 speakers are active on the Atmos test file.
Input signal says ATMOS.


----------



## Navyship

dfa973 said:


> Navyship said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dolby, using bi poles for my sides are acceptable, I’m so confused! They don’t recommend di poles though.
> 
> 
> 
> My bad, I was wrong about bipoles, bipoles are OK (thanks @batpig) You have bipoles for sides if I remember right, so you
> Should be ok. You must resolve the separation between the bed channels and the top channels.
Click to expand...


Not a problem, thanks for taking the time to respond. I am waiting on the Klipsch 250 for side surrounds to arrive, I am now considering replacing the rear in walls that are about 7 years old with Klipsch 240’s. Can I get some thoughts, I have read that in walls are not the best options for home theaters.

I also moved the sides and rears down 26 inches under the Atmos speakers, is that enough separation?


----------



## mhatrey

Any recommendation for sub $500 AVR for an Atmos setup or should I wait for another year. Currently, I have a Sony STR DN1050, that does not do HDCP 2.2 nor Dolby Atmos.

My speaker setup is
- Fronts: Klipsch RF 82ii
- Center: Klipsch RC 52ii
- Back: Klipsch RB 41ii
- Height (sitting on Fronts): Klipsch RP-140SA

Currently, my RP-140SA are just set up as front heights (changing surround back in the menu), but STR DN1050 does not support Dolby Atmos.

Input devices: Xbox One S, FireTv 3 & PS4 Pro
Output: Epson 5040ub Pixel shift 4K projector.

---

Question: Should I wait for Sony STR DN1090 for next year? If not, any Sub $500 sub you would recommend that does Dolby Atmos and HDCP 2.2


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see the attraction of 9.x.6 (and even beyond) as it helps scratch the 'gear itch' beautifully. But TBH, in a domestic room, I doubt the benefits. My room is what I'd call a 'typical' size for a custom-built, dedicated room and even though I wired for 6 overhead speakers, I can't bring myself to want to install the extra pair. Even in this decently sized room, my feeling is that the overheads would not be sufficiently far apart to warrant the time, effort and cash.
> 
> ...Adding that extra pair in the middle wouldn't, IMO, be a terrific upgrade in what is already fabulously immersive Atmos sound.


I would agree with your feeling, with one BUT. And not only that it may not be a "terrific upgrade", but that it may wind up being a mostly imperceptible difference. Especially for a room with a single row of seating, such as yours.

However, that is for your special room. While you characterize it as 'typical', that is only in x/y dimensions. Yours is atypical in it's height. As a result of that, your ceiling speakers are significantly higher (I'm unsure exactly how high they are mounted*) than what would be 'typical' (generally 8-ft, plus or minus a bit). This results in you getting excellent dispersion from front and back tops, which covers your listening area extremely well. Due to the fact that they're so far overhead. Adding another pair in the middle may be difficult to discern, much of the time. In other words, I agree with your decision.

OTOH, for those with lower ceilings, and top speakers just 3-4' overhead, middle speakers may play a somewhat more effective supporting role (even when the Top F/B's are properly angled at the MLP). (Likewise, if there are multiple rows of seating.) This is just an impression on my part, and I will get to find out when I put 6 Atmos speakers on my ceiling later this fall.  I can then test by disabling the TM's, and ask myself why I spent the extra time and money on them. 

[* I vaguely recall them planned at ~9 ft on your diagram, but your finished photos suggested they were mounted even higher in your 12' tall room, possibly 10' at the radiating plane? Or maybe that was just an optical delusion. ]


----------



## m. zillch

mhatrey said:


> Any recommendation for sub $500 AVR for an Atmos setup or should I wait for another year.


If you wait a year they will be faster, better, cheaper, and have more features you haven't even heard of yet. [*ahem* Dolby Vision 2.0] Take this advice and then a year from now re-read this sentence to learn my new perspective.

Rinse and repeat.. . .


----------



## gene4ht

VideoGrabber said:


> I would agree with your feeling, with one BUT. And not only that it may not be a "terrific upgrade", but that it may wind up being a mostly imperceptible difference. Especially for a room with a single row of seating, such as yours.
> 
> However, that is for your special room. While you characterize it as 'typical', that is only in x/y dimensions. Yours is atypical in it's height. As a result of that, your ceiling speakers are significantly higher (I'm unsure exactly how high they are mounted*) than what would be 'typical' (generally 8-ft, plus or minus a bit). This results in you getting excellent dispersion from front and back tops, which covers your listening area extremely well. Due to the fact that they're so far overhead. Adding another pair in the middle may be difficult to discern, much of the time. In other words, I agree with your decision.



Although I have no way of knowing factually, I agree that Keith's ceiling height is atypical and that your theory/argument/point has merit. Then again, it appears the Atmos speakers are mounted close to "cloud" height which is lower than actual ceiling height?




VideoGrabber said:


> OTOH, for those with lower ceilings, and top speakers just 3-4' overhead, middle speakers may play a somewhat more effective supporting role (even when the Top F/B's are properly angled at the MLP). (Likewise, if there are multiple rows of seating.)* This is just an impression on my part, and I will get to find out when I put 6 Atmos speakers on my ceiling later this fall.  I can then test by disabling the TM's, and ask myself why I spent the extra time and money on them*.
> 
> [* I vaguely recall them planned at ~9 ft on your diagram, but your finished photos suggested they were mounted even higher in your 12' tall room, possibly 10' at the radiating plane? Or maybe that was just an optical delusion. ]



I have had 6 Atmos speakers installed for quite some time...have 8' ceilings...have two rows of seating...have aimable tweeters...have 11 channel capability....and have experimented with enabling only TF & TM(designated TR) for the first/front row, only TM(designated TF) & TR for the second/back row, and only TF & TR for both rows. I am awaiting this fall's introduction of new AVR flagships hoping that there will be additional 13 channel models to provide choices beyond only the 8500. I will be looking forward to comparing impressions later this year.


----------



## Dolus

kbarnes701 said:


> Audyssey's biggest problem, IMO, is their stubborn insistence that a 'flat' curve is what is required, when we all know very well that a 'Harman curve' (smooth approx 6dB rolloff from LF to HF) is the curve that most people prefer.


I never heard of Audyssey insisting on a Flat curve. I always thought that the Audyssey default curve (Reference/Movie) was not flat and had a high frequency roll off, but the optional (Flat/Music) curve was flat. Thought I'd better check.
https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347723-MultEQ-Target-Curves

Just to throw a spanner in the works when using the Audyessy Ap there is mid range compensation applied, also known as the BBC dip. I do not know if this is peculiar to the ap or has always been applied, but might explain why I always preferred Flat over Reference simply because dialogue sounded better.


----------



## Dolus

CBdicX said:


> *Why just Top Middle or Dolby Enabled Surround in use on Atmos ?*
> 
> When i run a Atmos test file its only using my selected "middle" speakers, not my Front and Rear Heights.
> *When i de-activate Top Middle or DE Surround, it will use the FH and RH speakers.*
> 
> (the test file is *dolby-audiosphere-lossless*-www.demolandia.net)
> 
> Why is this ?
> 
> The receiver is the 13 channel Denon X8500H, and when i use info, all 13 speakers are active on the Atmos test file.
> Input signal says ATMOS.



Bit of a guess based on my limited Atmos experience but am assuming you have your front/rear heights configured as heights. Try configuring them as front/rear tops. 

I've been configuring my heights all ways Heights/Tops/Atmos and in each config the rears as rear or surround.


----------



## Lesmor

Dolus said:


> I never heard of Audyssey insisting on a Flat curve. I always thought that the Audyssey default curve (Reference/Movie) was not flat and had a high frequency roll off, but the optional (Flat/Music) curve was flat. Thought I'd better check.
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347723-MultEQ-Target-Curves
> 
> Just to throw a spanner in the works when using the Audyessy Ap there is mid range compensation applied, also known as the BBC dip. I do not know if this is peculiar to the ap or has always been applied, but might explain why I always preferred Flat over Reference simply because dialogue sounded better.


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app

@kbarnes701 
after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a "House Curve"
After doing some research I intend to follow this up but how to achieve a House Curve with Audyssey engaged is going to be a challenge 

So for me thanks for highlighting the Harman Curve


----------



## mrtickleuk

I'm interested in learning more. Don't support anyone has a graph which shows the Audyssey "reference" curve, Harman Curve and House curve all together?


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> Thank you much Keith! I believe you. Because even when I had just 2ch set up, I kept hearing certain sounds behind me and it made me look.
> Do you have suggestion where I should place them?
> If you have Samsung phone, I can send you a 360 degrees photo


Take a look at the GIK website for ideas on placement. I'd start with 4ft x 2ft panels at the first reflections. So, on the left and right side walls and maybe one on the ceiling. I'd also treat the back wall behind MLP. The panels are easy to make and can be made for a lot less money than commercially made versions. That should give a good improvement and then you can go further if you feel it would be beneficial. Look at GIK's site - there is a ton of useful info on there.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> I would agree with your feeling, with one BUT. And not only that it may not be a "terrific upgrade", but that it may wind up being a mostly imperceptible difference. Especially for a room with a single row of seating, such as yours.
> 
> However, that is for your special room. While you characterize it as 'typical', that is only in x/y dimensions. Yours is atypical in it's height. As a result of that, your ceiling speakers are significantly higher (I'm unsure exactly how high they are mounted*) than what would be 'typical' (generally 8-ft, plus or minus a bit). This results in you getting excellent dispersion from front and back tops, which covers your listening area extremely well. Due to the fact that they're so far overhead. Adding another pair in the middle may be difficult to discern, much of the time. In other words, I agree with your decision.
> 
> OTOH, for those with lower ceilings, and top speakers just 3-4' overhead, middle speakers may play a somewhat more effective supporting role (even when the Top F/B's are properly angled at the MLP). (Likewise, if there are multiple rows of seating.) This is just an impression on my part, and I will get to find out when I put 6 Atmos speakers on my ceiling later this fall.  I can then test by disabling the TM's, and ask myself why I spent the extra time and money on them.
> 
> [* I vaguely recall them planned at ~9 ft on your diagram, but your finished photos suggested they were mounted even higher in your 12' tall room, possibly 10' at the radiating plane? Or maybe that was just an optical delusion. ]


Good point. I forget that my room height is far from typical. It does help with the 'Atmos effect' but the bass also benefits from having more room to 'breath' too. Dennis Foley of Acoustic Fields recommends a minimum of 14 ft ceiling height to really good bass performance and it was his influence which made me go that way. My installers wanted a more conventional ceiling height as it worked out much less expensive but I insisted. The main reason, of course, was that I had convinced myself that the extra height would bring Atmos benefits, and it seems to have worked that way 

I'd love to read of your experiments after you have installed the TM pair, so please be sure to let us know, or even PM me with the info.

My overheads are about 10ft high BTW.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Although I have no way of knowing factually, I agree that Keith's ceiling height is atypical and that your theory/argument/point has merit. Then again, it appears the Atmos speakers are mounted close to "cloud" height which is lower than actual ceiling height?


The Atmos speakers are actually attached to the cloud, but the cloud is real high anyway. The cloud has Artnovion panels on the 'visible' side and then 4 inch rockwool on top. Above the panels is the ceiling void. The cloud is about 11.5 ft high and the speaker grilles are slightly over 10 ft high when mounted.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dolus said:


> I never heard of Audyssey insisting on a Flat curve. I always thought that the Audyssey default curve (Reference/Movie) was not flat and had a high frequency roll off, but the optional (Flat/Music) curve was flat. Thought I'd better check.
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347723-MultEQ-Target-Curves


They're both variations on 'flat' and neither of them look much like the Harman Curve - the one most preferred in the Toole reaearch.

This image shows the Harman type curve (top). It was the 'most preferred'. The Audyssey curve was the 'least preferred'. To be fair this was Audyssey XT not XT32 but their curve hasn't really changed. You can see the 'BBC dip' in the graph pretty clearly. As you can see, regardless of any finessing for the 'Movie' curve, it is essentially flat. (The black trace is 'no EQ at all applied' so more people preferred no EQ to Audyssey XT).












Dolus said:


> Just to throw a spanner in the works when using the Audyessy Ap there is mid range compensation applied, also known as the BBC dip. I do not know if this is peculiar to the ap or has always been applied, but might explain why I always preferred Flat over Reference simply because dialogue sounded better.


Audyssey have always applied this 'mid range compensation' (it isn't really anything the BBC ever endorsed as a general solution - just one specific resolution of one specific problem in one specific speaker design, but the name has stuck). It's a crackpot idea of Audyssey's IMO - Audyssey has no way of knowing what speakers a user has, nor what their FR is, so to apply 'correction' for a 'problem' they don't even know exists, seems to me to be perverse. It's as likely (more likely) to do as much harm as good.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> I'm interested in learning more. Don't support anyone has a graph which shows the Audyssey "reference" curve, Harman Curve and House curve all together?


Just posted.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app
> 
> @kbarnes701
> after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a "House Curve"
> After doing some research I intend to follow this up but how to achieve a House Curve with Audyssey engaged is going to be a challenge
> 
> So for me thanks for highlighting the Harman Curve


Audyssey's insistence on that 'flat' curve has always bugged me. It goes against the most authoritative research results we have and the user then has to jump through all manner of hoops to 'get his bass back' (the most frequently raised issue in the old, gargantuan Audyssey thread was "where has my bass gone?' Well we have no idea where it went - it was never there to begin with once Audyssey had done its stuff )

Audyssey's lack of ability to shape a curve to *my *preference, *my *speakers and *my *room was one of my main motivators for moving over to Dirac Live.


----------



## CBdicX

Dolus said:


> Bit of a guess based on my limited Atmos experience but am assuming you have your front/rear heights configured as heights. Try configuring them as front/rear tops.
> 
> I've been configuring my heights all ways Heights/Tops/Atmos and in each config the rears as rear or surround.


Hi, will not matter, still with a 6 "height" setup, whatever the configuration, it will only use the middle speakers.
A simple test is pulling the middle Height speaker wires, run the test file and in this case all Heights are sillent.
Taking the Middle Height out of the speaker setup, both Front and Rear Height work.
Tried a file that has a moving sound from rear to front Height, then i can hear its starting on the back and moving to front and using also the middle Height.


Maybe its the file, i do not know.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi, will not matter, still with a 6 "height" setup, whatever the configuration, it will only use the middle speakers.
> A simple test is pulling the middle Height speaker wires, run the test file and in this case all Heights are sillent.
> Taking the Middle Height out of the speaker setup, both Front and Rear Height work.
> Tried a file that has a moving sound from rear to front Height, then i can hear its starting on the back and moving to front and using also the middle Height.
> 
> 
> Maybe its the file, i do not know.


Dick, you might do better posting in the Denon thread for your unit than here. It's possibly some config issue - the D&M menus have never been a model of clarity IME.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Dick, you might do better posting in the Denon thread for your unit than here. It's possibly some config issue - the D&M menus have never been a model of clarity IME.


Will do, thanks Keith.


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> *Why just Top Middle or Dolby Enabled Surround in use on Atmos ?*
> 
> When i run a Atmos test file its only using my selected "middle" speakers, not my Front and Rear Heights.
> *When i de-activate Top Middle or DE Surround, it will use the FH and RH speakers.*
> 
> (the test file is *dolby-audiosphere-lossless*-www.demolandia.net)
> 
> Why is this ?
> 
> The receiver is the 13 channel Denon X8500H, and when i use info, all 13 speakers are active on the Atmos test file.
> Input signal says ATMOS.


I suspect this actually is a generic Atmos question. It's just that the X8500H and AV8805 are the first "affordable" devices to support an x.x.6 speaker configuration and can demonstrate the limitations of the _Atmosphere_ demo.

Here's the response that I posted to the 8500 thread just now:


Selden Ball said:


> Audiosphere is an Atmos demo file, not a calibration file. I suspect that the xyz coordinates of its overhead audio object(s) are explicitly positioned directly overhead, at the nominal position of Top Middle speakers. If you don't have Top Middle speakers, the overhead audio will be "phantom imaged" by sending appropriate levels of audio to both of the overhead speakers that you do have. If you do have Top Middle, then phantom imaging is not required (so the front and rear overheads are silent) because you actually have speakers at the specified location.
> 
> Dolby provides some Atmos soundtracks which explicitly test various speaker configurations. See https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I suspect this actually is a generic Atmos question. It's just that the X8500H and AV8805 are the first "affordable" devices to support an x.x.6 speaker configuration and can demonstrate the limitations of the _Atmosphere_ demo.
> 
> Here's the response that I posted to the 8500 thread just now:


That link just goes to the Leaf and Amaze trailers, Selden. Do you have a different link in mind?


----------



## kbarnes701

I've now managed to get hold of some photos that show the position of my Atmos speakers more clearly, along with a better view of the height of the finished room.

This one shows the screen unmasked to its 2.39:1 aspect ratio - since the photo was taken the front pair of Atmos speakers have been moved forwards by about 2 feet (closer to the small can lights) to give greater separation between the TF and the TR pair, still keeping within Dolby guidelines. Also, all four overhead speakers have now been angled towards the listening area. To give some sense of scale, the screen width is 11.5 ft (3.5m).










This one shows the masks down for 1.85:1 ratio:










And this one from the front towards the rear - the rear pair of Atmos speakers can be seen close to the rearmost can lights:










Also in the above image you can see the side surrounds and their positioning well above the ear level of the audience. The relationship between the side surrounds and the TR speakers can also be seen in this image. The rear surrounds and the subs are behind the AT fabric wall either side of the central doorway. (The door is directly beneath the PJ, set back by a couple of feet.)


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> I've now managed to get hold of some photos that show the position of my Atmos speakers more clearly, along with a better view of the height of the finished room.
> 
> This one shows the screen unmasked to its 2.39:1 aspect ratio - since the photo was taken the front pair of Atmos speakers have been moved forwards by about 2 feet (closer to the small can lights) to give greater separation between the TF and the TR pair, still keeping within Dolby guidelines. Also, all four overhead speakers have now been angled towards the listening area. To give some sense of scale, the screen width is 11.5 ft (3.5m).



Kudos Keith...great shots...great perspectives...great execution...great theater!


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> That link just goes to the Leaf and Amaze trailers, Selden. Do you have a different link in mind?


Very strange.

That used to be the right page (note its name: test-tones), but it looks like they've deleted the Atmos speaker test videos that used to be there.

[pause while I do some searching]

Fortunately, the Internet Archive managed to get a shapshot of the previous version of Dolby's page, which includes links to the speaker test mp4s. It's available at
http://web.archive.org/web/20180121102416/https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

IA didn't actually preserve copies of the videos themselves, but it does have their URLs, at least some of which still work today. I dunno how much longer that'll be true, though.


https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_5_1_2.mp4
https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_5_1_4.mp4
https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_7_1_2.mp4
https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_7_1_4.mp4
https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_9_1_6.mp4

ETA:
I was briefly able to view the first url in Firefox (which played it silently, which isn't particularly useful), but subsequent attempts seem to be getting a DNS failure. I'm not sure why.

ETA2:
Apparently the DNS service provided by Spectrum/RoadRunner is being absurdly slow today. I switched my computer's primary DNS server to be Google's 8.8.8.8 and I was able to open the first URL again. While playing the video using Firefox 60.0.2, Firefox's Right-Mouse-Button menu includes the option to download the video, which I did. I then used Kodi to play it and it worked fine.


----------



## m. zillch

My understanding is via the EQ Editor app [$19.99] Audyssey's target curve is now _infinitely_ adjustable so if don't want the midrange compensation dialed in you can delete it and the overall shape and downward slope of the curve seems completely flexible too. Jump to 1m02s into this video:





I think this adaptability was previously only offered to people who sprang for the [~$500?] "PRO kit" but now they've provided it in the app.

There seems to be a low frequency roll-off to protect naive people with ported/vented designs from boosting the deep bass below resonance which can be disastrous and literally destructive to their speaker. I'm not sure if that can be eliminated. Anyone?


----------



## audiofan1

m. zillch said:


> My understanding is via the EQ Editor app [$19.99] Audyssey's target curve is now _infinitely_ adjustable so if don't want the midrange compensation dialed in you can delete it and the overall shape and downward slope of the curve seems completely flexible too. Jump to 1m02s into this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09fIPJwC4-o
> 
> I think this adaptability was previously only offered to people who sprang for the [~$500?] "PRO kit" but now they've provided it in the app.
> 
> There seems to be a low frequency roll off to protect naive people with ported/vented designs from boosting the deep bass below resonance which can be disastrous and literally destructive to their speaker. I'm not sure if that can be eliminated. Anyone?


The apps just incredible! And yes the roll off if there can be eliminated by adding the 3-5db rolloff back with the editor curve, I tried five but 3db (house curve starting around 35hz) was all that needed to my ears to get the sound to my liking. The great thing is this can be done along with any other tweaking one may want to try in mere minutes then uploaded in less than one


----------



## m. zillch

audiofan1 said:


> The apps just incredible! And yes the roll off if there can be eliminated by adding the 3-5db rolloff back with the editor curve, I tried five but 3db (house curve starting around 35hz) was all that needed to my ears to get the sound to my liking. The great thing is this can be done along with any other tweaking one may want to try in mere minutes then uploaded in less than one


 Good to know. For anyone interested in playing around with this super cool "draw the EQ with your finger" equalizer concept, _working in real time so you can hear immediately what it does_, you can do that for free and without owning Audyssey in an app I've been using for a few years called Denon Audio._ It is like crack._

Select manual, tap anywhere on the curve to generate a brand new inflection point, slide it up or down, left or right, and put a new inflection point above of below the one you are working on to make your peak or dip asymmetrical (if you want) meaning the slope or "Q" isn't the same for the left side vs. the right side of the peak/dip you are working on. WOW. No parametric EQ I've ever worked with before allowed _that_!


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Audyssey's biggest problem, IMO, is their stubborn insistence that a 'flat' curve is what is required, when we all know very well that a 'Harman curve' (smooth approx 6dB rolloff from LF to HF) is the curve that most people prefer.


Considering that the EQ technology that Audyssey employs is fully capable of handling an alternate target curve (such as Harman), it seems surprising and unfortunate that they've remained adamant in their refusal to offer any simple options.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Dennis Foley of Acoustic Fields recommends a minimum of 14 ft ceiling height to really good bass performance and it was his influence which made me go that way.


Good advice. This isn't the first time I've heard that, and the principles are sound. Unfortunately, that's a luxury reserved for the lucky few able to do purpose-built rooms, such as yourself. It's hard for the rest of us to do a 14' ceiling, in a basement room, for example.  Which is where a lot of ours in the States wind up. I felt I was fortunate to find a house with a basement room having an 9' ceiling.



> My installers wanted a more conventional ceiling height as it worked out much less expensive but I insisted. The main reason, of course, was that I had convinced myself that the extra height would bring Atmos benefits, and it seems to have worked that way


I'm glad you held your ground, and reaped the rewards. Considering the opportunity presented by what you had to work with, it would have been a real shame not to. I'd also say it lends a unique visual look as well, which enhances the environment quite a bit. Especially with how you designed your lighting.



> I'd love to read of your experiments after you have installed the TM pair, so please be sure to let us know, or even PM me with the info.


Happy to do so.



> My overheads are about 10ft high BTW.


Thanks for the confirmation of my guesstimate.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> Good advice. This isn't the first time I've heard that, and the principles are sound. Unfortunately, that's a luxury reserved for the lucky few able to do purpose-built rooms, such as yourself. It's hard for the rest of us to do a 14' ceiling, in a basement room, for example.  Which is where a lot of ours in the States wind up. I felt I was fortunate to find a house with a basement room having an 9' ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you held your ground, and reaped the rewards. Considering the opportunity presented by what you had to work with, it would have been a real shame not to. I'd also say it lends a unique visual look as well, which enhances the environment quite a bit. Especially with how you designed your lighting.


Yes, the minute I saw the cowshed in its original state I thought "I have to use that ceiling height for my Atmos speakers!". Then I learned about the benefits to the bass and that was the idea set in stone (literally given the construction of the cowshed ). I was very fortunate to find a house with such a perfect outbuilding. And you know, that lighting is *so* cheap! It's just LED strips hidden behind the Artnovion acoustic panels - it then floods upwards and creates a sort of illuminated ceiling. I didn't want to spend much on lighting as it has zero bearing on the enjoyment of the movies, but it shows that a good result can be achieved for peanuts. It's controlled by the Control 4, so it automatically dims when the movie starts.

From this:










To this:


----------



## HarpNinja

I picked up an Onkyo TX-NR787 this past weekend and moved from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 (Denon 2200). I got it set up and ran AccuEq Advanced for MLP. My kids were too loud to run it in multiple spots. I was surprised at how long it took for one spot, in a good way. It seemed fairly robust. 

We then watched "Early Man", which has a pretty solid soundtrack. There were a few scenes, including the Atmos title scene that made the use of my back ceiling speakers. Wow! 

I also felt that the subwoofer hit a litter harder with the Onkyo. At this stage, my only concern with the Onkyo is there doesn't seem to be a leveled Dynamic Volume. I could find a "night" mode, which must be some sort of compression? One last observation was that I find the Onkyo to be quieter. For example, on the 2200, I would watch with the family between -30dB and -25dB. Last night, we were closer to -20dB.

One movie in and I am feeling ok with the switch. I am not sure I will get to watch anything tonight, but I am going to demo Gravity, Mad Max Fury Road, and a few others soon.


----------



## BCRSS

Just finished my front speakers and am now looking at in ceiling speakers for Atmos. I would like to go with the Volt 6's which have a freq. range of ported 65hz-20hz or sealed range of 115hz-20hz. What freq. range do Atmos speakers normally handle? Should I try for the lower tuned or will it not matter?


----------



## sdurani

BCRSS said:


> What freq. range do Atmos speakers normally handle?


Channels and objects in an Atmos soundtrack are full range, just like the channels in non-Atmos tracks. Sounds sent to overhead speakers are no different than sounds sent to any of your other speakers. Frequency range of the overhead speakers depends on what you are willing to hang from the ceiling.


----------



## gene4ht

HarpNinja said:


> My kids were too loud to run it in multiple spots. I was surprised at how long it took for one spot, in a good way. It seemed fairly robust.


AccuEQ only requires one spot...the MLP. You can however experiment with others. Many feel AccuEQ Advanced can hold it's own against other RC systems. RC, in general, is very dependent on room acoustics and personal taste.



HarpNinja said:


> I also felt that the subwoofer hit a litter harder with the Onkyo.


This is one of the areas where Onkyo owners have always known and favored...bass is more powerful and hits harder...competitive AVRs are softer by comparison.



HarpNinja said:


> At this stage, my only concern with the Onkyo is there doesn't seem to be a leveled Dynamic Volume.


 It's called THX Loudness Plus with the Onkyo...set to on.

You may want to post further 787 related questions in the Onkyo threads where you will likely receive abundant responses.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...nr787-has-9-channel-atmos-dts-x-799-msrp.html


----------



## HarpNinja

gene4ht said:


> AccuEQ only requires one spot...the MLP. You can however experiment with others. Many feel AccuEQ Advanced can hold it's own against other RC systems. RC, in general, is very dependent on room acoustics and personal taste.
> 
> 
> This is one of the areas where Onkyo owners have always known and favored...bass is more powerful and hits harder...competitive AVRs are softer by comparison.
> 
> 
> It's called THX Loudness Plus with the Onkyo...set to on.
> 
> You may want to post further 787 related questions in the Onkyo threads where you will likely receive abundant responses.
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...nr787-has-9-channel-atmos-dts-x-799-msrp.html


Thanks!


----------



## HarpNinja

gene4ht said:


> AccuEQ only requires one spot...the MLP. You can however experiment with others. Many feel AccuEQ Advanced can hold it's own against other RC systems. RC, in general, is very dependent on room acoustics and personal taste.
> 
> 
> This is one of the areas where Onkyo owners have always known and favored...bass is more powerful and hits harder...competitive AVRs are softer by comparison.
> 
> 
> It's called THX Loudness Plus with the Onkyo...set to on.
> 
> You may want to post further 787 related questions in the Onkyo threads where you will likely receive abundant responses.
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...nr787-has-9-channel-atmos-dts-x-799-msrp.html



My understanding is the AccuEQ Advance is a first on this receiver? It did ask me if I wanted to re-run for other spots than MLP, just like Audyssey does. I chose no due to time restraints. Just running it at MLP had 8 steps and took around 10 minutes.


----------



## BCRSS

sdurani said:


> Channels and objects in an Atmos soundtrack are full range, just like the channels in non-Atmos tracks. Sounds sent to overhead speakers are no different than sounds sent to any of your other speakers. Frequency range of the overhead speakers depends on what you are willing to hang from the ceiling.


 So I the ported volt 6's would be the better choice, seeing as they would go lower. With the lower tune I would imagine will produce an overall fuller sound to the sound field
I won't be hanging any from the ceiling but in ceiling, so no angles. The dispersion from the Volts from my reading seems pretty good. 
The plan is a 5.1.4 setup, running from a Nad 758v3. Here is what I am looking at in Sketchup. Would any of you consider mounting rear speakers on that back wall for a 7.1.4, or stay with a 5.1.4 as I have laid out?


----------



## usc1995

BCRSS said:


> So I the ported volt 6's would be the better choice, seeing as they would go lower. With the lower tune I would imagine will produce an overall fuller sound to the sound field
> I won't be hanging any from the ceiling but in ceiling, so no angles. The dispersion from the Volts from my reading seems pretty good.
> The plan is a 5.1.4 setup, running from a Nad 758v3. Here is what I am looking at in Sketchup. Would any of you consider mounting rear speakers on that back wall for a 7.1.4, or stay with a 5.1.4 as I have laid out?


Your crossover in the AVR will determine whether you need speakers that can go lower or not as the lower frequencies will still be sent to your subwoofer. In my case I needed Atmos speakers capable of playing down to at least 80 hz as the MCAAC room correction in my Pioneer AVR only sets one global crossover and I wanted to set it at 80 hz. Your AVR may be more competent in this regard and give you the option to set it higher for the Atmos speakers but I do not know. As for your speaker layout, it looks like you cannot move the surround speakers more forward due to an open wall on the right side correct? If you want to keep the surrounds where you have them in the sketchup you posted then I would not bother with rear surrounds. You will not have enough separation from the rear surrounds and the side surrounds to notice much of a difference. My room is only a little bit longer than yours (15.5ft) and I went from a 5.1 to a 5.2.4 to finally adding rear surrounds for a full 7.2.4 setup and the addition of the rear surrounds was the least noticeable upgrade. I could have skipped them and not missed them.


----------



## BCRSS

usc1995 said:


> Your crossover in the AVR will determine whether you need speakers that can go lower or not as the lower frequencies will still be sent to your subwoofer. In my case I needed Atmos speakers capable of playing down to at least 80 hz as the MCAAC room correction in my Pioneer AVR only sets one global crossover and I wanted to set it at 80 hz. Your AVR may be more competent in this regard and give you the option to set it higher for the Atmos speakers but I do not know. As for your speaker layout, it looks like you cannot move the surround speakers more forward due to an open wall on the right side correct? If you want to keep the surrounds where you have them in the sketchup you posted then I would not bother with rear surrounds. You will not have enough separation from the rear surrounds and the side surrounds to notice much of a difference. My room is only a little bit longer than yours (15.5ft) and I went from a 5.1 to a 5.2.4 to finally adding rear surrounds for a full 7.2.4 setup and the addition of the rear surrounds was the least noticeable upgrade. I could have skipped them and not missed them.


Thanks for the reply. It seals in my mind what I had thought all along about the 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 layout. I can not move the sides, so it is what it is and will go with the 5.1.4. 
As far as my understanding in reading about the Nad is that it is capable to set the crossovers for set of speakers in the ceiling for atmos and also the sides. So I am not bound by the 80 on the lfe channel.


----------



## kbarnes701

BCRSS said:


> Just finished my front speakers and am now looking at in ceiling speakers for Atmos. I would like to go with the Volt 6's which have a freq. range of ported 65hz-20hz or sealed range of 115hz-20hz. What freq. range do Atmos speakers normally handle? Should I try for the lower tuned or will it not matter?


65Hz-20Hz is just about there - as Sanjay says, all speakers should be full range. Of course, in the context of a bass-managed system, 'full range' can include the subwoofer when a speaker is crossed over to it. With a low end (no specific dB roll off rater specified?) of a genuine 65Hz you'd theoretically want to cross over at 130Hz (one octave above), which is a bit on the high side. But you might be happy with crossing at 110Hz depending on the capability of your sub.


----------



## BCRSS

kbarnes701 said:


> 65Hz-20Hz is just about there - as Sanjay says, all speakers should be full range. Of course, in the context of a bass-managed system, 'full range' can include the subwoofer when a speaker is crossed over to it. With a low end (no specific dB roll off rater specified?) of a genuine 65Hz you'd theoretically want to cross over at 130Hz (one octave above), which is a bit on the high side. But you might be happy with crossing at 110Hz depending on the capability of your sub.


 I am in a tough spot since I don't have the means for any measurements yet. I am running the DIYsoundgroup 1299's for L/C/R in sealed box, which states a range of 75hz-20hz. My thinking leads me to try and match that range for the rest of my speakers, which my ported Volt 6's do (65hz-20hz). Now for the ceiling speakers I could and have room for any of the volts, with the 10's having the widest range ported at 45hz-20hz. 
Bass at this time are two 18's ported with a tune of 17 and in the process of adding two picowreckers, If that is not enough will look at some mdm's. 


So if in my shoes, which volts to choose? I am leaning toward the 6's, but could be swayed on others.
Thanks
Curt


----------



## kbarnes701

BCRSS said:


> I am in a tough spot since I don't have the means for any measurements yet. I am running the DIYsoundgroup 1299's for L/C/R in sealed box, which states a range of 75hz-20hz. My thinking leads me to try and match that range for the rest of my speakers, which my ported Volt 6's do (65hz-20hz). Now for the ceiling speakers I could and have room for any of the volts, with the 10's having the widest range ported at 45hz-20hz.
> Bass at this time are two 18's ported with a tune of 17 and in the process of adding two picowreckers, If that is not enough will look at some mdm's.
> 
> 
> So if in my shoes, which volts to choose? I am leaning toward the 6's, but could be swayed on others.
> Thanks
> Curt


As it will be much harder to replace in-ceiling speakers than floor level speakers, I'd focus more on the overheads initially since you will only really have one chance to get those right. Personally I'd go for the Volt 10s in the ceiling and you should be set then for no matter what you choose for the floor level set. Then, later, you can upgrade the floor level speakers as and when you feel the need.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Selden Ball said:


> Very strange.
> 
> That used to be the right page (note its name: test-tones), but it looks like they've deleted the Atmos speaker test videos that used to be there.


I hope it is because they confirmed the LFE levels were incorrect in all but one of the files, and perhaps new/improved files are in the works. 

The BD versions did not exhibit those errors, just the online versions.


----------



## m. zillch

Roger Dressler said:


> I hope it is because they confirmed the LFE levels were incorrect in all but one of the files, and perhaps new/improved files are in the works.


Thanks, Roger. Good to know. So I guess we should hold off on using these ones Selden has dug up.
---

If anyone happens to discover the new corrected ones please post links in this thread when you find 'em. Thanks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> Thanks, Roger. Good to know. So I guess we should hold off on using these ones Selden has dug up.


If you ignore the LFE they are still serviceable.


----------



## sdurani

Looks like all three Avengers movies will be released in 4K UHD on August 14th. Good news: Atmos. Bad news: Disney Atmos.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> Looks like all three Avengers movies will be released in 4K UHD on August 14th. Good news: Atmos. Bad news: Disney Atmos.



I am less concerned about the lack of Atmos and more worried about Disney's history of botching the entire audio mix of the movie.


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> I am less concerned about the lack of Atmos and more worried about Disney's history of botching the entire audio mix of the movie.


Hence the "bad news" in my post.


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> Its a shame because I rarely, if ever, go to the movie theater any more, which leaves my first experience being with "Disney" audio.


If it was only pre-rendering, then I'd kinda give them a pass (at least it's 7.1.4 instead of 7.1). But add to that the compressed dynamics and mediocre bass, it makes me wonder what's happening at the House of Mouse. Each one of these movies has a different recording engineer, so I can't fault the people doing the mix. Must be a studio decision.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> If it was only pre-rendering, then I'd kinda give them a pass (at least it's 7.1.4 instead of 7.1). But add to that the compressed dynamics and mediocre bass, it makes me wonder what's happening at the House of Mouse. Each one of these movies has a different recording engineer, so I can't fault the people doing the mix. Must be a studio decision.



You should send me your copy. I don't think mine had any bass - at least yours had mediocre bass  I am with you, the House of Mouse is failing miserably.


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> I am with you, the House of Mouse is failing miserably.


Worst part: they produce some of my favourite content (via Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm). Why couldn't it have been some other studio (ANY other studio). Anyway, enough lamenting. First world problem and all that.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> Worst part: they produce some of my favourite content (via Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm). Why couldn't it have been some other studio (ANY other studio). Anyway, enough lamenting. First world problem and all that.


Indeed....

I was seven when I saw Star Wars in 1977, so my childhood was built around that franchise. I also collect bronze era comics (70s to mid 80s) with Marvel being my favorite publisher Growing up with Star Wars, X-men, Daredevil, Avengers, Black Panther, Iron Man, Spider Man, Fantastic Four etc combined with my love for home theater makes this Disney audio debacle the perfect storm. Yes, I just publicly admitted that I am a ******* comic nerd.


----------



## deano86

Molon_Labe said:


> You should send me your copy. I don't think mine had any bass - at least yours had mediocre bass  I am with you, the House of Mouse is failing miserably.


Yup, all this from the greediest corporation on the face of the earth!..... I swear, Disney makes the Umbrella Corporation look like The Salvation Army!


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> I was seven when I saw Star Wars in 1977, so my childhood was built around that franchise.


Same here (still have a 'Revenge of the Jedi' poster).


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Worst part: they produce some of my favourite content (via Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm). Why couldn't it have been some other studio (ANY other studio). Anyway, enough lamenting. First world problem and all that.


Indeed! I thought _Black Panther_ was wonderful dramatically and looked great too, only to be spoiled in part by a substandard Atmos soundtrack. I don't know who at Disney is responsible for the mess but the miscreant should be fired. This just goes to show than nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of studio suits.


----------



## sdrucker

gwsat said:


> Indeed! I thought _Black Panther_ was wonderful dramatically and looked great too, only to be spoiled in part by a substandard Atmos soundtrack. I don't know who at Disney is responsible for the mess but the miscreant should be fired. This just goes to show than nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of studio suits.


Let's just hope the possible contagion doesn't spread to 21st Century Fox if the merger with Disney goes through....

Seriously, if all three Avengers UHDs say "7.1.4 Dolby Atmos", and/or someone (me?) does the Input meter test and finds that these movies are just as "neutered" as The Last Jedi....well...


----------



## camd5pt0

The issue with Dolby Atmos from Disney, is it because of the 7.1.4 fixed mix that doesn't scale, or the performance?


----------



## easystar

About the crappy Disney mixes, my theory is that it’s a conscious decision on their part to compress the dynamics. Not some sort of technical deficiency. I’m sure everyone on this forum agrees it sucks but to this day, I’m still the only person among my family and friends with more than a 5.1 system. When I visit other people’s houses, they watch movies with remote in hand, turning sound up to hear dialog then turning it down again when the action hits because it’s too harsh and jarring. Usually they are using a sound bar or just their TV speakers. Heck, my sister watches movies on her iPhone. When at my house they are floored with how my basement sounds but it’s not important enough to them to spend the time and money on it. Disney decided to mix for how most people watch movies at home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VideoGrabber

usc1995 said:


> If you want to keep the surrounds where you have them in the sketchup you posted then I would not bother with rear surrounds. You will not have enough separation from the rear surrounds and the side surrounds to notice much of a difference.


I would definitely agree with your assessment, in the situation of 'conventional' rear surround placement. That tends to be fairly wide, to balance things out with sides that are at or close to 90-deg.

However that's not the only way to go. If your sides are *far* back (as they are in Curt's room), you can still make effective use of rear surrounds by pulling them in more tightly towards each other. E.g, I've seen Grimani in some of his custom setups having the RS at only +/-10d off the 180-centerline. That will place those sounds solidly behind you, with plenty of differentiation w.r.t the sides. Thus aiding envelopment (at least when the audio track makes use of it.)

[NB: In such a case the separation between the two RS will be only ~1/3 of the distance from the MLP to the rear wall.]


----------



## VideoGrabber

easystar said:


> About the crappy Disney mixes, my theory is that it’s a conscious decision on their part to compress the dynamics. Not some sort of technical deficiency.


I was just about to say the same thing, and would agree with you. This isn't an accident. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, or lack competence. I'm afraid they're achieving *exactly* the results they have chosen to aim for:

*o pre-rendering to 7.1.4*

Enhances compressibility (stripping dynamic metadata), making for cheap deployment via streaming. (Result = $$$ savings.)

*o compressed dynamics *

More "user friendly" for typical home listeners. (People who are unable to engage a dynamics limiter [e.g. night mode], when it's called for.)

*o mediocre bass*

Most home viewers won't have a system that can take advantage of the real low end, and will never even hear it. However, with it there, it can cause a system to be overworked. It can result in distortion, since the bass frequencies that CAN be played/heard will be riding on top of the stressed cone excursion from the real low bass content.


In other words, they've picked their chosen LCD market (_lowest common denominator_), and have decided to cater to it. My guess is while we're here lamenting the deficiencies, they're high-fiving each other, and patting themselves on the backs for how clever they are.

[And perhaps they are.  Is anyone _even in this crowd_ planning on boycotting Disney BR and UHD discs as a result of this unpleasant turn of events? Or instead, continuing to B&B? (Buy and B!tch.) ]


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If it was only pre-rendering, then I'd kinda give them a pass (at least it's 7.1.4 instead of 7.1). But add to that the compressed dynamics and mediocre bass, it makes me wonder what's happening at the House of Mouse. Each one of these movies has a different recording engineer, so I can't fault the people doing the mix. Must be a studio decision.


Yep - a decision to deliberately neuter the sound on their movies. Weird isn't it? I've stopped buying them mostly. For me the sound and image quality are an integral part of a modern movie so if they are poor it can spoil my enjoyment of the movie itself. I would make an exception for a movie I really, really wanted to see. And I am happy with old or older movies where I know that they did their best within the limitations of the day. But given the truly stellar discs we are seeing these days, there's no excuse for Disney to be producing this schlock.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Indeed! I thought _Black Panther_ was wonderful dramatically and looked great too, only to be spoiled in part by a substandard Atmos soundtrack. I don't know who at Disney is responsible for the mess but the miscreant should be fired. This just goes to show than nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of studio suits.


You know, I passed on *Black Panther*. It's a movie I did want to see but I'm not spending money on a sub-standard product any more. When/if it hits the 5 dollar bins I may get it. But at regular UHD price, no way.


----------



## silver-eye

Ready Player One with Atmos.

Get your sound systems ready! It's a must!


----------



## kbarnes701

easystar said:


> About the crappy Disney mixes, my theory is that it’s a conscious decision on their part to compress the dynamics. Not some sort of technical deficiency. I’m sure everyone on this forum agrees it sucks but to this day, I’m still the only person among my family and friends with more than a 5.1 system. When I visit other people’s houses, they watch movies with remote in hand, turning sound up to hear dialog then turning it down again when the action hits because it’s too harsh and jarring. Usually they are using a sound bar or just their TV speakers. Heck, my sister watches movies on her iPhone. When at my house they are floored with how my basement sounds but it’s not important enough to them to spend the time and money on it. Disney decided to mix for how most people watch movies at home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why though? It's no cheaper to make a poor disc than a good one is it? I assume they have all the hardware tools, and clearly they have tech people who know what they are doing - they are paying their salaries regardless of the type of product they are delivering and they bought the hardware already. So what is the benefit to them of producing a low-grade product? A high quality product will be bought by everyone - a low quality product will alienate some potential buyers. It makes no sense to me.

I'm not referring to the 7.1.4 limitation since this hardly affects anyone and 7.1.4 is still a good product by my definition (although I fundamentally diasagree with crippling Atmos). I'm referring to the lack of dynamics, lack of bass, overall neutering etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> [And perhaps they are.  Is anyone _even in this crowd_ planning on boycotting Disney BR and UHD discs as a result of this unpleasant turn of events?


Yup. I am. UHD discs are very expensive in the UK and I'll be damned if I am paying all that coin for a sub-standard product. I've passed recently on their latest offerings and will continue to do so. I didn't spend tens of thousands of dollars building a HT to feed it crap.


----------



## silver-eye

@kbarnes701


Disney decided not to sell any more UHD discs in Portugal and even with their sub par audio quality it's a big "hit" (they say, its for better serve the portuguese market ?!?!?!).

but hey..

If by any chance you came on vacations to Portugal, bring a laptop and a big HDD. 

As what is commonly know as piracy is not illegal in here (for private citizens and without the intention to share or sell). 

Heck, the portuguese government even tax you for every single "object" that you buy and can be used for storage (cds, blurays, hdd, usb pens, etc) as they assume you will do copies of music CDs or movies (even if you just want to save your photos.. sigh).

This can always give you the option, of downloading the movie, test it, and if you like it, buy it. 

That's what I do.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> You know, I passed on *Black Panther*. It's a movie I did want to see but I'm not spending money on a sub-standard product any more. When/if it hits the 5 dollar bins I may get it. But at regular UHD price, no way.


I am with you on that. I will only buy what I deem to be an A movie and the audio is actually more important to me than the story. Well, I won't suffer through a terrible movie because of good audio, but I would be more inclined to buy the movie to use as a demo scene than I would to buy a movie with a stellar plot and blah audio. For those type movies, I will simply rent them.



kbarnes701 said:


> Yup. I am. UHD discs are very expensive in the UK and I'll be damned if I am paying all that coin for a sub-standard product. I've passed recently on their latest offerings and will continue to do so. *I didn't spend tens of thousands of dollars building a HT to feed it crap*.


Hopefully you take that approach to life too. I quit eating processed food "crap" and have lowered my blood pressure, lost 30 pounds, and feel better than ever. Say no to feeding crap into all the things we value. Way off topic, but somewhat relevant.....lol


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Hopefully you take that approach to life too. I quit eating processed food "crap" and have lowered my blood pressure, lost 30 pounds, and feel better than ever. Say no to feeding crap into all the things we value. Way off topic, but somewhat relevant.....lol


Yes I do. I keep fit with regular sessions in my gym, on my road bike and walking 5 miles every day with my dog. I am the same waist size as I was when I was 21. And I eat healthily and don't drink (alcohol) all that much any more. I figure I have spent so much freakin' money over the years I need to live to be 100 to get true value out of it all


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes I do. I keep fit with regular sessions in my gym, on my road bike and walking 5 miles every day with my dog. I am the same waist size as I was when I was 21. And I eat healthily and don't drink (alcohol) all that much any more. I figure I have spent so much freakin' money over the years I need to live to be 100 to get true value out of it all


If it helps, send me your probate attorney's contact info. I can provide my legal information to him/her to ensure your possessions continue to maximize ROI after your departure. Its the least I can do, and I will cover all expenses for the required arrangements. What more could a friend ask, right? I am here for you buddy!


----------



## smurraybhm

^ Who needs friends when there is AVS?


----------



## howard68

Before I go any further Disney uhd discs I will wait for a rewiew of the sound


----------



## kbarnes701

howard68 said:


> Before I go any further Disney uhd discs I will wait for a rewiew of the sound


That's my plan too. UHD discs are just too expensive to buy if they are inferior.


----------



## gwsat

silver-eye said:


> Ready Player One with Atmos.
> 
> Get your sound systems ready! It's a must!


I got my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos copy of _Ready Player One_ last week and thought it both looked and sounded great. It's Atmos soundtrack has peerless immersion as well as terrific surround effects and LFE. I like the film so much, I have already watched it twice. Any movie nerd will be charmed out of his socks by the many clever references to '80s movies. The riff on _The Shining,_ for example, was inspired.



kbarnes701 said:


> Yes I do. I keep fit with regular sessions in my gym, on my road bike and walking 5 miles every day with my dog. I am the same waist size as I was when I was 21. And I eat healthily and don't drink (alcohol) all that much any more. I figure I have spent so much freakin' money over the years I need to live to be 100 to get true value out of it all


I hear you! I try to take care of myself too. I need to in order to assure that I can keep buying movies and enjoying my system for as long as possible. Because of my no fun doctor, I don't drink very much or very often any more either. The upside is that she says if I continue to take care of myself, I should live into my '90s. I'm not sure the cost of my gear will be fully amortized, even if I last that long.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I hear you! I try to take care of myself too. I need to in order to assure that I can keep buying movies and enjoying my system for as long as possible. Because of my no fun doctor, I don't drink very much or very often any more either. The upside is that she says if I continue to take care of myself, I should live into my '90s. I'm not sure the cost of my gear will be fully amortized, even if I last that long.


 

I figured out that I could go to a commercial cinema every day for about 10 years and still have spent less than it cost me to build my own HT. On that basis, owning the HT makes no sense financially, so it has to be just a convenience thing. I can get stunning PQ and SQ without leaving my home and I also get to chose the movie (BTW, the cost of the discs isn't factored in the above calculation). So for it to make any financial sense whatsoever, I need to live until I am 100 at least  And bear in mind I watch more than 300 movies a year!  

And this doesn't count any future maintenance costs or upgrade costs. So when I finally capitulate to Stu's relentless hard-sell of a Trinnov Altitude, and I install eleventeen more speakers for it to feed, I'll need to extend my lifespan to about 110 I think. And you can add another year for the number of times I've bought the original _Blade Runner_ movie on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray/UHD as well


----------



## sdurani

easystar said:


> When I visit other people’s houses, they watch movies with remote in hand, turning sound up to hear dialog then turning it down again when the action hits because it’s too harsh and jarring. ... Disney decided to mix for how most people watch movies at home.


Yup, no one I know has ever had to ride the volume control when watching a Disney movie, whether using a full blown Atmos set-up or using the speakers built into their TV. Disney knows what they're doing, even if I don't agree with it. Like listening to modern pop music while driving: I can hear every note over the road noise, but I still don't like having all the dynamic range compressed away. I get why it's being done (in both cases).


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I figured out that I could go to a commercial cinema every day for about 10 years and still have spent less than it cost me to build my own HT. On that basis, owning the HT makes no sense financially, so it has to be just a convenience thing. I can get stunning PQ and SQ without leaving my home and I also get to chose the movie (BTW, the cost of the discs isn't factored in the above calculation). So for it to make any financial sense whatsoever, I need to live until I am 100 at least  And bear in mind I watch more than 300 movies a year!
> 
> And this doesn't count any future maintenance costs or upgrade costs. So when I finally capitulate to Stu's relentless hard-sell of a Trinnov Altitude, and I install eleventeen more speakers for it to feed, I'll need to extend my lifespan to about 110 I think. And you can add another year for the number of times I've bought the original _Blade Runner_ movie on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray/UHD as well


Yeah, a High end A/V system makes no economic sense. I really learned that when I bought my _*Kaleidescape system*_. As if the extortionately high price of the Kscape gear weren't enough, the movies are expensive too. No matter, I have become spoiled by UHD HDR video and lossless audio, especially TrueHD Atmos. These days, I hardly ever watch a movie via either streaming or a premium cable channel such as HBO. Streamed UHD HDR video has become remarkably good but its being limited to lossy audio, in most cases not even lossy Atmos, makes it a non starter, for me at least.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yup, no one I know has ever had to ride the volume control when watching a Disney movie, whether using a full blown Atmos set-up or using the speakers built into their TV. Disney knows what they're doing, even if I don't agree with it. Like listening to modern pop music while driving: I can hear every note over the road noise, but I still don't like having all the dynamic range compressed away. I get why it's being done (in both cases).


Dynamic range is one of the great joys though, both of live sound and a good movie soundtrack. Removing it is just crippling the experience. And I never, ever have to touch my MV setting, in *any* movie - it remains steadfast at -5dB. The only time that doesn't apply is these crippled Disney discs where I have to raise the MV by about 3-4dB to make it sound 'normal' - but again I don't have to touch it again for the entire movie.

Obviously this stems from the fact that dynamic range was one of my big priorities for my HT and with super-sensitive speakers, huge gobs of amp power and a very low noise floor, I can hear the quietest whisper, the loudest explosion and everything in between just as the content creators intended.

Where I would take issue with Disney is that they are corrupting that intention of the content creators and effectively making a 'new' (and inferior) version of their product for a market they have decided they want to focus on. They are taking the carefully crafted product of the Mixer and destroying his intent. To me that is no different to a studio deciding that, since most people watch movies on a television, they might as well crop the aspect ratio to fully fit a 16:9 format screen. Would people find that acceptable? I am sure they wouldn't, and, to me, butchering the picture is no different to butchering the sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Yeah, a High end A/V system makes no economic sense. I really learned that when I bought my _*Kaleidescape system*_. As if the extortionately high price of the Kscape gear weren't enough, the movies are expensive too. No matter, I have become spoiled by UHD HDR video and lossless audio, especially TrueHD Atmos. These days, I hardly ever watch a movie via either streaming or a premium cable channel such as HBO. Streamed UHD HDR video has become remarkably good but its being limited to lossy audio, in most cases not even lossy Atmos, makes it a non starter, for me at least.


I've never streamed any movie (except occasionally to my television). The quality just doesn't stand up IMO. I;d love the Kaleidescape but the eye-watering cost put me off


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> I figured out that I could go to a commercial cinema every day for about 10 years and still have spent less than it cost me to build my own HT. On that basis, owning the HT makes no sense financially, so it has to be just a convenience thing.



The cost of my theater was worth not having to deal with inconsiderate #@#$% who cannot be without their facebook, twitter, text, youtube, etc for 2 hours and are incessantly lighting up their #@#[email protected] phones. Throw in the occasional child who won't sit still or crys, $15 dollar popcorn, $8 sodas, seats that God only knows who or what has been in or on it, subpar audio, etc etc. I don't miss the theater at all. I would rather take the financial loss than deal with the aforementioned issues.


----------



## gwsat

Molon_Labe said:


> The cost of my theater was worth not having to deal with inconsiderate #@#$% who cannot be without their facebook, twitter, text, youtube, etc for 2 hours and are incessantly lighting up their #@#[email protected] phones. Throw in the occasional child who won't sit still or crys, $15 dollar popcorn, $8 sodas, seats that God only knows who or what has been in or on it, subpar audio, etc etc. I don't miss the theater at all. I would rather take the financial loss than deal with the aforementioned issues.


I agree that inconsiderate people in a movie theater are a trial. Let me say a word in favor of the theater experience, though. These days, I have been bothered far less by people insisting on using their mobile phones during a movie than used to be the case. Most people seem to have figured out that such conduct is out of line. Thus, the chances are pretty good that I won't be bothered by such stuff when I go to the theater.

What I like about going to the theater is that there is simply no substitute for sitting in a darkened theater with other viewers and watching a film on a huge screen with a beefy commercial audio system, including startling surround effects and bone rattling LFE. It's fun stuff! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing and hearing films in my home theater but the theatergoing experience is something I love and don't want to give up, even if I do have a wonderful substitute at home.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I never, ever have to touch my MV setting, in *any* movie - it remains steadfast at -5dB. The only time that doesn't apply is these crippled Disney discs where I have to raise the MV by about 3-4dB to make it sound 'normal' - but again I don't have to touch it again for the entire movie.


That's really awesome for you. My experience matches what easystar posted.


> Would people find that acceptable?


They have for decades (still rare to see letterboxed or pillarboxed movies on TV).


----------



## Molon_Labe

gwsat said:


> I agree that inconsiderate people in a movie theater are a trial. Let me say a word in favor of the theater experience, though. These days, I have been bothered far less by people insisting on using their mobile phones during a movie than used to be the case. Most people seem to have figured out that such conduct is out of line. Thus, the chances are pretty good that I won't be bothered by such stuff when I go to the theater.
> 
> What I like about going to the theater is that there is simply no substitute for sitting in a darkened theater with other viewers and watching a film on a huge screen with a beefy commercial audio system, including startling surround effects and bone rattling LFE. It's fun stuff! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing and hearing films in my home theater but the theatergoing experience is something I love and don't want to give up, even if I do have a wonderful substitute at home.


I have been to newest theaters in San Antonio and have found nothing that presents bone rattling LFE. However, I am running (2) 24" DSS subs with 4000w amps and (2) dual 18 DIY subs powered by 6000w. This is all over a garage on a suspended wood floor. Not trying to "toot my own horn", but it would take massive amounts of power and subs to duplicate the same results in commercial theater built on a concrete slab. It is for this reason and others, I prefer the home theater above the commercial cinema. My only negative is having to wait until home release and trying to avoid spoilers posted in forums or on web reviews. I don't watch a lot of movies anymore, but I try to take in maybe one or two a month. Hollywood hasn't overly impressed me as of late on their content.


----------



## Legairre

gwsat said:


> What I like about going to the theater is that there is simply no substitute for sitting in a darkened theater with other viewers and watching a film on a huge screen with a beefy commercial audio system, including startling surround effects and bone rattling LFE. It's fun stuff! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing and hearing films in my home theater but the theatergoing experience is something I love and don't want to give up, even if I do have a wonderful substitute at home.


You just described my HT.


----------



## m. zillch

easystar said:


> About the crappy Disney mixes, my theory is that it’s a conscious decision on their part to compress the dynamics. Not some sort of technical deficiency.


Agreed. If you're of the mind your target audience is largely kids watching the movie on tablets, in a car/train/plane, a movie with dynamic content and with deep bass is nothing but _unfriendly_ to the hostile environment.

Could be Disney has decided to make the movies easy to play for the masses at the expense of good sound quality for us hobbyists.


----------



## AndreNewman

easystar said:


> About the crappy Disney mixes, my theory is that it’s a conscious decision on their part to compress the dynamics. Not some sort of technical deficiency. I’m sure everyone on this forum agrees it sucks but to this day, I’m still the only person among my family and friends with more than a 5.1 system. When I visit other people’s houses, they watch movies with remote in hand, turning sound up to hear dialog then turning it down again when the action hits because it’s too harsh and jarring. Usually they are using a sound bar or just their TV speakers. Heck, my sister watches movies on her iPhone. When at my house they are floored with how my basement sounds but it’s not important enough to them to spend the time and money on it. Disney decided to mix for how most people watch movies at home.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I’m all in favour of having a TV style mix, provided it’s an additional soundtrack. I was pleasantly surprised to see a soundtrack (on Valerian UHD I think) that was labelled as suitable for tv speakers or night viewing. It’s far better to have a properly mixed low dynamic range mix than rely on an av amp to do it, assuming those who need it even know what it is or how to use it!

By all means make the tv track the default even but put a proper track on there for those of us who want it and know how to use it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> The cost of my theater was worth not having to deal with inconsiderate #@#$% who cannot be without their facebook, twitter, text, youtube, etc for 2 hours and are incessantly lighting up their #@#[email protected] phones. Throw in the occasional child who won't sit still or crys, $15 dollar popcorn, $8 sodas, seats that God only knows who or what has been in or on it, subpar audio, etc etc. I don't miss the theater at all. I would rather take the financial loss than deal with the aforementioned issues.


I occasionally go to a commercial cinema but I always go to the first showing of the day, usually about 10.30. I've never had more than half a dozen people in the theater with me. Last time I went I had the entire, brand new Atmos cinema to myself! Kids don't like getting up early


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> That's really awesome for you. My experience matches what easystar posted.


Sure. Two different perspectives.




sdurani said:


> They have for decades (still rare to see letterboxed or pillarboxed movies on TV).


??? We are at cross-purposes. I mean *on the discs* themselves. Taking a movie shot in 2.39:1 and changing the AR to 16:9 would be, to me, no different to neutering the dynamic range. No studios deliberately cripple the aspect ratio on their discs, even though they know that mostly the disc will be replayed via a 16:9 format TV. Yet Disney, so it is alleged, deliberately cripple the dynamic range of their discs simply because they know they will be replayed via a television without real speakers. The parallel is obvious - they don't do it to the image yet they do do it to the sound - the common denominator is that the movies will, mostly, be watched via a television. So why cripple half the experience and not the other, if the fact that the movies are usually watched on televisions is the reason they cripple the audio? Why not butcher the aspect ratio while they're at butchering the audio?


----------



## Josh Z

What confuses me is that, when the Age of Ultron Blu-ray came out, data-bass.com rated it 5 stars for dynamics and measured extension to a respectable (if not amazing) 18 Hz.

http://data-bass.ipbhost.com/topic/473-avengers-age-of-ultron-discussion-and-poll-closed/

This is in stark contrast to what many of us heard when actually watching the movie, which seemed to have little to no bass at all in my home theater. 

What can account for this difference?


----------



## m. zillch

Josh Z said:


> What can account for this difference?


Maybe their data collection methodology is flawed/simplistic.


----------



## sdrucker

AndreNewman said:


> I’m all in favour of having a TV style mix, provided it’s an additional soundtrack. I was pleasantly surprised to see a soundtrack (on Valerian UHD I think) that was labelled as suitable for tv speakers or night viewing. It’s far better to have a properly mixed low dynamic range mix than rely on an av amp to do it, assuming those who need it even know what it is or how to use it!
> 
> By all means make the tv track the default even but put a proper track on there for those of us who want it and know how to use it.


Agreed. While I can understand a studio making a decision to have a mix that has a specific dynamic range and use of low frequencies that matches some average consumer profile that their marketing research suggests satisfies some common denominator, why not simply have two mixes on the disc and call it a day? Just call it "7.1.4 Dolby Atmos" and "Extreme Atmos" or something. Or maybe there's some licensing thing with Dolby that only allows one Atmos track for a specific film. 

That's why I really wonder if there's some "Atmos Platinum" or "Atmos Ultimate Edition" on reserve, where the more immersive, wider dynamic range mix is sitting waiting to get pulled on yet another release in the future. That's what I'd do as a marketer - creating product tiers to generate added value out of thin air is low-hanging fruit these days. 

On a different note, we watched Sony's Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle last night, and I'm pleased to report that it gets a clean bill of immersive health, with tons of dynamic range with the bass (e.g. rhino stampede) when they get into the fantasy/jungle world, and Atmos working as promised, scaling to the layout rather than some fixed 7.1.4, 7.1.6, or 9.1.6 "print". 

While the mix makes heavier use of the front and rear heights than, say, the top middles (where it seems you're getting more ambience except for more over the top action form, say, a helicopter pan) on the parts of the movie I checked on the meters, the wides and front surrounds are pulled in for special effects fairly consistently, as well as quick passthroughs of my screen centers which occasionally stand out vs. my 7.1.4 preset baseline. This is definitely no Disney mix.

Oh, and the movie was fun too, especially the Jack Black character's lifestyle change. LOL


----------



## sdrucker

m. zillch said:


> Agreed. If you're of the mind your target audience is largely kids watching the movie on tablets, in a car/train/plane, a movie with dynamic content and with deep bass is nothing but _unfriendly_ to the hostile environment.
> 
> Could be Disney has decided to make the movies easy to play for the masses at the expense of good sound quality for us hobbyists.


Less "easy to play" as what they think the target audience is expecting to hear.

Put another way, if you're used to crappy MP3s and dance music with the dynamic range shot to hell so the electronic bass is always boomy and the audio always sounds like it's being played in a club, the real thing sounds strange.

In its way it's no different than how some mixers put subsonic effects in LFE that aren't necessarily heard in the real world (e.g. how deep an explosion goes), but it's what folks with subwoofers think they're going to hear. Just the less A/V enthusiast friendly side coming to bite us this time with regard to Disney.

True story not related to A/V: we know a woman with an Italian pastry shop that sold hand-made pastries made from dough, butter, nuts, spices etc. largely imported directly from Sicily. When she switched to dough that had imported butter and no preservatives, to appeal to a vocal natural foods segment of her customers, she had to raise her prices about 60%, and her business tanked. 

Turned out that she found that most of her customers had a specific taste in mind that came from the way that commercial dough products in the food industry made with oil and preservatives tasted. Hence they thought the cheaper inferior product was "good", and the one made from scratch using more expensive, but authentic ingredients was "bad". Go figure.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The parallel is obvious - they don't do it to the image yet they do do it to the sound - the common denominator is that the movies will, mostly, be watched via a television. So why cripple half the experience and not the other, if the fact that the movies are usually watched on televisions is the reason they cripple the audio? Why not butcher the aspect ratio while they're at butchering the audio?


Imagine you stepped outside your home and looked up. It was obvious that the sun wasn't shining brightly today. So it didn't make sense why everyone was wearing sunglasses. You find yourself with a choice: you could revise your premise or continue to wonder why the situation doesn't make sense. 

A modern television is capable of displaying the full HD or UHD contents of the disc but its speaker (or attached soundbar) is not capable reproducing the full fidelity of the soundtrack on the disc. IF those things were equal, then it wouldn't make sense for a studio to leave the full dynamic range of one (even enhance it with HDR) while compressing the dynamic range of the other. The parallel is obvious...to you. So, you can either revise your premise (which will then allow for one possible explanation of why Disney doesn't consider video and audio equally sacred) or you can continue to wonder why it doesn't make sense.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> A modern television is capable of displaying the full HD or UHD contents of the disc but its speaker (or attached soundbar) is not capable reproducing the full fidelity of the soundtrack on the disc. IF those things were equal, then it wouldn't make sense for a studio to leave the full dynamic range of one (even enhance it with HDR) while compressing the dynamic range of the other. The parallel is obvious...to you. So, you can either revise your premise (which will then allow for one possible explanation of why Disney doesn't consider video and audio equally sacred) or you can continue to wonder why it doesn't make sense.


That would make sense if I was talking about resolution or HDR. But I am talking about aspect ratio. 

So Disney are saying to themselves:

_"We must cater for the fact that most people watch these movies on televisions, which have crappy little speakers and are in 16:9 ratio. I know - we will butcher the audio to cater for the TV, but we won't touch the aspect ratio at all, even though, for 80%+ of movies, the movie won't display to the full screen format of the television."_

Doesn't make sense.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am talking about aspect ratio. ... Doesn't make sense.


Changing the aspect ratio of the image means that you either add content (open matte) or discarding content (pan & scan). For your analogy to work, Disney would have to be adding or discarding content from the soundtrack. When remixing non-Atmos titles, like the original Avengers movie, are they adding content? When reducing dynamic range, are they discarding content? This is why I stuck to the same thing (dynamic range) in my analogy. 

If video & audio being equal is your subjective view, then Disney simply doesn't share your view and therefore prioritizes video & audio differently. However, if you're going to start from the premise that video & audio are objectively equal when it comes to home video, then what Disney is doing won't make sense (for the sole reason of inconsistency). Still comes down to your choice (the premise you start from) whether this makes sense or not.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> When reducing dynamic range, are they discarding content?


Well, they're removing bass.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Changing the aspect ratio of the image means that you either add content (open matte) or discarding content (pan & scan). For your analogy to work, Disney would have to be adding or discarding content from the soundtrack. When remixing non-Atmos titles, like the original Avengers movie, are they adding content? When reducing dynamic range, are they discarding content? This is why I stuck to the same thing (dynamic range) in my analogy.


That is what you are discussing but it isn't what I am discussing.



sdurani said:


> If video & audio being equal is your subjective view, then Disney simply doesn't share your view and therefore prioritizes video & audio differently. However, if you're going to start from the premise that video & audio are objectively equal when it comes to home video, then what Disney is doing won't make sense (for the sole reason of inconsistency). Still comes down to your choice (the premise you start from) whether this makes sense or not.


The point is that Disney have, so it is alleged, decided to deviate from the content creators' intent with regard to audio on the basis that most people watch the movies on televisions. So they have decided to alter the audio from the original so it is a 'better fit' with a television.

However, despite the fact that 99.9% of televisions are 16:9 format nowadays, Disney have not, so it seems, decided to alter the video from the content creators' intent in order to make it a better fit with a television.

If their objective was to deliver a product which was a better fit with a television (on which most people view the content) then it would make total sense for them to change the audio to cater for the television's speakers and at the same time change the aspect ratio to cater for the television's screen.

That they do not do this, with the image, which is usually regarded as the more important of audio vs image for movies (although not by most of us in this thread I suspect) makes the hypothesis that they are working on the basis of altering the content to conform better to the majority viewing platform, a television, unlikely in my opinion. If they were so concerned that the experience is optimised for television sets, they would change the audio and also the aspect ratio. It is very easy to change the AR (a simple zoom will do) from 2.39:1 to 1.85:1/16:9, so there is no reason for them not to do it.

Thus my conclusion is that they are not driven by a desire to optimise the viewing experience for televisions.

Of course, what their motivation is, we do not know. So my speculation is as valid as anyone else's speculation. Nobody has to change their view to fit in with mine, any more than I have to change my view to fit in with theirs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Well, they're removing bass.


Indeed they are. Sanjay is ignoring the fact that they ARE losing content when they chop of the bottom octave. I could also argue that they are losing content when they neuter the dynamic range, but that is more difficult to argue, I grant. 

Either way, the issue of 'losing content' isn't actually the one under discussion anyway. 

I was simply trying to show that if optimising the experience for televisions was the driving factor, they would surely change the AR. After all, very little is more infuriating to those who watch Scope movies on 16:9 screens than the 'black bars'. There are entire threads devoted to it! So in fact, if this was Disney's motivation, they would, one would suspect, change the AR from the get-go, since it irritates most of the TV-viewing audience. But they don't. They have, so we are asked to consider, changed just the _audio _to optimise the TV experience, but decided to leave the 'irritating' black bars in situ. 

It doesn't make sense and switching to a discussion about HDR, resolution, losing content etc etc is not germane to the central tenet of the discussion which is to do with Disney's alleged motivation to optimise the movie experience for televisions. But only the audio. 

Changing the content from the content creators' intent is butchery, whether it's the audio or the aspect ratio (the latter being a fundamental creative decision of the Director).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If video & audio being equal is your subjective view,


Apologies for the second bite at this, but I missed that comment in my original go-round.

It isn't anything to do with my subjective view of whether video and audio are equal. It is about deviation from the intent of those who created the content (and why). Disney have decided to change the audio. They have decided not to change the aspect ratio, even though 'black bars' are red rag to a bull for most people who watch movies on 16:9 televisions. If Disney was making these changes in order to improve the experience for television viewers (removing the need for them to ride the volume control) then the other half of their equation is to remove the irritation of black bars. That they don't do this must at least give pause for thought as to their motivation for butchering the audio. To coin your own phrase, it only makes sense if you start from your premise (that Disney is doing this deliberately because most watching is on TVs with very poor dynamic range capabilities).


----------



## Molon_Labe

m. zillch said:


> Could be Disney has decided to make the movies easy to play for the masses at the expense of good sound quality for us hobbyists.


Kinda like Best Buy dropping CDs. The masses want 5,000 lower quality songs on their phone, laptop, etc verses a small collection of high fidelity songs.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I occasionally go to a commercial cinema but I always go to the first showing of the day, usually about 10.30. I've never had more than half a dozen people in the theater with me. Last time I went I had the entire, brand new Atmos cinema to myself! Kids don't like getting up early


You make a good point. I only go to movie matinees, which often start before noon. The showings I see are hardly ever very crowded. I am sure if I attended evening showings the crowds would be bigger, so there would certainly be an increased chance that somebody in the theater would behave discourteously.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Well, they're removing bass.


Reducing level is not the same as discarding content. Otherwise, every time you lowered the volume level you would be throwing away part of the soundtrack.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> To coin your own phrase, it only makes sense if you start from your premise (that Disney is doing this deliberately because most watching is on TVs with very poor dynamic range capabilities).


Agreed, I'm starting from the premise that Disney is doing this deliberately. They're tailoring some aspects (dynamics, bass) of their soundtracks to the lowest common denominator (aka widest possible viewership) while dangling other features (Atmos, HDR) as incentives to get 4K UHD discs. Why I would start from a premise that guaranteed things didn't makes sense?


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> Kinda like Best Buy dropping CDs. The masses want 5,000 lower quality songs on their phone, laptop, etc verses a small collection of high fidelity songs.


Exactly. You don't have to agree with their decision to understand why they're doing it.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Doesn't make sense.


Actually there is a big difference. Keep in mind their perspective is "What move will give us the _fewest_ complaint phone calls?"

Putting black bars on a TV screen, above and below a 2.35 movie so as to show the entire, OAR generates tons of calls: "What's with the black areas, CSR? I want my entire TV screen, I paid good money for, filled. . . What's that? No I don't know what an 'as pecked radio' is, I just want _all_ of my TV to work!"

Whereas if you compress the dynamic range or limit the bass there isn't an indicator that anything has been altered so for all you know what you are experiencing is exactly as it was in the commercial theater.


----------



## tcartwright

I'm looking for a little guidance.

I am under a tight schedule to find a new townhouse and haven't had much luck finding one in my area with a decent basement. Yesterday I found a unit I might be happy with (great deal/space), but I am trying to figure out if the second story loft would be a good choice to set up my TV and sound system.

The area is 10' x 9.5' with a 7' ceiling, with drywall to the front and front-half right. Most of the rest is open to below with wooded railing. My concerns are the height of the ceiling for Atmos (I am currently using NHT Atmos Mini add-ons but am planning to eventually go to ceiling speakers), the openness to below, and that perhaps the area is too tight.

I have included the loft floor-plan with a rough sketch of the system placement that I am considering. Remember that to begin with, I will still be using the Atmos Mini add-ons. This is assuming that I have the ability to include pics.

Please let me know if there is something else obvious that I don't know, like perhaps the effects of a sub-woofer in an unbounded area. Thanks!

My system:
TV: LG OLED 65E6P
AVR: Denon S710W (5.1.2)
LCR: NHT Model II & NHT SuperCenter
Surrounds: NHT 1.5
Sub: NHT SW10 (mk1)
Dolby: NHT Atmos Mini (for now)


----------



## imureh

gene4ht said:


> AccuEQ only requires one spot...the MLP. You can however experiment with others. Many feel AccuEQ Advanced can hold it's own against other RC systems.


 @Molon_Labe says accueq is now as good as Dirac. Perhaps this feeling is about an older version?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> You make a good point. I only go to movie matinees, which often start before noon. The showings I see are hardly ever very crowded. I am sure if I attended evening showings the crowds would be bigger, so there would certainly be an increased chance that somebody in the theater would behave discourteously.


I also love the idea of having an almost brand-new 4K, Atmos-enabled, million-dollar-plus cinema just for me and me alone  It's like being in the ultimate HT 

I saw _Blade Runner 2049_ like that - the showing was at about 10.30 and it was a Monday morning. There was just me. My next venture into a commercial cinema will be for the new Mission Impossible movie. I like to go now and then so that I have a reference point for my own home theater. This new(ish) Amos cinema I use is a very good example of a modern commercial theater and is very well set up for both audio and video.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Reducing level is not the same as discarding content. Otherwise, every time you lowered the volume level you would be throwing away part of the soundtrack.


Not having any content below 30Hz is discarding content. I haven't measured the bass (obviously! ) but that is what it felt like here. My mains can go down almost to that so it felt as if the subs weren't even turned on in a way.

But only you is discussing losing content. I'm discussing this so-called 'optimisation of audio for television delivery' and if that is why they are doing it (which it might be), why it makes no sense to not 'optimise' the video for television at the same time.

Disney clearly have scant regard for honoring the Director's intent, so why not also dishonor the Director by butchering the aspect ratio to suit television delivery as well? If you don't care about things like trying to get as close to the Director's intent as possible, why be selective? getting rid of the black barts would be welcomed by millions of people who watch movies on televisions and who don't GAF about p[roper aspect ratios etc. C'mon Disney - let's hear it for the masses - butcher the movie so it sounds _and _looks great on a television!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Agreed, I'm starting from the premise that Disney is doing this deliberately. They're tailoring some aspects (dynamics, bass) of their soundtracks to the lowest common denominator (aka widest possible viewership) while dangling other features (Atmos, HDR) as incentives to get 4K UHD discs. Why I would start from a premise that guaranteed things didn't makes sense?


Black bars bother television movie watchers as much as anything else judging by the endless comments about them and why they can;t be removed etc. People complain that they have paid for a big TV and they are 'not using' 25% of the screen when they watch most Blu-ray movies. If catering for the needs of the TV audience was so important to Disney, and if butchering the Director's intent isn't on their radar (as it clearly isn't), then they would start by getting rid of the No 1 bugbear for those who watch movies on televisions - the black bars. As they haven't, this makes me wonder how important it is for Disney that they 'optimise' for televisions.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Actually there is a big difference. Keep in mind their perspective is "What move will give us the _fewest_ complaint phone calls?"
> 
> Putting black bars on a TV screen, above and below a 2.35 movie so as to show the entire, OAR generates tons of calls: "What's with the black areas, CSR? I want my entire TV screen, I paid good money for, filled. . . What's that? No I don't know what an 'as pecked radio' is, I just want _all_ of my TV to work!"
> 
> Whereas if you compress the dynamic range or limit the bass there isn't an indicator that anything has been altered so for all you know what you are experiencing is exactly as it was in the commercial theater.


I think you are making my point for me. Getting rid of the black bars would stop all those complaints. On a 16:9 television there's only one reason _not _to get rid of the black bars and that is respecting the Director's intent and showing the movie as s/he intended, in its OAR. Once you have taken the decision that respecting the Director's intent is no longer important (eg by butchering the audio) then you may as well kill all the complaints and fill the darn screen with pixels - just as the (television using) customer base is clamoring for.

I don't know why Disney do what they do, and nor does anyone else unless they have 'inside' information, but butchering only the audio while failing to address the No 1 complaint (black bars) makes no sense to me,* if* 'optimising for televisions' is the motivation.


----------



## kbarnes701

tcartwright said:


> I'm looking for a little guidance.
> 
> I am under a tight schedule to find a new townhouse and haven't had much luck finding one in my area with a decent basement. Yesterday I found a unit I might be happy with (great deal/space), but I am trying to figure out if the second story loft would be a good choice to set up my TV and sound system.
> 
> The area is 10' x 9.5' with a 7' ceiling, with drywall to the front and front-half right. Most of the rest is open to below with wooded railing. My concerns are the height of the ceiling for Atmos (I am currently using NHT Atmos Mini add-ons but am planning to eventually go to ceiling speakers), the openness to below, and that perhaps the area is too tight.
> 
> I have included the loft floor-plan with a rough sketch of the system placement that I am considering. Remember that to begin with, I will still be using the Atmos Mini add-ons. This is assuming that I have the ability to include pics.
> 
> Please let me know if there is something else obvious that I don't know, like perhaps the effects of a sub-woofer in an unbounded area. Thanks!
> 
> My system:
> TV: LG OLED 65E6P
> AVR: Denon S710W (5.1.2)
> LCR: NHT Model II & NHT SuperCenter
> Surrounds: NHT 1.5
> Sub: NHT SW10 (mk1)
> Dolby: NHT Atmos Mini (for now)


I used to have what I called 'The Hobbit Theater' - it was more or less the same size as your proposed space, but it was enclosed and it had 8.4ft high ceiling. The space itself isn't an insurmountable problem. I had a 96 inch PJ screen, PJ, 7.1.4 Atmos system and TWO huge Seaton Submersive subs in my room. Video and audio was superb and the small space engenders a great feeling of intimacy and immersion and involvement.

Your ceiling height is a bit low but I wouldn't let it put me off Atmos. You might consider the Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers or modules which may work better with the lower ceiling, since the 'bounce' gives a more 'diffuse' effect than physical speakers and seems to open up the space more.

If you can position the sub to be close to MLP then the open aspect of the room may not be too much of an issue. If you sit 'near field' to the sub you will hear more of the sub and less of the room anyway.

It isn't an ideal space - but few people have an ideal space anyway and most get a good result if they work at it and plan well. If this is your only option I would say 'go for it'. There are numerous people on AVS with experience of small rooms, and the majority of them will be more than happy to give guidance, in my experience.


----------



## Selden Ball

tcartwright said:


> I'm looking for a little guidance.
> 
> I am under a tight schedule to find a new townhouse and haven't had much luck finding one in my area with a decent basement. Yesterday I found a unit I might be happy with (great deal/space), but I am trying to figure out if the second story loft would be a good choice to set up my TV and sound system.


A (perhaps not so) minor point: I suspect your definition of "townhouse" might be non-standard. The townhouse designs that I'm aware of share their side walls with the adjacent buildings. Having a full-blown HT in an upper floor probably would not be acceptable to the neighbors and would generate complaints about all the booms from the bass frequencies.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> A (perhaps not so) minor point: I suspect your definition of "townhouse" might be non-standard. The townhouse designs that I'm aware of share their side walls with the adjacent buildings. Having a full-blown HT in an upper floor probably would not be acceptable to the neighbors and would generate complaints about all the booms from the bass frequencies.


Good point. I was going to mention the open plan aspect as being liable to disturb the rest of the occupants of the house (eg sleeping people etc) but forgot to do so. But if anything, neighbors are an even bigger potential problem. I spent about 30% of the total cost of the build of my HT on sound containment, precisely for this reason. And I only have two neighbors, and both are a fair distance away. But I didn't want to take the chance. Imagine spending a fortune on a HT and then finding you can't use it to its full potential because you are upsetting the neighbors.


----------



## gene4ht

Selden Ball said:


> A (perhaps not so) minor point: I suspect your definition of "townhouse" might be non-standard. The townhouse designs that I'm aware of share their side walls with the adjacent buildings. Having a full-blown HT in an upper floor probably would not be acceptable to the neighbors and would generate complaints about all the booms from the bass frequencies.


+1 

Many "townhouses" in the U.S. have adjacent neighbors with a shared common wall(s).


----------



## Ruppgu

I have some upfiring atmos speakers and through playing some demos recently I have decided my front dolby speakers sound a bit better if they are a few inches higher. They currently reside on top of my towers which are only a few inches above ear level. The sound appears to come from higher if I elevate them 4-6" with a book. 

Is there a ready-made solution for elevating the add-on atmos upfiring speakers? I really just need a black wood slab of the right size (they are elac A4's so around 8" x 8"). I could make them myself at a hardware store but the sound is very slightly better and I'm not feeling that is worth my effort.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't measured the bass (obviously! ) but that is what it felt like here.


Do you likewise feel that there was more bass in the theatrical versions of these mixes? If so, you can then use your subjective feelings as objective proof that content was indeed discarded (since you haven't measured the bass in the theatrical version vs the bass in the disc version to find out whether they're the same or not).


> Disney clearly have scant regard for honoring the Director's intent, so why not also dishonor the Director by butchering the aspect ratio to suit television delivery as well? If you don't care about things like trying to get as close to the Director's intent as possible, why be selective?


Because they aren't absolutist. They're not limited by an all-or-nothing mindset. This allows them to do inconsistent things like simultaneously have compressed dynamic range for audio while having really wide dynamic range (Dolby Vision) for video. These things are possible when you're not trapped in a binary choice of honoring absolutely 100% of director's intent vs honoring absolutely 0% of directors intent. And that's what Disney has done: found a gray area between those absolutes.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If catering for the needs of the TV audience was so important to Disney, and if butchering the Director's intent isn't on their radar (as it clearly isn't), then they would start by getting rid of the No 1 bugbear for those who watch movies on televisions - the black bars. As they haven't, this makes me wonder how important it is for Disney that they 'optimise' for televisions.


Optimize for television screens or speakers? TV screens are capable of matching (even surpassing) what we see in theatres. TV speakers can't come close. Optimizing for television means doing opposite things for video and audio.


----------



## Josh Z

I think what we can all agree on is that what Disney is doing is stupid and we hate it.


----------



## ereed

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. I was going to mention the open plan aspect as being liable to disturb the rest of the occupants of the house (eg sleeping people etc) but forgot to do so. But if anything, neighbors are an even bigger potential problem. I spent about 30% of the total cost of the build of my HT on sound containment, precisely for this reason. And I only have two neighbors, and both are a fair distance away. But I didn't want to take the chance. Imagine spending a fortune on a HT and then finding you can't use it to its full potential because you are upsetting the neighbors.





gene4ht said:


> +1
> 
> Many "townhouses" in the U.S. have adjacent neighbors with a shared common wall(s).


I also live in a townhouse and have 3 subs. I listen to about 10db below reference. I'm sure my neighbors can hear my system but I only watch a movie once a week or once every few weeks on a weekend before its late. I've only had one neighbor complaint before adding multiple subs....which I guess solved my bass issue. LOL 

Point I'm making is....don't let townhome keep you from enjoying theater experience, but also keep in mind the days/times/loudness and how often you play the system. Also maybe play it when neighbors are not home/at work, etc to listen to reference levels. Maybe invite a neighbor to a movie one night if they are into movies to keep each other happy. Also check the noise regulations for your city/state in case you get a complaint.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Do you likewise feel that there was more bass in the theatrical versions of these mixes? If so, you can then use your subjective feelings as objective proof that content was indeed discarded (since you haven't measured the bass in the theatrical version vs the bass in the disc version to find out whether they're the same or not).


I don't need to measure it to know it is lacking. Measuring it would tell me by how much it is lacking, but isn't required simply to know it is lacking. When my subwoofers barely move, the bass in the content is lacking.

You may be right that there was little bass in the theatrical version, but it seems strange that it is only the Disney movies which have brought about this feeling. You too have commented about "lack of bass" in recent Disney output.



sdurani said:


> Because they aren't absolutist. They're not limited by an all-or-nothing mindset. This allows them to do inconsistent things like simultaneously have compressed dynamic range for audio while having really wide dynamic range (Dolby Vision) for video. These things are possible when you're not trapped in a binary choice of honoring absolutely 100% of director's intent vs honoring absolutely 0% of directors intent. And that's what Disney has done: found a gray area between those absolutes.


Until someone from Disney comes out and says _"we have butchered the audio in order to make our movies more suitable for those who watch them on televisions"_, nobody really knows why Disney are doing this. You may be right - they have bizarrely decided that there is no need to offer a product accurate to the Director's intent wrt to audio, while at the same time ignoring the huge outcry against 'black bars' so that they can honor the Director's intent wrt to video. They may be bipolar or schiz, or just plain stupid. Who knows?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Optimize for television screens or speakers? TV screens are capable of matching (even surpassing) what we see in theatres. TV speakers can't come close. Optimizing for television means doing opposite things for video and audio.


You keep on bringing HDR and WCG etc into it. I am discussing aspect ratio. TV screens (16:9) do *not *"match what we see in theaters" for at least 80% of contemporary movies. In theaters, movies are presented in the correct aspect ratios.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I think what we can all agree on is that what Disney is doing is stupid and we hate it.


Indeed. _*Why *_they are doing it is currently unknown to us. What *is *known is that it is stupid.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You too have commented about "lack of bass" in recent Disney output.


But I didn't call it "butchering" because I have no way of knowing whether the bass level matches the theatrical mix or not.


> They may be bipolar or schiz, or just plain stupid.


Not having an absolutist mindset doesn't make someone _"bipolar or schiz, or just plain stupid"_. One sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in your head simultaneously (paraphrasing F. Scott Fitzgerald). So Disney can do things like shoot all of 'Avengers: Infinity War' using IMAX cameras but release a vertically cropped version on BD & UHD. I don't see that as "butchering" the original intent. YMMV.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> You keep on bringing HDR and WCG etc into it. I am discussing aspect ratio. TV screens (16:9) do *not *"match what we see in theaters" for at least 80% of contemporary movies. In theaters, movies are presented in the correct aspect ratios.


I'm trying to keep my analogy consistent by comparing the same thing (dynamic range) for audio and video. Your analogy doesn't work because you're comparing aspect ratio (adding or subtracting image area) when nothing similar is being done to the soundtrack.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> But I didn't call it "butchering" because I have no way of knowing whether the bass level matches the theatrical mix or not.


'Butchering' has been used by me to describe the full Disney method of delivering their audio - this includes lack of bass, neutering of dynamic range and low overall SPL levels. 



sdurani said:


> Not having an absolutist mindset doesn't make someone _"bipolar or schiz, or just plain stupid"_. One sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in your head simultaneously (paraphrasing F. Scott Fitzgerald).


Good thing I never said they were those things then. I said they 'may be' and added 'who knows?' to demonstrate that their thinking in the regard of our discussion is, in fact, unknown.




sdurani said:


> So Disney can do things like shoot all of 'Avengers: Infinity War' using IMAX cameras but release a vertically cropped version on BD & UHD. I don't see that as "butchering" the original intent. YMMV.


I see any attempt at deviating from the Director's intent as egregious. There is no need for it and a responsible studio should not do it. I personally hate the mixed aspect ratio fad, perpetrated by Nolan et al, since when the movie arrives on disc, if it has been faithfully reproduced, as I expect, I have to make a decision in my HT which theaters do not have to make, and that is how to set up my screen and my PJ for my CIH 2.39:1 screen. However, much as I dislike this, I much prefer it to a studio deciding what the aspect ratio should be. To make this worse, some Director's produce 2.39:1 versions of mixed aspect ratio movies, for showing in theaters where they have no capacity to show the alternative, yet we still don't get a seamlessly branched version on discs, so that we can choose how we want to see the movie (both conforming to Directors intent).

Introducing IMAX into the discussion is another red herring (like HDR, WCG, resolution).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I'm trying to keep my analogy consistent by comparing the same thing (dynamic range) for audio and video. Your analogy doesn't work because you're comparing aspect ratio (adding or subtracting image area) when nothing similar is being done to the soundtrack.


Your postulation was that Disney are altering the soundtrack in order to appease those (the majority) who watch movies on televisions at home.

My position is that if television viewing was so important to them, they would, one assumes, address the major irritant of television based movie watchers, which is the presence of black bars.

That they choose solely to address the audio needs of television watchers, while ignoring the greater complaint wrt to black bars is sufficient for me to question whether their decision has anything to do with televisions at all.

Since neither of us know, the discussion is a bit pointless, but, at least for now, is fun.  (Hopefully people will let us know when we need to get a room )


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Your postulation was that Disney are altering the soundtrack in order to appease those (the majority) who watch movies on televisions at home.


Someone else postulated that; I agreed with it because it made more sense than any other explanation.


> My position is that if television viewing was so important to them, they would, one *assumes*, address the major irritant of television based movie watchers, which is the presence of black bars.


I didn't start from the assumption that Disney would treat video and audio the same way. If I had started from that premise, the current situation would not have made sense.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Someone else postulated that; I agreed with it because it made more sense than any other explanation. I didn't start from the assumption that Disney would treat video and audio the same way. If I had started from that premise, the current situation would not have made sense.


Neither did I. What I said was that it makes no sense for them to treat audio and video differently wrt to televisions if television users are so important to them. They must be important if a studio is prepared to so blatantly dishonor the Director's intent. I'd like to see them get away with it with a Director like Nolan who, so I read, demands control over every aspect of everything. _"You're going to compress my dynamic range? Really?"_. 

So, if television users are so important to Disney they will go to these lengths to satisfy them, why would they not go the other mile - the mile that is way more irritating to people than dynamic range (judging by comments in these threads etc) - and get rid of the black bars by altering the OAR?

You keep skirting around it, and bringing in HDR and IMAX and so on, but you never answer my question (and that's all it is): why does Disney have such regard for television users' needs when it comes to audio, but so little when it comes to video? That's what I said 'doesn't make sense to me' and it still doesn't.


----------



## dschulz

kbarnes701 said:


> Neither did I. What I said was that it makes no sense for them to treat audio and video differently wrt to televisions if television users are so important to them. They must be important if a studio is prepared to so blatantly dishonor the Director's intent. I'd like to see them get away with it with a Director like Nolan who, so I read, demands control over every aspect of everything. _"You're going to compress my dynamic range? Really?"_.
> 
> So, if television users are so important to Disney they will go to these lengths to satisfy them, why would they not go the other mile - the mile that is way more irritating to people than dynamic range (judging by comments in these threads etc) - and get rid of the black bars by altering the OAR?
> 
> You keep skirting around it, and bringing in HDR and IMAX and so on, but you never answer my question (and that's all it is): why does Disney have such regard for television users' needs when it comes to audio, but so little when it comes to video? That's what I said 'doesn't make sense to me' and it still doesn't.


I think the difference is this: for both picture and sound, the original elements are modified for home video. For picture, there's a different color space, different compression algorithm, different delivery codec, etc. There is a color grading pass done for Rec. 709, typically with director/DP approval that yes, this matches our creative intent. So the home video release *is* different from the theatrical, but I think virtually all director/DPs would think cropping a widescreen movie to fill a 16:9 screen is a bridge too far.

Now for the sound: there is *also* in virtually all cases a separate mix done for home video. Obviously a theatrical Atmos mix has to be re-done for home vid, but even a theatrical 7.1 or 5.1 mix has a separate pass done, with near field monitors and a reduced level. I'm pretty sure none of us would be very happy with the experience if the theatrical mix was just dropped into the home video master unaltered - the big room mix just doesn't translate to home theater, even a larger, well-equipped home theater like yours.

Now - is Disney being too aggressive with their home video remix, in terms of clamping down on dynamic range? It sounds like the majority of this thread thinks so. But what they are doing is a difference in *degree*, not in *kind.* Whereas cropping the picture would be a difference in *kind.*


----------



## bori

I have Onkyo TX NR838 receiver. How can you tell it is playing Atmos audio? All I see is a small Dolby logo. I don't see the Atmos wording anywhere on the AVR display. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HarpNinja

I just upgraded from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4. I won't have time to watch any full movies until Sunday. However, I'd love to hear the new in ceiling backs. This includes any rear effects and front to back panning.

What are your go to scenes to test/hear this??? I know Mad Max and Gravity are solid overall, for example. But what is an actual scene?

I tried the intro to Jurassic Park in DTS:X since it was in the player, but was surprised that the ceiling speakers weren't humming.

If it helps, here is a list of all my movies with immersive audio. I am also willing to buy more.


----------



## Josh Z

HarpNinja said:


> I just upgraded from 5.1.2 to 5.1.4. I won't have time to watch any full movies until Sunday. However, I'd love to hear the new in ceiling backs. This includes any rear effects and front to back panning.
> 
> What are your go to scenes to test/hear this??? I know Mad Max and Gravity are solid overall, for example. But what is an actual scene?


You can stream the Dolby Atmos demo trailers from VUDU for free.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So, if television users are so important to Disney they will go to these lengths to satisfy them, why would they not go the other mile - the mile that is way more irritating to people than dynamic range (judging by comments in these threads etc) - and get rid of the black bars by altering the OAR?


Because getting rid of black bars means adding or subtracting image content, which Disney does not want to do for video or audio. See Dan's explanation.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Someone else postulated that; I agreed with it because it made more sense than any other explanation. I didn't start from the assumption that Disney would treat video and audio the same way. If I had started from that premise, the current situation would not have made sense.


I did a quick literature search on Research Gate, and while the academic research seems to be mixed about whether audio or video is dominant in consumer perceptions, at least some pros might feel differently:

https://www.lafilm.edu/blog/the-importance-of-sound/

It also begs the question of whether audio and video are separate domains, or whether one has a disproportionate influence on the perceptions of the other.

This might matter because if audio is more influential than video in influencing listener perceptions of experiential quality, a soundtrack that gives listeners what they expect to hear might be more important than how the video looks to them in an absolute sense (e.g. what experts think). Put another way, is it easier to get the perception of "quality" in sound with less effort than what it takes for getting video? If so, than bolluxed viewer angle and black bars might matter less than hearing the details of a soundtrack the way that listeners are used to.

Either way, the underlying hypothesis here - from both the Sanjay and Keith side of this argument - is that Disney is making a deliberate choice to match what they think consumers want, which may go back to good old consumer research based on what their experiences are. And since as we all know, most consumers view their content on TVs with soundbars or a limited stereo or surround setup that's far from what those of us on AVS accept as "best practice", let alone capturing the fullest capabilities of what audio OR video are capable of with UHD and a 7.1.4 to 9.1.6 setup....

For the detail minded and/or masochists among us, I've attached an article I found that reviews the literature, if anyone wants to follow up.


EDIT: note that I was looking at studies where BOTH audio and video were present. Not suggesting that consumers perceptibly prefer audio only over video only or vice versa.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> I did a quick literature search on Research Gate, and while the academic research seems to be mixed about whether audio or video is dominant in consumer perceptions, at least some pros might feel differently:


Dominant? Take away the sound and you still have a movie (started off as a silent medium). Take away the image and you have...radio.


----------



## kbarnes701

dschulz said:


> I think the difference is this: for both picture and sound, the original elements are modified for home video. For picture, there's a different color space, different compression algorithm, different delivery codec, etc. There is a color grading pass done for Rec. 709, typically with director/DP approval that yes, this matches our creative intent. So the home video release *is* different from the theatrical, but I think virtually all director/DPs would think cropping a widescreen movie to fill a 16:9 screen is a bridge too far.


TV users aren't, TTBOMK, complaining about adherence to REC709 etc, but they do complain about black bars. If appeasing these users is so important to Disney that they will make substantial changes to the audio on a movie, why would they not also change the most often complained about issue also?

I agree that changing the OAR is a bridge too far - and so is neutering a carefully-crafted audio track. 



dschulz said:


> Now for the sound: there is *also* in virtually all cases a separate mix done for home video. Obviously a theatrical Atmos mix has to be re-done for home vid, but even a theatrical 7.1 or 5.1 mix has a separate pass done, with near field monitors and a reduced level. I'm pretty sure none of us would be very happy with the experience if the theatrical mix was just dropped into the home video master unaltered - the big room mix just doesn't translate to home theater, even a larger, well-equipped home theater like yours.


Again no argument there. I am told that the changes are not huge but they are definitely there. But the object of those changes, performed I believe by the original content creators, is to *improve *the audio, not to neuter it by crippling the dynamic range and removing a lot of the low-end bass. Disney is deliberately doing something which is detrimental to the audio, and that is quite a different thing.



dschulz said:


> Now - is Disney being too aggressive with their home video remix, in terms of clamping down on dynamic range? It sounds like the majority of this thread thinks so. But what they are doing is a difference in *degree*, not in *kind.* Whereas cropping the picture would be a difference in *kind.*


That is a neat way of expressing it. 

I am happy to let you have the last word on this  Sanj and I often have these never-ending debates, often over trivial topics, and I am sure it must start to bore the others


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Dominant? Take away the sound and you still have a movie (started off as a silent medium). Take away the image and you have...radio.


 
As absolutes, I agree. The research studies I looked at were about perceptions of media with both audio and video present, and that LA Film School link was specific to films, where usually we have both audio tracks and video present. You can have one of these domains be more dominant in defining consumer perceptions than the other, but dominant doesn't mean "exclusive" (audio only or video only being preferred) with home cinema. 

That's leaving aside a purely audio or video setting by fornat (silent films or music/voice on an audio only format, from radio to Audiobooks) or consumer physical disabilities (blindness, deafness etc.)


----------



## gwsat

Last night, I got a reminder of something I have long known: the quality of a film's sound design is far more important than the codec used for the BD version. I have long owned the original BD release of _Terminator 2._ In searching the list of those films high on IMDb's Top 250 list, at #42 I realized that I hadn't seen it in a long, long time, so I loaded it up and watched it again. 

It was a little disquieting to be reminded that the audio on this BD was Dolby Digital EX 6.1, a lossy format. Not to worry, though, when I watched the film again I was thrilled by both its surround effects and LFE. The soundtrack, lossy though it was, sounded great when I matrixed it to 7.2.4 using my Yamaha 3060's Dolby Surround Upmixer. Don't get me wrong. There is still no substitute for honest to goodness lossless audio, especially TrueHD Atmos, but the lossy version on my BD combined with DSU, made for a wonderful listening experience nonetheless.


----------



## yepimonfire

dschulz said:


> I think the difference is this: for both picture and sound, the original elements are modified for home video. For picture, there's a different color space, different compression algorithm, different delivery codec, etc. There is a color grading pass done for Rec. 709, typically with director/DP approval that yes, this matches our creative intent. So the home video release *is* different from the theatrical, but I think virtually all director/DPs would think cropping a widescreen movie to fill a 16:9 screen is a bridge too far.
> 
> Now for the sound: there is *also* in virtually all cases a separate mix done for home video. Obviously a theatrical Atmos mix has to be re-done for home vid, but even a theatrical 7.1 or 5.1 mix has a separate pass done, with near field monitors and a reduced level. I'm pretty sure none of us would be very happy with the experience if the theatrical mix was just dropped into the home video master unaltered - the big room mix just doesn't translate to home theater, even a larger, well-equipped home theater like yours.
> 
> Now - is Disney being too aggressive with their home video remix, in terms of clamping down on dynamic range? It sounds like the majority of this thread thinks so. But what they are doing is a difference in *degree*, not in *kind.* Whereas cropping the picture would be a difference in *kind.*


Fwiw I watched The Avengers Infinity War in the theater and the dynamic range was lousy there too. It's not just the near field mix for bluray, it's just a ****ty mix in general. 

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

bori said:


> I have Onkyo TX NR838 receiver. How can you tell it is playing Atmos audio? All I see is a small Dolby logo. I don't see the Atmos wording anywhere on the AVR display.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Try hitting the "display" button on the lower right corner of the remote to toggle the display from "input" to "audio format." The classic Onkyo's had two line displays that would simultaneously display both input and audio format while more current Onkyo's appear to have a single line display which displays the input only...until toggled. 

For specific Onkyo 838 questions, you may be better served by posting in the specific receiver threads...

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-737-838-thread.html?highlight=onkyo+tx-nr838


----------



## Jish9

yepimonfire said:


> Fwiw I watched The Avengers Infinity War in the theater and the dynamic range was lousy there too. It's not just the near field mix for bluray, it's just a ****ty mix in general.
> 
> Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


GREAT!!!!! So glad I can completely lower my expectations!! At the end of the day, garbage in = garbage out. I think most of what has been discussed lately is really the product of poorly mastered audio post production prior to their theatrical release. I have heard more and more people complain about the sound in the cinema behind a lot of these blockbusters; which leads me to believe that it really comes down to the studio and the director with which they are working with. Take Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man Tell No Tales. Also a Disney flick but the sound is fantastic. I began with pro gear in my HT and have kept some of it which I use regularly to offset the effects people talk about on this thread. It has made a real difference in getting the full experience out of these types of movies and would recommend to anyone who is fed up with the BS the studios are shoveling at us.


----------



## tcartwright

Selden Ball said:


> A (perhaps not so) minor point: I suspect your definition of "townhouse" might be non-standard. The townhouse designs that I'm aware of share their side walls with the adjacent buildings. Having a full-blown HT in an upper floor probably would not be acceptable to the neighbors and would generate complaints about all the booms from the bass frequencies.





kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. I was going to mention the open plan aspect as being liable to disturb the rest of the occupants of the house (eg sleeping people etc) but forgot to do so. But if anything, neighbors are an even bigger potential problem. I spent about 30% of the total cost of the build of my HT on sound containment, precisely for this reason. And I only have two neighbors, and both are a fair distance away. But I didn't want to take the chance. Imagine spending a fortune on a HT and then finding you can't use it to its full potential because you are upsetting the neighbors.


This would have been exactly the case, with a neighbor on just one side of me, but sharing the only wall I could mount a TV on either 1st or 2nd floor.

It is a moot point now as someone else has snatched it up, but you've given me a lot to think about. I might have to insist on a basement.

Thanks to all who replied!


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> I saw _Blade Runner 2049_ like that - the showing was at about 10.30 and it was a Monday morning.


I once attended a classical music performance (string quartet, not a full orchestra) in a well regarded hall and prior to the performance some science guys came on stage and asked the entire audience if they would be so kind as to remain dead silent for 60 seconds (only breathing allowed) so they could take a series of quick mic measurements of the hall. It was explained that the reason they couldn't do this after hours, so as to not disturb the proceedings, was they needed the several hundred, giant, cloth-covered water balloons [humans] in their seats or their measurements wouldn't truly convey the sound of the hall's acoustics because one of the major reflective surfaces, the floor, would be very different with unoccupied seats. 

The moral of the story is the room acoustics of an empty theater is different from a packed house. Just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## yepimonfire

Jish9 said:


> GREAT!!!!! So glad I can completely lower my expectations!! At the end of the day, garbage in = garbage out. I think most of what has been discussed lately is really the product of poorly mastered audio post production prior to their theatrical release. I have heard more and more people complain about the sound in the cinema behind a lot of these blockbusters; which leads me to believe that it really comes down to the studio and the director with which they are working with. Take Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man Tell No Tales. Also a Disney flick but the sound is fantastic. I began with pro gear in my HT and have kept some of it which I use regularly to offset the effects people talk about on this thread. It has made a real difference in getting the full experience out of these types of movies and would recommend to anyone who is fed up with the BS the studios are shoveling at us.


It might just be whoever does the sound mixes for Marvel Studios. They are very center channel heavy too, almost all onscreen action is stuck in the center. 

Most bluray releases sound great, and I do agree that it's important that the theatrical mix be touched up for home theater, it's not that they intentionally mix it for the TV/tablet crowd or constrict dynamics with the idea most won't listen at reference, it's that sound behaves differently in a big space vs a typical HT. This is a well known fact for mix engineers, for example, if someone were mixing a film in a small studio, and they calibrated their monitors to 85dB, they'd end up with a mix that sounds weak on a theatrical dub stage, if you calibrate to 79-82dB depending on room size, it translates well in the cinema. Big spaces also tend to flatten out the dynamics, so some sounds will need to be brought up, and some will need to be brought down. Ever heard someone complain that the dialogue is quiet and the sound effects are ear shattering at a movie theater? Not often. That same mix played in a small room would be just that. As @FilmMixer once said, if you tried to play a theatrical mix design for a 200+ seat theater in a 2000 or even 3000 cu ft room seated 12' from the speakers, you wouldn't be able to even understand the dialogue without being blown out of the room, and certain quiet sounds would disappear into the mix. At most a few things are bumped up or down just a few dB, but the overall goal is that the mix sounds exactly as dynamic and the same as the theater when play at home, not dynamic range compression to appease the sound bar/tablet speaker crowd. The mixes are done in a room typically similar to a very good home theater setup. Even if one uses pro cinema speakers and a big projection screen, you'd still need a home theater remix to ensure that the mix translates the same at home in a smaller room as it does in the massive space in the theater. 

In addition, most HTs use bass management, whereas cinemas run full range. Sometimes the theatrical mix run through bass management can cause phase cancelation problems or bass build up that sounds unnatural in a HT, so that must be corrected as well. 

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jish9

yepimonfire said:


> It might just be whoever does the sound mixes for Marvel Studios. They are very center channel heavy too, almost all onscreen action is stuck in the center. Most bluray releases sound great, and I do agree that it's important that the theatrical mix be touched up for home theater, it's not that they intentionally mix it for the TV/tablet crowd or constrict dynamics with the idea most won't listen at reference, it's that sound behaves differently in a big space vs a typical HT. This is a well known fact for mix engineers, for example, if someone were mixing a film in a small studio, and they calibrated their monitors to 85dB, they'd end up with a mix that sounds weak on a theatrical dub stage, if you calibrate to 79-82dB depending on room size, it translates well in the cinema. Big spaces also tend to flatten out the dynamics. Ever heard someone complain that the dialogue is quiet and the sound effects are ear shattering at a movie theater? Not often. That same mix played in a small room would be just that.
> 
> In addition, most HTs use bass management, whereas cinemas run full range. Sometimes the theatrical mix run through bass management can cause phase cancelation problems or bass build up that sounds unnatural in a HT, so that must be corrected as well.
> 
> Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


Agreed and quite correct with regard to commercial vs. home cinema. I do however feel that the studio has set a standard for which engineers have to adhere to in most cases. I say this as the same problem seems to exist with most Disney properties being released to the home market and having similar issues. I just don't understand how they could get Tron Legacy so right and EVERYTHING else (almost) so very wrong?


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> I once attended a classical music performance (string quartet, not a full orchestra) in a well regarded hall and prior to the performance some science guys came on stage and asked the entire audience if they would be so kind as to remain dead silent for 60 seconds (only breathing allowed) so they could take a series of quick mic measurements of the hall. It was explained that the reason they couldn't do this after hours, so as to not disturb the proceedings, was they needed the several hundred, giant, cloth-covered water balloons [humans] in their seats or their measurements wouldn't truly convey the sound of the hall's acoustics because one of the major reflective surfaces, the floor, would be very different with unoccupied seats.
> 
> The moral of the story is the room acoustics of an empty theater is different from a packed house. Just thought I'd mention it.


That is true. But they calibrate the cinema when it's empty.


----------



## HarpNinja

yepimonfire said:


> Fwiw I watched The Avengers Infinity War in the theater and the dynamic range was lousy there too. It's not just the near field mix for bluray, it's just a ****ty mix in general.
> 
> Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


I totally agree.


----------



## CBdicX

*Surround Back (rear) help please.*

Not about Atmos specific but hope to get some ideas **

Hi, i have 2 Magnat ATM400 speakers that i want to use as Surround Back.
*They are in a tilted angle for "Height" use, so i am limited where to mount them.*
I have 3 height options, the white, red and green spots.
The ATM can be set as Direct fire or DE use, i will use Direct fire in this case.
The other Height speakers you see are also ATM400, thay are used as Rear Height.

For me "optical" the white spot will be preferd, but if this would be useless as Surround Back i can go down.
Speaker will be 2.5 / 3meter behide the MLP.


----------



## m. zillch

The tweeters should be on axis to the main listening position so I'd rotate the wedge shape 90 degrees, one clockwise and the other counter clockwise, both aiming into the room, like this. [see attached image]

Surround backs should generally be at ear height or only a tad higher. The spacing is flexible from 135 to 150 degrees away from straight ahead.
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


----------



## Jish9

CBdicX said:


> *Surround Back (rear) help please.*
> 
> Not about Atmos specific but hope to get some ideas **
> 
> Hi, i have 2 Magnat ATM400 speakers that i want to use as Surround Back.
> *They are in a tilted angle for "Height" use, so i am limited where to mount them.*
> I have 3 height options, the white, red and green spots.
> The ATM can be set as Direct fire or DE use, i will use Direct fire in this case.
> The other Height speakers you see are also ATM400, thay are used as Rear Height.
> 
> For me "optical" the white spot will be preferd, but if this would be useless as Surround Back i can go down.
> Speaker will be 2.5 / 3meter behide the MLP.


What is the ceiling height for your room? It looks like you don't have the height needed to effectively create the ATMOS effect. As you have it pictured, the rear surrounds will constantly blast into your ear while the rear heights will give that transient whiz when an ATMOS effect kicks in. If you were to bring in your height speakers towards each other and raise your rear surrounds a few inches (keeping them outside your rear heights) you might get the effect you're looking for.


----------



## CBdicX

m. zillch said:


> The tweeters should be on axis to the main listening position so I'd rotate the wedge shape 90 degrees, one clockwise and the other counter clockwise, both aiming into the room, like this. [see attached image]
> 
> *Surround backs should generally be at ear height or only a tad higher*. The spacing is flexible from 135 to 150 degrees away from straight ahead.
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html


The "Di-pole" you see in the pic act as Surround.
They bounch from the side walles into the room.
The way you made suggested, the Surround Backs will be outside the Surrounds.
If i understand you correct the "green" option will be the best way and they will be at 1.80 meter heigh and pointed to the MLP.


----------



## CBdicX

Jish9 said:


> What is the ceiling height for your room? It looks like you don't have the height needed to effectively create the ATMOS effect. As you have it pictured, the rear surrounds will constantly blast into your ear while the rear heights will give that transient whiz when an ATMOS effect kicks in. If you were to bring in your height speakers towards each other and raise your rear surrounds a few inches (keeping them outside your rear heights) you might get the effect you're looking for.



Ceiling hight will be 2.50 meter........
The Di-poles in the pic are my Surrounds !


----------



## m. zillch

CBdicX said:


> Ceiling hight will be 2.50 meter........
> The Di-poles in the pic are my Surrounds !


How many degrees away from straight ahead are you under the impression the surrounds should be placed?


----------



## m. zillch

CBdicX said:


> The "Di-pole" you see in the pic act as Surround.
> They bounch from the side walles into the room.


I can't speak for Magnat however I don't think Dolby allows for any of the principle base layer, the "bed", 5 (or 7) speakers to be positioned based on the use of "bounce". That's more for the up in the cloud "Atmos" speakers and only when they are set to work in that manner in the settings of the processor.


----------



## CBdicX

m. zillch said:


> I can't speak for Magnat however I don't think Dolby allows for any of the principle base layer, the "bed", 5 (or 7) speakers to be positioned based on the use of "bounce". That's more for the up in the cloud "Atmos" speakers and only when they are set to work in that manner in the settings of the processor.



As i can not use surround speakers at the side of the MLP, i use the Dipoles instade.
They are very near ear level, just a bit heigher.
The inner tweeters fire direct at the MLP, the outer tweeters do bounce and give the impression that the surrounds are beside me. 
So i do not know if your idea can be like this, at the far side of the wall.
They do fire in that possition straight to the MLP, if i mount them like you say, on there side 


Would this be better then the "Green" option ?


Thank you for your thoughts !!


----------



## m. zillch

According to Sound and Vision Magazine dipoles are really meant for the older THX methodology but are not perfect for Atmos and ideally should be replaced, however some listeners find the results to be perfectly acceptable. The only way to tell for sure is to test it out yourself.
---

Before committing to screwing/drilling/pulling wires into the wall at certain specific heights/positions you might want to rig up* test configurations by placing the speakers at various experimental heights/spreads and listening to the results using various movie material. Good luck.


*. . . using combinations of large/sturdy cardboard boxes, bookshelves, dressers, step ladders, planks of wood, etc.


----------



## raypjuarez

*Modules or In-Ceiling*

10*12 room with 7 ft ceilings. Sofa is against wall. Can be placed a foot away from the wall if needed. I have a light panel dead center in the room. Do I go modules for the bounce back or in ceiling? I’ve heard of the bounce back being better for low ceilings, but does drop ceiling, especially a light panel in the middle affect it? Thanks!


----------



## duckymomo

raypjuarez said:


> 10*12 room with 7 ft ceilings. Sofa is against wall. Can be placed a foot away from the wall if needed. I have a light panel dead center in the room. Do I go modules for the bounce back or in ceiling? I’ve heard of the bounce back being better for low ceilings, but does drop ceiling, especially a light panel in the middle affect it? Thanks!


In-ceiling will almost always sound better.


----------



## Jish9

CBdicX said:


> Ceiling hight will be 2.50 meter........
> The Di-poles in the pic are my Surrounds !


2.5 meters is about the same height as mine. I too had initially placed my rears and surrounds at the ideal positions but over time came to realize I got a better effect by following what is commonly done in commercial cinemas; namely placing them a bit higher and haven't looked back since. Incidentally with regard to dipoles not being recommended for ATMOS, that is in regard to height and width channels and not the bed channels. Many people have implemented dipoles as surrounds with very good results.


----------



## CBdicX

Jish9 said:


> 2.5 meters is about the same height as mine. I too had initially placed my rears and surrounds at the ideal positions but over time came to realize I got a better effect by following what is commonly done in commercial cinemas; namely placing them a bit higher and haven't looked back since. Incidentally with regard to dipoles not being recommended for ATMOS, that is in regard to height and width channels and not the bed channels. Many people have implemented dipoles as surrounds with very good results.


 
Thanks, what do you think about the "best" Surround Rear" spot in my situation, white green or red, or forget about SR complete on that back wall ?


----------



## Jish9

CBdicX said:


> Thanks, what do you think about the "best" Surround Rear" spot in my situation, white green or red, or forget about SR complete on that back wall ?


You can try moving the rear height speakers inward one box so they are close together, and move the rear surrounds up one or two boxes into the green or red positions. You should not "forget" about the rear surrounds as they are a bed channel and produce 180 degrees of sound. If you find that the combination of the rear and height channels is too much, then just leave the height speakers and use an outboard DSP like a miniDSP to matrix the sound of the rear channels and height channels out of the same speaker. These are all just ideas and you won't know until you experiment to find out what will work best in your room. As for matrixing the sound, you can try just combining the signals with a cheap connector to see if that maybe is the ticket before you spend money on a DSP.


----------



## Ricoflashback

I just joined MoviePass as I have more available time these days. I went to my first movie in a theater in about 12 years last week - Sicario, at a local Landmark Theater here in Denver. Sound wise, it was interesting to compare it to my home theater - a Dolby Atmos 9.1.4 setup with front wides, as well. 

I probably could have picked a better seat (2/3rds up - in the center) but there was hardily anyone in the theater and those seats were taken (matinees are great!) It's not a large theater, either, but it was very enjoyable. Especially for the price. They also had free popcorn and soda drinks which I thought was very cool. 

The sound was certainly louder than I have at home (also - I can never play it very loud unless I'm home alone) and I found the vocals not as clear as my home theater. There were more sounds overhead and of course the explosions and shooting scenes were fantastic. I must say that it confirms my opinion that you can get a great movie experience at home with a Dolby Atmos setup that has height speakers. And while there may be many more speakers in the theater, the biggest difference I noticed was how clear and pristine the dialog is at home versus the cinema. I'll see if this is a continuing trend as I visit other theaters in the greater Denver area. 

Oh by the way - I watched one of my Sony 4K "freebies" - Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk via Goggle Play last night. I must say - the 4K PQ was exceptional. Much better than any UHD disc I had before I sold my Samsung 4K Blu-ray Player. Stunning colors and clarity all via the native Android app. Bright and vivid. Really spectacular.

It turns out that this movie was shot entirely in 4K at 120 FPS! No wonder it looked so good.

At any rate, I probably won't be renting very much from Redbox anymore and movie home viewing will be via Amazon Prime, Netflix and Google Play Movies (the dollar special.) I still enjoy my home theater and the MoviePass is a nice complement to my at home viewing.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> I just joined MoviePass as I have more available time these days. I went to my first movie in a theater in about 12 years last week - Sicario, at a local Landmark Theater here in Denver. Sound wise, it was interesting to compare it to my home theater - a Dolby Atmos 9.1.4 setup with front wides, as well.
> 
> I probably could have picked a better seat (2/3rds up - in the center) but there was hardily anyone in the theater and those seats were taken (matinees are great!) It's not a large theater, either, but it was very enjoyable. Especially for the price. They also had free popcorn and soda drinks which I thought was very cool.
> 
> The sound was certainly louder than I have at home (also - I can never play it very loud unless I'm home alone) and I found the vocals not as clear as my home theater. There were more sounds overhead and of course the explosions and shooting scenes were fantastic. I must say that it confirms my opinion that you can get a great movie experience at home with a Dolby Atmos setup that has height speakers. And while there may be many more speakers in the theater, the biggest difference I noticed was how clear and pristine the dialog is at home versus the cinema. I'll see if this is a continuing trend as I visit other theaters in the greater Denver area.
> 
> Oh by the way - I watched one of my Sony 4K "freebies" - Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk via Goggle Play. I must say - the 4K PQ was exceptional. Much better than any UHD disc I had before I sold my Samsung 4K Blu-ray Player. Stunning colors and clarity all via the native Android app. Bright and vivid. Really spectacular.
> 
> It turns out that this movie was shot entirely in 4K at 120 FPS! No wonder it looked so good.
> 
> At any rate, I probably won't be renting very much from Redbox anymore and movie home viewing will be via Amazon Prime, Netflix and Google Play Movies (the dollar special.) I still enjoy my home theater and the MoviePass is a nice complement to my at home viewing.



You have all this solid A/V equipment and are going hard for streaming... a real shame.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have all this solid A/V equipment and are going hard for streaming... a real shame.



I hear you Dan. But outside of the Dolby Atmos soundtrack (which I can find on regular Bluray discs and play with my OPPO 103) - I don't miss my UHD Bluray player it all. It was an absolute joke, IMHO, in terms of 4K picture quality. Honestly, the Google Play movie I recently saw was far better than any disc I played before with my Samsung K8500 Bluray player.

I guess I'll hold out for Dolby Atmos via Netflix or Amazon Prime. I'm not into high cost renting or high cost anything these days. If I can see six to eight movies a month at the theater for $9.95/month - - it's a great deal. And I still use Dolby Surround upmixing or DTS Neo X (older AVR - Denon x5200) for any Amazon Prime, Netflix or Google Play movies. Sports is always great with my home theater. 

I'm getting old and am like Captain McCluskey in the original Godfather movie - I can't stand the aggravation anymore - especially the renting and return of discs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> I hear you Dan. But outside of the Dolby Atmos soundtrack (which I can find on regular Bluray discs and play with my OPPO 103) - I don't miss my UHD Bluray player it all. It was an absolute joke, IMHO, in terms of 4K picture quality. Honestly, the Google Play movie I recently saw was far better than any disc I played before with my Samsung K8500 Bluray player.
> 
> I guess I'll hold out for Dolby Atmos via Netflix or Amazon Prime. I'm not into high cost renting or high cost anything these days. If I can see six to eight movies a month at the theater for $9.95/month - - it's a great deal. And I still use Dolby Surround upmixing or DTS Neo X (older AVR - Denon x5200) for any Amazon Prime, Netflix or Google Play movies. Sports is always great with my home theater.
> 
> I'm getting old and am like Captain McCluskey in the original Godfather movie - I can't stand the aggravation anymore - especially the renting and return of discs.



Don't blame UHD Blu-ray and Blu-ray for your funky player. I had the same Sammy unit and switched to an Oppo 203 because it was a POS and never looked back. Also, you're more apt to run across fixed Atmos print-outs on streaming versions due to bandwidth limitations besides being stuck with lossy compression.


----------



## Ted99

I post this here with some trepidation of a flame war, but I pass it along for information:

Because I was in Poland recently, I was able to get a copy of the Polish release of Blade Runner 2049 with Auro 3D to make a comparison with my Atmos version. It's a 2K BluRay with 11.1 Auro (no rears, but VOG and CH). My Atmos version is 4K, but it's the sound that I was looking to compare. It's my ears that I'm reporting on. YMMV. I hear a difference between the two.

First: My speaker setup is the recommended Auro setup of CH, VOG , FH and RH with the RH speakers over the side surrounds. This is because I have a concrete 9' ceiling and mounting at the wall/ceiling interface is simple. The VOG is a 1/2 cf box with a 6"/1" Infinity speaker that was light enough for a couple of plastic wall sleeve mountings in the concrete ceiling. My Denon X8500's flexibility makes the comparison very easy as it automatically switches between 9.1.4 (wides) in Atmos to 11.1 Auro. The 11.1 Auro drops the rears and my X8500 did not send a signal to them. The Atmos mix had all 9 bed channels, including wides.

I think BladeRunner 2049 is a good test subject because all are agreed that it is demonstration quality audio.

The music soundtrack in Auro was an all-enveloping hemisphere compared to a more front-loaded sound in Atmos. This was not a surprise as most reviewers have said that Auro is particularly good for music. If one were at a concert the Atmos presentation at the front of the house would be preferred, but where the music in a movie is intended to set a mood; I preferred the envelopment of Auro.

There was no readily discernable difference in flyover effects or Bass involvement. Demonstration quality. 

There was a difference in object location. The most obvious was during the first "baseline assessment" of Gosling. In the Atmos version, the sound of the proctor's voice came from the top right ceiling. In the Auro version, the proctor's voice comes from a point at the front center of the room either just above the monitoring device or the ceiling just above the monitoring device. This seemed like a more realistic location for this sound. This difference in object location extended to dialog with multiple characters on screen. Auro seemed to track the character's location better.

The most noticeable difference was in the large hard surface rooms (the Library and the room with the water floor). The Auro version had a very real sounding degree of echo and the dialog was very clear. The Atmos version didn't sound quite right and the dialog was not as clear. Phrases I struggled to hear in Atmos were perfectly clear in Auro. I went back over these parts twice to be sure this was what I was hearing. If I had only heard the Atmos version I would have not thought anything was amiss. But, having the Auro version to listen to, it was clear that the Auro rendering was much more accurate and pleasing to the ear.

I first saw/heard this movie in the 4K Atmos version, and it was terrific. Having now rewatched it in both Atmos and Auro, I prefer the Auro version. But, I found no fault with the Atmos version, just that I now think the Auro is better. I watched all of the credits and a lot of the movie post production was done in Hungary, and other places in Europe. I wonder if it was originally mixed in Auro, and the Atmos done later? I didn't catch the mention of the sound mixing in the credits, but they were really hard to watch--seemingly multi-hundreds of people involved in the production of this movie. I see why it was done in a low-cost environment.

For anyone wanting to check this for themselves, I've listed the Auro BR for sale in the AVS Classifieds "Physical Media Items". I don't need both and the Atmos is 4K, so I'd rather keep it.


----------



## sdrucker

Ted99 said:


> I post this here with some trepidation of a flame war, but I pass it along for information:
> 
> Because I was in Poland recently, I was able to get a copy of the Polish release of Blade Runner 2049 with Auro 3D to make a comparison with my Atmos version. It's a 2K BluRay with 11.1 Auro (no rears, but VOG and CH). My Atmos version is 4K, but it's the sound that I was looking to compare. It's my ears that I'm reporting on. YMMV. I hear a difference between the two.
> 
> First: My speaker setup is the recommended Auro setup of CH, VOG , FH and RH with the RH speakers over the side surrounds. This is because I have a concrete 9' ceiling and mounting at the wall/ceiling interface is simple. The VOG is a 1/2 cf box with a 6"/1" Infinity speaker that was light enough for a couple of plastic wall sleeve mountings in the concrete ceiling. My Denon X8500's flexibility makes the comparison very easy as it automatically switches between 9.1.4 (wides) in Atmos to 11.1 Auro. The 11.1 Auro drops the rears and my X8500 did not send a signal to them. The Atmos mix had all 9 bed channels, including wides.


Just to clarify, do you have a separate set of top rears or rear heights dedicated to Atmos, or are you repurposing the rear heights in your Auro layout for Atmos? If so, as what kind of overhead speaker designation - top middle, top rear, or rear heights? Just curious. I don't have the X8500 so I don't know the naming conventions that are possible in the Denon.

This is tempting to do, comparing the Blade Runner 2049 mix that I have in Atmos in my Altitude's 13.x.6 layout (which is oriented toward Atmos) to the Auro mix you bought. No VOG, but I can use my top middles set to play the VOG and use 3D remapping to try to put that content overhead as with a true VOG, via phantom imaging.

I don't have a set of rear heights in an Auro layout (mine are about 135 degrees as top rears for Atmos), so we're not going to giving the mix true justice to how it was intended to be heard. My top middles are at about 85 degrees, so having them "simulate" a VOG is more appropriate IMO that having then "simulate" Auro-style rear heights.

Oh well, more scientific inquiry...


----------



## Hossien Oveys

Hello All, it was suggested that i come over here and post my speaker placement question, since it involves ATMOS. I'm currently finishing my basement, and have the studs up and working on wiring. I've gone back and forth with speaker placements several time. The current plan is:









But after looking at my walls a bit, i thought that instead of in ceiling for my LR Surrounds, i MIGHT be able to put them on the walls, except my left surround would be several feet further than the right surround. It would also have an open stairway right next to it (there is a door at the top, but it's not going to stop much). The layout would look something like this:









So my question is, for the best sound, which layout would work? I have the Onkyo tx-nr676 so i can only do 7 speakers at at time. I'm debating on doing 5.1.2 or if the ATMOS setup just doesnt' work, go with 7.1. Anyone have any thoughts they can share?


----------



## Ted99

sdrucker said:


> Just to clarify, do you have a separate set of top rears or rear heights dedicated to Atmos, or are you repurposing the rear heights in your Auro layout for Atmos? If so, as what kind of overhead speaker designation - top middle, top rear, or rear heights? Just curious. I don't have the X8500 so I don't know the naming conventions that are possible in the Denon.
> 
> This is tempting to do, comparing the Blade Runner 2049 mix that I have in Atmos in my Altitude's 13.x.6 layout (which is oriented toward Atmos) to the Auro mix you bought. No VOG, but I can use my top middles set to play the VOG and use 3D remapping to try to put that content overhead as with a true VOG, via phantom imaging.
> 
> I don't have a set of rear heights in an Auro layout (mine are about 135 degrees as top rears for Atmos), so we're not going to giving the mix true justice to how it was intended to be heard. My top middles are at about 85 degrees, so having them "simulate" a VOG is more appropriate IMO that having then "simulate" Auro-style rear heights.
> 
> Oh well, more scientific inquiry...


I'm just repurposing the rear heights. My speaker physical layout is pretty much driven by the concrete ceiling, which requires that I use the top wall plate as the anchor point for screws that allow me to angle the "side overheads" down at a 45 degree angle to the MLP. It's designated in the Denon setup genie as "Rear Height", which allows it to function in both Auro 13.1 and in Atmos 9.1.4. So, my setup is not optimized for Atmos, but is "good enough".


----------



## sdurani

Hossien Oveys said:


> I have the Onkyo tx-nr676 so i can only do 7 speakers at at time. I'm debating on doing 5.1.2 or if the ATMOS setup just doesnt' work, go with 7.1. Anyone have any thoughts they can share?


Stick with a 5.1.2 layout, with the surrounds in/on the side walls, but rearward of the listeners (rather than directly to their sides). Mount the height speakers in/on the ceiling around 3 feet forward of the listeners, spread about as wide apart as your front L/R speakers.


----------



## Hossien Oveys

sdurani said:


> Stick with a 5.1.2 layout, with the surrounds in/on the side walls, but rearward of the listeners (rather than directly to their sides). Mount the height speakers in/on the ceiling around 3 feet forward of the listeners, spread about as wide apart as your front L/R speakers.


Thanks for the quick suggestion. However, if i go with in walls, i woudln't be able to do rear of MLP, it would be pretty much directly in line with it. the wall on the other side of the stairs, closer to MLP has some challenges (stuff in the way that can't be moved like a post) so i have to go with the wall i pointed out int he picture. Thats why i originally went with in ceiling. the rest of the placement is pretty much what you had suggested though.


----------



## sdurani

Hossien Oveys said:


> However, if i go with in walls, i woudln't be able to do rear of MLP, it would be pretty much directly in line with it. the wall on the other side of the stairs, closer to MLP has some challenges (stuff in the way that can't be moved like a post) so i have to go with the wall i pointed out int he picture.


IF that's the only location you can place surrounds, then go with it. Unequal distance will be taken care of during initial speaker calibration when delays & levels are set.


> Thats why i originally went with in ceiling.


While in-ceiling surrounds can work for some layouts, they are not a good choice for Atmos set-ups because you end up killing the separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you (everything ends up above you).


----------



## gerchy

Sorry if I have missed this debate, haven't been around much. 
Did anyone see Transformers I, II and III with Atmos soundtracks?
In my case only part III offered sound effects from all 4 height speakers. The other two were missing a pair.
Part I: front heights
Part II: rear heights
Part III: front+rear


----------



## Jish9

gerchy said:


> Sorry if I have missed this debate, haven't been around much.
> Did anyone see Transformers I, II and III with Atmos soundtracks?
> In my case only part III offered sound effects from all 4 height speakers. The other two were missing a pair.
> Part I: front heights
> Part II: rear heights
> Part III: front+rear


ATMOS is more of a gimmick to re-sell old Blu Rays to the same audience in hopes of having a better experience. The sound format was not really used properly until Part IV, and so anything else is just a vein attempt. Image quality has been improved in all versions because of the HDR treatment.


----------



## Jish9

Ted99 said:


> I first saw/heard this movie in the 4K Atmos version, and it was terrific. Having now rewatched it in both Atmos and Auro, I prefer the Auro version. But, I found no fault with the Atmos version, just that I now think the Auro is better. I watched all of the credits and a lot of the movie post production was done in Hungary, and other places in Europe. I wonder if it was originally mixed in Auro, and the Atmos done later? I didn't catch the mention of the sound mixing in the credits, but they were really hard to watch--seemingly multi-hundreds of people involved in the production of this movie. I see why it was done in a low-cost environment.
> 
> For anyone wanting to check this for themselves, I've listed the Auro BR for sale in the AVS Classifieds "Physical Media Items". I don't need both and the Atmos is 4K, so I'd rather keep it.


I too have had the same experience with Auro and feel that it is an excellent format for movies as it treats sound the way humans experience it in the real world as you so accurately describe. Unfortunately, I don't think it will survive the format wars as 99% of everything being released is in ATMOS. There's also hardly anything in DTS:X, but Dolby Labs is not going anywhere. A real shame that more studios are not wiling to mix in Auro but instead choose to "print" the channels for ATMOS against what the format was originally intended for.


----------



## Ted99

Jish9 said:


> I too have had the same experience with Auro and feel that it is an excellent format for movies as it treats sound the way humans experience it in the real world as you so accurately describe. Unfortunately, I don't think it will survive the format wars as 99% of everything being released is in ATMOS. There's also hardly anything in DTS:X, but Dolby Labs is not going anywhere. A real shame that more studios are not wiling to mix in Auro but instead choose to "print" the channels for ATMOS against what the format was originally intended for.


This is bad news and good news. Having heard both on the same movie, my ears say that Auro does a better job. The bad news is that I fear you are right. The good news is that we have Atmos, which is far and away better than the bed 7.1, alone.


----------



## Kadath

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have all this solid A/V equipment and are going hard for streaming... a real shame.


What's really sad is how many people dismiss streaming out of hand. There is little to be ashamed of with 4K and Atmos streams. I'd take that over bluray any day of the week.

Of course UHD disks will have truhd Atmos, which is nice, and slightly more picture detail. Duh. People serious about this hobby should consider streams an 'and', not an 'or'.


----------



## PeterTHX

Jish9 said:


> ATMOS is more of a gimmick to re-sell old Blu Rays to the same audience in hopes of having a better experience. The sound format was not really used properly until Part IV, and so anything else is just a vein attempt. Image quality has been improved in all versions because of the HDR treatment.


It most certainly is NOT a gimmick, since the home video companies like Paramount, Sony and Lionsgate often go back and get the original sound elements which are then often remixed with the same sound mixers who did the originals.


Jish9 said:


> I too have had the same experience with Auro and feel that it is an excellent format for movies as it treats sound the way humans experience it in the real world as you so accurately describe. Unfortunately, I don't think it will survive the format wars as 99% of everything being released is in ATMOS. There's also hardly anything in DTS:X, but Dolby Labs is not going anywhere. A real shame that more studios are not wiling to mix in Auro but instead choose to "print" the channels for ATMOS against what the format was originally intended for.


If anything Auro is a gimmick - with a single overhead speaker - and who has setups that allow for TWO rows of speakers?


Ted99 said:


> This is bad news and good news. Having heard both on the same movie, my ears say that Auro does a better job. The bad news is that I fear you are right. The good news is that we have Atmos, which is far and away better than the bed 7.1, alone.


If the industry thought Auro was doing a better job then Auro would be everywhere.


----------



## yepimonfire

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have all this solid A/V equipment and are going hard for streaming... a real shame.


I'm mostly a streamer too, except I actually do find 4k and Atmos to be a justifiable difference. Vudu UHD has both at a high enough bitrate that I see and hear very little difference from 4k bluray. Outside of a more expensive option such as 3d bluray rental etc, streaming is the only way to easily rent 4k content, and now prices have dropped to the same or similar to the HD rentals. Amazon is the worst for quality, both in audio and video, with noticeable artifacts on both. I mostly use them for prime stuff. Netflix 4k is just slightly better than their 1080p stuff, but Vudu is damn near bluray quality in my experience. Not only do they offer Atmos and audio/video at a higher bitrate than practically every other provider, but their own proprietary encoding pass ensures stuff like black detail and film grain is preserved during compression. IIRC, their audio is encoded at 384kbps Dolby Digital plus, which is far more efficient than regular Dolby digital. Even stuff like rain and clapping that suffers lossy compression sounds good to my ears.

If it wasn't for vudu and Atmos, I'd probably still be doing discs only. If someone finally starts doing 4k rentals, I'll probably switch back to that, but as of right now, there's lots of 4k Atmos releases that I want to see but don't want to own. Sure, I could just buy and flip the bluray but you still lose more money doing that. 

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kadath said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have all this solid A/V equipment and are going hard for streaming... a real shame.
> 
> 
> 
> What's really sad is how many people dismiss streaming out of hand. There is little to be ashamed of with 4K and Atmos streams. I'd take that over bluray any day of the week.
> 
> Of course UHD disks will have truhd Atmos, which is nice, and slightly more picture detail. Duh. People serious about this hobby should consider streams an 'and', not an 'or'.
Click to expand...

If you are serious about this hobby and care about the best performance, streaming is not there yet and may never be unless you're rich and can afford to sign up for rentable commercial DCP's and have a cinema server. It's still discs or bust.


----------



## Ted99

PeterTHX said:


> If the industry thought Auro was doing a better job then Auro would be everywhere.


And Betamax would have ruled tape storage.


----------



## Jish9

PeterTHX said:


> It most certainly is NOT a gimmick, since the home video companies like Paramount, Sony and Lionsgate often go back and get the original sound elements which are then often remixed with the same sound mixers who did the originals.
> 
> If anything Auro is a gimmick - with a single overhead speaker - and who has setups that allow for TWO rows of speakers?
> 
> If the industry thought Auro was doing a better job then Auro would be everywhere.


It's not about being a gimmick or what not. Rather, it is about marketing dollars and deep pockets. The makers of Auro simply cannot compete dollar wise with that is being spent to push ATMOS. I like both formats, but happen to think that Auro has done a better job of spacial sound placement in the movies I have watched. It's a moot discussion at this point as the clear winner is the ATMOS format for mass distribution.


----------



## Jonas2

Jish9 said:


> ATMOS is more of a gimmick to re-sell old Blu Rays to the same audience in hopes of having a better experience. The sound format was not really used properly until Part IV, and so anything else is just a vein attempt. Image quality has been improved in all versions because of the HDR treatment.


Isn't this kind of discounting theater/cinema Atmos? The implication is that Atmos was made just for home theater.....?? Is it a gimmick to get people to go to the theater, or is this a genuine addition to the movie-going experience, cinema and home? I mean, Atmos adds something to the experience. With the upmixers than any Atmos-capable receiver has, it really is up to the end user to decide whether or not they want to upgrade that old bluray or simply upmix that soundtrack into a psuedo-Atmos experience (and this can be VERY good). I don't know how this is really a gimmick, though I guess I can understand the perception. 



Kadath said:


> What's really sad is how many people dismiss streaming out of hand. There is little to be ashamed of with 4K and Atmos streams. I'd take that over bluray any day of the week.
> 
> Of course UHD disks will have truhd Atmos, which is nice, and slightly more picture detail. Duh. People serious about this hobby should consider streams an 'and', not an 'or'.


Yeah, that's fair enough. I do a bit of streaming, but if it's something I REALLY like, that has rewatch value, I prefer to own the physical, often in part due to all of the extras that you get that you ain't gonna get streamin'......not everyone cares, but.....


----------



## camd5pt0

I enjoy Vudu. I've tested it against my X800 UHD player, and the distance in pic quality is hard to tell if any. The sound is more noticeable but only back to back testing would you miss the UHD disc.

Therefore, if I get a great enough deal, I'll get Vudu only. Otherwise I get both with UHD+digital.


yepimonfire said:


> I'm mostly a streamer too, except I actually do find 4k and Atmos to be a justifiable difference. Vudu UHD has both at a high enough bitrate that I see and hear very little difference from 4k bluray. Outside of a more expensive option such as 3d bluray rental etc, streaming is the only way to easily rent 4k content, and now prices have dropped to the same or similar to the HD rentals. Amazon is the worst for quality, both in audio and video, with noticeable artifacts on both. I mostly use them for prime stuff. Netflix 4k is just slightly better than their 1080p stuff, but Vudu is damn near bluray quality in my experience. Not only do they offer Atmos and audio/video at a higher bitrate than practically every other provider, but their own proprietary encoding pass ensures stuff like black detail and film grain is preserved during compression. IIRC, their audio is encoded at 384kbps Dolby Digital plus, which is far more efficient than regular Dolby digital. Even stuff like rain and clapping that suffers lossy compression sounds good to my ears.
> 
> If it wasn't for vudu and Atmos, I'd probably still be doing discs only. If someone finally starts doing 4k rentals, I'll probably switch back to that, but as of right now, there's lots of 4k Atmos releases that I want to see but don't want to own. Sure, I could just buy and flip the bluray but you still lose more money doing that.
> 
> Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## PeterTHX

Ted99 said:


> And Betamax would have ruled tape storage.


They would have if Sony had licensed out the format. Apple made the same mistake in the PC market.


Jish9 said:


> It's not about being a gimmick or what not. Rather, it is about marketing dollars and deep pockets. The makers of Auro simply cannot compete dollar wise with that is being spent to push ATMOS. I like both formats, but happen to think that Auro has done a better job of spacial sound placement in the movies I have watched. It's a moot discussion at this point as the clear winner is the ATMOS format for mass distribution.


No, in this case it was about performance. 2 rows of speakers is useless in movie theaters where they are mounted somewhat above the audience as it is. Atmos' two rows of overhead speakers clearly outperform Auro.
Not to mention TRUE OBJECT AUDIO. Auro was a matrixed system and not true discrete 3D surround. 2012 saw the superior system win.


----------



## PeterTHX

By the way, is there a list of films on disc where the objects in Atmos are locked to 7.1.4 or 7.1.6?


----------



## Jish9

Jonas2 said:


> Isn't this kind of discounting theater/cinema Atmos? The implication is that Atmos was made just for home theater.....?? Is it a gimmick to get people to go to the theater, or is this a genuine addition to the movie-going experience, cinema and home? I mean, Atmos adds something to the experience. With the upmixers than any Atmos-capable receiver has, it really is up to the end user to decide whether or not they want to upgrade that old bluray or simply upmix that soundtrack into a psuedo-Atmos experience (and this can be VERY good). I don't know how this is really a gimmick, though I guess I can understand the perception.


Thanks for the response. You make a good point and I need to clarify my post. I was approaching this strictly from a marketing perspective, where things are purposely held back so that it can be later released for additional revenue. In some cases using the format more as a selling point rather than doing it right to provide a truly immersive experience. We have all seen and experienced this in some way. In reading my post, I can see how this could be construed in the way you describe. The technology is truly amazing and has added to the overall experience for most people. It's just that when studios re-release older films claiming ATMOS and it sounds like what Transformers I, II did (which is essentially the same as the TrueHD track), then yes I think it is being used as a "gimmick" to increase sales as they clearly did not care about the end result.


----------



## Jish9

PeterTHX said:


> They would have if Sony had licensed out the format. Apple made the same mistake in the PC market.
> 
> No, in this case it was about performance. 2 rows of speakers is useless in movie theaters where they are mounted somewhat above the audience as it is. Atmos' two rows of overhead speakers clearly outperform Auro.
> Not to mention TRUE OBJECT AUDIO. Auro was a matrixed system and not true discrete 3D surround. 2012 saw the superior system win.


Rather than get into a debate about the psychoacoustics of sound in the real world, I will leave it at to each their own. My comments were based on my own experiences and you certainly are entitled to yours.


----------



## gerchy

Jish9 said:


> ATMOS is more of a gimmick to re-sell old Blu Rays to the same audience in hopes of having a better experience. The sound format was not really used properly until Part IV, and so anything else is just a vein attempt. Image quality has been improved in all versions because of the HDR treatment.


You're missing the point. 
Many old movies were remastered and have a good 7.1.4 mix. 
I was just curious if anyone else noticed that parts I and II are missing two channels.


----------



## deano86

gerchy said:


> You're missing the point.
> Many old movies were remastered and have a good 7.1.4 mix.
> I was just curious if anyone else noticed that parts I and II are missing two channels.


That is very strange indeed... Hopefully someone can confirm whether this is indeed the case... I don't have a 4K display/projector... but am able to remux the Atmos soundtrack from 4K discs and combine the 1080p bluray video... if it is deemed to be enough of an audio upgrade I will do it, but certainly not if the remixed Atmos soundtrack is limited like that..


----------



## duckymomo

deano86 said:


> That is very strange indeed... Hopefully someone can confirm whether this is indeed the case... I don't have a 4K display/projector... but am able to remux the Atmos soundtrack from 4K discs and combine the 1080p bluray video... if it is deemed to be enough of an audio upgrade I will do it, but certainly not if the remixed Atmos soundtrack is limited like that..


As with anything YMMV. Lately, I've been using my ATV instead of the Shield to playback some movies with Atmos tracks. Unless it's a reference mix like 2049, or one with lots of action and activity overhead like a newer Transformers, upmixing is enough most of the time. 

I suppose, it would be different if I still watched moves while focusing on the performance of my system and individual speaker activity, rather then just relaxing and enjoying the movie itself, like I do now.


----------



## Jish9

gerchy said:


> You're missing the point.
> Many old movies were remastered and have a good 7.1.4 mix.
> I was just curious if anyone else noticed that parts I and II are missing two channels.


Please see my earlier response. And yes, I also noticed the same thing audio wise.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Jish9 said:


> ATMOS is more of a gimmick to re-sell old Blu Rays to the same audience in hopes of having a better experience. The sound format was not really used properly until Part IV, and so anything else is just a vein attempt. Image quality has been improved in all versions because of the HDR treatment.


The labeling of Atmos as a gimmick is the exact terminology used of surround sound in it's early days. For us "older folks" in the room, we heard the same objections railed against Dolby Surround. It's a marketing ploy to sell speakers; a ploy to sell equipment; its just ambiance noise that is distracting; too much effort with wiring all over the house; more speakers are ugly; its just a gimmick. At this point in the Atmos life-cycle, a lot of this is true as it was true in the Dolby Surround days. In my opinion, Atmos is rather gimmicky right now and not being utilized in the capacity it is capable of. I also remember when I was the only guy in my military unit that ran wires with speakers sitting behind his couch up high on the wall in 1990. I also had a 4 head JVC stereo hi-fi VHS player which was required to be able to pass surround sound to a Yamaha receiver. This was expensive stuff back in the day, especially on a military paycheck. People thought I was nuts. It was also very gimmicky at the time with content predominately being only ambient sounds. However, the first time I heard a tie fighter wiz by in my living room I was sold forever! Likewise, when I heard the Atmos demo disc, I was likewise sold forever. If Atmos takes the same path as surround sound, which I believe it will, movie soundtracks will become mind blowing immersive. Yes, Atmos has overall been *meh* in my opinion with a few exceptions - agreed. However, I am an early adopter knowing that time is the element that we have to contend with as new technology matures and simmers within the industry.


----------



## Jish9

Molon_Labe said:


> The labeling of Atmos as a gimmick is the exact terminology used of surround sound in it's early days. For us "older folks" in the room, we heard the same objections railed against Dolby Surround. It's a marketing ploy to sell speakers; a ploy to sell equipment; its just ambiance sound that is distracting; too much effort with wiring all over the house; more speakers are ugly; its just a gimmick. At this point in Atmos, a lot of this is true as it was true in the Dolby Surround days. In my opinion, Atmos is rather gimmicky right now and not being utilized in the capacity it is capable of. I also remember when I was the only guy in my military unit that ran wires with speakers sitting behind his couch up high on the wall in 1990. I also had a 4 head JVC stereo hi-fi VHS player which was required to be able to pass surround sound to a Yamaha receiver. This was expensive stuff back in the day, especially on a military paycheck. People thought I was nuts. It was also very gimmicky at the time with content predominately being only ambient sounds. However, the first time I heard a tie fighter wiz by in my living room I was sold forever! Likewise, when I heard the Atmos demo disc, I was likewise sold forever. If Atmos takes the same path as surround sound, which I believe it will, movie soundtracks will become mind blowing immersive. Yes, Atmos has overall been *meh* in my opinion with a few exceptions - agreed. However, I am an early adopter knowing that time is the element that we have to contend with as new technology matures and simmers within the industry.


Well said. Being older, I too was one of those individuals who bought in early into the technology, starting with laser discs and Dolby Surround. I just think that as we age, we get tired of the same hype for what is initially not that impressive. As the technology improves, the results are truly jaw dropping. It's just sad that it is being catered to the lowest common denominator at this time by some very large studios.


----------



## am2model3

when the true Atmos or DTS:X track fails you; switch over to the upmixer! that's what i do.


----------



## awblackmon

I'm of the older generation and have to agree that every step was called out as being gimmicky and a ploy to sell speakers. Well maybe it was maybe it wasn't. I too installed a home theater system off of Betamax and VHS playing into my Dolby surround gear. I created several versions of home theater over the years to entertain myself and my kids. We loved it. My wife at the time tolerated it.

Now I have my most advanced Dolby Atmos system and love it. My wife now also tolerates it but now I have it in a separate area of the house and I can do pretty much what I want to do. She does enjoy watching movies with me in the theater room though. She loves having the grandchildren come over and bring friends to show off the Grandfathers theater room and watch a movie from my library. 

I think the mixers are maturing in how to do a good Atmos mix. Early ones were a bit lacking or just plain hokey. They are improving a lot lately. Keep it up guys. It is sounding better and better. I hope this idea of locked 7.1.4 releases is just a passing fad. To me it smacks of laziness or greediness on someones part. Not to sure who but that is just my opinion. I have my doubts it's the mixer. I am pretty sure they are being told to do it a certain way or be replaced with someone who will. Pretty much how greed seems to work in my experience. I also hope that prices come down on 4K so that we don't have to cough up extra cash just to get Atmos. If not c'mon just include it on the Blu-ray too already. Still I have to admit that using my DTS upmixer on the DTS MA disc does a pretty fantastic job!


----------



## Archerkit

I remember being excited about our first Dolby Surround system - a Fisher that my dad bought. If I recall it was just the surround processor and 2 rear speakers to go along with your normal receiver. Mom didn't like the extra speakers and made him return it.  So for Christmas he got me a Sears all-in-one stereo that had MTS (Multichannel Television Sound for the kids out there) sound. Just tune it to the same station as the TV, and enjoy that amazing MTS sound! 

I'm still in the tweaking phase of my 5.1.2 Atmos-enabled setup, and I'm pretty happy. Sometimes you just have to reflect on those early days and then even a simple front-to-back sound of something flying by sounds impressive.


----------



## snpanago

I’m so old, I started my passion for home theater when I learned that Miami Vice was being broadcast in STEREO. I must have spent a grand on the first processor (Zenith) that received the stereo signal which I connected to my stereo system. I’m like a pig in s...t with my 5.2.4 Atmos setup.


----------



## maikeldepotter

PeterTHX said:


> No, in this case it was about performance. 2 rows of speakers is useless in movie theaters where they are mounted somewhat above the audience as it is. Atmos' two rows of overhead speakers clearly outperform Auro.
> Not to mention TRUE OBJECT AUDIO. Auro was a matrixed system and not true discrete 3D surround. 2012 saw the superior system win.


 
As the Atmos performance in the commercial theaters is not the same as its performance at home, your claim that Atmos clearly outperforms Auro3D does not necessarily and automatically translate to the home situation. Just recently some more dedicated and serious attempts are being made on this forum to compare Atmos and Auro3D in the home situation. Let's wait and see.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> As the Atmos performance in the commercial theaters is not the same as its performance at home, your claim that Atmos clearly outperforms Auro3D does not necessarily and automatically translate to the home situation. Just recently some more dedicated and serious attempts are being made on this forum to compare Atmos and Auro3D in the home situation. Let's wait and see.


Does it really matter which outperforms which? Since there is, relatively, almost no movie content in Auro3D, doesn't that pretty much settle it? If you want immersive audio in your HT, it's Atmos, followed at some distance by DTS:X and then by Auro3D which is so far behind it's effectively out of sight. I don't buy my movies according to which audio format they are presented in, but I haven't bought even *one *which came in Auro3D. Doesn't that tell me all I need to know?


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Does it really matter which outperforms which? Since there is, relatively, almost no movie content in Auro3D, doesn't that pretty much settle it? If you want immersive audio in your HT, it's Atmos, followed at some distance by DTS:X and then by Auro3D which is so far behind it's effectively out of sight. I don't buy my movies according to which audio format they are presented in, but I haven't bought even *one *which came in Auro3D. Doesn't that tell me all I need to know?


In practical terms you are right. This is a more academic discussion in the light of OP's presumption that it's the superior sonic performance of Atmos that pushed Auro3D nearly completely out of the home theater market.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> In practical terms you are right. This is a more academic discussion in the light of OP's presumption that it's the superior sonic performance of Atmos that pushed Auro3D nearly completely out of the home theater market.


Yes, I get that, but can't understand why it matters any more. Atmos won, Auro lost. Which was 'better' is, as you say, 'academic'. The reality is that Atmos *IS* the superior sonic performance because Auro doesn't actually have any sonic performance if there is no significant amount of content in the format. I guess I'm just wondering why it matters to you any more?

Isn't it very similar to Betamax vs VHS? Sure, Betamax may have been theoretically technically superior - but it was also, when it was introduced, more expensive and could only record 60 minutes. To compete with VHS's much longer (120 minutes) recording time, Sony had to cripple their tech, which then removed their technical advantage, but not their higher price. In other words, Sony pinned everything on superior image quality, albeit at a high price, when what the market actually wanted was superior recording time and a more affordable price. 

Isn't the Atmos vs Auro argument very similar? Auro may believe they have a superior technology (I don't know because I haven't been interested to study it***) but they haven't succeeded in offering what customers actually _want_, which is a significant amount of *content*.

Another parallel is Blu-ray vs HD-DVD. The latter was technically superior but lost out because more studios backed Blu-ray than backed HD-DVD, thus giving more _content _choice, which, again, is what customers wanted.

So, for me, with Atmos vs Auro it comes down to content, and Atmos is the clear, undisputed winner. Atmos's sonic performance blows away almost everyone who hears it, which makes it, in all practical senses, more than good enough to compete with Auro on that playing field, and it has what consumers want: content. So that's the end of it isn't it? Like Betamax, like HD-DVD, Auro fought a valiant campaign and lost. Isn't it time for Auro fans to just accept that the ship has sailed and they weren't on it?




_***Because, like more or less everyone else, I want content above all. Allegedly superior tech is meaningless if there's nothing for me to watch._


----------



## Ted99

^^^ I owned a Betamax and an HD-DVD player, and the only Auro disc of a movie I wanted to see. Content is King. Glad i didn't pay more for my Auro -capable receiver, as there is no content. Atmos reigns. Long live Atmos and let's hope that Studios make the most of it, since there is no "format war" anymore.


----------



## Jish9

Ted99 said:


> ^^^ I owned a Betamax and an HD-DVD player, and the only Auro disc of a movie I wanted to see. Content is King. Glad i didn't pay more for my Auro -capable receiver, as there is no content. Atmos reigns. Long live Atmos and let's hope that Studios make the most of it, since there is no "format war" anymore.


Your wish is granted.....as long as you're OK with printed 7.1.4 . No there is no format war and there is little content out there in Auro or DTS:X. I think what is being lost here is that some like the sound of one format over another and that is just a matter of preference. Regardless, it's a moot discussion as ATMOS is what looks to be the defacto standard going forward.


----------



## Ted99

Jish9 said:


> Your wish is granted.....as long as you're OK with printed 7.1.4 . No there is no format war and there is little content out there in Auro or DTS:X. I think what is being lost here is that some like the sound of one format over another and that is just a matter of preference. Regardless, it's a moot discussion as ATMOS is what looks to be the defacto standard going forward.


Yep. All of that is exactly what I said in the Auro forum.


----------



## kbarnes701

Ted99 said:


> ^^^ I owned a Betamax and an HD-DVD player, and the only Auro disc of a movie I wanted to see. Content is King. Glad i didn't pay more for my Auro -capable receiver, as there is no content. Atmos reigns. Long live Atmos and let's hope that Studios make the most of it, since there is no "format war" anymore.


I too owned a Betamax and, much more recently of course, I backed HD-DVD, bought a player, acquired about 100 discs and then the format died. I wanted HD-DVD to succeed but it didn't. I got over it.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Does it really matter which outperforms which? Since there is, relatively, almost no movie content in Auro3D, doesn't that pretty much settle it?


It sure does in my mind. For those of you who are old enough to remember, it is like the old VCR format war of Beta vs. VHS. It really doesn't matter if Beta was faster, more compact, and had a slightly better image: it was less popular and had fewer movies available so therefore VHS was the one to get.
---

Trivia: Who invented VHS and what did they originally call it? 
Answer: Sony. They called it "Alpha" but they decided the format wasn't good enough so they moved on to their new project, Beta (or more formally Betamax), and sold off the rights to the first system to JVC who improved the load mechanism somewhat and renamed it "VHS" [Video Home System, not "vertical helical scan" as some claim].


----------



## gene4ht

Ted99 said:


> ^^^ I owned a Betamax and an HD-DVD player, and the only Auro disc of a movie I wanted to see. Content is King. Glad i didn't pay more for my Auro -capable receiver, as there is no content. Atmos reigns. Long live Atmos and let's hope that Studios make the most of it, since there is no "format war" anymore.





kbarnes701 said:


> I too owned a Betamax and, much more recently of course, I backed HD-DVD, bought a player, acquired about 100 discs and then the format died. I wanted HD-DVD to succeed but it didn't. I got over it.



LOL!!! Same here...and I still have my Toshiba A-35 HD-DVD player with about 50 discs...waiting for Atmos to arrive to the format. Wonder what can be said about those who tend to back the "underdog.?


----------



## deano86

m. zillch said:


> It sure does in my mind. For those of you who are old enough to remember, it is like the old VCR format war of Beta vs. VHS. It really doesn't matter if Beta was faster, more compact, and had a slightly better image: it was less popular and had fewer movies available so therefore VHS was the one to get.
> ---
> 
> Trivia: Who invented VHS and what did they originally call it?
> Answer: Sony. They called it "Alpha" but they decided the format wasn't good enough so they moved on to their new project, Beta (or more formally Betamax), and sold off the rights to the first system to JVC who improved the load mechanism somewhat and renamed it "VHS" [Video Home System, not "vertical helical scan" as some claim].


I was under the impression that VHS won out mainly due to the porn industry going with VHS!


----------



## maikeldepotter

deano86 said:


> I was under the impression that VHS won out mainly due to the porn industry going with VHS!


 
And I heard in those days that it was the V2000 system (Video2000 by Philips) that outperformed the other two . But that may have been a biased Dutch interpretation ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess I'm just wondering why it matters to you any more?


 
Myth busting. An Atmos soundtrack that sounds noticebly different than an Auro3D soundtrack, while being the same movie and played on the same set-up. Just curious what causes that, to learn more about how immersive sound is produced and reproduced.


----------



## Kadath

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are serious about this hobby and care about the best performance, streaming is not there yet and may never be unless you're rich and can afford to sign up for rentable commercial DCP's and have a cinema server. It's still discs or bust.


Thanks for proving exactly my point. The hobby is full of people who look down on anything that doesn't fit with their very narrow worldview. Worse, they feel they have to shout down anyone who dares to enjoy what they will not accept. Sad.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kadath said:


> Thanks for proving exactly my point. The hobby is full of people who look down on anything that doesn't fit with their very narrow worldview. Worse, they feel they have to shout down anyone who dares to enjoy what they will not accept. Sad.


Wasn't he just stating a fact? Streaming, currently, cannot match disc for quality.


----------



## m. zillch

maikeldepotter said:


> An Atmos soundtrack that sounds noticebly different than an Auro3D soundtrack, while being the* same movie* and played on the same set-up. Just curious what causes that, to learn more about how immersive sound is produced and reproduced.


[emphasis mine to show what I'm addressing]

People often incorrectly assume that when they compare things like Hi-res to standard res, PCM to MP3, CD to LP, Dolby to DTS, Dolby to Auro, whatever, that the comparison is "fair" because they are hearing the exact same original master/mix but just through the different delivery systems. In truth this is often *not* the case, at all, so the difference being heard may simply be that the source mix was different for the two.

In the earlier years the gifted technical reviewer David Ranada of Sound and Vision magazine pointed out that a consumer's effort to audibly compare Dolby Digital 5.1 (then called AC3) to DTS was pretty much hopeless. He did some careful analyses of the two, from the exact same movie, and found that one or the other almost always had a "hotter" (higher level) surround mix, simply because a technician _decided_ to tweak it that way. Which of the two is technically more correct and has the higher fidelity to the source tape? Hard to say without the original master on hand, but the moral of the story is when we hear a difference it may have nothing to do with "which is better", it is likely heavily swayed by how the technician happened set the surround balance to make the transfer to the home distribution medium they were encoding for.


----------



## sdurani

With VHS vs Betamax, you could record the same signal on both tape formats and play them back on the same monitor to measure things like resolution & colour accuracy to know for sure whether the objectively higher quality format was the one losing the format war. More difficult to do anything that objective when comparing Atmos vs Auro since there are multiple variables (separate mixes, different speaker locations, etc). So for those out there trying to give the impression that a superior format is once again losing a format war, there is nothing objective to back that up. On disc, Atmos uses a lossless codec while Auro is lossy. But everything else (mix, speaker locations) comes down to subjective preference.


----------



## Kadath

kbarnes701 said:


> Wasn't he just stating a fact? Streaming, currently, cannot match disc for quality.


No, he's dismissing all of streaming as unworthy of HT fan's time. Which is ridiculous but apparently a much professed position here. Read my original post: HT fans should embrace streams as an and not as an or. Streams work well for what they are, blowing them off because they can't match the quality a disc can put out is madness. If you have a choice get the disk, especially for blockbuster AAA movies.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Wasn't he just stating a fact? Streaming, currently, cannot match disc for quality.


Relative quality wasn't the issue but instead the _"discs or bust"_ absolutist mindset, where enjoying 4K + Atmos via streaming automatically means you aren't _"serious about this hobby"_.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kadath said:


> No, he's dismissing all of streaming as unworthy of HT fan's time. Which is ridiculous but apparently a much professed position here. Read my original post: HT fans should embrace streams as an and not as an or. Streams work well for what they are, blowing them off because they can't match the quality a disc can put out is madness. If you have a choice get the disk, especially for blockbuster AAA movies.





sdurani said:


> Relative quality wasn't the issue but instead the _"discs or bust"_ absolutist mindset, where enjoying 4K + Atmos via streaming automatically means you aren't _"serious about this hobby"_.


Ah, OK. I was catching up (been away for a few days) and didn't get the full context there. I agree with a) Dan that discs offer superior performance, and with b) Kadath that streaming does have a place (I stream to my television via Amazon Fire TV for example and the quality for that is fine (just not for my movies in the Cowshed)) and c) with you that it is entirely possible to be serious about AV and HT while also enjoying streamed content.


----------



## Jish9

sdurani said:


> With VHS vs Betamax, you could record the same signal on both tape formats and play them back on the same monitor to measure things like resolution & colour accuracy to know for sure whether the objectively higher quality format was the one losing the format war. More difficult to do anything that objective when comparing Atmos vs Auro since there are multiple variables (separate mixes, different speaker locations, etc). So for those out there trying to give the impression that a superior format is once again losing a format war, there is nothing objective to back that up. On disc, Atmos uses a lossless codec while Auro is lossy. But everything else (mix, speaker locations) comes down to subjective preference.


You make an interesting point about Auro being lossy. That being the case, then why is it not being used as a streaming medium versus lossy ATMOS. It is my understanding that those watching content in lossy ATMOS are sometimes using the upmixer to create the immersive effect; whereas in this case you could stream the native (Auro 3D) audio format. Any thoughts on this or am I missing something?


----------



## sdurani

Jish9 said:


> You make an interesting point about Auro being lossy. That being the case, then why is it not being used as a streaming medium versus lossy ATMOS.


When Auro looked at typical 5.1 tracks, they noticed that not all 24 bits were being taken advantage of (i.e., they felt the sound quality was equivalent to 18 or 20 bit audio). So their Octopus encoder converted 11.1 immersive audio mixes to backwards compatible 5.1 tracks by slicing off the 4 or 6 least significant bits of the 5.1 channels in the base layer and filling that space in each channel with its respective height channel (that had been dithered down to 4 or 6 bits). For all intents and purposes, it would play back like a typical 5.1 PCM track. With an Auro decoder, each channel would have the height bits sliced off and sent to their respective height speakers to restore the original 11.1 mix. 

In Auro's case, "lossy" doesn't mean the kind of data compression we normally use that term with (MP3, AAC, DD+). It just means you've lost some bits compared to the original master, which is unavoidable with their encoding method (can't ever be true lossless when it discards bits). Since it isn't data compression, the bitrate is way too high for streaming. By comparison, Dolby specializes in scraping as much sound quality as possible from really small bitrates. Which is why their compression codecs (DD+, AC-4) dominate streaming, broadcast, cable, satellite, DVD, etc.


> It is my understanding that those watching content in lossy ATMOS are sometimes using the upmixer to create the immersive effect; whereas in this case you could stream the native (Auro 3D) audio format.


Atmos natively scales itself to the speaker layout. As such, it cannot be upmixed. So if someone says they're applying an upmixer to an Atmos track, they're likely upmixing a 5.1 or 7.1 version of the track, but not the Atmos mix. 

At a trade show three years ago, the inventor of Auro told me that they had a streaming version that was only 1.5*M*bps. Dolby codecs stream at a couple hundred *k*bps. Auro is not going to be streaming any time soon.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I get that, but can't understand why it matters any more. Atmos won, Auro lost. Which was 'better' is, as you say, 'academic_._



I am still not over HD-DVD.......


----------



## Ted99

m. zillch said:


> [emphasis mine to show what I'm addressing]
> 
> People often incorrectly assume that when they compare things like Hi-res to standard res, PCM to MP3, CD to LP, Dolby to DTS, Dolby to Auro, whatever, that the comparison is "fair" because they are hearing the exact same original master/mix but just through the different delivery systems. In truth this is often *not* the case, at all, so the difference being heard may simply be that the source mix was different for the two.
> 
> In the earlier years the gifted technical reviewer David Ranada of Sound and Vision magazine pointed out that a consumer's effort to audibly compare Dolby Digital 5.1 (then called AC3) to DTS was pretty much hopeless. He did some careful analyses of the two, from the exact same movie, and found that one or the other almost always had a "hotter" (higher level) surround mix, simply because a technician _decided_ to tweak it that way. Which of the two is technically more correct and has the higher fidelity to the source tape? Hard to say without the original master on hand, but the moral of the story is when we hear a difference it may have nothing to do with "which is better", it is likely heavily swayed by how the technician happened set the surround balance to make the transfer to the home distribution medium they were encoding for.


Exactly. When I did a back to back comparison of BladeRunner 2049 and identified some specific differences between Atmos and Auro to my ears in my theater and my speakers (previously reported on in this thread), I did not know who the sound mixer was for either version, or if it was the same sound mixer, or if one mix was done first and the second was derived from it (if that is possible). So, I cannot say if one is better than the other on an absolute basis, only that under the conditions in my theater, one of them was. But it doesn't matter. Atmos has won the content contest and all we can do is enjoy our movies and hope that the studios (and filmmakers--I'm speaking to you Sidney Nolan) take advantage of having a single platform and use all of the capabilities (I'm speaking to you, Disney).


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I am still not over HD-DVD.......


LOL. Well, you will just have to man up and accept it


----------



## Ted99

gene4ht said:


> LOL!!! Same here...and I still have my Toshiba A-35 HD-DVD player with about 50 discs...waiting for Atmos to arrive to the format. Wonder what can be said about those who tend to back the "underdog.?


Resigned to the inevitable and sold my Toshiba and 10 discs plus Season 1 of Battlestar Galactica (Six rules!) on fleabay a few months ago.


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> Dolby codecs stream at a couple hundred *k*bps.


Found a number: 384 kbps for streaming an Atmos track.


----------



## camd5pt0

I'll add to that analogy lol. 
I have both Project Scorpio Xbox One X and PS4 Pro.
Clearly the Xbox is the superior tech through and through. But having no games, and PS4 having such great exclusive games already and still coming, PS4 is clearly the winner.



kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, I get that, but can't understand why it matters any more. Atmos won, Auro lost. Which was 'better' is, as you say, 'academic'. The reality is that Atmos *IS* the superior sonic performance because Auro doesn't actually have any sonic performance if there is no significant amount of content in the format. I guess I'm just wondering why it matters to you any more?
> 
> Isn't it very similar to Betamax vs VHS? Sure, Betamax may have been theoretically technically superior - but it was also, when it was introduced, more expensive and could only record 60 minutes. To compete with VHS's much longer (120 minutes) recording time, Sony had to cripple their tech, which then removed their technical advantage, but not their higher price. In other words, Sony pinned everything on superior image quality, albeit at a high price, when what the market actually wanted was superior recording time and a more affordable price.
> 
> Isn't the Atmos vs Auro argument very similar? Auro may believe they have a superior technology (I don't know because I haven't been interested to study it***) but they haven't succeeded in offering what customers actually _want_, which is a significant amount of *content*.
> 
> Another parallel is Blu-ray vs HD-DVD. The latter was technically superior but lost out because more studios backed Blu-ray than backed HD-DVD, thus giving more _content _choice, which, again, is what customers wanted.
> 
> So, for me, with Atmos vs Auro it comes down to content, and Atmos is the clear, undisputed winner. Atmos's sonic performance blows away almost everyone who hears it, which makes it, in all practical senses, more than good enough to compete with Auro on that playing field, and it has what consumers want: content. So that's the end of it isn't it? Like Betamax, like HD-DVD, Auro fought a valiant campaign and lost. Isn't it time for Auro fans to just accept that the ship has sailed and they weren't on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _***Because, like more or less everyone else, I want content above all. Allegedly superior tech is meaningless if there's nothing for me to watch._


----------



## camd5pt0

I bought the equalizer on 4k Blu-ray last night. I was thinking, is it worth the few grand I spent for at home theater and buying all these UHD disc.

Later that night I popped in a movie I haven't seen yet, Pacific rim. I just watched the opening scenes, maybe first 3 min. Wow, this is why I put together this system. The sound effects were really 3D and sounds so good. I felt the sound moving around me in my 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## m. zillch

Molon_Labe said:


> I am still not over HD-DVD.......


You think that's bad? I invested heavily in Elcaset. . . . DOH!


----------



## sdrucker

Ted99 said:


> Exactly. When I did a back to back comparison of BladeRunner 2049 and identified some specific differences between Atmos and Auro to my ears in my theater and my speakers (previously reported on in this thread), I did not know who the sound mixer was for either version, or if it was the same sound mixer, or if one mix was done first and the second was derived from it (if that is possible). So, I cannot say if one is better than the other on an absolute basis, only that under the conditions in my theater, one of them was. But it doesn't matter. Atmos has won the content contest and all we can do is enjoy our movies and hope that the studios (and filmmakers--I'm speaking to you Sidney Nolan) take advantage of having a single platform and use all of the capabilities (I'm speaking to you, Disney).


 
Well, I bought your Auro Bladerunner 2049 disc from you (expecting to get it early next week), so I'll let you guys know my thoughts of playing an Auro track on an Atmos layout rededicated to simulated Auro thanks to my processor's black magic . Not a perfect comparison to my Atmos UHD but nothing is...

Having said that, how was the Auro mix created?
a) Cinematic Atmos to consumer Atmos, but how would this be rendered to Auro? Downmix to 5.1 then apply Auro's Octopus?
b) A separate 5.1 mix created from Cinema Atmos from the one downmixed in the Atmos process, which then got the Octopus treatment?
c) A separate Cinematic Auro mix then converted to home Auro?

All might create differences for any sort of comparison. Bottom line is that it's almost as difficult to compare the two as it would be to compare stereo to multichannel. I can try to equalize the playing field as much as possible (level matching the average SPL, compare the Auro mix to Atmos 7.x.4 to match what Ted did, as well as compare to my full tilt 13.x.6 setup). But the fact is that I'm testing Auro on a simulated (configuration+3D remapping) Auro layout, while Ted tested Atmos on an Auro layout, so there's built-in biases here.

Just from what I know of both technologies, I have a fair idea of what I might expect, and what I think I would prefer, but still, out of masochism/scientific interest, at least we'll have the same content, if not same mix, to compare.


----------



## Ted99

@sdrucker. This is teriffic. Another completely different data point with higher end components and a better room than my test.


----------



## sdrucker

Ted99 said:


> @*sdrucker*. This is teriffic. Another completely different data point with higher end components and a better room than my test.


 
Well...I'm glad to help since I have the gear anyway, and professionally I'm a marketing scientist so experiments are par for the course  .


And when I'm done with the disc, I should send it to Keith LOL  so that he can do that $200 Auro upgrade...


----------



## gwsat

sdurani said:


> Relative quality wasn't the issue but instead the _"discs or bust"_ absolutist mindset, where enjoying 4K + Atmos via streaming automatically means you aren't _"serious about this hobby"_.


I vastly prefer TrueHD Atmos audio, which is not available via streaming, to the various lossy audiotracks offered by streaming services. Nevertheless I agree with you that being an "absolutist" about it is a mistake. Streamed UHD HDR video looks almost as good as the disk variety and streamed audio, lossy thought it is, is getting better all the time. Also, the quality of the sound design has far more to do with listening pleasure than the codec used to deliver it.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Well...I'm glad to help since I have the gear anyway, and professionally I'm a marketing scientist so experiments are par for the course  .
> 
> 
> And when I'm done with the disc, I should send it to Keith LOL  so that he can do that $200 Auro upgrade...


LOL. 

I think Auro might have stood a better chance if it had used the 'standard' overhead speaker layout used by Atmos and DTS:X. But to have to wire specially for a format for which there is practically no content all but guaranteed it would fail in the home market IMO. AFAIAC Auro is dead and buried. I don't even know why anyone still discusses it TBH.


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> So your the wise guy who is responsible for all the ads in my my browser


That’s more like direct marketing than what I do. Those banner ads and popups are just as annoying to me as you, FWIW


----------



## maikeldepotter

maikeldepotter said:


> And I heard in those days that it was the V2000 system (Video2000 by Philips) that outperformed the other two . But that may have been a biased Dutch interpretation ...


Couldn't resist checking it:



> By the time Video 2000 came to market, Betamax and VHS had already established themselves, and so *despite Video 2000’s technical superiority, it lost out in the videotape format war*.


Source: http://www.obsoletemedia.org/video-2000/


----------



## Nalleh

sdrucker said:


> c) A separate Cinematic Auro mix then converted to home Auro?


Both 2049 and Jumanji had a cinematic Auro release, so that SHOULD be the base for the mix.


----------



## maikeldepotter

m. zillch said:


> ... the difference being heard may simply be that the source mix was different for the two.


In this case - and maybe others where a comparison is possible - the fact that the Auro3D version appears to be better in ambient/reverberant sound as compared to the Atmos version, could indeed very well be caused by both soundtracks coming from separate cinematic mixes. A cinematic Atmos re-recording engineer might put reverberant sounds in side and rear surrounds (enough elevation in a commercial cinema to provide for a good effect), and not in the overheads (too high on the ceiling to produce the same effect). The Auro3D re-recoding engineer on the other hand will preferably use the height channels for these same cues. Translate both soundtracks to the home situation with 1) overheads much more to the sides as compared to the cinema, and 2) side and rear surrounds at or close to ear level, and it's obvious why the Auro3D track does better at home.

See also picture below from this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1535.html#post54647312


----------



## m. zillch

maikeldepotter said:


> In this case - and maybe others where a comparison is possible - the fact that the Auro3D version appears to be better in ambient/reverberant sound as compared to the Atmos version, could indeed very well be caused by both soundtracks coming from separate cinematic mixes. A cinematic Atmos re-recording engineer might put reverberant sounds in side and rear surrounds (enough elevation in a commercial cinema to provide for a good effect), and not in the overheads (too high on the ceiling to produce the same effect). The Auro3D re-recoding engineer on the other hand will preferably use the height channels for these same cues. Translate both soundtracks to the home situation with 1) overheads much more to the sides as compared to the cinema, and 2) side and rear surrounds at or close to ear level, and it's obvious why the Auro3D track does better at home.


My main point was that even in comparing surround systems with identically placed speakers, such as Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS, that any alteration to the relative volume level of the surround mix ( say because the source is a different mix placed on different formats) is perceivable and often mistaken by humans as "It had more air, better clarity, the detail in the micro dynamics was better defined" etc.. The fact that humans almost invariably perceive small changes in level as _qualitative_ differences, not quantitative, is one of the oldest marketing tricks in the book.


----------



## sdurani

Don't know if this has already been posted at AVS: https://www.techradar.com/news/dolby-atmos-comes-to-amazon-prime-video-on-august-31


----------



## duckymomo

sdurani said:


> Don't know if this has already been posted at AVS: https://www.techradar.com/news/dolby-atmos-comes-to-amazon-prime-video-on-august-31


OT.... why on earth is Jim playing Jack Ryan.


----------



## sdurani

duckymomo said:


> OT.... why on earth is Jim playing Jack Ryan.


Maybe because of those 13 Hours he spent in Libya.


----------



## lax01

> . (For European readers, Dolby Atmos is offered in Germany via a service called Maxdome.)


Learn something new everyday...is Dolby Maxdome?


----------



## Ted99

sdurani said:


> Don't know if this has already been posted at AVS: https://www.techradar.com/news/dolby-atmos-comes-to-amazon-prime-video-on-august-31


Hopefully, it'll be available on other than Amazon's devices. For instance, Netflix's Atmos is not available on the Roku Ultra. Apple TV 4K is to get a firmware update in Sept to enable Atmos, but no word if Netflix will support the ATV platform


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> Maybe because of those 13 Hours he spent in Libya.


Well played....well played.


----------



## gwsat

Despite the potential improvement of the addition of Dolby Atmos to Amazon Prime content promises, I refuse to get too excited about it until I learn that my Roku Premiere+ will be able to access it. So far, too much Atmos content is limited to a distressingly small number of streaming clients.


----------



## Mr.G

gwsat said:


> Despite the potential improvement of the addition of Dolby Atmos to Amazon Prime content promises, I refuse to get too excited about it until I learn that my Roku Premiere+ will be able to access it. So far, too much Atmos content is limited to a distressingly small number of streaming clients.


Agree. Given the track record of Netflix and their 'sweetheart' deal with Microsoft, Xbox and LG for over a year I expect Amazon to restrict Atmos to their proprietary Fire TV and Cube for quite awhile - something I suspect their marketing department will be pushing.


----------



## Ted99

Mr.G said:


> Agree. Given the track record of Netflix and their 'sweetheart' deal with Microsoft, Xbox and LG for over a year I expect Amazon to restrict Atmos to their proprietary Fire TV and Cube for quite awhile - something I suspect their marketing department will be pushing.


Unfortunately, I think this is going to be standard practice for streaming in the near term. To get the state of the art in downloads (4K HDR, Dolby Vision, Atmos) we are going to have to have the proprietary streaming device that's tied in with the streaming content provider. I don't know how we the consumers are going to avoid having to have multiple streaming devices if we want the latest capabilities. It's maximization of profit thru vertical integration.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Molon_Labe said:


> I am still not over HD-DVD.......


I can beat that, I've only just just accepted American Independence


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> I can beat that, I've only just just accepted American Independence



I can not possibly imagine what might have facilitated that long delayed acceptance.


----------



## Bond 007

mrtickleuk said:


> I can beat that, I've only just just accepted American Independence


Sounds like a personal problem.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Bond 007 said:


> Sounds like a personal problem.


Jeez. IT WAS A JOKE! FFS.
At least most people understood that


----------



## usc1995

showmak said:


> You want one hour and forty minute of immersive audio and crazy bass? Watch The Hurricane Heist (2018).
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5360952/


So I finally got around to watching Hurricane Heist. Even though it is a Lionsgate title it still shipped from Netflix with the Atmos soundtrack intact so I was very happy about that. The movie is nuts! Absolutely ridiculous and absurd but thoroughly enjoyable! It really gave my sound system a workout. I will probably pick up a cheap copy when available to serve as demo material as it was really fun although it won't win any oscars. Any other recommendations? A similarly fun natural disaster movie I enjoyed was Into The Storm. Although it did not release with an Atmos soundtrack, DSU was able to really put you in the middle of the tornadoes and give your sound system a workout. I picked it up at BestBuy for $6 and I would say it is worth about that much for a popcorn movie.


----------



## chi_guy50

usc1995 said:


> So I finally got around to watching Hurricane Heist. Even though it is a Lionsgate title it still shipped from Netflix with the Atmos soundtrack intact so I was very happy about that. The movie is nuts! Absolutely ridiculous and absurd but thoroughly enjoyable! It really gave my sound system a workout. I will probably pick up a cheap copy when available to serve as demo material as it was really fun although it won't win any oscars. *Any other recommendations?* A similarly fun natural disaster movie I enjoyed was Into The Storm. Although it did not release with an Atmos soundtrack, DSU was able to really put you in the middle of the tornadoes and give your sound system a workout. I picked it up at BestBuy for $6 and I would say it is worth about that much for a popcorn movie.


If you are looking for a disaster movie with an impressive Atmos sound track (and a much more creditable script to boot), I can recommend the Norwegian film _The Wave_ ("Bølgen").

The Blu-ray disc is likewise available for rental from Netflix complete with the original (Norwegian-language) Atmos track.


----------



## showmak

usc1995 said:


> So I finally got around to watching Hurricane Heist. Even though it is a Lionsgate title it still shipped from Netflix with the Atmos soundtrack intact so I was very happy about that. The movie is nuts! Absolutely ridiculous and absurd but thoroughly enjoyable! It really gave my sound system a workout. I will probably pick up a cheap copy when available to serve as demo material as it was really fun although it won't win any oscars. Any other recommendations? A similarly fun natural disaster movie I enjoyed was Into The Storm. Although it did not release with an Atmos soundtrack, DSU was able to really put you in the middle of the tornadoes and give your sound system a workout. I picked it up at BestBuy for $6 and I would say it is worth about that much for a popcorn movie.




Glad you liked the sound. I have Into the Storm as well, watched it with the more aggressive upmixer Neural:X and it’s incredible.


----------



## showmak

chi_guy50 said:


> If you are looking for a disaster movie with an impressive Atmos sound track (and a much more creditable script to boot), I can recommend the Norwegian film _The Wave_ ("Bølgen").
> 
> The Blu-ray disc is likewise available for rental from Netflix complete with the original (Norwegian-language) Atmos track.


I agree


----------



## usc1995

chi_guy50 said:


> If you are looking for a disaster movie with an impressive Atmos sound track (and a much more creditable script to boot), I can recommend the Norwegian film _The Wave_ ("Bølgen").
> 
> The Blu-ray disc is likewise available for rental from Netflix complete with the original (Norwegian-language) Atmos track.




I did see it and enjoyed it a lot. I got that one from Netflix as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GGrover

*In-Vaulted Ceilings*

Greetings,

Been lurking and reading for quite a while and got to point where some alternate perspectives about my plan would be very helpful before I start cutting holes. (Hope I got the right thread, seemed unnecessary to start a whole new one for this.)

I am getting ready to put in some in-ceiling speakers (Kef Ci200.2CR, dispersion 110 degrees) for a 7.2.4 Atmos setup but not quite sure about my speaker placement due to an in-vaulted?? ceiling causing placement complications. The ceiling drops in at a 10-degree angle from the back of the room. This means the front ceiling speakers will be lower while angled towards the seating and the rears will be higher and angled away from the seating (a single sofa). Also, joist placement means I cannot move them towards or away from the side walls in small increments. They are pretty well locked into those joist channels. 

The arrangement I have in the pictures is what I came up with as a best case scenario. The height of the front speakers is a concern and full coverage is limited to the MLP only. I am okay with that but am considering building some attachments to angle them enough to cover the whole seating area (a single sofa).

I am wondering if I should pull one or both speaker closer together (see the green arrows in top view layout) to raise the height of the front ceiling speakers and/or get a little better coverage from the rear ceiling speakers. 

If anyone has some insight about what I should do in this case, I will be delighted to hear it.

Cheers!


Here is the set up:
100" fixed screen
JVC X770
Denon x6300
Front LR: Sony SS-NA5ES 
Center: Sony SS-NA8ES
Subs: Fostex CW250 x2
Surrounds Sides, Rears: B&W CDMSNT 
Ceiling: Kef Ci200.2CR


----------



## kbarnes701

GGrover said:


> Greetings,
> 
> Been lurking and reading for quite a while and got to point where some alternate perspectives about my plan would be very helpful before I start cutting holes. (Hope I got the right thread, seemed unnecessary to start a whole new one for this.)
> 
> I am getting ready to put in some in-ceiling speakers (Kef Ci200.2CR, dispersion 110 degrees) for a 7.2.4 Atmos setup but not quite sure about my speaker placement due to an in-vaulted?? ceiling causing placement complications. The ceiling drops in at a 10-degree angle from the back of the room. This means the front ceiling speakers will be lower while angled towards the seating and the rears will be higher and angled away from the seating (a single sofa). Also, joist placement means I cannot move them towards or away from the side walls in small increments. They are pretty well locked into those joist channels.
> 
> The arrangement I have in the pictures is what I came up with as a best case scenario. The height of the front speakers is a concern and full coverage is limited to the MLP only. I am okay with that but am considering building some attachments to angle them enough to cover the whole seating area (a single sofa).
> 
> I am wondering if I should pull one or both speaker closer together (see the green arrows in top view layout) to raise the height of the front ceiling speakers and/or get a little better coverage from the rear ceiling speakers.
> 
> If anyone has some insight about what I should do in this case, I will be delighted to hear it.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> Here is the set up:
> 100" fixed screen
> JVC X770
> Denon x6300
> Front LR: Sony SS-NA5ES
> Center: Sony SS-NA8ES
> Subs: Fostex CW250 x2
> Surrounds Sides, Rears: B&W CDMSNT
> Ceiling: Kef Ci200.2CR


The front overheads are lower than ideal but if it was me I'd go with them as your original plan and not move them closer to the rears. Either solution is a compromise and personally I'd prefer the greater separation of the front and rear overheads to a bit more height on the front pair. I think you will get a good result leaving them in the more forward position. That's how I'd do it anyway - others may have mileages that vary of course.

Remember the golden rule: it's hard to make Atmos *not *work


----------



## sdurani

GGrover said:


> If anyone has some insight about what I should do in this case, I will be delighted to hear it.


Are you willing to move the sofa?


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Remember the golden rule: it's hard to make Atmos *not *work


I totally agree. People should worry much more about the placement of the front three speakers. They are critical but all of the surrounds, especially the ones in the cloud, much less so. Heck if you watch the kind of movies I do, where specifically needing to hear that an object is directly overhead _but to your left, not right,_ it is a fairly rare event and I wouldn't be surprised if accidentally flipping the wiring to your your L and R cloud speakers even matters for many movies. [Again, YMMV.] I'm much more concerned with the accurate recreation of the general ambiance and atmosphere of the movie, and the need for pinpoint imaging of cloud objects is usually fleeting and less critical in terms of their perceptual localization.

"But, but, what if you need to *accurately* hear an encircling helicopter?" , some may ask. Since there is no visual image we need to track to, if your sub-optimally placed Atmos speakers happen to place the helicopter 25 degrees too low, too high, or too much to one side your brain is very forgiving because there is no cognitive dissonance due to poor perceptual fusion of the aural image to the visual image. . . _because there is no visual image we need to fuse with except when the helicopter is on screen!_


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> I totally agree. People should worry much more about the placement of the front three speakers. They are critical but all of the surrounds, especially the ones in the cloud, much less so. Heck if you watch the kind of movies I do, where specifically needing to hear that an object is directly overhead _but to your left, not right,_ it is a fairly rare event and I wouldn't be surprised if accidentally flipping the wiring to your your L and R cloud speakers even matters for many movies. [Again, YMMV.] I'm much more concerned with the accurate recreation of the general ambiance and atmosphere of the movie, and the need for pinpoint imaging of cloud objects is usually fleeting and less critical in terms of their perceptual localization.
> 
> "But, but, what if you need to *accurately* hear an encircling helicopter?" , some may ask. Since there is no visual image we need to track to, if your sub-optimally placed Atmos speakers happen to place the helicopter 25 degrees too low, too high, or too much to one side your brain is very forgiving because there is no cognitive dissonance due to poor perceptual fusion of the aural image to the visual image. . . _because there is no visual image we need to fuse with except when the helicopter is on screen!_


I have much sympathy with your view. In general I think people overthink it all far too much. I do want to get as close to the Director's intent as I can, but really, chasing this is like herding cats most of the time. I think that if people follow the various guidelines as closely as they can, given their room and circumstances, mostly they will get a pretty good result. In the current case, I can see why @GGrover wants to get it as good as he can and I do admire the search for the best result - but at some point we have to remember why we are here, and it is to watch movies.

Far more important than the precise placement of overhead speakers is the room in general and how it has been treated acoustically (whether with 'formal' treatment panels and solutions or the more 'informal' use of furnishings, rugs etc (as per Dr Toole's room), placement of the main speakers and subs, attention paid to the positioning of MLP, proper use of a competent room EQ system etc - all of these are going to have much more impact on what we hear than the precise location of overhead speakers. This is perhaps especially so when, currently, mixers are not using them to their full effect in most movies anyway (although that may change over time, as it did with conventional surrounds).

Still, having said all that, this is the thread where people come for help with Atmos speaker placement so we owe it to them to give that help, based on our own experiences and/or knowledge and to give as much collective guidance as we can. Then again, the advice not to overthink things is also good advice I guess


----------



## cheyne2525

kbarnes701 said:


> I have much sympathy with your view. In general I think people overthink it all far too much. I do want to get as close to the Director's intent as I can, but really, chasing this is like herding cats most of the time. I think that if people follow the various guidelines as closely as they can, given their room and circumstances, mostly they will get a pretty good result. In the current case, I can see why @GGrover wants to get it as good as he can and I do admire the search for the best result - but at some point we have to remember why we are here, and it is to watch movies.
> 
> Far more important than the precise placement of overhead speakers is the room in general and how it has been treated acoustically (whether with 'formal' treatment panels and solutions or the more 'informal' use of furnishings, rugs etc (as per Dr Toole's room), placement of the main speakers and subs, attention paid to the positioning of MLP, proper use of a competent room EQ system etc - all of these are going to have much more impact on what we hear than the precise location of overhead speakers. This is perhaps especially so when, currently, mixers are not using them to their full effect in most movies anyway (although that may change over time, as it did with conventional surrounds).
> 
> Still, having said all that, this is the thread where people come for help with Atmos speaker placement so we owe it to them to give that help, based on our own experiences and/or knowledge and to give as much collective guidance as we can. Then again, the advice not to overthink things is also good advice I guess


Hear hear and well said, everyone needs help occasionally. I'm relatively new to the home theater hobby myself having only just attained the financial freedom in mid-2016 to pursue it seriously and geek out on it. However, with the help of forums like these my operational knowledge and understanding of the subjects involved has grown considerably. I'm running a 7.2.4 Atmos setup and I've come to this and a few other forums over the course of my AV journey in the HT enthusiast world; i can say that without the sound advice provided by the knowledgeable people here i would have been struggling to wrap my head around how to set up some of my gear, how to use it correctly, and just finding out what to look for in general and how to modify it accordingly has been invaluable.
Speaking of needing advice, I'm ready for another round of schooling, lol; i included some pics below of my den's theater setup below and i was curious on a few things so i thought I’d pose a few Q's to the masses here. 
In the pics below u can see that the room is a bit oddly shaped - kind of a staggered L-shape. Some of the furniture, the 2 subwoofers and the 2 acoustic panels have all been moved since the pics were taken but the whole rest of the room is pretty much the same. I have added some home-brewed :wink: acoustic panels in the 1st reflection points for the front L/R spkrs and attached to the ceiling are 3 Felt fabric wrapped Styrofoam panels (closed cell foam) for use as a DIY star ceiling (the front 2 ceiling speakers project their sound through acoustically friendly fabric-covered holes in the panels). The area behind and to either side of the TV and L/C/R spkrs is some pre-existing cabinetry/shelving I use to store movies and some knick-knacks; there is also a section of brick wall w/ a fireplace behind and to the left of the seating area. So, after that very long explanatory spiel, i shall now pose the aforementioned Q’s, lol.

1. What is a good rule of thumb for how much distance there should be between each of the four Atmos ceiling speakers? They aren't going to be moved any time in the near future (it was a 7 week struggle to get them placed where they are), I was just curious on how good my guesswork was since I'm still striving to make the MLP as good as I can with my room's limitations (like having an HVAC duct running left to right directly over top of my head).
2. My 2nd Q is three-fold: A. Since I have a lot more open space behind and to the right of the seating area, is there anything else that I can do to help keep the sound as balanced as possible short of remodeling the room or adding/removing walls? B. Is the cabinetry/shelving behind and to either side of the TV and front 3 spkrs (see pics) too detrimental to the accuracy and quality of the front soundstage? C. I know that brick is very reflective and I seem to have a slight bump in some of the mid and high frequency sounds of movie soundtracks (the overall left side of the sound field seems a just slightly louder in general); my Q is, could the sound be bouncing off of the brick and causing overemphasis of the sound on that side? Or alternatively, could it be speaker boundary interference since the Surround Left, Surround Back Left and the Top Rear Left Ceiling spkrs are all fairly close to the wall?
3. Lastly, I don’t have an SPL meter or fully understand the techniques and gear used to measure and determine a target curve for a nice flat response in the room but I am getting pretty good at adjusting the channel trim levels for my speakers. The issue in play here is depending on what movie soundtrack is playing I commonly have to adjust the speaker trim levels to get the soundfield to sound balanced (the left side is usually the side that needs the most tweaking); in another thread there was a comment that stated “In certain L-shaped rooms the decay time of the upper bass/lo-mid can be very different and the sound stage would vary too much from recording to recording due to the lo-mid decay mismatch. An L-shaped room is not always a bad thing, but there are definite trade-offs”. My Q is, could that be what’s happening here that’s causing me to have to constantly tweak my channel trims?


----------



## dfa973

cheyne2525 said:


> 1. What is a good rule of thumb for how much distance there should be between each of the four Atmos ceiling speakers?


Multichannel speaker placement is always a matter of angles, not distances per se, not in this case. See the attachment about the angles that are recommended for the ceiling speakers. Overhead angles for 5.1.4 are the same for 7.1.4.



cheyne2525 said:


> 2. My 2nd Q is three-fold: A. Since I have a lot more open space behind and to the right of the seating area, is there anything else that I can do to help keep the sound as balanced as possible short of remodeling the room or adding/removing walls?


Do you use RoomEQ calibration? After the calibration, the results were..., what? Good, bad?



cheyne2525 said:


> 3. Lastly, I don’t have an SPL meter or fully understand the techniques and gear used to measure and determine a target curve for a nice flat response in the room but I am getting pretty good at adjusting the channel trim levels for my speakers.


This Q is also linked to RoomEQ calibration systems, most of them do a very good job at resolving a lot of issues of the rooms we use.


----------



## kbarnes701

Sanjay is King of Room Rearrangement and Design, so hopefully he will chime in. Meanwhile, I'll add a few observations of my own.




cheyne2525 said:


> 1. What is a good rule of thumb for how much distance there should be between each of the four Atmos ceiling speakers? They aren't going to be moved any time in the near future (it was a 7 week struggle to get them placed where they are), I was just curious on how good my guesswork was since I'm still striving to make the MLP as good as I can with my room's limitations (like having an HVAC duct running left to right directly over top of my head).


It's not so much the distance between them as the angular separation between them and the other speakers. If you follow the guidelines in this oft-posted diagram, you will be OK - but treat them as guidelines and try to get as much angular separation as you can so it makes it easier to differentiate sounds meant to be coming from above you from those around you. 












cheyne2525 said:


> 2. My 2nd Q is three-fold: A. Since I have a lot more open space behind and to the right of the seating area, is there anything else that I can do to help keep the sound as balanced as possible short of remodeling the room or adding/removing walls?


In general, if one side of the room is open and the other side is a wall, placing acoustic absorption against the wall will help. The imbalance occurs because sound travels to the side with the wall and bounces back, whereas there is nothing to stop it at the other wall so it 'goes right through'. Treating the solid wall effectively 'removes it' and the sound is more balanced as a result.



cheyne2525 said:


> B. Is the cabinetry/shelving behind and to either side of the TV and front 3 spkrs (see pics) too detrimental to the accuracy and quality of the front soundstage?


It isn't helping. Lots of bits and pieces for sound to reflect off. I;d expect it would harm the imaging.



cheyne2525 said:


> C. I know that brick is very reflective and I seem to have a slight bump in some of the mid and high frequency sounds of movie soundtracks (the overall left side of the sound field seems a just slightly louder in general); my Q is, could the sound be bouncing off of the brick and causing overemphasis of the sound on that side?


Are you not using any form of electronic room EQ, eg Audyssey? If not, then do so. The room EQ will balance the levels for you.



cheyne2525 said:


> 3. Lastly, I don’t have an SPL meter or fully understand the techniques and gear used to measure and determine a target curve for a nice flat response in the room but I am getting pretty good at adjusting the channel trim levels for my speakers.


Audyssey etc will take care of the channel trims. No need to do it yourself. What AVR are you using? The room EQ will also do its best to get you a decently flat response too.




cheyne2525 said:


> The issue in play here is depending on what movie soundtrack is playing I commonly have to adjust the speaker trim levels to get the soundfield to sound balanced (the left side is usually the side that needs the most tweaking); in another thread there was a comment that stated “In certain L-shaped rooms the decay time of the upper bass/lo-mid can be very different and the sound stage would vary too much from recording to recording due to the lo-mid decay mismatch. An L-shaped room is not always a bad thing, but there are definite trade-offs”. My Q is, could that be what’s happening here that’s causing me to have to constantly tweak my channel trims?


Since the room doesn't change between movies, there's no good reason for you to need to change the trims on an individual movie basis that I can see. Rooms with large open areas do present special challenges but L-shaped rooms are not uncommon and I am sure that many people have set up good HTs in them.

Sanjay will probably suggest changing around the HT area of the room - he is the RoomMeister here, so let's see what he proposes if he has chance to reply.


----------



## GGrover

Thank you all for the sage advice. 

The sofa is pretty locked in its current location; primarily because the viewing distance is perfect for me as is. 

Keeping a good separation between the ceiling speakers makes sense, but so did maximizing the height. I will definitely keep the angles/separation in place and live with the fronts a bit low. Before I started cutting holes in my ceiling, I wanted to confirm which dimension to compromise. Those Dolby guidelines aren't exactly chock full of helpful examples, so getting some perspectives based on experience is very helpful.

I know that the extra speakers are going to add to the need for a little more attention to acoustic treatment. I tried to get the first reflections with some DIY panels when I initially set everything up, but I did not do too much else with it because I absolutely hit the 'sounds great to me' criterion. I will add a few more once the ceiling speakers are installed, but the angled, low ceiling really makes a tricky process even trickier. Once everything is in place, I will run Audyssey and if it sounds great, then panel placement may be next summer's project. 

And..., no doubt, it is about enjoying film, but this part of it can be pretty fun too. I set my theater up about 5 years ago with copious overly-detailed layout plans and thoroughly enjoyed studying, planning, and measuring. It is easy to get lost in the details though. After mapping and measuring for the Atmos speakers, I put up some thumbtacks to mark three different options and they were all within about a foot and a half! I would guess that it doesn't make too much difference at that level. Still, there is some satisfaction knowing that you came to a well-reasoned and calculated decision. 

Actually, I am not a tinkerer though and really haven't touched anything since I first set everything up. However, most of what I watch is through AppleTV, and when they started broadcasting in 4K HDR, I started looking at projectors to take advantage of it. I am particularly excited about the coming addition of Atmos, (which meant a new AVR and now ceiling speakers). I love the audio side of things and have my fingers crossed this is going to be nice upgrade. 

Again, thank you for the time and thoughtfulness in your responses. I will share when things progress and perhaps come back with a question or two.

Cheers!


----------



## kbarnes701

GGrover said:


> Thank you all for the sage advice.


You're very welcome 



GGrover said:


> Keeping a good separation between the ceiling speakers makes sense, but so did maximizing the height. I will definitely keep the angles/separation in place and live with the fronts a bit low. Before I started cutting holes in my ceiling, I wanted to confirm which dimension to compromise. Those Dolby guidelines aren't exactly chock full of helpful examples, so getting some perspectives based on experience is very helpful.


I am sure you will enjoy the result. It really is hard to get it wrong (as Dolby said), and even in a compromised Atmos setup it is invariably better than no Atmos at all. The extra sense of envelopment and involvement really is worthwhile - even on movies upmixed with DSU much of the time.



GGrover said:


> I know that the extra speakers are going to add to the need for a little more attention to acoustic treatment. I tried to get the first reflections with some DIY panels when I initially set everything up, but I did not do too much else with it because I absolutely hit the 'sounds great to me' criterion. I will add a few more once the ceiling speakers are installed, but the angled, low ceiling really makes a tricky process even trickier. Once everything is in place, I will run Audyssey and if it sounds great, then panel placement may be next summer's project.


Yes, my experience has been that adding acoustic treatment makes the biggest difference of anything you could do. The room really is the single most important component in the system and any efforts directed into improving it bring big rewards. And, especially if you DIY, it doesn't cost a fortune either.



GGrover said:


> And..., no doubt, it is about enjoying film, but this part of it can be pretty fun too. I set my theater up about 5 years ago with copious overly-detailed layout plans and thoroughly enjoyed studying, planning, and measuring. It is easy to get lost in the details though. After mapping and measuring for the Atmos speakers, I put up some thumbtacks to mark three different options and they were all within about a foot and a half! I would guess that it doesn't make too much difference at that level. Still, there is some satisfaction knowing that you came to a well-reasoned and calculated decision.


Agreed. I often discount, wrongly, the pleasure people get from the planning phase. It's because my focus is so much on the movies themselves and I see the tech side as a necessary step to maximising enjoyment of the content, rather than a pleasurable thing in itself. HST, I do agree that time spent on getting the details right is never wasted and the planning phase of my own HT (see link in sig if you're interested) was almost as long as the construction phase.



GGrover said:


> Actually, I am not a tinkerer though and really haven't touched anything since I first set everything up. However, most of what I watch is through AppleTV, and when they started broadcasting in 4K HDR, I started looking at projectors to take advantage of it. I am particularly excited about the coming addition of Atmos, (which meant a new AVR and now ceiling speakers). I love the audio side of things and have my fingers crossed this is going to be nice upgrade.


Atmos is a big step forward in cinema sound, comparable to the move to discrete 5.1 some years ago. I am sure you will find it a worthwhile upgrade.



GGrover said:


> Again, thank you for the time and thoughtfulness in your responses. I will share when things progress and perhaps come back with a question or two.
> 
> Cheers!


Always good to hear how you will be getting on with the room! Enjoy!


----------



## cheyne2525

Thanks for all the responses so far guys, i'll try to address the Q's posed in the responses in my post here. And sorry for not being a little more detailed in my rundown on what i had already done to combat my room's acoustic issues so far, that might have been smart. I also want to stress that i'm not dissatisfied w/ my setup at all, i'm just trying to maximize its performance as much as i can to address issues that, apparently, i'm the only one hearing lol. I also updated the pics from my last post with new ones that i just took so that everything is current for people to review and advise on.

First, the gear i'm running: Marantz SR7009 AV receiver paired w/ an Outlaw 5 Ch. power amp, 7.1 Andrew Jones Pioneer base layer (2 FS52 L/R towers, a C22 Center channel and 4 BS22 surrounds) paired with 4 Atlantic Technology IC-6 OBA height speakers, Oppo UDP-203, LG 55"C6.

I have run the Audyssey MultEQ XT32 on my Marantz (using all 8 test positions each time) many a time as my room has evolved over the last 2 yrs and the results have been very good for the most part - I had to adjust the crossover settings and channel trims a bit to tailor the sound to my liking and just about everything is totally dialed in, i'm like 95% there. I'm only making very small tweaks to the ch. trims (usually .5 to 2 decibels at the most) in search of the perfect balance, or at least as close to perfect as i can get. 

The proper angular separation of my speakers has been challenging but I have been able to follow the speaker angles suggested by Dolby pretty closely, space permitting; its a bit cramped in width but it was always going to be a nearfield setup since the MLP is between 6.5 and 8 ft from every speaker. My 4 height speakers are on the fringe of the suggested 30-55 degree angle limit - about 55 or 56 degrees of separation from the MLP to both ceiling speaker pairs. I couldn't find the exact specs but I had heard that my Atl. Tech IC-6 OBA height speakers have a pretty wide dispersion so I lowered my 2 rear ceiling speakers by about 10 inches from the 8ft ceiling so that i could avoid their sound hitting the back of the the duct running directly over the MLP and reflecting the sound away - i made spkr boxes and mounted them into the ceiling with an approximate 3 to 5 degree tilt angling them towards the seating area. The side surrounds are positioned at around 105 - 110 degrees, the front L/R spkrs are positioned at 28 degrees each and are toed in by approx 35 degrees as well; the sound meets just in front of the MLP to help widen the sweet zone a little for other viewers. The rear surrounds are also right at the limit of Dolby's suggested angling - about 150 degrees with roughly 4.5 feet between them.

Also, not every single movie soundtrack i watch needs channel trim adjustments, its mostly just something i notice when i switch from listening to an Atmos track to one that isn't object based. It's not a huge change, i just notice it because i'm listening critically and my wife thinks i'm crazy, lol. 

As far as treating the wall on the left side wall goes, i did put the acoustic panel treatments up on the 1st reflection points for each side but there isn't much i can do to the brick wall w/ the fireplace located further back along the left side, it may mean war w/ the wife if i try to put up panels or diffusers on it. She has pretty much given me free reign me do what i want so far but she wants that part of the room left alone since its on the back half in the common area. I had given some thought to rigging a collapsible frame or placing some ring bolts so i can stretch a heavy curtain (or some other flexible acoustic absorber) across the brick wall that way i could put it up and take it down as needed. I'd thought that it might keep the sound from reflecting directly off of the brick or echoing in the fireplace void. Since Audyssey applies its room corrections across all the inputs I hesitated to go that route because if i did run Audyssey with it hung up in place i was worried that when it was taken down (which would probably be about 60-70% of the time) that it would negatively impact the sound when i'm watching normal TV and other daily viewing stuff.

The pre-exisiting cabinetry is something that i cant do very much about at the time being but in the next year or so i may end up replacing some or all of it w/ more home theater friendly purpose-built shelving. The imaging isn't bad by a long shot but i do think that it could probably be improved. As a follow up Q to the response from kbarnes701 about the cabinetry, based on the updated pics I included here on this post if those shelf bays were empty of objects or if i could cover up or put something over those shelving bays (like an an acoustically dead material) would that be worth trying in the meantime?

Once again, thanks for the diligent answers here guys.


----------



## camd5pt0

Code:




I have the same speakers, they sound so great to me. Same stands too


----------



## kbarnes701

cheyne2525 said:


> The pre-exisiting cabinetry is something that i cant do very much about at the time being but in the next year or so i may end up replacing some or all of it w/ more home theater friendly purpose-built shelving. The imaging isn't bad by a long shot but i do think that it could probably be improved. As a follow up Q to the response from kbarnes701 about the cabinetry, based on the updated pics I included here on this post if those shelf bays were empty of objects or if i could cover up or put something over those shelving bays (like an an acoustically dead material) would that be worth trying in the meantime?
> 
> Once again, thanks for the diligent answers here guys.


Thanks for the additional information. You have done a lot to get the sound as good as you can in what is a challenging space.

WRT to the open space to the right of MLP, you could try putting a nice thick absorber on the wall under the 'Cinema Always Showing' sign. The idea is to make that wall 'disappear' acoustically so that it then balances with the physically absent wall on the other side. Getting rid of the reflecting surfaces from the shelves would help but maybe not enough to compensate for the WAF issues which might arise. You;d have to try it to see, which would also mean re-running Audyssey yet again of course, but you seem to be comfortable with that.

As for noticing these very small trims differences (0.2 to 2dB) I am wondering if there isn't an element of OCD creeping in here? Hearing a difference of 1dB, in a m/ch soundtrack, with all speakers playing is pretty much impossible TBH for almost everyone. Try just watching and enjoying the movie without 'listening to the sound' and see if you really do notice these small changes. I'm not having a pop at you - we all do it 

I think you are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. Sometimes we just have to accept that few things in life are perfect and make the best of what we have. After many years in this game, I finally learned to use the system to play the content, not the content to play the system, and suddenly I was way more happy with what I was doing!


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the same speakers, they sound so great to me. Same stands too


Don't take this the wrong way, but have you considered adding some acoustic treatment to the walls? I think you would benefit hugely from it and your speakers would sound even better for you. Your imaging would improve a lot too. A cheap and easy way to test this is to buy a pack of 4 inch high density rockwool from your local building supply store. Just tape the 'raw' panels roughly to the walls and have a listen. If you like what you hear you can then go for proper panels (or build your own using the rockwool you bought). Try to get Ecose rockwool or another environmentally friendly product so you don't get itchy whern experimenting  (Or loosely wrap it in cheap muslin for the experiment).


----------



## JonnyVee

Looking for some friendly advice. Just picked up a Denon x4400 and I’m now looking to upgrade from a 5.1.2 setup to a 5.1.4/10.1 setup. The area dedicated to my home theatre is 12’ x 12’ with a 7’7” ceiling and I can not add any front in-ceiling speakers due to a drywall ceiling/hidden bulkheads that prevent me from fishing speaker wire through. 

At this point I’m not sure if my current .2 atmos speakers are slightly too far forward for a .4 and 10.2 setup once I add front heights. 

I’m also limited in how high I can place my front height because the projector screen is just a couple inches next to a bulkhead on the left side. If I can I move the screen and projector to the right, I’ll be able to go higher on the wall. 

I could go Kef q50a speakers for front heights and they’ll match the rest of my speakers. But they’re expensive, have a preset angle, and I can’t toe them in. So I might go with a pair of Energy RC-mini speakers I have - they’re a little smaller, well-built and have a ball joint wall mount so I can toe them in and angle downward to my preference

*Questions*:

1. Should my atmos speakers be moved further behind the MLP, or are the ok as is? To move I need to cut new holes and patch the old ones. 
2. Will I see a benefit if I move the height heights higher, or will it be marginal?
3. Will adding the Energy RC-Minis be too much of a timbre mismatch for my current Kef setup? 
4. Is there a benefit to adding a top surround for Auro 3d? There’s no content. Is the benefit purely for up-mixing? Also, can Auro 3D upmix Atmos to take advantage of the top surround when playing Atmos tracks?

There’s pictures below. The yellow shows existing speakers and green are where I plan on putting the TS and FH. The blue FH are where I can go if I shift the screen.


----------



## kbarnes701

JonnyVee said:


> 1. Should my atmos speakers be moved further behind the MLP, or are the ok as is? To move I need to cut new holes and patch the old ones.


Given the hassle of cutting and repairing holes, I'd leave them where they are. I don't think moving them by such a small amount will make much difference sonically.



JonnyVee said:


> 2. Will I see a benefit if I move the height heights higher, or will it be marginal?


Marginal.



JonnyVee said:


> 3. Will adding the Energy RC-Minis be too much of a timbre mismatch for my current Kef setup?


You're using Audyssey in your Denon, right? In that case, forget timbre matching - your room EQ will bring all the speakers into line with its target curve. Some of us believe that timbre-matching in the modern era of electronic room EQ is more a thing for manufacturers to sell you more of their own brand of speaker than a real thing. The benefit of being able to angle the RC-Minis will outweigh and alleged drawbacks of non-timbre-matching.



JonnyVee said:


> 4. Is there a benefit to adding a top surround for Auro 3d? There’s no content. Is the benefit purely for up-mixing? Also, can Auro 3D upmix Atmos to take advantage of the top surround when playing Atmos tracks?


No and no. You said it yourself - Auro 3D has almost zero content. WRT Auro 3D's upmixer, be aware that it has no logic steering and simply copies the ear level speakers' output to the overheads with a little added reverb - you are better off using the DSU or Neural:X that came with your AVR. You can't upmix Atmos.



JonnyVee said:


> There’s pictures below. The yellow shows existing speakers and green are where I plan on putting the TS and FH. The blue FH are where I can go if I shift the screen.


Nice room. For some years I had a small room (a bit smaller than yours) and I got a superb PQ and SQ in there after much trial and error (ended up as 7.2.4). Small rooms have an intimacy which larger rooms can't match and when I see a room like yours I look back fondly on that intimate presentation. My new room is way larger in every dimension.

One thing I'd suggest is that you consider some acoustic treatment panels. You can get them with artwork on to match your own room design (see GIK website).


----------



## sdurani

In addition to what Keith posted...


JonnyVee said:


> If I can I move the screen and projector to the right, I’ll be able to go higher on the wall.


Doesn't look like it will be worth moving the screen for such a small height difference. Also, I would put a small (2' x 2') piece of absorption next to the right front speaker to mimic the lack of wall next to the left front speaker.


----------



## JonnyVee

kbarnes701 said:


> Given the hassle of cutting and repairing holes, I'd leave them where they are. I don't think moving them by such a small amount will make much difference sonically.
> 
> Nice room. For some years I had a small room (a bit smaller than yours) and I got a superb PQ and SQ in there after much trial and error (ended up as 7.2.4). Small rooms have an intimacy which larger rooms can't match and when I see a room like yours I look back fondly on that intimate presentation. My new room is way larger in every dimension.
> 
> One thing I'd suggest is that you consider some acoustic treatment panels. You can get them with artwork on to match your own room design (see GIK website).





sdurani said:


> In addition to what Keith posted...Doesn't look like it will be worth moving the screen for such a small height difference. Also, I would put a small (2' x 2') piece of absorption next to the right front speaker to mimic the lack of wall next to the left front speaker.


Thank you both and confirming my own thoughts. I’ll go with the Energy RC-Minis and leave the existing atmos where they are. Although I may still move the screen over a bit. The mounts are on sliders and its relatively “easy” to move over. I can then hide the wires and speakers better as well. 

I think I’m also going to move the T101 surrounds to the corner. I’ll cut some wood triangles to install into the corners. I can them mount them and toe them in to the MLP.

.............
@kbarnes701 - Thank you for the thumbs on the room. I’ve done what I can to make it look and sound good and have a nice picture. I guess acoustic treatments is the next obsession. Where would you recommend placing them? The left side is completely open with an extra 17’, but a little more narrow. 

@sdurani - For absorption. Excuse my lack of knowledge... would this be acoustic treatment or are there other options?


----------



## kbarnes701

JonnyVee said:


> @kbarnes701 - Thank you for the thumbs on the room. I’ve done what I can to make it look and sound good and have a nice picture. I guess acoustic treatments is the next obsession. Where would you recommend placing them? The left side is completely open with an extra 17’, but a little more narrow.


A room open one one side is always going to be more challenging, but arguably it's even more important to treat the 'solid' side in order to counterbalance the 'open' side (Sanjay's suggestion). The idea is that the absorption on the solid side helps make the wall disappear acoustically, so it more closely matches the lack of a physical wall on the other side.

In addition, I'd treat the first reflection points for sure, and probably the space on the back wall.


----------



## sdurani

JonnyVee said:


> @*sdurani* - For absorption. Excuse my lack of knowledge... would this be acoustic treatment or are there other options?


Absorbers, diffusers, etc. are all acoustical treatments (they treat the acoustics of the room). You can make your own by covering a 4" thick piece of rigid fiberglass with porous fabric (burlap or speaker grill cloth).


----------



## Goddard

Has anyone experienced or tested the Dolby Atmos audio from the 4K version of _The Matrix_?










Lots of user reviews specifically hone in on how great the Atmos mixing is for the movie. I'm pretty excited to test it myself . . . in 4 months when it ships.


----------



## Jish9

JonnyVee said:


> Looking for some friendly advice. Just picked up a Denon x4400 and I’m now looking to upgrade from a 5.1.2 setup to a 5.1.4/10.1 setup. The area dedicated to my home theatre is 12’ x 12’ with a 7’7” ceiling and I can not add any front in-ceiling speakers due to a drywall ceiling/hidden bulkheads that prevent me from fishing speaker wire through.
> 
> At this point I’m not sure if my current .2 atmos speakers are slightly too far forward for a .4 and 10.2 setup once I add front heights.
> 
> I’m also limited in how high I can place my front height because the projector screen is just a couple inches next to a bulkhead on the left side. If I can I move the screen and projector to the right, I’ll be able to go higher on the wall.
> 
> I could go Kef q50a speakers for front heights and they’ll match the rest of my speakers. But they’re expensive, have a preset angle, and I can’t toe them in. So I might go with a pair of Energy RC-mini speakers I have - they’re a little smaller, well-built and have a ball joint wall mount so I can toe them in and angle downward to my preference
> 
> *Questions*:
> 
> 1. Should my atmos speakers be moved further behind the MLP, or are the ok as is? To move I need to cut new holes and patch the old ones.
> 2. Will I see a benefit if I move the height heights higher, or will it be marginal?
> 3. Will adding the Energy RC-Minis be too much of a timbre mismatch for my current Kef setup?
> 4. Is there a benefit to adding a top surround for Auro 3d? There’s no content. Is the benefit purely for up-mixing? Also, can Auro 3D upmix Atmos to take advantage of the top surround when playing Atmos tracks?
> 
> There’s pictures below. The yellow shows existing speakers and green are where I plan on putting the TS and FH. The blue FH are where I can go if I shift the screen.


Keith has done a nice job of pointing you in the right direction. If I may add a couple of suggestions with regard to speaker placement. I think I would place the rear surrounds on the back wall (wall mounted) on either side of your posters about half way up. You can experiment by placing on boxes at that level and see if you like the effect. You should still have a nice rear height effect from the ATMOS in ceiling speakers. Bring your front heights more towards the middle of the room and raise the front mains a bit. Once again you can experiment with all this before you actually decide on anything but I think you will like the effect a bite more than the way you have it setup now. I know it goes against conventional setups but sometimes taking a page from commercial cinemas ends up sounding better than we think. Down the road, you may want to add a second sub and a second or longer center channel to create even more realism. Love your space BTW. Makes me want to sit down with some popcorn and just get lost in the experience.


----------



## PeterTHX

kbarnes701 said:


> Another parallel is Blu-ray vs HD-DVD. The latter was technically superior but lost out because more studios backed Blu-ray than backed HD-DVD, thus giving more _content _choice, which, again, is what customers wanted.


Huh? Where is 30GB storage/36Mbps bandwidth better than 50GB/54Mbps? Scratch coat protection vs. none? Lossless audio vs. lossy on almost all releases? Almost all studios vs. a couple? Almost every manufacturer of equipment vs. Toshiba/NEC? 
The technically superior format won in this case.


PS: sorry to bring this up now, but just saw it quoted and was wondering.


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but have you considered adding some acoustic treatment to the walls? I think you would benefit hugely from it and your speakers would sound even better for you. Your imaging would improve a lot too. A cheap and easy way to test this is to buy a pack of 4 inch high density rockwool from your local building supply store. Just tape the 'raw' panels roughly to the walls and have a listen. If you like what you hear you can then go for proper panels (or build your own using the rockwool you bought). Try to get Ecose rockwool or another environmentally friendly product so you don't get itchy whern experimenting  (Or loosely wrap it in cheap muslin for the experiment).


Not taken wrong way at all Kieth, lol. I have been looking into since you mentioned it last time. Looked up companies, looked into how to make them. Now I have a place to start, with this wool, thanks!

And I believe you on the imaging. My last place had unreal center left and right imagine that through of screen action far. I do not have this in my current setup, now I may know why, acoustics.


----------



## camd5pt0

LMAO me too!!! Target has a sale 2 4k disc for 30. This is one of them. I'll cancel Amazon and get this deal in a couple days.


----------



## kbarnes701

Goddard said:


> Has anyone experienced or tested the Dolby Atmos audio from the 4K version of _The Matrix_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of user reviews specifically hone in on how great the Atmos mixing is for the movie. I'm pretty excited to test it myself . . . in 4 months when it ships.


It's terrific.


----------



## kbarnes701

PeterTHX said:


> Huh? Where is 30GB storage/36Mbps bandwidth better than 50GB/54Mbps? Scratch coat protection vs. none? Lossless audio vs. lossy on almost all releases? Almost all studios vs. a couple? Almost every manufacturer of equipment vs. Toshiba/NEC?
> The technically superior format won in this case.
> 
> 
> PS: sorry to bring this up now, but just saw it quoted and was wondering.


When Blu-ray was first introduced it was very poor. Sure it improved over time, but I am referring to when both were launched. HD-DVD would, one assumes, have undergone similar improvements if it hadn't been killed off by the studios.


----------



## Josh Z

PeterTHX said:


> Huh? Where is 30GB storage/36Mbps bandwidth better than 50GB/54Mbps? Scratch coat protection vs. none? Lossless audio vs. lossy on almost all releases? Almost all studios vs. a couple? Almost every manufacturer of equipment vs. Toshiba/NEC?
> The technically superior format won in this case.


Do we really need to relive the Format War again? I'm sure what Keith is referring to were the early days of the war when both products launched and Blu-ray was crippled with single-layer 25GB discs, MPEG-2 compression, most of the promised interactivity features missing, only one single Blu-ray player model available that was a $1,000 piece of flaming garbage, and almost universally lousy video transfers on the launch slate of discs. In those days, HD DVD indisputably had a better launch.

Blu-ray got better and eventually proved itself the superior product, but it took quite a long while for the format to get its act together.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> Do we really need to relive the Format War again? I'm sure what Keith is referring to were the early days of the war when both products launched and Blu-ray was crippled with single-layer 25GB discs, MPEG-2 compression, most of the promised interactivity features missing, only one single Blu-ray player model available that was a $1,000 piece of flaming garbage, and almost universally lousy video transfers on the launch slate of discs. In those days, HD DVD indisputably had a better launch.
> 
> Blu-ray got better and eventually proved itself the superior product, but it took quite a long while for the format to get its act together.


This is true. I stayed on the sidelines of the Great HD-DVD v. Blu-ray Format War because, upon release, both formats were flawed. Blu-ray had far more upside than HD-DVD but in that day and time, HD-DVD was a substantially more reliable product. Only after the "War" was over did I finally buy a BD player.


----------



## gene4ht

gwsat said:


> This is true. I stayed on the sidelines of the Great HD-DVD v. Blu-ray Format War because, upon release, both formats were flawed. Blu-ray had far more upside than HD-DVD but in that day and time, HD-DVD was a substantially more reliable product. Only after the "War" was over did I finally buy a BD player.



LOL! I bought and still have both...including about 50 HD-DVD titles! Oh...and I still have my original "early adopter" card!


----------



## sdrucker

Ted99 said:


> I post this here with some trepidation of a flame war, but I pass it along for information:
> 
> Because I was in Poland recently, I was able to get a copy of the Polish release of Blade Runner 2049 with Auro 3D to make a comparison with my Atmos version. It's a 2K BluRay with 11.1 Auro (no rears, but VOG and CH). My Atmos version is 4K, but it's the sound that I was looking to compare. It's my ears that I'm reporting on. YMMV. I hear a difference between the two.


Alright, guys. I queued up the Auro disc I bought from Ted on my Oppo 103, queued up the UHD Atmos disc on my Oppo 203, and played scenes 4 and 5 on both discs. I listened to them in Auro/Atmos and Atmos/Auro order, to provide two data points and try to account for order bias.

First things first re Atmos:
As you know LOL, I'm running a Trinnov Altitude in 13.4.6 format, with three pairs of overheads (FH, TM, TR), as well as front wides, side surround 1 and screen centers. However, I flipped between a more mainstream 7.1.4 setup and my current setup to try to isolate differences within how most folks here listen vs. high channel count. There's some wides activity - music cues here and there, but mostly atmosphere moving through the room. Not a ton in these scenes. The other extra speakers were barely used, and not a factor. Hence I don't think there was a bias due to simply having more speakers and a Trinnov per se.

My Auro setup: 11.1, with VOG physically simulated from Top Middles, and my top rears serving as "surround heights". No matrixed/copied content here. However, given that I have an Atmos-oriented setup, I used 3D remapping for both 3D audio listens. I got 11.1 Auro on my inputs, so it works 😊

Here's what I notice - and to be honest, it's opposite of what Ted heard.
1) The Atmos mix was indeed a bit louder than the Auro - consistently about 3 db louder than Auro, particularly on the bed channels. For Atmos, that's 7.1. For Auro, it's 5.1. My Trinnov did NOT do any Auromatic upmix to create rear surrounds. If that's an intent of expanding an Auro mix for rear surround content, I didn't see it on my Processor meters or hear it.

2) The Auro content was front-heavy, with the front heights a good 6db louder than either the "surround heights" or VOG. I verified that on my meters, not just relying on my SPL meters. The separation between surround height and VOG was fairly minimal.

3) Conversely, I thought the Atmos content was more immersive - almost equal volume for the front, middle (when I used them), and rear overheads. The top middles were used as much as the front and rear overheads, but they more anchored the sound between them that were dominant.

4) Ted cited echoes as sounding more "natural" with Auro. In my listening, the echoes floated above me and panned from front toward the back. Whether you prefer one effect or the other is subjective, of course. 

5) Re music - the Auro mix music score was evenly more spread out as mono across the overheads than Atmos (even given that the surround height speakers and VOG were played lower). With Atmos, IMO it had more left to right stereo separation, spread into the L/R mains and the wides to an extent.

6) Note that the Auro soundtrack was in a 5.1 core, while the Atmos sound track is 7.1 + static overhead + dynamic objects. If you have rear surrounds in a room where they're well separated - and correctly placed- from the side surrounds, you already have a built in "bias" toward Atmos in my opinion, since even the 2D audio mix is more immersive given how the rear surrounds expand the sense of the soundstage with Atmos than what you'll hear in 5.1 with Auro.



> There was a difference in object location. The most obvious was during the first "baseline assessment" of Gosling. In the Atmos version, the sound of the proctor's voice came from the top right ceiling. In the Auro version, the proctor's voice comes from a point at the front center of the room either just above the monitoring device or the ceiling just above the monitoring device. This seemed like a more realistic location for this sound. This difference in object location extended to dialog with multiple characters on screen. Auro seemed to track the character's location better.


I noticed the opposite. In Scene 5, true, Auro has IMO more front main to front height action and dialog. However, Atmos spreads it more to the sides and wrapping around the listener - I heard dialog emanating from front to wides and fading to surrounds. And the proctor when I heard his voice (assuming it's the scene about 37 minutes in as a starting point) was phantomed in the front center for Auro, same as Ted noticed. With Atmos, it's more front and spread overhead as well. 



> The most noticeable difference was in the large hard surface rooms (the Library and the room with the water floor). The Auro version had a very real sounding degree of echo and the dialog was very clear. The Atmos version didn't sound quite right and the dialog was not as clear. Phrases I struggled to hear in Atmos were perfectly clear in Auro.


Dialog was equally clear for Atmos and Auro in my listening. I couldn't say that either stood out as particularly muffled or softer in one codec vs. another. However, note that I'm using Trinnov Optimizer, which corrects first in the time domain and then addresses frequency (simple explanation). Audyssey XT32 (he mentioned he has a Denon X8500, which I'm assuming is his room EQ) only corrects in the time domain. That may be a factor.

Thoughts: my hypothesis going in was actually that I'd prefer Auro, comparing a 7.1.4 setup to a 7.1.4 setup. I had expected Auro to use overheads more than Atmos, actually, given how many mixes seem to just pull in overheads for selected scenes. That wasn't the case at all.

I found that even in 7.1.4 (just front and rear overheads, no wides or my other presence speakers), I prefer Atmos for being more wraparound and immersive. The heights were heavily active, just like what I heard in Auro (although it had a frontward bias). That may be a function of the mixer's preferences, of course, in how the overheads were used, but Atmos wasn't disappointing there.

Auro to me sounded more like a DTS:X mix (no surprise, given that the major difference vs. 2D audio was heights), but also following how I think of Auromatic: cohesive front mains to front height, cohesive side surround to rear/surround heights, but the surround heights being softer than the mains like side surrounds often are. 

The difference is this: when I hear Atmos, I feel that I'm in the scene. With Auro, it sounds more like I'm hearing it the way I normally hear sound (front oriented), but I don't feel as removed from my room as I do with Atmos.

So what's better? There's subjectivity here - we people ARE more frontward in how we hear things. But if I wanted a "we are there" experience, Atmos is the indisputable hands-down preference. 

Last thoughts:
I actually thought the Atmos mix wasn't lacking for ambience vs. Auro. And I could have the bias from having an Atmos layout and simulating the rear and VOG, where in Ted's room his bias was for Auro (playing Atmos on an Auro layout). But the input meters don't lie that Auro was just louder up front than around the room compared to Atmos.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdrucker said:


> 4) Ted cited echoes as sounding more "natural" with Auro. In my listening, the echoes floated above me and panned from front toward the back. Whether you prefer one effect or the other is subjective, of course.


With Atmos, were those echoes originating from the overhead speakers as with Auro3D, or from the side/rear surround speakers?

See also this earlier observation by Sanjay:



sdurani said:


> The other problem with having surrounds so high up is that the mixer ends up hearing lots of phantom imaging overhead and might not use the height speakers as much. I know people complained that the movie San Andreas didn't have much in the heights, but when I heard it at a movie theatre (with the surround arrays way above me), there was plenty of overhead imaging (except it wasn't coming from the height speakers). By comparison, mixes where the surrounds were closer to ear level (5th Element) tend to have lots of sound in the height speakers (there's no other way to have sound overhead).


And this illustrative diagram:


----------



## JonnyVee

One more question. There seems to be a lot of combinations for speaker designations. ... What would be best starting point for speaker designations based on my placement (1) Front Height & Top Middle, (2) Top Front & Top Rear, (3) Front Height & Top Rear, or (4) Top Front & Rear Height?


----------



## rekbones

Josh Z said:


> Do we really need to relive the Format War again? I'm sure what Keith is referring to were the early days of the war when both products launched and Blu-ray was crippled with single-layer 25GB discs, MPEG-2 compression, most of the promised interactivity features missing, only one single Blu-ray player model available that was a $1,000 piece of flaming garbage, and almost universally lousy video transfers on the launch slate of discs. In those days, HD DVD indisputably had a better launch.
> 
> Blu-ray got better and eventually proved itself the superior product, but it took quite a long while for the format to get its act together.


When Sony put the Blu Ray player in the PS3 it gave the format a big boost. I know I bought the PS3 solely for the player and gaming was just an added bones.


----------



## jufe52

Hey guys, I just bought a setup and want the best dolby atmos experience out of it:

Receiver: Denon AVR-S930H
Front: emotiva c1
FL/R: Elac Debut B5.2
Ceiling/surround: Klipsch R-14M (2 pair)
Sub: logitech (i know, i know)

I was thinking of the regular 5.1.2 setup with side speakers as in pic 1. My couch is 2 inches away from the back wall and goes side to side so I was wondering if the side speakers could go high closer to the ceiling pointing downwards? Or will that ruin it? I'm afraid head hight would be to close to the ears.

But then I saw my Denon's docs and found picture 2 with 4 ceiling speakers and no side speakers... Would this be better mounting all 4 Klipschs to the ceiling?

Thanks in advance guys, I love you


----------



## Josh Z

Ted99 said:


> There was a difference in object location. The most obvious was during the first "baseline assessment" of Gosling. In the Atmos version, the sound of the proctor's voice came from the top right ceiling. In the Auro version, the proctor's voice comes from a point at the front center of the room either just above the monitoring device or the ceiling just above the monitoring device. This seemed like a more realistic location for this sound. This difference in object location extended to dialog with multiple characters on screen. Auro seemed to track the character's location better.





sdrucker said:


> I noticed the opposite. In Scene 5, true, Auro has IMO more front main to front height action and dialog. However, Atmos spreads it more to the sides and wrapping around the listener - I heard dialog emanating from front to wides and fading to surrounds. And the proctor when I heard his voice (assuming it's the scene about 37 minutes in as a starting point) was phantomed in the front center for Auro, same as Ted noticed. With Atmos, it's more front and spread overhead as well.


I only have the Atmos copy of the movie, not Auro. When I watched the first "baseline assessment" scene, the proctor's voice sounded like it was coming directly overhead of my seating position, in a Voice of God location. However, when I checked closely, it turns out that the voice is mixed solely into the ground-level speakers and merely images so that it sounds like it's overhead. The voice was not actually in the height speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> I only have the Atmos copy of the movie, not Auro. When I watched the first "baseline assessment" scene, the proctor's voice sounded like it was coming directly overhead of my seating position, in a Voice of God location. However, when I checked closely, it turns out that the voice is mixed solely into the ground-level speakers and merely images so that it sounds like it's overhead. The voice was not actually in the height speakers.


Can you give me a time stamp, roughly?


----------



## Josh Z

sdrucker said:


> Can you give me a time stamp, roughly?


I'm not at home at the moment. It's about a half hour in, the first scene after Gosling kills Sapper Morton and returns to the LAPD.


----------



## usc1995

jufe52 said:


> Hey guys, I just bought a setup and want the best dolby atmos experience out of it:
> 
> Receiver: Denon AVR-S930H
> Front: emotiva c1
> FL/R: Elac Debut B5.2
> Ceiling/surround: Klipsch R-14M (2 pair)
> Sub: logitech (i know, i know)
> 
> I was thinking of the regular 5.1.2 setup with side speakers as in pic 1. My couch is 2 inches away from the back wall and goes side to side so I was wondering if the side speakers could go high closer to the ceiling pointing downwards? Or will that ruin it? I'm afraid head hight would be to close to the ears.
> 
> But then I saw my Denon's docs and found picture 2 with 4 ceiling speakers and no side speakers... Would this be better mounting all 4 Klipschs to the ceiling?
> 
> Thanks in advance guys, I love you



That second pic is just showing three possible locations for the two Atmos speakers: Front Height, Top Front or Top Middle. Your two side surrounds will still need to be at ear level (or just above so that the sound is not blocked by any listener’s heads) and to the sides of the main listening position. You want to avoid placing them too high to maintain separation between your base layer speakers (5.1) and your Atmos speakers (.2).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gwsat

rekbones said:


> When Sony put the Blu Ray player in the PS3 it gave the format a big boost. I know I bought the PS3 solely for the player and gaming was just an added bones.


You too? When I posted that I had waited until Blu-ray had won the Format War v. DVD-HD I failed to confess that my first BD player was a PS3. Like you, I bought it only because of its ability to play BDs. The PS3 did stand the test of time though. I used it until replacing it with an Oppo 103 a good number of years later.


----------



## jufe52

usc1995 said:


> jufe52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I just bought a setup and want the best dolby atmos experience out of it:
> ]
> 
> 
> That second pic is just showing three possible locations for the two Atmos speakers: Front Height, Top Front or Top Middle. Your two side surrounds will still need to be at ear level (or just above so that the sound is not blocked by any listener’s heads) and to the sides of the main listening position. You want to avoid placing them too high to maintain separation between your base layer speakers (5.1) and your Atmos speakers (.2).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks alot, it makes alot of sense, I'll do that then
> 
> Regards
Click to expand...


----------



## corey99699

I lowered my surrounds to ear level, and I have my ceiling speakers mounted but not connected yet(front and rear). My ceiling type won't allow me to mount the speakers at 45 degrees, they are at 34-35 degrees. Is this acceptable?


----------



## Jonas2

corey99699 said:


> I lowered my surrounds to ear level, and I have my ceiling speakers mounted but not connected yet(front and rear). My ceiling type won't allow me to mount the speakers at 45 degrees, they are at 34-35 degrees. Is this acceptable?



Yes, according to Dolby specs., while 45 degrees is considered optimal, the range is from 30 - 55 degrees. Can't hurt to aim for optimal specs., but Atmos installation is fairly forgiving and flexible.


----------



## Chuck666

Hi, I'm back, the geezer from AZ. A month ago, I was here starting my quest to add Atmos to my Bose Accoustimass system. After a few posts, it was suggested that I needed to add a sub woofer (added 2) and upgrade my 22 year old speakers. I have done that and posted pictures of the media system. The equipment is listed in my signature. I've run YPAO and think it sounds pretty good based on listening to 7 Atmos sample clips: Amaze, Leaf, Silent, Shattered, Unfold, etc.

The pictures are in this order: MLP facing foward, then facing left, then right, straight back and back left into the kitchen. Room is 14 ft wide and 24 ft long to the back. MLP is 12ft back from Center speaker or 14ft from front wall.

The left side is mostly open with the entry way and kitchen. I have great symmetry with regards to speaker distances and can only move the L,R,DE and subs positions.

From your experiences:
1. The L and R speakers and the 2 subs can swap positions. L&R are 9ft apart and subs 7ft. Comments please.
2. Hows the overall setup look??????
3. Acoustic panels needed?

Bring on those great comments; keep us geezers straight, we're still learning.


----------



## Jonas2

Chuck666 said:


> From your experiences:
> 1. The L and R speakers and the 2 subs can swap positions. L&R are 9ft apart and subs 7ft. Comments please.
> 2. Hows the overall setup look??????
> 3. Acoustic panels needed?
> 
> Bring on those great comments; keep us geezers straight, we're still learning.


You can certainly try swapping the subs and fronts and see what happens. Or rather, hear what happens.  You can also try placing the subs in the corners and see how/if that plays to your liking. Experiment! Not fun if the subs are overly heavy, but....it's free.....

Looks good overall I'd say!


----------



## Marc Alexander

@Chuck666 in setups similar to yours I recommend starting with the subs in the corners and experimenting. You can gradually move them in, closer to the TV. Where you have them now is pretty much like having a single larger sub in the middle of the front wall. There is nothing wrong with this because mid-front-wall placement is often the bet place for a single sub. 

I prefer to start in the corners but move the subs along the sidewalls towards the listener. The subs can face each other, the corners, or even the furniture (leave 5-6" between the driver and any furniture). This usually provides more consistency across the listening positions. It also often helps with midbass tactile response. 

Determine what placements are asthetically acceptable and experiment. A measurement mic is the next step down into the rabbit hole.


----------



## gene4ht

Chuck666 said:


> Hi, I'm back, the geezer from AZ. A month ago, I was here starting my quest to add Atmos to my Bose Accoustimass system. After a few posts, it was suggested that I needed to add a sub woofer (added 2) and upgrade my 22 year old speakers. I have done that and posted pictures of the media system. The equipment is listed in my signature. I've run YPAO and think it sounds pretty good based on listening to 7 Atmos sample clips: Amaze, Leaf, Silent, Shattered, Unfold, etc.
> 
> The pictures are in this order: MLP facing foward, then facing left, then right, straight back and back left into the kitchen. Room is 14 ft wide and 24 ft long to the back. MLP is 12ft back from Center speaker or 14ft from front wall.
> 
> The left side is mostly open with the entry way and kitchen. I have great symmetry with regards to speaker distances and can only move the L,R,DE and subs positions.
> 
> From your experiences:
> 1. The L and R speakers and the 2 subs can swap positions. L&R are 9ft apart and subs 7ft. Comments please.
> 2. Hows the overall setup look??????
> 3. Acoustic panels needed?
> 
> Bring on those great comments; *keep us geezers straight, we're still learning.*





Jonas2 said:


> You can certainly try swapping the subs and fronts and see what happens. Or rather, hear what happens.  You can also try placing the subs in the corners and see how/if that plays to your liking. Experiment! Not fun if the subs are overly heavy, but....it's free.....
> 
> Looks good overall I'd say!



LOL!!! It has nothing to do with age...but more to do about how serious you are and how much you want to learn/invest to improve your system's performance. As @*Jonas2* suggests, you can experiment by exchanging the position of your front speakers with the subs. Beyond trial and error, likely better performance can be realized by performing a "sub crawl." And beyond the "sub crawl," more serious audiophiles will utilize *R*oom *E*Q *W*izard Room Acoustics Software (REW - free) and a UMIK-1 microphone (about $100) to objectively measure and analyze (see and hear) exactly how the speakers and subs are performing in your room. Relative to acoustic treatments, it's always a good idea to place a panel at the first reflection point. Should you want to learn a bit more about subs and sub placement, a good start and read (long but easy to read) is....

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html

REW information can be found at...

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html


----------



## sdrucker

Apparently the Disney audio issues are hitting the mainstream press. Not sure if anyone else posted it, but I saw this about a week ago. The apparently deliberate pre-printed 7.1.4 comes up toward the end of the article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-your-star-wars-and-marvel-soundtracks-wrong/


----------



## camd5pt0

Oh boy, if you want an Atmos demo track, check out this movie on Netflix, it is called Blame!


----------



## carp

Who else here is streaming Atmos through the XBox? I have the xbox 1S and last night I noticed that everything played came up as Atmos on my AVR (Yamaha 3060). The AVR has never done this before last night, instead it would only say Atmos on the display when it's acutally an Atmos show or movie as you would expect. 

I didn't realize it until very late last night so I didn't investigate much, but I did walk around the room to see what speakers were playing while watcing a stand up comedian (obviously not atmos, but again the AVR said Atmos). As I walked around the room I noticed that the only speakers that had any sound coming out of them were the LRC and L/R rear surrounds and subs. No sound from the ceiling or L/R side surrounds. 

Weird.


----------



## camd5pt0

I stream via the Xbox One X.
It is a known issue that Xbox is locked into always on Atmos, to help with audio drop outs when using Atmos. I'm in the preview beta ring, so I've had this issue for several months. It will be fixed in time. 
For now we just have to toggle the sound profiles in settings if you want to use anything other than Atmos.


carp said:


> Who else here is streaming Atmos through the XBox? I have the xbox 1S and last night I noticed that everything played came up as Atmos on my AVR (Yamaha 3060). The AVR has never done this before last night, instead it would only say Atmos on the display when it's acutally an Atmos show or movie as you would expect.
> 
> I didn't realize it until very late last night so I didn't investigate much, but I did walk around the room to see what speakers were playing while watcing a stand up comedian (obviously not atmos, but again the AVR said Atmos). As I walked around the room I noticed that the only speakers that had any sound coming out of them were the LRC and L/R rear surrounds and subs. No sound from the ceiling or L/R side surrounds.
> 
> Weird.


----------



## carp

camd5pt0 said:


> I stream via the Xbox One X.
> It is a known issue that Xbox is locked into always on Atmos, to help with audio drop outs when using Atmos. I'm in the preview beta ring, so I've had this issue for several months. It will be fixed in time.
> For now we just have to toggle the sound profiles in settings if you want to use anything other than Atmos.


Ok gotcha, thanks for the info!


----------



## usc1995

camd5pt0 said:


> I stream via the Xbox One X.
> It is a known issue that Xbox is locked into always on Atmos, to help with audio drop outs when using Atmos. I'm in the preview beta ring, so I've had this issue for several months. It will be fixed in time.
> For now we just have to toggle the sound profiles in settings if you want to use anything other than Atmos.




This is really frustrating to me as we can’t use the upmixers when it reports Atmos on non-Atmos content. The Xbox is always two steps forward and one step back. I always feel like I must have other streaming devices on standby when using the Xbox. They need to fix the always on HDR with Netflix as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> I only have the Atmos copy of the movie, not Auro. When I watched the first "baseline assessment" scene, the proctor's voice sounded like it was coming directly overhead of my seating position, in a Voice of God location. However, when I checked closely, it turns out that the voice is mixed solely into the ground-level speakers and merely images so that it sounds like it's overhead. The voice was not actually in the height speakers.


Following up on this now that I have a spare half hour...
Ass-u-ming were talking about the same scene now - where Gosling returns to the LAPD (scene 2, at about 14 minutes in according to my Oppo)…this is where he's given his "baseline test", which he passes enough to be told he can collect his bonus - the interviewer ("proctor's")? voice is elevated, but not directly overhead my MLP as such. I hear it overhead but slightly more toward the front than the middle. 

I indeed hear it coming from all of my floor-level bed speakers, but also at a somewhat lower but still detectable volume when I solo the front and rear overheads. Nothing from the top middle, interestingly enough.

In fact, it's that voicing coming from the front/rear overheads that provides the elevation, at least subtly, where it seems the proctor's speaking somewhat up front, but looking down at our hero.

I have to admit that if I were just watching the movie and trying to determine where the sound was coming from, I might think the sound is just from the floor speakers. But when you can play the floor speakers with the heights muted and vice versa, it's clear that the voice of the "assessment" proctor is heard from the heights as well. But it can be subtle depending on how loud you're playing (I'm at about 72-75 db in my HT room according to my Radio Shack SPL hand-held at the moment).


----------



## Mr.G

chi_guy50 said:


> If you are looking for a disaster movie with an impressive Atmos sound track (and a much more creditable script to boot), I can recommend the Norwegian film _The Wave_ ("Bølgen").
> 
> The Blu-ray disc is likewise available for rental from Netflix complete with the original (Norwegian-language) Atmos track.


Thanks for the recommendation. Picked up the Blu-ray on Amazon and watched last night. Shame it's not available in 4K. Decent acting and CGI. Once the action kicked in the Atmos immersion was quite noticeable. 

Quote from the link you provided.



> _The Wave_ was released to theaters in Dolby Atmos, and Magnolia's Blu-ray contains a home theater version of the same mix. Water is the soundtrack's key element, and Atmos processing places its roaring, cascading, dripping invasion everywhere, both all around and overhead. The track is thunderous during the tsunami, but it is even more unnerving in the aftermath, when water seems to be pursuing the survivors through flooded chambers, corridors and crawlspaces. The initial rockslide is rendered with equal power, and the slow buildup to the disaster is filled with sounds of crumbling earth and falling debris, especially in the scenes depicting the geologists' descent into the unstable crevice. Even so simple an effect as a helicopter' motor is enhanced by Atmos processing, which precisely positions the sound of the whirring blades according to the camera's perspective, including above the viewer.


----------



## nexus99

I will be joining this party shortly! Just cabled up 4 in ceiling atmos speakers. Looking for an AVR type solution for 7.2.4. Any suggestions are appreciated!


----------



## dfa973

nexus99 said:


> Looking for an AVR type solution for 7.2.4.


For native 5.2.4 you may use Denon AVR-X4400H (2017) 9.2 or wait for X4500H (Sept 2018). Add a stereo amp to them and you get 7.2.4.

For native 7.2.4 Denon AVR-X6400H (2017) 11.2 is quite good.


depending on your location, you may find other models, such as:

ONKYO TX-RZ1100 (2016)	9.1 (5.1.4)
ONKYO TX-NR787 (US) (2018) 9.1 (5.1.4)
ONKYO TX-RZ730 (EU) (2018) 9.1 (7.1.4)
PIONEER SC-LX701 (2016)	9.1 (5.1.4)
YAMAHA RX-A2060 (2016)	9.1 (5.1.4)
YAMAHA RX-A2070 (2017)	9.1 (5.1.4)
YAMAHA RX-A2080 (2018)	9.1 (5.1.4)
YAMAHA RX-A3070 (2017)	11.1 (7.1.4)


----------



## sprins

helvetica bold said:


> From the sound of it (pun intended  ) A Quiet Place might be a real showcase for Atmos!
> http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...t-place-say-its-a-monster-flick-for-the-ages/


Indeed it is. Just watched it last night and the Atmos track really works with this movie. Not a bad movie at all as well. I’d recommend it to anyone with an Atmos setup.


----------



## Jish9

sdrucker said:


> Apparently the Disney audio issues are hitting the mainstream press. Not sure if anyone else posted it, but I saw this about a week ago. The apparently deliberate pre-printed 7.1.4 comes up toward the end of the article:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-your-star-wars-and-marvel-soundtracks-wrong/


There's even a petition to sign regarding what Disney is doing. Unfortunately, it seems that the only thing studios seem to respond to is being shamed to change their behavior. Unless more major publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine take notice, things are not likely to change anytime soon. Almost as depressing is the fact that the movie will not be 1.9 IMAX format and instead will be cropped 26% to fit 2.39 aspect ratio. There's a nice YouTube link in the article showing the difference between the two as well. Basically, this way people have to see the movie in the theater to experience the full effect (audio/video) for $20, then get gouged for $35 to watch it home with sub-par results. This is why monopolies were banned in the US, and Disney seems to be the worst offender.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jish9 said:


> There's even a petition to sign regarding what Disney is doing. Unfortunately, it seems that the only thing studios seem to respond to is being shamed to change their behavior. Unless more major publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine take notice, things are not likely to change anytime soon. Almost as depressing is the fact that the movie will not be 1.9 IMAX format and instead will be cropped 26% to fit 2.39 aspect ratio. There's a nice YouTube link in the article showing the difference between the two as well. Basically, this way people have to see the movie in the theater to experience the full effect (audio/video) for $20, then get gouged for $35 to watch it home with sub-par results. This is why monopolies were banned in the US, and Disney seems to be the worst offender.



It may be that the film in question was framed for the 2.39:1 ratio like Blade Runner 2049. The DP's are often forced into protecting for IMAX when they don't want to. Realistically, there can only one prime aspect ratio when composing and framing.


----------



## sdrucker

Jish9 said:


> Basically, this way people have to see the movie in the theater to experience the full effect (audio/video) for $20, then get gouged for $35 to watch it home with sub-par results. This is why monopolies were banned in the US, and Disney seems to be the worst offender.


 
Except that Disney's not a monopoly, they're just one studio - although a big one - among several. And there's no existing consumer protection or other law AFAIK requiring consumer releases of movies to have the same audio/video quality of the theatrical. A movie is the legal property of the studio, at the end of the day, and they're entitled to do what they want with their property as long as it doesn't violate legal copyrights or specific rights protected by law.

We may not like what they've done to their movies, but unfortunately it's theirs to do with as they see fit, for whatever reason. I'll go with either the multimedia "mix" argument out of what they see as consumer tastes, or the desire to impose product tiers for future releases they can price at a premium (my "Atmos Platinum" theory). 

I signed that petition too, but ultimately if you don't like how Disney treats home releases, don't buy them and boycott the studio's releases from the theatrical level on up. It's not like you can't go buy a UHD from Warner, Paramount, Sony etc. that give us scalable Atmos and dynamic range capability that makes for a better entertainment experience..


----------



## djdel002

Hey guys,

I had a question about my 5.1.2 setup. I have the 2 Top Middle speakers mounted high on walls (image attached) in line with MLP and does sound great but wondering if I should move them more forward of the MLP than I have them now, more towards the Dolby 5.1.2 sheet that 
shows the Top Middles a bit ahead of MLP? 

Reason I'm asking ahead of time without trying first is I need to buy brackets and other side of room has no wall so I need to hang from ceilings.

I also have read a lot of people assign the Top Middle Atmos as Top Fronts (while setting up AccuEQ) even though they are mounted Top Middle? I have configured as Top Middle on my Onkyo but have been told to run as fronts as I'm told I will get more height activity. Just curious what others with the basic Atmos (5.1.2) setups think of this
and what others are using for speaker placement. 

Hope this makes sense haha.

Thanks for any help!
Derek


----------



## Jish9

sdrucker said:


> Except that Disney's not a monopoly, they're just one studio - although a big one - among several. And there's no existing consumer protection or other law AFAIK requiring consumer releases of movies to have the same audio/video quality of the theatrical. A movie is the legal property of the studio, at the end of the day, and they're entitled to do what they want with their property as long as it doesn't violate legal copyrights or specific rights protected by law.
> 
> We may not like what they've done to their movies, but unfortunately it's theirs to do with as they see fit, for whatever reason. I'll go with either the multimedia "mix" argument out of what they see as consumer tastes, or the desire to impose product tiers for future releases they can price at a premium (my "Atmos Platinum" theory).
> 
> I signed that petition too, but ultimately if you don't like how Disney treats home releases, don't buy them and boycott the studio's releases from the theatrical level on up. It's not like you can't go buy a UHD from Warner, Paramount, Sony etc. that give us scalable Atmos and dynamic range capability that makes for a better entertainment experience..


Sure, and while I agree with most of what you are saying, with all the big companies buying up other companies, it seems like an end run on the whole monopoly idea. In the end, they legally own the rights and can do whatever they deem fit. For the record, I too signed the petition, and subscribe to the "Atmos Platinum" theory as well as the multimedia mix argument. What caught my eye the most about that article was why neither Dolby or Disney would given an answer to the Forbes reporter when asked about the audio issue with regard to their films. Time will tell, but with them acquiring Fox studios as well, the choice as consumers has become severely limited.


----------



## Jish9

djdel002 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I had a question about my 5.1.2 setup. I have the 2 Top Middle speakers mounted high on walls (image attached) in line with MLP and does sound great but wondering if I should move them more forward of the MLP than I have them now, more towards the Dolby 5.1.2 sheet that
> shows the Top Middles a bit ahead of MLP?
> 
> Reason I'm asking ahead of time without trying first is I need to buy brackets and other side of room has no wall so I need to hang from ceilings.
> 
> I also have read a lot of people assign the Top Middle Atmos as Top Fronts (while setting up AccuEQ) even though they are mounted Top Middle? I have configured as Top Middle on my Onkyo but have been told to run as fronts as I'm told I will get more height activity. Just curious what others with the basic Atmos (5.1.2) setups think of this
> and what others are using for speaker placement.
> 
> Hope this makes sense haha.
> 
> Thanks for any help!
> Derek


Two things Derek. First I am a little confused by your picture and what you are asking as it shows you already hanging a speaker on the ceiling and another on a wall. Please clarify. Yes, given the position of your rear surrounds, you would probably benefit from mounting the speakers on the ceiling a little more forward to create a more ambient environment. Second, given your equipment list, you need to get a serious security system for that entry.  The screen door is not cutting it.


----------



## djdel002

Jish9 said:


> Two things Derek. First I am a little confused by your picture and what you are asking as it shows you already hanging a speaker on the ceiling and another on a wall. Please clarify. Yes, given the position of your rear surrounds, you would probably benefit from mounting the speakers on the ceiling a little more forward to create a more ambient environment. Second, given your equipment list, you need to get a serious security system for that entry.  The screen door is not cutting it.


Hi Jish9,
Thanks for the reply.

The speaker that is circled is just a graphic haha, I should have mentioned that. That circled spot is where I was going to move the speaker that's currently on the high side wall. Hope that makes sense.
I know , ya gotta love my screen door security lol.

I'm new to Atmos and the .2 is amazing I can imagine what the .4 or more is like.


----------



## Marc Alexander

djdel002 said:


> I also have read a lot of people assign the Top Middle Atmos as Top Fronts (while setting up AccuEQ) even though they are mounted Top Middle? I have configured as Top Middle on my Onkyo but have been told to run as fronts as I'm told I will get more height activity. Just curious what others with the basic Atmos (5.1.2) setups think of this
> and what others are using for speaker placement.


I don't believe the height designation makes one iota of difference for Dolby Atmos & Surround with only a single set of heights. You can verify this with the Atmos test tones. 

The question on my mind is how the height designation affects Dts:X and Neural X. I suspect the height designation will affect Dts rendering. 

I am about to upgrade my den setup (which appears to be similar to yours) from 5.1 to 5.1.2. My placement of the heights is governed by my wife and will likely be directly to the sides of the MLP. I'll be testing a few multi-polar speakers (mounted on-wall vertically instead of horizontally) to find the best solution (utilizing the ceiling reflection). Unfortunately, the best is likely the most expensive. Funk Audio Hemipole:


----------



## Jish9

djdel002 said:


> Hi Jish9,
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> The speaker that is circled is just a graphic haha, I should have mentioned that. That circled spot is where I was going to move the speaker that's currently on the high side wall. Hope that makes sense.
> I know , ya gotta love my screen door security lol.
> 
> I'm new to Atmos and the .2 is amazing I can imagine what the .4 or more is like.


Derek, because you do not have angled speakers, the placement on the wall is a bad idea and the ceiling location that you have "rendered" is much more appropriate. As for placement, the new location is fine but you can also move them further into the room if you want to create a more ambient effect instead of directly overhead. If you were to also move your rear surrounds higher you could matrix the rear height channels into them via an outboard DSP (like a miniDSP). Then you would have 7.4. As for door security, all you need is one big pitt bull and you would be set.


----------



## djdel002

Jish9 said:


> Derek, because you do not have angled speakers, the placement on the wall is a bad idea and the ceiling location that you have "rendered" is much more appropriate. As for placement, the new location is fine but you can also move them further into the room if you want to create a more ambient effect instead of directly overhead. If you were to also move your rear surrounds higher you could matrix the rear height channels into them via an outboard DSP (like a miniDSP). Then you would have 7.4. As for door security, all you need is one big pitt bull and you would be set. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Lol
Thanks Jish9!



Marc Alexander said:


> I am about to upgrade my den setup (which appears to be similar to yours) from 5.1 to 5.1.2.


Hi Marc,
Let us know how you like the 5.1.2!


----------



## Jonas2

camd5pt0 said:


> Oh boy, if you want an Atmos demo track, check out this movie on Netflix, it is called Blame!



Although I cant stream in Atmos due to lack of compliant device, I've got this one in my queue, and I'll just have to upmix it. Pretty good, eh??


----------



## lax01

Heard Tim Cook say on today's Apple Q2 Earnings call that iTunes would be the biggest library (in the world) of Atmos movies online...


----------



## camd5pt0

TBH I think it's incredible. Definitely rewinded several times to believe what I've heard 


Jonas2 said:


> Although I cant stream in Atmos due to lack of compliant device, I've got this one in my queue, and I'll just have to upmix it. Pretty good, eh??


----------



## camd5pt0

Also, I will take the advice to make acoustic panels more seriously after watching this video.!


----------



## Jish9

lax01 said:


> Heard Tim Cook say on today's Apple Q2 Earnings call that iTunes would be the biggest library (in the world) of Atmos movies online...


Unfortunately like Netflix and Amazon, it seems as though they will be streaming the lossy audio of the ATMOS track due to bandwidth limitations. Will know more in the fall once the software is released.


----------



## Jish9

Marc Alexander said:


> I don't believe the height designation makes one iota of difference for Dolby Atmos & Surround with only a single set of heights. You can verify this with the Atmos test tones.
> 
> The question on my mind is how the height designation affects Dts:X and Neural X. I suspect the height designation will affect Dts rendering.
> 
> I am about to upgrade my den setup (which appears to be similar to yours) from 5.1 to 5.1.2. My placement of the heights is governed by my wife and will likely be directly to the sides of the MLP. I'll be testing a few multi-polar speakers (mounted on-wall vertically instead of horizontally) to find the best solution (utilizing the ceiling reflection). Unfortunately, the best is likely the most expensive. Funk Audio Hemipole:


That particular speaker you have illustrated is designed for a ceiling installation and not a wall mount. Doing so will simply jumble the audio between your height channels and side/rear surrounds thus getting lost in the mix. Furthermore, they have a drop off frequency at 100Hz making them somewhat (only because of multiple driver) localized. Finally, a 3in driver is not desirable when there is so much sound track being passed through the height channels. You may want to consider a speaker designed for wall mounting like SVS Prime Elevation. You could even put two side by side at 15 degrees facing either side to create the same effect as these speakers and still be less than what Funk Audio is asking. Just my opinion.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lax01 said:


> Heard Tim Cook say on today's Apple Q2 Earnings call that iTunes would be the biggest library (in the world) of Atmos movies online...



Great... in the least amount of quality possible. Whoo hoo...


----------



## gwsat

Jish9 said:


> Unfortunately like Netflix and Amazon, it seems as though they will be streaming the lossy audio of the ATMOS track due to bandwidth limitations. Will know more in the fall once the software is released.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Great... in the least amount of quality possible. Whoo hoo...


That the 4K Apple TV will be able to send only lossy Atmos isn't Apple's fault. So far at least, the only way to enjoy lossless immersive audio, TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA, is via a disk or from a download service such as Kaleidescape. The silver lining to all this is that even lossy Atmos sounds very good these days and streamed UHD HDR video is even better, hardly distinguishable from that delivered from a disk.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> That the 4K Apple TV will be able to send only lossy Atmos isn't Apple's fault. So far at least, the only way to enjoy lossless immersive audio, TrueHD Atmos or DTS:X MA, is via a disk or from a download service such as Kaleidescape. The silver lining to all this is that even lossy Atmos sounds very good these days and streamed UHD HDR video is even better, hardly distinguishable from that delivered from a disk.



I haven't come across a UHD stream yet that could be called indistinguishable from a disk, especially if you have a large flat panel or projector. I'm not willing to settle just yet. I've paid good money for my gear and I expect better from my source material.


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> I haven't come across a UHD stream yet that could be called indistinguishable from a disk, especially if you have a large flat panel or projector. I'm not willing to setting just yet. I've paid good money for my gear and I expect better from my source material.


I have both an Oppo UDP-203 disk player and a Kaleidescape system, so I assume you already know I agree that the versions of UHD HDR video and lossless immersive audio found on disk or bit for bit copies of disks are still superior to the streamed versions. Streaming is close, though, and getting closer all the time. Does this mean that I would buy the streaming digital version of a movie I cared anything about instead of buying the disk from Amazon or a bit for bit copy from Kaleidescape? Not on your tintype! If I were starting from scratch, though, I would consider it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> I have both an Oppo UDP-203 disk player and a Kaleidescape system, so I assume you already know I agree that the versions of UHD HDR video and lossless immersive audio found on disk or bit for bit copies of disks are still superior to the streamed versions. Streaming is close, though, and getting closer all the time. Does this mean that I would buy the streaming digital version of a movie I cared anything about instead of buying the disk from Amazon or a bit for bit copy from Kaleidescape? Not on your tintype! If I were starting from scratch, though, I would consider it.



Here's the problem with K-scape or companies like that... the cost of admission is high and if they go out of business your collection is screwed because you're still tethered via DRM. Streaming is worse because you still could lose everything and yet the A/V is inferior. There's no winning with cloud based media. Only the studios win.


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> Here's the problem with K-scape or companies like that... the cost of admission is high and if they go out of business your collection is screwed because you're still tethered via DRM. Streaming is worse because you still could lose everything and yet the A/V is inferior. There's no winning with cloud based media. Only the studios win.


Despite a scare on 2016, Kscape has been surviving and, mostly, thriving since 2001. Thus, while I recognize the danger of relying on digital rights, my confidence in Kscape is buttressed by (1) its mostly great track record and (2) knowing that my many UHD HDR and HD films downloaded to my Kscape system will remain available to play so long as one of my system's disks doesn't fail, no matter what happens to the digital rights that back them up. It's a chance I am willing to take but with the recognition that it doesn't make a lick of sense economically. What the hell, live dangerously, right?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> Despite a scare on 2016, Kscape has been surviving and, mostly, thriving since 2001. Thus, while I recognize the danger of relying on digital rights, my confidence in Kscape is buttressed by (1) its mostly great track record and (2) knowing that my many UHD HDR and HD films downloaded to my Kscape system will remain available to play so long as one of my system's disks doesn't fail, no matter what happens to the digital rights that back them up. It's a chance I am willing to take but with the recognition that it doesn't make a lick of sense economically. What the hell, live dangerously, right?



That's the description of how Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, and other social media users are living day to day... dangerously. It's amazing how addicted we are to the cloud and so openingly willing we are in getting ram rodded.


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's the description of how Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, and other social media users are living day to day... dangerously. It's amazing how addicted we are to the cloud and so openingly willing we are in getting ram rodded.


It's all a matter of convenience and low entry costs for streaming versus the relative inconvenience and much higher entry costs for disks. That's why _*disks seem to be dying*_ and _*Oppo is going out of the disk player business*_. I still buy some disks but recognize that their time is short and getting shorter all the time.

I recognize how far off topic these exchanges have gone and promise to try to do better.


----------



## sdurani

lax01 said:


> Heard Tim Cook say on today's Apple Q2 Earnings call that iTunes would be the biggest library (in the world) of Atmos movies online...


Indeed, here's the quote: _"And tvOS will take the cinematic experience of Apple TV 4K to the next level this fall, with support for Dolby Atmos audio and new features to easily find popular shows and movies. Apple TV 4K already offers customers the largest collection of 4K HDR movies, and this fall *iTunes will be the home to the largest collection of Dolby Atmos supported movies anywhere*."_ 

Transcript of entire call: https://www.imore.com/apple-earnings-q3-2018


----------



## steelman1991

Dan Hitchman said:


> Here's the problem with K-scape or companies like that... the cost of admission is high and if they go out of business your collection is screwed because you're still tethered via DRM. Streaming is worse because you still could lose everything and yet the A/V is inferior. There's no winning with cloud based media. Only the studios win.


No tethering - as gwsat explains, providing the discs continue to work the movies will - with or without Kscape.


----------



## GooglyBear

lax01 said:


> Heard Tim Cook say on today's Apple Q2 Earnings call that iTunes would be the biggest library (in the world) of Atmos movies online...


he'd definitely push Apple to be the front-runner for Dolby Vision/Atmos right besides Netflix..

why? Because it's one thing Samsung cannot match with and it goes parallel to Apple's "Premium" image/status 

most def


----------



## mdsjedi44

GooglyBear said:


> he'd definitely push Apple to be the front-runner for Dolby Vision/Atmos right besides Netflix..
> 
> why? Because it's one thing Samsung cannot match with and it goes parallel to Apple's "Premium" image/status
> 
> most def


I wonder if even the titles that are NOT in UHD will still receive the Atmos upgrade. It'd be great if even the run-of-the-mill HD titles received Atmos. Might just be wishful thinking...


----------



## GooglyBear

mdsjedi44 said:


> I wonder if even the titles that are NOT in UHD will still receive the Atmos upgrade. It'd be great if even the run-of-the-mill HD titles received Atmos. Might just be wishful thinking...


sadly this goes beyond my knowledge/interestedness in.. specifically: is Atmos/Dolby Vision an encoding or is it something that has to be done from the mastering side/etc for it to be "real".. 

here's something interesting though.. Owners of ATV4K already reported that their movies that have ported over... do get 4K treatment

like if they buy a "regular" HDX? movie on Vudu and it's linked to moviesanywhere and then they see the same movie on their ATV4K... it's the 4K/UHD version

almost like a "free" upgrade

of course this is not firsthand knowledge since i don't have an ATV  but people are reporting that

edit: guess what i'm trying to say is Dolby Vision/Atmos have to be done right, i don't think it's just a flag they can slap on anything and say hey.. that's Dolby!


----------



## Marc Alexander

Jish9 said:


> That particular speaker you have illustrated is designed for a ceiling installation and not a wall mount. Doing so will simply jumble the audio between your height channels and side/rear surrounds thus getting lost in the mix.


How are you making this judgement? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by jumble. Do you care to elaborate? Nathan Funk seemed forthcoming regarding his design goals. Do you know something I don't? (I assume you are familiar with BMR drivers.) These 3.4D modules (6) will be installed as Wides & Surrounds in my main media room which is a fairly narrow 13⅓ft. 9.1.6 layout. 

I understand that these 3.4Ds appear expensive but they are hand-crafted, solid wood (purple-heart). 

I also want to reitterate that I am experimenting/testing multiple multi-pole designs. Cambridge Audio Aero and Mirage OM-R2/OMD-R/OMD-5/OS3-SAT. 


> Furthermore, they have a drop off frequency at 100Hz making them somewhat (only because of multiple driver) localized. Finally, a 3in driver is not desirable when here is so much sound track being passed through the height channels.


I find that the height channel speakers are the least utilized and least important speakers of most systems. Is that not the case?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Funk Audio, but the measured/published specs are not directly comparable that of a traditional, commercial offering. I actually have a pair of Klipsch SS-1s somewhere in my garage I could use for comparison.


Spoiler



SS-1 
Sensitivity: 94dB @ 1 watt / 1 meter (equivalent sound energy) 
Bandwidth: 60Hz–20kHz±3dB 
Nominal Impedance: 8 ohms 
Crossover Frequency: 2kHz 
Power Handling: 100 watts maximum continuous (400 watts peak) 
Enclosure Type: Sealed Drive 
Components: Two-way system using two 1" (2.54cm) K-101-S neodymium magnet, aluminum dome compression drivers with 90° x 60° Tractrix Horns and one 5.25" (13.3cm) K-1076-S woofer featuring a polymer housing and IMG cone





> You may want to consider a speaker designed for wall mounting like SVS Prime Elevation.


I actually considered the Prime Elevations. I'm likely going to order up a pair for 30-day trial.


----------



## Marc Alexander

mdsjedi44 said:


> I wonder if even the titles that are NOT in UHD will still receive the Atmos upgrade. It'd be great if even the run-of-the-mill HD titles received Atmos. Might just be wishful thinking...


Itunes 4k pricing changed the streaming game for the better (as competition does). Vudu had to follow suit by lowering prices for UHD rental and purchases. Vudu ties Atmos and Dolby Vision to UHD versions. 

While DV HDR/WCG will be tied to UHD, there is no reason Atmos has to be. 

AFAIK the ATV4k (in the beta) is the first and only device to support 1080p displays while retaining Atmos audio on Vudu. 

So I share your wishful thinking. 

While I am not an Apple fan (we switched Samsung phones for 5+ years now, and my wife is not fond of the iPhone they gave her for work) the ATV4/4k is my favorite streaming device. We went from none to three ATVs in 12 months (DirecTV Now).


----------



## cheyne2525

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for the additional information. You have done a lot to get the sound as good as you can in what is a challenging space.
> 
> WRT to the open space to the right of MLP, you could try putting a nice thick absorber on the wall under the 'Cinema Always Showing' sign. The idea is to make that wall 'disappear' acoustically so that it then balances with the physically absent wall on the other side. Getting rid of the reflecting surfaces from the shelves would help but maybe not enough to compensate for the WAF issues which might arise. You;d have to try it to see, which would also mean re-running Audyssey yet again of course, but you seem to be comfortable with that.
> 
> As for noticing these very small trims differences (0.2 to 2dB) I am wondering if there isn't an element of OCD creeping in here? Hearing a difference of 1dB, in a m/ch soundtrack, with all speakers playing is pretty much impossible TBH for almost everyone. Try just watching and enjoying the movie without 'listening to the sound' and see if you really do notice these small changes. I'm not having a pop at you - we all do it
> 
> I think you are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. Sometimes we just have to accept that few things in life are perfect and make the best of what we have. After many years in this game, I finally learned to use the system to play the content, not the content to play the system, and suddenly I was way more happy with what I was doing!







No worries and no offense taken; there most certainly is a small amount of OCD in some of what I've done so far, i'm sure, lol. I did try a few things based on the advice given to see what my best options for treating that brick/left side wall would be and sometimes the simplest solutions are the best ones. After trying a some other stuff that didn't make too much of a difference, I decided to place one of my already-built acoustic panels behind the surround left speaker (roughly where the 'always showing' cinema sign is located, per the advice given) and that definitely helped to open up how large the room felt on that side, and it appeared to be more evenly balanced as well. I also took the liberty of hanging a large heavy blanket up about 12 inches in front of the brick wall to see if that cut down on some of the reflections getting back to the MLP and it did help a lot. While i would like to be able to put up some acoustic treatment on the brick part of the wall itself it looks like putting up something in front of it instead is my only option at the current time.
I did some movie watching (of a non-critical nature, lol) to see if i noticed any improvement or if it still sounded slightly off or unbalanced; it was better, and i have concluded that it will never be perfect but i have come about as far as i can w/ the limitations in play. I very much enjoy the end results of the last couple of years of learning and tweaking and i think i can settle for 96-98% perfection, lol. I can also finally stop worrying about all the little details of the setup now that i know I've explored all the options for what i can do with it, now it's time to really enjoy what i'm watching. I just couldn't do that until i knew i had pulled out all the stops. Now that i think about it though, I do see an OLED TV upgrade in the somewhat near future, there's always something you can do to improve... 
This may be the OCD creeping in again (i cant help it, my job forces me to hone my detail-oriented skills...) but in summary, my solution for shoring up that left side wall will be to make another panel to permanently place behind the SL speaker area, and ill be putting some small ring bolts in the ceiling so that i can put the blanket up or down as needed - that last bit is non-negotiable per the wife, lol.
Thanks again for all the help here, you guys are the best.


----------



## Marc Alexander

*Height/Surround dual duty *

I stumbled onto a pair of these for $100. https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/gbr/en/products/speakers/aero-3 
(I don't have them in-hand yet)

















Most intriguing is the fact that each driver has separate binding posts. Oriented vertically, one could wire the height to the top driver and surround to the bottom. While highly room dependent and far from ideal, it works conceptually. This is the first speaker I have come across that is able to be wired in this manner [not specifically designed for Dolby upfiring]. There are likely others. 


> Configure the Aero 3 speakers either as a "bipole" surround speaker for traditional 5.1 output, or as "dual monopole" to deliver accurate 7.1 sound, without filling your room with more speakers.


----------



## Marc Alexander

gwsat said:


> Despite a scare on 2016, Kscape has been surviving and, mostly, thriving since 2001. Thus, while I recognize the danger of relying on digital rights, my confidence in Kscape is buttressed by (1) its mostly great track record and (2) knowing that my many UHD HDR and HD films downloaded to my Kscape system will remain available to play so long as one of my system's disks doesn't fail, no matter what happens to the digital rights that back them up. It's a chance I am willing to take but with the recognition that it doesn't make a lick of sense economically. What the hell, live dangerously, right?



Just live period @gwsat! Life is too short not to be individually enjoying what we want how we want it. You choose to spend disposable funds on Kaleidescape and I spend mine on Funk Audio. 

There will always be FUD surrounding anything new. Can there be progress without change?


----------



## sdrucker

Marc Alexander said:


> Just live period @*gwsat*! Life is too short not to be individually enjoying what we want how we want it. You choose to spend disposable funds on Kaleidescape and I spend mine on Funk Audio.


 
Different strokes for different folks. I can tell you to end the pain and buy a 24 channel Altitude , but we all have your priorities and budgets. You've probably got better ULF than I do, our old friend @*kbarnes701* very likely has considerably better dynamic range than I do with his JBL Cinema speakers and carefully engineered room, although he's handicapped with his insistence on 7.1.4 LOL. It's all about tradeoffs and what we prioritize..



> There will always be FUD surrounding anything new. Can there be progress without change?


 
Except sometimes that change isn't always for the better. Ask fans of Disney movies.


----------



## Marc Alexander

I posted this in the NAD T758 v3 thread as it has the most NAD users. It's most relevant to this thread.


Marc Alexander said:


> @rboster I searched and could not find a post regarding your listening impressions and how you arrived at using TOP MIDDLE and TOP REAR designations. Has anyone by chance tried the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones to see how the remaining TOP location tones image when utilizing TOP MIDDLE and TOP REAR or TOP FRONT in a x.x.4 setup?
> 
> I [along with others] assumed that because D&M did not allow TOP MIDDLE and TOP FRONT/REAR in a x.x.4 setup [prior to the X8850/AV8805] that Dolby didn't allow it. I just checked and my Lyngdorf MP-50 does in fact allow any combination of height designations so I will test this myself. I'm wondering if others already have?
> 
> (I have the AM17 MDC on order for my M15HD.)


----------



## Jish9

Marc Alexander said:


> How are you making this judgement? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by jumble. Do you care to elaborate? Nathan Funk seemed forthcoming regarding his design goals. Do you know something I don't? (I assume you are familiar with BMR drivers.) These 3.4D modules (6) will be installed as Wides & Surrounds in my main media room which is a fairly narrow 13⅓ft. 9.1.6 layout.
> 
> I understand that these 3.4Ds appear expensive but they are hand-crafted, solid wood (purple-heart).
> 
> I also want to reitterate that I am experimenting/testing multiple multi-pole designs. Cambridge Audio Aero and Mirage OM-R2/OMD-R/OMD-5/OS3-SAT.
> 
> I find that the height channel speakers are the least utilized and least important speakers of most systems. Is that not the case?
> 
> I'm not sure how familiar you are with Funk Audio, but the measured/published specs are not directly comparable that of a traditional, commercial offering. I actually have a pair of Klipsch SS-1s somewhere in my garage I could use for comparison.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> SS-1
> Sensitivity: 94dB @ 1 watt / 1 meter (equivalent sound energy)
> Bandwidth: 60Hz–20kHz±3dB
> Nominal Impedance: 8 ohms
> Crossover Frequency: 2kHz
> Power Handling: 100 watts maximum continuous (400 watts peak)
> Enclosure Type: Sealed Drive
> Components: Two-way system using two 1" (2.54cm) K-101-S neodymium magnet, aluminum dome compression drivers with 90° x 60° Tractrix Horns and one 5.25" (13.3cm) K-1076-S woofer featuring a polymer housing and IMG cone
> 
> 
> 
> I actually considered the Prime Elevations. I'm likely going to order up a pair for 30-day trial.


Your initial posting stated that you were looking to move into a 5.1.2 configuration and not 9.1.6. I do not know how the speakers will be placed with regard to the rest of the bed channels, but you will need some height separation to create the effect you are seeking. In looking at the speaker design and the direction that the sound will be emanating from, there is a pretty good chance that the effect channels will not be distinct enough if all your speakers are layed out along the walls. Once again I don't know your layout, so perhaps my comment about the sound being jumbled was premature. As for the specs, there is no way of cheating physics unfortunately. Having built several speakers myself, certain principles of sound apply to all designs and understanding that helps one to choose something specific for the application. That being said, I am really glad you are trying out different speakers (including SVS elevation) to determine which you will like the best. I did the same thing when choosing my bed channels. Just be sure to setup and adjust everything to spec so that you are comparing apples to apples. On a side not, I too am a fan of Funk Audio and their gear especially the subs! Keep us posted on what you find out and decide on in the end.


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> Also, I will take the advice to make acoustic panels more seriously after watching this video.!


Acoustic treatments are essential for anyone wanting to get the best results from their speakers. Best of all, they don't cost much if you make them yourself (which is real easy). They will give the biggest improvement for the least money of any upgrade you can make, since the room is the single most important component in your setup.

The video you linked to is good but there are even more dramatic examples available. IIRC some of these are on the GIK and Realtraps websites, which also offer many helpful tips, advice etc.


----------



## gwsat

I was able to buy the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Avengers Infinity War_ from the Kaleidescape store on Tuesday and watched it last night. I post here to report that the film's TrueHD Atmos soundtrack was surprisingly good, given that this is another Disney title. 

Although I thought the film's audio was surprisingly good, I can't ignore the possibility that part of my approval may have been the result of exceedingly low expectations. All in all, though the sound was good, with the best LFE I can remember on any Disney soundtrack I can recall, excellent surround effects, and immersive effects that were acceptable. Better yet, it is a really good film 8 Stars out of 10. 

I should also report that in order to combat the "Disney effect," I cranked up my audio system's volume an additional 2.5 dB over where I ordinarily set it for Atmos soundtracks from other studios.


----------



## mobileES

gwsat said:


> I was able to buy the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Avengers Infinity War_ from the Kaleidescape store on Tuesday and watched it last night. I post here to report that the film's TrueHD Atmos soundtrack was surprisingly good, given that this is another Disney title.
> 
> Although I thought the film's audio was surprisingly good, I can't ignore the possibility that part of my approval may have been the result of exceedingly low expectations. All in all, though the sound was good, with the best LFE I can remember on any Disney soundtrack I can recall, excellent surround effects, and immersive effects that were acceptable. Better yet, it is a really good film 8 Stars out of 10.
> 
> I should also report that in order to combat the "Disney effect," I cranked up my audio system's volume an additional 2.5 dB over where I ordinarily set it for Atmos soundtracks from other studios.


How did you get it early? I thought I seen the release date as 8/14.

Hopefully they fix the audio on Age of Ultron, it was horrible.


----------



## gwsat

mobileES said:


> How did you get it early? I thought I seen the release date as 8/14.
> 
> Hopefully they fix the audio on Age of Ultron, it was horrible.


Kaleidescape usually gets new releases a couple of weeks before the disks become available.

I bought _The Age of Ultron_ at the same time I bought _Infinity War_ and watched it Wednesday night. I thought its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack wasn't bad but was still not as good as the _Infinity War_ audio, especially the LFE.


----------



## Josh Z

gwsat said:


> I bought _The Age of Ultron_ at the same time I bought _Infinity War_ and watched it Wednesday night. I thought its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack wasn't bad but was still not as good as _The Age of Ultron_ audio, especially the LFE.


Age of Ultron is kind of notorious for having wimpy bass and lousy dynamics.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

I decided to record only the Atmos audio coming from 2 up-firing speakers. This might help someone decide if they want to go for a x.x.2 system. I basically disconnected every other speaker and left only the atmos.

The John Wick 2 night club is insane, and in the caves you can hear the echo when they speak and shoot. 
Also have Hacksaw ridge, they are still rendering, will be uploaded soon. Gonna leave Unbroken and Jumanji here for now, if someone is interested i can post more videos.



Spoiler


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Quetzalcoalt said:


> I decided to record only the Atmos audio coming from 2 up-firing speakers. This might help someone decide if they want to go for a x.x.2 system. I basically disconnected every other speaker and left only the atmos.
> 
> The John Wick 2 night club is insane, and in the caves you can hear the echo when they speak and shoot.
> Also have Hacksaw ridge, they are still rendering, will be uploaded soon. Gonna leave Unbroken and Jumanji here for now, if someone is interested i can post more videos.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSsrvScVM7c
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHRWIBDlvAE



Thanks for the efforts, but that really doesn't give you a good idea of what it sounds like in a real world room. Upfiring is not to everyone's likes or tastes and should be considered the very last resort due to the modules' finicky nature and other factors. If they're able to install physical overhead speakers in the correct locations (tops or heights), that would be best.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the efforts, but that really doesn't give you a good idea of what it sounds like in a real world room. Upfiring is not to everyone's likes or tastes and should be considered the very last resort due to the modules' finicky nature and other factors. If they're able to install physical overhead speakers in the correct locations (tops or heights), that would be best.


Yeah i know that but i just can't put speakers on the ceiling, because it's not a dedicated HT room. It's the living room =/. At Least it's a thick concrete ceiling with only paint on it, and i have them 3-4 db hotter than the rest of the system. It gives effect, but nothing drastically. 
There are people like me that can't put speakers everywhere, and someone might be interested if he wants to get up-firing. There are no tests like mine so he can (kind of) hear and not everyone is like SVS, you can just buy and return stuff from every brand that is around the globe, so i hope it helps people. 

I have 2-3 recorded demos like these, if someone is interested. 

When i get 4 atmos, i can re record again and compare a 2 vs 4, but that's way in to the future.


Oh oh oh , i forgot to mention that, i ran 1 test as a front dolby (front upfiring), top middle, and i think it was back dolby, and for some reason even thou they are configured in the AVR differently, the sound was like copy-pasted. It sounded exactly the same no matter the mode chosen.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Quetzalcoalt said:


> Yeah i know that but i just can't put speakers on the ceiling, because it's not a dedicated HT room. It's the living room =/. At Least it's a thick concrete ceiling with only paint on it, and i have them 3-4 db hotter than the rest of the system. It gives effect, but nothing drastically.
> There are people like me that can't put speakers everywhere, and someone might be interested if he wants to get up-firing. There are no tests like mine so he can (kind of) hear and not everyone is like SVS, you can just buy and return stuff from every brand that is around the globe, so i hope it helps people.
> 
> I have 2-3 recorded demos like these, if someone is interested.
> 
> When i get 4 atmos, i can re record again and compare a 2 vs 4, but that's way in to the future.



Can you put speakers up near the ceiling on either the side walls or front and back walls and aim them towards the listening position? Cover the wires with paintable cable chase material. That would really boost your Atmos experience.


----------



## deano86

mobileES said:


> How did you get it early? I thought I seen the release date as 8/14.
> 
> Hopefully they fix the audio on Age of Ultron, it was horrible.


Digital streaming versions are typically available early ..... and across multiple platforms..


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can you put speakers up near the ceiling on either the side walls or front and back walls and aim them towards the listening position? Cover the wires with paintable cable chase material. That would really boost your Atmos experience.


The Alteco C1 from Dali that i have aren't made for mounting them to the ceiling. I will have to buy or build a custom metal plate or something to attach them. Most people are mentioning the wife factor, i'm still a student so i have the mothers factor. Someday when the whole second floor is mine, i would do whatever i want, so ceiling will be 100%, There are wooden beams on the second floor so i won't have to drill concrete. 
Will have to get a 7.2.4 capable AVR in the future too or just save for my dream. I'm planing a 9.2(4-8-16).6 and a 120-150 inch 21:9 screen. I hope i can piece it together in the next 5-6 years. 

One thing that i hear when switching from a 5.1 to a 5.1.2 while the demos are running is that, with the .2 you can't hear from where the sound is coming but it's there, when i switch to the normal 5.1, the side surround is struggling to produce sounds and it's very obvious from where the sound is coming. To me it sounds like the atmos sound it copy-pasted to the side surrounds and it sounds terrible.
I tried a 5.1.2 with some speakers laying around, before i spend the last of my money on the 2x C1 speakers. and i'm happy with the result so far. 

I had satellite speakers from JVC and sony HTiB (old ones from ~2002). they were 3 ohm and 6 ohm, so i did 2x3omh in series with 2x6omh in series both paralel. It measured 10 ohm, but it was enough for tests. I had to do that because i couldn't rise the volume at all. They were just too weak and distorted a lot. And they got stitched together with tape , so i had 4 speakers on each side, placed on top of the mains with some books to keep some kind of an angle that a up-firing might have.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Quetzalcoalt said:


> The Alteco C1 from Dali that i have aren't made for mounting them to the ceiling. I will have to buy or build a custom metal plate or something to attach them. Most people are mentioning the wife factor, i'm still a student so i have the mothers factor. Someday when the whole second floor is mine, i would do whatever i want, so ceiling will be 100%, There are wooden beams on the second floor so i won't have to drill concrete.
> Will have to get a 7.2.4 capable AVR in the future too or just save for my dream. I'm planing a 9.2(4-8-16).6 and a 120-150 inch 21:9 screen. I hope i can piece it together in the next 5-6 years.
> 
> One thing that i hear when switching from a 5.1 to a 5.1.2 while the demos are running is that, with the .2 you can't hear from where the sound is coming but it's there, when i switch to the normal 5.1, the side surround is struggling to produce sounds and it's very obvious from where the sound is coming. To me it sounds like the atmos sound it copy-pasted to the side surrounds and it sounds terrible.
> I tried a 5.1.2 with some speakers laying around, before i spend the last of my money on the 2x C1 speakers. and i'm happy with the result so far.
> 
> I had satellite speakers from JVC and sony HTiB (old ones from ~2002). they were 3 ohm and 6 ohm, so i did 2x3omh in series with 2x6omh in series both paralel. It measured 10 ohm, but it was enough for tests. I had to do that because i couldn't rise the volume at all. They were just too weak and distorted a lot. And they got stitched together with tape , so i had 4 speakers on each side, placed on top of the mains with some books to keep some kind of an angle that a up-firing might have.



The Alteco C1's are designed for wall mounting up near the ceiling or at least in a wall position where that the angle of the driver aims the sound down towards the main listening position. They're not really designed as upfiring speakers, per se, just like the SVS Prime Elevation speakers (the design of the driver box was not made for "bouncing" sounds in a tight, narrow beam towards the ceiling). They can be side wall mounted with the receiver set to the TOP positions (best for these speakers) or front and rear height mounted with the receiver in the HEIGHT position (second best). Unlike the SVS Elevations, they don't seem to have a ceiling bracket lock. Either way would really be beneficial.


----------



## deano86

deano86 said:


> Just as an update to this.....
> 
> Quite a while ago, I found ... or I thought that I found, that "both" sets of my Height speakers were NOT being boosted by Dynamic EQ. And after some more of the recent conversations, I submitted an actual question to Ask Audyssey support regarding this discrepancy. After a couple week delay a rep from Ask Audyssey apologized and starting looking into my query. His initial answers were that indeed boost should also be applied to the Height speakers if using a proper implementation of Dynamic EQ in the receiver. I then asked if there could be differences in implementation between manufacturers or even specific models? He then forwarded my concern to Denon itself. The most recent response from Denon according Audyssey support was that Dynamic EQ is working properly for the Height speakers in their testing.
> 
> This then prompted me to rerun my Audyssey calibration and start from scratch so to speak and double check my findings. And after my latest calibration and checking the Dolby Atmos test tones in Atmos sound mode, I find that my receiver is doing the exact same thing that Aron7awol has found! My Rear Heights are now actually being boosted the same db as the rears, surrounds and subwoofer! But.. my Front Heights continue to lack any boost whatsover... This creates a huge imbalance in the Atmos sound field! Especially at lower Master Volume levels. For example at a relatively lower Master volume level of -30, the boost difference is a whopping 8db!
> 
> According to the latest email from Audyssey, Denon has asked what my firmware level is. I will reply with that info along with my most recent finding that the Front Heights most definitely do not receive any Dynamic EQ boost ... and I will mention that has been confirmed by Aron7awol with his Denon 4400.
> 
> More to come...
> 
> Dean


Well, I finally heard back from Ask Audyssey... and they confirmed with Denon, that Top Front Atmos speakers will NOT receive any Dynamic EQ boost... It appears that Denon(at least) is conforming to the thought that sounds in front do not need any sort of low volume level boost ... mainly only surrounds, rear surrounds and subwoofer as per normal. I responded back that I thought this thinking is misguided with regards to Atmos setups since they are boosting the Top Rears and this creates a very noticeable discrepancy with overhead effects and especially pans. I totally understand and quite enjoy Aydyssey's Dynamic EQ implementation for standard listener level 5.1/7.1 setups. But, Denon's implementation of Dynamic EQ with regard to Dolby Atmos overheads speakers is very surprising and disappointing to me. 

Curious, if other manufacturers using Audyssey Dynamic EQ work the same way with a discrepancy of boost between Top Fronts and Rears?


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Alteco C1's are designed for wall mounting up near the ceiling or at least in a wall position where that the angle of the driver aims the sound down towards the main listening position. They're not really designed as upfiring speakers, per se, just like the SVS Prime Elevation speakers (the design of the driver box was not made for "bouncing" sounds in a tight, narrow beam towards the ceiling). They can be side wall mounted with the receiver set to the TOP positions (best for these speakers) or front and rear height mounted with the receiver in the HEIGHT position (second best). Unlike the SVS Elevations, they don't seem to have a ceiling bracket lock. Either way would really be beneficial.


Room doesn't allow side wall mount. I can mount them as front height, but they are gonna be pointing at the table (or at the feat of the main listening position), because of the distance. Also the right one is going to be above the fireplace (i place a thick towel on the side to kind of keep the heat away from the speakers). You can click the link in the signature to see what i have to work with.


----------



## gwsat

Quetzalcoalt said:


> I decided to record only the Atmos audio coming from 2 up-firing speakers. This might help someone decide if they want to go for a x.x.2 system. I basically disconnected every other speaker and left only the atmos.
> 
> The John Wick 2 night club is insane, and in the caves you can hear the echo when they speak and shoot.
> Also have Hacksaw ridge, they are still rendering, will be uploaded soon. Gonna leave Unbroken and Jumanji here for now, if someone is interested i can post more videos.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSsrvScVM7c
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHRWIBDlvAE


I'm going to watch my UHD HDR TrueHD atmos version of _John Wick 2_ again later. Really looking forward to seeing it but more particularly hearing it again.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> Age of Ultron is kind of notorious for having wimpy bass and lousy dynamics.


Yeah, the TrueHD Atmos audio on every Disney title I have heard was weak to one degree or another. That's why I was surprised that I liked the _Avengers Infinity War_ soundtrack as much as I did.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the efforts, but that really doesn't give you a good idea of what it sounds like in a real world room. Upfiring is not to everyone's likes or tastes and should be considered the very last resort due to the modules' finicky nature and other factors. If they're able to install physical overhead speakers in the correct locations (tops or heights), that would be best.


Can't see your point here, Dan. He's posting to show how much _overhead content_ there is in the clip, not to give an idea of what it sounds like 'in a real room'. If he had on-ceiling speakers and posted a clip of them working, it would still sound nothing like it does in a real room. IOW, it has nothing to do with upfirers vs on-ceiling speakers.

BTW, you are being far too dismissive of upfirers. As I've posted many times, at Dolby HQ in London, where the audience was almost all experienced journalists and AV professionals of one kind or another (and me!) more than 50% *preferred *the upfirers to the physical ceiling speakers in a blind, instantaneously switched test in their 'domestic room' setup. Upfirers are different to ceiling speakers. The former give a more 'diffuse' effect, the latter a more 'precise' effect. Some will prefer one to the other and vice-versa. Upfirers are NOT the total compromise your post suggests and your bias may put people off Atmos altogether in cases where they cannot, like the poster in this case, accommodate physical on-ceiling speakers.

Guys, if you can't use on-ceiling speakers for whatever reason (the preferred choice of most I agree), don't feel that upfirers are a really poor relation: they aren't.


----------



## kbarnes701

Quetzalcoalt said:


> Yeah i know that but i just can't put speakers on the ceiling, because it's not a dedicated HT room. It's the living room =/. At Least it's a thick concrete ceiling with only paint on it, and i have them 3-4 db hotter than the rest of the system. It gives effect, but nothing drastically.
> There are people like me that can't put speakers everywhere, and someone might be interested if he wants to get up-firing. There are no tests like mine so he can (kind of) hear and not everyone is like SVS, you can just buy and return stuff from every brand that is around the globe, so i hope it helps people.
> 
> I have 2-3 recorded demos like these, if someone is interested.
> 
> When i get 4 atmos, i can re record again and compare a 2 vs 4, but that's way in to the future.
> 
> 
> Oh oh oh , i forgot to mention that, i ran 1 test as a front dolby (front upfiring), top middle, and i think it was back dolby, and for some reason even thou they are configured in the AVR differently, the sound was like copy-pasted. It sounded exactly the same no matter the mode chosen.


FWIW I thought your test was useful. It clearly showed significant overhead content in the Jumanji clip (I coudn't get Unbroken clip to play). How the content is delivered (upfirers vs on-ceiling speakers) isn't relevant to how much content has been mixed to the overhead 'channel'.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Quetzalcoalt said:


> I decided to record only the Atmos audio coming from 2 up-firing speakers. This might help someone decide if they want to go for a x.x.2 system. I basically disconnected every other speaker and left only the atmos. The John Wick 2 night club is insane, and in the caves you can hear the echo when they speak and shoot.


Does anyone know whether this specific John Wick Atmos track was specially mixed for home, or prepared from a cinematic version?

*Edit:* I have found the answer. The cinema soundtrack was NOT Atmos. So this Atmos soundtrack appears to have been originally mixed for Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray. This could explain the relative extensive use of the overheads for reverberant sounds/echos, while in a cinematic Atmos soundtrack these could haven been kept in the already considerably elevated side/rear surrounds. See also earlier post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1699.html#post56550830


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW I thought your test was useful. It clearly showed significant overhead content in the Jumanji clip (I coudn't get Unbroken clip to play). How the content is delivered (upfirers vs on-ceiling speakers) isn't relevant to how much content has been mixed to the overhead 'channel'.


Thanks, ^_^, i also have uploaded the Nightclub scene and the caves of John Wick 2. Man, there's a lot of content there. In the nightclub the x.x.2 music was playing all the time until the caves and when the caves scene came, you can hear only the echoes of when they talk. Even when John reloads you can hear the echo when the magazine hits the wall and the floor and when the gun clicks. It's amazing. 

If someone is interested. 


Spoiler











Can i hurts the AVR when every other speaker is unplugged and only the atmos are connected at high volume levels ?

I also did the first race in Ready Player One, to be honest i thought it would have more content up there. Maybe it's because i only have x.x.2 and not a x.x.4/6, who knows. 
It's really weird watching scenes from movies with only atmos speakers active.


----------



## Selden Ball

Quetzalcoalt said:


> Can i hurts the AVR when every other speaker is unplugged and only the atmos are connected at high volume levels ?


No, that won't hurt the receiver. 

However, people have reported speakers getting their tweeters damaged after sending them abnormally high amplitudes of high frequency sound. This is a generic problem, not directly related to Atmos. Traditionally people have blamed this damage on clipping in the amplifier. The resulting square waves contain an extreme amount of high frequency energy.


----------



## JeffChap

deano86 said:


> Digital streaming versions are typically available early ..... and across multiple platforms..


Yes, I got it 7/30 on Vudu and I agree that the audio is much improved from other Disney Marvel releases like Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Does anyone know whether this specific John Wick Atmos track was specially mixed for home, or prepared from a cinematic version?


John Wick was an Auro exclusive theatrically. The mixer likely used that immersive mix as a reference (rather than starting completely from scratch) when doing the home Atmos mix.


----------



## deano86

JeffChap said:


> Yes, I got it 7/30 on Vudu and I agree that the audio is much improved from other Disney Marvel releases like Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


Really! That is good to hear... literally!  Well, maybe Disney is starting to take heed of the complaints about their latest home video mixes?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> BTW, you are being far too dismissive of upfirers. As I've posted many times, at Dolby HQ in London, where the audience was almost all experienced journalists and AV professionals of one kind or another (and me!) more than 50% *preferred *the upfirers to the physical ceiling speakers in a blind, instantaneously switched test in their 'domestic room' setup. Upfirers are different to ceiling speakers. The former give a more 'diffuse' effect, the latter a more 'precise' effect. Some will prefer one to the other and vice-versa. Upfirers are NOT the total compromise your post suggests and your bias may put people off Atmos altogether in cases where they cannot, like the poster in this case, accommodate physical on-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Guys, if you can't use on-ceiling speakers for whatever reason (the preferred choice of most I agree), don't feel that upfirers are a really poor relation: they aren't.


I'm glad to read this. In my old house, I had a 7.1.4 setup with in-ceilings and loved it. Before that, I had 7.1.4 with two front heights mounted up high on the front wall and two top mids mounted in a ceiling fan recess. Of the two setups, the in-ceilings definitely gave the best effect. Unfortunately, I moved 4 months ago and have only been able to run a compromised 5.1 setup in my new abode (due to the only TV placement being in a corner - UGH). Couldn't do in-ceilings because it's a two-story house and I'm renting... so today, I got a pair of the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers to try because I miss Atmos. Going to park them on top of my Polk RTi70 towers tonight and see how they work out.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm glad to read this. In my old house, I had a 7.1.4 setup with in-ceilings and loved it. Before that, I had 7.1.4 with two front heights mounted up high on the front wall and two top mids mounted in a ceiling fan recess. Of the two setups, the in-ceilings definitely gave the best effect. Unfortunately, I moved 4 months ago and have only been able to run a compromised 5.1 setup in my new abode (due to the only TV placement being in a corner - UGH). Couldn't do in-ceilings because it's a two-story house and I'm renting... so today, I got a pair of the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers to try because I miss Atmos. Going to park them on top of my Polk RTi70 towers tonight and see how they work out.


For what it's worth, here is my short impression from a couple of years ago of a Dolby hosted presentation (soundbar and upfiring speakers). The great thing about this demo was the instantaneous back-and forth switching between ceiling and DE speakers: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1277.html#post41576153


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

maikeldepotter said:


> For what it's worth, here is my short impression from a couple of years ago of a Dolby hosted presentation (soundbar and upfiring speakers). The great thing about this demo was the instantaneous back-and forth switching between ceiling and DE speakers: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1277.html#post41576153


Nice. I already have my Atmos demo disc handy. Just gotta' wire 'em up after work and do a quick run-through of Audyssey. Will report back after.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm glad to read this. In my old house, I had a 7.1.4 setup with in-ceilings and loved it. Before that, I had 7.1.4 with two front heights mounted up high on the front wall and two top mids mounted in a ceiling fan recess. Of the two setups, the in-ceilings definitely gave the best effect. Unfortunately, I moved 4 months ago and have only been able to run a compromised 5.1 setup in my new abode (due to the only TV placement being in a corner - UGH). Couldn't do in-ceilings because it's a two-story house and I'm renting... so today, I got a pair of the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers to try because I miss Atmos. Going to park them on top of my Polk RTi70 towers tonight and see how they work out.


If you can set them up nicely, in accordance with Dolby guidelines (for reflection angle, ceiling type etc) I am sure you will be more happy with them than the alternative of no Atmos at all. Don't be led by naysayers - make up your own mind, in your own room. Upfirers will sound 'different' to on-ceiling speakers, but 'different' is not synonymous with 'inferior'. I have a dedicated cinema so naturally went with on-ceiling speakers, but if I was in a regular living space, I would not feel in the least short-changed by upfirers. More diffuse vs more precise - both have their fans. Please let us know how you get on, and good luck with it.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> If you can set them up nicely, in accordance with Dolby guidelines (for reflection angle, ceiling type etc) I am sure you will be more happy with them than the alternative of no Atmos at all. Don't be led by naysayers - make up your own mind, in your own room.



Agree with you here. Don't let not getting perfection get into the way of being 75% or 80% there. However, I personally think that if you can simulate the ideal angles electronically with something like the 3D remapping, you can hear the differences vs. it not being in use. Whether those differences are strictly due to the physical vs. virtual placement or other elements in the algorithm (how specific speakers that are employed might sound and maybe different target curves) is debatable. 




> Upfirers will sound 'different' to on-ceiling speakers, but 'different' is not synonymous with 'inferior'. I have a dedicated cinema so naturally went with on-ceiling speakers, but if I was in a regular living space, I would not feel in the least short-changed by upfirers. More diffuse vs more precise - both have their fans.



Well....I used to be a defender of the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers like you, and have had both Dolby AE and physical ceiling-mounted speakers in my room. Well-designed Dolby AEs like my old PSB Imagine XA that have built-in waveguides to direct the "bounce" effect, and that are used with cement ceilings where the bounce hasn't been absorbed can work well. Certainly when I heard the AJ speakers at CEDIA in 2014, I thought that the same demo material worked at least as well as I'd heard from the physical Triads.


Having said that, after over a year of having physical overheads (PSB CS1000, with adjustable horizontal/vertical placement and amiable tweeters), I would have a hard time justifying Dolby AEs anymore unless you have no choice.


Why? First, the overhead effect is more precise with physical height speakers, bringing you more into the movie. The more I listen to mixes that use overheads more liberally (see the use of Top Middles in Ready Player One), the more obvious it is that everything - voices from overhead, music, helicopters, passthrough imaging that pans in the room - is just so much more real.


Also, I'd argue that if you're a conservative type that believes that a home experience should represent the intent of the mixer, the physical speaker is closer to the way they heard it and it was played in a cinema. I'd compare it to something like hearing an upmixer, with matrixed content that may or may not be capturing the entire effect, to discrete 3D content where with properly aimed overheads that are as on-axis as possible toward MLP, you're hearing more of the sound as it's intended to be heard (assuming a reasonably proper placement, of course).


Still, the AEs certainly better than no overheads at all! Which is what counts.


----------



## gene4ht

sdrucker said:


> The more I listen to mixes that use overheads more liberally (see the use of Top Middles in Ready Player One), the more obvious it is that everything - voices from overhead, music, helicopters, passthrough imaging that pans in the room - is just so much more real.



Stu...given the choice...one or the other...which would you not give up...9.X.4 or 7.X.6...wides or TM?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Agree with you here. Don't let not getting perfection get into the way of being 75% or 80% there. However, I personally think that if you can simulate the ideal angles electronically with something like the 3D remapping, you can hear the differences vs. it not being in use. Whether those differences are strictly due to the physical vs. virtual placement or other elements in the algorithm (how specific speakers that are employed might sound and maybe different target curves) is debatable.


3D remapping? How do we enable that Stu? 




sdrucker said:


> Well....I used to be a defender of the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers like you, and have had both Dolby AE and physical ceiling-mounted speakers in my room. Well-designed Dolby AEs like my old PSB Imagine XA that have built-in waveguides to direct the "bounce" effect, and that are used with cement ceilings where the bounce hasn't been absorbed can work well. Certainly when I heard the AJ speakers at CEDIA in 2014, I thought that the same demo material worked at least as well as I'd heard from the physical Triads.
> 
> 
> Having said that, after over a year of having physical overheads (PSB CS1000, with adjustable horizontal/vertical placement and amiable tweeters), I would have a hard time justifying Dolby AEs anymore unless you have no choice.
> 
> 
> Why? First, the overhead effect is more precise with physical height speakers, bringing you more into the movie. The more I listen to mixes that use overheads more liberally (see the use of Top Middles in Ready Player One), the more obvious it is that everything - voices from overhead, music, helicopters, passthrough imaging that pans in the room - is just so much more real.
> 
> 
> Also, I'd argue that if you're a conservative type that believes that a home experience should represent the intent of the mixer, the physical speaker is closer to the way they heard it and it was played in a cinema. I'd compare it to something like hearing an upmixer, with matrixed content that may or may not be capturing the entire effect, to discrete 3D content where with properly aimed overheads that are as on-axis as possible toward MLP, you're hearing more of the sound as it's intended to be heard (assuming a reasonably proper placement, of course).
> 
> 
> Still, the AEs certainly better than no overheads at all! Which is what counts.


I've never maintained that upfirers are superior to physical on-ceiling speakers, but then they are also not the terrible second-class citizen that some make out. For those who can accommodate speakers on the ceiling, this is the way I'd recommend they go. But for those who can't, upfirers are way better than no Atmos at all. What I am trying to combat is the notion that upfirers are a really bad solution, because they are not, and any such elitism can really put people off what can be an excellent and practical solution. Often upfirers are dismissed by people who haven't even heard them (Audioholics, are your ears burning?) and I think it does our fellow members a disservice to 'automatically' rule them out since, for many, they are the only practical way they can get Atmos in their home cinemas.


----------



## camd5pt0

I just thought of something.
Denon + Audyssey = no boosted front heights.
But what about top fronts, not affected?


----------



## dareelest1

superaaaa said:


> IMO, this is one of the best looking HTs I've seen. Love the minimalist and modern styling. I reckon even my wife would even like it.
> 
> I had a brief skim through your thread on AVforums. Looks like the audio and video is top notch as well.
> 
> Cudos!


outstanding! I think you've got the height level well covered. Simply outstanding room.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> 3D remapping? How do we enable that Stu?


 
I'd tell you, but we'll need your wallet and bank account first  . 




> I've never maintained that upfirers are superior to physical on-ceiling speakers, but then they are also not the terrible second-class citizen that some make out. For those who can accommodate speakers on the ceiling, this is the way I'd recommend they go. But for those who can't, upfirers are way better than no Atmos at all. What I am trying to combat is the notion that upfirers are a really bad solution, because they are not, and any such elitism can really put people off what can be an excellent and practical solution.


Here I think we agree in practical terms. Of course, this is AVS, so some elitism goes with the territory when hobbyists are involved, which you sometimes have to evaluate with a good mental filter. 

Perceived peer pressure is always an element of an enthusiast-based forum. I remember a few years back when it seemed that there was an almost impossible to resist pull toward dumping Pioneer for Audyssey XT32, led by a few disgruntled hobbyists with Susanos. And there's certainly preferred manufacturers by our fellow hobbyists for UHD/BD players, speakers, subs, PJs etc., as well as others that are sometimes treated as "inferior". It wouldn't be too hard for an AVSers to derive a "preferred system" and a "least preferred system" with some research, at different levels of price/value, just based on posting frequency. Similarly you need the same thing for upfirers.

Basically I think upfirers aren't a bad solution, but they are an inferior one to physical speakers under certain circumstances which I think largely are due to placement issues and/or room constraints. If you can get around that, and your other choice is no height speakers (such as in a rental apartment), then they certainly are worth using with some basic manufacturer and placement research. 
. 


> Often upfirers are dismissed by people who haven't even heard them (Audioholics, are your ears burning?) and I think it does our fellow members a disservice to 'automatically' rule them out since, for many, they are the only practical way they can get Atmos in their home cinemas.


I sometimes think the best thing a good hobbyist can do is ignore the most well-known "industry" A/V portals like AH or WSR, since there's even more axes to grind than there are in the hobbyist world at times. Without knowing the background, that is.


----------



## sdrucker

gene4ht said:


> Stu...given the choice...one or the other...which would you not give up...9.X.4 or 7.X.6...wides or TM?


Assuming you can do either in your room and gear, my personal opinion is that I'd do 7.x.6 over 9.x.4 IF those were the only choices.

Why? It ultimately comes down to how often each are used, where IMO top middles are just used more often than wides in Atmos mixes. Also, there's an argument that having that third set of speakers overhead will stabilize what you hear above you on panning effects, and help separate out sounds above you. You're also covering three areas of the height layer (front, middle, rear). 

Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather have discrete content rendered to wides than not, but at least in my opinion the top middles are just more noticeable of the two for most content.


----------



## dareelest1

snpanago said:


> I’m so old, I started my passion for home theater when I learned that Miami Vice was being broadcast in STEREO. I must have spent a grand on the first processor (Zenith) that received the stereo signal which I connected to my stereo system. I’m like a pig in s...t with my 5.2.4 Atmos setup.


zenith lol! I used to watch miami vice on my mom's old zenith television. Havent heard that in a long time.


----------



## snpanago

dareelest1 said:


> zenith lol! I used to watch miami vice on my mom's old zenith television. Havent heard that in a long time.


It's been quite a long journey from b&w Zenith and RCA sets with mono, then color (adjusting the horizontal and the vertical), to sets with stereo, rear projection big screens, receivers with Dolby surround, DPL IIx and z, Dolby Digital 5.1, HDTV, and now with UHD/HDR flat screens and Dolby Atmos 3D sound.

I am so happy I've lived long enough to experience what is available today for home theater. Not sure what the next great advance in A/V holds but for right now, ..I'm good.


----------



## deano86

camd5pt0 said:


> I just thought of something.
> Denon + Audyssey = no boosted front heights.
> But what about top fronts, not affected?


Just to be clear... It has been shown with my Denon receiver (AVR-X5200W) using Audyssey Dynamic EQ with 4 overheads that no volume boost is being applied to my designated Top Fronts... but the Top Rears are being boosted just like the other surround speakers.. This works the same way ...whether with the Atmos test tones and when using the DSU upmixer. I have not tested the front Heights/ Rear Heights designation, but I can only surmise that it would also work the same way... I really would like to hear from others when using the 7.1.4 Atmos test tones with Dynamic EQ to see if this works the same for other Receiver/prepro models and manufacturers to see if this is only a Denon thing or if that is how it works with any Audyssey MultEQ XT32 equiped model....


----------



## d-rail34

gene4ht said:


> Not really surprised. It's not a popular position in the high end/flagship AVR threads but IMO, very good Atmos results can be obtained very inexpensively. My personal Atmos exploratory journey began two years ago with an Onkyo 636 ($250) and Micca ($40) in ceiling speakers. The critical learning since then is that any AVR with an Atmos decoder and most speakers properly installed and positioned will yield very good results. I've upgraded my AVR only recently but have retained the Micca's as I've found no compelling reason to replace them. The higher end AVR's with 9.X.6 capability and promise of HDMI 2.1 do not yet appeal to me as content is scarce. In 2-3 years, when ample content is available and HDMI 2.1 matures, my interest will no doubt return. In the meantime, I'm no longer a leading/bleeding edge enthusiast and subscribe to the adage of not investing in electronics that quickly decline in function and value. To put all this in perspective, the difference between an Onkyo HT-R494 or even an upstream model and flagship AVR can buy a 4K projector, a 70" flat panel display, several UHD players, a good 7 channel amp, etc. Just my .02 and of course YMMV.


Hi Gene,

I'm looking into getting a couple of the Micca R-8C's for Atmos duties, and I noticed in a previous post that you had built a 2^3 enlosure for some of yours (excluding in-ceiling). With that being said, I was wondering if you recall what the cut sizes were for the enclosures? Or if you think that the blanketing around them will work better...and if so, how did you go about that application?

I mainly ask these questions, because my main concern is keeping the dust/debris off of them. Of course, I would want to make sure that I get the best sound out of them as I possibly can.


Thanks,

Darrell


----------



## gene4ht

sdrucker said:


> Assuming you can do either in your room and gear, my personal opinion is that I'd do 7.x.6 over 9.x.4 IF those were the only choices.
> 
> Why? It ultimately comes down to how often each are used, where IMO top middles are just used more often than wides in Atmos mixes. Also, there's an argument that having that third set of speakers overhead will stabilize what you hear above you on panning effects, and help separate out sounds above you. You're also covering three areas of the height layer (front, middle, rear).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather have discrete content rendered to wides than not, but at least in my opinion the top middles are just more noticeable of the two for most content.



Appreciate your feedback! I've had three pairs of in-ceilings (TF, TM, and TR) installed for over 2 years awaiting the appropriate hardware...i.e. for you to upgrade so I could bid on your Trinnov. Although the 8500 appears to accommodate my needs, I hesitate to commit until there is a competitive product to consider. Thus, I have an Onkyo 920 + 2 ch amp providing a temporary solution for my 7.2.4 config. Also in the interim, I have had an opportunity to experiment with various overhead configurations for my two rows of seating. Since my room and seating config can accommodate wides and three pairs of overheads, my curiosity prompted me to ask the question to someone who has experience with both. For the record, my gut/intuition aligns with your arguments, thoughts and impressions. Thanks again!


----------



## gene4ht

d-rail34 said:


> Hi Gene,
> 
> I'm looking into getting a couple of the Micca R-8C's for Aymos duties, and I noticed in a previous post that you had built a 2^3 enlosure for some of yours (excluding in-ceiling). With that being said, I was wondering if you recall what the cut sizes were for the enclosures? Or if you think that the blanketing around them will work better...and if so, how did you go about that application?
> 
> I mainly ask these questions, because *my main concern is keeping the dust/debris off *of them. Of course, I would want to make sure that I get the best sound out of them as I possibly can.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Darrell



Hi Darrell,

I believe you're referencing the enclosures I posted about two years ago when discussing the Micca's! Rather than an infinite baffle, the enclosures were meant to preview what the Micca's would sound like before I actually began cutting holes in the ceiling. In reality, the enclosures were just cardboard boxes I had laying around with appropriate speaker sized holes cut into them. I got the idea from members in the DIY threads who apparently do this to initially test speakers. To my surprise, this worked well as the Micca's actually sounded good...even when pushed to near reference level. For the actual installation, I decided not to use a backer box/enclosure. I did, however, use blanket insulation as recommended by Micca just to reduce possible vibration and sound transmission to other parts of the house. My speakers are installed between 16" OC floor joists with the insulation forming a cavity of approximately 2.0cf. Since you are mostly concerned with dust/debris, I would recommend speaker covers like those from Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/OEM-Systems-...1533353256&sr=8-4&keywords=speaker+dust+cover

Believe it or not, I still have the box and it's actually 3.5cf (28"x18"x12").















Note: If you'll recall, I purchased the Micca's to experiment with Atmos requirements: FR, dispersion, power handling, installation, placement, etc. with the full intent of upgrading once I better understood performance requirements and parameters. It's two years later now and I'm sure there are better performing speakers but I've found no Atmos or DTS:X content demanding enough to replacing them.


----------



## d-rail34

gene4ht said:


> Hi Darrell,
> 
> I believe you're referencing the enclosures I posted about two years ago when discussing the Micca's! Rather than an infinite baffle, the enclosures were meant to preview what the Micca's would sound like before I actually began cutting holes in the ceiling. In reality, the enclosures were just cardboard boxes I had laying around with appropriate speaker sized holes cut into them. I got the idea from members in the DIY threads who apparently do this to initially test speakers. To my surprise, this worked well as the Micca's actually sounded good...even when pushed to near reference level. For the actual installation, I decided not to use a backer box/enclosure. I did, however, use blanket insulation as recommended by Micca just to reduce possible vibration and sound transmission to other parts of the house. My speakers are installed between 16" OC floor joists with the insulation forming a cavity of approximately 2.0cf. Since you are mostly concerned with dust/debris, I would recommend speaker covers like those from Amazon.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/OEM-Systems-...1533353256&sr=8-4&keywords=speaker+dust+cover
> 
> Believe it or not, I still have the box and it's actually 3.5cf (28"x18"x12").
> 
> View attachment 2436970
> View attachment 2436972
> 
> 
> Note: If you'll recall, I purchased the Micca's to experiment with Atmos requirements: FR, dispersion, power handling, installation, placement, etc. with the full intent of upgrading once I better understood performance requirements and parameters. It's two years later now and I'm sure there are better performing speakers but I've found no Atmos or DTS:X content demanding enough to replacing them.


I must say, the protective covers look like a good solution. 

I also read a post where a forumite used these https://www.homedepot.com/p/12-in-Torino-Square-Silver-Plastic-Planter-SD333H-SI/203621285 as backers for his M-8C's, and said they worked well for his application. Although a very unusual alternative, it did arouse my curiosity. 

I do still wonder if it's worth building enclosures though. I suppose I could try one, or both of the alternatives first before deciding on builing them. 

Ultimately, I just want to make sure that I can get the best possible sound out of them that I can.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

kbarnes701 said:


> If you can set them up nicely, in accordance with Dolby guidelines (for reflection angle, ceiling type etc) I am sure you will be more happy with them than the alternative of no Atmos at all. Don't be led by naysayers - make up your own mind, in your own room. Upfirers will sound 'different' to on-ceiling speakers, but 'different' is not synonymous with 'inferior'. I have a dedicated cinema so naturally went with on-ceiling speakers, but if I was in a regular living space, I would not feel in the least short-changed by upfirers. More diffuse vs more precise - both have their fans. Please let us know how you get on, and good luck with it.


So, I ran through Audyssey, turned off DynEQ and played around with the demo disc a bit. At first, I wasn't really hearing things overhead like you would expect. Then I snagged my old MoPads out of the garage and used them to raise the Pioneers up a bit and angle them slightly forward (because my seating is further back than the sweet spot of the bounce seemed to be). That definitely got me a sense of overhead sound, though certainly not as precise as my old setup. Still, in the demo that has the musical notes overhead in an arc, it placed things surprisingly well.

I do have a few concerns as far as tweaking goes. My Denon set the Pioneers to a 120Hz crossover... but I thought upfirers needed to be crossed over around 180Hz or so per Dolby. Unfortunately, my only options above that are 150Hz and 200Hz. I set it to 150Hz and it seemed to clean overhead sounds up. I'm curious as to what I should be doing here or if it's even that crucial.

Additionally, as far as distance/delay goes... How is the Audyssey mic even measuring that if the intent is to measure the sound bounced off the ceiling rather than from the speaker itself? The distances it measured came out about the same as the distances to the mains they're sitting on (both measured 0.2 ft more than my mains). Is this something people are finding needs to be tweaked with the Dolby Enabled speakers?

After fiddling with the demo disc for a bit, I rewatched Hacksaw Ridge at volume, listening for those scary overhead whizzes of the mortar fire. There is definitely a larger overall sound with the upfirers, so I'm calling it a win no matter what. I like the more generalized sound, actually... though it doesn't have the "oomph" that my in-ceiling setup had. I just feel like further tweaking may be necessary.


----------



## camd5pt0

deano86 said:


> Just to be clear... It has been shown with my Denon receiver (AVR-X5200W) using Audyssey Dynamic EQ with 4 overheads that no volume boost is being applied to my designated Top Fronts... but the Top Rears are being boosted just like the other surround speakers.. This works the same way ...whether with the Atmos test tones and when using the DSU upmixer. I have not tested the front Heights/ Rear Heights designation, but I can only surmise that it would also work the same way... I really would like to hear from others when using the 7.1.4 Atmos test tones with Dynamic EQ to see if this works the same for other Receiver/prepro models and manufacturers to see if this is only a Denon thing or if that is how it works with any Audyssey MultEQ XT32 equiped model....


You're right it works the same way in my heights front and rear in 7.1.4
I have turned off Dynamic volume and dynamic EQ. It sounds amazing workout it, much more separation in discreet sounds


----------



## gene4ht

d-rail34 said:


> I must say, the protective covers look like a good solution.


Agree...cheap, simple, and easy solution...if dust and debris are your only concerns.



d-rail34 said:


> I also read a post where a forumite used these https://www.homedepot.com/p/12-in-Torino-Square-Silver-Plastic-Planter-SD333H-SI/203621285 as backers for his M-8C's, and said they worked well for his application. Although a very unusual alternative, it did arouse my curiosity.


Different and unusual indeed! But does appear to serve the purpose.



d-rail34 said:


> I do still wonder if it's worth building enclosures though. I suppose I could try one, or both of the alternatives first before deciding on builing them.


You appear to have DIY skills and building a box is relatively simple and cheap. If you have the time, why not try one. 



d-rail34 said:


> Ultimately, I just want to make sure that I can get the best possible sound out of them that I can.


IMO, sound quality is important but should not be a major concern with regard to Atmos duty. WRT to all the content I've listened to in the past two years...i.e. insects, birds, wind, rain, rustling leaves & trees, voices, etc. are just not that demanding. Mid and low bass in movies (aircraft, gunshots, thunder, etc) are handled by the subs. That leaves music/concerts in Atmos...I've experienced no issues near reference (-5db) with Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague or Roger Waters - The Wall (Live in Berlin) for example.


----------



## d-rail34

gene4ht said:


> Agree...cheap, simple, and easy solution...if dust and debris are your only concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> Different and unusual indeed! But does appear to serve the purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to have DIY skills and building a box is relatively simple and cheap. If you have the time, why not try one.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, *sound quality is important but should not be a major concern with regard to Atmos duty*. WRT to all the content I've listened to in the past two years...i.e. insects, birds, wind, rain, rustling leaves & trees, voices, etc. are just not that demanding. Mid and low bass in movies (aircraft, gunshots, thunder, etc) are handled by the subs. That leaves music/concerts in Atmos...I've experienced no issues near reference (-5db) with Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague or Roger Waters - The Wall (Live in Berlin) for example.


I was just reading one of the previous posts that says the Dolby recommendations on the Atmos speakers is to have a XO setting of 180Hz, so I'll have to verify that. If this is indeed the case, then something like the dust cover you recommended may just do the trick.


----------



## gene4ht

d-rail34 said:


> I was just reading one of the previous posts that says the Dolby recommendations on the Atmos speakers is to have a XO setting of 180Hz, so I'll have to verify that. If this is indeed the case, then something like the dust cover you recommended may just do the trick.


I can’t say I’ve ever seen it recommended that high. I would have thought lower...in the neighborhood of 100-120 would have been my guess.


----------



## d-rail34

gene4ht said:


> I can’t say I’ve ever seen it recommended that high. I would have thought lower...in the neighborhood of 100-120 would have been my guess.


Yeah, I also thought it to be kind of high as well.

Here is something I pulled from the Dolby website that helps clarify this:

"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the
acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be
mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable
or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position."

I'm going to keep reading this guide to see if there's anything else as far as XO recommendations.


[EDIT] There is nothing else that specifies frequencies in Dolby's Atmos installation guide. That being said, I believe that a 100-120Hz XO will suffice.


----------



## Selden Ball

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I do have a few concerns as far as tweaking goes. My Denon set the Pioneers to a 120Hz crossover... but I thought upfirers needed to be crossed over around 180Hz or so per Dolby. Unfortunately, my only options above that are 150Hz and 200Hz. I set it to 150Hz and it seemed to clean overhead sounds up. I'm curious as to what I should be doing here or if it's even that crucial.


My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the 180 Hz crossover takes place between the upfiring speaker and the corresponding ear-level speaker. It's explicitly designed into the signal driving the upfiring speaker and cannot be defeated. It is separate from the 120Hz crossover which is reported to you. The latter takes place between that overhead channel and the subwoofer and (presumably) is the same as the crossover frequency of that corresponding ear-level speaker.

ETA:
In other words, raising its reported crossover frequency would reduce the amount of audio sent to the corresponding ear-level speaker, sending it to the subwoofer instead, improving its directionality.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the 180 Hz crossover takes place between the upfiring speaker and the corresponding ear-level speaker. It's explicitly designed into the signal driving the upfiring speaker and cannot be defeated. It is separate from the 120Hz crossover which is reported to you. The latter takes place between that overhead channel and the subwoofer and (presumably) is the same as the crossover frequency of that corresponding ear-level speaker.
> 
> ETA:
> In other words, raising its reported crossover frequency would reduce the amount of audio sent to the corresponding ear-level speaker, sending it to the subwoofer instead, improving its directionality.


There couldn't be a separate crossover... because they're separate speakers. The only crossover would be whatever the receiver is doing. This is for the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers, which are sitting on top of my Polk RTi70 towers, so there's no electrical component between them - just what the receiver assigns. Or are you saying that when you set it to Dolby Enabled speaker at that position, the system is automatically crossing things over at 180Hz to the speaker it's on top of? If so, why would it read 120Hz?

Y'know... It just occurred to me that it may not have read 120Hz at all. Audyssey always reads all my speakers as large and the first thing I do is change them to small and assign 40Hz to my towers, 60 to my center and 80 to my surrounds. So maybe 120Hz was just the default when I changed to small. Crap. Now I gotta' go back and see what Audyssey originally assigned to them. 

(Scratch what I just said - I checked Audyssey and it originally read every speaker as large but assigned the Dolby upfirers as small, 120Hz. So my initial assessment was correct.)


----------



## Selden Ball

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There couldn't be a separate crossover... because they're separate speakers. The only crossover would be whatever the receiver is doing. This is for the Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers, which are sitting on top of my Polk RTi70 towers, so there's no electrical component between them - just what the receiver assigns. Or are you saying that when you set it to Dolby Enabled speaker at that position, the system is automatically crossing things over at 180Hz to the speaker it's on top of?


Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's what Dolby's licensing requires for their patented upfiring "Atmos enabled" speaker designs which Pioneer's speakers are based on. That licensing also applies to the firmware used in the receiver when you select its "Dolby" overhead speaker option.

Also, as confirmation, the specs for your Pioneer up-firing speakers rate them for only 180Hz-20KHz. See https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ephox/StaticFiles/PUSA/Files/SP-T22A-LR Single Sheet.pdf


> If so, why would it read 120Hz?


Because that's the combined response of the upfiring speakers and the ear-level speakers that they're sitting on top of.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Selden Ball said:


> Because that's the combined response of the upfiring speakers and the ear-level speakers that they're sitting on top of.


But the ear-level speakers they're sitting on are towers that read as Large. My RTi70s are solid down to about 28Hz, but I cross them over at 40Hz because I have an SVS 20-39CS+ rig tuned to 18Hz for bass duties. So if that's the "combined response", why wouldn't it read the upfirers as "Large" too?


----------



## Selden Ball

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But the ear-level speakers they're sitting on are towers that read as Large. My RTi70s are solid down to about 28Hz, but I cross them over at 40Hz because I have an SVS 20-39CS+ rig tuned to 18Hz for bass duties. So if that's the "combined response", why wouldn't it read the upfirers as "Large" too?


TBH, now so am I. *sigh*

Oh, well, what matters is how it sounds, which hopefully is enjoyable.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Selden Ball said:


> TBH, now so am I. *sigh*
> 
> Oh, well, what matters is how it sounds, which hopefully is enjoyable.


Oh, yeah... but wringing every bit of performance out of our systems is kinda' why we're all here, so I gotta' understand this to make sure it's "right". 

It obviously isn't automatically crossing over to the mains for purposes of Audyssey's detection, because the attached is what Audyssey read from the Dolby Enabled speakers. I can see why it applied 120Hz here based on what it's reading, so I guess I'll try them at 150 and 200 to see which works best. Seems like it just uses the system crossover to the sub, not a redirect to the mains.

In addition, I just measured from the upfirers to the ceiling and then to the MLP and it came out 4 feet more than what Audyssey read, so I'll be plugging those numbers in and seeing how it sounds. It'll give me an excuse to watch some of my Atmos titles again.


----------



## Chuck666

*Rear Surround Location?*

Last time I was here, I attached photos of my setup. It was suggested that perhaps the sw could be better placed than next to the credenza. Photo 1"current 2". After some time on the SW forum, and a how to from @MThomas, I learned how to do the SW crawl with 2 spkrs and only one signal. Clearly that technique said move the subs. I did. Photo 2"current 1". I thought it sounded terrific. But, ......
That was using my Yammy V583.. Then, I found a screaming sale on a Onkyo TX-NR787 (9.2). So, for $260 more I could up my config to 5.2.4 from .2. Just had to do it... LOL. I also found some Klipsch's a pair of R-14SA on sale. Snagged them. Today's question, where to locate them? Photo 3.
My intent is to place at the X's spaced the same as the fronts in photo 1; but how high up the rear wall. That wall is 11' rear of the MLP. The MLP is within one foot of being in the center of the "new" Atmos listening box. The surround, not pictured, are ear level on each side of the MLP.

Thoughts, please?


----------



## gene4ht

Chuck666 said:


> Last time I was here, I attached photos of my setup. It was suggested that perhaps the sw could be better placed than next to the credenza. Photo 1"current 2". After some time on the SW forum, and a how to from @*MThomas* , I learned how to do the SW crawl with 2 spkrs and only one signal. Clearly that technique said move the subs. I did. Photo 2"current 1". I thought it sounded terrific. But, ......
> That was using my Yammy V583.. Then, I found a screaming sale on a Onkyo TX-NR787 (9.2). So, for $260 more I could up my config to 5.2.4 from .2. Just had to do it... LOL. *I also found some Klipsch's a pair of R-14SA on sale.* Snagged them. *Today's question, where to locate them?* Photo 3.
> My intent is to place at the X's spaced the same as the fronts in photo 1; but *how high up the rear wall.* That wall is 11' rear of the MLP. The MLP is within one foot of being in the center of the "new" Atmos listening box. The surround, not pictured, are ear level on each side of the MLP.
> 
> Thoughts, please?


The solution is not how high they should be mounted but rather what angle. See the diagram below for the rear height speakers.









Further Atmos speaker installation details can be found at...

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Chuck666

gene4ht said:


> The solution is not how high they should be mounted but rather what angle. See the diagram below for the rear height speakers.
> 
> View attachment 2437316
> 
> 
> Further Atmos speaker installation details can be found at...
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thanks Gene,

So, as long as they point at the MLP; it doesn't matter? I was using figure 16 as my guidance drawing.

Also, I was born and raised in Flint and left there for AZ in 1993. GMC brat.... LOL


----------



## TViewer2000

Quick question. I have a 5.1.2 currently setup and I'm going to be moving to a 5.1.4 setup. Currently I have my heights set to top middle. Once I go to 5.1.4 should I set the fronts to top front or continue using top middle? What is the difference between the two settings and does it matter?


----------



## simple man

TViewer2000 said:


> Quick question. I have a 5.1.2 currently setup and I'm going to be moving to a 5.1.4 setup. Currently I have my heights set to top middle. Once I go to 5.1.4 should I set the fronts to top front or continue using top middle? What is the difference between the two settings and does it matter?




If I remember correctly, with my Marantz, I couldn’t set top middle and top rear. I had to use top height. Not sure what room correction software you’re using. 


Colton


----------



## gene4ht

Chuck666 said:


> So, as long as they point at the MLP; it doesn't matter?



Keeping it within the recommended tolerance of 135-150 degrees will provide the most accuracy and best results...slightly outside of that range will generally still yield acceptable effects...just not as accurate. 




Chuck666 said:


> Also, I was born and raised in Flint and left there for AZ in 1993. GMC brat.... LOL



LOL...ahhh...GMC and Buick City....Flint is just a shell of the city it once was. Unfortunately, the only attention it's gotten lately was around the water quality issue. At any rate, hope you're finding life good in AZ!


----------



## ToBeFrank

deano86 said:


> Just to be clear... It has been shown with my Denon receiver (AVR-X5200W) using Audyssey Dynamic EQ with 4 overheads that no volume boost is being applied to my designated Top Fronts... but the Top Rears are being boosted just like the other surround speakers.. This works the same way ...whether with the Atmos test tones and when using the DSU upmixer. I have not tested the front Heights/ Rear Heights designation, but I can only surmise that it would also work the same way... I really would like to hear from others when using the 7.1.4 Atmos test tones with Dynamic EQ to see if this works the same for other Receiver/prepro models and manufacturers to see if this is only a Denon thing or if that is how it works with any Audyssey MultEQ XT32 equiped model....


I just tried it on my Denon 4400. Confirmed that the top fronts are not boosted. It boggles the mind that anyone at Denon would think that is the proper way to do it.


----------



## sdurani

ToBeFrank said:


> I just tried it on my Denon 4400. Confirmed that the top fronts are not boosted. It boggles the mind that anyone at Denon would think that is the proper way to do it.


It's Audyssey's way to do it. Denon simply licenses the technology. Audyssey Dynamic EQ has always boosted speakers around you but not speakers in front of you. Since Top Fronts are in front of you, they don't get boosted, consistent with how it's always been. Don't see why that "boggles the mind".


----------



## TViewer2000

simple man said:


> If I remember correctly, with my Marantz, I couldn’t set top middle and top rear. I had to use top height. Not sure what room correction software you’re using.
> 
> 
> Colton


I plan on getting the Onkyo 787, so Audyssey. Is there any difference in Top Front and Top Middle?


----------



## ToBeFrank

sdurani said:


> It's Audyssey's way to do it. Denon simply licenses the technology. Audyssey Dynamic EQ has always boosted speakers around you but not speakers in front of you. Since Top Fronts are in front of you, they don't get boosted, consistent with how it's always been. Don't see why that "boggles the mind".


Eh? According to @deano86, it's Denon not doing what Audyssey says they should be doing (emphasis mine below):



deano86 said:


> Just as an update to this.....
> 
> Quite a while ago, I found ... or I thought that I found, that "both" sets of my Height speakers were NOT being boosted by Dynamic EQ. And after some more of the recent conversations, I *submitted an actual question to Ask Audyssey support* regarding this discrepancy. After a couple week delay a rep from Ask Audyssey apologized and starting looking into my query. His initial *answers were that indeed boost should also be applied to the Height speakers if using a proper implementation of Dynamic EQ in the receiver.* I then asked if there could be differences in implementation between manufacturers or even specific models? He then forwarded my concern to Denon itself. The most recent response from Denon according Audyssey support was that Dynamic EQ is working properly for the Height speakers in their testing.





deano86 said:


> Well, I finally heard back from Ask Audyssey... and they confirmed with Denon, that Top Front Atmos speakers will NOT receive any Dynamic EQ boost... It appears *that Denon(at least) is conforming to the thought that sounds in front do not need any sort of low volume level boost ... mainly only surrounds, rear surrounds and subwoofer as per normal*.


----------



## David Susilo

sdurani said:


> It's Audyssey's way to do it. Denon simply licenses the technology. Audyssey Dynamic EQ has always boosted speakers around you but not speakers in front of you. Since Top Fronts are in front of you, they don't get boosted, consistent with how it's always been. Don't see why that "boggles the mind".


It “boggles the mind” because that approach is psychoacoustically wrong.


----------



## simple man

TViewer2000 said:


> I plan on getting the Onkyo 787, so Audyssey. Is there any difference in Top Front and Top Middle?




If I’m not mistaken, Onkyo uses their proprietary software AccuEq now. I have an Onkyo receiver in my living room with AccuEq but I don’t have any height speakers to test your theory, only LCR. I suggest looking at the 787’s manual online which can be found on Onkyo’s website. I’ve read through my 7012’s manual and learned a few things I didn’t know from reading forums on AVS. 


Colton


----------



## sdurani

ToBeFrank said:


> Eh? According to @*deano86*, it's Denon not doing what Audyssey says they should be doing (emphasis mine below):


DynamicEQ has never boosted "sounds in front". So Audyssey wanted to change that and Denon decided to keep DEQ behavior consistent by "not doing what Audyssey says they should"? Seems strange; not to mention a violation of license.


----------



## ToBeFrank

sdurani said:


> not to mention a violation of license.


Prove it. Post the license where it says what you claim.

I get where Denon got it wrong now so maybe it's not so mind boggling. You're putting a speaker in the front soundstage merely because it is towards the front and has "front" in the name of it.


----------



## gene4ht

TViewer2000 said:


> Quick question. I have a 5.1.2 currently setup and I'm going to be moving to a 5.1.4 setup. Currently I have my heights set to top middle. Once I go to 5.1.4 should I set the fronts to top front or continue using top middle? What is the difference between the two settings and does it matter?


It's not clear where your heights are positioned/located relative to your MLP. Where are your current height speakers located and where do you intend to position your second pair? Top Fronts should be located forward of your MLP, Top Middles directly above your MLP , and Top Rears rearward of your MLP. And yes, it does matter as accurate positioning of objects and panning depend on the correct designation and placement of the height speakers. In answer to your question, most .4 configs use TF and TR. Depending on the current position of your speaker, you may need to reposition them.











simple man said:


> If I remember correctly, with my Marantz, *I couldn’t set top middle and top rear.* I had to use top height. Not sure what room correction software you’re using.


That's correct...adjacent speaker pairs are not allowable...not a valid Atmos configuration.



TViewer2000 said:


> *I plan on getting the Onkyo 787, so Audyssey.*


Incorrect, Onkyo has dropped Audyssey in favor of AccuEQ. 



simple man said:


> *If I’m not mistaken, Onkyo uses their proprietary software AccuEq now.* I have an Onkyo receiver in my living room with AccuEq but I don’t have any height speakers to test your theory, only LCR. I suggest looking at the 787’s manual online which can be found on Onkyo’s website. I’ve read through my 7012’s manual and learned a few things I didn’t know from reading forums on AVS.


Correct...Onkyo has been employing AccuEQ since it acquired Pioneer several years ago. Some have suggested/speculated that AccuEQ could possibly be a close relative of MCACC. In any case, Onkyo (AccuEQ) and Denon + Marantz (Audysssey) both abide by the same Atmos height speaker convention rules: That is...in .4 speaker configs, every other speaker pairs are allowable while adjacent pairs are not. FYI: The current version of AccuEQ is known as AccuEQ Advanced...apparently differentiating it from the earlier version which was not quite as robust.


----------



## TViewer2000

simple man said:


> If I’m not mistaken, Onkyo uses their proprietary software AccuEq now. I have an Onkyo receiver in my living room with AccuEq but I don’t have any height speakers to test your theory, only LCR. I suggest looking at the 787’s manual online which can be found on Onkyo’s website. I’ve read through my 7012’s manual and learned a few things I didn’t know from reading forums on AVS.
> 
> 
> Colton


You are correct sir, yes it is AccuEq not Audyssey.


----------



## TViewer2000

gene4ht said:


> It's not clear where your heights are positioned/located relative to your MLP. Where are your current height speakers located and where do you intend to position your second pair? Top Fronts should be located forward of your MLP, Top Middles directly above your MLP , and Top Rears rearward of your MLP. And yes, it does matter as accurate positioning of objects and panning depend on the correct designation and placement of the height speakers. In answer to your question, most .4 configs use TF and TR. Depending on the current position of your speaker, you may need to reposition them.
> 
> View attachment 2437440
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct...adjacent speaker pairs are not allowable...not a valid Atmos configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, Onkyo has dropped Audyssey in favor of AccuEQ.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct...Onkyo has been employing AccuEQ since it acquired Pioneer several years ago. Some have suggested/speculated that AccuEQ could possibly be a close relative of MCACC. In any case, Onkyo (AccuEQ) and Denon + Marantz (Audysssey) both abide by the same Atmos height speaker convention rules: That is...in .4 speaker configs, every other speaker pairs are allowable while adjacent pairs are not. FYI: The current version of AccuEQ is known as AccuEQ Advanced...apparently differentiating it from the earlier version which was not quite as robust.



Thanks for the pictures, the Atmos speakers are indeed in front of me and the rears are behind. Not sure where I saw mentioned to try using middles in a 5.1.2 setup. And yes you are correct Onkyo uses AccuEQ not Audyssey.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

David Susilo said:


> It “boggles the mind” because that approach is psychoacoustically wrong.


To be fair, no approach would be "psychoacoustically right" here. If the placement of sounds in 3-D space with Atmos depends on the known phase/level relationships between channel pairs/groups to a particular reference, then any alteration of those levels (a la the boost that DynEQ applies to "presence" of the surrounds) would change the in-room placement of sounds such that it's no longer in the location the object data says it should be. It's no different than what happens if you turn your left main up more than your right; the center image normally created when there are equal levels in both speakers will collapse to the left instead of staying centered. So realistically, you guys are arguing about something that ultimately shouldn't be done for Atmos to sound the way it's ideally supposed to, whether the front heights were boosted in tandem with the surrounds/rear heights or not.

For instance, if the renderer gets an object whose XYZ placement is equidistant between the expected front main, side surround and top front locations in the virtual room the renderer is using as a positional reference, it's going to steer roughly 1/3rd of that sound to each of those speakers so that it images in the correct location in the room (or at least the corresponding location to where the mixer placed the object in the virtual room when he did his object steering during the mix). If you apply a boost to the side surrounds for "presence" purposes, you're then collapsing the steering of that sound more toward the side surround. You are effectively destroying any precision you can expect.

Bear in mind that Dynamic EQ is based on the mixing habits of mixers who were asked what they would do to recreate their mix at varying below-reference levels... and that at the time, Atmos was NOT taken into consideration. If we're being honest, Audyssey has moved on from their tech in home theater receivers and has their attention focused elsewhere, so they're not revisiting what those mixers would do in terms of those same changes to perceived presence within an Atmos mixing room... so literally none of us can say what is "psychoacoustically right" as far as what height positions should be boosted at sub-reference levels. And given that they're now focused on other markets, it's doubtful that they're going to go back to mixers to create a new Dynamic EQ profile specific to Atmos... and that's what it would take for them to even determine how much of a differing boost front heights should receive versus rear heights at varying levels below the reference for mixing.

If we're being TOTALLY honest, the biggest problem with Audyssey in an Atmos system is that Dynamic EQ doesn't let you decouple the surround presence boosts from the boosts to bass. It would be far more useful if they would let us choose whether to use both or just use the Loudness portion of what Dynamic EQ typically does.


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> To be fair, no approach would be "psychoacoustically right here
> 
> If we're being TOTALLY honest, the biggest problem with Audyssey in an Atmos system is that Dynamic EQ doesn't let you decouple the surround presence boosts from the boosts to bass. It would be far more useful if they would let us choose whether to use both or just use the Loudness portion of what Dynamic EQ typically does.


Interesting post 
can i conclude from what you say that for Dolby Atmos DEQ should be Off?

in my experience of checking with a SPL meter and the Dolby Atmos demo disc test tones my surrounds are always low 
DEQ On seems to sort that out with one click rather than having to balance each speaker individually


----------



## deano86

Guys.... the original person that I emailed with at Ask Audyssey is the one who "inferred" that what Denon or my receiver is doing is incorrect. But, I highly doubt they are an authority on it...probably just a 1st level support respondent... IDK for certain. I agree that most likely Dynamic EQ is working exactly as Audyssey set it up to do... at low Master Volume levels, boost the surrounds and bass to create a better surround listening experience. This does not include any speakers deemed as being in the front of the room. IMO, when it comes to Atmos setups(and with DSU), I wish it included the Top Fronts as it creates an imbalance in the sound field ( at least I feel it does) with regards to panning and effects... 

I am more interested to get some more feedback from others who use another receiver/prepro manufacturer just to confirm though... 

One can easily mitigate some of the imbalance by using the Reference Level Offset setting ... so that Audyssey doesn't provide as much boost at the lower volume settings, keeping things more in balance or by just not using Dynamic EQ. I like what Dynamic EQ provides as I am forced to use a lower level for a lot of my listening just due to family constraints. I simply figured out an average MV that I use and have boosted the Top Fronts several Db's and remeasured...good enough for me. 

I do hope we get some more flexibility with Dynamic EQ in the future though... like what was mentioned in regard to separating the bass boost from the surrounds, etc... in addition to the option to boost Top/Height Front speakers setups.


----------



## sdurani

ToBeFrank said:


> I get where Denon got it wrong now so maybe it's not so mind boggling.


From mind boggling to getting it. Mission accomplished.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's no different than what happens if you turn your left main up more than your right; the center image normally created when there are equal levels in both speakers will collapse to the left instead of staying centered.


Imagine the sound was mixed to image off centre, so that most of the energy was in the left main compared to the right. As you lower the volume level, the right main disappears into the noise floor. Now the sound appears to come only from the left speaker. Not what the mixer intended. 

One solution is to apply boost based on how quiet the sound is rather than whether it's in front of you vs behind you (Audyssey's approach). So it doesn't matter where the speaker is; if it getting too quiet to hear, then it starts getting a boost. In the scenario described above, sounds from the right main wouldn't disappear, even at low volumes, so you'd still end up hearing the off centre image. Just as the mixer intended.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Lesmor said:


> Interesting post
> can i conclude from what you say that for Dolby Atmos DEQ should be Off?
> 
> in my experience of checking with a SPL meter and the Dolby Atmos demo disc test tones my surrounds are always low
> DEQ On seems to sort that out with one click rather than having to balance each speaker individually


Yes. Without question, Dynamic EQ should be off if you want accurate placement of sounds with Atmos. The deviation from matched levels throws off the steering so that sounds in your actual room don't image in the same area the mixer has placed them in the virtual room they use during the mix. If you're getting variances in levels when you check with the test tones on the demo disc, adjust your levels so that they match WITHOUT DEQ. That's not to say that if you prefer boosted surrounds, you can't run DEQ with Atmos all day long... but I'm talking reference versus preference here. It's your system, so adjust it however you want. But if the goal is to reproduce the audio as closely as possible to the intended mix, then that's what the reference is there for.

Again, the only downside here is that the loudness/bass boost you get from DynEQ is really nice at below-reference levels, and I wish they would decouple that as its own unique option. But you can sidestep that somewhat by adjusting your sub up to taste at your typical listening level if it's a concern.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Imagine the sound was mixed to image off centre, so that most of the energy was in the left main compared to the right. As you lower the volume level, the right main disappears into the noise floor. Now the sound appears to come only from the left speaker. Not what the mixer intended.
> 
> One solution is to apply boost based on how quiet the sound is rather than whether it's in front of you vs behind you (Audyssey's approach). So it doesn't matter where the speaker is; if it getting too quiet to hear, then it starts getting a boost. In the scenario described above, sounds from the right main wouldn't disappear, even at low volumes, so you'd still end up hearing the off centre image. Just as the mixer intended.


I agree, and I was just using that example to explain why changing the level of heights in the front can alter the placement in a negative way without any data to back up how much boost should be applied (or what frequency changes). And I think the problem is that Audyssey's approach was fine for the typical 7.1 arrangement... but doesn't take into account those same changes in directional sensitivity when applied to the customary speaker positions of Atmos height channels. They simply haven't done the research, and haven't consulted mixers to see if a new version of DEQ for Atmos needs to be crafted to account for how sound changes at angles above the listener. They're just relying on the perceptual data they gathered from mixers when they originally created DEQ... which, unlike Atmos setups, tended to have elevated surrounds in the home (though less so in mixing studios, from what I understand).

But the bigger point is that arguing which is "correct" is irrelevant, because the DEQ tech just wasn't made with Atmos in mind.


----------



## ToBeFrank

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But the bigger point is that arguing which is "correct" is irrelevant, because the DEQ tech just wasn't made with Atmos in mind.


I'm not arguing what is correct. I have no idea what is correct. But I do know that boosting half of the height layer is not correct. In most circumstances that will result in the "object" being moved from where it was intended to be.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ToBeFrank said:


> I'm not arguing what is correct. I have no idea what is correct. But I do know that boosting half of the height layer is not correct. In most circumstances that will result in the "object" being moved from where it was intended to be.


I agree. But the answer would be not to boost ANY of it... which you can already do by turning DEQ off and making sure your levels are all matched. Boosting ANY of the height layer without relevant data on why any of it SHOULD BE boosted is a bad idea... and to my knowledge, Audyssey hasn't redone their DEQ research with that taken into account. Their research specifically addressed changes to side/rear surround presence at sub-reference listening levels. They could certainly use data from past HRTF studies to approximate what potential changes should be applied based on customary Atmos speaker positions in the average room (or more specifically, angular ranges above the listener that cause changes in hearing sensitivity)... but DEQ as it stands now doesn't do any of that. And Audyssey seems so focused on other acoustic technologies right now that I doubt you're going to see it revisited any time soon. So just don't use it if you're running Atmos. Problem solved.


----------



## Lesmor

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes. Without question, Dynamic EQ should be off if you want accurate placement of sounds with Atmos. The deviation from matched levels throws off the steering so that sounds in your actual room don't image in the same area the mixer has placed them in the virtual room they use during the mix. If you're getting variances in levels when you check with the test tones on the demo disc, adjust your levels so that they match WITHOUT DEQ. That's not to say that if you prefer boosted surrounds, you can't run DEQ with Atmos all day long... but I'm talking reference versus preference here. It's your system, so adjust it however you want. But if the goal is to reproduce the audio as closely as possible to the intended mix, then that's what the reference is there for.
> 
> Again, the only downside here is that the loudness/bass boost you get from DynEQ is really nice at below-reference levels, and I wish they would decouple that as its own unique option. But you can sidestep that somewhat by adjusting your sub up to taste at your typical listening level if it's a concern.


Again a very well explained post 
as I aim for reference and based on that I am going back to DEQ off and rebalanced SPL on all channels


----------



## Khaile

So i have a 5.2.2 configuration on a denon Avrs730h with in ceiling speakers (top middle position). Sound is awesome especially for the right sound mix (e.g. blade runner 2049). 

I’d like to eventually upgrade to a 5.2.4 setup for more back and forth panning and immersion. 

I’m in a bit of a conundrum tho: I cut holes for the in-ceiling speakers for the exact right location for the top middle position. If I were to move to 5.2.4, I would have to move those in ceiling speakers back or forward and cut another hole for another set of inceilings for a Top rear and top front 5.2.4 setup. This would be extremely complicated and cumbersome at this point (it would have been better to start off at 5.2.4 instead of gradually upgrade). 

My question is: am I losing any SQ or immersion by keeping the top middle in-ceiling speakers and simply adding front heights (pair of bookshelves)? 

It would be way simpler and less complicated than adding another ceiling speaker anencephaly moving the ones I already have.


----------



## Selden Ball

Khaile said:


> So i have a 5.2.2 configuration on a denon Avrs730h with in ceiling speakers (top middle position). Sound is awesome especially for the right sound mix (e.g. blade runner 2049).
> 
> I’d like to eventually upgrade to a 5.2.4 setup for more back and forth panning and immersion.
> 
> I’m in a bit of a conundrum tho: I cut holes for the in-ceiling speakers for the exact right location for the top middle position. If I were to move to 5.2.4, I would have to move those in ceiling speakers back or forward and cut another hole for another set of inceilings for a Top rear and top front 5.2.4 setup. This would be extremely complicated and cumbersome at this point (it would have been better to start off at 5.2.4 instead of gradually upgrade).
> 
> My question is: am I losing any SQ or immersion by keeping the top middle in-ceiling speakers and simply adding front heights (pair of bookshelves)?
> 
> It would be way simpler and less complicated than adding another ceiling speaker anencephaly moving the ones I already have.


If you don't have overhead speakers which are behind you in either Top Rear or Rear Height locations, you won't have the experience of overhead sounds coming from behind you. Those sounds would be folded into the Top Middle speakers, though, not lost entirely.

However, you might consider not removing the Top Middle speakers. With them in place, you'd be ready for a 9.1.6 speaker configuration when that becomes cost effective. The Top Middles would just be silent until that happens.


----------



## njaynl

Guys,


I have an onkyo 686 with onkyo atmos speakers (410).
I forgot to enable the dolby enabled speakers in the setup before i ran the accueq calibration .. do i need to run the calibration again after enabling this feature?


And how to really test my atmos setup? any recommendations?


----------



## Khaile

Selden Ball said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i have a 5.2.2 configuration on a denon Avrs730h with in ceiling speakers (top middle position). Sound is awesome especially for the right sound mix (e.g. blade runner 2049).
> 
> I’d like to eventually upgrade to a 5.2.4 setup for more back and forth panning and immersion.
> 
> I’m in a bit of a conundrum tho: I cut holes for the in-ceiling speakers for the exact right location for the top middle position. If I were to move to 5.2.4, I would have to move those in ceiling speakers back or forward and cut another hole for another set of inceilings for a Top rear and top front 5.2.4 setup. This would be extremely complicated and cumbersome at this point (it would have been better to start off at 5.2.4 instead of gradually upgrade).
> 
> My question is: am I losing any SQ or immersion by keeping the top middle in-ceiling speakers and simply adding front heights (pair of bookshelves)?
> 
> It would be way simpler and less complicated than adding another ceiling speaker anencephaly moving the ones I already have.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have overhead speakers which are behind you in either Top Rear or Rear Height locations, you won't have the experience of overhead sounds coming from behind you. Those sounds would be folded into the Top Middle speakers, though, not lost entirely.
> 
> However, you might consider not removing the Top Middle speakers. With them in place, you'd be ready for a 9.1.6 speaker configuration when that becomes cost effective. The Top Middles would just be silent until that happens.
Click to expand...

Then would you suggest Keeping the top middle And stead of adding front height adding rear height instead? 

Also It seems that you are implying that A top front and top rear would trump all scenarios


----------



## Selden Ball

Khaile said:


> Then would you suggest Keeping the top middle And stead of adding front height adding rear height instead?
> 
> Also It seems that you are implying that A top front and top rear would trump all scenarios


Correct on both accounts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Interesting post
> can i conclude from what you say that for Dolby Atmos DEQ should be Off?
> 
> in my experience of checking with a SPL meter and the Dolby Atmos demo disc test tones my surrounds are always low
> DEQ On seems to sort that out with one click rather than having to balance each speaker individually


WRT to 'decoupling' the bass boost from the surround level boost, I think what he is getting at is that Dynamic EQ (which IMO was based on a flawed premise anyway WRT to boosting surround channels) is useful for applying a bass boost when the MV is below Reference, but the problem is that it also boosts the surrounds when they don't actually need boosting, such that they end up too loud for most people. It would be good if there was a setting for Audyssey which allowed you to keep the bass boost, but get rid of the surround boost.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Imagine the sound was mixed to image off centre, so that most of the energy was in the left main compared to the right. As you lower the volume level, the right main disappears into the noise floor. Now the sound appears to come only from the left speaker. Not what the mixer intended.
> 
> *One solution is to apply boost based on how quiet the sound is rather than whether it's in front of you vs behind you (Audyssey's approach).* So it doesn't matter where the speaker is; if it getting too quiet to hear, then it starts getting a boost. In the scenario described above, sounds from the right main wouldn't disappear, even at low volumes, so you'd still end up hearing the off centre image. Just as the mixer intended.


For clarity, the part I bolded above is what I mean by 'flawed premise' in describing Audyssey's implementation of Dynamic EQ. As we know, sounds from behind us are not as easy for humans to hear as sounds from in front of us. When Audyssey asked their panel of mixers to slide the faders for the surrounds to the 'right' place to preserve the mixer's intent when played back at lower levels than Reference, their (Audyssey's) mistake was assuming that sounds from behind fall of at a _faster rate_ than sounds from in front. But they don't. The rate of fall-off is the same - we just don't hear sounds from behind all that well, so boosting them additionally makes them too loud (which is what people in the Audyssey thread complained about repeatedly).

(Reply in case I am asked what the 'flawed premise' was. Audyssey have published in various places their belief that sounds from behind fall of at a_ faster rate_ than sounds from in front when the level is reduced).


----------



## kbarnes701

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I agree. But the answer would be not to boost ANY of it... which you can already do by turning DEQ off and making sure your levels are all matched. Boosting ANY of the height layer without relevant data on why any of it SHOULD BE boosted is a bad idea... and to my knowledge, Audyssey hasn't redone their DEQ research with that taken into account. Their research specifically addressed changes to side/rear surround presence at sub-reference listening levels. They could certainly use data from past HRTF studies to approximate what potential changes should be applied based on customary Atmos speaker positions in the average room (or more specifically, angular ranges above the listener that cause changes in hearing sensitivity)... but DEQ as it stands now doesn't do any of that. And Audyssey seems so focused on other acoustic technologies right now that I doubt you're going to see it revisited any time soon. So just don't use it if you're running Atmos. Problem solved.


Audyssey stopped development of XT32 years ago, and other than bringing out an App (which of course makes no changes to the underlying XT32 system) have done nothing WRT to room EQ for as long. The obvious solution, but one which sadly is not available to all, is to listen at or close to Reference. Then there is no need for Dynamic EQ at all. Another possible solution, which again is not available to everyone, is to buy an AVR which features Dirac Live, which has none of these issues and which also allows for different target curves to be saved and used. If one often has to listen at lower levels, simply make a curve for the lower level, with whatever boosts you need, and another curve for Reference level etc ans switch between them as needed. I realise these are not solutions for the various posters, but for anyone contemplating a new AVR, I highly recommend considering a unit with Dirac Live, which is a superior solution to Audyssey by some margin. The NAD models are affordable options, for example.


----------



## deano86

kbarnes701 said:


> WRT to 'decoupling' the bass boost from the surround level boost, I think what he is getting at is that Dynamic EQ (which IMO was based on a flawed premise anyway WRT to boosting surround channels) is useful for applying a bass boost when the MV is below Reference, but the problem is that it also boosts the surrounds when they don't actually need boosting, such that they end up too loud for most people. It would be good if there was a setting for Audyssey which allowed you to keep the bass boost, but get rid of the surround boost.
> 
> If, at the levels you listen at, your surrounds, with DEQ applied, are at the level you are happy with, then you are all set IMO.


And as an update to the idea about decoupling the bass boost from the surround boost in Dynamic EQ... here is one of the last email responses I got from Audyssey after asking if by chance there was anything in works that would allow us to select to have Atmos Top Fronts included in the Dynamic EQ boosts.....

"Hello Dean,

No updates. There is unlikely to be any receiver updates that would change this behavior as the behavior described below is expected for Dynamic EQ, raising surround level as volume level is lowered is part of what Dynamic EQ does.

There is a possibility for a feature in the future which could allow the user to turn off surround channel volume scaling on Dynamic EQ, however it is not currently being implemented. 

Kind regards,
Audyssey Support"


----------



## kbarnes701

deano86 said:


> And as an update to the idea about decoupling the bass boost from the surround boost in Dynamic EQ... here is one of the last email responses I got from Audyssey after asking if by chance there was anything in works that would allow us to select to have Atmos Top Fronts included in the Dynamic EQ boosts.....
> 
> "Hello Dean,
> 
> No updates. There is unlikely to be any receiver updates that would change this behavior as the behavior described below is expected for Dynamic EQ, raising surround level as volume level is lowered is part of what Dynamic EQ does.
> 
> There is a possibility for a feature in the future which could allow the user to turn off surround channel volume scaling on Dynamic EQ, however it is not currently being implemented.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Audyssey Support"


Isn't it annoying that one of the most requested features in the old Audyssey thread (the ability to separate bass boost and surround boost in DEQ) is evidently ready and waiting but not 'being implemented'!


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

I've noticed something strange with my Marantz SR7010. The Atmos bitstream from my Xbox One is neither DD+ nor TrueHD . I'm assuming this is some uncompressed form of Atmos since there is not really a reason to compress even to TrueHD (for games), but I've never heard of this possibility before.


----------



## Stereodude

Apologies for not reading the whole thread before asking (it's a little too big for that). Are there guidelines somewhere for placing speakers on the ceiling? Not regarding placement, but the type of speaker on the ceiling. Do we want true point sources? Bipoles? Dipoles? something else?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

G4n0nD0rf said:


> I've noticed something strange with my Marantz SR7010. The Atmos bitstream from my Xbox One is neither DD+ nor TrueHD . I'm assuming this is some uncompressed form of Atmos since there is not really a reason to compress even to TrueHD (for games), but I've never heard of this possibility before.


Yeah, I found out about that when I was having a conversation with two engineers from Dolby about Atmos for Headphones and my Denon not wanting to play back Atmos correctly from the Xbox One. I had assumed they would be sending it via DD+ to receivers, but it's a third variant for realtime applications. Fortunately, Denon did a firmware update that seemed to have sorted it out. I tried to ask them about it, but all they would say was that this third option was part of the spec.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> The rate of fall-off is the same - we just don't hear sounds from behind all that well, so boosting them additionally makes them too loud (which is what people in the Audyssey thread complained about repeatedly).


Also, surround channels are often quieter than LCR channels. So it's no wonder they disappeared more quickly than the front channels during Audyssey's testing, leading to the (mistaken) conclusion that sounds around us fall off more quickly than sounds in front. But that's a separate from the earlier discussion about whether Denon was or was not adhering to how Audyssey DEQ operated.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stereodude said:


> Apologies for not reading the whole thread before asking (it's a little too big for that). Are there guidelines somewhere for placing speakers on the ceiling? Not regarding placement, but the type of speaker on the ceiling. Do we want true point sources? Bipoles? Dipoles? something else?


This is a good place to start: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Dolby recommend wide dispersion speakers, which can then be aimed down to the ground. If dispersion is not so wide, then the speaker can be aimed towards MLP. Really, the overhead speakers are surround speakers, but on the ceiling, so use the same basic criteria as you would for your surrounds. With Atmos, Dolby recommend monopole speakers. Dolby say they should be 'full range' speakers, but bear in mind that in a bass-managed home system, 'full range' can be 80Hz upwards if you are crossing over to a decent subwoofer.

You have a basic choice to make: on-ceiling or in-ceiling. This will depend on WAF, your room, your preference etc. There is more choice of suitable on-ceiling speakers so they are easier to find at the right spec and price. If you go for in-ceiling, then you may want to choose some that, besides meeting the other criteria, also have aimable tweeters.

Personally, I like coaxial speaker designs (eg Tannoys) as they are in phase right from the driver which can be useful if you have a low-ish ceiling height but that's just my personal preference - I have always liked coaxial designs.

Whatever you choose, make sure they can handle the SPLs you require, and are a reasonable match with your amplifier power etc. just as you would with any other speaker.


----------



## bobbino421

Who on here here has a set up using Bowers and Wilkins? Looking for some ideas on a 7.1.4 set up with Ht Chanel’s goin In ceiling.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But the bigger point is that arguing which is "correct" is irrelevant, because the DEQ tech just wasn't made with Atmos in mind.


Turns out it wouldn't have mattered. Our human hearing does have "directional sensitivity", but that's for things like localization, not level drop off. So whether we're talking about speakers around you or speakers above you (Atmos), the boost should never have been part of DEQ. As for other licensed loudness compensation technologies: THX Loudness Plus does boost based on direction (a la Audyssey) while Dolby Volume does not (it boosts based how low the sound is, irrespective of direction).


----------



## murlidher

sdurani said:


> Turns out it wouldn't have mattered. Our human hearing does have "directional sensitivity", but that's for things like localization, not level drop off. So whether we're talking about speakers around you or speakers above you (Atmos), the boost should never have been part of DEQ. As for other licensed loudness compensation technologies: THX Loudness Plus does boost based on direction (a la Audyssey) while Dolby Volume does not (it boosts based how low the sound is, irrespective of direction).


In that case, please suggest the solution who depends on audyssey for room correction and who listens to much lower volume with Atmos setup....I guess DEQ ON is the only solution with its limitation... Is it so?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

njaynl said:


> I have an onkyo 686 with onkyo atmos speakers (410).
> I forgot to enable the dolby enabled speakers in the setup before i ran the accueq calibration .. do i need to run the calibration again after enabling this feature?


Yes. Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers have a notch in the frequency response that tricks our hearing into perceiving those sounds as coming from above. If you don't tell your receiver that you are using Atmos-Enabled speakers, then the room correction will likely EQ away that notch, thereby minimizing the effectiveness of your upfiring speakers.


----------



## sdurani

murlidher said:


> In that case, please suggest the solution who depends on audyssey for room correction and who listens to much lower volume with Atmos setup....I guess DEQ ON is the only solution with its limitation...Is it so?


If you listen at much lower volume levels, then use the Reference Offset feature to prevent DEQ from turning on until 10 or 15 dB below reference.


----------



## Stereodude

kbarnes701 said:


> This is a good place to start: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> Dolby recommend wide dispersion speakers, which can then be aimed down to the ground. If dispersion is not so wide, then the speaker can be aimed towards MLP. Really, the overhead speakers are surround speakers, but on the ceiling, so use the same basic criteria as you would for your surrounds. With Atmos, Dolby recommend monopole speakers. Dolby say they should be 'full range' speakers, but bear in mind that in a bass-managed home system, 'full range' can be 80Hz upwards if you are crossing over to a decent subwoofer.
> 
> Personally, I like coaxial speaker designs (eg Tannoys) as they are in phase right from the driver which can be useful if you have a low-ish ceiling height but that's just my personal preference - I have always liked coaxial designs.
> 
> Whatever you choose, make sure they can handle the SPLs you require, and are a reasonable match with your amplifier power etc. just as you would with any other speaker.


Thanks for the reply.

I have a 10' 4" ceiling in my great room and have 2 pairs of these chillin' in boxes. I was contemplating upgrading to a 7.1.4 setup from the current 7.1 setup with the forthcoming X6500H and using those on the ceiling. However, I see this note in the PDF you linked. "Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback." The statement and it's placement in the PDF makes it unclear which speaker locations they're referring to (or maybe all?). However, they RSS300 are not true dipoles. Only the tweeter is out of phase and the polarity of the out of phase tweeter can be flipped back in phase (some people were doing this for 5.1 music).


----------



## kbarnes701

Stereodude said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I have a 10' 4" ceiling in my great room and have 2 pairs of these chillin' in boxes. I was contemplating upgrading to a 7.1.4 setup from the current 7.1 setup with the forthcoming X6500H and using those on the ceiling. However, I see this note in the PDF you linked. "Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback." The statement and it's placement in the PDF makes it unclear which speaker locations they're referring to (or maybe all?). However, they RSS300 are not true dipoles. Only the tweeter is out of phase and the polarity of the out of phase tweeter can be flipped back in phase (some people were doing this for 5.1 music).


Dipoles are not recommended by Dolby for any of the speakers in an Atmos system.

Personally, I wouldn't want the more 'diffuse' sound which I think those Onix-Rockets will give, notwithstanding the difference between them and 'true dipoles'. For me, one of the joys of Atmos is the amazing precision with which sounds are placed in a three dimensional space. I wouldn't want to compromise that by my choice of speakers. But that is my preference and yours may be different. The fact that some of the drivers face one way and some another way would deter me from that design for my overhead speakers. It seems inevitable to me that the sound will be more diffuse than if one used a monopole. Also, while I accept that we all have to compromise from time to time, I try to follow Dolby's own guidelines wherever I can on the basis that they should know more about Atmos than anyone else.

If you have already bought the Onix-Rockets, and are outside your return window, and don't have any other application for them, then the issue may be somewhat academic


----------



## Stereodude

kbarnes701 said:


> Dipoles are not recommended by Dolby for any of the speakers in an Atmos system.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't want the more 'diffuse' sound which I think those Onix-Rockets will give, notwithstanding the difference between them and 'true dipoles'. For me, one of the joys of Atmos is the amazing precision with which sounds are placed in a three dimensional space. I wouldn't want to compromise that by my choice of speakers. But that is my preference and yours may be different. The fact that some of the drivers face one way and some another way would deter me from that design for my overhead speakers. It seems inevitable to me that the sound will be more diffuse than if one used a monopole. Also, while I accept that we all have to compromise from time to time, I try to follow Dolby's own guidelines wherever I can on the basis that they should know more about Atmos than anyone else.
> 
> If you have already bought the Onix-Rockets, and are outside your return window, and don't have any other application for them, then the issue may be somewhat academic


To me "diffuse" and "wide dispersion pattern" seem to have quite a bit of overlap in definition. Anyhow, I've had the speakers for years. The company has long since vanished. I was merely trying to understand how far from ideal they are for the application and whether I should flip the polarity of the tweeter.


----------



## murlidher

sdurani said:


> If you listen at much lower volume levels, then use the Reference Offset feature to prevent DEQ from turning on until 10 or 15 dB below reference.


Thanks, I have set to 10. But I normally listen to -30db round about. Hence I guess the DEQ will be ON all the time 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzrock

bobbino421 said:


> Who on here here has a set up using Bowers and Wilkins? Looking for some ideas on a 7.1.4 set up with Ht Chanel’s goin In ceiling.




I’m using all B&W. I assume you’re starting with B&W and plan to add to your current system?


----------



## kbarnes701

Stereodude said:


> To me "diffuse" and "wide dispersion pattern" seem to have quite a bit of overlap in definition.


I see a difference. A wide dispersion from a point source is still a point source, but it can be heard properly over a wide area. A diffuse sound is just that: a sound whose source cannot easily be recognised/located. For Atmos, the precision of the point source is preferable, hence Dolby's confirmation that dipoles (more diffuse) are not recommended.



Stereodude said:


> Anyhow, I've had the speakers for years. The company has long since vanished. I was merely trying to understand how far from ideal they are for the application and whether I should flip the polarity of the tweeter.


As I say, personally I'd avoid them. As you have them anyway, you could perhaps hook them up temporarily and evaluate their Atmos suitability first hand, with your ears and your room. If you are getting 'plenty of Atmos goodness' you're all set. If not, time to reconsider.


----------



## sdurani

Stereodude said:


> I was merely trying to understand how far from ideal they are for the application and whether I should flip the polarity of the tweeter.


Those speakers are bipole (wide dispersion, no null) up to 3.8kHz and dipole above that (one tweeter out of phase with the other 3 drivers). The fundamentals of most instruments, not to mention human voices, are below 3.8kHz, with only harmonics above that. 










Since you've already got the speakers, I would use them. If you can flip the polarity of the out-of-phase tweeters, then that would be even better (bipole across their entire range).


----------



## mrtickleuk

That's a very nice graphic! I thought trumpet harmonics went higher, surprised they are below violins'.


----------



## RJCarlson49

I am remodeling and adding a great room that will be 22*30. I plan to put 4 atmos speakers in the ceiling. However, there are some special elements that complicate my system.

One wall is all windows, the left wall.
The right wall is open to the kitchen.
I can place rear surrounds on the back wall, but I have no place to put left and right surrounds.

So, the ideal AVR would seem to be one that supports 7.1.4, but I would not have speakers in the 4th and 5th spots.

This brings up several questions.

1. Are there processing tricks that will compensate for the unbalanced L and R walls?
2. Will Atmos, or other, processing compensate for having rear surrounds and no LR surrounds?
3. You pay a LOT it appears for the 10th and 11th amplifiers. More reasonably priced 9 amp systems are available. Can the 9 amps be assigned to match my setup? In other words, can the LR surround amps be used for 4 height speakers?
4. Is there any appreciable difference between having a 7.2 or a 7.1.4 system? If i use only 2 ceiling speakers at a time, that clearly fits the 9 amp AVRs. I need 4 speakers in the ceiling though, because I am setting up the room so that the media can be on either end.
5. Only partially related to the other questions, do all the AVRs in this class deal with Apple well? I have decided that Alexa is too much of a spy to be allowed in the house and will use Siri/homekit.

I am leaning towards the Denon 4400, but the answers above could obviously sway that decision.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> That's a very nice graphic! I thought trumpet harmonics went higher, surprised they are below violins'.


Nice isn't it? Here's an interactive version of it. Mouse over for more info.


----------



## njaynl

Anyone any tips on how to test atmos the best? any demo's or movies with specific things you will hear from above?


thanks!


----------



## njaynl

Anyone any tips on how to test atmos the best? any demo's or movies with specific things you will hear from above?


thanks!


----------



## gene4ht

njaynl said:


> Anyone any tips on how to test atmos the best? any demo's or movies with specific things you will hear from above?
> 
> 
> thanks!


Here’s a start...

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## njaynl

gene4ht said:


> Here’s a start...
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html





Well i have the demo bluray of 2016 and did some demo's but when is it really sound from above ... i hope you understand me


----------



## Chuck666

*Klipsch Height Speakers mounted horizontally?*

I was wondering, LOL. I have two rear heights coming to make my system a .4 from a .2... They're R14sa, older model from the R140sa.... They have a 6 x 11 foot print with a 20º angled face and normally are mounted vertically firing downward. Can I rotate them 90º and have them fire face inward and also till them down aimed at the MLP? Does the sound cone get screwed up and the resulting mix NOT any good?

Thanks, in advance?


----------



## Selden Ball

RJCarlson49 said:


> I am remodeling and adding a great room that will be 22*30. I plan to put 4 atmos speakers in the ceiling. However, there are some special elements that complicate my system.
> 
> One wall is all windows, the left wall.
> The right wall is open to the kitchen.
> I can place rear surrounds on the back wall, but I have no place to put left and right surrounds.


When you can only have 5 ear-level speakers, the ones which are not in front must be connected to the Surround speaker outputs. It doesn't matter that you have to place the speakers behind you. The Rear Surround speaker outputs can only be used when you increase the number of ear-level speakers from 5 to 7. This limitation is in the design of receivers from all of the manufacturers, not just D&M.


> So, the ideal AVR would seem to be one that supports 7.1.4, but I would not have speakers in the 4th and 5th spots.


Unfortunately, that's incorrect. See above  You'll have a 5.1.4 speaker system.


> This brings up several questions.
> 
> 1. Are there processing tricks that will compensate for the unbalanced L and R walls?


To some extent, that's what the receiver's Audyssey room equalization is designed to do. However, it's not perfect and will be helped if you can add some very heavy drapes to cover the windows and absorb some of the reflections from the glass.


> 2. Will Atmos, or other, processing compensate for having rear surrounds and no LR surrounds?


Unfortunately, no, since that's not a valid speaker configuration. Fortunately, though, the distortions caused by having the Surround speakers behind you are not that noticeable.


> 3. You pay a LOT it appears for the 10th and 11th amplifiers. More reasonably priced 9 amp systems are available. Can the 9 amps be assigned to match my setup? In other words, can the LR surround amps be used for 4 height speakers?


You can't reassign the Surround speaker channels, but you can use the Rear Surround amps for other things.


> 4. Is there any appreciable difference between having a 7.2 or a 7.1.4 system? If i use only 2 ceiling speakers at a time, that clearly fits the 9 amp AVRs. I need 4 speakers in the ceiling though, because I am setting up the room so that the media can be on either end.


Having 4 overhead speakers allows you to hear overhead sounds travel from front to back in your room. Having only 2 overheads provides only for side-to-side panning.


> 5. Only partially related to the other questions, do all the AVRs in this class deal with Apple well? I have decided that Alexa is too much of a spy to be allowed in the house and will use Siri/homekit.


Some people have reported strange intermittent problems with Airplay. I don't use Apple's services so I can't comment further. Hopefully someone else can.

ETA:

Note that, just like Alexa and Cortana, Siri has to transmit your queries to a central server farm in order to interpret your instructions. You'll have to read and compare the privacy policies of Apple, Google and Microsoft to see if one is really any better than the other. My personal opinion is that they're all equivalent, especially since they all warn you that their policies are subject to change without notice and your only recourse is to stop using their services.


----------



## RJCarlson49

Selden Ball said:


> ...
> 
> Note that, just like Alexa and Cortana, Siri has to transmit your queries to a central server farm in order to interpret your instructions. You'll have to read and compare the privacy policies of Apple, Google and Microsoft to see if one is really any better than the other. My personal opinion is that they're all equivalent, especially since they all warn you that their policies are subject to change without notice and your only recourse is to stop using their services.


Thanks, very helpful.

Apple's business model is to sell hardware and services. I pay them and I am their customer. 

Amazon and Google's business model is to sell information about me to their customers. I am their product.

Apple's not perfect, but they are the safer bet IMHO. Siri and Homekit are probably less developed than others, but I can live with that.


----------



## Josh Z

RJCarlson49 said:


> Apple's business model is to sell hardware and services. I pay them and I am their customer.
> 
> Amazon and Google's business model is to sell information about me to their customers. I am their product.


Don't kid yourself. Apple didn't get to be a trillion dollar company without also selling all your personal data to whoever wanted it. Their products aren't _that_ good.


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> Don't kid yourself. Apple didn't get to be a trillion dollar company without also selling all your personal data to whoever wanted it. Their products aren't _that_ good.


FWIW, here's a recent article about Apple's data gathering practices: 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...er-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/

and here's what one of their customers found out:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...e-everything-had-me-heres-what-got/558362002/


----------



## njaynl

Alright so i reran the accuEQ setup with a camera tripod this time instead of holding the MIC.
adjusted some slight settings somehow it set my front jamo s606 speakers to 200hz. 



still when i try the 747 atmos demo it feels like i am under the plane but when i focus i hear the sound coming from both upfiring speakers... maybe this is normal? i need to not focus on it


----------



## Selden Ball

njaynl said:


> Alright so i reran the accuEQ setup with a camera tripod this time instead of holding the MIC.
> adjusted some slight settings somehow it set my front jamo s606 speakers to 200hz.
> 
> 
> 
> still when i try the 747 atmos demo it feels like i am under the plane but when i focus i hear the sound coming from both upfiring speakers... maybe this is normal? i need to not focus on it


Maybe you have the speakers are too close to you or positioned down too low? 
Essentially, if you can see the speaker's driver cones, then you'll be hearing sounds which travel directly from them to your ears, which can detract from the overhead experience.

Here are Dolby's placement recommendations, quoted from the document 
Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines 
July 2017 
which is available at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



> Placement height
> 
> For optimal effect and to minimize direct radiating audio at listener level, place Dolby Atmos enabled
> speakers at or slightly above the height of your ears when seated. Avoid placing the Dolby Atmos enabled
> speakers higher than one-half the height of your wall.
> 
> Note: For some Dolby Atmos enabled in-wall speakers, if the placement is above one-half the height of
> your wall, you may need to adjust the vertical angle, if the manufacturer implements this feature. Please
> consult the manufacturer’s user manual for guidance.
> 
> Placement relative to listeners
> 
> To avoid an unwanted proximity effect, make sure the speakers are at least 3 feet (0.9 meter) away from
> listening positions, ideally 5 feet (1.5 meters) or more. This distance may be less than 5 feet if the upward-
> firing driver(s) of the Dolby Atmos enabled speaker is placed well above the level of the closest listener’s
> head.
> 
> Positioning of add-on modules
> 
> If you’re using add-on modules, place them either on top of the front and surround (ideally, rear
> surround) speakers or within 3 feet (0.9 meter) of those speakers. Place on-wall or in-wall add-on
> modules in the same position. Dolby Atmos enabled speakers should be mounted so that the driver is
> facing toward the ceiling.


----------



## njaynl

Selden Ball said:


> Maybe you have the speakers are too close to you or positioned down too low?
> Essentially, if you can see the speaker's driver cones, then you'll be hearing sounds which travel directly from them to your ears, which can detract from the overhead experience.
> 
> Here are Dolby's placement recommendations, quoted from the document
> Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines
> July 2017
> which is available at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf





Here is a picture sorry that it's turned up side down stupid windows .. anyway


the onkyo set the distance of the speakers at 3.53 m the same as my fronts from what i read in the dolby site is that you need to include the distance to my ceiling which is about 1.30m, is this correct? 

i did also set the ceiling distance in the dolby enabled speaker menu and put the option accureflex to on. 



any advice on the placement of my atmos speakers?


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

njaynl said:


> the onkyo set the distance of the speakers at 3.53 m the same as my fronts from what i read in the dolby site is that you need to include the distance to my ceiling which is about 1.30m, is this correct?


My Marantz has a seperate setting where you have to set your ceiling height. I assume both values are combined in some way.


----------



## njaynl

G4n0nD0rf said:


> My Marantz has a seperate setting where you have to set your ceiling height. I assume both values are combined in some way.



what do you think of the height of both speakers if you look at the picture?


----------



## kbarnes701

njaynl said:


> what do you think of the height of both speakers if you look at the picture?


Hard to say. You could, by the look of it, move them up to the height of the wall lamp and still be in Dolby spec. This might help you localise them less and also help the modules bounce better off the ceiling. Worth a try on a temporary basis - move them back if it doesn't improve anything?


----------



## njaynl

kbarnes701 said:


> Hard to say. You could, by the look of it, move them up to the height of the wall lamp and still be in Dolby spec. This might help you localise them less and also help the modules bounce better off the ceiling. Worth a try on a temporary basis - move them back if it doesn't improve anything?



Thanks for your reply seems like a good thing to try need to figure out how to do it without drilling holes  but according to dolby setting the speakers on half the wall height should be enough
my floor speakers are +0 DB and i set my atmos speakers to +4 or even +7


----------



## kbarnes701

njaynl said:


> Thanks for your reply seems like a good thing to try need to figure out how to do it without drilling holes  but according to dolby setting the speakers on half the wall height should be enough
> my floor speakers are +0 DB and i set my atmos speakers to +4 or even +7


While I am a big fan of upfirers for anyone who can't mount speakers directly onto the ceiling, it's true that they do need careful setting up to get the best from them. Selden has posted very good advice above and I recommend studying that and following it as closely as you can.

You could move them temporarily by standing them on something that will bring them to the desired height - shoe-boxes maybe, or get some timber to the right length and balance them on top. You'll only need to do this for a short time while you evaluate - no need to drill holes at this stage.


----------



## njaynl

kbarnes701 said:


> While I am a big fan of upfirers for anyone who can't mount speakers directly onto the ceiling, it's true that they do need careful setting up to get the best from them. Selden has posted very good advice above and I recommend studying that and following it as closely as you can.
> 
> You could move them temporarily by standing them on something that will bring them to the desired height - shoe-boxes maybe, or get some timber to the right length and balance them on top. You'll only need to do this for a short time while you evaluate - no need to drill holes at this stage.



I will try to move the speakers 30cm under my ceiling for a temp. placement and test from there


thanks !


----------



## kbarnes701

njaynl said:


> I will try to move the speakers 30cm under my ceiling for a temp. placement and test from there
> 
> 
> thanks !


That would be outside Dolby's recommendations for height, but by all means try it if you feel it will help. I'd think you'd be good at about the height of the shelf on the front wall (in fact the shelf is perfectly placed for a temporary resting place for the module, as is the wall light on the other side - so why not try those positions as well as they are easy to set up.


----------



## kbarnes701

Two good Atmos movies I watched this week: *Ready Player One*, which has a Gary Rydstrom track and is just beautifully implemented, both in the ear level and the overhead speakers, with plenty of relevant sound content above one's head. Even when the track is exceptionally 'busy' every sound is superbly delineated and positioned precisely in space. (For example, listen to the fight sequence just after the night club scene - totally sublime.) And there is a long continuous period of seriously deep, room-shaking bass. IIRC it comes at about the 1hr 50m mark BICBW about that. Highly recommended soundtrack. Movie, for me, is a bit meh, but I can understand its appeal.

The other was the re-released UHD disc of *The Equalizer*, with Denzel doing a sort of weakened reprise of his role in the superb *Man on Fire*. This movie had a very good soundtrack to begin with but the Atmos track is a step up from it for sure. Makes an enjoyable movie even better - and the long sequence in the Home Depot towards the end of the movie is electrifying.


----------



## njaynl

kbarnes701 said:


> That would be outside Dolby's recommendations for height, but by all means try it if you feel it will help. I'd think you'd be good at about the height of the shelf on the front wall (in fact the shelf is perfectly placed for a temporary resting place for the module, as is the wall light on the other side - so why not try those positions as well as they are easy to set up.



Good idea !! i can try to place one speaker on the shelf and the other one on top of the lamp and test away


thanks so much for your help !


----------



## kbarnes701

njaynl said:


> Good idea !! i can try to place one speaker on the shelf and the other one on top of the lamp and test away
> 
> 
> thanks so much for your help !


You're welcome. Hope it improves things for you.


----------



## Khaile

Need some advice here. I have a 5.2.2 setup with top middle in ceiling speakers and want to move to 5.2.4 with top front and top rear in ceiling speakers. 

I have a diagram of my setup below. 

Per dolby guidelines, my top middle speakers are in line with the LR front speakers. 

To move to 5.2.4 I will need to move my top middle speakers forward to assign them as top front and add additional in ceiling speakers for top rear. 

Problem is, there is a metal beam (my HT is in my basement) where the Top rear right in ceiling speaker wouldn’t ideally be placed (it’s the black shaded in circle on the diagram). This means that my top right and right front speaker would not be in line with my top rear right speaker. 

Will this be a problem? I suppose I could move them further back but that would make them waay farther back and be out of axis according to dolbys guidelines. Also, not sure if the metal beam being Right in front of the in ceiling speaker would interfere with the sound. 

Not sure what you guys suggest I do.


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> Need some advice here. I have a 5.2.2 setup with top middle in ceiling speakers and want to move to 5.2.4 with top front and top rear in ceiling speakers.
> 
> I have a diagram of my setup below.
> 
> Per dolby guidelines, my top middle speakers are in line with the LR front speakers.
> 
> To move to 5.2.4 I will need to move my top middle speakers forward to assign them as top front and add additional in ceiling speakers for top rear.
> 
> Problem is, there is a metal beam (my HT is in my basement) where the Top rear right in ceiling speaker wouldn’t ideally be placed (it’s the black shaded in circle on the diagram). This means that my top right and right front speaker would not be in line with my top rear right speaker.
> 
> Will this be a problem? I suppose I could move them further back but that would make them waay farther back and be out of axis according to dolbys guidelines. Also, not sure if the metal beam being Right in front of the in ceiling speaker would interfere with the sound.
> 
> Not sure what you guys suggest I do.


Don't worry too much about getting the overheads right in line with the front L and R speakers. Line them up as best you can. It is far better to have the ceiling speakers slightly misaligned with the front L&R than it is to have one speaker 'hidden' behind a beam. Remember the Dolby guidelines are just that: guidelines. 

I would line all 4 overheads up the same though, rather than having the front pair in line with the mains and the rear pair not in line with the mains. That may upset the balance of panned sounds and 'skew' them a little.

What would be wrong with putting the overheads where I have indicated with the red blobs on the attached image?


----------



## Khaile

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't worry too much about getting the overheads right in line with the front L and R speakers. Line them up as best you can. It is far better to have the ceiling speakers slightly misaligned with the front L&R than it is to have one speaker 'hidden' behind a beam. Remember the Dolby guidelines are just that: guidelines.
> 
> I would line all 4 overheads up the same though, rather than having the front pair in line with the mains and the rear pair not in line with the mains. That may upset the balance of panned sounds and 'skew' them a little.


That’s would make the front pair right in front of the center channel/tv

Will that be awkward?


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> That’s would make the front pair right in front of the center channel/tv
> 
> Will that be awkward?


I can't visualise what you mean. Take a look at the diagram I attached to my last reply. Why wouldn't that work? It;s hard to tell from the info supplied but my red blobs would seem, on the face of it, to be within spec and also avoid the beam.

In fact, looking at it again, you could almost leave the TM pair where they are, add the TF pair in front and re-designate them as TF/TR or FH/TM (the designation doesn't make a vast difference it seems). That would replicate more or less the setup I used to have in my 'Hobbit Theater' where the TF were in front and the TR were more or less over my head. Worked great.


----------



## Khaile

kbarnes701 said:


> I can't visualise what you mean. Take a look at the diagram I attached to my last reply. Why wouldn't that work? It;s hard to tell from the info supplied but my red blobs would seem, on the face of it, to be within spec and also avoid the beam.
> 
> In fact, looking at it again, you could almost leave the TM pair where they are, add the TF pair in front and re-designate them as TF/TR or FH/TM (the designation doesn't make a vast difference it seems). That would replicate more or less the setup I used to have in my 'Hobbit Theater' where the TF were in front and the TR were more or less over my head. Worked great.


I forgot to add that in my basement I have drop ceilings tiles so where you are suggesting is either a wooden plank (giving no depth for in ceiling speakers) or in between tiles. 

I might just consider keeping the top middle and adding rear heights instead. 

Would it be better optimized to have top middle + front heights or top middle + rear heights?


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> I forgot to add that in my basement I have drop ceilings tiles so where you are suggesting is either a wooden plank (giving no depth for in ceiling speakers) or in between tiles.
> 
> I might just consider keeping the top middle and adding rear heights instead.
> 
> Would it be better optimized to have top middle + front heights or top middle + rear heights?


If you keep TM and add RH all your overhead speakers will be behind you. I doubt that will work as well as you'd hope.

FH+TM or TM+RH designations won't, IME, make a deal of difference to what you actually hear.

Can you accommodate FH speakers for a FH+TM configuration?

It is important to have good angular separation between the overheads themselves and the floor level speakers. I am not a massive fan of mounting speakers in the FH or RH positions as I want sounds over my head not in front of me and high up, but sometimes these compromises have to be made.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> ... the TR were more or less over my head. Worked great.


Oh yes. And there is even scientific evidence to back that up.









A sound source positioned right above someone's head (that's the arrow at *90d*) can be perceived to originate behind that position ranging from *90d to 134d* degrees elevation.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Oh yes. And there is even scientific evidence to back that up.
> 
> View attachment 2439054
> 
> 
> A sound source positioned right above someone's head (that's the arrow at *90d*) can be perceived to originate behind that position ranging from *90d to 134d* degrees elevation.


Very interesting. It certainly worked very well for me in that small room I used to have. That solution would be the one I favor for Khaile's room - he wouldn't have to relocate the TM pair and, if he could get the TF to work similar to my diagram (red blobs) the result should be pretty good IMO.


----------



## njaynl

Alrighty then i did the test with the atmos speakers on the lamp and shelf and i thought it sounded a lot better.. the 747 demo sounds like i am really under the plane.
a friend of mine is coming over tonight to hang the speakers in place.


thanks to all here for the help !


----------



## kbarnes701

njaynl said:


> Alrighty then i did the test with the atmos speakers on the lamp and shelf and i thought it sounded a lot better.. the 747 demo sounds like i am really under the plane.
> a friend of mine is coming over tonight to hang the speakers in place.
> 
> 
> thanks to all here for the help !


Result! Enjoy!


----------



## njaynl

kbarnes701 said:


> Result! Enjoy!



Thanks again !!!


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Two good Atmos movies I watched this week: *Ready Player One*, which has a Gary Rydstrom track and is just beautifully implemented, both in the ear level and the overhead speakers, with plenty of relevant sound content above one's head. Even when the track is exceptionally 'busy' every sound is superbly delineated and positioned precisely in space. (For example, listen to the fight sequence just after the night club scene - totally sublime.) And there is a long continuous period of seriously deep, room-shaking bass. IIRC it comes at about the 1hr 50m mark BICBW about that. Highly recommended soundtrack. Movie, for me, is a bit meh, but I can understand its appeal.
> 
> The other was the re-released UHD disc of *The Equalizer*, with Denzel doing a sort of weakened reprise of his role in the superb *Man on Fire*. This movie had a very good soundtrack to begin with but the Atmos track is a step up from it for sure. Makes an enjoyable movie even better - and the long sequence in the Home Depot towards the end of the movie is electrifying.


I agree that the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on _Ready Player One_ was terrific. I thought its UHD HDR video was great too. It is a fun movie. I bought it in July and have already watched it twice.

Thanks for your tip about the high quality of the soundtrack on _The Equalizer._ I just ordered it from the Kaleidescape store and it is downloading now. Because of the weird ways the studios distribute the digital versions of their films, Kscape sometimes ends up with only DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio, although the corresponding disk has TrueHD Atmos. Fortunately, Kscape also got the TrueHD Atmos version of _Ready Player One._ 

Really looking forward to seeing _The Equalizer_ again! I have only seen it via premium movie channels so being able to see and hear it in all its glory should be a revelation.


----------



## Mrjmc99

kbarnes701 said:


> Two good Atmos movies I watched this week: *Ready Player One*, which has a Gary Rydstrom track and is just beautifully implemented, both in the ear level and the overhead speakers, with plenty of relevant sound content above one's head. Even when the track is exceptionally 'busy' every sound is superbly delineated and positioned precisely in space. (For example, listen to the fight sequence just after the night club scene - totally sublime.) And there is a long continuous period of seriously deep, room-shaking bass. IIRC it comes at about the 1hr 50m mark BICBW about that. Highly recommended soundtrack. Movie, for me, is a bit meh, but I can understand its appeal.
> 
> The other was the re-released UHD disc of *The Equalizer*, with Denzel doing a sort of weakened reprise of his role in the superb *Man on Fire*. This movie had a very good soundtrack to begin with but the Atmos track is a step up from it for sure. Makes an enjoyable movie even better - and the long sequence in the Home Depot towards the end of the movie is electrifying.


Agreed the home Depot scene with the glass breaking overhead and all around was amazing, excellent movie as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Really looking forward to seeing _The Equalizer_ again! I have only seen it via premium movie channels so being able to see and hear it in all its glory should be a revelation.


You'll be impressed right from the beginning of the movie where Denzel is in a train on his way to work. Just listen how those train sounds envelop you, with every creak and rattle being crystal clear, and, for those with good woofage, there's just the right amount of bass to give the impression of a train weighing hundreds of tons, rattling along the lines. From that moment I knew I was in for a treat and the rest of the soundtrack didn't disappoint. In the various scenes in Home Depot, listen how the ambience of the store fills your listening space, transforming your HT into a giant retail warehouse. Music is beautifully balanced and clear, as is dialogue. The fight scenes with the Russians have heft and impact. I;ve already mentioned the final shootout in the store - it is a marvel of modern mixing and a credit to whoever was responsible.

It's when we hear movies like this and *Ready Player One* (one old, one new) that we realize how shortchanged we are by Disney with their insipid, limp soundtracks. 

TOW, I have *Black Panther* in the unwatched pile. I can't summon the enthusiasm to bring it to the top of the pile just yet. I just got the 50th Anniversary remastered version of The Beatles'* A Hard Day's Night* and a little-known 90's heist movie, *Set It Off,* which I think will be watched before Panther. Sad indictment of Disney when a 50 year old movie takes higher priority.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> It's when we hear movies like this _The Equalizer_ and *Ready Player One* (one old, one new) that we realize how shortchanged we are by Disney with their insipid, limp soundtracks.
> 
> TOW, I have *Black Panther* in the unwatched pile. I can't summon the enthusiasm to bring it to the top of the pile just yet. I just got the 50th Anniversary remastered version of The Beatles'* A Hard Day's Night* and a little-known 90's heist movie, *Set It Off,* which I think will be watched before Panther. Sad indictment of Disney when a 50 year old movie takes higher priority.


I bought _Black Panther_ and loved it. Its UHD HDR is top drawer, although its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is, as seems always to be the case these days with Disney, underwhelming. The film is terrific dramatically, though, so if you prepare yourself for its somewhat subpar sound, you will enjoy the viewing experience, I think. I was able to counter the weakness of its soundtrack to a degree by listening to it with an extra 2.5 dB cranked into my receiver.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I bought _Black Panther_ and loved it. Its UHD HDR is top drawer, although its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is, as seems always to be the case these days with Disney, underwhelming. The film is terrific dramatically, though, so if you prepare yourself for its somewhat subpar sound, you will enjoy the viewing experience, I think. I was able to counter the weakness of its soundtrack to a degree by listening to it with an extra 2.5 dB cranked into my receiver.


Yes, I have read various reviews which echo your own experience with the movie. I am sure I will enjoy the movie, but be disappointed by the sound. This, of course, makes matters worse - a terrific movie but with an underwhelming audio experience. Hopefully the movie itself and the stunning UHD picture will compensate. And I agree - I have found that I need to turn up the MV by about 3dB on these latest Disney movies. It brings back some of the oomph, but doesn't compensate for the emasculated dynamics.


----------



## bobbino421

jazzrock said:


> bobbino421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on here here has a set up using Bowers and Wilkins? Looking for some ideas on a 7.1.4 set up with Ht Chanel’s goin In ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m using all B&W. I assume you’re starting with B&W and plan to add to your current system?
Click to expand...

No I would be starting from scratch


----------



## jazzrock

bobbino421 said:


> No I would be starting from scratch




Well, don’t know exactly what you’re looking for but my system consists of;

800 Diamond, front L/R
HTM2 Diamond Center
CT8.4 Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds
SCMS x4 On Ceiling (former surround speakers)
DB1 Subs, x2


----------



## njaynl

kbarnes701 said:


> You're welcome. Hope it improves things for you.



No clue why it keeps going up side down anyways . my neighbor who is a sound technician fixed my speakers higher up and the effect is much more noticeable.


----------



## usc1995

Hi Guys,

So I just watched the first half of Hans Zimmer Live from Prague last night and while soundtracks are not my preferred music to listen to I thoroughly enjoyed the Atmos presentation on the blu-ray. That got me googling for more Atmos music to see what else was out there and I came across a free electronic album for download that is pretty interesting here: http://mattdareywolf.com/ Once again this is not my favorite type of music but it is fun to listen to as it makes very good use of all the channels available in my system (7.2.4). Even though you may not prefer this kind of music it is a fun demo and its FREE!


----------



## Khaile

kbarnes701 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to add that in my basement I have drop ceilings tiles so where you are suggesting is either a wooden plank (giving no depth for in ceiling speakers) or in between tiles.
> 
> I might just consider keeping the top middle and adding rear heights instead.
> 
> Would it be better optimized to have top middle + front heights or top middle + rear heights?
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep TM and add RH all your overhead speakers will be behind you. I doubt that will work as well as you'd hope.
> 
> FH+TM or TM+RH designations won't, IME, make a deal of difference to what you actually hear.
> 
> Can you accommodate FH speakers for a FH+TM configuration?
> 
> It is important to have good angular separation between the overheads themselves and the floor level speakers. I am not a massive fan of mounting speakers in the FH or RH positions as I want sounds over my head not in front of me and high up, but sometimes these compromises have to be made.
Click to expand...

I can accommodate FH along with top middle in ceiling speakers. Would a FH + top middle be a close approximation to top front + top rear?


----------



## Jonas2

usc1995 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> So I just watched the first half of Hans Zimmer Live from Prague last night and while soundtracks are not my preferred music to listen to I thoroughly enjoyed the Atmos presentation on the blu-ray. That got me googling for more Atmos music to see what else was out there and I came across a free electronic album for download that is pretty interesting here: http://mattdareywolf.com/ Once again this is not my favorite type of music but it is fun to listen to as it makes very good use of all the channels available in my system (7.2.4). Even though you may not prefer this kind of music it is a fun demo and its FREE!



Excellent, thanks for sharing that!  I hear nothing but good about Hans Zimmer Live from Prague, and I'll definitely try out that freebie download.....


----------



## Archerkit

Another vote for Ready Player One. I only have a 5.1.2, and recently moved my A4s to sit on the surrounds instead of the front. (much more discussion on that in the "Dolby Atmos upward-firing module speakers" thread) Short version is that folks informed me about the rather narrow angle of reflection (I'm only 2' away from the surrounds, due to my small room size and seating being against the wall) and putting the Atmos modules closer to my listening position helped with the overhead effect quite a bit. 

I will need to rewatch the movie (it was a lot to to take in visually, on top of paying attention to Atmos stuff) - but the ocean wave in the beginning and some of the drone sounds were nicely overhead, especially for my Atmos-enabled setup.


----------



## hagsi

+1 for Ready Player One Atmos soundtrack. 

Can anyone comment on Fury’s Atmos version? This releases next week in AUS and is a favourite, really hoping for some overhead action.


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> I can accommodate FH along with top middle in ceiling speakers. Would a FH + top middle be a close approximation to top front + top rear?


For me, the issue with FH is that the sounds are 'in front of you and high up' rather than 'overhead' as they are when the speakers are mounted above you on the ceiling. FH tends to give a 'wall of sound' in front of you. HST, FH is still a recognised Dolby position for Atmos, so if FH+TM is the only setup you can accommodate, I;d say go for it. It will still be way better than no Atmos at all or just one pair of overheads in the TM position.


----------



## kbarnes701

hagsi said:


> +1 for Ready Player One Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> Can anyone comment on Fury’s Atmos version? This releases next week in AUS and is a favourite, really hoping for some overhead action.


It is a stunning Atmos track (*Fury*) as well as a terrific movie. The Atmos track is a significant upgrade over the DTS-HD MA track, which itself was stellar. You will definitely be ducking for cover in the main 'battle of the tanks' scene  It is a superb soundtrack all the way through the movie, with the battle scenes being the most obviously good, but even the quieter scenes have fabulous ambient effects, around and above you, which contribute to the feeling of 'being there'. Highly recommended.


----------



## bobbino421

jazzrock said:


> bobbino421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I would be starting from scratch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don’t know exactly what you’re looking for but my system consists of;
> 
> 800 Diamond, front L/R
> HTM2 Diamond Center
> CT8.4 Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds
> SCMS x4 On Ceiling (former surround speakers)
> DB1 Subs, x2
Click to expand...

TY that’s a start. I wanted to basically know which of their speakers were best suited for atmos home theater.


----------



## bobbino421

jazzrock said:


> bobbino421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I would be starting from scratch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don’t know exactly what you’re looking for but my system consists of;
> 
> 800 Diamond, front L/R
> HTM2 Diamond Center
> CT8.4 Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds
> SCMS x4 On Ceiling (former surround speakers)
> DB1 Subs, x2
Click to expand...

TY that’s a start. I wanted to basically know which of their speakers were best suited for atmos home theater.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: Netflix "Lost In Space" in Dolby Vision with Dolby Atmos -

I was able to upgrade my TV from a Sony 900E to a Sony 900F (75") and with it, the capability for Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. From just a few viewings, I can't really tell that much difference with Dolby Vision but Dolby Atmos is a real treat via ARC, albeit "compressed" or lossy. 

Which brings me to this series - "Lost In Space." I watched the first episode and the overhead soundtrack and left to right & back and front were very active. Has anyone else seen/heard this series in Dolby Atmos? Thoughts? Lastly - it looks like Sony has developed a relationship with Netflix, so much so that on some of their newer TV's, they will have a separate "Netflix" picture setting that is optimized for Netflix.


----------



## slybacon

bobbino421 said:


> No I would be starting from scratch





jazzrock said:


> Well, don’t know exactly what you’re looking for but my system consists of;
> 
> 800 Diamond, front L/R
> HTM2 Diamond Center
> CT8.4 Side Surrounds and Rear Surrounds
> SCMS x4 On Ceiling (former surround speakers)
> DB1 Subs, x2


I have all B&W too in my 7.1.4 --but it's a more modest set-up:

400 series for LCR (my 403s are over 20 years old but still good!)
600 series for surrounds and backs
CCM683s in-ceiling

For the overheads, because my ceiling is quite high (13ft), I wanted to make sure that the sound didn't get lost - the 683s are 8" and the tweeters are aimable. I confess I still boosted the .4 slightly after EQ.

Hope this helps.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I bought _Black Panther_ and loved it. Its UHD HDR is top drawer, although its TrueHD Atmos soundtrack is, as seems always to be the case these days with Disney, underwhelming. The film is terrific dramatically, though, so if you prepare yourself for its somewhat subpar sound, you will enjoy the viewing experience, I think. I was able to counter the weakness of its soundtrack to a degree by listening to it with an extra 2.5 dB cranked into my receiver.


I watched *Black Panther* last night. As you said, the PQ is stellar. Some of the scenes are just breathtakingly beautiful in the way they are rendered on-screen. As for the SQ.... I cranked up the MV by 4dB and that brought it to the same sort of level (subjectively) that my usual -5dB gives me. Why Disney feel a need to lower the overall SPL by this much is a mystery to me and not one that I can understand if their true aim is to cater for the 'soundbar' crowd. However, changing the MV isn't really a problem so no point complaining about the need to do so.

As soon as the movie starts there is a nice deep bass bit and I thought to myself "oh that's good - the bass hasn't been emasculated" but unfortunately that was more or less it for bass. A few very small rumblings here and there, but no real oomph. For example, the gunshots were pathetic. They all sounded like toy guns. Compare and contrast with *John Wick* for example. It made the scenes in which there were gunfights very uninvolving and feeble. Then there is the car chase that comes in at around 1hr50m. Again, despite the on-screen action being entire vehicles crashing and flying through the air landing heavily and so on, the lack of involvement due to the lack of deep bass heft was shocking. Compare with the car race at the beginning of *Ready Player One* for example, or *John Wick* again. Or any of the _Fast_ movies. Or pretty much any movie with a car chase and crash sequence made in the last 20 years. Do they not understand that bass is required as an underpinning to this type of scene if the audience is to be properly involved or scared?

HST, the precision with which sounds were placed in the soundstage was terrific and most enjoyable, contributing to the 'being there' feeling, so long as the scene didn't need any bass heft. This was especially noted by me on the many African instruments used in the score or as source music - they were really 'in the room' with me and sounded beautifully 'live'.

So overall, from an audio POV, a very disappointing result from Disney yet again. The lack of bass heft when needed really did spoil my enjoyment of the relevant scenes. It was compensated for somewhat by the lovely precision of the sound the rest of the time but my overall feeling at the end of the movie was 'could have done better'.

Such a pity since the movie is a cracker and a very different take on the superhero movie we are accustomed to seeing (Deadpool excepted ).


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

I ought to mention Atmos in the review above I guess, since we are in an Atmos thread. But I did in fact. For me, Atmos is as much about this hugely increased _precision of placement of sound in a three dimensional sound stage_ as it is about overhead effects, and I mentioned how much I enjoyed this precision throughout the movie (spoiled only when the scene called for some bass oomph which was sorely lacking). HST, there was some good use of the overhead speakers but for much of the running time the movie content didn't really lend itself to aggressive overhead effects. I think sometimes we concentrate so much on Atmos's overhead effects that we lose sight of the many other benefits of an Atmos mix.


----------



## Jonas2

usc1995 said:


> and I came across a free electronic album for download that is pretty interesting here: http://mattdareywolf.com/ Once again this is not my favorite type of music but it is fun to listen to as it makes very good use of all the channels available in my system (7.2.4). Even though you may not prefer this kind of music it is a fun demo and its FREE!



Downloaded this, and just listened to it. I actually do like this kind of music, so plus for me! It really did sound excellent, like you said good use of all channels. Was unfamiliar with this artist until now, will have to investigate more, so thanks again for the recommendation. And you can't beat free.....


----------



## usc1995

Jonas2 said:


> Downloaded this, and just listened to it. I actually do like this kind of music, so plus for me! It really did sound excellent, like you said good use of all channels. Was unfamiliar with this artist until now, will have to investigate more, so thanks again for the recommendation. And you can't beat free.....




I am glad you liked it. I just finished Hans Zimmer Live in Prague and it left me wishing all my music was available in Atmos. Highly recommended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Trumpen

kbarnes701 said:


> I watched *Black Panther* As soon as the movie starts there is a nice deep bass bit and I thought to myself "oh that's good - the bass hasn't been emasculated" but unfortunately that was more or less it for bass. A few very small rumblings here and there, but no real oomph. For example, the gunshots were pathetic. They all sounded like toy guns. Compare and contrast with *John Wick* for example. It made the scenes in which there were gunfights very uninvolving and feeble. Then there is the car chase that comes in at around 1hr50m. Again, despite the on-screen action being entire vehicles crashing and flying through the air landing heavily and so on, the lack of involvement due to the lack of deep bass heft was shocking. Compare with the car race at the beginning of *Ready Player One* for example, or *John Wick* again. Or any of the _Fast_ movies. Or pretty much any movie with a car chase and crash sequence made in the last 20 years. Do they not understand that bass is required as an underpinning to this type of scene if the audience is to be properly involved or scared?
> 
> So overall, from an audio POV, a very disappointing result from Disney yet again. The lack of bass heft when needed really did spoil my enjoyment of the relevant scenes. It was compensated for somewhat by the lovely precision of the sound the rest of the time but my overall feeling at the end of the movie was 'could have done better'.


Is there a thread dedicated to discussing Disneys home video mixes? If not, I feel like one should be created to collect all evidence for subpar Disney releases in an effort to atleast better inform about the problem. I doubt Disney will give a damn, but the problem is pervasive and atleast an acknowledgement would be preferable to the complete silence so far. 

We aren't the only people fed up with this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...rs-and-marvel-soundtracks-wrong/#4308dc6bef64
(Though im pretty sure the writer is a member here)


----------



## gwsat

Trumpen said:


> Is there a thread dedicated to discussing Disneys home video mixes? If not, I feel like one should be created to collect all evidence for subpar Disney releases in an effort to atleast better inform about the problem. I doubt Disney will give a damn, but the problem is pervasive and atleast an acknowledgement would be preferable to the complete silence so far.
> 
> We aren't the only people fed up with this:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...rs-and-marvel-soundtracks-wrong/#4308dc6bef64
> (Though im pretty sure the writer is a member here)


Alas there is no need for a new thread to identify subpar Atmos audio on newly released UHD HDR disks of recent Disney films because they are all subpar.


----------



## d-rail34

Not sure what thread to ask this question, so I'm hoping someone here will have the answer...

I currently have a 7.2 AVR (running 5.1), and I have the opportunity to pick up an older 9.2 channel Marantz AVR (7009) at a really good price so that I can set up for Atmos (5.1.4), but this AVR is non-HDCP 2.2 compliant. 

My question/concern, is that I currently have a 1080p TV, and with most of the Atmos mixes being on 4k BluRay versions, would I be able to pass these through the Marantz since it will be downscaling to 1080p anyway?


Thanks,

Darrell

[EDIT] I posted this question in the "Official Marantz SR7009 Owner's Thread", but I'm not sure with it being an older thread that I'll get a response.


----------



## T-smith

usc1995 said:


> I am glad you liked it. I just finished Hans Zimmer Live in Prague and it left me wishing all my music was available in Atmos. Highly recommended.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




Completely agree, Hans Zimmer Live in Prague and Roger Waters the Wall are both fantastic Atmos tracks.

I typically listen to the 2 channel tracks when watching concerts but purchased these two discs mainly to try the Atmos tracks and was blown away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trumpen

gwsat said:


> Alas there is no need for a new thread to identify subpar Atmos audio on newly released UHD HDR disks of recent Disney films because they are all subpar.


It is always more productive to gather all evidence and experiences in one place, if you have the hope to change, or at the very least, inform and educate about a problem. A dedicated thread might attract more effort into providing hard evidence, that hopefully Disney can't continue to ignore.

But I'm a newbie and wouldn't know where to start, since I believe such a thread would need a proper primer as the first post, so I'm just throwing out the idea.


----------



## Goddard

Let's bring on the 4K + Atmos release of the entire _Lord of the Rings_ movies. Please.


----------



## stikle

Goddard said:


> Let's bring on the 4K + Atmos release of the entire _Lord of the Rings_ movies. Please.



Blasphemy, I know, but I'm guessing that they will most likely be in DTS:X as the Blurays were DTS-HD MA. I'd be happy having either.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Blasphemy, I know, but I'm guessing that they will most likely be in DTS:X as the Blurays were DTS-HD MA. I'd be happy having either.


 One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Warner has been using Dolby Atmos lately for their remixes (the Harry Potter titles seem to have been a one-off) and these are high enough profile titles to warrant a full scale, object based treatment. The other Hobbit films have Atmos tracks already. 



Now, it remains to be seen if they'll remix the full extended cuts or just the inferior theatrical cuts. I say inferior because there are essential story elements cut from most of the theatrical versions. Return of the King had an entire subsection of what happened to Saruman added back to the extended cut and without it, his arc makes no sense as he just disappears from the story.


----------



## deano86

d-rail34 said:


> Not sure what thread to ask this question, so I'm hoping someone here will have the answer...
> 
> I currently have a 7.2 AVR (running 5.1), and I have the opportunity to pick up an older 9.2 channel Marantz AVR (7009) at a really good price so that I can set up for Atmos (5.1.4), but this AVR is non-HDCP 2.2 compliant.
> 
> My question/concern, is that I currently have a 1080p TV, and with most of the Atmos mixes being on 4k BluRay versions, would I be able to pass these through the Marantz since it will be downscaling to 1080p anyway?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Darrell
> 
> [EDIT] I posted this question in the "Official Marantz SR7009 Owner's Thread", but I'm not sure with it being an older thread that I'll get a response.


Yes.. many people have older receivers and 1080p displays(especially projectors) with new 4K bluray players to get access to the Atmos soundtracks. I have a Denon 5200 and a Panasonic 1080p projector paired with a Sony 800 4k player....


----------



## Jish9

d-rail34 said:


> Not sure what thread to ask this question, so I'm hoping someone here will have the answer...
> 
> I currently have a 7.2 AVR (running 5.1), and I have the opportunity to pick up an older 9.2 channel Marantz AVR (7009) at a really good price so that I can set up for Atmos (5.1.4), but this AVR is non-HDCP 2.2 compliant.
> 
> My question/concern, is that I currently have a 1080p TV, and with most of the Atmos mixes being on 4k BluRay versions, would I be able to pass these through the Marantz since it will be downscaling to 1080p anyway?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Darrell
> 
> [EDIT] I posted this question in the "Official Marantz SR7009 Owner's Thread", but I'm not sure with it being an older thread that I'll get a response.


It really depends if you ever plan on upgrading to 4K or not. It also sounds like you will also be running 2 AVRs, so distributing the signal to the additional AVR also will need to be addressed.


----------



## Jish9

bobbino421 said:


> No I would be starting from scratch


I have had my B&W system through two theaters now and has just expanded over time. I am currently using nautilus 800 series for my mains, SCMs for surrounds, and HTM-1 center. If you are looking into them now, you need to consider the 700 series on up. The sound is head and shoulders above their 600 series and more in line with their 800 line without the cost.  I am not a fan of their subs however and would recommend more capable lines from other manufacturers. Keep in mind that they are not very efficient speakers and will require a good amount of amplification. Furthermore, choosing the right amp(s) will also have a great impact on their sound quality.


----------



## d-rail34

deano86 said:


> Yes.. many people have older receivers and 1080p displays(especially projectors) with new 4K bluray players to get access to the Atmos soundtracks. I have a Denon 5200 and a Panasonic 1080p projector paired with a Sony 800 4k player....


Thanks! That’s what I was hoping to hear.


----------



## d-rail34

Jish9 said:


> It really depends if you ever plan on upgrading to 4K or not. It also sounds like you will also be running 2 AVRs, so distributing the signal to the additional AVR also will need to be addressed.


I do plan on upgrading at some point. Just not right now. 

Once I’m able to set up for Atmos, my next move will be a DIY build for my front sound stage. Then, more than likely, some subs...and then I may think about upgrading to 4K. 

And no, I have no intention to run multiple AVR’s.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> Blasphemy, I know, but I'm guessing that they will most likely be in DTS:X as the Blurays were DTS-HD MA. I'd be happy having either.


??? Most blu-rays were released in DTS-HD MA. Doesn't stop them coming along later with an Atmos remix. The two things aren't really connected.


----------



## kbarnes701

Goddard said:


> Let's bring on the 4K + Atmos release of the entire _Lord of the Rings_ movies. Please.


I'm sure they would be huge sellers. I wonder if there are rights issues preventing it from happening? I'm still waiting in vain for a Blu-ray of *True Lies* for example - held up by rights issue squabbles as far as we know. But the* Lord of the Rings *trilogy absolutely cries out for a UHD + Atmos release!


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> One doesn't have anything to do with the other.





kbarnes701 said:


> Most blu-rays were released in DTS-HD MA.



Point taken. You are right, of course. Nevermind me.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm sure they would be huge sellers [a reissue of UHD HDR Atmos versions of _The Lord of the Rings_ trilogy]. I wonder if there are rights issues preventing it from happening? I'm still waiting in vain for a Blu-ray of *True Lies* for example - held up by rights issue squabbles as far as we know. But the* Lord of the Rings *trilogy absolutely cries out for a UHD + Atmos release!


Yeah, rights squabbles can cause delays in the reissue on disk of even the most deserving films. I have been waiting for thirty years for a Blu-ray release of Francis Ford Coppola's _Tucker: The Man and His Dreams_. It is finally happening later this month. Why the delay? You guessed it, arguments over its rights. spare us all from studio suits! Because the film was completely remastered by Coppola maybe we can dream of a UHD HDR Atmos release for it some day. Anyway, I am really looking forward to the BD release of this biopic about one of the most interesting men in automotive history.


----------



## gene4ht

Goddard said:


> Let's bring on the 4K + Atmos release of the entire _Lord of the Rings_ movies. Please.





kbarnes701 said:


> I'm sure they would be huge sellers. I wonder if there are rights issues preventing it from happening? I'm still waiting in vain for a Blu-ray of *True Lies* for example - held up by rights issue squabbles as far as we know. But the* Lord of the Rings *trilogy absolutely cries out for a UHD + Atmos release!


100% agree! I also have a place in my heart for all things sci-fi, space, and horror...i.e. Predator, Alien(s), etc.


----------



## Goddard

Film rights are a fickle thing, to say the least. Take the original _Star Wars_ trilogy for example. If I'm not mistaken, I believe George Lucas owns the rights to their distribution despite Disney owning the franchise now. Granted, anything can happen (like Carrie Fisher appearing in the upcoming Episode 9 after all) and we could see a 4K release, but it doesn't seem likely.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Goddard said:


> Film rights are a fickle thing, to say the least. Take the original _Star Wars_ trilogy for example. If I'm not mistaken, I believe George Lucas owns the rights to their distribution despite Disney owning the franchise now.


That would be Fox (now part of the acquisition by Disney) not Lucas. I'm not sure he retains any rights to Star Wars whatsoever (not even Lucasfilm) after selling to Disney.


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Alexander said:


> That would be Fox (now part of the acquisition by Disney) not Lucas. I'm not sure he retains any rights to Star Wars whatsoever (not even Lucasfilm) after selling to Disney.


You highlight the sort of problems that can arise when rights to a movie are so complicated. The rights on the score, for example, can be held by a different entity to the entire rest of the movie. Since the movie can't be distributed without the score, and since that can't easily be changed (unlike say the end credits design), if the score's rights owner refuses to co-operate for some reason, then the further distribution of the movie is on hold, maybe for ever. Even more complicated is the possibility that the rights owner of the score sold the company which owned the rights to another, along with the rights to this movie, and the new owner then went out of business with its various assets, including the rights to our movie here, broken up and sold to numerous other entities. Even finding out who actually owns the rights can then be fraught with problems, law suits and so on. 

And even with the best will in the world, things can still go wrong. For example, when I was working, I automatically assigned the rights of any content I had created to the client once the invoice had been paid in full. One time, I did this and some years later the client (an ex-client by now) came back to me with a problem over the rights on some content I had assigned. I had used, in my own content, the rights-protected content of someone else, with permission (a photographic image). That someone else had died and his estate was asking my ex-client for compensation for the content the ex-client was using or for the ex-client to 'cease and desist' from using the content. The ex-client came to me for clarification. I assured the client that all necessary permissions had been granted - problem was, we had moved offices twice since the original content was created and the records for that particular job had gotten lost somewhere, probably thrown out as 'no longer needed' by someone who didn't understand all the implications. 

Now in my assignation wording, I had taken care to protect myself by having a clause which said that I duly assigned all content created by me or my company along with the assurance that any additional rights (eg the image in this case) had been sought and obtained, but that in the event of a dispute on these third-party rights the client was to pursue any infringement issues at their own cost, although I would use my best endeavours to help etc etc. 

My work was about 1,000 times less complicated than the rights for a movie, with the hundreds of different entities involved, so it's easy to see how this can all escalate out of control.

Sorry for the OT - if anyone objects I will happily remove the post (or be happy for Mods to do so of course).


----------



## dfa973

G4n0nD0rf said:


> I've noticed something strange with my Marantz SR7010. The Atmos bitstream from my Xbox One is neither DD+ nor TrueHD . I'm assuming this is some uncompressed form of Atmos since there is not really a reason to compress even to TrueHD (for games), but I've never heard of this possibility before.


Yes, that would be Dolby MAT (Dolby Metadata-enhanced Audio Transmission), a kind of multi-channel PCM uncompressed format. Used by Xbox and Apple TV when Atmos is needed.



> A key benefit of Dolby MAT 2.0 is that Dolby Atmos object-based audio can be live encoded and transmitted from a source device with limited latency and processing complexity. Among the likely sources are broadcast set-top boxes and game consoles.


https://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles...er/dolby-atmos-for-sound-bar-applications.pdf


----------



## yepimonfire

Lesmor said:


> Interesting post
> can i conclude from what you say that for Dolby Atmos DEQ should be Off?
> 
> in my experience of checking with a SPL meter and the Dolby Atmos demo disc test tones my surrounds are always low
> DEQ On seems to sort that out with one click rather than having to balance each speaker individually


I don't like DEQ for several reasons, one it assumes 85dB is reference level. In a small room vs a cinema, 79-82dB should be considered reference and everyone in the film mixing industry will tell you that room size changes how we perceive volume and dynamic range. This is why most people listen below reference anyways at home, and when mixing for a cinema in a smaller room its common to calibrate for 79-82dB.

Secondly, I really don't know why the surrounds need boosted at all, that just changes the Soundstage balance, making it rear heavy, and with Atmos it screws with object placement. I have never boosted my surrounds for that reason. 

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## am2model3

i watched LOTR1-3 and Hobbit1-3 on blu ray using the upmix I think of DTSHD to NeuralX. they all sounded fantastic!


it will be great to see and hear these 6 films in 4k+atmos/DTSX when that happens. 



Until then; the blu rays are really good with upmixers! The Hobbit on my 4K UHD60 visually looked stunning! I was floored how amazing they look and they are just the blu rays!! absolutely incredible.


----------



## ahblaza

Hello all,
I'm new to Atmos and would like your thoughts on my plans......I built my speakers ((4) Volt 6s V2) with ported boxes and have mounts that swivel and tilt. I measured the angles (45 degrees) from where my head would be at the MLP, I marked a spot on ceiling straight up from head and measured the distance to the line or plane the front and rear top overhead speakers would be on. My results are: the fronts would be about 5' in front and 8' apart and the rears would be the same behind my head which I then can angle and position the overheads towards the LP. Does this sound like a reasonable plan, I haven't done anything yet just measure the angles and mark the speaker positions, thank you kindly for your time.

EDIT: My ear height is about 37" off the floor and ceiling height is 8' 5", the overheads distances apart puts them just inside the width of my mains and side surrounds......thanks again


Cheers Jeffrey


----------



## sdurani

ahblaza said:


> Does this sound like a reasonable plan


Placement sounds perfect. The only thing I would do is aim each speaker at the listener farthest away, so that the slight level boost on-axis can compensate for the distance.


----------



## Hopinater

ahblaza said:


> Hello all,
> I'm new to Atmos and would like your thoughts on my plans......I built my speakers ((4) Volt 6s V2) with ported boxes and have mounts that swivel and tilt. I measured the angles (45 degrees) from where my head would be at the MLP, I marked a spot on ceiling straight up from head and measured the distance to the line or plane the front and rear top overhead speakers would be on. My results are: the fronts would be about 5' in front and 8' apart and the rears would be the same behind my head which I then can angle and position the overheads towards the LP. Does this sound like a reasonable plan, I haven't done anything yet just measure the angles and mark the speaker positions, thank you kindly for your time.
> 
> EDIT: My ear height is about 37" off the floor and ceiling height is 8' 5", the overheads distances apart puts them just inside the width of my mains and side surrounds......thanks again
> 
> 
> Cheers Jeffrey


I'm glad you're finally moving forward with Atmos Jeffrey, you will not be disappointed. Your distances and measurements are very similar to what I have in my room and everything sounds great. I think you're right on track.


----------



## ahblaza

Hopinater said:


> I'm glad you're finally moving forward with Atmos Jeffrey, you will not be disappointed. Your distances and measurements are very similar to what I have in my room and everything sounds great. I think you're right on track.


Thanks Jim, I should have known you'd be in this thread, yeah it's about time I start moving forward, the Denon 4300 is still in the box and I've had the Volt 6s for almost a year now................


----------



## ahblaza

sdurani said:


> Placement sounds perfect. The only thing I would do is aim each speaker at the listener farthest away, so that the slight level boost on-axis can compensate for the distance.


Thanks, does it matter there is no other listener........???

Could you explain the slight level boost on-axis can compensate for the distance.....in other words the top fronts angle or toe in would fire in front of me and the same for rears or left speaker firing into left side of seating area and right firing into right side, sorry for the confusion.......


----------



## sdurani

ahblaza said:


> Thanks, does it matter there is no other listener........???


Well hell, in that case point all the speakers at your listening position. Speakers typically sound best (smoothest, clearest, flattest) on-axis.


> Could you explain the slight level boost on-axis can compensate for the distance.....


Speakers sound louder if they are closer to you. Speakers also sound louder when pointing at you. So if you aim a speaker at the listener farthest away, the louder on-axis sound they hear will make up for the fact that they are farther away. Meanwhile, the listener closest to the speaker will be hearing it off-axis, so the slightly lower level will compensate for the fact that the speaker is nearby. It's an old set-up trick called time-energy trading (time = distance, energy = level). Tends to even out the listening experience for all seats. Closest speaker doesn't end up overwhelming. Good example is the most recent AVS Home Theatre of the Month. Notice the front L/R speakers pointing at the opposite end of the front row.


----------



## Marc Alexander

HI @ahblaza! 

What AVR are you using? The X4300H or did you pickup something new?


----------



## kbarnes701

ahblaza said:


> Thanks, does it matter there is no other listener........???
> 
> Could you explain the slight level boost on-axis can compensate for the distance.....in other words the top fronts angle or toe in would fire in front of me and the same for rears or left speaker firing into left side of seating area and right firing into right side, sorry for the confusion.......


Sanjay is saying that if, for example, you had a row with 5 seats, aim the TFR speaker at the listener in the seat at the left end of the row and the TFL speaker at the listener in the seat at the right end of the row. Same for TRR and TRL. When the listener is directly on-axis to the speaker, there will be a slight level boost which will compensate for the fact that the listeners (in my example) are sitting further away from the relevant speakers. In your case, with only one listener to worry about, just aim them at your own seat.

IIRC the Volts have a very wide dispersion so the fact that the listener at MLP in my example wouldn't have a speaker aimed directly at him would be of less importance than ensuring that the listeners at the ends of the row had sufficient level. But as I say, for just one listener, aim them at MLP.

I really ought to read ahead to the end of the current posts before replying!  And Sanjay's reply includes a really good image too!


----------



## jtcountry

*New to Atmos; Unsure if it's working properly*

My apologies upfront, as I'm a novice when it comes to Dolby Atmos. I purchased a Pioneer Elite SC-LX502 as a way to upgrade my existing system. I was running a Denon AVR-S510BT with my Klipsch Quintet III's and Kipsch SUB-10. 

I wanted to try to be economical for the Atmos upgrade, so along with Pioneer Elite, I purchased a pair of Klipsch R-51-M Bookshelf Speakers, with the idea of replacing my front R & L speakers with those, and then using my old front R & L speakers as Atmos speakers for a 5.1.2 setup.

The Quintet III satellite speakers are able to be aimed upwards, as they're on a swivel base, so I have them on top of the bookshelf speakers aimed up at an angle towards the ceiling.

They're probably about a few feet from the ceiling, as the room is a fairly small square-shaped room with low ceilings. I configured them as the front R & L height channels and ran the Pioneer MAAC software.

I was underwhelmed with the Atmos effect, so I increased the channel volume level for both channels to the max after bumping it up already.

I'm not sure if something is wrong or if it's just the way it is, but I'm not blown away by effects coming overhead. I still get really great surround effects from my rear speakers, and the receiver and speakers audio quality is excellent in my opinion.

I've tried multiple movies in Dolby Atmos, both on disc and streaming through Vudu. The receiver definitely indicates that Atmos is playing, and I can hear sound from the height channel speakers.

I saw Best Buy had a pair of Klispch Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers, but they're $400.

Sorry for the long post, but I guess I'm looking for any advice on the situation. Will Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers make a difference, or was I expecting too much from the "upfiring" route. Ceiling speakers just aren't 'an option.

Thanks in advance for any help or advice.


----------



## sdurani

jtcountry said:


> I configured them as the front R & L height channels and ran the Pioneer MAAC software.


Atmos upfiring speakers have height virtualization built in, which your Quintet speakers are missing, so they're not going to give you the effect of sounds overhead the way Atmos upfiring speakers normally do. It's possible that the room correction in your Pioneer might add the virtualization notch, so try configuring them as Atmos Enabled Front speakers and re-running MCACC.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> My apologies upfront, as I'm a novice when it comes to Dolby Atmos. I purchased a Pioneer Elite SC-LX502 as a way to upgrade my existing system. I was running a Denon AVR-S510BT with my Klipsch Quintet III's and Kipsch SUB-10.
> 
> I wanted to try to be economical for the Atmos upgrade, so along with Pioneer Elite, I purchased a pair of Klipsch R-51-M Bookshelf Speakers, with the idea of replacing my front R & L speakers with those, and then using my old front R & L speakers as Atmos speakers for a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> The Quintet III satellite speakers are able to be aimed upwards, as they're on a swivel base, so I have them on top of the bookshelf speakers aimed up at an angle towards the ceiling.
> 
> They're probably about a few feet from the ceiling, as the room is a fairly small square-shaped room with low ceilings. I configured them as the front R & L height channels and ran the Pioneer MAAC software.
> 
> I was underwhelmed with the Atmos effect, so I increased the channel volume level for both channels to the max after bumping it up already.
> 
> I'm not sure if something is wrong or if it's just the way it is, but I'm not blown away by effects coming overhead. I still get really great surround effects from my rear speakers, and the receiver and speakers audio quality is excellent in my opinion.
> 
> I've tried multiple movies in Dolby Atmos, both on disc and streaming through Vudu. The receiver definitely indicates that Atmos is playing, and I can hear sound from the height channel speakers.
> 
> I saw Best Buy had a pair of Klispch Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers, but they're $400.
> 
> Sorry for the long post, but I guess I'm looking for any advice on the situation. Will Dolby Atmos-enabled speakers make a difference, or was I expecting too much from the "upfiring" route. Ceiling speakers just aren't 'an option.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help or advice.


In addition to Sanjay's good advice, I'd add that others have used non-Atmos-enabled-modules as upfiring speakers with varying degrees of success. IIRC @batpig (an experienced user with considerable setup knowledge) used some 'ordinary' speakers as upfiring modules for a while and reported acceptable/good results. So the concept is plausible, which would tend to indicate that there is a setup issue, or, as Sanjay says, you need to re-run your AVR room EQ, correctly designating the speakers as Atmos-enabled, to see if it re-introduces the height virtualisation 'notch' which Atmos-enabled upfirers have.

Once you've tried that, report back your findings and if the problem has not resolved itself, we can do further digging.

One thing is for sure - if you are not experiencing a very different sort of sound when Atmos is engaged, then something is definitely amiss.

An additional comment: be careful what movies you choose for the demos - a lot of the earlier Atmos movies have very little overhead content. You need to be sure that the movies you are using for demo purposes have plenty of overhead content. Can you tell us the titles of the movies you have used so far? Also, play a regular DTS-HD MA track using Dolby Surround Upscaler or DTS:Neural X upscaler and tell us how this sounds. On most movies you should hear a lot of overhead activity when using the upscaler.


----------



## jtcountry

sdurani said:


> Atmos upfiring speakers have height virtualization built in, which your Quintet speakers are missing, so they're not going to give you the effect of sounds overhead the way Atmos upfiring speakers normally do. It's possible that the room correction in your Pioneer might add the virtualization notch, so try configuring them as Atmos Enabled Front speakers and re-running MCACC.


I'll give that a try. Hopefully, the Pioneer Receiver lets me select them as Dolby Atmos Enabled. Thanks for the advice.

I didn't realize that Dolby Atmos speakers had height virtualization built it. I was thinking more along the lines that they were upfiring, so by aiming my speakers upward, they would also upfire and reflect.


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> In addition to Sanjay's good advice, I'd add that others have used non-Atmos-enabled-modules as upfiring speakers with varying degrees of success. IIRC @batpig (an experienced user with considerable setup knowledge) used some 'ordinary' speakers as upfiring modules for a while and reported acceptable/good results. So the concept is plausible, which would tend to indicate that there is a setup issue, or, as Sanjay says, you need to re-run your AVR room EQ, correctly designating the speakers as Atmos-enabled, to see if it re-introduces the height virtualisation 'notch' which Atmos-enabled upfirers have.
> 
> Once you've tried that, report back your findings and if the problem has not resolved itself, we can do further digging.
> 
> One thing is for sure - if you are not experiencing a very different sort of sound when Atmos is engaged, then something is definitely amiss.
> 
> An additional comment: be careful what movies you choose for the demos - a lot of the earlier Atmos movies have very little overhead content. You need to be sure that the movies you are using for demo purposes have plenty of overhead content. Can you tell us the titles of the movies you have used so far? Also, play a regular DTS-HD MA track using Dolby Surround Upscaler or DTS:Neural X upscaler and tell us how this sounds. On most movies you should hear a lot of overhead activity when using the upscaler.



Thank you so much for your help and advice. I'm going to give yours and Sanjay's advice a try when I get home this evening and report back.

I've tried out Marvel's the Avenger's 4K Blu Ray, which has possibly the best picture quality of any film that I've seen yet (it also helps that it's in the aspect ratio that fills the screen), Infinity War in 4K Blu Ray, and the Incredible Hulk 4K Blu Ray, which has DTS X. 

I've also tried some miscellaneous quick clips from some of my 4K movies on Vudu. I even tried a scene from Mission Impossible Rogue Nation in 4K Blu Ray that I read was supposed to be great for Atmos.

Lastly, I tested out some Dolby Atmos demos from the Dolby Access App on my LG B7.

Thanks again.


----------



## bryantc

Goddard said:


> Film rights are a fickle thing, to say the least. Take the original _Star Wars_ trilogy for example. If I'm not mistaken, I believe George Lucas owns the rights to their distribution despite Disney owning the franchise now. Granted, anything can happen (like Carrie Fisher appearing in the upcoming Episode 9 after all) and we could see a 4K release, but it doesn't seem likely.


 Lucas*film *owns the right to all the sequels and Fox owns the rights to the first movie. Disney now owns *both *of these companies. George Lucas himself doesn't own any of this anymore.




BTW just to stay on topic: I've had my Atmos setup for a few months now and its clear that the height channels are mostly used for *atmos*pheric sounds (fittingly enough ). I don't think I've ever been aware that a sound is coming directly from the heights. But I can contrast this with a few Atmos demos I have where I can definitely pinpoint the sounds coming from the heights. These demos are obviously designed to show off the heights.


Nothing wrong with this of course. Just my observation.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> I'll give that a try. Hopefully, the Pioneer Receiver lets me select them as Dolby Atmos Enabled. Thanks for the advice.


All Atmos AVRs will allow you to choose either physical overhead speakers or Atmos-enabled speakers. It is essential to have the correct designation.



jtcountry said:


> I didn't realize that Dolby Atmos speakers had height virtualization built it. I was thinking more along the lines that they were upfiring, so by aiming my speakers upward, they would also upfire and reflect.


That isn't quite correct. Atmos upfirers use a combination of a) directing and angling the speaker drivers towards a suitably reflective ceiling (which I assume you have?) and b) psychoacoustic signal processing. What this means is that Dolby has studied how the brain interprets sounds coming from above and then created signal processing which _modifies selected audio frequencies***_ to tie in to the brain's own processing of sound and reinforce the sense that the sound is coming from above you. This 'height virtualisation' is an important part of the upfiring speaker concept. 'Proper' Atmos-enabled speakers/modules have this signal processing built in but AVRs are also able to add it as a component of their EQ programs, so long as the AVR 'knows' the speakers are Atmos-enabled speakers. That is why it is important to designate them as such and re-run the room EQ (MCACC I believe in Pioneer units).

***Sanjay has helpfully uploaded a diagram which graphically shows this modification


----------



## sdurani

jtcountry said:


> I didn't realize that Dolby Atmos speakers had height virtualization built it.


Yup, this is what it looks like: 










When applied to sounds, it tricks our human hearing into thinking they're elevated above ear height.


> I was thinking more along the lines that they were upfiring, so by aiming my speakers upward, they would also upfire and reflect.


In my experience, the height virtualization processing plays a much bigger role in creating the height effect than aiming speakers at the ceiling does (as you've discovered).


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> Thank you so much for your help and advice. I'm going to give yours and Sanjay's advice a try when I get home this evening and report back.
> 
> I've tried out Marvel's the Avenger's 4K Blu Ray, which has possibly the best picture quality of any film that I've seen yet (it also helps that it's in the aspect ratio that fills the screen), Infinity War in 4K Blu Ray, and the Incredible Hulk 4K Blu Ray, which has DTS X.
> 
> I've also tried some miscellaneous quick clips from some of my 4K movies on Vudu. I even tried a scene from Mission Impossible Rogue Nation in 4K Blu Ray that I read was supposed to be great for Atmos.
> 
> Lastly, I tested out some Dolby Atmos demos from the Dolby Access App on my LG B7.
> 
> Thanks again.


You're welcome. WRT to the movies, bear in mind that even in a movie which makes very good use of Atmos, for much of the time the overhead speakers will be silent or almost so. Can you download the Dolby Atmos demo clips and try those? They are a 'known quantity' and as you'd expect, they feature heavy, pretty much continuous use of the overhead speakers.

Atmos upfirers give an excellent result when set up properly and are preferred by some/many experienced audio enthusiats to physical on-ceiling speakers as they give a more diffuse effect which can often more accurately reflect (no pun intended) the experience of a commercial cinema where the ceilings are invariably much higher than in our homes.


----------



## kbarnes701

bryantc said:


> BTW just to stay on topic: I've had my Atmos setup for a few months now and its clear that the height channels are mostly used for *atmos*pheric sounds (fittingly enough ). I don't think I've ever been aware that a sound is coming directly from the heights. But I can contrast this with a few Atmos demos I have where I can definitely pinpoint the sounds coming from the heights. These demos are obviously designed to show off the heights.
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with this of course. Just my observation.


It depends on the movie. If you have the 4K version of the original *Blade Runner* (which I can't recommend enough - it is like seeing the movie for the first time) you will hear a lot of very specific sounds coming from the overhead speakers, throughout much of the movie and starting right at the very beginning where various craft fly over the locations. Of the 125 or so Atmos movies I have in my collection there are quite a few that have this specific content ion the overheads, but *Blade Runner* is so terrific that it's worth singling out for comment IMO.


----------



## bryantc

kbarnes701 said:


> It depends on the movie. If you have the 4K version of the original *Blade Runner* (which I can't recommend enough - it is like seeing the movie for the first time) you will hear a lot of very specific sounds coming from the overhead speakers, throughout much of the movie and starting right at the very beginning where various craft fly over the locations. Of the 125 or so Atmos movies I have in my collection there are quite a few that have this specific content ion the overheads, but *Blade Runner* is so terrific that it's worth singling out for comment IMO.


I have it and I have heard many raves about the audio. Will hopefully get around to watching it soon.


----------



## kbarnes701

@jtcountry

Dolby Atmos demo trailers here:

https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/

And here:

https://www.demolandia.net/cinema/dolby-demo-trailers-hd.html

Be sure to get the lossless (TrueHD) versions.


----------



## kbarnes701

bryantc said:


> I have it and I have heard many raves about the audio. Will hopefully get around to watching it soon.


You are in for a very special treat. I have seen that movie numerous times but the UHD disc with Atmos sound is really like seeing it for the first time. I know that is an overworked cliché but in this case it is true. The PQ is astonishing and you will see things you never saw in the movie before and the audio, well it will blow you away from the very first seconds and thrill you all the way through the movie. When I first played it, I repeated the opening scenes over and over before I could tear myself away from them to watch the entire movie


----------



## Archerkit

@jtcountry - what's your seating position relative to the Atmos modules? I'm closer to the back wall, where the surrounds sit. I ended up moving the Atmos modules to the back, and it definitely improved my experience. Might be worth reading the last several pages of the https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1714010-dolby-atmos-upward-firing-module-speakers.html thread. 

I've found the "Audiosphere" demo to be quite good as it's pretty short and you can use the visual cues to indicate where the sound (should) be originating.


----------



## Josh Z

bryantc said:


> Lucas*film *owns the right to all the sequels and Fox owns the rights to the first movie. Disney now owns *both *of these companies. George Lucas himself doesn't own any of this anymore.


Fox only has distribution rights for the first six Star Wars movies (Eps I-III, V & VI through 2020, Ep IV in perpetutity). Copyright ownership of all movies in the franchise resides with Lucasfilm.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Fox only has distribution rights for the first six Star Wars movies (Eps I-III, V & VI through 2020, Ep IV in perpetutity). Copyright ownership of all movies in the franchise resides with Lucasfilm.


No wonder it can take for ever for a movie to get to disc. This is a classic example - Fox have in-perpetuity rights to distribute, but they can't press a single disc if Lucasfilm say no. So if Lucasfilm ever falls out with Fox, or is sold to a company that has some sort of beef with Fox, or is just a major competitor to it, the new owners of Lucasfilm can just say no, and Fox are screwed and we don't get discs. Who is behind all these IP and rights affairs? Lawyers of course. What happens when lawyers take control? Impossibly complex propositions, often with deliberate loopholes or vagaries, all designed to keep lawyers in business for ever. BTW, full disclosure: my wife is an IP Attorney.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So if Lucasfilm ever falls out with Fox, or is sold to a company that has some sort of beef with Fox, or is just a major competitor to it, the new owners of Lucasfilm can just say no, and Fox are screwed and we don't get discs.


Should be moot pretty soon as Lucasfilm's parent company, Disney, is buying Fox.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Should be moot pretty soon as Lucasfilm's parent company, Disney, is buying Fox.


LOL - see what I mean?  Although in this case the problem I hypothesised disappears, but it could just as easily be X buying Y as it is X buying Z etc.


----------



## ahblaza

Marc Alexander said:


> HI @ahblaza!
> 
> What AVR are you using? The X4300H or did you pickup something new?


I still have the second 4300 NIB, I never used the first one I bought (4300) and sold it shortly after purchase. I was considering purchasing a 4400 on sale soon but other than adding a bit more warranty I really don't see any advantage going with the 4400. I'll be using the 4300 primarily as a preamp/processor as I have all outboard amplification. How are you my friend?

Cheers Jeffrey


----------



## bryantc

Josh Z said:


> *Disney *only has distribution rights for the first six Star Wars movies (Eps I-III, V & VI through 2020, Ep IV in perpetutity). Copyright ownership of all movies in the franchise resides with *Disney*.


Fixed that for you


----------



## ahblaza

@sdurani @kbarnes701 Thanks guys for your response, I completely understand what your referring to now as I own wave guide speakers and have them setup just as you described, the three seat LP all share the sweet spot even though I'm the only listener, it works rather well for me even with my old ears......... Thanks again so much for all that you guys do here.....

http://libinst.com/PublicArticles/Setup of WG Speakers.pdf


Regards, Jeffrey


----------



## Josh Z

bryantc said:


> Fixed that for you


I believe ownership is officially with Lucasfilm, which is a subsidiary of Disney. If Disney were ever to sell Lucasfilm to another studio, Star Wars would presumably go with it. (Not that such a thing is ever likely to happen.)


----------



## JLevy1978

To add to the fun, turner has the broadcast rights for 1-6 through 2023, so disney cant put any of them on their streaming service which is hilarious


----------



## Kain

Which is more preferable: 7.1.6 or 9.1.4?


----------



## bryantc

Kain said:


> Which is more preferable: 7.1.6 or 9.1.4?


For a single row of seating? 9.1.4 by a mile.


----------



## awblackmon

Kain said:


> Which is more preferable: 7.1.6 or 9.1.4?


If you are having wides as part of the 9 speakers I would defiantly go with 9.1.4 Wides add so much to the sound field. The opening scene of Unbroken demonstrates this so well. The aircraft pans from front to back right. Having the front right wide really makes this pan so much better. The is no abrupt jump in the sound being left front channel to left side surround.


----------



## crtlove

I got a really weird question: I have a 5.1.2 setup with front heights but actually also front L/R are at the same level (basically all 4 of them sit on top of a bookshelf, 30-40cm from the ceiling). Fronts are inner and front heights are outer, currently. The center is just below my (75”) tv. Rears are in the rear corners at ears level. Sub is a flat model by Canton, on the floor under the tv. Currently (as in, for the last 9 years) I’m using toslink from the tv and upmixing everything to DSPL IIx “Movie”. 

Now I’m thinking of changing my AVR (current one, sony dg720, can’t even read DD+ from Netflix over a Chromecast) and I’m figuring out the whole Atmos thing. As far as I understand, I think I will have to forget about DSPL IIx (not even present in modern Denon AVRs) and instead upmix everything to Neural:X or the confusingly named Dolby Sorround. Or use real Atmos when available (I’d like to just leave my AVR in “Neural X” mode for everything, hope it can figure out when to leave real Atmos untouched).

So the question is, would Atmos/Neural be any good (or better than current PL IIx) with my messy wife-acceptance setup with speakers all over the place? Maybe the mic calibration thing will adjust for reflections and stuff slightly better? Should I invert fronts and front heights (inner vs outer)?

Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

crtlove said:


> I got a really weird question: I have a 5.1.2 setup with front heights but actually also front L/R are at the same level (basically all 4 of them sit on top of a bookshelf, 30-40cm from the ceiling). Fronts are inner and front heights are outer, currently. The center is just below my (75”) tv. Rears are in the rear corners at ears level. Sub is a flat model by Canton, on the floor under the tv. Currently (as in, for the last 9 years) I’m using toslink from the tv and upmixing everything to DSPL IIx “Movie”.
> 
> Now I’m thinking of changing my AVR (current one, sony dg720, can’t even read DD+ from Netflix over a Chromecast) and I’m figuring out the whole Atmos thing. As far as I understand, I think I will have to forget about DSPL IIx (not even present in modern Denon AVRs) and instead upmix everything to Neural:X or the confusingly named Dolby Sorround. Or use real Atmos when available (I’d like to just leave my AVR in “Neural X” mode for everything, hope it can figure out when to leave real Atmos untouched).
> 
> So the question is, would Atmos/Neural be any good (or better than current PL IIx) with my messy wife-acceptance setup with speakers all over the place? Maybe the mic calibration thing will adjust for reflections and stuff slightly better? Should I invert fronts and front heights (inner vs outer)?
> 
> Thanks



You need separation between the ground level speakers (l,c,r, rs,ls, bsr,bsl, LFE) and the overheads to differentiate between speaker layers for better immersive sound panning, so your front left and right main speakers must come down to ear level at the very least. Put them on stands or something... get a new wife if you have to. 


You then have to use Premium Certified HDMI cables from player to new receiver and receiver to display with receiver having Dolby Atmos and DTS: X decoding (and Dolby Vision and HLG pass-through via the HDMI ports). If you can swing it, get one with 7.1.4 decoding for some upgrade potential.


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> You're welcome. WRT to the movies, bear in mind that even in a movie which makes very good use of Atmos, for much of the time the overhead speakers will be silent or almost so. Can you download the Dolby Atmos demo clips and try those? They are a 'known quantity' and as you'd expect, they feature heavy, pretty much continuous use of the overhead speakers.
> 
> Atmos upfirers give an excellent result when set up properly and are preferred by some/many experienced audio enthusiats to physical on-ceiling speakers as they give a more diffuse effect which can often more accurately reflect (no pun intended) the experience of a commercial cinema where the ceilings are invariably much higher than in our homes.


 @kbarnes701, I was able to try out the adjustment that you suggested, where I have now configured the Klipsch Quintet III satellite speakers as Dolby Atmos speakers for my front R & L height channels.

I think it does sound better, but I'm still not completely blown away, as I thought I would be. I even tried the Dolby Atmos demo clips that were suggested. It kind of sounded like the rain was overhead, but I definitely am getting great surround sound effects.

Maybe I was expecting too much, or maybe I would have to actually purchase "Dolby Atmos" upfiring speakers for the full effect. I just don't know if I'm ready to drop the extra money to do so right now.

*However, I now seem to have an issue where the height channel speakers are creating an echo. I noticed it while watching content from the LG Web OS via ARC. For example, if I click or scroll through the Youtube app, the height channels are replicating the sound of the regular front channels, but about a 1 to 2 seconds later. I even noticed when pausing a Vudu video that was using Dolby Digital Plus, the last sound played as it's paused kind of echos through the height channels.*

I'm beginning to think, I may be better off just using the speakers for a 7.1 setup instead of a 5.1.2 Atmos setup. Thanks again for any feedback and advice, as I greatly appreciate the helpful advice already given in this thread.


----------



## crtlove

Dan Hitchman said:


> You need separation between the ground level speakers (l,c,r, rs,ls, bsr,bsl, LFE) and the overheads to differentiate between speaker layers for better immersive sound panning, so your front left and right main speakers must come down to ear level at the very least. Put them on stands or something... *get a new wife if you have to. * .



I see, thanks, I’ll look into stands.
Good to know about the cables.


----------



## Roger Dressler

JLevy1978 said:


> To add to the fun, turner has the broadcast rights for 1-6 through 2023, so disney cant put any of them on their streaming service which is hilarious


I would not be so sure unless one can see exactly what is conveyed in the contract's definition of broadcast rights. Streaming is not broadcast.


----------



## kbarnes701

crtlove said:


> I got a really weird question: I have a 5.1.2 setup with front heights but actually also front L/R are at the same level (basically all 4 of them sit on top of a bookshelf, 30-40cm from the ceiling). Fronts are inner and front heights are outer, currently. The center is just below my (75”) tv. Rears are in the rear corners at ears level. Sub is a flat model by Canton, on the floor under the tv. Currently (as in, for the last 9 years) I’m using toslink from the tv and upmixing everything to DSPL IIx “Movie”.
> 
> Now I’m thinking of changing my AVR (current one, sony dg720, can’t even read DD+ from Netflix over a Chromecast) and I’m figuring out the whole Atmos thing. As far as I understand, I think I will have to forget about DSPL IIx (not even present in modern Denon AVRs) and instead upmix everything to Neural:X or the confusingly named Dolby Sorround. Or use real Atmos when available (I’d like to just leave my AVR in “Neural X” mode for everything, hope it can figure out when to leave real Atmos untouched).
> 
> So the question is, would Atmos/Neural be any good (or better than current PL IIx) with my messy wife-acceptance setup with speakers all over the place? Maybe the mic calibration thing will adjust for reflections and stuff slightly better? Should I invert fronts and front heights (inner vs outer)?
> 
> Thanks


It won't work. See Dan's reply which I agree with other than one point - getting a new wife is an incredibly expensive upgrade (I speak from experience) and often it can make very little difference to sound or picture quality. So if you can, try to adapt your existing wife to the new setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> @kbarnes701, I was able to try out the adjustment that you suggested, where I have now configured the Klipsch Quintet III satellite speakers as Dolby Atmos speakers for my front R & L height channels.
> 
> I think it does sound better, but I'm still not completely blown away, as I thought I would be. I even tried the Dolby Atmos demo clips that were suggested. It kind of sounded like the rain was overhead, but I definitely am getting great surround sound effects.
> 
> Maybe I was expecting too much, or maybe I would have to actually purchase "Dolby Atmos" upfiring speakers for the full effect. I just don't know if I'm ready to drop the extra money to do so right now.


Upfirers will give a good Atmos effect but they do have to be set up properly and this can require some experimentation wrt to distances and angles. If you can, play around with the (Atmos) speaker positioning a bit and see if things improve. You may be right about needing the AE speakers - your AVR may not be implementing the required 'notch' very well, or maybe even not at all. As Sanjay has said, the notch seems to be more important than the actual upfiring speakers as far as creating the illusion of sound overhead is concerned.



jtcountry said:


> [MENTION=7916560]
> *However, I now seem to have an issue where the height channel speakers are creating an echo. I noticed it while watching content from the LG Web OS via ARC. For example, if I click or scroll through the Youtube app, the height channels are replicating the sound of the regular front channels, but about a 1 to 2 seconds later. I even noticed when pausing a Vudu video that was using Dolby Digital Plus, the last sound played as it's paused kind of echos through the height channels.*


That is very odd and something I haven't heard of before. Sorry, but I have no idea what could be causing that. Maybe some sort of setup issue or glitch in the AVR. When this sort of thing happens I generally suggest doing a full reset of the AVR (your owner manual or unit thread should tell you how) and then re-running the room EQ. Often this will sort out unexpected and unexplained issues. 



jtcountry said:


> [MENTION=7916560]
> I'm beginning to think, I may be better off just using the speakers for a 7.1 setup instead of a 5.1.2 Atmos setup. Thanks again for any feedback and advice, as I greatly appreciate the helpful advice already given in this thread.


Don't give up on Atmos unless you have to. It's the biggest single step forward in movie sound since discreet 5.1 audio and once you have it working, you will get really great additional pleasure from your movies.

You're very welcome for the advice from everyone who offers it - most of us learned whatever it is we know, from threads like this and other AVS members. It's a terrific resource.


----------



## petetherock

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm sure they would be huge sellers. I wonder if there are rights issues preventing it from happening? I'm still waiting in vain for a Blu-ray of *True Lies* for example - held up by rights issue squabbles as far as we know. But the* Lord of the Rings *trilogy absolutely cries out for a UHD + Atmos release!


Yes indeed, I’ve been waiting forever... for Pete’s sake... literally


----------



## Khaile

My side surrounds are at a 110 degree angle from the MLP (slightly behind me) in a 5.2.2 setup. If I were to go to 7.2.2, would my side surrounds have to be at 90 degrees? 

This is problematic as the boundaries of my HT room make the side surrounds at 90 degrees right next to the couch. Where they are no (slightly behind me) means I can get more distance between the speakers and the MLP

Most diagrams I’ve seen of 7.2.2 or 7.1.2 show the side surrounds at 90 degrees.


----------



## Selden Ball

Khaile said:


> My side surrounds are at a 110 degree angle from the MLP (slightly behind me) in a 5.2.2 setup. If I were to go to 7.2.2, would my side surrounds have to be at 90 degrees?
> 
> This is problematic as the boundaries of my HT room make the side surrounds at 90 degrees right next to the couch. Where they are no (slightly behind me) means I can get more distance between the speakers and the MLP
> 
> Most diagrams I’ve seen of 7.2.2 or 7.1.2 show the side surrounds at 90 degrees.


A problem with having the surrounds somewhat behind you is that that placement leaves a relatively large gap between them and the front main speakers (which is why many people like having Front Wide speakers, too). You might consider compromising by placing the Surrounds somewhat forward of the seating if that's possible.


----------



## Khaile

Selden Ball said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> My side surrounds are at a 110 degree angle from the MLP (slightly behind me) in a 5.2.2 setup. If I were to go to 7.2.2, would my side surrounds have to be at 90 degrees?
> 
> This is problematic as the boundaries of my HT room make the side surrounds at 90 degrees right next to the couch. Where they are no (slightly behind me) means I can get more distance between the speakers and the MLP
> 
> Most diagrams I’ve seen of 7.2.2 or 7.1.2 show the side surrounds at 90 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> A problem with having the surrounds somewhat behind you is that that placement leaves a relatively large gap between them and the front main speakers (which is why many people like having Front Wide speakers, too). You might consider compromising by placing the Surrounds somewhat forward of the seating if that's possible.
Click to expand...

I was told that having them slightly behind u in a 5.2.2 setup makes them sound like sounds coming from “behind” you, giving a more enveloping experience


----------



## Jonas2

Khaile said:


> I was told that having them slightly behind u in a 5.2.2 setup makes them sound like sounds coming from “behind” you, giving a more enveloping experience



I believe Selden was referring to that position in a 7.x.x set up. And yes, you're right I think in a 5.x.x arrangement, slightly behind is appropriate. But also as Selden suggested, if you can move the side surrounds forward of your position, that could work for you nicely. Mine at placed at roughly 80 degrees, and aimed at the opposite listener respectively, single row of listeners.


----------



## Chuck666

On one of the other forum, they have been posting their opinions of the top 5, which quickly became, top 10 LOL HDR movies with some comments about audio..

I'm having a problem with expectations? What is an excellent ATMOS sound track? Since, I have started late and now have a working 5.2.4 Onkyo setup; what should I expect. I have 7 Atmos demos; Amaze, Leaf, Shattered, Audiosphere, Conductor, Unfold and Silent. These sound very good to me; especially, Amaze. At -10dbs, it shakes my timbers. LOL. I have several new UHD BD discs and NONE sound even close to those mentioned above.

Lists, please. 

Mine would include | Mad Max |Jurassic World| ???? And Mad Max, the dialog was terrible for me........


----------



## Jonas2

Chuck666 said:


> On one of the other forum, they have been posting their opinions of the top 5, which quickly became, top 10 LOL HDR movies with some comments about audio..
> 
> I'm having a problem with expectations? What is an excellent ATMOS sound track? Since, I have started late and now have a working 5.2.4 Onkyo setup; what should I expect. I have 7 Atmos demos; Amaze, Leaf, Shattered, Audiosphere, Conductor, Unfold and Silent. These sound very good to me; especially, Amaze. At -10dbs, it shakes my timbers. LOL. I have several new UHD BD discs and NONE sound even close to those mentioned above.
> 
> Lists, please.
> 
> Mine would include | Mad Max |Jurassic World| ???? And Mad Max, the dialog was terrible for me........





Blade Runner 2049, Hacksaw Ridge.....


----------



## Mickey Mouse

Selden Ball said:


> A problem with having the surrounds somewhat behind you is that that placement leaves a relatively large gap between them and the front main speakers (which is why many people like having Front Wide speakers, too). You might consider compromising by placing the Surrounds somewhat forward of the seating if that's possible.


placing surround speakers in front of the seating place(s) is the worst thing you can do! At least from my experience and taste.
if you have a "gap" between the front and surround speakers, there's another problem, usually bad room acoustic and/or stereo setup. With a "nearly perfect" stereo system it is possible to "fill" the room up to the seating location and even beyond. Together with the surround speakers at 100 ... 120° there is a thorough sound stage fron front to back.

placing the surround speakers in front of the listening position simply destroys the whole sound stage and imagination!

effects which should appear fron behind are acoustically located from the front. The human hearing is pretty good in distinguishing between front and rear. Watching movies this was is really annoying.
due to a door right beside the couch i've tried moving the surround slightly in front, absolutely no go! (in a 7.2.4 setup)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chuck666 said:


> On one of the other forum, they have been posting their opinions of the top 5, which quickly became, top 10 LOL HDR movies with some comments about audio..
> 
> I'm having a problem with expectations? What is an excellent ATMOS sound track? Since, I have started late and now have a working 5.2.4 Onkyo setup; what should I expect. I have 7 Atmos demos; Amaze, Leaf, Shattered, Audiosphere, Conductor, Unfold and Silent. These sound very good to me; especially, Amaze. At -10dbs, it shakes my timbers. LOL. I have several new UHD BD discs and NONE sound even close to those mentioned above.
> 
> Lists, please.
> 
> Mine would include | Mad Max |Jurassic World| ???? And Mad Max, the dialog was terrible for me........



While the movies themselves were somewhat disappointments, another two would be *Ready Player One *and *A Quiet Place*. *Blade Runner 2049* and the possible upcoming *Gravity *on 4k UHD Blu-ray have superb Atmos tracks as well. The *original Blade* *Runner* on UHD Blu-ray has a solid remix. *Groundhog Day* and *A Few Good Men* on UHD Blu-ray make effective use of the immersive effect when called upon. Even *The Bridge on the River Kwai* from 1957 has a solid Atmos remix. *The Fifth Element*, *Jumanji* and* Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*.


----------



## hpnas

I'll be moving into my first house in the next 1-2 months (previously apartment living) and the previous owner had in-ceiling speakers all pre-wired but after some research I'm thinking it's not the optimal setup for Atmos. I have a 5.1 system today powered by a Denon X1200W. If I'm understanding correctly and want to utilize a 5.1.4 I would need to upgrade my receiver to a 4400H and re-adjust the in-ceiling speakers to be 2 in front and 2 in back. You can clearly see from the pic that all 3 are in front 

I've attached a pic of the layout for the front speakers, I can't recall but thinking maybe there is 1 or 2 (max) speakers in the rear that are not pictured. Based on that layout what do you recommend I do with regards to achieving the optimal Atmos setup? Have an A/V guy re-do the speaker setup?


----------



## Chuck666

Jonas2 said:


> Blade Runner 2049, Hacksaw Ridge.....


Thanks, I have BR2049. I'll replay that one and see what's it's like...........


----------



## BobDyl

hpnas said:


> I'll be moving into my first house in the next 1-2 months (previously apartment living) and the previous owner had in-ceiling speakers all pre-wired but after some research I'm thinking it's not the optimal setup for Atmos. I have a 5.1 system today powered by a Denon X1200W. If I'm understanding correctly and want to utilize a 5.1.4 I would need to upgrade my receiver to a 4400H and re-adjust the in-ceiling speakers to be 2 in front and 2 in back. You can clearly see from the pic that all 3 are in front
> 
> 
> 
> I've attached a pic of the layout for the front speakers, I can't recall but thinking maybe there is 1 or 2 (max) speakers in the rear that are not pictured. Based on that layout what do you recommend I do with regards to achieving the optimal Atmos setup? Have an A/V guy re-do the speaker setup?




Pretty sure those 3 in front on the ceiling are your main LCR speakers, probably angled to project towards the seating area.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chuck666 said:


> Thanks, I have BR2049. I'll replay that one and see what's it's like...........



You also need to replace the front upfiring speakers with real height or overhead speakers as well. Upfiring speakers just aren't that effective at conveying the Atmos immersion you're looking for.


----------



## hpnas

BobDyl said:


> Pretty sure those 3 in front on the ceiling are your main LCR speakers, probably angled to project towards the seating area.


So then don't need standard front and center speakers? How do Atmos speakers fit into the layout then?


----------



## Chuck666

Dan Hitchman said:


> You also need to replace the front upfiring speakers with real height or overhead speakers as well. Upfiring speakers just aren't that effective at conveying the Atmos immersion you're looking for.


Thanks, Dan.

The Onkyo 410's are Dolby Effect Height speakers and are mounted on top the the L and R fronts, 5.5 feet from ceiling? Seems that is correct usage?


----------



## kbarnes701

Khaile said:


> My side surrounds are at a 110 degree angle from the MLP (slightly behind me) in a 5.2.2 setup. If I were to go to 7.2.2, would my side surrounds have to be at 90 degrees?
> 
> This is problematic as the boundaries of my HT room make the side surrounds at 90 degrees right next to the couch. Where they are no (slightly behind me) means I can get more distance between the speakers and the MLP
> 
> Most diagrams I’ve seen of 7.2.2 or 7.1.2 show the side surrounds at 90 degrees.


Can you do 80 degrees? That would be better. In a 5.1 setup having the surrounds slightly behind you is good because it helps with all-round envelopment. But when you add rear surrounds for 7.1 you have physical speakers behind you so you don't need the side surrounds behind you as well. Moving the side surrounds to 80 degrees helps close the gap between the front LCR and the rear surrounds and should give you a better sense of seamless envelopment or immersion. Add in thr Atmos overhead speakers and you will be immersed in a 'dome' of sound - lovely.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> On one of the other forum, they have been posting their opinions of the top 5, which quickly became, top 10 LOL HDR movies with some comments about audio..
> 
> I'm having a problem with expectations? What is an excellent ATMOS sound track? Since, I have started late and now have a working 5.2.4 Onkyo setup; what should I expect. I have 7 Atmos demos; Amaze, Leaf, Shattered, Audiosphere, Conductor, Unfold and Silent. These sound very good to me; especially, Amaze. At -10dbs, it shakes my timbers. LOL. I have several new UHD BD discs and NONE sound even close to those mentioned above.
> 
> Lists, please.
> 
> Mine would include | Mad Max |Jurassic World| ???? And Mad Max, the dialog was terrible for me........


UHD disc of the original _*Blade Runner*. *Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them. Mad Max Fury Road. *_ Incidentally MMFR dialog is crystal clear. If you are having problems with it, it suggests a setup issue or an overly-reflective room that needs some acoustic treatments.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mickey Mouse said:


> placing surround speakers in front of the seating place(s) is the worst thing you can do! At least from my experience and taste.
> if you have a "gap" between the front and surround speakers, there's another problem, usually bad room acoustic and/or stereo setup. With a "nearly perfect" stereo system it is possible to "fill" the room up to the seating location and even beyond. Together with the surround speakers at 100 ... 120° there is a thorough sound stage fron front to back.
> 
> placing the surround speakers in front of the listening position simply destroys the whole sound stage and imagination!
> 
> effects which should appear fron behind are acoustically located from the front. The human hearing is pretty good in distinguishing between front and rear. Watching movies this was is really annoying.
> due to a door right beside the couch i've tried moving the surround slightly in front, absolutely no go! (in a 7.2.4 setup)


Pretty much all of that is the opposite of most people's findings. Also, placing the surrounds at 80 degrees is within ITU, Dolby and THX specs for a 7.1 system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chuck666 said:


> Thanks, Dan.
> 
> The Onkyo 410's are Dolby Effect Height speakers and are mounted on top the the L and R fronts, 5.5 feet from ceiling? Seems that is correct usage?



410's are upfirers and not very good ones at that. You need to place speakers high up near the ceiling/wall as heights or even better place in ceiling or on-ceiling speakers in Dolby's recommended locations. Upfiring bounce speakers were Dolby's attempts at selling Atmos to anyone. It's a virtual effect. Since you have real objects (well, not with Disney's Atmos tracks) panning around, you want physical speakers in physical locations creating the 3D atmosphere.


----------



## maxxbaba

*Great*



Dan Hitchman said:


> 410's are upfirers and not very good ones at that. You need to place speakers high up near the ceiling/wall as heights or even better place in ceiling or on-ceiling speakers in Dolby's recommended locations. Upfiring bounce speakers were Dolby's attempts at selling Atmos to anyone. It's a virtual effect. Since you have real objects (well, not with Disney's Atmos tracks) panning around, you want physical speakers in physical locations creating the 3D atmosphere.


nice suggesstion


----------



## Chuck666

Dan Hitchman said:


> 410's are upfirers and not very good ones at that. You need to place speakers high up near the ceiling/wall as heights or even better place in ceiling or on-ceiling speakers in Dolby's recommended locations. Upfiring bounce speakers were Dolby's attempts at selling Atmos to anyone. It's a virtual effect. Since you have real objects (well, not with Disney's Atmos tracks) panning around, you want physical speakers in physical locations creating the 3D atmosphere.


I have read several different views of upfiring speakers. It's a real controversy. The 410 can be wall mounted and I have two symmetrical locations that are 6 feet apart above my fronts that are 10 feet apart. Your opinion, please?

See attached.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

kbarnes701 said:


> Pretty much all of that is the opposite of most people's findings. Also, placing the surrounds at 80 degrees is within ITU, Dolby and THX specs for a 7.1 system.


do you rally mean "their own findings" or what people heard here and there in other posts or "specifications" like ITU, Dolby and THX which still believe in dipole speakers?
i have a pair of floor standing speakers (besides the 4 bass speakers each identical to the front Audio Physic Avanti III) and for testing a pair of T+A TCI S2 which can be switched between direct/bipole/dipole mode.

believe me (or not), everything below 100° is a catastrophe regardless which speaker or mode is used.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mickey Mouse said:


> do you rally mean "their own findings" or what people heard here and there in other posts or "specifications" like ITU, Dolby and THX which still believe in dipole speakers?
> i have a pair of floor standing speakers (besides the 4 bass speakers each identical to the front Audio Physic Avanti III) and for testing a pair of T+A TCI S2 which can be switched between direct/bipole/dipole mode.
> 
> believe me (or not), everything below 100° is a catastrophe regardless which speaker or mode is used.


No argument at all with what you find works best for you in your system. But for most who have tried it, including some of the most experienced, professionals in these threads, mounting the side surrounds slightly forward of MLP in a 7.1 system creates a greater sense of envelopment with no significant drawbacks. YMMV.


----------



## BobDyl

hpnas said:


> So then don't need standard front and center speakers? How do Atmos speakers fit into the layout then?


Firstly, congrats on moving into your first house, that's awesome. 

Given the clean look of the room and the fact that a 5.1 system is already installed, I think your best bet is to stay on the simple end of the spectrum and leverage what you have. Definitely get a professional to help out, might cost a little bit up front but the end result should be really good. If it was me, I'd do something along these lines, but YMMIV:
1. Get a great TV. Lot of research to be done on the forum but an OLED or an LED with full array dimming (FALD). I can't tell what size is there now, but maybe a 65? It looks like the right size given the fireplace so stick with whatever size you've got there.
2. Evaluate the existing in ceiling speakers and potentially replace with something better (Sonance for example but there are lots of quality in ceiling speakers).
3. Get a good receiver. The Denon 4400H would be just fine for this setup.
4. Decide if you want Atmos and whether you want a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup. Hard to tell from your photo but given that fan, 5.1.2 is a legit option for you. I'm not sure you need Atmos in this room but it would be kind of fun. You need to evaluate if you can get up there and install more in ceiling speakers without ripping out a bunch of drywall. If it looks expensive to do, I'd skip it. In terms of optimal placement, search on the forums and on Dolby's site.
5. Sit back and enjoy!

Best of luck...


----------



## Chuck666

kbarnes701 said:


> UHD disc of the original _*Blade Runner*. *Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them. Mad Max Fury Road. *_ Incidentally MMFR dialog is crystal clear. If you are having problems with it, it suggests a setup issue or an overly-reflective room that needs some acoustic treatments.


MMFR?????

Here's my HT.. Below I used AccuEQ from Onkyo for room correction.

LOL, I mostly have problems with "foreign accents" like you Brits.. Fury Road was very bad for me..


----------



## thetman

Chuck666 said:


> On one of the other forum, they have been posting their opinions of the top 5, which quickly became, top 10 LOL HDR movies with some comments about audio..
> 
> I'm having a problem with expectations? What is an excellent ATMOS sound track? Since, I have started late and now have a working 5.2.4 Onkyo setup; what should I expect. I have 7 Atmos demos; Amaze, Leaf, Shattered, Audiosphere, Conductor, Unfold and Silent. These sound very good to me; especially, Amaze. At -10dbs, it shakes my timbers. LOL. I have several new UHD BD discs and NONE sound even close to those mentioned above.
> 
> Lists, please.
> 
> Mine would include | Mad Max |Jurassic World| ???? And Mad Max, the dialog was terrible for me........


Fury, bladerunner 2049, hurricane heist ( not the best movie but overheads are constantly in action). A quiet place, gravity, pacific Rim, BvsS.
I have to agree- those demo Atmos tracks are unbelievably good. the panning around the room is nothing I have quite experienced in any movie so far. Gravity does have a lot of vocal panning.


----------



## coneslayer

markus767 said:


> Atmos test tones download (E-AC3 audio in .mp4 container):
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


For some reason, Dolby is no longer linking to the test tones from that page (just the "Leaf" and "Amaze" trailers). These direct links to the MP4s are still working for me:

http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_5_1_2.mp4
http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_5_1_4.mp4
http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_7_1_2.mp4
http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_7_1_4.mp4
http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_9_1_6.mp4


----------



## hpnas

BobDyl said:


> Firstly, congrats on moving into your first house, that's awesome.
> 
> Given the clean look of the room and the fact that a 5.1 system is already installed, I think your best bet is to stay on the simple end of the spectrum and leverage what you have. Definitely get a professional to help out, might cost a little bit up front but the end result should be really good. If it was me, I'd do something along these lines, but YMMIV:
> 1. Get a great TV. Lot of research to be done on the forum but an OLED or an LED with full array dimming (FALD). I can't tell what size is there now, but maybe a 65? It looks like the right size given the fireplace so stick with whatever size you've got there.
> 2. Evaluate the existing in ceiling speakers and potentially replace with something better (Sonance for example but there are lots of quality in ceiling speakers).
> 3. Get a good receiver. The Denon 4400H would be just fine for this setup.
> 4. Decide if you want Atmos and whether you want a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup. Hard to tell from your photo but given that fan, 5.1.2 is a legit option for you. I'm not sure you need Atmos in this room but it would be kind of fun. You need to evaluate if you can get up there and install more in ceiling speakers without ripping out a bunch of drywall. If it looks expensive to do, I'd skip it. In terms of optimal placement, search on the forums and on Dolby's site.
> 5. Sit back and enjoy!
> 
> Best of luck...


Awesome direction, thanks. Few comments in order

1. Agree, I'm eyeballing the Samsung QN75Q9FN, the TV up there is a 70" so should be able to fit a 75"
2. Also agree, going to find out from current homeowner what speakers are in there and replace them if necessary
3. Also agree, going to upgrade my X1200W for a 4400H and move the X1200W upstairs as the master bedroom is wired as well
4. I definitely want Atmos and this is where my question comes in....if I decide to do 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 do I use floor standing fronts, proper standard and surrounds and then use the ceiling speakers for the .2 or .4 in the set up or do my 5 speakers in the ceiling serve as the 5 and then add 2 or 4 more for the .2 or .4???
5. Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck666 said:


> MMFR?????


*Mad Max Fury Road* 

Here's my HT.. Below I used AccuEQ from Onkyo for room correction.



Chuck666 said:


> LOL, I mostly have problems with "foreign accents" like you Brits.. Fury Road was very bad for me..


Ah right. So you're not into movies set in Scotland then I am guessing


----------



## BobDyl

hpnas said:


> Awesome direction, thanks. Few comments in order
> 
> 1. Agree, I'm eyeballing the Samsung QN75Q9FN, the TV up there is a 70" so should be able to fit a 75"
> 2. Also agree, going to find out from current homeowner what speakers are in there and replace them if necessary
> 3. Also agree, going to upgrade my X1200W for a 4400H and move the X1200W upstairs as the master bedroom is wired as well
> 4. I definitely want Atmos and this is where my question comes in....if I decide to do 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 do I use floor standing fronts, proper standard and surrounds and then use the ceiling speakers for the .2 or .4 in the set up or do my 5 speakers in the ceiling serve as the 5 and then add 2 or 4 more for the .2 or .4???
> 5. Thanks!


- 75 would be awesome. Also look for a Sony 940E if you can find one.
- I would leave the current 5.1 system in there as is and then add either 2 or 4 ceiling speakers to get atmos. You could definitely do a million different things here, including floor standers, etc. But for this kind of multi-purpose room it's very nice to have less obtrusive speakers. Only you can answer / decide how you want to do this... the only issue is that you can't use the current in ceiling speakers for Atmos they are too far forward of the seating position....


----------



## hpnas

BobDyl said:


> - 75 would be awesome. Also look for a Sony 940E if you can find one.
> - I would leave the current 5.1 system in there as is and then add either 2 or 4 ceiling speakers to get atmos. You could definitely do a million different things here, including floor standers, etc. But for this kind of multi-purpose room it's very nice to have less obtrusive speakers. Only you can answer / decide how you want to do this... the only issue is that you can't use the current in ceiling speakers for Atmos they are too far forward of the seating position....


Ok cool, starting to get there with ideas. Are there any issues with not having a center speaker for dialogue but rather it coming out of the ceiling above the TV? I think there are two behind the couch but not positive so perhaps maybe add just 4 more slightly in front of / behind the couch to complete the .4 in the equation


----------



## Chuck666

kbarnes701 said:


> *Mad Max Fury Road*
> 
> Here's my HT.. Below I used AccuEQ from Onkyo for room correction.
> 
> Ah right. So you're not into movies set in Scotland then I am guessing


LOL.... MMFR DUH......

Wasn't Bravehart there, LOL

Any thoughts on my HT pics from above????


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chuck666 said:


> MMFR?????
> 
> Here's my HT.. Below I used AccuEQ from Onkyo for room correction.
> 
> LOL, I mostly have problems with "foreign accents" like you Brits.. Fury Road was very bad for me..



Get another pair of Klipsch R-14SA and put them up in the places you marked on the front wall near the ceiling (I would have recommended SVS Prime Elevations, but you already had a back set of R-14SA's). Set your receiver to front and rear heights. Those Onkyo modules are wimpy when it comes to frequency response. Objects can be full frequency and the better the bass response, the better the immersive experience. Yeah, there's always bass management, but that only gets you so far and then you end up with a gap in the frequency range reproduction if the speakers have to have a high crossover setting. Subwoofers don't always have solid mid bass reproduction up to a certain range.


MMFR = Mad Max: Fury Road


----------



## BobDyl

hpnas said:


> Ok cool, starting to get there with ideas. Are there any issues with not having a center speaker for dialogue but rather it coming out of the ceiling above the TV? I think there are two behind the couch but not positive so perhaps maybe add just 4 more slightly in front of / behind the couch to complete the .4 in the equation



Proper angled in ceiling speakers for LCRs are just fine. Had a similar setup for several years... All depends on priorities. I would also put good surrounds ahead of height speakers, priority wise.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

kbarnes701 said:


> No argument at all with what you find works best for you in your system. But for most who have tried it, including some of the most experienced, professionals in these threads, mounting the side surrounds slightly forward of MLP in a 7.1 system creates a greater sense of envelopment with no significant drawbacks. YMMV.


no offense
but again: are you talking about personal experiences and do you believe most other people do the same or did you "hear about it"?

started in the early 90's with a Sony TA-E1000ESD AV pre-amp, to TA-E9000ES (with virtual multi surround DSP features), Yamaha AX-1, Z-11, CX-A500 and CX-A5100 now, compared with a Marantz 7009 for Auro3D and testing front-wide speakers, i'm considering myself as quite experienced as well.

from my point of view the main question is: what do you define as "greater sense of envelopment" and especially is "greater" better than "more precise", THAT'S the point!

in my opinion it's highly disturbing when sound effects definitely belonging to the back side are locatable from the front!
and this is more or less independent of the room situation. What comes from front comes from front, what comes from behind comes from behind and the "border" is pretty clear, except you are using tricks like dipole speakers, which make it worse...

the point is: we are talking about Atmos sound here! Which means 3D sound effects in the room!
if the base 5/7.1 system is not even able to clearly(!) separate effects from front and back it is pretty worthless to set up an 3D layer on top of that, i'm pretty sure of that!


----------



## kbarnes701

Mickey Mouse said:


> no offense
> but again: are you talking about personal experiences and do you believe most other people do the same or did you "hear about it"?
> 
> started in the early 90's with a Sony TA-E1000ESD AV pre-amp, to TA-E9000ES (with virtual multi surround DSP features), Yamaha AX-1, Z-11, CX-A500 and CX-A5100 now, compared with a Marantz 7009 for Auro3D and testing front-wide speakers, i'm considering myself as quite experienced as well.
> 
> from my point of view the main question is: what do you define as "greater sense of envelopment" and especially is "greater" better than "more precise", THAT'S the point!
> 
> in my opinion it's highly disturbing when sound effects definitely belonging to the back side are locatable from the front!
> and this is more or less independent of the room situation. What comes from front comes from front, what comes from behind comes from behind and the "border" is pretty clear, except you are using tricks like dipole speakers, which make it worse...
> 
> the point is: we are talking about Atmos sound here! Which means 3D sound effects in the room!
> if the base 5/7.1 system is not even able to clearly(!) separate effects from front and back it is pretty worthless to set up an 3D layer on top of that, i'm pretty sure of that!


I am sure that your system in your room is exactly the way you describe it. Enjoy!


----------



## Jonas2

hpnas said:


> So then don't need standard front and center speakers? How do Atmos speakers fit into the layout then?





hpnas said:


> 4. I definitely want Atmos and this is where my question comes in....if I decide to do 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 do I use floor standing fronts, proper standard and surrounds and then use the ceiling speakers for the .2 or .4 in the set up or do my 5 speakers in the ceiling serve as the 5 and then add 2 or 4 more for the .2 or .4???


Yes, you do. Ideally, you have separation between the traditional 5/7.1 layer and the height speakers if you want the proper implementation of Atmos to the maximum of its potential. Visit the Dolby site and look at the speaker configs. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the one config. you do not see is in-ceiling 5/7.1 and height speakers togetehr. If this was acceptable, would Dolby not make mention of this? No. they recommend against it. Does that mean it can't or won't work? Not necessarily, but it will not be what it could be otherwise. 

You could perhaps repurpose the in-ceilings you have, but they'd need to be properly relocated. Depending on those other 2 rear speakers, they may or may not be adequately placed for rear Atmos would need to see them/diagram of your space. But just look at the Dolby implementations on their site, and you'll know. 



Chuck666 said:


> The Onkyo 410's are Dolby Effect Height speakers and are mounted on top the the L and R fronts, 5.5 feet from ceiling? Seems that is correct usage?


Correct usage, yes. But is the set up correct? Even if so, the reviews seem mixed, with the majority seemingly finding the bounce method of Atmos to simply not hold up to in/on-ceiling speakers method. But if that's all you can do, that's all you can do! Just endure everything is properly angled and receive set up properly including the distance that should take the bounce into account which the receiver probably can't do. Not an Onkyo person, so don't know.



kbarnes701 said:


> Pretty much all of that is the opposite of most people's findings. Also, placing the surrounds at 80 degrees is within ITU, Dolby and THX specs for a 7.1 system.


Exactly what I have found and done. At roughly 80 degrees. Sounds really do seem to be placed properly and I have no perceivable dead space between sides and rears. Moved them from approx. 100-110 when I had 5.1 to the new 80 for 7.1. Quite pleased. 



Mickey Mouse said:


> do you rally mean "their own findings" or what people heard here and there in other posts or "specifications" like ITU, Dolby and THX which still believe in dipole speakers?


Don't know about ITU or THX, but Dolby does not recommend use of dipoles in at least an Atmos implementation.


----------



## kbarnes701

kbarnes701 said:


> Pretty much all of that is the opposite of most people's findings. Also, placing the surrounds at 80 degrees is within ITU, Dolby and THX specs for a 7.1 system.





Jonas2 said:


> Exactly what I have found and done. At roughly 80 degrees. Sounds really do seem to be placed properly and I have no perceivable dead space between sides and rears. Moved them from approx. 100-110 when I had 5.1 to the new 80 for 7.1. Quite pleased.


Most find the same as you do with a 7.1 system. 




Jonas2 said:


> Don't know about ITU or THX, but Dolby does not recommend use of dipoles in at least an Atmos implementation.


Indeed they do not.


----------



## Roger Dressler

hpnas said:


> 2. Also agree, going to find out from current homeowner what speakers are in there and replace them if necessary


Do that on the basis of how they sound after you have the new AVR installed and EQ'd. They might sound fine, especially as...



> I definitely want Atmos and this is where my question comes in....if I decide to do 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 do I use floor standing fronts, proper standard and surrounds and then use the ceiling speakers for the .2 or .4 in the set up or do my 5 speakers in the ceiling serve as the 5 and then add 2 or 4 more for the .2 or .4???!


If you want Atmos, you've already got the hardest part of the install done -- the ceiling speakers -- particularly if there's 5 of them up there. In that case, I'd suggest driving the 4 "corner" speakers as the 4 heights. Leave the top center silent for the moment. 

For the main speakers, you have aesthetic issues to decide -- floor standers or in-walls, or a combination of them, for 4 of the 5 mains (L/R/Ls/Rs). 

The center speaker is the most challenging. You already have the one in the ceiling -- so it's free to use it that way and see if you like it. If so, good. 

If you do not like the Center up there, could try a sound bar beneath the TV on top of the mantel. In fact, there are soundbars to match any screen size, so could use a 3-speaker bar to cover L/C/R. 

You do not have to make all these decisions right away. Just wanted to give some additional ideas.


----------



## hpnas

Roger Dressler said:


> Do that on the basis of how they sound after you have the new AVR installed and EQ'd. They might sound fine, especially as...
> 
> If you want Atmos, you've already got the hardest part of the install done -- the ceiling speakers -- particularly if there's 5 of them up there. In that case, I'd suggest driving the 4 "corner" speakers as the 4 heights. Leave the top center silent for the moment.
> 
> For the main speakers, you have aesthetic issues to decide -- floor standers or in-walls, or a combination of them, for 4 of the 5 mains (L/R/Ls/Rs).
> 
> The center speaker is the most challenging. You already have the one in the ceiling -- so it's free to use it that way and see if you like it. If so, good.
> 
> If you do not like the Center up there, could try a sound bar beneath the TV on top of the mantel. In fact, there are soundbars to match any screen size, so could use a 3-speaker bar to cover L/C/R.
> 
> You do not have to make all these decisions right away. Just wanted to give some additional ideas.


Thanks, lot of ideas floating around in my head. I think I ultimately need to get an AV guy come and give me some advice on best way to get the optimal set up


----------



## dareelest1

VideoGrabber said:


> Thanks for your observation.
> 
> 
> 
> Hang on... 3...2...1...
> 
> 
> 
> :frown:


thanks! Ive got to try it when i get home.


----------



## dareelest1

Trumpen said:


> Is there a thread dedicated to discussing Disneys home video mixes? If not, I feel like one should be created to collect all evidence for subpar Disney releases in an effort to atleast better inform about the problem. I doubt Disney will give a damn, but the problem is pervasive and atleast an acknowledgement would be preferable to the complete silence so far.
> 
> We aren't the only people fed up with this:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...rs-and-marvel-soundtracks-wrong/#4308dc6bef64
> (Though im pretty sure the writer is a member here)


somebody has a petition online with about 10k signatures, including mine, about this very topic to disney. I'm at the point of almost not buying anymore MCU movies for this very reason, even though they are the best acton moviess, the mixes all leave something to be desired. Thor the dark world maybe being the only exception.


----------



## dareelest1

stikle said:


> Blasphemy, I know, but I'm guessing that they will most likely be in DTS:X as the Blurays were DTS-HD MA. I'd be happy having either.


Lord of the rings is warner bros. right now only universal is really using dts x, everyone else is on the atmos train.


----------



## dareelest1

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> I ought to mention Atmos in the review above I guess, since we are in an Atmos thread. But I did in fact. For me, Atmos is as much about this hugely increased _precision of placement of sound in a three dimensional sound stage_ as it is about overhead effects, and I mentioned how much I enjoyed this precision throughout the movie (spoiled only when the scene called for some bass oomph which was sorely lacking). HST, there was some good use of the overhead speakers but for much of the running time the movie content didn't really lend itself to aggressive overhead effects. I think sometimes we concentrate so much on Atmos's overhead effects that we lose sight of the many other benefits of an Atmos mix.


Does anyone know if atmos triangulates the position of ojects with multiple simultaneous speaker output to precisely place objects? And is this something that could not be done in channel based audio only? Is seems that sound emanates from places where no speaker is present when watching atmos, so i was wonndering if any of you guys knew. Thanks in advance.


----------



## sdurani

dareelest1 said:


> Does anyone know if atmos triangulates the position of ojects with multiple simultaneous speaker output to precisely place objects?


That's all Atmos does with objects: calculate how much of the sound goes to which speakers to get the sound to image at its intended location.


> And is this something that could not be done in channel based audio only?


Routinely done with channels: place the same sound in more than one channel and it will image in between.


> Is seems that sound emanates from places where no speaker is present when watching atmos, so i was wonndering if any of you guys knew.


Sound emanating from places where no speaker is present has been happening since stereo was invented in the 1930s. Phantom imaging didn't start with Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dareelest1 said:


> somebody has a petition online with about 10k signatures, including mine, about this very topic to disney. I'm at the point of almost not buying anymore MCU movies for this very reason, *even though they are the best action movies*, the mixes all leave something to be desired. Thor the dark world maybe being the only exception.



That's _highly _debatable. 


Have you ever seen Predator? Lethal Weapon 1 & 2? Die Hard? Aliens? Ronin? Etc. They mop the floor with any modern Marvel superhero film.


----------



## Josh Z

Mickey Mouse said:


> in my opinion it's highly disturbing when sound effects definitely belonging to the back side are locatable from the front!
> and this is more or less independent of the room situation. What comes from front comes from front, what comes from behind comes from behind and the "border" is pretty clear, except you are using tricks like dipole speakers, which make it worse...
> 
> the point is: we are talking about Atmos sound here! Which means 3D sound effects in the room!
> if the base 5/7.1 system is not even able to clearly(!) separate effects from front and back it is pretty worthless to set up an 3D layer on top of that, i'm pretty sure of that!


Go to any professional cinema and look at where the surround speakers are. You'll see an array of them lining both side walls, from the front of the theater to the back. The surround speakers are never exclusively in the back of the auditorium. 

In a home theater set up for 7.1 on the ground level, the Surround Back speakers are meant to produce the sounds coming from behind you. The left and right Surrounds should not be behind you, but rather (ideally) at 90 degrees to the sides. If both the Surrounds and Surround Backs are behind your seating position, you lose separation between those parts of the soundstage. 

The Surround speakers should only be moved behind you in the case of a 5.1 layout, not 7.1.

In 7.1, moving the Surround speakers slightly forward to 80-degrees is within recommended guidelines and does not harm the separation from Front to Surround. Sounds that are meant to come from behind you will either come from the Surround Back speakers or will image between the Surrounds and Surround Backs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Go to any professional cinema and look at where the surround speakers are. You'll see an array of them lining both side walls, from the front of the theater to the back. The surround speakers are never exclusively in the back of the auditorium.
> 
> In a home theater set up for 7.1 on the ground level, the Surround Back speakers are meant produce sounds coming from behind you. The left and right Surrounds should not be behind you, but rather (ideally) at 90 degrees to the sides. If both the Surrounds and Surround Backs are behind your seating position, you lose separation between those parts of the soundstage.
> 
> The Surround speakers should only be moved behind you in the case of a 5.1 layout, not 7.1.
> 
> In 7.1, moving the Surround speakers slightly forward to 80-degrees is within recommended guidelines and does not harm the separation from Front to Surround. Sounds that are meant to come from behind you will either come from the Surround Back speakers or will image between the Surrounds and Surround Backs.


Well put. And if the surrounds are at 80 degrees, they help close the biggest 'gap' between sets of speakers, which is usually that between the main LCR set and the surrounds. IME this can help with the sense of immersion and envelopment.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

dareelest1 said:


> Does anyone know if atmos triangulates the position of ojects with multiple simultaneous speaker output to precisely place objects? And is this something that could not be done in channel based audio only? Is seems that sound emanates from places where no speaker is present when watching atmos, so i was wonndering if any of you guys knew. Thanks in advance.


unfortunately it doesn't, though a lot of people believe so (or want to believe it).

first of all: [email protected] is very different to [email protected]!!!
for home it needs to be backward compatible to previous standards, especially the distribution on top of Dolby Digital Plus or True-HD. For professional use it comes as part of the DCP (digital cinema package) which is a completely different beast and can't be compared with the Atmos track on a BD. Again, some people don't want to believe and deny it.

the nice thing is, Dolby delivers the proof for the "not really object oriented approach" them self: the helicopter demo!
- with a 4 top speaker layout the helicopter circles right below the ceiling around you. Assumed you have top speakers in front and back of your MLP. If you have the rear top right above you, it's not circling "around" anymore but just in front of you.
- without Atmos at all, the helicopter circles around you, at ear level and not the ceiling
- but what happens if you have "just" two top front speakers? Everybody would expect the helicopter would circle as well, high in the front part and lower in the back half, which would be the logical compromise between "full Atmos" (4 top) and no Atmos at all.
But the reality is different: Atmos uses the two top speakers only and the helicopter moves from side to side without any for or back movement at all!
do you have top front it's happening in front of you, with top middle above and top rear behind you. That should be object based?
in a real object based system, the other speakers would be involved as well, that's not the case with Atmos.


----------



## Josh Z

Mickey Mouse said:


> the nice thing is, Dolby delivers the proof for the "not really object oriented approach" them self: the helicopter demo!
> - with a 4 top speaker layout the helicopter circles right below the ceiling around you. Assumed you have top speakers in front and back of your MLP. If you have the rear top right above you, it's not circling "around" anymore but just in front of you.
> - without Atmos at all, the helicopter circles around you, at ear level and not the ceiling
> - but what happens if you have "just" two top front speakers? Everybody would expect the helicopter would circle as well, high in the front part and lower in the back half, which would be the logical compromise between "full Atmos" (4 top) and no Atmos at all.
> But the reality is different: Atmos uses the two top speakers only and the helicopter moves from side to side without any for or back movement at all!
> do you have top front it's happening in front of you, with top middle above and top rear behind you. That should be object based?
> in a real object based system, the other speakers would be involved as well, that's not the case with Atmos.


If you have 7.1.6, using for example the Denon X8500H, that helicopter discretely circles from Top Front to Top Middle to Top Rear. It could not do that if the sound was channel-based, unless some form of matrixing were applied to extract extra speakers, but Atmos doesn't do that.

Home Atmos is indeed object-based. However, Dolby separates objects between the ground level and height level. Sounds that are intended for the height level always stay in the height level, no matter how many height speakers you have. If you have 2 height speakers, all height sounds come from those 2 speakers. If you have 4 or 6 or more, the objects will map accordingly.

This does not mean that the track isn't object-based. This is a deliberate programming decision based on Dolby's philosophy that height sounds should always sound like they're coming from above you. A helicopter panning from Top Front to ground-level Surround and back would sound like it's landing and taking off over and over again, which could break the suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

it's something in between!

with a "fully object based approach" there wouldn't be the restriction of top speakers need to be added in pairs only. There wouldn't be a limitation for the number of speakers.
absolutely no need for either of the above.


----------



## sdurani

Mickey Mouse said:


> with a "fully object based approach" there wouldn't be the restriction of top speakers need to be added in pairs only. There wouldn't be a limitation for the number of speakers.


No one claimed Atmos was "fully object based". From the moment it debuted in movie theatres back in 2012, Dolby made it clear that Atmos is a hybrid format (hybrid = channels + objects) AND is built on top of existing 7.1-channel technology. This applies to the home version as well. Adding top speakers in pairs is a design choice, based on speakers being laid out in pairs overhead. Number of speakers was also a choice (they had to draw the line somewhere).


----------



## Patrick G

Planning ahead with new construction... where would you put Atmos speakers in this family room (screen is where the red X is, seating is curved thick red line) if I don't want to have speaker wire running across the floor for the sides and rear? Or, would you stick with standard 7.1 given the odd shape?


----------



## Mickey Mouse

sdurani said:


> No one claimed Atmos was "fully object based". From the moment it debuted in movie theatres back in 2012, Dolby made it clear that Atmos is a hybrid format (hybrid = channels + objects) AND is built on top of existing 7.1-channel technology. This applies to the home version as well.


this is wrong!
Dolby makes contradicting statements about it. You can find the "bed + object" story every here and there. In their official dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater white paper is clearly stated:
"In the case of the home theater, *every sound* in the mix *is represented as an audio object*."
there is no hint to a "bed" anymore!



> Number of speakers was also a choice (they had to draw the line somewhere).


why do you have to draw a line? Absolutely no need for it if the sound is 100% object based!
there are objects "with coordinates", an OAR (Object Audio Renderer) and speakers.
maybe the current OAR implementation is limited to a specific number of speakers, but if the limit is based on the Atmos format itself, it can't be a "free" object based format as Dolby likes to claim!


----------



## Josh Z

Mickey Mouse said:


> why do you have to draw a line? Absolutely no need for it if the sound is 100% object based!
> there are objects "with coordinates", an OAR (Object Audio Renderer) and speakers.
> maybe the current OAR implementation is limited to a specific number of speakers, but if the limit is based on the Atmos format itself, it can't be a "free" object based format as Dolby likes to claim!


There is no need to make a movie soundtrack 100% object-based. Making a movie soundtrack that way doesn't even make much sense from a mixing standpoint. There are valid reasons to want to keep some sound elements (such as the musical score) locked to channel beds. A hybrid channels + objects format is the most sensible and adaptable approach to meet any sound mixer's needs.


----------



## Selden Ball

Patrick G said:


> Planning ahead with new construction... where would you put Atmos speakers in this family room (screen is where the red X is) if I don't want to have speaker wire running across the floor for the sides and rear? Or, would you stick with standard 7.1 given the odd shape?


You don't show where the seating will be. That location has a substantial impact on where the overhead, Surround and Surround Back speakers should be located for the best soundfield. In general, seating should be about as far from the front wall as the separation between the Front main speakers. Surround and Rear Surround speakers should be to the sides and to the rear of the seating, with overheads in the ceiling and centered around the seating.

The lengths of speaker cables don't matter if you use thick (10 or 12 gauge) cables, so running the Surround and Rear Surround speaker cables under the floor or in the baseboards might be possible, while running above the ceiling or in the crown molding for the overhead speakers. Drilling appropriately positioned holes through the floor to free-standing speakers (which would have permanently fixed locations) might not be acceptable to other members of your household, though.

Also, there are speaker cables available which are flat, not round like what most people use. They might be acceptable (not noticeable) if the carpets are wall-to-wall and rather thick.

Another compromise would to put all of the "ear-level" speakers in the ceiling. Although this placement is incompatible with the various 3D audio formats, it has been the only possibility available in many circumstances. People can adapt, eventually not really noticing that all of the sounds are coming from overhead and not from around them.

I hope these comments help a little.


----------



## sdurani

Mickey Mouse said:


> Dolby makes contradicting statements about it.


It's a semantic contradiction. Technically, they're not incorrect for saying Atmos is all objects (bed objects + dynamic objects). But bed objects are channels, so it comes down to what term you use to describe them. Still a hybrid format.


> why do you have to draw a line?


Because it's their format and they get to decide what is enough for a consumer environment. This is not about what they "have to" do but what they wanted to do.


----------



## Patrick G

Selden Ball said:


> You don't show where the seating will be. That location has a substantial impact on where the overhead, Surround and Surround Back speakers should be located for the best soundfield. In general, seating should be about as far from the front wall as the separation between the Front main speakers. Surround and Rear Surround speakers should be to the sides and to the rear of the seating, with overheads in the ceiling and centered around the seating.
> 
> The lengths of speaker cables don't matter if you use thick (10 or 12 gauge) cables, so running the Surround and Rear Surround speaker cables under the floor or in the baseboards might be possible, while running above the ceiling or in the crown molding for the overhead speakers. Drilling appropriately positioned holes through the floor to free-standing speakers (which would have permanently fixed locations) might not be acceptable to other members of your household, though.
> 
> Also, there are speaker cables available which are flat, not round like what most people use. They might be acceptable (not noticeable) if the carpets are wall-to-wall and rather thick.
> 
> Another compromise would to put all of the "ear-level" speakers in the ceiling. Although this placement is incompatible with the various 3D audio formats, it has been the only possibility available in many circumstances. People can adapt, eventually not really noticing that all of the sounds are coming from overhead and not from around them.
> 
> I hope these comments help a little.


They did, yes. And I've updated the image with a thick, red, curved line to indicate where the seating will be, about 10'-12' back from the screen at the furthest point.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

sdurani said:


> It's a semantic contradiction. Technically, they're not incorrect for saying Atmos is all objects (bed objects + dynamic objects). But bed objects are channels, so it comes down to what term you use to describe them.


this is what the white paper says


> In the *cinema*, Dolby Atmos relies on a *combination of 9.1 ‘‘bed’’ channels and up to 118 simultaneous sound objects* to deliver an enveloping sound stage.





> In the case of the *home theater*, *every sound* in the mix *is represented as an audio object*.


i searched the white paper for the number of bed channels in the HCT version, nothing! They also hide the maximum number of objects, simultaneously and/or in total.

Dolby wants us to believe things which are simply not true. There are objects, yes, but they are by far not that flexible in positioning as Dolby tries to pretend them to be.


----------



## sdurani

Mickey Mouse said:


> i searched the white paper for the number of bed channels in the HCT version, nothing! They also hide the maximum number of objects, simultaneously and/or in total.


7.1 channels, up to 16 objects. Confirmed years ago in this thread by an AVS member that mixes movies for a living.


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> Upfirers will give a good Atmos effect but they do have to be set up properly and this can require some experimentation wrt to distances and angles. If you can, play around with the (Atmos) speaker positioning a bit and see if things improve. You may be right about needing the AE speakers - your AVR may not be implementing the required 'notch' very well, or maybe even not at all. As Sanjay has said, the notch seems to be more important than the actual upfiring speakers as far as creating the illusion of sound overhead is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is very odd and something I haven't heard of before. Sorry, but I have no idea what could be causing that. Maybe some sort of setup issue or glitch in the AVR. When this sort of thing happens I generally suggest doing a full reset of the AVR (your owner manual or unit thread should tell you how) and then re-running the room EQ. Often this will sort out unexpected and unexplained issues.
> *
> 
> @kbarnes701 So, I think I figured out what the odd echo sound is; apparently, the Pioneer SC-LX502 tries to turn audio in Atmos or DTS x Neural, if the source isn't Amtos. Is this a common issue with Dolby Atmos configurations? I'm able to change the surround mode to LPCM or other modes that seem to disable other audio track trying to be converted into Atmos or DTS X tracks. It's just kind of an annoying quirk that I'm not used to, as I don't recall ever having such an issue a 5.1 setup.
> 
> *Which leads me to a general question: what is the best mode for the receiver to be set for Atmos configurations? i.e. someone at Best Buy suggested setting it to direct, though Direct doesn't sound as good to me.
> *


----------



## jpoet

dareelest1 said:


> Lord of the rings is warner bros. right now only universal is really using dts x, everyone else is on the atmos train.


 I just finished watching the UHD version of the Harry Potter movies. That is now one of the best surround presentations I have ever heard. Truly exceptional!


----------



## Selden Ball

jtcountry said:


> So, I think I figured out what the odd echo sound is; apparently, the Pioneer SC-LX502 tries to turn audio in Atmos or DTS x Neural, if the source isn't Amtos. Is this a common issue with Dolby Atmos configurations?


Most receivers and pre/pros, including those made by D&M, allow you to chose whether or not you want upmixers (Dolby Surround, DTS Nerual:X or Auro-Matic, for example) or other types of processing to be applied to soundtracks which are not encoded in one of the 3D audio formats. Since Atmos soundtracks already occupy all of your available speakers, there's nothing for the upmixers to do in that case. You can select them in D&M equipment, but they do nothing to the soundtrack. 



> I'm able to change the surround mode to LPCM or other modes that seem to disable other audio track trying to be converted into Atmos or DTS X tracks. It's just kind of an annoying quirk that I'm not used to, as I don't recall ever having such an issue a 5.1 setup.


It's my understanding that Pioneer receivers have the limitation that the Dolby and DTS upmixers cannot be applied to LPCM audio. If that's true, it might explain what you're hearing. (I mean that you can hear the echoes disappearing. Personally, I'd consider hearing such echoes at all to be a design bug or a defect in your specific receiver.) D&M equipment do not have this limitation. The upmixers can be applied to LPCM and to the various non-3D Dolby and DTS encodings.


> *Which leads me to a general question: what is the best mode for the receiver to be set for Atmos configurations? i.e. someone at Best Buy suggested setting it to direct, though Direct doesn't sound as good to me.
> *


The best mode is whatever sounds best to you.

Direct and Pure Direct disable all digital processing of the incoming soundtrack. Among other things, that turns off Audyssey and bass management, both of which are considered rather important by many people.


----------



## markus767

Could any of you with 4 *Dolby enabled* top surrounds please test http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_9_1_6.mp4 and report back whether test signals get rendered correctly? Please also state player and AVR. Thanks!

My NAD 758v3 renders top middle signals to top back only. Not sure this is a bug in the renderer or an issue with the file itself.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> @kbarnes701 So, I think I figured out what the odd echo sound is; apparently, the Pioneer SC-LX502 tries to turn audio in Atmos or DTS x Neural, if the source isn't Amtos. Is this a common issue with Dolby Atmos configurations? I'm able to change the surround mode to LPCM or other modes that seem to disable other audio track trying to be converted into Atmos or DTS X tracks. It's just kind of an annoying quirk that I'm not used to, as I don't recall ever having such an issue a 5.1 setup.
> 
> *Which leads me to a general question: what is the best mode for the receiver to be set for Atmos configurations? i.e. someone at Best Buy suggested setting it to direct, though Direct doesn't sound as good to me.
> *


Selden has given you a comprehensive reply while I was sleeping (UK time)  I'd reinforce his point about Direct Mode - if you use it you will disable your room correction EQ, which is not usually what you want to do.

When your AVR upscales regular 5.1/7.1 tracks with Dolby Surround Upscaler (DSU) or DTS Neural:X, it shouldn't be causing any echoes. Most people here use upscaling once they have installed Atmos speakers and nobody is reporting this as an issue. So this suggests some sort of bug in your unit. The best place to discuss that would be with other owners of the same unit, in the Pioneer threads. That would clue you in as to whether it's an issue with your specific unit or with those units in general. Either way, something isn't right.


----------



## bryantc

markus767 said:


> Could any of you with 4 *Dolby enabled* top surrounds please test http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_9_1_6.mp4 and report back whether test signals get rendered correctly? Please also state player and AVR. Thanks!
> 
> My NAD 758v3 renders top middle signals to top back only. Not sure this is a bug in the renderer or an issue with the file itself.


 Denon 8500 with 7.1.4 speakers:


Top Middles are split between Top Front and Top Back
(and in case you also want to know the Front Wides go completely to the Front Speakers)


----------



## gene4ht

jtcountry said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upfirers will give a good Atmos effect but they do have to be set up properly and this can require some experimentation wrt to distances and angles. If you can, play around with the (Atmos) speaker positioning a bit and see if things improve. You may be right about needing the AE speakers - your AVR may not be implementing the required 'notch' very well, or maybe even not at all. As Sanjay has said, the notch seems to be more important than the actual upfiring speakers as far as creating the illusion of sound overhead is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is very odd and something I haven't heard of before. Sorry, but I have no idea what could be causing that. Maybe some sort of setup issue or glitch in the AVR. When this sort of thing happens I generally suggest doing a full reset of the AVR (your owner manual or unit thread should tell you how) and then re-running the room EQ. Often this will sort out unexpected and unexplained issues.
> *
> 
> 
> @*kbarnes701* So, I think I figured out what the odd echo sound is; apparently, the Pioneer SC-LX502 tries to turn audio in Atmos or DTS x Neural, if the source isn't Amtos. Is this a common issue with Dolby Atmos configurations? I'm able to change the surround mode to LPCM or other modes that seem to disable other audio track trying to be converted into Atmos or DTS X tracks. It's just kind of an annoying quirk that I'm not used to, as I don't recall ever having such an issue a 5.1 setup.
> 
> *Which leads me to a general question: what is the best mode for the receiver to be set for Atmos configurations? i.e. someone at Best Buy suggested setting it to direct, though Direct doesn't sound as good to me.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a guess on my part. Onkyo has a relatively new feature called "AccuReflex" included with its room correction system which adjusts/compensates for time delay differences inherent in Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (upfiring). Because of the Onkyo/Pioneer merger, many suspect that AccuEQ is a close relative of MCACC. It's possible then that Pioneer's "Reflex Optimizer" feature and Onkyo's "AccuReflex" feature are very similar if not the same. In your situation...is it possible that there is some feature turned on/off or timing adjustment relative to "Reflex Optimizer" that could/would contribute to the echo you are experiencing? Again, this is just a thought.
Click to expand...


----------



## camd5pt0

I run a 7.1.4 setup with FH/RH.
Since last weekend, I used the app to create a TF/TR profile, without changing physical speaker locations. I found there to be more sound and better imaging this way.

Now I am intrigued to actually set-up Tops.
Below I have included a pic of my setup, and 2 dolby schematics.

My questions are 
1: Is it more favorable to do TF/TR OR TF/TM

2: My RH speaker location, can this work as TR as per the schematic? or should I bring them off the wall some.

( If I can get away with just mounting 2 on the ceiling I am find with that. I think i want to move away from the wall about half a foot to cut down on reflection.) I want to aim them all straight down per dolby spec imaging.

My Heights, Fronts, Surround backs are all in line


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> I run a 7.1.4 setup with FH/RH.
> Since last weekend, I used the app to create a TF/TR profile, without changing physical speaker locations. I found there to be more sound and better imaging this way.
> 
> Now I am intrigued to actually set-up Tops.
> Below I have included a pic of my setup, and 2 dolby schematics.
> 
> My questions are
> 1: Is it more favorable to do TF/TR OR TF/TM


Will your AVR allow you to do TF+TM? I am only familiar with Denon/Marantz units and they do not allow that combination (adjacent pairs). So that problem may be solved for you 



camd5pt0 said:


> 2: My RH speaker location, can this work as TR as per the schematic? or should I bring them off the wall some.
> 
> ( If I can get away with just mounting 2 on the ceiling I am find with that. I think i want to move away from the wall about half a foot to cut down on reflection.) I want to aim them all straight down per dolby spec imaging.


I think you will find it beneficial to move the speakers from their current locations at the wall/ceiling boundary to a more 'inboard' arrangement as per the Dolby image you referenced. If you can get the TF and TR pairs at an angle of about 45 degrees from MLP then you are golden. If you can't achieve that, then put the TF pair in front of you and the TR pair behind you, referencing this diagram to give you a guide on position and angles. Judging by your room pic, you won't have problems with the front pair, but the rear pair will likely end up just behind you (to give some angular separation from the rear surrounds). FWIW this is more or less exactly the situation I was in my last room and it worked brilliantly well, with fabulous Atmos effects and a superb sense of immersion. Remember the guidelines are just that: guidelines, and remember what Dolby themselves said: "It's hard to make Atmos *not *work..." 










Then set your AVR to TF+TR and re-run your room EQ system.

BTW, if you can, add some acoustic panels for the biggest bang-for-the-buck improvement in your sound quality, ever. At the first reflection points, left and right, if you can, plus on the wall behind the couch, plus, if possible one on the ceiling, above the screen. And maybe on the bit of wall to the right/left of MLP in your photo. The room looks a little 'live' to me and a few panels will go a long way to improving the sound IMO.


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> Will your AVR allow you to do TF+TM? I am only familiar with Denon/Marantz units and they do not allow that combination (adjacent pairs). So that problem may be solved for you
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find it beneficial to move the speakers from their current locations at the wall/ceiling boundary to a more 'inboard' arrangement as per the Dolby image you referenced. If you can get the TF and TR pairs at an angle of about 45 degrees from MLP then you are golden. If you can't achieve that, then put the TF pair in front of you and the TR pair behind you, referencing this diagram to give you a guide on position and angles. Judging by your room pic, you won't have problems with the front pair, but the rear pair will likely end up just behind you (to give some angular separation from the rear surrounds). FWIW this is more or less exactly the situation I was in my last room and it worked brilliantly well, with fabulous Atmos effects and a superb sense of immersion. Remember the guidelines are just that: guidelines, and remember what Dolby themselves said: "It's hard to make Atmos *not *work..."


Thanks to you I have already did research on room sound deadening and have found the absorbing material I want to use, I'll get that Monday 

I am bad at math, but looking at the diagram, it looks like my rear height is 45 degree angle. The lines from the tops, does that imply the speaker being angled? Our does the spec call for straight down?

And by inboard arrangement, do you mean take them out of line with the other main speakers and put them inside that line? Thank you for suggestions


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> Thanks to you I have already did research on room sound deadening and have found the absorbing material I want to use, I'll get that Monday
> 
> I am bad at math, but looking at the diagram, it looks like my rear height is 45 degree angle. The lines from the tops, does that imply the speaker being angled? Our does the spec call for straight down?
> 
> And by inboard arrangement, do you mean take them out of line with the other main speakers and put them inside that line? Thank you for suggestions


I would angle the speakers towards MLP anyway. We have always angled speakers towards the listener and I see no good reason not to with Atmos speakers. Dolby say that it is permissible - just that if the speaker has a very wide dispoersion (+/- 45 degrees) it *can* be pointed straight down. It isn't mandatory. From the pic you will not be able to achieve 45 degrees for the rearmost pair, but it doesn't really matter. Look at how wide the range of angles Dolby gives is (in my diagram posted before).

No - by 'inboard' I meant away from the front and rear walls. Sloppy use of language on my part. Keep the overheads in line with your L&R speakers.


----------



## dareelest1

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's _highly _debatable.
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen Predator? Lethal Weapon 1 & 2? Die Hard? Aliens? Ronin? Etc. They mop the floor with any modern Marvel superhero film.


I have all the alien movies on blu, even the avp ones, greatness. The last two die hards are fantastic.


----------



## dareelest1

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's _highly _debatable.
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen Predator? Lethal Weapon 1 & 2? Die Hard? Aliens? Ronin? Etc. They mop the floor with any modern Marvel superhero film.


I have all the alien movies on blu, even the avp ones, greatness. The last two die hards are fantastic.


----------



## sdurani

camd5pt0 said:


> I run a 7.1.4 setup with FH/RH.
> Since last weekend, I used the app to create a TF/TR profile, without changing physical speaker locations. I found there to be more sound and better imaging this way.


IF it sounds better, then stick to the TF/TR settings.


camd5pt0 said:


> The lines from the tops, does that imply the speaker being angled? Our does the spec call for straight down?


Aim the Tops towards the listening area, for the same reason you aimed ALL your other speakers towards the listening area.


----------



## markus767

bryantc said:


> Denon 8500 with 7.1.4 speakers:
> 
> 
> Top Middles are split between Top Front and Top Back
> (and in case you also want to know the Front Wides go completely to the Front Speakers)


Thanks. What happens when you define the top surrounds as "Dolby enabled" (just for testing)?


----------



## jtcountry

gene4ht said:


> jtcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a guess on my part. Onkyo has a relatively new feature called "AccuReflex" included with its room correction system which adjusts/compensates for time delay differences inherent in Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (upfiring). Because of the Onkyo/Pioneer merger, many suspect that AccuEQ is a close relative of MCACC. It's possible then that Pioneer's "Reflex Optimizer" feature and Onkyo's "AccuReflex" feature are very similar if not the same. In your situation...is it possible that there is some feature turned on/off or timing adjustment relative to "Reflex Optimizer" that could/would contribute to the echo you are experiencing? Again, this is just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> A big thanks to @Selden Ball, @kbarnes701 and @gene4ht for the great advice and tips!
> 
> I did notice the "reflex optimizer" feature while playing around with the settings in the Pioneer menu, and it is currently set to on. I noticed that it's recommended having it turned on in the menu description for it, but you bring up a really good point that it could be causing the echo.
> 
> Also, I apologize if I'm not describing the "echo" properly, as I don't tend to hear it unless I'm scrolling through a menu or pausing something. For example, on the PS4 Pro, with my Pioneer set to, I believe Dolby Digital Surround Sound, the sound effects going through the PS4 menu would seem to echo through Atmos speakers, but I think when I switched it to LPCM, it stopped.
> 
> It's interesting, because if I place my ear up to the Atmos speaker, it seems like I can hear very low level background noise coming from it with some of the sounds or words almost echoing or reverberating, but when I change the surround mode to a specific mode such as LPCM, it goes completely quite.
> 
> I will try turning off the "reflex optmizer" and report back. Hopefully, that's it. I wonder if I should have stuck with Denon like my past 2 receivers, but the I feel like I got a pretty good deal on the Pioneer Elite, as it was 1/2 price since it was on sale and open box. The receiver itself seemed practically still new, as the box and accessories were in excellent condition, and the calibration mic was still sealed.
> 
> *I don't know if I could find another receiver of the same quality and specs for the price I paid for this one, but does anyone have any recommendations for any comparable Atmos receivers that may work better for Klipsch speakers?*
Click to expand...


----------



## camd5pt0

jpoet said:


> I just finished watching the UHD version of the Harry Potter movies. That is now one of the best surround presentations I have ever heard. Truly exceptional!


What about fantastic beasts? I just bought that UHD couple weeks ago


----------



## mrtickleuk

markus767 said:


> Thanks. What happens when you define the top surrounds as "Dolby enabled" (just for testing)?


"Dolby enabled" are the "bouncy house" type, which are fed with a notch in the frequency response (that's the answer to your question) to help the trick of the ear to make you think that the sound seems as if it's coming from above.

If they are physically up there, you should NOT select "Dolby enabled". You don't want that notch in the output.


----------



## Selden Ball

jtcountry said:


> I don't know if I could find another receiver of the same quality and specs for the price I paid for this one, but does anyone have any recommendations for any comparable Atmos receivers that may work better for Klipsch speakers?


Klipsch speakers tend to be described as "bright" (i.e. more high frequency output than might be appropriate), so using any roomEQ product would tend to reduce that characteristic.

In general, people have rated Audyssey (used in D&M devices) as providing better room EQ than Pioneer's MCACC, and Dirac Live as better than Audyssey. The problem is that Dirac implementations tend to be noticeably more expensive. Dirac Live currently is available in NAD, Arcam and AudioControl receivers and pre/pros.. It's also available as an external addon by purchasing one or more of miniDSP's 8 channel DDRC-88A. 

Or you can really splurge and get a device which uses RoomPerfect, which is available in pre/pros made by McIntosh and one or two other high-end manufacturers.


----------



## markus767

mrtickleuk said:


> "Dolby enabled" are the "bouncy house" type, which are fed with a notch in the frequency response (that's the answer to your question) to help the trick of the ear to make you think that the sound seems as if it's coming from above.
> 
> If they are physically up there, you should NOT select "Dolby enabled". You don't want that notch in the output.


Your answer completely misses the point. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1711.html#post56672956


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> *I don't know if I could find another receiver of the same quality and specs for the price I paid for this one, but does anyone have any recommendations for any comparable Atmos receivers that may work better for Klipsch speakers?*


Modern solid state electronics, aside from room EQ of course, have virtually no impact at all on sound quality. If you have sufficient amplifier power to drive your speakers to the levels you need (which I am betting you do as they are Klipsch) then there is no point in changing AVRs except to a) get different features which you need or b) to get a different built-in room EQ.

The things which impact sound quality are speaker and sub choice, speaker and sub placement and the room itself - dimensions, construction and whether it has been acoustically treated or not.

So unless you need a different feature set, or feel you need a superior room EQ to MCACC, I;d hang on to the Pioneer and spend money on the areas where an improvement in sound quality is more likely to happen.

On that topic, the units I would recommend nowadays would be those which incorporate Dirac Live. DL is by general consensus the most sophisticated room EQ system available at a sensible price, and also one of the most flexible. It can be found in AVRs from NAD, Arcam and Emotiva and probably others too.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> "Dolby enabled" are the "bouncy house" type, which are fed with a notch in the frequency response (that's the answer to your question) to help the trick of the ear to make you think that the sound seems as if it's coming from above.
> 
> If they are physically up there, you should NOT select "Dolby enabled". You don't want that notch in the output.


I think he just wants to know which sounds go to which speakers, so the notch {Limeyslangmode=ON} buggering up {Limeyslangmode=OFF} the sound doesn't matter for his test.


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> Modern solid state electronics, aside from room EQ of course, have virtually no impact at all on sound quality. If you have sufficient amplifier power to drive your speakers to the levels you need (which I am betting you do as they are Klipsch) then there is no point in changing AVRs except to a) get different features which you need or b) to get a different built-in room EQ.
> 
> The things which impact sound quality are speaker and sub choice, speaker and sub placement and the room itself - dimensions, construction and whether it has been acoustically treated or not.
> 
> So unless you need a different feature set, or feel you need a superior room EQ to MCACC, I;d hang on to the Pioneer and spend money on the areas where an improvement in sound quality is more likely to happen.
> 
> On that topic, the units I would recommend nowadays would be those which incorporate Dirac Live. DL is by general consensus the most sophisticated room EQ system available at a sensible price, and also one of the most flexible. It can be found in AVRs from NAD, Arcam and Emotiva and probably others too.


Thanks, that makes me feel better about my purchase. I do wish the Pioneer SC-LX502 had a dimmer button on the remote though instead of having to manually dim the display on the unit itself.

Unfortunately, the Reflex Optimizer didn't make a difference. It appears that the issue has to do when setting non Atmos content to output surround sound through those speakers, such as Dolby Digital 5.1 content, as the receiver seems to try to create height channel sound when there is none.

*Unfortunately, that means those 2 height channel speakers aren't outputting any sound at all or being utilized when watching most content. Does everyone have the same issue when it comes to watching non-Atmos content, which for me is the majority of my content?*


----------



## fredxr2d2

jtcountry said:


> Thanks, that makes me feel better about my purchase. I do wish the Pioneer SC-LX502 had a dimmer button on the remote though instead of having to manually dim the display on the unit itself.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Reflex Optimizer didn't make a difference. It appears that the issue has to do when setting non Atmos content to output surround sound through those speakers, such as Dolby Digital 5.1 content, as the receiver seems to try to create height channel sound when there is none.
> 
> *Unfortunately, that means those 2 height channel speakers aren't outputting any sound at all or being utilized when watching most content. Does everyone have the same issue when it comes to watching non-Atmos content, which for me is the majority of my content?*


I leave the upmixers on all the time for all content. I've never heard echoes, but I do enjoy the enhanced soundstage.


----------



## David Susilo

jtcountry said:


> gene4ht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a guess on my part. Onkyo has a relatively new feature called "AccuReflex" included with its room correction system which adjusts/compensates for time delay differences inherent in Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (upfiring). Because of the Onkyo/Pioneer merger, many suspect that AccuEQ is a close relative of MCACC. It's possible then that Pioneer's "Reflex Optimizer" feature and Onkyo's "AccuReflex" feature are very similar if not the same. In your situation...is it possible that there is some feature turned on/off or timing adjustment relative to "Reflex Optimizer" that could/would contribute to the echo you are experiencing? Again, this is just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> A big thanks to @Selden Ball, @kbarnes701 and @gene4ht for the great advice and tips!
> 
> I did notice the "reflex optimizer" feature while playing around with the settings in the Pioneer menu, and it is currently set to on. I noticed that it's recommended having it turned on in the menu description for it, but you bring up a really good point that it could be causing the echo.
> 
> Also, I apologize if I'm not describing the "echo" properly, as I don't tend to hear it unless I'm scrolling through a menu or pausing something. For example, on the PS4 Pro, with my Pioneer set to, I believe Dolby Digital Surround Sound, the sound effects going through the PS4 menu would seem to echo through Atmos speakers, but I think when I switched it to LPCM, it stopped.
> 
> It's interesting, because if I place my ear up to the Atmos speaker, it seems like I can hear very low level background noise coming from it with some of the sounds or words almost echoing or reverberating, but when I change the surround mode to a specific mode such as LPCM, it goes completely quite.
> 
> I will try turning off the "reflex optmizer" and report back. Hopefully, that's it. I wonder if I should have stuck with Denon like my past 2 receivers, but the I feel like I got a pretty good deal on the Pioneer Elite, as it was 1/2 price since it was on sale and open box. The receiver itself seemed practically still new, as the box and accessories were in excellent condition, and the calibration mic was still sealed.
> 
> *I don't know if I could find another receiver of the same quality and specs for the price I paid for this one, but does anyone have any recommendations for any comparable Atmos receivers that may work better for Klipsch speakers?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not the optimizer. I turned mine on and off, same result and it annoys the f out of me. I even changes from LX701 to LX801 and the problem is still there.
> 
> If I set the speakers to NOT Dolby Enabled, the echo disappears
Click to expand...


----------



## usc1995

jtcountry said:


> Thanks, that makes me feel better about my purchase. I do wish the Pioneer SC-LX502 had a dimmer button on the remote though instead of having to manually dim the display on the unit itself.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Reflex Optimizer didn't make a difference. It appears that the issue has to do when setting non Atmos content to output surround sound through those speakers, such as Dolby Digital 5.1 content, as the receiver seems to try to create height channel sound when there is none.
> 
> *Unfortunately, that means those 2 height channel speakers aren't outputting any sound at all or being utilized when watching most content. Does everyone have the same issue when it comes to watching non-Atmos content, which for me is the majority of my content?*


I use the older Pioneer Elite SC-95. On my unit there is the option to change the audio renderer to Legacy from it's default of Object mode. Legacy will play the audio ignoring all object information so a True HD Atmos soundtrack would play back only as True HD and not as Atmos. The upmixers in this mode are not available for use as it only plays back the core track as is. If I change it back to Object mode then it will automatically upmix all Dolby tracks that aren't Atmos to Dolby Surround and all DTS tracks that aren't DTS-X to Neural X. I choose this option under the audio p. (parameters) setting. I am not sure if your model offers that ability since i was released after Onkyo took over Pioneer and is of a different design but perhaps you can look for that option. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain why you seem to get poor playback from the upmixers as I find them to be quite effective and not overly boomy or echoey. Good luck with your efforts.

Edited to add that I just had a look at the manual for your AVR and it appears that it is much simpler in that you keep toggling the surround button on the remote to scroll between all of the different formats including choosing between DTS Master or DTS Neural X for example or between Dolby True HD and Dolby Surround. So if you don't want the height speakers to engage when watching a non-Atmos or non-DTSX track then simply hit that surround button to choose the native track to the content you are watching and that should turn them off.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> Thanks, that makes me feel better about my purchase. I do wish the Pioneer SC-LX502 had a dimmer button on the remote though instead of having to manually dim the display on the unit itself.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Reflex Optimizer didn't make a difference. It appears that the issue has to do when setting non Atmos content to output surround sound through those speakers, such as Dolby Digital 5.1 content, as the receiver seems to try to create height channel sound when there is none.
> 
> *Unfortunately, that means those 2 height channel speakers aren't outputting any sound at all or being utilized when watching most content. Does everyone have the same issue when it comes to watching non-Atmos content, which for me is the majority of my content?*


I use the upmixers a lot and have never had any similar issues. I think this is a unit-specific issue and you'll probably get a better response from the thread for your unit.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> jtcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the optimizer. I turned mine on and off, same result and it annoys the f out of me. I even changes from LX701 to LX801 and the problem is still there.
> 
> If I set the speakers to NOT Dolby Enabled, the echo disappears
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David - so this 'echo' thing is affecting your Pioneer unit as well?? It must be some sort of bug. Has anyone reported it to Pioneer and, if so, what do they say?
Click to expand...


----------



## dareelest1

simple man said:


> If I’m not mistaken, Onkyo uses their proprietary software AccuEq now. I have an Onkyo receiver in my living room with AccuEq but I don’t have any height speakers to test your theory, only LCR. I suggest looking at the 787’s manual online which can be found on Onkyo’s website. I’ve read through my 7012’s manual and learned a few things I didn’t know from reading forums on AVS.
> 
> 
> Colton


I have the 787 so i can answer it for you. I have 7.2.2 with svs prime elevatiions high on the front wall where it meets the ceiling. On a lot of material you wont notice, but it does make a difference in what you hear. In mission impossible rouge nation, when tom cruise hits the motorcyclist and he goes up and over the car, if i have the location of the height speakers set to front high or top front, you hear him go above on top of the car. If i set them to top middle or top rear, you hear the rider go up and over the car like its supposed to. Ive tested it A and B many times and its a pretty substantial difference on this scene. I havent been able to discern a benefit on any other atmos ort dts x scenes. It seems to me making them top middle or rear gives a closer approximaton to what you would hear if you had four heights in atmos pans from front to back.


----------



## jtcountry

David Susilo said:


> jtcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the optimizer. I turned mine on and off, same result and it annoys the f out of me. I even changes from LX701 to LX801 and the problem is still there.
> 
> If I set the speakers to NOT Dolby Enabled, the echo disappears
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. It must be an issue with Pioneers then, as it sounds like you're having the same issue as me. I may try to record an audio clip tonight to demonstrate the effect. It seems like it's not present all the time, but if you put your ear to the height channel, you can hear what sounds like background just static until it decides to mix some dialogue or effect, and then the effect is like what I would describe as a low volume echo chamber. @David Susilo, just wondering, do you leave your speakers set "not Dolby Enabled", or do you go in and manually change it every time, depending upon the content that you're watching?
Click to expand...


----------



## Selden Ball

jtcountry said:


> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. It must be an issue with Pioneers then, as it sounds like you're having the same issue as me. I may try to record an audio clip tonight to demonstrate the effect. It seems like it's not present all the time, but if you put your ear to the height channel, you can hear what sounds like background just static until it decides to mix some dialogue or effect, and then the effect is like what I would describe as a low volume echo chamber. @David Susilo, just wondering, do you leave your speakers set "not Dolby Enabled", or do you go in and manually change it every time, depending upon the content that you're watching?
> 
> 
> 
> "Dolby Enabled" speakers are used to reflect sound off the ceiling to make those sounds come from overhead. This makes the speakers themselves be quite a bit farther from the audience than the other speakers in the system. As a result, the corresponding amount of delay has to be added to all of the other speaker channels so they'll be time-aligned. If you specify "Dolby Enabled" but have the speakers pointed directly toward the audience (not reflecting), then the amount of delay will be wrong and might cause echoes like what I think you're describing.
Click to expand...


----------



## jtcountry

usc1995 said:


> I use the older Pioneer Elite SC-95. On my unit there is the option to change the audio renderer to Legacy from it's default of Object mode. Legacy will play the audio ignoring all object information so a True HD Atmos soundtrack would play back only as True HD and not as Atmos. The upmixers in this mode are not available for use as it only plays back the core track as is. If I change it back to Object mode then it will automatically upmix all Dolby tracks that aren't Atmos to Dolby Surround and all DTS tracks that aren't DTS-X to Neural X. I choose this option under the audio p. (parameters) setting. I am not sure if your model offers that ability since i was released after Onkyo took over Pioneer and is of a different design but perhaps you can look for that option. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain why you seem to get poor playback from the upmixers as I find them to be quite effective and not overly boomy or echoey. Good luck with your efforts.
> 
> Edited to add that I just had a look at the manual for your AVR and it appears that it is much simpler in that you keep toggling the surround button on the remote to scroll between all of the different formats including choosing between DTS Master or DTS Neural X for example or between Dolby True HD and Dolby Surround. *So if you don't want the height speakers to engage when watching a non-Atmos or non-DTSX track then simply hit that surround button to choose the native track to the content you are watching and that should turn them off*.


Unfortunately, that's what I've started doing, but it's really kind of annoying. One issue, is that when doing this method, I then feel like I have 2 speakers that aren't being utilized at all to produce any sound, as it would be nice for it to upmix those height channels without any type of echo coming from them. 

The other issue, kind of unique to my setup possibly, is that I prefer to keep my front panel on the receiver completely turned off via the dimmer, as it's distracting to me, but I would like it to come on to display certain things, as I have no OSD for when I'm watching physical media since my UHD player is going straight to the TV with one HDMI, and the other HDMI going straight to the receiver for audio, as I thought that this would give me the best picture quality, as the video signal is passing through one less source. Sorry for the long run-on sentence to try to explain my setup.

Maybe there's not an ideal solution other than getting a different brand receiver, as it sounds like I'm not the only one with the issue on a Pioneer receiver when it comes to Atmos and upmixing.

Thank you for the suggestion though. I appreciate it.


----------



## jtcountry

Selden Ball said:


> jtcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dolby Enabled" speakers are used to reflect sound off the ceiling to make those sounds come from overhead. This makes the speakers themselves be quite a bit farther from the audience than the other speakers in the system. As a result, the corresponding amount of delay has to be added to all of the other speaker channels so they'll be time-aligned. If you specify "Dolby Enabled" but have the speakers pointed directly toward the audience (not reflecting), then the amount of delay will be wrong and might cause echoes like what I think you're describing.
> 
> 
> 
> In my setup, I have the speakers aimed upwards at an angle towards the ceiling, but what you're saying makes sense. Based on what @David Susilo described about his Pioneer receiver, I'm thinking it may be an issue with Pioneers exclusively.
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> The other issue, kind of unique to my setup possibly, is that I prefer to keep my front panel on the receiver completely turned off via the dimmer, as it's distracting to me, but I would like it to come on to display certain things, as I have no OSD for when I'm watching physical media since my UHD player is going straight to the TV with one HDMI, and the other HDMI going straight to the receiver for audio, as I thought that this would give me the best picture quality, as the video signal is passing through one less source. Sorry for the long run-on sentence to try to explain my setup.


I doubt there will be any noticeable degradation of the video signal when passing it through the AVR. A lot of AVRs allow you turn off all or most of the video processing controls. I recall doing that when I was an Onkyo user - so now that Onkyo and Pioneer are one, maybe the Pioneers allow that too? Have you experimented to see if you can see any differences at all in PQ when the source is connected directly to the TV as opposed to when it goes via the AVR? I'd be surprised if you could. If you can't, then you could regain the OSD and also have the AVR front panel off - the best of both worlds.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> Selden Ball said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my setup, I have the speakers aimed upwards at an angle towards the ceiling, but what you're saying makes sense. Based on what @David Susilo described about his Pioneer receiver, I'm thinking it may be an issue with Pioneers exclusively.
> 
> 
> 
> Me too. David is a very experienced Pioneer user so if it was a setup issue he'd have sorted it out by now. So it points to some sort of bug.
Click to expand...


----------



## David Susilo

Selden Ball said:


> jtcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. It must be an issue with Pioneers then, as it sounds like you're having the same issue as me. I may try to record an audio clip tonight to demonstrate the effect. It seems like it's not present all the time, but if you put your ear to the height channel, you can hear what sounds like background just static until it decides to mix some dialogue or effect, and then the effect is like what I would describe as a low volume echo chamber. @David Susilo, just wondering, do you leave your speakers set "not Dolby Enabled", or do you go in and manually change it every time, depending upon the content that you're watching?
> 
> 
> 
> "Dolby Enabled" speakers are used to reflect sound off the ceiling to make those sounds come from overhead. This makes the speakers themselves be quite a bit farther from the audience than the other speakers in the system. As a result, the corresponding amount of delay has to be added to all of the other speaker channels so they'll be time-aligned. If you specify "Dolby Enabled" but have the speakers pointed directly toward the audience (not reflecting), then the amount of delay will be wrong and might cause echoes like what I think you're describing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I understand what you’re trying to say, but the echo is actually a “multi-tap echo”
Click to expand...


----------



## David Susilo

> . @David Susilo, just wondering, do you leave your speakers set "not Dolby Enabled", or do you go in and manually change it every time, depending upon the content that you're watching?


I leave mine with Dolby Enabled all the time. I now use PSB XA as my Dolby Enabled modules. From all the enabled speakers I have tested (perhaps about 10 different brands) the PSB are the best one by far


----------



## usc1995

jtcountry said:


> The other issue, kind of unique to my setup possibly, is that I prefer to keep my front panel on the receiver completely turned off via the dimmer, as it's distracting to me, but I would like it to come on to display certain things, as I have no OSD for when I'm watching physical media since my UHD player is going straight to the TV with one HDMI, and the other HDMI going straight to the receiver for audio, as I thought that this would give me the best picture quality, as the video signal is passing through one less source. Sorry for the long run-on sentence to try to explain my setup.
> 
> .



Does your unit work with the Pioneer app? I find the app invaluable for providing lots of info about what is being played rather than using the OSD or the window on the AVR. The app that works with my AVR is called iControlAV5 but I’m not sure if it will work with yours.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David Susilo

kbarnes701 said:


> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David - so this 'echo' thing is affecting your Pioneer unit as well?? It must be some sort of bug. Has anyone reported it to Pioneer and, if so, what do they say?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Affecting my LX701, replaced with another 701 same problem, then replaced to 801, same problem.
Click to expand...


----------



## jtcountry

David Susilo said:


> Selden Ball said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I understand what you’re trying to say, but the echo is actually a “multi-tap echo”
> 
> 
> 
> @David Susilo Oh wow, that's exactly the best way of describing it. Thanks for nailing the description, as I couldn't quite describe it accurately, but that fits it very well.
Click to expand...


----------



## jtcountry

David Susilo said:


> I leave mine with Dolby Enabled all the time. I now use PSB XA as my Dolby Enabled modules. From all the enabled speakers I have tested (perhaps about 10 different brands) the PSB are the best one by far


Do those PSB XA speakers eliminate the tapping echo sound from non-Atmos content, or is is still present, but just not as noticeable?


----------



## David Susilo

It’s still there. I’m just saying that as far as toppers go, the XA are the best toppers I’ve tested so far.


----------



## Jish9

kbarnes701 said:


> Modern solid state electronics, aside from room EQ of course, have virtually no impact at all on sound quality. If you have sufficient amplifier power to drive your speakers to the levels you need (which I am betting you do as they are Klipsch) then there is no point in changing AVRs except to a) get different features which you need or b) to get a different built-in room EQ.
> 
> The things which impact sound quality are speaker and sub choice, speaker and sub placement and the room itself - dimensions, construction and whether it has been acoustically treated or not.
> 
> So unless you need a different feature set, or feel you need a superior room EQ to MCACC, I;d hang on to the Pioneer and spend money on the areas where an improvement in sound quality is more likely to happen.
> 
> On that topic, the units I would recommend nowadays would be those which incorporate Dirac Live. DL is by general consensus the most sophisticated room EQ system available at a sensible price, and also one of the most flexible. It can be found in AVRs from NAD, Arcam and Emotiva and probably others too.


You make an interesting point Keith and one which I will be hopefully testing out in the very near future. I too have held the notion that what we hear today is more the digital EQ via the room correction suite more so than the actual processor. I will have access to a very high end cinema processor ($20K+) which I will be comparing against my Emotiva XMC-1($2500) in unfiltered mode (no EQ) on both units. Then a comparison of DL vs. their room correction system. If my theory hold true, then I really have a lot to think about as I sell off the XMC-1 and step into 3D immersive audio. Quite frankly, a part of me hopes that I am wrong and that there is more than a subtle difference between the two units.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Susilo said:


> Yes. Affecting my LX701, replaced with another 701 same problem, then replaced to 801, same problem.


Oh dear....


----------



## jtcountry

David Susilo said:


> It’s still there. I’m just saying that as far as toppers go, the XA are the best toppers I’ve tested so far.


Oh ok. Got it. Good to know. If you were me, and within your return period, would you exchange the Pioneer for something else, or do you personally feel like the pros outweight the cons, when it comes to the Pioneer Elite SC-LX502? I paid $499.99, so I feel like if I paid around the same for other models, I would be stepping down in terms of overall quality. 

Just wondering your thoughts, as I value your input, since it sounds like you may be an expert when it comes to Pioneer products.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jish9 said:


> You make an interesting point Keith and one which I will be hopefully testing out in the very near future. I too have held the notion that what we hear today is more the digital EQ via the room correction suite more so than the actual processor. I will have access to a very high end cinema processor ($20K+) which I will be comparing against my Emotiva XMC-1($2500) in unfiltered mode (no EQ) on both units. Then a comparison of DL vs. their room correction system. If my theory hold true, then I really have a lot to think about as I sell off the XMC-1 and step into 3D immersive audio. Quite frankly, a part of me hopes that I am wrong and that there is more than a subtle difference between the two units.


The problem you are going to have is conducting a meaningful test. For the test to have validity, there are some things which are mandatory: you have to be able to level match the units under test to at worst 0.2dB and preferably better ; you have to be able to switch instantaneously between both units ; you have to do the switching blind at worst and preferably double blind. These requirements are very difficult to do outside a controlled test environment but if they are not met, then you can't really come to any meaningful conclusions.

There's nothing at all wrong with buying a $20K+ processor: it may be better built, from components that may have a longer life expectancy and may have features that lesser units don't have (eg the ability to handle 32 speakers all at the same time). But anyone expecting better sound quality is likely to be disappointed. If there is any audible or measurable difference, then it is likely to be the room EQ that the unit offers rather than anything else since not all room EQ systems are the same.

People probably get mighty fed up with me saying this all the time, but the single most important component in any system is *the room*. If the room is lacking in any way, then spending megabucks on a processor won't make a deal of difference, even with very good room EQ. Below about 250Hz you are hearing the room, not the speakers or the subs or the electronics, so getting the room right is fundamental. Above 250Hz unwanted reflections spoil the sound of even the best speakers/processor. Fortunately, acoustic treatments are the least expensive upgrade anyone can make and it should really also be the first because everything else is so dependent on the room.

If you think about it, the ideal for any electronics is that they are completely transparent to the source. So if two units sound different to each other, then one (or both) of them must be 'wrong'. The aim is that what goes in comes out unmolested, other than by deliberate manipulation from tone controls or room EQ.

In my own HT, designed and built from the ground up, over 50% of the total cost was spent on the room itself and its treatments. Electronics came a very poor second. I spent more on chairs than I did on electronics! The rest of the budget went into pro speakers and dual Seaton Submersive subs. I think most people in the thread would agree that our very own Roger Dressler has vast experience of listening to many different rooms in his professional (and personal) life, as well as being a pioneer in the development of surround sound at his time at Dolby. If you are interested in Roger's view of whether my objectives were met, he was kind enough to call and visit me when he was in the UK earlier this year and his impressions of the room are in post No 5 in my build thread (link in my sig).


----------



## Jish9

kbarnes701 said:


> The problem you are going to have is conducting a meaningful test. For the test to have validity, there are some things which are mandatory: you have to be able to level match the units under test to at worst 0.2dB and preferably better ; you have to be able to switch instantaneously between both units ; you have to do the switching blind at worst and preferably double blind. These requirements are very difficult to do outside a controlled test environment but if they are not met, then you can't really come to any meaningful conclusions.
> 
> There's nothing at all wrong with buying a $20K+ processor: it may be better built, from components that may have a longer life expectancy and may have features that lesser units don't have (eg the ability to handle 32 speakers all at the same time). But anyone expecting better sound quality is likely to be disappointed. If there is any audible or measurable difference, then it is likely to be the room EQ that the unit offers rather than anything else since not all room EQ systems are the same.
> 
> People probably get mighty fed up with me saying this all the time, but the single most important component in any system is *the room*. If the room is lacking in any way, then spending megabucks on a processor won't make a deal of difference, even with very good room EQ. Below about 250Hz you are hearing the room, not the speakers or the subs or the electronics, so getting the room right is fundamental. Above 250Hz unwanted reflections spoil the sound of even the best speakers/processor. Fortunately, acoustic treatments are the least expensive upgrade anyone can make and it should really also be the first because everything else is so dependent on the room.
> 
> If you think about it, the ideal for any electronics is that they are completely transparent to the source. So if two units sound different to each other, then one (or both) of them must be 'wrong'. The aim is that what goes in comes out unmolested, other than by deliberate manipulation from tone controls or room EQ.


Here, here, +10 Keith as I fully agree with your comments about the room and the Schroeder frequency. Treating the room was the first thing I did, albeit for all the wrong reasons, back then. In retrospect, it was some of the best money and sweat equity I put into the theater and has made the most impact with regard to sound quality. With regard to the processors, I too think the the room EQ makes the difference; but that would then mean there is no sonic difference between something like an Emotiva XMC-1 and a Datasat RS20i ($18K)! Hard pill to swallow (however true it may be). Will have to wait to find out.


----------



## David Susilo

jtcountry said:


> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s still there. I’m just saying that as far as toppers go, the XA are the best toppers I’ve tested so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok. Got it. Good to know. If you were me, and within your return period, would you exchange the Pioneer for something else, or do you personally feel like the pros outweight the cons, when it comes to the Pioneer Elite SC-LX502? I paid $499.99, so I feel like if I paid around the same for other models, I would be stepping down in terms of overall quality.
> 
> Just wondering your thoughts, as I value your input, since it sounds like you may be an expert when it comes to Pioneer products.
Click to expand...

As I do a lot of reviews and do play with various receivers (at least one a month), the best overall performance is still the Pioneer. I even have people who used high-end brands such as Krell that ended up using the 801 as a pre-pro and use the output from the 801 to their Krell, d’Agostino, Boulder monoblocks amongst others.


----------



## David Susilo

> People probably get mighty fed up with me saying this all the time, but the single most important component in any system is *the room*. If the room is lacking in any way, then spending megabucks on a processor won't make a deal of difference, even with very good room EQ. Below about 250Hz you are hearing the room, not the speakers or the subs or the electronics, so getting the room right is fundamental. Above 250Hz unwanted reflections spoil the sound of even the best speakers/processor. Fortunately, acoustic treatments are the least expensive upgrade anyone can make and it should really also be the first because everything else is so dependent on the room.
> 
> If you think about it, the ideal for any electronics is that they are completely transparent to the source. So if two units sound different to each other, then one (or both) of them must be 'wrong'. The aim is that what goes in comes out unmolested, other than by deliberate manipulation from tone controls or room EQ.
> 
> In my own HT, designed and built from the ground up, over 50% of the total cost was spent on the room itself and its treatments. Electronics came a very poor second. I spent more on chairs than I did on electronics! The rest of the budget went into pro speakers and dual Seaton Submersive subs. I think most people in the thread would agree that our very own Roger Dressler has vast experience of listening to many different rooms in his professional (and personal) life, as well as being a pioneer in the development of surround sound at his time at Dolby. If you are interested in Roger's view of whether my objectives were met, he was kind enough to call and visit me when he was in the UK earlier this year and his impressions of the room are in post No 5 in my build thread (link in my sig).


I agree. Start with the room (I had the luxury to build my room within a room from scratch albeit my room is on the tiny side), then fix the remaining acoustics problem(s), set the equipment properly, then only if you’re still not satisfied, change the equipment.


----------



## jtcountry

David Susilo said:


> As I do a lot of reviews and do play with various receivers (at least one a month), the best overall performance is still the Pioneer. I even have people who used high-end brands such as Krell that ended up using the 801 as a pre-pro and use the output from the 801 to their Krell, d’Agostino, Boulder monoblocks amongst others.


Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll keep the Pioneer Elite then and just deal with the tapping echo for now, while playing around with the settings. 

Just curious, have you already contacted Pioneer about the tapping echo issue, and if so, what was their response? 

You've been very helpful, but I do have one more question for you if you don't mind: is it normal for the Pioneer receivers to make a clicking sound when it switches from various audio types and sources? It sounds like it clicks and switches something when the source changes audio format, such as a blu ray disc changing from the actual film which might have Dolby True HD, back to the menu where it doesn't.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll keep the Pioneer Elite then and just deal with the tapping echo for now, while playing around with the settings.
> 
> Just curious, have you already contacted Pioneer about the tapping echo issue, and if so, what was their response?
> 
> You've been very helpful, but I do have one more question for you if you don't mind: is it normal for the Pioneer receivers to make a clicking sound when it switches from various audio types and sources? It sounds like it clicks and switches something when the source changes audio format, such as a blu ray disc changing from the actual film which might have Dolby True HD, back to the menu where it doesn't.


That will just be the internal relays doing the switching. Most m/ch units do the same. (All that I have personally owned).


----------



## David Susilo

I have and Pioneer Canada have sent my 2nd unit to Japan. Thanks for reminding me. I never asked them what happened to that unit. 

As for clicking, when powering on, changing HDMI to analog input etc, I do hear clicking. As for in-between sound formats I have to check as I’ve been putting all my equipment in a separate room away from my viewing/listening room. Give me several days. I just got back from San Francisco and have to catch up with my other AV work. 

If you don’t hear from my by Sunday morning, PM me or tag me on this thread again to remind me to test my AVR.


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> That will just be the internal relays doing the switching. Most m/ch units do the same. (All that I have personally owned).


Thanks, good to know. I guess I just didn't notice it as much on my old Denon, though it wasn't an Atmos receiver, and may not have been switching as much.


----------



## jtcountry

David Susilo said:


> I have and Pioneer Canada have sent my 2nd unit to Japan. Thanks for reminding me. I never asked them what happened to that unit.
> 
> As for clicking, when powering on, changing HDMI to analog input etc, I do hear clicking. As for in-between sound formats I have to check as I’ve been putting all my equipment in a separate room away from my viewing/listening room. Give me several days. I just got back from San Francisco and have to catch up with my other AV work.
> 
> If you don’t hear from my by Sunday morning, PM me or tag me on this thread again to remind me to test my AVR.


Thanks, I appreciate it.


----------



## coolcolorblack

I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.


----------



## Selden Ball

jtcountry said:


> Thanks, good to know. I guess I just didn't notice it as much on my old Denon, though it wasn't an Atmos receiver, and may not have been switching as much.


In most cases the receiver's internal relays can be heard when the receiver's speaker configuration changes. The intent is to guarantee zero noise and crosstalk being heard from the unused speakers by completely disabling them. One way to minimize the relay chatter is to make sure that all of the speaker channels are always in use. This can be done by enabling one of the upmixers (e.g. Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X). They'll expand most incoming soundtracks to use all of your speakers but won't do anything to the sound if you play a soundtrack which already uses all of your speakers, which Atmos and DTS:X do. Those people who prefer not to use upmixers have to accept hearing the relays click.


----------



## petetherock

camd5pt0 said:


> I run a 7.1.4 setup with FH/RH.
> Since last weekend, I used the app to create a TF/TR profile, without changing physical speaker locations. I found there to be more sound and better imaging this way.
> 
> Now I am intrigued to actually set-up Tops.
> Below I have included a pic of my setup, and 2 dolby schematics.
> 
> My questions are
> 1: Is it more favorable to do TF/TR OR TF/TM
> 
> 2: My RH speaker location, can this work as TR as per the schematic? or should I bring them off the wall some.
> 
> ( If I can get away with just mounting 2 on the ceiling I am find with that. I think i want to move away from the wall about half a foot to cut down on reflection.) I want to aim them all straight down per dolby spec imaging.
> 
> My Heights, Fronts, Surround backs are all in line


Nice setup, do you mind sharing the dimensions of your room please?
Cheers


----------



## dfa973

Mickey Mouse said:


> it's something in between!
> with a "fully object based approach" there wouldn't be the restriction of top speakers need to be added in pairs only. There wouldn't be a limitation for the number of speakers.
> absolutely no need for either of the above.


The limitation of adding only pairs of speakers is because the format (Atmos) is reproducing a 3D sound field, *not 2 separated 2D fields (Top+Bed)*. Objects may be snapped only to top or bed speakers but is not a requirement, an object may float between the top and the bed and be anywhere in that 3D space.

A 3D sound field is determined by its boundaries, in this case, the boundaries are the relative exact placement of the speakers in a shape of a top-flat pyramid, which is why Atmos needs to have the top speakers in the same vertical plane with the Front+Side speakers, to create the 3D space of a top-flat pyramid, with your head "inside" the shape or very close to the bottom of the top-flat pyramid (since most of the Sides and Rears are a little above the level of the ears).
If you add single speakers (not in pairs) your 3D field will be of whatever shape you get - not a regular shape - *and you must communicate that shape to the Dolby Atmos renderer*, so it may know where are the speakers and where are the 3D space boundaries, to be able to place the sound according to the sound object metadata.
The easiest solution to a creating a regular shape 3D sound-field is using pairs of speakers.
Pairs get you:
- a wider sound-field in all direction (front-back, left-right, top-down)
- a regular shape (wider top-flat pyramid for 9.1.6, standard top-flat pyramid for 7.1.4 and a pointy top-flat pyramid for 7.1.2/5.1.2)
- a known shape (speaker position) that can be reproduced at home
- no need to tell the renderer the actual shape of your 3D sound space, the correct speaker assignment will tell the renderer the shape and the relative position of the speakers, the rest is automatic.

After you create the basic "sound box", or in the Atmos case, the top-flat pyramid 3D sound-field you may add single speakers placed at the boundaries or inside the basic "sound box" to increase the precision, but at home that may be unnecessary... 

So, the pairs are very, very useful and simplify the setup immensely.
Single speakers will only complicate things.


----------



## CBdicX

*DTS with DSU*

If i have a DTS 7.1 file and use DSU for the upmix because DTS will only do 11 channels at the moment and i have 13 (7.1.6), will this still stay a DTS file in the 11 channels, and DSU will only do the 2 "missing" channels, or will the DTS file be converted to a Dolby file and then DSU will be activated so the DTS file wil become Dolby ?

When i do DTS with NeuralX its limited to 11 channels for now.
(receiver Denon AVC X8500H)


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> *DTS with DSU*
> 
> If i have a DTS 7.1 file and use DSU for the upmix because DTS will only do 11 channels at the moment and i have 13 (7.1.6), will this still stay a DTS file in the 11 channels, and DSU will only do the 2 "missing" channels, or will the DTS file be converted to a Dolby file and then DSU will be activated so the DTS file wil become Dolby ?


The upmixers are applied after the soundtrack has been decoded. No conversion between formats is required. They delete the sounds which have been moved to the overheads from the ear-level channels.


----------



## CBdicX

Selden Ball said:


> The upmixers are applied after the soundtrack has been decoded. No conversion between formats is required. They delete the sounds which have been moved to the overheads from the ear-level channels.



Hi Selden,


so if i understand you correct when i have a DTS file the 5.1 or 7.1 will be DTS and DSU create the 6 Height channels....


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> Hi Selden,
> 
> 
> so if i understand you correct when i have a DTS file the 5.1 or 7.1 will be DTS and DSU create the 6 Height channels....


The 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack might originate as DTS, but by the time it's being manipulated by DSU, it's PCM or an equivalent uncompressed digital signal. Then DSU manipulates it to occupy the rest of your speakers.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

dfa973 said:


> A 3D sound field is determined by its boundaries, in this case, the boundaries are the relative exact placement of the speakers in a shape of a top-flat pyramid, which is why Atmos needs to have the top speakers in the same vertical plane with the Front+Side speakers, to create the 3D space of a top-flat pyramid, with your head "inside" the shape or very close to the bottom of the top-flat pyramid (since most of the Sides and Rears are a little above the level of the ears).


in a "real" object based system all this is irrelevant!
in fact what you describe is a plea for Auro3D and not Atmos 

first of all, there is absolutely no "real" reason why there is a center and real center on the bottom level possible, but not for the top layer.

everything indicates that during the production with these "Atmos Pro Tools" for the HC a 24.1.10 channel based sound with predefined speaker locations is created.
the Object Audio Renderer in the AVR is nothing more than a simple algorithm which maps these 24.1.10 channels to the existing x.y.z setup and does a simple matrix decode between two (i doubt they do it for more) real existing speakers.
that explains the maximum number of speakers, the "paired" layout, the strange "side to side" movement of the demo helicopter with just two top speakers and all other "strange" things with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## coolcolorblack

I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.


----------



## camd5pt0

petetherock said:


> Nice setup, do you mind sharing the dimensions of your room please?
> Cheers


Thanks! Ceiling is 9ft from there floor as well


----------



## CBdicX

Selden Ball said:


> The 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack might originate as DTS, *but by the time it's being manipulated by DSU, it's PCM or an equivalent uncompressed digital signal*. Then DSU manipulates it to occupy the rest of your speakers.


*Is this a good thing or bad compared to Original DTS ?*


So this is why the "sound" changes a bit compared to the original DTS file.
This change is not pressent when i use NeuralX, but then i have 2 speakers not used (Top Middle or in my case SDH).
Hope the fix for DTS 13 channel will come soon.
I think its the best to keep DTS on DTS and Dolby on Dolby


----------



## dfa973

Mickey Mouse said:


> in a "real" object based system all this is irrelevant!
> in fact what you describe is a plea for Auro3D and not Atmos
> 
> first of all, there is absolutely no "real" reason why there is a center and real center on the bottom level possible, but not for the top layer.
> 
> everything indicates that during the production with these "Atmos Pro Tools" for the HC a 24.1.10 channel based sound with predefined speaker locations is created.
> the Object Audio Renderer in the AVR is nothing more than a simple algorithm which maps these 24.1.10 channels to the existing x.y.z setup and does a simple matrix decode between two (i doubt they do it for more) real existing speakers.
> that explains the maximum number of speakers, the "paired" layout, the strange "side to side" movement of the demo helicopter with just two top speakers and all other "strange" things with Dolby Atmos.


Sorry, but your theory does not hold up...

1. *predefined speaker locations* is a simple way to put every setup on the same page and to keep the renderer to be informed of the actual speaker location;
2. as I have said before, *speaker pairs* simplify the setup and creates a known 3D space with defined boundaries;
3. *the strange "side to side" movement of the demo helicopter with just two top speakers* is just the result of the 3D shape that is obtained in a 7.1.2 or 5.1.2 setup, the top enlarged pyramid-shaped space that is also attached to this post. If you look at the image, you can see very easily that a *top snapped sound object* (our demo helicopter) cannot move outside the top of the pyramid, so the only movement it can have is, you guessed, side to side!!!! If the helicopter was to land during the circling the side-to-side top movement can morph into circling using more and more the bed speakers. But the helicopter does not land, it stays at the top, so its movement is limited in a Dolby Atmos x.x.2 setup... Logic.

As soon as you convert the 3D sound space to a top-flat pyramid by using a 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 setup your sounds will have a greater space to move and more realistically placed in the shape that you create by placing the speakers in their designated locations.


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> *Is this a good thing or bad compared to Original DTS ?*
> 
> 
> So this is why the "sound" changes a bit compared to the original DTS file.
> This change is not pressent when i use NeuralX, but then i have 2 speakers not used (Top Middle or in my case SDH).
> Hope the fix for DTS 13 channel will come soon.
> I think its the best to keep DTS on DTS and Dolby on Dolby


DTS is only a compression codec. It is just a different way to compress the original file so it fits onto the disc. Think of it like having a Word dicument which you compress using ZIP or RAR. It's still the same Word document inside. You're worrying about something that doesn't matter - if the compression was lossy, then you might be concerned whether Dolby was better or worse than DTS, but with the lossless compression of Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA, it doesn't make any difference - once can't be 'more lossless' than the other.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> DTS is only a compression codec. It is just a different way to compress the original file so it fits onto the disc. Think of it like having a Word dicument which you compress using ZIP or RAR. It's still the same Word document inside. You're worrying about something that doesn't matter - if the compression was lossy, then you might be concerned whether Dolby was better or worse than DTS, but with the lossless compression of Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA, it doesn't make any difference - once can't be 'more lossless' than the other.



I started to worry (a tiny bit) when i could hear the sound change compered between DTS > NeuralX or DTS > DSU.
DTS > NeuralX sounds heavier (more lower bass) then DTS > DSU.
This made me think what's happening when i do DTS > DSU, why is this sounding different ?


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> I started to worry (a tiny bit) when i could hear the sound change compered between DTS > NeuralX or DTS > DSU.
> DTS > NeuralX sounds heavier (more lower bass) then DTS > DSU.
> This made me think what's happening when i do DTS > DSU, why is this sounding different ?


That's because the two upmixers, DTS Neural:X and Dolby Surround, are from competing companies, DTS and Dolby. They use different algorithms to do the upmixing and do different things to the audio. The details of how they work have not been revealed, only vague descriptions.


----------



## petetherock

camd5pt0 said:


> Thanks! Ceiling is 9ft from there floor as well


Thanks mate, I am planning to set up a new 7.1.4 system in a room with rather similar dimensions (4m L by 3.9m W by 3m H).. the squareness of my room does worry me though..


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> I started to worry (a tiny bit) when i could hear the sound change compered between DTS > NeuralX or DTS > DSU.
> DTS > NeuralX sounds heavier (more lower bass) then DTS > DSU.
> This made me think what's happening when i do DTS > DSU, why is this sounding different ?


What Selden said. No two upmixers will be the same. They use computer algorithms to manipulate the original source using a formula which is not publicly revealed. If DSU and Neural:X were identical there would be no point in having two. With upmixers you have to find those you prefer and use them each according to its own particular characteristics. For example, I find Neural:X is too much - they take way too much of the surround information and send it to the overhead speakers, for my taste. DSU is less obvious and, for me, more 'realistic'.

I think there is some confusion about all the terms we are using here.

The original content is PCM. This is then compressed with either DTS HD MA or TrueHD. It makes no difference which because both compression methods are lossless. Your AVR then uncompresses the content for playback. Onto this uncompressed content you can 'overlay' an upmixer of your choice so that all the speakers beyond the 7 included in the original content are used. The upmixers, DSU and Neural:X work in entirely different ways so it will be expected that the sound they produce will be different according to which upmixer is being used.

You just have to decide which upmixer is the 'best' for your needs. For me, it is almost always DSU but on one or two movies I have favored Neural:X. If there is no upmixing, it makes no difference if the track is TrueHD or DTS HD MA - the resultant sound will be identical.
*
A good movie to evaluate the upmixers with, IMO, is Spectre. Go to the helicopter scenes at the beginning of the movie. Turn off your floor level speakers and play the helicopter scene in its entirety, listening just with the overhead speakers. Use DSU and then swap to Neural:X and back again a few times and you will hear very clearly how each upmixer handles the helicopter when it is flying over your head and around the room. Also listen for any unwanted sounds over your head that shouldn't really be there and observe how each upmixer is different. The two upmixers handle this scene very differently and chances are you will prefer one to the other. If you enjoy them both, but recognising their differences, well, welcome to the world of preference and upmixers *


----------



## kbarnes701

petetherock said:


> Thanks mate, I am planning to set up a new 7.1.4 system in a room with rather similar dimensions (4m L by 3.9m W by 3m H).. the squareness of my room does worry me though..


I had a perfectly square room in my last HT. It is more difficult to work with but you can achieve terrific sound with careful placement of subwoofers, acoustic treatments and EQ. In itself a square room isn't so bad - it's what you do with it that matters, and you do have to work harder for sure.


----------



## Khaile

so finally uograded from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4 with the denon 4400h using 4 in ceiling speakers (top front and top rear). 

I have a question tho, if I changed the amp settings to designate my in ceiling speakers as “front height” and “rear height” would atmos or non atmos attack’s still output the same audio to my in ceiling speakers? 

I know it’s a weird question but I ask because the denon doesn’t allow “aura 3D” with top front and top rear designations according to the denon. 

You can learn more about it in this video from technodad 






In short, I want to sample auro 3D without losing ideal sound quality in my atmos movies.


----------



## rspierenburg

Hello everyone,
I'm currently running a Home Theater Computer (Mediaportal via Windows 10) on my Onkyo HT-S6300 and 65" TV. On the Onkyo receiver there is an extra set of speaker connectors to allow for either Zone 2 or Front High speakers to use with Dolby Pro Logic IIz. I'm not actually using the Onkyo to decode the audio, I'm passing PCM from the HTPC. I'm just curious if anyone has used the 2 Front High speakers as ceiling mounted speakers for Dolby Atmos via Windows 10?

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Selden Ball

rspierenburg said:


> Hello everyone,
> I'm currently running a Home Theater Computer (Mediaportal via Windows 10) on my Onkyo HT-S6300 and 65" TV. On the Onkyo receiver there is an extra set of speaker connectors to allow for either Zone 2 or Front High speakers to use with Dolby Pro Logic IIz. I'm not actually using the Onkyo to decode the audio, I'm passing PCM from the HTPC. I'm just curious if anyone has used the 2 Front High speakers as ceiling mounted speakers for Dolby Atmos via Windows 10?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert


Using Front Height speakers works fine with Atmos. However, decoding an Atmos soundtrack to PCM deletes the Atmos metadata.

In order to play an Atmos soundtrack on an Atmos-capable receiver or pre/pro, your Windows media player software must bitstream the soundtrack to the receiver. (I.e. send the soundtrack without manipulating it.) The details of the settings needed to bitstream a soundtrack depend on the specific media player software that you're using. You should be able to work them out while using your Onkyo, though. When bitstreaming is working, your AVR will report that it's receiving a DTS or Dolby soundtrack from the computer instead of PCM. The specific format will depend on the video file that you're playing.


----------



## camd5pt0

petetherock said:


> Thanks mate, I am planning to set up a new 7.1.4 system in a room with rather similar dimensions (4m L by 3.9m W by 3m H).. the squareness of my room does worry me though..


Very welcome, I wouldn't worry about it honestly. Given your furniture, you can make it work with little compromise if any


----------



## crtlove

Let’s say I have 4 front height speakers (one inner pair and one outer pair, not even that outer, like 30cm or 1 foot, whereas the inner pair are in line with the fronts down), and since AVRs don’t allow to set front_height+top_front, what would be better to set them up
- front height + top middle
or
- front height + surround (side) height

they’re all on a shelf 2m (6.56ft) from the floor, and not tilted downward.


----------



## Selden Ball

crtlove said:


> Let’s say I have 4 front height speakers (one inner pair and one outer pair, not even that outer, like 30cm or 1 foot, whereas the inner pair are in line with the fronts down), and since AVRs don’t allow to set front_height+top_front, what would be better to set them up
> - front height + top middle
> or
> - front height + surround (side) height


If they're both in front of the audience, Front Height + Top Middle would be best. 

The designation Surround (side) height is used only by the Auro-3D audio format, not by Atmos.

The farther apart you can position the speaker pairs, the better you'll be able to hear the differences in the sounds sent to them. If they're too close together the differences in the directions of their sounds will be hard to distinguish.



> they’re all on a shelf 2m (6.56ft) from the floor, and not tilted downward.


You need to consider adding something under them to tilt the speakers (e.g. triangular doorstops) so they point toward the audience. The high frequencies emitted by speakers' tweeters tend to "beam" (have a narrow displersion) so listeners won't be able to hear the high frequencies very well.


----------



## rspierenburg

Selden Ball said:


> Using Front Height speakers works fine with Atmos. However, decoding an Atmos soundtrack to PCM deletes the Atmos metadata.
> 
> In order to play an Atmos soundtrack on an Atmos-capable receiver or pre/pro, your Windows media player software must bitstream the soundtrack to the receiver. (I.e. send the soundtrack without manipulating it.) The details of the settings needed to bitstream a soundtrack depend on the specific media player software that you're using. You should be able to work them out while using your Onkyo, though. When bitstreaming is working, your AVR will report that it's receiving a DTS or Dolby soundtrack from the computer instead of PCM. The specific format will depend on the video file that you're playing.


So the Onkyo receiver isn't natively Atmos-capable (as far as I know) which is why I was hoping Windows would decode Atmos and pass PCM to the correct speakers, but from the limited research I've done Dolby hasn't release any Windows Codecs for Atmos other than for headphones. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Khaile

Khaile said:


> so finally uograded from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4 with the denon 4400h using 4 in ceiling speakers (top front and top rear).
> 
> I have a question tho, if I changed the amp settings to designate my in ceiling speakers as “front height” and “rear height” would atmos or non atmos attack’s still output the same audio to my in ceiling speakers?
> 
> I know it’s a weird question but I ask because the denon doesn’t allow “aura 3D” with top front and top rear designations according to the denon.
> 
> You can learn more about it in this video from technodad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, I want to sample auro 3D without losing ideal sound quality in my atmos movies.


 anyone?


----------



## batpig

crtlove said:


> Let’s say I have 4 front height speakers (one inner pair and one outer pair, not even that outer, like 30cm or 1 foot, whereas the inner pair are in line with the fronts down), and since AVRs don’t allow to set front_height+top_front, what would be better to set them up
> - front height + top middle
> or
> - front height + surround (side) height
> 
> they’re all on a shelf 2m (6.56ft) from the floor, and not tilted downward.


So the four speakers are literally at the same plane in the room -- they are all side by side with each other?

I would only use two of them, it makes zero sense to try and use all four of them if they are side by side.


----------



## batpig

Khaile said:


> anyone?


In theory the sound won't change too much.... all elevated sounds will still go to the four height speakers (because there's nowhere else to go) and you still have front/rear distinction. Some who have tested think that they hear a difference, but it's probably not enough to worry about if you value having the flexibility of using Auro3D as well. It's fairly easy to test yourself -- pick a favorite scene or two in an Atmos movie with plenty of overhead action, and try it both ways and see if you hear a difference.


----------



## deano86

Khaile said:


> anyone?


Yes, there have been plenty of people who have designated their tops as heights to more easily also use DTS-X and Auro speaker profiles ... I am sure it is a compromise in some way...But, honestly you are the best judge for your room... use a favorite Atmos movie or Atmos demo scene with the normal Tops designation, switch to Heights and listen again. Although, that could be a pain if you are forced to rerun Audyssey upon switching? Can you save your Audyssey profiles and reload to make switching easier? Not sure....

Just curious why bother with trying to make Auro 3d work since there are virtually no available titles.. .unless you are located in Europe or plan on importing titles I guess....

LOL!.. .Batpig beat me to it...


----------



## Khaile

deano86 said:


> Khaile said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there have been plenty of people who have designated their tops as heights to more easily also use DTS-X and Auro speaker profiles ... I am sure it is a compromise in some way...But, honestly you are the best judge for your room... use a favorite Atmos movie or Atmos demo scene with the normal Tops designation, switch to Heights and listen again. Although, that could be a pain if you are forced to rerun Audyssey upon switching? Can you save your Audyssey profiles and reload to make switching easier? Not sure....
> 
> Just curious why bother with trying to make Auro 3d work since there are virtually no available titles.. .unless you are located in Europe or plan on importing titles I guess....
> 
> LOL!.. .Batpig beat me to it...
Click to expand...

Altho there aren’t any American titles in atmos, I’d like to try to sample auro 3d with some of my Blu Ray movies that have a trueHD or dtsHD track (the denon 4400 can upmix it to Auro 3d) to see how it sounds


----------



## vn800art

@Khaile
You have to test yourself in your system. 
Denon 4400 should have the possibility to Save and Load an entire setting on a Usb thumbdrive. You have to run the first Audyssey with TOP speakers setting, save it on a first thumbdrive, change setting to HEIGHTS, rerun Audyssey and save this last one on a second thumbdrive; write down which is which on the drives.
As an alternative, you can use the MultEq App to store different sets of equalization on your phone/tablet and send them to the Avr at your needs.
I prefer the first option, YMMV.
SR7011, here, btw. Auro3d with Vog speaker enabled.
Regards
Alessandro
Edit: Here in Europe there are more titles in Auro3d, but I use Auromatic to listen to 2 channel music, the most.


----------



## MentatYP

I'm still running an old Denon from the early 2000s that only does DD and DTS and am considering an upgrade. I don't think I'd put in height speakers right away so I'd be running a 5.1 system for the time being.

Would I hear a quality difference going to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA? I have plenty of blu-rays that contain those audio formats but obviously have been living with DD and DTS due to hardware limitations.

Also, would I hear improvements going to Dolby Atmos without height speakers? Is that even a thing, or does the receiver/processor bump down to a non-object-based format when height speakers are missing?


----------



## Selden Ball

rspierenburg said:


> So the Onkyo receiver isn't natively Atmos-capable (as far as I know) which is why I was hoping Windows would decode Atmos and pass PCM to the correct speakers, but from the limited research I've done Dolby hasn't release any Windows Codecs for Atmos other than for headphones. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert


Unfortunately, so far as I know, sending decoded Atmos over an HDMI cable as separate PCM channels is not available. Support for as many as 32 audio channels supposedly is in the HDMI V2.0 standard, but, like ethernet over HDMI, I don't think that feature has actually been implemented by anybody.


----------



## bryantc

MentatYP said:


> I'm still running an old Denon from the early 2000s that only does DD and DTS and am considering an upgrade. I don't think I'd put in height speakers right away so I'd be running a 5.1 system for the time being.
> 
> Would I hear a quality difference going to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA? I have plenty of blu-rays that contain those audio formats but obviously have been living with DD and DTS due to hardware limitations.
> 
> Also, would I hear improvements going to Dolby Atmos without height speakers? Is that even a thing, or does the receiver/processor bump down to a non-object-based format when height speakers are missing?


 You should absolutely hear an improvement with the current lossless formats over the old lossy audio.


However Atmos will not be used on a 5.1 system. You will get the base TrueHD track.


----------



## Selden Ball

MentatYP said:


> I'm still running an old Denon from the early 2000s that only does DD and DTS and am considering an upgrade. I don't think I'd put in height speakers right away so I'd be running a 5.1 system for the time being.
> 
> Would I hear a quality difference going to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA? I have plenty of blu-rays that contain those audio formats but obviously have been living with DD and DTS due to hardware limitations.


Whether or not you'll actually hear any difference depends on the quality of your hearing, your speakers, and the acoustics of the room. Many of the early DVDs which were used to show off the quality of Dolby Digital's compression were quite good. When I played them on a Sony player recently, I was surprised that the player's inromational display revealed them to be using the lowest possible bitrate.


> Also, would I hear improvements going to Dolby Atmos without height speakers? Is that even a thing, or does the receiver/processor bump down to a non-object-based format when height speakers are missing?


If you don't have overhead speakers, Atmos won't be used. All of the sounds are provided on the discs in the 7.1 ear-level TrueHD speaker channels. When Atmos decoding is applied, the sounds intended for the overheads are deleted from thpse ear-level channels and sent to the overhead speakers.


----------



## David Susilo

jtcountry said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will just be the internal relays doing the switching. Most m/ch units do the same. (All that I have personally owned).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, good to know. I guess I just didn't notice it as much on my old Denon, though it wasn't an Atmos receiver, and may not have been switching as much.
Click to expand...

I checked mine just now. Yeah it clicks like a mother. Pioneer clicks have always been the loudest but I didn’t remember how loud it is because for the past 10 years all my equipment are in the next room


----------



## VideoGrabber

maikeldepotter said:


> sdurani wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The other problem with having surrounds so high up is that the mixer ends up hearing lots of phantom imaging overhead and might not use the height speakers as much. I know people complained that the movie San Andreas didn't have much in the heights, but when I heard it at a movie theatre (with the surround arrays way above me), there was plenty of overhead imaging (except it wasn't coming from the height speakers). By comparison, mixes where the surrounds were closer to ear level (5th Element) tend to have lots of sound in the height speakers (there's no other way to have sound overhead).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should have metadata included with all Atmos soundtracks, informing speaker remapping capable processors about the applied (mixer-referenced) lateral height of surround and overhead arryas during re-recording, so that our speakers can be re-positioned accordingly ... Easy fix
> 
> Or as alternative, a D-Box kind of post-production solution, where the processor contains/ has on-line access to a regularly updated database which immediately recognizes a started soundtrack and feeds the processor with the appropriate mixing-room/remapping data.
Click to expand...

Yes, such an adaptive system would eliminate a lot of guesswork and approximation on our parts. I did have to smile at the "easy fix" comment. [But when I initially read about Atmos, I thought something similar was going to be done. Not physically moving any speakers mind you, but rather electro-acoustically adapting the output signals to match whatever positioning the speakers happened to have in any particular room (e.g. using DSPs and matrix math). You tell the processor where the speakers are physically located (elevation and azimuth, in addition to distance), and it adjusts the sounds sent to each speaker to place the sounds in the virtual positions originally intended. (Ha ha.)]


Back when I first read Sanjay's comments above on this, I was thinking that such mixing studios were designed *specifically for theatrical mixes*. And home mixes were being done in differently configured acoustic spaces? That was part of the reason for taking the time to do separate mixes. Is that not the case?

If both ARE being done in the *same *rooms (or the majority of them are, if not all), then for exactly the reasons that Sanjay cited, perhaps we should be moving our sides way up, and pulling the overhead speaker pair in much tighter. That would improve the immersion of those mixes, by shifting more content overhead. Thereby leading to fewer disappointed listeners, since that seems to be THE most common complaint. **


As a side effect of that, it also appears from Maikel's diagram that in the theatre, there is no left/right overhead for most of the audience. For 1/3 of each row, it's all off to the right, and 1/3 is all off to the left... to varying degrees. Only the center third gets any real left/right spread.

Or is that incorrect?

[** NB: if I had read a couple pages further, I would have seen that this is considered to be a poor approach, yielding poor results (i.e., Scott's "surround sound hat"). Which makes sense. I'll have to admit I can't keep up with a 33-page/day topic, and have fallen a week behind.  

But if this is the case, I guess I have to wonder: 

a) don't the theater owners realize this doesn't sound good? 
b) don't the experts at Dolby understand this seriously compromises the experience? and, 
c) can't the mixers sitting there *creating* the 'surround sound hat' hear what they're making? ]


----------



## crtlove

Selden Ball said:


> If they're both in front of the audience, Front Height + Top Middle would be best.
> 
> The designation Surround (side) height is used only by the Auro-3D audio format, not by Atmos.


I see, actually I made it up (the “side” modifier) without knowing it is an actual designation used in another format, I (naively) wanted to stress they were supposed to be on the sides based on the graphical rendering within the AVR setup wizard. 
I meant just “surround height” in atmos terms. 



> You need to consider adding something under them to tilt the speakers (e.g. triangular doorstops) so they point toward the audience. The high frequencies emitted by speakers' tweeters tend to "beam" (have a narrow displersion) so listeners won't be able to hear the high frequencies very well.


I see, thanks. There are some aesthetics considerations at play too. I just ordered a pair of “Adam Hall Pad ECO 1” to see how it looks and sound. I think they are capable of tilting the speakers up to 8° downwards like their (far pricier, at least here) Auralex counterparts. 
The tweeters of the speakers are at around 250cm height, my ears are at around 150cm height and 400cm far, after some trigonometry I guess they should be tilted around 15° but I guess even half of that would be an improvement without making it to obvious that the speakers (currently a neat array of cherry covered “boxes” on top of a nice piece of furniture) are tilted like a leaning tower..


----------



## crtlove

batpig said:


> So the four speakers are literally at the same plane in the room -- they are all side by side with each other?
> 
> I would only use two of them, it makes zero sense to try and use all four of them if they are side by side.


Ok I’ll be more clear, there are actually 6 identical speakers (Indiana Line Tesi 260), they are on top of a piece of furniture that spans almost the width of the whole watching area and is 2m/6.56ft tall, the speakers are spaced (center of tweeter to center of tweeter) as such

[C]–40cm/1.31ft—*—40cm/1.31ft—[A]———160cm/5.24ft———[A]—40cm/1.31ft——40cm/1.31ft—[C]


AA are currently used for L/R fronts, and I’m replacing them with 2 properly placed speakers down at ear level
BB are currently unpowered
one of the C is used for surround back left, the other C is unpowered (because I have a properly placed surround back right, I’m working with what I have in terms of room compatibility) 

All 6 speakers are staying up there for simmetry and balance, can’t leave gaps. All will be tilted 8° downwards for the same reasons. 
Moving to an Atmos setup (and, most importantly, properly placed floor level fronts), I was thinking
- AA become front heights
- CC become top middle 
- left B become left surround back (I know...again, working with what I have), right B unpowered just for looks

CC are at the corners of the viewing area...I guess using both AA and CC could give a more “carpet bombing” effect over the area? They are 2.6ft apart tweeter to tweeter...
If I don’t power CC that would mean that half of 6 the speakers are for looks...it also skews a bit my choice between a 9.2 x4400h and a 7.2 x3500h...*


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> If both ARE being done in the *same *rooms (or the majority of them are, if not all), then for exactly the reasons that Sanjay cited, perhaps we should be moving our sides way up, and pulling the overhead speaker pair in much tighter. That would improve the immersion of those mixes, by shifting more content overhead. Thereby leading to fewer disappointed listeners, since that seems to be THE most common complaint.


The problem with that idea is that in the home people rarely are able to place their overhead speakers high enough due to normal domestic ceilings being so low. It works in the cinema because even with the surrounds high up (necessary when the audience is so large) the overhead speakers are considerably higher still, thus preserving the separation required. At home, where the audience is usually in single figures, there is no need to mount the side surrounds high up (widespread coverage of a large space not being required) so bringing them down to ear(ish) height and putting the overheads as high as possible (on the ceiling) gives the separation needed. 

In my HT I am fortunate to have a fairly high ceiling (about 14 feet in total but my overhead speakers actually hang from my ceiling acoustic cloud, at about 11 feet above the floor) and with my surrounds at just above ear height (so that no listener blocks line of sight to any speaker from any other listener) I have very good angular separation and have no problem at all in differentiating sounds above me from sounds around me. Any issues, if any, as Sanjay mentioned, are usually with the way the tracks are mixed rather than with speaker configuration and there isn't much we can do about that. If you adjust the speakers to get it 'right' for a track mixed originally with surrounds high up, then it will be 'wrong' for tracks mixed with the surrounds lower down, and vice-versa.

I can see where you are coming from with the idea of mounting the surrounds higher (at home) and then moving the overhead speakers closer together in an attempt to preserve the required angular separation, but it seems to me cause as many problems as it might solve. FWIW, on the more recent Atmos mixes, there seems to be no real problems with regard to the amount of content placed in the overhead speakers. For the earlier releases, many movies had little content up above, possibly due to the reasons Sanjay mentions, possibly due to mixers being unfamiliar with object mixing in the early days -- but the more recent releases that I have (which is most of them) feature great use of overheads. As do most of the remixes of legacy content (eg _Blade Runner - The Final Cut, Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Fifth Element_ etc).


----------



## maikeldepotter

VideoGrabber said:


> Yes, such an adaptive system would eliminate a lot of guesswork and approximation on our parts. I did have to smile at the "easy fix" comment. [But when I initially read about Atmos, I thought something similar was going to be done. Not physically moving any speakers mind you, but rather electro-acoustically adapting the output signals to match whatever positioning the speakers happened to have in any particular room (e.g. using DSPs and matrix math). You tell the processor where the speakers are physically located (elevation and azimuth, in addition to distance), and it adjusts the sounds sent to each speaker to place the sounds in the virtual positions originally intended. (Ha ha.)]


That is exactly what I was referring to: not physically moving any speaker, but let the processor adapt to the intended (re-recording room) locations. For Trinnov's Altitude this could truly be an "easy fix" with its already developed speaker remapping tool.



> Back when I first read Sanjay's comments above on this, I was thinking that such mixing studios were designed *specifically for theatrical mixes*. And home mixes were being done in differently configured acoustic spaces? That was part of the reason for taking the time to do separate mixes. Is that not the case?


Yes it is. But apparently, when adapting a theatrical soundtrack for home use in a mixing studio with an Atmos home speaker configuration, the positional meta data remain unaltered (what I have come to understand is that those adaptation mostly concern dynamics).



> If both ARE being done in the *same *rooms (or the majority of them are, if not all), then for exactly the reasons that Sanjay cited, perhaps we should be moving our sides way up, and pulling the overhead speaker pair in much tighter. That would improve the immersion of those mixes, by shifting more content overhead. Thereby leading to fewer disappointed listeners, since that seems to be THE most common complaint. **


Yes, for all those Atmos mixes that are originally made for the commercial theater, that seems to be a sensibe approach if you want to come as close as possible to the director's/mixer's intent on this aspect.



> As a side effect of that, it also appears from Maikel's diagram that in the theatre, there is no left/right overhead for most of the audience. For 1/3 of each row, it's all off to the right, and 1/3 is all off to the left... to varying degrees. Only the center third gets any real left/right spread.
> 
> Or is that incorrect?


That is correct, and the reason why Dolby defined a Central Listening Area which lies within those two overhead arrays.



> But if this is the case, I guess I have to wonder:
> 
> a) don't the theater owners realize this doesn't sound good?
> b) don't the experts at Dolby understand this seriously compromises the experience? and,
> c) can't the mixers sitting there *creating* the 'surround sound hat' hear what they're making? ]


a) Following Dolby's s theatrical guidelines (which you must to get an Atmos certified theater), it will sound as good or bad as the director/mixer intended it to sound.
b) I am sure they do understand the consequences of the choices they made in translating theatrical Atmos to home Atmos.
c) Yes they undoubtedly do, and they make the/their best of it.


----------



## Selden Ball

crtlove said:


> I see, actually I made it up (the “side” modifier) without knowing it is an actual designation used in another format, I (naively) wanted to stress they were supposed to be on the sides based on the graphical rendering within the AVR setup wizard.
> I meant just “surround height” in atmos terms.


Sorry to keep harping on this, but "Side Surround" is the Auro-3D designation for speakers placed up high over the (side) Surround speakers. If you specify it while configuring your speakers, you'll be left wondering why those speakers are silent when you play Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks. Auro-3D's overhead speaker pairs are intended to be located directly above ear-level speakers. Atmos and DTS:X overhead speakers are not.

Although receivers let you specify speaker designations which are unique to one or another of the 3D audio formats, to be compatible with all three of them you have to use the designations Front Height and Rear Height. Otherwise you have to reconfigure the receiver each time you play a different type of 3D audio format. Yamaha makes it easy to switch between Atmos and DTS:X (they don't support Auro-3D at all), but D&M requires a reload of the calibration which can take a minute or two.


> I see, thanks. There are some aesthetics considerations at play too. I just ordered a pair of “Adam Hall Pad ECO 1” to see how it looks and sound. I think they are capable of tilting the speakers up to 8° downwards like their (far pricier, at least here) Auralex counterparts.
> The tweeters of the speakers are at around 250cm height, my ears are at around 150cm height and 400cm far, after some trigonometry I guess they should be tilted around 15° but I guess even half of that would be an improvement without making it to obvious that the speakers (currently a neat array of cherry covered “boxes” on top of a nice piece of furniture) are tilted like a leaning tower..


Most speakers are designed with rectangular shapes, making them look best when they're aligned with walls and floor. Unfortunately, that's not the best orientation for making them sound their best. They sound best when they are turned and/or tilted so they actually point toward the main listening position.


----------



## coolcolorblack

I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Thanks for the followup, Maikel.



maikeldepotter said:


> That is exactly what I was referring to: not physically moving any speaker, but let the processor adapt to the intended (re-recording room) locations. For Trinnov's Altitude this could truly be an "easy fix" with its already developed speaker remapping tool.


Ah. When you wrote, _"so that our speakers can be re-positioned accordingly"_, I envisioned the speakers gliding into new positions via motors or something.  I appreciate the clarification.




> Yes it is. But apparently, when adapting a theatrical soundtrack for home use in a mixing studio with an Atmos home speaker configuration, the *positional meta data remain unaltered* (what I have come to understand is that those adaptation mostly concern dynamics).


Thanks too for that, of which I was not aware. Especially since the theater/mix-room is SO different from home installations, I would have expected the positional meta-data to be adjusted as well.




> Yes, for all those Atmos mixes that are originally made for the commercial theater, that seems to be a sensibe approach if you want to come as close as possible to the director's/mixer's intent on this aspect.


I agreed with you all along, for those related and corresponding situations. It seems logical. But it didn't track that the home mixes would be subjected to those same constraints, when Dolby recommends layouts for the home that are so different.




> That is correct, and the reason why Dolby defined a Central Listening Area which lies within those two overhead arrays.


Yes, I recall that now, though I had forgotten. What's nice is when in a home environment, all the listeners can be in the CLA.




> a) Following Dolby's s theatrical guidelines (which you must to get an Atmos certified theater), it will sound as good or bad as the director/mixer intended it to sound.
> b) I am sure they do understand the consequences of the choices they made in translating theatrical Atmos to home Atmos.
> c) Yes they undoubtedly do, and they make the/their best of it.


Except when the listeners are more discerning, as Scott and Sanjay were (for example), and they leave one commercial theater and go to another venue, due to the 'surround hat' effect. I.e., not all theaters follow that extreme of an approach.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Khaile's questions:



> ...finally uograded from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4 with the denon 4400h using 4 in ceiling speakers (top front and top rear). ...iif I changed the amp settings to designate my in ceiling speakers as “front height” and “rear height” would atmos or non atmos attack’s still output the same audio to my in ceiling speakers?





batpig said:


> In theory the sound won't change too much.... all elevated sounds will still go to the four height speakers (because there's nowhere else to go) and you still have front/rear distinction. Some who have tested think that they hear a difference, but it's probably not enough to worry about if you value having the flexibility of using Auro3D as well. It's fairly easy to test yourself -- pick a favorite scene or two in an Atmos movie with plenty of overhead action, and try it both ways and see if you hear a difference.


Sanjay explained this a while back. If you have TF/TR speakers, but tell the AVR they're in FH/RH locations, it will then collapse the overhead sound field somewhat, by rendering inwards of the original locations.


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> The problem with that idea is that in the home people rarely are able to place their overhead speakers high enough due to normal domestic ceilings being so low.


I think you could (in ceiling)... they just wouldn't be very far apart.




> It works in the cinema because even with the surrounds high up (necessary when the audience is so large) the overhead speakers are considerably higher still, thus preserving the separation required. At home, where the audience is usually in single figures, there is no need to mount the side surrounds high up (widespread coverage of a large space not being required) so bringing them down to ear(ish) height and putting the overheads as high as possible (on the ceiling) gives the separation needed.


Agreed.




> In my HT I am fortunate to have a fairly high ceiling...


Very fortunate indeed. 




> Any issues, if any, as Sanjay mentioned, are usually with the way the tracks are mixed rather than with speaker configuration and there isn't much we can do about that. If you adjust the speakers to get it 'right' for a track mixed originally with surrounds high up, then it will be 'wrong' for tracks mixed with the surrounds lower down, and vice-versa.


Right. You can't satisfy both simultaneously. You have to pick your poison, and as you pointed out below, the newer releases seem to be doing it "right", which shifts the balance in that direction. Thankfully.




> I can see where you are coming from with the idea of mounting the surrounds higher (at home) and then moving the overhead speakers closer together in an attempt to preserve the required angular separation, but it seems to me cause as many problems as it might solve. FWIW, on the more recent Atmos mixes, there seems to be no real problems with regard to the amount of content placed in the overhead speakers. For the earlier releases, many movies had little content up above, possibly due to the reasons Sanjay mentions, possibly due to mixers being unfamiliar with object mixing in the early days -- but the more recent releases that I have (which is most of them) feature great use of overheads. As do most of the remixes of legacy content (eg _Blade Runner - The Final Cut, Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Fifth Element_ etc).


----------



## crtlove

Selden Ball said:


> Sorry to keep harping on this, but "Side Surround" is the Auro-3D designation for speakers placed up high over the (side) Surround speakers. If you specify it while configuring your speakers, you'll be left wondering why those speakers are silent when you play Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks. Auro-3D's overhead speaker pairs are intended to be located directly above ear-level speakers. Atmos and DTS:X overhead speakers are not.
> 
> Although receivers let you specify speaker designations which are unique to one or another of the 3D audio formats, to be compatible with all three of them you have to use the designations Front Height and Rear Height. Otherwise you have to reconfigure the receiver each time you play a different type of 3D audio format. Yamaha makes it easy to switch between Atmos and DTS:X (they don't support Auro-3D at all), but D&M requires a reload of the calibration which can take a minute or two.


Thanks, this was important for me to realize. I now also read about it in the x4400h manual.
I think I’m going to go for a FH+RH setup for maximum compatibility, with the right RH in its proper position too. The left RH unfortunately will be on the front wall just like my current left floor level surround. Basically I’ll have a 5.1.4 FH+RH with everything in its place except SL and RHL, and hope for the best. The occasional “slammed door” or ”gun shot” from the right back it’s better than having no back speakers at all. I guess with Atmos I’ll also hear half a rain or half an helicopter from RHR. 



> Most speakers are designed with rectangular shapes, making them look best when they're aligned with walls and floor. Unfortunately, that's not the best orientation for making them sound their best. They sound best when they are turned and/or tilted so they actually point toward the main listening position.


True. I sometimes avoid this with non-rectangular speakers like Scandyna Podspeakers. Actually I’m going to order another Scandyna for my RHR.


----------



## m. zillch

David Susilo said:


> It’s not the optimizer. I turned mine on and off, same result and it annoys the f out of me. I even changes from LX701 to LX801 and the problem is still there.
> 
> If I set the speakers to NOT Dolby Enabled, the echo disappears





> No. I understand what you’re trying to say, but the echo is actually a “multi-tap echo”


[misquote corrected, sorry about my goof]

Dolby Headphones, a processing option on my Marantz prepro's headphone out, adds a reverberation/echo to even mono sound I don't particularly like, especially when watching a outdoors scene when there's no walls for the characters' dialog to bounce against hence any echo or reverb seems out of place and unnatural. 

I've analyzed it with a click track in the following video so one can both hear and see what happens to the mono click impulses using all three versions of this processing Marantz offers, against the direct, unprocessed signal which comes first and then I repeat it again at the end. Out of curiosity, is this similar to the echo/reverb _you_ are hearing through your LX701 (and LX801) Atmos Enabled speaker outs?


----------



## David Susilo

Not that at all


----------



## David Susilo

Literally on a digital audio workstation effects it’s called “multi tap echo”. 😞


----------



## markus767

m. zillch said:


> Dolby Headphones, a processing option on my Marantz prepro's headphone out, adds a reverberation/echo to even mono sound


...just like putting speakers in an acoustically small room does


----------



## m. zillch

markus767 said:


> ...just like putting speakers in an acoustically small room does


But isn't the goal of surround sound to reproduce a virtual reality of the movie scene and to magically transport the listener to the environment depicted on screen?

When Indiana Jones is talking in a cave it makes sense that my living room (or headphones) sounds like a cave but when Indiana Jones is outdoors it no longer makes sense that he sounds like he is in a cave (or any other kind of room).

I know professional venues, including THX certified commercial theaters, go to great lengths to kill theater reflections by installing things like non-reflective panels, diffusers, floor to ceiling drapes, irregular ceilings, and staggered/non-parallel walls specifically to kill reflections as much as possible. You see some of them in use at this Atmos dubbing stage for example:









From my perspective the goal is to let the original sound recording engineers and film mixers have full control of how it sounds and let _them_ decide, electrically, what atmospherics, ambiance, reflected sounds, and reverberations come from the walls and ceiling_ via the surround speaker system_ (at least as much as is possible). Similarly, I'd like my room acoustics to "disappear", although a completely deadened room isn't always friendly to some music recordings which, unlike movies, relies on it to a degree.


----------



## markus767

@m. zillch

Goal of those headphone upmixers is to get the sound out of your head. Adding (virtual) room information helps even if it doesn't sound "as intended by the creator" anymore. Humans love added spaciousness, so in a preference test you probably won't get many votes for the "real" version anyways.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that the "recording engineers and film mixers have full control" but as long as we don't have real object based audio (Dolby Atmos is NOT really object based because it doesn't separate the sound from spatial information) things are messy.


----------



## m. zillch

markus767 said:


> Goal of those headphone upmixers is to get the sound out of your head.


 At the expense of making it sound like I'm perpetually in a large tiled bathroom listening to the string quartet, etc.? No thanks, not for me, but I agree with you that many must love it. Give them a "spaciousness control" and they'll invariably set it too "11".


----------



## CBdicX

*7.1.6 question*

Hi, i have a 6 height speaker setup.
4 of them are Dolby Enabled and are on the front and rear speakers.
2 are Kef T101 that are on the ceiling above the 2 seats in the Top Middle position.

I have 2 options to make a setup.

*1)* all 6 as Dolby Enabled like in the pic.


*2)* the 4 DE as Height front and rear, and 2 T101 as Top Middle.


(its not possible to do front and rear DE and Top Middle like it is in the actual setup with Denon X8500H )

Any idea what would "on paper" be a best setup to do in this case ?


----------



## markus767

m. zillch said:


> At the expense of making it sound like I'm perpetually in a large tiled bathroom listening to the string quartet, etc.?


You are exaggerating. A lot more reverberation is necessary to make something sound like you are "in a large tiled bathroom". Echo threshold for click sounds is very low (see Blauert) but how often do you encounter completely isolated click sounds in real recordings? Even when listening to something like Frank Bretschneider people would probably prefer the bathroom version


----------



## m. zillch

markus767 said:


> You are exaggerating.


The tongue sticking out emoji was supposed to indicate there was a bit of hyperbole with my post, yes. 

What I can tell you though is the effect is dead obvious to me in nearly all dialog scenes and I personally find it objectionable. If others dig it, that's fine, I'm just saying it is not _my_ cup of tea.


----------



## Flash28

*Is Atmos worth it in my situation?*

Hello Atmos folks (and hopefully some experts)!

I have had the attached 7.2 surround system for a while and would like to see what the Atmos can do for me. My only concern is that given the placement of my current speakers (directional and all firing directly at the seating position), I fear that the addition of overhead speakers will not have the intended impact to warrant the investment. 

The room, windows, doors, etc made the TV placement above the Fireplace the best place to go. The speakers mounted in such a way that the sound comes from the TV rather than at ear level. To keep the sound plane level, the surround speakers are also mounted high and because the rear of my great room is open, the rears are ceiling mounted.

Assuming phantom rear wall, my room is 20.5' wide x ~22.5' deep x 9' high.

Since my speakers are mounted so high, would adding ceiling speakers provide sufficient spacial separation, or would all sound just be coming from above? I want to experience what everyone is raving about, but fear i would be spending the money (speakers, extra amps, install) to ultimately think, meh...maybe a little better, but nothing groundbreaking.

All thoughts welcome.


----------



## Selden Ball

Flash28 said:


> Hello Atmos folks (and hopefully some experts)!
> 
> I have had the attached 7.2 surround system for a while and would like to see what the Atmos can do for me. My only concern is that given the placement of my current speakers (directional and all firing directly at the seating position), I fear that the addition of overhead speakers will not have the intended impact to warrant the investment.
> 
> The room, windows, doors, etc made the TV placement above the Fireplace the best place to go. The speakers mounted in such a way that the sound comes from the TV rather than at ear level. To keep the sound plane level, the surround speakers are also mounted high and because the rear of my great room is open, the rears are ceiling mounted.
> 
> Assuming phantom rear wall, my room is 20.5' wide x ~24' deep x 9' high.
> 
> Since my speakers are mounted so high, would adding ceiling speakers provide sufficient spacial separation, or would all sound just be coming from above? I want to experience what everyone is raving about, but fear i would be spending the money (speakers, extra amps, install) to ultimately think, meh...maybe a little better, but nothing groundbreaking.
> 
> All thoughts welcome.


The minimal change would be to reconfigure the current Rear Surrounds to be Top Rear or Rear Height. Then add two more front overhead speakers at an equal distance forward of the seating as the current Rear Surrounds are to its rear, configuring them as either Top Front or Front Height. This would result in a 5.1.4 speaker configuration.

If you can, I'd also suggest moving the Side Surround toward the rear of the seating area, so they're somewhat behind the seating. You don't show a top view, so I dunno if your side walls extend that far.


----------



## coolcolorblack

I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.


----------



## m. zillch

Flash28 said:


> All thoughts welcome.


Atmos isn't just "new extra speakers in new places". This signal embedded in the disc is more sophisticated and when the freely included Dolby Surround upmixer is used on non-Atmos material that also has been advanced. You may not benefit from Atmos as much as people with their surround speakers lower however I still suspect you would find it to be improved both for Atmos and non-Atmos sources. How much, you might ask? Hard to say for sure; it depends on what you tend to watch. I vote "go for it".


----------



## richlife

Flash28 said:


> Hello Atmos folks *(and hopefully some experts)*!
> 
> ... I want to experience what everyone is raving about, but fear i would be spending the money (speakers, extra amps, install) to ultimately think, meh...maybe a little better, but nothing groundbreaking.
> 
> All thoughts welcome.


Start with the bolded phrase -- in this thread you have some of the world's leading experts! That isn't an exaggeration. It's simply up to you to accept the input of those like @Selden Ball and act on it. 

For my part (experienced but less expert), I would also drop your base level speakers to the level of your center (or even somewhat below -- experiment with temporary "supports" where you can). Your primary dialogue and thus focus for your video is from the center channel, so moving the base speakers down to that level should have little effect on the overall screen focus and will provide better separation from your top level. 

"Temporary supports" -- for one test, I used a step ladder and books to test placements. Pics in my signature HT thread. 

It may take some experimentation, but I have no doubt you can benefit from Atmos and immersive setup. I have never regretted leaving 7.2 behind.


----------



## Flash28

Selden Ball said:


> The minimal change would be to reconfigure the current Rear Surrounds to be Top Rear or Rear Height. Then add two more front overhead speakers at an equal distance forward of the seating as the current Rear Surrounds are to its rear, configuring them as either Top Front or Front Height. This would result in a 5.1.4 speaker configuration.
> 
> If you can, I'd also suggest moving the Side Surround toward the rear of the seating area, so they're somewhat behind the seating. You don't show a top view, so I dunno if your side walls extend that far.


I added a top down view of my configuration in the same post. The distances measured are line of sight from listener to speaker.

In 2D flat distances, it is 12'2" to front, 9'7" to surround, 10'2" to back.

In response to your suggestions:

-install in-ceiling equidistant to the front from the rear: I think that would put them too close to the front and not provide enough separation.
-Move the side surrounds backwards: Unfortunately, there is a sliding door and window sandwiching the side surround (~3' wide), so aesthetically, it is placed in the middle...and seating placement is directly to the side.

If I switched to a 5.2.4 configuration as you mentioned, I would probably remove the rear surround from the ceiling, then install in-ceiling speakers closer to the listener (~60% the distance from front to listener and equally as far to the rear. 

Will that work?

Sounds like I would be missing a true rear (which isn't placed ideally now anyways), but will this adversely affect 7.1 source material rear placed sound? Ie. I want to add to what I have now, not trade something today for something different.

Thank you again for your insight.


----------



## sdurani

Flash28 said:


> Since my speakers are mounted so high, would adding ceiling speakers provide sufficient spacial separation, or would all sound just be coming from above?


Considering the number of speakers in typical consumer Atmos set-ups, the main thing Atmos added was a height layer of speakers, taking us from a 2D ring of sound to a 3D bubble of sound. By comparison, using audio objects to scale a soundtrack to 20 or 30 speakers is not something most consumers are likely to take advantage of with Atmos. It's mostly the height thing. 

With that in mind, anything that minimizes separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you will end up diminishing the point of having an Atmos set-up. If you can post an overhead view of your room layout, especially if it shows obstacles to speaker placement, that would make it easier to suggest solutions.


----------



## Flash28

sdurani said:


> Considering the number of speakers in typical consumer Atmos set-ups, the main thing Atmos added was a height layer of speakers, taking us from a 2D ring of sound to a 3D bubble of sound. By comparison, using audio objects to scale a soundtrack to 20 or 30 speakers is not something most consumers are likely to take advantage of with Atmos. It's mostly the height thing.
> 
> With that in mind, anything that minimizes separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you will end up diminishing the point of having an Atmos set-up. If you can post an overhead view of your room layout, especially if it shows obstacles to speaker placement, that would make it easier to suggest solutions.


Okay, attached is an updated overhead with wall obstacles and ceiling obstacles (like lights and ceiling step-down border). Let me know if anything needs additional explanation.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> From my perspective the goal is to let the original sound recording engineers and film mixers have full control of how it sounds and let _them_ decide, electrically, what atmospherics, ambiance, reflected sounds, and reverberations come from the walls and ceiling_ via the surround speaker system_ (at least as much as is possible). Similarly, I'd like my room acoustics to "disappear", although a completely deadened room isn't always friendly to some music recordings which, unlike movies, relies on it to a degree.


Absolutely. Get rid of the room for movies. All the sound is baked into the mix already - you don't need to be adding more to it. If the scene is set in a padded cell, you want your HT to sound like a padded cell. If the scene is set in an aircraft hangar you want it to sound like an aircraft hangar, and so on. The way to do this is to eliminate the room from the equation - if there are any reflections in the room the padded cell no longer sounds like the padded cell the mixer intended you to hear.


----------



## sdurani

Flash28 said:


> Okay, attached is an updated overhead with wall obstacles and ceiling obstacles (like lights and ceiling step-down border).


Thanx, very helpful. First thing I would do is spread the L/R speakers wider apart and bring them down in line with the centre speaker. Move the right Side speaker slightly forward so that it is at the edge of the door; mount the left Side speaker directly opposite. Having those speakers a little forward of the listening area will sound more spacious and provide greater side vs rear separation in the surround field. The left Rear speaker can go on the bit of wall between the cabinet and hallway opening; right Rear speaker directly opposite. All 4 surrounds should be within a foot or two of seated ear height. Because of your "phantom back wall" comment earlier, I'm guessing the back wall in your drawing is an imaginary line. If so, can those cabinets be moved farther back?


----------



## Khaile

Upgraded from a 5.2.2 setup to a full 7.2.4 setup and I gotta say WOW!! The sound is everywhere and objects seem to be moving backwards and forwards and side to side as well. 

Well worth the upgrade. Now I want to rewatch all of my 4K BDs...


----------



## Flash28

sdurani said:


> Thanx, very helpful. First thing I would do is spread the L/R speakers wider apart and bring them down in line with the centre speaker. Move the right Side speaker slightly forward so that it is at the edge of the door; mount the left Side speaker directly opposite. Having those speakers a little forward of the listening area will sound more spacious and provide greater side vs rear separation in the surround field. The left Rear speaker can go on the bit of wall between the cabinet and hallway opening; right Rear speaker directly opposite. All 4 surrounds should be within a foot or two of seated ear height. Because of your "phantom back wall" comment earlier, I'm guessing the back wall in your drawing is an imaginary line. If so, can those cabinets be moved farther back?


Thanks for the guidance on spreading the fronts out and lowering. I have heard that recommendation a few times and will consider that for sure.

My comment of "phantom wall" really means that this room leads into our kitchen so there isn't a wall for another 12' or so. I can't move the cabinets as that is part of our kitchen.

Next, your recommendation to move the sides toward the front goes against everything I have ever read or heard...including from @Selden Ball, who yesterday wrote "I'd also suggest moving the Side Surround toward the rear of the seating area, so they're somewhat behind the seating."

Finally, there is only 8 inches separating the hallway opening from the cabinets, so I don't see a speaker being mounted at/above ear height there. Plus, that would shift sound coming from behind, to the sides. Doesn't that kind of reduce the effectiveness of rear surround?


----------



## sdurani

Flash28 said:


> Finally, there is only 8 inches separating the hallway opening from the cabinets, so I don't see a speaker being mounted at/above ear height there. Plus, that would shift sound coming from behind, to the sides. Doesn't that kind of reduce the effectiveness of rear surround?


The sound would still come from behind you, just that the Rear speakers would be wider apart (still within Dolby's recommendation of 90-degrees max spread). But, since you don't see a speaker being mounted at/above ear height there, that placement is moot. Good luck.


----------



## crtlove

crtlove said:


> I see, thanks. There are some aesthetics considerations at play too. I just ordered a pair of “Adam Hall Pad ECO 1” to see how it looks and sound.


Just wanted to follow up that the pads arrived so I tilted the speakers (currently my fronts, soon to be my front heights, up on a shelf at 6-7ft) 8° downward and it makes all the difference, what was I thinking. Looks ok too.
I’m even debating trying 15° pads (“Audioengine DS2”)..


----------



## ahblaza

coolcolorblack said:


> I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.


Hello, I wish I could answer this question for you but what I have to say may not be correct, I'm thinking you would have to have left side heights or tops the same distance (height to LP) as the right. Please guys answer this, I believe he's asked a few times with no replies, I'm sure someone who is a lot more knowledgeable will answer, good luck.


----------



## Khaile

With 4 in ceiling speakers, do people suggest pointing the tweeters at the MLP? I have 7 ft ceilings btw


----------



## Flash28

sdurani said:


> The sound would still come from behind you, just that the Rear speakers would be wider apart (still within Dolby's recommendation of 90-degrees max spread). But, since you don't see a speaker being mounted at/above ear height there, that placement is moot. Good luck.


So I did some thinking to your suggestion of using the small space on the walls behind the listener. Unfortunately, looking at Dolby's recommendations for rear speaker placement, that location would be outside the specs of 135-150 degrees from center. I had to brush up on my trig, but if my math is correct, it would place the speakers at 129 degrees from center and ~101 degrees from one another.

Additionally, I forgot to add the obstacles on the front sound stage. I have updated the diagram and attached it.

The subs are on the ground, so I can move the fronts out some. I'll figure out by just how much.


----------



## sdurani

Flash28 said:


> Unfortunately, looking at Dolby's recommendations for rear speaker placement, that location would be outside the specs of 135-150 degrees from center.


If you need to stay within Dolby's recommended specs, then you can scratch that placement suggestion. Seems the obstacle to placement isn't really with your room and I've run out of ideas. Was worth a try.


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> But isn't the goal of surround sound to reproduce a virtual reality of the movie scene and to magically transport the listener to the environment depicted on screen?


Not exactly. Dolby Headphone was intended to transport you to a home theater, watching a movie. To do that, it employs HRTF's to provide directional cues, and it uses "reverb" (convolving a room impulse response with each channel's audio) to create room reflections from many directions and timings. As Markus noted, that is what is required for externalization. 



> When Indiana Jones is talking in a cave it makes sense that my living room (or headphones) sounds like a cave but when Indiana Jones is outdoors it no longer makes sense that he sounds like he is in a cave (or any other kind of room).


Funny you should mention (elsewhere) the bathroom. That was exactly the term Ray Dolby used when he heard a prototype of the system.  

Different people have different sensitivity to this, and most Dolby Headphone products offer users three room choices: DH1, DH2 and DH3, each progressively larger. It does not appear that the AV7005 extends you that courtesy. And I cannot tell from the recording which are in use. It sounds like it may be DH2 for the first 3 examples and DH3 for the 4th. What I can say is that DH1 is very dry, aimed at people who are sensitive to the reverb tail. 

I myself use a Pioneer Dolby Headphone unit every day and I leave it on DH2 for TV/chat shows and am not aware of cognitive dissonance. YMMV.


----------



## dfa973

Interview with Dennis Sands at Home Cinema Choice - http://www.homecinemachoice.com/new...h-dennis-sands--hollywood-music-royalty/26517

Oscar-nominated music scoring mixer Dennis Sands, whose most recent films include Ready Player One and Avengers: Infinity War, talks to Martin Dew about bringing music to movies, the benefits of object-based audio, Marvel's security precautions and his love of PMC loudspeakers...

It talks about many things, but what caught my attention was:

*Dolby Atmos - the quality/usage of 3D object-based soundtracks*


> The definition is amazing in these object-based, 3D formats. Atmos, which I have most experience with, is quite stunning, actually. *But let me say one thing: not every director loves Atmos.* I work with a couple who feel that everything should be up on the screen. They're not enthralled with so much sonic information going into the surrounds. Other directors absolutely love it and want as much of it as possible. It's a sensibility, it's whatever that taste or sense is for each director. Like anything, it's not for everybody.
> 
> You could say the same thing about 3D imagery. Personally, I love it for certain kinds of projects. It was fantastic for Gravity and Avatar, movies where it's really meaningful. But not for every single movie. Maybe you could say the same about Atmos.


----------



## pasender91

Khaile said:


> With 4 in ceiling speakers, do people suggest pointing the tweeters at the MLP? I have 7 ft ceilings btw


It is written in Atmos installation guide that all speakers should be pointed to MLP, so YES you should point the tweeters to MLP


----------



## dfa973

pasender91 said:


> It is written in Atmos installation guide that all speakers should be pointed to MLP, so YES you should point the tweeters to MLP


Actually, that depends on the speaker directivity - from the Dolby guide:



> *Mounting considerations*
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.


 @Khaile, for such a low ceiling you need on/in-ceiling downward speakers with very wide dispersion - the lower the ceiling the wider the required dispersion. 

If your downward facing speakers do not have much wider dispersion, you need:

a. on/in-ceiling downward speakers with aimable tweeters
or
b. on-ceiling mounted speakers with aimable mounts
or
c. on-ceiling mounted speakers with angled baffle

In either case, you need to check the maximum angle that can be achieved by each mount/speaker/tweeter/baffle so that the sound comes at the MLP at the recommended angle - angle that makes also the distance/separation between the speakers.


----------



## Watch Doc

Hello all! After a bit of help setting up our first home theatre build. Everything will be an upgrade over the current audio coming from our LG OLED built in speakers /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
As you can see in the attached pic, we have a less than optimal living room layout, but at least we own it and so I'm free to cut into the ceiling! All the separate speakers/receiver etc are still arriving after being bought one at a time over past month or so, so haven't had a chance to actually connect anything up to test layout yet. *Ceilings are 10.5ft high * throughout 








I'm mainly after advice regarding .2 vs .4 for our room, and also on side/surround speaker choice and placement.
*Use:* Mainly TV/movies
*What I want to achieve:* Clear dialogue, broad soundstage and immersion. Will be run on the quieter end rather than reference levels as my wife isn't fond of very loud movies 

What *I have already *is mainly what I've been able to find second hand for cheap here in Australia off other forums/ebay etc (found a guy selling his near new Klipsch set for >50% off RRP as he was upgrading, hence the Klipschs. No specific loyalty to them for the rest of the speakers)
Receiver: Denon x4400h
LCR: Klipsch RP-150m and 450c
Sub: SVS PB13 Ultra (unfortunately due to WAF is limited to the top right corner of the diagram where I've drawn it in)
In-ceiling speakers: pair of Klipsch CDT-3800 CII 

Room Layout, sub is top right corner, tv on entertainment unit opposite sofa. 2.6m from TV/centre channel to MLP. Living room opens onto hallway, dining room and kitchen to make a larger space even though TV viewing area is small


*My questions are:*

Is there _*any benefit going from .2 to .4 atmos speakers with such a small space*_? If so, would installing 4 in-ceilings and running 2 as front height, 2 as top middle be best, or just installing 2 in-ceilings just in front of MLP and then 2 top fronts mounted at top of front wall be better?
 If there wont be much benefit in soundstage going to 4 atmos speakers over 2 in such a short distance, where should I install my 2 atmos in-ceilings? Just in front of MLP and set as top mid?
 What are my_ *best budget side options*_? MLP to the wall on the right is only 1.3m if I'm sitting up facing the tv, or only 60cm if I'm in my preferred spot of laying down on the sofa with feet towards the TV. Would in wall be best to get the extra distance away from listening position? And given how close listening position is, should I be looking at bipoles instead of monopoles? Left surround will need to go at the end of the sofa to the left, and so I'll need to do a lot of room comp in Audyssey! If I was to go in walls for the right, I can't really go in walls on the left surround as there is no wall there, so would need to be as best as I can match in a bookshelf. Had been looking at DefTech bipoles either inwall or bookshelves (e.g. DefTech 9040) but open to suggestions. My concern with bipoles is the place to the right of the MLP where I'd need to put them is _*only 60cm from the rear wall*_. Is this too close? Any ideas on best speaker for this right surround???
 In setting up my front L/R, if I put them either side of the tv on the entertainment unit they are only 1.5m apart. If I move the Right speaker over to on top of the sub they're 2m apart, but the right channel is now 12cm higher than the L and C. _*What's going to be better: more separation of L/R, or having them at the same height? *_Working this out now so I know_ how wide to install my in-ceiling speakers _so they're in line with the front channels

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Khaile

dfa973 said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is written in Atmos installation guide that all speakers should be pointed to MLP, so YES you should point the tweeters to MLP /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that depends on the speaker directivity - from the Dolby guide:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mounting considerations*
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> @Khaile, for such a low ceiling you need on/in-ceiling downward speakers with very wide dispersion - the lower the ceiling the wider the required dispersion.
> 
> If your downward facing speakers do not have much wider dispersion, you need:
> 
> a. on/in-ceiling downward speakers with aimable tweeters
> or
> b. on-ceiling mounted speakers with aimable mounts
> or
> c. on-ceiling mounted speakers with angled baffle
> 
> In either case, you need to check the maximum angle that can be achieved by each mount/speaker/tweeter/baffle so that the sound comes at the MLP at the recommended angle - angle that makes also the distance/separation between the speakers.
Click to expand...

Aimed the ceiling tweeters. Not much of a discernible difference. I’ll leave them as is. 

Btw, while moving from a 5.1 to a 7.1 is not much of a difference, is it a bigger difference in N atmos format because - being an object based format - there’s more speakers to “move objects around”? 

I ask because I moved from 5.2.2 to 5.2.4 and notice the separation from the sides to the rear surrounds and it definitely feels like EVERYTHING is moving around me.


----------



## Khaile

Watch Doc said:


> Hello all! After a bit of help setting up our first home theatre build. Everything will be an upgrade over the current audio coming from our LG OLED built in speakers /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> As you can see in the attached pic, we have a less than optimal living room layout, but at least we own it and so I'm free to cut into the ceiling!
> 
> I'm mainly after advice regarding .2 vs .4 for our room, and also on side/surround speaker choice and placement.
> *Use:* Mainly TV/movies
> *What I want to achieve:* Clear dialogue, broad soundstage and immersion. Will be run on the quieter end rather than reference levels as my wife isn't fond of very loud movies
> 
> What *I have already *is mainly what I've been able to find second hand for cheap here in Australia off other forums/ebay etc (found a guy selling his near new Klipsch set for >50% off RRP as he was upgrading, hence the Klipschs. No specific loyalty to them for the rest of the speakers)
> Receiver: Denon x4400h
> LCR: Klipsch RP-150m and 450c
> Sub: SVS PB13 Ultra (unfortunately due to WAF is limited to the top right corner of the diagram where I've drawn it in)
> In-ceiling speakers: pair of Klipsch CDT-3800 CII
> 
> Room Layout, sub is top right corner, tv on entertainment unit opposite sofa. 2.6m from TV/centre channel to MLP. Living room opens onto hallway, dining room and kitchen to make a larger space even though TV viewing area is small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My questions are:*
> 
> Is there any benefit going from .2 to .4 atmos speakers with such a small space? If so, would installing 4 in-ceilings and running 2 as front height, 2 as top middle be best, or just installing 2 in-ceilings just in front of MLP and then 2 top fronts mounted at top of front wall be better?
> If there wont be much benefit in soundstage going to 4 atmos speakers over 2 in such a short distance, where should I install my 2 atmos in-ceilings? Just in front of MLP and set as top mid?
> What are my best budget side options? MLP to the wall on the right is only 1.3m if I'm sitting up facing the tv, or only 60cm if I'm in my preferred spot of laying down on the sofa with feet towards the TV. Would in wall be best to get the extra distance away from listening position? And given how close listening position is, should I be looking at bipoles instead of monopoles? Left surround will need to go at the end of the sofa to the left, and so I'll need to do a lot of room comp in Audyssey! If I was to go in walls for the right, I can't really go in walls on the left surround as there is no wall there, so would need to be as best as I can match in a bookshelf. Had been looking at DefTech bipoles either inwall or bookshelves (e.g. DefTech 9040) but open to suggestions
> In setting up my front L/R, if I put them either side of the tv on the entertainment unit they are only 1.5m apart. If I move the Right speaker over to on top of the sub they're 2m apart, but the right channel is now 12cm higher than the L and C. What's going to be better: more separation of L/R, or having them at the same height? Working this out now so I know how wide to install my in-ceiling speakers so they're in line with the front channels
> 
> Thanks in advance!


First of all, I don’t see the picture. 

Second, 4 in ceiling is always better - you get panning back and forth and not just side to side. 

Since a pair of in ceiling speakers means “top middle” and 2 pairs mean “top rear” and “top front” You kinda have to decide early on otherwise upgrading later is kind of a hassle as you have early cut holes in your ceiling. 

Someone has already said in the past - upgrade now to .4 - it’s only a matter of time before you get the itch. Of course, only if your space accommodates it.


----------



## Watch Doc

Khaile said:


> First of all, I don’t see the picture.
> 
> Since a pair of in ceiling speakers means “top middle” and 2 pairs mean “top rear” and “top front” You kinda have to decide early on otherwise upgrading later is kind of a hassle as you have early cut holes in your ceiling.


Whoops must have screwed it up somehow sorry! The picture shows as being attached for me, but incase it still isn't showing up, I've uploaded it here too https://imgur.com/a/TMORP29

I understand the atmos designations of .2 and .4, and hence why I'm trying to decide early on before I start cutting holes in my ceiling! I don't think I can do Top rear, as the sofa is against the back wall and there is no way to get speakers behind it in ceiling. Options for .4 are either Front height/top middle, or top front and "top rear" installed immediately above MLP/few degrees behind.


Which of those 2 combos would work better given sofa can't move forward at all?


----------



## Khaile

Watch Doc said:


> Whoops must have screwed it up somehow sorry! The picture shows as being attached for me, but incase it still isn't showing up, I've uploaded it here too https://imgur.com/a/TMORP29
> 
> I understand the atmos designations of .2 and .4, and hence why I'm trying to decide early on before I start cutting holes in my ceiling! I don't think I can do Top rear, as the sofa is against the back wall and there is no way to get speakers behind it in ceiling. Options for .4 are either Front height/top middle, or top front and "top rear" installed immediately above MLP/few degrees behind.
> 
> 
> Which of those 2 combos would work better given sofa can't move forward at all?


Looking at your layout, you might only be able to do .2 - either top middle in ceiling or front heights. I believe you need at least 3 feet behind you to do rear heights. 

You CAN do .4 if you want top middle and front height - that might be the only way to do .4 in you room. 

Another option is to do surround heights (usually it’s a DTSX and/or Auro3d recommendation) above your surrounds and designate them as rear heights. the effect might be pretty similar.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Atmos speaker professionals,

A simple question for you that are on Top of your game of the Atmos Ceiling-Mounted-Speakers.
(4-Ceiling Mounted Speakers)

What are the Top of the Line, Atmos Ceiling Mounted Speakers ???
Yes I have used the search feature guys. 
Even doing that I still have not actually came up with exact Names & Models.
Would really appreciate some of you that actually know what are the Names & Specific Models of the Top-of-the-Line ???
I would very much like to (Match) very closely to my JML Utopia Speakers with the Atmos Ceiling Mounted speakers that's what I'm really looking for.

Thanks for the assistance,
Terry


----------



## Watch Doc

Khaile said:


> Looking at your layout, you might only be able to do .2 - either top middle in ceiling or front heights. I believe you need at least 3 feet behind you to do rear heights.
> 
> Another option is to do surround heights (usually it’s a DTSX and/or Auro3d recommendation) above your surrounds and designate them as rear heights. the effect might be pretty similar.


Would top front and surround heights, or front heights and top mid work better? My concern with surround heights is there’s no wall on the left to mount the left surround height


----------



## Khaile

Watch Doc said:


> Would top front and surround heights, or front heights and top mid work better? My concern with surround heights is there’s no wall on the left to mount the left surround height


Ihave no experience with either but I would guess top middle and front height. 

You can do surround height with a rear wall by getting a wall mount that can rotate 90 degrees toward the MLP


----------



## Selden Ball

Watch Doc said:


> I understand the atmos designations of .2 and .4, and hence why I'm trying to decide early on before I start cutting holes in my ceiling! I don't think I can do Top rear, as the sofa is against the back wall and there is no way to get speakers behind it in ceiling. Options for .4 are either Front height/top middle, or top front and "top rear" installed immediately above MLP/few degrees behind.
> 
> 
> Which of those 2 combos would work better given sofa can't move forward at all?


I've attached a suggestion for the locations of the overhead speakers, shown in ~red. Be sure to use speakers with pointable tweeters and point them toward the Main Listening Position (where you'll usually be sitting) before you run an Audyssey calibration. Audyssey is particularly important because some of the speakers will be close to side and rear walls and some will be out in the open. This makes a significant difference in how they'll sound.

You can try several designations to find out which you prefer. Front Height + Top Middle would tend to spread out the frontal overhead sounds between the speaker pairs but with all of the sounds which are in the middle and to the rear coming from the speaker pair designated Top Middle. Top Front + Top Rear would tend to spread front and rear overhead sounds evenly between them, with all of the sounds coming from both speakers: the "middle" would be phantom imaged halfway between the speaker locations. Front Height + Rear Height would tend to compress the overhead soundstage more, phantom imaging the sounds that'd otherwise be coming from Top Front&Rear in between the overheads.



> My questions are:
> 
> Is there any benefit going from .2 to .4 atmos speakers with such a small space?


As others have mentioned, yes.


> If so, would installing 4 in-ceilings and running 2 as front height, 2 as top middle be best, or just installing 2 in-ceilings just in front of MLP and then 2 top fronts mounted at top of front wall be better?


That's hard to judge without actually listening to it. At the tops of the walls would result in a wider soundstage, but I'd tend to be biased toward in-ceiling. In-ceiling often are more acceptable to other household members because they aren't as noticeable after being installed, but on-wall and on-ceiling often can be quicker to install with less of a mess during construction.


> If there wont be much benefit in soundstage going to 4 atmos speakers over 2 in such a short distance, where should I install my 2 atmos in-ceilings? Just in front of MLP and set as top mid?


If you were to go with just 2 overheads, yes. With 4, it's better for the rear-most speakers to be as far back as you can put them.



> What are my best budget side options? MLP to the wall on the right is only 1.3m if I'm sitting up facing the tv, or only 60cm if I'm in my preferred spot of laying down on the sofa with feet towards the TV. Would in wall be best to get the extra distance away from listening position? And given how close listening position is, should I be looking at bipoles instead of monopoles? Left surround will need to go at the end of the sofa to the left, and so I'll need to do a lot of room comp in Audyssey! If I was to go in walls for the right, I can't really go in walls on the left surround as there is no wall there, so would need to be as best as I can match in a bookshelf. Had been looking at DefTech bipoles either inwall or bookshelves (e.g. DefTech 9040) but open to suggestions


Bipoles tend to result in a more "spacious" and less directional feeling since they're designed to bound sound off the walls. Monopoles produce more directional effects. I'd recommend monopoles. 



> In setting up my front L/R, if I put them either side of the tv on the entertainment unit they are only 1.5m apart. If I move the Right speaker over to on top of the sub they're 2m apart, but the right channel is now 12cm higher than the L and C. What's going to be better: more separation of L/R, or having them at the same height? Working this out now so I know how wide to install my in-ceiling speakers so they're in line with the front channels


Centering them and at the same height relative to the screen probably would be better.


----------



## Flash28

@Selden Ball, Will it be a problem if the top rear speaker is further back from the listener, than the top front speaker is forward the listener? Ie. if I place the top front speaker 45 degrees from listener and top rear 60 degrees from the listener.

You said it is best to put the rears as far back as possible, so I assume that implies not equidistant but want to make sure.


----------



## Selden Ball

Flash28 said:


> @Selden Ball, Will it be a problem if the top rear speaker is further back from the listener, than the top front speaker is forward the listener? Ie. if I place the top front speaker 45 degrees from listener and top rear 60 degrees from the listener.
> 
> You said it is best to put the rears as far back as possible, so I assume that implies not equidistant but want to make sure.


It depends. Having them farther apart expands the front-to-back soundstage, but it's probably better to have them equidistant. However, to quote someone else, it's hard to make Atmos not work.

In case you haven't seen them, attached are some graphics showing recommended placement options, as seen in D&M manuals.


----------



## richlife

Khaile said:


> Upgraded from a 5.2.2 setup to a full 7.2.4 setup and I gotta say WOW!! The sound is everywhere and objects seem to be moving backwards and forwards and side to side as well.
> 
> Well worth the upgrade. Now I want to rewatch all of my 4K BDs...


Join the club!



Flash28 said:


> So I did some thinking to your suggestion of using the small space on the walls behind the listener. Unfortunately, looking at Dolby's recommendations for rear speaker placement, that location would be outside the specs of 135-150 degrees from center. I had to brush up on my trig, but if my math is correct, it would place the speakers at 129 degrees from center and ~101 degrees from one another.
> 
> Additionally, I forgot to add the obstacles on the front sound stage. I have updated the diagram and attached it.
> 
> The subs are on the ground, so I can move the fronts out some. I'll figure out by just how much.


You can add some flexibility to your speaker placement with one of the various speaker (or TV) extension arms. Anchor them where you can higher up and then extend out for better placement. Hang them from decorative chain on a platform suspended from the right part of the ceiling. Sometimes a challenging room takes a little more thought and preparation. BTW, I said earlier that there are true experts here. Even experts have differences of opinion. Temporary placing your speakers at different location using whatever means available is the best way to find the "right" positioning for you.

And again, it's hard to screw up Atmos.



dfa973 said:


> Interview with Dennis Sands at Home Cinema Choice - http://www.homecinemachoice.com/new...h-dennis-sands--hollywood-music-royalty/26517
> 
> Oscar-nominated music scoring mixer Dennis Sands, whose most recent films include Ready Player One and Avengers: Infinity War, talks to Martin Dew about bringing music to movies, the benefits of object-based audio, Marvel's security precautions and his love of PMC loudspeakers...
> 
> It talks about many things, but what caught my attention was:
> ..."*But let me say one thing: not every director loves Atmos.* I work with a couple who feel that everything should be up on the screen. They're not enthralled with so much sonic information going into the surrounds." ...
> 
> *Dolby Atmos - the quality/usage of 3D object-based soundtracks*


Not the first time I've heard this and hard to dispute. But I watched Live - Die - Repeat: Edge Of Tomorrow last night. There are scenes in a warehouse (indoor training facility) where the fighting "machines" move all around constantly attacking Cruise from every angle. For me it was being in the middle caught in the fight -- objects location and combat sound completely in sync from all over. The definition of immersion thanks to DSU even though the movies was DTS-HD MA. Seeing/hearing all that up front on the screen is just not the same. I'm happy to watch a conversation or love scene up front, but when the wind is blowing in a forest, I'd prefer to be surrounded by the swaying, tossing leaves. 

@Watch Doc, there is a serious WAF in your situation that clearly you can't ignore. But looking at your room, I would want to completely re-arrange to viewing room -- seating set up with back to the kitchen area (yes, I see it's a corner unit). That allows speakers in the ceiling behind the seats and elongating the viewing/listening area. My room is different, but the viewing area backs to the dining room and my RP speakers are six feet behind my MLP about 1/3 into the dining room. Hell, my rear surrounds are back against the dining room wall, 12 feet behind the LPs. Good luck to you!


----------



## Erod

dfa973 said:


> Interview with Dennis Sands at Home Cinema Choice - http://www.homecinemachoice.com/new...h-dennis-sands--hollywood-music-royalty/26517
> 
> Oscar-nominated music scoring mixer Dennis Sands, whose most recent films include Ready Player One and Avengers: Infinity War, talks to Martin Dew about bringing music to movies, the benefits of object-based audio, Marvel's security precautions and his love of PMC loudspeakers...
> 
> It talks about many things, but what caught my attention was:
> 
> *Dolby Atmos - the quality/usage of 3D object-based soundtracks*


It's an interesting discussion for sure.

On one hand, there's certainly a degree of narcissism from some directors regarding Atmos and surround formats in general. They don't see their own brilliance in that aspect of the movie, and they don't want you distracted from their brilliance. Lol, or so it seems. 

On the other hand, these treatments are best done with care. Atmos needs to serve the purpose of the movie and not yank you out of the immersion of the story by unnecessary creaks and bangs off screen in a movie that isn't really about that. For more conversational and subdued films, Atmos need only serve the musical aspect of the story. 

In certain respects, this entire object-based phase of sound is overrated on some level. Yes, it adds to the ambiance of a movie, but there is a certain level of lowest-common-denominator factor in it, too. It can make a movie seem very_ Fast and Furious 19. _


----------



## camd5pt0

Khaile said:


> Upgraded from a 5.2.2 setup to a full 7.2.4 setup and I gotta say WOW!! The sound is everywhere and objects seem to be moving backwards and forwards and side to side as well.
> 
> Well worth the upgrade. Now I want to rewatch all of my 4K BDs...


Glad you love it. I originally went 5.1.4 then when I moved, I went 7.1.4 with better layout. Even that was such an improvement, I'll need to rewatch all my movies.

In fact, last year when I started collecting 4k disc, I didn't know about Atmos even though I'm such a tech head. I had wireless 5.1 and was happy. 

It was when I got my Project Scorpio, did I learn about Atmos. Naturally I got obsessed with wanting it. Started off first with 160$ DA specific headphones for gaming, till Feb of this year I bought my setup.


----------



## Khaile

camd5pt0 said:


> Glad you love it. I originally went 5.1.4 then when I moved, I went 7.1.4 with better layout. Even that was such an improvement, I'll need to rewatch all my movies.
> 
> In fact, last year when I started collecting 4k disc, I didn't know about Atmos even though I'm such a tech head. I had wireless 5.1 and was happy.
> 
> It was when I got my Project Scorpio, did I learn about Atmos. Naturally I got obsessed with wanting it. Started off first with 160$ DA specific headphones for gaming, till Feb of this year I bought my setup.


Yea since atmos is object based I would think that going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 is more of an improvement than going from 5.1 to 7.1.


----------



## Watch Doc

Selden Ball said:


> I've attached a suggestion for the locations of the overhead speakers, shown in ~red.


Thankyou for the detailed response Selden, greatly appreciated! I think I'll do as you've suggested with 4 in-ceiling and then experiment with designations to see what works best.




Selden Ball said:


> Bipoles tend to result in a more "spacious" and less directional feeling since they're designed to bound sound off the walls. Monopoles produce more directional effects. I'd recommend monopoles.


So monopoles 60-100cm from MLP won't be too obvious/locatable? (And that's to the wall, if I don't go in-wall's I'll have to add the speaker width and so speaker to MLP will be between 30-70cm ). 
That's my one worry is that it'll clearly sound like there is a speaker there. My worry with bipoles though is loss of soundstage/positional audio, and that it'll bounce off the rear wall too much. Seems too be a tossup between overly obvious positioning from a monopole right next to my head vs a bipole which may diffuse that a bit but at cost of directional effects.



richlife said:


> @Watch Doc , there is a serious WAF in your situation that clearly you can't ignore. But looking at your room, I would want to completely re-arrange to viewing room -- seating set up with back to the kitchen area (yes, I see it's a corner unit). That allows speakers in the ceiling behind the seats and elongating the viewing/listening area. My room is different, but the viewing area backs to the dining room and my RP speakers are six feet behind my MLP about 1/3 into the dining room. Hell, my rear surrounds are back against the dining room wall, 12 feet behind the LPs. Good luck to you!


Thanks for the reply Rich! Unfortunately the furniture layout is pretty fixed due to WAF - if we rotate the 3m long sofa as suggested it leaves only 50cm in the corner to get past it into the living room, and also puts the TV directly blocking the only window and source of sunlight into the room that's already a bit too dark for the wife's liking (that's a 2m long window on the right of the drawing).


----------



## dfa973

Watch Doc said:


> So monopoles 60-100cm from MLP won't be too obvious/locatable? (And that's to the wall, if I don't go in-wall's I'll have to add the speaker width and so speaker to MLP will be between 30-70cm ).
> That's my one worry is that it'll clearly sound like there is a speaker there. My worry with bipoles though is loss of soundstage/positional audio, and that it'll bounce off the rear wall too much. Seems too be a tossup between overly obvious positioning from a monopole right next to my head vs a bipole which may diffuse that a bit but at cost of directional effects.


Do not think about distances when you design the audio system, you need to think and calculate *in angles* the position of the speakers! You need to consider *only the angle* of a particular speaker in relation to the visual axis between MLP and the screen.


Since you do not have a space behind the couch (just like me), you are constrained with mostly a 5.2.2 or 5.2.4 setup, but Atmos is pretty flexible and forgiving, and you can squeeze a TopFront+TopRear or TopMiddle+RearHeight even if you do not have an actual "rear", by mounting the "rear" speakers at the join between the back wall and the ceiling, with the driver/tweeter aimed at the MLP.
Or you can choose to use a standard (in our case) setup of FrontHeight + TopMiddle.
Regardless of this, you must remember that there is a difference between the speaker position (layout) and the speaker assign (or amp assign, in the language of the AVR's manufacturers), even if you mount the speaker in a specific layout, you can assign that speaker with a different designation - *it is not ideal*, but in constrained rooms that can make a big difference. You must choose the best physical layout of the speakers and then you can experiment with different amp assigns.


----------



## Watch Doc

dfa973 said:


> Do not think about distances when you design the audio system, you need to think and calculate *in angles* the position of the speakers! You need to consider *only the angle* of a particular speaker in relation to the visual axis between MLP and the screen.



Yep, am very much keeping angles in mind and am very thankful atmos is more forgiving now!. But even regardless of angles/room correction etc, I still have to chose between a bipole and a monopole for the surround speakers that will be very close to my head (and at 90-100 degrees to MLP). If I go with an inwall option for the right surround, located against the back wall at ~100 degrees, I'm guessing a monopole speaker with tweet angled towards MLP would be better than a bipole bouncing off the back wall?


----------



## dfa973

Watch Doc said:


> But even regardless of angles/room correction etc, I still have to chose between a bipole and a monopole for the surround speakers that will be very close to my head (and at 90-100 degrees to MLP).


Preferably go with only *monopoles *for every speaker in your setup!
"_very close to my head_" is relative, the calibration will take care of the distance/level.



Watch Doc said:


> If I go with an inwall option for the right surround, located against the back wall at ~100 degrees, I'm guessing a monopole speaker with tweet angled towards MLP would be better than a bipole bouncing off the back wall?


Yes, an aimable monopole will be better than a bipole bouncing off the back wall. 3D audio systems (like Atmos) just sound better with *monopoles and direct sound* compared with *bipoles and reflected sound*.

Check that the aimable tweeter of the "rear" speaker can actually be aimed at that angle toward the MLP because the resulted angle is steep.


----------



## kbarnes701

dfa973 said:


> Interview with Dennis Sands at Home Cinema Choice - http://www.homecinemachoice.com/new...h-dennis-sands--hollywood-music-royalty/26517
> 
> Oscar-nominated music scoring mixer Dennis Sands, whose most recent films include Ready Player One and Avengers: Infinity War, talks to Martin Dew about bringing music to movies, the benefits of object-based audio, Marvel's security precautions and his love of PMC loudspeakers...
> 
> It talks about many things, but what caught my attention was:
> 
> *Dolby Atmos - the quality/usage of 3D object-based soundtracks*


_
But let me say one thing: not every director loves Atmos. I work with a couple who feel that everything should be up on the screen. They're not enthralled with so much sonic information going into the surrounds. 
_
Oh, so he's worked with Christopher Nolan then


----------



## kbarnes701

coolcolorblack said:


> I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.


It's certainly less than ideal. Ideal is a flat, reflective ceiling with a uniform height. However, Atmos is very forgiving. If I were you, I'd see if I can get the elevation speakers on sale or return and give it a try. You may find the result is better than no Atmos at all. If you have automated room EQ in your AVR (eg Audyssey), then do be sure to use it as it may compensate to some extent for the differing ceiling heights. Experiment a bit and see how you get on - if the worst comes to the worst and you don't like the result, you can return the speakers and all you've lost is some time. Good luck with it.


----------



## CBdicX

CBdicX said:


> *7.1.6 question*
> 
> Hi, i have a 6 height speaker setup.
> 4 of them are Dolby Enabled and are on the front and rear speakers.
> 2 are Kef T101 that are on the ceiling above the 2 seats in the Top Middle position.
> 
> I have 2 options to make a setup.
> 
> *1)* all 6 as Dolby Enabled like in the pic.
> 
> 
> *2)* the 4 DE as Height front and rear, and 2 T101 as Top Middle.
> 
> 
> (its not possible to do front and rear DE and Top Middle like it is in the actual setup with Denon X8500H )
> 
> Any idea what would "on paper" be a best setup to do in this case ?


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


>


I'd suggest option 2. 

You shouldn't configure speakers which are in the ceiling as if they were Dolby Atmos Enabled reflecting speakers because they would have different time delays: reflected sounds take longer to get to your ears than the direct speakers.

However, you can change speaker designations (re-running the Audyssey calibration each time) and find out how they actually sound in your room.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> _But let me say one thing: not every director loves Atmos. I work with a couple who feel that everything should be up on the screen. They're not enthralled with so much sonic information going into the surrounds.
> _
> Oh, so he's worked with Christopher Nolan then


My first thought as well. Funnily, when I checked his credits on IMDb, I didn't see a single Nolan movie in there. Maybe his contribution was uncredited? He's done a few Spielberg movies and a bunch for Robert Zemeckis, neither of whom I think of as tepid with surround sound.

The only other directors I'm aware of who have been vocally dismissive of surround sound are Woody Allen and David Lynch.


----------



## richlife

coolcolorblack said:


> I'm looking to get the klipsch atmos elevation speakers, but where my tower speaker are located, the ceiling is at different highest. I wanted to know if this would be a problem for dolby atoms? thanks for the help.





kbarnes701 said:


> It's certainly less than ideal. Ideal is a flat, reflective ceiling with a uniform height. However, Atmos is very forgiving. If I were you, I'd see if I can get the elevation speakers on sale or return and give it a try. You may find the result is better than no Atmos at all. If you have automated room EQ in your AVR (eg Audyssey), then do be sure to use it as it may compensate to some extent for the differing ceiling heights. Experiment a bit and see how you get on - if the worst comes to the worst and you don't like the result, you can return the speakers and all you've lost is some time. Good luck with it.


I can certainly back kbarnes suggestions. From what you say, I'm assuming your room slopes down from above your towers toward your listening position. Mine is the opposite which I found to be excellent for sound and, while it required some readjusting and measurement, has worked fine with DAES speakers. (See my HT thread in my signature for pics in the first 6 posts and, later in, a description of how the DAES had to be adjusted carefully to work well.)

Your situation is very different and I would think that rather then elevating the back of the DAES (which I did), you might need to "flatten" the upper face to get a good beam focus. Depending on the ceiling height at the relection area, you may also need to increase the gain on your front DAES to compensate for the greater distance involved.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> My first thought as well.


An outbreak of _greatminditis_. 



Josh Z said:


> Funnily, when I checked his credits on IMDb, I didn't see a single Nolan movie in there.


It didn't occur to me to look so your great mind is working better than mine today 



Josh Z said:


> Maybe his contribution was uncredited? He's done a few Spielberg movies and a bunch for Robert Zemeckis, neither of whom I think of as tepid with surround sound.


Maybe. Agreed about those two - both have made movies with robust soundtracks, using the surrounds to good effect.



Josh Z said:


> The only other directors I'm aware of who have been vocally dismissive of surround sound are Woody Allen and David Lynch.


Woody Allen is a lost cause with me. I liked one or two of his movies decades ago, but his output since then has done nothing for me. Also, his studied lack of interest in surround sound as an important part of the movie irks me. OTOH, I love David Lynch so I forgive his studied lack of interest in surround sound as an important part of the movie. That's how fickle I am


----------



## CBdicX

Selden Ball said:


> I'd suggest option 2.
> 
> You shouldn't configure speakers which are in the ceiling as if they were Dolby Atmos Enabled reflecting speakers because they would have different time delays: reflected sounds take longer to get to your ears than the direct speakers.
> 
> However, you can change speaker designations (re-running the Audyssey calibration each time) and find out how they actually sound in your room.


Thanks for your thoughts 


*Would you set the Magnat ATM 400 speakers in option 2 still as Dolby Enabled or as Direct Fire ?*
This speaker has a switch for DE use and DF use.
In the DE setting the high freq. are much more active then DF setting.
They use 2 filters inside, 1 for DE and 1 for DF.


So i can set them as DE or DF and then (re)run Audyssey as FH TM RH, or even as TF TM TR and see if this sounds "better" then the all DE setup now.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Woody Allen is a lost cause with me. I liked one or two of his movies decades ago, but his output since then has done nothing for me.


He makes the occasional good movie now and again, but they're few and far between lately.



> Also, his studied lack of interest in surround sound as an important part of the movie irks me.


If I'm not mistaken, Allen's first _stereo_ movie was Cassandra's Dream in 2007. Before that, he insisted on mono.

IMDb claims that Blue Jasmine had 7.1 and Atmos sound mixes, but I can't imagine that's correct. Dolby's official list of Atmos theatrical releases has no mention of it.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> He makes the occasional good movie now and again, but they're few and far between lately.


Very 



Josh Z said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Allen's first _stereo_ movie was Cassandra's Dream in 2007. Before that, he insisted on mono.


I rest my case 



Josh Z said:


> IMDb claims that Blue Jasmine had 7.1 and Atmos sound mixes, but I can't imagine that's correct. Dolby's official list of Atmos theatrical releases has no mention of it.


There is no way it would have had an Atmos mix - LOL. Blu-ray.com has the Blu-ray down as 5.1 DTS-HD MA and they are usually reliable IME.


----------



## richlife

kbarnes701 said:


> An outbreak of _greatminditis_.
> 
> ...
> 
> Woody Allen is a lost cause with me. I liked one or two of his movies decades ago, but his output since then has done nothing for me. Also, his studied lack of interest in surround sound as an important part of the movie irks me. OTOH, I love David Lynch so I forgive his studied lack of interest in surround sound as an important part of the movie. That's how fickle I am


I went back to pull this comment from @Erod: "In certain respects, this entire object-based phase of sound is overrated on some level. Yes, it adds to the ambiance of a movie, but there is a certain level of lowest-common-denominator factor in it, too. It can make a movie seem very Fast and Furious 19."

While I agree, I think "over-used" would be more appropriate than "overrated" when it comes to some Atmos/DTS:X (and even True HD and DTS-HD MA when aided by upmixers in a good HT). My comment about "wind in the trees" is appropriate. Examples include Lord of the Rings and The Revenant, both of which have sweeping, intense audio scenes as well as properly muted "environment" sounds that completely lose you in the movie. The definition of "immersion". Quite often I have to remind myself to enjoy what Atmos or DTS-HD MA provided because I was simply lost in the movie. Other times, the stomping on the train car roof (The Lone Ranger) jolt me to be part of the movie in another way. However, it's true that too many action movies throw sound effects around in a way that is intrusive rather than immersive. 

BTW, all the movies I named are DTS-HD MA. But John Wick, The Legend of Tarzan, Star Trek Beyond, and Leon -- The Professional are all examples of Atmos titles that provide a comparable or better experience. All completely dependent on the director. As for David Lynch, consider the general in Live - Die - Repeat that Tom Cruise accuses of being too stubborn to be able to accept the evidence presented to him.


----------



## batpig

Watch Doc said:


> Yep, am very much keeping angles in mind and am very thankful atmos is more forgiving now!. But even regardless of angles/room correction etc, I still have to chose between a bipole and a monopole for the surround speakers that will be very close to my head (and at 90-100 degrees to MLP). If I go with an inwall option for the right surround, located against the back wall at ~100 degrees, I'm guessing a monopole speaker with tweet angled towards MLP would be better than a bipole bouncing off the back wall?





dfa973 said:


> Preferably go with only *monopoles *for every speaker in your setup!
> "_very close to my head_" is relative, the calibration will take care of the distance/level.


I will take slight issue here -- level/distance settings will not prevent some of the problems with having a monopole too close to you, namely hot-spotting and a resultant breaking of the immersion / surround bubble due to the closest speaker dominating the sound. This is especially an issue if surrounds are right at 90 degrees and firing right into your ear hole. Yes the surrounds produce some discrete effects but they are largely creating ambiance / immersion and getting the levels/delays set won't always prevent your brain from hearing a close speaker as being more prominent and distracting from immersion, especially if the speaker doesn't have room to disperse properly. It will be even worse for a listener seated off to the side vs. dead center.

IMO a bipole surround is a better choice if you don't have enough distance for a monopole surround to disperse/image properly; most pros do this and companies like Triad produce bipole (not dipole) surrounds that they recommend in smaller rooms. I would think this is especially important for 5ch base layer because you'll get more "wraparound" immersion with the excess reflected energy and reduced direct energy. 

If you have to / want to use monopoles in this context I would utilize time/energy trading by aiming it at the opposite listener so the closer listeners are more on axis.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yes the surrounds produce some discrete effects but they are largely creating ambiance / immersion and getting the levels/delays set won't always prevent your brain from hearing a close speaker as being more prominent and distracting from immersion, especially if the speaker doesn't have room to disperse properly. It will be even worse for a listener seated off to the side vs. dead center.
> 
> IMO a bipole surround is a better choice if you don't have enough distance for a monopole surround to disperse/image properly; most pros do this and companies like Triad produce bipole (not dipole) surrounds that they recommend in smaller rooms.


Not disagreeing with any of your comments here, but would add that coaxial designs can mitigate the problem to a good degree, since they are phase-coherent right from the driver, and always produce, IMO and IME, exceptionally good imagine. One still doesn't want them shooting right down your earholes, I agree, but not because of any lack of phase-coherence. Using coaxials,(in itself a good choice IMO) can help the OCD to stay with Dolby's recommendation of monopoles all round while at the same time getting good imaging and coherent phase right from the driver itself.

Of course, I am biased as all my HT speakers are coaxial designs (Tannoy Pro range) other than my main LCR JBL 3677s.


----------



## Erod

richlife said:


> I went back to pull this comment from @Erod: "In certain respects, this entire object-based phase of sound is overrated on some level. Yes, it adds to the ambiance of a movie, but there is a certain level of lowest-common-denominator factor in it, too. It can make a movie seem very Fast and Furious 19."
> 
> While I agree, I think "over-used" would be more appropriate than "overrated" when it comes to some Atmos/DTS:X (and even True HD and DTS-HD MA when aided by upmixers in a good HT). My comment about "wind in the trees" is appropriate. Examples include Lord of the Rings and The Revenant, both of which have sweeping, intense audio scenes as well as properly muted "environment" sounds that completely lose you in the movie. The definition of "immersion". Quite often I have to remind myself to enjoy what Atmos or DTS-HD MA provided because I was simply lost in the movie. Other times, the stomping on the train car roof (The Lone Ranger) jolt me to be part of the movie in another way. However, it's true that too many action movies throw sound effects around in a way that is intrusive rather than immersive.
> 
> BTW, all the movies I named are DTS-HD MA. But John Wick, The Legend of Tarzan, Star Trek Beyond, and Leon -- The Professional are all examples of Atmos titles that provide a comparable or better experience. All completely dependent on the director. As for David Lynch, consider the general in Live - Die - Repeat that Tom Cruise accuses of being too stubborn to be able to accept the evidence presented to him.


Agree with all of that.

The Revenant is amazing. It's not even Atmos or DTS:X, but it sounds more so than pretty much every other movie out there. The sound is so perfectly applied and subtle. 

To your list, I'll add Star Trek: Into Darkness, The Martian, Jumanji, and Oblivion as movies that nicely use sound-based format in an appropriate way.


----------



## m. zillch

Josh Z said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Allen's first _stereo_ movie was Cassandra's Dream in 2007. Before that, he insisted on mono.


Last I heard [granted this was like a decade ago] he writes on a mechanical typewriter. He's a techno-phobe I guess.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> There is no way it would have had an Atmos mix - LOL. Blu-ray.com has the Blu-ray down as 5.1 DTS-HD MA and they are usually reliable IME.


The Vicky Christina Barcelona Blu-ray had a PCM 5.1 track, but only 3.0 of the channels have any sound in them. The surrounds and LFE are dead silent the entire movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

richlife said:


> I went back to pull this comment from @Erod: "In certain respects, this entire object-based phase of sound is overrated on some level. Yes, it adds to the ambiance of a movie, but there is a certain level of lowest-common-denominator factor in it, too. It can make a movie seem very Fast and Furious 19."
> 
> While I agree, I think "over-used" would be more appropriate than "overrated" when it comes to some Atmos/DTS:X (and even True HD and DTS-HD MA when aided by upmixers in a good HT).


Yes, I agree, Over-used would be more appropriate than overrated. It's hard to overrate an advance in cinema sound that is the most significant step forward since discrete 5.1 sound came along. Also, one can hardly blame the technology for the way that a mixer uses it.



richlife said:


> My comment about "wind in the trees" is appropriate. Examples include Lord of the Rings and The Revenant, both of which have sweeping, intense audio scenes as well as properly muted "environment" sounds that completely lose you in the movie. The definition of "immersion". Quite often I have to remind myself to enjoy what Atmos or DTS-HD MA provided because I was simply lost in the movie. Other times, the stomping on the train car roof (The Lone Ranger) jolt me to be part of the movie in another way. However, it's true that too many action movies throw sound effects around in a way that is intrusive rather than immersive.


Totally agreed.



richlife said:


> BTW, all the movies I named are DTS-HD MA. But John Wick, The Legend of Tarzan, Star Trek Beyond, and Leon -- The Professional are all examples of Atmos titles that provide a comparable or better experience. All completely dependent on the director. As for David Lynch, consider the general in Live - Die - Repeat that Tom Cruise accuses of being too stubborn to be able to accept the evidence presented to him.


Agreed again. Brendan Gleeson - a fine actor if ever there was one. Always enjoyable to watch. That type of role isn't the most suited to his talents, but he played it well nonetheless. He has a similarly 'out of his mold' role in _Safe House_, which is also a pretty good actioner.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> The Vicky Christina Barcelona Blu-ray had a PCM 5.1 track, but only 3.0 of the channels have any sound in them. The surrounds and LFE are dead silent the entire movie.


Hahaha. That is very funny. _Blue Jasmine_ is probably the same then  In that case, he may as well have gone the whole hog and released it in 7.1.4 (but with no content in the rear surrounds, side surrounds or overheads). That way, he gets the tech kudos while remaining true to himself LOL. And if he got a distribution deal with Disney, he could lose the most of the bass and the dynamics while he was at it.


----------



## Selden Ball

CBdicX said:


> Thanks for your thoughts
> 
> 
> *Would you set the Magnat ATM 400 speakers in option 2 still as Dolby Enabled or as Direct Fire ?*
> This speaker has a switch for DE use and DF use.
> In the DE setting the high freq. are much more active then DF setting.
> They use 2 filters inside, 1 for DE and 1 for DF.
> 
> 
> So i can set them as DE or DF and then (re)run Audyssey as FH TM RH, or even as TF TM TR and see if this sounds "better" then the all DE setup now.


If possible, I think I'd use them all as direct-fire in order to get the improved directionality. However, using them all as Dolby Enabled would be much less work, especially if you have a flat ceiling, so you might try that first.


----------



## dfa973

batpig said:


> I will take slight issue here -- level/distance settings will not prevent some of the problems with having a monopole too close to you, namely hot-spotting and a resultant breaking of the immersion / surround bubble due to the closest speaker dominating the sound. This is especially an issue if surrounds are right at 90 degrees and firing right into your ear hole.


You are right.
That's why is recommended that surrounds (side & rear) be placed not at ear level, but a little higher (1.25 x ear level or Main Fronts tweeter level), the higher level resolves 2 issues:
- blocking off the sound by neighbors heads
- sound does not get sent directly to the ears


----------



## ANSEK

I’m setting up my dedicated theater and have an issue with my height speakers. I have four SVS Prime Elevation speakers which I want to mount on the ceiling ( need to satisfy wife restrictions). I mounted two last night as top middle. For the second set I know it is recommended to mount them as rear top but that would put them 12” to 18” in front of my seating position. My couch (wife wouldn’t let me get theater sets) is against the back wall and I have crown modeling which takes up another few inches from the wall. At best I could get them even with my seating position but there would be a wire across visible. 

I’m wondering if I should do Top Front instead?


----------



## Selden Ball

ANSEK said:


> I’m setting up my dedicated theater and have an issue with my height speakers. I have four SVS Prime Elevation speakers which I want to mount on the ceiling ( need to satisfy wife restrictions). I mounted two last night as top middle. For the second set I know it is recommended to mount them as rear top but that would put them 12” to 18” in front of my seating position.


I think you've made some typos or are misremembering the Atmos speaker position names.

The overhead Atmos speaker positions are Front Height (top of front wall or ~55° forward of seating), Top Front (~45° forward of seating), Top Middle (~5 degrees forward of seating), Top Rear (~45° behind seating), and Rear Height (top of rear wall or ~55° behind seating). They all have some leeway in where they're placed.



> My couch (wife wouldn’t let me get theater sets) is against the back wall and I have crown modeling which takes up another few inches from the wall. At best I could get them even with my seating position but there would be a wire across visible.
> 
> I’m wondering if I should do Top Front instead?


Either Top Front or Front Height would be reasonable, but that depends on the layout of your room and the acceptance of their appearance by your wife. Front Height would be appropriate if you want the speaker designations to also be compatible with DTS:X and/or Auro-3D.

I've attached a framegrab showing the speaker placement angles recommended by D&M, which are derived from Dolby's recommendations.


----------



## ANSEK

Selden Ball said:


> I think you've made some typos or are misremembering the Atmos speaker position names.
> 
> The overhead Atmos speaker positions are Front Height (top of front wall or ~55° forward of seating), Top Front (~45° forward of seating), Top Middle (~5 degrees forward of seating), Top Rear (~45° behind seating), and Rear Height (top of rear wall or ~55° behind seating). They all have some leeway in where they're placed.
> 
> 
> 
> Either Top Front or Front Height would be reasonable, but that depends on the layout of your room and the acceptance of their appearance by your wife. Front Height would be appropriate if you want the speaker designations to also be compatible with DTS:X and/or Auro-3D.
> 
> I've attached a framegrab showing the speaker placement angles recommended by D&M, which are derived from Dolby's recommendations.


Thank you for the info. I have never seen that detailed diagram before. The stuff on Dolby's site isn't as direct in the explanation as the diagram you supplied.


----------



## Selden Ball

ANSEK said:


> Thank you for the info. I have never seen that detailed diagram before. The stuff on Dolby's site isn't as direct in the explanation as the diagram you supplied.


You're very welcome.

ETA:

I just noticed that your sig mentions that you have a Denon X8500H. The diagram that I attached is on page 37 of the 8500's owner's manual, which you can download from http://manuals.denon.com/avrx8500h/na/en/


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ANSEK said:


> Thank you for the info. I have never seen that detailed diagram before. The stuff on Dolby's site isn't as direct in the explanation as the diagram you supplied.




Here’s some more fun!
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## ANSEK

Selden Ball said:


> You're very welcome.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> I just noticed that your sig mentions that you have a Denon X8500H. The diagram that I attached is on page 37 of the 8500's owner's manual, which you can download from http://manuals.denon.com/avrx8500h/na/en/


Thank you. Since they don't provide a paper manual or a complete PDF (which I agree with for the environment and updating), I've been searcher the online manual for specific topics so didn't see the diagram but glad you pointed me to it!


----------



## ANSEK

Polyrythm1k said:


> Here’s some more fun!
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Thank you. I've looked at the diagrams a few times this week. This doc has some interesting additional data.


----------



## CBdicX

Polyrythm1k said:


> Here’s some more fun!
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Strange that Dolby is still on x.x.4 and no mention of x.x.6


----------



## Jonas2

CBdicX said:


> Strange that Dolby is still on x.x.4 and no mention of x.x.6



It is demonstrated in the speaker setup guides on the Dolby site, including both 7.x.6, and 9.x.6.


----------



## am2model3

I wish Dolby and the AVR makers would allow us to do 5.1.8 for those brand new 13channel receivers they are releasing. 



it seems they are all about only letting the user to 7.1.6 or 9.1.4. Do they allow 5.1.6 then I take it? I am currently 5.1.4. on a 9ch/11ch AVR.


----------



## m. zillch

Selden Ball said:


> I've attached a framegrab showing the speaker placement angles recommended by D&M, which are derived from Dolby's recommendations.


That *is* a good image. Thank you for posting it.
---

I wonder, just like we can derive a front center speaker from a stereo signal using any old Dolby Pro Logic receiver put in 3.0 mode [And I bet many here have at least one gathering dust in their storage room], this means in a super duper configuration one could theoretically have say 24 speakers. Has anyone here ever done that?

Back when 7.1 hadn't been released yet some hobbyists talked about doing this sort of thing using two 5.1 AVRs used together to derive 6.1 [the two rears put through DPL front processing to add a new center channel but for the rear]. David Ranada once talked about it in Stereo Review if I recall correctly.


----------



## m. zillch

TA-DA. As per my above post: *24 speakers*. 








[Note: Not officially sanctioned by ATMOS, DTS, AURO, etc.]


----------



## Funkeye

m. zillch said:


> TA-DA. As per my above post: *24 speakers*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Note: Not officially sanctioned by ATMOS, DTS, AURO, etc.]


No front wides? For shame....


----------



## Selden Ball

m. zillch said:


> That *is* a good image. Thank you for posting it.
> ---
> 
> I wonder, just like we can derive a front center speaker from a stereo signal using any old Dolby Pro Logic receiver put in 3.0 mode [And I bet many here have at least one gathering dust in their storage room], this means in a super duper configuration one could theoretically have say 24 speakers. Has anyone here ever done that?
> 
> Back when 7.1 hadn't been released yet some hobbyists talked about doing this sort of thing using two 5.1 AVRs used together to derive 6.1 [the two rears put through DPL front processing to add a new center channel but for the rear]. David Ranada once talked about it in Stereo Review if I recall correctly.


This topic, including several ways to accomplish it, is discussed in the thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## m. zillch

Funkeye said:


> No front wides? For shame....


There's no room for the letters in the diagram.  But yes, that would be 26 speakers.
Rear surround backs, SBL, (SBC), SBR also aren't shown in Selden's original image so those could bring us to 29.


----------



## Funkeye

m. zillch said:


> There's no room for the letters in the diagram.  But yes, that would be 26 speakers.
> Rear surround backs, SBL, (SBC), SBR also aren't shown in Selden's original image so those could bring us to 29.


Lol. Yep still room to squeeze in some more.

Dolby should just release an Atmos headset akin to Back To The Futures mind reading device.


----------



## bryantc

I still don't think there is any hardware capable of the full Atmos config 













BTW does anyone know which Atmos movie theater has the most channels right now? I'm guessing there probably isn't any hardware there that can do the max 128 channels either.


----------



## m. zillch

bryantc said:


> I'm guessing there probably isn't any hardware there that can do the max 128 channels either.


There can only be upto 64 different speaker signals coming out of one processor:

"Dolby Atmos tools allow up to 128 tracks to be packaged: a 9.1 bed plus up to 118 audio objects. The renderer takes these
audio tracks and processes the content according to the signal type. Bed channels are mapped to individual loudspeakers (in
the case of the screen channels) or loudspeaker arrays. Objects are positioned within the room, and rendered in real time
based on the physical location of the loudspeakers. The Dolby Atmos cinema processor assigns delays and equalization to
channels, objects, and loudspeakers for optimal playback quality and consistency. The Dolby Atmos cinema processor supports
rendering of these beds and objects for up to 64 loudspeaker outputs."

Many commercial cinemas are about half that but I don't know which cinema has the most. Good question though.

Note: Some theaters claim things like "over 186 speakers" but I think they are counting each sub section of a speaker array as a "speaker". Some may also count a bi-amplified speaker as "two".


----------



## CBdicX

am2model3 said:


> I wish Dolby and the AVR makers would allow us to do 5.1.8 for those brand new 13channel receivers they are releasing.
> 
> 
> 
> it seems they are all about only letting the user to 7.1.6 or 9.1.4. Do they allow 5.1.6 then I take it? I am currently 5.1.4. on a 9ch/11ch AVR.


Denon *X8500H* can do 7.1.6
If you make the Top Middle as a 4 speaker setup you will get 7.1.8, but then all 4 speakers will do TM as TF TM TR / FH TM RH, is the max at the moment (x.x.6)


----------



## maikeldepotter

bryantc said:


> I still don't think there is any hardware capable of the full Atmos config


Yes there is: https://hometheaterreview.com/trinnov-expands-up-to-64-channels-with-new-altitude48ext/
And in terms of spatial resolution, this just might equal the best in cinematic Atmos currently available (see BTW2).



> BTW does anyone know which Atmos movie theater has the most channels right now? I'm guessing there probably isn't any hardware there that can do the max 128 channels either.


I remember reading somewhere (*) that Dolby Cinema (best Atmos theater to date) employs 57 active speakers, excluding the subs. Provided they are not arraying object channels (see BTW1), that comes pretty close to the maximum of 61 (excluding 3 discrete sub channels). They just might have skipped one of the available twelve pair of side surrounds with corresponding overheads (61-4=57), leaving 13 channels (57-12*4) for the 5 screen speakers and 8 rear surrounds.

(*) Found it! https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/dolby-cinema-theater-the-force-awakens-tour-impressions/

BTW1: It could be that Dolby Cinema applies paired surround speakers per discrete channel, to reduce observed timbre changes when a sound object (like pink noise) is panned slowly along the side wall, caused by having every time a phantom image in-between speakers (I think comb filtering might be partly responsible for that, as the surround speakers are not de-correlated). In this example, this will reduce the number of discrete channels used. For example, the 22 side wall mounted surrounds will only take up 12 discrete channels (6 for each side). 

BTW2: This would mean that in terms of spatial resolution on the side walls, Home Atmos (with side wall mounted speakers: wides, ss1, ss, ss2, rs1, rs) can equal world's best commercial Atmos theaters currently available. On the rear wall Home Atmos has 5 discrete speakers left (Lrs2, Lcs, Cs, Rcs, Rrs2), compared to maybe only 4 discrete pairs in this cinematic example. And on top of that, home Atmos surpasses Cinematic Atmos with maximum available discrete screen channels: 7 compared to 5. I forgot the extra discrete overhead pair that this Cinema example has over home Atmos, but overall, I would say that home Atmos ... wins !?


----------



## Lesmor

I am sure there is an video interview on AVS where is was said that the Atmos mix for Home is limited to 12 objects


----------



## maikeldepotter

Lesmor said:


> I am sure there is an video interview on AVS where is was said that the Atmos mix for Home is limited to 12 objects


Home Atmos can have up to 20 objects, default setting on the home encoder is 12 objects. 

The questions then are:
1. Looking at cinematic Atmos soundtracks, how often are there more than 12-20 objects simultaneously active?
2. How audible are the effects of spatial coding when the cinematic version is turned into the home version?


----------



## sdurani

bryantc said:


> I still don't think there is any hardware capable of the full Atmos config


You posted a pic of the home Atmos configuration that has 34 speaker locations. The Trinnov Altitude can currently render to 31 of the 34 speakers, but a software update will allow the processor to do 48 independent outputs, which will cover all 34 Atmos speaker locations (and then some).


> BTW does anyone know which Atmos movie theater has the most channels right now?


Used for movie premieres bit not strictly a movie theatre, the Dolby Theater in Hollywood (formerly Kodak Theater) does Atmos using 164 speakers (44 of those overhead), which required daisy chaining multiple cinema Atmos decoders.


> I'm guessing there probably isn't any hardware there that can do the max 128 channels either.


ALL commercial Atmos decoders play back all 128 objects: 9.1 static objects (aka channels) and 118 dynamic objects.


----------



## richlife

maikeldepotter said:


> ...
> BTW2: This would mean that in terms of spatial resolution on the side walls, Home Atmos (with side wall mounted speakers: wides, ss1, ss, ss2, rs1, rs) can equal world's best commercial Atmos theaters currently available. On the rear wall Home Atmos has 5 discrete speakers left (Lrs2, Lcs, Cs, Rcs, Rrs2), compared to maybe only 4 discrete pairs in this cinematic example. And on top of that, home Atmos surpasses Cinematic Atmos with maximum available discrete screen channels: 7 compared to 5. I forgot the extra discrete overhead pair that this Cinema example has over home Atmos, but *overall, I would say that home Atmos ... wins !?*


Thanks for your informative posts -- it's rather fascinating just how far technology can take us. I'm not educated enough to comment on the details, but as far as the bold...

I've noticed comments that folks sometimes prefer their home Atmos setup to a theater. That may be due to so few who actually have access to a Dolby Atmos theater. (I'm in central NC. So far as I can determine, the only Atmos theater is in Charlotte, 3 hours away. There appears to be only one even in Atlanta GA. Perhaps this is the answer.) 

Regardless, in the non-Atmos theaters I've enjoyed, all tend to generate a broad, muddy soundfield compared to my Atmos home theater. Is it any wonder that the only reason I ever go to a theater (once a year at most) is to enjoy a big screen spectacular. Then later I enjoy the same movie even more because of the immersive properties a UHD BR with Atmos/True HD/DTS:X/DTS-HD MA provides on my home system. Our home theaters AVRs can even help a lossy, compressed downloaded movie end up with better audio than some commercial theaters. 

Somewhat off topic, but I would like to personally find out just what I think of a true Atmos theater. My big city trips are few and far between. So I'm very thankful for Yamaha (and even the other manufacturers) for their wonderful home AVRs!


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> _But let me say one thing: not every director loves Atmos. I work with a couple who feel that everything should be up on the screen. They're not enthralled with so much sonic information going into the surrounds_





Hi Keith,


did "your" Spectre chopper test and DSU is doing a better job then NeuralX on a DTS 7.1 file, but it has to do with DSU using x.x.6 and NeuralX is doing x.x.4
Even then its very close.
I will do the same test when DTS can do 6 top speakers, think this will be when IMAX DTS will enter the market, and a more fair test 


Best regards,
Dick


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> Used for movie premieres bit not strictly a movie theatre, the Dolby Theater in Hollywood (formerly Kodak Theater) does Atmos using 164 speakers (44 of those overhead), which required daisy chaining multiple cinema Atmos decoders.


I'm confident that number count is by considering each triplet cluster of speakers shown here as "three" (even though all three play the same sound). This produces broader dispersion and higher output than a single speaker:









And combining the L, C, and R speakers behind the screen are counted as "30" because each speaker array is made out of 10 JBL Vertec VT4888s:


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> 
> did "your" Spectre chopper test and DSU is doing a better job then NeuralX on a DTS 7.1 file, but it has to do with DSU using x.x.6 and NeuralX is doing x.x.4
> Even then its very close.
> I will do the same test when DTS can do 6 top speakers, think this will be when IMAX DTS will enter the market, and a more fair test
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Dick


Hey Dick. That helicopter scene near the beginning of _Spectre _is one of the best I have come across for evaluating the difference between DSU and Neural:X. I don't think either one is 'better' than the other - just different (like strawberries and raspberries maybe). Which one anyone prefers is just that - a matter of preference but they both do a good job. I find that when I want to demo how well upmixing to overhead speakers can work, I tend to use Neural:X if I want a "wow that's amazing" response from my victims audience and DSU if I am listening on my own. Neural:X certainly 'puts it all up there' but, for me, DSU is more 'natural'. Others will think the opposite.

I think we can summarise it by commenting on how lucky we are to have not one, but two effective upmixers for all of our legacy content, thus giving us fabulous value from our investment in AVRs, speakers and content.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> And combining the L, C, and R speakers behind the screen are counted as "30" because each speaker array is made out of 10 JBL Vertec VT4888s:


Oh boy! That is 30 VerTec VT4888s at a cost of some $150,000 to $200,000. And to give an idea of the size of that screen, each VerTec VT4888 is 39 inches wide and 14 inches high, so each array measures about 3ft 3ins x almost 12 feet!

Here's what they look like from the audience's side:


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> I think we can summarise it by commenting on how lucky we are to have not one, but two effective upmixers for all of our legacy content, thus giving us fabulous value from our investment in AVRs, speakers and content.


I agree and IMHO, the enjoyment and jaw dropping experience theses DSP modes provide. Is worth EVERY penny of upgrading older equipment.


----------



## bryantc

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey Dick. That helicopter scene near the beginning of _Spectre _is one of the best I have come across for evaluating the difference between DSU and Neural:X. I don't think either one is 'better' than the other - just different (like strawberries and raspberries maybe). Which one anyone prefers is just that - a matter of preference but they both do a good job. I find that when I want to demo how well upmixing to overhead speakers can work, I tend to use Neural:X if I want a "wow that's amazing" response from my victims audience and DSU if I am listening on my own. Neural:X certainly 'puts it all up there' but, for me, DSU is more 'natural'. Others will think the opposite.
> 
> I think we can summarise it by commenting on how lucky we are to have not one, but two effective upmixers for all of our legacy content, thus giving us fabulous value from our investment in AVRs, speakers and content.


It seems analogous to Vivid and Theater picture modes. One is showy and mostly "wrong" while the other is more natural and "accurate".








kbarnes701 said:


> Oh boy! That is 30 VerTec VT4888s at a cost of some $150,000 to $200,000. And to give an idea of the size of that screen, each VerTec VT4888 is 39 inches wide and 14 inches high, so each array measures about 3ft 3ins x almost 12 feet!
> 
> Here's what they look like from the audience's side:


Heh I've seen that kind of setup at rock concerts.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh boy! That is 30 VerTec VT4888s at a cost of some $150,000 to $200,000.


Their sub is *12* x 18" woofers custom made by JBL . _That's a lot of woof!_


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Their sub is *12* x 18" woofers custom made by JBL . _That's a lot of woof!_


Well, someone once said _"you can never have too much woofage"_ and I am inclined to agree.


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey Dick. That helicopter scene near the beginning of _Spectre _is one of the best I have come across for evaluating the difference between DSU and Neural:X. I don't think either one is 'better' than the other - just different (like strawberries and raspberries maybe). Which one anyone prefers is just that - a matter of preference but they both do a good job. I find that when I want to demo how well upmixing to overhead speakers can work, I tend to use Neural:X if I want a "wow that's amazing" response from my victims audience and DSU if I am listening on my own. Neural:X certainly 'puts it all up there' but, for me, DSU is more 'natural'. Others will think the opposite.
> 
> I think we can summarise it by commenting on how lucky we are to have not one, but two effective upmixers for all of our legacy content, thus giving us fabulous value from our investment in AVRs, speakers and content.



You say you (also) like NeuralX, don't you dislike the fact that NeuralX works with just 4 Height speakers ?


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> You say you (also) like NeuralX, don't you dislike the fact that NeuralX works with just 4 Height speakers ?


I only have 4 overhead speakers


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> I only have 4 overhead speakers


 
  


 


 

Are you going for 6 when IMAX DTS will come to live ?


----------



## batpig

am2model3 said:


> I wish Dolby and the AVR makers would allow us to do 5.1.8 for those brand new 13channel receivers they are releasing.


Why on earth would you want a 5.1.8 setup?? What a waste of resources... a basic 5ch base layer but oh so much spatial resolution for the occasional flyover effect!

The Denon 8500/Marantz 8805 can do a "7.1.8" speaker config but only 6 heights will be active at a time depending on Atmos (FH + TM + RH) vs. Auro (FH + CH + RH + TS).


----------



## bobbino421

batpig said:


> am2model3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish Dolby and the AVR makers would allow us to do 5.1.8 for those brand new 13channel receivers they are releasing.
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth would you want a 5.1.8 setup?? What a waste of resources... a basic 5ch base layer but oh so much spatial resolution for the occasional flyover effect!
> 
> The Denon 8500/Marantz 8805 can do a "7.1.8" speaker config but only 6 heights will be active at a time depending on Atmos (FH + TM + RH) vs. Auro (FH + CH + RH + TS).
Click to expand...

I thought 6 ht channels were over kill even for a large room lol


----------



## kbarnes701

CBdicX said:


> Are you going for 6 when IMAX DTS will come to live ?


I don't know. In my single row theater I don't feel any pressing need to add two more speakers overhead, but I did wire for them so if I could be persuaded, at a demo somewhere, that it was worthwhile, it could be possible. Of course, I'd need a new AVR, which is something I am not really planning as I am so happy with my Marantz 7009. And I would have to somehow find space in my (full) rack for two more amps. I have some 'spare' Dirac channels left on my second DDRC-88A so that is good to go for EQ.

So that's a definite maybe then


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't know. In my single row theater I don't feel any pressing need to add two more speakers overhead, but I did wire for them so if I could be persuaded, at a demo somewhere, that it was worthwhile, it could be possible. Of course, I'd need a new AVR, which is something I am not really planning as I am so happy with my Marantz 7009. And I would have to somehow find space in my (full) rack for two more amps. I have some 'spare' Dirac channels left on my second DDRC-88A so that is good to go for EQ.
> 
> So that's a definite maybe then


I take it that picking up a couple of Class D 7-channel ATI or D-Sonic amps and selling your five Emotiva amps (as per the third Cowshed post’s equipment list) isn’t an option for you? Or a couple of Class AB/H Emotiva XPA-7s?

As for the processor, I know what you “should” do ☺, but a Marantz 8805 might fit your bill if they get the upgrade. If/when we get “IMAX DTS” on the Altitude, I’m more or less set for whatever it is, since worst case I can add up to four more channels with an outboard sub management box to manage my individual subs. Hope to find out more at CEDIA.


----------



## Kain

How does "IMAX DTS" differ from "non-IMAX DTS"?


----------



## sdrucker

Kain said:


> How does "IMAX DTS" differ from "non-IMAX DTS"?


Answer unknown, ask us after CEDIA?


----------



## Dave Moritz

Next month I will be upgrading to a new receiver and will finally be adding Dolby Atmos to my home theater! The current Pioneer Elite will be upgraded to a new Marantz SR-8012 11.2 receiver (7.2.4) and I have plenty of Atmos content on blu-ray and 4K blu-ray to enjoy this new power house receiver.

What are some of the best sounding Atmos movies to watch first?


----------



## CBdicX

Kain said:


> How does "IMAX DTS" differ from "non-IMAX DTS"?


 
Rumour has it that this will be the DTS *13 channel* version, along with IMAX Vision, the "Dolby Vision" for DTS.......


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I take it that picking up a couple of Class D 7-channel ATI or D-Sonic amps and selling your five Emotiva amps (as per the third Cowshed post’s equipment list) isn’t an option for you? Or a couple of Class AB/H Emotiva XPA-7s?


Yes there are options like that for sure. But they cost money. My current Emo amps are working perfectly but if I sold them I would get very little for them on the UK secondhand market. Also, if I was going to swap amps now I would almost certainly want to go for Crown professional amps as they are, IMO, the very best choice for me in my cinema. I'd need 7 2-channel Crowns to handle the 7.1.6 layout and this would likely be more cost-effective than buying any 'consumer' type multi-channel amp(s) as well as, IMO, offering more performance. The question is whether all this expense and hassle would be justified by having two extra speakers over my head, in my HT which has but a single row of seats. The jury is definitely still out on that one (for me anyway).




sdrucker said:


> As for the processor, I know what you “should” do ☺, but a Marantz 8805 might fit your bill if they get the upgrade. If/when we get “IMAX DTS” on the Altitude, I’m more or less set for whatever it is, since worst case I can add up to four more channels with an outboard sub management box to manage my individual subs. Hope to find out more at CEDIA.


I don't chase hardware the same way you do, but sure, the Marantz would be a good choice. If I had to make a choice I would, as always with electronics, buy the cheapest (mainstream) product that had the features I want. Electronics add zip to the sound quality, so it's just features. If that was the 8805 that is what I'd buy. You need a features set that can accommodate a huge number of speakers, so you are pretty much limited to one brand, but that's not the case for me with my simple 7.x.4 setup, or even a 7.x.6 setup. In truth, I am not at all convinced of the value of having 6 speakers above me instead of 4 _in my room_. Others will have different priorities and room circumstances.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dave Moritz said:


> Next month I will be upgrading to a new receiver and will finally be adding Dolby Atmos to my home theater! The current Pioneer Elite will be upgraded to a new Marantz SR-8012 11.2 receiver (7.2.4) and I have plenty of Atmos content on blu-ray and 4K blu-ray to enjoy this new power house receiver.
> 
> What are some of the best sounding Atmos movies to watch first?


There are tons now. I'd choose the original _Blade Runner _UHD, _Mad Max Fury Road_, _The Fifth Element, Blade Runner 2049_, _Gravity_, _The Greatest Showman, Fury_ (UHD). TGS isn't massively hot on overhead speaker use but is one of the best Atmos mixes I have heard (Atmos being about much more than overhead effects).

There are so many to choose from now - I am sure others will chime in with their own favorites.


----------



## Jonas2

kbarnes701 said:


> There are so many to choose from now - I am sure others will chime in with their own favorites.



I'll throw in Hacksaw Ridge....


----------



## Watch Doc

Selden Ball said:


> I've attached a suggestion for the locations of the overhead speakers, shown in ~red. Be sure to use speakers with pointable tweeters and point them toward the Main Listening Position (where you'll usually be sitting) before you run an Audyssey calibration.


Ok have decided to go with .4 in locations you suggested. My options based on my price range here in Australia for the REAR (already have a pair for the fronts) in-ceiling speakers here in Australia has been narrowed down to:
1. RSL c34e’s with their 15 degree angle and wide dispersion
2. Yamaha NS IC800’s which can play straight down, and tweeter can also be angled.

If I set up my rear in-ceilings as you suggested, which of the two would you recommend? Will the RSL’s be too angled in, narrowing the possible seating positions? (I know they have wide dispersions, I guess i’m Just worried about their 15 degree angle)


----------



## Selden Ball

Watch Doc said:


> Ok have decided to go with .4 in locations you suggested. My options based on my price range here in Australia for the REAR (already have a pair for the fronts) in-ceiling speakers here in Australia has been narrowed down to:
> 1. RSL c34e’s with their 15 degree angle and wide dispersion
> 2. Yamaha NS IC800’s which can play straight down, and tweeter can also be angled.
> 
> If I set up my rear in-ceilings as you suggested, which of the two would you recommend? Will the RSL’s be too angled in, narrowing the possible seating positions? (I know they have wide dispersions, I guess i’m Just worried about their 15 degree angle)


Unfortunately, I have no experience with either of those speakers. Mine are mounted on-wall/on-ceiling: see my sig. However, I'd be biased toward the 2nd.


----------



## stikle

stikle said:


> 7:45PM - Speakers installed, beginning Audyssey calibration
> 8:15PM - Start Atmos Demo BDR
> 8:16PM - Pick jaw up off of floor
> 8:17PM - Start listening to select favorite movie clips with DSU
> 12AM - Pause for a drink, notice I've lost almost 2 hours of my life.
> 12:01AM - Shrug and put the next disc in



Coming up on 4 years with Atmos & DSU in my life. 

Kinda fun reading old posts from "back in the day" in this thread.

The new theater room is approaching completion, finally.


----------



## richlife

Watch Doc said:


> Ok have decided to go with .4 in locations you suggested. My options based on my price range here in Australia for the REAR (already have a pair for the fronts) in-ceiling speakers here in Australia has been narrowed down to:
> 1. RSL c34e’s with their 15 degree angle and wide dispersion
> 2. Yamaha NS IC800’s which can play straight down, and tweeter can also be angled.
> 
> If I set up my rear in-ceilings as you suggested, which of the two would you recommend? Will the RSL’s be too angled in, narrowing the possible seating positions? (I know they have wide dispersions, I guess i’m Just worried about their 15 degree angle)


I have the RSL c34e's and they will be fine. The 15 degrees refers to the angle of the mount in which the 3" "woofers" sit. Instead of simply radiating 360 degrees from the ceiling position, they radiate toward your seating with a very broad pattern. The tweeter is independently aimable and the dispersion is exceptional. I direct the 15 degree mount toward my MLP, add a little more tilt to the tweeter since my seating is at about 45 degrees. Definitely not any concern about aiming or dispersion limitations. 

The RSL website - https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/ - has a good picture showing that angle. One of the pics on my HT site shows how I direct them toward my listening postions if you zoom on the right side of the installed speaker pic -- the pic midway through this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...-ht-common-but-special-room.html#post46927353 .


----------



## jpoet

*Jack Ryan*

Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1


----------



## gwsat

jpoet said:


> Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1


I watched the UHD HDR quality version of Amazon's _Jack Ryan_ series on my Roku Premiere+ and got Atmos audio in the bargain.


----------



## stikle

jpoet said:


> Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1



Pretty sure Atmos is only available in the 4K UHD stream. We tried multiple devices at a buddy's house and could only get 5.1. He only has a 1080p display, so...no Atmos.

I don't have access to Amazon Video, so I can't test it on my system.


----------



## Watch Doc

richlife said:


> I have the RSL c34e's and they will be fine .


Good to hear!!
As the RSL’s are ~AUD$160 more expensive than the Yamaha’s for the pair (for me at least as Yammie’s available here in Australia, have to pay postage from US and 10% import tax on the RSL’s), are the RSL’s with their wide dispersion superior to the Yamaha’s?

Happy to pay more if their worth it. But if Yamaha’s are just as good then i’ll Go for the cheaper local pair


----------



## richlife

Watch Doc said:


> Good to hear!!
> As the RSL’s are ~AUD$160 more expensive than the Yamaha’s for the pair (for me at least as Yammie’s available here in Australia, have to pay postage from US and 10% import tax on the RSL’s), are the RSL’s with their wide dispersion superior to the Yamaha’s?
> 
> Happy to pay more if their worth it. But if Yamaha’s are just as good then i’ll Go for the cheaper local pair


I can't compare the sound. My thinking is that the RSL's are better than most "standard" in ceiling, but can only look at specs and price like you. US Amazon shows the Yamahas at $135 a PAIR and the RSL sells for $125 EACH. So right off, the RSLs are more expensive. Then your added cost. Worthwhile? 

I can say this which you probably thought about. If you get the Yamaha 8", you COULD replace them with the RSLs with their larger outside diameter (total speaker, not drivers). If you cut for the 10" RSLs, you can't easily change to an 8".


----------



## lax01

jpoet said:


> Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1


LG Amazon App shows DD5.1 in the menu but would playback with Dolby Atmos (for 4K UHD Dolby Vision version of Jack Ryan)


----------



## jpoet

stikle said:


> Pretty sure Atmos is only available in the 4K UHD stream. We tried multiple devices at a buddy's house and could only get 5.1. He only has a 1080p display, so...no Atmos.
> 
> I don't have access to Amazon Video, so I can't test it on my system.


 Thanks. I should have been more clear, and mentioned that I was watching the UHD version. It looks like Amazon has not updated their app on the Shield yet(?) to support Atmos.


----------



## Ricoflashback

gwsat said:


> I watched the UHD HDR quality version of Amazon's _Jack Ryan_ series on my Roku Premiere+ and got Atmos audio in the bargain.


Great series! I just finished watching the last episode last night. With my Sony 900F - - it was Dolby Vision and I believe Dolby Atmos, as well. Normally, my AVR lights up "Dolby Atmos" on the panel. I see this with Netflix and Bluray Atmos soundtracks. 

Question: I do not see "Atmos" on the Amazon Prime label. When I searched Amazon Prime for "Dolby Atmos," or "Atmos," I looked at a sampler that had Dolby Atmos but my AVR shows DD+ + Dolby Atmos - - which is really weird. The height speakers were definitely engaged and it didn't show DSU - it showed DD+ + Dolby Atmos. Maybe it's my AVR but I wish Amazon Prime would do a better job of labeling content.


----------



## deano86

Ricoflashback said:


> Great series! I just finished watching the last episode last night. With my Sony 900F - - it was Dolby Vision and I believe Dolby Atmos, as well. Normally, my AVR lights up "Dolby Atmos" on the panel. I see this with Netflix and Bluray Atmos soundtracks.
> 
> Question: I do not see "Atmos" on the Amazon Prime label. When I searched Amazon Prime for "Dolby Atmos," or "Atmos," I looked at a sampler that had Dolby Atmos but my AVR shows DD+ + Dolby Atmos - - which is really weird. The height speakers were definitely engaged and it didn't show DSU - it showed DD+ + Dolby Atmos. Maybe it's my AVR but I wish Amazon Prime would do a better job of labeling content.


Why is that weird? Streaming versions of Atmos will typically use the 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus codec for transport....


----------



## Ricoflashback

deano86 said:


> Why is that weird? Streaming versions of Atmos will typically use the 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus codec for transport....


Weird because all other DD+ 5.1 streams with lossy Dolby Atmos show up as Dolby Atmos on my Denon 5200 AVR display. With Amazon Prime streaming, it did not display as straight Dolby Atmos. In fact, I had to look at the second line on my display as it read Dolby Digital Plus + Dolby Atmos. As I said before - probably the way my older AVR displays the codecs.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Technically speaking it's not a "_*5.1*_ DD+ stream", it's a "DD+ stream". That stream contains a backwards compatible 5.1 track but when you take the [lossy] Atmos portion of the same datastream (and a compatible device detects it), the sum of the two parts becomes an Atmos 3D-sound soundtrack and it stops being a "5.1" or "7.1" soundtrack.


----------



## jmacari

gwsat said:


> I watched the UHD HDR quality version of Amazon's _Jack Ryan_ series on my Roku Premiere+ and got Atmos audio in the bargain.


My 2016 Roku Ultra gets the Atmos version, but naturally the forever, ongoing, buggy unit continues to do the Prime audio dropout routine; but my Fire UHD 2017 unit does the UHD, Atmos edition of Jack Ryan nicely....took a little time to find the UHD version (not the 1080P), and then change the audio setting when it started to stream to turn on the Atmos sound, but now every ongoing edition is set up nicely.


----------



## mzs22

jpoet said:


> Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1


I am getting atmos on my xbox one x


----------



## Ricoflashback

mrtickleuk said:


> Technically speaking it's not a "_*5.1*_ DD+ stream", it's a "DD+ stream". That stream contains a backwards compatible 5.1 track but when you take the [lossy] Atmos portion of the same datastream (and a compatible device detects it), the sum of the two parts becomes an Atmos 3D-sound soundtrack and it stops being a "5.1" or "7.1" soundtrack.


That’s my point with Amazon Prime - it doesn’t show “Dolby Atmos” as the soundtrack on the display. Netflix does. At least from what I’m seeing.


----------



## BBruin66

mzs22 said:


> I am getting atmos on my xbox one x


I don't think that was real Atmos. Xbox has never bitstreamed source audio from apps (other than the Blu-ray app).

So if you have your Xbox set to Atmos, it's just taking whatever audio stream it gets, "up-converts" it on the fly and outputs Atmos. I'd much rather let DSU do its thing to a DD+ 5.1 than trust the Xbox. Who knows what Xbox does to the source.


----------



## CBdicX

jpoet said:


> Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1



Then you can use DSU or NeuralX, far better then Atmos..........


----------



## mrtickleuk

Ricoflashback said:


> That’s my point with Amazon Prime - it doesn’t show “Dolby Atmos” as the soundtrack on the display. Netflix does. At least from what I’m seeing.


Agreed, Amazon's labelling is all over the place. It shows "5.1" and no indication that Atmos is available.
Amazon don't care. They are hiding their best content inside duplicate "UHD" titled items which cannot be searched for, only found at the bottom of the pile inside a cupboard if you look very hard.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

BBruin66 said:


> I don't think that was real Atmos. Xbox has never bitstreamed source audio from apps (other than the Blu-ray app).
> 
> So if you have your Xbox set to Atmos, it's just taking whatever audio stream it gets, "up-converts" it on the fly and outputs Atmos. I'd much rather let DSU do its thing to a DD+ 5.1 than trust the Xbox. Who knows what Xbox does to the source.


The xbox supports Atmos for both games and Netflix for more than half a year now. It does however not bitstream the original DD+ 5.1 track, but places it in an uncompressed Atmos bitstream. That is why you don't see DD+ or TrueHD on your receiver when using the Xbox, except when playing blu-rays where it does bitstream the original audio stream.


----------



## BBruin66

G4n0nD0rf said:


> The xbox supports Atmos for both games and Netflix for more than half a year now. It does however not bitstream the original DD+ 5.1 track, but places it in an uncompressed Atmos bitstream. That is why you don't see DD+ or TrueHD on your receiver when using the Xbox, except when playing blu-rays where it does bitstream the original audio stream.


Right. I was in the preview for both the bitstream disc rollout, and the Atmos rollout. Sending everything Atmos is annoying, not a "feature". Xbox has come a long way with audio since it built the S (a UHD player without bitstream  at the time).

My gripe is you have no clarity into what the source audio of the app you are using is (been this way on Xbox for a long time). Am I getting stereo, DD, DD+, Atmos? I'm usually playing "device roulette" (and usually end up on Chromecast Ultra) to get the best possible audio codec. Xbox doesn't give me a way to tell what I am getting, it just chucks it into an Atmos stream, as you said.

I'd rather let my receiver decode the source audio, and let DSU or Nueral:X apply it as designed. Xbox throwing it into an Atmos stream means my receiver cannot do what it was designed to do, and upmix these formats to 7.1.4. 

Hell I can put HULU 2.0 show on, and it will send as Dolby Atmos. Do I really trust Xbox to take a 2.0 stream and apply it effectively to 7.1.4? Of course not.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I take it that picking up a couple of Class D 7-channel ATI or D-Sonic amps and selling your five Emotiva amps (as per the third Cowshed post’s equipment list) isn’t an option for you? Or a couple of Class AB/H Emotiva XPA-7s?
> 
> As for the processor, I know what you “should” do ☺, but a Marantz 8805 might fit your bill if they get the upgrade. If/when we get “IMAX DTS” on the Altitude, I’m more or less set for whatever it is, since worst case I can add up to four more channels with an outboard sub management box to manage my individual subs. Hope to find out more at CEDIA.


An additional thought to add to my earlier reply. While I am very cool about the benefits of two additional speakers on the ceiling of my HT, I am open to persuasion about the benefit of adding Wides. I am not noticing any significant gap in the sound between my mains and my side surrounds, thanks to excellent phantom imaging, but that 'gap' represents the biggest single space between any of my sets of adjacent speakers, so it could be a candidate for a physical speaker there. I also pre-wired for Wides so it is easy to add a further pair.

Of course, I would still need another 2ch amp, for which there is currently no room in my rack (but I could sort that out). And a new AVR of course that could handle 9.x.4 which my current unit cannot. So it would not be a cheap, or simple, upgrade. I question how much real benefit I might get out of it but it's a thought - certainly much more attractive to me (in my single row theater) than an extra pair on the ceiling.

Overall, I think 9 on the floor and 4 on the ceiling is probably a more worthwhile solution than 7 on the floor and 6 on the ceiling - for me at any rate.


----------



## fookoo_2010

kbarnes701 said:


> An additional thought to add to my earlier reply. While I am very cool about the benefits of two additional speakers on the ceiling of my HT, I am open to persuasion about the benefit of adding Wides. I am not noticing any significant gap in the sound between my mains and my side surrounds, thanks to excellent phantom imaging, but that 'gap' represents the biggest single space between any of my sets of adjacent speakers, so it could be a candidate for a physical speaker there. I also pre-wired for Wides so it is easy to add a further pair.
> 
> Of course, I would still need another 2ch amp, for which there is currently no room in my rack (but I could sort that out). And a new AVR of course that could handle 9.x.4 which my current unit cannot. So it would not be a cheap, or simple, upgrade. I question how much real benefit I might get out of it but it's a thought - certainly much more attractive to me (in my single row theater) than an extra pair on the ceiling.
> 
> Overall, I think 9 on the floor and 4 on the ceiling is probably a more worthwhile solution than 7 on the floor and 6 on the ceiling - for me at any rate.


This is essentially an argument based on cost and that is a very important aspect of any home theater, especially when it comes to upgrading it. The implementation of wides themselves do not amount to much these days because of the media content available that actively uses them. Phantom imaging in a home theater is a big deal and yet there are few comments about the center speaker whose output could be the result of phantom imaging, instead of an actual center speaker. Hopefully, future Dolby Atmos mixes will better utilize the wides.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not noticing any significant gap in the sound between my mains and my side surrounds, thanks to excellent phantom imaging, but that 'gap' represents the biggest single space between any of my sets of adjacent speakers, so it could be a candidate for a physical speaker there. I also pre-wired for Wides so it is easy to add a further pair.


Content intended for the Wides location doesn't always phantom image there due to the snap-to-speaker feature of Atmos. An easily audible example is the song that plays over the end credits of Star Trek Beyond, which clearly stretches out to the Wides but collapses to the Fronts when there are no Wides (as opposed to those sounds phantom imaging between the Fronts and Sides).


> Overall, I think 9 on the floor and 4 on the ceiling is probably a more worthwhile solution than 7 on the floor and 6 on the ceiling - for me at any rate.


4 speakers above might have an advantage compared to 6 speakers above. The home version of Atmos doesn't array channel info the way the cinema version does (unless the speakers for those channels are missing). So if your configuration includes Top Middles, all the channel info will go there while other speakers overhead will only reproduce object info. You'll notice that when Stu reports on Atmos mixes that make limited use of the format (e.g., Guardians of the Galaxy 2), he sometimes mentions that his Top Middles get most of the sound while the Top Fronts & Top Rears sound kinda anemic because they're playing back what appears to be residual/ambient sounds. If the TM pair is missing, then the channel info will get split to the TF & TR pairs, and they won't be so quiet any more.


----------



## Ricoflashback

kbarnes701 said:


> An additional thought to add to my earlier reply. While I am very cool about the benefits of two additional speakers on the ceiling of my HT, I am open to persuasion about the benefit of adding Wides. I am not noticing any significant gap in the sound between my mains and my side surrounds, thanks to excellent phantom imaging, but that 'gap' represents the biggest single space between any of my sets of adjacent speakers, so it could be a candidate for a physical speaker there. I also pre-wired for Wides so it is easy to add a further pair.
> 
> Of course, I would still need another 2ch amp, for which there is currently no room in my rack (but I could sort that out). And a new AVR of course that could handle 9.x.4 which my current unit cannot. So it would not be a cheap, or simple, upgrade. I question how much real benefit I might get out of it but it's a thought - certainly much more attractive to me (in my single row theater) than an extra pair on the ceiling.
> 
> Overall, I think 9 on the floor and 4 on the ceiling is probably a more worthwhile solution than 7 on the floor and 6 on the ceiling - for me at any rate.


Interesting comments and observations on the benefits of adding Wides to your setup. And, by the way, a real nice link to your "Barn" theater setup. It really looks nice. 

I have a much more modest layout with an older AVR (Denon 5200) which enabled me to use both Front Wides and Front & Rear Height speakers with the addition of a separate AudioSource 2 channel amp for the Rear Height speakers. (Which is great because when it's "active" and a signal is going to the Rear Height (and I assume Front Height) speakers - - it lights up green.) The Denon AVR 5200 has the older "Neo-X" option with Front Wides. I use this with most TV viewing - - cable stations, sports. For streaming and the occasional Bluray movie - - I use DSU or Dolby Atmos with the Rear Heights. I find the the Front Wides do fill in the small gap between my Side Surrounds in a 7.1.4 (Front Wides, Front Height), DTS Neo X configuration or I'll use all the height speakers via 7.1.4 with DSU and Dolby Atmos. 

I still have a 100" projection screen and older, short throw, BenQ W1080 ST projector) that has been totally mothballed due to my 75" Sony 900F with Dolby Vision. I just can't watch it anymore (I know - lower quality model but I could only use a short throw projector in my space). The clarity, shadow detail and brightness of my Sony 900F with HDR & Dolby Vision (plus much more Dolby Atmos from Netflix and even Amazon Prime) solidly trumps the loss of a 25" bigger screen. For that "big theater" experience, I've subscribed to AMC Stubs A-List and MoviePass. The best projection I've seen to date was a dual laser, Dolby Vision, presentation of Crazy Rich Asians. 

I also find it amusing that "Front Wides" were not an option with models after 2014 and not readily available with current AVR's. I guess it's just another technology that wasn't readily adapted. I still like them for cable sports and other cable shows. I think you already have a great setup and would not get much bang for the buck with the addition of Front Wide speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

fookoo_2010 said:


> This is essentially an argument based on cost and that is a very important aspect of any home theater, especially when it comes to upgrading it.


Cost isn't a major factor for me - it's more the hassle and whether there are real, audible benefits. 



fookoo_2010 said:


> The implementation of wides themselves do not amount to much these days because of the media content available that actively uses them.


Well Atmos uses them  And all my legacy content (if I decide to upmix with Neural:X anyway).



fookoo_2010 said:


> Phantom imaging in a home theater is a big deal and yet there are few comments about the center speaker whose output could be the result of phantom imaging, instead of an actual center speaker.


Only if your cinema has one seat. Phantom imaging is just fine, and always has been (eg for stereo for decades) so long as you sit plumb between the speakers. Move a little to either side and the imaging collapses towards that side. For stereo music where there is mostly one listener sitting centrally, that is OK but for cinema use, where there is often more than one listener and even more than one row of seats, phantom imagining of the center channel won't work properly except for the lucky listener in the center seat.

As a general principal, phantom imaging works extremely well iof the system is properly set up, but nothing will ever beat a physical speaker in a physical location, obviously. I am fortunate in that in my HT I am often the sole audience member and in any case any other listeners are not critical and are just in awe of a good home cinema experience. So it is all optimized for my seat. 



fookoo_2010 said:


> Hopefully, future Dolby Atmos mixes will better utilize the wides.


I am sure it will, just as Atmos mixes have steadily improved since launch as mixers become more familiar with object audio and the tools at their disposal.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Content intended for the Wides location doesn't always phantom image there due to the snap-to-speaker feature of Atmos. An easily audible example is the song that plays over the end credits of Star Trek Beyond, which clearly stretches out to the Wides but collapses to the Fronts when there are no Wides (as opposed to those sounds phantom imaging between the Fronts and Sides).
> 
> 4 speakers above might have an advantage compared to 6 speakers above. The home version of Atmos doesn't array channel info the way the cinema version does (unless the speakers for those channels are missing). So if your configuration includes Top Middles, all the channel info will go there while other speakers overhead will only reproduce object info. You'll notice that when Stu reports on Atmos mixes that make limited use of the format (e.g., Guardians of the Galaxy 2), he sometimes mentions that his Top Middles get most of the sound while the Top Fronts & Top Rears sound kinda anemic because they're playing back what appears to be residual/ambient sounds. If the TM pair is missing, then the channel info will get split to the TF & TR pairs, and they won't be so quiet any more.


All excellent points, especially the part about 4 overheads vs 6. Interesting also about Wides and snap-to. Hmm... maybe I should think more seriously about it...


----------



## kbarnes701

Ricoflashback said:


> Interesting comments and observations on the benefits of adding Wides to your setup. And, by the way, a real nice link to your "Barn" theater setup. It really looks nice.


Thanks! It was a real labor of love (and money!)  But I watch a movie almost every day and get a huge amount of enjoyment from it.



Ricoflashback said:


> I have a much more modest layout with an older AVR (Denon 5200) which enabled me to use both Front Wides and Front & Rear Height speakers with the addition of a separate AudioSource 2 channel amp for the Rear Height speakers. (Which is great because when it's "active" and a signal is going to the Rear Height (and I assume Front Height) speakers - - it lights up green.) The Denon AVR 5200 has the older "Neo-X" option with Front Wides. I use this with most TV viewing - - cable stations, sports. For streaming and the occasional Bluray movie - - I use DSU or Dolby Atmos with the Rear Heights. I find the the Front Wides do fill in the small gap between my Side Surrounds in a 7.1.4 (Front Wides, Front Height), DTS Neo X configuration or I'll use all the height speakers via 7.1.4 with DSU and Dolby Atmos.
> 
> I still have a 100" projection screen and older, short throw, BenQ W1080 ST projector) that has been totally mothballed due to my 75" Sony 900F with Dolby Vision. I just can't watch it anymore (I know - lower quality model but I could only use a short throw projector in my space). The clarity, shadow detail and brightness of my Sony 900F with HDR & Dolby Vision (plus much more Dolby Atmos from Netflix and even Amazon Prime) solidly trumps the loss of a 25" bigger screen. For that "big theater" experience, I've subscribed to AMC Stubs A-List and MoviePass. The best projection I've seen to date was a dual laser, Dolby Vision, presentation of Crazy Rich Asians.


I take your point. Unless you are watching in a totally blacked out room, no PJ will ever beat a good TV. I used to have the BenQ 1070, which I assume was the earlier model than yours (for the same reason - throw distance in my old, very small HT) and if the room is blacked out and the PJ very carefully calibrated, the results can be excellent, especially for the low cost. The main issue was black levels of course but I could live with those for the much bigger screen (this was back when anything above 65 inches cost the earth).



Ricoflashback said:


> I also find it amusing that "Front Wides" were not an option with models after 2014 and not readily available with current AVR's. I guess it's just another technology that wasn't readily adapted. I still like them for cable sports and other cable shows. I think you already have a great setup and would not get much bang for the buck with the addition of Front Wide speakers.


Thanks, although Sanjay raises a very good point (as always) with the 'snap-to' feature of Atmos utilizing the Wides in a way that phantom imaging can't compete with (ie discrete content sent to the Wides which is not also sent to the surrounds, and therefore can't phantom at all).


----------



## gwsat

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed, Amazon's labelling is all over the place. It shows "5.1" and no indication that Atmos is available.
> Amazon don't care. They are hiding their best content inside duplicate "UHD" titled items which cannot be searched for, only found at the bottom of the pile inside a cupboard if you look very hard.


Couldn't agree more! If I may be allowed an executive summary of Amazon's indexing practices, it is that with respect to providing tools to find UHD HDR video and immersive audio. they suck! I cannot contemplate the problem further, though, for this way lies madness.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting also about Wides and snap-to.


If you play the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones off the Dolby demo disc, the Wides info is 100% in the Front speakers.


> Hmm... maybe I should think more seriously about it...


Especially now that there are mainstream products that can accommodate 9.1.4 natively.


----------



## mrtickleuk

gwsat said:


> Couldn't agree more! If I may be allowed an executive summary of Amazon's indexing practices, it is that with respect to providing tools to find UHD HDR video and immersive audio. they suck! I cannot contemplate the problem further, though, for this way lies madness.


The HDR content was *on display*...
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." 
"That's the display department." 
"With a torch." 
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone." 
"So had the stairs." 
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" 
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying _Beware of the Leopard_."

(c) Douglas Adams, RIP


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> If you play the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones off the Dolby demo disc, the Wides info is 100% in the Front speakers.


I will try that - thanks. I guess it is obvious (but wasn't to me, clearly) that if there are no Wides the content has to be sent somewhere.



sdurani said:


> Especially now that there are mainstream products that can accommodate 9.1.4 natively.


Yep. Food for thought.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> All excellent points, especially the part about 4 overheads vs 6. Interesting also about Wides and snap-to. Hmm... maybe I should think more seriously about it...


FYI, Trinnov just announced that their hi-end audio processors have a five year warranty which is retroactive to previous buyer purchases. And to date, no software-based upgrade to the Altitude’s functionality has been upcharged. Just a point of information for anyone considering an Altitude 16 or 32...

https://www.trinnov.com/2018/09/03/trinnov-audio-5-year-warranty/


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I guess it is obvious (but wasn't to me, clearly) that if there are no Wides the content has to be sent somewhere.


One would hope that it would get split to the Fronts & Sides so that it images in between, where the Wides would have been. But if the mixer is using the Wides for dialogue that pans off screen, I can understand not wanting to have sounds just outside the screen showing up behind the listener (where the Surrounds are in a 5.1 set-up). So to keep those sounds in the front soundstage, the snap-to-speaker option makes sense (just wish mixers used that option less frequently).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> FYI, Trinnov just announced that their hi-end audio processors have a five year warranty which is retroactive to previous buyer purchases. And to date, no software-based upgrade to the Altitude’s functionality has been upcharged. *Just a point of information for anyone considering an Altitude 16 or 32...
> *


Stand clear everyone - don't get trampled in the rush....


----------



## CBdicX

kbarnes701 said:


> All excellent points, especially the part about 4 overheads vs 6. Interesting also about Wides and snap-to. Hmm... maybe I should think more seriously about it...



This is exact the point why i told you i liked DSU/Atmos in a .6 setup over DTS/NeuralX .4, even i do like the DTS "sound" over Dolby.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Content intended for the Wides location doesn't always phantom image there due to the snap-to-speaker feature of Atmos. An easily audible example is the song that plays over the end credits of Star Trek Beyond, which clearly stretches out to the Wides but collapses to the Fronts when there are no Wides (as opposed to those sounds phantom imaging between the Fronts and Sides). 4 speakers above might have an advantage compared to 6 speakers above. The home version of Atmos doesn't array channel info the way the cinema version does (unless the speakers for those channels are missing). So if your configuration includes Top Middles, all the channel info will go there while other speakers overhead will only reproduce object info. You'll notice that when Stu reports on Atmos mixes that make limited use of the format (e.g., Guardians of the Galaxy 2), he sometimes mentions that his Top Middles get most of the sound while the Top Fronts & Top Rears sound kinda anemic because they're playing back what appears to be residual/ambient sounds. If the TM pair is missing, then the channel info will get split to the TF & TR pairs, and they won't be so quiet any more.


That’s why I have a preset with two pairs of heights that I occasionally use for movies like that. But there are times that .4 really does beat .6.

Quickly, two that come to mind are Saving Private Ryan (7.1.6, but heavily using Top Middles) and Avengers: Infinity War. From what I remember from a few months ago, GotG2 specifically is more like 7.1.4 with top fronts and rears used, and top middle more occasionally for ambience.


----------



## bryantc

In my limited testing I found that Warner discs like Blade Runner and The Matrix make the most use of Front Wides. They are active almost the whole time with music and background audio.


Disney of course doesn't use them at all.


Most of the other studios are only using them for panning objects so they spend most of the movie sitting silent.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Stand clear everyone - don't get trampled in the rush....


Speak for yourself 

I’m sure you want to better spend your time considering whether to do 7.1.4, 7.1.6, or 9.1.4 in the Cowshed, and if it’s cost efficient and physically possible to add another two-channel Emotiva blast furnace...

Seriously, it’s up to you, but others might find that informative in considering 3D audio processors. But who knows, maybe there’s an Emotiva RMC-1 in your future...LOL....as it will be 9.1.6 capable for Atmos and will have Dirac.


----------



## sdurani

Immersive mixes from Universal have been almost exclusively DTS:X, but I noticed that some of their upcoming titles (Skyscraper, Mama Mia! Here We Go Again, Schindler's List) are in Atmos. Wonder if they're switching or just spreading the love around to both formats.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Overall, I think 9 on the floor and 4 on the ceiling is probably a more worthwhile solution than 7 on the floor and 6 on the ceiling - for me at any rate.


I'd tend to agree. It think people grossly overestimate the real world significance of pinpoint localization for overflying helicopters, etc. These scenes in movies are usually fleeting in nature and many movies have absolutely none!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Speak for yourself


Sure. After all, _everyone _is clamoring for a 20 grand processor...



sdrucker said:


> I’m sure you want to better spend your time considering whether to do 7.1.4, 7.1.6, or 9.1.4 in the Cowshed, and if it’s cost efficient and physically possible to add another two-channel Emotiva blast furnace...


Blast furnace? Haha. My amps run so cool that sometimes you wouldn't know they'd been playing Hacksaw Ridge at Reference -5dB for 2 hours  The benefit of sensitive speakers...



sdrucker said:


> Seriously, it’s up to you, but others might find that informative in considering 3D audio processors. But who knows, maybe there’s an Emotiva RMC-1 in your future...LOL....as it will be 9.1.6 capable for Atmos and will have Dirac.


I doubt if I would ever buy an Emotiva processor. But I am 100% certain I will never buy a Trinnov  Get the *room *right, Stu - then the electronics are barely worthy of mention.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> I'd tend to agree. It think people grossly overestimate the real world significance of pinpoint localization for overflying helicopters, etc. These scenes in movies are usually fleeting in nature and many movies have absolutely none!


I think it's a bit more than helicopters, but I take your general point. When the overheads are used well (eg _Blade Runner - The Final Cut_ remix) the result is very, very satisfying.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> My amps run so cool that...


The only movie I can watch is Frozen.


> My amps run so cool that...


Every song sounds like Ice Ice Baby.


> My amps run so cool that...


Lawrence of Arabia caught a cold mid-way into the movie.


> My amps run so cool that...


Last time I watched an Eagles concert, hell really did freeze over.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure. After all, _everyone _is clamoring for a 20 grand processor...


 
Obviously not everyone, and budget aside, not everyone needs it. However, it should be noted that you're misinformed: the entry level point is closer to $16K than $20K for the Altitude 16, which puts it into competition with the Storm Audio ISP Elites and the RMC-1 (if/when it comes out, closer to $5K) when it comes to wanting native Atmos 9.1.6 capability. The question is whether you want the flexibility of the feature set - which you can read as a thought exercise on the relevant websites - and the relative time value of money for you (buy cheaper and upgrade as changes are made to DSP firmware according to the manufacture's product rollouts, or one time purchase with a longer shelf life and more frequent upgrades at limited to no extra cost). You can mock that tradeoff all you want, but it's a legitimate one.



> I doubt if I would ever buy an Emotiva processor. But I am 100% certain I will never buy a Trinnov  Get the *room *right, Stu - then the electronics are barely worthy of mention.


I think that's a little strong....there's such a thing as full-range room EQ to tailor a target curve to your personal taste. If electronics are barely worthy of mention, why do you even use Dirac? Coming from you, the guy that once compiled the classic Audyssey reference on AVS, that's disingenuous.

And Keith....I don't think anyone is arguing that electronics are more important than the room. Certainly I am not saying that as a generality, but the feature set in one processor vs. another can make the use of that room better than it would be otherwise (although obviously the room has to be addressed as much as possible first according to your treatment philosophy for room design as well as movies vs. music preferences). But your absolutes, while they're one person's opinion, don't fit everyone. Otherwise, why are there companies like Sound United (owner of D&M) or Emotiva bothering to break the 7.1.4 barrier in the first place outside of the world of the "1%"? 

And if electronics are barely worthy of mentioning, why aren't people with pre-designed rooms that offer outstanding dynamics bothering to do anything other than buy the cheapest Onkyo 7.1.4 receiver? As great as your room is from the testimonial you've gotten, it's great in a 7.1.4 setting, and without proper context, your statements are far from a universal truth.

Come to think of it, have you EVER heard any room with consumer A/V technology that's greater than 7.1.4, at a trade show, consumer A/V demo room, or otherwise?


----------



## jpoet

Any bets on if Akansha had ever heard of Dolby Atmos before? Any bets on if Akansha knows what Dolby Atmos is now?





> Me: When streaming the UHD version of "Jack Ryan" on my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Dolby Atmos, just DD+. From what I have read online, that indicates that the Amazon Prime Video app on the nVidia Shield needs updated. Can you tell me when the new version will be available?
> 
> You are now connected to Akansha from Amazon.com
> Akansha: Hello, my name is Akansha. I'm here to help you today.
> Thank you for being a Prime member.
> I understand your concern and I will try my best to help you.
> Thanks for waiting.
> I have checked and see that the UHD version with Dolby Atmos will be available before 24th September 2018 .
> 
> Me: So, you are saying the Amazon Prime Video application will be updated to support Dolby Atmos sometime before the 24th of September?
> 
> Akansha: Yes, correct.
> The Dolby Atmos audio feature has been launched on August 31, 2018 with the premiere of Jack Ryan.
> I see more up gradation before 24th September 2018 .
> 
> Me: Yes. People watching "Jack Ryan" are getting Dolby Atmos when viewed using the Amazon Prime Video application on some devices, such as FireTV sticks and some TVs. I am specifically asking when that will work on the nVidia Shield.
> 
> Akansha: I see it is compatible with the NVIDIA Shield
> These are the compatible devices
> Fire TV
> Fire TV Stick
> Fire TV Cube
> Fire TV Edition TVs
> Samsung 2017/2018
> LG 2017/2018
> Sony Bravia 2018
> Roku 3810X, Roku 4660X, Roku 4660X, Roku 6000X, Roku 7000X
> NVIDIA Shield
> Xbox One S
> Xbox One X
> 
> Me: Dolby Atmos should be working with the application on the nVidia Shield? I can watch the show, but only am getting DD+.
> I also tried it on my 2017 Samsung TV, and do not get Dolby Atmos there either.
> 
> Akansha: Let me check this.
> 
> Me: I have an first generation Fire TV stick. Should it work on that? it is locks up on me a lot, so I have not tried to use it in a while.
> Actually, it probably wont, since that version of the Fire TV stick does not support UHD.
> 
> Akansha: Thanks for the information.
> I have checked and see that the nVidia Shield is compatible with the Dolby Atmos.
> But it will be available when there is the new update on the TV for the prime video, that is before 24th September 2018 .
> 
> Me: Okay. I will try to watch it then. Thank you.
> 
> Akansha: You will get the update automatically on the TV.
> 
> Me: Just to be clear, the nVidia Shield is a streaming device, like the Fire TV Stick. It is not a TV. But, I will try both devices after 24 September.
> 
> Akansha: Yes, but it must be connected on the TV, right?
> 
> Me: Yes ;-)
> 
> Akansha: The update will be shown on the TV.
> 
> Me: Okay. Thanks.
> 
> Akansha: You are most welcome, John !
> Is there anything else I can assist you with ?
> 
> Me: That is all I needed today.
> 
> Akansha: It was a pleasure assisting you.
> Take care.
> 
> Me: Thanks.


----------



## bryantc

jpoet said:


> Any bets on if Akansha had ever heard of Dolby Atmos before? Any bets on if Akansha knows what Dolby Atmos is now?


 Heh yeah those guys just answer questions about where your package is. This is a little too technical for them.


FWIW I am getting Atmos and Dolby Vision from the Amazon app on my LG C8.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos doesn't array channel info the way the cinema version does (unless the speakers for those channels are missing). So if your configuration includes Top Middles, all the channel info will go there while other speakers overhead will only reproduce object info.


That's very interesting to know. I have been wondering and questioning on how home Atmos deals with the two overhead channels for quite some time, but could not find a way to check it. Maybe I missed it, but did you report on this earlier? And how did this information found you? Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Obviously not everyone, and budget aside, not everyone needs it. However, it should be noted that you're misinformed: the entry level point is closer to $16K than $20K for the Altitude 16,


Bargain! I'll take two 



sdrucker said:


> I think that's a little strong....there's such a thing as full-range room EQ to tailor a target curve to your personal taste. If electronics are barely worthy of mention, why do you even use Dirac? Coming from you, the guy that once compiled the classic Audyssey reference on AVS, that's disingenuous.


C'mon - you know what I mean. Electronics in modern mainstream AVRs have almost zero impact on sound quality - other than if you deliberately change the sound by tone controls or, obviously, room EQ whose sole purpose is to change the sound. It's all about features with AVRs and one of the most significant features is the inbuilt EQ. However, the more you get the room right, the less you need the EQ and Dirac Live is, IMO, all that is needed if the room itself is right. It always comes back to the room.

If someone spends their 16 or 20 grand on the room, and not on electronics, I can guarantee that they will get better sound quality than vice-versa.



sdrucker said:


> And Keith....I don't think anyone is arguing that electronics are more important than the room. Certainly I am not saying that as a generality, but the feature set in one processor vs. another can make the use of that room better than it would be otherwise (although obviously the room has to be addressed as much as possible first according to your treatment philosophy for room design as well as movies vs. music preferences).


You said it - processors and AVRs are all about features. In the Trinnov, you have speaker remapping which is remarkable tech. But if you get the room right, you don't need it. And you have the ability to have tons of speakers. But not everyone, or many, want that and are more than fulfilled by the 13 channel mainstream (and relatively cheap) units now available. And you have great room EQ, which matters less and less the more you get the room right and in any case, I am not convinced it's any better in any significant way than Dirac Live. So the Trinnov is a great solution for a very small number of people - not denying that at all. But for most, it is unnecessary expense.



sdrucker said:


> But your absolutes, while they're one person's opinion, don't fit everyone.


I assume that is meant to be ironic 



sdrucker said:


> And if electronics are barely worthy of mentioning, why aren't people with pre-designed rooms that offer outstanding dynamics bothering to do anything other than buy the cheapest Onkyo 7.1.4 receiver?


The cheapest _that has the features they need_ is the one they want. Sorry to burst the bubble, but the electronics (other than room EQ) in the cheapest Onkyo receiver will make as much difference to the sound as they do in the most expensive receiver. This issue was solved years ago. If one unit sounds different to another then one must be distorting the sound since the aim is to be as close to 100% transparent to the source as is possible. Go to a blind ABX test and hear for yourself if you don't believe what I am saying.

People make buying decisions mostly on emotion not logic. You know this. Some like the idea of spending a fortune that 'ordinary mortals' can't achieve - you see it with cars, clothes etc etc all the time. Some swallow the BS and think a $1000 HDMI cable is better than a $10 Monoprice cable. People spending $100,000 or more on a purpose-designed room can easily be persuaded they need $20,000 processors, and the markup on a 20k processor is way bigger than on a 2k processor, so...




sdrucker said:


> As great as your room is from the testimonial you've gotten, it's great in a 7.1.4 setting, and without proper context, your statements are far from a universal truth.


Some people's hobby is hardware and they tend to use the content to play the system. My hobby is movies and I use the system to play the content. It's not a criticism - everyone's hobbies seem strange to those who don't also subscribe to them, but everyone is entitled to pursue their interests.

And as for 7.x.4, yes that is my room and I have no intention of changing it to accommodate more speakers because the difference to my enjoyment will be tiny. I spent the greatest part of my budget on the room because it is the room that makes the most difference. Get the room wrong and you can fill it with Trinnovs and 50 grand speakers and it will still sound like cr*p. Not everyone can build a room like this and for them, the features of their processors help them compensate for that fact.



sdrucker said:


> Come to think of it, have you EVER heard any room with consumer A/V technology that's greater than 7.1.4, at a trade show, consumer A/V demo room, or otherwise?


I don't go to hardware shows. They are 99% BS as I am sure you know. Monster Cables often have a nice stand though, I am told  I have heard a demo room that is 7.x.6 - it sounded like cr*p.

We are WAY off topic. We ought to take this to the relevant thread, or move on, before we get our wrists slapped...


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I have been wondering and questioning on how home Atmos deals with the two overhead channels for quite some time, but could not find a way to check it.


 @*sdrucker* posted a couple of titles that will help you check it with 3 overhead pairs. If you're still using an Altitude32, you can also check using 3 pairs of Side Surround speakers (all 3 pairs will get object info but only the middle pair will get Side Surround channel info). Can make a compelling case for 4 overheads instead of 6, especially for set-ups that have a single row of seating. 

Even though the arraying feature has not yet been implemented for home Atmos, the channel info will split if the intended speaker is not there. You already know this happens with each Side Surround channel: if you don't configure that speaker, the channel info gets split to the Rears and Wides. Same thing above you when you don't configure Top Middles. But this behavior pre-dates Atmos by decades: configure with no Centre speaker and the Centre channel info gets split to the L/R speakers. So it's not really arraying in the way that term is usually used, just standard downmixing to adjacent speakers.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Electronics in modern mainstream AVRs have almost zero impact on sound quality - other than if you deliberately change the sound by tone controls or, obviously, room EQ whose sole purpose is to change the sound. . . . Sorry to burst the bubble, but the electronics (other than room EQ) in the cheapest Onkyo receiver will make as much difference to the sound as they do in the most expensive receiver. This issue was solved years ago. If one unit sounds different to another then one must be distorting the sound since the aim is to be as close to 100% transparent to the source as is possible. . . .


Correct.


----------



## richlife

sdrucker said:


> Obviously not everyone, and budget aside, not everyone needs it. However, it should be noted that you're misinformed: the entry level point is closer to $16K than $20K for the Altitude 16...





kbarnes701 said:


> Bargain! I'll take two
> 
> ...


 !!!!!!!!!! Duh!

Truly borders on the irrelevant other than the top 2% most of whom have little interest in our little hobby. But as Ken says, there is no accounting for what people will do for their hobby. 

If I dared comment about my wife's hobby, I would very quickly get myself into some very deep s---!


----------



## kbarnes701

richlife said:


> If I dared comment about my wife's hobby, I would very quickly get myself into some very deep s---!


The mind starts to boggle....


----------



## mrtickleuk

richlife said:


> If I dared comment about my wife's hobby, I would very quickly get myself into some very deep s---!


Aw, you can't leave it like that! It's not scatalogical swimming, is it?


----------



## m. zillch

Can one buy a professional (cinema) Dolby processor like the CP-850 (or whatever, plus the necessary interface boxes) and use it at home or is it fundamentally incapable of understanding the HDMI output/language of a standard, home Bluray player?


----------



## dschulz

m. zillch said:


> Can one buy a professional (cinema) Dolby processor like the CP-650/750 (or whatever, plus the necessary interface boxes) and use it at home or is it fundamentally incapable of understanding the HDMI output/language of a standard, home Bluray player?


Never say never, but cinema processors are just not designed for home use. They don't decode common formats, they lack HDMI inputs, and they tend to have noisy cooling fans.

The big exception is the Datasat AP20 and its replacement the Datasat AP25, which includes HDMI inputs and does decode DTS formats and Dolby Digital (although not Dolby TrueHD or any of the immersive formats). For this reason the AP20 is beloved by theatrical venues that also play DVDs and Blu Rays, such as university screening rooms or repertory theaters. And of course the Datasat RS20i is the consumer version of the AP20, which adds a quiet cooling fan and the various consumer codecs.

EDIT: With respect to the CP850, that unit does have HDMI inputs. It originally supported theatrical Atmos only (not consumer Atmos), but I've heard some rumors about some development on adding consumer Atmos. There is a small, but politically important, VIP Cinema market that has been converting to Atmos, and Dolby may want to support vendors supporting that market by making the CP850 a little more friendly for DVD/Blu Ray playback.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> With respect to the CP850, that unit does have HDMI inputs. It originally supported theatrical Atmos only (not consumer Atmos), but I've heard some rumors about some development on adding consumer Atmos. There is a small, but politically important, VIP Cinema market that has been converting to Atmos, and Dolby may want to support vendors supporting that market by making the CP850 a little more friendly for DVD/Blu Ray playback.


With the CP-850 being used so much in the Bel-Air circuit, Dolby added HDMI and full consumer Atmos decoding a couple years back.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> With the CP-850 being used so much in the Bel-Air circuit, Dolby added HDMI and full consumer Atmos decoding a couple years back.



As well as the ability to array the surround channel bed in consumer Atmos. It is baffling to me that they won't add that feature to Trinnov coding or any other >7.1.4 processor.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> Aw, you can't leave it like that!


What, you want him to divulge his safe word? Let the guy have some privacy.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> With the CP-850 being used so much in the Bel-Air circuit, Dolby added HDMI and full consumer Atmos decoding a couple years back.


Does it also decode DTS and DTS-HDMA?


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> As well as the ability to array the surround channel bed in consumer Atmos. It is baffling to me that they won't add that feature to Trinnov coding or any other >7.1.4 processor.


Indeed, would be one of the most coveted features for custom installers, especially when doing 2-row or 3-row home theatres.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Does it also decode DTS and DTS-HDMA?


No, only Dolby codecs and formats.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> With the CP-850 being used so much in the Bel-Air circuit, Dolby added HDMI and full consumer Atmos decoding a couple years back.


About 35 grand. Or two Trinnovs. I think we have identified Stu's next processor


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> About 35 grand. Or two Trinnovs. I think we have identified Stu's next processor


Nope, I'm done (not that I need this with the Altitude I have). However, if you want to pay for it I won't say no .


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think we have identified Stu's next processor


Just when my nuts were recovering.


----------



## meegwell

Is there a thread or website somewhere listing great examples of Atmos mixing by particular movie scene? I am not talking about just entire movies, but specific scenes that are really impressive from an Atmos standpoint?


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> C'mon - you know what I mean. Electronics in modern mainstream AVRs have almost zero impact on sound quality - other than if you deliberately change the sound by tone controls or, obviously, room EQ whose sole purpose is to change the sound. It's all about features with AVRs and one of the most significant features is the inbuilt EQ.


Prepros can sound very different, that's for sure. Amps, no. Some prepros are deliberately massaged for a "house sound", for instance, Marantz. I would double blind that for sure.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> @*sdrucker* posted a couple of titles that will help you check it with 3 overhead pairs.


I'll check it out. Thanks.



> If you're still using an Altitude32, you can also check using 3 pairs of Side Surround speakers (all 3 pairs will get object info but only the middle pair will get Side Surround channel info).


That I did know.



> Can make a compelling case for 4 overheads instead of 6, especially for set-ups that have a single row of seating.


That's why I would call home Atmos flawed on this point: Having to take out the TM pair to get closer to mixer's intent with tracks that predominantly use the two overhead channels? C'mon Dolby, fix it!



> Even though the arraying feature has not yet been implemented for home Atmos, the channel info will split if the intended speaker is not there. You already know this happens with each Side Surround channel: if you don't configure that speaker, the channel info gets split to the Rears and Wides.


Yes, and if wides are added to such 5.x.x config they get Side Surround channel content too (with Atmos that is).



> Same thing above you when you don't configure Top Middles. But this behavior pre-dates Atmos by decades: configure with no Centre speaker and the Centre channel info gets split to the L/R speakers. So it's not really arraying in the way that term is usually used, just standard downmixing to adjacent speakers.


Yes, it makes sense that way, but like I said, I think it was Dolby's mistake to apply that strategy for the overhead channels and make the Top Middles the designated pair.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Prepros can sound very different, that's for sure. Amps, no. Some prepros are deliberately massaged for a "house sound", for instance, Marantz. I would double blind that for sure.


I wouldn't really want a unit that deliberately introduced distortion into the sound. The aim has to be the closest possible approach to the original sound as recorded by the engineer and then transferred to the disc. Modern units of reasonable quality and cost can achieve this. Aside from tone controls or room EQ, why on earth would a manufacturer deliberately choose to introduce distortion into his unit? (Other than 'audiophile' units of course where there has to be at least some attempt to justify charging thousands of dollars more than a unit is really worth, from a purely sonic perspective).

I just want to hear what is on the disc, good or bad or ugly. I want my system to get me as close to that as it's possible to get. I don't want the sound 'massaged' by a manufacturer - it can never be of any benefit because the manufacturer has no way of knowing what is on the disc, so if he chooses to go for a 'warmer' sound what happens when the disc itself has a 'warm' sound? Answer: you get 'double warmness'. The same goes for any other way the manufacturer chooses to introduce distortion.

Similarly, I trust the professionals who made my content, and the Director who signed it off. I do not want to 'remix' the content to my own taste any more than I want to read Great Expectations and rewrite the ending. Sure, I may not like the ending that Dickens wrote, but it's what he wrote and that is what I want to read. Same with movie content on disc.

Not everyone wants the same as me though, I readily admit.


----------



## dfa973

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, it makes sense that way, but like I said, I think it was Dolby's mistake to apply that strategy for the overhead channels and make the Top Middles the designated pair.


I do not think is a mistake, it is made that way by design - when you have an additional signal/channel to the standard one (in our case the overhead speakers) you must decide what to do with those sounds when the actual setup that plays the soundtrack is NOT the reference (or minimal) setup. This happened on every transition, from mono to stereo, from stereo to 3.0/4.0, etc.

Examples:

1. No overhead setup (classic 2.0/3.1/5.1/7.1 2D sound system) - the soundtrack must be encoded in such a way that the 3D space conflates nicely to a 2D one, so the user may hear all the sounds and the 3D objects must be steered to the right bed channels, so the correct sound-field is maintained;

2. Limited overhead setup (5.1.2 or 7.1.2) - in this very common case (for now), the encoder has the same tough job, with limited 3D space you must decide that some speakers matter more than the others, so the encoder favors those speaker (in our case a x.x.2 Top Middle layout);

3. Expanded overhead setup (7.1.4 or 9.1.6 or higher) - since at #1 and #2 we have decided that the soundtrack must be compatible with many 2D and 3D layouts, the above rules apply as well, so the Top Middles are panned between the TF & TR for the x.x.4 layout and in the case of x.x.6 are again very active - to the dismay of some.

You may ask at this moment why the soundtrack is not encoded to be fully adaptive to the user layout - the answer may be: *simplicity and cost*. At home you have a smaller space, with lower requirements, lower bandwidth, lower storage space, lower CPU processing power, slower DSP's, etc., etc. etc.

When the improved hardware and the number of channels installed at home will become common, the encoder may be unleashed and the soundtracks will not carry the legacy burden.

So, *this is done this way mainly for legacy support* - because that single soundtrack can be transported to the user by various means and codecs and can be played by a huge selection of hardware and speaker layouts.

In time, when the common layouts that are in the wild become more and more expanded (and the minimum 3D layout will pass the 5.1.2 stage - and the legacy 2D or the minimal 3D layouts will be downplayed) Dolby may expand the encoder - maybe the priority channels will disappear and then the main 3D objects will not be snapped to a preferred minimal layout...


----------



## kbarnes701

dfa973 said:


> I do not think is a mistake, it is made that way by design
> 
> In time, when the common layouts that are in the wild become more and more expanded (and the minimum 3D layout will pass the 5.1.2 stage - and the legacy 2D or the minimal 3D layouts will be downplayed) Dolby may expand the encoder - maybe the priority channels will disappear and then the main 3D objects will not be snapped to a preferred minimal layout...


I'm with you on this. Backwards compatibility/scaling has to be of huge importance and I think Dolby did a fantastic job of giving us full-blown Atmos for those with 7.x4 or above, while at the same time ensuring that those with a 2 channel soundbar also got as good an experience as their equipment choice allows. As you say, one assumes Dolby will continue to refine and improve it as systems develop to be more sophisticated, but there will still always be the 2 channel user and Atmos's scalability caters really well for them. They did the same with method of delivery too, allowing disc, download or streaming to still give an Atmos experience.


----------



## dfa973

kbarnes701 said:


> ..... I want my system to get me as close to that as it's possible to get. I don't want the sound 'massaged' by a manufacturer - *it can never be of any benefit* ........


For you and me - yes, no benefit - but for a manufacturer, a sound signature may be a benefit, you can hype and market that sound signature, even if really is a deliberate distortion. Customers can like and ask your sound signature, the manufacturer can attach that sound signature to a premium price and your business can flourish by that sound signature only (and other features/designs, of course). 

Just think about speakers, the speaker has the greatest influence on how sound is heard in the room, every speaker has its own signature/influence/distortion that is applied to the sound regardless if you want it or not. If the speakers have natural signatures, why the electronics can not have a purposedly made sound signature?...

If that sound signature brings more money...


----------



## Gooddoc

kbarnes701 said:


> I wouldn't really want a unit that deliberately introduced distortion into the sound. The aim has to be the closest possible approach to the original sound as recorded by the engineer and then transferred to the disc. Modern units of reasonable quality and cost can achieve this. Aside from tone controls or room EQ, why on earth would a manufacturer deliberately choose to introduce distortion into his unit? (Other than 'audiophile' units of course where there has to be at least some attempt to justify charging thousands of dollars more than a unit is really worth, from a purely sonic perspective).
> 
> I just want to hear what is on the disc, good or bad or ugly. I want my system to get me as close to that as it's possible to get. I don't want the sound 'massaged' by a manufacturer - it can never be of any benefit because the manufacturer has no way of knowing what is on the disc, so if he chooses to go for a 'warmer' sound what happens when the disc itself has a 'warm' sound? Answer: you get 'double warmness'. The same goes for any other way the manufacturer chooses to introduce distortion.
> 
> Similarly, I trust the professionals who made my content, and the Director who signed it off. I do not want to 'remix' the content to my own taste any more than I want to read Great Expectations and rewrite the ending. Sure, I may not like the ending that Dickens wrote, but it's what he wrote and that is what I want to read. Same with movie content on disc.
> 
> Not everyone wants the same as me though, I readily admit.


I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just pointing out that I have heard differences between the sound of prepros. I prefer the one that is most transparent, which is currently an Anthem AVM60. But there is a definite difference between it and the Marantz before it. And I had a problem with a Denon AVR (4311) and put in an old "backup" Onkyo I had saved and the difference was there too.

Just my experience. I've never heard a difference between amps. Or non-defective cables. Or equipment racks.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> So, *this is done this way mainly for legacy support* - because that single soundtrack can be transported to the user by various means and codecs and can be played by a huge selection of hardware and speaker layouts.


I am all for full legacy support and backward compatibility, and if that means giving lower priority to optimizing expanded 3D lay-outs, I understand that. But, let's be honest, these two Atmos overhead channels we are discussing are no part of any legacy lay-out. So an alternative approach could have been to turn these two channels into objects, and direct these objects to each and every overhead speaker (2x5). The Atmos decoder would handle the necessary adjustments with decreasing overhead speaker count, and legacy support would not be compromised in any way. Another approach (if the former would consume too many objects) would be a DSU up-mixer like copying of the Top Middle bed channel to every added overhead pair, while keeping them discrete for objects. Apparently an easy fix, as a similar approach is already applied when wides are added to a 5.x.x configuration (copying Side Surrounds bed channels).


----------



## dfa973

maikeldepotter said:


> I am all for full legacy support and backward compatibility, and if that means giving lower priority to optimizing expanded 3D lay-outs, I understand that. But, let's be honest, these two Atmos overhead channels we are discussing are no part of any legacy lay-out.


The legacy is the 2D sound system (2.0/5.1/7.1/etc.), not Atmos per se.
I have explained above, when you introduce a new system, you must account for the old, and you must not suppose that everyone will get the new full-featured system (such as 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 or even higher).
So, you effectively introduce a 3D "legacy" or *minimum* 3D sound system - in our case, the 5.1.2 layout.
This minimum 3D layout becomes your *template* for future upgrades (7.1.4 or 9.1.6 and further).
At this moment, this template (5.1.2 and the legacy 2D audio) is holding back the full power of a scalable 3D sound system (that is available in the Cinema version). 

*Atmos for home IS scalable*, but with caveats - the renderer/decoder does not have the full power DSP's that are available in the Cinema equipment, the speaker layout is variable, the means of transport of the soundtrack are also very variable, the cost of the hardware is very different, the operating systems can differ very much, etc.

Atmos for home is very versatile, but that comes at the cost of an "impure" system. When the "legacy" 5.1.2 will become a thing of the past and the 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 will become the new norm, every enthusiast with its high-end 24.5.10 setup will moan that the Atmos is still not fully scalable and adaptive or true object-based, just like today...



maikeldepotter said:


> So an alternative approach could have been to turn these two channels into objects


Atmos home encoder already transforms any channel in objects.
DD+ with Atmos is limited to a maximum of 16 objects/channels (see the diagram of DD+ JOC), 5 of them are the minimum bed channels, 1 is consumed by the LFE, the rest of the 10 objects are available for whatever sounds are needed during the soundtrack.



maikeldepotter said:


> and direct these objects to each and every overhead speaker (2x5).


This already happens, but with the caveat that the simplicity and the versatility of the Atmos system make that most of the overhead objects are snapped to the very common Top Middle speakers.
Also, the versatility comes at the cost of bandwidth, so further data reduction is necessary for distribution of Atmos to our homes, see the attached diagram with the Dolby Atmos delivery - data reduction - spatial coding.



maikeldepotter said:


> The Atmos decoder would handle the necessary adjustments with decreasing overhead speaker count, and legacy support would not be compromised in any way.


Yeah, but that happens the other way, the Atmos home encoder prioritizes the lower speaker count setups (5.1.2) and adapts "with grace" to higher count speaker setups (x.x.4/6/etc.).



maikeldepotter said:


> Another approach (if the former would consume too many objects)


Yes, you may hit the object count limit of the DD+ transport!



maikeldepotter said:


> would be a DSU up-mixer like copying of the Top Middle bed channel to every added overhead pair, while keeping them discrete for objects. Apparently an easy fix, as a similar approach is already applied when wides are added to a 5.x.x configuration (copying Side Surrounds bed channels).


As I've said before, the chosen simplicity and the versatility of the home encoder prevents the perfect scalable system to function in the case of the Atmos home version.

You must take into account the limits imposed/designed at the beginning for the home version, perfection comes at a cost, and Dolby Atmos for home is not perfect, but is cost-effective. And pretty versatile. And that is an achievement in itself!


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just pointing out that I have heard differences between the sound of prepros. I prefer the one that is most transparent, which is currently an Anthem AVM60. But there is a definite difference between it and the Marantz before it. And I had a problem with a Denon AVR (4311) and put in an old "backup" Onkyo I had saved and the difference was there too.
> 
> Just my experience. I've never heard a difference between amps. Or non-defective cables. Or equipment racks.


We're in agreement I think. The processors that distort the sound are best avoided; the processors that are the most transparent are the ones to go for


----------



## kbarnes701

dfa973 said:


> For you and me - yes, no benefit - but for a manufacturer, a sound signature may be a benefit, you can hype and market that sound signature, even if really is a deliberate distortion.


To the 'audiophile community' maybe. To those of us who know what we want, not so much.



dfa973 said:


> Customers can like and ask your sound signature, the manufacturer can attach that sound signature to a premium price and your business can flourish by that sound signature only (and other features/designs, of course).


There will always be people who want to give other people what they want, I guess, even if what they want is a bad idea. I'd rather see consumers better educated, from sites like this etc, and an end to all that audiofool nonsense. It will never happen - it's the Barnum Ideal.



dfa973 said:


> Just think about speakers, the speaker has the greatest influence on how sound is heard in the room,


No, the _room _has the greatest influence on how sound is heard in the room. Then speakers. Then, a million miles behind, electronics (room EQ aside).



dfa973 said:


> every speaker has its own signature/influence/distortion that is applied to the sound regardless if you want it or not. If the speakers have natural signatures, why the electronics can not have a purposedly made sound signature?...


Yes, that is because speakers are so much harder to make than electronics since they are working with so many different branches of science all at the same time. It doesn't mean that the ideal is not one that is as close to the original sound as possible, and as transparent to the source as possible.

All distortion, whether deliberately induced or not, is bad simply because nobody knows what is on the content. Make the source or the speaker 'bright' and when you encounter a bright recording, you get 'double bright'. Make the source or the speaker 'warm' and when you encounter a warm recording, you get 'double warm' and so on. The content is the content and the aim, IMO, should be to reproduce it as transparently as possible. 'Compensating' won't work because no manufacturer can possibly know what he is 'compensating' for - bright, dull, forward, relaxed, warm, smooth, harsh etc etc. With gear like that, one can never be sure what one is actually hearing or whether it is distorted or not.



dfa973 said:


> If that sound signature brings more money...


Yes, you nailed it there  But not for me...


----------



## dfa973

kbarnes701 said:


> No, the _room _has the greatest influence on how sound is heard in the room. Then speakers. Then, a million miles behind, electronics (room EQ aside).


Yes, but for the average consumer, the room is not something that you buy and bring home in a box. 
Most rooms are never modified to sound better. 
The speakers and the electronics are the ones that are variable for a consumer, so they count the most.
Since most electronics are neutral (room EQ aside), the speakers signature influence the sound the most, so the average consumer is sensible to the kind/model/spec of the speaker - the speaker is a "parameter" that he can change easily, by EQ or by actually changing the speaker (to a "better" sounding one).
For the speaker industry that uses the sound signature to make money, the integrated automated room EQ is the worst it can happen because the room EQ will try to flatten the speakers AND the room, so the speakers sound signatures are prone to "disappear", thus the movement against the room EQ by the "audiophiles"...


----------



## kbarnes701

dfa973 said:


> Yes, but for the average consumer, the room is not something that you buy and bring home in a box.


Exactly. They spend a fortune on things that make virtually no difference to the sound and spend nothing on the thing that makes the most difference.



dfa973 said:


> Most rooms are never modified to sound better.


Which is why most rooms sound pretty poor. I know that many/most have to set up in a living space, but there is still a lot one can do acoustically without making the room look like a dub stage. A few acoustic treatments can look pretty good if chosen careful to match the decor, and those that have artwork on them look like pictures anyway so I see little excuse for ignoring the room as most do.



dfa973 said:


> The speakers and the electronics are the ones that are variable for a consumer, so they count the most.


And electronics make very little difference anyway, and even speakers, when put into a poor room, can be a hugely disappointing affair. How often do we see people spending thousands of dollars on speakers and then putting them in acoustically atrocious rooms? It's as if they believe that spending a fortune on 'better' speakers will somehow make the room unimportant. A much better route is to buy much more modest speakers and put them in an environment where they can shine.

My heart sinks when I see people wasting thousands of dollars on an expensive AVR 'upgrade' in the belief it will make their sound quality significantly better. 



dfa973 said:


> Since most electronics are neutral (room EQ aside), the speakers signature influence the sound the most,


They do in a totally untreated room, yes.



dfa973 said:


> so the average consumer is sensible to the kind/model/spec of the speaker - the speaker is a "parameter" that he can change easily, by EQ or by actually changing the speaker (to a "better" sounding one).


But he will never hear the speaker working really well if the room is really bad.



dfa973 said:


> For the speaker industry that uses the sound signature to make money, the integrated automated room EQ is the worst it can happen because the room EQ will try to flatten the speakers AND the room, so the speakers sound signatures are prone to "disappear", thus the movement against the room EQ by the "audiophiles"...


Absolutely. A pretty good rule of thumb is to see what the 'audiophiles' do and then do the opposite 

I think you and I are in agreement really, some semantic stuff aside.


----------



## Jish9

dfa973 said:


> Yes, but for the average consumer, the room is not something that you buy and bring home in a box.
> Most rooms are never modified to sound better.
> The speakers and the electronics are the ones that are variable for a consumer, so they count the most.
> Since most electronics are neutral (room EQ aside), the speakers signature influence the sound the most, so the average consumer is sensible to the kind/model/spec of the speaker - the speaker is a "parameter" that he can change easily, by EQ or by actually changing the speaker (to a "better" sounding one).
> For the speaker industry that uses the sound signature to make money, the integrated automated room EQ is the worst it can happen because the room EQ will try to flatten the speakers AND the room, so the speakers sound signatures are prone to "disappear", thus the movement against the room EQ by the "audiophiles"...


+1. Not that I am an audiophile by any stretch, but the elimination of the speaker sound signature was my primary reason for not using the DIRAC Live room EQ that came with my processor and instead opting for manual calibration. Speaker selection for most people has everything to do with the sound they hear before making their decision to buy; and to take it home only to have that aspect be stripped through electronic normalization makes the entire concept of listening moot. Furthermore, while I am of the mindset that the room and how it is treated makes a tremendous impact on what we hear, I do not subscribe to the notion that all electronics (processors, AVR, etc) sound the same (neutral or not) as has been suggested in this thread. Turn off the room EQ and just listen, and you might find which components would benefit from a "cookie cutter" approach versus ones that require little to no EQ to get back to "neutrality".


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> You must take into account the limits imposed/designed at the beginning for the home version, perfection comes at a cost, and Dolby Atmos for home is not perfect, but is cost-effective. And pretty versatile. And that is an achievement in itself!


No argument there. No harm in discussing apparent easy / cost-effective fixes either. If home Atmos can array side surround bed channels, it can do the same for overhead bed channels. I still don't see why that would be complicated or costly.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jish9 said:


> +1. Not that I am an audiophile by any stretch, but the elimination of the speaker sound signature was my primary reason for not using the DIRAC Live room EQ that came with my processor and instead opting for manual calibration. Speaker selection for most people has everything to do with the sound they hear before making their decision to buy; and to take it home only to have that aspect be stripped through electronic normalization makes the entire concept of listening moot.


If someone is hearing their speakers in an untreated room they are not by any means hearing the speaker the manufacturer designed. The room has the most influence of all on the sound we hear and it is vital that the room is treated acoustically to create an environment in which the speaker can deliver its promise. 

Dirac Live does not 'eliminate the speaker sound signature' so much as eliminates the huge distortions caused by an untreated room. Unwanted reflections etc are robbing most people of the chance to hear the manufacturer's 'sound signature'.

Listening to speakers in 'demo rooms' is pointless. Unless the listener's own room is an exact replica of the demo room, the speaker will not sound even similar when it is transferred to a different acoustic space.



Jish9 said:


> Furthermore, while I am of the mindset that the room and how it is treated makes a tremendous impact on what we hear, I do not subscribe to the notion that all electronics (processors, AVR, etc) sound the same (neutral or not) as has been suggested in this thread. Turn off the room EQ and just listen, and you might find which components would benefit from a "cookie cutter" approach versus ones that require little to no EQ to get back to "neutrality".


There can be no concept of neutrality unless the room is properly treated. It is not so much that electronics make no difference at all - rather that any difference they do make is very, very small. In an untreated room, any such small differences are very unlikely to be heard, even if they exist.

Additionally of course, good room EQ solutions like Dirac Live offer huge flexibility for the user to tailor the final EQ to any preference etc.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Listening to speakers in 'demo rooms' is pointless. Unless the listener's own room is an exact replica of the demo room, the speaker will not sound even similar when it is transferred to a different acoustic space.


Not necessarily. The difference in bass response between a 3" woofer and a 6" woofer is very obvious. (All too many people use tiny speakers.  ) While the speakers' timbre will be different in different rooms (and in different locations in the same room), that much of a difference in bass response is easily heard no matter what room they're in.

Otherwise, I agree with you


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> That's why I would call home Atmos flawed on this point: Having to take out the TM pair to get closer to mixer's intent with tracks that predominantly use the two overhead channels? C'mon Dolby, fix it!


Flawed to the extent that it isn't fulfilling one of the originally intended features, but not flawed as in incorrect placement/rendering of those sounds.


> Yes, and if wides are added to such 5.x.x config they get Side Surround channel content too (with Atmos that is).


If you don't want all the Top Surround channel info coming from a single pair of speakers, home Atmos allows you to configure Top Front & Top Rear speakers instead, so that those same sounds phantom image above you rather than beat down on you from speakers directly overhead. 

No such luck with the Side Surround channels. If you don't want all the Side Surround channel info coming from a single pair of speakers, home Atmos does NOT allow you to configure SS1 & SS2 speakers instead, so you cannot have those same sounds phantom image along your sides rather than fire into your ear holes from speakers directly at your sides. Would have been a nice alternate option to Wides (9.1 on the floor, using two pairs of Sides rather than Sides + Wides), especially for narrow rooms. Unfortunately, the only way you can configure speakers at those locations is by first configuring Side Surrounds (pre-requisite for SS1 & SS2). 

So that's an inconsistency between how the Side Surround channels are treated compared to the Top Surround channels.


> I think it was Dolby's mistake to apply that strategy for the overhead channels and make the Top Middles the designated pair.


I don't thing it is deliberate strategy, just that they haven't implemented the arraying feature yet. Considering ALL the home Atmos set-ups out there (including HTiB and soundbars), it's only a small percentage of those that will take advantage of multiple Side Surround speakers, so I can understand if this particular feature is a low priority for Dolby. Still, as I mentioned before, would be very useful for custom installers.


----------



## Bond 007

Just got a FireTV Cube. Watching Jack Ryan in UHD HDR but no Atmos. Just DD+ 5.1. 
New premium certified HDMI cable. Samsung tv. Yamaha 3060 receiver.

Any ideas?


----------



## goosecat

Bond 007 said:


> Just got a FireTV Cube. Watching Jack Ryan in UHD HDR but no Atmos. Just DD+ 5.1.
> New premium certified HDMI cable. Samsung tv. Yamaha 3060 receiver.
> 
> Any ideas?


Make sure you are watching the UHD version. Go to the menu - audio setting and manually select Atmos. That's what I had to do as it does not default to Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Not necessarily. The difference in bass response between a 3" woofer and a 6" woofer is very obvious. (All too many people use tiny speakers.  ) While the speakers' timbre will be different in different rooms (and in different locations in the same room), that much of a difference in bass response is easily heard no matter what room they're in.
> 
> Otherwise, I agree with you


 I think we might be at cross-purposes. As you know, below Schroeder you are really listening to the room not to the speaker. So again, if the demo room is very different to the final listening room, the speaker will sound different in both, rendering 'demo's more or less pointless IMO. HST, demos might give some sort of relative indication between different speakers in the same demo room. Might


----------



## Bond 007

goosecat said:


> Make sure you are watching the UHD version. Go to the menu - audio setting and manually select Atmos. That's what I had to do as it does not default to Atmos.


U de Man!!
Didn't think to go into menu audio settings.
I spent an hour on the phone with 3 different people at Amazon support and none of them had ever even heard of Atmos.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No such luck with the Side Surround channels. If you don't want all the Side Surround channel info coming from a single pair of speakers, home Atmos does NOT allow you to configure SS1 & SS2 speakers instead, so you cannot have those same sounds phantom image along your sides rather than fire into your ear holes from speakers directly at your sides. Would have been a nice alternate option to Wides (9.1 on the floor, using two pairs of Sides rather than Sides + Wides).


Oh I'd install two extra speakers in a heartbeat for that. Imagine having 3 sets of surrounds - front surrounds, side surrounds and rear surrounds. Now that would be worth replacing the AVR and the amps for. Way better IMO than Wides plus the Side and Rear Surrounds.


----------



## jtcountry

*Pioneer SC-LX502 Advice*

Sorry for posting here, but this thread seems to be more active and has been very helpful with my questions in this thread, as my question in the Pioneer SC-LX502 thread hasn't had a response in a few days.

So, I had already posted in this thread some of the issues that I've been having with the Pioneer Elite SC_LX502, but I'm nearing the end of return/exchange period, and there seem to be even more issues with the receiver. 

I believe some of the issues to be related to HDMI CEC, but essentially, switching inputs has become difficult, to the point of borderline ridiculous. I have introduced an Apple TV to the mix, and it seems to constantly want to switch to the Apple TV or my LG 970 UHD player. It's to the point where I have to manually disconnect the LG 970's HDMI when I'm done using it, or else the receiver seems to want to switch to it.

Now, I'm having a hard time getting it to switch over to my PS4 Pro and cable box. Last night, I had to keep playing around with the inputs to get it to switch. On my LG B7, under inputs, it shows the receiver, and then "Apple TV" or "LG Player" branched out underneath the Receiver input.

It would seem that this model receiver has a hard time with switching. I do recall reading something to this effect in a review of it, and the salesman at Best Buy mentioned an HDMI switching issue could be possible as well. 

I guess my question is, am I losing a lot by switching to a Denon AVRX1500H, as it's the same price that I paid for the Pioneer Elite, but the Pioneer was half price. I mainly want good quality sound from my 5.1.2 Atmos setup using Klipsch speakers, with something reliable. 

Thanks again for any help or advice.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> I guess my question is, am I losing a lot by switching to a Denon AVRX1500H, as it's the same price that I paid for the Pioneer Elite, but the Pioneer was half price. I mainly want good quality sound from my 5.1.2 Atmos setup using Klipsch speakers, with something reliable.


No, if the Denon has the feature set you want, switching won't rob you of anything wrt to SQ.

Before you give up on the Pioneer, have you disabled HDMI/CEC switching everywhere? I have always found problems with it and now always disable it, and I have no switching problems at all (on my current Marantz and my former Denon).


----------



## m. zillch

Gooddoc said:


> Prepros can sound very different, that's for sure. Amps, no. Some prepros are deliberately massaged for a "house sound", for instance, Marantz. I would double blind that for sure.


To the best of my knowledge all modern Marantz/Denon AVRs and prepros have a dead flat, neutral sound when all signal processing is bypassed. Of course room correction software [Audyssey, etc.] can make a _huge_ difference, for instance in what exact target curve they are shooting for [usually, at the very least, a mild suppression of the highs] and other aspects of how their EQ system works, however the preamp level circuitry for an unmodified, "pure direct", analog, stereo signal is effectively clean, neutral, and unadulterated. Example:

"Marantz AV8802 Surround Processor Review Test Bench

Test Bench

Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
–0.14 dB at 10 Hz
–0.04 dB at 20 Hz
–0.01 dB at 20 kHz
–0.05 dB at 50 kHz."

Source: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-av8802-surround-processor-review-test-bench

Edit to add: I guess my point is Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, and all the other better brands don't have a "sound" but various forms of room correction processing and target curves have a sound, yes.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> To the best of my knowledge all modern Marantz/Denon AVRs and prepros have a dead flat, neutral sound when all signal processing is bypassed. Of course room correction software [Audyssey, etc.] can make a _huge_ difference, for instance in what exact target curve they are shooting for [usually, at the very least, a mild suppression of the highs] and other aspects of how their EQ system works, however the preamp level circuitry for an unmodified, "pure direct", analog, stereo signal is effectively clean, neutral, and unadulterated. Example:
> 
> "Marantz AV8802 Surround Processor Review Test Bench
> 
> Test Bench
> 
> Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
> –0.14 dB at 10 Hz
> –0.04 dB at 20 Hz
> –0.01 dB at 20 kHz
> –0.05 dB at 50 kHz."
> 
> Source: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-av8802-surround-processor-review-test-bench


I agree. My last AVR was a Denon and my current unit is a Marantz. To me, they are very neutral performers, which is backed up by those data. Given my fervent desire to achieve maximum transparency to the source, I couldn't really tolerate a unit which colored the sound in any way. I don't see using room EQ as incompatible with this POV - the objective of room EQ is to remove as much as possible of the distortion caused by the room itself with the aim of bringing the AVR back to its inherent neutrality when we actually listen to the sound which it has processed.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> HST, demos might give some sort of *relative* indication between different speakers in the same demo room.


Yup. Harman did an experiment where they compared the same set of 4 different speakers in 5 varied rooms. Blind testing demonstrated that the preference rankings didn't change from room to room. So while listening in a shop's demo room might not give you an absolute idea how any of those speakers would sound in your particular room, you can still get an indication of how different speakers sound *relative* to one another. To that extent, comparing speakers in an unfamiliar room can be useful, because you can choose your favourite amongst that set, knowing that it would have likely been your preferred choice if you had compared the same set of speakers in your own room.


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> No, if the Denon has the feature set you want, switching won't rob you of anything wrt to SQ.
> 
> Before you give up on the Pioneer, have you disabled HDMI/CEC switching everywhere? I have always found problems with it and now always disable it, and I have no switching problems at all (on my current Marantz and my former Denon).


Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to go ahead and swap the Pioneer for the Denon. Unfortunately, on the Pioneer, disabling HDMI/CEC also disables ARC. I actually just got off the phone with the salesman at Best Buy in their Magnolia section, and he said that the switching on the Pioneers sounds like a known issue.

The good news is that the Denon looks like it has 3 year warranty, just like the Pioneer Elite.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to go ahead and swap the Pioneer for the Denon. Unfortunately, on the Pioneer, disabling HDMI/CEC also disables ARC. I actually just got off the phone with the salesman at Best Buy in their Magnolia section, and he said that the switching on the Pioneers sounds like a known issue.
> 
> The good news is that the Denon looks like it has 3 year warranty, just like the Pioneer Elite.


I have had Denon and Marantz for some years now and they have never missed a beat. I am sure you will be very happy with the new unit.


----------



## Gooddoc

m. zillch said:


> To the best of my knowledge all modern Marantz/Denon AVRs and prepros have a dead flat, neutral sound when all signal processing is bypassed. Of course room correction software [Audyssey, etc.] can make a _huge_ difference, for instance in what exact target curve they are shooting for [usually, at the very least, a mild suppression of the highs] and other aspects of how their EQ system works, however the preamp level circuitry for an unmodified, "pure direct", analog, stereo signal is effectively clean, neutral, and unadulterated. Example:
> 
> "Marantz AV8802 Surround Processor Review Test Bench
> 
> Test Bench
> 
> Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
> –0.14 dB at 10 Hz
> –0.04 dB at 20 Hz
> –0.01 dB at 20 kHz
> –0.05 dB at 50 kHz."
> 
> Source: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-av8802-surround-processor-review-test-bench
> 
> Edit to add: I guess my point is Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, and all the other better brands don't have a "sound" but various forms of room correction processing and target curves have a sound, yes.


Yeah, I know the FR measurements. I really can't explain why there is a difference. But it's not subtle IME. I'm not ruling out that I could be wrong, but when I hear something that is not really subtle, it's hard to disregard it without more evidence.

I can't see anything in the FR you linked to that would explain any difference in sound between Pure Direct mode and through the Dolby processor. So there should be no discernable difference in sound, according to the measurements, when switching between Pure Direct mode and through the Dolby processor without EQ applied. It should be easy to at least test this simple thing.

So if someone with an 8802 would disable room correction and cycle the Pure Direct button, then report back if there is an audible difference that would be great. Just curious.


----------



## richlife

jtcountry said:


> Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to go ahead and swap the Pioneer for the Denon. Unfortunately, on the Pioneer, disabling HDMI/CEC also disables ARC. I actually just got off the phone with the salesman at Best Buy in their Magnolia section, and he said that the switching on the Pioneers sounds like a known issue.
> 
> The good news is that the Denon looks like it has 3 year warranty, just like the Pioneer Elite.


With the issues you described, I'm surprised you are questioning whether to return the Pioneer. Even one problem on the day after deadline will have you in fits. Now you have some validation on the Denon (and there are other options too), go for it. 

Sorry you couldn't get feed back from the Pioneer forum, but if even Best Buy admits issues, RUN!


----------



## kbarnes701

richlife said:


> Sorry you couldn't get feed back from the Pioneer forum, but if even Best Buy admits issues, RUN!


LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## jtcountry

richlife said:


> With the issues you described, I'm surprised you are questioning whether to return the Pioneer. Even one problem on the day after deadline will have you in fits. Now you have some validation on the Denon (and there are other options too), go for it.
> 
> Sorry you couldn't get feed back from the Pioneer forum, but if even Best Buy admits issues, RUN!


You're exactly right. I look forward to trying out the Denon when I get off work today. I guess my hesitation was that the Pioneer was 1/2 price, so in my mind, I'm thinking, "a $1000 receiver for $500", but price and discounts don't always tell the full story it would appear.


----------



## m. zillch

Gooddoc said:


> Yeah, I know the FR measurements. I really can't explain why there is a difference. But it's not subtle IME. I'm not ruling out that I could be wrong, but when I hear something that is not really subtle, it's hard to disregard it without more evidence.
> 
> I can't see anything in the FR you linked to that would explain any difference in sound between Pure Direct mode and through the Dolby processor. So there should be no discernable difference in sound, according to the measurements, when switching between Pure Direct mode and through the Dolby processor without EQ applied. It should be easy to at least test this simple thing.
> 
> So if someone with an 8802 would disable room correction and cycle the Pure Direct button, then report back if there is an audible difference that would be great. Just curious.


I can't speak directly to the 8802 however I have done extensive testing, both by instrumentation and double blind testing, on their earlier 7005. I too was hearing differences, _profound, _regarding the tonality (so I assumed frequency response) and sound stage when comparing the direct incoming source against the signal as it had passed through the Marantz with all indications both in the menus and display that Audssey had been turned off (as well as all other manipulations) and on top of that, just to be dead sure, Pure Direct was engaged. "Why on earth am I still hearing a difference?!", I thought at the time.

Turns out this unit [later confirmed by forum member krabapple to happen on his Denon 4310 (4311? as well] does *not* eradicate the small distance correction of 3cm it found between my Front L and R speakers in its mic test for the digital inputs, yet oddly it *did* eradicate it for the analog inputs.

This frustrated me greatly because I had planned on using the unit as an input selector for an outboard headphone amp where obviously you don't want any delay between the L and R signals, so I wrote Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey co-founder, and asked, "What gives?" He responded it was up to Marantz and Denon to do whatever they want and Audyssey only made measurements and gave recommendations.

Needless to say, this wacky way it treats the signal makes people's attempt to test it's transparency problematic. The fact that the signal isn't always clean and unadulterated when it claims it is made me lose interest in further testing however I suspect channel level trim also isn't eradicated for the front L and R when using digital inputs under the same conditions. I have no testing to confirm this though.

Here's one of my double blind tests showing I could hear the unit's failure to eradicate the 3cm "distance" (delay) correction it determined in its last mic calibration run _despite all visual indications that I had room correction totally off and Pure Direct mode was being used_:

foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2015-01-27 15:18:24

File A: Marantz AVR7005 0cm LR distance discrepancy MultiEQ OFF PURE DIRECT mode optical in PCM sourc.wav
SHA1: 9153972b32d0cc734929ea46f4ce9da986ac3768
File B: Marantz AVR7005 3cm LR distance discrepancy MultiEQ OFF PURE DIRECT mode optical in PCM source.wav
SHA1: 0227fae7e45bb562b27f315273326a0b1ae6947e

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

15:18:24 : Test started.
15:18:52 : 01/01
15:19:00 : 02/02
15:19:08 : 03/03
15:19:16 : 04/04
15:19:22 : 05/05
15:19:28 : 06/06
15:19:36 : 07/07
15:19:48 : 08/08
15:19:56 : 09/09
15:20:09 : 10/10
15:20:23 : 11/11
15:20:33 : 12/12
15:20:40 : 13/13
15:20:46 : 14/14
15:20:52 : 15/15
15:21:02 : 16/16
15:21:02 : Test finished.

---------- 
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

-- signature -- 
57a7b409891e3f9108f187dae8241418e8323c7b


----------



## Gooddoc

m. zillch said:


> I can't speak directly to the 8802 however I have done extensive testing, both by instrumentation and double blind testing, on their earlier 7005. I too was hearing differences, _profound, _regarding the tonality (so I assumed frequency response) and sound stage when comparing the direct incoming source against the signal as it had passed through the Marantz with all indications both in the menus and display that Audssey had been turned off (as well as all other manipulations) and on top of that, just to be dead sure, Pure Direct was engaged. "Why on earth am I still hearing a difference?!", I thought at the time.
> 
> Turns out this unit [later confirmed by forum member krabapple to happen on his Denon 4310 (4311? as well] does *not* eradicate the small distance correction of 3cm it found between my Front L and R speakers in its mic test for the digital inputs, yet oddly it *did* eradicate it for the analog inputs.
> 
> This frustrated me greatly because I had planned on using the unit as an input selector for an outboard headphone amp where obviously you don't want any delay between the L and R signals, so I wrote Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey co-founder, and asked, "What gives?" He responded it was up to Marantz and Denon to do whatever they want and Audyssey only made measurements and gave recommendations.
> 
> Needless to say, this wacky way it treats the signal makes people's attempt to test it's transparency problematic. The fact that the signal isn't always clean and unadulterated when it claims it is made me lose interest in further testing however I suspect channel level trim also isn't eradicated for the front L and R when using digital inputs under the same conditions. I have no testing to confirm this though.
> 
> Here's one of my double blind tests showing I could hear the unit's failure to eradicate the 3cm "distance" (delay) correction it determined in its last mic calibration run _despite all visual indications that I had room correction totally off and Pure Direct mode was being used_:
> 
> foo_abx 2.0 report
> foobar2000 v1.3.3
> 2015-01-27 15:18:24
> 
> File A: Marantz AVR7005 0cm LR distance discrepancy MultiEQ OFF PURE DIRECT mode optical in PCM sourc.wav
> SHA1: 9153972b32d0cc734929ea46f4ce9da986ac3768
> File B: Marantz AVR7005 3cm LR distance discrepancy MultiEQ OFF PURE DIRECT mode optical in PCM source.wav
> SHA1: 0227fae7e45bb562b27f315273326a0b1ae6947e
> 
> Output:
> DS : Primary Sound Driver
> Crossfading: NO
> 
> 15:18:24 : Test started.
> 15:18:52 : 01/01
> 15:19:00 : 02/02
> 15:19:08 : 03/03
> 15:19:16 : 04/04
> 15:19:22 : 05/05
> 15:19:28 : 06/06
> 15:19:36 : 07/07
> 15:19:48 : 08/08
> 15:19:56 : 09/09
> 15:20:09 : 10/10
> 15:20:23 : 11/11
> 15:20:33 : 12/12
> 15:20:40 : 13/13
> 15:20:46 : 14/14
> 15:20:52 : 15/15
> 15:21:02 : 16/16
> 15:21:02 : Test finished.
> 
> ----------
> Total: 16/16
> Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%
> 
> -- signature --
> 57a7b409891e3f9108f187dae8241418e8323c7b


Ok. Following your first reply I was fully expecting you to say there's no difference and I'm just hearing things, lol. You said the tonality changed, are you saying that the distance difference causes a change in tonality? Or was the difference in the soundstage?

BTW, the tonality differences you note in your observations are different amongst manufacturers in my experience. I can't say I have a "preference" amongst those differences, just simply that I hear them.

Testing these things is no easy matter, that's for sure, and I really have no dog in this hunt since ultimately I believe the speakers and the room are magnitudes more important than what we're discussing. It's more academic than anything. But unlike amps and cables/power cords, etc. I can't say there is no difference between AVR's.


----------



## m. zillch

Gooddoc said:


> You said the tonality changed, are you saying that the distance difference causes a change in tonality? Or was the difference in the soundstage?


Yes, it changed *both* the sound stage* and* the perceived tonality. [Note I wrote the _perceived_ tonality.] My measurements indicated my Marantz prepro _measured_ as having a dead flat response, as it should:









. . . but when you manipulate the phase of the L vs R channel [essentially what "distance" does] it can be _heard_ as all sorts of things. This tonality change is probably because the L and R no longer constructively reinforce each other in _all_ of the treble range, as they do when in proper phase alignment. When the L ch. waveform is delayed enough that it is 180 degrees out of phase at the ear position to the R channel at a specific frequency, there will be a dip at that frequency in the summed, mono sound response.

Edit to add: According to my calculations a ~5717 Hz monophonic tone in the L channel would be 180 degrees out of phase, hence audibly cancelled out in the summed response [if we only heard the direct wave and never any room reflections] if delayed by 3cm compared to the R. To the ear that would be a dip in the treble response centered at that frequency, i.e. a change in tonality yet the measured frequency response of each channel would measure as flat.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gooddoc said:


> Testing these things is no easy matter, that's for sure, and I really have no dog in this hunt since ultimately I believe the speakers and the room are magnitudes more important than what we're discussing. It's more academic than anything. But unlike amps and cables/power cords, etc. I can't say there is no difference between AVR's.


I think this point is the one people should really take on board. If there are differences they are indeed "magnitudes less important than speakers and room" making it, as you say, pretty academic. Even those with very nicely treated rooms and very good hearing will be hard pressed to discern any differences that really matter - and since most of us will be running some form of room EQ, then the differences, if any, cease to be of any real importance anyway. So the message is: buy AVRs for the feature set, concentrate on speakers and _get the room measured and treated_.


----------



## kbarnes701

Really interesting last few posts. How we are getting away with being this far off-topic and nobody complaining, I have no idea  We may be pushing our luck though...


----------



## sdurani

11.5.8 Atmos: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos

And check out the specs on their upcoming 9.1.6 receiver, with 15 x 200 watts.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> 11.5.8 Atmos: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos
> 
> And check out the specs on their upcoming 9.1.6 receiver, with 15 x 200 watts.


Those specs certainly are drool-worthy!

I just hope they can deliver.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> 11.5.8 Atmos: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos
> 
> And check out the specs on their upcoming 9.1.6 receiver, with 15 x 200 watts.


Wow. "The XLR-output modules will be available in the first quarter and bring the cost of a 24-channel version of the RMC-1 to around $6,000 to $6,500."

That is 10 grand less than some other similarly capable units I can think of....

And 9.x.6 for less than 5 grand...

Let's hope they're not the usual buggy mess that Emo processors have established a reputation for. Maybe they won't be now Emo are building them in the USA.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Those specs certainly are drool-worthy!
> 
> I just hope they can deliver.


If they can, and I hope so, the 'high end' boys will have pretty long faces I guess, considering the huge difference in prices.


----------



## Gooddoc

m. zillch said:


> Yes, it changed *both* the sound stage* and* the perceived tonality. [Note I wrote the _perceived_ tonality.] My measurements indicated my Marantz prepro _measured_ as having a dead flat response, as it should:
> 
> . . . but when you manipulate the phase of the L vs R channel [essentially what "distance" does] it can be _heard_ as all sorts of things. This tonality change is probably because the L and R no longer constructively reinforce each other in _all_ of the treble range, as they do when in proper phase alignment. When the L ch. waveform is delayed enough that it is 180 degrees out of phase at the ear position to the R channel at a specific frequency, there will be a dip at that frequency in the summed, mono sound response.
> 
> Edit to add: According to my calculations a ~5717 Hz monophonic tone in the L channel would be 180 degrees out of phase, hence audibly cancelled out in the summed response [if we only heard the direct wave and never any room reflections] if delayed by 3cm compared to the R. To the ear that would be a dip in the treble response centered at that frequency, i.e. a change in tonality yet the measured frequency response of each channel would measure as flat.


That's a good enough explanation for me.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> If they can, and I hope so, the 'high end' boys will have pretty long faces I guess, considering the huge difference in prices.


At that price point it certainly looks almost to be good to be true ...


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> At that price point it certainly looks almost to be good to be true ...


Emo did unfortunately develop a reputation a few years back for announcing processors that never came to fruition or, if they did, were extremely buggy and/or had serious issues such as incorrectly applied bass management. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes and this new processor will fulfill its promise. It will certainly come onto the radar of those wanting to go well beyond 7.x.4 for Atmos if it turns out to be reliable. They say they are now designing and manufacturing in the States these days, so that could make a difference as they will have more control maybe. In the old days they were simply re-badging Chinese Tonewinner products with some custom circuit design modifications, the latter seemingly causing most of their problems. I hope all that is in the past as I have always been a big fan of their amplifiers and their Vance Dickason designed speakers, having at one time had 14 Emo products in my HT. This new processor will be a giant step forward for larger Atmos installations if it fulfills its promise - and the modular concept offers a nice upgrade path too. As a 9.x.6 unit it looks fabulous - but being able to bump it up to a 24 channel unit makes it sensational for the price. Let's hope it lives up to its initial hype!


----------



## kbarnes701

Incidentally, picking up on Sanjay's original post on this subject, let's not forget Emo's new AVR coming next year. _"Dolby Atmos and DTS:X will also come to the company’s first AVR, due early in 2019. It will feature 15.1 channels of output to support 9.1.6-speaker layouts and will be rated at 15x200 watts into 8 ohms."_

That promises to be some helluva AVR, although no price was given in the article. Nonetheless, I could, for example, get rid of 5 amplifiers and 2 miniDSP DDRC-88A Dirac Live units if I replaced them with this Emo AVR. If the 15x200 watt output is genuine (and Emo's amp specs have always been accurate, all channels driven, in the past) this unit would be all I needed - AND I'd have upgrade capability to go beyond 7.x.4 to 9.x.6 if I ever felt the need. It would hugely simplify my rack setup with no obvious downsides. It's a unit I will be following closely for sure.


----------



## Juboy

Bond 007 said:


> Just got a FireTV Cube. Watching Jack Ryan in UHD HDR but no Atmos. Just DD+ 5.1.
> New premium certified HDMI cable. Samsung tv. Yamaha 3060 receiver.
> 
> Any ideas?



I didn't get Atmos from FireTV either.


Strangely, when I wanted Jack Ryan in 4K/60Hz via my Shield, my processor displayed Dolby Atmos. When I watched it in 4K/24Hz (in order to get HDR on my projector) the processor displayed DD+ 5.1


----------



## mtbdudex

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally, picking up on Sanjay's original post on this subject, let's not forget Emo's new AVR coming next year. _"Dolby Atmos and DTS:X will also come to the company’s first AVR, due early in 2019. It will feature 15.1 channels of output to support 9.1.6-speaker layouts and will be rated at 15x200 watts into 8 ohms."_
> 
> 
> 
> That promises to be some helluva AVR, although no price was given in the article. Nonetheless, I could, for example, get rid of 5 amplifiers and 2 miniDSP DDRC-88A Dirac Live units if I replaced them with this Emo AVR. If the 15x200 watt output is genuine (and Emo's amp specs have always been accurate, all channels driven, in the past) this unit would be all I needed - AND I'd have upgrade capability to go beyond 7.x.4 to 9.x.6 if I ever felt the need. It would hugely simplify my rack setup with no obvious downsides. It's a unit I will be following closely for sure.




Well this was announced
“16-channel $3,799 RMC-2, capable of 9.1.6-channel speaker layouts”
Add in $2k for including the amps and still under $6k total is my guess

It would be a beast size wise I guess, much bigger than my 13 amp 8500H

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

mtbdudex said:


> Well this was announced
> “16-channel $3,799 RMC-2, capable of 9.1.6-channel speaker layouts”
> Add in $2k for including the amps and still under $6k total is my guess


Still very reasonable, especially when compared with my current units which would all be replaced: Marantz AVR, one 3ch Emo amp, four 2ch Emo amps, two DDRC-88A units for Dirac Live. Not to mention a ton of wires and the complexity.

But given that AVRs and processors often cost the same, notwithstanding the lack of amps in the latter, the Emo unit may be even less than $6k by some margin. Let's hope so 



mtbdudex said:


> It would be a beast size wise I guess, much bigger than my 13 amp 8500H


For sure. But I am using about 18 Rack Units with that lot mentioned above. No matter how big this Emo thing, it ain't gonna be 18RU!


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> 11.5.8 Atmos: https://www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-gets-ready-1158-dolby-atmos
> 
> And check out the specs on their upcoming 9.1.6 receiver, with 15 x 200 watts.


"When the $4,999-suggested RMC-1 is available Nov. 15..." Note that they don't say Nov. 15 of what year. Given Emotiva's history, I'm guessing Nov. 15, 2027.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> "When the $4,999-suggested RMC-1 is available Nov. 15..." Note that they don't say Nov. 15 of what year. Given Emotiva's history, I'm guessing Nov. 15, 2027.


LOL! You cynic, Josh  But they do have form...


----------



## GPBURNS

Looking forward to getting Atmos set-up – been 7.1 since 90’s! (Lexicon dc-1)-
Be adding 4 RSL C34E to my Seaton setup- waiting on CDN availability on new Marantz AV7705 and latest jVC projectors-


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> I have had Denon and Marantz for some years now and they have never missed a beat. I am sure you will be very happy with the new unit.


I'm happy to report that the Denon AVRX1500H seems to function much better than the Pioneer Elite SC-LX502. I no longer have a problem with HDMI switching, ARC issues, and a triple-tap echo from the Atmos speakers when viewing non-Atmos content.

I just thought I would provide some feedback, as the advice that's been offered here is much appreciated.

One question I now have though is, the Denon definitely seems to provide a different sound than the Pioneer, which I guess is to be expected. I ran the Audyssey MultEQ setup, and the sound to me does sound more "neutral", I guess I would say, especially after reading a some of the posts above about the neutral sound.

I guess for me, it doesn't seem to have as much "oomp", for lack of better words, and the subwoofer doesn't seem to be as powerful in its output.

*For those with Denon receivers, is it best to have MultEQ running?* If it makes a difference, I ran 6 of the 8 calibration tests, as in my setup, it wasn't feasible to run the last 2.


----------



## pasender91

*YES, MultEQ highly suggested*
What you can do if the bass is too soft for your taste, is simply to bump up the level of your subwoofer afterwards with up to +3dB.
Afterwards is important in order to make the sub louder but still keep the very important Sub EQ


----------



## dfa973

jtcountry said:


> I guess for me, it doesn't seem to have as much "oomp", for lack of better words, and the subwoofer doesn't seem to be as powerful in its output.
> 
> *For those with Denon receivers, is it best to have MultEQ running?* If it makes a difference, I ran 6 of the 8 calibration tests, as in my setup, it wasn't feasible to run the last 2.


The Audyssey MultEQ XT is just fine, keep it ON, you just need to increase the SW level by 3dB, more or less, and be sure that all the speakers are set as SMALL, not large. Also, set the crossover for the SW at 80Hz. There is a 2018 Denon AVR's thread, where you can find a lot of help, and a dedicated Audyssey thread with a LOT of info about that room EQ.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Incidentally, picking up on Sanjay's original post on this subject, let's not forget Emo's new AVR coming next year. _"Dolby Atmos and DTS:X will also come to the company’s first AVR, due early in 2019. It will feature 15.1 channels of output to support 9.1.6-speaker layouts and will be rated at 15x200 watts into 8 ohms."_
> That promises to be some helluva AVR, although no price was given in the article. Nonetheless, I could, for example, get rid of 5 amplifiers and 2 miniDSP DDRC-88A Dirac Live units if I replaced them with this Emo AVR. If the 15x200 watt output is genuine (and Emo's amp specs have always been accurate, all channels driven, in the past) this unit would be all I needed - AND I'd have upgrade capability to go beyond 7.x.4 to 9.x.6 if I ever felt the need. It would hugely simplify my rack setup with no obvious downsides. It's a unit I will be following closely for sure.


And to think a few days ago:


kbarnes701 said:


> I doubt if I would ever buy an Emotiva processor..


In all seriousness, if you can wait through the inevitable delays and testing, this would be a good choice for you given your priorities. I’ll say hi to Big Dan and Lonnie for you at their booth 😊 .

Debatable if the 11.5.8 or the RMC-2 would seriously compete with the comprehensive functionality of the higher-end (I could come up with at least a half dozen reasons, as well the difference in distribution channels, but I’ll keep that to a different thread), but they’ll certainly be capable of taking on the X8500/8805 and setting the bar for the under $10K market.


----------



## jtcountry

pasender91 said:


> *YES, MultEQ highly suggested*
> What you can do if the bass is too soft for your taste, is simply to bump up the level of your subwoofer afterwards with up to +3dB.
> Afterwards is important in order to make the sub louder but still keep the very important Sub EQ





dfa973 said:


> The Audyssey MultEQ XT is just fine, keep it ON, you just need to increase the SW level by 3dB, more or less, and be sure that all the speakers are set as SMALL, not large. Also, set the crossover for the SW at 80Hz. There is a 2018 Denon AVR's thread, where you can find a lot of help, and a dedicated Audyssey thread with a LOT of info about that room EQ.


Thanks for the tips! I plan on trying this out tonight!


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> I'm happy to report that the Denon AVRX1500H seems to function much better than the Pioneer Elite SC-LX502. I no longer have a problem with HDMI switching, ARC issues, and a triple-tap echo from the Atmos speakers when viewing non-Atmos content.


Excellent. Thanks for the feedback.



jtcountry said:


> One question I now have though is, the Denon definitely seems to provide a different sound than the Pioneer, which I guess is to be expected. I ran the Audyssey MultEQ setup, and the sound to me does sound more "neutral", I guess I would say, especially after reading a some of the posts above about the neutral sound.


If you are using Audyssey then it will have done a different job to MCACC so yes, I'd expect the final sound to be different. Probably better TBH.



jtcountry said:


> I guess for me, it doesn't seem to have as much "oomp", for lack of better words, and the subwoofer doesn't seem to be as powerful in its output.


Once you have used Audyssey you will need to bump up your subwoofer trim by at least 3dB. Audyssey, for best reasons known to itself, aims for a 'flat curve' where all the evidence shows that the majority of people prefer a 'harman curve' which slopes smoothly down from LF to HF by about 6dB or so. Raise the sub trim and your oomph will come back.



jtcountry said:


> *For those with Denon receivers, is it best to have MultEQ running?* If it makes a difference, I ran 6 of the 8 calibration tests, as in my setup, it wasn't feasible to run the last 2.


Definitely use MultEQ XT32. And when you have time, run all the mic positions. See the Audyssey FAQ linked in my sig for everything you need to know about using Audyssey.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> And to think a few days ago:


LOL. 'Following closely' isn't the same as 'buying one' Stu. Based on Emo's past form the AVR will either never appear, or it will be buggy as they come and may even never work properly. As you know, I have neither the time, patience nor inclination to spend days and weeks fiddling with processors, so if Emo runs true to form I can pretty much guarantee I won't be getting one. But... if the reports from serious testers and users show that it is indeed a good unit, then I could be persuaded to go for the AVR. Not especially because I want to go to 9.x.6 but for the simplification it offers me, saving me about 13 rack units, one AVR, 2 DDRC-88As and five amps 



sdrucker said:


> In all seriousness, if you can wait through the inevitable delays and testing, this would be a good choice for you given your priorities. I’ll say hi to Big Dan and Lonnie for you at their booth 😊 .


Yeah thanks. Ask them if I am still barred from their forum despite having spent thousands of dollars with them... 



sdrucker said:


> Debatable if the 11.5.8 or the RMC-2 would seriously compete with the comprehensive functionality of the higher-end (I could come up with at least a half dozen reasons, as well the difference in distribution channels, but I’ll keep that to a different thread), but they’ll certainly be capable of taking on the X8500/8805 and setting the bar for the under $10K market.


Hardly anyone needs the 'comprehensive functionality' though, and even fewer are prepared to pay for it, so the Emo could be a very sensible choice for a lot of people. If it works.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. 'Following closely' isn't the same as 'buying one' Stu. Based on Emo's past form the AVR will either never appear, or it will be buggy as they come and may even never work properly. As you know, I have neither the time, patience nor inclination to spend days and weeks fiddling with processors, so if Emo runs true to form I can pretty much guarantee I won't be getting one. But... if the reports from serious testers and users show that it is indeed a good unit, then I could be persuaded to go for the AVR. Not especially because I want to go to 9.x.6 but for the simplification it offers me, saving me about 13 rack units, one AVR, 2 DDRC-88As and five amps


That sounds more like the Keith we know. Convenience and a future upgrade path to 9.x.6 are valid reasons to buy something like an RMC-2, if it works. That's why I said you have to give it time to find out if it's for you. But if they deliver, it could be on your radar sooner or later.



> Hardly anyone needs the 'comprehensive functionality' though, and even fewer are prepared to pay for it, so the Emo could be a very sensible choice for a lot of people. If it works.


Many people but not all, and without knowledge of what the functionality is "hardly anyone" is a sweeping generality. Not having this discussion because a) you won't see the point for any of the reasons I could give and b) I'm at the show and I've got better things to do.

Who knows, maybe Big Dan would welcome you back to the Lounge with open arms...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> That sounds more like the Keith we know. Convenience and a future upgrade path to 9.x.6 are valid reasons to buy something like an RMC-2, if it works. That's why I said you have to give it time to find out if it's for you. But if they deliver, it could be on your radar sooner or later.


 Call me skeptical. I really do hope they get it right because if they do it will be a real killer unit IMO.




sdrucker said:


> Many people but not all, and without knowledge of what the functionality is "hardly anyone" is a sweeping generality.


What's the market penetration of $16,000+ processors? Is it a) more than 50% (aka most people), or b) less than 50% (aka many people) or c) 1-2% (aka hardly anyone)? 




sdrucker said:


> Not having this discussion because a) you won't see the point for any of the reasons I could give and b) I'm at the show and I've got better things to do.



Hardware!! 



sdrucker said:


> Who knows, maybe Big Dan would welcome you back to the Lounge with open arms...


Who said I wanted to be welcomed back?


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> But I am using about 18 Rack Units with that lot mentioned above. No matter how big this Emo thing, it ain't gonna be 18RU!


Have you considered Arcam's AVR850? 

It's been out for a while, so most of its bugs should be squashed by now.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Have you considered Arcam's AVR850?
> 
> It's been out for a while, so most of its bugs should be squashed by now.


It's a bit 'audiophile' for me TBH and therefore IMO overpriced. Nice unit for some though I agree. And the Emo has twice the power which is always handy. Another unit worthy of consideration, on paper at least, is the NAD 758 v3 but if you look at its thread on AVS it is a litany of bug reports, problems, weird noise injection into the overhead channels etc etc. That's one of the reasons I am skeptical about Emotiva getting their AVR right first time - if a serious player like NAD struggles, what chance do Emo have, with their past form?

What I currently have may take up a heck of a lot of rack space, and in some ways be an 'old-fashioned' approach, but at least it works flawlessly all of the time


----------



## jtcountry

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent. Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are using Audyssey then it will have done a different job to MCACC so yes, I'd expect the final sound to be different. Probably better TBH.
> 
> 
> 
> Once you have used Audyssey you will need to bump up your subwoofer trim by at least 3dB. Audyssey, for best reasons known to itself, aims for a 'flat curve' where all the evidence shows that the majority of people prefer a 'harman curve' which slopes smoothly down from LF to HF by about 6dB or so. Raise the sub trim and your oomph will come back.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely use MultEQ XT32. And when you have time, run all the mic positions. See the Audyssey FAQ linked in my sig for everything you need to know about using Audyssey.


Thank you so much for the great feedback. It seems I have a lot to learn now with the Audyssey configuration.


----------



## kbarnes701

jtcountry said:


> Thank you so much for the great feedback. It seems I have a lot to learn now with the Audyssey configuration.


You're welcome! 

Have a read through the FAQ and 101 (both linked below). Also the Audyssey thread here on AVS is still very active and a nice and very knowledgeable guy called @mthomas47 (Mike Thomas) has picked up the mantle there and is always very helpful, along with several other Audyssey veterans. 

HST, don't overthink it. There is endless discussion about the relative merits of measuring with the mic in one position or 10mm to the left or right of that position and so on, and really it doesn't matter all that much TBH. Just follow the basic guidelines in the 101 and you will get a good calibration. XT32 is still a good room EQ, even though Audyssey seem to have lost interest in developing it and have let it be overtaken by the likes of Dirac Live, but there are a few quirks you need to know, such as the requirement to boost the sub trims after calibration, which almost every Audyssey user needs to do. 

Enjoy your new AVR!


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> What's the market penetration of $16,000+ processors? Is it a) more than 50% (aka most people), or b) less than 50% (aka many people) or c) 1-2% (aka hardly anyone)?


Market percentage is irrelevant. What counts is market size (2% of WHAT market)? and profit/revenue. And you, having worked in advertising, should be aware that market segmentation is the story, not a one-size-fits-all, majority leads product category. Find a market segment that has the right financials and is sizable enough to be looked at globally, and you can win. Very different than the mass market world. Just to put things in perspective, I have a software subscription I use in my day job that possibly has 300 or 400 users max, and the multi-user corporate subscription is something like $11K to $16K (maybe half of that for a single user, but it's offset partially by free website hosting costs with the yearly subscription). If you're lean enough, have involved users and manage development and support costs you can be profitable.

Bottom line is if the number of users and revenue point are high enough to be financially sustainable, that's what counts. The world isn't AVS either, as much as some think it is. Meaning that if you have 2000 customers buying a $15K to $30K+ processor, depending on the marginal costs for each incremental sale and the fixed R&D costs, that could be just as lucrative if not more so than a $2500 processor with 20,000 buyers, let alone the $1200 processor with 40,000 buyers. Likewise for an Emotiva, but the market size/cost proposition is different.

Come to think of it, how many people actually buy something like an RMC-1 or an X8500? 

Bye for now...enjoy your movies everyone...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Market percentage is irrelevant. What counts is market size (2% of WHAT market)? and profit/revenue. And you, having worked in advertising, should be aware that market segmentation is the story, not a one-size-fits-all, majority leads product category. Find a market segment that has the right financials and is sizable enough to be looked at globally, and you can win. Very different than the mass market world. Just to put things in perspective, I have a software subscription I use in my day job that possibly has 300 or 400 users max, and the multi-user corporate subscription is something like $11K to $16K (maybe half of that for a single user, but it's offset partially by free website hosting costs with the yearly subscription). If you're lean enough, have involved users and manage development and support costs you can be profitable.
> 
> Bottom line is if the number of users and revenue point are high enough to be financially sustainable, that's what counts. The world isn't AVS either, as much as some think it is. Meaning that if you have 2000 customers buying a $15K to $30K+ processor, depending on the marginal costs for each incremental sale and the fixed R&D costs, that could be just as lucrative if not more so than a $2500 processor with 20,000 buyers, let alone the $1200 processor with 40,000 buyers. Likewise for an Emotiva, but the market size/cost proposition is different.
> 
> Come to think of it, how many people actually buy something like an RMC-1 or an X8500?
> 
> Bye for now...enjoy your movies everyone...


OK, I concede. I know of two people who have Trinnovs and hundreds who, er, don't  Maybe my sample is all wrong or something.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> OK, I concede. I know of two people who have Trinnovs and hundreds who, er, don't  Maybe my sample is all wrong or something.


I suspect not. It's like comparing the Lamborghini market to that of Kia. Ok, maybe Porsche


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> OK, I concede. I know of two people who have Trinnovs and hundreds who, er, don't  Maybe my sample is all wrong or something.


No, just different. I could say 25 or 30 with a higher-end processor outside of the mass market A/V world and hundreds that don’t. 

But here’s the thing: if you can find those 2000 customers out of a population of 5000 with a high level of confidence they’re likely customers, but to find those mass market 20K buyers with less accuracy, you need to sift through a population of 200,000...at any rate, we all march to our own drummers...


----------



## ahblaza

jtcountry said:


> Thank you so much for the great feedback. It seems I have a lot to learn now with the Audyssey configuration.


Here's a link to the new 2018 Denon model AVRs with a lot of setup questions and answers:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...eries-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-posts-1-8-a.html

Mike Thomas also mentioned, link in my sig Bass Preferences


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> I suspect not. It's like comparing the Lamborghini market to that of Kia. Ok, maybe Porsche


I wasn't comparing anything. I was discussing market share. That is the total number of cars (the market) and the share of any individual manufacturer (the penetration) expressed as a percentage. If there are 200 million cars in the USA and Manufacturer A sells 20 million cars, he has a market share of 10%. If manufacturer B sells 1 million cars he has a share of 0.5%. Same with processors. Out of all the processors/AVRs sold, one assumes that D&M, for example, outsells Trinnov, for example, by a massive amount. Thus Trinnov has a very small market share and D&M a pretty big market share. It's nothing to do with subsets, which is what Stu was trying to deflect to. Sure, Trinnov may have a big share of the 'high-end' processor market, but that is still a tiny percentage of the total market.

The reality is what I said: $16,000+ processors have a tiny share _of the AV market_; thus they are bought by 'hardly anyone'


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Market percentage is irrelevant. What counts is market size (2% of WHAT market)? and profit/revenue. And you, having worked in advertising, should be aware that market segmentation is the story, not a one-size-fits-all, majority leads product category. Find a market segment that has the right financials and is sizable enough to be looked at globally, and you can win. Very different than the mass market world. Just to put things in perspective, I have a software subscription I use in my day job that possibly has 300 or 400 users max, and the multi-user corporate subscription is something like $11K to $16K (maybe half of that for a single user, but it's offset partially by free website hosting costs with the yearly subscription). If you're lean enough, have involved users and manage development and support costs you can be profitable.
> 
> Bottom line is if the number of users and revenue point are high enough to be financially sustainable, that's what counts. The world isn't AVS either, as much as some think it is. Meaning that if you have 2000 customers buying a $15K to $30K+ processor, depending on the marginal costs for each incremental sale and the fixed R&D costs, that could be just as lucrative if not more so than a $2500 processor with 20,000 buyers, let alone the $1200 processor with 40,000 buyers. Likewise for an Emotiva, but the market size/cost proposition is different.
> 
> Come to think of it, how many people actually buy something like an RMC-1 or an X8500?
> 
> Bye for now...enjoy your movies everyone...


All irrelevant (to the current discussion) Stu. I wasn't discussing profitability or revenue or development and support costs or marginal costs or incremental sales or R&D costs or how lucrative it is for any manufacturer, or indeed anything you mentioned. Just market penetration/share of $16k+ processors vs 'mainstream' products - which is what sparked my 'bought by hardly anyone' remark.

But we are so far off topic this ought to be taken to another thread so I am ending my part of the discussion, here at least, once I have responded to this post and to Selden's.


----------



## CrazyEddie

kbarnes701 said:


> ...Definitely use MultEQ XT32. And when you have time, run all the mic positions. See the Audyssey FAQ linked in my sig for everything you need to know about using Audyssey.


Unfortunately, the gentleman cannot _exactly_ follow that advice with the model he purchased.

Audyssey XT32 it not present until further up the Denon model line. The x1500h only has the less capable "XT" variant.

The AVR-X3500H has it. A couple years back it did not shift from "XT" to "XT32" until at the X3300W model/point. Don't know where that switchover to the better XT32 processing happens in the current lineup.

https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avrx1500h
https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avrx3500h


----------



## kbarnes701

CrazyEddie said:


> Unfortunately, the gentleman cannot _exactly_ follow that advice with the model he purchased.
> 
> Audyssey XT32 it not present until further up the Denon model line. The x1500h only has the less capable "XT" variant.
> 
> The AVR-X3500H has it. A couple years back it did not shift from "XT" to "XT32" until at the X3300W model/point. Don't know where that switchover to the better XT32 processing happens in the current lineup.
> 
> https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avrx1500h
> https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avrx3500h


Good catch. 99% of all Audyssey use is the same for all variants though so he should be fine.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> All irrelevant (to the current discussion) Stu. I wasn't discussing profitability or revenue or development and support costs or marginal costs or incremental sales or R&D costs or how lucrative it is for any manufacturer, or indeed anything you mentioned. Just market penetration/share of $16k+ processors vs 'mainstream' products - which is what sparked my 'bought by hardly anyone' remark.
> 
> But we are so far off topic this ought to be taken to another thread so I am ending my part of the discussion, here at least, once I have responded to this post and to Selden's.


Fair enough, as what you disagree with here is off topic to your way of thinking, even when related to what is used for > 7.1.4 processing. Market share is your discussion, mine was broader than that about the industry. I’m out too. Enjoy your day and your movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Fair enough,* as what you disagree with here is off topic to your way of thinking, *even when related to what is used for > 7.1.4 processing. Market share is your discussion, mine was broader than that about the industry. I’m out too. Enjoy your day and your movies.


No - it's just off-topic.


----------



## anothermib

jmacari said:


> ...
> but my Fire UHD 2017 unit does the UHD, Atmos edition of Jack Ryan nicely....took a little time to find the UHD version (not the 1080P), and then change the audio setting when it started to stream to turn on the Atmos sound, but now every ongoing edition is set up nicely.



Is there any specific configuration required on the FireTV? 
I only seem to get the HD version with 5.1DD+ even when selecting the UHD content version on my Fire4k (connected to a non UHD projector though). I seem to get full Atmos for the same content on the Xbox.


----------



## jmacari

anothermib said:


> Is there any specific configuration required on the FireTV?
> I only seem to get the HD version with 5.1DD+ even when selecting the UHD content version on my Fire4k (connected to a non UHD projector though). I seem to get full Atmos for the same content on the Xbox.


I don't know if being connected to a non 4K display is negating the Atmos soundtrack; When the UHD version started to play, I went into the settings menu on the lower right, and went to the audio menu, where there was an option for Dolby Atmos sound.....now every time I watch the next episode, Atmos is showing as the sound emanating from AVR


----------



## usc1995

anothermib said:


> Is there any specific configuration required on the FireTV?
> I only seem to get the HD version with 5.1DD+ even when selecting the UHD content version on my Fire4k (connected to a non UHD projector though). I seem to get full Atmos for the same content on the Xbox.




You can’t really trust the Xbox as right now it outputs all of the streaming audio in an Atmos container. It is a bug that Microsoft has not been in a hurry to fix. You can play anything on Amazon right now and it will say it’s Atmos even when it is obviously not,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

jmacari said:


> I don't know if being connected to a non 4K display is negating the Atmos soundtrack; When the UHD version started to play, I went into the settings menu on the lower right, and went to the audio menu, where there was an option for Dolby Atmos sound.....now every time I watch the next episode, Atmos is showing as the sound emanating from AVR




Ok, the audio options only offer DD+ and Stereo in my case. Apparently the FTV is applying some “intelligence” to play the HD stream if no UHD display is connected. I didn’t see anything to change that.
This is really annoying. Not only that the Netflix app on the FTV doesn’t support Atmos, now they remain only mildly successful presenting their own content in the best possible way.


----------



## anothermib

usc1995 said:


> You can’t really trust the Xbox as right now it outputs all of the streaming audio in an Atmos container. It is a bug that Microsoft has not been in a hurry to fix. You can play anything on Amazon right now and it will say it’s Atmos even when it is obviously not,
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




Thanks, I didn’t notice that. That behavior may be new. I believe previously it was signaling 5.1 (or whatever you configured) for non-atmos content. This was stupid in itself as it did so independent of the content preventing the upmixer doing its job e.g. for 2ch content. I think I had it switching to Atmos just for actual Atmos, but apparently they “fixed” that. Now it sticks on Atmos for everything unless you manually change it. Even the option to manually set it to Stereo seems to be gone. 

The only good news may be that whenever you hear anything from the top speakers it will be actual Atmos. In the case of the Amazon app, however you don’t. 

Wow, this all is frustrating. I appreciate that there are a number of different scenarios to support, but with the development capabilities of a Microsoft or Amazon it should be possible to create a player that just gets the sound right.


----------



## Chuck666

anothermib said:


> Thanks, I didn’t notice that. That behavior may be new. I believe previously it was signaling 5.1 (or whatever you configured) for non-atmos content. This was stupid in itself as it did so independent of the content preventing the upmixer doing its job e.g. for 2ch content. I think I had it switching to Atmos just for actual Atmos, but apparently they “fixed” that. Now it sticks on Atmos for everything unless you manually change it. Even the option to manually set it to Stereo seems to be gone.
> 
> The only good news may be that whenever you hear anything from the top speakers it will be actual Atmos. In the case of the Amazon app, however you don’t.
> 
> Wow, this all is frustrating. I appreciate that there are a number of different scenarios to support, but with the development capabilities of a Microsoft or Amazon it should be possible to create a player that just gets the sound right.


Sometime in the last few days, jack Ryan changed. I had watched all 8 eps last week in full ATMOS, now it it stops audio after a moment? Audio only plays in Dolby mode, using the Fire TV. Very strange....


----------



## Patrick G

I need to avoid floor-standing surround speakers. Would this work for a new 7.2.4 Atmos setup, or at least be better than standard 7.2:



Yellow fronts will have upward-firing elevation speakers on top.
ALL six surrounds will be in-ceiling, with red heights firing straight down and green surrounds angled towards listening position.


----------



## Bond 007

Chuck666 said:


> Sometime in the last few days, jack Ryan changed. I had watched all 8 eps last week in full ATMOS, now it it stops audio after a moment? Audio only plays in Dolby mode, using the Fire TV. Very strange....


I'm getting Atmos on the Cube.


----------



## Ted99

Patrick G said:


> I need to avoid floor-standing surround speakers. Would this work for a new 7.2.4 Atmos setup, or at least be better than standard 7.2:
> 
> 
> 
> Yellow fronts will have upward-firing elevation speakers on top.
> ALL six surrounds will be in-ceiling, with red heights firing straight down and green surrounds angled towards listening position.


No. Do a geometry drawing of the front atmos speakers and you will find that the reflected sweet spot is about mid-way between the screen and the MLP


----------



## Khaile

Patrick G said:


> I need to avoid floor-standing surround speakers. Would this work for a new 7.2.4 Atmos setup, or at least be better than standard 7.2:
> 
> 
> 
> Yellow fronts will have upward-firing elevation speakers on top.
> ALL six surrounds will be in-ceiling, with red heights firing straight down and green surrounds angled towards listening position.


Others can chime in better but with atmos the point is that there are two layers of sound: ear level (fronts and surrounds) and height level (in ceiling and/or height channels). 

Height level surrounds with atmos is like an oxymoron like a three sided square. Your diagram would be a fine 7.1 setup but if you want atmos, you will need floor level surrounds.


----------



## Khaile

Patrick G said:


> I need to avoid floor-standing surround speakers. Would this work for a new 7.2.4 Atmos setup, or at least be better than standard 7.2:
> 
> 
> 
> Yellow fronts will have upward-firing elevation speakers on top.
> ALL six surrounds will be in-ceiling, with red heights firing straight down and green surrounds angled towards listening position.


Also since all of your souurounds are in ceiling you won’t be able to separate the base layer with the height layer. In other words, every sound will feel like “ambiance” instead of 3d objects around you.


----------



## anothermib

jmacari said:


> I don't know if being connected to a non 4K display is negating the Atmos soundtrack; When the UHD version started to play, I went into the settings menu on the lower right, and went to the audio menu, where there was an option for Dolby Atmos sound.....now every time I watch the next episode, Atmos is showing as the sound emanating from AVR




I just got a response from Amazon support on the Atmos track for Jack Ryan. The underlying issue seems to be even more stupid than expected. Apparently they could not be bothered to put the Atmos track on the server here in Germany. They felt that there “isn’t the demand” for that. 
I would _almost_ understand that logic for something they have to license from a 3rd party. However, after spending 100s of millions on original content they are not leveraging their own assets as much as possible? 
We in the “third world” apparently can only hope that the person that is managing the content here is being sent to a training soon :-(


----------



## Patrick G

Ok, how about going 5.2.4? Is there any situation in which a 5.2.4 system with 6 in-ceiling surrounds would NOT be better than a standard 7.2 system with 4 in-ceiling surrounds?


----------



## Khaile

Patrick G said:


> Ok, how about going 5.2.4? Is there any situation in which a 5.2.4 system with 6 in-ceiling surrounds would NOT be better than a standard 7.2 system with 4 in-ceiling surrounds?


You will still have the same problem: no separation between the height layer and the base layer.

Have you heard a proper atmos setup before? It is a 3d object based surround sound format, which means you need speakers at ear level and height level to create the object based atmosphere. If you can’t place speakers (specifically surround) ear level AND height level, I don’t know of any configuration where atmos could work for you. 

I would guess that 5.2.4 with all your atmos and surrounds in ceiling would be virtually identical with 7.2. If anything, things might sound even worse with 5.2.4 with everything in ceiling as it would all be improperly setup


----------



## Patrick G

I understand it wouldn’t have the intended effect for Atmos. I’m not sure I understand how having 6 surrounds in the ceiling would not be better than 4.


----------



## jjackkrash

Patrick G said:


> I understand it wouldn’t have the intended effect for Atmos. I’m not sure I understand how having 6 surrounds in the ceiling would not be better than 4.


Surrounds go ear level no higher than midwall, which is where the receiver will assume the speakers are located when it replays the track. I would think every "surround" you added to the ceiling would make it worse, not better. But, feel free to try it and report back with results.


----------



## Patrick G

In actuality, surrounds are rarely at ear level.


----------



## jjackkrash

Ok. I guess I don't know where _everyone else _puts their surrounds in an Atmos system. I personally just followed the guidelines and placed them lower than midwall with a direct line of sight to the MLP (which would make them slightly higher than ear level while sitting down, but still lower than midwall). 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Patrick G

Thank you for your feedback.


----------



## Khaile

Patrick G said:


> In actuality, surrounds are rarely at ear level.


Yes, when I had a traditional 5.1 setup, my surrounds were a foot or two higher than ear level. 

But in an atmos system the recommendation according to Dolby is surrounds at ear level (to be specific, no more than 1.25 times the height of your fronts) and heights high above you. 

Honestly, it’s hard to explain until you hear it for yourself and then you get why. 

As the previous poster suggested, IMO 6 surrounds in ceiling would be worse than 4 because there are _more_ sounds improperly placed.

For example, imagine if you have a 2.0 stereo front LR setup. In theory, wouldn’t adding a center make it sound better? Yes, unless the front and center speakers were placed turned away from the listening position so that you only see it’s rear. In that case you are only making things sound even worse. 

But you can try your setup and tell us how it sounds.


----------



## alfa1

Patrick G said:


> I understand it wouldn’t have the intended effect for Atmos. I’m not sure I understand how having 6 surrounds in the ceiling would not be better than 4.


If you have to have your base-level speakers in the ceiling, while not ideal, it is still possible to have a good Atmos experience. GoldenEar and Definitive Technology (and other manfacturers as well) have specially designed ceiling speakers that sound as if they are at ear level. Mark Henninger reviewed a GoldenEar all in ceiling Atmos system and said it sounded terrific.


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> I need to avoid floor-standing surround speakers. Would this work for a new 7.2.4 Atmos setup, or at least be better than standard 7.2:
> 
> 
> 
> Yellow fronts will have upward-firing elevation speakers on top.
> ALL six surrounds will be in-ceiling, with red heights firing straight down and green surrounds angled towards listening position.
> [/IMG]


Loads of advice telling you no, it won't work. Atmos requires angular separation between the floor level speakers (main plus surrounds) and the overhead speakers. If all your speakers are in the ceiling, you have zero angular separation so Atmos won't work. Using Atmos-enabled modules won't make any difference as the sound is still all emanating from the ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> Ok, how about going 5.2.4? Is there any situation in which a 5.2.4 system with 6 in-ceiling surrounds would NOT be better than a standard 7.2 system with 4 in-ceiling surrounds?


Won't matter. You can't have Atmos if you can't separate the sounds from around you (surround speakers) and sounds from above you (overhead speakers or A-E modules).


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> In actuality, surrounds are rarely at ear level.


They are even more rarely on the ceiling either. At or somewhat above ear level is required for Atmos, plus speakers on or in the ceiling (or A-E modules).


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> I understand it wouldn’t have the intended effect for Atmos. I’m not sure I understand how having 6 surrounds in the ceiling would not be better than 4.


But you wouldn't have 6 surrounds in the ceiling. You'd have 4 surrounds (receiving signal from content meant for surround speakers at or no more than 1.25 times above ear level) and 2 Atmos speakers (receiving signal from content meant for speakers above you). It would be a total mess IMO, with no speaker where it should be. I admire your persistence but sometimes we just have to admit defeat


----------



## Patrick G

Got it. As much as I want to try Atmos at home, I'm just not sure it's worth giving up the extra floor space, not to mention the visible speaker wire (or holes in my carpet), and then the added expense of the new AVR and speakers on top of it all. Heavily leaning towards just doing 7.2 with all surrounds in-ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> Got it. As much as I want to try Atmos at home, I'm just not sure it's worth giving up the extra floor space, not to mention the visible speaker wire (or holes in my carpet), and then the added expense of the new AVR and speakers on top of it all. Heavily leaning towards just doing 7.2 with all surrounds in-ceiling.


Sure, totally understand that. Surrounds in the ceiling can work just fine, especially when using speakers with aimable tweeters - I have heard setups like that and been impressed with the immersion etc. The only problem in your circumstances is Atmos, not the surrounds themselves. You can get a good 7.1 experience, whereas trying also for an Atmos experience at the same time would, IMO, result in a worse sound than just a decent 7.1 system.


----------



## Patrick G

Again, this is exactly the feedback I was looking for, so thanks to all who have responded to this point.


----------



## howard68

Dolby Atmos and shadow of the tomb raider 
Is this only available in Atmos on the x box one x only ?


----------



## m. zillch

alfa1 said:


> Mark Henninger reviewed a GoldenEar all in ceiling Atmos system and said it sounded terrific.


Have a link? (anyone) Thanks.


----------



## snpanago

m. zillch said:


> Have a link? (anyone) Thanks.


https://www.avsforum.com/goldenear-ultimate-invisa-lifestyle-atmos-system-experience/


----------



## m. zillch

^What a clever trick. Get rid of all the sound leakage of the woofer's back wave inherent to all unboxed ceiling speakers, and the problems they cause, by entrapping it in a sealed box:









Many people are unaware that woofer cones generate nearly just as much sound backward as they do forward, so in wall and in ceiling speakers are filling the wall/ceiling with loud sound. At high volumes this can potentially rattle things in the wall such as wires and AC outlets (audibly) plus the sheet rock doesn't have the density, mass, and rigidity of a true wooden speaker cabinet so it too can vibrate with the music, i.e. add noise/distortion. [Note speaker cabinets are almost universally made of solid wood, not things like plastic which would be cheaper, for this very reason. You want the walls which entrap the rear wave of the woofer cone's sound to be dead solid so they don't vibrate on the loud passages causing noise/distortion.]

This loud sound generated *inside* the walls also more easily migrates to other adjacent rooms so this technique is not good for people who are trying to keep their home theater isolated from disturbing the rest of the house.


----------



## m. zillch

m. zillch said:


> Many people are unaware that woofer cones generate nearly just as much sound forward as they do backward,


Some designers take advantage of this and actually mount woofers backwards in some applications such as this Allison AL-120:








http://www.hifi-classic.net/images/488/allison-al-120.jpg

The 2nd woofer in this speaker is wired in reverse phase so it pushes into the room in unison with the normal facing woofer. Why do this? It reduces harmonic distortion because some of the distortion components of woofer 1 are acoustically cancelled out by the phase reversed woofer 2 when the waves are summed in the room. This is analogous to how balanced connections such as XLR also cancel out common mode noise: two versions of the signal travel with one in reverse phase but only during the journey. When the two are combined at the end the noise which has been introduced along the way is cancelled out via phase reversal.


----------



## highmr

Patrick G said:


> Again, this is exactly the feedback I was looking for, so thanks to all who have responded to this point.


If you have access to the ceiling to run wires above the ceiling for in-ceiling speakers then you likely have some access to the edges of the walls to further drop the wires down the inside of the walls to create side in-wall speakers or side speaker outlets. The most difficult is the exterior wall where there is insulation. You also may run into horizontal 2x4 or 2x6 that need to be drilled through.


----------



## Patrick G

highmr said:


> If you have access to the ceiling to run wires above the ceiling for in-ceiling speakers then you likely have some access to the edges of the walls to further drop the wires down the inside of the walls to create side in-wall speakers or side speaker outlets. The most difficult is the exterior wall where there is insulation. You also may run into horizontal 2x4 or 2x6 that need to be drilled through.


That's what I want to do. Unfortunately I can't. If you'll notice in my room below, if I were to place the right-side speaker in the wall, between the slider and the window, it would be in front of the MLP (marked with thick red line). And on the left side, there will be bar area along that stair wall, with only about 3 inches between the bar door and the bar cabinet. I could put the speaker in the wall behind the barn door and then just close the door to that room when the theater is in use, but again, the side speaker would be slightly in front of the MLP (if seating is 10'-12' back), and also not exactly parallel with the right-side speaker.


----------



## highmr

Patrick G said:


> That's what I want to do. Unfortunately I can't. If you'll notice in my room below, if I were to place the right-side speaker in the wall, between the slider and the window, it would be in front of the MLP (marked with thick red line). And on the left side, there will be bar area along that stair wall, with only about 3 inches between the bar door and the bar cabinet. I could put the speaker in the wall behind the barn door and then just close the door to that room when the theater is in use, but again, the side speaker would be slightly in front of the MLP (if seating is 10'-12' back), and also not exactly parallel with the right-side speaker.


I think standalone surround speakers would be slightly better, but at least you could avoid the visible wires by coming through the ceiling and down the wall.
If in-wall, I would think the one at the bottom would be to the right of the barn door, not behind it (some offset between L and R, yes). Side surrounds in a 7.1 system can be forward of the listener slightly, surrounds in a 5.1 system shouldn't be.
Also, how high is your ceiling? You want separation in height between the surrounds and the ceiling Atmos speakers. If the ceiling is really high you may be able to be a bit higher in side surrounds (but not on the ceiling - keep the separation).


----------



## Patrick G

highmr said:


> If in-wall, I would think the one at the bottom would be to the right of the barn door, not behind it (some offset between L and R, yes).


As I mentioned, a bar with cabinets will be installed just to the right of that barn door. So, when the door is open, there will only be about 3 inches of wall space visible between barn door and bar.



highmr said:


> Also, how high is your ceiling?


On this lower level, 9 ft ceilings.


----------



## Patrick G

Are you thinking a 5.2.4 atmos setup would work if I put the sides in the walls at ear level where the green boxes are:










And in this configuration, would any of the 4 height channels/speakers be used at all in non-Atmos soundtracks, or would I be stuck with 5.2 and no sound from the rear of MLP in those instances?


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> Are you thinking a 5.2.4 atmos setup would work if I put the sides in the walls at ear level where the green boxes are:


The side surrounds in a 5.x setup should be behind the listener not in front. In a 7.x system the side surrounds often work better when slightly in front of MLP.












Patrick G said:


> And in this configuration, would any of the 4 height channels/speakers be used at all in non-Atmos soundtracks, or would I be stuck with 5.2 and no sound from the rear of MLP in those instances?


For legacy tracks you can upmix using DOlby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural:X, either of which will ensure that the overhead speakers play (upmixed) content on non-Atmos (or non-DTS:X) tracks.

Atmos is a bit of a red herring here. You still need the surrounds to work properly, and in a 5.x system the surrounds need to be slightly behind you (to give some sound from behind MLP). In a 7.x system you have physical rear surrounds behind you so the side surrounds can move to slightly in front of MLP - as per the ITU diagram above.

The diagram below gives the positions for a 5.1 and a 7.1 setup. What you need to be trying to emulate is the layout in the drawing on the left. I'd worry less about the surrounds being laterally in line with each other (within reason) as your room EQ setup (Audyssey etc) will compensate automatically for the differences in distance (delay).


----------



## m. zillch

I've never seen any Dolby literature suggesting side surrounds for 7.1 can go forward of the listener. Have I missed something?
This link seems current:
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/7-1-setup.html


----------



## Erod

Patrick G said:


> In actuality, surrounds are rarely at ear level.


In my experience, sound is best when all of the bed layer is slightly above ear level. The fronts can be ear level, but the surrounds are overly distracting if they're firing right at you at ear level.

Under no circumstances should they be in the ceiling. That's for atmos only.


----------



## mrtickleuk

m. zillch said:


> I've never seen any Dolby literature suggesting side surrounds for 7.1 can go forward of the listener. Have I missed something?


Only that ITU deals with international standards, and Dolby is just one little company.


----------



## m. zillch

mrtickleuk said:


> Only that ITU deals with international standards, and Dolby is just one little company.


But what matters is not what some standards organizations says, it is what standard the particular company we are buying movies from uses in production. I want to hear my movies as accurately and as faithfully as possible to what the people who made the movie for me heard, at least as best as I can within my budget and small room constraints.

To put it another way: I don't personally seek what sounds best to my ear, I seek what [my research suggests] sounds most faithful to what the artists who crafted the movie experienced themselves and intended me to hear. These may not be everyone's goals but they are mine. Just my 2 cents. Different strokes for different folks. [see my signature for more]


----------



## mrtickleuk

My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but I had to make do with the "winking" smiley. 

I agree with your aims and share them. If Dolby was the only company making/mixing movies, we'd be home and dry with just that one guide.


----------



## Patrick G

Erod said:


> Under no circumstances should they be in the ceiling. That's for atmos only.


Did you really just say “under no circumstances” should surrounds be in the ceiling?


----------



## Josh Z

m. zillch said:


> But what matters is not what some standards organizations says, it is what standard the particular company we are buying movies from uses in production. I want to hear my movies as accurately and as faithfully as possible to what the people who made the movie for me heard, at least as best as I can within my budget and small room constraints.
> 
> To put it another way: I don't personally seek what sounds best to my ear, I seek what [my research suggests] sounds most faithful to what the artists who crafted the movie experienced themselves and intended me to hear. These may not be everyone's goals but they are mine. Just my 2 cents. Different strokes for different folks. [see my signature for more]



As was mentioned earlier in the thread, if you go to any commercial theater, the surround speakers will not be exclusively at 90-degrees to your seating position, no matter where you sit. The surround channels are spread across an array from the front of the auditorium to the back. That's what the filmmakers are mixing for.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Erod said:


> In my experience, sound is best when all of the bed layer is slightly above ear level. The fronts can be ear level, but the surrounds are overly distracting if they're firing right at you at ear level.


I am curious why you think surrounds are distracting at ear level? If a car is driving by and it starts at the front speakers which are at ear level, wouldn't it make for better realism for the sound to pass by at the same elevation/level? Assuming the surround speakers have the proper distance to image and their gain levels are set appropriately, there should be no draw back to having them at ear level. I have had mine this way even before the advent of Atmos. With Atmos, ear level is spot on allowing plenty of spacing for those height channels to do their dance.



Patrick G said:


> Did you really just say “under no circumstances” should surrounds be in the ceiling?


I guess I would never say "never", but I personally have never been a fan of surrounds in the ceiling or very high up on the walls. However, I do understand that many rooms have few viable options, so it is what it is. I wouldn't pick ceiling surrounds as my first choice if there were other options.


----------



## m. zillch

Josh Z said:


> As was mentioned earlier in the thread, if you go to any commercial theater, the surround speakers will not be exclusively at 90-degrees to your seating position, no matter where you sit. The surround channels are spread across an array from the front of the auditorium to the back. That's what the filmmakers are mixing for.



And wouldn't the closest replication of that in the home with far fewer speakers be side surround speakers to the direct sides, 90-110 degrees from front center, like Dolby says?


----------



## Josh Z

m. zillch said:


> And wouldn't the closest replication of that in the home with far fewer speakers be side surround speakers to the direct sides, 90-110 degrees from front center, like Dolby says?



I would argue that you're overthinking it.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Josh Z said:


> I would argue that you're overthinking it.


I spent less time with angles and directional azimuths during the Special Forces land navigation qualification at Camp Mackall/Ft Bragg than some of the folks do here with their speakers


----------



## Gooddoc

Molon_Labe said:


> I spent less time with angles and directional azimuths during the Special Forces land navigation qualification at Camp Mackall/Ft Bragg than some of the folks do here with their speakers


Before I can figure out if they need to measure less, or you needed to measure more, just one question. Did you arrive where you needed to go?


----------



## Molon_Labe

Gooddoc said:


> Before I can figure out if they need to measure less, or you needed to measure more, just one question. Did you arrive where you needed to go?


Eventually  Your only lost if/when you realize it, so just don't think about it and keep walking. Ignorance is bliss


----------



## Gooddoc

Molon_Labe said:


> Eventually  Your only lost when you finally realize it, so just don't think about it and keep walking.


That's good enough for me. They're overthinking it .

Thanks for your service brother. Respect.


----------



## Erod

Molon_Labe said:


> I am curious why you think surrounds are distracting at ear level? If a car is driving by and it starts at the front speakers which are at ear level, wouldn't it make for better realism for the sound to pass by at the same elevation/level? Assuming the surround speakers have the proper distance to image and their gain levels are set appropriately, there should be no draw back to having them at ear level. I have had mine this way even before the advent of Atmos. With Atmos, ear level is spot on allowing plenty of spacing for those height channels to do their dance.


There's nothing more subjective than sound, so this isn't meant to be any sort of absolute at all. All rooms and ears are different.

Many of us find that if the bed layer is slightly above ear level, it creates a better surround field, especially for multiple seats. I've also come to the conclusion that the left and right surround speakers should be bipoles for that same reason.

I found that direct L/R suround speakers at ear level were too prominent at the wrong times. Atmos isn't really as "object-based" as advertised, so a slightly diffuse sound from the left and right is less likely to pull you out of a movie. You still get about the same effect, but without the direct screaming in your ear on some discs. 

I'm not talking about two feet over your head. Just about a couple of inches above the top of your head is about right to me. Just smooths it out a bit.


----------



## Erod

Patrick G said:


> Did you really just say “under no circumstances” should surrounds be in the ceiling?


In ceiling for surrounds (not Atmos) should be the absolute last resort you have. It just doesn't really work. Provides ambiance, but no real surround in my opinion.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Gooddoc said:


> That's good enough for me. They're overthinking it .
> 
> Thanks for your service brother. Respect.


Thanks, but that was a lifetime ago. Wow, I just realized it was 24 years ago that I was there - good grief where does the time go. It was a fun time until my Achilles tendon decided otherwise


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> But what matters is not what some standards organizations says, it is what standard the particular company we are buying movies from uses in production. I want to hear my movies as accurately and as faithfully as possible to what the people who made the movie for me heard, at least as best as I can within my budget and small room constraints.
> 
> To put it another way: I don't personally seek what sounds best to my ear, I seek what [my research suggests] sounds most faithful to what the artists who crafted the movie experienced themselves and intended me to hear. These may not be everyone's goals but they are mine. Just my 2 cents. Different strokes for different folks. [see my signature for more]


They are my goals too, but there is a difference between a cinema setup and a home theater setup, not least of which is that we don't use arrays of surround speakers. Dolby is an outlier in their suggestion for 7.1 layout. AFAIK all the other 'authorities' give a flexible range of potential positions for side surrounds, as per the ITU diagram I posted before. I don't think it is inconsistent with our personal objectives to 'close the biggest gap' between speakers that exists in our setups, which is the gap between mains and rear surrounds. By making that gap more equitable between the three sets of speakers (mains, side surrounds, rear surrounds) instead of having two sets (side and rear surrounds) bunched up at the back and then a big gap to the mains*, it does help with the creation of a seamless transition from front to back. 

The people who made the movie made it for a large commercial cinema, not for us at home, so there has to be some flexibility and latitude I think, even though I totally agree with your objective. I don't like the idea of re-writing the ending of _War and Peace_ or repainting the smile on _Mona Lisa_, just because I have my own preference as to what they should really be 

*The diagram you posted shows this perfectly.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> The people who made the movie made it for a large commercial cinema, not for us at home, so there has to be some flexibility and latitude I think, even though I totally agree with your objective. I don't like the idea of re-writing the ending of _War and Peace_ or repainting the smile on _Mona Lisa_, just because I have my own preference as to what they should really be


Well, the original version of the movie was (usually) made to be experienced in a large commercial theater, anyhow. My understanding is that the soundtracks that are provided on disc often have been remixed explicitly for home audiences. At the very least, many Atmos soundtracks have to be remixed to convert the two overhead bed channels to fixed objects and to contain fewer total sound objects. Differences in high frequency roll-off have long been complained about, for example: some soundtracks are rolled off and some aren't. It's disappointing that they don't let us know when remixing has been done.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> Well, the original version of the movie was (usually) made to be experienced in a large commercial theater, anyhow. My understanding is that the soundtracks that are provided on disc often have been remixed explicitly for home audiences.


IIRC FilmMixer said that the changes were subtle rather than dramatic. Certainly not a complete remix for home use. The next question would be, do they remix fior side surrounds at 90 degrees, or not? 

I have had side surrounds at 90 and also at 80 and the latter gave more seamless envelopment, for me in my room. The Dolby diagram M.Zillich posted amply demonstrates that huge gap between mains and surrounds, with the 4 surrounds all bunched up together at the rear end of the room. Moving the side surrounds slightly forward closes that gap a little and creates a more 'even' distribution of speakers. In my current HT the side surrounds re at 90 degrees, but that us only because a mandatory fire exit is in the way of placing them at 80 degrees which would have been my preference otherwise, based on my experience in my old HT where the side surrounds were at 80. It's a relatively easy test for most people and I recommend such a test before finalising speaker positions.



Selden Ball said:


> At the very least, many Atmos soundtracks have to be remixed to convert the two overhead bed channels to fixed objects and to contain fewer total sound objects. Differences in high frequency roll-off have long been complained about, for example: some soundtracks are rolled off and some aren't. It's disappointing that they don't let us know when remixing has been done.


Yes, some info would be useful, couldn't agree more.


----------



## Patrick G

So if I decide to do floor standing surrounds, should I consider running the speaker wire under the carpet, and then exiting up through a hole in the carpet at each of the four speaker locations, or is that a bad idea? I can probably get the side speakers fairly close to a wall, or even the MLP sectional, but the backs wouldn't be near a wall, they could only be near the sectional. Or do I just need to plan on visible speaker wire if I decide to do floor surrounds in this open floor plan? Reminder this is new construction.


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> So if I decide to do floor standing surrounds, should I consider running the speaker wire under the carpet, and then exiting up through a hole in the carpet at each of the four speaker locations, or is that a bad idea? I can probably get the side speakers fairly close to a wall, or even the MLP sectional, but the backs wouldn't be near a wall, they could only be near the sectional. Or do I just need to plan on visible speaker wire if I decide to do floor surrounds in this open floor plan? Reminder this is new construction.


You can get flat speaker cable specially designed to run under carpet.

https://www.amazon.com/GearIT-Elite-12AWG-Speaker-Meters/dp/B071L3FV1X

https://www.amazon.com/JSC-Wire-AWG-Flat-Speaker/dp/B0002ZPGNO

If I had a new construction and the floors weren't yet finalized, I'd take the wire under the floor, exiting where you need it - then run it up the speaker stand, preferably inside, for a neat and pretty invisible job. Alternatively, I see nothing wrong with your suggestion above to run flat wire under the carpet exiting through a hole/slit close to the speaker stand. Another possibility is running wire behind the baseboard if that hasn't been installed yet. Then complete the final yard or so underneath the carpet to the speaker.

Be pretty sure where you want the final positions of the speakers to be, because once you've done this, you're fixed. But you have a great opportunity to do a very neat and invisible job.

I hate visible wires and will go to considerable lengths to avoid them.


----------



## Patrick G

I'm concerned about the exit hole in the carpet over time. Should/Could I use a grommet? Would 12 AWG wire be the recommendation?


----------



## kbarnes701

Patrick G said:


> I'm concerned about the exit hole in the carpet over time. Should/Could I use a grommet? Would 12 AWG wire be the recommendation?


Maybe you can make the exit slit under the speaker stand itself - under the base? Then there's no possibility of any wear affecting the slit over time. I have done this in the past and had no problems with the hole fraying or getting bigger. It's a tiny slit really to get two wires through.

I use 12 AWG because I always have. It depends on the length of the wire run. How long will your speaker cables be? You could probably use 14 AWG or even 16 AWG if the runs are short.

This advice from the internet seems OK to me:

_Thick wire (12 or 14 gauge) is recommended for long wire runs, high power applications, and low-impedance speakers (4 or 6 ohms).
For relatively short runs (less than 50 feet) to 8 ohm speakers, 16 gauge wire will usually do just fine. It’s cost-effective and easy to work with._

Use the heaviest you can if you're not sure.


----------



## ereed

kbarnes701 said:


> I have had side surrounds at 90 and also at 80 and the latter gave more seamless envelopment, for me in my room. The Dolby diagram M.Zillich posted amply demonstrates that huge gap between mains and surrounds, with the 4 surrounds all bunched up together at the rear end of the room. Moving the side surrounds slightly forward closes that gap a little and creates a more 'even' distribution of speakers. In my current HT the side surrounds re at 90 degrees, but that us only because a mandatory fire exit is in the way of placing them at 80 degrees which would have been my preference otherwise, based on my experience in my old HT where the side surrounds were at 80. It's a relatively easy test for most people and I recommend such a test before finalising speaker positions.


When placing speakers slightly forward such as 80 degrees do you still fire the speakers toward each other across the room or should they be aimed at the MLP? Using bookshelf monopole speakers as an example?


----------



## jjackkrash

Patrick G said:


> I'm concerned about the exit hole in the carpet over time. Should/Could I use a grommet? Would 12 AWG wire be the recommendation?


I'd use 12 AWG if you can; but 14 is easier to bend around corners and turns and should work fine. 16 would probably also work fine, but 16 is starting to get on the thin side of good practices. 

Baseboard/trim is another option to run wires. I'd get the wires under the floor or in the baseboard/trim if that's an option. You can run baseboard down a table saw and make a dado cut on the back for the wires.


----------



## RJCarlson49

kbarnes701 said:


> Sure, totally understand that. Surrounds in the ceiling can work just fine, especially when using speakers with aimable tweeters - I have heard setups like that and been impressed with the immersion etc. The only problem in your circumstances is Atmos, not the surrounds themselves. You can get a good 7.1 experience, whereas trying also for an Atmos experience at the same time would, IMO, result in a worse sound than just a decent 7.1 system.


I have a remodel going on that will result in a big room, but it has no place for side surrounds. My current plan is to use 5.1.4 and put the 4 and 5 speakers in the rear wall. Does it make any sense to put the side surrounds in the ceiling along with the 4 atmos speakers and then have rear surrounds on the back wall for a 7.1.4 setup? It may be relevant that one side of the room is all glass and the other open to the kitchen.


----------



## Jonas2

ereed said:


> When placing speakers slightly forward such as 80 degrees do you still fire the speakers toward each other across the room or should they be aimed at the MLP? Using bookshelf monopole speakers as an example?



I have a 3 person couch with the sides at roughly 80 degrees, I find the best quality in my setup when I aim the right speaker at the left-most listener, and vice versa! Effectively puts the sounds where they should be and helps to minimize localization. YMMV - my system, the right speaker is very close to the right listener, so this aim helped that issue. Monopole speakers on stands, so easy for me to play with and that gave the best result.


----------



## usc1995

Patrick G said:


> So if I decide to do floor standing surrounds, should I consider running the speaker wire under the carpet, and then exiting up through a hole in the carpet at each of the four speaker locations, or is that a bad idea? I can probably get the side speakers fairly close to a wall, or even the MLP sectional, but the backs wouldn't be near a wall, they could only be near the sectional. Or do I just need to plan on visible speaker wire if I decide to do floor surrounds in this open floor plan? Reminder this is new construction.


If this were my install I would just have the builder run the speaker wire to the wall between the slider and the window and terminate it with a wall jack like the one attached. You could then plug and unplug the floor standing surround speaker as needed and move it around easily. If that wire from the wall to the speaker was too troublesome for you or not allowed for WAF reasons then you should use a floor plate like the other picture attached and just have it placed in the floor where you think you will have your floor standing surround.


----------



## Patrick G

Great advice, but I fear I can't be precise enough, this early, to get the back surround stand placement right. Pretty sure I could get the sides done easily enough, but the backs scare me, especially since we haven't 100% decided on what piece of furniture (likely a U-shaped sectional) will serve as our MLP.


----------



## sdurani

ereed said:


> When placing speakers slightly forward such as 80 degrees do you still fire the speakers toward each other across the room or should they be aimed at the MLP?


Same as all your other speakers; do you have them cross-toed or aimed at the MLP?


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> When placing speakers slightly forward such as 80 degrees do you still fire the speakers toward each other across the room or should they be aimed at the MLP? Using bookshelf monopole speakers as an example?


Personally I have always oriented all my speakers towards MLP. (Monopoles). Or, as Sanjay said, crossed in an energy-trading way. But definitely aimed in the general direction of MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

RJCarlson49 said:


> I have a remodel going on that will result in a big room, but it has no place for side surrounds. My current plan is to use 5.1.4 and put the 4 and 5 speakers in the rear wall. Does it make any sense to put the side surrounds in the ceiling along with the 4 atmos speakers and then have rear surrounds on the back wall for a 7.1.4 setup? It may be relevant that one side of the room is all glass and the other open to the kitchen.


As we discussed a few posts back, in my view Atmos requires a significant angular separation between the floor level speakers and the overheads, so mixing surrounds and Atmos speakers on the ceiling isn't going to work. I'm not personally dead against having surrounds in the ceiling (absent total possibility of having them just above ear level) and have heard 7.1 systems which sounded pretty good with that arrangement, albeit less than ideal. But mixing Atmos overhead speakers and surrounds, all above your head on the ceiling, would be a definite no-no for me.


----------



## PioManiac

kbarnes701 said:


> Personally I have always oriented all my speakers towards MLP. (Monopoles). Or, as Sanjay said, crossed in an energy-trading way. But definitely aimed in the general direction of MLP.



^^^^THIS

Every sub/speaker toe'd and tilted toward the Sweet Spot 










I'm currently at 7.4.4, was totally ready with enough matched speakers for 7.4.6,
but the new 2018 Yamaha models still don't offer the magical elusive .6 

I could probably Frankenstein several AVR's together, now that I have 4 available to me.
But I decided to add Crowsons to my seating first, 7.4.4.4


----------



## gene4ht

PioManiac said:


> I'm currently at 7.4.4, was totally ready with enough matched speakers for 7.4.6,
> *but the new 2018 Yamaha models still don't offer the magical elusive .6 *



Slightly OT...but I'm in a similar position. I've had 3 pairs of in-ceilings (TF,TM,TR and two rows of seating) installed for almost two years and waiting for a single box Onkyo solution...curious why the 8500 doesn't appeal to you...thx!


----------



## PioManiac

gene4ht said:


> Slightly OT...but I'm in a similar position. I've had 3 pairs of in-ceilings (TF,TM,TR and two rows of seating) installed for almost two years and waiting for a single box Onkyo solution...curious *why the 8500 doesn't appeal to you*...thx!


Because Yamaha doesn't make it 
I don't really like Denon, but even if I did, the 8500 is $5000 in Canada. 

The Marantz 8805 pre/pro would be my preference if I _Had_ to switch teams,
But that's $6000, then I'd still have to buy amplifiers to go with it. 

That's just WAY too much for just an extra pair of Top Middle speakers for me ATM.

When I saw the 2018 Yamaha RX-A3080's would not support 7.2.6, 

I immediately ran out and picked up the lone remaining discontinued RX-A3070 for $600 less. $2K CAD (~$1500USD)
(to replace my 3 y/o RX-A3050 that has no Dolby Vision or Alexa support)

I ordered up some Crowson's instead of spending more on TM.


----------



## ereed

sdurani said:


> Same as all your other speakers; do you have them cross-toed or aimed at the MLP?





kbarnes701 said:


> Personally I have always oriented all my speakers towards MLP. (Monopoles). Or, as Sanjay said, crossed in an energy-trading way. But definitely aimed in the general direction of MLP.


I have mine currently at 90 degrees facing MLP with my rears firing straight to front screen. That's how I see it in dedicated theaters. Do they actually have rear speakers firing at front of screen or aimed at MLP when its in backer box? Hard to tell looking at images.

I have mine on stands and will see how 80 degrees is compared to 90 degrees with slight toe in or middle of MLP. I'm just wondering if I should turn the stands (which will stick out more from floor) or just turn the speaker itself without moving the stand? It makes sense having it slightly in front depending on how far rears are. My sides and rears are all 6 feet from MLP while the mains and center are 10 feet from MLP. Here is my side/rears currently, will try 80 degree to see if I like it. This is first time I've heard of 80 degree and it sounds interesting.

Pic showing rears/sides.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2378488&d=1521655737


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> They are my goals too, but there is a difference between a cinema setup and a home theater setup, not least of which is that we don't use arrays of surround speakers. Dolby is an outlier in their suggestion for 7.1 layout. AFAIK all the other 'authorities' give a flexible range of potential positions for side surrounds, as per the ITU diagram I posted before. I don't think it is inconsistent with our personal objectives to 'close the biggest gap' between speakers that exists in our setups, which is the gap between mains and rear surrounds. By making that gap more equitable between the three sets of speakers (mains, side surrounds, rear surrounds) instead of having two sets (side and rear surrounds) bunched up at the back and then a big gap to the mains*, it does help with the creation of a seamless transition from front to back.
> 
> The people who made the movie made it for a large commercial cinema, not for us at home, so there has to be some flexibility and latitude I think, even though I totally agree with your objective. I don't like the idea of re-writing the ending of _War and Peace_ or repainting the smile on _Mona Lisa_, just because I have my own preference as to what they should really be
> 
> *The diagram you posted shows this perfectly.


You make some good points here and I'm glad you don't want art re-written either. 

New topic. Holman has done studies on the perception of pinpoint sound image localization based on direction and has found it is night and day more precise for our forward hemisphere than for the back hemisphere so quibbling about surround speaker placement is not a huge priority for me. Heck, my left and right side surrounds don't even mirror each other either due to room constraints so I'm one to talk about breaking guidelines!


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> You make some good points here and I'm glad you don't want art re-written either.


Oh, you and I are in perfect agreement on that! Like you, I want my setup to reproduce, as transparently as possible, whatever is on the disc. If I don't like it, I don't like it - but at least I know for sure exactly _what_ I am not liking 



m. zillch said:


> New topic. Holman has done studies on the perception of pinpoint sound image localization based on direction and has found it is night and day more precise for our forward hemisphere than for the back hemisphere so quibbling about surround speaker placement is not a huge priority for me. Heck, my left and right side surrounds don't even mirror each other either due to room constraints so I'm one to talk about breaking guidelines!


Yes, we cannot hear sounds from behind us or above us nearly as well as sounds from in front of us, thanks to the shape of our ears and millions of years of evolution in our brains.

But... I still think that what we are aiming for is an immersive experience which is as seamless as possible. There shouldn't be any 'gaps' in that immersive experience or any sudden 'jumps' as sounds transition from front to rear, or around the room. So filling any gaps between speaker sets should help with that aim. (I'm focusing just on floor level speakers, but the 'dome' of immersion which Atmos helps create is similar with regard to the aim of a seamless transition).

I agree with you that a lot of overthinking can go on in these threads.  And FWIW my side surrounds are currently at 90 degrees even though I am arguing for them to be at 80 degrees (and would prefer them at 80 degrees but can't accommodate them at that location due to a mandatory (in the UK) fire exit being in the way). Yet even so, I do not perceive any loss of seamless transition from front to back. You're right, this isn't the most important thing to get right


----------



## sdurani

ereed said:


> Pic showing rears/sides.
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2378488&d=1521655737


Oh wow, those Sides & Rears are really close to the listeners. I would definitely try pointing them at the listener farthest away and re-running auto-calibration on your receiver.


----------



## ereed

sdurani said:


> Oh wow, those Sides & Rears are really close to the listeners. I would definitely try pointing them at the listener farthest away and re-running auto-calibration on your receiver.


You talking about rear speakers aiming at the opposite listener such as they criss cross each other rather than firing forward? 

My prepro doesn't have eq calibration (2004) model so I just use spl meter and test tones. I do have the rears/sides 2db lower than the front 3 speakers.

The previous pic does make it appear its much closer than it actually is. From the MLP (center of couch) each speaker is 6 ft away. Here is another pic showing how far the rears are to get an idea. Excuse the mess (playing with REW). But I will try to aim the speakers like you mentioned and possibly move the sides few inches in front of my ears when seated and possibly aim to opposite side of listeners.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Hey guys, 

Long time no see! (again) 

I was trying to keep track of news @ Cedia but haven't seen a lot of what's come out I don't think. 

I do see Emotiva came out with that receiver that can do 9.1.6 for 5,000 bucks. Does that include support for front wides? 
Have other receivers begun re-implementing front wides? 

I'm also wondering if there are any other flagship models that are doing 9.1.6 for under 5,000? 
Or if anyone has heard whispers of that coming in the future? 

Lastly, I think I saw something regarding Atmos blurays and how they are mixed in 7.1.4, is that true? If so that bl--.... sucks. I thought the whole point of Atmos was that it's supposed to scale to any speaker config. 

Hope you all are well!


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Long time no see! (again)
> 
> I was trying to keep track of news @ Cedia but haven't seen a lot of what's come out I don't think.
> 
> I do see Emotiva came out with that receiver that can do 9.1.6 for 5,000 bucks. Does that include support for front wides?
> Have other receivers begun re-implementing front wides?
> 
> I'm also wondering if there are any other flagship models that are doing 9.1.6 for under 5,000?
> Or if anyone has heard whispers of that coming in the future?
> 
> Lastly, I think I saw something regarding Atmos blurays and how they are mixed in 7.1.4, is that true? If so that bl--.... sucks. I thought the whole point of Atmos was that it's supposed to scale to any speaker config.
> 
> Hope you all are well!


Hey! Welcome back!

The Emo will do Wides AFAIK. The RMC-1 will have capability of 11.5.8 with add-on modules. Scheduled release is November this year. Take that with a whole ton of salt based on Emo's past rep for reliable release dates though.

Some studios are 'pre-rendering' Atmos tracks as 7.x.4 - but it's by no means mainstream (yet). But yes, it sucks (unless you have a 7.x.4 system like me of course, in which case it doesn't matter, although it still sucks and anyone contemplating going beyond 7.x.4 in the future will not be happy for obvious reasons).


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> You talking about rear speakers aiming at the opposite listener such as they criss cross each other rather than firing forward?


I have attached a technical diagram illustrating the principle 










A loudspeaker is loudest when you are on-axis to it. The person closest to the left speaker is slightly off-axis to the speaker, so he hears it as less loud, but since he is closer to it that is OK. Ditto for the person closest to the right speaker. This compensates for being much closer to the relevant speaker. The guy in the middle is unaffected. (Remember that speakers have a 'dispersion pattern' so the sound doesn't follow the axis line shown in the technical drawing).


----------



## sdurani

ereed said:


> You talking about rear speakers aiming at the opposite listener such as they criss cross each other rather than firing forward?


Yes, and I would try it will all speakers (Fronts, Sides, rears). Still a good idea to move the Sides slightly forward.


> My prepro doesn't have eq calibration (2004) model so I just use spl meter and test tones.


Then re-calibrate manually (always a good idea after making any changes).


----------



## ereed

kbarnes701 said:


> I have attached a technical diagram illustrating the principle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A loudspeaker is loudest when you are on-axis to it. The person closest to the left speaker is slightly off-axis to the speaker, so he hears it as less loud, but since he is closer to it that is OK. Ditto for the person closest to the right speaker. This compensates for being much closer to the relevant speaker. The guy in the middle is unaffected. (Remember that speakers have a 'dispersion pattern' so the sound doesn't follow the axis line shown in the technical drawing).


Beautiful drawing! Yes, that is what I thought you meant and thanks for the clarification. 

Also in my case I just realized 90 degree is probably not good (all speakers are ear level) since my head blocks the sound going to the other person so 80 degrees make sense here. For those with speakers 1-2 feet above head is probably not a big deal.



sdurani said:


> Yes, and I would try it will all speakers (Fronts, Sides, rears). Still a good idea to move the Sides slightly forward. Then re-calibrate manually (always a good idea after making any changes).


Perfect! Thanks for the calibration tip!


----------



## sdurani

ereed said:


> I just realized 90 degree is probably not good (all speakers are ear level) since my head blocks the sound going to the other person so 80 degrees make sense here.


Just a reminder that none of these suggestions (moving the Sides forward, cross toeing the speakers) require a permanent change. If you don't like what you hear, you can put any part or all of it back to how you have it now.


----------



## ereed

sdurani said:


> Just a reminder that none of these suggestions (moving the Sides forward, cross toeing the speakers) require a permanent change. If you don't like what you hear, you can put any part or all of it back to how you have it now.


Those are benefits of having speakers on stands!


----------



## PioManiac

X2!

...my surrounds are all bookshelf speakers on IKEA bookcases,
When I'm the only one in the MLP "sweet spot" the side speakers stay at 90º

It's pretty simple to slide them forward a few inches if I have guests over.


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> Beautiful drawing! Yes, that is what I thought you meant and thanks for the clarification.


Thanks. As you can see, I have a really good CAD software package 




ereed said:


> Also in my case I just realized 90 degree is probably not good (all speakers are ear level) since my head blocks the sound going to the other person so 80 degrees make sense here. For those with speakers 1-2 feet above head is probably not a big deal.


Yes that is definitely another benefit of using 80 degrees. It was my intention in my new HT to do exactly that, and for exactly the same reason (as well as being more immersive, potentially). I wanted my surrounds at ear level and would have been golden if I could put them at 80 degrees and then aim them for energy-trading, as per the technical drawing. However, they ended up at 90 degrees and so had to be raised a little to a) prevent 'blocking' as you describe and b) to prevent the speaker firing directly into the earhole of the people at each end of the row (although my main concern is not for them, it's for me and I don't want their heads in the way of my line of sight to each side surround - they want better, they can go spend $150,000 on their own HT! ) LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Just a reminder that none of these suggestions (moving the Sides forward, cross toeing the speakers) require a permanent change. If you don't like what you hear, you can put any part or all of it back to how you have it now.


And it's free! A _free _upgrade, potentially, with no downside.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> A loudspeaker is loudest when you are on-axis to it. The person closest to the left speaker is slightly off-axis to the speaker, so he hears it as less loud, but since he is closer to it that is OK. Ditto for the person closest to the right speaker. This compensates for being much closer to the relevant speaker. The guy in the middle is unaffected. (Remember that speakers have a 'dispersion pattern' so the sound doesn't follow the axis line shown in the technical drawing).


This principle is sometimes called "Time / Intensity Trading" . There is a cool online demo where you can actually hear for yourself how exchanging levels of intensity [dB] can be made up for (largely) by changing the L vs R time delay [milliseconds] to influence your perception of image direction here: https://auditoryneuroscience.com/spatial-hearing/time-intensity-trading 
Check it out y'all.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> This principle is sometimes called "Time / Intensity Trading" . There is a cool online demo where you can actually hear for yourself how exchanging levels of intensity [dB] can be made up for (largely) by changing the L vs R time delay [milliseconds] to influence your perception of image direction here: https://auditoryneuroscience.com/spatial-hearing/time-intensity-trading
> Check it out y'all.


Oh yes - way cool!


----------



## markus767

m. zillch said:


> This principle is sometimes called "Time / Intensity Trading" . There is a cool online demo where you can actually hear for yourself how exchanging levels of intensity [dB] can be made up for (largely) by changing the L vs R time delay [milliseconds] to influence your perception of image direction here: https://auditoryneuroscience.com/spatial-hearing/time-intensity-trading
> Check it out y'all.


That demo also illustrates the problem with time intensity trading. When using speakers there's crosstalk which has quite an impact on what is heard. Furthermore turning your head will make the phantom source move and/or makes the perceived location ambiguous.


----------



## m. zillch

markus767 said:


> Furthermore turning your head will make the phantom source move and/or makes the perceived location ambiguous.


 Yes turning your head changes the ITD by bringing one ear closer to the front so it hears less delay and the further away ear gets more delay. Level changes too. This happens with all sound including unmodified stereo but a mono speaker seems to stay put to my perception. My focus for the direction seems pretty solid then. . . . Thank you, center speakers!


----------



## markus767

m. zillch said:


> Yes turning your head changes the ITD by bringing one ear closer to the front so it hears less delay and the further away ear gets more delay. Level changes too. This happens with all sound including unmodified stereo but a mono speaker seems to stay put to my perception. My focus for the direction seems pretty solid then. . . . Thank you, center speakers!


In a time trading situation the perceived location seems more susceptible to ambiguous localization compared to simple level panned signals.


----------



## m. zillch

markus767 said:


> In a time trading situation the perceived location seems more susceptible to ambiguous localization compared to simple level panned signals.


That's why my earlier post used the word "partly" "largely". It is not a perfect trade but time/intensity trading is not meant to improve the sound for a singular listener on axis to the center line, as far as I'm concerened, what it is meant to do is to improve the sound directional focus for the people sitting off axis to your side, on your L and R.


----------



## markus767

m. zillch said:


> That's why my earlier post used the word "partly" "largely". It is not a perfect trade but time/intensity trading is not meant to improve the sound for a singular listener on axis to the center line, as far as I'm concerened, what it is meant to do is to improve the sound directional focus for the people sitting off axis to your side, on your L and R.


I know what it is used for. I just don't think it works good enough.

P.S. People do use it in a single listener situation, e.g. when there's no center speaker because of a TV or fancy LED screen.


----------



## m. zillch

markus767 said:


> I know what it is used for. I just don't think it works good enough.


Then you should get your money refunded. ha ha. For me, personally, it works better than nothing for off axis listeners but it pales in comparison to using a center channel speaker between the L and R. [I typically use this Chesky test for evaluating such things:]




On most browsers the video can be looped by right clicking the image while it is playing and selecting "loop". I find this makes tweaking speaker placement easier than having to constantly hit replay over and over again.


----------



## Molon_Labe

For those looking for Atmos speaker alternatives, I did something a bit unconventional. I recently sold my JBL Pro Cinema setup and replaced it with JBL Studio 5's that I had in various rooms throughout the house. Sadly, JBL discontinued the bookshelf speaker in this series, which left no viable, matching candidate for Atmos duties. 

One day, I looked up and said, "I bet center channels would fit nicely up there....why not?" The crazy idea went into motion. Now, I have four center channels pulling Atmos duties. The mounts allow me to angle and swivel the speakers directly at the single row of seats front and back. The low profile and the width of the speakers emit great coverage across the entire row. The shape of the center fits my angled ceilings better than I anticipated. Overall, I am very pleased with how it turned out.

Sorry, my ceilings are a mess right now. I need to patch and paint where my previous JBL SCS-8 speakers were mounted. I also had to poke holes in the sheet rock to find the next mounting stud (ceiling cross studs are not evenly spaced), since I wanted to move these a bit further back than I had my previous speakers. Outside of the unsightly mess, this may give someone some ideas if your trying to find matching speakers from the same family with limited options.


----------



## marcelolucas

Hello,

Planning to add 4 ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos but still undecided about the speakers. I currently have a Bose 5.1 Accoustimass which has served its purpose for the last 12 years. I recently got a Yamaha Aventage RX-A680 7.1 which has the option to use 2 presence speakers for Dolby Atmos. I had a couple of Sony tower speakers SS-MF315 which I am using as the front left and center, and the mounted Bose speakers as the presence speakers, and the results have been really good so far when watching Dolby Atmos movies. 

I did some research and I found that the Yamaha NSIC800WH had very good reviews, and are quite affordable. 
I also looked at the Bose 791 in ceiling, which are more expensive, but also had great reviews. 

In terms of Dolby Atmos, will it make any difference if go with a particular brand or not really? Yamaha's pair is about $200 while Bose's is about $600. 

Thanks!


----------



## Selden Ball

marcelolucas said:


> Hello,
> 
> Planning to add 4 ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos but still undecided about the speakers. I currently have a Bose 5.1 Accoustimass which has served its purpose for the last 12 years. I recently got a Yamaha Aventage RX-A680 7.1 which has the option to use 2 presence speakers for Dolby Atmos. I had a couple of Sony tower speakers SS-MF315 which I am using as the front left and center, and the mounted Bose speakers as the presence speakers, and the results have been really good so far when watching Dolby Atmos movies.
> 
> I did some research and I found that the Yamaha NSIC800WH had very good reviews, and are quite affordable.
> I also looked at the Bose 791 in ceiling, which are more expensive, but also had great reviews.
> 
> In terms of Dolby Atmos, will it make any difference if go with a particular brand or not really? Yamaha's pair is about $200 while Bose's is about $600.
> 
> Thanks!


In general, you'll get better results if the overhead speakers are similar in design to your ear-level speakers. That way when sounds move from one speaker to another they still sound the same. RoomEQ products, including YPAO, can make different types of speakers sound very similar to one another, but they aren't perfect. In other words, you might consider looking for some speakers from Sony which use the same tweeter and mid-range drivers as your main speakers.


----------



## vicdvp

Im trying to choose between couple of speakers for a 2 channel dolby atmosphere setup. Ive looked over the atmos documentation and looks like with my MLP being 2' feet from wall, surrounds at 44" high and roughly 12' from LCR speakers I would install two of the in ceilings slightly ahead of MLP and in line with the L&R (which are 8-10' apart). I have no intention of going with a .4 setup. The main question is should I be looking at a speaker such as the RSL C34e, or VM-615L which has an 6.5" driver ( https://rbhsound.com/vm615l.php ) with fixed offset on the driver or just a amiable tweeter such as the RBH VM-615.

Also looking over atmos documentation looks like placement is right about 80 degrees from MLP?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey! Welcome back!
> 
> The Emo will do Wides AFAIK. The RMC-1 will have capability of 11.5.8 with add-on modules. Scheduled release is November this year. Take that with a whole ton of salt based on Emo's past rep for reliable release dates though.
> 
> Some studios are 'pre-rendering' Atmos tracks as 7.x.4 - but it's by no means mainstream (yet). But yes, it sucks (unless you have a 7.x.4 system like me of course, in which case it doesn't matter, although it still sucks and anyone contemplating going beyond 7.x.4 in the future will not be happy for obvious reasons).


Thanks Keith for the info, I heard you moved into your new space with a killer theater now?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks Keith for the info, I heard you moved into your new space with a killer theater now?



Yeah, I love it. Link is in my signature if you want to take a look.


----------



## meli

I own a couple of Atmos music discs (REM and Booka Shade) that I ripped to a USB drive using MakeMKV and DVD Audio Extractor. The FLAC files will not play on my Oppo-103, no audio at all is produced and the "timer" doesn't move, it stays at 0:00.

Any ideas? The FLAC files play fine on my computer with VLC and VOX. And I've played the Atmos demo disc files via USB on my Oppo with no problems.

Thanks.


----------



## Roger Dressler

meli said:


> FLAC files will not play on my Oppo-103, no audio at all is produced and the "timer" doesn't move, it stays at 0:00.


Looking at the BDP-105 manual, it says nothing about playing FLAC files.


----------



## meli

Roger Dressler said:


> Looking at the BDP-105 manual, it says nothing about playing FLAC files.


Strange that the manual doesn't mention it, but the OPPO can play FLAC files, even 5.1 FLAC files, but maybe it can't handle 8 channel FLAC files.  I'll try PCM maybe. Thanks.


----------



## deano86

meli said:


> Strange that the manual doesn't mention it, but the OPPO can play FLAC files, even 5.1 FLAC files, but maybe it can't handle 8 channel FLAC files.  I'll try PCM maybe. Thanks.


I am confused... why are you converting Atmos music files to FLAC? Isn't that defeating the point of them being in Atmos sound?


----------



## meli

deano86 said:


> I am confused... why are you converting Atmos music files to FLAC? Isn't that defeating the point of them being in Atmos sound?


To get them off a disc. So my music is on a USB drive. I'm not sure what you mean by defeating the purpose. Am I missing something fundamental, that it's not possible to rip ATMOS discs? Do I have to rip from the disc to a M2TS file?

But yeah, it looks like the OPPO can only handle 6 channel FLAC files.

Edit: So I tried again using DVD Audio Extractor and exporting to AIFF and WAV files. Both carry all 8 channels, which is a step forward. But both are routing the 2 Atmos channels to the Surround Back speakers. Anyone have an idea how to fix that? Thanks!


----------



## meli

deano86 said:


> I am confused... why are you converting Atmos music files to FLAC? Isn't that defeating the point of them being in Atmos sound?


So my fundamental idea to use FLAC was flawed, but I got it working. I opened the BDMV file, then the STREAM folder, and copied the M2TS files to my USB drive. Renamed the files as the track names. And the OPPO is able to play the M2TS files as ATMOS. Thank you for the help.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Does the Atmos spec allow for a centre channel mounted over the tv rather than under ? That has been my set-up for the past 15 years but obviously one of the results is that it already steers a great deal of sound higher rather than lower. I've added my Atmos speakers and can certainly hear the extra effects but wonder if mixes with steering effects are designed for a centre channel 
under the tv.

I tried a search but came up with nothing....


----------



## m. zillch

bobbyhollywood said:


> Does the Atmos spec allow for a centre channel mounted over the tv rather than under ?


Yes. The best location is the center of the TV screen, behind it, using an acoustically transparent screen so the sound can shoot through. This is what we experience in actual commercial movie theaters. The front three speakers ideally should be at the same tweeter height so all three are usually behind the screen actually.

For home use with acoustically opaque screens we try to come as close to that as possible and mounting close to the screen either just below or just above are usually our best shot of keeping the sound and visual image coincident or what in science is called "perceptually fused together". An illusion takes over called the "proximity effect" where the closest visual object we see, such as moving lips, helps steer our perception of where the sound is coming from even though it is a few degrees away. Some also call this the ventriloquist effect because it is analogous to how a live ventriloquist's voice seems to come from the dummy even though in truth it doesn't.

I would advise_ against _mounting the side L and R below the screen and the center above though because as an object in the movie pans L to R it will seem to go up in the middle and then descend back down when it reaches the other side, as if it were going over a hill. If you mount the center over the TV I'd suggest being sure the tweeter height of the main L and R speakers bisect the TV in two.


----------



## mrtickleuk

meli said:


> Edit: So I tried again using DVD Audio Extractor and exporting to AIFF and WAV files. Both carry *all 8 channels*, which is a step forward. But both are routing *the 2 Atmos channels* to the Surround Back speakers. Anyone have an idea how to fix that? Thanks!


First, I can see from your later post that you got it working ok, that's great.

Just wanted to pick up on your misunderstanding above, where you talked about "the" atmos channels. Atmos does not work like that. The extra atmos data is object data and NOT channel data.  What comes out of the speakers - any speaker including the 2 or 4 (or sometimes more) overhead speakers, is not from "the 2 Atmos channels".


----------



## chucky7

Molon_Labe said:


> I looked up and said, "I bet center channels would fit nicely up there....why not?" The crazy idea went into motion. Now, I have four center channels pulling Atmos duties. The mounts allow me to angle and swivel the speakers directly at the single row of seats front and back. The low profile and the width of the speakers emit great coverage across the entire row. The shape of the center fits my angled ceilings better than I anticipated. Overall, I am very pleased with how it turned out.


I am under the impression that MTM centers are a compromise and would present lobing issues... Aren't you better off just hanging regular bookshelf speakers horizontally? Of course, you should rotate the tweeter if you do that. Then that does limit the bookshelves that are suitable for horizontal placement.


----------



## Molon_Labe

chucky7 said:


> I am under the impression that MTM centers are a compromise and would present lobing issues... Aren't you better off just hanging regular bookshelf speakers horizontally? Of course, you should rotate the tweeter if you do that. Then that does limit the bookshelves that are suitable for horizontal placement.


There are no bookshelf speakers available in the JBL Studio 5 series family. JBL discontinued the Studio 530 (bookshelf) years ago and finding them on the used market is like trying to find a rainbow unicorn. In the rare event they are found, they are ridiculously priced and usually from Japan or Europe I would rather have no Atmos speakers than non-matching (personal choice). I agree that MTM has some inherent design flaws. However, I had no other options. Considering that probably 98% of the HT crowd use MTM speakers for the actual center channel, which is a critical component carrying most of the front stage workload, I think I will be OK with the small amount of Atmos/DTS:X content going through them. I use a matching tower for my center channel behind the screen.

I would rather deal with minor lobing than a speaker from a different family. These use compression drivers, not tweeters. Even if I went outside the speaker family, choices are limited. In short, I agree with you. With no other options available, I made a compromise. Had other options been available, I would have gone a different route. With that said, I can't detect any perceivable issues thus far compared to my previous JBL SCS-8 speakers that were designed for Atmos/surround duties with a 120x120 dispersion pattern with a single 8" driver. These centers are actually doing a pretty decent bang-up job.

Chris


----------



## sdurani

bobbyhollywood said:


> Does the Atmos spec allow for a centre channel mounted over the tv rather than under ? ... wonder if mixes with steering effects are designed for a centre channel under the tv.


No, there no provision in Atmos or DTS:X or any other home format to address how high or low the Centre speaker is placed. You are free to place your Centre speaker anywhere you want, but the Atmos and DTS:X renderers in your AVR will always assume that your Centre speaker is exactly between your Front L/R speakers. Same as it's always been.


----------



## m. zillch

bobbyhollywood said:


> Does the Atmos spec allow for a centre channel mounted over the tv rather than under ?


 Some Yamaha units offer a feature called "dialogue lift" which for customers with a center speaker mounted _below_ the TV have an option to create an illusion of "lifting" it upwards by mixing some of its sound into the elevated "front presence" speakers mounted well above the TV. 

Some people say it can work wonders but I can't say I've ever thought to invoke it, and of course it only works "up", not "down" as you'd want.

[Center channel "spread", found in some varieties of Dolby Surround processing, which blends the center channel partly into the side L and R, might sort of work? Kinda? . ]


----------



## chucky7

Molon_Labe said:


> There are no bookshelf speakers available in the JBL Studio 5 series family. JBL discontinued the Studio 530 (bookshelf) years ago and finding them on the used market is like trying to find a rainbow unicorn. In the rare event they are found, they are ridiculously priced and usually from Japan or Europe I would rather have no Atmos speakers than non-matching (personal choice). I agree that MTM has some inherent design flaws. However, I had no other options. Considering that probably 98% of the HT crowd use MTM speakers for the actual center channel, which is a critical component carrying most of the front stage workload, I think I will be OK with the small amount of Atmos/DTS:X content going through them. I use a matching tower for my center channel behind the screen.
> 
> I would rather deal with minor lobing than a speaker from a different family. These use compression drivers, not tweeters. Even if I went outside the speaker family, choices are limited. In short, I agree with you. With no other options available, I made a compromise. Had other options been available, I would have gone a different route. With that said, I can't detect any perceivable issues thus far compared to my previous JBL SCS-8 speakers that were designed for Atmos/surround duties with a 120x120 dispersion pattern with a single 8" driver. These centers are actually doing a pretty decent bang-up job.
> 
> Chris


Yeah. It's all a compromise, especially when matching the brand / series is important to you. Maybe a WTMW center (if one is available) would be alright to use as ATMOS speakers? Of course it will become expensive soon... LOL...

What matters is if YOU can tell the difference.


----------



## imureh

Molon_Labe said:


> For those looking for Atmos speaker alternatives, I did something a bit unconventional. I recently sold my JBL Pro Cinema setup and replaced it with JBL Studio 5's that I had in various rooms throughout the house. Sadly, JBL discontinued the bookshelf speaker in this series, which left no viable, matching candidate for Atmos duties.
> 
> One day, I looked up and said, "I bet center channels would fit nicely up there....why not?" The crazy idea went into motion. Now, I have four center channels pulling Atmos duties. The mounts allow me to angle and swivel the speakers directly at the single row of seats front and back. The low profile and the width of the speakers emit great coverage across the entire row. The shape of the center fits my angled ceilings better than I anticipated. Overall, I am very pleased with how it turned out.
> 
> Sorry, my ceilings are a mess right now. I need to patch and paint where my previous JBL SCS-8 speakers were mounted. I also had to poke holes in the sheet rock to find the next mounting stud (ceiling cross studs are not evenly spaced), since I wanted to move these a bit further back than I had my previous speakers. Outside of the unsightly mess, this may give someone some ideas if your trying to find matching speakers from the same family with limited options.




How did you mount these? From what I see there is not bracket in the back for the speaker. So how did were these mouthed and using what kind of mount? Did you make holes in the side of the speaker and then used a bracket to hold them with a mount?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## howard68

I found on you tube about the Emotiva RMC1 
It states that you can pay $600 to add extra 4 channels per board up to 24 channels
That would give you a run for your money over the really expensive $20.000 + 
If it really gets released


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Well, we are still working on the rest of the house hence I haven't been pushing to finish the HT. But we are getting there! 









So, now that Emotiva has been hinting that the upcoming RMC-1 will be capable of more than 16 channels - I counted on 9.2.4 - should I add more speakers? Here are the possibilities:

1/ add TM. Seems like a no-brainer. TF/TR are in the preferred +45°/-45° elevation and I always hoped I could add TM in between. 

2/ add Front Height. Mmm... Guidelines say +30° (up to 45°) elevation against front wall. Cannot do that, it's °22.5°. However, that is right between ear level front LCR (0°) and said TF (+45°). I really like the idea. I tried FH long ago with my Yamaha AVR and I found it added a great sense of depth to the scene in front. Thoughts on the fact of the 22.5° elevation limit?

3/ add Center Surround straight behind MLP. I know having a single rear surround (in a 6.1) is not optimal but I am convinced adding it to 7.1 (or 7.1 + Wides) is simply closing the only gap left in the circle. Woud you agree?

4/ add up to 3 subs. I can add 1 in the back and 2 to the right to the front pair. I would measure first before doing these.

After completion this would be 10.5.8 (23 channels, needing 2 extensions of 4 outputs each on the RMC-1)


----------



## Selden Ball

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Well, we are still working on the rest of the house hence I haven't been pushing to finish the HT. But we are getting there!
> 
> View attachment 2456650
> 
> 
> So, now that Emotiva has been hinting that the upcoming RMC-1 will be capable of more than 16 channels - I counted on 9.2.4 - should I add more speakers? Here are the possibilities:
> 
> 1/ add TM. Seems like a no-brainer. TF/TR are in the preferred +45°/-45° elevation and I always hoped I could add TM in between.


TM might be particularly useful if you have more than one row of seating.

However, a surprise for some who have D&M AV8805 or AVR-X8500H equipment (which support 7.1.6) was that installing TM speakers along with TF and TR resulted in the TF and TR speakers often being silent. This happened because some soundtracks which which had been using all 4 TF and TM speakers now were using only the 2 TM speakers. To people's surprise, both TF and TR overhead speakers had been in use because Atmos had been "phantom imaging" sound objects which actually were positioned at a fixed central overhead position. (I think Dolby's Amaze demo might be one of those soundtracks.)


> 2/ add Front Height. Mmm... Guidelines say +30° (up to 45°) elevation against front wall. Cannot do that, it's °22.5°. However, that is right between ear level front LCR (0°) and said TF (+45°). I really like the idea. I tried FH long ago with my Yamaha AVR and I found it added a great sense of depth to the scene in front. Thoughts on the fact of the 22.5° elevation limit?


You should try it to find out if you like it. It doesn't have to be a permanent installation, nor do the speakers designated Front Height have to be physically located at the top of the wall.


> 3/ add Center Surround straight behind MLP. I know having a single rear surround (in a 6.1) is not optimal but I am convinced adding it to 7.1 (or 7.1 + Wides) is simply closing the only gap left in the circle. Woud you agree?


Center Surround probably isn't the best choice because sounds which originate directly behind you phantom image so they seem to be coming from in front of you. I experienced this recently while testing some speaker connections and it was quite disconcerting. Supposedly because of this, the Dolby Surround upmixer does not use that channel at all: the Center Surround channel stays silent when using DSU.


> 4/ add up to 3 subs. I can add 1 in the back and 2 to the right to the front pair. I would measure first before doing these.


Using multiple subs to smooth out the in-room bass response is very appropriate a when you want the bass to be its best at most seating locations.


> After completion this would be 10.5.8 (23 channels, needing 2 extensions of 4 outputs each on the RMC-1)


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> I counted on 9.2.4 - should I add more speakers?


For a single row of listeners, I would stick with 9.2.4.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> However, a surprise for some who have D&M AV8805 or AVR-X8500H equipment (which support 7.1.6) was that installing TM speakers along with TF and TR resulted in the TF and TR speakers often being silent. This happened because some soundtracks which which had been using all 4 TF and TM speakers now were using only the 2 TM speakers. To people's surprise, both TF and TR overhead speakers had been in use because Atmos had been "phantom imaging" sound objects which actually were positioned at a fixed central overhead position.


Yup, that's because channels in the home version of Atmos don't array like they do in the theatrical version of Atmos. Instead, channel info is reproduced by a single pair of speakers (unless those speakers are missing). So if you have TF + TM + TR configured, height channel info will be reproduced by the TM pair (all three pairs will reproduce object info, which can be sparse, leaving the TF & TR pairs relatively silent). However, if TM is not configured, then the channel info will be split to the TF & TR pairs.


> I think Dolby's Amaze demo might be one of those soundtracks.


Avengers: Infinity War and Saving Private Ryan are other examples.


----------



## erudolph

*Atmos, Rear Surrounds or ?*

Hi all... I'm a new poster to this forum. I've recently upgraded our home theater after our old Sony HD CRT died. Now that the dust is beginning to settle, I find that in addition to the 5.1 system described in my sig, I have three leftover M&K K-7s. I am wondering if I should put them to some use and, if so, what? Would a couple of them be good as rear surrounds, or perhaps two of them as height speakers? Our room has a low ceiling, maybe 7.5 feet, with exposed joists. Also, the back wall is 3 to 4 feet behind the main listening position.


Any thoughts and/or advice will be most appreciated. And if there is a better thread to post these questions in, let me know...


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> No, there no provision in Atmos or DTS:X or any other home format to address how high or low the Centre speaker is placed. You are free to place your Centre speaker anywhere you want, but the Atmos and DTS:X renderers in your AVR will always assume that your Centre speaker is exactly between your Front L/R speakers. Same as it's always been.


This is definitely the case with the current implementation of DTS:X, the spec allows for CH above the screen and CB below the screen. There have been some rumblings of a higher channel count release, time will tell.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> This is definitely the case with the current implementation of DTS:X, the spec allows for CH above the screen and CB below the screen.


Yup, those speaker locations are 45° above and 30° below the Centre speaker, respectively. Unfortunately, no way to tell the renderer where the Centre speaker is physically located (how many degrees above or below listener's ear height).


> There have been some rumblings of a higher channel count release, time will tell.


The initial DTS:X demo was a 22.2 system at CES 2015, so their intent has always been to go beyond 11.1. They confirmed at CEDIA that higher speaker count is coming; just couldn't tell me when (I suppose it will also vary by manufacturer).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lasalle said:


> This is definitely the case with the current implementation of DTS:X, the spec allows for CH above the screen and CB below the screen. There have been some rumblings of a higher channel count release, time will tell.



It may just be rumblings because DTS is hooking up with IMAX on IMAX Enhanced... but they're adding a Center Height channel using matrix steering extracted using Neural: X from the center channel information, not an added discrete channel. DTS: X is still fixed at 7.1.4. The company that bought them doesn't seem to be in any hurry to update their immersive format.


----------



## Molon_Labe

erudolph said:


> I've recently upgraded our home theater after our old Sony HD CRT died.



You definitely got an ROI on that purchase............


----------



## elninoloco

Hello all. So my Onkyo TX-NR818 HDMI Board has failed after 6 years of use. I just purchased Denon AVR‑X4400H (9.2ch) [crazy sale price whoop whoop] and will be hooking it up with an external amp to allow 11 channels (i'll be doing a 7.2.4 configuration).

Anyway, instead of going in-ceiling i've picked up two pairs of Klipsch CP-6 for on-ceiling set up. I got the two pairs at an unreal deal that i could not pass up (cheaper than Klipsch R-14sa Atmos speakers). Although the Timbre may not be 100%, it should match up with my existing Klipsch Reference 7 channel set up (at least the Logos are the exact same  ).

My question now is about the four atmos speaker placement. One, i have a 3 seat, 2 row theater room. Two, Klipsch CP-6 can swivel up to 45 degrees from the ceiling. As what I did before, i will be using the front center seat for measurements.

My main goal is to be able to experience Atmos all above WITHOUT me detecting the above speakers specific location (if that makes any sense...basically an illusion that sound is everywhere above). My second goal, is to try as best for all the seats to get Atmos experience (though i know front center will always be best)

Should I use the Dolby guide and mount them facing downwards and horizontal to the front wall (this will basically be just like ceiling speakers i believe); OR should i mount them at an angle and swivel them to point to the center seat?

Also in the Dolby guide, i noticed the speakers are a bit outside the seating zone. Are those ceiling speakers angled any, is that reason why they are out in the guide? Should i place my Klipsch CP-6 right above the outside seats on each row instead?

**I have 9.6' ceilings, although with the speaker mounted, it'll be like 9ft. I've attached an image of how my current theater dimensions and setup is.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*can in wall sides work with bookshelf rears?*

I have a 17x12 room that opens at the long back end into another long room so at the moment 5.1.4 is the option because of the difficulty with the rear surround placement. We were planning on putting the side surrounds in the wall and maybe running the wires for the rear surrounds just I case. 

My question is: if it was ever possible to do the rear surrounds one day and make it a 7.1.4 it would have to be with a bookshelf speaker with stand as there is no back wall. 

If that’s the case, would there be much loss of proper timbe matching sounds with the side surround speaker being a in wall monopole and the rear speaker being a bookshelf? 

If it’s not worth it in that configuration the. It will save me from running the extra speaker wire to rear placement...


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It may just be rumblings because DTS is hooking up with IMAX on IMAX Enhanced... but they're adding a Center Height channel using matrix steering extracted using Neural: X from the center channel information, not an added discrete channel.


Actually, there is no matrixing involved. IMAX's high centre channel will be delivered as an object that will natively render below the Centre Height but above the Centre speaker (hopefully near the top of your screen, where those sounds would have imaged in IMAX theatres). On 7.1.4 set-ups, that object will be reproduced by 3 speakers: left Front Height, right Front Height and Centre (to pull the phantom image downward).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may just be rumblings because DTS is hooking up with IMAX on IMAX Enhanced... but they're adding a Center Height channel using matrix steering extracted using Neural: X from the center channel information, not an added discrete channel.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there is no matrixing involved. IMAX's high centre channel will be delivered as an object that will natively render below the Centre Height but above the Centre speaker (hopefully near the top of your screen, where those sounds would have imaged in IMAX theatres). On 7.1.4 set-ups, that object will be reproduced by 3 speakers: left Front Height, right Front Height and Centre (to pull the phantom image downward).
Click to expand...

Where are you hearing this? It contradicts what was reported at CEDIA. Namely, that DTS: X was not increasing its discrete speaker count and the extra IMAX speaker had to be matrix derived. Maybe they'll change that to an object later on, but not now.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where are you hearing this? It contradicts what was reported at CEDIA. Namely, that DTS: X was not increasing its discrete speaker count and the extra IMAX speaker had to be matrix derived. Maybe they'll change that to an object later on, but not now.


Confirmed it at CEDIA with DTS (made sure it was one of their engineers, not a marketing rep). The IMAX high centre was always intended to be an object that phantom imaged between the 3 speakers I mentioned. 

You already know how object rendering works: if you place an object between the Left and Centre speakers, it will phantom image at that location in the front soundstage; no matrixing involved. Same with the high centre object. The home DTS:X format doesn't have a speaker at that location (it's lowest height speaker is 45° up), so this object has to be reproduced as a phantom image. 

As for increasing speaker count, DTS has been working on that since DTS:X first debuted. Who knows when it will show up. But it's unrelated to the IMAX Enhanced program, which is based around a 7.1.4 speaker layout.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you hearing this? It contradicts what was reported at CEDIA. Namely, that DTS: X was not increasing its discrete speaker count and the extra IMAX speaker had to be matrix derived. Maybe they'll change that to an object later on, but not now.
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmed it at CEDIA with DTS (made sure it was one of their engineers, not a marketing rep). The IMAX high centre was always intended to be an object that phantom imaged between the 3 speakers I mentioned.
> 
> You already know how object rendering works: if you place an object between the Left and Centre speakers, it will phantom image at that location in the front soundstage; no matrixing involved. Same with the high centre object. The home DTS:X format doesn't have a speaker at that location (it's lowest height speaker is 45° up), so this object has to be reproduced as a phantom image.
> 
> As for increasing speaker count, DTS has been working on that since DTS:X first debuted. Who knows when it will show up. But it's unrelated to the IMAX Enhanced program, which is based around a 7.1.4 speaker layout.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. 🙂


----------



## Selden Ball

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a 17x12 room that opens at the long back end into another long room so at the moment 5.1.4 is the option because of the difficulty with the rear surround placement. We were planning on putting the side surrounds in the wall and maybe running the wires for the rear surrounds just I case.
> 
> My question is: if it was ever possible to do the rear surrounds one day and make it a 7.1.4 it would have to be with a bookshelf speaker with stand as there is no back wall.
> 
> If that’s the case, would there be much loss of proper timbe matching sounds with the side surround speaker being a in wall monopole and the rear speaker being a bookshelf?


I'd expect there to be (uncorrected) timbre problems caused both by the differences in the speakers' designs and by their placement. Speakers which are out in the open sound quite different from identical speakers next to a wall. Whether this is a problem depends on the quality of the roomEQ software you use. For example, apparently Dirac Live can do a very good job of making them sound similar to one another.


> If it’s not worth it in that configuration the. It will save me from running the extra speaker wire to rear placement...


Only you can decide if the expansion in the soundstage is worth the effort. I'd say it is, but that's just my personal opinion, not knowing how much work would be involved in running the speaker cables in your room. (FWIW, don't forget that flat speaker cables are available which hide very well under carpeting.)


----------



## m. zillch

elninoloco said:


> Should I use the Dolby guide and mount them facing downwards and horizontal to the front wall (this will basically be just like ceiling speakers i believe); OR should i mount them at an angle and swivel them to point to the center seat?.


They mount the .75 inch dome tweeter at the base of a traxtric horn and describe the output pattern as "90 degrees x 90 degrees" but without seeing a polar response curve it is hard to say if this holds true for *all *frequencies and of course there's always some attenuation as you near the 90 degree's edge point, especially in the highs.

I would recommend conducting a test yourself: play some pink noise into the speaker while holding it in your hands and rotate it [pivot the axis you hear it at]. If indeed there is no loss of high frequencies as you approach 45 degrees off axis then they seem to be fairly representing the grand total spray, 45 degrees off to each side, accurately. In a nutshell the answer to your question is how to keep the most (or most important) audience members within the full frequency range spray. 

My bet is swiveling the speakers, at least the ones mounted furthest away, will be necessary. Let us know what you find.


----------



## Selden Ball

elninoloco said:


> Hello all. So my Onkyo TX-NR818 HDMI Board has failed after 6 years of use. I just purchased Denon AVR‑X4400H (9.2ch) [crazy sale price whoop whoop] and will be hooking it up with an external amp to allow 11 channels (i'll be doing a 7.2.4 configuration).
> 
> Anyway, instead of going in-ceiling i've picked up two pairs of Klipsch CP-6 for on-ceiling set up. I got the two pairs at an unreal deal that i could not pass up (cheaper than Klipsch R-14sa Atmos speakers). Although the Timbre may not be 100%, it should match up with my existing Klipsch Reference 7 channel set up (at least the Logos are the exact same  ).
> 
> My question now is about the four atmos speaker placement. One, i have a 3 seat, 2 row theater room. Two, Klipsch CP-6 can swivel up to 45 degrees from the ceiling. As what I did before, i will be using the front center seat for measurements.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to experience Atmos all above WITHOUT me detecting the above speakers specific location (if that makes any sense...basically an illusion that sound is everywhere above). My second goal, is to try as best for all the seats to get Atmos experience (though i know front center will always be best)
> 
> Should I use the Dolby guide and mount them facing downwards and horizontal to the front wall (this will basically be just like ceiling speakers i believe); OR should i mount them at an angle and swivel them to point to the center seat?


The latter. 

For speakers to work well while pointed straight down requires that they have a special design with very wide dispersion. This is so that high frequencies are spread out over the listening area. Unfortunately, most bookshelf designs provide a relatively narrow dispersion, exacerbating the loss of high frequencies when listening off axis. They need to be pointed toward the audience.


> Also in the Dolby guide, i noticed the speakers are a bit outside the seating zone. Are those ceiling speakers angled any, is that reason why they are out in the guide? Should i place my Klipsch CP-6 right above the outside seats on each row instead?


 In general, Dolby recommends that the overhead speakers in a home Atmos environment be in-line with the front main speakers. If the seating is wider than that, though, some people prefer the overhead speakers to be farther apart so that sounds from overhead are spread out around the audience instead of seeming to come from close to the center of the ceiling.


> **I have 9.6' ceilings, although with the speaker mounted, it'll be like 9ft. I've attached an image of how my current theater dimensions and setup is.


----------



## camd5pt0

Nice setup. But geez the first pic made it look like the speakers are on the couch lol


----------



## Guess21

Hi all, i would like to know is my SVS prime elevation speaker placement is acceptable for atoms. As i am new and would like to setup 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. Due to limited space constraints, i could put the atmos speaker as attached photos. May i know is it ok to mount 2 speakers at the side for atmos or is it better to have 4 speakers instead? Will my front right speaker sound will be affected due to the distance and the ceiling fan?









Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

Selden Ball said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 17x12 room that opens at the long back end into another long room so at the moment 5.1.4 is the option because of the difficulty with the rear surround placement. We were planning on putting the side surrounds in the wall and maybe running the wires for the rear surrounds just I case.
> 
> My question is: if it was ever possible to do the rear surrounds one day and make it a 7.1.4 it would have to be with a bookshelf speaker with stand as there is no back wall.
> 
> If that’s the case, would there be much loss of proper timbe matching sounds with the side surround speaker being a in wall monopole and the rear speaker being a bookshelf?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd expect there to be (uncorrected) timbre problems caused both by the differences in the speakers' designs and by their placement. Speakers which are out in the open sound quite different from identical speakers next to a wall. Whether this is a problem depends on the quality of the roomEQ software you use. For example, apparently Dirac Live can do a very good job of making them sound similar to one another.
> 
> 
> 
> If it’s not worth it in that configuration the. It will save me from running the extra speaker wire to rear placement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only you can decide if the expansion in the soundstage is worth the effort. I'd say it is, but that's just my personal opinion, not knowing how much work would be involved in running the speaker cables in your room. (FWIW, don't forget that flat speaker cables are available which hide very well under carpeting.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help-I will run the wire before it gets finished just in case and then hope that if I ever do this configuration the Dirac from the NAD I plan on getting will correct the difference between the in wall sides and the future bookshelf on stand rears


----------



## Selden Ball

Guess21 said:


> Hi all, i would like to know is my SVS prime elevation speaker placement is acceptable for atoms. As i am new and would like to setup 5.1.2 or 5.1.4. Due to limited space constraints, i could put the atmos speaker as attached photos. May i know is it ok to mount 2 speakers at the side for atmos or is it better to have 4 speakers instead?


4 overhead speakers are better than 2 because they provide both side-to-side and front-to-back panning.


> Will my front right speaker sound will be affected due to the distance and the ceiling fan?


Somewhat.
The receiver's calibration procedure will compensate for their different distances.

The layout you've shown for the four overhead speakers will work, it just won't be ideal. It's similar to what I had to do, FWIW.

The correct designations for that layout would be Front Height and Top Middle. However, some people report that designating them as Top Front and Top Rear results in the best Atmos sound no matter where the overhead speakers actually are located.


----------



## Guess21

Selden Ball said:


> 4 overhead speakers are better than 2 because they provide both side-to-side and front-to-back panning.
> 
> Somewhat.
> The receiver's calibration procedure will compensate for their different distances.
> 
> The layout you've shown for the four overhead speakers will work, it just won't be ideal. It's similar to what I had to do, FWIW.
> 
> The correct designations for that layout would be Front Height and Top Middle. However, some people report that designating them as Top Front and Top Rear results in the best Atmos sound no matter where the overhead speakers actually are located.


Thanks for your quick reply.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## elninoloco

m. zillch said:


> ....My bet is swiveling the speakers, at least the ones mounted furthest away, will be necessary. Let us know what you find.





Selden Ball said:


> ..... They need to be pointed toward the audience....


Good stuff and makes sense. I'll be doing this fun stuff all day saturday possible into Sunday morning (wiring and fishing cables behind ceiling should be fun). I'll most likely have a friend hold the speaker above while playing some test tones to locate proper angle.

Also found this image from Stereo.net.au forums that is very helpful


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Selden Ball said:


> TM might be particularly useful if you have more than one row of seating.
> 
> However, a surprise for some who have D&M AV8805 or AVR-X8500H equipment (which support 7.1.6) was that installing TM speakers along with TF and TR resulted in the TF and TR speakers often being silent. This happened because some soundtracks which which had been using all 4 TF and TM speakers now were using only the 2 TM speakers. To people's surprise, both TF and TR overhead speakers had been in use because Atmos had been "phantom imaging" sound objects which actually were positioned at a fixed central overhead position. (I think Dolby's Amaze demo might be one of those soundtracks.)
> 
> You should try it to find out if you like it. It doesn't have to be a permanent installation, nor do the speakers designated Front Height have to be physically located at the top of the wall.
> 
> Center Surround probably isn't the best choice because sounds which originate directly behind you phantom image so they seem to be coming from in front of you. I experienced this recently while testing some speaker connections and it was quite disconcerting. Supposedly because of this, the Dolby Surround upmixer does not use that channel at all: the Center Surround channel stays silent when using DSU.
> 
> Using multiple subs to smooth out the in-room bass response is very appropriate a when you want the bass to be its best at most seating locations.


Thanks for the reply. I was unaware that TM "overruled" TF/TR! Anyway, my starting layout is 7.2.4 (building my own speakers from DIYSG) and then add more speakers when I build them.

I did know that a speaker straight behind (@180°) is not ideal, but since that is the only gap at ear level (Rear Surrounds are +/- 135°) I figured this would enhance panning...


----------



## Selden Ball

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Thanks for the reply. I was unaware that TM "overruled" TF/TR!


I'm not sure "overrule" is the right description. Atmos is just working as designed: when a sound object is defined to be at a location where a speaker is located, then sound is emitted only from that speaker. If you have no speaker at that location, Atmos uses "phantom imaging" between adjacent speakers to make the sound seem to come from that location. 


> Anyway, my starting layout is 7.2.4 (building my own speakers from DIYSG) and then add more speakers when I build them.


That seems quite reasonable.


> I did know that a speaker straight behind (@180°) is not ideal, but since that is the only gap at ear level (Rear Surrounds are +/- 135°) I figured this would enhance panning...


Indeed it might. Atmos will use it even if DSU doesn't. I dunno if Neural:X does.

(Of course, to have a consumer implementation of Atmos which actually uses that position in addition to the usual Rear Surround speakers, you'd have to invest in a Trinnov Altitude pre/pro. Matrix decoding could be used, too, but that wouldn't be Atmos.)


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yup, that's because channels in the home version of Atmos don't array like they do in the theatrical version of Atmos. Instead, channel info is reproduced by a single pair of speakers (unless those speakers are missing). So if you have TF + TM + TR configured, height channel info will be reproduced by the TM pair (all three pairs will reproduce object info, which can be sparse, leaving the TF & TR pairs relatively silent). However, if TM is not configured, then the channel info will be split to the TF & TR pairs. Avengers: Infinity War and Saving Private Ryan are other examples.


Sanjay, I'd welcome your view on something: as you may have read, I have been vaguely toying with the idea of adding a TM pair if/when I change my AVR to support >7.x.4. But is it worthwhile? 

Currently, I get a nice solid phantom image between the TF and TR set and, of course, any object info destined for TF or TR, as well as regular height info from my TF & TR (to create that phantom image). If I did add TM (for which I am pre-wired) it seems that most of the time the TM set would be making noise, but the TF and TR set would be silent for a good part of the time, since object info is sparse to non-existent on many Atmos tracks.

So it seems to me that I would be trading the sound from my TF & TR set a lot of the time for sound from the TM pair, with the existing TF & TR doing nothing at all for a lot of the time. Do you think it's worth bothering with given the time, trouble, cost etc to implement the TM pair? Many thanks in advance for any observations.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I have been vaguely toying with the idea of adding a TM pair if/when I change my AVR to support >7.x.4. But is it worthwhile?


I don't think so, especially for a single row (like you have). If you do want to add another pair down the road, consider Wides (I think you're already pre-wired for them).


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> If I did add TM (for which I am pre-wired) it seems that most of the time the TM set would be making noise, but the TF and TR set would be silent for a good part of the time, since object info is sparse to non-existent on *many Atmos tracks*.


What's many?


----------



## howard68

Can someone who has a 7.2.6 set up talk about the sound with 6 hight speakers and list films that make use of the TM speaker


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay, I'd welcome your view on something: as you may have read, I have been vaguely toying with the idea of adding a TM pair if/when I change my AVR to support >7.x.4. But is it worthwhile?
> 
> Currently, I get a nice solid phantom image between the TF and TR set and, of course, any object info destined for TF or TR, as well as regular height info from my TF & TR (to create that phantom image). If I did add TM (for which I am pre-wired) it seems that most of the time the TM set would be making noise, but the TF and TR set would be silent for a good part of the time, since object info is sparse to non-existent on many Atmos tracks.
> 
> So it seems to me that I would be trading the sound from my TF & TR set a lot of the time for sound from the TM pair, with the existing TF & TR doing nothing at all for a lot of the time. Do you think it's worth bothering with given the time, trouble, cost etc to implement the TM pair? Many thanks in advance for any observations.





sdurani said:


> I don't think so, especially for a single row (like you have). If you do want to add another pair down the road, consider Wides (I think you're already pre-wired for them).



Sanjay...same question...I'm in the same position as Keith...but have two rows...thx!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I don't think so, especially for a single row (like you have). If you do want to add another pair down the road, consider Wides (I think you're already pre-wired for them).


Thanks Sanj - that's good info for me and echoes what I was thinking after reading your earlier posts on TM. Yes I am pre-wired for wides and think I would get much more benefit from them. Hmmm... something to think about. Thanks again.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> What's many?


It's slightly more than Lots, but not as many as Most


----------



## sdurani

gene4ht said:


> I'm in the same position as Keith...but have two rows.


I'd still stick with 2 pairs overhead. Placement would depend on whether your set-up has one row optimized + one row compromised OR both rows compromised. For the former, use the usual 45° elevation starting point forward & rearward of the main row; for the latter, place one pair forward of the front row and the other pair rearward of the back row. Maybe others can chime in with alternate ideas.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Hmmm... something to think about.


A good time to turn thoughts into action might be whenever DTS:X and Neural:X go past 11.1, so that the added Wides will get much more use than they would currently.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> A good time to turn thoughts into action might be whenever DTS:X and Neural:X go past 11.1, so that the added Wides will get much more use than they would currently.


Indeed - that makes sense, That would give me three bites of the cherry: Atmos, DTS:X and Neural:X all using the new speakers. If DSU ever decide to join in the fun, a full house! If not, three out of four ain't bad.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If DSU ever decide to join in the fun, a full house!


Dolby does keep an eye on these forums, so it's not like complaints & requests go unnoticed.


> If not, three out of four ain't bad.


Been listening to Meatloaf?


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> I'd still stick with 2 pairs overhead. Placement would depend on whether your set-up has one row optimized + one row compromised OR both rows compromised. For the former, use the usual 45° elevation starting point forward & rearward of the main row; for the latter, place one pair forward of the front row and the other pair rearward of the back row. Maybe others can chime in with alternate ideas.



Thanks Sanjay...my thoughts as well. My three pairs have been installed for some time...both rows compromised with the TM's in between. I'll experiment some with the configuration/designation variants but will likely settle on 2 pairs with one row optimized + one compromised...just waiting on competition for the 8500 before deciding on hardware.


----------



## sdurani

gene4ht said:


> I'll experiment some with the configuration/designation variants but will likely settle on 2 pairs with one row optimized + one compromised.


Keep in mind that the compromised row won't sound bad (listeners will still hear sounds above them), just won't be as good as the optimized row.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Dolby does keep an eye on these forums, so it's not like complaints & requests go unnoticed.


Good to know. Please Mr Dolby, can we have DSU using Wides some time? 



sdurani said:


> Been listening to Meatloaf?


You took the words right out of my mouth


----------



## awblackmon

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Sanj - that's good info for me and echoes what I was thinking after reading your earlier posts on TM. Yes I am pre-wired for wides and think I would get much more benefit from them. Hmmm... something to think about. Thanks again.


Don't think about it. Get out there and install them. Then you will surely know what the fuss is about with wides. I have added an additional pair to my ceiling speakers. I gave up the back surrounds to do it. Keeping wides was much higher on my list of favorite speaker positions. So for anyone who asks wides trump back surrounds. Well at least in my opinion.


----------



## kbarnes701

awblackmon said:


> Don't think about it. Get out there and install them. Then you will surely know what the fuss is about with wides. I have added an additional pair to my ceiling speakers. I gave up the back surrounds to do it. Keeping wides was much higher on my list of favorite speaker positions. So for anyone who asks wides trump back surrounds. Well at least in my opinion.


Sure. It's just that at the moment, the only content that would use Wides (for me) would be Atmos movies, which accounts for less than 2% of my library. That's because my favored upmixer is DSU and that doesn't currently use Wides as you know. Once more of the immersive formats use Wides it will be much more compelling for me to spalsh out out a new AVR and some additional speakers.


----------



## stikle

It'd be amazing if DSU was updated to use wides.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> It'd be amazing if DSU was updated to use wides.


Agreed. Sanjay says Dolby keep an eye on this thread, so if enough of us ask for DSU support for wides, who knows - we may just get it...


----------



## ahblaza

sdurani said:


> Dolby does keep an eye on these forums, so it's not like complaints & requests go unnoticed. Been listening to Meatloaf?


That's two out of three ain't bad...... I just wanted to say thanks to all here for all that you guys do, I've been following this thread for a couple months now and I really feel comfortable taking on the task of building and mounting my four coaxial Atmos speakers, I was clueless before finding this thread. I mentioned @kbarnes701 in the PSA sub thread and he was nice enough to stop by and thank me for the kind words and here I am, thanks again to all of you, really appreciate it.

Cheers Jeffrey


----------



## kbarnes701

ahblaza said:


> That's two out of three ain't bad...... I just wanted to say thanks to all here for all that you guys do, I've been following this thread for a couple months now and I really feel comfortable taking on the task of building and mounting my four coaxial Atmos speakers, I was clueless before finding this thread. I mentioned @kbarnes701 in the PSA sub thread and he was nice enough to stop by and thank me for the kind words and here I am, thanks again to all of you, really appreciate it.
> 
> Cheers Jeffrey


It's very much appreciated Jeffrey when someone takes the time to make a post like yours above. This, and many other threads here on AVS, are a fabulous resource for everyone who wants to get the best out of their interest in AV and their home theater. I know I have benefited massively from the endless help, advice and support of so many of the contributors over the years and can go so far as to say that my own HT would not be what it is today if it hadn't been for their selfless help.

I am so glad that you have found the various comments, from various members, so helpful and I wish you all the best with your Atmos adventure.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> It's slightly more than Lots, but not as many as Most


What I guess I am trying to find out is if the trend is upward or downward. Will Many in the future grow to Most, or decrease to Lots / Substantial / Some ...? I prefer to believe that it's a growing curve for re-rec engineers and studios to involve more speakers in their Atmos mixes.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> What I guess I am trying to find out is if the trend is upward or downward.


I don't think anyone has quantified it. But since we're discussing the trend rather than absolute numbers, do you think that we're getting more pre-rendered Atmos titles or fewer? Which way do you think that trend is going? Might be an indicator about the question you're asking.


----------



## m. zillch

I'm not a heavy movie collector but I wish there was a way you could look at a label or Amazon description to determine if a movie was actually made with Atmos from the get go or, as I suspect is true of some, "upsampled" electronically and largely in an automated way the original sound dudes didn't themselves listen to and sign off on. 

Since Atmos didn't exist until 2012's "Brave" I think we can safely say any earlier movie fits this latter description unless we know that they reassembled the team and had them approve of the re-do and possibly even tweak it in some beneficial ways.
Maybe with blockbusters like Titanic they do this?


----------



## gwsat

m. zillch said:


> I'm not a heavy movie collector but I wish there was a way you could look at a label or Amazon description to determine if a movie was actually made with Atmos from the get go or, as I suspect is true of some, "upsampled" electronically and largely in an automated way the original sound dudes didn't themselves listen to and sign off on.
> 
> Since Atmos didn't exist until 2012's "Brave" I think we can safely say any earlier movie fits this latter description unless we know that they reassembled the team and had them approve of the re-do and possibly even tweak it in some beneficial ways.
> Maybe with blockbusters like Titanic they do this?


A good number of older movies have been reissued with UHD HDR video and TrueHD Atmos video. That's been done with _Unforgiven, Kick Ass, Source Code,_ and _The Lincoln Lawyer,_ just to name a few. The bottom line is that sorting out whether a given film has TrueHD Atmos audio is not a trivial exercise. The good news is that more and more films are getting the Atmos treatment these days.


----------



## m. zillch

gwsat said:


> A good number of older movies have been reissued with UHD HDR video and TrueHD Atmos video. That's been done with _Unforgiven, Kick Ass, Source Code,_ and _The Lincoln Lawyer,_ just to name a few. The bottom line is that sorting out whether a given film has TrueHD Atmos audio is not a trivial exercise. The good news is that more and more films are getting the Atmos treatment these days.


Thanks. My question is not are there pre-2012 movies labelled as "Atmos". My question is was the conversion done by the original sound team who from my perspective should have some say.


----------



## Josh Z

m. zillch said:


> Thanks. My question is not are there pre-2012 movies labelled as "Atmos". My question is was the conversion done by the original sound team who from my perspective should have some say.


It's not as simple as just upmixing, where you take the existing soundtrack and filter some of the audio out of one speaker to shift it to another. The mixers need to go back to the original sound elements in order to create objects out of them which can be manipulated in a 3D space.

Whether this is necessarily the original sound team that worked on the movie from the beginning will likely vary title-by-title. For some of the deeper catalog titles, I expect that it's not the original team, but rather a new team assigned to do these Atmos rebuilds.


----------



## Afrikan

Hey everyone, I'm just starting to convert to Dolby Atmos.

For those who have a 5.1.2 setup....with upward-firing speakers.

Do any of you prefer to have those upward-firing speakers setup behind you? On top of the surround speakers?


----------



## m. zillch

Josh Z said:


> It's not as simple as just upmixing, where you take the existing soundtrack and filter some of the audio out of one speaker to shift it to another. The mixers need to go back to the original sound elements in order to create objects out of them which can be manipulated in a 3D space.


Well, sure, in an ideal world that makes sense and would be best but do we have actual evidence that's what's actually always done?


----------



## Archerkit

Afrikan said:


> Hey everyone, I'm just starting to convert to Dolby Atmos.
> 
> For those who have a 5.1.2 setup....with upward-firing speakers.
> 
> Do any of you prefer to have those upward-firing speakers setup behind you? On top of the surround speakers?


I do. I switched to that config after months of having them in the standard config of being on the front speakers. My sofa and surround speakers are against a wall, putting me much closer to the Atmos modules vs when they were in front. It definitely improved my experience.


----------



## m. zillch

Afrikan said:


> ..with upward-firing speakers.
> 
> Do any of you prefer to have those upward-firing speakers setup behind you? On top of the surround speakers?


If I were testing that out I would be inclined to try all positions using the test tone generator in the AVR and when it came to the "bounce off the ceiling" speakers yesy tone I'd take note of how well the illusion of it being a speaker up there worked for me.

The principle it works largely from, HRTF, varies in its effectiveness from individual to individual so it may be that one household member finds one position works great yet another listener doesn't.


----------



## ahblaza

kbarnes701 said:


> It's very much appreciated Jeffrey when someone takes the time to make a post like yours above. This, and many other threads here on AVS, are a fabulous resource for everyone who wants to get the best out of their interest in AV and their home theater. I know I have benefited massively from the endless help, advice and support of so many of the contributors over the years and can go so far as to say that my own HT would not be what it is today if it hadn't been for their selfless help.
> 
> I am so glad that you have found the various comments, from various members, so helpful and I wish you all the best with your Atmos adventure.


Thank you Keith for the well wishes and acknowledging my post of gratitude and all the support I and many others receive in this thread. My take on all of this is the Newcomer comes first, there are no dumb questions and this alone makes me more prone to post my thoughts and experience here.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> I don't think anyone has quantified it. But since we're discussing the trend rather than absolute numbers, do you think that we're getting more pre-rendered Atmos titles or fewer? Which way do you think that trend is going? Might be an indicator about the question you're asking.


Yes, it was kind of rhetorical I must agree. I gave the answer in the same post:



maikeldepotter said:


> I prefer to _believe_ that it's a growing curve for re-rec engineers and studios to involve more speakers in their Atmos mixes.


So if you have the room and processor capability to do TMs on top of TF+TR, and you not have already installed them, pre-wiring for TM's remains a good advice.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Sanjay says Dolby keep an eye on this thread, so if enough of us ask for DSU support for wides, who knows - we may just get it...


And while they're at it, they might just as well fix the ATMOS bed channel arraying for overheads (and for surrounds for those with >15 main channels).


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> What I guess I am trying to find out is if the trend is upward or downward. Will Many in the future grow to Most, or decrease to Lots / Substantial / Some ...? I prefer to believe that it's a growing curve for re-rec engineers and studios to involve more speakers in their Atmos mixes.


Sorry - that is above my pay grade. Sanjay is your man for info like that. If anyone knows, he will.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> I'm not a heavy movie collector but I wish there was a way you could look at a label or Amazon description to determine if a movie was actually made with Atmos from the get go or, as I suspect is true of some, "upsampled" electronically and largely in an automated way the original sound dudes didn't themselves listen to and sign off on.
> 
> Since Atmos didn't exist until 2012's "Brave" I think we can safely say any earlier movie fits this latter description unless we know that they reassembled the team and had them approve of the re-do and possibly even tweak it in some beneficial ways.
> Maybe with blockbusters like Titanic they do this?


Thing is, some of the very best Atmos mixes are from older movies. I am thinking_ Bram Stoker's Dracula_, _The Fifth Element_ and the totally amazingly good _Blade Runner: The Final Cut_ for example.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> A good number of older movies have been reissued with UHD HDR video and TrueHD Atmos video. That's been done with _Unforgiven, Kick Ass, Source Code,_ and _The Lincoln Lawyer,_ just to name a few. The bottom line is that sorting out whether a given film has TrueHD Atmos audio is not a trivial exercise. The good news is that more and more films are getting the Atmos treatment these days.


Yup. And many of the new Atmos releases are not as good as some of the legacy remixes. I watched _Deadpool 2_ last night (great movie) and the use of the overheads is very slight. I don't quite understand why with a movie of that nature. Overall the sound was pretty good though.


----------



## kbarnes701

ahblaza said:


> Thank you Keith for the well wishes and acknowledging my post of gratitude and all the support I and many others receive in this thread. My take on all of this is the Newcomer comes first, there are no dumb questions and this alone makes me more prone to post my thoughts and experience here.


Totally agree - no dumb questions. Everyone has to start somewhere...


----------



## elninoloco

I have everything pretty much angled properly, installed, and cables ran. All four on ceiling speakers for Atmos (and all other speakers) are aimed for front center MLP, but all other seats should be able to get similar experience.

This set up should be perfect for Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro 3D (although I probably won't bother to install Voice of God (Top Surround) speaker; even though Denon x4400h can have the Subwoofer 2 pre-out programmed for it).

It got late last night so i have not yet hooked up my new receiver. Will be doing that, calibrating, and finishing up tomorrow. I forgot how much i hate fishing cables.

I'll be using Audyssey Multeq xt32 , but usually manually fine tune it with SPL meter afterwards.

I'll tell you one thing..the laser leveler is by far one of the best tools to use when trying to get everything aligned properly

Some pics i took .. will take better pictures with my DSLR when complete.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Thing is, some of the very best Atmos mixes are from older movies. I am thinking_ Bram Stoker's Dracula_, _The Fifth Element_ and the totally amazingly good _Blade Runner: The Final Cut_ for example.


Well ideally I'd be curious if a more frequent viewer than me [that's like, everyone], such as yourself, could cite a scene in an older movie where an object simply didn't exist.

For instance Blade Runner would be great because I hear the Atmos version is impressive and I'd actually consider buying it. [I only buy a couple of movies a year, I basically use cable for my home movie needs] If you, for example, could say hypothetically this sort of statement, it would make my day: "Although the general atmosphere and acoustical ambiance is superior and more enveloping than the original there are _definitely_ newly placed overhead objects. In the scene where we see Decker walk through a crowd of self illuminated umbrellas in the rain at X minutes in, for example, you hear a police car fly directly overhead front to back." Can you recall a good go to scene for me? Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Well ideally I'd be curious if a more frequent viewer than me [that's like, everyone], such as yourself, could cite a scene in an older movie where an object simply didn't exist.


Oh I have no idea. All I know is that, for example, the old _Blade Runner_ movie has a sensational Atmos track, with tons of overhead content, used really well, to add to the story unfolding on the screen. I'm not all that interested in how they do it, so long as they do it well.



m. zillch said:


> For instance Blade Runner would be great because I hear the Atmos version is impressive and I'd actually consider buying it. [I only buy a couple of movies a year, I basically use cable for my home movie needs] If you, for example, could say hypothetically this sort of statement, it would make my day: "Although the general atmosphere and acoustical ambiance is superior and more enveloping than the original there are _definitely_ newly placed overhead objects. In the scene where we see Decker walk through a crowd of self illuminated umbrellas in the rain at X minutes in, for example, you hear a police car fly directly overhead front to back." Can you recall a good go to scene for me? Thanks!


All of it. Start right at the beginning. When those vehicles etc fly over as the camera is moving through the cityscape. Wow, when I first got this cut I watched that opening scene over and over again, before I even 'started' the movie itself. As you know, most of the movie takes place in rain and bad weather, and that is also superbly rendered in an entirely immersive way, adding considerably to the enjoyment of the movie. When Deckard and Rachel are visiting Sebastian's apartment, they enter an elevator and continue a conversation as they ride up to the correct floor, but the camera POV remains at street level. You can hear the conversation move up through the speakers to the overheads. It isn't just the use of overheads either. The scene in which the first replicant is being interviewed (the 'turtle' scene) is astonishing. When the replicant pulls his gun and shoots the interviewer, the sonics of the entire scene are like you have never heard them before. The sound pulses through your HT with astonishing precision. Pretty much the entire movie is like this. I urge you to get it - if you don't agree with the way I have described it, I'll give you your money back!

IDK if these are 'objects' or what, but the result is absolutely amazingly good. So is the UHD picture too.

EDIT: oh yes - in the early scenes where Deckard is on the street, and later eating his Chinese meal off the stand, just listen to the way the passers-by's voices surround you. You can hear their conversations dip in and out as he moves around, just like you would in real life. Voices move around the room, following the on-screen action brilliantly. It all adds to the overall impact on you as a viewer. You are not so much a bystander looking at a scene in front of you as actually involved in that scene for yourself. The additional emotional impact of the movie is thus greatly enhanced. Same sort of thing when Deckard first meets Rachel at th Tyrell Corporation's HQ. Listen for the owl. The entire movie is a masterclass in how to use Atmos IMO.


----------



## m. zillch

Fantastic. Thanks. Final question:

Should I watch "Blade Runner 2049" first or re-watch the first one but in Atmos first?


----------



## Bond 007

IMAX Enhanced


----------



## Jonas2

m. zillch said:


> Fantastic. Thanks. Final question:
> 
> Should I watch "Blade Runner 2049" first or re-watch the first one but in Atmos first?



I would watch the original in Atmos, then Blade Runner 2022 Blackout (or whatever it's called, something like that...bad memory....) on Youtube or wherever (short), then 2049.


----------



## GPBURNS

kbarnes701 said:


> Thing is, some of the very best Atmos mixes are from older movies. I am thinking_ Bram Stoker's Dracula_, _The Fifth Element_ and the totally amazingly good _Blade Runner: The Final Cut_ for example.


 So looking forward to hearing all these 
films again - about a month away from upgrades - Atmos and 4k -probably been asked thousand times you have top 5 for Atmos tracks?


----------



## Bond 007

Jonas2 said:


> I would watch the original in Atmos, then Blade Runner 2022 Blackout (or whatever it's called, something like that...bad memory....) on Youtube or wherever (short), then 2049.


Blackout, Nexus Dawn and Nowhere to Run. Might as well watch them all.


----------



## Jonas2

Bond 007 said:


> Blackout, Nexus Dawn and Nowhere to Run. Might as well watch them all.



WHOA! There's two more?? Missed those!! Part of the Blade Runner series??


----------



## Selden Ball

Jonas2 said:


> WHOA! There's two more?? Missed those!! Part of the Blade Runner series??


Yup. They take place between the original movie and the new one, sort of explaining what happened WRT replicants in the intervening years. All three are available on YouTube, along with more critiques of the 2nd movie than you can shake the proverbial stick at.


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> All of it. Start right at the beginning.
> [...]


And thank you, sir, for all of that! Great post which has made me want to finish my wiring.

For the order - yes, there were some shorts released which link the first movie to BR2049.

They are all on YouTube with introductions by Denis Villeneuve himself.
2036: Nexus Dawn
2048: Nowhere to Run
Black out 2022

EDIT: they are also on the BR2049 Blu-Ray!


----------



## Jonas2

Selden Ball said:


> Yup. They take place between the original movie and the new one, sort of explaining what happened WRT replicants in the intervening years. All three are available on YouTube, along with more critiques of the 2nd movie than you can shake the proverbial stick at.





mrtickleuk said:


> And thank you, sir, for all of that! Great post which has made me want to finish my wiring.
> 
> For the order - yes, there were some shorts released which link the first movie to BR2049.
> 
> They are all on YouTube with introductions by Denis Villeneuve himself.
> 2036: Nexus Dawn
> 2048: Nowhere to Run
> Black out 2022
> 
> EDIT: they are also on the BR2049 Blu-Ray!



OOOOKKKaayyyyy......I'm felling pretty stupid right about now.......


I just grabbed my UHD copy in disbelief and lo and behold - there they are. Thanks for pointing that out! Well, now I know what I need to do this weekend........


----------



## mrtickleuk

You are very welcome . Enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> Fantastic. Thanks. Final question:
> 
> Should I watch "Blade Runner 2049" first or re-watch the first one but in Atmos first?


I'd watch the original first. 2049 has terrific sound though as well.


----------



## Dave Moritz

Finally upgrading to Dolby Atmos with a new Marantz SR-8012 that is in the process of being delivered. Will have to wait till around the end of March or April of next year to actually enjoy full Atmos as I need to save up for 2 pair of Bowers & Wilkins 685 bookshelf speakers to upgrade my current Advent Marbles being used for my surround channels. Then the Advents will temporarily move to Atmos duty and let the fun begin! Can not wait to get the new surrounds and be able to check out full 7.1.4 Atmos / DTS:X / Auro 3D. Not counting on Auro 3D to much as there is almost nothing out there that is encoded in Auro 3D. But I have a good number of titles with Dolby Atmos already so I am set. Would love to hear about other peoples experience with Atmos and setting it up and setting up there speaker placement.


----------



## elninoloco

Finally complete! Hooked up the Denon x4400h and did the Audyssey calibration at first. However, I ended up manually calibrating it up with my SPL meter (an actual one, not an App for a mobile device). Also Audyssey measured the distance of my side surrounds speakers incorrectly for whatever reason. Another thing with Audyssey on the Denon, it WILL NOT WORK if i have the audio in Direct Mode (which i prefer..i don't want my 5.1 to automatically have the receiver mix it to 11 channels); so manually calibrating is the best thing to do if you want to go Direct Mode instead of Auto mode.

Atmos speakers are all pointed directly to the front middle seat (also the point of reference where SPL\Microphone was placed for calibration). All three front row seats and the back middle seat gets great Atmos experience. The two outside rear seats get the Atmos sound, but due to how close they are to each speaker, it's not as filling.

The Klipsch CP-6 I added for my on-ceiling .4 , sounds phenomenal. I tested it in stereo mode before mounting them up and it _closely _matches the Klipsch Reference RFs i currently have.

Anyway, I popped in Ready Player One (Dolby Atmos) and what an experience (i've seen that movie before adding Atmos as well). I'll be watching Hacksaw Ridge tomorrow as i hear that is reference level audio movie.

I still have an old 720P projector..once the bulb goes out i'll be going 4k projector and possibly larger screen.

Some pictures of the finish product
**The acoustic panels are inaccurately placed. The speakers were originally in a location where the panels were useful, but because i used strong glue, it pulled the paint off when i attempted to remove it. It was just cheaper to leave it as is  . I'll eventually correct it one day.


----------



## jjackkrash

elninoloco said:


> Also Audyssey measured the distance of my side surrounds speakers incorrectly for whatever reason.


Your room looks sweet, great work! 

One thing to note, Audyssey isn't actually measuring distance, it is measuring the time it takes the test tone to get to the mic and it is very accurate. This is how it sets the time delays. If you are manually adjusting the distance to match the actual distance to the speaker the time delays will likely be off. If it is way off, there may be another issue going on like noise interference with the test tones, airplane overhead, running water in the plumbing, bumped the mic stand, etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

elninoloco said:


> Finally complete! Hooked up the Denon x4400h and did the Audyssey calibration at first. However, I ended up manually calibrating it up with my SPL meter (an actual one, not an App for a mobile device). Also Audyssey measured the distance of my side surrounds speakers incorrectly for whatever reason.


That is very unusual. One of the things that Audyssey usually gets spot on is the distance measurement (delay). It makes me wonder if there was some issue during the calibration. I'd run it again just in case. See the Audyssey FAQ (linked in my sig) for more info.



elninoloco said:


> Another thing with Audyssey on the Denon, it WILL NOT WORK if i have the audio in Direct Mode (which i prefer..i don't want my 5.1 to automatically have the receiver mix it to 11 channels); so manually calibrating is the best thing to do if you want to go Direct Mode instead of Auto mode.


Direct mode bypasses all audio processing, including Audyssey as yoiu have discovered, and generally it is not the best way to get the best out of an AVR. You can use one of the 'movie' or 'music' modes and still have the content played back in its native format, eg 5.1. The AVR doesn't 'automatically' upmix - it just uses the mode you used last, so if you want to replay a 5.1 content in 5.1 just select it from the menu (my unit has an Audio button on the remote which facilitates this). This way you get the format you want (5.1) but with the benefit of Audyssey room EQ as well.



elninoloco said:


> Atmos speakers are all pointed directly to the front middle seat (also the point of reference where SPL\Microphone was placed for calibration). All three front row seats and the back middle seat gets great Atmos experience. The two outside rear seats get the Atmos sound, but due to how close they are to each speaker, it's not as filling.


One thing I would suggest you consider is lowering the height of the surrounds if you can in order to create more angular separation between them and the overhead speakers. This will improve your 'Atmos effect'. Glad you have found the overall experience to be worthwhile!


----------



## mrtickleuk

elninoloco said:


> Finally complete! Hooked up the Denon x4400h and did the Audyssey calibration at first. However, I ended up manually calibrating it up with my SPL meter (an actual one, not an App for a mobile device). Also Audyssey measured the distance of my side surrounds speakers incorrectly for whatever reason.


First, very nice room 

Second, see the other replies. It is NOT measuring the distances incorrectly; because it is not measuring distances. It's measuring time, and then translating that to distances only so that you can see some numbers on the screen to which you can relate.



> Another thing with Audyssey on the Denon, it WILL NOT WORK if i have the audio in Direct Mode (which i prefer..i don't want my 5.1 to automatically have the receiver mix it to 11 channels); so manually calibrating is the best thing to do if you want to go Direct Mode instead of Auto mode.


Wow, some confusion there! 


Yes, direct mode is for people who don't want any kind of EQ. *Unless you happen to live in a recording studio*, this will *not *sound anything like as good as Audyssey (when Audyssey is used correctly).
Many of us don't want our 5.1 to automatically be up-mixed, so we don't, and you do not have to resort to using Direct mode to avoid upmixing - that is a last resort. Press one of the coloured buttons on the remote repeatedly to cycle between modes, and it will remember whichever "do not upmix" mode you settle on. That could be Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master, Stereo, Dolby Digital - the display will change depending on the source.

HTH


----------



## elninoloco

Thank you all for that information. I ran the calibration again. Originally I placed the microphone on all six chairs....but i didn't read the part where it says place microphone no further that 2 feet away from the original main listening position. That is what may have screwed things over in the first place. This time i just did the front three seats (making sure the microphone was less than 2 feet away from the first calibrated spot). I also found the button to choose if i want the receiver to upmix or just play what's on the disk (or file) while maintaining Audyssey on. I watched *Hacksaw Ridge* (Atmos) and wow what an effect the action part has all over.


----------



## kbarnes701

elninoloco said:


> Thank you all for that information. I ran the calibration again. Originally I placed the microphone on all six chairs....but i didn't read the part where it says place microphone no further that 2 feet away from the original main listening position. That is what may have screwed things over in the first place. This time i just did the front three seats (making sure the microphone was less than 2 feet away from the first calibrated spot). I also found the button to choose if i want the receiver to upmix or just play what's on the disk (or file) while maintaining Audyssey on. I watched *Hacksaw Ridge* (Atmos) and wow what an effect the action part has all over.


Good news! Did you do Audyssey's full 9 positions for measurement, spacing the mic around the listening area as recommended in the FAQ? It is important to use all the positions possible in your version of Audyssey (9 for XT32) in order to give the EQ algorithm sufficient data about the listening space.


----------



## elninoloco

kbarnes701 said:


> Good news! Did you do Audyssey's full 9 positions for measurement, spacing the mic around the listening area as recommended in the FAQ? It is important to use all the positions possible in your version of Audyssey (9 for XT32) in order to give the EQ algorithm sufficient data about the listening space.


Yep..all is good now  thanks again.


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

erwinfrombelgium said:


> 3/ add Center Surround straight behind MLP. I know having a single rear surround (in a 6.1) is not optimal but I am convinced adding it to 7.1 (or 7.1 + Wides) is simply closing the only gap left in the circle. Woud you agree?





Selden Ball said:


> Center Surround probably isn't the best choice because sounds which originate directly behind you phantom image so they seem to be coming from in front of you. I experienced this recently while testing some speaker connections and it was quite disconcerting. Supposedly because of this, the Dolby Surround upmixer does not use that channel at all: the Center Surround channel stays silent when using DSU.


Been thinking about this...

While I haven't tested the use of a single back surround myself yet, I wonder whether there is more that comes into play than just the way our hearing works (ie, playing tricks when a sound is coming from straight back from you). I mean, we all have experienced a moving sound source behind us in real life (a car approaching for example). I was running on a dirt track in the woods the other day when a tractor slowly approached from behind, giving me time to process what I was hearing. While it was difficult to assess the exact distance, it never occurred to me that the tractor might be in front of me. Likewise, when you are standing near a road facing the opposite way, a passing vehicle on that road, always sounds where it is supposed to sound: from behind you.

Could it not be that the sound from a single back surround (Center Surround in current Atmos speak) is reflecting from the front wall? As we are indeed more sensitive for sounds in front of us, it's possible that the reflected sound appear to dominate the direct sound coming from behind?

In that case, all we need is a properly treated front wall. I used thick material behind the screen (except where the Center speaker is obviously). I will test in due time. Center Surround would be in addition to the Rear Surrounds (@-/-135°) in order to halve the large (90°) gap between these. Hey, I might as well use every output of the RMC-1/20 adding 1 expansion module of 4 outputs to the standard 16. That would mean 10.4.6 (sticking with 6 Tops, no additional Heights)


----------



## Selden Ball

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Could it not be that the sound from a single back surround (Center Surround in current Atmos speak) is reflecting from the front wall? As we are indeed more sensitive for sounds in front of us, it's possible that the reflected sound appear to dominate the direct sound coming from behind?


In my case, at least, the speaker was right behind me. I was much closer to it (a couple of feet) than to the front wall (about 10 ft), enough so that its sound dominated what I was hearing. (It's a "bookshelf" speaker on a stand.) As I mentioned, the illusion was quite disconcerting.


----------



## sdurani

erwinfrombelgium said:


> Could it not be that the sound from a single back surround (Center Surround in current Atmos speak) is reflecting from the front wall? As we are indeed more sensitive for sounds in front of us, it's possible that the reflected sound appear to dominate the direct sound coming from behind?


The reason is much simpler. When we hear a sound louder in the right ear than the left ear, we think the sound is towards the right. If we hear a sound louder in the left ear than right ear, we think the sound is at our left. IF we hear a sound equally loud in both ears, we know the sound is directly in front of us. But is it? A single speaker directly behind you will be heard equally loud in both ears; your expectation bias will do the rest.


> I was running on a dirt track in the woods the other day when a tractor slowly approached from behind, giving me time to process what I was hearing. While it was difficult to assess the exact distance, it never occurred to me that the tractor might be in front of me.


We humans make small, involuntary head movements to constantly re-calibrate our surroundings. So even if the tractor momentarily sounded like it was in front of you, there was enough time to process what you were hearing and correctly identify its location behind you. By comparison, sound effects in movies can have a duration short enough that you usually never get the chance to re-calibrate direction. That is why Dolby and DTS and THX recommended 2 Rear speakers to play back the mono Surround-Back channel of their EX & ES formats. Note that it was the only channel for which 2 speakers were recommended.


----------



## Josh Z

Over the weekend, I picked up a new pair of speakers that are a very close timbre match for my front towers. I didn't really need them (my prior surround speakers sound fine), but they look a lot prettier in my room and it was too good a deal to resist. For the moment, I've installed them as my left and right Surrounds and pulled the old speakers out of service. However, now I'm kind of thinking about experimenting with Front Wides.

I have a Denon X8500H, and I'm not giving up my six discrete height channels. So I need to decide between staying with 7.1.6 as I have it now or switching to 5.1.6(+W). Obviously, that would mean giving up my Surround Backs. I'd also move my main Surrounds back a little to about 110-degrees behind me.

I never gave much consideration to Front Wides in the past, but I know that many people who have them LOVE them. Is there a particular piece of content that makes great use of Wides I can listen to for testing?

For that matter, to give this the fairest comparison I'd also like to listen to a track that uses Surround Backs to their fullest. One of the reasons I'm considering this in the first place is that, although I've had a 7.1 system for a long time, I realize that I hardly ever hear anything coming out of my Surround Back speakers. Sometimes I'll actually go and put my ear up to one of them just to assure myself that they're working at all, and invariably whatever's coming out of them is at a very low volume. (Yes, I've confirmed all my speaker levels with test tones.) More often than not, the Surround Backs seem like a waste. Will I get more bang for my buck with Front Wides, or are they basically the same in that regard?

Before anyone points it out, I'm aware that the Dolby Surround Upmixer ignores the Wide speakers. I expect that I'll switch to using Neural:X most of the time instead.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Over the weekend, I picked up a new pair of speakers that are a very close timbre match for my front towers. I didn't really need them (my prior surround speakers sound fine), but they look a lot prettier in my room and it was too good a deal to resist. For the moment, I've installed them as my left and right Surrounds and pulled the old speakers out of service. However, now I'm kind of thinking about experimenting with Front Wides.
> 
> I have a Denon X8500H, and I'm not giving up my six discrete height channels. So I need to decide between staying with 7.1.6 as I have it now or switching to 5.1.6(+W). Obviously, that would mean giving up my Surround Backs. I'd also move my main Surrounds back a little to about 110-degrees behind me.
> 
> I never gave much consideration to Front Wides in the past, but I know that many people who have them LOVE them. Is there a particular piece of content that makes great use of Wides I can listen to for testing?
> 
> For that matter, to give this the fairest comparison I'd also like to listen to a track that uses Surround Backs to their fullest. One of the reasons I'm considering this in the first place is that, although I've had a 7.1 system for a long time, I realize that I hardly ever hear anything coming out of my Surround Back speakers. Sometimes I'll actually go and put my ear up to one of them just to assure myself that they're working at all, and invariably whatever's coming out of them is at a very low volume. (Yes, I've confirmed all my speaker levels with test tones.) More often than not, the Surround Backs seem like a waste. Will I get more bang for my buck with Front Wides, or are they basically the same in that regard?
> 
> Before anyone points it out, I'm aware that the Dolby Surround Upmixer ignores the Wide speakers. I expect that I'll switch to using Neural:X most of the time instead.



Fury's Dolby Atmos track on the UHD Blu-ray utilizes the Front Wides nicely. The Atmos track on West World Season 1's UHD Blu-ray pulls the bulk of the score into the Front Wides and away from the front left and right speakers when FW's are engaged. Gravity makes heavy use of the Front Wides as long as you have the Diamond Luxe Blu-ray version (a UHD Blu-ray may be in the works that will use the same Atmos track). Those titles are off the top of my head.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

elninoloco said:


> Also Audyssey measured the distance of my side surrounds speakers incorrectly for whatever reason.


They look like they may be dipoles from the shape of the enclosures. Delay times to dipoles when measured with a calibration mic can be screwy, because you may be reading the reflected sound off the wall rather than direct sound (if the mic is in the null or near). In that case, what the mic is reading is actually CORRECT. That said, dipoles aren't suited for Atmos use, so if those speakers can be changed to bipole, I would do so. If they already are in bipole mode, then... well, forget all that stuff I just said.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Atmos track on West World Season 1's UHD Blu-ray pulls the bulk of the score into the Front Wides and away from the front left and right speakers when FW's are engaged.



Is this a good thing? What's the point of mixing it that way?


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> I never gave much consideration to Front Wides in the past, but I know that many people who have them LOVE them. Is there a particular piece of content that makes great use of Wides I can listen to for testing?



Unbroken. The bombing scene (included on the Dolby Atmos demo discs) is a really nice demo clip.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> By comparison, sound effects in movies can have a duration short enough that you usually never get the chance to re-calibrate direction. That is why Dolby and DTS and THX recommended 2 Rear speakers to play back the mono Surround-Back channel of their EX & ES formats. Note that it was the only channel for which 2 speakers were recommended.


Sanjay, what is the difference between a single speaker directly behind the listener and two speakers behind the listener playing a monophonic signal? Won't that just give a rock-solid phantom image directly behind the listener? If so, then why does that not produce the psychoacoustic effect of the sound imaging in front of the listener? I're read of the recommendation for two speakers for EX/ES before but never understood why it would make any difference. Thx.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> One of the reasons I'm considering this in the first place is that, although I've had a 7.1 system for a long time, I realize that I hardly ever hear anything coming out of my Surround Back speakers. Sometimes I'll actually go and put my ear up to one of them just to assure myself that they're working at all, and invariably whatever's coming out of them is at a very low volume. (Yes, I've confirmed all my speaker levels with test tones.) More often than not, the Surround Backs seem like a waste. Will I get more bang for my buck with Front Wides, or are they basically the same in that regard?


Josh, that is interesting. Some time ago, I was helping a dealer friend of mine set up his room and (7.x.4) system for an important customer demo he had coming up and when we had finished we listened to several clips from familiar discs, all of which had great sound in common. We both agreed that the room sounded fantastic. It was only when we brought up the AVR menus later that we realised we had been listening with the rear surrounds disabled. During the evaluation neither of us had noticed! We reconfigured the AVR to include the rear surrounds and repeated the listening evaluation. This time, in as good a display of expectation bias as you will ever find, both of us could now hear the 'difference' although we also both agreed it was 'subtle'. 

Given your points above which reminded me of this experience you have set me thinking that maybe I ought to get on with adding Wides after all. I'd keep my rear surrounds anyway, since I have them already, so it would mean a change of AVR, but I am now wondering if this idea which has been on my back burner for ages, ought to be pulled to the front burner sometime sooner than anticipated. As I say, interesting.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> Is this a good thing? What's the point of mixing it that way?


It's so that the 0.01% of consumers who have front wides can notice and post about it, and confirm their "expectation bias" [thanks kbarnes!]  
Personally I would find it odd to have a huge hole in the middle of an orchestra, as if it's cleaved into two and put the two halves very far apart.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay, what is the difference between a single speaker directly behind the listener and two speakers behind the listener playing a monophonic signal? Won't that just give a rock-solid phantom image directly behind the listener? If so, then why does that not produce the psychoacoustic effect of the sound imaging in front of the listener? I're read of the recommendation for two speakers for EX/ES before but never understood why it would make any difference. Thx.


Good point. Have been wondering about the exact same thing. A possible explanation for not having the back-to-front reversal when using such phantom image could be that the introduction of cross-talk eliminates it: each ear receives the same monophonic signal from two sources but with a slight difference in arrival time. For the right ear it's the sound from the left rear speaker that arrives later, and vice versa for the left ear. Maybe it's this difference in direction of the late arriving sound that helps our brain to keep the sound perceptually behind us, even when it results in a phantom image directly behind you (at 180 degrees azimuth). But I'm just guessing, there must be some scientific reference somewhere...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Is this a good thing? What's the point of mixing it that way?



I think they were trying to make the frontal most channels less busy not having the score competing with dialog and sound effects.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> It's so that the 0.01% of consumers who have front wides can notice and post about it, and confirm their "expectation bias" [thanks kbarnes!]
> Personally I would find it odd to have a huge hole in the middle of an orchestra, as if it's cleaved into two and put the two halves very far apart.


Yes I'd find that odd too. What I would be hoping for is a situation where Atmos mixes which use the Wides would be presented 'as intended' to me instead of the information meant for the Wides being collapsed back to the FL and FR speakers. Should 'broaden' the sound presentation usefully I'd hope. IDK if upmixed content sent to Wides would be what I wanted since AFAIK I have never heard it. I think Josh has a good point about rear surrounds.


----------



## kbarnes701

maikeldepotter said:


> Good point. Have been wondering about the exact same thing. A possible explanation for not having the back-to-front reversal when using such phantom image could be that the introduction of cross-talk eliminates it: each ear receives the same monophonic signal from two sources but with a slight difference in arrival time. For the right ear it's the sound from the left rear speaker that arrives later, and vice versa for the left ear. Maybe it's this difference in direction of the late arriving sound that helps our brain to keep the sound perceptually behind us, even when it results in a phantom image directly behind you (at 180 degrees azimuth). But I'm just guessing, there must be some scientific reference somewhere...


Reasonable hypothesis IMO. I tried googling it but couldn't find anything useful. I am betting that Sanjay will have the answer...


----------



## gwsat

stikle said:


> Unbroken. The bombing scene (included on the Dolby Atmos demo discs) is a really nice demo clip.


I agree that the bombing scene in _Unbroken_ is a stunningly effective demonstration of what TrueHD Atmos can do, _Unbroken_ was one of the first titles I bought after I put in my 7.2.4 system two years ago and remains one of the best Atmos tracks I have.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I're read of the recommendation for two speakers for EX/ES before but never understood why it would make any difference.


Phantom mono (from 2 speakers) and hard mono (from one speaker) are heard differently. From Toole: _"Anyone claiming that a phantom center image is superior to a real center loudspeaker has some persuading to do. The phantom-image situation is significantly muddled, and most listening situations are not perfectly symmetrical. As we will see later, eliminating all of the reflections does not solve the fundamental problem with the phantom center; in fact it makes it worse." _ I'm guessing he means that eliminating reflections makes it easier to hear the problem, which isn't helpful; just makes things worse. 










The muddled result from the lack of perfect symmetry that Toole mentions is the advantage to using 2 speakers spread apart behind the listener (and the disadvantage to using 2 speakers in front of the listener) when reproducing a mono signal. It never really sounds the same as a single speaker; that's helpful for a mono Surround-Back channel, not so much for the Centre channel.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> What's the point of mixing it that way?


Music in movie soundtracks is usually not directly tied to the on-screen action the way sound effects and dialogue are. Since it is an abstraction and not tied to a physical location, the advent of Atmos has allowed mixers to move the music score outside the screen so it is no longer cluttering up the L/R speakers, allowing the 3 screen speakers to concentrate on reproducing sound effects and dialogue.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Phantom mono (from 2 speakers) and hard mono (from one speaker) are heard differently. From Toole: _"Anyone claiming that a phantom center image is superior to a real center loudspeaker has some persuading to do. The phantom-image situation is significantly muddled, and most listening situations are not perfectly symmetrical. As we will see later, eliminating all of the reflections does not solve the fundamental problem with the phantom center; in fact it makes it worse." _ I'm guessing he means that eliminating reflections makes it easier to hear the problem, which isn't helpful; just makes things worse.
> 
> The muddled result from the lack of perfect symmetry that Toole mentions is the advantage to using 2 speakers spread apart behind the listener (and the disadvantage to using 2 speakers in front of the listener) when reproducing a mono signal. It never really sounds the same as a single speaker; that's helpful for a mono Surround-Back channel, not so much for the Centre channel.


Brilliant, lucid explanation Sanjay. Thanks.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> Music in movie soundtracks is usually not directly tied to the on-screen action the way sound effects and dialogue are. Since it is an abstraction and not tied to a physical location, the advent of Atmos has allowed mixers to move the music score outside the screen so it is no longer cluttering up the L/R speakers, allowing the 3 screen speakers to concentrate on reproducing sound effects and dialogue.


I'm not sure I agree with that logic, at least not as it comes to home playback. (And Westworld being a TV show will only ever be heard in the home, not at a cinema.) I - and I assume most other people - put my best speakers in the front three LCR positions. The fidelity of a musical score is of such importance that I would want most of the music reproduced from my best speakers, not from satellites outside the LCR. 

Moving the score entirely to the Front Wide speakers and out of the left and right mains only works if the viewer is using identical speakers in both locations. Perhaps some small population do that, but I suspect that most put satellites in the FW positions.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that logic, at least not as it comes to home playback. (And Westworld being a TV show will only ever be heard in the home, not at a cinema.) I - and I assume most other people - put my best speakers in the front three LCR positions. The fidelity of a musical score is of such importance that I would want most of the music reproduced from my best speakers, not from satellites outside the LCR.
> 
> Moving the score entirely to the Front Wide speakers and out of the left and right mains only works if the viewer is using identical speakers in both locations. Perhaps some small population do that, but I suspect that most put satellites in the FW positions.


Interesting point. I think if I ever do go ahead with Wides, I may well decide to use the same speakers as my mains. I have room to do it and it makes sense for the reason you suggest unless I am missing something. Originally I was thinking of repurposing my rear surrounds and getting something else for that location (my 4 surrounds are no longer available so one pair at least has to be different to the rest and making it the less important pair - the rear surround - makes sense). But if I could accommodate an extra pair of JBL 3677s that would make sense for the Wides. Hmmm.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Moving the score entirely to the Front Wide speakers and out of the left and right mains only works if the viewer is using identical speakers in both locations.


Centre speakers are often the step children of the front soundstage, certainly compared to the L/R speakers in most systems. Didn't stop mixers from putting the most important part of the soundtrack in the Centre channel. I'm not sure movies and TV shows are being mixed with specific speakers in mind.


> I suspect that most put satellites in the FW positions.


I suspect that most Atmos set-ups don't have Wides, so any music mixed to that location is going to end up in the Front L/R speakers anyway.


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> I'm not sure movies and TV shows are being mixed with specific speakers in mind.


But if the mixers are making a deliberate decision to move the entire musical score to Front Wide speakers, which they know only a small percentage of viewers will use, you'd think they should put more thought into why and how they're using those speakers than someone who might just pan an occasional sound effect over there. 



> I suspect that most Atmos set-ups don't have Wides, so any music mixed to that location is going to end up in the Front L/R speakers anyway.


True, this is a non-issue for most users. But for those who DO have some form of Front Wides, now it becomes an issue that satellite speakers are no longer sufficient there, whereas they probably are still sufficient for any other soundtrack.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> But if the mixers are making a deliberate decision to move the entire musical score to Front Wide speakers, which they know only a small percentage of viewers will use, you'd think they should put more thought into why and how they're using those speakers than someone who might just pan an occasional sound effect over there.


Did the mixers for Westworld put such thought into their decision? If not, how did the musical score end up in the Wides?


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> But for those who DO have some form of Front Wides, now it becomes an issue that *satellite speakers are no longer sufficient* there



You may be overthinking this. Sure satellites are not going to have the dynamic range of full size mains, but that doesn't mean (at least to me) that they are insufficient. I am quite pleased with _only_ having satellites as wides. Different expectations and wants and all that.

I'm only a couple of episodes into Westworld Season 1 so far. If someone can point to an episode and time stamp that has music, I'd be happy to check it out.

I came late to the Game of Thrones party, so am pretty deep into that right now, working through Season 5. What a terrific series. Atmos is quite well done across the board in my opinion.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay, what is the difference between a single speaker directly behind the listener and two speakers behind the listener playing a monophonic signal? Won't that just give a rock-solid phantom image directly behind the listener? If so, then why does that not produce the psychoacoustic effect of the sound imaging in front of the listener? I're read of the recommendation for two speakers for EX/ES before but never understood why it would make any difference. Thx.


The goal of surround effects is not not always "pinpoint imaging" and precise localization though, it is often "diffuse atmospheric ambiance". In reproducing the latter in the home multiple speakers win.

Similarly when Dolby Pro Logic was first introduced [I was there in the trenches selling high end processors and getting technical training from the likes of Dolby, THX, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, Yamaha, Denon, etc.] they specifically recommended using bipole/dipole speakers for the side/rear speakers, _not_ monopoles, so the sound was _more_ diffuse, _less_ localizable, and the speakers sort of "painted the entire wall". So two center rears makes better sense for that goal.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Josh Z said:
> 
> 
> 
> But for those who DO have some form of Front Wides, now it becomes an issue that *satellite speakers are no longer sufficient* there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be overthinking this. Sure satellites are not going to have the dynamic range of full size mains, but that doesn't mean (at least to me) that they are insufficient. I am quite pleased with _only_ having satellites as wides. Different expectations and wants and all that.
> 
> * I'm only a couple of episodes into Westworld Season 1 so far. If someone can point to an episode and time stamp that has music, I'd be happy to check it out.*
> 
> I came late to the Game of Thrones party, so am pretty deep into that right now, working through Season 5. What a terrific series. Atmos is quite well done across the board in my opinion.
Click to expand...

 The WestWorld UHD Blu-ray's Atmos track has prominent music at the beginning of each episode for the opening credits. If you have Front Wides, that's where the bulk of the music comes from. Some is bled off to the overheads and surrounds. But the Front Left, Center, Right remain silent. The player piano cues come through the regular speakers as you would expect.


----------



## stikle

Dan Hitchman said:


> The WestWorld UHD Blu-ray's Atmos track has prominent music _at the beginning of each episode_ for the opening credits.



Geez, Dan, why do you always have to make things soooo complicated?



Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have Front Wides, that's where the bulk of the music comes from. Some is bled off to the overheads and surrounds. But the Front Left, Center, Right remain silent. The player piano cues come through the regular speakers as you would expect.



Well, that was kind of weird. There was sound coming from all speakers except LCR. It sounded really good though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

stikle said:


> Geez, Dan, why do you always have to make things soooo complicated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was kind of weird. There was sound coming from all speakers except LCR. It sounded really good though.



Supposedly, the WW Season 2 sound mixers were even more aggressive in their Atmos utilization as Jonathan Nolan and his partner Lisa Joy loved the immersive format so much (and Season 1 was kind of an experiment for them), so that will be interesting to experience to say the least.


The UHD Blu-ray of the action/comedy RED has an interesting mix of score music instrumentation across Front Wide Left, Left, Center, Right, and Front Wide Right. It expands the music track in a really cool manner. 


It's really too bad that Jonathan's brother doesn't feel the same way about sound. Instead we get Chris Nolan tracks where the audience is like... huh? what did they just say? Could you repeat that???!!!


----------



## Josh Z

stikle said:


> Well, that was kind of weird. There was sound coming from all speakers except LCR. It sounded really good though.


Sounds like the opening credits to Showtime's Penny Dreadful. At least in the 5.1 broadcast I got through Comcast, most of the opening theme music came from the surround channels and little from the front soundstage. I found that incredibly weird and off-putting.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Sounds like the opening credits to Showtime's Penny Dreadful. At least in the 5.1 broadcast I got through Comcast, most of the opening theme music came from the surround channels and little from the front soundstage. I found that incredibly weird and off-putting.



WW's placement of music is different, but interesting, not off-putting as the Front Wides are still in the front screen plane. I would really dislike having music scoring coming only from the surrounds unless it was for an effect within the movie.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's really too bad that Jonathan's brother doesn't feel the same way about sound. Instead we get Chris Nolan tracks where the audience is like... huh? what did they just say? Could you repeat that???!!!


I may start boycotting Nolan movies. I am fed up with his insistence on 5.1, fed up with really poor sound quality and especially fed up with distortion. _Dunkirk _was a disgrace IMO. Not to mention AR changes to screw everyone with a CIH screen.


----------



## upgradehomesetup

i went to one of the 2 most famous electronic store's in germany, they have "a complete set up room" with AVR and over 10 speakers put everywhere in the room
and asked if i could listen to some Atmos samples, because i never heard those effects before
( i wanted to listen to something with helicopters or rain ), but i was too curious to just hear it at all, for the first time
besides other samples there was a Mad Max Road Fury sample

i ... dont ... know ...

- if the speaker cables were put incorrectly into the AVR
- if the software/firmware of the AVR was adjusted incorrectly
- if the sound of the movie is mastered & intended to be this way

in one sequence, a car driving in a desert, and the sound of the "car driving" came from the ceiling speakers

does any user have that Atmos Demo Disc with Mad Max Road Rury and can confirm that ?

a car driving on the ground is to be heard at the ceiling ?


----------



## kbarnes701

upgradehomesetup said:


> i went to one of the 2 most famous electronic store's in germany, they have "a complete set up room" with AVR and over 10 speakers put everywhere in the room
> and asked if i could listen to some Atmos samples, because i never heard those effects before
> ( i wanted to listen to something with helicopters or rain ), but i was too curious to just hear it at all, for the first time
> besides other samples there was a Mad Max Road Fury sample
> 
> i ... dont ... know ...
> 
> - if the speaker cables were put incorrectly into the AVR
> - if the software/firmware of the AVR was adjusted incorrectly
> - if the sound of the movie is mastered & intended to be this way
> 
> in one sequence, a car driving in a desert, and the sound of the "car driving" came from the ceiling speakers
> 
> does any user have that Atmos Demo Disc with Mad Max Road Rury and can confirm that ?
> 
> a car driving on the ground is to be heard at the ceiling ?


Sounds as if they were using an upmixer rather than the original Atmos track. The only instance in that movie where I could figure a car sound came from the ceiling speakers is very early on in the movie where Max is in the desert and they come after him - one shot shows a car going over the top of the camera.

That movie has really good Atmos sound so something was wrong. But then, I have never, ever, in decades of being into hifi and AV etc, been to a store demo room that was any good. Usually they are set up badly or wrongly.


----------



## GoZags13

Dan Hitchman said:


> Gravity makes heavy use of the Front Wides as long as you have the Diamond Luxe Blu-ray version (a UHD Blu-ray may be in the works that will use the same Atmos track).


Out of curiosity, have you compared the Diamond version of Gravity to the Atmos version on iTunes? After the latest Apple TV update I saw that Gravity had Atmos listed by it, and am tempted to buy it since I can't find the Diamond version anywhere at a reasonable price.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> Over the weekend, I picked up a new pair of speakers that are a very close timbre match for my front towers. I didn't really need them (my prior surround speakers sound fine), but they look a lot prettier in my room and it was too good a deal to resist. For the moment, I've installed them as my left and right Surrounds and pulled the old speakers out of service. However, now I'm kind of thinking about experimenting with Front Wides.
> 
> I have a Denon X8500H, and I'm not giving up my six discrete height channels. So I need to decide between staying with 7.1.6 as I have it now or switching to 5.1.6(+W). Obviously, that would mean giving up my Surround Backs. I'd also move my main Surrounds back a little to about 110-degrees behind me.
> 
> I never gave much consideration to Front Wides in the past, but I know that many people who have them LOVE them. Is there a particular piece of content that makes great use of Wides I can listen to for testing?
> 
> For that matter, to give this the fairest comparison I'd also like to listen to a track that uses Surround Backs to their fullest. One of the reasons I'm considering this in the first place is that, although I've had a 7.1 system for a long time, I realize that I hardly ever hear anything coming out of my Surround Back speakers. Sometimes I'll actually go and put my ear up to one of them just to assure myself that they're working at all, and invariably whatever's coming out of them is at a very low volume. (Yes, I've confirmed all my speaker levels with test tones.) More often than not, the Surround Backs seem like a waste. Will I get more bang for my buck with Front Wides, or are they basically the same in that regard?
> 
> Before anyone points it out, I'm aware that the Dolby Surround Upmixer ignores the Wide speakers. I expect that I'll switch to using Neural:X most of the time instead.


Another point to consider -- if you go the route of 7.1.6 with FW instead of SB, the FW speakers are used CONSTANTLY with native Atmos mixes so the question of "mixes that utilize wides" becomes largely irrelevant.

With a 9ch base layer with both SB and FW speakers, the "bed" content will go directly to the Surround and SBack speakers, and the wides will ONLY make noise if an object is positioned / passes through those speaker locations.

However, when you delete the SB channels, the Atmos renderer assumes the Surround speakers are further back than 90 degrees, so it uses BOTH the Surround and Wide speakers to phantom the Surround channel info -- and thus the Wides become as active as the surrounds (nearly always making noise).

Since you have the Denon X8500H, this would be easy to test for yourself... temporarily run a 9.1.4 setup and play some mixes, than deactivate the SB speakers in Speaker Config and the Wides will come alive with all Atmos mixes.

While you're testing 9.1.4, a few Atmos mixes that really engage the wides well:
- Westworld (4K only)
- The Matrix 4K remaster
- Spider-Man: Homecoming
- Both Blade Runner movies
- Mad Max: Fury Road
- Gravity


----------



## stikle

I forgot about Matrix 4K...stellar Atmos track!

I haven't gotten to the new Blade Runners yet or Spiderman: Homecoming. They're sitting on the shelf with a bunch of others just waiting..


----------



## Foundation42

batpig said:


> Another point to consider -- if you go the route of 7.1.6 with FW instead of SB, the FW speakers are used CONSTANTLY with native Atmos mixes so the question of "mixes that utilize wides" becomes largely irrelevant.
> 
> With a 9ch base layer with both SB and FW speakers, the "bed" content will go directly to the Surround and SBack speakers, and the wides will ONLY make noise if an object is positioned / passes through those speaker locations.
> 
> However, when you delete the SB channels, the Atmos renderer assumes the Surround speakers are further back than 90 degrees, so it uses BOTH the Surround and Wide speakers to phantom the Surround channel info -- and thus the Wides become as active as the surrounds (nearly always making noise).
> 
> Since you have the Denon X8500H, this would be easy to test for yourself... temporarily run a 9.1.4 setup and play some mixes, than deactivate the SB speakers in Speaker Config and the Wides will come alive with all Atmos mixes.
> 
> While you're testing 9.1.4, a few Atmos mixes that really engage the wides well:
> - Westworld (4K only)
> - The Matrix 4K remaster
> - Spider-Man: Homecoming
> - Both Blade Runner movies
> - Mad Max: Fury Road
> - Gravity





That is an interesting point of differentiation between the two configurations. All things being equal, how would you compare:


1. A 7.1.6 with FW instead of SB configuration, side surrounds at say 110 degrees



2. A 7.1.6 with SB, no FW, but with the side surrounds forward of the listening position, say 80 degrees, and the back speakers at a wider angle as well.


Would we see a difference in the processing between those two configurations?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

GoZags13 said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity makes heavy use of the Front Wides as long as you have the Diamond Luxe Blu-ray version (a UHD Blu-ray may be in the works that will use the same Atmos track).
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, have you compared the Diamond version of Gravity to the Atmos version on iTunes? After the latest Apple TV update I saw that Gravity had Atmos listed by it, and am tempted to buy it since I can't find the Diamond version anywhere at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

I would wait for the inevitable UHD Blu-ray to purchase the film. The Apple version has highly compressed lossy audio. That right there is a disqualifier for me. 

Solely on the mix side, I would assume it's the same basic Atmos track as the Diamond Luxe version.


----------



## batpig

stikle said:


> I forgot about Matrix 4K...stellar Atmos track!
> 
> I haven't gotten to the new Blade Runners yet or Spiderman: Homecoming. They're sitting on the shelf with a bunch of others just waiting..


Spider-Man: Homecoming is really a top notch Atmos track .... seems like Sony rescued this one from the Disney treatment! 

It is one of the most consistently active-in-all-channels Atmos tracks I've heard, the wides and heights are going off nearly constantly on my 9.1.4 setup -- with both ambiance and things zooming around. It's really what Atmos "should be" for us enthusiasts.

Plus I love the movie...


----------



## batpig

Foundation42 said:


> That is an interesting point of differentiation between the two configurations. All things being equal, how would you compare:
> 
> 1. A 7.1.6 with FW instead of SB configuration, side surrounds at say 110 degrees
> 
> 2. A 7.1.6 with SB, no FW, but with the side surrounds forward of the listening position, say 80 degrees, and the back speakers at a wider angle as well.
> 
> Would we see a difference in the processing between those two configurations?


Well from a practical perspective, Option 2 has a significant advantage in that it allows you to use Dolby Surround to upmix to all 13 speakers. With Option 1 for upmixing you are stuck with either 5.1.6 (DSU) or 7.1.4 (Neural:X) output.

The output will be different -- with Option 1, you will gain any advantage of direct object use of the wides (e.g. pulling the score out from the front soundstage) when it occurs.... but with Option 2 you won't have to downmix 7.1 content to 5.1.


----------



## Nalleh

batpig said:


> Another point to consider -- if you go the route of 7.1.6 with FW instead of SB





Foundation42 said:


> 1. A 7.1.6 with FW instead of SB configuration, side surrounds at say 110 degrees
> 
> ?


You can’t have 6 Atmos overheads with wides, even on the 8500. As soon as you activate the wides, you are limited to 4 overheads in Atmos.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dan Hitchman said:


> Supposedly, the WW Season 2 sound mixers were even more aggressive in their Atmos utilization as Jonathan Nolan and his partner Lisa Joy loved the immersive format so much (and Season 1 was kind of an experiment for them), so that will be interesting to experience to say the least.


I had a moment when reading this, thinking "I wonder if someone will mention Christopher?" 



> It's really too bad that Jonathan's brother doesn't feel the same way about sound. Instead we get Chris Nolan tracks where the audience is like... huh? what did they just say? Could you repeat that???!!!


Hehe. Perhaps we can hope that over the Xmas dinner table, Jonathan will persuade Christopher.


----------



## Josh Z

Nalleh said:


> You can’t have 6 Atmos overheads with wides, even on the 8500. As soon as you activate the wides, you are limited to 4 overheads in Atmos.


You can't do 5.1.6(+W)? I thought that was an allowable option.


----------



## Ted99

I've got the 13.1 Auro setup as well as 9(wides).1.4 Atmos. I bought the Blade Runner 2049 in Auro as an experiment. The music was largely in the overheads and the emotional involvement from the music was greater than that from the same movie in Atmos. I also like having the music coming from the wides with Dolby. My wides are not as good as the L,R, but are not satellites. Frankly, the extra width on effects from wides in my 14' x 12'-wide room doesn't add much, but putting the music there is noticably better.


----------



## stikle

Nalleh said:


> You can’t have 6 Atmos overheads with wides, even on the 8500. As soon as you activate the wides, you are limited to 4 overheads in Atmos.



Unless...


----------



## Josh Z

In the X8500 thread, jdsmoothie confirmed that 5.1.6(+W) will not work. Bummer. Guess that ends my thought experiment about possibly adding Front Wides. I'm not giving up the 6 overheads.


----------



## Kwikas

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting point. I think if I ever do go ahead with Wides, I may well decide to use the same speakers as my mains. I have room to do it and it makes sense for the reason you suggest unless I am missing something. Originally I was thinking of repurposing my rear surrounds and getting something else for that location (my 4 surrounds are no longer available so one pair at least has to be different to the rest and making it the less important pair - the rear surround - makes sense). But if I could accommodate an extra pair of JBL 3677s that would make sense for the Wides. Hmmm.


Hi Keith,

If you go with wides, you may also want to consider the JBL MR822's.

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/MR800 Series/MR822.pdf

These utilise the same HF driver as the 3677 (2416H-1) and run the same 'family' of L/F driver - the 2022 12" (vs the 2035 15" found in the 3677). IOW, a good timbre match with your mains. 

They also wouldn't so imposing as the 3677 in that position either because they would occupy less space. 

Anyway, I know this isn't a 'gear thread' per se, so back to Atmos....


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> Similarly when Dolby Pro Logic was first introduced [I was there in the trenches selling high end processors and getting technical training from the likes of Dolby, THX, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, Yamaha, Denon, etc.] they specifically recommended using bipole/dipole speakers for the side/rear speakers, _not_ monopoles...


I'd agree that was probably true with everybody you mention with the exception of Dolby. I was there and wrote much of the Dolby collateral.  We never recommended dipoles, but of course allowed users to decide for themselves among monopole, bipole or dipole. Our demos were always done with monopoles (with the exception of the RCA Video Acoustics multi-driver surround speakers). All of the THX licensees (everyone mentioned other than Yamaha) certainly towed the THX dipole line.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> In the X8500 thread, jdsmoothie confirmed that 5.1.6(+W) will not work. Bummer. Guess that ends my thought experiment about possibly adding Front Wides. I'm not giving up the 6 overheads.


I only have 4 overheads and intend to stay that way for the foreseeable, but do you not think that speakers at ear level, in front of you, are more useful than speakers on the ceiling, above you? Neither Wides nor Overheads are all that much different in terms of Atmos content, but there is a big difference in how we hear sounds in front of us and sounds above us.

Also, as Sanjay pointed out recently, with 6 overheads, the TF pair and the TR pair are mostly silent with almost all the content going to the TM pair, whereas with 4 overheads, the TF and TR pair are active most of the time, with a phantom image for where the TM pair would be. So if I had to choose between TM and Wides, I'd go with the latter I think. But I only have a single row theater, which may be relevant.


----------



## kbarnes701

Kwikas said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> If you go with wides, you may also want to consider the JBL MR822's.
> 
> http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/MR800 Series/MR822.pdf
> 
> These utilise the same HF driver as the 3677 (2416H-1) and run the same 'family' of L/F driver - the 2022 12" (vs the 2035 15" found in the 3677). IOW, a good timbre match with your mains.
> 
> They also wouldn't so imposing as the 3677 in that position either because they would occupy less space.
> 
> Anyway, I know this isn't a 'gear thread' per se, so back to Atmos....


Very useful info - thanks. I did have a quick measure-up last night and decided that using the 3677s for Wides is a no-go - they are just too big. But those MR822s are real neat. Thanks again.


----------



## Lesmor

I used wides years ago when I had a Denon 7200 
they definitely added to the experience but unfortunately processing restrictions meant you had to sacrifice other channels when using Atmos or DTS:X 
it was also a squeeze fitting them into proper angular position due to the rooms width 
in the end I felt heights and rear speakers were more important

now with my Denon 8500 it would be possible to add them back but yet again I would have to accept a compromise in active speakers plus with the speakers I own now it would be a tighter fit

I would definitely recommend wides if you can comfortably
accommodate the 60 deg angle requirement


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> I used wides years ago when I had a Denon 7200
> they definitely added to the experience but unfortunately processing restrictions meant you had to sacrifice other channels when using Atmos or DTS:X
> it was also a squeeze fitting them into proper angular position due to the rooms width
> in the end I felt heights and rear speakers were more important
> 
> now with my Denon 8500 it would be possible to add them back but yet again I would have to accept a compromise in active speakers plus with the speakers I own now it would be a tighter fit
> 
> I would definitely recommend wides if you can comfortably
> accommodate the 60 deg angle requirement


I can meet the angle requirement if I go with smaller speakers as suggested just above. I am in no hurry to change anything here but if/when I get the urge for a new AVR I think I would definitely want to consider Wides seriously. I have some 'spare' channels on one of my two miniDSP DDRC-88A units for Dirac-ing the Wides, so I'd just need an additional 2ch amp (and the speakers of course). Thanks for the encouragement!


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> I only have 4 overheads and intend to stay that way for the foreseeable, but do you not think that speakers at ear level, in front of you, are more useful than speakers on the ceiling, above you? Neither Wides nor Overheads are all that much different in terms of Atmos content, but there is a big difference in how we hear sounds in front of us and sounds above us.
> 
> Also, as Sanjay pointed out recently, with 6 overheads, the TF pair and the TR pair are mostly silent with almost all the content going to the TM pair, whereas with 4 overheads, the TF and TR pair are active most of the time, with a phantom image for where the TM pair would be. So if I had to choose between TM and Wides, I'd go with the latter I think. But I only have a single row theater, which may be relevant.


My thinking for prioritizing six height channels:

1) I installed Top Middles because my room has a low ceiling and my other height speakers are spread rather far apart at the Front Height and Rear Height positions. As a result, sounds were not imaging well between them and I had an auditory hole above my head. Top Middles fill that hole.

2) As mentioned earlier in the thread, Wide channels only get much usage if you disable Surround Backs for a 5.1(+W) layout on the ground. This would mean I'd have to disable both Surround Backs and Top Middles, downgrading from 7.1.6 to 5.1.4(+W). That seems like too much of a compromise.

3) Although Atmos content may direct most sounds to the Top Middles and not use the other heights much, the Dolby Surround Upmixer (which is active for most of my viewing) uses all six height speakers. DSU really only has 2 channels of height info, but it's spread across all speakers on each side of the room.

4) One of the reasons I'd been resistant to Wide channels in the past is that I never felt I was missing anything in those locations. Sounds image pretty well between my front mains and Surrounds.

5) My Top Middle speakers are already installed in the ceiling. What am I gonna do, leave them there and not use them? At least on the ground level, I can remove speakers if I don't need them, but removing overheads will require patching and repainting my ceiling.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> My thinking for prioritizing six height channels:
> 
> 1) I installed Top Middles because my room has a low ceiling and my other height speakers are spread rather far apart at the Front Height and Rear Height positions. As a result, sounds were not imaging well between them and I had an auditory hole above my head. Top Middles fill that hole.
> 
> 2) As mentioned earlier in the thread, Wide channels only get much usage if you disable Surround Backs for a 5.1(+W) layout on the ground. This would mean I'd have to disable both Surround Backs and Top Middles, downgrading from 7.1.6 to 5.1.4(+W). That seems like too much of a compromise.
> 
> 3) Although Atmos content may direct most sounds to the Top Middles and not use the other heights much, the Dolby Surround Upmixer (which is active for most of my viewing) uses all six height speakers. DSU really only has 2 channels of height info, but it's spread across all speakers on each side of the room.
> 
> 4) One of the reasons I'd been resistant to Wide channels in the past is that I never felt I was missing anything in those locations. Sounds image pretty well between my front mains and Surrounds.
> 
> 5) My Top Middle speakers are already installed in the ceiling. What am I gonna do, leave them there and not use them? At least on the ground level, I can remove speakers if I don't need them, but removing overheads will require patching and repainting my ceiling.


All makes sense  Especially 1) -- my overheads are mounted in the 'classic' positions for TF + TR (45 degree angle from MLP) but then I have a very high ceiling to work with (a deliberate part of my room design)). So my phantom central image is good. Point taken for 5) as well.

Although I was a very enthusiastic early adopter of DSU, I am finding these days that I often prefer to watch native 7.1 or 5.1 movies in their native (non-upmixed) format. Not always, but quite often. Upmixers are fantastic when they work well, but sometimes I am finding that sounds which definitely belong at ear level are sent to the overheads and I very much dislike this. Yet other movies are amazingly good at letting the upmixer put appropriate sounds up in the ceiling speakers. My main intention with Wides, if I ever go that route, would be for genuine Atmos content, albeit for objects only.

Bottom line is I'm not sure about Wides yet. More expense, more amps, a new AVR, more setup with Dirac Live via my pair of 88As and of course, two new speakers. I am giving it a definite maybe right now.

K


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> All of the THX licensees (everyone mentioned other than Yamaha) certainly towed the THX dipole line.


I remember Lexicon mentioning dipoles as an option, but not their preferred choice since they were using 4 surrounds. The home THX program was attempting to mimic what was heard on the dubbing stage (to whatever extent it was possible) and Holman found that dipole surrounds came closest to sounding like arrays. Had nothing to do with Pro Logic's mono surround channel (which was addressed with THX Decorrelation).


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> I remember Lexicon mentioning dipoles as an option, but not their preferred choice since they were using 4 surrounds. The home THX program was attempting to mimic what was heard on the dubbing stage (to whatever extent it was possible) and Holman found that dipole surrounds came closest to sounding like arrays. .


I can see how as the more deluxe systems moved to 7 or more instead of 5 speakers the interest in dipoles waned although there are still supporters. [For the record, I used THX (dipole) sides at one point but only very briefly].

Here's an interesting perspective from 2010:
" Audyssey Labs July 05, 2010 10:15

We recommend using dipoles for surrounds for the reasons you mention. They have nothing to do with Dolby Surround--that's just an encoding method for the content. The purpose of dipoles is to reproduce the diffuse ambient sound that one gets in a movie theater with multiple speakers playing the same content (and thus sounding diffuse).

Bipoles are not recommended because they don't really achieve the diffuse sound needed. I guess they are a compromise between dipoles and direct radiators. Yes, some surround music content was mixed with direct radiators as surrounds, but since that is a dead format at this point I would recommend going with dipoles."

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-...s-bipoles-or-monopoles-for-surround-speakers-

Another interesting [but unofficial] approach I've never used but have read about is placing a monopole speaker on the floor, perhaps behind a chair, sofa, or plant, and having it shoot straight up. This was said to "paint the entire side wall with sound". Interesting.


----------



## batpig

m. zillch said:


> Here's an interesting perspective from 2010:
> " Audyssey Labs July 05, 2010 10:15
> 
> We recommend using dipoles for surrounds for the reasons you mention. They have nothing to do with Dolby Surround--that's just an encoding method for the content. The purpose of dipoles is to reproduce the diffuse ambient sound that one gets in a movie theater with multiple speakers playing the same content (and thus sounding diffuse).
> 
> Bipoles are not recommended because they don't really achieve the diffuse sound needed. I guess they are a compromise between dipoles and direct radiators. Yes, some surround music content was mixed with direct radiators as surrounds, but since that is a dead format at this point I would recommend going with dipoles."


Remember that Tomlinson Holman -- one of the inventors of THX -- is co-founder of Audyssey along with Chris Kyriakakis. So no surprise that a lot of THX principles leaked into Audyssey.


----------



## bass addict

I have been getting ready to upgrade to 7.1.6 but a statement I read has me a little concerned. 

Others have mentioned that when using DSU in a .6 config the overhead centers receive most of the information. Wouldn't this be a step backwards compared to FH and RH?


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> Remember that Tomlinson Holman -- one of the inventors of THX -- is co-founder of Audyssey along with Chris Kyriakakis. So no surprise that a lot of THX principles leaked into Audyssey.


Good point.


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> Others have mentioned that when using DSU in a .6 config the overhead centers receive most of the information.


SOME Atmos titles have the majority of their height info in the middle speakers, with very little in the forward & rearward height speakers. If you run into this, you can always switch over to a X.x.4 configuration. 

DSU is an upmixer, so it is only used on non-Atmos titles. DSU only extracts 2 height outputs. So all the left height speakers get the same feed; all the right height speakers get the same feed. No concentration on the middle speakers overhead.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> SOME Atmos titles have the majority of their height info in the middle speakers, with very little in the forward & rearward height speakers. If you run into this, you can always switch over to a X.x.4 configuration.
> 
> DSU is an upmixer, so it is only used on non-Atmos titles. DSU only extracts 2 height outputs. So all the left height speakers get the same feed; all the right height speakers get the same feed. No concentration on the middle speakers overhead.


Am I right in thinking that I read somewhere that Neural:X uses both of the overhead pairs independently - so the TFL and TFR can receive different signals, as can the TRR and TRL? If so, wouldn't this give better potential steering of sound above us?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Am I right in thinking that I read somewhere that Neural:X uses both of the overhead pairs independently - so the TFL and TFR can receive different signals, as can the TRR and TRL? If so, wouldn't this give better potential steering of sound above us?


Yes, but it extracts direct (correlated) sounds, so steered dialogue can find its way into the height layer. By comparison, DSU only extracts diffuse (uncorrelated) content, so directional sounds don't make it up to the height layer. One of these days when you're in the mood to experiment, you should turn off the amp to your base layer speakers and just listen to what is happening in the height layer when upmixing. One of them will make you wonder where all the ambient sounds went; the other will make you wonder why you can't precisely localize any of the sounds.


----------



## upgradehomesetup

i am very new to dolby atmos and avr's

so i read many websites and watched many videos

and now i am confused, if i am right or wrong

please have a look


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yes, but it extracts direct (correlated) sounds, so steered dialogue can find its way into the height layer. By comparison, DSU only extracts diffuse (uncorrelated) content, so directional sounds don't make it up to the height layer. One of these days when you're in the mood to experiment, you should turn off the amp to your base layer speakers and just listen to what is happening in the height layer when upmixing. One of them will make you wonder where all the ambient sounds went; the other will make you wonder why you can't precisely localize any of the sounds.


Thanks. In fact, I have done this experiment several times already, trying to compare DSU and Neural:X. I can very easily turn off all the floor level speakers (including subs) simply with a button press because I have a button which mutes the miniDSP DDRC-88A which controls the floor level speakers. Instant silence from the floor speakers while the overheads continue to play. The differences between the two upmixers are very easy to notice. Depending on the content, one can be more dramatic than the other. 

For example, a favorite movie of mine for demoing the two upmixers and their differences is _Spectre _-- at the very beginning of the movie there is a sustained fight in a helicopter which is shot from both inside the helicopter and from the ground. DSU does a good job of creating the effect of the helicopter above one's head, with some of the score up there as well. Neural:X is much more dramatic and the helicopter is much more noticeable, swooping and swirling around the room over my head. BUT... Neural:X also puts up there some of the crowd sounds from the thousands of onlookers enjoying the festival below. This is a shame, because Neural:X's presentation of the helicopter is better than DSU's, but clearly the crowd is not in the sky and so the overall impact is spoiled. HST, with the floor level speakers playing at the same time, this isn't all that noticeable (unless you are already aware of it perhaps) so Neural:X makes for a more dynamic demo. Overall, I find Neural:X is better for demoing the effect but DSU is more listenable over the longer haul.


----------



## kbarnes701

upgradehomesetup said:


> i am very new to dolby atmos and avr's
> 
> so i read many websites and watched many videos
> 
> and now i am confused, if i am right or wrong
> 
> please have a look
> 
> View attachment 2461108


The AVR has only 7 channels of _amplification _so it cannot do more than 7 channels in total using its internal amps - 7.1.

However the unit has 9.2 channel _processing_, so if you add an external 2 channel amp, you can expand this to 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 (9 channels in total).

In addition, the unit has 13.2 channel _pre-outs_ (which is what is confusing you) - but they cannot all be used at the same time (because the unit has only 9.2 channel processing). It enables you to switch to different layout formats without swapping cables.

Bottom line: with only 9.2 channel processing the unit cannot do more than 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 for Atmos/DTS:X.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^ If you want to go to more than 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 you need a unit with 9 channels of amplification and 11.2 channel processing. This would give you 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 'internally' and with the addition of an external 2 channel amp you could expand to 7.1.4 or 5.1.6 (11 channels in total). This is how my Marantz 7010 allows me to have a 7.x.4 setup (although I actually externally amplify all my channels, using the AVR more like a pre-pro).

(Apologies for tacked-on post - the editor wasn't responding when I tried to add this to the original post).


----------



## m. zillch

upgradehomesetup said:


> i am very new to dolby atmos and avr's
> 
> so i read many websites and watched many videos
> 
> and now i am confused, if i am right or wrong
> 
> please have a look
> 
> View attachment 2461108


I think the part you may be missing is that there can be more positions _labelled_ on the back panel than can be enabled _simultaneously_. So there may be, for example, a pair that are labelled as working in some way but they rely on another pair not being enabled when they are used. The limitation of what works and when is not just based on how many amp channels are on board but also the processor chip.

I don't know the specifics of your AVR but hopefully reading the owner's manual will clear things up.


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> Another interesting [but unofficial] approach I've never used but have read about is placing a monopole speaker on the floor, perhaps behind a chair, sofa, or plant, and having it shoot straight up. This was said to "paint the entire side wall with sound". Interesting.


I have a been to a friend's system like this and it works surprisingly well for producing general surround ambience. It's pretty easy to try out if one is left with few options.


----------



## m. zillch

Roger Dressler said:


> I have a been to a friend's system like this and it works surprisingly well for producing general surround ambience. It's pretty easy to try out if one is left with few options.


Another plus for some is "invisibility". That works well for the technical measurement "SAF".


----------



## musicallife

*Question about my Atmos setup* At the risk of sounding 'dumb', here is my question 

The atmos content I find is mostly 7.1.x , I am going to setup 5.1.4 for my home theater. Will 5.1.4 send the signal to all 4 Atmos speakers even when 7.1 content is played?


----------



## pasender91

If 5.1 or 7.1 is the source, then Dolby Surround will get activated by default.
It is DS that will generate content for the .4 height speakers ... so to make it short the answer is YES


----------



## Selden Ball

upgradehomesetup said:


> i am very new to dolby atmos and avr's
> 
> so i read many websites and watched many videos
> 
> and now i am confused, if i am right or wrong
> 
> please have a look
> 
> View attachment 2461108


A point which I don't see in Keith's response is that you counted "Height 1" twice in your image. The "Height 1" speaker binding posts receive the same (but amplified) signals as the "Height1 " preamp outputs.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> A point which I don't see in Keith's response is that you counted "Height 1" twice in your image. The "Height 1" speaker binding posts receive the same (but amplified) signals as the "Height1 " preamp outputs.


Good catch Selden. I didn't look too hard at the attachment coz the answer to the query is pretty standard stuff for anyone who has gotten into Atmos AVRs. Easy for someone coming to it for the first time to be confused.


----------



## kbarnes701

musicallife said:


> *Question about my Atmos setup* At the risk of sounding 'dumb', here is my question
> 
> The atmos content I find is mostly 7.1.x , I am going to setup 5.1.4 for my home theater. Will 5.1.4 send the signal to all 4 Atmos speakers even when 7.1 content is played?


Don't quite understand your question. Atmos content isn't really labelled 7.x.x or 5.x.x - Atmos will use all the speakers your system is set up for. So if you have 9.1.6 for example, and an AVR that can process 9.1.6, Atmos will use all 15 speakers plus the sub. If OTOH you had an AVR limited to a 5.1.4 setup, then Atmos would use that setup instead. No information is discarded or lost - the information is 'split' between all the speakers in the system.

If you are using non-Atmos content - eg discs labelled 5.1 or 7.1 - then you can choose one of the upmixers (Dolby Surround Upmixer -- DSU -- or DTS Neural:X) which will upmix the regular non-Atmos content to the speakers you have. This means that your overhead speakers will make noise even when the content is pre-Atmos (for most of us that is the vast majority of our discs).

If your system is 5.1.4, all upmixed content will go to all speakers regardless of whether the content is originally 5.1 or 7.1. The aim of upmixing is to extract signals from the 'base format' (5.1 for example) and send the extracted signals to all the speakers in the system. So 5.1 can be upmixed to 7.1 or 5.1.2, 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 etc. If the content is already 7.1 and you have a 7.1 system, then no upmixing is needed because you have a speaker for each channel anyway.

Only discs labelled 'Atmos' will use the speakers in your Atmos setup (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4) without any upmixing being needed.

So the bottom line is: check the disc for the format it is recorded in. If it is Atmos, set your player to bitstream output and Atmos will 'find' all your speakers and use them. If the disc is labelled 5.1 or 7.1, use one of the upmixers if you want all your speakers, including overheads, to play sound.


----------



## bass addict

kbarnes701 said:


> I can meet the angle requirement if I go with smaller speakers as suggested just above. I am in no hurry to change anything here but if/when I get the urge for a new AVR I think I would definitely want to consider Wides seriously. I have some 'spare' channels on one of my two miniDSP DDRC-88A units for Dirac-ing the Wides, so I'd just need an additional 2ch amp (and the speakers of course). Thanks for the encouragement!


I have a very narrow room (10.5 x 22). Do you think there would be any benefit to wides at all? There would be no way to timbre match them really as I'm running TD15's for my mains. These would have to be a 6" speaker to fit and not stick out a mile into the room when angling towards listening position. 

I'm running pre atmos currently and am in the middle of a theater reno where I'm redoing seating position, columns, etc for Atmos upgrade and have been going back and forth on the positioning of the speakers. I have 2 rows of seating but the main row sees most all of the use. 

I'm leaning towards 7.1.6 but in current use I don't see a lot of benefit from rear surrounds. I am also put off by those who state when using 6 overhead speakers that the centers get the majority of the signal. What's the point of running 6 up top if you're only using 2 of them?


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> I have a very narrow room (10.5 x 22). Do you think there would be any benefit to wides at all?


Sure, placing them midway between your Fronts and Surrounds will bridge that gap.


> What's the point of running 6 up top if you're only using 2 of them?


A couple of titles have been described that way. Are you assuming all Atmos mixes are like that? It would be like looking at complaints about particular Atmos titles that have practically no height info and asking what's the point of running height speakers at all.


----------



## upgradehomesetup

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^ If you want to go to more than 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 you need a unit with 9 channels of amplification and 11.2 channel processing. This would give you 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 'internally' and with the addition of an external 2 channel amp you could expand to 7.1.4 or 5.1.6 (11 channels in total). This is how my Marantz 7010 allows me to have a 7.x.4 setup (although I actually externally amplify all my channels, using the AVR more like a pre-pro).
> 
> (Apologies for tacked-on post - the editor wasn't responding when I tried to add this to the original post).


the attachment was a picture of Denon 4100/4200 ( i dont have any AVR yet )

if "HEIGHT1R" and "HEIGHT1L" = are two seperate channels, which make it 0.0.2

and "PRE OUT HEIGHT 1" and "PRE OUT HEIGHT 2" = are the same signal as HEIGHT1R and HEIGHT1L, which makes the situation stay at 0.0.2

what hole/port on, where do you plug in an external stereo amp ? to make it 0.0.4 seperate channels ?

because as far as i understand, you have set up 4 height speakers, but 2 of them emit the same sound, and so the other 2


----------



## bass addict

sdurani said:


> Sure, placing them midway between your Fronts and Surrounds will bridge that gap. A couple of titles have been described that way. Are you assuming all Atmos mixes are like that? It would be like looking at complaints about particular Atmos titles that have practically no height info and asking what's the point of running height speakers at all.


So if one had to choose between rears and wides, which direction would make the most sense in my scenario? 

I guess I'm not completely familiar with the ins and out of Atmos. I understand some titles have less information in the heights than others; what I've been led to believe is that when running 6 overheads; the default signal is sent to 2 and not all 6. If this not standard procedure than that's a different story.


----------



## kbarnes701

upgradehomesetup said:


> the attachment was a picture of Denon 4100/4200 ( i dont have any AVR yet )
> 
> if "HEIGHT1R" and "HEIGHT1L" = are two seperate channels, which make it 0.0.2
> 
> and "PRE OUT HEIGHT 1" and "PRE OUT HEIGHT 2" = are the same signal as HEIGHT1R and HEIGHT1L, which makes the situation stay at 0.0.2
> 
> what hole/port on, where do you plug in an external stereo amp ? to make it 0.0.4 seperate channels ?
> 
> because as far as i understand, you have set up 4 height speakers, but 2 of them emit the same sound, and so the other 2


Connection issues are best dealt with in the thread specific to your AVR and are off topic here. Briefly, if you have connected the Height 1 L&R speaker terminals to one set of overhead speakers, you need to connect the external amp to the Height 2 preouts and then connect the speaker terminals on the external amp to the second set of overhead speakers.

Understand that your unit can only process 9.x channels at one time - 7 of these can be amplified by the AVR internal amps and the other two by the external 2 channel amp. So that is FR, C, FL, SR, SL and TFL and TFR via the internal amps (adding up to 7) and TRL and TRR (the other two) via the external amps.


----------



## kbarnes701

bass addict said:


> I have a very narrow room (10.5 x 22). Do you think there would be any benefit to wides at all? There would be no way to timbre match them really as I'm running TD15's for my mains.


In addition to what Sanjay said... I wouldn't worry about 'timbre matching' if you are using some form of room EQ (eg Audyssey). That will sort out any tonal differences between speakers.


----------



## musicallife

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't quite understand your question. Atmos content isn't really labelled 7.x.x or 5.x.x - Atmos will use all the speakers your system is set up for. So if you have 9.1.6 for example, and an AVR that can process 9.1.6, Atmos will use all 15 speakers plus the sub. If OTOH you had an AVR limited to a 5.1.4 setup, then Atmos would use that setup instead. No information is discarded or lost - the information is 'split' between all the speakers in the system.
> 
> If you are using non-Atmos content - eg discs labelled 5.1 or 7.1 - then you can choose one of the upmixers (Dolby Surround Upmixer -- DSU -- or DTS Neural:X) which will upmix the regular non-Atmos content to the speakers you have. This means that your overhead speakers will make noise even when the content is pre-Atmos (for most of us that is the vast majority of our discs).
> 
> If your system is 5.1.4, all upmixed content will go to all speakers regardless of whether the content is originally 5.1 or 7.1. The aim of upmixing is to extract signals from the 'base format' (5.1 for example) and send the extracted signals to all the speakers in the system. So 5.1 can be upmixed to 7.1 or 5.1.2, 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 etc. If the content is already 7.1 and you have a 7.1 system, then no upmixing is needed because you have a speaker for each channel anyway.
> 
> Only discs labelled 'Atmos' will use the speakers in your Atmos setup (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4) without any upmixing being needed.
> 
> So the bottom line is: check the disc for the format it is recorded in. If it is Atmos, set your player to bitstream output and Atmos will 'find' all your speakers and use them. If the disc is labelled 5.1 or 7.1, use one of the upmixers if you want all your speakers, including overheads, to play sound.


Awesome!! very well explained. Thanks a lot.


----------



## farsider3000

bass addict said:


> So if one had to choose between rears and wides, which direction would make the most sense in my scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not completely familiar with the ins and out of Atmos. I understand some titles have less information in the heights than others; what I've been led to believe is that when running 6 overheads; the default signal is sent to 2 and not all 6. If this not standard procedure than that's a different story.



Rears are used much, much more than wides in Atmos mixes. Only use wides if you already have rears and your processor supports enough channels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> So if one had to choose between rears and wides, which direction would make the most sense in my scenario?


Rears (assuming your seating is not at or near the back wall). There are no Wide channels; never been any such thing in the history of movie sound. Those speakers are fed with objects (Atmos) or a combination of objects & matrix extraction (DTS:X). By comparison, Rears are channels; they exist on every Atmos, DTS:X and 7.1 soundtrack.


----------



## bass addict

farsider3000 said:


> Rears are used much, much more than wides in Atmos mixes. Only use wides if you already have rears and your processor supports enough channels.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





sdurani said:


> Rears (assuming your seating is not at or near the back wall). There are no Wide channels; never been any such thing in the history of movie sound. Those speakers are fed with objects (Atmos) or a combination of objects & matrix extraction (DTS:X). By comparison, Rears are channels; they exist on every Atmos, DTS:X and 7.1 soundtrack.


Thank you. Can the Denon 8500 do 9.1.4? If so, would this make more sense than 7.1.6? 

I can't help but think the improved base layer would be more instrumental in creating a realistic sound stage than an additional 2 overheads?


----------



## sdurani

bass addict said:


> Can the Denon 8500 do 9.1.4? If so, would this make more sense than 7.1.6?


Yes and yes.


> I can't help but think the improved base layer would be more instrumental in creating a realistic sound stage than an additional 2 overheads?


Agreed; most of the information in an immersive soundtrack is in the base layer, so that's where I'd start adding speakers when going beyond 7.1.4.


----------



## farsider3000

bass addict said:


> Thank you. Can the Denon 8500 do 9.1.4? If so, would this make more sense than 7.1.6?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but think the improved base layer would be more instrumental in creating a realistic sound stage than an additional 2 overheads?



I found that when I added a middle row of Atmos ceiling speakers it provides better overhead effects since the middle row was directly overhead.

Wides are not used often but it’s up to personal preference and hard to know which is the best solution. I am adding wides as well and will test back and forth since my processor “only” supports 13 speakers plus subs. My next processor will support 15 speakers plus subs so I will have the wides and 6 Atmos ceiling speakers active.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bass addict

farsider3000 said:


> I found that when I added a middle row of Atmos ceiling speakers it provides better overhead effects since the middle row was directly overhead.
> 
> Wides are not used often but it’s up to personal preference and hard to know which is the best solution. I am adding wides as well and will test back and forth since my processor “only” supports 13 speakers plus subs. My next processor will support 15 speakers plus subs so I will have the wides and 6 Atmos ceiling speakers active.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Well heights are much easier to implement in my room than wides so I'll probably plan on 6 heights and then wire for wides and experiment to see which works better. When I first built the theater I wired for FW and FH, and stole the wiring from those two spots for TF/TR. Hindsight lol.


----------



## farsider3000

bass addict said:


> Well heights are much easier to implement in my room than wides so I'll probably plan on 6 heights and then wire for wides and experiment to see which works better. When I first built the theater I wired for FW and FH, and stole the wiring from those two spots for TF/TR. Hindsight lol.




Ha. Tell me about it. I wired for 7.1 back in 2011 and had to do some extensive time in my extremely hot attic and remodeled the entire front of my theater to get the six heights and wides wired. Not fun but worth it!

In ten years we will be saying “I wish I would have known about the new Dolby Atmos in-floor speakers so I could have pre-wired” 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bass addict

farsider3000 said:


> Ha. Tell me about it. I wired for 7.1 back in 2011 and had to do some extensive time in my extremely hot attic and remodeled the entire front of my theater to get the six heights and wides wired. Not fun but worth it!
> 
> In ten years we will be saying “I wish I would have known about the new Dolby Atmos in-floor speakers so I could have pre-wired”
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


My wife has accused me of having the theater torn apart more than it's together. I find myself upgrading a lot. 

I initially wired it for component (if that tells you anything lol) with my first Panny pj. I then had to rewire for HDMI, then heights and wides, then more subs, then ................................. I really wish I had a HT crystal ball.


----------



## asarose247

The "fun" of HT and DIY as a "hobby" is endlessly and thankfully (?) exacerbated by "What If?".

The "absence" of wides, annoying(?), wishful thinking(?). , industry failure , 

I set up my surrounds so I might have an option, depending on the source . . movies in particular

it came from discussions about a better sonic "tie" to the LCR - i.e. Dude! Where's my Wides. (pun intended)

it's not a "lot" of movement forward 20" or so, (CTC horn positioning)/ angulation closer to the LCR.

but i hadn't seen any ( basically NONE!) "mobile" surround set-ups even in my brief life here at AVS

so I just had to do it . . because : speakers ( and studs in the right place)

but those 15" SEOS horns will create an amazing sound field if given a chance

HTH


----------



## bass addict

asarose247 said:


> The "fun" of HT and DIY as a "hobby" is endlessly and thankfully (?) exacerbated by "What If?".
> 
> The "absence" of wides, annoying(?), wishful thinking(?). , industry failure ,
> 
> I set up my surrounds so I might have an option, depending on the source . . movies in particular
> 
> it came from discussions about a better sonic "tie" to the LCR - i.e. Dude! Where's my Wides. (pun intended)
> 
> it's not a "lot" of movement forward 20" or so, (CTC horn positioning)/ angulation closer to the LCR.
> 
> but i hadn't seen any ( basically NONE!) "mobile" surround set-ups even in my brief life here at AVS
> 
> so I just had to do it . . because : speakers ( and studs in the right place)
> 
> but those 15" SEOS horns will create an amazing sound field if given a chance
> 
> HTH


That's too funny. Matt and I designed one of the first iterations of that setup a few years back. It's a SEOS/TD6m combination. I originally built them for my FH. I'd love to move them to the FW position, but they'd stick way too far out into the room.


----------



## mrtickleuk

farsider3000 said:


> In ten years we will be saying “I wish I would have known about the new Dolby Atmos in-floor speakers so I could have pre-wired”


In concrete? Don't think so!


----------



## farsider3000

mrtickleuk said:


> In concrete? Don't think so!



Well obviously they will have the on-floor micro mesh version made from graphene that you roll out under the carpet to cover the entire floor 

Copyright 2018 Farsider3000


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gravi

*Suggestions for future Atmos upgrade*

I have not visited the audio forums in a while (time sucked up by projector forums), and I have tried to catch up as much as possible, so excuse me if this information is already available somewhere here or related thread. I wante to solicit some advice for my current setup.

I have a 7.2.4 setup, using a Marantz SR7010. I have a two rows of seating but the second row is against a rear wall. I installed 4 overhead speakers, one pair in front of first row, one in between the two rows. These are configured as TF and TR. Pretty good so far, obviously second row is not as immersive, but there is nothing I can do about that. I only care for Atmos/DTS:X, never looked into Auro.

IF I consider a future upgrade to add more speakers, what is the best option? I don't think front wides will be of much benefit as I have a scope screen and my L/R are near the corners of the room already, minimizing the gap, I think. Would front heights be better? Are they part of the atmos object layout? Do upmix logic pick them up? I think I read in the Denon forum that you can only configure 3 pairs of top speakers, please correct me if I am wrong. In which case I don't think I gain a whole lot.

Thanks again for any suggestions.


----------



## Josh Z

gravi said:


> I have a 7.2.4 setup, using a Marantz SR7010. I have a two rows of seating but the second row is against a rear wall. I installed 4 overhead speakers, one pair in front of first row, one in between the two rows. These are configured as TF and TR. Pretty good so far, obviously second row is not as immersive, but there is nothing I can do about that. I only care for Atmos/DTS:X, never looked into Auro.
> 
> IF I consider a future upgrade to add more speakers, what is the best option? I don't think front wides will be of much benefit as I have a scope screen and my L/R are near the corners of the room already, minimizing the gap, I think. Would front heights be better? Are they part of the atmos object layout? Do upmix logic pick them up? I think I read in the Denon forum that you can only configure 3 pairs of top speakers, please correct me if I am wrong. In which case I don't think I gain a whole lot.



Your Marantz SR7010 tops out at 11 channel processing, for either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. The only way to add an extra pair of heights is to upgrade to the Denon X8500H receiver or Marantz AV8805 pre-pro. If you were to do that and set up 6 height channels, they would need to be either FH-TM-RH or TF-TM-TR. You cannot have Front Height and Top Front adjacent to one another and active simultaneously.


----------



## SoundChex

farsider3000 said:


> In ten years we will be saying “I wish I would have known about the new Dolby Atmos in-floor speakers so I could have pre-wired”



The forthcoming Dolby AC-4 codec makes provision for three "below the screen" speaker locations: *Bottom Front Left|Center|Right (Bfl|Bfc|Bfr)*. However, there's no sign of any in-floor speakers . . . so maybe you'll be able to defer that particular self-recrimination for at least twenty years.  


_


----------



## Selden Ball

Josh Z said:


> Your Marantz SR7010 tops out at 11 channel processing, for either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. The only way to add an extra pair of heights is to upgrade to the Denon X8500H receiver or Marantz AV8805 pre-pro.


Or you can spend an additional ~$10K (or more) and get one of the high-end 16 channel devices....


----------



## gravi

Josh Z said:


> Your Marantz SR7010 tops out at 11 channel processing, for either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. The only way to add an extra pair of heights is to upgrade to the Denon X8500H receiver or Marantz AV8805 pre-pro. If you were to do that and set up 6 height channels, they would need to be either FH-TM-RH or TF-TM-TR. You cannot have Front Height and Top Front adjacent to one another and active simultaneously.


Yes, an eventual upgrade will be needed. But from everything I have read so far, it is very diminishing returns from 7.2.4 to add more channels. I will likely funnel my discretionary dollars to the video side where there is more bang for the buck.


----------



## farsider3000

SoundChex said:


> The forthcoming Dolby AC-4 codec makes provision for three "below the screen" speaker locations: *Bottom Front Left|Center|Right (Bfl|Bfc|Bfr)*. However, there's no sign of any in-floor speakers . . . so maybe you'll be able to defer that particular self-recrimination for at least twenty years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Can you provide a link from Dolby that discusses these “below the screen” speaker positions. I do not see any mention of it on the Dolby AC4 site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

SoundChex said:


> The forthcoming Dolby AC-4 codec makes provision for three "below the screen" speaker locations: *Bottom Front Left|Center|Right (Bfl|Bfc|Bfr)*. However, there's no sign of any in-floor speakers . . . so maybe you'll be able to defer that particular self-recrimination for at least twenty years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



AC-4 is a new compression technology for broadcast and all I see mentioned is 5.1 plus heights. I don’t think this has anything to do with new speaker locations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SoundChex

SoundChex said:


> The forthcoming Dolby AC-4 codec makes provision for three "below the screen" speaker locations: *Bottom Front Left|Center|Right (Bfl|Bfc|Bfr)*. However, there's no sign of any in-floor speakers . . . so maybe you'll be able to defer that particular self-recrimination for at least twenty years.





farsider3000 said:


> Can you provide a link from Dolby that discusses these “below the screen” speaker positions. I do not see any mention of it on the Dolby AC4 site.





farsider3000 said:


> AC-4 is a new compression technology for broadcast and all I see mentioned is 5.1 plus heights. I don’t think this has anything to do with new speaker locations.





SoundChex said:


> Even ignoring the likely NHK specific 22.2 layout, it appears AC-4 offers eight delivery channel configurations for content distribution by broadcast, streaming, download, or disc (_should we expect to see an AC-4 extension substream added to TrueHD soundtracks on BD?_) However, as with previous codecs such as Atmos, it seems likely the number of speakers a processor can utilize for playback will be related to its price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> _Source_: *ETSI TS 103 190-2 V1.1.1 (2015-09) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard Part 2: Immersive and personalized audio* (*link*)
> 
> 
> _Other pertinent documents_:
> *Recommendation ITU-R BS.2051-2 (07/2018) Advanced sound system for programme production* (*link*)
> *ETSI TS 103 190 V1.1.1 (2014-04) Digital Audio Compression (AC-4) Standard* (*link*)



*Notes:*
REC 2051 has been revised since my original 2/2017 post. New version shown here.
ETSI docs may have been replaced by revised versions...?


_


----------



## KINGKONGG

New guy here and need opinions on my planned ceiling speaker placements (future proofingish).
I currently run a 5.2.2 config but would like to go to a 7.2.6 config in the distant future. 

The plan is to install 6 speakers new speakers and keep the other two in place for the time being.
Then use the mid and rear pairs as front and rear Atmos for a 5.1.4
I have an inclined ceiling that starts at 8' and stops at 9' as represented by the hashed lines.
Sectional couch seating.


The room is 21x17 with 3 windows on the right and a 7' open archway on the left.


The circled As are the current ceiling speakers in place.


Does my planned atmos speaker locations acceptable?


----------



## Selden Ball

KINGKONGG said:


> New guy here and need opinions on my planned ceiling speaker placements (future proofingish).
> I currently run a 5.2.2 config but would like to go to a 7.2.6 config in the distant future.
> 
> The plan is to install 6 speakers new speakers and keep the other two in place for the time being.
> Then use the mid and rear pairs as front and rear Atmos for a 5.1.4
> I have an inclined ceiling that starts at 8' and stops at 9' as represented by the hashed lines.
> Sectional couch seating.
> 
> 
> The room is 21x17 with 3 windows on the right and a 7' open archway on the left.
> 
> 
> The circled As are the current ceiling speakers in place.
> 
> 
> Does my planned atmos speaker locations acceptable?


It isn't clear to me if you're planning for them to be floor-standing or in-ceiling.

Unfortunately, having all of the speakers in the ceiling defeats the purpose of Atmos and DTS:X. Those soundtrack formats are intended to provide a distinction between ear-level and overhead sounds. If you could somehow add the new speakers so they are only somewhat above ear level (floor standing, in-wall or on-wall), that'd work much better. The current in-ceiling speakers could then be repurposed as the overheads.


----------



## sdrucker

Hi,
I haven't posted in awhile here to avoid setting off a trigger point for those that want a Trinnov-free safe zone (LOL), as well as real life and spending too much time following the trainwreck of the Chicago National League baseball team at the end of the season (don't ask).

However, I'm thinking of setting up a separate thread dedicated to examining native Atmos 3D audio immersion for each disc I've got, using my system (13.4.6) as a reference and my processor's input meters. I clearly can't do every movie that comes out in Atmos, since I'm not about to buy 300+ Atmos discs - some of which I could care less about - in the interest of science. No promises about how often I'll update it, but at least it will exist.

What I'm thinking of doing is looking at posting specific first instance timestamps where content makes use of the wides, that front pair of side surrounds, and the screen centers vs. a bog standard 7.1.4 setup (I can do that with my presets). More than that, whether, as near as I can tell, the heights are only being used as two static stereo objects or also static overhead+dynamic object passthrough, with front and rear only, middle only, etc. comparing my .6 system to the standard .4, and where and how they're being used (i.e. music scores vs. special effects), with some time stamps that you guys can look to for hearing something that's non-trivial from those speakers if you've got them. For laughs, I'll probably put up a JPEG of each movie's general and peak use of each of my channels on the inputs on the 13.x.6 setup.

If I do this, is there anything else people are looking for that I can measure or address? I had jokingly thought of putting up a rating system ala Ralph Potts, but that's too subjective for my taste . And would it be useful to look at some "classic" Atmos movies from the early days of 3D audio, or focus on new releases for prospective movies that are out that I buy?

Thoughts would be welcome...and if anyone else with a system that can monitor inputs > 7.1.4 with all content rendered in native Atmos would like to contribute, they'd be welcome to collaborate on this project, so to speak....


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Hi,
> I haven't posted in awhile here to avoid setting off a trigger point for those that want a Trinnov-free safe zone (LOL), as well as real life and spending too much time following the trainwreck of the Chicago National League baseball team at the end of the season (don't ask).
> 
> However, I'm thinking of setting up a separate thread dedicated to examining native Atmos 3D audio immersion for each disc I've got, using my system (13.4.6) as a reference and my processor's input meters. I clearly can't do every movie that comes out in Atmos, since I'm not about to buy 300+ Atmos discs - some of which I could care less about - in the interest of science. No promises about how often I'll update it, but at least it will exist.
> 
> What I'm thinking of doing is looking at posting specific first instance timestamps where content makes use of the wides, that front pair of side surrounds, and the screen centers vs. a bog standard 7.1.4 setup (I can do that with my presets). More than that, whether, as near as I can tell, the heights are only being used as two static stereo objects or also static overhead+dynamic object passthrough, with front and rear only, middle only, etc. comparing my .6 system to the standard .4, and where and how they're being used (i.e. music scores vs. special effects), with some time stamps that you guys can look to for hearing something that's non-trivial from those speakers if you've got them. For laughs, I'll probably put up a JPEG of each movie's general and peak use of each of my channels on the inputs on the 13.x.6 setup.
> 
> If I do this, is there anything else people are looking for that I can measure or address? I had jokingly thought of putting up a rating system ala Ralph Potts, but that's too subjective for my taste /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif. And would it be useful to look at some "classic" Atmos movies from the early days of 3D audio, or focus on new releases for prospective movies that are out that I buy?
> 
> Thoughts would be welcome...and if anyone else with a system that can monitor inputs > 7.1.4 with all content rendered in native Atmos would like to contribute, they'd be welcome to collaborate on this project, so to speak....


As someone who would like to break into the >7.1.4 club, I would whole-heartedly welcome such a peek-under-the-hood attempt at analysing consumer Atmos tracks.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Yeah, I love it. Link is in my signature if you want to take a look.


Sorry for the delay... man your theater is gorgeous! I'm so happy for you / jealous (haha!) 

But seriously a true work of art. It's not attached to your home correct? You have to venture outside to get back home?


----------



## KINGKONGG

Selden Ball said:


> It isn't clear to me if you're planning for them to be floor-standing or in-ceiling.



Sorry for the lack of explanation. The 6 ceiling installed speakers will be used for atmos only. I have floor/freestanding speakers for the front and surrounds which you could kind of figure out in the attached picture..maybe. Seeing that I lack the funds like most people to have native 6+ atmos channels, I can only actively run 4 Atmos channels due to my current AVR capabilities. So instead of running the frontmost pair of ceiling speakers as the actual top front, I'll use the middle pair as top front. Now thinking about it, I'll just play around and switch between the two pairs and see which sounds better from the seat.


Is there some time of standard as to how far apart the atmos speakers should be in reference to each other? The Atmos diagrams show them equidistant apart.





sdrucker said:


> However, I'm thinking of setting up a separate thread dedicated to examining native Atmos 3D audio immersion for each disc I've got, using my system (13.4.6) as a reference and my processor's input meters. I clearly can't do every movie that comes out in Atmos, since I'm not about to buy 300+ Atmos discs - some of which I could care less about - in the interest of science. No promises about how often I'll update it, but at least it will exist.
> 
> If I do this, is there anything else people are looking for that I can measure or address? I had jokingly thought of putting up a rating system ala Ralph Potts, but that's too subjective for my taste . And would it be useful to look at some "classic" Atmos movies from the early days of 3D audio, or focus on new releases for prospective movies that are out that I buy?
> 
> Thoughts would be welcome...and if anyone else with a system that can monitor inputs > 7.1.4 with all content rendered in native Atmos would like to contribute, they'd be welcome to collaborate on this project, so to speak....



That would be awesome to do. Is there some type of available software out to strip and decode/examine the atmos audio file or are you setting up mics at each speaker?


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry for the delay... man your theater is gorgeous! I'm so happy for you / jealous (haha!)
> 
> But seriously a true work of art. It's not attached to your home correct? You have to venture outside to get back home?


Thanks Aras.  You are right - the HT is in an old cowshed so not attached to the house. This is a good thing in the sense that, with all the sound containment built-in, I can play at Reference in the middle of the night if the mood takes me without disturbing a soul. But yes, when the movie is over, I have to cross the yard to get back inside the house. It's only a few yards though so it isn't a problem.


----------



## Balbolito

A little upgrade i did a couple of weeks ago to my HT that i would like to share. 

I got a new pair of Atlantic 6 OBA (Atmos speakers) and decided to install them in my ceiling. after spray painting their grilles black i cut a couple of new holes in my ceiling for them.

I already have 4 Atmos speakers running off my processor, 2 front height and 2 top middle. so i wanted to add them as top rear. that brings the total up to 6 Atmos speakers.

But my main issue is that my processor only supports 11 channels. so can't really do 13 dedicated ones. so i had one solution.

I connected my two new speakers to my two existing top middle ones (parallel) , already had some extra speaker cable lying around, each speaker used about 4ft of cable. so basically the cost was only for the new speakers (approx 400$). 

Total installation time was about 2.5 hours, after everything was done i turned on my Marantz and started playing a few movies that i am used to. First thing i notice the increase in sound of all my 4 ceiling speakers, since parallel connections decrease the load on the amp (they were running at around 3 ohms).

Took out my old SPL meter to check all the levels, while everything was at or around 75db, the ceiling Atmos speakers were at 77db (although their speaker level was at -12 in my menu which is the lowest). in the past -12 was 75db for my two ceiling speakers but since adding two more parrarely decreases the impedance therefore gives them more power. but if you are planning on doing this you have to make sure your power amp/av receiver can handle that to not run into protection/safe mode.

I watched about 3 movies to let the speakers break-in a little and so i could get used a bit to the new sound. After a few days i increased the sound level for all my other speakers by about 1-2db manually, and that only took 5 mins or less. so all speakers are at 77db now (good thing that this doesn't change any applied filters by Audyssey). 

Watched another 3-4 movies after that and i am really liking the new sound, didn't expect the result would turn out like this, i am happy i did this for the time being, of course later on i will buy a 13 or even a 15 channel processor but this is going to stay how it is for at least another year. at the moment this feels like i got a new processor upgrade!

I used to watch movies at -4 volume but now it's -5.5/6 which isn't an issue since it's the same level, and increased my subs by 1db each. 

I was wondering if i ran Audyssey again, will i get any errors? or will it treat 2 speakers as 1 and apply filters ? since each two are connected together (TM right + TR right on one channel and TM left + TR left on another channel).


----------



## deano86

KINGKONGG said:


> That would be awesome to do. Is there some type of available software out to strip and decode/examine the atmos audio file or are you setting up mics at each speaker?


You obviously missed the part that he has a Trinnov processor! The bells and whistles to examine such things are built in!


----------



## PlanetAVS

Not sure what forum to pose this configuration question so I thought I'd start here.

I'm planning to setup a 7.2.4 ATMOS system with a 9.2 AVR and adding on an external amp/AVR. I have all the pieces (speakers, 9.2 AVR) except the external amp.

I've seen recommendations to assign the Left, Center, Right channels to the external amp. Or alternatively just assign a pair of the surrounds, or ceiling pairs to the external amp. Two questions:

Does the quality of the external amp matter? In terms of sound quality? Output wattage capability?
What is the advantage of assigning the LCRs to the external amp versus assigning a pair of the surrounds?

My thought is to assign a pair of the ceiling surrounds to the external amp, and only power the amp up when using content where all 11 channels is beneficial. This would save power usage for casual content. It would also allow me to go with a lower powered external amp, and possibly save money. Alternatively, I could have the external amp on at all times and leave the primary amp set to use all 11 channels virtually (example, DTS-Neural X)

Any suggestions or considerations that I may have missed? Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

deano86 said:


> You obviously missed the part that he has a Trinnov processor! The bells and whistles to examine such things are built in!


Yes, its easy to not spot that Stu has a Trinnov


----------



## kbarnes701

PlanetAVS said:


> I've seen recommendations to assign the Left, Center, Right channels to the external amp. Or alternatively just assign a pair of the surrounds, or ceiling pairs to the external amp. Two questions:
> 
> Does the quality of the external amp matter? In terms of sound quality? Output wattage capability?
> What is the advantage of assigning the LCRs to the external amp versus assigning a pair of the surrounds?


The quality of the amp does matter(build quality, warranty, etc), but so long as it is a respectable unit, it will have next to zero impact on the quality of the *sound *it produces since solid state Class A-B amplification was solved decades ago and they are all more or less ruler flat on FR and able to pass the input signal to the output unchanged other than in amplitude. Class D can be trickier as those units can be non-linear depending on load, so check the specs carefully before buying if going that route. Safe bet is Class A-B.

The only thing that then matters is that the amp you choose is capable of driving the chosen speakers to the required SPLs without running into clipping. So check the speaker sensitivity/power handling capability and the amp's wattage and ensure that they will do the job (only you know what SPLs you want toachieve).

The advantage of assigning the external amps to the LCRs is that the LCRs are the speakers which are most demanding. So it makes sense to give them the best amplification you can (by 'best' I mean what I say above - able to drive the speakers cleanly to the required level). However this assumes that the external amps will be superior in performance terms to those of the AVR itself. This is unlikely unless the external amps have at least double the wattage (output) of the AVR amps (to get a +3dB level increase or headroom increase) or have some other performance characteristics which the AVR amps lack (eg the ability to drive speakers of 4ohm or less impedance).

Most would probably pair a moderately powered external amp with the overheads, since the overheads place far less demand on the system, carrying, as they do, much less content than the LCRs and usually at lower SPLs.


----------



## Selden Ball

Some minor clarifications to what Keith wrote:



PlanetAVS said:


> [*]Does the quality of the external amp matter? In terms of sound quality? Output wattage capability?


I agree with what Keith wrote 


> [*]What is the advantage of assigning the LCRs to the external amp versus assigning a pair of the surrounds?
> [/LIST]


Keith didn't mention that one of the advantages of using an external amp is that you're offloading some of the power requirement from the receiver. As a result, the receiver will run cooler and (statistically, anyhow) last longer. (That's also a reason to offload low frequencies to one or more subwoofers.) On the average, the front speaker channels tend to use more power than the surround channels do. Note: that's "on average".

Dolby recommends that all speakers (fronts, surrounds and overheads) have the same capability in amplitude and frequency response. All channels and objects available for use when mixing an Atmos soundtrack have the same capacity in both frequency and amplitude. Whether or not a given soundtrack actually takes advantage of that capability is up to the director of the movie or concert video. On average, they don't, but some bombastic soundtracks make full use of them all. 

Also, all of the speaker channels are fully used when you select "All Channel Stereo" (with heights enabled) and/or "All Zone Stereo". Those options are very popular with some people. 



> My thought is to assign a pair of the ceiling surrounds to the external amp, and only power the amp up when using content where all 11 channels is beneficial. This would save power usage for casual content. It would also allow me to go with a lower powered external amp, and possibly save money. Alternatively, I could have the external amp on at all times and leave the primary amp set to use all 11 channels virtually (example, DTS-Neural X)
> 
> Any suggestions or considerations that I may have missed? Thanks.


Your description seems to imply that you're thinking of turning the amps on and off manually. In other words, you seem to have overlooked that many receivers and pre/pros (like those from D&M) include a "trigger out" or two. The triggers can be used to turn on external amps and/or power strips only when the receiver or pre/pro is in use.


----------



## sdrucker

For what it's worth, Trinnov Altitude isn't the ONLY processor that has input/output meters where you can see what's directly being played by the decoded Atmos content without level/delay or bass management. It's just the most accessible to do so right now, cost aside.

I think the Storm Audio ISP Elites also have I/O meters and can process 9.1.6 natively for Atmos. Not sure if the Steinway/Lyngdorf MP-50 does, but it doesn't do native 9.1.6 processing yet (same for the Datasat RS20i, of course). And who knows, maybe Big Dan can add it to the RMC-1. LOL.

If you have one of the D&M processors that can do 9.1.4 or 7.1.6, there actually is a way you can watch the inputs with a pair of MiniDSPs, ass-u-ming you're doing all the level/delay and bass management within the MiniDSP and essentially sending a direct output of the decoded Atmos to the MiniDSP boxes. But it requires a lot of patience and/or brain hurt. I think Markus once wrote about this on the 88A thread. I suppose you could have one MiniDSP 88A with all the channels over >7.1 and go that route.

Being able to observe the inputs on the MiniDSP platform would be a bit of an issue , maybe requiring their MiniDSP iDevice app (if one's out yet) or using a laptop in, well, your lap. Frankly that would make my head hurt, but in the distant past I used to watch MiniDSP sub outputs over the iPad using a remote app, with the iPad on the same network as the PC (which would have the MiniDSP connected to it). The few times I used it was to see if my subs were about to distort playing subsonic bass on the Pod Race scene from The Phantom Menace.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdrucker said:


> For what it's worth, Trinnov Altitude isn't the ONLY processor that has input/output meters where you can see what's directly being played by the decoded Atmos content without level/delay or bass management. It's just the most accessible to do so right now, cost aside.
> 
> I think the Storm Audio ISP Elites also have I/O meters and can process 9.1.6 natively for Atmos.


In principle, whatever is available in the Storm Audio units also is available in the ever-so-slightly less expensive Bryston SP4. It's a re-badged variant of the Storm Audio Elite pre/pro series. As best I can tell from its owner's manual, it differs only by having two expansion slots instead of four, with 3U packaging instead of 4U.


----------



## PlanetAVS

Selden Ball said:


> Some minor clarifications to what Keith wrote:
> 
> Also, all of the speaker channels are fully used when you select "All Channel Stereo" (with heights enabled) and/or "All Zone Stereo". Those options are very popular with some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your description seems to imply that you're thinking of turning the amps on and off manually. In other words, you seem to have overlooked that many receivers and pre/pros (like those from D&M) include a "trigger out" or two. The triggers can be used to turn on external amps and/or power strips only when the receiver or pre/pro is in use.


Think I'll stick with DTS;Neural X as my ceiling speakers do not have the same power handling capacity as my fronts. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Yes I was planning to manually power on the external amp when I want 11 channels. I'll be using the Denon 4400H 9.2 AVR. Does this mean the Denon will automatically power up the external amp when an 11 channel capable sound mode is selected on the Denon? If so, that would be helpful


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PlanetAVS said:


> Think I'll stick with DTS;Neural X as my ceiling speakers do not have the same power handling capacity as my fronts. Thanks for the suggestion though.
> 
> Yes I was planning to manually power on the external amp when I want 11 channels. I'll be using the Denon 4400H 9.2 AVR. Does this mean the Denon will automatically power up the external amp when an 11 channel capable sound mode is selected on the Denon? If so, that would be helpful



If the Denon has a trigger out and your amplifier or power surge unit has the same kind of trigger input, then it should work.


----------



## Selden Ball

PlanetAVS said:


> Think I'll stick with DTS;Neural X as my ceiling speakers do not have the same power handling capacity as my fronts. Thanks for the suggestion though.
> 
> Yes I was planning to manually power on the external amp when I want 11 channels. I'll be using the Denon 4400H 9.2 AVR. Does this mean the Denon will automatically power up the external amp when an 11 channel capable sound mode is selected on the Denon? If so, that would be helpful


The trigger isn't quite that discriminating. It turns on whenever the Main Zone is turned on or when Zone 2 turns on if you have a receiver model with two trigger outs. 

You can turn the triggers on and off manually from a receiver menu. That menu probably is buried somewhat, but in principle I suppose it could be programmed into a programmable universal remote. 

With D&M devices, one of the remote's "Smart Select" buttons might remember whether or not triggers are enabled, but I've never tried that. (I have a Marantz amp, so it uses the same power on/off IR commands as my receiver.)


----------



## Bytehoven

PlanetAVS said:


> Not sure what forum to pose this configuration question so I thought I'd start here.
> 
> I'm planning to setup a 7.2.4 ATMOS system with a 9.2 AVR and adding on an external amp/AVR. I have all the pieces (speakers, 9.2 AVR) except the external amp.
> 
> I've seen recommendations to assign the Left, Center, Right channels to the external amp. Or alternatively just assign a pair of the surrounds, or ceiling pairs to the external amp. ...


I am using a denon 4300h for decoding and to power all of the surround and atmos channels. I am using an older denon 3808 for LCR. These receivers are similar in rated power, with 3803 design being slightly better when running 2 channels. (210w vs 190w @ 4ohms. My mains and surrounds are 4 ohm and atmos 8 ohm).

The 4300 with 9 amps lets me keep the 4 surrounds and 4 atmos on one receiver. If i switched it up, i could only run 7 channels on the 3806, so i would probably run SRB + ATMOS on the 3806 AND LCR +SR on the 4300. I'd rather run tge other way i think.

I considered getting a two channel amp to run with the 4300. However, having found the 3806 at a great price (cheaper than a decent 2 channel amp) and in excellent condition, those 7 channels of very good amplification could come in handy in the future. I can also use the extra channels on the 3806 to power other zones in my home.

Good luck with your setup.


----------



## PlanetAVS

Bytehoven said:


> Good luck with your setup.


Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

kbarnes701 said:


> Also, as Sanjay pointed out recently, with 6 overheads, the TF pair and the TR pair are mostly silent with almost all the content going to the TM pair, whereas with 4 overheads, the TF and TR pair are active most of the time, with a phantom image for where the TM pair would be. So if I had to choose between TM and Wides, I'd go with the latter I think. But I only have a single row theater, which may be relevant.


How would this play out with 8 overheads (FH + TF + TR + RH)? I assume the TF and TR pair will still phantom image objects which otherwise only would have come from the TM pair.

Will the FH and RH pairs have enough content to be worth it or would they be silent most of the time? If they do, this might be a better solution for going beyond 4 overhead speakers once we have affordable AV receivers that can handle this many overhead channels. If not, I don't see any reason for ever going beyond 4 overhead speakers in my situation.


----------



## kbarnes701

G4n0nD0rf said:


> How would this play out with 8 overheads (FH + TF + TR + RH)? I assume the TF and TR pair will still phantom image objects which otherwise only would have come from the TM pair.
> 
> Will the FH and RH pairs have enough content to be worth it or would they be silent most of the time? If they do, this might be a better solution for going beyond 4 overhead speakers once we have affordable AV receivers that can handle this many overhead channels. If not, I don't see any reason for ever going beyond 4 overhead speakers in my situation.


In my unit (Marantz) you can't use adjacent pairs together, so AFAIK, FH+TF+TR+RH isn't a permitted combination. Of course, since the Marantz can't accommodate more than 4 overheads (7.x.4) anyway, it's a moot point. To use more than 4 overheads would require one of the units which goes to 9.x.6 or beyond, as you say, and how they would work out in practice, IDK. Sanjay is an authority on this sort of thing so maybe he will chime in with an enlightening comment or two.

TBH I doubt very much if I would go beyond 4 overheads in my single row theater anyway, since I doubt that there would be huge benefits. Never say never of course, but unlikely probably (even though I pre-wired for 6). I could be persuaded to add two Wides (also pre-wired) if and when I change my AVR. I think Wides would bring more benefits, for me, than additional overhead speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> In my unit (Marantz) you can't use adjacent pairs together, so AFAIK, FH+TF+TR+RH isn't a permitted combination. Of course, since the Marantz can't accommodate more than 4 overheads (7.x.4) anyway, it's a moot point. To use more than 4 overheads would require one of the units which goes to 9.x.6 or beyond, as you say, and how they would work out in practice, IDK. Sanjay is an authority on this sort of thing so maybe he will chime in with an enlightening comment or two.


A quibble: the Marantz AV8805 pre/pro and its companion Denon AVR-X8500H receiver can calibrate up to 15 channels (16 including subs) simultaneously in a 9.2.6 configuration but are limited to having only 13 speakers active simultaneously as either 7.2.6 or 9.2.4. They aren't really 9.x.6 but cost somewhat less than 1/3 of what the 16 channel 9.x.6 devices do. (List of ~$4.5K compared to ~$14K for a Bryston SP4.)


> TBH I doubt very much if I would go beyond 4 overheads in my single row theater anyway, since I doubt that there would be huge benefits. Never say never of course, but unlikely probably (even though I pre-wired for 6). I could be persuaded to add two Wides (also pre-wired) if and when I change my AVR. I think Wides would bring more benefits, for me, than additional overhead speakers.


That sounds quite reasonable to me.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> A quibble: the Marantz AV8805 pre/pro and its companion Denon AVR-X8500H receiver can calibrate up to 15 channels (16 including subs) simultaneously in a 9.2.6 configuration but are limited to having only 13 speakers active simultaneously as either 7.2.6 or 9.2.4. They aren't really 9.x.6 but cost somewhat less than 1/3 of what the 16 channel 9.x.6 devices do. (List of ~$4.5K compared to ~$14K for a Bryston SP4.)


I should have been more specific - when I say 'my unit (Marantz)' it is the gracefully-ageing 7010, which of course can only manage 7.x.4 (and that with two external amps). How cutting edge it seemed when I bought it


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> @sdrucker - What size is your room? Did you try 9.x.x, 11.x.x, vs 13.x.x to see if there was notable difference or gaps in the sound field or did you go 13.x.x from the start? I realize I would undoubtedly benefit from wides in my 20x30 room, but I don't detect any gaps on my side, rear, and front. I simply wouldn't know where to place two additional pairs of speakers and if they would add any audible benefit. In a very large room I could see it, but my room @600 sq ft isn't exactly what I would consider small for a dedicated theater.


This is my own quandary really. My room is only about 15-16ft wide and the screen takes up 11.5ft of the width. I sit 11.5ft from the screen. Knowing where best to position Wides for noticeable audio effect isn't easy. Like you, I don;t detect any gaps either so placing speakers to fill gaps which, AFAICT, don't exist, is tricky.

My main interest in Wides is for the specific Atmos content they may offer.


----------



## sdurani

G4n0nD0rf said:


> How would this play out with 8 overheads (FH + TF + TR + RH)?


Same as with 4 overheads. There are two things that can feed overhead speakers in commercial Atmos theatres: audio objects and height channels. Information in the height channels gets sent to ALL the speakers in the height array. Objects move through each speaker individually. 

The arraying features hasn't yet been implemented in the home version of Atmos, so height channel info only gets sent to a single pair of height speakers (TM), just like all other channels. Objects still move through all the height speakers. If you don't have TM speakers configured, then height channel info will get split to the adjacent pairs (no different than Centre channel info being split to L/R speakers when no Centre is configured). 

This problem, where overhead sounds are all or mostly coming from the TM pair, has only been observed in a couple/few Atmos soundtracks. Careful about believing that it is a widespread problem.


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> This problem, where overhead sounds are all or mostly coming from the TM pair, has only been observed in a couple/few Atmos soundtracks. Careful about believing that it is a widespread problem.



Important point...thx Sanjay!


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> I don't detect any gaps on my side, rear, and front.


Not a question of gaps but instead about imaging stability. Two speakers in front of you won't result in a gap of sound between them (otherwise "stereo" wouldn't have survived for the last 80 years). But a Centre speaker is helpful in stabilizing the imaging, especially for listeners outside the main listening position. Same when adding Wides. Sounds you hear floating between your Fronts & Sides will still image at those locations, even for listeners not in the sweet spot. In the special case of Atmos, where sounds intended for the Wides locations often end up coming from the Front speakers instead, adding a pair of Wide speakers can restore the intended locations for those sounds. Not make or break, but nice to have. You'll still hear some sounds floating between your Fronts & Sides. But why not hear all the sounds that were supposed to be there (IF you were planning on going beyond 7.1.4 anyway).


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> Not a question of gaps but instead about imaging stability. Two speakers in front of you won't result in a gap of sound between them (otherwise "stereo" wouldn't have survived for the last 80 years). But a Centre speaker is helpful in stabilizing the imaging, especially for listeners outside the main listening position. Same when adding Wides. Sounds you hear floating between your Fronts & Sides will still image at those locations, even for listeners not in the sweet spot. In the special case of Atmos, where sounds intended for the Wides locations often end up coming from the Front speakers instead, adding a pair of Wide speakers can restore the intended locations for those sounds. Not make or break, but nice to have. You'll still hear some sounds floating between your Fronts & Sides. But why not hear all the sounds that were supposed to be there (IF you were planning on going beyond 7.1.4 anyway).



I was not doubting wides. I believe wides would be beneficial especially in my case with a 30 foot long room - sorry if that wasn't clear. I was curious about the difference between having 9.x.x and going to 11.x and 13.x. After the addition of wides, I am trying to understand the benefit of adding two additional pairs of speakers (if any). In my room, after the addition of wides, I would have to force speakers into a hole that really doesn't exist. Unless the room is very large and has two or more rows of seating there seems to be no need to go beyond 9 base channels. In short, 9.x.x should provide a complete sound field. I guess it could matter if one has small speakers with poor dispersion patterns. I have matching towers on my base channels, so I just can see where four more after wides would make any discernible difference. That is why I was asking the size of his room.


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> @sdrucker - What size is your room? Did you try 9.x.x, 11.x.x, vs 13.x.x to see if there was notable difference or gaps in the sound field or did you go 13.x.x from the start? I do realize that I would undoubtedly benefit from wides in my 20x30 room since I sit 15' from the screen. Beyond that, I don't detect any gaps on my side, rear, and front. I simply wouldn't know where to place two additional pairs of speakers and if they would add any audible benefit. In a very large room I could see it, but my room @600 sq ft isn't exactly what I would consider small for a dedicated theater. None the less, if I ever come to see the Cubs choke, I mean play, I would love to get a demo of your room. I grew up a Cubs fan when we got cable TV in my small town in NC back in the early 80's. It's too bad Harry Caray never got to see them in the World Series.


Warning, Trinnov content coming...or I can't answer this in context. And you know me, it's going to be long....

My room is 20' x 15' x 9' (L x W x H), with a single row of three critical seats, with a 72" sofa that fits our needs well enough (most probably narrower, and with a lower head height - about 36" to 40" - than most sofas I'm guessing have on AVS, but it works for us). 

I got the Altitude 32 mostly for having their SOTA room EQ and being able to also have Atmos without a need for separate boxes, and went with 24 vs. 16 channels due to a fortuitous drop in the Euro making the 24 the relative "bargain" choice. It was really a one time thing for me being able to buy Trinnov - I doubt that I could pull off the Altitude 32 today without dealing with major WAF and school costs to deal with that I didn't have three years ago. Possibly the 16...

So I had the freedom to play...and with floorstanding bed speakers in a room that I was filling from scratch, I approached this very differently than most of the guys with the French processor, most of whom either have established rooms they're adding to with existing built-in placements (in-wall, behind a false wall up front etc.), or have a high end CI or home audio designer planning the room from the ground up.

I actually started from more of a philosophical perspective of adding speakers for enhanced resolution, given reasonable separation (3 feet between speakers minimum) and what seemed to solve specific room problems with sound gaps rather than pre-conceived notions about the optimal number of speakers. I did use the 24.1.10 Dolby angles as a starting point, which is where the Altitude came in very handy.

So....having said that, I've went through a few iterations in the last three years since we moved into our place and I had a dedicated space (reconverted family room) to work with. In order, the relevant ones to this discussion are:
1) Winter 2015 - 7.1 
2) Spring 2016 - 7.1 with four Dolby AE speakers for top front/top rears for Atmos to avoid concrete ceiling work
3) Summer 2016 - 9.1.4 = adding wides for the wider soundstage for music (with speaker array/upmixing), and that front to side transition. Wides really impressed me at the CEDIA demo I went to back in 2014 and 2015 with the Dolby Atmos demos and Star Trek: Beyond clip, so that was my first priority. Are they used enough to justify as a cost/value? Probably not IF you expect them to play all the time.
4) Spring 2017 - 9.1.6, swapping out the Dolby AEs for a ceiling mounted portable outdoor speaker (PSB CS1000) timbre matched to my PSB mains, with amiable tweeters and a mount allowing horizontal/vertical adjustments. This is where I had a contractor do the install. I primarily added the top middles to have what I thought would be more stable overhead imagery for Atmos objects with three speaker sources rather than two. Coming from a data analysis background, somehow having three pairs of speakers producing front to back as well as left to right overhead movement seemed appealing, just how you get more accurate data for measuring, say, price sensitivity by having three data points rather than two 
5) Late spring 2017 - 11.1.6, adding front side surround 1s and moving the bed side surrounds from slightly in front of MLP to slightly behind MLP. This has two advantages: one is that you reduce focus point/hot spotting from sounds directly on the side of listeners, and another is that with the Trinnov 3D remapping, you get sounds from the bed side surrounds also getting reproduced by the side surround 1 for upmixing, and you get a kind of pseudo array, where the side surround 1 plays some of the content that goes to the bed side surround, but also gets its own object passthrough where it's used.
6) Finally, where I am now as of winter 2017 - 13.1.6, adding the left/right centers (in Atmos speak) behind my 100" AT Screen. The center is behind the AT screen, as are the L/R centers, with my L/R mains just outside the screen's margins. I primarily did this because I had three channels left from the 24 and I wanted to see what I could add that would have audible results, if anything. I found that it pulled out nice additional resolution on music (REM's Automatic for the People), and when used, produced reasonable distinction for left to right panning inside the AT screen as opposed to left to right along the front width of the room.

So...having said all this, are all these speakers "worth it"? 

Certainly 7.1.4 is, and I heard differences in the overhead resolution (think Unbroken or Gravity) when I used .4 vs. .6. Hell, I even don't mind Saving Private Ryan being "top middle" heavy. The rest? Without having a list in front of me, it's hard to mention specific movies in much detail, but the more I watch Atmos movies, the more I think that the way speakers are used by the mixers to render to native Atmos is hugely inconsistent. 

Meaning that there is content - Westworld, Spiderman, Red Sparrow for example - that are just glorious using the wides. And there is other content - think Hacksaw Ridge, War for the Planet of the Apes, and Groundhog Day of all things - where I can hear specifically where those L/R centers are used for object passthrough inside the screen vs. being folded into a mains center with the L/R centers not active (I A/B this). If anything, of the 'floor' speakers, the front side surround (side surround 1) is probably the most used, probably as often as the wides - at least - even if I didn't have the 3D remapping as a crutch/help.

Of course, the real issue isn't so much philosophy of "putting them where they can help" or "putting them where they ain't", but just how much any of those "extra" Atmos presence speakers get used. All I can say is that if you have a 7.1.6 or 9.1.4 capable processor (or better yet, 9.1.6), experiment for what works for you. I think PERSONALLY that 11.x.6 is the "sweet spot", but that is purely for my own needs. There are other folks here who will say, based on their room, that there's no reason whatsoever to go beyond 7.1.4 until content proves otherwise, and do so as cheaply as possible. I suppose it's all dependent of what makes you tick...experimentation/problem solving or what's the most common use of Atmos speakers. At least until further notice...

I don't know if I'd recommend how I designed this specifically, especially with multiple rows of seats, where there are tools like The Cedia Designer (TCD, formerly Cinema Designer, where I have a subscription account I picked up last year) and HT designers with specific placement approaches. However, it works for me.

Oh, and the Cubs....RIP. I was sadly at the division tie-breaker against the Brewers that they lost, and had no expectation they'd beat the Rockies in the wild card after our death march of a September stretch. At least they made it entertaining.


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> After the addition of wides, I am trying to understand the benefit of adding two additional pairs of speakers (if any).


Doubt there would be much benefit (if any). Even with a larger room, the speakers are going to be at the same angles, just farther away. So a 30° gap will remain a 30° gap, irrespective of room size. Large rooms, like commercial movie theatres, don't have lots of speakers because of room size but instead due to listeners being spread across the entire space. The additional speakers are providing even coverage, not filling gaps. That sort of coverage is not needed when the entire listening area is a couch. So I agree with you that beyond 9 on the floor we're getting into diminishing returns on consumer set-ups.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> My room is only about 15-16ft wide and the screen takes up 11.5ft of the width. I sit 11.5ft from the screen. Knowing where best to position Wides for noticeable audio effect isn't easy.


Roughly mid-way between your Fronts & Sides will maximize their effect since they'll be as far away as possible from adjacent speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Roughly mid-way between your Fronts & Sides will maximize their effect since they'll be as far away as possible from adjacent speakers.


Thanks Sanjay (and for the other, related replies). Makes total sense.

One more question if I may, while we're discussing Wides...

My side surrounds are at just above ear height (to give the entire row a 'line of ear') and so are my rear surrounds for the same reason. My mains have the center of the throat of the horn at very slightly (an inch or so) above ear height. When placing a Wide between the side surrounds and the fronts, would you place it at ear height, like the surrounds, or at a lower height more in keeping with the height of the mains? Would the latter help with the transition from one set to the other? Thx.


----------



## motodop

I'm surprised I have not seen any comments on the Notre Dame 4k Atmos programming i have been watching/listening to.
All the NBC Notre Dame home games have been live in Atmos since the beginning of this season. There was a article written about it last week.
Moto

https://www.sportsvideo.org/2018/09...on-uhd-hdr-frontier-with-notre-dame-football/


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> When placing a Wide between the side surrounds and the fronts, would you place it at ear height, like the surrounds, or at a lower height more in keeping with the height of the mains? Would the latter help with the transition from one set to the other?


I would place them at an in between height so that the transition is a straight line from Fronts to Wides to Sides.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Doubt there would be much benefit (if any). Even with a larger room, the speakers are going to be at the same angles, just farther away. So a 30° gap will remain a 30° gap, irrespective of room size. Large rooms, like commercial movie theatres, don't have lots of speakers because of room size but instead due to listeners being spread across the entire space. The additional speakers are providing even coverage, not filling gaps. That sort of coverage is not needed when the entire listening area is a couch. So I agree with you that beyond 9 on the floor we're getting into diminishing returns on consumer set-ups.


I would agree with this (9.1.4 or .6) as a general rule for a single row of seats and an Atmos layout. So does The CEDIA Designer software, BTW. Extra speakers beyond that are either a luxury or for special purposes. As in “nice to have”, as opposed to “don’t use them”, anyway.

Even in my case, the increment cost of going to 11, then 13 was relatively low (less than the price of the X8500) and I had the extra channels. And at this point, you don’t exactly downsize an Atmos layout after the fact unless you’re doing a full-tilt change like moving to active crossover speakers that need the channels, or there’s non-hobby needs.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> I would place them at an in between height so that the transition is a straight line from Fronts to Wides to Sides.


Thanks Sanjay. I reckon that I now have all the info I need to be able to make a decision sometime down the line. No hurry, and my current AVR is doing very well for me so there is little impetus to change anything right now. But at some stage I will want/need to swap AVRs and if/when that happens, Wides will be on my radar.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks Sanjay. I reckon that I now have all the info I need to be able to make a decision sometime down the line. No hurry, and my current AVR is doing very well for me so there is little impetus to change anything right now. But at some stage I will want/need to swap AVRs and if/when that happens, Wides will be on my radar.



In terms of needs and wants, we share similar thinking and timelines.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> there is little impetus to change anything right now.


This sort of frugality and reason may result in a forum ban. This is AVS for goodness sakes Keith


----------



## Dave Moritz

Just received my Marantz SR-8012 and will be setting it up in the morning. So while I will have the decoding capability I will not be full Atmos/X/Auro till I get new surround speakers so I can move the current surrounds to hight speakers. Can not wait to actually be listening to Dolby Atmos in the near future!


----------



## burts

Can height speakers be used as the main atmos speakers? My old Yamaha rx a2000 died and I used height speakers with that old avr...

Thank You


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> This sort of frugality and reason may result in a forum ban. This is AVS for goodness sakes Keith


Haha. I apologize sincerely for my sudden outbreak of sanity


----------



## Selden Ball

burts said:


> Can height speakers be used as the main atmos speakers? My old Yamaha rx a2000 died and I used height speakers with that old avr...
> 
> Thank You


Yes.

I'm assuming you mean "Can I use Front Presence speakers as overhead speakers?" You'd designate them in the receiver as "Front Height."


----------



## Sevenfeet

motodop said:


> I'm surprised I have not seen any comments on the Notre Dame 4k Atmos programming i have been watching/listening to.
> All the NBC Notre Dame home games have been live in Atmos since the beginning of this season. There was a article written about it last week.
> Moto
> 
> https://www.sportsvideo.org/2018/09...on-uhd-hdr-frontier-with-notre-dame-football/


Sports is one of the "holy grails" of HDR/Atmos content. I'm not surprised that NBC is doing serious tests on it....I just hadn't heard about this. I'm sorry it's not on Comcast since the Comcast 4K X1 boxes are Atmos capable (and did do Atmos content during the Olympics). It would be nice if they could truly do 4K through the entire workflow instead of an upscale...I get it about the data issues but again, Japanese TV did figure this stuff out for the Olympics feed they sent to NBC including high speed cameras, graphics overlays, etc. In defense of NBC, none of the 4K/HDR Olympic broadcasts were live in real time.


----------



## Bytehoven

7.1.4 Atmos is up and running.

Denon 4300h + Denon 3806 (2nd amp)

PL200 (SW)

JBL Control 5 Mid Field Studio Monitors (L, C, R, SR, SL, SBR, SBL)
Dayton io655 (HFL, HFR, HBL, HBR)

Amp assignments...

4300h - SR, SL, SBR, SBL, HFR, HFL, HBR, HBL
3806 - L, C, R

Full Audyssey 32xt calibration on 4300h complete.

The move from 7.1 to 7.1.4 upgrade is an excellent sound stage enhancement.

The JBL Control 5 studio monitors are positioned all around, and it is like having Yamaha NS-10m studio monitors all around. The mid field design of the Control 5, aligns perfectly with my primary seating distance if 10'-12' from the front and rear enclosures. The sound stage is extremely uniform as sound moves through the sound stage due to the matched enclosures. The Control 5 features front porting, reducing unwanted low end interaction with nearby walls and ceiling.

Thr Dayton io655, have proven to be a good match for the response of the JBL monitors, in their atmos high front and rear positions.

All speakers are configured at 80hz crossover and small settings.

I am very happy with the atmos upgrade.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bytehoven said:


> 7.1.4 Atmos is up and running.
> 
> Denon 4300h + Denon 3806 (2nd amp)
> 
> PL200 (SW)
> 
> JBL Control 5 Mid Field Studio Monitors (L, C, R, SR, SL, SBR, SBL)
> Dayton io655 (HFL, HFR, HBL, HBR)
> 
> Amp assignments...
> 
> 4300h - SR, SL, SBR, SBL, HFR, HFL, HBR, HBL
> 3806 - L, C, R
> 
> Full Audyssey 32xt calibration on 4300h complete.
> 
> The move from 7.1 to 7.1.4 upgrade is an excellent sound stage enhancement.
> 
> The JBL Control 5 studio monitors are positioned all around, and it is like having Yamaha NS-10m studio monitors all around. The mid field design of the Control 5, aligns perfectly with my primary seating distance if 10'-12' from the front and rear enclosures. The sound stage is extremely uniform as sound moves through the sound stage due to the matched enclosures. The Control 5 features front porting, reducing unwanted low end interaction with nearby walls and ceiling.
> 
> Thr Dayton io655, have proven to be a good match for the response of the JBL monitors, in their atmos high front and rear positions.
> 
> All speakers are configured at 80hz crossover and small settings.
> 
> I am very happy with the atmos upgrade.


Nice job. Great idea to have identical speakers all round at floor level.

Just one comment - given the frequency range of the Control 5s is 75 Hz - 20 kHz, have you considered raising the crossover at all? Ideally one would want to see the crossover set at a full octave above the lowest frequency of which the other speakers are capable. In your case that would be 150Hz which is probably a little high for your sub (although I am not familiar with the sub you are using). Also there is a danger if you make the sub perform at too high a frequency that it will become localizable. Assuming your sub will support it (probably will), I'd suggest trying a crossover of 120Hz first - if the sub is not localisable then you are done. If you can localize the sub, reduce the crossover to 110Hz and then, if still localizable to 100Hz. It's unlikely you will be able to localize the sub at 100Hz and it should give you a better performance around the splice than using the current 80Hz crossover.

The graphic below explains the basic principles of crossover setting.










You can see the danger of using a subwoofer crossover frequency that is barely higher than the roll-off frequency of the satellites.


----------



## Bytehoven

kbarnes701 said:


> Nice job. Great idea to have identical speakers all round at floor level.
> 
> Just one comment - given the frequency range of the Control 5s is 75 Hz - 20 kHz, have you considered raising the crossover at all? Ideally one would want to see the crossover set at a full octave above the lowest frequency of which the other speakers are capable. In your case that would be 150Hz which is probably a little high for your sub (although I am not familiar with the sub you are using). Also there is a danger if you make the sub perform at too high a frequency that it will become localizable. Assuming your sub will support it (probably will), I'd suggest trying a crossover of 120Hz first - if the sub is not localisable then you are done. If you can localize the sub, reduce the crossover to 110Hz and then, if still localizable to 100Hz. It's unlikely you will be able to localize the sub at 100Hz and it should give you a better performance around the splice than using the current 80Hz crossover.
> 
> The graphic below explains the basic principles of crossover setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see the danger of using a subwoofer crossover frequency that is barely higher than the roll-off frequency of the satellites.


I would note Audyssey had calibrated all the Control 5 locations to 40, 60 or 80, so the specs you read about the monitors don't tell the whole story, in that they have much better low end response than the specs would suggest.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bytehoven said:


> I would note Audyssey had calibrated all the Control 5 locations to 40, 60 or 80, so the specs you read about the monitors don't tell the whole story, in that they have much better low end response than the specs would suggest.


OK, entirely your choice of course. Audyssey isn't reliable at setting crossovers (and changing them after the calibration doesn't harm the calibration at all). HST, it is true that Audyssey will read the response of the speaker_ in the room_, and room influences can of course boost the _perceived _bass, depending on speaker positioning. The actual bass response of the speaker is of course fixed at 75Hz in its design and it can't play any lower (without considerable roll-off).

If you are able to measure with REW you will see what is going on at the splice and be able to adjust the XO and re-measure - that is really the best way to proceed when setting XOs. Significant improvements can be made by smoothing the splice since this is where both speakers are playing the same frequencies at the same time. You can also fritz with the sub distances (delays) to help smooth the splice*** and this too can have a very significant effect. The higher you can set the XO without causing localization of the sub (or distress to it) the better really as it takes a lot of strain off the satellites. The hardest work the satellites have to do is play the lower frequencies and relieving them of this effort by handing over to the much more capable sub will allow them to benefit much more from reproducing more effortlessly the frequencies they are meant to be handling. 

A very good rule of thumb is the 'one octave' rule - always try to set the XO a full octave above the roll-off of the satellite speakers where possible. The Audyssey settings would imply that the Control 5s are playing (in the room) down to 20Hz, 30Hz and 40Hz. Even allowing for room reinforcement, that seems a stretch. It costs nothing to experiment with XOs so it may be something you might want to think about at some stage.

***To improve the phase coherence of the system as a whole.


----------



## westbergjoakim

PlanetAVS said:


> Think I'll stick with DTS;Neural X as my ceiling speakers do not have the same power handling capacity as my fronts. Thanks for the suggestion though.
> 
> Yes I was planning to manually power on the external amp when I want 11 channels. I'll be using the Denon 4400H 9.2 AVR. Does this mean the Denon will automatically power up the external amp when an 11 channel capable sound mode is selected on the Denon? If so, that would be helpful


I have another question about the external amp. I'm runing a 7.2.4-system with my backs hooked to the external. If I have it turned off, will the system see that and output 5.2.4 with the backs going to the sides instead?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## Selden Ball

westbergjoakim said:


> I have another question about the external amp. I'm runing a 7.2.4-system with my backs hooked to the external. If I have it turned off, will the system see that and output 5.2.4 with the backs going to the sides instead?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


The receiver or pre/pro will not detect that you've turned off the external amplifier. Audio will still be sent to the corresponding output and thus will not be heard.

However, you can manually disable the speaker channels in the receiver (set them to "None"). If you do that, audio will not be sent to the disabled output. It'll be sent to the corresponding ear-level speaker channel. If you disable the Rear Surround speaker channels in the receiver, their sounds be mixed into the Surround speaker channels, for example. You can later turn those channels back on. Audyssey will still be active.


----------



## motodop

*NBC HDR Atmos*



Sevenfeet said:


> It would be nice if they could truly do 4K through the entire workflow instead of an upscale...I In defense of NBC, none of the 4K/HDR Olympic broadcasts were live in real time.


I think the 4K adaption to existing remote trucks or even TV station infrastructure is too costly. The article in SVG points to the single truck being able to do a "single-stream production" and that would seem to suggest that the difference in 1080P HDR v 4K quality is not worth the costly upgrade to true 4K for the viewer. There is a point to be made that the majority of viewers in the standard home viewing room with the 48"/52" viewing screen would probably not be able to tell the difference.

Also, I think Comcast can do 4K /Atmos 'On demand' but they must have a problem doing it LIVE or i would have seen something , anything and i have not so i suspect they need a totally new platform and STB.


----------



## JLevy1978

I dont know comcast inner workings but, I am assuming HDR10 does not work well live and that is what comcast uses. HLG is only on directv in US so far


----------



## Sevenfeet

motodop said:


> I think the 4K adaption to existing remote trucks or even TV station infrastructure is too costly. The article in SVG points to the single truck being able to do a "single-stream production" and that would seem to suggest that the difference in 1080P HDR v 4K quality is not worth the costly upgrade to true 4K for the viewer. There is a point to be made that the majority of viewers in the standard home viewing room with the 48"/52" viewing screen would probably not be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Also, I think Comcast can do 4K /Atmos 'On demand' but they must have a problem doing it LIVE or i would have seen something , anything and i have not so i suspect they need a totally new platform and STB.


I agree with this. The workflow has to integrate with what's already being done pretty much without breaking anything else. And innovation is very hard to do with live television. The earliest Super Bowl broadcasts in HD had an awful time with motion artifacts, especially with the confetti dropped at the end of games, and the remote field cameras were all SD. The first HD broadcasts for the Olympics (2002 Salt Lake City) didn't even try to do it live. They looked great but weren't live.

For doing these broadcasts, 99.95% of the audience isn't watching the experimental feed. So it just has to look like it always has been. But in order to make the HDR broadcast work, everything has to work including the high speed cameras, all the cameras, graphics, etc. At some point the vendors of all the products will include these features in upgrades, but it doesn't mean it just all works together the first time out.

Hopefully there will be clips of what this looks like available somewhere.


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> The receiver or pre/pro will not detect that you've turned off the external amplifier. Audio will still be sent to the corresponding output and thus will not be heard.
> 
> However, you can manually disable the speaker channels in the receiver (set them to "None"). If you do that, audio will not be sent to the disabled output. It'll be sent to the corresponding ear-level speaker channel. If you disable the Rear Surround speaker channels in the receiver, their sounds be mixed into the Surround speaker channels, for example. You can later turn those channels back on. Audyssey will still be active.


An additional point:

Audyssey will be active when he swaps back to the layout he had when he calibrated, but if he changes the speaker layout, Audyssey will disable itself (it thinks you've changed speakers). So in the original format he will have Audyssey correction (the format he did the calibration in) but in the alternative format, he won't. This, of course, may not be important to @westbergjoakim.


----------



## Sevenfeet

Bytehoven said:


> 7.1.4 Atmos is up and running.
> 
> Denon 4300h + Denon 3806 (2nd amp)


Well at least I'm not the only other one using old receivers for their amps.


----------



## PlanetAVS

kbarnes701 said:


> An additional point:
> 
> Audyssey will be active when he swaps back to the layout he had when he calibrated, but if he changes the speaker layout, Audyssey will disable itself (it thinks you've changed speakers). So in the original format he will have Audyssey correction (the format he did the calibration in) but in the alternative format, he won't. This, of course, may not be important to @westbergjoakim.


I would think that it would be easier to set the sound mode on the AVR to "Stereo" or "Dolby Digital" rather than go into the audio menu settings to disable the rear surrounds each time he turns the external amp on/off.


----------



## Selden Ball

PlanetAVS said:


> I would think that it would be easier to set the sound mode on the AVR to "Stereo" or "Dolby Digital" rather than go into the audio menu settings to disable the rear surrounds each time he turns the external amp on/off.


Some people prefer to hear a soundtrack "as the director intended." This might be a problem when listening to a 5.1 channel DTS soundtrack. (You can't use Dolby Digital to decode a DTS soundtrack.) All modern DTS decoders automatically copy the Surround channels into the Rear Surround channels. Of course, if you've located the speakers "correctly" in a 7.1 speaker system, the Surround speakers are no longer behind you, which (presumably) is where the director wanted those sounds to come from.


----------



## PlanetAVS

Selden Ball said:


> Some people prefer to hear a soundtrack "as the director intended." This might be a problem when listening to a 5.1 channel DTS soundtrack. (You can't use Dolby Digital to decode a DTS soundtrack.) All modern DTS decoders automatically copy the Surround channels into the Rear Surround channels. Of course, if you've located the speakers "correctly" in a 7.1 speaker system, the Surround speakers are no longer behind you, which (presumably) is where the director wanted those sounds to come from.


For the DTS 5.1 example, he could set the AVR sound mode to DTS (instead of DD). For critical listening in general, wouldn't that be the time to power up the external amp?


----------



## kbarnes701

westbergjoakim said:


> I have another question about the external amp. I'm runing a 7.2.4-system with my backs hooked to the external. If I have it turned off, will the system see that and output 5.2.4 with the backs going to the sides instead?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk





Selden Ball said:


> The receiver or pre/pro will not detect that you've turned off the external amplifier. Audio will still be sent to the corresponding output and thus will not be heard.
> 
> However, you can manually disable the speaker channels in the receiver (set them to "None"). If you do that, audio will not be sent to the disabled output. It'll be sent to the corresponding ear-level speaker channel. If you disable the Rear Surround speaker channels in the receiver, their sounds be mixed into the Surround speaker channels, for example. You can later turn those channels back on. Audyssey will still be active.





PlanetAVS said:


> I would think that it would be easier to set the sound mode on the AVR to "Stereo" or "Dolby Digital" rather than go into the audio menu settings to disable the rear surrounds each time he turns the external amp on/off.





PlanetAVS said:


> For the DTS 5.1 example, he could set the AVR sound mode to DTS (instead of DD). For critical listening in general, wouldn't that be the time to power up the external amp?


I think I have lost the point here somewhere.

If the OP wants to listen to an Atmos track in 7.x.4, then he is all set, using his external amp for the surround backs. No need to do anything unusual at all.

If he wants to switch off the external amp (why?) then signal will be 'lost' which is intended for the surround backs - obviously not a good idea. So don't do it.

If he wants to listen in legacy 5.1 or 7.1 then all he needs do is select DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD from his AVR audio menu accessible from a button on the remote. All his relevant floor level speakers will play with no need to change formats deep in the AVR. If it is a 7.1 track, all 7 speakers will play. If it is a 5.1 track, the LCR plus SL&SR will play. He could switch off the external amps powering the surround backs, but why bother?

If he wants to upmix DTS or Dolby tracks, he will surely want to send sound to all 11 speakers, so will require the external amp to be on and all his speakers will be used.

I can't see any point, unless one is a an Eco-warrior, of ever turning off the external amp and the standby current drain is not likely to be huge. And if one is an Eco-warrior to this extent, it's probably not a good idea to have 11 amplifiers in the first place _


----------



## westbergjoakim

kbarnes701 said:


> I think I have lost the point here somewhere.
> 
> If the OP wants to listen to an Atmos track in 7.x.4, then he is all set, using his external amp for the surround backs. No need to do anything unusual at all.
> 
> If he wants to switch off the external amp (why?) then signal will be 'lost' which is intended for the surround backs - obviously not a good idea. So don't do it.
> 
> If he wants to listen in legacy 5.1 or 7.1 then all he needs do is select DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD from his AVR audio menu accessible from a button on the remote. All his relevant floor level speakers will play with no need to change formats deep in the AVR. If it is a 7.1 track, all 7 speakers will play. If it is a 5.1 track, the LCR plus SL&SR will play. He could switch off the external amps powering the surround backs, but why bother?
> 
> If he wants to upmix DTS or Dolby tracks, he will surely want to send sound to all 11 speakers, so will require the external amp to be on and all his speakers will be used.
> 
> I can't see any point, unless one is a an Eco-warrior, of ever turning off the external amp and the standby current drain is not likely to be huge. And if one is an Eco-warrior to this extent, it's probably not a good idea to have 11 amplifiers in the first place _


I was just wondering if the AVR feels that the external amp are off and output them to the sides instead if I would forget to turn the amp on (I haven't the trigger on), but that's not the case then. Thanks! 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## ScottAvery

New to Atmos and 1700 pages is a bit much to catch up on. My previous install was 7.1 with surround channels mounted on wall well above ear height, as that was the standard. I am building a new room, which has some limitations for rear placement due to door openings and a stair landing. There is no convenient place to put rear height or rear surround channels though I could inconveniently achieve one or the other of them, potentially. I can do top rear in the ceiling, however, and any forward placement works as well. The easy thing would be 5.1 plus top front and top rear. Is that more than enough to compensate for losing rear surround?

I'm looking at a device like Denon 4400/6500 or Onkyo 830. These seem to be capable of 5.1.4 without additional amp, but I could get 2 more channels with an amp. (I have amps to spare, so I can do that) If I were to power that last pair, where should they go? I should also ask, where CAN they go? I can't tell if these processors can do 5.2.6 or if you only have the option of rear surrounds for that last pair. Is front height an option, and would that be useful? My mains have to be pretty wide already due to non-AT screen, so front wides does not make a lot of sense to me.

Thanks


----------



## Bytehoven

@;


Sevenfeet said:


> Well at least I'm not the only other one using old receivers for their amps.


When i started shopping for a decent 2 channel amp to handle the extra 2 channels for 11.1, i also started an ebay search of 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 receivers with preamp inputs. There many options from yamaha, denon, pioneer (personally I'd stick with those brands). I confirmed pre inputs by doing google image searches of the rear connections.

I wanted something powerful enough to move L, C, R off the main amp, and also thought sticking with denon would help provide similar amp design and performance.

Next was a search for units in good shape. Even for a little more $$$ buying a unit in very good condition is worth it. Having the remote included can also be handy for accessing any menus needed to turn on a direct or preamp external in capability.

In any case, it is not hard to find a good candidate in the $75-125 range.


----------



## freshmanjs

Selden Ball said:


> Some people prefer to hear a soundtrack "as the director intended."


What do you all prefer for 5.1 or 7.1 movie content? Direct decode or Dolby Surround / Neural:X upmixing? For a 7.2.4 configuration


----------



## dvdmd1

freshmanjs said:


> What do you all prefer for 5.1 or 7.1 movie content? Direct decode or Dolby Surround / Neural:X upmixing? For a 7.2.4 configuration


I prefer unreal x upmix


----------



## dvdmd1

dvdmd1 said:


> I prefer unreal x upmix


Neural X


----------



## pasender91

dvdmd1 said:


> I prefer unreal x upmix


Unreal X, LOL 

In my case i prefer Dolby Surround


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> New to Atmos and 1700 pages is a bit much to catch up on. My previous install was 7.1 with surround channels mounted on wall well above ear height, as that was the standard. I am building a new room, which has some limitations for rear placement due to door openings and a stair landing. There is no convenient place to put rear height or rear surround channels though I could inconveniently achieve one or the other of them, potentially. I can do top rear in the ceiling, however, and any forward placement works as well. The easy thing would be 5.1 plus top front and top rear. Is that more than enough to compensate for losing rear surround?


IMO, yes. Having 4 speakers above you is better than having two behind you, if you have to sacrifice one pair. Sometimes it can be quite hard to actually tell if the surround backs are working at all anyway.



ScottAvery said:


> I'm looking at a device like Denon 4400/6500 or Onkyo 830. These seem to be capable of 5.1.4 without additional amp, but I could get 2 more channels with an amp. (I have amps to spare, so I can do that) If I were to power that last pair, where should they go? I should also ask, where CAN they go? I can't tell if these processors can do 5.2.6 or if you only have the option of rear surrounds for that last pair. Is front height an option, and would that be useful? My mains have to be pretty wide already due to non-AT screen, so front wides does not make a lot of sense to me.
> 
> Thanks


They can't do 5.2.6. Your choices are 5.x.4 (internal amps) or 7.x.4 external amps.


----------



## kbarnes701

freshmanjs said:


> What do you all prefer for 5.1 or 7.1 movie content? Direct decode or Dolby Surround / Neural:X upmixing? For a 7.2.4 configuration


I am ambivalent. On some movies I upmix, but on others I find sounds get put into the overheads which shouldn't be there (eg car engine noise on occasion, or crowd noise). In the latter case I prefer the native format. Dolby Surround seems to 'get it right' more often than Neural:X but the latter is more 'showy' and good for demoing the effect. If you have _Spectre _on Blu-ray, try the early 'helicopter fight scene' -- it upmixes brilliantly but there is a lot of difference between the way DSU does it and the way Neural:X does it. Choose the one you like best.


----------



## kbarnes701

dvdmd1 said:


> Neural X


That Unreal:X is, well, unreal


----------



## ScottAvery

kbarnes701 said:


> IMO, yes. Having 4 speakers above you is better than having two behind you, if you have to sacrifice one pair. Sometimes it can be quite hard to actually tell if the surround backs are working at all anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> They can't do 5.2.6. Your choices are 5.x.4 (internal amps) or 7.x.4 external amps.


Thank you for that. What is the minimal processor that could support more Atmos channels? is the next step up the 13 channel Denon/Marantz or is there something between?

May I also ask why these devices have 11 powered channels but still require an external amp? I thought the second digit in the number scheme was still subwoofers, so where do the other two powered channels go?


----------



## Selden Ball

ScottAvery said:


> Thank you for that. What is the minimal processor that could support more Atmos channels? is the next step up the 13 channel Denon/Marantz or is there something between?


To get more than the 7.2.6 or 9.2.4 provided by the flagship D&M equipment (AVR-X8500H receiver and AV8805 pre/pro), you can either fake it, using matrix decoding (See https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html), or you can spend $14K or more for a high-end pre/pro or receiver that can handle at least 16 channels. For the latter, see the thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...yond-home-theaters-single-avr-pro-thread.html


> May I also ask why these devices have 11 powered channels but still require an external amp?


The limitations in the number of AVR amps are cost tradeoffs chosen by the manufacturers. Cramming yet another two channels of amplification into the same chassis size is difficult and expensive. There's no reason for them to spend money (thus reducing profit margins) to include something that very, very few people will ever use.


> I thought the second digit in the number scheme was still subwoofers, so where do the other two powered channels go?


Formally, only the digit 1 is legal in the second position of the Atmos designation. It corresponds to the number of LFE channels provided in a soundtrack, which can be either 0 or 1, but Atmos soundtracks always have 1 LFE channel. 

However, people have informally used the same designation format to indicate the number of speakers that they have, which might be the source of your confusion. In addition, high-end AVRs and pre/pros let you associate any output with any speaker, speaker driver or subwoofer. For example, some people who have Trinnov Altitude pre/pros configure their systems to include multiple crossovers per audio channel. They separately power each driver in each of the speakers associated with an audio channel.


----------



## Jonas2

ScottAvery said:


> Thank you for that. What is the minimal processor that could support more Atmos channels? is the next step up the 13 channel Denon/Marantz or is there something between?
> 
> May I also ask why these devices have 11 powered channels but still require an external amp? I thought the second digit in the number scheme was still subwoofers, so where do the other two powered channels go?



Not sure which models you are discussing, but must be that the receiver of interest can process the 11 channels, but has only 9 channels of amplification. Cheaper to do it this way for the receiver. You start getting cost boosts with both more processing and onboard amplification, so it's a way to reduce costs a bit.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Sevenfeet said:


> Well at least I'm not the only other one using old receivers for their amps.


I highly recommend twin locomotives to drive my 7.1.4 system


----------



## Sevenfeet

Bytehoven said:


> @;
> 
> When i started shopping for a decent 2 channel amp to handle the extra 2 channels for 11.1, i also started an ebay search of 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 receivers with preamp inputs. There many options from yamaha, denon, pioneer (personally I'd stick with those brands). I confirmed pre inputs by doing google image searches of the rear connections.
> 
> I wanted something powerful enough to move L, C, R off the main amp, and also thought sticking with denon would help provide similar amp design and performance.
> 
> Next was a search for units in good shape. Even for a little more $$$ buying a unit in very good condition is worth it. Having the remote included can also be handy for accessing any menus needed to turn on a direct or preamp external in capability.
> 
> In any case, it is not hard to find a good candidate in the $75-125 range.





LNEWoLF said:


> I highly recommend twin locomotives to drive my 7.1.4 system


:laugh:

I'm actually using TWO old receivers in my theater now behind my Marantz 7703 pre-pro. The first is a Onkyo TX-SR805 driving the center, surround towers and rear surround bookshelves. It was a decent beast in its day (10 years ago)...135wpc, THX Ultra2 certified. I inherited this when a friend upgraded his rig to a Denon X3400 receiver. The second old receiver is my original Denon 3805 which is driving the four old satellites I have doing a faux Atoms-Enabled configuration bounced against the ceiling. My front mains are powered by a McCormack DNA 0.5 amp. Only 100 wpc but it's dedicated power.

Eventually my eye is on replacing the Onkyo with a Emotiva XPA-5 Gen 3 five channel amp but I have to find budget first and I'm might buy a new subwoofer first.


----------



## sdurani

dvdmd1 said:


> I prefer unreal x upmix





dvdmd1 said:


> Neural X


Didn't realize until seeing these posts that unreal is an anagram of neural.


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> Thank you for that. What is the minimal processor that could support more Atmos channels? is the next step up the 13 channel Denon/Marantz or is there something between?


Nothing in between. You can support 11 channel processing (with the external amp) but to go to 13 channel processing means upgrading to the bigger Denon/Marantz units. To go beyond 13 channel processing you're looking at hugely expensive Trinnov or you could wait and keep your fingers crossed that Emoriva actually launch their 16 channel unit early next year as promised.



ScottAvery said:


> May I also ask why these devices have 11 powered channels but still require an external amp? I thought the second digit in the number scheme was still subwoofers, so where do the other two powered channels go?


You have to distinguish between processing capability and amplification capability. The units have 11 channels of amplification but 13 channels of onboard processing. There is, I believe, an Onkyo unit that has 13 channels of both onboard.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Didn't realize until seeing these posts that unreal is an anagram of neural.


Autocorrect maybe? But yeah, neither did I  Freudian slip?


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Nothing in between. You can support 11 channel processing (with the external amp) but to go to 13 channel processing means upgrading to the bigger Denon/Marantz units. To go beyond 13 channel processing you're looking at hugely expensive Trinnov or you could wait and keep your fingers crossed that Emoriva actually launch their 16 channel unit early next year as promised.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to distinguish between processing capability and amplification capability. The units have 11 channels of amplification but 13 channels of onboard processing. *There is, I believe, an Onkyo unit that has 13 channels of both onboard.*



To my knowledge...not yet...that's what I'm waiting for...to compete with and challenge the 8500. Onkyo' s "current" flagship AVR is the TX-RZ3100 and AVP is the PR-RZ5100...both are limited at 11 channel on board processing and amplification capability.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> That Unreal:X is, well, unreal


I prefer Dolby Stamos.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> To my knowledge...not yet...that's what I'm waiting for...to compete with and challenge the 8500. Onkyo' s "current" flagship AVR is the TX-RZ3100 and AVP is the PR-RZ5100...both are limited at 11 channel on board processing and amplification capability.


OK -- thanks for the correction.


----------



## ScottAvery

Selden Ball said:


> To get more than the 7.2.6 or 9.2.4 provided by the flagship D&M equipment (AVR-X8500H receiver and AV8805 pre/pro)
> 
> The limitations in the number of AVR amps are cost tradeoffs chosen by the manufacturers. Cramming yet another two channels of amplification into the same chassis size is difficult and expensive. There's no reason for them to spend money (thus reducing profit margins) to include something that very, very few people will ever use.





Jonas2 said:


> Not sure which models you are discussing, but must be that the receiver of interest can process the 11 channels, but has only 9 channels of amplification. Cheaper to do it this way for the receiver. You start getting cost boosts with both more processing and onboard amplification, so it's a way to reduce costs a bit.





kbarnes701 said:


> Nothing in between. You can support 11 channel processing (with the external amp) but to go to 13 channel processing means upgrading to the bigger Denon/Marantz units. To go beyond 13 channel processing you're looking at hugely expensive Trinnov or you could wait and keep your fingers crossed that Emoriva actually launch their 16 channel unit early next year as promised.
> 
> You have to distinguish between processing capability and amplification capability. The units have 11 channels of amplification but 13 channels of onboard processing. There is, I believe, an Onkyo unit that has 13 channels of both onboard.





gene4ht said:


> To my knowledge...not yet...that's what I'm waiting for...to compete with and challenge the 8500. Onkyo' s "current" flagship AVR is the TX-RZ3100 and AVP is the PR-RZ5100...both are limited at 11 channel on board processing and amplification capability.


Looking at the back panel of the Onkyo RZ830, there are 11 channels of speaker binding posts. I take it that the last pair, zone 2, is limited in some way since it is not labeled with an alternate Atmos position. Are there actually only 9 channels of amplification then? there are 11 channels of atmos labeled pre-out plus a pair for zone 2 and two numbered subwoofers.

To clarify my question, is there a processor cheaper than the new 13 channel D/M devices that will support 5.1.6? kbarnes701 said the rz830 and Denon 4300/6500 devices cannot. Just wondering if I can do anything other than rear surrounds with the last pair because rear surround is the hardest position for me to place due to walkways, doorways, stair landing, etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> Looking at the back panel of the Onkyo RZ830, there are 11 channels of speaker binding posts. I take it that the last pair, zone 2, is limited in some way since it is not labeled with an alternate Atmos position. Are there actually only 9 channels of amplification then? there are 11 channels of atmos labeled pre-out plus a pair for zone 2 and two numbered subwoofers.


Like I said earlier, there are 9 channels of amplification and 11 channels of processing. If you want to use all 11 processed channels, you have to provide 2 external amplifiers. 5.1.4 without external amps -- 7.1.4 with. 

The Onkyo website makes it pretty clear I think:

_"Feed your speakers the sound they deserve with the TX-RZ830, Onkyo’s premier mid-class A/V receiver, and unlock complete 7.2.4-ch object-based audio coverage *(outboard stereo amp required*)."_ (My bolding).

I too like to ask a question in several different ways until I get the answer I want, but sadly, it rarely works 



ScottAvery said:


> To clarify my question, is there a processor cheaper than the new 13 channel D/M devices that will support 5.1.6?


Answer is still "no".


----------



## LNEWoLF

ScottAvery said:


> I am building a new room, which has some limitations for rear placement due to door openings and a stair landing.


Since you are starting from a new build. Is it possible to rethink your original MLP (main listening position) layout. IMHO, when cosidering an Atmos install for ME, I found that 1st setting my MLP to the screen distance. Then 2nd by adjusting my speaker layout positions in relation to the MLP.

Sometimes something as simple as rotating your room layout 90 degrees. Can make a BiG difference in placement of surround and surround back speakers in a 7.x.x speaker system layout.

Good luck........


----------



## mrtickleuk

LNEWoLF said:


> I highly recommend twin locomotives to drive my 7.1.4 system


Choo choo!


----------



## Bytehoven

m. zillch said:


> I prefer Dolby Stamos.


I collected all of the Dolby Stamos trailers and test files i could find to run on my new 7.1.4 install. 

Wow

I'm gonna have to start every family and friend movie night with one of these files.


----------



## bmcleod

Sevenfeet said:


> ... The earliest Super Bowl broadcasts in HD had an awful time with motion artifacts, especially with the confetti dropped at the end of games, and the remote field cameras were all SD. ...


I think confetti is still the acid test for motion artifacts.


----------



## VenomAwakens

I have a 5.1 system , yamaha rxv 581 receiver, i have not add overhead speakers yet. When i play movies with Dolby Atmos track it downgrades to TrueHD as it was supposed to. The downgraded atmos tracks sound way louder than the native trueHD and DTS HD 7.1 tracks. When i say way louder i mean it , 15 db louder.. I normally watch movies at -15db , but when the movie supports atmos and then downgrades it to true hd i need to turn the volume down to -28db in order to have an enjoyable experience.

Most of the atmos movies sound boomy and muddy too. The only atmos track that i enjoyed was Wonder Woman 4k , it plays amazingly well as true hd that is not the case for e.g the matrix 4k or the Skyscraper 4k which sound loud , muddy and boomy it's like the high freq are not there.
So i connected a pair of old speakers in order to test the native atmos tracks , i placed them at the top of my floorstanders, i did not wait for good overhead effects with that kind of speakers and placement i just wanted to test the native atmos tracks loudness. Everything was way quieter, it was like that i had two comletely different systems. Mad Max as true HD was defeaning at -15db, as native Atmos it was way quieter and softer at-15.
Has it anything to do with the metadata? I mean when atmos downgrades to trueHD and the metadata are not used some sounds play at maximum volume because the metadata are not there to adjust the volume ? Hope you understand what i'm trying to say, im not a native english speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

VenomAwakens said:


> I have a 5.1 system , yamaha rxv 581 receiver, i have not add overhead speakers yet. When i play movies with Dolby Atmos track it downgrades to TrueHD as it was supposed to. The downgraded atmos tracks sound way louder than the native trueHD and DTS HD 7.1 tracks. When i say way louder i mean it , 15 db louder.. I normally watch movies at -15db , but when the movie supports atmos and then downgrades it to true hd i need to turn the volume down to -28db in order to have an enjoyable experience.
> 
> Most of the atmos movies sound boomy and muddy too. The only atmos track that i enjoyed was Wonder Woman 4k , it plays amazingly well as true hd that is not the case for e.g the matrix 4k or the Skyscraper 4k which sound loud , muddy and boomy it's like the high freq are not there.
> So i connected a pair of old speakers in order to test the native atmos tracks , i placed them at the top of my floorstanders, i did not wait for good overhead effects with that kind of speakers and placement i just wanted to test the native atmos tracks loudness. Everything was way quieter, it was like that i had two comletely different systems. Mad Max as true HD was defeaning at -15db, as native Atmos it was way quieter and softer at-15.
> Has it anything to do with the metadata? I mean when atmos downgrades to trueHD and the metadata are not used some sounds play at maximum volume because the metadata are not there to adjust the volume ? Hope you understand what i'm trying to say, im not a native english speaker.


Something is very wrong. First of all, an Atmos track isn't 'downgraded' to TrueHD. The Atmos-TrueHD track is the TrueHD track, the same as it always has been and will play the same as it always has on any legacy (non-Atmos) system. The Atmos track is not 'downgraded' to TrueHD. It's more or less the reverse: the TrueHD track carries metadata which is only 'activated' by an Atmos processor receiving a bitstream output from the disc. So there is no way that when you play an Atmos-encoded disc on a legacy TrueHD setup that it can suddenly become 15dB louder -- unless there is a setup issue somewhere.

Similarly therefore, there can be no possibility in a properly set up system where the TrueHD 'core' track becomes 'muddy' or 'boomy' as a result of the metadata. If this were so, then numerous people would be reporting it when playing an Atmos-encoded disc on their legacy systems.

So there has to be some sort of problem in your system or setup. I am not familiar with your Yamaha AVR but I suspect that there is some setting which is causing this sort of problem you are having. Maybe if you cross-post your post to your AVR thread, someone will be able to help. Are you sure you are outputting a bitsteam from the BD player? That is required for Atmos to work (extract the metadata)? If you are, try switching the player to PCM and see if it makes a difference. There is no audible difference if you do this - it just means the disc player is doing the decoding and not the AVR. (Atmos decoding takes place in the Atmos-enabled AVR which is why you have to bitstream to decode an Atmos track as Atmos). If when you use PCM, the soundtrack is played at the right level, then the problem is in the AVR. If the problem is the same even with PCM, then the problem oculd be in the player settings somewhere OR the AVR settings. The Yamaha thread for your unit should know more.

It is an interesting problem and one which has never come up before AFAIK. Maybe others in this thread will have some suggestions you could try, but I urge you to take it to the thread specific for your unit as well.


----------



## VenomAwakens

kbarnes701 said:


> Something is very wrong. First of all, an Atmos track isn't 'downgraded' to TrueHD. The Atmos-TrueHD track is the TrueHD track, the same as it always has been and will play the same as it always has on any legacy (non-Atmos) system. The Atmos track is not 'downgraded' to TrueHD. It's more or less the reverse: the TrueHD track carries metadata which is only 'activated' by an Atmos processor receiving a bitstream output from the disc. So there is no way that when you play an Atmos-encoded disc on a legacy TrueHD setup that it can suddenly become 15dB louder -- unless there is a setup issue somewhere.
> 
> Similarly therefore, there can be no possibility in a properly set up system where the TrueHD 'core' track becomes 'muddy' or 'boomy' as a result of the metadata. If this were so, then numerous people would be reporting it when playing an Atmos-encoded disc on their legacy systems.
> 
> So there has to be some sort of problem in your system or setup. I am not familiar with your Yamaha AVR but I suspect that there is some setting which is causing this sort of problem you are having. Maybe if you cross-post your post to your AVR thread, someone will be able to help. Are you sure you are outputting a bitsteam from the BD player? That is required for Atmos to work (extract the metadata)? If you are, try switching the player to PCM and see if it makes a difference. There is no audible difference if you do this - it just means the disc player is doing the decoding and not the AVR. (Atmos decoding takes place in the Atmos-enabled AVR which is why you have to bitstream to decode an Atmos track as Atmos). If when you use PCM, the soundtrack is played at the right level, then the problem is in the AVR. If the problem is the same even with PCM, then the problem oculd be in the player settings somewhere OR the AVR settings. The Yamaha thread for your unit should know more.
> 
> It is an interesting problem and one which has never come up before AFAIK. Maybe others in this thread will have some suggestions you could try, but I urge you to take it to the thread specific for your unit as well.


Thank you for your reply, i crossposted my post to the yamaha *81 thread as you suggested. 

My system is calibrated with the ypao mic , everything in the setting and levels seems normal. Maximum dynamic range , no drc etc.. I watch blurays from my ps4 bitstream setting on. When a friend of mine who has an Atmos sytem came to my house i played some Atmos demos from my pc (mpchc bitstream on ) and (Kodi bitstream on).Dolby trueHD audio lights on the yamaha front panel display so bitstream was working. He immediately said to me that the surrounds are way louder than they should and if i had manually increased their volume level. Answer is no surrounds level is -2 as ypao set them. He said that my system sounds like you have put headphones . When i went to his home and he played some demos for me everything was quieter, softer whith a better surround feeling, wider soundstage even in higher volume you could speak with the person next to you normaly. That is not the case in my room at -15db volume you have to scream in order to speak to somebody next to you.


----------



## kbarnes701

VenomAwakens said:


> Thank you for your reply, i crossposted my post to the yamaha *81 thread as you suggested.


I hope they have some suggestions for you to try.



VenomAwakens said:


> My system is calibrated with the ypao mic , everything in the setting and levels seems normal. Maximum dynamic range , no drc etc.. I watch blurays from my ps4 bitstream setting on. When a friend of mine who has an Atmos sytem came to my house i played some Atmos demos from my pc (mpchc bitstream on ) and (Kodi bitstream on).Dolby trueHD audio lights on the yamaha front panel display so bitstream was working. He immediately said to me that the surrounds are way louder than they should and if i had manually increased their volume level. Answer is no surrounds level is -2 as ypao set them. He said that my system sounds like you have put headphones . When i went to his home and he played some demos for me everything was quieter, softer whith a better surround feeling, wider soundstage even in higher volume you could speak with the person next to you normaly. That is not the case in my room at -15db volume you have to scream in order to speak to somebody next to you.


It is very strange. I am sorry I cannot be of any real help - but there are some very knowledgeable people in this thread and hopefully, when the USA has had breakfast (I am in the UK) they will chime in.

BTW your English is very good.


----------



## Selden Ball

VenomAwakens said:


> Thank you for your reply, i crossposted my post to the yamaha *81 thread as you suggested.
> 
> My system is calibrated with the ypao mic , everything in the setting and levels seems normal. Maximum dynamic range , no drc etc.. I watch blurays from my ps4 bitstream setting on. When a friend of mine who has an Atmos sytem came to my house i played some Atmos demos from my pc (mpchc bitstream on ) and (Kodi bitstream on).Dolby trueHD audio lights on the yamaha front panel display so bitstream was working. He immediately said to me that the surrounds are way louder than they should and if i had manually increased their volume level. Answer is no surrounds level is -2 as ypao set them. He said that my system sounds like you have put headphones . When i went to his home and he played some demos for me everything was quieter, softer whith a better surround feeling, wider soundstage even in higher volume you could speak with the person next to you normaly. That is not the case in my room at -15db volume you have to scream in order to speak to somebody next to you.


My suspicion is that "there's something wrong" which is specific to your receiver. I think you'll get more knowledgeable answers if you ask in the thread where your model of Yamaha receiver is discussed. There's a separate thread for each model year.

That said, here are some suggestions which are not specific to any particular model or manufacturer:

1. Make sure its firmware is up to date.

2. Do a "soft reset" -- unplug the receiver from wall power for about 10 minutes. This often clears up strange problems. 

3. If it doesn't work, then you might try a full "return to factory settings" reset (sometimes several resets in a row work best) and then recalibrate. Don't configure any other special settings.

4. If that doesn't work, then you'll probably need to contact Yamaha about repair or replacement.

ETA: If you haven't had it for very long, sometimes the place where you bought it will be willing to replace it for no charge.


----------



## LNEWoLF

@VenomAwakens, it possible may be related to what DSP Mode (Digital Sound Processing) you are using. I’m not all that familiar with Yamaha. For ME, my Pioneer Elite SC97 has a DSP Mode EXT STEREO. I use mostly for two channel music. It sounds the most natural to my ears.. It can appear to sound louder than other DSP Modes. For movies I use a DSP Mode of Direct Auto. 

Do you know what DSP Mode you are using?.

Good luck.......


----------



## asarose247

^ +1 It can appear to sound louder than other DSP Modes.

for DSU, ATMOS, DTX ,AVR (X4400) can go up to -15 and maybe -10

turn on MV is set to -20 and for stereo, plenty, and sometimes dropped to -25.

and all speakers for the base layer is put thru the ATI amp . .


----------



## jpoet

jpoet said:


> Has anyone tried to watch Amazon's "Jack Ryan"? At least via my nVidia Shield, I am not getting Atmos, just DD+ 5.1



The UHD version of Jack Ryan is now producing Atmos when played via my nVidia shield :grin:


----------



## VenomAwakens

kbarnes701 said:


> I hope they have some suggestions for you to try.
> 
> 
> 
> It is very strange. I am sorry I cannot be of any real help - but there are some very knowledgeable people in this thread and hopefully, when the USA has had breakfast (I am in the UK) they will chime in.
> 
> BTW your English is very good.


Ok, i checked the files with media info and i'm confused as hell. Google search did not help either. Here we go..
Example of Wonder Woman media info audio file which sounds superb:

ID : 2
Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
Duration : 2 h 21 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : *4 279 kb/s*
Maximum bit rate : 7 509 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode : *Lossless*
Stream size : 4.22 GiB (29%)
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Number of dynamic objects : 11

Example of Skyscraper audio which sounds bad : 

ID : 4352 (0x1100)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format :* AC-3* MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3 + Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Muxing mode : *Stream extension*
Codec ID : 131
Duration : 1 h 42 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : *448 kb/s*
Maximum bit rate : 5 022 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
Bit depth : 16 bits
Compression mode :* Lossy*
Delay relative to video : -17 ms
Stream size : 328 MiB (1%)
Service kind : Complete Main
Number of dynamic objects : 11
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE


----------



## audiofan1

jpoet said:


> The UHD version of Jack Ryan is now producing Atmos when played via my nVidia shield :grin:


 Seriously! sweet


----------



## Selden Ball

VenomAwakens said:


> Ok, i checked the files with media info and i'm confused as hell. Google search did not help either. Here we go..
> Example of Wonder Woman media info audio file whitch sounds superb:
> 
> ID : 2
> Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
> Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
> Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
> Codec ID  : A_TRUEHD
> Duration : 2 h 21 min
> Bit rate mode : Variable
> Bit rate : *4 279 kb/s*
> Maximum bit rate : 7 509 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 8 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
> Compression mode : *Lossless*
> Stream size : 4.22 GiB (29%)
> Language : English
> Default : Yes
> Forced : No
> Number of dynamic objects : 11
> 
> Example of Skyscraper audio which sounds bad :
> 
> ID : 4352 (0x1100)
> Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
> Format :* AC-3* MLP FBA 16-ch
> Format/Info : Audio Coding 3 + Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
> Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
> Muxing mode : *Stream extension*
> Codec ID : 131
> Duration : 1 h 42 min
> Bit rate mode : Variable
> Bit rate : *448 kb/s*
> Maximum bit rate : 5 022 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 8 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
> Bit depth : 16 bits
> Compression mode :* Lossy*
> Delay relative to video : -17 ms
> Stream size : 328 MiB (1%)
> Service kind : Complete Main
> Number of dynamic objects : 11
> Bed channel count : 1 channel
> Bed channel configuration : LFE


Your bolded fields would seem to explain at least part of the problem. If you're playing ripped copies of the movies, then you need to re-rip the one with the lossy soundtrack so that you have a copy which contains the lossless soundtrack. Many BDs include both lossless and lossy soundtracks. It'd be interesting to know what bitrates the original Blu-ray has for its audio tracks. Sony's BD players, for example, display the bitrate of the selected audio stream. A few DTS:X discs have been found to have been pressed with lossy DTS:X soundtracks. It'd be interesting to find out if the same is true for this Atmos title. 

Can you provide more details about the disc? A picture of its back cover, for example? Many discs' pack covers include a tiny section where they show some of the audio details, although often they can be misleading.


----------



## VenomAwakens

Selden Ball said:


> Your bolded fields would seem to explain at least part of the problem. If you're playing ripped copies of the movies, then you need to re-rip the one with the lossy soundtrack so that you have a copy which contains the lossless soundtrack. Many BDs include both lossless and lossy soundtracks. It'd be interesting to know what bitrates the original Blu-ray has for its audio tracks. Sony's BD players, for example, display the bitrate of the selected audio stream. A few DTS:X discs have been found to have been pressed with lossy DTS:X soundtracks. It'd be interesting to find out if the same is true for this Atmos title.
> 
> Can you provide more details about the disc? A picture of its back cover, for example? Many discs' pack covers include a tiny section where they show some of the audio details, although often they can be misleading.


Both movies are downloaded , i prefer and i buy bluray disks but since atmos became a 4k UHD exclusive there is not other way to have atmos support for the new releases. Ps4 can not playback 4k movies, most 1080p movies does not support atmos like the 4k ones so i download them and i play them through mpc-hc or kodi.


----------



## Selden Ball

VenomAwakens said:


> Both movies are downloaded , i prefer and i buy bluray disks but since atmos became a 4k UHD exclusive there is not other way to have atmos support for the new releases. Ps4 can not playback 4k movies, most 1080p movies does not support atmos like the 4k ones so i download them and i play them through mpc-hc or kodi.


FWIW, most (all?) 4K UHD disc players can downscale to 1080p. Many Atmos fans who don't have 4K displays have taken advantage of this. For the players which do this the best, consult with the thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...fficial-help-me-choose-uhd-player-thread.html


----------



## VenomAwakens

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, most (all?) 4K UHD disc players can downscale to 1080p. Many Atmos fans who don't have 4K displays have taken advantage of this. For the players which do this the best, consult with the thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...fficial-help-me-choose-uhd-player-thread.html


I'm a gamer too, i will wait for ps5 next year which i believe will support 4k blu ray playback if i does not i will buy xbox one x. I don't want to buy a uhd player yet..Also local video clubs in my country does not rent 4k uhd bluray discs yet.


----------



## kbarnes701

VenomAwakens said:


> Ok, i checked the files with media info and i'm confused as hell. Google search did not help either. Here we go..
> Example of Wonder Woman media info audio file which sounds superb:
> 
> ID : 2
> Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
> Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation


I have to duck out at this point I'm afraid as I know zero about ripped discs. It seems that this is where the problem lies. I wasn't aware that you were using ripped copies. There must be a thread on AVS about ripping Atmos movies so that would be the best place to ask I think. Good luck!


----------



## sdrucker

Anybody want to fly to Melbourne this weekend  ? Now this is a system that truly pushes the limits...
https://www.trinnov.com/2018/09/28/...-24-10-10-dolby-atmos-international-premiere/

So if you win the lotto and have a need for setting up a 32 seat personal cinema....at this level about the only thing I think you could compare it to is an actual movie theatre with Atmos. I would love to know if whatever content they're playing actually uses all 34 channels with real native Atmos content, and what it is....

No, I'm not going.


----------



## mtbdudex

Interesting... above screen LCR due to the emerging microLED screen technology and expectation that in near future AT / Projector combo will decline, gotta keep revenue up.

So much for all the talk on height separation bed from Atmos ceiling channels 

 https://procella.audio/c102-above-screen-solution/











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

Barco laser projector onto solid screen 
 https://procella.audio/odeon-oslo-norway-uses-procella-audio/









I realize it’s the big cinema, however there’s relevance to home theaters definitely, as microLED may become reality for more HT’s as prices drop.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scarface717

Sorry for the off-topic :

Guys, i'm looking where to ask for a recommendation to buy a new Home Theather with dolby atmos. Thank you!


----------



## talbain

Budget? For me if I were putting together a pretty kick ass Atmos setup I'd get a Denon avr 1155 with some focal sib speakers and call it a day


scarface717 said:


> Sorry for the off-topic :
> 
> Guys, i'm looking where to ask for a recommendation to buy a new Home Theather with dolby atmos. Thank you!


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## scarface717

talbain said:


> Budget? For me if I were putting together a pretty kick ass Atmos setup I'd get a Denon avr 1155 with some focal sib speakers and call it a dayIdsome
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Ok here I go, first at all I'm in colombia (I'll buy everything on USA) : 

Right now I have an Onkyo S3900 that I bought on last december, and now i'm planning to sell it and buy a new home theather for my room. That onkyo is fine, but it doesn't has 4K port, dolby atmos neither, so it's time to change

My room is : Length : 11.5 ft , width : 11.5 ft and height : 8.2 ft 

My budget is : $500 - 700

My TV is LG 65B7 ; 95% for movies (70% RIP - 30% Original 4K BR) and 5% for TV/Games

I have a Sony UBP-X800 for play all my 4K Movies. (it doesn't run atmos neither but i'll change it lather this year) 

So, that's it! 

I don't want something fancy but I want something GOOD for my room according to my budget. What do you recommend me? I really appreciate this. I'm planning to buy everything on November. BTW I don't have any problem with used devices to save me some bucks (on Ebay or something like this)

Thank you!


----------



## jjackkrash

scarface717 said:


> My budget is : $500 - 700


If you need electronics, speakers, and sub, that budget is going to be pretty tough.

How many ear-level and overhead speakers were you thinking? Take a look at the installation guidelines, look at your room, and make an installation plan first before thinking about buying gear. You need to buy gear to fit the installation plan; buying gear and then trying to fit it into the room without a plan is a mistake. 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


Keep in mind 5.1.4 is the sweet spot for Atmos, but that many speaker channels pushes you into $800+ USD territory for the entry level nine-channel speakers on closeout.


----------



## Bytehoven

scarface717 said:


> Sorry for the off-topic :
> 
> Guys, i'm looking where to ask for a recommendation to buy a new Home Theather with dolby atmos. Thank you!


What is the room size?

A decent smallish system can be built around a good receiver, a good sub woofer and matching small (inexpensive) book shelf speakers in all other speaker locations. Such a system would be challanged as far as ever being able to put out higher volume levels, but if the receiver and sub are good, you can begin to replace the book shelf speakers as funds permit, starting with the front 3 left, center and right speakers. 

Think about how good a Bose satellite system can sound.

This will border on blasphemy, but even a cheap KLH type speaker for all of the speaker positions can perform very well with a good receiver and sub, and get you started.

Your biggest, wise investment will be the 9.2 receiver. I use the Denon 4300h, which can be found used at good prices. I use the 4300h at the heart of my 7.1.4 setup. I'm not sure what other 9.2 receivers you might consider. The 4300h is nice because it can support 11.2 when used with an external amp.

If you're up for getting down and dirty on a Do It Yourself system, I'd be happy to continue the discussion as you hunt down your components.

But again, even if it means starting out with fewer total speakers as a 5.1 setup and expanding from there, invest now in a good receiver and SW.


----------



## Selden Ball

scarface717 said:


> I have a Sony UBP-X800 for play all my 4K Movies. (it doesn't run atmos neither but i'll change it lather this year)


No disc player supports Atmos decoding. Instead, you configure them to "bitstream" the audio to the receiver. Then the receiver decodes the audio signal appropriately.

Edited to add: In other words, your current 4K UHD Blu-ray player will be fine for playing discs with Atmos, DTS:X, Auro-3D or IMAX Enhanced soundtracks. Of course, you might decide to replace it for other reasons.


----------



## scarface717

Thank you guys for spend some of your valuable time on this. 

I didn't think I had to make a plan and read that manual lol. That's way more complicate for me that I thought. 

I thought it was only like I've bought all these HT before. Like the Onkyo that I have, pick the receiver, pick the subwoofer and the speakers according to your budget and that's it! 

Any other recommendation on this?.. I can extend my budget to $800


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mgida

Guys I hope you are still helping out with issues such as the one below.
As I am thinking of joining the Atmos frenzy, I would appreciate your help and suggestions on the issue I am facing with the back height speakers. 
The sitting area (a 4 seater sofa) is quite close to the back wall and I am afraid that it will be difficult for me to reach the Dolby angles with the back heights, considering the height of the ceiling. 
I am afraid that I would have the sound dispersion of the rear heights hit the back wall and create unwanted sound waves. 
To be more accurate I have drawn a side view of the room, and numbered/lettered the potential positions for the 4 Atmos speakers. 
The plan is to add the 4 Atmos speakers to my existing B&W 5.1 set up and my Benq HT3050 PJ.
I was thinking of using positions 1 for the fronts and 10 or 11 for the back heights. 
Additionally, to avoid any ugly wiring I am also thinking about installing two wooden beams across the room ceiling which would complement the room aesthetically.
Those would be used to install/hang the speakers on and also run the wires through in total camouflage.

The positions which I noted with letters are actually in case wall mounted rears would sound better than in- or on-ceiling, considering the back wall proximity.

What would be the best solution in this situation according to your knowledge and experience?
i can move the LP 10 inches more max

Cheers and thanks in advance	
MG


----------



## sdurani

mgida said:


> What would be the best solution in this situation according to your knowledge and experience?
> i can move the LP 10 inches more max


Move the LP 10 inches forward (more if possible). A good starting point for height speaker placement is 45 degrees elevation, forward and rearward of the LP. Measure from your ears to the ceiling. Same distance forward on the ceiling is 45 degrees elevation in front of you. Measure from your ears to the back wall. The same distance above ear height on the back wall is 45 degrees elevation behind you. IF you can use swivel mounts for the height speakers, aim each one at the listener farthest away.


----------



## kbarnes701

mgida said:


> Guys I hope you are still helping out with issues such as the one below.
> As I am thinking of joining the Atmos frenzy, I would appreciate your help and suggestions on the issue I am facing with the back height speakers.
> The sitting area (a 4 seater sofa) is quite close to the back wall and I am afraid that it will be difficult for me to reach the Dolby angles with the back heights, considering the height of the ceiling.


Sanjay's advice is, as always, excellent. I'd add that if you can't move the seating as recommended for some reason, I got excellent results in my old (very small) room by placing the TR slightly ahead of MLP and TF at the recommended 45 degrees. Atmos is very forgiving. You will get a good result.


----------



## mgida

kbarnes701 said:


> Sanjay's advice is, as always, excellent. I'd add that if you can't move the seating as recommended for some reason, I got excellent results in my old (very small) room by placing the TR slightly ahead of MLP and TF at the recommended 45 degrees. Atmos is very forgiving. You will get a good result.


Sorry as I apparently, keep confusing everybody with the Heights instead of Tops.
I am very well aware of the 45 degree angle hence the concern because this is unreachable for the top rears, from my LP (ear level to the ceiling).
That's why I wanted to hear from you if having my TR at position 10 or 11 (as per my drawing) would still be better than to have the speakers mounted on the back wall (positions A to D). 
Yes, I am looking for some speakers that have a degree of rotation so I can position them according to the LP. 
I have checked some B&Ws AM-1 actually, which are meant for outdoors but they seem huge (expensive as well)for a ceiling mount, and on the other hand I am not sure how much should one invest in the 4 Atmos speakers considering that they only bring on *some* of the movie effects. For sure they need to have a wider dispersion angle and at least 2 channels..but not a lot more. Any ideas?

MG


----------



## kbarnes701

mgida said:


> That's why I wanted to hear from you if having my TR at position 10 or 11 (as per my drawing) would still be better than to have the speakers mounted on the back wall (positions A to D).


IMO, yes, better.



mgida said:


> Yes, I am looking for some speakers that have a degree of rotation so I can position them according to the LP.
> I have checked some B&Ws AM-1 actually, which are meant for outdoors but they seem huge (expensive as well)for a ceiling mount, and on the other hand I am not sure how much should one invest in the 4 Atmos speakers considering that they only bring on *some* of the movie effects. For sure they need to have a wider dispersion angle and at least 2 channels..but not a lot more. Any ideas?


Dolby recommends full range speakers for the overheads (full range assuming a sub in the system). I would look at Tannoys - they are good speakers, have wide dispersion and are coaxial designs which I always like anyway. Some of their smaller 'outdoor' speakers are excellent (I use their now discontinued Di6DC outdoor speakers in my HT and they are terrific). Affordable too. And they come with brackets and can be easily aimed.

These look to ne the replacements for the ones I used in my old HT - very nice speaker.

https://www.tannoy.com/Categories/Tannoy/AMS/AMS-DC/AMS-5DC/p/P0BTJ#googtrans(en|en)


----------



## mgida

kbarnes701 said:


> IMO, yes, better.
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby recommends full range speakers for the overheads (full range assuming a sub in the system). I would look at Tannoys - they are good speakers, have wide dispersion and are coaxial designs which I always like anyway. Some of their smaller 'outdoor' speakers are excellent (I use their now discontinued Di6DC outdoor speakers in my HT and they are terrific). Affordable too. And they come with brackets and can be easily aimed.
> 
> These look to ne the replacements for the ones I used in my old HT - very nice speaker.
> 
> https://www.tannoy.com/Categories/Tannoy/AMS/AMS-DC/AMS-5DC/p/P0BTJ#googtrans(en|en)


Thanks for the reply man,

One more question though
would you find it better to go further back with the TR but closer to the wall, or closer to the LP and further from the wall in the back?


----------



## kbarnes701

mgida said:


> Thanks for the reply man,
> 
> One more question though
> would you find it better to go further back with the TR but closer to the wall, or closer to the LP and further from the wall in the back?


I forget if you have 5.x.4 or 7.x.4 and can't easily scroll back ATM. If it's 7.x.4 then I'd be wary of going further back, closer to the back wall, because it will also reduce the separation between the rear surrounds and the TR pair. In that case, as in my old room, I'd put the TR just slightly ahead of MLP, or even directly over MLP, and designate them as TF+TR, If it's 5.x.4 you may be able to go closer to the back wall and approach the 'ideal' 45 degree angles Sanjay mentions in his reply.

Atmos is very forgiving so don't over-worry about it. You will get a pretty good result with most (reasonable) positions for the overheads. Ideally, follow Sanjay's recommendations. If you can't, for whatever reason, then try my suggestions.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

Without getting too deep into angles etc, I think you will get a good result if you place the overheads in your 5.x.4 system something like this:










That is without moving the MLP forward. If you can move the MLP about 1 ft towards the screen, then you can achieve the 'ideal' 45 degree angles.


----------



## mgida

Many thanks kbarnes
I feel better now.
Here are the speakers I'm thinking of for the 4 Atmos positions
JBL CONTROL ONE 
Power Handling (Peak) 200W
Nominal Impedance 8 Ohms
Maximum Recommended Amplifier Power 100W
Sensitivity ([email protected]) 89dB
Frequency Response 80Hz – 20kHz
Power Handling (Recommended) 50W


----------



## m. zillch

The positioning of the front speakers is day-and-night more important and people shouldn't agonize about getting their surround speakers _perfectly_ placed.


----------



## kbarnes701

mgida said:


> Many thanks kbarnes
> I feel better now.
> Here are the speakers I'm thinking of for the 4 Atmos positions
> JBL CONTROL ONE
> Power Handling (Peak) 200W
> Nominal Impedance 8 Ohms
> Maximum Recommended Amplifier Power 100W
> Sensitivity ([email protected]) 89dB
> Frequency Response 80Hz – 20kHz
> Power Handling (Recommended) 50W


Good choice.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> The positioning of the front speakers is day-and-night more important and people shouldn't agonize about getting their surround speakers _perfectly_ placed.


Agreed, and in any case, ITU and DOlby standards for surround speaker and overhead speaker placement always specify a *range *of positions -- so long as you are in the range, you're good.


----------



## Bytehoven

mgida said:


> Many thanks kbarnes
> I feel better now.
> Here are the speakers I'm thinking of for the 4 Atmos positions
> JBL CONTROL ONE
> Power Handling (Peak) 200W
> Nominal Impedance 8 Ohms
> Maximum Recommended Amplifier Power 100W
> Sensitivity ([email protected]) 89dB
> Frequency Response 80Hz – 20kHz
> Power Handling (Recommended) 50W


I considered the control one to go with my main speaker the jbl control 5 monitors.

I ended up with the Dayton io655 speakers and I'm very happy.

Good luck with your choice.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> Most would probably pair a moderately powered external amp with the overheads, since the overheads place far less demand on the system, carrying, as they do, much less content than the LCRs and usually at lower SPLs.


Sorry I accidentally grabbed the wrong quote, was going to respond to your HT / outdoor description. Very cool! If I ever get out to the UK I'd love to see it! 



sdrucker said:


> For what it's worth, Trinnov Altitude isn't the ONLY processor that has input/output meters where you can see what's directly being played by the decoded Atmos content without level/delay or bass management. It's just the most accessible to do so right now, cost aside.


I sent a PM a while back, I lost your number when my phone got destroyed. We should catch up sometime soon!


----------



## andydallas

Ok, I have a home theater with good equipment but its never used. My living room I just added a 85" tv and want to take my 5.1 system to Dolby Atmos 7.1,,it has Polk Audio fronts and polk audio rears.

I started thinking about taking the speakers out of my theater room and using them. The fronts are large Atlantic Technology speakers (model 371 it looks like ) that say "recommended power 150 watts, i have two big parasound amps in the theater.

I do NOT want to move the entire sound system with the amps etc into the living room, it would defeat what I am trying to do.

Would I not have enough power with a receiver like a Denon 4400 or equivelant to property drive the Atlantic Technology speakers?

any input is appreciated, I will also post this in the speaker area


----------



## Bytehoven

andydallas said:


> Ok, I have a home theater with good equipment but its never used. My living room I just added a 85" tv and want to take my 5.1 system to Dolby Atmos 7.1,,it has Polk Audio fronts and polk audio rears.
> 
> I started thinking about taking the speakers out of my theater room and using them. The fronts are large Atlantic Technology speakers (model 371 it looks like ) that say "recommended power 150 watts, i have two big parasound amps in the theater.
> 
> I do NOT want to move the entire sound system with the amps etc into the living room, it would defeat what I am trying to do.
> 
> Would I not have enough power with a receiver like a Denon 4400 or equivelant to property drive the Atlantic Technology speakers?
> 
> any input is appreciated, I will also post this in the speaker area


The 4400h is capable of running a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 atmos setups. 

If you want to do a 7.1.4 atmos, you need to plan for a 2nd amp.

Option 1, the 2nd smaller amp can be for just 2 extra atmos channels.

Option 2 use a stronger 2 channel amp for front left and right speakers.

Option 3 you can use a 3+ channel amp or receiver to run power for left, center and right speakers , further reducing demand on the 4400h. This the way i wen,t but the 2nd amp, a receiver, has similar power to my 4300h.

I am driving many 4 ohm speakers (175w rating) and the 4300 and 3806 have plenty of power.

My ht space is 25x16 and i can't imagine ever running above 75 on the denon volume scale. I mostly run 65-70 and it rocks.

Lastly, the atmos speaker channels require less power than surround speakers, so they don't need to be able handle big volume, but having them share accoustic characteristics with the other speakers is good.

So, use the smallest so speakers for your 2 or 4 atmos speakers, and the most powerful at left, center and right positions. 

I assume know all of this but thought it might be worth mentioning as a total plan

Ps... if choosing between 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 on the 4400h alone, go 5.1.4 and add the surround back left and right in the future if needed.


----------



## andydallas

Bytehoven said:


> The 4400h is capable of running a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 atmos setups.
> 
> If you want to do a 7.1.4 atmos, you need to plan for a 2nd amp.
> 
> Option 1, the 2nd smaller amp can be for just 2 extra atmos channels.
> 
> Option 2 use a stronger 2 channel amp for front left and right speakers.
> 
> Option 3 you can use a 3+ channel amp or receiver to run power for left, center and right speakers , further reducing demand on the 4400h. This the way i wen,t but the 2nd amp, a receiver, has similar power to my 4300h.
> 
> I am driving many 4 ohm speakers (175w rating) and the 4300 and 3806 have plenty of power.
> 
> My ht space is 25x16 and i can't imagine ever running above 75 on the denon volume scale. I mostly run 65-70 and it rocks.
> 
> Lastly, the atmos speaker channels require less power than surround speakers, so they don't need to be able handle big volume, but having them share accoustic characteristics with the other speakers is good.
> 
> So, use the smallest so speakers for your 2 or 4 atmos speakers, and the most powerful at left, center and right positions.
> 
> I assume know all of this but thought it might be worth mentioning as a total plan
> 
> Ps... if choosing between 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 on the 4400h alone, go 5.1.4 and add the surround back left and right in the future if needed.


THANKS I know the basics of stereo and audio, but not dolby atmos or the more complex setups, which is why my media room isn't used, its a hassle to go watch tv for a few minutes in. I may go 5.1 and see how I like it, I actually have a decent denon 5.1 unit now (nothing special) i could use as an amp for two channels if I go to 7.1


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> Sorry I accidentally grabbed the wrong quote, was going to respond to your HT / outdoor description. Very cool! If I ever get out to the UK I'd love to see it!


Hey Aras! If you ever get to the UK you would be more than welcome to visit with us and spend some time in the HT!


----------



## kbarnes701

andydallas said:


> THANKS I know the basics of stereo and audio, but not dolby atmos or the more complex setups, which is why my media room isn't used, its a hassle to go watch tv for a few minutes in. I may go 5.1 and see how I like it, I actually have a decent denon 5.1 unit now (nothing special) i could use as an amp for two channels if I go to 7.1


May I ask why you're not making more use of the HT?

The Atlantic Tech speakers are 8 ohm, Sensitivity 91dB, Freq Resp 80Hz-20kHz. That is slightly higher sensitivity than many speakers so, depending on how loud you want to play, which is probably a lot below Reference in a living space setup, I agree with the other advice you've been given -- a decent modern AVR should drive your speakers with no significant issues. The 8oHz rolloff will demand that you use some form of subwoofer in the living room of course.


----------



## andydallas

kbarnes701 said:


> May I ask why you're not making more use of the HT?
> 
> The Atlantic Tech speakers are 8 ohm, Sensitivity 91dB, Freq Resp 80Hz-20kHz. That is slightly higher sensitivity than many speakers so, depending on how loud you want to play, which is probably a lot below Reference in a living space setup, I agree with the other advice you've been given -- a decent modern AVR should drive your speakers with no significant issues. The 8oHz rolloff will demand that you use some form of subwoofer in the living room of course.


The Atlantic Tech subwoofer in HT is powered, so I might bring it in too

I just have never gotten into the projector, most of the time when we watch tv we have computers going etc, so the living room is just the place we always watch TV,,at least now i will get better use of the speakers I paid dearly for


----------



## andydallas

Here is the layout of my living room, it is a straight 5.1, I want to go 5.1.2

The current rears are 8'6" to middle of speaker, ceilings are 10' high. I could move them to the pink area behind the couch (but it would'nt be easy, its a built in cabinet), the other pink is the potential placement of atmos height for front.

Would I be ok just adding the front height or do I need to move the rears?


----------



## kbarnes701

andydallas said:


> The Atlantic Tech subwoofer in HT is powered, so I might bring it in too
> 
> I just have never gotten into the projector, most of the time when we watch tv we have computers going etc, so the living room is just the place we always watch TV,,at least now i will get better use of the speakers I paid dearly for


OK thanks. Just wondering that was all. Do you not watch movies?

I think you will definitely need a sub given that those speakers are all done by 80Hz.


----------



## kbarnes701

andydallas said:


> Here is the layout of my living room, it is a straight 5.1, I want to go 5.1.2
> 
> The current rears are 8'6" to middle of speaker, ceilings are 10' high. I could move them to the pink area behind the couch (but it would'nt be easy, its a built in cabinet), the other pink is the potential placement of atmos height for front.
> 
> Would I be ok just adding the front height or do I need to move the rears?


I would not move the surrounds personally. I'd just add the ceiling speakers roughly where you indicate, designate them as Top Front or Top Middle and enjoy. Here are the angles for TF and TM placement:










As you can see, TF can be 30-55 degrees from MLP (say 45 degrees ideally) and TM can be 65-100 degrees. Depending on your angular relationship between MLP and various points on the ceiling, install the speakers within the relevant angle range. These placements will give you good separation between the overhead speakers and the mains and surrounds.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I was wondering if you knowledgeable folk would. W able to help me out with a bipole vs monopole question for the 4 heights I need to purchase for my upcoming 5.2.4 project.

I will be using BIPOLE for my side surrounds since they will be fairly close to the side seats on both sides of couch. 
But for the heights I didn’t know if Monopole or BIPOLE would be best. The height of the ceilings will only be 7 feet and although the front in ceiling heights will be a 3-3.5 feet infront of MLP and at an angle between 35-45 the rear heights would be only at an angle of about 10-15 (100-105) as the speakers would be only about a foot behind the back of the couch as that’s the room limitations.

Since the sides are bipole and the Atmos in ceiling speakers will be fairly low and close, in your opinion should they be MONOPOLE or BIPOLE? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> I was wondering if you knowledgeable folk would. W able to help me out with a bipole vs monopole question for the 4 heights I need to purchase for my upcoming 5.2.4 project.
> 
> I will be using BIPOLE for my side surrounds since they will be fairly close to the side seats on both sides of couch.
> But for the heights I didn’t know if Monopole or BIPOLE would be best. The height of the ceilings will only be 7 feet and although the front in ceiling heights will be a 3-3.5 feet infront of MLP and at an angle between 35-45 the rear heights would be only at an angle of about 10-15 (100-105) as the speakers would be only about a foot behind the back of the couch as that’s the room limitations.
> 
> Since the sides are bipole and the Atmos in ceiling speakers will be fairly low and close, in your opinion should they be MONOPOLE or BIPOLE?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Similar questions have come up numerous times and you'll get a range of answers in all likelihood. Dolby specifies monopoles all round for Atmos but some people use bipoles as surrounds for similar reasons as you (to avoid hotspotting when the surrounds are close to the listeners at the ends of the row). Personally I'd use monopoles for the overhead speakers since this is what Dolby recommend and also, you will get a more 'focused' or 'precise' imaging from them which works well for Atmos. Your placement of the overheads will work just fine - Atmos is very forgiving and most people have to make some sort of compromises in their HTs -- but some Atmos always trumps no Atmos. Enjoy!

EDIT: with your fairly low ceiling height, I'd orient the overheads so that the left side speakers point to the right side of the listening area and the right side speakers point towards the left side of the listening area (energy trading). This will avoid any further hotspotting.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Thanks for that great response. I will try to use the monopole for ceilings then and bipole from side surrounds. Hopefully the fact that I will have BIPOLE and MONOPOLE in different areas will be ok with Atmos 

Btw, I will be getting MA Gold 200s with the GOLD 150 centre and the gold FX side surrounds and hopefully some CT-265ITC ceiling speakers. 

Figured if all Monitor Audio that will help keep things sounding similar


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Thanks for that great response. I will try to use the monopole for ceilings then and bipole from side surrounds. Hopefully the fact that I will have BIPOLE and MONOPOLE in different areas will be ok with Atmos


Oh sure. Lots of people are using combinations like that with good results. And you have a very sensible reason for using bipoles for your surrounds anyway.



Chirosamsung said:


> Btw, I will be getting MA Gold 200s with the GOLD 150 centre and the gold FX side surrounds and hopefully some CT-265ITC ceiling speakers.
> 
> Figured if all Monitor Audio that will help keep things sounding similar


Yes, that's OK -- but don't get too hung up on 'timbre matching'. If it makes sense to choose MAs all round then do so - but if not (eg cost) then it's OK to deviate so long as you are using some form of room EQ (eg Audyssey, Dirac Live, YPAO etc). The room RQ will bring the speakers into line with each other. Nowadays 'timbre matching' is more about marketing than reality, trying to get people to buy as many speakers as possible all from the same maker.


----------



## Chirosamsung

That makes sense! Having said that-im planning on using DIRAC on a NAD 758 and therefore don’t really need to timbre match-

Are there any INWALL BIPOLE side surrounds and/or INCEILING MONOPOLE speakers that they would recommend based on cost to performance ratio? I.e. being good value for the money?


----------



## batpig

To play devil's advocate, some companies/installers specifically recommend bipole speakers with very low ceilings for exactly the same reason you use them for side / rear surrounds in a small room (wider dispersion / broader coverage / less hot-spotting). For example Triad recommends using their InWall Surround bipole models for Atmos overheads in-ceiling with ceilings


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Oh sure. Lots of people are using combinations like that with good results. And you have a very sensible reason for using bipoles for your surrounds anyway.
> 
> Yes, that's OK -- but don't get too hung up on 'timbre matching'. If it makes sense to choose MAs all round then do so - but if not (eg cost) then it's OK to deviate so long as you are using some form of room EQ (eg Audyssey, Dirac Live, YPAO etc). The room RQ will bring the speakers into line with each other. Nowadays 'timbre matching' is more about marketing than reality, trying to get people to buy as many speakers as possible all from the same maker.





batpig said:


> To play devil's advocate, some companies/installers specifically recommend bipole speakers with very low ceilings for exactly the same reason you use them for side / rear surrounds in a small room (wider dispersion / broader coverage / less hot-spotting). For example Triad recommends using their InWall Surround bipole models for Atmos overheads in-ceiling with ceilings


----------



## Chirosamsung

Hmmm, definitly food for thought 
I understand there is no consensus-it sounds like BIPOLE ceilings might be a “safer” choice for my ceiling height and proximity. 
Maybe I should check out those TRIAD in ceilings (and maybe even side surround) Bipoles since they seem to be popular. I hope they are not MORE expensive then the various Monitr Audio options I have been quoted for...

Thanks for the education and feedback guys!


----------



## Chirosamsung

Bummer-I don’t think TRIAD is in Canada-plus it looks expensive. 
If any other in ceiling bipoles or side in walls could be recommended for a good bang for buck price I would be all ears


----------



## batpig

How many rows? If it's a single-row environment (e.g. a couch in a living room) then angled/aimable monopoles are a lot more feasable since you can toe them into the seating area and don't have to worry that much about super wide dispersion. The RSL C43e are a very popular, inexpensive option for Atmos.

If you've got a dedicated room with multiple rows, then the bipole becomes more desirable as you'd rather have more broad, even coverage of a very wide area. Given the severe oblique angle of the speaker trying to aim towards the seating with a low ceiling height, it's very difficult for it to adequately cover two rows that way.

So I should have noted the context of my comments above -- Triad is aimed at custom installers and a the theaters Grimani was showing (as you'd expect given his status) are large, multi-row rooms.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Ok-I see that TRIAD isn’t for me. I will have a media room in the basement that’s 17x13 with 7 foot ceiling. The room opens on one side to the rest of basement. The tv is along the long wall and that’s the way most of the seating of the sectional that is 1 foot from back wall will face. I plan on having 5.1.4
It seems like I could do monopole ceilings after all and will check out that recommendation you gave and hope they have those I. Canada.
Thanks for the opinion and the explanation-I found it very helpful


----------



## harrisu

Hi guys,
I was at Tesla car show room and sat in then S class. The sound system in that car sounded amazing. On the screen it said "Dolby Surround". Anyone knows if its taking 2.0 and converting into dolby surround for all 15 speakers in the car?

Anytime I hear a song in a movie in 7.1 setup, it sounds great. Then you listen to it in 2.0, it doesn't sound as amazing because the sound doesn't surround as much. I have 7.2.4 system so now I'm thinking if I can take a Stereo and then have Dolby Surround in my Yamaha 3050 AVR do the conversion? Has anyone tried it with good result?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> To play devil's advocate, some companies/installers specifically recommend bipole speakers with very low ceilings for exactly the same reason you use them for side / rear surrounds in a small room (wider dispersion / broader coverage / less hot-spotting). For example Triad recommends using their InWall Surround bipole models for Atmos overheads in-ceiling with ceilings


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Bummer-I don’t think TRIAD is in Canada-plus it looks expensive.
> If any other in ceiling bipoles or side in walls could be recommended for a good bang for buck price I would be all ears


Triad are expensive. Probably pretty good, but expensive. Personally, I always look for 'pro' speakers as they are invariably accompanied by very good specification sheets, with proper measurements of their performance, dispersion graphs etc. Not being a bipole fan myself, I can't suggest any that may be suitable for you, but I would urge you to consider the in-ceiling designs from Tannoy as well. As I commented in my reply to batpig, I have long-since used Tannoys and am hugely impressed by their coaxial designs for various reasons. Plus, since they are 'install speakers' they are not as expensive as 'consumer' speakers (it's easier to pull the wool over the eyes of consumers than it is to do the same to Pros -- cynical huh? ) Have a browse around their website and see what you think:

https://www.tannoy.com/Categories/T...ision:ENTE:publicProduct:true#googtrans(en|en)

If you are set on bipoles, I am sure someone will chime in with some suggestions.


----------



## Dawn Gordon

BP is correct, except it's 9 foot ceilings or less for Triad Bipole Surrounds in the ceiling. Also they have great dispersion for covering multiple seats. We learned this from Grimani as well.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dawn Gordon said:


> BP is correct, except it's 9 foot ceilings or less for Triad Bipole Surrounds in the ceiling. Also they have great dispersion for covering multiple seats. We learned this from Grimani as well.


The OP has a 7 foot ceiling, which is very low (and less than 9ft obviously ). But I am with batpig on this -- _for a single row theater,_ go for monopoles which can be aimed and then use energy-trading to avoid any hotspotting. Much more choice of monopoles and quite likely to cost a lot less than Triads.



I can see why installers would like Triads - the mark-up on them must be huge. The manufacturers catering for the Pro market are dealing with a much more savvy group of buyers so they can't pull the wool nearly so easily. And since Pro speakers can cost much less than 'consumer' speakers in the first place, the mark-up wouldn't be enough for a typical installer. My installer almost cried when I told him I was sourcing my own speakers (JBL and Pro Tannoys) 



TBH I think the OP would be just fine with the Triad bipoles. But he would also be just fine, in his room, with aimable monoples, and save a ton of money at the same time.


----------



## Chirosamsung

How would I get triad or JBL pro speakers without going through a custom installer??


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> How would I get triad or JBL pro speakers without going through a custom installer??


I bought my JBLs from a UK dealer. There must be a good number of JBL retailers in the US I'd expect. @Molon_Labe may be able to help as I know he has had JBLs in the past (and it was he who guided my own choice back in the day). Can't help with Triad unfortunately as I have never really considered them (good speakers but not good value for money for me).

Edit: ah yes, there he is!


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> There was a time, I thought I would never hear you say that  Another pro cinema convert.


I'm a quick learner  Pro all the way for me


----------



## Dawn Gordon

Chirosamsung said:


> How would I get triad or JBL pro speakers without going through a custom installer??


Triad mostly sells through custom installers.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I can see why installers would like Triads...


Triad has a history of going above & beyond for installers, even making custom versions of their speakers when needed, which is why so many installers like Triad.


----------



## ScottAvery

kbarnes701 said:


> I'm a quick learner  Pro all the way for me


Since you brought it up here, Was curious about this model for rear tops as my short-term positioning will be very close the projector, probably laying on its back on the top of a cabinet holding the PJ, aimed at the ceiling. Is the near field design not going to work? https://www.jbl.com/professional-us...r_C1PRO-B-_color=Black-GLOBAL-Current#start=1


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Triad has a history of going above & beyond for installers, even making custom versions of their speakers when needed, which is why so many installers like Triad.


I bet the mark-up is the least of their considerations


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> Since you brought it up here, Was curious about this model for rear tops as my short-term positioning will be very close the projector, probably laying on its back on the top of a cabinet holding the PJ, aimed at the ceiling. Is the near field design not going to work? https://www.jbl.com/professional-us...r_C1PRO-B-_color=Black-GLOBAL-Current#start=1


The Control 1 is a well-regarded speaker. I can't imagine it would work very well if pointed at the ceiling though.


----------



## ScottAvery

kbarnes701 said:


> The Control 1 is a well-regarded speaker. I can't imagine it would work very well if pointed at the ceiling though.


I figured it would be no different than overpriced atmos modules that sit on the top of tower speakers aimed at the ceiling.

Which JBL pro units are you using, may I ask?


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> I figured it would be no different than overpriced atmos modules that sit on the top of tower speakers aimed at the ceiling.


Maybe. But those upfiring units have to be placed within 3 feet of their associated 'main' speakers and from what you say, yours would be right up by the ceiling. They would also have to be configured as upfiring modules as the 'notch' in frequency response that makes them work in the first place is required (in the AVR).



ScottAvery said:


> Which JBL pro units are you using, may I ask?


http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/vintage/vintage-cinema/3677

Now replaced with this model:

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/200-series/c211


----------



## ScottAvery

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe. But those upfiring units have to be placed within 3 feet of their associated 'main' speakers and from what you say, yours would be right up by the ceiling. They would also have to be configured as upfiring modules as the 'notch' in frequency response that makes them work in the first place is required (in the AVR).
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/vintage/vintage-cinema/3677
> 
> Now replaced with this model:
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/200-series/c211


In ceiling?


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> In ceiling?


No. I don't have in-ceiling speakers. My overhead speakers are Tannoy Di6DC units.


----------



## sdurani

Lion King coming to 4K UHD on December 4th. Good news: Atmos. Bad news: Disney Atmos.


----------



## m. zillch

I've come up with a unique solution for my overhead Atmos speakers for my tiny rental apartment's desktop system: metal (wire grate) baskets. This obviously won't work for an audience larger than one but I'm the only listener at this desk. They appear at the end of this 2 minute video. [I've marked the baskets with fluorescent orange tape so I can see them in the dark and don't bump my head.]





Sure higher up would be better but this method was super easy, cheap, required no drilling into the apartment walls/ceiling [which my landlord will like], and I'm happy to say it works great!


----------



## RJCarlson49

I have a very large room, 22x30x15. The problem I want to ask about is a trade off between two options.

option 1 - 5.1.4 with the side surrounds located on the back wall at a normal surround height and unobstructed. This is obviously not ideal, but I don't have good places to put the side surrounds.

option 2a - 7.1.4. The rear wall now contains the rear surrounds. The side surrounds are placed in compromised locations. They will be at proper angles to the MLP, but ... On the left one speaker will be down near the floor inside the framing that contains the fireplace. There is a short ledge below the FP and the speaker is underneath this. (It could even be downfiring in the ledge, making it invisible.) The entire rest of the wall is glass. The speaker cannot be above the ledge because it would destroy the aesthetics of the FP. On the right, the speaker would be mounted inside the kitchen island. It could be at the same distance from the floor as the L side surround, or could be higher. I will be farther away from the MLP by about 4-5'.

option 2b - like 2a but put the side surrounds in the ceiling. The ceiling is at 15'.

Options 2 require adding a 2 or 3-channel amp.

I know in this forum prioritizing the aesthetics of the room is discouraged, but that's way it is.

What are your thoughts? Will room EQ allow this to work?


----------



## ScottAvery

With the discussion of bipole surrounds, I am now curious what becomes of the hundreds of soundtracks I have that were not mixed for Atmos placement, but rather for surrounds well above listener's ear height? How do I play those back if I have changed my primary speakers to ear-height monopoles?


----------



## jjackkrash

ScottAvery said:


> With the discussion of bipole surrounds, I am now curious what becomes of the hundreds of soundtracks I have that were not mixed for Atmos placement, but rather for surrounds well above listener's ear height? How do I play those back if I have changed my primary speakers to ear-height monopoles?


Stick them in and and push play.  

I suspect once you hear a set up optimized for Bladerunner 2049 in full Atmos you won't care as much about a system optimized for the old 5.1 or 5.0 surround mixes, or the old 2.1 or 2.0 stereo mixes, or the old mono mixes, or the old silent movie non-mixes. (At least that was my reaction.) Tech marches on, so to speak.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Fknally found in wall bipole surrounds*

As an update-I think this was the thread I was asking about-i finally did find a pair of surround speakers that were BIPOLE for my 5.1.4 setup where the two seats of the sectional will be close to the speaker placement.

The speaker I found was: Definitive Technology DI 5.5BPS

Does anyone know much about this specific speaker or the brand as a whole? The price seemed reasonable. 

This will be the only exception to an otherwise Monitor Audio Gold setup. I’m sure a DIRAC on NAD will balance everything out but I hope the speaker is decent enough to not ruin the experience since it has a very different tweeter then the GOLD ribbons....


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Lion King coming to 4K UHD on December 4th. Good news: Atmos. Bad news: Disney Atmos.


Gee Sanjay, you know how to build me up and knock me down again LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottAvery said:


> With the discussion of bipole surrounds, I am now curious what becomes of the hundreds of soundtracks I have that were not mixed for Atmos placement, but rather for surrounds well above listener's ear height? How do I play those back if I have changed my primary speakers to ear-height monopoles?


Dolby Surround Upmixer.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Lion King coming to 4K UHD on December 4th. Good news: Atmos. Bad news: Disney Atmos.


Disneyfied audio or not, the UHD is still a better buy than seeing the play on Broadway...


----------



## mtbdudex

sdrucker said:


> Disneyfied audio or not, the UHD is still a better buy than seeing the play on Broadway...




Back in 2010 took the family to Disney world and saw Lion king live, it was actually pretty good ... kiddos were 8/6/4 perfect age ... better than UHD .. and yes there were atmospheric sounds all around us 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Disneyfied audio or not, the UHD is still a better buy than seeing the play on Broadway...


I'd rather pick my own eyes out with a fish hook than watch a 'live show'. All that painted 'scenery', no edits, people prancing about on static sets etc etc. It was OK in the 19th century. Then we invented movies.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> UHD is still a better buy than seeing the play on Broadway...


Not for me. Just the opening of the play, where the animals walk down the aisles right next to you, was priceless. Can't get that experience from UHD.


----------



## gwsat

sdrucker said:


> Disneyfied audio or not, the UHD is still a better buy than seeing the play on Broadway...





kbarnes701 said:


> I'd rather pick my own eyes out with a fish hook than watch a 'live show'. All that painted 'scenery', no edits, people prancing about on static sets etc etc. It was OK in the 19th century. Then we invented movies.





sdurani said:


> Not for me. Just the opening of the play, where the animals walk down the aisles right next to you, was priceless. Can't get that experience from UHD.


I find myself in rare disagreement with Keith. When @sdrucker said that the UHD disk is a better buy than seeing _The Lion King_ on Broadway, I inferred that he wasn't criticizing the stage musical's entertainment value but was instead addressing the extortionately high price of admission. I agree with this point but also agree with Sanjay that the experience of seeing a wonderful stage musical live can't be matched by film or video. I haven't seen _The Lion King_ either on Broadway or presented by a national touring company but would love to. That said, I plan on buying the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos home edition of _The Lion King_ (1994) notwithstanding what will likely be the Disneyfication of its audio. It was a great film and I am looking forward to seeing and hearing it in all its HDR TrueHD Atmos glory (well, hearing as much thereof, as excapes Disney's clueless sound editors).


----------



## gene4ht

gwsat said:


> *I find myself in rare disagreement with Keith.* When @*sdrucker* said that the UHD disk is a better buy than seeing _The Lion King_ on Broadway, I inferred that he wasn't criticizing the stage musical's entertainment value but was instead addressing the extortionately high price of admission. *I agree with this point* but *also agree with Sanjay* that the experience of seeing a wonderful stage musical live can't be matched by film or video. I haven't seen _The Lion King_ either on Broadway or presented by a national touring company but would love to. That said, I plan on buying the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos home edition of _The Lion King_ (1994) notwithstanding what will likely be the Disneyfication of its audio. It was a great film and I am looking forward to seeing and hearing it in all its HDR TrueHD Atmos glory (well, hearing as much thereof, as excapes Disney's clueless sound editors).


+1
Both forms of art and entertainment have their merits and I happen to enjoy and regularly spend $$$ on both.


----------



## gwsat

gene4ht said:


> +1
> Both forms of art and entertainment have their merits and I happen to enjoy and regularly spend *MANY* $$$ on both.


Fixed it for you. More seriously, I too have spent a bunch of money over the years on live musical theater productions.


----------



## mrtickleuk

ScottAvery said:


> With the discussion of bipole surrounds, I am now curious what becomes of the hundreds of soundtracks I have that were not mixed for Atmos placement, but rather for surrounds well above listener's ear height?


If you try to find a reference that actually says those movies really were mixed for surround speakers "well above" listener's ear height, you'll have trouble!

It might be true that some speaker setup guides suggested it and I have vague memories of it - but that's all gone. Dolby says now that their advice has *always* been to have all speakers at the same height. Therefore I doubt that any/many movies were mixed in those days with the expectation that the surround speakers are "well above" the listener.

Forgot to say - the answer is that they will sound perfectly fine and correct


----------



## howard68

Is there any device that can output Dolby Atmos from Netflix,Vudu and Amazon video ?


----------



## usc1995

howard68 said:


> Is there any device that can output Dolby Atmos from Netflix,Vudu and Amazon video ?




Xbox One S/X. The Atmos performance on Netflix and Vudu is very good. So far the only programming I have watched in Atmos on Amazon Prime was Jack Ryan and the performance wasn’t as good to my ears. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the Xbox outputs all audio in an Atmos container it is hard to verify I got the right stream but Amazon themselves confirm the Xbox will get their Atmos stream https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201460880


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> I find myself in rare disagreement with Keith. When @sdrucker said that the UHD disk is a better buy than seeing _The Lion King_ on Broadway, I inferred that he wasn't criticizing the stage musical's entertainment value but was instead addressing the extortionately high price of admission. I agree with this point but also agree with Sanjay that the experience of seeing a wonderful stage musical live can't be matched by film or video. I haven't seen _The Lion King_ either on Broadway or presented by a national touring company but would love to. That said, I plan on buying the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos home edition of _The Lion King_ (1994) notwithstanding what will likely be the Disneyfication of its audio. It was a great film and I am looking forward to seeing and hearing it in all its HDR TrueHD Atmos glory (well, hearing as much thereof, as excapes Disney's clueless sound editors).


I may have exaggerated  But generally I'm not keen on 'live theater'. It's just me -- I know many people enjoy it immensely, including Mrs Keith.


----------



## mtbdudex

Sorry if I missed it Stuart is this a full Atmos or Disney crippled Atmos mix?









If a full mix using wides I’ll go 9.2.4, if crippled I’ll go 7.2.6 on my Denon 8500H











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

mtbdudex said:


> Sorry if I missed it Stuart is this a full Atmos or Disney crippled Atmos mix?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a full mix using wides I’ll go 9.2.4, if crippled I’ll go 7.2.6 on my Denon 8500H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I’ll have to let you know, as I haven’t bought it yet. Give me a day or so.


----------



## gwsat

I was able to buy and download to my Kaleidescape system the UHD HDR TrueHD quality version of _Ant-Man and the Wasp_ three weeks ago. For those who don't already know, Kaleidescape titles are bit for bit equivalents to the corresponding disks. 

The movie sounded better than most Disney Atmos releases but required a boost of 5dB over my usual listening level of -10dB below reference to sound loud enough to suit me. On a more positive note, it looks good and is a lot of fun.

I only have a 7.2.4 Atmos setup so can't address whether this Atmos mix uses more than four overhead speakers


----------



## davehale

Making my rounds since I just installed 7.1.4 Atmos. 
Does everyone use the 80 Hz crossover for all their sides, backs and overheads or do you further tweak to something like 110 Hz for them? My RSL ceiling speakers sound pretty good and I use the separate AudioSource Amp for the 2 (TLR and TRR) speakers with its volume set to about 90%. Recently watched Gravity and A quiet Place which were quite good.


----------



## Bytehoven

davehale said:


> Making my rounds since I just installed 7.1.4 Atmos.
> Does everyone use the 80 Hz crossover for all their sides, backs and overheads or do you further tweak to something like 110 Hz for them? My RSL ceiling speakers sound pretty good and I use the separate AudioSource Amp for the 2 (TLR and TRR) speakers with its volume set to about 90%. Recently watched Gravity and A quiet Place which were quite good.


I have been very happy setting zones at 80hz. However, all of my enclosures are ported in the front, so i don't have issues with nearby surfaces interacting and over emphasizing lower end response.

I wouldn't say choosing 80hz instead of crossing over at higher frequencies is too dramatic, but i do feel some impact sounds have just a tad more punch that equates to added realism in the sound stage. While this frequency range is not very directional, the slightly enhanded pressure wave of the lower crossover, is effective from the rear, sides and overhead speaker locations.

Lastly, i feel staying in the 80hz range helps keep the SW more punchy and exhibit less drone that a higher crossover frequency can induce.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Lingering question*

Does Cinema Atmos automatically apply decorrelation between speakers when arraying bed channels (sides, rears, overheads)?


----------



## sdrucker

mtbdudex said:


> If a full mix using wides I’ll go 9.2.4, if crippled I’ll go 7.2.6 on my Denon 8500H
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I took yet another UHD for the team and picked up Ant Man and the Wasp, just for you . And the winner for you is...7.2.6, unless you want your wides to get lonely.

Maybe "crippled" is too strong a term as "basic" or "pedestrian", but I have to report that Ant Man is nothing but 7.1.6. And while the overheads are used to nice effect in creating sound above at times (see Scene 13 where the voices appear to echo above you), it's done sporadically and is missing for minutes at a time, and not just during dialog-heavy scenes. There's one brief point where the wides light up, but I didn't hear any sound from them so I'm guessing that there's some "silence" there as part of the Atmos rendering process, or what was getting played was so subtle you'd need to listen at 90 or 95 db to hear it. Other than that the wides are dead silent.

My testing on a few scenes with a solo top front, solo top middle, and top rears indicates that there's a single stereo pair overhead, with no discrimination except for level differences between the three sets of pairs (i.e. you get the same "is it you, mommy" voicing from all three pairs; other scenes using overheads seem to be similar but I might watch again tonight to confirm).


One other thing, for those of you that complain about Disney neutering the bass: compare the measurements on the BEQ thread for Ant-Man vs. say Spiderman: Homecoming, and you'll see that not only is there more even and apparently louder bass to 20 Hz on Spiderman (before the BEQ filtering on the charts), but Ant-Man has a rolloff that starts at about 25 Hz on down.

Ant Man (see the dashed line for pre-BEQ, that is the raw input with no smoothing (green) or smoothed to I think 1/6 octave (red, offset):
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-43.html#post56899018
Spiderman:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-17.html#post56760498


----------



## talbain

sorry, did we ever get a consensus as to the correct placement of bipole surround speakers in an atmos setup. current bipoles are slightly behind listening position and roughly 36" above. with the newly installed atmos height speakers on the rear wall (8ft up), i think i can absolutely lower these surrounds by 2 ft at least. ideally i'm thinking they'll be in the same slightly rear position (on the same wall stud), just lower to approximately ear height now. gtg?


----------



## kbarnes701

For anyone wanting to venture to 16 channels of Atmos processing, this new Bryston unit looks interesting.

Hugely overpriced IMO at almost 14 grand, but for those who don't care about that sort of thing, maybe worth a look. Dirac Live all round too - onboard Dirac Live really has taken off in the past year.

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...ton-sp4-16-channel-surround-processor-review/


----------



## sdrucker

gwsat said:


> I find myself in rare disagreement with Keith. When @sdrucker said that the UHD disk is a better buy than seeing _The Lion King_ on Broadway, I inferred that he wasn't criticizing the stage musical's entertainment value but was instead addressing the extortionately high price of admission. I agree with this point but also agree with Sanjay that the experience of seeing a wonderful stage musical live can't be matched by film or video. I haven't seen _The Lion King_ either on Broadway or presented by a national touring company but would love to.


Unlike Keith, I actually enjoy live theatre in all aspects over a film, all things equal. Live human voices, facial expressions/body language, and singing always (IMO) comes across better when you're there in person than on a disc in your house, or a movie. Sanjay mentioned seeing Lion King on Broadway, with the animals passing by you in the aisle; for me, it's an Evita or Miss Saigon. No way can you compare the helicopter scene in the live performance of Miss Saigon to the movie; it takes on a completely different tone when you see it in front of you, even if the helicopter is just an expensive prompt. Even more so with a stage performance with a strong ensemble vocal cast, like Rent or Avenue Q.

Having said that, the UHD is "still" a better buy for repeat attention, catching the nuances of a plot of a scene, and watching in the comfort of your own home. On the financial side, even after all these years, the seats for Lion King at the Minkoff Theatre on Broadway start at about $120 for a Saturday matinee, going up to over $400. A UHD is considerably cheaper, assuming that you've got the basic price of entry with the pre/pro, speakers, and TV/PJ+screen at a reasonable viewing distance.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> For anyone wanting to venture to 16 channels of Atmos processing, this new Bryston unit looks interesting.


FYI: https://www.stormaudio.com/en/news/...on-and-stormaudio-announce-collaboration.html


----------



## howard68

Any word on the new Amazon 4k fire stick 
It says atmos ready 
Will it do all vudu and Netflix atmos


----------



## Josh Z

howard68 said:


> Any word on the new Amazon 4k fire stick
> It says atmos ready
> Will it do all vudu and Netflix atmos


The Fire TV does not offer VUDU at all. VUDU is owned by Walmart, which Amazon treats as a hostile competitor.


----------



## howard68

Hi 
Yes I should have know about Vudu 
I have the Roku Ultra and really want access for Atmos on Netflix 
H


----------



## davehale

Bytehoven said:


> I have been very happy setting zones at 80hz. However, all of my enclosures are ported in the front, so i don't have issues with nearby surfaces interacting and over emphasizing lower end response.
> 
> I wouldn't say choosing 80hz instead of crossing over at higher frequencies is too dramatic, but i do feel some impact sounds have just a tad more punch that equates to added realism in the sound stage. While this frequency range is not very directional, the slightly enhanded pressure wave of the lower crossover, is effective from the rear, sides and overhead speaker locations.
> 
> Lastly, i feel staying in the 80hz range helps keep the SW more punchy and exhibit less drone that a higher crossover frequency can induce.


Not a problem - sounds like a reasonable approach I can live with.


----------



## natetg57

*On-wall speakers*

Hello all, I'm currently using Polk OWM3's as two of my ceiling heights. I have Ascend HTM-200s at the top of the rear wall. Both sets are at about 45 degree angles. My base 5 speakers are Ascend Sierra-2s across the front and Lunas as surrounds. Anyways, a speaker that's just as easy to ceiling mount as the OWM3s but with a significant step up in quality?


----------



## 3ll3d00d

sdrucker said:


> Ant Man (see the dashed line for pre-BEQ, that is the raw input with no smoothing (green) or smoothed to I think 1/6 octave (red, offset):


This is a Peak vs Average chart and it is not smoothed (as such) nor offset. 

The peak is derived from a spectrogram and shows the peak energy per fft bin from the entire track, typically the segment length is set to give ~1Hz frequency resolution but @aron7awol would have to confirm what he is using there. 
The average is the power spectrum of the entire track using the same segment length, i.e. it is basically the average energy per fft bin.

The signal analysed is the entire track mixed to mono using standard bass management channel gains (i.e. LFE has 10dB more).


----------



## Foundation42

kbarnes701 said:


> For anyone wanting to venture to 16 channels of Atmos processing, this new Bryston unit looks interesting.
> 
> Hugely overpriced IMO at almost 14 grand, but for those who don't care about that sort of thing, maybe worth a look. Dirac Live all round too - onboard Dirac Live really has taken off in the past year.
> 
> https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...ton-sp4-16-channel-surround-processor-review/



Have you heard anything new on the Emotiva front lately? It sounded like they were getting close to lowering the barrier to more channels and onboard Dirac Live, if it really happens.


----------



## sdrucker

3ll3d00d said:


> This is a Peak vs Average chart and it is not smoothed (as such) nor offset.
> 
> The peak is derived from a spectrogram and shows the peak energy per fft bin from the entire track, typically the segment length is set to give ~1Hz frequency resolution but @aron7awol would have to confirm what he is using there.
> The average is the power spectrum of the entire track using the same segment length, i.e. it is basically the average energy per fft bin.
> 
> The signal analysed is the entire track mixed to mono using standard bass management channel gains (i.e. LFE has 10dB more).


Thanks for clarifying....averaging over the movie's runtime makes more sense than the curves in red being somehow a smoothed version of the ones in green, which I had thought were peaks.

Either way I think the point stands: Ant Man just has lower levels of bass pre-BEQ, and a rolloff at a slightly higher frequency (25 Hz vs. about 20 Hz) than a representative, non-Disney super hero/action movie like Spiderman: Homecoming.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> 3ll3d00d said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Peak vs Average chart and it is not smoothed (as such) nor offset.
> 
> The peak is derived from a spectrogram and shows the peak energy per fft bin from the entire track, typically the segment length is set to give ~1Hz frequency resolution but @aron7awol would have to confirm what he is using there.
> The average is the power spectrum of the entire track using the same segment length, i.e. it is basically the average energy per fft bin.
> 
> The signal analysed is the entire track mixed to mono using standard bass management channel gains (i.e. LFE has 10dB more).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for clarifying....averaging over the movie's runtime makes more sense than the curves in red being somehow a smoothed version of the ones in green, which I had thought were peaks.
> 
> Either way I think the point stands: Ant Man just has lower levels of bass pre-BEQ, and a rolloff at a slightly higher frequency (25 Hz vs. about 20 Hz) than a representative, non-Disney super hero/action movie like Spiderman: Homecoming.
Click to expand...

The House of Mouse strikes again. 

Booo Hissss

Thanks for taking one for the team yet again!


----------



## batpig

Although it lacks FW, all reports are that the Ant-Man & the Wasp soundtrack is much better in terms of overall dynamics / bass impact than previous Marvel/Disney mixes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Although it lacks FW, all reports are that the Ant-Man & the Wasp soundtrack is much better in terms of overall dynamics / bass impact than previous Marvel/Disney mixes.


Which isn't saying much. These Mousketeers have a serious problem in their audio department.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> Although it lacks FW, all reports are that the Ant-Man & the Wasp soundtrack is much better in terms of overall dynamics / bass impact than previous Marvel/Disney mixes.


This was true in my case. The only adjustment I made to counteract the Disney mix for _Ant-Man and the Wasp_ was to listen to it with the volume cranked up an extra 5dB. With that adjustment, I thought it sounded very good.


----------



## mtbdudex

sdrucker said:


> I took yet another UHD for the team and picked up Ant Man and the Wasp, just for you . And the winner for you is...7.2.6, unless you want your wides to get lonely.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe "crippled" is too strong a term as "basic" or "pedestrian", but I have to report that Ant Man is nothing but 7.1.6. And while the overheads are used to nice effect in creating sound above at times (see Scene 13 where the voices appear to echo above you), it's done sporadically and is missing for minutes at a time, and not just during dialog-heavy scenes. There's one brief point where the wides light up, but I didn't hear any sound from them so I'm guessing that there's some "silence" there as part of the Atmos rendering process, or what was getting played was so subtle you'd need to listen at 90 or 95 db to hear it. Other than that the wides are dead silent.
> 
> 
> 
> My testing on a few scenes with a solo top front, solo top middle, and top rears indicates that there's a single stereo pair overhead, with no discrimination except for level differences between the three sets of pairs (i.e. you get the same "is it you, mommy" voicing from all three pairs; other scenes using overheads seem to be similar but I might watch again tonight to confirm).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One other thing, for those of you that complain about Disney neutering the bass: compare the measurements on the BEQ thread for Ant-Man vs. say Spiderman: Homecoming, and you'll see that not only is there more even and apparently louder bass to 20 Hz on Spiderman (before the BEQ filtering on the charts), but Ant-Man has a rolloff that starts at about 25 Hz on down.
> 
> 
> 
> Ant Man (see the dashed line for pre-BEQ, that is the raw input with no smoothing (green) or smoothed to I think 1/6 octave (red, offset):
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-43.html#post56899018
> 
> Spiderman:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-17.html#post56760498




Thank you Stuart, I’m picking up the UHD tomorrow and we’re watching it this weekend, I’ll be in 7.2.6 mode for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bkeeler10

Hey everyone, so after following this thread since it's inception, I am finally in a position to set up an Atmos system. It will be 7.1.4 using on-ceiling speakers. This is a little off-topic, but I am looking for a speaker mount for the ceiling speakers that does not require drilling holes in the speakers. The mount must be aimable of course, and ideally would be adjustable for different speaker sizes. I envision a "basket" if you will, that captures the speaker on its sides, bottom and edges of the front.

For those of you that have used on-ceiling speakers, how have you mounted them (aside from pro speakers that come with their own mount)? Does a mount like the one I'm describing even exist?

Thanks.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## PlanetAVS

howard68 said:


> Hi
> Yes I should have know about Vudu
> I have the Roku Ultra and really want access for Atmos on Netflix
> H


Netflix ATMOS is only supported on Xbox, Apple TV 4K, Windows 10 and LG OLEDs, Sony 2018 series TVs


----------



## howard68

I have high hopes that the new Amazon 4k streaming stick that comes out 31 of October 2018 will allow Atmos and it is only $50
I don't want to spend $300 to $500 for x box
Or $200 for apple TV 

I guess i will just have to hope and get it if it does


----------



## hatlesschimp

Test Red Dead II in my Theater Room with the test MTMs and surrounds that I'm making for a friend. All audio is from the speakers. I used Jantzen caps in series with the tweeter. They sound really good! 
Can I play RDR2 in Dolby Atmos with my speakers? 






Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## PlanetAVS

howard68 said:


> I have high hopes that the new Amazon 4k streaming stick that comes out 31 of October 2018 will allow Atmos and it is only $50
> I don't want to spend $300 to $500 for x box
> Or $200 for apple TV
> 
> I guess i will just have to hope and get it if it does


The new Fire TV 4K stick will support ATMOS, however the Netflix app may not. The only Netflix apps that support ATMOS are on the devices/TVs mentioned earlier. Here is the link from the Netflix site:


https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066


----------



## kbarnes701

Foundation42 said:


> Have you heard anything new on the Emotiva front lately? It sounded like they were getting close to lowering the barrier to more channels and onboard Dirac Live, if it really happens.


I think your last 4 words above are the important thing here...


----------



## andydallas

Which route should I go, 5.1.4 or 7.1.2

I currently have 5.1, but am getting a Denon 4400 and am adding two height to go 5.1.2, but might as well use the other two amps,,but from reading I don't see a clear winner (or its over my head if i read it)

Any input is appreciated.

andy


----------



## Selden Ball

andydallas said:


> Which route should I go, 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
> 
> I currently have 5.1, but am getting a Denon 4400 and am adding two height to go 5.1.2, but might as well use the other two amps,,but from reading I don't see a clear winner (or its over my head if i read it)
> 
> Any input is appreciated.
> 
> andy


A ...4 speaker configuration, with 4 overhead speakers lets you hear sounds which move both from front to back and from side to side. A ...2 speaker configuration, which only 2 overhead speakers, can only provide overhead sounds which move from side to side.

For example, with the "Helicopter" Atmos demo, you can hear it circling around overhead, not just going back and forth.


----------



## sdrucker

mtbdudex said:


> Thank you Stuart, I’m picking up the UHD tomorrow and we’re watching it this weekend, I’ll be in 7.2.6 mode for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You know...I actually need a break from Disney studio-owned movies after this or I'd downsize my room to 7.1.4 or 7.1.6 out of sheer despair . Much more rewarding to put on Fury or Star Trek: Beyond, and witness real Atmos in its full glory make use of my entire set of speakers, wides, front side surrounds and Lc/Rc included, giving you a full 360 experience that shows off the format. Or at least one of the Matrix movies  .

The Mouse just sucks....sure, Ant Man is an improvement over The Incredibles on the dynamic range/bass front, and there's nothing wrong with Solo's mix that cranking the ULF input response up with the BEQ style filters couldn't fix for bringing out the lower bass properly, but they are what they are.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> My testing on a few scenes with a solo top front, solo top middle, and top rears indicates that there's a single stereo pair overhead, with no discrimination except for level differences between the three sets of pairs (i.e. you get the same "is it you, mommy" voicing from all three pairs; other scenes using overheads seem to be similar but I might watch again tonight to confirm).


So this is a 7.1.2 track with the two height channels copied to every pair of height speakers? I have to hand it to Disney creativity as they keep coming up with new ways to sabotage the Atmos format.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

andydallas said:


> Which route should I go, 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
> 
> I currently have 5.1, but am getting a Denon 4400 and am adding two height to go 5.1.2, but might as well use the other two amps,,but from reading I don't see a clear winner (or its over my head if i read it)
> 
> Any input is appreciated.
> 
> andy


If you cannot do 7.1.4, 5.1.4 would be better than 7.1.2 as stated above... object placement is superior with 4 overheads.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> I have to hand it to Disney creativity as they keep coming up with new ways to sabotage the Atmos format.


A-men.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> So this is a 7.1.2 track with the two height channels copied to every pair of height speakers? I have to hand it to Disney creativity as they keep coming up with new ways to sabotage the Atmos format.


That's how it would appear, 7.1.2 with the .2 cloned (aside from subtle level differences on the input side). I took the .6 setup and solo'd each pair of speakers (TF,TM,TR) individually and literally heard the same voices content at the same time stamp. Saw it twice, as a matter of fact, on different scenes.

Not quite the same thing as other movies where the TM get the content and the TF/TR are silent except for a little ambience, though. Otherwise I agree to you - they literally are imposing their own standard for what "Atmos" should be.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is a 7.1.2 track with the two height channels copied to every pair of height speakers? I have to hand it to Disney creativity as they keep coming up with new ways to sabotage the Atmos format.
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it would appear, 7.1.2 with the .2 cloned (aside from subtle level differences on the input side). I took the .6 setup and solo'd each pair of speakers (TF,TM,TR) individually and literally heard the same voices content at the same time stamp. Saw it twice, as a matter of fact, on different scenes.
> 
> Not quite the same thing as other movies where the TM get the content and the TF/TR are silent except for a little ambience, though. Otherwise I agree to you - they literally are imposing their own standard for what "Atmos" should be.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if Disney audio engineers don't know what the heck they are doing... almost.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> ...they literally are imposing their own standard for what "Atmos" should be.


But it keeps changing. Sometimes it's just 4 channels up there. Other times the Top Middles have subtle bits of sound effects. Or it's flipped, with almost everything in the TMs and negligible bits in TF & TR. Sometimes it's just music up there (no sound effects). Now it's copied channels. 

It's not that Disney turns out hobbled Atmos mixes. That was happening from other studios before Disney released any Atmos mixes on home video. I'm more struck by their creativity. Each Atmos mix seems to bring a new method of hobbling. Is there someone at the House of Mouse coming up with this stuff?


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> But it keeps changing. Sometimes it's just 4 channels up there. Other times the Top Middles have subtle bits of sound effects. Or it's flipped, with almost everything in the TMs and negligible bits in TF & TR. Sometimes it's just music up there (no sound effects). Now it's copied channels.
> 
> It's not that Disney turns out hobbled Atmos mixes. That was happening from other studios before Disney released any Atmos mixes on home video. I'm more struck by their creativity. Each Atmos mix seems to bring a new method of hobbling. Is there someone at the House of Mouse coming up with this stuff?


I almost wonder if someone issued a directive, or had a training class, suggesting that Atmos only uses heights, so mix accordingly to the “Disney Sound”, but use your imagination as to how the heights get content...

It’s almost enough to make me check out the Atmos mix of the original sparkly vampire movie (now out on UHD) 😱. Or maybe Spy That Dumped Me” as a time-waster with Mila Kunis as eye candy...while us art movie types wait for Schindler’s List...


----------



## gwsat

sdrucker said:


> It’s almost enough to make me check out the Atmos mix of the original sparkly vampire movie (now out on UHD) 😱. Or maybe Spy That Dumped Me” as a time-waster with Mila Kunis as eye candy...while us art movie types wait for Schindler’s List...


I bought the UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _The Spy Who Dumped Me_ last week and thought it was a hoot. It's Atmos audiotrack certainly wasn't demonstration class but it was decent. I laughed loud and often, The girls were both decorative and funny. 8 Stars out of 10.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's almost as if Disney audio engineers don't know what the heck they are doing... almost.



At least you don't have to worry about clipping a la Nolan movies...


----------



## steelman1991

sdrucker said:


> The Mouse just sucks....sure, Ant Man is an improvement over The Incredibles on the dynamic range/bass front, and there's nothing wrong with Solo's mix that cranking the ULF input response up with the BEQ style filters couldn't fix for bringing out the lower bass properly, but they are what they are.



Expect much of the same in Incredibles 2 - so, so disappointing


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> I bought the *UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos* version



You really don't need to qualify all of your posts with this. We're not being graded on word count here.


----------



## PlanetAVS

Selden Ball said:


> A ...4 speaker configuration, with 4 overhead speakers lets you hear sounds which move both from front to back and from side to side. A ...2 speaker configuration, which only 2 overhead speakers, can only provide overhead sounds which move from side to side.
> 
> For example, with the "Helicopter" Atmos demo, you can hear it circling around overhead, not just going back and forth.





Dan Hitchman said:


> If you cannot do 7.1.4, 5.1.4 would be better than 7.1.2 as stated above... object placement is superior with 4 overheads.


+1. 4 ATMOS speakers is more important than the rear surrounds. If you're inclined to do so, you can add rear surrounds via a low cost external amp and have 7.1.4.


----------



## Gary J

stikle said:


> You really don't need to qualify all of your posts with this. We're not being graded on word count here.


You really do not need to show envy to such a degree.


----------



## gwsat

stikle said:


> You really don't need to qualify all of your posts with this. We're not being graded on word count here.


Having a bad day are we?


----------



## Hopinater

andydallas said:


> Which route should I go, 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
> 
> I currently have 5.1, but am getting a Denon 4400 and am adding two height to go 5.1.2, but might as well use the other two amps,,but from reading I don't see a clear winner (or its over my head if i read it)
> 
> Any input is appreciated.
> 
> andy


I agree with everyone suggesting 5.1.4 over 7.1.2. I think the extra height speakers trump the rear channels.


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> Having a bad day are we?



Naw, just struck me as funny. Carry on buddy!


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Does Cinema Atmos automatically apply decorrelation between speakers when arraying bed channels (sides, rears, overheads)?


To the best of my understanding, no. They are treated the same as channels in a 5.1 or 7.1 format.


----------



## westbergjoakim

We have read here multiple times that some recommend side surrounds placed slightly in front of the MLP, around 80°, and others say it's a big no no! Can you guys tell me why sides are better at 80° or why it's better at 90-110°. We have many knowledgeable persons in this forum. 

Point me to different information/url/science about this and all the stuff you can think off, and also your own impressions and experience. Is it a mather of how big the room is or other stuff? Are Dolby who we should listen to? Will the soundstage be wrong because of the AVR and where it thinks the sides should be? Thankfull for all answers about this! 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## MrBreeze

If my surrounds are mounted about a foot below my 7 ft 10 inch drop ceiling in my theater room should I just skip Atmos unless I can move them down?

Moving them would be impossible for the rears as they are in-wall and very inconvenient for the sides as it would place them in the walk way around my seating.

It seems to me that it would still work with panning sounds around ceiling and the weakness would be that the side noises would not be as directionally located as would be ideal.


----------



## m. zillch

westbergjoakim said:


> Are Dolby who we should listen to?


For properly listening to a Dolby encoded movie as the people who made the movie intended you to hear it? _Yes_. [See my signature for more.]


----------



## usc1995

MrBreeze said:


> If my surrounds are mounted about a foot below my 7 ft 10 inch drop ceiling in my theater room should I just skip Atmos unless I can move them down?
> 
> 
> 
> Moving them would be impossible for the rears as they are in-wall and very inconvenient for the sides as it would place them in the walk way around my seating.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it would still work with panning sounds around ceiling and the weakness would be that the side noises would not be as directionally located as would be ideal.




How wide is your room? If your room is wide (say 15 ft or so) then you should still be able to maintain some good separation between your surrounds and your ceiling speakers. It’s not ideal but I think it would still work. If your room is narrow it might not work as well. I would still try it out with some on ceiling speakers and some Atmos demos as I find it adds a lot. Put some up temporarily and see if you like the results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrBreeze

usc1995 said:


> How wide is your room? If your room is wide (say 15 ft or so) then you should still be able to maintain some good separation between your surrounds and your ceiling speakers. It’s not ideal but I think it would still work. If your room is narrow it might not work as well. I would still try it out with some on ceiling speakers and some Atmos demos as I find it adds a lot. Put some up temporarily and see if you like the results.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My room is exactly 15 feet wide. Thanks very much for your input. I am also inclined to give it a try.


----------



## westbergjoakim

I don't know if you're still active here @FilmMixer but it would be intresting to hear what you think about putting the side surrounds slightly in front of the MLP in a 7.1.4-setup? You have much experience and have been working in lots of movies, also great Atmos sounding movies! Is it a bad idéa and will it mess things up when it's not at 90-110°? 

Are you putting sounds always so we should hear them from behind/from the side, or could we have sides at 80° and hear the sound as it was intended?

And if it does, is it a big difference between having them at 80° instead of 90°? Thanks!

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> Can you guys tell me why sides are better at 80° or why it's better at 90-110°.


Comes down to personal preference. Moving surrounds forward of the listening position aids in spaciousness, with the effect maximizing around ±55-60° from centre. If you happen to like that sound, it's worth trying the surrounds 5-10 degrees forward of your listening position. You end up sitting IN the surround field (as opposed to the surround field starting directly at your sides or slightly behind you).


----------



## jsgrise

I am thinking of going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 and was wondering if it was worth the $$. Anyone did the jump and thought it was worth it?? I have about 6' behind the MLP to the wall (see pic in signature).

Thanks!


----------



## Bytehoven

jsgrise said:


> I am thinking of going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 and was wondering if it was worth the $$. Anyone did the jump and thought it was worth it?? I have about 6' behind the MLP to the wall (see pic in signature).
> 
> Thanks!


Here is the thing... you need (4) atmos speakers to make atmos really perform. as you know.

Going from (5) to (7) is also worth it. In fact, you will find there is more often SRB and SLB content in the mix than in the atmos channels.

Now I'm not sure if the decoder automatically takes any rear surround and puts it in the rear SP/Height channels. I have never tested that possibility. But if it does, and your rear surrounds would be mounted up high, there will still be a difference, but perhaps not as much to justify the extra expense.

I'd love to know what the AVR dolby decoder does with the SRB & SLB in a 5.1.4 set up.


----------



## jsgrise

Bytehoven said:


> Now I'm not sure if the decoder automatically takes any rear surround and puts it in the rear SP/Height channels. I have never tested that possibility. But if it does, and your rear surrounds would be mounted up high, there will still be a difference, but perhaps not as much to justify the extra expense.
> 
> I'd love to know what the AVR dolby decoder does with the SRB & SLB in a 5.1.4 set up.


Good question, I would also like to know! My guess if that since the 7-channel bed layer is channel based, then it would shove it into the Sides?


----------



## kbarnes701

westbergjoakim said:


> We have read here multiple times that some recommend side surrounds placed slightly in front of the MLP, around 80°, and others say it's a big no no! Can you guys tell me why sides are better at 80° or why it's better at 90-110°. We have many knowledgeable persons in this forum.
> 
> Point me to different information/url/science about this and all the stuff you can think off, and also your own impressions and experience. Is it a mather of how big the room is or other stuff? Are Dolby who we should listen to? Will the soundstage be wrong because of the AVR and where it thinks the sides should be? Thankfull for all answers about this!
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


The idea of placing side surrounds at 80 degrees only applies to systems with 7.x (four surround speakers). For 5.1 the side surrounds should be ideally placed slight behind the listener. Assuming you are discussing a 7.x system, placing the side surrounds at 80 degrees 'closes the gap' between the rear surrounds and the mains. This can give greater envelopment and immersion. In a 7.x system we already have a sonic component coming from behind us via the rear surrounds, so moving the side surrounds forward doesn't jeopardise that.

Having all of the speakers in the system positioned so that the spaces between them are equalised to some extent helps with the sense of immersion and being 'surrounded' by sound. If the side surrounds are placed at 90 degrees, you have a set of three speakers at the front and then all four of the other speakers are crammed into the rear of the room.

If you are concerned about deviating from known 'standards', consider also that ITU and other recognised authorities all give a _range _for speaker positions and do not suggest a rigid adherence to just one location. The diagram below shows the ITU suggested speaker locations:










Note the shaded area showing 'permissible' locations for the side and rear surrounds.

Since it costs nothing to experiment with speaker locations, my recommendation would be to try it for yourself and see which is most pleasing to you: side surrounds at 80 degrees or at 90 degrees. When I conducted this experiment myself, I overwhelmingly preferred to locate my side surrounds forward of MLP. YMMV.


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> The idea of placing side surrounds at 80 degrees only applies to systems with 7.x (four surround speakers). For 5.1 the side surrounds should be ideally placed slight behind the listener. Assuming you are discussing a 7.x system, placing the side surrounds at 80 degrees 'closes the gap' between the rear surrounds and the mains. This can give greater envelopment and immersion. In a 7.x system we already have a sonic component coming from behind us via the rear surrounds, so moving the side surrounds forward doesn't jeopardise that.


I wonder if it would negatively affect an object-based playback as the system will expect the surrounds at 90 degrees?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Bytehoven said:


> jsgrise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking of going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 and was wondering if it was worth the $$. Anyone did the jump and thought it was worth it?? I have about 6' behind the MLP to the wall (see pic in signature).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing... you need (4) atmos speakers to make atmos really perform. as you know.
> 
> Going from (5) to (7) is also worth it. In fact, you will find there is more often SRB and SLB content in the mix than in the atmos channels.
> 
> Now I'm not sure if the decoder automatically takes any rear surround and puts it in the rear SP/Height channels. I have never tested that possibility. But if it does, and your rear surrounds would be mounted up high, there will still be a difference, but perhaps not as much to justify the extra expense.
> 
> I'd love to know what the AVR dolby decoder does with the SRB & SLB in a 5.1.4 set up.
Click to expand...

I was also thinking of going from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 except the back of my sectional/couch is only 14 inches from the back wall and can’t be moved forward any further (WAF).

If I was to get BIPOLE which will disperse the sound more then MONOpole and mount them IN WALL at the back so by the time the space between the ears of the MLP (a bit in from back of couch) is accounted for it is about 18-24 inches from the back wall (and therefore rears).

Would you say this is too close even with Bipole rears to do 7.1.4 or is it best to stay 5.1.4.

It may be relevant to point out that the rear heights will be above and not behind the rear surround speakers as, again, the wall is only 14 inches from back of couch. My height of ceilings will be around or slightly above 7 feet. 

I am finishing the room over the next month and any help or opinions would be greatly appreciated


----------



## andydallas

I am going to add height speakers this week, now have an issue with where.

I have beams going across my living room ceiling, the MPL is nearly right under one.

The beams across the room are not a problem, its the one running front to back I have concerns with.

Do I go slightly outside the one above the left side of the couch and just inside the one on the right (which would be about right) or go both inside the two beams (which would be only spaced about 7' apart

10' ceilings, I could have the TV a little, but not too much in either direction, pic attached


Thanks for your help!


----------



## PioManiac

Any ATMOS Guru's care to weigh in on why *Rear Height* is not an option when only two ATMOS speakers are being used?

Yamaha discussion here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/3002676-official-yamaha-rx-a3080-rx-a2080-rx-a1080-aventage-avr-thread-3.html

I suspect the discussion will eventually need to be moved to this thread as it's going off on a tangent outside the scope of receiver specific discussions.


----------



## usc1995

jsgrise said:


> I am thinking of going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 and was wondering if it was worth the $$. Anyone did the jump and thought it was worth it?? I have about 6' behind the MLP to the wall (see pic in signature).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!




Great looking room! My room is just a little bit shorter and for me the jump from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 was pretty underwhelming. Adding a second sub and adding Atmos were much more significant upgrades in my 15.5 ft long room. I simply have a much harder time hearing the rear surrounds and so they have a much smaller impact on my movie watching experience. It’s cool that I did it but not as significant as the jump to Atmos. Off topic question - how do those director chairs work as a second row? Are your guests happy back there? I was considering doing the exact same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

usc1995 said:


> Great looking room! My room is just a little bit shorter and for me the jump from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 was pretty underwhelming. Adding a second sub and adding Atmos were much more significant upgrades in my 15.5 ft long room. I simply have a much harder time hearing the rear surrounds and so they have a much smaller impact on my movie watching experience. It’s cool that I did it but not as significant as the jump to Atmos. Off topic question - how do those director chairs work as a second row? Are your guests happy back there? I was considering doing the exact same thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




Thanks mate! As for the rear surround, how much room do you have behind the MLP?

About the directors chair, they do an OK job. I rarely have more than 3 people, let alone 6 people, so they are more for a once in a while family screening. They don’t a good job for sports event when I have friends over for drinks, chat and UFC 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

jsgrise said:


> Thanks mate! As for the rear surround, how much room do you have behind the MLP?
> 
> About the directors chair, they do an OK job. I rarely have more than 3 people, let alone 6 people, so they are more for a once in a while family screening. They don’t a good job for sports event when I have friends over for drinks, chat and UFC
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I have 5 ft behind my couch. My side surrounds are bipoles slightly behind me so it’s possible they muddy the rear sound a bit. I suppose if you have monopole side surrounds at 90 degrees or even at 80 degrees you may have better rear surround performance than I have had.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## davehale

jsgrise said:


> I am thinking of going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 and was wondering if it was worth the $$. Anyone did the jump and thought it was worth it?? I have about 6' behind the MLP to the wall (see pic in signature).
> 
> Thanks!


I thought about it for a few years. Finally got 4 ceiling RSL's. $200 install from a local journeyman, monoprice wires and an AudioSource external amp. Whew he had to go up into the ceiling 5-6 times. I now stop thinking about it. Very enjoyable indeed and I would do it again if I moved without hesitation this time.


----------



## batpig

andydallas said:


> Which route should I go, 5.1.4 or 7.1.2
> 
> I currently have 5.1, but am getting a Denon 4400 and am adding two height to go 5.1.2, but might as well use the other two amps,,but from reading I don't see a clear winner (or its over my head if i read it)
> 
> Any input is appreciated.
> 
> andy


This is very simple -- if you can do 7.1.2, and you can do 5.1.4, then by definition you can also to 7.1.4. That is the correct answer.

For $100 extra your Denon X4400H can now do all 11 channels, and off you go: https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-apa102-class-d-stereo-60-wpc-amplifier-auto-on--300-591


----------



## batpig

PioManiac said:


> Any ATMOS Guru's care to weigh in on why *Rear Height* is not an option when only two ATMOS speakers are being used?
> 
> Yamaha discussion here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/3002676-official-yamaha-rx-a3080-rx-a2080-rx-a1080-aventage-avr-thread-3.html
> 
> I suspect the discussion will eventually need to be moved to this thread as it's going off on a tangent outside the scope of receiver specific discussions.


Why on earth would you even want "Rear Height" speakers with only a single pair of overheads? That's a silly place to put them.

Plus, as we know from much discussion in this thread, if you only have two overheads then ALL the height content goes to them, so regardless of where you place them you can just designate them as "Top Middle" and move on with your life.


----------



## batpig

jsgrise said:


> I wonder if it would negatively affect an object-based playback as the system will expect the surrounds at 90 degrees?


People WAY overthink this.

Pretty much zero people have their speakers positioned where the Atmos renderer actually thinks they are. 

The Atmos renderer assumes you have a rectangular room, with the front L/R speakers in the front corners, the back surrounds in the back corners, and the side surrounds exactly in the middle at 90 degrees. Almost nobody actually does this, so obsessing about an audio object being slightly "out of place" because your speaker is a foot or two off from where it "should" be is not worth the mental energy


----------



## PioManiac

batpig said:


> Why on earth would you even want "Rear Height" speakers with only a single pair of overheads? That's a silly place to put them.
> 
> Plus, as we know from much discussion in this thread, if you only have two overheads then ALL the height content goes to them, so regardless of where you place them you can just designate them as "Top Middle" and move on with your life.


Right?!?

I was about to lose my freaking mind trying to explain the reasons why it was wrong,
But some people never let go to an argument and need to have the last word...even if its wrong


----------



## jsgrise

batpig said:


> People WAY overthink this.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much zero people have their speakers positioned where the Atmos renderer actually thinks they are.
> 
> 
> 
> The Atmos renderer assumes you have a rectangular room, with the front L/R speakers in the front corners, the back surrounds in the back corners, and the side surrounds exactly in the middle at 90 degrees. Almost nobody actually does this, so obsessing about an audio object being slightly "out of place" because your speaker is a foot or two off from where it "should" be is not worth the mental energy




Thanks for seconding my OCD diagnosis lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> Bytehoven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsgrise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking of going from 5.2.4 to 7.2.4 and was wondering if it was worth the $$. Anyone did the jump and thought it was worth it?? I have about 6' behind the MLP to the wall (see pic in signature).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing... you need (4) atmos speakers to make atmos really perform. as you know.
> 
> Going from (5) to (7) is also worth it. In fact, you will find there is more often SRB and SLB content in the mix than in the atmos channels.
> 
> Now I'm not sure if the decoder automatically takes any rear surround and puts it in the rear SP/Height channels. I have never tested that possibility. But if it does, and your rear surrounds would be mounted up high, there will still be a difference, but perhaps not as much to justify the extra expense.
> 
> I'd love to know what the AVR dolby decoder does with the SRB & SLB in a 5.1.4 set up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was also thinking of going from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 except the back of my sectional/couch is only 14 inches from the back wall and can’t be moved forward any further (WAF).
> 
> If I was to get BIPOLE which will disperse the sound more then MONOpole and mount them IN WALL at the back so by the time the space between the ears of the MLP (a bit in from back of couch) is accounted for it is about 18-24 inches from the back wall (and therefore rears).
> 
> Would you say this is too close even with Bipole rears to do 7.1.4 or is it best to stay 5.1.4.
> 
> It may be relevant to point out that the rear heights will be above and not behind the rear surround speakers as, again, the wall is only 14 inches from back of couch. My height of ceilings will be around or slightly above 7 feet.
> 
> I am finishing the room over the next month and any help or opinions would be greatly appreciated
Click to expand...

Would anyone please care to offer your opinions on this-I would greatly appreciate the feedback 🙂


----------



## Bytehoven

Chirosamsung said:


> Would anyone please care to offer your opinions on this-I would greatly appreciate the feedback 🙂


Your challenge is an example of the possible benefit of mounting your side surrounds just a bit forward to create an angle and some separation from rear surrounds.

Do you have room on your side walls to point the rear speakers at the back wall to then reflect off the back wall toward your seating position? That might make a better fill than any other speaker you try to radiate from the back wall toward your seating position. If the side walls are a challenge, mount the rear surround on the ceiling a couple of feat from the rear wall, and aim the at the rear wall, again using the rear wall to reflect the sound toward your seating position.

While not the best way to fly, in a room like your room, it might end up sounding more acoustically natural.

Then if you have Audyssey or another calibration option, it will compensate for position timing alignment as well as eq.

With atmos pointing down and the rear surround reflecting off the back wall, you will get separation, although not as perfect as having a greater distance for directing the rear surround at your seats.

Does this make sense? I mention it because how bose setup can use wall reflections to enlarge the perception of the size of the sound field.

Usually it is the tweaters that when reflected make the most accoustic difference. But the full range surround when equalized by the calibration process, will do pretty well.

The other suggestion regarding the choice of the rear surround speaker, the inexpensive satellite design with a passive sub and two smallish satellites might be interesting. Then you might position the sub behind your seating and satellites as recommended earlier.

Just thinking outside the box as far as how you sometimes can get creative at tricking your ears with speaker placement and reflections. 

A passive sub and satellite design, runs the speaker channel output first thru the non powered sub woofer, than internal crossover in the sub, splits of the feeds to the satelite speakers. These systems have one sub and two satellites, so a single 2 channel system would handle the left and right rear surround channels.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> People WAY overthink this.
> 
> Pretty much zero people have their speakers positioned where the Atmos renderer actually thinks they are.
> 
> The Atmos renderer assumes you have a rectangular room, with the front L/R speakers in the front corners, the back surrounds in the back corners, and the side surrounds exactly in the middle at 90 degrees. Almost nobody actually does this, so obsessing about an audio object being slightly "out of place" because your speaker is a foot or two off from where it "should" be is not worth the mental energy


+1.

I always find it odd how people obsess over Atmos placement and seem to want to work to the _n_th degree, literally. Yet almost nobody ever worried about the exact placement of their LCR speakers or their surrounds, or even their two stereo speakers back in the day. I can't ever recall anyone measuring the angles from MLP of their LCR speakers or stereo speakers. They just put them where they fitted, or where they 'looked right' and got on with enjoying their content.

Then along comes Atmos and suddenly everyone is measuring angles and distances and worrying if they are 5 degrees outside the recommendation. Odd.

Same sort of thing with people asking if they should aim their Atmos speakers towards the listener or not. What did they do before? Did they aim them or did they point them to a place in the room where nobody sits? What has suddenly happened to make people question what they have done for years?

My advice is always: try to follow the guidelines (for Atmos and non-Atmos) if you can. If you can't, then do the best you can. Just like we've always done. Did anyone not bother having a stereo system if they couldn't place their L&R speakers at exactly 30 degrees, with MLP at the apex of an equilateral triangle formed by the speakers and MLP? Of course they didn't. The put their speakers as best they could and then started playing and enjoying music at home!


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> +1.
> 
> I always find it odd how people obsess over Atmos placement and seem to want to work to the _n_th degree, literally. Yet almost nobody ever worried about the exact placement of their LCR speakers or their surrounds, or even their two stereo speakers back in the day. I can't ever recall anyone measuring the angles from MLP of their LCR speakers or stereo speakers. They just put them where they fitted, or where they 'looked right' and got on with enjoying their content.
> 
> Then along comes Atmos and suddenly everyone is measuring angles and distances and worrying if they are 5 degrees outside the recommendation. Odd.
> 
> Same sort of thing with people asking if they should aim their Atmos speakers towards the listener or not. What did they do before? Did they aim them or did they point them to a place in the room where nobody sits? What has suddenly happened to make people question what they have done for years?
> 
> My advice is always: try to follow the guidelines (for Atmos and non-Atmos) if you can. If you can't, then do the best you can. Just like we've always done. Did anyone not bother having a stereo system if they couldn't place their L&R speakers at exactly 30 degrees, with MLP at the apex of an equilateral triangle formed by the speakers and MLP? Of course they didn't. The put their speakers as best they could and then started playing and enjoying music at home!


I did spend countless hours trying different placements, angles, etc. I finally came down to the best compromise for a multi-channel system in my room. I get carried away easily. I agree that there is more latitude than we think and at the end of the day we need to sit back and enjoy the sound.


----------



## snpanago

Interesting free course for better understanding of Dolby Atmos rendering: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/ho...-online-training-courses-from-dolby-institute


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> I wonder if it would negatively affect an object-based playback as the system will expect the surrounds at 90 degrees?


The home Atmos renderer expects the Sides to be mid-way between the Fronts and Rears. That rendering assumption doesn't change if those speakers are at a different location. 










And even if you place your Sides exactly mid-way between your Fronts & Rears (which almost no one does), whether that ends up being ±90° to you would depend on seating location. You can move your seating around the room but it won't change the rendering assumptions. 

You can't negatively affect object-based playback. The renderer remains blissfully unaware of physical locations, so you might as well place speakers (and seating) where they sound best to you. And if you like how your system sounds, then it will continue to sound good whether listening to traditional soundtracks or object-based audio.


----------



## drgnanam

hi,
how much difference in atmos with 4 overhead vs 6 overhead speakers , is it huge enough to to warrant 1500 usd extra for receivers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

drgnanam said:


> hi,
> how much difference in atmos with 4 overhead vs 6 overhead speakers , is it huge enough to to warrant 1500 usd extra for receivers



It depends on the length of your room (if you_ actually_ need 6 overheads for the best coverage) and the specific Atmos track itself and how it was mixed and encoded for the home environment. If you do not have the room length for proper speaker angle separation with 6 overheads, then the higher end Atmos receiver or pre-amp models will allow for Front Wides and four overhead speakers - 9.1.4 (or more depending on the unit and its Atmos renderer capabilities).


----------



## drgnanam

Hi thanks,
Now specifics, my HT is 20x10x10 feet with MLP at 12 feet, currently have 11.2 setup non atmos receiver , wides in 10 feet width is non ideal position but I would say it gives continuity to sound in front rear panning but I would say it involved in 10 percent , now planning to upgrade atmos , will 6 overhead speakers will make significant difference vs 4 in 20 feet room


----------



## mtbdudex

batpig said:


> People WAY overthink this.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much zero people have their speakers positioned where the Atmos renderer actually thinks they are.
> 
> 
> 
> The Atmos renderer assumes you have a rectangular room, with the front L/R speakers in the front corners, the back surrounds in the back corners, and the side surrounds exactly in the middle at 90 degrees. Almost nobody actually does this, so obsessing about an audio object being slightly "out of place" because your speaker is a foot or two off from where it "should" be is not worth the mental energy




Sacrilegious words!!!!
Diagrams and guides are that, starting points, in reality for clean sheet of new HT design they are great because then you replicate the mixers layout - hopefully.
For HT that are put in after the fact do the best meeting the spirit of the guide.

Example, I lowered my rear surrounds as much as I could without them possibly injuring someone’s head upon sitting down. 
Upon listening to them definitely I could 100% tell the RH from RS upon real movie listening.
I’d like them 6” lower... but I’m not gonna obsess over it. 
Our ears have amazing ability to localize sound.









Now my side surrounds were able to be lowered close to guide suggestions being at ear height, I’m slightly above that then angled down to MLP.








^^ you can see the old 2008 pre-Atmos recommended locations of the RS before I lowered them 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

mtbdudex said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> People WAY overthink this.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much zero people have their speakers positioned where the Atmos renderer actually thinks they are.
> 
> 
> 
> The Atmos renderer assumes you have a rectangular room, with the front L/R speakers in the front corners, the back surrounds in the back corners, and the side surrounds exactly in the middle at 90 degrees. Almost nobody actually does this, so obsessing about an audio object being slightly "out of place" because your speaker is a foot or two off from where it "should" be is not worth the mental energy /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sacrilegious words!!!!
> Diagrams and guides are that, starting points, in reality for clean sheet of new HT design they are great because then you replicate the mixers layout - hopefully.
> For HT that are put in after the fact do the best meeting the spirit of the guide.
> 
> Example, I lowered my rear surrounds as much as I could without them possibly injuring someone’s head upon sitting down.
> Upon listening to them definitely I could 100% tell the RH from RS upon real movie listening.
> I’d like them 6” lower... but I’m not gonna obsess over it.
> Our ears have amazing ability to localize sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now my side surrounds were able to be lowered close to guide suggestions being at ear height, I’m slightly above that then angled down to MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ you can see the old 2008 pre-Atmos recommended locations of the RS before I lowered them
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh, wow...your rear surrounds are super close to MLP (around a foot??) and your heights are closer to the rear surrounds then mine would be (maybe 3 feet away?) 

And you find that the rear surrounds are not too close to back of couch and room to still be worthwhile? I am hopeful that after seeing this that surround rear speakers and rear heights can both be used with a back of a couch around a foot to the back wall...that would be like mine...


----------



## mtbdudex

Chirosamsung said:


> Oh, wow...your rear surrounds are super close to MLP (around a foot??) and your heights are closer to the rear surrounds then mine would be (maybe 3 feet away?)
> 
> And you find that the rear surrounds are not too close to back of couch and room to still be worthwhile? I am hopeful that after seeing this that surround rear speakers and rear heights can both be used with a back of a couch around a foot to the back wall...that would be like mine...




Sorry, I’ve got a 2 row HT, mlp is 1st row.
Those surrounds are Paradigm ADP390’s, adaptive dipole while the Atmos above are coaxial volt-10’s. Mlp is 10 feet from screen, 2nd row 16.5 feet, back wall 18.5 feet. Sitting in the 2nd row I can hear the difference rear surrounds to rear heights and localize which is which, but not nearly as good as the first row.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## andydallas

ok I am all jazzed about atmos, bought a new receiver (had a good 5.1) and have ordered 4 height speakers, now I am reading that my Sony 900F might not handle atmos from netflix? Am I just reading old information?

I also have ATV 4K, does it work?

What are people using to get atmos from streamed content, what provider and what app?


----------



## carp

westbergjoakim said:


> I don't know if you're still active here @FilmMixer but it would be intresting to hear what you think about putting the side surrounds slightly in front of the MLP in a 7.1.4-setup? You have much experience and have been working in lots of movies, also great Atmos sounding movies! Is it a bad idéa and will it mess things up when it's not at 90-110°?
> 
> Are you putting sounds always so we should hear them from behind/from the side, or could we have sides at 80° and hear the sound as it was intended?
> 
> And if it does, is it a big difference between having them at 80° instead of 90°? Thanks!
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


Sorry I'm not FM... I hope he chimes in. 

I have found that in my room it depends on the quality of the mix as to whether or not I prefer the side surrounds slightly ahead of my MLP or not. 

For movies like the new 4K Matrix I prefer my sides slightly in front of the MLP. The sound is so well done and the sound from the rear surrounds is just as detailed/distinct/ etc. as the sound from the side surrounds, and in having the sides slightly in front makes the front soundstage to wides more seamless - so no need for wides IMO. 

However... many movies (like most Disney movies) it seems the mixer was lazy and spent a lot more time with the surround effects sent to the side surrounds than the rear surrounds. In this case it's better to have the side surrounds behind me because the rear surround field and that feeling of truly being in the middle of the action is better. 

In the end I decided that for me I would rather have the MLP have optimal sound for the best mixed movies, so my sides are slightly in front.


----------



## jjackkrash

andydallas said:


> ok I am all jazzed about atmos, bought a new receiver (had a good 5.1) and have ordered 4 height speakers, now I am reading that my Sony 900F might not handle atmos from netflix? Am I just reading old information?
> 
> I also have ATV 4K, does it work?
> 
> What are people using to get atmos from streamed content, what provider and what app?



ATV 4k will get you Atmos and Dolby Vision from Netflix. Xbox One will get you Atmos but no Dolby Vision. 

*** The following devices get you Atmos from Netflix (the TVs apps get you Atmos over the ARC channel, which should be avoided like the plague):

Apple TV 4K (requires tvOS 12 or later)
LG OLED TVs (2017 or newer models)
Pixela 4K Smart Tuner
Sony BRAVIA Android TVs (2018 models)
Windows 10 app (requires Windows 10 RS3 Build 16299 or later)
Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066


----------



## andydallas

jjackkrash said:


> ATV 4k will get you Atmos and Dolby Vision from Netflix. Xbox One will get you Atmos but no Dolby Vision.
> 
> *** The following devices get you Atmos from Netflix (the TVs apps get you Atmos over the ARC channel, which should be avoided like the plague):
> 
> Apple TV 4K (requires tvOS 12 or later)
> LG OLED TVs (2017 or newer models)
> Pixela 4K Smart Tuner
> Sony BRAVIA Android TVs (2018 models)
> Windows 10 app (requires Windows 10 RS3 Build 16299 or later)
> Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066



Thanks! What is the problem with using the ARC channel? Currently I feed the AVR through the ARC channel with no issues (that I know of anyway)


----------



## Selden Ball

andydallas said:


> Thanks! What is the problem with using the ARC channel? Currently I feed the AVR through the ARC channel with no issues (that I know of anyway)


Just that it's unreliable for some combinations of hardware and doesn't work at all for others. Some people have reported that it worked fine for them for a while, then it just stopped working for no obvious reason.

If it works fine for you, then enjoy!


----------



## andydallas

Thanks for the input, now if it goes out I won't pull my hair out I will just run everything through the ATV

I am still looking for input on spacing on my height speakers, I have these beams running across my ceiling, the ones across Im not concerned with, the ones running front to back are of concern.

I am considering putting the front heights about 1' outside of the beam on the left and just inside the beam on the right (the rears of course in line),,will this work? if I put them both inside of the beam they will only be about 7' apart, which seems too close,,,is too close together or too far apart, which is better?


----------



## askeptic

Noob Atmos question -

I wasn't planning on putting Atmos in the family room when I first recently learned about it due to lofted ceilings, however I just realized that I can use front height speakers rather than ceiling mounted speakers. When I built this room, I installed front speakers terminals higher on the wall that I had planned on using for L/R Channels, but then went with a set of floor monitor speakers. Now, I am considering adding speakers to those terminals to create a 5.1.2 Atmos configuration. My question is ... Will those two speakers ever be used outside of an Atmos listening experience? I stream most of my content and it appears that the only viable option is an XBOX 1, which I don't have. So short of purchasing a HD BD player and buying movies, would I ever get any use out of those additional two speakers? Are most people using physical HD BD players to play with Atmos, or is there a better streaming option I don't know about? I currently have a Roku Ultra, but to my knowledge they don't support Atmos. I am hesitant to put those speakers up because I don't think they will ever make a sound.

Thanks!


----------



## PioManiac

askeptic said:


> Noob Atmos question -
> 
> I wasn't planning on putting Atmos in the family room when I first recently learned about it due to lofted ceilings, however I just realized that I can use front height speakers rather than ceiling mounted speakers. When I built this room, I put from height speakers terminals that I had planned on using for L/R Channels, but then went with a set of floor monitor speakers. Now, I am considering adding speakers to those terminals to create a 5.1.2 Atmos configuration. My question is ... Will those two speakers ever be used outside of an Atmos listening experience? I stream most of my content and it appears that the only viable option is an XBOX 1, which I don't have. So short of purchasing a HD BD player and buying movies, would I ever get any use out of those additional two speakers? Are most people using physical HD BD players to play with Atmos, or is there a better streaming option I don't know about? I currently have a Roku Ultra, but to my knowledge they don't support Atmos. I am hesitant to put those speakers up because I don't think they will ever make a sound.
> 
> Thanks!


I'm pretty sure every ATMOS capable Receiver/Processor also has up-mixing capabilities to utilize those speakers, they are not ATMOS exclusive.
Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X are popular choices, and Yamaha AVR's have ~20 different 3D DSP algorithms to choose from too.

I primarily get my ATMOS/DTS:X content from 4K/UHD disc,
But also stream ATMOS Netflix titles with my XBO X, and ATMOS 4K games.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

jjackkrash said:


> ATV 4k will get you Atmos and Dolby Vision from Netflix. Xbox One will get you Atmos but no Dolby Vision.
> 
> *** The following devices get you Atmos from Netflix (the TVs apps get you Atmos over the ARC channel, which should be avoided like the plague):
> 
> Apple TV 4K (requires tvOS 12 or later)
> LG OLED TVs (2017 or newer models)
> Pixela 4K Smart Tuner
> Sony BRAVIA Android TVs (2018 models)
> Windows 10 app (requires Windows 10 RS3 Build 16299 or later)
> Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066


Since the last update, the Xbox One S and X will give you Dolby Vision from Netflix! At this moment it is only for Netflix, not for UHD blu rays.

However, the Xbox uses Dolby Vision at 60 Hz. This is not supported by 'older' Dolby Vision TVs from 2016 and some from 2017. Hopefully they will fix this soon. I don't know if this is true for the ATV as well.


----------



## askeptic

PioManiac said:


> I'm pretty sure every ATMOS capable Receiver/Processor also has up-mixing capabilities to utilize those speakers, they are not ATMOS exclusive.
> Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X are popular choices, and Yamaha AVR's have ~20 different 3D DSP algorithms to choose from too.
> 
> I primarily get my ATMOS/DTS:X content from 4K/UHD disc,
> But also stream ATMOS Netflix titles with my XBO X, and ATMOS 4K games.


Thanks! I've got a Pioneer Elite VSX-LX301 on the way, so I will check out its DSP's. 

I would love an X1, but I have Sony PSVUE ... If MS would add that app to the xbox, I would buy one in a heart beat.


----------



## jjackkrash

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Since the last update, the Xbox One S and X will give you Dolby Vision from Netflix! At this moment it is only for Netflix, not for UHD blu rays.
> 
> However, the Xbox uses Dolby Vision at 60 Hz. This is not supported by 'older' Dolby Vision TVs from 2016 and some from 2017. Hopefully they will fix this soon. I don't know if this is true for the ATV as well.


ATV4K gets me Dolby Vision on my 2016 LG OLED plus Atmos on Netflix. Good to know about the One X. I got the ATV solely because the One X did not get me both Dolby Vision and Atmos on my 2016 Oled. I have an Oppo for disks.


----------



## Gary J

Selden Ball said:


> Just that it's unreliable for some combinations of hardware and doesn't work at all for others. Some people have reported that it worked fine for them for a while, then it just stopped working for no obvious reason.
> 
> If it works fine for you, then enjoy!


The real problem is Atmos in DD+ over ARC.


----------



## jjackkrash

andydallas said:


> Currently I feed the AVR through the ARC channel with no issues (that I know of anyway)


Just give the ARC channel some time. Its patient, but ready to strike when you least expect it. It will probably wait until you have important guests in from out of town or will intermittently stop working just for your wife when you are not home causing much tension and strife.


----------



## Selden Ball

Gary J said:


> The real problem is Atmos in DD+ over ARC.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. 

Whether or not Atmos works over ARC depends on the streaming app provided for that model of TV by the streaming service company (Vudu, Netflix, Amazon, etc).
Some TV models can have their apps updated automatically to keep up with current encoding technologies (like Atmos) but many can't.

If Atmos isn't available for a streamed video that you know has Atmos when using another streaming device (Roku, ATV4K, Chromecast, etc) and the TV does forward other audio formats over ARC, then you should complain to the TV's manufacturer. They might (or might not) be willing to update their firmware appropriately.


----------



## Gary J

ARC does not have the capacity for TrueHD Atmos so it uses a lesser DD+ version. Learn about forthcoming eARC.


----------



## batpig

Gary J said:


> ARC does not have the capacity for TrueHD Atmos so it uses a lesser DD+ version. Learn about forthcoming eARC.


The context of the discussion was Atmos from Netflix using an ATV 4K, so ARC vs. eARC isn't relevant. Atmos will be DD+ regardless of the connection method when you are talking about streaming services like Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, etc.



> ok I am all jazzed about atmos, bought a new receiver (had a good 5.1) and have ordered 4 height speakers, now I am reading that my Sony 900F might not handle atmos from netflix? Am I just reading old information?
> 
> I also have ATV 4K, does it work?
> 
> What are people using to get atmos from streamed content, what provider and what app?


----------



## batpig

askeptic said:


> Noob Atmos question -
> 
> I wasn't planning on putting Atmos in the family room when I first recently learned about it due to lofted ceilings, however I just realized that I can use front height speakers rather than ceiling mounted speakers. When I built this room, I installed front speakers terminals higher on the wall that I had planned on using for L/R Channels, but then went with a set of floor monitor speakers. Now, I am considering adding speakers to those terminals to create a 5.1.2 Atmos configuration. My question is ... Will those two speakers ever be used outside of an Atmos listening experience? I stream most of my content and it appears that the only viable option is an XBOX 1, which I don't have. So short of purchasing a HD BD player and buying movies, would I ever get any use out of those additional two speakers? Are most people using physical HD BD players to play with Atmos, or is there a better streaming option I don't know about? I currently have a Roku Ultra, but to my knowledge they don't support Atmos. I am hesitant to put those speakers up because I don't think they will ever make a sound.
> 
> Thanks!


Just be aware that unless the Front Height speakers are REALLY high up (minimum 30 degree elevation) you won't get much of an "overhead" Atmos experience from them. You often see people mounting their heights just a few feet above their front speakers, which typically puts them about 15-20 degree elevation relative to the listening position. That's not enough separation to really get the Atmos effect especially with 5.1.2 where you only have a single pair of height speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

andydallas said:


> Thanks for the input, now if it goes out I won't pull my hair out I will just run everything through the ATV
> 
> I am still looking for input on spacing on my height speakers, I have these beams running across my ceiling, the ones across Im not concerned with, the ones running front to back are of concern.
> 
> I am considering putting the front heights about 1' outside of the beam on the left and just inside the beam on the right (the rears of course in line),,will this work? if I put them both inside of the beam they will only be about 7' apart, which seems too close,,,is too close together or too far apart, which is better?



I HIGHLY recommend picking up a UHD Blu-ray player to get the best Atmos experience from Blu-ray and 4k Blu-ray discs. Why spend the money on a fancy immersive system to just play lossy Atmos tracks on it?


On ceiling or in-ceiling speakers?


----------



## sdrucker

So, in the spirit of Halloween, I present...Atmos movies with sparkly vampires! 

Yes, I picked up Twilight: 10th anniversary UHD for laughs, scientific inquiry, and comic relief (OK, and seeing Kristen Stewart in tight jeans). Believe it or not, it's got a solid 9.1.6 mix. If you don't mind the Bella Swan voice-over narration coming out of the top front and middle speakers, all of my 9.1.6 speakers are playing something a majority of the time. Nothing in the 45 minutes or so I had this on from the pair of front side surrounds or the Lc/Rc inside the screen, but this is no 5.1 mix with benefits.

You get ambience in all three overheads (often the same, but sometimes, as in the baseball diamond scene, separate content steered to the TF/TM vs. the TR), musical scores edging to the wides, and swirling wind and SFX around the room. Nobody would confuse this with Ready Player One or a Matrix release, and the rears could be more active at times, but Disney should be embarrassed by comparison. If they cared.


----------



## askeptic

batpig said:


> Just be aware that unless the Front Height speakers are REALLY high up (minimum 30 degree elevation) you won't get much of an "overhead" Atmos experience from them. You often see people mounting their heights just a few feet above their front speakers, which typically puts them about 15-20 degree elevation relative to the listening position. That's not enough separation to really get the Atmos effect especially with 5.1.2 where you only have a single pair of height speakers.


Thanks, they are 8 ft off the ground. My L/R are towers so they are only 4.5 ft above those.

Is it worth even doing given the measurements? I have the speakers just laying around, and the cables are already in the walls. (They were originally going to be my standard L/R before I got the towers) All I need are basic satellite mounts to finish it. If I don't do this though, I was going to passive bi-amp my towers for the he!! of it. Figured the extra speakers would be more entertaining.


----------



## batpig

askeptic said:


> Thanks, they are 8 ft off the ground. My L/R are towers so they are only 4.5 ft above those.


So assume your ear height is 3.5 feet, same as tweeter height of towers.

4.5 feet above ear height, from a 10 foot distance (front wall to ears), would be about a 25 degree elevation angle. It will be audible, but won't be "wow" overhead with Atmos effects.

If you are out of wall height, what you can do is get some cheap plastic wire molding channel to run the wire a few feet forward on the ceiling, and then mount the speakers there to achieve closer to the ideal 30-45 degree elevation angle.


----------



## askeptic

batpig said:


> So assume your ear height is 3.5 feet, same as tweeter height of towers.
> 
> 4.5 feet above ear height, from a 10 foot distance (front wall to ears), would be about a 25 degree elevation angle. It will be audible, but won't be "wow" overhead with Atmos effects.
> 
> If you are out of wall height, what you can do is get some cheap plastic wire molding channel to run the wire a few feet forward on the ceiling, and then mount the speakers there to achieve closer to the ideal 30-45 degree elevation angle.


Gotcha, thanks for breaking it down. I have about 15 feet more to go up, I will just have a speaker cable hanging on the wall haha


----------



## esumsea

Hello,
I have some questions about a home theater I am setting up at and hope some of you can help.  This is part of a reconstruction project has been going on for way too long and atmos was not even available when it started in 2012-2013. I have included a very rough drawing (that I know is out of proportion) as a reference.

My room is a perfect rectangle 24 X 16.  The ceilings are at 7.3' (dry wall, perfectly flat, except where I have a hanging lighting feature above the dining room table behind the MLP).  The MLP is at 14' from the front (10' from back) and at 8' from either side (so almost exactly on center). The prospect 65” OLED TV (Probably a LG C8 panel) and thus the center speaker had to be 5-10” off center to the right of MLP as the view to the back yard superseded screen size.   

I currently have speaker wire laid out for an old school 9.1 (front left/right in front corners at 9” of wall (~29 degrees from MLP on each side ) with a front height speaker site wired above each at the ceiling, or in the ceiling 12 to 14 degrees up (vertically) from the MLP. My set up continues with a center speaker (probably about 12 to 18” below the height of the Left and right speakers as it will be below the TV), a sub (location TBA, somewhere in the front right of the room), a side left/right ( located ~90 degrees to each side, wired to be in-ceiling or just below, a foot of the wall at 22-24 degrees up from MLP), and I have wire laid for 4 speakers along the back wall (which is really a counter and a beam above that open up to the kitchen behind the Florida room). The rear speakers are all elevated. There are 2 at the corners about a 1” of the side walls (15-17 degrees up and 128 degrees from MLP), and a stereo speaker cable run in the middle (180 degrees behind and 18-20 degrees up from MLP) that I was thinking of using as a back center (I know that is now hardly used) or as rears (using a stereo input speaker) if I make the speakers on the rear corner Atmos dedicated speakers. 

My plan is to have the front and rear height speakers (in the corners of the room) be my Atmos and/or DTS height speakers. I would then add an ear level side left and right at about 100-110 degress from MPL and then leave the wires buried for the current side left and right in the ceiling for when I can afford the $3000+ X.X.6 receiver so I can have a middle atmos speaker.  I think that would really tie in the atmos plane, but who knows, psychoacoustics may actually create a central image based on the 4 speakers, though they are at a 14 to 22 degree angles rather than the 30 degree min angle specified.  Frankly, my knowledge of  HRFT and the cone of confusion (I am an ex-sound engineer and am currently an audiologist) makes me wonder how well this will work, which is why I want to eventually incorporate the mid height speakers. I then plan to use the rear center stereo run for my rear centers (I know, they should be further down). 

Here comes my first set of questions: 
*Do any of you know of a method or producing a mid height speaker other than paying $3000?
Do you think using the front and rear height speakers will give me an atmos experience or is it not worth it? 
**If it is worth it, will using the stereo input speaker in the back, which is elevated, as a rear surround, be detrimental to the atmos experience to the point where I should not add them, considering they will be used when listening to non-height enabled mixes?* I really like having a rear channel, and don't see how they would completely ruin the experience.  The height sounds will still come from high, it’s just the rear will as well.  The only way I can see it as being detrimental is if the mix really wanted to separate something back there and that both sources where playing at the same time.  It seems to be it would be better to sacrifice that then to sacrifice having to have rear surrounds in a 7.1 non-atmos mix.

If using my existing speakers will not give me a somewhat satisfying atmos experience-really, how many people can actually have a perfect setup without having a dedicated theater room- I may be able to add a run some speaker cable to add some ear level rears, though it will be difficult and dirty (may have to go by the exterior, but on the “dirty” side of the house where I have storage, AC units and a water pump). This will at least separate the rears vertically. *Will adding these ear level rears dramatically improve the situation over the setup described directly above? Will this provide a satisfying atmos experience? 
*
If not, adding Atos speakers at the ideal locations (Well at least 5-10 inches of center due to the TV) is possible but would require routing the drywall and studs to run wire to the location. Spackling and sanding to repair the ceiling would require painful dust negotiation, but if it will make all the difference, I am going to have to plaster in that room anyhow…. *Is this the only way to get a satisfying atmos experience and, if so, will adding ceiling speakers, like a KEF uni-q ceiling speaker give me a diffuse enough field if mounted on a ceiling 7.25’ above the MLP at 45 degrees vertically to the front and rear? Would a atmos enabled reflective up-firing speaker be better (really can’t see how, but I thought I would ask)? 
*


----------



## esumsea

Sorry the pic would not post before


----------



## usc1995

esumsea said:


> Sorry the pic would not post before




It is going to be really difficult to distinguish the Atmos speakers from 7.1 base layer of speakers if they are all elevated and all so far from the MLP. If your room was only 10 feet long then I could see the FH and RH locations being feasible but in a room your size and with such a low ceiling I don’t think it would work well. With a ceiling height of 7.3 feet, the ideal placement for the four Atmos speakers would be in the ceiling at 3.5-4 feet in front and behind your MLP. Even at those locations you need to keep the 7.1 layer at ear height to maintain adequate separation from the Atmos speakers otherwise you won’t be able to place the height sounds above you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

It's been discussed in the DTS:X here that DTS:X nomenclature names the Dolby Atmos speakers as Heights.

My question is what is the real life negative impact of naming your Top Speakers as Heights when playing back an Atmos track? When playing the Atmos demo, it seems like objects are snapped to the nearest above speakers, so would it make a difference at all?


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> It's been discussed in the DTS:X here that DTS:X nomenclature names the Dolby Atmos speakers as Heights.
> 
> My question is what is the real life negative impact of naming your Top Speakers as Heights when playing back an Atmos track? When playing the Atmos demo, it seems like objects are snapped to the nearest above speakers, so would it make a difference at all?


When I tested this a few years back, I can't remember the designation name making all that much audible difference at all. For a while I was re-setting the AVR to FH+RH for DTS:X tracks and then back to TF+TR for Atmos tracks but that became old real quick so I ended up just leaving them at TF+TR for everything. I can't say I am disappointed at all with DTS:X tracks due to 'incorrectly' designating my speakers.

I have largely forgotten the various theories behind this, so someone with more up-to-date information or better recall may care to chime in if I am giving a bum steer here (no pun intended).


----------



## dfa973

jsgrise said:


> My question is what is the real life negative impact of naming your Top Speakers as Heights when playing back an Atmos track?


The impact of assigning FH+RH vs TF+TR is very small. 
You may sense a difference not from assigning, but from the actual positioning of the speakers (Height vs. Top).
The 3D sound systems are very forgiving, regardless of what you may have read/heard.
Also, the ear/brain system is not that precise regarding sounds that originate above your head.


----------



## kbarnes701

dfa973 said:


> The impact of assigning FH+RH vs TF+TR is very small.
> You may sense a difference not from assigning, but from the actual positioning of the speakers (Height vs. Top).
> The 3D sound systems are very forgiving, regardless of what you may have read/heard.
> Also, the ear/brain system is not that precise regarding sounds that originate above your head.


Agreed. Much overthinking goes on with regard to Atmos. The majority of people will be just fine if they designate their speakers as TF+TR, even if they are physically in the FH+RH locations (or vice-versa if they prefer). As you say, it is very forgiving and small deviations from the guidelines makes pretty much no significant difference. Way back in this thread, when Atmos was new, there was tons of experimentation with designations and locations, but as it has all settled down the consensus is that a) it is hard to get Atmos wrong, b) the guidelines are just that: guidelines, c) some Atmos is preferable to no Atmos, d) compromise as required and do not let perfect become the enemy of good.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> My question is what is the real life negative impact of naming your Top Speakers as Heights when playing back an Atmos track?


If you designate your speakers as Tops, the home Atmos decoder will assume that the speakers are 1/4 & 3/4 points of room length: 










When you play the speaker ID test tones from the Atmos demo tracks, the sound for the Tops will come from the respective speakers: 










However, if you designate those speakers as Heights, then the Atmos decoder will assume they are at the very front & back of your room/layout (even if they're not) and the renderer will re-map those test tones inward so they phantom image where it thinks the Tops would have been: 










Whatever front to back spread you had will be shrunken. That's the "real life negative impact" but, as others have mentioned, it can be difficult to hear this with program material.


----------



## batpig

Yup ^^^

And while the stance of many is "Atmos is way more popular so I'll optimize for Atmos and let the chips fall for DTS:X", the counterpoint is that I think DTS:X handles the "wrong" setting much worse than does Atmos (or, to put it another way, Atmos is more "resilient"). 

At least with Atmos, all the overhead sound stays overhead. DTS:X will "leak" to the ear level speakers which to me is way worse than having overhead imaging be slightly off with Atmos.


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> If you designate your speakers as Tops, the home Atmos decoder will assume that the speakers are 1/4 & 3/4 points of room length:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you play the speaker ID test tones from the Atmos demo tracks, the sound for the Tops will come from the respective speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if you designate those speakers as Heights, then the Atmos decoder will assume they are at the very front & back of your room/layout (even if they're not) and the renderer will re-map those test tones inward so they phantom image where it thinks the Tops would have been:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever front to back spread you had will be shrunken. That's the "real life negative impact" but, as others have mentioned, it can be difficult to hear this with program material.





batpig said:


> Yup ^^^
> 
> And while the stance of many is "Atmos is way more popular so I'll optimize for Atmos and let the chips fall for DTS:X", the counterpoint is that I think DTS:X handles the "wrong" setting much worse than does Atmos (or, to put it another way, Atmos is more "resilient").
> 
> At least with Atmos, all the overhead sound stays overhead. DTS:X will "leak" to the ear level speakers which to me is way worse than having overhead imaging be slightly off with Atmos.


Yay! More experiments to do!


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> People WAY overthink this.
> 
> Pretty much zero people have their speakers positioned where the Atmos renderer actually thinks they are.
> 
> The Atmos renderer assumes you have a rectangular room, with the front L/R speakers in the front corners, the back surrounds in the back corners, and the side surrounds exactly in the middle at 90 degrees. Almost nobody actually does this, so obsessing about an audio object being slightly "out of place" because your speaker is a foot or two off from where it "should" be is not worth the mental energy





sdurani said:


> The home Atmos renderer expects the Sides to be mid-way between the Fronts and Rears. That rendering assumption doesn't change if those speakers are at a different location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even if you place your Sides exactly mid-way between your Fronts & Rears (which almost no one does), whether that ends up being ±90° to you would depend on seating location. You can move your seating around the room but it won't change the rendering assumptions.
> 
> You can't negatively affect object-based playback. The renderer remains blissfully unaware of physical locations, so you might as well place speakers (and seating) where they sound best to you. And if you like how your system sounds, then it will continue to sound good whether listening to traditional soundtracks or object-based audio.


The Atmos renderer actually thinks the back surrounds are in the back corners? If so, why does Dolby's 7.1.4 and higher layout diagrams have the back surrounds at 135-150 degrees as seen here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html

I'm not questioning you guys, just wondering because having the back surrounds in the rear corners will actually be beneficial for me due to the layout of my room.


----------



## esumsea

usc1995 said:


> It is going to be really difficult to distinguish the Atmos speakers from 7.1 base layer of speakers if they are all elevated and all so far from the MLP. If your room was only 10 feet long then I could see the FH and RH locations being feasible but in a room your size and with such a low ceiling I don’t think it would work well. With a ceiling height of 7.3 feet, the ideal placement for the four Atmos speakers would be in the ceiling at 3.5-4 feet in front and behind your MLP. Even at those locations you need to keep the 7.1 layer at ear height to maintain adequate separation from the Atmos speakers otherwise you won’t be able to place the height sounds above you.


Thanks for your input. 

I am afraid you may be right. I had hoped that it could work because I have read that many use FH and RH as Atmos (It is currently being discussed on this thread, as you know) with little difference in imaging, but I assume their speakers are not that far away and or at such a low angle. Dolby even specifies that FH and RH may be used, but I again I believe the assumption is that they would be at least at a 30 degree vertical angle up from the MLP. I thought if I could incorporate the center ceiling speakers, since they are at almost 90 degrees up and 40 degrees out from the MLP, even using them in a X.X.2 mix , I could get a satisfactory experience. I have read, though, that an X.X.4 system is the way to go. Perhaps that will be the only configuration worth laying more wire and cutting into the drywall. Perhaps it is the only solution to get a satisfactory atmos experience at all.

I am enjoying reading this receiver settings for overhead configurations. It is giving me a lot to think about. I thought that by now there would be some receivers would allow you to switch what was feed to the speaker outputs (or rather their amplifier inputs) based on the surround algorithm employed or secen chosen, but I have not read of one as of yet (still early in my AVR research).



Kain said:


> The Atmos renderer actually thinks the back surrounds are in the back corners? If so, why does Dolby's 7.1.4 and higher layout diagrams have the back surrounds at 135-150 degrees as seen here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> I'm not questioning you guys, just wondering because having the back surrounds in the rear corners will actually be beneficial for me due to the layout of my room.



I am also wondering about this. I know that one should separate one's speakers from walls by 1/5th of the room size, and that corners are to be avoided, but it is much more practical to put speakers in corners. It also makes sense that separating the speakers more than 22 degrees will give a wider sound field For other listening positions to enjoy and having the speakers at 0,45, 90,135,180,270 degrees to give an immersive sound albeit only perfect in an anechoic chamber with all speakers being equidistant, coaxial and less than 1.5 meters away. Sometimes it seems like that isi the only way to be happy and it gets extreme.

In the end. how it's set up when mixed and/mic-ed is how it should be set up when reproduced, though I wonder how strictly the norms are followed while mixing based on some of what I have read for the mixing side of things. Still, if the norm is set up such as Dolby specifies on their website and white papers, I guess that is the way we should set up our systems, even though a majority of us cannot. I wonder, really, how much difference does it make. Especially when most selling these products for thousands of dollars don't have rooms set up properly to demonstrate their possibilities.


----------



## satboy

Reading thru many threads and trying to understand best options for my own setup I have a few questions that someone can answer please.

My setup 
Denon 4400
4 SVS Prime Elevation heights back wall front wall close to celling 
5.1 for the remainder with 2 subs 

Small room with the seats against the wall

Question is really around settings of the SVS Prime Elevation heights 

Set the heights on the Denon to Atmos or Auro / DTSx in the AMP setup? Which has the most results for most material? 
Set them to heights or tops? 
Which sound profile is best to use for normal content (non Atomos et)

Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

esumsea said:


> I know that one should separate one's speakers from walls by 1/5th of the room size, and that corners are to be avoided, but it is much more practical to put speakers in corners.


Quick clarification of what is meant by "corners" as it relates to Atmos decoding. 

Object rendering with Atmos is bounded by two planes: the base layer (listener level) and height layer (above the listener). Wherever you place your Front L/R speakers & Rear L/R speakers becomes the 4 corners of the base layer. The renderer doesn't know if your Front speakers are in the front corners of the room or butted up against the sides of your TV. It just knows that it cannot render objects any further left or right of those speakers. Your choice of placement creates the front corners of the base layer. Same with the Rears. Wherever you place them becomes the back corners of the base layer, whether that's in the back corners of the room or a couple feet behind your couch. 

So place your speakers where they give you the best results and don't worry about "corners". The diagram I posted earlier shows what the base layer looks like to the Atmos decoder. It's not a diagram of where speakers are physically placed the room.


----------



## pasender91

Kain said:


> The Atmos renderer actually thinks the back surrounds are in the back corners? If so, why does Dolby's 7.1.4 and higher layout diagrams have the back surrounds at 135-150 degrees as seen here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html
> 
> I'm not questioning you guys, just wondering because having the back surrounds in the rear corners will actually be beneficial for me due to the layout of my room.


Hum, just simple math, what is the angle corresponding to the back corners .... it is 135 and -135 ... oh wait ... that's exactly the same as in the document you are referring to 
So all is well and consistent there


----------



## talbain

satboy said:


> Reading thru many threads and trying to understand best options for my own setup I have a few questions that someone can answer please.
> 
> My setup
> Denon 4400
> 4 SVS Prime Elevation heights back wall front wall close to celling
> 5.1 for the remainder with 2 subs
> 
> Small room with the seats against the wall
> 
> Question is really around settings of the SVS Prime Elevation heights
> 
> Set the heights on the Denon to Atmos or Auro / DTSx in the AMP setup? Which has the most results for most material?
> Set them to heights or tops?
> Which sound profile is best to use for normal content (non Atomos et)
> 
> Thanks!


when you're setting up the speakers, i don't recall seeing any designation for "atmos vs dtsx vs auro". just heights vs tops. if you have prime elevations and wall or ceiling mount them, they'd be heights. FHL/FHR + RHL/RHR. then run audyssey and you're good


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Yup ^^^
> 
> And while the stance of many is "Atmos is way more popular so I'll optimize for Atmos and let the chips fall for DTS:X", the counterpoint is that I think DTS:X handles the "wrong" setting much worse than does Atmos (or, to put it another way, Atmos is more "resilient").
> 
> At least with Atmos, all the overhead sound stays overhead. DTS:X will "leak" to the ear level speakers which to me is way worse than having overhead imaging be slightly off with Atmos.


So do you have yours designated as FH+RH then? I can see why you might from what you say. Mine are TF+TR, mainly, I guess because my Atmos discs outnumber my DTS:X discs by about 10:1. I did used to swap them over for DTS:X but these days I can't be bothered.

Watched _Sicario 2: Soldado_ last night. Released on Blu-ray in the UK with an Atmos track. Really nice soundtrack - some thrilling use of the overheads, and great surround soiund the rest of the time. Fabulous score comes over well, as does the deep, pervasive, insistent bass signalling dark things to come on screen. I enjoyed the movie almost as much as the first one too, although many didn't.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Quick clarification of what is meant by "corners" as it relates to Atmos decoding.
> 
> Object rendering with Atmos is bounded by two planes: the base layer (listener level) and height layer (above the listener). Wherever you place your Front L/R speakers & Rear L/R speakers becomes the 4 corners of the base layer. The renderer doesn't know if your Front speakers are in the front corners of the room or butted up against the sides of your TV. It just knows that it cannot render objects any further left or right of those speakers. Your choice of placement creates the front corners of the base layer. Same with the Rears. Wherever you place them becomes the back corners of the base layer, whether that's in the back corners of the room or a couple feet behind your couch.
> 
> So place your speakers where they give you the best results and don't worry about "corners". The diagram I posted earlier shows what the base layer looks like to the Atmos decoder. It's not a diagram of where speakers are physically placed the room.


Very lucid explanation there Sanjay! Thanks for that.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

kbarnes701 said:


> Watched _Sicario 2: Soldado_ last night. Released on Blu-ray in the UK with an Atmos track. Really nice soundtrack - some thrilling use of the overheads, and great surround soiund the rest of the time. Fabulous score comes over well, as does the deep, pervasive, insistent bass signalling dark things to come on screen. I enjoyed the movie almost as much as the first one too, although many didn't.


I liked it too. The ending threw me a bit, thought about it for a couple of days after.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottieBoysName

I’m going to start examining ceiling positions to place four atmos speakers in my room. I’m trying to nail down how wide the speakers need to be spaced a part on the ceiling. 

For what it’s worth I’ll be running them as Top Fronts and Top Rears for Atmos, and then whatever the corresponding positions are for DTS:X, which I can’t remember right now but I know they’re called something else. 

Should the pairs be spaced more narrow or wide on the ceiling? I’ve been reading lately people have had better luck immersion wise using a narrow placement, but I’m not sure. 

The speakers in question will be JBL SCS8s. I’ll have two for Top Fronts and two for Top Rears. 

Thoughts?


----------



## talbain

ScottieBoysName said:


> I’m going to start examining ceiling positions to place four atmos speakers in my room. I’m trying to nail down how wide the speakers need to be spaced a part on the ceiling.
> 
> For what it’s worth I’ll be running them as Top Fronts and Top Rears for Atmos, and then whatever the corresponding positions are for DTS:X, which I can’t remember right now but I know they’re called something else.
> 
> Should the pairs be spaced more narrow or wide on the ceiling? I’ve been reading lately people have had better luck immersion wise using a narrow placement, but I’m not sure.
> 
> The speakers in question will be JBL SCS8s. I’ll have two for Top Fronts and two for Top Rears.
> 
> Thoughts?


directly above your fronts and rears, as high to the wall as possible. when i installed mine i left about a half inch of clearance between top of speaker and ceiling

https://denon-uk.custhelp.com/app/a...uro-3d-and-dolby-atmos-speaker-configurations


----------



## ScottieBoysName

talbain said:


> directly above your fronts and rears, as high to the wall as possible. when i installed mine i left about a half inch of clearance between top of speaker and ceiling
> 
> 
> 
> https://denon-uk.custhelp.com/app/a...uro-3d-and-dolby-atmos-speaker-configurations




Really? That seems extremely wide, and contrary to the picture of setups I’ve seen on Dolby and other places. Can you explain why?


----------



## bkeeler10

ScottieBoysName said:


> Really? That seems extremely wide, and contrary to the picture of setups I’ve seen on Dolby and other places. Can you explain why?


I agree with you. The Atmos guides I've seen usually have them in line with the main left and right as stated, but it seems to me that unless you have a really high ceiling, the angle between them relative to the MLP is quite large. My ceiling is just over 9', and for my part I will be installing them a little bit inside the left/right speakers. Which I will be doing in the next couple weeks hopefully.

Edited to say this applies if you install them in the typical TR/TF positions. If they are in the FH/RH positions, in line with the L/R makes some sense.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## talbain

the why i cannot answer. but i did a TON of research and the consensus was directly above the main speakers as high as possible. the svs pe manual says the same, as did the on screen menu for denon. dolby was the only real outlier lol. what i can tell you is that the result is fabulous. note i'm speaking about FH/RH config


----------



## ScottieBoysName

bkeeler10 said:


> I agree with you. The Atmos guides I've seen usually have them in line with the main left and right as stated, but it seems to me that unless you have a really high ceiling, the angle between them relative to the MLP is quite large. My ceiling is just over 9', and for my part I will be installing them a little bit inside the left/right speakers. Which I will be doing in the next couple weeks hopefully.
> 
> Edited to say this applies if you install them in the typical TR/TF positions. If they are in the FH/RH positions, in line with the L/R makes some sense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk




Yeah, I’ll be doing TR/TF positions. That’s why I’m thinking a bit more narrow.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

talbain said:


> the why i cannot answer. but i did a TON of research and the consensus was directly above the main speakers as high as possible. the svs pe manual says the same, as did the on screen menu for denon. dolby was the only real outlier lol. what i can tell you is that the result is fabulous. note i'm speaking about FH/RH config




Ok gotcha. So for FH/RH....I can see that. But for TF/RF. Doesn’t a bit more narrow make sense?


----------



## talbain

ScottieBoysName said:


> Yeah, I’ll be doing TR/TF positions. That’s why I’m thinking a bit more narrow.


ah, apologies. i got my threads confused and thought you were referring to installing svs prime elevations in a FH/RH config. top mount is for sure a different config according to everything i've seen


----------



## ScottieBoysName

talbain said:


> ah, apologies. i got my threads confused and thought you were referring to installing svs prime elevations in a FH/RH config. top mount is for sure a different config according to everything i've seen




Ok sweet. You scared me there for a second. Whew! Any thoughts on that?


----------



## kbarnes701

JosephTonyStark said:


> I liked it too. The ending threw me a bit, thought about it for a couple of days after.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


A setup for Sicario 3 was my thought...


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottieBoysName said:


> Really? That seems extremely wide, and contrary to the picture of setups I’ve seen on Dolby and other places. Can you explain why?


Dolby guidelines say that the overhead ceiling speakers should be in line with the FL and FR main speakers. It's well documented -- see Dolby site for more information. Position the ceiling speakers according to the following diagram wherever possible.










The following diagram is from Dolby's own website and clearly shows the 4 overhead speakers in line with the mains:


----------



## Kain

sdurani said:


> Quick clarification of what is meant by "corners" as it relates to Atmos decoding.
> 
> Object rendering with Atmos is bounded by two planes: the base layer (listener level) and height layer (above the listener). Wherever you place your Front L/R speakers & Rear L/R speakers becomes the 4 corners of the base layer. The renderer doesn't know if your Front speakers are in the front corners of the room or butted up against the sides of your TV. It just knows that it cannot render objects any further left or right of those speakers. Your choice of placement creates the front corners of the base layer. Same with the Rears. Wherever you place them becomes the back corners of the base layer, whether that's in the back corners of the room or a couple feet behind your couch.
> 
> So place your speakers where they give you the best results and don't worry about "corners". The diagram I posted earlier shows what the base layer looks like to the Atmos decoder. It's not a diagram of where speakers are physically placed the room.


Thanks for that. Cleared up a lot. 

Have a quick question for you though. I know you stated that you should just speakers where they give you the best results, but I still wanted to get your input on the following:

My room is 12 ft wide. I don't exactly have a back wall because most of the back wall is a built-in closet and the rest is the door to the room. I have two options for the placement of the back surround speakers:

1. Place the back surround speakers on stands along the "back wall." Due to the layout of the room, the distance between the left back surround tweeter and the right back surround tweeter will be roughly 4 ft.

2. As stated previously, I don't have a back wall per se (due to the built-in closet and the door to the room). The second option is to place the back surround speakers right at the back of the room on the side walls facing or toed-in towards the main listening position.

Which of these two options would you say are better?


----------



## ScottieBoysName

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby guidelines say that the overhead ceiling speakers should be in line with the FL and FR main speakers. It's well documented -- see Dolby site for more information. Position the ceiling speakers according to the following diagram wherever possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following diagram is from Dolby's own website and clearly shows the 4 overhead speakers in line with the mains:




Well crap. I could have sworn I saw it a different way. My fault!

Ok, so second question, has anyone experimented with a narrower placement?


----------



## pasender91

Of course, the alignement rule can be broken in several cases ...
- If your room is narrow and front speakers are almost in the corners, then the H or T speakers can be IN from alignment
- if your room is wide and front speakers are on each side of a small TV, then the H or T speakers can be OUT from alignment

To be honest i always questioned the validity of this rule in my mind.
I think they made it to keep things simple, but it is not always optimal, not even mentioning non-rectangular rooms ...
1/3 and 2/3 of the width seems much more logical


----------



## Selden Ball

As has often been pointed out in this thread, you don't have to frustrate about getting the angles and positions exactly right. It'll still sound great. Having a larger distance between speakers does enhance the separation of the apparent sources of the sounds, though. I.e. it broadens the soundstage.


----------



## esumsea

kbarnes701 said:


> Dolby guidelines say that the overhead ceiling speakers should be in line with the FL and FR main speakers. It's well documented -- see Dolby site for more information. Position the ceiling speakers according to the following diagram wherever possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following diagram is from Dolby's own website and clearly shows the 4 overhead speakers in line with the mains:


OK, so after reading all the comments above and combining it with what I have learned, it seems that using the FH and RH above their ear level counterparts is only acceptable if they are 30 degrees to 45 degrees (angle 1 in the “view from side” diagram) up from the listener position. This is a little contradictory because many theaters do not employ these angles as I have read doing research on this subject. In fact, a lot of the other angles (especially the ear level part) are not employed in movie theatres but I guess we are talking about ideal setups and best-case scenarios. I do wish there was more of a focus on what would work and not so much the ideal, especially since a lot of things seem to be contradictory if not very confusing to say the least, but I digress.

What I gather dolby is saying is that if you have low ceilings and a large room, you can only get a satisfactory Atmos experience with a TF TR (with maybe a TM) configuration. Am I correct about this? 

Others have commented that they liked the FH RH config better as it produced a more diffuse and wider field, which, in turn could also be enjoyed by others in the room who are not sitting in the optimal position. It is what I was aiming for, and what would be easiest to implement, but I am not going to do it if the results would be unsatisfactory. I was hoping that the ability to add the TM in the future (when the price comes down from the $3K it would cost me now) would make my set-up more viable/justifiable, but it seems an angle of as low as 14 degrees, which is less than half of the required angle, would not provide an adequate height layer. 

I do wonder if, in the future, Heights and Tops will be used together to provide the wider field. I know atmos has many more channels which can be used, which is why I will still wire those FH and RH locations even if I do end up cutting into the ceiling and putting in the TR and TF speakers. Considering this, the TF & TR should be place in line with the front and rear speakers, basically against the wall? If not the field would be an hourglass.


----------



## satboy

talbain said:


> when you're setting up the speakers, i don't recall seeing any designation for "atmos vs dtsx vs auro". just heights vs tops. if you have prime elevations and wall or ceiling mount them, they'd be heights. FHL/FHR + RHL/RHR. then run audyssey and you're good


There are two options (see picture), one option is Height Speaker and the other is Dolby Speaker. 

Which is best for general use or for Atmos enabled material? I don't want to be switching between the two etc. 

Whats the difference?

I have 2 front and 2 rear heights.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Much overthinking goes on with regard to Atmos. The majority of people will be just fine if they designate their speakers as TF+TR, even if they are physically in the FH+RH locations (or vice-versa if they prefer). As you say, it is very forgiving and small deviations from the guidelines makes pretty much no significant difference. Way back in this thread, when Atmos was new, there was tons of experimentation with designations and locations, but as it has all settled down the consensus is that a) it is hard to get Atmos wrong, b) the guidelines are just that: guidelines, c) some Atmos is preferable to no Atmos, d) compromise as required and do not let perfect become the enemy of good.



Keith...this should be a "sticky" for the uninitiated and OCD among us!


----------



## talbain

satboy said:


> There are two options (see picture), one option is Height Speaker and the other is Dolby Speaker.
> 
> Which is best for general use or for Atmos enabled material? I don't want to be switching between the two etc.
> 
> Whats the difference?
> 
> I have 2 front and 2 rear heights.


height option is for wall or ceiling mounted speakers that fire downward. dolby speaker is for the patented ones that sit on top of your fronts/rears and fire towards the ceiling. in my experience, heights are vastly superior, but the setting is dependent upon what speakers you actually own. just curious, what avr do you have? on denon they have some pretty foolproof illustrations that walk you through the setup and the proper settings for your specific config


----------



## esumsea

pasender91 said:


> Of course, the alignement rule can be broken in several cases ...
> - If your room is narrow and front speakers are almost in the corners, then the H or T speakers can be IN from alignment
> - if your room is wide and front speakers are on each side of a small TV, then the H or T speakers can be OUT from alignment
> 
> To be honest i always questioned the validity of this rule in my mind.
> I think they made it to keep things simple, but it is not always optimal, not even mentioning non-rectangular rooms ...
> 1/3 and 2/3 of the width seems much more logical





Selden Ball said:


> As has often been pointed out in this thread, you don't have to frustrate about getting the angles and positions exactly right. It'll still sound great. Having a larger distance between speakers does enhance the separation of the apparent sources of the sounds, though. I.e. it broadens the soundstage.





kbarnes701 said:


> Agreed. Much overthinking goes on with regard to Atmos. The majority of people will be just fine if they designate their speakers as TF+TR, even if they are physically in the FH+RH locations (or vice-versa if they prefer). As you say, it is very forgiving and small deviations from the guidelines makes pretty much no significant difference. Way back in this thread, when Atmos was new, there was tons of experimentation with designations and locations, but as it has all settled down the consensus is that a) it is hard to get Atmos wrong, b) the guidelines are just that: guidelines, c) some Atmos is preferable to no Atmos, d) compromise as required and do not let perfect become the enemy of good.


Sorry, I was writing my post and these comments where posted that directly relate to my post above.
I would say that it would make sense to keep the left and right aligned throughout the room. Frankly, other than dealing with room acoustics, I never understood why the left and right are so "in" from the walls in dolby's suggestions. I have read and seen people justify this paced on micing techniques, but as an ex-sound engineer, I know there are many micing techniques to get a stereo field and it you cross the mics in an X you would get a 45 degree angle to the MLP or mics, in this case. Also, as an audiologist, I know that the ideal listening field for testing our ability to hear and localize is at ear level and employing 8 speakers spaced at 45 degrees all the way around (Google "r-space"). So all this conflicting information screams of too many cooks in the kitchen and not a very clear recipe. I just want to cook a satisfactory meal and not twist my melon doing so (as the Happy Mondays would say). How about getting together and coming up with so strict standards AES? I guess it is not feasible when considering politics and economics. 



In the end it seems from what Kbarnes and Selden Ball has posted that I would be fine with my proposed set up? Is it true that it is hard to get it wrong and some atmos is better than no atmos? Is that true even considering that significant cost? 



Once I implement whatever I decide I am NOT cutting into the wall again...


----------



## Selden Ball

esumsea said:


> OK, so after reading all the comments above and combining it with what I have learned, it seems that using the FH and RH above their ear level counterparts is only acceptable if they are 30 degrees to 45 degrees (angle 1 in the “view from side” diagram) up from the listener position. This is a little contradictory because many theaters do not employ these angles as I have read doing research on this subject. In fact, a lot of the other angles (especially the ear level part) are not employed in movie theatres but I guess we are talking about ideal setups and best-case scenarios. I do wish there was more of a focus on what would work and not so much the ideal, especially since a lot of things seem to be contradictory if not very confusing to say the least, but I digress.
> 
> What I gather dolby is saying is that if you have low ceilings and a large room, you can only get a satisfactory Atmos experience with a TF TR (with maybe a TM) configuration. Am I correct about this?


"Satisfactory" is in the ears of the listener, not in a diagram. You're overthinking it.


> Others have commented that they liked the FH RH config better as it produced a more diffuse and wider field, which, in turn could also be enjoyed by others in the room who are not sitting in the optimal position. It is what I was aiming for, and what would be easiest to implement, but I am not going to do it if the results would be unsatisfactory.


You might consider using inexpensive on-ceiling speakers to find out which placement sounds best in your room. Then you can invest the time and money in cutting holes and installing quality in-ceiling speakers.


> I was hoping that the ability to add the TM in the future (when the price comes down from the $3K it would cost me now) would make my set-up more viable/justifiable, but it seems an angle of as low as 14 degrees, which is less than half of the required angle, would not provide an adequate height layer.
> 
> I do wonder if, in the future, Heights and Tops will be used together to provide the wider field.


Pre/pros are already available which can use all 10 of Dolby's suggested overhead locations simultaneously. It's just that they're priced higher than most people can justify.


> I know atmos has many more channels which can be used, which is why I will still wire those FH and RH locations even if I do end up cutting into the ceiling and putting in the TR and TF speakers. Considering this, the TF & TR should be place in line with the front and rear speakers, basically against the wall? If not the field would be an hourglass.


Placing the speakers at the tops of the side walls (which is what I think you're describing) does seem reasonable in your situation. On-wall speakers also are easier to install than in-ceiling speakers.

Also, don't forget that changing a speaker's designation is just a setting in the receiver (or pre/pro). It doesn't require any physical changes in the speaker's location, so it's easy to try the different designations to find out which sounds best in your room.


----------



## talbain

jsgrise said:


> It's been discussed in the DTS:X here that DTS:X nomenclature names the Dolby Atmos speakers as Heights.
> 
> My question is what is the real life negative impact of naming your Top Speakers as Heights when playing back an Atmos track? When playing the Atmos demo, it seems like objects are snapped to the nearest above speakers, so would it make a difference at all?


not sure how accurate this nomenclature is. "dolby atmos" speakers are VERY specific (with dolby patents and licensing to boot) to those speakers which sit on top of existing speakers, have dolby-prescribed (and apparently secretive) frequency specifications and fire upward to reflect off of a ceiling. if you have dolby atmos speakers, they are licensed speakers that sit on top of a platform and fire upwards. you can read the patent here if you're bored https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014107714A1/zh

basically, everything else not covered by this patent is a "height" speaker. wall mount or ceiling mount/in ceiling. so dolby atmos speakers are not height speakers, and height speakers are not dolby atmos speakers


----------



## sdurani

esumsea said:


> How about getting together and coming up with so strict standards AES?


The industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction: the more flexible (less strict) their placement recommendations, the more people will be encouraged to try immersive audio.


----------



## kbarnes701

esumsea said:


> OK, so after reading all the comments above and combining it with what I have learned, it seems that using the FH and RH above their ear level counterparts is only acceptable if they are 30 degrees to 45 degrees (angle 1 in the “view from side” diagram) up from the listener position.


That is the aim. Many cannot achieve it exactly but they still enjoy an excellent Atmos experience. Do not overthink it. Did you worry back in the day if your L & R speakers were at precisely x degrees from MLP? Or that your surrounds conformed precisely to ITU standard locations? Probably not. So why do it with Atmos speakers?



esumsea said:


> This is a little contradictory because many theaters do not employ these angles as I have read doing research on this subject.


That is right. People do the best they can with what they have. It's always been the same in hifi and AV. Atmos hasn't suddenly made precise angles any more important than they have ever been for most people.



esumsea said:


> In fact, a lot of the other angles (especially the ear level part) are not employed in movie theatres but I guess we are talking about ideal setups and best-case scenarios.


Movie theaters are not relevant. Movie theaters have to cater for dozens of rows and an audience of hundreds. This gives them an entirely different set if issues to deal with. It is also why Dolby publish entirely separate guidelines for commercial spaces and the, comparatively, very small home spaces.



esumsea said:


> I do wish there was more of a focus on what would work and not so much the ideal, especially since a lot of things seem to be contradictory if not very confusing to say the least, but I digress.


Read this thread. I know it is long but I suggest you do your best to read as much of it as you can. You will see a consensus emerging from the most knowledgeable and most experienced posters. It can be summed up as:

_Way back in this thread, when Atmos was new, there was tons of experimentation with designations and locations, but as it has all settled down the consensus is that a) it is hard to get Atmos wrong, b) the guidelines are just that: guidelines, c) some Atmos is preferable to no Atmos, d) compromise as required and do not let perfect become the enemy of good.
_



esumsea said:


> What I gather dolby is saying is that if you have low ceilings and a large room, you can only get a satisfactory Atmos experience with a TF TR (with maybe a TM) configuration. Am I correct about this?


No. You will get a satisfying Atmos experience with any overhead combination of speakers you can accommodate, be it TF+TR or FH+RH or just one pair at TM if that is all you can do.



esumsea said:


> Others have commented that they liked the FH RH config better as it produced a more diffuse and wider field, which, in turn could also be enjoyed by others in the room who are not sitting in the optimal position. It is what I was aiming for, and what would be easiest to implement, but I am not going to do it if the results would be unsatisfactory. I was hoping that the ability to add the TM in the future (when the price comes down from the $3K it would cost me now) would make my set-up more viable/justifiable, but it seems an angle of as low as 14 degrees, which is less than half of the required angle, would not provide an adequate height layer.


More important than most other considerations is getting good angular separation between the ear level speakers and the overhead speakers. 14 degrees is not enough to give a convincing overhead effect. I do not agree that FH+RH is the 'better' approach (although it is still better than no Atmos). FDH+RH gives you sounds coming from in front of you and behind you. Atmos is meant to deliver sounds *above* you and for that you need speakers above you, not in front of you and behind you.



esumsea said:


> I do wonder if, in the future, Heights and Tops will be used together to provide the wider field. I know atmos has many more channels which can be used, which is why I will still wire those FH and RH locations even if I do end up cutting into the ceiling and putting in the TR and TF speakers. Considering this, the TF & TR should be place in line with the front and rear speakers, basically against the wall? If not the field would be an hourglass.


As said before, follow the guidelines and the diagrams I posted. The TF+TR should NOT be 'against the wall'. They should be at the angles shown in the diagrams or as close as you can get to them. On the ceiling, at those angles is what will work best.


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottieBoysName said:


> Well crap. I could have sworn I saw it a different way. My fault!
> 
> Ok, so second question, has anyone experimented with a narrower placement?


Oh sure. If the room is very wide, or very narrow, for example, some have found it better to space the overheads differently. All rooms are different so some experimentation is a good thing IMO. Use the guidelines as a starting point and work from there. Listening to the changes, if audible, will bring you to what is best for your situation.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Keith...this should be a "sticky" for the uninitiated and OCD among us!


Thanks. I wish! I hope people don't get fed up with reading it over and over. There are newcomers to the thread all the time and it is understandable they don't want to wade through thousands of pages to find the answers they seek. But it does lead to a fair bit of repetition of what, to us old-timers, has now become accepted as 'best practice'. Those four basic precepts should perhaps be engraved on a tablet of stone. Worked well for that old guy in the past


----------



## kbarnes701

esumsea said:


> In the end it seems from what Kbarnes and Selden Ball has posted that I would be fine with my proposed set up? Is it true that it is hard to get it wrong and some atmos is better than no atmos? Is that true even considering that significant cost?


A senior employee of Dolby said, in my presence in London, "It is very hard to get Atmos wrong". I believe him.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> The industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction: the more flexible (less strict) their placement recommendations, the more people will be encouraged to try immersive audio.


Depends what you mean by industry. From a practical standpoint I agree with you, at least for us hobbyists. perfect not being the enemy of good and all that. And Dolby in particular does have ranges in their advice.

However, two words for you: CEDIA Designer. That's an automated tool (by subscription) for HT designers and integrators that's now a part of the CEDIA organization's web platform. They go for the very precise angular placement. The designs they support for Atmos can be 7.1.4 on up, but their emphasis is high channel count.

https://thecediadesigner.org/


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Depends what you mean by industry. From a practical standpoint I agree with you, at least for us hobbyists. perfect not being the enemy of good and all that. And Dolby in particular does have ranges in their advice.
> 
> However, two words for you: CEDIA Designer. That's an automated tool (by subscription) for HT designers and integrators that's now a part of the CEDIA organization's web platform. They go for the very precise angular placement. The designs they support for Atmos can be 7.1.4 on up, but their emphasis is high channel count.


There's a surprise: that professional installers would want to a) make it complicated and difficult (precise angles) and b) make it vastly expensive (high speaker count).

Next you'll be telling me they don't recommend Pro speakers like JBLs and Tannoys!


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Depends what you mean by industry.


The consumer electronics industry, serving general consumers, not custom installers.


----------



## esumsea

kbarnes701 said:


> That is the aim. Many cannot achieve it exactly but they still enjoy an excellent Atmos experience. Do not overthink it. Did you worry back in the day if your L & R speakers were at precisely x degrees from MLP? Or that your surrounds conformed precisely to ITU standard locations? Probably not. So why do it with Atmos speakers?
> 
> That is right. People do the best they can with what they have. It's always been the same in hifi and AV. Atmos hasn't suddenly made precise angles any more important than they have ever been for most people.
> 
> Movie theaters are not relevant. Movie theaters have to cater for dozens of rows and an audience of hundreds. This gives them an entirely different set if issues to deal with. It is also why Dolby publish entirely separate guidelines for commercial spaces and the, comparatively, very small home spaces.
> 
> Read this thread. I know it is long but I suggest you do your best to read as much of it as you can. You will see a consensus emerging from the most knowledgeable and most experienced posters. It can be summed up as:
> 
> _Way back in this thread, when Atmos was new, there was tons of experimentation with designations and locations, but as it has all settled down the consensus is that a) it is hard to get Atmos wrong, b) the guidelines are just that: guidelines, c) some Atmos is preferable to no Atmos, d) compromise as required and do not let perfect become the enemy of good.
> _
> No. You will get a satisfying Atmos experience with any overhead combination of speakers you can accommodate, be it TF+TR or FH+RH or just one pair at TM if that is all you can do.
> 
> More important than most other considerations is getting good angular separation between the ear level speakers and the overhead speakers. 14 degrees is not enough to give a convincing overhead effect. I do not agree that FH+RH is the 'better' approach (although it is still better than no Atmos). FDH+RH gives you sounds coming from in front of you and behind you. Atmos is meant to deliver sounds *above* you and for that you need speakers above you, not in front of you and behind you.
> 
> As said before, follow the guidelines and the diagrams I posted. The TF+TR should NOT be 'against the wall'. They should be at the angles shown in the diagrams or as close as you can get to them. On the ceiling, at those angles is what will work best.


Thanks Keith. You have brought some sanity back to my life. I realize I am overthinking this, which is unfortunately a trend, and perhaps something I have in common with many here). The perfect can be the enemy of the good or even great. Still I want to try to get this to the best situation I can. I am reading this thread, but it is huge!

I do understand and agree with most of what you say. I do wonder if you can get an overhead sound much like you can get a center sound from a stereo set of speakers. In my computer, as well as when I was a master engineer, I have/had an equilateral listening space and when I am in the correct spot I can get a pretty good stereo image where things sound to left, right and center (as they should be). Why can't we get an overhead sound if a time and phase calibrated system plays the desired sound equally (or at least providing an equal level after room calibration factors are used) to the MLP at the same time? Why would the angle have to be 30 degrees to accomplish this? This is where I believe adding that TM would perfectly tie everything in. Unfortunately I cannot justify spending so much on an AVR. I wish I could do it some other way, but I don't see a receiver that will let you so this under $3k. 

Also, I just realized that due to window placement and my wife (she is short and also design conscious (can't have a speaker in front of the bottom of the window)) my ear level will be at 35-36". I actually remeasured and if my back was inclined against the back of the couch, I would be at ~ 36" as well. If fully upright I would be at 39" (I am 5'-8"). So, this actually changes my angles a bit. 

First, and perhaps more importantly, now the height speakers will be at least 2X above the ear level speakers (the side and rears may be slightly higher at 42-44"). 

I now get a 17.35 degree angle up if measured diagonally to the source (which makes the distance 12.8 ft), or a 21.8 degree angle up, if just measuring how far back the speaker will be without factoring also how far it is to the left or right. Again, much lower than 30, but it's getting better. The front angles don't change much to 14 degrees or 16 degrees up measuring to the actual speaker placement or to the front of the room. While I wish the angles are just how far to the front or back the speakers are, I believe dolby means to the actual speaker placement, which of course, creates a longer distance and a shallower angle the speaker.


----------



## galonzo

esumsea said:


> This is a little contradictory because many theaters do not employ these angles as I have read doing research on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right. People do the best they can with what they have. It's always been the same in hifi and AV. Atmos hasn't suddenly made precise angles any more important than they have ever been for most people.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a lot of the other angles (especially the ear level part) are not employed in movie theatres but I guess we are talking about ideal setups and best-case scenarios.
Click to expand...



kbarnes701 said:


> Movie theaters are not relevant. Movie theaters have to cater for dozens of rows and an audience of hundreds. This gives them an entirely different set if issues to deal with. It is also why Dolby publish entirely separate guidelines for commercial spaces and the, comparatively, very small home spaces.



Besides placement, the theater Atmos mix is re-done for BR (home) distribution, specifically for in-home Atmos decoding; thus the Dolby in-home Atmos setup guidelines as well


----------



## Chirosamsung

esumsea said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby guidelines say that the overhead ceiling speakers should be in line with the FL and FR main speakers. It's well documented -- see Dolby site for more information. Position the ceiling speakers according to the following diagram wherever possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following diagram is from Dolby's own website and clearly shows the 4 overhead speakers in line with the mains:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so after reading all the comments above and combining it with what I have learned, it seems that using the FH and RH above their ear level counterparts is only acceptable if they are 30 degrees to 45 degrees (angle 1 in the “view from side” diagram) up from the listener position. This is a little contradictory because many theaters do not employ these angles as I have read doing research on this subject. In fact, a lot of the other angles (especially the ear level part) are not employed in movie theatres but I guess we are talking about ideal setups and best-case scenarios. I do wish there was more of a focus on what would work and not so much the ideal, especially since a lot of things seem to be contradictory if not very confusing to say the least, but I digress.
> 
> What I gather dolby is saying is that if you have low ceilings and a large room, you can only get a satisfactory Atmos experience with a TF TR (with maybe a TM) configuration. Am I correct about this?
> 
> Others have commented that they liked the FH RH config better as it produced a more diffuse and wider field, which, in turn could also be enjoyed by others in the room who are not sitting in the optimal position. It is what I was aiming for, and what would be easiest to implement, but I am not going to do it if the results would be unsatisfactory. I was hoping that the ability to add the TM in the future (when the price comes down from the $3K it would cost me now) would make my set-up more viable/justifiable, but it seems an angle of as low as 14 degrees, which is less than half of the required angle, would not provide an adequate height layer.
> 
> I do wonder if, in the future, Heights and Tops will be used together to provide the wider field. I know atmos has many more channels which can be used, which is why I will still wire those FH and RH locations even if I do end up cutting into the ceiling and putting in the TR and TF speakers. Considering this, the TF & TR should be place in line with the front and rear speakers, basically against the wall? If not the field would be an hourglass.
Click to expand...

I don’t know about this-I’m planning on doing my FH at about a 40 degree angle from MLP and the RH about 10 degrees back from MLP since my couch is only about a foot away from the back wall and the ceiling height is around 7 feet. 

Still think this will be ok...


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> There's a surprise: that professional installers would want to a) make it complicated and difficult (precise angles) and b) make it vastly expensive (high speaker count).
> 
> Next you'll be telling me they don't recommend Pro speakers like JBLs and Tannoys!


Not the CEDIA Designer - you can design a room around a JBL system, or at least an SDP-75 with JBL gear. But at least from a quick check it's things like the M2, not the Pro Cinema stuff you like.


----------



## PioManiac

Here's my 7.1.4 setup (7.1.6 Ready) 13 matched Mission speakers 
Basement man-cave (8 foot ceiling) Ceiling is still open exposed TJI joists










My Yamaha RX-A3070 has Two Speaker Patterns available, 
So the 4 presence speakers are configured as *Overhead* for ATMOS/Dolby Surround (Speaker Pattern 1)
and configured as *Height* for DTS:X/Neural:X (Speaker Pattern 2)

I created several scene (memory slots) so swapping back and forth is a one button press on my remote.

All surround/height Speakers are matched bookshelfs 
Front and Rear Heights on swivel mounts and tilted down and toed toward the MLP





































65"OLED for watching TV, JVC at 120" for "Movie Night"










Front Subs are Funk Audio 18.0's, about 9600w total peak output, Down to 10Hz
(bookshelf units sitting idle on my L/R towers will be moved to Top Center eventually for 7.4.6)










Rear Near Field subs are Velodyne 15's, 
Good down to ~20Hz but the Crowson's take over where the Velo's leave off, right down to 5Hz


----------



## esumsea

Very nice man cave. I see in the ACAD drawing that you considered a MT speaker. Why did you scrap it?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Not the CEDIA Designer - you can design a room around a JBL system, or at least an SDP-75 with JBL gear. But at least from a quick check it's things like the M2, not the Pro Cinema stuff you like.


Ah, the really expensive ones then....


----------



## mrtickleuk

satboy said:


> There are two options (see picture), one option is Height Speaker and the other is Dolby Speaker.
> 
> Which is best for general use or for Atmos enabled material? I don't want to be switching between the two etc.
> 
> Whats the difference?
> 
> I have 2 front and 2 rear heights.


Those options are for the TYPE of speaker. So in that context,
"Height speaker" means "a proper normal speaker which is placed above you". A completely separate topic is whether you then *designate* their positions for the receiver's decoding calculations as "front height/rear height", or "top front/rear front", and see previous discussion about what happens when you do this with Dolby Atmos / DTS:X content and the pros/con. The word "height" in the previous sentence means something different to the word "height" in the first sentence. 

"Dolby speaker", which is a terrible name, really means "a bouncy house speaker" which isn't actually above you: it fires at the ceiling with special DSP filtering applied to its output to help with the "from above" effect. Again, can be used with both Dolby Atmos / DTS:X content. It's a terrible name because of the confusion it causes, exactly as you have found.

Because of that DSP, it's vital that you don't set a proper speaker as a "Dolby-enabled" speaker, and vice versa.

So to answer your question - you don't get to choose (unless you want it to sound completely wrong) as it is not a preference. As you have actual speakers above you, this means you must _not _set your speakers as "Dolby".  HTH!


----------



## Pultzar

Hello everybody!

I'm looking to add Atmos to my theater. It's in an L shaped room about 18' wide and 28' long with 8.5' ceilings. Trying to decide between these speakers:

-JBL SCS 8
-Emotiva Airmotiv E2
-Emotiva Airmotiv E1

The thing I like about the Emotiva is that they are low profile. However I suspect that the JBL will be higher performing?

Thoughts about these or other speakers that I should have on my short list? I saw some mention of Tannoy awhile back but the particular model is no longer available. I'm not super budget constrained within reason.

Cheers,

Pultzar


----------



## PioManiac

esumsea said:


> Very nice man cave. I see in the ACAD drawing that you considered a MT speaker. Why did you scrap it?


I already have the ceiling wired for 7.2.6 and have the matched speakers waiting to go up there.
But Yamaha doesn't have a 7.1.6 processor (yet) like I had hoped for 2018
...and the only other option I would consider is from Marantz 

My 7.2.4 capable Yamaha was only $2K (in Canada)

The Marantz AV8805 I really want (capable of 7.2.6) is $6K 
But that's just a Pre/Pro that still requires External Separate Amplifiers 
(for all 13 channels $$$$)

I can live without Top Middle speakers a little longer 
it is a small room with a single row of 3 seats afterall.


----------



## motodop

55US5800 - TCL 55" Class S-Series 4K UHD LED Roku Smart TV

So i just bought a Denon AVR X4300 and installed a Klipsh 5.1 4 system with 4 ceiling speakers and its turns out that my TCL 55" cannot pass Dolby Atmos from Vudu or any of the apps on this Roku TV.

I am led to belive that TCL offers Dolby Atmos pass-through support in both the 6- and 5-Series but i have nor seen is specifically indicated that the S series cannot pass Atmos.

How can one tell by the specification?

Moto


https://static.helpjuice.com/helpju...71/85598/tcl-65us5800-55us5800-spec-sheet.pdf


----------



## ShermanOlsen

I've searched but have been unable to find any numbers: what extension do the ceiling speakers need to have? That is, how full range do they need to be? I know the bouncy speakers have their low range cut-off. One person commented that the sounds from the overheads seem pretty full range, but has anyone found specs or done measurements to see what's output in Atmos effects? I can only do on-ceiling speakers. The Minx Min 22 -3db is 168 for example, and I'd like to know if I would be missing anything.


----------



## bkeeler10

ShermanOlsen said:


> I've searched but have been unable to find any numbers: what extension do the ceiling speakers need to have? That is, how full range do they need to be? I know the bouncy speakers have their low range cut-off. One person commented that the sounds from the overheads seem pretty full range, but has anyone found specs or done measurements to see what's output in Atmos effects? I can only do on-ceiling speakers. The Minx Min 22 -3db is 168 for example, and I'd like to know if I would be missing anything.


The spec calls for full range speakers I believe. Which in this context means the speakers should be able to cross over to a sub at a reasonable frequency (say, 100 Hz or lower), just like the rest of your speakers. A speaker with extension only to 168 Hz is theoretically not sufficient. Now, whether this is a problem subjectively with current content is another question. Personally, though, I would want a speaker with extension down to 50-60 Hz at least . . .

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve Tack 2

Hi, looking for opinions on my plan to add a pair of height speakers.

I'm looking to add them to my existing 5.1 system for a basic 5.1.2 Atmos setup. Had audio go out on an old Onkyo receiver earlier in the week, so I picked up a new one that supports 5.1.2. So now I'm curious about Atmos.  It's a Sony receiver that supposedly adds two phantom channels for a simulated 7.1.2 setup, but I can guess that's mostly BS.

My room is pretty small and I'm limited on where I can put more speakers, but I was thinking I could pick up a pair of those SVS Prime Elevations and put them up front with the angled part facing downward.

I could instead try to somehow mount down-firing ceiling speakers on the ceiling if that's better, but it would be more difficult to mount and run wires (and could look kind of weird; it's a small family room and not a dedicated home theater). There's no real access from above and the slightly vaulted ceiling doesn't help.

Does my idea sound decent?

Unfortunately my original AVS Forum account from 2001 is unavailable since I've been too inactive lately, so I had to create a new account that isn't able to post attachments or links yet. So I can't include the side view sketch I made. I'll try to describe it:

* Room is 14' deep
* Walls are 8' high
* The slightly vaulted ceiling goes up to 10' in the middle
* Listening position is roughly 10' from the front
* Front mains are 3' high if that matters (four small woofers vertically and a tweeter on top)
* Angle between mains and SVS height speakers to listening position would end up around 30-35 degrees I'd guess


----------



## Steve Tack 2

Steve Tack 2 said:


> Hi, looking for opinions on my plan to add a pair of height speakers.
> 
> I'm looking to add them to my existing 5.1 system for a basic 5.1.2 Atmos setup. Had audio go out on an old Onkyo receiver earlier in the week, so I picked up a new one that supports 5.1.2. So now I'm curious about Atmos.  It's a Sony receiver that supposedly adds two phantom channels for a simulated 7.1.2 setup, but I can guess that's mostly BS.
> 
> My room is pretty small and I'm limited on where I can put more speakers, but I was thinking I could pick up a pair of those SVS Prime Elevations and put them up front with the angled part facing downward.
> 
> I could instead try to somehow mount down-firing ceiling speakers on the ceiling if that's better, but it would be more difficult to mount and run wires (and could look kind of weird; it's a small family room and not a dedicated home theater). There's no real access from above and the slightly vaulted ceiling doesn't help.
> 
> Does my idea sound decent?
> 
> Unfortunately my original AVS Forum account from 2001 is unavailable since I've been too inactive lately, so I had to create a new account that isn't able to post attachments or links yet. So I can't include the side view sketch I made. I'll try to describe it:
> 
> * Room is 14' deep
> * Walls are 8' high
> * The slightly vaulted ceiling goes up to 10' in the middle
> * Listening position is roughly 10' from the front
> * Front mains are 3' high if that matters (four small woofers vertically and a tweeter on top)
> * Angle between mains and SVS height speakers to listening position would end up around 30-35 degrees I'd guess


Correction: I guess it did let me attach the file.


----------



## avguyav

Hi, I have a Sony 49" X900E 4K TV and a Thinkpad X1E with Atmos chip built-in. Which soundbar and connection method do you recommend? Currently connecting the laptop to the TV via HDMI 2.0

1. HT-Z9F 
https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/sound-bars/ht-z9f

2 VIZIO 36" 5.1.2 Home Theatre Sound System with Dobly Atmos 
https://www.vizio.com/en-ca/sb36512f6.html

Which one is better? Will there be noticably different in immersion if I get the cheaper VIZIO system? In both cases, I may not use rear speakers.

My bedroom size in a condo is 280cmx380cm.

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

avguyav said:


> Hi, I have a Sony 49" X900E 4K TV and a Thinkpad X1E with Atmos chip built-in. Which soundbar and connection method do you recommend? Currently connecting the laptop to the TV via HDMI 2.0
> 
> 1. HT-Z9F
> https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/sound-bars/ht-z9f
> 
> 2 VIZIO 36" 5.1.2 Home Theatre Sound System with Dolby Atmos
> https://www.vizio.com/en-ca/sb36512f6.html
> 
> Which one is better? Will there be noticably different in immersion if I get the cheaper VIZIO system? In both cases, I may not use rear speakers.
> 
> My bedroom size in a condo is 280cmx380cm.
> 
> Thanks.





If you cannot do an adequate Atmos system in your room, I would just skip it altogether. You won't really gain much, especially without having any kind of surround setup either. You're missing the whole Atmos experience and the whole point of immersive sound.


----------



## vicdvp

avguyav said:


> Hi, I have a Sony 49" X900E 4K TV and a Thinkpad X1E with Atmos chip built-in. Which soundbar and connection method do you recommend? Currently connecting the laptop to the TV via HDMI 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> 1. HT-Z9F
> 
> https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/sound-bars/ht-z9f
> 
> 
> 
> 2 VIZIO 36" 5.1.2 Home Theatre Sound System with Dobly Atmos
> 
> https://www.vizio.com/en-ca/sb36512f6.html
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is better? Will there be noticably different in immersion if I get the cheaper VIZIO system? In both cases, I may not use rear speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> My bedroom size in a condo is 280cmx380cm.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.




Like the other poster said, usually to get into “Atmos” setups if it’s some kind of sound bar with a couple of upfiring modules. You have to invest a little more to have a immersive experience. Save your money and just buy a nice stereo setup with a sub at that point. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## esumsea

Getting back to my setup question. I got one person saying that the configuration I was describing, using front and rear height speaker at ceilings at a low angle, though still 2X higher than the ear level, would not give me a Atmos satisfying experience. Some others quoted Keith's "Atmos is hard to get wrong." mantra which implies that I would get a satisfactory experience. I want help in deciding if putting speakers at 30 to 45 degrees to the back and front of the MLP, which would require a lot of work, would give me a vastly superior experience, expecially considering that in the future I would be able to add the top middle speakers at 90 degrees (though 30 degrees up to the right and left). 



Yea or Nay?


----------



## gene4ht

esumsea said:


> Getting back to my setup question. I got one person saying that the configuration I was describing, using front and rear height speaker at ceilings at a low angle, though still 2X higher than the ear level, would not give me a Atmos satisfying experience. Some others quoted *Keith's "Atmos is hard to get wrong." mantra *which implies that I would get a satisfactory experience. I want help in deciding if putting speakers at 30 to 45 degrees to the back and front of the MLP, which would require a lot of work, would give me a vastly superior experience, expecially considering that in the future I would be able to add the top middle speakers at 90 degrees (though 30 degrees up to the right and left).
> 
> 
> 
> Yea or Nay?


Keith's "mantra" is absolutely on point. The numbers/angles do not have to be precisely "dead on" but within the recommended range. And outside of the range, the further the deviation from the recommendations, the less accurate the results. Also, Keith iterated that some Atmos is better than no Atmos. Each of our speaker types/capabilities, environments and the flexibility to place speakers are different. Therefore, it's literally impossible to for one person to predict the performance of another's setup. Bottom line, we all had to "experiment" with our own set of variables to obtain the optimum performance for our conditions. You will need to experiment as well. Good luck and I know you will be excited and delighted with the results.


----------



## batpig

esumsea said:


> Getting back to my setup question. I got one person saying that the configuration I was describing, using front and rear height speaker at ceilings at a low angle, though still 2X higher than the ear level, would not give me a Atmos satisfying experience. Some others quoted Keith's "Atmos is hard to get wrong." mantra which implies that I would get a satisfactory experience. I want help in deciding if putting speakers at 30 to 45 degrees to the back and front of the MLP, which would require a lot of work, would give me a vastly superior experience, expecially considering that in the future I would be able to add the top middle speakers at 90 degrees (though 30 degrees up to the right and left).


There's a difference between "satisfactory" vs. "ideal". 

A FH+RH setup can still be very satisfying, but that's not mutually exclusive with the idea that having overhead speakers will sound better.

The biggest factor to whether the latter will be "vastly superior" is the effective elevation angle you can achieve with heights. For example, if it's a long skinny room, e.g. 20ft long with 7.5ft-8ft ceilings, and you're sitting 12ft back... do the trigonometry, and if the speakers are only 4 or 4.5ft above ear level but 12ft away you are looking at 18-20 degree elevation for those FH speakers. That's really not enough to get the "over your head" feeling of immersive audio, and in some cases the height sounds may not be easily differentiated and will just sound like the front soundstage is "smeared" upwards on the front wall. Will it still sound good? Sure. But it's far from ideal. In that case, placing a pair of ceiling speakers 4-5 feet in front / behind will be much better for Atmos (or, alternately, if you can't do ceiling speakers, mounting the speakers to the sides as high as possible firing down and across, see image below).

But if it's a smaller room and you're only 8ft away and can get the FH speakers 5ft above ear level, now you're at a 30+ degree elevation angle, and the differentiation between that placement and ceiling speakers won't be as dramatic.

So as with many things in audio, the answer is "it depends".


----------



## esumsea

Thanks Gene4ht and batpig. If I can get those overheads put in without too much pain I think I am going to do it. I too think that it may smear the image (I have done the trig, you may have missed my previous post with all the angles. My angles are 14 to 20 degrees. I don't think they are enough, but if I do wire the other locations I will leave the corner locations for the future. Who knows maybe I will have a X.X.10 set up one day. Now I just have to figure out the least painfull way to acomplisht this. I am thinking of a 1/4" Router, Dremel with an 3/8" depth may allow me to channel the speaker cable if I use 14 gauge. It begins....


----------



## gene4ht

esumsea said:


> Thanks Gene4ht and batpig. If I can get those overheads put in without too much pain I think I am going to do it. I too think that it may smear the image (I have done the trig, you may have missed my previous post with all the angles. My angles are 14 to 20 degrees. I don't think they are enough, but if I do wire the other locations I will leave the corner locations for the future. Who knows maybe I will have a X.X.10 set up one day. *Now I just have to figure out the least painfull way to acomplisht this*. I am thinking of a 1/4" Router, Dremel with an 3/8" depth may allow me to channel the speaker cable if I use 14 gauge. It begins....


For most of us, the reward was well worth the effort! However, do experiment with speaker locations before breaking out the router/dremel. Temporary speaker placement/positioning on ladders, rigging on suspended 2x4's between ladders, friends holding speakers while standing on stools/chairs, whatever it takes creatively will pay off in the end. Again, good luck and have fun experimenting!


----------



## ScottieBoysName

What are some of your favorite scenes/movies so far with Atmos soundtracks? 

I’m about to get my setup completed and I want start a good collection of films to show what Atmos is capable of.


----------



## Chirosamsung

esumsea said:


> Thanks Gene4ht and batpig. If I can get those overheads put in without too much pain I think I am going to do it. I too think that it may smear the image (I have done the trig, you may have missed my previous post with all the angles. My angles are 14 to 20 degrees. I don't think they are enough, but if I do wire the other locations I will leave the corner locations for the future. Who knows maybe I will have a X.X.10 set up one day. Now I just have to figure out the least painfull way to acomplisht this. I am thinking of a 1/4" Router, Dremel with an 3/8" depth may allow me to channel the speaker cable if I use 14 gauge. It begins..../forum/images/smilies/eek.gif


I am in a similar bout but am pretty fixed on doing Atmos 5.1.4 regardless even if it’s not ideal. My room is wider then long (17x13) so effectively I’ll be sitting about 7-7.5 feet from the 75inch and the front 3 speakers. Because the couch is only about a foot and a bit from the back wall and only 7-7.5 feet ceilings my inwall fronts will be about halfway from front speakers to the listener but the back speakers will be only slightly behind me and above (much less then 35-55 angle) and may be slightly above the side surround also near the rear wall and only about 45-50 inches high but slightly above ear level (aiming for 1.25x ear level).

Do you guys think this will still be better then nothing?


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> I am in a similar bout but am pretty fixed on doing Atmos 5.1.4 regardless even if it’s not ideal. My room is wider then long (17x13) so effectively I’ll be sitting about 7-7.5 feet from the 75inch and the front 3 speakers. Because the couch is only about a foot and a bit from the back wall and only 7-7.5 feet ceilings my inwall fronts will be about halfway from front speakers to the listener but the back speakers will be only slightly behind me and above (much less then 35-55 angle) and may be slightly above the side surround also near the rear wall and only about 45-50 inches high but slightly above ear level (aiming for 1.25x ear level).
> 
> Do you guys think this will still be better then nothing?


Yes, it will be much better than nothing 

As long as you can get a pair of overheads in front of you, and a pair behind you, it will sound great. Your ears are less sensitive to precise localization above and behind you, so the fact that the Top Rear may only be 15-20 degrees behind vs. 45 degrees won't be a big deal.


----------



## batpig

ScottieBoysName said:


> What are some of your favorite scenes/movies so far with Atmos soundtracks?
> 
> I’m about to get my setup completed and I want start a good collection of films to show what Atmos is capable of.


The best "quick and dirty" demo scenes are the official Dolby Atmos demo discs, which include some Atmos demos that are optimized to really show off Atmos. Many of these demos are available to download.

In terms of movies/scenes, there will be many responses but here are some of my favorites which have great dynamics, aggressive use of overheads and are good movies too:

- John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic 
- Mad Max Fury Road 
- Ready Player One
- The Matrix 4K remaster
- Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
- Oblivion 4K
- Spider-Man Homecoming
- Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
- Deadpool 4K
- Dredd 4K
- Fury 4K
- Fantastic Beasts
- Pacific Rim 4K

Plus there are some crappy movies that have amazing Atmos mixes if you're willing to sit through them like Power Rangers, The Great Wall, Justice League, etc.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

batpig said:


> The best "quick and dirty" demo scenes are the official Dolby Atmos demo discs, which include some Atmos demos that are optimized to really show off Atmos. Many of these demos are available to download.
> 
> In terms of movies/scenes, there will be many responses but here are some of my favorites which have great dynamics, aggressive use of overheads and are good movies too:
> 
> - John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
> - Mad Max Fury Road
> - Ready Player One
> - The Matrix 4K remaster
> - Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
> - Oblivion 4K
> - Spider-Man Homecoming
> - Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
> - Deadpool 4K
> - Dredd 4K
> - Fury 4K
> - Fantastic Beasts
> - Pacific Rim 4K
> 
> Plus there are some crappy movies that have amazing Atmos mixes if you're willing to sit through them like Power Rangers, The Great Wall, Justice League, etc.


I have most of those, except Oblivion, Spider-Man Homecoming, Hacksaw Ridge, Fantastic Beasts. 

I'm not super interested in those flicks, but I might check them out on sale. Thanks!

Where in the world can I get legit copies of the Atmos discs?


----------



## pasender91

Batpig, you forgot one important movie in your list, Gravity.
It was the first release in Atmos HC, and it is still one of the most impressive


----------



## Selden Ball

ScottieBoysName said:


> I have most of those, except Oblivion, Spider-Man Homecoming, Hacksaw Ridge, Fantastic Beasts.
> 
> I'm not super interested in those flicks, but I might check them out on sale. Thanks!
> 
> Where in the world can I get legit copies of the Atmos discs?


In the past, Dolby's Atmos Demo discs have been available only at major trade shows like CES and CEDIA, where they're given out for free. Some of them have subsequently become available on e-bay.

Some of the Atmos demo video files are available on Dolby's Web site at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html
Some of the Atmos demo video files are available from Vudu.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Selden Ball said:


> In the past, Dolby's Atmos Demo discs have been available only at major trade shows like CES and CEDIA, where they're given out for free. Some of them have subsequently become available on e-bay.
> 
> Some of the Atmos demo video files are available on Dolby's Web site at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html
> Some of the Atmos demo video files are available from Vudu.


Got it. Thanks!


----------



## GoZags13

pasender91 said:


> Batpig, you forgot one important movie in your list, Gravity.
> It was the first release in Atmos HC, and it is still one of the most impressive


Unfortunately you can't buy the atmos version of it at anywhere near a reasonable price. Apple has it on itunes, but of course then you're streaming. Hopefully it'll come out on 4K soon.


----------



## cnebrask

*7.2.4 help with 2 rows of seats*

Looking for some feedback on a 7.2.4 setup (See attached diagram). I have two rows of seating and Rear/back surrounds are in ceiling so i'm sort of confused on the location of the 4 height speakers for atmos - Do i just treat the front middle seat as MLP and put Height speakers in front and behind the first row? And then Rear surrounds behind the 2nd row? Appreciate any feeback.


----------



## GoZags13

cnebrask said:


> Looking for some feedback on a 7.2.4 setup (See attached diagram). I have two rows of seating and Rear/back surrounds are in ceiling so i'm sort of confused on the location of the 4 height speakers for atmos - Do i just treat the front middle seat as MLP and put Height speakers in front and behind the first row? And then Rear surrounds behind the 2nd row? Appreciate any feeback.


First off you'll be hearing that in ceiling rear surrounds don't work as well with atmos because there's no height separation. Assuming there's no alternative, the next best thing is to get distance between the rears and atmos speakers, so that the sound can be somewhat distinctive. With that in mind I would make the front row the MLP and put the atmos speakers in with the proper relationship to that spot. Based on the drawing I'd move the rear surrounds back a bit further if possible.


----------



## cnebrask

GoZags13 said:


> First off you'll be hearing that in ceiling rear surrounds don't work as well with atmos because there's no height separation. Assuming there's no alternative, the next best thing is to get distance between the rears and atmos speakers, so that the sound can be somewhat distinctive. With that in mind I would make the front row the MLP and put the atmos speakers in with the proper relationship to that spot. Based on the drawing I'd move the rear surrounds back a bit further if possible.


Got it, thanks! Should all the height speakers be pointed to the MLP in the first row, or just fire straight down? Also reading that they should be on the same axis as the L and R front channels?


----------



## GoZags13

cnebrask said:


> Got it, thanks! Should all the height speakers be pointed to the MLP in the first row, or just fire straight down? Also reading that they should be on the same axis as the L and R front channels?


What type of speaker are you going with for the atmos? Some have aimable tweeters, others (like RSL) design the whole speaker at an angle (15 degrees if I remember right for RSL). But yes aiming at MLP is good. I know some people do bipolar speakers for greater sound dispersion, but then others argue that when doing more channels having discrete is better. Personnally I just based it on my budget.

As for axis it's more about the height of the ceiling and getting the right angle from MLP to speaker. In general it'll likely be a same/similar axis, but it's not a guarantee. Also I've found that ideal always must sucumb to real, as in joists, pipes, can lights, etc might be in the way. There's a reason you'll want to run calibration software once it's all installed.


----------



## cnebrask

GoZags13 said:


> What type of speaker are you going with for the atmos? Some have aimable tweeters, others (like RSL) design the whole speaker at an angle (15 degrees if I remember right for RSL). But yes aiming at MLP is good. I know some people do bipolar speakers for greater sound dispersion, but then others argue that when doing more channels having discrete is better. Personnally I just based it on my budget.
> 
> As for axis it's more about the height of the ceiling and getting the right angle from MLP to speaker. In general it'll likely be a same/similar axis, but it's not a guarantee. Also I've found that ideal always must sucumb to real, as in joists, pipes, can lights, etc might be in the way. There's a reason you'll want to run calibration software once it's all installed.


Using B&W CCM8.5D for height and rear surround speakers. They have a rotatable baffle so i can angle them in. I think they are dipole. 10' ceiling height.


----------



## gene4ht

ScottieBoysName said:


> What are some of your favorite scenes/movies so far with Atmos soundtracks?
> 
> I’m about to get my setup completed and I want start a good collection of films to show what Atmos is capable of.





pasender91 said:


> Batpig, you forgot one important movie in your list, Gravity.
> It was the first release in Atmos HC, and it is still one of the most impressive


Additionally, there is one other caveat...only the “Diamond Luxe” edition of Gravity contains the Atmos sound track.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...y-diamond-lux-edition-atmos.html#post52191441


----------



## ScottieBoysName

gene4ht said:


> Additionally, there is one other caveat...only the “Diamond Luxe” edition of Gravity contains the Atmos sound track.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...y-diamond-lux-edition-atmos.html#post52191441



Yup. Just picked it up. I bought the non-atmos version originally. It was only $5, so not too bad.


----------



## Josh Z

ScottieBoysName said:


> Yup. Just picked it up.


Where did you get the Diamond Luxe copy? That's been out of print for quite a while.


----------



## fookoo_2010

Josh Z said:


> Where did you get the Diamond Luxe copy? That's been out of print for quite a while.


 One place is Amazon Canada, but it isn't cheap.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Josh Z said:


> Where did you get the Diamond Luxe copy? That's been out of print for quite a while.




eBay. $30.


----------



## andydallas

Ok I got my 4 ceiling speakers installed, 5.1.4, now I went to setup the receiver and assign speakers,,I ran across a video and used it, but it had me set the ceiling speakers as front heights and rear heights (Denon X4400)

When I go to information while playing an atmos dvd, it shows all speakers active, but I am just confused by why "height" instead of tops, is this correct?

any input is appreciated


----------



## Selden Ball

andydallas said:


> Ok I got my 4 ceiling speakers installed, 5.1.4, now I went to setup the receiver and assign speakers,,I ran across a video and used it, but it had me set the ceiling speakers as front heights and rear heights (Denon X4400)
> 
> When I go to information while playing an atmos dvd, it shows all speakers active, but I am just confused by why "height" instead of tops, is this correct?
> 
> any input is appreciated


Designating the front and rear overhead speakers as Heights instead of Tops makes their names compatible with all of the 3D audio formats. Top designations are used only by Atmos.


----------



## andydallas

I might be posting this in the wrong place, but I am lost

When I watch content from the TV itself (Netflix, etc), all is great, but when I am watching content from ATV 4K, even thought it is running through the Denon, I am only getting LF RF speakers active...Do i have something setup wrong with the Denon?


----------



## Slaine

So not sure if this is the right place to post, but here goes...I'm looking to add some Dolby Atmos add-on speakers to my hastily cobbled together family room HT build. I'm using Cambridge Soundworks MC50 bookshelf speakers as my mains, Polk Signature S35 as my center and Polk in ceiling RT-70's as my surround/surround back speakers. Receiver is the Yahama RX-V683.

Anyway, I'm thinking of placing the Atmos add-on speakers on top of some book shelf units (see screenshot) that my mains currently sit in. Ceilings are 9ft I believe, so I think they'd do a reasonable job reflectivity wise from that height. Not looking for perfection here obviously, just to add a little extra dimensionality to the sound.

Does anyone see any major issues with that approach? Or have specific speaker recommendations? I will say my wife scowled when I mentioned extra speakers, so I need these things to be as unobtrusive as possible. Any feedback would be welcome - thx.


----------



## Josh Z

Slaine said:


> So not sure if this is the right place to post, but here goes...I'm looking to add some Dolby Atmos add-on speakers to my hastily cobbled together family room HT build. I'm using Cambridge Soundworks MC50 bookshelf speakers as my mains, Polk Signature S35 as my center and Polk in ceiling RT-70's as my surround/surround back speakers. Receiver is the Yahama RX-V683.
> 
> Anyway, I'm thinking of placing the Atmos add-on speakers on top of some book shelf units (see screenshot) that my mains currently sit in. Ceilings are 9ft I believe, so I think they'd do a reasonable job reflectivity wise from that height. Not looking for perfection here obviously, just to add a little extra dimensionality to the sound.
> 
> Does anyone see any major issues with that approach? Or have specific speaker recommendations? I will say my wife scowled when I mentioned extra speakers, so I need these things to be as unobtrusive as possible. Any feedback would be welcome - thx.


If your current surround speakers are in-ceiling, you're going to get confusion between sounds from the Atmos modules bouncing off the ceiling and sounds from the surround speakers (which are supposed to be below that) being at the same level.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get much benefit from adding more speakers in this scenario. IMO.


----------



## Slaine

Josh Z said:


> If your current surround speakers are in-ceiling, you're going to get confusion between sounds from the Atmos modules bouncing off the ceiling and sounds from the surround speakers (which are supposed to be below that) being at the same level.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think you'll get much benefit from adding more speakers in this scenario. IMO.


Gotcha. Sounds like the height of the rears is what will complicate matters. No worries - I'll pass on the speakers for that room and redirect that money to the main 7.4.2 atmos buildout in the media room directly overhead


----------



## Selden Ball

andydallas said:


> I might be posting this in the wrong place, but I am lost
> 
> When I watch content from the TV itself (Netflix, etc), all is great, but when I am watching content from ATV 4K, even thought it is running through the Denon, I am only getting LF RF speakers active...Do i have something setup wrong with the Denon?


You'd probably be better served by asking in the thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-n...6-apple-tv-os-12-update-adds-dolby-atmos.html

However, my understanding is that if "Atmos" is enabled in the ATV 4K, it does inappropriate things to non-Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## mdbunting

I am currently remodeling an area of my basement to be a semi-dedicated (somewhat open on one side) theater room with Atmos 7.2.4. I'm debating on if I should go ahead and put in 2 more overhead speakers while I still have the holes in my ceiling/drywall from my other work? The room is 20x15. The spacing would be about 5 feet between each speaker on the ceiling (from front to back). Overhead speakers are RSL C34Es. 

Does my space really "need" the 2 additional overhead speakers? Guess I could just do the wiring/cables for now and have it ready to go if/when the time comes...but I'd almost rather go ahead and do it all now and be done with it 

Thoughts? What would you do?


----------



## kbarnes701

mdbunting said:


> I am currently remodeling an area of my basement to be a semi-dedicated (somewhat open on one side) theater room with Atmos 7.2.4. I'm debating on if I should go ahead and put in 2 more overhead speakers while I still have the holes in my ceiling/drywall from my other work? The room is 20x15. The spacing would be about 5 feet between each speaker on the ceiling (from front to back). Overhead speakers are RSL C34Es.
> 
> Does my space really "need" the 2 additional overhead speakers? Guess I could just do the wiring/cables for now and have it ready to go if/when the time comes...but I'd almost rather go ahead and do it all now and be done with it
> 
> Thoughts? What would you do?


Wire for it now, decide later. Wire is cheap and easy to install during the build. Hard to install later.

IMO 4 speakers over your head will always beat two. Two give you lateral panning, four give you that plus front to back panning.

I may be reading your post wrong. If you are asking if you should wire for 6 overhead speakers, my answer would probably be no, unless you have a long room and are planning multiple rows of seats. even then, wire is cheap, so you could wire for it and then decide later. In my room I have prewired for 9.x.6 although I am currently using 7.x.4 and have no plans to go any further. If I did decide to add more speakers, Wides would take preference over more overheads since I only have a single row of seating.


----------



## mdbunting

kbarnes701 said:


> Wire for it now, decide later. Wire is cheap and easy to install during the build. Hard to install later.
> 
> IMO 4 speakers over your head will always beat two. Two give you lateral panning, four give you that plus front to back panning.
> 
> I may be reading your post wrong. If you are asking if you should wire for 6 overhead speakers, my answer would probably be no, unless you have a long room and are planning multiple rows of seats. even then, wire is cheap, so you could wire for it and then decide later. In my room I have prewired for 9.x.6 although I am currently using 7.x.4 and have no plans to go any further. If I did decide to add more speakers, Wides would take preference over more overheads since I only have a single row of seating.


Thanks for the quick help/thoughts! I went ahead and went for it and already have the holes cut out for 2 more overheads...I know it will probably be overkill/no benefit...but hey, it's there now! Needed to get in the wall/ceilings again anyway to get one of my rear speakers wired correctly anyway, so figured why not  I'm set for 9.x.6. just in case!


----------



## gene4ht

mdbunting said:


> Thanks for the quick help/thoughts! I went ahead and went for it and already have the holes cut out for 2 more overheads...I know it will probably be overkill/no benefit...but hey, it's there now! Needed to get in the wall/ceilings again anyway to get one of my rear speakers wired correctly anyway, so figured why not  I'm set for 9.x.6. just in case!



I'm in overall agreement with Keith's rationale and comments. However, I have two rows of seating and preinstalled 3 pairs (6 speakers) of overheads at the dawn of Atmos. I do not yet have the capability (AVR/processor) to utilize all three pairs. However, I can and do experiment with prioritizing the first row, second row, or both rows which is something you may want to try as well if you have or are planning on multiple rows of seating.


----------



## Victor_S

Hi!


I'm a little confuse about the 5.1.4 configuration. I downloaded two PDF files from dolby site, in one the top rear are before back surround, in the other file are after back surround.

Wich is the correct place for top rear atmos? Or only is more import the angule from the MLP?


Many thanks!


----------



## Selden Ball

Victor_S said:


> Hi!
> 
> 
> I'm a little confuse about the 5.1.4 configuration. I downloaded two PDF files from dolby site, in one the top rear are before back surround, in the other file are after back surround.
> 
> Wich is the correct place for top rear atmos? Or only is more import the angule from the MLP?
> 
> 
> Many thanks!


Remember that there is no one exactly correct position for any of the speakers. There are ranges of acceptable angles for each of them. Those two pictures just happen to show the speakers at different positions within those acceptable ranges. Where you place your speakers is going to be determined by the shape of your room and the location of your seating.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Size of in-ceiling speakers with low ceiling*

I have the option of getting either 4 monitor audio CT265IDC or CT280IDC at the same price for in ceiling speakers. The only difference between the two is that the 280 are slightly bigger since they have a 8 inch bass driver instead of the 6.5 inch of the 265 (both have 4 inch mid range driver and an inch tweeter) Since my ceilings will only be 7-7.5 high only and the rear surrounds will be less then the recommended distance behind me since couch close to rear wall, is it recommended that I actually go with the SMALLER speaker with the smaller bass driver to avoid hot spotting or overkill with the small space? Or is it better to stay with the bigger bass driver at same cost even if low ceiling?


----------



## gene4ht

Chirosamsung said:


> I have the option of getting either 4 monitor audio CT265IDC or CT280IDC at the same price for in ceiling speakers. The only difference between the two is that the 280 are slightly bigger since they have a 8 inch bass driver instead of the 6.5 inch of the 265 (both have 4 inch mid range driver and an inch tweeter) Since my ceilings will only be 7-7.5 high only and the rear surrounds will be less then the recommended distance behind me since couch close to rear wall, is it recommended that I actually go with the SMALLER speaker with the smaller bass driver to avoid hot spotting or overkill with the small space? *Or is it better to stay with the bigger bass driver at same cost even if low ceiling?*



All things being equal, I would personally go with the larger driver. In most instances, there will likely be no noticeable differences while listening to 3D (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro) material. The advantage of the larger driver is that can potentially play louder especially useful for larger rooms.


----------



## Chirosamsung

gene4ht said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the option of getting either 4 monitor audio CT265IDC or CT280IDC at the same price for in ceiling speakers. The only difference between the two is that the 280 are slightly bigger since they have a 8 inch bass driver instead of the 6.5 inch of the 265 (both have 4 inch mid range driver and an inch tweeter) Since my ceilings will only be 7-7.5 high only and the rear surrounds will be less then the recommended distance behind me since couch close to rear wall, is it recommended that I actually go with the SMALLER speaker with the smaller bass driver to avoid hot spotting or overkill with the small space? *Or is it better to stay with the bigger bass driver at same cost even if low ceiling?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All things being equal, I would personally go with the larger driver. In most instances, there will likely be no noticeable differences while listening to 3D (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro) material. The advantage of the larger driver is that can potentially play louder especially useful for larger rooms.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response-although my room opens to another is is only around 1500sq ft
13x17 with 7-7.5 feet ceilings. As long as the bigger drivers aren’t a liability in a low ceiling and small room then I guess I’ll go with that...


----------



## Jonas2

Chirosamsung said:


> Thanks for the response-although my room opens to another is is only around 1500sq ft
> 13x17 with 7-7.5 feet ceilings. As long as the bigger drivers aren’t a liability in a low ceiling and small room then I guess I’ll go with that...



FWIW, I've got a similar room - 13 x 16 x 8, so the ceiling is higher than yours - but I've got 8" speakers and at least in their location in my ceiling they blend well, hard to localize them. Will the one foot height difference between our spaces change that for you? Dunno!


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jonas2 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response-although my room opens to another is is only around 1500sq ft
> 13x17 with 7-7.5 feet ceilings. As long as the bigger drivers aren’t a liability in a low ceiling and small room then I guess I’ll go with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I've got a similar room - 13 x 16 x 8, so the ceiling is higher than yours - but I've got 8" speakers and at least in their location in my ceiling they blend well, hard to localize them. Will the one foot height difference between our spaces change that for you? Dunno!
Click to expand...

I wonder how much going from 6.5 to 8 inch in the bass driver would change the localization anyways...hopefully it won’t sound too boomy


----------



## gene4ht

Chirosamsung said:


> I wonder how much going from 6.5 to 8 inch in the bass driver would change the localization anyways...hopefully it won’t sound too boomy


I, too, have 8" speakers with 7'-8" ceilings...with no ill effects.

Localization is more related to the dispersion characteristics of the speaker and boominess to the speaker's proximity to boundaries. For the vast majority of 3D sound content, boominess is generally not a concern as bass is the domain of the subwoofer. Thus far, 3D sound content has been things like rain, wind, rustling leaves, insects, birds, etc. Thunder, car engines, aircraft, explosions, etc. are in the sub's arena.


----------



## Chirosamsung

gene4ht said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much going from 6.5 to 8 inch in the bass driver would change the localization anyways...hopefully it won’t sound too boomy
> 
> 
> 
> I, too, have 8" speakers with 7'-8" ceilings...with no ill effects.
> 
> Localization is more related to the dispersion characteristics of the speaker and boominess to the speaker's proximity to boundaries. For the vast majority of 3D sound content, boominess is generally not a concern as bass is the domain of the subwoofer. Thus far, 3D sound content has been things like rain, wind, rustling leaves, insects, birds, etc. Thunder, car engines, aircraft, explosions, etc. are in the sub's arena.
Click to expand...

Ok sounds like 8inch isn’t a problem. It might be redundant though vs the 6.5 inch as it is only the bass driver that is bigger in the 8 inch one vs the 6.5 inch and since they both have 4 inch mid range drivers and 1 inch tweeters and I believe that would be where 95% of the sound comes from in ceiling speakers for someone who has subs


----------



## Victor_S

Selden Ball said:


> Remember that there is no one exactly correct position for any of the speakers. There are ranges of acceptable angles for each of them. Those two pictures just happen to show the speakers at different positions within those acceptable ranges. Where you place your speakers is going to be determined by the shape of your room and the location of your seating.





Many thanks Selden.


Probably the d2 image (surround back after atmos) are more for my room, becuase is almost square (sadly because I know is better a rectangle room).


I only have aprx. 3 feet from the wall to de MLP, so atmos after the surrounds (d1 image) are more difficult to get it.


I'll try with that configuration and the range os acceptable angles.


Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> I have the option of getting either 4 monitor audio CT265IDC or CT280IDC at the same price for in ceiling speakers. The only difference between the two is that the 280 are slightly bigger since they have a 8 inch bass driver instead of the 6.5 inch of the 265 (both have 4 inch mid range driver and an inch tweeter) Since my ceilings will only be 7-7.5 high only and the rear surrounds will be less then the recommended distance behind me since couch close to rear wall, is it recommended that I actually go with the SMALLER speaker with the smaller bass driver to avoid hot spotting or overkill with the small space? Or is it better to stay with the bigger bass driver at same cost even if low ceiling?


You can mitigate the impact of hot-spotting by 'energy trading'. This is where you aim the leftmost speaker at the rightmost listener and the rightmost speaker at the leftmost listener. All speakers are loudest when directly on axis and the sound level from all speakers diminishes with distance. So with this technique you aim the *left *speaker at the *right *listener (position) - by thus making it on axis, this compensates for the greater distance between listener and speaker while at the same time, the rightmost listener is sitting off axis so there is a greatly reduced tendency to hotspot, and the fact that this listener is closer to the speaker but off axis balances out the level. Same for the right speaker of course. The listener sitting directly between the two speakers (you!) is not affected as he is equidistant from both speakers. It's a free fix - give it a try!


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the option of getting either 4 monitor audio CT265IDC or CT280IDC at the same price for in ceiling speakers. The only difference between the two is that the 280 are slightly bigger since they have a 8 inch bass driver instead of the 6.5 inch of the 265 (both have 4 inch mid range driver and an inch tweeter) Since my ceilings will only be 7-7.5 high only and the rear surrounds will be less then the recommended distance behind me since couch close to rear wall, is it recommended that I actually go with the SMALLER speaker with the smaller bass driver to avoid hot spotting or overkill with the small space? Or is it better to stay with the bigger bass driver at same cost even if low ceiling?
> 
> 
> 
> You can mitigate the impact of hot-spotting by 'energy trading'. This is where you aim the leftmost speaker at the rightmost listener and the rightmost speaker at the leftmost listener. All speakers are loudest when directly on axis and the sound level from all speakers diminishes with distance. So with this technique you aim the *left *speaker at the *right *listener (position) - by thus making it on axis, this compensates for the greater distance between listener and speaker while at the same time, the rightmost listener is sitting off axis so there is a greatly reduced tendency to hotspot, and the fact that this listener is closer to the speaker but off axis balances out the level. Same for the right speaker of course. The listener sitting directly between the two speakers (you!) is not affected as he is equidistant from both speakers. It's a free fix - give it a try!
Click to expand...

I will definitely give that a try-thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> I will definitely give that a try-thanks for the suggestion!


You're welcome. It's a proven technique. I've used it very successfully and a lot of members here have also. Shout-out from me goes to @sdurani for originally sharing the idea with me some years ago.


----------



## schwock5

Due to a recent sale I was able to pickup 4 Klipsch rp500sa's to finish my Atmos / DTS:X system.

While I do have high ceilings (12ft), i have exposed beams and pipes running across it so i can't do up firing (also not sure if i'd want to since i haven't heard a lot of support for it). I can't install ceiling speakers (renting, also no ceiling to install them in) so I think these 4 speakers installed at the top of the wall angle-fired down at the listening position is best i can do.

I can upload some pictures of the listening space later, but my thought was to install 2 in the rear top corners angled down towards the MLP (sound would be coming from the back sides like my surrounds). My couch is 2-3 ft from the wall, so putting them on the back wall i feel like it would angle them in front of the main listening position, whereas on the sides would provide the sound field above and slightly behind the MLP).

For the fronts they would go on the front wall above the main L/F at the top and then slightly angled in?

I think this has been brought up multiples times and maybe i'm beating a dead horse, but any advice/feedback?
I know there's been discussion between setting your receiver to use them as heights vs atmos.

Since i won't be able to install these right away (need a good ladder and a helping hand), i'll get my wire cut and start with these as upfiring (just to get an idea of how it compares), but before i start running wire through my walls and getting these up i wanted to finalize the position they'd be in.

Any advice from you guys?


----------



## Jonas2

kbarnes701 said:


> You can mitigate the impact of hot-spotting by 'energy trading'. This is where you aim the leftmost speaker at the rightmost listener and the rightmost speaker at the leftmost listener. All speakers are loudest when directly on axis and the sound level from all speakers diminishes with distance. So with this technique you aim the *left *speaker at the *right *listener (position) - by thus making it on axis, this compensates for the greater distance between listener and speaker while at the same time, the rightmost listener is sitting off axis so there is a greatly reduced tendency to hotspot, and the fact that this listener is closer to the speaker but off axis balances out the level. Same for the right speaker of course. The listener sitting directly between the two speakers (you!) is not affected as he is equidistant from both speakers. It's a free fix - give it a try!



AMEN! I will provide testimony to this as well. With the misfortune due to room circumstances of having one side surround very close to the listeners, this technique really helped, especially at the MLP.


----------



## kbarnes701

schwock5 said:


> Due to a recent sale I was able to pickup 4 Klipsch rp500sa's to finish my Atmos / DTS:X system.
> 
> While I do have high ceilings (12ft), i have exposed beams and pipes running across it so i can't do up firing (also not sure if i'd want to since i haven't heard a lot of support for it). I can't install ceiling speakers (renting, also no ceiling to install them in) so I think these 4 speakers installed at the top of the wall angle-fired down at the listening position is best i can do.
> 
> I can upload some pictures of the listening space later, but my thought was to install 2 in the rear top corners angled down towards the MLP (sound would be coming from the back sides like my surrounds). My couch is 2-3 ft from the wall, so putting them on the back wall i feel like it would angle them in front of the main listening position, whereas on the sides would provide the sound field above and slightly behind the MLP).
> 
> For the fronts they would go on the front wall above the main L/F at the top and then slightly angled in?
> 
> I think this has been brought up multiples times and maybe i'm beating a dead horse, but any advice/feedback?
> I know there's been discussion between setting your receiver to use them as heights vs atmos.
> 
> Since i won't be able to install these right away (need a good ladder and a helping hand), i'll get my wire cut and start with these as upfiring (just to get an idea of how it compares), but before i start running wire through my walls and getting these up i wanted to finalize the position they'd be in.
> 
> Any advice from you guys?


You can install two at the front, high up on the wall and set them as FH and two at the rear, high up on the wall and set them as RH. I'd avoid the corners personally and set them to be in line with your main L&R speakers, as per DOlby guidelines. Set them as FH+RH in your AVR and you are good to go.

Using the Atmos overhead speakers in this way is not as good as mounting them on the ceiling above you, IMO, since the sounds will come from 'in front-above and behind-above' you rather than just 'above you' but FH+RH is a perfectly valid Dolby Atmos configuration and almost certainly better than no Atmos at all.

One caveat, which I doubt applies to you with your high ceiling, but you do need good angular separation from the mains and surrounds. Follow this diagram to guide you on that score.











As you can see, the recommended angle from MLP to the FH and RH is 30-45 degrees (FH) and 135-150 degrees (RH). I suspect you will be able to meet these angles for the FH but maybe not for the RH. In that case, I'd still go ahead with a compromised RH position since, as I say, some Atmos will always beat no Atmos. Ensure that there is good angular separation between the surrounds (especially the rear surrounds) and you will still be OK.


----------



## schwock5

kbarnes701 said:


> You can install two at the front, high up on the wall and set them as FH and two at the rear, high up on the wall and set them as RH. I'd avoid the corners personally and set them to be in line with your main L&R speakers, as per DOlby guidelines. Set them as FH+RH in your AVR and you are good to go.
> 
> Using the Atmos overhead speakers in this way is not as good as mounting them on the ceiling above you, IMO, since the sounds will come from 'in front-above and behind-above' you rather than just 'above you' but FH+RH is a perfectly valid Dolby Atmos configuration and almost certainly better than no Atmos at all.
> 
> One caveat, which I doubt applies to you with your high ceiling, but you do need good angular separation from the mains and surrounds. Follow this diagram to guide you on that score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the recommended angle from MLP to the FH and RH is 30-45 degrees (FH) and 135-150 degrees (RH). I suspect you will be able to meet these angles for the FH but maybe not for the RH. In that case, I'd still go ahead with a compromised RH position since, as I say, some Atmos will always beat no Atmos. Ensure that there is good angular separation between the surrounds (especially the rear surrounds) and you will still be OK.


Thanks for the response!

Because of the angle, that's why i was thinking maybe move the speakers to the sides facing behind the listening positions.

I don't know a ton about aural psychology and what not, but if the tweeter is positioned/angled to the same spot behind the MLP would a difference even be noticed?
I figured the sides would provide a much higher up placement (and still be behind the listening position) to label as rear height and provide more of the over-head effect more accurately.
They wouldn't be MH or Sides, but actually RH.

In your diagram on the right, it essentially would be above the SL and SR speakers but 12 feet up


----------



## schwock5

This kind of brings up another question.

I find it interesting that if using 4 "up firing" speakers per the guidelines, then if you had your rear speakers in a 5.1 configuration they'd be to the sides and slightly behind the position.
The up firing modules would be on top of those SL/SR speakers. All i'd be doing is moving those 12 feet up and firing down from a different angle.

If the true atmos guideline is to be directly behind and angled down, then why wouldn't the up firing guidance for the rear be to up fired from behind the listening position? seems like a disconnect...


----------



## schwock5

Also for the fronts, since my fronts are "toed in", should the heights be "toed in" as well?


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> I have the option of getting either 4 monitor audio CT265IDC or CT280IDC at the same price for in ceiling speakers. The only difference between the two is that the 280 are slightly bigger since they have a 8 inch bass driver instead of the 6.5 inch of the 265 (both have 4 inch mid range driver and an inch tweeter) Since my ceilings will only be 7-7.5 high only and the rear surrounds will be less then the recommended distance behind me since couch close to rear wall, is it recommended that I actually go with the SMALLER speaker with the smaller bass driver to avoid hot spotting or overkill with the small space? Or is it better to stay with the bigger bass driver at same cost even if low ceiling?


The biggest issue with low ceilings is not going to be woofer size, it's going to be DISPERSION and how that relates to covering the seating area.

The lower the ceiling, the steeper the angle from the speaker to the listening area, so the speaker either has to have very wide dispersion or it has to be angled so you can aim it towards the seating area. This is especially true if you have multiple rows of seating -- a typical down-firing ceiling speaker is never going to be able to evenly cover two rows of seating with a low ceiling.

This is a good article discussing the concepts I raise: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/dolby-atmos-dispersion-requirements-for-ceiling-speakers/


----------



## Victor_S

schwock5 said:


> Thanks for the response!
> 
> Because of the angle, that's why i was thinking maybe move the speakers to the sides facing behind the listening positions.
> 
> I don't know a ton about aural psychology and what not, but if the tweeter is positioned/angled to the same spot behind the MLP would a difference even be noticed?
> I figured the sides would provide a much higher up placement (and still be behind the listening position) to label as rear height and provide more of the over-head effect more accurately.
> They wouldn't be MH or Sides, but actually RH.
> 
> In your diagram on the right, it essentially would be above the SL and SR speakers but 12 feet up





I think I have the same problem with the Top Rear, I can't get the 45° before the end of the wall. Can I use the Rear heights position with Top Rear configuration in the receiver?


Many thanks!


----------



## sdurani

schwock5 said:


> Also for the fronts, since my fronts are "toed in", should the heights be "toed in" as well?


Yes, for the same reason you toe in your fronts. Atmos didn't re-invent the physics of sound reproduction. Heights are still speakers, reproducing sound; just like all your other speakers. If you've found advantages to toeing in your front speakers, then those advantages still apply when toeing in your surrounds and heights.


----------



## schwock5

sdurani said:


> Yes, for the same reason you toe in your fronts. Atmos didn't re-invent the physics of sound reproduction. Heights are still speakers, reproducing sound; just like all your other speakers. If you've found advantages to toeing in your front speakers, then those advantages still apply when toeing in your surrounds and heights.


so then that would require some speaker mounts and not just an anchor on the wall.
Anyone recommend any low profile swiveling mounts that can handle 8lb speakers?

On that note, couldn't a mount like that be used at the rear by the ceiling to angle a height speaker straight down towards the MLP like a pseudo in ceiling atmos speaker?


----------



## sdurani

schwock5 said:


> On that note, couldn't a mount like that be used at the rear by the ceiling to angle a height speaker straight down towards the MLP like a pseudo in ceiling atmos speaker?


You can aim the wall-mounted height speakers at the MLP but it won't sound like they're overhead on the ceiling. When you aimed your front speakers at the MLP, did it sound like they were in a different location?


----------



## Droogne

What kind of surrounds would you guys recommend to complement high end, high powered fully horn loaded speakers? Regular hornloaded bookshelves, or would "bipolar" surrounds fit better?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Droogne said:


> What kind of surrounds would you guys recommend to complement high end, high powered fully horn loaded speakers? Regular hornloaded bookshelves, or would "bipolar" surrounds fit better?



You ideally want surrounds to be as timbre matched to your fronts as you can get, especially with immersive surround, as multiple pairs of speakers can be used to phantom sound between speakers. It's less effective if your speakers are all mismatched.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Droogne said:


> What kind of surrounds would you guys recommend to complement high end, high powered fully horn loaded speakers? Regular hornloaded bookshelves, or would "bipolar" surrounds fit better?


I'm not familiar with the term "horn loaded", but "bipolar disorder" is an illness. Did you mean "*bipole*"?


----------



## Droogne

Dan Hitchman said:


> You ideally want surrounds to be as timbre matched to your fronts as you can get, especially with immersive surround, as multiple pairs of speakers can be used to phantom sound between speakers. It's less effective if your speakers are all mismatched.





mrtickleuk said:


> I'm not familiar with the term "horn loaded", but "bipolar disorder" is an illness. Did you mean "*bipole*"?


My fronts are not easy to match.. It was, and still is eventually, to copy the fronts 8 times more for an identical 11 atmos surround, but that is sadly not possible at the moment as they are too big and costly. To have them timbre match as possible I want hornloaded surrounds, as there are also no speakers from the same line as my fronts as those are fully DIY (2 way DIY Klipsch LaScalas with JBL 2446 drivers). As long as I dont settle in a home where I have the space to place all the huge speakers I will just have to settle for (cheap) bookshelves/surrounds. I dont want to spend all my money on those, as they are by no means the final stage.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Droogne said:


> My fronts are not easy to match.. It was, and still is eventually, to copy the fronts 8 times more for an identical 11 atmos surround, but that is sadly not possible at the moment as they are too big and costly. To have them timbre match as possible I want hornloaded surrounds, as there are also no speakers from the same line as my fronts as those are fully DIY (2 way DIY Klipsch LaScalas with JBL 2446 drivers). As long as I dont settle in a home where I have the space to place all the huge speakers I will just have to settle for (cheap) bookshelves/surrounds. I dont want to spend all my money on those, as they are by no means the final stage.



I guess a somewhat lower cost "fix" without going totally cheap would be Klipsch THX Ultra horn-loaded speakers, Power Sound Audio's horn speakers, or moving up a bit to JTR speakers.


----------



## Rao2018

Possible processing issue with Dolby Atmos soundtrack reproducing sound for Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers.

My Gear : 
Denon AVRX4400H (latest Firmware installed)
Samsung UBD-M9500/ZA 
Pioneer Elite Atmos enabled speakers for all Front and surround speakers with Elite center speaker.

My setup is 5.1.4

Movie "Ready Player One" Blu-ray with Atmos sound track.

Issue : Front Atmos speakers are not engaged from 2nd chapter onwards.

Observations : 
During chapter 1 all front&rear Atmos enabled speakers giving sound.

Starting from chapter 2 , Front Atmos enabled speakers are dead silent. All Atmos sound was coming only from rear atmos enabled speakers. 

Changed my Atmos speaker setup to hieght TopFront Atmos speakers and TopRear Atmos speakers. 
In this configuration , all four speakers are constantly engaged. 

It appears there is a possible processing issue with 
Atmos enabled speaker configuration either in AVR or Dolby Processing.

Opened a support ticket with Denon two days ago and I haven't heard back from them. 

Tested DTS:X track of "The First Purge" and all four atmos enabled spekeaers are constantly engaged.
With two channel or Dolby Digital or DTS sources also working fine with all four atmos speakers.

Can some one using AtmosEnabledSpeakers with .4 configuration plesae check and see if I am the only having this issue ?

btw , I don't have this issue with dolby atmos trailers available at dolbywebsite.

thank you for your time and Help.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Droogne said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of surrounds would you guys recommend to complement high end, high powered fully horn loaded speakers? Regular hornloaded bookshelves, or would "bipolar" surrounds fit better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ideally want surrounds to be as timbre matched to your fronts as you can get, especially with immersive surround, as multiple pairs of speakers can be used to phantom sound between speakers. It's less effective if your speakers are all mismatched.
Click to expand...

I’ve heard that with systems such as DIRAC, the timbre marching of yesterday’s are not as important-at least when it comes to surrounds. The room correction software will take care of it if it’s a good one like DIRAC. Now, the front 3 speakers should definitely match


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> I’ve heard that with systems such as DIRAC, the timbre marching of yesterday’s are not as important-at least when it comes to surrounds. The room correction software will take care of it if it’s a good one like DIRAC. Now, the front 3 speakers should definitely match



Immersive 3D surround is much more engaging and coherent if your speakers are as timbre matched as possible. You cannot make a Triad sound like a Klipsch or a B&W, etc. and have the sonic characteristics of the drivers in said speakers. Room correction isn't magical like that.


----------



## Droogne

Dan Hitchman said:


> I guess a somewhat lower cost "fix" without going totally cheap would be Klipsch THX Ultra horn-loaded speakers, Power Sound Audio's horn speakers, or moving up a bit to JTR speakers.


Exactly, I dont mean to go extremely cheap, just not waste any money I actually want to spend on more of the same as the fronts. I'll look into the ones you suggested, hopefully they are available on the second hand market here (because second hand actually better holds its value over time). The Klipsch THX were on my list already, but the other 2 were not. 

thanks


----------



## Droogne

Chirosamsung said:


> I’ve heard that with systems such as DIRAC, the timbre marching of yesterday’s are not as important-at least when it comes to surrounds. The room correction software will take care of it if it’s a good one like DIRAC. Now, the front 3 speakers should definitely match





Dan Hitchman said:


> Immersive 3D surround is much more engaging and coherent if your speakers are as timbre matched as possible. You cannot make a Triad sound like a Klipsch or a B&W, etc. and have the sonic characteristics of the drivers in said speakers. Room correction isn't magical like that.


I dont have DIRAC, but what I do have (or rather, am open to get. I actually will need this for when I upgrade to all active speakers) is active processing with Xilica XP processors and seperate amps. I know, and have read some opinions by people I highly regard, about timbre matching. You can say it cant not fix it, and that is probably true if youre strictly speaking about real timbre matching, but subjectively it does massively improve integrating different kind of speakers together. This will actually be integral, as I will never be able to mount a 80-100kg speaker on my wall (or well, I'm gonna try but it will be difficult as hell), so I will definetely have some problems getting the exact speakers everywhere. Also, I'm planning on getting some huge ass expensive horns (Klipsch K402) horns and extremely expensive drivers (TAD 4002 or JBL 2446 with BeX) for the fronts, and getting that for 8 more speakers will cost almost as much as a car, and probably not be worth it.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve heard that with systems such as DIRAC, the timbre marching of yesterday’s are not as important-at least when it comes to surrounds. The room correction software will take care of it if it’s a good one like DIRAC. Now, the front 3 speakers should definitely match
> 
> 
> 
> Many experts here would disagree...especially when it comes to surrounds and a decent room correction. Difference-small if anything
> 
> 
> Immersive 3D surround is much more engaging and coherent if your speakers are as timbre matched as possible. You cannot make a Triad sound like a Klipsch or a B&W, etc. and have the sonic characteristics of the drivers in said speakers. Room correction isn't magical like that.
Click to expand...

Many experts on this forum would disagree-timbre matching makes little to no difference WITH surrounds and a decent room correction software. Fronts would be more noticeable.


----------



## kbarnes701

Dan Hitchman said:


> You ideally want surrounds to be as timbre matched to your fronts as you can get, especially with immersive surround, as multiple pairs of speakers can be used to phantom sound between speakers. It's less effective if your speakers are all mismatched.


For anyone not using any form of Room EQ (eg Dirac, Audyssey etc). For those who do, so-called 'timbre matching' becomes dramatically less important, maybe even irrelevant. Obviously choose speakers that are similar to each other to begin with, but assuming that, which is just commonsense, let the room EQ do its job and there isn't much to be gained by overly worrying about 'timbre matching'. IMO.

The alleged importance of timbre matching seems to me to be much more driven by manufacturers' marketing strategies which would, for obvious reasons, prefer you to buy 11 speakers from a single maker rather than choose the most important (LCR) from one and the satellites from elsewhere.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Droogne said:


> I dont have DIRAC, but what I do have (or rather, am open to get. I actually will need this for when I upgrade to all active speakers) is active processing with Xilica XP processors and seperate amps. I know, and have read some opinions by people I highly regard, about timbre matching. You can say it cant not fix it, and that is probably true if youre strictly speaking about real timbre matching, but subjectively it does massively improve integrating different kind of speakers together. This will actually be integral, as I will never be able to mount a 80-100kg speaker on my wall (or well, I'm gonna try but it will be difficult as hell), so I will definitely have some problems getting the exact speakers everywhere. Also, I'm planning on getting some huge ass expensive horns (Klipsch K402) horns and extremely expensive drivers (TAD 4002 or JBL 2446 with BeX) for the fronts, and getting that for 8 more speakers will cost almost as much as a car, and probably not be worth it.



What I'm getting at is that a speaker with a soft dome like a Triad will be on more of the extreme end than a horn-loaded PA type speaker as you have now and expect Dirac or any other room correction software to fix such a drastic difference in tonality, dispersion, etc. 



In your case you have very "unique" front speakers and they will be harder to match, but going with another set of quality horn-loaded speakers will be closer to the mark... as you've been thinking about doing.


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> I’ve heard that with systems such as DIRAC, the timbre marching of yesterday’s are not as important-at least when it comes to surrounds. The room correction software will take care of it if it’s a good one like DIRAC. Now, the front 3 speakers should definitely match


Why should the front 3 speakers have to match? If Dirac will take care of matching fronts and surrounds, why won't it do the same for the front 3 speakers?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Why should the front 3 speakers have to match? If Dirac will take care of matching fronts and surrounds, why won't it do the same for the front 3 speakers?


Because the front three speakers are the most important. Voices especially move back and forth among the front mains and the center. Relatively few sounds move from the front speakers to the surrounds, but you'll immediately notice when people's voices change while moving across the front soundstage. The various room EQ products do a reasonably good job of flattening (making more accurate) the frequency response of different types of speakers, but they aren't perfect.


----------



## shs1234

It seems when it comes to timbre matching vs. “RC will fix it” for the 3 front speakers, we have to consider the dispersion characteristics of the front L&R and center speakers as well as the on-axis frequency response. While RC can help with frequency response differences between different speakers, or differences from identical speakers caused by placement in the room, etc., the dispersion characteristics associated with a horizontal center speaker can be an entirely different matter. The fact that the frequency response from a horizontal center speaker will differ across the horizontal plane, i.e. different seating positions, makes it impossible for RC to fix the frequency response for all locations. Obviously, a well-designed horizontal center speaker minimizes this problem with careful selection of crossover frequencies, driver spacing, etc., but this requires a different set of compromises compared to designing a speaker with all the drivers in a vertical array. Three vertical fronts is the way to go when possible.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Relatively few sounds move from the front speakers to the surrounds, but you'll immediately notice when people's voices change while moving across the front soundstage.


So then it's not about Dirac but instead about how sensitive our human hearing is to consistency across the front soundstage vs consistency between the soundstage and surround field?


----------



## johnnygrandis

Is it just me or are the latest Atmos film -mixes starting to really shine ?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> So then it's not about Dirac but instead about how sensitive our human hearing is to consistency across the front soundstage vs consistency between the soundstage and surround field?


It's *all* about the quality of our hearing. 

People much more sensitive to sound differences in front of them than to the differences behind or above them. Our external ear flaps (pinnae) are the primary cause.

Also, some people aren't bothered by slight differences. Other people are driven crazy by them.


----------



## sdurani

shs1234 said:


> It seems when it comes to timbre matching and “RC will fix it” for the 3 front speakers, we have to consider the dispersion characteristics of the front L&R and center speakers as well as the on-axis frequency response. While RC can help with frequency response differences between different speakers, or differences from identical speakers caused by placement in the room, etc., the dispersion characteristics associated with a horizontal center speaker can be an entirely different matter.


Indeed, from Toole's most recent paper:


> Equalization is very limited in what it can “correct,” yet the notion that changing the signal supplied to a sound system consisting of an unknown loudspeaker in an unknown room can “equalize” or “calibrate” a system is widespread. In the context of a practical application where there is an audience of several listeners conventional equalization cannot:
> 
> 
> Add or remove reflections
> Change reverberation time
> Reduce seat-to-seat variations in bass
> Correct frequency dependent directivity in loudspeakers
> Compensate for frequency dependent absorption in acoustical materials and furnishings. The exception is in the highly reflective sound field at very low frequencies.


----------



## shs1234

A sound created by a source such as a car horn is the same whether it comes from in front of you or behind you and it is our hearing or ears that tell us in which direction the sound is coming from. So the speakers in front and behind us in our home theaters should ideally produce the same sound for that car horn, and let our individual ears and the experience our brains have in interpreting sounds from those ears to tell us where the horn is coming from in the sound field.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> Indeed, from Toole's most recent paper:


The question then becomes what he means by "conventional equalization." Certainly his arguments do apply to a parametric or graphic equalizer. However, it is not at all obvious to me that those arguments apply to the algorithms used by Dirac Live, or even Audyssey, for example.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

shs1234 said:


> It seems when it comes to timbre matching and “RC will fix it” for the 3 front speakers, we have to consider the dispersion characteristics of the front L&R and center speakers as well as the on-axis frequency response. While RC can help with frequency response differences between different speakers, or differences from identical speakers caused by placement in the room, etc., the dispersion characteristics associated with a horizontal center speaker can be an entirely different matter. The fact that the frequency response from a horizontal center speaker will differ across the horizontal plane, i.e. different seating positions, makes it impossible for RC to fix the frequency response for all locations. Obviously, a well-designed horizontal center speaker minimizes this problem with careful selection of crossover frequencies, driver spacing, etc., but this requires a different set of compromises compared to designing a speaker with all the drivers in a vertical array. Three vertical fronts is the way to go when possible.


I just moved to that configuration with my new Triad Gold LCR's across the front. I can't wait!


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> However, it is not at all obvious to me that those arguments apply to the algorithms used by Dirac Live, or even Audyssey, for example.


How would those algorithms change the dispersion of a loudspeaker or the consistency of its off-axis response?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> How would those algorithms change the dispersion of a loudspeaker or the consistency of its off-axis response?


Perhaps not dispersion, but certainly reflections can be compensated for. PEQ and GEQs can't handle them.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Perhaps not dispersion, but certainly reflections can be compensated for.


How do they compensate for reflections?


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> How do they compensate for reflections?


Delayed inversion of the signal.


----------



## sdurani

Selden Ball said:


> Delayed inversion of the signal.


That might help for one listening location but it messes with the on-axis sound from the speaker. As Toole said, it didn't "add or remove reflections", just notched frequencies where they occur.


----------



## Selden Ball

sdurani said:


> That might help for one listening location but it messes with the on-axis sound from the speaker. As Toole said, it didn't "add or remove reflections", just notched frequencies where they occur.


I agree that the simplistic approach that I described works best for a single microphone location. It'd cancel whatever reflections are heard at that specific location. There's been quite a bit of ongoing discussion of things like this in the DDR-88A thread, but I stopped following that thread a long time ago.


----------



## shs1234

I think that the problem with RC and room reflections, etc. is similar to that with noise cancellation technology. It works great with noise cancelling earphones where there is a well defined listening position, such as your eardrums located an inch from the pick up mic, but does not really work in a room or a car where there are multiple listening positions.


----------



## shs1234

shs1234 said:


> I think that the problem with RC and room reflections, etc. is similar to that with noise cancellation technology. It works great with noise cancelling earphones where there is a well defined listening position, such as your eardrums located an inch from the pick up mic, but does not really work in a room or a car where there are multiple listening positions.


To further extend the analogy to noise cancellation, it is possible to reduce an unwanted sound, noise or distortion, by sending an anti-phase or cancelling sound from the same location. Since the offending noise and the anti-phase noise are coming from the same location, the 180° phase relationship of the two sounds is the same at all locations in the room and thus cancel at all locations.

This works in audio and home theater as well in that we can use as equalization to correct an error in a speaker’s frequency response by adding or subtracting a correcting signal to that speaker such that the frequency response error is cancelled. You could say that servo subwoofers work the same way. In both cases, the corrective signal is coming from the same location as the error and thus the correction applies to all locations in the room. 

The problem with room reflections is that they happen where there is not speaker to which we can apply a corrective signal, and any correction that is applied to the source speaker will not work for all, if any, seating positions. Perhaps that is why some systems notch out the offending frequencies, which of course must have a deleterious effect on the direct arrival sound. Much better to add some acoustic panels at the critical points in the room!


----------



## Chirosamsung

shs1234 said:


> shs1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the problem with RC and room reflections, etc. is similar to that with noise cancellation technology. It works great with noise cancelling earphones where there is a well defined listening position, such as your eardrums located an inch from the pick up mic, but does not really work in a room or a car where there are multiple listening positions.
> 
> 
> 
> To further extend the analogy to noise cancellation, it is possible to reduce an unwanted sound, noise or distortion, by sending an anti-phase or cancelling sound from the same location. Since the offending noise and the anti-phase noise are coming from the same location, the 180° phase relationship of the two sounds is the same at all locations in the room and thus cancel at all locations.
> 
> This works in audio and home theater as well in that we can use as equalization to correct an error in a speaker’s frequency response by adding or subtracting a correcting signal to that speaker such that the frequency response error is cancelled. You could say that servo subwoofers work the same way. In both cases, the corrective signal is coming from the same location as the error and thus the correction applies to all locations in the room.
> 
> The problem with room reflections is that they happen where there is not speaker to which we can apply a corrective signal, and any correction that is applied to the source speaker will not work for all, if any, seating positions. Perhaps that is why some systems notch out the offending frequencies, which of course must have a deleterious effect on the direct arrival sound. Much better to add some acoustic panels at the critical points in the room!
Click to expand...

Is there any places where acoustic panels can actually make things worse not better or is it always to have at least some acoustic panels on walls then not have anything at all.

I am thinking about getting some and putting 3 on the back wall (opposite of front speakers) and one on the side wall (opposite of the end of the room that opens to the rest of the basement). 

Without doing anything scientific, is this something that at worst will not affect sound but could improve it as well??


----------



## bkeeler10

Chirosamsung said:


> Is there any places where acoustic panels can actually make things worse not better or is it always to have at least some acoustic panels on walls then not have anything at all.
> 
> I am thinking about getting some and putting 3 on the back wall (opposite of front speakers) and one on the side wall (opposite of the end of the room that opens to the rest of the basement).
> 
> Without doing anything scientific, is this something that at worst will not affect sound but could improve it as well??


If your room is like the vast majority of domestic rooms, reverberation is higher than would be ideal for cinema and even stereo reproduction. So a few panels placed anywhere is going to be nothing but positive. It can be overdone, but not with just a few panels. Try to use some that are at least 2" thick (4" would be better). If your room currently has left/right symmetry, try to maintain that in the placement of the panels. This is quick and dirty, and specific placement would yield better results, but anywhere is better than no where.

Edited to add: If you are allowed to place things in corners (whether wall/wall or wall/ceiling corners), broadband bass traps in those corners is probably the single best thing you could do.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> The alleged importance of timbre matching seems to me to be much more driven by manufacturers' marketing strategies which would, for obvious reasons, prefer you to buy 11 speakers from a single maker rather than choose the most important (LCR) from one and the satellites from elsewhere.


Agreed. My LCR are a different brand than all of my surrounds/overheads. At this point I really can't imagine being happier with how they blend. And this is just with lowly Audyssey.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> For anyone not using any form of Room EQ (eg Dirac, Audyssey etc). For those who do, so-called 'timbre matching' becomes dramatically less important, maybe even irrelevant. Obviously choose speakers that are similar to each other to begin with, but assuming that, which is just commonsense, let the room EQ do its job and there isn't much to be gained by overly worrying about 'timbre matching'. IMO.
> 
> The alleged importance of timbre matching seems to me to be much more driven by manufacturers' marketing strategies which would, for obvious reasons, prefer you to buy 11 speakers from a single maker rather than choose the most important (LCR) from one and the satellites from elsewhere.





stikle said:


> Agreed. My LCR are a different brand than all of my surrounds/overheads. At this point I really can't imagine being happier with how they blend. And this is just with lowly Audyssey.



Also agree! I completely understand the theory and as Keith suggests maybe marketing strategy for timbre matching. However, in my experience and reality in the listening of any 3D sound content...i.e. rain, wind, insects, birds, bullets, human voices (Gravity), and even Hans Zimmer Live In Prague...I've never been distracted by timbre mismatch. Interestingly, I have a $4,000+ front stage and surrounds and $40 in ceiling overheads. Lastly, I've used various RC systems including XT32, AccuEQ, and actually prefer RC off in my environment.


----------



## shs1234

For many years I ran 3 identical front speakers, Velodyne DF-661 with a modified crossover, and 4 Def Tech surrounds, as while I strongly believed in timbre matching the front 3 vertical speakers, I was skeptical that it mattered with the surround speakers. The systems sounded great but the look without the grills on the 661s was a bit too techie for our new home. A few years go I changed my front 3 to Polk LSiM, partly for aesthetic reasons. For several months I kept the Dev Tech surrounds and again was very happy with the blending of all of the above. 

Then I decided to go LSiM all the way and replaced the Dev Tech with 4 LSiM 702 F/X, originally mounted above ear level on the back and side walls in my then 7.1 system. I fired up a 5.1 DVD Audio disk, Emmylou Harris’ Producers Cut, and sat down in my normal listening position for a critical listening test of my new all timbre matched Polk LSiM surround speaker system. 

My first reaction was one of alarm. From my listening position, there seemed to be no sound coming out of the surround speakers! How could this be as I had just used Audyssey and test tones and to carefully frequency match and set the levels of all the speakers? I jumped up out of my chair and even standing fairly close to the surround speakers I couldn’t really hear them. Of course, they were working just fine, but they blended so well with the fronts that they became sonically invisible. While I have never previously been aware of specific sounds coming from my previous Dev Tech surround speakers with this disk, there were obviously audible clues that they were there, even with Audyssey correction, and once the surrounds were timbre matched, those clues went away. 

As I transitioned to Atmos, the 702s not only moved down, but the side surrounds moved forward to the 80° position and again it never seems that any sound if coming from any particular speaker, or that they are even there, and I guess that is the way it is supposed to be.


----------



## bkeeler10

Those of you that have mounted speakers on the ceiling for Atmos (not flush-mounted in the ceiling), how have you accomplished that? What mounts have you used that worked well? I'm trying to find a solution but not having much luck. The speaker I intend to use will be 16 lbs. The solution must allow aiming of the speaker. I really hope I can find something that doesn't require drilling into the speaker cabinet, but I may have no choice.

Any ideas? TIA.


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Those of you that have mounted speakers on the ceiling for Atmos (not flush-mounted in the ceiling), how have you accomplished that? What mounts have you used that worked well? I'm trying to find a solution but not having much luck. The speaker I intend to use will be 16 lbs. The solution must allow aiming of the speaker. I really hope I can find something that doesn't require drilling into the speaker cabinet, but I may have no choice.
> 
> Any ideas? TIA.


I solved the problem by using Tannoy 'installation' speakers which come with their own 'C' bracket. Mine are the now discontinued Di6DC models but there are other similar speakers in their range and also from other manufacturers such as JBL etc, or indeed any manufacturer who offers 'pro' speakers in their line-up.

Other than that, you can't take any risk that a 16lb speaker might detach from the ceiling since it could kill anyone it hit, especially a child. For me, that would mean drilling into the cabinet to secure the speaker to the stand. Be careful that you don't pierce anything important such as a crossover circuit, or destroy the sealed integrity of a sealed design. Almost all the speaker mounts I have seen are primarily designed for mounting (small) speakers to walls, not to ceilings, and none of those I have ever tried has been totally satisfactory.

It might be possible to get a local metal fabricator to make a 'cage' sort of design, to your own specification, so that it could contain the speaker in some way.

Or you could look at the 'Pro' websites and choose a design that was originally intended for ceiling mounting such as the many 'installation' speakers or 'outdoor' speaker designs out there. That is the most certain method IMO and as a side-bonus, you'll generally get a better speaker at a lower price than you would with 'consumer' speakers. Then let your room EQ bring them into line 'timbre' wise.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Why should the front 3 speakers have to match? If Dirac will take care of matching fronts and surrounds, why won't it do the same for the front 3 speakers?


For most people, who don't have three identical speakers up front, it has to


----------



## kbarnes701

shs1234 said:


> A sound created by a source such as a car horn is the same whether it comes from in front of you or behind you and it is our hearing or ears that tell us in which direction the sound is coming from. So the speakers in front and behind us in our home theaters should ideally produce the same sound for that car horn, and let our individual ears and the experience our brains have in interpreting sounds from those ears to tell us where the horn is coming from in the sound field.


Ideally we would have 11 identical speakers (or more). This is impractical in almost all cases. Therefore a compromise has to be made. As Sanjay's Toole quote above amply demonstrates, there is much more to this than simply so-called timbre matching. Additionally, for obvious reasons all 11 speakers cannot occupy the same location in the room, and where the speakers are located impacts on how they will sound. For most people, their satellite speakers will be much smaller than their LCR speakers and often of a different design or from a different manufacturer. In these circumstances, while good room EQ cannot compensate for all of the other factors involved, it can, and does, compensate for alleged 'timbre' differences between speakers. If the satellite speakers are chosen with care, there is no need for them to be manufactured by the same manufacturer as the LCR set, when good room EQ is also used. Obviously, if one can use 11 identical speakers, or speakers from the same manufacturer, then there is no reason not to, but many/most people cannot, so there has to be an alternative for them. As with many aspects of this hobby, I think people overthink things way too much.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> How would those algorithms change the dispersion of a loudspeaker or the consistency of its off-axis response?


I think two different things are being discussed. You are discussing off-axis response etc and Selden is discussing the so-called 'timbre matching' issue. Dirac etc cannot do a thing about off-axis response, and isn't intended to. But it can do a lot about bringing the FR of disparate speakers (within sensible reason) into line, as well as compensating for room-induced differences in FR. BYAKT


----------



## kbarnes701

shs1234 said:


> I think that the problem with RC and room reflections, etc. is similar to that with noise cancellation technology. It works great with noise cancelling earphones where there is a well defined listening position, such as your eardrums located an inch from the pick up mic, but does not really work in a room or a car where there are multiple listening positions.


There's only one listening position in my room as far as I am concerned. Mine.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Is there any places where acoustic panels can actually make things worse not better or is it always to have at least some acoustic panels on walls then not have anything at all.
> 
> I am thinking about getting some and putting 3 on the back wall (opposite of front speakers) and one on the side wall (opposite of the end of the room that opens to the rest of the basement).
> 
> Without doing anything scientific, is this something that at worst will not affect sound but could improve it as well??


Generally, it's hard to make the sound worse with acoustic treatments. But take a look at the educational information, videos etc on the GIK website for more information.

If your room is currently not treated at all, you'd have to work exceptionally hard to make it sound worse by adding some treatments. But you do need the right sort of treatment, in the right place. The GIK website will get you started.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Also agree! I completely understand the theory and as Keith suggests maybe marketing strategy for timbre matching. However, in my experience and reality in the listening of any 3D sound content...i.e. rain, wind, insects, birds, bullets, human voices (Gravity), and even Hans Zimmer Live In Prague...I've never been distracted by timbre mismatch. Interestingly, I have a $4,000+ front stage and surrounds and $40 in ceiling overheads. Lastly, I've used various RC systems including XT32, AccuEQ, and actually prefer RC off in my environment.


Timbre matching is much over-rated. The timbre of a speaker changes if you move your head - try it with pink noise. It also changes if you move the speaker to a different location. Or if you have one speaker slightly closer to a wall or some other object than another. So it is impossible to 'timbre match' speakers anyway, even when they are all identical. My suggestion is to choose speakers wisely, place them carefully and then get good room EQ and let it do its job.


----------



## gene4ht

shs1234 said:


> My first reaction was one of alarm. From my listening position, there seemed to be no sound coming out of the surround speakers! How could this be as I had just used Audyssey and test tones and to carefully frequency match and set the levels of all the speakers? I jumped up out of my chair and even* standing fairly close to the surround speakers I couldn’t really hear them. Of course, they were working just fine, but they blended so well with the fronts that they became sonically invisible.*



Well said. This is the same experience I've had with my 3D overheads since their installation...even though they're not the same manufacturer and timbre matched to my L,C,R and surrounds.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Timbre matching is much over-rated. The timbre of a speaker changes if you move your head - try it with pink noise. It also changes if you move the speaker to a different location. Or if you have one speaker slightly closer to a wall or some other object than another. So it is impossible to 'timbre match' speakers anyway, even when they are all identical. My suggestion is to choose speakers wisely, place them carefully and then get good room EQ and let it do its job.



Again agreed. There's the theory and then there's the reality. In my case, in my room, reality trumps the theory. Of course, YMMV.


----------



## bkeeler10

kbarnes701 said:


> I solved the problem by using Tannoy 'installation' speakers which come with their own 'C' bracket. Mine are the now discontinued Di6DC models but there are other similar speakers in their range and also from other manufacturers such as JBL etc, or indeed any manufacturer who offers 'pro' speakers in their line-up.
> 
> Other than that, you can't take any risk that a 16lb speaker might detach from the ceiling since it could kill anyone it hit, especially a child. For me, that would mean drilling into the cabinet to secure the speaker to the stand. Be careful that you don't pierce anything important such as a crossover circuit, or destroy the sealed integrity of a sealed design. Almost all the speaker mounts I have seen are primarily designed for mounting (small) speakers to walls, not to ceilings, and none of those I have ever tried has been totally satisfactory.
> 
> It might be possible to get a local metal fabricator to make a 'cage' sort of design, to your own specification, so that it could contain the speaker in some way.
> 
> Or you could look at the 'Pro' websites and choose a design that was originally intended for ceiling mounting such as the many 'installation' speakers or 'outdoor' speaker designs out there. That is the most certain method IMO and as a side-bonus, you'll generally get a better speaker at a lower price than you would with 'consumer' speakers. Then let your room EQ bring them into line 'timbre' wise.


Yeah, I have not been too keen on using pro speakers, but that may be the direction I will head simply because of the mounting issue. I would love to have someone fabricate an adjustable cage ceiling mount that would capture speakers of various sizes, but that sounds expensive. It would be nice to find a pro speaker with target FR and dispersion patterns more similar to my other speakers, but that is a long shot. I am in the camp that believes there is something to the idea that the speakers in your setup should have similar design intent, which includes but is not limited to FR. That is why at least my front three speakers are the same.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## shs1234

gene4ht said:


> Again agreed. There's the theory and then there's the reality. In my case, in my room, reality trumps the theory. Of course, YMMV.


I don't think that there is any theory that says that speakers from different brands can't play together well if they are of similar enough characteristics. While it can work in some cases, I would think the odds are better with a set of speakers with the same tweeters and midranges. And certainly RC or PEQ can correct for on-axis frequency response differences between speakers, but what I was trying to discuss was the things that room correction can't fix like the uneven frequency response in the horizontal plane with certain horizontal center channel speakers and higher frequency room refection, e.g. off of the side wall.


----------



## ggsantafe

kbarnes701 said:


> I solved the problem by using Tannoy 'installation' speakers which come with their own 'C' bracket. Mine are the now discontinued Di6DC models but there are other similar speakers in their range and also from other manufacturers such as JBL etc, or indeed any manufacturer who offers 'pro' speakers in their line-up.
> 
> Other than that, you can't take any risk that a 16lb speaker might detach from the ceiling since it could kill anyone it hit, especially a child. For me, that would mean drilling into the cabinet to secure the speaker to the stand. Be careful that you don't pierce anything important such as a crossover circuit, or destroy the sealed integrity of a sealed design. Almost all the speaker mounts I have seen are primarily designed for mounting (small) speakers to walls, not to ceilings, and none of those I have ever tried has been totally satisfactory.
> 
> It might be possible to get a local metal fabricator to make a 'cage' sort of design, to your own specification, so that it could contain the speaker in some way.
> 
> Or you could look at the 'Pro' websites and choose a design that was originally intended for ceiling mounting such as the many 'installation' speakers or 'outdoor' speaker designs out there. That is the most certain method IMO and as a side-bonus, you'll generally get a better speaker at a lower price than you would with 'consumer' speakers. Then let your room EQ bring them into line 'timbre' wise.





bkeeler10 said:


> Those of you that have mounted speakers on the ceiling for Atmos (not flush-mounted in the ceiling), how have you accomplished that? What mounts have you used that worked well? I'm trying to find a solution but not having much luck. The speaker I intend to use will be 16 lbs. The solution must allow aiming of the speaker. I really hope I can find something that doesn't require drilling into the speaker cabinet, but I may have no choice.
> 
> Any ideas? TIA.


I used these Monoprice Mounting brackets with great success: amazon.com/gp/product/B004C4XN86/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and their 33lb. capacity should have no problem accommodating your 16lb. option. You don't mention which speaker you are considering, but some speakers have a mounting bracket built into the rear of the speaker that may be used or modified to avoid drilling into the cabinet.


----------



## ctsv510

ggsantafe said:


> I used these Monoprice Mounting brackets with great success: amazon.com/gp/product/B004C4XN86/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and their 33lb. capacity should have no problem accommodating your 16lb. option. You don't mention which speaker you are considering, but some speakers have a mounting bracket built into the rear of the speaker that may be used or modified to avoid drilling into the cabinet.


The safety cable on that is something that should be incorporated into any mounted speaker, diy or otherwise.


----------



## ioanni

kbarnes701 said:


> I solved the problem by using Tannoy 'installation' speakers which come with their own 'C' bracket. Mine are the now discontinued Di6DC models but there are other similar speakers in their range and also from other manufacturers such as JBL etc, or indeed any manufacturer who offers 'pro' speakers in their line-up.
> 
> Other than that, you can't take any risk that a 16lb speaker might detach from the ceiling since it could kill anyone it hit, especially a child. For me, that would mean drilling into the cabinet to secure the speaker to the stand. Be careful that you don't pierce anything important such as a crossover circuit, or destroy the sealed integrity of a sealed design. Almost all the speaker mounts I have seen are primarily designed for mounting (small) speakers to walls, not to ceilings, and none of those I have ever tried has been totally satisfactory.
> 
> It might be possible to get a local metal fabricator to make a 'cage' sort of design, to your own specification, so that it could contain the speaker in some way.
> 
> Or you could look at the 'Pro' websites and choose a design that was originally intended for ceiling mounting such as the many 'installation' speakers or 'outdoor' speaker designs out there. That is the most certain method IMO and as a side-bonus, you'll generally get a better speaker at a lower price than you would with 'consumer' speakers. Then let your room EQ bring them into line 'timbre' wise.


I am also very much interested in Tannoys for on-ceiling speakers. I have currently some old focal domes and some b&w m1 ones for front and rear heights. However my front ones are Tannoy Definition DC10tis and the old big Tannoy D750 center so I am thinking of gradually replacing the ceiling speakers with Tannoys too. I cannot find easily the Di6DCs but their successor, AMS 6DC are an alternative. Which location did you mount them for your Cowshed Theater? Did you use the Heights location or the Tops for Atmos? Since they are big speakers, they would be quite bulky sitting in the middle of the ceiling, while towards the corners they might be more excusable from a WAF point of view. I am tempted however to try the front position, if there is a significant difference from the heights one. 

On the timbre matching question: My previous Atmos cinema was from the Tannoy Revolution line, XT6F, XT6, with XT minis in brackets being the heights. They all sounded wonderful and coherent but I traded them all in to get the more expensive Definition line for the three front. As a result I used lots of other speakers I had lying around to have a temporary Atmos experience before I rebuild my theater around the Tannoy definition line. The rest of my speakers are two Kef 3001 for sides and B&W 601 S3 for rears apart from the focal domes and b&w m1s. Quite a mismatch everywhere!. However timbre matching when sounds are panning is not a problem when using Audyssey XT32, even when I cut with the MultiEQ app the ground speakers equalisation frequency to 600 Hz. Only the Kef 3001 sound a bit underwhelming for sides compared to the rest but other than that I do not feel that the sound changes to an audible level to spoil the experience.


----------



## gene4ht

ioanni said:


> *However timbre matching when sounds are panning is not a problem* when using Audyssey XT32, even when I cut with the MultiEQ app the ground speakers equalisation frequency to 600 Hz. Only the Kef 3001 sound a bit underwhelming for sides compared to the rest but other than that *I do not feel that the sound changes to an audible level to spoil the experience.*


+1
This has been my experience as well!


----------



## KK in CT

I've been enjoying Atmos for quite some time using my Emotive ERD-1's as the 4 top speakers, however they are mounted high (about 12 feet up) on the wall in our great room. They have been performing pretty well, however I'm sure I'm missing the complete "wow" effect as they are not aimed down as I'm still using the wall brackets they came with, which keeps them pointed straight out.

I've been looking online for good wall mounts that I can use with them to aim them down, but most I've seen require drilling holes in them to attach the mount to them, which I'm hesitant to do. Anyone have any experience with this that could recommend something? Looking for something that I can use to tilt them down toward the MLP. These looked like they would work but would require drilling into the speaker which to me seems like could cause damage:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MTKXTN5/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=A1Q5TXAPOS7WLS&psc=1

Thanks!


----------



## usc1995

KK in CT said:


> I've been enjoying Atmos for quite some time using my Emotive ERD-1's as the 4 top speakers, however they are mounted high (about 12 feet up) on the wall in our great room. They have been performing pretty well, however I'm sure I'm missing the complete "wow" effect as they are not aimed down as I'm still using the wall brackets they came with, which keeps them pointed straight out.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking online for good wall mounts that I can use with them to aim them down, but most I've seen require drilling holes in them to attach the mount to them, which I'm hesitant to do. Anyone have any experience with this that could recommend something? Looking for something that I can use to tilt them down toward the MLP. These looked like they would work but would require drilling into the speaker which to me seems like could cause damage:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MTKXTN5/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=A1Q5TXAPOS7WLS&psc=1
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!




I might try to loop some long cable ties through the holes in those mounts to secure them. These ties claim to hold 175 lbs so they should be strong enough to hold those speakers https://www.securecableties.com/36-...MI-pOr6Kzc3gIVcRh9Ch1tIQuSEAQYDCABEgLAM_D_BwE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Just curious if what I've noticed is normal when testing various parts of my system. I've noticed when I turn on only the amps powering my atmos speakers, that while there are sounds that directly come from them loud and clear, that seem to be actually/directional supposed to come from them....there is what appears to be "leakage" such as dialogue and other sounds that come out of them as well. Not clearly, more of an echo type sound.

It's like the bed layer leaks upwards. 

This is normal, correct?

EDIT - I had the disc (Matrix UHD) set to DD 5.1 instead of Atmos and my 7704 was upmixing it. My bad.


----------



## mtbdudex

KK in CT said:


> I've been enjoying Atmos for quite some time using my Emotive ERD-1's as the 4 top speakers, however they are mounted high (about 12 feet up) on the wall in our great room. They have been performing pretty well, however I'm sure I'm missing the complete "wow" effect as they are not aimed down as I'm still using the wall brackets they came with, which keeps them pointed straight out.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking online for good wall mounts that I can use with them to aim them down, but most I've seen require drilling holes in them to attach the mount to them, which I'm hesitant to do. Anyone have any experience with this that could recommend something? Looking for something that I can use to tilt them down toward the MLP. These looked like they would work but would require drilling into the speaker which to me seems like could cause damage:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MTKXTN5/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=A1Q5TXAPOS7WLS&psc=1
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!




I actually have 3 pairs of these, they will work but the plastic covers are crap and rattle, so I took mine off.
Mine used for side, rear surrounds and rear height Atmos also 
Side surrounds 









Rear wall before I finished the wire routing 
I actually lowered those rear surrounds about 3.5” more after this picture 
Confirmed no issue with banging the head sitting egress / egress , and being ADP390 they are re-wired as bi-poles and don’t direct energy at you like monopole does









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

bkeeler10 said:


> Yeah, I have not been too keen on using pro speakers, but that may be the direction I will head simply because of the mounting issue. I would love to have someone fabricate an adjustable cage ceiling mount that would capture speakers of various sizes, but that sounds expensive. It would be nice to find a pro speaker with target FR and dispersion patterns more similar to my other speakers, but that is a long shot. I am in the camp that believes *there is something to the idea that the speakers in your setup should have similar design intent,* which includes but is not limited to FR. That is why at least my front three speakers are the same.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I think it is a good idea to try to match all the speakers to the extent that it is feasible and possible and practical. But I don't worry myself over 'timbre matching' now we have good room EQ in our systems. Nobody would seriously suggest, for example, using entirely different speakers in each surround location, but using commonsense and room EQ, I really doubt that we need to over-worry about timbre matching in this day and age.


----------



## kbarnes701

ioanni said:


> I am also very much interested in Tannoys for on-ceiling speakers. I have currently some old focal domes and some b&w m1 ones for front and rear heights. However my front ones are Tannoy Definition DC10tis and the old big Tannoy D750 center so I am thinking of gradually replacing the ceiling speakers with Tannoys too. I cannot find easily the Di6DCs but their successor, AMS 6DC are an alternative. Which location did you mount them for your Cowshed Theater? Did you use the Heights location or the Tops for Atmos? Since they are big speakers, they would be quite bulky sitting in the middle of the ceiling, while towards the corners they might be more excusable from a WAF point of view. I am tempted however to try the front position, if there is a significant difference from the heights one.


My Di6DC overhead speakers are mounted in the 'classic' locations for TF and TR. I am fortunate to have a high ceiling (the speakers are about 10-11ft from the floor) and of course it is a dedicated room so WAF etc isn't a consideration for me. Previously I used the smaller Tannoy Di5DC speakers as my overheads, to good effect.



ioanni said:


> On the timbre matching question: My previous Atmos cinema was from the Tannoy Revolution line, XT6F, XT6, with XT minis in brackets being the heights. They all sounded wonderful and coherent but I traded them all in to get the more expensive Definition line for the three front. As a result I used lots of other speakers I had lying around to have a temporary Atmos experience before I rebuild my theater around the Tannoy definition line. The rest of my speakers are two Kef 3001 for sides and B&W 601 S3 for rears apart from the focal domes and b&w m1s. Quite a mismatch everywhere!. However timbre matching when sounds are panning is not a problem when using Audyssey XT32, even when I cut with the MultiEQ app the ground speakers equalisation frequency to 600 Hz. Only the Kef 3001 sound a bit underwhelming for sides compared to the rest but other than that I do not feel that the sound changes to an audible level to spoil the experience.


This has also been my own experience. Let's not get carried away here though - wherever possible I'd advocate using 11 identical speakers. But this is almost always impractical - for example my front LCR set are JBL 3677 and there is no way these could really be used as surrounds and definitely no way you'd want them on the ceiling!  So I settle for three identical across the front (I would always want 3 identical for LCR personally) and then I am using Tannoys everywhere else. Four identical Tannoys for the surrounds and another four identical Tannoys for the overheads. This seems to me to be just commonsense if it can be arranged. I have zero worries about 'timbre matching' the LCR to the surrounds and/or overheads and Dirac Live seems to me to do an excellent job in this regard.


----------



## kbarnes701

ScottieBoysName said:


> Just curious if what I've noticed is normal when testing various parts of my system. I've noticed when I turn on only the amps powering my atmos speakers, that while there are sounds that directly come from them loud and clear, that seem to be actually/directional supposed to come from them....there is what appears to be "leakage" such as dialogue and other sounds that come out of them as well. Not clearly, more of an echo type sound.
> 
> It's like the bed layer leaks upwards.
> 
> This is normal, correct?
> 
> EDIT - I had the disc (Matrix UHD) set to DD 5.1 instead of Atmos and my 7704 was upmixing it. My bad.


As you've realized, upmixing isn't an exact science. Some discs are really very, very good when upmixed with DSU or Neural:X, others aren't so good. If I find I am getting inappropriate content in the overheads when upmixing, I just turn the upmixer off and use the native format.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Gene and Keith I think you two old coots are nuts   I could detect the different tonal qualities with non-matching ceiling speakers. I think timbre matched i.e. the same family of LF drivers and a matching high frequency driver (tweeter or compression) driver provides superior results. If it is marketing kool-aid that I am drinking, then pour me another glass because I am enjoying the taste


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Gene and Keith I think you two old coots are nuts  I could detect the different tonal qualities with non-matching ceiling speakers. I think timbre matched i.e. the same family of LF drivers and a matching high frequency driver (tweeter or compression) driver provides superior results. If it is marketing kool-aid that I am drinking, then pour me another glass because I am enjoying the taste


Well, if you can then you need 11 identical speakers. Good luck with that 

And of course you will need your head clamped in a vise because the smallest movement changes the timbre of a speaker. 

How do you even test for it? You'd have to have a sound in the LCR and then the exact same sound (eg a human voice) in the surrounds/overheads. How often does that happen? And the simple act of putting some speakers up above your head, even if identical to others, alters the timbre too.

It's pretty much just marketing IMO. Once it made sense, back in the day, but not so much these days thanks to world-class room EQ. But if you hear it, you hear it. Even if you don't . I mean, I know people who can hear the differences between HDMI cables... who am I to say what they can or can't hear? I know what they say can't actually be happening, but there's no way I can know what they are hearing. Some people hear 'voices' telling them to do all sort of ****. I wonder iof the timbre of the voices they hear is the same in both ears (or even if it matters much?)?

Of course, none of this proves I'm not nuts (can't speak for gene4ht - yeah, he seems a bit nuts ROFL).


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> ScottieBoysName said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious if what I've noticed is normal when testing various parts of my system. I've noticed when I turn on only the amps powering my atmos speakers, that while there are sounds that directly come from them loud and clear, that seem to be actually/directional supposed to come from them....there is what appears to be "leakage" such as dialogue and other sounds that come out of them as well. Not clearly, more of an echo type sound.
> 
> It's like the bed layer leaks upwards.
> 
> This is normal, correct?
> 
> EDIT - I had the disc (Matrix UHD) set to DD 5.1 instead of Atmos and my 7704 was upmixing it. My bad. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> As you've realized, upmixing isn't an exact science. Some discs are really very, very good when upmixed with DSU or Neural:X, others aren't so good. If I find I am getting inappropriate content in the overheads when upmixing, I just turn the upmixer off and use the native format.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if the greatest showman is really good with upmixing to ceiling speakers since I heard the Atmos mix is great but not much overhead use.

My kids love that movie but I want to show off my upcoming Atmos system with that move PLUS overhead content.

Any experience with this?


----------



## KK in CT

mtbdudex said:


> I actually have 3 pairs of these, they will work but the plastic covers are crap and rattle, so I took mine off.
> Mine used for side, rear surrounds and rear height Atmos also
> Side surrounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rear wall before I finished the wire routing
> I actually lowered those rear surrounds about 3.5” more after this picture
> Confirmed no issue with banging the head sitting egress / egress , and being ADP390 they are re-wired as bi-poles and don’t direct energy at you like monopole does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks - that's very helpful especially with the pics. Too bad the cover is useless though. I was also contemplating using very small TV mounts since the back of the speakers are wide but maybe overkill. I thought there I may be able to avoid screwing directly into the speaker itself.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> And of course you will need your head clamped in a vise because the smallest movement changes the timbre of a speaker.


Then start with speakers that sound consistent off-axis.


> How do you even test for it?


Your ears and pink noise (or monotone program material, like the Tracy Chapman song Fast Cars).


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Chirosamsung said:


> Does anyone know if the greatest showman is really good with upmixing to ceiling speakers since I heard the Atmos mix is great but not much overhead use.
> 
> My kids love that movie but I want to show off my upcoming Atmos system with that move PLUS overhead content.
> 
> Any experience with this?



I do not consider The Greatest Showman to be an Atmos-demo disc for what you're looking to hear.

My personal recommendations would be It, A Quiet Place, Blade Runner 2049 and the new 4K Superman (1978) which has massive amounts of overhead sounds in the new remix.


----------



## Bachelor

Do you have the movie trolls? I was surprised the use of ceiling speakers in that movie. Your kids may be too old for that movie though.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

kbarnes701 said:


> As you've realized, upmixing isn't an exact science. Some discs are really very, very good when upmixed with DSU or Neural:X, others aren't so good. If I find I am getting inappropriate content in the overheads when upmixing, I just turn the upmixer off and use the native format.


Yup. Seems some discs work better than others with different formats.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Bachelor said:


> Do you have the movie trolls? I was surprised the use of ceiling speakers in that movie. Your kids may be too old for that movie though.


Nope-have a 8, 6 and 3.5 year old. Would definitely get Trolls if good use of Atmos speakers thanks!

Surprised to hear about greatest showman-coulda sworn more then a few said it’s a great Atmos disc-albeit not using much overhead, hence the question. About upmixing it...


----------



## Bachelor

I've only listened to some songs of the greatest showman. I don't recall discrete overhead effects, but it did have immersive sound. The bass and overall sound is very good. I'd still watch it but don't expect intense discrete effects. I need to sit down and watch it all the way through since adding atmos myself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

ScottieBoysName said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've realized, upmixing isn't an exact science. Some discs are really very, very good when upmixed with DSU or Neural:X, others aren't so good. If I find I am getting inappropriate content in the overheads when upmixing, I just turn the upmixer off and use the native format.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Seems some discs work better than others with different formats.
Click to expand...

Different mixes, different sound cues that make each upmixer react differently. Makes sense.


----------



## camd5pt0

Here's what I've been thinking about. Last time I calibrated with xt32 I didn't touch the results, before I usually have changed the levels to match the same db. 

However, I was thinking, is the goal of room correction to match levels of all speakers OR set delays via level for sound to reach listening position on time, therefore some levels will differ.

Also I'm debating ditching the multi-eq app for the AVR processing anyway since I never edit curves etc. In favor of getting best results 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

camd5pt0 said:


> Here's what I've been thinking about. Last time I calibrated with xt32 I didn't touch the results, before I usually have changed the levels to match the same db.
> 
> However, I was thinking, is the goal of room correction to match levels of all speakers OR set delays via level for sound to reach listening position on time, therefore some levels will differ.


This is really not relevant to the Atmos thread, probably better suited to the Audyssey thread.

But briefly... Level matching (volume) and delays are totally separate aspects of calibration. Level matching will depend on the speaker's sensitivity, distance, and room acoustic factors, with the goal being to have all the speakers producing the same SPL at the listening position if fed the same signal. Delays are just about time alignment and depend on distance -- the goal isn't to make sure the level is the same, but that the sound from different speakers reaches your ears at the same time.

Time alignment vs. level matching, two different things.

What Audyssey or other automated room EQ systems does is actually much more than that -- level matching and time alignment is just a basic first step of calibration.

Any deeper than that should go to the Audyssey thread.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

johnnygrandis said:


> Is it just me or are the latest Atmos film -mixes starting to really shine ?


I've been reading reviews lately that have really been keeping this on my mind. I certainly hope they are. As I read it said once, as the technology matures, so will the skills of those creating the mixes (not sure if Disney audio people read that, though).

I also hope that, if the mixers have a heart like I would if I were a mixer, they remain aware of the growing interest in home Atmos/immersive sound, and create mixes that will be more representative of what Atmos can do.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## ioanni

kbarnes701 said:


> My Di6DC overhead speakers are mounted in the 'classic' locations for TF and TR. I am fortunate to have a high ceiling (the speakers are about 10-11ft from the floor) and of course it is a dedicated room so WAF etc isn't a consideration for me. Previously I used the smaller Tannoy Di5DC speakers as my overheads, to good effect.


And may I also have your insight on where you point them once you mount them? With these speakers at the tops location, I am not sure if the best is to a) point them straight down like an in-ceiling speaker b) Straight at the MLP with toe-in c) Straight at front towards the sofa d)with lots of toe-in so they cross in front of the listener, e.g. pointing the left top at the right side and the right top at the left side of the MLP.

Their wide dispersion pattern makes them versatile I guess and all rooms are different, but it would be great to have a starting point based on a tried and tested home theatre. If nothing else, toe-in will affect how they are mounted in the first place.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I have never said every speaker will sound identical from every location. However, just because one cannot obtain audio nirvana due to the human ear and physics, the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water. What I am saying is that speakers from the same family will present a better overall experience than mix-matched. As far as proof, the Atmos demo disc Audiosphere was very revealing in my setup/room with regards to the ceiling speakers. Having recently changed out a mix-matched pro cinema setup to a single family setup, the difference was more than subtle. Mixing speakers that have compression drivers with speakers that have tweeters is audible. Having had both in my room with nothing to prove either way, I will never agree it is marketing. I have zero doubt that if you had the space for 3677s for surrounds, you would hear a distinct difference. When I moved from 4722s as surround floor channels to SCS-8s, it was very noticeable. The SCS-8 is no slouch as a surround/ceiling speaker either. We had similar discussions on pro cinema speakers themselves. People argue that high sensitivity pro cinema speakers don't make a difference with theater dynamics. You, who once objected to that premise, are now a believer. I hold fast on my position about Gene too
> 
> I do concur that as room correction technology improves, it makes these differences minute.


Not disagreeing. In an ideal world I'd have 11 identical speakers if I could. And sure, if practical get them all from the same source. And definitely don't mix very different types of speaker. All this is commonsense I think. But HST, equally don't overthink this 'timbre matching' thing. I hear no significant timbral differences between my LCR JBLs and my Tannoys, despite the former being horn loaded and the latter being coaxial with a concentric tweeter. I did try to go with JBLs for the surrounds but it didn't work out as there was a worldwide shortage of the JBLs I wanted right at the time I wanted them. But choosing the Tannoys instead doesn;t seem to have compromised the sound here.

(We both agree about Gene at least LOL).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Then start with speakers that sound consistent off-axis.


Good point. My Tannoys are close to perfection in this regard.




sdurani said:


> Your ears and pink noise (or monotone program material, like the Tracy Chapman song Fast Cars).


Maybe - but with general real world material, I don't think it's all that important TBH. I don't generally want to listen to pink noise, and using a particular track that way is using the music to play the system rather than using the system to play the music and I really don't ever do that (any more anyway - I did in my 'hi-fi audiophile' days). I take your point that the effect can be observed though.


----------



## kbarnes701

bobbyhollywood said:


> I do not consider The Greatest Showman to be an Atmos-demo disc for what you're looking to hear.
> 
> My personal recommendations would be It, A Quiet Place, Blade Runner 2049 and the new 4K Superman (1978) which has massive amounts of overhead sounds in the new remix.


The Greatest Showman has a lovely sound track but it isn't any sort of Atmos demo disc. This list was posted recently and every movie on it is terrific for showcasing Atmos.

- John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
- Mad Max Fury Road
- Ready Player One
- The Matrix 4K remaster
- Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
- Oblivion 4K
- Spider-Man Homecoming
- Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
- Deadpool 4K
- Dredd 4K
- Fury 4K
- Fantastic Beasts
- Pacific Rim 4K
- Gravity


----------



## kbarnes701

ioanni said:


> And may I also have your insight on where you point them once you mount them? With these speakers at the tops location, I am not sure if the best is to a) point them straight down like an in-ceiling speaker b) Straight at the MLP with toe-in c) Straight at front towards the sofa d)with lots of toe-in so they cross in front of the listener, e.g. pointing the left top at the right side and the right top at the left side of the MLP.
> 
> Their wide dispersion pattern makes them versatile I guess and all rooms are different, but it would be great to have a starting point based on a tried and tested home theatre. If nothing else, toe-in will affect how they are mounted in the first place.


I started with them aimed down at the floor per Dolby guidelines for wide-dispersion speakers. But after a while I repositioned them to aim them towards MLP. Since all my other speakers are aimed towards MLP I saw no good reason to treat the Atmos speakers any differently. Aiming them down to the floor may give a little more of a 'diffuse' effect but I prefer 'precise' to 'diffuse' generally. With such wide dispersion designs the differences are, TBH, very subtle. With designs that have a narrower dispersion field, aiming them is essential IMO. Mine are aimed at MLP since I have no need to use 'energy trading' (d in your list) in my room, but I highly recommend that approach if any sort of hot-spotting is a concern.

I think the Tannoys from their installer range are more or less perfect for Atmos use. This isn't just bias because I own them -- I could have picked more or less any speakers to use as overheads. But if you study the specs and design of the Tannoy dual concentrics, they almost seem to be the speaker Dolby wrote their guidelines for.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I have never said every speaker will sound identical from every location. However, just because one cannot obtain audio nirvana due to the human ear and physics, the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water. What I am saying is that speakers from the same family will present a better overall experience than mix-matched. As far as proof, the Atmos demo disc Audiosphere was very revealing in my setup/room with regards to the ceiling speakers. Having recently changed out a mix-matched pro cinema setup to a single family setup, the difference was more than subtle. Mixing speakers that have compression drivers with speakers that have tweeters is audible. Having had both in my room with nothing to prove either way, I will never agree it is marketing. I have zero doubt that if you had the space for 3677s for surrounds, you would hear a distinct difference. When I moved from 4722s as surround floor channels to SCS-8s, it was very noticeable. The SCS-8 is no slouch as a surround/ceiling speaker either. We had similar discussions on pro cinema speakers themselves. People argue that high sensitivity pro cinema speakers don't make a difference with theater dynamics. You, who once objected to that premise, are now a believer. I hold fast on my position about Gene too
> 
> I do concur that as room correction technology improves, it makes these differences minute.


Just as another point of reference, last night, by coincidence, I watched Guy Ritchie's take on _Sherlock Holmes_ and in it there is a scene where Mark Strong's character's voice spins around the room and comes from all different locations. It is a good test of whether the speakers are adversely affecting the timbre of his voice and I can report that there is no discernible difference at all here, regardless of where his voice is coming from in the room, or which speaker it is coming out of. An interesting test and a great coincidence as I had forgotten that scene existed.


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> bobbyhollywood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not consider The Greatest Showman to be an Atmos-demo disc for what you're looking to hear.
> 
> My personal recommendations would be It, A Quiet Place, Blade Runner 2049 and the new 4K Superman (1978) which has massive amounts of overhead sounds in the new remix.
> 
> 
> 
> The Greatest Showman has a lovely sound track but it isn't any sort of Atmos demo disc. This list was posted recently and every movie on it is terrific for showcasing Atmos.
> 
> - John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
> - Mad Max Fury Road
> - Ready Player One
> - The Matrix 4K remaster
> - Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
> - Oblivion 4K
> - Spider-Man Homecoming
> - Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
> - Deadpool 4K
> - Dredd 4K
> - Fury 4K
> - Fantastic Beasts
> - Pacific Rim 4K
> - Gravity
Click to expand...

Thanks for the list-will definitely start adding some of these. Just wish there starts to be more kids movies released with awesome Atmos tracks so I can kill two birds with one stone 🙂


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Just as another point of reference, last night, by coincidence, I watched Guy Ritchie's take on _Sherlock Holmes_ and in it there is a scene where Mark Strong's character's voice spins around the room and comes from all different locations. It is a good test of whether the speakers are adversely affecting the timbre of his voice and I can report that there is no discernible difference at all here, regardless of where his voice is coming from in the room, or which speaker it is coming out of. An interesting test and a great coincidence as I had forgotten that scene existed.


^^ this scene, as well as the first scene of "Gravity" where voices float around the room, is a great "torture" test for timbre matching. And I can definitely hear timbral shifts when I do this test, but the human voice is the absolute worst case scenario as our entire ear/brain mechanism is evolved to optimize for hearing other human voices.

With 99% of program content it's not as obvious, but I can definitely hear the shifts, personally, in my room.

Another one (not Atmos) is in episode 5 of season 1 of Daredevil (mixed by our very own FilmMixer!) where there is a person sitting in a car, singing a song, and the camera rotates 360 degrees with the singing voice moving around you in concert with the camera panning. EDIT: it's 13.5 minutes into the episode. (this scene is also a great test of 5.1 > 7.1 upmixers since properly done the voice will travel smoothly through all 4 surrounds, even though it was mixed in 5.1... that scene is how I confirmed that Auro-2D/3D upmixing just copied the surrounds to the surround backs).


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> ^^ this scene, as well as the first scene of "Gravity" where voices float around the room, is a great "torture" test for timbre matching. And I can definitely hear timbral shifts when I do this test, but the human voice is the absolute worst case scenario as our entire ear/brain mechanism is evolved to optimize for hearing other human voices.
> 
> With 99% of program content it's not as obvious, but I can definitely hear the shifts, personally, in my room.


I can hear subtle differences which account for the fact that the voice is coming from a different direction. This is what would happen in real life. But these differences cannot be explained by reference to the loudspeakers themselves which, post calibration with Dirac Live, measure exactly the same across the spectrum of the human voice. If the FR measures the same for each speaker, where are so-called 'timbral differences' coming from, if not from the different locations of the sound source in the room?

Regardless, they are so insignificant that they don't merit the attention sometimes given to them in these threads, IMO.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> Thanks for the list-will definitely start adding some of these. Just wish there starts to be more kids movies released with awesome Atmos tracks so I can kill two birds with one stone 🙂


Actually there are some good Atmos tracks on kids movies too, we just tend to focus on the "adult" stuff here  ... being kids movies by nature don't expect them to be as insane and aggressive as, say, Mad Max Fury Road, but many of these have excellent and enjoyable soundtracks. Here's a few that I've enjoyed with my kids:

Incredibles & Incredibles 2 (both very good, even if not crazy aggressive since they are Disney-fied)
Trolls (4K only unfortunately)
Goosebumps (a terrific Atmos track with tons of cool use of overheads)
Secret Life of Pets
Lego Batman
Coco (4K only, not a ton of overhead action but a wonderful movie with lots of music)

If the kids are old enough for Harry Potter, apparently (haven't heard them myself) the DTS:X 4K remixes for the entire Harry Potter series are supposed to be very good.

Plus of course many non-Atmos kids movies (especially Pixar stuff) has amazing sound mixes that will sound phenomenal on an Atmos setup. How to Train your Dragon, Kung-Fu Panda, Inside Out, Finding Nemo, etc.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> I can hear subtle differences which account for the fact that the voice is coming from a different direction. This is what would happen in real life. But these differences cannot be explained by reference to the loudspeakers themselves which, post calibration with Dirac Live, measure exactly the same across the spectrum of the human voice. If the FR measures the same for each speaker, where are so-called 'timbral differences' coming from, if not from the different locations of the sound source in the room?
> 
> Regardless, they are so insignificant that they don't merit the attention sometimes given to them in these threads, IMO.


I'm not in your room so I don't know what you are hearing. I'm just saying in MY room, I can hear the differences. That's probably just an indication that I still need to keep working on my room, not an indictment of your room or hearing.


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> Gene and Keith I think you two old coots are nuts  I could detect the different tonal qualities with non-matching ceiling speakers. I think timbre matched i.e. the same family of LF drivers and a matching high frequency driver (tweeter or compression) driver provides superior results. If it is marketing kool-aid that I am drinking, then pour me another glass because I am enjoying the taste





kbarnes701 said:


> Of course, none of this proves I'm not nuts (can't speak for gene4ht - yeah, he seems a bit nuts ROFL).





kbarnes701 said:


> (We both agree about Gene at least LOL).



LOL! Hey Chris & Keith...I've been accused of a lot worse than being nuts! I will admit to being nuts about this hobby and even more so by bantering with you two! Bottom line, with regard to this "timbre" thing, we all hear what we hear with our speakers in our rooms...it's very likely dependent on different variables...much like your (Chris') experience with speakers and AccuEQ. I share Keith's experience and am more than satisfied with my results...it just works with no "timbre" distractions on any content. I also recognize that others may experience different results and therefore acknowledge Chris' findings.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Actually there are some good Atmos tracks on kids movies too, we just tend to focus on the "adult" stuff here  ... being kids movies by nature don't expect them to be as insane and aggressive as, say, Mad Max Fury Road, but many of these have excellent and enjoyable soundtracks. Here's a few that I've enjoyed with my kids:
> 
> Incredibles & Incredibles 2 (both very good, even if not crazy aggressive since they are Disney-fied)
> Trolls (4K only unfortunately)
> Goosebumps (a terrific Atmos track with tons of cool use of overheads)
> Secret Life of Pets
> Lego Batman
> Coco (4K only, not a ton of overhead action but a wonderful movie with lots of music)
> 
> If the kids are old enough for Harry Potter, apparently (haven't heard them myself) the DTS:X 4K remixes for the entire Harry Potter series are supposed to be very good.
> 
> Plus of course many non-Atmos kids movies (especially Pixar stuff) has amazing sound mixes that will sound phenomenal on an Atmos setup. *How to Train your Dragon*, Kung-Fu Panda, Inside Out, Finding Nemo, etc.



Both How to Train Your Dragons are coming to UHD Blu-ray in January with DTS: X remixes. Hopefully, they're more than a step up from their prior mixes. I would rather that Universal used full Dolby Atmos (not Atmos-Lite™ as that's no better than DTS: X), but I guess it's better than nothing.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If the FR measures the same for each speaker, where are so-called 'timbral differences' coming from, if not from the different locations of the sound source in the room?


Suppose you had two different subs: one sloped up 6dB from 20Hz to 80Hz, the other sloped down 6dB from 20Hz to 80Hz. When you match their levels with a SPL meter, they still don't sound the same. How is that possible when they're at the same level? Turns out the SPL meter didn't measure their frequency response, so while their average level is the same, the ratio of 20Hz sound vs the amount of 80Hz sound is different for each sub. 

Likewise with two different speakers and frequency response measurement. The sound that reaches the mic is a combination of the speaker and the room. Two different speakers, with differences in dispersion pattern and off-axis consistency, might measure the same but still sound different because each frequency response measurement is a different ratio of speaker to room (but still averages out to the same). Hence the Toole quote earlier pointing out that EQ cannot fix things like dispersion pattern and off-axis consistency. The only way to address those variables is another of the same speaker (or as similar as your situation allows). That then truly leaves you with one room variable: location.


> Regardless, they are so insignificant that they don't merit the attention sometimes given to them in these threads, IMO.


I get that the difference to your ears is so insignificant that you don't want to discuss it. But why would you want the topic itself not discussed by other people who notice the difference more than you do? No one is forcing you to participate in that part of the discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> I'm not in your room so I don't know what you are hearing. I'm just saying in MY room, I can hear the differences. That's probably just an indication that I still need to keep working on my room, not an indictment of your room or hearing.


Sure. It almost always comes back to the room.

Also, just as there are people who hear things that can't be there (eg HDMI cable differences), there must also be people who don't hear things that are definitely there. I know I am not in the former camp, but I may well be in the latter sometimes


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Suppose you had two different subs: one sloped up 6dB from 20Hz to 80Hz, the other sloped down 6dB from 20Hz to 80Hz. When you match their levels with a SPL meter, they still don't sound the same. How is that possible when they're at the same level? Turns out the SPL meter didn't measure their frequency response, so while their average level is the same, the ratio of 20Hz sound vs the amount of 80Hz sound is different for each sub.
> 
> Likewise with two different speakers and frequency response measurement. The sound that reaches the mic is a combination of the speaker and the room. Two different speakers, with differences in dispersion pattern and off-axis consistency, might measure the same but still sound different because each frequency response measurement is a different ratio of speaker to room (but still averages out to the same). Hence the Toole quote earlier pointing out that EQ cannot fix things like dispersion pattern and off-axis consistency. The only way to address those variables is another of the same speaker (or as similar as your situation allows). That then truly leaves you with one room variable: location.


I agree that the location of the loudspeakers in the room is very significant. What I don't get, from the above, is how two identical speakers, in two different locations, will ever sound identical, for the very reasons you state ("...each frequency response measurement is a different ratio of speaker to room..."). If even two identical speakers don't sound the same, due to their different room locations, then 'timbre matching' seems to be a largely pointless pursuit anyway (albeit that two identical speakers might stand a chance of getting closer to each other than two non-identical speakers).




sdurani said:


> I get that the difference to your ears is so insignificant that you don't want to discuss it. But why would you want the topic itself not discussed by other people who notice the difference more than you do? No one is forcing you to participate in that part of the discussion.


Is that how you read my comment? OK, well I don't think that is what I said, but it may have come across that way. I have zero problem with people discussing anything they choose to discuss -- I was just saying that, to me, it seems to be a discussion that people may attach too much significance too. I still hold that in the past timbre matching may have been very important but that today, with SOTA room EQ, it is of much less significance. And I have said repeatedly that one needs to use commonsense, and, if practical, possible and affordable, to choose speakers with very similar characteristics. But that isn't always possible and where it isn't I am saying use good room EQ, *treat the room properly *and not over-worry about small timbral differences.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> What I don't get, from the above, is how two identical speakers, in two different locations, will ever sound identical, for the very reasons you state ("...each frequency response measurement is a different ratio of speaker to room...").


The goal isn't an absolute (identical sound) but a relative improvement (greater consistency). Not unreasonable to minimize variables that contribute to inconsistency (to whatever extent you can). Location does change sound, but as you said: _"This is what would happen in real life."_ So it's not like our brain doesn't expect that type of change, since we experience it constantly when something/someone moves. By comparison, having the same sound transition from a compression driver at the back of a horn to a surface mounted dome tweeter is the type of change that can give the impression of inconsistency, even if you've matched their frequency responses.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> The goal isn't an absolute (identical sound) but a relative improvement (greater consistency). Not unreasonable to minimize variables that contribute to inconsistency (to whatever extent you can). Location does change sound, but as you said: _"This is what would happen in real life."_ So it's not like our brain doesn't expect that type of change, since we experience it constantly when something/someone moves. *By comparison, having the same sound transition from a compression driver at the back of a horn to a surface mounted dome tweeter is the type of change that can give the impression of inconsistency, even if you've matched their frequency responses.*


But nobody is suggesting that is a sensible thing to do. (Bolded)


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> But nobody is suggesting that is a sensible thing to do. (Bolded)


Nobody is suggesting non-horn surrounds & heights to go with horn L/C/Rs?


----------



## camd5pt0

kbarnes701 said:


> The Greatest Showman has a lovely sound track but it isn't any sort of Atmos demo disc. This list was posted recently and every movie on it is terrific for showcasing Atmos.
> 
> - John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
> - Mad Max Fury Road
> - Ready Player One
> - The Matrix 4K remaster
> - Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
> - Oblivion 4K
> - Spider-Man Homecoming
> - Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
> - Deadpool 4K
> - Dredd 4K
> - Fury 4K
> - Fantastic Beasts
> - Pacific Rim 4K
> - Gravity


I have every title you mentioned lol except original BR

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## camd5pt0

So I'm going to build some makeshift acoustic panels. I have 12 Batts, 16x48x3 1/4.

I hope these will make a difference in sound?









Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> How do you even test for it? You'd have to have a sound in the LCR and then the exact same sound (eg a human voice) in the surrounds/overheads. How often does that happen? .


It would be easy to test to see that all 11 need to be the same because 

A. The different placements in the room and differing proximities to room boundaries don't alter the sound
B. We perceive frequency balance equally regardless of direction. 

um. . .

*NOT*, on both A and B









Note: due to differences in our individual outer ear shapes the HRTF of one person will never exactly match another.

I worry about the front three speakers being the same and the remaining ones all from the same "family".


----------



## Bytehoven

camd5pt0 said:


> So I'm going to build some makeshift acoustic panels. I have 12 Batts, 16x48x3 1/4.
> 
> I hope these will make a difference in sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I used something similar wrapped black felt, hot gluing the folded flaps in the back. Good luck.

Great for eliminating flutter echo. Any standing waves might take some extra care but that should get you off to good start, helping the room sound less like a box.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Nobody is suggesting non-horn surrounds & heights to go with horn L/C/Rs?


Sorry - long day here. I misunderstood your point. There is indeed no timbral match problem at all when having LCR horns and non-horn surrounds, as my own setup here in the Cowshed so ably demonstrates. I think that this points to the entire issue of timbral matching being so overblown. If it is an issue at all, it is not a very significant issue (given good room EQ) and for many of us it clearly isn't any sort of issue. That is why I expressed surprise earlier at the amount of 'airtime' it regularly seems to get.


----------



## kbarnes701

camd5pt0 said:


> I have every title you mentioned lol except original BR
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Then I urge you to get the original Blade Runner. The remixed sound makes it like a different movie and it is so well done that you will literally gasp with amazement at some (many) of the scenes. Well, I did


----------



## camd5pt0

Bytehoven said:


> I used something similar wrapped black felt, hot gluing the folded flaps in the back. Good luck.
> 
> Great for eliminating flutter echo. Any standing waves might take some extra care but that should get you off to good start, helping the room sound less like a box.


Thanks can you PM me pics of your panels??

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> If the FR measures the same for each speaker, where are so-called 'timbral differences' coming from


I have a Civic and a Porsche that dyno 425 rear wheel horsepower and 490ft pounds of torque. Curb weight is the same for both vehicles. The dyno sheet shows they are identical and measurements prove it. However, track times and drive-ability are miles apart. The Honda Civic owner will clamor equality as they wave their dyno sheets publicly. The Porsche owner simply smiles and drives off. I know you own a Porsche (or did), so this example should resonate with you (pun intended). Measurements only tell part of the story.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think that this points to the entire issue of timbral matching being so overblown.


Overblown for you. But not for others. Or do you not believe that's possible?


> That is why I expressed surprise earlier at the amount of 'airtime' it regularly seems to get.


If you are unwilling to accept that other people have different hearing acuity and priorities than you, then you'll continue to be surprised when they keep discussing a topic that you believe is a non-issue.


----------



## jazzrock

Timber matching is, among many ideals within our hobby, important. However, it is one of many areas where compromises may be required. Ever speaker has a sound signature regardless of how neutral manufacturers claim they are. 

Take a musical instrument as an example. A cornet and a trumpet laying the exact same note will sound a bit different though they are very very similar. A good or bad analogy .... dunno. But there simply are differences between speakers. 

Does it matter? Depends on who you speak to. For me, the amount of money, time and effort I have invested to achieve the best sound reproduction possible makes this and many other details extremely important. But, as awesome as my system and room performance is, it is full of compromises!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jazzrock said:


> Timber matching is, among many ideals within our hobby, important. However, it is one of many areas where compromises may be required. Every speaker has a sound signature regardless of how neutral manufacturers claim they are.
> 
> Take a musical instrument as an example. A cornet and a trumpet laying the exact same note will sound a bit different though they are very very similar. A good or bad analogy .... dunno. But there simply are differences between speakers.
> 
> Does it matter? Depends on who you speak to. For me, the amount of money, time and effort I have invested to achieve the best sound reproduction possible makes this and many other details extremely important. But, as awesome as my system and room performance is, it is full of compromises!





It sure is important to me. If you CAN use speakers that are very similar to each other sonically, then that is the best strategy. Can you put EXACTLY the same speaker EVERYWHERE in a theater room? Usually not, but if you're in the right ballpark, the cohesiveness of an immersive soundtrack really comes together.


----------



## Molon_Labe

jazzrock said:


> Timber matching is, among many *proven best practices* within our hobby, important.


Fixed it for you 

In all seriousness, this really wasn't debated until the advent of having speakers on the ceilings. Prior to Atmos, this was a very well known best practice. Simply google 5.1 SACD and see all the recommendations to have matching speakers. With surrounds now being object based combined with improved mixing/sound engineering, the days of ambient sounds only in surround channels is over. Every speaker is fair game for the same content i.e. voices, explosions, movie scores, foot steps, etc 

Now, due to size limitations and limited speaker offerings from manufacturers, many in the community have flagged this as "it is no longer important" or "marketing hype"  What changed other than our limited options to be able to adhere to the standard? As you stated, compromises are often required due to room, budget, and product offerings. However, we shouldn't throw out well known best practices because we can no longer adhere to those practices. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water in an attempt to defend your setup. This post was not directed at you or anyone in general. Just piggybacking on your thoughts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I have a Civic and a Porsche that dyno 425 rear wheel horsepower and 490ft pounds of torque. Curb weight is the same for both vehicles. The dyno sheet shows they are identical and measurements prove it. However, track times and drive-ability are miles apart. The Honda Civic owner will clamor equality as they wave their dyno sheets publicly. The Porsche owner simply smiles and drives off. I know you own a Porsche (or did), so this example should resonate with you (pun intended). Measurements only tell part of the story.


Not really sure that car analogies work when it comes to sound reproduction. It's a bit like saying you have two buddies, one is 6ft6in tall and weighs 200 pounds and the other is 5ft6in tall and also weighs 200 pounds, so they must be identical. 'Timbre' means frequency response and if the FR is identical then it is identical. Your analogy only works if you say that both vehicles do 0-60 in 4.2 seconds - if they do, then as far as acceleration from standstill to 60mph is concerned, there is zero difference. Otherwise what you seem to be saying is that two speakers might have the same FR yet be of different size, design, weight etc. That woud make them very different, but not as far as FR is concerned.

Everything which can be heard can be measured. Not everything which can be measured can be heard.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Overblown for you. But not for others. Or do you not believe that's possible? If you are unwilling to accept that other people have different hearing acuity and priorities than you, then you'll continue to be surprised when they keep discussing a topic that you believe is a non-issue.


At least a good part of any forum is that people express their opinions. My opinion is that most of the discussion about timbre matching is overblown. Your opinion of course may be different. If you are unwilling to accept that other people have different opinions and priorities than you, then you'll continue to be confused when they keep discussing their opinions which differ from yours.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> 'Timbre' means frequency response and if the FR is identical then it is identical.


Timbre is not frequency response - where are you getting this from? If that were true, every speaker would sound the same. Timbre is the tonal quality of the sound. The definition is "the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity." Two different trumpets from two different manufacturers produce the same frequency. Will they sound the same? What if they are played by two different musicians? We are miles apart on this and I know you will never concede We will just have to agree to disagree. But timbre and frequency response are not the same. This is not opinion.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> If you are unwilling to accept that other people have different opinions and priorities than you, then you'll continue to be confused when they keep discussing their opinions which differ from yours.


Where did I say I was confused or surprised? You said you were surprised. I explained why.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Timbre is not frequency response - where are you getting this from? If that were true, every speaker would sound the same. Timbre is the tonal quality of the sound. The definition is "the character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity." Two different trumpets from two different manufacturers produce the same frequency. Will they sound the same? What if they are played by two different musicians? We are miles apart on this and I know you will never concede We will just have to agree to disagree. But timbre and frequency response are not the same. This is not opinion.


Ideally every speaker *would* sound the same, since the main goal has to be absolute transparency to the source. Trumpets etc are creators of sound not reproducers, so that is just a red herring. And if the two trumpets measure the same, they will sound the same. Sound reproduction isn't some sport of 'magic'. Also, if you are trying to convince me that speakers should have 'a sound of their own' you are right -- we will never agree.


----------



## mzs22

Not sure if this has been discussed before but is John Wick bluray not dolby atmos?


----------



## sdurani

mzs22 said:


> Not sure if this has been discussed before but is John Wick bluray not dolby atmos?


John Wick Blu-ray is Atmos (and a good Atmos mix at that).


----------



## mzs22

I started watching it and only had the option for dolby digital


----------



## sdurani

Was it a rental?


----------



## batpig

mzs22 said:


> I started watching it and only had the option for dolby digital


You probably have a rental copy -- John Wick is Lionsgate and they cripple rental discs with basic 5.1 DD tracks.


----------



## mzs22

No rental, I double checked my settings also and put in John Wick 2 and that was in atmos. The option is not coming up in the disc menu


----------



## batpig

mzs22 said:


> No rental, I double checked my settings also and put in John Wick 2 and that was in atmos. The option is not coming up in the disc menu


Where did you get the disc? If you bought it used online you could have gotten a former rental disc.


----------



## mzs22

Double checked the disc, it was switched with the the regular dvd, did not know both were included!! Oops


----------



## Selden Ball

mzs22 said:


> No rental, I double checked my settings also and put in John Wick 2 and that was in atmos. The option is not coming up in the disc menu


Double check which disc you put in the player. If you bought a dual-disc package, it's easy to accidentally put the wrong disc in the player. Also, most disc players will let you step through the various soundtracks if you've selectged the wrong one by accident.


----------



## batpig

Selden Ball said:


> Double check which disc you put in the player. If you bought a dual-disc package, it's easy to accidentally put the wrong disc in the player. Also, most disc players will let you step through the various soundtracks if you've selectged the wrong one by accident.


Very convenient to swoop in with that answer 30 minutes after he revealed that's what happened


----------



## Selden Ball

batpig said:


> Very convenient to swoop in with that answer 30 minutes after he revealed that's what happened


For some reason I didn't see that admission. Oh, well. A reminder to us all....


----------



## mzs22

Was just going to order the 4k version because they have it for $10. Looks like some decent deals on 4k movies for black friday


----------



## helvetica bold

Game of thrones Atmos promo





Are they referring to the Disk version or will HBO broadcast in Atmos? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

Dunno...but all seasons on disc are already out in Atmos. Maybe next year's final season will be in Atmos when it's broadcast.


----------



## ctsv510

helvetica bold said:


> Game of thrones Atmos promo
> https://youtu.be/a4bbXGjVEw8
> 
> Are they referring to the Disk version or will HBO broadcast in Atmos?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





helvetica bold said:


> Game of thrones Atmos promo
> https://youtu.be/a4bbXGjVEw8
> 
> Are they referring to the Disk version or will HBO broadcast in Atmos?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Looks like it's for the first two seasons on blu ray.

EDIT scratch that... First 6 seasons on blu ray


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

stikle said:


> Dunno...but all seasons on disc are already out in Atmos. Maybe next year's final season will be in Atmos when it's broadcast.


They only started using Atmos in the fifth season. The steelbook reissues are all in Atmos, but the older season 1 to 4 discs aren't.


----------



## steelman1991

G4n0nD0rf said:


> They only started using Atmos in the fifth season. The steelbook reissues are all in Atmos, but the older season 1 to 4 discs aren't.



Incorrect - Seasons 1-6 are available in Atmos on Bluray disc and have been for some time.


----------



## Josh Z

steelman1991 said:


> Incorrect - Seasons 1-6 are available in Atmos on Bluray disc and have been for some time.


Nevertheless, the initial Blu-ray releases of Seasons 1-4 were DTS-HD MA 5.1. They were later remastered and reissued in Atmos, starting with the SteelBook editions.


----------



## steelman1991

Josh Z said:


> Nevertheless, the initial Blu-ray releases of Seasons 1-4 were DTS-HD MA 5.1. They were later remastered and reissued in Atmos, starting with the SteelBook editions.



Nevertheless still incorrect information


----------



## Josh Z

steelman1991 said:


> Nevertheless still incorrect information


Why don't you try reading his post again? What G4n0nD0rf wrote was correct and what you posted does not contradict it.


----------



## steelman1991

Josh Z said:


> Why don't you try reading his post again? What G4n0nD0rf wrote was correct and what you posted does not contradict it.



Perhaps you should try reading his post again? - his statement was that seasons 1-4 "AREN'T" available in Atmos - not "WEREN'T". So incorrect information which I corrected.


----------



## Josh Z

steelman1991 said:


> Perhaps you should try reading his post again? - his statement was that seasons 1-4 "AREN'T" available in Atmos - not "WEREN'T". So incorrect information which I corrected.


You are misreading what he wrote. He stated that the Steelbook reissues are all in Atmos. 

The older Blu-ray releases (prior to the SteelBooks) are not Atmos.

If I'm not mistaken, the only ways to get Atmos on Seasons 1-4 are the SteelBooks, the "Complete Seasons 1-6" and "Complete Seasons 1-7" box sets, or the UHD release of Season 1. The individual season by season Blu-ray sets for 1-4, which are still on retailer shelves, are only DTS-HD MA 5.1.

In other words, someone looking for Atmos on this series should be careful what they buy. If you grab the wrong box set off a Walmart or Best Buy shelf, it may not have Atmos.


----------



## steelman1991

Josh Z said:


> You are misreading what he wrote. He stated that the Steelbook reissues are all in Atmos.
> 
> The older Blu-ray releases (prior to the SteelBooks) are not Atmos.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the only ways to get Atmos on Seasons 1-4 are the SteelBooks, the "Complete Seasons 1-6" and "Complete Seasons 1-7" box sets, or the UHD release of Season 1. The individual season by season Blu-ray sets for 1-4, which are still on retailer shelves, are only DTS-HD MA 5.1.
> 
> In other words, someone looking for Atmos on this series should be careful what they buy. If you grab the wrong box set off a Walmart or Best Buy shelf, it may not have Atmos.



No I'm not. The OP stated that season 1-4 "AREN'T" available in Atmos. They are and you confirm that in your own post. Someone looking for Atmos on this series, wouldn't even bother looking for them after reading the OP's post, now they know that they ARE available .


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> The older Blu-ray releases (prior to the SteelBooks) are not Atmos.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the only ways to get Atmos on Seasons 1-4 are the SteelBooks, the "Complete Seasons 1-6" and "Complete Seasons 1-7" box sets, or the UHD release of Season 1. The individual season by season Blu-ray sets for 1-4, which are still on retailer shelves, are only DTS-HD MA 5.1.
> 
> In other words, someone looking for Atmos on this series should be careful what they buy. If you grab the wrong box set off a Walmart or Best Buy shelf, it may not have Atmos.


This is exactly correct. 

In the last 6 months I purchased Seasons 1-4 in Steelbook, and 5-7 (not 6) regular Bluray, and all of them have Atmos. I know this because I hadn't watched GoT until 6 months ago when I binged the entire series on disc.

And it was glorious.


----------



## Josh Z

steelman1991 said:


> No I'm not. The OP stated that season 1-4 "AREN'T" available in Atmos. They are and you confirm that in your own post. Someone looking for Atmos on this series, wouldn't even bother looking for them after reading the OP's post, now they know that they ARE available .


I'm really not interested in arguing this any further, but you are still misunderstanding what he wrote. G4n0nD0rf said:

"*The steelbook reissues are all in Atmos*,"

Right there, he's acknowledging that Atmos copies do exist for all seasons. 

"but the older season 1 to 4 discs aren't."

The "older season 1 to 4 discs" means the older Blu-ray releases of Seasons 1 to 4. This is correct. Those older Blu-ray releases, which are still widely available on retailer shelves, do not have Atmos. Only the newer Season 1 to 4 discs found in the SteelBooks or the bigger multi-season box sets have Atmos.

Perhaps G4n0nD0rf could have worded his post differently to avoid this confusion, but there's no need to jump down his throat about it. What he was trying to say is fundamentally correct.

Can we move on now?


----------



## steelman1991

Josh Z said:


> I'm really not interested in arguing this any further, but you are still misunderstanding what he wrote. G4n0nD0rf said:
> 
> "*The steelbook reissues are all in Atmos*,"
> 
> Right there, he's acknowledging that Atmos copies do exist for all seasons.
> 
> "but the older season 1 to 4 discs aren't."
> 
> The "older season 1 to 4 discs" means the older Blu-ray releases of Seasons 1 to 4. This is correct. Those older Blu-ray releases, which are still widely available on retailer shelves, do not have Atmos. Only the newer Season 1 to 4 discs found in the SteelBooks or the bigger multi-season box sets have Atmos.
> 
> Perhaps G4n0nD0rf could have worded his post differently to avoid this confusion, but there's no need to jump down his throat about it. What he was trying to say is fundamentally correct.
> 
> Can we move on now?



Yet here you are defending your position. Happy to move on and at no time did I "jump down his throat" - what a drama queen . All I did was correct a statement and I stand by that. If you require the final word - I'm happy to stand aside to allow you that. No more comment from me.


----------



## andydallas

Is this the Dolby thread or the "6th grade I'm right and your wrong thread,,,no one cares, lets get back to discussing what we are here to discuss


----------



## kbarnes701

andydallas said:


> Is this the Dolby thread or the "6th grade I'm right and your wrong thread,,,no one cares, lets get back to discussing what we are here to discuss


LOL! Spot on there buddy!


----------



## Josh Z

Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering about speaker angles.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Is there a list of some of the best Atmos upmixes?? Ie discs that aren’t truly Atmos but the receivers Atmos upmixing works well with the audio content and movie?


----------



## nexus99

Some generalization here.... if you have 8' ceilings and you sit on an average height sofa... and you are about average height. That puts your head at maybe 40 inches above floor level (with some recline action going).

So that leaves (8 x12 = 96 -40 =) 56 inches to the ceiling. The Atmos documentation says that you want a 45 degree angle from your head up to your atmos speakers.


Using some sweet trig (or common sense) that means the atmos speakers should be 56 inches in front and behind the listening position.


Does that sound correct to everyone? If my math is correct they could also be as close as 26.5".


Can anyone confirm that that is correct? I am about to cut holes and this is part of my measure twice effort.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Josh Z said:


> I'm really not interested in arguing this any further, but you are still misunderstanding what he wrote. G4n0nD0rf said:
> 
> "*The steelbook reissues are all in Atmos*,"
> 
> Right there, he's acknowledging that Atmos copies do exist for all seasons.
> 
> "but the older season 1 to 4 discs aren't."
> 
> The "older season 1 to 4 discs" means the older Blu-ray releases of Seasons 1 to 4. This is correct. Those older Blu-ray releases, which are still widely available on retailer shelves, do not have Atmos. Only the newer Season 1 to 4 discs found in the SteelBooks or the bigger multi-season box sets have Atmos.
> 
> Perhaps G4n0nD0rf could have worded his post differently to avoid this confusion, but there's no need to jump down his throat about it. What he was trying to say is fundamentally correct.
> 
> Can we move on now?


I did mean the older discs released before the steelbook editions. I had no knowledge about other reissues. Sorry about the confusion


----------



## sdurani

nexus99 said:


> Can anyone confirm that that is correct?


Yes, measure from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward & rearward of you is 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Chirosamsung said:


> Is there a list of some of the best Atmos upmixes?? Ie discs that aren’t truly Atmos but the receivers Atmos upmixing works well with the audio content and movie?


Glad you clarified that you are referring strictly to upmixing. To avoid another blizzard of clarification posts, may I humbly suggest we never use the terms "Atmos" and "upmix" in such a context? 

Anytime we are talking about upmixing standard 5.1 (or 7.1) soundtracks to height speakers at the hands of Dolby technology, we are talking about Dolby Surround.


----------



## LNEWoLF

To add to Rogers post. 

Here is an AVS thread dedicated to DSU Dolby Surround Upmixing.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-official-dolby-surround-upmixing-thread.html


----------



## Chirosamsung

*2 questions please*

1. Does anyone currently use or know of any good BIPOLE surrounds that have a mount (not in-wall)?

2. Because I have a media room that opens to another room-one wall I can have a side surround wall mounted (on wall) but the other side I can’t. If I was to use a side surround like the Monitor Audio GOLD FX or SILVER FX, could I mount one and put the other either on a stand or a shelf of some kind since obviously it can’t be wall mounted there? If not then I have to go with question number 1 but wanted to see if anyone has had to resort to the different creative layout in their case

As always, many thanks!


----------



## Dawn Gordon

Yes. these:

https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-surround/


----------



## SskylineE

Hello.


I have a question for atmos in ceiling speakers.


2 front and 2 back.


Some receivers have Height 1 output and Surround back *or* Height 2 output.



Some receivers have Height 1 output and a separate Height 2 output and a seperate Surround back output.


So where is the catch?


Thanks.


----------



## jpco

SskylineE said:


> Hello.
> 
> 
> I have a question for atmos in ceiling speakers.
> 
> 
> 2 front and 2 back.
> 
> 
> Some receivers have Height 1 output and Surround back *or* Height 2 output.
> 
> 
> 
> Some receivers have Height 1 output and a separate Height 2 output and a seperate Surround back output.
> 
> 
> So where is the catch?
> 
> 
> Thanks.




Some receivers only support 9 channels (5.1.4 or 7.1.2) instead of the 11 needed for 7.1.4 setups. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SskylineE

I am interested in 5.2.4


More detailed question:


If I choose Onkyo TX-RZ830, I get Height 1 output and Surround back OR Height 2 output.


If I choose Denon AVR-X4500H, I get Height 1 output, Height 2 output and Surround back output all seperated.


Is there any problem using Surround back output for Height speakers in Onkyo TX-RZ830 case?


----------



## kbarnes701

SskylineE said:


> I am interested in 5.2.4
> 
> 
> More detailed question:
> 
> 
> If I choose Onkyo TX-RZ830, I get Height 1 output and Surround back OR Height 2 output.
> 
> 
> If I choose Denon AVR-X4500H, I get Height 1 output, Height 2 output and Surround back output all seperated.
> 
> 
> Is there any problem using Surround back output for Height speakers in Onkyo TX-RZ830 case?


No problem but you have to decide what you want/need. 

The Onk will allow you to have either of these setups: 5.x.4 OR 7.x.2 (the number after the .x is the number of speakers above your head - the .x is subwoofers, usually at least one and possibly more). IOW, you have to sacrifice the surround back if you want four speakers above you for Atmos (recommended). Some are willing to make this sacrifice, especially if they don't have room for surround back speakers anyway.

The Denon will allow you to have a full 7.x.4 setup, with surround backs and four above your head. HOWEVER, in order to do this you will need an additional two channel power amplifier since the Denon has the ability to process 11 channels (7.x.4) but only has onboard amplification for 9 channels.

So which configuration do you want? If 5.x.4 suits you, go for the ONK if it is much less expensive than the Denon or has other features you need which are not present on the Denon.

If you need 7.x.4 then you will have to choose the Denon out of this pair. Or you could choose the Denon anyway and run it in 5.x.4 mode (no external amp needed) which wiuld give you the flexibility to add surround backs at a later date if you wished (with the addition of a 2 channel power amp).

Does this make sense to you? Sometimes people get confused about 11 channels of processing but only 9 channels of onboard amplification. If I haven't explained it well, just ask for clarification.


----------



## Selden Ball

SskylineE said:


> I am interested in 5.2.4
> 
> 
> More detailed question:
> 
> 
> If I choose Onkyo TX-RZ830, I get Height 1 output and Surround back OR Height 2 output.
> 
> 
> If I choose Denon AVR-X4500H, I get Height 1 output, Height 2 output and Surround back output all seperated.
> 
> 
> Is there any problem using Surround back output for Height speakers in Onkyo TX-RZ830 case?


If you're only interested in a 5.1.4 speaker configuration, the Onkyo should be fine.

(Note that although the Onkyo TX-RZ830 has two subwoofer outputs, they provide exactly the same output signal, being the equivalent of an internal Y connection. This is unlike the Denon AVR-X4500H, which treats them as separate subwoofers with differing distances and sound levels.)


----------



## kbarnes701

Selden Ball said:


> If you're only interested in a 5.1.4 speaker configuration, the Onkyo should be fine.
> 
> (Note that although the Onkyo TX-RZ830 has two subwoofer outputs, they provide exactly the same output signal, being the equivalent of an internal Y connection. This is unlike the Denon AVR-X4500H, which treats them as separate subwoofers with differing distances and sound levels.)


 @SskylineE - what Selden says is correct (of course!) but bear in mind that if your subs are an identical pair (or very very similar specs) and they are equidistant*** from MLP, then it is simpler to set them up as one sub (using the internal Y method Selden mentions) and there are no drawbacks to doing so. So don't necessarily be deterred from the Onkyo if this is the case with you.

***Equidistant means 'close' to equidistant. A foot or so of difference makes no audible difference.


----------



## pasender91

On the other side, the Denon provides more flexibiity 
1) ability to do 7.1.4 if one day the user want to expand to it
2) proper handling of 2 separate subs in flexible locations with XT32


----------



## kbarnes701

pasender91 said:


> On the other side, the Denon provides more flexibiity
> 1) ability to do 7.1.4 if one day the user want to expand to it
> 2) proper handling of 2 separate subs in flexible locations with XT32


Sure - it comes down to what he needs. XT32 is good, but the latest version of AccuEQ has been receiving very good reports from experienced Members too. I;ve had Onkyos and Denons in the past (currently Marantz) and have been very happy with them both (although the Onk was back in the day when they had XT32).


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Speakers on subwoofer?*

I have decided to go with bookshelf surrounds for my upcoming 5.1.4 setup except it appears that the bookshelf stands are only 2 feet high and with the height of the speaker it is only about 3 feet high total. My eat height is about 48 inches at MLP so for the speaker to be as high or higher I need to prop it up. My options are putting the stand and speaker (monitor audio gold 50) on top of a sub or duel ported sub (probably a SVS PB2000) or else build something it can go on considering WAF. 

Does anyone have any ideas or history of this and would putting a bookshelf and stand be ok on a ported subwoofer that can go pretty low frequency?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Candid

Chirosamsung said:


> I have decided to go with bookshelf surrounds for my upcoming 5.1.4 setup except it appears that the bookshelf stands are only 2 feet high and with the height of the speaker it is only about 3 feet high total. My eat height is about 48 inches at MLP so for the speaker to be as high or higher I need to prop it up. My options are putting the stand and speaker (monitor audio gold 50) on top of a sub or duel ported sub (probably a SVS PB2000) or else build something it can go on considering WAF.
> 
> Does anyone have any ideas or history of this and would putting a bookshelf and stand be ok on a ported subwoofer that can go pretty low frequency?
> 
> Thanks in advance!



You can look at other stands if you have not bought the 2ft ones already.


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...10-3536-58bd-b928-f31edd0953c8&pf_rd_i=509308


----------



## Chirosamsung

Candid said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have decided to go with bookshelf surrounds for my upcoming 5.1.4 setup except it appears that the bookshelf stands are only 2 feet high and with the height of the speaker it is only about 3 feet high total. My eat height is about 48 inches at MLP so for the speaker to be as high or higher I need to prop it up. My options are putting the stand and speaker (monitor audio gold 50) on top of a sub or duel ported sub (probably a SVS PB2000) or else build something it can go on considering WAF.
> 
> Does anyone have any ideas or history of this and would putting a bookshelf and stand be ok on a ported subwoofer that can go pretty low frequency?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at other stands if you have not bought the 2ft ones already.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...10-3536-58bd-b928-f31edd0953c8&pf_rd_i=509308
Click to expand...

Thanks for that idea-I guess there are speaker stands that go 3-4 feet high after all. Do you have any idea if the smaller stand on the subwoofer would work? Or is that bad news with a sub vibrating?


----------



## camd5pt0

Candid said:


> You can look at other stands if you have not bought the 2ft ones already.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...10-3536-58bd-b928-f31edd0953c8&pf_rd_i=509308


I have 2 pairs of these. They are fantastic.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## nexus99

Dawn Gordon said:


> Yes. these:
> 
> https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-surround/


Ive heard that Dawn is a Triad expert!


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> Timbre matching is much over-rated. The timbre of a speaker changes if you move your head - try it with pink noise. It also changes if you move the speaker to a different location. Or if you have one speaker slightly closer to a wall or some other object than another. So it is impossible to 'timbre match' speakers anyway, even when they are all identical. My suggestion is to choose speakers wisely, place them carefully and then get good room EQ and let it do its job.




I am wondering if there is a good way of actually testing impact of issues like that for a given setup (especially sub-optimal living room scenarios). I once heard of a test that had a pink noise object “flying“ around in the room. Does anyone have that or something similar? That may be a good way for identifying and potentially correcting any major issues. Most demos I know are either too limited in frequency or the sound object is changing while it flies around.


----------



## SskylineE

Thank you all for the information.


My sofa is against the wall, so I will go for 5.2.4 and will use Onkyos TX-RZ830 surround back output as Height 2, so the back height speakers not front.


For the two subwoofers is ok for me that the receiver outputs exactly the same signal to both, because both of tem will be the same distance from the receiver. One to the right and one to the left.


For Onkyo TX-RZ830 and Denon AVR-4500H, if I want 7.2.4, I need a seperate amp?


So they are both 9.2 channel receivers. I thought that the Denon is 11.2.



The main difference between the two is the Wattage then. Onkyo for 2ch has 120W and Denon has 125W.


In my country the Denon costs 1450€ and the Onkyo 1200€.


And what about the Onkyo TX-RZ730? I can get it for 850€. It is way cheaper. But it has 100W for 2ch.


Is this a major problem?


I am choosing between:


Dali Zensor 7
Dali Oberon 7
Jamo C97
Klipsch RP-280F
Klipsch RP-8000F
Monitor Audio Bronze 6
Tannoy XT-8F


For the Klipsch, Monitor Audio and Jamo, I can get Bipol surround for the back wall, so this is nice.


Thanks


----------



## Chirosamsung

SskylineE said:


> Thank you all for the information.
> 
> 
> My sofa is against the wall, so I will go for 5.2.4 and will use Onkyos TX-RZ830 surround back output as Height 2, so the back height speakers not front.
> 
> 
> For the two subwoofers is ok for me that the receiver outputs exactly the same signal to both, because both of tem will be the same distance from the receiver. One to the right and one to the left.
> 
> 
> For Onkyo TX-RZ830 and Denon AVR-4500H, if I want 7.2.4, I need a seperate amp?
> 
> 
> So they are both 9.2 channel receivers. I thought that the Denon is 11.2.
> 
> 
> 
> The main difference between the two is the Wattage then. Onkyo for 2ch has 120W and Denon has 125W.
> 
> 
> In my country the Denon costs 1450€ and the Onkyo 1200€.
> 
> 
> And what about the Onkyo TX-RZ730? I can get it for 850€. It is way cheaper. But it has 100W for 2ch.
> 
> 
> Is this a major problem?
> 
> 
> I am choosing between:
> 
> 
> Dali Zensor 7
> Dali Oberon 7
> Jamo C97
> Klipsch RP-280F
> Klipsch RP-8000F
> Monitor Audio Bronze 6
> Tannoy XT-8F
> 
> 
> For the Klipsch, Monitor Audio and Jamo, I can get Bipol surround for the back wall, so this is nice.
> 
> 
> Thanks /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


I am getting the monitor audio gold setup for 5.2.4 but unfortunately they don’t have true bipole as surrounds so I’m going for gold 50s as surrounds but they are monopole only. Can’t speak to the other brands


----------



## Chirosamsung

Is there anyone that puts speakers on stands that are on top of a subwoofer??


----------



## fookoo_2010

Chirosamsung said:


> Is there anyone that puts speakers on stands that are on top of a subwoofer??


I have seen surround tower speakers on top of two sub's. Sounds fine.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Molon_Labe said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anyone that puts speakers on stands that are on top of a subwoofer??
> 
> 
> 
> Playing Jenga with your gear is not recommended /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif In all seriousness, it shouldn't matter as long as your sub cabinet is inert during heaving playback.
Click to expand...

Lol. Well that’s good to know. Do you think a sub like the SVS PB2000 would classify as being inert during heavy playback? That’s the sub I think I’m going with...


----------



## midi-guy

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. Does anyone currently use or know of any good BIPOLE surrounds that have a mount (not in-wall)?
> 
> 2. Because I have a media room that opens to another room-one wall I can have a side surround wall mounted (on wall) but the other side I can’t. If I was to use a side surround like the Monitor Audio GOLD FX or SILVER FX, could I mount one and put the other either on a stand or a shelf of some kind since obviously it can’t be wall mounted there? If not then I have to go with question number 1 but wanted to see if anyone has had to resort to the different creative layout in their case
> 
> As always, many thanks!


I can vouch for Klipsch KS-525s
https://www.klipsch.com/products/ks-525-thx-surround-speakers-pair#product-specs.

They also make a less expensive version: rp-402 or rp-502
https://www.klipsch.com/products/rp-402s-surround-sound-speaker


----------



## SskylineE

Can Dolby Digital AC3 or DTS be upmixed to use height speakers or do I need DTS-HD or TrueHD content to use height speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SskylineE said:


> Can Dolby Digital AC3 or DTS be upmixed to use height speakers or do I need DTS-HD or TrueHD content to use height speakers?


Yes. You can upmix lossy codecs.


----------



## SskylineE

So, I have AC3 640kbps 5.1 movie and the receiver can upmix it to Atmos and I can use height speakers with that movie?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SskylineE said:


> So, I have AC3 640kbps 5.1 movie and the receiver can upmix it to Atmos and I can use height speakers with that movie?



Remember, you are not upmixing the audio track to Atmos. A real Atmos track has discrete speaker outputs. The upmixer is taking certain audio frequency and phasing "cues" from a channel-based track and steering them to additional speakers beyond the channel count of said track that it deems appropriate (with a 5.1 movie, that would be surround backs and heights). Often, it sounds great, though sometimes sounds go where they're not supposed to.


----------



## SskylineE

So the better option is to use DTS-HD or TrueHD 7.1 movies?


Like:


Audio #1 Format.........: TrueHD Channels.......: Object Based / 8 channels Bit rate.......: 4 253 kb/s Language.......: English

OR

Audio Codec........: DTS-HD MA Audio Bitrate......: 4565Kbps 7.1 Ch 48000 Hz


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SskylineE said:


> So the better option is to use DTS-HD or TrueHD 7.1 movies?



Not necessarily, though the more channels the upmixer has to work with, the less it has to work to create an immersive effect. A 7.1 track only needs specific height information extracted, if these "cues" I mentioned are present in the mix. The more aggressive the original soundtrack is, the more extra surround sensation you get. 



And you have to use an upmixer for older two-channel stereo Dolby Surround matrix encoded movie tracks anyway. Then, the upmixer acts similarly to the Dolby Stereo decoding of yore, except that the new formats can guesstimate surround backs and heights as well as side surrounds in stereo rather than mono.


----------



## SskylineE

Many movies I saw were TrueHD with Atmos.


What has TrueHD with Atmos?


This kind of movies are true Atmos?


AUDIO...............: English Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos @ 5 026 kb/s @ 7.1 channels


----------



## Dan Hitchman

SskylineE said:


> Many movies I saw were TrueHD with Atmos.
> 
> 
> What has TrueHD with Atmos?
> 
> 
> This kind of movies are true Atmos?
> 
> 
> AUDIO...............: English Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos @ 5 026 kb/s @ 7.1 channels



Blu-ray's with Dolby Atmos: 


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132




Blu-ray's with DTS: X 


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257742




UHD Blu-ray's with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X:


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065




In some instances, studios are putting immersive soundtracks on UHD Blu-ray rather than standard Blu-ray. That's why it's a good idea to invest in a UHD Blu-ray player so you have options.


----------



## schwock5

4x klipsch rp500sa's are in!

Ready to get my atmos game on!

Question, looks like these only have a keyhole for mounting.
Since i wanted to slightly toe these in, i wanted to use a low profile wall mount to angle them.

Has anyone else used these speakers yet and can anyone recommend speaker wall mounts for speakers that only have a keyhole and weight ~8lbs?

My concern is the weight of the speakers and them falling off the mount from 12ft up! (is there a way to make a solid connection with just a keyhole?)


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> UHD Blu-ray's with Dolby Atmos and DTS: X:
> 
> https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=276065


No mention of Braveheart, even though the UHD has Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

schwock5 said:


> 4x klipsch rp500sa's are in!
> 
> Ready to get my atmos game on!
> 
> Question, looks like these only have a keyhole for mounting.
> Since i wanted to slightly toe these in, i wanted to use a low profile wall mount to angle them.
> 
> Has anyone else used these speakers yet and can anyone recommend speaker wall mounts for speakers that only have a keyhole and weigh ~8lbs?
> 
> My concern is the weight of the speakers and them falling off the mount from 12ft up! (is there a way to make a solid connection with just a keyhole?)


https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=11410


----------



## schwock5

Dan Hitchman said:


> https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=11410


and that's secure enough just using a keyhole?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

schwock5 said:


> and that's secure enough just using a keyhole?



It should. It handles only a modest angle adjustment and it's rated up to 22 LBS. More than enough extra capacity. You can always travel to the hardware store and get some lock nuts and locking washers and Locktite for the keyhole adapter for extra holding strength.


----------



## kbarnes701

SskylineE said:


> Can Dolby Digital AC3 or DTS be upmixed to use height speakers or do I need DTS-HD or TrueHD content to use height speakers?


DSU and Neural:X will upmix anything to the height speakers, with varying degrees of success. Stereo often upmixes astonishingly well for example, on some of my older movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

SskylineE said:


> So, I have AC3 640kbps 5.1 movie and the receiver can upmix it to Atmos and I can use height speakers with that movie?


No. You can't upmix to Atmos. Atmos is Atmos. You can use DSU or Neural:X to extrapolate content from the 5 other channels and send it to the overhead speakers. But you can't 'create' Atmos from it.


----------



## kbarnes701

SskylineE said:


> Many movies I saw were TrueHD with Atmos.
> 
> 
> What has TrueHD with Atmos?
> 
> 
> This kind of movies are true Atmos?
> 
> 
> AUDIO...............: English Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos @ 5 026 kb/s @ 7.1 channels


TrueHD is the 'carrier' for the Atmos metadata. All Atmos movies are TrueHD 'underneath'.


----------



## GPBURNS

kbarnes701 said:


> DSU and Neural:X will upmix anything to the height speakers, with varying degrees of success. Stereo often upmixes astonishingly well for example, on some of my older movies.


 Just got into Atmos - the upmixing of 2/5 channel sources has really impressed me- for me its combo of atmos upgrade along with latest Dolby surround and DTS:neural x processing - biggest upgrade i've experienced in years


----------



## kbarnes701

GPBURNS said:


> Just got into Atmos - the upmixing of 2/5 channel sources has really impressed me- for me its combo of atmos upgrade along with latest Dolby surround and DTS:neural x processing - biggest upgrade i've experienced in years


Many would agree with that sentiment  Adds a whole new dimension (literally).

And judging by your avatar, you have progressed hugely beyond the humble 7.1 most are still using -- LOL.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> All Atmos movies are TrueHD 'underneath'.


Except when streaming, then they're DD+.


----------



## GPBURNS

kbarnes701 said:


> Many would agree with that sentiment  Adds a whole new dimension (literally).
> 
> And judging by your avatar, you have progressed hugely beyond the humble 7.1 most are still using -- LOL.


sadly my running has been reduced to 7.1 lately - you still rocking your submersives - remember you asking a million questions back in the day


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Except when streaming, then they're DD+.


Good point. (I've never streamed a movie).


----------



## kbarnes701

GPBURNS said:


> sadly my running has been reduced to 7.1 lately - you still rocking your submersives - remember you asking a million questions back in the day


Yep - dual Submersives (master and slave) with the UK spec 6000 watt amp. They'll never be replaced.


----------



## ereed

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. (I've never streamed a movie).


So you have never watched a movie from Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, YouTube, etc?


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> So you have never watched a movie from Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, YouTube, etc?


That's right. Why would I when discs give the best quality?


----------



## ereed

kbarnes701 said:


> That's right. Why would I when discs give the best quality?


That's true....but there are shows on Netflix that do not have discs available. Tons of great shows as Netflix originals worth watching!


----------



## mrtickleuk

ereed said:


> That's true....but there are shows on Netflix that do not have discs available. Tons of great shows as Netflix originals worth watching!


Sure, but that's a different subject. He said he'd never streamed a movie. Like many of us who want the best quality for our movies. And then for some reason you were incredulous and asked him:


> So you have never watched a *movie *from Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, YouTube, etc?


----------



## ereed

mrtickleuk said:


> Sure, but that's a different subject. He said he'd never streamed a movie. Like many of us who want the best quality for our movies. And then for some reason you were incredulous and asked him:


I HAD to ask! Keith has to be the FIRST person I know of that has never watched anything from network apps. LOL All good, all good!


----------



## mrtickleuk

ereed said:


> I HAD to ask! Keith has to be the FIRST person I know of that has never watched anything from network apps. LOL All good, all good!


Hehe. But he could be like me, enjoying great TV series on streaming services since they are the only places they are available. But enjoying movies in full quality on disc.


----------



## Molon_Labe

mrtickleuk said:


> Hehe. But he could be like me, enjoying great TV series on streaming services since they are the only places they are available. But enjoying movies in full quality on disc.


Agreed. I watch streaming in the living room, but I typically only watch disc in the theater room.


----------



## HT_Geek

sdurani said:


> Except when streaming, then they're DD+.


When streaming, it does come up as Atmos - not DD+. 

ON Netflix - Altered Carbon, Outlaw King, and a bunch of other titles - they all have the Amos logo in the title page, and the receiver shows that it is receiving an Atmos signal, and plays it back as such.


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> That's true....but there are shows on Netflix that do not have discs available. Tons of great shows as Netflix originals worth watching!


Indeed there are. But having invested a **** ton of money in a glorious home cinema, with a huge screen and 4K capabilities, and Atmos sound, I don't want to watch a substandard image or listen to lossy compressed sound etc even if the show is pretty good. Netflix etc is good for watching on a TV set, but feed it to a screen 12 feet wide and it's not so good. If Netflix insist their content never comes to disc, that's fine by me and I fully respect their commercial decision. But I ain;t going to watch their content in my HT, and I don't watch movies on a 50 inch screen. YMMV of course, which is also fine.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Sure, but that's a different subject. He said he'd never streamed a movie. Like many of us who want the best quality for our movies. And then for some reason you were incredulous and asked him:


 I know there is good content on TV - it's just that I choose not to watch substandard quality. Seems reasonable to me (and you by the sound of it).  No problemo - we all have different priorities.


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> I HAD to ask! Keith has to be the FIRST person I know of that has never watched anything from network apps. LOL All good, all good!


When I travel by train, which I do more or less weekly on trips to London, I often see people watching movies *on their mobile phones*! They are watching something designed to be seen on a huge screen, on a screen 5 inches across. And they are listening to sound that may have cost 50 million or more bucks to make via tiny little ear bud speakers. They seem to be enjoying it. Me, I would rather watch nothing than emasculate the experience that way. But we are all different and who am I to tell them they are missing 85% of the experience? Or that they haven't actually seen the movie if the only way they've seen it is on a mobile phone. Or even on a 50 inch TV IMO. I stress IMO there


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> It could be worse. Keith could still be using laser disc.


Hey - nothing wrong with laser disc LOL...


----------



## kbarnes701

HT_Geek said:


> When streaming, it does come up as Atmos - not DD+.
> 
> ON Netflix - Altered Carbon, Outlaw King, and a bunch of other titles - they all have the Amos logo in the title page, and the receiver shows that it is receiving an Atmos signal, and plays it back as such.


Yes but Sanjay was quite right to correct me. I said Atmos was always delivered via TrueHD (and it is for me coz I only use discs) but when streamed it is delivered by DD+.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes but Sanjay was quite right to correct me. I said Atmos was always delivered via TrueHD (and it is for me coz I only use discs) but when streamed it is delivered by DD+.


Or PCM using MAT by an AppleTV 4K for delivery over HDMI to the receiver. Delivery over the network to the ATV4K is another matter. I'm guessing it probably uses DD+, although I haven't seen anything authoritative about that.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Technically, we still watch them  They are just a lot smaller.


Weren't laser discs analog?


----------



## dfa973

kbarnes701 said:


> Weren't laser discs analog?


Yes, pure analog. The whole signal in LaserDisc is frequency modulated with separate carriers for
audio and video and the FM signals are expressed as pits and lands of various sizes and arranged in a linear sequence. The information encoded as pits and lands were dynamic instead of being in a binary sequence like on CD/VCD/DVD/BD.


----------



## ss9001

dfa973 said:


> Yes, pure analog. The whole signal in LaserDisc is frequency modulated with separate carriers for audio and video and the FM signals are expressed as pits and lands of various sizes and arranged in a linear sequence. The information encoded as pits and lands were dynamic instead of being in a binary sequence like on CD/VCD/DVD/BD.



There were 4 flavors of audio as the format progressed -
a) analog without CX noise reduction
b) analog with CX noise reduction
c) digital, PCM, 2 channel to matrixed Dolby surround
d) Dolby AC-3 = Dolby Digital on DVDs


There were relatively few AC-3 titles since by that time, DVD took over as a disc format. I go back to late 70's in laserdisc  



Video was always analog as you stated.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I honestly have no idea; they were above my Army pay-grade when they were the rave. I was just being simplistic that we still use discs and a laser. Bad humor - I should have more coffee.


Hey it's cool  Slow Atmos day so no harm in a bit of sort-of-related chat I guess. I actually never went down the laser-disc route. I have no idea why since I am usually an early adopter of any tech. For example, I had a cell phone in my car about a year before there was cell phone coverage where I lived! Had to be miles away before I could make a call. Somehow the whole laser-disc thing passed me by. Pity really as I would have absolutely loved those big 12 inch discs.


----------



## kbarnes701

ss9001 said:


> There were 4 flavors of audio as the format progressed -
> a) analog without CX noise reduction
> b) analog with CX noise reduction
> c) digital, PCM, 2 channel to matrixed Dolby surround
> d) Dolby AC-3 = Dolby Digital on DVDs
> 
> 
> There were relatively few AC-3 titles since by that time, DVD took over as a disc format. I go back to late 70's in laserdisc
> 
> 
> 
> Video was always analog as you stated.


My first venture into home cinema was feeding an amplifier from a 2 channel VHS recorder to get what at the time seemed like amazing quality sound. All TV at the time was mono, but this was a way to get VHS movies with stereo sound, via a decent amplifier and a pair of speakers. It was a real revolution for me. Later I set up a Hafler type speaker setup to generate some sound from a pair of speakers behind me. And then came Dolby Surround of course. It was only after DVD had arrived that I ventured towards anything that could be called a 'home theater' setup, with a big (for the time) rear projection TV.


----------



## Josh Z

ss9001 said:


> There were 4 flavors of audio as the format progressed -
> a) analog without CX noise reduction
> b) analog with CX noise reduction
> c) digital, PCM, 2 channel to matrixed Dolby surround
> d) Dolby AC-3 = Dolby Digital on DVDs



DTS was also available on LD near the end. Technically, Dolby Digital and DTS were a little different than their later DVD counterparts. Dolby Digital was a fixed 384 kb/s bit rate (DVD can vary from 192 to 448 kb/s) and was encoded in RF-modulated form on one of the disc's analog channels, which made it a real pain to decode. DTS was a fixed 1235 kb/s (vs. 768 or 1536 kb/s on DVD).


----------



## Gary J

mrtickleuk said:


> Hehe. But he could be like me, enjoying great TV series on streaming services since they are the only places they are available. But enjoying movies in full quality on disc.


I can't imagine missing out on a conversation about Jack Ryan or the Romanoffs so I can maintain a certain level of HT snobbery.


----------



## Chuck666

schwock5 said:


> 4x klipsch rp500sa's are in!
> 
> Ready to get my atmos game on!
> 
> Question, looks like these only have a keyhole for mounting.
> Since i wanted to slightly toe these in, i wanted to use a low profile wall mount to angle them.
> 
> Has anyone else used these speakers yet and can anyone recommend speaker wall mounts for speakers that only have a keyhole and weight ~8lbs?
> 
> My concern is the weight of the speakers and them falling off the mount from 12ft up! (is there a way to make a solid connection with just a keyhole?)


I used a 3" screw and bent to help toe in and a rubber door stop to set the angle on a set of Klipsch.


----------



## sdurani

HT_Geek said:


> When streaming, it does come up as Atmos - not DD+.


It is still using the DD+ codec for streaming. The home Atmos format can be thought of as two parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). The audio data in an Atmos track can be uncompressed (PCM) or encoded using lossless packing (TrueHD) or lossy compression (DD+).


----------



## mtbdudex

Chuck666 said:


> I used a 3" screw and bent to help toe in and a rubber door stop to set the angle on a set of Klipsch.




Or ... if you have a miter saw cut a block of wood angled, maybe 2 of them for top and bottom, screw that to the wall (stud), then mount your surrounds onto that for sturdiness , place felt so no rattle .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> It could be worse. Keith could still be using laser disc.





kbarnes701 said:


> Hey - nothing wrong with laser disc LOL...





Molon_Labe said:


> Technically, we still watch them  They are just a lot smaller.





kbarnes701 said:


> Weren't laser discs analog?





Molon_Labe said:


> I honestly have no idea; they were above my Army pay-grade when they were the rave. I was just being simplistic that we still use discs and a laser. Bad humor - I should have more coffee.





dfa973 said:


> *Yes, pure analog.* The whole signal in LaserDisc is frequency modulated with separate carriers for
> audio and video and the FM signals are expressed as pits and lands of various sizes and arranged in a linear sequence. The information encoded as pits and lands were dynamic instead of being in a binary sequence like on CD/VCD/DVD/BD.



Yes...analog. And in keeping with this being a slow Atmos day and Molon_Labe (Chris) calling Keith and I "old coots," I have to confess to having two LaserDisc players and 100+ discs. I guess this makes me an older "coot" than Keith?


Out of curiosity, found the following "first consumer" players on various websites...can't attest to accuracy.

VHS VCR: 1976 JVC HR-3300

LaserDisc: 1984 Pioneer LD-700 

CD: 1982 Sony CDP-101

DVD: 1996 Toshiba SD-3000

BluRay: 2006 Sony BDP-S1

4K UHD: 2015 Samsung UBD-K8500


----------



## mrtickleuk

gene4ht said:


> Out of curiosity, found the following "first consumer" players on various websites...can't attest to accuracy.
> 
> 4K UHD: 2015 Samsung UBD-K8500


Nice list. Pretty sure that player (I have one) was not available under 2016. It was delayed. Not available in 2015.


----------



## Josh Z

gene4ht said:


> Out of curiosity, found the following "first consumer" players on various websites...can't attest to accuracy.
> 
> LaserDisc: 1984 Pioneer LD-700



Laserdisc is older than that. The format was introduced as "MCA DiscoVision" in 1978. According to this site, the first consumer player was the Magnavox VH-8000.

The Pioneer LD-700 was the first consumer player with a solid state laser rather than a helium-neon tube laser. It was also the first model with a front-loading tray.


----------



## m. zillch

Chirosamsung said:


> Is there anyone that puts speakers on stands that are on top of a subwoofer??


There's no way any self respecting "audiophile" will give you a go ahead with that idea because they would immediately be cut down by another forum member who would say, "The vibration from the sub will compromise the speaker's imaging and detail" and if anyone were to claim, "No, I've done it. It works just fine." then_ that_ poster would immediately be cut down by "Well, I guess _some_ people don't have a very discerning ear".

Of course the cabinet vibrations from *their* own speaker's internal large woofer is immune to any such issues such as lose of detail and imaging.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gary J said:


> I can't imagine missing out on a conversation about Jack Ryan or the Romanoffs so I can maintain a certain level of HT snobbery.


You worry too much. Nobody cares if your HT isn't top grade. Just enjoy - there's no need to apologize for it.


----------



## Gary J

kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody cares if your HT isn't top grade.


Not something can or do know. But quite a character revealing comment.


----------



## kbarnes701

m. zillch said:


> There's no way any self respecting "audiophile" will give you a go ahead with that idea because they would immediately be cut down by another forum member who would say, "The vibration from the sub will compromise the speaker's imaging and detail" and if anyone were to claim, "No, I've done it. It works just fine." then_ that_ poster would immediately be cut down by "Well, I guess _some_ people don't have a very discerning ear".
> 
> Of course the cabinet vibrations from *their* own speaker's internal large woofer is immune to any such issues such as lose of detail and imaging.


Not to mention the huge bass waves at 20Hz or below, at 115dB. I bet they don't disrupt the delicate main speakers' imaging and detail one bit, huh?


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Weren't laser discs analog?


The video image was analog however the _sound_ became digital only shortly after the release of CD (1982) and LD was also the very first product (c.1992) to introduce the world to Dolby AC-3, now called Dolby Digital 5.1, beating DVD by about 5 years.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> Not to mention the huge bass waves at 20Hz or below, at 115dB. I bet they don't disrupt the delicate main speakers' imaging and detail one bit, huh?


Heck if you don't see the top surface of your drink quiver when T-rex arrives in the movie, you don't own a* real* sub!


----------



## ereed

gene4ht said:


> Yes...analog. And in keeping with this being a slow Atmos day and Molon_Labe (Chris) calling Keith and I "old coots," I have to confess to having two LaserDisc players and 100+ discs. I guess this makes me an older "coot" than Keith?
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, found the following "first consumer" players on various websites...can't attest to accuracy.
> 
> VHS VCR: 1976 JVC HR-3300
> 
> LaserDisc: 1984 Pioneer LD-700
> 
> CD: 1982 Sony CDP-101
> 
> DVD: 1996 Toshiba SD-3000
> 
> BluRay: 2006 Sony BDP-S1
> 
> 4K UHD: 2015 Samsung UBD-K8500


I'm seeing a pattern here. Looks like a new format about every 10 years. I wonder what 2025-ish will bring?


----------



## m. zillch

ereed said:


> I'm seeing a pattern here. Looks like a new format about every 10 years. I wonder what 2025-ish will bring?


There will no longer be physical mediums. Everything is streamed, downloaded, etc.. Heck it is becoming increasingly hard to buy a laptop with _any_ variety optical drive whatsoever!


----------



## ereed

m. zillch said:


> There will no longer be physical mediums. Everything is streamed, downloaded, etc.. Heck it is becoming increasingly hard to buy a laptop with _any_ variety optical drive whatsoever!


Please don't let Keith hear that! He will have to permanently shut down his Cowshed Theater!


----------



## m. zillch

ereed said:


> Please don't let Keith hear that! He will have to permanently shut down his Cowshed Theater!


Luckily properly stored optical mediums outlast human lifetimes. . . of course buying a new playback deck when our lasers wear out in 2025 might be a problem.


----------



## westbergjoakim

I have a question about the audio and especially the LCR for all surroundmovies. My fronts are around 15cm outside my screen and I often feel like the front on the side where the sound coming from should take over earlier from the center. 

If I move them closer to the center and at the very end of the screen, will the AVR "feel" this and let the fronts take over earlier or is it just how the soundtrack are made? 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

westbergjoakim said:


> If I move them closer to the center and at the very end of the screen, will the AVR "feel" this and let the fronts take over earlier or is it just how the soundtrack are made?


When the AVR/processor conducts its auto mic test it can sense volume levels, tonal balance, and distance away from the mic but it can't sense where the speakers are. _That's up to you._ The spacing of the speakers dictates when the sound transitions from one to another as the sound pans across the screen. The best way to achieve this smoothly is to place the speakers closer or farther apart such that the "left center" and "right center" test voice in this video appears where it is supposed to:




Although the test will seem to work well in other modes like Dolby Surround, it is not really meant for that and should be done in STEREO mode only. You see a center speaker in the video but the center sound you experience in stereo is an illusion or a "phantom center".


----------



## Bond 007

m. zillch said:


> The best way to achieve this smoothly is to place the speakers closer or farther apart such that the "left center" and "right center" test voice in this video appears where it is supposed to.


Sounded great to me. Good to know.
Thanks.


----------



## mazurkr

Moving on up to 7.2.6 from 7.1 with an Emo RMC-1, and I had a few questions. Getting all new speakers, as well, going with Emo T2s and C2 upfront, with 4 T1's as surrounds/backs. 6 Emo E1's as my ceiling speakers., with 2 Emo S12's for my subs.

The amp, Emo (sensing a trend?) XPA-11 gen3. 

The room is 25x14x11 ft total, with a landing at door (8x10), leading down short flight of stairs to larger square room of 17x14x11 with no windows or other openings.

Questions are:

1 - if you can count, then you can see the amp leaves me 2 speakers out in the cold. I have a 150w 2-channel amp (Emo BasX-150), however. Which 2 speakers should I hook up to the 2-channel?

2 - should i have my e1's firing straight down or angled toward MLP?


----------



## mr.b1000

Josh Z said:


> Laserdisc is older than that. The format was introduced as "MCA DiscoVision" in 1978. According to this site, the first consumer player was the Magnavox VH-8000.
> 
> The Pioneer LD-700 was the first consumer player with a solid state laser rather than a helium-neon tube laser. It was also the first model with a front-loading tray.


Ah no that was the model in the US! Some of us were in the military had laserdisc players in 1981 1982! We got stuff direct from the factory! They made military models! The early days of Samsung! Luck Gold star! Lg! You would not believe how far the companies came! Tvs would break in two weeks at a high rate! They use the military to test the new models! Some hi fi models never sold in the US! LOL


----------



## gene4ht

mr.b1000 said:


> Ah no that was the model in the US! Some of us were in the military had laserdisc players in 1981 1982! We got stuff direct from the factory! They made military models! The early days of Samsung! Luck Gold star! Lg! You would not believe how far the companies came! Tvs would break in two weeks at a high rate! They use the military to test the new models! Some hi fi models never sold in the US! LOL



Yep...things were interesting back in the military days! I too was associated with the Koreans...Lucky Goldstar electronics (PC's, VCR's, TV's, etc.) were not as marketable in the U.S. until they became LG and ultimately with the tag line..."Life's Good"


----------



## kbarnes701

ereed said:


> Please don't let Keith hear that! He will have to permanently shut down his Cowshed Theater!


 Physical media will still be available, probably for decades yet. I can;t see streaming reaching the bandwidths needed to compete with UHD in anything like the near future. Heck, there are hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even (low) millions, in the UK whose max broadband speed is less than 5 meg. Same more or less everywhere in the world. It might change one day, but not soon. I hear that some people even still play *vinyl records*! On turntables! Using a bit of diamond mounted on tiny rubber blocks. How weird is that?


----------



## Molon_Labe

mr.b1000 said:


> Ah no that was the model in the US! Some of us were in the military had laserdisc players in 1981 1982! We got stuff direct from the factory! They made military models! The early days of Samsung! Luck Gold star! Lg! You would not believe how far the companies came! Tvs would break in two weeks at a high rate! They use the military to test the new models! Some hi fi models never sold in the US! LOL


 When surround sound first became main-stream, it required one to have either a Hi-fi VCR or TV that had stereo outputs. Both, at the time, were expensive compared to the traditional TV/VCR for a lower ranking enlisted guy. A Panasonic or Sony stereo TV or 4 head Hi-fi VHS player were big bucks! 

I found a generic, cheap 27" TV at the PX from some crappy Korean company no one had ever heard of called Samsung. It was all I could afford and it did what I needed to do. That TV went through tons of moves, was dropped, which fractured the case, and was still working flawless when I put it at the curb when my daughter outgrew watching DisneyVHS tapes in her room. I couldn't kill that TV no matter the amount of abuse. It also had a great picture that rivaled the coveted Sony models. The Japanese brands were "THE" coveted electronics, while Samsung was the bottom of the basement, red-headed, broke, step-child equipment. Funny how times have changed. Samsung now owns my favorite speaker company Harmon/JBL.


----------



## schwock5

mtbdudex said:


> Or ... if you have a miter saw cut a block of wood angled, maybe 2 of them for top and bottom, screw that to the wall (stud), then mount your surrounds onto that for sturdiness , place felt so no rattle .
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That would be most ideal, unfortunately, not an option for me :-(

For now i ordered 4 cheap monprice wall mounts to see how they work out.
Hopefully this weekend I get them up


----------



## LNEWoLF

ereed said:


> I HAD to ask! Keith has to be the FIRST person I know of that has never watched anything from network apps. LOL All good, all good!


You can add me to that list too.

Shiny disc addict.

Over the last week had about 20 follow me home  they should be happy all snuggled in with the other 2,000......

They seem to mutiply like them screwee wabbits.............


----------



## LNEWoLF

Rutt rwoe, I think I broke this thread. I can’t see any post after mine yesterday........


----------



## bobbino421

Anyone ever think of floor channels or submerged channels lol


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> Rutt rwoe, I think I broke this thread. I can’t see any post after mine yesterday........


Neither can I


----------



## smurraybhm

bobbino421 said:


> Anyone ever think of floor channels or submerged channels lol



That came up about 52,000 posts ago and has "resurfaced" more than once


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> Neither can I


That DeWars beverage must have been more than this Scottish HiLLBiLLy expected


----------



## GPBURNS

anyone have good D/L link for confirmed accurate 11 channel level test tones -thxs


----------



## Hakka

GPBURNS said:


> anyone have good D/L link for confirmed accurate 11 channel level test tones -thxs



You can DL a torrent file from here:


https://mega.nz/#!LFJ2VKRB!WdZVTINTisoxJb6Ae3UvC7jQW8vbbtjcWZhxEyr J1Pw


I don't have a burner so I just went into BDMV>stream and copied the last 5 files onto a usb and played it through my oppo. There is a file for each atmos configuration, 5.1.2, 5.1.4 etc


I believe the link was originally provided by user AlterBridge86.


----------



## GPBURNS

Hakka said:


> You can DL a torrent file from here:
> 
> 
> https://mega.nz/#!LFJ2VKRB!WdZVTINTisoxJb6Ae3UvC7jQW8vbbtjcWZhxEyr J1Pw
> 
> 
> I don't have a burner so I just went into BDMV>stream and copied the last 5 files onto a usb and played it through my oppo. There is a file for each atmos configuration, 5.1.2, 5.1.4 etc
> 
> 
> I believe the link was originally provided by user AlterBridge86.


Thxs - I actually have that full Atmos demo disc-I tried a beta firmware last night on my Dune 4k and the menu navigation worked!
I'm assuming the test signals are accurate in levels-
Been surprised over the yrs how many so called test signal discs were inaccurate-
BTW – whole disc is so cool-I know some have had it for yrs but first time for me – 
Atmos turning into amazing upgrade


----------



## Hakka

GPBURNS said:


> Thxs - I actually have that full Atmos demo disc-I tried a beta firmware last night on my Dune 4k and the menu navigation worked!
> I'm assuming the test signals are accurate in levels-
> Been surprised over the yrs how many so called test signal discs were inaccurate-
> BTW – whole disc is so cool-I know some have had it for yrs but first time for me –
> Atmos turning into amazing upgrade


The tones are recorded at 85db, not the usual 75, but they are all equal level.


----------



## Bachelor

When measuring spl, turn off dynamic eq. It raises the volume on the rears of you don't have it loud. I now keep dynamic eq off because of this. My personal preference.


----------



## LNEWoLF

GPBURNS said:


> anyone have good D/L link for confirmed accurate 11 channel level test tones -thxs


If you have the Disney WoW calibration disc. I believe that has a 11 channel test tone.

Doesn’t your sound processor have built in test tones?.


----------



## GPBURNS

LNEWoLF said:


> If you have the Disney WoW calibration disc. I believe that has a 11 channel test tone.
> 
> Doesn’t your sound processor have built in test tones?.


built in tests are pre Audyssey calibration 
- have the Atmos demo discs so I'm good


----------



## Chirosamsung

GPBURNS said:


> LNEWoLF said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the Disney WoW calibration disc. I believe that has a 11 channel test tone.
> 
> Doesn’t your sound processor have built in test tones?.
> 
> 
> 
> built in tests are pre Audyssey calibration
> - have the Atmos demo discs so I'm good
Click to expand...

Speaking of the Atmos demo dosc-why is it so hard to get? Wouldn’t Dolby want people to drool over it at friends house to get the format themselves?

Wouldn’t there be copies of the disc going around or downloadable torrents or it?

I was really looking forward to trying it out...


----------



## petetherock

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. Does anyone currently use or know of any good BIPOLE surrounds that have a mount (not in-wall)?
> 
> 2. Because I have a media room that opens to another room-one wall I can have a side surround wall mounted (on wall) but the other side I can’t. If I was to use a side surround like the Monitor Audio GOLD FX or SILVER FX, could I mount one and put the other either on a stand or a shelf of some kind since obviously it can’t be wall mounted there? If not then I have to go with question number 1 but wanted to see if anyone has had to resort to the different creative layout in their case
> 
> As always, many thanks!


I use the MA Silver FX in a wall mounted position on either side of my MLP... works fine. I can't say how it would sound with one on a stand, but since they are not your main speakers, will any difference matter?


----------



## Dawn Gordon

Yes, see below:

https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-surround/

https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-silver-surround/

Triad will also paint the speakers to match your wall color.


----------



## mtbdudex

I realize this is the Dolby Atmos “Home Theater “ thread, has there been discussion on the differences of the specs of the Dolby Atmos Home Theater spec vs the cinema spec below ?
 https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

petetherock said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Does anyone currently use or know of any good BIPOLE surrounds that have a mount (not in-wall)?
> 
> 2. Because I have a media room that opens to another room-one wall I can have a side surround wall mounted (on wall) but the other side I can’t. If I was to use a side surround like the Monitor Audio GOLD FX or SILVER FX, could I mount one and put the other either on a stand or a shelf of some kind since obviously it can’t be wall mounted there? If not then I have to go with question number 1 but wanted to see if anyone has had to resort to the different creative layout in their case
> 
> As always, many thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> I use the MA Silver FX in a wall mounted position on either side of my MLP... works fine. I can't say how it would sound with one on a stand, but since they are not your main speakers, will any difference matter?
Click to expand...

I’ve just settled for monitor gold 50s as surrounds-they are monopole and may be a bit close to the listener but hopefully the NAD 758 and DIRAC could help with the EQ to avoid hot spotting.


----------



## TheCableMan

Anyone here try Battlefield V on Xbox One. Looking to see if it truly is atmos before I pick it up?


----------



## m. zillch

Chirosamsung said:


> Speaking of the Atmos demo dosc-why is it so hard to get?


Some source in the know, perhaps @Roger Dressler , had said there were some minor glitches in the existing Atmos Demo calibration recordings and that they are working on new ones. Roger?


----------



## mtbdudex

petetherock said:


> I use the MA Silver FX in a wall mounted position on either side of my MLP... works fine. I can't say how it would sound with one on a stand, but since they are not your main speakers, will any difference matter?




The difference is baffle step compensation. A speaker made to mount on wall will have a different baffle step compensation than one made for stand mounting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

m. zillch said:


> Some source in the know, perhaps @Roger Dressler , had said there were some minor glitches in the existing Atmos Demo calibration recordings and that they are working on new ones. Roger?




I’d love to have a Dolby Atmos disc that also includes ;
-test tones in object mode, including usage of front wides
Same but
-test tones in snap speaker mode, like the 7.2.4 fixed rendering 

Then one could compare their setup

Yea though, 4 years later you’d think that disc or file would exist 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

m. zillch said:


> Some source in the know, perhaps @Roger Dressler , had said there were some minor glitches in the existing Atmos Demo calibration recordings and that they are working on new ones. Roger?


The demo discs were fine. But for some reason when the test tones were posted online, the LFE levels were quite different in all but the 5.1.4 track. 

7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 9.1.6 LFE tones were 10 dB higher
5.1.2 LFE was 10 dB lower

So even though they were still useful for certain things, they pulled them down. 

None of this has anything to do with the scarcity of the demo discs. I believe the reason for that is they include third party copyrighted material and the rights are typically limited to uses like trade shows rather than consumer distribution. The differences in clearance effort and cost for every onscreen actor is significant, IIRC.


----------



## petetherock

mtbdudex said:


> The difference is baffle step compensation. A speaker made to mount on wall will have a different baffle step compensation than one made for stand mounting.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, I understand but my question or point remains the same... it’s role is that of a side speaker... when the movie begins and I see/hear Tom Hanks in Saving Pte Ryan for example, will I be so gripped by the action, that forget the theory of baffle compensation, or will I be so unhappy with what I hear from the purported imbalance that I cannot continue with the movie ?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Roger Dressler said:


> None of this has anything to do with the scarcity of the demo discs. I believe the reason for that is they include third party copyrighted material and the rights are typically limited to uses like trade shows rather than consumer distribution. The differences in clearance effort and cost for every onscreen actor is significant, IIRC.


I agree, it's almost certainly that. They will have only been allowed to use those movie clips on the strict basis that the distribution of the discs would be limited to those at the trade shows in person I expect.


----------



## Jonas2

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. Does anyone currently use or know of any good BIPOLE surrounds that have a mount (not in-wall)?
> 
> 2. Because I have a media room that opens to another room-one wall I can have a side surround wall mounted (on wall) but the other side I can’t. If I was to use a side surround like the Monitor Audio GOLD FX or SILVER FX, could I mount one and put the other either on a stand or a shelf of some kind since obviously it can’t be wall mounted there? If not then I have to go with question number 1 but wanted to see if anyone has had to resort to the different creative layout in their case



Well, I'm not quite in your position, but similar - I've got an asymmetrical space like yours and opted for side surrounds that can be either wall mounted, or stand-mounted on factory stands. I thought about placing one on the right side wall, the left has no choice but to be on the stand due to the same as you have - room opens into another room on the left side. The right side speaker is about 5 inches from the wall. They are top/bottom ported FWIW, and monopolar. So, it's not exactly what you're saying, but it's pretty close. Do they sound different? Sure, if that's what I'm focused on, but room EQ does wonders.... (At least in my space....)




mtbdudex said:


> The difference is baffle step compensation. A speaker made to mount on wall will have a different baffle step compensation than one made for stand mounting.



What if they're designed for both? 




petetherock said:


> Yes, I understand but my question or point remains the same... it’s role is that of a side speaker... when the movie begins and I see/hear Tom Hanks in Saving Pte Ryan for example, will I be so gripped by the action, that forget the theory of baffle compensation, or will I be so unhappy with what I hear from the purported imbalance that I cannot continue with the movie ?



So, you can read above my situation, and it's even worse than stated since the right surround is very close to the listeners relatively speaking, and the left is where it *should* be. BUT - with all the negatives, a compromise of position and aim of the speakers with EQ - and it is pretty dang nice. You've got a lot of tools in your toolbox to help you with the less than ideal. I'm pretty annoyed by stuff like this in general, but I will say, when I am in the middle of the action (including Saving Private Ryan....), my focus is NOT in the imperfections of the system, and I am enjoying the heck out of the surround experience. YMMV.


----------



## batpig

On test discs...

Since we are now 4+ years into the Atmos era, it is still shocking to me that there's not an official Atmos calibration disc with standardized test tones to "ping" each speaker in various layouts (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.4, etc), plus things common on other test discs like phase tests (e.g. pinging two speakers simultaneously to check phantom imaging) and immersive audio focused tests like taking an object and slowly panning it around the room (to test speaker levels / timbre matching). 

Right now the best we have are those tones on the Atmos demo discs which seem to be fraught with inconsistency (e.g. sometimes "snapping", sometimes not... weird levels like Roger noted... no documentation about what SPL dBFS they were recorded at, etc) and then using test clips like the "Helicopter" demo. 

How cool would it be if there was a demo clip of an audio object that rotates 180 degrees around the room, with specific documentation noting that the perceived level and timbre should be consistent the whole way? That would be super useful for tweaking speaker levels, speaker position / aim, room acoustics, etc.

I recognize that the CEDIA/CES demo discs can't be sold due to copyright issues with the movie clips, but why hasn't anyone come up with a calibration disc that exclusively has immersive audio specific test content for ensuring proper setup/calibration? I remember people saying years ago DVE or S&M was working on this, but AFAIK nothing still is available?


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> None of this has anything to do with the scarcity of the demo discs. I believe the reason for that is they include third party copyrighted material and the rights are typically limited to uses like trade shows rather than consumer distribution. The differences in clearance effort and cost for every onscreen actor is significant, IIRC.


Totally get this. The question I have, however, is why Dolby doesn't just author a streamlined version of the disc that only includes the test tones and their own proprietary Atmos trailers or demos, removing any third-party content?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> Totally get this. The question I have, however, is why Dolby doesn't just author a streamlined version of the disc that only includes the test tones and their own proprietary Atmos trailers or demos, removing any third-party content?


It's a cost/benefit thing. There's a couple of trailers at their website -- others on YouTube. The test noise is already included inside every product. The equation might be different if none of these were available. Might be a good question to pose to Dolby.


----------



## m. zillch

Return on investment? The entire test exists on Dolby's hard drive so it's not like there's a lot of "production" in making the audio material. It's ready to go. The only cost is the disc making price and packaging, and considering this existing out of print one sells for $60 on ebay I think there's a market..

Aren't blank discs only a few cents? Now that's what I call a ROI!


----------



## unretarded

While certainly not the intended use of this video, it rolls thru the frequencies at the right speed to highlight imaging/room problems very well.



You can clearly hear the soundstage shift thru the room from left to right and even behind you...,,,in my room anyway, I am sure everyones is different. 



I am playing with absorption locations right now trying to highlight problem areas at different frequencies, I am sure this would make a huge difference in the location imaging of the objects. Considering the soundstage is shifting soo much thru the frequencies it sounds like Atmos, it has to have a negative effect when playing back content that hits those same frequencies....whatever they happen to be in each room.



Have a listen for yourself and see what happens to the sound stage thru the sweep...….things get crazy in my room, it certainly does not remain fixed...… and this is just 2 channels. I will be disconnecting sets of speakers and using extended stereo to see what the other speakers in the room are doing.....soo far the conclusion is it is a terrible mess.


----------



## Selden Ball

My understanding is that at one time Spears & Munsil were working on a calibration suite which would include Atmos. Sadly, nothing seems to have come of it.

DTS:X and Auro-3D calibration soundtracks would be nice to have, too, of course.

Unfortunately, YouTube videos are limited to having stereo soundtracks, so their "Atmos" trailers aren't. (YouTube always re-encodes the soundtrack when a video is uploaded.) Full Atmos trailers are available from other sources, though, like demo-world.eu and Vudu.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> Sadly, there is probably little, if any, ROI to fund such an initiative. I wish this weren't true, but we are the minority. It would take an individual or a group of hobbyist to do something like this.





m. zillch said:


> Return on investment? The entire test exists on Dolby's hard drive so it's not like there's a lot of "production" in making the audio material. It's ready to go.


To be fair, what I was referring to was more than just the existing channel level test tones. I was also suggesting things like inter-speaker phantom imaging / phase tests, specific object panning tests -- e.g. an object rotating around the room at the ear level layer 180 degrees. 

Ideally there would also be some light authoring to add a text description on screen so the end user would know how the test is to be used (e.g. a description of the recorded level of the tones).

But it wouldn't take a lot of effort for someone with the Atmos mastering tools to slap together a handful of tests and publish!


----------



## Chirosamsung

If my couch can only be place a max of 1.25-1.5 feet away from back wall and ceiling height of only around 7 feet, my back heights/ceiling speakers (in a 5.1.4) will obviously by much less then optimal rear angle-there is nothing I can do about that. It might be about 15 degrees. Having said that, is it still recommended to do adequate front height angle of about 45 degrees since I can accommodate it or should I somewhat mirror the narrow angle of the rear heights and go closer to a 35-40 degree angle.


----------



## rontalley

Chirosamsung said:


> If my couch can only be place a max of 1.25-1.5 feet away from back wall and ceiling height of only around 7 feet, my back heights/ceiling speakers (in a 5.1.4) will obviously by much less then optimal rear angle-there is nothing I can do about that. It might be about 15 degrees. Having said that, is it still recommended to do adequate front height angle of about 45 degrees since I can accommodate it or should I somewhat mirror the narrow angle of the rear heights and go closer to a 35-40 degree angle.


45 and in line with fronts.


----------



## unretarded

batpig said:


> To be fair, what I was referring to was more than just the existing channel level test tones. I was also suggesting things like inter-speaker phantom imaging / phase tests, specific object panning tests -- e.g. an object rotating around the room at the ear level layer 180 degrees.
> 
> Ideally there would also be some light authoring to add a text description on screen so the end user would know how the test is to be used (e.g. a description of the recorded level of the tones).
> 
> But it wouldn't take a lot of effort for someone with the Atmos mastering tools to slap together a handful of tests and publish!




After I am done moving , I plan on doing the yearly licensing for Atmos to do some projects, it will be at least 6 months. I hope some one beats me to it...

For the software based live Atmos mixes at the club, it will show a on screen ball moving around in the space so you can see where the audio object is being rendered from. The test disk should have this also, because you can set a 360 rotational orbit of a sound object on any axis possible, so you can not only do 360 at ear level, you can do one at any height and the rotation cab be front to back with a overhead to under feet orbit.



Think of it like a planet orbiting the sun, the sound object cab be made to orbit in any orientation and is speed controllable.



After playing with the video I posted above and determining that at certain frequencies the sound is spraying every where , imaging breaks down,...…...the sound object will need to be full range , Ideally sweeping as white noise all at once is deceptive for imaging. Because if 70% is imaged well, but 30% of the frequencies are not, you can`t tell with a full range white noise.


----------



## Jish9

Help needed. I am slowly upgrading the theater to incorporate immersive audio and have run into a challenge with the height channel placement. Specifically, I am stumped as to where, what kind (in ceiling, on ceiling) speakers I can mount for my rear height channels. As the pictures show, the back row is 38" from the back wall, but there is a soffit only 21" away and the ceiling joists run from side to side instead of front to back. The soffit is framed leaving only 6" between it and the last ceiling joist. Everywhere else I can do in-ceiling speakers, but cannot figure out what the best solution would be. 

As a cveat, the final placement of the height channels will be inside the line of the mains to create the separation needed between the sides and height channels. The final configuration will be 10.4.8.

I am open to ideas and brands of speakers to use back here. More importantly, WHAT WOULD YOU DO for those that have been through this? The room is complete B&W with SVS and Seaton subs. Height channel considerations were RSL, SVS Prime Elevation, Focal in-ceiling on the short list. Thanks.

SEE ATTACHED IMAGES BELOW


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> It's a cost/benefit thing. There's a couple of trailers at their website -- others on YouTube. The test noise is already included inside every product. The equation might be different if none of these were available. Might be a good question to pose to Dolby.


AIUI Dolby doesn;t deal with consumers in any way. Their business model is devoted to a B2B strategy, so maybe they just don't see any need to consider consumers in their plans, leaving this to those companies which follow a different approach?


----------



## Selden Ball

Jish9 said:


> Help needed. I am slowly upgrading the theater to incorporate immersive audio and have run into a challenge with the height channel placement. Specifically, I am stumped as to where, what kind (in ceiling, on ceiling) speakers I can mount for my rear height channels. As the pictures show, the back row is 38" from the back wall, but there is a soffit only 21" away and the ceiling joists run from side to side instead of front to back. The soffit is framed leaving only 6" between it and the last ceiling joist. Everywhere else I can do in-ceiling speakers, but cannot figure out what the best solution would be.


I'd suggest using on-wall speakers, designated Rear Height, and placed at the top of the rear wall. Some crown molding designs can have cables run through them. I dunno if that's the case for yours.



> As a cveat, the final placement of the height channels will be inside the line of the mains to create the separation needed between the sides and height channels. The final configuration will be 10.4.8.


FWIW, supposedly having that many overhead speakers doesn't do much to enhance the experience unless you're designing for multiple rows of seating.


> I am open to ideas and brands of speakers to use back here.


To the extent that timbre matching matters, I'd suggest using the same model of speakers as you currently use for the surrounds.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> AIUI Dolby doesn;t deal with consumers in any way. Their business model is devoted to a B2B strategy, so maybe they just don't see any need to consider consumers in their plans, leaving this to those companies which follow a different approach?


They could license their proprietary contents to a third-party distributor to release on disc. Perhaps a specialty label that releases other sorts of test discs. I mean, they did put the trailers on VUDU, so they have made at least some effort to get them to consumers.


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> But it wouldn't take a lot of effort for someone with the Atmos mastering tools to slap together a handful of tests and publish!



Now if only we knew someone that worked in the industry...maybe someone that does some film mixing for video...


----------



## Stereodude

How compromised is the Atmos presentation if you use front and rear height speaker placements as Auro 3D wants instead of the Dolby suggested overhead ceiling placement (top front and top rear)?


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> They could license their proprietary contents to a third-party distributor to release on disc. Perhaps a specialty label that releases other sorts of test discs. I mean, they did put the trailers on VUDU, so they have made at least some effort to get them to consumers.


Well they _could_, but as a company which, AFAIK, has never dealt with the consumer end of the business, I don't really see any reason why they _should_. In any event, they _aren_'t, so that's probably the end of it. 

I'd hope that some outfit like S&M would have delivered a suitable test disc now with provision for Atmos, but again, for some reason they haven't. And that's a company which actually _does _sell direct to the consumer market.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Well they _could_, but as a company which, AFAIK, has never dealt with the consumer end of the business, I don't really see any reason why they _should_. In any event, they _aren_'t, so that's probably the end of it.
> 
> *I'd hope that some outfit like S&M would have delivered a suitable test disc now with provision for Atmos, but again, for some reason they haven't.* And that's a company which actually _does _sell direct to the consumer market.



I'm in agreement with your points...and the discussion around an Atmos test disc is all well and good for us enthusiasts but (1) what is the current Atmos penetration rate in the real world/among the general public and (2) what would be the incentive for an S&M to extend the effort...profit? I can see the noble motivation to develop such a tool to help promote 3D sound...someone just needs to...maybe Nike!


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> I'm in agreement with your points...and the discussion around an Atmos test disc is all well and good for us enthusiasts but (1) what is the current Atmos penetration rate in the real world/among the general public and (2) what would be the incentive for an S&M to extend the effort...profit? I can see the noble motivation to develop such a tool to help promote 3D sound...someone just needs to...maybe Nike!


Good points. IDK what percentage of AV enthusiasts have Atmos capability, but I am betting it is quite small. I think even 7.1 is unusual still. It would be interesting to known how many Atmos-capable setups there are in the world vis à vis regular HT-style setups. I'd expect S&M to introduce Atmos support next time they do a major test disc update but I can't see them doing a new disc just to include Atmos.


----------



## Bytehoven

kbarnes701 said:


> Good points. IDK what percentage of AV enthusiasts have Atmos capability, but I am betting it is quite small. I think even 7.1 is unusual still. It would be interesting to known how many Atmos-capable setups there are in the world vis à vis regular HT-style setups. I'd expect S&M to introduce Atmos support next time they do a major test disc update but I can't see them doing a new disc just to include Atmos.


Imho, the step to 5.1 was the most dramatic. The step to 7.1 was incremental but noticeable. The last step to 7.1.4 is mixed. Amazing on some tracks, not so much on others. So dolby needs to encourage sound designers to endeavor to be more creative to support the new capability, but it could be slow going.

In this context, when setting your investment limits, the atmos speakers do not need to be as costly as your primary 7.1 reinforcement. While the L, C, R and SW still do most of the heavy lifting, SL, SR, SBL, SBR seem to be getting more energetic sound design, almost approaching the needs of the front end.

I went with a pretty economic atmos option with the Dayton ic655 and they are working out very well.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bytehoven said:


> Imho, the step to 5.1 was the most dramatic. The step to 7.1 was incremental but noticeable. The last step to 7.1.4 is mixed. Amazing on some tracks, not so much on others. So dolby needs to encourage sound designers to endeavor to be more creative to support the new capability, but it could be slow going.


I'm of the view that object-based sound was a step forward of at least the magnitude of moving to discrete 5.1 sound. I don't believe that poor use of the technology (where found) is any sort of indictment of the technology itself.

Also it is important, IMO, to remember that Atmos/object mixing is considerably more than just the addition of overhead speakers, although that is certainly one of the most noticeable aspects, for obvious reasons. The precision with which object mixes allow the sound mixer to position sounds precisely in three dimensional space is, for me, at least as significant as overhead content. Many movies have little opportunity for sounds from above, but they still benefit considerably from an Atmos mix.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> AIUI Dolby doesn;t deal with consumers in any way.


Indeed, even when it comes to announcing new technologies or features for consumer products, they usually leave it up to their licensees rather than do a press release themselves. For example, we got confirmation about the consumer version of Atmos in June of 2014 from various manufacturers, three months before Dolby formally announced it at CEDIA (even there, the announcement was for industry attendees, not consumers). Same with the minimum Atmos layout going from 5.1.2 to 2.0.2; discovered through new products rather than a Dolby press release.


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> ...we got confirmation about the consumer version of Atmos in June of 2014 from various manufacturers...


Anyone remember that week? AVS was absolutely bursting with activity. Haven't seen that kind of excitement in a while.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Anyone remember that week? AVS was absolutely bursting with activity. Haven't seen that kind of excitement in a while.


Gosh yes. Fever pitch was attained


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> IDK what percentage of AV enthusiasts have Atmos capability, but I am betting it is quite small. I think even 7.1 is unusual still. It would be interesting to known how many Atmos-capable setups there are in the world vis à vis regular HT-style setups.


Off the top of my head, of the people I know that are using more than TV speakers:

4 - 5.1
1 - 5.2
1 - Atmos Sound Bar
1 - 5.1.2 Upfiring
1 - 5.1.2 (moved his upfiring speakers to the ceiling (aimed towards MLP) and noticed a big improvement)
1 - 5.2.2
1 - 9.4.6 (Moi)

Of those, all of the Atmos capable systems are due to my direct involvement. I haven't heard the Atmos sound bar in person, but I'm curious. 

The others don't want overheads for various reasons. They are dead to me (sorry parents).


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> Well they _could_, but as a company which, AFAIK, has never dealt with the consumer end of the business, I don't really see any reason why they _should_. In any event, they _aren_'t, so that's probably the end of it.


Who put the Atmos trailers on YouTube and VUDU?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> Who put the Atmos trailers on YouTube and VUDU?


Whoever put them on youtube forgot that YouTube is stereo only (except in very rare carefully controlled cases) and they are wasting the time of everyone who views them.


----------



## gene4ht

stikle said:


> Off the top of my head, of the people I know that are using more than TV speakers:
> 
> 4 - 5.1
> 1 - 5.2
> 1 - Atmos Sound Bar
> 1 - 5.1.2 Upfiring
> 1 - 5.1.2 (moved his upfiring speakers to the ceiling (aimed towards MLP) and noticed a big improvement)
> 1 - 5.2.2
> 1 - 9.4.6 (Moi)
> 
> Of those, all of the Atmos capable systems are due to my direct involvement. I haven't heard the Atmos sound bar in person, but I'm curious.
> 
> The others don't want overheads for various reasons. They are dead to me (sorry parents).


That’s even ambitious/generous for the general consumer. In my case, there are a few 0’s where you have 1’s.


----------



## unretarded

The lack of promotion is sad.....


I have stacks of old DVD`s that the 5.1 or DTS logo is as big as the movie title on the front of the case...…..never saw one Atmos on the front of a case yet...…..



There no guessing and people see it....poor promotion of Atmos.....no wonder lots of people have never heard about it.


----------



## audiofan1

Molon_Labe said:


> I agree 100%. 5.1 is definitely the sweet spot. I think people should spend as much on the 5.1 first before adding channels vs the "moar" is better with lesser components. However, that is just my opinion. A rock solid 5.1 can sound off the charts phenomenal.
> 
> On a personal note, I have owned a fairly formidable 7.1.4 for close to three years now. That system was comprised of JBL pro cinema 4722's for L/C/R and (8) SCS 8 for surrounds and Atmos. The Atmos demo disc was my reference disc for showcasing my room to friends and family. However, the Atmos home release catalog has left me underwhelmed with the exception of a few movies. I am now at a crossroads because the design of my room is changing from a two row theater to a theater/game room. The ceilings will have to be opened up again to relocate the speakers since the seating has changed. Believe it or not, I am leaning toward forgoing the effort and going back to a traditional 5.1/7.1 layout. I do realize this will lead to tar and feathering, but I went all in the beginning and have not been swayed thus far to do it again. Just a different perspective for those who are contemplating the upgrade. I am a fan...just not sure how big a fan at this point. As Keith pointed out, Atmos has made all surround mixes better for everyone. Play the Atmos disc with the ceiling channels disabled in your AVR. It is one heck of a demo for surround sound.


Na! I'll be keeping my 7.1 4 setup but 5.1 was and is worth its salt and a proven warhorse


----------



## unretarded

It is not a very flattering opinion, I have been reading and keeping my eye on this now for a while.


Atmos at home might die the same slow death as 3-d , due to the same reasons.


Directors intent, or creative vision...…


The same interview comments are being made with these directors...…..on 3-d and Atmos.



The consumers want bullhorns from the heavens out of the top speakers and the directors want to create a realistic experience and in the real world, other than ambience, there is not much going on overhead most of the time. Consumers want to hear the sky explode and directors feel this akin to cheap parlor tricks.



Same directors vision with 3-d, consumers want to dive for cover as 3-d objects fly at them as they seek shelter behind the seats. Directors want realism, like just looking at the real world and stuff flyin out of the screen to directors is like cheap parlor tricks.



Basically about the same interview comments about both platforms when interviewing those in charge of creating content.



Basically about the same comments when interviewing consumers, they wanted bullhorns from above and things flyin at them...…...in both cases they walk away feeling pretty neutral about it, if I could boil it down to one comment,...."*I was expecting more*"...….would be it...…...things like it sounded good or looked good, but I was not impressed are very common answers .



The Atmos platform is outstanding..,...…..but will only be judged by most consumers on the available content and how it washes with their expectations...…..and for most in both cases it is about the same.


I see the greatness in it and I think music might turn out to be a big thing, but a one word summary from my exposure to consumers.....would be..... what I read and hear the most....


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Who put the Atmos trailers on YouTube and VUDU?


No idea unfortunately. Not that they are much use on YouTube (stereo).


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Whoever put them on youtube forgot that YouTube is stereo only (except in very rare carefully controlled cases) and they are wasting the time of everyone who views them.


So probably not Dolby then?


----------



## Molon_Labe

@unretarded I am probably one of those in the "expect the heavens" to explode category. What has underwhelmed me are grossly missed opportunities. For example, there is a scenes from San Andreas where there is a helicopter directly overhead on the screen and the only blade chop and rotor wash I heard was coming out of the base channels. Having been under Army choppers, I know how much sound comes from above in that scenario. Just a complete let down on what that scene "could have been".

While I understand there are few sounds above us in our everyday life, this is also premised that we are standing and moving around. If I sit down in my chair outside, I will argue there are tremendous amounts of sounds above me at the seated level. The ambiance Atmos provides is mostly present when surrounds are elevated. Ambiance and spaciousness are easily achieved with reflections. If one has speakers with good directivity, the sense of space and openness is already there. I agree that putting "something up there" just for the sake of it is not the point. The reality is that if there aren't a lot of "somethings" up there, which is showing to be the case with most Atmos releases, then I don't need speakers up there to play that "something" that doesn't exist

I have been doing a lot of A/B testing in my room and am not hearing a dramatic difference. This doesn't include the Atmos demo disc because that has the "something" and a lot of it, which I really like. I am talking about taking all your Atmos movies and putting them in a box. Grab a couple without looking and do some critical listening with Atmos on and Atmos off. Don't just turn your speakers off, remove them from the processor so those objects get properly rendered in the available base channels. Have other's listen and gather their input. All I am saying is that with elevated surround speakers combined with modern mixing, the differences are much less than people realize. I agree when that wonderful mix hits the system it is fantastic. The reality is those wonderful mixes are far and few in between.


----------



## kbarnes701

unretarded said:


> It is not a very flattering opinion, I have been reading and keeping my eye on this now for a while.
> 
> 
> Atmos at home might die the same slow death as 3-d , due to the same reasons.
> 
> 
> Directors intent, or creative vision...…
> 
> 
> The same interview comments are being made with these directors...…..on 3-d and Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> The consumers want bullhorns from the heavens out of the top speakers and the directors want to create a realistic experience and in the real world, other than ambience, there is not much going on overhead most of the time. Consumers want to hear the sky explode and directors feel this akin to cheap parlor tricks.
> 
> 
> 
> Same directors vision with 3-d, consumers want to dive for cover as 3-d objects fly at them as they seek shelter behind the seats. Directors want realism, like just looking at the real world and stuff flyin out of the screen to directors is like cheap parlor tricks.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically about the same interview comments about both platforms when interviewing those in charge of creating content.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically about the same comments when interviewing consumers, they wanted bullhorns from above and things flyin at them...…...in both cases they walk away feeling pretty neutral about it, if I could boil it down to one comment,...."*I was expecting more*"...….would be it...…...things like it sounded good or looked good, but I was not impressed are very common answers .
> 
> 
> 
> The Atmos platform is outstanding..,...…..but will only be judged by most consumers on the available content and how it washes with their expectations...…..and for most in both cases it is about the same.
> 
> 
> I see the greatness in it and I think music might turn out to be a big thing, but a one word summary from my exposure to consumers.....would be..... what I read and hear the most....


I don't really agree with much of what you wrote, and see no real comparison with 3-D which is a 60 year old technology resurrected as opposed to an entirely new ground-breaking technology just invented. Object mixing is here to stay and has already become the de facto standard in Hollywood, involving massive investment and retraining, so I can't see them deciding to just abandon it and go backwards.

But my real point is your 'meh'. This is exactly what you will get if you talk to 99% of people and mention 5.1. They have a soundbar and are happy with it. You are forgetting that everyone on AVS is an enthusiast, so what is applicable to the public at large, is not applicable to the members here.

Your suggestion that studios will abandon Atmos because most consumers aren't interested in it is no different to suggesting that they would abandon 5.1 for the exact same reason - most consumers aren't interested in it. The latter didn't happen, and neither will the former.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> @unretarded I am probably one of those in the "expect the heavens" to explode category. What has underwhelmed me are grossly missed opportunities. For example, there is a scenes from San Andreas where there is a helicopter directly overhead on the screen and the only blade chop and rotor wash I heard was coming out of the base channels. While I understand there are few sounds above us in our everyday life, this is also premised that we are standing and moving around. If I sit down in my chair outside, I will argue there are tremendous amounts of sounds above me at the seated level. The ambiance Atmos provides is mostly present when surrounds are elevated. Ambiance and spaciousness are easily achieved with reflections. If one has speakers with good directivity, the sense of space and openness is already there. I agree that putting "something up there" just for the sake of it is not the point. The reality is that if there aren't a lot of "somethings" up there, which is showing to be the case with most Atmos releases, then I don't need speakers up there to play that "something" that doesn't exist. I have been doing a lot of A/B testing in my room and am not hearing a dramatic difference. This doesn't include the Atmos demo disc because that has the "something" and a lot of it, which I really like. I am talking about taking all your Atmos movies and putting them in a box. Grab a couple without looking a do some critical listening with Atmos on and Atmos off. Don't just turn your speakers off, remove them from the processor so those objects get properly rendered in the available base channels. Have other's listen and gather their input. All I am saying is that with elevated surround speakers combined with modern mixing, the differences are much less than people realize. I agree when that wonderful mix hits the system it is fantastic. The reality is those wonderful mixes are far and few in between.


Isn't all of that also true of 5.1? Do you feel that every 5,1 mix is stellar, and was so from the very beginning? My experience is different: I have literally hundreds of 5.1 movies which are average, and which make little use of the surround channels. Does that mean 5.1 is not worthwhile as well?

Now that object mixing is here to stay, I can't really understand a decision to rip all the Atmos stuff out to go backwards to the last century. Different strokes I guess...


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn't all of that also true of 5.1? Do you feel that every 5,1 mix is stellar, and was so from the very beginning? My experience is different: I have literally hundreds of 5.1 movies which are average, and which make little use of the surround channels. Does that mean 5.1 is not worthwhile as well?
> 
> Now that object mixing is here to stay, I can't really understand a decision to rip all the Atmos stuff out to go backwards to the last century. Different strokes I guess...


No, not all 5.1 mixes are the same. In the beginning, they were horrible. However, modern 5.1 and 7.1 mixes (due to Atmos rendering technologies) are amazing. I think the biggest bang Atmos brought to the table was the better mixing, not the height channels. Today's 5.1 is no where near the 5.1 of yesteryear thanks to Atmos mixing. You know I am a fan Keith. I will probably open the ceiling and run the stupid wires because when it works, dang does it work. I am just keeping it real per say and having some transparent dialog on my thoughts of Atmos after several years. Not having height channels is not going backwards because Atmos is at the core of the production. If there is little content in the height channel, what are you gaining or missing? I will be enjoying the same mix as you, just minus a few ceiling channels and using reflections as ambiance vs point source. Granted, if there is a direct sound object placed up there in a fly over etc, and I don't have a speaker there to render it, I will miss the intended effect as that sound is rendered to the sides. However, those type scenes are far and few between.


----------



## tbaucom

Molon_Labe said:


> No, not all 5.1 mixes are the same. In the beginning, they were horrible. However, modern 5.1 and 7.1 mixes (due to Atmos rendering technologies) are amazing. I think the biggest bang Atmos brought to the table was the better mixing, not the height channels. Today's 5.1 is no where near the 5.1 of yesteryear. You know I am a fan Keith. I will probably open the ceiling and run the stupid wires because when it works, dang does it work. I am just keeping it real per say and having some transparent dialog on my thoughts of Atmos after several years. Not having height channels is not going backwards because Atmos is at the core of the production. If there is little content in the height channel, what are you gaining or missing? I will be enjoying the same mix as you, just minus a few ceiling channels and using reflections as ambiance vs point source. Granted, if there is a direct sound object placed up there in a fly over etc, I will miss that. However, those scenes are far and few between.


I understand where you are coming from. I recently sent my NAD T758 to service center to have the updated AM230 card installed. While it was gone, I used my old Onkyo 806 in a 7.1 configuration. To my suprise, I didn't miss the overhead speakers that much at all. Watching some of my atmos/dts:x blu rays I didn't think there was much of a difference. For the most part, the atmos speakers are used far more by the upmixers than actual atmos content. I have no plans to switch back to 7.1 permanently but if I were to do it again, I'm not sure I would make the upgrade.


----------



## gene4ht

OK...I'll take a position on this. The phrase has already been coined. "Some Atmos is better than no Atmos." Put me in this camp. I, too, have been been invested in 3D sound for going on three years as well. In this time, I've experienced the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not every song written wins a Grammy, not every movie produced wins an Oscar, and being from the motor city, not every car is awarded "car of the year." Never the less, I enjoy, most songs, most movies, and look forward each year to new car intros. Compared to 5.1, Atmos is still in its infancy. Hollywood (directors, film mixers, etc.) and others in the industry are still learning the Atmos craft and not all at the same rate. No doubt then this craft is still evolving and improving. It's inevitable, over time, the average Atmos mix will become better and better. Now and then, like all things, some will get "hit out of the park." I didn't mind cutting the holes in the ceiling and fishing all that wire as it's the part of this hobby I actually enjoy! And I'm also enjoying this Atmos journey...from it's growing pains to wherever it takes us. That's my perspective and my .02! Pass the kool aid!


----------



## Jonas2

gene4ht said:


> The phrase has already been coined. "Some Atmos is better than no Atmos." Put me in this camp.


Sign me up as well. Sure, we all know it is very content dependent, but when it gets done right, it is something special - so I'd rather have the ability to do it than not. Only the individual can call it for themselves as to whether or not it is worth the investment (which is becoming more and more affordable). I say YES, it is, and future circumstances allowing, I will never NOT have Atmos. 

Atmos, DTS-X, upmixing, multi-channel music - whatever your poison, that height layer is glorious!


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> OK...I'll take a position on this. The phrase has already been coined. "Some Atmos is better than no Atmos." Put me in this camp. I, too, have been been invested in 3D sound for going on three years as well. In this time, I've experienced the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not every song written wins a Grammy, not every movie produced wins an Oscar, and being from the motor city, not every car is awarded "car of the year." Never the less, I enjoy, most songs, most movies, and look forward each year to new car intros. Compared to 5.1, Atmos is still in its infancy. Hollywood (directors, film mixers, etc.) and others in the industry are still learning the Atmos craft and not all at the same rate. No doubt then this craft is still evolving and improving. It's inevitable, over time, the average Atmos mix will become better and better. Now and then, like all things, some will get "hit out of the park." I didn't mind cutting the holes in the ceiling and fishing all that wire as it's the part of this hobby I actually enjoy! And I'm also enjoying this Atmos journey...from it's growing pains to wherever it takes us. That's my perspective and my .02! Pass the kool aid!


Very well expressed.  Your view is pretty much my view too. Atmos and object based sound is an amazing step forward. Does that mean every Atmos mix at this stage of the game will be amazing too? Not at all. Why would we think that? There are thousands of movies made each year. Most are poor, some are OK, a few are astonishingly good. Does the fact that only a few are so good cause us to say "I'm not going to bother with movies any more -- so many of them are average to poor." Of course not. Why would it be any different with the soundtrack?


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> The Atmos craft isn't just height channels. The Atmos craft is the whole mix and the mixes are great. I don't think they are in need of improvement because the mixes are the best they ever have been. Adding information to the height channels isn't something they are going to get better at. I think the mixers are already very good at their art/trade. My point is there just isn't much information in the height channels - I don't think there ever will be except in specific instances. We keep hoping "it" will come. I don't think it is ever coming. Most of Ralph's reviews use much the same terminology, "Atmos brought spaciousness to the presentation". Ok, move your speakers back up to over ear height to gain more reflections and listen again. Much difference? That is my only point.
> 
> One must determine if those few height channel instances warrant the time, labor, and equipment costs. There is very little ROI in my opinion, but this is my opinion (we all know the saying about opinions). That doesn't mean it isn't worth it. I am a rare case where I am having to cross this bridge twice where most people don't. Not only am I changing my room, but I am upgrading to JBL M2's and 708/705 LSR speakers. So it's not about just opening up the ceiling and running the wires, it is buying special DSP amps and new speaker costs. Having to do this "again" is a bit sobering after having been on both sides of the fence. I will probably keep Atmos, but I have a much better reference for what these costs are bringing to the table. When you first make the jump to Atmos/DTS:X, its the thrill of the new and unknown. Second time around, not so much for me anyways......


Again, pretty much all of that also applies to 5.1 -- especially so three or four years after it was launched. The same arguments were launched when 5.1 was launched. "Not much information in the surround channels... probably never will be... too expensive and not worth the investment... who on earth wants all those speakers in their room...." Etc etc. Then along came 7.1. Repeat the same old same old. "Not much in the rear surrounds... too many speakers... too much investment in new amps, speakers etc... and nobody has the room for it." 

None of it was true as it turns out. Who would want to go back to stereo after 5.1? Who would want to go back to 5.1 after enjoying 7.1? And now there are stellar 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. And there are, as it turns out, stellar Atmos mixes too, including many with terrific use of the overheads (a list was posted here recently). Atmos is new -- it takes time.


----------



## Molon_Labe

My Dad is bigger than your Dad.....  

Unlike those that come in and just crap on the technology in an attempt to defend what they own or don't own, I earned my entrance fee  And don't forget, I am a fan.


----------



## shs1234

My experience with Atmos has been a pleasant surprise. About a year ago I decided it was time for an upgrade to the home theater, partly because my projector was then 10 years old and it seemed like a good time to go 4K, and partly because I was about to button up the woodwork including the soffits in the home theater and I want to run whatever new cables might be needed in the foreseeable future. A 4K projector meant that I needed a new 4K compatible pre/pro and the AVM 60 I chose supported 11 channels/Atmos, so I figured I might as well try it out, especially since some of the 4K DVDs I bought had Atmos soundtracks.

I bought four small speakers that I knew I could return and mounted them near the ceiling and strung temporary wiring using to amps that had been used for zone 2 purposes. My initial impressions were very positive, which meant, of course, that I also had to lower the surround speakers and move the side surrounds not only down, but forward as well to get the optimal separation of ear level and height speakers. After a few trial locations, I was happy and was able to run more permanent speaker wires inside the soffits and put on the nice-looking paneling, finalizing the construction of the home theater. Hurray!

I really like the fact that inclusion of the ceiling speakers elevates the soundstage and certainly makes it more 3-dimentional. Perhaps that is because my screen is a bit higher than normal, but once my wife and I lean back in our reclining Ekornes chairs all is well. With any content that is more than 2.0, DSU seems to make good use of the ceiling speakers, and it really makes the soundfield more immersive. 

Of course, real Atmos content is even better. I have recently been using Jack Ryan on Prime to test different crossover schemes for the Atmos speakers and there is no doubt that the Atmos speakers have a real role to play with that series, not only for objects, but the they also seem to mix music up there during dramatic scenes, again making for a much more immersive experience. Perhaps streaming is where Atmos will really get people's attention as that is the future, not DVDs. 

I have now done a number of movie nights as fundraisers for the church and they are always sold out. While the 4K projection is great, people leave talking about the sound system, and I am sure that the Atmos sound tracks on the movies we watch is a big part of it. Not looking back.


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> One must determine if those few height channel instances warrant the time, labor, and equipment costs. There is very little ROI in my opinion, but this is my opinion (we all know the saying about opinions). That doesn't mean it isn't worth it. I am a rare case where I am having to cross this bridge twice where most people don't. Not only am I changing my room, but I am upgrading to JBL M2's and 708/705 LSR speakers. So it's not about just opening up the ceiling and running the wires, it is buying special DSP amps and new speaker costs. Having to do this "again" is a bit sobering after having been on both sides of the fence. I will probably keep Atmos, but I have a much better reference for what these costs are bringing to the table. When you first make the jump to Atmos/DTS:X, its the thrill of the new and unknown. Second time around, not so much for me anyways......



I've always appreciated and respected your opinions and transparency...valued and refreshing in fact! I completely understand your position and perspective. In your particular scenario, I would also do it again. For me the ROI would not be in question as I'm fully invested. Using an automotive analogy again, it's like once one appreciates a new option/feature, however impactful, and value its contribution to the whole experience, it's highly likely we will want/buy it in the next vehicle rather than not. In this regard, I believe our thinking is more alike than different.


----------



## Molon_Labe

gene4ht said:


> I've always appreciated and respected your opinions and transparency...valued and refreshing in fact! I completely understand your position and perspective. In your particular scenario, I would also do it again. For me the ROI would not be in question as I'm fully invested. Using an automotive analogy again, it's like once one appreciates a new option/feature, however impactful, and value its contribution to the whole experience, it's highly likely we will want/buy it in the next vehicle rather than not. In this regard, I believe our thinking is more alike than different.


 Rest easy....I just ordered the Crown DCI4/300n amp and JBL 705i speakers. No sense counting ROI at this point....its AVS. The new setup will be 7.x.4.

I do abhor this hobby at times


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> Rest easy....I just ordered the Crown DCI4/300n amp and JBL 705i speakers. No sense counting ROI at this point....its AVS. The new setup will be 7.x.4.
> 
> I do abhor this hobby at times


+1
LOL! Congrats! For many in this thread/forum, fortunately ROI is the least of our concerns!


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> +1
> LOL! Congrats! For many in this thread/forum, fortunately ROI is the least of our concerns!


Even the thought of it makes me shudder


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> But my real point is your 'meh'. This is exactly what you will get if you talk to 99% of people and mention 5.1. They have a soundbar and are happy with it. You are forgetting that everyone on AVS is an enthusiast, so what is applicable to the public at large, is not applicable to the members here.
> 
> Your suggestion that studios will abandon Atmos because most consumers aren't interested in it is no different to suggesting that they would abandon 5.1 for the exact same reason - most consumers aren't interested in it. The latter didn't happen, and neither will the former.


Very well put, and 100% agree.


----------



## Selden Ball

kbarnes701 said:


> So probably not Dolby then?


While some are just dual-mono, others include matrixed surround-sound: DPL II frequently provides dialog in the center speaker channel with effects in the other speakers.


----------



## stikle

ROI = Robbing Our Income


----------



## PeterTHX

Atmos is here to stay and not comparable to 3D


More and more manufacturers are offering it in their products.
You see Atmos listed as a feature in SMART PHONES now.
In 4K UHD Blu-rays it's the standard soundtrack for companies like Disney, Sony, Lionsgate who will remix everything into the format.
Netflix, iTunes just added it fairly recently.


ATSC 3.0...video games on the XBOX One and PC...


The list goes on.


----------



## gwsat

kbarnes701 said:


> Isn't all of that also true of 5.1? Do you feel that every 5,1 mix is stellar, and was so from the very beginning? My experience is different: I have literally hundreds of 5.1 movies which are average, and which make little use of the surround channels. Does that mean 5.1 is not worthwhile as well?
> 
> Now that object mixing is here to stay, I can't really understand a decision to rip all the Atmos stuff out to go backwards to the last century. Different strokes I guess...


Yep. The mix is the key element in a TrueHD Atmos mix, as it is in every other codec. I got another horrible example of that from Disney last night (what else is new?) when I watched my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Incredibles 2_. The film is terrific and I was well entertained but its supposedly immersive audio was an epic fail. The soundtrack delivered little if any audio to my overhead speakers. I've heard a few supposedly immersive soundtracks, which woefully underutilize my system's Atmos speakers but _Incredibles 2_ represented a new low. Why won't Disney do TrueHD Atmos right? your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## kbarnes701

gwsat said:


> Yep. The mix is the key element in a TrueHD Atmos mix, as it is in every other codec. I got another horrible example of that from Disney last night (what else is new?) when I watched my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Incredibles 2_. The film is terrific and I was well entertained but its supposedly immersive audio was an epic fail. The soundtrack delivered little if any audio to my overhead speakers. I've heard a few supposedly immersive soundtracks, which woefully underutilize my system's Atmos speakers but _Incredibles 2_ represented a new low. Why won't Disney do TrueHD Atmos right? your guess is as good as mine.


+1. I watched that movie last week and felt the same. The mix overall isn't bad, but it is supposed to be _immersive_. And there were plenty of (missed) opportunities to light up the overheads, although to be fair they were utilised at least some of the time. Disney really does seem to have almost entirely lost the plot. By way of contrast I also watched_ Mission Impossible: Fallout_ this week and, boy, do the overhead shine in some of the scenes! The helicopter scenes towards the end of the movie are a master-class of how to do it.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Disney really does seem to have almost entirely lost the plot


You mean that company who owns Marvel, Star Wars, and countless other titles that could be bombastically Atmos? Talk about a worse case scenario. Why couldn't it be Lionsgate or some other studio that rains on the Atmos parade. No, it has to be the juggernaut holding the huge bag of goodies - the perfect storm


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> You mean that company who owns Marvel, Star Wars, and countless other titles that could be bombastically Atmos? Talk about a worse case scenario. Why couldn't it be Lionsgate or some other studio that rains on the Atmos parade. No, it has to be the juggernaut holding the huge bag of goodies - the perfect storm


 TBH they're not all terrible. But yeah, WTF!


----------



## stikle

gwsat said:


> I got another horrible example of that from Disney last night (what else is new?) when I watched my UHD HDR TrueHD Atmos version of _Incredibles 2_. The film is terrific and I was well entertained but its supposedly immersive audio was an epic fail. The soundtrack delivered little if any audio to my overhead speakers. I've heard a few supposedly immersive soundtracks, which woefully underutilize my system's Atmos speakers but _Incredibles 2_ represented a new low. Why won't Disney do TrueHD Atmos right? your guess is as good as mine.



That's disappointing. I'm hosting a movie night soon for the neighbors and their kids and that's what they want to watch. THEY will probably be blown away by the presentation, but I'll notice. I just won't say anything and they'll still be happy.

COME ON, DISNEY...


----------



## unretarded

kbarnes701 said:


> I don't really agree with much of what you wrote, and see no real comparison with 3-D which is a 60 year old technology resurrected as opposed to an entirely new ground-breaking technology just invented. Object mixing is here to stay and has already become the de facto standard in Hollywood, involving massive investment and retraining, so I can't see them deciding to just abandon it and go backwards.
> 
> But my real point is your 'meh'. This is exactly what you will get if you talk to 99% of people and mention 5.1. They have a soundbar and are happy with it. You are forgetting that everyone on AVS is an enthusiast, so what is applicable to the public at large, is not applicable to the members here.
> 
> Your suggestion that studios will abandon Atmos because most consumers aren't interested in it is no different to suggesting that they would abandon 5.1 for the exact same reason - most consumers aren't interested in it. The latter didn't happen, and neither will the former.



I agree, maybe my post was not detailed enough.

I do not see Hollywood abandoning Atmos, my observation was consumer home based.

Any business model that does not meet consumer expectations is not going to thrive. It is here to stay in the theaters for sure and will be on the home use disks.


But consumer implementation will be low because it falls short of expectations, like you said, most will get a Atmos soundbar and say they have Atmos for the prestige of it.....it sells, so it will stay.



Unfortunately when it comes to mixes we are hostage, for now, to the directors intent...…..what the consumers want is not being met. 


Its like any finicky "Artist".....they have a vision and since its a watch it or watch nothing option, people watch it, but even here amongst the upper end of the spectrum, we all pretty say the same thing, implementation could be better and more. Regular consumers are not impressed...………


That's the part I was talking about with 3-d and Atmos,....pretty much all the lackluster content is because of the artist/director, not a limitation of the tech. They have a "Vision" of what Atmos should be, just like the regular consumer has a vision of what it should be, most consumers are Meh on the content the artists vision is producing.


Atmos is here to stay and I have it, like it and will get as much as possible...….


But it is falling way short of consumers expectations because of the directors/artists vision...….thank goodness this tech is widely available and becoming decentralized...…..I will be even getting the Atmos mixing dolby tools once I move to my new place.



When you have a consumer base that is hungry for "Bull horns from the heavens"....a content creator will come a long and produce to that market...….



Even when stereo music became available, many shunned it for quite a while and only a handful of artists took advantage of it...….Atmos is ripe for some one to take full advantage of it, right now it is wonderful for a few seconds, but Meh overall,....the consuming masses are disinterested as it has no bang, no flair...….nothing stands out in a good mix, because for a producer, a ideal Atmos mix sounds just like 2 people talking in a room normally does. Do you ever think when conversating,..WOW, this is soo cool, I can hear the person talking to me from all over.around me. No, it just sounds normal,......so with the current producers mindset, the perfect mix will be normal at best, no one is going to jump up and down over that.



Where the frontier of Atmos currently is cutting edge are the few clubs around the world that feature real time Atmos mixing, they are able to see first hand instant crowd reactions to content, what people like and what they never even notice.


Nolan is a perfect example, while many consider Dunkirk to be a poster child for horrible clipped audio, he understands what sells, he does not use Atmos. While I am not a huge fan of his audio, he has a good grasp on what consumers want, so he offered up his vision that catered to that and won a award for what many in the sound community consider a mess when it comes to the audio.


The consumer base is ripe for bullhorns from the heavens and until that time, at best, Atmos will be Meh to most consumers. Its not a problem with the tech, as always it is the artist/directors that are the problem as much as they are the reason for a movies success, is the same they are the reason for Meh Atmos opinions. Atmos the tech is outstanding, Atmos the content is Meh, why ?....directors and artists vision.


----------



## andydallas

I handle strategic relationships for a production library company that is part of Universal Music Group. For every "commercial" song in a movie, there are several pieces of production music (all that other music, also used in sports programming, commercials, corporate video etc etc etc)

One thing many post houses (for all types of video) are really getting into today is music delivered in STEMS format, basically its like a master with every instrument normally on a different track. In the past the music was delivered in Stereo with some edits. The STEMS give them the ability to do more things with the music, a lot more things, this is because sound is becoming even more important in movies today (and other content).

In virtual reality there is "3D sound/360 sound" which is basically atmos on steroids. They can even attach a particular sound/instrument to a visual item and have that sound move with that item This opens up a lot of possibilities for atmos or atmos like content for movies, gaming etc.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> That's disappointing. I'm hosting a movie night soon for the neighbors and their kids and that's what they want to watch. THEY will probably be blown away by the presentation, but I'll notice. I just won't say anything and they'll still be happy.
> 
> COME ON, DISNEY...


It's not too bad really. Turn up the MV a bit -- the overheads are used but not enough. Overall the sound is pretty good though. Just not as good as it could have been.


----------



## kbarnes701

unretarded said:


> But consumer implementation will be low because it falls short of expectations, like you said, most will get a Atmos soundbar and say they have Atmos for the prestige of it.....it sells, so it will stay.


See @PeterTHX's comments above. Atmos is being implemented _everywhere_. 



unretarded said:


> Atmos is ripe for some one to take full advantage of it, right now it is wonderful for a few seconds, but Meh overall


This is not my experience here in my HT. I have about 130 Atmos discs and almost all of them have fabulous sound. Many of them are stellar. Object based mixing has brought huge, audible improvements IMO and I hear them in almost every Atmos movie I own. Sure, the use of the overhead speakers is often disappointing to some extent, but Atmos is about so much more than sounds from above. For me it is the precision with which sounds are placed in the three-dimensional space that impresses me the most. But I am massively keen on precise imagining and my room is treated to the nth degree, as well as being designed from the ground up, so maybe that explains why I can so readily hear the benefits of these object mixes.

As for the format dying out for home use because most consumers aren't interested, well you could apply that to the entirety of the HT spectrum, but it still won't be true or correct. 99% of consumers could care less about 5.1, but we still get it on every disc. 99% of consumers could care less about AVRs, but they still get sold. 99% of consumers could care less about UHD but it's here to stay. And so on and on. You seem to be missing the point that so long as there is sufficient demand, manufacturers will be there to meet it. That's why Ferrari still sell cars even though 99% of consumers aren't interested. That's why Panerai still sell $20,000 wristwatches. And so on.

If we are still around in 10 years time I'll set you a wager: I bet you $100 that in 10 years time Atmos will be the defacto audio format on Blu-ray/UHD and that all streaming services of any size or quality (eg Netflix, Amazon etc) will be offering it routinely.


----------



## mrtickleuk

unretarded said:


> Even when stereo music became available, many shunned it for quite a while and *only a handful of artists took advantage of it...*


Wow, is that really true? Sounds like fantastic hyperbole to me, but it was before I was born.


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow, is that really true? Sounds like fantastic hyperbole to me, but it was before I was born.


It's sort of true (I was there). LPs were mono. Then stereo came along and still most LPs were mono. Bound to be the case - new technology can't be installed in studios all over the world overnight. Same with players - people had mono players. It took some time for people to shift to stereo. Eventually all LPs and all players were stereo. People loved it and adopted it and really, they had no choice because all LPs were being issued in stereo and all new players were stereo.

Atmos will be the same. Small start, then gradual industry-wide adoption as studios swap out their old gear for new, then it becomes the de facto standard, just as stereo did, and then 5.1 much later.

The argument that 'most people don't want it so it won't happen' is just plain wrong. It's never been right (see my case for niche cars, watches, everything above). Niche products exist everywhere you look. The demand isn't universal but it doesn't matter - those manufacturers in the game aren't aiming for universal adoption - they are trying to gain penetration in their chosen niche. People putting 11 or more speakers in their rooms will _always _be niche. Doesn't mean it will just go away. Never has, never will.

BTW, early stereo records were awful. Producers justy put half the track in the left speaker and the other half in the right speaker, so you'd get lead and bass in the left and rhythm and drums in the right for example. Early Beatles stereo LPs were classics of this sort. The producers were learning. So most early stereo releases were very disappointing. Then the creators of the content learned about it and things rapidly improved. Sound familiar?


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> It's sort of true (I was there). LPs were mono. Then stereo came along and still most LPs were mono. Bound to be the case - new technology *can't be installed in studios all over the world overnight*. Same with players - people had mono players. It took some time for people to shift to stereo. Eventually all LPs and all players were stereo. People loved it and adopted it and really, they had no choice because all LPs were being issued in stereo and all new players were stereo.


Right, I'm happy with all of that, for the reasons that you explain.

What I massively doubt was the alternative reason he gave, it was because MOST ARTISTS hated it and were shunning it out of choice, and "only a handful" of artists *wanted* stereo sound. It is that which I think is ludicrous. It would be like claiming that most movie creators desperately wanted to stick with mono and I can only think of one (Kubrick). That's why I questioned it. 

ps. I've heard "Beatles stereo". Awful I agree. Yes, part of a learning process.


----------



## unretarded

kbarnes701 said:


> See @PeterTHX's comments above. Atmos is being implemented _everywhere_.




I still think you are not understanding where I am coming from....I agree with what you are saying.



I also said it was being implemented every where and is not going anywhere.



CONSUMERS are not implementing it every where, in fact, most have never heard of it and those that have are not purchasing any equipment.



Why, because they want bullhorns from the heavens...….so they say Meh to it.


I don`t say meh to it, I have it and will only be expanding my set up farther as it is great stuff...…...what I am saying is consumers drive the market too, especially on home equipment, at this point manufactures do not think it is important enough to even put on the front of a disk for the consumer to see, like was plastered all over the disks when DTS came around.



The general populations reaction to Atmos is meh...…..not mine......the next step is why, which is content as I explained, it simply does not meet their expectations, so they move on with life.


As for me, I am eying one of the new affordable .6 channel Atmos recievers…….it has moved to high on the list for me....


----------



## unretarded

mrtickleuk said:


> Right, I'm happy with all of that, for the reasons that you explain.
> 
> What I massively doubt was the alternative reason he gave, it was because MOST ARTISTS hated it and were shunning it out of choice, and "only a handful" of artists *wanted* stereo sound. It is that which I think is ludicrous. It would be like claiming that most movie creators desperately wanted to stick with mono and I can only think of one (Kubrick). That's why I questioned it.
> 
> ps. I've heard "Beatles stereo". Awful I agree. Yes, part of a learning process.



I did not claim it was the artists, I said people....same group we have now that think anything other than 2 channel is wrong, consumers for the most part.


There were content creators that pushed for stereo and those that pushed against it, just like now,...Nolan being a perfect example, to him Atmos sound is parlor tricks to be used by directors with no talent, not my words, Nolans words, in a nutshell, he was way more PC about it.




But your post does bring up a key point, part of the learning process...….we are in the infant stages of Atmos, most of the content is bound to be poor implementation, which it is......none of it even comes close to the demo disks, which do wow consumers by the way. The tech is outstanding, implementation is what is lacking. That's why the general public walks away with a meh and implementation comes down to the content creators.....directors/artists.


The platform is very capable of delivering, utilization is not up to par yet with capabilities or expectations, so the consumers are not flocking to it. 


Most of the cutting edge content right now is focused on ambience, making it sound like you are in a forest, or at a concert, the other side of the coin from bullhorns from above, which is what most consumers want.


I mean its easy to see the lack of quality content when people are buying Kraftwerk disks because they have some discreet panning and fly over objects happening in Atmos. Sales of that disk is probably about 95% over what it would be without Atmos. People are desperate for some great use of the heights that go beyond ambience, I like that is gives a pretty realistic sound of being in a environment, but you have to be into audio to appreciate that. The consumers wants fireworks exploding in those speakers non stop......or as stated, bullhorns from the heavens.....


Your experience might be different with the people you talk to, see daily or don`t see...….I am just putting out what I see and hear and with a retail store, I get to see a lot of people...………


----------



## kbarnes701

unretarded said:


> we are in the infant stages of Atmos, most of the content is bound to be poor implementation, which it is......none of it even comes close to the demo disks, which do wow consumers by the way.


Disagree there. The Atmos track on the remastered UHD disc of the original _Blade Runner_ exceeds the demo disks IMO. Just as one example.


----------



## kbarnes701

unretarded said:


> The platform is very capable of delivering, utilization is not up to par yet with capabilities or expectations, so the consumers are not flocking to it.


Consumers aren't 'flocking to it' because the implementation isn't up to their expectations. They'e not flocking to it because a) most of them could care less about movie audio in the home, b) most don't want to festoon their living rooms with speakers, c) most of them have never even heard of Atmos and never will.

Consumers in general aren't 'flocking to' 5.1 either. I have a lot of friends and many more acquaintances. I am the only one with Atmos. I am one of the few who has even heard of Atmos. None of my friends (other than forum members or AV dealers) has anything more than a soundbar, and most of them have crappy soundbars too. 

I can't quite get your obsession with consumers at large not 'flocking to' Atmos, or indeed to anything else discussed in these threads. Are consumers 'flocking to' REW or to Dirac Live? Of course not. Does that mean they will somehow disappear? Of course not.


----------



## mrtickleuk

unretarded said:


> i did not claim it was the artists, i said *people*....


False:


unretarded said:


> even when stereo music became available, many shunned it for quite a while and *only a handful of artists took advantage of it...*


----------



## sound2017

*Is dolby atmos here for good?*

Just wondering if you guys think dolby atmos will be around for good?


----------



## bobknavs

Sure.

It's backwards compatible with non-Atmos hardware, so it's not like Atmos is highly restrictive.

It is not similar to the quadraphonic vinyl disk technology of the 70s.


----------



## altpensacola

Seeing how it's been seemingly a challenge to get just 5.1, in a proper set up as a standard for simple living room home theater (1992) I would bet more towards atmos dissolving into "pseudo atmos" and most consumers looking up from their hand held devises and saying atmo what?


----------



## jsgrise

Well I just ordered a Monolith 7x200 and another pair of Venere 1.5 to complete my 7.2.4 Atmos setup  Hopefully it is worth the candle!


----------



## jsgrise

My concern is that even 5.1 setups are pretty rare. Go around all the people you know and how many of them even have 5.1? I can count 4 with one Atmos setup (5.2.2) How can they make it profitable? I have no idea.

Some very good shows lately come out with just 2.0 audio mix: The Bodyguard, Yellowstone, etc.


----------



## unretarded

mrtickleuk said:


> False:


 

I am not going to argue, my bad for not being clear enough...….


There is a difference between "Using" and taking advantage of...….many used it, few took advantage. I hope that clears up what I meant.

Example of the difference below …….


*ps. I've heard "Beatles stereo". Awful I agree. .*


----------



## yanks1

In think so, yes.., I love the overhead effects for movies


----------



## unretarded

kbarnes701 said:


> Consumers aren't 'flocking to it' because the implementation isn't up to their expectations. They'e not flocking to it because a) most of them could care less about movie audio in the home, b) most don't want to festoon their living rooms with speakers, c) most of them have never even heard of Atmos and never will.
> 
> *I get that,but even the hardcore guys that live on here a lot are not impressed, do not want it or have heard it and were not impressed, some have set it up and took it down...….plenty of posts here detailing it. Apparently, some expectations are not being met.*
> 
> Consumers in general aren't 'flocking to' 5.1 either. I have a lot of friends and many more acquaintances. I am the only one with Atmos. I am one of the few who has even heard of Atmos. None of my friends (other than forum members or AV dealers) has anything more than a soundbar, and most of them have crappy soundbars too.
> 
> *I agree...…….*
> 
> I can't quite get your obsession with consumers at large not 'flocking to' Atmos, or indeed to anything else discussed in these threads. Are consumers 'flocking to' REW or to Dirac Live? Of course not. Does that mean they will somehow disappear? Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> *I never said it would disappear, ….I am not obsessed, its merely a observation. Actually people do flock to REW, well what small portion that will ever even know it exists and almost everyone keeps it, likes it and uses it...apparently it is meeting expectations quite well. *




Not looking to argue...….



You seem to want to take exception to every detail of my post...…..

I am just pointing out what I see, which is a opinion...….you might see it different, that's fine.


I agree with what you are saying...…….



You have a different point of view, which is great...…….I am good with that.



I have had Atmos for over 2 years now......I get it, I like it.....I am not the enemy here.



I just happen to interact with a lot of people and passing a long what their opinions are and what they are saying......some I agree with, some I don`t...…




I have some UHD content, I guess I need to get a player and see if the Atmos on UHD is better than the Bluray version...….just another example of artist/producer/label/studio killing consumer acceptance by holding the Atmos content hostage on UHD.


----------



## ttn333

Yes, just like surround sound. Not everyone is going to have it, but it's not going anywhere. Looks like the trend is to increase the number of atmos channels as well as simplifying setup like "virtual" atmos, just like surround sound.


----------



## Molon_Labe

jsgrise said:


> My concern is that even 5.1 setups are pretty rare. Go around all the people you know and how many of them even have 5.1? .


Same can be said of Ferrari's, but that doesn't mean they are in danger of being discontinued. 

Movies are now being mastered with object oriented methods. It is a superior process of mixing and it isn't going anywhere. The home user that puts speakers on their ceiling is only the proverbial tip of an industry iceberg. Dolby Atmos's/DTS:X's success or failure is not dependent on home consumer adoption. It is the industry standard which home user's can take advantage of if they choose. Atmos has no additional cost of entry anymore. Entry level receivers from all the major vendors provide Atmos processing onboard now. It is up to the individual to take advantage of the additional channels or forgo them.


----------



## CBdicX

*2 more speakers for Rear Height ?*

Hi, i have now a Front Height and Top Middle setup, and the MLP is under the TM speakers, two seats.

Will i be better off to buy 2 more speakers (around 400 euro !) and put them in the Rear Hight possition compared to what i have now ?
The Rear Height speakers will be 2.5 meters behind the seats, just the same as the Front Height speakers, also 2.5 meters from MLP.


Can this justify 400 euro for a set RH speakers ?


Thanks


----------



## michael1997

we need cheaper 9.x.6 receiver. Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch only do 9.1.4 and $4000. We need $2000 9.1.6 receiver or less $1000.


----------



## bobknavs

michael1997 said:


> we need cheaper 9.x.6 receiver. Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch only do 9.1.4 and $4000. We need $2000 9.1.6 receiver or less $1000.


Holding your breath while waiting for it?


----------



## Jonas2

sound2017 said:


> Just wondering if you guys think dolby atmos will be around for good?



Yep. Until it is replaced/enhanced by the next best thing. 




jsgrise said:


> Well I just ordered a Monolith 7x200 and another pair of Venere 1.5 to complete my 7.2.4 Atmos setup  Hopefully it is worth the candle!



It's an incremental improvement, but with the right content, it can be quite pleasing, not to mention if you are into surround music, it really can fill in a gap in my experience. Not that 5.1 is bad, it ain't, but it can lack a certain "completeness" that at least I have found by adding the two rears. Only YOU can be the judge.....




jsgrise said:


> My concern is that even 5.1 setups are pretty rare. Go around all the people you know and how many of them even have 5.1? I can count 4 with one Atmos setup (5.2.2) How can they make it profitable? I have no idea.



ZERO. I'm it of all the people I know, or at least talk to about A/V stuff. Most of them don't know what Atmos is, and my poor brother keeps referring to it as Sony Atmos.....




michael1997 said:


> we need cheaper 9.x.6 receiver. Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch only do 9.1.4 and $4000. We need $2000 9.1.6 receiver or less $1000.



We certainly know that the higher priced receivers have been a barrier to many when it comes to implementing Atmos. Prices will inevitable come down for level X of capability and performance, but then there will be 23.10.18 formats, and it never ends.  So, somebody is always going to be chasing better and never satisfied with the price. It is what it is. 



I totally agree with your sentiment, but wanting the world but not wanting to pony up for it, while to be expected, is not always realistic.


----------



## altpensacola

I am guessing most of you were not around when quadraphonic records took over the world.... maybe you were around when THX took over in the home....
Of course the difference with quadraphonic was quad was analog, so you had to buy it separate. With atmos it's there, and if you can't decode it, fine, you can still play the movie. THX same thing. 
But the hurdle is not just the more expensive receiver for the consumer, its the 9+ speakers and the holes in the ceiling. And the - can I hook this up my way, or her way? What sells more, sound bars or towers? 
The AVS forum is a niche group I think, I know this is the only place I can discuss all of this, my coworkers and friends don't speak this language. People in general care more about music convenience than sound quality. And even this group has been infiltrated (really...... I don't mean that in a bad way!) with people that apparently are only allowed to have surround sound if they can hide it in the wall.
Another observation that I really think indicates consumers lack of acceptance of true home theater is what I observe on HGTV, house buying, house remodeling shows , not even a hand full of these shows, in years, has a house with a room that looks like it is going to be the HT room. 
If atmos does change all that then you can thank someone. But its going to be a struggle, 
Quadraphonic lost.


----------



## jsgrise

altpensacola said:


> I am guessing most of you were not around when quadraphonic records took over the world.... maybe you were around when THX took over in the home....
> Of course the difference with quadraphonic was quad was analog, so you had to buy it separate. With atmos it's there, and if you can't decode it, fine, you can still play the movie. THX same thing.
> But the hurdle is not just the more expensive receiver for the consumer, its the 9+ speakers and the holes in the ceiling. And the - can I hook this up my way, or her way? What sells more, sound bars or towers?
> The AVS forum is a niche group I think, I know this is the only place I can discuss all of this, my coworkers and friends don't speak this language. People in general care more about music convenience than sound quality. And even this group has been infiltrated (really...... I don't mean that in a bad way!) with people that apparently are only allowed to have surround sound if they can hide it in the wall.
> Another observation that I really think indicates consumers lack of acceptance of true home theater is what I observe on HGTV, house buying, house remodeling shows , not even a hand full of these shows, in years, has a house with a room that looks like it is going to be the HT room.
> If atmos does change all that then you can thank someone. But its going to be a struggle,
> Quadraphonic lost.


I am a Real Estate broker and I visit many properties every year of all price range. Almost none of them have even a 5.1 setup, yet alone a properly installed 5.1.


----------



## shs1234

We sold our home in Redwood City, CA 11 years ago. It had a family room set up as a home theater with a front projector and a 7.2 sound system. We got seven offers. Two of the offers said, please take all the AV stuff out and restore to family room. Five wanted the home theater as it was.


----------



## altpensacola

jsgrise said:


> I am a Real Estate broker and I visit many properties every year of all price range. Almost none of them have even a 5.1 setup, yet alone a properly installed 5.1.


 Yep, I follow home listings in my city pretty regular and I think one time I saw a speakers!


----------



## jsgrise

shs1234 said:


> We sold our home in Redwood City, CA 11 years ago. It had a family room set up as a home theater with a front projector and a 7.2 sound system. We got seven offers. Two of the offers said, please take all the AV stuff out and restore to family room. Five wanted the home theater as it was.


So what did you finally do, leave the stuff? 

I see that you have an AVM60, how do you like it? Did you compare ARC to Audyssey?


----------



## shs1234

jsgrise said:


> So what did you finally do, leave the stuff?
> 
> I see that you have an AVM60, how do you like it? Did you compare ARC to Audyssey?


Yes, we left the stuff as we selected a buyer that wanted it. Our broker had each potential buyer write a letter as to why they might deserve our house and the winning letter stated that he really wanted the home theater as he had lost a home in a divorce where he had put in a lot of effort to install one. We said, the deal is yours if you match the high bidder and he did. 

I really like the AVM 60. I had an Integra DHC 80.3 before and used Audyssey, but I think that ARC give me much more flexibility and the results are very good in my room. There are certain features that the AVM 60 lacks, e.g. no composite video input, no video processing, no AirPlay and only 1 12V trigger. It is really a great audio processor and simply passes all the video straight through to the display. It is obviously capable of capable of displaying the menu system for the processor and the on-screen display, if wanted, when you change the volume control. I decided I could live with those limitations as I use my AppleTV for Airplay and really don't need the pre/pro to do any video processing. The one 12V trigger was the biggest limitation, but in practice that is not a problem. I am very happy with the AVM 60. I had an Anthem Statement D1 before the Integra and am glad to be back with an Anthem pre/pro.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Consumers aren't 'flocking to it' because the implementation isn't up to their expectations. They'e not flocking to it because a) most of them could care less about movie audio in the home, b) most don't want to festoon their living rooms with speakers, c) most of them have never even heard of Atmos and never will.


Same here. I only have one non-AVS friend with a non-Bose, non-soundbar room, and he's got a MacIntosh and a 5.1 setup with Klipsch speakers. He's aware of my home theatre but he's not running out to pick up the latest JVC projector and going to a 9.1.6 room LOL.



> I can't quite get your obsession with consumers at large not 'flocking to' Atmos, or indeed to anything else discussed in these threads. Are consumers 'flocking to' REW or to Dirac Live? Of course not. Does that mean they will somehow disappear? Of course not.


Quite honestly, who cares what other consumers do? That's where there's market segments and freedom of choice. I also think there's a "big sort", where people increasingly flock to people with similar tastes and values as themselves, and the more aware you are of this, the more it accelerates for you. 

Which is another way of saying that my closest offline friends these days tend to be AVSers, friend's I've made starting as clients in my industry, folks I know with similar political, cultural, and sports tastes that we met personally after engaging with them on social media, and a few close friends I've known since roughly forever. I don't know or care what the other three million people in the City of Chicago think about home theatre, nor should they care about what I think about whatever hobbies (knitting, motorcycle racing, boats, etc.) they do. 

...and none but the AVSers have a clue what Trinnov is  .


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> Same here. I only have one non-AVS friend with a non-Bose, non-soundbar room, and he's got a MacIntosh and a 5.1 setup with Klipsch speakers. He's aware of my home theatre but he's not running out to pick up the latest JVC projector and going to a 9.1.6 room LOL.
> 
> 
> Quite honestly, who cares what other consumers do? That's where there's market segments and freedom of choice. I also think there's a "big sort", where people increasingly flock to people with similar tastes and values as themselves, and the more aware you are of this, the more it accelerates for you.
> 
> Which is another way of saying that my closest offline friends these days tend to be AVSers, friend's I've made starting as clients in my industry, folks I know with similar political, cultural, and sports tastes that we met personally after engaging with them on social media, and a few close friends I've known since roughly forever. I don't know or care what the other three million people in the City of Chicago think about home theatre, nor should they care about what I think about whatever hobbies (knitting, motorcycle racing, boats, etc.) they do.
> 
> ...and none but the AVSers have a clue what Trinnov is  .


Damn! I started reading your (excellent) post with interest... a few lines in I started to wonder... but no, nothing yet... I read on with an equal mix of trepidation and wonderment. Will it happen or won't it? I read through the third paragraph, my heartrate rising in line with my blood pressure. Excitement overtook trepidation and wonderment. Yes! Yes, I thought to myself. Stu has finally done it. I honestly never thought I'd live to see the day, but here it was in black and white.

And then...



Spoiler



I got to the final line. The punch line one might call it. And all my hopes were instantly dashed. No.... when it came to it, after such a valiant effort, Stu couldn't bring himself to write a post without mentioning that he actually has A TRINNOV! 


Happy Christmas everyone!


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Damn! I started reading your (excellent) post with interest... a few lines in I started to wonder... but no, nothing yet... I read on with an equal mix of trepidation and wonderment. Will it happen or won't it? I read through the third paragraph, my heartrate rising in line with my blood pressure. Excitement overtook trepidation and wonderment. Yes! Yes, I thought to myself. Stu has finally done it. I honestly never thought I'd live to see the day, but here it was in black and white.
> 
> And then...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I got to the final line. The punch line one might call it. And all my hopes were instantly dashed. No.... when it came to it, after such a valiant effort, Stu couldn't bring himself to write a post without mentioning that he actually has A TRINNOV!
> 
> 
> Happy Christmas everyone!


That was for you. I knew you’d be disappointed otherwise ☺. Happy Holidays and Festivus for the rest of us...


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdrucker said:


> ...and none but the AVSers have a clue what Trinnov is  .


Real men own the SDP-75 Just kidding.....


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> Real men own the SDP-75 Just kidding.....


A room of JBL 708s and 705s too, if not LCR M2s 😎


----------



## schwock5

in the words of my better half..."you already have 7 speakers...we're going to have 11 now? Doesn't that seem like a lot?"

Yes, most people don't have a 5.1....but for those where this is a hobby and a passion, (or addiction) we don't see it as such.

Majority of people have a garage, and while most people will have a standard sedan or SUV there are some who have some pretty rare, expensive, and excessive cars in them. To each their own


----------



## Molon_Labe

schwock5 said:


> Majority of people have a garage, and while most people will have a standard sedan or SUV there are some who have some pretty rare, expensive, and excessive cars in them. To each their own


Garages are for vehicles? I thought they were storage areas for unfinished projects and man clutter your wife won't allow in the house.


----------



## schwock5

Molon_Labe said:


> Garages are for vehicles? I thought they were storage areas for unfinished projects and man clutter your wife won't allow in the house.


isn't everything we own/want clutter she won't allow in the house?


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> I would love to step up to the Trinnov one day. Jealous for sure.


All is relative. After going to Art Sonneborn’s GTG last spring, with JBL M2s as LCR anchoring an 11.6.6 JBL system with Keith’s favorite processor, six Seaton subs (four Submersives, two 18”), and two synchronized Sony 5000es PJs, with Mark Seaton and Ken Whitcomb on hand for supporting their calibrations, coming home and experiencing The Matrix and Hans Zimmer’s Live in Prague was a bit of a reality check.


----------



## michael1997

bobknavs said:


> Holding your breath while waiting for it?


I do not hold my breath. I already have five receivers to setup 9.2.6. Not as good as real one but close. lol My cost is around $900


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> That was for you. I knew you’d be disappointed otherwise ☺. Happy Holidays and Festivus for the rest of us...


 Happy Chanukah!


----------



## stikle

michael1997 said:


> I do not hold my breath. I already have five receivers to setup 9.2.6. Not as good as real one but close. lol My cost is around $900



How do you plan to cable -5- receivers to get 9.2.6?


----------



## Molon_Labe

stikle said:


> How do you plan to cable -5- receivers to get 9.2.6?


----------



## gwsat

What a thread! It's one of the few places where I know I can go to both learn and laugh. Happy Hollidays to all!


----------



## kbarnes701

molon_labe said:


> :d:d


rotflmao!


----------



## jsgrise

Molon_Labe said:


>


That looks like my rack lol


----------



## stikle

Mine's close!


----------



## rs691919

Hello all -- I have a question about speaker placement for my theater, which I would like to upgrade to Atmos (see link at end of this post). I would like to use Klipsch KS-7800's (or similar) for the ceiling mounted speakers, as that is what I have for my rear speakers and surrounds. I tend to sit in the second row; this is under the rear soffit, which projects 3 feet into the room. So where would be the best placement of the ceiling speakers, and how would I best orient the tweeters since they are rectangular shaped speakers? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Markitron

Hi Guys,

Cross posting from the Denon AVR thread, thought I would ask you guys too. Just have a quick question. I have a Denon X4400 currently setup in a 7.2.2 config. My AVR has 11 channel processing, but can only power 9 channels. I am looking to get a stereo amp to power the final two Atmos speakers. I was looking at using something like this. Would this do? I asked the store to recommend one and they suggested a more expensive Denon one as the tonal balance may be compromised. I really don't want to spend more than I have to so thought I would see what you guys think. It is to be used to power up-firing ELAC modules, they will be the rear modules FWIW.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## dfa973

Markitron said:


> ....they suggested a more expensive Denon one as the tonal balance may be compromised.


No, it won't compromise any tonal balance!!!!
You may use that Topaz amp, is fine!


----------



## Bond 007

kbarnes701 said:


> Happy Chanukah!


Merry Christmas!


----------



## Markitron

dfa973 said:


> No, it won't compromise any tonal balance!!!!
> You may use that Topaz amp, is fine!


Thank you. That's what I was thinking, it's only for a pair of rear Atmos modules so I didn't think it would make a difference.

Edit: Just while we are on the subject, how do I connect the two amps together. I was working on the assumption that I connect the extra speakers to the standard ports on the AVR and connect a pair of RCA cables to the 2 channel amp. Is this right?


----------



## kbarnes701

Markitron said:


> Thank you. That's what I was thinking, it's only for a pair of rear Atmos modules so I didn't think it would make a difference.
> 
> Edit: Just while we are on the subject, how do I connect the two amps together. I was working on the assumption that I connect the extra speakers to the standard ports on the AVR and connect a pair of RCA cables to the 2 channel amp. Is this right?


Amplifiers don't have 'tone'. If they do, then they're junk. An amp is intended to take the input signal and deliver it to the output unchanged other than in amplitude. If the amp is affecting the 'tone' (frequency response) then it isn't worth considering anyway. So the advice given is correct - choose any half-decent amp that has the power you need for the task at hand and you're good to go. Applies to all the speakers not just the overheads.


----------



## kbarnes701

Markitron said:


> Thank you. That's what I was thinking, it's only for a pair of rear Atmos modules so I didn't think it would make a difference.
> 
> Edit: Just while we are on the subject, how do I connect the two amps together. I was working on the assumption that I connect the extra speakers to the standard ports on the AVR and connect a pair of RCA cables to the 2 channel amp. Is this right?


You connect the relevant line outputs on the AVR to the inputs on the additional amplifier and then connect the relevant speakers to the speaker terminals on the additional amplifier. Then you need to configure the AVR so that it knows what you have done.

Your AVR will have a 'pre-out' section marked on the back. Find the pre-out that is marked Rear Height Left (or whatever) and connect an RCA lead from that pre-out to the Left input on the new amplifier. Do the same for the pre-out marked Rear Height Right, this time connecting the lead to the Right input on the new amplifier. Then connect the Rear Height Left speaker to the Left speaker post on the new amplifier and the Rear Height Right speaker to the Right speaker post on the new amplifier.

Next you will need to configure your AVR via its menus so that it knows that you are running the Rear Hight (or whatever) pair via an external amp. Finally, run your room correction software (eg Audyssey) again so that it can include the new speakers.


----------



## dfa973

Markitron said:


> ......how do I connect the two amps together. I was working on the assumption that I connect the extra speakers to the standard ports on the AVR and connect a pair of RCA cables to the 2 channel amp. Is this right?


Use the X4400H pre-outputs to connect the Rear Dolby L+R channels from X4400H to the external amp (Topaz in your case) using a RCA cable.
Change your amp assign in X4400H to your actual setup (7.2.4) and redo the Audyssey calibration.
Enjoy.


----------



## Markitron

kbarnes701 said:


> Amplifiers don't have 'tone'. If they do, then they're junk. An amp is intended to take the input signal and deliver it to the output unchanged other than in amplitude. If the amp is affecting the 'tone' (frequency response) then it isn't worth considering anyway. So the advice given is correct - choose any half-decent amp that has the power you need for the task at hand and you're good to go. Applies to all the speakers not just the overheads.





dfa973 said:


> Use the X4400H pre-outputs to connect the Rear Dolby L+R channels from X4400H to the external amp (Topaz in your case) using a RCA cable.
> Change your amp assign in X4400H to your actual setup (7.2.4) and redo the Audyssey calibration.
> Enjoy.



Thanks guys, gonna order those parts now. Is there a massive variation in the quality of RCA cables? Will a relatively cheap one do a decent enough job?


----------



## kbarnes701

Markitron said:


> Thanks guys, gonna order those parts now. Is there a massive variation in the quality of RCA cables? Will a relatively cheap one do a decent enough job?


Monoprice or Amazon Basics are what I use. Never had a moment's trouble with either. Just look for cables that are mechanically sound (ie have good, reliable connectors on the ends).


----------



## Markitron

kbarnes701 said:


> Monoprice or Amazon Basics are what I use. Never had a moment's trouble with either. Just look for cables that are mechanically sound (ie have good, reliable connectors on the ends).


If Amazon basics work then that will do me nicely, thanks again!


----------



## JeffChap

Molon_Labe said:


>


This is certainly what my wife sees when she looks back there.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## xhattan

kbarnes701 said:


> Amplifiers don't have 'tone'. If they do, then they're junk. An amp is intended to take the input signal and deliver it to the output unchanged other than in amplitude. If the amp is affecting the 'tone' (frequency response) then it isn't worth considering anyway. So the advice given is correct - choose any half-decent amp that has the power you need for the task at hand and you're good to go. Applies to all the speakers not just the overheads.



Yes, but construction has an impact on noise, which has a huge impact on image and clarity delivered to speakers. I was using a Crown XLS 2500 amp with Pro-ject turntable and tube pre amp and was pretty happy with it. The Crown is a very capable and powerful amp, no questioning. But when I switched to a Peachtree integrated amp, I could clearly hear a difference in those departments, along with tighter, more controlled bass.


----------



## kbarnes701

xhattan said:


> Yes, but construction has an impact on noise, which has a huge impact on image and clarity delivered to speakers. I was using a Crown XLS 2500 amp with Pro-ject turntable and tube pre amp and was pretty happy with it. The Crown is a very capable and powerful amp, no questioning. But when I switched to a Peachtree integrated amp, I could clearly hear a difference in those departments, along with tighter, more controlled bass.


I'm sure you could


----------



## Erod

Molon_Labe said:


> Same can be said of Ferrari's, but that doesn't mean they are in danger of being discontinued.
> 
> Movies are now being mastered with object oriented methods. It is a superior process of mixing and it isn't going anywhere. The home user that puts speakers on their ceiling is only the proverbial tip of an industry iceberg. Dolby Atmos's/DTS:X's success or failure is not dependent on home consumer adoption. It is the industry standard which home user's can take advantage of if they choose. Atmos has no additional cost of entry anymore. Entry level receivers from all the major vendors provide Atmos processing onboard now. It is up to the individual to take advantage of the additional channels or forgo them.


True, but when you hear of major suppliers considering getting out of the AV receiver business, it's concerning. Oppo bailed, and so few are really pushing the envelope.

It's all about soundbars and streaming, it seems. Screens are getting smaller for people. Television viewership is shrinking. Movie releases are gathering smaller audiences. 

I hope it's just a blip on the radar, and turns back our way. I have no idea why more people aren't interested in our hobby.


----------



## schwock5

kbarnes701 said:


> Monoprice or Amazon Basics are what I use. Never had a moment's trouble with either. Just look for cables that are mechanically sound (ie have good, reliable connectors on the ends).


I'd suggest getting a good amp for your front L+R as that has the most heavy lifting and is most demanding.
If the receiver has the option use those 9 channels for the remaining.
Seems silly to waste an amp on 2 atmos when you can use it on your mains and let a receiver handle the atmos.

Unless that Denon model doesn't have that flexibility of amp assignment....


----------



## m. zillch

sound2017 said:


> Just wondering if you guys think dolby atmos will be around for good?


It's just a flash in the pan. The next big thing will be when quadraphonic LPs make a come back. There's a big resurgence in vinyl sales, if you haven't heard, so it should be any day now. 

This is how to properly steer music around, left to right and front to back: *in analog*. Pink Floyd used this device in the late 60's early 70's:








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadr...zimuth_Co-ordinator_used_by_Pink_Floyd_VA.jpg


----------



## Selden Ball

Molon_Labe said:


> I never imagined the survival of vinyl let alone its reemergence to vogue status. If vinyl can survive and thrive, anything is possible


I think part of vinyl's attraction is its physicality: you get to manipulate the tone arm and can see the disc spinning on its platter. You can see and feel what's happening when you upgrade and adjust the pieces of the playback device. This is unlike CDs and digital audio files, which hide all that from you. It's like the difference from an old-style muscle car and a modern sedan.


----------



## EyeWasAbducted

I have a 5.1.2 Atmos set up with upfiring fronts. It took about 10 configurations before I got the upfiring speakers to actually make things sound like they were coming from above. I’m surprised how well it works. MI Fallout is incredible! The problem is, I had to pull my couch about 3 feet off the wall to hit the sweet spot. I’m in a condo and I don’t have a lot of room to work with so those 3 feet really cut into the size of my living room. This has made me realize I need to just go ahead and put some speakers on the ceiling. So, my question is can I mount my Sony upfiring speakers on the ceiling? The manual for them lists 3 ways to use them and on the ceiling is not one of them. I can’t do in ceiling speakers so hopefully these will suffice.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

EyeWasAbducted said:


> I have a 5.1.2 Atmos set up with upfiring fronts. It took about 10 configurations before I got the upfiring speakers to actually make things sound like they were coming from above. I’m surprised how well it works. MI Fallout is incredible! The problem is, I had to pull my couch about 3 feet off the wall to hit the sweet spot. I’m in a condo and I don’t have a lot of room to work with so those 3 feet really cut into the size of my living room. This has made me realize I need to just go ahead and put some speakers on the ceiling. So, my question is can I mount my Sony upfiring speakers on the ceiling? The manual for them lists 3 ways to use them and on the ceiling is not one of them. I can’t do in ceiling speakers so hopefully these will suffice.


We need to know the model number of these enabled speakers to give you the right info.


----------



## stikle

EyeWasAbducted said:


> So, my question is can I mount my Sony upfiring speakers on the ceiling? The manual for them lists 3 ways to use them and on the ceiling is not one of them.


I've got a friend that bought some upfiring speakers. I don't believe they were Sony. He wasn't overly impressed with the results he got in his room. Just for testing purposes, he figured out a way to mount them on the ceiling and says the improvement was substantial. I haven't been back to that side of the state since he's done this so I haven't heard it myself.

Upfiring speakers are not designed to be mounted on the ceiling, so your results may vary if you attempt this. Personally, I think it's worth giving a try because...why not?


----------



## Bachelor

I played around with speakers on the ceiling using command strips to test out prior to putting in ceiling speakers in. Try it out.


----------



## Gabre

EyeWasAbducted said:


> I have a 5.1.2 Atmos set up with upfiring fronts. It took about 10 configurations before I got the upfiring speakers to actually make things sound like they were coming from above. I’m surprised how well it works. MI Fallout is incredible! The problem is, I had to pull my couch about 3 feet off the wall to hit the sweet spot. I’m in a condo and I don’t have a lot of room to work with so those 3 feet really cut into the size of my living room. This has made me realize I need to just go ahead and put some speakers on the ceiling. So, my question is can I mount my Sony upfiring speakers on the ceiling? The manual for them lists 3 ways to use them and on the ceiling is not one of them. I can’t do in ceiling speakers so hopefully these will suffice.


You'd been better off tilting those speakers and wedging them instead of moving the couch


----------



## michael1997

stikle said:


> How do you plan to cable -5- receivers to get 9.2.6?


https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Speaker-Connection-Chart.jpg

https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-beyond-7-1-4-part-1/

3 of them for 7.1.6 Scatmos 

another two for front wide.


----------



## stikle

That's a lot of extra gear to accomplish what you could do with two receivers and a $100 amp. 

But like most things, there is more than one way to accomplish your goal. I thought my wiring and configuration was complex.... 

Hopefully it goes smoothly for you and you enjoy the results.


----------



## nexus99

michael1997 said:


> https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Speaker-Connection-Chart.jpg
> 
> https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-beyond-7-1-4-part-1/
> 
> 3 of them for 7.1.6 Scatmos
> 
> another two for front wide.


Scatmos?


----------



## Gabre

michael1997 said:


> https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Speaker-Connection-Chart.jpg
> 
> https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-atmos-beyond-7-1-4-part-1/
> 
> 3 of them for 7.1.6 Scatmos
> 
> another two for front wide.


I don't understand how is this suppose to work? 

What sound processor for Atmos will u be using, u need something in this story to decode signal from source and send it to receivers. 

Which 13.2 processor are u gonna be using


----------



## stikle

nexus99 said:


> Scatmos?


Scott Simonian's version of Atmos (Extended).



Gabre said:


> I don't understand how is this suppose to work?
> 
> What sound processor for Atmos will u be using, u need something in this story to decode signal from source and send it to receivers.
> 
> Which 13.2 processor are u gonna be using


He's not using a 13.2 processor, he's going to attempt to wire 5 different AVRs together to achieve that.

I'm doing the same thing with 2 Atmos AVRs and a stereo amp.


----------



## Gabre

Can someone explain how? 

If I have one source, how r u splitting that signal to two acts, and then splitting between them? 

I'm interested in doing this, but how

At least receivers are cheap nowadays


----------



## stikle

Gabre said:


> Can someone explain how?


Credit goes to @Nalleh for helping me down this path. The original thread is HERE.

I just created a final wiring diagram. I left the image a large size for clarity and posted it in my Build Thread as to not clutter up this one.


----------



## Gabre

stikle said:


> Credit goes to @Nalleh for helping me down this path. The original thread is HERE.
> 
> I just created a final wiring diagram. I left the image a large size for clarity and posted it in my Build Thread as to not clutter up this one.


I don't understand how this would work


----------



## batpig

Gabre said:


> Can someone explain how?
> 
> If I have one source, how r u splitting that signal to two acts, and then splitting between them?
> 
> I'm interested in doing this, but how
> 
> At least receivers are cheap nowadays


The idea is this:

Until recently receivers maxed out at 11 channel processing (7.1.4). So you could run front + rear overheads, but not front + middle + rear.

So what you do is get a pair of cheap, older receiver with Dolby Pro Logic II upmixing, and feed the front+rear signal from side into it as a stereo input. Then the old receiver applies PLII to extract a center output from a front+rear signal, and voila you have front + middle + rear outputs.

Pro Logic (or any other upmixer really) looks for common information in the L/R channels to extract its center output. So for example, if you're listening to stereo and the mixer wants the dialogue to image in the middle, he will mix the dialogue equally in both L and R channels so the phantom image appears to come from dead center. The upmixer follows this logic and pulls that sound into a hard center speaker (vs. phantom image).

Similarly, if the Atmos mix wants sound to come from directly overhead, they will mix it equally in front+rear overheads, so the phantom image is directly above. So with the method described you leverage this to extract a hard center (Top Middle) output in between front + rear overheads.

So you need two PLII receivers, one for each side, and each one takes a 2ch input and produces a 3ch output. 

Boom, you've gone from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6.


----------



## michael1997

batpig said:


> The idea is this:
> 
> Until recently receivers maxed out at 11 channel processing (7.1.4). So you could run front + rear overheads, but not front + middle + rear.
> 
> So what you do is get a pair of cheap, older receiver with Dolby Pro Logic II upmixing, and feed the front+rear signal from side into it as a stereo input. Then the old receiver applies PLII to extract a center output from a front+rear signal, and voila you have front + middle + rear outputs.
> 
> Pro Logic (or any other upmixer really) looks for common information in the L/R channels to extract its center output. So for example, if you're listening to stereo and the mixer wants the dialogue to image in the middle, he will mix the dialogue equally in both L and R channels so the phantom image appears to come from dead center. The upmixer follows this logic and pulls that sound into a hard center speaker (vs. phantom image).
> 
> Similarly, if the Atmos mix wants sound to come from directly overhead, they will mix it equally in front+rear overheads, so the phantom image is directly above. So with the method described you leverage this to extract a hard center (Top Middle) output in between front + rear overheads.
> 
> So you need two PLII receivers, one for each side, and each one takes a 2ch input and produces a 3ch output.
> 
> Boom, you've gone from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6.


oh yeah. I used another two avs to extra front wide from front and surround. (pretend I have 9.1.6 now lol )


----------



## Gabre

batpig said:


> The idea is this:
> 
> Until recently receivers maxed out at 11 channel processing (7.1.4). So you could run front + rear overheads, but not front + middle + rear.
> 
> So what you do is get a pair of cheap, older receiver with Dolby Pro Logic II upmixing, and feed the front+rear signal from side into it as a stereo input. Then the old receiver applies PLII to extract a center output from a front+rear signal, and voila you have front + middle + rear outputs.
> 
> Pro Logic (or any other upmixer really) looks for common information in the L/R channels to extract its center output. So for example, if you're listening to stereo and the mixer wants the dialogue to image in the middle, he will mix the dialogue equally in both L and R channels so the phantom image appears to come from dead center. The upmixer follows this logic and pulls that sound into a hard center speaker (vs. phantom image).
> 
> Similarly, if the Atmos mix wants sound to come from directly overhead, they will mix it equally in front+rear overheads, so the phantom image is directly above. So with the method described you leverage this to extract a hard center (Top Middle) output in between front + rear overheads.
> 
> So you need two PLII receivers, one for each side, and each one takes a 2ch input and produces a 3ch output.
> 
> Boom, you've gone from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6.


So this is just upmixing, not proper Atmos decoding


----------



## batpig

Gabre said:


> So this is just upmixing, not proper Atmos decoding


Correct, the extra two channels (Top Middle) are derived form upmixing a center output in between the Front/Rear overhead speakers.

So the 7.1.4 is proper/native Atmos decoding, and then the overhead signal is converted from 4 outputs to 6 outputs.


----------



## Gabre

To much hassle for something fake, don't see the point.


----------



## Craig Mecak

And don't forget that when using the DolbySurround UpMixer, it has common Left Height & Right Height signals going to each side, ie dual mono, so using the SCATMOS 7.1.6 method will simply collapse all info on each side to the 'new' middle height speakers.


So it really only works with native ATMOS signals, DTS:X and probably DTS Neural:X, as it sends different signals to each height speaker, unlike Dolby Surround.


----------



## sdurani

Gabre said:


> To much hassle for something fake, don't see the point.


Same point as scaling video: so that you can watch 1080p sources on a 4K display. With audio, it is scaling the number of channels in the source material to the number of speakers in your set-up. Upmixers do it internally, the Scatmos approach does it externally.


----------



## Josh Z

Gabre said:


> To much hassle for something fake, don't see the point.


It's no more "fake" than Dolby ProLogic II extracting a center channel from a 2-channel source. The end result is that you have discrete content in each of the three speakers. 

When you play the Atmos helicopter demo through a Scatmos system, it will accurately pan from Top Front to Top Middle to Top Rear and back on the other side of the room.


----------



## Gabre

To each their own. All that hassle to get 2 extra speakers to allready four over heads...


----------



## Josh Z

Gabre said:


> To each their own. All that hassle to get 2 extra speakers to allready four over heads...



Plenty of people would say that installing any speakers on their ceiling to get Atmos is too much hassle they don't want to deal with. In fact, probably the majority of the public feels that way about 5.1 too and can't understand why a soundbar isn't enough for everybody.


----------



## Gabre

Completely wrong. 

I have 5.1.2., and would recommend Atmos to everybody, but this is just silly without proper processing.


----------



## Josh Z

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "silly."

Having six height speakers is beneficial for viewers with large rooms or those with a lot of length behind their seating position. In my own theater, I have a long room with a low ceiling, and sounds don't image very well between the Top Fronts and Top Rears. Putting a pair of Top Middles between them fills the empty hole above my head.

The Scatmos process works just fine to anchor sounds to a speaker that are supposed to image into that location anyway.


----------



## recoveryone

I did a sample of Atmos via Vudu on my 7.2 system, all of my speakers are position as height speakers around the room with 2 SVS PB-4000's subs


----------



## mrtickleuk

Gabre said:


> I don't understand how this would work


batpig then very patiently explained the principle clearly, only for you to bat it away with a 1-liner:


Gabre said:


> So this is just upmixing, not proper Atmos decoding





Gabre said:


> To much hassle for something *fake*, don't see the point.


Insulting given how patient people have been with you... 



Gabre said:


> Completely wrong.
> 
> I have 5.1.2., and would recommend Atmos to everybody, but this is just silly without proper processing.


Insulting again. Completely unwarranted. 

You started out sounding interested, but then turned it into an unnecessary insult on the people who do this. They are not taking anything away from you, they took the time to explain what it is about.



Josh Z said:


> *Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "silly."*
> 
> [...]
> 
> The Scatmos process works just fine to anchor sounds to a speaker *that are supposed to image into that location anyway*.


Exactly! Well put.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gabre said:


> To each their own. All that hassle to get 2 extra speakers to allready four over heads...


Well *you *don't have to do it if you don't want to. It isn't compulsory. But some people do want to do it and for them the 'hassle' is worth it. At least now, after Batpig's lucid explanation, you understand how what you don't want to do works.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gabre said:


> Completely wrong.
> 
> I have 5.1.2., and would recommend Atmos to everybody, but this is just silly without proper processing.


It is no more 'silly' than any other form of upmixing. If you use DSU or DTS Neural:X, you are doing the same 'silly' thing but to two fewer speakers. Again, you aren't forced to do it, but to call other people's choices 'silly' is rather unbecoming.


----------



## DaveMcLain

I've read about the "scatmos" process several times and it is very interesting how Pro Logic ][ can be made to work to extract the correlated information to a new center speaker. Could this technique be used to create a center channel between ANY two channels that could share sonic information? Could it be used to create a channel just depending on what some weird room might need?


----------



## Gabre

kbarnes701 said:


> It is no more 'silly' than any other form of upmixing. If you use DSU or DTS Neural:X, you are doing the same 'silly' thing but to two fewer speakers. Again, you aren't forced to do it, but to call other people's choices 'silly' is rather unbecoming.


I apologise to all the sensitive souls here.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Gabre said:


> I apologise to all the sensitive souls here.


Sarcastic insincere "apology" noted.


----------



## Gary J

Josh Z said:


> It's no more "fake" than Dolby ProLogic II extracting a center channel from a 2-channel source. The end result is that you have *discrete *content in each of the three speakers.


"Discrete" implies inherent thus the confusion. Distinct would be a better word.


----------



## michael1997

stop talking and start installing more speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

Gabre said:


> I apologise to all the sensitive souls here.


It is unfortunate that you have to apologize for your posts, but apology accepted nevertheless.


----------



## sdurani

DaveMcLain said:


> Could this technique be used to create a center channel between ANY two channels that could share sonic information?


Sure. The front portion of most upmixers is a 2-in 3-out circuit. Correlated (in-phase) info is matrix extracted and cancelled from the 2 input channels and sent to a 3rd output channel. The reason for cancelling the centre info is so that those sounds don't end up being reproduced as triple-mono. 2 channels come in, 3 distinct channels go out. This is how DTS:X decoding extracts Wides and Top Middles from DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtracks.


> Could it be used to create a channel just depending on what some weird room might need?


Assuming the additional speaker is going to be placed mid-way between 2 existing speakers.


----------



## batpig

Craig Mecak said:


> And don't forget that when using the DolbySurround UpMixer, it has common Left Height & Right Height signals going to each side, ie dual mono, so using the SCATMOS 7.1.6 method will simply collapse all info on each side to the 'new' middle height speakers.
> 
> So it really only works with native ATMOS signals, DTS:X and probably DTS Neural:X, as it sends different signals to each height speaker, unlike Dolby Surround.


There is a way around this -- you can switch to PLII Music mode (vs. Cinema mode) which spreads the center channel info across the three outputs, and there is a "Center Width" parameter which controls the amount of discrete extraction vs. spread information. 

PLII Cinema mode is locked into the "full extract" mode Sanjay describes above, cancelling the extracted center info from the two source channels. PLII Music mode gives you control over this circuit. 

It's analogous to how Dolby Surround upmixer now has a "Center Spread" parameter -- when enabled, the sound up front is spread across the LCR speakers. In both cases the idea is that with music upmixing, you don't want everything to collapse to the center channel because you lose the sense of soundstage width / envelopment from the stereo main speakers. You can test this yourself upmixing 2ch music with DSU and turning Center Spread on/off, it's easy to hear how with it off music upmixing becomes much more "center focused".


----------



## Craig Mecak

batpig said:


> There is a way around this -- you can switch to PLII Music mode (vs. Cinema mode) which spreads the center channel info across the three outputs, and there is a "Center Width" parameter which controls the amount of discrete extraction vs. spread information.
> 
> PLII Cinema mode is locked into the "full extract" mode Sanjay describes above, cancelling the extracted center info from the two source channels. PLII Music mode gives you control over this circuit.
> 
> It's analogous to how Dolby Surround upmixer now has a "Center Spread" parameter -- when enabled, the sound up front is spread across the LCR speakers. In both cases the idea is that with music upmixing, you don't want everything to collapse to the center channel because you lose the sense of soundstage width / envelopment from the stereo main speakers. You can test this yourself upmixing 2ch music with DSU and turning Center Spread on/off, it's easy to hear how with it off music upmixing becomes much more "center focused".



Hi batpig,


Yes, I know how PLII Music mode works. I just don't think it would be practical to turn both new added receivers to PLII Music mode with wide centre spread just for when you use Dolby Surround UpMixing on the main AV receiver. Then you would have to turn it back to Movie Mode to get the hard centre channel extract back for other sound modes like true Atmos or DTS:X.


----------



## batpig

Craig Mecak said:


> Yes, I know how PLII Music mode works. I just don't think it would be practical to turn both new added receivers to PLII Music mode with wide centre spread just for when you use Dolby Surround UpMixing on the main AV receiver. Then you would have to turn it back to Movie Mode to get the hard centre channel extract back for other sound modes like true Atmos or DTS:X.


We are well beyond "practical" in the context of this discussion 

In all seriousness, it's actually quite easy if you have a programmable universal remote, as there are discrete codes for PLII Cinema vs. PLII Music on many AVRs. The people doing these complex "Scatmos" or multi-AVR setups are already jumping through multiple hoops to keep everything in sync with universal remotes, so this doesn't seem to add much additional complexity if someone has gone this route and wants a solution to the problem that you described for DSU upmixing.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Hey guys how's it going? Ever since Home theater geeks podcast went down I'm curious if there is something similar to take it's place? I've been out of the loop for a while, it seems things haven't changed drastically audio wise over the last couple years but that was a great source for keeping up to date with compatibility issues. 

I also saw IMAX receivers started hitting the market, do any of you have experience with it yet? 

I'm also curious what the state of Atmos will be going forwards, like will the max channel count for mixes in UHD bluray discs still be set at 7.1.4?


----------



## unretarded

I am trying to work towards absurd as much as possible these days.


Getting ready to install 70 pound 3 ways with a 15 inch woofer on the ceiling here soon.....


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hey guys how's it going? Ever since Home theater geeks podcast went down I'm curious if there is something similar to take it's place? I've been out of the loop for a while, it seems things haven't changed drastically audio wise over the last couple years but that was a great source for keeping up to date with compatibility issues.


AVS has its own video 'casts. They might or might not meet your needs. See https://www.avsforum.com/tag/podcasts/


> I also saw IMAX receivers started hitting the market, do any of you have experience with it yet?


There is one very brief review in either the AVR-X8500H or AV8805 thread. Sorry, I'm not sure which.


> I'm also curious what the state of Atmos will be going forwards, like will the max channel count for mixes in UHD bluray discs still be set at 7.1.4?


[/quote]
My understanding is that Atmos is always shipped on disc with 7.1 channels, either as TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus.

Atmos uses "objects" to determine the locations of sounds, not channels. The actual number of speaker channels and their layout (5.1.2, 9.2.6, etc) is determined by the Atmos processing provided by your receiver or pre/pro. It is NOT determined by the soundtrack on the disc, although at least one studio (Disney) tends to limit the number of object positions in the soundtracks of its consumer movie releases. The number of speaker channels shown on the back of many Atmos discs is just misleading marketing.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Selden Ball said:


> AVS has its own video 'casts. They might or might not meet your needs. See https://www.avsforum.com/tag/podcasts/
> 
> There is one very brief review in either the AVR-X8500H or AV8805 thread. Sorry, I'm not sure which.


My understanding is that Atmos is always shipped on disc with 7.1 channels, either as TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus.

Atmos uses "objects" to determine the locations of sounds, not channels. The actual number of speaker channels and their layout (5.1.2, 9.2.6, etc) is determined by the Atmos processing provided by your receiver or pre/pro. It is NOT determined by the soundtrack on the disc, although at least one studio (Disney) tends to limit the number of object positions in the soundtracks of its consumer movie releases. The number of speaker channels shown on the back of many Atmos discs is just misleading marketing.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link! I just wish Scott could have created a youtube channel and continued the show that way, but maybe the funding just wouldn't be there to make it worth it for him? 

I'm aware about the object thing but I know that the Disney has some form of "channels" limiting which speakers sounds are allocated to. When watching movies on a Trinnov altitude a lot of movies seem to have multiple speakers that don't get utilized at all (maybe 3 % of the time for all of them to be active if even that). Within this context I think the usage of the word "channel" matches this description if Disney BD's never utilize anything beyond 7.1.4 if the setup is something like 11.1.6 and those extra speakers are never utilized. So Disney is the only publisher that does this? How obnoxious!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Selden Ball said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys how's it going? Ever since Home theater geeks podcast went down I'm curious if there is something similar to take it's place? I've been out of the loop for a while, it seems things haven't changed drastically audio wise over the last couple years but that was a great source for keeping up to date with compatibility issues.
> 
> 
> 
> AVS has its own video 'casts. They might or might not meet your needs. See https://www.avsforum.com/tag/podcasts/
> 
> 
> 
> I also saw IMAX receivers started hitting the market, do any of you have experience with it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is one very brief review in either the AVR-X8500H or AV8805 thread. Sorry, I'm not sure which.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also curious what the state of Atmos will be going forwards, like will the max channel count for mixes in UHD bluray discs still be set at 7.1.4?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that Atmos is always shipped on disc with 7.1 channels, either as TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus.
> 
> Atmos uses "objects" to determine the locations of sounds, not channels. The actual number of speaker channels and their layout (5.1.2, 9.2.6, etc) is determined by the Atmos processing provided by your receiver or pre/pro. It is NOT determined by the soundtrack on the disc, although at least one studio (Disney) tends to limit the number of object positions in the soundtracks of its consumer movie releases. The number of speaker channels shown on the back of many Atmos discs is just misleading marketing.


Disney and a random assortment of titles from other studios use fixed print-outs from the full Dolby Atmos sessions, so they're basically channel based mixes added to those particular discs that cannot scale beyond those pre-determined, locked in place speaker layouts... in the same vein as 5.1 or 7.1 tracks.

They are IMHO Dolby Atmos tracks in name only and no better than DTS: X.


----------



## Selden Ball

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks for the link! I just wish Scott could have created a youtube channel and continued the show that way, but maybe the funding just wouldn't be there to make it worth it for him?


There is an AVSForum YouTube channel. The videos are listed at https://www.youtube.com/user/AVSforumvideos/videos


> I'm aware about the object thing but I know that the Disney has some form of "channels" limiting which speakers sounds are allocated to. When watching movies on a Trinnov altitude a lot of movies seem to have multiple speakers that don't get utilized at all (maybe 3 % of the time for all of them to be active if even that). Within this context I think the usage of the word "channel" matches this description if Disney BD's never utilize anything beyond 7.1.4 if the setup is something like 11.1.6 and those extra speakers are never utilized. So Disney is the only publisher that does this? How obnoxious!


Rather than actual channels, they place the overhead objects only at the xyz locations which correspond to the overhead speaker positions known as Top Front and Top Rear. It's a subtle distinction.

So far as I know, they're the only studio which does this, but everyone's afraid that others might do it, too.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Selden Ball said:


> There is an AVSForum YouTube channel. The videos are listed at https://www.youtube.com/user/AVSforumvideos/videos


There is, but an unbelievable proportion of its output concerns *soundbars*. Whilst they or course have their place, they will normally be an anathema to most readers here. It's almost as if the channel isn't aimed at AVSForum members but rather the wider internet.

The channel doesn't very often have the technical content that used to be on "Home Theatre Geeks". Sometimes, but not the weekly fix we used to get. It was great while it lasted.


----------



## Selden Ball

mrtickleuk said:


> There is, but an unbelievable proportion of its output concerns *soundbars*. Whilst they or course have their place, they will normally be an anathema to most readers here. It's almost as if the channel isn't aimed at AVSForum members but rather the wider internet.
> 
> The channel doesn't very often have the technical content that used to be on "Home Theatre Geeks". Sometimes, but not the weekly fix we used to get. It was great while it lasted.


You might consider contacting @imagic and suggesting topics. 

While Scott is taking a break for now (see https://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-foruma-podcasts/2923514-home-theater-geeks-canceled.html ) that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't contribute.


----------



## michael1997

PLII Music mode seems better for me than PLII cinema mode.


----------



## batpig

michael1997 said:


> PLII Music mode seems better for me than PLII cinema mode.


I haven't tried Scatmos, but it actually makes more sense to me to use PLII Music so that arrayed overhead content (not just DSU upmix) doesn't collapse to a single pair of speakers.

Especially if your entire reason for doing Scatmos is to create better overhead coverage for a 2-row theater.

For example, Saving Private Ryan 4K remaster is basically a 7.1.2 Atmos mix. I have a Denon X8500H and if I configure for 7.1.6 then ONLY the Top Middle speakers make noise, the front/rear overheads are dead silent. And it seems that home Atmos doesn't array overhead bed content, so any sounds that are fixed overhead "bed objects" will be produced as TM only, not spread across the overhead array like in the commercial theater environment.

That means if you're doing Scatmos, those sounds will be split equally between front/rear overheads, and if you use PLII Cinema they will collapse to the TM speakers (center output on each side). With PLII Music you could preserve center imaging while still having some "spread" across the entire overhead array, which IMO would give better / more even coverage for a multi-row environment.


----------



## Snake-87

Hello guys, 

i need help please .

I have:
- Onkyo TX-RZ1100 Receiver
- LGC7 OLED TV
- Sony UBP-X700 BD Player
7.1.2 Speakers installed. (7 speakers,1 subwoofer, 2 ceiling speakers)

When i play Atmos content from Netflix or BD 7.1 Movie, the rear speakers won't work at all. I contacted Netflix and they told me many users reported that and they will see about it.


Atmos on netfilx :
There's some titles in netfilx i see the Atmos logo on them like (LukeCage) but the Receiver show it as (Dolby surround) and the rear speakers works too.
Other titles like (Bright) i see the atmos logo on the Receiver but the rear speaker won't work.
(Using Netflix app from the TV Direct using ARC).

Atmos from BD Player :
I played baby driver (7.1) Dolby Atmos and joun wick. The Receiver showing that it's Atmos but the rear speakers won't work also. So the problem not only from Netflix.
(HDMI audio connected direct from the player to the Receiver and other HDMI to (LGC7 OLED) Tv).

I'm getting 5.1.2 only for netflix content.


other speakers are working fine. (Rear speakers work with video games and other movies).

i spent too much time and money and i really appreciate it if i got help on this matter.









this is my speaker model :SKR-980 .


Thanks in advanced


----------



## Josh Z

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hey guys how's it going? Ever since Home theater geeks podcast went down I'm curious if there is something similar to take it's place? I've been out of the loop for a while, it seems things haven't changed drastically audio wise over the last couple years but that was a great source for keeping up to date with compatibility issues.


The AV Rant podcast covers many of the same types of topics that Home Theater Geeks used to. They don't do many interviews with industry contacts, unfortunately. It's typically a simple Q&A format. The hosts are knowledgeable and have a "No BS" attitude.



> I also saw IMAX receivers started hitting the market, do any of you have experience with it yet?


I have a Denon X8500 receiver and just received the first two IMAX-Enhanced discs (A Beautiful Planet & Journey to the South Pacific). When you play them, the front panel on the receiver lights up as "IMAX DTS." Beyond that, in actual practice, the audio on the discs is indistinguishable from normal DTS:X, locked to 7.1.4 channels. (Top Middles in my 7.1.6 system are silent.)

From what I can tell, the IMAX branding of the audio codec is basically marketing hooey.


----------



## michael1997

batpig said:


> I haven't tried Scatmos, but it actually makes more sense to me to use PLII Music so that arrayed overhead content (not just DSU upmix) doesn't collapse to a single pair of speakers.
> 
> Especially if your entire reason for doing Scatmos is to create better overhead coverage for a 2-row theater.
> 
> For example, Saving Private Ryan 4K remaster is basically a 7.1.2 Atmos mix. I have a Denon X8500H and if I configure for 7.1.6 then ONLY the Top Middle speakers make noise, the front/rear overheads are dead silent. And it seems that home Atmos doesn't array overhead bed content, so any sounds that are fixed overhead "bed objects" will be produced as TM only, not spread across the overhead array like in the commercial theater environment.
> 
> That means if you're doing Scatmos, those sounds will be split equally between front/rear overheads, and if you use PLII Cinema they will collapse to the TM speakers (center output on each side). With PLII Music you could preserve center imaging while still having some "spread" across the entire overhead array, which IMO would give better / more even coverage for a multi-row environment.


thank you for your help. what happen to http://batpigworld.com/ error 509 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

I am start reading manual for the scatmos denon 2308ci

I need to setup PLII not PLII x


----------



## ScottAvery

The PLII version of Scatmos makes sense as described here, where the multi-Atmos processor version in Nalleh's thread seems like it would be duplicating content (and potentially creating frequency cancellations). Certainly cleaner wiring with Nalleh's version, though.

I have an old Outlaw 6.1 receiver that seems to me should be able to produce phantom front center and phantom rear center with one of the modes in it. I will have to investigate whether I could do two extra channels out of that one device.

How is volume controlled across 2 or 3 devices?


----------



## m. zillch

*Scatmos SCHMATmos*

Say you have two channels of ATMOS sound, we'll call generically L and R, and (to use easy round figures) we'll say the auto mic calibration determines the L needs 10ms delay and the R need 20ms delay. You then dig an old Dolby Pro-Logic receiver out of storage and feed it these two signals to generate a new channel between the L and R. That doesn't work because the premise that allows DPL to work is that the two incoming stereo signals are in proper phase [and matching level] yet they aren't. 

Or is it necessary to not only not use AVR auto EQ when applying Scatmos but also not delay nor level?


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> How is volume controlled across 2 or 3 devices?



You only adjust volume in the primary AVR. The secondary AVRs should be set for 0dB reference level and left there. The signal levels from the primary AVR's output will control volume.


----------



## Josh Z

m. zillch said:


> Say you have two channels of ATMOS sound, we'll call generically L and R, and (to use easy round figures) we'll say the auto mic calibration determines the L needs 10ms delay and the R need 20ms delay. You then dig an old Dolby Pro-Logic receiver out of storage and feed it these two signals to generate a new channel between the L and R. That doesn't work because the premise that allows DPL to work is that the two incoming stereo signals are in proper phase [and matching level] yet they aren't.
> 
> Or is it necessary to not only not use AVR auto EQ when applying Scatmos but also not delay nor level?


Delay and gain are easy enough to fix. You manually set those channels to match each other in the primary AVR and then compensate with your settings in the secondary AVR.

As a hypothetical, let's say that your auto-calibration sets L for +5dB and 10ms delay, and R for + 7dB and 20ms delay. In the primary AVR, you will adjust both channels to match at +5 and 10ms. Then in the secondary AVR, you add another +2dB gain and 10ms delay to the R channel.

What's harder are the other EQ parameters, which are typically not adjustable manually. My workaround for that is to trick the primary AVR into EQing both channels identically (explained here), but it's a pain to do and is decidedly a compromise that will leave you with some speakers EQed incorrectly on purpose.


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> You only adjust volume in the primary AVR. The secondary AVRs should be set for 0dB reference level and left there. The signal levels from the primary AVR's output will control volume.



Actually, I have both AVRs set to a default power-on level of -20db. Both AVRs respond to the same remote code, so when I Harmony Volume up/down, the Harmony Hub hits them both with volume up/down IR and they stay in sync.


----------



## Craig Mecak

stikle said:


> Actually, I have both AVRs set to a default power-on level of -20db. Both AVRs respond to the same remote code, so when I Harmony Volume up/down, the Harmony Hub hits them both with volume up/down IR and they stay in sync.


That doesn't sound correct.

You only want one place that alters volume, not multiple places. And that place is the main AVR.


----------



## stikle

Craig Mecak said:


> That doesn't sound correct.
> 
> You only want one place that alters volume, not multiple places. And that place is the main AVR.



Incorrect, not in my implantation. I am not doing Scatmos. 

I am running true Dolby Atmos on two different receivers.

If I set the main receiver to -30db and the second receiver to 0db, I can barely hear most of the speakers until the ones coming off the second receiver activate, which are VERY loud.

See my build thread.


----------



## Craig Mecak

stikle said:


> Incorrect, not in my implantation. I am not doing Scatmos.
> 
> I am running true Dolby Atmos on two different receivers.
> 
> If I set the main receiver to -30db and the second receiver to 0db, I can barely hear most of the speakers until the ones coming off the second receiver activate, which are VERY loud.
> 
> See my build thread.



Right-o




But don't you then get *double object decode* of the Atmos soundtrack? Because neither AVR is 'aware' that the other exists, and is duplicating a decode and sending it to its respective speaker feeds? For example, your AVR that decodes Top Front and Top Middle will also be outputting Top Rear/Rear Height info in there somewhere, which is then duplicated on your 2nd AVR which has been assigned Top Rear output duties?


Wouldn't that result in a muddled soundfield?


----------



## galonzo

stikle said:


> Incorrect, not in my implantation. I am not doing Scatmos.
> 
> I am running true Dolby Atmos on two different receivers.
> 
> If I set the main receiver to -30db and the second receiver to 0db, I can barely hear most of the speakers until the ones coming off the second receiver activate, which are VERY loud.
> 
> See my build thread.




Craig Mecak said:


> Right-o
> 
> But don't you then get *double object decode* of the Atmos soundtrack? Because neither AVR is 'aware' that the other exists, and is duplicating a decode and sending it to its respective speaker feeds? For example, your AVR that decodes Top Front and Top Middle will also be outputting Top Rear/Rear Height info in there somewhere, which is then duplicated on your 2nd AVR which has been assigned Top Rear output duties?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that result in a muddled soundfield?



Right, I was curious about this myself; it would seem a front to back (or back to front) pan would "linger" in the TMs, for instance?


----------



## michael1997

Craig Mecak said:


> Right-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't you then get *double object decode* of the Atmos soundtrack? Because neither AVR is 'aware' that the other exists, and is duplicating a decode and sending it to its respective speaker feeds? For example, your AVR that decodes Top Front and Top Middle will also be outputting Top Rear/Rear Height info in there somewhere, which is then duplicated on your 2nd AVR which has been assigned Top Rear output duties?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that result in a muddled soundfield?


that is why I am using Scatmos.

atmos test sound from dolby website 9.1.6 sounds accurate in my system. 

my idea system will be x8500h + Scatmos


----------



## Dan668

Have a room that is 12' long. MLP used to be against the wall. Have since moved it up 2 feet and the tv is wall mounted on a full motion mount that extends 20". Makes me closer to 4k range with my 65" OLED. The room isn't a dedicated home theatre room so that's about as forward the sectional can be moved up without looking strange. Looking to add four atmos channels. It seems top middle and front height is the best option? My ceiling is also 7', every electronics store for my room has recommended only upfiring. My setup now is 5.2. With the side surrounds at head level. Looking for input on what to do. I see theirs wide dispersion and directional. But am not sure which would be beneficial for my low ceiling height.


----------



## stikle

galonzo said:


> ​
> Right, I was curious about this myself; it would seem a front to back (or back to front) pan would "linger" in the TMs, for instance?





michael1997 said:


> that is why I am using Scatmos.
> 
> atmos test sound from dolby website 9.1.6 sounds accurate in my system.



Well...poop. I thought the theory was sound in that setting one for Top Front and the other for Top Middle and Top Rear would allow the extraction to work properly.

Your questioning got me to questioning, so I did some testing this morning and I'll be damned if it isn't all messed up according to the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones. 

So it's good that you questioned.

I'm going to go rethink my life choices now.


----------



## Nalleh

stikle said:


> Well...poop. I thought the theory was sound in that setting one for Top Front and the other for Top Middle and Top Rear would allow the extraction to work properly.
> 
> Your questioning got me to questioning, so I did some testing this morning and I'll be damned if it isn't all messed up according to the Atmos 9.1.6 test tones.
> 
> So it's good that you questioned.
> 
> I'm going to go rethink my life choices now.


LOL, i told you this when you started your quest for expanded Atmos  (but then again i actually started with that setup many moons ago). My advise was (and is) to setup one AVR with front/ rear heights(or tops if you want), and then the other one for top middle. Then you can experiment with lowering the volume levels of those top middles, to «fill in» but not overpower the others. You might also try to disable/mute the top middles to hear what they contribute to sound effects/pannings etc.


----------



## stikle

I apparently forgot that. Luckily it's easy enough to change amp assigns and where speakers plug in the way I have my rack set up.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan668 said:


> Have a room that is 12' long. MLP used to be against the wall. Have since moved it up 2 feet and the tv is wall mounted on a full motion mount that extends 20". Makes me closer to 4k range with my 65" OLED. The room isn't a dedicated home theatre room so that's about as forward the sectional can be moved up without looking strange. Looking to add four atmos channels. It seems top middle and front height is the best option? My ceiling is also 7', every electronics store for my room has recommended only upfiring. My setup now is 5.2. With the side surrounds at head level. Looking for input on what to do. I see theirs wide dispersion and directional. But am not sure which would be beneficial for my low ceiling height.


My room sound very similar to yours-I ordered all the speakers and just got the pre wire done today for 5.1.4 with in ceiling. It may not be ideal but apparently it is hard to get Atmos wrong


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Josh Z said:


> The AV Rant podcast covers many of the same types of topics that Home Theater Geeks used to. They don't do many interviews with industry contacts, unfortunately. It's typically a simple Q&A format. The hosts are knowledgeable and have a "No BS" attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Denon X8500 receiver and just received the first two IMAX-Enhanced discs (A Beautiful Planet & Journey to the South Pacific). When you play them, the front panel on the receiver lights up as "IMAX DTS." Beyond that, in actual practice, the audio on the discs is indistinguishable from normal DTS:X, locked to 7.1.4 channels. (Top Middles in my 7.1.6 system are silent.)
> 
> From what I can tell, the IMAX branding of the audio codec is basically marketing hooey.


Oh man! I'm sorry to hear that, though for visuals it might be a better format though right? Or perhaps in the long run, as if I recall content might be mastered in native?


----------



## Josh Z

Aras_Volodka said:


> Oh man! I'm sorry to hear that, though for visuals it might be a better format though right? Or perhaps in the long run, as if I recall content might be mastered in native?



I'm between 4k projectors at the moment, so I can't speak much to that. Are you talking about the HDR10+? In my understanding, that amounts to basically the same thing as Dolby Vision, just without the Dolby licensing.


----------



## pasender91

"Almost" the same as Dolby Vision is only slightly superior technically, but still a big difference as there is content on DV while there is nothing on HDR10+


----------



## Josh Z

pasender91 said:


> "Almost" the same as Dolby Vision is only slightly superior technically, but still a big difference as there is content on DV while there is nothing on HDR10+



The UHDs of A Beautiful Planet and Journey to the South Pacific are HDR10+.


----------



## batpig

Realistically, the primary appeal of the IMAX releases isn't some new technology -- as we all know, they are leveraging existing tech like DTS:X and HDR-10/10+. The only thing proprietary that I'm aware of is their DMR noise reduction processing.

Rather, it's like "THX" in that it's more about the end-to-end process and certification of a certain level of quality in the mastering process. The "IMAX" release will have gone through a full remastering with supervision of the audio and video so (theoretically at least) you are guaranteed that the end product meets the standards of the filmmakers and is as good as this film is going to look/sound for home release.


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> Realistically, the primary appeal of the IMAX releases isn't some new technology -- as we all know, they are leveraging existing tech like DTS:X and HDR-10/10+. The only thing proprietary that I'm aware of is their DMR noise reduction processing.


I have variable noise reduction controls on my TV which I can set to taste too. . . .Does this mean when I have people over to watch a film I can brag that they are watching an "MZ enhanced" production?


----------



## m. zillch

Also with Pono premium priced music downloads (and also MQA authenticated) you get a little blue light to indicate you spent the money to get "the good stuff". Does IMAX come with the light too? Or will I have to _tell_ the rest of the audience verbally?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Rather, it's like "THX" in that it's more about the end-to-end process and certification of a certain level of quality in the mastering process.


Except THX didn't have access to an unreleased library of content that included different versions (run time, aspect ratio, sound mix, video transfer) of movies. The demo you & I saw at CEDIA included clips from Mission Impossible 4, where the IMAX shots opened up. IF that's an example of what is to come from the IMAX Enhanced program (as opposed to mostly IMAX documentaries, like the ones just released), then that's beyond mere quality certification. But that's a big IF.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Josh Z said:


> I'm between 4k projectors at the moment, so I can't speak much to that. Are you talking about the HDR10+? In my understanding, that amounts to basically the same thing as Dolby Vision, just without the Dolby licensing.


No, from my understanding a lot of Ultra HD movies are rendered off a 2k DI, for some reason I was under the imrpession that IMAX discs will be rendered from the 4k/ 6k master or whatever resolution IMAX films are mastered at. Though I'm aware a lot of movies like Disney will still be stuck at the 2k DI like Star Wars was


----------



## Josh Z

Aras_Volodka said:


> No, from my understanding a lot of Ultra HD movies are rendered off a 2k DI, for some reason I was under the imrpession that IMAX discs will be rendered from the 4k/ 6k master or whatever resolution IMAX films are mastered at. Though I'm aware a lot of movies like Disney will still be stuck at the 2k DI like Star Wars was



OK, that's true, but it's not necessarily unique to these IMAX discs. Other Ultra HD movies could be mastered from native 4k sources, if or when such sources exist.


----------



## audiofan1

Back to Atmos for a moment A reference nod to* "The House with a clock in its walls"* superb use of objects in a 3D bubble


----------



## jsgrise

Hello guys, I just made the move from a 5.2.4 to a 7.2.4. At first I moved my sides to about 90 degrees with tweeters just above ear level. I found it to be distracting and uncomfortable, especially while seating to the right and left sides of the couch, so I moved them back about 12".

In that case, should my rear surrounds be closer together? What is working best for you?


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Hello guys, I just made the move from a 5.2.4 to a 7.2.4. At first I moved my sides to about 90 degrees with tweeters just above ear level. I found it to be distracting and uncomfortable, especially while seating to the right and left sides of the couch, so I moved them back about 12".
> 
> In that case, should my rear surrounds be closer together? What is working best for you?


Don't move the side surrounds back -- move them forwards.

As well as helping with the distraction issue you will also find that moving them to the 80 degree position (roughly) will help 'close the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds and should help with a better sense of immersion too. Many of us with 7.x.4 systems prefer this location for the side surrounds, which is also in line with ITU specs for surround placement.

Remember to re-run your auto-calibration syste, (Audyssey, Dirac Live etc) after moving the speakers.


----------



## mogrub

Confession: Back when Atmos was first announced, Skeptic Me feared it was exclusively a creation of Dolby's marketing department. Lazy Me piled on, knowing Atmos would be a searing PITA to install. Cheap Me was grateful for all their support. Together, they hung tough for years.

But cracks started to appear -- Skeptic Me has ears, and had to acknowledge the potential. Likewise Cheap Me had to admit that, sooner or later, an Atmos capable AVR was going to enter the house, with or without Atmos speakers. And Lazy Me's dirty little secret was that no matter how long I held out, the work was never going to get any easier. 

So this month, Skeptic, Lazy and Cheap Me finally gave in, and AV Me gleefully bought everything I'll need to go from 5.2 to 7.2.4. Partly for WAF, the new Atmos speakers will be in-ceiling and in-wall, except the rear surrounds which will be corner-mounted FX's. 

I've read the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines, and have been noodling on exact speaker placements for months. I think I'm pretty much ready to go, but if anybody here has any practical advice on areas where it may make sense to depart slightly from Dolby's guidelines, I am all ears on that. My plan is to go more towards 110 degrees than 90 degrees on the side surrounds (so that those speakers will be a bit behind the ears at the MLP, rather than directly perpendicular), and also to elevate those two speakers about a foot above ear level. I plan to match the rear surrounds at that same height, unless somebody wants to talk me out of that.

Lazy Me was right though -- just getting into the right part of the attic is a 10 minute steeplechase nightmare, in each direction, due to virtually biblical framing and HVAC obstructions. And then there's all the amazing Icynene, which is great until it's firmly in the way of every single thing you need to do. All of that makes the inevitable fireblocks look fun by comparison. Lazy Me was the last holdout for good reason -- every one of these new cable runs is going to be a different kind of challenge. But I *think* I'm almost ready. Welcome any advice, and fingers crossed. 🤞


----------



## mogrub

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't move the side surrounds back -- move them forwards. As well as helping with the distraction issue you will also find that moving them to the 80 degree position (roughly) will help 'close the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds and should help with a better sense of immersion too. Many of us with 7.x.4 systems prefer this location for the side surrounds, which is also in line with ITU specs for surround placement.


Just seeing this post, and that would have been my preference over the 110 degree solution, but there is a door that makes forward mounting at 80 degrees impossible.

I might be able to install at 70 degrees or slightly less than that. Any thoughts on when forward mounting becomes too forward?


----------



## sdurani

mogrub said:


> My plan is to go more towards 110 degrees than 90 degrees on the side surrounds (so that those speakers will be a bit behind the ears at the MLP, rather than directly perpendicular), and also to elevate those two speakers about a foot above ear level. I plan to match the rear surrounds at that same height, unless somebody wants to talk me out of that.


With one pair of surrounds (Rears) behind me, I wouldn't put a second pair of surrounds (Sides) back there as well. Instead, placing the Sides slightly forward of the listening position (around ±75-80°) will yield more spaciousness and greater side-vs-rear separation and better wrap-around envelopment in the surround field.


----------



## sdurani

mogrub said:


> I might be able to install at 70 degrees or slightly less than that. Any thoughts on when forward mounting becomes too forward?


Install the Sides at ±70° and move your seating slightly forward so that those speakers end up around ±80°.


----------



## mogrub

sdurani said:


> With one pair of surrounds (Rears) behind me, I wouldn't put a second pair of surrounds (Sides) back there as well. Instead, placing the Sides slightly forward of the listening position (around ±75-80°) will yield more spaciousness and greater side-vs-rear separation and better wrap-around envelopment in the surround field.


Good thoughts, thank you. Seats aren't movable for a variety of reasons, including a platform that can't be moved without great expense, which would necessarily include a divorce attorney. :-O


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't move the side surrounds back -- move them forwards.
> 
> 
> 
> As well as helping with the distraction issue you will also find that moving them to the 80 degree position (roughly) will help 'close the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds and should help with a better sense of immersion too. Many of us with 7.x.4 systems prefer this location for the side surrounds, which is also in line with ITU specs for surround placement.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember to re-run your auto-calibration syste, (Audyssey, Dirac Live etc) after moving the speakers.




Thank you for your help. Since I have an acoustic panel in the way, it would be more like 70 degrees, maybe even less...

I’ll give it a try and will get back to you! 

EDIT: I could always try to assign some Front Wide?











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## angusmckay

Hi guys, i have just bought an 2nd set of Kef R50 upfiring atmos speakers for the rear to put on top of my rs6 floorstanders which i use as my back surround rears. Can anyone point me toward a decent power amp to power the rears as my current avr only does 9.2 channels so i need another 2 channels to complete my 7.2.4


I'm from the UK, most reviews i have found are from 2016 and folk recommending the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs model, however i cannot seem to buy these in the UK and y help on picking a not too expensive amp to help me complete my sytem would be great thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

mogrub said:


> Just seeing this post, and that would have been my preference over the 110 degree solution, but there is a door that makes forward mounting at 80 degrees impossible.
> 
> I might be able to install at 70 degrees or slightly less than that. Any thoughts on when forward mounting becomes too forward?


I like Sanjay's idea but if moving the seats will result in divorce then I suggest the following: can you 'split' the distance between the mains and the rear surrounds? What angle (roughly) would that produce?

Even if the above doesn't work, I'd rather go more forward than even a little back. You already have speakers behind you so 'closing the gap' between them and the side surrounds is going to rob you of a spacious, seamless result. The alternative might, in theory, be a little too far forward, but AV is all about compromise and, personally, that is the compromise I'd make. The more evenly you can have the available speakers spread around you, the more seamless the presentation will be.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Thank you for your help. Since I have an acoustic panel in the way, it would be more like 70 degrees, maybe even less...
> 
> I’ll give it a try and will get back to you!
> 
> EDIT: I could always try to assign some Front Wide?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How about between the acoustic panels?

Lovely room BTW.


----------



## gbaby

mrtickleuk said:


> Sarcastic insincere "apology" noted.


Too cold for me. I hope you have stock in Atmos.  I did not think the apology for insincere or sarcastic. Why become hostile?


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> How about between the acoustic panels?
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely room BTW.




Thank you very much! Let me test it out and report back 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

angusmckay said:


> Hi guys, i have just bought an 2nd set of Kef R50 upfiring atmos speakers for the rear to put on top of my rs6 floorstanders which i use as my back surround rears. Can anyone point me toward a decent power amp to power the rears as my current avr only does 9.2 channels so i need another 2 channels to complete my 7.2.4
> 
> 
> I'm from the UK, most reviews i have found are from 2016 and folk recommending the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs model, however i cannot seem to buy these in the UK and y help on picking a not too expensive amp to help me complete my sytem would be great thanks.


I sympathise with your situation. I have had to import all my amplifiers due to the lack of decent units at sensible prices. You might care to try something from the Emotiva range, now available in the UK, but it may work out less expensive to import directly from the US. Amazon will often ship directly to the UK for example or you can try Newegg or BH Photo Video. The latter (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=audisource&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=) sells the Audiosource AudioSource AMP100VS 50-Watt 2-Channel Amplifier for $139.99 and will ship to the UK for $42.48. This works out at £144 sterling. You will have to add 20% tax to that (watch all our US buddies faint at that figure ) so in total you'd be looking at £172. You'd need to check that the unit is dual voltage (most are these days) and I would ask BH to take the unit out of the box and check that it is fully operation before dispatch. I've bought at least 6 amps this way and never had any problems.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Thank you very much! Let me test it out and report back
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Please let us know how it works out. You can see from your photo how that location would nicely 'close the gap' between your mains and rear surrounds. At the moment, the rear and side surrounds are so close to each other it is probably quite difficult to discern which sounds come from where. Don't forget to re-run your room EQ when you've relocated them. I'd say locating them between the acoustic panels would be very successful both sonically and aesthetically. Good luck!


----------



## Bond 007

angusmckay said:


> Hi guys, i have just bought an 2nd set of Kef R50 upfiring atmos speakers for the rear to put on top of my rs6 floorstanders which i use as my back surround rears. Can anyone point me toward a decent power amp to power the rears as my current avr only does 9.2 channels so i need another 2 channels to complete my 7.2.4
> 
> 
> I'm from the UK, most reviews i have found are from 2016 and folk recommending the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs model, however i cannot seem to buy these in the UK and y help on picking a not too expensive amp to help me complete my sytem would be great thanks.


https://www.amazon.com/【Update】-Audio-Amplifier-Receiver-Integrated/dp/B076P2VS9H/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1545334025&sr=1-7&keywords=2%2Bchannel%2Bamplifier&th=1


----------



## Bond 007

kbarnes701 said:


> I sympathise with your situation. I have had to import all my amplifiers due to the lack of decent units at sensible prices. You might care to try something from the Emotiva range, now available in the UK, but it may work out less expensive to import directly from the US. Amazon will often ship directly to the UK for example or you can try Newegg or BH Photo Video. The latter (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=audisource&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=) sells the Audiosource AudioSource AMP100VS 50-Watt 2-Channel Amplifier for $139.99 and will ship to the UK for $42.48. This works out at £144 sterling. You will have to add 20% tax to that (watch all our US buddies faint at that figure ) so in total you'd be looking at £172. You'd need to check that the unit is dual voltage (most are these days) and I would ask BH to take the unit out of the box and check that it is fully operation before dispatch. I've bought at least 6 amps this way and never had any problems.


$20 cheaper

https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source-AMP100VS-Channel-Amplifier/dp/B00ZSEFU94/ref=sr_1_11?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1545334360&sr=1-11&keywords=2+channel+amplifier


----------



## LNEWoLF

angusmckay said:


> Hi guys, i have just bought an 2nd set of Kef R50 upfiring atmos speakers for the rear to put on top of my rs6 floorstanders which i use as my back surround rears. Can anyone point me toward a decent power amp to power the rears as my current avr only does 9.2 channels so i need another 2 channels to complete my 7.2.4
> 
> 
> I'm from the UK, most reviews i have found are from 2016 and folk recommending the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs model, however i cannot seem to buy these in the UK and y help on picking a not too expensive amp to help me complete my sytem would be great thanks.


No additional cost solution* 

Have you considered repurposing an older AVR for use as a two channel amp. Some newer AVR will allow you to choose in your speaker setup menu to amplify your front left and right speakers. I used my Pioneer 1222 AVR in this way in a 7.1.4 Atmos/DTS X system. 

Works GREAT, provides a wee bit of PLENTY O PoWeR for my fronts. Lets the Pioneer Elite SC 97 AVR take care of the rest of the speakers. Just use the CD RCA right and left inputs from your primary AVR and then the front right and left speaker terminal outputs to your speakers. Do a complete factory reset on the secondary AVR to remove any previous calibration data and any settings. If you can intially setup this AVR as just a two channel amp. My Pioneer 1222 had this option. It will turn off all the other individual channel amps that are not needed. [email protected]@k thru all the settings and turn off anything that will enhance or modify the sound signature in anyway. You just want thus AVR to just amplify the audio signal. The primary AVR will perform any necessary calibrations and adjust all soeaker level including the fronts. You can adjust any audio settings you enjoy on the primary AVR after tge calibration is complete. Before performing the calibration adjust/or set the secondary AVR master volume to 0.00 on my pioneer the MV ranges from the lowest @ -80.0 to a louder +20.0 (not sure how loud it goes cause my tooth fillings began to rattle @ 0.00.) I am able to have the 1222 automagically set the MV @ 0.00 when it powers on. 

*Requires a RCA cable. Highly recommend bluejeanscable.com

Good luck...............


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> How about between the acoustic panels?
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely room BTW.




I tried to move the surrounds forward, didn’t like it so I moved them forward to 60 degrees and switched to Front Wide assignation. 

So far I enjoy what I’m hearing! Will still play around until I really liked it. The Amaze Atmos Demi never felt so lifelike with 3D effects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## angusmckay

Bond 007 said:


> $20 cheaper
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source...45334360&sr=1-11&keywords=2+channel+amplifier


Thank you guys for your replies, i've never added a 2nd amp before so im new to trying this out.


is the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs a better option over the amp100? what is the differece between them? i would rather have one with more headroom incase i end up using it to power larger speakers at some point.


How can i check that the USA version will work in the UK?


----------



## angusmckay

Bond 007 said:


> $20 cheaper
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source...45334360&sr=1-11&keywords=2+channel+amplifier


 Thank you guys for your replies, i've never added a 2nd amp before so im new to trying this out.


Current avr is Pioneer LX59, and i really like it, works perfect and sounds excellent with movies and music. Looking for a decent amp to pair with it to give me 2 or 4 more channels.



is the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs a better option over the amp100? what is the differece between them? i would rather have one with more headroom incase i end up using it to power larger speakers at some point.


How can i check that the USA version will work in the UK?


----------



## jsgrise

Well after a couple hours of playback with the Front Wides, I must admit it is pretty cool and add a lot of realism to soundtracks. The best demo I found so far is with Baby Driver with all the pans. 

After reading a bit I realize that my SR7010 was one of the rare Marantz with Front Wides support. Gee I almost sold it a week ago! Thank God I did not!

I now have speakers spread front front to back almost evenly. The sound bubble is very realistic. They work with Atmos, DTS:X and Neural:X, but it's a shame that DSU dodge them...

Will run Audyssey either tomorrow or this weekend and will get back to you with more feedback.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> Well after a couple hours of playback with the Front Wides, I must admit it is pretty cool and add a lot of realism to soundtracks.


Just so you know how channels are routed with your new Surrounds + Wides speaker configuration: objects intended for the Wides will be routed to the Wide speakers that are forward of you, Rear channel info will go to the Surround speakers behind you, Side channel info will be split between the Wide and Surround speakers (so they will phantom image at your sides, right where those sounds were intended to be).


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> Just so you know how channels are routed with your new Surrounds + Wides speaker configuration: objects intended for the Wides will be routed to the Wide speakers that are forward of you, Rear channel info will go to the Surround speakers behind you, Side channel info will be split between the Wide and Surround speakers (so they will phantom image at your sides, right where those sounds were intended to be).




Thanks, that sounds good to me. I really found it irritating to have a speakers firing in my ear at ear level. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## biglen

I have a 5.1 setup in my new movie room. My receiver has room for 2 more speakers, so I am thinking about adding 2 Atmos speakers. My room is 11' x 15', with an 8' ceiling. My movie chairs are on the back wall of the 11' walls, and my surrounds are mounted on the walls, to the left and right of the movie chairs. How would Atmos perform, if I added 2 ceiling speakers just forward of the movie chairs, and lined up with my front bookshelfs?


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> No additional cost solution*
> 
> Have you considered repurposing an older AVR for use as a two channel amp. Some newer AVR will allow you to choose in your speaker setup menu to amplify your front left and right speakers. I used my Pioneer 1222 AVR in this way in a 7.1.4 Atmos/DTS X system.
> 
> Works GREAT, provides a wee bit of PLENTY O PoWeR for my fronts. Lets the Pioneer Elite SC 97 AVR take care of the rest of the speakers. Just use the CD RCA right and left inputs from your primary AVR and then the front right and left speaker terminal outputs to your speakers. Do a complete factory reset on the secondary AVR to remove any previous calibration data and any settings. If you can intially setup this AVR as just a two channel amp. My Pioneer 1222 had this option. It will turn off all the other individual channel amps that are not needed. [email protected]@k thru all the settings and turn off anything that will enhance or modify the sound signature in anyway. You just want thus AVR to just amplify the audio signal. The primary AVR will perform any necessary calibrations and adjust all soeaker level including the fronts. You can adjust any audio settings you enjoy on the primary AVR after tge calibration is complete. Before performing the calibration adjust/or set the secondary AVR master volume to 0.00 on my pioneer the MV ranges from the lowest @ -80.0 to a louder +20.0 (not sure how loud it goes cause my tooth fillings began to rattle @ 0.00.) I am able to have the 1222 automagically set the MV @ 0.00 when it powers on.
> 
> *Requires a RCA cable. Highly recommend bluejeanscable.com
> 
> Good luck...............


Great idea. Many AVRs have a 'Direct' mode which turns off pretty much everything, so that may also be useful.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Well after a couple hours of playback with the Front Wides, I must admit it is pretty cool and add a lot of realism to soundtracks. The best demo I found so far is with Baby Driver with all the pans.
> 
> After reading a bit I realize that my SR7010 was one of the rare Marantz with Front Wides support. Gee I almost sold it a week ago! Thank God I did not!
> 
> I now have speakers spread front front to back almost evenly. The sound bubble is very realistic. They work with Atmos, DTS:X and Neural:X, but it's a shame that DSU dodge them...
> 
> Will run Audyssey either tomorrow or this weekend and will get back to you with more feedback.


You might care to try Neural:x for your upmixing, since that does use Wides.

Incidentally, if you moved your speakers and didn't re-run Audyssey, you didn't truly evaluate the surrounds at the 'between panels' location, since the delays (distances) would still be set at the former surround speaker locations. Might be worth putting them back and running Audyssey and the re-evaluating - see Sanjay's reply for further illumination.


----------



## kbarnes701

angusmckay said:


> is the Audio source amp102vs or the 210vs a better option over the amp100? what is the differece between them? i would rather have one with more headroom incase i end up using it to power larger speakers at some point.


It's always good IMO to have more headroom but in truth the overheads aren't (currently) massively demanding. The 210v will be fine, but more expensive. Choices!



angusmckay said:


> How can i check that the USA version will work in the UK?


You can ask AudioSource Support, or the seller. Or, best of all, see if you can download a user manual and check the spec. You are looking for something that says the unit is switchable to 110/230v mains. Some units are auto-switchable - just plug in and go - some have a physical switch which you have to toggle. Most amps these days seem to be multi-voltage, but you do need to check that the one you buy is before you commit, if you buy it overseas. There may be some info on AV Forums in the UK -- you may not be the first person to choose this amp.


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> You might care to try Neural:x for your upmixing, since that does use Wides.
> 
> Incidentally, if you moved your speakers and didn't re-run Audyssey, you didn't truly evaluate the surrounds at the 'between panels' location, since the delays (distances) would still be set at the former surround speaker locations. Might be worth putting them back and running Audyssey and the re-evaluating - see Sanjay's reply for further illumination.


Sound checks haven't been extensive and in depth so far, I have a sinus infection and my hearing is about 50%. 

When I tried to move forward the sides, I did not like the results at all. Also, the native 5.1 would sound weird. I adjusted levels and distance manually to be close enough to the real thing so it doesn't have an impact.

With the wides so far it is very immersive. Watching Fury last night was very intense, you could hear shells fly from front to back like never before, but also could tell their elevation in the 3D space, pretty sweet. 

Still, I will do some more listening and give more feedback


----------



## angusmckay

kbarnes701 said:


> It's always good IMO to have more headroom but in truth the overheads aren't (currently) massively demanding. The 210v will be fine, but more expensive. Choices!
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask AudioSource Support, or the seller. Or, best of all, see if you can download a user manual and check the spec. You are looking for something that says the unit is switchable to 110/230v mains. Some units are auto-switchable - just plug in and go - some have a physical switch which you have to toggle. Most amps these days seem to be multi-voltage, but you do need to check that the one you buy is before you commit, if you buy it overseas. There may be some info on AV Forums in the UK -- you may not be the first person to choose this amp.


Thank you for your reply, here is what it says in the manual of the 210 in regards to voltage, "Voltage selection switch is preset to 115V (USA). For use in areas which require 230V contact your dealer. Fuse must be of type and rating marked on amplifier for use at local mains voltage"


This isn't clear to me as to if it has a switch to swap between?


I also had a look at the ONKYO M-5010 but again im left not knowing if it will work in the UK. Anyone?


----------



## angusmckay

kbarnes701 said:


> It's always good IMO to have more headroom but in truth the overheads aren't (currently) massively demanding. The 210v will be fine, but more expensive. Choices!
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask AudioSource Support, or the seller. Or, best of all, see if you can download a user manual and check the spec. You are looking for something that says the unit is switchable to 110/230v mains. Some units are auto-switchable - just plug in and go - some have a physical switch which you have to toggle. Most amps these days seem to be multi-voltage, but you do need to check that the one you buy is before you commit, if you buy it overseas. There may be some info on AV Forums in the UK -- you may not be the first person to choose this amp.


Thank you for your reply, here is what it says in the manual of the 210 in regards to voltage, "Voltage selection switch is preset to 115V (USA). For use in areas which require 230V contact your dealer. Fuse must be of type and rating marked on amplifier for use at local mains voltage"


This isn't clear to me as to if it has a switch to swap between?


I also had a look at the ONKYO M-5010 but again im left not knowing if it will work in the UK. Anyone?


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Sound checks haven't been extensive and in depth so far, I have a sinus infection and my hearing is about 50%.
> 
> When I tried to move forward the sides, I did not like the results at all. Also, the native 5.1 would sound weird. I adjusted levels and distance manually to be close enough to the real thing so it doesn't have an impact.
> 
> With the wides so far it is very immersive. Watching Fury last night was very intense, you could hear shells fly from front to back like never before, but also could tell their elevation in the 3D space, pretty sweet.
> 
> Still, I will do some more listening and give more feedback


TBH it sounds as if you have achieved a good result. Just be aware of Sanjay's comments. If it sounds good, I'd run Audyssey and then leave it and enjoy some movies! Good job!


----------



## kbarnes701

angusmckay said:


> Thank you for your reply, here is what it says in the manual of the 210 in regards to voltage, "Voltage selection switch is preset to 115V (USA). For use in areas which require 230V contact your dealer. Fuse must be of type and rating marked on amplifier for use at local mains voltage"
> 
> 
> This isn't clear to me as to if it has a switch to swap between?
> 
> 
> I also had a look at the ONKYO M-5010 but again im left not knowing if it will work in the UK. Anyone?


Well it is clearly OK for UK use if it can handle 230 volts. Seems to me that it just needs a fuse of a higher rating for UK use. Should be easy to change the fuse?

A lot of useful info can be gleaned from looking at the back panel of gear. Check it out - if there is a switch, then there's a swith. If it says it is suitable for 110/230v and there is no switch it is autoswitching. Just needs a simple fuse swap by the sound if it.


----------



## gene4ht

angusmckay said:


> Thank you for your reply, here is what it says in the manual of the 210 in regards to voltage, "Voltage selection switch is preset to 115V (USA). For use in areas which require 230V contact your dealer. Fuse must be of type and rating marked on amplifier for use at local mains voltage"
> 
> 
> This isn't clear to me as to if it has a switch to swap between?
> 
> 
> *I also had a look at the ONKYO M-5010 but again im left not knowing if it will work in the UK. *Anyone?





kbarnes701 said:


> Well it is clearly OK for UK use if it can handle 230 volts. Seems to me that it just needs a fuse of a higher rating for UK use. Should be easy to change the fuse?
> 
> *A lot of useful info can be gleaned from looking at the back panel of gear.* Check it out - if there is a switch, then there's a swith. If it says it is suitable for 110/230v and there is no switch it is autoswitching. Just needs a simple fuse swap by the sound if it.


As can be seen from the link below, the U.S. version of the M-5010 I have does not have a physical switch or appears to be auto-switching.

https://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=M-5010&class=Amplifier


----------



## Roger Dressler

angusmckay said:


> How can i check that the USA version will work in the UK?


They won't unless you have a 117 VAC power outlet. You might be able to use power amps with switchmode power supplies as they are happy with any mains voltages.


----------



## kbarnes701

angusmckay said:


> Thank you guys for your replies, i've never added a 2nd amp before so im new to trying this out.
> 
> 
> How can i check that the USA version will work in the UK?


If the amp has a power supply that can cater for 110v or 230v then it will work pretty much everywhere in the world. All of Europe is 230v, all of N America, AFAIK, is 110v, so that represents a huge number of potential customers, hence why the Chinese etc (220v in China, same as EU) make these things to be able to work anywhere.

It now seems clear that the AudioSource unit is dual voltage but just requires an uprated fuse for the UK mains voltage. There are no further checks you can make, so you just have to decide whether you wish to buy this unit from the States, at a bargain price, and fit a new fuse when you get it (before plugging it in!) or to buy a more expensive unit here in the UK. Personally, I'd buy from the USA, which I have done countless times (6 amps so far) but it's up to you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> They won't unless you have a 117 VAC power outlet. You might be able to use power amps with switchmode power supplies as they are happy with any mains voltages.


He can, of course, use any US gear if he buys a step-down transformer. I ran some of my US gear off such a device for years -- bought it from Amazon in the UK for a cheap enough price. One simply plugs the step-down unit into the UK mains and then the gear into the step-down unit. Don't even need to swap the dinky little mains plugs you guys use 

I wonder how long we can get away with this OT conversation before the Mods decide to pull _our _plugs  I'm bowing out now.


----------



## Roger Dressler

kbarnes701 said:


> He can, of course, use any US gear if he buys a step-down transformer. I ran some of my US gear off such a device for years -- bought it from Amazon in the UK for a cheap enough price. One simply plugs the step-down unit into the UK mains and then the gear into the step-down unit.


 Yup. Then he will have a 117V outlet. 



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## angusmckay

kbarnes701 said:


> He can, of course, use any US gear if he buys a step-down transformer. I ran some of my US gear off such a device for years -- bought it from Amazon in the UK for a cheap enough price. One simply plugs the step-down unit into the UK mains and then the gear into the step-down unit. Don't even need to swap the dinky little mains plugs you guys use
> 
> I wonder how long we can get away with this OT conversation before the Mods decide to pull _our _plugs  I'm bowing out now.


So it seems i can get an audio source amp from the USA model 102 or 210 that has a switch on the rear to change it from 115 to 230. Any idea if these are any good?


----------



## angusmckay

kbarnes701 said:


> He can, of course, use any US gear if he buys a step-down transformer. I ran some of my US gear off such a device for years -- bought it from Amazon in the UK for a cheap enough price. One simply plugs the step-down unit into the UK mains and then the gear into the step-down unit. Don't even need to swap the dinky little mains plugs you guys use
> 
> I wonder how long we can get away with this OT conversation before the Mods decide to pull _our _plugs  I'm bowing out now.


So it seems i can get an audio source amp from the USA model 102 or 210 that has a switch on the rear to change it from 115 to 230. Any idea if these are any good?


----------



## kbarnes701

Roger Dressler said:


> Yup. Then he will have a 117V outlet.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


LOL. Ah yes. I misread you


----------



## galonzo

biglen said:


> I have a 5.1 setup in my new movie room. My receiver has room for 2 more speakers, so I am thinking about adding 2 Atmos speakers. My room is 11' x 15', with an 8' ceiling. My movie chairs are on the back wall of the 11' walls, and my surrounds are mounted on the walls, to the left and right of the movie chairs. How would Atmos perform, if I added 2 ceiling speakers just forward of the movie chairs, and lined up with my front bookshelfs?


That sounds about as optimal of an Atmos setup as your specifications allow; as typically discussed here, you can't really go wrong as long as you're "in the ballpark" with placement, and any Atmos is better than no Atmos


----------



## biglen

galonzo said:


> That sounds about as optimal of an Atmos setup as your specifications allow; as typically discussed here, you can't really go wrong as long as you're "in the ballpark" with placement, and any Atmos is better than no Atmos


When I play an Atmos movie, will I immediately notice the new speakers, or is it very subtle?


----------



## galonzo

biglen said:


> When I play an Atmos movie, will I immediately notice the new speakers, or is it very subtle?


That will obviously depend on the movie, but the effect is noticeable when done right; there are some free Atmos demos on VUDU by Dolby (these can also be downloaded) that really focus on showing the potential of in-home Atmos.

In addition, your Atmos AVR also includes the Dolby Surround Upmixer, or DSU, that will mix height effects to just about anything you listen to. I believe it's on by default (after you re-run room correction) for your AVR, and you'll see that it's enabled on the front panel of your AVR; so for example, when playing a Dolby Digital TV show on TV (cable or OTA), it will say something like "Dolby Digital + ][ Surround" or something similar (check your manual).


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Asymmetrical side surround placement??*

In my upcoming 5.1.4 I will have my side surrounds coming off a shelf of the back wall of the room since the room opens into another part of basement so they will be a bit more the 110 degrees. Also I have the rear height speakers going in around the same location in the room but in a bit from the sides towards middle of room slightly.

My question is- I can have the left surround speaker on the side wall to both get it closer to 90-100 degrees and have a bit of separation of that speaker from the back position of the room in relation to the rear heights (couch is 1.5 feet off back wall and can’t move more). This, however will leave one surround speaker at a different angle then the right surround (which only has an option on the back wall due to room opening). 

Would you guys leave the back speakers on back wall or put one side speaker closer or within Atmos spec and see if DIRAC (NAD 758) can overcome the discrepancy?


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> Great idea. Many AVRs have a 'Direct' mode which turns off pretty much everything, so that may also be useful.


Yes, thank you I forgott to mention that in my previous post. I do select a DSP Mode named. Direct ———>Pure Direct on the Pioneer 1222 AVR. It’s Analog Direct, it just amplify’s the audio signal with no additional processing. I use the Pioneer AV5 app to control, verify both AVR’s. Intially very rarely the 1222 would sometimes switch from the CD input to the Bluray input. Both AVR’s share the same IR codes. So when I would intiate the Watch Movie with AVR harmony activity. It would switch the input on the 1222. 

Upon further investigation. I found by turning off all the inputs except the CD input in the AV 5 app and the input settings within the AVR UI Menu. Seems to have resolved this. I usually watch each componet as it starts up. To double check that it turned on and selected the proper input. It’s VERY consistant now.

I intially considered the Audiosource amp. When I reviewed the specifications of 40/50 watts per channel depending on model at the time. I wanted a wee bit more power as I run ALL my speakers FULL RANGE as noted in the Dolby Atmos Installation guide. VERY pleased with the end results of twin Pioneer AVR locomotives 

Take care, Merry Christmas to you and your Family and a SAFE and Happy New Year.......


----------



## shs1234

I think that there in another aspect to the placement of the side surround speaker, and that is how placement affects multiple seating rows. Let say that your MLP is the front of two rows. If you place your side surround speakers slightly behind the MLP and the aim those speakers at the MLP then the back row could be at close to a right angle to where the sound is pointing, with a significant falloff in high frequency response. If the side surrounds are placed slightly ahead of and aimed at the MLP, then the second row will be farther away, but will see a more uniform frequency response. That is how my home theater is configured and seems to work well for both rows of seating.


----------



## kbarnes701

biglen said:


> When I play an Atmos movie, will I immediately notice the new speakers, or is it very subtle?


As galonzo says it is movie-dependent.

Some extremely good Atmos tracks include the following:

- John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
- Mad Max Fury Road
- Ready Player One
- The Matrix 4K remaster
- Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
- Oblivion 4K
- Spider-Man Homecoming
- Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
- Deadpool 4K
- Dredd 4K
- Fury 4K
- Fantastic Beasts
- Pacific Rim 4K

There are many others but the above rarely disappoint.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> In my upcoming 5.1.4 I will have my side surrounds coming off a shelf of the back wall of the room since the room opens into another part of basement so they will be a bit more the 110 degrees. Also I have the rear height speakers going in around the same location in the room but in a bit from the sides towards middle of room slightly.
> 
> My question is- I can have the left surround speaker on the side wall to both get it closer to 90-100 degrees and have a bit of separation of that speaker from the back position of the room in relation to the rear heights (couch is 1.5 feet off back wall and can’t move more). This, however will leave one surround speaker at a different angle then the right surround (which only has an option on the back wall due to room opening).
> 
> Would you guys leave the back speakers on back wall or put one side speaker closer or within Atmos spec and see if DIRAC (NAD 758) can overcome the discrepancy?


While your room EQ software can compensate to some extent for asymmetrical speaker placement, it's never a good idea IMO. If you really have no other options I'd go for two symmetrically placed speakers even if their location is compromised. I doubt you will get a terrific Atmos effect from having the surrounds and the rear overheads so close together -- you really need good angular separation between them to be able to distinguish where the sounds are coming from. If you can experiment before final fixing of the speakers, do so, because one can never be 100% sure. At the end of the day, very few have an entirely uncompromised HT so do the best you can with the room you have and fuggeddaboutit and just enjoy the movies.


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> Yes, thank you I forgott to mention that in my previous post. I do select a DSP Mode named. Direct ———>Pure Direct on the Pioneer 1222 AVR. It’s Analog Direct, it just amplify’s the audio signal with no additional processing. I use the Pioneer AV5 app to control, verify both AVR’s. Intially very rarely the 1222 would sometimes switch from the CD input to the Bluray input. Both AVR’s share the same IR codes. So when I would intiate the Watch Movie with AVR harmony activity. It would switch the input on the 1222.
> 
> Upon further investigation. I found by turning off all the inputs except the CD input in the AV 5 app and the input settings within the AVR UI Menu. Seems to have resolved this. I usually watch each componet as it starts up. To double check that it turned on and selected the proper input. It’s VERY consistant now.
> 
> I intially considered the Audiosource amp. When I reviewed the specifications of 40/50 watts per channel depending on model at the time. I wanted a wee bit more power as I run ALL my speakers FULL RANGE as noted in the Dolby Atmos Installation guide. VERY pleased with the end results of twin Pioneer AVR locomotives
> 
> Take care, Merry Christmas to you and your Family and a SAFE and Happy New Year.......


First of all, a truly happy Christmas and peaceful New Year to you and yours also.

When Dolby say 'full range' they do so in the context of a fully bass-managed system, assuming that HTs will hand off the lower frequencies to a sub or subs. In that regard, most of us would be happy with Atmos speakers that can handle down to, say, 80Hz or so, with the proper LF handled by the sub/s. If that is the case, then of course the Atmos speakers would need to be set to 'small' in the AVR so that bass management can function. I'm not telling you how to set up your own system -- just pointing this out.


----------



## LNEWoLF

angusmckay said:


> Thank you for your reply, here is what it says in the manual of the 210 in regards to voltage, "Voltage selection switch is preset to 115V (USA). For use in areas which require 230V contact your dealer. Fuse must be of type and rating marked on amplifier for use at local mains voltage"
> 
> 
> This isn't clear to me as to if it has a switch to swap between?
> 
> 
> I also had a look at the ONKYO M-5010 but again im left not knowing if it will work in the UK. Anyone?


Here is the contact info for Audiosource. It may answer some of your questions.

Call us : 877.715.5439 Mail us : [email protected]


----------



## gene4ht

shs1234 said:


> I think that there in another aspect to the placement of the side surround speaker, and that is how placement affects multiple seating rows. Let say that your MLP is the front of two rows. If you place your side surround speakers slightly behind the MLP and the aim those speakers at the MLP then the back row could be at close to a right angle to where the sound is pointing, with a significant falloff in high frequency response. If the side surrounds are placed slightly ahead of and aimed at the MLP, then the second row will be farther away, but will see a more uniform frequency response. That is how my home theater is configured and seems to work well for both rows of seating.


Your point is well taken. The assumption is that most enthusiasts have a single row of seating to consider. Those of us with two or more rows have additional considerations and of course physical room properties/acoustics and speaker types. Bottom line, the key is always experimentation with the variables involved to obtain the best results in performance for our scenario.


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> First of all, a truly happy Christmas and peaceful New Year to you and yours also.
> 
> When Dolby say 'full range' they do so in the context of a fully bass-managed system, assuming that HTs will hand off the lower frequencies to a sub or subs. In that regard, most of us would be happy with Atmos speakers that can handle down to, say, 80Hz or so, with the proper LF handled by the sub/s. If that is the case, then of course the Atmos speakers would need to be set to 'small' in the AVR so that bass management can function. I'm not telling you how to set up your own system -- just pointing this out.


Thank you for your heartfelt greetings.

I understand Your point of view. Thank you for the information. Take care............


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my upcoming 5.1.4 I will have my side surrounds coming off a shelf of the back wall of the room since the room opens into another part of basement so they will be a bit more the 110 degrees. Also I have the rear height speakers going in around the same location in the room but in a bit from the sides towards middle of room slightly.
> 
> My question is- I can have the left surround speaker on the side wall to both get it closer to 90-100 degrees and have a bit of separation of that speaker from the back position of the room in relation to the rear heights (couch is 1.5 feet off back wall and can’t move more). This, however will leave one surround speaker at a different angle then the right surround (which only has an option on the back wall due to room opening).
> 
> Would you guys leave the back speakers on back wall or put one side speaker closer or within Atmos spec and see if DIRAC (NAD 758) can overcome the discrepancy?
> 
> 
> 
> While your room EQ software can compensate to some extent for asymmetrical speaker placement, it's never a good idea IMO. If you really have no other options I'd go for two symmetrically placed speakers even if their location is compromised. I doubt you will get a terrific Atmos effect from having the surrounds and the rear overheads so close together -- you really need good angular separation between them to be able to distinguish where the sounds are coming from. If you can experiment before final fixing of the speakers, do so, because one can never be 100% sure. At the end of the day, very few have an entirely uncompromised HT so do the best you can with the room you have and fuggeddaboutit and just enjoy the movies.
Click to expand...

But will it actually make for a BAD experience if the rear surrounds and the rear heights aren’t at a huge separation angle? If it doesn’t make it worse I’ll keep it as is...also won’t the front height speakers also add something to the total experience?


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my upcoming 5.1.4 I will have my side surrounds coming off a shelf of the back wall of the room since the room opens into another part of basement so they will be a bit more the 110 degrees. Also I have the rear height speakers going in around the same location in the room but in a bit from the sides towards middle of room slightly.
> 
> My question is- I can have the left surround speaker on the side wall to both get it closer to 90-100 degrees and have a bit of separation of that speaker from the back position of the room in relation to the rear heights (couch is 1.5 feet off back wall and can’t move more). This, however will leave one surround speaker at a different angle then the right surround (which only has an option on the back wall due to room opening).
> 
> Would you guys leave the back speakers on back wall or put one side speaker closer or within Atmos spec and see if DIRAC (NAD 758) can overcome the discrepancy?
> 
> 
> 
> While your room EQ software can compensate to some extent for asymmetrical speaker placement, it's never a good idea IMO. If you really have no other options I'd go for two symmetrically placed speakers even if their location is compromised. I doubt you will get a terrific Atmos effect from having the surrounds and the rear overheads so close together -- you really need good angular separation between them to be able to distinguish where the sounds are coming from. If you can experiment before final fixing of the speakers, do so, because one can never be 100% sure. At the end of the day, very few have an entirely uncompromised HT so do the best you can with the room you have and fuggeddaboutit and just enjoy the movies.
Click to expand...

So, to be clear-would you say that having 1 rear speaker further separated from the rear Atmos and within proper specs be ok even if at different angle to MLP the. The other side speaker?


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> But will it actually make for a BAD experience if the rear surrounds and the rear heights aren’t at a huge separation angle? If it doesn’t make it worse I’ll keep it as is...also won’t the front height speakers also add something to the total experience?


Not a bad experience -- just not as good as it could otherwise be.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> So, to be clear-would you say that having 1 rear speaker further separated from the rear Atmos and within proper specs be ok even if at different angle to MLP the. The other side speaker?


I'd prefer symmetry in speaker placement as I said earlier. Your room correction software can compensate by adjusting levels and delays accordingly but IMO nothing beats symmetry. If you can, just try it out before you fix anything in stone and see if it sounds good to you. If it does, you're good to go. It ain't ideal but what is? As my good friend Sanjay is accustomed to saying, "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." Wise words


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> But will it actually make for a BAD experience if the rear surrounds and the rear heights aren’t at a huge separation angle? If it doesn’t make it worse I’ll keep it as is...also won’t the front height speakers also add something to the total experience?
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bad experience -- just not as good as it could otherwise be.
Click to expand...

I’m ok with that-was just worried it would actually muddy or distort the sounds of the two. If mixing them because they are close doesn’t make for an adverse sound; just not optimal then I want that. 

As I said before-I should still have the discreet sounds of the front ceiling pair as well as the full separation of the front and rear ceiling pairs.


----------



## jsgrise

Here are a couple short videos of mixing with Atmos and audio objects


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Here are a couple short videos of mixing with Atmos and audio objects


They are really interesting. Thanks for sharing. Great to see the objects moving on the computer interface.


----------



## MeganElisabeth

I have a very small room 5.1 setup with Klipsch r28f’s, Klipsch r15m’s, Klipsch r25c, and the Klipsch R12SW. I am unable to mount to the ceiling. I’m looking to place two Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (they are the Klipsch RP 140SA’s that can act as surround/wall mounted as well as up-firing.) Where would you place them first with my setup?

I’ve heard some are underwhelmed with up-firing from the fronts so I’m debating between upper wall of the floor standing, the upper wall of the surrounds which is closest to MLP, or up-firing atop either the bookshelf’s or front. I was thinking maybe mounting to the upper wall behind the surrounds because they’re closer to me and I feel like I would intercept the sound better plus I also have a ceiling fan in the center of the room I feel like the fronts might bounce off of and deflect completely. I know you’re supposed to apply to the front ones first though... Just looking for opinions on what you would do if it were you and you weren’t planning on adding any more to your setup anytime soon to enjoy Atmos as much as possible with two new enabled Dolby Atmos speakers. 

So for high wall mounted speakers between side walls, back wall behind surrounds, or front wall above standings would you recommend above the front first for best overall immersiveness with Atmos aside from ceiling mounted of course? As I believe this is what Dolby has recommended. Or do you think one of the others would work better for my specific setup? I was thinking the side upper walls.. as this would be closest to mid way room ceiling speakers. Thanks so much in advance for any and all opinions/suggestions!


----------



## biglen

galonzo said:


> That sounds about as optimal of an Atmos setup as your specifications allow; as typically discussed here, you can't really go wrong as long as you're "in the ballpark" with placement, and any Atmos is better than no Atmos


Okay, so looking at my ceiling, I have some recessed lights. One ceiling speaker can go in the perfect spot, but the other one would have to go where there is a recessed light. Would I be better off putting the speaker to the left or right of the recessed light, or more it forward away from the listening position? I could move it closer to the listening position, but that would put the speaker pretty much right above my head, maybe 6" in front of my head.


----------



## galonzo

@biglen , here's the recommendation from Dolby; judging by the side-view provided (towards the bottom of the page), I would say that 6" forward of directly above sounds just about right.


----------



## sprins

A good Atmos showcase is available on Netflix now: Roma; by Alfonso Cuaron (who also directed Gravity). The Atmos mix is on par with the mix on Gravity, if not better. It’s a completely different themed movie though.


----------



## jsgrise

So after trying trying different speaker placement a 1/4" at the time, I finally came to something really immersive with the Front Wides (60 degrees) and Surrounds (120 degrees - a bit out of spec, but with the FW to close the gap it is perfect).

With the Surrounds Backs, I could sometimes feel the 3D objects, sometimes not. With the Front Wides, the 3D space is clearly defined and sometimes you want to try to reach out at something passing. 

I will re-run Audyssey with a full 8 positions and watch MI:Fallout tonight with the final product


----------



## mrtickleuk

jsgrise said:


> Here are a couple short videos of mixing with Atmos and audio objects


Lovely stuff - thanks. Such a shame that YouTube is stereo-only.


----------



## sdurani

MeganElisabeth said:


> I am unable to mount to the ceiling. I’m looking to place two Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (they are the Klipsch RP 140SA’s that can act as surround/wall mounted as well as up-firing.) Where would you place them first with my setup?


I would mount them directly to the sides of the main listening position and as high up as possible on the side walls. They should create a soundstage that stretches between the two height speakers, resulting in overhead imaging floating above and across the seating area.


----------



## Roger Dressler

jsgrise said:


> So after trying trying different speaker placement a 1/4" at the time, I finally came to something really immersive with the Front Wides (60 degrees) and Surrounds (120 degrees - a bit out of spec, but with the FW to close the gap it is perfect).


Out of whose spec? Fits perfectly within the ITU spec for a 7.1 system:


----------



## jsgrise

Roger Dressler said:


> Out of whose spec? Fits perfectly within the ITU spec for a 7.1 system:




I was referring to Dolby’s specs, but my layout looks a lot like the picture, expect the same designation is different.

Can you please explain me what is ITU?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Roger Dressler

jsgrise said:


> I was referring to Dolby’s specs, but my layout looks a lot like the picture...
> 
> Can you please explain me what is ITU?


ITU is International Telecommunications Union. Visit their website to download the particular document (free, PDF) that codifies all sorts of speaker configurations. *Link*

Dolby refers to ITU-R BS.775-3 specs in their Atmos for Home Guidelines.


----------



## stikle

Roger Dressler said:


> Out of whose spec? Fits perfectly within the ITU spec for a 7.1 system


So it is written, so it is done.


----------



## lax01

mrtickleuk said:


> Lovely stuff - thanks. Such a shame that YouTube is stereo-only.


YouTube is rolling out DD5.1 (just AC3)...probably another 10 years before they get DD+ with Atmos metadata :facepalm:


----------



## MeganElisabeth

sdurani said:


> MeganElisabeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am unable to mount to the ceiling. I’m looking to place two Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers (they are the Klipsch RP 140SA’s that can act as surround/wall mounted as well as up-firing.) Where would you place them first with my setup?
> 
> 
> 
> I would mount them directly to the sides of the main listening position and as high up as possible on the side walls. They should create a soundstage that stretches between the two height speakers, resulting in overhead imaging floating above and across the seating area.
Click to expand...

Thanks so very much! This was what I was strongly leaning towards. Now, would you mount them exactly in the center of the room side walls in between the front floor standings and surrounds or 2-3’ in front of the main listening position? Halfway would be about 4’. Also, trying to decide between angling them slightly downward toward main listening position or slightly upwards to bounce off ceiling a bit. I’m mounting them on swivels. Or of course just directly across. I was thinking and read of another angling then very slightly downwards that was successful. I so greatly appreciate your opinions!


----------



## sdurani

MeganElisabeth said:


> Now, would you mount them exactly in the center of the room side walls in between the front floor standings and surrounds or 2-3’ in front of the main listening position?


Directly to the sides of the main listening position, irrespective of where that falls in the room.


> Also, trying to decide between angling them slightly downward toward main listening position or slightly upwards to bounce off ceiling a bit.


I would aim each height speaker at the listener on the opposite side of the room. Speakers typically sound a bit louder on-axis (pointing directly at you), so aiming them at the farthest listener will help compensate for the greater distance.


----------



## camd5pt0

Really late to the party but I have recently changed my setup from 7.1.4 with front height (configured as tops) to ceiling mounted TF/TR using same speakers. Wow.
So much 3d affect was left on the table without actual speakers above your head.

Lucy, movie scene when she gets kicked in the abdomen and her Sparks start flying.. Jeez!!

Hereditary, movie scene when mother is trying to get into the attic.. Insane.

Bird box, Netflix movie at all times, incredible panning.

TF/TR is the way to go! If you can get away with doing it.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MeganElisabeth

sdurani said:


> MeganElisabeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, would you mount them exactly in the center of the room side walls in between the front floor standings and surrounds or 2-3’ in front of the main listening position?
> 
> 
> 
> Directly to the sides of the main listening position, irrespective of where that falls in the room.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, trying to decide between angling them slightly downward toward main listening position or slightly upwards to bounce off ceiling a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would aim each height speaker at the listener on the opposite side of the room. Speakers typically sound a bit louder on-axis (pointing directly at you), so aiming them at the farthest listener will help compensate for the greater distance.
Click to expand...

Well, I already have my surrounds directly to the sides of the main listening position though which is why I thought up high in the center of side walls or 2-3’ from main listening position. You mean you would place them directly above the surrounds before the center of side walls and angling towards MLP? I thought 2-3’ in front of MLP up high on side walls would be best as is closest to where in ceiling Atmos are placed (just in the center of the ceiling versus high side walls). Still not directly beside MLP but 2-3’ in front though..


----------



## lchiu7

biglen said:


> I have a 5.1 setup in my new movie room. My receiver has room for 2 more speakers, so I am thinking about adding 2 Atmos speakers. My room is 11' x 15', with an 8' ceiling. My movie chairs are on the back wall of the 11' walls, and my surrounds are mounted on the walls, to the left and right of the movie chairs. How would Atmos perform, if I added 2 ceiling speakers just forward of the movie chairs, and lined up with my front bookshelfs?


I had a similar setup with a room 17.5' x 14.4' and about 8' ceiling. I had a 5.1 setup with the rear surround mounted on the wall above the listening position. I had to have the room painted and the speakers came down and we (I mean my wife  ) decided she didn't want wall speakers anymore so I mounted on coffee tables at about ear height. They were much better there.

For Atmos I went for the Elac Atmos speakers https://www.amazon.com/ELAC-Debut-D.../B07B4P9TYJ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1545550445

mounted on my front speakers and firing diagonally upwards the ceiling then bouncing down towards the listener. People do say ceiling mounted are better but I am impressed with Atmos with this setup and have no current desire to upgrade, especially if it means having to mount speakers in the ceiling and deal with all the wiring.


----------



## sdurani

MeganElisabeth said:


> You mean you would place them directly above the surrounds before the center of side walls and angling towards MLP? I thought 2-3’ in front of MLP up high on side walls would be best as is closest to where in ceiling Atmos are placed (just in the center of the ceiling versus high side walls). Still not directly beside MLP but 2-3’ in front though..


I've already repeated twice where I would put them and explained why. It's obvious at this point that you really don't want to do that. So place them where you prefer. Your set-up, your decision.


----------



## MeganElisabeth

sdurani said:


> MeganElisabeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you would place them directly above the surrounds before the center of side walls and angling towards MLP? I thought 2-3’ in front of MLP up high on side walls would be best as is closest to where in ceiling Atmos are placed (just in the center of the ceiling versus high side walls). Still not directly beside MLP but 2-3’ in front though..
> 
> 
> 
> I've already repeated twice where I would put them and explained why. It's obvious at this point that you really don't want to do that. So place them where you prefer. Your set-up, your decision.
Click to expand...

I was just making sure I was understanding correctly that you meant directly above the surrounds which are located directly to the sides of the main listening position.


----------



## Molon_Labe

If one buys speakers with excellent off-axis response, the speaker placement becomes less of an issue, if an issue at all.


----------



## jsgrise

Watched MI:Fallout and I am impressed with the level of immersion that having Front Wides brings to the movies. 



Spoiler



For instance, in the club scene before the bathroom brawl, you hear people around you instead of behind you as you would with Sides behind you only. In the Finale scene, when Walker shoot Hunt's helicopter, I could hear bullets flying in space like never before.



I played the John Wick Club Scene to test it out, I know the sound of that scene by heart having watched it a 1000 times. Again, extremely immersive with objects flying around in space with surgical precision.

Since it was late last night, I try only one upmix in Neural:X, The Fighting Season on Netflix. It follows a squad of US Army operators in Afghanistan. In the last act of the 1st episode, they get into a firefight with Talibans and it sounded very immersive with mortars and bullets flying around.

What I also like about this configuration is if I don't like the upmix in Neural:X, I can use DSU for a classic 5.1.4 or even the original 5.1 and everything will sound from where it's suppose to be.

Thanks @kbarnes701 for the suggestion! The experimentation will continue


----------



## Hostility

I’m fairly new to atmos, just upgraded to anthem mrx 720, picked up an amp and 4 paradigm in ceiling speakers, hooked them up, ran arc, tested with The new pacific rim movie and I hear some action going on but i find it blend too much with my other speakers, in rain scenes I thought I would hear it more above
Me. When it’s a more quiet scene I hear it more above but when there’s a lot going on it’s more hard to detect. Is this normal? Depends on movie? My setup is a 7.2.4


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Watched MI:Fallout and I am impressed with the level of immersion that having Front Wides brings to the movies.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, in the club scene before the bathroom brawl, you hear people around you instead of behind you as you would with Sides behind you only. In the Finale scene, when Walker shoot Hunt's helicopter, I could hear bullets flying in space like never before.
> 
> 
> 
> I played the John Wick Club Scene to test it out, I know the sound of that scene by heart having watched it a 1000 times. Again, extremely immersive with objects flying around in space with surgical precision.
> 
> Since it was late last night, I try only one upmix in Neural:X, The Fighting Season on Netflix. It follows a squad of US Army operators in Afghanistan. In the last act of the 1st episode, they get into a firefight with Talibans and it sounded very immersive with mortars and bullets flying around.
> 
> What also I like about this configuration if I don't like the upmix in Neural:X, I can use DSU for a classic 5.1.4 or even the original 5.1 and everything will sound from where it's suppose to be.
> 
> Thanks @kbarnes701 for the suggestion! The experimentation will continue


Great result. Very pleased you have found a setup that works so well for you. Enjoy!


----------



## kbarnes701

Hostility said:


> I’m fairly new to atmos, just upgraded to anthem mrx 720, picked up an amp and 4 paradigm in ceiling speakers, hooked them up, ran arc, tested with The new pacific rim movie and I hear some action going on but i find it blend too much with my other speakers, in rain scenes I thought I would hear it more above
> Me. When it’s a more quiet scene I hear it more above but when there’s a lot going on it’s more hard to detect. Is this normal? Depends on movie? My setup is a 7.2.4


It's very movie-dependent, depending on how it was mixed. The idea is to give you total immersion in sound, so one could argue that you shouldn't really be able to individually distinguish any set of speakers. You are hearing the speakers above you even if you are not conscious of doing so, and they will be contributing to the 3D 'bubble' of sound. You may care to try raising the levels of the overheads a couple of dB or so -- this is something I wouldn't ordinarily recommend as it has the potential to shift ounds that are meant to 'hover' just above you right up to the ceiling, but give it a try for now if you like. You can always set them back to the calibrated level (make a note) later once you have gotten accustomed to having speakers above you.

It is also very movie-dependent. If you happen to have the 4K version of the original Blade Runner, give this a try - the overhead effects are very strong in that mix. The new Blade Runner movie is also very good. I posted this short list of good 'demo' movies just a few pages back but here it is again:

- John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
- Mad Max Fury Road
- Ready Player One
- The Matrix 4K remaster
- Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
- Oblivion 4K
- Spider-Man Homecoming
- Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
- Deadpool 4K
- Dredd 4K
- Fury 4K
- Fantastic Beasts
- Pacific Rim 4K


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> Great result. Very pleased you have found a setup that works so well for you. Enjoy!




Excuse the low light, low quality iPhone pics (too lazy to get the DSLR out), but this is what it looks like.

Now testing some acoustic panels next to the Surrounds.

It is ever ending  




















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

jsgrise said:


> Excuse the low light, low quality iPhone pics (too lazy to get the DSLR out), but this is what it looks like.
> 
> Now testing some acoustic panels next to the Surrounds.
> 
> It is ever ending



Looks nice and comfy! I like it!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Excuse the low light, low quality iPhone pics (too lazy to get the DSLR out), but this is what it looks like.
> 
> Now testing some acoustic panels next to the Surrounds.


I think you have achieved a great result - it not only sounds good, but it looks great as well. Good call to add a few more panels


----------



## Hostility

kbarnes701 said:


> Hostility said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m fairly new to atmos, just upgraded to anthem mrx 720, picked up an amp and 4 paradigm in ceiling speakers, hooked them up, ran arc, tested with The new pacific rim movie and I hear some action going on but i find it blend too much with my other speakers, in rain scenes I thought I would hear it more above
> Me. When it’s a more quiet scene I hear it more above but when there’s a lot going on it’s more hard to detect. Is this normal? Depends on movie? My setup is a 7.2.4
> 
> 
> 
> It's very movie-dependent, depending on how it was mixed. The idea is to give you total immersion in sound, so one could argue that you shouldn't really be able to individually distinguish any set of speakers. You are hearing the speakers above you even if you are not conscious of doing so, and they will be contributing to the 3D 'bubble' of sound. You may care to try raising the levels of the overheads a couple of dB or so -- this is something I wouldn't ordinarily recommend as it has the potential to shift ounds that are meant to 'hover' just above you right up to the ceiling, but give it a try for now if you like. You can always set them back to the calibrated level (make a note) later once you have gotten accustomed to having speakers above you.
> 
> It is also very movie-dependent. If you happen to have the 4K version of the original Blade Runner, give this a try - the overhead effects are very strong in that mix. The new Blade Runner movie is also very good. I posted this short list of good 'demo' movies just a few pages back but here it is again:
> 
> - John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
> - Mad Max Fury Road
> - Ready Player One
> - The Matrix 4K remaster
> - Blade Runner 2049 and the original Blade Runner 4K remaster
> - Oblivion 4K
> - Spider-Man Homecoming
> - Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
> - Deadpool 4K
> - Dredd 4K
> - Fury 4K
> - Fantastic Beasts
> - Pacific Rim 4K
Click to expand...

Thank you, I guess I need to get used to it I won’t adjust it and I’ll try those movies out! I know watching Jurassic world the newest one when the raptor was on the roof of the kids room I could hear foot steps above my head it sounded very real!


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you have achieved a great result - it not only sounds good, but it looks great as well. Good call to add a few more panels




Thank you Keith, it is nothing like your setup, but I am not ashamed to bring someone in for a demo neither  




















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Hostility said:


> Thank you, I guess I need to get used to it I won’t adjust it and I’ll try those movies out! I know watching Jurassic world the newest one when the raptor was on the roof of the kids room I could hear foot steps above my head it sounded very real!


You're welcome. I think the tendency is, just after installing Atmos, to 'actively listen' for sound emanating from the overhead speakers. We probably did this with rear surrounds once too, if we added them after installing a 5.1 system. And if the sounds aren't obvious and pretty much ever-present, then we feel kinda let down. But after a while, I found that I stopped doing that and just enjoyed the movie. Occasionally, an overhead sound will be really obvious and it can be very dramatic when it occurs. Other times, eg rainfall, it can sound very immersive or, sometimes, not at all, depending on the mixer. And of course, in real life we don't hear rain coming from above us unless there's something else above us for the rain to fall on -- eg, trees, umbrella, roof etc. In normal rain we just don't hear it from above us, so I am guessing that mixers don't put much of the rain track up there as it would be unnatural. A little light ambience is OK though as it's possible in really heavy rain that we'd be more immersed in sound as the sound reflected off the ground. Just think of the overhead speakers as another set of surrounds: we don't consciously listen for sounds coming from the surrounds, but we do feel immersed.

That list has very good Atmos effects IMO and should help you assess the capabilities of your setup. But don't expect the overheads to be lit up all the time. By way of an example, I watched _Paddington 2_ with some friends' kids who are visiting and before they arrived I set up the cinema so it was ready to go at the press of the 'play' button. As I did I isolated my floor level speakers (which I can do very easily here) and was amazed that there seems to be virtually nothing at all in the overhead speakers in this movie. But then again, there isn't all that much opportunity. I skimmed through the movie to see where the overheads might light up but couldn't find a single instance! Yet the Atmos sound on this film is terrific. Atmos is about more than sounds from above us.


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Thank you Keith, it is nothing like your setup, but I am not ashamed to bring someone in for a demo neither
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a lovely room and very symmetrical. I love symmetry personally  The relocated surrounds look just dandy between those acoustic panels. And you have some _serious _overhead speakers by the look of it


----------



## Hostility

kbarnes701 said:


> Hostility said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, I guess I need to get used to it I won’t adjust it and I’ll try those movies out! I know watching Jurassic world the newest one when the raptor was on the roof of the kids room I could hear foot steps above my head it sounded very real!
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome. I think the tendency is, just after installing Atmos, to 'actively listen' for sound emanating from the overhead speakers. We probably did this with rear surrounds once too, if we added them after installing a 5.1 system. And if the sounds aren't obvious and pretty much ever-present, then we feel kinda let down. But after a while, I found that I stopped doing that and just enjoyed the movie. Occasionally, an overhead sound will be really obvious and it can be very dramatic when it occurs. Other times, eg rainfall, it can sound very immersive or, sometimes, not at all, depending on the mixer. And of course, in real life we don't hear rain coming from above us unless there's something else above us for the rain to fall on -- eg, trees, umbrella, roof etc. In normal rain we just don't hear it from above us, so I am guessing that mixers don't put much of the rain track up there as it would be unnatural. A little light ambience is OK though as it's possible in really heavy rain that we'd be more immersed in sound as the sound reflected off the ground. Just think of the overhead speakers as another set of surrounds: we don't consciously listen for sounds coming from the surrounds, but we do feel immersed.
> 
> That list has very good Atmos effects IMO and should help you assess the capabilities of your setup. But don't expect the overheads to be lit up all the time. By way of an example, I watched _Paddington 2_ with some friends' kids who are visiting and before they arrived I set up the cinema so it was ready to go at the press of the 'play' button. As I did I isolated my floor level speakers (which I can do very easily here) and was amazed that there seems to be virtually nothing at all in the overhead speakers in this movie. But then again, there isn't all that much opportunity. I skimmed through the movie to see where the overheads might light up but couldn't find a single instance! Yet the Atmos sound on this film is terrific. Atmos is about more than sounds from above us.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, I had it setup and called the wife down and was like ok let’s test this out, I’ll put a rain scene on and we were like huh? But you are right I did feel the rain all around me and we don’t hear it above us in real life. I did feel a bit more in a 3D bubble at times through out pacific rim 2 and I feel like that’s what it’s more about. 

I have family coming for the holidays in 2 days and wanted a good few demo scenes as some haven’t seen my updated/finished theatre room. I’ll skim through some tomorrow. Also I can’t play 4K discs on my oppo 103. So I have to find bd discs with the atmos soundtrack. Not sure if all new movies come with a 4K and bd version with atmos on them


----------



## kbarnes701

Hostility said:


> Yes you are correct, I had it setup and called the wife down and was like ok let’s test this out, I’ll put a rain scene on and we were like huh? But you are right I did feel the rain all around me and we don’t hear it above us in real life. I did feel a bit more in a 3D bubble at times through out pacific rim 2 and I feel like that’s what it’s more about.
> 
> I have family coming for the holidays in 2 days and wanted a good few demo scenes as some haven’t seen my updated/finished theatre room. I’ll skim through some tomorrow. Also I can’t play 4K discs on my oppo 103. So I have to find bd discs with the atmos soundtrack. Not sure if all new movies come with a 4K and bd version with atmos on them


Sadly, the powers-that-be seem to have decided to put the Atmos tracks on the UHD discs and relegate the Blu-rays to the DTS HD or TrueHD track only. I can see their idea: to add value to the sound as well as the image, but it's a bit of a slap in the face for those who don't yet have UHD capability (and may never even want it). I am sure that if you ask, other members will post lists of their most demo-worthy Atmos Blu-rays. I can totally understand that after spending time and money in installing overhead speakers you want the wow factor when demoing to friends and family.

I never point out the overhead speakers to friends (other than those interested in AV of course) - I just play the movie without comment and let them come to their own conclusions. Usually I get complimentary remarks, after the movie, about how much they enjoyed the sound. In some of the more overt uses of the overheads (eg the battles in _Hacksaw Ridge_) I have spotted some of my friends suddenly looking up at the ceiling, which is quite fun 

Don't forget you can also download the Atmos trailers - copy them to a USB stick and put that in the Oppo and they will love those!

Here are some links to them:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html


https://thedigitaltheater.com/dolby-trailers/

Be sure to get the one that specifiy lossless or Atmos from the above link. You're looking for Amaze, Leaf, Conductor, Spheres, Unfold.


----------



## Hostility

kbarnes701 said:


> Hostility said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are correct, I had it setup and called the wife down and was like ok let’s test this out, I’ll put a rain scene on and we were like huh? But you are right I did feel the rain all around me and we don’t hear it above us in real life. I did feel a bit more in a 3D bubble at times through out pacific rim 2 and I feel like that’s what it’s more about.
> 
> I have family coming for the holidays in 2 days and wanted a good few demo scenes as some haven’t seen my updated/finished theatre room. I’ll skim through some tomorrow. Also I can’t play 4K discs on my oppo 103. So I have to find bd discs with the atmos soundtrack. Not sure if all new movies come with a 4K and bd version with atmos on them
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the powers-that-be seem to have decided to put the Atmos tracks on the UHD discs and relegate the Blu-rays to the DTS HD or TrueHD track only. I can see their idea: to add value to the sound as well as the image, but it's a bit of a slap in the face for those who don't yet have UHD capability (and may never even want it). I am sure that if you ask, other members will post lists of their most demo-worthy Atmos Blu-rays. I can totally understand that after spending time and money in installing overhead speakers you want the wow factor when demoing to friends and family.
> 
> I never point out the overhead speakers to friends (other than those interested in AV of course) - I just play the movie without comment and let them come to their own conclusions. Usually I get complimentary remarks, after the movie, about how much they enjoyed the sound. In some of the more overt uses of the overheads (eg the battles in _Hacksaw Ridge_) I have spotted some of my friends suddenly looking up at the ceiling, which is quite fun /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Don't forget you can also download the Atmos trailers from Demoworld - copy them to a USB stick and put that in the Oppo and they will love those!
Click to expand...

Yea I had a feeling that it was more on the uhd dics and a bit disappointed as I only got my 103 this year. I’ll download the demos and they will prob be perfect for showing it off thank you


----------



## kbarnes701

Hostility said:


> Yea I had a feeling that it was more on the uhd dics and a bit disappointed as I only got my 103 this year. I’ll download the demos and they will prob be perfect for showing it off thank you


Just added a couple of links to the earlier post for you.


----------



## kbarnes701

For anyone wanting the full gamut of Atmos movies on disc but who don't yet want to go the full UHD route, remember that you can pick up a reasonably priced UHD player these days and run it in non 4k mode, feeding a 1080p display. That way you will get the Atmos sound but with a regular image. I did this for a fairly long time before I finally upgraded my PJ to be able to use 4k. Another benefit is that you will be building up a library of UHD discs for the day when, inevitably, you move up to a 4k setup. Just a thought that worked well for me.


----------



## stikle

Hostility said:


> Also I can’t play 4K discs on my oppo 103. So I have to find bd discs with the atmos soundtrack.


I just took a quick gander through my library, and the Blurays with Atmos that I have are:



13 Hours
American Sniper
Everest
Ex Machina (DTS:X not Atmos)
Expendables 3
Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
Heart of the Sea
It
John Wick
San Andreas
Terminator: Genisys
Transformers: Age of Extinction
The Wave (foreign)

Also, Keith pointed you to TheDigitalTheater. Be sure to get Nature's Fury (Dolby Digital Plus ATMOS) - it's one of my current favorite demo clips to wow people with.


----------



## Hostility

stikle said:


> Hostility said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also I can’t play 4K discs on my oppo 103. So I have to find bd discs with the atmos soundtrack.
> 
> 
> 
> I just took a quick gander through my library, and the Blurays with Atmos that I have are:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 Hours
> American Sniper
> Everest
> Ex Machina (DTS:X not Atmos)
> Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> Heart of the Sea
> It
> John Wick
> San Andreas
> Terminator: Genisys
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> The Wave (foreign)
Click to expand...

Perfect thank you. I want to get John wick now on bd as I’ve heard a lot of people talk about it for atmos. I remember seeing a list some where online of bd dics with atmos I’ll have to look for it again.


----------



## stikle

John Wick is demo material for sure. Violent but excellent. Especially the club scene.

Oh yeah - and Game of Thrones. The first 4 seasons on Steelbook and Seasons 5-7 all are Atmos and fantastic.


----------



## LNEWoLF

A quick search on blu-ray.com for AVC encoded blurays with Atmos produced 341 results.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/sear...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search

HEVC with Atmos 381 results

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/sear...t=&slipcoverback=&submit=Search&action=search


----------



## Molon_Labe

There is only one thing worse than tearing up your ceiling to run Atmos wiring. Doing it the second time when you decide to change your room

Got the son-in-law feeding wire while I am hiding in the ceiling pulling it to the other room where the equipment racks are.


----------



## kbarnes701

stikle said:


> I just took a quick gander through my library, and the Blurays with Atmos that I have are:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 Hours
> American Sniper
> Everest
> Ex Machina (DTS:X not Atmos)
> Expendables 3
> Gravity Diamond Luxe Edition
> Heart of the Sea
> It
> John Wick
> San Andreas
> Terminator: Genisys
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> The Wave (foreign)
> 
> Also, Keith pointed you to TheDigitalTheater. Be sure to get Nature's Fury (Dolby Digital Plus ATMOS) - it's one of my current favorite demo clips to wow people with.


Unfortunately many of those don't make great use of the overheads. Not to say they aren't good sound, but not a lot over one's head. _Gravity _of course is stunning. _John Wick_ is great too. Of the remainder I can't recall any of then having especially good overhead activity BICBW of course.

Agree about _Nature's Fury_!


----------



## jsil

Hi, jsgrise

Like your set up and would like to know what color are you walls.


----------



## jsgrise

jsil said:


> Hi, jsgrise
> 
> Like your set up and would like to know what color are you walls.


Thanks mate! 

Color is Off-Black by Farrow and Ball, you can order it online.


----------



## usc1995

kbarnes701 said:


> Unfortunately many of those don't make great use of the overheads. Not to say they aren't good sound, but not a lot over one's head. _Gravity _of course is stunning. _John Wick_ is great too. Of the remainder I can't recall any of then having especially good overhead activity BICBW of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree about _Nature's Fury_!




13 Hours has some great battle sounds like Hacksaw Ridge. The storm scene in Everest is chilling with the sounds of the wind and weather using the overheads for a great effect. In The Heart of the Sea uses the overheads well to add splashing water sounds all around you. Also available on regular Blu-ray is Blade Runner 2049 which we all know is a good example of Atmos.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

Not to mention _Mission Impossible: Fallout_. The helicopter scenes near the end of the movie are outstanding for their use of the overhead speakers almost constantly.


----------



## Jonas2

Hostility said:


> Yes you are correct, I had it setup and called the wife down and was like ok let’s test this out, I’ll put a rain scene on and we were like huh? But you are right I did feel the rain all around me and we don’t hear it above us in real life.



Dolby's "Unfold" is short, but fun - play it loud.  And you are right about the rain - we only hear it if it strikes something hard enough that we can hear. Search on YouTube for "rain on a tin roof" or similar - give that a try, and upmix it, see what you think! 




stikle said:


> John Wick is demo material for sure. Violent but excellent. Especially the club scene.
> 
> Oh yeah - and Game of Thrones. The first 4 seasons on Steelbook and Seasons 5-7 all are Atmos and fantastic.



2nd that!!


----------



## sdurani

Catalogue titles like 5th Element, Matrix, Blade Runner: Final Cut and Serenity(DTS:X) make excellent use of the height layer.


----------



## Hostility

Jonas2 said:


> Hostility said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are correct, I had it setup and called the wife down and was like ok let’s test this out, I’ll put a rain scene on and we were like huh? But you are right I did feel the rain all around me and we don’t hear it above us in real life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby's "Unfold" is short, but fun - play it loud. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif And you are right about the rain - we only hear it if it strikes something hard enough that we can hear. Search on YouTube for "rain on a tin roof" or similar - give that a try, and upmix it, see what you think! /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stikle said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Wick is demo material for sure. Violent but excellent. Especially the club scene.
> 
> Oh yeah - and Game of Thrones. The first 4 seasons on Steelbook and Seasons 5-7 all are Atmos and fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2nd that!!
Click to expand...

I picked up John wick earlier for $10, tested out the club scene but didn’t hear much from the atmos speakers. But I did near the end where they fight outside in the rain and the thunderstorm sounds above me. 

I tested out the atmos clips from online and the amaze one is awesome! Def enjoyed that and the thunder part made my subs move! Right after the wife txtd me from upstairs saying I’m shaking the whole house 🙂.
I want to try and see how the upmix sounds on reg. Blu-ray’s


----------



## unretarded

kbarnes701 said:


> First of all, a truly happy Christmas and peaceful New Year to you and yours also.
> 
> When Dolby say 'full range' they do so in the context of a fully bass-managed system, assuming that HTs will hand off the lower frequencies to a sub or subs. In that regard, most of us would be happy with Atmos speakers that can handle down to, say, 80Hz or so, with the proper LF handled by the sub/s. If that is the case, then of course the Atmos speakers would need to be set to 'small' in the AVR so that bass management can function. I'm not telling you how to set up your own system -- just pointing this out.



They allude to that to appease the HTIB consumers, on the other end of the stick to those in the industry with the software to make Atmos sound mixes, the spec is full range audio objects,...…..but for most it will not matter, so you are correct. and they can be bass managed into another channel to make most happy as you pointed out.



But when making Atmos the spec is full range audio objects...…..so it is technically full range, even though most people will be happy with a 80hz crossover from a smaller speaker.


You know this is AVS, there is a large thread starting about measuring down to 20hz in the Atmos channels, taking advantage of that or even mattering to some is another issue, but the content does exist....


----------



## unretarded

Hostility said:


> I picked up John wick earlier for $10, tested out the club scene but didn’t hear much from the atmos speakers. But I did near the end where they fight outside in the rain and the thunderstorm sounds above me.
> 
> I tested out the atmos clips from online and the amaze one is awesome! Def enjoyed that and the thunder part made my subs move! Right after the wife txtd me from upstairs saying I’m shaking the whole house 🙂.
> I want to try and see how the upmix sounds on reg. Blu-ray’s



Keep in mind those demos are mixed crazy hot compared to most content in the Atmos speakers. They are to show what`s possible and what it is capable of.


We are at the mercy of content creators...directors/artists as to what those speakers reproduce and how loud. Many content creators feel hot mixed Atmos is akin to cheap parlor tricks...….if we had those same people mix the demo material, that whirly bird falling from the tree would barely be audible as they like to focus content creation on as realistic as possible sounds.


Some people run the Atmos speakers up to 6bd hotter than calibration at first to make up for this...…..


----------



## Onward74

A Quiet Place has some good use of overheads, like when the family is in the basement and the monsters are on the floor above. Should be on the demo material list


----------



## Hostility

unretarded said:


> Hostility said:
> 
> 
> 
> I picked up John wick earlier for $10, tested out the club scene but didn’t hear much from the atmos speakers. But I did near the end where they fight outside in the rain and the thunderstorm sounds above me.
> 
> I tested out the atmos clips from online and the amaze one is awesome! Def enjoyed that and the thunder part made my subs move! Right after the wife txtd me from upstairs saying I’m shaking the whole house 🙂.
> I want to try and see how the upmix sounds on reg. Blu-ray’s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind those demos are mixed crazy hot compared to most content in the Atmos speakers. They are to show what`s possible and what it is capable of.
> 
> 
> We are at the mercy of content creators...directors/artists as to what those speakers reproduce and how loud. Many content creators feel hot mixed Atmos is akin to cheap parlor tricks...….if we had those same people mix the demo material, that whirly bird falling from the tree would barely be audible as they like to focus content creation on as realistic as possible sounds.
> 
> 
> Some people run the Atmos speakers up to 6bd hotter than calibration at first to make up for this...…..
Click to expand...

Oh for sure. I feel when I watch an atmos movie it’s more like the bubble sound where you feel like it’s more 3d. Just sounds cool when it’s quiet and something happens above you in a scene. I feel like I need to re buy some movies that have been remastered now lol


----------



## DaveMcLain

kbarnes701 said:


> Not to mention _Mission Impossible: Fallout_. The helicopter scenes near the end of the movie are outstanding for their use of the overhead speakers almost constantly.


Yes. And I when I rented that title on Blu-Ray from Red Box it came with the Atmos audio track too.


----------



## jsgrise

Hostility said:


> I picked up John wick earlier for $10, tested out the club scene but didn’t hear much from the atmos speakers. But I did near the end where they fight outside in the rain and the thunderstorm sounds above me.
> 
> I tested out the atmos clips from online and the amaze one is awesome! Def enjoyed that and the thunder part made my subs move! Right after the wife txtd me from upstairs saying I’m shaking the whole house 🙂.
> I want to try and see how the upmix sounds on reg. Blu-ray’s


Watched Transformers: Dark of the Moon in Atmos last night, demo material from start to finish. The combat scenes in Chicago will give your overheads a good workout!


----------



## kbarnes701

It's interesting how most people are very focused on Atmos's height speaker capabilities. I can't ever recall anyone on AVS asking _"Can you name some titles than make really good use of the Surround Back speakers?"_

When I first installed rear surround speakers, moving up from 5.1, I can't consciously remember obsessing about hearing them light up all the time. I guess I was just happy they were there, contributing to the overall immersiveness of the sound. So I think it is important to remember that object-based mixing is about a lot more than simply sounds coming from over our heads. Sure, that is the USP of the system and its most strikingly obvious new feature. But object-based sound also gives the mixer the opportunity to be far more _precise _with where he or she places sounds in a three-dimensional soundscape, and also with how s/he moves those sounds around that soundscape. To me, an imaging geek, this is at least as important as hearing sounds obviously emanating from above me. I am not so much looking for the latter as seeking an overall level of immersion which I have never enjoyed before, with the added reality of precision imaging in all planes and ultra-realistic movement of sound through the theater.

Many Atmos soundtracks don't have much opportunity to make use of the overhead speakers due to the nature of the story. I cited earlier _Paddington 2 _as one I watched just recently. Yet that is a wonderful soundtrack and it adds immensely to the overall enjoyment of the movie. Other times, we see criticism because the listener expects sounds to come from above when, in reality, they don't. We just discussed rainfall for example, which has little to no sound of its own and only makes a noise on contact with something. Storms (as in _Everest_) can be a mixed bag too: rain, again makes no no noise above us unless it hits something above us; wind is nebulous by nature; thunder is expected to come from above. But what seems to matter to me is the level of overall immersion - we want that storm to be all around us and above us when realistic, but surely not all the time? Justified criticism is when the movie really does offer great opportunities for overhead sounds and yet there are none. An example of this would be the _Transformers:Age of Extinction_ movie released just as Atmos started to appear on disc. Massive opportunities to feature overhead sounds yet, if one isolated the overhead speakers, very, very little in them. But that was early days and things are constantly improving as mixers gain more experience with the hardware and the techniques.

So maybe the focus solely (almost) on the overhead speakers is something that will settle down over time and instead we'll just focus on whether it's a great soundtrack or not (as we did prior to Atmos when nobody really went looking for movies with 'terrific rear surround effects')? I guess we will see.

Happy Christmas to those for whom Christmas has a special meaning and Very Happy Holidays to everyone.


----------



## jsgrise

kbarnes701 said:


> It's interesting how most people are very focused on Atmos's height speaker capabilities. I can't ever recall anyone on AVS asking _"Can you name some titles than make really good use of the Surround Back speakers?"_
> 
> When I first installed rear surround speakers, moving up from 5.1, I can't consciously remember obsessing about hearing them light up all the time. I guess I was just happy they were there, contributing to the overall immersiveness of the sound. So I think it is important to remember that object-based mixing is about a lot more than simply sounds coming from over our heads. Sure, that is the USP of the system and its most strikingly obvious new feature. But object-based sound also gives the mixer the opportunity to be far more _precise _with where he or she places sounds in a three-dimensional soundscape, and also with how s/he moves those sounds around that soundscape. To me, an imaging geek, this is at least as important as hearing sounds obviously emanating from above me. I am not so much looking for the latter as seeking an overall level of immersion which I have never enjoyed before, with the added reality of precision imaging in all planes and ultra-realistic movement of sound through the theater.
> 
> Many Atmos soundtracks don't have much opportunity to make use of the overhead speakers due to the nature of the story. I cited earlier _Paddington 2 _as one I watched just recently. Yet that is a wonderful soundtrack and it adds immensely to the overall enjoyment of the movie. Other times, we see criticism because the listener expects sounds to come from above when, in reality, they don't. We just discussed rainfall for example, which has little to no sound of its own and only makes a noise on contact with something. Storms (as in _Everest_) can be a mixed bag too: rain, again makes no no noise above us unless it hits something above us; wind is nebulous by nature; thunder is expected to come from above. But what seems to matter to me is the level of overall immersion - we want that storm to be all around us and above us when realistic, but surely not all the time? Justified criticism is when the movie really does offer great opportunities for overhead sounds and yet there are none. An example of this would be the _Transformers:Age of Extinction_ movie released just as Atmos started to appear on disc. Massive opportunities to feature overhead sounds yet, if one isolated the overhead speakers, very, very little in them. But that was early days and things are constantly improving as mixers gain more experience with the hardware and the techniques.
> 
> So maybe the focus solely (almost) on the overhead speakers is something that will settle down over time and instead we'll just focus on whether it's a great soundtrack or not (as we did prior to Atmos when nobody really went looking for movies with 'terrific rear surround effects')? I guess we will see.
> 
> Happy Christmas to those for whom Christmas has a special meaning and Very Happy Holidays to everyone.


Spot on!

To me the big advantage of Dolby Atmos (or immersive audio) is all about placement of audio objets in a 3D space, which you cannot really do without Height channels.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It's interesting how most people are very focused on Atmos's height speaker capabilities.


That's because most people don't use enough speakers to take advantage of the object-based scaling of Atmos, so the main difference most people notice (compared to surround sound) is the addition of a height layer. Sure there are lots of sounds floating between speakers, but that's been with us since the invention of stereo almost 90 years ago (never needed objects to create precise placement and phantom imaging).


----------



## kbarnes701

jsgrise said:


> Spot on!
> 
> To me the big advantage of Dolby Atmos (or immersive audio) is all about placement of audio objets in a 3D space, which you cannot really do without Height channels.


Sure thing. It's the focus on hearing stuff from the overhead speakers that is strange, this far in. It will settle for sure and this thread will fade away I guess, once three-dimensional sound is 'normal', like 5.1 or 7.1 is.

Mind you, there was never endless discussion about how to place surround speakers AFAIK


----------



## Jonas2

Hostility said:


> Oh for sure. I feel when I watch an atmos movie it’s more like the bubble sound where you feel like it’s more 3d. Just sounds cool when it’s quiet and something happens above you in a scene. I feel like I need to re buy some movies that have been remastered now lol



Well, before you do that, upmix your *oldies* and see how they do before you spend all new money! I know what you mean, but a lot of stuff does sound pretty good upmixed. Not exactly the same as Atmos, but in my case, often good enough to not have to reinvest!


----------



## jsgrise

Jonas2 said:


> Well, before you do that, upmix your *oldies* and see how they do before you spend all new money! I know what you mean, but a lot of stuff does sound pretty good upmixed. Not exactly the same as Atmos, but in my case, often good enough to not have to reinvest!




Very true. Last night I was watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon only to realize half way in that I was listening to the TrueHD core upmixed in Neural:X and I thought it sounded fantastic.

When I engaged Atmos, it sounded more natural, but Neural:X or DSU can make wonders for vintage 5.1/7.1 mix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hollnagel

jsgrise said:


> Very true. Last night I was watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon only to realize half way in that I was listening to the TrueHD core upmixed in Neural:X and I thought it sounded fantastic.
> 
> When I engaged Atmos, it sounded more natural, but Neural:X or DSU can make wonders for vintage 5.1/7.1 mix.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I’ve found the Neural X works well for me also.


----------



## jsgrise

Hollnagel said:


> I’ve found the Neural X works well for me also.




Yep, with Front Wides I like Neural:X for movies. Without Front Wides or for music, I prefer DSU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Happy Holidays everyone!


----------



## thehun

Merry Christmas!


----------



## jsgrise

Merry Christmas to all Home Theater OCDs here at AVS!  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MTMSPA

I have use in ceiling speakers for my rear surround speakers and the couch is in the middle of the basement. Can I use in celing speakers and in ceiling Atmos? It looks like the surrounds could go a couple feet behind the couch and the Atmos in front. They would be about 4 feet apart. Will this work?


----------



## jsgrise

MTMSPA said:


> I have use in ceiling speakers for my rear surround speakers and the couch is in the middle of the basement. Can I use in celing speakers and in ceiling Atmos? It looks like the surrounds could go a couple feet behind the couch and the Atmos in front. They would be about 4 feet apart. Will this work?


It would defeat the purpose of Atmos of 3D sound achieved by having speakers on different axis (Front/Back, Left/Right and UP/DOWN). I would stick with regular 5.1 or 7.1 in that case.


----------



## MTMSPA

jsgrise said:


> It would defeat the purpose of Atmos of 3D sound achieved by having speakers on different axis (Front/Back, Left/Right and UP/DOWN). I would stick with regular 5.1 or 7.1 in that case.


I could do wall mount rears, but they would be 9feet behind the couch, which is about the same distance from my LCR KLipsch. Then I could do ATMOS, right?


----------



## jsgrise

MTMSPA said:


> I could do wall mount rears, but they would be 9feet behind the couch, which is about the same distance from my LCR KLipsch. Then I could do ATMOS, right?




It would be worth trying yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jonas2

MTMSPA said:


> I could do wall mount rears, but they would be 9feet behind the couch, which is about the same distance from my LCR KLipsch. Then I could do ATMOS, right?



That's totally fine, 9' feet is not a problem - but, do pay attention to Dolby's recommended placement/angles for all of those speakers to optimize your experience!


----------



## MTMSPA

Jonas2 said:


> That's totally fine, 9' feet is not a problem - but, do pay attention to Dolby's recommended placement/angles for all of those speakers to optimize your experience!


Better to mount them at ear level as opposed to high up by the ceiling?


----------



## Gabre

Yes, u could put them slightly above ear level. Few inches and tilt down


----------



## Jonas2

MTMSPA said:


> Better to mount them at ear level as opposed to high up by the ceiling?



Yep, or slightly above like Gabre mentioned. Dolby covers all of this nicely on their site....


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> It's interesting how most people are very focused on Atmos's height speaker capabilities.


Ok, I am "that" guy. I want movies to rain down merciless, decibel-terror upon me while basking me in Atmos glory. Pfffff to all you ambiance, expansive sound bubble guys. One word for all of you sophisticated, fine-wine-audio, city folk - BORING......


----------



## Gary J

Molon_Labe said:


> Ok, I am "that" guy. I want movies to rain down merciless, decibel-terror upon me while basking me in Atmos glory. Pfffff to all you ambiance, expansive sound bubble guys. One word for all of you sophisticated, fine-wine-audio, city folk - BORING......



I always wonder with posts like this if these are one person HTs or everyone else in the room needs to like this personal preference vs. reference or they are just out of luck.


----------



## Jonas2

Molon_Labe said:


> Ok, I am "that" guy. I want movies to rain down merciless, decibel-terror upon me while basking me in Atmos glory. Pfffff to all you ambiance, expansive sound bubble guys. One word for all of you sophisticated, fine-wine-audio, city folk - BORING......



Yeah....I'll admit, the Hallmark channel combo of 24/7 chick flicks and Christmas movies 365 days a year don't really do Atmos justice......


----------



## gwsat

Molon_Labe said:


> Ok, I am "that" guy. I want movies to rain down merciless, decibel-terror upon me while basking me in Atmos glory. Pfffff to all you ambiance, expansive sound bubble guys. One word for all of you sophisticated, fine-wine-audio, city folk - BORING......


Absolutely! It's time to call a spade a GD spade and not a spadey wadey! More seriously, I like for my system to make things shake rattle and roll too.


----------



## jsgrise

What I would like to see in an Atmos demo is a split scene with on one side the movie content and on the other side a paner window where you can see the objects (tennis balls) moving.

Or maybe that already exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

Molon_Labe said:


> Ok, I am "that" guy. I want movies to rain down merciless, decibel-terror upon me while basking me in Atmos glory. Pfffff to all you ambiance, expansive sound bubble guys. One word for all of you sophisticated, fine-wine-audio, city folk - BORING......





gwsat said:


> Absolutely! It's time to call a spade a GD spade and not a spadey wadey! More seriously, I like for my system to make things shake rattle and roll too.



I'm that guy too!

However, I was recently informed (months after the fact) that it was too loud and a friend went home with a headache. So now I always give a pre-movie disclaimer that I play them loud and if someone finds it TOO loud then I will absolutely turn it down for them...they just have to say something.

Luckily, that's a non-issue 99% of the time as I don't usually have guests joining me and the ones that do (usually) like it loud too.

Well, Merry Christmas everybody!


----------



## unretarded

Gary J said:


> I always wonder with posts like this if these are one person HTs or everyone else in the room needs to like this personal preference vs. reference or they are just out of luck.




Most of the other people who have ever been in my room are tv speaker at best soundbar users...…...they have no valid personal preference and do not even know what reference is or means.

Either way it is a treat for them, no matter if it is some skewed version of sound calibrated to my personal tastes, I am pretty sure shaking drinks and remotes off the recliners built in TV trays is not reference in any way, but they all leave bug eyed with tales of that crazy sound/theater where the walls bow and the seating shakes ones eyes enough to not be able to focus on the screen when the bass drops and sounds come from above them.


I think a couple might even have some temp PTSD from the war flicks/shoot out scenes as it is a slight bit scary with the crazy bass when a bomb goes off or the mid bass impacts from gunfire......



Atmos progression was install equipment....happy happy, listen to demo where sounds are 5 times louder than real life with glorious sounds from above....pop in a movie and was like, where did the glorious overhead sounds go,,,,bumped 4 db, then 8db, then 10db....glorious sounds are back to demo levels. 5 movies later pulled the heights back to 6db hot,5 movies later bumped them down to 3db hot and now they go from reference to 3 db hot depending on the film.



I equate this to be like buying a top fuel dragster then doing 65mph back and forth to work...it is going to leave you yearning to unleash, but after a few trips to the track with it, commuting at 65 is way more bearable.


Atmos gets hyped up, then the demo material sets unrealistic expectations with crazy hot mixes, then by the time a movie gets played it is a letdown at first, then after 10 or so movies and few months the true nature and nuances reveal themselves and become appreciated more....



I am not alone in having unrealistic expectations entering into Atmos......it gets hyped and promoted as bullhorns from the heavens,projects that image anyway, when it is not that at all.....its only later after the where are my bullhorns wears off that the appreciation for what it really is happens. But a lot of us still yearn for the bullhorns from the heavens we originally falsely believed would happen.


----------



## Travinsky

*Options to upgrade atmos speakers on vaulted ceiling?*

Hi all and hoping I am asking in the right forum. I have Martin Logan LX-16 (LCR and surrounds) and small Energy sats in atmos due to easy surface mounting on vaulted ceiling. Does anyone recommend a good sound with 60Hz bass that is lightweight and swivel/gimbal style that can rotate 45° or maybe something with a bracket. House is wired for 4 atmos speakers but I am unable to get into attic to mount anything between the rafters. Here's a pic of my fronts and ceiling. Thanks


----------



## MTMSPA

Last question. Can I use a pair of klipsch R-620F floor speakers for my rears and fronts? Or are they only front speaker.? Then I could do ceiling Atmos speakers.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

MTMSPA said:


> Last question. Can I use a pair of klipsch R-620F floor speakers for my rears and fronts? Or are they only front speaker.? Then I could do ceiling Atmos speakers.


I use Klipsh CHorus II's for my rears (I have a 7.1.4 setup, 4x chrous II's, 2 in the front, 2 in the rear with Klipsch surrounds on the sides. 

Yes, you can use those as rears. Though some may say it's overkill since surround and rear surround speakers usually aren't reproducing sounds at lower frequencies than what could be delivered by a bookshelf (even if lower frequencies are sent to those speakers you wouldn't be able to localize the sound anyhow from my understanding), but honestly I think it's kind of cool to surround yourself with tower speakers if possible. So it definitely can't hurt anything except your wallet. I'm curious if anyone else with tower rears has an opinion? 

One thing I like about the Klipsh you have for the rear is that the tweeter is very high, which I think is advantageous for a rear speaker especially since it's a horn, less likely to get cut off by your chair or couch. Though I'm not as big of a fan as something like the RF7 for front speakers, I find that I have to sit very upright to get the sonic sweet spot because the horn is so high up (When I listen to music I sit on the couch where I slouch a bit).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

kbarnes701 said:


> It's interesting how most people are very focused on Atmos's height speaker capabilities. I can't ever recall anyone on AVS asking _"Can you name some titles than make really good use of the Surround Back speakers?"_
> 
> When I first installed rear surround speakers, moving up from 5.1, I can't consciously remember obsessing about hearing them light up all the time. I guess I was just happy they were there, contributing to the overall immersiveness of the sound. So I think it is important to remember that object-based mixing is about a lot more than simply sounds coming from over our heads. Sure, that is the USP of the system and its most strikingly obvious new feature. But object-based sound also gives the mixer the opportunity to be far more _precise _with where he or she places sounds in a three-dimensional soundscape, and also with how s/he moves those sounds around that soundscape. To me, an imaging geek, this is at least as important as hearing sounds obviously emanating from above me. I am not so much looking for the latter as seeking an overall level of immersion which I have never enjoyed before, with the added reality of precision imaging in all planes and ultra-realistic movement of sound through the theater.
> 
> Many Atmos soundtracks don't have much opportunity to make use of the overhead speakers due to the nature of the story. I cited earlier _Paddington 2 _as one I watched just recently. Yet that is a wonderful soundtrack and it adds immensely to the overall enjoyment of the movie. Other times, we see criticism because the listener expects sounds to come from above when, in reality, they don't. We just discussed rainfall for example, which has little to no sound of its own and only makes a noise on contact with something. Storms (as in _Everest_) can be a mixed bag too: rain, again makes no no noise above us unless it hits something above us; wind is nebulous by nature; thunder is expected to come from above. But what seems to matter to me is the level of overall immersion - we want that storm to be all around us and above us when realistic, but surely not all the time? Justified criticism is when the movie really does offer great opportunities for overhead sounds and yet there are none. An example of this would be the _Transformers:Age of Extinction_ movie released just as Atmos started to appear on disc. Massive opportunities to feature overhead sounds yet, if one isolated the overhead speakers, very, very little in them. But that was early days and things are constantly improving as mixers gain more experience with the hardware and the techniques.
> 
> So maybe the focus solely (almost) on the overhead speakers is something that will settle down over time and instead we'll just focus on whether it's a great soundtrack or not (as we did prior to Atmos when nobody really went looking for movies with 'terrific rear surround effects')? I guess we will see.
> 
> Happy Christmas to those for whom Christmas has a special meaning and Very Happy Holidays to everyone.


I enjoy movies with good rear sounds, and would be curious to hear about some picks from people who have heard some stuff going on behind. 

The 2nd planet of the Apes film has some FANTASTIC rear stuff going on/ monkeys screaching from behind which sounded amazingly realistic. 
Harry Potter (at least the first two) made some use out of that though I'm aware that's DTS X Mix, I don't have a DTS X decorder so I watched in upscaled 7.1


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Ok, I am "that" guy. I want movies to rain down merciless, decibel-terror upon me while basking me in Atmos glory. Pfffff to all you ambiance, expansive sound bubble guys. One word for all of you sophisticated, fine-wine-audio, city folk - BORING......


LOL! Chris, you're an _animal_!


----------



## vadergr

Can someone confirm the specs of Dolby Atmos when streamed on Netflix? 
Is the bitrate/specs equal to the one found on UHD retail discs?


----------



## Molon_Labe

unretarded said:


> But a lot of us still yearn for the bullhorns from the heavens we originally falsely believed would happen.


The hot mix on the Atmos demo disc ruined me. I always favored movies with hot surround mixes prior to Atmos. Oblivion and Saving Private Ryan were some of my all time favorites. My earlier post wasn't about listening to movies loud because I normally listen at around -7 to -10. It was more about wanting more from the mix. I prefer the mixes that light up all the channels often throughout the movie. I know there are times when less is more, but I tend to prefer more.


----------



## jsgrise

vadergr said:


> Can someone confirm the specs of Dolby Atmos when streamed on Netflix?
> Is the bitrate/specs equal to the one found on UHD retail discs?


Netflix Atmos is streamed in Dolby Digital Plus (lossy cmpression) at a bitrate of 448 kb/s usually. BD UHD Atmos is based on the TrueHD (lossless compression) track that have much higher bitrate and can reach 9 000kb/s +.


----------



## biglen

Before I cut the holes to add top middle speakers to my 5.1 setup, does anyone see an issue that my one top middle speaker will be too close to the one surround speaker? If you look at the photo, you can see the tops of my 4 movie recliners, so I'd want to install the top middles above the 2 end recliners, for the best sound in my opinion. If I mount the one top middle above the recliner in the left of the picture, will that be too close to that surround speaker?


----------



## mtbdudex

biglen said:


> Before I cut the holes to add top middle speakers to my 5.1 setup, does anyone see an issue that my one top middle speaker will be too close to the one surround speaker? If you look at the photo, you can see the tops of my 4 movie recliners, so I'd want to install the top middles above the 2 end recliners, for the best sound in my opinion. If I mount the one top middle above the recliner in the left of the picture, will that be too close to that surround speaker?




Lower those surrounds to slightly above ear level, angle them down to MLP, then install your ceiling speakers .
You need separation surrounds to ceiling to experience the audio immersion 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## biglen

mtbdudex said:


> Lower those surrounds to slightly above ear level, angle them down to MLP, then install your ceiling speakers .
> You need separation surrounds to ceiling to experience the audio immersion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I can't angle those surrounds. They can only be mounted facing the way they are.


----------



## rontalley

kbarnes701 said:


> Don't move the side surrounds back -- move them forwards.
> 
> As well as helping with the distraction issue you will also find that moving them to the 80 degree position (roughly) will help 'close the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds and should help with a better sense of immersion too. Many of us with 7.x.4 systems prefer this location for the side surrounds, which is also in line with ITU specs for surround placement.
> 
> Remember to re-run your auto-calibration syste, (Audyssey, Dirac Live etc) after moving the speakers.





sdurani said:


> With one pair of surrounds (Rears) behind me, I wouldn't put a second pair of surrounds (Sides) back there as well. Instead, placing the Sides slightly forward of the listening position (around ±75-80°) will yield more spaciousness and greater side-vs-rear separation and better wrap-around envelopment in the surround field.


100% agree with this.


----------



## unretarded

biglen said:


> Before I cut the holes to add top middle speakers to my 5.1 setup, does anyone see an issue that my one top middle speaker will be too close to the one surround speaker? If you look at the photo, you can see the tops of my 4 movie recliners, so I'd want to install the top middles above the 2 end recliners, for the best sound in my opinion. If I mount the one top middle above the recliner in the left of the picture, will that be too close to that surround speaker?



I would advice a temp ceiling mount to nail down a perfect location.


After moving my on ceilings several times now, I found the first locations to be lacking and did not offer the best performance in my room.



I ended up moving them closer together by about 2 feet over original spacing and back towards directly over the top of the seating.....by both moving my ceiling speakers and seating...…


That's why I recommend on ceiling....unless you are in a dedicated room with fixed seating locations and know exactly the best overhead location...….best to give it a test run first before making those cuts and moving around a bit to nail down the best it can be for your room.


...or you can just put them in according to spec and be happy.


----------



## rontalley

biglen said:


> I can't angle those surrounds. They can only be mounted facing the way they are.


Seems like you can turn them on their side to angle down? Seems like doing it that way, the back row will benefit as well...


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> If I mount the one top middle above the recliner in the left of the picture, will that be too close to that surround speaker?


Yes, there won't be any meaningful separation between sounds around you versus sounds above you, since those speaker will be right next to each other. You can't place your surrounds lower on the side walls because the door will hit one of them. So, I would move the surrounds to the back wall, mounted just above seating height, spread as far apart as possible (left surround butted up against the door frame, right surround at or near the corner). This will make them symmetrical to the seating (though not symmetrical to the room, since your entire seating area is shifted over). How many height speakers will you be installing: 2 or 4?


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> Yes, there won't be any meaningful separation between sounds around you versus sounds above you, since those speaker will be right next to each other. You can't place your surrounds lower on the side walls because the door will hit one of them. So, I would move the surrounds to the back wall, mounted just above seating height, spread as far apart as possible (left surround butted up against the door frame, right surround at or near the corner). This will make them symmetrical to the seating (though not symmetrical to the room, since your entire seating area is shifted over). How many height speakers will you be installing: 2 or 4?



I'm installing 2 height speakers. Can I use those same surrounds to put behind my MLP? Will they be as effective as they are mounted now? The pic shows the type of surround speaker it is.


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> Can I use those same surrounds to put behind my MLP?


Yes.


> Will they be as effective as they are mounted now?


No. You have to decide whether to compromise surround placement or compromise the Atmos effect (separation between base layer vs height layer). Your type of surround speakers are intended to go directly to the sides of the listeners' ears. Looks like yours are slightly forward of that, so they weren't being all that effective. Will be a small compromise to move them to the back wall, but there will be a big benefit to separating the surrounds vs the heights.


> I'm installing 2 height speakers.


In that case, I would place them at least 2-3 feet forward of your listening position so that they better fill the gap between the fronts and surrounds.


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> Yes. No. You have to decide whether to compromise surround placement or compromise the Atmos effect (separation between base layer vs height layer). Your type of surround speakers are intended to go directly to the sides of the listeners' ears. Looks like yours are slightly forward of that, so they weren't being all that effective. Will be a small compromise to move them to the back wall, but there will be a big benefit to separating the surrounds vs the heights. In that case, I would place them at least 2-3 feet forward of your listening position so that they better fill the gap between the fronts and surrounds.


I'm not opposed to getting new rear surrounds, if there's a better option than the ones I have. How about in walls to the left and right of the MLP, like where my surrounds are now, but I'll put them lower, closer to ear level.


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> How about in walls to the left and right of the MLP, like where my surrounds are now, but I'll put them lower, closer to ear level.


That would be great. Mount the in-walls slightly above ear height. Also, move them back to the corners for more diffuse/enveloping sound. When using only 2 surrounds, they're supposed to a little rearward of the listening area, around ±110° from centre.


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> That would be great. Mount the in-walls slightly above ear height. Also, move them back to the corners for more diffuse/enveloping sound. When using only 2 surrounds, they're supposed to a little rearward of the listening area, around ±110° from centre.


Here's a pic of what the back of my Media Room looks like. The movie recliners are against the back wall. Looking at the pic you posted, I wouldn't be able to put the surround in-walls behind the MLP, like they are in the diagram. Looking at my space, what looks like the best option for rear surrounds and 2 Atmos ceiling speakers? Like I said, I'm open to buying new speakers if need be.


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> Looking at my space, what looks like the best option for rear surrounds and 2 Atmos ceiling speakers?


In-wall surrounds, mounted just above ear height *on the side walls*, as far back as possible (as close to the corner as you can get).


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> In-wall surrounds, mounted just above ear height *on the side walls*, as far back as possible (as close to the corner as you can get).


And where would be a good spot for the 2 ceiling Atmos speakers?


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> And where would be a good spot for the 2 ceiling Atmos speakers?


Hasn't changed from a few posts back:


sdurani said:


> I would place them at least 2-3 feet forward of your listening position so that they better fill the gap between the fronts and surrounds.


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> Hasn't changed from a few posts back:


Thanks, but now I'm back to square one. The genius who finished my basement, used 2x3s instead of 2x4s, so I don't think I can get an in-wall into that small space. 😡


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> I don't think I can get an in-wall into that small space.


The only reason I mentioned in-walls is because you brought it up:


biglen said:


> How about in walls to the left and right of the MLP, like where my surrounds are now, but I'll put them lower, closer to ear level.


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> The only reason I mentioned in-walls is because you brought it up:


Is there any other option out there besides using in-walls?


----------



## Candid

biglen said:


> Is there any other option out there besides using in-walls?



You are already using an option that does not involve in-wall. You can mount them on the wall with speaker mounts.


----------



## unretarded

sdurani said:


>



That picture is exactly where I started and last move of the ceiling speakers have them about 2 to 2.5 feet closer together, approx. 1 foot in on each speaker.....from the side walls, farther from the sides,closer together in the middle.


Which could be my room or my speakers, that's why I suggested temp mounting them and move them around a little, try 6 inches to a foot in each direction from the pictures location of them.... 



If you mark a center for the top right speaker based on that picture and from that center with a 24 inch string and draw a circle, some where in there should get you perfect, it could be exactly like the picture shows or not...….selected speaker, ceiling height, room characteristics etc could all play a role in them sounding better in that circle.




Just a suggestion, might not be worth the trouble to you, but that's how you find out, too many variables to predict to say X marks the spot and have it be the best spot, although it will probably be a decent to good spot.


----------



## lax01

Can someone remind me the optimal crossover for the Klipsch RP-140SA that was previously suggested...I re-ran Audyssey and forgot I had played with the crossover 

Also, it was suggested to bring the levels up +4dB, correct?

Thanks!


----------



## biglen

Candid said:


> You are already using an option that does not involve in-wall. You can mount them on the wall with speaker mounts.


I understand that, and they are wall mounted. They aren't in the proper position for an Atmos setup, so that's why I'm looking for an alternative. If I lower them to ear level, the person sitting in the chair closest to the wall, will be banging into it. That's why I was thinking in-walls, because they are flush with the wall.


----------



## Gabre

biglen said:


> Thanks, but now I'm back to square one. The genius who finished my basement, used 2x3s instead of 2x4s, so I don't think I can get an in-wall into that small space.


You still have 6 or 8 inches of floor joists above those 2x3s unless it's concrete above?


----------



## biglen

Gabre said:


> You still have 6 or 8 inches of floor joists above those 2x3s unless it's concrete above?


Correct. I have space in the ceiling, but not in the walls.


----------



## Gabre

Theres a lot slim wall mount speakers out there.


----------



## GPBURNS

sprins said:


> A good Atmos showcase is available on Netflix now: Roma; by Alfonso Cuaron (who also directed Gravity). The Atmos mix is on par with the mix on Gravity, if not better. It’s a completely different themed movie though.


By far most active surround film ever watched - all 11 speakers constant activity - sitting in sound bubble. 
Really nice showcase for well set up room – not only 11 speakers but phantom imaging side to side – up and down – front to back – quite something-many scenes of circle panning – 
Birds / dogs /planes/people/kids /cars etc - everything everywhere - 

director on Atmos


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> Is there any other option out there besides using in-walls?


Yes, as you said, back to square one:


sdurani said:


> You can't place your surrounds lower on the side walls because the door will hit one of them. So, I would move the surrounds to the back wall, mounted just above seating height, spread as far apart as possible (left surround butted up against the door frame, right surround at or near the corner). This will make them symmetrical to the seating (though not symmetrical to the room, since your entire seating area is shifted over).


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> Yes, as you said, back to square one:


How about 2 ceiling speakers above the MLP for surround, and 2 Atmos in the ceiling, more towards the middle of the room? Would that be better than surrounds on the back wall, and Atmos in the ceiling, right above the MLP?


----------



## sdurani

biglen said:


> How about 2 ceiling speakers above the MLP for surround, and 2 Atmos in the ceiling, more towards the middle of the room? Would that be better than surrounds on the back wall, and Atmos in the ceiling, right above the MLP?


Like asking if it is OK to put the height speakers at ear level, just more towards the middle of the room. Atmos is about separating sounds around you from sounds above you. If you're coming up with new ideas, like the one you mentioned above, that attempt to eliminate the separation between those two layers, then you should really re-think doing an Atmos set-up. It's like wanting to say you have an Atmos set-up when you really don't. 

Imagine someone asks you for suggestions for 5.1 speaker placement, but they keep shooting down your suggestions and instead try to figure out different ways to keep all 5 speakers on the front wall. After going back and forth several times, you'd eventually have to admit they really don't want surround sound, because they keep coming up with new ideas that attempt to eliminate any separation between the front speakers and surround speakers. What would you do at that point?


----------



## jpfe8851

biglen said:


> How about 2 ceiling speakers above the MLP for surround, and 2 Atmos in the ceiling, more towards the middle of the room? Would that be better than surrounds on the back wall, and Atmos in the ceiling, right above the MLP?


 @biglen, the best place for your surrounds are in the corners behind the sofa. Now that door... can it be rehung to open outwards? Or swapped for an in-wall slider? The speakers may still be a nuisance during ingress with the slider but you could choose some low profile speakers over the ones you have. Then as others have said the in-ceiling Atmos speakers should be 3ft in front of the sofa.

Whatever the solution, for Atmos you need to adhere basically to the layouts Dolby have for the sounds to envelop your MLP, as others have pointed out.


----------



## petetherock

I'm in the process of building a new den, and I wonder how much do others here deviate from the ascribed 30 degree angle from the midline for the Atmos ceiling speakers?
I know there's a range, but how much do you all push it? 

Thanks


----------



## biglen

sdurani said:


> Like asking if it is OK to put the height speakers at ear level, just more towards the middle of the room. Atmos is about separating sounds around you from sounds above you. If you're coming up with new ideas, like the one you mentioned above, that attempt to eliminate the separation between those two layers, then you should really re-think doing an Atmos set-up. It's like wanting to say you have an Atmos set-up when you really don't.
> 
> Imagine someone asks you for suggestions for 5.1 speaker placement, but they keep shooting down your suggestions and instead try to figure out different ways to keep all 5 speakers on the front wall. After going back and forth several times, you'd eventually have to admit they really don't want surround sound, because they keep coming up with new ideas that attempt to eliminate any separation between the front speakers and surround speakers. What would you do at that point?


I didn't want to come off like I was shooting down your answers. I was just trying to think of all my options. I like to gather as much info as possible, before I start a project. I really appreciate all the info you provided, and I'm truly sorry if I came off as blowing off your suggestions.


----------



## biglen

I found these shallow mount Polks, so I'm going to mount them to the walls, to the left and right of the MLP, right around ear level, and as far back as I can, then mount the 2 Atmos speakers 3ft forward of the MLP. I'll adjust the tweeters so they are facing the MLP. Sound like a good plan?

https://www.polkaudio.com/products/rc65i


----------



## Chirosamsung

petetherock said:


> I'm in the process of building a new den, and I wonder how much do others here deviate from the ascribed 30 degree angle from the midline for the Atmos ceiling speakers?
> I know there's a range, but how much do you all push it?
> 
> Thanks


Totally didn’t know there was a spec for the angle to the heights from the midline...I’m thinking my layout of overheads is a lot wider then 30 degrees but not installed yet but prewire run and cutouts made. Hope that’s not an issue if they are wider...they are lined up with the front towers though which I thought was the main thing. Because my room and couch are wider I had to go wider with my towers and height speakers


----------



## batpig

petetherock said:


> I'm in the process of building a new den, and I wonder how much do others here deviate from the ascribed 30 degree angle from the midline for the Atmos ceiling speakers?
> I know there's a range, but how much do you all push it?
> 
> Thanks


There actually isn't a technical spec for horizontal spread (azimuth) for the overhead speakers. Atmos has these speakers lined up as arrays from front to back, so it doesn't totally make sense to think of the azimuth since it will vary based on where you are sitting relative to the array.

All they provide is this loose rule of thumb to "line them up with the front L/R speakers". But there's no need to adhere to that. In a commercial theater the arrays are lined up half-way in between the L/R and C speakers (typically splitting the room around the 1/3 and 2/3 width points), so if you have a huge projected image such that your L/R mains are pushed out near the side walls it's probably better to hew closer to the commercial cinema paradigm vs. the home Atmos rule of thumb.

Basically, you want them wide enough to get a good sense of left/right stereo separation, but not so wide that they are crammed against the side walls and/or too close to the side wall surrounds such that you don't get much angular separation. This is how it's described in the cinema specifications -- note the focus on angular separation from the side wall surrounds as the defining metric.


----------



## unretarded

^^^^

That's where mine ended up after blindly moving them around with no chart like that to follow, thanks !


That end location was based on the best sound location.



The width of the mains left the overheads about 16 inches from the side wall, which gave a odd reflection making the tops seem lower, almost like sides, pushing them closer together got rid of that reflection problem. Which I imagine is common in a lot of home set ups.


----------



## batpig

Yes, I really don't get why Dolby came up with that "in line with your fronts" recommendation. I guess they were just trying to condense everything to simple rules-of-thumb to make it easy for non-technical home end users, but it can create some weird situations in many rooms (e.g. the example I already gave of someone with their front speakers pushed out nearly to the side walls, a not-uncommon situation in small HT rooms).


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I really don't get why Dolby came up with that "in line with your fronts" recommendation.


Our human hearing is not so good above us, so cheating the height speaker spread a little wider probably makes it easier to hear stereo separation up there. Same with recommending surrounds at or near ear level: the exaggerated gap between the surrounds and heights makes it easier to hear vertical separation. Seems the goal is to maximize the Atmos effect at home compared to commercial cinemas. I mean, just look at how high up the surrounds are in the cinema Atmos diagram you posted. What do you get with that placement: sounds above you versus sounds even more above you? Bleh.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Yes, I really don't get why Dolby came up with that "in line with your fronts" recommendation. I guess they were just trying to condense everything to simple rules-of-thumb to make it easy for non-technical home end users, but it can create some weird situations in many rooms (e.g. the example I already gave of someone with their front speakers pushed out nearly to the side walls, a not-uncommon situation in small HT rooms).


So does this also apply to rear in ceiling speakers that are right up against the back wall (maybe 1/2 an inch to an inch from rear wall)? If so I’m not sure what to compromise-the rear seat is already pushed about as far back from the back wall as wife will allow (1.5 feet) and that helps give a bit better rear height angle for the rear heights but for that to happen that means the rear heights will have to be very close to rear wall and I guess I might hear some reflections...? The ceilings are just about 7 feet in the upcoming 5.1.4 and the side surrounds are about 110 degrees and just slightly higher then ear height for tweeters. 

Do not sure which is better-keep the rear heights within Atmos specs and a bit behind couch vs right above but put up with reflections of speaker or have the rear height in ceiling speakers more above listerner and couch which isn’t good placement but avoid reflections off rear wall...

If it helps the speakers I have will have amiable tweeters (15 degrees I believe) so not sure if that would mitigate wall reflections or not....what would you guys recommend?


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> So does this also apply to rear in ceiling speakers that are right up against the back wall (maybe 1/2 an inch to an inch from rear wall)? If so I’m not sure what to compromise-the rear seat is already pushed about as far back from the back wall as wife will allow (1.5 feet) and that helps give a bit better rear height angle for the rear heights but for that to happen that means the rear heights will have to be very close to rear wall and I guess I might hear some reflections...? The ceilings are just about 7 feet in the upcoming 5.1.4 and the side surrounds are about 110 degrees and just slightly higher then ear height for tweeters.
> 
> Do not sure which is better-keep the rear heights within Atmos specs and a bit behind couch vs right above but put up with reflections of speaker or have the rear height in ceiling speakers more above listerner and couch which isn’t good placement but avoid reflections off rear wall...
> 
> If it helps the speakers I have will have amiable tweeters (15 degrees I believe) so not sure if that would mitigate wall reflections or not....what would you guys recommend?


In your case, I think it's vital to have the rear overheads actually BEHIND you so can hear separation vs. overhead sounds in front of you. Yes, having the speaker jammed into the wall/ceiling corner isn't ideal, and you'll get some rear wall reflections (which can be mitigated by aiming the tweeters and/or adding acoustic absorbers), but to me that's worse than having sounds that are supposed to be behind instead be heard in front of you. And having the rear overheads directly over your head will be distracting and make it hard to hear the front overheads (I know this from experience).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

GPBURNS said:


> By far most active surround film ever watched - all 11 speakers constant activity - sitting in sound bubble.
> Really nice showcase for well set up room – not only 11 speakers but phantom imaging side to side – up and down – front to back – quite something-many scenes of circle panning –
> Birds / dogs /planes/people/kids /cars etc - everything everywhere -


Very cool, thanks for the recommendation! I've been wanting to check out something other than action films with Atmos, the only other ones I've seen is the blake lively/ Harris Ford romance movie. I also heard from Sdrucker that the Atmos mix for groundhog day is pretty good. 

People don't take advantage of atmos for "dialogue" scenes which I think is ridiculous, there is a lot to take advantage of even in a plain room, there's always ambient sounds coming from 360 degrees. I think the reason why is that it creates more work for film mixers to work with the atmos medium perhaps?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

The only thing is... how do you watch Roma with Atmos? I don't think I can with my setup... if I recall only netflix premium allows Atmos? I wonder if it will come out on UHD with Atmos?


----------



## GPBURNS

Aras_Volodka said:


> Very cool, thanks for the recommendation! I've been wanting to check out something other than action films with Atmos, the only other ones I've seen is the blake lively/ Harris Ford romance movie. I also heard from Sdrucker that the Atmos mix for groundhog day is pretty good.
> 
> People don't take advantage of atmos for "dialogue" scenes which I think is ridiculous, there is a lot to take advantage of even in a plain room, there's always ambient sounds coming from 360 degrees. I think the reason why is that it creates more work for film mixers to work with the atmos medium perhaps?


that and maybe some directors feel it takes away from movie on screen -can see that side of argument at times


----------



## GPBURNS

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/11/a-star-is-born-bradley-cooper-dolby-atmos-sound-1202020703/


----------



## GPBURNS

Aras_Volodka said:


> Very cool, thanks for the recommendation! I've been wanting to check out something other than action films with Atmos, the only other ones I've seen is the blake lively/ Harris Ford romance movie. I also heard from Sdrucker that the Atmos mix for groundhog day is pretty good.
> 
> People don't take advantage of atmos for "dialogue" scenes which I think is ridiculous, there is a lot to take advantage of even in a plain room, there's always ambient sounds coming from 360 degrees. I think the reason why is that it creates more work for film mixers to work with the atmos medium perhaps?


here is older Danny Boyle interview on Atmos -


----------



## sprins

It’s often the subtlety in an Atmos mix that really does it for me (Gravity, Quiet Place, Roma). With the sci-fi action explosion spectacular it’s nice, but the Atmos extra tends to get lost in all the noise.


----------



## kbarnes701

Aras_Volodka said:


> I enjoy movies with good rear sounds, and would be curious to hear about some picks from people who have heard some stuff going on behind.


OMG. What have I started?


----------



## petetherock

batpig said:


> There actually isn't a technical spec for horizontal spread (azimuth) for the overhead speakers. Atmos has these speakers lined up as arrays from front to back, so it doesn't totally make sense to think of the azimuth since it will vary based on where you are sitting relative to the array.
> 
> All they provide is this loose rule of thumb to "line them up with the front L/R speakers". But there's no need to adhere to that. In a commercial theater the arrays are lined up half-way in between the L/R and C speakers (typically splitting the room around the 1/3 and 2/3 width points), so if you have a huge projected image such that your L/R mains are pushed out near the side walls it's probably better to hew closer to the commercial cinema paradigm vs. the home Atmos rule of thumb.
> 
> Basically, you want them wide enough to get a good sense of left/right stereo separation, but not so wide that they are crammed against the side walls and/or too close to the side wall surrounds such that you don't get much angular separation. This is how it's described in the cinema specifications -- note the focus on angular separation from the side wall surrounds as the defining metric.


Thanks, IIRC, Atmos recommends 30 degrees front to back azimuth too?


----------



## mspears

batpig said:


> In your case, I think it's vital to have the rear overheads actually BEHIND you so can hear separation vs. overhead sounds in front of you. Yes, having the speaker jammed into the wall/ceiling corner isn't ideal, and you'll get some rear wall reflections (which can be mitigated by aiming the tweeters and/or adding acoustic absorbers), but to me that's worse than having sounds that are supposed to be behind instead be heard in front of you. And having the rear overheads directly over your head will be distracting and make it hard to hear the front overheads (I know this from experience).


So, are you saying, 'yes,' jam in-ceilings behind you no matter what? The alternative is worse? (I have a similar problem, and plan to have some swivels or angled in-ceiling to reduce the problem of back-of-the-room seating.) Thanks!


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> OMG. What have I started?


Ha! Yes, this is your fault 

List of movies where the 7.1 mix was vastly better than the 5.1 mix, please!


----------



## stikle

kbarnes701 said:


> OMG. What have I started?


----------



## batpig

mspears said:


> So, are you saying, 'yes,' jam in-ceilings behind you no matter what? The alternative is worse? (I have a similar problem, and plan to have some swivels or angled in-ceiling to reduce the problem of back-of-the-room seating.) Thanks!


That's my opinion, yes. As with many things in HT, there's a balance of compromises, and to me the reduction in quality from having the rear overheads jammed in close to the rear wall is a "lesser evil" than not actually having them behind you. Those are probably the least important speakers in terms of fidelity, but they play an important role in filling in the "bubble" with that gap above and behind you and also creating phantom imaging (with the front overheads) of sounds directly above you.

In my room, I started with TM in-ceiling speakers which were installed above and maybe 1ft in front of the seating. I've since added front overheads about 6' forward, and have experimented with both FH+TM and TF+TR designations. In either case, the pair of speakers directly above really dominates the overhead sound and makes it difficult to hear the front overhead imaging clearly. For example, in the "Audiosphere" demo on the Atmos demo discs, there's all these bells and chimes tinkling overhead... when I'm sitting in my normal sweet spot, I only really hear those two speakers above me. But if I lean forward so my head is more in between the two pairs, I hear the overhead sound as more wraparound and immersive and can clearly discern the front/rear separation.

I've been meaning to swap in some new overheads as true "top rear" speakers -- I've actually got two pairs of Tannoy Di5DC that I bought cheap off eBay just sitting in the corner ready to go -- but I've been lazy and haven't found the time/desire yet to chop some more holes in the ceiling and run the wire.

All that being said, I think it's very important to get the rear pair actually BEHIND you, even if it's only 1-2 feet. If you can't do it, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to have a sub-optimal x.x.4 vs just placing a single pair of TM speakers well for x.x.2.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Atmos question. I am in the process of adding two ceiling speakers for a 5.1.2 setup. The question is, am I not able to select Atmos audio now, because my AVR doesn't have the extra speakers connected and is only configured for 5.1? AVR is a Denon X3500H. I would think I'd be able to select Atmos audio, even though I know I'd be missing any height sounds. Just wondering.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Atmos question. I am in the process of adding two ceiling speakers for a 5.1.2 setup. The question is, am I not able to select Atmos audio now, because my AVR doesn't have the extra speakers connected and is only configured for 5.1? AVR is a Denon X3500H. I would think I'd be able to select Atmos audio, even though I know I'd be missing any height sounds. Just wondering.


Nevermind, I figured it out, lol.


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy movies with good rear sounds, and would be curious to hear about some picks from people who have heard some stuff going on behind.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG. What have I started? /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
Click to expand...

Is boosting or enjoying hot surrounds and heights tantamount to people viewing content in dynamic or vivid mode for extra colour saturation 😛 ??


----------



## mspears

batpig said:


> That's my opinion, yes. As with many things in HT, there's a balance of compromises, and to me the reduction in quality from having the rear overheads jammed in close to the rear wall is a "lesser evil" than not actually having them behind you. Those are probably the least important speakers in terms of fidelity, but they play an important role in filling in the "bubble" with that gap above and behind you and also creating phantom imaging (with the front overheads) of sounds directly above you.
> 
> In my room, I started with TM in-ceiling speakers which were installed above and maybe 1ft in front of the seating. I've since added front overheads about 6' forward, and have experimented with both FH+TM and TF+TR designations. In either case, the pair of speakers directly above really dominates the overhead sound and makes it difficult to hear the front overhead imaging clearly. For example, in the "Audiosphere" demo on the Atmos demo discs, there's all these bells and chimes tinkling overhead... when I'm sitting in my normal sweet spot, I only really hear those two speakers above me. But if I lean forward so my head is more in between the two pairs, I hear the overhead sound as more wraparound and immersive and can clearly discern the front/rear separation.
> 
> I've been meaning to swap in some new overheads as true "top rear" speakers -- I've actually got two pairs of Tannoy Di5DC that I bought cheap off eBay just sitting in the corner ready to go -- but I've been lazy and haven't found the time/desire yet to chop some more holes in the ceiling and run the wire.
> 
> All that being said, I think it's very important to get the rear pair actually BEHIND you, even if it's only 1-2 feet. If you can't do it, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to have a sub-optimal x.x.4 vs just placing a single pair of TM speakers well for x.x.2.


Makes sense. One other question, if you don't mind: since I do like your "filling the bubble" analogy, I'm wondering if I should have rear ceiling atmos speakers _facing the rear wall_, using an "angled/pivoting" set of speakers? I have ten-foot ceilings and, as stated earlier, will have to mount speakers at back of room. With seats also so far back in room, I don't think I can achieve the desired 135-degree angle without having rear speaker sound reflected off back wall. Direct-facing speakers would almost be on top of listeners--a near 90-degree angle. Angled, rear-facing speakers reflecting off the wall would come close to he optimal 135-degrees. What do you think?


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Chirosamsung said:


> Is boosting or enjoying hot surrounds and heights tantamount to people viewing content in dynamic or vivid mode for extra colour saturation 😛 ??


If life was in vivid mode/ extra color saturation I'd see the point, but yet we still do live in a world where sound comes from 360 degrees.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Aras_Volodka said:


> If life was in vivid mode/ extra color saturation I'd see the point, but yet we still do live in a world where sound comes from 360 degrees.


I especially enjoy my morning walks where I hear ambient music above and behind me wherever I go


----------



## LNEWoLF

Molon_Labe said:


> I especially enjoy my morning walks where I hear ambient music above and behind me wherever I go.


That’s just the residual audio artifacts bouncing around inside your pumpkin after cranking your JBL Pro speakers to one notch below spontaneous combustion.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Is boosting or enjoying hot surrounds and heights tantamount to people viewing content in dynamic or vivid mode for extra colour saturation 😛 ??


It sort of is for me. But if people want to boost their surrounds, destroying the carefully crafted balance of the mix, that's fine too. Their system, their ears, their money.


----------



## kbarnes701

mspears said:


> Makes sense. One other question, if you don't mind: since I do like your "filling the bubble" analogy, I'm wondering if I should have rear ceiling atmos speakers _facing the rear wall_, using an "angled/pivoting" set of speakers? I have ten-foot ceilings and, as stated earlier, will have to mount speakers at back of room. With seats also so far back in room, I don't think I can achieve the desired 135-degree angle without having rear speaker sound reflected off back wall. Direct-facing speakers would almost be on top of listeners--a near 90-degree angle. Angled, rear-facing speakers reflecting off the wall would come close to he optimal 135-degrees. What do you think?


I think not.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> I especially enjoy my morning walks where I hear ambient music above and behind me wherever I go


Is it legal in your State these days then?


----------



## mogrub

Thanks for the help fine-tuning my Atmos speaker placements guys. After years of paralysis by analysis, I finally started the update from 5.2 to 7.4.2 this week. Actual cutting has begun! Based on kbarnes701 and surani's comments, I decided to depart slightly from the July 2017 Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines and install the side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP rather than slightly behind the MLP. It solves the (a) side surround blasting directly into an ear, which I had worried about just like jsgries mentioned, and (b) improves the separation available between the side surrounds and rear surrounds, which had been another concern all along. So thanks for the feedback. The side surrounds will be in-wall of necessity, and of the 6 speakers needed to get to 7.4.2 from 5.1, the left surround was clearly going to be the hardest of all to install. So I started with that one first. It is done now, so the rest should be (knock on wood, studs and joists) pretty much downhill from here. 

But man, that left surround speaker was a bear. It's the single biggest reason why this project always seemed borderline impossible to execute. That particular wall is an exterior wall. All of the expected obstacles were there, of course, but fortunately there were no surprises. That's one advantage of thinking about a project for so long. There was icynene everywhere, as expected. I have to salute the builder because it was absolutely, uniformly wall-filling. Although that foam is robust, it turns out to not significantly complicate fishing 14 AWG CL2 speaker wire. The fireblocks do, but those are expected. One quick pumpkin cut, and the first fireblock was history. I'll seal around those new holes later with 3M Fire Stick Putty in deference to my local building code, even though that seems like kind of a silly requirement to me. But I'll be able to assure the next owner that 3M is protecting their fireblocks, and the putty itself is cheap.

I know lots of you have labored through this kind of installation. For me, the biggest challenge on this "hardest speaker" was waiting a few feet above the fireblock, where a second pumpkin cut was needed to provide access to the top cap of 2x4's that run along the top of the studs. The joists rest on those caps. The area where the wire for this speaker will enter the attic is very recessed and super hard to reach. It takes about 7 minutes of gymnastics to climb over, under and around all the HVAC, electrical and other obstacles just to get in the general work area. Once you get there, the roof slopes down to that exterior wall, meaning there is no walking over to where you need to work. Since there is no floor, you have to crawl, roll and slither on top of unforgiving joists. The attic ceiling is just a blizzard of icynene, so you also can't see anything in the roof-wall junction area where you think (hope) your fishing rod is waiting for you to grab it. You don't really know though because the rod will be behind several inches of hard foam insulation. Just getting into position in that little wedge is physically difficult. And it turns out that lying on joists hurts a bunch after a minute or two. Who knew? 

So you're lying there and wiggling on sharp-edged joists, trying to make it those last few feet over to where you hope the fish rod is waiting. The joists are pretty much laughing out loud at this point, and you still can't see any sign of the fish rod. It has to be hiding behind the foam somewhere, right? Doesn't it? I've measured over and over again, and triangulated using the recessed light cans and other fixed reference points. Did I mis-measure? Am I off by a stud? Two? I can't feel the rod anywhere. Can't see it anywhere. My chest can't handle any more joist pressure, so I roll over and try again on my back. That gives me an extra couple of inches of reach capacity, but I still can't feel the rod. Anywhere. Turns out my back hates the joists worse than my chest did. Plus I'm sweating. I take a deep breath or two. This was my idea. It's my spare time. This is fun ... isn't it? Sort of. 

So where is that *@^$%** fish rod? Finding that will make it all fun again. But you can hardly see, barely reach, and it just doesn't seem to be there. Aarrgh. So you wiggle back across the joists again, find a place where you can sort of stand halfway up, and reverse execute the steeplechase needed to get out of the *&%^% attic again, and climb back downstairs to where the fish rod is. You fight the impulse to grab a beer or better yet a nice cold margarita, but you resist because that is not going to help, at all. So you just remeasure everything. Again. Good news, sort of -- it turns out you were 99% definitely in the right place all along. That F Rod (it's getting a new name now) has to be there. But to double re-confirm (which means I am not at all sure any longer), I pierce the ceiling sheetrock a few inches into the room, directly perpendicular to where the F Rod should be. I use a push pin so I can penetrate the sheet rock with the smallest, easiest to fix hole, and then I thread a skinny little straightened-out paper clip through the hole. Now I'll have a little metal confirmation flag waiting for me once I go all the way back up into the (*&&^$# attic and slither and climb into the work area, and get back on my chest and inch across the joists (at least my third or fourth trip, not that I'm counting) and finally get in position. Now I'll know for absolute certain whether I'm at least in the right place.

So I get back up and do the steeplechase and arrive panting back in the work area. And I slither across the joists into position. And I beam the flashlight into the exact right spot. And there is ... no paperclip showing. WTF? Are you kidding me? Do the rules of the physical universe not apply in this area? Is it some kind of cosmic sink hole? A mini Bermuda's Triangle? A portal to another dimension? Seriously, WTF? It has to be there.

A couple of deep breaths. As sub-optimal as this work place is, it seems unlikely the usual physical rules do not apply here. Hmm. The foam everywhere has been about 4 inches thick. Maybe here, where I can't really see and can't entirely reach, it is deeper. Maybe much deeper? I shove my arm in along under the foam and along the sheetrock even further until -- Thank God -- my fingers graze a lonely paperclip, fully obscured by icynene. So at least I'm in the right place! But I know that I am almost physically unable to reach any further, and I will never be able to hire a sane person with longer arms than me to replicate my insane project. In the darkness of the attic, I confront the growing reality that 7.4.2 via the attic in my home theater is borderline impossible. A win is no guarantee now, and I know it. 

So I wedge myself further into the uncomfortable junction where ceiling meets wall. This is 100% of what I am going to be able to physically do. If I can't reach the rod now, then 5.4.2 is going to have to be good enough. I slide my hand back under the foam, gliding along the sheetrock until ... there it is. There it *^#*# is. Soaked in sweat, my fingers twist the rod and I can feel the speaker wire. Lucky for me that I have not over-taped it, and I'm able to separate the speaker wire from the rod using one hand. I pull. It resists, and resists, but finally speaker wire starts to flow. Up it comes. I yell a totally crazy-person shout of happiness into the dark attic. I roll across the joists holding the precious wire. (My Precious! Yup, I am definitely sweaty and dirty and deranged enough to look like Gollum now.) I get back out to a place where I can at least kneel on the joists for a minute, and finally pull enough wire up to complete the run across the attic, and back down into the equipment area. I'm totally shot. Getting back out of the attic is a torture, but it's all worth it now because 7.4.2 is actually going to happen.

Part of me knows that all of this is completely and certifiably nuts, and that most people would never understand, but that many of you will. This is kind of what we all do, isn't it? I know Atmos is going to be a blast, and I also know ups and downs like those, and a lot of hard work, will make it even more fun once it's all up and running.

One speaker down, and it was the hardest of all. Only five more to go!


----------



## mrtickleuk

Very entertaining post! That's the sort of work small children are best at, surely? They can fit easily into position. You can pay them with ice-cream or something? 

I've done similar with long pieces of string hanging into the room from above through small holes in the ceiling.


----------



## mogrub

mrtickleuk said:


> Very entertaining post! That's the sort of work small children are best at, surely? They can fit easily into position. You can pay them with ice-cream or something?


Good idea, wish I had thought of that myself. Must keep an eye out for one going forward.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mogrub said:


> Good idea, wish I had thought of that myself. Must keep an eye out for one going forward.


Yeah, we used to use them to sweep chimneys but this is more fun I think


----------



## mogrub

mrtickleuk said:


> Yeah, we used to use them to sweep chimneys but this is more fun I think


Plus it's soot-free employment. Win win for the kids.


----------



## Molon_Labe

@mogrub - It could have been worse. At least it wasn't late July in the attic


----------



## stikle

mogrub said:


> I'm totally shot.



It'll be totally worth it. Thanks for the entertaining recap! I've been in similar situations and the frustration levels can be almost panic inducing.

I just spent the last 5 hours in my theater room moving my damn subwoofers around trying to get some actual bass to my MLP. There's a big null there I've not been able to overcome yet.

That endeavor just ended just a little bit ago when I moved one of my PB-2000's a foot closer to the center of the room to try that. Unfortunately, there was only 6" of slack RCA cable and I ended up ripping the damn RCA connector right off the PCB. Seriously?

Power down, lights off, and back upstairs to think about things. Maybe time for a drink too.


----------



## kbarnes701

mogrub said:


> Thanks for the help fine-tuning my Atmos speaker placements guys. [...] One speaker down, and it was the hardest of all. Only five more to go!


Great post buddy!


----------



## mogrub

Molon_Labe said:


> @mogrub - It could have been worse. At least it wasn't late July in the attic


Can't tell you how many times I thought that. Waiting for the cool weather was another part of my Master Delay Strategy, but honestly it was a significant plus. If I'm sweating doing this in December, I'm dying doing this in July.


----------



## mogrub

stikle said:


> It'll be totally worth it. Thanks for the entertaining recap! I've been in similar situations and the frustration levels can be almost panic inducing .. I just spent the last 5 hours in my theater room moving my damn subwoofers around ,,, that endeavor just ended just a little bit ago when I moved one of my PB-2000's a foot closer to the center of the room to try that. Unfortunately, there was only 6" of slack RCA cable and I ended up ripping the damn RCA connector right off the PCB. Seriously?
> 
> Power down, lights off, and back upstairs to think about things. Maybe time for a drink too.


That sounds incredibly familiar. Especially that "Seriously?" part. The multiple unlikely things that can go wrong to complicate a straight-forward project. Totally feel your pain, but also confident your bartending skills are right there with your AV skills. 

Maybe that's true for most of us? I hope so. If you're going to do the stuff we all do, things will go sideways every once in a while. A good bartender can make all the difference. 🍸🌲🍷🌲🍺

Genius on the "power down, lights off and back upstairs to think" part. That is genuine wisdom and experience talking right there.


----------



## unretarded

mspears said:


> Makes sense. One other question, if you don't mind: since I do like your "filling the bubble" analogy, I'm wondering if I should have rear ceiling atmos speakers _facing the rear wall_, using an "angled/pivoting" set of speakers? I have ten-foot ceilings and, as stated earlier, will have to mount speakers at back of room. With seats also so far back in room, I don't think I can achieve the desired 135-degree angle without having rear speaker sound reflected off back wall. Direct-facing speakers would almost be on top of listeners--a near 90-degree angle. Angled, rear-facing speakers reflecting off the wall would come close to he optimal 135-degrees. What do you think?


 Atmos does not delete normal accepted methods.....



Sit in the rear seat and look up at the ceiling, pretend those speakers are your main left and right channels and aim them accordingly.


I would guess toed in towards the middle of the room and in the middle between front and rear rows...….no need to re invent the wheel...….if you would not do it to the mains, then its probably a bad idea for the ceiling speakers.


----------



## gene4ht

Molon_Labe said:


> I especially enjoy my morning walks where I hear ambient music above and behind me wherever I go





kbarnes701 said:


> Is it legal in your State these days then?


Actually, it did just recently become legal in my state...Michigan.


----------



## jpfe8851

stikle said:


> I just spent the last 5 hours in my theater room moving my damn subwoofers around trying to get some actual bass to my MLP. There's a big null there I've not been able to overcome yet.


I’m trying to work out how on earth there can be a bass null with 4 sub woofers!!!!! And I assume they’re SVS PB2000s too. Maybe you need to visit your audiologist instead.


On a more serious note, why were you moving your subs into the room. Everything I’ve ever read suggests near a wall and especially corners is the preferred locations. As LFE is normally Omni-present, perhaps you’ve got some other acoustic block or absorption issue that’s the problem.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> Actually, it did just recently become legal in my state...Michigan.


Toke away!  Your system will never have sounded so good -- guaranteed!  It's one of the best upgrades you can make (after acoustic panels obviously).


----------



## kbarnes701

unretarded said:


> Atmos does not delete normal accepted methods.....
> 
> 
> 
> Sit in the rear seat and look up at the ceiling, pretend those speakers are your main left and right channels and aim them accordingly.
> 
> 
> I would guess toed in towards the middle of the room and in the middle between front and rear rows...….no need to re invent the wheel...…*.if you would not do it to the mains, then its probably a bad idea for the ceiling speakers*.


[My bolding]. Absolutely. A very good rule of thumb.


----------



## jsgrise

@mogrub Looking forward to your feedback once everything is up and running!


----------



## Chirosamsung

unretarded said:


> mspears said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. One other question, if you don't mind: since I do like your "filling the bubble" analogy, I'm wondering if I should have rear ceiling atmos speakers _facing the rear wall_, using an "angled/pivoting" set of speakers? I have ten-foot ceilings and, as stated earlier, will have to mount speakers at back of room. With seats also so far back in room, I don't think I can achieve the desired 135-degree angle without having rear speaker sound reflected off back wall. Direct-facing speakers would almost be on top of listeners--a near 90-degree angle. Angled, rear-facing speakers reflecting off the wall would come close to he optimal 135-degrees. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos does not delete normal accepted methods...../forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Sit in the rear seat and look up at the ceiling, pretend those speakers are your main left and right channels and aim them accordingly.
> 
> 
> I would guess toed in towards the middle of the room and in the middle between front and rear rows...….no need to re invent the wheel...….if you would not do it to the mains, then its probably a bad idea for the ceiling speakers.
Click to expand...

I’m just second guessing my Atmos 4 in ceiling placement...if they are lined up with the main Towers like they should be BUT the towers are towed in, should I have put the in ceiling placement inwards compared to the tower position??


----------



## Chirosamsung

unretarded said:


> mspears said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. One other question, if you don't mind: since I do like your "filling the bubble" analogy, I'm wondering if I should have rear ceiling atmos speakers _facing the rear wall_, using an "angled/pivoting" set of speakers? I have ten-foot ceilings and, as stated earlier, will have to mount speakers at back of room. With seats also so far back in room, I don't think I can achieve the desired 135-degree angle without having rear speaker sound reflected off back wall. Direct-facing speakers would almost be on top of listeners--a near 90-degree angle. Angled, rear-facing speakers reflecting off the wall would come close to he optimal 135-degrees. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos does not delete normal accepted methods...../forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Sit in the rear seat and look up at the ceiling, pretend those speakers are your main left and right channels and aim them accordingly.
> 
> 
> I would guess toed in towards the middle of the room and in the middle between front and rear rows...….no need to re invent the wheel...….if you would not do it to the mains, then its probably a bad idea for the ceiling speakers.
Click to expand...

I’m just second guessing my Atmos 4 in ceiling placement...if they are lined up with the main Towers like they should be BUT the towers are towed in, should I have put the in ceiling placement inwards compared to the tower position??


----------



## Molon_Labe

Chirosamsung said:


> I’m just second guessing my Atmos 4 in ceiling placement...if they are lined up with the main Towers like they should be BUT the towers are towed in, should I have put the in ceiling placement inwards compared to the tower position??


It depends on the off-axis response of your speakers. I would wire your ceiling speakers to the front floor L/R terminals of your amp/receiver. Play some two channel audio and have a listen. Adjust the speakers until the imaging snaps into place. Repeat the process for the rear set.


----------



## Falonious

mogrub....loved the story. Glad you got er done!




gene4ht said:


> Actually, it did just recently become legal in my state...Michigan.



That should go perfectly with the despicable new governess we are getting also. 
Two more reasons to leave this state.


----------



## Molon_Labe

Falonious said:


> mogrub....loved the story. Glad you got er done!
> 
> That should go perfectly with the despicable new governess we are getting also.
> Two more reasons to leave this state.


----------



## Falonious

What?....I really did like the story. mogrub has some real writing skills.


----------



## Gabre

I laughed out loud like a ****** reading his post, he's got some skills for sure  
Potentially cause I would act the same lol


----------



## mdhinson1

Hello All - I have a question regarding speaker set up for my new Dolby Atmos system. I’ll be moving into my new home soon and will have a 5.1.2 system. I’ll have in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos sound. Due to the room configuration, I also need to use ceiling speakers for the side/rear surround. I know it’s not ideal but unfortunately that that’s the way it has to be. I’ll be using RSL 34e speakers for both the Atmos and surrounds. These have a built in angle of 15 degrees for the woofer and tweeter and it’s recommended they are oriented to point toward the main listening position which will be about 12 ft from the Tv. The ceilings are 10 feet. 

My question is on the placement of the side/rear surrounds. I’ve looked over the Dolby Atmos speaker placement guide in which they recommend the rear surrounds be just behind and to the side of the MLP. But they’re assuming they are “ear height” speakers. With mine being in the ceiling, would that still hold true for me or should I mount surrounds a little further back than Dolby’s recommendation to get a fuller effect? If so, any idea how far? Thanks for any help!


----------



## mspears

mdhinson1 said:


> Hello All - I have a question regarding speaker set up for my new Dolby Atmos system. I’ll be moving into my new home soon and will have a 5.1.2 system. I’ll have in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos sound. Due to the room configuration, I also need to use ceiling speakers for the side/rear surround. I know it’s not ideal but unfortunately that that’s the way it has to be. I’ll be using RSL 34e speakers for both the Atmos and surrounds. These have a built in angle of 15 degrees for the woofer and tweeter and it’s recommended they are oriented to point toward the main listening position which will be about 12 ft from the Tv. The ceilings are 10 feet.
> 
> My question is on the placement of the side/rear surrounds. I’ve looked over the Dolby Atmos speaker placement guide in which they recommend the rear surrounds be just behind and to the side of the MLP. But they’re assuming they are “ear height” speakers. With mine being in the ceiling, would that still hold true for me or should I mount surrounds a little further back than Dolby’s recommendation to get a fuller effect? If so, any idea how far? Thanks for any help!


(Perhaps this helps) From the Dolby Atmos guide:

...if two overhead speakers located toward the rear of the room are currently used to
reproduce left/right surround outputs, they should be used as overhead speakers only if replacement
left/right surrounds can be added at the listener level. If this is not possible, the overhead speakers can
continue to be used for left/right surround outputs, although not recommended.
4
In this case, overhead
sound can be achieved by installing additional overhead speakers, Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, or addon modules in the front speaker locations.​


----------



## Gabre

mdhinson1 said:


> Hello All - I have a question regarding speaker set up for my new Dolby Atmos system. I’ll be moving into my new home soon and will have a 5.1.2 system. I’ll have in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos sound. Due to the room configuration, I also need to use ceiling speakers for the side/rear surround. I know it’s not ideal but unfortunately that that’s the way it has to be. I’ll be using RSL 34e speakers for both the Atmos and surrounds. These have a built in angle of 15 degrees for the woofer and tweeter and it’s recommended they are oriented to point toward the main listening position which will be about 12 ft from the Tv. The ceilings are 10 feet.
> 
> 
> 
> My question is on the placement of the side/rear surrounds. I’ve looked over the Dolby Atmos speaker placement guide in which they recommend the rear surrounds be just behind and to the side of the MLP. But they’re assuming they are “ear height” speakers. With mine being in the ceiling, would that still hold true for me or should I mount surrounds a little further back than Dolby’s recommendation to get a fuller effect? If so, any idea how far? Thanks for any help!


Seriously buddy, there was an identical question 2 days ago in this topic. Probably a page or two back. 

Wouldn't hurt to read past 50-100 posts before just coming here and posting same question over and ok over again.


----------



## stikle

This is way OT for the Atmos thread actually, but it's a slow morning here so what the heck.



jpfe8851 said:


> I’m trying to work out how on earth there can be a bass null with 4 sub woofers!!!!!



Yeah, me too. I've moved subs all over and messed with phasing.

I downloaded REW yesterday and was messing with the room simulator. I found positions that the sim indicated would result in the flattest curve and put the subs accordingly. No joy.

I also received my UMIK-1 mic yesterday and was playing with it and REW as a glorified SPL meter (no idea how to read graphs at this point). In the MLP (at the volume level I was testing with) I had around 95db. All I did was move the mic to the second riser behind the MLP and gained 9db.

I just don't know what to do from here. Well, other than send the one PB-2000 amp back for repair. 



jpfe8851 said:


> And I assume they’re SVS PB2000s too. Maybe you need to visit your audiologist instead.



I have two PB-2000 and two PB10-NSD.



jpfe8851 said:


> On a more serious note, why were you moving your subs into the room. Everything I’ve ever read suggests near a wall and especially corners is the preferred locations.



You would think. They were in the corners to start, and the null is very present and noticeable. I was playing a 30hz tone last night and walked from the front of the room to the rear. Fairly strong bass at the front of the room between the two PB-2000, diminishing as I walked to the first riser, and as soon as I stepped up onto the second riser towards the rear, the bass was in my face. It was an odd sensation, like stepping into a completely different room. Step back down onto the first riser and the bass fades again.

Also, I'm not talking about just bass felt through the floor, but in the air.



jpfe8851 said:


> As LFE is normally Omni-present, perhaps you’ve got some other acoustic block or absorption issue that’s the problem.



Well, right now the entire floor is carpeted. There is one seat in the center of the front riser and one in the center of the rear. The walls are bare painted drywall right now as I await my custom curtains.

Crossposted from the SVS thread:



> I'm going to ask for some suggestions on sub placement.
> 
> I have two PB-2000 and two PB10-NSD.
> 
> Below is an overhead of my room. The speakers are shown in the initial positions I had them set in, but was underwhelmed.
> 
> The problem is that the bass seems concentrated in the area marked by the orange square. It's pretty anemic in the front row (MLP is front center) compared to the back row.
> 
> So, I moved the PB10's to where the blue squares are and it wasn't really any better.
> 
> I contacted SVS Chat, and they suggested moving the PB-2000's to where the red squares are, but that didn't really make much of a difference.
> 
> So, I don't really know what to try next. I think I'm fighting a room mode "null" at this point.
> 
> Does anybody have any suggestions on what to try to improve the bass response in the front row?


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> I was playing a 30hz tone last night and walked from the front of the room to the rear. Fairly strong bass at the front of the room between the two PB-2000, diminishing as I walked to the first riser, and as soon as I stepped up onto the second riser towards the rear, the bass was in my face. It was an odd sensation, like stepping into a completely different room. Step back down onto the first riser and the bass fades again.


Sounds like a description of a first order mode, with the front row seating being placed in the null: 









I would treat each pair of subs as a single subwoofer. First make sure the two subs in each pair are in phase with each other. Then adjust the delay of the rear subwoofer (pair of subs) until the null is gone or reduced (reduced enough to be within EQ correction range).


----------



## mdhinson1

Gabre said:


> Seriously buddy, there was an identical question 2 days ago in this topic. Probably a page or two back.
> 
> Wouldn't hurt to read past 50-100 posts before just coming here and posting same question over and ok over again.


Seriously, “Senior Member” Gabre - As you can see I’m a newbie here, there are thousands of topics with thousands of replies. I searched through topics for an hour and didn’t see any answers to my specific question. Thanks for being so welcoming, won’t bother you anymore.


----------



## EyeWasAbducted

I had asked a little while back about mounting my upfiring speakers on the ceiling since I wasn’t getting the effect like I had hoped. I tried manipulating my set up some more before I went ahead with the mounting. 

And.. booyah! I got it just right. The problem was that I had my towers (with the atmos modules sitting on top) toed in. Positioning them so they were straight completely changed how the atmos modules sounded. I can’t believe how convincing they are now. It’s insane. I’m hearing tons of height effects that I wasn’t getting before. They worked ok sometimes, but I knew I was missing a lot. I’m incredibly happy with them now and I won’t be mounting anything. So far, I’ve tested Batman v Superman, John wick, Jurassic world 2, ready player one and mission impossible fallout, skipping around to certain scenes that I know should have a lot of height effects. It’s a night and day difference from before. 

Anybody have some suggestions for scenes with a lot of height effects?

Edit: tried out Kong skull island as well. It was a treat since height effects come into play immediately during the opening logos.


----------



## stikle

sdurani said:


> Sounds like a description of a first order mode, with the front row seating being placed in the null:



That, my friend, appears to be exactly the case!



sdurani said:


> I would treat each pair of subs as a single subwoofer. First make sure the two subs in each pair are in phase with each other. Then adjust the delay of the rear subwoofer (pair of subs) until the null is gone or reduced (reduced enough to be within EQ correction range).



I was pretty disheartened after yesterday's results, but now I have some renewed faith that this is resolvable. After some more thought, I also think I need to change the way I have my subs cabled at the AVR.

When building the room, I had the forethought to run an RCA all the way to the back of the room, figuring on one subwoofer back there. In hindsight (which is always what gets me), I should have run two.

Right now I have the Sub1 output going to the right front sub, and the Sub2 output split, with one going to the left front sub and the other going to the back where it's split there going to both PB10s.

Based on what you've suggested, a simple rewiring should at least get me on the right path: Sub1 split to front left/right subs and Sub2 to the back, split into rear left/right subs. That way each pair will actually be a pair. 

Off to the dungeon with fresh coffee to see if I can make a positive difference today.


----------



## mspears

unretarded said:


> Atmos does not delete normal accepted methods.....
> 
> 
> 
> Sit in the rear seat and look up at the ceiling, pretend those speakers are your main left and right channels and aim them accordingly.
> 
> 
> I would guess toed in towards the middle of the room and in the middle between front and rear rows...….no need to re invent the wheel...….if you would not do it to the mains, then its probably a bad idea for the ceiling speakers.


Please note that I have abandoned the reflecting option for my rear ceiling speakers, but I am sure that you're aware that an option provided by the official Dolby guidelines does have an upward firing (reflecting) "atmos" speaker on top of the front mains (rear, as well). Thus, by your logic, looking up at ceiling speakers, one could place reflecting "atmos" speakers "on" the ceiling speakers and reflect off the rear wall.

Again, not something I plan to do.


----------



## unretarded

mdhinson1 said:


> Hello All - I have a question regarding speaker set up for my new Dolby Atmos system. I’ll be moving into my new home soon and will have a 5.1.2 system. I’ll have in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos sound. Due to the room configuration, I also need to use ceiling speakers for the side/rear surround. I know it’s not ideal but unfortunately that that’s the way it has to be. I’ll be using RSL 34e speakers for both the Atmos and surrounds. These have a built in angle of 15 degrees for the woofer and tweeter and it’s recommended they are oriented to point toward the main listening position which will be about 12 ft from the Tv. The ceilings are 10 feet.
> 
> My question is on the placement of the side/rear surrounds. I’ve looked over the Dolby Atmos speaker placement guide in which they recommend the rear surrounds be just behind and to the side of the MLP. But they’re assuming they are “ear height” speakers. With mine being in the ceiling, would that still hold true for me or should I mount surrounds a little further back than Dolby’s recommendation to get a fuller effect? If so, any idea how far? Thanks for any help!




You might try a 3.1.2 configuration....some say it is works pretty good.


----------



## unretarded

mspears said:


> Please note that I have abandoned the reflecting option for my rear ceiling speakers, but I am sure that you're aware that an option provided by the official Dolby guidelines does have an upward firing (reflecting) "atmos" speaker on top of the front mains (rear, as well). Thus, by your logic, looking up at ceiling speakers, one could place reflecting "atmos" speakers "on" the ceiling speakers and reflect off the rear wall.
> 
> Again, not something I plan to do.



No, once you placed the Atmos speakers on the ceiling you would aim them at you......


When you push a speaker against a surface, you are technically bouncing sound anyways...…..that's why it is best to aim them at the MLP or use absorbtion/dispersion to reduce reflections.

Here is a quick primer......


----------



## Chirosamsung

Molon_Labe said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m just second guessing my Atmos 4 in ceiling placement...if they are lined up with the main Towers like they should be BUT the towers are towed in, should I have put the in ceiling placement inwards compared to the tower position??
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the off-axis response of your speakers. I would wire your ceiling speakers to the front floor L/R terminals of your amp/receiver. Play some two channel audio and have a listen. Adjust the speakers until the imaging snaps into place. Repeat the process for the rear set.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I guess the problem is I have set the locations of the towers based on where the couch will be and then set the Atmos heights (4) in line with the towers as recommended and at the angles close to what is recommended for front and rear placement but since I will be likely having to toe in the towers that is what I was visions about whether they should follow the angle of the towers or the towers to the back wall. The room is long and narrow wide way so it is a long sectional mostly along or near the back wall so hence the towers needing to be toed in. 

I don’t have the speakers till next weekend but the holes are gonna be cut this week as per the spec. The wires are run to the locations within spec...as if towers were facing directly forward...


----------



## Molon_Labe

Chirosamsung said:


> Thanks for the response. I guess the problem is I have set the locations of the towers based on where the couch will be and then set the Atmos heights (4) in line with the towers as recommended and at the angles close to what is recommended for front and rear placement but since I will be likely having to toe in the towers that is what I was visions about whether they should follow the angle of the towers or the towers to the back wall. The room is long and narrow wide way so it is a long sectional mostly along or near the back wall so hence the towers needing to be toed in.
> 
> I don’t have the speakers till next weekend but the holes are gonna be cut this week as per the spec. The wires are run to the locations within spec...as if towers were facing directly forward...


Imaging trumps all. As long as you have proper separation and are within the prescribed angles, get all of your speakers to image as pairs the best you can. Don't forget that there is phantom imaging that occurs within movie soundtracks. If your imaging is collapsed due to speaker placement, you will miss the intended effect. I would test things before you cut holes even if it requires waiting. Just my thoughts....


----------



## Jonas2

mdhinson1 said:


> Seriously, “Senior Member” Gabre - As you can see I’m a newbie here, there are thousands of topics with thousands of replies. I searched through topics for an hour and didn’t see any answers to my specific question. Thanks for being so welcoming, won’t bother you anymore.


Hey brother, don't sweat it too much!  There is a lot of info here, and it can be hard to filter. Sure, there is a lot to be had by reading back, but if you did that with everything, you'd never actually get a system together, you'd literally spend the next two decades reading.  Sometimes these threads get away from me and I've only got time to read back a short ways. Ah, so is life. 

As to your question, I would place the surrounds as Dolby suggests. Even though you've got in-ceilings, you still want the sound coming from the same general direction, within that recommended angular spread. Keep in mind the set angle of the speakers, so you'll want to do some math to determine the most ideal positioning to get the proper aim, or at least in the ballpark. I'm not an RSL C34E expert by any means, but don't hesitate to contact RSL and run this through them, they know better than anybody the characteristics of their speaker and should be able to give you clear advice. Plus there is the RSL owner's thread too. 

Definitely keep us posted as to the results, I think a lot of us would be interested in them given it's going against the grain (but you won't be the first to do so). Everyone's circumstances vary.


----------



## maintech

*woofer placement*

Some other oldies like me may remember the Allison 1,2,3 method to position speakers for a flatter response. I used it for over 30 years for non surround-sound materials and found the response was smoother.
Sterophile refined that and the link explains what they found beneficial.

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/1008speaks/index.html

I have not read all of the posts so if this is a repeat of other suggestions, my apologies. 

With DSP abilities and calibrated set-up mics, most AV receivers can get reasonably smooth response. I use 2 Infinity sub-woofers in opposite rear corners, 10" & 12". Both are trimmed at 80hz cutoff, but with different curves, the parametric equalizers adjusted to provide the smoothest response, initially plotted and finally trimmed by ear. Unfortunately my ears now cannot be trusted to make the best adjustments, old age & too many live band sessions! 
Gordon Holt made a wise observation years ago, 'we listen to music, not test tones, so make your adjustments with a good recording of familiar music.' I do not know if he listened to much AV originated content, perhaps we might need a reality check too! 

David.


----------



## legierk

Can someone point me to the IMAX thread? I understand there is one, just unable to locate it.

Edit: I found it. It's a ghost town over there.


----------



## kbarnes701

mdhinson1 said:


> Hello All - I have a question regarding speaker set up for my new Dolby Atmos system. I’ll be moving into my new home soon and will have a 5.1.2 system. I’ll have in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos sound. Due to the room configuration, I also need to use ceiling speakers for the side/rear surround. I know it’s not ideal but unfortunately that that’s the way it has to be. I’ll be using RSL 34e speakers for both the Atmos and surrounds. These have a built in angle of 15 degrees for the woofer and tweeter and it’s recommended they are oriented to point toward the main listening position which will be about 12 ft from the Tv. The ceilings are 10 feet.
> 
> My question is on the placement of the side/rear surrounds. I’ve looked over the Dolby Atmos speaker placement guide in which they recommend the rear surrounds be just behind and to the side of the MLP. But they’re assuming they are “ear height” speakers. With mine being in the ceiling, would that still hold true for me or should I mount surrounds a little further back than Dolby’s recommendation to get a fuller effect? If so, any idea how far? Thanks for any help!



Hi -welcome to the thread. The single most important factor with Atmos speaker placement is 'angular separation' between the overhead speakers and the floor level speakers. This separation is absolutely required if you are going to be able to distinguish between sounds coming from around you (floor level) and sounds coming from above you (overheads).

The diagram below shows how this angular separation works out in practice, following Dolby's own guidelines.










You can see in the diagram the recommended range of angles (from MLP) for each potential location of overhead speakers and how the overhead speakers and the floor/ear level speakers are very well separated. The problem you are going to have is that your surround speakers AND your overhead speakers are both on the ceiling, so there is little or no angular separation between them.

I'd say that this would not give you an acceptable Atmos result since you will not be able to distinguish between sounds coming from the surrounds and sounds coming from the overheads: they will all be coming from above you. While Atmos is fairly forgiving in its speaker placement with respect to the guidelines, it still requires this separation in order to work as intended.

Personally, I think you are wasting your time, effort and money in attempting an Atmos setup with the limitations you have. I'd focus on making improvements elsewhere to the sound you already enjoy. Maybe spend the money instead on new subwoofer(s) or acoustic treatments, or possibly a speaker upgrade for your main LCR set.

As others have observed, this topic has been discussed recently and you may benefit from reading the past dozen or so pages to see if there are any other views being offered.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I'd say that this would not give you an acceptable Atmos result since you will not be able to distinguish between sounds coming from the surrounds and sounds coming from the overheads: they will all be coming from above you. While Atmos is fairly forgiving in its speaker placement with respect to the guidelines, it still requires this separation in order to work as intended.


In situations like this, I always imagine the corollary where someone with surround speakers at ear level asks if it is OK to also place height speakers at ear level, missing the point that it is the separation that is key.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> In situations like this, I always imagine the corollary where someone with surround speakers at ear level asks if it is OK to also place height speakers at ear level, missing the point that it is the separation that is key.


Excellent analogy. Nobody would (probably, one hopes) think of mounting 'overhead' speakers at ear level and expecting them to work well by giving a sense of sound coming from above***, so it is indeed odd to imagine it working the other way around. 

*** I'm talking regular speakers not Atmos-enabled upfirers of course.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Nobody would (probably, one hopes) think of mounting 'overhead' speakers at ear level and expecting them to work well by giving a sense of sound coming from above***, so it is indeed odd to imagine it working the other way around.


In both cases, it's not the location of the speakers but the fact that they've been squeezed into a single layer that will prevent Atmos from working as intended.


----------



## Selden Ball

legierk said:


> Can someone point me to the IMAX thread? I understand there is one, just unable to locate it.
> 
> Edit: I found it. It's a ghost town over there.


There are several IMAX threads. The most interesting one (currently with 95 posts) probably is https://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-...first-imax-enhanced-titles-now-available.html

I'm not sure what you mean by "ghost town", although there's probably not going to be a lot of discussion until more titles are available.


----------



## legierk

Selden Ball said:


> There are several IMAX threads. The most interesting one (currently with 95 posts) probably is https://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-...first-imax-enhanced-titles-now-available.html
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "ghost town", although there's probably not going to be a lot of discussion until more titles are available.


Thank you. No, the one I looked at is https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/3030220-official-avs-forum-imax-enhanced-lab-thread.html which has 5 posts.


----------



## JT1521

*Where do I get Dolby Atmos videos?*

Hi. I just bought some new Onkyo Onkyo SKH-410 doly atmos speakers. I have an Onkyo TX-NR545 receiver which is Dolby Atmos enabled. My question is where do I find Dolby Atmos titles? I have an Epson 1080P projector with a 100" screen. Do I need anything else to play Dolby Atmos? I have an Amazon Firestick as well.


----------



## Gary J

JT1521 said:


> Hi. I just bought some new Onkyo Onkyo SKH-410 doly atmos speakers. I have an Onkyo TX-NR545 receiver which is Dolby Atmos enabled. My question is where do I find Dolby Atmos titles? I have an Epson 1080P projector with a 100" screen. Do I need anything else to play Dolby Atmos? I have an Amazon Firestick as well.


@ Atmos R Us 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/theatrical-releases.html


----------



## usc1995

JT1521 said:


> Hi. I just bought some new Onkyo Onkyo SKH-410 doly atmos speakers. I have an Onkyo TX-NR545 receiver which is Dolby Atmos enabled. My question is where do I find Dolby Atmos titles? I have an Epson 1080P projector with a 100" screen. Do I need anything else to play Dolby Atmos? I have an Amazon Firestick as well.




For HD Blu-ray titles you can look here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132

Most 4K/ UHD Blu-ray titles have either Atmos or DTSX but you should check and verify. You may be able to stream Atmos from Amazon Prime Video but I am not sure if they limit the streams to 4K only. So far the only Prime title in Atmos I am aware of is the new Jack Ryan series.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

JT1521 said:


> Hi. I just bought some new Onkyo Onkyo SKH-410 doly atmos speakers. I have an Onkyo TX-NR545 receiver which is Dolby Atmos enabled. My question is where do I find Dolby Atmos titles? I have an Epson 1080P projector with a 100" screen. Do I need anything else to play Dolby Atmos? I have an Amazon Firestick as well.



Don`t over look the DSU, it takes regular 5.1 and upmixes it to all speakers, so you are not limited to just 3d mixes.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Molon_Labe said:


> It depends on the off-axis response of your speakers. I would wire your ceiling speakers to the front floor L/R terminals of your amp/receiver. Play some two channel audio and have a listen. Adjust the speakers until the imaging snaps into place. Repeat the process for the rear set.


About phantom center in a 2-channel; in a 3-person sofa, would you recommend to toe-in a little more if the phantom center is right in the middle to spread more or better all over the sofa or are both sides getting good enough sound (if you also have a real center)? I'm not home atm so I can't try it myself but I have my L and R facing so I get a phantom center (with a real center).

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## howard68

I had to get a HD fury unit to trick the Roku to think it is connected to a uhd TV when it is a 1080p 
Works on Vudu and Amazon for Atmos sound 
Roku does not do Netflix with dolby


----------



## Bond 007

westbergjoakim said:


> About phantom center in a 2-channel; in a 3-person sofa, would you recommend to toe-in a little more if the phantom center is right in the middle to spread more or better all over the sofa or are both sides getting good enough sound (if you also have a real center)? I'm not home atm so I can't try it myself but I have my L and R facing so I get a phantom center (with a real center).
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


Huh?


----------



## Bond 007

usc1995 said:


> So far the only Prime title in Atmos I am aware of is the new Jack Ryan series.


Yes, pathetic.


----------



## theaterofpain

EyeWasAbducted said:


> I had asked a little while back about mounting my upfiring speakers on the ceiling since I wasn’t getting the effect like I had hoped. I tried manipulating my set up some more before I went ahead with the mounting..


Wait, what??? So your upfiring speakers are down firing downward? If you can place your upfiring speakers overhead, wouldn't it just have been easier to put in dedicated ceiling speakers.


----------



## gwsat

howard68 said:


> Roku does not do Netflix with dolby


Correct. Only a few approved streaming clients can decode Netflix's version of Atmos:



> The following devices support Dolby Atmos with Netflix:
> Apple TV 4K (requires tvOS 12 or later)
> LG OLED TVs (2017 or newer models)
> Pixela 4K Smart Tuner.
> Sony BRAVIA Android TVs (2018 models)
> Windows 10 app (requires Windows 10 RS3 Build 16299 or later)
> Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X.


----------



## westbergjoakim

Bond 007 said:


> Huh?


What is it that you don't understand?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## Bond 007

westbergjoakim said:


> What is it that you don't understand?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


Mostly, I get a phantom center (with a real center).


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> About phantom center in a 2-channel; in a 3-person sofa, would you recommend to toe-in a little more if the phantom center is right in the middle to spread more or better all over the sofa or are both sides getting good enough sound (if you also have a real center)? I'm not home atm so I can't try it myself but I have my L and R facing so I get a phantom center (with a real center).


To get a good phantom centre for all 3 people on a sofa, aim the L/R speakers at the listener on the opposite end of the sofa (time-energy trading). This will keep the nearby speaker from dominating.


----------



## batpig

gwsat said:


> Correct. Only a few approved streaming clients can decode Netflix's version of Atmos:


Until Netflix works out their issues with other hardware providers, it strikes me that the AppleTV 4K is THE streaming box to have if you care about Atmos. 

AFAIK, it's the only streaming box that supports Atmos audio for Netflix, Vudu, and Amazon streaming apps, plus of course its own iTunes movie rentals. 

The Xbox One models seem to be the only other device with such broad support, the issue there is (1) many people do not want to deal with a gaming system just to get streaming apps and (2) it seems to do some weird stuff to the audio when you enable Atmos output, the reports I've seen show that ALL audio is then output as "Atmos" even when it's not actually Atmos because of how the Xbox needs to re-encode the material for output.

Every other streaming box is limited with Atmos support... leaving aside built-in TV apps and the Xbox One: 

Vudu seems to have the broadest support with support from newer Roku 4K models, NVidia Shield, Chromecast Ultra, and several brands of 4K BDPs, but not from FireTV Amazon devices
Amazon supports Atmos on its FireTV devices, the newer Roku 4K models, and a few brands of 4K BDPs
Netflix only supports AppleTV 4K

So if you get an Nvidia Shield, newer Roku 4K box, or a newer model Samsung BDP you get Atmos on Vudu and Amazon but not Netflix. If you get a FireTV 4K device, you get Atmos on Amazon only. Newer Sony/Philips 4K BDPs only support Atmos on Vudu streams, no Amazon or Netflix. And it's a big bummer because Netflix has WAY more Atmos content then Amazon.

Am I thinking about this wrong? Right now it seems like the Apple TV 4K is the best choice by far for Atmos audio from streaming platforms.


----------



## gwsat

batpig said:


> Until Netflix works out their issues with other hardware providers, it strikes me that the AppleTV 4K is THE streaming box to have if you care about Atmos.
> 
> AFAIK, it's the only streaming box that supports Atmos audio for Netflix, Vudu, and Amazon streaming apps, plus of course its own iTunes movie rentals.
> 
> The Xbox One models seem to be the only other device with such broad support, the issue there is (1) many people do not want to deal with a gaming system just to get streaming apps and (2) it seems to do some weird stuff to the audio when you enable Atmos output, the reports I've seen show that ALL audio is then output as "Atmos" even when it's not actually Atmos because of how the Xbox needs to re-encode the material for output.
> 
> Every other streaming box is limited with Atmos support... leaving aside built-in TV apps and the Xbox One:
> 
> Vudu seems to have the broadest support with support from newer Roku 4K models, NVidia Shield, Chromecast Ultra, and several brands of 4K BDPs, but not from FireTV Amazon devices
> Amazon supports Atmos on its FireTV devices, the newer Roku 4K models, and a few brands of 4K BDPs
> Netflix only supports AppleTV 4K
> 
> So if you get an Nvidia Shield, newer Roku 4K box, or a newer model Samsung BDP you get Atmos on Vudu and Amazon but not Netflix. If you get a FireTV 4K device, you get Atmos on Amazon only. Newer Sony/Philips 4K BDPs only support Atmos on Vudu streams, no Amazon or Netflix. And it's a big bummer because Netflix has WAY more Atmos content then Amazon.
> 
> Am I thinking about this wrong? Right now it seems like the Apple TV 4K is the best choice by far for Atmos audio from streaming platforms.


I think you are right. Although I am an Apple guy, I recently bought an iPhone Xs Max, and have a boat load of other Apple devices, I don't plan to buy a 4K Apple TV. It seems to me that it is overpriced for what it is compared to its competition. My Roku Premiere+ is sufficient for enough of my needs for now and the foreseeable future that I plan to wait until Netflix makes its flavor of Atmos available on more devices. In the meantime, I leave it to those who have sprung for an ATV 4K to enjoy Atmos from Netflix.


----------



## westbergjoakim

sdurani said:


> To get a good phantom centre for all 3 people on a sofa, aim the L/R speakers at the listener on the opposite end of the sofa (time-energy trading). This will keep the nearby speaker from dominating.


Thanks for the replay! I'll test this 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

Bond 007 said:


> Yeah, it's nice he's trying to help. But it doesn't mean your post is not nonsense.


Yes -- clearly there's a language barrier here, but the original post with mixed references to "phantom center" and "real center" didn't make much sense. Either you have a phantom center OR you have a real center. I'm still not clear what you were trying to ask.

My best bet is that you were referring to stereo imaging from the L/R speakers, whether or not you have a real or "phantom" center channel speaker. But I could be wrong.


----------



## westbergjoakim

batpig said:


> Yes -- clearly there's a language barrier here, but the original post with mixed references to "phantom center" and "real center" didn't make much sense. Either you have a phantom center OR you have a real center. I'm still not clear what you were trying to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> My best bet is that you were referring to stereo imaging from the L/R speakers, whether or not you have a real or "phantom" center channel speaker. But I could be wrong.


I have a 7.2.4-setup. I asked how I would place my L and R speakers to best spread the sound from this two over the entire couch. I was refering to both stereo and surround. I now have them placed so that I get a phantom center from these two in the middle seat of the couch (stereo), but wondered if I should place them or angle them in some other way when I have a center (surround).

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## rontalley

@batpig, is there a list of Atmos content available on FireTV devices? Do you need the 4K devices or does Atmos work with standard FireTV devices? My "Man Cave" has a 7.2.4 Atmos setup but my projector is only 1080p so I only have a regular FireStick in there. However, I do have 2 4K sticks unopened sitting in the box...You have me thinking now.

Thanks!


----------



## FilmMixer

rontalley said:


> @batpig, is there a list of Atmos content available on FireTV devices? Do you need the 4K devices or does Atmos work with standard FireTV devices? My "Man Cave" has a 7.2.4 Atmos setup but my projector is only 1080p so I only have a regular FireStick in there. However, I do have 2 4K sticks unopened sitting in the box...You have me thinking now.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!




I’ll never be batpig... 

But here ya go regarding devices. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Gary J

Looks like X-Box for the win!


----------



## batpig

rontalley said:


> @batpig, is there a list of Atmos content available on FireTV devices? Do you need the 4K devices or does Atmos work with standard FireTV devices? My "Man Cave" has a 7.2.4 Atmos setup but my projector is only 1080p so I only have a regular FireStick in there. However, I do have 2 4K sticks unopened sitting in the box...You have me thinking now.
> 
> Thanks!


As far as I'm aware, there is very limited Atmos content on Amazon. I know the Jack Ryan TV series has it, but not sure what else does (if anything at this point).

Also, you may not even be able to access what is available if you only have a 1080p projector. I don't know this for a fact, but Vudu for examples doesn't even let you stream the UHD version with Atmos audio if you don't have a compatible 4K display with HDCP 2.2. I believe Netflix works the same way, although not sure.

So to access Atmos streaming content with a 1080p projector, you would likely need to add a 3rd party device like those from HDFury which can strip the HDCP 2.2 flag and donwrez the 4K video to 1080p (unless your PJ can accept a 4K resolution input signal).


----------



## rontalley

batpig said:


> you would likely need to add a 3rd party device like those from HDFury which can strip the HDCP 2.2 flag and donwrez the 4K video to 1080p (unless your PJ can accept a 4K resolution input signal).


Does 4K downrez look at better than 1080p native?


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> gwsat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Only a few approved streaming clients can decode Netflix's version of Atmos:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Netflix works out their issues with other hardware providers, it strikes me that the AppleTV 4K is THE streaming box to have if you care about Atmos.
> 
> AFAIK, it's the only streaming box that supports Atmos audio for Netflix, Vudu, and Amazon streaming apps, plus of course its own iTunes movie rentals.
> 
> The Xbox One models seem to be the only other device with such broad support, the issue there is (1) many people do not want to deal with a gaming system just to get streaming apps and (2) it seems to do some weird stuff to the audio when you enable Atmos output, the reports I've seen show that ALL audio is then output as "Atmos" even when it's not actually Atmos because of how the Xbox needs to re-encode the material for output.
> 
> Every other streaming box is limited with Atmos support... leaving aside built-in TV apps and the Xbox One:
> 
> Vudu seems to have the broadest support with support from newer Roku 4K models, NVidia Shield, Chromecast Ultra, and several brands of 4K BDPs, but not from FireTV Amazon devices
> Amazon supports Atmos on its FireTV devices, the newer Roku 4K models, and a few brands of 4K BDPs
> Netflix only supports AppleTV 4K
> 
> So if you get an Nvidia Shield, newer Roku 4K box, or a newer model Samsung BDP you get Atmos on Vudu and Amazon but not Netflix. If you get a FireTV 4K device, you get Atmos on Amazon only. Newer Sony/Philips 4K BDPs only support Atmos on Vudu streams, no Amazon or Netflix. And it's a big bummer because Netflix has WAY more Atmos content then Amazon.
> 
> Am I thinking about this wrong? Right now it seems like the Apple TV 4K is the best choice by far for Atmos audio from streaming platforms.
Click to expand...

It is not hard to change the setting on an x box 1 to disable Atmos when not watching an atmos title


----------



## lax01

LG WebOS 3+ apps all do Dolby Vision and Atmos...coupled with a Nvidia Shield or ATV4K....are probably the best bets (assuming you want an LG display)


----------



## rekbones

FilmMixer said:


> I’ll never be batpig...
> 
> But here ya go regarding devices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Absent from your list is HTPC running windows 10 will play Netflix Atmos and you don't need a 4K display. You do need to subscribe to the premium UHD Netflix package.


----------



## Jonas2

westbergjoakim said:


> Haha, my ignorance? As you said, this is a forum, where people ask questions. I was asking about others findings and what's working best for them when I wasn't able to do that by myself atm. Then you show up with your great feedback and answering my questions really well, don't you think? I know about time-energy trading but I haven't tried it by myself, only toed-in the speakers so they both are pointing at the MLP.
> 
> As you can see, I don't have english as my native language (and I had worked for 22 straight hours, was really tired and it was in the middle of the night when I wrote that question), but I have never had any problem to understand what anybody have meant, I can think so logically that I understand what the person asks or wants to ask. But then a big boy like you come and write stuff and patronize me. But that's great for you behind your screen. Really funny guy! Thank you for your time!



Well, I for one think your English is pretty darned good! 


As for the issue, I think you simply need to experiment with a range of toe-in angles and do a lot of listening at the positions along the couch. My L/R are toed in a number of degrees (though I'm not sure the actual angle) but nowhere near pointed at MLP. On a 3-person couch, they are aimed more at the left and right listeners, speakers are about 87" or so apart and 8' away for the MLP "ear". It's quite good for all 3 positions in both stereo and multi-channel, at least with my particular speakers.


----------



## JT1521

*Don't believe I am getting Dolby Atmos out of receiver.*

I don't know what the heck is going on? I don't believe I have Dolby Atmos coming out of my receiver. Here is my setup. I have an Onkyo TX-NR545 receiver which is Dolby Atmos enabled. I have a 5.1.2 speaker setup. I just bought 2 Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-Enabled Speakers and placed them on top of the front left and right speakers. I went into the settings on the receiver and chose the 5.1.2 setup. I just bought the movie IT which has a Dolby Atmos soundtrack and is selected. When it plays it is showing pcm on my receiver. Here is a picture of the info from my receiver and a picture from the Blu ray info. What am I not doing right?


----------



## grendelrt

JT1521 said:


> I don't know what the heck is going on? I don't believe I have Dolby Atmos coming out of my receiver. Here is my setup. I have an Onkyo TX-NR545 receiver which is Dolby Atmos enabled. I have a 5.1.2 speaker setup. I just bought 2 Onkyo SKH-410 Dolby Atmos-Enabled Speakers and placed them on top of the front left and right speakers. I went into the settings on the receiver and chose the 5.1.2 setup. I just bought the movie IT which has a Dolby Atmos soundtrack and is selected. When it plays it is showing pcm on my receiver. Here is a picture of the info from my receiver and a picture from the Blu ray info. What am I not doing right?


First thing to check would be that the output on your Blu-ray player is set to bitstreaming.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## JT1521

grendelrt said:


> First thing to check would be that the output on your Blu-ray player is set to bitstreaming.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


I did and these are the Audio settings on my Blu ray player.


----------



## usc1995

JT1521 said:


> I did and these are the Audio settings on my Blu ray player.




That looks like it is set to bitstream all audio as either Dolby Digital or DTS for devices like a sound bar that may not be able to decode all of the codecs. Your BD Audio Mix should be set to off as any secondary audio mix will not work. Try that and report back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JT1521

usc1995 said:


> That looks like it is set to bitstream all audio as either Dolby Digital or DTS for devices like a sound bar that may not be able to decode all of the codecs. Your BD Audio Mix should be set to off as any secondary audio mix will not work. Try that and report back.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yep that was it. I shut off the BD Audio Mix setting. I actually figured it out a few hours ago. Thanks for the response. Now the blu ray info and receiver info are showing Dolby Atmos.


----------



## mogrub

Part of my brain knew this was a stupid, fate-tempting thing to say: 



mogrub said:


> The left surround was going to be the hardest of all to install, so I started with that one ... it's done now, so the rest should be (knock on wood, studs and joists) pretty much downhill from here.


Nothing can possibly go wrong now? Oh yes it can ... 

Attached for your amusement are the before and after pictures on the "much easier" right surround. The uninvited guest you see is a completely random PVC vent pipe. Just wandering up from the first floor. It if had been 4 inches to the left, no problem. If it had taken that left turn 4 inches lower, no problem. It did neither, so it's completely exactly in the way. 



stikle said:


> Seriously? Power down, lights off, and back upstairs to think about things. Maybe time for a drink too.


Might have been two drinks. No Atmos tuning or testing until Monday at the earliest. Aaarrrggghhh.


----------



## batpig

UMMMMMMMMM.... HEY YOU GUYS!!! 

Monoprice Unveils Its HTP-1 16-Channel Processor with Dirac and New Sealed Subs​

BOMBSHELL


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> UMMMMMMMMM.... HEY YOU GUYS!!!
> 
> Monoprice Unveils Its HTP-1 16-Channel Processor with Dirac and New Sealed Subs​
> 
> BOMBSHELL


Oh snap.....I am all in.


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> Oh snap.........I am all in.


Wow. Wonder if this Monoprice processor will be released and fully featured for 3Q 2019, before the RMC-1 gets there.


----------



## stikle

Holy hell...Guess it's time to find a job again.


----------



## batpig

Big Dan at Emotiva is probably crying now


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Big Dan at Emotiva is probably crying now


There is one advantage that the RMC-1 would have at its price point - modular design and slots for XLR output board for up to 24 channels. 

That matters if you're running 9.1.6 and want the RMC-1 and Dirac to manage multiple subs, or if you have active crossover speakers and run out of channels with 16 channels. There's other ways to do it, though, like the MiniDSP or Q-Sys type boxes.


----------



## midi-guy

sdrucker said:


> There is one advantage that the RMC-1 would have at its price point - modular design and slots for XLR output board for up to 24 channels.
> 
> That matters if you're running 9.1.6 and want the RMC-1 and Dirac to manage multiple subs, or if you have active crossover speakers and run out of channels with 16 channels. There's other ways to do it, though, like the MiniDSP or Q-Sys type boxes.


Agreed. I see the Monoprice HTP-1 as more of a competitor to the Emotiva RMC-2, with the RMC-2 having a $100 price edge.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdrucker said:


> There is one advantage that the RMC-1 would have at its price point - modular design and slots for XLR output board for up to 24 channels.
> 
> That matters if you're running 9.1.6 and want the RMC-1 and Dirac to manage multiple subs, or if you have active crossover speakers and run out of channels with 16 channels. There's other ways to do it, though, like the MiniDSP or Q-Sys type boxes.


There is one advantage Monoprice has over Emotiva - track record of fully functional products


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> There is one advantage Monoprice has over Emotiva - track record of fully functional products



Cables and accessory gear, as well as amps. But supporting a processor is new for them, isn't it?


----------



## midi-guy

Molon_Labe said:


> I would assume they are not the OEM of the hardware. I see them as a modern day Radio Shack. Radio Shack had Pioneer receivers that were rebranded under their label. Optimus was the label given if I am not mistaken. I am thinking another company is behind the scenes on this receiver, but I could be wrong.


Guess is that they're being made by the same outfit that makes their Monolith amps - ATI.
ATI now owns Datasat, Theta among others - thinking this is where the underlying tech for the HTP-1 is coming from.


----------



## mtbdudex

batpig said:


> UMMMMMMMMM.... HEY YOU GUYS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Monoprice Unveils Its HTP-1 16-Channel Processor with Dirac and New Sealed Subs​
> 
> 
> 
> BOMBSHELL




Well I expect Denon to enable 9.1.6 on the X8500HA then with the hdmi 2.1 summer board upgrade to lead the game 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## midi-guy

mtbdudex said:


> Well I expect Denon to enable 9.1.6 on the X8500HA then with the hdmi 2.1 summer board upgrade to lead the game
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? That would be great. Do you have a source for this info?

Supposedly, there's a new Atmos platform release coming this year from Dolby to its licensees. It's supposed to have among other things, support for new native Atmos and DSU speaker layout/counts.
As the Denons are DSP based, the support for 9.1.6 will probably have to come from ADI.


----------



## Molon_Labe

mtbdudex said:


> Well I expect Denon to enable 9.1.6 on the X8500HA then with the hdmi 2.1 summer board upgrade to lead the game
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lead the game with Audyssey? Dirac Live eats it's lunch. I am a former 8802a owner so don't blast me. I owned Denon/Marantz exclusively for the past 10 years up until recently. Is the Marantz chipset capable of supporting all channels? I thought I read somewhere it wasn't.


----------



## midi-guy

Molon_Labe said:


> Is the Marantz chipset capable of supporting all channels? I thought I read somewhere it wasn't.


Unless there's some unknown hardware restriction, I don't see why not.
The Denon flagships have enough DACs to do 9.1.6, but might not have enough DSP/CPU power.

They use ADI Griffin Lite for their DSP.

All the other manufacturers that have implemented =>9.1.6 have used the full blown ADI SHARCS or equivalent.

Maybe well see a new AV8500H Mark II or AV8600H this year.


----------



## Gabre

batpig said:


> Until Netflix works out their issues with other hardware providers, it strikes me that the AppleTV 4K is THE streaming box to have if you care about Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK, it's the only streaming box that supports Atmos audio for Netflix, Vudu, and Amazon streaming apps, plus of course its own iTunes movie rentals.
> 
> 
> 
> The Xbox One models seem to be the only other device with such broad support, the issue there is (1) many people do not want to deal with a gaming system just to get streaming apps and (2) it seems to do some weird stuff to the audio when you enable Atmos output, the reports I've seen show that ALL audio is then output as "Atmos" even when it's not actually Atmos because of how the Xbox needs to re-encode the material for output.
> 
> 
> 
> Every other streaming box is limited with Atmos support... leaving aside built-in TV apps and the Xbox One:
> 
> 
> Vudu seems to have the broadest support with support from newer Roku 4K models, NVidia Shield, Chromecast Ultra, and several brands of 4K BDPs, but not from FireTV Amazon devices
> 
> Amazon supports Atmos on its FireTV devices, the newer Roku 4K models, and a few brands of 4K BDPs
> 
> Netflix only supports AppleTV 4K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you get an Nvidia Shield, newer Roku 4K box, or a newer model Samsung BDP you get Atmos on Vudu and Amazon but not Netflix. If you get a FireTV 4K device, you get Atmos on Amazon only. Newer Sony/Philips 4K BDPs only support Atmos on Vudu streams, no Amazon or Netflix. And it's a big bummer because Netflix has WAY more Atmos content then Amazon.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I thinking about this wrong? Right now it seems like the Apple TV 4K is the best choice by far for Atmos audio from streaming platforms.


Or just use HTPC with win 10 and you have everything


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Molon_Labe said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one advantage Monoprice has over Emotiva - track record of fully functional products/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cables and accessory gear, as well as amps. But supporting a processor is new for them, isn't it?
Click to expand...

They'll probably do the same thing as their THX subs... have a problem? Send it back and we'll either replace it or send it to the manufacturer for a fix. Monoprice seems to act as a pass-through company. Let the OEM figure it out. We just sell the product.


----------



## mtbdudex

midi-guy said:


> Unless there's some unknown hardware restriction, I don't see why not.
> 
> The Denon flagships have enough DACs to do 9.1.6, but might not have enough DSP/CPU power.
> 
> 
> 
> They use ADI Griffin Lite for their DSP.
> 
> 
> 
> All the other manufacturers that have implemented =>9.1.6 have used the full blown ADI SHARCS or equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe well see a new AV8500H Mark II or AV8600H this year.




Hence I called it a summer 2019 X8500HA as hardware upgrade for HDMI 2.1 can also implement dsp/cpu tweak, 1.5 years into a flagship product that’s expected for leadership 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mtbdudex said:


> midi-guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there's some unknown hardware restriction, I don't see why not.
> 
> The Denon flagships have enough DACs to do 9.1.6, but might not have enough DSP/CPU power.
> 
> 
> 
> They use ADI Griffin Lite for their DSP.
> 
> 
> 
> All the other manufacturers that have implemented =>9.1.6 have used the full blown ADI SHARCS or equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe well see a new AV8500H Mark II or AV8600H this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence I called it a summer 2019 X8500HA as hardware upgrade for HDMI 2.1 can also implement dsp/cpu tweak, 1.5 years into a flagship product that’s expected for leadership
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath. They could have done 9.1.4 in their last flagships and they didnt.

It'll get an HDMI board swap, but that's probably it for the 8500 and Marantz's flagship receiver and pre-amp models. 

Companies like D+M don't introduce new features like that until the next full flagship and in dribs and drabs or you would see upgradeable, modular units being introduced.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> They'll probably do the same thing as their THX subs... have a problem? Send it back and we'll either replace it or send it to the manufacturer for a fix. Monoprice seems to act as a pass-through company. Let the OEM figure it out. We just sell the product.


I think that would be harder to do selling a processor branded under their name than subs, if that's true. Most likely they'd have contracted out support for this new pre/pro at this price point.


----------



## mtbdudex

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't hold your breath. They could have done 9.1.4 in their last flagships and they didnt.
> 
> It'll get an HDMI board swap, but that's probably it for the 8500 and Marantz's flagship receiver and pre-amp models.
> 
> Companies like D+M don't introduce new features like that until the next full flagship and in dribs and drabs or you would see upgradeable, modular units being introduced.




We can always hope right Dan?
I know you meant 9.1.6 above, as 9.1.4/7.1.6 is current D&M limit.

The 7200W got upgrade 6-7 months later for HDMI 1.4>2.0/ hdcp 2.2.

While in HT more=better at of times, I feel for 2 row HT 9.x.6 is the upper limit for Atmos. This would maintain leadership.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mtbdudex said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath. They could have done 9.1.4 in their last flagships and they didnt.
> 
> It'll get an HDMI board swap, but that's probably it for the 8500 and Marantz's flagship receiver and pre-amp models.
> 
> Companies like D+M don't introduce new features like that until the next full flagship and in dribs and drabs or you would see upgradeable, modular units being introduced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can always hope right Dan?
> I know you meant 9.1.6 above, as 9.1.4/7.1.6 is current D&M limit.
> 
> The 7200W got upgrade 6-7 months later for HDMI 1.4>2.0/ hdcp 2.2.
> 
> While in HT more=better at of times, I feel for 2 row HT 9.x.6 is the upper limit for Atmos. This would maintain leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually, I was talking about the prior flagship in regards to the fact there was no technical reason I'm aware of for D+M not to have updated that unit to 9.1.4 and they didn't. Therefore, I am led to believe they would not update their current flagship models to 9.1.6 even though they probably could.


----------



## Nalleh

Dan Hitchman said:


> Actually, I was talking about the prior flagship in regards to the fact there was no technical reason I'm aware of for D+M not to have updated that unit to 9.1.4 and they didn't. Therefore, I am led to believe they would not update their current flagship models to 9.1.6 even though they probably could.


Not enough DSP power. That generation maxed out at 11.1. The first «non-high-end» products to surpass that limit is the 8500/8805, which has the newer Griffin Lite DSP chips. Which happens to be the same chips used in Emo RMC-1 that has 9.1.6.


----------



## Erod

Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?

Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. I would think most people looking at this receiver would want to upgrade their system to 9.2.6. They're one channel short.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Erod said:


> Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?
> 
> Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. I would think most people looking at this receiver would want to upgrade their system to 9.2.6. They're one channel short.


You must remember that Dolby Atmos for the home has only one LFE channel like every other surround soundtrack. A receiver or pre-amp with more than one sub out is normally just splitting the mono LFE channel and any mono summed bass management derived bass audio from the other speaker channels to multiple outputs. 

Even if it's a specialty processor that can have stereo sub outputs from its bass management software, the source soundtrack still only has one official mono low frequency channel.

That said, I'm sure this OEM'd unit will probably have two or more sub outputs. Whether they're mono splits or stereo derived via more advanced bass management crossover filtering with the LFE equally split across the outputs is another unanswered question.


----------



## Erod

Dan Hitchman said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?
> 
> Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. I would think most people looking at this receiver would want to upgrade their system to 9.2.6. They're one channel short.
> 
> 
> 
> You must remember that Dolby Atmos for the home has only one LFE channel like every other surround soundtrack. A receiver or pre-amp with more than one sub out is normally just splitting the mono LFE channel and any mono summed bass management derived bass audio from the other speaker channels to multiple outputs.
> 
> Even if it's a specialty processor that can have stereo sub outputs from its bass management software, the source soundtrack still only has one official mono low frequency channel.
> 
> That said, I'm sure this OEM'd unit will probably have two or more sub outputs. Whether they're mono splits or stereo derived via more advanced bass management crossover filtering with the LFE equally split across the outputs is another unanswered question.
Click to expand...

I understand that subs don't need separate LFE signals for each, but my Anthem 60 still has two XLR sub connections. I'd rather split that signal in the processor rather than after the cable connections.

Their pics only show 16 connections. Perhaps they can change that.

I like my Anthem so much, I'm not changing until they come out with one. Never had such a quiet and flawless receiver/processor, and I've had several.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Erod said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?
> 
> Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. I would think most people looking at this receiver would want to upgrade their system to 9.2.6. They're one channel short.
> 
> 
> 
> You must remember that Dolby Atmos for the home has only one LFE channel like every other surround soundtrack. A receiver or pre-amp with more than one sub out is normally just splitting the mono LFE channel and any mono summed bass management derived bass audio from the other speaker channels to multiple outputs.
> 
> Even if it's a specialty processor that can have stereo sub outputs from its bass management software, the source soundtrack still only has one official mono low frequency channel.
> 
> That said, I'm sure this OEM'd unit will probably have two or more sub outputs. Whether they're mono splits or stereo derived via more advanced bass management crossover filtering with the LFE equally split across the outputs is another unanswered question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that subs don't need separate LFE signals for each, but my Anthem 60 still has two XLR sub connections. I'd rather split that signal in the processor rather than after the cable connections.
> 
> Their pics only show 16 connections. Perhaps they can change that.
> 
> I like my Anthem so much, I'm not changing until they come out with one. Never had such a quiet and flawless receiver/processor, and I've had several.
Click to expand...

If Morris Kessler's ATI is the OEM supplier for this preamp like Monoprice's power amps, then it will probably share components from their Datasat brand, and that's nothing to sneeze at. 

If they stick with one sub out, it's probably to shave manufacturing costs. Their Monolith THX subs (I own one) have XLR master-slave hookups and so they may not feel the need to add more parts and more sophisticated Dirac room correction and bass management software.

It will take Anthem forever to come up with a 9.1.6 or greater product. They're always slow pokes.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Erod said:


> I understand that subs don't need separate LFE signals for each, but my Anthem 60 still has two XLR sub connections. I'd rather split that signal in the processor rather than after the cable connections.


I have the AVM 60, too, but their onboard subwoofer Y splitter still necessitated buying a MiniDSP so I could have individual delays for front and rear subs. 

It still surprises me that features that seemed pretty easy to do on my SSP-800 back in 2008 are not routinely available 10 years later. The SSP-800 is a 7.1 processor with 10 analog output channels, each with an identical array of EQ/delay controls. The menus let you configure them as 1, 2, or 3 subwoofer outputs among other options. What is so hard? 

With 16 outputs I could have 9.2.4 from a single box solution. Here's hoping Monoprice offers such flexibility.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Roger Dressler said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that subs don't need separate LFE signals for each, but my Anthem 60 still has two XLR sub connections. I'd rather split that signal in the processor rather than after the cable connections.
> 
> 
> 
> I have the AVM 60, too, but their onboard subwoofer Y splitter still necessitated buying a MiniDSP so I could have individual delays for front and rear subs.
> 
> It still surprises me that features that seemed pretty easy to do on my SSP-800 back in 2008 are not routinely available 10 years later. The SSP-800 is a 7.1 processor with 10 analog output channels, each with an identical array of EQ/delay controls. The menus let you configure them as 1, 2, or 3 subwoofer outputs among other options. What is so hard?
> 
> With 16 outputs I could have 9.2.4 from a single box solution. Here's hoping Monoprice offers such flexibility. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on which OEM supplier Monoprice chose to go with... something like the Chinese electronics firm (supplier to many consumer brands) Outlaw Audio is using for their upcoming Atmos processor or going with U.S. based ATI as they already have a relationship. 

I would assume the latter since it will have Dirac room correction and ATI's Datasat brand uses it too.

The unit looks too different from Emotiva's new products to have been from that common OEM source. IMHO


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> The unit looks too different from Emotiva's new products to have been from that common OEM source.


Whew!


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> With 16 outputs I could have 9.2.4 from a single box solution.


You can do 9.2.4 with the Denon 8500.


----------



## m. zillch

Erod said:


> Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?
> 
> Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs.


I see your point and think Dan is correct but I thought to throw out that sometimes the cost cutting works like this when buying processor chips:

2 channel architecture: $
4 channel architecture: $$
8 channel architecture: $$$
16 channel architecture: $$$$
32 channel architecture: $$$$$

So as you can see there is higher value and efficiency in utilizing a 16 ch design instead of going for 17 from a very expensive chip capable of 32 channels.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> You can do 9.2.4 with the Denon 8500.


Yes, but then I'd need an external box for EQ. Am not interest in Audyssey anymore, having lived with it for a couple years in the AV7702. Thus far I prefer PEQ, but could be persuaded if Dirac Live with multi-sub processing works as claimed.


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> Yes, but then I'd need an external box for EQ. Am not interest in Audyssey anymore, having lived with it for a couple years in the AV7702. Thus far I prefer PEQ, but could be persuaded if Dirac Live with multi-sub processing works as claimed.


What about the Acurus ACT 4? Plenty of channels, multiple subwoofer outputs, and no auto-EQ, only PEQ: http://www.acurusav.com/picture/act%25204_back_reflect.jpg?pictureId=21567353


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> What about the Acurus ACT 4? Plenty of channels, multiple subwoofer outputs, and no auto-EQ, only PEQ: http://www.acurusav.com/picture/act%25204_back_reflect.jpg?pictureId=21567353


Ticks many of the right boxes. Wish I could see a robust owner's thread here at AVS Forum. That's where one finds the juicy facts.


----------



## Stereodude

Roger Dressler said:


> ...Wish I could see a robust owner's thread here at AVS Forum. That's where one finds the juicy facts.


That or people suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.


----------



## unretarded

..…!!!

.5 on the sub channel caught my eye, given they are fairly good at the facts, I imagine this to be separate channels, not 5 Y connectors and single LFE/sub.


Dirac, 9.5.6 capabilities......


----------



## Chirosamsung

Suddenly I’m less excited about my NAD 758 with DIRAC and Anthem MCA-5 external amp...Hope I don’t regret that purchase because of this amp...


----------



## Erod

Chirosamsung said:


> Suddenly I’m less excited about my NAD 758 with DIRAC and Anthem MCA-5 external amp...Hope I don’t regret that purchase because of this amp...



Just my two cents.

We're wading deep into the diminishing returns arena with these formats, so don't worry. Make your purchase.

5.1 was life-changing.

Adding a second sub was another HUGE sound improvement.

7.1 moved the needle slightly, but mattered a little more when DTS HD Master arrived.

Atmos (7.2.4 for me) added a nice but subtle improvement, but it's somewhat overrated for the most part. The Dolby Surround effect is nice for ambiance. Our ears still predominantly hear in 5.1.

So how much can another two speakers above add? And if you already have a good soundstage, will those front wides change the sound much, if any?

For me, my Anthem 60 is so crisp and accurate, I think I'll spending money for the sake of spending money going forward.

But we are all upgrade junkies, and we can't help ourselves. Lol. I do like to support the industry so they'll keep pushing the envelope and stop focusing on crappy soundbars so much.


----------



## bobbino421

Is there a list somewhere for Movies(streaming) and streaming shows in Dolby Atmos specifically Netflix titles?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Erod said:


> Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?
> 
> Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs.


Sorry, where does that stat come from please? It might be the case in this forum, but of the people I know in real life who have an AVR with Atmos, none of us has two subs.
Therefore if there was some kind of scientific survey (not anecdotal) with many thousands of randomly sampled answers, I'd be genuinely interested. TIA.


----------



## Erod

mrtickleuk said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Monoprice choose 16 channels?
> 
> Most enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, where does that stat come from please? It might be the case in this forum, but of the people I know in real life who have an AVR with Atmos, none of us has two subs.
> Therefore if there was some kind of scientific survey (not anecdotal) with many thousands of randomly sampled answers, I'd be genuinely interested. TIA.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to offend. If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.


----------



## m. zillch

Erod said:


> Didn't mean to offend. If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.


Nobody doubts two is better than one. The question is what percentage of households use two subs.

I'm going to guess: less than 1%


----------



## Erod

m. zillch said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to offend. If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody doubts two is better than one. The question is what percentage of households use two subs.
> 
> I'm going to guess: less than 1%
Click to expand...

Here in the AVS crowd, I'd say 50% or higher.


----------



## Chirosamsung

m. zillch said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to offend. If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody doubts two is better than one. The question is what percentage of households use two subs.
> 
> I'm going to guess: less than 1%
Click to expand...

Probably more household percentage wise have two subs in America then 7.1.4 or any other Dolby Atmos format...


----------



## usc1995

bobbino421 said:


> Is there a list somewhere for Movies(streaming) and streaming shows in Dolby Atmos specifically Netflix titles?




If you have the 4K subscription to Netflix you just need to search “Atmos” to see the titles available.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JT1521

JT1521 said:


> Yep that was it. I shut off the BD Audio Mix setting. I actually figured it out a few hours ago. Thanks for the response. Now the blu ray info and receiver info are showing Dolby Atmos.


Actually my Blu-ray player is showing Dolby TrueHD 7.1 when I check the info on the Blu ray player. On my Onkyo receiver it is showing Dolby Atmos. I am assuming everything is working right or is it supposed to show Dolby Atmos on Blu-ray player info as well? Dolby Atmos was chosen as the audio on the disc setup when I started the movie.


----------



## stikle

JT1521 said:


> Actually my Blu-ray player is showing Dolby TrueHD 7.1 when I check the info on the Blu ray player. On my Onkyo receiver it is showing Dolby Atmos. I am assuming everything is working right



Correct. The Bluray player is bitstreaming the audio to your receiver, which is decoding it. Your Bluray player has no concept of Atmos or not. As long as your Onkyo says "Atmos" then you're golden.


----------



## audiomanz

Hi all,

Quick question. My rear height left is an inch higher than my Front height left. Would that make any real significant sound issues when watching Dolby Atmos or DTS: X? I dont have them working yet as I just am in the processing of getting the brackets secured to my walls. I have a handyman coming over this week as I botched one up using a hammer drill and I said thats it I'm getting a handyman to complete the rest of the drilling.

Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.

audiomanz


----------



## unretarded

My last post had a error...no 9.5.6

I was reading from pre release articles...here is from their site.


* Dolby® ATMOS
Includes support for Dolby® TrueHD and Dolby® Digital
Up to 16 output channels with flexible speaker assignment. 
9.1.6 (add wide channels, and upper front and rear)
7.3.6 (3 subwoofers instead of wide channels)
7.5.4 (5 subwoofers, only 4 upper)
Dolby Surround Upmix (replaces Dolby® Pro Logic®)*


----------



## kbarnes701

Wow. Happy New Year guys (and women too if there are any here). I've been away for a few days and come back to great news about a new Monoprice processor at an amazing price. It may be similar to some of Emo's offerings but I know which company I'd trust most to deliver. I am unlikely to ever go beyond 4 overhead speakers here, but I am persuadeable on Wides and could possibly see those in my future, giving me a need for at least 9.x.4. I wouldn't want to be without Dirac Live, and although I am all set with my twin DDRC-88A units (16 channels in total) I'd prefer to have everything in one box, so unless I have missed something, the Monoprice unit won't figure in my plans, unfortunately. No rush to change anything though as I am still totally delighted with the HT as it stands.

EDIT: Oh double wow! Yes I did miss something -- the Monoprice unit does have Dirac! Bombshell is right. Poor old Dan ('Big' Dan not our very own Dan H) -- in the blink of an eye his world goes upside down.


----------



## Molon_Labe

m. zillch said:


> Nobody doubts two is better than one. The question is what percentage of households use two subs.
> 
> I'm going to guess: less than 1%


 Agreed, but what percentage of households have 16 channels? I am going to guess less than 1% I would venture to say most enthusiast this far down the rabbit hole will have more than one sub. With that said, MiniDSP's are cheap and this does have remapping of middle height/wides to subs so I think they did an admirable job.


----------



## Gabre

audiomanz said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question. My rear height left is an inch higher than my Front height left. Would that make any real significant sound issues when watching Dolby Atmos or DTS: X? I dont have them working yet as I just am in the processing of getting the brackets secured to my walls. I have a handyman coming over this week as I botched one up using a hammer drill and I said thats it I'm getting a handyman to complete the rest of the drilling.
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> audiomanz


Omg, one inch??  

Don't loose sleep over it, it's fine


----------



## audiomanz

Gabre said:


> Omg, one inch??
> 
> Don't loose sleep over it, it's fine


Tossing and a turning all night over this.. My attention to detail got a strong hold on me right now..

From what I was reading all the speakers are to be at the same height so your saying one inch either way is fine. Ok. I will need to install the other 2 brackets for the right front height and rear height. I only want to do this once and accuracy is important so I dont miss any details.. Thanks Gabre for your comment.

audiomanz


----------



## Gabre

Room correction software well do its magic measuring distances and that's it. 
Seriously, one inch is really not something to worry about, if it were one foot or so, then maybe.


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow. Happy New Year guys (and women too if there are any here). I've been away for a few days and come back to great news about a new Monoprice processor at an amazing price. It may be similar to some of Emo's offerings but I know which company I'd trust most to deliver. I am unlikely to ever go beyond 4 overhead speakers here, but I am persuadeable on Wides and could possibly see those in my future, giving me a need for at least 9.x.4. I wouldn't want to be without Dirac Live, and although I am all set with my twin DDRC-88A units (16 channels in total) I'd prefer to have everything in one box, so unless I have missed something, the Monoprice unit won't figure in my plans, unfortunately. No rush to change anything though as I am still totally delighted with the HT as it stands.
> 
> EDIT: Oh double wow! Yes I did miss something -- the Monoprice unit does have Dirac! Bombshell is right. Poor old Dan ('Big' Dan not our very own Dan H) -- in the blink of an eye his world goes upside down.


I know...I am having regrets already with my recent purchase of a NaD 758 which was DOA (didn’t even turn on when I opened and plugged in) and my anthem MCA-5 external amp to drive front three and rear atmos heights in 5.1.4

Wondering if I should just return them all and get a all in 1 solution that has Dirac and can drive all speakers without external amplification...


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> -- in the blink of an eye his world goes upside down.


By the time this processor comes out (Q3), Emo might have it's RMC-2 out: fixed at 9.1.6 (no adding channels) for $3799 ($200 less than Monoprice). As with most of these things, it's rarely the technology that surprises me (we knew it was a matter of time before DSP chips had the horsepower to do native 9.1.6 decoding) but instead the price. For example: I knew we'd eventually have 8 terabyte hard drives; I just didn't think they'd be a couple hundred bucks. Same with this new crop of 9.1.6 pre-pros that are no longer the price of a small car.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> By the time this processor comes out (Q3), Emo might have it's RMC-2 out: fixed at 9.1.6 (no adding channels) for $3799 ($200 less than Monoprice). As with most of these things, it's rarely the technology that surprises me (we knew it was a matter of time before DSP chips had the horsepower to do native 9.1.6 decoding) but instead the price. For example: I knew we'd eventually have 8 terabyte hard drives; I just didn't think they'd be a couple hundred bucks. Same with this new crop of 9.1.6 pre-pros that are no longer the price of a small car.


The consumer is the winner here. Solid offerings from multiple vendors with, at one time, unthinkable prices. I will be watching both vendors closely. Being a satisfied customer of both, I have no brand loyalty. Exciting times to be a home theater enthusiasts.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> I know...I am having regrets already with my recent purchase of a NaD 758 which was DOA (didn’t even turn on when I opened and plugged in) and my anthem MCA-5 external amp to drive front three and rear atmos heights in 5.1.4
> 
> Wondering if I should just return them all and get a all in 1 solution that has Dirac and can drive all speakers without external amplification...


You'd need amps for all channels with the Monoprice unit as it is a processor (AVP) not an AVR. And it won't be available until the fall, which may be a factor. The issues with NAD worry me -- it was a possible unit for me (to simplify my setup here with the town 88A units providing Dirac Live). I always have concerns about Emotiva WRT to processors, so the Monoprice unit would be a potential solution for me, giving me plenty of channels (more than I will need) plus Dirac, all in one box. And I already have all-external amplification. But I am in no hurry to change anything so I am in the fortunate position of being able to sit back and see how things develop -- not so for everyone of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> By the time this processor comes out (Q3), Emo might have it's RMC-2 out: fixed at 9.1.6 (no adding channels) for $3799 ($200 less than Monoprice). As with most of these things, it's rarely the technology that surprises me (we knew it was a matter of time before DSP chips had the horsepower to do native 9.1.6 decoding) but instead the price. For example: I knew we'd eventually have 8 terabyte hard drives; I just didn't think they'd be a couple hundred bucks. Same with this new crop of 9.1.6 pre-pros that are no longer the price of a small car.


Yes, good observation. WRT to Emo's RMC-2, I think I am extremely wary about processors from Emotiva. In fact, I'd probably not even consider one, but that might change if I see reports of long-term reliability and bug-free units.

As you say, the truly interesting thing is the price. Do you think that companies like Trinnov have anything to worry about now? I understand the stuff about speaker re-mapping and the ability to run numerous channels, but in the real world, how many actually need or want all that? If people want to go 9.1.6, which is probably plenty for most HTs, much lower cost solutions are now appearing, as we can see from Emo and Monoprice offerings. Does that make a $25,000 processor a bit of a white elephant and reduce its appeal to almost negligible proportions? Or is it more like a Ferrari, where people want it just because....? Just thinking out loud and always value your perspicacious insights into the industry.


----------



## petetherock

Just wondering:

If you have a room say 4m wide, and 3.75m long, but the back is a set diffusers that is almost 50cm deep, do you take the length of the room as 4m or 3.5m when you do your calculations and Atmos ceiling speaker positions? Because the adage has been to sit around 2/3 of the room depth. 
Thanks


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you think that companies like Trinnov have anything to worry about now?


No, because they will usually be ahead of the rest: i.e., Trinnov just announce DTS:X rendering to 32 locations (even though DTS:X currently has 30 speaker locations).


> Does that make a $25,000 processor a bit of a white elephant and reduce its appeal to almost negligible proportions? Or is it more like a Ferrari, where people want it just because....?


Are you asking if the luxury market will ever cease to exist? You've done marketing, you know the answer to that.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> No, because they will usually be ahead of the rest: i.e., Trinnov just announce DTS:X rendering to 32 locations (even though DTS:X currently has 30 speaker locations). Are you asking if the luxury market will ever cease to exist? You've done marketing, you know the answer to that.


Also IMAX Enhanced, for what it’s worth:
https://hometheaterreview.com/trinnov-announces-imax-enhanced-and-dtsx-pro-support/


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Also IMAX Enhanced, for what it’s worth:
> https://hometheaterreview.com/trinnov-announces-imax-enhanced-and-dtsx-pro-support/


Another first.


----------



## mtbdudex

sdurani said:


> No, because they will usually be ahead of the rest: i.e., Trinnov just announce DTS:X rendering to 32 locations (even though DTS:X currently has 30 speaker locations). Are you asking if the luxury market will ever cease to exist? You've done marketing, you know the answer to that.




Well well well, just for fun who’s gonna be the first with 32 BOSE cubes distributed at each of these locations just to see / hear the result ..... 

More speakers, less cone area needed per location.... ok while not BOSE per say where could this envelopment go?
Those wall transducers that Mississippi man utilizes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

mtbdudex said:


> ...where could this envelopment go?


Same envelopment, fewer gaps. If you currently have a DTS:X 7.1.4 speaker layout, then you've already got the maximum envelopment from front to back and left to right. The additional speaker locations with DTS:X Pro (Pro = anything more than 11 speakers) will end up between your current speakers, filling the gaps of the 7.1.4 layout.


----------



## Dave-T

Erod said:


> Didn't mean to offend. If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.


I have to agree with this statement. Adding a second sub CAN make a huge difference depending on the room size, quality of the sub and of course if you have the sub level matched to your fronts correctly to begin with. If your sub()s are not level matched correctly to your front and you correct that minor detail you will hear a huge difference. Then if you add a second sub it will be a game changer.


----------



## Josh Z

Erod said:


> Didn't mean to offend. If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.


Assuming that your room allows you appropriate placement options for the two subs. I do not have the ability to place a second subwoofer on the opposite wall of my first one, and when I tried adding a second sub in a different location, the results were both audibly and measurably worse than just using one subwoofer.


----------



## shs1234

It seems to me that there can be several different goal or advantages to a second subwoofer. Ideally, one can use something like an opposite corner approach to flatten out the room response and minimize the use of PEQ. Even when this is not practical, then the other advantage might be to achieve the same response at multiple seating locations and then use PEQ to flatten that response. In my case, with a single sub near the front right corner of the room, the room response at my chair and my wife’s chair just across the centerline of the room measured differently. I could use PEQ to flatten the response at my chair, but that wouldn’t be optimal for her chair. Now with a 2nd sub near the left front corner of the room, the two chairs, and the row behind as well, show a much more similar room response and I can use PEQ to correct that response. And with twice the cone area and twice the amplifier power, PEQ is less likely to overdrive the system. A 2nd sub also makes localization less likely.


----------



## jpfe8851

*How many channels of info is in an Atmos feed?*

I’ve not seen this explained to my layman’s language. I hope someone can help me out...

An Atmos soundtrack is delivered by DD TrueHD (lossless) or DD+ (compressed) audio stream. I assume these are both 7.1 channels of data. This is simple enough for my brain to see that natively these have discrete channels for a 5.1.2 Atmos speaker set up. Some of you have 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and even 9.1.6 speaker configurations. And I’ve read that in a Home Theater system Atmos can support up to 24.1.10. If I have this correctly, it’s “metadata” that accompanies the audio tracks that allows the 7.1 source to be then decoded by the receiver to feed these additional channels. Have I got this part right?

Now, taking this one step further, I assume that an AVR such as my 7.1 Yamaha RX-V685 can only decode Atmos to 5.1.2, which is how I have my speakers laid out. It seems most say that 4 overhead speakers are much better, but I cannot afford a 9.1 or more AVR. So would it be feasible to connect two additional height speakers slightly behind the MLP in series or parallel as a poor-man’s alternative or would this simply muddle the sounds from above?

What say you gurus?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jpfe8851 said:


> I’ve not seen this explained to my layman’s language. I hope someone can help me out...
> 
> An Atmos soundtrack is delivered by DD TrueHD (lossless) or DD+ (compressed) audio stream. I assume these are both 7.1 channels of data. This is simple enough for my brain to see that natively these have discrete channels for a 5.1.2 Atmos speaker set up. Some of you have 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and even 9.1.6 speaker configurations. And I’ve read that in a Home Theater system Atmos can support up to 24.1.10. If I have this correctly, it’s “metadata” that accompanies the audio tracks that allows the 7.1 source to be then decoded by the receiver to feed these additional channels. Have I got this part right?
> 
> Now, taking this one step further, I assume that an AVR such as my 7.1 Yamaha RX-V685 can only decode Atmos to 5.1.2, which is how I have my speakers laid out. It seems most say that 4 overhead speakers are much better, but I cannot afford a 9.1 or more AVR. So would it be feasible to connect two additional height speakers slightly behind the MLP in series or parallel as a poor-man’s alternative or would this simply muddle the sounds from above?
> 
> What say you gurus?


On a properly mixed and encoded Dolby Atmos track for the home decoded with an Atmos capable receiver or pre-amp, there is a 7.1 channel bed and an external file containing sizing and positional metadata tagged audio objects. The metadata tells the Atmos decoder, or "renderer," what to do with those objects and where to pan or place them by three-axis panner coordinates in a room based upon how many speakers and what Atmos layout you are using.

Most Atmos tracks for the home can scale to 24.1.10, but that requires more sophisticated and expensive processors. Some tracks, like on all Disney 4k Blu-ray titles so far , are fixed, channel-like print-outs without moving 3D objects that cannot be scaled to the maximum home layout of 34.1.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Another first.


:grin::grin:


----------



## springs113

Is it possible to run an atmos setup in an open concept room and have it be effective? 

I have 3 rooms that I can do my ht in unfortunately the most ideal room is the smallest. The room next most suitable has 3 walls and it is rectangular in nature... about 1500-1600 cub ft. 
Now if I were to place the couch with its back facing the open space I'd have walls that the sound could travel along. I'd like to run 5.2.4. 

My current setup(all klipsch reference premieres) 
Mains L/R 8060FA
Center 504C
Rear/Side 502s
Receiver Yamaha Aventage1050b

Would need to purchase for atmos 5.2.4
Klipsch 500sa
New receiver

How would I go about setting that up?
I was thinking placing the atmos modules on the side walls directly left/right of the MLP to achieve the best atmos effect. My drawing ain't direct to scale but you get the idea. The distance between the left and right front speakers is about 7ft. The distance from each surround to the middle seat of the MLP is about 6ft. The distance from the center to said seat is about 8ft. 

Do I need to tweak anything? 
Will I be able to do 5.2.4 efficiently?
Should I switch from the 502 surrounds to the bookshelves instead?


----------



## sdurani

springs113 said:


> Is it possible to run an atmos setup in an open concept room and have it be effective?


Sure, as long as you can separate sounds around you versus sounds above you. That would mean having your current 5.1 set-up closer to ear level and adding 4 height speakers in/on the ceiling or 4 upfiring modules on top of or near your current speakers (if you cannot put an upfiring module on top of a speaker, Dolby says it's OK to be within 3 feet of the speaker, like on a nearby shelf).


----------



## sdurani

jpfe8851 said:


> This is simple enough for my brain to see that natively these have discrete channels for a 5.1.2 Atmos speaker set up.


No, the 7.1 channels are only for the base layer of speakers. All the audio for the height layer is delivered in the form of objects.


> I’ve read that in a Home Theater system Atmos can support up to 24.1.10.


That's the maximum number of speakers (rendering locations) that the Atmos renderer can use to place sounds. Has nothing to do with number of channels or number of object.


> If I have this correctly, it’s “metadata” that accompanies the audio tracks that allows the 7.1 source to be then decoded by the receiver to feed these additional channels. Have I got this part right?


No, there is a separate substream that contains the audio objects that allows the soundtrack to go beyond 7.1.


> So would it be feasible to connect two additional height speakers slightly behind the MLP in series or parallel as a poor-man’s alternative or would this simply muddle the sounds from above?


That would be like using 2 speakers to play back a mono signal. Doesn't make it stereo. If your receiver only has 2 height outputs, then using 4 speakers instead of 2 means that you're replacing hard sources overhead with phantom imaging overhead.


----------



## springs113

sdurani said:


> springs113 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to run an atmos setup in an open concept room and have it be effective?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, as long as you can separate sounds around you versus sounds above you. That would mean having your current 5.1 set-up closer to ear level and adding 4 height speakers in/on the ceiling or 4 upfiring modules on top of or near your current speakers (if you cannot put an upfiring module on top of a speaker, Dolby says it's OK to be within 3 feet of the speaker, like on a nearby shelf).
Click to expand...

Everything's at ear level. My surrounds maybe a tad on the low side but I think they should be fine. My L/R has built in upfiring speakers(8060FA are towers). 

Should I swap my dedicated surrounds and get bookshelves?


----------



## sdurani

springs113 said:


> Should I swap my dedicated surrounds and get bookshelves?


Only if you don't like how they sound. Otherwise, keep your current 5.1 set-up and just add the height element (RP-500SA and new receiver).


----------



## springs113

sdurani said:


> springs113 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I swap my dedicated surrounds and get bookshelves?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you don't like how they sound. Otherwise, keep your current 5.1 set-up and just add the height element (RP-500SA and new receiver).
Click to expand...

I love how they sound, it's like having 4 set of speakers and I got them cheaper than a set of bookshelves.


----------



## medic459

I'm moving and it's a good time to upgrade my 20 year old HTIB setup to a something/anything else. My new primary listening location is a living room approx 11 x 13 (standard 8 foot ceiling). I plan to use my HT for 90% TV/Netflix usage and 10% music...

My WAF is extremely low for wires/speakers and my budget is very low...I was going to try Energy Take Classic 5.1s and then add 4 small ceiling mounted (not in ceiling...my wife forebode any damage to ceiling) speakers.

Searching for energy take speakers led me a cnet review that explained that monoprice copied them and cost 50% less. When I went to the monoprice site, I came across their Product # 33832: Monoprice Premium 5.1.4-Ch. Immersive Home Theater System with Subwoofer. Basically it's a subwoofer, center and then 4 identical satellite speakers with an upwards firing second speaker. So this is a 5.1.4 in a box for $279.

I recognize that most people can/do spend a *lot* of money on speakers, but i'm strapped and this feels like the only way I can get a 5.1.4 setup working even if it's not great. Is there any chance this HTIB will be 'ok' for movies/netflix?


----------



## batpig

medic459 said:


> I'm moving and it's a good time to upgrade my 20 year old HTIB setup to a something/anything else. My new primary listening location is a living room approx 11 x 13 (standard 8 foot ceiling). I plan to use my HT for 90% TV/Netflix usage and 10% music...
> 
> My WAF is extremely low for wires/speakers and my budget is very low...I was going to try Energy Take Classic 5.1s and then add 4 small ceiling mounted (not in ceiling...my wife forebode any damage to ceiling) speakers.
> 
> Searching for energy take speakers led me a cnet review that explained that monoprice copied them and cost 50% less. When I went to the monoprice site, I came across their Product # 33832: Monoprice Premium 5.1.4-Ch. Immersive Home Theater System with Subwoofer. Basically it's a subwoofer, center and then 4 identical satellite speakers with an upwards firing second speaker. So this is a 5.1.4 in a box for $279.
> 
> I recognize that most people can/do spend a *lot* of money on speakers, but i'm strapped and this feels like the only way I can get a 5.1.4 setup working even if it's not great. Is there any chance this HTIB will be 'ok' for movies/netflix?


If your budget is that tight, are you aware that inexpensive receivers will NOT support a 5.1.4 layout? You need a 9+ channel receiver for that and they start in the $600-800 range for refurbs. More budget friendly Atmos receivers will be 5.1.2 max, which will probably be fine for a basic living room setup in a small room.

You might also want to try to talk to your wife again about in-ceiling speakers. They are much more WAF friendly as they are basically invisible once installed. Even installing on-ceiling speakers is going to create damage from running wires, drilling holes to mount them, etc. In-ceiling speakers will look cleaner once installed, I would think that would be more desirable than having a speaker hanging off the ceiling?

Anyway, that Monoprice setup I'm sure sounds decent for the price, but up-firing speakers are much less effective than physical overhead speakers. 

Another similarly prices option is this Def Tech package on sale at Accessories4Less for only $250 with free shipping: https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...ma-400-5.1-home-theater-speaker-system/1.html

Then add an inexpensive pair of in-ceiling speakers and you are done. If they must be on-ceiling speakers, check out the Polk OWM3 which have a lot of mounting options and are only $99/pair.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

medic459 said:


> I'm moving and it's a good time to upgrade my 20 year old HTIB setup to a something/anything else. My new primary listening location is a living room approx 11 x 13 (standard 8 foot ceiling). I plan to use my HT for 90% TV/Netflix usage and 10% music...
> 
> My WAF is extremely low for wires/speakers and my budget is very low...I was going to try Energy Take Classic 5.1s and then add 4 small ceiling mounted (not in ceiling...my wife forebode any damage to ceiling) speakers.
> 
> Searching for energy take speakers led me a cnet review that explained that monoprice copied them and cost 50% less. When I went to the monoprice site, I came across their Product # 33832: Monoprice Premium 5.1.4-Ch. Immersive Home Theater System with Subwoofer. Basically it's a subwoofer, center and then 4 identical satellite speakers with an upwards firing second speaker. So this is a 5.1.4 in a box for $279.
> 
> I recognize that most people can/do spend a *lot* of money on speakers, but i'm strapped and this feels like the only way I can get a 5.1.4 setup working even if it's not great. Is there any chance this HTIB will be 'ok' for movies/netflix?


Up firing speakers are what I would consider to be a product of last resort since you’re working with a more simulated approach to immersive audio rather than the “real thing” of physical speakers properly placed in Dolby’s recommended speaker layouts. 

If you’re working within a limited budget, I highly recommend adding a bit at a time and choosing better speakers and components. Don’t get everything at once and end up with a ho-hum system you will soon come to regret. 

Also, if you truly want the most source options for Dolby Atmos and DTS: X content, you need a 4K Blu-ray optical disc player even if your display is currently only 1080p. That way you can have access to the full array of titles available.


----------



## medic459

batpig said:


> If your budget is that tight, are you aware that inexpensive receivers will NOT support a 5.1.4 layout? You need a 9+ channel receiver for that and they start in the $600-800 range for refurbs. More budget friendly Atmos receivers will be 5.1.2 max, which will probably be fine for a basic living room setup in a small room.


I am planning on spending most of my budget on the receiver. I'm looking at either the Pioneer LX303 or the Onkyo RZ630. I figure to get a decent 9 channel now and I can use it for either this 5.1.4 or a 5.1/7.1 and zone2/3. My wife doesn't seem to care about the receiver so the $499 on that is approved. If anyone has an opinion on which one to choose there...please, feel free to chime in! We watch tv/netflix nearly all the time...so i don't need high end features. I'm looking for an immersive home theater experience.




batpig said:


> You might also want to try to talk to your wife again about in-ceiling speakers. They are much more WAF friendly as they are basically invisible once installed. Even installing on-ceiling speakers is going to create damage from running wires, drilling holes to mount them, etc. In-ceiling speakers will look cleaner once installed, I would think that would be more desirable than having a speaker hanging off the ceiling?


I'm aware that in ceiling speakers can be near invisible but, we just bought the place and the thought of me cutting holes in our new place is a hard sell. I *might* be able to get permission for small satellites mounted on the ceiling...if I can also hide the wires. That won't be easy. That's why i'm leaning towards this 5.1.4 in a box. No mounting speakers and no running wires up walls. I can run a 4 conductor speaker wire to each speaker and i'm done!


----------



## am2model3

just listened to : The Predator (2018) atmos 4k UHD, and The Meg (atmos) blu ray. Both had some awesome sounds in the height channels! Meg, underwater, subs, creaks, water, etc. Predator has some really awesome sound effects!! both worth a watch/listen!


----------



## medic459

Dan Hitchman said:


> Up firing speakers are what I would consider to be a product of last resort since you’re working with a more simulated approach to immersive audio rather than the “real thing” of physical speakers properly placed in Dolby’s recommended speaker layouts.


I understand that in ceiling > ceiling height > upfiring. My reasoning here is that for a small pittance, I *might* get height channels working? It's a relatively small space: 11 x 13 and only 3 walls. From what I'm seeing any decent speaker config will cost me a *lot* more. But it seems for such a low price, I can get my foot in the door?

I'm not rejecting your advice but if I don't know what i'm missing...then isn't a mediocre 5.1.4 > a really good 3.1/5.1 - assuming I've never really had a good setup before? I'm skeptical that i'd even notice the difference between $100 speakers and $1000 ones other than 'yeah...the $1000 sound a bit better'. When I read all these speaker reviews it seems like a foreign language to me. Then again.. I'm also the type that looks at fine art and goes "yeah...that looks like a bowl of fruit".


----------



## Dan Hitchman

medic459 said:


> I understand that in ceiling > ceiling height > upfiring. My reasoning here is that for a small pittance, I *might* get height channels working? It's a relatively small space: 11 x 13 and only 3 walls. From what I'm seeing any decent speaker config will cost me a *lot* more. But it seems for such a low price, I can get my foot in the door?
> 
> I'm not rejecting your advice but if I don't know what i'm missing...then isn't a mediocre 5.1.4 > a really good 3.1/5.1 - assuming I've never really had a good setup before? I'm skeptical that i'd even notice the difference between $100 speakers and $1000 ones other than 'yeah...the $1000 sound a bit better'. When I read all these speaker reviews it seems like a foreign language to me. Then again.. I'm also the type that looks at fine art and goes "yeah...that looks like a bowl of fruit".


You can get a superior audio system if you plan and purchase carefully. Mediocre is still mediocre no matter if it’s 5.1, 7.1, or Atmos. Speakers can make all the difference. If you purchase the front three (matching) and a receiver or even just two speakers and the receiver to start and then add more speakers and a sub a little later, you WILL notice the difference in the end.

Emotiva Airmotiv B1 speakers would be a good start with excellent sound for the price.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Erod said:


> Didn't mean to offend.


No apology necessary, I was not in the least offended. But what is the answer to my question?



> If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.


(I'm happy to believe the assertion that it makes it better if you can afford it and you have a room that's big enough. But that was * nothing to do with my question*.  )

My question was your assertion that *MOST*  enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. As I said before, I don't mean the people here who are a self-selecting group. (Nor do I mean "households" or people with soundbars, they don't count IMHO!) I asked is there, please, any statistical evidence for that? I'm guessing it was just a figure of speech, that's fine as an expression, but I would vehemently disagree with the assertion if so. I only have a limited sample that I can draw from in my own personal experience and a big fat zero have two subs, but we all have one sub. But this is not enough statistically. This is why I want to find out about the real statistical answers not just anecdotals. If it was down to anecdotals we'll just have a thread full of people voting for what they think the number might be.

I've just read some of the other replies - ARGH! It's been completely derailed by a discussion of the merits of two subs! And other people's guesses on the numbers! Thanks guys but all I was asking was is there any *actual statistics collected scientifically* please, nothing at all to do with what people feel or guess. Thanks!


----------



## jpfe8851

Dan Hitchman said:


> On a properly mixed and encoded Dolby Atmos track for the home decoded with an Atmos capable receiver or pre-amp, there is a 7.1 channel bed and an external file containing sizing and positional metadata tagged audio objects. ...





sdurani said:


> No, the 7.1 channels are only for the base layer of speakers. All the audio for the height layer is delivered in the form of objects. ...... If your receiver only has 2 height outputs, then using 4 speakers instead of 2 means that you're replacing hard sources overhead with phantom imaging overhead.


Thanks guys, pretty much what I expected. Not that I can’t “feel” my current setup. In fact it’s quite good.


----------



## jackbirch

*Help configuring new room*

I am looking for suggestions in regard to setting up the home theater in a new home. I previously had a 5.1 system with Paradigm Studio 40 L&R, CC-570 center and ADP-470 surrounds, SVS PB-12-PLUS/2 SUB. I purchased a Marantz SR6013 in order to move to Atmos. With the new home, I inherited a pair of Paradign Micro v2s. I am thinking 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, but I have an odd room configuration that causes problems mounting speakers on one side wall, I have attached a sketch of the room. I am looking for thoughts on whether I should keep the ADP-470s in the system or use the Micros for surrounds. I love the 470s but what I read seems to indicate that as dipoles they are not appropriate for Atmos. Not sure how to mount the surrounds to get them at seated listening height. Maybe angled on the rear wall?? I am also looking for suggestions for in ceiling speakers that would work well with the Paradigms without breaking the bank. Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

jackbirch said:


> I am looking for suggestions in regard to setting up the home theater in a new home.


Are you willing to flip the set-up 180 degrees?


----------



## jackbirch

sdurani said:


> Are you willing to flip the set-up 180 degrees?


There is a window on the rear wall so I don't think my wife would allow me to cover it with the screen


----------



## ddgdl

Quick (maybe) theory question:
What will give the best result?
1) 3 optimally placed in-ceiling speakers (roughly 45/135 deg azimuth and elevations, etc) with the fourth (top rear left) being 5" inside of the optimal placement and thus not in line with the top front left (but still in line with the top rear right) due to an oddly placed but immovable soffit

2) 2 optimally placed speakers (top front and rear right) and 2 suboptimal speakers (top front left now in line with out-of-place top rear left), but now the left side speakers are 5" closer to the MLP than the right side speakers

3) move all 4 speakers in 5", thus making none of them optimally placed but now they are all aligned with each other and equally spread over the listening area (now would be directly in line with the left and right seats in the 3 seat theater, rather than slightly outside of them)

I imagine the answer is #1 , but wanted to verify that symmetry was not more important than the angles and elevations to the MLP


----------



## Apgood

jackbirch said:


> There is a window on the rear wall so I don't think my wife would allow me to cover it with the screen


Have you already bought the projector screen?

If not then you could get an electric screen that only covers the window when in use. I did that at my previous place and it worked well.


----------



## jackbirch

Apgood said:


> Have you already bought the projector screen?
> 
> If not then you could get an electric screen that only covers the window when in use. I did that at my previous place and it worked well.


Already have the screen from prior setup


----------



## jpfe8851

jpfe8851 said:


> Thanks guys, pretty much what I expected. Not that I can’t “feel” my current setup. In fact it’s quite good.


Update: This evening, I did some comparative listening to the often recommended MI:Fallout. I alternately deactivated my Kef Q50A Atmos enabled speakers and my back surround bookshelf speakers. Comparing 5.2.2 with a conventional 7.2, using the helicopter chase scenes near the end of the movie. Any reservations about Atmos enabled have been quashed. The difference is night and day. The chopper blades sounds from above are immediately apparent and then when switched to 7.2, they are barely noticeable. 

I highly recommend this disc if you want to test what good Atmos mixing is all about.


----------



## Chirosamsung

mrtickleuk said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to offend.
> 
> 
> 
> No apology necessary, I was not in the least offended. But what is the answer to my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't added a second sub, I promise you nothing will improve your overall sound quality more than doing just that. It smooths out your room like nothing else can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (I'm happy to believe the assertion that it makes it better if you can afford it and you have a room that's big enough. But that was * nothing to do with my question*. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif )
> 
> My question was your assertion that *MOST* /forum/images/smilies/eek.gif enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. As I said before, I don't mean the people here who are a self-selecting group. (Nor do I mean "households" or people with soundbars, they don't count IMHO!) I asked is there, please, any statistical evidence for that? I'm guessing it was just a figure of speech, that's fine as an expression, but I would vehemently disagree with the assertion if so. I only have a limited sample that I can draw from in my own personal experience and a big fat zero have two subs, but we all have one sub. But this is not enough statistically. This is why I want to find out about the real statistical answers not just anecdotals. If it was down to anecdotals we'll just have a thread full of people voting for what they think the number might be.
> 
> I've just read some of the other replies - ARGH! It's been completely derailed by a discussion of the merits of two subs! And other people's guesses on the numbers! Thanks guys but all I was asking was is there any *actual statistics collected scientifically* please, nothing at all to do with what people feel or guess. Thanks!
Click to expand...

The take home-You should definitely get two subs!


----------



## Chirosamsung

jackbirch said:


> I am looking for suggestions in regard to setting up the home theater in a new home. I previously had a 5.1 system with Paradigm Studio 40 L&R, CC-570 center and ADP-470 surrounds, SVS PB-12-PLUS/2 SUB. I purchased a Marantz SR6013 in order to move to Atmos. With the new home, I inherited a pair of Paradign Micro v2s. I am thinking 5.1.4 or 7.1.4, but I have an odd room configuration that causes problems mounting speakers on one side wall, I have attached a sketch of the room. I am looking for thoughts on whether I should keep the ADP-470s in the system or use the Micros for surrounds. I love the 470s but what I read seems to indicate that as dipoles they are not appropriate for Atmos. Not sure how to mount the surrounds to get them at seated listening height. Maybe angled on the rear wall?? I am also looking for suggestions for in ceiling speakers that would work well with the Paradigms without breaking the bank. Thanks.


I have a room similar layout to yours and that opens with one side of the room to the other living space. I have decided to do 5.1.4 and do the side surrounds in the one back corner and the corresponding back wall (this works out to the 110 degrees for side placement) and have them angled in at the MLP. That would likely be best for your set up


----------



## jackbirch

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a room similar layout to yours and that opens with one side of the room to the other living space. I have decided to do 5.1.4 and do the side surrounds in the one back corner and the corresponding back wall (this works out to the 110 degrees for side placement) and have them angled in at the MLP. That would likely be best for your set up


So you wold use the Micros rather than the 470s? Another poster suggested the 470s on the rear wall and accept the compromise. Any thoughts on the 4 ceiling speakers?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Chirosamsung said:


> The take home-You should definitely get two subs!


(Big sigh!). My only take-home is that it's impossible to get an answer to a simple question, but plenty of people want to answer a question which was not asked!

I don't know how many times I have to state that I believe the people who say two subs are better, and that was NOT what I was asking? You basically ignored everything I wrote, and I took a long time to explain it as clearly as humanly possible


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> (Big sigh!). My only take-home is that it's impossible to get an answer to a simple question, but plenty of people want to answer a question which was not asked!
> 
> I don't know how many times I have to state that I believe the people who say two subs are better, and that was NOT what I was asking? You basically ignored everything I wrote, and I took a long time to explain it as clearly as humanly possible


FWIW, and sharing your frustration, I tried to find some supporting stats and couldn't. I think the OP was giving an opinion rather than stating a fact. Oftentimes, the two get conflated in these threads


----------



## gene4ht

mrtickleuk said:


> No apology necessary, I was not in the least offended. But what is the answer to my question?
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm happy to believe the assertion that it makes it better if you can afford it and you have a room that's big enough. But that was * nothing to do with my question*.  )
> 
> My question was your assertion that *MOST*  enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. As I said before, I don't mean the people here who are a self-selecting group. (Nor do I mean "households" or people with soundbars, they don't count IMHO!) I asked is there, please, any statistical evidence for that? I'm guessing it was just a figure of speech, that's fine as an expression, but I would vehemently disagree with the assertion if so. I only have a limited sample that I can draw from in my own personal experience and a big fat zero have two subs, but we all have one sub. But this is not enough statistically. This is why I want to find out about the real statistical answers not just anecdotals. If it was down to anecdotals we'll just have a thread full of people voting for what they think the number might be.
> 
> I've just read some of the other replies - ARGH! It's been completely derailed by a discussion of the merits of two subs! And other people's guesses on the numbers! Thanks guys but all I was asking was is there any *actual statistics collected scientifically* please, nothing at all to do with what people feel or guess. Thanks!





mrtickleuk said:


> (Big sigh!). My only take-home is that it's impossible to get an answer to a simple question, but plenty of people want to answer a question which was not asked!
> 
> I don't know how many times I have to state that I believe the people who say two subs are better, and that was NOT what I was asking? You basically ignored everything I wrote, and I took a long time to explain it as clearly as humanly possible





kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, and sharing your frustration, I tried to find some supporting stats and couldn't. I think the OP was giving an opinion rather than stating a fact. Oftentimes, the two get conflated in these threads


Although a bit OT for this thread, an interesting question has been raised w/o an apparently qualitatative response. By way of my response, I would like to ask @mthomas47, who has to my knowledge read/studied extensively on the topic of subwoofers if there has been any material written/formal studies performed on the question raised by mrtickleuk. Not meaning to put you on the spot Mike but hopeful that you could perhaps provide further insight?


----------



## Chirosamsung

jackbirch said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a room similar layout to yours and that opens with one side of the room to the other living space. I have decided to do 5.1.4 and do the side surrounds in the one back corner and the corresponding back wall (this works out to the 110 degrees for side placement) and have them angled in at the MLP. That would likely be best for your set up
> 
> 
> 
> So you wold use the Micros rather than the 470s? Another poster suggested the 470s on the rear wall and accept the compromise. Any thoughts on the 4 ceiling speakers?
Click to expand...

Don’t know what you mean by micros. The surrounds I use on a shelf on back wall are gonna be Monitor Audio 50s and my 4 in ceiling are MA CT 280-IDC


----------



## Erod

mrtickleuk said:


> No apology necessary, I was not in the least offended. But what is the answer to my question?
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm happy to believe the assertion that it makes it better if you can afford it and you have a room that's big enough. But that was * nothing to do with my question*.  )
> 
> My question was your assertion that *MOST*  enthusiasts with Atmos have two subs. As I said before, I don't mean the people here who are a self-selecting group. (Nor do I mean "households" or people with soundbars, they don't count IMHO!) I asked is there, please, any statistical evidence for that? I'm guessing it was just a figure of speech, that's fine as an expression, but I would vehemently disagree with the assertion if so. I only have a limited sample that I can draw from in my own personal experience and a big fat zero have two subs, but we all have one sub. But this is not enough statistically. This is why I want to find out about the real statistical answers not just anecdotals. If it was down to anecdotals we'll just have a thread full of people voting for what they think the number might be.
> 
> I've just read some of the other replies - ARGH! It's been completely derailed by a discussion of the merits of two subs! And other people's guesses on the numbers! Thanks guys but all I was asking was is there any *actual statistics collected scientifically* please, nothing at all to do with what people feel or guess. Thanks!


I haven't personally gathered scientific data as to percentages of two-sub owners, no. Not sure how such a thing could even be compiled, nor do I think such data exists.

So let me explain it this way.

If you watch the Audioholics guys, or rummage around the home theater websites for advice, every one of them STRONGLY encourages two subs if at all possible. (In fact, 3 or 4 is even better, but with diminishing returns.) Because generally all of a home theater speaker combination crosses over into the subs, two working together really smooths out the room's bass response in a way nothing else can. 

On this website, just about anybody with a dedicated room either has two subs, or intends to do so as quickly as possible. However, if your setup is in a multipurpose part of your home, I entirely understand that it could be less feasible to make room for a second sub. (I've heard it suggested that two small subs are better than one big one if that accomplishes the task of making room for two.)

So to your point, no, most people with a 5-speaker setup in their family room or bedroom probably don't have two subs. But in a concentrated forum of enthusiasts like this, most certainly do. The dedicated home theater industry strongly recommends it for a significant improvement to any setup if possible.

I've made a lot of upgrades over the years to components, projectors, etc., but the biggest improvement I ever made was adding a second identical sub. A close second for many is proper room acoustic treatments if they have a lot of reflective surfaces. Speakers, amps, receivers and processors can't shine if those first two aren't addressed first.


----------



## m. zillch

mrtickleuk said:


> (Big sigh!). My only take-home is that it's impossible to get an answer to a simple question, but plenty of people want to answer a question which was not asked!
> 
> I don't know how many times I have to state that I believe the people who say two subs are better, and that was NOT what I was asking? You basically ignored everything I wrote, and I took a long time to explain it as clearly as humanly possible


Here's is the scientific answer:http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11355

IT'S A JOKE.  Yes I understand your frustration. There was once a forum poll "how many subs do you own?" but I looked into it and clearly they meant "Counting all your rooms together".

You could start your own new poll, Mr T.! Of course I don't think AVS members are exactly "typical" electronics owners so your poll would not really be of "sub owners" it would be of "AVS people".

P.S. I bet you'd get a completely different poll response if you place the poll in the subwoofer section vs. this or other sections of the forum.


----------



## m. zillch

kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, and sharing your frustration, I tried to find some supporting stats and couldn't.


You think we have it bad? Imagine how frustrated these people must feel!


----------



## mrtickleuk

Erod said:


> I haven't personally gathered scientific data as to percentages of two-sub owners, no. Not sure how such a thing could even be compiled, nor do I think such data exists.


Pity. But thankyou for answering the question. I was never expecting you or anyone here personally to do the research - just wondered whether there was anything backing up "most" 



> So let me explain it this way.
> 
> If you watch the Audioholics guys, or rummage around the home theater websites for advice, every one of them STRONGLY encourages two subs if at all possible. (In fact, 3 or 4 is even better, but with diminishing returns.) Because generally all of a home theater speaker combination crosses over into the subs, two working together really smooths out the room's bass response in a way nothing else can.


Don't know if repeating myself will be worth it since it seems to be in vain but again - I never disputed the merits of two subs. 



> On this website, just about anybody with a dedicated room either has two subs, or intends to do so as quickly as possible. However, if your setup is in a multipurpose part of your home, I entirely understand that it could be less feasible to make room for a second sub. (I've heard it suggested that two small subs are better than one big one if that accomplishes the task of making room for two.)
> 
> So to your point, no, most people with a 5-speaker setup in their family room or bedroom probably don't have two subs.


ok thanks



> But in a concentrated forum of enthusiasts like this, most certainly do.


On this forum yes.

[edited for clarity]
I suppose there are two extremes here, with many gradual differences in setup along the way.

[best!] dedicated "cinema room" with everything > > > > general living room with at least 5.1 (not a soundbar)[worst!]​
Those extremes are the two ends of the scale that I'm interested in. I know that off the right-hand end there's more worse setups, like soundbars, and people who use their TV's built-in Atmos setups (urgh). I am stating as clearly as I can that those people don't count for the purposes of what I'm asking about.

I am definitely not interesting in doing a sample from a self-selecting pool, such as users of this forum. As I said! Personally, I am somewhere along that scale, I'll never have a dedicated room (since my tiny UK rabbit-hutch house only has 1 room which isn't a bedroom, kitchen or bathroom). But, I assure you guys that home cinema takes priority in this room over everything else! 



> The dedicated home theater industry strongly recommends it for a significant improvement to any setup if possible.
> 
> I've made a lot of upgrades over the years to components, projectors, etc., but the biggest improvement I ever made was adding a second identical sub. A close second for many is proper room acoustic treatments if they have a lot of reflective surfaces. Speakers, amps, receivers and processors can't shine if those first two aren't addressed first.


Again, I agree on the technical side of things. Many thanks 



kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, and sharing your frustration, I tried to find some supporting stats and couldn't. I think the OP was giving an opinion rather than stating a fact. Oftentimes, the two get conflated in these threads


Yes. I apologise for not being clearer myself (but in my defence, I did try quite hard several times!). I guessed it was an opinion immediately. But since it was stated confidently I thought I would ask more about it. I was just asking "hmmm, are you sure about 'most' there, that's not my personal experience therefore I'm genuinely interested if you happen to know of any research other than just a gut feeling etc".
But unfortunately everyone somehow read a question "are two subs better than one" which I didn't type, and then went off on a tangent answering that question 



m. zillch said:


> You think we have it bad? Imagine how frustrated these people must feel!


LOL! First world problems.


----------



## Josh Z

m. zillch said:


> Here's is the scientific answer:http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11355
> 
> IT'S A JOKE.  Yes I understand your frustration. There was once a forum poll "how many subs do you own?" but I looked into it and clearly they meant "Counting all your rooms together".
> 
> You could start your own new poll, Mr T.! Of course I don't think AVS members are exactly "typical" electronics owners so your poll would not really be of "sub owners" it would be of "AVS people".
> 
> P.S. I bet you'd get a completely different poll response if you place the poll in the subwoofer section vs. this or other sections of the forum.


I don't know if this helps, but last July I ran a poll on High-Def Digest asking readers of that site how many subwoofers they use in their home theaters. With 1,500 responses, "Just 1 subwoofer" won with 51% of the vote. Next was "2 subwoofers" with 33%. After that, it's a big drop down to 5% with 3 subwoofers, descending from there.


----------



## Erod

m. zillch said:


> You think we have it bad? Imagine how frustrated these people must feel!


Now I'm wondering if the two in my yacht are enough. I'll have to ask Biff when he's finished manicuring the south lawn.


----------



## Erod

Josh Z said:


> I don't know if this helps, but last July I ran a poll on High-Def Digest asking readers of that site how many subwoofers they use in their home theaters. With 1,500 responses, "Just 1 subwoofer" won with 51% of the vote. Next was "2 subwoofers" with 33%. After that, it's a big drop down to 5% with 3 subwoofers, descending from there.


So you're saying there were a couple of people with 10+ subwoofers?


----------



## m. zillch

You know you have a problem when you have more subwoofers than you do speaker channels.

"My name is Mike and I'm a subaholic."


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> I don't know if this helps, but last July I ran a poll on High-Def Digest asking readers of that site how many subwoofers they use in their home theaters. With 1,500 responses, "Just 1 subwoofer" won with 51% of the vote. Next was "2 subwoofers" with 33%. After that, it's a big drop down to 5% with 3 subwoofers, descending from there.


That's great, better than nothing! Many thanks!
There's definitely a very big group of people with >1.
I think what surprises me the most, is the number of people with >2. Much more than I would have expected.

EDIT:
LOL at the 7 people who voted for the bottom category!


----------



## tigerhonaker

Four Subs see signature below for HT gear.


*Up-Dated December 2018*

Pre-Amp: Marantz AV8805
Blu-Ray Player: Panasonic UB820 4K Blu-ray player
Roku Ultra 4K Streaming Player
Projector: JVC RS4500 Laser
Screen: Stewart (Firehawk) 1.35 gain 123" 16x9 W/4-Way Remote Masking
Speakers: JM Lab Utopia Mezzo Front, Center Utopia, Side Utopia, Rear Mini Utopia
Subwoofers: 4-Mirage BPS400 sitting on 4 "Auralex Great Gramma" pads
Cables: Transparent TW Plus w/Plus Bricks
Amps: Classe', 2-CA201, 3-CAM350
Power Conditioners: 1-Richard Gray RGPC-1200S, 7-RGPC-400S
Panamax MB1500 Back up Power Unit for JVC RS4500
Cooling: 3-sets of Z-Fans, Cool-Stack I, Suncourt Variable Speed Thru Wall Fan
ATM (Active Thermal Management)
Mid Atlantic: Track 50" rack slide out
Sanus CFR1620 Rack W/Middle Atlantic 4-Post H/D Shelves
Room Acoustic: Acoustic Innovations panels
Seating: Ekornes Stressless Wave

.


----------



## m. zillch

There are some juicy stats here [2005 at least] but not exactly what we seek: https://www.twice.com/product/survey-51-surround-abounds-home-theater-households-41564

Also hiding behind a pay wall more here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/736072/home-theater-system-surround-us-household-penetration/


----------



## Josh Z

Erod said:


> So you're saying there were a couple of people with 10+ subwoofers?


Sure, that Kipnis guy is always eager to brag.


----------



## Erod

Josh Z said:


> Sure, that Kipnis guy is always eager to brag.


Holy moly. What sound is at 100 kHz? I can barely hear 12 kHz.


----------



## m. zillch

Erod said:


> Holy moly. What sound is at 100 kHz? I can barely hear 12 kHz.


Nobody can hear 30kHz let alone 100kHz. It is marketing baloney and I sort of doubt his system actually does 100kHz other than possibly for a single fixed seat if one oddly wanted it. Speakers that shoot out 100kHz beam the sound like a fricken laser beam. Move one inch and that sound you can't hear in the first place also isn't heard by your special ultrasonic microphone either.

Ultrasonics also don't bounce off room surfaces very well; they tend to instead splatter, get absorbed, and dissipate.


----------



## m. zillch

Erod said:


> Holy moly. What sound is at 100 kHz?


Very little from normal acoustical instruments. Your best bet with any appreciable power is probably a crash cymbal which trounces the competition:
https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

see how it compares with others in the bottom chart "Instruments Without Harmonics".

P.S. Even if we pretend for the moment we _could_ hear 100KHz, if we add what we know about Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves for the high frequencies and how louder adjacent octaves mask others, it still just doesn't matter and is a silly thing to reproduce


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

*Joined the Atmos ranks*

Got my ceiling speakers installed for a 5.1.2 setup. So far the few quick movie demos I've done with movies I already have, it sounds amazing. Can't wait to watch a full movie with Atmos. Pretty excited. Just wanted to share.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

I have never paid much attention to 2-sub discussions as I have a decently soundproofed condo and figured one was all I could expect to get away with. Reading all of the talk about smoothing out the bass with 2 subs, would this also allow better bass for my viewing area with less chance of it travelling to my neighbours ? (My assumption is that you would not have to work a single sub as hard which would keep the bass travel to the neighbours down )


----------



## stikle

Erod said:


> So you're saying there were a couple of people with 10+ subwoofers?



Where IS Simonian these days?


----------



## ddgdl

ddgdl said:


> Quick (maybe) theory question:
> What will give the best result?
> 1) 3 optimally placed in-ceiling speakers (roughly 45/135 deg azimuth and elevations, etc) with the fourth (top rear left) being 5" inside of the optimal placement and thus not in line with the top front left (but still in line with the top rear right) due to an oddly placed but immovable soffit
> 
> 2) 2 optimally placed speakers (top front and rear right) and 2 suboptimal speakers (top front left now in line with out-of-place top rear left), but now the left side speakers are 5" closer to the MLP than the right side speakers
> 
> 3) move all 4 speakers in 5", thus making none of them optimally placed but now they are all aligned with each other and equally spread over the listening area (now would be directly in line with the left and right seats in the 3 seat theater, rather than slightly outside of them)
> 
> I imagine the answer is #1 , but wanted to verify that symmetry was not more important than the angles and elevations to the MLP


 @sdurani or @maikeldepotter ?


----------



## mthomas47

gene4ht said:


> Although a bit OT for this thread, an interesting question has been raised w/o an apparently qualitatative response. By way of my response, I would like to ask @*mthomas47* , who has to my knowledge read/studied extensively on the topic of subwoofers if there has been any material written/formal studies performed on the question raised by mrtickleuk. Not meaning to put you on the spot Mike but hopeful that you could perhaps provide further insight?


Hi Gene, 

I don't mind so much being put on the spot, but unfortunately, I really can't help. I have never seen anything other than informal surveys of the type that Josh mentioned. And, I have never seen one that was specific to Atmos. I don't think that there is a direct correlation between having Atmos and having dual subwoofers. But, I think that there might be an indirect correlation, and I would probably approach the question along the same general lines that someone else has already suggested. 

First, I think that people who are more serious about their HT systems, whether they are in large rooms or small, in dedicated HT's or in multi-purpose rooms, are likely to recognize the value of having dual subwoofers for improved frequency response and/or for enhanced bass SPL. It's hard to be in the hobby for very long without recognizing the value of dual subs.

Second, I also think that although there are some HTIB Atmos systems, the technology is still new enough and sophisticated enough to attract the more serious HT hobbyists. So, I believe that it's likely that there is a higher preponderance of multi-sub systems among Atmos owners, in general, than among HT owners in general. Based on the above, I wouldn't be surprised if most Atmos owners do, in fact, have more than one subwoofer. 

That is not the kind of statistical evidence that the OP was asking for. But, I don't think that evidence exists. At best, we can make educated guesses about the subject, and that is mine, for whatever it may be worth. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> 3) move all 4 speakers in 5", thus making none of them optimally placed but now they are all aligned with each other and equally spread over the listening area (now would be directly in line with the left and right seats in the 3 seat theater, rather than slightly outside of them)


I would choose option #3 to maintain left vs right symmetry, which the other two options don't do.


----------



## sdurani

stikle said:


> Where IS Simonian these days?


Enjoying his subs.


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) move all 4 speakers in 5", thus making none of them optimally placed but now they are all aligned with each other and equally spread over the listening area (now would be directly in line with the left and right seats in the 3 seat theater, rather than slightly outside of them)
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose option #3 to maintain left vs right symmetry, which the other two options don't do.
Click to expand...

Doing so would put all 4 speakers at outside-of-spec angles. It would put the left side speakers in line with the head of the person sitting in the left seat, and the right side in line with the head of the person sitting in the right seat. Total separation between left and right side would shrink to 60".

Same answer, with that additional information? I would have thought that the slight distance difference for one speaker out of 4 would have been something the pre pro could have added a slight delay to fix, whereas moving all 4 speakers to be out of spec would have been a bigger/less-easily-solved problem


----------



## sdurani

ddgdl said:


> Doing so would put all 4 speakers at outside-of-spec angles.


Guess I chose the wrong answer. Better luck with @*maikeldepotter. *


----------



## ddgdl

sdurani said:


> ddgdl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing so would put all 4 speakers at outside-of-spec angles.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I chose the wrong answer. Better luck with @*maikeldepotter. *
Click to expand...

Right- the theory question boils down to whether symmetry or maximum-number-of-speakers-within-angles-spec is more important


----------



## maikeldepotter

ddgdl said:


> Quick (maybe) theory question:
> What will give the best result?
> 1) 3 optimally placed in-ceiling speakers (roughly 45/135 deg azimuth and elevations, etc) with the fourth (top rear left) being 5" inside of the optimal placement and thus not in line with the top front left (but still in line with the top rear right) due to an oddly placed but immovable soffit
> 
> 2) 2 optimally placed speakers (top front and rear right) and 2 suboptimal speakers (top front left now in line with out-of-place top rear left), but now the left side speakers are 5" closer to the MLP than the right side speakers
> 
> 3) move all 4 speakers in 5", thus making none of them optimally placed but now they are all aligned with each other and equally spread over the listening area (now would be directly in line with the left and right seats in the 3 seat theater, rather than slightly outside of them)
> 
> I imagine the answer is #1 , but wanted to verify that symmetry was not more important than the angles and elevations to the MLP


I would go for symmetry, option 3).


----------



## Jonas2

sdurani said:


> I would choose option #3 to maintain left vs right symmetry, which the other two options don't do.





maikeldepotter said:


> I would go for symmetry, option 3).



Agree! 




ddgdl said:


> 3) move all 4 speakers in 5", thus making none of them optimally placed but now they are all aligned with each other and equally spread over the listening area (now would be directly in line with the left and right seats in the 3 seat theater, rather than slightly outside of them)
> 
> I imagine the answer is #1 , but wanted to verify that symmetry was not more important than the angles and elevations to the MLP



Optimal would be great, but 5"? I don't think that is at all unreasonable. It's not a tremendous deviation from perfect placement, and Atmos is reasonably forgiving. I honestly don't know that you'd be able to distinguish any performance differences between any of your options, in fact the symmetry might even be better performing since it is not that far off of *perfect*. Dunno, that's just a guess. If you were talking a foot or more, I might rethink it, but not 5". Visually too, I think there is something to be said for the symmetry.


----------



## Josh Z

bobbyhollywood said:


> I have never paid much attention to 2-sub discussions as I have a decently soundproofed condo and figured one was all I could expect to get away with. Reading all of the talk about smoothing out the bass with 2 subs, would this also allow better bass for my viewing area with less chance of it travelling to my neighbours ? (My assumption is that you would not have to work a single sub as hard which would keep the bass travel to the neighbours down )


The best thing I ever did to improve bass in my room was invest in a UMIK-1 calibration microphone and learn how to use Room EQ Wizard software. Measure the results you have now to see how flat (or not flat) the bass response in your room currently is. If you have serious dips and peaks, the first things to try are moving the subwoofer to different spots in the room, and also playing with the phase settings. Ideally, you want to see a relatively flat response between 20 Hz to 100 Hz when measured from any seat that's important to you. (If you're the only one in your household who really cares about these things, you may not need to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the bass at other seats than your primary listening position.)

Adding a second sub can smooth out your peaks and dips, and provide equivalent results across multiple seats. However, I don't think it would improve your issues with bass transmission to your neighbors. Although each individual sub may not work as hard, together they still generate the same amount of bass, and bass loves to travel through structures.


----------



## howard68

So just got an X box for dolby atmos on Netflix 
However everything is now says that it is Atmos when I know that it is not 
Do I have setting wrong? 

Thx


----------



## khcoach

howard68 said:


> So just got an X box for dolby atmos on Netflix
> However everything is now says that it is Atmos when I know that it is not
> Do I have setting wrong?
> 
> Thx


setting the XboneX to output Atmos hardcodes all sound to Atmos essentially. So if there isn't anything in the actual Atmos channel nothing will play there. If the sound track is Stereo you'll only get stereo, if it's 5.1 you'll only get 5.1. It won't upscale or anything else. That's "working as intended". I just turn on Atmos on the XboneX for when I want to listen to something that I know has Atmos; otherwise I use one of the other output options so I can still get the Dolby Surround upscale or DirectX upscale for content that isn't Atmos/DirectX.


----------



## GPBURNS

khcoach said:


> setting the XboneX to output Atmos hardcodes all sound to Atmos essentially. So if there isn't anything in the actual Atmos channel nothing will play there. If the sound track is Stereo you'll only get stereo, if it's 5.1 you'll only get 5.1. It won't upscale or anything else. That's "working as intended". I just turn on Atmos on the XboneX for when I want to listen to something that I know has Atmos; otherwise I use one of the other output options so I can still get the Dolby Surround upscale or DirectX upscale for content that isn't Atmos/DirectX.



good to know - thanks - I just received Xbox one X - still in box - have new Forza Horizon games and latest tomb raider - reviews indicate both pretty decent with Atmos - looking forward to trying them out


----------



## johnnygrandis

WOW, this is a must have for Atmos users 


Tom delivers ..


----------



## Chirosamsung

Josh Z said:


> bobbyhollywood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never paid much attention to 2-sub discussions as I have a decently soundproofed condo and figured one was all I could expect to get away with. Reading all of the talk about smoothing out the bass with 2 subs, would this also allow better bass for my viewing area with less chance of it travelling to my neighbours ? (My assumption is that you would not have to work a single sub as hard which would keep the bass travel to the neighbours down )
> 
> 
> 
> The best thing I ever did to improve bass in my room was invest in a UMIK-1 calibration microphone and learn how to use Room EQ Wizard software. Measure the results you have now to see how flat (or not flat) the bass response in your room currently is. If you have serious dips and peaks, the first things to try are moving the subwoofer to different spots in the room, and also playing with the phase settings. Ideally, you want to see a relatively flat response between 20 Hz to 100 Hz when measured from any seat that's important to you. (If you're the only one in your household who really cares about these things, you may not need to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the bass at other seats than your primary listening position.)
> 
> Adding a second sub can smooth out your peaks and dips, and provide equivalent results across multiple seats. However, I don't think it would improve your issues with bass transmission to your neighbors. Although each individual sub may not work as hard, together they still generate the same amount of bass, and bass loves to travel through structures.
Click to expand...

Two questions regarding this: 
Does 2 subs almost flatten the response enough for most people if for example they are in opposite corners or adjacent walls won’t need to do REW with a UMIK?
In other words is 2 subs pretty decent on its own without much tweaking to significantly smooth out response on its own?

Second question is: I am considering getting 2 PC4000 which are quite powerful and go down to 16Hz...I have my media room in the basement at the space/room closest to my neighbor. The neighbors house is 8 FEET AWAY brick to brick from mine. Would the sound of those 2 subs “likely” travel that space easily with moderate to sort of loud volumes?? Don’t want to spend the money or return if it will be a big issue with them...any opinions on that bass distance??


----------



## mogrub

jsgrise said:


> @mogrub Looking forward to your feedback once everything is up and running!


Okay @jsgrise, here's the quick update. All 6 new speakers are installed. Each was a bear. Ran roughly 400 feet of cable up through the attic and down through the walls to hit each location. Fireblock drilling was required for every one. Top cap drilling (through an insane 6" of wood) was required for every one. I had to buy a special 18" Bosch bit to get through that cap. With that drill bit screaming in one hand, and sweat and sawdust smeared all over my face, I looked straight out of a Halloween movie. But the speakers are all in, well-located (thanks to all for the help here), and they really look perfect.

With the hard work all done, the fun stuff finally came last night. Opening the new Atmos capable AV equipment and installing it! Told my wife to get ready for her first Atmos movie. Finally just flat excited about the whole project. Turned on the new AVR and had my very first Chevy Chase Christmas Lights moment ... because nothing happened.

True story -- the new AVR was flat, pancake roadkill dead out of the box. The power on / off button doesn't work. The remote does, but there's an internal fault that causes the device to power down within moments after starting it via remote. Bought from an authorized dealer, but via UPS, so no Atmos payoff last night or today. Awaiting RMA.



stikle said:


> Seriously? Power down, lights off, and back upstairs to think about things. Maybe time for a drink too.


Ya think?


----------



## stikle

mogrub said:


> True story -- the new AVR was flat, pancake roadkill dead out of the box. The power on / off button doesn't work. The remote does, but there's an internal fault that causes the device to power down within moments after starting it via remote. Bought from an authorized dealer, but via UPS, so no Atmos payoff last night or today. Awaiting RMA.



Oh for the love of...

Things to try:



Unplug ALL cables from the AVR. 
Let it sit 30 minutes while you get an adult beverage.
Also while you're waiting, look up how to do a factory reset.
Plug ONLY the power cable back in.
Perform 2-3 factory resets if you can.
Turn the AVR off. Plug one speaker in at a time, powering the AVR on in between each one.

It's possible that you have a shorted speaker cable that's throwing the AVR into a fault.

Assuming all of that works and the AVR will stay powered on, turn it off, plug the HDMI out in to your TV and turn it on. See if you can get the AVR setup menu on the screen. If THAT works, then plug one HDMI cable in at a time.

Failing all that, RMA that sucker and get yourself a nice solid Denon piece.  Call @jdsmoothie at AVScience - he'll hook you up with a great deal.

I feel your pain. Well, I empathize.


----------



## howard68

Ok so I have the x box and got Atmos on Netflix 
However I dont get it on Vudu 
Any help


----------



## howard68

The other thing is that the x box in forced atmos mode puts the back speakers on in 5.1 instead of side speakers surround


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> Two questions regarding this:
> Does 2 subs almost flatten the response enough for most people if for example they are in opposite corners or adjacent walls won’t need to do REW with a UMIK?
> In other words is 2 subs pretty decent on its own without much tweaking to significantly smooth out response on its own?


You need to measure. Unless your room is a perfect rectangle with no furniture or other obstacles, the acoustics could very well result in worse bass response with two subwoofers than with just one, if the two subs wind up canceling each other out at certain frequencies. You'd have no way of knowing this without measuring. 

A UMIK-1 is less than $100 on Amazon right now. 

The Room EQ Wizard software is free. The software is kind of a bear to learn at first, but it's worth the effort.



> Second question is: I am considering getting 2 PC4000 which are quite powerful and go down to 16Hz...I have my media room in the basement at the space/room closest to my neighbor. The neighbors house is 8 FEET AWAY brick to brick from mine. Would the sound of those 2 subs “likely” travel that space easily with moderate to sort of loud volumes?? Don’t want to spend the money or return if it will be a big issue with them...any opinions on that bass distance??


Can't answer that one for you. How thick are your walls, or theirs? Have they ever complained about the noise from your current subwoofer?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Josh Z said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions regarding this:
> Does 2 subs almost flatten the response enough for most people if for example they are in opposite corners or adjacent walls won’t need to do REW with a UMIK?
> In other words is 2 subs pretty decent on its own without much tweaking to significantly smooth out response on its own?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to measure. Unless your room is a perfect rectangle with no furniture or other obstacles, the acoustics could very well result in worse bass response with two subwoofers than with just one, if the two subs wind up canceling each other out at certain frequencies. You'd have no way of knowing this without measuring.
> 
> A UMIK-1 is less than $100 on Amazon right now.
> 
> The Room EQ Wizard software is free. The software is kind of a bear to learn at first, but it's worth the effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second question is: I am considering getting 2 PC4000 which are quite powerful and go down to 16Hz...I have my media room in the basement at the space/room closest to my neighbor. The neighbors house is 8 FEET AWAY brick to brick from mine. Would the sound of those 2 subs “likely” travel that space easily with moderate to sort of loud volumes?? Don’t want to spend the money or return if it will be a big issue with them...any opinions on that bass distance??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't answer that one for you. How thick are your walls, or theirs? Have they ever complained about the noise from your current subwoofer?
Click to expand...

Thanks Josh for the helpful response

1. I have a UMIK ordered already so that’s a check but I only have MACs (no PC) in the house so I am SOL with regards to REW...is there anything else I can do just for basic ways of knowing if the placement of 2 subs are at least sort of close with just my UMIK?? The subs I plan on getting will be PC4000 which brings me to next point...

2. The walls have drywall then I think 6 inches of it framed then of course the concrete wall then 8 feet of I’m guessing ground between houses since it’s a basement.

There is currently conthing there or no prior subs to compare if complaining as my basement is 2/3 done being finished and my media room will be home to all new speakers and subs. I am just worried that the subs may be a problem with the proximity..,anyone else have a similar set up that could weigh in?


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. I have a UMIK ordered already so that’s a check but I only have MACs (no PC) in the house so I am SOL with regards to REW...is there anything else I can do just for basic ways of knowing if the placement of 2 subs are at least sort of close with just my UMIK?? The subs I plan on getting will be PC4000 which brings me to next point...



Could you borrow a Windows laptop from a friend?


----------



## bluenova

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. I have a UMIK ordered already so that’s a check but I only have MACs (no PC) in the house so I am SOL with regards to REW...is there anything else I can do just for basic ways of knowing if the placement of 2 subs are at least sort of close with just my UMIK??


There shouldn’t be a problem having a Mac. There’s a download file for MacOS.


----------



## Gabre

I'm reading about this, and I'm confused. 

I have a marantz 5010 receiver and 5.1.2 layout of kef speakers... 

How do I calibrate my room, or better said, how do I enter new settings into receiver. Which has audyeeyy and microphone that I used so far to run calibration

Sorry for noob question, but I'm really confused


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. I have a UMIK ordered already so that’s a check but I only have MACs (no PC) in the house so I am SOL with regards to REW.


Not at all. Before I went to Windows 10 I used a Mac all the time for REW. Just go to the REW site and download the MacOS version.

You will also need the indispensable guide to REW written by AVS member @AustinJerry - I'll go find the link for you in a moment. Follow Jerry's step-by-step guide and you will soon get the hang of REW. Jerry is a Windows user but the Guide will still be totally useful to you. There is also a *terrific thread on REW* here on AVS. It's too long and rambling to read the whole thread so I;d suggest going back about 25 pages and then just diving in with your questions (you *will *have questions )

EDIT: *Here's a link to my DropBox for the Guide* for you. Jerry covers the Mac to some extent and links to an excellent Mac/REW resource.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Thank you all for the help-I will definitely read those links and am encouraged I can use my Mac for it now 🙂

I’m wondering if the upcoming Dirac live sub module might make this whole process easier and more streamlined?


----------



## pasender91

Gabre said:


> I'm reading about this, and I'm confused.
> 
> I have a marantz 5010 receiver and 5.1.2 layout of kef speakers...
> 
> How do I calibrate my room, or better said, how do I enter new settings into receiver. Which has audyeeyy and microphone that I used so far to run calibration
> 
> Sorry for noob question, but I'm really confused



You are confused 
Audissey IS a room calibration tool, so if you ran it you are already "calibrated"


----------



## kbarnes701

Gabre said:


> I'm reading about this, and I'm confused.
> 
> I have a marantz 5010 receiver and 5.1.2 layout of kef speakers...
> 
> How do I calibrate my room, or better said, how do I enter new settings into receiver. Which has audyeeyy and microphone that I used so far to run calibration
> 
> Sorry for noob question, but I'm really confused


Audyssey is the calibration tool built into your AVR. If you haven't already run Audyssey, go into the menu, find Audyssey calibration and run it, following the onscreen instructions. When they calibration is complete all the required settings are automatically added to the AVR.

You will probably find it useful to check out the Audyssey FAQ which is linked in my signature and which will answer any questions you have. There is also a step-by-step 'Audyssey 101' to help you do the actual calibration.


----------



## Gabre

kbarnes701 said:


> Audyssey is the calibration tool built into your AVR. If you haven't already run Audyssey, go into the menu, find Audyssey calibration and run it, following the onscreen instructions. When they calibration is complete all the required settings are automatically added to the AVR.
> 
> 
> 
> You will probably find it useful to check out the Audyssey FAQ which is linked in my signature and which will answer any questions you have. There is also a step-by-step 'Audyssey 101' to help you do the actual calibration.


I've ran it multiple times. What's there to look at faq. It's straight forward. Next next next I done. 
And it alllways mixes up small and large speakers, every time one of the speakers is out of phase, (and they r not) etc etc
Not to mention sub is non existent practically... Every calibration sounds different ffs

But my questionnaire, if I wanted to use rew, how do those measurements get imported into receiver?


----------



## kbarnes701

Gabre said:


> I've ran it multiple times. What's there to look at faq. It's straight forward. Next next next I done.
> And it alllways mixes up small and large speakers, every time one of the speakers is out of phase, (and they r not) etc etc
> Not to mention sub is non existent practically... Every calibration sounds different ffs


All of this and much more is answered in the FAQ. Up to you whether you look at it or not.



Gabre said:


> But my questionnaire, if I wanted to use rew, how do those measurements get imported into receiver?


REW is a measuring tool. It shows data about the sound in the actual room - eg frequency response, bass decay times and so on. You can't import REW data into your AVR. You measure with REW, identify the problems and then take action to fix them. Then you measure again to see what your changes have done. For example, if your bass response is bad, you can move the sub, treat the room acoustically, add another sub, move the MLP, adjust the phase response of the sub(s), work on the splice (the frequency response where both the sub(s) and the mains overlap) and so on. When you have done some or all of these, you can measure again with REW and see how much improvement, if any, you have made.

You can also use REW to measure with Audyssey on and with Audyssey off, so you can get some idea of the impact Audyssey is having on the sound, but this not easy since it involves ensuring you use the same mic positions with REW as you did with Audyssey and then using averaging. Best to get a grip on the basics of REW first.


----------



## kbarnes701

The Audyssey discussion and the REW discussion are totally off topic for this thread. Before we annoy people looking here for Atmos information and before we attract the attention of the Mods, I suggest future posts on these topics are directed to the relevant threads on AVS.

*Audyssey Thread*

*REW Thread**
*


----------



## mogrub

stikle said:


> Oh for the love of ... It's possible you have a shorted speaker cable that's throwing the AVR into a fault ... I feel your pain.


Thanks man. Since I'm Mr. OCD Home Installer, I had previously tested each new speaker separately with my seven year old (and still running strong) AVR as part of the installation process. They all worked perfectly and still do. For better or worse, the fault is not in our speakers, but in our new AVR.

More on Atmos testing and results after the new (really new) AVR is installed.


----------



## Slimym

I've been told by several home theater speaker vendors that overhead atmos speakers do not need to support low frequencies such as 100hz and below. I've also been told by some owners that many Atmos tracks and AVRs will generate signals for frequencies below 100hz for the overhead speakers. 

I read through Dolby's guideline which states "overhead speakers should be timbre matched, power matched, and frequency matched as close as possible to your primary listener-level speakers". This to me suggests that they should have a very wide frequency range. 

Does anyone have any thoughts on the ideal specifications for overhead speakers?


----------



## Josh Z

Slimym said:


> I've been told by several home theater speaker vendors that overhead atmos speakers do not need to support low frequencies such as 100hz and below. I've also been told by some owners that many Atmos tracks and AVRs will generate signals for frequencies below 100hz for the overhead speakers.
> 
> I read through Dolby's guideline which states "overhead speakers should be timbre matched, power matched, and frequency matched as close as possible to your primary listener-level speakers". This to me suggests that they should have a very wide frequency range.
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the ideal specifications for overhead speakers?


The soundtrack may contain frequencies below 100Hz in the overhead channels. That's why you set a crossover in your receiver to send those frequencies to the subwoofer if the speakers can't handle them.


----------



## kbarnes701

Slimym said:


> I've been told by several home theater speaker vendors that overhead atmos speakers do not need to support low frequencies such as 100hz and below. I've also been told by some owners that many Atmos tracks and AVRs will generate signals for frequencies below 100hz for the overhead speakers.
> 
> I read through Dolby's guideline which states "overhead speakers should be timbre matched, power matched, and frequency matched as close as possible to your primary listener-level speakers". This to me suggests that they should have a very wide frequency range.
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the ideal specifications for overhead speakers?


Do you have a subwoofer? Then so long as the overhead speakers can be handed off to the sub at a sensible frequency (80Hz to 100Hz for example is fine), you are good to go.

Choose speakers with a wide dispersion pattern if they are to aimed directly down to the floor, or choose speakers that can be aimed towards MLP.


----------



## sdurani

Slimym said:


> Does anyone have any thoughts on the ideal specifications for overhead speakers?


Same as any other speaker location. Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. It's still a speaker, reproducing sound. This doesn't change whether the speaker is placed in front of you or around you or above you.


----------



## Slimym

kbarnes701 said:


> Do you have a subwoofer? Then so long as the overhead speakers can be handed off to the sub at a sensible frequency (80Hz to 100Hz for example is fine), you are good to go.
> 
> Choose speakers with a wide dispersion pattern if they are to aimed directly down to the floor, or choose speakers that can be aimed towards MLP.


Okay. I have an SVS SB-12 sub at the front of the room. So, there is little benefit from sound "moving around the room" in lower frequencies at the MLP? Is this because low frequencies are omnidirectional?


----------



## kbarnes701

Slimym said:


> Okay. I have an SVS SB-12 sub at the front of the room. So, there is little benefit from sound "moving around the room" in lower frequencies at the MLP? Is this because low frequencies are omnidirectional?


Yes. THX (more or less invented the subwoofer concept) say that below 80Hz almost nobody can locate the subwoofer in the room. And, as you say, bass frequencies are more or less omnidirectional. So you won't find bass 'moving around the room'. 

However, there is a little more to it. Most 'deep' sounds aren't a pure bass frequency. Often there will be other frequencies mingled in - for example a deep gunshot may have additional components higher than the fundamental frequency. These are often 'leading edge transients' - short-lived sounds which are part and parcel of the overall sound. These sounds are often of high enough frequency for them to be easily localizable, which means that you get the _impression _of the gunshot coming from a particular location, even though technically you can't locate the actual 40Hz or whatever.

But you don't need to worry about it. If your satellite speakers are being crossed to a decent subwoofer at around 80Hz (good starting point) then all of the frequencies they are meant to reproduce will be reproduced. It's just that some will be reproduced by the actual satellite speaker and the remainder (the LF) reproduced by the sub.

As Sanjay says, choose your overhead speakers the way you'd choose any other speakers. Dolby didn't re-invent acoustics when they delivered Atmos.

EDIT: Just for interest, my pair of Seaton Submersives are located behind me. There were a few reasons for doing this: one, they couldn't physically be accommodated behind the screen as my main speakers (JBL 3677) are too wide to allow the subs to squeeze in; second, putting the speakers where they are helps me with room modes as my seating position was more or less fixed at 11.5 feet (the width of my Scope screen, giving me a 1:1 viewing ratio, which is my personal preference); three, the subs are closer to MLP than if they were up front, which gives me extra 'tactility' and also helps with the overall tightness of the sound (I hear the subs directly).

Yet despite the subs being behind me, nobody is aware of it (they are hidden behind my rear wall which is made of AT stretched cloth) unless I tell them. It is impossible to determine where the subs are in the room. Even the hugely experienced @Roger Dressler was unaware where my subs were located when he dropped by (just a 10,000 mile round trip ) for a demo last year. If you care to, you can read his comments in post No 5 of my build thread (linked in my sig).


----------



## unretarded

Gabre said:


> I've ran it multiple times. What's there to look at faq. It's straight forward. Next next next I done.
> And it alllways mixes up small and large speakers, every time one of the speakers is out of phase, (and they r not) etc etc
> Not to mention sub is non existent practically... Every calibration sounds different ffs
> 
> But my questionnaire, if I wanted to use rew, how do those measurements get imported into receiver?




You need DSP/EQ...…...you do not import anything into the receiver.



You are doing a manual and debatably much better job of what the receiver is doing.


Hopefully the AVR has a 5 or 7 band EQ for the mains and a 5 Band for the sub...…….if not, you will need something like a minidsp for the sub/subs...…….depending on if you have pre outs or not on the main channels, you can then add amps and DSP or a graphic EQ...……



My AVR has a 7 band EQ per channel and I use a minidsp for the subs...….that's how you implement REW into the system. The 7 band is ok for EQing the mains, the 5 band is not so great for the sub, the minidsp is much better, you can also import from REW to a minidsp…..if you find doing it manually too hard.



Using REW, you can even locate the best locations for speakers and subs even if you have no ability to DSP or EQ and it is still very useful...………..at the minimal you can use REW to understand and locate problems, even if you can not fix them by moving a speaker or sub if there is no place to move them to, at the minimal it will give you understanding.


There are also lots of other settings and sweeps other than just frequency response that can be adjusted with most AVRs such as distances etc and also phase...……


But to short answer your question...EQ and DSP, which may be present or not on your AVR, so you might need to add those features externally.


----------



## howard68

X box and forced Atmos sound 
The non Atmos 5.1 films use the back L and R 
However when using a game in 5.1 it uses the L and R side surround speakers 
What is going on?


----------



## carp

howard68 said:


> X box and forced Atmos sound
> The non Atmos 5.1 films use the back L and R
> However when using a game in 5.1 it uses the L and R side surround speakers
> What is going on?


Yep, same here - no sound out of the L and R side surrounds if the X Box is set to Atmos with 5.1 content. 

I go in and change the settings to 5.1 for all non Atmos content and back vice versa for Atmos content. I've become used to checking the settings any time I watch something.


----------



## anothermib

carp said:


> Yep, same here - no sound out of the L and R side surrounds if the X Box is set to Atmos with 5.1 content.
> 
> 
> 
> I go in and change the settings to 5.1 for all non Atmos content and back vice versa for Atmos content. I've become used to checking the settings any time I watch something.




Looking across the collection of media players I assembled over the years I find it truly amazing how much developers seem to struggle getting the audio right.

The X-box presents everything as Atmos unless you keep changing the setting manually. Getting 2ch content presented the way was intended to is a challenge if not impossible. Not sure why manual intervention is required at all when the audio type is easily decoded fro the original data.

The FTV 4k can’t play Netflix Atmos at all and apparently Netflix 2ch content is presented as 5.1 preventing the DSU from doing it‘s (usually nice) job. 

Only my old AppleTV (2nd gen) seems to get at least the 2ch vs. 5.1 thing right in all relevant apps. Perhaps the AppleTV 4K does the same thing including Atmos for Netflix and Amazon? 

One would assume that taking the original digital sound and presenting it on the HDMI port without any tampering should be the easiest case to implement. Not sure if it is hardware limitations, the OS of the player or sloppy programming of the individual apps. The result is baffling, don’t you think?


----------



## usc1995

anothermib said:


> Looking across the collection of media players I assembled over the years I find it truly amazing how much developers seem to struggle getting the audio right.
> 
> The X-box presents everything as Atmos unless you keep changing the setting manually. Getting 2ch content presented the way was intended to is a challenge if not impossible. Not sure why manual intervention is required at all when the audio type is easily decoded fro the original data.
> 
> The FTV 4k can’t play Netflix Atmos at all and apparently Netflix 2ch content is presented as 5.1 preventing the DSU from doing it‘s (usually nice) job.
> 
> Only my old AppleTV (2nd gen) seems to get at least the 2ch vs. 5.1 thing right in all relevant apps. Perhaps the AppleTV 4K does the same thing including Atmos for Netflix and Amazon?
> 
> One would assume that taking the original digital sound and presenting it on the HDMI port without any tampering should be the easiest case to implement. Not sure if it is hardware limitations, the OS of the player or sloppy programming of the individual apps. The result is baffling, don’t you think?




The ATV 4K plays Atmos over Dolby MAT. It provides Atmos for Netflix, Amazon, Vudu and iTunes. It does not put 5.1 and stereo soundtracks in Atmos containers so Dolby Surround can upmix as desired. It cannot bitstream lossless codecs so your local rips will play as PCM audio stripping any Atmos or DTSX encoding. It plays stereo music at 48 hz sampling rate so some don’t like it for music. It also seems to have issues with converting Dolby Vision to HDR10 for some displays. It’s a pretty good media player but once again not perfect. I bought it for access to the many iTunes Atmos titles and its pretty good for that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

usc1995 said:


> The ATV 4K plays Atmos over Dolby MAT. It provides Atmos for Netflix, Amazon, Vudu and iTunes. It does not put 5.1 and stereo soundtracks in Atmos containers so Dolby Surround can upmix as desired. It cannot bitstream lossless codecs so your local rips will play as PCM audio stripping any Atmos or DTSX encoding. It plays stereo music at 48 hz sampling rate so some don’t like it for music. It also seems to have issues with converting Dolby Vision to HDR10 for some displays. It’s a pretty good media player but once again not perfect. I bought it for access to the many iTunes Atmos titles and its pretty good for that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




That is good to know. I was wondering if the ATV may be the box of choice, but I was hesitant to really get my hopes up. Sounds like it is avoiding some of the flaws of the other players - for a price, as usually with Apple.
If Kodi is running well, with the exceptions you are mentioning, it may indeed be worth a closer look.


----------



## usc1995

anothermib said:


> That is good to know. I was wondering if the ATV may be the box of choice, but I was hesitant to really get my hopes up. Sounds like it is avoiding some of the flaws of the other players - for a price, as usually with Apple.
> If Kodi is running well, with the exceptions you are mentioning, it may indeed be worth a closer look.




Kodi is not available without sideloading using a developer tool. It does have two different apps that work well for local playback, MrMC and Infuse, but none that allow for “addons” if that is what you are looking for. Plex also works with the same limitations regarding bit streaming.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Does bass driver mismatch of centre matter?*

Hey guys, sorry to ask another question but I really get a lot of good knowledge from you guys and it is always appreciated. 

I have been playing with my new front 3 speakers upstairs with my new receiver (NAD 758) and I am wondering if my towers are under powered for my centre even though they are timbre matched from the same company (monitor audio gold line). 
All RCL speakers have a 4 inch mid driver and a tweeter the same but the center-Gold 350 (because i splurged more on it since people say it’s the most important) has 2 6.5 inch bass drivers while the towers (Gold 200) only has 2 5.5 inch drivers. 

I didn’t think it would matter much since they were from same line but the website says the 350 center is a perfect match to the 300 towers. 

Should this matter if I am using 2 subs. Will I notice the difference of sound coming across the front because of the “stronger” center? I am starting to worry it will sound odd...I just didn’t want to splurge on the bigger towers since space and budget...am I going to regret it when the 5.2.4 gets put in for good or will Dirac solve the bass driver size issue?


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Hey guys, sorry to ask another question but I really get a lot of good knowledge from you guys and it is always appreciated.
> 
> I have been playing with my new front 3 speakers upstairs with my new receiver (NAD 758) and I am wondering if my towers are under powered for my centre even though they are timbre matched from the same company (monitor audio gold line).
> All RCL speakers have a 4 inch mid driver and a tweeter the same but the center-Gold 350 (because i splurged more on it since people say it’s the most important) has 2 6.5 inch bass drivers while the towers (Gold 200) only has 2 5.5 inch drivers.
> 
> I didn’t think it would matter much since they were from same line but the website says the 350 center is a perfect match to the 300 towers.
> 
> Should this matter if I am using 2 subs. Will I notice the difference of sound coming across the front because of the “stronger” center? I am starting to worry it will sound odd...I just didn’t want to splurge on the bigger towers since space and budget...am I going to regret it when the 5.2.4 gets put in for good or will Dirac solve the bass driver size issue?


Does it sound as if you have a problem? Since the center channel is the most important in a movie system, having a very good speaker for that channel is A Good Idea. Dirac Live will help 'match' the speakers as you surmise. I'd only worry about it if you have audible issues.

The best practice is to have three identical speakers for the LCR set. Often people can't do this because they need a horizontal center speaker to physically fit their space. If the latter describes your situation, the ideal is to then have three speakers from the same 'set'. This often means they share the driver types, but it isn;t necessarily so. Like I say, if you can't hear any problems, don't stress about it. It is better to have an overspecced center speaker than an underspecced one IMO, if you can't have three identical.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> Does it sound as if you have a problem? Since the center channel is the most important in a movie system, having a very good speaker for that channel is A Good Idea. Dirac Live will help 'match' the speakers as you surmise. I'd only worry about it if you have audible issues.
> 
> The best practice is to have three identical speakers for the LCR set. Often people can't do this because they need a horizontal center speaker to physically fit their space. If the latter describes your situation, the ideal is to then have three speakers from the same 'set'. This often means they share the driver types, but it isn;t necessarily so. Like I say, if you can't hear any problems, don't stress about it. It is better to have an overspecced center speaker than an underspecced one IMO, if you can't have three identical.


Yes, it's not a bad idea to start with a good center speaker and a couple of decent subs, and get that right before you add ány speaker IMO.


----------



## Ladeback

Chirosamsung said:


> Hey guys, sorry to ask another question but I really get a lot of good knowledge from you guys and it is always appreciated.
> 
> I have been playing with my new front 3 speakers upstairs with my new receiver (NAD 758) and I am wondering if my towers are under powered for my centre even though they are timbre matched from the same company (monitor audio gold line).
> All RCL speakers have a 4 inch mid driver and a tweeter the same but the center-Gold 350 (because i splurged more on it since people say it’s the most important) has 2 6.5 inch bass drivers while the towers (Gold 200) only has 2 5.5 inch drivers.
> 
> I didn’t think it would matter much since they were from same line but the website says the 350 center is a perfect match to the 300 towers.
> 
> Should this matter if I am using 2 subs. Will I notice the difference of sound coming across the front because of the “stronger” center? I am starting to worry it will sound odd...I just didn’t want to splurge on the bigger towers since space and budget...am I going to regret it when the 5.2.4 gets put in for good or will Dirac solve the bass driver size issue?


Why do you think they are under powered? Is there not and sound coming out of them? During a movie most of the main sound will come out of the center like all the talking. I upgraded my Klipsch RC-3 to a RC-7 to go with my old KPS-400's and it sounds a lot better. How do you have your subs set? I set mine to what the manual set. I haven't run Audyssey in a long time on mine and will need to since I am starting to close my room in now.


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, sorry to ask another question but I really get a lot of good knowledge from you guys and it is always appreciated.
> 
> I have been playing with my new front 3 speakers upstairs with my new receiver (NAD 758) and I am wondering if my towers are under powered for my centre even though they are timbre matched from the same company (monitor audio gold line).
> All RCL speakers have a 4 inch mid driver and a tweeter the same but the center-Gold 350 (because i splurged more on it since people say it’s the most important) has 2 6.5 inch bass drivers while the towers (Gold 200) only has 2 5.5 inch drivers.
> 
> I didn’t think it would matter much since they were from same line but the website says the 350 center is a perfect match to the 300 towers.
> 
> Should this matter if I am using 2 subs. Will I notice the difference of sound coming across the front because of the “stronger” center? I am starting to worry it will sound odd...I just didn’t want to splurge on the bigger towers since space and budget...am I going to regret it when the 5.2.4 gets put in for good or will Dirac solve the bass driver size issue?
> 
> 
> 
> Does it sound as if you have a problem? Since the center channel is the most important in a movie system, having a very good speaker for that channel is A Good Idea. Dirac Live will help 'match' the speakers as you surmise. I'd only worry about it if you have audible issues.
> 
> The best practice is to have three identical speakers for the LCR set. Often people can't do this because they need a horizontal center speaker to physically fit their space. If the latter describes your situation, the ideal is to then have three speakers from the same 'set'. This often means they share the driver types, but it isn;t necessarily so. Like I say, if you can't hear any problems, don't stress about it. It is better to have an overspecced center speaker than an underspecced one IMO, if you can't have three identical.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if it “sounds” like there is a problem...I am coming from a sonos 5.1 set up so I guess part of it is that I’m not used to having a good, powerful and dedicated center channel so maybe that’s what I’m hearing. I haven’t calibrated anything as of yet and no DIrAC yet I’m just listening to the front three through Apple TV Netflix and always notice when vocals are being spoken but again, not sure if normal or not. 

Just worried that the 6.5 inch bass drivers of centre is a problem if towers are 5.5 inch even though the mid driver and treble are identical otherwise..,


----------



## ctsv510

Chirosamsung said:


> I don’t know if it “sounds” like there is a problem...I am coming from a sonos 5.1 set up so I guess part of it is that I’m not used to having a good, powerful and dedicated center channel so maybe that’s what I’m hearing. I haven’t calibrated anything as of yet and no DIrAC yet I’m just listening to the front three through Apple TV Netflix and always notice when vocals are being spoken but again, not sure if normal or not.
> 
> Just worried that the 6.5 inch bass drivers of centre is a problem if towers are 5.5 inch even though the mid driver and treble are identical otherwise..,


You're over thinking this especially if you haven't run room correction yet. The set of speakers you have will be fine.


----------



## Chirosamsung

ctsv510 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know if it “sounds” like there is a problem...I am coming from a sonos 5.1 set up so I guess part of it is that I’m not used to having a good, powerful and dedicated center channel so maybe that’s what I’m hearing. I haven’t calibrated anything as of yet and no DIrAC yet I’m just listening to the front three through Apple TV Netflix and always notice when vocals are being spoken but again, not sure if normal or not.
> 
> Just worried that the 6.5 inch bass drivers of centre is a problem if towers are 5.5 inch even though the mid driver and treble are identical otherwise..,
> 
> 
> 
> You're over thinking this especially if you haven't run room correction yet. The set of speakers you have will be fine.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. Just didn’t want any regrets. You are right-I’m over thinking it. But for ease of mine, better to ask the veterans 🙂


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> I don’t know if it “sounds” like there is a problem...I am coming from a sonos 5.1 set up so I guess part of it is that I’m not used to having a good, powerful and dedicated center channel so maybe that’s what I’m hearing. I haven’t calibrated anything as of yet and no DIrAC yet I’m just listening to the front three through Apple TV Netflix and always notice when vocals are being spoken but again, not sure if normal or not.


I don't think that 'noticing when dialogue is being spoken' classes as a negative  Without calibrating the system there's not really much point in doing critical listening tests anyway - your levels and FR might be all over the place.




Chirosamsung said:


> Just worried that the 6.5 inch bass drivers of centre is a problem if towers are 5.5 inch even though the mid driver and treble are identical otherwise..,


Personally I wouldn't worry about it. But if you are, then the solution is to sell the L&R speakers and buy the pair that match the center. I can't see 'downgrading' the center as a particularly attractive option.


----------



## michael1997

when will dolby release anything beyond 9.1.6? I can't wait to upgrade my system.


----------



## batpig

michael1997 said:


> when will dolby release anything beyond 9.1.6? I can't wait to upgrade my system.


Are you referring to content (software) or hardware (processors)? Because either way the answer is "it already exists".

From the beginning Dolby Atmos tracks have been able to scale up to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout, and from the beginning Trinnov has had a processor that supports it.

Regardless, it's not up to Dolby to "release anything".


----------



## michael1997

batpig said:


> Are you referring to content (software) or hardware (processors)? Because either way the answer is "it already exists".
> 
> From the beginning Dolby Atmos tracks have been able to scale up to the full 24.1.10 speaker layout, and from the beginning Trinnov has had a processor that supports it.
> 
> Regardless, it's not up to Dolby to "release anything".


I need test sound to test my trinnov system. lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

Hey guys-big day tomorow-hole cutting...want to make it right. In a 5.1.4 setup if the back height angles due to wall are LESS THAN 45 degrees (let’s say 30 degrees or so) would you make the front heights a BIT MORE than 45 to make a bit more separation or stuck with 45 right on if you can? I know the spec is 30-55...so maybe I go closer to 35 degrees in front instead of 45? 
Also by doing that the front height speaker would be about the same distance to the front tower as it is to the back height speaker. Would that be better to fill in the sound by having the front height closer to the tower position?

Any opinions before I make it permanent would be greatly appreciated. FYI the wall is long and narrow with around 7 feet ceilings. The speakers will be Minitor Audio CT280-IDC

Thanks in advance!


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> Hey guys-big day tomorow-hole cutting...want to make it right. In a 5.1.4 setup if the back height angles due to wall are LESS THAN 45 degrees (let’s say 30 degrees or so) would you make the front heights a BIT MORE than 45 to make a bit more separation or stuck with 45 right on if you can? I know the spec is 30-55...so maybe I go closer to 35 degrees in front instead of 45?


If you set the back at 30-35 degrees also put the fronts at the same angles. The 3D sound systems are forgiving, you do not need to get anal about it.



Chirosamsung said:


> Also by doing that the front height speaker would be about the same distance to the front tower as it is to the back height speaker. Would that be better to fill in the sound by having the front height closer to the tower position?


Can you post a picture of your considered positions?


----------



## Michael Heneghan

Hey guys,

Looking for some help. I have around £1,500 and want to invest in a Dolby Amos system (will also use for music). I was originally looking at the Samsung HW-N950 as it was wireless and easy to configure but it looks like they've pulled it now due to constant hardware failures.

Any recommendations on what I should go for? I have also looked at the DENON AVRX3500 with Focal Sib 5.1.2 Speaker Pack or the Jamo Studio S807 HCS Home Cinema Surround Sound Speaker Pack, Atmos Ready.

Any help would be appreciated. 

Thanks


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Hey guys-big day tomorow-hole cutting...want to make it right. In a 5.1.4 setup if the back height angles due to wall are LESS THAN 45 degrees (let’s say 30 degrees or so) would you make the front heights a BIT MORE than 45 to make a bit more separation or stuck with 45 right on if you can? I know the spec is 30-55...so maybe I go closer to 35 degrees in front instead of 45?
> Also by doing that the front height speaker would be about the same distance to the front tower as it is to the back height speaker. Would that be better to fill in the sound by having the front height closer to the tower position?
> 
> Any opinions before I make it permanent would be greatly appreciated. FYI the wall is long and narrow with around 7 feet ceilings. The speakers will be Minitor Audio CT280-IDC
> 
> Thanks in advance!


The fact that Dolby quote a _range _of possible locations shows that you don't have to worry about getting it absolutely precise. As a rule of thumb, with any speakers you want to try to 'fill the gaps' as evenly as you can. Don't have one pair of speakers really close to another pair and one pair a long way away from another pair. With Atmos the single most important criterion is the angular separation between the overhead speakers and the ear level speakers. Focus on getting that separation right and then double-check you are still within spec (I am betting you will be). If the overheads are too close to the surrounds or mains (angle-wise) then it will be hard to differentiate between sounds from above you and sounds from around you.

People never worried so much about speaker locations in the old days of 7.1 -- they mostly located the speakers where they 'felt right' and looked right and sat back and enjoyed surround sound. Atmos didn't suddenly change the way we should think about speakers. Since Atmos, people are obsessing about precise angles, to a degree here or there, and it really isn't necessary. Use the guidelines as just that - guidelines, add in some common sense, 'fill the gaps evenly' and keep the angular separation as good as you can. Then you will be good to go.

A useful tip when cutting walls is to make the cut at an angle of 45 degrees or so. That way, if you ever need to fill in the hole, the piece you cut out will sit nicely in place and all you will need to do is skim it and give it a light sanding. If you are cutting holes in the ceiling, cut the same 45 degree angle and the cut-out piece will hold itself in place if you have to put it back. You can store the cutout pieces in the ceiling space itself so you will always know where they are. Good luck!


----------



## Chirosamsung

dfa973 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys-big day tomorow-hole cutting...want to make it right. In a 5.1.4 setup if the back height angles due to wall are LESS THAN 45 degrees (let’s say 30 degrees or so) would you make the front heights a BIT MORE than 45 to make a bit more separation or stuck with 45 right on if you can? I know the spec is 30-55...so maybe I go closer to 35 degrees in front instead of 45?
> 
> 
> 
> If you set the back at 30-35 degrees also put the fronts at the same angles. The 3D sound systems are forgiving, you do not need to get anal about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by doing that the front height speaker would be about the same distance to the front tower as it is to the back height speaker. Would that be better to fill in the sound by having the front height closer to the tower position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you post a picture of your considered positions?
Click to expand...

Sure. Here are the pics below. Cutting in a couple hours I think. The room is narrow so right now I have the front two speakers a couple inches ahead of the 45 degree mark to separate from back heights. The tape on ceiling is atmos placement and the ground tape is the sectional couch. The towers line up at front with heights. Thanks guys


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> Sure. Here are the pics below. Cutting in a couple hours I think. The room is narrow so right now I have the front two speakers a couple inches ahead of the 45 degree mark to separate from back heights. The tape on ceiling is atmos placement and the ground tape is the sectional couch. The towers line up at front with heights. Thanks guys


From the pictures it looks good, seems that you did follow the Dolby Atmos guidelines as best as you could. Nice job!


----------



## searsmd

Hey everyone longtime thread follower, very rarely do I ever post though.

Moved into a new home last February and had to move down to a 3.1 system. I've finally had the money to buy enough speakers to fill out our new room with a planned 7.1.4 system. While my room isn't perfect and I've had to make compromises along the way because of that. I wanted to make sure we are putting things in the best place we can. I will have a friend coming over the next couple of weekends to get this project finished.

I have no idea how people make those nice diagrams of there room, so I've included my crude drawing skills:

First up is my room layout - Again forgive my crappy drawing skills, the distances are correct even though my scaling is skewed - https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/hNjJ4v1tRFCaglXcwwTdHQ.37QoWmKCSFWUQLi8r-SjK4

This 2nd one shows my planned speaker locations - https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/duprk_6wSuq7LuGYj0ElLg.C_4gs2cbWrDlIK-r0xlNEy - I'm not sure if distances would have been a different measurement or not, but I did put in angle from the primary listening position

3rd on is a panorama of our room - https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/PrzYKUtfRGW7RAwNO3drzA.UraUrKsBkvZxtMGQ2pPGn3 - Hopefully this will give you a better idea of why some of these locations are not so ideal. Ceiling is sloped at a 20 degree angle centered over the room, 4 or 5 feet from the home theater area.

I know that my front left and right speakers are a little past the recommendation for their positioning, but that is done because listening position #2 , lazy-boy / office chair, does not want to be to the left of the left speaker. Right now it is just a little to the left of the chair. In our last house the recliner was to the left of the left speaker and it gets annoying...

I think I've got good separation between the height and ear level speakers?

I know the thread has some talk about pushing the surround speakers into more of a "wide" roll. If I had a place to put those speakers, that's exactly what I'd do. I used to have a 7.1 with front wide speakers before I got married and we bought our first house and I loved it, missed it in our old house; we only had room for 5.1. I was able to buy better quality speakers though.

The natural positioning of the ear level speakers in the room lent itself to a circle, so I continued with that motif with the Atmos speakers, if you guys think that is an issue I can always move them so they are in line with the front speakers. Because the front speakers are a little on the wide side, I was worried that might push them to far forward and I didn't want them to sound like front height speakers or get out of the cone dispersion for them. The tweeters are amiable, but the woofers are not, though the 20 degree angled ceiling should help push sound in my direction. 

Anyways your thoughts and experience are greatly appreciated,
Mike


----------



## dfa973

searsmd said:


> This 2nd one shows my planned speaker locations - I'm not sure if distances would have been a different measurement or not, but I did put in angle from the primary listening position


The bed channels seems right.
For the Top Front & Top Rear Atmos speakers you need to respect some vertical angles, not horizontal angles, like for a 5.1 or 7.1 classic setup. See the attachment, the TF+TR need to be at 30-55degrees vertical of MLP. 

Be sure to check the vertical angles. In the horizontal plane of the Top speakers you must maintain some symmetry with the main LR speakers, see the Dolby Atmos guideline: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html


----------



## searsmd

dfa973 said:


> The bed channels seems right.
> For the Top Front & Top Rear Atmos speakers you need to respect some vertical angles, not horizontal angles, like for a 5.1 or 7.1 classic setup. See the attachment, the TF+TR need to be at 30-55degrees vertical of MLP.
> 
> Be sure to check the vertical angles. In the horizontal plane of the Top speakers you must maintain some symmetry with the main LR speakers, see the Dolby Atmos guideline: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html


So right now the front atmos speakers would be at 40 degrees vertical and the rear atmos speakers are at 140 degrees. As I understand, the recommedation is to bring the front atmos speakers in a bit so that they will be in line with the rear atmos speakers and the front mains. I shouldn't haven't any problem with that. It'll put those speakers a little closer to me to which should help since they are the weak link compared to my other speakers.


----------



## GPBURNS

Free uncompressed Blu-Ray quality Atmos 7.1.4 surround sound album to check out (just over 3 gigs) 
legit site - artist wants to get Atmos tech out there - 
I just D/L - sounds interesting and very aggressive in mix - going to give full listen later on today- 


http://mattdareywolf.com/


----------



## troye

Hello!

Long time member but also long time since I have posted, and back then it was in regards to My 82" DLP TV (which I am still using!)

I purchased a nice home theater system three years ago Finally after 20 years of going without (I know!) Kids....

5.1.4 - After reading and researching quite extensively this week I have concluded I need to redo the placement of my rear surround speakers, and ideally the front and rear presence. 
1.The surrounds are properly placed for distance / angle BUT they are mounted on the ceiling.
2. The FP and RP are mounted high on the wall pointed downwards at the MLP.

Objective:
1. Determine if I want to go with 7.1.4 (not likely since I will need to upgrade my 2 year old receiver). If yes then
1a. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
2. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
3. Determine if ceiling speakers with adj tweeter be a good option with my sloped ceiling or if I should mount my Martin Logan Motion 4's directly on ceiling

I created a diagram and have some technical questions but I want to simply start with point 2: 5.1.4 speaker placement
As I am researching I come across contradicting information, even directly from Dolby! 

Can someone clarify why these two 5.1.4 layouts directly from Dolby are different, specifically the FP and RP Placement?
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.pdf
Page 20 https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf?pdf=Installation-Guidelines

Maybe I just don't have a clue and need to give my brain a rest.


----------



## awblackmon

troye said:


> Hello!
> 
> Long time member but also long time since I have posted, and back then it was in regards to My 82" DLP TV (which I am still using!)
> 
> I purchased a nice home theater system three years ago Finally after 20 years of going without (I know!) Kids....
> 
> 5.1.4 - After reading and researching quite extensively this week I have concluded I need to redo the placement of my rear surround speakers, and ideally the front and rear presence.
> 1.The surrounds are properly placed for distance / angle BUT they are mounted on the ceiling.
> 2. The FP and RP are mounted high on the wall pointed downwards at the MLP.
> 
> Objective:
> 1. Determine if I want to go with 7.1.4 (not likely since I will need to upgrade my 2 year old receiver). If yes then
> 1a. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
> 2. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
> 3. Determine if ceiling speakers with adj tweeter be a good option with my sloped ceiling or if I should mount my Martin Logan Motion 4's directly on ceiling
> 
> I created a diagram and have some technical questions but I want to simply start with point 2: 5.1.4 speaker placement
> As I am researching I come across contradicting information, even directly from Dolby!
> 
> Can someone clarify why these two 5.1.4 layouts directly from Dolby are different, specifically the FP and RP Placement?
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.pdf
> Page 20 https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf?pdf=Installation-Guidelines
> 
> Maybe I just don't have a clue and need to give my brain a rest.


Unless I am missing something Troye I think they are essentially the same. One has the side surround speakers at 90-110 degrees. The other has them at 100-110 degrees. My side surrounds are at around the 110 degree mark. My system is a 5.2.4 with front wides added. So your brain is doing fine. The two diagrams are just a bit confusing but really for all intents and purposes are the same.


----------



## Chuck666

*Lcr speaker specs*

Looking over the specs on my bed speakers I see a high frequency crossover? What does that mean in layman's terms? When the tweeters play? Mine say 1500 Hz.

Isn't that higher than normal dialog?

Confused...


----------



## Chirosamsung

awblackmon said:


> troye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Long time member but also long time since I have posted, and back then it was in regards to My 82" DLP TV (which I am still using!)
> 
> I purchased a nice home theater system three years ago Finally after 20 years of going without (I know!) Kids....
> 
> 5.1.4 - After reading and researching quite extensively this week I have concluded I need to redo the placement of my rear surround speakers, and ideally the front and rear presence.
> 1.The surrounds are properly placed for distance / angle BUT they are mounted on the ceiling.
> 2. The FP and RP are mounted high on the wall pointed downwards at the MLP.
> 
> Objective:
> 1. Determine if I want to go with 7.1.4 (not likely since I will need to upgrade my 2 year old receiver). If yes then
> 1a. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
> 2. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
> 3. Determine if ceiling speakers with adj tweeter be a good option with my sloped ceiling or if I should mount my Martin Logan Motion 4's directly on ceiling
> 
> I created a diagram and have some technical questions but I want to simply start with point 2: 5.1.4 speaker placement
> As I am researching I come across contradicting information, even directly from Dolby!
> 
> Can someone clarify why these two 5.1.4 layouts directly from Dolby are different, specifically the FP and RP Placement?
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.pdf
> Page 20 https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...on-guidelines.pdf?pdf=Installation-Guidelines
> 
> Maybe I just don't have a clue and need to give my brain a rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I am missing something Troye I think they are essentially the same. One has the side surround speakers at 90-110 degrees. The other has them at 100-110 degrees. My side surrounds are at around the 110 degree mark. My system is a 5.2.4 with front wides added. So your brain is doing fine. The two diagrams are just a bit confusing but really for all intents and purposes are the same.
Click to expand...

If you have wides then how is it 5.1.4? Wouldn’t that be 7.1.4??


----------



## troye

Thanks Chirosamsung,

Take a look at the overhead speakers, they look to be different to me.

I still find it strange...why isn't Dolby consistent?


----------



## mrtickleuk

dolby doesn't have anything called "presence" speakers!


----------



## eiger

Quick Q guys -

Seasoned HT guy, but completely new to everything immersive and Atmos. I added 4 KEF CI ceiling speakers. (two between main seating position and screen, and two more above listener). I also have two KEF CI side surrounds going to my Marantz.

I'm running through the setup on my 8802A. I see the following options during setup -

Front Height and Top Middle
Front Height and Top Rear
Front Height and Rear Height
Top Front and Top Rear
Top Front and Rear Right
Top Middle and Rear Height.

Should I be doing the Top Front and Rear for the ceilings? I have them plugged into "height 1" and "height 2" on the back of the processor. The others are going to my surround port.

Anything else I need to consider during setup and, how will I know when Atmos is engaged properly?


----------



## gene4ht

eiger said:


> Quick Q guys -
> 
> Seasoned HT guy, but completely new to everything immersive and Atmos. I added 4 KEF CI ceiling speakers. (*two between main seating position and screen, and two more above listener*). I also have two KEF CI side surrounds going to my Marantz.
> 
> I'm running through the setup on my 8802A. I see the following options during setup -
> 
> Front Height and Top Middle
> Front Height and Top Rear
> Front Height and Rear Height
> *Top Front and Top Rear*
> Top Front and Rear Right
> Top Middle and Rear Height.


The attached are the recommended guidelines for Atmos speaker placement. Ideally, two (top front) 45 degrees forward of your MLP and two (top rear) 45 degrees behind your MLP. From your description, your ceiling speaker placement appear a bit "compromised"....perhaps due to seating and/or room constraints? In any case, general consensus says "it's hard to get Atmos wrong." Depending on the amount of variation from the guidelines, some degree of inaccuracy of object placement can/will result...but Atmos' immersive effects will still be readily evident.











eiger said:


> Should I be doing the *Top Front and Rear* for the ceilings?


Yes...



eiger said:


> *I have them plugged into "height 1" and "height 2" on the back of the processor.* The others are going to my surround port.


Correct...



eiger said:


> Anything else I need to consider during setup


Review Dolby's Atmos speaker installation guidelines and the diagrams above....

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/index.html



eiger said:


> and, *how will I know when Atmos is engaged properly?*


Double check your installation, observe the 8802's display for the active speaker icons and appropriate codec, and obtain/download a Dolby Atmos Demo Disc (contains various demos and speaker test signals).

I'm sure others will also chime in with additional suggestions or if I missed something. Good luck with your installation!


----------



## kbarnes701

troye said:


> Objective:
> 1. Determine if I want to go with 7.1.4 (not likely since I will need to upgrade my 2 year old receiver). If yes then
> 1a. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
> 2. Determine the best speaker placement for surrounds, FP and RP
> 3. Determine if ceiling speakers with adj tweeter be a good option with my sloped ceiling or if I should mount my Martin Logan Motion 4's directly on ceiling


See my reply of a few posts ago (about angular separation etc). Your surrounds need to be just above ear height and your overheads on or in the ceiling, following as closely as you can the Dolby guidelines. The objective is to have enough angular separation between the floor level speakers and the overheads so that you can distinguish between sounds around you and sounds above you.

Experiment with your side surrounds slightly forward of MLP if youi can, with a 7.x.x system. With a 5.x.x syste, put the side surrounds slightly behind MLP. The idea is to 'fill in the gaps' between speakers as evenly as you can to create an immersive 'sound bubble' (or 'sound dome' when the overheads are in play).

In ceiling speakers are OK if they have adjustable tweeters, but IMO physical speakers mounted onto the ceiling are better and can be aimed towards MLP properly. 




troye said:


> Can someone clarify why these two 5.1.4 layouts directly from Dolby are different, specifically the FP and RP Placement?
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.pdf
> Page 20 https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf?pdf=Installation-Guidelines
> 
> Maybe I just don't have a clue and need to give my brain a rest.


I don't see any inconsistencies there.


----------



## kbarnes701

eiger said:


> ...how will I know when Atmos is engaged properly?


Just to add to Gene's comprehensive reply...

Remember you need to set your player to use Bitstream output with secondary audio turned OFF. This allows the AVR to receive the underlying TrueHD signal and be able to decode the Atmos metadata carried in the Bitstream itself.

When playing an Atmos disc, your AVR should show 'Atmos' on its front display or on the OSD when you press the 'info' button. If it doesn't then you have the settings wrong somewhere. Be sure you have an Atmos source in the player of course, either an Atmos Blu-ray or demo disc or demo track on USB stick.


----------



## Helllboy

Hello guys


im new on this , so pls i need your help


i have from few weeks an denon x3400 + magnat 5.1 sistem 



today i put another 2 older speakers and now i have 7.1 .. all good till now , but after i set them top front , top midlle , dolby front , dolby suround ... iim not see dolby atmos on my display.


iv tring many sources , even the one from dolby website "the one with leaf"


im only receive on denon disply dolby + dolby S and when i put some dtsX source my display it show Mtrx + Neu:X .


one more thing , all sources iv been played from pc throught my LG smart share (dlna ) lan network 



tv is an 2017 smart lg 49Uh668


is sounds very good and i feel the 7.1 effect but why is not show dAtmos on display .


sorry for my english .


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Please help with Surround speaker height*

Not to sound too anal but I really would like feedback and input on this if at all possible. 
In my 5.1.4 room that’s almost build I have to figure out the height of the shelf to be build into the wall for the side surround speakers. 

Some info: The speakers are Monitor Audio Gold 50s and they are about 12 inches high with a midrange driver at bottom and a tweeter near the top. 

My ceiling heights with 4 in ceiling speakers is 87 inches (7.25 feet)

My ear height will be about 49-50 inches seated. 

I know that the recommendation is 1-1.25x ear height for tweeter but I also know that maximum separation between the base layer (surround in this case) and rear atmos heights. 

So to try to see what is most important or a good compromise between not shooting the speaker into the ears directly on the people at the sides of the sectional couch and also having the speaker not high enough to blend with ceiling speaker-what would you guys recommend the height on the surround bookshelf speaker OR the height of the tweeter since I believe that’s usually the reference point. 

I’m guessing the range will be somewhere between 50 and 65 inches? Could you guys please help with your advise if this was you before I build the shelves. 

I will not be listening before hand-the contractor is building first and that is the last consideration thanks in advance guys 🙂


----------



## ctsv510

Chirosamsung said:


> Not to sound too anal but I really would like feedback and input on this if at all possible.
> In my 5.1.4 room that’s almost build I have to figure out the height of the shelf to be build into the wall for the side surround speakers.
> 
> Some info: The speakers are Monitor Audio Gold 50s and they are about 12 inches high with a midrange driver at bottom and a tweeter near the top.
> 
> My ceiling heights with 4 in ceiling speakers is 87 inches (7.25 feet)
> 
> My ear height will be about 49-50 inches seated.
> 
> I know that the recommendation is 1-1.25x ear height for tweeter but I also know that maximum separation between the base layer (surround in this case) and rear atmos heights.
> 
> So to try to see what is most important or a good compromise between not shooting the speaker into the ears directly on the people at the sides of the sectional couch and also having the speaker not high enough to blend with ceiling speaker-what would you guys recommend the height on the surround bookshelf speaker OR the height of the tweeter since I believe that’s usually the reference point.
> 
> I’m guessing the range will be somewhere between 50 and 65 inches? Could you guys please help with your advise if this was you before I build the shelves.
> 
> I will not be listening before hand-the contractor is building first and that is the last consideration thanks in advance guys 🙂


If you're using in ceiling heights then make the side surround tweeters ear level. Any higher and you'll start losing separation from the heights. I just went through this and I'm so glad I lined up the surround tweeters at ear height and not higher. Also monitor audio all around, controlled performance in walls and in ceilings. Sounds fantastic.


----------



## Chirosamsung

ctsv510 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sound too anal but I really would like feedback and input on this if at all possible.
> In my 5.1.4 room that’s almost build I have to figure out the height of the shelf to be build into the wall for the side surround speakers.
> 
> Some info: The speakers are Monitor Audio Gold 50s and they are about 12 inches high with a midrange driver at bottom and a tweeter near the top.
> 
> My ceiling heights with 4 in ceiling speakers is 87 inches (7.25 feet)
> 
> My ear height will be about 49-50 inches seated.
> 
> I know that the recommendation is 1-1.25x ear height for tweeter but I also know that maximum separation between the base layer (surround in this case) and rear atmos heights.
> 
> So to try to see what is most important or a good compromise between not shooting the speaker into the ears directly on the people at the sides of the sectional couch and also having the speaker not high enough to blend with ceiling speaker-what would you guys recommend the height on the surround bookshelf speaker OR the height of the tweeter since I believe that’s usually the reference point.
> 
> I’m guessing the range will be somewhere between 50 and 65 inches? Could you guys please help with your advise if this was you before I build the shelves.
> 
> I will not be listening before hand-the contractor is building first and that is the last consideration thanks in advance guys 🙂
> 
> 
> 
> If you're using in ceiling heights then make the side surround tweeters ear level. Any higher and you'll start losing separation from the heights. I just went through this and I'm so glad I lined up the surround tweeters at ear height and not higher. Also monitor audio all around, controlled performance in walls and in ceilings. Sounds fantastic.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks so much for that feedback-I was thinking to put the tweeter at ear height but was worried it would lead to hotspotting being monopole and tweeter (and mid bass driver below) pointed fairly close and directly at the outside seats in the couch before it got to the MLP which would be slightly avoided if the tweeter was a bit higher then ear height. I guess compromises must be made if ear height is 50 inches and ceiling height (speakers) are 87 inches.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> Not to sound too anal but I really would like feedback and input on this if at all possible.
> In my 5.1.4 room that’s almost build I have to figure out the height of the shelf to be build into the wall for the side surround speakers.
> 
> Some info: The speakers are Monitor Audio Gold 50s and they are about 12 inches high with a midrange driver at bottom and a tweeter near the top.
> 
> My ceiling heights with 4 in ceiling speakers is 87 inches (7.25 feet)
> 
> My ear height will be about 49-50 inches seated.
> 
> I know that the recommendation is 1-1.25x ear height for tweeter but I also know that maximum separation between the base layer (surround in this case) and rear atmos heights.
> 
> So to try to see what is most important or a good compromise between not shooting the speaker into the ears directly on the people at the sides of the sectional couch and also having the speaker not high enough to blend with ceiling speaker-what would you guys recommend the height on the surround bookshelf speaker OR the height of the tweeter since I believe that’s usually the reference point.
> 
> I’m guessing the range will be somewhere between 50 and 65 inches? Could you guys please help with your advise if this was you before I build the shelves.
> 
> I will not be listening before hand-the contractor is building first and that is the last consideration thanks in advance guys 🙂


It's easy. Put your surrounds as low as possible with the proviso that every listener has a direct line of sight (ear) to them. You can't go lower than that so that will give you the maximum angular separation in your room.

In a 5.1 system, ideally the side surrounds should be slightly behind MLP for a single row setup or one which prioritizes the first row. This will also allow you to do 'energy trading' to mitigate hotspotting for those people sitting at the ends of the row. To do this, aim the left speaker at the rightmost listener and the right speaker at the leftmost listener. This has other benefits too - since the SPL of a speaker drops off as you move off-axis, the listener furthest away gets the speaker pointed directly at them, so the on-axis nature of this compensates for them being further away, the listener in the middle is unaffected, and the listener closest to the speaker is a little off-axis which compensates for his proximity to the speaker.


----------



## kbarnes701

Helllboy said:


> Hello guys
> 
> 
> im new on this , so pls i need your help
> 
> 
> i have from few weeks an denon x3400 + magnat 5.1 sistem
> 
> 
> 
> today i put another 2 older speakers and now i have 7.1 .. all good till now , but after i set them top front , top midlle , dolby front , dolby suround ... iim not see dolby atmos on my display.
> 
> 
> iv tring many sources , even the one from dolby website "the one with leaf"
> 
> 
> im only receive on denon disply dolby + dolby S and when i put some dtsX source my display it show Mtrx + Neu:X .
> 
> 
> one more thing , all sources iv been played from pc throught my LG smart share (dlna ) lan network
> 
> 
> 
> tv is an 2017 smart lg 49Uh668
> 
> 
> is sounds very good and i feel the 7.1 effect but why is not show dAtmos on display .
> 
> 
> sorry for my english .


See the posts just above yours on the same page.


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sound too anal but I really would like feedback and input on this if at all possible.
> In my 5.1.4 room that’s almost build I have to figure out the height of the shelf to be build into the wall for the side surround speakers.
> 
> Some info: The speakers are Monitor Audio Gold 50s and they are about 12 inches high with a midrange driver at bottom and a tweeter near the top.
> 
> My ceiling heights with 4 in ceiling speakers is 87 inches (7.25 feet)
> 
> My ear height will be about 49-50 inches seated.
> 
> I know that the recommendation is 1-1.25x ear height for tweeter but I also know that maximum separation between the base layer (surround in this case) and rear atmos heights.
> 
> So to try to see what is most important or a good compromise between not shooting the speaker into the ears directly on the people at the sides of the sectional couch and also having the speaker not high enough to blend with ceiling speaker-what would you guys recommend the height on the surround bookshelf speaker OR the height of the tweeter since I believe that’s usually the reference point.
> 
> I’m guessing the range will be somewhere between 50 and 65 inches? Could you guys please help with your advise if this was you before I build the shelves.
> 
> I will not be listening before hand-the contractor is building first and that is the last consideration thanks in advance guys 🙂
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. Put your surrounds as low as possible with the proviso that every listener has a direct line of sight (ear) to them. You can't go lower than that so that will give you the maximum angular separation in your room.
> 
> In a 5.1 system, ideally the side surrounds should be slightly behind MLP for a single row setup or one which prioritizes the first row. This will also allow you to do 'energy trading' to mitigate hotspotting for those people sitting at the ends of the row. To do this, aim the left speaker at the rightmost listener and the right speaker at the leftmost listener. This has other benefits too - since the SPL of a speaker drops off as you move off-axis, the listener furthest away gets the speaker pointed directly at them, so the on-axis nature of this compensates for them being further away, the listener in the middle is unaffected, and the listener closest to the speaker is a little off-axis which compensates for his proximity to the speaker.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help-that’s the way I’ll go with it likely!


----------



## clipper57

NEWBIE HERE
I will be moving soon and plan to install a theater .I will be using R-26 F Klipsch floor standing speakers, can anyone recommend on ceiling or in ceiling speakers. thanks.


----------



## troye

kbarnes701 said:


> See my reply of a few posts ago (about angular separation etc). Your surrounds need to be just above ear height and your overheads on or in the ceiling, following as closely as you can the Dolby guidelines. The objective is to have enough angular separation between the floor level speakers and the overheads so that you can distinguish between sounds around you and sounds above you.
> 
> Experiment with your side surrounds slightly forward of MLP if youi can, with a 7.x.x system. With a 5.x.x syste, put the side surrounds slightly behind MLP. The idea is to 'fill in the gaps' between speakers as evenly as you can to create an immersive 'sound bubble' (or 'sound dome' when the overheads are in play).
> 
> In ceiling speakers are OK if they have adjustable tweeters, but IMO physical speakers mounted onto the ceiling are better and can be aimed towards MLP properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any inconsistencies there.


Thank you...but Say what?  Looking at the distance / angle of the rear overhead speakers...it looks to me there is a difference. I read your post post #53183 , very helpful.

If 7.x.4 - how far forward is maximum distance? 1.5-2.5' is acceptable? would they be pointed towards the MLP?
In ceiling - IF I do rears in ceiling for aesthetic reasons, I assume with flat ceiling I leave the tweeter alone / downward firing.
I will definitely do on ceiling for the front overheads

How much will I be missing if I setup a good 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4?


----------



## troye

mrtickleuk said:


> dolby doesn't have anything called "presence" speakers!


Right my bad! Left and Right top rear overhead speakers.

Thanks for the correction


----------



## awblackmon

Chirosamsung said:


> If you have wides then how is it 5.1.4? Wouldn’t that be 7.1.4??


I think you may be right. I hope you got the idea though. I do not have rear surrounds. I traded them for front wides which I personally like better than what the rear surrounds do for me. I wanted 4 overhead speakers and front wides. It sounds just fine in my room.

I recently downloaded the Atmos trailers from Dolby web site. I played them and really loved the Leaf trailer effects. I did get the effect of the leaf going around the back of the room just fine without the back surrounds. Amaze played well too. So for my room I have hit a great sweet spot that my Marantz offers.


----------



## jamorris64

I am currently using my Klipsch elevation speakers on top of my towers and seems to help provide a decent sound field. Would they work correctly for Atmos if I would move them into ceiling/downward firing position? If not, I may try some different speakers for this position after upgrading my receiver.


----------



## kbarnes701

troye said:


> Thank you...but Say what?  Looking at the distance / angle of the rear overhead speakers...it looks to me there is a difference. I read your post post #53183 , very helpful.


We must be looking at different things. Dolby isn't inconsistent on their speaker placement guidelines for Atmos at home.



troye said:


> If 7.x.4 - how far forward is maximum distance? 1.5-2.5' is acceptable? would they be pointed towards the MLP?


I'd suggest 80 degrees as a starting point. If you look at the ITU diagram for surround speaker placement, you will see that you have quite a bit of flexibility (as you also do for Atmos speaker placement).










All speakers should be pointed towards MLP in my view, unless they are specifically designed not to be (eg some Dali models), or there is another good reason which trumps this 'rule'.

I think I read that you have Wides? If so then you could move the side surrounds slightly to the rear of MLP (eg 110 degrees). The idea is to fill in the gaps evenly. You don't want a bunch of speakers all occupying roughly the same territory. (EDIT: may have been someone else who has the wides, so ignore if so).



troye said:


> In ceiling - IF I do rears in ceiling for aesthetic reasons, I assume with flat ceiling I leave the tweeter alone / downward firing.


If the speakers have very wide dispersion angles (90 degrees) then pointing them down is fine. If not, make sure the tweeters can be aimed.



troye said:


> How much will I be missing if I setup a good 5.1.4 vs 7.1.4?


How much will you miss rear surrounds? If not much, not much. If quite a bit, quite a bit.


----------



## dfa973

jamorris64 said:


> I am currently using my Klipsch elevation speakers on top of my towers and seems to help provide a decent sound field. Would they work correctly for Atmos if I would move them into ceiling/downward firing position? If not, I may try some different speakers for this position after upgrading my receiver.


Putting Dolby Enabled Atmos Speakers (DAES) on the ceiling may sound decent and it may work as an experiment, but DAES are speakers that are a little different from the usual ones, both physically (construction and baffle) and electrically (a mini EQ circuit inside them). The differences are made so the speakers can be used in their specific role, as DAES. 
So, in the long run, you should not use DAES as on-ceiling Atmos speakers, because we have speakers that work better for that.


----------



## khcoach

*upfiring speaker trick*

I've had the pioneer upfiring speakers for over a year now and haven't been that happy with the sound. I have popcorn ceiling in my condo and i think it was diffusing the sound to much so I was thinking how could I get my ceiling flatter without having to go through all the work of having the popcorn removed. I decided to buy some 1/4" foam board from an office supply store and attach it to the ceiling in the two spots I figured the speakers were hitting (used a laser pointer to guesstimate). after getting them in place I fired up the "Helicopter" demo and for the first time I could hear the helicopter in the proper spot, a few feet in front of my seat and above. Before It would only sound above the speakers at the front of the room but now it's coming from where I'd expect it. Standing up in front of my couch I could really hear like there was maybe a speaker above me playing the sound. Obviously not as good as an actual speaker but definitely sounded like it was coming from where the foam boards were. Did this kind of late at night so couldn't try out any movies but did the next day and man did BR 2049 sound a whole lot better than before. 

They're only up temporarily now with some painters tape; I want to try angling the speakers a bit more to get them a foot or so closer to the couch then I'll attach them with some blu tack for a "permanent" solution for now. So if you're not happy with the sound of your upfiring speakers and have a similar ceiling that might be causing it, this might be something to try. The board's are like $5 at most so a cheap experiment to try.


----------



## troye

kbarnes701 said:


> We must be looking at different things. Dolby isn't inconsistent on their speaker placement guidelines for Atmos at home.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest 80 degrees as a starting point. If you look at the ITU diagram for surround speaker placement, you will see that you have quite a bit of flexibility (as you also do for Atmos speaker placement).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All speakers should be pointed towards MLP in my view, unless they are specifically designed not to be (eg some Dali models), or there is another good reason which trumps this 'rule'.
> 
> I think I read that you have Wides? If so then you could move the side surrounds slightly to the rear of MLP (eg 110 degrees). The idea is to fill in the gaps evenly. You don't want a bunch of speakers all occupying roughly the same territory. (EDIT: may have been someone else who has the wides, so ignore if so).
> 
> 
> 
> If the speakers have very wide dispersion angles (90 degrees) then pointing them down is fine. If not, make sure the tweeters can be aimed.
> 
> 
> 
> How much will you miss rear surrounds? If not much, not much. If quite a bit, quite a bit.


Current Setup
I have two rear surround mounted on the ceiling but they are just about the right distance.
The rear overhead speakers are mounted on the top of the wall in front of the rear surrounds pointed at the MLP
The front overhead speakers are mounted on the top of the wall at about the right angle as you show in diagram and pointed at the MLP

I will modify my existing 5.1.4 OR upgrade to 7.1.4
5.1.4 - modify:
I will move the rear surrounds to slightly above ear level / no obstructions and to the correct angle
I will move the rear overhead speakers to the ceiling and with the proper angle
Front overheads will be moved to the ceiling

7.1.4 upgrade:
Pretty much the same as ^^ but with the addition of two more speakers to be used as left and right surround speakers slightly above ear level-correct?

In ceiling speakers - got it, basically if the tweet can be moved they should be okay, but ideally use ceiling mounted speakers for best results
Speaker Placement - got it, go with specs as close as possible - NO GAPS / Fill in the gaps evenly

Obviously I am reading too much into the diagrams, but my little brain sees a difference in distance between the two diagrams -I will ignore the diagrams and ask for confirmation: what is the correct angle for the rear overhead speakers from MLP?

I couldn't get the images to post directly in the thread but did attach them. Clearly the rear overheads are placed differently, one picture shows them behind the surrounds and the other in front


----------



## cindernat

Could anyone please comment on this from the Dolby Atmos install guide:

'Note: Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback.'

We haven't purchased our equipment/speakers yet but in both quotes from 2 places, the surrounds are dipole. This is for 5.2.2 or 5.2.4 (undecided). The Atmos speakers will be in-ceiling.

Thank you.


----------



## pasender91

What kind of comment are you looking for ?
The statement from Dolby is pretty clear 
Having dipoles with Atmos defeats the idea of localized sound, so the result is not as good as with monopoles in most cases ...


----------



## cindernat

pasender91 said:


> What kind of comment are you looking for ?
> The statement from Dolby is pretty clear
> Having dipoles with Atmos defeats the idea of localized sound, so the result is not as good as with monopoles in most cases ...


A helpful one.

Why would they put dipoles in the package if they are supposed to be 'experts' and if dipoles are not recommended with Atmos? Why am I having to research this myself? 

What should I use instead?

That kind of thing.


----------



## Lesmor

cindernat said:


> A helpful one.
> 
> Why would they put dipoles in the package if they are supposed to be 'experts' and if dipoles are not recommended with Atmos? Why am I having to research this myself?
> 
> What should I use instead?
> 
> That kind of thing.


and you think pasender91 has not been helpful when he is 100% correct?
Why reject what you are being told

as you have more faith in them than Dolby and forum members go back to your so called "experts" and ask them why you are having to research this yourself

At the risk of you still not listening you need to do more research and satisfy yourself on your choice, but one tip they are obviously not "experts" but box shifters


----------



## cindernat

Lesmor said:


> and you think pasender91 has not been helpful when he is 100% correct?
> Why reject what you are being told
> 
> as you have more faith in them than Dolby and forum members go back to your so called "experts" and ask them why you are having to research this yourself
> 
> At the risk of you still not listening you need to do more research and satisfy yourself on your choice, but one tip they are obviously not "experts" but box shifters


Wasn't saying that at all, just answering his/her question.

I do not have 'more faith in them' - that would be the whole point of asking on here.

Asking for someone to recommend alternatives - all civil and polite. Calm down.

This is me doing research. Asking people who have actually got the technology in their home.


----------



## Lesmor

cindernat said:


> Wasn't saying that at all, just answering his/her question.
> 
> I do not have 'more faith in them' - that would be the whole point of asking on here.
> 
> Asking for someone to recommend alternatives - all civil and polite. Calm down.
> 
> This is me doing research. Asking people who have actually got the technology in their home.


first off you were absolutely saying that 
by replying to pasender91 with and I quote "A helpful one" 
when he said Dolby makes it quite clear dont use dipoles 

use dipoles, don't use dipoles, its your money and your choice to swim against the tide
but you have a Dolby instal guide so why ignore it

As for help lack of help your question was answered


----------



## cindernat

Lesmor said:


> first off you were absolutely saying that
> by replying to pasender91 with and I quote "A helpful one"
> when he said Dolby makes it quite clear dont use dipoles
> 
> use dipoles, don't use dipoles, its your money and your choice to swim against the tide
> but you have a Dolby instal guide so why ignore it


Not here to argue with you.

Maybe someone else can reply with what I should request instead. The store has put Klipsch RP-502Ss in my quote which are dipoles, so I need to be able to go back to them and say 'rather these instead'. Thanks in advance.

*edit

Never mind. Someone else helped me out. The retailer was referring to them as di-poles but someone else has let me know they actually aren't di-poles. :S


----------



## pasender91

Chill out 
I believe as others that my response was useful , i even provided you with the correct aternative, monopoles.
The RP-502S are bipoles, this is not as bad as dipoles, but still not he best fit for Atmos.
Monopoles are standard speakers, the nearest one to the RP-502S would be the RP-500M


----------



## sdurani

cindernat said:


> We haven't purchased our equipment/speakers yet but in both quotes from 2 places, the surrounds are dipole. This is for 5.2.2 or 5.2.4 (undecided).


This comes down to personal preference. When using only 2 surround speakers, some people find direct firing monopoles distracting, and bipole or dipole speakers end up being a better fit for them. This doesn't change with Atmos, because a 5.1 base layer still uses only 2 surround speakers. So if bipoles or dipoles were a better fit before, then they will continue to be a better fit after you add ceiling speakers.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> 
> If the speakers have very wide dispersion angles (90 degrees) then pointing them down is fine. If not, make sure the tweeters can be aimed.
> 
> 
> ...


Is that mostly recommended to avoid discoloration in the ceiling sound or are there other considerations?

I am asking since I always used to have my top speakers aimed to the MLP. However, I recently had some issues with imagining (sounds sometimes seemed to come from different location than the speaker) and I experimented with pointing them downwards. 

This changed the sound quite dramatically. Overall envelopment was much better, albeit generally a bit more diffuse. On the other hand object localization (at lest in the demos) didn’t seem to suffer.

In the end I didn’t get used to this configuration as the overall sound was a bit too diffuse for my taste. For now I settled for a “middle ground” with the speakers angled just a bit. 

Any thoughts? Did anyone else experiment with this?


----------



## ScottieBoysName

I currently have a 7.2.4 system. I have my Atmos setup as Top Front and Top Rear. 

I’ve read recently that I should have it setup as Top Middle and Top Rear. 

That Top Front is only for upfiring speakers. 

Is this correct? 

For full clarity when I’m watching as Atmos film, I set them up as Top Front and Top Rear. 

For DTS:X, I set them up as Front Height and Rear Height.


----------



## Josh Z

ScottieBoysName said:


> I currently have a 7.2.4 system. I have my Atmos setup as Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> I’ve read recently that I should have it setup as Top Middle and Top Rear.
> 
> That Top Front is only for upfiring speakers.
> 
> Is this correct?


No, that's not correct. Your height layer options for Atmos are:

Front Height - above front main speakers
Top Front - about 45 degrees in front of your seating
Top Middle - directly overhead or slightly in front
Top Rear - about 45 degrees behind seating
Rear Height - above Surround Back speakers

Any of these can be physical speakers. When doing a x.x.4 configuration, Denon will not allow you to choose two adjacent positions, so it's actually impossible to do Top Middle and Top Rear together. You would have to do Top Middle and Rear Height. (However, in x.x.6, you can do Top Front/Top Middle/Top Rear.)

The person you were dealing with may be confusing this with the setting for "Dolby Atmos Speakers," which are the Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers. When configuring your layout, you should choose the 11-channel option and not the Atmos option.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Josh Z said:


> No, that's not correct. Your height layer options for Atmos are:
> 
> 
> 
> Front Height - above front main speakers
> 
> Top Front - about 45 degrees in front of your seating
> 
> Top Middle - directly overhead or slightly in front
> 
> Top Rear - about 45 degrees behind seating
> 
> Rear Height - above Surround Back speakers
> 
> 
> 
> Any of these can be physical speakers. When doing a x.x.4 configuration, Denon will not allow you to choose two adjacent positions, so it's actually impossible to do Top Middle and Top Rear together. You would have to do Top Middle and Rear Height. (However, in x.x.6, you can do Top Front/Top Middle/Top Rear.)
> 
> 
> 
> The person you were dealing with may be confusing this with the setting for "Dolby Atmos Speakers," which are the Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers. When configuring your layout, you should choose the 11-channel option and not the Atmos option.




Got it. Thanks!


----------



## Matt L

This seems like the right thread to post in. I'm somewhat - ok a lot confused - on Atmos speaker placement. If you have a standard (is there such a thing?) room, placement is fairly straight forward but real world placement can be a challenge. I have a vaulted ceiling in my space and I see varying posts that say use Height speakers, but placement in some diagrams is on the front wall, others the speakers are placed on the side walls. I'm planning an 9.1.4 setup using wides as well at heights. 

I have a difficult room, looking for suggestions as to placement. Overall its 18'x24' with the ceiling raising to about 11' in the center. Display is centered on the 24' wall but forward about 2'. See pictures. Not sure what to do been researching but just getting conflicting info so I thought I'd post here.


----------



## Selden Ball

Matt L said:


> This seems like the right thread to post in. I'm somewhat - ok a lot confused - on Atmos speaker placement. If you have a standard (is there such a thing?) room, placement is fairly straight forward but real world placement can be a challenge. I have a vaulted ceiling in my space and I see varying posts that say use Height speakers, but placement in some diagrams is on the front wall, others the speakers are placed on the side walls. I'm planning an 11.1.4 setup using wides as well at heights.
> 
> I have a difficult room, looking for suggestions as to placement. Overall its 18'x24' with the ceiling raising to about 11' in the center. Display is centered on the 24' wall but forward about 2'. See pictures. Not sure what to do been researching but just getting conflicting info so I thought I'd post here.


Speaker placement often has to be a compromise between what's ideal and what's possible. Overhead speaker placement in "difficult" rooms often winds up having to meet with your and your housemates' personal preferences.

Some people have managed to put the overhead speakers into vaulted ceilings, which might or might not be very easy for you.

Upfiring, reflecting "Dolby-enabled Atmos" speakers don't work so well when ceilings have a substantial slope: it's extremely difficult to get the "beamed" audio to go in the correct directions.

The formal definition of the Height positions is for them to be at the top (or near the top) of the front and back walls, in line with the corresponding ear-level speakers. Sometimes this doesn't provide enough vertical angular separation between the front main speakers and the overheads: the front height speakers might not be high enough to provide the desired vertical separation. Placing the overhead speakers at the top of the side walls, so they're closer to the seating, can produce more apparent vertical separation at the cost of exaggerating the side-to-side separation.

Some people have managed to use overhead lighting supports for their overhead speakers, either with track lighting or floor-standing poles.


----------



## mrtickleuk

pasender91 said:


> Chill out
> I believe as others that my response was useful , i even provided you with the correct aternative, monopoles.
> The RP-502S are bipoles, this is *not as bad* as dipoles, but still not he best fit for Atmos.
> Monopoles are standard speakers, the nearest one to the RP-502S would be the RP-500M


 Bipoles are absolutely fine for Atmos, too. They do not fall into some new "middle" category. This issue has been discussed many times 

It's *ONLY* dipoles that are not recommended by Dolby.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mrtickleuk said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chill out /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> I believe as others that my response was useful , i even provided you with the correct aternative, monopoles.
> The RP-502S are bipoles, this is *not as bad* as dipoles, but still not he best fit for Atmos.
> Monopoles are standard speakers, the nearest one to the RP-502S would be the RP-500M /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> /forum/images/smilies/eek.gif Bipoles are absolutely fine for Atmos, too. They do not fall into some new "middle" category. This issue has been discussed many times /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> It's *ONLY* dipoles that are not recommended by Dolby.
Click to expand...

The choice of monopole or bipole surrounds is also often based on distance from the listener to said surrounds. If you sit relatively close to the walls, then bipoles can help lessen the effect of hot spotting.


----------



## Extreman

Anyone having experience with Piega AP 2.1 for Atmos on-ceiling speakers?


----------



## Ganymed4

mrtickleuk said:


> Bipoles are absolutely fine for Atmos, too. They do not fall into some new "middle" category. This issue has been discussed many times
> 
> It's *ONLY* dipoles that are not recommended by Dolby.



May be it is not the best choice but I have used dipoles for quite a time - two years - with a 7.2.4 set-up in my room with very good results. I have to admit, that I have switched from passive to active speakers last year and they are studio monitors and don't offer dipoles, only standard speakers (Adam S3V/H, S2V) and I also like it.
I have to say, that the former set-up was also fine, with front-height speakers and direct, 90° Atmos rear height speakers. Even some people say, that this is not good. Listening to Blade Runner 2049 with Auro 3D was a great experience with this set up. The flying car was really doing the 360 around me at the beginning. This was much better, than I expected. 

However, now I am doing the set-up different with front height speakers but exactly over the L/R and the rears also angled and not on 90°


Just for your information. This also worked well with dipoles for me.


----------



## cindernat

sdurani said:


> This comes down to personal preference. When using only 2 surround speakers, some people find direct firing monopoles distracting, and bipole or dipole speakers end up being a better fit for them. This doesn't change with Atmos, because a 5.1 base layer still uses only 2 surround speakers. So if bipoles or dipoles were a better fit before, then they will continue to be a better fit after you add ceiling speakers.


Thank you, and pasender91 also. 

Makes sense as you mentioned due to only have 2 surrounds so needing to fill more area with sound.

I'll keep it in mind, cheers!


----------



## cindernat

mrtickleuk said:


> Bipoles are absolutely fine for Atmos, too. They do not fall into some new "middle" category. This issue has been discussed many times
> 
> It's *ONLY* dipoles that are not recommended by Dolby.


Thank you, got it, but can you confirm one way or the other whether Klipsch RP-502S Surround Sound Speakers are bipole or dipole? lol. It doesn't say it anywhere that I can see.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> Is that mostly recommended to avoid discoloration in the ceiling sound or are there other considerations?


My advice has always been to aim speakers at MLP unless there are compelling reasons not to do so (eg the manufacturer specifically recommending against it, or when 'energy trading'). Since overhead speakers are, after all, speakers, I see no reason to throw away a lifelong-held view about aiming speakers towards MLP



anothermib said:


> I am asking since I always used to have my top speakers aimed to the MLP. However, I recently had some issues with imagining (sounds sometimes seemed to come from different location than the speaker) and I experimented with pointing them downwards.


'Imaging' is more or less defined as 'sounds coming from different locations other than the speakers', so not quite sure what you mean. If sounds appear to come directly from the speakers, that is usually considered to be A Bad Thing since localization of individual speakers is at odds with the aim of creating a realistic three-dimensional soundstage with depth, breadth and (now) height.



anothermib said:


> This changed the sound quite dramatically. Overall envelopment was much better, albeit generally a bit more diffuse. On the other hand object localization (at lest in the demos) didn’t seem to suffer.


If it sounds better to you to aim the overheads at the floor, then do so. Your ears etc. Yes, you will get a more diffuse sound if you do, but many people like that. Some prefer precision and a precise ability to 'point to' where sounds are in the overall soundstage (including me) while others prefer a more diffuse presentation. No right or wrong to it really.



anothermib said:


> In the end I didn’t get used to this configuration as the overall sound was a bit too diffuse for my taste. For now I settled for a “middle ground” with the speakers angled just a bit.
> 
> Any thoughts? Did anyone else experiment with this?


I have experimented with it in the past and confirm your own findings. Aiming the speakers towards the floor makes the sound more 'diffuse' and spoils imaging to some extent.

Ask yourself this: are any other speakers in your system deliberately aimed at where nobody is sitting? If not, then why would one think overhead speakers should be?


----------



## kbarnes701

Matt L said:


> This seems like the right thread to post in. I'm somewhat - ok a lot confused - on Atmos speaker placement. If you have a standard (is there such a thing?) room, placement is fairly straight forward but real world placement can be a challenge. I have a vaulted ceiling in my space and I see varying posts that say use Height speakers, but placement in some diagrams is on the front wall, others the speakers are placed on the side walls. I'm planning an 9.1.4 setup using wides as well at heights.
> 
> I have a difficult room, looking for suggestions as to placement. Overall its 18'x24' with the ceiling raising to about 11' in the center. Display is centered on the 24' wall but forward about 2'. See pictures. Not sure what to do been researching but just getting conflicting info so I thought I'd post here.


Selden's advice is, as ever, solid. I'd add that IMO your ceilings look just fine for on-ceiling overhead speakers aimed towards MLP.


----------



## pasender91

cindernat said:


> Thank you, got it, but can you confirm one way or the other whether Klipsch RP-502S Surround Sound Speakers are bipole or dipole? lol. It doesn't say it anywhere that I can see.


On the french online shop i use as a reference they clearly mention them as "bi-polaires", which means bipoles in Moliere language


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> My advice has always been to aim speakers at MLP unless there are compelling reasons not to do so (eg the manufacturer specifically recommending against it, or when 'energy trading'). Since overhead speakers are, after all, speakers, I see no reason to throw away a lifelong-held view about aiming speakers towards MLP


I really can’t disagree with anything you are saying. That is why I mounted my ceiling speakers aimed at the MLP from the beginning and didn’t ever bother to even try changing that untilI noticed the imaging issues in my config.









kbarnes701 said:


> 'Imaging' is more or less defined as 'sounds coming from different locations other than the speakers', so not quite sure what you mean. If sounds appear to come directly from the speakers, that is usually considered to be A Bad Thing since localization of individual speakers is at odds with the aim of creating a realistic three-dimensional soundstage with depth, breadth and (now) height.


I should have been more precise in describing what I mean (though that tends to get a bit lengthy;-). I noticed that e.g. in the “amaze” clip the bird was not flying full circle but was jumping around at some points. To pinpoint that a bit better I played short burst at different frequencies on individual speakers and pairs of speakers to check the imaging. The main issue turned out to be with the rear speakers that were sometimes projecting an image to the front. As part of that exercise I tried different orientations of the ceiling speakers as well. While their imaging was generally ok, there was a subtle difference in the burst localization when they were pointing downward. When I tried that together with everything else I was amazed how substantially different the overall system sounded.









kbarnes701 said:


> If it sounds better to you to aim the overheads at the floor, then do so. Your ears etc. Yes, you will get a more diffuse sound if you do, but many people like that. Some prefer precision and a precise ability to 'point to' where sounds are in the overall soundstage (including me) while others prefer a more diffuse presentation. No right or wrong to it really.



Yes, and I must admit that I haven’t fully made up my mind yet on this. 

I am wondering if this is as well a question of “optimized and fully treated” HT vs. “real life, (acoustically) messy” living room, where the latter can benefit from a bit more diffuse configuration. In such an environment it may be two conflicting objectives - to precisely pinpoint objects and to have a sound “bubble” for the diffuse sound elements that is homogeneous without much variation or even “holes”.

I may end up with having the speakers pointing at the MLP in the end. However, I did not hear that configuration as the clear and obvious “winner” in my case right away. That is why I was asking. 







kbarnes701 said:


> I have experimented with it in the past and confirm your own findings. Aiming the speakers towards the floor makes the sound more 'diffuse' and spoils imaging to some extent.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself this: are any other speakers in your system deliberately aimed at where nobody is sitting? If not, then why would one think overhead speakers should be?



Well the bird is now flying full circle, just moving up and down a bit, which probably can be fixed by fine tuning the levels. I wish there were more test files that have objects flying around in a defined, predictable way. That would help me to make up my mind on that what angle I really like most in my environment.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> I really can’t disagree with anything you are saying. That is why I mounted my ceiling speakers aimed at the MLP from the beginning and didn’t ever bother to even try changing that untilI noticed the imaging issues in my config.


Often, IME, poor imaging is caused by random and unwanted reflections within the room, which, due to their nature of 'scattering' sound about, can lead to lack of focus or clarity in the imaging. One of the biggest gains I made when first treating my former HT was in the precision of the imaging. Everyone who watched a movie commented on it, making remarks such as _"it's so clear...", "the sounds can almost be reached out to and touched...", "I can't tell where the speakers are or which ones are making sounds..."_. So this lack of precise imaging may be a result of the room itself (most issues are). IDK if your room has any sort of acoustic treatments, but if not, and if it is a realistic possibility, I would strongly recommend adding some treatments. Start with first reflection points; treat walls or ceilings behind speakers and if the floor is hard, throw down a rug in front of the main LCR set.



anothermib said:


> I should have been more precise in describing what I mean (though that tends to get a bit lengthy;-). I noticed that e.g. in the “amaze” clip the bird was not flying full circle but was jumping around at some points. To pinpoint that a bit better I played short burst at different frequencies on individual speakers and pairs of speakers to check the imaging. The main issue turned out to be with the rear speakers that were sometimes projecting an image to the front. As part of that exercise I tried different orientations of the ceiling speakers as well. While their imaging was generally ok, there was a subtle difference in the burst localization when they were pointing downward. When I tried that together with everything else I was amazed how substantially different the overall system sounded.


Again, it is possibly the room. But also check the speaker locations and move them to more suitable positions if they are not currently in the only, or the optimal, positions available already. When rear speakers project imaging to the front of the room, it could be that they are located too close together (a single mono speaker always sounds as if the sound is in front of you due to pyschoacoustic characteristics of the human brain and auditory system) or it could be that some absorption behind them may help by reducing or eliminating reflections from the back wall.



anothermib said:


> I am wondering if this is as well a question of “optimized and fully treated” HT vs. “real life, (acoustically) messy” living room, where the latter can benefit from a bit more diffuse configuration. In such an environment it may be two conflicting objectives - to precisely pinpoint objects and to have a sound “bubble” for the diffuse sound elements that is homogeneous without much variation or even “holes”.


An untreated living room environment is always going to be more problematic than a dedicated and treated space. Unwanted reflections will, by their very nature, create poor imaging as sounds are coming from multiple directions (from the speaker itself and then from whatever surfaces the sound is bouncing off). I think that having precision imaging and a good 'bubble' are not mutually exclusive. I have to admit here that I am imaging freak. I just love the precision of perfectly placed sounds in the three-dimensional acoustic space. When designing my current HT (see link in sig if interested) excellence of imaging was one of my most important criteria. If the speakers are well placed and 'fill in the gaps' between pairs fairly evenly, there shouldn't be any 'holes' in the sound. I am also, of course, assuming that you have calibrated the system properly and run any auto-EQ that your setup may have, which will help to provide a good balance of frequencies and levels from all speakers.



anothermib said:


> I may end up with having the speakers pointing at the MLP in the end. However, I did not hear that configuration as the clear and obvious “winner” in my case right away. That is why I was asking.


Well, there are as many different rooms as there are systems and opinions. There could be numerous and varied room interactions which are bringing about the results you are hearing. My first usual suspect would be the room itself and how it is treated (if at all). I'd also look at speaker placement. And I'd want to run a good room EQ system such as Audyssey XT32 or, much better still, Dirac Live. The latter can make a very significant difference even to a largely untreated room. But I'd strongly recommend adding some treatments if it is at all possible. They can look attractive if you choose the size, shapes and colors well, and you can even get panels which feature artwork so they resemble art on your wall (check out GIK's website for a ton of useful information, guidance and suggestions).



anothermib said:


> Well the bird is now flying full circle, just moving up and down a bit, which probably can be fixed by fine tuning the levels. I wish there were more test files that have objects flying around in a defined, predictable way. That would help me to make up my mind on that what angle I really like most in my environment.


Many people have commented that the bird moves up and down a little as it circumnavigates the room, so I wouldn't stress too much about that. Demos are useful but they do not reflect the 'real life' scenario of a good, well-mixed movie track. In fact, I stopped using the demo tracks some time ago and favor instead a few clips of real movies which I know well and which have very good sound tracks. With a real sound track I find I can evaluate and enjoy the sound much better than with the artificiality of a demo track, which has been specifically designed to showcase various aspects of the technology. I know of no movie which has anything like a bird going right around the room for example.

Some movies which have excellent Atmos sound are in this list. There are many more but these are my go-to movies for demoing to visitors and for evaluation for my own purposes.

- John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
- Mad Max Fury Road
- Ready Player One
- The Matrix 4K remaster
- Blade Runner 2049 and the 
- Original Blade Runner 4K remaster
- Oblivion 4K
- Spider-Man Homecoming
- Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
- Deadpool 4K
- Dredd 4K
- Fury 4K
- Fantastic Beasts
- Pacific Rim 4K


----------



## LNEWoLF

Marc, posted this in another thread from two films he mixed. 

I haven’t had time to try them yet but hope to soon. Current upgraditis in progress

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/195-...woofers-soundbars-thread-59.html#post57176278


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> Marc, posted this in another thread from two films he mixed.
> 
> I haven’t had time to try them yet but hope to soon. Current upgraditis in progress
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/195-...woofers-soundbars-thread-59.html#post57176278


Not heard the TV versions of Daredevil but the scene Marc highlights from _Power Rangers_ is certainly a good demo.


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> Not heard the TV versions of Daredevil but the scene Marc highlights from _Power Rangers_ is certainly a good demo.


Power Rangers does have allot of GREAT Atmos audio experiences contained within. I have only enjoyed it the one time and [email protected]@k forward to experiencing more of Marc’s future Ninja audio mixing work’s of art.......


----------



## batpig

> “Daredevil S1 Ep 5.” From 13:40 for about two-three minutes. The guy in the back seat, as he is singing, pans around the room fully a few times. It’s should be smooth and consistent.


This scene is one of my go-to scenes for torture testing the base layer speakers. It's mixed in 5.1 so it's also a good test of the 5.1 > 7.1 upmix capabilities of DSU, Neural:X, etc. I used this scene to prove that Auromatic is just copying the side surrounds to the back surrounds when upmixing 5.1 vs. DSU/Neural:X which move the sound discretely through the four surrounds.

If you are sensitive to timbre matching, this scene will expose problems since our ears/brain are most sensitive to the human voice. With typical surround sound action and random explosions, ambient effects, bullets whizzing by, etc. it is hard to pick up timbre matching issues (which is why in most cases people don't notice issues and say you can "get away with" non-matching speakers for surrounds vs. LCR). But with a human voice singing that pans in a circle around you, it will immediately expose timbre mismatches (whether caused by speaker choice or room acoustics), level matching problems, and "gaps" where imaging breaks down in between adjacent speakers.

Another good one is the "callout" track on the DTS:X demo discs. It's also a human voice (vs. pink noise like on the Atmos demo disc) saying the name of each speaker as it pings each in sequence. And each speaker is a "chapter" on the track so it's easy to skip forward/backward quickly and compare two speakers back to back. I have used this to tweak channel levels so the surrounds are perceptually at the same level with the fronts etc.

I now have all Triad speakers on my base layer, and have disabled Audyssey EQ above 1kHz using the app, and I do hear a major improvement in the timbre matching with these tests vs. my previous mismatched setups.


----------



## usc1995

anothermib said:


> I really can’t disagree with anything you are saying. That is why I mounted my ceiling speakers aimed at the MLP from the beginning and didn’t ever bother to even try changing that untilI noticed the imaging issues in my config.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have been more precise in describing what I mean (though that tends to get a bit lengthy;-). I noticed that e.g. in the “amaze” clip the bird was not flying full circle but was jumping around at some points. To pinpoint that a bit better I played short burst at different frequencies on individual speakers and pairs of speakers to check the imaging. The main issue turned out to be with the rear speakers that were sometimes projecting an image to the front. As part of that exercise I tried different orientations of the ceiling speakers as well. While their imaging was generally ok, there was a subtle difference in the burst localization when they were pointing downward. When I tried that together with everything else I was amazed how substantially different the overall system sounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I must admit that I haven’t fully made up my mind yet on this.
> 
> I am wondering if this is as well a question of “optimized and fully treated” HT vs. “real life, (acoustically) messy” living room, where the latter can benefit from a bit more diffuse configuration. In such an environment it may be two conflicting objectives - to precisely pinpoint objects and to have a sound “bubble” for the diffuse sound elements that is homogeneous without much variation or even “holes”.
> 
> I may end up with having the speakers pointing at the MLP in the end. However, I did not hear that configuration as the clear and obvious “winner” in my case right away. That is why I was asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the bird is now flying full circle, just moving up and down a bit, which probably can be fixed by fine tuning the levels. I wish there were more test files that have objects flying around in a defined, predictable way. That would help me to make up my mind on that what angle I really like most in my environment.




If you can get a hold of the Atmos demo disc there is a helicopter demo that has the helicopter sound circling above you at a slow and steady pace. It’s not really for sale so you may have try to find it on a tor rent site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carp

kbarnes701 said:


> Often, IME, poor imaging is caused by random and unwanted reflections within the room, which, due to their nature of 'scattering' sound about, can lead to lack of focus or clarity in the imaging. One of the biggest gains I made when first treating my former HT was in the precision of the imaging. Everyone who watched a movie commented on it, making remarks such as _"it's so clear...", "the sounds can almost be reached out to and touched...", "I can't tell where the speakers are or which ones are making sounds..."_. So this lack of precise imaging may be a result of the room itself (most issues are). IDK if your room has any sort of acoustic treatments, but if not, and if it is a realistic possibility, I would strongly recommend adding some treatments. Start with first reflection points; treat walls or ceilings behind speakers and if the floor is hard, throw down a rug in front of the main LCR set.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is possibly the room. But also check the speaker locations and move them to more suitable positions if they are not currently in the only, or the optimal, positions available already. When rear speakers project imaging to the front of the room, it could be that they are located too close together (a single mono speaker always sounds as if the sound is in front of you due to pyschoacoustic characteristics of the human brain and auditory system) or it could be that some absorption behind them may help by reducing or eliminating reflections from the back wall.
> 
> 
> 
> An untreated living room environment is always going to be more problematic than a dedicated and treated space. Unwanted reflections will, by their very nature, create poor imaging as sounds are coming from multiple directions (from the speaker itself and then from whatever surfaces the sound is bouncing off). I think that having precision imaging and a good 'bubble' are not mutually exclusive. I have to admit here that I am imaging freak. I just love the precision of perfectly placed sounds in the three-dimensional acoustic space. When designing my current HT (see link in sig if interested) excellence of imaging was one of my most important criteria. If the speakers are well placed and 'fill in the gaps' between pairs fairly evenly, there shouldn't be any 'holes' in the sound. I am also, of course, assuming that you have calibrated the system properly and run any auto-EQ that your setup may have, which will help to provide a good balance of frequencies and levels from all speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are as many different rooms as there are systems and opinions. There could be numerous and varied room interactions which are bringing about the results you are hearing. My first usual suspect would be the room itself and how it is treated (if at all). I'd also look at speaker placement. And I'd want to run a good room EQ system such as Audyssey XT32 or, much better still, Dirac Live. The latter can make a very significant difference even to a largely untreated room. But I'd strongly recommend adding some treatments if it is at all possible. They can look attractive if you choose the size, shapes and colors well, and you can even get panels which feature artwork so they resemble art on your wall (check out GIK's website for a ton of useful information, guidance and suggestions).
> 
> 
> 
> Many people have commented that the bird moves up and down a little as it circumnavigates the room, so I wouldn't stress too much about that. Demos are useful but they do not reflect the 'real life' scenario of a good, well-mixed movie track. In fact, I stopped using the demo tracks some time ago and favor instead a few clips of real movies which I know well and which have very good sound tracks. With a real sound track I find I can evaluate and enjoy the sound much better than with the artificiality of a demo track, which has been specifically designed to showcase various aspects of the technology. I know of no movie which has anything like a bird going right around the room for example.
> 
> Some movies which have excellent Atmos sound are in this list. There are many more but these are my go-to movies for demoing to visitors and for evaluation for my own purposes.
> 
> - John Wick is a classic, the nightclub scene and the final scene are both fantastic
> - Mad Max Fury Road
> - Ready Player One
> - The Matrix 4K remaster
> - Blade Runner 2049 and the
> - Original Blade Runner 4K remaster
> - Oblivion 4K
> - Spider-Man Homecoming
> - Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half of the movie)
> - Deadpool 4K
> - Dredd 4K
> - Fury 4K
> - Fantastic Beasts
> - Pacific Rim 4K




Good post Keith - as usual. 

Something has really been bugging me lately. When I watch a movie with a mix like the list you shared above it's awesome and you get that truly immersed in the sound effect. However... those movies are in the minority as I'm sure you know. Most of the time the soundfield seems to be out to the sides and in front of me and that rear sound field which is fantasitic on those movies you listed, is almost non-existent. 

My theory is that most sound engineers assume that the vast majority of people with have 5.1 at the MOST, and more likely just a sound bar or tv. So, what they do is spend all their efforts on maximimizing how the final product will sound on a 5.1 system. I'm thinking that they put a ton of the sound effects in the side surrounds that would really belong in the rear surrounds and if your sides are at 90 degrees or further forward as yours and mine are, then the rear sound field collapses. 

I'm tempted to put another pair of speakers between my side surrounds and rear surrounds to use them for movies that aren't high caliber like the movies on your list. 

Does this make sense? Does my lazy sound engineer/mixer hold water? Have you notice a poor rear surround field on a lot of movies - including Atmos movies?

I just watched Edge of Tomorrow my kids and the rear surround field was alive and awesome. If only that were always the case... I really love me some rear surround field.


----------



## sdurani

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html


----------



## jsgrise

carp said:


> Good post Keith - as usual.
> 
> Something has really been bugging me lately. When I watch a movie with a mix like the list you shared above it's awesome and you get that truly immersed in the sound effect. However... those movies are in the minority as I'm sure you know. Most of the time the soundfield seems to be out to the sides and in front of me and that rear sound field which is fantasitic on those movies you listed, is almost non-existent.
> 
> My theory is that most sound engineers assume that the vast majority of people with have 5.1 at the MOST, and more likely just a sound bar or tv. So, what they do is spend all their efforts on maximimizing how the final product will sound on a 5.1 system. I'm thinking that they put a ton of the sound effects in the side surrounds that would really belong in the rear surrounds and if your sides are at 90 degrees or further forward as yours and mine are, then the rear sound field collapses.
> 
> I'm tempted to put another pair of speakers between my side surrounds and rear surrounds to use them for movies that aren't high caliber like the movies on your list.
> 
> Does this make sense? Does my lazy sound engineer/mixer hold water? Have you notice a poor rear surround field on a lot of movies - including Atmos movies?
> 
> I just watched Edge of Tomorrow my kids and the rear surround field was alive and awesome. If only that were always the case... I really love me some rear surround field.


Hi Carp,

Before assigning my Front Wides, I used the side Surrounds assignation and felt like you that the rear soundfield was odd when having the sides a bit forward. I did not do an extended testing since a couple scenes that I know well was enough to deter me.

When I change assignation to Front Wides, everything felt into place with a perfect 360 degree buble. It is then that I saw the true potential of Atmos and 3D object pleacement.

Some people here like Keith have the Sides moved a bit forward and it works great for them. As in any setups, YMMV...


----------



## carp

jsgrise said:


> Hi Carp,
> 
> Before assigning my Front Wides, I used the side Surrounds assignation and felt like you that the rear soundfield was odd when having the sides a bit forward. I did not do an extended testing since a couple scenes that I know well was enough to deter me.
> 
> When I change assignation to Front Wides, everything felt into place with a perfect 360 degree buble. It is then that I saw the true potential of Atmos and 3D object pleacement.
> 
> Some people here like Keith have the Sides moved a bit forward and it works great for them. As in any setups, YMMV...



Are you saying everything fell into place when you put in physical wide speakers in addition to your side surrounds - or - are you saying that you used your existing side surround speakers and wired them to be front wides instead?


----------



## jsgrise

When I wired my Sides as Front Wides while still using a 7 speakers bed layout.

I even like it more than a regular 7.1.4, less gap between the fronts and sides.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carp

jsgrise said:


> When I wired my Sides as Front Wides while still using a 7 speakers bed layout.
> 
> I even like it more than a regular 7.1.4, less gap between the fronts and sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting... so no speakers designated as side surrounds. Hmm. I don't think my AVR (Yamaha 3060) gives me the option of wides or I would try it.


----------



## batpig

carp said:


> Interesting... so no speakers designated as side surrounds. Hmm. I don't think my AVR (Yamaha 3060) gives me the option of wides or I would try it.


Nope, very few AVRs support the Front Wide option. AFAIK it has never been supported on Yamaha's.


----------



## jsgrise

carp said:


> Interesting... so no speakers designated as side surrounds. Hmm. I don't think my AVR (Yamaha 3060) gives me the option of wides or I would try it.




Actually I have LCR FW and Sides Surrounds. No Rear Surrounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

batpig said:


> Nope, very few AVRs support the Front Wide option. AFAIK it has never been supported on Yamaha's.




Unfortunately it is true, hopefully it will change as object based audio take over the market!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carp

jsgrise said:


> Actually I have LCR FW and Sides Surrounds. No Rear Surrounds.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ahhh I get it now. That would indeed take care of the lazy 5.1 based sound guy as far as the rear sound field goes. They love to put sounds that should be in the rear surrounds in the side surrounds instead IMO.


----------



## jsgrise

carp said:


> Ahhh I get it now. That would indeed take care of the lazy 5.1 based sound guy as far as the rear sound field goes. They love to put sounds that should be in the rear surrounds in the side surrounds instead IMO.




In my room, Rear Surrounds has been really underwhelming especially considering the cost (Sonus Faber Venere 1.5 + Monolith 7X).

I felt like the rear sound field was being cluttered and overwhelmed the front sound field. It also made little sens to me to have more speakers behind me that in front of me.

Having just one pair in the back works really well now since my room is medium-small. 

That being said, your lazy ass sound mixer theory might be true after all! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt L

kbarnes701 said:


> Selden's advice is, as ever, solid. I'd add that IMO your ceilings look just fine for on-ceiling overhead speakers aimed towards MLP.


Well, as this is a multi use room I'd opt for in ceiling speakers if I go that route. Bit of work, ok lots of work, but doable. Have to have something with aim-able tweeters. Will have to do some serious planning as this is a one cut scenario. Not quite ready to commit, but getting there.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> ... I think that having precision imaging and a good 'bubble' are not mutually exclusive. I have to admit here that I am imaging freak. I just love the precision of perfectly placed sounds in the three-dimensional acoustic space. When designing my current HT (see link in sig if interested) excellence of imaging was one of my most important criteria. If the speakers are well placed and 'fill in the gaps' between pairs fairly evenly, there shouldn't be any 'holes' in the sound.
> ...


There is no doubt in my mind that conceptually it is possible to get imaging and envelopment right at the same time. If I was sitting in your HT room I would not be surprised at all to hear it sounding exactly how I like it. However, I am not sure that that precision and ambiance are automatically optimized together, when dealing with problematic rooms. You may be able to create a featureless porridge of ambiance as well as a spotty display of laser sharp precision. There are certainly many scenes that will suffer a great deal from a lack of precision. However, ambiance is a key element of virtually every scene and the experience will suffer a great deal from inhomogeneities. Not to say that ambiance is more important per se, one just needs to be conscious not the optimize one at the expense of the other. I am wondering if the angling of the ceiling speakers may just be another trade off in suboptimal rooms, similar to the bipole vs. monopole discussion. Just another example where you trade a bit of precision for improved ambiance. I may be completely wrong (or it is an old hat) - I am just putting it out there as I have a lot of respect for your views and the views of the other experts in this forum to see if that is a valid paradigm for thinking about these things. 



kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> So this lack of precise imaging may be a result of the room itself (most issues are). IDK if your room has any sort of acoustic treatments, but if not, and if it is a realistic possibility, I would strongly recommend adding some treatments. Start with first reflection points; treat walls or ceilings behind speakers and if the floor is hard, throw down a rug in front of the main LCR set.
> ...


I guess we are really thinking along similar lines in terms of the room effects here. To digress from the pure Atmos topic for a moment - there is no doubt that the room is a key issue in my case. While it is not too bad as a living room it is a horror story in terms of acoustical and optical suitability for HT purposes. For example the setting is asymmetrical and many walls are glass. However, I love to be able to listen to music and to watch TV just in my living room rather than having to go somewhere else. That’s why addressing step by step the various issues up to the point, when there are diminishing results or the overall character of the room would be impacted too much. For example I have a rug, the coffee table is not in front of the MLP, there are absorbers in the back and at some of the side reflection points, the back of the wall-pictures is stuffed with foam, etc. Next will be adding curtains for some of the windows (which are - you may have guessed it - behind the front stage) and probably treat some of the reflection points on the ceiling. 



kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> Again, it is possibly the room. But also check the speaker locations and move them to more suitable positions if they are not currently in the only, or the optimal, positions available already. When rear speakers project imaging to the front of the room, it could be that they are located too close together (a single mono speaker always sounds as if the sound is in front of you due to pyschoacoustic characteristics of the human brain and auditory system) or it could be that some absorption behind them may help by reducing or eliminating reflections from the back wall.
> ...


I mostly fixed the imaging issue with the rear speakers by moving them and angling them differently. Most likely the glass in the front of the room or the coffee table is the main issue here. I don’t think the speaker are too close to each other, the angles are correct and the front imaging occurred as well when playing bursts just on one of them. 


kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> And I'd want to run a good room EQ system such as Audyssey XT32 or, much better still, Dirac Live. The latter can make a very significant difference even to a largely untreated room. But I'd strongly recommend adding some treatments if it is at all possible.
> ...


Currently I am using Audyssey 32. I have considered dirac, but have not pulled the trigger on it yet. I am uncertain if that will have a substantial impact or if it more likely would get me in the space of diminishing returns. Not sure what your guess would be on that? For now I had been doing the other things first, while watching how things evolve in terms of processors with built in dirac and the new version. 

While thinking about all that I am just trying to keep in mind that in the current environment it will always be a compromise. At some point it just really may make more sense to take the lessons learned and start building a dedicated room (in addition). Having said that - I am still getting improvements and even the current sound is much better (or at least closer to my taste) than what I am hearing in most commercial cinemas. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

batpig said:


> This scene is one of my go-to scenes for torture testing the base layer speakers. It's mixed in 5.1 so it's also a good test of the 5.1 > 7.1 upmix capabilities of DSU, Neural:X, etc. I used this scene to prove that Auromatic is just copying the side surrounds to the back surrounds when upmixing 5.1 vs. DSU/Neural:X which move the sound discretely through the four surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are sensitive to timbre matching, this scene will expose problems since our ears/brain are most sensitive to the human voice. With typical surround sound action and random explosions, ambient effects, bullets whizzing by, etc. it is hard to pick up timbre matching issues (which is why in most cases people don't notice issues and say you can "get away with" non-matching speakers for surrounds vs. LCR). But with a human voice singing that pans in a circle around you, it will immediately expose timbre mismatches (whether caused by speaker choice or room acoustics), level matching problems, and "gaps" where imaging breaks down in between adjacent speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> ..



I need to try that one. You are saying that the tonal coloration is basically staying the same while it pans around?


----------



## kbarnes701

carp said:


> Something has really been bugging me lately. When I watch a movie with a mix like the list you shared above it's awesome and you get that truly immersed in the sound effect. However... those movies are in the minority as I'm sure you know. Most of the time the soundfield seems to be out to the sides and in front of me and that rear sound field which is fantasitic on those movies you listed, is almost non-existent.
> 
> My theory is that most sound engineers assume that the vast majority of people with have 5.1 at the MOST, and more likely just a sound bar or tv. So, what they do is spend all their efforts on maximimizing how the final product will sound on a 5.1 system. I'm thinking that they put a ton of the sound effects in the side surrounds that would really belong in the rear surrounds and if your sides are at 90 degrees or further forward as yours and mine are, then the rear sound field collapses.


IDK for sure but I would bet that the mix engineers aim to make the best theatrical mix they can and then it is (mildly) adapted for home use. I would be surprised if they mixed to any sort of 'lowest common denominator'. 

As with anything in the creative arena, some stuff will be awesome, some average and some downright poor. I guess it's the same with movie soundtracks.

HST, I find that pretty much all modern movie soundtracks are reasonably good. Not all make the most of the setup I have, for sure, but then not every movie provides the opportunity. I like it when the mix uses subtle cues about the environment where the action is taking place as much as I like the loud, bombastic scenes. Well, maybe not literally as much 



carp said:


> I'm tempted to put another pair of speakers between my side surrounds and rear surrounds to use them for movies that aren't high caliber like the movies on your list.
> 
> Does this make sense? Does my lazy sound engineer/mixer hold water? Have you notice a poor rear surround field on a lot of movies - including Atmos movies?


You could certainly go for a side array sort of setup, as they do in commercial theaters. Not sure how it would sound at home, but if you have a couple of speakers and some wire laying around, why not give it a try?



carp said:


> I just watched Edge of Tomorrow my kids and the rear surround field was alive and awesome. If only that were always the case... I really love me some rear surround field.


So do I. Have you considered raising the levels of the rear surrounds a little? Our hearing is deficient with sounds from behind us -- the engineer would have taken that into account when mixing, but it's your system and your ears. If you like the rears to be a bit more obvious, make it so!

A good test for whether the rears are doing much would be to temporarily disconnect them and see if you notice any difference. Often we notice things by their absence more than by their presence. It would be interesting to know.


----------



## anothermib

usc1995 said:


> If you can get a hold of the Atmos demo disc there is a helicopter demo that has the helicopter sound circling above you at a slow and steady pace. It’s not really for sale so you may have try to find it on a tor rent site.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Good point. I haven’t played that in a long time, but I have it. It may even have been on the official Dolby website at some point.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> I need to try that one. You are saying that the tonal coloration is basically staying the same while it pans around?


I am not sure at all about this timbral balance issue which keeps raising its head. If you take one speaker and play something out of it -- human voice is good -- and then you were to rotate that single speaker slowly around the room (with MLP at center), you would hear significant timbral shifts as the speaker moved. This is due to the speaker's interaction with the different acoustic environments which the room presents to it when it is in various alternate locations. Heck, if you play white noise out of your center speaker and just move your head from side to side you hear a significant change in timbre, this time due to your ears moving in relation to the source.

So even if you have 7 identical speakers, when a sound pans around them all, there will be timbral changes. Similarly, if someone stands behind you or to the side of you, the timbre of their voice will change, again due to the room interactions with the speaker. In the case of the human voice our brains are probably quite adept at compensating for this since human voice recognition is so important to us.

Personally, I think that so long as some care is taken to provide reasonably suitably matched speakers, and then use a good room EQ system, this timbre thing is mainly marketing from speaker makers to persuade us that, having bought one pair of their speakers, every other speaker in the system needs to be from the same maker. Note, not the *same *speaker. And wrt to the latter point, once you change the drivers, the cabinet, the orientation etc etc, then all this 'timbre matching' becomes so much BS. IMO.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> I am not sure at all about this timbral balance issue which keeps raising its head. If you take one speaker and play something out of it -- human voice is good -- and then you were to rotate that single speaker slowly around the room (with MLP at center), you would hear significant timbral shifts as the speaker moved. This is due to the speaker's interaction with the different acoustic environments which the room presents to it when it is in various alternate locations. Heck, if you play white noise out of your center speaker and just move your head from side to side you hear a significant change in timbre, this time due to your ears moving in relation to the source.
> 
> 
> 
> So even if you have 7 identical speakers, when a sound pans around them all, there will be timbral changes. Similarly, if someone stands behind you or to the side of you, the timbre of their voice will change, again due to the room interactions with the speaker. In the case of the human voice our brains are probably quite adept at compensating for this since human voice recognition is so important to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that so long as some care is taken to provide reasonably suitably matched speakers, and then use a good room EQ system, this timbre thing is mainly marketing from speaker makers to persuade us that, having bought one pair of their speakers, every other speaker in the system needs to be from the same maker. Note, not the *same *speaker. And wrt to the latter point, once you change the drivers, the cabinet, the orientation etc etc, then all this 'timbre matching' becomes so much BS. IMO.




That is true. In most real environments the impact of the speaker placement in the room and of our spacial hearing will be bigger than variations caused by differences between good speakers. On top of that many sound effects (perhaps with the exception of the more diffuse ambience) are mixed differently depending on where they happen. So issues may go unnoticed in most cases and it is not worth loosing too much sleep over it. Having said that - it may be still good to know what is going on and to identify and potentially fix any larger issues. A singing voice that moves smoothly and predictable may be a good tool for doing just that.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> There is doubt in my mind that conceptually it is possible to get imaging and envelopment right at the same time. If I was sitting in your HT room I would not be surprised at all to hear it sounding exactly how I like it. However, I am not sure that that precision and ambiance are automatically optimized together, when dealing with problematic rooms. You may be able to create a featureless porridge of ambiance as well as a spotty display of laser sharp precision. There are certainly many scenes that will suffer a great deal from a lack of precision. However, ambiance is a key element of virtually every scene and the experience will suffer a great deal from inhomogeneities. Not to say that ambiance is more important per se, one just needs to be conscious not the optimize one at the expense of the other. I am wondering if the angling of the ceiling speakers may just be another trade off in suboptimal rooms, similar to the bipole vs. monopole discussion. Just another example where you trade a bit of precision for improved ambiance. I may be completely wrong (or it is an old hat) - I am just putting it out there as I have a lot of respect for your views and the views of the other experts in this forum to see if that is a valid paradigm for thinking about these things.


Maybe I wasn't being clear. What I mean is that it is perfectly possible, in the same scene, to have pinpoint imaging and ambient effects all at the same time. Take, for example, a gunfight in a snowstorm (as in, e.g., in thje movie _Wind River_ - a great movie BTW). The gunshots can be very precisely placed in space while the wind and snow storm howl all around us, above, to the sides and behind us. I hear this sort of thing all the time, hence my earlier assertion.




anothermib said:


> I guess we are really thinking along similar lines in terms of the room effects here. To digress from the pure Atmos topic for a moment - there is no doubt that the room is a key issue in my case. While it is not too bad as a living room it is a horror story in terms of acoustical and optical suitability for HT purposes. For example the setting is asymmetrical and many walls are glass. However, I love to be able to listen to music and to watch TV just in my living room rather than having to go somewhere else. That’s why addressing step by step the various issues up to the point, when there are diminishing results or the overall character of the room would be impacted too much. For example I have a rug, the coffee table is not in front of the MLP, there are absorbers in the back and at some of the side reflection points, the back of the wall-pictures is stuffed with foam, etc. Next will be adding curtains for some of the windows (which are - you may have guessed it - behind the front stage) and probably treat some of the reflection points on the ceiling.


A living room HT is always going to be a compromise. One has to do the best with what one has. It isn't easy.



anothermib said:


> Currently I am using Audyssey 32. I have considered dirac, but have not pulled the trigger on it yet. I am uncertain if that will have a substantial impact or if it more likely would get me in the space of diminishing returns. Not sure what your guess would be on that? For now I had been doing the other things first, while watching how things evolve in terms of processors with built in dirac and the new version.


I can say without doubt that Dirac Live is a very significant step forward from Audyssey XT32. Many of us from the original Audyssey thread migrated to Dirac Live and nobody went back. Everyone agreed that Dirac Live did a better job in pretty much every way. It is a superior (and more costly) technology so it isn't surprising. Now that it is appearing in very modestly priced AVRs (e.g Nad 758 v3) it is a very good progression for anyone considering an AVR swap IMO.



anothermib said:


> While thinking about all that I am just trying to keep in mind that in the current environment it will always be a compromise. At some point it just really may make more sense to take the lessons learned and start building a dedicated room (in addition). Having said that - I am still getting improvements and even the current sound is much better (or at least closer to my taste) than what I am hearing in most commercial cinemas.


One can do wonders with a living room environment. But a dedicated room will always be better IMO (and easier to get right too). If you can go that way, I'd urge you to consider it.


----------



## nexus99

You might have sold me on DIRAC!


----------



## kbarnes701

nexus99 said:


> You might have sold me on DIRAC!


OT here, but briefly the de facto Dirac Live thread on AVS is the miniDSP DDRC-88A thread. A ton of useful info and experiences on there.
Since that thread started, Dirac Live has started to appear in more and more AVRs (initially one had to use the separate 88A add-on processor but the tech is identical). They NAD 758 v3 ticks a lot of boxes: 7.x.4 Atmos processing (DTS;X about to be added), good power output, reputable brand and Dirac Live on all channels. Plus a really attractive price. There's a thread for this unit on AVS as well.

Audyssey, even in XT32 form, can't compete with Dirac Live, as the experiences of those who switched will reveal very clearly. I was always a huge Audyssey fan (I wrote the FAQ!) but I would never go back.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> That is true. In most real environments the impact of the speaker placement in the room and of our spacial hearing will be bigger than variations caused by differences between good speakers. On top of that many sound effects (perhaps with the exception of the more diffuse ambience) are mixed differently depending on where they happen. So issues may go unnoticed in most cases and it is not worth loosing too much sleep over it. Having said that - it may be still good to know what is going on and to identify and potentially fix any larger issues. A singing voice that moves smoothly and predictable may be a good tool for doing just that.


I don't think it can do any harm to choose all speakers from one manufacturer, other than possibly to one's bank account. But then neither do I believe it is necessary for the reasons given earlier, and provided one uses a good room EQ system. For many people, me included, it isn't really practical to have similar speakers all round due to the sheer size and weight of my mains (JBL 3677). I could have chosen surrounds from the JBL stable, but they would have been so different in almost every way from the mains that it makes nonsense of the notion of 'timbre matching' IMO. In the end I chose Tannoys for my 4 surrounds and 4 overheads and they integrate just fine with the JBLs, especially after Dirac Live has performed its magic. One can make an argument either way -- personally it isn't something I lose any sleep over.


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> OT here, but briefly the de facto Dirac Live thread on AVS is the miniDSP DDRC-88A thread. A ton of useful info and experiences on there.
> Since that thread started, Dirac Live has started to appear in more and more AVRs (initially one had to use the separate 88A add-on processor but the tech is identical). They NAD 758 v3 ticks a lot of boxes: 7.x.4 Atmos processing (DTS;X about to be added), good power output, reputable brand and Dirac Live on all channels. Plus a really attractive price. There's a thread for this unit on AVS as well.
> 
> Audyssey, even in XT32 form, can't compete with Dirac Live, as the experiences of those who switched will reveal very clearly. I was always a huge Audyssey fan (I wrote the FAQ!) but I would never go back.


 The new Audyssey app has delivered a new experience from the old timer and a lot of ill's are pretty much gone,while still not perfect yet,its miles from the former


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> The new Audyssey app has delivered a new experience from the old timer and a lot of ill's are pretty much gone,while still not perfect yet,its miles from the former


I believe that while some of the user interface has been improved, the underlying technology of XT32 has not changed for over a decade and that now it lags behind more modern and more sophisticated offerings such as Dirac Live. One of the major benefits of DL is that it corrects in both the time and frequency domains whereas Audyssey corrects only in the latter. There is much relevant discussion on the 88A thread formerly mentioned.


----------



## cindernat

pasender91 said:


> On the french online shop i use as a reference they clearly mention them as "bi-polaires", which means bipoles in Moliere language


Thanks heaps


----------



## searsmd

Quick question, in a 7.1.4 setup how important is it for the rear surround (specifically rear right) to be on the inside of the rear Atmos ceiling speaker. I think my room is going to want to push it to the right of that speaker.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## westbergjoakim

jsgrise said:


> Actually I have LCR FW and Sides Surrounds. No Rear Surrounds.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So they are designated as LCR, FW and Side Surround in the receiver? Which receiver are you using?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

westbergjoakim said:


> So they are designated as LCR, FW and Side Surround in the receiver? Which receiver are you using?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk




Yes they are on my Marantz SR7010. They stopped supporting Front Wides on the SR7011 and they just started again with the AV8805!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ctsv510

searsmd said:


> Quick question, in a 7.1.4 setup how important is it for the rear surround (specifically rear right) to be on the inside of the rear Atmos ceiling speaker. I think my room is going to want to push it to the right of that speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike


Be more concerned with angles and less with distance from MLP. Your AVR will correct for the distance you just want decent angular separation with the speakers.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> A living room HT is always going to be a compromise. One has to do the best with what one has. It isn't easy.


For the moment I am taking it as the “boss challenge” in some strange adventure game ;-)
However, I am learning a lot in the process. The dedicated room setup that I would build now is quite different from what I would have done when I started the journey. 







kbarnes701 said:


> I can say without doubt that Dirac Live is a very significant step forward from Audyssey XT32. Many of us from the original Audyssey thread migrated to Dirac Live and nobody went back. Everyone agreed that Dirac Live did a better job in pretty much every way. It is a superior (and more costly) technology so it isn't surprising. Now that it is appearing in very modestly priced AVRs (e.g Nad 758 v3) it is a very good progression for anyone considering an AVR swap IMO.




I am trying to avoid the “grass is greener on the other side” syndrome. However, At some point you can’t dismiss the reports from the people that went there and say it is actually greener. I need to seriously consider looking myself. 

My Denon is not that old, so I am not in a rush to replace it right now. However, some additional features like Front Wides and the support for multiple speaker configs may be nice at some point. On the other hand I am using HEOS a lot, so IDK. I may end up going down the DDRC-88 path like you. It may be viable as my bed speakers are externally amplified anyway. 
Maybe slightly OT, but I am growing slightly tired with Audyssey and their tendency to decide “what is right” for the user and their lack of enthusiasm to go back and change it if it turns out that the user has a different view on the subject. The latest example is that for the new app they decided that bass below 20Hz does more harm than good so they “help” by rolling it off. With the users wondering what is actually happening until they confirm it two years later. So my reluctance to move to Dirac just yet may erode quickly.


----------



## searsmd

searsmd said:


> Quick question, in a 7.1.4 setup how important is it for the rear surround (specifically rear right) to be on the inside of the rear Atmos ceiling speaker. I think my room is going to want to push it to the right of that speaker.





ctsv510 said:


> Be more concerned with angles and less with distance from MLP. Your AVR will correct for the distance you just want decent angular separation with the speakers.


Ok, that's what my head keeps telling me. I just needed someone else to confer. So how much angular separation do I need? I've put my right rear atmos at a horizontal angle to 137 degrees to keep it inline with the FR speaker. My room allows me to put it as far away as 115 degrees & I am thinking 120 degrees. Is this enough. I can probably move the seating up a few inches to to help give more anglular seperation at the cost of my side surrounds moving farther back if the consensus is that I need more seperation.

Thanks


----------



## ctsv510

searsmd said:


> Ok, that's what my head keeps telling me. I just needed someone else to confer. So how much angular separation do I need? I've put my right rear atmos at a horizontal angle to 137 degrees to keep it inline with the FR speaker. My room allows me to put it as far away as 115 degrees & I am thinking 120 degrees. Is this enough. I can probably move the seating up a few inches to to help give more anglular seperation at the cost of my side surrounds moving farther back if the consensus is that I need more seperation.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


Don't worry about inches. You want the speakers to not blend together so as long as they are a good distance apart angle wise you'll be fine. Again, work as close to the Dolby angles as you can. Few can achieve "perfection" here and even fewer can tell the difference and inch here or there in the end.

Make sure your surrounds are not too high so your ceiling speakers have their height level.


----------



## batpig

anothermib said:


> I need to try that one. You are saying that the tonal coloration is basically staying the same while it pans around?


Well, the guy who mixed says so! 



FilmMixer said:


> If you want to check speaker distance match, level match m, setup and EQ matching may I suggest two clips of things I have mixed which I use to do the same.
> 
> “Daredevil S1 Ep 5.” From 13:40 for about two-three minutes. The guy in the back seat, as he is singing, pans around the room fully a few times. It’s should be smooth and consistent.
> 
> “Power Rangers.” Towards the beginning of the film there is a chase scene with a pickup truck and the police. The song on the radio pans around the room many times as does Jason’s dialog and efforts. While we did mix the film in Atmos (and the dialog is encoded as objects,) the music was panned in the 9.1 bed... it should sound consistent and smooth as the camera pans around the inside of the truck. I think you can stream this on some of the premium services apps on the Apple TV unless you own the disc or a rental from Apple, etc.


----------



## batpig

anothermib said:


> There is doubt in my mind that conceptually it is possible to get imaging and envelopment right at the same time.


FYI - the HAA (home acoustics alliance) has the balance between focus and envelopment as one of the core principles of its acoustic design theory. 

Article on topic: https://homeacoustics.org/acoustical-focus-and-envelopment/

Their basic approach to optimizing both has to do with (1) proper speaker + seating layout and (2) proper room acoustical design.

Their specific acoustic plan involves avoiding the old school idea of absorbing all first reflections and instead using special "combo panels" for certain "good" reflections like the first same-side (ipsilateral) reflections, which still provide low frequency absorption but transition to a mix of diffusion and reflection at higher frequencies to maintain spaciousness and envelopment from natural room ambiance. This is rooted in the more contemporary thinking (based on research from Toole et al) that certain early reflections are actually GOOD and can enhance envelopment without negatively impacting focus. So you kill the "bad" reflections (like rear wall, contralateral side wall) but don't overdeaden the room by preserving / diffusing the "good" reflections which maintains the natural ambiance and spaciousness of the room that our ears find pleasing.

The outdated approach (espoused by people like Ethan Winer) of killing all first reflections will increase focus but runs the risk of sucking the "life" out of the room. That thought process (which you'll see in Ethan's blogs) is based on the idea that these early reflections will damage the sound by introducing comb-filtering... but the research in more recent years has shown pretty conclusively that our ears/brain don't hear these problems and the presence of reflections (depending on direction, timing/delay, and level) sounds subjectively better and more "natural" and actually enhance clarity (as long as you manage the "bad" reflections). That's why you'll often see advice about not having more than 20-25% of surface area in the room be pure absorb, you don't want to completely kill the natural reflections of the room in the pursuit of focus.

Our own Stu Drucker recently attended the HAA acoustics class at CEDIA so he can chime in if I screwed something up


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> FYI - the HAA (home acoustics alliance) has the balance between focus and envelopment as one of the core principles of its acoustic design theory.
> 
> Article on topic: https://homeacoustics.org/acoustical-focus-and-envelopment/
> 
> Their basic approach to optimizing both has to do with (1) proper speaker + seating layout and (2) proper room acoustical design.
> 
> Their specific acoustic plan involves avoiding the old school idea of absorbing all first reflections and instead using special "combo panels" for certain "good" reflections like the first same-side (ipsilateral) reflections, which still provide low frequency absorption but transition to a mix of diffusion and reflection at higher frequencies to maintain spaciousness and envelopment from natural room ambiance. This is rooted in the more contemporary thinking (based on research from Toole et al) that certain early reflections are actually GOOD and can enhance envelopment without negatively impacting focus. So you kill the "bad" reflections (like rear wall, contralateral side wall) but don't overdeaden the room by preserving / diffusing the "good" reflections which maintains the natural ambiance and spaciousness of the room that our ears find pleasing.
> 
> The outdated approach (espoused by people like Ethan Winer) of killing all first reflections will increase focus but runs the risk of sucking the "life" out of the room. That thought process (which you'll see in Ethan's blogs) is based on the idea that these early reflections will damage the sound by introducing comb-filtering... but the research in more recent years has shown pretty conclusively that our ears/brain don't hear these problems and the presence of reflections (depending on direction, timing/delay, and level) sounds subjectively better and more "natural" and actually enhance clarity (as long as you manage the "bad" reflections). That's why you'll often see advice about not having more than 20-25% of surface area in the room be pure absorb, you don't want to completely kill the natural reflections of the room in the pursuit of focus.
> 
> Our own Stu Drucker recently attended the HAA acoustics class at CEDIA so he can chime in if I screwed something up


I believe it's 25% of "adjacent surface walls" (i.e. front/back, left side/right side) rather than just 20-25% of "surface area" being limited to absorption, but otherwise that's what I remember from the courses and the lecture notes. And they stress that you don't want to kill all first or early reflections without unbalancing the soundstage.

The exact quote was something about how the art of crafting the soundstage was the balance between the early reflections in the 30-70 ms range that you want to preserve for envelopment (which includes smooth panning, no sound gaps, and spaciousness) vs. what you want to eliminate to improve focus ("The ability to precisely locate each reproduced sonic cue or image in a three-dimensional space"). The tradeoff is especially important IIRC at higher frequencies. Hybrid panels that have a balance of absorptive and diffusion elements was mentioned in passing as a more advanced strategy, more case by case depending on the room if I recall rather than a basic recommendation.

I'll note that their testing for critical listening to access room calibration/design was mostly if not exclusively music, with the attitude that good sound is good sound in small room acoustics. At least that's what we did in the classes and the list of a few dozen reference tracks that look at their critical dimensions in more depth were all music-related. Clarity is the goal, defined as a function of focus, envelopment, frequency response, dynamics, and seat to seat consistency.

At any rate, some reader of the thread may decide this is unacceptably OT for a 3D audio thread, so we really should discuss elsewhere to the extent that the Atmos thread isn't a chat room for people that like to read it...


----------



## awblackmon

Well if the focus is on a room for music and to not suck the life out of it that may have some credibility. As I read about the cowshed theater build that kbarns701 did I tend to agree with his philosophy about room treatments. His and my room is all about movies and a different approach could be taken about room treatments. I had though about his treatment for some time to be applied to mine but never did it for fear of the life sucking issue. Yet it has worked very well in the cowshed build and I may continue my own upgrades in room treatments to fall more into doing more absorption. Everyone has to decide how they want to proceed. My goal is more akin to hearing what the soundtrack has to offer without a lot of added room acoustics. That is just me. YMMV.


----------



## sdrucker

awblackmon said:


> Well if the focus is on a room for music and to not suck the life out of it that may have some credibility.


From what I know of the teachers, they're not just working on media rooms or rooms for music. In fact the lead teacher of the HTIII advanced integrator class that I took is a well-known (for AVSers) calibrator of HT rooms, ranging from mainstream gear to high channel count 3D audio systems in the $20K class. The class is a two-day tutorial where a team of students works together to design a room based on these principles, using worn Triad satellite speakers (Bronze, I want to say) and two subs, along with no more than PEQ being allowed and generic absorption/diffusion panels. And the room isn't even pre-engineered: it's a party room at a crappy $100/night hotel.



> As I read about the cowshed theater build that kbarns701 did I tend to agree with his philosophy about room treatments. His and my room is all about movies and a different approach could be taken about room treatments. I had though about his treatment for some time to be applied to mine but never did it for fear of the life sucking issue. Yet it has worked very well in the cowshed build and I may continue my own upgrades in room treatments to fall more into doing more absorption. Everyone has to decide how they want to proceed. My goal is more akin to hearing what the soundtrack has to offer without a lot of added room acoustics. That is just me. YMMV.


I'm a charter member of Kbarnes701 anonymous  , so all I'll say is that his choices are ones he'll tell you about and convince you are the only reasonable way possible, in his eloquent and persuasive writing style. His own goal is just what you say: to completely remove the room from the equation and hear the movie soundtrack as if he were in the mixing studio with the mixers, or at least in a private rendition of a premium cinema experience. The room is designed for that goal alone: watching movies in that manner, with conversation and multi-tasking not goals for the viewers. 

But note that his room was pre-engineered to maximize these goals, with flex walls, specific room treatment, and pro cinema-level JBL mains. If memory serves he also worked professionally in an industry where hearing content in a post-production studio or a screening room without distraction had professional benefits. He also has a testimonial from none other than Roger Dressler, which is proof that what he achieved in his (almost?) RFZ room did the job and was a revelatory experience. To each their own. 

I answered the post in response to mine, but we really should move on before we get into a philosophical discussion that will distract people looking to talk about movies, AVR functionality, and Atmos layouts. LOL.


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> Our own Stu Drucker recently attended the HAA acoustics class at CEDIA so he can chime in if I screwed something up


 @sdrucker - My man....I need an autograph now bro. Preferably on a blank check


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> @sdrucker - My man....I need an autograph now bro. Preferably on a blank check


You wish. Maybe in return for a room of JBL M2s and 708s. YMMV.


----------



## anothermib

batpig said:


> FYI - the HAA (home acoustics alliance) has the balance between focus and envelopment as one of the core principles of its acoustic design theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Article on topic: https://homeacoustics.org/acoustical-focus-and-envelopment/
> 
> 
> 
> Their basic approach to optimizing both has to do with (1) proper speaker + seating layout and (2) proper room acoustical design.
> 
> 
> 
> Their specific acoustic plan involves avoiding the old school idea of absorbing all first reflections and instead using special "combo panels" for certain "good" reflections like the first same-side (ipsilateral) reflections, which still provide low frequency absorption but transition to a mix of diffusion and reflection at higher frequencies to maintain spaciousness and envelopment from natural room ambiance. This is rooted in the more contemporary thinking (based on research from Toole et al) that certain early reflections are actually GOOD and can enhance envelopment without negatively impacting focus. So you kill the "bad" reflections (like rear wall, contralateral side wall) but don't overdeaden the room by preserving / diffusing the "good" reflections which maintains the natural ambiance and spaciousness of the room that our ears find pleasing.
> 
> 
> 
> The outdated approach (espoused by people like Ethan Winer) of killing all first reflections will increase focus but runs the risk of sucking the "life" out of the room. That thought process (which you'll see in Ethan's blogs) is based on the idea that these early reflections will damage the sound by introducing comb-filtering... but the research in more recent years has shown pretty conclusively that our ears/brain don't hear these problems and the presence of reflections (depending on direction, timing/delay, and level) sounds subjectively better and more "natural" and actually enhance clarity (as long as you manage the "bad" reflections). That's why you'll often see advice about not having more than 20-25% of surface area in the room be pure absorb, you don't want to completely kill the natural reflections of the room in the pursuit of focus.
> 
> 
> 
> Our own Stu Drucker recently attended the HAA acoustics class at CEDIA so he can chime in if I screwed something up




I just noticed that in my original post I left out the important word “no” - I actually wanted to say that “there is no doubt in my mind” . Just edited that.

That link you were sharing is an extremely interesting read and very related to the discussion we had. I find it particularly relevant as they are explicitly extending the concept to surround systems. Older concepts like having a “live” and a “dead” side of the room were always focussing on 2ch stereo imaging. 

I am not sure if fully understand the distinction between good and bad reflections. If e.g. the back wall is a bad reflection - wouldn’t the front wall be the same, just for the rear speakers? Is there any good introductory read on the concept (short of attending a class)? And is there a good source or DIY plan for these combo panels?

Thinking about it, I imagine that a diffusor would still get rid of (or soften) spikes in the impulse response. So that may remain an objective measurement. 

Applying this to my own (still pretty lively) room I am not quite sure in which direction to go. I have no where near 25% of the total _surface_ treated with actual absorbers. However, if one counts the foam behind the pictures it will be eg more than 25% of the 360 degrees on ear level. And if you count the carpet the same applies to the elevation angles. This may mean that perhaps rather than angling the ceiling speakers more towards the floor to get a more ambiance I could keep them angled to the MLP, but to replace some absorbers or add some diffusors.


----------



## anothermib

sdrucker said:


> I believe it's 25% of "adjacent surface walls" (i.e. front/back, left side/right side) rather than just 20-25% of "surface area" being limited to absorption, but otherwise that's what I remember from the courses and the lecture notes. And they stress that you don't want to kill all first or early reflections without unbalancing the soundstage.
> 
> 
> 
> The exact quote was something about how the art of crafting the soundstage was the balance between the early reflections in the 30-70 ms range that you want to preserve for envelopment (which includes smooth panning, no sound gaps, and spaciousness) vs. what you want to eliminate to improve focus ("The ability to precisely locate each reproduced sonic cue or image in a three-dimensional space"). The tradeoff is especially important IIRC at higher frequencies. Hybrid panels that have a balance of absorptive and diffusion elements was mentioned in passing as a more advanced strategy, more case by case depending on the room if I recall rather than a basic recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll note that their testing for critical listening to access room calibration/design was mostly if not exclusively music, with the attitude that good sound is good sound in small room acoustics. At least that's what we did in the classes and the list of a few dozen reference tracks that look at their critical dimensions in more depth were all music-related. Clarity is the goal, defined as a function of focus, envelopment, frequency response, dynamics, and seat to seat consistency.
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, some reader of the thread may decide this is unacceptably OT for a 3D audio thread, so we really should discuss elsewhere to the extent that the Atmos thread isn't a chat room for people that like to read it...



How did you assess if you got the envelopment and focus right? Just by listening to various pieces of music or were there any more specific listening tests?

I am not entirely sure it is really OT as next to the correct speaker location (which is a lot of the discussion in this forum) the room is a key contributor to the Atmos sound experience and the approach needs to be different from optimizing it for Stereo. However, if there is a more suitable place for this discussion I would be happy to join there.


----------



## ggsantafe

anothermib said:


> How did you assess if you got the envelopment and focus right? Just by listening to various pieces of music or were there any more specific listening tests?
> 
> I am not entirely sure it is really OT as next to the correct speaker location (which is a lot of the discussion in this forum) the room is a key contributor to the Atmos sound experience and the approach needs to be different from optimizing it for Stereo. However, if there is a more suitable place for this discussion I would be happy to join there.


I think the discussion is pertinent to Atmos room optimization. Additionally - I'd like to refer members to this thread: www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/3038828-how-choose-loudspeaker-what-science-shows.html
There's a lively discussion of speaker design, listening preferences and active participation by Floyd Toole & Sean Olive among others.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> FYI - the HAA (home acoustics alliance) has the balance between focus and envelopment as one of the core principles of its acoustic design theory.
> 
> Article on topic: https://homeacoustics.org/acoustical-focus-and-envelopment/
> 
> Their basic approach to optimizing both has to do with (1) proper speaker + seating layout and (2) proper room acoustical design.
> 
> Their specific acoustic plan involves avoiding the old school idea of absorbing all first reflections and instead using special "combo panels" for certain "good" reflections like the first same-side (ipsilateral) reflections, which still provide low frequency absorption but transition to a mix of diffusion and reflection at higher frequencies to maintain spaciousness and envelopment from natural room ambiance. This is rooted in the more contemporary thinking (based on research from Toole et al) that certain early reflections are actually GOOD and can enhance envelopment without negatively impacting focus. So you kill the "bad" reflections (like rear wall, contralateral side wall) but don't overdeaden the room by preserving / diffusing the "good" reflections which maintains the natural ambiance and spaciousness of the room that our ears find pleasing.
> 
> The outdated approach (espoused by people like Ethan Winer) of killing all first reflections will increase focus but runs the risk of sucking the "life" out of the room. That thought process (which you'll see in Ethan's blogs) is based on the idea that these early reflections will damage the sound by introducing comb-filtering... but the research in more recent years has shown pretty conclusively that our ears/brain don't hear these problems and the presence of reflections (depending on direction, timing/delay, and level) sounds subjectively better and more "natural" and actually enhance clarity (as long as you manage the "bad" reflections). That's why you'll often see advice about not having more than 20-25% of surface area in the room be pure absorb, you don't want to completely kill the natural reflections of the room in the pursuit of focus.
> 
> Our own Stu Drucker recently attended the HAA acoustics class at CEDIA so he can chime in if I screwed something up


As the mixer has no way of knowing anything about the nature or strength of these 'good' reflections, how is it possible to respect the intention of the original mix while at the same time allowing unquantified and unknown reflections to bounce around the listening space? (I refer only to m/ch movie mixes, not music or anything else).

How does a room sound 'dead' when all the required ambient cues etc are already baked into the mix?


----------



## kbarnes701

awblackmon said:


> Well if the focus is on a room for music and to not suck the life out of it that may have some credibility. As I read about the cowshed theater build that kbarns701 did I tend to agree with his philosophy about room treatments. His and my room is all about movies and a different approach could be taken about room treatments. I had though about his treatment for some time to be applied to mine but never did it for fear of the life sucking issue. Yet it has worked very well in the cowshed build and I may continue my own upgrades in room treatments to fall more into doing more absorption. Everyone has to decide how they want to proceed. My goal is more akin to hearing what the soundtrack has to offer without a lot of added room acoustics. That is just me. YMMV.


The Artnovion panels that my installer chose for the Cowshed do in fact have a balance of absorption and diffusion (you may be able to make it out in some of the pictures in the build thread). I was never totally happy with this approach and suspect that if I was to do the project over again I would choose absorption at the front of the room. Like you, I don't want to hear _anything _of the room _at all_ - everything I need to hear has already been baked into the mix when the (m/ch movie) content was created. That said, everyone who has been in the Cowshed has praised the quality of the sound. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved of course.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> From what I know of the teachers, they're not just working on media rooms or rooms for music. In fact the lead teacher of the HTIII advanced integrator class that I took is a well-known (for AVSers) calibrator of HT rooms, ranging from mainstream gear to high channel count 3D audio systems in the $20K class. The class is a two-day tutorial where a team of students works together to design a room based on these principles, using worn Triad satellite speakers (Bronze, I want to say) and two subs, along with no more than PEQ being allowed and generic absorption/diffusion panels. And the room isn't even pre-engineered: it's a party room at a crappy $100/night hotel.


So the theory is based on what a crappy room at a cheap hotel sounds like? As opposed to a carefully designed dedicated room? Hmmm.




sdrucker said:


> I'm a charter member of Kbarnes701 anonymous  , so all I'll say is that his choices are ones he'll tell you about and convince you are the only reasonable way possible, in his eloquent and persuasive writing style. His own goal is just what you say: to completely remove the room from the equation and hear the movie soundtrack as if he were in the mixing studio with the mixers, or at least in a private rendition of a premium cinema experience. The room is designed for that goal alone: watching movies in that manner, with conversation and multi-tasking not goals for the viewers.


Heck yes. It's a _cinema_! Anyone holding a conversation in there would be (not so) politely asked to leave. The only multi-tasking that takes place in a cinema is using eyes and ears at the same time. 



sdrucker said:


> But note that his room was pre-engineered to maximize these goals, with flex walls, specific room treatment, and pro cinema-level JBL mains. If memory serves he also worked professionally in an industry where hearing content in a post-production studio or a screening room without distraction had professional benefits. He also has a testimonial from none other than Roger Dressler, which is proof that what he achieved in his (almost?) RFZ room did the job and was a revelatory experience. To each their own.


All correct Stu, and well remembered 



sdrucker said:


> I answered the post in response to mine, but we really should move on before we get into a philosophical discussion that will distract people looking to talk about movies, AVR functionality, and Atmos layouts. LOL.


Agreed - you would know though that I would be compelled by strange and uncontrollable forces to give the counterpoint view. 

As you say, it's my own personal view, in a very specifically designed room, for a very specific purpose and I would not urge it on anyone in any way. I guess the summary of my position is: I met the goals I set myself but others may have different goals.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> So the theory is based on what a crappy room at a cheap hotel sounds like? As opposed to a carefully designed dedicated room? Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck yes. It's a _cinema_! Anyone holding a conversation in there would be (not so) politely asked to leave. The only multi-tasking that takes place in a cinema is using eyes and ears at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> All correct Stu, and well remembered
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - you would know though that I would be compelled by strange and uncontrollable forces to give the counterpoint view.
> 
> As you say, it's my own personal view, in a very specifically designed room, for a very specific purpose and I would not urge it on anyone in any way. I guess the summary of my position is: I met the goals I set myself but others may have different goals.


Stu and Keith...please don't misconstrue my comment as diatribe to either of you but your dialogue just triggered, for me, a quote from Steve Jobs...or maybe I'm paraphrasing.

"The public doesn't know what it wants or needs until I tell them!"


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> As the mixer has no way of knowing anything about the nature or strength of these 'good' reflections, how is it possible to respect the intention of the original mix while at the same time allowing unquantified and unknown reflections to bounce around the listening space?


It is possible to respect the intent of the original mix by making the dialogue more intelligible and improving the perceived sound quality. From the inventor of the Dirac room correction you currently use: 

_"There seems to be consensus in the field that some early reflections actually help make speech more intelligible. However, it is also well documented that reflections within 5-10 ms of the main pulse in typical listening rooms are above the level where the primary source shifts or spreads (even when just listening to a single primary source). Reflections from the front and the rear (within ±40º) are perceived as detrimental to sound quality, whereas side reflections (within reasonable levels) often improve the perceived sound quality."_


> How does a room sound 'dead' when all the required ambient cues etc are already baked into the mix?


It sounds dead when you remove naturally occurring cues that our human hearing normally expects to hear in rooms. It's not that the room is dead (like an anechoic chamber), it just sounds dead compared to typical rooms. 

You already know that speakers that measure flat anechoically will have a bass hump when place in a typical room. If you use a flat target curve and take away the bass hump, you can end up with flat frequency response across the range. Measures well, but doesn't sound normal to most listeners. Which is why Dirac's default target curve has a downward slope. 

Same with the floor reflection from the centre speaker, which usually ends up creating a cancellation notch at the listening position. When researchers put an absorber at the first reflection point on the floor to get rid of the dip, listeners felt it somehow sounded wrong. Our human hearing will miss something we are used to hearing normally (expectation bias). Same with complaints about a room sounding dead.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> It is possible to respect the intent of the original mix by making the dialogue more intelligible and improving the perceived sound quality.


More intelligible than what? The original mix? I think the question here is why is the dialogue unintelligible in the first place? Answer: quite likely some problem with the room (often unwanted reflections). I watch over 300 movies a year and I cannot recall a single movie in which I have struggled with dialogue intelligibility. So what does "making the dialogue more intelligible" mean? If the nature of the dialogue is changed beyond what was in the original mix, then the original mix is not respected.

I respectfully suggest that if people are struggling with dialogue intelligibility, they try to find the problem and fix it. Movies are not being routinely released with the single most important part of the mix rendered in an unintelligible form. At least, not based on my movie-watching experience over the last few years.

As for 'improving the perceived sound quality' I don't subscribe to the view that we should be attempting to improve the mix. My aim is to reproduce the original mix not to change it in some way. Just as when I read Kafka's Metamorphosis I don't attempt to change the ending just because I don't think Gregor should have died.



sdurani said:


> It sounds dead when you remove naturally occurring cues that our human hearing normally expects to hear in rooms. It's not that the room is dead (like an anechoic chamber), it just sounds dead compared to typical rooms.


A cinema is not meant to be a 'typical room'. And when I watch a movie, I am not in any sort of room, let alone a typical one. Sometimes I am in an aircraft hangar. Other times in a padded cell. Sometimes in a desert. Other times in a cave. Sometimes in a restaurant. Other times... well you get the idea. The ambient environment is baked into cues in the mix. Add anything to that and you are in a no-man's land of confusion since the mixer has no way at all of knowing just what has been added. His carefully crafted padded cell now has reflected noises never intended to be there. If the mixer had wanted a reflected sound somewhere, he or she would have added it.


----------



## meli

kbarnes701 said:


> .... Movies are not being routinely released with the single most important part of the mix rendered in an unintelligible form. At least, not based on my movie-watching experience over the last few years....



I'm coming in mid-conversation, but thought I'd add that I've had a problem of dialogue intelligibility with Christoper Nolan's last couple films. "Dunkirk", I could barely understand anything. And it wasn't just the accents, I've read articles about British audiences not understating the dialogue. Nolan does something strange with his audio mixes. I also don't think IMAX auditoriums (where I saw Dunkirk) are voiced for maximum dialogue intelligibility, they're mostly going for loudness.


----------



## kbarnes701

meli said:


> I'm coming in mid-conversation, but thought I'd add that I've had a problem of dialogue intelligibility with Christoper Nolan's last couple films. "Dunkirk", I could barely understand anything. And it wasn't just the accents, I've read articles about British audiences not understating the dialogue. Nolan does something strange with his audio mixes. I also don't think IMAX auditoriums (where I saw Dunkirk) are voiced for maximum dialogue intelligibility, they're mostly going for loudness.


I generally dislike the sound on Nolan's movies but I watched _Dunkirk _here in the Cowshed and never had a problem with dialogue at all. I'd read about others complaining about it before I watched the movie so I was expecting it to be problematic but I can't say it was. There were times when you couldn't hear dialogue much at all but this was when the actors were speaking in scenes of loud ambient noise and I figured we weren't intended to hear them, just as we wouldn't if we'd been thrashing about in the sea etc. I genuinely believe that all these reports of widespread dialogue unintelligibility (not just in Nolan movies) are due to untreated rooms. Movies are mixed to be played back in a controlled environment - a cinema - and if you create a good cinema, there doesn't seem to me to be a significant problem. Just my experience.

I don't like IMAX sound much either TBH.

On a general point, I have increasingly come to dislike Nolan movies, per se. I think he's peaked some time back.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> More intelligible than what?


Than it currently is. You're starting from a premise where the situation is binary: intelligible vs unintelligible. The Dirac quote starts from the premise that intelligibility is on a scale: i.e., you can go from a situation that requires more effort to understand the dialogue to a situation where it is effortless to understand dialogue, but at neither point could you not understand what is being said. Hence their comment about some early reflections making speech _"more intelligible"_. The Dirac comment won't make sense if you believe intelligibility is binary. That premise doesn't allow for the idea that intelligibility can be improved.


> As for 'improving the perceived sound quality' I don't subscribe to the view that we should be attempting to improve the mix.


Not changing the mix, just the quality of its reproduction in a room. That perception of sound quality improves with early side wall reflections, as noted in the Dirac quote.


> The ambient environment is baked into cues in the mix. Add *anything* to that and you are in a no-man's land of confusion since the mixer has no way at all of knowing just what has been added.


If that hyperbole was true, then an anechoic chamber would be the optimal playback environment for movie sound. But it isn't. In fact, it's uncomfortable. No dubbing stage nor movie theatre was ever designed that way. 

Some bullet points quoted from Toole's 2006 paper, which reviews the historical research (very little of Toole's own research) on the topic of reflections:


> Persuasive evidence points to several beneficial and few negative effects of early reflections. However, sound reproduction brings some conflicting requirements, and more research is required to identify what control of overall reflections is appropriate. That research should take into account the normal multichannel loudspeaker configurations and the primary roles played by each of the channels.
> A room with abundant reflections is not likely to exhibit audible evidence of comb filtering from any single reflection.
> Multiple reflections improve the audibility of timbral cues from resonances in the structure of musical and vocal sounds.
> Early reflections improve speech intelligibility.
> Early lateral reflections increase our preference for the sound of music and speech. Individual reflections in small rooms may be too low in level to have the optimum effect, thus providing opportunities for multichannel sound.
> Since low inter-aural cross correlation is related to listener preference in certain circumstances, it is possible that asymmetrical diffusion, favoring reflections along the lateral axis, may be a good thing in listening rooms for *movies* and traditional styles of music recordings.
> Reflections from central portions of the front and back walls have the least positive contributions to what we hear. Attenuating them may be advantageous.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> There were times when you couldn't hear dialogue much at all but this was when the actors were speaking in scenes of loud ambient noise and I figured we weren't intended to hear them, just as we wouldn't if we'd been thrashing about in the sea etc.


Agreed. And, there was so little dialogue in the movie that it seems Nolan prioritized visuals and music/effects to convey the story. Must have taken all of a weekend to dub this movie into other languages.


> I genuinely believe that all these reports of widespread dialogue unintelligibility (not just in Nolan movies) are due to untreated rooms.


If that was true, then there would be complaints about all the movies playing at particular theatres. Instead, the complaint is about Nolan's movies, irrespective of theatre.


meli said:


> I've read articles about British audiences not understating the dialogue.


----------



## howard68

So I just watched a utube video about the Rmc1 at CES 2019 and they talk about a new Dolby set up from Dolby beyond 7.1.4 as called 11.x.8 as a standard 
Anyone know about this ?


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> So I just watched a utube video about the Rmc1 at CES 2019 and they talk about a new Dolby set up from Dolby beyond 7.1.4 as called 11.x.8 as a standard
> Anyone know about this ?


Literally the first result when I googled "Dolby 11.1.8": https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/s....8-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide.html

It's not a "new standard", you could always do an 11.1.8 if you had a Trinnov since Atmos first came out. But now that higher channel count processors are becoming more common Dolby has added a few more of their glossy marketing diagrams (which previously maxed out at 9.1.6 I think) to give people info on proper angles. Nothing has changed except Dolby's graphic design dude copy/pasting a few more speakers into the existing template 

Full list of speaker setup guides for various layouts: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Nothing has changed except Dolby's graphic design dude copy/pasting a few more speakers into the existing template


Heights seem to be lower: 20-30 degrees versus 30-45 degrees previously.


----------



## howard68

Thank you Batpig 
It opens up the possibility that you will be actually merge dolby atmos and Auro 3d speaker set up with the 8 hight speakers 
I would also like the idea of using the tm speaker as well
I wonder what speaker options will be available soon In new products 
I am rewire my speakers so I am unsure what to set up for the future 
I have gone for 7.x.6 at the moment


----------



## Bytehoven

batpig said:


> Literally the first result when I googled "Dolby 11.1.8": https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/s....8-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide.html
> 
> It's not a "new standard", you could always do an 11.1.8 if you had a Trinnov since Atmos first came out. But now that higher channel count processors are becoming more common Dolby has added a few more of their glossy marketing diagrams (which previously maxed out at 9.1.6 I think) to give people info on proper angles. Nothing has changed except Dolby's graphic design dude copy/pasting a few more speakers into the existing template
> 
> Full list of speaker setup guides for various layouts: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Heights seem to be lower: 20-30 degrees versus 30-45 degrees previously.


True, but that's not only less snarky and thus not as entertaining (to me) as my response, but also seems logical given the additional overheads and the need to maintain angular separation. With extra overhead speakers splitting the heights, it makes sense that the heights can be spread further apart. This also creates less conflict with Auro3D guidelines since Auro wants the heights to be right around 30 degrees elevation.

Interestingly, I just checked the 9.1.6 with FH+TM+RH guide and the 7.1.6 with FH+TM+RH guide and both also show the heights at 20-30 degrees. 

There is also no "official" guide which supports FH+RH placement other than the 6/8 overhead options. Dolby covers up-firing and ceiling (top) speakers (plus "hybrids") in x.1.2 and x.1.4 layouts but not FH+RH until you add those extra overheads in between.

Speaking of that graphic design dude, I do wish they had adjusted the back surround speakers in the 11.1.8 visual representation to be more directly behind. The way the picture is drawn it appears that the "surround 1" speakers are extremely close to the "rear surround".


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> Thank you Batpig
> It opens up the possibility that you will be actually merge dolby atmos and Auro 3d speaker set up with the 8 hight speakers


Well, it doesn't really easy the conflict in terms of "merging" with Auro unless you can somehow repurpose the overhead speakers as an arrayed "voice of god" Top Surround speaker for Auro3D. The FH+RH designations work for both formats already, but these extra Atmos speakers don't fit either the Center Height or Top Surround positions of Auro. Uber processors like the Trinnov will let you do that switcharoo and remap the TS to the Atmos middle overheads, but typical peasant units don't allow that.

The Denon/Marantz 13ch units (8500/8805) allow you to install 15 speakers with 8 heights, and then switch between 7.1.6 Atmos and 13.1ch Auro (the TM go silent and the CH/TS go live when you switch from Atmos to Auro3D)... but you have to install an extra, dedicated TS speaker, it can't send that signal to the TM speakers.


----------



## audiofan1

kbarnes701 said:


> The Artnovion panels that my installer chose for the Cowshed do in fact have a balance of absorption and diffusion (you may be able to make it out in some of the pictures in the build thread). I was never totally happy with this approach and suspect that if I was to do the project over again I would choose absorption at the front of the room. Like you, I don't want to hear _anything _of the room _at all_ - everything I need to hear has already been baked into the mix when the (m/ch movie) content was created. That said, everyone who has been in the Cowshed has praised the quality of the sound. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved of course.


 Funny you guys are talking room treatments as after reading up on those new recommendations a year or so ago and with GIK getting their new lines going *Alpha* and *Impression * series which incorporate absorption and diffusion, I decided to get a few panels in to replace some of my all absorption panels, Now here is were things got interesting as began the process of trying them in various places and the *sidewalls ended up sounding better still with Absorption only* the rear and front walls did benefit from the diffusion absorption panels and so there they stayed . This was pretty much what GIK suggested when ordering and the room has never sounded better for both 2/ch music and my 7.1.4 setup


This is my room so take it for what it is but dead on assessment kbarnes on keeping absorption on the side walls


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Than it currently is. You're starting from a premise where the situation is binary: intelligible vs unintelligible. The Dirac quote starts from the premise that intelligibility is on a scale: i.e., you can go from a situation that requires more effort to understand the dialogue to a situation where it is effortless to understand dialogue, but at neither point could you not understand what is being said. Hence their comment about some early reflections making speech _"more intelligible"_.


OK. My problem in understanding this discussion is that for me, since I first treated my Hobbit Theater years ago, I have found dialogue effortlessly intelligible. Prior to that, in the untreated room, I sometimes found it less so. I therefore see a totally causal relationship between treating the room and 'effortless' dialogue intelligibility. 



sdurani said:


> The Dirac comment won't make sense if you believe intelligibility is binary. That premise doesn't allow for the idea that intelligibility can be improved. Not changing the mix, just the quality of its reproduction in a room. That perception of sound quality improves with early side wall reflections, as noted in the Dirac quote. If that hyperbole was true, then an anechoic chamber would be the optimal playback environment for movie sound. But it isn't. In fact, it's uncomfortable. No dubbing stage nor movie theatre was ever designed that way.


Indeed. Neither have either of my rooms. It is all but impossible to create an anechoic environment, short of having a fortune to spend, and nobody I have ever read about has had this intention, so for me, any discussion of HTs becoming 'anechoic chambers' is just distraction. My Hobbit Theater had massive amounts of absorption and was more 'dead' than the Cowshed and the sound (in the Hobbit) was superb, with crystal clear dialogue in every movie. Like I said earlier, since doing the Hobbit, I must have watched 1,500 movies or more and I can count dialogue difficulties on one had probably. And even then, isolated bits of the movie.



sdurani said:


> Some bullet points quoted from Toole's 2006 paper, which reviews the historical research (very little of Toole's own research) on the topic of reflections:


I can only say what I am hearing here. Dialogue is crystal clear. The room is heavily treated (with absorption and some diffusion on the side walls). It isn't 'dead' but I would have preferred it 'deader' but my installer and I had so many arguments about it that in the end I went with his suggestion and then added more absorption after they'd gone.

It's a pity you're 5,000 miles away - the easy way to get a handle on what I am trying to convey would be to come over and just listen.


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> I can only say what I am hearing here. Dialogue is crystal clear. The room is heavily treated (with absorption and some diffusion on the side walls). It isn't 'dead' but I would have preferred it 'deader' but my installer and I had so many arguments about it that in the end* I went with his suggestion and then added more absorption after they'd gone.
> *
> It's a pity you're 5,000 miles away - the easy way to get a handle on what I am trying to convey would be to come over and just listen.


Ha! Love it.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Literally the first result when I googled "Dolby 11.1.8": https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/s....8-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide.html
> 
> It's not a "new standard", you could always do an 11.1.8 if you had a Trinnov since Atmos first came out. But now that higher channel count processors are becoming more common Dolby has added a few more of their glossy marketing diagrams (which previously maxed out at 9.1.6 I think) to give people info on proper angles. Nothing has changed except Dolby's graphic design dude copy/pasting a few more speakers into the existing template
> 
> Full list of speaker setup guides for various layouts: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html


There is _one _significant thing that has changed and is represented in those setup diagrams


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Heights seem to be lower: 20-30 degrees versus 30-45 degrees previously.


_Two _significant things...


----------



## kbarnes701

audiofan1 said:


> Funny you guys are talking room treatments as after reading up on those new recommendations a year or so ago and with GIK getting their new lines going *Alpha* and *Impression * series which incorporate absorption and diffusion, I decided to get a few panels in to replace some of my all absorption panels, Now here is were things got interesting as began the process of trying them in various places and the *sidewalls ended up sounding better still with Absorption only* the rear and front walls did benefit from the diffusion absorption panels and so there they stayed . This was pretty much what GIK suggested when ordering and the room has never sounded better for both 2/ch music and my 7.1.4 setup
> 
> 
> This is my room so take it for what it is but dead on assessment kbarnes on keeping absorption on the side walls


Yeah - we're 'old school' it seems


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Ha! Love it.


LOL. Yeah, I think it got to the stage where the only way forward would have been to settle it by a fight to the death. I considered that, but if he'd won he would have been denied the opportunity to say 'I told you so' and I thought that was churlish so I let him have his way (to an extent). Not long after they'd 'finished' I got out REW, measured my RT60 (yes I know, but I still find it a useful guide), figured out how to add some more absorption and where and made absorbers that totalled 128 square feet of additional absorption. Measured the RT60 again and, while it wasn't as low as in the Hobbit, it was lower than it had been. After a lot of listening, and EQ-ing with Dirac Live, I decided I was happy and it hasn't been touched since. Not quite true - I reaimed the Atmos speakers from pointing at the floor to angled at MLP. (That has been another long argument with the installer IIRC).


----------



## mrtickleuk

kbarnes701 said:


> LOL. Yeah, I think it got to the stage where the only way forward would have been to settle it by a fight to the death.


Or perhaps a wrestling match by a crackling fire? 



> I considered that, but if he'd won he would have been denied the opportunity to say 'I told you so' and I thought that was churlish so I let him have his way (to an extent). Not long after they'd 'finished' I got out REW, measured my RT60 (yes I know, but I still find it a useful guide), figured out how to add some more absorption and where and made absorbers that totalled 128 square feet of additional absorption. Measured the RT60 again and, while it wasn't as low as in the Hobbit, it was lower than it had been. After a lot of listening, and EQ-ing with Dirac Live, I decided I was happy and it hasn't been touched since. Not quite true - I reaimed the Atmos speakers from pointing at the floor to angled at MLP. (That has been another long argument with the installer IIRC).


Heh. Ok. Some frantic googling of that term previously unknown to me, tells me that my room "is too small to have anything approaching a diffuse field at low frequencies ... RT60 is typically not meaningful in such rooms below a few hundred Hz. Use the waterfall, spectrogram and decay plots to examine the decay of low frequencies in domestically-sized rooms."


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> OK. My problem in understanding this discussion is that for me, since I first treated my Hobbit Theater years ago, I have found dialogue effortlessly intelligible.


Yup, IF you've always had perfection, then discussions about improvement won't make sense.


> It is all but impossible to create an anechoic environment, short of having a fortune to spend, and nobody I have ever read about has had this intention, so for me, any discussion of HTs becoming 'anechoic chambers' is just distraction.


Not a distraction when you claim that _"*all* the required ambient cues etc are already baked into the mix"_ and _"add *anything* to that and you are in a no-man's land of confusion"_. You're describing an anechoic chamber as the optimal playback room for movies.


> It's a pity you're 5,000 miles away - the easy way to get a handle on what I am trying to convey would be to come over and just listen.


While I'm sure the experience would be enjoyable, it won't erase 70 years of research (starting with Haas) into early reflections; i.e., we won't be able to do an A-B comparison between treated vs untreated side walls to demonstrate the effects of early reflections on dialogue intelligibility and perceived sound quality.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> _Two _significant things...


You mean the diagrams that coincide with the news from CES three weeks ago mentioning competition for DTS Virtual:X? 

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/onkyo-shows-two-new-dolby-atmosdtsx-receivers-budget 

https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Press/PIONEER+INTRODUCES+TWO+NEW+SLIMLINE+ENTRY-LEVEL+AV+RECEIVERS+AT+CES+2019


----------



## kbarnes701

mrtickleuk said:


> Or perhaps a wrestling match by a crackling fire?
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. Ok. Some frantic googling of that term previously unknown to me, tells me that my room "is too small to have anything approaching a diffuse field at low frequencies ... RT60 is typically not meaningful in such rooms below a few hundred Hz. Use the waterfall, spectrogram and decay plots to examine the decay of low frequencies in domestically-sized rooms."


Yes, strictly speaking that is true, but I find it is still a useful pointer nonetheless.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Yup, IF you've always had perfection, then discussions about improvement won't make sense.
> 
> 
> Not a distraction when you claim that _"*all* the required ambient cues etc are already baked into the mix"_ and _"add *anything* to that and you are in a no-man's land of confusion"_. You're describing an anechoic chamber as the optimal playback room for movies.


Well yes, if one takes my sentence literally. Perhaps it was overly hyperbolic. I don't want to add anything - it's an aim rather than absolute fact, and even as an aim it has to be tempered by reality. Literally, I am describing an anechoic chamber, but in reality, since it is impossible really to create an anechoic chamber as a home theater, the 'anything' has to be qualified by that reality.



sdurani said:


> While I'm sure the experience would be enjoyable, it won't erase 70 years of research (starting with Haas) into early reflections; i.e., we won't be able to do an A-B comparison between treated vs untreated side walls to demonstrate the effects of early reflections on dialogue intelligibility and perceived sound quality.


Didn't Haas say that reflections of a very short durations were inaudible? If so, then they have no real effect, either good or bad.

I think most people who complain of dialogue intelligibility issues in their HT have either an untreated room or a badly treated room. Adding absorption will fix their problem based on my experience (it fixed mine). The theory is all very well if people are discussing one acoustic treatment theory vs another and which is the most effective overall. But in reality, all they are saying is _"I can't really understand the dialogue a lot of the time"._ If they treated their rooms almost any which way, much of their problem would vanish IME. You are talking about carefully controlled first reflections - they are sitting in a room where the sound is bouncing all over the place, muddying the important voice frequencies and making the dialogue more difficult to hear. Adding some treatments -- including just absorbers -- will help them with that.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> You mean the diagrams that coincide with the news from CES three weeks ago mentioning competition for DTS Virtual:X?
> 
> https://www.soundandvision.com/content/onkyo-shows-two-new-dolby-atmosdtsx-receivers-budget
> 
> https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Press/PIONEER+INTRODUCES+TWO+NEW+SLIMLINE+ENTRY-LEVEL+AV+RECEIVERS+AT+CES+2019


Pretty significant isn't it? Surprised the announcement hasn't sparked a whole series of pages of discussion. 

Surely some of the thread participants will think this (the thing you and I are hinting at) is the worst idea since, well, the last worst idea? (@Dan Hitchman, I am looking at you ).


----------



## FOHTech

When ATMOS came out I first asked this question. That was a long time ago so I’ll ask again...

My lower level is finished however with low ceilings. 7’ or so. Ceilings are drop acoustical tiles. 

Has anyone had any good results with low ceiling Atmos heights? The tiles restrict my use of reflections from Atmos ceiling firing speakers, so ceiling mounted would be my option. The problem was instead of the content being a high obscure atmospheric content it becomes too point source due to it close proximity and directional, and kills the entire experience. So I either don’t have Atmos/DTSX or I have it but, a degraded experience. 

If you have had good results and had some ways of mitigating the negative aspects of the low ceilings please share. 

If I did Atmos it would be DIY 8” Coaxials by DIYSG. My entire system is a high performance DIY 7.4







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ggsantafe

sdurani said:


> You mean the diagrams that coincide with the news from CES three weeks ago mentioning competition for DTS Virtual:X?
> 
> https://www.soundandvision.com/content/onkyo-shows-two-new-dolby-atmosdtsx-receivers-budget
> 
> https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Press/PIONEER+INTRODUCES+TWO+NEW+SLIMLINE+ENTRY-LEVEL+AV+RECEIVERS+AT+CES+2019[/Q
> 
> Looks like, at least in Dolby's case, that the Atmos Virtualizer is based on existing technology used in Dolby capable soundbars - will be interesting to see how the AVR's create Height effects.
> www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-sound-bar-setup-guide.pdf


----------



## kbarnes701

FOHTech said:


> When ATMOS came out I first asked this question. That was a long time ago so I’ll ask again...
> 
> My lower level is finished however with low ceilings. 7’ or so. Ceilings are drop acoustical tiles.
> 
> Has anyone had any good results with low ceiling Atmos heights? The tiles restrict my use of reflections from Atmos ceiling firing speakers, so ceiling mounted would be my option. The problem was instead of the content being a high obscure atmospheric content it becomes too point source due to it close proximity and directional, and kills the entire experience. So I either don’t have Atmos/DTSX or I have it but, a degraded experience.
> 
> If you have had good results and had some ways of mitigating the negative aspects of the low ceilings please share.
> 
> If I did Atmos it would be DIY 8” Coaxials by DIYSG. My entire system is a high performance DIY 7.4


FWIW, when I went to the early demos of Atmos at Dolby's London HQ, they had a setup which simulated a 'real' living room HT. I was surprised at the low height of the ceiling - I didn't measure it but would guess it wasn't much over 7 feet. The Atmos sound was, as you'd expect, superb, both from physical in-ceiling speakers and also from the Atmos enabled upfirers they used as a comparison.

The main principle you need to follow is to ensure there is sufficient angular separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers. If you can arrange that (with your surrounds mounted as low as is practical) then IMO and IME you should be good.

I would suggest in-ceiling designs rather than on-ceiling speakers, or you will lose another several inches.

Re the upfirers, Dolby's room had a drop-ceiling with absorbers. What they did was replace the absorber with a hard surface panel at the point where the reflection from the upfirer would hit the ceiling. This worked really well and in the blind tests they did for us, switching seamlessly between upfirers and physical speakers, half of the audience couldn't tell which was which (the audience was almost entirely professional audio journalists and installers etc). In fact over 50% preferred the upfirers and were surprised when the speaker type was revealed. You may be able to remove one or more of the acoustic tiles and replace them with a hard surface, as Dolby did and then make use of upfirers. They used 4 hard panels of about 2ft x 2ft dimensions, one for each upfirer in their 7.x.4 setup. I am also told that most of the 'overhead effect' from upfiring speakers comes from the electronic 'notch' which the AVR introduces, rather than solely from the reflection. This may explain why the hard panels Dolby used could be small relative to the whole ceiling area.

Despite what you read on these pages, the upfirers are not the dreadful compromise that some people suggest they are. Often people haven't even heard upfirers and just assume they 'can't work' or they have heard them badly set up. At Dolby, where the setup was obviously good, the upfirers worked brilliantly.

You now also have the choice of the Atmos Virtualizer (see the links Sanjay posted just above and *this link* for more info). 

Don't give up - the choice of physical on-ceiling speakers, or in-ceiling speakers, or upfirers and now the Virtualizer means that _everyone _can have Atmos in one way or another. And whichever way you go, some Atmos is always going to be better than no Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Didn't Haas say that reflections of a very short durations were inaudible?


Depending on the combination of delay & level (relative to the level of the direct sound), early reflections can range from being inaudible to adding spaciousness to broadening the image to being heard as an echo. 












> You are talking about carefully controlled first reflections - they are sitting in a room where the sound is bouncing all over the place, muddying the important voice frequencies and making the dialogue more difficult to hear.


The more reflections you have, the less any individual reflection can stand out and be distracting. Like comb filtering: enough of it and it ends up falling into the background (you don't hear individual combing artifacts). 

Listeners imprint on the first instance they hear (direct sound). Question is, do subsequent instances (early reflections) muddy what was originally heard or reinforce/clarify what was originally heard? All the research points to the latter. 

When the same part of a hard drive is read multiple times or large arrays of telescopes are used, you don't end up with several copies of the data interfering with (muddying) each other but instead one clearer version of the data. Might seem counterintuitive, but that's how it works. Two ears & a brain work more like that than a microphone & measuring program.


----------



## usc1995

FOHTech said:


> When ATMOS came out I first asked this question. That was a long time ago so I’ll ask again...
> 
> My lower level is finished however with low ceilings. 7’ or so. Ceilings are drop acoustical tiles.
> 
> Has anyone had any good results with low ceiling Atmos heights? The tiles restrict my use of reflections from Atmos ceiling firing speakers, so ceiling mounted would be my option. The problem was instead of the content being a high obscure atmospheric content it becomes too point source due to it close proximity and directional, and kills the entire experience. So I either don’t have Atmos/DTSX or I have it but, a degraded experience.
> 
> If you have had good results and had some ways of mitigating the negative aspects of the low ceilings please share.
> 
> If I did Atmos it would be DIY 8” Coaxials by DIYSG. My entire system is a high performance DIY 7.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




My ceiling is only 7ft 6in high and while I wish it was higher the Atmos effect is still very satisfying and worth the effort. I would suggest a ceiling speaker with aimable tweeters pointed at your MLP for best effect but I am not sure if DIYSG offers any designs with that option.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

I wanted to add that even with a low ceiling two Atmos speakers in the TM position would sound great and should be considered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FOHTech

kbarnes701 said:


> FWIW, when I went to the early demos of Atmos at Dolby's London HQ, they had a setup which simulated a 'real' living room HT. I was surprised at the low height of the ceiling - I didn't measure it but would guess it wasn't much over 7 feet. The Atmos sound was, as you'd expect, superb, both from physical in-ceiling speakers and also from the Atmos enabled upfirers they used as a comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> The main principle you need to follow is to ensure there is sufficient angular separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers. If you can arrange that (with your surrounds mounted as low as is practical) then IMO and IME you should be good.
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest in-ceiling designs rather than on-ceiling speakers, or you will lose another several inches.
> 
> 
> 
> Re the upfirers, Dolby's room had a drop-ceiling with absorbers. What they did was replace the absorber with a hard surface panel at the point where the reflection from the upfirer would hit the ceiling. This worked really well and in the blind tests they did for us, switching seamlessly between upfirers and physical speakers, half of the audience couldn't tell which was which (the audience was almost entirely professional audio journalists and installers etc). In fact over 50% preferred the upfirers and were surprised when the speaker type was revealed. You may be able to remove one or more of the acoustic tiles and replace them with a hard surface, as Dolby did and then make use of upfirers. They used 4 hard panels of about 2ft x 2ft dimensions, one for each upfirer in their 7.x.4 setup. I am also told that most of the 'overhead effect' from upfiring speakers comes from the electronic 'notch' which the AVR introduces, rather than solely from the reflection. This may explain why the hard panels Dolby used could be small relative to the whole ceiling area.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite what you read on these pages, the upfirers are not the dreadful compromise that some people suggest they are. Often people haven't even heard upfirers and just assume they 'can't work' or they have heard them badly set up. At Dolby, where the setup was obviously good, the upfirers worked brilliantly.
> 
> 
> 
> You now also have the choice of the Atmos Virtualizer (see the links Sanjay posted just above and *this link* for more info).
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give up - the choice of physical on-ceiling speakers, or in-ceiling speakers, or upfirers and now the Virtualizer means that _everyone _can have Atmos in one way or another. And whichever way you go, some Atmos is always going to be better than no Atmos.




Thanks you for that well written response. I appreciate it. I’m going to begin the process of making the move finally. When Atmos was new, the answer was don’t bother, keep you’re 7.1, now several years later it’s time. And definitely going to look into the virtualizer and upfires with panels. That’s brilliant. I would think a good upfire incorporates drivers which are very narrow in dispersion, perhaps a well controlled and tight CD waveguide or horn. 

Appreciate all of your inputs to my elementary question. I realize most of the discussions here in the thread are at a much higher level than my simple inquiry. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FOHTech

usc1995 said:


> I wanted to add that even with a low ceiling two Atmos speakers in the TM position would sound great and should be considered.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




Thanks for that feedback, and agree on the directivity of the High Freq, I was going to angle the entire coax recessed in the ceiling, slightly toward the MLP. 

And forgive my ignorance, TM is what? Top Middle? My plan was if I did in ceiling was going to be four tops, each 45 degrees forward and aft of the MLP and lower the surround boxes to just below ear level

Thanks again. This is all great info. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FOHTech

Any recommendations for an OEM relatively high output (good sensitivity and power handling) virtual Atmos upfiring speaker that does very well in controlled ceiling projection while keeping away from being detectable at the source (where it’s placed)?



Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> Pretty significant isn't it?


It is to the extent that it erases remaining excuses for not listening in Atmos. IF you can't put speakers above you and don't want to use upfiring modules, then you can still get some sense of the height effect (better than no height effect).


> Surprised the announcement hasn't sparked a whole series of pages of discussion.


Probably because this isn't so much for enthusiasts at AVS but for general consumers that would never go past a 5.1 layout or soundbar. Seems the perfect technology for the budget, entry level receivers mentioned in those press releases.


> Surely some of the thread participants will think this (the thing you and I are hinting at) is the worst idea since, well, the last worst idea?


It just means that Atmos will be a 3 tiered experience: height virtualizer (good), upfiring modules (better), speakers overhead (best).


ggsantafe said:


> Looks like, at least in Dolby's case, that the Atmos Virtualizer is based on existing technology used in Dolby capable soundbars - will be interesting to see how the AVR's create Height effects.


It's similar to (if not the same as) the HRTF elevation squiggle we've seen built into upfiring modules. The difference here is that up to 7 speakers can be used to create the virtual height effect (as opposed to 6 locations for upfiring modules). Which means that the virtualizer is not trying to create phantom speaker pairs overhead but instead trying to make the height info appear to come from above.


----------



## mrtickleuk

FOHTech said:


> Thanks for that feedback, and agree on the directivity of the High Freq, I was going to angle the entire coax recessed in the ceiling, slightly toward the MLP.
> 
> And forgive my ignorance, TM is what? Top Middle? My plan was if I did in ceiling was going to be four tops, each 45 degrees forward and aft of the MLP and lower the surround boxes to just below ear level


Yes, that would be my plan too.

FH = front height (ie the wall where the TV is)
TF = top front
TM = top middle
TR = top rear
RH = rear height (the back wall)

So in your case and mine, it's TF + TR. Or TFL, TFR (top front left and right) and TRL and TRR!


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Depending on the combination of delay & level (relative to the level of the direct sound), early reflections can range from being inaudible to adding spaciousness to broadening the image to being heard as an echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more reflections you have, the less any individual reflection can stand out and be distracting. Like comb filtering: enough of it and it ends up falling into the background (you don't hear individual combing artifacts).
> 
> Listeners imprint on the first instance they hear (direct sound). Question is, do subsequent instances (early reflections) muddy what was originally heard or reinforce/clarify what was originally heard? All the research points to the latter.
> 
> When the same part of a hard drive is read multiple times or large arrays of telescopes are used, you don't end up with several copies of the data interfering with (muddying) each other but instead one clearer version of the data. Might seem counterintuitive, but that's how it works. Two ears & a brain work more like that than a microphone & measuring program.


Fair enough. So why did adding absorption to my room make the dialogue so much more intelligible? You (and the research) are saying that a ton of early reflections would enhance the dialogue intelligibility, so adding absorbers to the extent I did should, logically, reduce it. But it was the opposite.


----------



## kbarnes701

FOHTech said:


> Thanks you for that well written response. I appreciate it. I’m going to begin the process of making the move finally. When Atmos was new, the answer was don’t bother, keep you’re 7.1, now several years later it’s time. And definitely going to look into the virtualizer and upfires with panels. That’s brilliant. I would think a good upfire incorporates drivers which are very narrow in dispersion, perhaps a well controlled and tight CD waveguide or horn.


You're welcome, and good luck with it all.



FOHTech said:


> Appreciate all of your inputs to my elementary question. I realize most of the discussions here in the thread are at a much higher level than my simple inquiry.


Oh that's no problem. Sanjay does the higher level stuff - I do the simple stuff


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> I think most people who complain of dialogue intelligibility issues in their HT have either an untreated room or a badly treated room


Or they are running Audyssey. I always had to bump dialog by a couple of db with Audyssey. On the topic, I am removing most of my treatments this time around. Doing A/B, I found that less is more and the spaciousness definitely improved. I definitely over-treated, which sucked a lot of the "life" out of the room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Or they are running Audyssey. I always had to bump dialog by a couple of db with Audyssey. On the topic, I am removing most of my treatments this time around. Doing A/B, I found that less is more and the spaciousness definitely improved. I definitely over-treated, which sucked a lot of the "life" out of the room.


I was using Audyssey (Pro) when I was adding the absorption to the Hobbit Theater. It was the treatments which made the huge jump in clarity - Audyssey didn't seem to harm that.

I just don't get 'spaciousness'. It's all there in the mix. I watched one of the _Mission Impossible_ movies last week and there's a scene with a helicopter in a hangar. Spaciousness in spades! Sounds all around me, in front of me, behind me, above me (DSU) and a genuine sense of being in the space depicted on screen. How does 'adding spaciousness' even work? 

In _Salt _ (an underrated movie IMO now also in Atmos) there is a scene where Angelina's character is interviewing a potential defector in a type of interrogation room and a padded cell style observation room outside, with the team commenting on the interview. The idea is to create an extremely claustrophobic and suffocating environment, which greatly enhances the scene playing out before our eyes. So what are you saying - you want 'spaciousness' there? If you do it would entirely ruin the Director's intent. It's all there in the mix - the acoustic environment is whatever is on the screen, it doesn't need 'adding to' or 'enhancing'.

Another example would be the David Fincher movie _Zodiac_. Much of the movie plays out in a busy newspaper office and the sense of ambience and, yes, spaciousness (it's a big office) is handled superbly in the mix. Add more spaciousness by letting your HT walls create a sound of their own and you spoil a beautifully crafted scene (scenes).

Maybe it's just two different approaches: some want to hear the room adding extra sounds and some (me) don't.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So why did adding absorption to my room make the dialogue so much more intelligible?


How do you explain vanilla be the top selling ice cream flavor when I and everyone I know prefer chocolate? If you have anecdotal experience at odds with the norm, how/why is _someone else_ supposed to come up with an explanation for it?


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I just don't get 'spaciousness'.


Preference. It's the reason people like Auro-matic, with music AND movies. Delayed copies of the direct sound (like early reflections) might not be your cup o' tea, but there are a growing number of people (Roger, batpig, Toole) that like Auro-matic. 

Research can tell you what most people prefer. It can't tell you whether your personal preferences line up with "most people". You can see what the most preferred songs are on the Top 40 charts. Doesn't mean you'll personally like any of them.


> If you do it would *entirely* ruin the Director's intent.


Can you give the hyperbole a day off? Movie soundtracks are robust, since they're designed to translate to everything from TV speakers in an untreated living room to the best engineered home theatres. Let's not treat them like Faberge eggs.


> Maybe it's just two different approaches: some want to hear the room adding extra sounds and some (me) don't.


The room isn't adding extra sounds (there isn't a sound effects library built into the walls). Instead, people prefer you don't take away what makes a room sound normal. Same as Audyssey flattening out the naturally occurring bass hump. People prefer if you don't take that away. YMMV.


----------



## Hydrazine

I have the option to go either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2.

Which should I do for the most immersive effect?


----------



## pasender91

In most cases 7.1.4 will provide better results than 9.1.2 mostly for the 3 following reasons:
- With ..4 you will enable height transitions from front to back, which is used in many soundtracks 
- With 9.. Very few movies use the wides, which are also ignored by Dolby surround 
- 7.1.4 is a "golden standard" configuration that is even used as a "hardcoded" way to deliver Atmos content on some soundtracks, unfortunately ...


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> How do you explain vanilla be the top selling ice cream flavor when I and everyone I know prefer chocolate? If you have anecdotal experience at odds with the norm, how/why is _someone else_ supposed to come up with an explanation for it?


Good point. But I have to go with what I hear, based on what I read, also from senior people in the acoustics world, and then report that back. And what I heard was massively greater clarity when I treated my room mainly with absorption (the Hobbit room). If nobody can explain why that is the case, that's fine. But it is still the case. I have spent a huge amount of time over the years reading, for example, everything that Denis Foley has ever written about acoustic design, and watched dozens of his videos. I've followed what I have taken away from those studies and incorporated into my HT, and the result was stunning, drawing comments such as "it is so clear" from everyone who has seen a movie there - 'normal' people, not AV geeks.

Now on the new room, the Cowshed Cinema, I had professional input from the installer and from the tech officer of Artnovion directly and they recommended something more along the lines you have been discussing, with a combination of diffusion and absorption on the side walls. I have to say it works, but I also have to say I believe that if I had just done it myself, using my DIY panels, I would have still been very happy.

Roger told me that the Cowshed didn't sound 'dead' and holding a conversation in there was comfortable. TBH I'd prefer it a bit more dead. My aim is to make it feel like a commercial cinema and they are, to my ears anyway, on the deader side of not dead.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Preference. It's the reason people like Auro-matic, with music AND movies. Delayed copies of the direct sound (like early reflections) might not be your cup o' tea, but there are a growing number of people (Roger, batpig, Toole) that like Auro-matic.
> 
> Research can tell you what most people prefer. It can't tell you whether your personal preferences line up with "most people". You can see what the most preferred songs are on the Top 40 charts. Doesn't mean you'll personally like any of them.


Agreed.




sdurani said:


> The room isn't adding extra sounds (there isn't a sound effects library built into the walls).


True but it is adding extra sound (not sounds) simply by bouncing the original sound (from the speaker) around the room before it gets to the listeners' ears. It's those additional sounds I meant, and which I don't personally want (although I will of course have _some _since the room isn't anechoic).




sdurani said:


> Instead, people prefer you don't take away what makes a room sound normal.


Does a cinema sound like a normal room then? Not in my world. That's the last thing I want. I want my cinema to sound like a commercial cinema. A bit dead in fact. Cinemas aren't designed for people to chat and converse in them, or to read their magazine, or to watch sports with a bunch of pals. They are designed to reproduce movie soundtracks as faithfully to the Director's intent as possible. That is also my aim. 

If people want to watch their movies in a 'normal sounding room' that's fine of course. But it has never been my objective.


----------



## kbarnes701

Hydrazine said:


> I have the option to go either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2.
> 
> Which should I do for the most immersive effect?


7.1.4.

Why have 9 out of your 11 speakers around you and only 2 above you when you can have a much better balance with 7.x.4?


----------



## helvetica bold

I visited the pop up Dolby Lab in Soho NY this weekend. Its a pretty cool space featuring all Dolby products but the young ambassadors dont know much. However I noticed Genelec speakers above in several rooms for Atmos demos. Im not familiar with this brand do any of you own these speakers?


----------



## Lesmor

Ooooooooooooops looks like i might have overdone it with my 35 acoustic plus 3 QRD panels in my 20ft x 17ft 6" x 
8 foot high room then


----------



## Hydrazine

Very good. 7.1.4 it is. 

For the atmos speakers, for my particular arrangement, should the four Atmos bookshelf speakers (shown at the top) be aimed up at the ceiling as shown in the image or should the four Atmos speakers face down at the listening position?

Thanks,
Tony

PS - The center channel PSA MT-110 hasn't been fully mounted yet. It will be mounted to the wall almost in contact with the TV.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> It's those additional sounds I meant, and which I don't personally want (although I will of course have _some _since the room isn't anechoic).


No one is taking issue with your personal preference. But if you're going to claim that early reflections are detrimental to intelligibility, then understand that there is no research supporting that idea (all the research points the other way). It's not like I woke up one day and made this stuff up so I could argue with your at AVS.


> If people want to watch their movies in a 'normal sounding room' that's fine of course.


If they can't satisfy this craving acoustically, you'll notice that they will sometimes resort to doing it electronically (Auro-Matic, Audyssey DSX). Same reason people prefer the floor bounce cancellation (sounds unnatural when taken away). Can't take the cave man out of us.


----------



## sdurani

Lesmor said:


> Ooooooooooooops looks like i might have overdone it with my 35 acoustic plus 3 QRD panels in my 20ft x 17ft 6" x 8 foot high room then


Not if it sounds good to you (don't second guess your own preference based on what you read on-line).


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> No one is taking issue with your personal preference. But if you're going to claim that early reflections are detrimental to intelligibility, then understand that there is no research supporting that idea (all the research points the other way).


I am not so much claiming that early reflections are detrimental to intelligibility as claiming that absorption makes intelligibility better, which is my experience (and that of many others as far as I can gather from my researches). I guess one could make a case that says if I believe absorption makes intelligibility better, then the counter to that must be that reflections makes it worse, but it isn't what I am trying to get across.

I am 100% certain that treating my room acoustically (and solely at that time with absorption) vastly improved dialogue intelligibility and vastly improved imaging. Anyone who heard the before and after could not have failed to observe this. Of course this is in a real-world room and not a lab, and also of course I did not cover every surface of the room with absorbers. This would therefore presume that some reflections were still there, but much reduced. Whatever, the reality is that there is not the slightest possible doubt that treating the Hobbit Theater with absorbers only, hugely, vastly and significantly improved imaging and dialogue clarity. 

When I am in a place which is very reflective (eg the train station) and the public address announcer speaks, it is almost always the case that nobody present can understand a word that has been said. Similarly, I was recently in a large public hall, at a public meeting, and the room was as reflective as one could ever imagine. It was all but impossible to clearly hear the speakers (humans I mean) due to the echoey nature of the room. I am 100% certain that if there had been some absorbers placed around that room, the speakers would have been much more clearly heard.


----------



## kbarnes701

For those who don't have Toole's book, this link lets them read the relevant section on reflections and intelligibility.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...flection and dialogue intelligibility&f=false

K


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> When I am in a place which is very reflective (eg the *train station*) and the public address announcer speaks, it is almost always the case that nobody present can understand a word that has been said. Similarly, I was recently in a *large public hall*, at a public meeting, and the room was as reflective as one could ever imagine. It was all but impossible to clearly hear the speakers (humans I mean) due to the echoey nature of the room. I am 100% certain that if there had been some absorbers placed around that room, the speakers would have been much more clearly heard.


To make your point you're having to resort to examples of large rooms that don't sound anything like a typically furnished living space or home theatre, where early reflections don't have the combination of being loud enough AND delayed enough to result in an "echoey nature". Again, the science asks: after imprinting on the direct sound, does immediate repetition muddy or clarify what was initially heard? If you were to measure it, you'd see a comb filtering mess. But two ears and a brain don't process sound that way (our human hearing separates direct sound from reflections based on direction, which a mic cannot do).


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> For those who don't have Toole's book, this link lets them read the relevant section on reflections and intelligibility.


That section of the book comes from a paper he had done just before. Read from section 2.7 to section 5.1: http://www.wghwoodworking.com/audio/loudspeakers_and_rooms_for_sound_reproduction.pdf


----------



## Lesmor

sdurani said:


> Not if it sounds good to you (don't second guess your own preference based on what you read on-line).


Well you get used to how things sound and I suspect that's what drives the constant "need to upgrade" even though the last purchase was initially deemed as "awesome"

IMO though the room is the most important speaker in a system which can be tuned to taste


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> To make your point you're having to resort to examples of large rooms that don't sound anything like a typically furnished living space or home theatre, where early reflections don't have the combination of being loud enough AND delayed enough to result in an "echoey nature". Again, the science asks: after imprinting on the direct sound, does immediate repetition muddy or clarify what was initially heard? If you were to measure it, you'd see a comb filtering mess. But two ears and a brain don't process sound that way (our human hearing separates direct sound from reflections based on direction, which a mic cannot do).


Good point. But nevertheless the Hobbit Theater was a *tiny *room, and yet the difference in clarity and imaging and dialogue intelligibility was palpable and astonishing once I had applied a lot of acoustic treatments to it. No matter how much theory anyone throws my way, that remains a fact. My way of explaining the dramatic increase in clarity is solely confined to the coincidental application of the panels. It is real, it happened. If nobody can explain it, well so be it. But it happened and it wasn't just me who noticed it. I hesitate to use the old forum trope, but even Mrs Keith, who is not at all interested in all this said, the first time she went into the room after I had treated it: "It is so incredibly clear." So did everyone. There has to be an explanation for why the imaging and dialogue improved so dramatically. I am not for a moment saying that the science is wrong and all the research is wrong but then neither is my analysis of my old room wrong either. If nobody can explain it, then I think this discussion has run its course as we are starting to go around in circles.

Given the choices open to me, if I was designing another HT, I'd still go the same way, aiming for a more 'dead' feel (like a commercial cinema). I literally do not understand what people mean by 'sucking the life out of the room'. All I need to hear is there in the mix - I don't need the room to contribute. And since each room is different, each room will contribute differently, so the notion of there being any kind of standard goes out the window. With commercial cinemas, 'tuned' to the requirements of the various standards, Dolby etc, this isn't an issue. But no two HTs are alike and the more one allows the room to influence the sound, the more chgaotic it becomes and everything just boils down to "I like it so it must be good", which is something I don't really subscribe to.


----------



## Josh Z

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Toole's research that concluded reflections are beneficial primarily based on large rooms with walls rather far from the listening position? If so, would not the results be potentially different in a small room with narrower walls?


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Toole's research that concluded reflections are beneficial primarily based on large rooms with walls rather far from the listening position?


The research was about small room acoustics and most of it wasn't Toole's. Of the 336 references listed in the book Keith linked to, only 14 are from Toole himself. Of the 76 citations in the paper I linked to, only 5 are from Toole. BTW, the paper I linked to is a free download. Worth reading (at least skimming) the sections I mentioned.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. But nevertheless the Hobbit Theater was a *tiny *room, and yet the difference in clarity and imaging and dialogue intelligibility was palpable and astonishing once I had applied a lot of acoustic treatments to it. No matter how much theory anyone throws my way, that remains a fact. My way of explaining the dramatic increase in clarity is solely confined to the coincidental application of the panels. It is real, it happened. If nobody can explain it, well so be it. But it happened and it wasn't just me who noticed it. I hesitate to use the old forum trope, but even Mrs Keith, who is not at all interested in all this said, the first time she went into the room after I had treated it: "It is so incredibly clear." So did everyone. There has to be an explanation for why the imaging and dialogue improved so dramatically. I am not for a moment saying that the science is wrong and all the research is wrong but then neither is my analysis of my old room wrong either. If nobody can explain it, then I think this discussion has run its course as we are starting to go around in circles.
> 
> Given the choices open to me, if I was designing another HT, I'd still go the same way, aiming for a more 'dead' feel (like a commercial cinema). I literally do not understand what people mean by 'sucking the life out of the room'. All I need to hear is there in the mix - I don't need the room to contribute. And since each room is different, each room will contribute differently, so the notion of there being any kind of standard goes out the window. With commercial cinemas, 'tuned' to the requirements of the various standards, Dolby etc, this isn't an issue. But no two HTs are alike and the more one allows the room to influence the sound, the more chgaotic it becomes and everything just boils down to "I like it so it must be good", which is something I don't really subscribe to.


I agree this argument is going around in circles. While I'm firmly on the science side of the argument most eloquently articulated by Toole personally from several decades of research by him and others, and would sooner root for the White Sox than extinguish my first reflections at 60 degrees (LOL), the key points have been made.

Other than this being a dialog between two of the prominent posters on AVS threads, ultimately you're not personally submitting your room to a certification board for best practice approval or as is the case of most AVSers, making professional recommendations for clients that follow generally accepted guidelines taught by industry experts. You're not going to do a split sample, level matched experiment and test out differences in the spaciousness and overall clarity on a new Cowshed. So you're under no obligation to pursue your argument either....and by your own admission, movies are your hobby, not small room acoustics, and you don't claim to be writing as an acoustics authority

I will say this discussion between you and Sanjay has been...entertaining, with some good references for those so inclined to read. And I will say that there's one person I know of besides you with a near-RFZ room (RT60 of about 0.15, but his estimation). Never heard his place, though, but hope to get out that way sometime in the next few years.

Serious question: in your not-quite-dead-enough for you room, if you truly want a commercial cinema experience, do you let your visitors bring cotton candy and popcorn, as well as warm beer, to the Cowshed? Is chewing and swallowing allowed?


----------



## anothermib

sdurani said:


> Depending on the combination of delay & level (relative to the level of the direct sound), early reflections can range from being inaudible to adding spaciousness to broadening the image to being heard as an echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more reflections you have, the less any individual reflection can stand out and be distracting. Like comb filtering: enough of it and it ends up falling into the background (you don't hear individual combing artifacts).
> 
> Listeners imprint on the first instance they hear (direct sound). Question is, do subsequent instances (early reflections) muddy what was originally heard or reinforce/clarify what was originally heard? All the research points to the latter.
> ...





kbarnes701 said:


> I was using Audyssey (Pro) when I was adding the absorption to the Hobbit Theater. It was the treatments which made the huge jump in clarity - Audyssey didn't seem to harm that.
> ...
> Maybe it's just two different approaches: some want to hear the room adding extra sounds and some (me) don't.


What is the best way to read this diagram? Is it fair to assume that you both would agree that any reflections below the lowest, yellow curve can remain present (as they reinforce the original signal) and that everything above the highest, red curve needs absolutely to be avoided as it changes the content (e.g. two shots fired instead of one) and will kill speech intelligibility with that. I imagine that is the main issue at huge spaces like train stations. 

I don’t want to put words in your mouth - you are doing that more eloquently anyway. It is more to make sure I understand what you are saying. 

Reflections above the green (middle) line would shift the location of the image or smear it out? So that would not change intelligibility, but just the location or localization of the sound. I am pretty sure that Keith you may want to avoid that - as it is a digression from the mixers intent. Sanjay would you be saying that it is ok as long as it is relatively close to the original sound (i.e. not opposing walls) and that it can be even beneficial as it may widen the stage?

Sounds below the green line would be perceived as echo. I assume if it is too loud it has the potential to impact intelligibility and will change the character of the perceived acoustical space. That again differs from the purest interpretation of the material and Keith you will not like that, I assume. So Sanjay do I understand your point correctly that it may actually help by supporting the intended illusion of space as it improves the envelopment and is perceived by many to be more pleasant for music as well?

There may be follow up questions and/or conclusions eventually. So far I am just trying to keep up with the discussion.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> Well you get used to how things sound and I suspect that's what drives the constant "need to upgrade" even though the last purchase was initially deemed as "awesome"


I think the constant upgraditis that many suffer from (me included for a long time, a long time ago) often stems from a basic misunderstanding of what contributes most to what people are hearing. Changing electronics, for example, is almost always pointless from a sound quality perspective (unless someone has really hopeless rubbish or an amp that is hugely underpowered etc). But people swap AVRs etc all the time, hoping that a new AVR will transform their listening experience and let them finally hear what they imagine is possible (or know to be possible if they have heard good sound someplace else). Similarly, although with more purpose, people change their speakers, often/usually unnecessarily. The basic misunderstanding they have is that they do nothing about the single most important component in their system: the room. And if the room is bad, then the overall sound is bad. Regardless of what gear you put in it. 



Lesmor said:


> IMO though the room is the most important speaker in a system which can be tuned to taste


Exactly


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I agree this argument is going around in circles. While I'm firmly on the science side of the argument most eloquently articulated by Toole personally from several decades of research by him and others, and would sooner root for the White Sox than extinguish my first reflections at 60 degrees (LOL), the key points have been made.


Go White Sox go! 



sdrucker said:


> Other than this being a dialog between two of the prominent posters on AVS threads, ultimately you're not personally submitting your room to a certification board for best practice approval or as is the case of most AVSers, making professional recommendations for clients that follow generally accepted guidelines taught by industry experts. You're not going to do a split sample, level matched experiment and test out differences in the spaciousness and overall clarity on a new Cowshed. So you're under no obligation to pursue your argument either....and by your own admission, movies are your hobby, not small room acoustics, and you don't claim to be writing as an acoustics authority.


All true. I wish someone could define these terms they use -- what does 'sucking the life out of the room' actually mean? Does it mean 'damping down reflections too much'? If so, why not say that so the rest of us can then ask questions, objectively, about, for example, 'what reflections, how much?' etc. For me the 'life' seems to be embedded in the m/ch soundtrack - embedded there by dedicated professionals who have_ not the slightest idea _of the acoustics of my room and what they will do to their carefully crafted soundtrack. 

You used the subjective term 'spaciousness' just above. What does it mean? I gave several examples recently, with actual scenes from actual movies, explaining that the 'spaciousness' was embedded into the soundtrack. Tellingly, nobody commented. I believe that nobody commented because my examples were clearly resonant: it is all there in the track. The aircraft hanger actually sounds incredibly large (spacious). The padded cell actually sounds incredibly small. Add 'spaciousness' from the room to the latter and what happens? You lose the effect of being in a padded cell.



sdrucker said:


> I will say this discussion between you and Sanjay has been...entertaining, with some good references for those so inclined to read. And I will say that there's one person I know of besides you with a near-RFZ room (RT60 of about 0.15, but his estimation). Never heard his place, though, but hope to get out that way sometime in the next few years.


That would be interesting form sure. 0.15 is way deader than I ever went for. The Hobbit was about 2 to 3. The Cowshed is about 3.



sdrucker said:


> Serious question: in your not-quite-dead-enough for you room, if you truly want a commercial cinema experience, do you let your visitors bring cotton candy and popcorn, as well as warm beer, to the Cowshed? Is chewing and swallowing allowed?


Hahaha. They sit and watch the freakin' movie. Quiet breathing is permitted.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> [...] and that it can be even beneficial as it may widen the stage?
> 
> Sounds below the green line would be perceived as echo. I assume if it is too loud it has the potential to impact intelligibility and will change the character of the perceived acoustical space. That again differs from the purest interpretation of the material and Keith you will not like that, I assume. So Sanjay do I understand your point correctly that it may actually help by supporting the intended illusion of space as it improves the envelopment and is perceived by many to be more pleasant for music as well?


I'll let Sanjay answer the question about the diagram as I too am not totally sure how to interpret it.

On the other point, I do take the point that allowing some reflections to remain in the room can have the effect of making the room seem bigger (more spacious). In my old 2 channel days I wanted this effect and strove for it. But now, with multi-channel, object-based etc etc recording techniques and a ton of speakers all around and above the listener, the sense of creation of space is right there in the soundtrack, with enough speakers to reproduce it. If you have the Hobbit movie where Gollum is playing tricks in the cave (I forget which one it is), and you listen to it in Atmos or DSU, your entire HT suddenly becomes enormous. The sense of spaciousness is phenomenal. The reason is the mixer built all of the required cues into the mix. He added subtle reflections, giving the illusion of a huge cave. I will repeat that - he added subtle reflections. So why on earth would anyone want to add *more *reflections? If they do, then the intent of the mixer has been corrupted.

Back in the day when I was obsessed with 'hi-fi' I had a friend who had a very bare room in which his lovely Kef speakers sat, with his massive amp placed precisely between them and so on and on. When he played his favourite music, choral, it sounded as though you were right there in King's College, Cambridge, with the choir in front of you. Sublime. When he played chamber music, it sounded a right mess. The problem was that the reflective room was right for one sort of content and utterly wrong for almost every other sort. But he had two speakers. Now we have numerous speakers and we also have much more sophisticated recording and mixing techniques. The engineer can bake into the mix that sense of the size of the Chapel at King's College (which I have experienced many times - my daughters studied at Cambridge University). 

It may be something wrong with me. I just cannot see why we need the room to add anything. It will always be random since all domestic rooms are different. Why not just provide the required gear and the required number of speakers (IMO at least 7 around you and 4 above you) and listen to what is on the disc?


----------



## kbarnes701

I'll bore everyone with one more off-topic example and then surely we have done this to death.

Spaciousness is something that one may need in the recording environment (eg in my previous post, the choir sounds so good at King's due to the enormous, reflective space).

But if I record myself singing in the bath (for the strong of heart only), the last thing I will want to do is play the recording back* in the bathroom*. The sense of space is there in my recording. I don't want to add more 'space' when I play it back. I play it back in the living room and I hear the sense of the space of the bathroom.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> ... When he played his favourite music, choral, it sounded as though you were right there in King's College, Cambridge, with the choir in front of you. Sublime. When he played chamber music, it sounded a right mess. The problem was that the reflective room was right for one sort of content and utterly wrong for almost every other sort.
> ...
> 
> It may be something wrong with me. I just cannot see why we need the room to add anything. It will always be random since all domestic rooms are different. Why not just provide the required gear and the required number of speakers (IMO at least 7 around you and 4 above you) and listen to what is on the disc?



This logic is very clear and, I believe, undisputed in the more extreme example cases you are describing. However, I became less certain if it actually applies conceptually as well as practically for _all_ kinds and levels of reflections, e.g. across all of Sanjay’s diagram. If it did, it would have the beauty of simplicity and plausibility. My strategy therefore should be to add as much absorption as possible. Your explanation for that is consistent and you have great practical evidence from your HT builds. However, are there perhaps other effects, working against the one you are describing, that need to be taken into account in other scenarios (e.g. when RT60 is at 0.15 or below)? This may be one of the sciences where beauty and plausibility of an explanation alone are not sufficient to describe the full truth. 

I am not sure what these other effects would be, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. 
On the practical side some level of room reflections may be covering imperfections in the room response that may be more detrimental to the desired sound than the additional reflections.
On the conceptual side 7+4 speakers may not be able to create a fully homogeneous ambiance unless you are spending a large number of objects on the ambiance or simply add some level of room reflections.

The 2nd effect would be mostly theoretical (still good to understand what is going on). The first effect could mean that you can do with much fewer reflections in a well built HT than I can in my imperfect living room setup.


----------



## Lesmor

I am sure the subject has been debated to death but it surely has to come down to the size of the space being discussed
we mention room while the thread is titled Home theater

taken literally a theater is a large space where early reflections are probably delayed long enough not to become an issue
a room is a different proposition where we add treatment to try and delay reflections to simulate a theater

In the UK we have relatively small rooms and refer to Home cinema, while our American cousins call it a Theater 
so what size of space do you need for it to be considered as actually being called a Theater?


----------



## sdurani

anothermib said:


> What is the best way to read this diagram?


It shows what combinations of level and delay needed for reflections to fall into particular categories. The test signal in this case was speech.


> Is it fair to assume that you both would agree that any reflections below the lowest, yellow curve can remain present (as they reinforce the original signal) and that everything above the highest, red curve needs absolutely to be avoided as it changes the content (e.g. two shots fired instead of one) and will kill speech intelligibility with that. I imagine that is the main issue at huge spaces like train stations.


Level & delay combinations below the yellow curve are below the threshold of detection. You can't hear those reflections (drowned out by the direct sound from the speakers). If you're already there, then trying to dampen the room even more is a waste of time and resources. Level & delay combinations above the red curve are commonly referred to as echoes. Between the yellow and green curves is spaciousness (where the room doesn't sound dead or abnormal) but there is no broadening of the image.


> Reflections above the green (middle) line would shift the location of the image or smear it out? So that would not change intelligibility, but just the location or localization of the sound. I am pretty sure that Keith you may want to avoid that - as it is a digression from the mixers intent. Sanjay would you be saying that it is ok as long as it is relatively close to the original sound (i.e. not opposing walls) and that it can be even beneficial as it may widen the stage?


Most listeners crave a wider soundstage. That's what happens when the reflections have a level & delay combo between the green & red curves. Haas called this a "pleasant broadening of the source" (pleasant because his test subjects noted their preference for this result). The image shift is like increasing the size of your screen: everything shifts outwards. Still the same soundstage (same video image), just larger. Not everyone likes the increase in immersion, which is why some people don't spread their front speakers wide apart (and don't have large screens).


> Sounds below the green line would be perceived as echo.


No, level & delay combos below the green line contribute to spaciousness (not even image broadening). Echoes are above the red line.


> So Sanjay do I understand your point correctly that it may actually help by supporting the intended illusion of space as it improves the envelopment and is perceived by many to be more pleasant for music as well?


Early reflections below the red curve are not heard as distinct sounds. So how are they heard? 70 years of research points to them reinforcing and clarifying the direct sound. Up to you to decide whether that is a good thing or bad thing. You really should read the section of the Toole paper I linked to in my earlier post.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> I am sure the subject has been debated to death but it surely has to come down to the size of the space being discussed
> we mention room while the thread is titled Home theater
> 
> taken literally a theater is a large space where early reflections are probably delayed long enough not to become an issue
> a room is a different proposition where we add treatment to try and delay reflections to simulate a theater
> 
> In the UK we have relatively small rooms and refer to Home cinema, while our American cousins call it a Theater
> so what size of space do you need for it to be considered as actually being called a Theater?


The Hobbit Theater was 10.5ft x 10.5ft x 8.5ft.

The Cowshed Cinema is 21.5ft x 14.5ft x 12-14ft (depending on where you measure). The finished dimensions may be a bit smaller due to the sound containment measures eating into the space a bit more than we anticipated.


----------



## anothermib

sdurani said:


> Level & delay combinations above the red curve are commonly referred to as echoes. Between the yellow and green curves is spaciousness (where the room doesn't sound dead or abnormal) but there is no broadening of the image.
> ...
> You really should read the section of the Toole paper I linked to in my earlier post.



Thanks for clarifying that (and I will attempt to read the paper). Sounds like echoes that would change the padded cell into a hangar happen above the red curve only. The level below that may not 100% true to the exact original, but remains a faithful representation. Or is that as well the area where I potentially can get an image from a complete incorrect direction?

What I am struggling with is the term “spaciousness” - I didn’t see that concisely defined at first glance in the paper either. However, I take it that this doesn’t transform a padded cell into a hangar, but somehow in a more “natural” padded cell.

At first glance this is not entirely aligned with what you would expect intuitively. However, while the actual processing of sound may happen intuitively, our intuition may have had no reason to evolve to the point where we intuitively understand how the perception works.


----------



## sdurani

anothermib said:


> Sounds like echoes that would change the padded cell into a hangar happen above the red curve only.


Yes, distinct echoes will give you an impression of your listening room instead of whatever space is being portrayed in the source material. Looking at the precedence graph, the early reflections would have to be several dB louder than the direct sound for that to happen. How often is that going to happen in a typically furnished room?


> The level below that may not 100% true to the exact original, but remains a faithful representation. Or is that as well the area where I potentially can get an image from a complete incorrect direction?


To the extent that moving closer to the screen (closer to the L/C/R speakers) shifts the direction of sounds and picture elements (things slightly to the left will be further to the left). Is moving closer to the front speakers adding anything to the soundtrack or mixer's intent?


> What I am struggling with is the term “spaciousness” - I didn’t see that concisely defined at first glance in the paper either. However, I take it that this doesn’t transform a padded cell into a hangar, but somehow in a more “natural” padded cell.


Yes, it's the term listeners used when describing what they heard above the threshold of detectability for early reflections. All the sound still appears to come from the speaker, but there is a sense that the speaker is not in a padded cell.


> At first glance this is not entirely aligned with what you would expect intuitively. However, while the actual processing of sound may happen intuitively, our intuition may have had no reason to evolve to the point where we intuitively understand how the perception works.


I already admitted in a previous post that some of the research appears counterintuitive. So much of this is psychology and psychoacoustics rather than just acoustics. For better or worse, the influence of our cave-dwelling ancestors remains within us. Maybe Keith is more evolved. The rest of us have an expectation when sounds are reproduced in a room. Take that away and it sounds unnatural (even uncomfortable sometimes) to most people. 

BTW, there is a directional component that hasn't been discussed so far. If the reflection comes from the side walls, it gives the impression of space and can also broaden the soundstage. If the same reflection comes from the direction of the speaker, it changes the timbre of the direct sound. So, not all early reflections have the same effect (even when they have the same combination of level & delay). Which is why good starting places for absorption are across the front wall and middle of the back wall.


----------



## westbergjoakim

@sdurani 
If I understand correctly, is it better to have absorbents at the front and rear walls? Should I put something at the first reflections at the sides (diffusers?) or leave them alone? 

Atm I have absorbents in both rear corners, both first reflections at the sides and behind L and R on the front wall. 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

Lesmor said:


> In the UK we have relatively small rooms and refer to Home cinema, while our American cousins call it a Theater
> so what size of space do you need for it to be considered as actually being called a Theater?


Aha! Well I was looking at this last night actually. The AV Rant podcast pointed me to the Audioholics subwoofer guide here:
https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/subwoofer-room-size

They have 4 categories of "room" (unfortunately in old fashioned measurements, but bear with me  )

Small Room : < 1,500 ft^3
Medium Room : 1,500 ft^3 to 3,000 ft^3
Large Room : 3,000 ft^3 to 5,000 ft^3
Extreme Room : > 5,000 ft^3

My room is "small", as it is 1349 cubic feet.


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> If I understand correctly, is it better to have absorbents at the front and rear walls?


That's where I would start. 

From the Dirac paper: _"Reflections from the front and the rear (within ±40º) are perceived as detrimental to sound quality, whereas side reflections (within reasonable levels) often improve the perceived sound quality."_

From Toole's paper: _"Reflections from central portions of the front and back walls have the least positive contributions to what we hear. Attenuating them may be advantageous."_


westbergjoakim said:


> Should I put something at the first reflections at the sides (diffusers?) or leave them alone?


I tried absorption and diffusion at sidewall first reflections but kept coming back to bare walls. The only way you will know what YOU prefer is to swap your absorbers for diffusers. If you have to wait to get diffusers, try bare walls in the mean time. Spend some time listening to each and you will figure out what sounds best to you. Trust your hearing. The only place I ended up liking absorption on the side walls is at the contra-lateral reflection points (left speaker's reflection off the right side wall and vice versa). This way, sounds from the left side of the soundstage don't come at me (even subtly) from the right side of the room.


----------



## Lesmor

mrtickleuk said:


> Aha! Well I was looking at this last night actually. The AV Rant podcast pointed me to the Audioholics subwoofer guide here:
> https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/subwoofer-room-size
> 
> They have 4 categories of "room" (unfortunately in old fashioned measurements, but bear with me  )
> 
> Small Room : < 1,500 ft^3
> Medium Room : 1,500 ft^3 to 3,000 ft^3
> Large Room : 3,000 ft^3 to 5,000 ft^3
> Extreme Room : > 5,000 ft^3
> 
> My room is "small", as it is 1349 cubic feet.


my room comes just under 3000 ft^3 a medium room so I would hardly class mine as a Theater


----------



## mrtickleuk

Well it's certainly a HOME Theatre. And it's a stadium compared to my room.


----------



## audiofan1

sdurani said:


> That's where I would start.
> 
> From the Dirac paper: _"Reflections from the front and the rear (within ±40º) are perceived as detrimental to sound quality, whereas side reflections (within reasonable levels) often improve the perceived sound quality."_
> 
> From Toole's paper: _"Reflections from central portions of the front and back walls have the least positive contributions to what we hear. Attenuating them may be advantageous."_ I tried absorption and diffusion at sidewall first reflections but kept coming back to bare walls. The only way you will know what YOU prefer is to swap your absorbers for diffusers. If you have to wait to get diffusers, try bare walls in the mean time. Spend some time listening to each and you will figure out what sounds best to you. Trust your hearing.* The only place I ended up liking absorption on the side walls is at the contra-lateral reflection points (left speaker's reflection off the right side wall and vice versa). This way, sounds from the left side of the soundstage don't come at me (even subtly) from the right side of the room.*


*
*
I agree 100% with that ! And might I add its also the place the center channel reflects as well and the absorption panels do well for beautiful sounding dialog Also might recommend placing or trying 24x48 inch panels 18 inches off the floor. I do however find absorption to be critical at the first reflection points on the sidewalls.


----------



## pasender91

Hey, not directly related to Atmos, but when are you guys going to transition to the much easier to use metric (decimal system) instead of feet and inch (duodecimal) ? 
Seriously, it would make the reading and understanding easier on a global scale, and shifting zeros is so much easier than multiplying by 12 ...


----------



## anothermib

sdurani said:


> BTW, there is a directional component that hasn't been discussed so far. If the reflection comes from the side walls, it gives the impression of space and can also broaden the soundstage. If the same reflection comes from the direction of the speaker, it changes the timbre of the direct sound. So, not all early reflections have the same effect (even when they have the same combination of level & delay). Which is why good starting places for absorption are across the front wall and middle of the back wall.



Well this is opening another can of worms before I completely emptied the can on my desk. I guess my hope of understanding and assessing the various paradigms that are at play here and to come to my own conclusion may be harder to fulfill than I thought. 

Perhaps I can pick the brains of the experts here in a different way - by having a quick vote? May be an interesting experiment.

As mentioned before the room is asymmetrical and pretty lively (untreated RT60 in the 0.6 range and the IR is showing lots of nasty spikes). My issues include sound sometimes appearing to come from the wrong place, occasional timbre changes (e.g. sometimes male voices) and ambiance inhomogeneity. Main focus is on 7..4 Atmos. 
I started by putting absorbers on the back wall covering about 45° of the rear plus some “opportunistic” treatments on the side wall. 

What should I consider next?

1. Curtains to cover the glass walls behind the LCR front 
2. Absorbers at the ceiling first reflections for LCR
3. Adding diffusers or replacing some of the absorbers by them
4. Continue row of absorbers from the rear on the side walls
5. Replace Audyssey with Dirac
6. something entirely different 

(a - definitely worth a try, b - may work in some cases, c - more likely to make things worse)

I know not all votes turn out an optimal result, but I would be really interested to learn what people think.

I imagine, Keiths vote would be 1a, 2a, 3c, 4a, 5a. 
How about the others?


----------



## Lesmor

anothermib said:


> Well this is opening another can of worms before I completely emptied the can on my desk. I guess my hope of understanding and assessing the various paradigms that are at play here and to come to my own conclusion may be harder to fulfill than I thought.
> 
> Perhaps I can pick the brains of the experts here in a different way - by having a quick vote? May be an interesting experiment.
> 
> As mentioned before the room is asymmetrical and pretty lively (untreated RT60 in the 0.6 range and the IR is showing lots of nasty spikes). My issues include sound sometimes appearing to come from the wrong place, occasional timbre changes (e.g. sometimes male voices) and ambiance inhomogeneity. Main focus is on 7..4 Atmos.
> I started by putting absorbers on the back wall covering about 45° of the rear plus some “opportunistic” treatments on the side wall.
> 
> What should I consider next?
> 
> 1. Curtains to cover the glass walls behind the LCR front
> 2. Absorbers at the ceiling first reflections for LCR
> 3. Adding diffusers or replacing some of the absorbers by them
> 4. Continue row of absorbers from the rear on the side walls
> 5. Replace Audyssey with Dirac
> 6. something entirely different
> 
> (a - definitely worth a try, b - may work in some cases, c - more likely to make things worse)
> 
> I know not all votes turn out an optimal result, but I would be really interested to learn what people think.
> 
> I imagine, Keiths vote would be 1a, 2a, 3c, 4a, 5a.
> How about the others?


We seem to be drifting way OT but its rude to ignore so

I would suggest another option and that is get custom made absorbers to fit in the window recesses to cover the glass
that would be my personal No1 
2 given that the floor is carpeted with pad underlay a ceiling is probably a large source of reflection


----------



## westbergjoakim

sdurani said:


> That's where I would start.
> 
> From the Dirac paper: _"Reflections from the front and the rear (within ±40º) are perceived as detrimental to sound quality, whereas side reflections (within reasonable levels) often improve the perceived sound quality."_
> 
> From Toole's paper: _"Reflections from central portions of the front and back walls have the least positive contributions to what we hear. Attenuating them may be advantageous."_ I tried absorption and diffusion at sidewall first reflections but kept coming back to bare walls. The only way you will know what YOU prefer is to swap your absorbers for diffusers. If you have to wait to get diffusers, try bare walls in the mean time. Spend some time listening to each and you will figure out what sounds best to you. Trust your hearing. The only place I ended up liking absorption on the side walls is at the contra-lateral reflection points (left speaker's reflection off the right side wall and vice versa). This way, sounds from the left side of the soundstage don't come at me (even subtly) from the right side of the room.


Thanks for your replay! I will put absorbents at the sides for the contra-lateral reflections. I moved my first reflection side absorbents to the rear wall just outside both sides of my sofa. They are now near both cornerabsorbents. I have nothing behind my sofa. Is that something I should test? It wouldn't look good, but I can do it, or can I put an absorbent behind my sofa on the floor, if that would do anything good? (The sofa is 75cm out from the rear wall). 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

anothermib said:


> What should I consider next?


Broadband absorption behind the LCR speakers. If that's not possible, then thick/pleated curtains. On the back wall, I would limit absorption to the middle half. [/quote]


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> I moved my first reflection side absorbents to the rear wall just outside both sides of my sofa.


Try them instead at the middle of the back wall, directly behind the sofa.


----------



## carp

For what it's worth, I've tried all kinds of combinations of treatments over the years in my 3300 cu ft room. 

I have decided that I prefer absorption on the front and rear wall (front wall has 1.5 feet of pink fluffy and many 6" absorption panels on the back wall) and for the reflection points on the side walls I have GIK absoption panels with scatter plates in them, so a combo of reflection and absorption. 

For those reflection points I have tried bare walls, absorption only, diffusion, and I like the combo of reflection/absorption the best. 

I've tried and ended up *NOT* liking: 

ceiling absorption (prefer bare ceilings)
bare rear wall 
diffusion on rear wall
lots of absorption on side walls (yuck)
no treatment on front wall

Everything I've talked about has been tried in combination with everything else if that makes sense. If I didn't like tinkering I would have driven myself crazy. :laugh:

With this final configuration the most important areas to treat IMO (made the biggest audible difference):

1. Front wall treatment
2. Rear wall
3. (distant 3rd) reflection absorption/reflection panels


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Maybe Keith is more evolved.


Maybe?  



sdurani said:


> The rest of us have an expectation when sounds are reproduced in a room. Take that away and it sounds unnatural (even uncomfortable sometimes) to most people.


So when you are talking to your buddies outdoors, it sounds strange?? Surely not. It just sounds like you are outdoors. That's because there isn't a room adding something to the human voice.

I don't get this notion of 'sounds reproduced in a room'. Which room? If it's to do with evolution as you imply, then we ought to be comfortable in a cave, whoch is nothing like a living room of today. No two rooms are the same, so I can't see how we can have an expectation of what things sound like in 'a room'. As for movies, again, I don't want to hear 'sounds in a room' - I want to hear the sounds the movie is showing me on screen - a desert, a hangar, a padded cell, a restaurant etc. When I listen to the noise in a restaurant it isn't the same as the noise in a bar or a living room etc. And the room that movies are meant to be heard in is called a cinema. And a cinema sounds nothing like a living room since it has been acoustically treated and is more 'dead' than a living room. So if people are trying to get to a point where their movies sound like they are being played back in a living room, then they aren't really getting a proper movie experience.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Broadband absorption behind the LCR speakers. If that's not possible, then thick/pleated curtains. On the back wall, I would limit absorption to the middle half.


[/QUOTE]

Regardless of the endless discussion about sidewall reflections, a huge difference was made in the Hobbit Theater when I heavily treated (with absorption) the back wall. The difference was probably the biggest that I made. When it came to the Cowshed, I repeated the exercise with about 3 feet of Rockwooll over 2/3 of the back wall and more than 3 feet over the front wall, behind the AT screen. These two areas of treatment yield, IME, massive improvements. My side walls have a combined absorber diffuser treatment from Artnovion.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> So when you are talking to your buddies outdoors, it sounds strange??


Nope, hearing confirms vision.


> I don't get this notion of 'sounds reproduced in a room'. Which room?


Most people want their hearing to confirm what they're seeing (the room they're in). Taking that confirmation away sounds weird to them. Imagine if you were talking to a guest in your Hobbit theatre and you heard your voice reverberate as though you were in a stadium. That would be weird. It works the other way too.


> If it's to do with evolution as you imply, then we ought to be comfortable in a cave, whoch is nothing like a living room of today.


We're comfortable when our senses confirm our environment (cave or living room). That's not an unreasonable thing for humans to want.


> I don't want to hear 'sounds in a room' - I want to hear the sounds the movie is showing me on screen - a desert, a hangar, a padded cell, a restaurant etc.


No one is asking you to hear anything you don't want to. This doesn't have anything to do with you. I'm simply explaining why the last 7 decades of research consistently came up with the results it did. You are not required to believe that explanation if you don't want to. In fact, you're free to completely ignore that entire body of research. Nothing bad will happen.


----------



## sdurani

> My side walls have a combined absorber diffuser treatment from Artnovion.


Diffuser? You're preserving and scattering some of the side wall reflections that your room is adding, despite knowing that _"it would *entirely* ruin the Director's intent"_? How can you live with yourself.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> So when you are talking to your buddies outdoors, it sounds strange?? Surely not. It just sounds like you are outdoors. That's because there isn't a room adding something to the human voice.
> 
> I don't get this notion of 'sounds reproduced in a room'. Which room? If it's to do with evolution as you imply, then we ought to be comfortable in a cave, whoch is nothing like a living room of today. No two rooms are the same, so I can't see how we can have an expectation of what things sound like in 'a room'. As for movies, again, I don't want to hear 'sounds in a room' - I want to hear the sounds the movie is showing me on screen - a desert, a hangar, a padded cell, a restaurant etc. When I listen to the noise in a restaurant it isn't the same as the noise in a bar or a living room etc. And the room that movies are meant to be heard in is called a cinema. And a cinema sounds nothing like a living room since it has been acoustically treated and is more 'dead' than a living room. So if people are trying to get to a point where their movies sound like they are being played back in a living room, then they aren't really getting a proper movie experience.


I think what Keith is going for (other than being a 7.1 room) is something like this:
http://www.emagine-entertainment.com/screeningroom/

Pretty much a commercial cinema but this room can be used privately.


----------



## anothermib

Lesmor said:


> I would suggest another option and that is get custom made absorbers to fit in the window recesses to cover the glass
> 
> that would be my personal No1
> ...





sdurani said:


> Broadband absorption behind the LCR speakers. If that's not possible, then thick/pleated curtains. On the back wall, I would limit absorption to the middle half.



I could go with standing broadband absorbers just behind the LCR speakers (or their reflection points). However, that would cover a only a very small portion of the glass surface. Not sure if that is still preferable.

Apologies that the discussion moved a bit OT. It is very hard to see how recommendations that are intended for 2ch music extend to 7.1.4 Atmos movie sound (and some say that is because they just don’t). I hope that this is as useful for some of the silent readers as it is for me.


----------



## sdurani

anothermib said:


> It is very hard to see how recommendations that are intended for 2ch music extend to 7.1.4 Atmos movie sound (and some say that is because they just don’t).


Even in this day and age of Atmos, the front soundstage remains absolutely critical. That's where your attention will be focused, whether listening to 2-channel music or 7.1.4 movie sound. If your front wall was a giant mirror, you would see the first reflection points of all your surround and height speakers. Absorption on the front wall will keep those reflections from reaching you, so you don't hear surround & height information coming from the same direction as your L/C/R speakers that will muddy the front soundstage. Clarity and articulation in the front soundstage is helpful for 2-channels music and movie soundtracks. They both benefit from the same recommendation.


----------



## bluenova

Does anybody know what the Dolby surround upmixer does when applied to an Atmos track? I was halfway through a movie last night and realized my receiver wasn’t in Atmos mode but was instead on the DSU. I assume it ignores the metadata and just processes the core track but I really don’t have any idea.


----------



## sdurani

bluenova said:


> I assume it ignores the metadata and just processes the core track but I really don’t have any idea.


Yup, it extracts diffuse info from the 7.1 core and sends it to the height speakers.


----------



## JeffVW

Hello,

I am installing a 5.1.2 Atmos system in my home theater. The builder installed speaker wire outlets at a height of 6' on the wall for the front speakers, and at the 8.5' ceiling height for the surrounds (middle and rear). I am installing in-ceiling speakers for the Atmos set using the middle surround speaker wire outlets.

I understand that Dolby specifies that the front speakers be placed at listener height (~3.9 ft), and the rear surrounds at no higher than 1.25x the front speakers. However, could I still acheive ideal Atmos performance if I mounted my front bookshelf speakers at that 6' height on the wall, and then angled them inward and downward (not parallel with the floor) so that they were pointing at the listener position? Similarly, could I maintain ideal Atmos performance and install the rear surrounds to the 8.5' ceiling (Polk S10's with a mount) and likewise point them inward and downward (neither parallel nor perpendicular to the floor) so that they were pointing at the listener position?

If neither of these placements are ideal, to what degree would I lose the Atmos effect?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## carp

bluenova said:


> Does anybody know what the Dolby surround upmixer does when applied to an Atmos track? I was halfway through a movie last night and realized my receiver wasn’t in Atmos mode but was instead on the DSU. I assume it ignores the metadata and just processes the core track but I really don’t have any idea.





sdurani said:


> Yup, it extracts diffuse info from the 7.1 core and sends it to the height speakers.


Woah, didn't know that. I always thought that if you had DSU on during Atmos content is just defaulted to playing Atmos.


----------



## Josh Z

carp said:


> Woah, didn't know that. I always thought that if you had DSU on during Atmos content is just defaulted to playing Atmos.


It should, but it's possible that his source was sending the audio as 5.1 or 7.1 PCM rather than the Atmos bitstream.


----------



## sdurani

carp said:


> I always thought that if you had DSU on during Atmos content is just defaulted to playing Atmos.


Depends on implementation. On some products (Yamaha maybe?), turning on DSU switches the track from Atmos to its 7.1 core. On other products, the Atmos track prevents DSU from being activated (can't upmix a format that is supposed to natively scale to all the speakers).


----------



## troye

I understand there are many constraints sometimes for our surround setups. 

I assume the room correction software (YPAO, Audyssey, etc..) will compensate if my rear surrounds are wider than my fronts


----------



## sdurani

troye said:


> I assume the room correction software (YPAO, Audyssey, etc..) will compensate if my rear surrounds are wider than my fronts


Room correction can compensate for distance (by adjusting level & delay) but cannot compensate for angle (rear surrounds wider than fronts).


----------



## mrtickleuk

bluenova said:


> Does anybody know what the Dolby surround upmixer does when applied to an Atmos track? I was halfway through a movie last night and realized my receiver wasn’t in Atmos mode but was instead on the DSU. I assume it ignores the metadata and just processes the core track but I really don’t have any idea.


You cannot apply it to an Atmos track. It won't let you. It's already using ALL your speakers when in Atmos mode, there is nothing left to up-mix to!

[edit: just read sdurani's post. I really hate the sound of that AVR which *helps you make a mistake* and loses your Atmos in favour of upmixing!]

If you had the DSU enabled, this means that you were not feeding it Atmos in the first place. So perhaps your external device (you don't say what it was) was only sending the core TrueHD track out. So your AVR wasn't upmixing Atmos, it was upmixing TrueHD. It will say on the front panel or the Info screen what the source signal is.


----------



## stikle

So...in planning and implementing my dedicated theater room, I had to make a decision in regards to the placement of my overheads.Where I wanted to put them was not doable due to obstructions in the ceiling joist channels. So I either had to go outwards or inwards. I chose outwards, which I now believe was the wrong choice. As angular separation is key for the best Atmosicity, I'm pretty sure I should have gone inwards. I knew this way back when, and just either forgot or ignored it.

Well, now that the room is "done", it's been turning around and around in my brain and I can't let it go. So...I rigged up a framework to hang two speakers from in the inwards position to test it out. It may just be placebo, but...I think that made a difference in a good way.










At the AVR I can easily swap between the temporary speakers and the "permanent" ones to do comparison testing before cutting new holes and doing more drywall work. That's in progress now.

Sigh.


----------



## T-Bone

stikle said:


> So...in planning and implementing my dedicated theater room, I had to make a decision in regards to the placement of my overheads.Where I wanted to put them was not doable due to obstructions in the ceiling joist channels. So I either had to go outwards or inwards. I chose outwards, which I now believe was the wrong choice. As angular separation is key for the best Atmosicity, I'm pretty sure I should have gone inwards. I knew this way back when, and just either forgot or ignored it.
> 
> Well, now that the room is "done", it's been turning around and around in my brain and I can't let it go. So...I rigged up a framework to hang two speakers from in the inwards position to test it out. It may just be placebo, but...I think that made a difference in a good way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the AVR I can easily swap between the temporary speakers and the "permanent" ones to do comparison testing before cutting new holes and doing more drywall work. That's in progress now.
> 
> Sigh.


It is hard to tell from the picture ... the ceiling speakers that you had originally mounted, were they in the same line as the LR mains (the invisible line that goes from the front of the room to the back of the room that's perpendicular to the screen)

-T


----------



## westbergjoakim

stikle said:


> So...in planning and implementing my dedicated theater room, I had to make a decision in regards to the placement of my overheads.Where I wanted to put them was not doable due to obstructions in the ceiling joist channels. So I either had to go outwards or inwards. I chose outwards, which I now believe was the wrong choice. As angular separation is key for the best Atmosicity, I'm pretty sure I should have gone inwards. I knew this way back when, and just either forgot or ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now that the room is "done", it's been turning around and around in my brain and I can't let it go. So...I rigged up a framework to hang two speakers from in the inwards position to test it out. It may just be placebo, but...I think that made a difference in a good way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the AVR I can easily swap between the temporary speakers and the "permanent" ones to do comparison testing before cutting new holes and doing more drywall work. That's in progress now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.


I have also been thinking about this for a while. It feels like my overheads should be inwards instead of in line with my fronts (just outside the screen) because of where I hear the overhead sound contra where I think it should be coming from when watching a movie. I'm going to move them so they are in the middle between the L and my center and the same on the other side. It will be around 120-150cm (4-5ft) between them. Do you think that is to close?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## bluenova

mrtickleuk said:


> You cannot apply it to an Atmos track. It won't let you. It's already using ALL your speakers when in Atmos mode, there is nothing left to up-mix to!
> 
> [edit: just read sdurani's post. I really hate the sound of that AVR which *helps you make a mistake* and loses your Atmos in favour of upmixing!]
> 
> If you had the DSU enabled, this means that you were not feeding it Atmos in the first place. So perhaps your external device (you don't say what it was) was only sending the core TrueHD track out. So your AVR wasn't upmixing Atmos, it was upmixing TrueHD. It will say on the front panel or the Info screen what the source signal is.


I'm using a Pioneer Elite SC-95 AVR. The atmos track was selected for the movie audio and then I can freely choose different surround field programs on the AVR while that same audio track is played. If I choose "Direct" then after a couple seconds it says "Dolby Atmos" on the front of the AVR or I can also choose the Dolby surround upmixer and it displays "DSurround". They both light up the TrueHD light. I'm guessing if my particular receiver doesn't say Atmos then the DSU is actually just upmixing the core track. It's not an issue for me either way, just an interesting observation I hadn't thought about before.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> anothermib said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very hard to see how recommendations that are intended for 2ch music extend to 7.1.4 Atmos movie sound (and some say that is because they just don’t).
> 
> 
> 
> Even in this day and age of Atmos, the front soundstage remains absolutely critical. That's where your attention will be focused, whether listening to 2-channel music or 7.1.4 movie sound. If your front wall was a giant mirror, you would see the first reflection points of all your surround and height speakers. Absorption on the front wall will keep those reflections from reaching you, so you don't hear surround & height information coming from the same direction as your L/C/R speakers that will muddy the front soundstage. Clarity and articulation in the front soundstage is helpful for 2-channels music and movie soundtracks. They both benefit from the same recommendation.
Click to expand...

If I have a media cabinet for the center speaker to rest on and a mounted tv about 3-4 inches above the speaker, where would/could I even put a front wall absorbing panel??? Or would I just put something behind the towers only in this example...?


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> If I have a media cabinet for the center speaker to rest on and a mounted tv about 3-4 inches above the speaker, where would/could I even put a front wall absorbing panel??? Or would I just put something behind the towers only in this example...?


The TV is going to act as a reflector; nothing you can do about that, so don't waste your time worrying about it. Instead, place absorption on both sides of the TV and work your way outward till you're just past the L/R speakers. That should help minimize boundary cancellations. Also, sit in your main listening position, have someone move a mirror all over the front wall and mark the spots where you see reflections of your surrounds and heights. Those first reflection points are good spots for small (2'x2') absorbers.


----------



## Ganymed4

westbergjoakim said:


> I have also been thinking about this for a while. It feels like my overheads should be inwards instead of in line with my fronts (just outside the screen) because of where I hear the overhead sound contra where I think it should be coming from when watching a movie. I'm going to move them so they are in the middle between the L and my center and the same on the other side. It will be around 120-150cm (4-5ft) between them. Do you think that is to close?
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk



Well, my opinion is to put the front height or Atmos speakers in line with the L/R speakers. I cam to this conclusion after thinking a lot about the set-up depicted on the Dolby homepage and - I have to admit - using Auro 3D as upmixer. If you don't use it, never mind but it seems to changing for Atmos currently.
I was in a Dolby Cinema in the Seattle area (ACM) and found that I had the lower level speakers around me and that there were two rows of overhead speakers on the ceiling. They were more together in the middle than the L/R - as far as I can say, not able to see the L/R behind the screen.
However, the Atmos placement instructions on the Dolby web-page depict the height speakers in line with the L/R speakers on the ceiling. If you want a mix between Auro an Atmos, I decided to put the height speakers in front not at 45° from the listening position but directly above the L/R speakers. I listened with other speakers to a similar set-up and was completely convinced by the upmix from the BD of Bladerunner 2049 in Auro 3D. I could listen to the the flying car going the full 360° at the beginning, even this was not Atmos track. This was amazing and the same applies to the crackled wall for 'Phantastic Beasts' but this time in Atmos.
Just my experience and what I am doing in my HT.
Hope it helps...


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> troye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume the room correction software (YPAO, Audyssey, etc..) will compensate if my rear surrounds are wider than my fronts
> 
> 
> 
> Room correction can compensate for distance (by adjusting level & delay) but cannot compensate for angle (rear surrounds wider than fronts).
Click to expand...

My side surrounds are also going to be a little bit wider our then the towers-I didn’t think this was a problem. I know that the atmos heights are supposed to be in line with the LR speakers but I didn’t realize the side surrounds had to...?


----------



## Chirosamsung

mrtickleuk said:


> bluenova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody know what the Dolby surround upmixer does when applied to an Atmos track? I was halfway through a movie last night and realized my receiver wasn’t in Atmos mode but was instead on the DSU. I assume it ignores the metadata and just processes the core track but I really don’t have any idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot apply it to an Atmos track. It won't let you. It's already using ALL your speakers when in Atmos mode, there is nothing left to up-mix to!
> 
> [edit: just read sdurani's post. I really hate the sound of that AVR which *helps you make a mistake* and loses your Atmos in favour of upmixing!]
> 
> If you had the DSU enabled, this means that you were not feeding it Atmos in the first place. So perhaps your external device (you don't say what it was) was only sending the core TrueHD track out. So your AVR wasn't upmixing Atmos, it was upmixing TrueHD. It will say on the front panel or the Info screen what the source signal is.
Click to expand...

Does anyone who owns a NAD 758 know if the atmos mix prevents DSU from happening?


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> My side surrounds are also going to be a little bit wider our then the towers-I didn’t think this was a problem.


It's not a problem. They're just supposed to be along your sides (slightly rearward or forward of the main listening position).


----------



## sdurani

Ganymed4 said:


> They were more together in the middle than the L/R


Yup, theatrical Atmos has different layout recommendations than home Atmos. The height speaker arrays don't line up with the L/R speakers but instead are aligned with the gap between the L/C/R speakers.


----------



## anothermib

sdurani said:


> The TV is going to act as a reflector; nothing you can do about that, so don't waste your time worrying about it. Instead, place absorption on both sides of the TV and work your way outward till you're just past the L/R speakers. That should help minimize boundary cancellations. Also, sit in your main listening position, have someone move a mirror all over the front wall and mark the spots where you see reflections of your surrounds and heights. Those first reflection points are good spots for small (2'x2') absorbers.




Is there any experience how a (non-AT) projection screen is acting in this regard? In my case most of the reflection points would be pretty much behind the screen. As I don’t recall having seen much of a difference in the IR I would _guess_ it still makes sense to add absorption behind it. However, perhaps there is a common experience or best practice on this subject.


----------



## westbergjoakim

sdurani said:


> Yup, theatrical Atmos has different layout recommendations than home Atmos. The height speaker arrays don't line up with the L/R speakers but instead are aligned with the gap between the L/C/R speakers.


Do you have a AT-screen? If you do, do you have your height speakers 'inside' of the screen? As I said, my speakers are now in line with my fronts just outside the screen. It doesn't feel like the sound are coming from where it should be. Do you think it would be better to move them to the gap between L/R and the center? (Where it feels like the sounds should come from). I have a non-AT screen. It will be around 120-150 cm (4-5ft) between them if I move them. Thanks for all your replays and help!

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Most people want their hearing to confirm what they're seeing (the room they're in). Taking that confirmation away sounds weird to them.


Exactly. So when they see, on screen, an aircraft hangar, they want to hear that environment. And when they see, on screen, a padded cell, they want to hear that environment. They don't want, I would assume, the padded cell on screen to sound 'more spacious' thanks to a lot of in-room reflections.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Diffuser? You're preserving and scattering some of the side wall reflections that your room is adding, despite knowing that _"it would *entirely* ruin the Director's intent"_? How can you live with yourself.


 It's a good question. I guess I got fed up with arguing endlessly with the installer. My install was not a good experience and if I had my time over, I would not use the same outfit. They tried to give me what they wanted and not what I wanted. In the end, I compromised on the 'win some, lose some' basis and the side wall treatments were part of that compromise. Before I gave in, I had extensive discussions directly with the CTO of Artnovion (who was very helpful and thoroughly understood what I wanted) and he redesigned the installer's proposal to absorb more and diffuse less. They did this at no additional cost to me, even though the replacement panels were more expensive, so I have no complaints at all about Artnovion.

But note that I am not allowing reflections. I am diffusing them. It is allowing reflections that spoils the intent.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> I think what Keith is going for (other than being a 7.1 room) is something like this:
> http://www.emagine-entertainment.com/screeningroom/
> 
> Pretty much a commercial cinema but this room can be used privately.


Got it in one there Stu. I am indeed trying to replicate a small commercial cinema. Or the sort of private viewing rooms that I used to spend time in when previewing cinema commercials with clients, back in the day. Not everyone's cup of tea I admit, but it is very much mine.


----------



## kbarnes701

Chirosamsung said:


> If I have a media cabinet for the center speaker to rest on and a mounted tv about 3-4 inches above the speaker, where would/could I even put a front wall absorbing panel??? Or would I just put something behind the towers only in this example...?


It's a problem when you don't have an AT screen and PJ setup. The TV, especially if large, is a big reflector slap bang in the middle of the room. I guess you would just have to treat as much of the wall behind the TV as you can. Some behind the L&R speakers would help those speakers by minimizing reflections from behind them, but it may or may not help with Sanjay's point, which is to treat the front wall in order to 'capture' the reflections from all the other speakers in the room, to prevent those reflections from interfering with the direct sound. Treating my front all in the experimental Hobbit Theater made a vary big difference (as did treating the back wall) -- possibly the biggest difference (both walls combined) of all. Just do the best you can.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a media cabinet for the center speaker to rest on and a mounted tv about 3-4 inches above the speaker, where would/could I even put a front wall absorbing panel??? Or would I just put something behind the towers only in this example...?
> 
> 
> 
> The TV is going to act as a reflector; nothing you can do about that, so don't waste your time worrying about it. Instead, place absorption on both sides of the TV and work your way outward till you're just past the L/R speakers. That should help minimize boundary cancellations. Also, sit in your main listening position, have someone move a mirror all over the front wall and mark the spots where you see reflections of your surrounds and heights. Those first reflection points are good spots for small (2'x2') absorbers.
Click to expand...

With AND without absorbers behind the front three speakers would it be better or recommended in my case to pull the tv out since it has a mount that can come forward up to 27 inches so that the plane of the tv is over either some of the centre speaker or even towards the front of the center speaker if possible? Will that at least cut down on the reflective badness of the sound of the center hitting the tv?


----------



## sdurani

anothermib said:


> Is there any experience how a (non-AT) projection screen is acting in this regard?


Like a reflective membrane.


> As I don’t recall having seen much of a difference in the IR I would _guess_ it still makes sense to add absorption behind it.


Might work as a bass trap rather than a broadband absorber, since low frequencies would still be absorbed and mid/high frequencies would reflect off.


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> As I said, my speakers are now in line with my fronts just outside the screen. It doesn't feel like the sound are coming from where it should be. Do you think it would be better to move them to the gap between L/R and the center? (Where it feels like the sounds should come from).


Your system exists to please you, not me. If YOU don't like the height effect you are currently getting and would prefer to move the heights a little closer together, then you should try it.


----------



## anothermib

sdurani said:


> Like a reflective membrane. Might work as a bass trap rather than a broadband absorber, since low frequencies would still be absorbed and mid/high frequencies would reflect off.


Actually I always had the impression that the sound is brighter, when the screen is up, but that may have different reasons. Basically all first reflection points are covered by it - the window is acting as a big mirror when it is dark outside, so it is pretty easy to tell. 


So, if I read that correctly, there is not much improvement to be expected by an additional absorbing curtain behind the screen. Unless I am replacing the screen by an AT variant.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> They don't want, I would assume, the padded cell on screen to sound 'more spacious' thanks to a lot of in-room reflections.


A typically furnished small room doesn't have lots of hard reflections: most are broken up by furniture AND the small rooms don't give you the combination of enough level + enough delay needed to hear early reflections for what they are. Instead, those early reflections mostly reinforce the direct sound we hear. So when the sound changes from an echoey aircraft hanger to a quiet padded room, listeners hear the intended difference. It is that contrast that makes the difference audible. The padded room scene doesn't have to be absolutely dead, just relatively dead compared to the aircraft hanger. That's why mixing rooms aren't completely dead. That's why your installer's experience led them to design your room they way they did.


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> Will that at least cut down on the reflective badness of the sound of the center hitting the tv?


The only way to do that is to take the TV out of the room or cover it with broadband absorption, which are not options, which is why I said don't waste time worrying about it.


----------



## sdurani

anothermib said:


> So, if I read that correctly, there is not much improvement to be expected by an additional absorbing curtain behind the screen.


You're in the room and can hear what it sounds like but you're asking a stranger on the internet to guess what it sounds like AND predict what it will sound like when you make changes? ALL I can go on is your mention of the impulse response not changing whether the screen is up or down, which is why I replied that it will act like a reflective membrane. Why not pile up some absorption behind the screen and listen to the results? Wouldn't that be more helpful than asking strangers to guess what it will sound like?


----------



## westbergjoakim

sdurani said:


> Your system exists to please you, not me. If YOU don't like the height effect you are currently getting and would prefer to move the heights a little closer together, then you should try it.


Yes, I know, but I haven't tried it yet (but I will). It's always good to know, in my opinion, what other people with good knowledge prefer and think, and try that 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

sdurani said:


> You're in the room and can hear what it sounds like but you're asking a stranger on the internet to guess what it sounds like AND predict what it will sound like when you make changes? ALL I can go on is your mention of the impulse response not changing whether the screen is up or down, which is why I replied that it will act like a reflective membrane. Why not pile up some absorption behind the screen and listen to the results? Wouldn't that be more helpful than asking strangers to guess what it will sound like?




Ok fair enough. If the actual impact of the screen is something that is hard to generalize and really depends on the individual room - trial and error it is. A large screen in the front to the room is probably pretty common, so I was wondering if there are general views on that topic. 
Anyway, thanks for all the good info and ideas you provided. It is really appreciated.


----------



## 2L84U

I purchased some front height speakers that sit atop my left and right tower speakers, about 15ft away from my seating position. When I run the automatic calibration on my Onkyo receiver, it always sets the speaker distance for the front height speakers to 0.1ft. The other speakers are somewhat close to their actual distances, except the center speaker which gets set to 3ft for whatever reason.

Is this expected? Should I be manually changing the 0.1ft value to how far away they actually are? I've sampled an Atmos TV show and an Atmos movie and couldn't hear any difference. I don't know if that's because I'm listening for the wrong things or because my setup is poorly calibrated.


----------



## maikeldepotter

kbarnes701 said:


> It's a problem when you don't have an AT screen and PJ setup. The TV, especially if large, is a big reflector slap bang in the middle of the room. I guess you would just have to treat as much of the wall behind the TV as you can. Some behind the L&R speakers would help those speakers by minimizing reflections from behind them, but it may or may not help with Sanjay's point, which is to treat the front wall in order to 'capture' the reflections from all the other speakers in the room, to prevent those reflections from interfering with the direct sound. Treating my front all in the experimental Hobbit Theater made a vary big difference (as did treating the back wall) -- possibly the biggest difference (both walls combined) of all. Just do the best you can.


Lesson to remember, especially for those who believe AT screens are a no-go in their quest for best sound: Even without having speakers behind your projection screen, an AT screen can greatly improve the sound by allowing effective front wall absorption.


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> Yup, theatrical Atmos has different layout recommendations than home Atmos. The height speaker arrays don't line up with the L/R speakers but instead are aligned with the gap between the L/C/R speakers.


Interesting. 
Has anyone here a link which describes that in the conversion to home soundtracks this lateral discrepancy is accounted for and the sound is "re-mapped" for the home or would a center row placed, astute listener notice "home Atmos has an audibly wider ceiling sound than in a commercial theater", i.e. there is no remapping of the ceiling objects.


----------



## kbarnes701

westbergjoakim said:


> Yes, I know, but I haven't tried it yet (but I will). It's always good to know, in my opinion, what other people with good knowledge prefer and think, and try that
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


How much closer together are you thinking of moving them? If it's just 30cm or so, I wouldn't bother as it's nit really likely to make all that much difference to what you hear. What kind of angular separation do you currently have between the overheads and the surrounds/rear surrounds/mains? Unless it is very little, again I wouldn't go to all the trouble of moving them. If moving them is easy, then you could always try it and listen to any differences.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> Ok fair enough. If the actual impact of the screen is something that is hard to generalize and really depends on the individual room - trial and error it is. A large screen in the front to the room is probably pretty common, so I was wondering if there are general views on that topic.
> Anyway, thanks for all the good info and ideas you provided. It is really appreciated.


As Sanjay says, if you have a large, hard, TV as your display, you can't move it out of the way so it is academic really. If it worries you a lot, then you could consider a PJ and AT screen and out absorption behind the screen.


----------



## batpig

m. zillch said:


> Interesting.
> Has anyone here a link which describes that in the conversion to home soundtracks this lateral discrepancy is accounted for and the sound is "re-mapped" for the home or would a center row placed, astute listener notice "home Atmos has an audibly wide ceiling sound than in a commercial theater", i.e. there is no remapping of the ceiling objects.


The soundtrack is not "remapped". It's only a difference in the recommended placement for home vs. Atmos. I respect the reasons are some combination of (1) Dolby wanting to give people a very easy rule of thumb to follow and (2) wanting to ensure adequate stereo separation for the overhead speakers. 

Similarly, the "surrounds at ear level" recommendation is totally unlike a commercial cinema, but nothing is done to "remap" those sounds for home release. On that note, one could also argue that the lower elevation surrounds allows room for the overhead arrays to be spread wider while still maintaining angular separation from the ear level speaker layer.


----------



## m. zillch

^ If there is no remapping then this would suggest to me that for optimal movie theater recreation one should go by commercial theater guidelines, not home.

If the helicopter in the movie/test track to your left is say 25 degrees above the horizon in the movie theater that's perceptually different than it being 10 degrees above the horizon when at home.


----------



## TheCableMan

Hey everyone, I know most of you are into movies but if anyone is interested in video games I suggest you try Shadow of Tomb Raider on Xbox One S. So far I'm about an hour into the game and the atmos speakers have been engaged the entire time. Really great to be able to move and hear panning through the height channels.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> As Sanjay says, if you have a large, hard, TV as your display, you can't move it out of the way so it is academic really. If it worries you a lot, then you could consider a PJ and AT screen and out absorption behind the screen.



I am afraid multiple people have been bombarding Sanjay with different, related questions. The TV screen seems to be an acoustic reflector. The properties (in terms of diffusion, reflection, absorption,...) of a non-AT projection screen, like mine, appear to be less well understood or defined. In hindsight it probably would indeed have been better to install an AT screen with absorption behind it, as you are suggesting. 
I guess I am not the only one that is not getting all these choices right at the first attempt.


----------



## Lesmor

I must say I have never considered that a AT screen could work as some kind of crude diffuser so good shout
plus adding absorbers behind it sounds an even better idea

perhaps in another life I could give this a try but my NAT screen is hard on a wall with the speakers in the room


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> I guess I am not the only one that is not getting all these choices right at the first attempt.


I'd be amazed if _anyone _had got their HT right at the first attempt. It's more of an evolution for most people. I did years of experimenting in my old Hobbit Theater before embarking on the Cowshed Cinema. And even then, and even after using a professional installer company, I still made (a few small) modifications afterwards. But I am now in the happy position of finally being settled and just enjoying the movies. For the foreseeable at least.


----------



## kbarnes701

Lesmor said:


> I must say I have never considered that a AT screen could work as some kind of crude diffuser so good shout
> plus adding absorbers behind it sounds an even better idea
> 
> perhaps in another life I could give this a try but my NAT screen is hard on a wall with the speakers in the room


Yes, even for those whose speakers are not behind the screen, an AT screen has some merits if one is able to add some absorption behind it. Just one thing: AT screens are more expensive and it is important to choose one where the weave isn't visible from the normal viewing distance with the resolution one wants to use. HST it is a worthwhile idea to consider for the acoustic benefits of absorbing on the front wall.

My Screen Excellence 11.5 feet wide 2.39:1 ratio AT screen was about £2,000 (about $2620 USD). I suspect this was partly/mainly because the installer makes a good markup on screens and I may have been able to achieve the same result cheaper elsewhere. But as I had beaten him down mercilessly on price it seemed churlish to try to prevent him making some additional profits out of bits and pieces. He didn't supply a single item of hardware other than the Control 4 box, so he really was screwed down tight.


----------



## Demetri Zuev

Hey everyone!

I currently have 4 Atmos speakers, two of which mounted above my fronts and set up as Front Heights in my AVR. The second pair is mounted on the ceiling and set up as Top Mids. I don't like the soundstage that much and I can't hear much movement in the upper channels front to back and the other way. I want to experiment and find out the optimal place for my speakers (especially the front two), but for this I need some good Atmos movie scenes that have clear movement between all four height channels present (object flying back and forth and in other directions between all 4). I tried to find a thread like the subwoofer guys have with a list of movies that have the most bass and tests, but couldn't find anything like that for Atmos. 

Can you suggest some scenes for testing?


----------



## TheCableMan

Demetri Zuev said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I currently have 4 Atmos speakers, two of which mounted above my fronts and set up as Front Heights in my AVR. The second pair is mounted on the ceiling and set up as Top Mids. I don't like the soundstage that much and I can't hear much movement in the upper channels front to back and the other way. I want to experiment and find out the optimal place for my speakers (especially the front two), but for this I need some good Atmos movie scenes that have clear movement between all four height channels present (object flying back and forth and in other directions between all 4). I tried to find a thread like the subwoofer guys have with a list of movies that have the most bass and tests, but couldn't find anything like that for Atmos.
> 
> Can you suggest some scenes for testing?


I would suggest "A Quiet Place"


----------



## LNEWoLF

Demetri Zuev said:


> I tried to find a thread like the subwoofer guys have with a list of movies that have the most bass and tests, but couldn't find anything like that for Atmos.
> 
> Can you suggest some scenes for testing?


[email protected]@k back aprox 20-30 pages and start reading forward may result in some GREAT Atmos audio disc’s. This can be a common topic in this thread.

Also here is a thread dedicated to just that.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html

Good luck..........


----------



## kbarnes701

Demetri Zuev said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I currently have 4 Atmos speakers, two of which mounted above my fronts and set up as Front Heights in my AVR. The second pair is mounted on the ceiling and set up as Top Mids. I don't like the soundstage that much and I can't hear much movement in the upper channels front to back and the other way. I want to experiment and find out the optimal place for my speakers (especially the front two), but for this I need some good Atmos movie scenes that have clear movement between all four height channels present (object flying back and forth and in other directions between all 4). I tried to find a thread like the subwoofer guys have with a list of movies that have the most bass and tests, but couldn't find anything like that for Atmos.
> 
> Can you suggest some scenes for testing?


Download the Atmos 'helicopter' demo from Dolby. This has a helicopter circling the room and is a good way to evaluate what you are trying to discover. The original _Blade Runner_ in UHD with the Atmos remastered track has excellent front-to-back effects right at the beginning of the movie. IIRC so does the_ Blade Runner 2049_. _Gravity _(in Atmos) is another that makes good use of the overheads.


----------



## Demetri Zuev

TheCableMan said:


> I would suggest "A Quiet Place"


Thanks, I will try it, any particular scenes you can suggest?



LNEWoLF said:


> [email protected]@k back aprox 20-30 pages and start reading forward may result in some GREAT Atmos audio disc’s. This can be a common topic in this thread.
> 
> Also here is a thread dedicated to just that.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html
> 
> Good luck..........


I'll definitely go through that thread, thanks for the advice!



kbarnes701 said:


> Download the Atmos 'helicopter' demo from Dolby.


I got that one and have tried the helicopter demo, I can hear the movement in that demo with a single isolated heli sound, but when it comes to actual movies with rich mixes I'm having problems distinguishing my Front Heights from my Fronts I suppose. I have the 2049 and the original Blade Runner in 4K is arriving soon. Any particular scenes you can recommend from these two?


----------



## kbarnes701

Demetri Zuev said:


> I got that one and have tried the helicopter demo, I can hear the movement in that demo with a single isolated heli sound, but when it comes to actual movies with rich mixes I'm having problems distinguishing my Front Heights from my Fronts I suppose. I have the 2049 and the original Blade Runner in 4K is arriving soon. Any particular scenes you can recommend from these two?


If the helicopter demo is giving the effect of a helicopter circling the room above you, then you are set up properly. Dolby know best with their demos  Individual movies aren't a reliable guide unless you have heard them on a reference system because the mix is at the whim of the mixer and there is no way of knowing how it was done.

The problem you are having distinguishing the FH from the front mains is, I would bet money on, due to insufficient angular separation between the FH and the mains. I am guessing you have a fairly low ceiling. When sitting at MLP, assuming the mains are at an angle of 0 degrees, what angle would the front heights be at? If there isn't sufficient angular separation then it will be very difficult to differentiate between the FH and the mains. 

Can you not mount the forward pair of overhead speakers on the ceiling?

This diagram, which may have been posted before, shows the guideline angles:










For FH you can see that a minimum of 30 degrees is recommended, but IMO you would get a much better result closer to the 45 degrees at the other end of the range. However this would require a ceiling height greater than the average. Mounting on the ceiling usually removes this issue.


----------



## shs1234

kbarnes701 said:


> Download the Atmos 'helicopter' demo from Dolby. This has a helicopter circling the room and is a good way to evaluate what you are trying to discover. The original _Blade Runner_ in UHD with the Atmos remastered track has excellent front-to-back effects right at the beginning of the movie. IIRC so does the_ Blade Runner 2049_. _Gravity _(in Atmos) is another that makes good use of the overheads.


I can download any number of Atmos Demos from Dolby, and have, but how to play them? In the past I used my OPPO 203, but I recently purchased a Panasonic DP-UB820 because of tone mapping, and want to sell my 203 for great profit. But now I can't seem to find a way to playing those Atmos demo files. The 820 does not support lossless audio or Atmos from the USB port and my Apple TV has a similar problem. I set up a Plex server for the demo files, but the Apple TV 4K/Infuse does not support Atmos from local sources and Youtube on the ATV 4K is stereo only on those same demos. 

I really don't want to add another source as right now the ATV 4K and the 820 cover 99%+ of my needs, but I do like to show some of those demos when evaluating the system or showing it to others who want to learn about Atmos. So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?


----------



## batpig

Demetri Zuev said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I currently have 4 Atmos speakers, two of which mounted above my fronts and set up as Front Heights in my AVR. The second pair is mounted on the ceiling and set up as Top Mids. I don't like the soundstage that much and I can't hear much movement in the upper channels front to back and the other way. I want to experiment and find out the optimal place for my speakers (especially the front two), but for this I need some good Atmos movie scenes that have clear movement between all four height channels present (object flying back and forth and in other directions between all 4). I tried to find a thread like the subwoofer guys have with a list of movies that have the most bass and tests, but couldn't find anything like that for Atmos.
> 
> Can you suggest some scenes for testing?


FH+TM just isn't a great Atmos layout. If that's all you can manage due to room constraints (e.g. couch against the back wall) then you deal but if you have space behind you it's far better to do a proper front + rear layout. 

With the typical domestic height ceiling the TM speakers will just dominate the sound (being only a few feet above you) and the FH will be at too low of an elevation angle to really stand out from the front soundstage. 

I would reconfigure aiming for the ideal +/- 45deg angle if possible, but as long as you've got a pair in front and a pair behind with at least 30deg elevation you'll get a better result.


----------



## Ganymed4

Just to support batpig's recommendation: I also used a FH setup but with Top-Rears or a location behind the MLP and this worked very well for me. The flight at the beginning of BR 2049 worked nicely around me and I experienced several other 360° sound effects using this layout.
I can also recommend this layout, if your room allows for such set-up.


For Atmos tracks, the Pan movie with Hugh Jackman has also a nice Atmos track and is available on BD. Scenes to check out are at the very beginning - music score, ship flying over London, the famous arrival scene in the 'canyon' and more to the end fighting ships in Neverland.
Hope it helps.


----------



## kbarnes701

shs1234 said:


> I can download any number of Atmos Demos from Dolby, and have, but how to play them. In the past I used my OPPO 203, but I recently purchased a Panasonic DP-UB820 because of tone mapping, and want to sell my 203 for great profit. But now I can't seem to find a way to playing those Atmos demo files. The 820 does not support lossless audio or Atmos from the USB port and my Apple TV has a similar problem. I set up a Plex server for the demo files, but the Apple TV 4K/Infuse does not support Atmos from local sources and Youtube on the ATV 4K is stereo only on those same demos.
> 
> I really don't want to add another source as right now the ATV 4K and the 820 cover 99%+ of my needs, but I do like to show some of those demos when evaluating the system or showing it to others who want to learn about Atmos. So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?


I write them to a USB stick for playback on my Oppo 103. I also have the Panasonic UB900 UHD player but have never tried to use a USB stick in it. I guess, if you have a Blu-ray burner, you could write them to a physical disc. Or if not, maybe ask a buddy who has a burner to do it for you?


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> FH+TM just isn't a great Atmos layout. If that's all you can manage due to room constraints (e.g. couch against the back wall) then you deal but if you have space behind you it's far better to do a proper front + rear layout.


One way to deal is to re-designate the speakers as TF+TR, with the understanding that the couch is under the TR speakers, which would be akin to the perspective of a listener in the back row. Rather than being objectively incorrect, it comes down to how you define the TM location: is it the location that is directly above you or is it the location exactly between your two pairs of overhead speakers? If your definition is the latter, then you can designate two overhead pairs as TF+TR, irrespective of seating location.


----------



## stikle

shs1234 said:


> So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?



nVidia Shield TV. It just works and plays everything. The Plex, Kodi, & MrMC apps - they all Bitstream from local media.

I don't remember the last time I used my AppleTV 4K or Roku as a source.


----------



## Lesmor

shs1234 said:


> So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?


Zappiti One


----------



## Demetri Zuev

shs1234 said:


> I can download any number of Atmos Demos from Dolby, and have, but how to play them. In the past I used my OPPO 203, but I recently purchased a Panasonic DP-UB820 because of tone mapping, and want to sell my 203 for great profit. But now I can't seem to find a way to playing those Atmos demo files. The 820 does not support lossless audio or Atmos from the USB port and my Apple TV has a similar problem. I set up a Plex server for the demo files, but the Apple TV 4K/Infuse does not support Atmos from local sources and Youtube on the ATV 4K is stereo only on those same demos.
> 
> I really don't want to add another source as right now the ATV 4K and the 820 cover 99%+ of my needs, but I do like to show some of those demos when evaluating the system or showing it to others who want to learn about Atmos. So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?


I have a Nvidia Shield with Kodi installed and it supports as many channels as mixers intended, so I'd suggest getting a Shield, or maybe some less expensive player that Kodi can be installed on, Xiaomi has one too, but it's less powerful than Nvidia's, so I don't know if it's going to play 4K as well.


----------



## Demetri Zuev

kbarnes701 said:


> If the helicopter demo is giving the effect of a helicopter circling the room above you, then you are set up properly. Dolby know best with their demos  Individual movies aren't a reliable guide unless you have heard them on a reference system because the mix is at the whim of the mixer and there is no way of knowing how it was done.
> 
> The problem you are having distinguishing the FH from the front mains is, I would bet money on, due to insufficient angular separation between the FH and the mains. I am guessing you have a fairly low ceiling. When sitting at MLP, assuming the mains are at an angle of 0 degrees, what angle would the front heights be at? If there isn't sufficient angular separation then it will be very difficult to differentiate between the FH and the mains.
> 
> Can you not mount the forward pair of overhead speakers on the ceiling?
> 
> This diagram, which may have been posted before, shows the guideline angles:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For FH you can see that a minimum of 30 degrees is recommended, but IMO you would get a much better result closer to the 45 degrees at the other end of the range. However this would require a ceiling height greater than the average. Mounting on the ceiling usually removes this issue.


My ceiling is 8.2 feet/2.5 meters. 

I have two other issues. The first one - my couch is almost against a wall, no way around it, that's why at the beginning I opted for a two channel Atmos setup and mounted the two speakers, according to Dolby standards, slightly in front of my LP. SO I can't physically place two more speakers way behind me as Dolby suggests. I then decided to add two more and mounted them as Front Heights would be mounted. The second one is the reason I've done it like this - I live in an apartment and have metal/concrete ceilings, this means that I absolutely cannot drill them, it's just useless. Right now the two speakers that are mounted on the ceiling are mounted using superglue that holds speaker mounts glued directly to the concrete. Sounds stupid, but that's the only way I can do it with my ceilings. 

I thought that I can just add two front heights and kinda be happy with them, but it seems that I will need to mount all 4 to the ceiling. That is why I want to test properly, cause not only may I have to move the already glued ones, but I'll have to glue two more and that process in itself is just a freaking pain in the ass 

BTW, the angle of my front heights is very close if not spot on 45 degrees.


----------



## Demetri Zuev

batpig said:


> FH+TM just isn't a great Atmos layout. If that's all you can manage due to room constraints (e.g. couch against the back wall) then you deal but if you have space behind you it's far better to do a proper front + rear layout.


I can move Front Heights closer to me, mount them to the ceiling and move my current top middles to the back wall and mount them on the wall facing all the way down to my LP. My couch is almost against the wall, there are around 12cm/4.72 inches distance from the wall due to the fact that I have two speakers lying on the floor facing up that work as surround backs.



batpig said:


> With the typical domestic height ceiling the TM speakers will just dominate the sound (being only a few feet above you) and the FH will be at too low of an elevation angle to really stand out from the front soundstage.


That is exactly how I experience it!



batpig said:


> I would reconfigure aiming for the ideal +/- 45deg angle if possible, but as long as you've got a pair in front and a pair behind with at least 30deg elevation you'll get a better result.


My Front Heights are almost 45 degrees but I still have the above issues, I guess my top middles should be moved to the back wall after all.


----------



## m0j0

shs1234 said:


> I can download any number of Atmos Demos from Dolby, and have, but how to play them. In the past I used my OPPO 203, but I recently purchased a Panasonic DP-UB820 because of tone mapping, and want to sell my 203 for great profit. But now I can't seem to find a way to playing those Atmos demo files. The 820 does not support lossless audio or Atmos from the USB port and my Apple TV has a similar problem. I set up a Plex server for the demo files, but the Apple TV 4K/Infuse does not support Atmos from local sources and Youtube on the ATV 4K is stereo only on those same demos.
> 
> I really don't want to add another source as right now the ATV 4K and the 820 cover 99%+ of my needs, but I do like to show some of those demos when evaluating the system or showing it to others who want to learn about Atmos. So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?



I was in a similar situation and opted for the Nvidia Shield, which plays the demo files great!


----------



## Demetri Zuev

Ganymed4 said:


> Just to support batpig's recommendation: I also used a FH setup but with Top-Rears or a location behind the MLP and this worked very well for me. The flight at the beginning of BR 2049 worked nicely around me and I experienced several other 360° sound effects using this layout.
> I can also recommend this layout, if your room allows for such set-up.
> 
> For Atmos tracks, the Pan movie with Hugh Jackman has also a nice Atmos track and is available on BD. Scenes to check out are at the very beginning - music score, ship flying over London, the famous arrival scene in the 'canyon' and more to the end fighting ships in Neverland.
> Hope it helps.


If you're referring to the first shot of the ship flying into the screen, that is the one where I can't hear proper back to front movement in the upper channels, it all just blends.

Thanks for the advice, I'll try Pan for sure!


----------



## Demetri Zuev

sdurani said:


> One way to deal is to re-designate the speakers as TF+TR, with the understanding that the couch is under the TR speakers, which would be akin to the perspective of a listener in the back row. Rather than being objectively incorrect, it comes down to how you define the TM location: is it the location that is directly above you or is it the location exactly between your two pairs of overhead speakers? If your definition is the latter, then you can designate two overhead pairs as TF+TR, irrespective of seating location.


Top Middles are directly above me at the moment, cause I upgraded from a two channel Atmos setup and I initially mounted that two speakers according to Dolby guidelines, which are above and a little bit to the front of LP.


----------



## m0j0

Demetri Zuev said:


> I can move Front Heights closer to me, mount them to the ceiling and move my current top middles to the back wall and mount them on the wall facing all the way down to my LP. My couch is almost against the wall, there are around 12cm/4.72 inches distance from the wall due to the fact that I have two speakers lying on the floor facing up that work as surround backs.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly how I experience it!
> 
> 
> 
> My Front Heights are almost 45 degrees but I still have the above issues, I guess my top middles should be moved to the back wall after all.



I have had a similar dilemma to yours. I have front heights that I have mounted to the ceiling but angled down toward MLP, and I had top middles mounted about parallel to my listening position (which I had installed 1st with a 5.1.2 setup that I later extended out to a 5.1.4 setup once I upgraded my AVR). My couch is about 3 inches from the back wall, so pretty close to your setup. I ended up moving the top middles back about 12-14 inches all the way back to the point that they are almost touching the back wall, but still ceiling mounted and toed in so that the tweeter is aimed at the outside seating position on a 3 seater couch (same setup from both sides). I now have the setup configured as front height and rear height, but may experiment with top front and top rear at some point as well. As far as the front heights, I do have to play with the gain/levels until I get a good overall sound with good front to back and side to side panning.


As for a test disc, I have been using the opening scene from Expendables 3 as it has some good height sound going on with a helicopter.


----------



## Chirosamsung

kbarnes701 said:


> shs1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can download any number of Atmos Demos from Dolby, and have, but how to play them. In the past I used my OPPO 203, but I recently purchased a Panasonic DP-UB820 because of tone mapping, and want to sell my 203 for great profit/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif. But now I can't seem to find a way to playing those Atmos demo files. The 820 does not support lossless audio or Atmos from the USB port and my Apple TV has a similar problem. I set up a Plex server for the demo files, but the Apple TV 4K/Infuse does not support Atmos from local sources and Youtube on the ATV 4K is stereo only on those same demos.
> 
> I really don't want to add another source as right now the ATV 4K and the 820 cover 99%+ of my needs, but I do like to show some of those demos when evaluating the system or showing it to others who want to learn about Atmos. So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?
> 
> 
> 
> I write them to a USB stick for playback on my Oppo 103. I also have the Panasonic UB900 UHD player but have never tried to use a USB stick in it. I guess, if you have a Blu-ray burner, you could write them to a physical disc. Or if not, maybe ask a buddy who has a burner to do it for you?
Click to expand...

So for someone like me who has an Apple TV 4K and a Xbox one x for 4K blu Ray-there is no way to get those atmos demos to play unless I find someone to physically burn a blu Ray (no body does that anymore...).

Is there no other way without buying another input device?


----------



## rontalley

sdurani said:


> One way to deal is to re-designate the speakers as TF+TR, with the understanding that the couch is under the TR speakers, which would be akin to the perspective of a listener in the back row. Rather than being objectively incorrect, it comes down to how you define the TM location: is it the location that is directly above you or is it the location exactly between your two pairs of overhead speakers? If your definition is the latter, then you can designate two overhead pairs as TF+TR, irrespective of seating location.





Demetri Zuev said:


> Top Middles are directly above me at the moment, cause I upgraded from a two channel Atmos setup and I initially mounted that two speakers according to Dolby guidelines, which are above and a little bit to the front of LP.


I'm with @sdurani on this one. Even if the speaker are directly overhead, designating them as TR will give you more separation. Remember that TM blends TF and TR. TF+TR will give you a more noticeable effect even if the positioning is not correct. Best thing is to just move those boys to the back!


----------



## golden78

shs1234 said:


> I can download any number of Atmos Demos from Dolby, and have, but how to play them. In the past I used my OPPO 203, but I recently purchased a Panasonic DP-UB820 because of tone mapping, and want to sell my 203 for great profit. But now I can't seem to find a way to playing those Atmos demo files. The 820 does not support lossless audio or Atmos from the USB port and my Apple TV has a similar problem. I set up a Plex server for the demo files, but the Apple TV 4K/Infuse does not support Atmos from local sources and Youtube on the ATV 4K is stereo only on those same demos.
> 
> I really don't want to add another source as right now the ATV 4K and the 820 cover 99%+ of my needs, but I do like to show some of those demos when evaluating the system or showing it to others who want to learn about Atmos. So, how are people playing these Atmos demos?


they have atmos bundle in vudu if you have vudu


----------



## sdurani

Demetri Zuev said:


> Top Middles are directly above me at the moment, cause I upgraded from a two channel Atmos setup and I initially mounted that two speakers according to Dolby guidelines, which are above and a little bit to the front of LP.


Try changing their labels to Top Front and Top Rear. You won't hurt anything by doing that. Then listen to familiar material to see if the new labels give better results. If so, keep them. If not, change them back.


----------



## batpig

Chasing the designation can help a bit since the TR designation will get less content than TM and shift the balance forward slightly, but it doesn’t change the proximity issue when there are still a pair of speakers directly overhead. They still dominate the sound and make it difficult to hear the front overheads clearly. 

I know this from personal experience. I also started with a pair of TM directly overhead and no matter what I’ve done with the fronts the speakers over my head dominate the overhead sound, even if I drop their level 3-4dB. 

I’ve just been lazy about reinstalling more speakers above and behind me, but I’ve got the speakers on hand for whenever I get around to it!


----------



## sdurani

Karate Kid 35th Anniversary (boy do I feel old) 4K UHD due out mid march. According to Sony, _"brand new 4K restoration from the original camera negative"_ and _"newly created Dolby Atmos track"_. Heights on, heights off. The 4K restoration will be in theatres March 31 and April 2.


----------



## gene4ht

sdurani said:


> Karate Kid 35th Anniversary (boy do I feel old) 4K UHD due out mid march. According to Sony, _"brand new 4K restoration from the original camera negative"_ and _"newly created Dolby Atmos track"_. Heights on, heights off. The 4K restoration will be in theatres March 31 and April 2.


More interesting facts: Ralph Macchio is 57...Pat Morita died in 2005 at the age of 73.


----------



## darkleafar

*Please help me reposition my RP140SAs*

Hello everyone,
I got an answer from mr Gene4ht on a different thread, but he himself recommended I post here as well. It is always good to have more than one input on my opinion..so here we go.

Original post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1912.html#post57547474

I am looking to do the following:

*Objectives:*

Convert from 7.1.2 to 5.1.4

re position RP140sa ATMOS speakers to heights or ceiling mounted

Eventually replace Onkyo satellites (currently back surrounds) for another pair of RP140sa

First, some visuals. Here is an overall visual of the room(Warning: No make up):

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519686&d=1549146117

View from MLP


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519708&d=1549146656

Sideways view

*Relevant Info:*

ROOM MEASUREMENTS: Approx 23ft longest side, 14.7ft from tv wall to back surrounds wall.

MLP to tv distance: 5.5 ft.

MLP to back wall distance: 4ft

Here is my current setup (7.1.2):

Display - LG 65 inch OLED C7 (4k)

Receiver - Onkyo RZ1100

Fronts - Klispch RF-82IIs

Center - Klipsch RC-62II

Side Surrounds - Klispch RS-42IIs

Back Surrounds - Onkyo satellites

Subwoofeer - Klipsch R-115SW

Front ATMOS - Klipsch RP-140SAs

Cabinet - Sanus Component 100 series 27U

TV Mount - Monoprice Above Fireplace Pull-Down Full-Motion Articulating TV Wall Mount Bracket

Controls/remotes: Logitech Ultimate Home (compenents) and Amazon Echo Show 2 (lighting and voice link to logitech)

4k Blu ray - Oppo UDP - 203

Gaming - PS4 Pro (white edition) + PSVR, Wii U, Nintendo Switch

Cable - Directv Genie 2

Streaming - Apple TV 4k + Chromecast Ultra

Networking - AT&T RG + Lynksys 16 port gigabit switch + Netgear Orbi

Power - APC G5BLK AV filter + Tripp Lite Smart Pro 1500VA

*==========================================================*

Ok now a visual aid of MLP situation:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519700&d=1549146656


Referring to the picture above, marked in yellow, you will see the 3 options I have narrowed down to where my ATMOS speakers will be moved to.

In this picture, you can observe that my mains are aproximately from 25 to 30 degrees from MLP.

You can also use the beams marked in the ceiling as reference. The MLP sweet spot is within those beams.

Also, seating has been moved closer based on seating distance research I did. It was previously at 7.6ft, now it is 5.5 feet.

*ATMOS Speaker replacement*

Option 1: Lined up directly above mains, with the speakers pointing directly towards the seats (not DIRECTLY to MLP but the seats to the left and right of MLP)

Pictured:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519698&d=1549146656


Option 2: The speakers remains lined up with mains, but instead of directly above, they are moved forward. They are now ceiling mounted, but where pictured the speaker would be pointing towards the floor. Does not quite make the seats. If I move them forward more, they would be too close the where the back surrounds are located. Unless I find a way to ceiling mount and angle further towards seat...

Pictured below:


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519702&d=1549146656

Option 3: Speakers are now lined up with back surrounds instead of mains. Still ceiling mounted, equally moved away from the wall. Basically same as option 2 except moved inwards horizontally (towards center).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519704&d=1549146656


*=====================================================================*

As stated at the beginning, the back surrounds pictured below will no longer be back surrounds. They will repurposed as ATMOS back speakers. In the next month or two, I will replace them with another set of RP140SAs.

The dilemma is, if Option 1 or 2 is chosen for the fronts, that means that the fronts are lined up with the mains. According to Dolby recommendation, ATMOS front and back must be in the same vertical line, which means I would move the repurposed back speakers outwards so they are too lined up with my mains and therefore with the front ATMOS.

If option 3 is chose for the fronts, then the front ATMOS would already be lined up with the back surrounds and there would be no need to move them.

Pictured below:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519706&d=1549146656


I included as much as information as possible so that you guys are best able to advise me whether to mount the speakers as "front heights" or as actual above me ATMOS.

*Main points summary:*

-Main challenge of mounting overhead is that I have no idea how to do that, so if you have mounts in mind please recommend lol.

-Selecting Option 1 or 2 lines up the ATMOS with the fronts, but cannot decide if heights at the wall (option 1) or ceiling mounted (option 2) is best.

-Option 3 lines up the front ATMOS with back speakers current location. That means I do not have to move my current backs and just repurpose them in settings.

-However, when those Onkyos become RP140SAs, since I only got 4ft from MLP to back wall, would I be better keeping back ATMOS against the wall as heights pointing down, or should also ceiling mount? If i ceiling mount would it be best to still keep back against the wall or bring them forth?

-And finally, for those that dont happen to know, this is what the RP140sa looks like. They are designed angled to 22 degrees.



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519692&d=1549146656
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519694&d=1549146656



Thank you very much for your time! Any advise is appreciated!


----------



## darkleafar

*Also..*

Additional to my post above, if you at the pictures on my original post, you will see the location of my surrounds. Currently my RS42II surrounds are wall mounted near the ceiling line pointing down towards MLP. I was recommended that i lower them to ear level in order to improve the object positioning effect of ATMOS (so that only the ATMOS speakers are positioned high). I get the logic behind doing that, but if I remember correctly one of the main selling points of the RS series was the WDST technology that allowed you to not having to put the speakers at ear level. In fact, I seem to remember many people recommending above facing downwards.

How important is it for me to lower them? or is it possible that the WDST plus sound correction software will recreate the side sounds positioning just fine without having to lower them ?


----------



## kbarnes701

darkleafar said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> 
> Option 1: Lined up directly above mains, with the speakers pointing directly towards the seats (not DIRECTLY to MLP but the seats to the left and right of MLP)
> 
> Pictured:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519698&d=1549146656
> 
> 
> Option 2: The speakers remains lined up with mains, but instead of directly above, they are moved forward. They are now ceiling mounted, but where pictured the speaker would be pointing towards the floor. Does not quite make the seats. If I move them forward more, they would be too close the where the back surrounds are located. Unless I find a way to ceiling mount and angle further towards seat...
> 
> Pictured below:
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519702&d=1549146656
> 
> Option 3: Speakers are now lined up with back surrounds instead of mains. Still ceiling mounted, equally moved away from the wall. Basically same as option 2 except moved inwards horizontally (towards center).
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2519704&d=1549146656


I think you are overthinking it._ Dolby has repeatedly said that it is difficult to get Atmos wrong_. Their guidelines are just that - guidelines, not rules set in stone.



The best solution is to put 4 physical speakers on the ceiling. 
Arrange them so that they adhere as closely as you can to the diagram I posted on the thread page before this one. 
Make sure you have the maximum angular separation possible from any other (floor level) speaker. 
In your room, obviously do not position speakers such that the beams will interfere with their line of sight to MLP. 
Have two speakers in front of you and, if possible, two speakers behind you. 
If you cannot physically arrange the latter, put two speakers slightly behind you, above you or slightly in front of you. 
Designate the speakers in your AVR as TF+TR regardless of their physical position on the ceiling. 
If you can, aim the speakers towards MLP (or to the left and right seats criss-cross if you want to energy trade). 
If you have very wide dispersion speakers you can aim them down to the floor, but aiming towards MLP is always the best plan, as with all your 
other speakers, for all time.
Don't obsess with placing the speakers to the exact millimeter- it isn't necessary, any more than it is with the other speakers in the room.
 If you follow the guidelines and thew diagram as closely as you can, I guarantee you will get a great Atmos result. 
If you have to compromise, well that is the nature of HT for most people but you will still get a good Atmos result.

That's it. You will then be good to go. And always remember the golden rule: some Atmos is always better than no Atmos. Enjoy!


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Chirosamsung said:


> So for someone like me who has an Apple TV 4K and a Xbox one x for 4K blu Ray-there is no way to get those atmos demos to play unless I find someone to physically burn a blu Ray (no body does that anymore...).
> 
> Is there no other way without buying another input device?


You can use a computer


----------



## T-Bone

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for someone like me who has an Apple TV 4K and a Xbox one x for 4K blu Ray-there is no way to get those atmos demos to play unless I find someone to physically burn a blu Ray (no body does that anymore...).
> 
> Is there no other way without buying another input device?
> 
> 
> 
> You can use a computer /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

^^^^ Indeed. 

I drive my system with an htpc and Xbox one s... PCs play everything 🙂

-T


----------



## Chirosamsung

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for someone like me who has an Apple TV 4K and a Xbox one x for 4K blu Ray-there is no way to get those atmos demos to play unless I find someone to physically burn a blu Ray (no body does that anymore...).
> 
> Is there no other way without buying another input device?
> 
> 
> 
> You can use a computer /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Basically, I can put my Mac mini beside my tv and use the HDMI input into the NAD? Would that work? 

I really want to play these demos but don’t want to spend $229 CAN on a NVIDEO Shield when I already have an Xbox 1 X and Apple TV 4K

Would a Mac mini hooked up to my SonyZ9D and NAD work and if so what would I do for connections please and thank you


----------



## darkleafar

kbarnes701 said:


> I think you are overthinking it._ Dolby has repeatedly said that it is difficult to get Atmos wrong_. Their guidelines are just that - guidelines, not rules set in stone.
> 
> 
> 
> The best solution is to put 4 physical speakers on the ceiling.
> Arrange them so that they adhere as closely as you can to the diagram I posted on the thread page before this one.
> Make sure you have the maximum angular separation possible from any other (floor level) speaker.
> In your room, obviously do not position speakers such that the beams will interfere with their line of sight to MLP.
> Have two speakers in front of you and, if possible, two speakers behind you.
> If you cannot physically arrange the latter, put two speakers slightly behind you, above you or slightly in front of you.
> Designate the speakers in your AVR as TF+TR regardless of their physical position on the ceiling.
> If you can, aim the speakers towards MLP (or to the left and right seats criss-cross if you want to energy trade).
> If you have very wide dispersion speakers you can aim them down to the floor, but aiming towards MLP is always the best plan, as with all your
> other speakers, for all time.
> Don't obsess with placing the speakers to the exact millimeter- it isn't necessary, any more than it is with the other speakers in the room.
> If you follow the guidelines and thew diagram as closely as you can, I guarantee you will get a great Atmos result.
> If you have to compromise, well that is the nature of HT for most people but you will still get a good Atmos result.
> 
> That's it. You will then be good to go. And always remember the golden rule: some Atmos is always better than no Atmos. Enjoy!


Thank you for the advise. Based on my ceiling configuration, I just do not think in ceilings are ideal... There is a room above me and would be difficult to run wiring in between, not to mentioned it is coffered. I am leaning towards getting a second set of RP140SAs and placing the front ones as front heights and the new set as Rear heights. I am going the get mounts that allow me to angle them towards the mlp as much as possible. My ceilings are right about 8 feet tall , so shouldnt be terrible

I was searching through this thread to understand this better but I am still confused. How am i going to set these once they are mounted up? Should I tell the receiver they are TF and TR or FH and RH? which setting gets the most ATMOS content sent to it?


----------



## darkleafar

*mount for 140sa*

now that i have decided to mount the 140sa as heights front and back, i need a sturdy mount that is compatible with the keyhole on these and that allows me to tilt them down reasonably towards MLP. I have a few things on Amazon but most of them do not seem quite capable of supporting the 7.5 pounds of these according to reviews.
These seem flimsy https://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Un...W5G69Q6B2VX&psc=1&refRID=3BY84KNPWW5G69Q6B2VX
and i wanted the metal bar to be longer so that I am able to tilt down further...

I also found these https://www.monoprice.com/Product?c...7105&cjevent=195a8c5229e811e98014010e0a1c0e14 but since I am not in any way handy with tools I am not understanding how people are mounting these to keyhole (I found some other threads that mentioned that but I am confused)

Thanks for any advice


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Chirosamsung said:


> Basically, I can put my Mac mini beside my tv and use the HDMI input into the NAD? Would that work?
> 
> I really want to play these demos but don’t want to spend $229 CAN on a NVIDEO Shield when I already have an Xbox 1 X and Apple TV 4K
> 
> Would a Mac mini hooked up to my SonyZ9D and NAD work and if so what would I do for connections please and thank you


I don't know about Mac, but I guess it should. As long as you can set your player to output the audio as bitstream.


----------



## kbarnes701

darkleafar said:


> Thank you for the advise. Based on my ceiling configuration, I just do not think in ceilings are ideal... There is a room above me and would be difficult to run wiring in between, not to mentioned it is coffered. I am leaning towards getting a second set of RP140SAs and placing the front ones as front heights and the new set as Rear heights. I am going the get mounts that allow me to angle them towards the mlp as much as possible. My ceilings are right about 8 feet tall , so shouldnt be terrible
> 
> I was searching through this thread to understand this better but I am still confused. How am i going to set these once they are mounted up? Should I tell the receiver they are TF and TR or FH and RH? which setting gets the most ATMOS content sent to it?


No problem. HT is all about the art of the possible. Use FH+RH and you will still get a reasonable result, but bear in mind that the FH speakers will be above and in front of you and not over your head, so this will impact on the final sound you hear. Nonetheless it is an 'official' Atmos configuration. I would set them as FH and RH and have a listen to some good Atmos material. Then try them as TF+TR in the AVR and see which you prefer. There is no right and wrong to it. Good luck!


----------



## Rolandasva

Hello.I wanted to add two front hight speakers to denon avr x1400h receiver,but when i turn on 2 additional channels in amp assign and select them as front hight ,volume level drops down and i need to increase volume.It is normal?Thanks.


----------



## Rolandasva

I mean when i use 5 channels let say volume is 40 and connect 2 channels more ,volume drops dawn and i need to increase volume till 60 to get same sound level like was in 5 channels setup.


----------



## GLBright

darkleafar said:


> now that i have decided to mount the 140sa as heights front and back, i need a sturdy mount that is compatible with the keyhole on these and that allows me to tilt them down reasonably towards MLP. I have a few things on Amazon but most of them do not seem quite capable of supporting the 7.5 pounds of these according to reviews.
> These seem flimsy https://www.amazon.com/VideoSecu-Un...W5G69Q6B2VX&psc=1&refRID=3BY84KNPWW5G69Q6B2VX
> and i wanted the metal bar to be longer so that I am able to tilt down further...Thanks for any advice


Those are the ones I use. They support My Infinity Primus 140s (7 lbs.) very well. These speakers have mounting holes on the back so the mount rods screw directly into them. Their center of gravity is such that they hang at the proper angle to aim right at the main listening position. Got lucky I guess. Hope you find what you need.


----------



## gene4ht

Rolandasva said:


> Hello.I wanted to add two front hight speakers to denon avr x1400h receiver,but when i turn on 2 additional channels in amp assign and select them as front hight ,volume level drops down and i need to increase volume.*It is normal?*Thanks.





Rolandasva said:


> I mean when i use 5 channels let say volume is 40 and connect 2 channels more ,volume drops dawn and i need to increase volume till 60 to get same sound level like was in 5 channels setup.


Doesn't seem normal to me...but you may be better served with more informed responses by posting your question in the Official Denon X1400H thread...

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...eries-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-posts-1-8-a.html


----------



## shs1234

G4n0nD0rf said:


> I don't know about Mac, but I guess it should. As long as you can set your player to output the audio as bitstream.


I had doubts about the ability to play the Atmos demo files on from my Mac and output them to my ATV 4K via AirPlay, as my experience with REW is that it only recognizes 7.1 and not the Atmos channels. But that was over HDMI, not AirPlay and if the audio output is bitstream, well then maybe... I can now report some success in getting the Atmos demos to play properly from my late 2013 MacBook Pro, at least the mp4 files. 

My first attempt was Nature's Fury which is an mkv file. It brought up an unknown to me video player, VLC when I tried to play it on my Mac. Using AirPlay to my ATV 4K the best I could get was a distorted 2 channel output. No joy. 

Fortunately I had better luck with the MP4 Atmos demo files with the Quicktime player and Airplay. At first I only got 2 channel audio out, and then after messing with the audio setting, my Anthem pre/pro indicated Atmos, but the sound was nothing but buzzing. I quit and tried again and this time i got what seemed to be a good Atmos feed to the pre/pro. It sounded fine!

This is good news! Now if I can find another player for the MKV files, try some other settings, perhaps convert them to mp4 or find mp4 versions of some of the other demos, I'll be happy.


----------



## darkleafar

GLBright said:


> Those are the ones I use. They support My Infinity Primus 140s (7 lbs.) very well. These speakers have mounting holes on the back so the mount rods screw directly into them. Their center of gravity is such that they hang at the proper angle to aim right at the main listening position. Got lucky I guess. Hope you find what you need.


Is their angled Tilt being supported by the bottom part of the speaker leaning against your wall, or are they floating and being kept angles entirely by the mount? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## GLBright

darkleafar said:


> Is their angled Tilt being supported by the bottom part of the speaker leaning against your wall, or are they floating and being kept angles entirely by the mount?


They are floating.The entire weight of speakers is on the mounts. No part of the speakers touches the ceiling. So the rod is angled somewhat. They hang that way naturally. The speakers are mounted laterally across the room w/ the tweeters closest to the mid-line and the woofers on the outside, closer to the side walls.


----------



## blb1215

*Converting 7.1 to 5.1.4 / 7.1.4?*

I posted this question in speaker forum but I believe it might be better asked here as well. I am planning on converting my 7.1 speaker set-up to atmos 5.1.4 or possible 7.1.4

My current speakers are Infinity Beta 50s, C360, and 4 ES250s in 7.1 set up. I have Denon 4500H receiver. I would need to add an amp to get to 7.1.4.

My questions and options I am considering are:
1. The ES250 are selectable between mono, bi-pole, or di-pole. I am considering using all 4 as on-ceiling atmos in mono mode. The speakers are angled 45 degrees and would be mounted sideways to aim the mono side at listening position. These speakers are designed for wall mount but not for ceiling mount but I think it should be possible. They weigh about 13 lbs each. I am a little concerned as how secure they would be using smallish bracket made into the speaker. They will be mounted on flat sheet rock ceiling. Any suggestions on bracket or mounting options and if this would be a good choice? 

In this option I would need to by a pair of bookshelf speakers for surround. Possible a used pair of Beta 20s if I can find. I could then add back surrounds when or if I decide to go to 7.1.4. If I am unable to find Betas, what would be a good choice that would match well with Betas?

2. My other option is use the ES 250s are they are currently as side surround and rear surrounds and add 2 or 4 atmos speakers. I believe in or on-ceiling are preferred for best results. I would have option to start with 2 atmos without adding external amp and then adding 2 additional atmos speaker and amp later. If I go this option, what ceiling speakers would match well with Betas? 

Room is 16 x 12 with 8' ceiling.


Any thoughts or suggestions?


Thanks in advance..


----------



## Xyrric

Hi All,

Someone else in need of advice, and reassurance that he's not about to overlook something.

My current setup is 7.1 but the side surrounds are mounted at ceiling height on the side walls angled to point down toward the MLP. The rear speakers are floor standing speakers that originally a long time ago were my fronts. The side surrounds are bookshelf speakers mounted on brackets and were mounted high because of space issues as you enter the room.

Now I want to go for an atmos setup and have sought the advice of two separate custom installers. They both seem very knowledgeable and their proposals seem to have merit in that they fall within the dolby guidelines but they have different approaches that are leaving me unsure which way to turn.

Also the room is a little problematical in that it is narrower at the end with the seating than the screen. This means that the front left and front right are wider apart than the rear left and rear right speakers. Originally the FL and FR were behind the AT screen and not as wide apart as they are now but when they were moved outside the screen and angled in so that lasers mounted on the speakers cross 50cm behind the MLP, sound quality made a definite improvement so that's where I have them placed now. So one compromise is that the atmos speakers will not be in line, front to rear with the front and rear speakers. 

The first diagram attached shows a plan view of the room with points marked for atmos speakers at 30 degrees (yellow), 45 and 135 degrees (blue) and 55 and 125 degrees (red). The room is 5.1m wide at the screen end and 4.2m wide at the seating end. The ceiling height is 2.3m. The distance from the MLP to the LCR is 3.8m while the distance to the rear is 1.35m

To achieve the correct separation between the floor layer and height layer the high mounted surrounds obviously have to go. Both installers have suggested replacing the sides and the rears. In principle i'm not against this as the rears are definitely not being used to their full potential as rears and can be moved to another room in a 2 channel setup. Here is where the first point of difference arises between the two installers I have had look at the project. One prefers four matching direct radiating speakers while the other is suggesting four matching tripoles speakers. The diagram I have attached has the four tripoles mocked up at 90 degrees and 150 degrees relative to the MLP. I don't have any experience of tripoles but the contractor who is suggesting them is very big on creating a "bubble of sound" around the MLP.

I would appreciate any comments from people familiar with tripoles in this kind of setup.

As for the atmos speakers both contractors are in agreement that they should be as far apart as practical given the limitation on width caused by the top right rear position. However they have different philosophies about front to rear positioning. The first contractor favours the blue positions (elevation of 45 and 135 degrees). This obviously is in the middle of the angle range suggested by dolby although the top rears are very near the rear wall.

The second contractor as well as recommending the tripoles, wants to "fill in" the gap between the MLP and the LCR speakers and so is recommending that the top fronts be midway between the MLP and LCR. This is the green marked positions on the diagram which are at an elevation of 34 degrees. As for the top rears he recommends the 125 degree elevation red position. In summary his positions are within the range of dolby recommended angles but are not symmetrical about the MLP front to rear as the first proposal is. He recommends this position for the rear atmos speakers to achieve better front to rear separation distance between the top rears and rear surrounds.

The second diagram shows the angles of the various atmos positions from a side on view,

Thoughts on any of the above would be welcome.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## GLBright

blb1215 said:


> My current speakers are Infinity Beta 50s, C360, and 4 ES250s in 7.1 set up. The ES250 are selectable between mono, bi-pole, or di-pole. I am considering using all 4 as on-ceiling atmos in mono mode. The speakers are angled 45 degrees and would be mounted sideways to aim the mono side at listening position. In this option I would need to by a pair of bookshelf speakers for surround. Possible a used pair of Beta 20s if I can find. I could then add back surrounds when or if I decide to go to 7.1.4. If I am unable to find Betas, what would be a good choice that would match well with Betas? My other option is use the ES 250s are they are currently as side surround and rear surrounds and add 2 or 4 atmos speakers. I believe in or on-ceiling are preferred for best results. I would have option to  start with 2 atmos without adding external amp and then adding 2 additional atmos speaker and amp later. If I go this option, what ceiling speakers would match well with Betas?


Even in mono mode I would not use the ES250s as height speakers. There won't be a way to aim them properly, and they work really well the way you're using them. Plus the complexity and weight are factors. I use Infinity Primus 140s as my height speakers. They match up very well with my Infinity IL60 mains, not that it's that critical. I used them because I had them on hand. I expect them to work well for you. And they're only 7 lbs. But they're only available used.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

kbarnes701 said:


> I would set them as FH and RH and have a listen to some good Atmos material. Then try them as TF+TR in the AVR and see which you prefer. There is no right and wrong to it. Good luck!


If one was in the mood for tinkering and tried a config change like that, would it affect the current Audyssey settings for either switching initially or switching back?

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

shs1234 said:


> G4n0nD0rf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about Mac, but I guess it should. As long as you can set your player to output the audio as bitstream.
> 
> 
> 
> I had doubts about the ability to play the Atmos demo files on from my Mac and output them to my ATV 4K via AirPlay, as my experience with REW is that it only recognizes 7.1 and not the Atmos channels. But that was over HDMI, not AirPlay and if the audio output is bitstream, well then maybe... I can now report some success in getting the Atmos demos to play properly from my late 2013 MacBook Pro, at least the mp4 files.
> 
> My first attempt was Nature's Fury which is an mkv file. It brought up an unknown to me video player, VLC when I tried to play it on my Mac. Using AirPlay to my ATV 4K the best I could get was a distorted 2 channel output. No joy.
> 
> Fortunately I had better luck with the MP4 Atmos demo files with the Quicktime player and Airplay. At first I only got 2 channel audio out, and then after messing with the audio setting, my Anthem pre/pro indicated Atmos, but the sound was nothing but buzzing. I quit and tried again and this time i got what seemed to be a good Atmos feed to the pre/pro. It sounded fine!
> 
> This is good news! Now if I can find another player for the MKV files, try some other settings, perhaps convert them to mp4 or find mp4 versions of some of the other demos, I'll be happy.
Click to expand...

This sounds promising-does anyone else have experience or success using a Mac and /or an Apple TV 4K with or without airplay to play the atmos files? (My receiver is a NaD 758 btw, so I hope it’s similar to anthem for this to work)


----------



## mdcubsfan

Looking into Atmos speakers and set up and wanted to see if I could get some pointers. 
Right now in my movie room I have 5.1 setup with Denon 2400 and Klipsch speakers 

RF-82 tower speakers
RS-52 surround speakers
RC-62 center speaker
SW-310 subwoofer

I've included some thumbnails of my movie room, which is I know completely acoustically suboptimal and visually unpleasing, but it's what I have to work with. We have a long room, and have made one half a movie theater, and on the other side, a kids play area (ping pong table, game area). There is no divider (so I know that messes up sound as it's not enclosed), and I've included a (crudely to scale) schematic of the room itself. With all that in mind....

With the Denon 2400 I know I can only add 2 speakers to make it a 5.1.2 setup. 

Should I go for 2 atmos speakers that sit on the top of my front towers (like Klipsch 140 RP-140SA) which would be easy to install but not sure how they'd work in this kind of room and on this kind of uneven ceiling?

Or do I go for 2 in-ceiling speakers (which I'd have to have someone install - there is attic all around this room and would cost ~$250 for the install), and if so, where should I position them in the room and any suggestions for which ones? I don't want to spend a ton of money, but I want decent speakers that would make it worth my time and $ to buy/install/enjoy.

Thanks so much in advance! I've already learned so much in the past few days just from many of the threads and messages I've been looking over!


----------



## pasender91

Given the shape of your ceiling i would say no to both the options you are mentioning.

I believe the way to go is to get 2 Klipsch RP-140SA (as they will fit well with the rest of the install) and install them at the top of the front wall.
They are already angled 22° down , so they should aim towards your listening position.
This position is called Front Height in Atmos, and it is the best compromise for your room. Plus, there is no need for heavy work or drilling


----------



## erwinfrombelgium

Dolby added 11.1.8 and alternative 9.1.6 layouts in their guidelines. These now use Front and Rear Heights together with Top speakers.

Anyone try this? I know folks tried FH/RH as an alternative to TF/TR (preferring the latter) but never together AFAIK? Thoughts?

I have TF/TM/TR in my layout (have to build these yet as the Dutch supplier I ordered some parts from failed to fulfill the order) and I would consider adding Front Height (hence 9.4.8) but would probably not give up TM to do so. TF/TM/TR are in perfect vertical position around 45°, 90° and 135° elevation. Front Height would be around 22° elevation.


----------



## kbarnes701

JosephTonyStark said:


> If one was in the mood for tinkering and tried a config change like that, would it affect the current Audyssey settings for either switching initially or switching back?
> 
> Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


If you change the speaker configuration in the AVR, Audyssey will disable itself. It has to do this because it 'believes' you have changed the physical location of the speakers even if all you are actually doing is changing the designated names. So this will leave you without an Audyssey calibration and thus make comparisons between the two different designations impossible (unless you also turn Audyssey off for the regular designation -- the one you were using when you calibrated).


When I used Audyssey, what I did was disable it entirely for the comparison and also disable my floor level speakers as part of the comparison routine (as well as enabling them for other listening tests). The lack of Audyssey on the overheads didn't seem to matter so much. TBH I found the differences between the different designations was fairly marginal. Physically relocating the speakers is where the big audible differences come in.

EDIT: the good news is that when you go back to the original designations, Audyssey re-enables itself. You don't need to run the cal again.


----------



## blb1215

GLBright said:


> Even in mono mode I would not use the ES250s as height speakers. There won't be a way to aim them properly, and they work really well the way you're using them. Plus the complexity and weight are factors. I use Infinity Primus 140s as my height speakers. They match up very well with my Infinity IL60 mains, not that it's that critical. I used them because I had them on hand. I expect them to work well for you. And they're only 7 lbs. But they're only available used.


Thanks for the input and suggestion on the primus speaker , GLBright.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Atmos demo on Apple TV 4K with infuse*

Wouldn’t infuse on the Apple TV 4K allow the atmos demos to play? There has to be a way an Apple TV can get the demos onto a receiver like a NAD 758 to test out a atmos system with these files...


----------



## usc1995

Chirosamsung said:


> Wouldn’t infuse on the Apple TV 4K allow the atmos demos to play? There has to be a way an Apple TV can get the demos onto a receiver like a NAD 758 to test out a atmos system with these files...




The Apple TV does not bitstream anything, it decodes all of the codecs to PCM internally, so it cannot bitstream the Atmos info from the demos. Atmos on the Apple TV works over Dolby MAT which is just Atmos metadata on top of the PCM that the Apple TV outputs. Unless you can find the demos in Dolby MAT it won’t be able to send the Atmos info to your receiver for playback. Currently I have only seen the demos available in Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus which the Apple TV won’t bitstream. To playback the demos you need a computer that can correctly bitstream, a BD player that will bitstream or a set top box like the Zidoo that can do it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mdcubsfan

pasender91 said:


> Given the shape of your ceiling i would say no to both the options you are mentioning.
> 
> I believe the way to go is to get 2 Klipsch RP-140SA (as they will fit well with the rest of the install) and install them at the top of the front wall.
> They are already angled 22° down , so they should aim towards your listening position.
> This position is called Front Height in Atmos, and it is the best compromise for your room. Plus, there is no need for heavy work or drilling



Hi pasender - wasn't sure if your response was to my post but I'm thinking it is? 

It's probably hard to see from my pictures but the screen is in front of a few cabinets. Would you recommend putting those 140SA above the cabinets? (would be recessed a few feet from the screen, in the area where we have the Star Wars helmets?)

And do you think this setup might work better than overhead in ceiling speakers? Thanks!




My original postdon't quite know how to navigate posting with multiple messages and quotes)

Looking into Atmos speakers and set up and wanted to see if I could get some pointers. 
Right now in my movie room I have 5.1 setup with Denon 2400 and Klipsch speakers 

RF-82 tower speakers
RS-52 surround speakers
RC-62 center speaker
SW-310 subwoofer

I've included some thumbnails of my movie room, which is I know completely acoustically suboptimal and visually unpleasing, but it's what I have to work with. We have a long room, and have made one half a movie theater, and on the other side, a kids play area (ping pong table, game area). There is no divider (so I know that messes up sound as it's not enclosed), and I've included a (crudely to scale) schematic of the room itself. With all that in mind....

With the Denon 2400 I know I can only add 2 speakers to make it a 5.1.2 setup. 

Should I go for 2 atmos speakers that sit on the top of my front towers (like Klipsch 140 RP-140SA) which would be easy to install but not sure how they'd work in this kind of room and on this kind of uneven ceiling?

Or do I go for 2 in-ceiling speakers (which I'd have to have someone install - there is attic all around this room and would cost ~$250 for the install), and if so, where should I position them in the room and any suggestions for which ones? I don't want to spend a ton of money, but I want decent speakers that would make it worth my time and $ to buy/install/enjoy.

Thanks so much in advance! I've already learned so much in the past few days just from many of the threads and messages I've been looking over!


----------



## Chirosamsung

usc1995 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t infuse on the Apple TV 4K allow the atmos demos to play? There has to be a way an Apple TV can get the demos onto a receiver like a NAD 758 to test out a atmos system with these files...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Apple TV does not bitstream anything, it decodes all of the codecs to PCM internally, so it cannot bitstream the Atmos info from the demos. Atmos on the Apple TV works over Dolby MAT which is just Atmos metadata on top of the PCM that the Apple TV outputs. Unless you can find the demos in Dolby MAT it won’t be able to send the Atmos info to your receiver for playback. Currently I have only seen the demos available in Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus which the Apple TV won’t bitstream. To playback the demos you need a computer that can correctly bitstream, a BD player that will bitstream or a set top box like the Zidoo that can do it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Someone said earlier that he had success using the AirPlay with the Apple TV for getting the atmos demos-can anyone else confirm this??


----------



## shs1234

Chirosamsung said:


> Someone said earlier that he had success using the AirPlay with the Apple TV for getting the atmos demos-can anyone else confirm this??


That was my report and I can add a bit more to that now. What I did get working was the Atmos demo files that were mp4. They would play with the Quicktime player and Airplay and my pre/pro indicated Atmos. That worked. What was not working with that combo were the mkv files that contain the lossless Atmos audio, and which are obviously the best demo material.

I have now tried 4 other players on my Mac, VLC, MPlayerX, 5KPlayer and Elmedia Player and using Airplay I only get stereo or 2-channel audio when trying to play the mkv files and Airplay. I did try MPlayerX with HDMI and got Multichannel PCM (not Atmos) but the channel mapping seemed very messed up. I need to try that again. 

Most, if not all of these players have a send bitstream audio option, but it seems clear now that the ATV 4K will not stream local lossless Atmos no matter which player I use or how it gets it. It still seems likely that that same limitation should not exist via an HDMI connection direct to a pre/pro that can accept and decode a bitstream that includes the lossless audio including the Atmos "sprinkles". Need to find time for a few more tests via HDMI!


----------



## batpig

On the topic.... I just got an ATV 4K a couple of weeks ago since it has the broadest support for Atmos via streaming apps (Netflix, iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc).

I had been holding off on watching some shows like "The Punisher" on Netflix waiting to get access to the Atmos audio. I ended up binging season 1 and I am happy to report that the Atmos audio on this show is really good, and it is NOT some gimped "channel print out" version of Atmos. I have a 9.1.4 setup with my Denon X8500H and the Front Wide speakers were surprisingly active with this show, there is a lot of aggressive panning (e.g. cars zooming off screen) which pass directly from the screen channels to the wides as the action moves off screen. 

A pleasant surprise when the same cannot be said for some big blockbuster action movies on Blu-ray! It's quite annoying (first world problems I know) when you hear something pan laterally from the screen channels to the surrounds and it totally skips the FW speaker :/

I also did a quick check of an active scene in Daredevil season 3 and still plenty of activity with ambient sounds and musical score pulled out into the wides.


----------



## asarose247

'Tis a puzzlement

a curious FYI and WFT?

It's 5.2.4. with a Denon x5200 and sony X700( new)

Using the 2015 Dolby ATMOS demo disc , (copy)testing 5.2.4 the base 5 check in and so do the rest ,
the helio demo, sounds just fine as do all the others

the AVR plays the SS as . . .SS.

2016 disc . . (copy) 
testing 5.2.4, it plays the SS from the FL/FR, but gets everything else right.

Testing (because I can) 7.2.4, plays the SS as RS, no SS played
The helio demo spot on . .

ATMOS movies, play just fine, plenty of sound /movement / separation in 100 ft^2

it's good to have resources and depth . .

looking for another demo disc, just to cross reference . 

TY to the heavy lifters here, for 4+ yrs of ATMOS, SCATMOS, DTS and beyond(?)


----------



## Matt L

batpig said:


> On the topic.... I just got an ATV 4K a couple of weeks ago since it has the broadest support for Atmos via streaming apps (Netflix, iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc).
> 
> I had been holding off on watching some shows like "The Punisher" on Netflix waiting to get access to the Atmos audio. I ended up binging season 1 and I am happy to report that the Atmos audio on this show is really good, and it is NOT some gimped "channel print out" version of Atmos. I have a 9.1.4 setup with my Denon X8500H and the Front Wide speakers were surprisingly active with this show, there is a lot of aggressive panning (e.g. cars zooming off screen) which pass directly from the screen channels to the wides as the action moves off screen.
> 
> A pleasant surprise when the same cannot be said for some big blockbuster action movies on Blu-ray! It's quite annoying (first world problems I know) when you hear something pan laterally from the screen channels to the surrounds and it totally skips the FW speaker :/
> 
> I also did a quick check of an active scene in Daredevil season 3 and still plenty of activity with ambient sounds and musical score pulled out into the wides.


Just curious, how did you get the Atmos feed from NF? X-box? NF claims they will update their various apps this spring to roll Atmos out further but I bet it will be while.

I wish I could get my Wides to work with Atmos, got the Marantz SR-7010 because it supports wides but have not found a way to get .4 with wides running too.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> On the topic.... I just got an ATV 4K a couple of weeks ago since it has the broadest support for Atmos via streaming apps (Netflix, iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc).
> 
> I had been holding off on watching some shows like "The Punisher" on Netflix waiting to get access to the Atmos audio. I ended up binging season 1 and I am happy to report that the Atmos audio on this show is really good, and it is NOT some gimped "channel print out" version of Atmos. I have a 9.1.4 setup with my Denon X8500H and the Front Wide speakers were surprisingly active with this show, there is a lot of aggressive panning (e.g. cars zooming off screen) which pass directly from the screen channels to the wides as the action moves off screen.
> 
> A pleasant surprise when the same cannot be said for some big blockbuster action movies on Blu-ray! It's quite annoying (first world problems I know) when you hear something pan laterally from the screen channels to the surrounds and it totally skips the FW speaker :/
> 
> I also did a quick check of an active scene in Daredevil season 3 and still plenty of activity with ambient sounds and musical score pulled out into the wides.


I have to admit I haven't tried this yet, but if you have an HTPC connected with Windows 10 installed, I had thought you could bitstream Netflix from the Premium tier with UHD/Atmos enabled to your processor of choice, assuming you're connected to an HDMI input with HDCP 2.2 compatibility. I have a Roku but it doesn't support Atmos for Netflix, as you know, so my HTPC is the next source of choice for this. Trying to stay away from the ATV 4K due to some problems I'm reading about with the MDS HDMI board in my processor and ATV, as well as Lumagen Radiance Pros, for that matter.


----------



## Chirosamsung

usc1995 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t infuse on the Apple TV 4K allow the atmos demos to play? There has to be a way an Apple TV can get the demos onto a receiver like a NAD 758 to test out a atmos system with these files...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Apple TV does not bitstream anything, it decodes all of the codecs to PCM internally, so it cannot bitstream the Atmos info from the demos. Atmos on the Apple TV works over Dolby MAT which is just Atmos metadata on top of the PCM that the Apple TV outputs. Unless you can find the demos in Dolby MAT it won’t be able to send the Atmos info to your receiver for playback. Currently I have only seen the demos available in Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus which the Apple TV won’t bitstream. To playback the demos you need a computer that can correctly bitstream, a BD player that will bitstream or a set top box like the Zidoo that can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have an x box one x....wouldn’t that bitstream and therefore bit stream the atmos?


----------



## Chirosamsung

shs1234 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone said earlier that he had success using the AirPlay with the Apple TV for getting the atmos demos-can anyone else confirm this??
> 
> 
> 
> That was my report and I can add a bit more to that now. What I did get working was the Atmos demo files that were mp4. They would play with the Quicktime player and Airplay and my pre/pro indicated Atmos. That worked. What was not working with that combo were the mkv files that contain the lossless Atmos audio, and which are obviously the best demo material.
> 
> I have now tried 4 other players on my Mac, VLC, MPlayerX, 5KPlayer and Elmedia Player and using Airplay I only get stereo or 2-channel audio when trying to play the mkv files and Airplay. I did try MPlayerX with HDMI and got Multichannel PCM (not Atmos) but the channel mapping seemed very messed up. I need to try that again.
> 
> Most, if not all of these players have a send bitstream audio option, but it seems clear now that the ATV 4K will not stream local lossless Atmos no matter which player I use or how it gets it. It still seems likely that that same limitation should not exist via an HDMI connection direct to a pre/pro that can accept and decode a bitstream that includes the lossless audio including the Atmos "sprinkles". Need to find time for a few more tests via HDMI!
Click to expand...

How about if I just plugged my Mac mini into my receiver (NAD 758) through the same HDMI cable I would use from the Mac to the Monitor...would that work to play the all the demo files through QuickTime or something?


----------



## shs1234

Chirosamsung said:


> How about if I just plugged my Mac mini into my receiver (NAD 758) through the same HDMI cable I would use from the Mac to the Monitor...would that work to play the all the demo files through QuickTime or something?


So far I have been able to get Multi-channel PCM via HDMI, but not Atmos using the various apps on my Mac laptop.


----------



## rekbones

sdrucker said:


> I have to admit I haven't tried this yet, but if you have an HTPC connected with Windows 10 installed, I had thought you could bitstream Netflix from the Premium tier with UHD/Atmos enabled to your processor of choice, assuming you're connected to an HDMI input with HDCP 2.2 compatibility. I have a Roku but it doesn't support Atmos for Netflix, as you know, so my HTPC is the next source of choice for this. Trying to stay away from the ATV 4K due to some problems I'm reading about with the MDS HDMI board in my processor and ATV, as well as Lumagen Radiance Pros, for that matter.


I can confirm Netflix w/atmos plays just fine on my Win10 HTPC with the UHD premium package and you don't need HDCP 2.2 as it works fine on my Marantz 7009.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Matt L said:


> I wish I could get my Wides to work with Atmos, got the Marantz SR-7010 because it supports wides but have not found a way to get .4 with wides running too.


You can't. It can only process 11 channels, so you can have 9.1.2 or 7.1.4 but not 9.1.4.


----------



## usc1995

Chirosamsung said:


> I have an x box one x....wouldn’t that bitstream and therefore bit stream the atmos?




As far as I know, the only app that will bitstream on the Xbox is the Blu-ray player app. If you can burn the demos to Blu-ray Disc then you can play them back. I am not sure but you may need to burn them in Blu-ray format so the Xbox will read them correctly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

Matt L said:


> Just curious, how did you get the Atmos feed from NF? X-box?


Did you skip the first sentence of my post?


----------



## batpig

G4n0nD0rf said:


> You can't. It can only process 11 channels, so you can have 9.1.2 or 7.1.4 but not 9.1.4.


Actually you can do a 7.1.4 setup with wides instead of the surround backs on that model. But not 9.1.4.


----------



## Chirosamsung

rekbones said:


> sdrucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit I haven't tried this yet, but if you have an HTPC connected with Windows 10 installed, I had thought you could bitstream Netflix from the Premium tier with UHD/Atmos enabled to your processor of choice, assuming you're connected to an HDMI input with HDCP 2.2 compatibility. I have a Roku but it doesn't support Atmos for Netflix, as you know, so my HTPC is the next source of choice for this. Trying to stay away from the ATV 4K due to some problems I'm reading about with the MDS HDMI board in my processor and ATV, as well as Lumagen Radiance Pros, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm Netflix w/atmos plays just fine on my Win10 HTPC with the UHD premium package and you don't need HDCP 2.2 as it works fine on my Marantz 7009.
Click to expand...

I am blown away that with the Mac mini (2018) processing power that you can’t just plug that into a AVR and get the atmos files to play properly.


----------



## usc1995

Chirosamsung said:


> I am blown away that with the Mac mini (2018) processing power that you can’t just plug that into a AVR and get the atmos files to play properly.




It’s a Mac OS limitation. You could always run Windows via Bootcamp and do it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

usc1995 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an x box one x....wouldn’t that bitstream and therefore bit stream the atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, the only app that will bitstream on the Xbox is the Blu-ray player app. If you can burn the demos to Blu-ray Disc then you can play them back. I am not sure but you may need to burn them in Blu-ray format so the Xbox will read them correctly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

By the time I buy a blu ray burner and discs I might as well just buy ANOTHER streamer like NVIDIA 😞


----------



## audiomanz

Hi all,

Any ideas. What type of surround effect can I expect from a Dolby Atmos configuration when using front heights and rear height speakers? The speakers are located 3 inches from an 8ft ceiling. I am using the SVS Prime Elevation speakers for Atmos duty but I'm not convinced that I'm experiencing the Atmos effect very much. Is it the Atmos encoding in the disc that is the culprit or is it the placement of my speakers that could be causing the lack of Atmos effect from my listening experience. The Prime Elevations are angled at 30 degrees and I run a 7.2.4 setup as well. I raised the crossovers from Audysseys suggestion(80hz) to 120 hz thinking it would create the mids and highs to stand out a bit more and bass go to my subs thereby increasing the Atmos effect to a more enveloping experience. I dont think it made that much of a difference. Any suggestions you could have to get a better Atmos effect would be appreciated. Thanks.

audiomanz


----------



## Roger Wise

audiomanz said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Any ideas. What type of surround effect can I expect from a Dolby Atmos configuration when using front heights and rear height speakers? The speakers are located 3 inches from an 8ft ceiling. I am using the SVS Prime Elevation speakers for Atmos duty but I'm not convinced that I'm experiencing the Atmos effect very much. Is it the Atmos encoding in the disc that is the culprit or is it the placement of my speakers that could be causing the lack of Atmos effect from my listening experience. The Prime Elevations are angled at 30 degrees and I run a 7.2.4 setup as well. I raised the crossovers from Audysseys suggestion(80hz) to 120 hz thinking it would create the mids and highs to stand out a bit more and bass go to my subs thereby increasing the Atmos effect to a more enveloping experience. I dont think it made that much of a difference. Any suggestions you could have to get a better Atmos effect would be appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> audiomanz


The effect of ATMOS is subtle compared to floor level surround. A great 2.1 system gets you 99% of sonic thrills and is better at some things given equal budgets.

It sounds like your speakers are set up properly but I've found that the rear center can drag ATMOS downwards so I raised mine as sometimes is advised for 7 channel, that helped a bit. I know it's "wrong" but I put 4x4 lumber under my couch feet which effectively lowered my floor speakers. That helped too - more different.

Since you want separation a lower crossover would put more sound up high. I've heard that Audyssey doesn't respond well to lowering the crossovers so if you love what they do for your sound then that won't work. IMO if your speakers are decent and mostly match then pure/bypass will sound better than Audyssey.

Adjusting center and back (rear L/R) distances a foot can change the sound stage tremendously.


----------



## Jonas2

audiomanz said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Any ideas. What type of surround effect can I expect from a Dolby Atmos configuration when using front heights and rear height speakers? The speakers are located 3 inches from an 8ft ceiling. I am using the SVS Prime Elevation speakers for Atmos duty but I'm not convinced that I'm experiencing the Atmos effect very much. Is it the Atmos encoding in the disc that is the culprit or is it the placement of my speakers that could be causing the lack of Atmos effect from my listening experience. The Prime Elevations are angled at 30 degrees and I run a 7.2.4 setup as well. I raised the crossovers from Audysseys suggestion(80hz) to 120 hz thinking it would create the mids and highs to stand out a bit more and bass go to my subs thereby increasing the Atmos effect to a more enveloping experience. I dont think it made that much of a difference. Any suggestions you could have to get a better Atmos effect would be appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> audiomanz



If it were me, I'd place the speakers at the sides instead of front and rear. I think you run the risk of getting lost in the front sound stage otherwise. I could be wrong. You could also try boosting the levels by a few dB, see what that does.


----------



## audiomanz

Jonas2 said:


> If it were me, I'd place the speakers at the sides instead of front and rear. I think you run the risk of getting lost in the front sound stage otherwise. I could be wrong. You could also try boosting the levels by a few dB, see what that does.


Thanks for the suggestion Jonas2. However I live in an apartment unit with my living room opening up to my dining room so hard to place speakers on the side walls. The only option was to use the front and rear of the room. I will try your suggestions in turning them up a few dbs and see what difference that can make to the sound.

audiomanz


----------



## audiomanz

Roger Wise said:


> The effect of ATMOS is subtle compared to floor level surround. A great 2.1 system gets you 99% of sonic thrills and is better at some things given equal budgets.
> 
> It sounds like your speakers are set up properly but I've found that the rear center can drag ATMOS downwards so I raised mine as sometimes is advised for 7 channel, that helped a bit. I know it's "wrong" but I put 4x4 lumber under my couch feet which effectively lowered my floor speakers. That helped too - more different.
> 
> Since you want separation a lower crossover would put more sound up high. I've heard that Audyssey doesn't respond well to lowering the crossovers so if you love what they do for your sound then that won't work. IMO if your speakers are decent and mostly match then pure/bypass will sound better than Audyssey.
> 
> Adjusting center and back (rear L/R) distances a foot can change the sound stage tremendously.


Tweaking is one of the major parts of finding that perfect sound eh at least to the owners ears? My surround backs are raised higher than my left and right surrounds which are facing each other. Was thinking maybe try them facing straight towards the listening position may help as well. Hmmm..experimenting is key I gather here..haha..thanks Roger Wise for your suggestions.

audiomanz


----------



## T-Bone

audiomanz said:


> Jonas2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were me, I'd place the speakers at the sides instead of front and rear. I think you run the risk of getting lost in the front sound stage otherwise. I could be wrong. You could also try boosting the levels by a few dB, see what that does.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion Jonas2. However I live in an apartment unit with my living room opening up to my dining room so hard to place speakers on the side walls. The only option was to use the front and rear of the room. I will try your suggestions in turning them up a few dbs and see what difference that can make to the sound.
> 
> audiomanz
Click to expand...

Before you boost the levels, get your hands on some good Atmos demo loops. Not films. That way you'll be able to check out your Atmos setup using audio meant to showcase Atmos.

Thete is the helicopter demo. Nature's fury. Amaze. Another one with the falling leaf.

I experimented with raising the DB levels of my Atmos. I eventually went back to having everything leveled to the same SPL at the listening position.

But experiment. But make sure you get the demo loops first.

-T

Edit. Try here:
https://thedigitaltheater.com/dolby-trailers/


----------



## audiomanz

T-Bone said:


> Before you boost the levels, get your hands on some good Atmos demo loops. Not films. That way you'll be able to check out your Atmos setup using audio meant to showcase Atmos.
> 
> Thete is the helicopter demo. Nature's fury. Amaze. Another one with the falling leaf.
> 
> I experimented with raising the DB levels of my Atmos. I eventually went back to having everything leveled to the same SPL at the listening position.
> 
> But experiment. But make sure you get the demo loops first.
> 
> -T


Thanks T-Bone...do you have a link to these demos?

audiomanz


----------



## T-Bone

audiomanz said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you boost the levels, get your hands on some good Atmos demo loops. Not films. That way you'll be able to check out your Atmos setup using audio meant to showcase Atmos.
> 
> Thete is the helicopter demo. Nature's fury. Amaze. Another one with the falling leaf.
> 
> I experimented with raising the DB levels of my Atmos. I eventually went back to having everything leveled to the same SPL at the listening position.
> 
> But experiment. But make sure you get the demo loops first.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks T-Bone...do you have a link to these demos?
> 
> audiomanz
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Look at my post 2 posts up. I edited it to include a site that I get my demos from.

-T


----------



## audiomanz

T-Bone said:


> Yes I do. Look at my post 2 posts up. I edited it to include a site that I get my demos from.
> 
> -T


Ok. Thanks. I dont have Plex though. 

audiomanz


----------



## gene4ht

audiomanz said:


> Ok. Thanks. I dont have Plex though.
> 
> audiomanz


Try these on Dolby's site...

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html


----------



## audiomanz

gene4ht said:


> Try these on Dolby's site...
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html


Thanks gene4ht..I will try it tomorrow. I downloaded it off the Dolby website. Thanks again.

audiomanz


----------



## Matt L

Audiomanz, I too have a less that ideal setup. I'm using F&R Heights and I find the effect to be worth the effort. While it's not perfect I do get a sense of "Volume" in the audio, the space envelops me. I have my heights pretty closely aligned with the Front and Rear speakers. I have a cathedral ceiling and it would be difficult to do in ceiling speakers, they would have to be aim-able, so I have to settle but the sound definitely is worth it and works very well.

Do get some Demos and listen. I have a Dolby app on my Roku TV that has some great Atmos tracks and it gives the system a good work out.


----------



## gene4ht

Matt L said:


> Audiomanz, I too have a less that ideal setup. I'm using F&R Heights and I find the effect to be worth the effort. While it's not perfect I do get a sense of "Volume" in the audio, the space envelops me. I have my heights pretty closely aligned with the Front and Rear speakers. I have a cathedral ceiling and it would be difficult to do in ceiling speakers, they would have to be aim-able, so *I have to settle but the sound definitely is worth it and works very well.*
> 
> Do get some Demos and listen. I have a Dolby app on my Roku TV that has some great Atmos tracks and it gives the system a good work out.


LOL! "Michiganders" have it together! Kidding aside, Matt is living proof of this thread's MANTRA's...repeated by many...here and in other threads!

- Discard the OCD!
- Everyone has constraints!
- Guidelines are only guidelines...variance is OK!
- Experiment, experiment, and experiment!
-. It's hard to get Atmos wrong!
- Some Atmos is better than no Atmos!
- Enjoy!


----------



## mdcubsfan

Was going to try and post this once more to see if I could get any help - one person responded (but wasn't sure if it was in reference to my post) about Klipsch RP-140SA on the front wall aimed down - but front wall is cabinets and above that the actual wall is recessed behind the cabinets.

Looking into Atmos speakers and set up and wanted to see if I could get some pointers. 
Right now in my movie room I have 5.1 setup with Denon 2400 and Klipsch speakers 

RF-82 tower speakers
RS-52 surround speakers
RC-62 center speaker
SW-310 subwoofer

I've included some thumbnails of my movie room, which is I know completely acoustically suboptimal and visually unpleasing, but it's what I have to work with. We have a long room, and have made one half a movie theater, and on the other side, a kids play area (ping pong table, game area). There is no divider (so I know that messes up sound as it's not enclosed), and I've included a (crudely to scale) schematic of the room itself. With all that in mind....

With the Denon 2400 I know I can only add 2 speakers to make it a 5.1.2 setup. 

Should I go for 2 atmos speakers that sit on the top of my front towers (like Klipsch 140 RP-140SA) which would be easy to install but not sure how they'd work in this kind of room and on this kind of uneven ceiling?

Or do I go for 2 in-ceiling speakers (which I'd have to have someone install - there is attic all around this room and would cost ~$250 for the install), and if so, where should I position them in the room and any suggestions for which ones? I don't want to spend a ton of money, but I want decent speakers that would make it worth my time and $ to buy/install/enjoy.

Thanks so much in advance! I've already learned so much in the past few days just from many of the threads and messages I've been looking over!


----------



## rgould1669

About done with my theater. It is 20 feet by 15 feet. Ceilings are 7.5 feet. I have a pioneer elite 5.1.4. 
I am trying to figure best spot for rear surround speakers? B&W book shelf on stands in back corners aimed to listeners or 2 in wall 2 feet behind front row about 4 feet up with tweeters aimed to front row. Thanks also there is 30” from side wall to seats. Stage is 10” raised. The Atmos speakers are about 3 feet in front of first row and 3 1/2 feet behind first row is this ok?


----------



## rgould1669

rgould1669 said:


> About done with my theater. It is 20 feet by 15 feet. Ceilings are 7.5 feet. I have a pioneer elite 5.1.4.
> I am trying to figure best spot for rear surround speakers? B&W book shelf on stands in back corners aimed to listeners or 2 in wall 2 feet behind front row about 4 feet up with tweeters aimed to front row. Thanks also there is 30” from side wall to seats. Stage is 10” raised.


Pic of side or rear corner idea.


----------



## Talking Rain

mdcubsfan said:


> Was going to try and post this once more to see if I could get any help - one person responded (but wasn't sure if it was in reference to my post) about Klipsch RP-140SA on the front wall aimed down - but front wall is cabinets and above that the actual wall is recessed behind the cabinets.
> 
> Looking into Atmos speakers and set up and wanted to see if I could get some pointers.
> Right now in my movie room I have 5.1 setup with Denon 2400 and Klipsch speakers
> 
> RF-82 tower speakers
> RS-52 surround speakers
> RC-62 center speaker
> SW-310 subwoofer
> 
> I've included some thumbnails of my movie room, which is I know completely acoustically suboptimal and visually unpleasing, but it's what I have to work with. We have a long room, and have made one half a movie theater, and on the other side, a kids play area (ping pong table, game area). There is no divider (so I know that messes up sound as it's not enclosed), and I've included a (crudely to scale) schematic of the room itself. With all that in mind....
> 
> With the Denon 2400 I know I can only add 2 speakers to make it a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> Should I go for 2 atmos speakers that sit on the top of my front towers (like Klipsch 140 RP-140SA) which would be easy to install but not sure how they'd work in this kind of room and on this kind of uneven ceiling?
> 
> Or do I go for 2 in-ceiling speakers (which I'd have to have someone install - there is attic all around this room and would cost ~$250 for the install), and if so, where should I position them in the room and any suggestions for which ones? I don't want to spend a ton of money, but I want decent speakers that would make it worth my time and $ to buy/install/enjoy.
> 
> Thanks so much in advance! I've already learned so much in the past few days just from many of the threads and messages I've been looking over!


Go with ceiling speakers if you can. The results will be much much better. if you're sticking with 5.1.2 then your Atmos speakers should be right above your seated position, the same distance apart as your front right and let speakers are. My extra 2 cents, I'd lower your surround speakers. ideally they should be at the same height as your front left and right....


----------



## Talking Rain

rgould1669 said:


> Pic of side or rear corner idea.


Surround speakers in a 5.1.4 system should be at the back wall as far apart as your front right and left speakers. They can also be at the back side corners but should not be anywhere in front of the last row of seats. Contrary to a lot of systems, the surrounds should be low on the wall (at ear level) not up high on the wall like so many have done in the past...


----------



## mdcubsfan

Talking Rain said:


> Go with ceiling speakers if you can. The results will be much much better. if you're sticking with 5.1.2 then your Atmos speakers should be right above your seated position, the same distance apart as your front right and let speakers are. My extra 2 cents, I'd lower your surround speakers. ideally they should be at the same height as your front left and right....


Thanks - forgot to include in my pic that the projector is ceiling mounted right above a row of seats. So is this too close for Atmos ceiling speakers and surrounds? (they'd be bunched together as the surrounds are basically flush with the row of seats)

And I saw a previous post somewhere saying pretty much any level speakers would work for in-ceiling, no need to spend a ton of money...is there any particular brand that is a favorite of this board?

Since I had Klipsch for everything else I was looking at the Klipsch CDT-5800-C or the Klipsch CDT-5650-C. Any thoughts?

Woiuld love to lower the surrounds but we put them just high enough so I don't bump them with my head when I walk by 

I stopped buying physical discs and just buy digital now - for VUDU and iTunes movies, if they don't have Dolby Atmos, is there some kind of upscaling or translation so it uses all 7 speakers? Many movies look like they just have Dolby Digital 5.1 or Dolby Digital 5.1 Plus.


----------



## mtbdudex

mdcubsfan said:


> Thanks - forgot to include in my pic that the projector is ceiling mounted right above a row of seats. So is this too close for Atmos ceiling speakers and surrounds? (they'd be bunched together as the surrounds are basically flush with the row of seats)
> And I saw a previous post somewhere saying pretty much any level speakers would work for in-ceiling, no need to spend a ton of money...is there any particular brand that is a favorite of this board?
> 
> Since I had Klipsch for everything else I was looking at the Klipsch CDT-5800-C or the Klipsch CDT-5650-C. Any thoughts?
> 
> Woiuld love to lower the surrounds but we put them just high enough so I don't bump them with my head when I walk by
> 
> I stopped buying physical discs and just buy digital now - for VUDU and iTunes movies, if they don't have Dolby Atmos, is there some kind of upscaling or translation so it uses all 7 speakers? Many movies look like they just have Dolby Digital 5.1 or Dolby Digital 5.1 Plus.


We have a 5.1.2 setup in the family room, speakers at ear level have waveguides, the TM is coaxial for equal dispersion..
I encourage you to lower your surrounds to ear level as much as you can, it also helps to angle them at your MLP.
I just did and you can see the difference in below pictures. A huge difference in the Atmos affect, truly.

I did a before and after test as can be seen having both speakers up there.
Understand the trade off of having them lowered to ingress / egress of walking, or visual blockage, etc.

Cables will be routed in the logs on the left side.. that’s a spring project , thru the trim piece. 
Ahh, people with drywall have it so easy routing inwall cables.

>>Notice I have the waveguides on the bottom, to have those freq acoustic center as low as possible.

Left surround , can't go lower or blocks access to light switches ... 

I actually had them 1 log lower and that blocked reach to the switch, so moved it up.










Right surround, I was going to mount this midway between the countertop and the beam, but then it blocked visibility too much, so it's as low as can go here.
Still vastly improved surround and atmos effect compared to that higher location 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ggsantafe

^^^^^ Great looking house!!! - always been a fan of log construction.


----------



## mtbdudex

ggsantafe said:


> ^^^^^ Great looking house!!! - always been a fan of log construction.




Thx, lesson learned ... plan wisely all your electrical outlets, speaker wire runs, etc.
Major PIA after the fact .
What I planed for in 2001 when building ... well that’s changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swoosh830

I posted this question in the Klipsch Owners thread and received good advice to experiment with placement. However, I'd like to see if anyone who frequents this thread has any additional feedback concerning the placement of rear surround speakers relative to seating and atmos speakers mounted at the top of the wall.


Are there any recommendations when it comes to the height of speakers behind seating? I know it's best to have as much separation as possible between the bed layer and atmos speakers. However, as you can see in the picture below, my rear atmos speakers are lower than I'd like because of a soffit (8 ft. ceiling with a 13" soffit). My current sofa is 40" high, and I plan on replacing it with theater seats that are 44" high as listed by the specs. If I were to keep the rear surrounds at the same height as the side surrounds (both have a base of 36" as pictured), much of the speaker would be "blocked" by the back of the seats. There is ~3.5 ft. of space between the back wall and the back of the sofa, so perhaps it wouldn't seem so bad given that distance.

The top of the green tape represents the top of the speakers if I were to mount the rear surrounds on the wall such that the base of the speaker begins at 44", ensuring there would be no obstruction from the new seats. The distance between the top of the rear atmos speaker and the top of the green tape is just over 2 ft. I could mount the speakers 2" lower than that so the bottom of the woofer would be at 44", or 4" lower so the center of the woofer would be at 44", and so on. I'm afraid the highest position at the green tape would be too close to the atmos speakers, but I also don't want them too low behind the seats.

Given the space behind the seating, does anyone have any suggestions regarding the height of the rear surrounds in my room? Thank you in advance.


----------



## SonomaFlyer

I'm doomed 

We are rebuilding after the 2017 fires and the design of the house isn't ideal for Atmos. Large great room concept (upside down L config) with 15" peak ceiling in a standard upside down V look. We are wiring the weekend prior to drywall etc but floor speakers aren't an option (wife aggro). 

I am planning on passive center channel with L and R front in-wall speakers. I guess we can do the L and R rears in the ceiling but the surrounds are an issue. 

Anyone faced a similar dilemma?


----------



## JosephTonyStark

Matt L said:


> Do get some Demos and listen. I have a Dolby app on my Roku TV that has some great Atmos tracks and it gives the system a good work out.


What app is this??

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

SonomaFlyer said:


> I'm doomed
> 
> We are rebuilding after the 2017 fires and the design of the house isn't ideal for Atmos. Large great room concept (upside down L config) with 15" peak ceiling in a standard upside down V look. We are wiring the weekend prior to drywall etc but floor speakers aren't an option (wife aggro).
> 
> I am planning on passive center channel with L and R front in-wall speakers. I guess we can do the L and R rears in the ceiling but the surrounds are an issue.
> 
> Anyone faced a similar dilemma?


As has been iterated in these threads, everyone has room constraints to a lesser or greater degree..and solutions can be found for literally every condition. You mention the room isn't ideal for Atmos but it isn't clear if you will be integrating Atmos or not. Assuming that you will be installing Atmos, owners with vaulted ceilings regardless of the angles involved or peak center height have mounted (1) on ceiling speakers of the "indoor/outdoor" type on actual/real or faux type beams or low on the vaulted ceiling and aimed at the MLP. and (2) others have installed height speakers (FH and RH) at the wall-ceiling juncture.









WRT installing L and R rear surrounds in the ceiling, I would highly suggest not doing so if installing Atmos as this would not allow the necessary vertical and angular separation necessary for proper/effective Atmos performance. If installing Atmos, I would suggest forgoing the rear surrounds in favor of a 5.1.4 configuration. For many current Atmos films, there is very little content directed to the rear surrounds.

WRT to side surrounds, it appears creativity will be necessary if there are no nearby walls and floor standing speakers or stands aren't an option.

Others here will likely have additional thoughts or ideas if they have found solutions to similar conditions. What would be helpful is if you could post a diagram/floor plan or photos of your space.. Good luck moving forward!


----------



## Talking Rain

Swoosh830 said:


> Given the space behind the seating, does anyone have any suggestions regarding the height of the rear surrounds in my room? Thank you in advance.


The rear surrounds are correct, the rear atoms needs so experimenting...

I wouldn't worry about the height of the rear surrounds, that little difference won't matter and given the seats recline that alone would more than correct the seat height concern. I'm more concerned with your rear atmos speakers being behind and so close to the rear surrounds. I know you're dealing with a small space but I'd move the rear atmos speakers to the soft or the side walls (like the front atmos speakers near the soft. The idea is for your listening sweet spot to be engulfed with sound from as many angles as possible for the immersive experience atmos gives. your rear atmos and your rear surrounds are so close to each other then you have the empty space above you to the sides...

Just my 2¢...


----------



## SonomaFlyer

gene4ht said:


> As has been iterated in these threads, everyone has room constraints to a lesser or greater degree..and solutions can be found for literally every condition. You mention the room isn't ideal for Atmos but it isn't clear if you will be integrating Atmos or not. Assuming that you will be installing Atmos, owners with vaulted ceilings regardless of the angles involved or peak center height have mounted (1) on ceiling speakers of the "indoor/outdoor" type on actual/real or faux type beams or low on the vaulted ceiling and aimed at the MLP. and (2) others have installed height speakers (FH and RH) at the wall-ceiling juncture.
> 
> View attachment 2524898
> 
> 
> WRT installing L and R rear surrounds in the ceiling, I would highly suggest not doing so if installing Atmos as this would not allow the necessary vertical and angular separation necessary for proper/effective Atmos performance. If installing Atmos, I would suggest forgoing the rear surrounds in favor of a 5.1.4 configuration. For many current Atmos films, there is very little content directed to the rear surrounds.
> 
> WRT to side surrounds, it appears creativity will be necessary if there are no nearby walls and floor standing speakers or stands aren't an option.
> 
> Others here will likely have additional thoughts or ideas if they have found solutions to similar conditions. What would be helpful is if you could post a diagram/floor plan or photos of your space.. Good luck moving forward!


Thanks for the tips!

I attached our plans which is just the great room. I plan a 75" TV above the insert fireplace. From there it could be a passive center channel with front right/left speakers on either side with rear surrounds on the ceiling and a sub where ever. Its the other speakers which would be challenging. The receiver would be stashed under the window seat to the right of the fire place with a screened up swinging door for access.

I do have a plan B which is the teen room on the lower floor which is a conventional room with 8' ceilings and about 13' square. It's envisioned as a "teen" room with PS4 and 55" UHD TV we currently own but I'm thinking about wiring that up as well.


----------



## Matt L

JosephTonyStark said:


> What app is this??
> 
> Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


 My Roku has a Dolby Demo app that can be loaded. I have a TCL Roku TV but I would think it would be available on the 4K Roku add on box, not sure.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Swoosh830 said:


> I posted this question in the Klipsch Owners thread and received good advice to experiment with placement. However, I'd like to see if anyone who frequents this thread has any additional feedback concerning the placement of rear surround speakers relative to seating and atmos speakers mounted at the top of the wall.
> 
> 
> Are there any recommendations when it comes to the height of speakers behind seating? I know it's best to have as much separation as possible between the bed layer and atmos speakers. However, as you can see in the picture below, my rear atmos speakers are lower than I'd like because of a soffit (8 ft. ceiling with a 13" soffit). My current sofa is 40" high, and I plan on replacing it with theater seats that are 44" high as listed by the specs. If I were to keep the rear surrounds at the same height as the side surrounds (both have a base of 36" as pictured), much of the speaker would be "blocked" by the back of the seats. There is ~3.5 ft. of space between the back wall and the back of the sofa, so perhaps it wouldn't seem so bad given that distance.
> 
> The top of the green tape represents the top of the speakers if I were to mount the rear surrounds on the wall such that the base of the speaker begins at 44", ensuring there would be no obstruction from the new seats. The distance between the top of the rear atmos speaker and the top of the green tape is just over 2 ft. I could mount the speakers 2" lower than that so the bottom of the woofer would be at 44", or 4" lower so the center of the woofer would be at 44", and so on. I'm afraid the highest position at the green tape would be too close to the atmos speakers, but I also don't want them too low behind the seats.
> 
> Given the space behind the seating, does anyone have any suggestions regarding the height of the rear surrounds in my room? Thank you in advance.


This is something I’m wondering about as well. 

In general is it acceptable to have just the tweeter at or slightly above ear level or is it the woofer/mid driver that has to at ear height of low ceilings (7.25 feet).


----------



## gene4ht

Chirosamsung said:


> This is something I’m wondering about as well.
> 
> In general is it acceptable to have just the tweeter at or slightly above ear level or is it the woofer/mid driver that has to at ear height of low ceilings (7.25 feet).


You guys are way overthinking this. Check your OCD at the door!  Atmos and sound in general is very forgiving...a few inches or even a foot or so here and there is irrelevant. Think about it this way: If your child were sitting on the floor at the rear wall behind the couch and talking to you...does it matter if he/she was on the floor, sitting on a stool, or sitting on a chair? If you must, experiment with the various heights until you’re satisfied with the results.


----------



## Swoosh830

gene4ht said:


> Check your OCD at the door!


That, good sir, is not something I'm able to do very easily.  I admittedly suffer from analysis paralysis in almost anything I plan or purchase. It usually produces good results in the end, but man... the road to get there is not a quick and easy one.

For example, now Talking Rain has me thinking about moving my rear atmos speakers to the side wall, which does make sense considering the placement of the front atmos speakers. However, in order for them to be placed on the side wall in the proper location, they would be right up against the soffit. This is when I start to think about things like: would placing the speakers right against the side "wall" of the soffit create any problems with reflected sound and produce an effect that is less desirable than if I left the speakers in their current positions?

See what I mean?


----------



## m. zillch

Chirosamsung said:


> This is something I’m wondering about as well.
> 
> In general is it acceptable to have just the tweeter at or slightly above ear level or is it the woofer/mid driver that has to at ear height of low ceilings (7.25 feet).


I would agree with the previous post that we shouldn't worry about a trivial few inches when discussing rear speaker placement however in theory each audience member should get a direct, unobstructed view of (ideally) the entire speaker's output and should not be blocked by the heads or headrests of other audience members. Looking at your the photo I'd actually worry more about the side speakers' sound getting blocked for the centrally seated audience member if flanked to the left and right by other (tall) audience members.
---

*Best:* All of the speakers' drivers have full exposure and are not blocked by obstacles such as other people's heads or headrests.
*Better: *At least the speaker's acoustical center isn't blocked [the perceptual location of where pink noise comes from when playing the speaker, a point usually midway between the tweeter and woofer in a two-way design but usually closer to the tweeter.]
*Good:* The tweeter at least isn't blocked.
*Bad:* The tweeter is partially or fully blocked.

Shoot for good, better, or best, they usually are all acceptable,_ but avoid bad_.


----------



## T-Bone

Swoosh830 said:


> gene4ht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check your OCD at the door! /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> That, good sir, is not something I'm able to do very easily. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I admittedly suffer from analysis paralysis in almost anything I plan or purchase. It usually produces good results in the end, but man... the road to get there is not a quick and easy one.
> 
> For example, now Talking Rain has me thinking about moving my rear atmos speakers to the side wall, which does make sense considering the placement of the front atmos speakers. However, in order for them to be placed on the side wall in the proper location, they would be right up against the soffit. This is when I start to think about things like: would placing the speakers right against the side "wall" of the soffit create any problems with reflected sound and produce an effect that is less desirable than if I left the speakers in their current positions?
> 
> See what I mean? /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

"Hello. My name is T-Bone... and... whew, this is hard... I suffer from Home Theater OCD." 😁


Before moving things around, did you play any of the Atmos clips to determine if what you have now is good enough?

The Helicopter is a good one. It hits all 4 Atmos speakers. It really sounds like the chopper is overhead.

Then try the Atmos Call-out... I forget the actual name... (just a voice telling you the speaker... "Left Front", "Right Surround", etc.).

These are ideal situations... If those sound like you have good separation, call it a day and enjoy. 

As for your Q regarding rear surround height with new 44" seating, like someone said, they recline so that helps. Worst case is you get an SPL meter, place it in the new seating where your ears are (the high back blocks line of sight to speaker), then boost the rear surrounds a few dB until SPL matches your other speakers.

-T


----------



## cchen326

Moving into a house this summer and have been reading on 5.1.4 atmos setups. 
No idea on the layout yet, but I am set on getting a 5.1.4

I currently have a Onkyo 3300 HTIB back from 2011. 
I would like to use the 5 speakers from the HTIB with my atmos setup and purchase another 4 speakers for the ceiling when the time comes.
I already have a Yamaha YST-SW012 8-Inch Front-Firing Active Subwoofer.

1 - The Denon AVR-X1500H ( Good purchase for 5.1.4 unless better recommendations? )

2- Are the 5 speakers sufficient for an atmos setup from the 3300 HTIB? If not any recommendations on a package deal of speakers for 5.1.4?

Budget $2500


5 speakers from the onkyo 3300 specs here 
https://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=HT-S3300&class=Systems

Input Sensitivity/Impedance
Front/Center	80 Hz20 kHz
Surround	81 dB/W/m
Subwoofer	-
Front	82 dB/W/m
Center	82 dB/W/m
Surround Back	-
Front/Center/Surround	6 ohms


----------



## T-Bone

cchen326 said:


> Moving into a house this summer and have been reading on 5.1.4 atmos setups.
> No idea on the layout yet, but I am set on getting a 5.1.4
> 
> I currently have a Onkyo 3300 HTIB back from 2011.
> I would like to use the 5 speakers from the HTIB with my atmos setup and purchase another 4 speakers for the ceiling when the time comes.
> I already have a Yamaha YST-SW012 8-Inch Front-Firing Active Subwoofer.
> 
> 1 - The Denon AVR-X1500H ( Good purchase for 5.1.4 unless better recommendations? )
> 
> 2- Are the 5 speakers sufficient for an atmos setup from the 3300 HTIB? If not any recommendations on a package deal of speakers for 5.1.4?
> 
> Budget $2500
> 
> 
> 5 speakers from the onkyo 3300 specs here
> https://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=HT-S3300&class=Systems
> 
> Input Sensitivity/Impedance
> Front/Center	80 Hz20 kHz
> Surround	81 dB/W/m
> Subwoofer	-
> Front	82 dB/W/m
> Center	82 dB/W/m
> Surround Back	-
> Front/Center/Surround	6 ohms


My suggestion: forget about the HTIB... Keep your eyes open four 9.2 receivers (they have nine internal amps that will do 5.1.4 without external amplifiers) that go on sale sometimes as low as six hundred bucks.

4 Atmos speakers, buy a set of 4 in ceiling and don't spend more than $50 per speaker.

Put the balance towards the rest of your speakers. I bet you get away with spending much less than 2500.

you could consider receivers that have 11 channels of pre-processing so that would give you the option of going 7.1.4 in the future if you are so inclined... But that would require another 2 channel separate amplifier.

-T


----------



## m. zillch

All speaker locations are not equally important with regards to a surround system. The front three and their exact placement and aiming are* far* more critical than the rest. 

I've modified [condensed] an imaging test found on a Chesky CD to help achieve this. By right clicking the video image while it is playing one can select "loop" to have it repeat continually. This allows one to sit in the sweet spot while helper(s) move (spacing) and toe-in (rotate the aim of) the front three speakers, bit by bit, as the listener instructs, in order to dial in a perfectly focused sound stage with pinpoint imaging or perceptual localization characteristics:





P.S. The "offstage left" and "offstage right" locations can be elusive and very hard to achieve perfectly in anything other than a perfectly symmetrical room with perfect speakers, but thankfully these are the least important locations of the sound and are rarely intentionally used in the majority of music and movie releases [it also only works with certain types of microphoning techniques] . Don't lose sleep if they simply sound diffuse rather than focused. Worry about the _other_ locations: Left, Left center, Center, Right Center, and Right.


----------



## Swoosh830

m. zillch said:


> I would agree with the previous post that we shouldn't worry about a trivial few inches when discussing rear speaker placement however in theory each audience member should get a direct, unobstructed view of (ideally) the entire speaker's output and should not be blocked by the heads or headrests of other audience members. Looking at your the photo I'd actually worry more about the side speakers' sound getting blocked for the centrally seated audience member if flanked to the left and right by other (tall) audience members.
> ---
> 
> *Best:* All of the speakers' drivers have full exposure and are not blocked by obstacles such as other people's heads or headrests.
> *Better: *At least the speaker's acoustical center isn't blocked [the perceptual location of where pink noise comes from when playing the speaker, a point usually midway between the tweeter and woofer in a two-way design but usually closer to the tweeter.]
> *Good:* The tweeter at least isn't blocked.
> *Bad:* The tweeter is partially or fully blocked.
> 
> Shoot for good, better, or best, they usually are all acceptable,_ but avoid bad_.





T-Bone said:


> "Hello. My name is T-Bone... and... whew, this is hard... I suffer from Home Theater OCD." 😁
> 
> 
> Before moving things around, did you play any of the Atmos clips to determine if what you have now is good enough?
> 
> The Helicopter is a good one. It hits all 4 Atmos speakers. It really sounds like the chopper is overhead.
> 
> Then try the Atmos Call-out... I forget the actual name... (just a voice telling you the speaker... "Left Front", "Right Surround", etc.).
> 
> These are ideal situations... If those sound like you have good separation, call it a day and enjoy.
> 
> As for your Q regarding rear surround height with new 44" seating, like someone said, they recline so that helps. Worst case is you get an SPL meter, place it in the new seating where your ears are (the high back blocks line of sight to speaker), then boost the rear surrounds a few dB until SPL matches your other speakers.
> 
> -T


I appreciate the feedback and advice, fellas.

I failed to mention that the room is still being setup, so I'm unable to test anything at the moment. I have the 4 atmos speakers mounted on the wall, but no wires run yet. It wouldn't be a big deal to change the location of the rear atmos speakers, and I'll probably hold off on installing/painting any cable concealers until I have everything setup and tested.

I still have to confirm once I get home, but I'm fairly certain that with how deep the soffit is, moving the rear atmos speakers on the side wall would put them within an inch or so of the soffit. Any cause for concern there, or not so much since it's just an atmos speaker and the height of the soffit is only that of the speaker?

Edit: One thing that may be an advantage with the current placement is that they are firing more directly at the seating positions.

Thanks again for assisting with my HTOCD.


----------



## cchen326

T-Bone said:


> My suggestion: forget about the HTIB... Keep your eyes open four 9.2 receivers (they have nine internal amps that will do 5.1.4 without external amplifiers) that go on sale sometimes as low as six hundred bucks.
> 
> 4 Atmos speakers, buy a set of 4 in ceiling and don't spend more than $50 per speaker.
> 
> Put the balance towards the rest of your speakers. I bet you get away with spending much less than 2500.
> 
> you could consider receivers that have 11 channels of pre-processing so that would give you the option of going 7.1.4 in the future if you are so inclined... But that would require another 2 channel separate amplifier.
> 
> -T


Does it matter if the receiver has speaker inputs in the back for ceiling as some only show surround back 1/2 while others show ceiling 1/2?

Can you recommend 2 receivers that do 9.2?
Any recommendation on ceiling speakers as I the ones I looked at range from $100 and up for in ceiling?.

Thanks for your reply on this as this will help me get started on the planning.


----------



## T-Bone

cchen326 said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion: forget about the HTIB... Keep your eyes open four 9.2 receivers (they have nine internal amps that will do 5.1.4 without external amplifiers) that go on sale sometimes as low as six hundred bucks.
> 
> 4 Atmos speakers, buy a set of 4 in ceiling and don't spend more than $50 per speaker.
> 
> Put the balance towards the rest of your speakers. I bet you get away with spending much less than 2500.
> 
> you could consider receivers that have 11 channels of pre-processing so that would give you the option of going 7.1.4 in the future if you are so inclined... But that would require another 2 channel separate amplifier.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter if the receiver has speaker inputs in the back for ceiling as some only show surround back 1/2 while others show ceiling 1/2?
> 
> Can you recommend 2 receivers that do 9.2?
> Any recommendation on ceiling speakers as I the ones I looked at range from $100 and up for in ceiling?.
> 
> Thanks for your reply on this as this will help me get started on the planning.
Click to expand...

I have owned Denon Yamaha and pioneer in the past. I have since moved away from those and went to Onkyo. I own the RZ920. 9.2. Digital amps. last year's model so he keep your eyes open you'll get it for a good price.

Onkyo came out with a new receiver called the rz830... Very similar to what I own, but does not have digital amplifiers. 

Denon has a few models... 9.2. They usually go on sale for half price. Usually at Fry's but sometimes at the places.

That should get you started looking in the right direction.

Ceiling speakers... check out the dedicated thread for that called something like the best Atmos speakers. I went with Polk MC60 x 4. 52 bucks each on Amazon.

if you're going to get speakers, get them from a company that makes speakers. for instance, Onkyo had some ceiling speakers. But they're not really a big name in the speaker business.

-T


----------



## gene4ht

SonomaFlyer said:


> Thanks for the tips!
> 
> I attached our plans which is just the great room. I plan a 75" TV above the insert fireplace. From there it could be a passive center channel with front right/left speakers on either side with *rear surrounds on the ceiling* and a *sub where ever*. *Its the other speakers which would be challenging.* The receiver would be stashed under the window seat to the right of the fire place with a screened up swinging door for access.
> 
> I do have a plan B which is the teen room on the lower floor which is a conventional room with 8' ceilings and about 13' square. It's envisioned as a "teen" room with PS4 and 55" UHD TV we currently own but I'm thinking about wiring that up as well.


These are some of my initial thoughts...I would also invite others with similar rooms and experiences to offer other possible solutions and ideas. 

L & R - in or on walls or possibly bookshelves in the bookcases
Center - presents a challenge - likely above the TV and angled toward the MLP
Side Surrounds - ideally bookshelves on stands on either side of the couch - alternatively bookshelves on end tables on either side of the couch - or custom speaker mount (window side) suspended from ceiling 
Rear Surrounds - in ceilings NOT recommended if implementing Atmos
Atmos Speakers - speaker type and mounting method dependent on cathedral ceiling geometry - direction of slope(s) and location of peak
Subwoofer(s) - Aesthetics/decor/WAF considerations typically determine location...however, location for best performance at the MLP is determined by "sub crawl" or a measurement tool like REW


----------



## gene4ht

Swoosh830 said:


> *That, good sir, is not something I'm able to do very easily.  I admittedly suffer from analysis paralysis in almost anything I plan or purchase. It usually produces good results in the end, but man... the road to get there is not a quick and easy one.*
> 
> For example, now Talking Rain has me thinking about moving my rear atmos speakers to the side wall, which does make sense considering the placement of the front atmos speakers. However, in order for them to be placed on the side wall in the proper location, they would be right up against the soffit. This is when I start to think about things like: would placing the speakers right against the side "wall" of the soffit create any problems with reflected sound and produce an effect that is less desirable than if I left the speakers in their current positions?
> 
> See what I mean?


Believe me...I understand completely! In days gone by, I was strictly a 0's and 1's person. However, over the years I've learned to also understand the benefits of the grey areas..."good results" redefined! In any case, experimentation is the key...the learning will be invaluable and the answer/solution will have been determined by you. Good luck with your pursuit!


----------



## Talking Rain

Swoosh830 said:


> I appreciate the feedback and advice, fellas.
> 
> I failed to mention that the room is still being setup, so I'm unable to test anything at the moment. I have the 4 atmos speakers mounted on the wall, but no wires run yet. It wouldn't be a big deal to change the location of the rear atmos speakers, and I'll probably hold off on installing/painting any cable concealers until I have everything setup and tested.
> 
> I still have to confirm once I get home, but I'm fairly certain that with how deep the soffit is, moving the rear atmos speakers on the side wall would put them within an inch or so of the soffit. Any cause for concern there, or not so much since it's just an atmos speaker and the height of the soffit is only that of the speaker?
> 
> Edit: One thing that may be an advantage with the current placement is that they are firing more directly at the seating positions.
> 
> Thanks again for assisting with my HTOCD.


Everyone here is right. You're down to the short hairs now. Especially if you've not even connected the speakers and actually listened to the system... Check out the Dolby Atmos drawing and vertical angle from your seats to your atmos speakers. with your ceiling height, is your rear atmos locations within 125 to 150 degrees?... this will tell you where those speakers should (ideally) be... Atmos is very very forgiving, And what I've read here is true, even bad atmos is better than no atmos... We're all just trying to help you get you to the best you can get in your space with the equipment you have...


----------



## dfa973

cchen326 said:


> 1 - The Denon AVR-X1500H ( Good purchase for 5.1.4 unless better recommendations? )


Denon AVR-X1500H is a 7.1 receiver, it is good for a 5.1.2 setup.
For 5.1.4 you need a 9.2 receiver, such as Denon AVR-X4500H!!! If you add a 2ch external amp to Denon AVR-X4500H you may go up to a 7.2.4 setup, since AVR-X4500H has 11.2 channels pre-outs.


----------



## Guess21

Hi I am moving to my new place soon. I am not sure about my setup.

My receiver can operate as 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 with 2 channel power amp.
Hence I am thinking should i install 2 additional speakers to be 5.2.6?

How would be the center atoms speakers be use at the time being?
Could it be connecting to the front atoms speaker?
Could it be connected as surround right left speaker to be 7.2.4?

For the center atoms speakers, should it be small bookshelf speaker or ceiling speakers?

For the front and rear atmos speakers, they are small bookshelf speakers.

In additional, should i lay 1 more wire to the center atoms (god of sound) for future use?

Looking forwards for your advise.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

Guess21 said:


> My receiver can operate as 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 with 2 channel power amp.
> Hence I am thinking should i install 2 additional speakers to be 5.2.6?


You have a 9.2 receiver that has 11.2 pre-outs. I am sure that all receivers that permit 7.2.4 setups (like yours) *do not allow* you to use 6 overhead speakers, just 4. 

You need at least a 13.2 channels receiver to do 6 overhead speakers!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

cchen326 said:


> Does it matter if the receiver has speaker inputs in the back for ceiling as some only show surround back 1/2 while others show ceiling 1/2?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you recommend 2 receivers that do 9.2?
> 
> Any recommendation on ceiling speakers as I the ones I looked at range from $100 and up for in ceiling?.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply on this as this will help me get started on the planning.




Denon AVRX4400H 9.2 Channel Full 4K Ultra HD Network AV Receiver with HEOS black, Works with Alexa (Discontinued by Manufacturer) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072Z6VT1C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_PTwzCbSNM7BGX
For me, I would look at this denon. It does 5.1.4 out of the box and with an amp can do 7.1.4. 
https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/ I chose thes for atmos speakers at 125ea and love them. The imaging is great and the wide dispersion makes them great for atmos. These will better than your Onkyo speakers, and I would recommend planning future upgrades to them. 
FWIW, Polk and Yamaha seem to be popular for IC speakers that are less expensive, and most have reported good things in using them. 
Then, I would seriously consider allocating funds for a real subwoofer. Respectfully, the 8” “sub” from an htib can’t do any justice to modern soundtracks, and IMO bass is an investment and will anchor your theater. HSU, Rythmik and SVS are popular ones to start looking at. The room size will mostly determine how big (12”, 15”, dual 18’s etc).


----------



## cchen326

dfa973 said:


> Denon AVR-X1500H is a 7.1 receiver, it is good for a 5.1.2 setup.
> For 5.1.4 you need a 9.2 receiver, such as Denon AVR-X4500H!!! If you add a 2ch external amp to Denon AVR-X4500H you may go up to a 7.2.4 setup, since AVR-X4500H has 11.2 channels pre-outs.


Thanks for the recommendation. The price is sort of high to me with the range of $1200-$1500. Do you have any other recommendation for a 9.2 for under $800? I have a budget of $2500 for 5 main speakers and 4 ceiling speakers with the Receiver. I have a Sub already.


----------



## Guess21

dfa973 said:


> You have a 9.2 receiver that has 11.2 pre-outs. I am sure that all receivers that permit 7.2.4 setups (like yours) *do not allow* you to use 6 overhead speakers, just 4.
> 
> 
> 
> You need at least a 13.2 channels receiver to do 6 overhead speakers!


I do understand currently my receiver is unable to do 5.2.6. I am thinking should i place the speakers first before I would be changing the receiver with 6 channels atmos. At this moment only high end amp such as stormaudio and lyngdorf are capable to do 7.2.6.

If i did install these 2 additional speakers, how could i make use the 2 idle speakers.

Any advise?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Bone

Here on avsforum, there's a forum called Great deals found or something like that. There's a Denon in there now. It still might be on sale.

-T

Edit. if not still available, that's an indication of the price these receivers go for went on sale.


----------



## cchen326

Polyrythm1k said:


> Denon AVRX4400H 9.2 Channel Full 4K Ultra HD Network AV Receiver with HEOS black, Works with Alexa (Discontinued by Manufacturer) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072Z6VT1C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_PTwzCbSNM7BGX
> For me, I would look at this denon. It does 5.1.4 out of the box and with an amp can do 7.1.4.
> https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/ I chose thes for atmos speakers at 125ea and love them. The imaging is great and the wide dispersion makes them great for atmos. These will better than your Onkyo speakers, and I would recommend planning future upgrades to them.
> FWIW, Polk and Yamaha seem to be popular for IC speakers that are less expensive, and most have reported good things in using them.
> Then, I would seriously consider allocating funds for a real subwoofer. Respectfully, the 8” “sub” from an htib can’t do any justice to modern soundtracks, and IMO bass is an investment and will anchor your theater. HSU, Rythmik and SVS are popular ones to start looking at. The room size will mostly determine how big (12”, 15”, dual 18’s etc).


The 4400 seems like a good price with my budget. I will read more into that model.
Someone else recommended Polks for inceiling so I will read more into that and your recommendation.

For the subs I already have 2 of these yamaha 8 inch on hand wanted to use dual subs
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TQ4D8K/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Do you think dual 8 inch subs can do a decent job or should I go for a bigger size?

Thanks for the info!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

cchen326 said:


> The 4400 seems like a good price with my budget. I will read more into that model.
> 
> Someone else recommended Polks for inceiling so I will read more into that and your recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> For the subs I already have 2 of these yamaha 8 inch on hand wanted to use dual subs
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TQ4D8K/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Do you think dual 8 inch subs can do a decent job or should I go for a bigger size?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info!




Well to be honest, room size will have the most effect on what size to buy. Bass taste will also be a factor. To answer your question, no. I don’t personally think even two 8” subs will do much. Multiple subs is more about even bass response in the room, while also adding some headroom. The problem with small htib type subs is that they aren’t well designed, and use components that just aren’t good. They tend to be boomy one note wonders with very little damping/high Q designs. That makes them NOT very linear and they also have very limited extension, meaning they don’t play the deeper notes/sounds. Keep in mind, I’m not saying these things to knock on your current setup. I just don’t want you to limit your experience based on the fact that for a modest price, you can make a serious upgrade to your bass. Say even if you have a small room, a pair of RSL speedwoofer 10’s for 800pr would be a considerable upgrade. Even though they’re not much bigger(8”-10”) they use better components and are designed much better giving much better performance with more output and extension, while staying linear and offering less distortion. There is also the option of starting with one bigger sub and adding a second one later. 
Lots of ways to get there, but once you hear and feel bass with really capable subs, there’s no going back. 
SVS and rsl have free in home trials with paid return shipping. Not sure about HSU. I would recommend taking advantage of on of those services.


----------



## kbarnes701

Guess21 said:


> Hi I am moving to my new place soon. I am not sure about my setup.
> 
> My receiver can operate as 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 with 2 channel power amp.
> Hence I am thinking should i install 2 additional speakers to be 5.2.6?


You can't. As dfa says, only the more expensive AVRs can handle 6 speakers on the ceiling. But even if you could, I don't think it would be a good idea. 7.x.4 is a better option than 5.x.6 in almost every room.


----------



## bigbadbob

I recommend you consider Klipsch for your speakers and a Monoprice Monolith sub too.


----------



## dfa973

cchen326 said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. The price is sort of high to me with the range of $1200-$1500. Do you have any other recommendation for a 9.2 for under $800? I have a budget of $2500 for 5 main speakers and 4 ceiling speakers with the Receiver. I have a Sub already.


These are some 9.2 receivers that may be affordable by you:

MARANTZ	SR6013
ONKYO	TX-NR787 (US)
ONKYO	TX-RZ730 (EU)
PIONEER	VSX-LX303
YAMAHA	RX-A2070	2017
YAMAHA	RX-A2080	2018


----------



## dfa973

Guess21 said:


> I do understand currently my receiver is unable to do 5.2.6. I am thinking should i place the speakers first before I would be changing the receiver with 6 channels atmos.


6 overheads makes sense if you have 2-3 rows of seats in your room. Do you?
But yes, if you desire, you can install the "classic" setup of Top Front + Top Middle + Top Rear speakers, to be ready for a future .6 receiver.



Guess21 said:


> At this moment only high end amp such as stormaudio and lyngdorf are capable to do 7.2.6.


And Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch Flagship AVR!



Guess21 said:


> If i did install these 2 additional speakers, how could i make use the 2 idle speakers.


Without a 13.2 receiver?
You may use an old Dolby ProLogic receiver to derive a (phantom) Top Middle channel from TF+TR, as some members of this forum have done.


----------



## Guess21

dfa973 said:


> 6 overheads makes sense if you have 2-3 rows of seats in your room. Do you?
> 
> But yes, if you desire, you can install the "classic" setup of Top Front + Top Middle + Top Rear speakers, to be ready for a future .6 receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch Flagship AVR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without a 13.2 receiver?
> 
> You may use an old Dolby ProLogic receiver to derive a (phantom) Top Middle channel from TF+TR, as some members of this forum have done.


Thanks for the advise. It did clear my doubt.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Swoosh830

Talking Rain said:


> Everyone here is right. You're down to the short hairs now. Especially if you've not even connected the speakers and actually listened to the system... Check out the Dolby Atmos drawing and vertical angle from your seats to your atmos speakers. with your ceiling height, is your rear atmos locations within 125 to 150 degrees?... this will tell you where those speakers should (ideally) be... Atmos is very very forgiving, And what I've read here is true, even bad atmos is better than no atmos... We're all just trying to help you get you to the best you can get in your space with the equipment you have...


I appreciate all the help.

I have indeed referenced the picture you attached. With my limited space, the front atmos speakers are right at the brink of 55 deg. I did confirm last night that If I were to place the rear atmos speakers so they are the same distance away from the MLP as the fronts, they would be right at the brink of 125 deg. which is great. However, there would then be less than an inch of space between the speakers and the soffit. I know I can shift the speakers an inch or two closer to the seating position to get them away from the soffit a bit, but I'm still wondering if placing speakers so close to the soffit would cause any issues with sound reflections.

I should add that the current location of the rear atmos speakers does still fall within the 150 deg. range. However, I completely understand why mounting them in the same fashion as the fronts would make sense... I just wish I didn't have the soffit to deal with.


----------



## Chuck Miller

Forgive me if this is a redundant question, but I've not been able to find any discussion on this. I'm in the process of building my HT and am planning a 9.x.6 configuration. I see that Dolby has just recently issued a second optional layout for this configuration using front and rear heights instead of top fronts and top rears. Any thoughts and/or experience on which would be the better layout for immersive audio and maybe even future-proofing? I was all set to buy six in-ceiling speakers, but now I'm torn. 

Here are the two optional layouts from Dolby:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide.html

I'll appreciate your comments!


----------



## sdurani

Guess21 said:


> At this moment only high end amp such as stormaudio and lyngdorf are capable to do 7.2.6.


Denon 8500 and Marantz 8805 can do 7.2.6.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Guess21 said:


> At this moment only high end amp such as stormaudio and lyngdorf are capable to do 7.2.6.



Atmos processors from Emotiva and an upcoming processor from Monoprice/ATI can also do 7.2.6 and even 9.1.6, but again they are upwards of $4,000. The Monoprice unit may also include DTS: X Pro.


----------



## rgould1669

I had a 5.1.2 set up. All speakers are B&W except Atmos they are sonance 6 1/2 in ceiling vp62. I am finishing my new theater and I am doing 5.2.4 I bought 2 more Atmos B&W ccm664 in ceiling. Should I just get 2 more to match or my older sonance will work. Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rgould1669 said:


> I had a 5.1.2 set up. All speakers are B&W except Atmos they are sonance 6 1/2 in ceiling vp62. I am finishing my new theater and I am doing 5.2.4 I bought 2 more Atmos B&W ccm664 in ceiling. Should I just get 2 more to match or my older sonance will work. Thanks



You should match speakers as often as you can. Especially, if they're in the same plain like your overheads. Panning will be much more seamless.


----------



## dfa973

Chuck Miller said:


> Forgive me if this is a redundant question, but I've not been able to find any discussion on this. I'm in the process of building my HT and am planning a 9.x.6 configuration. I see that Dolby has just recently issued a second optional layout for this configuration using front and rear heights instead of top fronts and top rears. Any thoughts and/or experience on which would be the better layout for immersive audio and maybe even future-proofing? I was all set to buy six in-ceiling speakers, but now I'm torn.


1. The official/standard setup for .6 is Top Front + Top Middle + Top Rear.

2. If, for whatever reasons, you can't do the TF+TM+TR, the Front Height + Top Middle + Rear Height will work just fine.

3. Atmos is forgiving, work with what room/speakers you have and you will be pleased anyway!!!


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck Miller said:


> Forgive me if this is a redundant question, but I've not been able to find any discussion on this. I'm in the process of building my HT and am planning a 9.x.6 configuration. I see that Dolby has just recently issued a second optional layout for this configuration using front and rear heights instead of top fronts and top rears. Any thoughts and/or experience on which would be the better layout for immersive audio and maybe even future-proofing? I was all set to buy six in-ceiling speakers, but now I'm torn.
> 
> Here are the two optional layouts from Dolby:
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide.html
> 
> I'll appreciate your comments!


Speakers above your head will give you the impression of sound coming from above your head. Speakers positioned at the top of the front and rear walls will give the impression of sound coming from high up in front of and to the rear of you. Which is better for creating the 'dome' of three dimensional sound which Atmos promises? For my money, it is speakers on the ceiling above you. If someone is unable to mount speakers on the ceiling, then FH+RH are a useful compromise option playing to the belief that 'some Atmos is better than no Atmos'. But for the best Atmos effect, the speakers need to be above you, on the ceiling.


----------



## Chuck Miller

dfa973 said:


> 1. The official/standard setup for .6 is Top Front + Top Middle + Top Rear.
> 
> 2. If, for whatever reasons, you can't do the TF+TM+TR, the Front Height + Top Middle + Rear Height will work just fine.
> 
> 3. Atmos is forgiving, work with what room/speakers you have and you will be pleased anyway!!!


Thanks for your reply. In terms of using the speakers that I have, I guess I would choose to install the heights. I have extras that could be used and I would avoid the expense of the two additional sets of overhead speakers, which I have none of. But I'm not limited to heights, since it's a blank canvas at this point, so open to spending the additional money for the overheads if there is either theory or experience that supports that layout providing the better immersive audio experience.

Cheers!

Chuck


----------



## Chuck Miller

dfa973 said:


> 1. The official/standard setup for .6 is Top Front + Top Middle + Top Rear.
> 
> 2. If, for whatever reasons, you can't do the TF+TM+TR, the Front Height + Top Middle + Rear Height will work just fine.
> 
> 3. Atmos is forgiving, work with what room/speakers you have and you will be pleased anyway!!!





kbarnes701 said:


> Speakers above your head will give you the impression of sound coming from above your head. Speakers positioned at the top of the front and rear walls will give the impression of sound coming from high up in front of and to the rear of you. Which is better for creating the 'dome' of three dimensional sound which Atmos promises? For my money, it is speakers on the ceiling above you. If someone is unable to mount speakers on the ceiling, then FH+RH are a useful compromise option playing to the belief that 'some Atmos is better than no Atmos'. But for the best Atmos effect, the speakers need to be above you, on the ceiling.


This is the kind of insight that I was looking for. I had hoped to find it on the Dolby site, but there was no indication there of why they created the optional approach using heights instead of overheads. Your explanation makes sense and I thank you for sharing!

Cheers!

Chuck


----------



## kbarnes701

Chuck Miller said:


> This is the kind of insight that I was looking for. I had hoped to find it on the Dolby site, but there was no indication there of why they created the optional approach using heights instead of overheads. Your explanation makes sense and I thank you for sharing!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Chuck


You're welcome Chuck. I guess Dolby are just offering an alternative for people who can't, for various reasons, mount speakers on the ceiling above them, in much the same way they offer Atmos-enabled speaker choices for people who can't accommodate *any* speakers beyond those at floor (ear) level. Or the way they now offer the Virtualizer for people who can't even accommodate Atmos-enabled speakers. While this brings Atmos to the widest possible audience, it doesn't signify that the choices are all equal, or that anything other than speakers physically on or in the ceiling is the best approach.

One of the joys of Atmos is the three-dimensional 'dome' of sound it enables, creating the possibility of an astonishing level of immersion, and to my mind, the way to achieve that is to create the 'dome' with physical speakers above the listener(s). If at all possible, it is the best way to go.


----------



## humbland

dfa973 said:


> 6 overheads makes sense if you have 2-3 rows of seats in your room. Do you?
> But yes, if you desire, you can install the "classic" setup of Top Front + Top Middle + Top Rear speakers, to be ready for a future .6 receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> And Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch Flagship AVR!
> 
> 
> Without a 13.2 receiver?
> You may use an old Dolby ProLogic receiver to derive a (phantom) Top Middle channel from TF+TR, as some members of this forum have done.


FWIW, you need an additional _TWO old ProLogic receivers_ to derive a Top Middle channel from TF+TR pairs...


----------



## gene4ht

Chuck Miller said:


> This is the kind of insight that I was looking for. I had hoped to find it on the Dolby site, but *there was no indication there of why they created the optional approach using heights instead of overheads*. Your explanation makes sense and I thank you for sharing!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Chuck





kbarnes701 said:


> You're welcome Chuck. I guess Dolby are just offering an alternative for people who can't, for various reasons, mount speakers on the ceiling above them, in much the same way they offer Atmos-enabled speaker choices for people who can't accommodate *any* speakers beyond those at floor (ear) level. Or the way they now offer the Virtualizer for people who can't even accommodate Atmos-enabled speakers. While this *brings Atmos to the widest possible audience*, it doesn't signify that the choices are all equal, or that anything other than speakers physically on or in the ceiling is the best approach.
> 
> One of the joys of Atmos is the three-dimensional 'dome' of sound it enables, creating the possibility of an astonishing level of immersion, and to my mind, the way to achieve that is to create the 'dome' with physical speakers above the listener(s). If at all possible, it is the best way to go.


+1 I would have to agree with Keith's rationale. Dolby is in the business of "selling" a technology rather than a "methodology" or speaker "type." Therefore the greatest appeal to consumers and hardware manufacturers alike would be the sales & marketing agenda. As to ranking the effectiveness of the methodologies, it appears Dolby is just allowing the marketplace to adapt to whatever is necessary or achievable for a particular environment. My .02


----------



## dfa973

humbland said:


> FWIW, you need an additional _TWO old ProLogic receivers_ to derive a Top Middle channel from TF+TR pairs...


Indeed, you are right, I was aware of that but I only mentioned "a receiver" not "two receivers" because I was kind of sure that if the OP was willing to go the phantom TM route it will ask details about it (or it will do further reading/searching about that subject).
Thanks for pointing that out, for OP or future reading members.


----------



## Photokid1970

kbarnes701 said:


> You're welcome Chuck. I guess Dolby are just offering an alternative for people who can't, for various reasons, mount speakers on the ceiling above them, in much the same way they offer Atmos-enabled speaker choices for people who can't accommodate *any* speakers beyond those at floor (ear) level. Or the way they now offer the Virtualizer for people who can't even accommodate Atmos-enabled speakers. While this brings Atmos to the widest possible audience, it doesn't signify that the choices are all equal, or that anything other than speakers physically on or in the ceiling is the best approach.
> 
> One of the joys of Atmos is the three-dimensional 'dome' of sound it enables, creating the possibility of an astonishing level of immersion, and to my mind, the way to achieve that is to create the 'dome' with physical speakers above the listener(s). If at all possible, it is the best way to go.


Thank you for the continued effort you give on here explaining all of this. I was really stressing over my rear speakers not being in line with my fronts, because the rear of my room is slightly wider than the front due to walkways coming in and out of the room. If they are perfectly in line, then one wall or the other will look 'crooked'. If I make each wall even from left to right based on room width, then the right surrounds will be a foot or two wider than the right front. Now I realize that no one will know that but me. 

I also would LOVE to do ceiling speakers, but I have no ceiling access based on how the room is built. So, I have to go heights. But, I have decided on the Omni Mounts for the height speakers, so I'm stretching out into the ceiling space ever so slightly. It's as good as I can make it, and I'm sure it's going to be great. Currently I have an Onkyo 809, but based on @gene4ht's recommendation in that thread, I'm getting very close to pulling the trigger on an Onkyo 920. The price shot up $150 this week on Amazon, so I'll wait for it to come back down and then I think I'll have all of my speaker placement work finished. Patience, grasshopper...


----------



## kbarnes701

Photokid1970 said:


> Thank you for the continued effort you give on here explaining all of this. I was really stressing over my rear speakers not being in line with my fronts, because the rear of my room is slightly wider than the front due to walkways coming in and out of the room. If they are perfectly in line, then one wall or the other will look 'crooked'. If I make each wall even from left to right based on room width, then the right surrounds will be a foot or two wider than the right front. Now I realize that no one will know that but me.
> 
> I also would LOVE to do ceiling speakers, but I have no ceiling access based on how the room is built. So, I have to go heights. But, I have decided on the Omni Mounts for the height speakers, so I'm stretching out into the ceiling space ever so slightly. It's as good as I can make it, and I'm sure it's going to be great. Currently I have an Onkyo 809, but based on @gene4ht's recommendation in that thread, I'm getting very close to pulling the trigger on an Onkyo 920. The price shot up $150 this week on Amazon, so I'll wait for it to come back down and then I think I'll have all of my speaker placement work finished. Patience, grasshopper...


HT is always about compromise. Just do the best you can with the room you have. It's all anyone can do. You will still have a better end result than if you had no Atmos at all. I've heard Atmos-enabled upfirers sound totally fantastic and I recently tried the 'Virtualizer' in my own HT and was amazed at how effective it was. As good as speakers on the ceiling? No way - but much better than no Atmos at all. Don't overthink it, don't obsess over it, don't fret over what you can't have. Just enjoy the movies! 

Also, let's not forget that while the overhead aspect of Atmos is its most revolutionary feature, it isn't the *only *benefit. The greater degree of precision that Atmos and object-based mixing allows the mixer also means that even where overhead effects are minimal, Atmos is still very much a worthwhile thing.


----------



## humbland

dfa973 said:


> Indeed, you are right, I was aware of that but I only mentioned "a receiver" not "two receivers" because I was kind of sure that if the OP was willing to go the phantom TM route it will ask details about it (or it will do further reading/searching about that subject).
> Thanks for pointing that out, for OP or future reading members.


 I have a particular interest in that thread as we installed 6 overhead speakers when we remodeled our HT. I wanted to "future proof" the set up. We really enjoy Atmos with our current 7.2.4 (Pioneer SC-97). I've been hoping for a way to add the additional overhead pair without the logistical hassle of two additional AVRs. Still waiting...
As has been mentioned, there have been several recent commercial AVR pre-pro offerings promising the 6 overhead channels. However, the prices are not realistic for us.  INMO, part of the issue is probably related to the slow implementation of Atmos. Some of the studios have stripped the Atmos codec from their BR offerings and are only including it with 4K media. Until 4K takes off, my guess is that x.x.6 configuration AVRs will be few and far between. Hope I'm wrong...


----------



## jamesyates

Has anyone had the experience of changing the height speakers to top and noticing a big difference in overhead imaging? I have a marantz AV7702mk2 setup with 7.2.4. I was using FH RH but was not satisfied with the overhead effect with Atmos and Atmos upmixing. DTS x upmixing gave better overhead effects with upmixing using heights. I also use Auro 3D with the FH RH. Switched setting to FT RT and bang Atmos is back and matches What dtsx produced with heights with overhead effects. Ex. Using Atmos helicopter with heights copter travels around the room highish. With Tops set it is high and overhead. To make matters worse I like Auro 3d for music. On my AVR Auro 3D will not work FT BT. The AVR does not allow an easy changeover from Top to height speakers and needs to be recalibrated. Attached are images of speaker placement. Any thoughts?


----------



## gene4ht

humbland said:


> I have a particular interest in that thread as we installed 6 overhead speakers when we remodeled our HT. I wanted to "future proof" the set up. We really enjoy Atmos with our current 7.2.4 (Pioneer SC-97). I've been hoping for a way to add the additional overhead pair without the logistical hassle of two additional AVRs. Still waiting...
> As has been mentioned, there have been several recent commercial AVR pre-pro offerings promising the 6 overhead channels. However, the prices are not realistic for us.  INMO, part of the issue is probably related to the slow implementation of Atmos. Some of the studios have stripped the Atmos codec from their BR offerings and are only including it with 4K media. Until 4K takes off, my guess is that x.x.6 configuration AVRs will be few and far between. Hope I'm wrong...


As I have two rows of seating, I too installed 6 overheads three years ago in anticipation of "reasonably" priced capable hardware. However, the only real game in town is the 8500 (lowest cost single box solution). Although affordable for me, I am reluctant to pull the trigger because it is "the only game in town." In the meantime, in my 7.1.4 (TF,TM,TR) config, I periodically experiment with favoring the front, back, and both rows by changing the AVR's speaker connections. I'm also aware that with the 8500, I would have the option of wides but for some reason I'm not as excited about it as some are. In any case, I'm 99% content with my 7.1.4 system and patient enough to see what competitive solutions may arrive and offer. Just want to share my perspective with fellow 6'ers!

Note: And yes, Atmos is not even in the vocabulary of and on the radar of the general public...much less a 13 or 15 channel capable system!


----------



## ctsv510

jamesyates said:


> Has anyone had the experience of changing the height speakers to top and noticing a big difference in overhead imaging? I have a marantz AV7702mk2 setup with 7.2.4. I was using FH RH but was not satisfied with the overhead effect with Atmos and Atmos upmixing. DTS x upmixing gave better overhead effects with upmixing using heights. I also use Auro 3D with the FH RH. Switched setting to FT RT and bang Atmos is back and matches What dtsx produced with heights with overhead effects. Ex. Using Atmos helicopter with heights copter travels around the room highish. With Tops set it is high and overhead. To make matters worse I like Auro 3d for music. On my AVR Auro 3D will not work FT BT. The AVR does not allow an easy changeover from Top to height speakers and needs to be recalibrated. Attached are images of speaker placement. Any thoughts?


I have in ceiling speakers and setup as FH RH knowing that these would be compatible with all three formats. I never tried TF and TR but now I'm wondering if I'm losing Atmos quality with my current settings. Curious to hear others' experiences.


----------



## kbarnes701

jamesyates said:


> Has anyone had the experience of changing the height speakers to top and noticing a big difference in overhead imaging? I have a marantz AV7702mk2 setup with 7.2.4. I was using FH RH but was not satisfied with the overhead effect with Atmos and Atmos upmixing. DTS x upmixing gave better overhead effects with upmixing using heights. I also use Auro 3D with the FH RH. Switched setting to FT RT and bang Atmos is back and matches What dtsx produced with heights with overhead effects. Ex. Using Atmos helicopter with heights copter travels around the room highish. With Tops set it is high and overhead. To make matters worse I like Auro 3d for music. On my AVR Auro 3D will not work FT BT. The AVR does not allow an easy changeover from Top to height speakers and needs to be recalibrated. Attached are images of speaker placement. Any thoughts?


If your Atmos effect is back with a bang when using TF+TR, then you have got it set the way you want it. Why not just leave it that way and enjoy? You will have to run Audyssey again if you change the speaker designations in the AVR because Audyssey will assume you have physically moved the speakers to a new location even though you haven't.


----------



## flyers10

How important is having direct radiating speakers for side surrounds in an Atmos set up? I have dipoles currently and was contemplating picking up pair of used direct radiating bookshelves to use instead.


----------



## mrtickleuk

flyers10 said:


> How important is having direct radiating speakers for side surrounds in an Atmos set up? I have dipoles currently and was contemplating picking up pair of used direct radiating bookshelves to use instead.


Bipoles or monopoles are both perfectly fine and mentioned in Dolby's recommendations.

Dipoles however, are not. This discussion comes up a lot, if you read back a few pages and/or do a search you'll find the last time we went through it all


----------



## flyers10

mrtickleuk said:


> flyers10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How important is having direct radiating speakers for side surrounds in an Atmos set up? I have dipoles currently and was contemplating picking up pair of used direct radiating bookshelves to use instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Bipoles or monopoles are both perfectly fine and mentioned in Dolby's recommendations.
> 
> Dipoles however, are not. This discussion comes up a lot, if you read back a few pages and/or do a search you'll find the last time we went through it all /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks. The app sucks for searching within a thread. I'll do so on the normal site on my desktop tonight.
Follow up question, my side surrounds are about 7 feet from MLP but only about 1.5ft from the end seats on the sofa. Would switching to monopole be bad for those 2 seats being so close?


----------



## gene4ht

flyers10 said:


> Ok. Thanks. The app sucks for searching within a thread. I'll do so on the normal site on my desktop tonight.
> Follow up question, *my side surrounds are about 7 feet from MLP but only about 1.5ft from the end seats on the sofa. Would switching to monopole be bad for those 2 seats being so close?*


Monopoles will be fine at 7ft at the MLP. However, for viewers sitting at 1.5ft at the ends of the sofa, monopoles would be distracting and blasting into their ears. At this short distance, bipoles are preferred/recommended to diffuse the sound for those sitting so close.


----------



## batpig

You can also just try it with the existing dipoles and see how it sounds. There are a number of people who re-used existing dipole surrounds for convenience and it's not like it will make Atmos blow up and incinerate the room. Worth experimenting to see what works for you!


----------



## stikle

batpig said:


> There are a number of people who re-used existing dipole surrounds for convenience and it's not like it will make Atmos blow up and incinerate the room.



But it could SOUND like it!


----------



## jamesyates

kbarnes701 said:


> If your Atmos effect is back with a bang when using TF+TR, then you have got it set the way you want it. Why not just leave it that way and enjoy? You will have to run Audyssey again if you change the speaker designations in the AVR because Audyssey will assume you have physically moved the speakers to a new location even though you haven't.


The main reason in my system for using Fh/rh is Auro 3d music upscaling. With tops that is gone.


----------



## T-Bone

flyers10 said:


> mrtickleuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flyers10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How important is having direct radiating speakers for side surrounds in an Atmos set up? I have dipoles currently and was contemplating picking up pair of used direct radiating bookshelves to use instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Bipoles or monopoles are both perfectly fine and mentioned in Dolby's recommendations.
> 
> Dipoles however, are not. This discussion comes up a lot, if you read back a few pages and/or do a search you'll find the last time we went through it all /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Thanks. The app sucks for searching within a thread. I'll do so on the normal site on my desktop tonight.
> Follow up question, my side surrounds are about 7 feet from MLP but only about 1.5ft from the end seats on the sofa. Would switching to monopole be bad for those 2 seats being so close?
Click to expand...

Since you have dipoles for the side surrounds at the moment, I would not use directs knowing they'd be 18" from someone's head.

If you did use direct radiators, then you would have to follow the same rules that have not changed over the last several decades:

1. your side surround speaker should have a line of sight to every listener's ears
2. The SPL across the seating area should be approximately the same for all listeners.

These rules were out there way before Atmos appeared.

for number one, you could have direct radiators that are above the ear so that you get the line of sight. And/Or they're slightly ahead or behind the row of listeners so you get the direct line of sight.

For number two, you cannot follow that rule while using direct radiators if your direct radiated is 18in from someone's head. You would have no choice but to use a diffuse speaker.

In your case, stick with the diffuse side surrounds.

As others have said, you can experiment. And experimenting is fun. But I'm fairly certain you will be disappointed with the direct radiators in your setup.

-T


----------



## batpig

And we have a new entry into the not-five-figures high channel count processor bracket. 

Acurus just announced their Muse 16ch processor which will support “15.1 Atmos”: https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...-channel-surround-processor-and-companion-amp

The Muse I saw on display at CEDIA was only advertising 7.1.4 (with multiple sub outputs) so not sure if this is a new version or a different model with some board swap or something. 

** EDIT - looks like it’s the same model they just beefed it up since CEDIA, perhaps due to market pressure from Emo and now the Monoprice announcement. Acurus has updated the ACT-4 several times with expanded channel capabilities too. I googled some old press releases from around CEDIA to confirm my recollection and they were specifically touting the ACT-4 as the 9.1.6 option at $10K and not the Muse, and in this Oct article they mention “12.1” for the Muse (wonder what 12 was??): https://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/acurus-muse-processor-m8-8-channel-amplifier

At $5500msrp it’s right there with the Monoprice and Emotiva offerings and Acurus has a solid audiophile reputation and experience with high channel count processors... so someone who’s got the budget but is squeamish on Emo or Monoprice’s ability to deliver a stable high end product now has another option for 15.1ch fun in that price bracket.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> And we have a new entry into the not-five-figures high channel count processor bracket.
> 
> Acurus just announced their Muse 16ch processor which will support “15.1 Atmos”: https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...-channel-surround-processor-and-companion-amp
> 
> The Muse I saw on display at CEDIA was only advertising 7.1.4 (with multiple sub outputs) so not sure if this is a new version or a different model with some board swap or something.
> 
> ** EDIT - looks like it’s the same model they just beefed it up since CEDIA, perhaps due to market pressure from Emo and now the Monoprice announcement. Acurus has updated the ACT-4 several times with expanded channel capabilities too. I googled some old press releases from around CEDIA to confirm my recollection and they were specifically touting the ACT-4 as the 9.1.6 option at $10K and not the Muse, and in this Oct article they mention “12.1” for the Muse (wonder what 12 was??): https://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/acurus-muse-processor-m8-8-channel-amplifier
> 
> At $5500msrp it’s right there with the Monoprice and Emotiva offerings and Acurus has a solid audiophile reputation and experience with high channel count processors... so someone who’s got the budget but is squeamish on Emo or Monoprice’s ability to deliver a stable high end product now has another option for 15.1ch fun in that price bracket.


It should be noted, though, that unlike the imminent Monoprice and Emotiva pre/pros in this price range, the Acurus isn't running Dirac room EQ. Rather, Acurus is developing something called ASPEQT, which stands for 'Acurus Speaker Parameter EQ Tool'. It was supposed to be released in the spring of 2018 as per a quick Internet search, but I'm not sure if it's available yet, although it was shown at CEDIA if memory serves.

Other than apparently being some sort of automated PEQ that uses four mics and some sort of mux/mixer, it is unclear just exactly what it would do (i.e. how many PEQ slots and what range of Q and level settings there are, are the mics just running four independent measurements through one mux or are they doing spatial averaging to get the PEQ filter settings, can you use REW's auto EQ instead, etc.). Although a user could always pick up a couple of MiniDSP 88As to handle the room EQ and get outboard Dirac, I suppose, if they didn't want to buy a competitive high channel count processor with a flavor of mixed phase room EQ.

The flyer that a dealer posted on another Acurus thread;
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2451010&d=1536114234

And some discussion on PEQ with Acurus starts here:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...bs-acurus-act-4-processor-5.html#post57293244


----------



## kbarnes701

jamesyates said:


> The main reason in my system for using Fh/rh is Auro 3d music upscaling. With tops that is gone.


Ah sorry - not being any sort of fan of Auro, I missed that.


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> And we have a new entry into the not-five-figures high channel count processor bracket.
> 
> Acurus just announced their Muse 16ch processor which will support “15.1 Atmos”: https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...-channel-surround-processor-and-companion-amp
> 
> The Muse I saw on display at CEDIA was only advertising 7.1.4 (with multiple sub outputs) so not sure if this is a new version or a different model with some board swap or something.
> 
> ** EDIT - looks like it’s the same model they just beefed it up since CEDIA, perhaps due to market pressure from Emo and now the Monoprice announcement. Acurus has updated the ACT-4 several times with expanded channel capabilities too. I googled some old press releases from around CEDIA to confirm my recollection and they were specifically touting the ACT-4 as the 9.1.6 option at $10K and not the Muse, and in this Oct article they mention “12.1” for the Muse (wonder what 12 was??): https://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/acurus-muse-processor-m8-8-channel-amplifier
> 
> At $5500msrp it’s right there with the Monoprice and Emotiva offerings and Acurus has a solid audiophile reputation and experience with high channel count processors... so someone who’s got the budget but is squeamish on Emo or Monoprice’s ability to deliver a stable high end product now has another option for 15.1ch fun in that price bracket.


Good news. Also worth mentioning is that the others have *Dirac Live *room EQ which many consider to be SoTA (in anything that is affordable for most) whereas the Acurus has a proprietary room EQ (which may nor may not be on a par with DL of course).

Haha - damn that Stuart for getting up so early! Agreed Stu (for once!) LOL.

For me, I'd want the proven Dirac Live that I know so well and love so much, but others will have different views I expect.


----------



## Swoosh830

jamesyates said:


> Has anyone had the experience of changing the height speakers to top and noticing a big difference in overhead imaging? I have a marantz AV7702mk2 setup with 7.2.4. I was using FH RH but was not satisfied with the overhead effect with Atmos and Atmos upmixing. DTS x upmixing gave better overhead effects with upmixing using heights. I also use Auro 3D with the FH RH. Switched setting to FT RT and bang Atmos is back and matches What dtsx produced with heights with overhead effects. Ex. Using Atmos helicopter with heights copter travels around the room highish. With Tops set it is high and overhead. To make matters worse I like Auro 3d for music. On my AVR Auro 3D will not work FT BT. The AVR does not allow an easy changeover from Top to height speakers and needs to be recalibrated. Attached are images of speaker placement. Any thoughts?


Do you notice any difference with true DTS X content or DTS X upmixing after designating the speakers as TF and TR? I thought I read somewhere that DTS X is best with the FH and RH designation, but I'm curious how you feel about it.


----------



## slosvt

I finally upgraded my AVR and I am contemplating the addition of 2 Atmos speakers.

Options are in ceiling or front/side height using the SVS Elevation speakers. The room is on the first floor with no access from above, so running the wires for any configuration could be a challenge (might use painted cord tracks to hide).

The MLP is against the back wall @10.5 feet from the front wall.

Thoughts on optimal placement considering the layout?









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

slosvt said:


> I finally upgraded my AVR and I am contemplating the addition of 2 Atmos speakers.
> 
> Options are in ceiling or front/side height using the SVS Elevation speakers. The room is on the first floor with no access from above, so running the wires for any configuration could be a challenge (might use painted cord tracks to hide).
> 
> The MLP is against the back wall @10.5 feet from the front wall.
> 
> Thoughts on optimal placement considering the layout?


Ideally, with just two Atmos overhead speakers you'd want to go for Top Middle position. Putting two speakers in the FH location gives you a 'tall wall of sound' at the front of the room but doesn't really give you the true immersion that a pair of speakers above your head will give you. And overhead effects such as thunder and rain, helicopters, flyovers, reflections from tunnels, large rooms etc etc, will all be much better served with a pair of speakers above the listener than in front of the listener.

Also I would consider Atmos-enabled upfiring speakers or modules too. Don't be put off by the naysayers, many of whom have not heard upfirers at all, or not properly set up. They need careful set up but they can give astonishingly good results. This would definitely help with the problem of not being able to run wires very easily or neatly.

You may not need access from above to run wires. Find out which way your joists go and if they are OK then you should be able to make a small hole and 'fish' the wires through the ceiling, between the joists, to another small hole near the speaker location. Similarly inside walls. A set of proper fibreglass 'fishing rods' will help a lot with this. I did this in my last HT very successfully, although you do need some patience and preferably an assistant too.


----------



## slosvt

Thanks for the quick reply. The RSL C34e speakers are at the top of the list I have researched. 

The joists do run parallel from the front wall to the MLP and the equipment is in the Harry Potter room behind the TV. However, I recently installed ceiling lights in the adjacent dining room which has some access from above and the install was a PITA due to the fire blocks.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Acurus has a solid audiophile reputation and experience with high channel count processors.


Plus, their pre-pros have a terrific user interface. Main variable is their proprietary room correction: remains to be seen how effective ASPEQT will be.


----------



## jamesyates

Swoosh830 said:


> Do you notice any difference with true DTS X content or DTS X upmixing after designating the speakers as TF and TR? I thought I read somewhere that DTS X is best with the FH and RH designation, but I'm curious how you feel about it.


I have not compared DTS X. 

The reason I thought about changing to the Top setting was I was upmixing Back To The Future in DTS X and a scene at the end with a helicopter overhead and high. DTSX upscaling gave it hight and overhead, Atmos upscaling did not with FH + RH. Also, native Atmos was good, but not much real overhead imaging. Just highish imaging. With TF+RH Atmos and DTSX upmix sound similiar and Atmos upscaling gives the screne hight and overhead the same as DTS X with Top or Height speakers.

Due to the fact that I want to use Auro 3D for music upscaling I currently have settled for FH + TR in my system. It is a compromise.


----------



## jamesyates

Swoosh830 said:


> Do you notice any difference with true DTS X content or DTS X upmixing after designating the speakers as TF and TR? I thought I read somewhere that DTS X is best with the FH and RH designation, but I'm curious how you feel about it.


I have not compared DTS X. 

The reason I thought about changing to the Top setting was I was upmixing Back To The Future in DTS X and a scene at the end with a helicopter overhead and high. DTSX upscaling gave it hight and overhead, Atmos upscaling did not with FH + RH. Also, native Atmos was good, but not much real overhead imaging. Just highish imaging. With TF+RH Atmos and DTSX upmix sound similiar and Atmos upscaling gives the screne hight and overhead the same as DTS X with Top or Height speakers.

Due to the fact that I want to use Auro 3D for music upscaling I currently have settled for FH + TR in my system. It is a compromise.


----------



## jamesyates

ctsv510 said:


> I have in ceiling speakers and setup as FH RH knowing that these would be compatible with all three formats. I never tried TF and TR but now I'm wondering if I'm losing Atmos quality with my current settings. Curious to hear others' experiences.


I am guessing the setting for Top and Front on the AVR are there for a reason. Though I am unsure how they differ. All I can say in my system it gave me overheard. I did settle for FH + TR in my system for now as I really like Auro 3D music umping. I loose that was all Tops.


----------



## batpig

kbarnes701 said:


> Good news. Also worth mentioning is that the others have *Dirac Live *room EQ which many consider to be SoTA (in anything that is affordable for most) whereas the Acurus has a proprietary room EQ (which may nor may not be on a par with DL of course).
> 
> Haha - damn that Stuart for getting up so early! Agreed Stu (for once!) LOL.
> 
> For me, I'd want the proven Dirac Live that I know so well and love so much, but others will have different views I expect.


Well, you're in a sweet spot because you've got 16ch of outboard Dirac processing already. And you've got plenty of external amps. You could simply swap out the Marantz for the Acurus and not care whether their proprietary auto EQ is effective or not and you're at 9.1.6 Atmos without the excessive cost and complexity of the Trinnov (can Stuart RESIST responding???).



sdurani said:


> Plus, their pre-pros have a terrific user interface. Main variable is their proprietary room correction: remains to be seen how effective ASPEQT will be.


Never seen the interface, good to know. Many pros and some end users don't like auto EQ anyway (or may have outboard EQ like Keith) so the quality of the ASPEQT might be moot for a lot of buyers. The Acurus should have plenty of flexibility for manual PEQ.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Well, you're in a sweet spot because you've got 16ch of outboard Dirac processing already. And you've got plenty of external amps. You could simply swap out the Marantz for the Acurus and not care whether their proprietary auto EQ is effective or not and you're at 9.1.6 Atmos without the excessive cost and complexity of the Trinnov (can Stuart RESIST responding???).


Yes, I can  . Not because I couldn't easily come up with a half page of reasons on this thread about why that swap isn't the optimal solution for overall control of room EQ, target curves, 3D Audio functionality, and long-term value, given the available budget, but since this is Keith's safe zone  I'm going to refrain as he has less than no chance of ever making that decision. 

For him, you're correct on his terms. However, if he would like to talk about puppies, we're buying a new one tomorrow to give our Maltese a sibling. No word on whether she prefers DSU or Neural:X as an upmixer yet. LOL.

To answer the other part of the question, not sure if $5500 is worth it if he's going to use outboard EQ anyway, and he currently feels that 7.1.4 covers any immersion he believes he will experience in his room. But Acurus has an established track record for its gear that's either unknown right now for Monoprice WRT pre/pros, and....opaque...for Emotiva. The reports on the AVS RMC-1 thread don't exactly inspire confidence at this time. Maybe that will change with firmware upgrades...



> Never seen the interface, good to know. Many pros and some end users don't like auto EQ anyway (or may have outboard EQ like Keith) so the quality of the ASPEQT might be moot for a lot of buyers. The Acurus should have plenty of flexibility for manual PEQ.


Having done the HAA sequence of classes for pros, as a general rule I would agree with you as a first preference. However, they may see automated EQ, even including iterations of the best of the high-resolution room EQs, as "icing on the cake' (to coin a Keithism) after room treatments, manual placement and judicious PEQ with spatially averaged measurements below Schroeder to address major room problems. That's a niche that Acurus might be able to fill at their budget point.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Many pros and some end users don't like auto EQ anyway (or may have outboard EQ like Keith) so the quality of the ASPEQT might be moot for a lot of buyers. The Acurus should have plenty of flexibility for manual PEQ.


For those who prefer EQing mostly in the modal range, PEQ should be enough. If ASPEQT can handle the chore of generating those filters automatically, then that would be a big help.


----------



## RUR

sdurani said:


> For those who prefer EQing mostly in the modal range, PEQ should be enough. If ASPEQT can handle the chore of generating those filters automatically, then that would be a big help.


$2,459 for the calibration kit!?

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...-16-channel-ssp-w-5500-msrp.html#post57614042

Kinda ruins the “bargain” price, if true.


----------



## sdrucker

RUR said:


> $2,459 for the calibration kit!?
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...-16-channel-ssp-w-5500-msrp.html#post57614042
> 
> Kinda ruins the “bargain” price, if true.


But thoroughly feasible for a custom installer as part of a five figure project. I could think of better ways to spend that money in the high-end space...


----------



## niterida

I probably already know the answer to this question but I thought I would ask any way :


I have the choice of installing either 4 ceiling speakers or 4 height speakers in the corners for my Atmos setup. Now I have just read that height speakers in the corners but be "almost" as good but wondering if anyone on here has experiencing directly comparing the 2 setups ?


So my question is will it be worth the extra hassle of mounting the ceiling speakers instead of the heights (which are already installed) ?


----------



## kbarnes701

batpig said:


> Well, you're in a sweet spot because you've got 16ch of outboard Dirac processing already. And you've got plenty of external amps. You could simply swap out the Marantz for the Acurus and not care whether their proprietary auto EQ is effective or not and you're at 9.1.6 Atmos without the excessive cost and complexity of the Trinnov (can Stuart RESIST responding???).


Yes, good point about my setup with my twin miniDSP DFDRC-88A units. I am room-EQ agnostic as far as AVRs are concerned (hence me ignoring the inbuilt Audyssey XT32 in my Marantz and using the superior Dirac Live outboard). HST, when I went for Dirac Live, the 88A was the only choice for me - AVRs with inbuilt DL didn't exist then (or if they did they were way too expensive for someone who has little regard for any sonic differences modern electronics contribute (room EQ aside of course). Using two 88As is fairly complex and needs a lot of setting up but once done it works very well, and as you say I have 4 channels 'spare' on my second 88A. 

But since I installed my DL units, there has been a plethora of AVs come along that feature inbuilt Dirac Live, including very affordable 7.x.4 units like the NAD 758 v3. Having DL onboard makes life easier, reduces setup complexity, eliminates a bunch of cables and takes up way less rack space - plus of course, unlike the 88As, doesn't need external amplification. These days, for most people, I think an inbuilt DL solution is the way to go for the vast majority. Then we have the next generation units coming along now that feature 9.x.6 and which are also quite affordable. I am thinking Emotiva and Monoprice etc. This brings the possibility of mo' speakers being mo' better to a much larger audience than before, and again with the benefits of DL and amplifiers all in one box.

Whichever one jumps, it is really good to see so much choice emerging, and at prices that many people can afford or justify to themselves or their financial controller.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> To answer the other part of the question, not sure if $5500 is worth it if he's going to use outboard EQ anyway, and he currently feels that 7.1.4 covers any immersion he believes he will experience in his room. But Acurus has an established track record for its gear that's either unknown right now for Monoprice WRT pre/pros, and....opaque...for Emotiva. The reports on the AVS RMC-1 thread don't exactly inspire confidence at this time. Maybe that will change with firmware upgrades...


Yep. In my room I can't see me ever wanting to add any more overhead speakers than the four I currently have. The improvement, if any, would be minuscule compared to the cost, upheaval etc. If I did add any additional speakers, I'd go for Wides. I could do that with a fairly basic (by modern standards) AVR since, as just discussed, I have all the outboard Dirac Live I need via the two 88A units. But even Wides are only an embryonic thought at this time since the immersion I already have is astonishingly good.

As for your other comment above, I agree entirely. Acurus has a great reputation but lacks the essential (for me)*** Dirac Live and I would never touch an Emo pre-pro until at least a few years of development had proven that every last bug had been ironed out of it, by which time things would have moved on anyway so I wouldn't want the (by then) outdated Emo anyway. I am not sure who actually makes the Monoprice unit (anyone know?) so it may or not be a contender. I suspect we will see even more choices emerge in the near future which will satisfy those who feel the need for 9.x.6 and also those who want the unquestioned benefits of Dirac Live. Very exciting times, especially as not long ago the doomsayers were telling us that the AVR market was dying on its a**.

** *I mean Dirac Live is considered as essential by me - as discussed I could happily use the Acurus and ignore any onboard EQ thanks to my outboard 88A solution.


----------



## kbarnes701

niterida said:


> I probably already know the answer to this question but I thought I would ask any way :
> 
> 
> I have the choice of installing either 4 ceiling speakers or 4 height speakers in the corners for my Atmos setup. Now I have just read that height speakers in the corners but be "almost" as good but wondering if anyone on here has experiencing directly comparing the 2 setups ?
> 
> 
> So my question is will it be worth the extra hassle of mounting the ceiling speakers instead of the heights (which are already installed) ?


Yes. Given that a major aim of Atmos is to deliver a three-dimensional 'dome' of sound, encompassing sounds around you as well as sounds above you, ask yourself this: which is better going to give the impression of sounds coming from above me: four speakers above me or two speakers in front of me and two behind me?


----------



## Chirosamsung

*DIRAC sub calibration*

Anyone heard any need currently about the DIRAC multi sub calibration?? Is that going to be out soon? Anyone have any experience with it at CES?


----------



## Swoosh830

As I was contemplating moving my rear Atmos speakers to the side walls just in front of the soffit, I've begun to consider leaving them where they are and adding one more pair of speakers halfway along the side wall for a 7.2.6 setup. The yellow tape represents the proposed locations. This would eliminate the possible issues associated with having the speakers right up against the soffit and also add another element of immersion (possibly) at the same time.

After doing some quick measuring an calculations, all three pairs of height speakers would fall within the Dolby recommendations in regards to angles when viewed from the side (55, 100, 150). However, many say that 4 height speakers is the sweet spot for a single row of seating and I wouldn't want 6 to actually be a detriment to the Atmos effect. Since I haven't run any wires yet, I was considering adding this extra pair as a way of "future-proofing" the setup since I have opportunity. I have a tendency to think "what if?" with a lot of things, and I'd rather go overboard in the beginning rather than second-guess myself later and consider the extra time involved in modifying a room that's already complete. Once this room is done... I want it to be done. A 7.2.6 setup (I'm looking at the Denon X8500H) would fill what this room is capable of.

Having said all that, I guess my main question/concern would be if there is a reason not to do this... whether the placement of the new speakers would hurt the overall effect or other "gotchas" like DTS: X and Auro 3D not being able to utilize TF, TM, and TR at the same time would make the extra speakers not worth it, etc. Although, a discussion regarding DTS: X and Auro 3D is probably best had in another thread.

I appreciate the advice given to this HTOCD sufferer.


----------



## flyers10

gene4ht said:


> flyers10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thanks. The app sucks for searching within a thread. I'll do so on the normal site on my desktop tonight.
> Follow up question, *my side surrounds are about 7 feet from MLP but only about 1.5ft from the end seats on the sofa. Would switching to monopole be bad for those 2 seats being so close?*
> 
> 
> 
> Monopoles will be fine at 7ft at the MLP. However, for viewers sitting at 1.5ft at the ends of the sofa, monopoles would be distracting and blasting into their ears. At this short distance, bipoles are preferred/recommended to diffuse the sound for those sitting so close.
Click to expand...

I watched few movies and some Atmos trailers. Definitely noticed the null on the dipoles especially on the trailers that panned around the room. So my thought was to look at the monopole and deal with closest seats at 2ft being bit louder (maybe move speaker back a smidge and aim more at MLP to help reduce that) or pick up some used bipoles. My room opens to kitchen and read bipoles arent so good in big rooms but maybe for my situation that is the best compromise.


----------



## Jonas2

flyers10 said:


> I watched few movies and some Atmos trailers. Defiantly notice the null on the dipoles especially on the trailers that panned around the room. So my thought was to look at the monopole and deal with closest seats at 2ft being bit louder (maybe move speaker back a smidge and aim more at MLP to help reduce that) or pick up some used bipoles. My room opens to kitchen and read bipoles arent so good in big rooms but maybe for my situation that is the best compromise.



If it is not too hard for you to do so, I'd consider experimenting with the bipoles. But another thing you could try is to move the side surrounds forward a bit and aim them at the opposite position on the couch ao that they are *shooting* past the closest and MLP listeners. It's not perfect, but I've got a similar problem as you do with the right side listener being too close to the speaker. This helped out quite a bit. Not the ideal position for 5.x, but I run a 7.x so they're better for that, but honestly when I'm not running 7.x and go to 5.x, they aren't half bad even not being in technically the right place. Just throwing that out for you, not sure if you've got rears or not...??


----------



## gene4ht

flyers10 said:


> I watched few movies and some Atmos trailers. *Defiantly notice the null on the dipoles *especially on the trailers that panned around the room. So my thought was to look at the monopole and deal with closest seats at 2ft being bit louder (maybe move speaker back a smidge and aim more at MLP to help reduce that) or pick up some used bipoles. My room opens to kitchen and read bipoles arent so good in big rooms but maybe for my situation that is the best compromise.


IIRC, Dolby and a good number of users do not recommend dipoles for this reason...worth trying...but by design have inherent nulls. With your 2ft distance and monopoles, I would agree with your approach...(1) perhaps try moving them forward or back a bit (2) maybe even a bit above ear level (3) slightly off axis and (4) maybe reducing the speaker's level a bit. And certainly, trying used bipoles if you get a chance. In any case, the key is always experimentation...the only way to know what works best for your seating arrangement and in your room.Good luck with your pursuit!


----------



## howard68

Muse immersive media room processor boasts 112 surround sound speaker layouts available to choose from, including 52 Dolby Atmos and DTS:X immersive speaker layouts -- up to an amazing 15.1 configured immersive audio media room. Setting up any of these layouts is a snap with the intuitive UI available both on the front panel and via a refreshingly simple-to-use mobile app. System integration and control is simplified through many 3rd party control solutions supported by the Muse.
I can't wait to see what the speaker layouts are


----------



## maikeldepotter

howard68 said:


> Muse immersive media room processor boasts 112 surround sound speaker layouts available to choose from, including 52 Dolby Atmos and DTS:X immersive speaker layouts -- up to an amazing 15.1 configured immersive audio media room.


What does the processor do differently between all those 112 speaker layouts, other than taking account for the number speakers and their chosen (format specific) assignments?


----------



## howard68

I don't know I have emailed the company
I hope you can free assign speakers that will go beyond the Dolby 7.1.4
Maybe use Fh + Th + Tm +Tr +RH and or center high
When I get a reply I will post


----------



## Dale124

Hi all. I am new to the Atmos game, as I only recently added 4 ceiling speakers to my set up. I was wondering about how active my ceiling speakers should be. Since changing my receiver (Marantz SR7013) from a 5.1 to a 5.1.4 system, I definitely notice the room seems “fuller”, but I don’t notice the Atmos speakers specifically very often. I would say that the effect is mostly subtle. There is the odd time that I notice them during a scene, but for the most part, they are subdued.
Is this the norm?
Thanks in advance.
Dale.


----------



## gene4ht

Dale124 said:


> Hi all. I am new to the Atmos game, as I only recently added 4 ceiling speakers to my set up. I was wondering about how active my ceiling speakers should be. Since changing my receiver (Marantz SR7013) from a 5.1 to a 5.1.4 system, I definitely notice the room seems “fuller”, but I don’t notice the Atmos speakers specifically very often. I would say that the effect is mostly subtle. There is the odd time that I notice them during a scene, but for the most part, they are subdued.
> Is this the norm?
> Thanks in advance.
> Dale.


Your experience can vary considerably depending on (1) the location of the speakers relative to your seating (2) the dispersion characteristics of your ceiling speakers (3) your ceiling height (4) the level your room correction system set your speakers at (5) how active the Atmos content on your particular disc/stream is, etc. Having said this, thus far, most of the Atmos content/activity has been for the most part "subtle" consisting of ambient type cues...i.e. wind, rain, birds, insects, rustling leaves, etc. These are intermittent subtle effects and not constant "in your face" effects. Also, consider how much of what we hear on a daily basis comes from above us. There are, however, some titles that are much more active and aggressive...i.e. Blade Runner 2049, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Saving Private Ryan. Have you tried/downloading the Dolby Atmos demo tracks available on their website? Film makers and film mixers are much further along the Atmos learning curve now and newer titles are more engaging and demo worthy.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html


----------



## Jonas2

Dale124 said:


> Hi all. I am new to the Atmos game, as I only recently added 4 ceiling speakers to my set up. I was wondering about how active my ceiling speakers should be. Since changing my receiver (Marantz SR7013) from a 5.1 to a 5.1.4 system, I definitely notice the room seems “fuller”, but I don’t notice the Atmos speakers specifically very often. I would say that the effect is mostly subtle. There is the odd time that I notice them during a scene, but for the most part, they are subdued.
> Is this the norm?
> Thanks in advance.
> Dale.



In addition to what gene4ht already wrote, be sure to try upmixing some music, see what you think! Not everyone is into multi-channel music, but give it a try.


----------



## Dale124

gene4ht said:


> Your experience can vary considerably depending on (1) the location of the speakers relative to your seating (2) the dispersion characteristics of your ceiling speakers (3) your ceiling height (4) the level your room correction system set your speakers at (5) how active the Atmos content on your particular disc/stream is, etc. Having said this, thus far, most of the Atmos content/activity has been for the most part "subtle" consisting of ambient type cues...i.e. wind, rain, birds, insects, rustling leaves, etc. These are intermittent subtle effects and not constant "in your face" effects. Also, consider how much of what we hear on a daily basis comes from above us. There are, however, some titles that are much more active and aggressive...i.e. Blade Runner 2049, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Saving Private Ryan. Have you tried/downloading the Dolby Atmos demo tracks available on their website? Film makers and film mixers are much further along the Atmos learning curve now and newer titles are more engaging and demo worthy.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html


Hi Gene. I have tried to download the demo material from the Dolby website, but the download fails each time I try. I have tried from multiple computers, all with the same result. I assume they have some sort of problem at their end. 
Anyway, we watched Bladerunner 2049 this afternoon, and you are right....that is an active Atmos track, worthy of demo status. 
I was getting much more sound from my ceiling speakers with that one. 
Thanks.


----------



## gene4ht

Dale124 said:


> Hi Gene. I have tried to download the demo material from the Dolby website, but the download fails each time I try. I have tried from multiple computers, all with the same result. I assume they have some sort of problem at their end.


It's possible there's a server issue on their end...maybe try again at a later time. These Dolby demo's and others are available on other sites as well but I don't have/recall their links at the moment. Perhaps other members could chime in with them. 



Dale124 said:


> Anyway, we watched Bladerunner 2049 this afternoon, and you are right....that is an active Atmos track, worthy of demo status.
> I was getting much more sound from my ceiling speakers with that one.
> Thanks.


Good to hear (no pun intended). There are others just as active of course...and as I mentioned earlier, each new release seems to improve upon the previous ones. And lastly, as @Jonas2 suggested, try using both the DSU and Neuro:X upmixers on non 3D titles and music...you'll be surprised how good they sound.


----------



## darkleafar

*How exact should I be in placement?*

I have a little bit of OCD. Per the recommendation of many in this thread and the klipsch owner thread, based on my room and such, I switched by RP140SAs to front heights. They are nice and mounted, but I am having a hard time determining is they are properly leveled and angled down equally. I used my phone using a slope measurement app to try to ensure they were angled the same. As far as being level, I basically sorta did it by feel and eyeing it back and forth. I have attached some pictures so you guys can see. Are they leveled enough? I keep obsessing over whether one is higher than the other, or angled wrong, etc. How much does it matter? If I am off by a centimeter or even an inch, is it going to affect the sound? I believe them to be pretty decently leveled with each other, even if not perfect.

Based on the pictures below, what are yall's thoughts? how exact do I need to be? 

Just so you guys know, I did not use a simple screw. I used these

Thank you for your time.


----------



## kbarnes701

darkleafar said:


> I have a little bit of OCD. Per the recommendation of many in this thread and the klipsch owner thread, based on my room and such, I switched by RP140SAs to front heights. They are nice and mounted, but I am having a hard time determining is they are properly leveled and angled down equally. I used my phone using a slope measurement app to try to ensure they were angled the same. As far as being level, I basically sorta did it by feel and eyeing it back and forth. I have attached some pictures so you guys can see. Are they leveled enough? I keep obsessing over whether one is higher than the other, or angled wrong, etc. How much does it matter? If I am off by a centimeter or even an inch, is it going to affect the sound? I believe them to be pretty decently leveled with each other, even if not perfect.
> 
> Based on the pictures below, what are yall's thoughts? how exact do I need to be?
> 
> Just so you guys know, I did not use a simple screw. I used these
> 
> Thank you for your time.


Sonically, it won't make any difference moving the speakers by these tiny amounts. From an OCD perspective it might make all the difference in the world. FWIW they look fine to me, but only you van decide if they look fine to you as well.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

darkleafar said:


> I have a little bit of OCD. Per the recommendation of many in this thread and the klipsch owner thread, based on my room and such, I switched by RP140SAs to front heights. They are nice and mounted, but I am having a hard time determining is they are properly leveled and angled down equally. I used my phone using a slope measurement app to try to ensure they were angled the same. As far as being level, I basically sorta did it by feel and eyeing it back and forth. I have attached some pictures so you guys can see. Are they leveled enough? I keep obsessing over whether one is higher than the other, or angled wrong, etc. How much does it matter? If I am off by a centimeter or even an inch, is it going to affect the sound? I believe them to be pretty decently leveled with each other, even if not perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the pictures below, what are yall's thoughts? how exact do I need to be?
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you guys know, I did not use a simple screw. I used these
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your time.




Actually the left one looks way off...lol!

I agree with Keith in that sonically, you won’t have any appreciable differences, and the light on the left side may be tricking your eyes into seeing the installation as a little wonky. Besides, when you sit down, I very much doubt your head will be in the exact same spot every time, making adjustments to the cm very useless.


----------



## maikeldepotter

howard68 said:


> I hope you can free assign speakers that will go beyond the Dolby 7.1.4


This option to choose from 112 optional lay-outs probably comes instead of the ability to freely assign speakers (BTW: the assignment of speakers will never be completely free, as it always will have to comply to format specific rules).



> Maybe use Fh + Th + Tm +Tr +RH and or center high


Such configuration should be part of at least one of the available lay-outs.


----------



## LNEWoLF

darkleafar said:


> Based on the pictures below, what are yall's thoughts?


IMHO, with all that beautiful detailed moulding work. I would reposition them so that are positioned with the top and the side of the 140SA speaker housing lined up within the top and side of that raised panel detail moulding. So that it fits within the moulding outline. I wouldn’t put them right up to the moulding. I would leave a little reveal. About maybe an inch.

The overall appearance would flow allot better if you repositioned them. Right now it is bridging your crown moulding and the raised panel moulding. Which to my eyes can be distracting.

Good luck..........

Edited post to add.

You may want to [email protected]@k at your AVR, speaker manual. To see where they recommend placement of front height speakers. 

From memory, years ago and I didn’t pay much attention to it. As I was setting up DAES placed on top of my front and rear speakers.

I thought height speakers were to be placed 3’ above your front speakers. At the time those were bookshelf type speakers. With a flat back that positioned them in a horizontal plane. There was no combo surround/Atmos speakers. That have a built in 20 deg angle to them. 

I read of many people using these dual purpose DAES/surround speakers that Klipsch and other manufacturers market as either surround or DAES. I can understand their use/positioning as a surround speaker in a non Atmos setup. 

But when used in an Atmos setup. As a surround speaker. With the 20 deg angle built in. If positioned at ear height would project the sound in a downward direction. Unless you rotate the speaker 180 deg upside down and use a speaker mount to position the center of the tweeter at ear level. The same concern I would have if used as a height speaker in an Atmos setup. Would these phantom image the sound positions properly.


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Sonically, it won't make any difference moving the speakers by these tiny amounts. From an OCD perspective it might make all the difference in the world. FWIW they look fine to me, but only you van decide if they look fine to you as well.





LNEWoLF said:


> IMHO, with all that beautiful detailed moulding work. I would reposition them so that are positioned with the top and the side of the 140SA speaker housing lined up within the top and side of that raised panel detail moulding. So that it fits within the moulding outline. I wouldn’t put them right up to the moulding. I would leave a little reveal. About maybe an inch.
> 
> The overall appearance would flow allot better if you repositioned them. Right now it is bridging your crown moulding and the raised panel moulding. Which to my eyes can be distracting.
> 
> Good luck..........


I'm in agreement with both Keith and LNEWoLF...there would be negligible sonic difference but visually....better aesthetics.


----------



## Talking Rain

darkleafar said:


> I have a little bit of OCD...



True OCD would not allow you to put such an intrusive speaker in this otherwise beautiful setting. As someone diagnosed with OCD, I'd opt for something in or on the ceiling for SQ and blend into the setting. My OCD would also force me to move the tv into the correct position before taking the photo. Lastly, if you truly had OCD, you would not be able to post pictures sidewards... So maybe you don't have OCD but just very focused on your expectation of Atmos:eeksurprise:. But seriously, like others here have said, your concerns will not make a sonic difference.


----------



## darkleafar

Talking Rain said:


> True OCD would not allow you to put such an intrusive speaker in this otherwise beautiful setting. As someone diagnosed with OCD, I'd opt for something in or on the ceiling for SQ and blend into the setting. My OCD would also force me to move the tv into the correct position before taking the photo. Lastly, if you truly had OCD, you would not be able to post pictures sidewards... So maybe you don't have OCD but just very focused on your expectation of Atmos:eeksurprise:. But seriously, like others here have said, your concerns will not make a sonic difference.


Fair enough! Apologies, I used the term OCD lightly. I don't know why this forum keeps putting my vertical pictures sideways. They are upright on my phone and Google photos, but when they get to this forum they always get turned on their side... It annoys me but I couldnt figure it out 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## darkleafar

LNEWoLF said:


> IMHO, with all that beautiful detailed moulding work. I would reposition them so that are positioned with the top and the side of the 140SA speaker housing lined up within the top and side of that raised panel detail moulding. So that it fits within the moulding outline. I wouldn’t put them right up to the moulding. I would leave a little reveal. About maybe an inch.
> 
> 
> 
> The overall appearance would flow allot better if you repositioned them. Right now it is bridging your crown moulding and the raised panel moulding. Which to my eyes can be distracting.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck..........
> 
> 
> 
> Edited post to add.
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to [email protected]@k at your AVR, speaker manual. To see where they recommend placement of front height speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> From memory, years ago and I didn’t pay much attention to it. As I was setting up DAES placed on top of my front and rear speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought height speakers were to be placed 3’ above your front speakers. At the time those were bookshelf type speakers. With a flat back that positioned them in a horizontal plane. There was no combo surround/Atmos speakers. That have a built in 20 deg angle to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I read of many people using these dual purpose DAES/surround speakers that Klipsch and other manufacturers market as either surround or DAES. I can understand their use/positioning as a surround speaker in a non Atmos setup.
> 
> 
> 
> But when used in an Atmos setup. As a surround speaker. With the 20 deg angle built in. If positioned at ear height would project the sound in a downward direction. Unless you rotate the speaker 180 deg upside down and use a speaker mount to position the center of the tweeter at ear level. The same concern I would have if used as a height speaker in an Atmos setup. Would these phantom image the sound positions properly.


Per the atmos charts and guides posting throughout this thread, for Heights atmos should be preferably lined up with the front mains, and at least 30 degree angle separation from the front mains to mlp line.

That is the reason why I had to place these as high as possible rather than follow the countour of the crown molding, because doing the latter would have placed the speakers much lower and too close to the mains. My ceilings are almost exactly 8 feet tall, so anything lower than "as high as possible" would be below all the front Heights placement recommendations I received in this forums, and even below Dolby's guidelines for atmos placement

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

gene4ht said:


> Dale124 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Gene. I have tried to download the demo material from the Dolby website, but the download fails each time I try. I have tried from multiple computers, all with the same result. I assume they have some sort of problem at their end.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible there's a server issue on their end...maybe try again at a later time. These Dolby demo's and others are available on other sites as well but I don't have/recall their links at the moment. Perhaps other members could chime in with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Dale124 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, we watched Bladerunner 2049 this afternoon, and you are right....that is an active Atmos track, worthy of demo status.
> I was getting much more sound from my ceiling speakers with that one.
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to hear (no pun intended)./forum/images/smilies/smile.gif There are others just as active of course...and as I mentioned earlier, each new release seems to improve upon the previous ones. And lastly, as @Jonas2 suggested, try using both the DSU and Neuro:X upmixers on non 3D titles and music...you'll be surprised how good they sound.
Click to expand...

Anyone know the best scenes to demo in blade runner or other movies? I know people have recommended movies that are good for atmos but are there any recommended best SCENES FOR ATMOS that are demo worthy to just forward to i. Movie and show off to friends quickly?!


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> Muse immersive media room processor boasts 112 surround sound speaker layouts available to choose from, including 52 Dolby Atmos and DTS:X immersive speaker layouts -- up to an amazing 15.1 configured immersive audio media room. Setting up any of these layouts is a snap with the intuitive UI available both on the front panel and via a refreshingly simple-to-use mobile app. System integration and control is simplified through many 3rd party control solutions supported by the Muse.
> I can't wait to see what the speaker layouts are





maikeldepotter said:


> What does the processor do differently between all those 112 speaker layouts, other than taking account for the number speakers and their chosen (format specific) assignments?





howard68 said:


> I don't know I have emailed the company
> I hope you can free assign speakers that will go beyond the Dolby 7.1.4
> Maybe use Fh + Th + Tm +Tr +RH and or center high
> When I get a reply I will post





maikeldepotter said:


> This option to choose from 112 optional lay-outs probably comes instead of the ability to freely assign speakers (BTW: the assignment of speakers will never be completely free, as it always will have to comply to format specific rules).


The 112 layouts thing isn't THAT impressive if you think about it. Permutations add up real quick when you are multiplying options! Especially if you are being really loose about what a different "layout" it.

Just as an example, take a basic 7.1.4 Atmos receiver with 11 channels... the image below is the overhead layout options for the Denon X6400H.

- On the ear level layer, you can run a 5.1 or 7.1 (2 options)
- There are TWENTY THREE different options for height speaker layouts in the table from the manual. Four of them cannot be used with a 5.1 base layout (the ones using the "Back Dolby" up-firing speaker, which pair with Surr Back speakers) and for fun let's exclude "FH+SH" which is really an Auro3D layout.

But that still leaves 18 height layout options for a 5.1.2/5.1.4 setup, and 22 options for a 7.1.2/7.1.4 setup. And we haven't discussed weirdo things like 3.1.2 or 2.1.2. So Denon could say "you can choose from over 40 different Dolby Atmos speaker layouts!" without stretching the truth particularly far.


----------



## nakamoto

Snagged a used one of these. should be arriving next week.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I know this has been asked before but someone just recently mentioned on the NAD 758 thread that the Apple TV 4K is now able to bitstream the atmos demos..,is there anyone that can confirm? All my stuff is separated at the moment for me to test as I’m moving the setup next week..,

Maybe it changed with a new software update? Just want to avoid buying another piece of hardware for the demos if the Apple TV is capable now...


----------



## stikle

Chirosamsung said:


> someone just recently mentioned on the NAD 758 thread that the Apple TV 4K is now able to bitstream the atmos demos..,is there anyone that can confirm?



Nope. I just updated to the latest TvOS 12.2 today and there is no option for Bitstreaming.

All Atmos demos streamed locally VIA Plex still only output an LPCM stream with no Atmos metadata. My receiver still only reports 7.1 Multichannel...unlike from my Shield.

Jack Ryan from Amazon Prime was previously streaming Atmos VIA Dolby MAT, but that was E-AC3, not Bitstream.

Also, what's a "Samaung"?



Chirosamsung said:


> 65JS9500 75Z9D
> Sonos playbar, SUB AND Play 1 surrounds.
> Apple TV 4K, *Samaung* UHD BluRay. 18 Sonos Units


----------



## Chirosamsung

stikle said:


> Nope. I just updated to the latest TvOS 12.2 today and there is no option for Bitstreaming.
> 
> All Atmos demos streamed locally VIA Plex still only output an LPCM stream with no Atmos metadata. My receiver still only reports 7.1 Multichannel...unlike from my Shield.
> 
> Jack Ryan from Amazon Prime was previously streaming Atmos VIA Dolby MAT, but that was E-AC3, not Bitstream.
> 
> Also, what's a "Samaung"?


Just updated my Signature with all my new gear and spelling corrections!


----------



## Chirosamsung

since i just bought the shield and i literally ONLY want it for the dolby atmos demos (which I have downloaded onto my mac mini), can you please let me know what settings or action i need to do to get my Nvidia Shiled to output dolby atmos files to my NAD and 5.1.4 setup please and thank you


----------



## darkleafar

nakamoto said:


> Snagged a used one of these. should be arriving next week.


Brother in arms! That's what I have  

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## stikle

Chirosamsung said:


> since i just bought the shield and i literally ONLY want it for the dolby atmos demos (which I have downloaded onto my mac mini), can you please let me know what settings or action i need to do to get my Nvidia Shiled to output dolby atmos files to my NAD and 5.1.4 setup please and thank you



The easiest thing to do (I just tested as I've never done it before) is to copy the Atmos demo files to a USB flash drive. Plug the drive into the back of the Shield (I used the left port, but it shouldn't matter). Install the free Kodi player app on the Shield. Go into the Advanced Audio settings and change from the default of 2 channel to 7.1 channels, and also enable Passthrough and all codecs your NAD supports.

Then go back to the Kodi Home screen, go into Videos, and USB will show up. Select that, select your Atmos demo file, and voila'. I tried two different demos (Unfold and Nature's Fury) and my AVR showed Atmos for both.

Alternately, and more complicated, install Plex Media Server on your Mac, set it up, add your demos to that, install the free Plex app on your Shield (Kodi will work but may not be as seemless), and point it to your Plex Media Server on your network as a source. That's what I suggest, as you can then just drop other movies and clips into the right directory on your Mac and they just show up in Plex. I don't speak Mac so am of zero help on that front.

I have Plex Media Server running on my NAS and it works perfectly as a server for the Plex client on my Shield. I used to run it off of a Windows PC like that as well.


----------



## Chirosamsung

stikle said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> since i just bought the shield and i literally ONLY want it for the dolby atmos demos (which I have downloaded onto my mac mini), can you please let me know what settings or action i need to do to get my Nvidia Shiled to output dolby atmos files to my NAD and 5.1.4 setup please and thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easiest thing to do (I just tested as I've never done it before) is to copy the Atmos demo files to a USB flash drive. Plug the drive into the back of the Shield (I used the left port, but it shouldn't matter). Install the free Kodi player app on the Shield. Go into the Advanced Audio settings and change from the default of 2 channel to 7.1 channels, and also enable Passthrough and all codecs your NAD supports.
> 
> Then go back to the Kodi Home screen, go into Videos, and USB will show up. Select that, select your Atmos demo file, and voila'. I tried two different demos (Unfold and Nature's Fury) and my AVR showed Atmos for both.
> 
> Alternately, and more complicated, install Plex Media Server on your Mac, set it up, add your demos to that, install the free Plex app on your Shield (Kodi will work but may not be as seemless), and point it to your Plex Media Server on your network as a source. That's what I suggest, as you can then just drop other movies and clips into the right directory on your Mac and they just show up in Plex. I don't speak Mac so am of zero help on that front.
> 
> I have Plex Media Server running on my NAS and it works perfectly as a server for the Plex client on my Shield. I used to run it off of a Windows PC like that as well.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the instructions-I’m gonna give it a try when I get it all set up next weekend!


----------



## Chirosamsung

Anyone know how the atmos track is on Bohemian Rhapsody? Should be good I would think...


----------



## Matt L

Chirosamsung said:


> since i just bought the shield and i literally ONLY want it for the dolby atmos demos (which I have downloaded onto my mac mini), can you please let me know what settings or action i need to do to get my Nvidia Shiled to output dolby atmos files to my NAD and 5.1.4 setup please and thank you


I am able to play Atmos files directly using my Samsung UHD player. They are on my NAS and easily accessible from the UHD player. It works so well I've totally dropped PLEX. It would work well even if you have to use a USB stick.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Matt L said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> since i just bought the shield and i literally ONLY want it for the dolby atmos demos (which I have downloaded onto my mac mini), can you please let me know what settings or action i need to do to get my Nvidia Shiled to output dolby atmos files to my NAD and 5.1.4 setup please and thank you
> 
> 
> 
> I am able to play Atmos files directly using my Samsung UHD player. They are on my NAS and easily accessible from the UHD player. It works so well I've totally dropped PLEX. It would work well even if you have to use a USB stick.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the original (first UHD) Samsung blu ray player plays atmos?? If so I have that one!!!


----------



## Ganymed4

Can anybody please give me a recommendation for using book-shelf speakers as Atmos/Auro speakers?


I used this kind of set-up before but not according the Dolby guidelines - ceiling speakers in line with the LR speakers in front. My question is now, if I am using book-shelf speakers with wall-mounts on the ceiling over the LR speakers, should I use an angle in direction to the MLP, like I do for the main LR speakers or should I leave them straight? I mean 0° or 20°?
The speakers are pointing to the MLP but should I give them an extra angle or leave them straight.



I used height speakers - as for PLIIz - before in front and two more just behind the MLP, pointed straight to the floor. This worked fine for me and I had a very good 360° sound experience. Even though the front heights were behind my non-AT screen.
I recently bought a new speaker set from Adam Audio and I want to place the speakers correctly. I know front heights are not in the Atmos specs but I want to have a mix of Atmos and Auro 3D set-up.


What would be your recommendation? Thank you in advance.



PS: I hope I could explain this in an understandable way...


----------



## kbarnes701

Ganymed4 said:


> Can anybody please give me a recommendation for using book-shelf speakers as Atmos/Auro speakers?
> 
> 
> I used this kind of set-up before but not according the Dolby guidelines - ceiling speakers in line with the LR speakers in front. My question is now, if I am using book-shelf speakers with wall-mounts on the ceiling over the LR speakers, should I use an angle in direction to the MLP, like I do for the main LR speakers or should I leave them straight? I mean 0° or 20°?
> The speakers are pointing to the MLP but should I give them an extra angle or leave them straight.


IMO all speakers should be angled towards MLP unless their manufacturer specifically advises not to (eg some Dali speakers). Do you aim your Left and Right speakers towards MLP? Probably. In which case, why would it be any different for Atmos speakers? Dolby haven't re-written the laws of acoustics or speaker installation.

Maybe there is some confusion with regard to speaker angles? Dolby advise that the Atmos speakers should be within a specified range of angles, but these angles are from MLP. I don't know if this diagram has been posted on here before, but it shows those angles and as you can see, the relevant angle range for speakers mounted as Front Height is between 30 and 45 degrees. But that is quite different from angling speakers towards MLP. Dolby specifically recommend in fact that Atmos overhead speakers which do not have a very wide 90 degree dispersion pattern should be aimed towards MLP. There is no good reason to not apply this to FH speakers also.


----------



## Ganymed4

THANK YOU and this is very helpful


----------



## Matt L

Chirosamsung said:


> Are you saying the original (first UHD) Samsung blu ray player plays atmos?? If so I have that one!!!


Yes.


----------



## deano86

Chirosamsung said:


> Are you saying the original (first UHD) Samsung blu ray player plays atmos?? If so I have that one!!!


Keep in mind, what format container your Atmos files are in... that could make a big difference with your player on whether it can stream via NAS or USB and play them properly... M2TS, MKV...etc..


----------



## T-Bone

I recall a week or so back some folks looking for some Dolby Atmos receiver recommendations.

In case you guys don't subscribe to the Great deals found forum here, is an excellent deal on an Onkyo rz830 9.2 receiver with 11.2 processing 

Onkyo TX-RZ830 New. Direct from Onkyo https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3052298

-T


----------



## Gabre

darkleafar said:


> I have a little bit of OCD. Per the recommendation of many in this thread and the klipsch owner thread, based on my room and such, I switched by RP140SAs to front heights. They are nice and mounted, but I am having a hard time determining is they are properly leveled and angled down equally. I used my phone using a slope measurement app to try to ensure they were angled the same. As far as being level, I basically sorta did it by feel and eyeing it back and forth. I have attached some pictures so you guys can see. Are they leveled enough? I keep obsessing over whether one is higher than the other, or angled wrong, etc. How much does it matter? If I am off by a centimeter or even an inch, is it going to affect the sound? I believe them to be pretty decently leveled with each other, even if not perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the pictures below, what are yall's thoughts? how exact do I need to be?
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you guys know, I did not use a simple screw. I used these
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your time.


OCD?? 

And then you have WHITE wall plugs sticking above the screen, I got agitated just seeing them on a pic, not to mention if I had to look at them every day. 



Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## darkleafar

Question. I just put up my RP140SA KLIPSCH as front heights. I am waiting for a decent deal on a second set of RP140SA so I can use them as back heights and complete my FH + RH ATMOS setup. 

I was thinking...I have RS42 II as surrounds. What If i were to use those as my rear heights and take this opportunity to upgrade my side surrounds to something else like a larger pair of bookshelfs?

Are RS42 II functional as rear ATMOS heights? Or would i be better off just leaving my surrounds alone and get the second pair of RP140sa to voice match?


----------



## batpig

darkleafar said:


> Question. I just put up my RP140SA KLIPSCH as front heights. I am waiting for a decent deal on a second set of RP140SA so I can use them as back heights and complete my FH + RH ATMOS setup.
> 
> I was thinking...I have RS42 II as surrounds. What If i were to use those as my rear heights and take this opportunity to upgrade my side surrounds to something else like a larger pair of bookshelfs?
> 
> Are RS42 II functional as rear ATMOS heights? Or would i be better off just leaving my surrounds alone and get the second pair of RP140sa to voice match?


Personally, I wouldn't mix two totally different speaker designs for front/rear heights. In a smaller room and/or trying to cover multiple rows of seating, I think a wide dispersion speaker like the RS42 II would work well as an overhead speaker, but I'd use the same speaker for all the overheads. 

What are the room dimensions? If you don't have a lot of space between you and the seating you may prefer to stick to the RS style surround speaker vs. a larger bookshelf speaker.


----------



## darkleafar

batpig said:


> Personally, I wouldn't mix two totally different speaker designs for front/rear heights. In a smaller room and/or trying to cover multiple rows of seating, I think a wide dispersion speaker like the RS42 II would work well as an overhead speaker, but I'd use the same speaker for all the overheads.
> 
> 
> 
> What are the room dimensions? If you don't have a lot of space between you and the seating you may prefer to stick to the RS style surround speaker vs. a larger bookshelf speaker.


Rather than fill this thread with repeated info, I have all my room dimensions and pictures on the OP post on this thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57541392&postcount=1

Thank you for your reply! 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## audiovideochallenged

Please excuse me if this question has already been asked. I want to buy 4 ceiling speakers for Atmos (I intend to have 7.2.4 capability in near future). Could you suggest any brands between $150 to #300 (each)? What specifications should I be looking for?


----------



## rekbones

audiovideochallenged said:


> Please excuse me if this question has already been asked. I want to buy 4 ceiling speakers for Atmos (I intend to have 7.2.4 capability in near future). Could you suggest any brands between $150 to #300 (each)? What specifications should I be looking for?



Ultimately you want something as close to the same speakers you already have so they are timber matched as closely as possible. Something rated flat to 80 hz would also be desirable. I personally don't think its as critical as most on here if you have decent room correction as I have some fairly cheap speakers crossed over at 120 Hz and I think mine sound fairly good.


----------



## niterida

kbarnes701 said:


> IMO all speakers should be angled towards MLP unless their manufacturer specifically advises not to (eg some Dali speakers). Do you aim your Left and Right speakers towards MLP? Probably. In which case, why would it be any different for Atmos speakers? Dolby haven't re-written the laws of acoustics or speaker installation.
> 
> Maybe there is some confusion with regard to speaker angles? Dolby advise that the Atmos speakers should be within a specified range of angles, but these angles are from MLP. I don't know if this diagram has been posted on here before, but it shows those angles and as you can see, the relevant angle range for speakers mounted as Front Height is between 30 and 45 degrees. But that is quite different from angling speakers towards MLP. Dolby specifically recommend in fact that Atmos overhead speakers which do not have a very wide 90 degree dispersion pattern should be aimed towards MLP. There is no good reason to not apply this to FH speakers also.



Those diagrams contradict what you have said 
They clearly show the heights pointing straight ahead on the top view and only angled down very slightly (as per text also) in the side view.


I don't think it has anything to do with the speaker manufacturers specs (but it helps to have speaker specs match the Atmos setup) but everything to do with ATMOS specs


----------



## kbarnes701

niterida said:


> Those diagrams contradict what you have said


No they don't


----------



## niterida

kbarnes701 said:


> No they don't


You said to aim the heights at the MLP and they are clearly not aimed anywhere near the MLP in the diagrams.


----------



## kbarnes701

niterida said:


> You said to aim the heights at the MLP and they are clearly not aimed anywhere near the MLP in the diagrams.


Don't worry about it. Aim your speakers wherever you wish - they're your speakers.

You probably missed the part where I said _" [the] diagram [...] shows those angles (i.e. from MLP) and as you can see, the relevant angle range for speakers mounted as Front Height is between 30 and 45 degrees. *But that is quite different from angling speakers towards MLP".*_


----------



## audiovideochallenged

rekbones said:


> Ultimately you want something as close to the same speakers you already have so they are timber matched as closely as possible. Something rated flat to 80 hz would also be desirable. I personally don't think its as critical as most on here if you have decent room correction as I have some fairly cheap speakers crossed over at 120 Hz and I think mine sound fairly good.


Thank you for your help


----------



## davehale

Chirosamsung said:


> Anyone know the best scenes to demo in blade runner or other movies? I know people have recommended movies that are good for atmos but are there any recommended best SCENES FOR ATMOS that are demo worthy to just forward to i. Movie and show off to friends quickly?!


"A Quiet Place" at about minute 42 or 45. Still on my cruise but cant confirm. When she is in the basement and looks up at the ceiling (my wife did also) hearing the monster walking upstairs.


----------



## LiamSevier

Currently, I am using a pair of Paradigm Studio 20s as side surrounds. But I am getting a new, larger couch which will be closer to (almost against) the side walls of the room. So there will no longer be any room for these speakers on stands. 
I'm considering replacing them with a pair of wall mounted Paradigm Surround 3's (https://www.paradigm.com/en/rears-surrounds/paradigm-surround-3). 

But, due to the bipole configuration of these speakers, I'm wondering if I would be sitting too close for them to actually function as needed. 
My main listening position would be only about 1-2 feet away from the speakers, and likely right in the middle of where the bipole split is. 
Will that be a problem? 
I know that there is some overlap in the sound field, but in this use case, do these speakers need to be mounted a little bit behind where the MLP will be? 

And to add relevancy to this thread as being for Dolby Atmos questions, I have yet to install the pair of Paradigm CI Pro P80-A's that I have (intended for a 7.1.2 config). 
The install position will depend on the previous answer;
With the wall mounted Surround 3's in mind, and based on their suggested mounting positions, should I mount the Atmos speakers (depicted as "A") above the MLP , or behind?


----------



## sdurani

LiamSevier said:


> I'm wondering if I would be sitting too close for them to actually function as needed.


You can keep them at your sides if you mount them above ear height so they are firing above the listeners' heads rather than directly into their ears.


> I have yet to install the pair of Paradigm CI Pro P80-A's that I have (intended for a 7.1.2 config).


If you are going to stick with a single pair of heights, mount them a couple feet forward of the listeners. But if you plan on adding another pair of heights down the road, install the first pair 4-5 feet forward of the listeners (to eventually be mirrored by a second pair behind the listeners).


----------



## Chirosamsung

Do people that have watched avengers infinity war, prefer true atmos setting or the DSU setting??


----------



## T-Bone

Chirosamsung said:


> Do people that have watched avengers infinity war, prefer true atmos setting or the DSU setting??


I have not seen it yet, but my AVR (only RZ920) will not allow DSU on native Atmos tracks. 
Dunno if most AVRs are like mine.

-T


----------



## Chirosamsung

T-Bone said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do people that have watched avengers infinity war, prefer true atmos setting or the DSU setting??
> 
> 
> 
> I have not seen it yet, but my AVR (only RZ920) will not allow DSU on native Atmos tracks.
> Dunno if most AVRs are like mine.
> 
> -T
Click to expand...

I have a NaD 758...not sure if that allows upmixing on atmos either. 

Anyone compared infinity war formats?


----------



## batpig

You can't apply DSU to native Atmos material. The only way to do that is to have the player decode the track first which it will recognize as TrueHD 7.1 (since it can't read the Atmos metadata) so it will then be sent to the receiver as 7.1 multich PCM input.


----------



## Craig Mecak

batpig said:


> You can't apply DSU to native Atmos material. The only way to do that is to have the player decode the track first which it will recognize as TrueHD 7.1 (since it can't read the Atmos metadata) so it will then be sent to the receiver as 7.1 multich PCM input.


You can on Yamaha receivers. You just turn 'Object Decode' to OFF in the menu, then only the base 7.1 track is decoded, and you can use any upmixer you like. (except the RX-x080 series, which has upmixing limitations on Dolby Digital + and Dolby TrueHD).


----------



## carp

Craig Mecak said:


> You can on Yamaha receivers. You just turn 'Object Decode' to OFF in the menu, then only the base 7.1 track is decoded, and you can use any upmixer you like. (except the RX-x080 series, which has upmixing limitations on Dolby Digital + and Dolby TrueHD).


Where is 'Object Decode' in the menu? I haven't seen that option on my 3060. 

Thanks


----------



## Craig Mecak

carp said:


> Where is 'Object Decode' in the menu? I haven't seen that option on my 3060.
> 
> Thanks


On Page 138 of the manual.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2532724&thumb=1


----------



## Chirosamsung

How is the infinity war atmos mic then? Other then having to turn it up a few Db, is it pretty solid??


----------



## john.odonnell01

*Martin Logan FX2 and rear surround placement*

I have been doing a lot of reading and listening. 


I have a couple questions. Trying to set up a 7.2.4. Dolby Atmos system.


Room is bare right now. Trying to finalize the speakers. 


Room is 18W x 36 L x 8H. I only plan on using about half of the room for the HT.


I do not have any speakers purchased as of today. 


AVR Marantz SR7013
Additional Amp Marantz MM7025 to drive fronts


Speakers:
Fronts Martin Logan Motion 60XTs
Center Martin Logan Motion 50XT
Surrounds Martin Logan FX2s
Rear Surround Martin Logan 4Is
Atmos 4 x Martin Logan EM-ICs
Subs Rythmik FV18s


Sorry do not have drawings, but if you can picture this:


MLP about 8' off front wall


60s 1' off wall about 10' apart equidistant from centerline
50 Centerline
1st set Atmos 5' back and 8' apart equidistant from centerline. Tweeter aimed towards MLP.
FX2s mounted on outboard walls 5' up 9' back
2nd set Atmos 11' back 8' apart equidistant from centerline. Tweeter aimed towards MLP.
Rear surrounds 15' back 10' apart equidistant from centerline ceiling mounted angled towards MLP
Subs will be placed opposite corners. Can easily be moved. 


So if you can visualize this were good. 


My question: I am now hearing the FX2s are great for 7.1 or 5.1 surround but may not be the best choice for Atmos. I called Martin Logan and asked if they were dipole/bipole and was told they are neither. They are like wide dispersion mains. 160degree dispersion. Should I consider adding 2 4Is instead? My thoughts were they would fill in any gaps and still provide great panning front to back and side to side.


2nd question: Since the rear surrounds need to be ceiling mounted, does 15' back seem adequate? I was told I need spatial separation. Which sounds good but is contrary to the FX2s with their wide dispersion.


I would appreciate any constructive criticism.


----------



## T-Bone

john.odonnell01 said:


> I have been doing a lot of reading and listening.
> 
> 
> I have a couple questions. Trying to set up a 7.2.4. Dolby Atmos system.
> 
> 
> Room is bare right now. Trying to finalize the speakers.
> 
> 
> Room is 18W x 36 L x 8H. I only plan on using about half of the room for the HT.
> 
> 
> I do not have any speakers purchased as of today.
> 
> 
> AVR Marantz SR7013
> Additional Amp Marantz MM7025 to drive fronts
> 
> 
> Speakers:
> Fronts Martin Logan Motion 60XTs
> Center Martin Logan Motion 50XT
> Surrounds Martin Logan FX2s
> Rear Surround Martin Logan 4Is
> Atmos 4 x Martin Logan EM-ICs
> Subs Rythmik FV18s
> 
> 
> Sorry do not have drawings, but if you can picture this:
> 
> 
> MLP about 8' off front wall
> 
> 
> 60s 1' off wall about 10' apart equidistant from centerline
> 50 Centerline
> 1st set Atmos 5' back and 8' apart equidistant from centerline. Tweeter aimed towards MLP.
> FX2s mounted on outboard walls 5' up 9' back
> 2nd set Atmos 11' back 8' apart equidistant from centerline. Tweeter aimed towards MLP.
> Rear surrounds 15' back 10' apart equidistant from centerline ceiling mounted angled towards MLP
> Subs will be placed opposite corners. Can easily be moved.
> 
> 
> So if you can visualize this were good.
> 
> 
> My question: I am now hearing the FX2s are great for 7.1 or 5.1 surround but may not be the best choice for Atmos. I called Martin Logan and asked if they were dipole/bipole and was told they are neither. They are like wide dispersion mains. 160degree dispersion. Should I consider adding 2 4Is instead? My thoughts were they would fill in any gaps and still provide great panning front to back and side to side.
> 
> 
> 2nd question: Since the rear surrounds need to be ceiling mounted, does 15' back seem adequate? I was told I need spatial separation. Which sounds good but is contrary to the FX2s with their wide dispersion.
> 
> 
> I would appreciate any constructive criticism.


The fx-2 won't work as a rear surround. Side surrounds, yeah that's fine.

The fx2 speakers are either firing in phase or out of phase. there are three possible configurations for a speaker with dual drivers that oppose each other:. Bipole, dipole, or adaptive dipole.

With bipolar, all drivers fire in phase. With dipole, the drivers on one side of the speaker fire out of phase with drivers on the other side of the speaker.

with adaptive dipole, only the tweeters fire out of phase. The woofers fire in phase.

if the representative said they are neither bipole nor dipole, I guess they're adaptive dipole. Either that, or the representative did not know what he was talking about.

If your rear surrounds or ceiling-mounted, I would separate them further so you can get a good imaging. There are some specifications on what angle they need to form.


- T


----------



## john.odonnell01

T-Bone said:


> The fx-2 won't work as a rear surround. Side surrounds, yeah that's fine.
> 
> The fx2 speakers are either firing in phase or out of phase. there are three possible configurations for a speaker with dual drivers that oppose each other:. Bipole, dipole, or adaptive dipole.
> 
> With bipolar, all drivers fire in phase. With dipole, the drivers on one side of the speaker fire out of phase with drivers on the other side of the speaker.
> 
> with adaptive dipole, only the tweeters fire out of phase. The woofers fire in phase.
> 
> if the representative said they are neither bipole nor dipole, I guess they're adaptive dipole. Either that, or the representative did not know what he was talking about.
> 
> If your rear surrounds or ceiling-mounted, I would separate them further so you can get a good imaging. There are some specifications on what angle they need to form.
> 
> 
> - T


FX2s are surround, not surround back. The Martin Logan guy said each tweeter fires in unison with each other and the mid range. Like he said, similar to a wide dispersion main speaker. So they would be more similar to a bipole, is my guess.


----------



## T-Bone

john.odonnell01 said:


> T-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fx-2 won't work as a rear surround. Side surrounds, yeah that's fine.
> 
> The fx2 speakers are either firing in phase or out of phase. there are three possible configurations for a speaker with dual drivers that oppose each other:. Bipole, dipole, or adaptive dipole.
> 
> With bipolar, all drivers fire in phase. With dipole, the drivers on one side of the speaker fire out of phase with drivers on the other side of the speaker.
> 
> with adaptive dipole, only the tweeters fire out of phase. The woofers fire in phase.
> 
> if the representative said they are neither bipole nor dipole, I guess they're adaptive dipole. Either that, or the representative did not know what he was talking about.
> 
> If your rear surrounds or ceiling-mounted, I would separate them further so you can get a good imaging. There are some specifications on what angle they need to form.
> 
> 
> - T
> 
> 
> 
> FX2s are surround, not surround back. The Martin Logan guy said each tweeter fires in unison with each other and the mid range. Like he said, similar to a wide dispersion main speaker. So they would be more similar to a bipole, is my guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my bad. I misread your post. They sound like bipoles to me too, niw. There is basically no null zone. The drivers are additive so you get a big lobe that fires over the seating area.

I think you'll be fine with those.

I'll defer to others to answer your questions that I skipped 🙂

-T


----------



## john.odonnell01

Thank T


----------



## Polyrythm1k

john.odonnell01 said:


> Thank T




If the rear surrounds have to be ceiling mounted I would just go 5.x.4. Rear surround and top rears will not have any angular height differential and the point will be lost.


----------



## john.odonnell01

Polyrythm1k said:


> If the rear surrounds have to be ceiling mounted I would just go 5.x.4. Rear surround and top rears will not have any angular height differential and the point will be lost.



Good point. I was thinking of using this: 
http://www.pinpointmounts.com/AM41CSideClampingBookshelfSpeakerCeilingMountwithTiltSwivel


to get the speaker lower. Probably to 6.5 foot high. And with the speakers back an additional 4-5 feet from rear Atmos, I felt there was a benefit.


----------



## darkleafar

Hi all I'm almost done repositionimg my atmos speakers and I want to know how to download the infamous atmos demos and how to best listen to them.

I have an onkyo atmos AVR, and connected I have an oppo 203, apple tv 4k, and chromecast ultra. Any of those can run the demo? Or should I bring up my surface pro 4 to it? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

Craig Mecak said:


> You can on Yamaha receivers. You just turn 'Object Decode' to OFF in the menu, then only the base 7.1 track is decoded, and you can use any upmixer you like. (except the RX-x080 series, which has upmixing limitations on Dolby Digital + and Dolby TrueHD).


But if you do that, *you are not up-mixing Atmos*, you are just up-mixing a 7.1 track, as you say above. That's not up-mixing an Atmos track. That's up-mixing a 7.1 track like you could have done 5 years ago 

You can't apply DSU to the native Atmos track itself, *by definition*, because when the AVR is in Atmos mode it is already using all of your speakers and there are no spare speakers to up-mix to.


----------



## Craig Mecak

mrtickleuk said:


> But if you do that, *you are not up-mixing Atmos*, you are just up-mixing a 7.1 track, as you say above. That's not up-mixing an Atmos track. That's up-mixing a 7.1 track like you could have done 5 years ago
> 
> You can't apply DSU to the native Atmos track itself, *by definition*, because when the AVR is in Atmos mode it is already using all of your speakers and there are no spare speakers to up-mix to.


Umm...I think everyone understood what was meant.

Upmixing the base 7.1 track of an Atmos mix.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

john.odonnell01 said:


> Good point. I was thinking of using this:
> http://www.pinpointmounts.com/AM41CSideClampingBookshelfSpeakerCeilingMountwithTiltSwivel
> 
> 
> to get the speaker lower. Probably to 6.5 foot high. And with the speakers back an additional 4-5 feet from rear Atmos, I felt there was a benefit.




That seems logical enough. Not entirely sure that will do the trick, but it’s definitely better than the ceiling lol. Not familiar with your room, but would you be opposed to putting them on stands?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

darkleafar said:


> Hi all I'm almost done repositionimg my atmos speakers and I want to know how to download the infamous atmos demos and how to best listen to them.
> 
> I have an onkyo atmos AVR, and connected I have an oppo 203, apple tv 4k, and chromecast ultra. Any of those can run the demo? Or should I bring up my surface pro 4 to it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk




I put some on a thumb drive and tried on two bd players. A ps3 and a ubp x700. So far I can only get the files that are mp4 to work. Mkv and mt2s won’t work. Your oppo might be able to.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Craig Mecak said:


> Umm...I think everyone understood what was meant.


I didn't say that anyone didn't understand it.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> darkleafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all I'm almost done repositionimg my atmos speakers and I want to know how to download the infamous atmos demos and how to best listen to them.
> 
> I have an onkyo atmos AVR, and connected I have an oppo 203, apple tv 4k, and chromecast ultra. Any of those can run the demo? Or should I bring up my surface pro 4 to it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put some on a thumb drive and tried on two bd players. A ps3 and a ubp x700. So far I can only get the files that are mp4 to work. Mkv and mt2s won’t work. Your oppo might be able to.
Click to expand...

I think you need a NVIDIA Shield.

Anyone seen infinity War? How is the atmos mix?


----------



## darkleafar

Chirosamsung said:


> I think you need a NVIDIA Shield.
> 
> Anyone seen infinity War? How is the atmos mix?


Why? If Nvidia shield can do then my surface pro 4 can too right? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

darkleafar said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need a NVIDIA Shield.
> 
> Anyone seen infinity War? How is the atmos mix?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If Nvidia shield can do then my surface pro 4 can too right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No idea. My NVIDIA shield is supported but not my 3k Mac Mini 😛


----------



## john.odonnell01

Polyrythm1k said:


> That seems logical enough. Not entirely sure that will do the trick, but it’s definitely better than the ceiling lol. Not familiar with your room, but would you be opposed to putting them on stands?



Yes. I do not want stands in the middle of the room.
I might build a wall. Passages on both ends and a pass thru like some kitchens have in the middle. I could then lower them to like 5' and still have an opening to the next area. Then that would put them about 10' part and back about same distance.


----------



## john.odonnell01

Polyrythm1k said:


> That seems logical enough. Not entirely sure that will do the trick, but it’s definitely better than the ceiling lol. Not familiar with your room, but would you be opposed to putting them on stands?


 
Yes. I do not want stands in the middle of the room. Or wires running across the floor.
I might build a wall. Passages on both ends and a pass thru like some kitchens have in the middle. I could then lower them to like 5' and still have an opening to the next area. Then that would put them about 10' apart and back about same distance.


----------



## Jonas2

darkleafar said:


> Hi all I'm almost done repositionimg my atmos speakers and I want to know how to download the infamous atmos demos and how to best listen to them.
> 
> I have an onkyo atmos AVR, and connected I have an oppo 203, apple tv 4k, and chromecast ultra. Any of those can run the demo? Or should I bring up my surface pro 4 to it?



I don't have an AppleTV, and I avoid Google products whenever possible, but I can tell you the Oppo runs demos wonderfully from USB sticks. I have a big one that I just leave in the back of the Oppo all the time so they're just always available as needed.


----------



## shs1234

Jonas2 said:


> I don't have an AppleTV, and I avoid Google products whenever possible, but I can tell you the Oppo runs demos wonderfully from USB sticks. I have a big one that I just leave in the back of the Oppo all the time so they're just always available as needed.


Yes, the OPPO will play both the MP4 and the MKV Atmos demos very well, and the best ones are MKV. The problem I ran into is that when I replaced my OPPO with a Panny 820 to get good HDR to SDR tone mapping, I no longer had a way of playing the MKV demo files, as neither the 820 or my ATV 4K will play local content with lossless audio. I understand that this is not a technical problem, but more of an anti-piracy thing that Apple and Panasonic obey, but OPPO does not. Yes, there are other devices that will play the MKV files, but I hate to add a new source device just for those demo files.


----------



## darkleafar

Jonas2 said:


> I don't have an AppleTV, and I avoid Google products whenever possible, but I can tell you the Oppo runs demos wonderfully from USB sticks. I have a big one that I just leave in the back of the Oppo all the time so they're just always available as needed.


Thanks! 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## giomania

I am planning placement of Top Front and Top Rear speakers for a 9.1.4 system. The speakers are all JTR, and the top speakers (JTR Slanted 8 HT) were recently used as surround back and Audyssey DSX height speakers. 

The speakers will be mounted to the ceiling, and the driver is mounted on a 30-degree angle face that I am guessing should be factored into their placement? This is the big question for me, but the speakers to have a wide dispersion pattern. Comments and questions welcome. 

Taking the 30-degree driver angle out of the equation, I am able to ideally place the top front speakers aligned with the front left and right speakers, and at a 45-degree elevation, per Dolby recommendations. The rear speaker placement has to be compromised due to a column in the path that would block most sound from the Top Rear Left speaker. Therefore, I was planning to mount the top rear left speaker adjacent to the column, which is still close to the 45-degree elevation, but it cannot be aligned with the front left speaker. Then to be symmetrical, the Top Rear Right speaker will also need to be mounted closer to the center of the room. This plan will not allow for optimal Atmos height affects for the second row, but that is the sacrifice I need to make. 

I used a laser alignment tool to place the tape marks on the ceiling, aligned with the front left speaker. I am including some pictures.

MLP to Top Front - 30, 45, 55 degree elevation options, and the speaker held in place at 45-degree mark.
















MLP to Top Rear Left - 30, 45, 55 degree elevation options, (although you can't really see all the tape marks), and the speaker held in place at ~47-degree mark.
















Top Rear Left 55, 45, and 30-degree tape marks (from left to right) from the other side of the column.









Top Rear Left 55 & 45-degree tape marks from the other side of the column.









I wanted to post some images of the 30-degree driver face when this is held to the ceiling.
















Thanks for any input.

Mark


----------



## ciao.carlos

mrtickleuk said:


> But if you do that, *you are not up-mixing Atmos*, you are just up-mixing a 7.1 track, as you say above. That's not up-mixing an Atmos track. That's up-mixing a 7.1 track like you could have done 5 years ago
> 
> You can't apply DSU to the native Atmos track itself, *by definition*, because when the AVR is in Atmos mode it is already using all of your speakers and there are no spare speakers to up-mix to.


I am not sure about Yamaha's object decode, but is turning it off different from bit streaming? On the Oppo 103, Oppo recommends bit-streaming in order to have the receiver decode Atmos. I'll be adding a point 2 to my 5.1 system today, and I expect the Oppo to pass the 7.1 track to the NAD, which will then turn it to an Atmos mix and I should see that on the NAD screen. I don't think this is up-mixing.


----------



## Selden Ball

ciao.carlos said:


> I am not sure about Yamaha's object decode, but is turning it off different from bit streaming?


Yes, it's different: the object decode setting is in the receiver while the bitstreaming setting is in the disc player. 

When you bitstream an Atmos soundtrack from the disc player to the receiver, the player sends a Dolby TrueHD audio signal which includes both the 7.1 soundtrack and additional Atmos information. When you turn off the Atmos decoding in the receiver (turning it off is a feature which is not available in all receivers), the receiver ignores the incoming Atmos information and plays just the 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack. When you turn off the bitstreaming in the disc player, no Atmos information is sent to the receiver. The 7.1 channel soundtrack is decoded in the disc player and is sent to the receiver as 7.1 channel lossless multichannel PCM, not TrueHD. However, those 7.1 channels sound identical whichever encoding is being used.


> On the Oppo 103, Oppo recommends bit-streaming in order to have the receiver decode Atmos. I'll be adding a point 2 to my 5.1 system today, and I expect the Oppo to pass the 7.1 track to the NAD, which will then turn it to an Atmos mix and I should see that on the NAD screen. I don't think this is up-mixing.


Correct: that is not upmixing. It's using the Atmos information provided in the soundtrack that's on the disc.


----------



## LiamSevier

sdurani said:


> You can keep them at your sides if you mount them above ear height so they are firing above the listeners' heads rather than directly into their ears. If you are going to stick with a single pair of heights, mount them a couple feet forward of the listeners. But if you plan on adding another pair of heights down the road, install the first pair 4-5 feet forward of the listeners (to eventually be mirrored by a second pair behind the listeners).



Thank you, sdurani. Appreciate the advice. 
I was concerned about the more rear-facing part of the bipole speakers, considering that there is about 12 or so feet of space from the side positions/couch to the back wall, where the rear surrounds are. And there's literally nothing in that space, just an empty part of the room. So it seemed like having any audio firing back towards that direction would be a waste. *shrug*


----------



## sdurani

LiamSevier said:


> So it seemed like having any audio firing back towards that direction would be a waste.


The only way to avoid that is to swap your bipoles for monopoles so that less of the speakers' sound fires at the back wall (and front wall) and more if it fires towards the listeners.


----------



## giomania

giomania said:


> I am planning placement of Top Front and Top Rear speakers for a 9.1.4 system. The speakers are all JTR, and the top speakers (JTR Slanted 8 HT) were recently used as surround back and Audyssey DSX height speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> The speakers will be mounted to the ceiling, and the driver is mounted on a 30-degree angle face that I am guessing should be factored into their placement? This is the big question for me, but the speakers to have a wide dispersion pattern. Comments and questions welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Taking the 30-degree driver angle out of the equation, I am able to ideally place the top front speakers aligned with the front left and right speakers, and at a 45-degree elevation, per Dolby recommendations. The rear speaker placement has to be compromised due to a column in the path that would block most sound from the Top Rear Left speaker. Therefore, I was planning to mount the top rear left speaker adjacent to the column, which is still close to the 45-degree elevation, but it cannot be aligned with the front left speaker. Then to be symmetrical, the Top Rear Right speaker will also need to be mounted closer to the center of the room. This plan will not allow for optimal Atmos height affects for the second row, but that is the sacrifice I need to make.
> 
> 
> 
> I used a laser alignment tool to place the tape marks on the ceiling, aligned with the front left speaker. I am including some pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> MLP to Top Front - 30, 45, 55 degree elevation options, and the speaker held in place at 45-degree mark.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533456
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533386
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLP to Top Rear Left - 30, 45, 55 degree elevation options, (although you can't really see all the tape marks), and the speaker held in place at ~47-degree mark.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533458
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533390
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Rear Left 55, 45, and 30-degree tape marks (from left to right) from the other side of the column.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533452
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Rear Left 55 & 45-degree tape marks from the other side of the column.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533460
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to post some images of the 30-degree driver face when this is held to the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533400
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533402
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for any input.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark




Mounted my top rear speakers, as there wasn’t much choice there due to the column. It is not optimal placement, but I will live with it.










Any input on the front placement elevation?

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

giomania said:


> Any input on the front placement elevation?


Around 45 degrees elevation gives a good sense of sounds overhead. Even Audyssey used to recommend that for their DSX height locations. The Atmos renderer thinks the Top Fronts are mid way between the Fronts and Sides. Either one of those locations will work. Don't worry about being overly precise; it doesn't buy you anything with Atmos. ETA: Only other suggestion would be to aim each height speaker at the listener farthest away in the front row (since the speakers have angled baffles anyway).


----------



## giomania

sdurani said:


> Around 45 degrees elevation gives a good sense of sounds overhead. Even Audyssey used to recommend that for their DSX height locations. The Atmos renderer thinks the Top Fronts are mid way between the Fronts and Sides. Either one of those locations will work. Don't worry about being overly precise; it doesn't buy you anything with Atmos. ETA: Only other suggestion would be to aim each height speaker at the listener farthest away in the front row (since the speakers have angled baffles anyway).




Thanks for the input, Sanjay.

My plan was to aim the speakers at the MLP...the only spot that matters. 

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## stikle

shs1234 said:


> neither the 820 or my ATV 4K will play local content with lossless audio. I understand that this is not a technical problem, but *more of an anti-piracy thing* that Apple and Panasonic obey, but OPPO does not.



This is the first time I've ever recalled hearing this particular claim. Do you have references to back that statement up?


----------



## Sevenfeet

shs1234 said:


> Yes, the OPPO will play both the MP4 and the MKV Atmos demos very well, and the best ones are MKV. The problem I ran into is that when I replaced my OPPO with a Panny 820 to get good HDR to SDR tone mapping, I no longer had a way of playing the MKV demo files, as neither the 820 or my ATV 4K will play local content with lossless audio. I understand that this is not a technical problem, but more of an anti-piracy thing that Apple and Panasonic obey, but OPPO does not. Yes, there are other devices that will play the MKV files, but I hate to add a new source device just for those demo files.





stikle said:


> This is the first time I've ever recalled hearing this particular claim. Do you have references to back that statement up?


This is not accurate. An Apple TV can play lossless audio, though passing lossless audio through bitstream has never been a default feature. The Plex app and the Infuse app can both play local content with Dolby Digital lossless via PCM. Infuse takes this one step further by supporting Dolby TrueHD as well as DTS and DTS-HD Master Audio (again, through lossless PCM). For awhile, Infuse could also pass bitstream Dolby and DTS to the processor but the latest version of tvOS introduced a bug that made it unreliable and Infuse disabled the feature.

What still cannot be done is playing local Atmos or DTS:X audio since Apple's CoreAudio libraries in tvOS has (so far) only been modified for streaming Atmos and not local files. Streaming Atmos was obviously a priority since Apple sells streaming movies with Atmos as a feature...we'll see if local compatibility is added later.


----------



## stikle

I'm aware of all of that, and it's not what I was asking. He (I assume) claimed it was anti-piracy. Note what I bolded in my quote...


----------



## Sevenfeet

stikle said:


> I'm aware of all of that, and it's not what I was asking. He (I assume) claimed it was anti-piracy. Note what I bolded in my quote...


What use would it serve to have some sort of "anti-piracy" measure just on the soundtrack, especially when you can buy a Blu Ray of the same movie and rip it with a number of available tools?


----------



## Sevenfeet

giomania said:


> Mounted my top rear speakers, as there wasn’t much choice there due to the column. It is not optimal placement, but I will live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any input on the front placement elevation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


One thing I'm curious about is pointing the Atmos speakers at the MLP directly which you seem to have done. I have a couple of SVS Prime Elevations serving in a front height configuration. What I don't know is given the distance the speakers are from the MLP (16 ft) whether it is useful to toe them in a few degrees more toward the MLP or whether it matters.


----------



## stikle

Sevenfeet said:


> What use would it serve to have some sort of "anti-piracy" measure just on the soundtrack, especially when you can buy a Blu Ray of the same movie and rip it with a number of available tools?



I don't know, which is why I asked him to cite his sources so I could do a little research of my own.

I'm not sure why you replied with irrelevant information to begin with...


----------



## Sevenfeet

stikle said:


> I don't know, which is why I asked him to cite his sources so I could do a little research of my own.
> 
> I'm not sure why you replied with irrelevant information to begin with...


I wasn't intending to be "irrelevant". But I have been keeping up with the machinations of Apple TV, bitstreaming and Atmos so I thought I had some relevant commentary. Apparently, my bad.


----------



## T-Bone

Sevenfeet said:


> stikle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, which is why I asked him to cite his sources so I could do a little research of my own.
> 
> I'm not sure why you replied with irrelevant information to begin with...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't intending to be "irrelevant". But I have been keeping up with the machinations of Apple TV, bitstreaming and Atmos so I thought I had some relevant commentary. Apparently, my bad. /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...

I thought your information was *relevant*, so thanks for sharing.

As for @stikle, he does not need anyone to supply him the information. He has access to Google just like the rest of us. He can validate the anti-piracy claims, for he can find the link that indicates it's not anti-piracy.

It's 2019. Google knows All 🙂

-T


----------



## shs1234

stikle said:


> I don't know, which is why I asked him to cite his sources so I could do a little research of my own.
> 
> I'm not sure why you replied with irrelevant information to begin with...


Sorry, I have been away from the forum for a few days. A few months ago when I replaced my OPPO 203 with the Panasonic 820, I posted, I believe in this thread or perhaps the 820 thread, my frustration with my inability to get either the 820 or my Apple TV 4K to play the MKV-based Atmos demo files on a USB stick that worked so well on my OPPO 203. Only the MP4 files with lossy Atmos would work. I have also tried to play the MKV files with 5 different video players on my MacBook Pro via AirPlay or HDMI and none of them will pass the MKV audio, nor will Plex/Infuse on the Apple TV 4K. 

I was told in that thread that this was obviously not a technical issue as both the ATV 4K and the 820 do Atmos just fine either with disks or streaming, but both companies didn't allow the lossless Atmos bitstream to pass from a local file (as opposed to streaming or disk) with the speculation that this was anti-piracy related. The theory went that both Apple and Panasonic were perhaps more interested in keeping the big studios happy than OPPO who was a bit more of a maverick. That is my source. I can try and find that exact series of posts but that would not make it any more or less true.


----------



## stikle

Nope, no need. "Speculation" answers the question for me, thanks. I was interested in if you had a specific article/site you read it on.

Carry on everybody.


----------



## giomania

Sevenfeet said:


> One thing I'm curious about is pointing the Atmos speakers at the MLP directly which you seem to have done. I have a couple of SVS Prime Elevations serving in a front height configuration. What I don't know is given the distance the speakers are from the MLP (16 ft) whether it is useful to toe them in a few degrees more toward the MLP or whether it matters.




I’m not sure if that was right or not, but it made sense to me, since all the bed channel speakers are toed in. Also, fellow JTR owner @SOWK aimed his Atmos Top Front speakers (JTR Slanted 8 HT-LP) towards the front row, but maybe not as great of an angle as mine. I’m not sure about his Top rear heights.

I have a Checkpoint P770 laser pointer with a tripod-mounted “jig” that has 360 degree rotation with angle markers, and an adapter that creates a line laser. I use this to make precise speaker alignment to exact degrees, relative to the MLP. Overkill for sure, but that is why I toed in the speakers without a great deal of thought.

If Dolby had any caveats in their setup document, it would have made me stop and take note. I guess they only expect users to use direct down-firing ceiling speakers. It would be nice if Dolby would provide guidance for enthusiasts using larger on-ceiling speakers.

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

giomania said:


> If Dolby had any caveats in their setup document, it would have made me stop and take note. I guess they only expect users to use direct down-firing ceiling speakers. It would be nice if Dolby would provide guidance for enthusiasts using larger on-ceiling speakers.


Mark - dispersion / aim is touched on in the setup docs.



> *Mounting considerations*
> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the
> acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be
> mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable
> or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.


----------



## giomania

batpig said:


> Mark - dispersion / aim is touched on in the setup docs.




Well, I sure missed that one, but I did it correctly, apparently! Thanks Batpig!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Chirosamsung

shs1234 said:


> stikle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, which is why I asked him to cite his sources so I could do a little research of my own.
> 
> I'm not sure why you replied with irrelevant information to begin with...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have been away from the forum for a few days. A few months ago when I replaced my OPPO 203 with the Panasonic 820, I posted, I believe in this thread or perhaps the 820 thread, my frustration with my inability to get either the 820 or my Apple TV 4K to play the MKV-based Atmos demo files on a USB stick that worked so well on my OPPO 203. Only the MP4 files with lossy Atmos would work. I have also tried to play the MKV files with 5 different video players on my MacBook Pro via AirPlay or HDMI and none of them will pass the MKV audio, nor will Plex/Infuse on the Apple TV 4K.
> 
> I was told in that thread that this was obviously not a technical issue as both the ATV 4K and the 820 do Atmos just fine either with disks or streaming, but both companies didn't allow the lossless Atmos bitstream to pass from a local file (as opposed to streaming or disk) with the speculation that this was anti-piracy related. The theory went that both Apple and Panasonic were perhaps more interested in keeping the big studios happy than OPPO who was a bit more of a maverick. That is my source. I can try and find that exact series of posts but that would not make it any more or less true.
Click to expand...

Just buy a relatively cheap NIVIDEA shield and call it a day

Has ANYONE seen Infinity war and can comment on the atmos track???


----------



## TheCableMan

Chirosamsung said:


> Just buy a relatively cheap NIVIDEA shield and call it a day
> 
> Has ANYONE seen Infinity war and can comment on the atmos track???


I saw Infinity War with the Atmos track and personally I though it was a weak atmos mix. I though they could have done so much more with it. To be fair I watched it on a vudu stream so the audio was compressed.


----------



## harpua65

Infinity War UHD--weak Atmos track, lacks dynamics, as usual for most Disney discs, volume needs to be turned up 8-10 notches above where you would normally listen. Pity as this should be pure reference. Interestingly enough, Disney mixes seem to be getting a tad better as of late. 

My consipiracy theory still is that Disney is neutering physical disc audio mixes due to their coming streaming service--to ultimately have people say--see kids, the audio on streaming is really comparable to disc!!!


----------



## gene4ht

harpua65 said:


> Infinity War UHD--*weak Atmos track, lacks dynamics, as usual for most Disney discs, volume needs to be turned up 8-10 notches above where you would normally listen.* Pity as this should be pure reference. Interestingly enough, *Disney mixes seem to be getting a tad better as of late.*
> 
> My consipiracy theory still is that Disney is neutering physical disc audio mixes due to their coming streaming service--to ultimately have people say--see kids, the audio on streaming is really comparable to disc!!!


Watched "Ralph Breaks The Internet UHD" last night with the family...nothing's changed.:frown:


----------



## mogrub

jsgrise said:


> @mogrub Looking forward to your feedback once everything is up and running!


Okay, everything is up and running, so here goes. First I had to get over the trauma of all the installation work, which was a bear. Fortunately, all the wineries and distilleries around the world kept up their good work, so that part went well. Then I spent a few weeks just getting used to all the changes going from 5.2 to 7.2.4 -- multiple new speakers, new angles of arrival, and a whole new construct on how everything works together. 

After weeks of getting acclimated and making the necessary adjustments, here's my Short Review: 

The impact of Dolby Atmos and DTS X audio in our home theater has smashed our expectations. It's probably the single most impactful home theater upgrade we've ever made. :-O

The truth is, I'm shocked to say that. I really had no idea, or I would have done this 3 years ago. In retrospect, that's probably because I'd never heard proper Atmos before. I don't have friends or family nearby that pursue this hobby, so I'd never stepped into a great home theater and had my wow moment there. And I've definitely never had a wow moment at a commercial theater, since our commercial AV experiences are usually mediocre at best, especially on the audio side.

I think that's why we went into this with such muted expectations, but whatever the reason, the end result is just a blast. This new soundstage is so much more entertaining, enjoyable and immersive. No doubt the big wow moments in an action sound track are Big and Wow, for sure, but it is so much more than that. The constantly immersive impact of surf on a beach, feet on stairs, birds flying by, a bowling ball spinning down a lane, rainfall in a forest, everything. A well engineered Atmos or X soundtrack is just ear candy.

Thanks for the design help and encouragement from a bunch of you. My original plan had been to follow the literal word of the July 2017 Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines as closely as possible. That would have meant installing my side surrounds slightly behind the MLP. Fortunately, Keith and Sanjay suggested otherwise, to both me and jgrise at about the same time. It's easy now to see (and hear) how smart that advice was:



kbarnes701 said:


> Don't move the side surrounds back -- move them forwards ... you will find that moving them to the 80 degree position (roughly) will help 'close the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds and should help with a better sense of immersion too. Many of us with 7.x.4 systems prefer this location for the side surrounds, which is also in line with ITU specs for surround placement.





sdurani said:


> With one pair of surrounds (Rears) behind me, I wouldn't put a second pair of surrounds (Sides) back there as well. Instead, placing the Sides slightly forward of the listening position (around ±75-80°) will yield more spaciousness and greater side-vs-rear separation and better wrap-around envelopment in the surround field.


That was absolutely the right thing to do -- not only for the benefit of the MLP, but given our specific room geometry, for every other fixed seating position in the Théâtre du Poinçon de Nez.

For any other Atmos newbs making installation decisions now, I'd encourage you to carefully consider their excellent advice before reflexively following the literal text of Dolby's installation guide. I moved those side surrounds slightly forward, and that was a huge upgrade. ✌


----------



## kbarnes701

mogrub said:


> Okay, everything is up and running, so here goes. First I had to get over the trauma of all the installation work, which was a bear. Fortunately, all the wineries and distilleries around the world kept up their good work, so that part went well. Then I spent a few weeks just getting used to all the changes going from 5.2 to 7.2.4 -- multiple new speakers, new angles of arrival, and a whole new construct on how everything works together.
> 
> After weeks of getting acclimated and making the necessary adjustments, here's my Short Review:
> 
> The impact of Dolby Atmos and DTS X audio in our home theater has smashed our expectations. It's probably the single most impactful home theater upgrade we've ever made. :-O
> 
> The truth is, I'm shocked to say that. I really had no idea, or I would have done this 3 years ago. In retrospect, that's probably because I'd never heard proper Atmos before. I don't have friends or family nearby that pursue this hobby, so I'd never stepped into a great home theater and had my wow moment there. And I've definitely never had a wow moment at a commercial theater, since our commercial AV experiences are usually mediocre at best, especially on the audio side.
> 
> I think that's why we went into this with such muted expectations, but whatever the reason, the end result is just a blast. This new soundstage is so much more entertaining, enjoyable and immersive. No doubt the big wow moments in an action sound track are Big and Wow, for sure, but it is so much more than that. The constantly immersive impact of surf on a beach, feet on stairs, birds flying by, a bowling ball spinning down a lane, rainfall in a forest, everything. A well engineered Atmos or X soundtrack is just ear candy.
> 
> Thanks for the design help and encouragement from a bunch of you. My original plan had been to follow the literal word of the July 2017 Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines as closely as possible. That would have meant installing my side surrounds slightly behind the MLP. Fortunately, Keith and Sanjay suggested otherwise, to both me and jgrise at about the same time. It's easy now to see (and hear) now how smart that advice was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was absolutely the right thing to do -- not only for the benefit of the MLP, but given our specific room geometry, for every other fixed seating position in the Théâtre du Poinçon de Nez.
> 
> For any other Atmos newbs making installation decisions now, I'd encourage you to carefully consider their excellent advice before reflexively following the literal text of Dolby's installation guide. I moved those side surrounds slightly forward, and that was a huge upgrade. ✌


Thanks for the feedback and the great review of Atmos in your HT. So glad this has worked out so well for you. Enjoy!!


----------



## esumsea

mogrub said:


> My original plan had been to follow the literal word of the July 2017 Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines as closely as possible. That would have meant installing my side surrounds slightly behind the MLP. Fortunately, Keith and Sanjay suggested otherwise, to both me and jgrise at about the same time. It's easy now to see (and hear) now how smart that advice was
> 
> 
> That was absolutely the right thing to do -- not only for the benefit of the MLP, but given our specific room geometry, for every other fixed seating position in the Théâtre du Poinçon de Nez.
> 
> For any other Atmos newbs making installation decisions now, I'd encourage you to carefully consider their excellent advice before reflexively following the literal text of Dolby's installation guide. I moved those side surrounds slightly forward, and that was a huge upgrade. ✌



I am so glad I read this post because I was going through the same considerations for my 7.x.4 system. I have windows on one side of my room at 70 to 110 degrees so I could not place my in-wall sides there because they would be too low. I have now decided to go with speakers (B&W M1s) on stands. I was going to put them at 90, but now I may move them forward. Seeing that they will no longer be in-wall, I can move the speakers a little back or front to experiment, but at least I wont install the sides at 120 degrees, where I had read somewhere would be preferable to moving them forward. I am currently testing out my atmos and rear speakers to make final selections and then will start the wiring. I posted here a few months back with my initial ideas on set-up and went back to the drawing board based on comments I received here. I have now decided to install 4 atmos overhead at new positions (30-45 degrees front and back). I will draw up some plans and return to get some final advice before cutting. 



It is great to read these success stories! I hope it fulfills those who have so generously given their advice not only on this thread but in this forum. What a great place this is!!!


----------



## Jonas2

mogrub said:


> The truth is, I'm shocked to say that. I really had no idea, or I would have done this 3 years ago. In retrospect, that's probably because I'd never heard proper Atmos before. I don't have friends or family nearby that pursue this hobby, so I'd never stepped into a great home theater and had my wow moment there. And I've definitely never had a wow moment at a commercial theater, since our commercial AV experiences are usually mediocre at best, especially on the audio side.
> 
> 
> Fortunately, Keith and Sanjay suggested otherwise, to both me and jgrise at about the same time. It's easy now to see (and hear) now how smart that advice was:



^^^ These guys should probably be working for Dolby.....^^^ 


Glad to read of your great experience! And I totally get what you mean by having no idea. It seems like Atmos is not promoted properly, but how is Dolby to do so? I've been in A/V places where I see some Dolby Atmos promo/explanation material playing in a dark and forgotten corner, and it might get your attention - but then there is zero in the way of a real demo space. It just doesn't grab people. If there was more effort by these places to set up a proper, even small, space to run REAL demo material, Atmos would be perhaps not mainstream, but certainly more advanced in the market.


----------



## niterida

Has anybody ever directly compared ceiling to height speakers in the same room/setup ?
Just wondering if ceiling speakers are a big improvement over heights ?


Or is there is any particular height setup that works better - eg; in top corners, in line with where ceiling speakers would be or in from the front/rear walls ?


I currently have heights in the Auro 3D positions (fronts in top corners, sides at 109deg on side walls) but I downgraded to Atmos only receiver so am looking at changing the layout.


If no-one has done a direct comparison I may try out different setups and report back but I would prefer to just change it to what is known to be best. I have the ceiling speakers already and it won't be a huge job to put them in but they would have to be a big improvement over heights and the less work I have to do the better


----------



## Deezul

Decided that I had to try to get a deal on open box Sony Core system speakers, for now the front floorstands, center, and rear bookshelfs. I have two subs already, and the Atmos speakers aren't available open box. Won't talk price unless someone wants to know, but I feel I got a great deal. I picked up the STR-DN1080 about 10 days ago open box and it was a deal as well. Anyway, below is my current setup with an old Sony SA-VE 7.1 system. The subs aren't pictured as I was moving them around, and I'm not sure yet if I want to keep two or sell the 7.1 system with it's original sub. I'm setting up MLP as the middle of the couch.

What I'm looking for is advice on where to place the following speakers:


Rear Bookshelfs - on the wall, or on stands
Matched Atmos - on top of floors, or where current heights are
Subs - one or two? Primary is left of stand, secondary is in back corner, about 12 feet from MLP


----------



## jamesyates

niterida said:


> Has anybody ever directly compared ceiling to height speakers in the same room/setup ?
> Just wondering if ceiling speakers are a big improvement over heights ?
> 
> 
> Or is there is any particular height setup that works better - eg; in top corners, in line with where ceiling speakers would be or in from the front/rear walls ?
> 
> 
> I currently have heights in the Auro 3D positions (fronts in top corners, sides at 109deg on side walls) but I downgraded to Atmos only receiver so am looking at changing the layout.
> 
> 
> If no-one has done a direct comparison I may try out different setups and report back but I would prefer to just change it to what is known to be best. I have the ceiling speakers already and it won't be a huge job to put them in but they would have to be a big improvement over heights and the less work I have to do the better


I have 7.2.4 system with speakers mounted in the height position. I changed the setting in my AVR to top from height and I saw a big improvement with ATMOS. With heights everything seems highish. With setting to top stuff is more overhead. As I use AURO I finally settled for Front Height with Rear Tops. As my RT are only a few feet from the listening position and facing down, tops seem to work better for ATMOS. At least for the RT when they were RH much of the ATMOS information went to the rear back speakers. 

Does anyone have any information on what changes in a AVR setting when you switch to TOP or HEIGHT?


----------



## jamesyates

niterida said:


> Has anybody ever directly compared ceiling to height speakers in the same room/setup ?
> Just wondering if ceiling speakers are a big improvement over heights ?
> 
> 
> Or is there is any particular height setup that works better - eg; in top corners, in line with where ceiling speakers would be or in from the front/rear walls ?
> 
> 
> I currently have heights in the Auro 3D positions (fronts in top corners, sides at 109deg on side walls) but I downgraded to Atmos only receiver so am looking at changing the layout.
> 
> 
> If no-one has done a direct comparison I may try out different setups and report back but I would prefer to just change it to what is known to be best. I have the ceiling speakers already and it won't be a huge job to put them in but they would have to be a big improvement over heights and the less work I have to do the better


I have 7.2.4 system with speakers mounted in the height position. I changed the setting in my AVR to top from height and I saw a big improvement with ATMOS. With heights everything seems highish. With setting to top stuff is more overhead. As I use AURO I finally settled for Front Height with Rear Tops. As my RT are only a few feet from the listening position and facing down, tops seem to work better for ATMOS. At least for the RT when they were RH much of the ATMOS information went to the rear back speakers. 

Does anyone have any information on what changes in a AVR setting when you switch to TOP or HEIGHT?


----------



## richlife

@mogrub Great to hear that someone else got to learn about what a decent Atmos installation can mean for a home theater. Now go watch and listen to those great UHD BRs that help make the best of your system. With your Yamaha 3060, be sure to also do the same with your Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA discs with the Enhanced DSP. Some of these latter are better than a less than great Atmos or DTS:X mix.


----------



## gene4ht

mogrub said:


> Okay, everything is up and running, so here goes. First I had to get over the trauma of all the installation work, which was a bear. Fortunately, all the wineries and distilleries around the world kept up their good work, so that part went well. Then I spent a few weeks just getting used to all the changes going from 5.2 to 7.2.4 -- multiple new speakers, new angles of arrival, and a whole new construct on how everything works together.
> 
> After weeks of getting acclimated and making the necessary adjustments, here's my Short Review:
> 
> The impact of Dolby Atmos and DTS X audio in our home theater has smashed our expectations. It's probably the single most impactful home theater upgrade we've ever made. :-O
> 
> The truth is, I'm shocked to say that. I really had no idea, or I would have done this 3 years ago. In retrospect, that's probably because I'd never heard proper Atmos before. I don't have friends or family nearby that pursue this hobby, so I'd never stepped into a great home theater and had my wow moment there. And I've definitely never had a wow moment at a commercial theater, since our commercial AV experiences are usually mediocre at best, especially on the audio side.
> 
> I think that's why we went into this with such muted expectations, but whatever the reason, the end result is just a blast. This new soundstage is so much more entertaining, enjoyable and immersive. No doubt the big wow moments in an action sound track are Big and Wow, for sure, but it is so much more than that. The constantly immersive impact of surf on a beach, feet on stairs, birds flying by, a bowling ball spinning down a lane, rainfall in a forest, everything. A well engineered Atmos or X soundtrack is just ear candy.
> 
> Thanks for the design help and encouragement from a bunch of you. My original plan had been to follow the literal word of the July 2017 Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines as closely as possible. That would have meant installing my side surrounds slightly behind the MLP. Fortunately, Keith and Sanjay suggested otherwise, to both me and jgrise at about the same time. It's easy now to see (and hear) how smart that advice was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was absolutely the right thing to do -- not only for the benefit of the MLP, but given our specific room geometry, for every other fixed seating position in the Théâtre du Poinçon de Nez.
> 
> For any other Atmos newbs making installation decisions now, I'd encourage you to carefully consider their excellent advice before reflexively following the literal text of Dolby's installation guide. I moved those side surrounds slightly forward, and that was a huge upgrade. ✌


Welcome to the world of 3D sound! Surprised no one has yet mentioned the other/secondary benefit of Atmos and DTS:X. When you get a chance, throw on some non Atmos/DTS:X content utilizing the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) and the DTS:Neural:X upmixer. Like many of us have discovered, you'll be pleasantly surprised at the results. Enjoy!


----------



## giomania

kbarnes701 said:


> Thanks for the feedback and the great review of Atmos in your HT. So glad this has worked out so well for you. Enjoy!!




Hi Keith,

Would this recommendation to move the surrounds forward also apply when using Wide speakers positioned at 60 degrees from the MLP?

My surrounds are positioned at 110 degrees currently.

Thank you! 

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

giomania said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> Would this recommendation to move the surrounds forward also apply when using Wide speakers positioned at 60 degrees from the MLP?
> 
> My surrounds are positioned at 110 degrees currently.


Not Keith, but it seems like common sense that if you have Wide speakers at 60 degrees you would NOT want the surround speakers forward of 90 degrees. That would be a pretty crowded situation.

The "surrounds in front" option seems like a better fit for people who DON'T have Wide speakers, and want to extend the surround field more and help close the "gap" between the screen channels and the surrounds.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> Not Keith, but it seems like common sense that if you have Wide speakers at 60 degrees you would NOT want the surround speakers forward of 90 degrees. That would be a pretty crowded situation.


All things being equal, I would not disagree. But all things are not equal, particularly with how wides are used by mixers in contrast to the side/rear surrounds. 

There's an "understanding" that the first set of side surround speakers nearest the screen have a de-facto role to carry "wide" or "proscenium" signals, even though they bear no channel label, as they are not driven by channels. Whether it is by specific x/y coordinates or use of "snap" mode, mixers like to place specific object-based audio signals there to expand the front soundstage. 

The channel-based surround ambience (different sound elements) is still the domain of the side/rear surrounds, which benefit from the forward bias of the side speakers same as ever. These are two different and independent aspects of the mix.

One may even deduce that at home our wide speakers, rather than sitting at 60 deg, would be better off bisecting the angle formed by Lss/L (and Rs/R). If L is 25 deg, and Lss is 80, then Lw would be closer to 50 than 60.


----------



## kbarnes701

Jonas2 said:


> ^^^ These guys should probably be working for Dolby.....^^^
> 
> 
> Glad to read of your great experience! And I totally get what you mean by having no idea. It seems like Atmos is not promoted properly, but how is Dolby to do so? I've been in A/V places where I see some Dolby Atmos promo/explanation material playing in a dark and forgotten corner, and it might get your attention - but then there is zero in the way of a real demo space. It just doesn't grab people. If there was more effort by these places to set up a proper, even small, space to run REAL demo material, Atmos would be perhaps not mainstream, but certainly more advanced in the market.


I think the thing to remember is that Dolby is not a business-to-consumer enterprise. Dolby's customers are the industry itself, not us, so I expect that they leave it to the businesses whose customers ARE the end-user to do the promotion and marketing. So the movie industry itself and the distributors are responsible if they are failing to get across to us consumers the real benefits of Atmos mixes. Likewise, the professional installers and the better retailers of AV gear have a self-interest in promoting Atmos and especially the latter, who will sell more speakers, more expensive AVRs and so on if they can convince consumers to adopt.

Also, it is early days. Atmos didn't exist on the consumer platform about 4 years ago, and it took some time to gain traction via Blu-ray etc. Remember how us early adopters were buying truly dreadful movies just so we had some Atmos content for our HTs? Now, more and more content is being released with Atmos (and DTS:X) and it is slowly starting to become the norm.

As someone who has spent his life working in advertising and marketing, if I was creating a strategy to the end user to get across the benefits of Atmos, I would concentrate a little less on the 'overhead' aspects of Atmos and more on the overall benefits of an object-based mix, with the overhead as the frosting on the cake, albeit a potentially spectacular one. These additional benefit sof an object mix are often overlooked, which is natural in a way as sound from above is totally new and so very easy to promote as an obvious differentiator. Unfortunately this approach has led to many people slating an otherwise spectacular mix because it is lacking in pverhead effects.

Finally, one has to remember that the technology is new to the studios as well as to us and there is a learning curve as well as a considerable investment in new hardware. Now that so many movies are being mixed for Atmos, the entire industry is gaining more experience and we can expect more and more movies that make more and more use of all of Atmos's potential.

So, to summarize, patience grasshopper, patience


----------



## kbarnes701

niterida said:


> Has anybody ever directly compared ceiling to height speakers in the same room/setup ?
> Just wondering if ceiling speakers are a big improvement over heights ?


I would say 'yes'. Think about it - if sounds are supposed to come from over your head, where would be the best place for speakers - over your head or high up on the front and rear walls?


----------



## kbarnes701

giomania said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> Would this recommendation to move the surrounds forward also apply when using Wide speakers positioned at 60 degrees from the MLP?
> 
> My surrounds are positioned at 110 degrees currently.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Hi Mark - long time no type 

Not so much IMO. The idea of moving the side surrounds forwards a little in a 7.1 system is to 'close the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds, giving a more 'even' distribution of sound all around you. If you have wides in the system then you probably have a very nice 'smooth' set of gaps between speakers anyway. Of course, one also has to look at how the system is being used. DSU doesn't upmix to wides so if the majority of your content is upmixed by DSU (as mine is)) then most of the time the wides will be silent. I believe, but can't quite recall for sure, that Neural:X uses wides so if this is your upmixer of choice then that changes things. If you are mainly concerned with Atmos movies, then the wides ARE used, so it's a question of deciding which is most important to you.

A further complication is that newer AVRs do not permit DSU to be used on DTS tracks (which are in the majority of discs) so if you have one of those then that will also change the picture somewhat. I am fortunate that my ancient Marantz allows 'cross upmixing' so I can use DSU (my preferred upmixer) on everything. I have turned off FW updates on my unit so that I do not lose this feature.

All the best, Keith.

EDIT: Just read batpig's and Roger's replies which also cover additional perspectives. In my setup here, with the ability to upmix everything to DSU, I'd leave my side surrounds at about the 90 degree position, but YMMV of course, as per the replies you've received.


----------



## Jonas2

kbarnes701 said:


> Likewise, the professional installers and the better retailers of AV gear have a self-interest in promoting Atmos and especially the latter, who will sell more speakers, more expensive AVRs and so on if they can convince consumers to adopt.



Bingo!


----------



## fredxr2d2

kbarnes701 said:


> I think the thing to remember is that Dolby is not a business-to-consumer enterprise. Dolby's customers are the industry itself, not us, so I expect that they leave it to the businesses whose customers ARE the end-user to do the promotion and marketing. So the movie industry itself and the distributors are responsible if they are failing to get across to us consumers the real benefits of Atmos mixes. Likewise, the professional installers and the better retailers of AV gear have a self-interest in promoting Atmos and especially the latter, who will sell more speakers, more expensive AVRs and so on if they can convince consumers to adopt.
> 
> Also, it is early days. Atmos didn't exist on the consumer platform about 4 years ago, and it took some time to gain traction via Blu-ray etc. Remember how us early adopters were buying truly dreadful movies just so we had some Atmos content for our HTs? Now, more and more content is being released with Atmos (and DTS:X) and it is slowly starting to become the norm.
> 
> As someone who has spent his life working in advertising and marketing, if I was creating a strategy to the end user to get across the benefits of Atmos, I would concentrate a little less on the 'overhead' aspects of Atmos and more on the overall benefits of an object-based mix, with the overhead as the frosting on the cake, albeit a potentially spectacular one. These additional benefit sof an object mix are often overlooked, which is natural in a way as sound from above is totally new and so very easy to promote as an obvious differentiator. Unfortunately this approach has led to many people slating an otherwise spectacular mix because it is lacking in pverhead effects.
> 
> Finally, one has to remember that the technology is new to the studios as well as to us and there is a learning curve as well as a considerable investment in new hardware. Now that so many movies are being mixed for Atmos, the entire industry is gaining more experience and we can expect more and more movies that make more and more use of all of Atmos's potential.
> 
> So, to summarize, patience grasshopper, patience



I actually think that the best Atmos advertising would be to equip regular movie theaters with it. The Regal in my town has only two screens that are 7.1 and it's never marketed that they are actually 7.1 screens. I could see Dolby pressuring theater owners to roll out Atmos to commercial cinemas, and that might inspire people to buy home Atmos because they'd hear it in the cinema and go "I want that!" much the same way that some people are inspired to get surround sound (even from soundbars) because they want that "cinema" experience. It makes no sense to me that I was able to upgrade to Atmos well before my local multiplex could - they theoretically have much deeper pockets than I do!


----------



## richlife

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi Mark - long time no type
> 
> ...
> 
> *A further complication is that newer AVRs do not permit DSU to be used on DTS tracks (which are in the majority of discs) so if you have one of those then that will also change the picture somewhat.* I am fortunate that my ancient Marantz allows 'cross upmixing' so I can use DSU (my preferred upmixer) on everything. I have turned off FW updates on my unit so that I do not lose this feature.
> 
> All the best, Keith.
> 
> ...


Very appropriate reminder, Keith. Thanks! My 2016 Yamaha 3060 allows the Enhanced DSP to manage DTS and I've been recommending DTS-HD MA movies be viewed with this to get a great immersive audio environment with an Atmos configured system. (The DSU will also handle DTS tracks with this Yamaha release.) Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if this Dolby restriction on DSU and DTS tracks also applies to the Yamaha Enhanced (or any other) DSP? Perhaps this is better asked on the Yamaha 3080 forum -- will do that also.

FYI since Yamaha is not explicitly your thing, the Yamaha Display of the operational setup shows DTS-HD MA being played and the Enhanced (or Dolby Surround, etc.) being used to decode/output.


----------



## Deezul

fredxr2d2 said:


> I could see Dolby pressuring theater owners to roll out Atmos to commercial cinemas, and that might inspire people to buy home Atmos because they'd hear it in the cinema and go "I want that!" much the same way that some people are inspired to get surround sound (even from soundbars) because they want that "cinema" experience. It makes no sense to me that I was able to upgrade to Atmos well before my local multiplex could - they theoretically have much deeper pockets than I do!


I know sound is different from vision, but remember after Avatar how everyone thought Home 3D was going to be the future? Wearing glasses is a pain, and some people can't "see" the 3D with glasses. Unfortunately, Atmos in the theater will be theoretically set up and calibrated properly, but someone at home is just going to buy a Atmos in a box set from Walmart. Then go home, place the speakers willy nilly, very unlikely to ceiling mount, and no put in a home theater room, or even attempt to set up the speakers correctly. 7.1 systems are/were really only a thing for Home Theater enthusiast. It's hard enough convincing people to try a sound bar instead of the TV speakers - you think Atmos is going to be that much easier to convince people? I wish it was. But my sons are just has happy to watch YouTube and Twitch streams on their phones with headphones that are 2 channel. They aren't as pumped for a home theater experience as I am.


----------



## richlife

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Very true! And this "mobile mentality" is one of my biggest concerns for our very enjoyable hobby. While some of us have great large screens and awesome multiple speakers sound capability, the major marketing thrust today appears to be the "do everything" smartphone. For me, it works in a pinch (except for music -- I don't really even like good headphones), there is just no replacing even my all-purpose living room home theater. How long can we survive with Atmos and a live movie experience if our world is condensed into a smartphone?

Edit: Yeah, I know. Embedded VR with direct neuron input is "theortically" a future outcome of smartphones and today's VR headsets. Science fiction may become reality, but at my age I'm not holding my breath!


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I think the thing to remember is that Dolby is not a business-to-consumer enterprise. Dolby's customers are the industry itself, not us, so I expect that they leave it to the businesses whose customers ARE the end-user to do the promotion and marketing.


Yup. Most recent example is the roll out of the Atmos height virtualizer that was mentioned in the Onkyo and Pioneer marketing material for their upcoming 2019 receivers. Had it not been for those press blurbs at CES, consumers would not have known about the new Dolby virtualizer. Dolby doesn't announce these type of things or promote them to the public.


----------



## Josh Z

kbarnes701 said:


> I believe, but can't quite recall for sure, that Neural:X uses wides so if this is your upmixer of choice then that changes things.


Neural:X will use Wide speakers, but only within the DTS 11-channel limit. If you activate Wides, you have to sacrifice either Surround Backs or one pair of height channels.

In the Denon X8500H (which can process 13 channels), if you set it up for 7.1.4(+W), you can get all 13 channels working for Atmos only. Any time you play a DTS:X track or upmix something with Neural:X in that configuration, the receiver will default to priortizing the other 7.1.4 channels and will disable the Wides. (DSU doesn't use Wides in any case, so it has the same result.)

As such, I have to manually change my configuration settings from 7.1.4(+W) for Atmos soundtracks to 7.1.2(+W) for everything else.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Deezul said:


> I know sound is different from vision, but remember after Avatar how everyone thought Home 3D was going to be the future? Wearing glasses is a pain, and some people can't "see" the 3D with glasses. Unfortunately, Atmos in the theater will be theoretically set up and calibrated properly, but someone at home is just going to buy a Atmos in a box set from Walmart. Then go home, place the speakers willy nilly, very unlikely to ceiling mount, and no put in a home theater room, or even attempt to set up the speakers correctly. 7.1 systems are/were really only a thing for Home Theater enthusiast. It's hard enough convincing people to try a sound bar instead of the TV speakers - you think Atmos is going to be that much easier to convince people? I wish it was. But my sons are just has happy to watch YouTube and Twitch streams on their phones with headphones that are 2 channel. They aren't as pumped for a home theater experience as I am.



As for placing speakers willy-nilly: people already do this with 5.1, so I would expect it to happen. However, I was just thinking of ways to get the "word" out there that Atmos was even a thing. Even if you hate 3D, you can't deny that everyone knew about it when Avatar came out.


The same can be said for people even doing basic brightness/contrast setups on their TVs: should we now not sell TVs because people will leave it in "torch" mode?


My suggestion to Dolby (not that they care, or would listen to me), would be to pressure commercial theaters to equip auditoriums with Atmos, which would drive sales of home speakers and AVRs and eventually might drive sales of discs or put more pressure on Netflix/Amazon/Hulu et. al. to stream in Atmos. More Atmos available would be better for those of us who can appreciate it, even if it means a bunch of people with incorrectly setup speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

fredxr2d2 said:


> I actually think that the best Atmos advertising would be to equip regular movie theaters with it. The Regal in my town has only two screens that are 7.1 and it's never marketed that they are actually 7.1 screens. I could see Dolby pressuring theater owners to roll out Atmos to commercial cinemas, and that might inspire people to buy home Atmos because they'd hear it in the cinema and go "I want that!" much the same way that some people are inspired to get surround sound (even from soundbars) because they want that "cinema" experience. It makes no sense to me that I was able to upgrade to Atmos well before my local multiplex could - they theoretically have much deeper pockets than I do!


Yes. I am fortunate to have a very good Atmos cinema not too far from me (about a 40 mile round trip). Sadly though I don't think the vast majority of consumers care about the sound. And most of us enthusiasts know about it already.


----------



## kbarnes701

richlife said:


> Very appropriate reminder, Keith. Thanks! My 2016 Yamaha 3060 allows the Enhanced DSP to manage DTS and I've been recommending DTS-HD MA movies be viewed with this to get a great immersive audio environment with an Atmos configured system. (The DSU will also handle DTS tracks with this Yamaha release.) Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if this Dolby restriction on DSU and DTS tracks also applies to the Yamaha Enhanced (or any other) DSP? Perhaps this is better asked on the Yamaha 3080 forum -- will do that also.
> 
> FYI since Yamaha is not explicitly your thing, the Yamaha Display of the operational setup shows DTS-HD MA being played and the Enhanced (or Dolby Surround, etc.) being used to decode/output.


IDK anything at all about the recent crop of Yamaha units I'm afraid. I have always been a fan of Yamaha though since my old stereo hi-fi days. I loved the really nice build quality and design.


----------



## kbarnes701

Josh Z said:


> Neural:X will use Wide speakers, but only within the DTS 11-channel limit. If you activate Wides, you have to sacrifice either Surround Backs or one pair of height channels.
> 
> In the Denon X8500H (which can process 13 channels), if you set it up for 7.1.4(+W), you can get all 13 channels working for Atmos only. Any time you play a DTS:X track or upmix something with Neural:X in that configuration, the receiver will default to priortizing the other 7.1.4 channels and will disable the Wides. (DSU doesn't use Wides in any case, so it has the same result.)
> 
> As such, I have to manually change my configuration settings from 7.1.4(+W) for Atmos soundtracks to 7.1.2(+W) for everything else.


Thanks Josh. Good info.


----------



## Deezul

fredxr2d2 said:


> My suggestion to Dolby (not that they care, or would listen to me), would be to pressure commercial theaters to equip auditoriums with Atmos, which would drive sales of home speakers and AVRs and eventually might drive sales of discs or put more pressure on Netflix/Amazon/Hulu et. al. to stream in Atmos. More Atmos available would be better for those of us who can appreciate it, even if it means a bunch of people with incorrectly setup speakers.


Steven Spielberg has your vote for the theater experience.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Deezul said:


> Steven Spielberg has your vote for the theater experience.



I don't actually go to the theater much anymore (my home setup is fairly superior at this point - deeper blacks with the JVC, Atmos sound, and middle teens Hz extension from my subs). I just think that more people would have heard of Atmos by now if every theater had installed it back in 2012/2013.


----------



## bokap

I am planning to upgrade my home theater to 5.1.4 and buy a 65" Sony 4k. I currently watch movies via streaming with Netflix and Amazon and occasionally rent through iTunes. I started getting Blu-ray DVD's through Netflix because of the superior sound of the Blu-ray disks. When my system is installed will the 4K and UHD movies that I stream through Netflix and Amazon be as good as a 4K disk. I don't want buy disks and Netflix does not have 4K disks and Red Box does not have them where I live. 
I'm planning to buy the Sony X1000ES blu-ray player. Would a better option be to get blu-ray disks encoded with Atmos from Netflix rather than streaming 4K, UHD. 
My apologies if this is the wrong thread to post this


----------



## David Susilo

bokap said:


> I am planning to upgrade my home theater to 5.1.4 and buy a 65" Sony 4k. I currently watch movies via streaming with Netflix and Amazon and occasionally rent through iTunes. I started getting Blu-ray DVD's through Netflix because of the superior sound of the Blu-ray disks. When my system is installed will the 4K and UHD movies that I stream through Netflix and Amazon be as good as a 4K disk. I don't want buy disks and Netflix does not have 4K disks and Red Box does not have them where I live.
> I'm planning to buy the Sony X1000ES blu-ray player. Would a better option be to get blu-ray disks encoded with Atmos from Netflix rather than streaming 4K, UHD.
> My apologies if this is the wrong thread to post this


Since you have that budget anyway, why not go with Panasonic UB820 or UB9000? They will be better suited due to the HDR Optimizer. AFAIK the Sony 1000 doesn’t do DV and HDR10+


----------



## batpig

bokap said:


> When my system is installed will the 4K and UHD movies that I stream through Netflix and Amazon be as good as a 4K disk. I don't want buy disks and Netflix does not have 4K disks and Red Box does not have them where I live.


Short answer: no

Long answer:

Streaming content will always be more heavily compressed than content off a disc due to the bandwidth limitations. 

The Blu-ray / 4K disc will have much more lightly compressed video and lossless audio. 

Even good 4K streams from iTunes / Vudu / Netflix etc. will have a lot more video compression than a disc. They can still look pretty darn good, especially if you have a fast internet connection, but it's easy to see the compression artficats with banding in gradients, pixelization in fast movement, etc. 

The audio gap though will be larger -- the discs will have lossless audio tracks (Dolby TrueHD or DTS-Master Audio) whereas streaming audio (even Atmos) will be carried over much lower bandwidth lossy Dolby Digital Plus.

The question is how much do you care about the slight differences? For a one-off rental that you will never watch again, it will likely be plenty good enough. I rent/stream plenty of movies myself. But for "reference" discs that are real standouts for audio/picture quality, I like to purchase the disc. I usually bide my time and look for a deal on eBay (or discount bin at Best Buy) cheap for discs that I want for "reference" purposes but won't watch a bunch of times.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> I am planning to upgrade my home theater to 5.1.4 and buy a 65" Sony 4k. I currently watch movies via streaming with Netflix and Amazon and occasionally rent through iTunes. I started getting Blu-ray DVD's through Netflix because of the superior sound of the Blu-ray disks. When my system is installed will the 4K and UHD movies that I stream through Netflix and Amazon be as good as a 4K disk. I don't want buy disks and Netflix does not have 4K disks and Red Box does not have them where I live.
> I'm planning to buy the Sony X1000ES blu-ray player. Would a better option be to get blu-ray disks encoded with Atmos from Netflix rather than streaming 4K, UHD.
> My apologies if this is the wrong thread to post this



Yeah, the Panasonic 820 would be the better buy than the Sony 1000. 

Just like 1080p streaming vs regular Blu-ray discs, 4k streaming and UHD Blu-ray disc comparisons are exactly the same. You get lossless or possibly uncompressed audio and higher bitrate video on discs and you get a lower grade A/V experience with streaming due to the severe compression ratios streaming services subject their movie and TV digital files to. 

You want the best? Stick with discs. UHD Blu-ray titles are only somewhat more expensive and they often drop into the $10 to $15 range when on sale, especially catalog titles.


----------



## bokap

batpig said:


> Short answer: no
> 
> Long answer:
> 
> Streaming content will always be more heavily compressed than content off a disc due to the bandwidth limitations.
> 
> The Blu-ray / 4K disc will have much more lightly compressed video and lossless audio.
> 
> Even good 4K streams from iTunes / Vudu / Netflix etc. will have a lot more video compression than a disc. They can still look pretty darn good, especially if you have a fast internet connection, but it's easy to see the compression artficats with banding in gradients, pixelization in fast movement, etc.
> 
> The audio gap though will be larger -- the discs will have lossless audio tracks (Dolby TrueHD or DTS-Master Audio) whereas streaming audio (even Atmos) will be carried over much lower bandwidth lossy Dolby Digital Plus.
> 
> The question is how much do you care about the slight differences?


Thanks for the answer. Sounds like getting blu-ray disks from Netflix, upscaled in the Sony 4K DVD player that I am buying would give me better Atmos than streaming. I am putting a lot of money into updating my home theater system for Atmos so I want to have the best experience


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, the Panasonic 820 would be the better buy than the Sony 1000.
> 
> Just like 1080p streaming vs regular Blu-ray discs, 4k streaming and UHD Blu-ray disc comparisons are exactly the same. You get lossless or possibly uncompressed audio and higher bitrate video on discs and you get a lower grade A/V experience with streaming due to the severe compression ratios streaming services subject their movie and TV digital files to.
> 
> You want the best? Stick with discs. UHD Blu-ray titles are only somewhat more expensive and they often drop into the $10 to $15 range when on sale, especially catalog titles.


I really don't want to buy. I almost never watch a movie more than once. If I can find used UHD's maybe I would try that. I called Netflix and they told me they will not be offering 4K disks and Red Box 4K disks not available here


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Thanks for the answer. Sounds like getting blu-ray disks from Netflix, upscaled in the Sony 4K DVD player that I am buying would give me better Atmos than streaming. I am putting a lot of money into updating my home theater system for Atmos so I want to have the best experience



Have you picked out speakers, an Atmos receiver, etc. besides a potential UHD Blu-ray player?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> I really don't want to buy. I almost never watch a movie more than once. If I can find used UHD's maybe I would try that. I called Netflix and they told me they will not be offering 4K disks and Red Box 4K disks not available here


Not to beat a horse more than necessary, given the price of 4k disc rentals you could wait for sales and purchase the UHD Blu-ray packs, sell the included 1080p Blu-ray's and the digital codes on various sites and you would come out sitting fairly pretty. The more people who support UHD discs with their money, the longer they will stick around. 

Plus... Dolby Atmos and DTS: X are becoming more of a feature of UHD Blu-ray, especially for catalog titles. Often, the studio will not put the immersive track on the regular Blu-ray nowadays. 

Food for thought.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Have you picked out speakers, an Atmos receiver, etc. besides a potential UHD Blu-ray player?


Yes I have decided on a Sony 5000ES receiver. 3 Paradigm CI E80 Elite inwall for the front, 2 Pro 65 in wall for the rear, two downward firing in ceiling Elite's for the front Atmos and two Sonance Symphony in Ceiling for rear Atmos. My system currently has 5 in ceiling Sonance, that's why I will have two Sonance for rear Atmos, plus the Sony DVD and Apple TV 4K. I have a HSU sub


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you picked out speakers, an Atmos receiver, etc. besides a potential UHD Blu-ray player?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have decided on a Sony 5000ES receiver. 3 Paradigm CI E80 Elite inwall for the front, 2 Pro 65 in wall for the rear, two downward firing in ceiling Elite's for the front Atmos and two Sonance Symphony in Ceiling for rear Atmos. My system currently has 5 in ceiling Sonance, that's why I will have two Sonance for rear Atmos, plus the Sony DVD and Apple TV 4K. I have a HSU sub
Click to expand...

Are you located in the U.S.? I would highly recommend going with Triad speakers for the money. They are much nicer than the Paradigms in this model line. They also have built-in backer boxes. I got mine through Dawn in the Triad thread. Recommended Triad models are based on room size and loudness requirements. They all sound great.

I have the Gold LCR's and love them.


----------



## bokap

I have not heard the Triads but I have heard Paradigm and I thought they sounded really great


----------



## David Susilo

bokap said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Panasonic 820 would be the better buy than the Sony 1000.
> 
> Just like 1080p streaming vs regular Blu-ray discs, 4k streaming and UHD Blu-ray disc comparisons are exactly the same. You get lossless or possibly uncompressed audio and higher bitrate video on discs and you get a lower grade A/V experience with streaming due to the severe compression ratios streaming services subject their movie and TV digital files to.
> 
> You want the best? Stick with discs. UHD Blu-ray titles are only somewhat more expensive and they often drop into the $10 to $15 range when on sale, especially catalog titles.
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't want to buy. I almost never watch a movie more than once. If I can find used UHD's maybe I would try that. I called Netflix and they told me they will not be offering 4K disks and Red Box 4K disks not available here
Click to expand...

Don’t forget that upscaling from HD to UHD is also significantly better on the Panasonic. Even Netflix HDR van be remapped really nicely by the 820.


----------



## darkleafar

*Thank you*

I just want to thank everyone that helped me out throughout this month repositioning ATMOS stuff. End result:

https://www.reddit.com/r/hometheate...al_showcase_one_month_later_this_subs_advice/

https://imgur.com/gallery/ENay15j

Thank you!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> I have not heard the Triads but I have heard Paradigm and I thought they sounded really great


Sound is subjective, of course. I've just found that Triad gives you more for your money than today's Paradigm speakers. And I used to own Paradigm Studio's before moving to Triad's. You also gain made-to-order options if needed and something manufactured in the U.S.

I would also skip going with a Sony receiver, but that's me.


----------



## stikle

I'd skip the Sony receiver as well. In Denon we trust.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sound is subjective, of course. I've just found that Triad gives you more for your money than today's Paradigm speakers. And I used to own Paradigm Studio's before moving to Triad's. You also gain made-to-order options if needed and something manufactured in the U.S.
> 
> I would also skip going with a Sony receiver, but that's me.


What’s wrong with Sony 5000ES


----------



## bokap

stikle said:


> I'd skip the Sony receiver as well. In Denon we trust.


I am replacing a Denon 3313ci. How come you don’t like Sony 5000 ES


----------



## niterida

jamesyates said:


> I have 7.2.4 system with speakers mounted in the height position. I changed the setting in my AVR to top from height and I saw a big improvement with ATMOS. With heights everything seems highish. With setting to top stuff is more overhead. As I use AURO I finally settled for Front Height with Rear Tops. As my RT are only a few feet from the listening position and facing down, tops seem to work better for ATMOS. At least for the RT when they were RH much of the ATMOS information went to the rear back speakers.
> 
> Does anyone have any information on what changes in a AVR setting when you switch to TOP or HEIGHT?


Without moving my speakers I switched the AVR from Heights to Top and there was a huge improvement in Atmos effect 


Also if I change the positioning in the AVR of the surrounds from side to front wide it actually makes it sound like I physically moved them to the front !!


So obviously the AVR does some Black Magic internally when you change those settings ..........


With my heights being in the Auro position (with the 'rears' actually being 'sides') and Atmos effects sounding pretty good I am still debating whether it is necessary to use ceiling speakers instead ?
I will definitely move the rears to the rear now that I don't have an Auro receiver as I think that will improve it still further having the heights all equidistant from the seating.
I just don't want to waste time, effort and money installing ceiling speakers for only a little benefit ?


----------



## richlife

richlife said:


> Very appropriate reminder, Keith. Thanks! My 2016 Yamaha 3060 allows the Enhanced DSP to manage DTS and I've been recommending DTS-HD MA movies be viewed with this to get a great immersive audio environment with an Atmos configured system. (The DSU will also handle DTS tracks with this Yamaha release.) Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if this Dolby restriction on DSU and DTS tracks also applies to the Yamaha Enhanced (or any other) DSP? Perhaps this is better asked on the Yamaha 3080 forum -- will do that also.
> 
> FYI since Yamaha is not explicitly your thing, the Yamaha Display of the operational setup shows DTS-HD MA being played and the Enhanced (or Dolby Surround, etc.) being used to decode/output.





kbarnes701 said:


> IDK anything at all about the recent crop of Yamaha units I'm afraid. I have always been a fan of Yamaha though since my old stereo hi-fi days. I loved the really nice build quality and design.


For those interested, the best answer I've found so far is in this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...1080-aventage-avr-thread-23.html#post57717276


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> stikle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd skip the Sony receiver as well. In Denon we trust.
> 
> 
> 
> I am replacing a Denon 3313ci. How come you don’t like Sony 5000 ES
Click to expand...

You can get more for your money. I'm not sure what you are seeing the Sony for, but you can go on Amazon right now and get the Denon 4400H new for $899 from an authorized dealer like ListenUp. 

The Denon has basically the same features (up to 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos and DTS: X processing with an outboard stereo amp or power the front three speakers with a better outboard amp and let the Denon power the surrounds and overheads, it has two sub outputs, Dolby Vision and HLG HDR pass-through, etc.), along with Audyssey room correction, which is better than Sony's auto correction software.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bokap said:


> I really don't want to buy. I almost never watch a movie more than once.


Well, you asked the technical question of what would be *better*. The answer is very clear: digital discs every time, by quite some margin.

What you want to do is separate, and is of course up to you. If you will only watch something once and don't want the best quality, I can see the case for digital streaming services. 



bokap said:


> If I can find used UHD's maybe I would try that.


I didn't even know that Netflix sold discs, they don't any more in the UK at least. There are many many places to buy digital discs from, and even if Netflix did, they wouldn't be my first port of call 

Re: AVR, I would definitely recommend Denon, Audyssey is the gold standard IMHO and made an enormous different in the same room with the same speakers. (I replaced a Sony AVR with my Denon 4200W).


----------



## bokap

mrtickleuk said:


> Well, you asked the technical question of what would be *better*. The answer is very clear: digital discs every time, by quite some margin.
> 
> What you want to do is separate, and is of course up to you. If you will only watch something once and don't want the best quality, I can see the case for digital streaming services.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even know that Netflix sold discs, they don't any more in the UK at least. There are many many places to buy digital discs from, and even if Netflix did, they wouldn't be my first port of call
> 
> Re: AVR, I would definitely recommend Denon, Audyssey is the gold standard IMHO and made an enormous different in the same room with the same speakers. (I replaced a Sony AVR with my Denon 4200W).


I pay Netflix about $15 a month to get blu-ray dvd's in the mail. We also pay for Netflix streaming. I called Netflix and they won't be offering 4K dvd's. As I don't want to buy 4K UHD movies to watch once, I think my best option is to continue with the blu-ray dvd's for the sound and then have the 4K DVD player upscale. I still have not upgraded my system yet. I am waiting for the 2019 Sony's and then I will upgrade everything.
As far as the Denon 4400, I will be replacing a Denon 3313Ci which replaced another Denon. I think because I am getting a Sony 4K and Sony 4K DVD player I want to get the Sony 5000 ES. My dealer who I respect, sells all high end gear, Anthem etc, and he recommended Sony ES. I was surprised that he sells Sony but the store is well known to be very snobbish. I have talked to different people and everyone recommends something different. I know Denon is popular but the salesperson at Magnolia which sells Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, etc, told me that Marantz has the best sound quality, better than Denon and I have read that. Another dealer told me to go with Yamaha. I did an online chat with someone from Crutchfield and I told him I was planning to buy the Sony 5000ES which they carry and he said to buy the Denon 4500 for $600 less. I'm really not sure what to do at this point with the receiver as I want to go with my local dealer for a total home theater solution and install


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> mrtickleuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you asked the technical question of what would be *better*. The answer is very clear: digital discs every time, by quite some margin.
> 
> What you want to do is separate, and is of course up to you. If you will only watch something once and don't want the best quality, I can see the case for digital streaming services. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even know that Netflix sold discs, they don't any more in the UK at least. There are many many places to buy digital discs from, and even if Netflix did, they wouldn't be my first port of call /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Re: AVR, I would definitely recommend Denon, Audyssey is the gold standard IMHO and made an enormous different in the same room with the same speakers. (I replaced a Sony AVR with my Denon 4200W).
> 
> 
> 
> I pay Netflix about $15 a month to get blu-ray dvd's in the mail. We also pay for Netflix streaming. I called Netflix and they won't be offering 4K dvd's. As I don't want to buy 4K UHD movies to watch once, I think my best option is to continue with the blu-ray dvd's for the sound and then have the 4K DVD player upscale. I still have not upgraded my system yet. I am waiting for the 2019 Sony's and then I will upgrade everything.
> As far as the Denon 4400, I will be replacing a Denon 3313Ci which replaced another Denon. I think because I am getting a Sony 4K and Sony 4K DVD player I want to get the Sony 5000 ES. My dealer who I respect, sells all high end gear, Anthem etc, and he recommended Sony ES. I was surprised that he sells Sony but the store is well known to be very snobbish. I have talked to different people and everyone recommends something different. I know Denon is popular but the salesperson at Magnolia which sells Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, etc, told me that Marantz has the best sound quality, better than Denon and I have read that. Another dealer told me to go with Yamaha. I did an online chat with someone from Crutchfield and I told him I was planning to buy the Sony 5000ES which they carry and he said to buy the Denon 4500 for $600 less. I'm really not sure what to do at this point with the receiver as I want to go with my local dealer for a total home theater solution and install
Click to expand...

Not trying to put down your dealer, but they're trying to push you into a brand they sell and at a higher mark up as there is more profit in it for them... hence Sony.

Denon and Marantz are sister brands sharing many of the same electronic components... so why not save some money with last year's receiver that isn't that much different than this year's? We have already mentioned that Audyssey is better at calibrating than Sony's system.

As far as UHD player reviews go, the Panasonic 820 receives high technical marks and supports all HDR formats like the Oppo players. The Sony just costs more and delivers less. 

You don't need to match brands.... except with speakers for tonal matching. You get the best bang for the buck electronics items and put the savings toward other things... like an outboard amplifier for the front three speakers for more solid power, less distortion, and greater dynamics than a receiver's built-in amps can give you. The Denon 4400H or slightly more expensive 4500H lets you power the four surround and four overhead speakers internally by changing the Amp Assign routing if you go with this configuration.

Save even more money by installing these things yourself. That's what this forum is here for... to help you out. Get tips from knowledgeable pros and hobbyists.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not trying to put down your dealer, but they're trying to push you into a brand they sell and at a higher mark up as there is more profit in it for them... hence Sony.
> 
> Denon and Marantz are sister brands sharing many of the same electronic components... so why not save some money with last year's receiver that isn't that much different than this year's? We have already mentioned that Audyssey is better at calibrating than Sony's system.
> 
> As far as UHD player reviews go, the Panasonic 820 receives high technical marks and supports all HDR formats like the Oppo players. The Sony just costs more and delivers less.
> 
> You don't need to match brands.... except with speakers for tonal matching. You get the best bang for the buck electronics items and put the savings toward other things... like an outboard amplifier for the front three speakers for more solid power, less distortion, and greater dynamics than a receiver's built-in amps can give you. The Denon 4400H or slightly more expensive 4500H lets you power the four surround and four overhead speakers internally by changing the Amp Assign routing if you go with this configuration.
> 
> Save even more money by installing these things yourself. That's what this forum is here for... to help you out. Get tips from knowledgeable pros and hobbyists. 🙂


I hadn't thought about a separate amp for the 3 front speakers. I am planning on 5.1.4 system and would need to buy another amp anyway to power my bedroom system. So it would be better to use the amp for home theater and use the AV receiver amps to power the two speakers in my bedroom? What do you recommend to power the three fronts? Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> I hadn't thought about a separate amp for the 3 front speakers. I am planning on 5.1.4 system and would need to buy another amp anyway to power my bedroom system. So it would be better to use the amp for home theater and use the AV receiver amps to power the two speakers in my bedroom? What do you recommend to power the three fronts? Thanks





Go with the Monoprice 5x200 watt amplifier (built in the U.S. by the well regarded ATI company). It will be back in stock soon. The 200 watts/channel rating is based on 8 ohm speakers. A 4 ohm stable load gives you 300 watts/channel.


https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=304&cp_id=30402&cs_id=3040203&p_id=15593&seq=1&format=2


Power the front three L/C/R home theater speakers and your bedroom Zone 2 speakers with this solid, well-reviewed amp. If you go with a Denon (or Marantz) receiver, you can send the Zone 2 pre-amp output to the power amp's surround left and surround right inputs. If you don't go with the 4400H on close out for $899 via Amazon, I would call up AV Science and chat with JD and see what kind of deal they have on the Denon 4500H or equivalent Marantz (the SR6013). I bought my Marantz Atmos pre-amp through JD and had great luck at a competitive price.

Whatever bedroom speakers you go with, just be sure they can handle more than, up to, or around 200 watts of peak power.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Go with the Monoprice 5x200 watt amplifier (built in the U.S. by the well regarded ATI company). It will be back in stock soon.
> 
> 
> https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=304&cp_id=30402&cs_id=3040203&p_id=15593&seq=1&format=2
> 
> 
> Power the front three L/C/R home theater speakers and your bedroom Zone 2 speakers with this solid, well-reviewed amp. If you go with a Denon (or Marantz) receiver, you can send the Zone 2 pre-amp output to the power amp's surround left and surround right inputs. If you don't go with the 4400H on close out for $899 via Amazon, I would call up AV Science and chat with JD and see what kind of deal they have on the Denon 4500H or equivalent Marantz. I bought my Marantz Atmos pre-amp through JD and had great luck.
> 
> Whatever bedroom speakers you go with, just be sure they can handle more than, up to, or around 200 watts of peak power.


Thanks for the link but I don't have $1300 to allocate towards amp. Just not in my budget


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Thanks for the link but I don't have $1300 to allocate towards amp. Just not in my budget



If you still want stable power (remember, a receiver's amps have far less "juice" than their rated specs and even less when all speakers are being driven at once since the power supply is shared among the amp modules and pre-amp block) and don't expect to rock the house with movie volume, here is a cheaper alternative to the Monoprice with 120 watts/channel stable with all amps driven (reviewed as being a fairly conservative amp spec on the test bench). Only $649. 



http://outlawaudio.com/products/5000.html


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Go with the Monoprice 5x200 watt amplifier (built in the U.S. by the well regarded ATI company). It will be back in stock soon. The 200 watts/channel rating is based on 8 ohm speakers. A 4 ohm stable load gives you 300 watts/channel.
> 
> 
> https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=304&cp_id=30402&cs_id=3040203&p_id=15593&seq=1&format=2
> 
> 
> Power the front three L/C/R home theater speakers and your bedroom Zone 2 speakers with this solid, well-reviewed amp. If you go with a Denon (or Marantz) receiver, you can send the Zone 2 pre-amp output to the power amp's surround left and surround right inputs. If you don't go with the 4400H on close out for $899 via Amazon, I would call up AV Science and chat with JD and see what kind of deal they have on the Denon 4500H or equivalent Marantz (the SR6013). I bought my Marantz Atmos pre-amp through JD and had great luck at a competitive price.
> 
> Whatever bedroom speakers you go with, just be sure they can handle more than, up to, or around 200 watts of peak power.


My bedroom speakers are two in ceiling Sonance Symphony speakers that were installed 12 years ago when we renovated our house. They are powered by my Denon 3313 Ci now. I also have a zone three with 4 in ceiling Sonance speakers powered by a Parasound Zamp/amp. The Zamp is only 25 watts a channel and it does not have enough power for the 4 speakers so I stopped using zone 3


----------



## jamesyates

niterida said:


> Without moving my speakers I switched the AVR from Heights to Top and there was a huge improvement in Atmos effect
> 
> 
> Also if I change the positioning in the AVR of the surrounds from side to front wide it actually makes it sound like I physically moved them to the front !!
> 
> 
> So obviously the AVR does some Black Magic internally when you change those settings ..........
> 
> 
> With my heights being in the Auro position (with the 'rears' actually being 'sides') and Atmos effects sounding pretty good I am still debating whether it is necessary to use ceiling speakers instead ?
> I will definitely move the rears to the rear now that I don't have an Auro receiver as I think that will improve it still further having the heights all equidistant from the seating.
> I just don't want to waste time, effort and money installing ceiling speakers for only a little benefit ?


Yep, that what I thought when I switched from height to top. I am thinking of moving my RTH to middle top height to get more of an Atmos effect. I am not happy with my system as I want Auro for music and Atmos for music and with my current AVR (marantz av7702MKII you not switch to each speaker layout easily. The AVR will only save one Audyssey calibration resulting the any other setup not being corrected and levels need to be reset manually. I have to pick one for the proper experience or compromise. I don't like to compromise. 

As an argument against a top middle. After doing some research Dolby is certifying small mixing studios under atmos home theater certification. The purpose is to mix content for streaming in Atmos. Most of the small mixing suites have 7.1.4 systems with the speakers THF and THR.

https://www.mixonline.com/sfp/ott-house-goes-all-in-with-dolby-atmos

https://www.mixonline.com/sfp/ott-house-goes-all-in-with-dolby-atmos


----------



## niterida

jamesyates said:


> Yep, that what I thought when I switched from height to top. I am thinking of moving my RTH to middle top height to get more of an Atmos effect. I am not happy with my system as I want Auro for music and Atmos for music and with my current AVR (marantz av7702MKII you not switch to each speaker layout easily. The AVR will only save one Audyssey calibration resulting the any other setup not being corrected and levels need to be reset manually. I have to pick one for the proper experience or compromise. I don't like to compromise.
> 
> As an argument against a top middle. After doing some research Dolby is certifying small mixing studios under atmos home theater certification. The purpose is to mix content for streaming in Atmos. Most of the small mixing suites have 7.1.4 systems with the speakers THF and THR.
> 
> https://www.mixonline.com/sfp/ott-house-goes-all-in-with-dolby-atmos
> 
> https://www.mixonline.com/sfp/ott-house-goes-all-in-with-dolby-atmos



Yeah I found Auro to be better for music but when I found out I couldn't get Auro source material for movies I decided to downgrade my Auro receiver to an Atmos only. With the excess money from the Auro sale I picked up a 15" sub and still have change to upgrade my speakers or add more subs !!

Now that I have just 9 channel stereo or DSU for sound and don't have Auro to compare it with I can happily live with it


----------



## Jonas2

bokap said:


> I pay Netflix about $15 a month to get blu-ray dvd's in the mail. We also pay for Netflix streaming. I called Netflix and they won't be offering 4K dvd's. As I don't want to buy 4K UHD movies to watch once, I think my best option is to continue with the blu-ray dvd's for the sound and then have the 4K DVD player upscale. I still have not upgraded my system yet. I am waiting for the 2019 Sony's and then I will upgrade everything.


Just be aware that bluray is still excellent on a 4K display, but upscaling is not exactly the same thing. Plus - you'll need in many cases those 4K BDs to get the Atmos track. The trend at least has been to provide the 4K disk the Atmos track, and the standard BD (while maybe bundled together with the 4K disk) does not have it. Is this still the trend people? Anyway.....



bokap said:


> As far as the Denon 4400, I will be replacing a Denon 3313Ci which replaced another Denon. I think because I am getting a Sony 4K and Sony 4K DVD player I want to get the Sony 5000 ES. My dealer who I respect, sells all high end gear, Anthem etc, and he recommended Sony ES. I was surprised that he sells Sony but the store is well known to be very snobbish.


My dealer, before they sailed off into the sunset was also a hi-end store and Sony dealer, but the majority of their receiver sales seemed to be Integra and Anthem. The installers preferred Integra from an install/integration standpoint, but both installers and salesguys preferred Anthem for the final results. Sony was not really a brand that they pushed hard aside from TVs and projectors. Still, they wouldn't have sold the Sonys if they were garbage - not the kind of place this was. If you like the Sony, and that is in your budget, there's nothing wrong with that, and I certainly understand wanting to keep everything the same brand - BUT - don't let that be the driving factor behind your decision.



bokap said:


> I have talked to different people and everyone recommends something different. I know Denon is popular but the salesperson at Magnolia which sells Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, etc, told me that Marantz has the best sound quality, better than Denon and I have read that. Another dealer told me to go with Yamaha. I did an online chat with someone from Crutchfield and I told him I was planning to buy the Sony 5000ES which they carry and he said to buy the Denon 4500 for $600 less. I'm really not sure what to do at this point with the receiver as I want to go with my local dealer for a total home theater solution and install


Do you have a max. budget that you want to spend on a receiver? If so, I'd look at all the available brands within the price point, and examine all of the features sets that are offered at that price point - do some hard comparisons - make sure they meet your base criteria, then see what the bells and whistles are (or aren't) along for the ride and if they are meaningful to you, or if maybe you're paying for something you don't need. Look at the warranty too. Modern electronics are pretty reliable, but it could give you some peace of mind in the final decision. 

The room correction system can be pretty important too - and like Dan already mentioned, Sony might be at the bottom when it comes to effectiveness. Yamaha would probably be the next step up (but based on my reading is among the top in reliability). Denon/Marantz - doubt you'd know the difference in the final result, but Audyssey is popular. Arguably, you'll get the best with Anhtem's ARC or a receiver sporting Dirac. If SQ is your top priority, then the room correction package should be at the fore of your decision. Anthems are pricey though. My sense is that something Denon might indeed be the most suitable for you. But my sense is not your sense.  It does sound like you've had a decent run with Denon thus far too.....?


----------



## mogrub

gene4ht said:


> When you get a chance, throw on some non Atmos/DTS:X content utilizing the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) and the DTS:Neural:X upmixer. Like many of us have discovered, you'll be pleasantly surprised at the results. Enjoy!


So true Gene, we are loving the upmix part of this, another very pleasant surprise. Great news given the volume of pre-object shiny discs so many of us own. 👍


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> My bedroom speakers are two in ceiling Sonance Symphony speakers that were installed 12 years ago when we renovated our house. They are powered by my Denon 3313 Ci now. I also have a zone three with 4 in ceiling Sonance speakers powered by a Parasound Zamp/amp. The Zamp is only 25 watts a channel and it does not have enough power for the 4 speakers so I stopped using zone 3



I gave you a cheaper alternative just above. Did you get a chance to look at the Outlaw amp?


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> I gave you a cheaper alternative just above. Did you get a chance to look at the Outlaw amp?


It's $650 which is still a lot. I have my Zamp/Amp which will power my bedroom speakers. If I bought the Outlaw for the front speakers for Home Theater system how do I know that Outlaw will be better than the new receiver I buy to power the 3 front speakers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> It's $650 which is still a lot. I have my Zamp/Amp which will power my bedroom speakers. If I bought the Outlaw for the front speakers for Home Theater system how do I know that Outlaw will be better than the new receiver I buy to power the 3 front speakers



First of all, what is your theater's room size LxWxH? That will help in determining your power requirements. If it's a small room, you don't need as much amp power as long as the speakers you go with are relatively efficient in using the power sent to them. 

$650 for a well built five-channel value amp is quite a deal in the A/V world. It doesn't get much better than that. You could use it to power the front three and the surround left and right speakers if you've decided to use a different amp for Zone 2. Then, let the receiver power the four Atmos overheads since they are not used constantly. 

A mid-level receiver tends to go down to around 50-60 watts/channel with higher distortion levels when you are using multiple speakers and even less at peak audio dynamics... so the impressive amp power specs given by most receiver manufacturers are usually total B.S. Kind of like a projector brand saying their models have 50,000:1 or more contrast ratios. Maybe during a blue moon. That's why outboard amps of decent quality are often used to augment a system as they tend to be rated at up to full power with all amps in use. They have beefy power transformers and are heavy for a reason.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> First of all, what is your theater's room size LxWxH? That will help in determining your power requirements. If it's a small room, you don't need as much amp power as long as the speakers you go with are relatively efficient in using the power sent to them.
> 
> $650 for a well built five-channel value amp is quite a deal in the A/V world. It doesn't get much better than that. You could use it to power the front three and the surround left and right speakers if you've decided to use a different amp for Zone 2. Then, let the receiver power the four Atmos overheads since they are not used constantly.
> 
> A mid-level receiver tends to go down to around 50-60 watts/channel with higher distortion levels when you are using multiple speakers and even less at peak audio dynamics... so the impressive amp power specs given by most receiver manufacturers are usually total B.S. Kind of like a projector brand saying their models have 50,000:1 or more contrast ratios. Maybe during a blue moon. That's why outboard amps of decent quality are often used to augment a system as they tend to be rated at up to full power with all amps in use. They have beefy power transformers and are heavy for a reason.


My room is actually large. We have what’s called the family room where the home theater is but it’s connected to the kitchen which is two steps up and it’s only separated by a low wall where we have cabinets. 
What you said about adding an amp sounds right but what about if I bought a higher quality receiver such as an Anthem. Would it still be better to add a front amp?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> My room is actually large. We have what’s called the family room where the home theater is but it’s connected to the kitchen which is two steps up and it’s only separated by a low wall where we have cabinets.
> What you said about adding an amp sounds right but what about if I bought a higher quality receiver such as an Anthem. Would it still be better to add a front amp?



You really don't need to go all out for an Anthem receiver. I find them overpriced for the features like the Sony ES line. The better buy is to choose a mid-priced 7.1.4 (necessary for a 5.1.4 configuration) receiver and a separate power amp using the receiver's pre-amp outputs, especially in a larger room. Like the 4400H at $899 and the Monoprice Monolith three-channel amp. Even that combo will give an Anthem a run for its money and you'll have more dynamic headroom and less distortion for movies as even an Anthem receiver won't have that kind of amp reserve for the front three speakers. 

The reason I keep coming back to the 4400H instead of the 4500H is that there isn't enough of a difference to warrant paying more for the newer Denon model. 


Use your budget wisely.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> You really don't need to go all out for an Anthem receiver. I find them overpriced for the features like the Sony ES line. The better buy is to choose a mid-priced 7.1.4 (necessary for a 5.1.4 configuration) receiver and a separate power amp using the receiver's pre-amp outputs, especially in a larger room. Like the 4400H at $899 and the Monoprice Monolith three-channel amp. Even that combo will give an Anthem a run for its money and you'll have more dynamic headroom and less distortion for movies as even an Anthem receiver won't have that kind of amp reserve for the front three speakers.
> 
> The reason I keep coming back to the 4400H instead of the 4500H is that there isn't enough of a difference to warrant paying more for the newer Denon model.
> 
> 
> Use your budget wisely.


That makes a lot of sense. Right now I’m not even sure that I want to go to the expense of building home theater with Atmos. Not sure if it is worth it yet for me as I have no way to rent 4K with Atmos disks. Not sure I want Atmos if Netflix, Amazon, Apple are using compression. I started the Netflix Blu-ray dvd service a few weeks ago and have been blown away by the sound quality of Blu-ray compared to having the movies streamed. I may use my money to have a much better 5.1 system such as what you are suggesting with the Mono amp. I have to check the specs comparing 4400 vs 4500


----------



## Jonas2

bokap said:


> My room is actually large. We have what’s called the family room where the home theater is but it’s connected to the kitchen which is two steps up and it’s only separated by a low wall where we have cabinets.
> What you said about adding an amp sounds right but what about if I bought a higher quality receiver such as an Anthem. Would it still be better to add a front amp?



It totally depends on the system. The Anthem may or may not get you the power you'd prefer compared to other receivers. Anthem gets you their ARC system and very good customer service, along with a unit that has very few bells and whistles. Some people don't like that, some prefer the very straight-forward Anthem, no frills approach. 




bokap said:


> That makes a lot of sense. Right now I’m not even sure that I want to go to the expense of building home theater with Atmos. Not sure if it is worth it yet for me as I have no way to rent 4K with Atmos disks. Not sure I want Atmos if Netflix, Amazon, Apple are using compression. I started the Netflix Blu-ray dvd service a few weeks ago and have been blown away by the sound quality of Blu-ray compared to having the movies streamed. I may use my money to have a much better 5.1 system such as what you are suggesting with the Mono amp. I have to check the specs comparing 4400 vs 4500



Well, perhaps one bit of encouragement for you - whatever receiver you do decide on, it will have Dolby Surround Upmixing - so while it is not the same as Atmos, it will still take advantage of height speakers, so your standard blurays would be able to utilize them. Sorry, I should have mentioned that before. Again, not the same as Atmos, but better than not in my experience.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> That makes a lot of sense. Right now I’m not even sure that I want to go to the expense of building home theater with Atmos. Not sure if it is worth it yet for me as I have no way to rent 4K with Atmos disks. Not sure I want Atmos if Netflix, Amazon, Apple are using compression. I started the Netflix Blu-ray dvd service a few weeks ago and have been blown away by the sound quality of Blu-ray compared to having the movies streamed. I may use my money to have a much better 5.1 system such as what you are suggesting with the Mono amp. I have to check the specs comparing 4400 vs 4500



Atmos is worth it. Absolutely. Do it right (speakers in the optimal positions, decent calibration, etc.) and you'll be grinning from ear to ear. The 4500H adds the newest eARC HDMI protocol and IMAX Enhanced mode. With eARC, your TV must also have that feature included so they will pair up. If you use a disc player or other unit for streaming, then that doesn't matter anyway. IMAX Enhanced, from all indications so far, is a whole lot of nothing. It's the same DTS: X 7.1.4 audio content. It uses the same HDR formats. It even artificially boosts your subwoofer level and can throw off your careful calibration when playing Enhanced titles. There isn't much in the way of 4k disc content with IMAX Enhanced anyway and you can still play those titles on a non Enhanced receiver and TV without issue. The 4500H also says it has the newest HDMI version, but it doesn't have all the features... just mainly eARC (that's a catch). You will need to wait a year or two for the full HDMI 2.1 specs to be included with the HDMI chipsets.


----------



## bokap

Jonas2 said:


> Just be aware that bluray is still excellent on a 4K display, but upscaling is not exactly the same thing. Plus - you'll need in many cases those 4K BDs to get the Atmos track. The trend at least has been to provide the 4K disk the Atmos track, and the standard BD (while maybe bundled together with the 4K disk) does not have it. Is this still the trend people? Anyway.....
> 
> 
> 
> My dealer, before they sailed off into the sunset was also a hi-end store and Sony dealer, but the majority of their receiver sales seemed to be Integra and Anthem. The installers preferred Integra from an install/integration standpoint, but both installers and salesguys preferred Anthem for the final results. Sony was not really a brand that they pushed hard aside from TVs and projectors. Still, they wouldn't have sold the Sonys if they were garbage - not the kind of place this was. If you like the Sony, and that is in your budget, there's nothing wrong with that, and I certainly understand wanting to keep everything the same brand - BUT - don't let that be the driving factor behind your decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a max. budget that you want to spend on a receiver? If so, I'd look at all the available brands within the price point, and examine all of the features sets that are offered at that price point - do some hard comparisons - make sure they meet your base criteria, then see what the bells and whistles are (or aren't) along for the ride and if they are meaningful to you, or if maybe you're paying for something you don't need. Look at the warranty too. Modern electronics are pretty reliable, but it could give you some peace of mind in the final decision.
> 
> The room correction system can be pretty important too - and like Dan already mentioned, Sony might be at the bottom when it comes to effectiveness. Yamaha would probably be the next step up (but based on my reading is among the top in reliability). Denon/Marantz - doubt you'd know the difference in the final result, but Audyssey is popular. Arguably, you'll get the best with Anhtem's ARC or a receiver sporting Dirac. If SQ is your top priority, then the room correction package should be at the fore of your decision. Anthems are pricey though. My sense is that something Denon might indeed be the most suitable for you. But my sense is not your sense.  It does sound like you've had a decent run with Denon thus far too.....?


Jonas, you are really helping me think through whether I really need Atmos. Since I have no plans to buy 4K disks and that there are no rental options, makes me think I should just do a major upgrade to my 5.1 system instead. Dan has been giving me great options that I did know about such as adding an amp for front 3 speakers. I think that’s a better use of my funds rather than spending my money on 9 speakers. 
I think my room could benfit by having the best room correction as we have a hard wood floor and two walls of mostly glass.
After I decide on which receiver and if I want to add an amp I have to decide on my speakers. I have 5 ceiling Sonance Symphony and my plan was to replace them for the Atmos system. I was going to have 3 inwall Paradigm Elite’s for the front and two more Paradigm’s for rear inwall. My plan was to replace the ceiling Sonance with Paradigm for the Atmos speakers. If I just have a 5.1 system I could still have 5 inwall Paradigm installed and just not use my ceiling speakers.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos is worth it. Absolutely. Do it right (speakers in the optimal positions, decent calibration, etc.) and you'll be grinning from ear to ear. The 4500H adds the newest eARC HDMI protocol and IMAX Enhanced mode. With eARC, your TV must also have that feature included so they will pair up. If you use a disc player or other unit for streaming, then that doesn't matter anyway. IMAX Enhanced, from all indications so far, is a whole lot of nothing. It's the same DTS: X 7.1.4 audio content. It uses the same HDR formats. It even artificially boosts your subwoofer level and can throw off your careful calibration when playing Enhanced titles. There isn't much in the way of 4k disc content with IMAX Enhanced anyway and you can still play those titles on a non Enhanced receiver and TV without issue. The 4500H also says it has the newest HDMI version, but it doesn't have all the features... just mainly eARC (that's a catch). You will need to wait a year or two for the full HDMI 2.1 specs to be included with the HDMI chipsets.


Dan what about the fact that I would be streaming from Netflix, Amazon, Apple for 4K, Atmos and not buying 4K disks


----------



## Mike Gann

bokap said:


> That makes a lot of sense. Right now I’m not even sure that I want to go to the expense of building home theater with Atmos. Not sure if it is worth it yet for me as I have no way to rent 4K with Atmos disks. Not sure I want Atmos if Netflix, Amazon, Apple are using compression. I started the Netflix Blu-ray dvd service a few weeks ago and have been blown away by the sound quality of Blu-ray compared to having the movies streamed. I may use my money to have a much better 5.1 system such as what you are suggesting with the Mono amp. I have to check the specs comparing 4400 vs 4500


I bought the Onkyo TX-NR787 9.2 channel AVR from Nebraska Furniture Mart for $400 and never looked back. I run 5.2.4 with Martin Logan LCR, JBL surrounds, two SVS subs, and four RSL C34Es Top mount for atmos. No need to buy additional amps.

Plenty of power in a 13,000 plus cubic foot basement. Sounds fantastic! Plenty of headroom.

Mike


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Dan what about the fact that I would be streaming from Netflix, Amazon, Apple for 4K, Atmos and not buying 4K disks



You can still rent Blu-ray discs. Some still have Dolby Atmos tracks. On your most "beloved" titles, it would still behoove you to snag a few 4k discs when on sale. They're really not that expensive, especially when you consider 4k streaming rental pricing. Last Black Friday I grabbed a bunch of 4k titles for $7 to $12 dollars each. That way you'll have some great demo material to have on hand (such as Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, A Quiet Place, Ralph Breaks the Internet, etc.) with the best picture and sound.


4k streaming, due to heavy compression, is not much better than a 1080p Blu-ray in terms of overall image detail. 



If I was going to spend _any_ money on installation and I wasn't handy at all with tools, I would just reconfigure four of your Sonance in-ceilings (unless they're really crappy or low end models) to the correct Top Front and Top Rear Atmos positions relative to your main seating area and have them patch the holes and blend the drywall and spackle. You'll probably have to do this if you went to immersive surround in the near future anyway. 



What was the MSRP given for the Paradigm's you were considering?


----------



## bokap

Mike Gann said:


> I bought the Onkyo TX-NR787 9.2 channel AVR from Nebraska Furniture Mart for $400 and never looked back.x I run 5.2.4 with Martin Logan LCR, JBL surrounds, two SVS subs, and four RSL C34Es Top mount for atmos. No need to buy additional amps.
> 
> Plenty of power in a 13,000 plus cubic foot basement. Sounds fantastic! Plenty of headroom.
> 
> Mike


Wow $400 that’s amazing. I am going to their site now, thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mike Gann said:


> I bought the Onkyo TX-NR787 9.2 channel AVR from Nebraska Furniture Mart for $400 and never looked back. I run 5.2.4 with Martin Logan LCR, JBL surrounds, two SVS subs, and four RSL C34Es Top mount for atmos. No need to buy additional amps.
> 
> Plenty of power in a 13,000 plus cubic foot basement. Sounds fantastic! Plenty of headroom.
> 
> Mike



It really depends on the speaker sensitivity and loudness required. I started out using receivers when I first got into home theater and then added power amps and noticed an improvement right away. Now I use a pre-amp with separate power amps with my Triads and have never considered going backwards. But each of us has different needs, etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Wow $400 that’s amazing. I am going to their site now, thanks



I hope Onkyo has improved their manufacturing quality and unless you turn off all networking features, the receiver will ask if you want to send user data to Onkyo time and time again. Talk about no privacy!! Add insult to injury, because it's a lower mid teir receiver, it has no pre-amp outputs (except the sub) if you feel you do need to add extra amp power at some point. That's all I'm saying. 


What part of the country are you in, bokap? Redbox is now expanding their markets for 4k disc rentals. $2.50 a night.


----------



## Jonas2

bokap said:


> Jonas, you are really helping me think through whether I really need Atmos. Since I have no plans to buy 4K disks and that there are no rental options, makes me think I should just do a major upgrade to my 5.1 system instead. Dan has been giving me great options that I did know about such as adding an amp for front 3 speakers. I think that’s a better use of my funds rather than spending my money on 9 speakers.
> I think my room could benfit by having the best room correction as we have a hard wood floor and two walls of mostly glass.
> After I decide on which receiver and if I want to add an amp I have to decide on my speakers. I have 5 ceiling Sonance Symphony and my plan was to replace them for the Atmos system. I was going to have 3 inwall Paradigm Elite’s for the front and two more Paradigm’s for rear inwall. My plan was to replace the ceiling Sonance with Paradigm for the Atmos speakers. If I just have a 5.1 system I could still have 5 inwall Paradigm installed and just not use my ceiling speakers.


Well, I hope I'm helping you and not hurting you! Like Dan said, done right, Atmos is really incredible (content dependent of course). The one thing I believe you have to your advantage is time, no? Take your time, most importantly! Don't feel pressured into pulling the trigger just for the sake of doing something. Here's something to keep in kind - I'd seriously recommend at least getting a receiver that is Atmos-capable (4 channel) - whether you use it at first or not. You'll probably be kicking yourself if you didn't at least get that much. You'll be kicking yourself a lot less wondering if the brand you got is the right one comparatively.  But at least if you have an Atmos-capable unit you know you can expand in the future when you are good and ready. Here's the thing too - you've got the ceiling speakers - and while they may not be in the right place at the moment - you can still kind of play around with them in an Atmos-ish approach (but only if you've got the receiver that can handle the processing). It won't be proper, but you can still futz around a bit. 

The Paradigm speakers are not hard to drive, so before you worry too much about an amp, I'd listen to what Mike said - and simply try the receiver - and you will likely get the performance at the volume you are expecting. Save yourself some money, but a receiver with the preouts will still let you add an amp at a later time if you simply want to try it, or are convinced you need it.


----------



## Ganymed4

Dan Hitchman said:


> It really depends on the speaker sensitivity and loudness required. I started out using receivers when I first got into home theater and then added power amps and noticed an improvement right away. Now I use a pre-amp with separate power amps with my Triads and have never considered going backwards. But each of us has different needs, etc.



That was also my path of development. Except for one step more, pre/pro and active speakers. I am very happy with Adam Audio studio monitors (S3V and H for LCR and S2V for surrounds). But they may not be in the price range you are looking for bokap.
I also have a 7.1.4 set up and don't want to go back. I am really missing something without ceiling speakers.


----------



## niterida

ATMOS is definitely worth it !!!!!


I just got my setup adjusted properly and watched the original Jurassic Park - streamed in non-Atmos - and it sounded unbelievable. Or should that be totally believable ?? In the scene where the feed the cow to the raptors and you can just see the foliage moving it actually sounded like I was in the foliage with the raptors - AWESOME.


----------



## Mike Gann

bokap said:


> Wow $400 that’s amazing. I am going to their site now, thanks


Was in there a couple days ago and the floor price was now $450. Do not know why it is higher on their web site. If interested, you could call and make them match the sales floor price. It was on sale for $399 when I purchased it a couple months back. Not bad for a THX Certified AVR.
My receiver no longer asks if I want to allow usage data to be sent back to Onkyo.

Mike


----------



## Dan Hitchman

niterida said:


> ATMOS is definitely worth it !!!!!
> 
> 
> I just got my setup adjusted properly and watched the original Jurassic Park - streamed in non-Atmos - and it sounded unbelievable. Or should that be totally believable ?? In the scene where the feed the cow to the raptors and you can just see the foliage moving it actually sounded like I was in the foliage with the raptors - AWESOME.



The 4k Blu-ray has a DTS: X remix. Even better than the old 5.1 track! I just wish they used full Dolby Atmos instead since the X track maxes out at 7.1.4.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> You can still rent Blu-ray discs. Some still have Dolby Atmos tracks. On your most "beloved" titles, it would still behoove you to snag a few 4k discs when on sale. They're really not that expensive, especially when you consider 4k streaming rental pricing. Last Black Friday I grabbed a bunch of 4k titles for $7 to $12 dollars each. That way you'll have some great demo material to have on hand (such as Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, A Quiet Place, Ralph Breaks the Internet, etc.) with the best picture and sound.
> 
> 
> 4k streaming, due to heavy compression, is not much better than a 1080p Blu-ray in terms of overall image detail.
> 
> 
> 
> If I was going to spend _any_ money on installation and I wasn't handy at all with tools, I would just reconfigure four of your Sonance in-ceilings (unless they're really crappy or low end models) to the correct Top Front and Top Rear Atmos positions relative to your main seating area and have them patch the holes and blend the drywall and spackle. You'll probably have to do this if you went to immersive surround in the near future anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> What was the MSRP given for the Paradigm's you were considering?


I think $679 each maybe less for i80 Elite in wall for front and less money for rear in wall
Where do you buy disks for $7. We really watch movies once as there are always new ones we want to see but for $7 I could buy. I’m paying $15 a month for Blu-ray from Netflix, two at a time. The video quality on my 1080p Samsung is about the same as steaming but the sound quality is amazing. I never knew my 5.1 system was so good. 
As am buying Atmos capable receiver I might as well set up for Atmos since I already have 4 wired ceiling speakers. My local dealer suggests replacing the two front Sonance with angle firing Paradigm to make it better for Atmos


----------



## bokap

Jonas2 said:


> Well, I hope I'm helping you and not hurting you! Like Dan said, done right, Atmos is really incredible (content dependent of course). The one thing I believe you have to your advantage is time, no? Take your time, most importantly! Don't feel pressured into pulling the trigger just for the sake of doing something. Here's something to keep in kind - I'd seriously recommend at least getting a receiver that is Atmos-capable (4 channel) - whether you use it at first or not. You'll probably be kicking yourself if you didn't at least get that much. You'll be kicking yourself a lot less wondering if the brand you got is the right one comparatively.  But at least if you have an Atmos-capable unit you know you can expand in the future when you are good and ready. Here's the thing too - you've got the ceiling speakers - and while they may not be in the right place at the moment - you can still kind of play around with them in an Atmos-ish approach (but only if you've got the receiver that can handle the processing). It won't be proper, but you can still futz around a bit.
> 
> The Paradigm speakers are not hard to drive, so before you worry too much about an amp, I'd listen to what Mike said - and simply try the receiver - and you will likely get the performance at the volume you are expecting. Save yourself some money, but a receiver with the preouts will still let you add an amp at a later time if you simply want to try it, or are convinced you need it.


Jonas I decided that since I already have ceiling wired with 5 Sonance speakers I might as well make use of 4 of them for Atmos
I’m probably looking at 9 channel receiver as I will be running 5.1.4. 
It may make more sense to look at 11 channels as I have two ceiling speakers in bedroom for tv. Or I can do what Dan suggests and buy amp for front 3 which would free up two channels for bedroom


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Jonas I decided that since I already have ceiling wired with 5 Sonance speakers I might as well make use of 4 of them for Atmos
> I’m probably looking at 9 channel receiver as I will be running 5.1.4.
> It may make more sense to look at 11 channels as I have two ceiling speakers in bedroom for tv. Or I can do what Dan suggests and buy amp for front 3 which would free up two channels for bedroom



Just be careful as you're looking for 11.1 (7.1.4) channel processing for Dolby Atmos and DTS: X. That gives you the most flexibility unless you really went hog wild with a 9.1.4 or greater receiver or processor.


----------



## bokap

​


Dan Hitchman said:


> Just be careful as you're looking for 11.1 (7.1.4) channel processing for Dolby Atmos and DTS: X. That gives you the most flexibility unless you really went hog wild with a 9.1.4 or greater receiver or processor.


Right I know I need 9 powered amps unless I add separate amp. I’m not planning on 7.1.4. It will be 5.1.4, 9 speakers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> I think $679 each maybe less for i80 Elite in wall for front and less money for rear in wall
> Where do you buy disks for $7. We really watch movies once as there are always new ones we want to see but for $7 I could buy. I’m paying $15 a month for Blu-ray from Netflix, two at a time. The video quality on my 1080p Samsung is about the same as steaming but the sound quality is amazing. I never knew my 5.1 system was so good.
> As am buying Atmos capable receiver I might as well set up for Atmos since I already have 4 wired ceiling speakers. My local dealer suggests replacing the two front Sonance with angle firing Paradigm to make it better for Atmos



Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Bull Moose, Fry's, etc. all have holiday sales or random sales from time to time. The best haul was last year at Black Friday. I jumped on all 5 Jack Ryan movies in a set for $36, as one example. Not everything is on sale at that time and normally Disney titles are more expensive at around $20 at odd times, but if you pay attention you can score some great 4k deals. 



I looked at the Paradigm e80-iw and would recommend these Triad Bronze LCR in-wall's or on-wall's instead at $650 each (MSRP - dealers will normally discount from there, especially if you get a whole set): 



https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/iw-bronze4-lcr/


https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-lcr/


Compared to the Paradigms, they have full, heavily braced speaker cabinet enclosures as if they were were true in-room speakers set inside the wall, and from the Dolby Labs official Atmos demo I went to at CEDIA that used the Bronze LCR's, they can still get pretty darn loud and impactful (lots of slam) for their size due to the quality drivers and long excursion voice-coil spiders being used. The e80-iw's may seem like they can reproduce a wider frequency range on paper, but I assure you their specs over promise because they are open-back in-wall's with no cabinets. 



Triads are very smooth and neutral sounding and quite musical too. To me, they get out of the way and let the recording come through cleanly.



Depending on how close you end up sitting to the side walls, you can use either matching LCR's for the side surrounds (if you have some distance from your seating to the side walls) or Bronze bipole Surrounds (if you sit rather close to the side walls) as either in-wall or on-wall models. Bronze Surrounds are $550 each MSRP.

https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/iw-bronze4-surround/

https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-surround/


As I mentioned before, I purchased my Triads from Dawn, who is an authorized Triad dealer from Florida. If you would like more info... shoot me a PM.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Right I know I need 9 powered amps unless I add separate amp. I’m not planning on 7.1.4. It will be 5.1.4, 9 speakers



I know, but most good receivers out there now only offer 5.1.4 processing with 7.1.4 models. Otherwise, they're usually just 5.1.2.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Bull Moose, Fry's, etc. all have holiday sales or random sales from time to time. The best haul was last year at Black Friday. I jumped on all 5 Jack Ryan movies in a set for $36, as one example. Not everything is on sale at that time and normally Disney titles are more expensive at around $20 at odd times, but if you pay attention you can score some great 4k deals.
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at the Paradigm e80-iw and would recommend these Triad Bronze LCR in-wall's or on-wall's instead at $650 each (MSRP - dealers will normally discount from there, especially if you get a whole set):
> 
> I will look into the Triad but I don't think know if I can hear them here. It's possible, I just haven't seen them. I have heard the Paradigm Elite and I liked them a lot
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/iw-bronze4-lcr/
> 
> 
> https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-lcr/
> 
> 
> Compared to the Paradigms, they have full, heavily braced speaker cabinet enclosures as if they were were true in-room speakers set inside the wall, and from the Dolby Labs official Atmos demo I went to at CEDIA that used the Bronze LCR's, they can still get pretty darn loud and impactful (lots of slam) for their size due to the quality drivers and long excursion voice-coil spiders being used. The e80-iw's may seem like they can reproduce a wider frequency range on paper, but I assure you their specs over promise because they are open-back in-wall's with no cabinets.
> 
> 
> 
> Triads are very smooth and neutral sounding and quite musical too. To me, they get out of the way and let the recording come through cleanly.
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on how close you end up sitting to the side walls, you can use either matching LCR's for the side surrounds (if you have some distance from your seating to the side walls) or Bronze bipole Surrounds (if you sit rather close to the side walls) as either in-wall or on-wall models. Bronze Surrounds are $550 each MSRP.
> 
> https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/iw-bronze4-surround/
> 
> https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/home-cinema/ow-bronze-surround/
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I purchased my Triads from Dawn, who is an authorized Triad dealer from Florida. If you would like more info... shoot me a PM.


I will look into the Triads but have not seen them here, but they may be available to demo. I have heard the Paradigm Elites and I liked them


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> I will look into the Triads but have not seen them here, but they may be available to demo. I have heard the Paradigm Elites and I liked them



Since I've owned and heard both Paradigms and Triads multiple times (I now own Triads), I will describe them this way... Triads sound like the best Paradigms, but can play louder and with less fatigue once you turn up the volume... that's so much better when listening to movies and they still sound amazing with music.


It's harder to demo Triads since they are usually sold through custom installers, but I trusted Dawn, and my own demo experiences over the years, and I wasn't disappointed. I'm excited every time I play a great Atmos soundtrack through my system. And that's no bull.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since I've owned and heard both Paradigms and Triads multiple times (I now own Triads), I will describe them this way... Triads sound like the best Paradigms, but can play louder and with less fatigue once you turn up the volume... that's so much better when listening to movies and they still sound amazing with music.
> 
> 
> It's harder to demo Triads since they are usually sold through custom installers, but I trusted Dawn, and my own demo experiences over the years, and I wasn't disappointed. I'm excited every time I play a great Atmos soundtrack through my system. And that's no bull.


I am going to see my Home Theater dealer Tuesday. I will ask him if he carries Triad. I'm sure you are right about them


----------



## Matt L

Can anyone recommend some small on ceiling speakers? Want something unobtrusive. I'm doing Height speakers now and they sound decent but really would like to go with top. My ceiling is not flat so I'd have to mount them so they are parallel with the floor so small is they key word. It would be very difficult to do in ceiling speakers as there is no attic access in this area. Might be forced to stay with heights.


----------



## Dawn Gordon

Because Triad isn't a mass market company it's going to be difficult to find dealers with product demos. Some of us do have Triads to audition, but that's a rare occurrence.


----------



## Wflagg

Anyone had the chance to demo Into the spider verse on a good system yet? My main watching area is currently partially disassembled. I have had a few underwhelming experiences (im looking at you Disney/Marvel) so im looking for some new stuff to watch that can push my system once i get it back up and running.


----------



## audiofan1

Matt L said:


> Can anyone recommend some small on ceiling speakers? Want something unobtrusive. I'm doing Height speakers now and they sound decent but really would like to go with top. My ceiling is not flat so I'd have to mount them so they are parallel with the floor so small is they key word. It would be very difficult to do in ceiling speakers as there is no attic access in this area. Might be forced to stay with heights.


 Boston Acoustics soundware's


----------



## usc1995

Matt L said:


> Can anyone recommend some small on ceiling speakers? Want something unobtrusive. I'm doing Height speakers now and they sound decent but really would like to go with top. My ceiling is not flat so I'd have to mount them so they are parallel with the floor so small is they key word. It would be very difficult to do in ceiling speakers as there is no attic access in this area. Might be forced to stay with heights.




Focal Birds... https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...-satellite-speaker-black-each-open-box/1.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## giomania

giomania said:


> I am planning placement of Top Front and Top Rear speakers for a 9.1.4 system. The speakers are all JTR, and the top speakers (JTR Slanted 8 HT) were recently used as surround back and Audyssey DSX height speakers.
> 
> The speakers will be mounted to the ceiling, and the driver is mounted on a 30-degree angle face that I am guessing should be factored into their placement? This is the big question for me, but the speakers to have a wide dispersion pattern. Comments and questions welcome.
> 
> Taking the 30-degree driver angle out of the equation, I am able to ideally place the top front speakers aligned with the front left and right speakers, and at a 45-degree elevation, per Dolby recommendations. The rear speaker placement has to be compromised due to a column in the path that would block most sound from the Top Rear Left speaker. Therefore, I was planning to mount the top rear left speaker adjacent to the column, which is still close to the 45-degree elevation, but it cannot be aligned with the front left speaker. Then to be symmetrical, the Top Rear Right speaker will also need to be mounted closer to the center of the room. This plan will not allow for optimal Atmos height affects for the second row, but that is the sacrifice I need to make.
> 
> I used a laser alignment tool to place the tape marks on the ceiling, aligned with the front left speaker. I am including some pictures.
> 
> MLP to Top Front - 30, 45, 55 degree elevation options, and the speaker held in place at 45-degree mark.
> 
> View attachment 2533456
> 
> View attachment 2533386
> 
> 
> MLP to Top Rear Left - 30, 45, 55 degree elevation options, (although you can't really see all the tape marks), and the speaker held in place at ~47-degree mark.
> 
> View attachment 2533458
> 
> View attachment 2533390
> 
> 
> Top Rear Left 55, 45, and 30-degree tape marks (from left to right) from the other side of the column.
> 
> View attachment 2533452
> 
> 
> Top Rear Left 55 & 45-degree tape marks from the other side of the column.
> 
> View attachment 2533460
> 
> 
> I wanted to post some images of the 30-degree driver face when this is held to the ceiling.
> 
> View attachment 2533400
> 
> View attachment 2533402
> 
> 
> Thanks for any input.
> 
> Mark





giomania said:


> Mounted my top rear speakers, as there wasn’t much choice there due to the column. It is not optimal placement, but I will live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any input on the front placement elevation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Around 45 degrees elevation gives a good sense of sounds overhead. Even Audyssey used to recommend that for their DSX height locations. The Atmos renderer thinks the Top Fronts are mid way between the Fronts and Sides. Either one of those locations will work. Don't worry about being overly precise; it doesn't buy you anything with Atmos. ETA: Only other suggestion would be to aim each height speaker at the listener farthest away in the front row (since the speakers have angled baffles anyway).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...




giomania said:


> Thanks for the input, Sanjay.
> 
> My plan was to aim the speakers at the MLP...the only spot that matters.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





Sevenfeet said:


> One thing I'm curious about is pointing the Atmos speakers at the MLP directly which you seem to have done. I have a couple of SVS Prime Elevations serving in a front height configuration. What I don't know is given the distance the speakers are from the MLP (16 ft) whether it is useful to toe them in a few degrees more toward the MLP or whether it matters.





giomania said:


> I’m not sure if that was right or not, but it made sense to me, since all the bed channel speakers are toed in. Also, fellow JTR owner @SOWK aimed his Atmos Top Front speakers (JTR Slanted 8 HT-LP) towards the front row, but maybe not as great of an angle as mine. I’m not sure about his Top rear heights.
> 
> I have a Checkpoint P770 laser pointer with a tripod-mounted “jig” that has 360 degree rotation with angle markers, and an adapter that creates a line laser. I use this to make precise speaker alignment to exact degrees, relative to the MLP. Overkill for sure, but that is why I toed in the speakers without a great deal of thought.
> 
> If Dolby had any caveats in their setup document, it would have made me stop and take note. I guess they only expect users to use direct down-firing ceiling speakers. It would be nice if Dolby would provide guidance for enthusiasts using larger on-ceiling speakers.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





batpig said:


> Mark - dispersion / aim is touched on in the setup docs.





giomania said:


> Well, I sure missed that one, but I did it correctly, apparently! Thanks Batpig!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Update: I decided to run an Audyssey calibration and check out the Dolby Atmos trailers, and I have to say I am very impressed, even with my Top Height Front speakers still in their Audyssey DSX Height speaker locations. 

The speakers in question are mounted outside of the left and right speaker boundaries, and ~27 degrees elevation, so I imagine the Atmos sound will get better when they are moved to their recommended positions.

Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

Wflagg said:


> Anyone had the chance to demo Into the spider verse on a good system yet? My main watching area is currently partially disassembled. I have had a few underwhelming experiences (im looking at you Disney/Marvel) so im looking for some new stuff to watch that can push my system once i get it back up and running.


It's not out on disc yet, just streaming. I saw this in Atmos in the commercial cinema and it was AMAZING -- one of the very best cinematic Atmos experiences I've ever had. In addition to being a phenomenal movie, the Atmos mix was crazy active, one of the top 3 I've ever heard in a commercial theater in terms of hearing distinct sound effects travelling all around and over me (the other two probably being Dr. Strange and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them).

The good news is Spider-Man is a Sony property, not Disney. The Sony/Marvel stuff does NOT suffer from the neutered dynamics, 7.1.4 "print out" issues that Disney/Marvel has. Spider-Man Homecoming and Venom both have FANTASTIC, reference quality Atmos tracks. Awesome dynamics, tons of object movement, and (important for those of us beyond 11 channels) very active object usage so the extra speakers like Front Wide get plenty of action.

So, long story short, I am VERY hopeful that Spider-Verse will be a reference quality Atmos track on disc.

The only downside with these Sony releases is that Sony is one of the studios that limits the Atmos track to the 4K disc, so even on these new releases you have to buy the 4K disc and not the regular Blu-ray.


----------



## batpig

Matt L said:


> Can anyone recommend some small on ceiling speakers? Want something unobtrusive. I'm doing Height speakers now and they sound decent but really would like to go with top. My ceiling is not flat so I'd have to mount them so they are parallel with the floor so small is they key word. It would be very difficult to do in ceiling speakers as there is no attic access in this area. Might be forced to stay with heights.


Polk OWM3 are very popular for low profile, on-ceiling installation. Small, light-weight, flexible mounting options, and inexpensive!


----------



## gwsat

Wflagg said:


> Anyone had the chance to demo Into the spider verse on a good system yet? My main watching area is currently partially disassembled. I have had a few underwhelming experiences (im looking at you Disney/Marvel) so im looking for some new stuff to watch that can push my system once i get it back up and running.


Yes, last month I bought the HDR Atmos version of _Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse_ from the Kaleidescape store and watched it on my Kscape system. The HDR video and lossless audio on Kscape products are identical that which is encoded on corresponding disks.

I thought the Atmos audio was world class but was disappointed by the film's image quality. The film was apparently originally shot to accommodate 3D. The ostensible 2D version I got had a lot of blurriness of the sort one would expect when watching a 3D film without 3D glasses. The movie itself was great fun but, as noted, its video was profoundly disappointing.


----------



## fatherom

gwsat said:


> Yes, last month I bought the HDR Atmos version of _Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse_ from the Kaleidescape store and watched it on my Kscape system. The HDR video and lossless audio on Kscape products are identical that which is encoded on corresponding disks.
> 
> I thought the Atmos audio was world class but was disappointed by the film's image quality. The film was apparently originally shot to accommodate 3D. The ostensible 2D version I got had a lot of blurriness of the sort one would expect when watching a 3D film without 3D glasses. The movie itself was great fun but, as noted, its video was profoundly disappointing.


The blurriness isn't due to them trying to accommodate 3D. They were going for a certain visual style...to look like old-style comic books that had printing errors (where the CMYK, or whatever the printing process was at the time), where the different colors printed to the page weren't lined up properly and look blurred. So it has nothing to do with 2D vs. 3D. The movie is supposed to look, in many parts, like a mis-printed comic book.


----------



## gwsat

fatherom said:


> The blurriness isn't due to them trying to accommodate 3D. They were going for a certain visual style...to look like old-style comic books that had printing errors (where the CMYK, or whatever the printing process was at the time), where the different colors printed to the page weren't lined up properly and look blurred. So it has nothing to do with 2D vs. 3D. The movie is supposed to look, in many parts, like a mis-printed comic book.


All I can say is that the misaligned colors were an epic fail for me, at least. Time after time they took me out of what is otherwise a terrific film. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.


----------



## b0rnarian

I just bought the Onkyo RZ830 and ran only one seating position. Does anybody know if that would cause only the front speakers to be dominant. I can hesr other speakers but only if I put my ear to the speakers. I have a DefTech towers and surround setup of 7.1.2. But it sounds like a 2 ch setup right now and im clueless whats going on here. 
I cant run all 3 seating position calibration until tomorrow... any suggestions are appreciated.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Dan Hitchman said:


> IMAX Enhanced, from all indications so far, is a whole lot of nothing. ... It even artificially boosts your subwoofer level and can throw off your careful calibration when playing Enhanced titles.


There's no artifical bass boost. The extra 3 dB of LFE gain in playback is there to compensate for adding 3 dB of additional headroom in the encoded soundtrack's LFE channel. 

The only time there would be artificial bass boost would be if someone forced the unit to be in IMAX mode with regular discs. I'm not even sure that is possible, but it would not be a good idea if it were, as that would indeed throw off the calibrations.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> First of all, what is your theater's room size LxWxH? That will help in determining your power requirements. If it's a small room, you don't need as much amp power as long as the speakers you go with are relatively efficient in using the power sent to them.
> 
> $650 for a well built five-channel value amp is quite a deal in the A/V world. It doesn't get much better than that. You could use it to power the front three and the surround left and right speakers if you've decided to use a different amp for Zone 2. Then, let the receiver power the four Atmos overheads since they are not used constantly.
> 
> A mid-level receiver tends to go down to around 50-60 watts/channel with higher distortion levels when you are using multiple speakers and even less at peak audio dynamics... so the impressive amp power specs given by most receiver manufacturers are usually total B.S. Kind of like a projector brand saying their models have 50,000:1 or more contrast ratios. Maybe during a blue moon. That's why outboard amps of decent quality are often used to augment a system as they tend to be rated at up to full power with all amps in use. They have beefy power transformers and are heavy for a reason.


Dan if I bought the Monoprice or the Outlaw amp I would use the 5 channels for front and rear and use receiver for the 4 Atmos speakers. If the receiver was a 9 amp receiver would I be able to use the 5 remaining amps for zone 2 and 3?
I am considering buying the Marantz 720 which just had its price dropped


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> All I can say is that the misaligned colors were an epic fail for me, at least. Time after time they took me out of what is otherwise a terrific film. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.



Yup. This was all intentional. They were trying to recreate the feel of some types of hand drawn animation and used line blur that was often utilized to emulate rapid motion in still images. They wanted the vibe of a comic book come to life.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Dan if I bought the Monoprice or the Outlaw amp I would use the 5 channels for front and rear and use receiver for the 4 Atmos speakers. If the receiver was a 9 amp receiver would I be able to use the 5 remaining amps for zone 2 and 3?
> I am considering buying the Marantz 720 which just had its price dropped



Do you mean the *Anthem *720 receiver?


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Do you mean the *Anthem *720 receiver?


Sorry, I meant Marantz 7012


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Sorry, I meant Marantz 7012



If you are using four Atmos overhead speakers and want to use the built-in receiver amps to drive them, you must use the Zone 2 RCA pre-amp outputs and power those speakers through a separate power amp; the same deal as we've discussed before. You would use your old small wattage amp as you've been doing. 



If you're considering the 7012 thinking that would increase your flexibility in this regard, you might as well save your money and look at the Marantz 6012 or Denon 4400H I've talked about as they have the same Zone 2 output assignment modes. You're not gaining anything by moving up in the 9 channel receiver choices. You would need to go all the way to the flagship models.



You're going to get the best combo price-wise and performance-wise with the 4400H (as long as they're still available at that close-out price on Amazon going with ListenUp or another Denon authorized dealers listed via Amazon's list of buyer options - authorized internet dealers are listed on Denon's website) and the Monolith 3 channel amp - if you think the extra couple hundred for the 5 channel amp version is in your budget to power all the base level speakers, go for that one.


The Monolith amps are U.S. built in California and are of better overall quality than the Outlaw 5000, though it's not a slouch.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are using four Atmos overhead speakers and want to use the built-in receiver amps to drive them, you must use the Zone 2 RCA pre-amp outputs and power those speakers through a separate power amp; the same deal as we've discussed before. You would use your old small wattage amp as you've been doing.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're considering the 7012 thinking that would increase your flexibility in this regard, you might as well save your money and look at the Marantz 6012 or Denon 4400H I've talked about as they have the same Zone 2 output assignment modes. You're not gaining anything by moving up in the 9 channel receivers. You would need to go all the way to the flagship models.
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to get the best combo price-wise and performance-wise with the 4400H (as long as they're still available at that close-out price on Amazon going with ListenUp or another Denon authorized dealers listed via Amazon's list of buyer options - authorized internet dealers are listed on Denon's website) and the Monolith 3 channel amp - if you think the extra couple hundred for the 5 channel amp version is in your budget to power all the base level speakers, go for that one.
> 
> 
> The Monolith amps are U.S. built in California and are of better overall quality than the Outlaw 5000, though it's not a slouch.


Thanks for the explanation


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> Thanks for the explanation


Sure thing!


You need the extra power amp anyway no matter what since you're going with four overhead speakers... so you might as well jack up the power on the all-important front three speakers instead while you're at it (at the very least) and change the Amp Assign mode in the menu.


None of this is exactly cheap, but it'll be worth it in the end.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> There's no artifical bass boost. The extra 3 dB of LFE gain in playback is there to compensate for adding 3 dB of additional headroom in the encoded soundtrack's LFE channel.


Which means that anyone without an IMAX Enhanced capable receiver listening to the disc in regular DTS:X or DTS-HD MA format (only about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of viewers currently) will hear a hobbled soundtrack with too little bass.

Great job, IMAX. Really great job. 



> The only time there would be artificial bass boost would be if someone forced the unit to be in IMAX mode with regular discs. I'm not even sure that is possible, but it would not be a good idea if it were, as that would indeed throw off the calibrations.


It is possible to force IMAX mode on a non-IMAX soundtrack if it's encoded in lossy DTS format. (It does not work with DTS-HD MA, DTS:X, or any Dolby format). As you say, though, there's no point to it.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Sure thing!
> 
> 
> You need the extra power amp anyway no matter what since you're going with four overhead speakers... so you might as well jack up the power on the all-important front three speakers instead while you're at it (at the very least) and change the Amp Assign mode in the menu.
> 
> 
> None of this is exactly cheap, but it'll be worth it in the end.


Dan, I'm a bit confused about this. If I bought a separate amp would I be able to assign the unused amps on a 9 channel receiver to power a different zone in my house. I have now a 7 channel Denon for my 5.1 system and use the two unused amps in it to power my zone 2. Are you saying that if I had a 9 channel amp that it would be underpowered for a 5.1.4 system. It would have 9 amps.


----------



## Nafizur

Here’s a picture of my ceiling speaker. I just want to know if it’s too close to my surrounds.. I don’t gave any space to go back any further.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are using four Atmos overhead speakers and want to use the built-in receiver amps to drive them, you must use the Zone 2 RCA pre-amp outputs and power those speakers through a separate power amp; the same deal as we've discussed before. You would use your old small wattage amp as you've been doing.
> 
> If you're considering the 7012 thinking that would increase your flexibility in this regard, you might as well save your money and look at the Marantz 6012 or Denon 4400H I've talked about as they have the same Zone 2 output assignment modes. You're not gaining anything by moving up in the 9 channel receiver choices. You would need to go all the way to the flagship models.


Dan - what does Zone 2 have to do with this? There are dedicated pre-outs for main zone, you don't have to use Zone 2 pre-outs at all. What am I missing?


----------



## batpig

gwsat said:


> All I can say is that the misaligned colors were an epic fail for me, at least. Time after time they took me out of what is otherwise a terrific film. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Yup. This was all intentional. They were trying to recreate the feel of some types of hand drawn animation and used line blur that was often utilized to emulate rapid motion in still images. They wanted the vibe of a comic book come to life.


Yup, I was so confused when I was watching the movie in the theater that I actually asked an usher if they accidentally were playing the 3D version instead of the 2D. Turns out it's totally intentional! Once I moved past that I enjoyed the heck out of it, but it was very distracting at first.


----------



## batpig

bokap said:


> Dan, I'm a bit confused about this. If I bought a separate amp would I be able to assign the unused amps on a 9 channel receiver to power a different zone in my house. I have now a 7 channel Denon for my 5.1 system and use the two unused amps in it to power my zone 2. Are you saying that if I had a 9 channel amp that it would be underpowered for a 5.1.4 system. It would have 9 amps.


I'm not sure if this is what Dan was getting at, but very few 9/11ch receivers let you repurpose internal amps for Zone 2 when you're running a full Atmos setup in main zone even when there are "unused" channels.

So for example a 9amp/11ch receiver like the Denon 4400 or Marantz 7012 would let you run a 7.1 + Zone 2 setup using only internal amps (9 total), but if you're running 9/11 channels in main zone then all the amps are dedicated to main zone and can't be redeployed. Even if you have a 5ch or 7ch external amp leaving several internal amps doing nothing.

Only the Denon flagship models like the current X8500H or previous X7200W can do this using their "custom" amp assignment capabilities which let you freely map any amp to any channel output.


----------



## bokap

batpig said:


> I'm not sure if this is what Dan was getting at, but very few 9/11ch receivers let you repurpose internal amps for Zone 2 when you're running a full Atmos setup in main zone even when there are "unused" channels.
> 
> So for example a 9amp/11ch receiver like the Denon 4400 or Marantz 7012 would let you run a 7.1 + Zone 2 setup using only internal amps (9 total), but if you're running 9/11 channels in main zone then all the amps are dedicated to main zone and can't be redeployed. Even if you have a 5ch or 7ch external amp leaving several internal amps doing nothing.
> 
> Only the Denon flagship models like the current X8500H or previous X7200W can do this using their "custom" amp assignment capabilities which let you freely map any amp to any channel output.


Thanks batpig- I have a Denon 3313ci that I am replacing that does this. It has 7 amps, I am using 5 amps for 5.1 and the two unused amps for two speakers in my bedroom zone two. I was using an external amp for living room zone 3. So external amp will not free up separate channels unless I buy something more high end. My system will be 5.1.4.


----------



## richlife

batpig said:


> I'm not sure if this is what Dan was getting at, but very few 9/11ch receivers let you repurpose internal amps for Zone 2 when you're running a full Atmos setup in main zone even when there are "unused" channels.
> 
> So for example a 9amp/11ch receiver like the Denon 4400 or Marantz 7012 would let you run a 7.1 + Zone 2 setup using only internal amps (9 total), but if you're running 9/11 channels in main zone then all the amps are dedicated to main zone and can't be redeployed. Even if you have a 5ch or 7ch external amp leaving several internal amps doing nothing.
> 
> Only the Denon flagship models like the current X8500H or previous X7200W can do this using their "custom" amp assignment capabilities which let you freely map any amp to any channel output.


Not sure if it's what you are describing, but I have my Yamaha A3060 Zone 1 and Zone 2 simultaneously wired for 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS:X in Zone 1 and 2-channel in Zone 2. Cannot use both at the same time, but a simple Setup config switch allows simultaneous Zone 1 (7.2.2) and Zone 2 (2-channel) operation or either independently. Certainly all Yamahas at this level have that capability 2016 - 2018.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> Which means that anyone without an IMAX Enhanced capable receiver listening to the disc in regular DTS:X or DTS-HD MA format (only about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of viewers currently) will hear a hobbled soundtrack with too little bass.


The issue is that it would not be possible for 100% of AVRs to replicate what IMAX does in their cinema processors, and it was not even possible to do so by putting all the processing in the content and use specific settings in the AVR. The settings needed are not all accessible to consumers. So it was necessary to create discs that would serve both the IMAX process and remain compatible with existing AVRs. They could never be identical in every respect. Yet the difference is more subtle than one might infer from the characterization of "hobbled."


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bokap said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what Dan was getting at, but very few 9/11ch receivers let you repurpose internal amps for Zone 2 when you're running a full Atmos setup in main zone even when there are "unused" channels.
> 
> So for example a 9amp/11ch receiver like the Denon 4400 or Marantz 7012 would let you run a 7.1 + Zone 2 setup using only internal amps (9 total), but if you're running 9/11 channels in main zone then all the amps are dedicated to main zone and can't be redeployed. Even if you have a 5ch or 7ch external amp leaving several internal amps doing nothing.
> 
> Only the Denon flagship models like the current X8500H or previous X7200W can do this using their "custom" amp assignment capabilities which let you freely map any amp to any channel output.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks batpig- I have a Denon 3313ci that I am replacing that does this. It has 7 amps, I am using 5 amps for 5.1 and the two unused amps for two speakers in my bedroom zone two. I was using an external amp for living room zone 3. So external amp will not free up separate channels unless I buy something more high end. My system will be 5.1.4.
Click to expand...

Why not repurpose your old receiver for extra audio zone usage? Use the main zone configuration for Zone 2 and the Zone 2 outs for Zone 3?

That will ease your confusion as to the new Atmos receiver you choose.

As stated, many newer receivers that aren't the top models don't have as much flexibility in amp assigning. 

What I'm getting at is that if you run a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 configuration you have to have a separate power amp to power the Top Rear speakers when using a 9 channel amp receiver. 

If you have a large room, you might as well get a more powerful amp to at least drive the left, center, and right front speakers. Then change the amp assign mode to let the receiver power the rest of the surrounds and overhead speakers internally.

If you opt for a five channel amp, then only the overheads get power from the Atmos receiver.


----------



## Josh Z

Roger Dressler said:


> The issue is that it would not be possible for 100% of AVRs to replicate what IMAX does in their cinema processors, and it was not even possible to do so by putting all the processing in the content and use specific settings in the AVR. The settings needed are not all accessible to consumers. So it was necessary to create discs that would serve both the IMAX process and remain compatible with existing AVRs. They could never be identical in every respect. Yet the difference is more subtle than one might infer from the characterization of "hobbled."


Seems to me that this entire problem could be solved by doing a home video mix with bass at the levels intended by the filmmakers. That would work for all viewers without forcing any of them to upgrade their A/V receivers.

What did IMAX do on previous disc releases before the IMAX Enhanced program existed?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Josh Z said:


> Seems to me that this entire problem could be solved by doing a home video mix with bass at the levels intended by the filmmakers. What did IMAX do on previous disc releases before the IMAX Enhanced program existed?


Presumably, previous IMAX content did its very best to convey the intended IMAX result. But it was also true that the end result, regardless of what they did, was not identical to the sound presented in an IMAX theater due to the realities of AVR design and the unusual nature of how IMAX soundtracks are mastered for theatrical IMAX release. (There's no LFE channel, as you know, but it goes beyond that) Would these previous IMAX releases be considered hobbled?



> That would work for all viewers without forcing any of them to upgrade their A/V receivers.


If we can assume that previous IMAX content worked well for all viewers with normal AVRs, we may want to consider making a similar concession for the new IMAX content. The idea was not to force anybody to upgrade to enjoy IMAX titles as before, but to make it possible to achieve the ideal IMAX result for the first time.

Perhaps this discussion, if it is to continue, would best be moved to the IMAX thread.


----------



## sdrucker

Roger Dressler said:


> The issue is that it would not be possible for 100% of AVRs to replicate what IMAX does in their cinema processors, and it was not even possible to do so by putting all the processing in the content and use specific settings in the AVR. The settings needed are not all accessible to consumers. So it was necessary to create discs that would serve both the IMAX process and remain compatible with existing AVRs. They could never be identical in every respect. Yet the difference is more subtle than one might infer from the characterization of "hobbled."


Not accessible to typical users, but this is AVS 😎.

Why couldn’t a power user mimic the IMAX bass approach with a preset on a MiniDSP with Dirac and the bass management plug-in, where you can do some custom crossovers, speaker high pass filters, and target curves? Assumption is you’re one of those guys on the 88A thread with MiniDSPs between a processor and amps, of which there’s a few. Likewise on the fancier processors like Storm Audio, Datasat and Trinnov.

You won’t get mimicking of the center height phantoming of Front Heights and center channel, though, without some always-on matrixed/mixer with properly leveled and delay’ed settings (which is a cludge as IDK if that center height mimic is always in use or more dynamic on IMAX Enhanced). But if you’re going that far, a new AVR with the codec would likely make your head hurt less. 

Personally I’m happy with Atmos and DTS:X as they are, and far more excited about the potential of DTS:X Pro, but obviously the jury’s out about when this starts to show up in standard mainstream AVRs and pre/pros.


----------



## Nafizur

Nafizur said:


> Here’s a picture of my ceiling speaker. I just want to know if it’s too close to my surrounds.. I don’t gave any space to go back any further.


bump


----------



## ggsantafe

Nafizur said:


> Here’s a picture of my ceiling speaker. I just want to know if it’s too close to my surrounds.. I don’t gave any space to go back any further.


What's the height difference between the rear surrounds & your in-ceiling speakers? Typically the (rear) surrounds are mounted around ear height unless there are extenuating circumstances -multi-rows/mounted too close to a seating position, etc. Your photo seems to show room to lower the left rear speaker - what about the right rear? How does it sound - can you differentiate between sounds behind you & sounds above you?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nafizur said:


> bump



You need to show us a better picture with the surrounds in relative position to your seating location. That would help quite a bit. The current pic cuts too much off at the bottom.


----------



## Nafizur

ggsantafe said:


> Nafizur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s a picture of my ceiling speaker. I just want to know if it’s too close to my surrounds.. I don’t gave any space to go back any further.
> 
> 
> 
> What's the height difference between the rear surrounds & your in-ceiling speakers? Typically the (rear) surrounds are mounted around ear height unless there are extenuating circumstances -multi-rows/mounted too close to a seating position, etc. Your photo seems to show room to lower the left rear speaker - what about the right rear? How does it sound - can you differentiate between sounds behind you & sounds above you?
Click to expand...




Dan Hitchman said:


> Nafizur said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to show us a better picture with the surrounds in relative position to your seating location. That would help quite a bit. The current pic cuts too much off at the bottom.
Click to expand...


sorry, I have attached better pictures for u guys. The ceiling is 8ft. From the floor, the surrounds are mounted at 5.5ft.. when I sit on the couch, my ear level is at 3.5ft from the floor. 

The ceiling speaker is mounted 2.5 ft higher than the surrounds 

So yah, just want to know if they’re places somewhat ok. I’m concerned about my surround and top rears being so close. In the denon, I set the ceiling up as top front and top rear, and the surrounds and surrounds and ran auddessey.


----------



## bokap

Dan Hitchman said:


> Why not repurpose your old receiver for extra audio zone usage? Use the main zone configuration for Zone 2 and the Zone 2 outs for Zone 3?
> 
> That will ease your confusion as to the new Atmos receiver you choose.
> 
> As stated, many newer receivers that aren't the top models don't have as much flexibility in amp assigning.
> 
> What I'm getting at is that if you run a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 configuration you have to have a separate power amp to power the Top Rear speakers when using a 9 channel amp receiver.
> 
> If you have a large room, you might as well get a more powerful amp to at least drive the left, center, and right front speakers. Then change the amp assign mode to let the receiver power the rest of the surrounds and overhead speakers internally.
> 
> If you opt for a five channel amp, then only the overheads get power from the Atmos receiver.


It may be possible to use my Denon if it will fit in my closet with the new receiver. 
I am buying a receiver with 9 active channels so I don’t need an external amp to run 5.1.4. 
I am buying Paradigm speakers which should not require a separate amp


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nafizur said:


> sorry, I have attached better pictures for u guys. The ceiling is 8ft. From the floor, the surrounds are mounted at 5.5ft.. when I sit on the couch, my ear level is at 3.5ft from the floor.
> 
> The ceiling speaker is mounted 2.5 ft higher than the surrounds
> 
> So yah, just want to know if they’re placed somewhat ok. I’m concerned about my surround and top rears being so close. In the Denon, I set the ceiling up as top front and top rear, and the surrounds and surrounds and ran auddessey.



There's not a whole heck of a lot you can do with your room the way it is setup. I would move the love seat (the primary seating) so that you are sitting somewhat between the Top and Rear Tops, but then you have the sofa in the way. If you put the surrounds on stands closer to the side of the main listening position and a bit lower, then they're in the traffic lane.


----------



## Nafizur

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's not a whole heck of a lot you can do with your room the way it is setup. I would move the love seat (the primary seating) so that you are sitting somewhat between the Top and Rear Tops, but then you have the sofa in the way. If you put the surrounds on stands closer to the side of the main listening position and a bit lower, then they're in the traffic lane.


yes, i moved up the love seat up a bit to center it as much as i can.. 

Now, with the setup i have.. what exactly is happening? is my ATMOS not gonna be playing correctly as it should be? am i gonna be missing out on something? 

i listened to the Demo disc, and it sounds amazing, i just want to ensure i'm not screwing something up by having it too close to the surrounds. 

I turned up the FL and FR levels up by 3DB each to account for the rears being so close to my listening position.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Nafizur said:


> yes, i moved up the love seat up a bit to center it as much as i can..
> 
> Now, with the setup i have.. what exactly is happening? is my ATMOS not gonna be playing correctly as it should be? am i gonna be missing out on something?
> 
> i listened to the Demo disc, and it sounds amazing, i just want to ensure i'm not screwing something up by having it too close to the surrounds.
> 
> I turned up the FL and FR levels up by 3DB each to account for the rears being so close to my listening position.



If you listened to the Dolby Atmos demo disc and the positioning of audio objects around the room didn't sound "off" to you, then sit back and enjoy what you have.  If you can move the system to a basement or other freer space, then you may have more options in the future for a more precise layout.


----------



## mtbdudex

Since this came out two weeks ago it’s old news?

This way we can know if a true Atmos mix vs up mixing, via our AVR info 

Hmm, wonder if the Xbox one upmixer can output to Front Wides? 
 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johna...is-getting-another-game-changing-feature/amp/

Contrary to what you might think, though, this does not mean that you’ve already been enjoying Atmos upmixing from your console. In fact, all that’s been happening is that the console has been outputting non-Atmos sound formats in their native state, but encased within a so-called Dolby Metadata-Enhanced Audio Transmission ‘container’. 

Why do this? Because when current AV receivers and soundbars have to switch between non-Atmos and Atmos sound sources (and vice versa), they have to re-initialize internally – a process that with many AVRs and receivers can cause a glitch/temporary loss of sound, and can even in some cases lead to the audio not returning at all.

So Microsoft decided to have Xbox Ones send out all audio, whether true Atmos or not, in the Dolby MAT container, so that AV receivers wouldn’t keep triggering their problematic internal re-initializations. Even though this meant AVRs couldn’t apply any upmixing features they might carry.

Fixing the fix

This approach to saving Xbox users from experiencing drop outs when using Dolby Atmos for Home Theater also meant that the consoles couldn’t apply Atmos upmixing to non Atmos sources – since they were essentially having to treat all audio for output as Atmos, even when it wasn’t. 

The latest update rolled out to Xbox users on the Alpha Insider ring, though, means that the Dolby Atmos for Home Theater mode can now properly recognize when a game or disc isn’t delivering a true Atmos source, and apply Dolby’s upmixing algorithms to it. 

It’s true that AV Receivers often carry similar upmixing options, of course. But getting the Xbox to do it makes glitches in the audio playback much less likely.

The new upmixing feature for home theater setups will be set to ‘on’ by default – and actually, in the current build out with Alpha Insiders, it’s set to ‘on’ permanently. However, Xbox Audio Lead Steven Wilssens tells me that by the time the new feature is ready to roll out to the Xbox community at large, it will contain the option to toggle the upmixing on or off (for people who prefer to hear non-Atmos sources in their original format). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sam Ash

Roger Dressler said:


> There's no artifical bass boost. The extra 3 dB of LFE gain in playback is there to compensate for adding 3 dB of additional headroom in the encoded soundtrack's LFE channel.
> 
> The only time there would be artificial bass boost would be if someone forced the unit to be in IMAX mode with regular discs. I'm not even sure that is possible, but it would not be a good idea if it were, as that would indeed throw off the calibrations.


Hi Roger, what is the benefit that IMAX certification brings to the home environment, Is it a scaled down version of the commercial IMAX specifications ? A lot of people say that IMAX has gotten sound right in the commercial domain, is it because of stringent standards implemented during installs ?

Is Dolby Vision (Atmos) still better in your opinion ?


----------



## Kain

Have a quick question...

Say I have an Altitude32 and a 9.1.6 setup. I have one free amp channel remaining as well as several free outputs remaining on the Altitude32. Where would be the best place to add one more speaker to a 9.1.6 setup? I was thinking maybe a back-center surround. Denon even has a picture with a back-center surround. Would it be a worthwhile speaker position?


----------



## Apgood

Kain said:


> Have a quick question...
> 
> 
> 
> Say I have an Altitude32 and a 9.1.6 setup. I have one free amp channel remaining as well as several free outputs remaining on the Altitude32. Where would be the best place to add one more speaker to a 9.1.6 setup? I was thinking maybe a back-center surround. Denon even has a picture with a back-center surround. Would it be a worthwhile speaker position?


Center Back would my last choice 

Probably Front Center Height followed by VOG


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Roger, what is the benefit that IMAX certification brings to the home environment, Is it a scaled down version of the commercial IMAX specifications ? A lot of people say that IMAX has gotten sound right in the commercial domain, is it because of stringent standards implemented during installs ?
> 
> Is Dolby Vision (Atmos) still better in your opinion ?



If Dolby Atmos is IMHO "correctly" utilized with 3D panning objects and not a fixed, channel-like print-out then you're looking at 62 possible speaker locations (plus 2 sub LFE channels) for the cinema and 34 (plus one sub LFE channel) for the home... compared to 12 channels max for IMAX immersive audio (and 7.1.4 max for standard home DTS: X).


----------



## Sam Ash

Kain said:


> Have a quick question...
> 
> Say I have an Altitude32 and a 9.1.6 setup. I have one free amp channel remaining as well as several free outputs remaining on the Altitude32. Where would be the best place to add one more speaker to a 9.1.6 setup? I was thinking maybe a back-center surround. Denon even has a picture with a back-center surround. Would it be a worthwhile speaker position?


So are you planning an Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D layout ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Have a quick question...
> 
> Say I have an Altitude32 and a 9.1.6 setup. I have one free amp channel remaining as well as several free outputs remaining on the Altitude32. Where would be the best place to add one more speaker to a 9.1.6 setup? I was thinking maybe a back-center surround. Denon even has a picture with a back-center surround. Would it be a worthwhile speaker position?



A center back channel is not a very good speaker position because of the very poor sound localization directly behind our heads due to our ear/brain sensory system. If you have any Auro 3D music or movies (few and far between), you could do the mono VOG speaker directly above and slightly forward of your main listening position.


Or just not bother with only one extra amp channel. Again, Auro3D is not a rip-roaring success.


I would, if I had the room, perhaps add a Surround 1 stereo position on the side walls by adding another stereo or mono amp and two extra matching speakers. Surround 1 in Dolby Atmos tracks tends to get quite a bit of activity and you gain a side wall surround speaker array... great for object panning


----------



## Kain

Sam Ash said:


> So are you planning an Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D layout ?





Dan Hitchman said:


> A center back channel is not a very good speaker position because of the very poor sound localization directly behind our heads. If you have any Auro 3D music or movies (few and far between), you could do the mono VOG speaker directly above and slightly forward of your main listening position.
> 
> 
> Or just not bother with only one extra amp channel. Again, Auro3D is not a rip-roaring success.
> 
> 
> I would, if I had the room, perhaps add a Surround 1 stereo position on the side walls by adding another stereo or mono amp and two extra matching speakers. Surround 1 in Dolby Atmos tracks tends to get quite a bit of activity and you gain a side wall array.


Thanks for the replies.

Don't think I am going to bother with Auro-3D as nothing I watch/play/listen uses it. So, to answer Sam Ash's question, I'll be doing Atmos and DTS:X.

I have a small room so adding a second set of side surrounds is not going to work. Might end up just leaving the extra amp channel free.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> Don't think I am going to bother with Auro-3D as nothing I watch/play/listen uses it. So, to answer Sam Ash's question, I'll be doing Atmos and DTS:X.
> 
> I have a small room so adding a second set of side surrounds is not going to work. Might end up just leaving the extra amp channel free.



If you end up with a larger room down the line. I would do this:


Front Screen Wall (Left/Center/Right)


Front Wide Pair


Side Walls (Surround 1 Pair & Standard Side Surround Pair)


Rear Wall (Back Surround Pair)



Overhead (3 Top Pairs)




God, I would love to have an Altitude!


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you end up with a larger room down the line. I would do this:
> 
> 
> Front Screen Wall (Left/Center/Right)
> 
> 
> Front Wide Pair
> 
> 
> Side Walls (Surround 1 Pair & Standard Side Surround Pair)
> 
> 
> Rear Wall (Back Surround Pair)
> 
> 
> 
> Overhead (3 Top Pairs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, I would love to have an Altitude!


Okay, just thinking out loud here...

My room is about 12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high and the main listening position is about 7 ft from the front wall (or about 6 ft from the LCR speakers once you factor in the speakers' depth). The speakers are the JBL 708i for every channel. Could I squeeze in a 11.1.6 setup or would that be completely overkill for a room of my size? I just quickly measured and the distance between the front wides and side surrounds would be roughly 3 ft. The distance between the side surrounds and the second side surrounds would also be about 3 ft. The distance between the second side surrounds and the back wall is roughly 2 ft. Could this work or should I stick to a 9.1.6 setup?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Okay, just thinking out loud here...
> 
> My room is about 12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high and the main listening position is about 7 ft from the front wall (or about 6 ft from the LCR speakers once you factor in the speakers' depth). The speakers are the JBL 708i for every channel. Could I squeeze in a 11.1.6 setup or would that be completely overkill for a room of my size? I just quickly measured and the distance between the front wides and side surrounds would be roughly 3 ft. The distance between the side surrounds and the second side surrounds would also be about 3 ft. The distance between the second side surrounds and the back wall is roughly 2 ft. Could this work or should I stick to a 9.1.6 setup?



Probably just stick with 9.1.6. for now.


----------



## batpig

mtbdudex said:


> Since this came out two weeks ago it’s old news?
> 
> This way we can know if a true Atmos mix vs up mixing, via our AVR info
> 
> Hmm, wonder if the Xbox one upmixer can output to Front Wides?
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johna...is-getting-another-game-changing-feature/amp/


Seems unlikely considering later in the quoted text it states clearly the Xbox will "apply Dolby’s upmixing algorithms to" the non Atmos source. Dolby has NEVER had an upmixer that output to the Front Wide speakers; it seems almost certain it will be DSU upmix just like on your AVR.

It is funny to see them complain that this is a such a problem and it's all the AVR's fault for having to "reinitialize" since my Apple TV 4K also uses Dolby MAT with multich PCM and has no issue switching between 5.1 PCM and Atmos output.


----------



## usc1995

mtbdudex said:


> .
> 
> The new upmixing feature for home theater setups will be set to ‘on’ by default – and actually, in the current build out with Alpha Insiders, it’s set to ‘on’ permanently. However, Xbox Audio Lead Steven Wilssens tells me that by the time the new feature is ready to roll out to the Xbox community at large, it will contain the option to toggle the upmixing on or off (for people who prefer to hear non-Atmos sources in their original format).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hopefully when the toggle is set to off the Xbox will output PCM that way we can choose which up mixer to use ourselves. While I like DSU there are times when I would like the ability to choose between Neural X and DSU myself. Luckily the ATV4K does this...



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt L

I'm revisiting the idea of in-ceiling speakers for my vaulted ceiling. I had almost jumped on some Polk OWM3s and was debating on how to hide the wires, and decided I could not tolerate surface mounted wires from 4 speakers. At that point I mulled over how to access the access free space in the scissor trusses. Came up with a couple of options, best/easiest is to make an access panel in a 2nd floor bedroom closet. Not major work but not minor either.

That got me thinking - if I did not want to look at wires why would I want to look at 4 big blobs of speakers stuck to the ceiling? So that leads me to my question, are aimable in-ceiling speakers my best option? If I aim them so they point generally down, compensating for the slope, would this be the best option? I'm using 4 heights now and the sound is decent, but I have a problem settling for decent when I know I can do better. Thoughts?

Other questions is how will the R40 insulation bats affect the sound? I know there will be little base from these. I don't think it will be an issue but exploring all aspects. Also looking for recommendations on low/moderate cost speakers. Looking at the Monoprice 6.5" with dual aimable tweeters.

https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=4619


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> I'm revisiting the idea of in-ceiling speakers for my vaulted ceiling. I had almost jumped on some Polk OWM3s and was debating on how to hide the wires, and decided I could not tolerate surface mounted wires from 4 speakers. At that point I mulled over how to access the access free space in the scissor trusses. Came up with a couple of options, best/easiest is to make an access panel in a 2nd floor bedroom closet. Not major work but not minor either.
> 
> That got me thinking - if I did not want to look at wires why would I want to look at 4 big blobs of speakers stuck to the ceiling? So that leads me to my question, are aimable in-ceiling speakers my best option? If I aim them so they point generally down, compensating for the slope, would this be the best option? I'm using 4 heights now and the sound is decent, but I have a problem settling for decent when I know I can do better. Thoughts?
> 
> Other questions is how will the R40 insulation bats affect the sound? I know there will be little base from these. I don't think it will be an issue but exploring all aspects. Also looking for recommendations on low/moderate cost speakers. Looking at the Monoprice 6.5" with dual aimable tweeters.
> 
> https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=4619



With a vaulted ceiling, I don't see how you can get the best speaker positions and compensate for the probably severe ceiling slope without using on-ceiling models and adjusting the angles accordingly. You can still hide the wires as you described. Try white OWM5's for somewhat better bass response if you're looking for half-way inexpensive gear. Put them on short, adjustable white ceiling brackets for best manipulation of driver angles.


----------



## Matt L

Not wanting surface mount speakers is why I've been mulling over the monoprice units with dual aimable tweeters - not used in stereo mode only single channel. I've decided that the OWM3 would be too obtrusive even if I painted them out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> Not wanting surface mount speakers is why I've been mulling over the monoprice units with dual aimable tweeters - not used in stereo mode only single channel. I've decided that the OWM3 would be too obtrusive even if I painted them out.



It's a choice between Dolby Atmos and DTS: X and upmixer performance or looks. What do you want? You will have to decide. Polk OWM's come in black or white color. Cheap in-ceilings normally don't belt out a lot of sound cleanly and you have to compensate for distance with extra volume with your vaulted ceilings.


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> It is funny to see them complain that this is a such a problem and it's all the AVR's fault for having to "reinitialize" since my Apple TV 4K also uses Dolby MAT with multich PCM and has no issue switching between 5.1 PCM and Atmos output.


Isn't it also comparable to the stupid excuse Apple made for forcing HDR10 mode on permanently on the Apple TV by default? They didn't want users switching in and out of HDR mode on their TVs, because Apple decided that users would be "confused" or "inconvenienced". Never mind the awful picture quality of an SDR programme being shown with the TV locked in HDR mode and the backlight on full!


----------



## Matt L

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a choice between Dolby Atmos and DTS: X and upmixer performance or looks. What do you want? You will have to decide. Polk OWM's come in black or white color. Cheap in-ceilings normally don't belt out a lot of sound cleanly and you have to compensate for distance with extra volume with your vaulted ceilings.


Actually I want both, but if it came down to it, looks. I've seen a lots of pictures posted here with stuff hanging all over - wires, speakers, projectors - all fine if you have a media room, that is not what this room is. I use this room for entertaining and I use it daily for TV/ Movie viewing. One of my AV setups on the lower level having stuff hanging would be acceptable but don't feel like making trips up and down stairs all the time.

I'm looking for input from anyone who has a similar space and had in ceiling speakers. What are the results? I'm not adverse to paying a bit more for speakers, but not sure with the limited output of the Atmos speakers it's worth it. I would think aiming the tweeters down parallel to the floor or toward the MLP would offset the moderate angle of the ceiling and fall into the parameters Dolby spec't.

Update
Doing more research I've found that I have basically a 2/12 pitch on my ceiling that translates to about 10 degrees. I find a large number of 15 degree angled speakers that might fit my needs better than simply aiming the tweeter. The slight extra angle would allow me to slightly point the speakers toward my MLP. Now to find 4 good moderate priced 15 degree speakers....


----------



## mtbdudex

batpig said:


> Seems unlikely considering later in the quoted text it states clearly the Xbox will "apply Dolby’s upmixing algorithms to" the non Atmos source. Dolby has NEVER had an upmixer that output to the Front Wide speakers; it seems almost certain it will be DSU upmix just like on your AVR.
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny to see them complain that this is a such a problem and it's all the AVR's fault for having to "reinitialize" since my Apple TV 4K also uses Dolby MAT with multich PCM and has no issue switching between 5.1 PCM and Atmos output.



Agree on the std DSU for this Xbox Atmos update, still Easter is around the corner, a nice egg  would be cool. Hopefully someday Dolby will code it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

mrtickleuk said:


> Isn't it also comparable to the stupid excuse Apple made for forcing HDR10 mode on permanently on the Apple TV by default? They didn't want users switching in and out of HDR mode on their TVs, because Apple decided that users would be "confused" or "inconvenienced". Never mind the awful picture quality of an SDR programme being shown with the TV locked in HDR mode and the backlight on full!


Hmm, I haven't experienced this. I think they fixed it at some point with a firmware update. The ATV 4K lets you set the default output (e.g. 4K HDR, 4K SDR, 1080p HDR, etc) and there's also a "match dynamic range" setting which will override the default if the content differs. So for example if you set the default output to SDR but have the "match" setting enabled, content that's encoded in HDR will still output in HDR even though the menu screens and other content will output in SDR.


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> Hmm, I haven't experienced this. I think they fixed it at some point with a firmware update. The ATV 4K lets you set the default output (e.g. 4K HDR, 4K SDR, 1080p HDR, etc) and there's also a "match dynamic range" setting which will override the default if the content differs. So for example if you set the default output to SDR but have the "match" setting enabled, content that's encoded in HDR will still output in HDR even though the menu screens and other content will output in SDR.


Yes. The "match" setting was only added later, and I believe it is not on by default. This was the original problem. If you enabled HDR as the "default output", everything would be HDR, with the awful results I described above.
So yes, it was fixed with a new option you have to know about and specifically find and turn on.


----------



## Azekecse

Kain said:


> Okay, just thinking out loud here...
> 
> My room is about 12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high and the main listening position is about 7 ft from the front wall (or about 6 ft from the LCR speakers once you factor in the speakers' depth). The speakers are the JBL 708i for every channel. Could I squeeze in a 11.1.6 setup or would that be completely overkill for a room of my size? I just quickly measured and the distance between the front wides and side surrounds would be roughly 3 ft. The distance between the side surrounds and the second side surrounds would also be about 3 ft. The distance between the second side surrounds and the back wall is roughly 2 ft. Could this work or should I stick to a 9.1.6 setup?


IMHO, I would add an additional subwoofer, I think that would be more impactful for a room your size. I currently have 11.3.4 and throughly enjoy it, until my wife tells me to turn it down :frown:

Peace and blessings,

Azeke


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Matt L said:


> Actually I want both, but if it came down to it, looks. I've seen a lots of pictures posted here with stuff hanging all over - wires, speakers, projectors - all fine if you have a media room, that is not what this room is. I use this room for entertaining and I use it daily for TV/ Movie viewing. One of my AV setups on the lower level having stuff hanging would be acceptable but don't feel like making trips up and down stairs all the time.
> 
> I'm looking for input from anyone who has a similar space and had in ceiling speakers. What are the results? I'm not adverse to paying a bit more for speakers, but not sure with the limited output of the Atmos speakers it's worth it. I would think aiming the tweeters down parallel to the floor or toward the MLP would offset the moderate angle of the ceiling and fall into the parameters Dolby spec't.
> 
> Update
> Doing more research I've found that I have basically a 2/12 pitch on my ceiling that translates to about 10 degrees. I find a large number of 15 degree angled speakers that might fit my needs better than simply aiming the tweeter. The slight extra angle would allow me to slightly point the speakers toward my MLP. Now to find 4 good moderate priced 15 degree speakers....




I used rsl c34e’s. Haven’t seen pics of your room but the 15° baffle basically pointed them straight down. My experience hasn’t found much benefit to amiable tweeters(which these do have).








https://rslspeakers.com/products/c34e-edgeless-in-ceiling-speaker/
Oh yeah, they work great. Imaging is amazing and they work very well with my JBL bed layer.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

Polyrythm1k said:


> Oh yeah, they work great. Imaging is amazing and they work very well with my JBL bed layer.


What are your JBL speakers?

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> Actually I want both, but if it came down to it, looks. I've seen a lots of pictures posted here with stuff hanging all over - wires, speakers, projectors - all fine if you have a media room, that is not what this room is. I use this room for entertaining and I use it daily for TV/ Movie viewing. One of my AV setups on the lower level having stuff hanging would be acceptable but don't feel like making trips up and down stairs all the time.
> 
> I'm looking for input from anyone who has a similar space and had in ceiling speakers. What are the results? I'm not adverse to paying a bit more for speakers, but not sure with the limited output of the Atmos speakers it's worth it. I would think aiming the tweeters down parallel to the floor or toward the MLP would offset the moderate angle of the ceiling and fall into the parameters Dolby spec't.
> 
> Update
> Doing more research I've found that I have basically a 2/12 pitch on my ceiling that translates to about 10 degrees. I find a large number of 15 degree angled speakers that might fit my needs better than simply aiming the tweeter. The slight extra angle would allow me to slightly point the speakers toward my MLP. Now to find 4 good moderate priced 15 degree speakers....



+1 on the RSL in-ceilings.


----------



## Matt L

Polyrythm1k, great space! Not the kind of area you'd want speakers and wire running all over!


Yes, those RSl's would be great. A bit out of my budget, especially for 4. I've dumped a lot of money into my system this year, 4K TV, new Marantz AVR and now more speakers. My plans keep changing and now I'm tearing into walls to add ceiling speakers. At the moment, things change quickly with this setup I've found, I'm leaning toward some moderate prices stuff and getting the wiring done. My choice - again subject to change as I gather more info - are these Yamaha 6.5' units with 15 degree angle. At some point in the future I can enlarge the openings and upgrade, but these seem to have decent reviews, but with ceiling speakers that can be very subjective.

https://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-NS-IW280CWH-Ceiling-Speaker-System/dp/B00NI72LV8?th=1


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> Yes, those RSl's would be great. A bit out of my budget, especially for 4. I've dumped a lot of money into my system this year, 4K TV, new Marantz AVR and now more speakers. My plans keep changing and now I'm tearing into walls to add ceiling speakers. At the moment, things change quickly with this setup I've found, I'm leaning toward some moderate prices stuff and getting the wiring done. My choice - again subject to change as I gather more info - are these Yamaha 6.5' units with 15 degree angle. At some point in the future I can enlarge the openings and upgrade, but these seem to have decent reviews, but with ceiling speakers that can be very subjective.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-NS-IW280CWH-Ceiling-Speaker-System/dp/B00NI72LV8?th=1



I would either go for something like the RSL's as recommended and just bite the bullet (and they do get excellent reviews as Atmos speakers on a "modest" budget compared to some like the KEF THX in-ceilings that are much more expensive), or wait and save up to get them, so you don't have to install twice and you're out almost $200 with little to show for it. The latter would be the better option if you're unsure and in the meantime, plan out their proper locations, mark the ceiling, and get the in-wall rated speaker wires in place.


----------



## Matt L

Valid points... Part of my thought process is to use the less expensive stuff in this space for a few months or a year then recycle them to my lower level AV setup, as I'm adding an Atmos enabled AVR down there soon. 

I thought I'd tamed this AV bug, been doing it for too many decades. At this point my main system is an 11.1.4, my Library setup is 5.1 as is the lower level and my bedroom. Not to mention the various whole house audio and the blue tooth stuff with ceiling speakers in the master and guest bath... There is no end to it.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Matt L said:


> Polyrythm1k, great space! Not the kind of area you'd want speakers and wire running all over!
> 
> 
> Yes, those RSl's would be great. A bit out of my budget, especially for 4. I've dumped a lot of money into my system this year, 4K TV, new Marantz AVR and now more speakers. My plans keep changing and now I'm tearing into walls to add ceiling speakers. At the moment, things change quickly with this setup I've found, I'm leaning toward some moderate prices stuff and getting the wiring done. My choice - again subject to change as I gather more info - are these Yamaha 6.5' units with 15 degree angle. At some point in the future I can enlarge the openings and upgrade, but these seem to have decent reviews, but with ceiling speakers that can be very subjective.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-NS-IW280CWH-Ceiling-Speaker-System/dp/B00NI72LV8?th=1




I appreciate your words. The front of the room is t quite as streamlined lol. Display, towers and entertainment center are there. IMO it’s tasteful. At least as much as can be. 

I’ve seen those Yamahas used a lot and also they tannoys that Keith uses, although I can’t remember how much they cost.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

JosephTonyStark said:


> What are your JBL speakers?
> 
> Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk




Front of the room is older studioII’s. S-312 mains and S-center. I used to have S-38’s as surrounds but part of my negotiation for atmos was to remove those and go in wall. I installed JBL studio2 55IW 
https://www.jbl.com/loudspeakers/STUDIO2+55IW.html
as side surrounds and use a pair of e10’s for rear surround. Subs are pc12pluses(2) and a psw 505 as a quasi MBM.


----------



## Kain

Azekecse said:


> IMHO, I would add an additional subwoofer, I think that would be more impactful for a room your size. I currently have 11.3.4 and throughly enjoy it, until my wife tells me to turn it down :frown:
> 
> Peace and blessings,
> 
> Azeke


Yep, I am actually planning a 9.4.6 setup but wrote it as 9.1.6 because that is really what it is.


----------



## David Susilo

Yup! Using 200 speakers for the same discrete channel does not change the number of discrete channels available. I hate it when people call their system (say) 7.4.4. Or perhaps I should call my system to be 13.7.8 because those are the number of speaker drivers is Use in my 5.1.4 system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Yep, I am actually planning a 9.4.6 setup but wrote it as 9.1.6 because that is really what it is.



Are you thinking of using the Monoprice HTP-1 since it has true 9.1.6 processing and Dirac calibration?


----------



## Kain

Dan Hitchman said:


> Are you thinking of using the Monoprice HTP-1 since it has true 9.1.6 processing and Dirac calibration?


Actually have an Altitude32 planned.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Actually have an Altitude32 planned.



Color me impressed.


----------



## mogrub

Polyrythm1k said:


> ... My experience hasn’t found much benefit to amiable tweeters ...



With tongue planted firmly in cheek, I have to say I prefer amiable tweeters. It’s my subwoofers I want to have an attitude. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Matt L said:


> Valid points... * Part of my thought process is to use the less expensive stuff in this space for a few months or a year then recycle them *to my lower level AV setup, as I'm adding an Atmos enabled AVR down there soon.
> 
> I thought I'd tamed this AV bug, been doing it for too many decades. At this point my main system is an 11.1.4, my Library setup is 5.1 as is the lower level and my bedroom. Not to mention the various whole house audio and the blue tooth stuff with ceiling speakers in the master and guest bath... There is no end to it.


Just offering a different, less popular, perspective. I too, initially installed cheap/entry level speakers at the dawn of Atmos to experiment and understand what the demands/requirements of Atmos were...with the full intent of upgrading them later with more upscale better performing speakers. That was three years ago and to my surprise, no Atmos content to date has challenged my "cheap" speakers to the point of having to upgrade. Others may disagree, but in my experience in my HT, insects, birds, wind, rain, voices, music, and other overhead ambient sounds would likely sound equally immersive on $50 speakers as $500 speakers. From action blockbusters (aircraft, explosions, thunder, and lightening are the domain of subs) to Hans Zimmer Live in Prague, I've found no compelling reason to upgrade. Bottom line, there's no harm in experimenting with the RSL's...you can always upgrade if you feel it's necessary down the line. Good luck with your decision and enjoy!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mogrub said:


> With tongue planted firmly in cheek, I have to say I prefer amiable tweeters. It’s my subwoofers I want to have an attitude.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Indeed!!! 

FWIW, my listening distances have usually been fairly long so that’s likely why I’ve not seen any benefits of aimable tweeters.


----------



## Matt L

gene4ht said:


> Just offering a different, less popular, perspective. I too, initially installed cheap/entry level speakers at the dawn of Atmos to experiment and understand what the demands/requirements of Atmos were...with the full intent of upgrading them later with more upscale better performing speakers. That was three years ago and to my surprise, no Atmos content to date has challenged my "cheap" speakers to the point of having to upgrade. Others may disagree, but in my experience in my HT, insects, birds, wind, rain, voices, music, and other overhead ambient sounds would likely sound equally immersive on $50 speakers as $500 speakers. From action blockbusters (aircraft, explosions, thunder, and lightening are the domain of subs) to Hans Zimmer Live in Prague, I've found no compelling reason to upgrade. Bottom line, there's no harm in experimenting with the RSL's...you can always upgrade if you feel it's necessary down the line. Good luck with your decision and enjoy!


Thanks, reinforces my thoughts. I think I'd rather enjoy some decent Atmos at the moment rather than wait for some really good speakers at may be overkill for my application. Feel I need to get my feet wet so I can better judge results going forward. I can always upgrade, I can't get the time back that I'm not enjoying true Atmos...


----------



## gene4ht

Matt L said:


> Thanks, reinforces my thoughts. I think I'd rather enjoy some decent Atmos at the moment rather than wait for some really good speakers at may be overkill for my application. Feel *I need to get my feet wet so I can better judge results going forward. I can always upgrade*, I can't get the time back that I'm not enjoying true Atmos...


Exactly! When family and friends are over for movie night, the overwhelming comments and reactions are WOW after experiencing competent Atmos content. I still chuckle a bit knowing I have a $4000 front stage and $40 overhead speakers for Atmos.


----------



## shs1234

I too, put in small lower cost Atmos speakers with limited low frequency ability as an experiment, but am thrilled with the result. The tweeters and midrange are timber matched to my bed layer, FWIIW. 

And don't let anyone tell you that no bass goes to the Atmos channels. Just watch Blade Runner 2049, or Fantastic Beasts and be prepared to be blown away by all of the various sounds including music that have some, often significant, levels going to the ceiling speakers. 

Good results of course depends on setting the crossover appropriately so that the bass that is in the Atmos channels does not get lost. At first I cheated as I didn't want to set the crossover as high as my RC software, Anthem's ARC, called for. But I set up a couple of profiles that allowed me to quickly switch between different crossover setting and no question, the non-cheating profile had much more impact than the one where I set the crossover where I wanted it to be. I think, even with a higher than desired crossover, e.g. 140 Hz, it works because the various sounds are not only directed to the ceiling speakers, but to various speakers in the bed level as well. Thus it is harder to localize the Atmos frequencies that are directed to the subwoofer. Having dual subs also helps. 

When people come over for movie night, they leave talking about "the sound system" in our home theater!

Steve


----------



## niterida

shs1234 said:


> I too, put in small lower cost Atmos speakers with limited low frequency ability as an experiment, but am thrilled with the result. The tweeters and midrange are timber matched to my bed layer, FWIIW.
> 
> And don't let anyone tell you that no bass goes to the Atmos channels. Just watch Blade Runner 2049, or Fantastic Beasts and be prepared to be blown away by all of the various sounds including music that have some, often significant, levels going to the ceiling speakers.
> 
> Good results of course depends on setting the crossover appropriately so that the bass that is in the Atmos channels does not get lost. At first I cheated as I didn't want to set the crossover as high as my RC software, Anthem's ARC, called for. But I set up a couple of profiles that allowed me to quickly switch between different crossover setting and no question, the non-cheating profile had much more impact than the one where I set the crossover where I wanted it to be. I think, even with a higher than desired crossover, e.g. 140 Hz, it works because the various sounds are not only directed to the ceiling speakers, but to various speakers in the bed level as well. Thus it is harder to localize the Atmos frequencies that are directed to the subwoofer. Having dual subs also helps.
> 
> When people come over for movie night, they leave talking about "the sound system" in our home theater!
> 
> Steve



I have Tannoy CVS6 ceiling speakers which will go quite low, lower than my bed level speakers since my beds are (currently) only 4" compared to the Tannoys 6". I have plenty of bass with 15" ported monster and 4 smaller corner subs.

So just want to clarify that you are saying to set the Tannoys to whatever the YPAO calibration sets or should I be putting it higher than the beds ?


----------



## David Susilo

I have tried using various speakers for Atmos in ceiling. I find that while any speakers will do, the sweet spot I get is from Monitor Audio 6” speakers. If you can manage to use the 8” speakers it will be better. Cutting the frequency off at 80” will give better height audio cues when things such as helicopter blades, knocking and/or thumping on ceiling happen. Most audio cues are above 150 Hz though, hence you can get away with 6-ish” speakers.


----------



## gene4ht

David Susilo said:


> I have tried using various speakers for Atmos in ceiling. I find that while any speakers will do, the sweet spot I get is from Monitor Audio 6” speakers. If you can manage to use the 8” speakers it will be better. Cutting the frequency off at 80” will give better height audio cues when things such as helicopter blades, knocking and/or thumping on ceiling happen. Most audio cues are above 150 Hz though, hence you can get away with 6-ish” speakers.


I’m in agreement with David’s comments and recommendations. My 8” in-ceiling speakers are crossed at 80 Hz and spacial cues have been faithfully reproduced and accurately placed/positioned.


----------



## enricoclaudio

Here is another option for those looking for cheap and great sounding ATMOS (height) speakers. This is my 5.1.4 bedroom setup with B&W 600 S2 series speakers (floor) and Boston Acoustics SoundWare speakers (height). The SoundWare speakers sound amazing if you crossover them above 100Hz. I have mine crossed over 120Hz. They come with two brackets and can put them on the corners, wall or ceiling. They sound so good that I got 4 more for my living room setup. I paid for four speakers what a single SVS Prime Elevation cost.


----------



## niterida

David Susilo said:


> I have tried using various speakers for Atmos in ceiling. I find that while any speakers will do, the sweet spot I get is from Monitor Audio 6” speakers. If you can manage to use the 8” speakers it will be better. Cutting the frequency off at 80” will give better height audio cues when things such as helicopter blades, knocking and/or thumping on ceiling happen. Most audio cues are above 150 Hz though, hence you can get away with 6-ish” speakers.





gene4ht said:


> I’m in agreement with David’s comments and recommendations. My 8” in-ceiling speakers are crossed at 80 Hz and spacial cues have been faithfully reproduced and accurately placed/positioned.


Cool - the CVS6 are rated at 80hz @ -3db so 80hz it will be


----------



## shs1234

niterida said:


> I have Tannoy CVS6 ceiling speakers which will go quite low, lower than my bed level speakers since my beds are (currently) only 4" compared to the Tannoys 6". I have plenty of bass with 15" ported monster and 4 smaller corner subs.
> 
> So just want to clarify that you are saying to set the Tannoys to whatever the YPAO calibration sets or should I be putting it higher than the beds ?


I am saying that you should trust the crossover that your RC, YPAO in your case, selects, rather than any preconceived notions about what the crossover should be.


----------



## niterida

shs1234 said:


> I am saying that you should trust the crossover that your RC, YPAO in your case, selects, rather than any preconceived notions about what the crossover should be.


YPAO put ALL my speakers at 40hz - including my little 3" surrounds !!


----------



## pasender91

YPAO has 2 big limitations:
Lower implementation has only ONE crossover frequency for all speakers  so the AVR has to make a compromise, maybe you are in that scenario ...
It is quite weak for bass EQ, which is quite bad as these are the most important frequencies to EQ well 

In conclusion, you can trust your AVR crossover IF it is a proper calibration system like Audissey, ARC, or Dirac


----------



## mrtickleuk

shs1234 said:


> Good results of course depends on setting the crossover appropriately so that the bass that is in the Atmos channels does not get lost. At first I cheated as I didn't want to set the crossover as high as my RC software, Anthem's ARC, called for. But I set up a couple of profiles that allowed me to quickly switch between different crossover setting and no question, the non-cheating profile had much more impact than the one where I set the crossover where I wanted it to be. I think, even with a higher than desired crossover, e.g. 140 Hz, it works because the various sounds are not only directed to the ceiling speakers, but to various speakers in the bed level as well. Thus it is harder to localize the Atmos frequencies that are directed to the subwoofer. Having dual subs also helps.


That's interested but I'm left confused. What crossover frequency do you actually use, if not 140Hz. I'm assuming you do not mean 80Hz, so please don't keep us guessing!


----------



## shs1234

Let me amend my advice then. Let's say that there is an ideal crossover frequency for a given speaker, i.e. 80 Hz. If you use that, all is well. All frequencies are reproduced and the frequencies sent to the subwoofer are low enough in frequency that you can't tell from where they are coming - you do not perceive the sound as coming from the subwoofer 

If you choose a crossover frequency below that, e.g. 40 Hz and the speaker can't handle the low frequencies that you are sending it, then that bass is lost - it is not being sent to a speaker that can reproduce it. 

If you chose a crossover frequency that is too high, e.g. 160 Hz, then nothing is lost, but there may be a problem called localization where you perceive the sound that is supposed to be coming from a given speaker is now coming from a the subwoofer. 

So I was saying don't cheat and pick a lower than ideal crossover frequency as some of the impact of the bass going to that speaker is lost. Too high is a better compromise. 

Now if YAPO only allows one crossover frequency for all speakers, that sounds like a real limitation and one therefore would not want to have too much variation in the ability to handle bass for all of the various speakers in the system.


----------



## Robin howarth

I just had the Monitor Audio C265 in-ceiling speakers installed. The sound is terrific. I am currently running the Anthem MRX700, no dolby atmos, but it does have PL11z which gives you a pseudo quasi sound from the heights. One upgrade at a time. Looking at the Anthem MRX720 as my next upgrade!


----------



## mrtickleuk

shs1234 said:


> If you choose a crossover frequency below that, e.g. 40 Hz and the speaker can't handle the low frequencies that you are sending it, then that bass is lost - it is not being sent to a speaker that can reproduce it.
> 
> If you chose a crossover frequency that is too high, e.g. 160 Hz, then nothing is lost, but there may be a problem called localization where you perceive the sound that is supposed to be coming from a given speaker is now coming from a the subwoofer.
> 
> So I was saying* don't cheat and pick a lower than ideal crossover frequency* as some of the impact of the bass going to that speaker is lost. Too high is a better compromise.


Thankyou, understood clearly. Audyssey gives its measured suggested crossovers for each "pair" of speakers and the centre which are all adjustable individually, and I normally follow the advice to raise anything that's below 80Hz, back up to 80Hz.


----------



## shs1234

The thing to remember about crossover setting is that the filters involved are not brickwalls but have a slope. If you set the crossover at 80 Hz, then the speaker in question needs to not only produce 80 Hz properly, but ideally one octave below that or 40 Hz. Most towers can do that, I expect, but probably not too many bookshelf or satellite/atmos speakers. If a speaker's 3 dB point is 40 Hz or below, then 80 Hz is fine. If not then likely a higher crossover will be better. A 40 Hz crossover, as referred to above, just does not make any sense, especially with a 3" woofer! So the next advice is to lookup the speakers lower 3 dB point and make sure that it is consistent with the crossover frequency that the RC software is choosing. The crossover should be an octave, or a factor of 2, about the lower 3 dB point.


----------



## Chirosamsung

shs1234 said:


> The thing to remember about crossover setting is that the filters involved are not brickwalls but have a slope. If you set the crossover at 80 Hz, then the speaker in question needs to not only produce 80 Hz properly, but ideally one octave below that or 40 Hz. Most towers can do that, I expect, but probably not too many bookshelf or satellite/atmos speakers. If a speaker's 3 dB point is 40 Hz or below, then 80 Hz is fine. If not then likely a higher crossover will be better. A 40 Hz crossover, as referred to above, just does not make any sense, especially with a 3" woofer! So the next advice is to lookup the speakers lower 3 dB point and make sure that it is consistent with the crossover frequency that the RC software is choosing. The crossover should be an octave, or a factor of 2, about the lower 3 dB point.


What do you mean by the speakers lower 3 dB point?? How would we know that?


----------



## shs1234

Chirosamsung said:


> What do you mean by the speakers lower 3 dB point?? How would we know that?


Most all speaker companies will include this in the specifications for a speaker. e.g. "Lower and Upper -3dB Limits 50 Hz → 30,000 Hz" or "Freq Response: 55 Hz-25 kHz (±3 dB)". These specs indicates that the frequency response is starting to fall off at this point and that frequencies well below 50 Hz or 55 Hz will be considerably reduced in intensity (volume or sound pressure level). The problem is that many companies will exaggerate the frequency response of their speakers for obvious marketing reasons, so a review in a well respected magazine will be another, more reliable, source of this information.


----------



## David Susilo

The safest way, especially when buying lower end speakers and/or architectural speakers, is whatever the spec’s lowest frequency, add 20 Hz. Most 6/6.5” architectural speakers, when I come in and calibrate, can only do absolute flat down to 100 Hz and 8” usually 80 Hz. Tbis is only a generalization but most of the ones O’ve encountered in the past 8 years have been like that.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have monitor audio CT280-IDC in ceilings...
What would you recommend setting the crossover for these? I just assumed 80 hz like the rest??


----------



## shs1234

I looked up the specs on the Monitor Audio website and they are: 50 Hz – 30 kHz, but it does not state that those are the -3 dB points which always makes one suspicious as any speaker will put out some sound well below their 3 dB point. The importance of the 3 dB point is that when the output of the speaker and the output of the sub combine at the crossover frequency, they are both down by 3 dB but together they are putting out sound at the right level. (It is a bit more complicated than that, but let's leave it there for now.)

I also did not find any reviews of that speaker, so from David Susilo's advice above you may be OK with 80 Hz. From the spec on the Monitor website you might try 100 Hz. Or better yet, you can measure the frequency response of your speaker using REW and that will tell you what your speaker is doing in your room in the place you have chosen for it.\

This advice thing is not so simple!


----------



## niterida

My understanding is that a crossover effectively adds the 2 speakers together to get the total output. So if it is set at 80hz then at 80hz it is sending say 50% of the signal to each speaker/sub and the output sums to a higher SPL ? Therefore a speaker only has to go down to say 100hz at full SPL as the crossover will start dropping at 100hz anyway and the loss will be filled in by the sum of the Sub output ?


So a speaker with a lower response of 80hz @ -3db should be happy with a crossover set at 80hz ??


----------



## shs1234

niterida said:


> My understanding is that a crossover effectively adds the 2 speakers together to get the total output. So if it is set at 80hz then at 80hz it is sending say 50% of the signal to each speaker/sub and the output sums to a higher SPL ? Therefore a speaker only has to go down to say 100hz at full SPL as the crossover will start dropping at 100hz anyway and the loss will be filled in by the sum of the Sub output ?
> 
> 
> So a speaker with a lower response of 80hz @ -3db should be happy with a crossover set at 80hz ??


If the -3 dB point of a speaker is 80 Hz (and really is) then a 80 Hz crossover is fine as both the sub and the speaker are contributing at that frequency and it ideally all adds up to a flat response. The complication involve phase and distance settings/timing to make it all blend together perfectly. One can make a hobby our of getting this all just right.


----------



## niterida

Cool - that means my Tannoy CVS6 can be crossed at 80hz since they are 79hz @ -3db  
Must see if I can find specs for my other speakers now..................


----------



## petetherock

My work in progress 
Diffusers and other stuff to be added


----------



## TheCableMan

petetherock said:


> My work in progress
> Diffusers and other stuff to be added


That looks sweet... what kind of speakers are you using?


----------



## usc1995

Hi Guys! If you are able to stream Atmos content via Netflix, I wanted to recommend the new show Formula 1: Drive to Survive https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8289930/ I am not a racing fan and I only tried the show to check out the Atmos content and I am really impressed! The show is well done and compelling but more important for us is the Atmos sounds fantastic. There are numerous overhead sounds throughout like jet flyovers, debris flying over during a crash, fireworks and other appropriate sounds. It is one of the best Atmos mixes I have heard on Netflix yet. Highly recommended!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

TheCableMan said:


> That looks sweet... what kind of speakers are you using?


Those are Anthony Gallo A'Divas..


----------



## shs1234

usc1995 said:


> Hi Guys! If you are able to stream Atmos content via Netflix, I wanted to recommend the new show Formula 1: Drive to Survive https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8289930/ I am not a racing fan and I only tried the show to check out the Atmos content and I am really impressed! The show is well done and compelling but more important for us is the Atmos sounds fantastic. There are numerous overhead sounds throughout like jet flyovers, debris flying over during a crash, fireworks and other appropriate sounds. It is one of the best Atmos mixes I have heard on Netflix yet. Highly recommended!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yes, I watched every episode while my wife was away on business. It is very well done. Very sharp 4K video and as you say, some good Atmos effects. I don't believe it was HDR though. Many years ago, I followed F1 and Can Am racing closely. It was good to see where the "sport" has gone. 

BTW, last year there was a similar series about McClaren's F1 efforts. I always fondly remember the Bruce and Denny show at the Can Am events.


----------



## sam555

Hello everyone:

I am in the process of setting up a 5.1.4 in my basement. I would really appreciate feedback on whether the distances and placement of speakers makes sense , and will provide the best possible experience given the room, the constraints etc. 

Screen 110". Distance in front of seating position: 16 ft. Ceiling height: 8ft

Distance between front left and front right speakers: 11 feet

Rear surrounds, directly left and right of seating position: 18 feet part. This is key. I cannot place speakers on stands and am forced to mount the surrounds on the side walls, which are 18 feet apart. 

Atmos front: 6 feet in front of couch. 

Atmost rear: 2 feet 6" behind couch.


So configuration looks like what is enclosed, roughly. Will this configuration work well? My gut feels says move rear Atmos up ahead a little. Thanks much!
Attached Thumbnails


----------



## gene4ht

sam555 said:


> Hello everyone:
> 
> I am in the process of setting up a 5.1.4 in my basement. I would really appreciate feedback on whether the distances and placement of speakers makes sense , and will provide the best possible experience given the room, the constraints etc.
> 
> Screen 110". Distance in front of seating position: 16 ft. Ceiling height: 8ft
> 
> Distance between front left and front right speakers: 11 feet
> 
> Rear surrounds, directly left and right of seating position: 18 feet part. This is key. I cannot place speakers on stands and am forced to mount the surrounds on the side walls, which are 18 feet apart.
> 
> Atmos front: 6 feet in front of couch.
> 
> Atmost rear: 2 feet 6" behind couch.
> 
> 
> So configuration looks like what is enclosed, roughly. Will this configuration work well? My gut feels says move rear Atmos up ahead a little. Thanks much!
> Attached Thumbnails


These are the recommended guidelines. However, all environments/installations typically have some constraints. As these are only "guidelines," any variations due to constraints are generally OK and will yield good Atmos performance.


----------



## sdurani

sam555 said:


> I cannot place speakers on stands and am forced to mount the surrounds on the side walls, which are 18 feet apart.


That's an advantage. Listeners on either end of the couch won't have a speaker a couple feet away shouting into their ear canal.


> Atmos front: 6 feet in front of couch.
> 
> Atmost rear: 2 feet 6" behind couch.


I would even out the distance and bring them closer together: both overhead pairs 4.5 to 5 feet forward and rearward of the listeners.


> So configuration looks like what is enclosed, roughly. Will this configuration work well?


Sure, you'll be able to separate sounds around you versus sounds above you, which is the hallmark of a good Atmos set-up. Any chance of doing 7.1 in the base layer or is that out of the budget?


----------



## sam555

Thanks very much, gene4ht. Yes, I saw those top and side pics on the Dolby site. Good to know i will get good Atmos performance even if my config does not match exactly. 

sdurani: I was concerned 18 ft is too far apart. Anything to consider in terms of what output speakers should be etc. so they are powerful enough and are not weak at that distance? My fronts are Polks RtiA5s. My current surround sides are bookshelf Polk RtiA3s. Specs are below. Yes 7.1 is above budget, unfortunately. Will definitely look into evening out the 4 Atmos at around 4 feet in front/behind couch. Thanks for your input.



https://www.polkaudio.com/products/rtia3

https://www.polkaudio.com/products/rtia5


----------



## EeK9X

Hey, everyone!


I'm planning on upgrading from my current 6.1 setup (all in-ceiling) to full Atmos and could really use some advice.


I started a thread on the speakers forum, if any of you experts can take a look at it, I'd greatly appreciate it.


Take care!


----------



## niterida

sam555 said:


> Hello everyone:
> 
> I am in the process of setting up a 5.1.4 in my basement. I would really appreciate feedback on whether the distances and placement of speakers makes sense , and will provide the best possible experience given the room, the constraints etc.
> 
> Screen 110". Distance in front of seating position: 16 ft. Ceiling height: 8ft
> 
> Distance between front left and front right speakers: 11 feet
> 
> Rear surrounds, directly left and right of seating position: 18 feet part. This is key. I cannot place speakers on stands and am forced to mount the surrounds on the side walls, which are 18 feet apart.
> 
> Atmos front: 6 feet in front of couch.
> 
> Atmost rear: 2 feet 6" behind couch.
> 
> 
> So configuration looks like what is enclosed, roughly. Will this configuration work well? My gut feels says move rear Atmos up ahead a little. Thanks much!
> Attached Thumbnails



For best results Atmos speakers should be equidistant from your ears (front to back and side to side) from the MLP.


I read on here that Surrounds actually sound better if they are directly to the side or slightly in front (80-90deg) of the MLP and when I tried this I found a definite improvement compared to when I had them slightly behind (just over 100deg) !!


----------



## sdurani

sam555 said:


> Anything to consider in terms of what output speakers should be etc. so they are powerful enough and are not weak at that distance?


With a 100 watts of amp power, your current surround speakers should be able to peak at reference level (105dB) at the main listening position. With a 5.1 layout, the surrounds should be rearward of the listening area (around 110 degrees from centre) rather than directly to the sides.


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> With a 100 watts of amp power, your current surround speakers should be able to peak at reference level (105dB) at the main listening position. With a 5.1 layout, the surrounds should be rearward of the listening area (around 110 degrees from centre) rather than directly to the sides.



That's what they recommend, but as recommended by someone on here and as tried by me - they are much better directly to the sides or slightly in front. 



However I just realised that I have 7.1 which will probably make a difference since I have rear surrounds.


Maybe try it in different positions to see what sounds best in your setup.


----------



## Chancellor Todd

I'm hoping someone can answer basic question for me. How many discrete channels are in a typical Dolby Atmos soundtrack? I'm confused because many receivers today allow for a 5.1.2 speaker configuration, while others allow for either a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.


Are any of these configurations more Atmos-y than the others? With so many variations of what's considered an Atmos setup, I'm curious as to whether all of them are taken into consideration when a soundtrack is encoded. Thanks!


----------



## shs1234

In a 5.1 system the (side) surrounds should be slightly behind the MLP. In a 7.1 where there are side and rear surrounds, many people myself included, have found better results moving them slightly forward of the MLP. And in a 5.1 or 7.1 system these surround speakers are often mounted well above the height of the seated listening position. 

So, if one is starting with a 5.1 and at some time in the future might want to upgrade to 7.1 or an Atmos with ceiling speakers, you might not only need to move your surrounds forward but, if you are doing an Atmos system, down to just above ear level as well. The point is that you need to think about how to run speaker wire to these various positions during the planning phase. I tried 4 position for my side surrounds after I added Atmos, before I got it right.

Typically, the surround speakers will be pointed at the MLP which is most often the front row. If the side surround speakers are mounted behind the MLP and pointed forward towards the MLP, that is less than ideal for a second row. I have found that in my 7.1.4 system by mounting my side surrounds forward of the MLP and aiming them back at the MLP, the second row is much better served.

Just some things to think about when planning a home theater.


----------



## sdurani

Chancellor Todd said:


> How many discrete channels are in a typical Dolby Atmos soundtrack?


7.1 channels. The rest of the content, including all the sounds in the height layer, is objects.


> I'm confused because many receivers today allow for a 5.1.2 speaker configuration, while others allow for either a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.


Even before Atmos, soundtracks could be scaled up or down to fit the number of speakers in your layout. There were plenty of 11.1 receivers prior to Atmos and DTS:X arriving in consumer electronics.


> Are any of these configurations more Atmos-y than the others?


There are advantages and disadvantages to both. 7.1.2 concentrates speakers where most of the sound is (in the base layer) and only a couple of speakers where the least amount of sound is (height layer). 5.1.4 uses two pairs overhead so that you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement above you.


----------



## Jonas2

Chancellor Todd said:


> I'm hoping someone can answer basic question for me. How many discrete channels are in a typical Dolby Atmos soundtrack? I'm confused because many receivers today allow for a 5.1.2 speaker configuration, while others allow for either a 7.1.2 or 5.1.4.


or a 7.1.4, and beyond! I wouldn't think of it as discrete channels. From the Dolby site:

"In Dolby Atmos, by contrast, sound can be freed from channels. It enables artists to treat specific sounds as individual entities, called audio objects. These can be precisely placed and moved by the soundtrack creator anywhere in the cinema's three-dimensional space—they are not confined to specific channels—though the artist can continue to use channel capabilities as desired. The Dolby Atmos cinema processor then determines which of a cinema's huge array of front, back, side, and overhead speakers it will use to recreate this lifelike movement."

AND

"Descriptive metadata accompanies every Dolby Atmos soundtrack, specifying the exact placement and movement of the audio objects. A Dolby Atmos powered AVR reads the metadata and determines how to use the speakers in your specific setup to best recreate this precise placement and movement. Dolby Atmos is highly scalable. You can play a Dolby Atmos movie and get the spatial effects on nearly any speaker configuration in a home Dolby Atmos system, and adding speakers increases the precision of the audio placement. You can have up to 24 speakers on the floor and 10 overhead. " 



Chancellor Todd said:


> Are any of these configurations more Atmos-y than the others? With so many variations of what's considered an Atmos setup, I'm curious as to whether all of them are taken into consideration when a soundtrack is encoded. Thanks!


So, I'd conclude that the more speakers you have, the more Atmos-y!  Reality is going beyond 7.1.4 will start costing you some more serious $$$!! So 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 are really common and deliver better that 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 as the extra pair of speakers allow those overhead sounds to move in another dimension. I think you were getting at that very last part though - 24 + 10???


----------



## sam555

Thanks all for your replies. Very much appreciate it. 

With my 5.1.4 I will probably have my surrounds slightly behind and tilted toward the MLP. The surrounds are above ear level though, and 18 ft apart as mentioned above. 

In terms of Atmos, I have them 11 ft apart and now spaced out at 9 ft (i.e. between front Atmos and rear Atmos). The plan is to locate the couch and listening position right in the center of the above, which will have my side surrounds slightly behind the listening position. 

Still in construction mode and looking forward to enjoying this set up once completed. I have found another use for my Polk RtiA3 bookshelves, so I will need to look for Polk in wall surrounds, and 4 Polks for in ceiling Dolby Atmos. I have only one couch planned for now, so no problem with respect to two rows etc!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

sam555 said:


> Thanks all for your replies. Very much appreciate it.
> 
> 
> 
> With my 5.1.4 I will probably have my surrounds slightly behind and tilted toward the MLP. The surrounds are above ear level though, and 18 ft apart as mentioned above.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of Atmos, I have them 11 ft apart and now spaced out at 9 ft (i.e. between front Atmos and rear Atmos). The plan is to locate the couch and listening position right in the center of the above, which will have my side surrounds slightly behind the listening position.
> 
> 
> 
> Still in construction mode and looking forward to enjoying this set up once completed. I have found another use for my Polk RtiA3 bookshelves, so I will need to look for Polk in wall surrounds, and 4 Polks for in ceiling Dolby Atmos. I have only one couch planned for now, so no problem with respect to two rows etc!




Since you’re looking at polks, I can add that I have a pair of rc85i’s in one of my rooms.(wife’s scrapbooking room). For the price they’re pretty darn good.


----------



## fr8flyr

I am currently upgrading my room from 7.1 to 7.1.4 and could use some help with my plans. I don't have access from above to place ceiling speakers, without tearing the room up, which I don't want to do. I am planning on adding front and rear small bookshelf speakers as height speakers, mounted at the junction of the walls and ceiling, aimed at the mlp. Do you think this will work with the new Atmos and DTS X sound tracks or will I not get good effect without the speakers mounted overhead in the ceiling? My current setup has floor standing speakers for front and rear surrounds and wall mounted front and side firing side surround speakers. 



My room is 22x28x10.5 and has a 12 inch riser about 17 ft from the front wall. Here is a pic of the front 




 





and one from the side






 





you can see the side surrounds mounted above and slightly behind the main position. Here is a shot from the front, looking back at the room.





Any help on speaker placement would be appreciated.


----------



## TheCableMan

Tops vs heights. Has anyone tested both in their system with the same movies and saw a difference. Currently have a 5.1.2 system with front tops. Looking to go 7.1.4 soon and thinking of playing with heights instead since I see a lot of people have them, but wondering if it's more out of convenience to not have cut the ceiling and run wire.

What I'm asking is since atmos is object enabled and the speaker locations are different not all the same info passes though both locations?


----------



## Lesmor

TheCableMan said:


> Tops vs heights. Has anyone tested both in their system with the same movies and saw a difference. Currently have a 5.1.2 system with front tops. Looking to go 7.1.4 soon and thinking of playing with heights instead since I see a lot of people have them, but wondering if it's more out of convenience to not have cut the ceiling and run wire.
> 
> What I'm asking is since atmos is object enabled and the speaker locations are different not all the same info passes though both locations?


Yes I have 
no contest Tops win 
unless its unavoidable don't take a step backwards and use Heights


----------



## dfa973

TheCableMan said:


> Tops vs heights. Has anyone tested both in their system with the same movies and saw a difference.


With Heights the 3D audio is weaker than Tops.
With Top Middle the upper layer is most audible because of ~80% of the mixes favors TM and very few mixes use the Top Front and Top Rear effectively. Panning and rotating objects are rare in soundtracks, but evident in demos.



TheCableMan said:


> Currently have a 5.1.2 system with front tops. Looking to go 7.1.4 soon and thinking of playing with heights instead since I see a lot of people have them, but wondering if it's more out of convenience to not have cut the ceiling and run wire.


You will be better served by Top Middle than Top Front.



TheCableMan said:


> What I'm asking is since atmos is object enabled and the speaker locations are different not all the same info passes though both locations?


Sadly, there are soundtracks in the wild that have fixed objects and are not rendered for the actual setup in your room, but for a fixed "channel-based" setup of 7.1.4 or even 7.1.2 (this is not a joke!) - hence the Top Middle speakers that get the most of the upper objects/sounds...


----------



## TheCableMan

Lesmor said:


> Yes I have
> no contest Tops win
> unless its unavoidable don't take a step backwards and use Heights


That's what I figured but wanted to be sure. I'm sure someone here experimented already. 

As for my top front comment. I apologize I put that in correctly. I am setup as top middle on my AVR but the are installed as Top front as I was planning in upgrading in the future. After seeing so many setups here I was questioning the tops vs heights.

I do have another question as well. My area doubles as a media room / playroom for the kids. As you can imagine there are a lot of compromises that had to be made and my couch pushed farther towards the back wall then I wanted. 

If I wanted to cut holes in the ceiling I have some obstacles in the way that would block me from doing so. My plan would be to keep my in ceilings currently have and add the top rears via small bookshelf or satellite speakers on the ceiling and aim towards MLP. What's everyone's though on have 2 different style of speakers and mounting styles to achieve 4 atmos tops?


----------



## dfa973

TheCableMan said:


> My plan would be to keep my in ceilings currently have and add the top rears via small bookshelf or satellite speakers on the ceiling and aim towards MLP. What's everyone's though on have 2 different style of speakers and mounting styles to achieve 4 atmos tops?


Atmos is forgiving, so you can use that combination of in-ceiling and on-ceiling. Be sure to calibrate after you add the Top Rears.


----------



## Lesmor

TheCableMan said:


> That's what I figured but wanted to be sure. I'm sure someone here experimented already.
> 
> As for my top front comment. I apologize I put that in correctly. I am setup as top middle on my AVR but the are installed as Top front as I was planning in upgrading in the future. After seeing so many setups here I was questioning the tops vs heights.
> 
> I do have another question as well. My area doubles as a media room / playroom for the kids. As you can imagine there are a lot of compromises that had to be made and my couch pushed farther towards the back wall then I wanted.
> 
> If I wanted to cut holes in the ceiling I have some obstacles in the way that would block me from doing so. My plan would be to keep my in ceilings currently have and add the top rears via small bookshelf or satellite speakers on the ceiling and aim towards MLP. What's everyone's though on have 2 different style of speakers and mounting styles to achieve 4 atmos tops?


I ran Front height Rear Height with Dolby Atmos since its inception 
I finally added a pair of in ceilings last year which gave me FH TM RH ran that for 9 months 
I have since disabled the FH and went 
Top Front and Rear Heights and won't be changing back 
My TF and RH lie within the required angles for Dolby Atmos

My FH were always off spec at a 22 deg angle 
plus I imagine like most who run Front height they were behind my Main Left and Right speakers and that is never going to map XYZ coordinates properly


----------



## GPBURNS

TheCableMan said:


> Hey everyone, I know most of you are into movies but if anyone is interested in video games I suggest you try Shadow of Tomb Raider on Xbox One S. So far I'm about an hour into the game and the atmos speakers have been engaged the entire time. Really great to be able to move and hear panning through the height channels.


Yes this is fantastic - I'm few hours in on xbox one x- best use of format I have heard yet - 
I was just ripping audio today in home theater - so much fun - 
constant immersion


----------



## GPBURNS

tomb raider game


----------



## mrtickleuk

That's 2-channel stereo only on YouTube, isn't it?

The start of the video says "put on your headphones", so I can only assume it's binaural surround, ie Dolby's version of DTS Headphone:X .


----------



## TheCableMan

mrtickleuk said:


> That's 2-channel stereo only on YouTube, isn't it?
> 
> The start of the video says "put on your headphones", so I can only assume it's binaural surround, ie Dolby's version of DTS Headphone:X .


Yeah it's binaural. That is just a YouTube video of a real one that's encoded in atmos. Its available in the Dolby app on Windows 10 or Xbox One platform.


----------



## pg22

batpig said:


> Seems unlikely considering later in the quoted text it states clearly the Xbox will "apply Dolby’s upmixing algorithms to" the non Atmos source. Dolby has NEVER had an upmixer that output to the Front Wide speakers; it seems almost certain it will be DSU upmix just like on your AVR.
> 
> It is funny to see them complain that this is a such a problem and it's all the AVR's fault for having to "reinitialize" since my Apple TV 4K also uses Dolby MAT with multich PCM and has no issue switching between 5.1 PCM and Atmos output.





mtbdudex said:


> Agree on the std DSU for this Xbox Atmos update, still Easter is around the corner, a nice egg  would be cool. Hopefully someday Dolby will code it.





GPBURNS said:


> Yes this is fantastic - I'm few hours in on xbox one x- best use of format I have heard yet -
> I was just ripping audio today in home theater - so much fun -
> constant immersion





TheCableMan said:


> Hey everyone, I know most of you are into movies but if anyone is interested in video games I suggest you try Shadow of Tomb Raider on Xbox One S. So far I'm about an hour into the game and the atmos speakers have been engaged the entire time. Really great to be able to move and hear panning through the height channels.





mrtickleuk said:


> That's 2-channel stereo only on YouTube, isn't it?
> 
> The start of the video says "put on your headphones", so I can only assume it's binaural surround, ie Dolby's version of DTS Headphone:X .





usc1995 said:


> Hopefully when the toggle is set to off the Xbox will output PCM that way we can choose which up mixer to use ourselves. While I like DSU there are times when I would like the ability to choose between Neural X and DSU myself. Luckily the ATV4K does this...


Apologies for mass-quoting. I picked posts that touched upon some of my questions. To wit: my Yamaha RX-781 lacked Atmos sources until I purchased an XB1X. I use a 5.1 setup and, occasionally, plug my V-Moda M100 headphones into the Yamaha's front 1/8th jack. Use case is console gaming and, to a lesser extent, films.

1) Is there any circumstance where I should enable "Bitstream out" + "Atmos for home theater" instead of "5.1 uncompressed?" I will not be adding additional speakers for the immediate future, sadly. This feels like a stupid question. Stick with the non-Atmos. But the XB1X's Dolby Atmos app, atmos-enabled games, and UHD films has me questioning whether my setup could benefit despite lacking additional channels.

2) Headphone use: As mentioned above, I sometimes plug my V-Moda M100's directly into the Yamaha's front 1/8th jack when not using the 5.1 speakers. I don't employ any special DSPs - I keep the Yamaha on "Straight." This has been fine for PS4 Pro and Switch use. As above, the XB1X's Dolby Atmos app + the "Dolby Atmos for headphones" system setting has me wondering if I'm leaving benefits on the table. When used this way, however, the XB1's "Speaker audio" settings are used, not Headset Audio. The only way to enable Atmos for headphones is to enable "Using HDMI or optical audio headset" (which I am not) or plug said headphones directly into the controller. This results in headphone audio I find unpalatable and, comically, audio still outputting to my 5.1 speaker setup.

Clearly I'm confused. Question (1) seems like a "keep it simple, dummy" kind of thing. I don't anticipate being told to use atmos in a 5.1 scenario, but it never hurts to ask you experts! 

(2) is where I'm really wondering if I can take advantage of Atmos in certain circumstances (Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Gears 4, and the occasional UHD/atmos-Netflix/Vudu). But I'm not certain how to do that given the XB1's settings and what the Dolby Atmos app is telling me (e.g., when using the 1/8th jack, the app thinks I am in Home Theater mode, not headphone mode).

Thanks in advance for any guidance. If my questions lack clarity, I'll gladly clarify.


----------



## usc1995

fr8flyr said:


> I am currently upgrading my room from 7.1 to 7.1.4 and could use some help with my plans. I don't have access from above to place ceiling speakers, without tearing the room up, which I don't want to do. I am planning on adding front and rear small bookshelf speakers as height speakers, mounted at the junction of the walls and ceiling, aimed at the mlp. Do you think this will work with the new Atmos and DTS X sound tracks or will I not get good effect without the speakers mounted overhead in the ceiling? My current setup has floor standing speakers for front and rear surrounds and wall mounted front and side firing side surround speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> My room is 22x28x10.5 and has a 12 inch riser about 17 ft from the front wall. Here is a pic of the front
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and one from the side
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can see the side surrounds mounted above and slightly behind the main position. Here is a shot from the front, looking back at the room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any help on speaker placement would be appreciated.


That is a big and beautiful space you have there! With the length and width of your space I would seriously do everything possible to mount the speakers in the ceiling or on the ceiling at 45 degrees and in line with your L and R. I know you said you weren't interested in speakers in the ceiling but I am afraid that with a room as long as yours using height speakers in the front and rear of the room would only result in a taller soundstage and not the 3D sound bubble that we are going for with Atmos. A possible compromise could be speakers at where the sidewalls and ceiling meet about six feet in front and to the rear of your main listening position. The speakers would be a little far off to the sides but if you aren't willing to mount them on the ceiling that would have to work. Your surround locations are ok at the moment but the sound separation would improve if you lowered them by a foot or so. If your room was shorter in length then front and rear heights could be an option but then your room wouldn't be as lovely as it is now...


----------



## deano86

Ya, its obvious you have some money sunk into your amazing room... why cheap out now with a substandard Atmos installation. Obviously HDMI was able to be run to your projector... why not wires for in ceiling speakers as well?


----------



## David Susilo

Perhaps he doesn’t want to re-open the ceiling, repaint etc which is a relatively lengthy and dirty process.


----------



## bokap

*2 speaker Atmos*

I was planning on using my four ceiling speakers for Atmos but I found out that it would cost at least $1500, maybe more to move my two fronts to the correct Atmos position. The front speaker holes would need to be patched and then the ceiling would need to be painted. I could still do Atmos with my two rear ceiling speakers. I have not heard 5.1.2. I have heard at my dealers store 5.1.4 which was amazing. Would I regret not spending the money on moving the two fronts or will two speaker Atmos still sound great? Planning on Paradigm 75F fronts with 45C for the center, with Sony either 3100ES or 5000 ES receiver. The surrounds would be Paradigm Surround 3.
Thanks,
Bob


----------



## Jonas2

bokap said:


> I was planning on using my four ceiling speakers for Atmos but I found out that it would cost at least $1500, maybe more to move my two fronts to the correct Atmos position. The front speaker holes would need to be patched and then the ceiling would need to be painted. I could still do Atmos with my two rear ceiling speakers. I have not heard 5.1.2. I have heard at my dealers store 5.1.4 which was amazing. Would I regret not spending the money on moving the two fronts or will two speaker Atmos still sound great? Planning on Paradigm 75F fronts with 45C for the center, with Sony either 3100ES or 5000 ES receiver. The surrounds would be Paradigm Surround 3.


2-speaker Atmos can sound good, from what I've read from those that have it. However, I have not read that I can recall any instance of folks going from x.x.2 to x.x.4 and saying it was not a marked improvement. Especially since you've heard a 5.1.4 system and know it can sound good. You won't get the quite the same experience. 

$1500.00 however is a lot of money to do the speaker move. If you are at all in the least bit handy, no reason you can't do the majority of this work yourself without spending too much money. Do you have access to the space above?


----------



## bokap

Jonas2 said:


> 2-speaker Atmos can sound good, from what I've read from those that have it. However, I have not read that I can recall any instance of folks going from x.x.2 to x.x.4 and saying it was not a marked improvement. Especially since you've heard a 5.1.4 system and know it can sound good. You won't get the quite the same experience.
> 
> $1500.00 however is a lot of money to do the speaker move. If you are at all in the least bit handy, no reason you can't do the majority of this work yourself without spending too much money. Do you have access to the space above?


I have access but it has to look like nothing has been changed or my wife will be unhappy with me for messing up the ceiling so it need to have it professionally done. 
I may just bite the bullet and break the budget as I know I will regret not having four Atmos speakers.
It will be a lot of money to do this but I guess it will be worth it


----------



## fr8flyr

David Susilo said:


> Perhaps he doesn’t want to re-open the ceiling, repaint etc which is a relatively lengthy and dirty process.



Exactly, when I added the JVC projector, I had to open the ceiling up and run power and HDMI cabling to it, as my previous projector was rear wall mounted. That was an incredible dusty, nasty mess and I do not want to go through that again. If I am not satisfied with the new setup, I will then decide wither to go back to my old setup or tear into the ceiling and add ceiling speakers, I may have to add the cost of a divorce with that.


----------



## fr8flyr

I have another question. If I decide to move to overhead Atmos positions, could the little Polk's just be mounted to the ceiling, above the seating positions, angled toward the mlp and work, or will I have to get actual in-ceiling speakers for the best Atmos sound?


----------



## fr8flyr

usc1995 said:


> That is a big and beautiful space you have there! With the length and width of your space I would seriously do everything possible to mount the speakers in the ceiling or on the ceiling at 45 degrees and in line with your L and R. I know you said you weren't interested in speakers in the ceiling but I am afraid that with a room as long as yours using height speakers in the front and rear of the room would only result in a taller soundstage and not the 3D sound bubble that we are going for with Atmos. A possible compromise could be speakers at where the sidewalls and ceiling meet about six feet in front and to the rear of your main listening position. The speakers would be a little far off to the sides but if you aren't willing to mount them on the ceiling that would have to work. Your surround locations are ok at the moment but the sound separation would improve if you lowered them by a foot or so. If your room was shorter in length then front and rear heights could be an option but then your room wouldn't be as lovely as it is now...



Thanks for the compliment. The surrounds work well where they are and with the riser, if I lowered them, they would be too low for the rear seating. Like I said in my other post, I will just have to see how things sound where I plan on putting them and go from there.


----------



## Matt L

bokap said:


> I was planning on using my four ceiling speakers for Atmos but I found out that it would cost at least $1500, maybe more to move my two fronts to the correct Atmos position. The front speaker holes would need to be patched and then the ceiling would need to be painted. I could still do Atmos with my two rear ceiling speakers. I have not heard 5.1.2. I have heard at my dealers store 5.1.4 which was amazing. Would I regret not spending the money on moving the two fronts or will two speaker Atmos still sound great? Planning on Paradigm 75F fronts with 45C for the center, with Sony either 3100ES or 5000 ES receiver. The surrounds would be Paradigm Surround 3.
> Thanks,
> Bob


One option- why patch the ceiling? Just put a couple of "dummy" speakers in place of the ones you move. Paint them out as you have the others. If they are relatively close routing the wire might not be an issue.


----------



## bokap

Matt L said:


> One option- why patch the ceiling? Just put a couple of "dummy" speakers in place of the ones you move. Paint them out as you have the others. If they are relatively close routing the wire might not be an issue.


That’s a really good idea. Also instead of tearing up the ceiling just so I can make use of the ceiling speakers i have, why not leave them and buy two speakers for Atmos


----------



## gene4ht

bokap said:


> I was planning on using my four ceiling speakers for Atmos but I found out that it would cost at least $1500, maybe more to move my two fronts to the correct Atmos position.


That’s outrageous! There’s maybe $50 in materials and 3-4 hours of labor. Even at an unconscionable $100/hr, maximum cost should be no more than $500 for a competent professional. At the very least, obtain a couple of additional bids.



Jonas2;57779782$ said:


> 1500.00 however is a lot of money to do the speaker move. If you are at all in the least bit handy, no reason you can't do the majority of this work yourself without spending too much money. Do you have access to the space above?


Agree with Jonas2...if you’re an average DIY person, there’s plenty of “how to cut and repair drywall” videos on YouTube. Drywall repair is not messy. Drywall dust from cutting can be contained by inserting the drywall saw through the bottom of a paper bag. I was able to remove 2 speakers and install 6 others w/o much difficult and little mess with YouTube as my friend! Good luck with your decision and project!


----------



## bokap

gene4ht said:


> That’s outrageous! There’s maybe $50 in materials and 3-4 hours of labor. Even at an unconscionable $100/hr, maximum cost should be no more than $500 for a competent professional. At the very least, obtain a couple of additional bids.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with Jonas2...if you’re an average DIY person, there’s plenty of “how to cut and repair drywall” videos on YouTube. Drywall repair is not messy. Drywall dust from cutting can be contained by inserting the drywall saw through the bottom of a paper bag. I was able to remove 2 speakers and install 6 others w/o much difficult and little mess with YouTube as my friend! Good luck with your decision and project!


Thanks, I realized that the easiest solution is to just buy two more speakers for Atmos instead of moving my front two


----------



## deano86

David Susilo said:


> Perhaps he doesn’t want to re-open the ceiling, repaint etc which is a relatively lengthy and dirty process.


My main point is that obviously he has an already amazing looking theater room.... in that scenario it doesn't make sense to just tack up some height speakers and call it good.... I have seen so many photos of Atmos setups with ridiculous ugly "non matched to the room" speakers hanging at weird angles and wires that just ruin the look of a room.....I hope he takes his time, does the research and find a way to install in ceiling speakers... they will work the best and more importantly ..... look the best also...


----------



## stikle

gene4ht said:


> Drywall dust from cutting can be contained by inserting the drywall saw through the bottom of a paper bag.



That's an AMAZING tip, thank you! I've decided to move all 4 of my overheads, but have been holding off since I don't want drywall dust everywhere. The first time was mind boggling. Of course, I used a Rotozip the first time since nothing was finished, but now with black carpet down...


----------



## Matt L

Having done A LOT of remodeling, I have installed many dozens of recessed lights One of the best ways to control dust is to use a shop vac while you are cutting. It ends up being a two person job, one with the Roto-Zip the other with the shopvac tracing the route and grabbing 80% of the dust. Works really well. There are roto-zips with a vac but I have not used them.


----------



## batpig

bokap said:


> I was planning on using my four ceiling speakers for Atmos but I found out that it would cost at least $1500, maybe more to move my two fronts to the correct Atmos position. The front speaker holes would need to be patched and then the ceiling would need to be painted. I could still do Atmos with my two rear ceiling speakers. I have not heard 5.1.2. I have heard at my dealers store 5.1.4 which was amazing. Would I regret not spending the money on moving the two fronts or will two speaker Atmos still sound great? Planning on Paradigm 75F fronts with 45C for the center, with Sony either 3100ES or 5000 ES receiver. The surrounds would be Paradigm Surround 3.
> Thanks,
> Bob


I'm very confused by what you're describing. Do you have a diagram showing the position of the current 4 ceiling speakers relative to the seating / room? I find it hard to believe that they are so poorly located you can't use them as is (and even if they need to be moved slightly, it can't be THAT expensive to snake the wire to a slightly different location and patch the current locations).


----------



## bokap

batpig said:


> I'm very confused by what you're describing. Do you have a diagram showing the position of the current 4 ceiling speakers relative to the seating / room? I find it hard to believe that they are so poorly located you can't use them as is (and even if they need to be moved slightly, it can't be THAT expensive to snake the wire to a slightly different location and patch the current locations).


The speakers are a set of 5 in ceiling speakers. The front speakers are placed in the right position for a 5.1 system that I currently have. My wife is opposed to moving the front speakers back for proper Atmos placement. I have an idea of just leaving the speakers and installing two new ceiling speakers for the correct placement. Also I want to find out if it would work to just replace the two fronts with two Paradigm angled firing speakers. If that works it would be the least disruptive for my wife


----------



## Matt L

deano86 said:


> My main point is that obviously he has an already amazing looking theater room.... in that scenario it doesn't make sense to just tack up some height speakers and call it good.... I have seen so many photos of Atmos setups with ridiculous ugly "non matched to the room" speakers hanging at weird angles and wires that just ruin the look of a room.....I hope he takes his time, does the research and find a way to install in ceiling speakers... they will work the best and more importantly ..... look the best also...


Yeah, worked my way through that scenario a few dozen posts back. My main viewing room is difficult to get into the ceiling -scissor trusses.. I kicked around the idea of surface mounting speakers, bad, and looking at wires strung all over -even worse. Had people post and tell be to go that route, and I investigated ways to deal with the wiring. The more I thought about it if I didn't want to see the wires why would I want to see the speakers? I have a very nice home and this is a multi use room, I kludged it up mounting Height speakers already, thought they can go away and no damage done. Height speakers are not cutting it for me, and being a builder I could tear into the ceiling and get the speakers installed. But, if you take your time and analyze the options an easier way ( or less destructive way) might present itself. In my situation I can gain access to the area oven my viewing room ( I have a cathedral ceiling) by cutting an access panel in a second floor closet. It will be a pain fishing wires, but doable. Some people choose function over form, but depending on how creative you are you can have both form and function.

I bought 4 moderate priced speakers and a 250' roll of in wall speaker wire. Speakers will be here tomorrow, and I might get busy cutting holes in a few days. Just need to make sure I can find some left over paint to paint the speaker covers with, that will be the last hurdle.


----------



## batpig

bokap said:


> The speakers are a set of 5 in ceiling speakers. The front speakers are placed in the right position for a 5.1 system that I currently have. My wife is opposed to moving the front speakers back for proper Atmos placement. I have an idea of just leaving the speakers and installing two new ceiling speakers for the correct placement. Also I want to find out if it would work to just replace the two fronts with two Paradigm angled firing speakers. If that works it would be the least disruptive for my wife


That doesn't really clear things up. You said you're adding normal LCR speakers (Paradigm towers + center) which will be sitting at ear level right? 

So the old in-ceiling speakers will be on the ceiling and in front of you. Why will that not work for Atmos?


----------



## LNEWoLF

You can also [email protected]@k for a recessed light installation kit. It includes an adjustable hole saw you attach to your drill. Will cut various size round holes in drywall. Includes a clear dust collector that install on the drill attachment. [email protected]@ks like a clear see thru deep pie tin. When you drill the hole the collector goes flush to the ceiling and helps to contain the dust into the collector. I purchased one for my friends brother (electrician) to use when he installed my recessed lights into a new ceiling.


----------



## bokap

batpig said:


> That doesn't really clear things up. You said you're adding normal LCR speakers (Paradigm towers + center) which will be sitting at ear level right?
> 
> So the old in-ceiling speakers will be on the ceiling and in front of you. Why will that not work for Atmos?[/QUO
> 
> If you can see from the photo the front three speakers are almost at the wall. How would the left and right work for Atmos. The rear speakers will work


----------



## batpig

> If you can see from the photo the front three speakers are almost at the wall. How would the left and right work for Atmos.


If they were good enough for Front L/R main speakers, why wouldn't they be good enough for Front Atmos speakers?

There's nothing magical about Atmos overhead effects. You will hear sounds from above and in front of you.

That said, relocating them slightly should be easy and fairly cheap. The hard part is already done as the wire is up in the ceiling, you've got two big holes in the ceiling already from where the speakers installed, and then there will be two more big holes in the ceiling where the new location will be, so you should be able to do this without cutting any other holes in the ceiling. All you have to do is snake the speaker wire that's already up there from the current location over 1-2 joist bays further out into the room, which is pretty trivial even for a DIY hacker.


----------



## m3incorp

What happened to your TM? Or did you mean to write that you now TM and RH? Or perhaps you moved your seating position backwards causing the TM to now be TF? 




Lesmor said:


> I ran Front height Rear Height with Dolby Atmos since its inception
> I finally added a pair of in ceilings last year which gave me FH TM RH ran that for 9 months
> I have since disabled the FH and went
> Top Front and Rear Heights and won't be changing back
> My TF and RH lie within the required angles for Dolby Atmos
> 
> My FH were always off spec at a 22 deg angle
> plus I imagine like most who run Front height they were behind my Main Left and Right speakers and that is never going to map XYZ coordinates properly


----------



## usc1995

fr8flyr said:


> I have another question. If I decide to move to overhead Atmos positions, could the little Polk's just be mounted to the ceiling, above the seating positions, angled toward the mlp and work, or will I have to get actual in-ceiling speakers for the best Atmos sound?




It helps to have as capable speakers for Atmos as you reasonably can. Unless you go for larger bookshelf type speakers that can be difficult to mount and conceal, most of us get better performance from in ceiling speakers so they tend to be preferred. I myself started by mounting four old satellite type speakers when I first got my Atmos capable AVR as I had them on hand and wanted to get into it as soon as I could. I loved it but could tell the sound was a little thin. Once I moved up to my in ceiling speakers with their 8 inch woofers I was really happy with the fuller sound they presented over the little 3.5 inch woofers of the satellite speakers. Even with bass management in the AVR and the same crossover setting it was clear I was missing something with the old speakers.

With all that said, you have to do what’s best for you. Were you looking at the Polk OWM speakers? You may also want to look at the Focal Birds as they have a similar form factor and claim to play a little deeper. They also have a nice looking mount that could be helpful https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...lite-speaker-black-each-open-box/1.html#!more Let us know what you go with and post a pic as it might help out someone else in a similar situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

Matt L said:


> Having done A LOT of remodeling, I have installed many dozens of recessed lights One of the best ways to control dust is to use a shop vac while you are cutting. It ends up being a two person job, one with the Roto-Zip the other with the shopvac tracing the route and grabbing 80% of the dust. Works really well. There are roto-zips with a vac but I have not used them.


Yes...shop vac works well too...just wanted to make the point that drywall work need not be messy.


----------



## Lesmor

m3incorp said:


> What happened to your TM? Or did you mean to write that you now TM and RH? Or perhaps you moved your seating position backwards causing the TM to now be TF?


No 
just a designation change in the AVR from Top Middle to Top Front


----------



## ramzy

Wiring an unfinished 12.5ft x 11ft room. MLP is about 7.5ft in. For Atmos/X, is it worth using 6 in-ceiling speakers for this depth rather than 4? Would width speakers be more useful and/or the priority over the extra heights? Would it simply be best to stick with 7.2.4?


----------



## batpig

ramzy said:


> Wiring an unfinished 12.5ft x 11ft room. MLP is about 7.5ft in. For Atmos/X, is it worth using 6 in-ceiling speakers for this depth rather than 4? Would width speakers be more useful and/or the priority over the extra heights? Would it simply be best to stick with 7.2.4?


You don't mention ceiling height, but in a room that small I'm assuming a single row environment and a pair of speakers directly overhead will likely overwhelm the front/rear overheads in a x.x.6 setup. 4 overheads will be just fine unless you want to spread them out really far (front + rear height) so you don't get a sense of "overheadness" from them because the phantom image doesn't form above you.

There's a huge price jump going from 11 channels to 13+ channels so unless you have money to burn, I would just run a 7.1.4 setup. It won't hurt anything to run extra wire though if you want to future proof for 9.1.6 just in case.


----------



## ramzy

batpig said:


> You don't mention ceiling height, but in a room that small I'm assuming a single row environment and a pair of speakers directly overhead will likely overwhelm the front/rear overheads in a x.x.6 setup. 4 overheads will be just fine unless you want to spread them out really far (front + rear height) so you don't get a sense of "overheadness" from them because the phantom image doesn't form above you.
> 
> There's a huge price jump going from 11 channels to 13+ channels so unless you have money to burn, I would just run a 7.1.4 setup. It won't hurt anything to run extra wire though if you want to future proof for 9.1.6 just in case.


8ft. ceiling, single row seating. Running the wire isn't an issue. I'm assuming the placement of heights will depend upon how many I use, right? That's ultimately my concern which will affect everything else in the ceiling.


I don't necessarily have money to burn, but just thinking of future expansion if it works for the room.


----------



## FlyOnTheWall

New to this atmos thread...

have a new client that sent me over a photo of their room. They just bought the house, and older client took all of the speakers besides the in ceiling speakers.


Looks like a poorly put together atmos set up? Having a hard time figuring out what speaker is what? 

Client has 3 speakers in the front ceiling. 2 Speakers in the ceiling middle of room. And 2 in ceiling speakers in back of room. (firing down, back of couch in photo)

client also had two in wall hanging speakers in front, and 2 speakers to left and right of the TV. *(see photo)

What goes where? New clients are not true atmos audiophiles, so don't think I need to use all of the speakers.

What would you do? Any help would be great...!
Picture can be found here, if it doesnt show up... http://quickbay.biz/ron/Screen Shot 2019-03-21 at 6.54.39 PM.png


----------



## Jonas2

With all of this talk of hole-cutting, this tool, while a bit pricey, is bloody awesome:

https://www.holepro.com/powerseries.html

I used one of these, and man did it ever control sheet rock dust!  Not to mention the holes it cuts are clean, if that matters to anybody. Perhaps the best part though is that it really made my wife think I knew what I was doing......


----------



## usc1995

FlyOnTheWall said:


> New to this atmos thread...
> 
> 
> 
> have a new client that sent me over a photo of their room. They just bought the house, and older client took all of the speakers besides the in ceiling speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a poorly put together atmos set up? Having a hard time figuring out what speaker is what?
> 
> 
> 
> Client has 3 speakers in the front ceiling. 2 Speakers in the ceiling middle of room. And 2 in ceiling speakers in back of room. (firing down, back of couch in photo)
> 
> 
> 
> client also had two in wall hanging speakers in front, and 2 speakers to left and right of the TV. *(see photo)
> 
> 
> 
> What goes where? New clients are not true atmos audiophiles, so don't think I need to use all of the speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do? Any help would be great...!
> 
> Picture can be found here, if it doesnt show up... http://quickbay.biz/ron/Screen Shot 2019-03-21 at 6.54.39 PM.png




Looks like the ceiling speakers are just your basic 7.1 setup assuming a subwoofer is somewhere in the room. I am not sure about the speakers on the wall, maybe they were used for music while the ceiling speakers were for TV and movies? If your client was interested in Atmos you could probably repurpose the four in ceiling surrounds as Atmos speakers but the new surrounds would be tough with those windows unless you mounted them on stands. If they aren’t enthusiasts then you should probably just use the ceiling speakers as a 7.1 setup and call it done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FlyOnTheWall

Jonas2 said:


> With all of this talk of hole-cutting, this tool, while a bit pricey, is bloody awesome:
> 
> https://www.holepro.com/powerseries.html
> 
> I used one of these, and man did it ever control sheet rock dust!  Not to mention the holes it cuts are clean, if that matters to anybody. Perhaps the best part though is that it really made my wife think I knew what I was doing......




haha. until that tool gets outta control on you and chews up your ceiling...

used that tool about 15 years ago.... and after than,, never again


----------



## enricoclaudio

Just finished installing Front Heights and Rear Heights for a 7.1.4 speaker setup. Had to get creative to get the rear speakers aligned with the fronts  I cannot do ceiling so it's this or nothing. I will be doing calibration during the weekend. 

PS: Yes, it's a projector wall mount that I had to mod.


----------



## Jonas2

FlyOnTheWall said:


> haha. until that tool gets outta control on you and chews up your ceiling...
> 
> used that tool about 15 years ago.... and after than,, never again



Well, you gotta know a little bit about what you're doing and understand the interaction between the tool and the drill. Sounds like it got away from you. 4 nice holes over here.....


----------



## b0rnarian

Hi all, I just upgraded my reciever to a 7.1.2 setup but since I still have my old reciever and a few extra book shelf speakers, im thinking of making it a 7.1.4. 
My question is what would be more beneficial atmos sound effects wise... running the bookshelf speakers as Surround heights or back heights. My room is a long rectangle so if I did the surrounds, ill have to tilt the speakers alot to face them down to the seating position. With back heights, the tilt down wont be alot but guess i have to tilt em inward too slightly? All in all, im willing to go through the trouble to set em up properly but just want to know what will give me better sound, the surrounds or the back heights.
PS, the .2 atmos i already have is front top dolby speakers built in my deftech towers. Thanks!


----------



## fr8flyr

usc1995 said:


> It helps to have as capable speakers for Atmos as you reasonably can. Unless you go for larger bookshelf type speakers that can be difficult to mount and conceal, most of us get better performance from in ceiling speakers so they tend to be preferred. I myself started by mounting four old satellite type speakers when I first got my Atmos capable AVR as I had them on hand and wanted to get into it as soon as I could. I loved it but could tell the sound was a little thin. Once I moved up to my in ceiling speakers with their 8 inch woofers I was really happy with the fuller sound they presented over the little 3.5 inch woofers of the satellite speakers. Even with bass management in the AVR and the same crossover setting it was clear I was missing something with the old speakers.
> 
> With all that said, you have to do what’s best for you. Were you looking at the Polk OWM speakers? You may also want to look at the Focal Birds as they have a similar form factor and claim to play a little deeper. They also have a nice looking mount that could be helpful https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...lite-speaker-black-each-open-box/1.html#!more Let us know what you go with and post a pic as it might help out someone else in a similar situation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



After listening to you guys and doing a lot more research on Atmos, I am sending the Polk's back and will do in-ceiling speakers for my room. I really like the design and they get lots of good reviews, so I have ordered 4 RSl C34E speakers for the in-ceiling speakers. I will just have to bite the bullet and figure out how I am going to run the wires to these speakers. I know it's going to take me awhile to get them installed but I think it will well be worth all the trouble.


----------



## usc1995

fr8flyr said:


> After listening to you guys and doing a lot more research on Atmos, I am sending the Polk's back and will do in-ceiling speakers for my room. I really like the design and they get lots of good reviews, so I have ordered 4 RSl C34E speakers for the in-ceiling speakers. I will just have to bite the bullet and figure out how I am going to run the wires to these speakers. I know it's going to take me awhile to get them installed but I think it will well be worth all the trouble.


I really think you will be happier with that setup. You may wish to run an additional pair of speaker wire to a potential TM location while you are doing the work. Even though the cost of AVR's that can run a 7.x.6 setup is currently prohibitive they should only get cheaper and your room is certainly large enough to make use of them. If you haven't installed conduit to run a new HDMI cable to your PJ you may wish to do that as well if you are looking to go 4K any time soon. Sorry for piling on the additional work suggestions but since you will be working at it anyway...


----------



## cfraser

Do any of you guys find there to be a little bit of audio "denseness" up front with an Atmos soundtrack? Not sure how to describe it, but it seems to be "behind" my front speaker array, and sounds like an increase in lower frequencies.


7.1 base system, with _two _separate on-ceiling 4-speaker setups. One setup has the ceiling speakers driven by AVR, one setup has different ceiling speakers driven by separate amps. I load the config into the AVR, which is mostly used as a pre-pro.


I notice this effect with both ceiling speaker setups, and also when I load a config that doesn't even use the ceiling speakers. I also notice it a bit, but much less, with a DTS:X soundtrack; the ceiling speakers are not really in "proper" X locations though, but the set that is driven by separate amps are in an almost-acceptable X position (by the book).


Room is 18x12x9', fully treated. Front speaker array is 6-7' from the front wall, so there is space behind it. Edit: oh yeah, this would always be with Audyssey Flat engaged, makes no diff if Dynamic EQ is engaged or not (a prime suspect when something may seem a little too bassy), DV always off, as are all other Denon X4400 audio manipulation options in the Audio menu.


----------



## niterida

b0rnarian said:


> Hi all, I just upgraded my reciever to a 7.1.2 setup but since I still have my old reciever and a few extra book shelf speakers, im thinking of making it a 7.1.4.
> My question is what would be more beneficial atmos sound effects wise... running the bookshelf speakers as Surround heights or back heights. My room is a long rectangle so if I did the surrounds, ill have to tilt the speakers alot to face them down to the seating position. With back heights, the tilt down wont be alot but guess i have to tilt em inward too slightly? All in all, im willing to go through the trouble to set em up properly but just want to know what will give me better sound, the surrounds or the back heights.
> PS, the .2 atmos i already have is front top dolby speakers built in my deftech towers. Thanks!



I have similar setup - front heights in the top corners, rear heights to the sides. 



Firstly I experimented and found best Atmos effect to be when I pointed them straight out from the wall (parallel to the ceiling), not pointed at MLP.
I am not sure about this fascination of pointing Atmos speakers at the MLP when the recommended method of 4 ceiling speakers does not do this ??
Atmos ceiling speakers would be pointed at 4 separate locations on the floor around the MLP - I tried this with my heights but it didn't work.



Secondly with my "rears" directly to the side the sound is still front biased, rather than completely enveloping. So I suspect placing them in the rear top corners will be more beneficial. This would make sense with the recommended Atmos placement being equidistatnt in front and behind the MLP.


----------



## bokap

Matt L said:


> Having done A LOT of remodeling, I have installed many dozens of recessed lights One of the best ways to control dust is to use a shop vac while you are cutting. It ends up being a two person job, one with the Roto-Zip the other with the shopvac tracing the route and grabbing 80% of the dust. Works really well. There are roto-zips with a vac but I have not used them.


Good idea!


----------



## TL5

Hi, I need some help planning an Atmos/DTS-X 5.4.2 system. I’d like to use on ceiling speakers, and my MLP is about 11.5 feet from screen, and only about 1.5 feet from rear wall. My main concern is if I put my front height speakers at wall/ceiling point, I’m way out of the “spec” for Atmos. Is it OK to move them closer to MLP a few feet and still designate them as heights, or should I use “Top front”? My rear heights I guess will be as far back as possible on ceiling, but again - what to designate them as?

Thanks for any help!


----------



## Matt L

In prepping to install my ceiling speakers, I went over general layout as per the Dolby 9.1.4 diagram. Did some actual measuring and found my front speakers were a bit below the 22 degree minimum suggested. Measured things, plugged it into a program, and got up to 22 by moving the speakers out about 18" on each side. Reran Audyssey and I think there is a definite improvement in Atmos even using my F&R Heights - enough that part of me is considering sending the speakers back. That won't happen, but I can say if you can't do ceiling a properly setup system still can sound very good.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> I am not sure about this fascination of pointing Atmos speakers at the MLP when the recommended method of 4 ceiling speakers does not do this ??


Most speakers have their best (flattest, smoothest) frequency response on-axis rather than off-axis, hence the fascination with pointing speakers at the MLP rather than away from listeners.


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Most speakers have their best (flattest, smoothest) frequency response on-axis rather than off-axis, hence the fascination with pointing speakers at the MLP rather than away from listeners.



Yes I understand that for main speakers. 

What I was getting at is the Dolby recommendations for Atmos ceiling speakers DO NOT point them at the main listening positions. I assume this is to give them separation and to enable our ears to pinpoint sounds "around" us. If all 4 are pointing directly at us the sounds would appear to be coming more from one spot directly above, not all around ?? 



Testing on my setup showed much better Atmos effect with heights pointed straight out from the wall, not aimed at MLP. So what I am suggesting is not to be fixated with with aiming at MLP but to be flexible and test different positions to see which works best in your room


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Yes I understand that for main speakers.
> 
> What I was getting at is the Dolby recommendations for Atmos ceiling speakers DO NOT point them at the main listening positions.


Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. Speakers placed above you are still speakers. What works for your main speakers will work for any speaker.


> If all 4 are pointing directly at us the sounds would appear to be coming more from one spot directly above, not all around ??


Pointing your main speakers at you doesn't make the sounds appear to come from one spot, so why would that happen with speakers above you?


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> What I was getting at is the Dolby recommendations for Atmos ceiling speakers DO NOT point them at the main listening positions. I assume this is to give them separation and to enable our ears to pinpoint sounds "around" us. If all 4 are pointing directly at us the sounds would appear to be coming more from one spot directly above, not all around ??


Nearly every new dedicated cinema I am involved with now specifies that the Top channels come from manufacturers who design and engineer purpose built angled speakers for Atmos applications. 

Examples would be Procella P8IW, Wisdom Audio ICS7a, Triad has a number of angled in ceiling speakers. And if the speakers specified are not designed that way (a current project uses all JBL SCL-4 in the ceiling) we have the builder implement backboxes so they can be angled towards the MLP. 

We do the same thing for surround speakers and front wides. They should be aimed towards the MLP. 

If you read thru the Dolby whitepapers for commercial cinemas, they are quite specific about coverage angles and aiming. I believe it to be even more critical in Atmos for Home scenarios.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anybody comment on the atmos track of the matrix reissued atmos disc?? 

Reference ?


----------



## niterida

All I know is that when I pointed my heights at the MLP I had almost no height effects whatsover. I had to point them directly out at 90deg to obtain full Atmos effect. 

I wasn't aware that in-ceiling speakers were now being aimed at MLP.


----------



## niterida

So I just did some more testing and having the heights straight out from the wall (parallel to the ceiling) and not pointing DOWN towards the MLP is far superior Atmos effect.
However I just realised that I may have misled everyone as they are still toed in towards the MLP, not directly at the back wall - oops sorry.


And my point was just to let people know that it is worth experimenting with placement and not going blindly where they are told.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> All I know is that when I pointed my heights at the MLP I had almost no height effects whatsover. I had to point them directly out at 90deg to obtain full Atmos effect.
> 
> I wasn't aware that in-ceiling speakers were now being aimed at MLP.


I have 4 monitor audio in ceiling with amiable tweeters pointed right at MLP and they sound way better that way-I’m not sure what you are missing


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> I have 4 monitor audio in ceiling with amiable tweeters pointed right at MLP and they sound way better that way-I’m not sure what you are missing



probably in-ceiling speakers


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anybody comment on the atmos track of the matrix reissued atmos disc??
> 
> Reference ?


Yes, the Atmos soundtrack is better than the original 5.1 track (itself a reference soundtrack!!!). The sound mixer was very careful to not overdone the original mix. This is Atmos as it should be!




niterida said:


> So I just did some more testing and having the heights straight out from the wall (parallel to the ceiling) and not pointing DOWN towards the MLP is far superior Atmos effect.
> However I just realised that I may have misled everyone as they are still toed in towards the MLP, not directly at the back wall - oops sorry.
> 
> 
> And my point was just to let people know that it is worth experimenting with placement and not going blindly where they are told.


You may have a reflective room and the speaker's angle that you enjoy have a good effect on what you hear. Not every room is the same and is not mandatory to angle the speakers perfectly towards the MLP, some rooms and some speakers need no toe-in, others need a lot of toe-in. The general rule is: try first with toe-in, then adjust.


----------



## umenon

I want to upgrade my very old 7.2 setup with new 7.2 receiver (Denon x3400h) that supports Atmos/DTSX. My surround speakers are currently positioned for SBL/SBR + SL/SR. I don't want to pull new wires for Atmos heights. Instead, I would like to move the existing SL/SR speakers to become ceiling speakers for Atmos. This would mean but not having SL/SR. is this possible?


----------



## deano86

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anybody comment on the atmos track of the matrix reissued atmos disc??
> 
> Reference ?


You seem to be asking these type of opinion questions on multiple threads... .maybe these sites will help somewhat in your quest for atmos soundtrack opinions too:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Matrix-4K-Blu-ray/198328/

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/57599/thematrix4kultrahdbluray.html


----------



## Polyrythm1k

umenon said:


> I want to upgrade my very old 7.2 setup with new 7.2 receiver (Denon x3400h) that supports Atmos/DTSX. My surround speakers are currently positioned for SBL/SBR + SL/SR. I don't want to pull new wires for Atmos heights. Instead, I would like to move the existing SL/SR speakers to become ceiling speakers for Atmos. This would mean but not having SL/SR. is this possible?




Imo, no that won’t gain you much. I think it might depend on how far back your rear surrounds are. The problem is you’ll have a great big gap between the mains and rear surrounds and your “bubble” will have a hole. 

If you move the sides up, then move the rears to the sides.


----------



## cfraser

Polyrythm1k said:


> If you move the sides up, then move the rears to the sides.


^ His (potential) new AVR would require what you said, the SL/SR must be there before you can have SBL/SBR. Now the AVR doesn't know where the speakers physically are that are wired to which terminals, but regardless, you would have to config the AVR for SL/SR (and not have SBL/SBR), and the speakers would of course get SL/SR audio. So that kind of means you might as well move your SBL/SBR speakers and re-use _that _wiring instead for the tops.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

cfraser said:


> ^ His (potential) new AVR would require what you said, the SL/SR must be there before you can have SBL/SBR. Now the AVR doesn't know where the speakers physically are that are wired to which terminals, but regardless, you would have to config the AVR for SL/SR (and not have SBL/SBR), and the speakers would of course get SL/SR audio. So that kind of means you might as well move your SBL/SBR speakers and re-use _that _wiring instead for the tops.




Well basically I was pointing out that no matter which way he did it, the rear surrounds would go away. Figured he would know the simplest way to mess up his wires. lol.


----------



## CommanderROR

I seem to be having some trouble placing my Top Speakers... different variants seem to cause different problems.
I have a HT room in the cellar, 2.95x5.30x2.15m so not a huge space.
I currently placed my Tops 160cm apart left to right and 200cm front to back. Roughly 65cm from the side walls and pointed right at the MLP.
With that Setup, Height effects seem to be coming right out of the Speakers instead of somewhere up and front which is quite annoying.
Currently I use the Minx Min 12 as Tops, since the bookshelves I used before just didn't create any height effect for me...
My current elevation angle is about 38°. Any advice?
Thanks!


----------



## dfa973

CommanderROR said:


> I currently placed my Tops 160cm apart left to right and 200cm front to back. Roughly 65cm from the side walls and pointed right at the MLP.


1. Maybe the speakers are too close to you or not further apart from each other (did you duplicate the mains stereo base to the Top speakers?) See the attached diagrams.

2. Did you properly calibrate the setup (levels, distance, delay, etc.)?


----------



## CommanderROR

Thanks for your reply! My speakers are all within the angles suggested by Dolby (30-60degree horizontal). They are however a bit closer together than my fronts. Since they are much closer to the MLP they should be on the path from the Front L/R...
Calibration was done by YPAO and the levels and distances match the actual measurements I did...


----------



## dfa973

CommanderROR said:


> They are however a bit closer together than my fronts. Since they are much closer to the MLP they should be on the path from the Front L/R...


That may be your problem, speakers are too close to you and are very small (FR = 150Hz-20kHz), maybe with low dispersion and they pinpoint the sound right at you.

1. Mount the speakers further apart, at the same distance (stereo base) as the mains - per the attached diagrams.

2. Lower the level for the Top speaker, see if that improves the height effect (3D surround bubble).

3. Change the angle of the Top speakers, maybe less toe-in is beneficial.


----------



## CommanderROR

I will check that. The dispersion is actually great on the Minx, they actually claim 180°...
FR is terribly limited of course, due to the size, but they are easy to move around and thus ideal for trying out different positions.
I moved them closer together, mainly so that I could better front/back separation since I had trouble getting clear differentiation between effects coming from the front and back before.
I will try to move them outwards a bit again, but it will mean losing some elevation...
Maybe I will also try my bookshelf speakers another time (they are Nubert NuBox WS103) and see how they do at the new position...it appears Trial and Error is neccessary.

It would be ideal if I could put the Tops over the Front L/R, but that would sadly kill the elevation due to the low ceiling...


----------



## dfa973

CommanderROR said:


> at. The dispersion is actually great on the Minx, they actually claim 180°...


180 degrees dispersion? Are you sure? Wow, that would be really a performance. At 180 degrees dispersion, the Minx Min 12 should be an ideal Atmos speaker and you should point them directly at the floor, not toward the MLP! That will resolve the lack of diffusion of the sound coming from the Top.


----------



## CommanderROR

Well, 180 is what they claim. It likely won't be quite that good. But it's still pretty wide.
I will try pointing them downwards, that's actually what I had planned now anyway. Ultimately I'd like to either use my Bookshelf Speakers again or get something else, because the Minx are just too limited, but first I want to work out the ideal position...


----------



## am2model3

Aquaman 4K UHD HDR DolbyAtmos disc: just watched last night on my 5.1.4. Amazing HDR and the Atmos sound was excellent! Highly recommended.


----------



## CommanderROR

I preordered on iTunes, but sadly the release in Germany is taking forever. Luckily it will be in 4K, HDR and Atmos. Looking forward to it, and hopefully by then everything will be running as it should here.
Angling the Minx directly down instead of at the MLP already helped, despite not doing a new run of YPAO, though it might now be a bit too diffuse. Tomorrow I should have a bit of time to properly work on it... hopefully...


----------



## bokap

I have been planning a 5.1.4 Atmos system. I was planning on buying two Paradigm Ci-Pro P80R speakers for the front Atmos. My dealer today strongly suggests going with my existing front Sonance speakers for Atmos. If you look at the file I enclosed you can see the speakers were positioned for 5.1 not Atmos. 
Should I try this as he suggests? Would a better option be to only use the rear ceiling speakers and have 5.1.2 Atmos
Or just spend the money like I planned and buy 2 speakers and have them installed. My dealer will be selling me the gear and doing the install. Thanks


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bokap said:


> I have been planning a 5.1.4 Atmos system. I was planning on buying two Paradigm Ci-Pro P80R speakers for the front Atmos. My dealer today strongly suggests going with my existing front Sonance speakers for Atmos. If you look at the file I enclosed you can see the speakers were positioned for 5.1 not Atmos.
> 
> Should I try this as he suggests? Would a better option be to only use the rear ceiling speakers and have 5.1.2 Atmos
> 
> Or just spend the money like I planned and buy 2 speakers and have them installed. My dealer will be selling me the gear and doing the install. Thanks




If it were my room, I’d put them in the top position/s. If you don’t do it now, you’ll always wonder. I hate that feeling. Plus, IMO the “height” positions can’t phantom image the xyz coordinates into the room being on the same vertical plane as the mains. 


Are the rear speakers you mentioned in front of the mlp, or are they behind?


----------



## bokap

Polyrythm1k said:


> If it were my room, I’d put them in the top position/s. If you don’t do it now, you’ll always wonder. I hate that feeling. Plus, IMO the “height” positions can’t phantom image the xyz coordinates into the room being on the same vertical plane as the mains.
> 
> 
> Are the rear speakers you mentioned in front of the mlp, or are they behind?


The front and rear are in correct position for 5.1
I’m thinking the same. I might as well do it now and not later. I think I must come off as old hippie type with not much money but that’s not the case. I can pay whatever it takes to have a great system


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bokap said:


> The front and rear are in correct position for 5.1
> 
> I’m thinking the same. I might as well do it now and not later. I think I must come off as old hippie type with not much money but that’s not the case. I can pay whatever it takes to have a great system




Sounds like you already know what to do! Lol
I’m sure you’ll be glad you went for it. I hate the feeling of not doing something the way I want in the first place.


----------



## bokap

Polyrythm1k said:


> Sounds like you already know what to do! Lol
> I’m sure you’ll be glad you went for it. I hate the feeling of not doing something the way I want in the first place.


Exactly, do it right the first time. Honestly I think the dealer thinks I have not much cash to spend. When I met him 30 years ago I was very working class but things change and I retired almost 10 years ago when I was 57


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bokap said:


> Exactly, do it right the first time. Honestly I think the dealer thinks I have not much cash to spend. When I met him 30 years ago I was very working class but things change and I retired almost 10 years ago when I was 57




Wow! Good for you. I have a ways to go(44 now). Maybe somebody else should get your money? Lol


----------



## bokap

Polyrythm1k said:


> Wow! Good for you. I have a ways to go(44 now). Maybe somebody else should get your money? Lol


Ha ha, it’s all going to home theater dealer


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bokap said:


> Ha ha, it’s all going to home theater dealer




Don’t forgot some pics!


----------



## bokap

Polyrythm1k said:


> Don’t forgot some pics!


I will, I just have get myself to sign the agreement


----------



## Chirosamsung

deano86 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anybody comment on the atmos track of the matrix reissued atmos disc??
> 
> Reference ?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking these type of opinion questions on multiple threads... .maybe these sites will help somewhat in your quest for atmos soundtrack opinions too:
> 
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Matrix-4K-Blu-ray/198328/
> 
> https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/57599/thematrix4kultrahdbluray.html
Click to expand...

Multiple threads? Like which other one? I have asked about different Dolby Atmos movies on this thread more then once asking for feedback from users on this thread...that is not the same as asking in multiple threads...


----------



## deano86

Chirosamsung said:


> Multiple threads? Like which other one? I have asked about different Dolby Atmos movies on this thread more then once asking for feedback from users on this thread...that is not the same as asking in multiple threads...


Same thing here also... 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...surround-upmixing-thread-32.html#post57662952

No biggie I get it! It's good to get some opinions before spending our hard earned cash.... Ralph Potts on here does a nice job of laying out the soundtrack particulars on his reviews here too...
and I use his alphabetized listing for reference a lot...

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...lu-ray-disc-review-database.html#post13866722


----------



## Chirosamsung

deano86 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple threads? Like which other one? I have asked about different Dolby Atmos movies on this thread more then once asking for feedback from users on this thread...that is not the same as asking in multiple threads...
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing here also...
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...surround-upmixing-thread-32.html#post57662952
> 
> No biggie/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I get it! It's good to get some opinions before spending our hard earned cash.... Ralph Potts on here does a nice job of laying out the soundtrack particulars on his reviews here too...
> and I use his alphabetized listing for reference a lot...
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...lu-ray-disc-review-database.html#post13866722
Click to expand...

Thank you..I’ll check out that


----------



## Kaido

Looking for a good cheapo 5.2.4 Atmos receiver - is the Onkyo TX-NR787 still the way to go?


----------



## usc1995

Kaido said:


> Looking for a good cheapo 5.2.4 Atmos receiver - is the Onkyo TX-NR787 still the way to go?




You can also look at the Pioneer VSXLX303 and LX503. The 303 is really cheap right now...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

Kaido said:


> Looking for a good cheapo 5.2.4 Atmos receiver - is the Onkyo TX-NR787 still the way to go?


Yes, Onkyo TX-NR787 is very affordable and better than Pioneer VSX-LX303 that has no pre-outs, and no way to set up a 7.2.4 with an external amp like the Onkyo TX-NR787. 
Also, the Onkyo TX-NR787 has a better RoomEQ than the Pioneer - AccuEQ Advance with 3 mic positions.
Be aware that the Onkyo TX-NR787 can have a problem with hissing sounds from all the speakers on higher volumes on some units, not all. Be sure to check your unit fast and return it if the problem shows up.


----------



## usc1995

dfa973 said:


> Yes, Onkyo TX-NR787 is very affordable and better than Pioneer VSX-LX303 that has no pre-outs, and no way to set up a 7.2.4 with an external amp like the Onkyo TX-NR787.
> Also, the Onkyo TX-NR787 has a better RoomEQ than the Pioneer - AccuEQ Advance with 3 mic positions.
> Be aware that the Onkyo TX-NR787 can have a problem with hissing sounds from all the speakers on higher volumes on some units, not all. Be sure to check your unit fast and return it if the problem shows up.


Are you sure you can set up 7.2.4 with the 787? Onkyo only references 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 on their website:

Enjoy full object-based audio coverage with 5.2.4-ch or 7.2.2-ch speaker layouts. For movies featuring Dolby Atmos and DTS:X soundtracks, individual sounds are mixed to play through any speaker, and are not tied to specific channels. Effects move around with captivating realism, transporting you into the film. https://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR787&class=Receiver&source=prodClass

Also, I don't see any pre-outs on the 787 either (see attached)... The Pioneer Elite VSX-LX503 has pre-outs and processing for 7.2.4 and can be found for a pretty good price. On sale both the LX503 and the Denon 4500 can be found for under $1k which is really good in my book.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

usc1995 said:


> Are you sure you can set up 7.2.4 with the 787? Onkyo only references 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 on their website:
> 
> Enjoy full object-based audio coverage with 5.2.4-ch or 7.2.2-ch speaker layouts. For movies featuring Dolby Atmos and DTS:X soundtracks, individual sounds are mixed to play through any speaker, and are not tied to specific channels. Effects move around with captivating realism, transporting you into the film. https://www.onkyousa.com/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR787&class=Receiver&source=prodClass
> 
> Also, I don't see any pre-outs on the 787 either (see attached)... The Pioneer Elite VSX-LX503 has pre-outs and processing for 7.2.4 and can be found for a pretty good price. On sale both the LX503 and the Denon 4500 can be found for under $1k which is really good in my book.



Yeah the Denon 4400H or 4500H or Marantz 6012 south of $1,000 new would be the better buy. You get up to 7.2.4 and pretty decent Audyssey... and a full slate of pre-outs if you need more amp power.



The Onkyo is more limited and the quality control is worse. Pioneer is now made by Onkyo too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kaido said:


> Looking for a good cheapo 5.2.4 Atmos receiver - is the Onkyo TX-NR787 still the way to go?



Onkyo still seems to have spotty quality control, not that any of them are exactly built like they used to be. I would move up and find a deal on the Denon 4400H, 4500H, or sister Marantz 6012. Amazon had some authorized dealers listed not long ago selling at close out prices.


Don't cheapen out on the heart of your system (besides the speakers and subs).


----------



## Kaido

Dan Hitchman said:


> Onkyo still seems to have spotty quality control, not that any of them are exactly built like they used to be. I would move up and find a deal on the Denon 4400H, 4500H, or sister Marantz 6012. Amazon had some authorized dealers listed not long ago selling at close out prices.
> 
> 
> Don't cheapen out on the heart of your system (besides the speakers and subs).


Well, it's not going to be a big system. My goal is to build a 4K LED Atmos Micro theater. I have a tiny half-finished basement to play with. I had previously built a micro theater with a BenQ HT2050, 92" screen, and a DIY Bose clone using cube speakers & a special subwoofer that mimic'd the Bose effect to get the fuller omni-directional sound for the mid-bass notes. 90% as good for around $400 (speakers/sub/receiver) - it was really great for my previous (compact) space. For this project, I'll be using some compact bookshelves & a small sub. I have _just_ enough room to do 5.1.4 (.2 will probably be for some Clark Synthesis transducers, as I've only tried regular bass shakers in the past). Currently deciding between an AAXA 4K1 or a JmGO X3 projector. Should be a pretty interesting setup...it will be my first Atmos project, but also be in a pretty small space. Curious to see how it turns out!


----------



## am2model3

I finished watching the Hobbit trilogy on blu ray with DTS HD via DSU/AtmosUpmix. Sounds are amazing over 5.1.4! So many cool effects!


----------



## paindonthurt

Hey all. Just upgraded projector to Epson Pro Cinema 6040UB. Now I need to replace my receiver. Currently I have a Onkyo TX-NR818 and I bought a Onkyo TX-RZ730. Haven’t unboxed it because I want to be 100% sure I’ll be happy with it. I’m running a 7.1 system with 2 front bookshelf height speakers. I’m thinking of switching to Atmos 5.1.4. So I have a few questions but let’s handle the receiver 1st. Is the TX-RZ730 a good fit for my needs?


----------



## dfa973

usc1995 said:


> Are you sure you can set up 7.2.4 with the 787? Onkyo only references 5.2.4 or 7.2.2 on their website:


Sorry, I was looking at the ONKYO TX-RZ730 that is the EU brother of the US TX-NR787 - and I switch them in my mind... TX-RZ730 has 7.2.4 pre-outs, TX-NR787 has not. I stand corrected.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Kaido said:


> Looking for a good cheapo 5.2.4 Atmos receiver - is the Onkyo TX-NR787 still the way to go?


NAD 758 is probably the best value you can get. And it has DIRAC which is the best room correction software you can buy


----------



## pasender91

Chirosamsung said:


> NAD 758 is probably the best value you can get. And it has DIRAC which is the best room correction software you can buy


Kaido requested a "cheapo" receiver, and the NAD is NOT 
It is at least 50% costlier than a Denon 4400 or Marantz 6012, which do the job equally well


----------



## paindonthurt

What the best way to mount Atmos speakers to a unfinished ceiling? This is how I mounted projector. And yes the cables will be hidden. Lol


----------



## gene4ht

paindonthurt said:


> Hey all. Just upgraded projector to Epson Pro Cinema 6040UB. Now I need to replace my receiver. Currently I have a Onkyo TX-NR818 and I bought a Onkyo TX-RZ730. Haven’t unboxed it because I want to be 100% sure I’ll be happy with it. I’m running a 7.1 system with 2 front bookshelf height speakers. I’m thinking of switching to Atmos 5.1.4. So I have a few questions but let’s handle the receiver 1st.* Is the TX-RZ730 a good fit for my needs?*
> View attachment 2545670
> View attachment 2545668
> View attachment 2545666
> View attachment 2545664


Functionally, the 730 will fit your 5.1.4 needs...no problem. In fact, the 730 is capable of exceeding your needs as it is capable of 7.1.4 with the addition of an external 2 channel amp. However, there are at least two major points to keep in mind relative to the change from the 818 to the 730. (1) In terms of Room Correction systems, the 818 uses Audyssey XT32 whereas the 730 has AccuEQ Advanced. The D&M owners in these threads will obviously recommend/support/promote Audyssey for obvious reasons. Those owners who have used both RC systems and have a broad range of experience with other RC systems have indicated that AccuEQ holds it own among other systems with some commenting that they don't miss Audyssey at all and even prefer AccuEQ. (2) The "classic" Onkyo's (like the 818) have a historical reputation for powerful, clear, crisp, clean, dynamic sound quality which many have attributed to massive and robust power supply sections...i.e. toroidal transformers & large capacitors. You will likely note that the 730, although sounds very good, does not sound as authoritative as the 818. Also, it appears that Onkyo does not openly specify the types of amps in current model AVR's. Many speculate that due to Onkyo's past heat related HDMI issues and Pioneer's influence, Onkyo has migrated from class A/B to class D amps in some recent models. The question is why does the 818 weigh 40 lbs and the 730 only 24 lbs? 

At any rate, your product specific questions are actually better served by posting in the specific AVR and Projector threads. Of course Atmos related question should be posted here.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...rs-tx-rz630-tx-rz730-tx-rz830-introduced.html

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-d...al-epson-5040ub-6040ub-owners-thread-574.html


----------



## mtbdudex

Atmos guys;
I’m hosting a diy speaker gtg in 2 weeks Saturday 4/13.

 https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155...gtg-f8-mtm-f8-tm-htm-8-htm-6-893-s-other.html

Is there a list of good demo material / scenes in recent movies that utilizes my front wides? I’m 9.2.4 with the wides, or 7.2.6.
If so post link, else give me your 1-2 go to for Atmos wides with approx scene mark also.
TIA 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

mtbdudex said:


> Atmos guys;
> I’m hosting a diy speaker gtg in 2 weeks Saturday 4/13.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155...gtg-f8-mtm-f8-tm-htm-8-htm-6-893-s-other.html
> 
> Is there a list of good demo material / scenes in recent movies that utilizes my front wides? I’m 9.2.4 with the wides, or 7.2.6.
> If so post link, else give me your 1-2 go to for Atmos wides with approx scene mark also.
> TIA
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




There are a couple threads dealing directly with wides in Atmos that might give you some good suggestions:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...40-exploltation-width-speakers-aka-wides.html
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html

I am jealous of you wide having people!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lost_62

Sorry if I don't know , how to do it to calculate the degrees speaker angle , there is a formula or method ? from the specifications Dolby Atmos , I would like to corner my speakers for 7.1.4 ; front speakers degrees 22°/30° - side surround speakers degrees 90°/110° - rear speaker degrees 135°/150° . This scissors in angulation it is only to be considered for speaker dolby atmos enabled or for all those speakers that make up the multichannel 7.1 ? I would like to put four dolby atmos speakers in height on the front and back walls from my listening point . I have a slanted ceiling.


----------



## mtbdudex

usc1995 said:


> There are a couple threads dealing directly with wides in Atmos that might give you some good suggestions:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...40-exploltation-width-speakers-aka-wides.html
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html
> 
> I am jealous of you wide having people!
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Thank You!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## priitv8

Lost_62 said:


> Sorry if I don't know , how to do it to calculate the degrees speaker angle , there is a formula or method ? from the specifications Dolby Atmos , I would like to corner my speakers for 7.1.4 ; front speakers degrees 22°/30° - side surround speakers degrees 90°/110° - rear speaker degrees 135°/150° . This scissors in angulation it is only to be considered for speaker dolby atmos enabled or for all those speakers that make up the multichannel 7.1 ? I would like to put four dolby atmos speakers in height on the front and back walls from my listening point . I have a slanted ceiling.


Have you checked this document?
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## Lost_62

I read that document , but I would like an explanation more land land , how to calculate angle for speaker arrangement ? and if placing four speakers height and not to the ceiling the angle must be calculated for speakers height ?


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> ......how to calculate angle for speaker arrangement ? ...........


No need to calculate anything.
As you sit on the couch/seat in front of the screen, right on the middle the eye level is 0 degrees, look up and the angle that forms between the eye level and the wall-ceiling corner is the vertical angle for Front Height speaker (20°-30°). Horizontally, the Front Heights are above the L/R Mains, so not on the corners of the room.
You can get creative, Dolby Atmos is pretty flexible and forgiving with the positioning of the speakers.

A slanted ceiling will prevent you to put enough vertical space (distance) between the bed layer (L/R Mains, Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds) and the Top or Height layer, so you may want to break the rule and opt not for Height speakers, but for Top speakers, with the speakers mounted on the ceiling, with adjustable wall mounts or using speakers with aimable tweeters. 

The receiver calibration should take care of the distance, delay, and level of each speaker, so the Top layer should not drown the bed layer even if the Top layer is closer to you than the speakers in the bed layer.


----------



## Lost_62

Thanks for the quick answer , with a slanted ceiling , from your answer I seem to understand that of for Top speakers, with the speakers mounted on the ceiling would be the best solution for a sloping ceiling ? did I get it right ? with Dolby Atmos speakers placed above FRONT and rear _surround_ _ but I have no idea if they go well with an inclined ceiling,__I'm trying to understand __what could be the best solution __given inclined ceiling. _


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> .....I'm trying to understand what could be the best solution given inclined ceiling.


Can you post some pictures with your current setup and room?


----------



## Lost_62

I can provide more information , if you can give me some help to understand further , sloping ceiling height from my listening point is from 3.20 meters ,ears height from the listening point 1.00/1.10 meters ,rear _surround 1.00 meters __from the back wall (__sofa) __front speakers 2.90/3.00 metrs __and finally , __side surround 2.40 meters__ from my listening point.__Side surround and __front speakers __they are not in axis._

_Side surround and __rear surround __I'd lower it __at ears height (tweeter) __my current multi-channel configuration is 7.1 _


----------



## Lost_62

I see if I can also publish photos to make the idea.


https://imgur.com/9nKy57i
mezzanine overlooking the hall 
https://imgur.com/8jC0zz7


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> I see if I can also publish photos to make the idea.


OK, now I see that the slanted ceiling is pretty high so you have enough space for Heights.

You can also opt for Tops, but the Left Tops are problematic because you need to lower them at the same level as the Right Tops - so with Heights, the setup gets simpler - just use the front and rear wall.

Some problems with the bed layer: 
1. the Side Surrounds are too high. You need to lower them at ear level or just above ear level. Maybe on speaker stands.

2. Rear Surrounds are also too high. But the stairs do not let you lower them - you may bump your head into them... Only you can evaluate if lowered Rears can make sense or not. If not, you need to scrap them and relegate to a 5.1.4 setup (no Rears) instead of a 7.1.4. If you go for a 5.1.4 you can use the Rear Surrounds as Rear Heights if you get them high enough for good separation between the layers. Match the *angle* of the Front Heights with the Rear Heights angle. Do not match the floor-speaker distance, just the angle from the MLP (because the couch may not be in the middle of the distance between the front and rear wall).

Question 1: on the front wall, above the Right channel or the receiver/player stand there is a wire on the wall with a speaker at its end? You already have heights mounted there?

Question 2: On the front you have speakers on stands, but also a floor standing tower? Or there are Wides involved in your setup?


----------



## Lost_62

Question 1: Yes , I have four height speakers Bipolar , back and front wall , I have to change with _Klipsch._

_Question 2: There are Wides involved in your setup , Yes. _
_Amplitude speakers will be eliminated._

_Side surrounds , I can keep them on the side walls even if they are not aligned with the front speakers__ after lowering them ? _


----------



## Lost_62

what is that , angle from the MLP ?

what should I do to put it into practice angle ? and angle of degrees ? (Match the angle of the Front Heights with the Rear Heights angle.)


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> Side surrounds , I can keep them on the side walls even if they are not aligned with the front speakers after lowering them ?


If no other solution, yes. The calibration should take care of the distance/level/delay differences.


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> what is that , angle from the MLP ?
> 
> what should I do to put it into practice angle ? and angle of degrees ? (Match the angle of the Front Heights with the Rear Heights angle.)


If the Front Heights are (let's say) at 30 degrees angle, so should Rear Heights be at the same angle (if you turn around so the rear wall becomes "front" wall) - matched angles.

The attached diagram may explain better - the reference is always the eye level toward the screen - 0 degrees and go up with the angle for each speaker layer.


----------



## Lost_62

I'm sorry , I'm very tough in learning this thing , for example , if I place the speaker with an angle of 30° degrees , as I understand which are at 30° degrees , how do I evaluate the degree of angle in their positioning.Certainly not from my eyes.
Anyway, thank you for your patience and support.Much appreciated by me.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Lost_62 said:


> I'm sorry , I'm very tough in learning this thing , for example , if I place the speaker with an angle of 30° degrees , as I understand which are at 30° degrees , how do I evaluate the degree of angle in their positioning.Certainly not from my eyes.
> Anyway, thank you for your patience and support.Much appreciated by me.




IMO it’s worth the effort to try and install top speakers vs height speakers. With a ceiling that’s so high, and steep, I would look at some pendant speakers from JBL or Dayton. 








http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-60-series


----------



## Lost_62

Thanks , but for my room , I don't find them aesthetically pleasing to see , you could play to the game_ Crock Pot "Pentolaccia" , _game Originating from Mexican festivals...


https://imgur.com/jDxRoZy


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Lost_62 said:


> Thanks , but for my room , I don't find them aesthetically pleasing to see , you could play to the game_ Crock Pot "Pentolaccia" , _game Originating from Mexican festivals...
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/jDxRoZy




Oh yes, piñata!!! Ariba!!!!

Yeah, I get it but IMO it will give you much better performance. To my eye they’re not bad, and you could probably paint them. 

Multi use spaces are tough. I have a slanted ceiling also, but it’s not as high or steep, so I used in ceiling speakers with angled baffles.


----------



## Matt L

Lost_62 definitely a challenging space. To me, it would look like your best options would be to use the beams to mount small, disguise-able speakers for Top. If you did not want to construct a box to match the beams some wood hued paint could paint out smallish speakers. 

I'm dealing with my own issues, at the moment I'm doing Height and with my sloped ceiling I'm in the process of installing Tops because while the Heights work ok, I feel the Tops give a much better effect. My angle is relatively small and I found angled speakers that will offset the slope, plus have aimable tweeters, but getting into the space above the ceiling is the challenge.


----------



## m. zillch

Polyrythm1k said:


> IMO it’s worth the effort to try and install top speakers vs height speakers. With a ceiling that’s so high, and steep, I would look at some pendant speakers from JBL or Dayton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/installed-sound/control-60-series


Woofer cones can be any color you want, including clear. Somebody reading this ought to go into marketing/making overhead Atmos speakers that look like those but actually* are* lights too [LEDs behind the clear cone].








When you make your millions on them you can send me a couple of pairs and we'll call it even.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

m. zillch said:


> Woofer cones can be any color you want, including clear. Somebody reading this ought to go into marketing/making overhead Atmos speakers that look like those but actually* are* lights too [LEDs behind the clear cone].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make your millions on them you can send me a couple of pairs and we'll call it even.




They could have led’s all the way around the speaker surround or outside edge. Color controlled by an app. However it works, I’ll definitely send you as many as you want!


----------



## Lost_62

Matt L said:


> Lost_62 definitely a challenging space. To me, it would look like your best options would be to use the beams to mount small, disguise-able speakers for Top. If you did not want to construct a box to match the beams some wood hued paint could paint out smallish speakers.
> 
> I'm dealing with my own issues, at the moment I'm doing Height and with my sloped ceiling I'm in the process of installing Tops because while the Heights work ok, I feel the Tops give a much better effect. My angle is relatively small and I found angled speakers that will offset the slope, plus have aimable tweeters, but getting into the space above the ceiling is the challenge.



Hi.
I agree with you , is definitely a challenging space.I thought so too to use beams for Tops speakers for a much better effect , the problem arisesn in putting 45 ° angle with a slanted ceiling , looking at the measurements I have , 3.20 metrs from the listening point to the slanted ceiling , less 1.10 meters ear height I should place the Tops speakers 2.10 meters rear behind the listening point and 2.10 meters front behind the listening point.
2.10 meters rear behind the listening point at the back wall I don't have it.
On which Tops speakers you are oriented ?


----------



## TommyDeVito

I need some help with some speaker brackets. I have JBL Studio 210's that I'm going to use for Atmos speakers (4). I'm going to mount them on the walls (or possibly the ceiling via brackets) and they have dual keyhole slots on the rear of the speakers. I'm having a hard time finding some wall brackets that will use the keyhole slots and give me the option of angle, so I can angle them towards the MLP. Pics of the back of speakers can be found here:


https://www.amazon.com/JBL-Studio-210-Surround-Loudspeaker/dp/B00GK22KYG


I've looked at Crutchfield, Monoprice, and Sweetwater so far. Install is next week and my installer says unless I find some brackets for them to use they would have to mount them on wall firing straight across.


----------



## usc1995

TommyDeVito said:


> I need some help with some speaker brackets. I have JBL Studio 210's that I'm going to use for Atmos speakers (4). I'm going to mount them on the walls (or possibly the ceiling via brackets) and they have dual keyhole slots on the rear of the speakers. I'm having a hard time finding some wall brackets that will use the keyhole slots and give me the option of angle, so I can angle them towards the MLP. Pics of the back of speakers can be found here:
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/JBL-Studio-210-Surround-Loudspeaker/dp/B00GK22KYG
> 
> 
> I've looked at Crutchfield, Monoprice, and Sweetwater so far. Install is next week and my installer says unless I find some brackets for them to use they would have to mount them on wall firing straight across.




I didn’t see a picture of the rear of your speakers but you should be able to use these mounts: https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=6839

You may need to use washers to offset a screw to give space to hook on to the keyhole but it should work. These mounts are very well made, I used them to mount some satellites for Atmos before I finally went forward with my ceiling speakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

TommyDeVito said:


> I need some help with some speaker brackets. I have JBL Studio 210's that I'm going to use for Atmos speakers (4). I'm going to mount them on the walls (or possibly the ceiling via brackets) and they have dual keyhole slots on the rear of the speakers. I'm having a hard time finding some wall brackets that will use the keyhole slots and give me the option of angle, so I can angle them towards the MLP. Pics of the back of speakers can be found here:
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/JBL-Studio-210-Surround-Loudspeaker/dp/B00GK22KYG
> 
> 
> I've looked at Crutchfield, Monoprice, and Sweetwater so far. Install is next week and my installer says unless I find some brackets for them to use they would have to mount them on wall firing straight across.


Brackets are not needed at all. Just have your installer install two "long" (2"-3” or so) appropriate spaced and sized screws for the keyholes into studs (or use 50-75 lb rated drywall anchors or any heavy duty anchor of your installer's choice). The long screws will allow the speakers to pivot out to the necessary angle you need while the two wall anchors are more than adequate to secure the 8 lb speakers. I've used a single rated 75 lb anchor to hold 15 lb speakers in this manner with no issues whatsoever.










https://www.lowes.com/pd/E-Z-Ancor-4-Pack-Standard-Drywall-Anchor-Screws-Included/1098799


----------



## TommyDeVito

usc1995 said:


> I didn’t see a picture of the rear of your speakers but you should be able to use these mounts: https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=6839
> 
> You may need to use washers to offset a screw to give space to hook on to the keyhole but it should work. These mounts are very well made, I used them to mount some satellites for Atmos before I finally went forward with my ceiling speakers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk







gene4ht said:


> Brackets are not needed at all. Just have your installer install two "long" (2"-3” or so) appropriate spaced and sized screws for the keyholes into studs (or use 50-75 lb rated drywall anchors or any heavy duty anchor of your installer's choice). The long screws will allow the speakers to pivot out to the necessary angle you need while the two wall anchors are more than adequate to secure the 8 lb speakers. I've used a single rated 75 lb anchor to hold 15 lb speakers in this manner with no issues whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.lowes.com/pd/E-Z-Ancor-4-Pack-Standard-Drywall-Anchor-Screws-Included/1098799



Thanks guys, appreciate it. I ordered the brackets just in case. That will give me 2 options. I can see the long screws giving me the angle for the front heights, but not the rear heights. Brackets were relatively inexpensive so it'll give my installer some options.


----------



## chi_guy50

Lost_62 said:


> I'm sorry , I'm very tough in learning this thing , for example , if I place the speaker with an angle of 30° degrees , as I understand which are at 30° degrees ,* how do I evaluate the degree of angle in their positioning.Certainly not from my eyes.*



You can use the Right Triangle Angle Calculator linked below to determine the elevation angle.



http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html



For example, you can measure the height of the overhead speaker and subtract the height of your ear level at the main listening position (MLP) to derive *side a*, then take the horizontal distance from MLP to speaker for *side b*. Inputting these two values will give you the elevation angle (angle A). See illustration below.


----------



## shs1234

chi_guy50 said:


> You can use the Right Triangle Angle Calculator linked below to determine the elevation angle.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html
> 
> 
> 
> For example, you can measure the height of the overhead speaker and subtract the height of your ear level at the main listening position (MLP) to derive *side a*, then take the horizontal distance from MLP to speaker for *side b*. Inputting these two values will give you the elevation angle (angle A). See illustration below.


Or to put it simply, the ideal angle is when b=a, or the distance forward or back from your seating position equals the distance from your ears to the ceiling. No calculator needed!


----------



## chi_guy50

shs1234 said:


> Or to put it simply, the ideal angle is when b=a, or the distance forward or back from your seating position equals the distance from your ears to the ceiling. No calculator needed!



Correct in principal; however, OP indicated that he does not have sufficient room to place the rear overhead speakers at a 45° elevation angle.


----------



## niterida

I was planning on using in-ceiling speakers for my setup but have been reading that on-ceiling aimed at MLP is a better idea. Any body have any direct comparison experience between direct down firing vs aimed in/on ceiling speakers ?


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> I was planning on using in-ceiling speakers for my setup but have been reading that on-ceiling aimed at MLP is a better idea. Any body have any direct comparison experience between direct down firing vs aimed in/on ceiling speakers ?


Listening to a speaker on-axis will always be better. Would you ever take your center channel and rotate it 30° or point it down towards your toes and be happy with that configuration? 

Quite a few companies make an in-ceiling angled or aimable speaker, over a wide price range. Triad has many options. At a higher performance/price point, you can look at Wisdom Audio ICS7a or Procella P8IW.


----------



## dfa973

niterida said:


> I was planning on using in-ceiling speakers for my setup but have been reading that on-ceiling aimed at MLP is a better idea. Any body have any direct comparison experience between direct down firing vs aimed in/on ceiling speakers ?


In-ceiling speakers are fine for a Top Atmos setup if the drivers have wide dispersion. You need speakers with a dispersion larger than 45° or you can search for In-ceiling speakers with BMR drivers that have a VERY wide dispersion, nearing 180°  !!!! 

Another popular solution for in-ceiling speakers are speakers with aimable tweeters (and some with angled woofers).


----------



## niterida

I already have the in-ceilings - they have 90deg dispersion.
But I also have a set of 4 bookshelfs that match my 7 base level speakers.
Either option requires a bit of work to fit so don't really want to have to re-do it if my first choice turns out to be no good.


Going by the original Dolby specs for Atmos of down-firing in-ceilings, I assumed that the processing required these in order to replicate the correct sound field. And if speakers pointing at MLP are preferred why doesn't Dolby mention this in any of their guides ? 
And does aiming them at MLP make it worse or better for the other seats ?


Would still like to know if anyone has done a direct comparison between in and on ceiling speakers in the same setup ??


----------



## dfa973

niterida said:


> Going by the original Dolby specs for Atmos of down-firing in-ceilings, I assumed that the processing required these in order to replicate the correct sound field.


Dolby does not require any specific type of speaker for Atmos - they support all the types, except dipoles.
Actually, the height of your ceiling is much more important than the way your speakers are mounted.
A tall ceiling is preferred because it will allow for better dispersion and a wider sweet-spot - multiple "MLP's"...
A tall ceiling will also improve the bass response of that room, but that is not linked to Atmos, but sound reproduction in general.



niterida said:


> And if speakers pointing at MLP are preferred why doesn't Dolby mention this in any of their guides ?


Speakers pointing at MLP are not preferred by Dolby but are mentioned in their numerous guides *if you read carefully* because you need to aim them if:
1. you have a lower ceiling;
2. you have speakers with low/standard dispersion;



niterida said:


> And does aiming them at MLP make it worse or better for the other seats ?


That depends on the *height* of the ceiling and the speaker *dispersion*. These factors will decide how much hot-spotting you will have in your setup.


----------



## niterida

dfa973 said:


> Dolby does not require any specific type of speaker for Atmos - they support all the types, except dipoles.
> Actually, the height of your ceiling is much more important than the way your speakers are mounted.
> A tall ceiling is preferred because it will allow for better dispersion and a wider sweet-spot - multiple "MLP's"...
> A tall ceiling will also improve the bass response of that room, but that is not linked to Atmos, but sound reproduction in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Speakers pointing at MLP are not preferred by Dolby but are mentioned in their numerous guides *if you read carefully* because you need to aim them if:
> 1. you have a lower ceiling;
> 2. you have speakers with low/standard dispersion;
> 
> 
> That depends on the *height* of the ceiling and the speaker *dispersion*. These factors will decide how much hot-spotting you will have in your setup.


Awesome info - thank you - it all makes sense now. 

Maybe Dolby should just say "use any type of overhead speaker and just position them so all seats are covered by all speakers dispersion cones" or words to that effect.

I will play with my dispersions and see which looks better on sketchup - I suspect the bookshelfs will win as my ceilings are only 2700mm (or 9') and in-ceilings will cover MLP nicely but maybe not the outside seating


----------



## dfa973

niterida said:


> Awesome info - thank you - it all makes sense now.


Glad to help!



niterida said:


> Maybe Dolby should just say "use any type of overhead speaker and just position them so all seats are covered by all speakers dispersion cones" or words to that effect.


There are many variables at play and they cannot say that - you must judge your situation (room, speakers, etc.) and make a decision based on what you have and what you want to achieve.



niterida said:


> I will play with my dispersions and see which looks better on sketchup - I suspect the bookshelfs will win as my ceilings are only 2700mm (or 9') and in-ceilings will cover MLP nicely but maybe not the outside seating


Not sure about the bookshelves win because the bookshelves will "lower" your ceiling with their size and put pressure on their dispersion factor... Things are complicated...


----------



## niterida

dfa973 said:


> Not sure about the bookshelves win because the bookshelves will "lower" your ceiling with their size and put pressure on their dispersion factor... Things are complicated...



I have just plugged all dimesnions into my special calculator and they will still be well within Atmos specs.



Drawing it up for ceiling speakers and only the MLP is covered by all 4 in my situation unless I bring them in narrower but that defeats the Atmos specs.


Although I am considering buying 7 x RSL W26 in-walls and 4 RSL C34E angled in-ceilings :devil:


----------



## Lost_62

chi_guy50 said:


> You can use the Right Triangle Angle Calculator linked below to determine the elevation angle.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html
> 
> 
> 
> For example, you can measure the height of the overhead speaker and subtract the height of your ear level at the main listening position (MLP) to derive *side a*, then take the horizontal distance from MLP to speaker for *side b*. Inputting these two values will give you the elevation angle (angle A). See illustration below.



Thank you so much for this tool , from the example you reported , I see what I can do to put it into practice with an example on my current height speakers on the front wall.


[1] Height from the floor to the center of the left speaker is of 2.30 meters , subtracting height 1.10 meters from the floor to my ears = 1.20 meters , if this calculation of 1.20 meters is correct , to derive the side a , where should to insert this value in the tool ?

[2] The horizontal distance from MLP to the left speaker is of 2.10 meters , this value where I should insert it into the tool ?

I also ask you , this tool to calculate the speaker angle , you can use it for all other multi-channel 7.1 speakers , surround Side , surround rear and speakers Front ?


If my English is imperfect, sorry , English is not my mother tongue.


----------



## TommyDeVito

dfa973 said:


> Dolby does not require any specific type of speaker for Atmos - they support all the types, except dipoles.
> Actually, the height of your ceiling is much more important than the way your speakers are mounted.
> A tall ceiling is preferred because it will allow for better dispersion and a wider sweet-spot - multiple "MLP's"...
> A tall ceiling will also improve the bass response of that room, but that is not linked to Atmos, but sound reproduction in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Speakers pointing at MLP are not preferred by Dolby but are mentioned in their numerous guides *if you read carefully* because you need to aim them if:
> 1. you have a lower ceiling;
> 2. you have speakers with low/standard dispersion;
> 
> 
> That depends on the *height* of the ceiling and the speaker *dispersion*. These factors will decide how much hot-spotting you will have in your setup.



I'm getting a headache!


I have 8 foot ceilings. I'm going to be mounting my JBL's front and rear heights, on the walls, as high as I can close to the ceiling, and do my best to aim the tweeter/driver at the MLP. The fronts will hang on the wall about the left/right speakers, and the rear overheads will hang over my rear surround channels. Best I can do. I am attempting to use speaker mounting brackets that will have adjustable angles. I think the fronts will have some adjustability, the rears not so much as they'll be on the rear wall, behind MLP, but the MLP is going to be maybe 2 feet to 2.5 feet from the wall. I'm hoping they are standard dispersion.
https://www.jbl.com/on/demandware.s.../default/dw21854202/pdfs/STUDIO_210_SS_EN.pdf


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> And does aiming them at MLP make it worse or better for the other seats ?


Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. Speakers placed overhead are still speakers. You already have 7 speakers in the base layer. Does aiming them at the MLP make it worse or better for other seats? Try it and find out. Whatever your answer, the same goes for speakers placed higher up.


----------



## dfa973

TommyDeVito said:


> I'm getting a headache!


You'll be fine! 

With enough separation between the bed layer and the heights, you'll have no problems with Atmos/DTS:X.


----------



## paindonthurt

usc1995 said:


> mtbdudex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos guys;
> I’m hosting a diy speaker gtg in 2 weeks Saturday 4/13.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155...gtg-f8-mtm-f8-tm-htm-8-htm-6-893-s-other.html
> 
> Is there a list of good demo material / scenes in recent movies that utilizes my front wides? I’m 9.2.4 with the wides, or 7.2.6.
> If so post link, else give me your 1-2 go to for Atmos wides with approx scene mark also.
> TIA
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a couple threads dealing directly with wides in Atmos that might give you some good suggestions:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...40-exploltation-width-speakers-aka-wides.html
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html
> 
> I am jealous of you wide having people!
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My I ask how you add wides to Atmos? I’ve not seen anything like that on the Dolby website or a Atmos receiver but I have my theater wired for wides already. I’d love to take advantage of this. Sorry I’m a Atmos noob. Just getting into it.


----------



## batpig

niterida said:


> Going by the original Dolby specs for Atmos of down-firing in-ceilings, I assumed that the processing required these in order to replicate the correct sound field. And if speakers pointing at MLP are preferred why doesn't Dolby mention this in any of their guides ?


It is ABSOLUTELY mentioned in the guides. 

Look at this Dolby installation guide PDF: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

On page 7 is a description of "Overhead Speakers", and under "Mounting considerations" it says this clearly:



> If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees
> from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then
> speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion
> patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary
> listening position.


This nothing to do with any special processing -- as several others have commented, this has to do with simple physics of speakers and dispersion. Speakers sound better on axis, so unless the speaker has really wide dispersion (such that the off axis sound is pretty even) then you should point them toward the seating so you are hearing the speaker at its best.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

paindonthurt said:


> My I ask how you add wides to Atmos? I’ve not seen anything like that on the Dolby website or a Atmos receiver but I have my theater wired for wides already. I’d love to take advantage of this. Sorry I’m a Atmos noob. Just getting into it.



You can buy the flagship Denon 8500 receiver or Marantz pre-pro that can do 9.1.4 or take your chance with Emotiva's new buggy pre-amp... or wait for the ATI/Datasat derived Monoprice HTP-1 pre-amp for up to 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos. They're all around the same general price. Emotiva and Monoprice's units will have Dirac room correction. Or... get really spendy with a Trinnov Altitude.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> You can buy the flagship Denon 8500 receiver or Marantz pre-pro that can do 9.1.4 or take your chance with Emotiva's new buggy pre-amp... or wait for the ATI/Datasat derived Monoprice HTP-1 pre-amp for up to 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos. They're all around the same general price. Emotiva and Monoprice's units will have Dirac room correction. Or... get really spendy with a Trinnov Altitude.


At this point there are multiple "in between" options above the Monoprice/Emotiva before you get to Trinnov $$.

The Acurus Muse is $5,500 and can do 9.1.6: http://www.acurusav.com/muse-specifications/

The higher end Acurus ACT4 at $10K can do 9.1.6 and has 4 extra subwoofer outputs: http://www.acurusav.com/act-4-specifications/

Storm Audio has multiple high channel count offerings in the "not quite as pricey as Trinnov" category: https://www.stormaudio.com/en/products/av-immersive-sound-processors/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> At this point there are multiple "in between" options above the Monoprice/Emotiva before you get to Trinnov $$.
> 
> The Acurus Muse is $5,500 and can do 9.1.6: http://www.acurusav.com/muse-specifications/
> 
> The higher end Acurus ACT4 at $10K can do 9.1.6 and has 4 extra subwoofer outputs: http://www.acurusav.com/act-4-specifications/
> 
> Storm Audio has multiple high channel count offerings in the "not quite as pricey as Trinnov" category: https://www.stormaudio.com/en/products/av-immersive-sound-processors/



I'd heard that the ACT4 could do 9.1.4, but I didn't realize it was expanded to 9.1.6, nor had I heard of their Muse system. Good to know! There was some talk that Monoprice was looking at adding DTS: X Pro. Don't know about any of the others besides Trinnov.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'd heard that the ACT4 could do 9.1.4, but I didn't realize it was expanded to 9.1.6, nor had I heard of their Muse system. Good to know! There was some talk that Monoprice was looking at adding DTS: X Pro. Don't know about any of the others besides Trinnov.


Yes Acurus seems to be continually upgrading the hardware vs. releasing new models.

The ACT4 originally was an 11ch processor a few years back but it's been upgraded over time and now has 20 channel output (9.1.6 with 5 sub outputs).

I saw the Muse at CEDIA a few months back and they had it listed as an 7.1.4 processor, presumably as a lower priced / more entry level alternative to the ACT4, but I'm sure they decided to up their game when Emotiva launched the RMC and Monoprice announced their 16ch model, so at some point recently they "re-announced" it as a 16ch model that supports up to 9.1.6. 

At $5,500, the Muse is a really attractive option for people who want an "affordable" 9.1.6 processor but don't to deal with a buggy Emotiva or the (perceived) low quality of Monoprice. Acurus is a reputable, quality brand, so it should be a competitive product in that price segment. Especially for pro installers, most of whom wouldn't touch Emotiva or Monoprice with a 10 foot pole.

The only "downside" with Acurus is there's no auto EQ software, just manual PEQ, but for a pro installer or a dedicated enthusiast with measuring gear that's not a huge loss.


----------



## chi_guy50

Lost_62 said:


> Thank you so much for this tool , from the example you reported , I see what I can do to put it into practice with an example on my current height speakers on the front wall.


Non c'è di che, bello! (Presumo che sia italiano.)




Lost_62 said:


> [1] Height from the floor to the center of the left speaker is of 2.30 meters , subtracting height 1.10 meters from the floor to my ears = 1.20 meters , if this calculation of 1.20 meters is correct , to derive the side a , where should to insert this value in the tool ?
> 
> [2] The horizontal distance from MLP to the left speaker is of 2.10 meters , this value where I should insert it into the tool ?


Referring again to the right triangle illustrated in my previous post, side a (vertical measurement) is 120cm and side b (horizontal measurement) is 210cm. The resulting azimuth is just short of 30, which is within tolerance for a height speaker (but just barely--higher would be better, of course).












Lost_62 said:


> I also ask you , this tool to calculate the speaker angle , you can use it for all other multi-channel 7.1 speakers , surround Side , surround rear and speakers Front ?


Yes, of course you can. It doesn't matter whether you are measuring elevation or azimuth angles: the right-angle triangle will still serve the purpose of determining the other two angles given the length of at least two of the sides. For the azimuth (triangle on its side), the right angle will be represented by a line drawn from the MLP straight ahead (or behind for the rear speakers) and then out to the respective speaker. Just as when calculating the elevation angle, the hypotenuse represents a straight line from the MLP to the speaker in question. 













Lost_62 said:


> If my English is imperfect, sorry , English is not my mother tongue.


Non c'è problema; ti esprimi abbastanza bene in inglese.


----------



## ibrewmination

Got my new HT up and running last week after a lengthy install.
Upon hooking up system listed in my signature, I attempted to watch one of Dolby’s videos showcasing Dolby Vision/Atmos, 



.
When watching this video streaming from my t.v. in 5.1.4, I have discovered that, though other channels seem operational, the center channel seems to be almost entirely muted. I believe this occurred streaming the same video from Roku.
On my cheap old 5.”1” Sony HTIB, all of the sounds, save some of the the low frequency, were relatively clear and notably present. However, when watching this on my new system, the tones emitted by the switches the girl turns on her tuning fork at around the 33 second mark are almost imperceptible. Also, when the vocals begin, they are very faint. 
I thought it could be a problem with the speakers, so I originally posted a question in the KEF owners thread. Then I thought it may be some problem setting up the receiver, so I read the AVS Audyssey 101 Guide as well as the AVS Forum Audyssey FAQ. What invaluable reads those were!!!

I’ve tried switching the settings; Reference/Flat, Dynamic Audio on/off, etc., to no significant effect.

Can anyone else watch this video, especially if they have the same t.v. (LG OLED) and can watch it from their main menu Dolby app (but not necessary), and let me know if they have the same problem?
Center channel watching 4K Atmos movies this weekend (Aquaman and, for my daughter, Crimes of Grindelwald) seemed to work great. Sounds awesome and crystal clear for Netflix shows. Aquaman, an otherwise meh movie was made awesome by Atmos and the use of bass. Crimes of Grindelwald, on the other hand, was very weak in their utilization of the platform.

Is my system not putting out enough power? I would think I would have noticed that in Aquaman. Is this due to loss in streaming Atmos from these devices? Any help or ideas are appreciated. 

Not even necessarily certain on how to troubleshoot this.


----------



## Lost_62

chi_guy50 said:


> Non c'è di che, bello! (Presumo che sia italiano.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Referring again to the right triangle illustrated in my previous post, side a (vertical measurement) is 120cm and side b (horizontal measurement) is 210cm. The resulting azimuth is just short of 30, which is within tolerance for a height speaker (but just barely--higher would be better, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course you can. It doesn't matter whether you are measuring elevation or azimuth angles: the right-angle triangle will still serve the purpose of determining the other two angles given the length of at least two of the sides. For the azimuth (triangle on its side), the right angle will be represented by a line drawn from the MLP straight ahead (or behind for the rear speakers) and then out to the respective speaker. Just as when calculating the elevation angle, the hypotenuse represents a straight line from the MLP to the speaker in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non c'è problema; ti esprimi abbastanza bene in inglese.



Thanks again , I did a test in measuring the angle of my front speakers , that as per Dolby specifications is on a scale of 22°/30°
for the calculation with the tool , I did it this way , provided it is correct.

[1] Horizontal distance from the listening point to the front left speaker is : 3.40 meters , to this measure , I subtracted 1.10 meters of ear height from my listening point = 2.30 meters , I wrote this value 2300cm in the Side a of the Tool , in Side b of the Tool , I wrote the value 1100cm of ear height from my listening point. 
Calculate = 25.56° which would be a perfect angle as per Dolby specifications. I ask you , Is it correct as a calculation method ? 

To calculate the angle of the speakers in elevation I understood how to do it . But do not know if this just described is correct ? I have my doubts , let's see what you think or if I'm so hard to learn.


It is nice to have read a sentence in Italian...


----------



## chi_guy50

Lost_62 said:


> Thanks again , I did a test in measuring the angle of my front speakers , that as per Dolby specifications is on a scale of 22°/30°
> for the calculation with the tool , I did it this way , provided it is correct.
> 
> [1] Horizontal distance from the listening point to the front left speaker is : 3.40 meters , to this measure , I subtracted 1.10 meters of ear height from my listening point = 2.30 meters , I wrote this value 2300cm in the Side a of the Tool , in Side b of the Tool , I wrote the value 1100cm of ear height from my listening point.
> Calculate = 25.56° which would be a perfect angle as per Dolby specifications. I ask you , Is it correct as a calculation method ?
> 
> To calculate the angle of the speakers in elevation I understood how to do it . But do not know if this just described is correct ? I have my doubts , let's see what you think or if I'm so hard to learn.



Bear in mind that in this case you are measuring the azimuth (horizontal angle); therefore height does not play a role. Elevation and azimuth are two different, perpendicular planes as the below cartoon illustrates.










You need two known values or "givens" to input into the calculator. You have already determined the hypotenuse to be 340cm (the straight line distance from MLP to FL speaker). That is *side c* in the calculator. Now you need to measure one of the other two sides of the triangle. Let's assume that the distance from the MLP forward to the center of the plane of the FL/FR speakers is 300cm. This represents *side b*. The resultant azimuth is 28°.

In short, just measure any two of the three legs of the right-angle triangle shown below and enter those values in the appropriate field of the calculator to arrive at the azimuth measurement.
















Lost_62 said:


> It is nice to have read a sentence in Italian...



Molti ani fa ho fatto un corso di tre mesi al'Università per stranieri di Perugia. Purtroppo ho dimenticato la maggior parte di ciò che ho imparato della bella lingua italiana!


----------



## Lost_62

Thank you very much, now everything is clear to me . For azimuth, I kept my distance Side A and Side B . Not well . An image is worth more than 1000 words . Seems to be doing a trigonometry course , yet I am passionate about cyclometry , you never stop learning. So good! 
Curiosity:
it is more reliable to measure the horizontal distance of the various speakers , meter in hand or trust at distances of self-calibration ? self-calibration takes the measurements from the listening point diagonally with the microphone. Amethic doubt?!?!


----------



## Lost_62

What would you recommend ? for quality, price and performance , for certified Dolby Atmos elevation speakers , besides these that are on my list : 
DALI ALTECO C-1 , They are found at a reasonable price for copy
SVS Prime Elevation , They have a higher price for copy to DALI ALTECO C-1
Klipsch RP-500SA , They cost a bang

Then, I should think for four Souroound speakers to be preferably positioned on the side and rear walls.


----------



## appelz

Lost_62 said:


> What would you recommend ? for quality, price and performance , for certified Dolby Atmos elevation speakers , besides these that are on my list :
> DALI ALTECO C-1 , They are found at a reasonable price for copy
> SVS Prime Elevation , They have a higher price for copy to DALI ALTECO C-1
> Klipsch RP-500SA , They cost a bang
> 
> Then, I should think for four Souroound speakers to be preferably positioned on the side and rear walls.


Triad Speakers also has some very good Dolby Enabled height speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lost_62 said:


> What would you recommend ? for quality, price and performance , for certified Dolby Atmos elevation speakers , besides these that are on my list :
> DALI ALTECO C-1 , They are found at a reasonable price for copy
> SVS Prime Elevation , They have a higher price for copy to DALI ALTECO C-1
> Klipsch RP-500SA , They cost a bang
> 
> Then, I should think for four Surround speakers to be preferably positioned on the side and rear walls.



What are your base speakers? I highly recommend not going with "enabled" upfiring speakers if you can help it, unless I misunderstood your post. Overheads are best, heights on the side walls second best, heights on the front and back walls third best.


----------



## Lost_62

Am currently using dated Wharfedale loudspeakers, series 9.6, 9.2 + Wharfedale Diamond SW150 Subwoofer and DFS Suroound BIpolar.

Nope . Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers , I don't think they are suitable for ceiling reflections if to be placed over other speakers , with sloping ceiling. 
I mean , Dolby Atmos speaker elevation certified.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lost_62 said:


> Am currently using dated Wharfedale loudspeakers, series 9.6, 9.2 + Wharfedale Diamond SW150 Subwoofer and DFS Surround BIpolar.
> 
> Nope . Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers , I don't think they are suitable for ceiling reflections if to be placed over other speakers , with sloping ceiling.
> I mean , Dolby Atmos speaker elevation certified.



It might be better to select small bookshelf speakers and use adjustable ceiling brackets to aim them correctly towards the listening area, if you have a sloped ceiling.


----------



## Lost_62

Quick question, for a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 layout , regardless of the specifications Dolby Atmos , the suroound rear speakers , from what I know they have a lot of valence being defined Atmos soundtrack. If the speakers suroound rear they are bipolar and not-directive changes a lot in the aspect of famous" sound bubble" D.A. 


in simple terms , contraindications are or are not provided for a possible installation ?


----------



## pasender91

Lost_62 said:


> Quick question, for a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 layout , regardless of the specifications Dolby Atmos , the suroound rear speakers , from what I know they have a lot of valence being defined Atmos soundtrack. If the speakers suroound rear they are bipolar and not-directive changes a lot in the aspect of famous" sound bubble" D.A.
> 
> 
> in simple terms , contraindications are or are not provided for a possible installation ?


Bipolar rear surrounds are "compatible" with Atmos, it should be fine especially as they are part of the 7.1 bed ...


----------



## Lost_62

I see that you wrote it in quotes...on some forums I read that , instead , DIpolar speakers are not recommended for Atmos use , as from Dolby Atmos specifications. 
So my doubt was for the BIpolar speakers. Remove or leave that conditional "compatible"!?!?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lost_62 said:


> I see that you wrote it in quotes...on some forums I read that instead , DIpolar speakers are not recommended for Atmos use , as from Dolby Atmos specifications.
> So my doubt was for the BIpolar speakers. Remove or leave that conditional "compatible"!?!?


If you sit fairly close to your surround speakers, bipole speakers are okay. If you sit greater than, say, 4 feet away then consider monopole speakers.


----------



## Lost_62

Rear Surround they are positioned to 150cm from the listening position I should just lower them to my ears. The same applies for Side surround BIpolare speakers ? which are 240cm from my listening point. Also here I should just lower them to my ears , but they would not be on axis with the front speakers.
Anyway , It is good news to be able to use my BIpolar speakers Wharfedale DFS Suroound BIpolar.
I have to deal with things with some compromises.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Lost_62 said:


> Rear Surround they are positioned to 150cm from the listening position I should just lower them to my ears. The same applies for Side surround BIpolare speakers ? which are 240cm from my listening point. Also here I should just lower them to my ears , but they would not be on axis with the front speakers.
> Anyway , It is good news to be able to use my BIpolar speakers Wharfedale DFS Suroound BIpolar.
> I have to deal with things with some compromises.


I would actually lower your side and rear surrounds to just above head height while seated. That way the drivers are not firing directly at your ears and viewers' heads are not blocking the speakers.


----------



## am2model3

Atmos sound mixes are not all equal. and you have to be sure the source signal truly is atmos. many times, upmixed DSU/NeuralX can sound better than native atmos mixes done poorly. The good atmos mixes are truly great. many disney 4KUHD movie discs have bad atmos mixes, despite saying 7.1.4 on the box. 



aquaman is a great atmos mix on 4kuhd, john wick 1&2. Crimes Of Grindelwald is great! 

The xbox demo videos for atmos are all pretty great sounding!


----------



## ibrewmination

am2model3 said:


> aquaman is a great atmos mix on 4kuhd, john wick 1&2. Crimes Of Grindelwald is great!


While Aquaman's energy guns' and battle scenes' utilization of bass and underwater scenes' incorporation of overheads was breathtaking, I thought Crimes of Grindelwald fell flat in both arenas (bass and Atmos). Aquaman used Atmos throughout the movie whereas Grindelwald was few and far between, comparatively. Also, the dynamic range of the bass in Aquaman left Grindelwald feeling as one dimensional as Harry Potter's smile.

To illustrate, had I watched both films on my old, bassless Sony HTIB, I would have rather disliked both movies... probably disliking Aquaman more than Grindelwald. With my new system, Aquaman was a lot of fun, yet I still disliked Grindelwald. 

Just my unsolicited $0.02.


----------



## mogrub

Atomic Blonde is an Atmos favorite of mine. Fabulous use of the format for atmospherics, action sequences and the excellent musical soundtrack as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mogrub said:


> Atomic Blonde is an Atmos favorite of mine. Fabulous use of the format for atmospherics, action sequences and the excellent musical soundtrack as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




FWIW, I think it was DTS-X. But I agree, other than being neutered at around 40hz, it’s an extremely well done track. Very creative and unique. Fun to watch this film.


----------



## dfa973

Polyrythm1k said:


> FWIW, I think it was DTS-X. But I agree, other than being neutered at around 40hz, it’s an extremely well done track. Very creative and unique. Fun to watch this film.


Yup, Atomic Blonde (2017) has a DTS:X Master Audio soundtrack. And an optional DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 soundtrack.


----------



## Lost_62

@ chi_guy50
Hi.

in this free weekend I started taking degrees for positioning the elevation diffusers for the front and rear walls.

I would have already decided on which elevation diffuser to take.

[1] For the front wall , with sloping ceiling , I have taken into consideration these distances , horizontal and vertical , the measurements I took to calculate the degrees with the calculator it's the best I can do , holding the four elevation speakers in axis with the front speakers.
Side A = 150cm. Vertical distance from the floor to the one hundred speaker less height from my listening point
Side B = 300cm. Horizontal distance from the MLP point.
Degrees = 26.57
With this angulation I wouldn't be in the Dolby Atmos specification 30°-45°

Thoughts ?

[2] For the rear wall , with sloping ceiling , I have taken into consideration these distances , horizontal and vertical , the measurements I took to calculate the degrees with the calculator it's the best I can do , holding the four elevation speakers in axis with the front speakers.
Side A = 130cm Vertical distance from the floor to the one hundred speaker less height from my listening point.
Side B = 130cm Horizontal distance from the MLP point.
Degrees = 45° here , I would be inside the Dolby Atmos specifications.


I take this opportunity to ask you , for calculate the azimuth of the Side Suroound speakers and Rear Suroound , The same procedure applies which I used to calculate the front speakers ?

Thank you very much, your suggestions are very much appreciated by me.


----------



## Souvlakipita

Hello all 

i am trying to seek some help on this forum on where to position my height atmos speakers. i have a 2 row theater room. i would like to have the most balanced atmos experience as possible..

i do not want to install in-ceiling speakers - would need onwall speakers. current setup arriving soon is a 7.2channel JTR system.

can someone please help me with placement i have attached a few pictures.


----------



## Ladeback

Souvlakipita said:


> Hello all
> 
> i am trying to seek some help on this forum on where to position my height atmos speakers. i have a 2 row theater room. i would like to have the most balanced atmos experience as possible..
> 
> i do not want to install in-ceiling speakers - would need onwall speakers. current setup arriving soon is a 7.2channel JTR system.
> 
> can someone please help me with placement i have attached a few pictures.


How much room do you have behind the back row and wall? The front heights there seems to be plenty of room, it's the back row that will be tricky in getting separation from the sides and back speakers maybe.


----------



## Souvlakipita

Ladeback said:


> How much room do you have behind the back row and wall? The front heights there seems to be plenty of room, it's the back row that will be tricky in getting separation from the sides and back speakers maybe.




They are pretty close to back wall 1 foot away..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogrub

Polyrythm1k said:


> FWIW, I think it was DTS-X. But I agree, other than being neutered at around 40hz, it’s an extremely well done track. Very creative and unique. Fun to watch this film.


Oops, that's exactly right. (I may still be slightly under the hypnotic effect of Charlize.) 

Slightly off topic, but I've always been curious whether there was a community consensus on well done Atmos vs well done X. 

Goes without saying that "well done" is the real key in either format, but that said, I've often found myself leaning slightly towards DTS over the years, even before object based audio arrived.


----------



## chi_guy50

Lost_62 said:


> @ chi_guy50
> Hi.
> 
> in this free weekend I started taking degrees for positioning the elevation diffusers for the front and rear walls.
> 
> I would have already decided on which elevation diffuser to take.
> 
> [1] For the front wall , with sloping ceiling , I have taken into consideration these distances , horizontal and vertical , the measurements I took to calculate the degrees with the calculator it's the best I can do , holding the four elevation speakers in axis with the front speakers.
> Side A = 150cm. Vertical distance from the floor to the one hundred speaker less height from my listening point
> Side B = 300cm. Horizontal distance from the MLP point.
> Degrees = 26.57
> With this angulation I wouldn't be in the Dolby Atmos specification 30°-45°
> 
> Thoughts ?


An elevation angle of 26° is low, but if that is the best you can do I wouldn't sweat it. Will the overhead imaging be compromised? Yes, it will. But will you still be able to enjoy an immersive audio experience? No doubt, you will. It's not a matter of black and white but rather (if you will excuse the pun) one of degrees.




Lost_62 said:


> I take this opportunity to ask you , for calculate the azimuth of the Side Suroound speakers and Rear Suroound , The same procedure applies which I used to calculate the front speakers ?



That is correct.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mogrub said:


> Oops, that's exactly right. (I may still be slightly under the hypnotic effect of Charlize.)
> 
> 
> 
> Slightly off topic, but I've always been curious whether there was a community consensus on well done Atmos vs well done X.
> 
> 
> 
> Goes without saying that "well done" is the real key in either format, but that said, I've often found myself leaning slightly towards DTS over the years, even before object based audio arrived.




Lol! She does have that effect 

As far as I know, home “X” is channel based so if “well done” is the metric for each, I THINK Atmos would have a technical advantage. Ime so far, atmos tracks have been better, with the exception being AB having an excellent track.(the creativity definitely carries a LOT of weight) 
Also, I haven’t seen them but everyone is saying the Harry Potter series in DTS-X is excellent.


----------



## Lost_62

chi_guy50 said:


> An elevation angle of 26° is low, but if that is the best you can do I wouldn't sweat it. Will the overhead imaging be compromised? Yes, it will. But will you still be able to enjoy an immersive audio experience? No doubt, you will. It's not a matter of black and white but rather (if you will excuse the pun) one of degrees.






I could perhaps improve that elevation angle of 26° of the front wall , but , with a compromise , Height speakers , they will not be aligned with the floor front speakers and with rear Heigth speakers . Up and down , how much I could restrict the height speakers from the front ones in to tower , to gain those extra centimeters in height to improve angle ?


----------



## chi_guy50

Lost_62 said:


> I could perhaps improve that elevation angle of 26° of the front wall , but , with a compromise , Height speakers , they will not be aligned with the floor front speakers and with rear Heigth speakers . Up and down , how much I could restrict the height speakers from the front ones in to tower , to gain those extra centimeters in height to improve angle ?



As I said, I wouldn't sweat it. Since either solution is a compromise, your best bet would be to try out each potential configuration with some Atmos audio demo material to see what works best in your room to your ears.

As has been counseled here many times, just do the best you can and try not to overthink it.


----------



## Lost_62

Doing so , the perspective , is to find of the walls like Gruyere cheese...


----------



## duckymomo

batpig said:


> The only "downside" with Acurus is there's no auto EQ software, just manual PEQ, but for a pro installer or a dedicated enthusiast with measuring gear that's not a huge loss.


Accurus does offer auto EQ.....with a separat$ kit: https://www.hideflifestyle.com/products/acurus-aspeqt-room-connection-kit


----------



## Legairre

Lost_62 said:


> I read that document , but I would like an explanation more land land , how to calculate angle for speaker arrangement ? and if placing four speakers height and not to the ceiling the angle must be calculated for speakers height ?


It's easy. To get 45 degrees for the front Atmos speakers and 135 degrees for the rear Atmos speakers, you just sit in your MLP and measure from your ear straight up to the ceiling(for example 5 feet). 

Then from that spot on the ceiling measure the same distance (5 feet) forward and backward and that's the 45(front) and 133(rear) degrees locations for your Atmos speakers.


----------



## dfa973

mogrub said:


> Slightly off topic, but I've always been curious whether there was a community consensus on well done Atmos vs well done X.


Both audio codecs can be used to carry great soundtracks!
Even if DTS:X is mostly used in channel-based mode (instead of object-based) it may still sound fantastic if the sound mixer is doing its job right and adapts to tech limits and constraints. 
In reverse, Atmos, with all his objects and smooth panning can be used to produce bland and uninspiring soundtracks.
As always, technology is just a tool and not the final scope. It is important HOW you use it, not WHAT you use. 



mogrub said:


> Goes without saying that "well done" is the real key in either format, but that said, I've often found myself leaning slightly towards DTS over the years, even before object based audio arrived.


In the DVD era, yes, there was a difference, the DTS 5.1 had higher bandwidth at his disposal to sound better than the DD 5.1. But today, lossless is lossless, it is very hard to make a difference...


----------



## Lost_62

Legairre said:


> It's easy. To get 45 degrees for the front Atmos speakers and 133 degrees for the rear Atmos speakers, you just sit in your MLP and measure from your ear straight up to the ceiling(for example 5 feet).
> 
> Then from that spot on the ceiling measure the same distance (5 feet) forward and backward and that's the 45(front) and 133(rear) degrees locations for your Atmos speakers.




On the ceiling, I don't have enough space to place the speakers , I have 320cm from floor to ceiling and 110cm from floor to ears=2100cm : back I have only 130cm of space from the sofa to the rear wall . 45° and 135° I can forget them.


----------



## Legairre

Lost_62 said:


> On the ceiling, I don't have enough space to place the speakers , I have 320cm from floor to ceiling and 110cm from floor to ears=2100cm : back I have only 130cm of space from the sofa to the rear wall . 45° and 135° I can forget them.


I guess I don't understand. You have 320cm which is a 10 feet ceiling. If you can't do 4 Atmos speakers due to the space behind your seating you could still do 2 Atmos speakers right above your MLP.


----------



## sdurani

Lost_62 said:


> I have only 130cm of space from the sofa to the rear wall . 45° and 135° I can forget them.


OK, so the height speakers behind you will be at 148° instead of 135°. Close enough. Those sounds will still appear to come from above you, Atmos will still give the intended effect.


----------



## Legairre

sdurani said:


> OK, so the height speakers behind you will be at 148° instead of 135°. Close enough. Those sounds will still appear to come from above you, Atmos will still give the intended effect.


Good point at 148 he'd still be within the Dolby recommended placement for rears of 125-150 degrees.


----------



## sdurani

Legairre said:


> Good point at 148 he'd still be within the Dolby recommended placement for rears of 125-150 degrees.


Yup. And even IF those speakers weren't exactly within the recommended range, he would still get the intended effect (separation between sounds around him vs sounds above him). To that end, it is hard to get Atmos wrong.


----------



## Legairre

sdurani said:


> Yup. And even IF those speakers weren't exactly within the recommended range, he would still get the intended effect (separation between sounds around him vs sounds above him). To that end, it is hard to get Atmos wrong.


I know what you mean, Atmos is such an improvement over just the bed layer speakers that it would be a shame not to do it just because of a small placement issue. Like you said it's hard to get Atmos wrong.


----------



## Lost_62

sdurani said:


> OK, so the height speakers behind you will be at 148° instead of 135°. Close enough. Those sounds will still appear to come from above you, Atmos will still give the intended effect.



I don't have a flat ceiling , is inclined , the left ceiling speakers would be higher compared to the right speakers from my listening point , right speakers would be lower , I can't say what effect there would behave with the reflected sound ? I am open to all solutions, but on layout 7.1.4


----------



## sdurani

Lost_62 said:


> left ceiling speakers would be higher compared to the right speakers from my listening point , right speakers would be lower


What is the difference in height: a few inches or a couple feet?


----------



## mduffin

I have Pioneer VSX-LX503 receiver that can run Dolby 9.2 True HD or Atmos.

I am LIMITED to 8" ceiling speakers for middle, rear surround and rear channels (cannot do floor stands). 

Should I try to run Atmos in some way or run a particular Dolby audio format with the ceiling speakers I do have?

Available Speakers:
Center - B&W large
Front - B&W large floor stand
Sub - 12" sub
Front L/R - 8" ceiling
Rear Surround - 8" ceiling
Rear L/R - 8" ceiling


----------



## Legairre

Lost_62 said:


> I don't have a flat ceiling , is inclined , the left ceiling speakers would be higher compared to the right speakers from my listening point , right speakers would be lower , I can't say what effect there would behave with the reflected sound ? I am open to all solutions, but on layout 7.1.4


Everything will still work fine because when you run the receiver's auto calibration(MCACC, Audessy YPAO, Anthem ARC, etc...) it will set the level correctly for each speaker and take into account the distance each speaker is from the mic. It won't be any different than having a surround that was at 6 feet from the MLP and another one that was 7 feet from the MLP.

You really can make Atmos work even with a ceiling that is at two different levels. Like "sdurani" said it's hard to get Atmos wrong. It's not picky it will work almost anywhere.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

Dan Hitchman said:


> Overheads are best, heights on the side walls second best, heights on the front and back walls third best.


I don't think I have heard of this rating before, but I've been intrigued by side wall heights since I saw them depicted in the SVS Prime Elevation manual.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JosephTonyStark said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overheads are best, heights on the side walls second best, heights on the front and back walls third best.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I have heard of this rating before, but I've been intrigued by side wall heights since I saw them depicted in the SVS Prime Elevation manual.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Side wall Heights at approximately Top Front and Rear locations with a Top Front and Rear setting on the receiver or pre-amp would be second best for this main reason:

Front and Rear Heights have a tendancy to make the sound stage seem more tall with sound traveling up the wall than somewhat above you, especially with the angle of separation of the Front Heights much closer to the dominate front three screen channels. Also, with Height settings with Atmos content, you can get bleed between the Heights and lower speakers. 

The optimal locations are on or in-ceilings in the Dolby Atmos Top positions.


----------



## Lost_62

sdurani said:


> What is the difference in height: a few inches or a couple feet?



Then.I try to explain better of my possibilities the situation of my sloping ceiling and even out of square.


The difference is not in centimeters , is in meters , if I have 210cm from my listening point to the sloping ceiling , for right and left speakers which must be positioned 210cm forward and 210cm to right and left lateral from my listening point , I have about 140cm in height for the right speaker from the sloping ceiling from my listening point and 270cm for the left speaker.There is too much gap.


If I place the right and left speakers on the back , I have 130cm of space from my listening point , maximum limit, I would be attached to the wall bordering the sloping ceiling . Then , 130cm back and 130cm lateral , the height from my listening point is about 240cm for the speaker on my left and 140cm for the right speaker from my listening point.


if you want to get an idea of the slanted ceiling


----------



## sdurani

Lost_62 said:


> The difference is not in centimeters , is in meters...


In that case, I would mount the height speakers high up on the walls instead of the ceiling. Just make sure your front & surround speakers are closer to ear level so that you get good separation between the base layer and the height layer.


----------



## Lost_62

@ sdurani
Yes, indeed seems to be the most appropriate solution for my sloping ceiling.With some compromise for rear wall angle 49° instead of 135° for the Height speakers.


----------



## PioManiac

Any ATMOS/DTS:X guidance from the crew here?



PioManiac said:


> The ideal angle for 7.1.4 ATMOS/DTS:X height speakers is 45º from your ears,
> but between 30º-60º is an acceptable range, let the AVR auto correction adjust from there.
> My bed layer surround speakers are all at ear level on IKEA bookcases around the room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My next upgrade will be to add two more Top/Middle for 7.4.6
> (already have the matched speakers sitting idle on top my L/R Towers) Ceiling is open exposed TJI joists





MOberhardt said:


> Where is that recommendation from? That looks _nothing_ like what the dolby pages show. That is just bizarre!!!!
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html





PioManiac said:


> What processor are you using?
> 
> That diagram is direct from the Denon/Marantz setup guide, and for not just ATMOS but also DTS:X allowing for either *Height* or *Top* speakers.
> Quick google search turned up this: http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7010/NA/EN/UJDCSYefuyyguv.php
> 
> ...and from the ATMOS link you provided, not much different at all
> Front 30º to 55º and Rear 125º to 150º ...so where exactly are you seeing a _Bizarre_ difference?





MOberhardt said:


> I was more referring to the picture that wasn't hidden in spoiler tags: Top front, top middle, top rear?!!!???!!!!





PioManiac said:


> Front Height/Top Front/Top Middle/Top Rear/Rear Height speakers are *all* available options
> for acceptable overhead speaker locations on all current Flagship model Yamaha/Denon/Marantz AVR's and Pre-Pro's
> 
> Have been that way since 2015, that diagram is from a 2016 Marantz SR7010 users manual.
> http://manuals.marantz.com/SR7010/NA/EN/UJDCSYefuyyguv.php
> 
> :nerd:





MOberhardt said:


> LOL. No I have an anthem 1120. None of the DTSX or Dolby layout pages look anything like that bizarre setup, and no DTSX or atmos track is encoded to use those speakers. Maybe it is for that rare barely used Auro 3d (that the anthem doesn't do).
> 
> I still stick by my "bizarre" assessment





PioManiac said:


> LOL!
> 
> Well I challenge you to take your opinion over to the official ATMOS thread and see how far your bizzare comment gets you
> 
> Link: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1574386-official-dolby-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1805.html#post57884998
> 
> You don't install speakers in ALL of those locations, you choose your Front and Rear pair that best suits your room and the seating/speakers you have.
> Or in the case of the new 13 channel Denon/Marantz units....you can enable 3 pairs for 7.2.6


Thread source (The BassEQ thread) : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies-206.html#post57884588

Anyone care to comment? :frown:


----------



## MOberhardt

Well, I'd suggest looking on the Dolby site for their suggested speaker layouts, not what the receiver might be able to interpolate (or do for Auro). I imaging the 3D sound you will be playing will be either encoded Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 or DTS:X 7.1.4, so I would personally do what they recommend.


----------



## PioManiac

MOberhardt said:


> Well, I'd suggest looking on the Dolby site for their suggested speaker layouts, not what the receiver might be able to interpolate (or do for Auro). I imaging the 3D sound you will be playing will be either encoded Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 or DTS:X 7.1.4, so I would personally do what they recommend.


I've been utilizing 7.1.4 ATMOS/DTS:X material for over 3 years already, 
and own 400+ titles on BD and 4K/UHD with ATMOS/DTS:X audio
My speaker locations fall within Dolby ATMOS Spec from the Dolby page you linked to


----------



## niterida

From my experience I would suggest NOT looking at Dolby or anybody elses recommendations and put them where they work best in your setup.


When I first setup my theatre I had the speakers in Auro-3D layout (Side Surrounds and Side Height Surrounds) which is also supposed to work for Atmos (according to Auro). It sounded like crap for both with almost no height effect sounds at all. This was with the heights aimed at MLP


So I have brought my Surrounds forward to about 70deg (from 105) and now aiming my heights straight out from the walls, not pointing down at all, although still toed in to the MLP.


I now have full height effects and much more immersive all-round sound. Before it always sounded like sound was "in the walls" or "in the screen" with nothing in the middle of the room.
Now the whole room is full of sound and about the only speakers that are in the "correct" position are the fronts.


----------



## PioManiac

I agree, put the speakers where they best fit your room/seating
...and ATMOS will find it's way to your ears.

The most important factor (IMHO)
is having enough separation between Bed layer (ear level)
and elevated Height/Overhead speakers, room correction takes care of the rest.


As repeated multiple times already, it's pretty hard to get ATMOS wrong.


----------



## PioManiac

*Argument for Height Speakers*

I see the argument for choosing *Overhead* locations instead of *Height* comes up quite often.
But I'd like to add that it's really room dependent, (YMMV) and when the angles are equal from speaker to your ears, why would it even matter 

Here's a case for Height speakers in a smaller room where the overhead speakers would end up so close to the rear wall they offer no advantage at all.
...and may even sound worse than a high wall mounted speaker...










When it was time to upgrade my Yamaha 9.1 system (7.1 with Front Presence) to 7.2.4 in 2016, I wanted to use my spare bookshelf speakers.
They were identical to all my side/back surrounds so they would look and sound the same. They also came with factory swivel mount options
...and they were already bought and paid for, sitting idle doing nothing. 











I mounted the swivel brackets to some 2x6's (stained to match) that allowed me to place them in several locations in my room.
...an Unfinished basement with open ceiling and exposed TJI's above that allowed me to position them as Overhead (aimed down) 
High wall mounted facing forward, or in the upper corners tilted down and toe'd in towards the MLP.










With each change I re-ran YPAO and stored the results in my laptop for quick comparisons. (Yamaha Web interface was a huge help)
The 2x6's had S hooks screwed into the top and back sides, and I placed a dozen Eye hooks all around my ceiling/walls.

Even YPAO was confused how to "label" the speakers. Likely because the angles were what really mattered, not the speaker type,
Sometimes the were assigned as Height, sometimes as Overhead, sometimes a pair of each lol! (as depicted below)










I saved my final YPAO results for Both options (Two Speaker Pattern memory slots in Yamaha AVR's):

Speaker Pattern 1 saved as *Overhead* for ATMOS/Dolby Surround material
Speaker Pattern 2 saved as *Height* for DTS:X/Neural:X material

That way there is no bleeding into bed layer channels with the wrong designation.
a Scene memory slot for each made it a one button click on my remote to change on the fly.

Here's what I ended up with for (7.4.4) 
Already planned for 7.2.6 to use my last two spare speakers in the ceiling for Top Middle
those speakers are currently sitting idle on top my L/R floor standers.









































































I really wish Yamaha would come out with a 7.2.6 processor.
They were the first to utilize 3D Audio DSP over a decade ago.










...and worth noting, 
with the addition of Front and Rear Presence "Height" / Wide speaker locations...

Anyone here remember the RX-Z11?
Yamaha's first 11 channel AVR from way back in 2008, 
L-o-n-g before ATMOS or DTS:X was even a pipe dream 

The first AVR with 11 built-in amps long before Denon did it last year
the behemoth weighed in at ~90lbs


----------



## Lost_62

Great room, I'm very envious and at the same time convinced that it is always possible to achieve something good even with my sloping ceiling.
Sure that to find positioning angle for Dolby Atmos it gives you a big headache.


----------



## pasender91

Well, PioManiac, the amplifier is right, not you 
What is important to distinguish Top from Height is NOT the type of speaker or whether it is attached to the wall /ceiling, what is important is the angle nearer to 45° (Top) or nearer to 30 ° (Height).

Hence it is totally possible depending on the room shape to have in-ceiling speakers declared as Height or rear-wall bookshelf's declared as Top (i do)


----------



## PioManiac

pasender91 said:


> Well, PioManiac, the amplifier is right, not you
> What is important to distinguish Top from Height is NOT the type of speaker or whether it is attached to the wall /ceiling, what is important is the angle nearer to 45° (Top) or nearer to 30 ° (Height).
> 
> Hence it is totally possible depending on the room shape to have in-ceiling speakers declared as Height or rear-wall bookshelf's declared as Top (i do)


The amp may have got it correct,
but it's not the *ideal* way to utilize ATMOS and DTS:X because each define Height and Overhead speaker locations differently.

I found the best position for my speakers after trying all options, and they never move.
*But* I still change their "designation" in the processor in accordance with DTS:X and ATMOS spec based on what I'm watching.

Several of us discovered when the DTS:X FW update first rolled out in April 2016
The setup menu for The Last Witch Hunter has the speaker call-outs for DTS:X 



















For DTS:X If you have your speakers configured as Overhead, regardless of their position or type in your room,
the speaker Call Outs for all 4 elevated speakers also plays on the speakers directly below in the bed layer. ("Top Front Left" would also sound off in the "Left Front" bed layer speaker etc.)
Changing the 4 overhead speakers Designation in the AVR to Height (without actually moving the speakers) corrects the bleeding between designated channels on DTS:X material.

It was also discovered/confirmed by many that ATMOS playback was improved to a somewhat lessor degree,
when the speakers were designated as Overhead (even if they were wall mounted height speakers).


So here's what my ATMOS (speaker pattern 1) looks like










and for DTS:X my speaker pattern 2 










and a screen shot of my old RX-A3050 AV controller app on my smart phone where I choose my scene based on content, not just input


----------



## Ricoflashback

To PioManiac: Great room! I want to demo some of those guitars....


----------



## Ricoflashback

Maybe this has been addressed before but in regards to streaming and specifically DD+ Dolby Atmos soundtracks - - I know it is lossy or compressed via uncompressed or lossless but from what I've heard, I can definitely tell the difference over a plain DD 5.1 track. How much am I missing verses an uncompressed Atmos soundtrack?


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Maybe this has been addressed before but in regards to streaming and specifically DD+ Dolby Atmos soundtracks - - I know it is lossy or compressed via uncompressed or lossless but from what I've heard, I can definitely tell the difference over a plain DD 5.1 track. How much am I missing verses an uncompressed Atmos soundtrack?


It's no different than the pre-Atmos days when comparing compressed 5.1 Dolby Digital streaming off Netflix vs. the lossless DTS-MASTER or Dolby TrueHD track on a Blu-ray. The difference is going to be a heavily compressed, lossy track vs. a lossless track with full quality.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> It's no different than the pre-Atmos days when comparing compressed 5.1 Dolby Digital streaming off Netflix vs. the lossless DTS-MASTER or Dolby TrueHD track on a Blu-ray. The difference is going to be a heavily compressed, lossy track vs. a lossless track with full quality.



Thanks. Still better than compressed 5.1? But of course, no where near as good as a lossless Atmos track. Give it a 6 or 7, in that you can dance to it but it doesn't provide that "wow" Atmos experience.


----------



## batpig

Ricoflashback said:


> Thanks. Still better than compressed 5.1? But of course, no where near as good as a lossless Atmos track. Give it a 6 or 7, in that you can dance to it but it doesn't provide that "wow" Atmos experience.


Well, it's way better than 5.1 -- it's "real" Atmos in the sense that it will utilize all your speakers. Since getting my AppleTV 4K I've been testing a variety of Atmos content from Netflix, Vudu, iTunes, and it isn't "hobbled" Atmos at all (e.g. 5.1 + heights or anything lame like that). Netflix original shows like The Punisher really do use the Atmos fully, including plenty of action in the wides on my 9.1.4 setup. 

So the difference is more about the fidelity... and in my experience it depends on the specific content (and presumably the level of compression). Netflix original content for example has always sounded great (even in the pre-Atmos days) and I'm assuming they do that intentionally to make their original content sound better than the studio content they license. However I got a 4K digital code for Aquaman the other week and, while it plenty of "Atmos activity" in terms of height effects and stuff moving around, when I cranked it up loud it definitely have quite that clarity and dynamics of a great Atmos track on disc (and by all accounts Aquaman is a reference quality Atmos track).


----------



## Matt L

What is the effect of changing the placement angle of ceiling speakers? I'm in the process of determining where to put the 4 ceiling speakers I bought. If I go with the 45 degree angle it places them closer to MLP, vs. the 55 degree location. However I think the 55 degree location would provide a wider area of coverage for others that are not sitting in the MPL.

In my case using the right angle calc. when using 55 degrees it moves the location of the speaker from 48" forward of MPL to 62". The rear ceiling will be less than optimum, I've pulled my seating are forward as much as possible but the rears will end up just about over the rear surround speakers. I'm lining up the ceiling with the front R&L speakers as per the Dolby diagram.


----------



## batpig

Matt L said:


> What is the effect of changing the placement angle of ceiling speakers? I'm in the process of determining where to put the 4 ceiling speakers I bought. If I go with the 45 degree angle it places them closer to MLP, vs. the 55 degree location. However I think the 55 degree location would provide a wider area of coverage for others that are not sitting in the MPL.
> 
> In my case using the right angle calc. when using 55 degrees it moves the location of the speaker from 48" forward of MPL to 62". The rear ceiling will be less than optimum, I've pulled my seating are forward as much as possible but the rears will end up just about over the rear surround speakers. I'm lining up the ceiling with the front R&L speakers as per the Dolby diagram.


The human ear/brain is very poor at precise localization of sounds above you and sounds behind you (and especially sounds above AND behind you) -- our eyes and ears face forward and everything cognitively is optimized for the stuff that's in front of us (LCR) and to the periphery (wides + side surrounds). @sdurani showed me a study once where our ability to discriminate precise directionality falls off a cliff once sounds get above 30-45 degrees elevation.

It's really unlikely you'd notice a huge difference perceptually between the front overheads being at 45deg elevation vs 55deg elevation. You'll still hear stuff above and in front of you. If that enables to you place the speakers with a bit more distance from the seating such that the coverage angle is more forgiving vs. the speaker dispersion, go for it.


----------



## sdurani

Matt L said:


> What is the effect of changing the placement angle of ceiling speakers?


Separation vs height effect. Speakers placed in a tight pattern above you will definitely give the impression of sounds overhead but at the expense of separation. Speakers spread wide apart will give excellent left-vs-right and back-vs-front separation at the expense of sounds directly above. Somewhere in there is spread that yields a good compromise between those two attributes.


> If I go with the 45 degree angle it places them closer to MLP, vs. the 55 degree location. However I think the 55 degree location would provide a wider area of coverage for others that are not sitting in the MPL.


Other way 'round. When height speaker locations are described as 45 degrees or 55 degrees, that's describing elevation above ear height. You're using those numbers to describe degrees away from you. With that in mind, 55 degrees elevation places those speakers closer to the MLP while 45 degrees elevation provides a wider area of coverage. I'd go for 45 degrees elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward and rearward is 45 degrees elevation).


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> @*sdurani* showed me a study once where our ability to discriminate precise directionality falls off a cliff once sounds get above 30-45 degrees elevation.


PDF attached. Relevant info on last 2 pages.


----------



## priitv8

batpig said:


> Well, it's way better than 5.1 -- it's "real" Atmos in the sense that it will utilize all your speakers.


I would say, DD+ sound quality (and also the total bitrate) is about the same what original 1536kbps DTS 5.1 is.


----------



## dfa973

priitv8 said:


> I would say, DD+ sound quality (and also the total bitrate) is about the same what original 1536kbps DTS 5.1 is.


Can't comment about the quality (which is subjective) but the bitrate is NOT the same.
Some examples with MediaInfo:

*The Silence 2019*


Code:


Audio
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : E-AC-3
Format/Info                              : Enhanced AC-3
Commercial name                          : Dolby Digital Plus
Codec ID                                 : A_EAC3
Duration                                 : 1 h 30 min
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
[B]Bit rate                                 : 640 kb/s[/B]
Channel(s)                               : 6 channels
Channel layout                           : L R C LFE Ls Rs
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 416 MiB (12%)
Title                                    : English
Language                                 : English
Service kind                             : Complete Main
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No


*The Huntsman Winter's War 2016*


Code:


Audio #1
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : DTS
Format/Info                              : Digital Theater Systems
Codec ID                                 : A_DTS
Duration                                 : 1 h 53 min
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
[B]Bit rate                                 : 1 509 kb/s[/B]
Channel(s)                               : 6 channels
Channel layout                           : C L R Ls Rs LFE
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 93.750 FPS (512 SPF)
Bit depth                                : 24 bits
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 1.20 GiB (19%)
Language                                 : English
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No

And some DD+Atmos:

*The Highwaymen 2019*


Code:


Audio
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : E-AC-3 JOC
Format/Info                              : Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding
Commercial name                          : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID                                 : A_EAC3
Duration                                 : 2 h 12 min
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
[B]Bit rate                                 : 448 kb/s[/B] 
Channel(s)                               : 6 channels
Channel layout                           : L R C LFE Ls Rs
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 424 MiB (8%)
Title                                    : English
Language                                 : English
Service kind                             : Complete Main
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No
Complexity index                         : 16
Number of dynamic objects                : 15
Bed channel count                        : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration                : LFE

As you can see the bitrate for DD+Atmos is even lower that the DD+ 5.1...


----------



## Qaletaqa72

2L84U said:


> I purchased some front height speakers that sit atop my left and right tower speakers, about 15ft away from my seating position. When I run the automatic calibration on my Onkyo receiver, it always sets the speaker distance for the front height speakers to 0.1ft. The other speakers are somewhat close to their actual distances, except the center speaker which gets set to 3ft for whatever reason.
> 
> Is this expected? Should I be manually changing the 0.1ft value to how far away they actually are? I've sampled an Atmos TV show and an Atmos movie and couldn't hear any difference. I don't know if that's because I'm listening for the wrong things or because my setup is poorly calibrated.



I have extactly te same problem with te height speakers with my Onkyo reciever, how did you fix it?


----------



## 2L84U

Qaletaqa72 said:


> I have extactly te same problem with te height speakers with my Onkyo reciever, how did you fix it?


I never did 

I later found out that Netflix won't even deliver Atmos for my media player, and I have such a small amount of other Atmos content that I never bothered pursuing this further. I think if and when I do some day I will just get some actual proper in-ceiling speakers rather than these upward firing ones.


----------



## Qaletaqa72

2L84U said:


> I never did
> 
> I later found out that Netflix won't even deliver Atmos for my media player, and I have such a small amount of other Atmos content that I never bothered pursuing this further. I think if and when I do some day I will just get some actual proper in-ceiling speakers rather than these upward firing ones.



Too bad, I think the AccuEQ from the Onkyo is not so good .

I found out that we are not the only one with that problem, but no good anwers


----------



## mogrub

PioManiac said:


> ... ATMOS and DTS:X each define Height and Overhead speaker locations differently ... For DTS:X If you have your speakers configured as Overhead, regardless of their position or type in your room, the speaker Call Outs for all 4 elevated speakers also plays on the speakers directly below in the bed layer. ("Top Front Left" would also sound off in the "Left Front" bed layer speaker etc.) Changing the 4 overhead speakers Designation in the AVR to Height ... corrects the bleeding.


That is really interesting and useful, thanks PioManiac. Need to listen carefully while changing between Height and Overhead with X tracks in our room. Surprising that X overheads are forced to share content with the bed as a matter of default, since soundtrack engineers can alway, easily achieve that outcome by design whenever they choose. Constant default sharing also runs counter to the maxim of physically placing speakers to ensure separation between ear level and overhead sounds. DTS must have their reasons, but thanks for the simple opt out. 👍


----------



## PioManiac

mogrub said:


> That is really interesting and useful, thanks PioManiac. Need to listen carefully while changing between Height and Overhead with X tracks in our room. Surprising that X overheads are forced to share content with the bed as a matter of default, since soundtrack engineers can alway, easily achieve that outcome by design whenever they choose. Constant default sharing also runs counter to the maxim of physically placing speakers to ensure separation between ear level and overhead sounds. DTS must have their reasons, but thanks for the simple opt out. 👍


I should probably elaborate that the "bleeding" of the Height speaker call outs into the bed layers speakers below is at a much lower level than the Height speakers.
It would be extremely distracting and totally diminish the use of the format if the output levels where the same from both speakers simultaneously producing the same signal.

[edit] It took a little digging, but here's some discussion about the issue from 3 years ago in the DTS:X thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-74.html#post45684737


----------



## mogrub

PioManiac said:


> I should probably elaborate that the "bleeding" of the Height speaker call outs into the bed layers speakers below is at a much lower level than the Height speakers ...


I assumed that was the case, but thanks for clarifying. Even at that lower sound level in the bed speakers, you prefer to exclude the bleed entirely by switching to Height. Better bubble, more immersive?


----------



## batpig

priitv8 said:


> I would say, DD+ sound quality (and also the total bitrate) is about the same what original 1536kbps DTS 5.1 is.


That's POTENTIAL bitrate. One of the the things that makes DD+ attractive for streaming services is the bitrate can vary greatly, but it's much more efficient than the original Dolby Digital. So a streaming service like Netflix can deliver a 5.1 stream that's identical in quality to basic Dolby Digital but at a LOWER bitrate than the DD 5.1 track you'd have on a regular DVD.

So not all DD+ tracks are created equal in terms of quality. A very high bitrate DD+ track on a Blu-ray (e.g. the Atmos demo discs have a TrueHD vs DD+ option) will likely sound nearly as good as the lossless track. However a DD+ track streaming from Netflix or Vudu is likely much more heavily compressed; additionally the streaming platform may have mucked with the audio track before packaging it as DD+ for distribution, they could lower the overall levels (many people report the same movie streamed over Netflix is quieter than the disc) or dynamic range. Plus the hardware could handle things differently (Roku vs Apple TV 4K vs Xbox One etc).

So basically DD+ vs. TrueHD is not the only variable being tested when you compare an Atmos movie from Netflix or Vudu or iTunes vs. the Atmos track on the disc.


----------



## PioManiac

mogrub said:


> I assumed that was the case, but thanks for clarifying. Even at that lower sound level in the bed speakers, you prefer to exclude the bleed entirely by switching to Height. Better bubble, more immersive?


It matters to some people, others not so much.
But its' still a good idea to know there is a difference.

Reading some of the old threads is quite entertaining and informative.


----------



## priitv8

dfa973 said:


> Can't comment about the quality (which is subjective) but the bitrate is NOT the same.
> As you can see the bitrate for DD+Atmos is even lower that the DD+ 5.1...


You are absolutely right.
What I meant is, that technically DD+/EAC3 allows for higher bitrates than DD/AC3, up to 1536kbps (incidentally the same as CD PCM, DTS and SPDIF maximum).
At least that's what I can select when encoding in HandBrake. I only wish that'd create a useable EAC3 stream 
Encoding efficiency is another aspect, that I did not consider in my previous statement.


----------



## Chirosamsung

PioManiac said:


> I see the argument for choosing *Overhead* locations instead of *Height* comes up quite often.
> But I'd like to add that it's really room dependent, (YMMV) and when the angles are equal from speaker to your ears, why would it even matter /forum/images/smilies/confused.gif
> 
> Here's a case for Height speakers in a smaller room where the overhead speakers would end up so close to the rear wall they offer no advantage at all.
> ...and may even sound worse than a high wall mounted speaker...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it was time to upgrade my Yamaha 9.1 system (7.1 with Front Presence) to 7.2.4 in 2016, I wanted to use my spare bookshelf speakers.
> They were identical to all my side/back surrounds so they would look and sound the same. They also came with factory swivel mount options
> ...and they were already bought and paid for, sitting idle doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mounted the swivel brackets to some 2x6's (stained to match) that allowed me to place them in several locations in my room.
> ...an Unfinished basement with open ceiling and exposed TJI's above that allowed me to position them as Overhead (aimed down)
> High wall mounted facing forward, or in the upper corners tilted down and toe'd in towards the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With each change I re-ran YPAO and stored the results in my laptop for quick comparisons. (Yamaha Web interface was a huge help)
> The 2x6's had S hooks screwed into the top and back sides, and I placed a dozen Eye hooks all around my ceiling/walls.
> 
> Even YPAO was confused how to "label" the speakers. Likely because the angles were what really mattered, not the speaker type,
> Sometimes the were assigned as Height, sometimes as Overhead, sometimes a pair of each lol! (as depicted below)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saved my final YPAO results for Both options (Two Speaker Pattern memory slots in Yamaha AVR's):
> 
> Speaker Pattern 1 saved as *Overhead* for ATMOS/Dolby Surround material
> Speaker Pattern 2 saved as *Height* for DTS:X/Neural:X material
> 
> That way there is no bleeding into bed layer channels with the wrong designation.
> a Scene memory slot for each made it a one button click on my remote to change on the fly.
> 
> Here's what I ended up with for (7.4.4)
> Already planned for 7.2.6 to use my last two spare speakers in the ceiling for Top Middle
> those speakers are currently sitting idle on top my L/R floor standers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wish Yamaha would come out with a 7.2.6 processor.
> They were the first to utilize 3D Audio DSP over a decade ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and worth noting,
> with the addition of Front and Rear Presence "Height" / Wide speaker locations...
> 
> Anyone here remember the RX-Z11?
> Yamaha's first 11 channel AVR from way back in 2008,
> L-o-n-g before ATMOS or DTS:X was even a pipe dream /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
> 
> The first AVR with 11 built-in amps long before Denon did it last year
> the behemoth weighed in at ~90lbs /forum/images/smilies/eek.gif


Awesome room. 

How low is the center speaker? It looks just above the ground. Isn’t it supposed to be somewhat close to ear height??


----------



## PioManiac

Chirosamsung said:


> Awesome room.
> 
> How low is the center speaker? It looks just above the ground. Isn’t it supposed to be somewhat close to ear height??


What size is your TV screen and where is your center channel speaker?

My center channel sits about the same level as my knees and my ears end up about a foot higher when reclined.
The speaker has more than enough dispersion angle for dialogue to be heard without issue.

I prefer to keep my center lower so my screen doesn't have to pushed up next to the ceiling.
Yamaha processors also have a Dialogue Lift option for those who may need more.
Some of the center channel is copied and directed to the presence speakers above creating a phantom center:


----------



## chi_guy50

PioManiac said:


> The center sits about the same level as my knees and my ears end up about a foot higher when reclined.
> The speaker has more than enough dispersion angle for dialogue to be heard without issue.
> 
> I prefer to keep my center lower so my screen doesn't have to pushed up next to the ceiling.
> Yamaha processors also have a Dialogue Lift option for those who may need more.
> Some of the center channel is copied and directed to the presence speakers above creating a phantom center:



Besides which aspects, if you were still concerned about the low position of the center speaker, you could simply angle it upwards with some wedges underneath the front feet. 

That is what I and many others of us with similar setups have done, akin to toeing in the remaining speakers.


----------



## m. zillch

Since most of us don't own acoustically transparent screens we can't place the center where it is _meant_ to go and where it is in a commercial theater [right smack dab in the center of the image] so there are often necessary compromises to be made, but I did want to point out two things:

A) "Dialogue lift" may indeed do exactly what it claims, however it likely does it with a compromise in imaging precision and tonal quality. A rule in high fidelity audio is that a channel of sound should not radiate into the room from two or more locations because this is prone to comb filtering artifacts. This is why no commercial theater ever uses two center speakers nor well designed home theaters either. [Lots of hobbyists do it but this doesn't make it "right".]

B) Most speakers are best listened to on-axis, so a center placed down low should indeed probably be tilted upward, aimed at the MLP, however this does _not_ fix the fundamental flaw that the sound seems to be directionally coming from a place _under_ the screen rather than from the center of the screen. The best course of action is to always place the center _as close_ to the screen as is possible.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dfa973 said:


> Can't comment about the quality (which is subjective) but the bitrate is NOT the same.
> Some examples with MediaInfo:
> 
> *The Silence 2019*
> Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus
> Duration : 1 h 30 min
> *Bit rate : 640 kb/s*
> 
> 
> *The Huntsman Winter's War 2016*
> Format : DTS
> Duration : 1 h 53 min
> Bit rate mode : Constant
> *Bit rate : 1 509 kb/s*
> 
> 
> *The Highwaymen 2019*
> Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
> Duration : 2 h 12 min
> *Bit rate : 448 kb/s*


Thanks for the data. I've used MediaInfo for files, but how do you use it for streaming content over HDMI? Do you have to download it first? 

Which service provided The Huntsman Winter's War 2016?


----------



## Roger Dressler

^^ Agreed on all points. 



m. zillch said:


> A rule in high fidelity audio is that a channel of sound should not radiate into the room from two or more locations because this is prone to comb filtering artifacts. This is why no commercial theater ever uses two center speakers nor well designed home theaters either. [Lots of hobbyists do it but this doesn't make it "right".]


Just wanted to mention that as cinemas contemplate changing over from projectors to LED screens (e.g. Samsung Onyx, Sony Crystal), they hop into our boat trying to figure out what to do about the center speaker. It's an even bigger problem for cinemas due to the expansive seating area.


----------



## PioManiac

My center channel audio is never perceived as coming from below the screen, So I'm happy to leave everything alone.
Raising my speaker and raising the screen (and my OLED that sits behind it) by another foot has never been a consideration.

Visually, the "bottom third" recommendation for screen position takes a higher priority (from me) over the audio from just 1 speaker out of 11










When I'm viewing scope movies on my 120" 16:9 screen I even use the lens memory on my JVC to drop the image down ~9"


65" OLED is about 4'8" wide vs almost 9' wide with my JVC


----------



## Matt L

Not to veer too much off Atmos set up , but as noted above screen placement is a key to really being comfortable and enjoying the whole experience. So many folks mount their displays way too high. Personally I like my screen set so my eye line is close to the center of the screen, or a bit lower. Most people feel more comfortable looking down than up. I'm not dealing with a large screen so my center is only slightly below the screen, and I try to keep my front speakers placed so they are in line with the screen, though if they are not most AVRs should compensate for that now.


----------



## dfa973

Roger Dressler said:


> ^^ Agreed on all points.
> 
> Just wanted to mention that as cinemas contemplate changing over from projectors to LED screens (e.g. Samsung Onyx, Sony Crystal), they hop into our boat trying to figure out what to do about the center speaker. It's an even bigger problem for cinemas due to the expansive seating area.


Let's not forget about IMAX Enhanced for home, where there is a new channel (Center Height), above the screen: "The (IMAX Enhanced) DTS:X surround codec will feature persistent center screen height object to provide the ability to create a speaker where one doesn't exist." Plenty of opportunities for combing...




Roger Dressler said:


> Thanks for the data. I've used MediaInfo for files, but how do you use it for streaming content over HDMI? Do you have to download it first?


Yes, can't run MediaInfo over a live stream, must download.



Roger Dressler said:


> Which service provided The Huntsman Winter's War 2016?


No service, it is on Blu-ray.


----------



## Lost_62

Quick question, for a Dolby Atmos placement, with speakers SVS Prime Elevation height or speakers on the false line of the SVS speakers , how it should be angle from the MLP point ? and what distance, forward, backward , from my listening point I should hold the spaced speakers ?

this is the layout of the speakers placed on side walls. https://imgur.com/k3NeKCD


----------



## PioManiac

Lost_62 said:


> Quick question, for a Dolby Atmos placement, with speakers SVS Prime Elevation height or speakers on the false line of the SVS speakers , how it should be angle from the MLP point ? and what distance, forward, backward , from my listening point I should hold the spaced speakers ?
> 
> this is the layout of the speakers placed on side walls. https://imgur.com/k3NeKCD


45º as mentioned a few times in this thread,
If your ears are 5 feet from the ceiling, the Front speakers should be 5 feet forward, the Rear 5 feet behind.
(equilateral triangle = 45º angle)


----------



## Lost_62

@ PioManiac
Perhaps you have "misunderstood" what I wrote , I would like to place the four height speakers on the side right and left walls as shown in the attached image , not on the ceiling and possibly not on the front and rear walls , it would be unlikely to reach that 45°.
There is a rule on positioning on the side wall to be considered inconsistently for height speakers Dolby Atmos ? I just want to understand if that arrangement as shown in the attached image is consistent for Dolby Atmos. I also know that perfection for Dolby Atmos is at an angle of 45 ° , but this is not possible given the sloping ceiling structure , I have to think about compromise.
I hope you do not hold it against me.


----------



## PioManiac

Lost_62 said:


> @ PioManiac
> Perhaps you have "misunderstood" what I wrote , I would like to place the four height speakers on the side right and left walls as shown in the attached image , not on the ceiling and possibly not on the front and rear walls , it would be unlikely to reach that 45°.
> There is a rule on positioning on the side wall to be considered inconsistently for height speakers Dolby Atmos ? I just want to understand if that arrangement as shown in the attached image is consistent for Dolby Atmos. I also know that perfection for Dolby Atmos is at an angle of 45 ° , but this is not possible given the sloping ceiling structure , I have to think about compromise.
> I hope you do not hold it against me.


The level of detail in the Best answer to meet your needs is tied Directly to the amount of information provided when asking a question. 

You asked for an Angle, I told what the acceptable angle was, and how to achieve it.

If you know how high the speaker will be relative to your ears, it doesn't matter if it's on a front wall, side wall, rear wall, or hanging mid air from a string.
That is the same distance you need laterally (in the horizontal plane) from your ears to the speakers to get close to 45º

If your side wall is the predetermined distance from your ears laterally, then the best way to achieve 45º is to go that same distance up on your wall.
If you cannot make that happen, then get as close as you can and let room correction adjust for the rest.

If you want exact numbers, you have to provide exact numbers for all the dimensions of your room (L x W x H) 
and seating location (and how high your ears are when seated) in that space relative to your viewing screen.

A Picture is worth a 1000 words....


----------



## Lost_62

I wouldn't know exactly how to quantify the dimensions of my room (L x W x H) is an attic with a mezzanine. 
image: https://imgur.com/9nKy57i https://imgur.com/8jC0zz7 
maximum height that I can reach with the right side diffuser is 245cm , ear height from sitting is 110cm , the horizontal distance from my MLP point to the right side wall, the same as the left side is 240/230cm


----------



## PioManiac

I think the image you posted was confusing you, the small speakers show the aproximate location,
The circled speakers are an exploded view so you can see what the speakers look like superimposed on the diagram 

(the front speaker does not belong in the front corner, and the rear should not be forward of the seating position (obviously...or perhaps not so obvious?)










Are you trying to set up for 5.1.4? or 7.1.4? Looking at your photo's it's hard to tell for sure.

My best guess is those rear surrounds are at the ideal Rear Atmos Height location for that space.
...and those Rear Surrounds should be dropped to ear level....for starters.

I would think you have an ideal size room for Front Height + Rear Height Atmos speakers on your Front/Rear Walls
Placed directly opposite the current high wall mounted rear surrounds. (those need to drop a few feet lower)

:nerd:


----------



## Lost_62

I would like to prepare a layout a 7.1.4


----------



## PioManiac

Lost_62 said:


> I would like to prepare a layout a 7.1.4


Well it look's like you're pretty close already, 
My suggestion, and I think most would agree...


Yellow = Ear Level 7.1 Speakers
Red = Height .4 ATMOS Speakers


----------



## Lost_62

Front wall and back wall is my first choice, this is out of the question , On the front wall I should get to place the speakers up and down at 30 ° but with the speakers positioned off-axis from the front ones.
On the back wall, up and down I could get to place the speakers at 45 ° with off-axis speakers from the front ones. For this reason, I evaluated their positioning on the side walls for the convenience of working safely


----------



## PioManiac

Lost_62 said:


> Front wall and back wall is my first choice, this is out of the question , On the front wall I should get to place the speakers up and down at 30 ° but with the speakers positioned off-axis from the front ones.
> On the back wall, up and down I could get to place the speakers at 45 ° with off-axis speakers from the front ones. For this reason, I evaluated their positioning on the side walls for the convenience of working safely


You're getting too hung up on "the angles" 
and off axis is a non-issue, room correction software solves that.

The acceptable "Range" for ATMOS is 30º to 55º Front and 125º to 150º Rear










Is that not a Speaker in the top left corner of the photo?

What is it currently configured as? All you need to do is assign that as your Front Height ATMOS speaker and you're Done!
Same goes for the Rear (ridiculous location for a surround speaker WAY too High) that just needs to be configured as Rear Height ATMOS and you have 5.1.4

Done!

If you want, you could mount another set of speakers at ear level below those for 7.1.4 

Surrounds mounted too high will kill ATMOS audio effects,
You absolutely need to have significant Separation in elevation from Ear Level speakers and ATMOS Height speakers.
...if not, you're just going to muddy the waters.

I just scrolled back several pages to find more info,
seems I'm just repeating what everyone else has already told you LOL! 
...and still falls on deaf ears. 

I'm out


----------



## Lost_62

_Ahahah..._You're right, maybe I'm losing myself in a glass of water,but you know,The ability to choose between various alternatives , is the wisdom that leads to making the right decisions.Anyway , thank you for the availability.


----------



## Stereodude

So from what I've read in this thread (didn't read all of it) top placement is preferred location of the speakers for Atmos (even though the angles for top and height overlap and I'm not sure how they differ at that point), but I've seen posts in this thread suggesting to configure the receiver as heights rather than tops due to quirkiness with DTS:X when configured as tops (mirroring the top channels into the base layer of speakers). Is that correct?

What happens in the receiver for Atmos differently between configuring the 4 height channels as "Tops" vs. "Heights"? There must be some difference or why are there two different settings?


----------



## sdurani

Stereodude said:


> So from what I've read in this thread (didn't read all of it) top placement is preferred location of the speakers for Atmos (even though the angles for top and height overlap and I'm *not sure how they differ* at that point)


They differ based on location relative to other speakers. If your overhead speakers are at the very front & back of your speaker layout (above your Front & Rear speakers), then those are the Height locations. If your overhead speakers are closer in (splitting the gaps between your Fronts & Sides and Side & Rears), then those are Top locations. But that's only for Atmos.


> I've seen posts in this thread suggesting to configure the receiver as heights rather than tops due to quirkiness with DTS:X when configured as tops (mirroring the top channels into the base layer of speakers). Is that correct?


That's correct, *unfortunately. The Atmos Top locations happens to coincide with the DTS:X Height locations. The good news is that there are 4 overhead locations that can satisfy both formats. The bad news is that they have different labels (*and those labels decide how audio objects are rendered).


> What happens in the receiver for Atmos differently between configuring the 4 height channels as "Tops" vs. "Heights"?


Let's assume 4 overhead speakers at roughly 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the listening position. These 4 locations are Atmos Tops and DTS:X Heights. 

If you designate them as Tops, then Atmos will render Tops info normally for those locations. However, if you label them Heights, then the Atmos renderer will think that those speakers are at the very front & back of your room, so it will try to re-map (phantom image) the sounds inward, where it thinks the Tops would be. 

If you designate them as Heights, then DTS:X will render Heights info normally for those locations. However, if you label them Tops, then the DTS:X renderer will think that those speakers are higher up (60 degrees elevation), so it will try to re-map (phantom image) those sounds downward, where it thinks the Heights would be. That's why it leaks info down into the base layer speakers, to phantom those sounds lower. 

So, 4 overhead locations in common: Atmos labels them Tops, DTS:X labels them heights; labels determine rendering. How audible is the problem? Try it on your system and decide for yourself.


----------



## Stereodude

sdurani said:


> So, 4 overhead locations in common: Atmos labels them Tops, DTS:X labels them heights; labels determine rendering. How audible is the problem? Try it on your system and decide for yourself.


So no receiver maker has bothered to simply correct this nomenclature variation? IE: Set the speaker's location in the receiver as overhead speakers at a ~45 degree angle (not over the front and rear speakers) and have it treat them as heights with DTS and tops with Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

Stereodude said:


> So no receiver maker has bothered to simply correct this nomenclature variation?


Manufacturers can license & implement technologies from Dolby and DTS, but they cannot change those technologies. However, some manufacturers (e.g., Yamaha) let you store more than one speaker configuration preset, so the same 4 overhead speakers can be designated Heights in one preset and Tops in another preset. All you have to do is switch to the appropriate preset depending on whether you're watching DTS:X or Atmos source. Other manufacturers (e.g., Trinnov) have independent speaker set-up pages for Atmos and DTS:X and Auro), allowing you to designate the same speakers with whatever label makes the most sense for each format.


----------



## johng

Hi. Guys! I'm in the process of installing a single pair of SVS Prime Elevations, specifically to reproduce ATMOS, DTS/X, et al. Though I have in wall side and rear surrounds, I'm not going to cut into the ceiling. Today I have 2 questions: 1. Would you suggest mounting the Prime Elevations high on the side walls, or directly on the ceiling firing down at the primary viewing seats? 2. If I mount them on the ceiling, would you recommend setting the Yamaha AVR as Front Presence, or Overhead?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## batpig

johng said:


> Hi. Guys! I'm in the process of installing a single pair of SVS Prime Elevations, specifically to reproduce ATMOS, DTS/X, et al. Though I have in wall side and rear surrounds, I'm not going to cut into the ceiling. Today I have 2 questions: 1. Would you suggest mounting the Prime Elevations high on the side walls, or directly on the ceiling firing down at the primary viewing seats? 2. If I mount them on the ceiling, would you recommend setting the Yamaha AVR as Front Presence, or Overhead?
> Thanks in advance.


Either way with side wall / overhead mounting they are not "presence" in Yamaha lingo, which refers to speakers mounted high on the front or rear wall (what everyone else calls "heights").

Whether they will be fine high up on the side walls or on the ceiling really depends on the room geometry -- in a 12' wide room it's probably fine mounting them on the side walls firing down and across (they will be "overhead" enough). If the room is 20' wide then they will be too far away to feel as they they are overhead, so you'd want to mount them on the ceiling.


----------



## PioManiac

johng said:


> Hi. Guys! I'm in the process of installing a single pair of SVS Prime Elevations, specifically to reproduce ATMOS, DTS/X, et al. Though I have in wall side and rear surrounds, I'm not going to cut into the ceiling. Today I have 2 questions: 1. Would you suggest mounting the Prime Elevations high on the side walls, or directly on the ceiling firing down at the primary viewing seats? 2. If I mount them on the ceiling, would you recommend setting the Yamaha AVR as Front Presence, or Overhead?
> Thanks in advance.


From the Yamaha Manual: 












For just 2 speakers, Top Center placement and configured as Overhead would be my recommendation for ATMOS

If you can, 5.1.4 is Much Better


----------



## johng

Thank you very much. That would have been my guess, but there nothing like asking people with experience  Once I've convinced my wife how "cool" Atmos et al can be, I'll order a 2nd pair of SVS Prime Elevations. FWIW, my room is 12.7" wide by 17.1" deep by 7.8" in height. We bought a new house a few years ago and this was the only room that I could dedicate to home theater. It has been an adjustment coming from a 20-foot by 22-foot by 8 foot room.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> Stereodude said:
> 
> 
> 
> So from what I've read in this thread (didn't read all of it) top placement is preferred location of the speakers for Atmos (even though the angles for top and height overlap and I'm *not sure how they differ* at that point)
> 
> 
> 
> They differ based on location relative to other speakers. If your overhead speakers are at the very front & back of your speaker layout (above your Front & Rear speakers), then those are the Height locations. If your overhead speakers are closer in (splitting the gaps between your Fronts & Sides and Side & Rears), then those are Top locations. But that's only for Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen posts in this thread suggesting to configure the receiver as heights rather than tops due to quirkiness with DTS:X when configured as tops (mirroring the top channels into the base layer of speakers). Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's correct, *unfortunately. The Atmos Top locations happens to coincide with the DTS:X Height locations. The good news is that there are 4 overhead locations that can satisfy both formats. The bad news is that they have different labels (*and those labels decide how audio objects are rendered).
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in the receiver for Atmos differently between configuring the 4 height channels as "Tops" vs. "Heights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's assume 4 overhead speakers at roughly 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the listening position. These 4 locations are Atmos Tops and DTS:X Heights.
> 
> If you designate them as Tops, then Atmos will render Tops info normally for those locations. However, if you label them Heights, then the Atmos renderer will think that those speakers are at the very front & back of your room, so it will try to re-map (phantom image) the sounds inward, where it thinks the Tops would be.
> 
> If you designate them as Heights, then DTS:X will render Heights info normally for those locations. However, if you label them Tops, then the DTS:X renderer will think that those speakers are higher up (60 degrees elevation), so it will try to re-map (phantom image) those sounds downward, where it thinks the Heights would be. That's why it leaks info down into the base layer speakers, to phantom those sounds lower.
> 
> So, 4 overhead locations in common: Atmos labels them Tops, DTS:X labels them heights; labels determine rendering. How audible is the problem? Try it on your system and decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

Just reading your post and had a question:

My rear over heads are at the very back of the room close to the back wall and they are very close in (rear) proximity to my side surrounds but my front overhead speakers are about half the distance between myself and the front speakers (splitting the difference as you mentioned?). They are both about 45 degree angles away but the front overheads are definetly a lot further front wise to the front towers and centre then the rear overheads are compared to the surround speakers and back of the room. In this layout should I then be assigning the front overheads as “TOPS” and keep the rear overheads as “HEIGHTS”? Right now they are both heights but not sure if I’m missing much if changing it. Just did my full DIRAC calibration so will only consider it if I am not doing the right configuration now.


----------



## Stereodude

Chirosamsung said:


> Just reading your post and had a question:
> 
> My rear over heads are at the very back of the room close to the back wall and they are very close in (rear) proximity to my side surrounds but my front overhead speakers are about half the distance between myself and the front speakers (splitting the difference as you mentioned?). They are both about 45 degree angles away but the front overheads are definetly a lot further front wise to the front towers and centre then the rear overheads are compared to the surround speakers and back of the room. In this layout should I then be assigning the front overheads as “TOPS” and keep the rear overheads as “HEIGHTS”? Right now they are both heights but not sure if I’m missing much if changing it. Just did my full DIRAC calibration so will only consider it if I am not doing the right configuration now.


Your rear "Atmos" channels look to be at a much steeper angle than 45 degrees to me. They look almost directly overhead from a side angle perspective.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Stereodude said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just reading your post and had a question:
> 
> My rear over heads are at the very back of the room close to the back wall and they are very close in (rear) proximity to my side surrounds but my front overhead speakers are about half the distance between myself and the front speakers (splitting the difference as you mentioned?). They are both about 45 degree angles away but the front overheads are definetly a lot further front wise to the front towers and centre then the rear overheads are compared to the surround speakers and back of the room. In this layout should I then be assigning the front overheads as “TOPS” and keep the rear overheads as “HEIGHTS”? Right now they are both heights but not sure if I’m missing much if changing it. Just did my full DIRAC calibration so will only consider it if I am not doing the right configuration now.
> 
> 
> 
> Your rear "Atmos" channels look to be at a much steeper angle than 45 degrees to me. They look almost directly overhead from a side angle perspective.
Click to expand...

The pic is hard to tell but by the time I am sitting on the chair and my head position at MLP in relation to the rear speaker is about 45 degrees from head. Pic below better angle

Regardless, my question of the rear overheads being close to end of room and surrounds vs my front overheads being halfway in the room and halfway between my towers and MLP-in atmos at the moment are both set at “HEIGHTS”. 
By the pic and explanation, should the front overheads be designated as “TOPS”?


----------



## m0j0

Chirosamsung said:


> The pic is hard to tell but by the time I am sitting on the chair and my head position at MLP in relation to the rear speaker is about 45 degrees from head. Pic below better angle
> 
> Regardless, my question of the rear overheads being close to end of room and surrounds vs my front overheads being halfway in the room and halfway between my towers and MLP-in atmos at the moment are both set at “HEIGHTS”.
> By the pic and explanation, should the front overheads be designated as “TOPS”?



Yes, I would think you could set the fronts as top front and the rears as rear heights. At least give it a try and see if you like how it sounds. You could also try top front and top rear. Worst case, you try all three and end up switching back to front height and rear height setup.


----------



## mtbdudex

PioManiac said:


> What size is your TV screen and where is your center channel speaker?
> 
> My center channel sits about the same level as my knees and my ears end up about a foot higher when reclined.
> The speaker has more than enough dispersion angle for dialogue to be heard without issue.
> 
> I prefer to keep my center lower so my screen doesn't have to pushed up next to the ceiling.
> Yamaha processors also have a Dialogue Lift option for those who may need more.
> Some of the center channel is copied and directed to the presence speakers above creating a phantom center:


Similar to my current solid screen setup for center channel, the only thing I'd recommend is you pull that center channel closer to you as now it's getting edge diffraction from your what it's sitting on, that's not good and smears the dialog by reflections.
Plus, consider to angle it up. Those 2 nearly free tweaks will improve your sound quality.

Old picture from, well 2008 when I was in build mode.











Matt L said:


> Not to veer too much off Atmos set up , but as noted above screen placement is a key to really being comfortable and enjoying the whole experience. So many folks mount their displays way too high. Personally I like my screen set so my eye line is close to the center of the screen, or a bit lower. Most people feel more comfortable looking down than up. I'm not dealing with a large screen so my center is only slightly below the screen, and I try to keep my front speakers placed so they are in line with the screen, though if they are not most AVRs should compensate for that now.


 Hi Matt, nice to put a avs name to someone I met last week at my home gtg.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Hey guys, have a side question. Has anyone heard from Keith? I haven’t seen anything for a looong time from him. He was always very active. 
Just wondering. Hope he’s ok.


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> In this layout should I then be assigning the front overheads as “TOPS” and keep the rear overheads as “HEIGHTS”?


The overhead speakers in front of you are at the Top locations, so that's what I would label them. The ones behind can be labeled either Heights or Tops (judgement call), but I would stick to the latter for symmetry.


> Right now they are both heights but not sure if I’m missing much if changing it.


The Heights label will cause Tops information to phantom image about 25% inward (closer to your seating), shrinking the perceived front to back separation. Re-label them Top Front & Top Rear and see how you like it.


> Just did my full DIRAC calibration so will only consider it if I am not doing the right configuration now.


You're not moving the speakers, so their interaction with the room isn't changing, so you shouldn't need a new calibration (just change the labels in your pre-pro).


----------



## Chirosamsung

m0j0 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pic is hard to tell but by the time I am sitting on the chair and my head position at MLP in relation to the rear speaker is about 45 degrees from head. Pic below better angle
> 
> Regardless, my question of the rear overheads being close to end of room and surrounds vs my front overheads being halfway in the room and halfway between my towers and MLP-in atmos at the moment are both set at “HEIGHTS”.
> By the pic and explanation, should the front overheads be designated as “TOPS”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would think you could set the fronts as top front and the rears as rear heights. At least give it a try and see if you like how it sounds. You could also try top front and top rear. Worst case, you try all three and end up switching back to front height and rear height setup.
Click to expand...

Im guessing if I changed the speaker designation of the overheads that I would have to run DIRAC (or any room correction) over again then?


----------



## m0j0

Chirosamsung said:


> Im guessing if I changed the speaker designation of the overheads that I would have to run DIRAC (or any room correction) over again then?



I can't speak to DIRAC, but I know when I have changed my designations on the Denon that I had to re-run Audyssey calibration.


----------



## sdurani

30th anniversary edition of the Civil War movie _'Glory'_ is due out on 4K UHD with re-mastered video (HDR10) new Atmos mix. Denzel won an Oscar for his role. Also has one of my favourite music scores (was originally available on vinyl and 96/24 DAD).


----------



## Legairre

Chirosamsung said:


> The pic is hard to tell but by the time I am sitting on the chair and my head position at MLP in relation to the rear speaker is about 45 degrees from head. Pic below better angle
> 
> Regardless, my question of the rear overheads being close to end of room and surrounds vs my front overheads being halfway in the room and halfway between my towers and MLP-in atmos at the moment are both set at “HEIGHTS”.
> By the pic and explanation, should the front overheads be designated as “TOPS”?


By tops I'm assuming you mean top middle? Your front Atmos speakers should be set as "FRONTS". Top middle would be over your head.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Legairre said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pic is hard to tell but by the time I am sitting on the chair and my head position at MLP in relation to the rear speaker is about 45 degrees from head. Pic below better angle
> 
> Regardless, my question of the rear overheads being close to end of room and surrounds vs my front overheads being halfway in the room and halfway between my towers and MLP-in atmos at the moment are both set at “HEIGHTS”.
> By the pic and explanation, should the front overheads be designated as “TOPS”?
> 
> 
> 
> By tops I'm assuming you mean top middle? Your front Atmos speakers should be set as "FRONTS". Top middle would be over your head.
Click to expand...

No-in atmos there are Front and back height designation or front and rear top designation. Not talking about middle.


----------



## Matt L

mtbdudex said:


> Similar to my current solid screen setup for center channel, the only thing I'd recommend is you pull that center channel closer to you as now it's getting edge diffraction from your what it's sitting on, that's not good and smears the dialog by reflections.
> Plus, consider to angle it up. Those 2 nearly free tweaks will improve your sound quality.
> 
> Old picture from, well 2008 when I was in build mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Matt, nice to put a avs name to someone I met last week at my home gtg.


Thanks, had an enjoyable time. I appreciate your suggestion of angeling the center speaker up a bit. Mine fires straight out and is moderately lower then the main channels, a little up angle might be worth a try. Thanks!


----------



## shpitz316

Hey everyone, I'm lost and need help fixing my Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup.

I followed the Dolby Atmos home theater installation guidelines and the attached schema, and prepared myself for a life changing home theater experience! but that wasn't the case. I have noticed two problems with my setup:
1. There isn't enough separation between the heights and therefore no feeling of a 360 degrees sound.
2. The surround speakers that behind me are way too dominant.

What should I do to fix these problems? Maybe changing speakers placement? Should I go with a front heights/surround heights setup instead?

I have 106' projection screen and a Denon X4500. I use 4 Polk OWM3 for ceiling speakers.

Thanks!


----------



## miketofani

shpitz316 said:


> Hey everyone, I'm lost and need help fixing my Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup.
> 
> I followed the Dolby Atmos home theater installation guidelines and the attached schema, and prepared myself for a life changing home theater experience! but that wasn't the case. I have noticed two problems with my setup:
> 1. There isn't enough separation between the heights and therefore no feeling of a 360 degrees sound.
> 2. The surround speakers that behind me are way too dominant.
> 
> What should I do to fix these problems? Maybe changing speakers placement? Should I go with a front heights/surround heights setup instead?
> 
> I have 106' projection screen and a Denon X4500. I use 4 Polk OWM3 for ceiling speakers.
> 
> Thanks!


There was some article on here that I read that states Atmos speakers are best spread apart 5' with the MLP in the center. Your Atmos speakers are angled down like height speakers. This is not correct. I too have wall mounted speakers but they are positioned 1' from the ceiling at an upward angle so that the sound bounces off the ceiling which somewhat simulates in-ceiling speakers. This is called dolby enabled and I select this option in my Onkyo 830. Granted, these are the cheap Onkyo speakers on Amazon for $80/pair. I don't have the funds for a +$400 full range set to have some discrete rain drops played through them and an occasional airplane flying overhead. My Onkyos nor the +$400 pairs are no substitution for in-ceiling speakers though. I assure you that I am not wowed by Dolby Atmos and much prefer DTS:X. I would probably change my mind if I had in ceiling speakers. I bet your setup would be great for DTS:X as well. If you feel that your rear channels are too loud, get a cheap $30 SPL meter off amazon, put on your discrete test tone option on your Denon, and even them out or suit to taste. My Onkyo pretty much nailed it during calibration right out of the gate including distance from speaker. I only had to adjust a couple speakers +/- .5dB. Like I said... I am not impressed with Atmos though due to the improper setup. I also recommend getting the Dolby Atmos demo bluray. I got a copy off ebay for $40. This will give you a better taste as to what Atmos can do and it will allow you to tune it in much better. I am old school. I miss the days when DD5.1 and DTS were the only options. My dvd player sounded sooooooooo much better than all these crazy options that we have today. 13.2.6???? ***** please... buy your wife something shiny instead. You will thank me in the long run.


----------



## stikle

shpitz316 said:


> Hey everyone, I'm lost and need help fixing my Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup.


Hello- I'll give you my opinion so at least you have something to ponder.



shpitz316 said:


> I followed the Dolby Atmos home theater installation guidelines and the attached schema, and prepared myself for a life changing home theater experience! but that wasn't the case.


That's truly a bummer! However, luckily with your speakers and mounts easily movable, it'll be just a little bit of your time to get things sounding much better.

Firstly, look at this Dolby diagram:










If you'll notice, the optimum placement for your overheads are at 45 & 135 degrees from the MLP.




shpitz316 said:


> 1. There isn't enough separation between the heights and therefore no feeling of a 360 degrees sound.


There you go...you already figured it out. Looking at your photo, your overheads are WAY too close together.

The speaker placement on your diagram vs the photo (real world) looks a bit different - both sets of your overheads are basically above the couch.

The first thing I would do is move the front pair of speakers much farther forward until you are more in the range of 45 degrees in front of the MLP and point them at the MLP. Then in your AVR, make sure you have your overheads set as Top Front Left/Right and Top Rear Left/Right. Finally, get out your AVR calibration microphone and re-run the room correction.

That alone should give you some different results that might be more pleasing to you and be good enough.










The second thing I would do, if it were my room, is do some further speaker placement adjustments...something along the lines of:










Bringing the overheads closer to the center of the room will expand the surround "bubble" because there's going to be more separation between the 4 overheads and your 5 bed layer speakers.

Disclaimer: I've never heard an Atmos setup where the overheads were against the side walls, so can't comment from direct experience. HOWEVER, that being said, that placement is outside of Dolby's "official" guidelines (but still might sound great). And if you think about it logically - when you are outside and a bird or plane goes overhead, the sound comes down from above, not from the upper sides where your speakers currently are. It will add to the realism if you can get the sound coming from where it's supposed to be.

Also, if you DO move the speakers inwards, be sure to aim them at the MLP. Those mounts you have are awesome for adjustments...I had the same ones in my old house.

This is the second house I've had an Atmos setup in, and with the overheads closer to the middle of the room, the sound placement is awesome. I JUST moved my overheads further in because I made a bad design decision with this room and I'm now very satisfied.



shpitz316 said:


> 2. The surround speakers that behind me are way too dominant.



If you still feel this way after moving speakers and re-running calibration, then feel free to go into the AVR settings and lower the levels of the surround speakers manually. This is your room, and it's up to you what sounds the best. The automatic calibrations that AVRs do isn't always perfect to one's ear...but I trust it more than I don't.

Remember to re-run the calibration sequence every time you move speakers.  If you're moving them inches, then I wouldn't bother. If you're moving them further than a foot, then definitely re-run it.





miketofani said:


> There was...


I'd recommend hitting enter once in a while to break up your posts. One long run-on paragraph is really hard to read!



miketofani said:


> I don't have the funds for a +$400 full range set to have some discrete rain drops played through them and an occasional airplane flying overhead.


I understand about the funding issue, but overhead Atmos speakers are used WAY more than just for some occasional rain or plane.



miketofani said:


> I assure you that I am not wowed by Dolby Atmos and much prefer DTS:X.


That's your opinion, and that's perfectly fine. I assure _you_ that I am very much wowed by Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer and will take them over DTS:X any day. DTS:X has been known to run more "hot" so it may sound more active to you and be what you prefer and there's nothing wrong with that.

When I started comparing the Dolby Atmos demos to DTS:X demos, for me it was no contest for the realism and immersion that Atmos provides.



miketofani said:


> If you feel that your rear channels are too loud, get a cheap $30 SPL meter off amazon, put on your discrete test tone option on your Denon, and even them out or suit to taste.



This is good advice. Something like this is what you would want. It's basically the same thing as the old standard Radio Shack SPL meter. You want an analog meter like this, and use the weighted C setting with a slow response.



miketofani said:


> Like I said... I am not impressed with Atmos though due to the improper setup.



I appreciate the fact that you are acknowledging setup issues as a culprit and are not just "RAH RAH DTS YAY!"  Although I _prefer_ Atmos, DTS:X also sounds quite good in my room. If you are able to rectify your setup issues, then maybe your opinion on Atmos will change. Or maybe you'll like DTS:X even more!




miketofani said:


> I also recommend getting the Dolby Atmos demo bluray.



This is also good advise as well, although some of the same demo content can be found for free such as the Leaf and Amaze clips on the Dolby web site or Nature's Fury on The Digital Theater site. Just copy them to a flash drive and play them from there.



miketofani said:


> buy your wife something shiny instead. You will thank me in the long run.



And for those of us that are single or have significant others that love the home theater experience as well...help your theater be all that it can be and enjoy every minute sitting in it!


----------



## johng

Have any of you ceiling mounted SVS Prime Elevations? If so, when you attach the speaker to the Mount, does the speaker slightly wobble? This is what I'm running into. There isn't enough distance between the mount and the ceiling to determine is the two posts attached to the speaker are correctly seated. Even putting the ceiling magnet piece in place does not get rid of this wobble? It seems like the speaker should not move once properly seated. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## sdurani

miketofani said:


> I too have wall mounted speakers but they are positioned 1' from the ceiling at an upward angle so that the sound bounces off the ceiling which somewhat simulates in-ceiling speakers. This is called dolby enabled...


No. Dolby Atmos enabled upfiring modules have psychoacoustic processing built into the crossover network of the speaker which gives the impression of sound coming from above. They're typically place around ear height, not close to the ceiling.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

stikle said:


> Hello- I'll give you my opinion so at least you have something to ponder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's truly a bummer! However, luckily with your speakers and mounts easily movable, it'll be just a little bit of your time to get things sounding much better.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, look at this Dolby diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'll notice, the optimum placement for your overheads are at 45 & 135 degrees from the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go...you already figured it out. Looking at your photo, your overheads are WAY too close together.
> 
> 
> 
> The speaker placement on your diagram vs the photo (real world) looks a bit different - both sets of your overheads are basically above the couch.
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing I would do is move the front pair of speakers much farther forward until you are more in the range of 45 degrees in front of the MLP and point them at the MLP. Then in your AVR, make sure you have your overheads set as Top Front Left/Right and Top Rear Left/Right. Finally, get out your AVR calibration microphone and re-run the room correction.
> 
> 
> 
> That alone should give you some different results that might be more pleasing to you and be good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second thing I would do, if it were my room, is do some further speaker placement adjustments...something along the lines of:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing the overheads closer to the center of the room will expand the surround "bubble" because there's going to be more separation between the 4 overheads and your 5 bed layer speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: I've never heard an Atmos setup where the overheads were against the side walls, so can't comment from direct experience. HOWEVER, that being said, that placement is outside of Dolby's "official" guidelines (but still might sound great). And if you think about it logically - when you are outside and a bird or plane goes overhead, the sound comes down from above, not from the upper sides where your speakers currently are. It will add to the realism if you can get the sound coming from where it's supposed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if you DO move the speakers inwards, be sure to aim them at the MLP. Those mounts you have are awesome for adjustments...I had the same ones in my old house.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the second house I've had an Atmos setup in, and with the overheads closer to the middle of the room, the sound placement is awesome. I JUST moved my overheads further in because I made a bad design decision with this room and I'm now very satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you still feel this way after moving speakers and re-running calibration, then feel free to go into the AVR settings and lower the levels of the surround speakers manually. This is your room, and it's up to you what sounds the best. The automatic calibrations that AVRs do isn't always perfect to one's ear...but I trust it more than I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember to re-run the calibration sequence every time you move speakers. If you're moving them inches, then I wouldn't bother. If you're moving them further than a foot, then definitely re-run it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd recommend hitting enter once in a while to break up your posts. One long run-on paragraph is really hard to read!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand about the funding issue, but overhead Atmos speakers are used WAY more than just for some occasional rain or plane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion, and that's perfectly fine. I assure _you_ that I am very much wowed by Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer and will take them over DTS:X any day. DTS:X has been known to run more "hot" so it may sound more active to you and be what you prefer and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> When I started comparing the Dolby Atmos demos to DTS:X demos, for me it was no contest for the realism and immersion that Atmos provides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is good advice. Something like this is what you would want. It's basically the same thing as the old standard Radio Shack SPL meter. You want an analog meter like this, and use the weighted C setting with a slow response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the fact that you are acknowledging setup issues as a culprit and are not just "RAH RAH DTS YAY!"  Although I _prefer_ Atmos, DTS:X also sounds quite good in my room. If you are able to rectify your setup issues, then maybe your opinion on Atmos will change. Or maybe you'll like DTS:X even more!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also good advise as well, although some of the same demo content can be found for free such as the Leaf and Amaze clips on the Dolby web site or Nature's Fury on The Digital Theater site. Just copy them to a flash drive and play them from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for those of us that are single or have significant others that love the home theater experience as well...help your theater be all that it can be and enjoy every minute sitting in it!




Agree with all this. 








This was my plan to markup the photo but got beat to the punch lol. It will help a lot.


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> Dolby Atmos enabled upfiring modules have psychoacoustic processing built into the crossover network of the speaker which gives the impression of sound coming from above.


I've read that too but I've always wondered what changes _does_ my AVR actually apply when I answer its setup question asking if my speakers are ceiling mounted or up firing. Do you know? Thanks in advance.


----------



## appelz

m. zillch said:


> I've read that too but I've always wondered what changes _does_ my AVR actually apply when I answer its setup question asking if my speakers are ceiling mounted or up firing. Do you know? Thanks in advance.


If your AVR has any sort of auto-magic room correction, then it won't try and correct the peak/dip. Well..shouldn't. I've seen behavior that suggested it was ignored.


----------



## shpitz316

stikle said:


> Hello- I'll give you my opinion so at least you have something to ponder.
> 
> 
> 
> That's truly a bummer! However, luckily with your speakers and mounts easily movable, it'll be just a little bit of your time to get things sounding much better.
> 
> Firstly, look at this Dolby diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'll notice, the optimum placement for your overheads are at 45 & 135 degrees from the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go...you already figured it out. Looking at your photo, your overheads are WAY too close together.
> 
> The speaker placement on your diagram vs the photo (real world) looks a bit different - both sets of your overheads are basically above the couch.
> 
> The first thing I would do is move the front pair of speakers much farther forward until you are more in the range of 45 degrees in front of the MLP and point them at the MLP. Then in your AVR, make sure you have your overheads set as Top Front Left/Right and Top Rear Left/Right. Finally, get out your AVR calibration microphone and re-run the room correction.
> 
> That alone should give you some different results that might be more pleasing to you and be good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second thing I would do, if it were my room, is do some further speaker placement adjustments...something along the lines of:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing the overheads closer to the center of the room will expand the surround "bubble" because there's going to be more separation between the 4 overheads and your 5 bed layer speakers.
> 
> Disclaimer: I've never heard an Atmos setup where the overheads were against the side walls, so can't comment from direct experience. HOWEVER, that being said, that placement is outside of Dolby's "official" guidelines (but still might sound great). And if you think about it logically - when you are outside and a bird or plane goes overhead, the sound comes down from above, not from the upper sides where your speakers currently are. It will add to the realism if you can get the sound coming from where it's supposed to be.
> 
> Also, if you DO move the speakers inwards, be sure to aim them at the MLP. Those mounts you have are awesome for adjustments...I had the same ones in my old house.
> 
> This is the second house I've had an Atmos setup in, and with the overheads closer to the middle of the room, the sound placement is awesome. I JUST moved my overheads further in because I made a bad design decision with this room and I'm now very satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you still feel this way after moving speakers and re-running calibration, then feel free to go into the AVR settings and lower the levels of the surround speakers manually. This is your room, and it's up to you what sounds the best. The automatic calibrations that AVRs do isn't always perfect to one's ear...but I trust it more than I don't.
> 
> Remember to re-run the calibration sequence every time you move speakers. If you're moving them inches, then I wouldn't bother. If you're moving them further than a foot, then definitely re-run it.


Thanks guys and thank you stikle for your informative response! I understand and accept everything you said in that post, but before I'm drilling more holes in my ceiling I want to try and defend my decisions with my current setup, using the Dolby Atmos guide, if that's ok 


Why my ceiling speakers are not closer to the center of the room: according to the atmos guide their width should be identical to the width of the main L/R speakers: _“The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees.”_

Why my ceiling speakers are so close to each other: _“It is best to keep the overhead arrangement centered, front to back, over the listening area, even if the front speakers and screen are at a greater distance than the surround speakers.”_ + the attached schema from my previous post. If I will move the top front speakers forward towards the screen I will not sit in the center of the arrangement as I cannot change the listener position. I will be closer to the top rear speakers.



miketofani said:


> Your Atmos speakers are angled down like height speakers. This is not correct.



 Why my ceiling speakers are angled, from the atmos guide: _“If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. _*For speakers with narrower dispersion patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary listening position.*”


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> No. Dolby Atmos enabled upfiring modules have psychoacoustic processing built into the crossover network of the speaker which gives the impression of sound coming from above. They're typically place around ear height, not close to the ceiling.





m. zillch said:


> I've read that too but I've always wondered what changes _does_ my AVR actually apply when I answer its setup question asking if my speakers are ceiling mounted or up firing. Do you know? Thanks in advance.


Interestingly, Sony suggests that their SS-CSE can be installed both like dolby enableds and front highs.
It makes me think, that any psychoaccustic processing gets to be done in AVR and not the speaker itself.


----------



## mrtickleuk

priitv8 said:


> Interestingly, Sony suggests that their SS-CSE can be installed both like dolby enableds and front highs.
> It makes me think, that any psychoaccustic processing gets to be done in AVR and not the speaker itself.


Interesting. That would seem to blow the lid off quite a scam. We've always been told that we needed these "special" speakers if we want to use the bouncy-house up-firing speakers. I've got old speakers lying around that I could have easily mounted at an angle to experiment with, and I'm sure other people do too.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Manufacturers can license & implement technologies from Dolby and DTS, but they cannot change those technologies. However, some manufacturers (e.g., Yamaha) let you store more than one speaker configuration preset, so the same 4 overhead speakers can be designated Heights in one preset and Tops in another preset. All you have to do is switch to the appropriate preset depending on whether you're watching DTS:X or Atmos source. Other manufacturers (e.g., Trinnov) have independent speaker set-up pages for Atmos and DTS:X and Auro), allowing you to designate the same speakers with whatever label makes the most sense for each format.


I wish D&M did the same. My ceiling speakers are properly positioned for both Atmos and DTS:X (7.x.4) and when playing the latter I go into the AVR and switch the config to Heights. it only takes a moment but it is still irritating. Fortunately, I am using outboard Dirac Live RC and not Audyssey. If using Audyssey I would lose all my RC when switching the speaker designation, which for most would make that a no-no I am guessing, so they have a compromised experience with DTS:X. I say with DTS:X since I assume that most will config for Atmos as Atmos discs are far more widespread than DTS:X.

I know you know all this Sanjay and we have discussed it many times entre-nous - I am just throwing it out there for anyone who might be interested.


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> Hey guys, have a side question. Has anyone heard from Keith? I haven’t seen anything for a looong time from him. He was always very active.
> Just wondering. Hope he’s ok.


Hi - thanks for the concern! I am fit and well and lurking here but not contributing too much ATM. I have come out of retirement for a couple of days a week and am working on an exciting and large project for which I was headhunted (I have a very particular set of skills LOL). This is taking a fair bit of my time, and with my other hobby of cycling, now the weather is getting better, I am fairly busy. I still watch a movie almost every day though in the Cowshed Cinema


----------



## ofaisalo

need help here please I have HT-S9800THX 7.1

this is a scheme for HT room









*I mean seating area not setting*

my question is what is the best setup to get both Dolby atmos and 7.1 experience 
and sadly I can't put any speaker on ceiling so I only have sidewalls
I really need a help

---------
I can invest with 1300$ for improvement to change speakers or av but not the hole system


----------



## sdurani

ofaisalo said:


> I can't put any speaker on ceiling so I only have sidewalls


How about front & back walls?


----------



## m. zillch

mrtickleuk said:


> Interesting. That would seem to blow the lid off quite a scam.


My original take was, "Oh, this Sony speaker must have a switch on it so you can either use, or bypass, the HRTF EQ circuit in the crossover depending on if you use it for bouncy house applications or direct fire" but I see no mention of a switch in the manual.
---


My gut feeling is that bouncy house technology in general is a huge quality loss compared to direct firing tops [the only variety ever used in commercial Atmos cinemas I might add], especially for listeners with ears that don't neatly fall into the "one size fits all" HRTF EQ they use. Here's an example of how the pinna alters the curves [not Dolby Atmos] of the HRTF of many individuals overlapped with the white line showing the average they end up using. Notice many individuals are as much as _10dB different or more_ at some frequencies because no two people have the exact same ear shape:








From: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18097

I also find the claim that keen eared listeners don't hear any direct sound from their Dolby Enabled speakers sitting atop their front towers and instead "only" hear the bounced component rather dubious. The sound of such speakers is like a flood light, not a spotlight you can aim like a laser beam, at least at many frequencies.


----------



## ofaisalo

sdurani said:


> How about front & back walls?


yeah I can do that
but the front wall area are limited as you can see


----------



## sdurani

ofaisalo said:


> yeah I can do that but the front wall area are limited as you can see


Can you place a pair of speakers as high up as possible above the Front L/R speakers (and directly opposite them on the back wall)? That will be a Front Height + Rear Height configuration and should provide good phantom imaging right above your seating location.


----------



## am2model3

I watched and listened to Star Wars despecialized last night. It looked incredible; and the 5ch sound to DSU AtmosUpmix was also a delight! 5.1.4.


----------



## priitv8

I might crack my SS-CSE open and take a peek inside 


m. zillch said:


> My gut feeling is that bouncy house technology in general is a huge quality loss compared to direct firing tops [the only variety ever used in commercial Atmos cinemas I might add], especially for listeners with ears that don't neatly fall into the "one size fits all" HRTF EQ they use. Here's an example of how the pinna alters the curves [not Dolby Atmos] of the HRTF of many individuals overlapped with the white line showing the average they end up using. Notice many individuals are as much as _10dB different or more_ at some frequencies because no two people have the exact same ear shape:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18097
> 
> I also find the claim that keen eared listeners don't hear any direct sound from their Dolby Enabled speakers sitting atop their front towers and instead "only" hear the bounced component rather dubious. The sound of such speakers is like a flood light, not a spotlight you can aim like a laser beam, at least at many frequencies.


Dolby themselves paint a very similar picture in their patent application:


----------



## m. zillch

priitv8 said:


> Dolby themselves paint a very similar picture in their patent application:


Just to clarify, the image I posted was the only one I could find in doing a quick google search which showed how the average HRTF of some (unknown to me) particular direction (white curve) was only very generally representative of the average for that direction for _dozens_ of people tested (black curves). Dolby's curve is obviously to make the speaker seem like it is "above" whereas the one I posted could have been from any number of directions, I'm not sure which since I didn't read that particular study although I have others. 
--

A bunch of curves for a bunch of directions is shown here, below, for either one particular ear they tested or it is the averaged curves they settled on from having tested many different ears and settling on one "this size fits all" curve:


m. zillch said:


> Our HRTF [head related transfer function] varies greatly by individual largely due to the unique size and shape of our pinna, our outer ear, and to a lesser extent our head and even torsos.


In my own experience having used (and sold) products which rely on HRTF curves to give the user a sense of direction, they don't do very well for many listeners unless the listener's ears just _happens_ to be close to the average curve used for that product. Much better are the products which attempt to give the listener a choice of different curves through an initial test calibration mode and the best are ones which actually test the individual through a lengthy process many customers don't like having to trudge through [takes ~20-30 minutes].


----------



## dfa973

shpitz316 said:


> 2. The surround speakers that behind me are way too dominant.
> 
> I have 106' projection screen and a Denon X4500. I use 4 Polk OWM3 for ceiling speakers.


2. This problem is generated by the Audyssey Dynamic EQ feature that is enabled by default. You have some solutions:

a. Disable Dynamic EQ - but you lose some nice loudness in the lower end of the spectrum when the volume is lower than reference.

b. For every 5dB below reference, decrease surrounds volume by 1dB, so if you listen for example on average with the volume at -30db, you must decrease the surrounds by 6dB


----------



## ofaisalo

sdurani said:


> Can you place a pair of speakers as high up as possible above the Front L/R speakers (and directly opposite them on the back wall)? That will be a Front Height + Rear Height configuration and should provide good phantom imaging right above your seating location.


so what speakers should I sacrifice the rear or the side speakers


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ofaisalo said:


> so what speakers should I sacrifice the rear or the side speakers




Rear.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi - thanks for the concern! I am fit and well and lurking here but not contributing too much ATM. I have come out of retirement for a couple of days a week and am working on an exciting and large project for which I was headhunted (I have a very particular set of skills LOL). This is taking a fair bit of my time, and with my other hobby of cycling, now the weather is getting better, I am fairly busy. I still watch a movie almost every day though in the Cowshed Cinema




Hey Keith, glad to hear your well. I just happened to notice your absence, from this thread especially where you’re always so vocal and helpful. Also glad you’re distracted with something positive, happy for you.


----------



## shpitz316

Hey guys, one last time before I'm making the change!

Based on your suggestion I came up with this plan:









There are two question marks with my plan:
1. I want to move the top rear right speaker further to the center than what suggested here, because I really don't want it to be above the entrance of the room. As a result, there is going to be only a small space between the speakers (this time Rtr/Ltr). Is it going to be a problem?
2. I'm trying to follow the 45 degrees recommendation, and that will make the top front speakers a bit far from what was suggested, therefore making the MLP not in the center of the top speakers arrangement. Will that work or should I move the front speakers closer to MLP?

thanks again!


----------



## dfa973

shpitz316 said:


> 2. I'm trying to follow the 45 degrees recommendation, and that will make the top front speakers a bit far from what was suggested, therefore making the MLP not in the center of the top speakers arrangement.


The last diagram is not very good, because:

1. The distance between the Top Front and Top Rear do not seem to cater to the Dolby recommended angles;
2. The lateral distance between the Top Left and Right speakers is too small, you may as well put just one speaker, the effect will be the same... waste of time and money...
3. You really need to get *closer* to the Dolby recommended horizontal (for bed speakers) and vertical (Top speakers) angles. No need to get "perfect" angles, but closer - the last diagram is NOT "closer"... but weird - to be kind... Atmos is forgiving but that diagram is just wrong!!!
4. Respecting angles is more important than anything, even if you must deviate a little because of the room/furniture/whatever.

Of course, you can do whatever you want in your room...


----------



## shpitz316

dfa973 said:


> The last diagram is not very good, because:
> 
> 1. The distance between the Top Front and Top Rear do not seem to cater to the Dolby recommended angles;
> 2. The lateral distance between the Top Left and Right speakers is too small, you may as well put just one speaker, the effect will be the same... waste of time and money...
> 3. You really need to get *closer* to the Dolby recommended horizontal (for bed speakers) and vertical (Top speakers) angles. No need to get "perfect" angles, but closer - the last diagram is NOT "closer"... but weird - to be kind... Atmos is forgiving but that diagram is just wrong!!!
> 4. Respecting angles is more important than anything, even if you must deviate a little because of the room/furniture/whatever.
> 
> Of course, you can do whatever you want in your room...


I think I get it now.

From looking at the diagram I thought that 45 degrees are elevation degrees:









If the 45 degrees should based on X/Y axis then obviously my diagram is totally wrong.


----------



## sdurani

shpitz316 said:


> From looking at the diagram I thought that 45 degrees are elevation degrees:


They are: 45 degrees above eye level, forward and rearward of the listener. Easy way to figure that out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward and rearward of you on the ceiling is 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## Onward74

shpitz316 said:


> Hey everyone, I'm lost and need help fixing my Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 setup.


It looks to me from the picture that you have bare (hard/reflective) walls? In my living room 5.1.2 Atmos setup I needed to tame the first reflections from both the front and rear speakers before I got enough separation for Atmos to work.

Try treating the room first, a quick test would be taping blankets on the rear and side walls.


----------



## Augerhandle

mrtickleuk said:


> Interesting. That would seem to blow the lid off quite a scam. We've always been told that we needed these "special" speakers if we want to use the bouncy-house up-firing speakers. I've got old speakers lying around that I could have easily mounted at an angle to experiment with, and I'm sure other people do too.





m. zillch said:


> ...I also find the claim that keen eared listeners don't hear any direct sound from their Dolby Enabled speakers sitting atop their front towers and instead "only" hear the bounced component rather dubious. The sound of such speakers is like a flood light, not a spotlight you can aim like a laser beam, at least at many frequencies.



There at least three things that make up-firing Dolby speakers special.

1. They are angled in an upward direction, so are physically off-axis to the listener.


2. They are crossed at 150 Hz and above, which increases the "beaming" effect, also reducing off-axis response.


3. The grilles are designed to reduce off-axis pathways to the listener. 
ELAC has a center tweeter surrounded by a cup shaped grille, which reduces off-axis pathways. The Sonys have a plastic barrier on the listener's side of the grill which deflects 
off-axis sound away from the listener (with an admonishment in the directions that as a Dolby speaker, it is designed to work with the grille attached).


B. I haven't checked, but I assume there is also some crossover magic happening inside the speaker as well. EDIT: yeah, there is. priitv8 cracked his open (see his pictures further down the page).


----------



## m. zillch

Augerhandle said:


> There at least three things that make up-firing Dolby speakers special.
> 
> 1. They are angled in an upward direction, so are physically off-axis to the listener.
> 
> 
> 2. They are crossed at 150 Hz and above, which increases the "beaming" effect, also reducing off-axis response.
> 
> 
> 3. The grilles are designed to reduce off-axis pathways to the listener.
> ELAC has a center tweeter surrounded by a cup shaped grille, which reduces off-axis pathways. The Sonys have a plastic barrier on the listener's side of the grill which deflects
> off-axis sound away from the listener (with an admonishment in the directions that as a Dolby speaker, it is designed to work with the grille attached).
> 
> 
> B. I haven't checked, but I assume there is also some crossover magic happening inside the speaker as well.


And if this all "works without issue for all listeners" then why don't commercial cinemas use the same methodology?


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> And if this all "works without issue for all listeners" then why don't commercial cinemas use the same methodology?


I don't know about "works without issue for all listeners", but cinemas have 20-30 ft. ceilings. If I had 20 ft. ceilings, I would go with overhead as well. For the masses with 8 ft. ceilings, up-firing is a great compromise, well thought out by Dolby enginears.


----------



## m. zillch

^HA! 



m. zillch said:


> Just to clarify, the image I posted was the only one I could find in doing a quick google search which showed how the average HRTF of some (unknown to me) particular direction (white curve) was only very generally representative of the average for that direction for _dozens_ of people tested (black curves). Dolby's curve is obviously to make the speaker seem like it is "above" whereas the one I posted could have been from any number of directions, I'm not sure which since I didn't read that particular study although I have others. . . . .
> . . .In my own experience having used (and sold) products which rely on HRTF curves to give the user a sense of direction, they don't do very well for many listeners unless the listener's ears just _happens_ to be close to the average curve used for that product. Much better are the products which attempt to give the listener a choice of different curves through an initial test calibration mode and the best are ones which actually test the individual through a lengthy process many customers don't like having to trudge through [takes ~20-30 minutes].


Another issue I see with this " EQ it with the HRTF curve for 'above' and presto-change-oh: the sound will float from above" approach is it assumes that these will be very accurate speakers, which also aren't altered by room acoustics other than this magical, laser beam focused single bounce off the ceiling, which of course reflects all frequencies evenly without altering the tone, regardless of building material, and simultaneous sound from another speaker won't cause any comb filtered artifacts to also mess up the HRTF EQ curve.


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> ^HA!
> 
> 
> 
> Another issue I see with this " EQ it with the HRTF curve for 'above' and presto-change-oh: the sound will float from above" approach is it assumes that these will be very accurate speakers, which also aren't altered by room acoustics other than this magical, laser beam focused single bounce off the ceiling, which of course reflects all frequencies evenly without altering the tone, regardless of building material, and simultaneous sound from another speaker won't cause any comb filtered artifacts to also mess up the HRTF EQ curve.


I have a feeling that there are algorithms involved that give directional cues with the Dolby ATMOS speakers, while filling in the rest with the more capable speakers in the system. I use the ELACs up front, and (because I caught them on sale) the Sonys in back. There's no "in your face, OMG there's sound from the heavens" effect (similar to my first 5.1 surround sound experience, in which I ran my surrounds too hot), but there's definitely more immersion into movies. It doesn't sound "special", but sounds "real", as it would/should sound in real life. I like it.


----------



## m. zillch

I would think the definite test to see if the bounce/HRTF manipulation magic works for a particular listener would be to sit in the MLP and turn on the unit's manual calibration mode: When the modified pink noise signal comes around and hits the Dolby Enabled speaker does the listener hear it as "Wow, I'd swear there's a speaker on the ceiling!", a general diffuse sound, or do they perceive it as coming from where the Dolby Enabled speaker _actually_ sits.


----------



## Augerhandle

The definite test is to watch the Dolby Amaze demo, and be wowed when the bird's wings flutter past your left ear (no speaker there), circle behind you to the right, then cross overhead and fly out the window.


----------



## batpig

m. zillch said:


> And if this all "works without issue for all listeners" then why don't commercial cinemas use the same methodology?


That there is a fine strawman....



m. zillch said:


> I would think the definite test to see if the bounce/HRTF manipulation magic works for a particular listener would be to sit in the MLP and turn on the unit's manual calibration mode: When the modified pink noise signal comes around and hits the Dolby Enabled speaker does the listener hear it as "Wow, I'd swear there's a speaker on the ceiling!", a general diffuse sound, or do they perceive it as coming from where the Dolby Enabled speaker _actually_ sits.


I've tried it, both with pink noise and just using the "Dolby Enabled" speakers as fronts playing 2ch music. 

The answer is "all three" depending on the relative positioning of the speaker vs. listener. If it's wrong, it sounds like the speakers are in front of you but sort of diffuse and "smeared" upwards. But you start moving around, lean forward, sit on the floor a few feet in front of the couch, etc. you'll hear when it "snaps" into place. When that happens, your brain is fooled into perceiving it as a pair of slightly diffuse in-ceiling speakers, the sound absolutely sounds like it's coming from above.

Unfortunately this also showed me how "fragile" the effect is. When it works it can sound pretty convincingly "above" and you can see how listeners in early demos actually preferred the bounce sound because of the more diffuse / enveloping overhead sound -- especially so with shorter ceilings where direct-firing overheads placed only a few feet away can hot-spot and/or have difficulty covering the listening area evenly due to insufficient dispersion and the extreme angles.

That said, I have physical overhead speakers in my room. I started with Top Middle, and then added a forward pair of overheads (which I label as Front Height but are probably closer to a Top Front position). My ceilings are slightly lower than 8ft, and I always found the Top Middles (which are near the ends of the couch and about 1ft forward of the listeners ears) to be distracting / hot-spotty with heavy overhead effects due to their proximity. Even reducing their level by 3-4dB they still tend to overwhelm the front overheads. 

I've always been meaning to add rear overheads but inertia and limited time is hard to overcome... but recently I committed a strong Atmos sin and am not ashamed to say I liked it. My Top Middle speakers are these Niles dual-tweeter models that can toggle between bipole and dipole operation. I always used them in bipole mode because that "no-dipoles" is such Atmos doctrine, but the other week I flipped the switch to dipole mode and it has actually been a nice improvement. They now sound more diffuse and "blurred" but this makes them blend in more seamlessly and they no longer hot spot or overwhelm the FH speakers. 

So the point of this aside in a discussion of "Dolby Enabled" speakers is to add more evidence to the idea that with a typical domestic ceiling height (7.5-8ft) physical overhead speakers can be TOO direct, so it's not insane to think that (assuming the listener geometry is favorable) they might actually be preferred in certain rooms.


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> Unfortunately this also showed me how "fragile" the effect is.


But if you sit on the left side of the couch, lean to your front right 6 degrees, squint your right eye, and raise your left foot 6 inches: _BAM!_ It gels perfectly.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> m. zillch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if this all "works without issue for all listeners" then why don't commercial cinemas use the same methodology?
> 
> 
> 
> That there is a fine strawman....
> 
> 
> 
> m. zillch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the definite test to see if the bounce/HRTF manipulation magic works for a particular listener would be to sit in the MLP and turn on the unit's manual calibration mode: When the modified pink noise signal comes around and hits the Dolby Enabled speaker does the listener hear it as "Wow, I'd swear there's a speaker on the ceiling!", a general diffuse sound, or do they perceive it as coming from where the Dolby Enabled speaker _actually_ sits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've tried it, both with pink noise and just using the "Dolby Enabled" speakers as fronts playing 2ch music.
> 
> The answer is "all three" depending on the relative positioning of the speaker vs. listener. If it's wrong, it sounds like the speakers are in front of you but sort of diffuse and "smeared" upwards. But you start moving around, lean forward, sit on the floor a few feet in front of the couch, etc. you'll hear when it "snaps" into place. When that happens, your brain is fooled into perceiving it as a pair of slightly diffuse in-ceiling speakers, the sound absolutely sounds like it's coming from above.
> 
> Unfortunately this also showed me how "fragile" the effect is. When it works it can sound pretty convincingly "above" and you can see how listeners in early demos actually preferred the bounce sound because of the more diffuse / enveloping overhead sound -- especially so with shorter ceilings where direct-firing overheads placed only a few feet away can hot-spot and/or have difficulty covering the listening area evenly due to insufficient dispersion and the extreme angles.
> 
> That said, I have physical overhead speakers in my room. I started with Top Middle, and then added a forward pair of overheads (which I label as Front Height but are probably closer to a Top Front position). My ceilings are slightly lower than 8ft, and I always found the Top Middles (which are near the ends of the couch and about 1ft forward of the listeners ears) to be distracting / hot-spotty with heavy overhead effects due to their proximity. Even reducing their level by 3-4dB they still tend to overwhelm the front overheads.
> 
> I've always been meaning to add rear overheads but inertia and limited time is hard to overcome... but recently I committed a strong Atmos sin and am not ashamed to say I liked it. My Top Middle speakers are these Niles dual-tweeter models that can toggle between bipole and dipole operation. I always used them in bipole mode because that "no-dipoles" is such Atmos doctrine, but the other week I flipped the switch to dipole mode and it has actually been a nice improvement. They now sound more diffuse and "blurred" but this makes them blend in more seamlessly and they no longer hot spot or overwhelm the FH speakers.
> 
> So the point of this aside in a discussion of "Dolby Enabled" speakers is to add more evidence to the idea that with a typical domestic ceiling height (7.5-8ft) physical overhead speakers can be TOO direct, so it's not insane to think that (assuming the listener geometry is favorable) they might actually be preferred in certain rooms.
Click to expand...

That’s very unusual. I have 4 monopoles in my 5.1.4 setup and only 7.25 feet ceilings and no hot spotting whatsoever. Sounds great and accurate .


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> But you start moving around, lean forward, sit on the floor a few feet in front of the couch, etc. you'll hear when it "snaps" into place.


Likely the location where you are in-line with the ceiling first reflection points. You can make your MLP that location by rotating and tilting the upfiring modules so that they're hitting the ceiling first reflection points. Not hard to do with pink noise and a SPL meter.


> When that happens, your brain is fooled into perceiving it as a pair of slightly diffuse in-ceiling speakers, the sound absolutely sounds like it's coming from above.


Yup, my experience as well. The half dozen or so examples I've heard not only placed sounds above, but also gave vertical phantom imaging (sounds floating between ear height and ceiling). Curious to hear how their upcoming height virtualizer will compare.


> I always used them in bipole mode because that "no-dipoles" is such Atmos doctrine, but the other week I flipped the switch to dipole mode and it has actually been a nice improvement.


You're not alone. Atlantic Technology recommends using their in-ceiling dipoles surrounds for height speaker duties, citing wide dispersion, lack of hot-spotting and pleasingly diffuse sound.


----------



## Wflagg

I've been in a number of homes/environments with various atmos configs. Personal preferences for single person listening is speakers pointed at the main listening position.  Gives a very VERY accurate sound feild, but breaks once you move outside of the main listening position. Work great even in non standard acoustic situations. Ceiling mounted speakers pointing down are a bit more diffuse. Pros: much larger sweet spot, Cons: Directionality of the sounds is slightly less accurate. Best choice if your going to have a a theater room for a bunch of people (more than 3?).

The dolby enabled speakers are something altogether different. Fist i hate them on principle of their name, less involved people frequently think that because they have the name they are the only ones that work with atmos sound. Second, there are some minor differences to try an focus the beam before the bounce. I have managed to get a decent approximation of their sound using a bookshelf at an angle, with some cardboard to block sound from going direct to the listener. Perfect? No. Ugly? very. It did prove a point i was trying to make to someone.

As for their actual sound, its a bit weird. In an ideal setup room, they can have excellent sound, somewhere between directed and ceiling mounted speakers. If your room already happens to be an ideal setup for them, they are a great, easy, low effort way to add atmos to the room. If your room is not idealy setup for them, they sound awful.without an ideal roof and evenly shaped room to properly focus the bounce, the sound field breaks down very fast


TL;DR When the shape of the room is already perfect, Dolby Enabled speakers sound awesome, when its not, they sound awful.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> That’s very unusual. I have 4 monopoles in my 5.1.4 setup and only 7.25 feet ceilings and no hot spotting whatsoever. Sounds great and accurate .


There's a lot of variables at play here, my experience won't be the same as everyone else's. Are two of your speakers directly above you? Or are they several feet forward / rearward?


----------



## dfa973

batpig said:


> That said, I have physical overhead speakers in my room. I started with Top Middle, and then added a forward pair of overheads (which I label as Front Height but are probably closer to a Top Front position). My ceilings are slightly lower than 8ft, and I always found the Top Middles (which are near the ends of the couch and about 1ft forward of the listeners ears) to be distracting / hot-spotty with heavy overhead effects due to their proximity. Even reducing their level by 3-4dB they still tend to overwhelm the front overheads.


You have about the same setup that I want to do: ~ 8 feet ceiling, TM + FH/TF
Questions: 
1. Are you pleased with that "hybrid", non-standard setup?
2. What is the actual assignment of the "top front" speakers that you like most? FH or TF? 
3. The TM physical speakers are assigned as TM or do you use another assignment for them? 
4. When you have a DTS:X soundtrack, how the setup works? Do you change the speaker's assignments for DTS:X?

Thanks!


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s very unusual. I have 4 monopoles in my 5.1.4 setup and only 7.25 feet ceilings and no hot spotting whatsoever. Sounds great and accurate .
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of variables at play here, my experience won't be the same as everyone else's. Are two of your speakers directly above you? Or are they several feet forward / rearward?
Click to expand...

This is one angle of them-sounds great


----------



## shpitz316

Onward74 said:


> It looks to me from the picture that you have bare (hard/reflective) walls? In my living room 5.1.2 Atmos setup I needed to tame the first reflections from both the front and rear speakers before I got enough separation for Atmos to work.
> 
> Try treating the room first, a quick test would be taping blankets on the rear and side walls.


I think that you're right. After changing the speakers arrangement like suggested here, I'm having a hard time recognizing which sound is coming from the ceiling and which from the surround speakers. Everything just sounds "left" or "right".

Do I need to tape blankets anywhere on rear and side walls or should I do that in is a specific place in the wall?


----------



## Onward74

shpitz316 said:


> I think that you're right. After changing the speakers arrangement like suggested here, I'm having a hard time recognizing which sound is coming from the ceiling and which from the surround speakers. Everything just sounds "left" or "right".
> 
> Do I need to tape blankets anywhere on rear and side walls or should I do that in is a specific place in the wall?


There is what is called the "Mirror Trick", but I gotta admit just eyeballed it 

Read this for tons of good info: http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/reflection-free-zone/#mirror-trick


----------



## johng

m. zillch said:


> And if this all "works without issue for all listeners" then why don't commercial cinemas use the same methodology?


They don't. Having been a part owner of a couple of "THX certified" motion picture theaters, and also being a home theater enthusiast, I can confirm that the methods for setting up sound in a commercial theater are very, very different than a home theater set-up. Much of the difference is the size of the auditorium. Though some multi-plex cinemas featured glorified "screening rooms", even those smaller venues are much larger than the average home theater. A properly built commercial cinema also has factored in the room acoustics and deployed materials to account for it. Many more speakers are used, and the ceiling height is usually 20 feet or greater. That was one of the reasons why LucasFilm, when they still owned "THX", had a Commercial THX Division, and a separate THX Home Theater Division. Different approaches, different training, different equipment. 

Having said that, I'm not a fan of the "ceiling bounce" approach for the simple reason that not every ceiling is built the same way, with the same materials, or even shapes. In my HT Room, the ceiling is flat, but partly covered with black satin black-out cloth wrapped around 3/4" thick sound board. The rest of the ceiling is standard wall board, but deeply textured (I hate the stuff because it takes 2x the paint to cover it). Speakers designed to use the "bounce" effect will be heavily impacted by the ceiling. IMHO, if you don't want to cut into the ceiling your best bet is to mount speakers on the ceiling or on the side walls at the junction of the walls and ceiling, and angled to fire directly to the prime listening position.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

dfa973 said:


> 2. This problem is generated by the Audyssey Dynamic EQ feature that is enabled by default. You have some solutions:
> 
> a. Disable Dynamic EQ - but you lose some nice loudness in the lower end of the spectrum when the volume is lower than reference.
> 
> b. For every 5dB below reference, decrease surrounds volume by 1dB, so if you listen for example on average with the volume at -30db, you must decrease the surrounds by 6dB



Just wanted to say thanks for point # 2 a. Living in a condo I've almost always used Dynamic Eq but always thought it merely reduced the level differences between the quiet and loud sounds . I had no idea it also cooked the rear surrounds. With my sofa and rear speakers up against a back wall, the rears always overpowered the front. Now that I've disabled Dynamic EQ, the soundstage has snapped into place significantly and I swear I'm hearing subtle sounds I missed before. It just sounds "right" . Thanks again !


----------



## batpig

bobbyhollywood said:


> Just wanted to say thanks for point # 2 a. Living in a condo I've almost always used Dynamic Eq but always thought it merely reduced the level differences between the quiet and loud sounds


It doesn't even do that. That's Dynamic Volume, not Dynamic EQ. FYI


----------



## priitv8

priitv8 said:


> I might crack my SS-CSE open and take a peek inside


So I did. They are quite packed inside. But I am not sure if this filter can create a +3dB response at 7kHz.
Parts list: https://sony.encompass.com/model/SONSSCSE


----------



## m. zillch

priitv8 said:


> So I did. They are quite packed inside. But I am not sure if this filter can create a +3dB response at 7kHz.
> Parts list: https://sony.encompass.com/model/SONSSCSE


Thanks for opening it. 
Since this is a one way speaker this tells us the electronics inside are not used to separate highs from lows for a tweet and woof, so I'd say "yes" there are enough parts for building a dedicated EQ of choice.

Weird they use a bucking magnet on the main magnet. This is traditionally to suck the magnetic field back in so it doesn't escape and distort the image of one's CRT if the speaker is placed on top of it, but how many people in this day and age still uses CRTs? OK, some, but it seems like they are adding an expense to their design I'm guessing 99.9% of their customers have no need for. [Maybe they are just using up their inventory they stocked up on a decade or two ago when such things mattered to more folks.]


----------



## Augerhandle

Well it does sit directly on top of a surround speaker, and in many cases that is just inches away from the surround drivers.


----------



## chi_guy50

Well, will wonders never cease?

Tonight we watched the excellent _Blindspotting_, a rap-infused ode to the street culture in Oakland, CA.

Our Blu-ray was a Lionsgate rental from Netflix and, lo and behold, it turned out to be the unadulterated retail version with an Atmos soundtrack and the complete complement of extra features. (N.B.: The Netflix product page lists the audio as DTS-HD MA.)

Could this be a portent of more good things to come from Lionsgate?


----------



## awblackmon

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, will wonders never cease?
> 
> Tonight we watched the excellent _Blindspotting_, a rap-infused ode to the street culture in Oakland, CA.
> 
> Our Blu-ray was a Lionsgate rental from Netflix and, lo and behold, it turned out to be the unadulterated retail version with an Atmos soundtrack and the complete complement of extra features. (N.B.: The Netflix product page lists the audio as DTS-HD MA.)
> 
> Could this be a portent of more good things to come from Lionsgate?



I hope so. I have resorted to renting any Lionsgate media from a local Video rental place that is still in business despite Redbox and streaming. He does not buy his discs from any distributor that ends up dumbing down any audio tracks. He buys full on retail and rental customers get the full audio experience when they rent discs from him. Sometimes I have to rent the 4K Blu-ray if he has purchased that for rental if the standard Blu-ray did not offer Atmos. He charges a bit more but it is worth it. I am glad he is there and will sorely miss him if he closes up shop.


----------



## chi_guy50

awblackmon said:


> I hope so. I have resorted to renting any Lionsgate media from a local Video rental place that is still in business despite Redbox and streaming. He does not buy his discs from any distributor that ends up dumbing down any audio tracks. He buys full on retail and rental customers get the full audio experience when they rent discs from him. Sometimes I have to rent the 4K Blu-ray if he has purchased that for rental if the standard Blu-ray did not offer Atmos. He charges a bit more but it is worth it. I am glad he is there and will sorely miss him if he closes up shop.



Another source for disc rental is 3D-Blurayrental.com, which only stocks the unadulterated retail version of their discs. You can take out a monthly subscription (starting at $8.99 for two discs per month) or rent ad hoc (individual discs starting at $2.99 and ranging up to $7.99 or more for special titles). Just like with Netflix, all prices include two-way USPS shipping. I have been using them for years for UHD BRD and the occasional BRD.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> Another source for disc rental is 3D-Blurayrental.com, which only stocks the unadulterated retail version of their discs. You can take out a monthly subscription (starting at $8.99 for two discs per month) or rent ad hoc (individual discs starting at $2.99 and ranging up to $7.99 or more for special titles). Just like with Netflix, all prices include two-way USPS shipping. I have been using them for years for UHD BRD and the occasional BRD.


Does anyone know of any disc rental services in the UK? Netflix have shut down their disc rental here; what I consider to be their core business


----------



## Lesmor

mrtickleuk said:


> Does anyone know of any disc rental services in the UK? Netflix have shut down their disc rental here; what I consider to be their core business


Cinemaparadiso rent discs in the UK

https://www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

If this news is already well known, please forgive, but I wanted to say that Francis Ford Coppola's epic *Apocalypse Now* is getting all _three_ cuts fully restored from the OCN's and released in 4k with a brand new supervised *Dolby Atmos* mix that includes new frequency encoding techniques by Meyer Sound dubbed "Sensual Sound" for a trippier experience. We'll soon hear what that's all about.  Re-mastering of the original analog sound files for Dolby Atmos mixing prep was accomplished at *24 bit/96 kHz*. 



This is all under the auspices of Coppola's American Zoetrope productions. Video mastering and HDR grading was done in *12 bit Dolby Vision* for the cinema and UHD Blu-ray. 



_Apocalypse Now: Final Cut_ was shown at the Cannes Film Festival. It's a kind of half-way cut between Redux and the Theatrical version, though again all three versions will be available in 4k on disc.


----------



## deano86

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, will wonders never cease?
> 
> Tonight we watched the excellent _Blindspotting_, a rap-infused ode to the street culture in Oakland, CA.
> 
> Our Blu-ray was a Lionsgate rental from Netflix and, lo and behold, it turned out to be the unadulterated retail version with an Atmos soundtrack and the complete complement of extra features. (N.B.: The Netflix product page lists the audio as DTS-HD MA.)
> 
> Could this be a portent of more good things to come from Lionsgate?


n

I don't know about Netflix, but I rent a lot from Redbox and Lionsgate titles from there have been including the original Atmos tracks for quite some time now it seems...whereas they too obviously suffered from the "down-resing" of the audio soundtracks. Seems like indeed Lionsgate has at least backed off on that ridiculous policy of having separate audio versions manufactured just for rental purposes.....


----------



## jazzrock

Dan Hitchman said:


> If this news is already well know, please forgive, but I wanted to say that Francis Ford Coppola's epic *Apocalypse Now* is getting all _three_ cuts fully restored from the OCN's and released in 4k with a brand new supervised *Dolby Atmos* mix that includes new frequency encoding techniques by Meyer Sound dubbed "Sensual Sound" for a trippier experience. We'll soon hear what that's all about.  Re-mastering of the original analog sound files for Dolby Atmos mixing prep was accomplished at *24 bit/96 kHz*.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all under the auspices of Coppola's American Zoetrope productions. Video mastering and HDR grading was done in *12 bit Dolby Vision* for the cinema and UHD Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> _Apocalypse Now: Final Cut_ was shown at the Cannes Film Festival. It's a kind of half-way cut between Redux and the Theatrical version, though again all three versions will be available in 4k on disc.



Thx for the great details. Happen to know expected release date?


----------



## gwsat

Dan Hitchman said:


> If this news is already well know, please forgive, but I wanted to say that Francis Ford Coppola's epic *Apocalypse Now* is getting all _three_ cuts fully restored from the OCN's and released in 4k with a brand new supervised *Dolby Atmos* mix that includes new frequency encoding techniques by Meyer Sound dubbed "Sensual Sound" for a trippier experience. We'll soon hear what that's all about.  Re-mastering of the original analog sound files for Dolby Atmos mixing prep was accomplished at *24 bit/96 kHz*.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all under the auspices of Coppola's American Zoetrope productions. Video mastering and HDR grading was done in *12 bit Dolby Vision* for the cinema and UHD Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> _Apocalypse Now: Final Cut_ was shown at the Cannes Film Festival. It's a kind of half-way cut between Redux and the Theatrical version, though again all three versions will be available in 4k on disc.





jazzrock said:


> Thx for the great details. Happen to know expected release date?


According to _*Blu-ray.com*_, the 4K Dolby reissue of _Apocalypse Now_ will be released August 27, 2019.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Lesmor said:


> Cinemaparadiso rent discs in the UK
> 
> https://www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/


Nice! Thankyou very much


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi - thanks for the concern! I am fit and well and lurking here but not contributing too much ATM. I have come out of retirement for a couple of days a week and am working on an exciting and large project for which I was headhunted (I have a very particular set of skills LOL). This is taking a fair bit of my time, and with my other hobby of cycling, now the weather is getting better, I am fairly busy. I still watch a movie almost every day though in the Cowshed Cinema


There's something more important than home theater? That's blasphemy!

Seriously, real life does intervene, which anyone with a consulting business knows all too well....and maybe it's just me, but I'm finding the Atmos and DTS:X releases lately to not be overly compelling. I'll probably pick up Black Hawk Down, and probably the Batman UHD four-disc set and Dumbo "just because", but is something like The Karate Kid worth the trouble (or even The Natural, let alone Field of Dreams in DTS:X)? There's a lot of stuff I just skip because I'm not a 14 year old teenager. Or maybe now that Atmos is a regular thing, I'm just too jaded. Or just want to see more music-related discs with Atmos (like more REM or some oddball stuff like Luca Turilli).

On the other hand, today's news about Apocalypse Now does get my attention  : . That would make you love the sound of Atmos in the morning! I wonder if we can dream of The Godfather trilogy in Atmos....hell, I'd even take a different Al Pacino movie in Atmos (an over the top The Devil's Advocate, anyone)?


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> There's something more important than home theater? That's blasphemy!
> 
> Seriously, real life does intervene, which anyone with a consulting business knows all too well....and maybe it's just me, but I'm finding the Atmos and DTS:X releases lately to not be overly compelling. I'll probably pick up Black Hawk Down, and probably the Batman UHD four-disc set and Dumbo "just because", but is something like The Karate Kid worth the trouble (or even The Natural, let alone Field of Dreams in DTS:X)? There's a lot of stuff I just skip because I'm not a 14 year old teenager. Or maybe now that Atmos is a regular thing, I'm just too jaded. Or just want to see more music-related discs with Atmos (like more REM or some oddball stuff like Luca Turilli).
> 
> On the other hand, today's news about Apocalypse Now does get my attention  : . That would make you love the sound of Atmos in the morning! I wonder if we can dream of The Godfather trilogy in Atmos....hell, I'd even take a different Al Pacino movie in Atmos (an over the top The Devil's Advocate, anyone)?


Hey Stu! IKWYM. I think we can see from the (lesser) activity in this thread that Atmos has now become a mainstream issue and so we tend to discuss it less and take it more for granted. Much in the same way we don't discuss stereo or 5.1 in any great way any more. It has become something we kinda take for granted now on new releases and increasingly on catalog releases such as _Apocalypse Now_ which you mention and which is a 'must-have' for me ()to add to the several other editions of this movie I own, I have to admit).

Most of the posts in the thread these days have been answered hundreds of times in the past and mainly concern speaker placement etc. I guess many of us tire or answering the same questions over and over when the information already exists in the thread in abundance and can be located by searching or even casual browsing of the thread.

For my own part, as someone who has never been all that interested in the tech but only in the movies themselves, my journey became complete (more or less) once the Cowshed was up and running. I have made no significant changes in the HT for a long time now, and have no plans to do so. I now devote my 'home cinema time' to watching movies rather than tinkering with tech, measuring and so on.

I still follow this thread and lurk on a few more here on AVS, but it will take something very new and revolutionary (like Atmos was) to really grab my attention these days.

All the best, Keith


----------



## LNEWoLF

sdrucker said:


> maybe it's just me, but I'm finding the Atmos and DTS:X releases lately to not be overly compelling. I'll probably pick up Black Hawk Down, and probably the Batman UHD four-disc set and Dumbo "just because", but is something like The Karate Kid worth the trouble (or even The Natural, let alone Field of Dreams in DTS:X)? There's a lot of stuff I just skip because I'm not a 14 year old teenager. Or maybe now that Atmos is a regular thing, I'm just too jaded. Or just want to see more music-related discs with Atmos (like more REM or some oddball stuff like Luca Turilli).
> 
> On the other hand, today's news about Apocalypse Now does get my attention  : . That would make you love the sound of Atmos in the morning! I wonder if we can dream of The Godfather trilogy in Atmos....hell, I'd even take a different Al Pacino movie in Atmos (an over the top The Devil's Advocate, anyone)?


The 4k Transformer series NEW Atmos mixes within the 4K disc 5 movie collection set. Are VERY good examples of recent Atmos mixes. The audio movement syncs with the on screen action. Audio transitions smoothly throughout the entire 360 degree soundstage. Really enjoyed experiencing the movies again.


----------



## johng

If you read movie reviews in Widescreen Review, you'll note that many movies don't effectively use the Atmos channels. Atmos is a tool in a sound mix and not every editor (or director) wants to agressively use the overhead channels.


----------



## howard68

There are so many films that don't utilize the hight speakers 
The Utube channel "spare change" has some good reviews and I have stopped buying films in atmos until that hhasbeen reviewed now due to some bad mixes


----------



## mrtickleuk

howard68 said:


> There are so many films that don't utilize the hight speakers
> The Utube channel "spare change" has some good reviews and I have stopped buying films in atmos until that hhasbeen reviewed now due to some bad mixes


I wouldn't buy a disc that hasn't been reviewed anyway! They are just too expensive in the UK.


----------



## camd5pt0

Rejoice!! Finally, I'm able to enjoy .mkv Atmos files, and play back on my 7.1.4. It was sorely a disappointing situation having not being able to, with all the equipment that I have. 

1. I just received the latest beta update on my Xbox one X, version 1905.190426

2. The latest Kodi v18.2 just updated on the X1X as well

3. And 3 latest updates on my Denon x4400h

After all these conditions, .mkv Atmos is a go. Kodi on X1X gave me the best hope, because it would play there files previously, however only on stereo.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

camd5pt0 said:


> Rejoice!! Finally, I'm able to enjoy .mkv Atmos files, and play back on my 7.1.4. It was sorely a disappointing situation having not being able to, with all the equipment that I have.
> ...




Good to know. Sounds like I may have to move my xbox back to the living room after all.

I started to use the ATV 4k for Netflix Atmos and there had been talk about MRMC supporting Atmos files. However, last time I checked it played 7.1 only.


----------



## Matt L

Just a heads up, Netflix has added platforms that will now be able to get Atmos as well as increasing sound quality.

Atmos enabled platforms :

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066

Sound quality:

https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/bringing-studio-quality-sound-to-netflix


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> Just a heads up, Netflix has added platforms that will now be able to get Atmos as well as increasing sound quality.
> 
> Atmos enabled platforms :
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> Sound quality:
> 
> https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/bringing-studio-quality-sound-to-netflix



Eh, I'll still take lossless.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Anyone [email protected]@king for the Transformers 4K 5 movie collection. Amazon has it on sale for less than 10.00 a movie.

https://www.amazon.com/Transformers...ateway&sprefix=Transformers+4k,aps,183&sr=8-3


----------



## Josh Z

LNEWoLF said:


> Anyone [email protected]@king for the Transformers 4K 5 movie collection. Amazon has it on sale for less than 10.00 a movie.


Another way of looking at it is that they're charging $50 for the first movie in a box with a bunch of coasters nobody will want to watch.


----------



## batpig

I can hit myself in the head with a rubber mallet for 2.5 hours for free....


----------



## lax01

batpig said:


> I can hit myself in the head with a rubber mallet for 2.5 hours for free....


2.5 x 5 = its not even worth doing the math


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Matt L said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a heads up, Netflix has added platforms that will now be able to get Atmos as well as increasing sound quality.
> 
> Atmos enabled platforms :
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> Sound quality:
> 
> https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/bringing-studio-quality-sound-to-netflix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, I'll still take lossless.
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## sjm817

Matt L said:


> Just a heads up, Netflix has added platforms that will now be able to get Atmos as well as increasing sound quality.
> 
> Atmos enabled platforms :
> 
> https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> 
> Sound quality:
> 
> https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/bringing-studio-quality-sound-to-netflix





Dan Hitchman said:


> Eh, I'll still take lossless.


Netflix Atmos (and DV) is mostly limited to Netflix original content so lossless is not an option. Its great that they have paid attention to the small % of customers who actually care about audio. They still have a lot of work to do with supported platforms.


----------



## sjm817

anothermib said:


> Good to know. Sounds like I may have to move my xbox back to the living room after all.
> 
> I started to use the ATV 4k for Netflix Atmos and there had been talk about MRMC supporting Atmos files. However, last time I checked it played 7.1 only.


MrMC does play Atmos


----------



## anothermib

sjm817 said:


> MrMC does play Atmos




Hmm, that is good to know. However somehow it didn’t do that for me. Is there any special configuration required or are there limitations on the file formats?


----------



## sjm817

anothermib said:


> Hmm, that is good to know. However somehow it didn’t do that for me. Is there any special configuration required or are there limitations on the file formats?


I have not done that much with it. I got it recently. Tried a couple MKV rips with Atmos tracks and it works.


----------



## anothermib

sjm817 said:


> I have not done that much with it. I got it recently. Tried a couple MKV rips with Atmos tracks and it works.




Loos like that is on Shield not ATV? Perhaps there are differences. What MrMc version are you on? 3.8-1 or higher? In the audio settings 7.1 is the highest configuration that is offered and the Atmos mkv (e.g. the amaze trailer) are just being presented as MultiCh (+ DSU in my case). I may need to visit the mrmc support pages at some point.


----------



## sjm817

anothermib said:


> Loos like that is on Shield not ATV? Perhaps there are differences. What MrMc version are you on? 3.8-1 or higher? In the audio settings 7.1 is the highest configuration that is offered and the Atmos mkv (e.g. the amaze trailer) are just being presented as MultiCh (+ DSU in my case). I may need to visit the mrmc support pages at some point.


Yes NV Shield. ATV cannot pass Atmos from a file. Only from streaming services. Major limitation of that product.


----------



## pg22

sdrucker said:


> I'm finding the Atmos and DTS:X releases lately to not be overly compelling. I'll probably pick up Black Hawk Down, and probably the Batman UHD four-disc set and Dumbo "just because", but is something like The Karate Kid worth the trouble (or even The Natural, let alone *Field of Dreams* in DTS:X)?


The Atmos track in Field of Dreams should have the "If you build it" lines come from above


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> Another way of looking at it is that they're charging $50 for the first movie in a box with a bunch of coasters nobody will want to watch.


Yes, agreed, and I'd go further: they are charging $50 for a box containing 5 leery, brash, noisy and bombastic Michael Bay movies. (He's the Donald Trump of film directors).


----------



## Matt L

sjm817 said:


> Netflix Atmos (and DV) is mostly limited to Netflix original content so lossless is not an option. Its great that they have paid attention to the small % of customers who actually care about audio. They still have a lot of work to do with supported platforms.


No, if you do a search, most anything with Dolby vision is Atmos. 

Apparently there is an issue with TCL TVs and CEC handshake, some some get Atmos from NF others -like me - do not. The back end support guy I spoke with has the same TCL set and it works on his. He said he was going to reach out to TCL, I am too. Atmos does work on my set from Amazon, though limited to Jack Ryan my receiver pops into Atmos mode when I stream it.


----------



## priitv8

sjm817 said:


> Yes NV Shield. ATV cannot pass Atmos from a file. Only from streaming services. Major limitation of that product.


But why? Of course it can!
You just need to get your MP4 track atoms right, if that file was from your own sources.
Oh, yes. It needs to be encoded in DD+, not TrueHD.
Subler will remux DD+ Atmos tracks from .mkv (or .ac3) into iTunes-compatible format since version 1.5
Major challenge here is only the availability of such audio tracks in clips. Bluray rips tend to carry lossless TrueHD instead of DD+.


----------



## anothermib

sjm817 said:


> Yes NV Shield. ATV cannot pass Atmos from a file. Only from streaming services. Major limitation of that product.



Oh my. Thanks for finding that out. 
Is it just me or is all of this way harder than it ought to be? I feel I own almost every player that is or was on the market (admittedly e.g. except for the Shield). Every one of them is handling some audio scenarios pretty well and fails quite substantially on several others. I have the impression that even the Oppo doesn’t play all formats, even if you are ok to use the slightly cumbersome file navigation. 

Hopefully they will come up with a workaround for the issue on the ATV. In the meantime I may “borrow” the xbox from time to time - assuming I can get it to work there as described.


----------



## anothermib

priitv8 said:


> But why? Of course it can!
> 
> You just need to get your MP4 track atoms right, if that file was from your own sources.
> 
> Oh, yes. It needs to be encoded in DD+, not TrueHD.
> 
> Subler will remux DD+ Atmos tracks from .mkv (or .ac3) into iTunes-compatible format since version 1.5
> 
> Major challenge here is only the availability of such audio tracks in clips. Bluray rips tend to carry lossless TrueHD instead of DD+.




So do I understand you correctly the issue is not streaming vs file but DD+ vs TrueHD? Mrmc will play a file directly as atmos if it is recoded as DD+ ? I don’t know subler, seems to be a Mac-only software.


----------



## helvetica bold

I just purchased an LG C9 OLED. Now the C9 has HDMI 2.1 w/ eARC support. Can I get some good Atmos receiver recommendations? I rather not wait until next year for 2.1 receivers but It’s an option I’m considering. Currently I have everything connected to the C9 so I can take advantage of VRR on the Xbox. I’m interested in the Yamaha RX-A2080 but I don’t think it has the eARC support at the moment. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## acmcool

currently have atmos 7.4.4. I do have 2 more ceiling speakers and 2 wides prewired. Is it worth going to 6 height channels or wides?


----------



## S_rangeBrew

helvetica bold said:


> I just purchased an LG C9 OLED. Now the C9 has HDMI 2.1 w/ eARC support. Can I get some good Atmos receiver recommendations? I rather not wait until next year for 2.1 receivers but It’s an option I’m considering. Currently I have everything connected to the C9 so I can take advantage of VRR on the Xbox. I’m interested in the Yamaha RX-A2080 but I don’t think it has the eARC support at the moment.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I just hooked up a Onkyo TX-RZ830. It has eARC. Works well, good specs and features for the $570 it cost me.


----------



## batpig

acmcool said:


> currently have atmos 7.4.4. I do have 2 more ceiling speakers and 2 wides prewired. Is it worth going to 6 height channels or wides?


"Is it worth it" is always a tricky question. Depends on so many variables -- budget, speaker layout, room layout, room size, etc.

The biggest hurdle is that there is a MAJOR price jump to go beyond 11 channels. You can get 7.1.4 capable AVR's for $500-800 as refurbs these days, so the price of entry to a 7.1.4 setup is pretty modest now. However the cheapest 13ch AVR is the Denon X8500H at $4k msrp (you can probably find it closer to $3k street price but still).

And going to the full 9.1.6 setup is even pricier, as that requires at minimum a ~$5K processor and then amps for all the channels.

Another complicating factor is that those extra speakers will not be used all the time. DTS:X is limited to 11 channels currently, as is Neural:X upmixer. The Dolby Surround upmixer (DSU) will not send audio to wides, so with a 9.1.4 setup you'll only hear all the speakers play with native Atmos content. With a 7.1.6 setup you'll only hear all speakers play with native Atmos or DSU upmix.

Beyond 7.1.4 you are definitely getting into "diminishing returns" territory, however all that being said you CAN hear the difference with good Atmos content. I have a 9.1.4 setup with my Denon X8500H and I really do like the extra "fill" the wides provide with certain movies. If your overhead speakers are spread fairly far apart you will likely hear the difference having the extra pair in the middle directly overhead. And you get better coverage for multiple rows. The extra speakers help make everything sound that much more seamless and immersive. BUT they are useless with the vast majority of content I consume, so it's a mixed blessing. 

If there was an upmixer that could fill in the wides on a 9.1.4 setup it would be a game changer. Some people even resort to turning off the back surrounds with 5.1 content for a modified 7.1.4 setup so Neural:X upmix will use the wides (since you're not pushing past 11 channels).


----------



## Matt L

Batpig always provides a clear concise answer.

Let me add that I have been using wides for close to a decade and felt they really added to the sound image in my setup. In fact it was because of that the I picked up a few year old Marantz7010 that does support wides as well as .4 for Atmos. You cannot use both at the same time due to processing limitations, but in actual use with the 4 heights I have at the moment ( soon to be top when I get around to cutting into my ceiling) I can say I do not miss the wides. The feeling of "space" even using Neural:X is very good, so good I may take my wides out of the equation.


----------



## priitv8

anothermib said:


> So do I understand you correctly the issue is not streaming vs file but DD+ vs TrueHD? Mrmc will play a file directly as atmos if it is recoded as DD+ ? I don’t know subler, seems to be a Mac-only software.


Yes, for appleTV the main issue is DD+ codec.
Also, if you mux it into MP4 file, to be likeable by iTunes, the eac3 track's Magic Cookie needs to be set. This is strictly MP4 format specific thing, does not exist in MKV. But without this tiny bit of metadata, tvOS won't recognise Atmos stream inside MP4 file, even if it is there. I.e. it does not seem to scan the bitstream to discover its features.
If that is done, tvOS internal player will play Atmos like charm, be it over AirPlay or HomeSharing.
Because of native playback, I never bothered with mrMC or Infuse or Plex.
Latest news that tvOS has blocked bitstreaming audio to HDMI aren't too encouraging either to hope for TrueHD support from Infuse et al.
I think for mrMC or anybody else, the only chance to provide TrueHD decoding and output as Dolby MAT 2.0 stream (exactly like tvOS itself), would be to become a Dolby licensee. These standards are not public. Only the DD+ Atmos encoding spec is, thanks to ETSI.
Subler is Mac only, true. But really invaluable tool.


----------



## priitv8

HI batpig, I really liked your clear explanations.


batpig said:


> If there was an upmixer that could fill in the wides on a 9.1.4 setup it would be a game changer. Some people even resort to turning off the back surrounds with 5.1 content for a modified 7.1.4 setup so Neural:X upmix will use the wides (since you're not pushing past 11 channels).


But there is one question, that puzzles me - why all this excitement about the upmixers? I never used one myself. Am I missing something?


----------



## anothermib

priitv8 said:


> Yes, for appleTV the main issue is DD+ codec.
> 
> Also, if you mux it into MP4 file, to be likeable by iTunes, the eac3 track's Magic Cookie needs to be set. This is strictly MP4 format specific thing, does not exist in MKV. But without this tiny bit of metadata, tvOS won't recognise Atmos stream inside MP4 file, even if it is there. I.e. it does not seem to scan the bitstream to discover its features.
> 
> If that is done, tvOS internal player will play Atmos like charm, be it over AirPlay or HomeSharing.
> 
> Because of native playback, I never bothered with mrMC or Infuse or Plex.
> 
> Latest news that tvOS has blocked bitstreaming audio to HDMI aren't too encouraging either to hope for TrueHD support from Infuse et al.
> 
> I think for mrMC or anybody else, the only chance to provide TrueHD decoding and output as Dolby MAT 2.0 stream (exactly like tvOS itself), would be to become a Dolby licensee. These standards are not public. Only the DD+ Atmos encoding spec is, thanks to ETSI.
> 
> Subler is Mac only, true. But really invaluable tool.




I can’t claim that I fully understand all the details, but it doesn’t sound too encouraging. That is really a pity as one would hope Apple having the aspiration that all relevant scenarios will just work. IMHO that is part of the premium we are paying for their products. Getting a Mac and starting converting files certainly is not a good option for me. 
It almost sounds like the xbox may be the only device at the moment that can play atmos from all sources (Netflix, MKV, ...). If they actually fixed the issue around incorrectly presenting everything as atmos it may become the frontrunner again.


----------



## chi_guy50

priitv8 said:


> HI batpig, I really liked your clear explanations.But there is one question, that puzzles me - why all this excitement about the upmixers? I never used one myself. *Am I missing something?*



Understatement of the year!

Since immersive audio content is still the exception rather than the rule in most contexts, the upmixers (Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, and Auro) are essential to the surround-sound experience. It helps that they mostly perform admirably, often competing in immersiveness with the 3D codecs.


----------



## sjm817

anothermib said:


> I can’t claim that I fully understand all the details, but it doesn’t sound too encouraging. That is really a pity as one would hope Apple having the aspiration that all relevant scenarios will just work. IMHO that is part of the premium we are paying for their products. Getting a Mac and starting converting files certainly is not a good option for me.
> It almost sounds like the xbox may be the only device at the moment that can play atmos from all sources (Netflix, MKV, ...). If they actually fixed the issue around incorrectly presenting everything as atmos it may become the frontrunner again.


There are others options. NV Shield or Win10 HTPC.


----------



## usc1995

sjm817 said:


> There are others options. NV Shield or Win10 HTPC.




As undesirable as it maybe for some, I find the best situation to be using more than one device for Atmos playback. I use an ATV4K for all my streaming and a Zidoo X8 for playing back my local files. Atmos, 4K and hdr are all covered with both of these devices. The Shield could be used instead of the Zidoo.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

priitv8 said:


> why all this excitement about the upmixers? Am I missing something?


You are missing sound from other speakers 

People with 9, 11, 13 or more speakers in their setup want them all to make noise. Some people eschew upmixing and prefer to hear the source "unchanged" but the vast majority want to utilize those extra speakers to create more immersion.


----------



## doni01

Can someone please make me a copy of the 2016 Demo Disc??


----------



## usc1995

doni01 said:


> Can someone please make me a copy of the 2016 Demo Disc??




All of the best trailers and more can be found here https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...demo-clips-collection-4k-atmos-dtsx-more.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## priitv8

anothermib said:


> I can’t claim that I fully understand all the details, but it doesn’t sound too encouraging. That is really a pity as one would hope Apple having the aspiration that all relevant scenarios will just work. IMHO that is part of the premium we are paying for their products. Getting a Mac and starting converting files certainly is not a good option for me.
> It almost sounds like the xbox may be the only device at the moment that can play atmos from all sources (Netflix, MKV, ...). If they actually fixed the issue around incorrectly presenting everything as atmos it may become the frontrunner again.


Well, appleTV is nothing more than a window into iTunes Store. So there is no reason for Apple to support neither MKV nor lossless audio (like TrueHD).
There is no software available, that would convert a blu-ray rip into aTV compatible stream. Both Dolbys (Vision and Atmos) are the new blocks on the road here.
At the end of the day, major issue is the lack of DD+ Atmos media anyway. They are used by streaming services only and these you can enjoy just directly on aTV 4K.
PS for what reason did they plug the audio-bitstream-out hole, remains unknown to me. That would be the only viable path to achieve Atmos playback (both lossy and lossless) from aTV using 3rd party player (like Infuse, Plex, mrMC or VLC).


----------



## anothermib

priitv8 said:


> Well, appleTV is nothing more than a window into iTunes Store. So there is no reason for Apple to support neither MKV nor lossless audio (like TrueHD).
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> PS for what reason did they plug the audio-bitstream-out hole, remains unknown to me. That would be the only viable path to achieve Atmos playback (both lossy and lossless) from aTV using 3rd party player (like Infuse, Plex, mrMC or VLC).



Yes admittedly Apple always had a tendency to decide what you need and what you don’t need (Ethernet ports, BluRay, cursor keys,...). And I would almost buy the argument of a storefront for itunes if the box was as heavily subsidized as e.g. the FireTV. However, at that price point (and ATV being a substantial revenue stream) they should aim to enable all the key applications of the device. I just don’t know if they fail on doing this on purpose or out of ignorance.


----------



## Ladeback

OK, I have a Marnatz RS6013 coming in a few days and my speakers are Klipsch. Do I need to stay with Klipsch for in-ceiling speakers for Atmos? Trying to keep cost down and not sure which Klipsch ceiling speaker to got with. Didn't really want to spend $200 or more on each Atmos speakers if I can help it. I will be running the front three channels with 3 Marantz 700 Mono Blocks so that will give me the rest of the receiver channels to use for surround and Atmos. Looking to go 7.x.4


----------



## TommyDeVito

Quick question. Got my ATMOS up and running. I'm using JBL Studio 210's, on ceiling mounts, pointed at MLP. Front and rear heights. I've aimed all 4 speakers at the MLP, and am wondering if the speaker should be aimed right over my head in the seated position, or pointed right at my eyes/ears. I was only able to do some mild testing (Matrix 4k, Oblivion 4k) but didn't feel like sound was coming above. Felt like it was pointed at me from the walls. Before I start spending hours and hours on angles of the 4 height/atmos setup I wanted to ask the forum and get some feedback from those using front and rear heights, angled, mounted on wall or on ceiling. TIAFAR.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TommyDeVito said:


> Quick question. Got my ATMOS up and running. I'm using JBL Studio 210's, on ceiling mounts, pointed at MLP. Front and rear heights. I've aimed all 4 speakers at the MLP, and am wondering if the speaker should be aimed right over my head in the seated position, or pointed right at my eyes/ears. I was only able to do some mild testing (Matrix 4k, Oblivion 4k) but didn't feel like sound was coming above. Felt like it was pointed at me from the walls. Before I start spending hours and hours on angles of the 4 height/atmos setup I wanted to ask the forum and get some feedback from those using front and rear heights, angled, mounted on wall or on ceiling. TIAFAR.



If you cannot mount them on the ceiling in the overhead positions, then you should have installed them on the side walls for better separation from the front wall speakers. I've found that front and rear heights just make the sound stage seem taller, but without the sensation of the audio coming from above you since, well, it isn't.


----------



## m0j0

TommyDeVito said:


> Quick question. Got my ATMOS up and running. I'm using JBL Studio 210's, on ceiling mounts, pointed at MLP. Front and rear heights. I've aimed all 4 speakers at the MLP, and am wondering if the speaker should be aimed right over my head in the seated position, or pointed right at my eyes/ears. I was only able to do some mild testing (Matrix 4k, Oblivion 4k) but didn't feel like sound was coming above. Felt like it was pointed at me from the walls. Before I start spending hours and hours on angles of the 4 height/atmos setup I wanted to ask the forum and get some feedback from those using front and rear heights, angled, mounted on wall or on ceiling. TIAFAR.



I have a front height / rear height atmos setup as well. I found that angling is really mostly just about improving speaker dispersion, so in my case, my front heights are pointing at my feet/knee area, and my rear heights are angled in to the outside seats in my four seat setup. You will want to experiment with different angles to see what gives you the best effect.


----------



## batpig

Ladeback said:


> OK, I have a Marnatz RS6013 coming in a few days and my speakers are Klipsch. Do I need to stay with Klipsch for in-ceiling speakers for Atmos? Trying to keep cost down and not sure which Klipsch ceiling speaker to got with. Didn't really want to spend $200 or more on each Atmos speakers if I can help it. I will be running the front three channels with 3 Marantz 700 Mono Blocks so that will give me the rest of the receiver channels to use for surround and Atmos. Looking to go 7.x.4


In a perfect world, all speakers will match. However, in reality, 95% of the time you will never notice if the ceiling speakers aren't a perfect match because most overhead effects are ambient content and background effects. It's very rare that a critical sound pans overhead such that you would hear a timbre matching problem (an example of a situation you would notice is the opening scene of Gravity where the voices are floating around the room). 

Also Klipsch ceiling speakers aren't exactly voice-matched to the standard horn loaded bookshelf/tower speakers. They are usually a more typical ceiling speaker design with a tweeter-on-a-pole in front of a woofer, so it's not like you're using a totally different type of speaker if you opt for the cheap Micca speakers that are popular. 

And if you're running Audyssey it will mitigate some of the timbre matching issues.


----------



## TommyDeVito

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you cannot mount them on the ceiling in the overhead positions, then you should have installed them on the side walls for better separation from the front wall speakers. I've found that front and rear heights just make the sound stage seem taller, but without the sensation of the audio coming from above you since, well, it isn't.


Respectfully disagree. I just put in a reference disc and I figured it out. I’m off 2-3 degrees. And I know why. I have new seats coming. 2 of my 3 are already gone. The last one the reclining function doesn’t work. My rear overheads are 100%. It’s the fronts that are off. Your statement may be true for your room, but mine is 15X13. I’m damn glad I mounted mine on brackets to the ceiling now as they can be adjusted and dialed in. The angle is just off, that’s it. And that’s because I’m sitting upright instead of reclined. I just listened to a great Atmos soundtrack and there was some sound on the right channel, right front overhead, panning to the surround right, rear right, and rear overhead right and it was damn close. 

Front and rear overheads are Dolby Atmos spec, but Dolby is particular on the angles. I get that now and understand. I’m close. I need my new seats stat!


----------



## Ladeback

batpig said:


> In a perfect world, all speakers will match. However, in reality, 95% of the time you will never notice if the ceiling speakers aren't a perfect match because most overhead effects are ambient content and background effects. It's very rare that a critical sound pans overhead such that you would hear a timbre matching problem (an example of a situation you would notice is the opening scene of Gravity where the voices are floating around the room).
> 
> Also Klipsch ceiling speakers aren't exactly voice-matched to the standard horn loaded bookshelf/tower speakers. They are usually a more typical ceiling speaker design with a tweeter-on-a-pole in front of a woofer, so it's not like you're using a totally different type of speaker if you opt for the cheap Micca speakers that are popular.
> 
> And if you're running Audyssey it will mitigate some of the timbre matching issues.


so what you are saying it doesn't matter what you use for ceiling speakers? I am trying to save where I can and I don't really want to spend $300 a speaker for Klipsch if I don't have to. Would something like this work? https://www.klipsch.com/products/ric-65-in-ceiling-speaker


----------



## sjm817

Ladeback said:


> so what you are saying it doesn't matter what you use for ceiling speakers? I am trying to save where I can and I don't really want to spend $300 a speaker for Klipsch if I don't have to. Would something like this work? https://www.klipsch.com/products/ric-65-in-ceiling-speaker


Those will work fine. As Batpig stated, not like those Klipsch will be a match for your other speakers anyway. My main 5 are Klipsch, with 2x HSU subs. I just added 2 Atmos in ceiling speakers. I had a situation where there was a big duct in the ceiling in one of the locations so I needed the thinnest speakers possible and wound up with Polk only for that reason.


----------



## Ladeback

Thanks, now I just have to get approval from the boss or sell something else so I can get two pair so I can have 4 height speakers. I have 3 duct supplies for my upstairs to work around in my ceiling, but I think I can get good spacing for them to work.

Luckily the ceiling is unfinished, I just need to decide if I going to build backer boxes or not. I'm not doing a whole lot in soundproofing to save money and I don't listen at reference much. Rather spend my money on getting the theater and basement finished at some point.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

TommyDeVito said:


> Dolby is particular on the angles.


Top Front and Top Rear locations have a 25-degree placement range; Top Middle location has a 35-degree (!) placement range. Dolby is anything but "particular" about angles. Instead, they're quite flexible when it comes to speaker placement.


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> Top Front and Top Rear locations have a 25-degree placement range; Top Middle location has a 35-degree (!) placement range. Dolby is anything but "particular" about angles. Instead, they're quite flexible when it comes to speaker placement.


And just as important, our ears are anything but particular when it comes to locating sounds from overhead.


----------



## pg22

Safe to assume that add-on/upfiring Atmos speakers are a sin; especially so if you have high ceilings?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pg22 said:


> Safe to assume that add-on/upfiring Atmos speakers are a sin; especially so if you have high ceilings?


They're not what I would consider a means to real Atmos reproduction.


----------



## lax01

pg22 said:


> Safe to assume that add-on/upfiring Atmos speakers are a sin; especially so if you have high ceilings?


Don't have high ceilings but my Klipsch RP-140sa Dolby Atmos add-ons work pretty decent - not perfect but its easier than making more holes in apartment walls


----------



## Augerhandle

pg22 said:


> Safe to assume that add-on/upfiring Atmos speakers are a sin; especially so if you have high ceilings?


How high? 8-12 feet will be no problem unless the ceiling is sloped.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Atmos members,

Any of you using the below ATMOS speakers and if so your thoughts/comments.
I'm going to go with 6 of them when I do the Atmos thing.

*Click on link below,
*
*https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/subwoofwer/in-ceiling-rotating-silver-9-sat/*











*And the below 7-channel Amp.*

*Monolith* by Monoprice 7x200 Watts Per Channel
Multi-Channel Home Theater Power Amplifier with XLR Inputs 

*Click on link below,*
*https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=14566*












Terry


----------



## pg22

Augerhandle said:


> How high? 8-12 feet will be no problem unless the ceiling is sloped.


Approximately 10-14 feet, sloped :\


----------



## Design1stcode2nd2

I have a slightly unique question regarding an ATMOS setup, my left and right front speakers are self powered, if I got an expandable 9.2 AVR would I still need to get a 2 channel amp for the 2nd height channels? I’m assuming yes since the L/R just won’t use the power so it’s wasted.

So the most economical way to get a 7.1.4 setup would be a Denon 4400/4500 or similar AVR with a 2 channel amp like an Emotiva A-100?


----------



## abilyeu

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> I have a slightly unique question regarding an ATMOS setup, my left and right front speakers are self powered, if I got an expandable 9.2 AVR would I still need to get a 2 channel amp for the 2nd height channels? I’m assuming yes since the L/R just won’t use the power so it’s wasted.
> 
> So the most economical way to get a 7.1.4 setup would be a Denon 4400/4500 or similar AVR with a 2 channel amp like an Emotiva A-100?


 Some AVRs will allow you to do 7.1.4 with only the front L/R speakers using an external amp. Since your front speakers have their own amps, you wouldn't need anything else. I don't know about the Denons, but the Yamaha RX-A3080 will do this:


----------



## batpig

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> I have a slightly unique question regarding an ATMOS setup, my left and right front speakers are self powered, if I got an expandable 9.2 AVR would I still need to get a 2 channel amp for the 2nd height channels? I’m assuming yes since the L/R just won’t use the power so it’s wasted.
> 
> So the most economical way to get a 7.1.4 setup would be a Denon 4400/4500 or similar AVR with a 2 channel amp like an Emotiva A-100?


Why would you need another amp? The speakers have amps built in. The AVR doesn't care if the amp is sitting in the rack or built into the speakers, all it needs to know is that those channels will be externally amplified.


----------



## Design1stcode2nd2

batpig said:


> Why would you need another amp? The speakers have amps built in. The AVR doesn't care if the amp is sitting in the rack or built into the speakers, all it needs to know is that those channels will be externally amplified.


Two reasons, first the 9.2 avr's like the Denon 4500 don't power the 2nd height channels. I know I could not amp the L/R mains from the AVR but I don't think that would then allow me to use what would have been for the L/R channels to now power the 2nd height channels. Second trying to get cables from my rack to the L/R would be a bit of a pain (just speaker wire going to those locations right now.).

Seems like just getting a $200 2ch amp is the easier solution.


----------



## batpig

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> Two reasons, first the 9.2 avr's like the Denon 4500 don't power the 2nd height channels. I know I could not amp the L/R mains from the AVR but I don't think that would then allow me to use what would have been for the L/R channels to now power the 2nd height channels.


That is incorrect, you absolutely can set it such that it's expecting external amps for FR/FL channels and then repurpose the other 9 amps for the remaining speakers. 




> Second trying to get cables from my rack to the L/R would be a bit of a pain (just speaker wire going to those locations right now.)


So the powered speakers have high level (speaker wire) inputs? 

Not much you can do about that if you want to use powered speakers but don't have a line level RCA feed. But that's not the AVR's fault for not having the functionality to do it the right way, it does.


----------



## Ladeback

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> Two reasons, first the 9.2 avr's like the Denon 4500 don't power the 2nd height channels. I know I could not amp the L/R mains from the AVR but I don't think that would then allow me to use what would have been for the L/R channels to now power the 2nd height channels. Second trying to get cables from my rack to the L/R would be a bit of a pain (just speaker wire going to those locations right now.).
> 
> Seems like just getting a $200 2ch amp is the easier solution.


I am trying to understand what you wrote. If you are powering the front L/R with built in amps that should leave you 2 channels to power all 4 height speakers and all 4 surrounds. 

I have a Marantz SR6013 coming and plan on powering my front 3 with Marantz 700 Monoblocks at 200 watts each. Then I will use the receiver for everything else. 

Does make sense or help? How are you fronts already powered from the speakers?


----------



## sdurani

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> my left and right front speakers are self powered


Which self powered speakers are you using?


----------



## appelz

tigerhonaker said:


> Atmos members,
> 
> Any of you using the below ATMOS speakers and if so your thoughts/comments.
> I'm going to go with 6 of them when I do the Atmos thing.
> 
> *Click on link below,
> *
> *https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/subwoofwer/in-ceiling-rotating-silver-9-sat/*
> 
> 
> 
> Terry


I just calibrated a room two days with those Triad speakers. Frequency response was really good. I was very happy with the results, as was the client.


----------



## Design1stcode2nd2

batpig said:


> That is incorrect, you absolutely can set it such that it's expecting external amps for FR/FL channels and then repurpose the other 9 amps for the remaining speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> So the powered speakers have high level (speaker wire) inputs?
> 
> Not much you can do about that if you want to use powered speakers but don't have a line level RCA feed. But that's not the AVR's fault for not having the functionality to do it the right way, it does.


They have RCA jacks on them, just running new cables to them would be a bit problematic is all.



Ladeback said:


> I am trying to understand what you wrote. If you are powering the front L/R with built in amps that should leave you 2 channels to power all 4 height speakers and all 4 surrounds.
> 
> I have a Marantz SR6013 coming and plan on powering my front 3 with Marantz 700 Monoblocks at 200 watts each. Then I will use the receiver for everything else.
> 
> Does make sense or help? How are you fronts already powered from the speakers?


I wasn't aware that you could specify which channels you could power I just assumed that for the 9.2 (but expandable to 11.2) units powered specific channels and merely provided the 2nd height as unpowered as a selling point on a cheaper model.



sdurani said:


> Which self powered speakers are you using?


Klipsch XF-48


So for my understanding the AVR doesn't care which channels it's powering just the total number? This would only really apply to a unit that provides more channels than it does amps for those channels. So for your standard 7.1 it's powering all 7 channels so it doesn't really matter.

If that's the case that would save some money. Although I just sat in my theater and I'm wondering if it's actually big enough that ceiling speakers would make much of a difference. 15.5' x 12'


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Height speaker crossover settings*

In my all Monitor audio Gold 5.1.4 setup I currently have all my speakers set to the usual (not sure if best) recommendation of setting the crossovers at 80 Hz for all (the subs are PC4000s dual).

My 4 in ceiling speakers are CT280-IDC which are 8 inch drivers I believe and pretty expensive for in ceiling height speakers. 

My question is, is it best to keep all speakers at 80 before doing my Room correction (DIRAC) or should I change crossovers for my 4 in ceiling to higher? 

Just want the best atmos experience so any recommendations would be appreciated. 

I may cross lost this in the NAD 758 forum


----------



## sdurani

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> So for my understanding the AVR doesn't care which channels it's powering just the total number?


Correct, just connect the pre-outs of the Front L/R channels to your XF-48 speakers.


> Although I just sat in my theater and I'm wondering if it's actually big enough that ceiling speakers would make much of a difference. 15.5' x 12'


Can you tell the difference between sounds coming from around you versus sounds coming from above you?


----------



## pasender91

Chirosamsung said:


> In my all Monitor audio Gold 5.1.4 setup I currently have all my speakers set to the usual (not sure if best) recommendation of setting the crossovers at 80 Hz for all (the subs are PC4000s dual).
> 
> My 4 in ceiling speakers are CT280-IDC which are 8 inch drivers I believe and pretty expensive for in ceiling height speakers.
> 
> My question is, is it best to keep all speakers at 80 before doing my Room correction (DIRAC) or should I change crossovers for my 4 in ceiling to higher?
> 
> Just want the best atmos experience so any recommendations would be appreciated.
> 
> I may cross lost this in the NAD 758 forum


As your ceiling speakers have 8 inch woofers and are specked to go down to 50 Hz , you can safely cut them at 80 Hz.
On the other hand, believe it is a shame to cut the Gold 200 and 350 at 80 Hz , i have the same speakers and happily cut at 60 Hz


----------



## Chirosamsung

pasender91 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my all Monitor audio Gold 5.1.4 setup I currently have all my speakers set to the usual (not sure if best) recommendation of setting the crossovers at 80 Hz for all (the subs are PC4000s dual).
> 
> My 4 in ceiling speakers are CT280-IDC which are 8 inch drivers I believe and pretty expensive for in ceiling height speakers.
> 
> My question is, is it best to keep all speakers at 80 before doing my Room correction (DIRAC) or should I change crossovers for my 4 in ceiling to higher?
> 
> Just want the best atmos experience so any recommendations would be appreciated.
> 
> I may cross lost this in the NAD 758 forum
> 
> 
> 
> As your ceiling speakers have 8 inch woofers and are specked to go down to 50 Hz , you can safely cut them at 80 Hz.
> On the other hand, believe it is a shame to cut the Gold 200 and 350 at 80 Hz /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif, i have the same speakers and happily cut at 60 Hz /forum/images/smilies/cool.gif
Click to expand...

Two questions about that though-if very capable towers are with very capable subs-isn’t the sub best doing most of the work below 80 Hz?

Also, is there something to keeping all the speakers at the same crossovers or is that not that important?


----------



## Design1stcode2nd2

sdurani said:


> Correct, just connect the pre-outs of the Front L/R channels to your XF-48 speakers. Can you tell the difference between sounds coming from around you versus sounds coming from above you?


Thanks. I'll need to disassemble my rack to change out the AVR and I want to update it anyway so running an RCA to the front locations would be doable. 

I'll probably get better answers to this here than in my old thread. This last post has pictures of the ceiling https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1354711-macbeth-theater-flood-resilient-build-11.html#post58018348 It is 7' 6" from floor to the highest point and only 6' 6" under the "soffit" on the left. According to the Dolby diagram I'm thinking one would need to be in that soffit more or less in line with the can lights (large HVAC duct next to it) and the other would be in the higher section in line with the can light. I'd think two speakers in front of the first row and two behind.

Seems the speakers in the soffit would be in close proximity to the left surround and left rear surround.


----------



## sjm817

I had a similar situation in my basement at a lower scale (5.2.2). Added in 2 in ceiling speakers to get Atmos. I have a 12" soffit that has duct work and all kinds of other things right where one speaker needed to go. I did it and it works fine. One speaker is at 7'10" and the other, 6'10". The AVR calibration saw the difference in distance. 



Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> Thanks. I'll need to disassemble my rack to change out the AVR and I want to update it anyway so running an RCA to the front locations would be doable.
> 
> I'll probably get better answers to this here than in my old thread. This last post has pictures of the ceiling https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/1354711-macbeth-theater-flood-resilient-build-11.html#post58018348 It is 7' 6" from floor to the highest point and only 6' 6" under the "soffit" on the left. According to the Dolby diagram I'm thinking one would need to be in that soffit more or less in line with the can lights (large HVAC duct next to it) and the other would be in the higher section in line with the can light. I'd think two speakers in front of the first row and two behind.
> 
> Seems the speakers in the soffit would be in close proximity to the left surround and left rear surround.


----------



## Design1stcode2nd2

sjm817 said:


> I had a similar situation in my basement at a lower scale (5.2.2). Added in 2 in ceiling speakers to get Atmos. I have a 12" soffit that has duct work and all kinds of other things right where one speaker needed to go. I did it and it works fine. One speaker is at 7'10" and the other, 6'10". The AVR calibration saw the difference in distance.


Do you feel that it adds a noticeable difference for movie watching? The only home Atmos I've experienced is a friend who is running a 5.1.2 and you can hear a few things but he has a bigger room with much higher ceilings.


----------



## sdurani

Design1stcode2nd2 said:


> Seems the speakers in the soffit would be in close proximity to the left surround and left rear surround.


You can minimize that proximity by placing the Top Rear speakers between the Sides and Rears and placing the Top Front speakers in the gap between the Sides and Fronts. At least that gets them away from the surrounds. There is a lip (skinny soffit) running along the top of the right side wall that can be used to attach small swivel mounts for height speakers, allowing symmetrical placement left to right (instead of the height speakers on the right being higher up).


----------



## tigerhonaker

> Originally Posted by tigerhonaker View Post
> Atmos members,
> 
> Any of you using the below ATMOS speakers and if so your thoughts/comments.
> I'm going to go with 6 of them when I do the Atmos thing.
> 
> Click on link below,
> 
> https://www.triadspeakers.com/products/subwoofwer/in-ceiling-rotating-silver-9-sat/
> 
> Terry





appelz said:


> I just calibrated a room two days with those Triad speakers.
> Frequency response was really good. I was very happy with the results, as was the client.


I appreciate the Feedback. 

I'm going to go with 6 of the TRIAD ceiling Atmos speakers.

Terry


----------



## [email protected]

*5.1.2*

Hi, I have a Yamaha RX-A780 receiver (7.1) and a 5.1.2 setup with the Focal Sib Evo 5.1.2 setup. The Atmos speakers are atmos enabled upfiring speakers and the installer put my surround speakers high on the wall, so I angled them downwards towards my couch. 
I tried watching Infinity War and it didn't feel as immersive as I wanted so I upped the speaker levels on the receiver. I think it is 
Center: 4.0
Surround Speakers: 7.0
Front Speakers: 2.0
Presence Speakers(Atmos Enabled) 7.0.
I can hear the sound much better this way. I'm wondering if this is ok and if any of you have your speaker levels pretty high. 

Thanks!


----------



## dfa973

[email protected] said:


> Hi, I have a Yamaha RX-A780 receiver (7.1) and a 5.1.2 setup with the Focal Sib Evo 5.1.2 setup. The Atmos speakers are atmos enabled upfiring speakers and the installer put my surround speakers high on the wall, so I angled them downwards towards my couch.
> I tried watching Infinity War and it didn't feel as immersive as I wanted so I upped the speaker levels on the receiver. I think it is
> Center: 4.0
> Surround Speakers: 7.0
> Front Speakers: 2.0
> Presence Speakers(Atmos Enabled) 7.0.
> I can hear the sound much better this way. I'm wondering if this is ok and if any of you have your speaker levels pretty high.
> 
> Thanks!


1. Better change that surrounds location - you need the surround lower, near the ear height, or a bit higher than ear height. 

2. I hope that the fronts are at ear level, not up on the front wall.

3. If you can mount the speakers in their proper location and height you may have a better sounding setup - Dolby Enabled speakers need more care and adjusting so that they sound good;

4. Infinity War is a Disney mix - Disney has a nasty habbit to neuter it's soundtracks, so most of us need to increase the Main Volume 5-6-8dB more, so we can enjoy it...


----------



## Josh Z

[email protected] said:


> I tried watching Infinity War and it didn't feel as immersive as I wanted so I upped the speaker levels on the receiver. I think it is
> Center: 4.0
> Surround Speakers: 7.0
> Front Speakers: 2.0
> Presence Speakers(Atmos Enabled) 7.0.
> I can hear the sound much better this way. I'm wondering if this is ok and if any of you have your speaker levels pretty high.


I would caution against using any Disney titles as a reference to judge what your audio system should sound like. Disney's sound mixes have been very problematic for the last several years, lacking in bass and Atmos height activity. This includes Marvel and Star Wars movies.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

[email protected] said:


> Hi, I have a Yamaha RX-A780 receiver (7.1) and a 5.1.2 setup with the Focal Sib Evo 5.1.2 setup. The Atmos speakers are atmos enabled upfiring speakers and the installer put my surround speakers high on the wall, so I angled them downwards towards my couch.
> 
> I tried watching Infinity War and it didn't feel as immersive as I wanted so I upped the speaker levels on the receiver. I think it is
> 
> Center: 4.0
> 
> Surround Speakers: 7.0
> 
> Front Speakers: 2.0
> 
> Presence Speakers(Atmos Enabled) 7.0.
> 
> I can hear the sound much better this way. I'm wondering if this is ok and if any of you have your speaker levels pretty high.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!




It might depend on where they were set before. Where were they? Did you run ypao? Although I personally like to take a soundtrack for what it’s worth, many people will adjust trim levels to wherever they want. I would make sure all channels are level matched(except subs). 
Agree with the others, maybe a better soundtrack to evaluate with? Also the surrounds should be at or around ear height. How did you guys find the best placement for the atmos modules? That can take a lot of time to get right, and should make a big difference. FWIW, having the trims that high won’t really do much but the MV level will be lower overall to achieve the same volume levels.


----------



## [email protected]

Polyrythm1k said:


> It might depend on where they were set before. Where were they? Did you run ypao? Although I personally like to take a soundtrack for what it’s worth, many people will adjust trim levels to wherever they want. I would make sure all channels are level matched(except subs).
> Agree with the others, maybe a better soundtrack to evaluate with? Also the surrounds should be at or around ear height. How did you guys find the best placement for the atmos modules? That can take a lot of time to get right, and should make a big difference. FWIW, having the trims that high won’t really do much but the MV level will be lower overall to achieve the same volume levels.


Hi,
I had the center at 3, the front speakers at 1, and the front presence and surround speakers at 4. Thats what the ypao suggested. Do you think I should use different levels in the receiver for Disney mixes and non Disney mixes? I do have a lot of Marvel movies and when I watch them I do want them to sound good. I left the same levels on for Aquaman and I thought it sounded good. 
Can you tell me what trim does? I thought it has to do with the sound delay. Also what is the MV level? 
I measured the distance from the Atmos modules to where the couch is, and I used the recommended distance from the manufacturers website. I sometimes listen to the Dolby Access lg smart app and it sounds great on some of those programs whether it is the YPAO suggested levels or the ones I adjusted it to after watching Infinity War. Thanks!


----------



## [email protected]

dfa973 said:


> 1. Better change that surrounds location - you need the surround lower, near the ear height, or a bit higher than ear height.
> 
> 2. I hope that the fronts are at ear level, not up on the front wall.
> 
> 3. If you can mount the speakers in their proper location and height you may have a better sounding setup - Dolby Enabled speakers need more care and adjusting so that they sound good;
> 
> 4. Infinity War is a Disney mix - Disney has a nasty habbit to neuter it's soundtracks, so most of us need to increase the Main Volume 5-6-8dB more, so we can enjoy it...


Yes, I read that the surround should be placed around ear height. I'm new to this game as I recently had someone install my home theater system. However he placed it up high, and I'm guessing it is because I put my tv in a small living room. The couch is close to the wall. The speaker is mounted and it was wired through the attic so I can't change the speaker placement of the surrounds. Unfortunately changing the angle is the best I can do. 
The fronts are at just above ear level on the two fronts and right at ear level on the center channel. 
Do you generally adjust the level if you watch a Disney movie so you can get a better surround experience, and then change it back to a level that works with a more reference quality track?


----------



## dfa973

[email protected] said:


> Do you generally adjust the level if you watch a Disney movie so you can get a better surround experience, and then change it back to a level that works with a more reference quality track?


Yes, most of us do that. Weak soundtracks need a higher volume level. Disney/Marvel/Post_2015_Lucasfilm movies need a higher volume level.

Here are some reference (Atmos/or not) soundtracks:

Mad Max: Fury Road
Hacksaw Ridge 
Logan 
Gravity
Sicario 
Baby Driver 
The Martian
Blade Runner 2049 
Ready Player One 
The Fifth Element 
A Quiet Place
......


----------



## zeonstar

Good afternoon.

I currently have a 5.1.2 Atmos set up from a Denon X4400H. Right now my 2 Atmos speakers are front heights. I have been mulling over the idea of adding 2 more height speakers. These 2 would be ON the ceiling. My room is our living room with the Tv on one wall and the couch up against the opposite wall. The only way to really install these 2 additional speakers on the ceiling would be above and in front of the MLP, essentially making all 4 of my height speakers above me but also in front of me. 

With that in mind, would I even gain much by adding the additional 2 height speakers?

Also, can an AVR be configured for front heights and rear ceiling? 

Thanks!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

[email protected] said:


> Hi,
> 
> I had the center at 3, the front speakers at 1, and the front presence and surround speakers at 4. Thats what the ypao suggested. Do you think I should use different levels in the receiver for Disney mixes and non Disney mixes? I do have a lot of Marvel movies and when I watch them I do want them to sound good. I left the same levels on for Aquaman and I thought it sounded good.
> 
> Can you tell me what trim does? I thought it has to do with the sound delay. Also what is the MV level?
> 
> I measured the distance from the Atmos modules to where the couch is, and I used the recommended distance from the manufacturers website. I sometimes listen to the Dolby Access lg smart app and it sounds great on some of those programs whether it is the YPAO suggested levels or the ones I adjusted it to after watching Infinity War. Thanks!




Ok kimmy, so you didn’t raise them much,
Although I’m surprised to see them in the plus range. Ime, it’s easier to just raise the MV(master volume) to a good level, instead of raising trims. Some things I just like to set and forget! That’s my preference however and I understand, especially being kinda new, that you want to have a good exciting experience and sometimes that means raising some of the trims(individual speaker levels). You kinda get to decide which way will work for you. I personally would leave the levels. 

Do the atmos modules seem to be working? I did notice you raised them more than the rest. I have seen threads here focused on optimizing their placement but can’t think of them off hand. Maybe someone can drop a link in here for you. 
A quick search got me this:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1714010-dolby-atmos-upward-firing-module-speakers.html
I didn’t look too far through it but I’d bet with a little time you can find some great tips. 
Just watched infinity war the other night. The night before going to see End game. Disney track or not, still good entertainment.

FWIW, you could add some cable extensions to lower the surrounds. Just sayin...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> pasender91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my all Monitor audio Gold 5.1.4 setup I currently have all my speakers set to the usual (not sure if best) recommendation of setting the crossovers at 80 Hz for all (the subs are PC4000s dual).
> 
> My 4 in ceiling speakers are CT280-IDC which are 8 inch drivers I believe and pretty expensive for in ceiling height speakers.
> 
> My question is, is it best to keep all speakers at 80 before doing my Room correction (DIRAC) or should I change crossovers for my 4 in ceiling to higher?
> 
> Just want the best atmos experience so any recommendations would be appreciated.
> 
> I may cross lost this in the NAD 758 forum
> 
> 
> 
> As your ceiling speakers have 8 inch woofers and are specked to go down to 50 Hz , you can safely cut them at 80 Hz.
> On the other hand, believe it is a shame to cut the Gold 200 and 350 at 80 Hz /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif, i have the same speakers and happily cut at 60 Hz /forum/images/smilies/cool.gif
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two questions about that though-if very capable towers are with very capable subs-isn’t the sub best doing most of the work below 80 Hz?
> 
> Also, is there something to keeping all the speakers at the same crossovers or is that not that important?
Click to expand...

Bump (please)


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> With that in mind, would I even gain much by adding the additional 2 height speakers?


You will have a Front Heights (FH) and Top Middle (TM) setup by your description.
This setup is quite all right, and yes, you will gain front-back panning, not just in-front left-right, even if the TM is not "back". Standard setup is Top Front and Top Rear.



zeonstar said:


> Also, can an AVR be configured for front heights and rear ceiling?


Yes, is a valid setup, but right now you do not have a "rear"!!! BUT I have seen members here that have the Top Rears mounted right next to the rear wall (in combination with Top Fronts) and they are pleased. Yes, the front-back distance is reduced in that case, but Atmos is tolerant and flexible.

Valid combinations for your X4400H with Front Heights:

Front Height & Top Middle
Front Height & Top Rear
Front Height & Rear Height
Front Height & Surr. Heigh (for Auro3D mostly)

See page 58 in the manual - combinations table.


----------



## S_rangeBrew

dfa973 said:


> Yes, is a valid setup, but right now you do not have a "rear"!!! BUT I have seen members here that have the Top Rears mounted right next to the rear wall (in combination with Top Fronts) and they are pleased. Yes, the front-back distance is reduced in that case, but Atmos is tolerant and flexible.



Yep, as long as the angles from the speakers to the main listening position are correct, the distances are not super important. The correct angle is everything with Atmos. For instance, I had initially told my receiver that my front ceiling speakers were "front heights". Things sounded much better when I set them to "Atmos front ceiling". It turns out, Front Ceilings are expected to be at 45 degrees above, which is exactly the same spec that is required for Audssey DSX Height speakers, which is what i had installed them for. Doby Atmos height speakers are expected to be at 25 degrees... so the sound was off when I had incorrectly informed my receiver that's where they were.


I wish the diagrams that appeared on screen during the initial receiver speaker setup showed the angles instead of a description with no details. Some people are not going know to track down the Dolby Atmos guidelines for the correct angles.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> You will have a Front Heights (FH) and Top Middle (TM) setup by your description.
> This setup is quite all right, and yes, you will gain front-back panning, not just in-front left-right, even if the TM is not "back". Standard setup is Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, is a valid setup, but right now you do not have a "rear"!!! BUT I have seen members here that have the Top Rears mounted right next to the rear wall (in combination with Top Fronts) and they are pleased. Yes, the front-back distance is reduced in that case, but Atmos is tolerant and flexible.
> 
> Valid combinations for your X4400H with Front Heights:
> 
> Front Height & Top Middle
> Front Height & Top Rear
> Front Height & Rear Height
> Front Height & Surr. Heigh (for Auro3D mostly)
> 
> See page 58 in the manual - combinations table.



Good morning

I appreciate the reply and input so thank you! Since posting that, my idea of adding rear heights has somewhat evolved if you want to take a look! Thanks.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> Good morning
> 
> I appreciate the reply and input so thank you! Since posting that, my idea of adding rear heights has somewhat evolved if you want to take a look! Thanks.


Some pictures of your setup will help!


----------



## zeonstar

S_rangeBrew said:


> Yep, as long as the angles from the speakers to the main listening position are correct, the distances are not super important. The correct angle is everything with Atmos. For instance, I had initially told my receiver that my front ceiling speakers were "front heights". Things sounded much better when I set them to "Atmos front ceiling". It turns out, Front Ceilings are expected to be at 45 degrees above, which is exactly the same spec that is required for Audssey DSX Height speakers, which is what i had installed them for. Doby Atmos height speakers are expected to be at 25 degrees... so the sound was off when I had incorrectly informed my receiver that's where they were.



Thanks for this. You reminded me of something I have always wondered. Do people ever set their height speakers wrong on purpose to possibly gain a better effect? Taking my setup as an example, I have front heights (Prime Elevations) mounted up the front wall as high as possible and I have them correctly setup in my AVR. But suppose to intentionally told my system they were front ceiling speakers? Would that improve the content I get from my height speakers...or would it actually hurt it? I know you had yours set incorrectly on accident and in your case it made things worse.


Also I hate to sound stupid, but when you talk about the angles of the speakers, you do mean the angle towards the MLP right? So for example, what does "45 degrees above" mean? That they are pointed ABOVE the MLP by that much?

Thanks


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> Some pictures of your setup will help!


But there are pictures.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> But there are pictures.


OK, now I have seen them. You can replicate your Front Heights over the rear wall just fine, with the same speakers, but angled more toward the MLP, since the natural angle of Prime's is unsuited for your MLP (couch near wall).

In your situation, a Top Middle may be better suited than Rear Heights.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are pictures. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> OK, now I have seen them. You can replicate your Front Heights over the rear wall just fine, with the same speakers, but angled more toward the MLP, since the natural angle of Prime's is unsuited for your MLP (couch near wall).
> 
> In your situation, a Top Middle may be better suited than Rear Heights.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. Now I need to find some wall mounts that could let me mount my speakers high on the wall but angle the
Steeply downwards. 

Top Middle? You mean mount them on the ceiling? Wish I could but not an option. I need to stick to the walls. 

Or did you just mean assigning them Top Middle in my AVR?


----------



## Kain

I am not sure where to ask these questions so I am going to try to ask them here...

1. What exactly is IMAX DMR? Does it only have to do with picture/image "optimization" or does it also "optimize" sound?

2. Does each and every movie shown in a IMAX theater go through this DMR process?

3. For movies that are not shot on IMAX cameras and also do not have a IMAX-specific audio track, how are they played in IMAX theaters? For example, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is shot in scope and only has a Dolby Atmos sound mix according to IMDb. Since this movie will also be played in IMAX theaters, what is done to make it "compatible" with IMAX theaters (specifically the sound mix since IMAX theaters do not use Dolby Atmos)?


----------



## Augerhandle

Kain said:


> I am not sure where to ask these questions so I am going to try to ask them here...
> 
> 1. What exactly is IMAX DMR? Does it only have to do with picture/image "optimization" or does it also "optimize" sound?
> 
> 2. Does each and every movie shown in a IMAX theater go through this DMR process?
> 
> 3. For movies that are not shot on IMAX cameras and also do not have a IMAX-specific audio track, how are they played in IMAX theaters? For example, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is shot in scope and only has a Dolby Atmos sound mix according to IMDb. Since this movie will also be played in IMAX theaters, what is done to make it "compatible" with IMAX theaters (specifically the sound mix since IMAX theaters do not use Dolby Atmos)?


1. DMR stands for Digital Media Remastering. Picture only.

2. No. Regular IMAX movies are filmed in IMAX. DMR upscales normally filmed movies to the IMAX size format.

3. See above as far as video. As for sound, ATMOS soundtracks are backward compatible. IMAX presents the soundtrack in it's standard six channel format.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> Or did you just mean assigning them Top Middle in my AVR?


No, I mean mounting the speakers on/in the ceiling, in the physical location of TM, and using them as TM. 

Since you already have FH, assigning RH to TM would do nothing good to the sound, but you can test, of course...


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> I am not sure where to ask these questions so I am going to try to ask them here...
> 
> 1. What exactly is IMAX DMR? Does it only have to do with picture/image "optimization" or does it also "optimize" sound?


Originally referred to the process to convert standard Hollywood movies to IMAX 15/70, usually with some form of grain reduction and some other image enhancements to ensure the picture looked good when blown up to IMAX-sized screens. With the rollout of smaller screens and now digital projection, they are still using this term to refer to the IMAX re-mastering of the picture, again to optimize how the image looks when played back on IMAX systems. Nothing to do with optimizing sound.



> 2. Does each and every movie shown in a IMAX theater go through this DMR process?


Movies produced natively with IMAX cameras do not need to undergo the DMR remastering, although I would imagine that the post workflows for a remaster and an IMAX original are similar, in terms of the target requirements for color grading and so on.



> 3. For movies that are not shot on IMAX cameras and also do not have a IMAX-specific audio track, how are they played in IMAX theaters? For example, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is shot in scope and only has a Dolby Atmos sound mix according to IMDb. Since this movie will also be played in IMAX theaters, what is done to make it "compatible" with IMAX theaters (specifically the sound mix since IMAX theaters do not use Dolby Atmos)?


For movies playing back in IMAX theatres and advertised as IMAX releases (often with an Optimized for IMAX logo in the credits) there is an IMAX remix of the soundtrack, for playback on the IMAX 6 or 12 channel sound systems. Often the IMAX mix is derived from the original Atmos mix, but it is a true remix with creative input and control over the IMAX version of the soundtrack.


----------



## David Susilo

IMAX sound is essentially a bastardized version of Dolby Atmos soundtrack. There is hardly any native DTS:X and IMAX sound for feature films out there.


----------



## Kain

Augerhandle said:


> 1. DMR stands for Digital Media Remastering. Picture only.
> 
> 2. No. Regular IMAX movies are filmed in IMAX. DMR upscales normally filmed movies to the IMAX size format.
> 
> 3. See above as far as video. As for sound, ATMOS soundtracks are backward compatible. IMAX presents the soundtrack in it's standard six channel format.


Thanks.



dschulz said:


> Originally referred to the process to convert standard Hollywood movies to IMAX 15/70, usually with some form of grain reduction and some other image enhancements to ensure the picture looked good when blown up to IMAX-sized screens. With the rollout of smaller screens and now digital projection, they are still using this term to refer to the IMAX re-mastering of the picture, again to optimize how the image looks when played back on IMAX systems. Nothing to do with optimizing sound.
> 
> 
> 
> Movies produced natively with IMAX cameras do not need to undergo the DMR remastering, although I would imagine that the post workflows for a remaster and an IMAX original are similar, in terms of the target requirements for color grading and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> For movies playing back in IMAX theatres and advertised as IMAX releases (often with an Optimized for IMAX logo in the credits) there is an IMAX remix of the soundtrack, for playback on the IMAX 6 or 12 channel sound systems. Often the IMAX mix is derived from the original Atmos mix, but it is a true remix with creative input and control over the IMAX version of the soundtrack.


Thanks. Do all movies that are shown in IMAX have an IMAX remix of the soundtrack or is it possible for a "non-IMAX" movie to be shown in IMAX "as is" and let the IMAX hardware down-mix the Atmos or some other sound format to IMAX 6-Track or 12-Track? For example, the movie Us was not being shown in IMAX when it was released. However, due to its success, it was shown in IMAX for just one week at a later date. Did they remix the soundtrack for IMAX for that one week showing or did they just play the movie as is and let the IMAX hardware handle/down-mix everything automatically?

Also, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is being advertised as an IMAX release. However, IMDb only lists Dolby Atmos as the available sound mix. Is this an error on IMDb's part? Since it is being advertised as an IMAX release, it should also have an IMAX 6-Track and 12-Track sound mix?

Lastly, when movies shot in the scope format are shown in IMAX (such as Godzilla: King of the Monsters), do they preserve the aspect ratio when playing in IMAX?


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Thanks. Do all movies that are shown in IMAX have an IMAX remix of the soundtrack or is it possible for a "non-IMAX" movie to be shown in IMAX "as is" and let the IMAX hardware down-mix the Atmos or some other sound format to IMAX 6-Track or 12-Track? For example, the movie Us was not being shown in IMAX when it was released. However, due to its success, it was shown in IMAX for just one week at a later date. Did they remix the soundtrack for IMAX for that one week showing or did they just play the movie as is and let the IMAX hardware handle/down-mix everything automatically?


There is no down-mix capability in digital cinema, IMAX or otherwise. Movies with Atmos mixes are also delivered with 7.1 and 5.1 mixes, for non-Atmos theatres. And as far as I know, anything being released into the IMAX screens does have an IMAX remix done, because of the unique way IMAX systems handle low frequencies. 



> Also, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is being advertised as an IMAX release. However, IMDb only lists Dolby Atmos as the available sound mix. Is this an error on IMDb's part? Since it is being advertised as an IMAX release, it should also have an IMAX 6-Track and 12-Track sound mix?


That is correct.



> Lastly, when movies shot in the scope format are shown in IMAX (such as Godzilla: King of the Monsters), do they preserve the aspect ratio when playing in IMAX?


Normally yes, and the majority of IMAX releases are letterboxed to 'Scope, as 'Scope is still the most-popular aspect ratio for Hollywood movies. There are some titles that work with IMAX to provide an alternate version of the movie in the IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1, either all the way through or with a variable aspect ratio that switches between letterboxed and full-screen IMAX.


----------



## Kain

dschulz said:


> There is no down-mix capability in digital cinema, IMAX or otherwise. Movies with Atmos mixes are also delivered with 7.1 and 5.1 mixes, for non-Atmos theatres. And as far as I know, anything being released into the IMAX screens does have an IMAX remix done, because of the unique way IMAX systems handle low frequencies.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Normally yes, and the majority of IMAX releases are letterboxed to 'Scope, as 'Scope is still the most-popular aspect ratio for Hollywood movies. There are some titles that work with IMAX to provide an alternate version of the movie in the IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1, either all the way through or with a variable aspect ratio that switches between letterboxed and full-screen IMAX.


Thanks! 

Just to make sure I have this right, IMAX does not have an LFE channel, correct? The sound system is just bass-managed where frequencies below a specific point are sent to the subwoofer?


----------



## zeonstar

Hey all


A few days ago I made a thread of my own asking about turning my current 5.1.2 system into a 5.1.4 by adding rear heights. I had some questions regarding installation that I have all but figured out so my only remaining questions more directly involve Atmos so I thought I would post here.

Looking at the photo below, my plan is to add rear heights (see very crude speaker drawing on right wall) and essentially point them straight down (more or less) at my MLP.)









Regarding this placement and angle, in my AVR since these speakers are basically above me, would I be ok in assigning them as top rears? I know they need to back more, but I gotta work with what I got. 

Secondly, here is a head on view of the wall they will be on.









My MLP is on the left side of the couch. My front sound stage is centered in front of the MLP. The right surround is further away than it should be just because that was the only place I could put it. In our home, I am 95% the only person who cares about surround sound and home theater. My friend comes over to watch movies once in awhile but it's basically my thing. With that in mind, I am wondering about the side to side placement of my rear heights. Do I center them between my back surrounds? Or do I center them to be based on my front sound stage, which means I'd probably put them straight out from my front heights. If you need a reference for that, if they were straight across from my front heights, they would end up on the left side where the shadow is being cast by the thing hanging, and on the right, it would be above the middle of the triple photo on the top shelf.

Would love any input. I can add more photos if you need me to. I got my speakers and accessories coming in the next few days and I am very excited to get started.


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Just to make sure I have this right, IMAX does not have an LFE channel, correct? The sound system is just bass-managed where frequencies below a specific point are sent to the subwoofer?


That is correct.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> With that in mind, I am wondering about the side to side placement of my rear heights. Do I center them between my back surrounds? Or do I center them to be based on my front sound stage, which means I'd probably put them straight out from my front heights.


Place your future RH the same as FH on the rear wall - same height, the same distance from the lateral walls - keep the symmetry of the overhead layer.

If your FH is centered to MLP, so the RH should be centered also referencing the same MLP. You should not offset the rear versus the front. You can do an asymmetric RH vs FH, but only if you are forced by the room layout or furniture (the AVR should compensate for the resulting asymmetry).


----------



## TommyDeVito

sdurani said:


> Top Front and Top Rear locations have a 25-degree placement range; Top Middle location has a 35-degree (!) placement range. Dolby is anything but "particular" about angles. Instead, they're quite flexible when it comes to speaker placement.


True. But room size, MLP location, etc all play a factor so angles must be accounted for.


----------



## TommyDeVito

zeonstar said:


> Thanks for the input. Now I need to find some wall mounts that could let me mount my speakers high on the wall but angle the
> Steeply downwards.


I used these:

https://www.monoprice.com/product?p...MInNubheqY4gIVTvDACh18RwvQEAQYBCABEgIM6fD_BwE

Had planned on mounting them on walls but found that my MLP dictated mounting the brackets to the ceilings instead, mainly for the rear overheads to get that extreme angle pointing towards MLP.


Here are a few pics.










Room is under development so forgive the mess. Waiting on new seats so this one seat is being used for reference only.










Here you can see that the monoprice brackets allowed extreme angle for the rears pointing at the MLP.


----------



## Josh Z

Kain said:


> Lastly, when movies shot in the scope format are shown in IMAX (such as Godzilla: King of the Monsters), do they preserve the aspect ratio when playing in IMAX?





dschulz said:


> Normally yes, and the majority of IMAX releases are letterboxed to 'Scope, as 'Scope is still the most-popular aspect ratio for Hollywood movies. There are some titles that work with IMAX to provide an alternate version of the movie in the IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1, either all the way through or with a variable aspect ratio that switches between letterboxed and full-screen IMAX.


A list of movies with either variable aspect ratio or open-matte aspect ratio in IMAX theaters is maintained in the following thread:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...ist-variable-aspect-ratio-movies-blu-ray.html


----------



## sdurani

TommyDeVito said:


> But room size, MLP location, etc all play a factor so angles must be accounted for.


Sure, but that goes for any speaker or subwoofer placement (isn't only for Atmos). I was simply pointing out that Dolby is not _"particular on the angles"_. With a typical room, the Dolby spec for the Top Middle speaker placement is a one meter (39") range overhead. That ain't particular. Which makes sense considering Atmos doesn't do its rendering based on angles but instead based on speaker locations relative to other speakers.


----------



## zeonstar

TommyDeVito said:


> I used these:
> 
> https://www.monoprice.com/product?p...MInNubheqY4gIVTvDACh18RwvQEAQYBCABEgIM6fD_BwE
> 
> Had planned on mounting them on walls but found that my MLP dictated mounting the brackets to the ceilings instead, mainly for the rear overheads to get that extreme angle pointing towards MLP.
> 
> 
> Here are a few pics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Room is under development so forgive the mess. Waiting on new seats so this one seat is being used for reference only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you can see that the monoprice brackets allowed extreme angle for the rears pointing at the MLP.


Hey! Those actually look really good. Except I wish they had keyhole mounts for my speakers. I'd hate to put holes in my speakers. I found some on amazon I am going to try. But still, I will make a note of these.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> Place your future RH the same as FH on the rear wall - same height, the same distance from the lateral walls - keep the symmetry of the overhead layer.
> 
> If your FH is centered to MLP, so the RH should be centered also referencing the same MLP. You should not offset the rear versus the front. You can do an asymmetric RH vs FH, but only if you are forced by the room layout or furniture (the AVR should compensate for the resulting asymmetry).


Good morning! I Thank you for the reply!

So just to make sure I am clear. I should keep the side to side placement of my heights symmetrical if all possible? Is that because the heights being off would be less forgiving than my right surround being further off to the right than the left? My AVR compensated for that but adjusting levels on my surrounds since one is closer than the other. Would a similar approach not work for an offset height speaker?

You also said the front to back distances for the heights from my MLP are more forgivable and the AVR will compensate...correct?

Will I have any issues with my fronts being heights and my rears being set to tops?


----------



## TommyDeVito

zeonstar said:


> Hey! Those actually look really good. Except I wish they had keyhole mounts for my speakers. I'd hate to put holes in my speakers. I found some on amazon I am going to try. But still, I will make a note of these.


My installer simply drilled two small holes in the keyhole brackets on the speakers to make this work. Minor surgery only. Best of luck. 

Atmos is worth the effort. I made some front height angle adjustments and watched some scenes from Blade Runner 2049 (my personal reference disc), and was blown away. I've got everything as close as I can without professional calibration. The commercial cineplexes are history now for me. Just waiting on my new seats and I want a 2nd sub now later this year. It'll be worth the effort when you are done.


----------



## zeonstar

TommyDeVito said:


> My installer simply drilled two small holes in the keyhole brackets on the speakers to make this work. Minor surgery only. Best of luck.


When you say keyhole bracket, you mean on the speaker right? The speakers Im using already have the threaded 1/2 in screw hole. Unless I am just confused, sounds like the speakers you used are different.



TommyDeVito said:


> Atmos is worth the effort. I made some front height angle adjustments and watched some scenes from Blade Runner 2049 (my personal reference disc), and was blown away. I've got everything as close as I can without professional calibration. The commercial cineplexes are history now for me. Just waiting on my new seats and I want a 2nd sub now later this year. It'll be worth the effort when you are done.


Oh I love Atmos. It was the foundation of me rebuilding/upgrading my whole system that began with a simple AVR that went out and somehow ended up with me replacing all my speakers, AVR, upgrading to 4K, and even getting an OLED Tv. I couldn't love it all this stuff more. My Atmos is just from front heights and even that I enjoy. I know it's not ideal and someday when we move into a bigger home, I hope to have true in-ceiling speakers. But for now, that I can add rear speakers that are truly above me...I am very excited. I didn't think it was possible but talking with my wife, we figured out how we can make it work. She is beyond tolerant of all my crazy. 

I like your setup btw. I just took another look at your photos and realized you seem to have exactly what I am about to have. Front Heights and Rear Tops. In Your AVR do you have the rears as tops or heights?


----------



## Chirosamsung

TommyDeVito said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input. Now I need to find some wall mounts that could let me mount my speakers high on the wall but angle the
> Steeply downwards.
> 
> 
> 
> I used these:
> 
> https://www.monoprice.com/product?p...MInNubheqY4gIVTvDACh18RwvQEAQYBCABEgIM6fD_BwE
> 
> Had planned on mounting them on walls but found that my MLP dictated mounting the brackets to the ceilings instead, mainly for the rear overheads to get that extreme angle pointing towards MLP.
> 
> 
> Here are a few pics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Room is under development so forgive the mess. Waiting on new seats so this one seat is being used for reference only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you can see that the monoprice brackets allowed extreme angle for the rears pointing at the MLP.
Click to expand...

How close are your rear surrounds to your MLP? They look a lot closer then usually recommended....


----------



## cdjocp

looking for help, i just purchased x4500. i have a vaulted ceiling in the rear that allows my in ceiling speakers to be pointed directly at the mlp. Should i set the lay out to rear heights or top rear when using 5.1.2. for atmos , Dtx, etc..


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> So just to make sure I am clear. I should keep the side to side placement of my heights symmetrical if all possible?


All speakers should be centered versus the MLP and symmetric. 



zeonstar said:


> Is that because the heights being off would be less forgiving than my right surround being further off to the right than the left?


No.



zeonstar said:


> My AVR compensated for that but adjusting levels on my surrounds since one is closer than the other. Would a similar approach not work for an offset height speaker?


No.



zeonstar said:


> You also said the front to back distances for the heights from my MLP are more forgivable and the AVR will compensate...correct?


I never said that. AVR will compensate for all speakers the same way.



zeonstar said:


> Will I have any issues with my fronts being heights and my rears being set to tops?


No, as I said before, you have many combinations possible, see the previously published table or in the AVR manual.


----------



## Lost_62

On average, for loudspeakers in height , which distance between the speakers you should position it , 200cm or 220cm can be a satisfactory distance ?


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> On average, for loudspeakers in height , which distance between the speakers you should position it , 200cm or 220cm can be a satisfactory distance ?


You should have the same distance as that between the Main L&R speakers if the room or furniture does not prevent you to do that. Otherwise, the closest distance to the stereo base (between the Main L&R speakers).


----------



## Lost_62

I know, unfortunately above the left speaker, I have a window , for this reason I had to keep the loudspeakers narrower than the front speakers to 220 cm between , them compared to the Main L&R speakers that measure between them about 300cm


----------



## dfa973

Lost_62 said:


> I know, unfortunately above the left speaker, I have a window , for this reason I had to keep the loudspeakers narrower than the front speakers to 220 cm between , them compared to the Main L&R speakers that measure between them about 300cm


It's OK. The calibration should take care of any difference.


----------



## Lost_62

at 220 cm between the speakers, I have a 30 ° angle for heights


----------



## pasender91

Remember the receiver can "fix" distances (level and delay) but it can't "fix" angles 
So it is almost always a better Atmos approach to give a much higher priority to get the angles right even if it means having different distances on your speakers


----------



## Lost_62

I am aware of it and this is the maximum that I could achieve given the conformity of my room and inclined ceiling.


----------



## Lost_62

dfa973 said:


> It's OK. The calibration should take care of any difference.



for autocalibration I have to wait, first I should change my Receiver with an Atmos and DTS: X having an array of 13 speakers more _subwoofer , __having two amplitude speakers my dream would be to drive him from a Denon AVC-X8500H._
_but it costs a bang._


----------



## Lost_62

Well. Meanwhile in small steps , I completed the work of positioning height diffusers for the front and rear walls and I lowered the side and back surround speakers , now I need some painting tweaks to cover everything.
If I have time I would like to post some pictures I would like your opinion or criticism of the placement of the speakers for an Atmos and DTS: X system.
finally I would also like to thank all those subscribers of the thread who wanted to help me with suggestions, with patience and, with support.

https://imgur.com/ffGi6wj
https://imgur.com/jx7H5U8
https://imgur.com/PaZZjWR
https://imgur.com/qw20LkI
https://imgur.com/xNC0233
https://imgur.com/LcZ6Qwd


----------



## TommyDeVito

zeonstar said:


> When you say keyhole bracket, you mean on the speaker right? The speakers Im using already have the threaded 1/2 in screw hole. Unless I am just confused, sounds like the speakers you used are different.


JBL Studio 210's. You can look them up on google images or JBL and see the back of them to see how their keyhole bracket looks. All we did is make two holes in the OEM bracket to use the monoprice wall/ceiling brackets. Very minimal surgery, and no screws into the speakers themselves, just into the attached OEM keyhole brackets. 



zeonstar said:


> I like your setup btw. I just took another look at your photos and realized you seem to have exactly what I am about to have. Front Heights and Rear Tops. In Your AVR do you have the rears as tops or heights?


Front and rear heights. I chose to go this route due to my room size. With the brackets it gives me a lot of options for angles (tilt) as well as swivel options for dispersion. Allows for a lot of adjust-ability. Very beneficial to me and the room itself since I still need to play with seat placement when my new theater seats arrive. At a cineplex I don't like nosebleed seats. I usually sit about 75% up the stairs in a theater if that makes sense. 4k you can sit closer but I like to avoid sitting so close that I need to eye shift during a film.


----------



## TommyDeVito

Chirosamsung said:


> How close are your rear surrounds to your MLP? They look a lot closer then usually recommended....


Do you know the dimension of my room? How about how many feet between the wall and the seat? The pictures I posted for him were for him to get an idea on brackets and their placement since he is in the same boat, not for you to critique my HT. You should refrain from critiques on here unless you know all room dimensions, etc. I mentioned that room is under construction, that single seat won't be in there much longer and when I took the picture nothing was even connected yet to the AVR.


----------



## S_rangeBrew

zeonstar said:


> Hey! Those actually look really good. Except I wish they had keyhole mounts for my speakers. I'd hate to put holes in my speakers. I found some on amazon I am going to try. But still, I will make a note of these.



These are the mounts I use for my ceiling and wall: http://www.pinpointmounts.com/AM26_UNIVERSAL_SPEAKER_WALL_CEILING_MOUNT.HTML


They are by FAR the most rock solid, versatile and good looking speaker mounts I've ever used. They include a very slick keyhole speaker adapter, along with adapters for every other kind of speaker mounting hole. HIGHLY recommended. 



TommyDeVito said:


> Atmos is worth the effort. I made some front height angle adjustments and watched some scenes from Blade Runner 2049 (my personal reference disc), and was blown away. I've got everything as close as I can without professional calibration. The commercial cineplexes are history now for me. Just waiting on my new seats and I want a 2nd sub now later this year. It'll be worth the effort when you are done.



Atmos really is great. I was blown away even with my speakers mounted way too high (per old Dolby surround specs) and literally only the front ceiling heights and center speaker in the right place. In two days, I should have all 11 speakers in exactly the right Dolby Atmos location. I can't wait. Blade Runner 2049 and Mad Max Fury Road are the first two things on my list. The closest Atmos theater to me is 4 hours away, so I have justified the expense with all the fuel I will be saving.


----------



## TommyDeVito

S_rangeBrew said:


> Atmos really is great. I was blown away even with my speakers mounted way too high (per old Dolby surround specs) and literally only the front ceiling heights and center speaker in the right place. In two days, I should have all 11 speakers in exactly the right Dolby Atmos location. I can't wait. Blade Runner 2049 and Mad Max Fury Road are the first two things on my list. The closest Atmos theater to me is 4 hours away, so I have justified the expense with all the fuel I will be saving.


Blade Runner 2049, is not only the best sequel I have ever seen, it's "MY" 4k Atmos reference disc. That damn disc is incredible. The sound immersion, the soundtrack, it will blow you away. I hope you have a great sub. The sound engineers did a very good job with it and the Atmos portion of the soundtrack has sound, not just sound effects going through your Atmos speakers. I just watched Guardians 2, and Disney mastered that thing terribly low in volume. I usually listen at 72-75 db in my HT. I had to turn the db's way up (82 db iirc) and it still sounded muted. Blade Runner is how all of the 4k Atmos discs should be in terms of audio. You almost have to turn it down. Congrats and good luck on your setup.


----------



## zeonstar

S_rangeBrew said:


> These are the mounts I use for my ceiling and wall: http://www.pinpointmounts.com/AM26_UNIVERSAL_SPEAKER_WALL_CEILING_MOUNT.HTML
> 
> 
> They are by FAR the most rock solid, versatile and good looking speaker mounts I've ever used. They include a very slick keyhole speaker adapter, along with adapters for every other kind of speaker mounting hole. HIGHLY recommended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos really is great. I was blown away even with my speakers mounted way too high (per old Dolby surround specs) and literally only the front ceiling heights and center speaker in the right place. In two days, I should have all 11 speakers in exactly the right Dolby Atmos location. I can't wait. Blade Runner 2049 and Mad Max Fury Road are the first two things on my list. The closest Atmos theater to me is 4 hours away, so I have justified the expense with all the fuel I will be saving.


Would love to see it when you're all done. Mounts look great. Would I be able to wall mount them and have an extreme down angle on my speakers with those?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

TommyDeVito said:


> Blade Runner 2049, is not only the best sequel I have ever seen, it's "MY" 4k Atmos reference disc. That damn disc is incredible. The sound immersion, the soundtrack, it will blow you away. I hope you have a great sub. The sound engineers did a very good job with it and the Atmos portion of the soundtrack has sound, not just sound effects going through your Atmos speakers. I just watched Guardians 2, and Disney mastered that thing terribly low in volume. I usually listen at 72-75 db in my HT. I had to turn the db's way up (82 db iirc) and it still sounded muted. Blade Runner is how all of the 4k Atmos discs should be in terms of audio. You almost have to turn it down. Congrats and good luck on your setup.



The new Godzilla 1998 UHD Blu-ray is supposed to have a pretty killer Atmos track too. Maybe not 2049 or Gravity quality... those are the Atmos tracks to beat... but still room filling. If you can get over the fact that it's basically a spoof Godzilla film.


----------



## S_rangeBrew

TommyDeVito said:


> Blade Runner 2049, is not only the best sequel I have ever seen, it's "MY" 4k Atmos reference disc. That damn disc is incredible. The sound immersion, the soundtrack, it will blow you away. I hope you have a great sub.



I've played the first 5 minutes of the movie a few times now. Amazing. Scared everyone in the house, including the dog. I've got huge infinite baffle subwoofers built into the floor that go way below 10Hz. The couch levitates. 





> Disney mastered that thing terribly low in volume. I usually listen at 72-75 db in my HT. I had to turn the db's way up (82 db iirc) and it still sounded muted.




Disney is absolutely mangling it's soundtracks. Disgusting. After I get all this Atmos stuff up and working, I'm going to order a MiniDSP and use the settings those guys are using in the BassEQ thread to get the bass back on any movie I watch.




zeonstar said:


> Would love to see it when you're all done. Mounts look great. Would I be able to wall mount them and have an extreme down angle on my speakers with those?



Yeah, it's gonna be pretty sweet, I post up some pics. If you look at the pics, they have a very flexible ball joint that allows for any angle and a metal extension for ceiling mounting or wall mounting with a oddly shaped speaker that needs it for extreme angles.


----------



## m. zillch

Dan Hitchman said:


> The new Godzilla 1998. . . .


"Godzilla (DVD, Columbia TriStar) There's plenty of deep bass throughout, but the main menu just keeps looping through the room-rumbling 25-Hz monster stomps until you make a selection."
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/big-bad-bass-tracks


----------



## zeonstar

S_rangeBrew said:


> Yeah, it's gonna be pretty sweet, I post up some pics. If you look at the pics, they have a very flexible ball joint that allows for any angle and a metal extension for ceiling mounting or wall mounting with a oddly shaped speaker that needs it for extreme angles.



Where did you post the pics?


----------



## TommyDeVito

S_rangeBrew said:


> Disney is absolutely mangling it's soundtracks. Disgusting. After I get all this Atmos stuff up and working, I'm going to order a MiniDSP and use the settings those guys are using in the BassEQ thread to get the bass back on any movie I watch.


It's sad. It was like I was streaming it bad. Are all the other Marvel 4k films like this? If so, I'm not ordering any more of them for rental. Pointless.


----------



## dfa973

TommyDeVito said:


> It's sad. It was like I was streaming it bad. Are all the other Marvel 4k films like this? If so, I'm not ordering any more of them for rental. Pointless.


Not all are the same, newer ones are a little better than the older ones. Infinity War and Last Jedi are decent for example.


----------



## Josh Z

dfa973 said:


> Not all are the same, newer ones are a little better than the older ones. Infinity War and Last Jedi are decent for example.


I'm pretty sure my subwoofer stayed in Sleep status for the entirety of Last Jedi.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> The new Godzilla 1998 UHD Blu-ray is supposed to have a pretty killer Atmos track too. Maybe not 2049 or Gravity quality... those are the Atmos tracks to beat... but still room filling. If you can get over the fact that it's basically a spoof Godzilla film.


Gravity is still my go-to movie for Atmos object passthrough. If you want full value for all the speakers in your channel count with native Atmos rendering, it’s reference content IMO.


----------



## Erod

Dan Hitchman said:


> The new Godzilla 1998 UHD Blu-ray is supposed to have a pretty killer Atmos track too. Maybe not 2049 or Gravity quality... those are the Atmos tracks to beat... but still room filling. If you can get over the fact that it's basically a spoof Godzilla film.


In terms of quality Atmos, I'd put _Ready Player One, Star Trek:Into Darkness, Jumanji_, _Coco_, and _Oblivion_ ahead of both of those two films.


----------



## batpig

Speaking of reference Atmos mixes, I finally watched "Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse" at home (I think I posted about how amazing the Atmos sound was in the commercial cinema).

It is truly reference quality in terms of bass, music, aggressive use of surrounds and overheads, etc.

However, I did some tests with just the wides active, and I was very bummed to discover that it doesn't use the wides at all 

A real disappointment since the previous Sony/Marvel movies, "Spider-Man Homecoming" and "Venom", are among the most active mixes I've encountered.


----------



## TommyDeVito

sdrucker said:


> Gravity is still my go-to movie for Atmos object passthrough. If you want full value for all the speakers in your channel count with native Atmos rendering, it’s reference content IMO.



You are referring to the 1080p Blu Ray correct? Can you provide a link (amazon perhaps?) so I snag the right disc? I loved the film in theater in 3D. It blew my mind and really showed current 3D capability. I saw it in XD 3d or whatever it's called and was very impressed.


----------



## S_rangeBrew

Josh Z said:


> I'm pretty sure my subwoofer stayed in Sleep status for the entirety of Last Jedi.



Peak AVSForum gallows humor. Thanks for the laugh. 




batpig said:


> Speaking of reference Atmos mixes, I finally watched "Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse" at home (I think I posted about how amazing the Atmos sound was in the commercial cinema).
> 
> It is truly reference quality in terms of bass, music, aggressive use of surrounds and overheads, etc.
> 
> However, I did some tests with just the wides active, and I was very bummed to discover that it doesn't use the wides at all
> 
> A real disappointment since the previous Sony/Marvel movies, "Spider-Man Homecoming" and "Venom", are among the most active mixes I've encountered.



I moved my DSX Wides and recycled them as Atmos Ceiling Rears with my new RZ830 7.1.4 receiver. 

However, I kept the speaker wires and mounts, (hidden behind acoustic panels now) ready for the glorious day they will re-emerge with a receiver/format that respects them!


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> I did some tests with just the wides active, and I was very bummed to discover that it doesn't use the wides at all
> 
> A real disappointment since the previous Sony/Marvel movies, "Spider-Man Homecoming" and "Venom", are among the most active mixes I've encountered.


It begins. Et tu, Sony?


----------



## Josh Z

S_rangeBrew said:


> Peak AVSForum gallows humor. Thanks for the laugh.


I'm actually serious. That soundtrack had next to no bass when I watched the Blu-ray.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> It begins. Et tu, Sony?


Or it could just be that the mixer didn't use object locations that would direct content to the wides. I've seen other movies that are de facto 7.1.6 or even just have object passthrough to the front side surround (SS1) when I've done meter watching.

If I wanted to take another for the team I'd buy this movie and run it through my I/O meters on the Altitude, but I'm not motivated enough to pick up another Spiderman movie in the interests of science.

I've got Black Hawk Down on Atmos, but haven't watched it yet. That's a Sony release that I can look at tonight. The last non-legacy (i.e. a movie release that IIRC that had theatrical Atmos on at movie theatres) that I have is Fury, though.


----------



## batpig

Stu - Spider-Verse is SO GOOD, it's on the short list of consideration for best comic movies of all time. Tons of fun, lots of humor, great sound, great music, groundbreaking visuals/animation. If you haven't seen it yet you should, and I bet the little man will love it too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Erod said:


> In terms of quality Atmos, I'd put _Ready Player One, Star Trek:Into Darkness, Jumanji_, _Coco_, and _Oblivion_ ahead of both of those two films.



If you have heard them on a system that is >7.1.4 then Blade Runner 2049 and Gravity are still pretty much at the top of the heap.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have heard them on a system that is >7.1.4 then Blade Runner 2049 and Gravity are still pretty much at the top of the heap.


It's really unfortunate that there are some otherwise reference quality Atmos mixes that don't really scale well to higher channel count speaker layouts. Such a waste of the promise of Atmos.

Ready Player One is often mentioned as top-tier Atmos mix (and it is) but there is barely anything in the wides. The Saving Private Ryan 4K Atmos remix is also phenomenal, however it's actually a 7.1.2 fixed mix so if you play it on a 9.1.4, 7.1.6, or 9.1.6 speaker layout you're getting a big bucket of silence from several speakers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> It's really unfortunate that there are some otherwise reference quality Atmos mixes that don't really scale well to higher channel count speaker layouts. Such a waste of the promise of Atmos.
> 
> Ready Player One is often mentioned as top-tier Atmos mix (and it is) but there is barely anything in the wides. The Saving Private Ryan 4K Atmos remix is also phenomenal, however it's actually a 7.1.2 fixed mix so if you play it on a 9.1.4, 7.1.6, or 9.1.6 speaker layout you're getting a big bucket of silence from several speakers.



Yup. I think Dolby needs to send_ a lot_ of audio engineers back to Atmos school.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have heard them on a system that is >7.1.4 then Blade Runner 2049 and Gravity are still pretty much at the top of the heap.


I'd add a few other movies, offhand - Star Trek: Into Darkness, Unbroken (opening bombing scene uses everything in my 11.x.6 setup), Fury, War for the Planet of the Apes, Red Sparrow, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Matrix Reloaded, as well as Overlord and The House with a Clock on Its Walls to that list.


----------



## Erod

Dan Hitchman said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of quality Atmos, I'd put _Ready Player One, Star Trek:Into Darkness, Jumanji_, _Coco_, and _Oblivion_ ahead of both of those two films.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have heard them on a system that is >7.1.4 then Blade Runner 2049 and Gravity are still pretty much at the top of the heap.
Click to expand...

I have a 7.2.4 dedicated roomroom. 

Blade Runner 2049 is tremendous for bass, but that isn't what "Atmos" really is about. Same with John Wick. There are a few moments in Blade Runner that are really good, and it's a good reference.

Gravity has a lot of traveling voices panning around, but not as effectively as Star Trek: Into Darkness in my opinion. 

Jumanji is incredibly effective, as is Oblivion.

Even The Revenant uses the heights very well with DSU, and it's not even Atmos. I love the steps above you in the fort at the end.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> I'd add a few other movies, offhand - Star Trek: Into Darkness, Unbroken (opening bombing scene uses everything in my 11.x.6 setup), Fury, War for the Planet of the Apes, Red Sparrow, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Matrix Reloaded, as well as Overlord and The House with a Clock on Its Walls to that list.



Thanks for the recommendations! How about the original The Matrix?


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the recommendations! How about the original The Matrix?


That too.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

TommyDeVito said:


> You are referring to the 1080p Blu Ray correct? Can you provide a link (amazon perhaps?) so I snag the right disc? I loved the film in theater in 3D. It blew my mind and really showed current 3D capability. I saw it in XD 3d or whatever it's called and was very impressed.




If I’m not mistaken, I seem to recall the atmos track is only on the diamond luxe version. Not  %though...


----------



## sdrucker

Polyrythm1k said:


> If I’m not mistaken, I seem to recall the atmos track is only on the diamond luxe version. Not  %though...


The Diamond Deluxe BluRay (2D) is the one I have with Atmos.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

sdrucker said:


> The Diamond Deluxe BluRay (2D) is the one I have with Atmos.




My regular BD is 5.1. I have the diamond deluxe version in my list but it keeps sliding down unfortunately...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Polyrythm1k said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I’m not mistaken, I seem to recall the atmos track is only on the diamond luxe version. Not  %though...
> 
> 
> 
> The Diamond Deluxe BluRay (2D) is the one I have with Atmos.
Click to expand...

I'll probably have to wait for the inevitable 4k Blu-ray. It'll more than likely end up being cheaper than the out of print Diamond Luxe version.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll probably have to wait for the inevitable 4k Blu-ray. It'll more than likely end up being cheaper than the out of print Diamond Luxe version.




Lol! Good point. Think I’ll join you in waiting...


----------



## LNEWoLF

TommyDeVito said:


> You are referring to the 1080p Blu Ray correct? Can you provide a link (amazon perhaps?) so I snag the right disc? I loved the film in theater in 3D. It blew my mind and really showed current 3D capability. I saw it in XD 3d or whatever it's called and was very impressed.












https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravity-Bl...25&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00Z9YZS68&m=

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/138954/

Two used Very Good Condition 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00PGHUJOO/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

Good luck


----------



## TommyDeVito

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravity-Bl...25&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00Z9YZS68&m=
> 
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-Blu-ray/138954/
> 
> Two used Very Good Condition
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00PGHUJOO/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
> 
> Good luck


Thank you!


----------



## zeonstar

FWIW, Gravity on iTunes has the Dolby Atmos track. Though I can't say how it compares to the disc version. I am disc all the way for my movies, but I did have this movie in my iTunes library and it was one of the ones that got upgraded to Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

TommyDeVito said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> How close are your rear surrounds to your MLP? They look a lot closer then usually recommended....
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the dimension of my room? How about how many feet between the wall and the seat? The pictures I posted for him were for him to get an idea on brackets and their placement since he is in the same boat, not for you to critique my HT. You should refrain from critiques on here unless you know all room dimensions, etc. I mentioned that room is under construction, that single seat won't be in there much longer and when I took the picture nothing was even connected yet to the AVR. /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...

Buddy, relax, why are you getting so defensive? I asked a question exactly as I posed it-because it looked closer then guidelines. Of course I don’t know the dimensions of your room—-that’s why I asked you!

The reason I asked-inspite of you trying to get in my head and make assumptions-was not to critique. 

I was actually hoping originally of doing a 7.1.4 but instead settled on a 5.1.4 instead due to what I read on forums like this. 

I asked because, if somehow you had it much closer and was willing to share the specs and experience I may have thought about revisiting the viability of rear surrounds in my somewhat close placement behind my couch. 

In conclusion, sometimes a straight forward question is just that...a straight forward question.


----------



## LNEWoLF

TommyDeVito said:


> Thank you!


Your welcome.


----------



## PioManiac

Chirosamsung said:


> Buddy, relax, why are you getting so defensive? I asked a question exactly as I posed it-because it looked closer then guidelines.


I've seen a lot of diagrams with angles, but never dimensions to the speakers.
So when you say "closer than guidelines"... may I ask who's guidelines you are referencing?

This is one of the most common Dolby layouts for 7.1.4










Take care of the angles and let your processors room correction set the delay/distance and output levels, 
adequate channel separation is the most critical factor in speaker placement.


----------



## Onward74

zeonstar said:


> FWIW, Gravity on iTunes has the Dolby Atmos track. Though I can't say how it compares to the disc version. I am disc all the way for my movies, but I did have this movie in my iTunes library and it was one of the ones that got upgraded to Atmos.


When I check Itunes i only see 5.1 for gravity. But I'm in Norway so maybe it's a regional thing.


----------



## zeonstar

Onward74 said:


> When I check Itunes i only see 5.1 for gravity. But I'm in Norway so maybe it's a regional thing.


I swear I watched it in iTunes a few months ago on my Apple TV in Dolby Atmos. But I just looked at the movie on my iPhone in the Apple TV app and it doesn't mention Atmos. Though other movies in my library I own that I am 100% sure have Atmos do say so with the Atmos logo on the movie page. Hmmm.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> FWIW, Gravity on iTunes has the Dolby Atmos track. Though I can't say how it compares to the disc version. I am disc all the way for my movies, but I did have this movie in my iTunes library and it was one of the ones that got upgraded to Atmos.


iTunes delivers the lossy DD+Atmos but on disc you get the lossless TrueHD+Atmos...


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> iTunes delivers the lossy DD+Atmos but on disc you get the lossless TrueHD+Atmos...


When I said I wasn't sure how it compares to the disc version, I meant content-wise, not so much it being lossy vs lossless. I don't know much about the Atmos tracks on iTunes content, as in are they the same as what is on a disc, just lossy vs lossless or are they actually different mixes. (They are likely the same, now that I think about it more.)

I just wanted to mention that people may have a cheaper way to get access to Gravity in Atmos since the Diamond Luxe Blu-ray can be hard to find/expensive. I know the iTunes version isn't ideal, but it's an option. I did check on my Apple TV last night and my digital version of Gravity is indeed in Atmos.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> When I said I wasn't sure how it compares to the disc version, I meant content-wise, not so much it being lossy vs lossless.


OK. There is just a single Atmos version of that movie.


----------



## chi_guy50

zeonstar said:


> I just wanted to mention that *people may have a cheaper way to get access to Gravity in Atmos since the Diamond Luxe Blu-ray can be hard to find/expensive.* I know the iTunes version isn't ideal, but it's an option. I did check on my Apple TV last night and my digital version of Gravity is indeed in Atmos.



If you have $8.99 to spare, you can rent it here (price includes two-way USPS shipping):

https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/product-p/gravityca-tw.htm


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Stu - Spider-Verse is SO GOOD, it's on the short list of consideration for best comic movies of all time. Tons of fun, lots of humor, great sound, great music, groundbreaking visuals/animation. If you haven't seen it yet you should, and I bet the little man will love it too.


I’ll ask the boss (my five year old). But he’s more of a space movie kind of guy than a Spiderman kind of guy for immersive audio, meaning First Man, Gravity and Apollo 13. And the new Apollo 11 BD, but that’s merely 2D audio.

BTW he’s also a fan of movies with moving slime, meaning Ghostbusters II and Mockingjay: Part 2, both in Atmos 😜 .


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> It begins. Et tu, Sony?


We watched Black Hawk Down from Sony last night. It’s legacy, so no theatrical Atmos mix as a basis for a consumer A/V Atmos release, but everything lights up on the I/O meters. The opening scene after the background history with the helicopter flyover gets the wides and my front side surrounds (SS1) going, and later scenes bring in the L/R (screen) centers. But in a .6 height setup it seems to put a lot of the overhead content into the Top Middles and expands at times into the front and rear tops.

Definitely worth the Bass EQ extra filters if you’ve the capability with your subs and processing. And the battle scenes are as good as I remember.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> It’s legacy, so no theatrical Atmos mix, but everything lights up on the I/O meters.


Let's hope the Atmos remix of Apocalypse Now takes as much advantage of the format.


----------



## LNEWoLF

sdrucker said:


> We watched Black Hawk Down from Sony last night. It’s legacy, so no theatrical Atmos mix, but everything lights up on the I/O meters. The opening scene after the background history with the helicopter flyover gets the wides and my front side surrounds (SS1) going, and later scenes bring in the L/R (screen) centers. But in a .6 height setup it seems to put a lot of the overhead content into the Top Middles and expands at times into the front and rear tops.
> 
> Definitely worth the Bass EQ extra filters if you’ve the capability with your subs and processing. And the battle scenes are as good as I remember.


Although the Blackhawk Down UHD 4K disc contains an Atmos audio mix. Curious are there any movies on bluray or 4K UHD disc that contain a theatrical Atmos mix?.

https://images4.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/216931_back.jpg?t=1551250144


----------



## dfa973

LNEWoLF said:


> Curious are there any movies on bluray or 4K UHD disc that contain a theatrical Atmos mix?


Very unlikely - the theatre dimensions, layout and the number of speakers are different, so a remix based on the theatrical is obligatory.


----------



## petetherock

Can I check if you can do a mix of
Say Top Front (An Atmos position) with Rear Height (a DTS position?)

Thanks


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> Can I check if you can do a mix of
> Say Top Front (An Atmos position) with Rear Height (a DTS position?)
> 
> Thanks



Yes, that is a permissible configuration (I believe you have the Denon AVR-X8500H?). See p. 62 of your Owner's Manual.


But note that Rear Height is not specific to DTS; it is a common designation for Atmos, DTS, and Auro.


----------



## [email protected]

For the guys who were talking about Disney content...do you adjust the speaker levels in the receiver menu for all speakers, or just the Atmos and surround levels. I assumed that’s what someone meant when he mentioned the db level. You are using a spl meter to adjust the db? Thanks!


----------



## petetherock

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, that is a permissible configuration (I believe you have the Denon AVR-X8500H?). See p. 62 of your Owner's Manual.
> 
> 
> But note that Rear Height is not specific to DTS; it is a common designation for Atmos, DTS, and Auro.


Thanks mate, I was trying to help a mate with a 6300 / 6400... 
I'm using the front and rear height positions, cheers


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> Thanks mate, I was trying to help a mate with a 6300 / 6400...
> I'm using the front and rear height positions, cheers



I see. That same chart applies to both of those models (p. 59 and 58 of the respective Owner's Manual).


----------



## dfa973

[email protected] said:


> For the guys who were talking about Disney content...do you adjust the speaker levels in the receiver menu for all speakers, or just the Atmos and surround levels. I assumed that’s what someone meant when he mentioned the db level. You are using a spl meter to adjust the db? Thanks!


The Disney soundtracks have ALL the channels on a lower volume level, so you just need to increase the Main Volume to go to an acceptable level (+4, +5, +7dB - YMMV). The hardest channel hit by the Disney is the LFE, so you may want to edit the room correction curve for the 20-80Hz band (or whatever band are you using for the subwoofer) when you play a Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm movie, on this forum you can find the Bass EQ for Filtered Movies thread where you can read about the adjustments needed for the LFE channel for each movie.


----------



## b0rnarian

sdrucker said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begins. Et tu, Sony?
> 
> 
> 
> We watched Black Hawk Down from Sony last night. It’s legacy, so no theatrical Atmos mix as a basis for a consumer A/V Atmos release, but everything lights up on the I/O meters. The opening scene after the background history with the helicopter flyover gets the wides and my front side surrounds (SS1) going, and later scenes bring in the L/R (screen) centers. But in a .6 height setup it seems to put a lot of the overhead content into the Top Middles and expands at times into the front and rear tops.
> 
> Definitely worth the Bass EQ extra filters if you’ve the capability with your subs and processing. And the battle scenes are as good as I remember.
Click to expand...

Black hawk down has several overhead sound scenes... overall the atmos mix is amazing.


----------



## [email protected]

Thanks! Is there also another thread that mentions how to set the other channels parametric eq based on movie?


----------



## [email protected]

Hi. A few questions:
1) For those that have upfiring speakers/Dolby Atmos enabled speakers what crossover do you use on them
2) what master volume do you use to calibrate your volume trims. I used -20 dB master volume and my subwoofer hit 75 dB per my SPL Meter with a trim of 10 dB. The volume on the subwoofer was put 3/4 of the way up. I didn’t calibrate the other speakers yet because I felt it was too late considering the time I was running the test. I’m starting to realize how poor a job YPAO did. I also bought a laser distance pointer so I could get distances from the different listening positions.


----------



## dfa973

[email protected] said:


> Hi. A few questions:
> 1) For those that have upfiring speakers/Dolby Atmos enabled speakers what crossover do you use on them


The crossover depends on the actual frequency response of the speaker. 

If, for example, the frequency response (+/-3dB) of your speaker is 68Hz - 20kHz, take the 68Hz, divide to 3 and add 1/3 to 68 => 68/3=22.6+68=90.6, so you can set the crossover at 90Hz for that speaker.
If the AVR has only global crossover (for all speakers, not individual crossovers) you will set the crossover at the highest value calculated for the "weakest" speaker, even if you have some speakers that can be set at lower values.



[email protected] said:


> 2) what master volume do you use to calibrate your volume trims. I used -20 dB master volume and my subwoofer hit 75 dB per my SPL Meter with a trim of 10 dB. The volume on the subwoofer was put 3/4 of the way up. I didn’t calibrate the other speakers yet because I felt it was too late considering the time I was running the test. I’m starting to realize how poor a job YPAO did. I also bought a laser distance pointer so I could get distances from the different listening positions.


First, use the included YPAO (complete the calibration) and see the results and how did they sound to you.
Second, your subwoofer level is set a bit higher. You may want to start at 1/4 level, not 3/4. Do a calibration with 1/4 and test the resulting level - the AVR can let you modify the resulting level so you can adjust the level for the subwoofer (if you like it louder) without messing with the volume knob.
Third, no need for laser distance pointer, just let YPAO do its job and if not pleased, modify the results.


----------



## batpig

dfa973 said:


> The crossover depends on the actual frequency response of the speaker.
> 
> If, for example, the frequency response (+/-3dB) of your speaker is 68Hz - 20kHz, take the 68Hz, divide to 3 and add 1/3 to 68 => 68/3=22.6+68=90.6, so you can set the crossover at 90Hz for that speaker.
> If the AVR has only global crossover (for all speakers, not individual crossovers) you will set the crossover at the highest value calculated for the "weakest" speaker, even if you have some speakers that can be set at lower values.


But specifically for up-firing speakers, the crossover shouldn't necessarily be at the "lowest safe value" as you describe. The lower frequencies should handed off which theoretically helps with the dispersion of the bounce by removing the more omnidirectional radiating frequencies. 

When Atmos first came out there was talk of a fixed 180Hz crossover which redirects bass to the "paired" speaker at ear level (e.g. "Front Dolby" would pair with "Front", and "Surround Dolby" with "Surround"). I'm not sure if that actually happens in the typical Atmos AVR separate of the actual bass management to the sub, but I think most tend to favor a higher crossover (150Hz or 200Hz) for up-firing modules.


----------



## [email protected]

batpig said:


> But specifically for up-firing speakers, the crossover shouldn't necessarily be at the "lowest safe value" as you describe. The lower frequencies should handed off which theoretically helps with the dispersion of the bounce by removing the more omnidirectional radiating frequencies.
> 
> When Atmos first came out there was talk of a fixed 180Hz crossover which redirects bass to the "paired" speaker at ear level (e.g. "Front Dolby" would pair with "Front", and "Surround Dolby" with "Surround"). I'm not sure if that actually happens in the typical Atmos AVR separate of the actual bass management to the sub, but I think most tend to favor a higher crossover (150Hz or 200Hz) for up-firing modules.


Thanks for the input.


----------



## [email protected]

dfa973 said:


> The crossover depends on the actual frequency response of the speaker.
> 
> If, for example, the frequency response (+/-3dB) of your speaker is 68Hz - 20kHz, take the 68Hz, divide to 3 and add 1/3 to 68 => 68/3=22.6+68=90.6, so you can set the crossover at 90Hz for that speaker.
> If the AVR has only global crossover (for all speakers, not individual crossovers) you will set the crossover at the highest value calculated for the "weakest" speaker, even if you have some speakers that can be set at lower values.
> 
> 
> 
> First, use the included YPAO (complete the calibration) and see the results and how did they sound to you.
> Second, your subwoofer level is set a bit higher. You may want to start at 1/4 level, not 3/4. Do a calibration with 1/4 and test the resulting level - the AVR can let you modify the resulting level so you can adjust the level for the subwoofer (if you like it louder) without messing with the volume knob.
> Third, no need for laser distance pointer, just let YPAO do its job and if not pleased, modify the results.


Thanks for the feedback. However its actually mentioned that auto calibration is often incorrect. Please see the below links. Only informing you so perhaps you can optimize your system.
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-improve-your-av-receivers-sound-quality/
https://www.audioholics.com/home-theater-calibration
https://www.cnet.com/news/home-theater-automatic-speaker-calibration-dos-and-donts/

I ended up turning my subwoofer to the middle volume. I bought a laser seat pointer and a SPL meter, and I read after my inquiry on this thread is that the THX reference level is to have each speaker and subwoofer to emit 75 db at a 0 db master volume. After calibrating with the SPL meter and laser pointer I noticed that YPAO was off on distance, levels, and my upfiring speakers should be the distance of the sound to the ceiling + the distance from the spot the sound would hit the ceiling to the listeners ears. YPAO only had my Dolby Atmos enabled speakers 1 foot farther away than the front left and front right speakesr that the upfiring speaker is integrated in. 
YPAO was very far off on my subwoofer too. The subwoofer integration was not good. Basically after finishing my calibration I can hear the left and right surrounds just as well as the other. With YPAO settings I heard much more left surround. Also the balance of the system is better, especially with the subwoofer. Definitely happy I bought a SPL meter and laser distance pointer. 
DFA973, I would recommend looking into using a SPL meter and laser pointer. Perhaps in your setup YPAO worker better than mine, but the difference it provided mine is enormous. Just something you might want to think about if you have a home theater system that is not a sound bar. You don't want to spend thousands on a 5.1 non soundbar systems or bigger and get sound quality that isn't as good as a 2.1 satellite speaker system. I previously had the Bose Cinemate GS 2.


----------



## PioManiac

Calibration Software (YPAO/Audyssey/MCACC etc.)
measures the *time* it takes for sound signals to travel from the processor, to the speakers, then the sound waves to the mic.

The sub signal also has to pass through the amplifier/processor before sending a rather long Low Frequency wave to the mic.
The distance of your powered subwoofer may have been identified by your automatic setup as being further away than it physically is. 
This is to compensate for phase matching with your other speakers. Even if the physical distance is closer than the setup microphone identified,
it is not advisable to change the subwoofer distance unless something really doesn’t sound right.

There are also a number of factors and room/furniture influences that will affect the time it takes for those sound waves to reach your MLP.

The "Distance" number is just a reference and should not be used to measure any physical locations of speakers or subs in your room.
What the software is actually doing is measuring *delay* for how long a sound signal takes to reach your mic, and subsequently your "ears"

Adding More Distance will apply less Delay to the Signal, Reducing the Distance will apply More Delay to the Signal. 



==============================================

I will often use an SPL meter to level match all my speakers output (after YPAO), but I never adjust the speaker/sub distance numbers.
I also prefer to run my Subs 8 to 10dB Hot because a *House Curve helps LFE signals "sound" flat, as opposed to just "measuring" flat.

If you want to get serious about Sub Calibration, get Room EQ Wizard (REW) a free download
and a calibrated USB mic like a UMIK-1 that can actually measure down to 10Hz (YPAO mic is limited to 31Hz)


**What is a House Curve? *: https://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/96-house-curve-what-why-you-need-how-do.html

*Getting Started with REW: A Step-by-Step Guide*
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1449924-simplified-rew-setup-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs-10.html#post22823228

*REW Download site*
https://www.roomeqwizard.com/ 

*REW users Forum*
https://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/

From the miniDSP website: *miniDSP UMIK-1*

*The UMIK-1 mic must be calibrated with download file available on miniDSP site after you enter your serial number* 
(You need to use the 90º Calibration file to use your UMIK-1 in the upright (aimed at the ceiling) position (recommended for multi-channel and sub calibration)

*UMIK-1 Calibration File load through REW, and make your first REW Sweep*
https://www.minidsp.com/applications/acoustic-measurements/umik-1-setup-with-rew 

*$20 Boom Mic Tripod stand from amazon* https://www.amazon.com/Microphone-Ohuhu-Holders-Adjustable-Collapsible/dp/B00OZ9C9LK/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1533906758&sr=8-13&keywords=boom+mic+stand


----------



## [email protected]

PioManiac said:


> Calibration Software (YPAO/Audyssey/MCACC etc.) measures the *time* it takes for sound signals to travel from the processor, to the speakers, then the sound waves to the mic.
> The sub signal also has to pass through a powered subs amplifier/processor before sending a rather long Low Frequency wave to the mic.
> There are also a number of factors and room/furniture influences that will affect the time it takes for those sound waves to reach your MLP.
> 
> The "Distance" number is just a reference and should not be used to measure any physical locations of speakers or subs in your room.
> What the software is actually doing is measuring *delay* for how long a sound signal takes to reach your mic, and subsequently your "ears"
> 
> I will often use an SPL meter to level match all my speakers output (after YPAO), but I never adjust the speaker/sub distance numbers.
> I also prefer to run my Subs 8-10dB Hot because a *House Curve helps lower LFE signals "sound" flat, as opposed to just "measuring" flat.
> 
> If you want to get serious about Sub Calibration, get Room EQ Wizard (REW) a free download
> and a calibrated mic like a UMIK-1 that can actually measure down to 10Hz (YPAO mic is limited to 31Hz)
> 
> 
> **What is a House Curve? *: https://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/96-house-curve-what-why-you-need-how-do.html
> 
> *Getting Started with REW: A Step-by-Step Guide*
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1449924-simplified-rew-setup-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs-10.html#post22823228
> 
> *REW Download site*
> https://www.roomeqwizard.com/
> 
> *REW users Forum*
> https://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/
> 
> From the miniDSP website: *miniDSP UMIK-1*
> 
> *The UMIK-1 mic must be calibrated with download file available on miniDSP site after you enter your serial number*
> (You need to use the 90º Calibration file to use your UMIK-1 in the upright (aimed at the ceiling) position (recommended for multi-channel and sub calibration)
> 
> *UMIK-1 Calibration File load through REW, and make your first REW Sweep*
> https://www.minidsp.com/applications/acoustic-measurements/umik-1-setup-with-rew
> 
> *$20 Boom Mic Tripod stand from amazon* https://www.amazon.com/Microphone-Ohuhu-Holders-Adjustable-Collapsible/dp/B00OZ9C9LK/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1533906758&sr=8-13&keywords=boom+mic+stand


Thanks for the elaborate answer. I'll have to consider getting the mic. However every site I looked at in putting in the distance mention to use a tape measure or laser pointer. 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/home-theater-calibration-guide-manual-speaker-setup/2/
http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/speakers/setting-speaker-levels-distance/481
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/20...ion-101-speaker-levels-distances-and-su-html/


----------



## dfa973

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for the feedback. However its actually mentioned that *auto calibration is often incorrect.*


Until proven wrong, the integrated calibration is _often good enough_.
"Often incorrect" is a blanket statement, you need to find/state *where *is incorrect and by *how much*.



[email protected] said:


> I ended up turning my subwoofer to the middle volume. I bought a laser seat pointer and a SPL meter, and I read after my inquiry on this thread is that the THX reference level is to have each speaker and subwoofer to emit 75 db at a 0 db master volume. *After calibrating with the SPL meter and laser pointer I noticed that YPAO was off on distance, levels, and my upfiring speakers should be the distance of the sound to the ceiling + the distance from the spot the sound would hit the ceiling to the listeners ears.* YPAO only had my Dolby Atmos enabled speakers 1 foot farther away than the front left and front right speakesr that the upfiring speaker is integrated in.


The way that the room correction calibration is done in the receiver is different from how did you do it. It will never match.



[email protected] said:


> YPAO was very far off on my subwoofer too.


The off values that YPAO found for SW are normal. There are tons of information about calibration on this forum. Read, research and you will be enlightened about how calibration works.



[email protected] said:


> DFA973, I would recommend looking into using a SPL meter and laser pointer. Perhaps in your setup YPAO worker better than mine, but the difference it provided mine is enormous. Just something you might want to think about if you have a home theater system that is not a sound bar. You don't want to spend thousands on a 5.1 non soundbar systems or bigger and get sound quality that isn't as good as a 2.1 satellite speaker system. I previously had the Bose Cinemate GS 2.


I do not have YPAO (but Audyssey), and I had no problem with my calibration, the distances, levels, and crossovers were pretty much spot-on. I have no need for SPL meter or laser meter.
What YPAO system do you have? Standard, RSC or RSC multipoint?


----------



## [email protected]

dfa973 said:


> Until proven wrong, the integrated calibration is _often good enough_.
> "Often incorrect" is a blanket statement, you need to find/state *where *is incorrect and by *how much*.
> 
> 
> 
> The way that the room correction calibration is done in the receiver is different from how did you do it. It will never match.
> 
> 
> 
> The off values that YPAO found for SW are normal. There are tons of information about calibration on this forum. Read, research and you will be enlightened about how calibration works.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have YPAO (but Audyssey), and I had no problem with my calibration, the distances, levels, and crossovers were pretty much spot-on. I have no need for SPL meter or laser meter.
> What YPAO system do you have? Standard, RSC or RSC multipoint?


I have the standard YPAO. The below links recommended doing it with the laser pointer or tape measure and a SPL meter as it insinuates it being more accurate. Every google search I made on how to put the speaker distances in suggest measuring the distance. Good enough is ambiguous, but as long as it is good enough for you then I agree that there is no need for you to use anything other than auto calibration. I by no way meant to sound as though you should do something. And you are right in 'often incorrect' being a blanked statement. For me it means that it doesn't hit the THX reference standard of the speaker hitting 75 db with a 0 db master volume level in the test tone. It means that the distance it gives you isn't correct, and the speaker size is incorrect, and that it isn't in good balance. It measured my subwoofer and dolby atmos enabled speakers to be very far off. It was just a suggestion meant to give you options. I never said you should do it. I said you might want to think about it. 
Using the YPAO levels I before mentioned in my prior post to you that I could not hear my right surrounds as well. I also turned on test tones for each speaker and the speakers weren't balanced from where I put the YPAO. The speakers produced different decibels. 
Also YPAO labeled my surrounds as large speakers but they are not. Therefore the crossover wasn't correct either.
Theres a good chance what YPAO gave me isn't as good as what Audyssey gave you. https://www.whathifi.com/advice/how-to-set-your-av-receiver-and-get-best-sound mentions Most calibration systems these days are largely accurate, but it’s always worth delving into the manual speaker settings to double-check the distances and levels, and tweak the results where needed. Trust your ears - if it sounds wrong, it probably is, so adjust away. Thats the reason why I got the SPL and laser pointer, but I'm glad yours worked well of you. 


https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/home-theater-calibration-guide-manual-speaker-setup/2/
http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/speakers/setting-speaker-levels-distance/481
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/20...ion-101-speaker-levels-distances-and-su-html/


----------



## dfa973

[email protected] said:


> I have the standard YPAO.


YPAO Standard is kind of crude room correction system, AFAIK it has a 62Hz limit.



[email protected] said:


> Also YPAO labeled my surrounds as large speakers but they are not.


This is normal (not a calibration error!!!), any speaker that is capable of below 50Hz is set as Large (regardless of its actual size), if not is set as Small. Large/Small is not about physical size, but low-frequency capabilities.
Every room calibration system does it, this is not specific to YPAO.


----------



## PioManiac

Kim, You're posting in the wrong thread.
There are model specific threads for each Yamaha where your questions and inquiries should be posted. 

This section of the forum is for ATMOS specific inquiries.


----------



## [email protected]

dfa973 said:


> YPAO Standard is kind of crude room correction system, AFAIK it has a 62Hz limit.
> 
> 
> 
> This is normal (not a calibration error!!!), any speaker that is capable of below 50Hz is set as Large (regardless of its actual size), if not is set as Small. Large/Small is not about physical size, but low-frequency capabilities.
> Every room calibration system does it, this is not specific to YPAO.


I never said it had a low of 40 hz or lower. The speaker it categorized as small has a low frequency of 60 hz. . The center and surrounds have the same speaker and YPAO designated the center channel as a small speaker. It is mentioned on websites that it at times categorizes speaker sizes incorrectly.


----------



## [email protected]

PioManiac said:


> Kim, You're posting in the wrong thread.
> There are model specific threads for each Yamaha where your questions and inquiries should be posted.
> 
> This section of the forum is for ATMOS specific inquiries.


Sorry. My question was one part Atmos and one part sound calibration and I was just responding to users responses. I will direct any further questions regarding sound calibration and the Yamaha receiver to the appropriate threads.


----------



## zeonstar

zeonstar said:


>



Good evening

I am in the process of mounting my new rear height speakers. The mounts I am using will let me mount them on the wall but point them straight down towards my MLP but with the angle on the SVS Prime Elevations, They will point away from the wall a bit. With that in mind, I was wondering what best to set them to in my AVR. Am I better off setting them as Top Center or Top Rear?


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> I was wondering what best to set them to in my AVR. Am I better off setting them as Top Center or Top Rear?


Start with the natural assigning to Rear Heights and redo the calibration.
Then test the Top Rear (redoing the calibration, of course) and see how do you like it. Also, test with the front heights as Top Front instead of Front Heights.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> Start with the natural assigning to Rear Heights and redo the calibration.
> Then test the Top Rear (redoing the calibration, of course) and see how do you like it. Also, test with the front heights as Top Front instead of Front Heights.


Good afternoon. I appreciate the reply, thank you. I will admit though, I am surprised by your answer. I got my speakers hung last night and they are like 90% pointing straight down towards my MLP. I thought putting them as Tops was a no-brainer and the only aspect I wasn't sure of was if I am better off with them as Top Middle or Top Rear. 

It's funny you even suggested changing my front heights to front tops as that is something I have long meant to do, but have never gotten around to it. I even have the Audyssey app which makes it easy for me to have different configurations. I just ultimately decided that it seems best to indicate what the speakers actually are in my AVR as accurately as possible so if they are front heights, I should put them as such. 

What could I gain if I was to change them to front tops? What could I lose? Does anyone else here set their Atmos speakers differently in their AVR to what they actually are in reality? (i.e. Putting what are actually front heights as top heights or whatever?)

***********

While I am here, I want to vent a little, get some thoughts out and maybe -- hopefully -- get some advice. As I mentioned, I hung my rear height speakers last night and instead of being excited, I was underwhelmed. Not by the performance, but how they look. For lack of a better word, they look ridiculous hanging on the wall. Now don't get me wrong, I was beyond excited do this and thrilled my wife OK'ed it. I haven't even talked to her since I finished hanging them last night so I don't even know her opinion, but if I think they look bad, I can only imagine what she thinks.

Quick aside: I was never planning to have any kind of rear height speakers in our current home. We have 2 young children and once they are a bit older and done with daycare in about 3 years (thus gaining a lot of extra income) we are going to move into a bigger place with at minimum 3 bedrooms so the kids have their own rooms. (Current place is a 2 bedroom townhouse.) Once we move, I will be able to plan our home theater from the beginning and go all out like I want, weather we end up with a dedicated space or just the living room, I'd be able to do more, put cables in walls, install ceiling speakers, all that. What we have now is suppose to be somewhat reasonable to "Hold me over." But I've gone a bit crazy with it and my wife has been super patient and accommodating. 


I've said all that to say this: I woke up this morning thinking that I kind of want to just flush mount my rear height speakers using the normal mounts they come with. Mounting them high on the wall normally, in other words. 

***I'd like to ask, would that work? I know it's not ideal but as long as it doesn't sound BAD, and actually adds to my system, that is what I want. I don't really hear height effects from my front heights as much as I would like. I think that is due to how far I am from my front sound stage more than anything. But it's really hard for me to pick up height effects from the front unless the sound to them is very discreet (and not much is coming from my LCR at the time) I would think, and hope, I would hear rear effects above me from the back speakers better, even if they are pointed out and not down at me.

Does anyone here have height effect speakers they point out instead of down? If so, how do you like it?


It's a compromise but I think it could work. My whole setup has always been a compromise anyway. Of course i care about them sounding good and I usually don't care about how speakers look hanging on a wall....but for some reason this time it's bugging me.












Thanks for reading!


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> Good afternoon. I appreciate the reply, thank you. I will admit though, I am surprised by your answer. I got my speakers hung last night and they are like 90% pointing straight down towards my MLP. I thought putting them as Tops was a no-brainer and the only aspect I wasn't sure of was if I am better off with them as Top Middle or Top Rear.


You worry too much!
Set them for each allowed position and play some Atmos demos and Atmos movies and decide what configuration sound better to your ears. Every room is different and as you have found, speakers cannot be put only at ideal places, so you must test and decide.


----------



## richlife

dfa973 said:


> *You worry too much!*
> Set them for each allowed position and play some Atmos demos and Atmos movies and decide what configuration sound better to your ears. Every room is different and as you have found, speakers cannot be put only at ideal places, *so you must test and decide.*


Emphasis on that first comment and the last. When I put my new front and rear presence/heights/tops however you want to define them in place, I had far more room difficulties than you. The solution was days and days of placing, moving, adjusting, redoing all that and reconfiguring along the way. It definitely can get old, but the outcome will probably be "music to your ears". As has been said so many times in this forum, Atmos is very forgiving and actually pretty hard to screw up. Good luck. And even more for your future redos in a new place! Remember, it's fun!


----------



## gene4ht

richlife said:


> Emphasis on that first comment and the last. When I put my new front and rear presence/heights/tops however you want to define them in place, I had far more room difficulties than you. The solution was days and days of placing, moving, adjusting, redoing all that and reconfiguring along the way. It definitely can get old, but the outcome will probably be "music to your ears". As has been said so many times in this forum, Atmos is very forgiving and actually pretty hard to screw up. Good luck. And even more for your future redos in a new place! *Remember, it's fun! *


Emphasis on the last! Also...experimentation is the key as all rooms have different challenges/constraints and we all have personal tastes and preferences...one size does not fit all. It is indeed difficult to get ATMOS wrong...just requires seasoning to taste.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> You worry too much!
> Set them for each allowed position and play some Atmos demos and Atmos movies and decide what configuration sound better to your ears. Every room is different and as you have found, speakers cannot be put only at ideal places, so you must test and decide.


I know I do. I don't mean to.  I'm going to try the speakers set in different configurations and and run Audyssey a few times tomorrow and see what I like. I have the day off to play around with things.



richlife said:


> Emphasis on that first comment and the last. When I put my new front and rear presence/heights/tops however you want to define them in place, I had far more room difficulties than you. The solution was days and days of placing, moving, adjusting, redoing all that and reconfiguring along the way. It definitely can get old, but the outcome will probably be "music to your ears". As has been said so many times in this forum, Atmos is very forgiving and actually pretty hard to screw up. Good luck. And even more for your future redos in a new place! Remember, it's fun!


I'd be curious to hear the story of your height speakers and the issues you had, and where you ultimately ended up. It's funny you mention Atmos being forgiving because that sort of occured to me last night. When I decided to put my speakers on the wall normally instead of using brackets to point them down, I realized they will still sound good, even pointing "Out." I want sound above me, and that is the effect I get.



gene4ht said:


> Emphasis on the last! Also...experimentation is the key as all rooms have different challenges/constraints and we all have personal tastes and preferences...one size does not fit all. It is indeed difficult to get ATMOS wrong...just requires seasoning to taste.


I look forward to running some calibrations tomorrow with the speakers set in different configurations in my AVR and then watching some movies.

Thank you all for the input. I appreciate it.


----------



## richlife

zeonstar;58089248...
I'd be curious to hear the story of your height speakers and the issues you had said:


> You'll find complete details of my setup and use in the first link in my signature. I know some use devices that don't show that link so here is where it goes. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...9-outstanding-ht-common-but-special-room.html
> 
> You'll see a number of comments and a few who disagree with using DAES or whatever. But if you get something going and have outstanding results, it's pretty hard to give the deniers much credence.
> 
> Edit: And BTW, @zeonstar, I've seen many speaker setups and recommendations to mount heights on the wall pointing "out" with great success. The reality is that while you may think "down" is the way to go, most of those who use down have in-ceiling speakers with no directivity or that's just what their configuration demands. If you have the option to experiment -- well, we've said it, you agree -- experiment.  You'll see in my thread that, due to my slanted ceiling, I actually "experimented" with my front DAES in all positions from flat on the unit to elevated up to 45* in 1/16" increments until I found the angle that was notably best -- and then shifted them to point to my MLP which yielded another improvement. You can see I didn't do this all at once. But like your day off, I did what I could/wanted when I could/wanted. While I haven't touched this setup in about 2 years, I still have a list of things to experiment with more. But the system sounds so damn good, I can't really say I'm highly motivated. Someday...
> 
> Another BTW, I think you said you have Audessey. I have YPAO. If your AVR will allow you to save configuration elements to a PC, that's a great help. I just rename with key words that describe what I did, go back if needed and Save again until I find a better config -- or not.


----------



## [email protected]

zeonstar said:


> Good afternoon. I appreciate the reply, thank you. I will admit though, I am surprised by your answer. I got my speakers hung last night and they are like 90% pointing straight down towards my MLP. I thought putting them as Tops was a no-brainer and the only aspect I wasn't sure of was if I am better off with them as Top Middle or Top Rear.
> 
> It's funny you even suggested changing my front heights to front tops as that is something I have long meant to do, but have never gotten around to it. I even have the Audyssey app which makes it easy for me to have different configurations. I just ultimately decided that it seems best to indicate what the speakers actually are in my AVR as accurately as possible so if they are front heights, I should put them as such.
> 
> What could I gain if I was to change them to front tops? What could I lose? Does anyone else here set their Atmos speakers differently in their AVR to what they actually are in reality? (i.e. Putting what are actually front heights as top heights or whatever?)
> 
> ***********
> 
> While I am here, I want to vent a little, get some thoughts out and maybe -- hopefully -- get some advice. As I mentioned, I hung my rear height speakers last night and instead of being excited, I was underwhelmed. Not by the performance, but how they look. For lack of a better word, they look ridiculous hanging on the wall. Now don't get me wrong, I was beyond excited do this and thrilled my wife OK'ed it. I haven't even talked to her since I finished hanging them last night so I don't even know her opinion, but if I think they look bad, I can only imagine what she thinks.
> 
> Quick aside: I was never planning to have any kind of rear height speakers in our current home. We have 2 young children and once they are a bit older and done with daycare in about 3 years (thus gaining a lot of extra income) we are going to move into a bigger place with at minimum 3 bedrooms so the kids have their own rooms. (Current place is a 2 bedroom townhouse.) Once we move, I will be able to plan our home theater from the beginning and go all out like I want, weather we end up with a dedicated space or just the living room, I'd be able to do more, put cables in walls, install ceiling speakers, all that. What we have now is suppose to be somewhat reasonable to "Hold me over." But I've gone a bit crazy with it and my wife has been super patient and accommodating.
> 
> 
> I've said all that to say this: I woke up this morning thinking that I kind of want to just flush mount my rear height speakers using the normal mounts they come with. Mounting them high on the wall normally, in other words.
> 
> ***I'd like to ask, would that work? I know it's not ideal but as long as it doesn't sound BAD, and actually adds to my system, that is what I want. I don't really hear height effects from my front heights as much as I would like. I think that is due to how far I am from my front sound stage more than anything. But it's really hard for me to pick up height effects from the front unless the sound to them is very discreet (and not much is coming from my LCR at the time) I would think, and hope, I would hear rear effects above me from the back speakers better, even if they are pointed out and not down at me.
> 
> Does anyone here have height effect speakers they point out instead of down? If so, how do you like it?
> 
> 
> It's a compromise but I think it could work. My whole setup has always been a compromise anyway. Of course i care about them sounding good and I usually don't care about how speakers look hanging on a wall....but for some reason this time it's bugging me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading!


I googled rear height speakers and the first article that came up said the below. Please click the link for the full article. 

Height Speaker Channels
The height speaker channels should be placed in the upper left/right corners of the front stage. Typically, this will be 40-45 degrees off-axis and about 8 feet in height. A downward tilt of the speaker will improve mid/high frequency response and reduce ceiling bounce reflections.

The height speakers enhance imaging in the vertical plane and can even be used to create sound effects which seem to come from directly above the listening position, which provides total immersion into the surround sound experience.

https://www.svsound.com/blogs/svs/74790851-the-art-of-speaker-placement

As for Atmos being forgiving it really depends on the speakers. I have a small living room so I bought a 5.1.2 system which is designed for a small to medium size room. In a big room you wouldn't notice the height dimension much. 
Also for reference clips I recommend the Dolby Access app. What kind of tv do you have? I have a LG65C8 and it is available in the Smart TV app store. I would check it out if you have access to it as there is some amazing content. I think the best test of it is 3 or 4 minute surfing clip. It really uses the Atmos speakers and you should be very immersed in it all of the way from the height speakers to the surround sound. It seems to me to have a reference level soundtrack.


----------



## zeonstar

richlife said:


> You'll find complete details of my setup and use in the first link in my signature. I know some use devices that don't show that link so here is where it goes. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...9-outstanding-ht-common-but-special-room.html
> 
> You'll see a number of comments and a few who disagree with using DAES or whatever. But if you get something going and have outstanding results, it's pretty hard to give the deniers much credence.
> 
> Edit: And BTW, @zeonstar, I've seen many speaker setups and recommendations to mount heights on the wall pointing "out" with great success. The reality is that while you may think "down" is the way to go, most of those who use down have in-ceiling speakers with no directivity or that's just what their configuration demands. If you have the option to experiment -- well, we've said it, you agree -- experiment.  You'll see in my thread that, due to my slanted ceiling, I actually "experimented" with my front DAES in all positions from flat on the unit to elevated up to 45* in 1/16" increments until I found the angle that was notably best -- and then shifted them to point to my MLP which yielded another improvement. You can see I didn't do this all at once. But like your day off, I did what I could/wanted when I could/wanted. While I haven't touched this setup in about 2 years, I still have a list of things to experiment with more. But the system sounds so damn good, I can't really say I'm highly motivated. Someday...
> 
> Another BTW, I think you said you have Audessey. I have YPAO. If your AVR will allow you to save configuration elements to a PC, that's a great help. I just rename with key words that describe what I did, go back if needed and Save again until I find a better config -- or not.



I started reading your thread. I am not done but already fascinated. Wasn't sure if I should comment about it here or in your thread but I will just briefly say your challenges make mine seem like small time. My challenge is really just limited to do I point my rear speakers down or face them out. That really is the long and short of it. I can't be moving speakers all around in our situation so that limits what I need to worry about, for good or ill. But your setup and what you went through to optimize it is impressive. If I may ask for a spoiler, did you end up using DAES? I haven't read that far yet but I would not of thought those were even an option for you with your ceilings. Likewise for me, we have stucco ceilings which pretty much made me never even consider DAES since they need to bounce sound and it's hard to bounce sound into sound-absorbent material!

As much as I like experimenting, tomorrow will hopefully -- mostly -- be for a few movies. I don't often get the house to myself where I can crank it to the way I like. 

I have the Audyssey EQ App on my iPad which lets me save, edit, and rename multiple configurations and then zap them to my Denon. I will be running Audyssey at least twice tomorrow to make a profile with my speakers all set to Heights, and all of them set to Tops. 




[email protected] said:


> I googled rear height speakers and the first article that came up said the below. Please click the link for the full article.
> 
> Height Speaker Channels
> The height speaker channels should be placed in the upper left/right corners of the front stage. Typically, this will be 40-45 degrees off-axis and about 8 feet in height. A downward tilt of the speaker will improve mid/high frequency response and reduce ceiling bounce reflections.
> 
> The height speakers enhance imaging in the vertical plane and can even be used to create sound effects which seem to come from directly above the listening position, which provides total immersion into the surround sound experience.
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/blogs/svs/74790851-the-art-of-speaker-placement
> 
> As for Atmos being forgiving it really depends on the speakers. I have a small living room so I bought a 5.1.2 system which is designed for a small to medium size room. In a big room you wouldn't notice the height dimension much.
> Also for reference clips I recommend the Dolby Access app. What kind of tv do you have? I have a LG65C8 and it is available in the Smart TV app store. I would check it out if you have access to it as there is some amazing content. I think the best test of it is 3 or 4 minute surfing clip. It really uses the Atmos speakers and you should be very immersed in it all of the way from the height speakers to the surround sound. It seems to me to have a reference level soundtrack.



Thanks for the link. I'd say our room is on the larger side, especially if you consider the dining area is part of it. (thought my "setup" doesn't spill into there.) I sit about 14 feet from my TV. I wish I could be closer but it is what it is.

I actually have your exact TV and I love the Dolby Access app! Though I'm still annoyed they got rid of the best demo it had, that "Core Universe" one. Ugh! But anyway yeah I do have it. I don't think I have actually watched that surfing video you mentioned though.

Fortunately, I actually have no shortage of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X content. In all, I have over 100 movies in those formats. (Mostly Atmos.) I even have a Dolby Atmos and a DTS:X demo disc. . However, I have only watched most of these movies once since purchasing them so I don't really know all that well which movies have the best Atmos that really stands our for evaluating setups. Setup and evaluation aside, I get the feeling I am going to have a much better experience with all them now that I will have Rear Height speakers.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

@zeonstar
Fwiw, I would aim them down. That’s the way speakers are designed, and will give the best imaging and overall sound. You wouldn’t listen to your mains 90° off axis right? By all means if you have the time to experiment, go for it and then you’ll be able to have a larger data pool. But in the end, I think pointed down will be best.


----------



## [email protected]

zeonstar said:


> I started reading your thread. I am not done but already fascinated. Wasn't sure if I should comment about it here or in your thread but I will just briefly say your challenges make mine seem like small time. My challenge is really just limited to do I point my rear speakers down or face them out. That really is the long and short of it. I can't be moving speakers all around in our situation so that limits what I need to worry about, for good or ill. But your setup and what you went through to optimize it is impressive. If I may ask for a spoiler, did you end up using DAES? I haven't read that far yet but I would not of thought those were even an option for you with your ceilings. Likewise for me, we have stucco ceilings which pretty much made me never even consider DAES since they need to bounce sound and it's hard to bounce sound into sound-absorbent material!
> 
> As much as I like experimenting, tomorrow will hopefully -- mostly -- be for a few movies. I don't often get the house to myself where I can crank it to the way I like.
> 
> I have the Audyssey EQ App on my iPad which lets me save, edit, and rename multiple configurations and then zap them to my Denon. I will be running Audyssey at least twice tomorrow to make a profile with my speakers all set to Heights, and all of them set to Tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. I'd say our room is on the larger side, especially if you consider the dining area is part of it. (thought my "setup" doesn't spill into there.) I sit about 14 feet from my TV. I wish I could be closer but it is what it is.
> 
> I actually have your exact TV and I love the Dolby Access app! Though I'm still annoyed they got rid of the best demo it had, that "Core Universe" one. Ugh! But anyway yeah I do have it. I don't think I have actually watched that surfing video you mentioned though.
> 
> Fortunately, I actually have no shortage of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X content. In all, I have over 100 movies in those formats. (Mostly Atmos.) I even have a Dolby Atmos and a DTS:X demo disc. . However, I have only watched most of these movies once since purchasing them so I don't really know all that well which movies have the best Atmos that really stands our for evaluating setups. Setup and evaluation aside, I get the feeling I am going to have a much better experience with all them now that I will have Rear Height speakers.


The tv is simply amazing! I'm waiting for the LG fw upgrade for them to bring the gamma curve to what it was before they changed it - the dark scenes with the latest upgrade don't look as good. There is a beta version out there that they are testing and people with advanced display calibration tools showed charts showing it is good to where it was! 
To the point in hand....Yes, I agree the Dolby Access app is amazing! And the "Core Universe" clip was my favorite one too, but I discovered the surfing one. It is actually much better in my opinion. Let me know what you think of it. Hopefully you will like it as much as I do. I would use that to test how well your Atmos is running from the front and back heights. Go down to the sports section and choose the one named the wild. 
Also when you go to the Photos and Video app in the Home Smart Hub there is a Dolby Vision and Atmos video in the video section. Check out the one with the helicopter. The helicopter flying overhead will be a good measure for you to see how well you hear the heights.


----------



## zeonstar

Polyrythm1k said:


> @zeonstar
> Fwiw, I would aim them down. That’s the way speakers are designed, and will give the best imaging and overall sound. You wouldn’t listen to your mains 90° off axis right? By all means if you have the time to experiment, go for it and then you’ll be able to have a larger data pool. But in the end, I think pointed down will be best.


I know, and I do agree but after talking to my wife last night I have ultimately decided to mount them on the wall using the standard bracket that they come with, making them flush against the wall. I know it isn't recommended and I know it isn't ideal. But I do believe I will improve my system with it and that's ultimately what I want. As odd as it sounds, I actually became excited at the prospect of mounting them flush on the wall as the sound would go "out" more and hopefully fill the upper part of my room. Since I have a front sound stage and a rear sound stage, and *Nothing* in the middle (As in no top middle heights) It is my hope that my setup may even full the upper middle of the room. At least a little.

Last night, with the speakers still on their current mounts that point them down, I rotated them up as far as I could. I hit the ceiling so I couldn't completely rotate them up to how they will be when I flush mount them on the wall, but it was just to give me a rough idea. I played a few demos and it still sounded really good to me. I could still clearly hear affects above me. Far more easily than I can with my front heights I might add.

Tonight I am going to properly mount them with the SVS Brackets. (Which my wife made me spray paint white first. Haha!) Then tomorrow I do plan to run audyssey a few times, setting the speakers as Heights and Tops in different configurations.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zeonstar said:


> I know, and I do agree but after talking to my wife last night I have ultimately decided to mount them on the wall using the standard bracket that they come with, making them flush against the wall. I know it isn't recommended and I know it isn't ideal. But I do believe I will improve my system with it and that's ultimately what I want. As odd as it sounds, I actually became excited at the prospect of mounting them flush on the wall as the sound would go "out" more and hopefully fill the upper part of my room. Since I have a front sound stage and a rear sound stage, and *Nothing* in the middle (As in no top middle heights) It is my hope that my setup may even full the upper middle of the room. At least a little.
> 
> 
> 
> Last night, with the speakers still on their current mounts that point them down, I rotated them up as far as I could. I hit the ceiling so I couldn't completely rotate them up to how they will be when I flush mount them on the wall, but it was just to give me a rough idea. I played a few demos and it still sounded really good to me. I could still clearly hear affects above me. Far more easily than I can with my front heights I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight I am going to properly mount them with the SVS Brackets. (Which my wife made me spray paint white first. Haha!) Then tomorrow I do plan to run audyssey a few times, setting the speakers as Heights and Tops in different configurations.




Well, I do understand your excitement at filling the room. Unfortunately your ears won’t be up there. However, I also understand ya do whatcha gotta do! Good luck, you will indeed have a much improved system. Keep us posted as to your experiments.


----------



## [email protected]

Polyrythm1k said:


> @zeonstar
> Fwiw, I would aim them down. That’s the way speakers are designed, and will give the best imaging and overall sound. You wouldn’t listen to your mains 90° off axis right? By all means if you have the time to experiment, go for it and then you’ll be able to have a larger data pool. But in the end, I think pointed down will be best.


I agree that they should be pointed down at an angle such as the link I provided. However if yours are straight down as they appear in your picture then you might want to do some research and experimentation if it sounds better as a ceiling speaker, because it would make sense that the receiver reads what type of speaker it is and knowing that it produces a sound based on what angle the speaker is pointed at.


----------



## zeonstar

You all probably know this and I feel partially silly for mentioning it, but the speakers are Prime Elevations so even against the wall they will angle down a bit due to the natural angle on the front of the speaker. That being said, the angle is still way too high and the sound will be technically "shooting over my head" but it is what it is.


----------



## zeonstar

I could be wrong but I read his post to mean that you set the speaker type to be what it is (a front height, front top, etc) in the AVR and it does it’s thing with that in mind.


----------



## [email protected]

PioManiac said:


> The Receiver most certainly cannot determine what type of speaker is used,
> whether it's wall or ceiling mounted, or what angle it's at.
> 
> The AVR's room correction software measures distance (delay), establishes frequency capability (size) for setting a crossover
> ...and it adjusts the output level relative to the other speakers in the system...That is ALL.


What are you talking about Pio? I never said it can guess the speaker. I said it reads the item, and it would read the item the user puts in. In order to do experimentation as a ceiling speaker insinuates that you put in the speaker as a ceiling, rather than pray it comes out as one and experiment. ROFLMAO.


I agree that they should be pointed down at an angle such as the link I provided. However if yours are straight down as they appear in your picture then you might want to do some research and *experimentation if it sounds better as a ceiling speaker,* because it would make sense that the receiver reads what type of speaker it is and knowing that it produces a sound based on what angle the speaker is pointed at.


----------



## richlife

zeonstar said:


> ...If I may ask for a spoiler, did you end up using DAES? I haven't read that far yet but I would not of thought those were even an option for you with your ceilings. ...
> 
> As much as I like experimenting, tomorrow will hopefully -- mostly -- be for a few movies. I don't often get the house to myself where I can crank it to the way I like.
> 
> ...I get the feeling I am going to have a much better experience with all them now that I will have Rear Height speakers.


Yes, I do have Front DAES in my config. Yes, as you'll read, they were a bit tedious to set up.

As for adding the Rears, it should be an amazing difference. I can use 7.2.2 + Zone 2 or 7.2.4 and can switch between. When going from 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 the difference is remarkable! You can hear (feel) the soundfield expand. 7.2.2 immerses me from front to my MLP despite the fact that the Rear Surrounds in my bed (base) are in play. Change to 7.2.4 and that rear area lifts and is filled regardless of whether there is actual content on the Rear Presence. But as I say in my thread, it takes getting the RPs in the right place to really hear it. Move them forward to an overhead position right behind me and the effect is lost. While it can be done, I think that having an MLP against a wall and the RPs mounted on that wall would diminish the experience -- and I would want to move the MLP forward. (Or knock out that wall. )


----------



## zeonstar

richlife said:


> Yes, I do have Front DAES in my config. Yes, as you'll read, they were a bit tedious to set up.
> 
> As for adding the Rears, it should be an amazing difference. I can use 7.2.2 + Zone 2 or 7.2.4 and can switch between. When going from 7.2.2 to 7.2.4 the difference is remarkable! You can hear (feel) the soundfield expand. 7.2.2 immerses me from front to my MLP despite the fact that the Rear Surrounds in my bed (base) are in play. Change to 7.2.4 and that rear area lifts and is filled regardless of whether there is actual content on the Rear Presence. But as I say in my thread, it takes getting the RPs in the right place to really hear it. Move them forward to an overhead position right behind me and the effect is lost. While it can be done, I think that having an MLP against a wall and the RPs mounted on that wall would diminish the experience -- and I would want to move the MLP forward. (Or knock out that wall. )


I may of skimmed too fast when reading because I feel I missed some of your woes with the DAES. I know you mentioned having to factor the angle in of your ceiling but looking at photos, you have them on top of your entertainment center but they look like they are resting flat on it. Is there more to it than that?

It didn't occur to me until right now when you mentioned your rear tops doubling as your zone 2. It suddenly makes that much more sense where they actually are...basically in your kitchen. But I love that. I've never had a use for a zone 2 but if I ever did, I would hope it's for as perfect a use as your setup.

I can't do anything about my MLP being up against a wall. It's our living room and we have young children so I can just randomly pull the couch out from the wall. It wouldn't make sense in our living room. I setup is partially a compromise but I do have when we move into a bigger place to look forward to, where I can hopefully do it all as ideal as possible.


----------



## richlife

zeonstar said:


> I may of skimmed too fast when reading because I feel I missed some of your woes with the DAES. I know you mentioned having to factor the angle in of your ceiling but looking at photos, you have them on top of your entertainment center but they look like they are resting flat on it. Is there more to it than that?
> 
> It didn't occur to me until right now when you mentioned your rear tops doubling as your zone 2. It suddenly makes that much more sense where they actually are...basically in your kitchen. But I love that. I've never had a use for a zone 2 but if I ever did, I would hope it's for as perfect a use as your setup.
> 
> I can't do anything about my MLP being up against a wall. It's our living room and we have young children so I can just randomly pull the couch out from the wall. It wouldn't make sense in our living room. I setup is partially a compromise but I do have when we move into a bigger place to look forward to, where I can hopefully do it all as ideal as possible.


Actually, @zeonstar, the top of my AV unit has a 3" riser that hides what is behind it. You only see the top of my DAES, but the back edges have blocks of 2x4 under them which prop them up exactly 2.25" higher than the front edge. That 2.25 inches is included in my YPAO backup name along with the fact that the DAES are toed in toward my MLP. 

Sorry, but you misunderstood about the Zone 2 (in my case this is outside speakers on my deck). The Yamaha A3060 (and similar models) allow for a "7.2.2 + Zone2" setup which uses only the AVR amps. But the connection for the Zone2 also has jacks for a straight pre-out connection to an external amp for Rear Presence speakers. By setting up an alternate configuration for 7.2.4, the Zone2 is bypassed and the RPs powered -- 7.2.4. So a simple change in the Yamaha Setup menus, allows me to switch back and forth as I choose to either listen to 7.2.2 in my HT AND stereo on my deck (those can have different inputs or the same) or to listen to full 7.2.4 in the HT with no output to the deck. It took me a bit to understand and figure that out, but with help from @jdsmoothie, @PioManiac and others on the 3060 thread, I finally worked through it. Just some of the detail I gloss over in my HT thread.

And actually the RPs are in my dining room, not the kitchen. The LR/DR combination makes up my HT. The kitchen/family room is through the door near my Rear Surrounds. That is my wife's domain (nearly soundproofed unless the HT is "powered"  ) -- even though I use the kitchen more than she does as an adjunct to my grill just outside on another deck. (Not mentioned in my thread is that over 26 years in this house, I made a LOT of upgrades including adding 2100 sq ft to the original 500 sq ft deck/porch space as well as the recent addition of a full width patio (@500 sq ft) to the front of the house. A current "pending" project is to extend music to that patio -- maybe via a Zone 4?) (Partial explanation: My wife has the alpha-gal allergy and all this hardspace around the house gives her the freedom to move around anywhere outside with no potential exposure to ticks.)

So when you say that you are limited somewhat by your current situation, I totally understand. During the years with my daughter growing up and the 20 years since she married and moved off we went through many music incarnations in various physical locations (9 to be exact) before settling here and working through at least 5 more before "finalizing" as is in 2016. (One more thanks and a tip-of-the-hat to @jdsmoothie who turned me on to the A3060 and "real-life".)


----------



## zeonstar

[email protected] said:


> Also when you go to the Photos and Video app in the Home Smart Hub there is a Dolby Vision and Atmos video in the video section. Check out the one with the helicopter. The helicopter flying overhead will be a good measure for you to see how well you hear the heights.


Just a quick post. Wanted to tell you I liked the helicopter video. It's funny, I knew those 2 clips were on the tv but I dont know if I ever watched that one! I may of only watched the other one! Thanks though.




[email protected] said:


> \I think the best test of it is 3 or 4 minute surfing clip.



You meant "The Wild" clip right?


----------



## zeonstar

richlife said:


> Actually, @zeonstar, the top of my AV unit has a 3" riser that hides what is behind it. You only see the top of my DAES, but the back edges have blocks of 2x4 under them which prop them up exactly 2.25" higher than the front edge. That 2.25 inches is included in my YPAO backup name along with the fact that the DAES are toed in toward my MLP.
> 
> Sorry, but you misunderstood about the Zone 2 (in my case this is outside speakers on my deck). The Yamaha A3060 (and similar models) allow for a "7.2.2 + Zone2" setup which uses only the AVR amps. But the connection for the Zone2 also has jacks for a straight pre-out connection to an external amp for Rear Presence speakers. By setting up an alternate configuration for 7.2.4, the Zone2 is bypassed and the RPs powered -- 7.2.4. So a simple change in the Yamaha Setup menus, allows me to switch back and forth as I choose to either listen to 7.2.2 in my HT AND stereo on my deck (those can have different inputs or the same) or to listen to full 7.2.4 in the HT with no output to the deck. It took me a bit to understand and figure that out, but with help from @jdsmoothie, @PioManiac and others on the 3060 thread, I finally worked through it. Just some of the detail I gloss over in my HT thread.
> 
> And actually the RPs are in my dining room, not the kitchen. The LR/DR combination makes up my HT. The kitchen/family room is through the door near my Rear Surrounds. That is my wife's domain (nearly soundproofed unless the HT is "powered"  ) -- even though I use the kitchen more than she does as an adjunct to my grill just outside on another deck. (Not mentioned in my thread is that over 26 years in this house, I made a LOT of upgrades including adding 2100 sq ft to the original 500 sq ft deck/porch space as well as the recent addition of a full width patio (@500 sq ft) to the front of the house. A current "pending" project is to extend music to that patio -- maybe via a Zone 4?) (Partial explanation: My wife has the alpha-gal allergy and all this hardspace around the house gives her the freedom to move around anywhere outside with no potential exposure to ticks.)
> 
> So when you say that you are limited somewhat by your current situation, I totally understand. During the years with my daughter growing up and the 20 years since she married and moved off we went through many music incarnations in various physical locations (9 to be exact) before settling here and working through at least 5 more before "finalizing" as is in 2016. (One more thanks and a tip-of-the-hat to @jdsmoothie who turned me on to the A3060 and "real-life".)



Good evening. Nice to hear from you! I appreciate the clarification on your front presence speakers as well as the explanation of your Zone 2. My mistake on that one. My AVR, a Denon X4400H, can do something similar with a zone 2 and even a zone 3. But I have never used a zone 2 in my life. As of my adding my rear heights, I have now "Maxed out" my internal amps. My AVR can actually support 2 more speakers, making it 7.1.4, but those last 2 would need an external amp. (Again, something I have never dabbled in.) I am saving going full 7.1.4 for when we move and I can hopefully plan it to have speakers behind me. 

I've never heard anyone else call Atmos related speakers "presence" speakers before so it is taking me some getting use to it to know what you were talking about.

Also I misspoke when I said kitchen. I basically meant they are above the table behind your MLP. 

I have continued to read your thread when I have time. Find it really interesting. So thank you.


----------



## richlife

zeonstar said:


> Good evening. Nice to hear from you! I appreciate the clarification on your front presence speakers as well as the explanation of your Zone 2. My mistake on that one. My AVR, a Denon X4400H, can do something similar with a zone 2 and even a zone 3. But I have never used a zone 2 in my life. As of my adding my rear heights, I have now "Maxed out" my internal amps. My AVR can actually support 2 more speakers, making it 7.1.4, but those last 2 would need an external amp. (Again, something I have never dabbled in.) I am saving going full 7.1.4 for when we move and I can hopefully plan it to have speakers behind me.
> 
> I've never heard anyone else call Atmos related speakers "presence" speakers before so it is taking me some getting use to it to know what you were talking about.
> 
> Also I misspoke when I said kitchen. I basically meant they are above the table behind your MLP.
> 
> I have continued to read your thread when I have time. Find it really interesting. So thank you.


No issues on my part. I find it fascinating that so many years apart we are having similar experiences. As for my thread, I just hope you find it useful in some way. As I was writing it all, I kept wondering just how many might find it insufferable boring...


----------



## mrtickleuk

zeonstar said:


> Just a quick post. Wanted to tell you I liked the helicopter video. It's funny, I knew those 2 clips were on the tv but I dont know if I ever watched that one! I may have only watched the other one! Thanks though.
> 
> You meant "The Wild" clip right?


It looks like the clips may vary between regions. Just to check because it's been lost from the quoting, we are talking about the sample videos built-in to the LG C8 televisions. In "Sample Video" I have two titles: Dolomite, and Fiji. I don't have anything called "The Wild" inside the Sample Clips built into the TV.

*Dolomite *starts inside a cave, and then shows Alpine mountains, fishing, boats on a lake and ends with Alpine horns.
*Fiji *has a yellow helicopter flying overhead near the start, people surfing, dolphins, and incredible big wave in slow motion shot from below, jetski-ing and ends with a nice sunset.


----------



## zeonstar

mrtickleuk said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick post. Wanted to tell you I liked the helicopter video. It's funny, I knew those 2 clips were on the tv but I dont know if I ever watched that one! I may have only watched the other one! Thanks though.
> 
> You meant "The Wild" clip right?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the clips may vary between regions. Just to check because it's been lost from the quoting, we are talking about the sample videos built-in to the LG C8 televisions. In "Sample Video" I have two titles: Dolomite, and Fiji. I don't have anything called "The Wild" inside the Sample Clips built into the TV.
> 
> *Dolomite *starts inside a cave, and then shows Alpine mountains, fishing, boats on a lake and ends with Alpine horns.
> *Fiji *has a yellow helicopter flying overhead near the start, people surfing, dolphins, and incredible big wave in slow motion shot from below, jetski-ing and ends with a nice sunset.
Click to expand...

This is my mistake and the way I quoted the messages. Sorry about that. From your description, we DO have the same clips in the photos and videos app that come with our TV. 

“The Wild” Trailer I mention was what I thought was the one with the surfers that had been suggested I watch for Atmos content. That video is in the Dolby Access app. It was the only video in there I saw with surfers so I figured that had to be the one referred to.


----------



## drober30

*Please help me decide on 5.1.2 or 5.1.4*

My home theater is in my basement, its a shared entertainment space with a bar area. I have a projector/92" screen and I'm running a 5.1 system. My room does not really allow for side speakers so no 7.1 and only allows for my rear speakers to be behind the seating area mounted higher on the walls (see pictures)

Above my seating area is a tray ceiling where the Atmos ceiling speakers would go. The ceiling speakers will be in alignment with the front speakers, there will be no issues for placing two of the speakers forward of the seating area, the only concern is the rear speakers would be just slightly rearward of the seating area if I keep them in the tray ceiling or I would have to install them outside of the tray ceiling which would be one foot lower than the fronts.

My distance above my ear to ceiling is 60" (to top of tray ceiling) so what would be the minimum distance I could place the front and rear speakers to achieve the 55 and 125 degree specification?

Will a 5.1.4 system be worth it or should I just do 5.1.2?


On a side note I'm redoing my basement, I started patching drywall in order to paint the area a darker grey color, replacing my 603s with 700 series (gloss black), replacing my bar counter top and existing furniture to match the color scheme and I finally got the wife to agree to sell the curio cabinet!


----------



## richlife

IMO, you create your own problems with Atmos by having your rear speakers in the ceiling. You essentially have no "base". As 5.1, they probably sound good. I would move the rears down to ear level at the back, and then go with 5.1.4 by adjusting your MLP and the ceiling speakers however works best. The 1 foot elevation difference is minor -- just place the ceiling speakers according to Atmos standards as best you can. (You may prefer something different, but this is what I would do with your space. I'd like to know how it all works out.)

Edit: FYI, also IMO, 5.1.4 will always be better than 5.1.2 if you can "tweak" the rest of the room to manage it.


----------



## drober30

richlife said:


> IMO, you create your own problems with Atmos by having your rear speakers in the ceiling. You essentially have no "base". As 5.1, they probably sound good. I would move the rears down to ear level at the back, and then go with 5.1.4 by adjusting your MLP and the ceiling speakers however works best. The 1 foot elevation difference is minor -- just place the ceiling speakers according to Atmos standards as best you can. (You may prefer something different, but this is what I would do with your space. I'd like to know how it all works out.)
> 
> Edit: FYI, also IMO, 5.1.4 will always be better than 5.1.2 if you can "tweak" the rest of the room to manage it.


Lowering my rear speakers is not really an option, they would be in the way of foot traffic. The good thing is I've read where rears are supposed to be elevated a foot or two above your ears abd I would have to do that anyway to clear my seat backs.

What I have to decide on is:

5.1.4 and adding all the ceiling speakers into the tray ceiling, that would put the rears just behind my MLP so although not to specifications, I have to imagine that after running Audyssey, I will hear the overhead sounds in front and slightly rearward of my MLP and that would be better than just hearing sounds from the front. Putting them outside of the tray ceiling will put them to close top the rears on the walls.

5.1.2 and save on the expense of two additional ceiling speakers and higher end receiver. 5.1.2 will give me overhead sounds I did not have before and I could buy the AVR-X3600H instead of the AVR-X4500H.

Although implementing everything to specifications would be best, I'm sure it will sound amazing nonetheless.

I will report back on what I decided to do and how I think it sounds.


----------



## David Susilo

Elevating the rears by a foot or two is okay for regular 5.1/7.1. But with Atmos you really need to keep the rears at ear level. The greater the height delta between the rears and the overhead speaker, the more you’ll hear the immersion effect.


----------



## petetherock

drober30 said:


> Lowering my rear speakers is not really an option, they would be in the way of foot traffic. The good thing is I've read where rears are supposed to be elevated a foot or two above your ears abd I would have to do that anyway to clear my seat backs.
> 
> What I have to decide on is:
> 
> 5.1.4 and adding all the ceiling speakers into the tray ceiling, that would put the rears just behind my MLP so although not to specifications, I have to imagine that after running Audyssey, I will hear the overhead sounds in front and slightly rearward of my MLP and that would be better than just hearing sounds from the front. Putting them outside of the tray ceiling will put them to close top the rears on the walls.
> 
> 5.1.2 and save on the expense of two additional ceiling speakers and higher end receiver. 5.1.2 will give me overhead sounds I did not have before and I could buy the AVR-X3600H instead of the AVR-X4500H.
> 
> Although implementing everything to specifications would be best, I'm sure it will sound amazing nonetheless.
> 
> I will report back on what I decided to do and how I think it sounds.


5.1.4 gives a better enveloping experience, especially since you have such a large space.
By the way, if you move your centre to the front edge of the cabinet, it will sound better.. 
cheers


----------



## gene4ht

drober30 said:


> Lowering my rear speakers is not really an option, they would be in the way of foot traffic. The good thing is I've read where rears are supposed to be elevated a foot or two above your ears abd I would have to do that anyway to clear my seat backs.
> 
> What I have to decide on is:
> 
> 5.1.4 and adding all the ceiling speakers into the tray ceiling, that would put the rears just behind my MLP so although not to specifications, I have to imagine that after running Audyssey, I will hear the overhead sounds in front and slightly rearward of my MLP and that would be better than just hearing sounds from the front. Putting them outside of the tray ceiling will put them to close top the rears on the walls.
> 
> 5.1.2 and save on the expense of two additional ceiling speakers and higher end receiver. 5.1.2 will give me overhead sounds I did not have before and I could buy the AVR-X3600H instead of the AVR-X4500H.
> 
> Although implementing everything to specifications would be best, I'm sure it will sound amazing nonetheless.
> 
> I will report back on what I decided to do and how I think it sounds.


While 2 overheads will add overhead ambiance/immersion, the benefit of 4 overheads is delivering even greater immersive effects by accurately reproducing overhead front to rear and rear to front pans found in many of today's action blockbusters.


----------



## bobbino421

Hi all not sure if I’m on the right thread asking this? 
I wanna do Atmos on a budget $2500 to 3000 

My criteria 
5.1.4 set up with a 12 inch sub self powered, RCAs connections, cross overs and upfires temporary, I’m renting so I’m not putting holes in ceiling! 

I’m spending half or more on my AVR, Denon 9.2 ch, because I plan on using it when I upgrade to my dream system! 
So I’m looking to spend a $1000-1500 on speakers nothing fancy but not crap either. 
I know the purist hate the upfires but I plan on doing in ceiling when I become a homeowner! 

I’m also goin to wait and buy a center ch speaker for now as I have a new Sony OLED with center ch capability. 

I’m Coming from an Atmos soundbar which limits me to just UHD Blu-ray only. So I want a somewhat traditional set up. 

Any advice is appreciated Thank you!


----------



## drober30

gene4ht said:


> While 2 overheads will add overhead ambiance/immersion, the benefit of 4 overheads is delivering even greater immersive effects by accurately reproducing overhead *front to rear and rear to front pans found in many of today's action blockbusters*.


I agree that will give the full effect and justifies the extra work/expense! Just need to determine if I mount my rears outside the tray ceiling or just accept the results with them mounted slightly behind the MLP inside the tray ceiling. I'm really leaning toward mounting inside the tray ceiling. For panning sound affects, I'm sure the sound is also faded in or out which will help with the compromised speaker placements. I think other sounds will be good too, just not as immersive if they were spaced out rearward more.

Maybe I can find some type of way to place the rear speakers in each location as a test before I commit and cut the holes.


----------



## batpig

David Susilo said:


> Elevating the rears by a foot or two is okay for regular 5.1/7.1. But with Atmos you really need to keep the rears at ear level.


That's kind of an extreme position and from what I've seen one not shared by other pros. Surrounds at ear level presents other issues (sound being blocked by people's heads, uneven dispersion / hot-spotting in a small room) which are even worse in a multi-row environment where "ear height" is different for each row. A typical domestic HT which is only 12-15' wide is probably going to have some listeners only a few feet from the surround speaker -- that's why builds I've seen from people like Erskine or Shawn Byrne still tend to elevate the surrounds above ear level.

It's always a compromise between different trade-offs. The real world isn't going to be an ideal room with a single seat in the middle. I think raising the surrounds 12-18 inches is a defensible compromise if the alternative is uncomfortable hot spotting for the off axis listeners. Rather than the absolute position "need to be at ear level" a more practical philosophy "as low as they can go without causing other issues" which Nyal Mellor espouses in his blog post on the topic: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/


----------



## batpig

drober30 said:


> Lowering my rear speakers is not really an option


If lowering the rears is not an option then do 5.1.2. It's not worth trying to shoehorn in rear overheads when the surrounds are already behind you and elevated so much.


----------



## David Susilo

batpig said:


> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elevating the rears by a foot or two is okay for regular 5.1/7.1. But with Atmos you really need to keep the rears at ear level.
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of an extreme position and from what I've seen one not shared by other pros. Surrounds at ear level presents other issues (sound being blocked by people's heads, uneven dispersion / hot-spotting in a small room) which are even worse in a multi-row environment where "ear height" is different for each row. A typical domestic HT which is only 12-15' wide is probably going to have some listeners only a few feet from the surround speaker -- that's why builds I've seen from people like Erskine or Shawn Byrne still tend to elevate the surrounds above ear level.
> 
> It's always a compromise between different trade-offs. The real world isn't going to be an ideal room with a single seat in the middle. I think raising the surrounds 12-18 inches is a defensible compromise if the alternative is uncomfortable hot spotting for the off axis listeners. Rather than the absolute position "need to be at ear level" a more practical philosophy "as low as they can go without causing other issues" which Nyal Mellor espouses in his blog post on the topic: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/
Click to expand...

But that’s exactly it... compromise. 

I have to do it for my home theatre too (having the rears 1ft above ideal). But it’s a compromise nevertheless.


----------



## batpig

David Susilo said:


> But that’s exactly it... compromise.
> 
> I have to do it for my home theatre too (having the rears 1ft above ideal). But it’s a compromise nevertheless.


OK, forgive me if I misinterpreted you, but your comment that "with Atmos you really need to keep the rears at ear level" sounded to me like you were espousing a more rigid position. If all you're saying is that's the ideal to shoot for, then we are in agreement


----------



## drober30

batpig said:


> drober30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lowering my rear speakers is not really an option
> 
> 
> 
> If lowering the rears is not an option then do 5.1.2. It's not worth trying to shoehorn in rear overheads when the surrounds are already behind you and elevated so much.
Click to expand...

I agree so that’s why I thought if I put the rear Atmos inside the ceiling tray that it would still give me better immersion and be far enough away from the rears.

The whole idea of certain sounds coming from certain speakers still applies and as long as there is a decent separation between my rear Atmos and rear surrounds, I think I’ll get the desired sound effects.


----------



## David Susilo

batpig said:


> David Susilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that’s exactly it... compromise.
> 
> I have to do it for my home theatre too (having the rears 1ft above ideal). But it’s a compromise nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, forgive me if I misinterpreted you, but your comment that "with Atmos you really need to keep the rears at ear level" sounded to me like you were espousing a more rigid position. If all you're saying is that's the ideal to shoot for, then we are in agreement /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Yup! My apology for being unclear 🙂


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> If lowering the rears is not an option then do 5.1.2. It's not worth trying to shoehorn in rear overheads when the surrounds are already behind you and elevated so much.


I might even go a step further and say that, if the Surrounds are on or near the ceiling, there's probably not going to be much benefit from Atmos at all. He'll just wind up getting a lot of auditory confusion between which sounds are supposed to be coming from above and which are supposed to be on the ground. It might be better to stick with 5.1 in that case.


----------



## richlife

drober30 said:


> I agree so that’s why I thought if I put the rear Atmos inside the ceiling tray that it would still give me better immersion and be far enough away from the rears.
> 
> The whole idea of certain sounds coming from certain speakers still applies and as long as there is a decent separation between my rear Atmos and rear surrounds, I think I’ll get the desired sound effects.


Take a look at my HT thread in my signiture below. I describe how I first tried the rear presence (Atmos) in a similar just behind my MLP position behind and above my head. I couldn't tell much difference like that from 7.2.2. When I moved the Rear Presence back about 3 feet, the full immersion Atmos sound just exploded on me. 

My thread describes some of the ways I setup temporary speaker positions for these tests. You might find something of use or trigger an idea. The best thing you can do is to experiment with your various placement options -- and again, I would include finding a way to bring those rear speakers down.


----------



## batpig

bobbino421 said:


> I wanna do Atmos on a budget $2500 to 3000
> 
> My criteria
> 5.1.4 set up with a 12 inch sub self powered, RCAs connections, cross overs and upfires temporary, I’m renting so I’m not putting holes in ceiling!
> 
> I’m spending half or more on my AVR, Denon 9.2 ch, because I plan on using it when I upgrade to my dream system!
> So I’m looking to spend a $1000-1500 on speakers nothing fancy but not crap either.
> I know the purist hate the upfires but I plan on doing in ceiling when I become a homeowner!
> 
> I’m also goin to wait and buy a center ch speaker for now


It's going to be tricky to balance investing in speakers you can use now with your current constraints (e.g. up-firing only) vs. dreaming of the potential for a future setup. Realistically when will you actually be moving to a new home? If we are talking at least 1-2 years down the road I would not recommend investing in things you won't use right away, technology changes very fast especially with processors. If you splurge for a nicer AVR right now you may find in 2 years when you move it's ready to be replaced because something new has come out (e.g. HDCP 2.3 / HDMI 2.1).

What are the things that will last? Good subs, good speakers, good amps. But you may invest in good speakers then move to the new place and the room is much larger and you realize the speakers you bought aren't good anymore when trying to fill up a much bigger space at bigger volume. So if you're going to "overbuy" and invest in something beyond what you need right now, I would do it with subs and speakers and NOT the AVR.

If I were in your position, I would consider grabbing the Onkyo TX-RZ830 which is only $499 on blowout pricing. It has everything you need to run a 5.1.4 setup out of the box, and can even expand to 11ch with external amplification. If the budget is a bit looser, you could pop the extra $200-250 for a Marantz SR6012 or Denon X4400H refurb from Accessories4Less, with the primary benefit there being the superior Audyssey XT32 room correction. But if that extra $200-250 means you skimp on the subwoofer or get worse speakers, I would advise against it. I know it sounds crazy at first, but I would almost think about the AVR as a "disposable" expense in your situation.... spend $500 on the Onkyo, use it for 1-2 years and sell it for $200-300 when you move and are ready to upgrade. That's a cheap "rental" to get up and running now.

IMO, the most viable approach get cheaper speakers to tide you over for now, and then worry about the big upgrade when you move and can actually spec good speakers for your space. You're stuck with up-firing and not even buying a center channel, so why go nuts? For example, you could get two pairs of the Pioneer SP-BS22A-LR which have up-firing Atmos modules built in for $480 off Amazon. These aren't the best speakers but they are excellent for the price and always highly regarded as among the best bang for the buck out there, and will do just fine in a small apartment.

Combined with the Onkyo RZ830 you've got the "4.0.4" part covered with processing and amplification for under $1000 and all you need is a subwoofer. You could splurge for something really nice like the HSU VTF3-mk5 for ~$800 and still be way under budget with a subwoofer that can handle a much bigger space when you movie. And when you move you've got some flexibility for upgrade paths. 

For example, you could easily continue to use the Onkyo and re-use the four Pioneer bookshelf speakers as surrounds in a new space, and since you'll already have a big boy sub you can invest heavily into really nice LCR speakers + amplification and room build (furniture, acoustic treatment, etc) and you're all set to jump to into a really nice 7.1.4 setup that can handle a large space. And then you can bide your time while you save up for a newer processor, upgrading surrounds (if necessary), a second subwoofer, etc.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> I might even go a step further and say that, if the Surrounds are on or near the ceiling, there's probably not going to be much benefit from Atmos at all. He'll just wind up getting a lot of auditory confusion between which sounds are supposed to be coming from above and which are supposed to be on the ground. It might be better to stick with 5.1 in that case.


I think it depends on the situation. In this case, the surrounds are far enough behind the seating that there would still be clear separation between them and a pair of "Top Middle" speakers above and slightly in front of the couch. And of course there would be plenty of separation between the LCR speakers which are down at ear level and the overheads in this position. I'd still rather have those extra speakers filling in the gap in sound directly overhead. 

He could also flip the speakers upside down which would lower the imaging of the surrounds slightly -- combined with the inset of the tray ceiling that would put the overheads at least 2' higher than the surrounds so it's a better situation than having them all in-ceiling as some attempt to do.

It's also well known to most of us at this point that we are far less sensitive to precise directionality of sounds behind us and especially behind and above us. All the time I hear a sound that I think is above me in the rear hemisphere and then I double check and it's actually coming from the surrounds (which, to be fair, are about 1ft above ear level in my room). Because of this phenomenon, of the various sub-optimal Atmos setups with speakers on or near the ceiling, I think a 5.1.2 with overheads above and a bit in front with plenty of physical separation from the surrounds behind you is probably the least problematic.


----------



## gwsat

I placed my back surround speakers on the top shelf of a bookcase, which is directly behind the MLP in my family/home theater room. Ideally, I would have placed on a lower shelf of the bookcase. Unfortunately, I needed those shelves for book and disk storage, which I thought was more important than the ideal placement of my back surrounds. My current setup allows me to enjoy both immersiveness and well separated surround effects.

PS: I forgot to say that the back surround speakers are about three feet lower than my ceiling and Atmos speakers.


----------



## sdurani

drober30 said:


> The whole idea of certain sounds coming from certain speakers still applies and as long as there is a decent separation between my rear Atmos and rear surrounds, I think I’ll get the desired sound effects.


The separation in this case has to do with elevation. Your Rear speakers are at ceiling height, your height speakers will be in/on the ceiling; that's not "decent separation" between the base layer and height layer.


----------



## bobbino421

@batpig thanks I will look into those receivers and pioneers speakers. 
I can’t afford to do what I really want right now and I’m looking at a 3-5 year window as far as a new place. Plans always change too. Also I’m upgrading soon to a much larger tv within a year so I want to spend my money there instead. 
My sound bar is not cutting it! Does not utilize e-arc, does not support Dolby Vision pass through and DTS-X.


----------



## khcoach

bobbino421 said:


> @batpig thanks I will look into those receivers and pioneers speakers.
> I can’t afford to do what I really want right now and I’m looking at a 3-5 year window as far as a new place. Plans always change too. Also I’m upgrading soon to a much larger tv within a year so I want to spend my money there instead.
> My sound bar is not cutting it! Does not utilize e-arc, does not support Dolby Vision pass through and DTS-X.


instead of getting the Pioneer's with the built in atmos upfiring I'd get the separate add ons for atmos (the pio ones can be found for $99 a set) as they allow more flexibility on setup. You can re-angle them if your speakers are further away from seating to possibly get a better sound. With the built in ones your stuck with the one angle. This way you could get the front and surrounds you want to keep, then easily switch to either in ceiling or down firing heights depending on your next place. 

I have the pio add ons and I've angled them up more (think 22* with some door stops) to better put the atmos closer above my seating instead of more in front of my seating. Also keep in mind you need a really flat ceiling to for the upfiring to work well. I have textured/popcorn ceiling and i had to install a couple foam poster boards to my ceiling where the speakers would "hit". Sound way better now that when it was just getting diffused by the texture of the ceiling.


----------



## zeonstar

zeonstar said:


> Good afternoon. I appreciate the reply, thank you. I will admit though, I am surprised by your answer. I got my speakers hung last night and they are like 90% pointing straight down towards my MLP. I thought putting them as Tops was a no-brainer and the only aspect I wasn't sure of was if I am better off with them as Top Middle or Top Rear.
> 
> It's funny you even suggested changing my front heights to front tops as that is something I have long meant to do, but have never gotten around to it. I even have the Audyssey app which makes it easy for me to have different configurations. I just ultimately decided that it seems best to indicate what the speakers actually are in my AVR as accurately as possible so if they are front heights, I should put them as such.
> 
> What could I gain if I was to change them to front tops? What could I lose? Does anyone else here set their Atmos speakers differently in their AVR to what they actually are in reality? (i.e. Putting what are actually front heights as top heights or whatever?)
> 
> ***********
> 
> While I am here, I want to vent a little, get some thoughts out and maybe -- hopefully -- get some advice. As I mentioned, I hung my rear height speakers last night and instead of being excited, I was underwhelmed. Not by the performance, but how they look. For lack of a better word, they look ridiculous hanging on the wall. Now don't get me wrong, I was beyond excited do this and thrilled my wife OK'ed it. I haven't even talked to her since I finished hanging them last night so I don't even know her opinion, but if I think they look bad, I can only imagine what she thinks.
> 
> Quick aside: I was never planning to have any kind of rear height speakers in our current home. We have 2 young children and once they are a bit older and done with daycare in about 3 years (thus gaining a lot of extra income) we are going to move into a bigger place with at minimum 3 bedrooms so the kids have their own rooms. (Current place is a 2 bedroom townhouse.) Once we move, I will be able to plan our home theater from the beginning and go all out like I want, weather we end up with a dedicated space or just the living room, I'd be able to do more, put cables in walls, install ceiling speakers, all that. What we have now is suppose to be somewhat reasonable to "Hold me over." But I've gone a bit crazy with it and my wife has been super patient and accommodating.
> 
> 
> I've said all that to say this: I woke up this morning thinking that I kind of want to just flush mount my rear height speakers using the normal mounts they come with. Mounting them high on the wall normally, in other words.
> 
> ***I'd like to ask, would that work? I know it's not ideal but as long as it doesn't sound BAD, and actually adds to my system, that is what I want. I don't really hear height effects from my front heights as much as I would like. I think that is due to how far I am from my front sound stage more than anything. But it's really hard for me to pick up height effects from the front unless the sound to them is very discreet (and not much is coming from my LCR at the time) I would think, and hope, I would hear rear effects above me from the back speakers better, even if they are pointed out and not down at me.
> 
> Does anyone here have height effect speakers they point out instead of down? If so, how do you like it?
> 
> 
> It's a compromise but I think it could work. My whole setup has always been a compromise anyway. Of course i care about them sounding good and I usually don't care about how speakers look hanging on a wall....but for some reason this time it's bugging me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading!


For those who may be interested, I thought I would check in and post an update regarding my Rear height speakers.

When I decided I'd like to add rear height speakers to my setup, and figuring out if it was even possible in our current home, (and after my wife agreed to it), my main goal with them was to have some height sounds that were hopefully easier to hear than my front heights. I suspect that in large part due to the distance of my MLP to my front sound stage (about 13-14 feet) , it's not that easy to pick out the sounds of my front height speakers. I hear my whole front sound stage of course, but nothing really stands out as above me. Up High? Yeah a little, but certainly not above me. Anyway. 

The original plan was to make due with my system as it is until we move into a bigger home in a few years (once the kiddos are done with daycare) and which point I can go crazy with the Home Theater and plan things from the beginning. But I then got it "In my head" to add rear Atmos speakers sooner rather than later....

My original idea was to put speakers ON the ceiling. But it would just not work due to multiple factors, the main of which being I don't want to mess with a ceiling that very likely has asbestos. Then the plan shifted to put them high on the back wall and point them down, approximating speakers that were not on the ceiling, but pretty much directly above me. (Thanks to those who helped me find mounts to actually make this happen.) The end result is the photo above. Unexpectedly, it was not my wife who objected to the final product, it was me! So as I decided and posted here about, I ended up mounting my SVS Prime Elevations "Normally" on our rear wall. I knew I would be compromising performance with aesthetics but I was ok with that. 

The end result was this. (Still in the process of hiding the wires in the walls)











The big question that remained was: how would it sound with speakers that are essentially pointing away from the MLP, aside from the slight angle provided by the Prime Elevations?

I got the speakers re-hung late last week and had all of Friday off to watch demos and a few movies. I am very please to report that I am quite happy with the results! Even with this less than ideal setup, I am able to get the distinct effect of sounds above me that I was missing.

I started with all my favorite Atmos demos to get a good sense of things and if this setup would truly "work." One of my Go-to clips is the Atmos demo "Audiosphere" where it has musical chimes that travel UP. (Side note, the "Bouncing ball" in the video make my 2 and 4 year olds giggle their little heads off.)

After that it was "Amaze" where I would of sworn it was raining on my ceiling.

The Atmos Helicopter demo also sounded great where I could hear the helicopter circling above me. (My front and rear heights are symmetrical which definitely helps things.)

Half a dozen more demos, and 3 full movies and I was quite pleased with my new setup. I think in my case the speakers NOT being pointed right at me actually help in creating that sense of 
above."

And there you have it. 

One last note. I was a bit inspired by @richlife to post this and, like his own post before about his own home theater, to give another example of how a HT can turn out well in a less than ideal environment.


----------



## paindonthurt

Ok fellas. I’m going Atmos. I have bought the Onkyo TX-RZ830 and I’m ready to go 5.1.4. But as we all do from time to time I need advice. (I tend to think, think and over think things so having outside input gets me on track). 

I’ve included a pic of my room. You can see it’s currently 7.0 setup (heights above fronts) as I’m in the process of determining a new sub. (Which I’m way over thinking lol) 

Question 1- are my surround speakers too high? (2ft above ear level) The Atmos speakers will be installed in the ceiling between joists so essentially flush mounted. This will put them 2ft higher than current sound locations. 

Question 2- go with 2 Atmos or 4? I’m leaning 4 with a room that is 16x34. 

Question 3- will the front height speakers in current location be adequate or best to move them “into” room? 

I’m including pics. Please ignore the mess. Work in progress.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Black hawk down atmos demo worthy?*

Anyone tried the new rerelease of Blackhawk down? It seems it would be a great demo material disc to show off atmos...?


----------



## drober30

richlife said:


> Take a look at my HT thread in my signiture below. I describe how I first tried the rear presence (Atmos) in a similar just behind my MLP position behind and above my head. I couldn't tell much difference like that from 7.2.2. When I moved the Rear Presence back about 3 feet, the full immersion Atmos sound just exploded on me.
> 
> My thread describes some of the ways I setup temporary speaker positions for these tests. You might find something of use or trigger an idea. The best thing you can do is to experiment with your various placement options -- and again, I would include finding a way to bring those rear speakers down.


WOW! You really tackled your room layout and made sure you got the best sound out of it! Makes what I'm looking to do child's play!

I will install a X.X.2 and then test adding the x.x.4 when the receiver I want is released next year (AVR-X4600H) My current receiver supports x.x.2 and I'm only willing to buy a new receiver if it support HDCP2.3. It may be along time before I ever use that feature but it will be the one piece of new gear that has the upcoming standards in it.


----------



## drober30

paindonthurt said:


> Ok fellas. I’m going Atmos. I have bought the Onkyo TX-RZ830 and I’m ready to go 5.1.4. But as we all do from time to time I need advice. (I tend to think, think and over think things so having outside input gets me on track).
> 
> I’ve included a pic of my room. You can see it’s currently 7.0 setup (heights above fronts) as I’m in the process of determining a new sub. (Which I’m way over thinking lol)
> 
> Question 1- are my surround speakers too high? (2ft above ear level) The Atmos speakers will be installed in the ceiling between joists so essentially flush mounted. This will put them 2ft higher than current sound locations.
> 
> Question 2- go with 2 Atmos or 4? I’m leaning 4 with a room that is 16x34.
> 
> Question 3- will the front height speakers in current location be adequate or best to move them “into” room?
> 
> I’m including pics. Please ignore the mess. Work in progress.


From everything I have read so far, I would recommend:

 lowering your surround speakers just a little, they should be 1-2 feet above ear level

Go with Atmos 4, your room size and layout supports it.

I don't have enough experience with front height to comment.


----------



## petetherock

drober30 said:


> I agree so that’s why I thought if I put the rear Atmos inside the ceiling tray that it would still give me better immersion and be far enough away from the rears.
> 
> The whole idea of certain sounds coming from certain speakers still applies and as long as there is a decent separation between my rear Atmos and rear surrounds, I think I’ll get the desired sound effects.


Everyone lives with compromises..
It will be nice to suspend the speakers from the ceiling - or at least screw them onto the ceiling or near there. I use Anthony Gallo A'Divas which are on, rather than in the ceiling.
They also have a new range of speakers that you can suspend and lower the height down to ear level if want. Or if you can, shift the rears down by half a metre for a more immersive effect. There's only so much Audyssey or other forms of auto-EQ can do if the speakers are not at the suggested positions, but YMMV as always.. cheers


----------



## petetherock

paindonthurt said:


> Ok fellas. I’m going Atmos. I have bought the Onkyo TX-RZ830 and I’m ready to go 5.1.4. But as we all do from time to time I need advice. (I tend to think, think and over think things so having outside input gets me on track).
> 
> I’ve included a pic of my room. You can see it’s currently 7.0 setup (heights above fronts) as I’m in the process of determining a new sub. (Which I’m way over thinking lol)
> 
> Question 1- are my surround speakers too high? (2ft above ear level) The Atmos speakers will be installed in the ceiling between joists so essentially flush mounted. This will put them 2ft higher than current sound locations.
> 
> Question 2- go with 2 Atmos or 4? I’m leaning 4 with a room that is 16x34.
> 
> Question 3- will the front height speakers in current location be adequate or best to move them “into” room?
> 
> I’m including pics. Please ignore the mess. Work in progress.


Yep
1 - lower surrounds to around the ear level - 1.2m or so above the floor
2 - four Atmos beats two - spread them out
3 - we make compromises, if you can use the ceiling positions, that's nicer. 

I have a pic of my setup in my signature, I also considered using front heights and rear heights, but I managed to re-jig things and get the right Top Height positions.

For the surrounds, I laid them in the false ceiling, but also cut into the solid brick walls to lay them in the walls down to ear level. It's a one time pain for which I was prepared to do... YMMV 

Cheers


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> Anyone tried the new rerelease of Blackhawk down? It seems it would be a great demo material disc to show off atmos...?


Yes, Black Hawk Down Atmos soundtrack is demo worthy, see the beginning helicopter rush, the ground chaos is well managed, debris and shots are all over the place and with precise movement from shot to the target. Music and city sounds are well integrated.


----------



## dfa973

Worthy Atmos soundtracks that use the whole 3D objects potential - *true 3D objects that are floating and/or moving in midair*, not just stuck to the ceiling layer...

Knowing 4K Blu-ray
War for the Planet of the Apes 4K Blu-ray
Bad Times at the El Royale 4K Blu-ray - midair 3D objects but not that great...
Cliffhanger 4K Blu-ray: 25th Anniversary Edition - reference sound stage for length and depth & seat-rattling bass
Twilight 4K Blu-ray - yes..., I know..., but the sound mixer knew what it was doing!
RED 4K Blu-ray
T2: Trainspotting 4K Blu-ray
Kick-Ass 4K Blu-ray
The Cabin in the Woods 4K Blu-ray
Sicario: Day of the Soldado 4K Blu-ray
Hellboy Animated 4K Blu-ray: Sword of Storms
Hellboy Animated 4K Blu-ray: Blood & Iron
Alien: Covenant 4K Blu-ray
Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation 4K Blu-ray
Assassin's Creed 4K Blu-ray
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets Blu-ray
Snitch 4K Blu-ray
Warrior 4K Blu-ray
Escape Plan 4K Blu-ray
The Hitman's Bodyguard Blu-ray
Logan 4K Blu-ray
Annabelle: Creation Blu-ray
Red Sparrow 4K Blu-ray
Conan the Barbarian 4K Blu-ray
The Lincoln Lawyer 4K Blu-ray
The Legend of Hercules 4K Blu-ray
Operation Red Sea Blu-ray


----------



## gwsat

dfa973 said:


> Worthy Atmos soundtracks that use the whole 3D objects potential - *true 3D objects that are floating and/or moving in midair*, not just stuck to the ceiling layer...
> 
> Knowing 4K Blu-ray
> War for the Planet of the Apes 4K Blu-ray
> Bad Times at the El Royale 4K Blu-ray - midair 3D objects but not that great...
> Cliffhanger 4K Blu-ray: 25th Anniversary Edition - reference sound stage for length and depth & seat-rattling bass
> Twilight 4K Blu-ray - yes..., I know..., but the sound mixer knew what it was doing!
> RED 4K Blu-ray
> T2: Trainspotting 4K Blu-ray
> Kick-Ass 4K Blu-ray
> The Cabin in the Woods 4K Blu-ray
> *Sicario: Day of the Soldado* 4K Blu-ray
> Hellboy Animated 4K Blu-ray: Sword of Storms
> Hellboy Animated 4K Blu-ray: Blood & Iron
> Alien: Covenant 4K Blu-ray
> Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation 4K Blu-ray
> Assassin's Creed 4K Blu-ray
> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets Blu-ray
> Snitch 4K Blu-ray
> Warrior 4K Blu-ray
> Escape Plan 4K Blu-ray
> The Hitman's Bodyguard Blu-ray
> *Logan* 4K Blu-ray
> Annabelle: Creation Blu-ray
> *Red Sparrow* 4K Blu-ray
> Conan the Barbarian 4K Blu-ray
> *The Lincoln Lawyer* 4K Blu-ray
> The Legend of Hercules 4K Blu-ray
> Operation Red Sea Blu-ray


Thanks for your list. I have highlighted some of my favorites in bold. I am particularly fond of _The Lincoln Lawyer_ and will watch it again soon. Watched _Red Sparrow_ again last week.


----------



## dschulz

*Atmos on Netflix Titles*

Of interest to folks here: last night there was a SMPTE/AES meeting with a topic of mixing for home theatre. One of the speakers was Scott Kramer of Netflix, who spoke about Netflix's initiatives supporting high quality audio, and in particular Atmos. Netflix is now recommending their content partners mix in Atmos, with a minimum monitoring environment of 7.1.4 and a recommended monitoring environment of 9.1.6 - and he specifically called out that Netflix feels the Front Wide speakers are very useful in creating a nice, wide front sound stage. He also clarified that Netflix is delivering true object-based Atmos, not hard-printing to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, so for people with extended Atmos arrays you'll see activity through all your speakers as objects pass around the room.

Netflix is up to ~250 titles streaming with Atmos, with much, much more to come.


----------



## chi_guy50

dschulz said:


> Of interest to folks here: last night there was a SMPTE/AES meeting with a topic of mixing for home theatre. One of the speakers was Scott Kramer of Netflix, who spoke about Netflix's initiatives supporting high quality audio, and in particular Atmos. Netflix is now recommending their content partners mix in Atmos, with a minimum monitoring environment of 7.1.4 and a recommended monitoring environment of 9.1.6 - and he specifically called out that Netflix feels the Front Wide speakers are very useful in creating a nice, wide front sound stage. He also clarified that Netflix is delivering true object-based Atmos, not hard-printing to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, so for people with extended Atmos arrays you'll see activity through all your speakers as objects pass around the room.
> 
> Netflix is up to ~250 titles streaming with Atmos, with much, much more to come.



Was there any mention of extending the Atmos streaming capability to additional platforms? Their app list of Atmos-capable devices remains highly limited.


----------



## batpig

dschulz said:


> Of interest to folks here: last night there was a SMPTE/AES meeting with a topic of mixing for home theatre. One of the speakers was Scott Kramer of Netflix, who spoke about Netflix's initiatives supporting high quality audio, and in particular Atmos. Netflix is now recommending their content partners mix in Atmos, with a minimum monitoring environment of 7.1.4 and a recommended monitoring environment of 9.1.6 - and he specifically called out that Netflix feels the Front Wide speakers are very useful in creating a nice, wide front sound stage. He also clarified that Netflix is delivering true object-based Atmos, not hard-printing to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, so for people with extended Atmos arrays you'll see activity through all your speakers as objects pass around the room.
> 
> Netflix is up to ~250 titles streaming with Atmos, with much, much more to come.


Thanks Dan! 

I can verify, at least the titles I've watched, that Netflix originals with Atmos definitely make good use of the FW speakers. 

I wish the situation was as consistent with major studio disc releases


----------



## Chirosamsung

dfa973 said:


> Worthy Atmos soundtracks that use the whole 3D objects potential - *true 3D objects that are floating and/or moving in midair*, not just stuck to the ceiling layer...
> 
> Knowing 4K Blu-ray
> War for the Planet of the Apes 4K Blu-ray
> Bad Times at the El Royale 4K Blu-ray - midair 3D objects but not that great...
> Cliffhanger 4K Blu-ray: 25th Anniversary Edition - reference sound stage for length and depth & seat-rattling bass
> Twilight 4K Blu-ray - yes..., I know..., but the sound mixer knew what it was doing!
> RED 4K Blu-ray
> T2: Trainspotting 4K Blu-ray
> Kick-Ass 4K Blu-ray
> The Cabin in the Woods 4K Blu-ray
> Sicario: Day of the Soldado 4K Blu-ray
> Hellboy Animated 4K Blu-ray: Sword of Storms
> Hellboy Animated 4K Blu-ray: Blood & Iron
> Alien: Covenant 4K Blu-ray
> Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation 4K Blu-ray
> Assassin's Creed 4K Blu-ray
> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets Blu-ray
> Snitch 4K Blu-ray
> Warrior 4K Blu-ray
> Escape Plan 4K Blu-ray
> The Hitman's Bodyguard Blu-ray
> Logan 4K Blu-ray
> Annabelle: Creation Blu-ray
> Red Sparrow 4K Blu-ray
> Conan the Barbarian 4K Blu-ray
> The Lincoln Lawyer 4K Blu-ray
> The Legend of Hercules 4K Blu-ray
> Operation Red Sea Blu-ray


Putting 4k blu ray behind each title might be a tad redundant....just saying 🙂

Where does blackhalk down rate on reference atmos lists of people? Top 3??


----------



## sjm817

dschulz said:


> Of interest to folks here: last night there was a SMPTE/AES meeting with a topic of mixing for home theatre. One of the speakers was Scott Kramer of Netflix, who spoke about Netflix's initiatives supporting high quality audio, and in particular Atmos. Netflix is now recommending their content partners mix in Atmos, with a minimum monitoring environment of 7.1.4 and a recommended monitoring environment of 9.1.6 - and he specifically called out that Netflix feels the Front Wide speakers are very useful in creating a nice, wide front sound stage. He also clarified that Netflix is delivering true object-based Atmos, not hard-printing to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, so for people with extended Atmos arrays you'll see activity through all your speakers as objects pass around the room.
> 
> Netflix is up to ~250 titles streaming with Atmos, with much, much more to come.


Netflix REALLY needs to improve device support. Hopefully that is coming


----------



## dschulz

chi_guy50 said:


> Was there any mention of extending the Atmos streaming capability to additional platforms? Their app list of Atmos-capable devices remains highly limited.





sjm817 said:


> Netflix REALLY needs to improve device support. Hopefully that is coming


They did not mention device support, and I didn't think to ask. You guys are right, though, that is the missing link here. You'd think they'd at least have the higher-end Roku boxes on board.


----------



## gene4ht

sjm817 said:


> Netflix REALLY needs to improve device support. Hopefully that is coming


 


dschulz said:


> They did not mention device support, and I didn't think to ask. You guys are right, though, that is the missing link here. You'd think they'd at least have the higher-end Roku boxes on board.


+1


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Putting 4k blu ray behind each title might be a tad redundant....just saying 🙂
> 
> Where does black hawk down rate on reference atmos lists of people? Top 3??



Actually, it's not. Not all Atmos soundtracks show up on the regular Blu-ray release. Studios now often keep them exclusive to the 4k Blu-ray release.



BHD is pretty damn good, though Godzilla 1998's remix is even better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Thanks Dan!
> 
> I can verify, at least the titles I've watched, that Netflix originals with Atmos definitely make good use of the FW speakers.
> 
> I wish the situation was as consistent with major studio disc releases



True that!


Though, Netflix and Amazon need to start mixing their exclusive programmings' Atmos tracks like theatrical movies with more kick and dynamic range. Too often, they're subdued. 



And they need to be released on UHD Blu-ray and regular Blu-ray. I would rather get higher bitrates and lossless audio.


----------



## Matt L

dschulz said:


> Of interest to folks here: last night there was a SMPTE/AES meeting with a topic of mixing for home theatre. One of the speakers was Scott Kramer of Netflix, who spoke about Netflix's initiatives supporting high quality audio, and in particular Atmos. Netflix is now recommending their content partners mix in Atmos, with a minimum monitoring environment of 7.1.4 and a recommended monitoring environment of 9.1.6 - and he specifically called out that Netflix feels the Front Wide speakers are very useful in creating a nice, wide front sound stage. He also clarified that Netflix is delivering true object-based Atmos, not hard-printing to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, so for people with extended Atmos arrays you'll see activity through all your speakers as objects pass around the room.
> 
> Netflix is up to ~250 titles streaming with Atmos, with much, much more to come.


Right now I'm a bit upset with NF. I've spent hours both on line chatting and on the phone to get what they supposedly support now to work. I have a 2018 roku TV that they claim to support, but I get ZERO Atmos feeds. There is no one in the TCL 6 series forum that is getting Atmos, but one of the back end techs I spoke to at NF claims he is getting Atmos on his TCL TV. My price went up but I'm not getting anything more for it...

They can add all the Atmos titles they want but what good is it if no one other than a few lucky people can hear them?


----------



## paindonthurt

batpig said:


> dschulz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of interest to folks here: last night there was a SMPTE/AES meeting with a topic of mixing for home theatre. One of the speakers was Scott Kramer of Netflix, who spoke about Netflix's initiatives supporting high quality audio, and in particular Atmos. Netflix is now recommending their content partners mix in Atmos, with a minimum monitoring environment of 7.1.4 and a recommended monitoring environment of 9.1.6 - and he specifically called out that Netflix feels the Front Wide speakers are very useful in creating a nice, wide front sound stage. He also clarified that Netflix is delivering true object-based Atmos, not hard-printing to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, so for people with extended Atmos arrays you'll see activity through all your speakers as objects pass around the room.
> 
> Netflix is up to ~250 titles streaming with Atmos, with much, much more to come.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dan!
> 
> I can verify, at least the titles I've watched, that Netflix originals with Atmos definitely make good use of the FW speakers.
> 
> I wish the situation was as consistent with major studio disc releases /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

I eliminated my FW speakers because newer receivers don’t support them. How are you getting around that and having Atmos? Thanks


----------



## Josh Z

paindonthurt said:


> I eliminated my FW speakers because newer receivers don’t support them. How are you getting around that and having Atmos? Thanks



Denon and Marantz re-introduced FW support with the latest receiver models.


----------



## richlife

@zeonstar Good to know that you came up with something that pleases you. All the technical recommendations in the world doesn't beat happy ears. Good luck in the future for you and you family. It is truly wonderful to have a mate who is willing to compromise some on appearances to help feed your habit! 



drober30 said:


> WOW! You really tackled your room layout and made sure you got the best sound out of it! Makes what I'm looking to do child's play!
> 
> I will install a X.X.2 and then test adding the x.x.4 when the receiver I want is released next year (AVR-X4600H) My current receiver supports x.x.2 and I'm only willing to buy a new receiver if it support HDCP2.3. It may be along time before I ever use that feature but it will be the one piece of new gear that has the upcoming standards in it.


It's never child's play when you are seeking to meet your challenges, let go of you assumptions and learn what might work better. As you imply, I think there are new generations of AVRs coming in the next year or so that will have up-to-date technical features/functions and will better meet the slowly expanding realm of immersive audio. Many of us will have to decide when and if to dive in!



petetherock said:


> Yep
> 1 - lower surrounds to around the ear level - 1.2m or so above the floor
> 2 - four Atmos beats two - spread them out
> 3 - we make compromises, if you can use the ceiling positions, that's nicer.
> 
> I have a pic of my setup in my signature, I also considered using front heights and rear heights, but I managed to re-jig things and get the right Top Height positions.
> 
> For the surrounds, I laid them in the false ceiling, but also cut into the solid brick walls to lay them in the walls down to ear level. It's a one time pain for which I was prepared to do... YMMV
> 
> Cheers


+1

And Bravo!, Pete. True dedication and perseverance to work through brick walls to make it right. It's a rare person who lucks into the perfect situation that takes no effort to make good. (Or a singular lack of concern for what "good" might be.)


----------



## richlife

@dfa973 Nice listing and thanks for sharing! A couple of early Atmos favorites that we then only on Bluray (may be available now on UHD) are In the Heart of the Sea and Everest. The audio effects for both are awesome and put you in the place. Everest literally had me shivering! And a favorite soon to become a 75-hour Atmos and video spectacular is the boxsets and latest season releases of Game of Thrones. I'm still chomping at the bit for Season 8 in UHD/Atmos.


----------



## richlife

richlife said:


> ...And a favorite soon to become a 75-hour Atmos and video spectacular is the boxsets and latest season releases of Game of Thrones. *I'm still chomping at the bit for Season 8 in UHD/Atmos.*


For those interested, all I could find for a Season 8 release is latter part of 2019. Amazon now takes pre-orders for @$50 while BestBuy is showing @$60. Not sure about BestBuy, but Amazon will guarantee the price to be the pre-order cost or lower (if it drops) regardless of whether the final release cost is set higher.


----------



## zeonstar

richlife said:


> @zeonstar Good to know that you came up with something that pleases you. All the technical recommendations in the world doesn't beat happy ears. Good luck in the future for you and you family. It is truly wonderful to have a mate who is willing to compromise some on appearances to help feed your habit!


Thank you for the kind words. She is pretty great to put up with all this stuff. Especially when I keep doing more...and more. Usually she even takes my ideas and makes them even better. I guess she figures "If we gotta do x, at least we can make it look good." 

So I figured I could at least hang my rear speakers normally and sacrifice a bit of sound quality. It's not like I can't hear them as they are.

I actually may post in the mixed room forum about my theater as a whole. There are a few details I have not mentioned before that some people may appreciate.


----------



## Ladeback

paindonthurt said:


> Ok fellas. I’m going Atmos. I have bought the Onkyo TX-RZ830 and I’m ready to go 5.1.4. But as we all do from time to time I need advice. (I tend to think, think and over think things so having outside input gets me on track).
> 
> I’ve included a pic of my room. You can see it’s currently 7.0 setup (heights above fronts) as I’m in the process of determining a new sub. (Which I’m way over thinking lol)
> 
> Question 1- are my surround speakers too high? (2ft above ear level) The Atmos speakers will be installed in the ceiling between joists so essentially flush mounted. This will put them 2ft higher than current sound locations.
> 
> Question 2- go with 2 Atmos or 4? I’m leaning 4 with a room that is 16x34.
> 
> Question 3- will the front height speakers in current location be adequate or best to move them “into” room?
> 
> I’m including pics. Please ignore the mess. Work in progress.


I have a question for you on your ceiling. Is that Rockwool insulation spray painted black? I was thinking of doing that if I didn't but pup drywall right away.


----------



## paindonthurt

Ladeback said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok fellas. I’m going Atmos. I have bought the Onkyo TX-RZ830 and I’m ready to go 5.1.4. But as we all do from time to time I need advice. (I tend to think, think and over think things so having outside input gets me on track).
> 
> I’ve included a pic of my room. You can see it’s currently 7.0 setup (heights above fronts) as I’m in the process of determining a new sub. (Which I’m way over thinking lol)
> 
> Question 1- are my surround speakers too high? (2ft above ear level) The Atmos speakers will be installed in the ceiling between joists so essentially flush mounted. This will put them 2ft higher than current sound locations.
> 
> Question 2- go with 2 Atmos or 4? I’m leaning 4 with a room that is 16x34.
> 
> Question 3- will the front height speakers in current location be adequate or best to move them “into” room?
> 
> I’m including pics. Please ignore the mess. Work in progress.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you on your ceiling. Is that Rockwool insulation spray painted black? I was thinking of doing that if I didn't but pup drywall right away.
Click to expand...

Yes it’s Rockwell Safe&Sound. I tried a few different options in painting it. DO NOT use a roller. It tears it up. Spray can paint takes way too much. The best option I found was to buy a semi cheap paint sprayer and lay them out together and spray as many as I could at one time. Also I used box fans to speed up drying. If not it takes about 24hrs to dry. Once dry they become a little brittle. But nothing bad. If you need to cut them use a electric bread knife. I found it worked best without any tearing. Any other questions feel free to pm me. Glad to help.


----------



## batpig

paindonthurt said:


> I eliminated my FW speakers because newer receivers don’t support them. How are you getting around that and having Atmos? Thanks





Josh Z said:


> Denon and Marantz re-introduced FW support with the latest receiver models.


To be specific, it's ONLY available on the flagship models Denon AVR-X8500H and Marantz AV8805.


----------



## TommyDeVito

To those running front and rear heights for Atmos, what are you crossing them over at in the AVR?


----------



## gene4ht

TommyDeVito said:


> To those running front and rear heights for Atmos, what are you crossing them over at in the AVR?


There’s no one size fits all as we all have different speakers in different acoustic environments. It’s common practice to start at 80Hz and experiment. Most enthusiasts will settle in somewhere between 60Hz-120Hz. The key is to experiment until you find your preference...what sounds pleasing/right to you.


----------



## paindonthurt

I’m looking at replacing my surrounds with dipole speakers when I add the Atmos speakers. Is dipole worth it?


----------



## batpig

paindonthurt said:


> I’m looking at replacing my surrounds with dipole speakers when I add the Atmos speakers. Is dipole worth it?


Dipoles are NOT recommended for Atmos. What are your current surrounds and why would you want to replace them with dipoles for Atmos?


----------



## paindonthurt

batpig said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m looking at replacing my surrounds with dipole speakers when I add the Atmos speakers. Is dipole worth it?
> 
> 
> 
> Dipoles are NOT recommended for Atmos. What are your current surrounds and why would you want to replace them with dipoles for Atmos?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify I’m not thinking dipoles AS Atmos speakers. I have bookshelf speakers as surrounds that I was thinking of replacing with dipole speakers. But doing at same time I add Atmos speakers. I just wanted to be clear because my 1st post didn’t give much info. Sorry


----------



## batpig

paindonthurt said:


> Just to clarify I’m not thinking dipoles AS Atmos speakers. I have bookshelf speakers as surrounds that I was thinking of replacing with dipole speakers. But doing at same time I add Atmos speakers. I just wanted to be clear because my 1st post didn’t give much info. Sorry


OK, same answer. Dipoles are not recommended for Atmos.

Why do you want to replace the bookshelf speakers?


----------



## paindonthurt

batpig said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify I’m not thinking dipoles AS Atmos speakers. I have bookshelf speakers as surrounds that I was thinking of replacing with dipole speakers. But doing at same time I add Atmos speakers. I just wanted to be clear because my 1st post didn’t give much info. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> OK, same answer. Dipoles are not recommended for Atmos.
> 
> Why do you want to replace the bookshelf speakers?
Click to expand...

They are old and not of the quality as my fronts and center


----------



## flyers10

paindonthurt said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify I’m not thinking dipoles AS Atmos speakers. I have bookshelf speakers as surrounds that I was thinking of replacing with dipole speakers. But doing at same time I add Atmos speakers. I just wanted to be clear because my 1st post didn’t give much info. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> OK, same answer. Dipoles are not recommended for Atmos.
> 
> Why do you want to replace the bookshelf speakers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are old and not of the quality as my fronts and center
Click to expand...

I had dipoles in an Atmos set up. 7.1.4. I switched them out for a bipole (end seats too close to side surround location for a direct radiating) and much better. The dipole was too diffuse.


----------



## flyers10

Just watched Cliffhanger 4K. Great use of atmos and surround channels.


----------



## mrtickleuk

paindonthurt said:


> They are old and not of the quality as my fronts and center


Ok fair enough, so replace them with monopoles or even bipoles.

But *not* dipoles!


----------



## paindonthurt

mrtickleuk said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are old and not of the quality as my fronts and center
> 
> 
> 
> Ok fair enough, so replace them with monopoles or even bipoles.
> 
> But *not* dipoles!
Click to expand...

Yep. Understood. Going with Polk RTiA3 surrounds. They match rest of my set up. 
RTiA9 fronts 
CSiA6 center 

Thanks for all the help.


----------



## richlife

batpig said:


> OK, same answer. Dipoles are not recommended for Atmos.
> 
> Why do you want to replace the bookshelf speakers?





flyers10 said:


> I had dipoles in an Atmos set up. 7.1.4. I switched them out for a bipole (end seats too close to side surround location for a direct radiating) and much better. The dipole was too diffuse.


+1 Yes! Depending on your room setup, bipoles can be very effective. My not very ordinary room has a "corner" just behind the MLP area and the bipoles are very effective at filling that space while maintaining the natural sweep of effects that pan back to front or front to back. (For pics, see the HT thread in my signature.)


----------



## usc1995

paindonthurt said:


> Yep. Understood. Going with Polk RTiA3 surrounds. They match rest of my set up.
> RTiA9 fronts
> CSiA6 center
> 
> Thanks for all the help.




If you wanted to stay with Polks and you wanted bipole surrounds, the FXiA6’s are really good. That is what I use as side surrounds in my Polk 7.2.4 setup.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## paindonthurt

usc1995 said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Understood. Going with Polk RTiA3 surrounds. They match rest of my set up.
> RTiA9 fronts
> CSiA6 center
> 
> Thanks for all the help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to stay with Polks and you wanted bipole surrounds, the FXiA6’s are really good. That is what I use as side surrounds in my Polk 7.2.4 setup.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well that was my 1st choice. But I talked myself out of them for $ reasons. I can get the RTiA3 for $80 less. Do you think they are that much better for surround usage?


----------



## GPBURNS

flyers10 said:


> Just watched Cliffhanger 4K. Great use of atmos and surround channels.


That was excellent - watched last night loved the chopper effects and several others - be sure to check out 2008 Godzilla - one of moist aggressive atmos tracks yet


----------



## flyers10

GPBURNS said:


> flyers10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Cliffhanger 4K. Great use of atmos and surround channels.
> 
> 
> 
> That was excellent - watched last night loved the chopper effects and several others - be sure to check out 2008 Godzilla - one of moist aggressive atmos tracks yet
Click to expand...

Just picked up Godzilla the other day. Looking forward to it. Though a fair movie, Pixels had some decent Atmos too.


----------



## usc1995

paindonthurt said:


> Well that was my 1st choice. But I talked myself out of them for $ reasons. I can get the RTiA3 for $80 less. Do you think they are that much better for surround usage?




I prefer bipole speakers because of the proximity of my seating to my side walls. My room is only 10.5ft wide so the side surrounds are pretty close. If I used monopole speakers they would be distracting to those seated closest to them. Since the bipoles fire in different directions they aren’t as distracting as they could be. If your room is wider this may not make much of a difference for you. I use A3s as my rear surrounds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## TheCableMan

The new Call of Duty Modern Warfare has been confirmed Dolby Atmos. If you are a gamer at all this is spectacular news. This game will put all others to shame if equal to the previous COD 4 Modern Warfare.


----------



## KapaaIan

So I am in a really early (like, still need to clean the part of the basement I need to finish early) planning stages for a dedicated room. Time and effort isn't much of an issue (and family members will be doing most of the work). Room will be furred out to be ~16.3ft L, 11.2ft W and 7ft H. No architectural anomalies. 

While the ultimate speaker selections will come down the line, I think I have the basics of how things will be set up. Trying to work this all through my head has been consuming a bit too much of my thought process lately but I think I'm in a good place now with most things.

The part I am still are the ceilings. The heat death of Auro-3D seems to indicate that I don't need to worry about configuration for it (though I may put speaker wires to those locations just in case something else comes along that wants speakers in those locations) that leaves Atmos. The ceiling is currently a painted wood but will (probably) get replaced. 

So my question is, ceiling mounted bookshelf or in ceiling speakers? From my research/thoughts, the pros of the in ceiling seem to be aesthetics and safety (since the ceiling is relatively low) and more space between speakers and listening position. Cons are lower quality vs comparable priced bookshelf, harder to upgrade/replace. The bookshelf speakers will generally be higher quality but closer to the ground, but (relatively) easy to swap out. 

Am I missing something? I feel like the dispersion for the in-ceiling speakers would be better (being flatter in the ceiling) but at the same time, they may not be aimable enough themselves (like with the Klipsch in ceilings). All wiring for all potential speakers ever will take place before any are bought so trying to answer this in some way....


----------



## batpig

KapaaIan said:


> So I am in a really early (like, still need to clean the part of the basement I need to finish early) planning stages for a dedicated room. Time and effort isn't much of an issue (and family members will be doing most of the work). Room will be furred out to be ~16.3ft L, 11.2ft W and 7ft H. No architectural anomalies.
> 
> While the ultimate speaker selections will come down the line, I think I have the basics of how things will be set up. Trying to work this all through my head has been consuming a bit too much of my thought process lately but I think I'm in a good place now with most things.
> 
> The part I am still are the ceilings. The heat death of Auro-3D seems to indicate that I don't need to worry about configuration for it (though I may put speaker wires to those locations just in case something else comes along that wants speakers in those locations) that leaves Atmos. The ceiling is currently a painted wood but will (probably) get replaced.
> 
> So my question is, ceiling mounted bookshelf or in ceiling speakers? From my research/thoughts, the pros of the in ceiling seem to be aesthetics and safety (since the ceiling is relatively low) and more space between speakers and listening position. Cons are lower quality vs comparable priced bookshelf, harder to upgrade/replace. The bookshelf speakers will generally be higher quality but closer to the ground, but (relatively) easy to swap out.
> 
> Am I missing something? I feel like the dispersion for the in-ceiling speakers would be better (being flatter in the ceiling) but at the same time, they may not be aimable enough themselves (like with the Klipsch in ceilings). All wiring for all potential speakers ever will take place before any are bought so trying to answer this in some way....


So a major factor with your room is going to be the 7ft ceiling height which is really low even by domestic room standards. That means (1) you're going to want to save every inch of space which means in-ceiling will be preferred over a bookshelf speaker hanging down and (2) dispersion / coverage angles / aim will be critical if you want to get even coverage and avoid hot-spotting.

I wouldn't worry about the quality issue -- Atmos speakers don't get THAT much content and you can get decent quality in-ceilings for not that much $$. Another benefit you didn't mention is acoustics, where flush-mounted speakers have a an advance of not having to worry about boundary interference (SBIR). A con you didn't mention is the increased difficulty in aiming, where if you need to aim the typical down-firing in-ceiling speaker might not be good enough and you want to make sure that you get an angled speaker.


----------



## gene4ht

batpig said:


> So a major factor with your room is going to be the 7ft ceiling height which is really low even by domestic room standards. That means (1) you're going to want to save every inch of space which means in-ceiling will be preferred over a bookshelf speaker hanging down and (2) dispersion / coverage angles / aim will be critical if you want to get even coverage and avoid hot-spotting.
> 
> *I wouldn't worry about the quality issue -- Atmos speakers don't get THAT much content and you can get decent quality in-ceilings for not that much $$.* Another benefit you didn't mention is acoustics, where flush-mounted speakers have a an advance of not having to worry about boundary interference (SBIR). A con you didn't mention is the increased difficulty in aiming, where if you need to aim the typical down-firing in-ceiling speaker might not be good enough and you want to make sure that you get an angled speaker.


Absolute agreement here. We're not talking about the Wagner Fest in Bayreuth's Concert Hall in having to match your mains. Most of the Atmos effects are not very demanding...i.e. insects, birds, wind, rain, rustling leaves, some ambient voices, etc. To put your mind at ease, even my inexpensive Atmos speakers have performed Roger Waters The Wall and Hans Zimmer Live In Prague very admirably. Also, agree with batpig's other comments.


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> I can verify, at least the titles I've watched, that Netflix originals with Atmos definitely make good use of the FW speakers.



Good to know.

Any titles not on dfa973's list?


----------



## timvb15

I hope this isn’t a silly question but when measuring the height for surrounds at 1.2m where do you measure from? The base of the speaker? The middle of the speaker? The middle of the tweeter? In my case Polk RC65I. 

Seen as I’ll be using 4 atmos in ceiling speakers in a 5.1.4 set up is 1.2m height for the surrounds still ok or should I mount them a little lower?


----------



## dfa973

timvb15 said:


> I hope this isn’t a silly question but when measuring the height for surrounds at 1.2m where do you measure from? The base of the speaker? The middle of the speaker? The middle of the tweeter? In my case Polk RC65I.
> 
> Seen as I’ll be using 4 atmos in ceiling speakers in a 5.1.4 set up is 1.2m height for the surrounds still ok or should I mount them a little lower?


The actual precision at the inch level is not important. You can use whatever reference you want, I used the tweeter. Atmos is a forgiving audio sound system, just try to get close to the recommended angles. The angles will tell you the needed height. Use all the height you can, do not lower the overhead speakers and keep the ear-level speakers low enough for good separation between ear layer and ceiling layer.


----------



## dfa973

noah katz said:


> Good to know.
> 
> Any titles not on dfa973's list?


Do note that my list was not about FW usage (I do not have FW, so can't test), but for *floating and moving 3D sound objects in midair*, "inside the room", not sounds that just appear and disappear high or low. The kind of movies where the sound mixer really did his job to reconstruct the scene with audio objects.

Think "3D movies with negative parallax" but less cheesy...


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> KapaaIan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am in a really early (like, still need to clean the part of the basement I need to finish early) planning stages for a dedicated room. Time and effort isn't much of an issue (and family members will be doing most of the work). Room will be furred out to be ~16.3ft L, 11.2ft W and 7ft H. No architectural anomalies.
> 
> While the ultimate speaker selections will come down the line, I think I have the basics of how things will be set up. Trying to work this all through my head has been consuming a bit too much of my thought process lately but I think I'm in a good place now with most things.
> 
> The part I am still are the ceilings. The heat death of Auro-3D seems to indicate that I don't need to worry about configuration for it (though I may put speaker wires to those locations just in case something else comes along that wants speakers in those locations) that leaves Atmos. The ceiling is currently a painted wood but will (probably) get replaced.
> 
> So my question is, ceiling mounted bookshelf or in ceiling speakers? From my research/thoughts, the pros of the in ceiling seem to be aesthetics and safety (since the ceiling is relatively low) and more space between speakers and listening position. Cons are lower quality vs comparable priced bookshelf, harder to upgrade/replace. The bookshelf speakers will generally be higher quality but closer to the ground, but (relatively) easy to swap out.
> 
> Am I missing something? I feel like the dispersion for the in-ceiling speakers would be better (being flatter in the ceiling) but at the same time, they may not be aimable enough themselves (like with the Klipsch in ceilings). All wiring for all potential speakers ever will take place before any are bought so trying to answer this in some way....
> 
> 
> 
> So a major factor with your room is going to be the 7ft ceiling height which is really low even by domestic room standards. That means (1) you're going to want to save every inch of space which means in-ceiling will be preferred over a bookshelf speaker hanging down and (2) dispersion / coverage angles / aim will be critical if you want to get even coverage and avoid hot-spotting.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about the quality issue -- Atmos speakers don't get THAT much content and you can get decent quality in-ceilings for not that much $$. Another benefit you didn't mention is acoustics, where flush-mounted speakers have a an advance of not having to worry about boundary interference (SBIR). A con you didn't mention is the increased difficulty in aiming, where if you need to aim the typical down-firing in-ceiling speaker might not be good enough and you want to make sure that you get an angled speaker.
Click to expand...

+1

Also, I have almost exactly the same dimension of room as you and went with all monitor audio gold speakers for base level and atmos in ceiling. They are inceiling and amiable tweeters. Loving the sound


----------



## KapaaIan

Chirosamsung said:


> +1
> 
> Also, I have almost exactly the same dimension of room as you and went with all monitor audio gold speakers for base level and atmos in ceiling. They are inceiling and amiable tweeters. Loving the sound


Thanks for the replies. Yeah, as I was typing I thought to myself "hmm, 7 feet, minus 10-12 inches for the speaker, minus another 6 for angle and potential porting.."

I am very intrigued by the idea of high quality bookshelf/monitors around the whole room too. I'm contemplating building an in place "stand/shelf" that runs the whole edge of the room at 24-30 inches off ground allowing for really easy adding. I had been contemplating using Ascend mini-towers all around but as an IT professional seeing a website with "Copyright 2004" makes me leery.


----------



## sdurani

KapaaIan said:


> Yeah, as I was typing I thought to myself "hmm, 7 feet, minus 10-12 inches for the speaker, minus another 6 for angle and potential porting.."


I would put up with the slightly reduced height just to have the advantage of being able to aim the height speakers for best (on-axis) frequency response and coverage of the listening area, which is not possible with in-ceiling speakers pointing straight down at an arbitrary spot on the floor where no one is sitting.


> I am very intrigued by the idea of high quality bookshelf/monitors around the whole room too.


With subwoofers handling the low frequencies, I would just get 11 or 13 of the same bookshelf speakers for consistent sound around the whole room.


----------



## fr8flyr

You should check out the RSL C34E inceiling speakers. They are an angled design and are very good sounding, shallow depth and can be aimed at the MLP. They are also inexpensive.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> KapaaIan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, as I was typing I thought to myself "hmm, 7 feet, minus 10-12 inches for the speaker, minus another 6 for angle and potential porting.."
> 
> 
> 
> I would put up with the slightly reduced height just to have the advantage of being able to aim the height speakers for best (on-axis) frequency response and coverage of the listening area, which is not possible with in-ceiling speakers pointing straight down at an arbitrary spot on the floor where no one is sitting.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very intrigued by the idea of high quality bookshelf/monitors around the whole room too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With subwoofers handling the low frequencies, I would just get 11 or 13 of the same bookshelf speakers for consistent sound around the whole room.
Click to expand...

Don’t know what you are talking about when he can save heights and angle the tweeters with proper placement and dispersion. My MA CT280-IDC do this perfectly.


----------



## batpig

timvb15 said:


> I hope this isn’t a silly question but when measuring the height for surrounds at 1.2m where do you measure from? The base of the speaker? The middle of the speaker? The middle of the tweeter? In my case Polk RC65I.
> 
> Seen as I’ll be using 4 atmos in ceiling speakers in a 5.1.4 set up is 1.2m height for the surrounds still ok or should I mount them a little lower?


The speaker height is typically referenced to the "acoustic center" of the speaker. In most cases you can just use the tweeter as a proxy for that since the high frequencies are the most directional.


----------



## blb1215

*Speaker question*

I am considering an unusual speaker set-up/use. I am moving in a couple of months to a new house and my TV/theater room will be appox. 16 x 14. I currently have 7.1 speaker set up and planning converting to 7.4.1 atmos. My current surrounds are Infinity ES250s. Each ES250 has 2 sets of drivers that can be setup/wired to work as 2 independent speakers/channels firing at 45 degrees. My seating will be about 9 feet from TV leaving 7 feet behind. I am considering using one set of ES250s for both surround and back channels. If I position each speaker about 3 - 3.5 feet behind my seating position (mounted on side wall) and wire for each speaker for surround and back. On set of drivers will be firing angled towards LP (surround) and the other set of drivers will be firing at back wall (surround back). Do you think this will be effective or too much of a compromise? In theory it should work but my main concern is both channels originating from the same position not feeling/having enough separation.


----------



## Steve Sleeve

This post is so big and I am not having luck in the speakers area but BECAUSE of atmos mixing bipole surrounds are not the way to go according to most audiophiles and Dolby. I am thinking of using two 8ohm surround speakers in parallel ON EACH SIDE for the R and L surrounds, so 4 surround speakers total aimed directly at my two rows of three and dumping the bipole speakers. My amp Denon AVRX6500h will now see 16 ohms on both surround channels. Who is changing out the bipoles and what do you think of parallel wiring the sides?


----------



## JosephTonyStark

blb1215 said:


> I am considering an unusual speaker set-up/use. I am moving in a couple of months to a new house and my TV/theater room will be appox. 16 x 14. I currently have 7.1 speaker set up and planning converting to 7.4.1 atmos. My current surrounds are Infinity ES250s. Each ES250 has 2 sets of drivers that can be setup/wired to work as 2 independent speakers/channels firing at 45 degrees. My seating will be about 9 feet from TV leaving 7 feet behind. I am considering using one set of ES250s for both surround and back channels. If I position each speaker about 3 - 3.5 feet behind my seating position (mounted on side wall) and wire for each speaker for surround and back. On set of drivers will be firing angled towards LP (surround) and the other set of drivers will be firing at back wall (surround back). Do you think this will be effective or too much of a compromise? In theory it should work but my main concern is both channels originating from the same position not feeling/having enough separation.


I have the JBL variant of this surround speaker! And never get to talk about it, haha. The manual talks about doing this exact thing. I know that was pre-Atmos\"down with dipoles", but in this capacity, the speaker will be performing as more of a bipole surround. 

If your front facing side will be firing at a 90-110° (or so) angle to your LP, you'll get that accurate directional side surround field. Then the rear facing side points away from the LP and bounces sound off the back wall. I think it'll sound good and convincing from my experience and in my opinion. 

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## blb1215

Thanks..I think it will work as well and hoping someone that has tried will chime in. I don't recall seeing any posts about this specific usage.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

blb1215 said:


> Thanks..I think it will work as well and hoping someone that has tried will chime in. I don't recall seeing any posts about this specific usage.


I'm presently using a single JBL P520WS in this way in the rear of my setup...the right and left sets of drivers wired to the corresponding output channels. Works out better than I gave it credit before the attempt.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk


----------



## blb1215

JosephTonyStark said:


> I'm presently using a single JBL P520WS in this way in the rear of my setup...the right and left sets of drivers wired to the corresponding output channels. Works out better than I gave it credit before the attempt.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk





Thanks and that makes me feel more optimistic. I may try on speaker stands first for a while before mounting on wall to see how it works.


----------



## batpig

blb1215 said:


> I am considering an unusual speaker set-up/use. I am moving in a couple of months to a new house and my TV/theater room will be appox. 16 x 14. I currently have 7.1 speaker set up and planning converting to 7.4.1 atmos. My current surrounds are Infinity ES250s. Each ES250 has 2 sets of drivers that can be setup/wired to work as 2 independent speakers/channels firing at 45 degrees. My seating will be about 9 feet from TV leaving 7 feet behind. I am considering using one set of ES250s for both surround and back channels. If I position each speaker about 3 - 3.5 feet behind my seating position (mounted on side wall) and wire for each speaker for surround and back. On set of drivers will be firing angled towards LP (surround) and the other set of drivers will be firing at back wall (surround back). Do you think this will be effective or too much of a compromise? In theory it should work but my main concern is both channels originating from the same position not feeling/having enough separation.


It's not perfect but it should work fine. Try to experiment with placement as you may need to tweak the exact position and height of the speaker to find the sweet spot where you get a nice distinction between surround (side) and rear effects. If the rear wall where they are aiming is flat and reflective you should get a decent sensation of discrete rear effects.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Ceiling speaker volume adjustment*

Hi all, I posted this in the Monitor audio thread a while back and couldn’t seem to get any feedback. 

I have 4 Monitor Audio CT280-IDC in ceiling speakers as part of my 5.1.4 setup. 

The speakers were not cheap and are considered well above average to very good as far as in ceilings go. 

Anyways, the speakers have a button on the inside of the unit itself just under the grill that says -3, 0 and +3. I’m guessing that this is for setting individual speaker levels for the in ceiling itself. Currently they are all at 0. 

Does anyone have any experience with their speakers having this and maybe tweaking it? If I like my atmos above sounds “hot” I guess I would turn them up? 

Currently with my NAD 758 once I have run DIRAC, there is no way to change the individual speaker levels so maybe this is when this would be used (ie post room calibration)?


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> Don’t know what you are talking about when he can save heights and angle the tweeters with proper placement and dispersion. My MA CT280-IDC do this perfectly.


Don't know what you mean by "perfectly" when the Top Front speaker is typically placed 45° forward of the listeners but your CT280-IDC can pivot only 18°. So even at maximum pivot, the speaker is still going to end up pointed at a spot on the floor a couple feet forward of the listeners.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> Anyways, the speakers have a button on the inside of the unit itself just under the grill that says -3, 0 and +3. I’m guessing that this is for setting individual speaker levels for the in ceiling itself. Currently they are all at 0.


I highly doubt it boosts the overall level, that would be done in the processor. Typically these switches are a high frequency and/or low frequency adjustment to let you compensate for funky acoustics with architectural speakers by shaping the response slightly. 

Or you could have just googled your speaker where it's clearly stated right in the description that this is a HF adjustment: https://www.monitoraudio.com/en/support/past-products/custom-install/ct280-idc/



> True 3-way design provides rich midrange detail, higher system output, greater power handling, and superior vocal intelligibility and sound localisation. Optimum imaging and set-up are established via the pivoting IDC, *high frequency (+3 dB /0 dB / -3 dB) level adjustment*, and boundary compensation (on / off) controls.


The boundary compensation switch will be for bass (turning it "on" will reduce the bass to compensate for bass buildup from being closer to a boundary, e.g. if the speaker is installed near a corner).


----------



## PioManiac

sdurani said:


> I would put up with the slightly reduced height just to have the advantage of being able to aim the height speakers for best (on-axis) frequency response and coverage of the listening area, which is not possible with in-ceiling speakers pointing straight down at an arbitrary spot on the floor where no one is sitting. With subwoofers handling the low frequencies, I would just get 11 or 13 of the same bookshelf speakers for consistent sound around the whole room.


That's how I roll


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t know what you are talking about when he can save heights and angle the tweeters with proper placement and dispersion. My MA CT280-IDC do this perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what you mean by "perfectly" when the Top Front speaker is typically placed 45° forward of the listeners but your CT280-IDC can pivot only 18°. So even at maximum pivot, the speaker is still going to end up pointed at a spot on the floor a couple feet forward of the listeners.
Click to expand...

Yes, but being great at dispersion means it will blend nicely with the back atmos ceilings and provide a great height effect without losing ceiling height-they are truly great in ceiling. Speakers


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, the speakers have a button on the inside of the unit itself just under the grill that says -3, 0 and +3. I’m guessing that this is for setting individual speaker levels for the in ceiling itself. Currently they are all at 0.
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt it boosts the overall level, that would be done in the processor. Typically these switches are a high frequency and/or low frequency adjustment to let you compensate for funky acoustics with architectural speakers by shaping the response slightly.
> 
> Or you could have just googled your speaker where it's clearly stated right in the description that this is a HF adjustment: https://www.monitoraudio.com/en/support/past-products/custom-install/ct280-idc/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True 3-way design provides rich midrange detail, higher system output, greater power handling, and superior vocal intelligibility and sound localisation. Optimum imaging and set-up are established via the pivoting IDC, *high frequency (+3 dB /0 dB / -3 dB) level adjustment*, and boundary compensation (on / off) controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundary compensation switch will be for bass (turning it "on" will reduce the bass to compensate for bass buildup from being closer to a boundary, e.g. if the speaker is installed near a corner).
Click to expand...

So, if I have my back two (rear) in ceiling speakers only about 2 inches from the back wall I should turn the boundary compensation switch “on”?

And still not sure what the HF switch is supposed to do and if I should just leave that at 0-any suggestions?

Here is a picture of my in ceiling speaker placement


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes, but being great at dispersion means it will blend nicely with the back atmos ceilings and provide a great height effect without losing ceiling height-they are truly great in ceiling. Speakers


What do you mean by "great at dispersion"? Is their dispersion wide enough to provide coverage to all listeners even when pointed away from the listening area? Is their dispersion consistent enough so that off-axis response sounds similar to on-axis response?


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but being great at dispersion means it will blend nicely with the back atmos ceilings and provide a great height effect without losing ceiling height-they are truly great in ceiling. Speakers
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "great at dispersion"? Is their dispersion wide enough to provide coverage to all listeners even when pointed away from the listening area? Is their dispersion consistent enough so that off-axis response sounds similar to on-axis response?
Click to expand...

Yes. Good thing about the 3 way drivers. Worth the money.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> So, if I have my back two (rear) in ceiling speakers only about 2 inches from the back wall I should turn the boundary compensation switch “on”?


Maybe. If you think the bass is bloated from those speakers that's what it's for.



> And still not sure what the HF switch is supposed to do and if I should just leave that at 0-any suggestions?


This either emphases (+3) or de-emphasizes (-3) the high frequencies. If you think the speaker is too bright then switch to -3, if you think it's too dull than try +3.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I have my back two (rear) in ceiling speakers only about 2 inches from the back wall I should turn the boundary compensation switch “on”?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. If you think the bass is bloated from those speakers that's what it's for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still not sure what the HF switch is supposed to do and if I should just leave that at 0-any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This either emphases (+3) or de-emphasizes (-3) the high frequencies. If you think the speaker is too bright then switch to -3, if you think it's too dull than try +3.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. Much appreciated. 

The thing is, being atmos ceiling speakers that are basically ambient sounds and the crossover is 80HZ, I can’t see how any ambient speakers with a crossover that brings low freq to subs could be bass heavy or loud or played enough to be bright? Maybe I’m missing something though...


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes. Good thing about the 3 way drivers. Worth the money.


I get wanting to be happy with your purchase, but are there any measurements (from the manufacturer or otherwise) to back up your claims about dispersion?


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Angling surrounds and centre speakers slightly*

Speaking of speakers-if my side surrounds are mounted a bit higher then I would like even though I do get separation from surround and ceiling, is it ok to slightly angle the surrounds down a bit by putting a rubber piece that came with the center speaker at the back of the surrounds. Won’t make a huge difference but figure any little bit helps. Plus I’ll do the same to the front part of my center since it’s under tv and slightly lower then tower tweeters and head so it will be angles up. Here are the pics. Hopefully the reflections won’t be screwed up and DIRAC can take care of the angles and reflections being not straight.


----------



## fookoo_2010

Chirosamsung said:


> Speaking of speakers-if my side surrounds are mounted a bit higher then I would like even though I do get separation from surround and ceiling, is it ok to slightly angle the surrounds down a bit by putting a rubber piece that came with the center speaker at the back of the surrounds. Won’t make a huge difference but figure any little bit helps. Plus I’ll do the same to the front part of my center since it’s under tv and slightly lower then tower tweeters and head so it will be angles up. Here are the pics. Hopefully the reflections won’t be screwed up and DIRAC can take care of the angles and reflections being not straight.


Just go ahead and do whatever you have in mind and then run another calibration and see for yourself if there is any difference. This is the principal advantage of having your own home theaters. You can do whatever you want.


----------



## usc1995

Steve Sleeve said:


> This post is so big and I am not having luck in the speakers area but BECAUSE of atmos mixing bipole surrounds are not the way to go according to most audiophiles and Dolby. I am thinking of using two 8ohm surround speakers in parallel ON EACH SIDE for the R and L surrounds, so 4 surround speakers total aimed directly at my two rows of three and dumping the bipole speakers. My amp Denon AVRX6500h will now see 16 ohms on both surround channels. Who is changing out the bipoles and what do you think of parallel wiring the sides?




There is nothing wrong with using bipole speakers as surrounds in Atmos. Dolby and others specifically recommend against using DIPOLE speakers as they are too diffuse and can blur the sound preventing the ability to identify the objects in the 3D space. Perhaps @batpig can repost the section of the Dolby instructions concerning dipoles as it was way back in this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve Sleeve

usc1995 said:


> There is nothing wrong with using bipole speakers as surrounds in Atmos. Dolby and others specifically recommend against using DIPOLE speakers as they are too diffuse and can blur the sound preventing the ability to identify the objects in the 3D space. Perhaps @batpig can repost the section of the Dolby instructions concerning dipoles as it was way back in this thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Not that it's wrong but just not optimal like is used to be with 5.1 mixes. Unless the speakers are on top of the listener people are reporting much better experiences over the last year or so with the monos.


----------



## dfa973

usc1995 said:


> There is nothing wrong with using bipole speakers as surrounds in Atmos. Dolby and others specifically recommend against using DIPOLE speakers as they are too diffuse and can blur the sound preventing the ability to identify the objects in the 3D space. Perhaps @batpig can repost the section of the Dolby instructions concerning dipoles as it was way back in this thread.


Here it is!


----------



## Chirosamsung

fookoo_2010 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of speakers-if my side surrounds are mounted a bit higher then I would like even though I do get separation from surround and ceiling, is it ok to slightly angle the surrounds down a bit by putting a rubber piece that came with the center speaker at the back of the surrounds. Won’t make a huge difference but figure any little bit helps. Plus I’ll do the same to the front part of my center since it’s under tv and slightly lower then tower tweeters and head so it will be angles up. Here are the pics. Hopefully the reflections won’t be screwed up and DIRAC can take care of the angles and reflections being not straight.
> 
> 
> 
> Just go ahead and do whatever you have in mind and then run another calibration and see for yourself if there is any difference. This is the principal advantage of having your own home theaters. You can do whatever you want. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

I have definetly heard of people angling the center channel up slightly if under a tv but I’m just wondering if anybody else has ever slightly angled a surround speaker downward?


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> I have definetly heard of people angling the center channel up slightly if under a tv but *I’m just wondering if anybody else has ever slightly angled a surround speaker downward?*


Downward to the MLP level, not the floor, no?
We do it all the time since you need surrounds to be a little higher than ear level so the heads/persons next to the MLP do not obscure the surrounds. See the attached drawing.


----------



## Steve Sleeve

dfa973 said:


> Here it is!


Go to 17:50 and again at 21. Not just his opinion I have been seeing the same things from many others. Ironically I found all this while brand new bi's were shipping out to me. I returned them un opened ordered some monos to replace my older bi's and will see how it goes. I don't think dolby mixes with bi's either. I was in the process of a speaker upgrade so my bi's are entry level and 10 years old and I want to match my new LCR so sent them back am I am going for for 4 monos to run in 16 ohm off the same R and L channel one at each row. 

I think the room matters especially if the surrounds are super close but overall I think the bi's will be fading and more wall mounted mono's will be in atmos system futures. Running a 7.2.4 I think it will make sense for me with the small mono rears I have but will have to see. With atmos being so direct and precise I think the spread sound of a bipole would be ok but not really the intended by atmos mixers.


----------



## bobbino421

Hey guys so I’m building my first true surround sound home theatre set up this weekend and I’m pretty excited! After years of home theatre in a box or sound bars I’m going up to the big leagues! 

It’s a 5.1.4 Setup 

Denon AVR X4500H 9.2 channel

Martin Logan 12 inch Dynamo 1000w Sub 

Klipsch RP5000F towers for fronts 

Klipsch RP600M Bookshelves for rears

Klipsch RP 500SA upfiring speakers for my 4 Height channels 

I’m using the center channel feature from my Sony A9F OLED TV for now to see how it performs. 

Eventually I’ll get a true center ch speaker if it don’t cut it 
Also I’m renting an apt so I didn’t go in ceiling! Also it’s a vaulted ceiling with big wooden beams and drop panels. I was able to get the Atmos effect with my soundbar so I should be fine with the improved more powerful speakers. 

I was going to go budget and ended up spending a little more but this is pretty much going to be my setup in the long haul on the audio side. 

If anyone has some of these components and some advice it would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## dfa973

Steve Sleeve said:


> I don't think dolby mixes with bi's either.


*Dolby is NOT against bipoles at ear level*. Note that it says nothing about bipoles at ceiling level - where you need the greatest dispersion you can get from a speaker! Look for BMR speakers - ideal for ceiling level.
You can get away with a low-dispersion ceiling speaker if you have enough distance between the ear level and ceiling so the narrow dispersion can envelop all the listeners. 
With not so much height at you disposal and with usual low-dispersion speakers at the ceiling level you are forced to aim the speakers toward the listeners instead toward the floor.




Steve Sleeve said:


> I think the room matters especially if the surrounds are super close but overall I think the bi's will be fading and more wall mounted mono's will be in atmos system futures. Running a 7.2.4 I think it will make sense for me with the small mono rears I have but will have to see. With atmos being so direct and precise I think the spread sound of a bipole would be ok but not really the intended by atmos mixers.


*Bipoles are fine for Atmos. Really. *
The nearer the surround speaker is to the listener, the greater the need for dispersion - hence the bipoles come handy. 
The same goes for the ceiling layer - a low height ceiling calls for very good dispersion monopoles (not cheap) or bipoles (cheaper).

But of course, monopoles are far more popular and common.


----------



## dfa973

bobbino421 said:


> Also I’m renting an apt so I didn’t go in ceiling! Also it’s a vaulted ceiling with big wooden beams and drop panels. I was able to get the Atmos effect with my soundbar so I should be fine with the improved more powerful speakers.


Vaulted ceiling and Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES) do not match very well - it will be tricky!!!!

I don't know what soundbar did you have, but you can go ahead with your setup *only* if the previous soundbar was a DAES 3/5.1.2 or 5.1.4 model that I hope it worked in your room very well, because if it was the "Atmos/DTS virtualization" model you will be pretty disappointed - DAES will not work very well with the vaulted ceiling.

A vaulted ceiling is better matched with classic speakers at the ceiling level, not DAES, but you can try, of course, it's your time and your money.


----------



## bobbino421

dfa973 said:


> bobbino421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also I’m renting an apt so I didn’t go in ceiling! Also it’s a vaulted ceiling with big wooden beams and drop panels. I was able to get the Atmos effect with my soundbar so I should be fine with the improved more powerful speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaulted ceiling and Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES) do not match very well - it will be tricky!!!!
> 
> I don't know what soundbar did you have, but you can go ahead with your setup *only* if the previous soundbar was a DAES 3/5.1.2 or 5.1.4 model that I hope it worked in your room very well, because if it was the "Atmos/DTS virtualization" model you will be pretty disappointed - DAES will not work very well with the vaulted ceiling.
> 
> A vaulted ceiling is better matched with classic speakers at the ceiling level, not DAES, but you can try, of course, it's your time and your money.
Click to expand...

Yeah the trick with my ceiling is position of the modules, there are some flat spots up there in the center. I had a Samsung K950 Atmos bar that was 5.1.4 with the separate rears/heights. It worked pretty well for what it was! I was able to hear heights like I was supposed to up top. I have to to believe these would be an improvement? If not I have to live with it for now as I have no choice for the time being but at least I won’t have to buy extra surrounds later for expansion as I can use them also.


----------



## howard68

Can someone give me some examples of films with Atmos with a 9.2.6 encoded
I know the Disney disc are 7.2.4 locked 
How many film make use of beyond 7.2.4?


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> Can someone give me some examples of films with Atmos with a 9.2.6 encoded
> I know the Disney disc are 7.2.4 locked
> How many film make use of beyond 7.2.4?


You're not going to find "9.2.6 encoded" tracks. You're just going to have the "real" Atmos tracks with healthy use of objects that will scale to any speaker layout. 

Some examples of Atmos tracks which scale effectively to >11ch speaker layouts (there are more, these are just ones I've experienced and came to mind):

- Gravity (Diamond Luxe edition only)
- Blade Runner 2049
- Blade Runner (4K remaster)
- Mad Max Fury Road
- Venom (4K only)
- Spider-Man Homecoming (4K only)
- Deadpool
- Logan (4K only)
- The Matrix (4K remaster)
- Mission Impossible: Fallout
- Lucy (4K only)
- Baby Driver (4K only)
- Power Rangers
- The Great Wall


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> howard68 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone give me some examples of films with Atmos with a 9.2.6 encoded
> I know the Disney disc are 7.2.4 locked
> How many film make use of beyond 7.2.4?
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to find "9.2.6 encoded" tracks. You're just going to have the "real" Atmos tracks with healthy use of objects that will scale to any speaker layout.
> 
> Some examples of Atmos tracks which scale effectively to >11ch speaker layouts (there are more, these are just ones I've experienced and came to mind):
> 
> - Gravity (Diamond Luxe edition only)
> - Blade Runner 2049
> - Blade Runner (4K remaster)
> - Mad Max Fury Road
> - Venom (4K only)
> - Spider-Man Homecoming (4K only)
> - Deadpool
> - Logan (4K only)
> - The Matrix (4K remaster)
> - Mission Impossible: Fallout
> - Lucy (4K only)
> - Baby Driver (4K only)
> - Power Rangers
> - The Great Wall
Click to expand...

Fury (4k)
Star Trek: Into Darkness (4k)
Superman: The Movie (4k)
Unforgiven (Blu-ray)
War for the Planet of the Apes (4k)

To name a few more.

Trinnov owners with fairly large Atmos systems should help contribute to a thread that lists Atmos movies that are >7.1.4 if there isn't one already.

That would help out immensely.


----------



## zeonstar

howard68 said:


> Disney disc are 7.2.4 locked


Sorry to jump in but what do you mean by that and how is this known? It’s the first I’ve heard about it so I am curious to hear more.


----------



## m. zillch

batpig said:


> You're not going to find "9.2.6 encoded" tracks. You're just going to have the "real" Atmos tracks with healthy use of objects that will scale to any speaker layout.


Do we know if this dumbed down version, "7.2.4 only functional", is a Disney home movie thing or a Disney movie thing in general? That is, do they only limit us in the home release versions of the movie yet give support for more speakers in the commercial cinematic release we experience at commercial theaters?


----------



## dfa973

m. zillch said:


> Do we know if this dumbed down version, "7.2.4 only functional", is a Disney home movie thing or a Disney movie thing in general? That is, do they only limit us in the home release versions of the movie yet give support for more speakers in the commercial cinematic release we experience at commercial theaters?


Apparently, yes, in cinema the Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm movies do not seem to lack anything (dynamic range, bass, etc.), only HT releases are crippled.


----------



## m. zillch

dfa973 said:


> Apparently, yes, in cinema the Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm movies do not seem to lack anything (dynamic range, bass, etc.), only HT releases are crippled.


A fixed reduction in the number of Atmos speakers is my specific question of interest, not bass, dynamic range, nor other aspects of sound quality.


----------



## dfa973

m. zillch said:


> A fixed reduction in the number of Atmos speakers is my specific question of interest, not bass, dynamic range, nor other aspects of sound quality.


Atmos is not speaker bound, but object bound.
Cinema Atmos has support for many more objects than Home Atmos.
I have not seen any Home Atmos (TrueHD encoded, not DD+) soundtrack that has more than 15 objects and 1 LFE channel (no more than a total of 16 objects, even via TrueHD) - example:

*Captain Marvel 2019 4K Bluray*


Code:


Audio #1
ID                                       : 1
[B]Format                                   : MLP FBA 16-ch[/B]
[B]Format/Info                              : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation[/B]
Commercial name                          : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID                                 : A_TRUEHD
Duration                                 : 2 h 3 min
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 4 613 kb/s
Maximum bit rate                         : 7 317 kb/s
Channel(s)                               : 8 channels
Channel layout                           : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossless
Stream size                              : 3.99 GiB (15%)
Title                                    : TrueHD Atmos (Bluray)
Language                                 : English
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No
[B]Number of dynamic objects                : 13
Bed channel count                        : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration                : LFE[/B]


I also never seen a DD+Atmos soundtrack with more than 16 objects - example:

*The Highwaymen 2019 Netflix*


Code:


Audio
ID                                       : 2
[B]Format                                   : E-AC-3 JOC
Format/Info                              : Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding
Commercial name                          : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos[/B]
Codec ID                                 : A_EAC3
Duration                                 : 2 h 12 min
Bit rate mode                            : Constant
Bit rate                                 : 448 kb/s
Channel(s)                               : 6 channels
Channel layout                           : L R C LFE Ls Rs
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Stream size                              : 424 MiB (8%)
Title                                    : English
Language                                 : English
Service kind                             : Complete Main
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No
Complexity index                         : 16
[B]Number of dynamic objects                : 15
Bed channel count                        : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration                : LFE[/B]

Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm sound mixers prefer to snap objects near the physical channels and to keep them there about 90% of the time. Hence the "fixed" layout and lack of activity on other (supplementary) speakers that are available to the renderer.

It seems that the "fixing" occurs when the movie gets prepared for digital/disc distribution and get's converted to a "streaming ready" status, where the objects that are present in the Cinema Atmos are remixed for Home Atmos, optimized for streaming/broadcasting via Dolby Digital Plus Atmos or Dolby Digital Plus JOC (Joint Object Coding).

Probably being lazy, the production house is using the same mix for the UHD Bluray TrueHD+Atmos soundtracks, hence the reduced dynamic range and bass (_yes, I know that it does not interest you, but is a direct consequence of the "fixing" process_).

Based on this "evidence", we can say that the Home Atmos mixes done by Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm contain the same objects as the Cinema version but clumped (joint) into clusters that are located (snapped) to specific speakers locations (just TM, or TF+TR, etc. if we talk about the ceiling layer).

The production house should not use the same mix for both streamings via DD+ and disc via TrueHD, just because DD+ is more limited by bandwidth than TrueHD, so the objects carried by TrueHD should not be clumped and fixed for a predetermined speaker layout, even if both codecs are limited by the same 16 objects/channels - as seen in the wild. Maybe TrueHD supports more than 16 objects/channels count, but right now no one is using more...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, the speakers have a button on the inside of the unit itself just under the grill that says -3, 0 and +3. I’m guessing that this is for setting individual speaker levels for the in ceiling itself. Currently they are all at 0.
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt it boosts the overall level, that would be done in the processor. Typically these switches are a high frequency and/or low frequency adjustment to let you compensate for funky acoustics with architectural speakers by shaping the response slightly.
> 
> Or you could have just googled your speaker where it's clearly stated right in the description that this is a HF adjustment: https://www.monitoraudio.com/en/support/past-products/custom-install/ct280-idc/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True 3-way design provides rich midrange detail, higher system output, greater power handling, and superior vocal intelligibility and sound localisation. Optimum imaging and set-up are established via the pivoting IDC, *high frequency (+3 dB /0 dB / -3 dB) level adjustment*, and boundary compensation (on / off) controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boundary compensation switch will be for bass (turning it "on" will reduce the bass to compensate for bass buildup from being closer to a boundary, e.g. if the speaker is installed near a corner).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I have my back two (rear) in ceiling speakers only about 2 inches from the back wall I should turn the boundary compensation switch “on”?
> 
> And still not sure what the HF switch is supposed to do and if I should just leave that at 0-any suggestions?
> 
> Here is a picture of my in ceiling speaker placement
Click to expand...

Does anyone else have experience with this? I wish I could isolate those speakers to find out but maybe I just have to run text tunes through the NAD 758 really loud to find out about the rear atmos boundary setting?


----------



## Chirosamsung

dfa973 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have definetly heard of people angling the center channel up slightly if under a tv but *I’m just wondering if anybody else has ever slightly angled a surround speaker downward?*
> 
> 
> 
> Downward to the MLP level, not the floor, no?
> We do it all the time since you need surrounds to be a little higher than ear level so the heads/persons next to the MLP do not obscure the surrounds. See the attached drawing.
Click to expand...

The surrounds wouldn’t be pointing at the ground-just angled downwards slightly (maybe 5 or so degrees) just because the shelf they are on is slightly higher mounted then ideal-just trying to make it optimal...


----------



## FilmMixer

dfa973 said:


> Atmos is not speaker bound, but object bound.
> 
> Cinema Atmos has support for many more objects than Home Atmos.
> 
> I have not seen any Home Atmos (TrueHD encoded, not DD+) soundtrack that has more than 15 objects and 1 LFE channel (no more than a total of 16 objects, even via TrueHD) - example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also never seen a DD+Atmos soundtrack with more than 16 objects - example:
> 
> 
> 
> Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm sound mixers prefer to snap objects near the physical channels and to keep them there about 90% of the time. Hence the "fixed" layout and lack of activity on other (supplementary) speakers that are available to the renderer.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that the "fixing" occurs when the movie gets prepared for digital/disc distribution and get's converted to a "streaming ready" status, where the objects that are present in the Cinema Atmos are remixed for Home Atmos, optimized for streaming/broadcasting via Dolby Digital Plus Atmos or Dolby Digital Plus JOC (Joint Object Coding).
> 
> 
> 
> Probably being lazy, the production house is using the same mix for the UHD Bluray TrueHD+Atmos soundtracks, hence the reduced dynamic range and bass (_yes, I know that it does not interest you, but is a direct consequence of the "fixing" process_).
> 
> 
> 
> Based on this "evidence", we can say that the Home Atmos mixes done by Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm contain the same objects as the Cinema version but clumped (joint) into clusters that are located (snapped) to specific speakers locations (just TM, or TF+TR, etc. if we talk about the ceiling layer).
> 
> 
> 
> The production house should not use the same mix for both streamings via DD+ and disc via TrueHD, just because DD+ is more limited by bandwidth than TrueHD, so the objects carried by TrueHD should not be clumped and fixed for a predetermined speaker layout, even if both codecs are limited by the same 16 objects/channels - as seen in the wild. Maybe TrueHD supports more than 16 objects/channels count, but right now no one is using more...



Technically Atmos is both channel and object “bound.”

You’re confusing the mix with the encoding. 

You use one mix to create deliverables. The same DAMF or ADM is used to make ec3 and TrueHD streams. Nobody makes separate Atmos masters based on downstream delivery. 

Home and cinema atmos use the same number of objects when mixing (up to 118.). 

You can only deliver a maximum number of 16 spatially coded object using DD+ and TrueHD. You will never see more on those codecs. Initially there was some confusion on having more clusters available for delivery when the format launched, but the current codecs cannot support more than 16....

When you print a mix as 7.1.4 you aren’t “snapping” objects to speakers. If an object hovers between the over heads and the side surrounds it will still image there as some of the sound will be put into the overhead speakers and some in the the side surround channels. 

The rendered is still doing the same thing it does when you have more speakers.

The reason for redeeming a mix to 7.1.4 has zero to do with preparing for downstream delivery. I know why they chose to do that on certain titles. 

While I am not at liberty to discuss the reason behind the decision, sufficed to say it is what they decided to do on some tittles and actually takes a bit of effort to accomplish... last time I discussed it with someone in the know, I am not sure if that work flow will continue moving forward. 

But its a different thing altogether than “snap to speaker” and it confuses the issue when using snap to describe outputting a mix as 9.1.6 or 7.1.4. 

I also think you should pick a different descriptor than”joint” when trying to discuss spatial coding and channel rendering (just as using “snapped” is incorrect )

It shouldn’t be confused with JOC.


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> Sorry to jump in but what do you mean by that and how is this known? It’s the first I’ve heard about it so I am curious to hear more.


Folks with greater than 7.1.4 set-ups have confirmed that only 11.1 speakers light up with those titles. Another example: if you played the Atmos track for Saving Private Ryan on a full 34-speaker home Atmos layout, only 9 of those speakers would produce sound. The other 25 speakers would be silent. It is still an Atmos track, but it has been pre-rendered to 7.1.2 channels. You can confirm this yourself at home if you have 9.1.6 capability (your Wides, Top Fronts & Top Rears would be silent). Same with most (if not all) of the stuff coming from Disney.


----------



## TommyDeVito

FilmMixer said:


> Technically Atmos is both channel and object “bound.”
> 
> You’re confusing the mix with the encoding.
> 
> You use one mix to create deliverables. The same DAMF or ADM is used to make ec3 and TrueHD streams. Nobody makes separate Atmos masters based on downstream delivery.
> 
> Home and cinema atmos use the same number of objects when mixing (up to 118.).
> 
> You can only deliver a maximum number of 16 spatially coded object using DD+ and TrueHD. You will never see more on those codecs. Initially there was some confusion on having more clusters available for delivery when the format launched, but the current codecs cannot support more than 16....
> 
> When you print a mix as 7.1.4 you aren’t “snapping” objects to speakers. If an object hovers between the over heads and the side surrounds it will still image there as some of the sound will be put into the overhead speakers and some in the the side surround channels.
> 
> The rendered is still doing the same thing it does when you have more speakers.
> 
> The reason for redeeming a mix to 7.1.4 has zero to do with preparing for downstream delivery. I know why they chose to do that on certain titles.
> 
> While I am not at liberty to discuss the reason behind the decision, sufficed to say it is what they decided to do on some tittles and actually takes a bit of effort to accomplish... last time I discussed it with someone in the know, I am not sure if that work flow will continue moving forward.
> 
> But its a different thing altogether than “snap to speaker” and it confuses the issue when using snap to describe outputting a mix as 9.1.6 or 7.1.4.
> 
> I also think you should pick a different descriptor than”joint” when trying to discuss spatial coding and channel rendering (just as using “snapped” is incorrect )
> 
> It shouldn’t be confused with JOC.



Is what he was saying true in that......say for example. You have the option to stream 4k Captain Marvel from say ATV vs. getting the 4k Blu Ray. Is there any substantial difference between the two? I know on all the 4k discs I rent and own, the Disney versions suck for lack of a better term. Have to turn the volume way up compared to other discs and it still sounds lacking. If Disney is being cost efficient and just mixing/mastering one version to be applied to disc and streaming the same I'd like to know. If that is true I won't go out of my way to obtain their discs any longer. With the billions they make you'd think they would want to drop the hammer on their 4k discs and make them all reference quality. They certainly are not. At least not imho.


----------



## m. zillch

dfa973 said:


> Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm sound mixers prefer to snap objects near the physical channels and to keep them there about 90% of the time. Hence the "fixed" layout and lack of activity on other (supplementary) speakers that are available to the renderer.


And we have evidence the theatrical releases experienced in commercial cinemas *don't* similarly snap objects, as you describe above, or we are just guessing they don't?


----------



## m. zillch

FilmMixer said:


> The reason for redeeming a mix to 7.1.4 has zero to do with preparing for downstream delivery. I know why they chose to do that on certain titles.
> 
> While I am not at liberty to discuss the reason behind the decision, sufficed to say it is what they decided to do on some tittles and actually takes a bit of effort to accomplish


Are you at liberty to say if it is different for the home release version(s) from the commercial cinematic release? Thanks.


----------



## dfa973

FilmMixer said:


> You’re confusing the mix with the encoding.


OK. For us, content consumers, the result that comes from our speakers is more important than the exact flow or stages.



FilmMixer said:


> You use one mix to create deliverables. The same DAMF or ADM is used to make ec3 and TrueHD streams. Nobody makes separate Atmos masters based on downstream delivery.


OK. What about Cinema vs Home - the exact same mix is used to produce all the soundtracks (deliverables), including the Cinema?




FilmMixer said:


> The reason for redeeming a mix to 7.1.4 has zero to do with preparing for downstream delivery. * I know why* they chose to do that on certain titles.
> 
> While I am not at liberty to discuss the reason behind the decision, sufficed to say it is what they decided to do on some tittles and actually takes a bit of effort to accomplish...


OK. So you know _why_.
But you can tell us *how* they do it?



FilmMixer said:


> last time I discussed it with someone in the know, I am not sure if that work flow will continue moving forward.


Let's hope that in the future there will be some improvement... but the latest Marvel title (Captain Marvel 2019) still did not sound "unleashed", about the same as Avengers: Infinity War 2018...
The Last Jedi 2018? The same.



FilmMixer said:


> But its a different thing altogether than “snap to speaker” and it confuses the issue when using snap to describe outputting a mix as 9.1.6 or 7.1.4.
> 
> I also think you should pick a different descriptor than”joint” when trying to discuss spatial coding and channel rendering (just as using “snapped” is incorrect )
> 
> It shouldn’t be confused with JOC.


Sorry, English is not my native language, so some words or expressions are a bit weird... 

But can you explain a bit more about the technique used to fix/preprint Atmos layouts?
How do you keep a native dynamic format to not render an object based on the available layout?


----------



## FilmMixer

m. zillch said:


> Are you at liberty to say if it is different for the home release version(s) from the commercial cinematic release? Thanks.




In regards to what? A little confused by the question. Can you clarify please?

If you mean the mix in general than no, it’s no different than any other hone theater or near field mix. They take the stems and objects from the theatrical master and start from there...

There is no equivalent in cinema Atmos to pre rendering a mix to a static “channel” output such as 7.1.4 or 9.1.6... the software rendering solution allows you to change its output to monitor for different environments. But its a monitoring only function and has no bearing on anything else. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

dfa973 said:


> For us, content consumers, the result that comes from our speakers is more important than the exact flow or stages.


Agreed. For us consumers, technical distinctions between mixing and encoding don't really matter. If you've got an Atmos soundtrack that is fixed at 7.1.4, it isn't going to make any difference where in the work flow it happened.


> How do you keep a native dynamic format to not render an object based on the available layout?


By pre-rendering the mix. Suppose you mixed an Atmos or DTS:X track for home video. You used as many objects as you wanted and monitored the mix on a 7.1.4 speaker layout. When it came time to transfer your finished mix to disc, the studio did not use your object-based mix but instead used the 7.1.4 speakers feeds that you were listening to. A pre-rendered version of your mix ended up on disc, even though you used plenty of objects while mixing.


----------



## dfa973

m. zillch said:


> And we have evidence the theatrical releases experienced in commercial cinemas *don't* similarly snap objects, as you describe above, or we are just guessing they don't?


It's an educated guess.

Since the only limited delivery system is the one for Home (streaming and disc), and logic tells us that the limited system requires compromises (hence the limited channels/objects count for Home vs Cinema) we can expect that the Cinema soundtrack delivered via DCP is free from fixed layouts or other objects/channels limitations - the Cinema renderer has full liberty for object placement in space based on the actual speakers layout.


----------



## m. zillch

FilmMixer said:


> In regards to what? A little confused by the question. Can you clarify please?


This redeeming down to 7.1.4 you speak of here:


FilmMixer said:


> The reason for redeeming a mix to 7.1.4 has zero to do with . . .


You are saying this process of redeeming the mix to only 7.1.4 occurs for some (or all) of the *home* releases from say Disney? Or people experiencing the same Disney movie originally in a commercial cinema also would be getting the same 7.1.4 limitation, albeit with differing decoding processes, remapping, speaker count, speaker layout, room acoustics, etc.?


----------



## dfa973

sdurani said:


> By pre-rendering the mix. Suppose you mixed an Atmos or DTS:X track for home video. You used as many objects as you wanted and monitored the mix on a 7.1.4 speaker layout. When it came time to transfer your finished mix to disc, the studio did not use your object-based mix but instead used the 7.1.4 speakers feeds that you were listening to. A pre-rendered version of your mix ended up on disc, even though you used plenty of objects while mixing.



OK.
I can see now.
 Such a waste of time and effort when the tools that you used for the mix will give you after you push some buttons the right soundtrack for the right device (in our case disc or streaming). Everything at your fingertips. No outputs, no cables, no capturing the pre-printed channels on another medium, no syncing again with the video, no another encoding session of fake objects that are in fact channels...

I don't know, but this is beyond @##$%&*...


----------



## FilmMixer

m. zillch said:


> You are saying this process of redeeming the mix to only 7.1.4 occurs for some (or all) of the *home* releases from say Disney?


As far as I know they have been the only studio to encode some of their home titles this way. How many I don't know, or if it is all of them. However that is only my personal experience so if another studio has done the same I am unaware of it.



> Or people experiencing the same Disney movie originally in a commercial cinema also would be getting the same 7.1.4 limitation, albeit with differing decoding processes, remapping, speaker count, speaker layout, room acoustics, etc.?


There is no way to render the mix for the cinema into channels for exhibition.... no. 

Cinema Atmos is always playback of the 10 channel bed + objects (up to 118...) There are no other options.


----------



## sdurani

dfa973 said:


> I don't know, but this is beyond @##$%&*...


Agreed. But this has always been the case with DTS:X and is now being done more often with Atmos (or maybe it feels that way because of Disney). Still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why.


----------



## m. zillch

FilmMixer said:


> There is no way to render the mix for the cinema into channels for exhibition.... no.
> 
> Cinema Atmos is always playback of the 10 channel bed + objects (up to 118...) There are no other options.


Ok, thanks. So people in the actual theaters aren't getting this limitation, good.

However if one were a Disney film sound technician and was aware that, to paraphrase, "Because of reasons outside my control my studio has decided to dumb down all the careful work I've painstakingly done when they finally release the movie to the home market, maybe I should try to work within this limitation and only have my objects fly around using panning limited by using these 7.1.4 locations. Although this will somewhat compromise the sound for cinema goers at least I can rest assured that when they buy the blu-ray Atmos version a year from now they'll be getting pretty much the same placement of the objects they experienced in the cinema."

Just a thought.


----------



## FilmMixer

dfa973 said:


> OK. For us, content consumers, the result that comes from our speakers is more important than the exact flow or stages.


Understood and agreed. 

But when you confuse important distinctions and then present them as fact, it confuses the conversation. I would venture that a majority of posters in this thread consider themselves more than just content consumers.



> OK. What about Cinema vs Home - the exact same mix is used to produce all the soundtracks (deliverables), including the Cinema?


The theatrical mix stems are, a majority of the time, the starting point for a near field mix. This usually consists of multiple multichannel stems (9.1 or 7.1 dialog, music, sound effects, backgrounds, etc.) plus the objects. 

Remastering for a near field environment is a whole other topic and some studios put the resources into that process, while some others simply take the theatrical print master (in the case of Atmos you combine all the stems into a 9.1 bed + up to 118 objects) and feed that into either the ec3 or TrueHD Atmos encoder.

The other subjective comments about how Disney films sound when they get to the home really, in the end, has very little to do with work flow.




> OK. So you know _why_.
> But you can tell us *how* they do it?
> 
> But can you explain a bit more about the technique used to fix/preprint Atmos layouts?


You play back the final Atmos recorder session (theatrical or near field) and re-record the output of the workstation software RMU while it is set to monitor in 7.1.4 (when mixing for the home environment, the software rederer allows you to listen in 9.1.6, 7.1.4, 5.1 or 2.0...) After doing that you then change the .4 channels into objects and pan them to the corresponding .4 speaker positions. Then that new recorder session can be used to make a DAMF and you can encode to TrueHD or ec3 from there. There are variations on this process but that's the "easiest" way to do this. 




> How do you keep a native dynamic format to not render an object based on the available layout?


By not doing the above. 

I think what DTS does (relying on and using matrix decoders for extra channel outputs) on their 7.1.4 encodes (and almost 100% of DTS:X mixes are 7.1.4 pre rendered encodes) isn't an ideal solution either. But we are always going to be limited by bandwidth and throughput. But Universal and other studios who use that format don't get the kind of scrutiny that Disnay has, IMO... it's what they choose to do... consumers can choose not to consume and purchase the content.... since a vast majority of consumers don't have greater than 7.1.4 they will never notice the difference.

You surely won't on your 5.1.2 setup.

For those consumers who have gone past 7.1.4 and know that these tracks exist, they then have a choice to make as to whether or not they want to buy any given studios disc. 

It seems that the ratio of noise and complaints about what Disney is doing is very disproportionate to the small number of titles that have been released, and to the consumers it would other wise affect. Not giving them a pass... 

I'm thrilled that we have solutions to get any immersive audio into the home. Even when some might see it as compromised...


----------



## FilmMixer

m. zillch said:


> Ok, thanks. So people in the actual theaters aren't getting this limitation, good.
> 
> However if one were a Disney film sound technician and was aware that, to paraphrase, "Because of reasons outside my control my studio has decided to dumb down all the careful work I've painstakingly done when they finally release the movie to the home market, maybe I should try to work within this limitation and only have my objects fly around using panning limited by using these 7.1.4 locations. Although this will somewhat compromise the sound for cinema goers at least I can rest assured that when they buy the blu-ray Atmos version a year from now they'll be getting pretty much the same placement of the objects they experienced in the cinema."
> 
> Just a thought.


I can assure you that doesn't happen.. that is why they do near field mixes (to accommodate for the differences between the formats....) And near field mixes aren't cheap.... 

We mix it for the cinema as best we can from the get go and worry about downstream later..... 

And again... 7.1.4 isn't some huge compromise for 99%+ of peoples setups... as in anything you do professionally you definitely do have to weigh any future limitations that might occur... but if you start from making it the best it can be from the start then downstream compromises will still benefit from not constructing yourself when you start. 

And again... I'm not defending the practice or how their movies sound when they come home.... DTS:X tracks are also all (99%+) 7.1.4... doesn't seem to be a big uproar about that 

I'm mixing a show right now that is being broadcast/streamed in Atmos... I've made almost no changes to how or why I make the Atmos "decisions" I do.. 

We listen in "discrete" Atmos mode, and have only made one tiny change to one sound (which lasted about 3 seconds..) due to some spatial coding artifacts in the 4 plus hours we've gotten through so far....


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> I think what DTS does (relying on and using matrix decoders for extra channel outputs) on their 7.1.4 encodes (and almost 100% of DTS:X mixes are 7.1.4 pre rendered encodes) isn't an ideal solution either. But we are always going to be limited by bandwidth and throughput. But Universal and other studios who use that format don't get the kind of scrutiny that Disnay has, IMO...
> 
> It seems that the ratio of noise and complaints about what Disney is doing is very disproportionate to the small number of titles that have been released, and to the consumers it would other wise affect. Not giving them a pass...


I think there's a couple of crucial differences here... first, the DTS 11ch limit is not the studio's decision. Second, DTS:X has native "expansion" with matrix decoders as you note, so if DTS can solve the 11ch limit issue then a 7.1.4 mix would easily expand to 9.1.6. 

Whereas it an Atmos track is "fixed", there's no mechanism to "re-expand" it for those who have >7.1.4 layouts.

That being said, with respect to Disney, FAR more of the complaints are about the low volume and limited bass / dynamic range than about the "fixed 7.1.4" mixes. The latter is ONLY complained about by a teeny tiny niche of users (most of whom are probably on this thread!) who have >11ch setups.

The low volume / weak dynamics problem affects anyone, whether they have a 5.1.2 or a 9.1.6 setup. And if you hang out in home theater forums this is what people are complaining about. So the parallel to a 7.1.4 DTS:X track isn't relevant in this respect.

Second, Disney gets extra scrutiny on this specifically because they own these enormous "blockbuster" properties, like Star Wars and Marvel. Not many people will whine if something like Sicario or Sully is released with a non-dynamic Atmos mix, but screw up a Star Wars release or an Avengers movie and the mob will be out.

So when we have this discussion, I think it's important not to conflate the "fixed" mixes that don't scale with the "low volume / weak dynamics" issue that is specific to Disney.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> I think there's a couple of crucial differences here... first, the DTS 11ch limit is not the studio's decision. Second, DTS:X has native "expansion" with matrix decoders as you note, so if DTS can solve the 11ch limit issue then a 7.1.4 mix would easily expand to 9.1.6.
> 
> Whereas it an Atmos track is "fixed", there's no mechanism to "re-expand" it for those who have >7.1.4 layouts.


Agreed... 

But the studios can also do 9.1.6 if they wanted on DTS:X titles... there is nothing to stop them from doing that 

Matrix deriving channels isn't a free lunch... it has it's own issues.



> That being said, with respect to Disney, FAR more of the complaints are about the low volume and limited bass / dynamic range than about the "fixed 7.1.4" mixes. The latter is ONLY complained about by a teeny tiny niche of users (most of whom are probably on this thread!) who have >11ch setups.
> 
> The low volume / weak dynamics problem affects anyone, whether they have a 5.1.2 or a 9.1.6 setup. And if you hang out in home theater forums this is what people are complaining about. So the parallel to a 7.1.4 DTS:X track isn't relevant in this respect.
> 
> Second, Disney gets extra scrutiny on this specifically because they own these enormous "blockbuster" properties, like Star Wars and Marvel. Not many people will whine if something like Sicario or Sully is released with a non-dynamic Atmos mix, but screw up a Star Wars release or an Avengers movie and the mob will be out.
> 
> So when we have this discussion, I think it's important not to conflate the "fixed" mixes that don't scale with the "low volume / weak dynamics" issue that is specific to Disney.


And again 100% agreed... but they are what they are. and a mix is a mix in the end... it takes a bit of work to compress the dynamic range, change the bass, etc... I haven't critically listened to many of the Marvel or SW titles on BR... but I can say my subjective opinion on most of them has been that what I have heard at home hasn't been dramatically different, subjectively, than what I've heard in the theater.... lower encoded level or not.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Fury (4k)
> Star Trek: Into Darkness (4k)
> Superman: The Movie (4k)
> Unforgiven (Blu-ray)
> War for the Planet of the Apes (4k)
> 
> To name a few more.
> 
> Trinnov owners with fairly large Atmos systems should help contribute to a thread that lists Atmos movies that are >7.1.4 if there isn't one already.
> 
> That would help out immensely.


I've thought about setting up a tracking thread, or at least a spreadsheet that would show how many of my speakers in my 13.x.6 setup get lit up by a specific Atmos mix. The problem is that I have limited time here with work, and I only have about 60-70 Atmos movies out of the 300+ that are out. Hence the comments I make are more case by case for what we're watching, and occasionally on a new release as I can get to it ASAP after the release date. 

It's also not as simple as just specific how many channels are used. For example, take Saving Private Ryan. For all purposes it's a 7.x.2 mix during the WWII scenes, except that the top front and rears do play content, however muted, when you get closer to reference for the scenes set with an elderly Ryan. Or The Last Jedi; it's also 7.x.2 as the top front and rears are apparently playing the same overhead content at the same db level when I run the Input meter. And some movies just have "blink or you'll miss it" wides use, even when all three overheads have discrete content for at least past of the run time. Are they really 7.x.6 or 9.x.6 for this purpose?

A lot of the releases just don't interest me, though, so I'm not going to buy the entire Batman set or Karate Kid for science. I will pick up The Doors and Apocalypse Now on pre-order  .


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fury (4k)
> Star Trek: Into Darkness (4k)
> Superman: The Movie (4k)
> Unforgiven (Blu-ray)
> War for the Planet of the Apes (4k)
> 
> To name a few more.
> 
> Trinnov owners with fairly large Atmos systems should help contribute to a thread that lists Atmos movies that are >7.1.4 if there isn't one already.
> 
> That would help out immensely.
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about setting up a tracking thread, or at least a spreadsheet that would show how many of my speakers in my 13.x.6 setup get lit up by a specific Atmos mix. The problem is that I have limited time here with work, and I only have about 60-70 Atmos movies out of the 300+ that are out. Hence the comments I make are more case by case for what we're watching, and occasionally on a new release as I can get to it ASAP after the release date.
> 
> It's also not as simple as just specific how many channels are used. For example, take Saving Private Ryan. For all purposes it's a 7.x.2 mix during the WWII scenes, except that the top front and rears do play content, however muted, when you get closer to reference for the scenes set with an elderly Ryan. Or The Last Jedi; it's also 7.x.2 as the top front and rears are apparently playing the same overhead content at the same db level when I run the Input meter. And some movies just have "blink or you'll miss it" wides use, even when all three overheads have discrete content for at least past of the run time. Are they really 7.x.6 or 9.x.6 for this purpose?
> 
> A lot of the releases just don't interest me, though, so I'm not going to buy the entire Batman set or Karate Kid for science. I will pick up The Doors and Apocalypse Now on pre-order /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif .
Click to expand...

WHAT???!!! You don't want to purchase every single Dolby Atmos disc out there and do an analysis for AVS? 

Shocking! Outrageous!



Seriously though, maybe if other Trinnov brethren are willing to lend a hand in keeping a basic list compiled on Atmos titles they happened to purchase, it could turn into the next movie bass analysis thread. :shrugs:


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's a couple of crucial differences here... first, the DTS 11ch limit is not the studio's decision. Second, DTS:X has native "expansion" with matrix decoders as you note, so if DTS can solve the 11ch limit issue then a 7.1.4 mix would easily expand to 9.1.6.
> 
> Whereas it an Atmos track is "fixed", there's no mechanism to "re-expand" it for those who have >7.1.4 layouts.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...
> 
> But the studios can also do 9.1.6 if they wanted on DTS:X titles... there is nothing to stop them from doing that /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> Matrix deriving channels isn't a free lunch... it has it's own issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, with respect to Disney, FAR more of the complaints are about the low volume and limited bass / dynamic range than about the "fixed 7.1.4" mixes. The latter is ONLY complained about by a teeny tiny niche of users (most of whom are probably on this thread!) who have >11ch setups.
> 
> The low volume / weak dynamics problem affects anyone, whether they have a 5.1.2 or a 9.1.6 setup. And if you hang out in home theater forums this is what people are complaining about. So the parallel to a 7.1.4 DTS:X track isn't relevant in this respect.
> 
> Second, Disney gets extra scrutiny on this specifically because they own these enormous "blockbuster" properties, like Star Wars and Marvel. Not many people will whine if something like Sicario or Sully is released with a non-dynamic Atmos mix, but screw up a Star Wars release or an Avengers movie and the mob will be out.
> 
> So when we have this discussion, I think it's important not to conflate the "fixed" mixes that don't scale with the "low volume / weak dynamics" issue that is specific to Disney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again 100% agreed... but they are what they are. and a mix is a mix in the end... it takes a bit of work to compress the dynamic range, change the bass, etc... I haven't critically listened to many of the Marvel or SW titles on BR... but I can say my subjective opinion on most of them has been that what I have heard at home hasn't been dramatically different, subjectively, than what I've heard in the theater.... lower encoded level or not.
Click to expand...

If Disney is neutering most of their mixes for commercial theaters and that is the template for their home theater near-field versions and not due to some wish to make them more soundbar or TV speaker friendly (blech!), it still has terrible ramifications for quality movie sound.

That they still seem to lock their Atmos mixes is just adding insult to injury. 

Some audio industry head knocking is in order IMHO.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> WHAT???!!! You don't want to purchase every single Dolby Atmos disc out there and do an analysis for AVS?
> 
> Shocking! Outrageous!
> 
> 😄
> 
> Seriously though, maybe if other Trinnov brethren are willing to lend a hand in keeping a basic list compiled on Atmos titles they happened to purchase, it could turn into the next movie bass analysis thread. :shrugs:


Actually, I was slightly off about Batman. I didn't realize the UHD Atmos movies just released on Tuesday was from the good period  . The first two Batman movies with Michael Keaton were classics. Off to get it in the next couple of days...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Actually, I was slightly off about Batman. I didn't realize the UHD Atmos movies just released on Tuesday was from the good period  . The first two Batman movies with Michael Keaton were classics. Off to get it in the next couple of days...


Sweet! Looking forward to your thoughts on those flicks. Don’t forget Batman & Robin. That’s the best one.


----------



## dormie1360

@FilmMixer Finally got around to watching Fury 4K last night. Excellent! My wife was ducking when the tank rounds were panning, very quickly I might add, by her head.


----------



## dfa973

sdurani said:


> Still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer as to why.


From what has been talked until now, the reasons for fixed layouts and "restrained audio quality" may be (_in my highly subjective opinion, of course..._):

1. A *fixed layout* of captured channels as fake objects may compress better than keeping all the native bed+objects+metadata - benefits: lower needed bandwidth, lower throughput, lower disc space needed;

2. A soundtrack with *lower dynamic range* may compress better / keep the throughput in check / keep the size on the disc inside the target medium (DVD/BD/UHD-BD/whatever);

3. A variation on #2 : *lower volume* will have the same benefits - better compression - which influences bandwidth, throughput and occupied size on the storage medium;

3. A *subdued LFE* may compress better - leaving more bandwidth for the rest of the channels, especially in the case of DD+/DD+Atmos (this reminded me about the tricks used to cram the needed content on the very limited vinyl disc... - mono the bass content to limit excursion, for example - off-topic: there are many, many reasons that vinyl is one of the worst mediums for HiFi audio storage...);

These are enough? 





FilmMixer said:


> You surely won't on your 5.1.2 setup.


    
1. I am not limited to the setup that's in my signature.
2. I was not asking for me alone.
3. I wanted to know.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

dfa973 said:


> 1. A *fixed layout* of captured channels as fake objects may compress better than keeping all the native bed+objects+metadata - benefits: lower needed bandwidth, lower throughput, lower disc space needed;


Does it? An object flying over from top front left to top rear right may use the 4 fixed top speaker objects at the same time, while it would only use 1 in normal use. I doubt that is the reason why they do it.


----------



## FilmMixer

dfa973 said:


> From what has been talked until now, the reasons for fixed layouts and "restrained audio quality" may be (_in my highly subjective opinion, of course..._):
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A *fixed layout* of captured channels as fake objects may compress better than keeping all the native bed+objects+metadata - benefits: lower needed bandwidth, lower throughput, lower disc space needed;
> 
> 
> 
> 2. A soundtrack with *lower dynamic range* may compress better / keep the throughput in check / keep the size on the disc inside the target medium (DVD/BD/UHD-BD/whatever);
> 
> 
> 
> 3. A variation on #2 : *lower volume* will have the same benefits - better compression - which influences bandwidth, throughput and occupied size on the storage medium;
> 
> 
> 
> 3. A *subdued LFE* may compress better - leaving more bandwidth for the rest of the channels, especially in the case of DD+/DD+Atmos (this reminded me about the tricks used to cram the needed content on the very limited vinyl disc... - mono the bass content to limit excursion, for example - off-topic: there are many, many reasons that vinyl is one of the worst mediums for HiFi audio storage...);



A few notes. 

DD+ is a fixed bitrate codec. TrueHD is not. 

So if one was concerned with saving bandwidth for streaming it doesn’t matter what you do... the bandwidth is fixed. 

In Dolby’s codecs, the LFE channel is encoded as a filtered, not full range signal.... hence no benefit, in terms of coding efficiency, from reducing the level or dynamic range of said channel. 

DTS treats and encodes the LFE as a full range channel in its HD codecs. 

As you get quieter and move towards the noise floor of a recorded signal, you theoretically can make the encoder work harder as it has to figure out how to encode the low level granular signals. As far as I understand it, there is no benefit in lowering the recorded signal in the goal of saving bandwidth/space in a lossless encode. And with a constant bitrate codec it doesn’t matter, but you might make the encoder work “harder” as you approach the noose floor. However in practice, I highly doubt its audible with the types of level changes we are discussing. 

Since a lossless codec cannot be capped in terms of maximum bitrate at any one time, there very well may be concerns about bandwidth... however audio really doesn’t take up much space compared to video and you can’t compare in real time what lowering a mix, for example, would do to save bandwidth on a TrueHD encode. 

It just doesn’t happen and is never the reason for changing the dynamic range or content of a mix. 

Never. 

Regarding your first point... if you have a very small number of objects that have positive z axis movement in them, at a given point, one or two for example, you are now using four objects to encode them. In certain cases, lowering the object count can actually increase bandwidth on a lossless encode at certain points. 

In my experience, but budget is never a consideration on the production side of things. It simply is not. 

And in the case of a Disney’s Atmos mixes, it has nothing to do with fixed channel layout encodes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Steve Sleeve

FilmMixer said:


> A few notes.
> 
> DD+ is a fixed bitrate codec. TrueHD is not.
> 
> So if one was concerned with saving bandwidth for streaming it doesn’t matter what you do... the bandwidth is fixed.
> 
> In Dolby’s codecs, the LFE channel is encoded as a filtered, not full range signal.... hence no benefit, in terms of coding efficiency, from reducing the level or dynamic range of said channel.
> 
> DTS treats and encodes the LFE as a full range channel in its HD codecs.
> 
> As you get quieter and move towards the noise floor of a recorded signal, you theoretically can make the encoder work harder as it has to figure out how to encode the low level granular signals. As far as I understand it, there is no benefit in lowering the recorded signal in the goal of saving bandwidth/space in a lossless encode. And with a constant bitrate codec it doesn’t matter, but you might make the encoder work “harder” as you approach the noose floor. However in practice, I highly doubt its audible with the types of level changes we are discussing.
> 
> Since a lossless codec cannot be capped in terms of maximum bitrate at any one time, there very well may be concerns about bandwidth... however audio really doesn’t take up much space compared to video and you can’t compare in real time what lowering a mix, for example, would do to save bandwidth on a TrueHD encode.
> 
> It just doesn’t happen and is never the reason for changing the dynamic range or content of a mix.
> 
> Never.
> 
> Regarding your first point... if you have a very small number of objects that have positive z axis movement in them, at a given point, one or two for example, you are now using four objects to encode them. In certain cases, lowering the object count can actually increase bandwidth on a lossless encode at certain points.
> 
> In my experience, but budget is never a consideration on the production side of things. It simply is not.
> 
> And in the case of a Disney’s Atmos mixes, it has nothing to do with fixed channel layout encodes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have enjoyed your insights and information in this thread and being a home theater enthusiast for a long time I remember years ago you could buy an cheesey introduction video that welcomed people to your theater and I fantasize about creating one with a silence your cell phone and my name on it and some atmos demo files I have added in before a movie starts. Maybe in a loop on a thumb drive, no need for a second DVD player these days. What software would a person at home need to be able to pan audio for atmos is that possible?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Steve Sleeve said:


> I have enjoyed your insights and information in this thread and being a home theater enthusiast for a long time I remember years ago you could buy a cheesey introduction video that welcomed people to your theater and I fantasize about creating one with a silence your cell phone and my name on it and some atmos demo files I have added in before a movie starts. Maybe in a loop on a thumb drive, no need for a second DVD player these days. What software would a person at home need to be able to pan audio for atmos is that possible?


There is a Dolby Atmos plug-in for Pro Tools HD and I think there is now one for Fairlight in the latest DaVinci Resolve Studio suite. I believe there is a fixed amount of in software speaker monitoring that can be accomplished without the Dolby RMU hardware. 

This is not a cheap endeavor even without the RMU allowing for a much larger Atmos playback and monitoring system. You have to be able to author a complete video + Home Dolby TrueHD Atmos file too. Dolby loves their licensing fees.


----------



## howard68

When any Dolby Atmos film is done on disc it needs to be a full mix 34.2.10 mix
The Disney fixed tracks and others pre set at 7.2.2 is just not good 
Especially if you have invested good money for 7.2.4 and beyond system


----------



## FilmMixer

Steve Sleeve said:


> I have enjoyed your insights and information in this thread and being a home theater enthusiast for a long time I remember years ago you could buy an cheesey introduction video that welcomed people to your theater and I fantasize about creating one with a silence your cell phone and my name on it and some atmos demo files I have added in before a movie starts. Maybe in a loop on a thumb drive, no need for a second DVD player these days. What software would a person at home need to be able to pan audio for atmos is that possible?



Atmos support is built into Pro Tools. But you also need to have the Production Suite plus a way to monitor it... for PT that requires Avid’s top tier license plus the hardware to monitor it.... so I would say safely you’re looking at a lowest price starting point of 5k just to mix, minus speakers and monitoring control. It’s just not an easy setup compared to mixing stereo or even 5.1. 

You need to purchase the Atmos Production suite which is $299.

Once the mix is complete you need to create a ADM .wav file... you cans do that directly from the Atmos Production suite..

Then the Mastering Suite is needed to get an authoring ready file. That’s $999. 

You could edit all of your clips together in sync inside PT.... however without the masters for the clips you wanted to include there is no way I know of to include those alongside your own creations. 

The short answer is that it would be incredibly complicated, and fairly expensive to boot. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> When any Dolby Atmos film is done on disc it needs to be a full mix 34.2.10 mix
> The Disney fixed tracks and others pre set at 7.2.2 is just not good
> Especially if you have invested good money for 7.2.4 and beyond system


Home Atmos rendering is maxed at 24.1.10 at the moment and can go beyond that if the track isn’t a fixed print out and object movement isn’t constrained. Trinnov has been working on expanding that with an external expansion unit and larger Atmos speaker lookup table. 

Disney seems to be locking them to around 7.1.4 to 7.1.6. Why is anyone’s guess. If FilmMixer knows, he can’t divulge it seems. Even Netflix of all companies states it allows for free and scalable object movement with their Atmos mixed shows. I don’t know about Amazon exclusives with Atmos, however.


----------



## sdurani

howard68 said:


> When any Dolby Atmos film is done on disc it needs to be a full mix 34.2.10 mix


Just to clarify, there's no such thing as a 34.2.10 mix. The home Atmos format is a maximum of 7.1 channels and up to 16 objects. No more. The number of speaker locations that can be used for rendering objects is 24 + 10 (subwoofer output is created via bass management, it's not a rendered location). But the number 34 doesn't represent anything in Atmos soundtracks or mixes. That's simply the number of rendering locations.


> The Disney fixed tracks and others pre set at 7.2.2 is just not good
> Especially if you have invested good money for 7.2.4 and beyond system


Agreed.


----------



## Steve Sleeve

FilmMixer said:


> Atmos support is built into Pro Tools. But you also need to have the Production Suite plus a way to monitor it... for PT that requires Avid’s top tier license plus the hardware to monitor it.... so I would say safely you’re looking at a lowest price starting point of 5k just to mix, minus speakers and monitoring control. It’s just not an easy setup compared to mixing stereo or even 5.1.
> 
> You need to purchase the Atmos Production suite which is $299.
> 
> Once the mix is complete you need to create a ADM .wav file... you cans do that directly from the Atmos Production suite..
> 
> Then the Mastering Suite is needed to get an authoring ready file. That’s $999.
> 
> You could edit all of your clips together in sync inside PT.... however without the masters for the clips you wanted to include there is no way I know of to include those alongside your own creations.
> 
> The short answer is that it would be incredibly complicated, and fairly expensive to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Well that's too bad, can't even drop in some demos off the disk without having the masters was unexpected. Well an opportunity for a side hustle to charge $200.00 or so for am atmos theater introduction or more for a custom name. I'd want one and would love a Bluray or streambox to open with it automatically. I always have business with no skill sets


----------



## FilmMixer

Steve Sleeve said:


> Well that's too bad, can't even drop in some demos off the disk without having the masters was unexpected. Well an opportunity for a side hustle to charge $200.00 or so for am atmos theater introduction or more for a custom name. I'd want one and would love a Bluray or streambox to open with it automatically. I always have business with no skill sets



Since this is AVS and we get into the details...

The reason you need access to the masters is that as you edit clips together you need to also edit the metadata automation and make sure you fix the edit points. With a 5.1 or 7.1 clip you can simply record the analog output from a BR player and edit the captured PCM (btw the way... not advocating doing that.. just pointing out a way to accomplish said task )

You can edit .ec3 (Dolby Digital Plus Atmos streams) but there is almost no commercial content on disc in that format. And it’s still not a rudimentary task to do so and sync it up with picture and then output it in a “usable” format... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> And in the case of a Disney’s Atmos mixes, it has nothing to do with fixed channel layout encodes.


In the end it doesn't really matter what their excuse reason is, since other studios have invalidated it by demonstrating that they are not bound by this limitation.


----------



## zeonstar

howard68 said:


> The home Atmos format is a maximum of 7.1 channels and up to 16 objects. No more.


I’ve been reading the recent conversation trying to follow it. So Home Atmos is only 16 objects compared to what? 118 for Cinema? Is that a known fact? If so it kind of lessens the excitement of Home Atmos for me. Why is the object number so reduced at Home?


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> So Home Atmos is only 16 objects compared to what? 118 for Cinema?


Yes, home Atmos is 7.1 channels + up to 16 objects (24 total waveforms) while cinema Atmos is 9.1 channels + up to 118 objects (128 total waveforms).


> Is that a known fact?


Yes.


> Why is the object number so reduced at Home?


Less transmission bandwidth and storage space?


----------



## zeonstar

sdurani said:


> Yes, home Atmos is 7.1 channels + up to 16 objects (24 total waveforms) while cinema Atmos is 9.1 channels + up to 118 objects (128 total waveforms). Yes. Less transmission bandwidth and storage space?



Thank you! Disappointing but Atmos still sounds great to me at home in the end, so I suppose I can't complain. I only have a meager 5.1.4 system anyway. 

Just out of curiosity, what do they do with a mix that in theaters was a high object count when they re-mixing it for home media?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Yes. Less transmission bandwidth and storage space?


Also much less spatial resolution right?. In a big commercial Atmos theater you could have 8-10 speakers lining each side wall and in each overhead array. And of course a much larger room and many more seats.

If you compare this speaker layout:










to this: 










... seems reasonable that you don't need as many individual objects.


----------



## batpig

dfa973 said:


> From what has been talked until now, the reasons for fixed layouts and "restrained audio quality" may be (_in my highly subjective opinion, of course..._):
> 
> 1. A *fixed layout* of captured channels as fake objects may compress better than keeping all the native bed+objects+metadata - benefits: lower needed bandwidth, lower throughput, lower disc space needed;
> 
> 2. A soundtrack with *lower dynamic range* may compress better / keep the throughput in check / keep the size on the disc inside the target medium (DVD/BD/UHD-BD/whatever);


As I noted a few posts up, I think it's important to keep distinct the "fixed Atmos" issue from the "low volume / weak dynamics" issue. They aren't related and could be done for completely different reasons.

There are "fixed Atmos" mixes like "Saving Private Ryan" that don't have any issues with dynamic range, and there are plenty Disney/Marvel mixes that are not Atmos that have the much bemoaned "weak" sound.

Disney may just have a corporate philosophy about how they mix/translate cinema soundtracks for home release where they are monitored at 75dB with 15dB headroom for dynamic range instead of 85dB with 20dB because they feel consumers will be happier (outside of niche super-enthusiast circles like this you hear a lot more complaints about "I can't hear the dialogue and then when I turn it up the explosions are too loud!" than you do about slightly reduced dynamics / volume). And maybe they apply a subsonic HPF to filter out


----------



## FilmMixer

zeonstar said:


> Just out of curiosity, what do they do with a mix that in theaters was a high object count when they re-mixing it for home media?




Nothing.

You still have up to 118 objects when mixing for the home. 

Those 118 objects get encoded using a technique called spatial coding into between 12-16 object “cluster..”. Let’s say two objects are in very close proximity at a certain point in time. They can then be combined and encoded together until such time as they move far enough apart they require separate coding to maintain the proper perceptual reproduction. 

You can think of it as zoning the room into 12-18 sections..... 

It must be noted that when object counts get high, it’s very difficult to perceive small, detailed separation between sounds moving around, especially when you have only 5 discrete front to back possible overhead positions. 

It sounds like a huge compromise. In practice it really is not. 

As with any codec that doesn’t allow for discrete reproduction of all inputs into the encoder, artifacts can occur. But, again, in practice they aren’t readily perceived. 

At least that has been my experience.


----------



## zeonstar

batpig said:


> Also much less spatial resolution right?. In a big commercial Atmos theater you could have 8-10 speakers lining each side wall and in each overhead array. And of course a much larger room and many more seats.
> 
> If you compare this speaker layout:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... seems reasonable that you don't need as many individual objects.


Thanks for this, I appreciate it.

I may be confused as to what Objects actually are with regards to Atmos. Can someone give me an example of what an Atmos object really is? Do objects directly relate to the number of speakers in a system?


----------



## batpig

zeonstar said:


> Thanks for this, I appreciate it.
> 
> I may be confused as to what Objects actually are with regards to Atmos. Can someone give me an example of what an Atmos object really is? Do objects directly relate to the number of speakers in a system?


Sanjay addressed this a few posts up: 



sdurani said:


> Just to clarify, there's no such thing as a 34.2.10 mix. The home Atmos format is a maximum of 7.1 channels and up to 16 objects. No more. The number of speaker locations that can be used for rendering objects is 24 + 10 (subwoofer output is created via bass management, it's not a rendered location). But the number 34 doesn't represent anything in Atmos soundtracks or mixes. That's simply the number of rendering locations. Agreed.


The key takeaway here is that the number of "objects" has NOTHING to do with the number of speakers in the system.

An "audio object" is just a sound that has metadata describing things like size, location, movement, etc. A dynamic object isn't pre-assigned to a specific speaker output. Whereas a "channel" is a sound that is fixed to a specific output. 

So for example with a 7.1 mix, each of those 7 channels of audio is "hard-coded" to come out of 7 specific speaker outputs. If you add extra speakers, they will be silent unless you do post-processing to "upmix" the audio. The soundtrack itself cannot scale, the 7 channels go to 7 speakers.

Whereas an object will be rendered on the fly, using any available speaker. So for example, a space ship flies over your head from front to back and that's encoded as an object. The Atmos OAR (object audio renderer) will use whatever overhead speakers you have to create that front-to-back overhead pan. If you only have 2 overhead speakers, it will just pass though those. If you have 4 overeheads, it will first pass through the front pair then through the rear pair. If you have 6 overheads, it will go through the front pair, then the middle pair, then the rear pair.


----------



## zeonstar

batpig said:


> Sanjay addressed this a few posts up:
> 
> 
> 
> The key takeaway here is that the number of "objects" has NOTHING to do with the number of speakers in the system.
> 
> An "audio object" is just a sound that has metadata describing things like size, location, movement, etc. A dynamic object isn't pre-assigned to a specific speaker output. Whereas a "channel" is a sound that is fixed to a specific output.
> 
> So for example with a 7.1 mix, each of those 7 channels of audio is "hard-coded" to come out of 7 specific speaker outputs. If you add extra speakers, they will be silent unless you do post-processing to "upmix" the audio. The soundtrack itself cannot scale, the 7 channels go to 7 speakers.
> 
> Whereas an object will be rendered on the fly, using any available speaker. So for example, a space ship flies over your head from front to back and that's encoded as an object. The Atmos OAR (object audio renderer) will use whatever overhead speakers you have to create that front-to-back overhead pan. If you only have 2 overhead speakers, it will just pass though those. If you have 4 overeheads, it will first pass through the front pair then through the rear pair. If you have 6 overheads, it will go through the front pair, then the middle pair, then the rear pair.


That makes a lot of sense, so thank you very much.

Also explains why on my Denon AVR when I play an Atmos movie, instead of it showing the active input for my speakers it just says *ATMOS* in the center of the area.


----------



## sdurani

To add to batpig's reply:


zeonstar said:


> Can someone give me an example of what an Atmos object really is?


Video games have been using audio objects for over a decade. Suppose you're playing a game on a surround set-up. You hear enemy footsteps approaching from behind you. You immediately turn around to face the enemy. The sound goes from behind you to your side to in front of you. Which channel was that sound mixed to? None. If it had been in a channel, YOU wouldn't have been able to move it in real time. That was an object. The sound of the enemy footsteps was not mixed into any channel but was assigned a location in 3D space. You control where that sound comes from, in real time. Couldn't do that if the sound was mixed into a particular channel with a fixed speaker location. 

If object-based audio was already in use for so long, why does it suddenly seem like something new? Because Hollywood finally started using it for mixing movie soundtracks.


> Do objects directly relate to the number of speakers in a system?


No, the whole idea is to de-couple the source material from playback speakers, allowing soundtracks to scale up or down to fit all speaker layouts. Ideally, you would no longer be concerned with the number of channels and/or objects in a soundtrack, because it would adapt to fit your particular speaker layout. When that doesn't happen, like with pre-rendered Atmos soundtracks, it defeats one of the promises of object-based audio.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> And of course a much larger room and many more seats.


I think "many more seats" has more to do with it than room size. If you placed the same couch in successively larger rooms, a 9.1.6 set-up would still suffice (speakers would continue to have the same angular gaps between them, just located farther away). But once you start adding more seats, you need more speakers to fill the gaps, hence the need for greater spatial resolution (as you said). 

Besides, it would have been difficult (if not overkill) for the home version of Atmos to have the same specs as the cinema version (64 speaker locations, simultaneously rendering 118 objects in real time), for a variety of reasons (including DSP horsepower, storage space, transmission bandwidth, etc). For those that have the inclination AND funds to do that, there are plenty of DCI systems (with cinema Atmos decoders) in private homes/mansions.


----------



## priitv8

FilmMixer said:


> You can only deliver a maximum number of 16 spatially coded object using DD+ and TrueHD. You will never see more on those codecs. Initially there was some confusion on having more clusters available for delivery when the format launched, but the current codecs cannot support more than 16....


First of all, thank you FilmMixer, for truly good and informative insights into the world of immersive audio!
Would be interesting to know the technical reasoning behind this limit of 16.
Incidentally, this number is exactly the double of available channels (7.1) supported by both codecs.
Because Atmos encoding spec on eac3 is a public document, I have glanced over it.
So it seems, the object essences (they're monaural, right?) are actually encoded in frequency domain into the bed channels (JOC).


ETSI said:


> *joint object coding:* algorithms for delivering immersive audio at low bitrates, achieved by conveying a multi-channel downmix of the immersive content using perceptual audio coding algorithms together with parametric side information that enables the reconstruction of the audio objects from the downmix in the decoder


Object metadata is carried in auxiliary EMDF fields inside the AC3 frame.
That means, the objects shall remain inaudible when played back on non-Atmos decoder/renderer.
Can this somehow be the technical limitation?
PS Because in all Atmos encodes I've seen, LFE is now encoded as 1 of the objects, does that leave the .1 bed channel totally free for object encoding? In other words - why encode LFE as object now? Full-spectrum perhaps?


----------



## FilmMixer

priitv8 said:


> Would be interesting to know the technical reasoning behind this limit of 16.
> 
> Incidentally, this number is exactly the double of available channels (7.1) supported by both codecs.
> 
> Because Atmos encoding spec on eac3 is a public document, I have glanced over it.
> 
> So it seems, the object essences are actually encoded in frequency domain into the bed channels (JOC). Object metadata is carried in auxiliary EMDF fields inside the AC3 frame.
> 
> That means, the objects shall remain inaudible when played back on non-Atmos decoder/renderer.
> 
> Can this somehow be the technical limitation?




No. Bandwidth is. As is backwards compatibility. 

Atmos tends to add a 20-30% in size of the encoded files in TrueHD (it’s fairly insignificant on ec3..)

LFE isn’t encoded as a full frequency signal, so it’s simply not 2x8. But I am sure that there is some mathematical reasoning behind the numbers of 12, 14 or 16. 

DD+ works different than TrueHD obviously. 

And Dolby obviously designed Atmos to work with streaming so they, at some point, had to work within realistic parameters of what was possible when they launched the codec. DTS:X Pro Is all about post processing... nothing has changed within the codec or its inherent limitations (16 total audio stream, so 7.1 + 9 objects for example...). Dolby had to work within the BDA parameters of max audio bandwidth for DD+ and TrueHD. 

But outside of bandwidth limitations processing Atmos with more objects would also require more DSP., which would mean any receiver would need to have the horsepower to decode whatever existed inside the format. It also needs to live alongside DTS and sometimes Auro... DSP is obviously a finite resource at a certain point. 

Those are all reason I can see for said “limitation...”. That’s my (semi educated) guess. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

priitv8 said:


> That means, the objects shall remain inaudible when played back on non-Atmos decoder/renderer.


Just to be clear on this point -- NOTHING is dropped from the mix regardless of the playback system. The objects are not "inaudible", they are simply left in the respective channel if the processor doesn't have (or doesn't engage) the Atmos OAR. If Atmos decoding/rendering is activated, the objects are removed from the channels and then rendered dynamically using the metadata encoded in the extra substream.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the case of a Disney’s Atmos mixes, it has nothing to do with fixed channel layout encodes.
> 
> 
> 
> In the end it doesn't really matter what their excuse reason is, since other studios have invalidated it by demonstrating that they are not bound by this limitation.
Click to expand...

On a side note, I see this a lot-how does one write a word with a line through it, as you did to make a point?


----------



## m. zillch

Chirosamsung said:


> On a side note, I see this a lot-how does one write a word with a line through it, as you did to make a point?


End the part you want struck with [/s] and start the section with  using the brackets just like I've shown.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> priitv8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means, the objects shall remain inaudible when played back on non-Atmos decoder/renderer.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear on this point -- NOTHING is dropped from the mix regardless of the playback system. The objects are not "inaudible", they are simply left in the respective channel if the processor doesn't have (or doesn't engage) the Atmos OAR. If Atmos decoding/rendering is activated, the objects are removed from the channels and then rendered dynamically using the metadata encoded in the extra substream.
Click to expand...

Isn't the process similar to when Dolby TrueHD combines various channel extension layers together to form (as an example) a 7.1 track from a 5.1 track base?

The sounds that are the same in the 5.1 track as are contained in the two extra rear channels of the extension layer are reverse-phased and canceled out rendering them inaudible. The discrete rear channel audio from the extension layer then takes their place and a 7.1 channel track is the end result.

I would imagine the object sounds in the 7.1 channel TrueHD base layer (for backwards compatibility with non Atmos decoders) are similarly reverse-phase deleted and the discrete objects+metadata from the extension file take their place when decoded through a home Atmos system.


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> I see this a lot-how does one write a word with a line through it, as you did to make a point?


To do a strikethrough, put s in brackets [ ] before the word and /s in brackets after the word.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> The sounds that are the same in the 5.1 track as are contained in the two extra rear channels of the extension layer are reverse-phased and canceled out rendering them inaudible. The discrete rear channel audio from the extension layer then takes their place and a 7.1 channel track is the end result.


That's the concept, though I've been wondering in this day and age of digital audio if it is still necessary to reverse phase in order to cancel. I mean, couldn't you just identify Rear channel data in the Surround channels and get rid of those specific bits, leaving you with Side and Rear channels?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sounds that are the same in the 5.1 track as are contained in the two extra rear channels of the extension layer are reverse-phased and canceled out rendering them inaudible. The discrete rear channel audio from the extension layer then takes their place and a 7.1 channel track is the end result.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the concept, though I've been wondering in this day and age of digital audio if it is still necessary to reverse phase in order to cancel. I mean, couldn't you just identify Rear channel data in the Surround channels and get rid of those specific bits, leaving you with Side and Rear channels?
Click to expand...

You would think they could, but I'm just not sure how sophisticated TrueHD is since it was originally based off Meridian Lossless Packing. Perhaps Dolby updated their version when it was introduced to Blu-ray.


----------



## Matt L

Well I finally jumped in and put my in ceiling speakers in. 6 hours of work on 3 levels which means countless trips up and down 2 flights of stairs. Had to get creative as fish tape and R40 insulation don't work well together. Plus the only access I had into the atic space to run the wires was a 6" wide slot I had to cut in a closet. I put in 4 moderate priced Yamaha speakers and went through a little over 200' of wire. I used the Yamaha's as they have a 15 degree slope that pretty much offset the slope of my vaulted ceiling that is at 19 degrees, plus they have a pair of aim-able tweeters. I ended up using a piece of 20' 1/2" PEX water line that I bought to create a hot water circulating system that I have not got around to yet. It worked well in getting the wires up one slope across to the matching hole, then over to the opening in the closet. From there I had to drop it down an interior wall into the basement, luckily years ago I had run some wires to a patch plate below tat point and was able to grab the wires and then route them into the basement. From there I had to go over about 15' and then back up to the new patch panel, of course the basement ceiling is finished also so had to fish wires there too. The things we do for our hobbies...

Spent about 4 hours installing the speakers and stripping wires and prepping for the eventual patch panel, I need a triple low voltage frame, actually a quad but I can't find that, so I'll have to order the triple. Will have to get a quart of paint color matched to the cut outs to paint out the speakers, but that will have to wait also. Debating about adding banana plugs to the wires, but I'd need about 3 dozen, it would be nice but I'm not sure at this point.

Anyway did a short run with Audyseey just to ball park levels for a test run, when the furniture gets moved back into place I'll do a full run. Ran two movies to get a feel for how well the system works and am quite happy. The sound is pretty much seamless, even with the mismatched speakers, my 9 bed's are all Mission 750LEs and a Hsu sub.I used "Spiderman - Into the Spider-Verse" and Bohemian Rapsody as test disks. Spiderman really gave the system a work out, spacial placement seemed very good and the Yamaha's have a bit more base than I expected from a 6" woofer. BR sounded great also, more natural than Spiderman with a good sense of space. Will have to try some of the content posted earlier in the thread.

Not sure if I should override Audyseey's crossover settings, the 750's are relatively small, but they are set to cross over at 60 hz, and the Yamaha's in the ceiling at 40 hz. Seems I recall others adjusting the x over up a bit more than that. I have been running with those settings for a number of months now and it seems fine.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> The objects are not "inaudible", they are simply left in the respective channel if the processor doesn't have (or doesn't engage) the Atmos OAR. If Atmos decoding/rendering is activated, the objects are removed from the channels and then rendered dynamically using the metadata encoded in the extra substream.




Just to be super nit picky...

The objects are encoded separately as audio and are indeed “inaudible” and ignored if an Atmos decoder is not activated/present. 

The objects aren’t “removed” from the channel beds.... they are encoded separately and the decoder then subtracts the common frequency content from the beds as “needed.”

A bit picky of me to point out. 

But it’s technically inaccurate to say the objects come from the bed, are left in there, etc... 

Not trying to confuse anyone as your point is valid. 

There is nothing missing from the mix when playing back without an atmos decoder engaged. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## m. zillch

Matt L said:


> Not sure if I should override Audyseey's crossover settings, the 750's are relatively small, but they are set to cross over at 60 hz, and the Yamaha's in the ceiling at 40 hz. Seems I recall others adjusting the x over up a bit more than that. I have been running with those settings for a number of months now and it seems fine.


It is common that people feel it is prudent to bump *up* crossover frequencies to 80 Hz but it is rarely a good idea to bump them down to it. Bumping the frequency upwards this way lessens the burden on the main speaker's amp and also increases the maximum possible SPL and lowers distortion because the small speaker's woofer is less burdened by the hardest part of the music to reproduce with the largest excursions (in/out motion): the deep bass.


----------



## Chirosamsung

m. zillch said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, I see this a lot-how does one write a word with a line through it, as you did to make a point?
> 
> 
> 
> End the part you want struck with [/s] and start the section with  using the brackets just like I've shown.
Click to expand...



That’s  bad  good advice!

Hope this turns out right...


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> That’s  bad  good advice!
> 
> Hope this turns out right...


Hot tip: if you ever wonder how somebody did some wacky formatting, just "Quote" their post as though you're going to reply and you can see the markup they used...


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Just to be super nit picky...
> 
> The objects are encoded separately as audio and are indeed “inaudible” and ignored if an Atmos decoder is not activated/present.
> 
> The objects aren’t “removed” from the channel beds.... they are encoded separately and the decoder then subtracts the common frequency content from the beds as “needed.”
> 
> A bit picky of me to point out.
> 
> But it’s technically inaccurate to say the objects come from the bed, are left in there, etc...
> 
> Not trying to confuse anyone as your point is valid.
> 
> There is nothing missing from the mix when playing back without an atmos decoder engaged.


----------



## Sound Shark

I have a pair of in ceiling speakers that have the drivers angled at 20°. To have them pointing down at the main listening point they would be placed almost directly above the front speakers, is this placement likely to cause any issues in delivering atmos sound. I will be using one pair of front in ceiling speakers and the distance from ceiling to seating is 4Mtrs.


----------



## mrtickleuk

FilmMixer said:


> Just to be super nit picky...
> 
> The objects are encoded separately as audio and are indeed “inaudible” and ignored if an Atmos decoder is not activated/present.
> 
> The objects aren’t “removed” from the channel beds.... they are encoded separately and the decoder then subtracts the common frequency content from the beds as “needed.”
> 
> A bit picky of me to point out.
> 
> But it’s technically inaccurate to say the objects come from the bed, are left in there, etc...


Very interesting, thanks. So this means that the sounds that are used in objects are encoded twice? Once in as part of the bed, and again as objects for Atmos-capable devices to use.


----------



## FilmMixer

mrtickleuk said:


> Very interesting, thanks. So this means that the sounds that are used in objects are encoded twice? Once in as part of the bed, and again as objects for Atmos-capable devices to use.



It’s guess it becomes a bit of a matter of semantics.... the short answer is a qualified “yes.”

The 5.1 or 7.1 encode is a complete soundtrack, which is created by taking the bed channels, rendering (downmixing to 5.1/7.1) the objects and combining/mixing them together. 

The Atmos payload contains the complete soundtrack (compete in the sense that it contains of all the audio for the soundtrack) and a separate extension package which consists of mono audio objects**** alongside a data package of metadata (this data contains x,y,z co-ordinates, objects size parameter (spread), snap to channel flags, etc..). Upon decoding these objects are mathematically (audibly) subtracted out of the complete 5.1/7.1 base and rendered in real time... 

**** is because DD+ has some things it does differently than TrueHD (called JOC, or joint object coding) but the end result and fundamentals of the two codecs are the same.


----------



## priitv8

Mathematically, the object reconstruction looks really simple:


Code:


for (obj=0; obj < joc_num_objects; obj++) {
[INDENT]for (ch=0; ch < joc_num_channels; ch++) {
[INDENT]for (ts=0; tp < num_qmf_timeslots; ts++) {
[INDENT]for (sb=0; sb < num_qmf_subbands; sb++) {
[INDENT]z[obj][ts][sb] += x[ch][ts][sb] * joc_mix_mtx_interp[obj][ch][ts][sb];[/INDENT]}[/INDENT]}[/INDENT]}[/INDENT]}

This is still in frequency domain!
But it is true, the variable joc_num_channels can only have 2 values: 5 and 7. So my former theory of 16 being double number of available channels falls apart.


TS 103 420 - V1.2.1 said:


> *6.6.6 Reconstruction of the output objects*
> The JOC decoder shall calculate the output objects from the input channels utilizing the matrix joc_mix_mtx_interp.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> So this means that the sounds that are used in objects are encoded twice?


The TrueHD bitstream is made up of multiple substreams. The first substream contains a 2-channel version of the entire soundtrack. The second substream contains the data and instructions to needed convert it into a 5.1 version. The third substream contains the info needed to convert it to a 7.1 track. If this is an Atmos mix, then the fourth substream contains objects. 

At each step, you have the entire soundtrack (all the sounds, with nothing missing) in various configurations. And because TrrueHD is a lossless codec, then by definition each configuration (2.0, 5.1, 7.1, Atmos) is bit for bit identical to the studio master. Just because you re-arrange those bits doesn't mean you lose any. 

Does that mean that the objects in the fourth substream are also encoded in the third, second and first substreams. As Marc said, it's a matter of semantics. Each of those substreams should contain objects BUT lossless packing algorithms rely on redundancy to save storage space, so I doubt the entire bitstream contains multiple copies of the same bits.


----------



## priitv8

FilmMixer said:


> **** is because DD+ has some things it does differently than TrueHD (called JOC, or joint object coding) but the end result and fundamentals of the two codecs are the same.


Do you mean, that the whole JOC encoding scheme is only used in DD+ and not in TrueHD streams?
It looks like there is no reason to hope for a TrueHD to DD+ Atmos conveter any time soon :/


----------



## dfa973

sdurani said:


> The TrueHD bitstream is made up of multiple substreams. The first substream contains a 2-channel version of the entire soundtrack. The second substream contains the data and instructions to needed convert it into a 5.1 version. The third substream contains the info needed to convert it to a 7.1 track. If this is an Atmos mix, then the fourth substream contains objects.
> 
> At each step, you have the entire soundtrack (all the sounds, with nothing missing) in various configurations. And because TrrueHD is a lossless codec, then by definition each configuration (2.0, 5.1, 7.1, Atmos) is bit for bit identical to the studio master. Just because you re-arrange those bits doesn't mean you lose any.
> 
> Does that mean that the objects in the fourth substream are also encoded in the third, second and first substreams. As Marc said, it's a matter of semantics. Each of those substreams should contain objects BUT lossless packing algorithms rely on redundancy to save storage space, so I doubt the entire bitstream contains multiple copies of the same bits.


From Dolby itself:



> *Channel Extensions, Downmixing, and Dolby TrueHD*
> One channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”).
> The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.”
> 
> a 7.1 source = 5.1 core downmix + 2.0 downmix extension B + 3.1 extension A
> 
> *So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.*
> *The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations.*
> 
> If a listener desires a stereo presentation, the decoder plays only the two-channel downmix, thereby minimizing DSP resources for the simplest hardware products—a useful idea.
> If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it by rematrixing the reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two-channel extension B substream.
> 
> For Atmos, Dolby expanded the Dolby TrueHD format through the addition of a fourth substream to support playback of Dolby Atmos content. This substream represents a lossless encoded, fully object-based mix.


----------



## FilmMixer

priitv8 said:


> Do you mean, that the whole JOC encoding scheme is only used in DD+ and not in TrueHD streams?
> 
> It looks like there is no reason to hope for a TrueHD to DD+ Atmos conveter any time soon :/



Yes to your first question. 

Why would you need a TrueHD to DD+ converter? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> Does that mean that the objects in the fourth substream are also encoded in the third, second and first substreams. As Marc said, it's a matter of semantics. Each of those substreams should contain objects BUT lossless packing algorithms rely on redundancy to save storage space, so I doubt the entire bitstream contains multiple copies of the same bits.



I think we could say “could contain the same audible frequency content” rather than “should contain objects...”

The three “original” substreams will/must contain ALL of the audible content contained in the 5.1/7.1 down mix of the complete Atmos soundtrack. 

If an object were a 1k steady state sine wave, it still represents a unique digital 24 bit word vs. the complete mix because the fold down has other sounds in it at any given point. So while there may indeed be some similarities, I would expect in almost every case there is little redundancy between the objects and beds in terms of identical digital words... 

I think that is evidenced by the only 20-30% increase in payload size observed in Atmos encodes. 

That being said, I am not well versed in MLP or lossless encoding fundamentals and efficiencies in general. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have all the Dolby demo discs on a USB and I have noticed that when I play them through my Xbox X via the VLC app there is absolutly no audio coming from my rear heights. It essentially is making my 5.1.4 system like a 5.1.2. This is the case on all the demos. The front heights and all the other speakers work just fine and Dolby atmos shows on the NAD. I have isolated this to the Xbox X and/or the VLC. 

1. The same USB demos play on ALL the speakers (all 4 heights) when played through my NVIDIA shield. 

2. Blu rays that are atmos play on all the speakers as well on the same XBOX X. 

The reason I don’t just play it all on the Shield is because the shield doesn’t properly display any of the titles or icon pics of the USB files and also the XBOX for some reason is louder/more dynamic sound with the demos even though they don’t include the rear height pair. (I know it doesn’t seem it should be a different sound but I confirmed through dozens of back and fourth between the devices back to back with different files)

Does anyone know why this would be the case (no sound from rear heights on VLC app) or how to fix and also why the Xbox plays louder/more dynamic bass etc then the shield from the same USB with the same volume on receiver?

I notice also that some other x box apps will play all 4 atmos speakers but there is a lip sync issue with them so it seems like VLC (and now Kodi as well) DO NOT play all atmos speakers (not the rear heights)...


----------



## batpig

Sound Shark said:


> I have a pair of in ceiling speakers that have the drivers angled at 20°. To have them pointing down at the main listening point they would be placed almost directly above the front speakers, is this placement likely to cause any issues in delivering atmos sound. I will be using one pair of front in ceiling speakers and the distance from ceiling to seating is 4Mtrs.


My mental geometry is not following you. It seems highly unlikely to me that a 20 degree aiming angle would place the ceiling speakers directly above the front speakers.

So it's 4m from the listener ears straight up to the ceiling? 20 degrees forward would place the ceiling speakers about 1.5m ahead of the listening position. Are you really in an extremely tall but short room where it's 4m up from your ears to the ceiling but only 1.5-2m from your ears to the front speakers?

I would also point out that you can utilize the driver angle to "toe in" the speakers which can lessen the proximity issue. You don't mention whether you are doing 2 or 4 overheads, but assuming it's just 2, you could rotate the speakers so they are angled in and across the seating area which would allow you to place them a bit closer to directly overhead while still aiming the sound down at the listening area. This will improve the audio for the person sitting on the opposite side from the speaker as they will be more on-axis.


----------



## priitv8

FilmMixer said:


> Yes to your first question.


Good to know. So in TrueHD, the object essences are simply encoded in dedicated 4th substream? I wonder if OAMD is also different between the 2 formats?


FilmMixer said:


> Why would you need a TrueHD to DD+ converter?


To create a version, playable on appleTV 4k (retaining Atmos), for example. For the lazy ones 
But with these latest Dolby formats, it is a no-go on both picture and sound fronts, it seems.


----------



## richlife

FilmMixer said:


> It’s guess it becomes a bit of a matter of semantics.... the short answer is a qualified “yes.”
> 
> The 5.1 or 7.1 encode is a complete soundtrack, which is created by taking the bed channels, rendering (downmixing to 5.1/7.1) the objects and combining/mixing them together.
> 
> The Atmos payload contains the complete soundtrack (compete in the sense that it contains of all the audio for the soundtrack) and a separate extension package which consists of mono audio objects**** alongside a data package of metadata (this data contains x,y,z co-ordinates, objects size parameter (spread), snap to channel flags, etc..). Upon decoding these objects are mathematically (audibly) subtracted out of the complete 5.1/7.1 base and rendered in real time...
> 
> **** is because DD+ has some things it does differently than TrueHD (called JOC, or joint object coding) but the end result and fundamentals of the two codecs are the same.


As a very interested, semi-educated and experienced HT owner, I just want to thank you (and frankly, all those who contribute to this discussion) for the time and information you're sharing. It's fascinating though I mostly get only the concepts not all the tech detail. Very much appreciated FilmMixer, @sdurani, @batpig, @Dan Hitchman and others who have shared their knowledge and expertise. The casual folks who enjoy our systems and struggle to understand (like me), really appreciate you.


----------



## dfa973

FilmMixer said:


> It’s guess it becomes a bit of a matter of semantics.... the short answer is a qualified “yes.”
> 
> The 5.1 or 7.1 encode is a complete soundtrack, which is created by taking the bed channels, rendering (downmixing to 5.1/7.1) the objects and combining/mixing them together.
> 
> The Atmos payload contains the complete soundtrack (compete in the sense that it contains of all the audio for the soundtrack) and a separate extension package which consists of mono audio objects**** alongside a data package of metadata (this data contains x,y,z co-ordinates, objects size parameter (spread), snap to channel flags, etc..). Upon decoding these objects are mathematically (audibly) subtracted out of the complete 5.1/7.1 base and rendered in real time...
> 
> **** is because DD+ has some things it does differently than TrueHD (called JOC, or joint object coding) but the end result and fundamentals of the two codecs are the same.


So, a diagram representing all this process should look like this (attached), no?

(basically, the whole scope of this layering audio upon another layer, and another layer, etc is to cater for many types of devices so each one can get some audio with minimal processing - the most processing power needs are when the device is Atmos compatible)


----------



## priitv8

dfa973 said:


> So, a diagram representing all this process should look like this (attached), no?


Where did you find this picture? Is there anywhere a spec I could read about inner workings of TrueHD format and Atmos transport? Would be very interesting to see.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> I have all the Dolby demo discs on a USB and I have noticed that when I play them through my Xbox X via the VLC app there is absolutly no audio coming from my rear heights. It essentially is making my 5.1.4 system like a 5.1.2. This is the case on all the demos. The front heights and all the other speakers work just fine and Dolby atmos shows on the NAD. I have isolated this to the Xbox X and/or the VLC.
> 
> 1. The same USB demos play on ALL the speakers (all 4 heights) when played through my NVIDIA shield.
> 
> 2. Blu rays that are atmos play on all the speakers as well on the same XBOX X.
> 
> The reason I don’t just play it all on the Shield is because the shield doesn’t properly display any of the titles or icon pics of the USB files and also the XBOX for some reason is louder/more dynamic sound with the demos even though they don’t include the rear height pair. (I know it doesn’t seem it should be a different sound but I confirmed through dozens of back and fourth between the devices back to back with different files)
> 
> Does anyone know why this would be the case (no sound from rear heights on VLC app) or how to fix and also why the Xbox plays louder/more dynamic bass etc then the shield from the same USB with the same volume on receiver?
> 
> I notice also that some other x box apps will play all 4 atmos speakers but there is a lip sync issue with them so it seems like VLC (and now Kodi as well) DO NOT play all atmos speakers (not the rear heights)...


Bump


----------



## batpig

Plot twist! Time to reassess assumptions about Disney/Marvel. 

I haven’t yet gotten Captain Marvel but most reports are that the Atmos mix is MUCH better in terms of volume, bass and dynamics than prior MCU offerings. 

But I did just get a copy of the recent 4K re-release of Captain America Civil War. Just for kicks, I decided to solo the wides on my 9.1.4 setup but with low expectations.

Lo and behold! It is NOT a 7.1.4 fixed mix!

There is FREQUENT use of the wides for the musical score. They are playing music nearly *constantly* during action scenes and when the score swells during transitions on other scenes. 

And there is occasional fully discrete object panning through the wides. 

In the Bucky vs Black Panther fight on the roof, the circling helicopter passes through the wides multiple times, as do some swish sounds from Falcon strafing by. And when War Machine zooms in at the end. 

In the big airport fight, the wides are used for several Spider-Man web shots, Cap’s shield flying back, and for multiple panning flight effects like Iron Man or War Machine zooming by or misiles whizzing past. 

Still not the most aggressive objects-flying-around Atmos mix and 95% of what’s in the wides seems to be just expanding the musical score, but Disney mixes seem to generally be front heavy by design, and frankly hearing ANYTHING from the wides from Disney/Marvel is a win. 

Now I will be checking some of these MCU releases more carefully. This is a very pleasant series of developments!


----------



## dfa973

priitv8 said:


> Where did you find this picture?


That diagram was made by me in Visio, based on this thread discussion and some other Dolby docs.



priitv8 said:


> Is there anywhere a spec I could read about inner workings of TrueHD format and Atmos transport? Would be very interesting to see.


TrueHD is still under patent (DD patent expired in Nov 2017) so the "inner workings" are not public.
You may want to search on Google for these PDFs:

Dolby Atmos Immersive Audio From the Cinema to the Home Dolby_Dec2017
Dolby Broadcast Fundamentals 2014
Dolby_Atmos_Production_Suite_guide
Dolby-Atmos-Cinema-Specifications
dolby-atmos-for-sound-bar-applications
dolby-atmos-for-the-home-theater
dolby-atmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines

Most of them are on the Dolby website.


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> I have all the Dolby demo discs on a USB and I have noticed that when I play them through my Xbox X via the VLC app there is absolutly no audio coming from my rear heights.


Your issue may come from the NAD receiver - I don't know how NAD works, but most receivers have this kind of feature - they keep configurations per input *and* per format.
So the receiver may select a certain audio configuration for a certain input and even for the same input, can select a certain audio configuration for a certain audio format.
You may want to check your NAD manual for this and you can try to save your config, reset to factory settings and try again to see if everything plays as you want.


----------



## Chirosamsung

dfa973 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have all the Dolby demo discs on a USB and I have noticed that when I play them through my Xbox X via the VLC app there is absolutly no audio coming from my rear heights.
> 
> 
> 
> Your issue may come from the NAD receiver - I don't know how NAD works, but most receivers have this kind of feature - they keep configurations per input *and* per format.
> So the receiver may select a certain audio configuration for a certain input and even for the same input, can select a certain audio configuration for a certain audio format.
> You may want to check your NAD manual for this and you can try to save your config, reset to factory settings and try again to see if everything plays as you want.
Click to expand...

If it was the NAD receiver then why would the Xbox play full atmos to all 4 heights on a blu ray disc or with BluOS music streaming and why would the same USB with the demos play properly through the NVIDIA shield?

All these are hooked up to the NAD...

Again, the issue seems to be the demos not playing properly through the Xbox VLC app by USB...

Anyone have experience with this?

Also, why same demo clips play louder through Xbox then Shield at same NAD volume?

More important though, why the back two heights are completely OFF when same tracks played by USB on Xbox vs Shield where they play all heights


----------



## deano86

Chirosamsung said:


> If it was the NAD receiver then why would the Xbox play full atmos to all 4 heights on a blu ray disc or with BluOS music streaming and why would the same USB with the demos play properly through the NVIDIA shield?
> 
> All these are hooked up to the NAD...
> 
> Again, the issue seems to be the demos not playing properly through the Xbox VLC app by USB...
> 
> Anyone have experience with this?
> 
> Also, why same demo clips play louder through Xbox then Shield at same NAD volume?
> 
> More important though, why the back two heights are completely OFF when same tracks played by USB on Xbox vs Shield where they play all heights


Perhaps you would have better luck posting this on an Xbox thread as that is where your issue seems to be...


----------



## Chirosamsung

deano86 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was the NAD receiver then why would the Xbox play full atmos to all 4 heights on a blu ray disc or with BluOS music streaming and why would the same USB with the demos play properly through the NVIDIA shield?
> 
> All these are hooked up to the NAD...
> 
> Again, the issue seems to be the demos not playing properly through the Xbox VLC app by USB...
> 
> Anyone have experience with this?
> 
> Also, why same demo clips play louder through Xbox then Shield at same NAD volume?
> 
> More important though, why the back two heights are completely OFF when same tracks played by USB on Xbox vs Shield where they play all heights
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you would have better luck posting this on an Xbox thread as that is where your issue seems to be...
Click to expand...

I did try that but no response. Just wanted to know since it’s also an atmos related question and hope some people may have come across. No worries if not.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Captain Marvel Atmos Track*

Disappointed to report that after purchasing Captain Marvel in the hopes that Marvel was making strides towards improving the dynamic sound of their atmos mixes that the mix is still very bland and lifeless. 

In fact, since I just ran a recalibration of DIRAC lately I had to wonder if I did something in correctly. So I popped in another 4k blu ray-Mad Max Fury Road and it was as if I was listening to an entirely different system. Full of dynamic sound

Oh well, maybe by Avengers End Game...


----------



## lax01

Chirosamsung said:


> Oh well, maybe by Avengers End Game...


NOT getting my hopes up


----------



## audiofan1

Chirosamsung said:


> Disappointed to report that after purchasing Captain Marvel in the hopes that Marvel was making strides towards improving the dynamic sound of their atmos mixes that the mix is still very bland and lifeless.
> 
> In fact, since I just ran a recalibration of DIRAC lately I had to wonder if I did something in correctly. So I popped in another 4k blu ray-Mad Max Fury Road and it was as if I was listening to an entirely different system. Full of dynamic sound
> 
> Oh well, maybe by Avengers End Game...


Umm! That wasn't my experience! In fact the mix ,level and dynamics were very good


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> If it was the NAD receiver then why would the Xbox play full atmos to all 4 heights on a blu ray disc or with BluOS music streaming and why would the same USB with the demos play properly through the NVIDIA shield?


As I wrote above.
Again.
On my Denon I have a feature (Quick Select Plus) that recalls settings such as the *input source, volume level and sound mode* so those settings are *automatically *applied.

Also, the Denon has another feature, called Personal memory plus function:

_*The most recently used settings* (input mode, HDMI output mode, sound mode, tone control, channel level, MultEQ® XT32, Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume, Restorer and audio delay, etc.) *are saved for each input source.* _

You can mess things with these settings and get some nasty surprises when you play something that should sound different than what you knew...

*Did you check your NAD for this case?
Does your NAD have these features?
Can these features be turned off/disabled/reset?
*


----------



## Chirosamsung

dfa973 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was the NAD receiver then why would the Xbox play full atmos to all 4 heights on a blu ray disc or with BluOS music streaming and why would the same USB with the demos play properly through the NVIDIA shield?
> 
> 
> 
> As I wrote above.
> Again.
> On my Denon I have a feature (Quick Select Plus) that recalls settings such as the *input source, volume level and sound mode* so those settings are *automatically *applied.
> 
> Also, the Denon has another feature, called Personal memory plus function:
> 
> _*The most recently used settings* (input mode, HDMI output mode, sound mode, tone control, channel level, MultEQ®️ XT32, Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume, Restorer and audio delay, etc.) *are saved for each input source.* _
> 
> You can mess things with these settings and get some nasty surprises when you play something that should sound different than what you knew...
> 
> *Did you check your NAD for this case?
> Does your NAD have these features?
> Can these features be turned off/disabled/reset?
> *
Click to expand...

I totally get what you are saying-I really do about the input sources being able to change BUT the reason I know that this isn’t that either is because if I download a couple other apps from the Xbox store that are designed to play MKV files from a USB those other programs DO ALLOW the Dolby atmos demo to play sounds to all ceiling height speakers (unfortunately there was a large lip sync issue with those apps)-so I KNOW it CAN play to al height channels ON THAT Input. However, when I use the VLC app or the kodi app on the same input (Xbox X through USB) it DOESNT play to the rear height channels at all.

Does this make sense to you?


----------



## Chirosamsung

audiofan1 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disappointed to report that after purchasing Captain Marvel in the hopes that Marvel was making strides towards improving the dynamic sound of their atmos mixes that the mix is still very bland and lifeless.
> 
> In fact, since I just ran a recalibration of DIRAC lately I had to wonder if I did something in correctly. So I popped in another 4k blu ray-Mad Max Fury Road and it was as if I was listening to an entirely different system. Full of dynamic sound
> 
> Oh well, maybe by Avengers End Game...
> 
> 
> 
> Umm! That wasn't my experience! In fact the mix ,level and dynamics were very good/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
Click to expand...

Did you play any other Dolby atmos disc to compare it to as I did? They don’t sound anything like one another. Maybe another can chime in...


----------



## dschulz

*More Atmos Music Coming*

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-dolby-atmos-music-and-how-to-get-it/

"Dolby says it has created an entirely new recording format for its popular Dolby Atmos 3D-sound format, called Dolby Atmos Music, which goes way beyond two-channel stereo. You may already be aware of Dolby Atmos for movies and TV shows — if not, we have a great explainer and a detailed how-to guide — but Dolby Atmos Music is its own beast. Here’s the lowdown on could might become a big part of recorded music’s next big leap forward."


----------



## audiofan1

Chirosamsung said:


> Did you play any other Dolby atmos disc to compare it to as I did? They don’t sound anything like one another. Maybe another can chime in...


No need to compare as no two disc are the same , I judge each on its own merits. I'm fully aware of the Disney releases that suffer low level and dynamics and this isn't one of them. Disc like Mad Max fury road are a rare breed and just about any disc would come away sounding compressed and lifeless but same could be said for Blade runner 2049 if you watched it afterwards as well


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-dolby-atmos-music-and-how-to-get-it/
> 
> "Dolby says it has created an entirely new recording format for its popular Dolby Atmos 3D-sound format, called Dolby Atmos Music, which goes way beyond two-channel stereo. You may already be aware of Dolby Atmos for movies and TV shows — if not, we have a great explainer and a detailed how-to guide — but Dolby Atmos Music is its own beast. Here’s the lowdown on could might become a big part of recorded music’s next big leap forward."


It won't become a thing until the cost to mix, monitor and master in Atmos, and author to TrueHD lossless comes way down.

Without considering speaker, amps, acoustic treatments, and studio space costs, the price of admission for Pro Tools HD, Dolby Atmos Production Suite, mastering software, and Blu-ray disc authoring software... let alone Dolby's RMU hardware for larger system rendering and monitoring ... it's downright prohibitive for anyone except the biggest recording studios.

Dolby needs to rethink their strategy, so Atmos and TrueHD compression becomes as ubiquitous as standard PCM audio and FLAC compression.


----------



## gwsat

audiofan1 said:


> No need to compare as no two disc are the same , I judge each on its own merits. I'm fully aware of the Disney releases that suffer low level and dynamics and this isn't one of them. Disc like Mad Max fury road are a rare breed and just about any disc would come away sounding compressed and lifeless but same could be said for Blade runner 2049 if you watched it afterwards as well


I agree with you on both counts. First, that the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on the _Captain Marvel_ 4K disk is excellent. Second, that demonstration quality Atmos soundtracks, such as those in _Mad Max: Fury Road_ and _Blade Runner_ sound better than other Atmos soundtracks. Although the _Captain Marvel_ soundtrack gave me a lot of pleasure, it isn't demonstration quality, in a class with the very best soundtracks. Compared to just about any other Marvel soundtrack I can think of, though, the _Captain Marvel_ one is clearly the best.


----------



## usc1995

Chirosamsung said:


> I totally get what you are saying-I really do about the input sources being able to change BUT the reason I know that this isn’t that either is because if I download a couple other apps from the Xbox store that are designed to play MKV files from a USB those other programs DO ALLOW the Dolby atmos demo to play sounds to all ceiling height speakers (unfortunately there was a large lip sync issue with those apps)-so I KNOW it CAN play to al height channels ON THAT Input. However, when I use the VLC app or the kodi app on the same input (Xbox X through USB) it DOESNT play to the rear height channels at all.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?




Unless something has changed VERY recently the only app on the Xbox that can bitstream is the Blu-ray player app. Atmos from Netflix, Amazon Prime and Vudu is decoded internally by the Xbox and output in an Atmos format. Unfortunately all the sounds -Atmos or not- are also output in that same format which means you cannot upmix anything to DSU or Neural X because your receiver will see it as Atmos that doesn’t allow for up mixing. Apps like VLC and Kodi that would normally just bitstream your Atmos soundtrack in your MKVs cannot do it so they will never be able to output anything more than multichannel PCM,which does not include the Atmos metadata, unless the Xbox is updated to change how it handles soundtracks. It is a very frustrating limitation of the Xbox which maintains the need for more than one device for Atmos playback in our theaters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

Here is an interesting article talking about how the Xbox is getting an upmixing option to...Dolby Atmos? This might explain why you get some content in your top front speakers while playing back content with VLC... https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...g-another-game-changing-feature/#f37d8d779011


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-dolby-atmos-music-and-how-to-get-it/
> 
> 
> 
> "Dolby says it has created an entirely new recording format for its popular Dolby Atmos 3D-sound format, called Dolby Atmos Music, which goes way beyond two-channel stereo. You may already be aware of Dolby Atmos for movies and TV shows — if not, we have a great explainer and a detailed how-to guide — but Dolby Atmos Music is its own beast. Here’s the lowdown on could might become a big part of recorded music’s next big leap forward."




It’s isn’t really it’s own beast. 

Not sure this is even news at all except they’re now calling music only content, well, Dolby Atmos Music with a capital M. 


I do know they are hard at work producing music projects in Atmos, and was hoping the article would shed some light on newer releases... but alas, a one year old INXS disc was the only title mentioned... and also that they are indeed doing Atmos installs for a small number of live venues, ie night clubs. 

These links below point to some content and another nebulous marketing release (both from the cited article...)

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-music-titles.html

https://www.universalmusic.com/dolby-atmos-music-experience-music-like-never-before/


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-dolby-atmos-music-and-how-to-get-it/
> 
> "Dolby says it has created an entirely new recording format for its popular Dolby Atmos 3D-sound format, called Dolby Atmos Music, which goes way beyond two-channel stereo. You may already be aware of Dolby Atmos for movies and TV shows — if not, we have a great explainer and a detailed how-to guide — but Dolby Atmos Music is its own beast. Here’s the lowdown on could might become a big part of recorded music’s next big leap forward."



From reading the article, and the mention of the INXS as Atmos Music when it's already available on BluRay with an Atmos track, it would seem "Dolby Atmos Music" is just a marketing nameplate for what already exists, but might be labeled something different in the future. The REM release, Luca Terrulli, Imagine Dragons, Kraftwerk etc. are already out in Atmos (as is that streaming-only content from China),

Whatever Dolby Atmos Music might be, if/when it is available for consumers, it's a welcome indicator they putting some emphasis on more than movies.


----------



## bobbino421

My Klipsch RP-500SA’s are working fine with my vaulted ceiling! Happy with the performance!


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> It’s isn’t really it’s own beast.
> 
> Not sure this is even news at all except they’re now calling music only content, well, Dolby Atmos Music with a capital M.





sdrucker said:


> From reading the article, and the mention of the INXS as Atmos Music when it's already available on BluRay with an Atmos track, it would seem "Dolby Atmos Music" is just a marketing nameplate for what already exists, but might be labeled something different in the future. The REM release, Luca Terrulli, Imagine Dragons, Kraftwerk etc. are already out in Atmos (as is that streaming-only content from China),


My attention was drawn by the reference to a new music *recording* format, which implies there may also be an emphasis on 3-D microphones (as used in some of the great Auro-3D 9.1 music recordings), or at least some microphone placement techniques to maximize the recorded stems for Atmos mixing. But as you both note, real details are scant.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> My attention was drawn by the reference to a new music *recording* format, which implies there may also be an emphasis on 3-D microphones (as used in some of the great Auro-3D 9.1 music recordings), or at least some microphone placement techniques to maximize the recorded stems for Atmos mixing. But as you both note, real details are scant.


Not that I know, but while unlikely, is it possible that some of those new mixes designed for dance clubs (i.e. Ministry of Sound in London or Sound Bar here in Chicago) might be using the new technology in the multi-track recording process?


----------



## KapaaIan

So in a world where you're doing new drywall and a new ceiling, if you're configuring for "future proofed" .10 Atmos, would the ideal actually be 10 identical in ceiling speakers with the "heights" mounted in the ceiling but pointed (given an aimable/angled design) or mounted into the top of the wall? Or would a better option be 6 in ceiling speakers, and 2 pairs of "wedge" shaped ones like RP-500SAs or Prime Elevations?

The official dolby document seems to imply the wall mounted heights are the way to go, but much of the chatter seems to be that front and rear heights aren't really part of the Atmos spec.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdrucker said:


> Not that I know, but while unlikely, is it possible that some of those new mixes designed for dance clubs (i.e. Ministry of Sound in London or Sound Bar here in Chicago) might be using the new technology in the multi-track recording process?



My understanding is that the club setups are for mixing live in the format. 

There is nothing stopping a producer or artist in using any of the techniques or equipment like the setups Dan is taking about. 

From a practical standpoint, however, the Auro recording trees are much more suited to 5.1 base plus 5.1 height layers. A decidedly different type of setup than Atmos with LCR heights. But I suspect using it for in studio ambience capture would be cool


----------



## Chirosamsung

gwsat said:


> audiofan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to compare as no two disc are the same , I judge each on its own merits. I'm fully aware of the Disney releases that suffer low level and dynamics and this isn't one of them. Disc like Mad Max fury road are a rare breed and just about any disc would come away sounding compressed and lifeless but same could be said for Blade runner 2049 if you watched it afterwards as well/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on both counts. First, that the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on the _Captain Marvel_ 4K disk is excellent. Second, that demonstration quality Atmos soundtracks, such as those in _Mad Max: Fury Road_ and _Blade Runner_ sound better than other Atmos soundtracks. Although the _Captain Marvel_ soundtrack gave me a lot of pleasure, it isn't demonstration quality, in a class with the very best soundtracks. Compared to just about any other Marvel soundtrack I can think of, though, the _Captain Marvel_ one is clearly the best.
Click to expand...

For reference atmos do you mean the original Blade Runner or 2049 or both?

Btw, watched the whole captain marvel-agree it is MUCH better then most marvel atmos so far


----------



## usc1995

Chirosamsung said:


> For reference atmos do you mean the original Blade Runner or 2049 or both?
> 
> Btw, watched the whole captain marvel-agree it is MUCH better then most marvel atmos so far




Blade Runner The Final Cut on UHD and 2049 are both reference Atmos.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## priitv8

Thank you! Nicely done diagram! Even if just a best guess.


dfa973 said:


> TrueHD is still under patent (DD patent expired in Nov 2017) so the "inner workings" are not public.
> You may want to search on Google for these PDFs:


I have seen them. They are marketing material at best, because they don’t reveal any technical details of the encoding or transport format.
The most technical I've seen is the [email protected] document, but it also does not have any relation to actual transport stream.


----------



## gwsat

Chirosamsung said:


> For reference atmos do you mean the original Blade Runner or 2049 or both?
> 
> Btw, watched the whole captain marvel-agree it is MUCH better then most marvel atmos so far


I was actually trying to talk about _Blade Runner 2049_ but didn't say it. That said, though, the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack for the original _Blade Runner_ is wonderful too.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> gwsat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> audiofan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to compare as no two disc are the same , I judge each on its own merits. I'm fully aware of the Disney releases that suffer low level and dynamics and this isn't one of them. Disc like Mad Max fury road are a rare breed and just about any disc would come away sounding compressed and lifeless but same could be said for Blade runner 2049 if you watched it afterwards as well/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on both counts. First, that the TrueHD Atmos soundtrack on the _Captain Marvel_ 4K disk is excellent. Second, that demonstration quality Atmos soundtracks, such as those in _Mad Max: Fury Road_ and _Blade Runner_ sound better than other Atmos soundtracks. Although the _Captain Marvel_ soundtrack gave me a lot of pleasure, it isn't demonstration quality, in a class with the very best soundtracks. Compared to just about any other Marvel soundtrack I can think of, though, the _Captain Marvel_ one is clearly the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For reference atmos do you mean the original Blade Runner or 2049 or both?
> 
> Btw, watched the whole captain marvel-agree it is MUCH better then most marvel atmos so far
Click to expand...

Would also add Spider-Man into the Spiderverse to the absolute best of the best atmos demo list


----------



## Matt L

dschulz said:


> https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-dolby-atmos-music-and-how-to-get-it/
> 
> "Dolby says it has created an entirely new recording format for its popular Dolby Atmos 3D-sound format, called Dolby Atmos Music, which goes way beyond two-channel stereo. You may already be aware of Dolby Atmos for movies and TV shows — if not, we have a great explainer and a detailed how-to guide — but Dolby Atmos Music is its own beast. Here’s the lowdown on could might become a big part of recorded music’s next big leap forward."


Yeah, I created a separate thread for that the other day. Seems like it deserves it's own thread....


----------



## dschulz

Matt L said:


> Yeah, I created a separate thread for that the other day. Seems like it deserves it's own thread....


Subscribed, thanks.


----------



## sdrucker

Matt L said:


> Yeah, I created a separate thread for that the other day. Seems like it deserves it's own thread....


Is that on AVS? I see a few Atmos music related threads on the Surround Music Formats sub-forum, but they haven't had activity in the past week. Are you referring to those?


----------



## LNEWoLF

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...073442-official-dolby-atmos-music-thread.html


----------



## sdrucker

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...073442-official-dolby-atmos-music-thread.html


Hidden in plain sight. Thanks!


----------



## LNEWoLF

sdrucker said:


> Hidden in plain sight. Thanks!


Your welcome. My eyes have played tricks on ME also. 

Eat more carrots


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> Would also add Spider-Man into the Spiderverse to the absolute best of the best atmos demo list


Demo worthy mix, but no Wides.


----------



## usc1995

Does anyone know if there is any Atmos content on Amazon Prime other than Jack Ryan? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything. thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

KapaaIan said:


> So in a world where you're doing new drywall and a new ceiling, if you're configuring for "future proofed" .10 Atmos, would the ideal actually be 10 identical in ceiling speakers with the "heights" mounted in the ceiling but pointed (given an aimable/angled design) or mounted into the top of the wall? Or would a better option be 6 in ceiling speakers, and 2 pairs of "wedge" shaped ones like RP-500SAs or Prime Elevations?


10 of the same speaker for consistency.


----------



## niterida

I have just about finished my theatre setup and after hearing the difference 3 identical LCR speakers made I decided to test having all 11 identical speakers in my 7.x.4 setup.


OMG !! what a difference that has made - the best way I can describe it is absolutely seamless and all-enveloping. It now sounds like the sound is just "there" and "coming from all around" rather than being easy to identify which speaker the sound is coming from. 


Highly recommend it if you can do it.


And for the record my speakers are early 90's Mordaunt Short MS3.20 for the fronts and surrounds and MS3.10 (same driver and tweeter in a slightly shorter enclosure) for the rear surrounds and heights. These are only 4 1/2" drivers in small boxes so it made it easier to fit them all. But with my multiple subs they actually sounded better then my large MS towers and standmounts.


----------



## Matt L

I've lived with my 4 ceiling speakers for a week or two now and I am totally amazed. Even with non Atmos content the AVR extracts enough info to get sounds where they should be. I was watching a show with people on the beach and the dialog was up front, but all the ocean sounds were in the back surrounding me as they should have been. Tonight I was watching something and someone knocked on a door in the film and I about jumped because it appeared to actually come from a spot in my room! It was properly positioned to the left of the screen as it was in the film.

I'm using some moderate price Yamaha 6" speakers with adjustable tweeters from Amazon at $90/pair and I do not find them lacking. I'm glad I did not hold out for more expensive speakers as was discussed here earlier. Sure, if your budget allows go for the good stuff, but if you want to get a good basic system up and running I see no downside to paying a little less. At some point you can always upgrade, but you cannot make up for the lost time not having Atmos.


----------



## chi_guy50

Matt L said:


> I've lived with my 4 ceiling speakers for a week or two now and I am totally amazed. Even with non Atmos content the AVR extracts enough info to get sounds where they should be. I was watching a show with people on the beach and the dialog was up front, but all the ocean sounds were in the back surrounding me as they should have been. Tonight I was watching something and someone knocked on a door in the film and I about jumped because it appeared to actually come from a spot in my room! It was properly positioned to the left of the screen as it was in the film.
> 
> I'm using some moderate price Yamaha 6" speakers with adjustable tweeters from Amazon at $90/pair and I do not find them lacking. I'm glad I did not hold out for more expensive speakers as was discussed here earlier. Sure, if your budget allows go for the good stuff, but if you want to get a good basic system up and running I see no downside to paying a little less. At some point you can always upgrade, but you cannot make up for the lost time not having Atmos.



Congratulations on your success; good to hear that it worked out so well for you on the first stab and that your research paid off handsomely.

However, I do have one caveat to your above advice: When it comes to in-ceiling speakers, upgrading can be problematic due to the need to cut commensurately sized holes in the ceiling of what, for some of us, is a multi-purpose room. For this reason alone, you may want to get an in-ceiling speaker that will last you through follow-on upgrade cycles. Measure twice, cut once, as it were.


----------



## gene4ht

Matt L said:


> I've lived with my 4 ceiling speakers for a week or two now and I am totally amazed. Even with non Atmos content the AVR extracts enough info to get sounds where they should be. I was watching a show with people on the beach and the dialog was up front, but all the ocean sounds were in the back surrounding me as they should have been. Tonight I was watching something and someone knocked on a door in the film and I about jumped because it appeared to actually come from a spot in my room! It was properly positioned to the left of the screen as it was in the film.
> 
> *I'm using some moderate price Yamaha 6" speakers with adjustable tweeters from Amazon at $90/pair and I do not find them lacking.* *I'm glad I did not hold out for more expensive speakers as was discussed here earlier.* Sure, if your budget allows go for the good stuff, but if you want to get a good basic system up and running I see no downside to paying a little less. At some point you can always upgrade, but you cannot make up for the lost time not having Atmos.


My experience parallels yours exactly and runs counter intuitive to much of the advice provided in these threads. Old school mantra's have us looking for speakers that match our mains in terms of FR, timbre, quality, costs, etc. In my experience over the past 2-3 years, Atmos is just not that demanding. With the exception of perhaps a good wide dispersion speaker, the speaker itself is just not than important. More important are good/proper speaker location relative to the MLP(s) and in some situations the ability to "aim" the woofer/tweeter. I've found that the adage "It's hard to get Atmos wrong!" holds true. The following link is my recent post in response to a question in a different thread but applies here as well. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1923.html#post57871854


----------



## pasender91

@FilmMixer,

First of all a big THANK YOU for all your very valuable interventions 

Now coming to a precise but important question related to the way home Atmos mixes are built.
We know the 9.1 (7.1.2) cinema bed is converted to 7.1 on Bluray so it can be played on non-Atmos receivers. 
The Top .2 bed gets converted into 2 fixed objects at coordinates Y=0.5 (surround level on main room axis), this is information we can get from the Dolby documentation.
But what the documentation does not say is the Z coordinate for those 2 "Top bed objects". This is key because if Z=0 it means the top bed goes into surrounds while if Z=1 it means it would go into the Top Middle position !!! (rendered by Top middle if present, else rendered by other Top or Height speakers)
Can you give us the default Z that it used, if you know it ??
Thanks


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> This is key because if Z=0 it means the top bed goes into surrounds...


Why would objects intended for the height layer be encoded to render to the base layer?


----------



## sdurani

KapaaIan said:


> if you're configuring for "future proofed" .10 Atmos


Considering how some Atmos soundtracks are mixed, you'd be better off doing a .8 or .4 overhead configuration and not including Top Middles.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Considering how some Atmos soundtracks are mixed, you'd be better off doing a .8 or .4 overhead configuration and not including Top Middles.



I wonder how the home Atmos renderer would behave with a .8 overhead configuration considering those particular odd-ball mixes.


----------



## FilmMixer

usc1995 said:


> Does anyone know if there is any Atmos content on Amazon Prime other than Jack Ryan? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything. thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




There will be on 8/30 once I finish mixing the project I’m on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

pasender91 said:


> @FilmMixer,
> 
> 
> 
> First of all a big THANK YOU for all your very valuable interventions
> 
> 
> 
> Now coming to a precise but important question related to the way home Atmos mixes are built.
> 
> We know the 9.1 (7.1.2) cinema bed is converted to 7.1 on Bluray so it can be played on non-Atmos receivers.
> 
> The Top .2 bed gets converted into 2 fixed objects at coordinates Y=0.5 (surround level on main room axis), this is information we can get from the Dolby documentation.
> 
> But what the documentation does not say is the Z coordinate for those 2 "Top bed objects". This is key because if Z=0 it means the top bed goes into surrounds while if Z=1 it means it would go into the Top Middle position !!! (rendered by Top middle if present, else rendered by other Top or Height speakers)
> 
> Can you give us the default Z that it used, if you know it ??
> 
> Thanks




My understanding is that it comes out of all overheads as intended. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> There will be on 8/30 once I finish mixing the project I’m on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Cool! I look forward to it and hope it gets released on disc too in all its lossless glory. Is Amazon allowing a full blown, scalable Atmos encoding or are they fixed print-outs?


----------



## Johnny14o

This is such an extensive thread and filled with an abundance of information, but I have a 2-part question (that _may_ have been addressed somewhere in all the pages of "goodness"...)


I have the standard "8-ft" ceilings in my dedicated home theater (part-time share with home office) and a second row of seats on a 10" riser. This puts the ceiling at about 3- 3.5' from the second row listeners ears. 



Question 1a:

Is this enough distance from the listeners ears for Dolby Atmos? or does this run the risk of creating "hot spots" of sound due to the proximity?


Question 1b:

What about the "on the wall" type setup where the speakers are mounted where the ceiling and the wall meet. Examples of this would be:
*SVS Prime Elevation:*









*Klipsch RP-500SA*











Or even my JBL Cinema CSB6


----------



## KapaaIan

sdurani said:


> 10 of the same speaker for consistency.


Makes sense and lines up with my thinking. So would the Top Fronts be ideally placed in the far corner in the ceiling, or toward the top of the wall? Or it doesn't matter, just do what makes the most sense for the angle of the speaker and MLP?


----------



## usc1995

FilmMixer said:


> There will be on 8/30 once I finish mixing the project I’m on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




Great! Let us know the title when you can as Amazon does a terrible of indicating what titles have what when try it to find something to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

KapaaIan said:


> So would the Top Fronts be ideally placed in the far corner in the ceiling, or toward the top of the wall? Or it doesn't matter, just do what makes the most sense for the angle of the speaker and MLP?


The latter: whichever makes it easier to aim the speakers towards the listening area. 

BTW, the Top Fronts location is a few feet forward of your listening position. What you're describing is the Front Heights location: the front corner of the ceiling, where the ceiling meets the front wall.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Cool! I look forward to it and hope it gets released on disc too in all its lossless glory. Is Amazon allowing a full blown, scalable Atmos encoding or are they fixed print-outs?



Fixed printouts are not supported by Dolby as a recommended or usable way to deliver streaming content.


----------



## KapaaIan

sdurani said:


> The latter: whichever makes it easier to aim the speakers towards the listening area.
> 
> BTW, the Top Fronts location is a few feet forward of your listening position. What you're describing is the Front Heights location: the front corner of the ceiling, where the ceiling meets the front wall.


Ah. Correct. Long day before vacation. Ok Front and Rear Heights, wall or ceiling doesn't matter but whichever is easier to aim, but in perfect world, match speakers to top FMR.

Thanks!


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wonder how the home Atmos renderer would behave with a .8 overhead configuration considering those particular odd-ball mixes.


No different than you'd expect. 2 overhead channels would split to 4 Top speakers. Objects outside the Tops locations would light up the Heights. Heights would be a nice way to bridge the gap between the floor speakers and Tops. 

The only reason I mentioned avoiding .6 or .10 overhead configuration is to prevent hotspotting in the middle of the ceiling from only 2 overhead speakers playing. I wouldn't be cautioning those two configurations were it not for the type of mixes that have shown up.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Fixed printouts are not supported by Dolby as a recommended or usable way to deliver streaming content.


But they happen. So I can't blame Dan for hoping we get the version that you mixed rather than something pre-rendered.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> My understanding is that it comes out of all overheads as intended.


Perhaps I misunderstood the context, but don't we know that the overhead bed actually does NOT array as intended with "home Atmos" and ends up getting locked to the TM speakers?

(Really from what we know it sounds like NONE of the beds actually array in home Atmos, not just the overhead)


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> But they happen. So I can't blame Dan for hoping we get the version that you mixed rather than something pre-rendered.



I think you can change “they happen” into “it has” and as I’ve been informed only on a very small number of streaming titles. Like a few. 

Now I can’t speak for every title, but in speaking with Dolby there is almost zero benefit to doing this when using DD+ as a transport stream due to the way the codec works. 

Having now been exposed to the tools and workflow for delivering content for streaming, there is no way to pre render content inside the new 3.0 software.... 

It’s is highly discouraged by Dolby to do this. 

I asked


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood the context, but don't we know that the overhead bed actually does NOT array as intended with "home Atmos" and ends up getting locked to the TM speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> (Really from what we know it sounds like NONE of the beds actually array in home Atmos, not just the overhead)


It is spread out.... or not  

I got some clarity.... 

Depending on the configuration. 

9.1.6 top middles. 

7.14 all four. 

The 2 overheads get converted into objects. Different that the surround bed channels. 

You’re right. And I’m right.


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> It is spread out.... or not
> 
> I got some clarity....
> 
> Depending on the configuration.
> 
> 9.1.6 top middles.
> 
> 7.14 all four.
> 
> The 2 overheads get converted into objects. Different that the surround bed channels.
> 
> You’re right. And I’m right.


FWIW, I keep around a .4 preset on the Altitude for movies like Saving Private Ryan, where almost all of the overhead action winds up in the Top Middles short of ear bleed reference listening for the music at the beginning of the film.

If I get around to it, if I wanted to offload my individual sub management to a MiniDSP or Xilica, I'd have four free channels available rather than one. In that case, I might take Sanjay's advice, get rid of my top middles, and redo my height speakers in a .8 format (FH/TF/TR/RH) to capture later-day thinking about 3D audio immersion. I'd be giving up being able to do a virtual T/VOG with dual top middles, but I don't really care about having the ultimate Auro configuration reprouced anyway.


----------



## Matt L

chi_guy50 said:


> Congratulations on your success; good to hear that it worked out so well for you on the first stab and that your research paid off handsomely.
> 
> However, I do have one caveat to your above advice: When it comes to in-ceiling speakers, upgrading can be problematic due to the need to cut commensurately sized holes in the ceiling of what, for some of us, is a multi-purpose room. For this reason alone, you may want to get an in-ceiling speaker that will last you through follow-on upgrade cycles. Measure twice, cut once, as it were.





gene4ht said:


> My experience parallels yours exactly and runs counter intuitive to much of the advice provided in these threads. Old school mantra's have us looking for speakers that match our mains in terms of FR, timbre, quality, costs, etc. In my experience over the past 2-3 years, Atmos is just not that demanding. With the exception of perhaps a good wide dispersion speaker, the speaker itself is just not than important. More important are good/proper speaker location relative to the MLP(s) and in some situations the ability to "aim" the woofer/tweeter. I've found that the adage "It's hard to get Atmos wrong!" holds true. The following link is my recent post in response to a question in a different thread but applies here as well.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1923.html#post57871854


Perhaps coming from my background as a builder/remodeled cutting the holes is the least of the issues. I had my 4 holes done in 15 minutes and in about the same amount of time I could easily enlarge them for 8" speakers with the same roto zip. The biggest issue for me was the routing of the wires, once those are in you can easily do anything in the future with minimal effort. So I see that as a non issue.

As to Gene's comment I agree. My space is not the standard, I have a sloped cathedral ceiling that is why I chose a angled speaker - it pretty much offsets the slope of the ceiling both ways, in effect simulating a "flat" ceiling. Is it perfect - no, but the sound works very well. I definitely feel you should follow Dolby's geometry recommendations, doing the calculations for placement indicated my front speakers were too close together, moving them out really reinforced the sound image, but after controlling whatever variables you can just go for it.


----------



## chi_guy50

usc1995 said:


> Does anyone know if there is any Atmos content on Amazon Prime other than Jack Ryan? I just want to make sure I am not missing anything. thanks!



For some reason (Schadenfreude?) Amazon Prime Video makes searches maddeningly difficult, but the only other streaming title on their service with an Atmos soundtrack that I am aware of is _Suspiria_ (2018). Not that I would recommend that movie (or even the 1977 original version from director Dario Argento) to most viewers. But if you are into bizarre, surreal horror it just might be your cup of tea.

Then again, I could not bring myself to sit through _Jack Ryan_ either, much as I wanted to like it--if only for the PQ/AQ. The story is too cheesy and formulaic (not to mention fantastical) for my taste as a former military intelligence professional.

TL;DR: No, you are not missing anything.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Really from what we know it sounds like NONE of the beds actually array in home Atmos, not just the overhead


There was a mistaken impression initially about arraying happening in the height layer because we've all heard 2 height channels being spread to 4 height speakers. Hearing is believing. But it turns out that the spreading was just because the Top Middle pair wasn't configured, so the 2 height channels simply downmixed to adjacent speakers. Nothing to do with Atmos. No different than how the Centre channel "arrays" to two speakers when there is no Centre speaker configured.


----------



## chi_guy50

Matt L said:


> Perhaps coming from my background as a builder/remodeled cutting the holes is the least of the issues. I had my 4 holes done in 15 minutes and in about the same amount of time I could easily enlarge them for 8" speakers with the same roto zip. The biggest issue for me was the routing of the wires, once those are in you can easily do anything in the future with minimal effort. So I see that as a non issue.


You are fortunate to possess the necessary skill set. But the bigger problem would lie in reducing or relocating said holes (bearing in mind that cut-outs vary in size even for speakers of the same class). Not that it can not be done, but for most of us that would entail potential cosmetic issues endangering the domestic peace.

I know that I struggled for weeks to come to a decision on exactly where to place my top front speakers for that very reason.


----------



## usc1995

chi_guy50 said:


> For some reason (Schadenfreude?) Amazon Prime Video makes searches maddeningly difficult, but the only other streaming title on their service with an Atmos soundtrack that I am aware of is _Suspiria_ (2018). Not that I would recommend that movie (or even the 1977 original version from director Dario Argento) to most viewers. But if you are into bizarre, surreal horror it just might be your cup of tea.
> 
> Then again, I could not bring myself to sit through _Jack Ryan_ either, much as I wanted to like it--if only for the PQ/AQ. The story is too cheesy and formulaic (not to mention fantastical) for my taste as a former military intelligence professional.
> 
> TL;DR: No, you are not missing anything.




Thanks! I swear I tried that title last night when I was looking for new Atmos content via my ATV4K and it didn’t play in Atmos but I wouldn’t have sat through it anyway as that is not my kind of movie. I don’t mind “thrillers” but not horror. Crimson Peak and A Quiet Place were both great at using the immersive audio but if this title is more horror than those I won’t be watching it. Thanks for the info!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> It’s is highly discouraged by Dolby to do this.
> 
> I asked



Thank you for the info. Now do tell that to Disney and the rest of the industry standing with a bullhorn on Hollywood Blvd. Please and double thank you.


----------



## m. zillch

Hmmm. . . maybe Dolby is now preventing using Dolby Surround Upmixling on non-Dolby content on new 2019 gear and threatening to enforce it on older gear via future firmware updates because they see its uncontrolled existence out there as a threat to their new "Music" thang?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

m. zillch said:


> Hmmm. . . maybe Dolby is now preventing using Dolby Surround Upmixling on non-Dolby content on new 2019 gear and threatening to enforce it on older gear via future firmware updates because they see its uncontrolled existence out there as a threat to their new "Music" thang?



Probably they're feeling their oats as a company that is now trouncing DTS and want to be complete tools about it. It really pisses me off as I want to be able to upmix using Wides and Dolby Surround doesn't do that.


----------



## Matt L

chi_guy50 said:


> You are fortunate to possess the necessary skill set. But the bigger problem would lie in reducing or relocating said holes (bearing in mind that cut-outs vary in size even for speakers of the same class). Not that it can not be done, but for most of us that would entail potential cosmetic issues endangering the domestic peace.
> 
> I know that I struggled for weeks to come to a decision on exactly where to place my top front speakers for that very reason.


Well I guess I thought most folks would go with a bigger speaker after starting out smaller, I guess the reverse could be true. Placement was not too difficult using the guidelines from Dolby, my rears are a bit out of angle due to room furniture placement but not all that much. As stated before the Atmos setup is pretty forgiving.


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> You are fortunate to possess the necessary skill set. But the bigger problem would lie in reducing or relocating said holes (bearing in mind that cut-outs vary in size even for speakers of the same class). Not that it can not be done, but for most of us that would entail potential cosmetic issues endangering the domestic peace.
> 
> I know that I struggled for weeks to come to a decision on exactly where to place my top front speakers for that very reason.


I completely understand most homeowner's trepidation with drywall work. Although I don't possess @Matt L professional experience and skills, I feel completely comfortable with cutting and repairing drywall after many years of doing so. Also, YouTube can be your best friend. As a tip, I just wanted to add that saving the original speaker cutouts can make potential repairs/patching a very easy and simple job. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood the context, but don't we know that the overhead bed actually does NOT array as intended with "home Atmos" and ends up getting locked to the TM speakers?
> 
> (Really from what we know it sounds like NONE of the beds actually array in home Atmos, not just the overhead)





FilmMixer said:


> It is spread out.... or not
> 
> I got some clarity....
> 
> Depending on the configuration.
> 
> 9.1.6 top middles.
> 
> 7.14 all four.
> 
> The 2 overheads get converted into objects. Different that the surround bed channels.
> 
> You’re right. And I’m right.





sdurani said:


> There was a mistaken impression initially about arraying happening in the height layer because we've all heard 2 height channels being spread to 4 height speakers. Hearing is believing. But it turns out that the spreading was just because the Top Middle pair wasn't configured, so the 2 height channels simply downmixed to adjacent speakers. Nothing to do with Atmos. No different than how the Centre channel "arrays" to two speakers when there is no Centre speaker configured.


Sorry Marc, Sanjay thinks that *I'm* right


----------



## niterida

niterida said:


> I have just about finished my theatre setup and after hearing the difference 3 identical LCR speakers made I decided to test having all 11 identical speakers in my 7.x.4 setup.
> 
> 
> OMG !! what a difference that has made - the best way I can describe it is absolutely seamless and all-enveloping. It now sounds like the sound is just "there" and "coming from all around" rather than being easy to identify which speaker the sound is coming from.
> 
> 
> Highly recommend it if you can do it.
> 
> 
> And for the record my speakers are early 90's Mordaunt Short MS3.20 for the fronts and surrounds and MS3.10 (same driver and tweeter in a slightly shorter enclosure) for the rear surrounds and heights. These are only 4 1/2" drivers in small boxes so it made it easier to fit them all. But with my multiple subs they actually sounded better then my large MS towers and standmounts.





gene4ht said:


> Old school mantra's have us looking for speakers that match our mains in terms of FR, timbre, quality, costs, etc. In my experience over the past 2-3 years, Atmos is just not that demanding. With the exception of perhaps a good wide dispersion speaker, the speaker itself is just not than important. More important are good/proper speaker location relative to the MLP(s) and in some situations the ability to "aim" the woofer/tweeter. I've found that the adage "It's hard to get Atmos wrong!" holds true. The following link is my recent post in response to a question in a different thread but applies here as well.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1923.html#post57871854


Two conflicting opinions here  


I agree that Atmos with differing speakers sounds amazing but the difference between differing/similar speakers and all identical speakers is even more amazing.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Sorry Marc, Sanjay thinks that *I'm* right



You are... they go to the top middle position in a 9.1.6 system. 

And with less speakers (.4) they “appear” to act like arrayed channels.... playing out of all speakers on the ceiling, as does any object in the center of the room up top (0)..

The another question is what does it do in x.x8 or .10... 

I expect top middle.... but the answer I got from my Dolby contact today to clarify didn’t mention those layouts. He didn’t state that the encoder has some special control over those extra bed channels. 

Lest we forget, Sanjay is never wrong. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Lest we forget, Sanjay is never wrong.


Thanx, I inherited that trait from my parents. They always told me that they only made one mistake. I still haven't figured out what they were talking about.


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Lest we forget, Sanjay is never wrong.


Truly the moral of this story....


----------



## usc1995

sdurani said:


> Thanx, I inherited that trait from my parents. They always told me that they only made one mistake. I still haven't figured out what they were talking about.




I bet they picked HD DVD...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Molon_Labe

niterida said:


> I have just about finished my theatre setup and after hearing the difference 3 identical LCR speakers made I decided to test having all 11 identical speakers in my 7.x.4 setup.
> 
> 
> OMG !! what a difference that has made - the best way I can describe it is absolutely seamless and all-enveloping. It now sounds like the sound is just "there" and "coming from all around" rather than being easy to identify which speaker the sound is coming from.


Another convert to the "Cult of the All Matching" society. Welcome my newly born brother. However, do realize you are now forever ruined; you will never be able to "un-hear" what you have experienced.


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> Another convert to the "Cult of the All Matching" society. Welcome my newly born brother. However, do realize you are now forever ruined; you will never be able to "un-hear" what you have experienced.


Agree 100% - or at a minimum, speakers with identical tweeters is a start.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdrucker said:


> Agree 100% - or at a minimum, speakers with identical tweeters is a start.


Stu, I was looking for you in the group photo from our last meeting. Where are you at? Is that you second row back in blue? For all those interested, that is @*sdurani* presiding over our last Cult of the All Matching Society group meet.


----------



## bryantc

m. zillch said:


> Hmmm. . . maybe Dolby is now preventing using Dolby Surround Upmixling on non-Dolby content on new 2019 gear and threatening to enforce it on older gear via future firmware updates because they see its uncontrolled existence out there as a threat to their new "Music" thang?


I keep seeing people refer to this article but its been more than a year and we have yet to hear anything about this from any other source. Does anyone know the real story here?


----------



## DavidinGA

gene4ht said:


> My experience parallels yours exactly and runs counter intuitive to much of the advice provided in these threads. Old school mantra's have us looking for speakers that match our mains in terms of FR, timbre, quality, costs, etc. In my experience over the past 2-3 years, Atmos is just not that demanding. With the exception of perhaps a good wide dispersion speaker, the speaker itself is just not than important. More important are good/proper speaker location relative to the MLP(s) and in some situations the ability to "aim" the woofer/tweeter. I've found that the adage "It's hard to get Atmos wrong!" holds true. The following link is my recent post in response to a question in a different thread but applies here as well.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/680426-klipsch-owner-thread-1923.html#post57871854



I see you're running: MICCA: M-8C (Atmos) x 6. Did you try/test any other ceiling speakers before going with those?

I'm on the fence about how much to spend on ceiling speakers. I plan to do a .4 setup and am leaning towards the highly recommended c34e's, but is it just a waste of money when a sub $50 speaker will do just as well? I don't have a high-end (expensive) setup as it is that I'm trying to timbre match or anything.

I see Micca has a newer line of ceiling speakers called the R-8c now that is $60/ea...wonder how much of a step up they are from the m-8c (if any)...

Thanks


----------



## dfa973

bryantc said:


> I keep seeing people refer to this article but its been more than a year and we have yet to hear anything about this from any other source. Does anyone know the real story here?


The real story is that all 2019 Marantz & Denon receivers have this restriction, and future hardware will have it too.
I believe this Dolby mandate will be implemented by all manufacturers from now on.
The pre-2019 hardware is unaffected.

"The war of upmixers has begun!"


----------



## sdrucker

dfa973 said:


> The real story is that all 2019 Marantz & Denon receivers have this restriction, and future hardware will have it too.
> I believe this Dolby mandate will be implemented by all manufacturers from now on.
> The pre-2019 hardware is unaffected.
> 
> "The war of upmixers has begun!"


----------



## am2model3

if you have your older receiver, turn off the system updates. (that is what i did) 

So i have my choice to apply DSU or NeuralX to any Dolby or DTS source I choose. = ) Freedom is a great thing!


----------



## mrtickleuk

dfa973 said:


> So, a diagram representing all this process should look like this (attached), no?
> 
> (basically, the whole scope of this layering audio upon another layer, and another layer, etc is to cater for many types of devices so each one can get some audio with minimal processing - the most processing power needs are when the device is Atmos compatible)


What a superb diagram! Thanks so much for sharing that! 

What does "OBA" stand for on your diagram please? O=? B=? A=? TIA


----------



## batpig

am2model3 said:


> if you have your older receiver, turn off the system updates. (that is what i did)
> 
> So i have my choice to apply DSU or NeuralX to any Dolby or DTS source I choose. = ) Freedom is a great thing!


Older models won't be affected, it's only models produced in 2019 or later.


----------



## dfa973

mrtickleuk said:


> What a superb diagram! Thanks so much for sharing that!
> 
> What does "OBA" stand for on your diagram please? O=? B=? A=? TIA


OBA = Object Based Audio (mono audio objects + metadata)


----------



## mrtickleuk

dfa973 said:


> OBA = Object Based Audio (mono audio objects + metadata)


Thanks. Yes I know that it contained mono audio objects + metadata, but couldn't find the 3 magic words "Object Based Audio" anywhere at all


----------



## sdrucker

am2model3 said:


> if you have your older receiver, turn off the system updates. (that is what i did)
> 
> So i have my choice to apply DSU or NeuralX to any Dolby or DTS source I choose. = ) Freedom is a great thing!


Or, you keep a dedicated Blu-Ray player around, let it do the decoding to PCM and the legacy audio format you select from the content, and send the PCM stream to the processor you're using. Unless Dolby is planning to prevent upmixing of multichannel PCM sources that should work. If you have one BD/UHD player, it takes more work to toggle between bitstream and PCM HDMI output, since it requires human intervention or a control system where you can program the switching in a macro. Hence having the second player might be worth the trouble.

Of course, you need a player than can handle the decoding (e.g. Oppo 103), or a media server or other source than handle the decoding.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> am2model3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you have your older receiver, turn off the system updates. (that is what i did)
> 
> So i have my choice to apply DSU or NeuralX to any Dolby or DTS source I choose. = ) Freedom is a great thing!
> 
> 
> 
> Older models won't be affected, it's only models produced in 2019 or later.
Click to expand...

That’s good to know-my NAD 758 gets important DIRAC and BluOS updates that I wouldn’t want to have to ignore


----------



## Matt L

DavidinGA said:


> I see you're running: MICCA: M-8C (Atmos) x 6. Did you try/test any other ceiling speakers before going with those?
> 
> I'm on the fence about how much to spend on ceiling speakers. I plan to do a .4 setup and am leaning towards the highly recommended c34e's, but is it just a waste of money when a sub $50 speaker will do just as well? I don't have a high-end (expensive) setup as it is that I'm trying to timbre match or anything.
> 
> I see Micca has a newer line of ceiling speakers called the R-8c now that is $60/ea...wonder how much of a step up they are from the m-8c (if any)...
> 
> Thanks


It's kind of hard to audition ceiling speakers simply due to the fact there are so many variables involved. If they are in an enclosure that is one thing, but the space the speakers go into will have an effect on the performance. In my case the speakers I used are backed by a blanket of R40 insulation, a lot of damping. If they were going into a non insulated space I would add some insulation but it would be difficult to add a lot.

I spent hours and hours reading up on various ceiling speakers, changed my mind odds are 4 times before settling on the Yamaha's from Amazon. One plus is I knew I could return them- if I was careful during installation. For me the demeriting factor was I needed an angled speaker to offset the low slop to the peak of my ceiling, and there are not a lot of speakers to choose from. Plus my budget was tight after dumping $$$$ into a 4K display and $$$$ into a new AVR. I could wait, and get better but I opted to go cheaper and am totally happy. Your money, your choice....


----------



## gene4ht

DavidinGA said:


> I see you're running: MICCA: M-8C (Atmos) x 6. Did you try/test any other ceiling speakers before going with those?
> 
> I'm on the fence about how much to spend on ceiling speakers. I plan to do a .4 setup and am leaning towards the highly recommended c34e's, but is it just a waste of money when a sub $50 speaker will do just as well? I don't have a high-end (expensive) setup as it is that I'm trying to timbre match or anything.
> 
> I see Micca has a newer line of ceiling speakers called the R-8c now that is $60/ea...wonder how much of a step up they are from the m-8c (if any)...
> 
> Thanks


As @Matt L has suggested, everyone's environment is different and variables abound...the speaker itself is just one of them. Reading through these threads, you'll find that everyone is a proponent of the speakers they own and they run the gamut from $50 to over $500 each. The constant however, is that everyone has discovered the excitement/envelopment of 3D sound and happy with the Atmos performance they are experiencing.


----------



## DavidinGA

Matt L said:


> It's kind of hard to audition ceiling speakers simply due to the fact there are so many variables involved. If they are in an enclosure that is one thing, but the space the speakers go into will have an effect on the performance. In my case the speakers I used are backed by a blanket of R40 insulation, a lot of damping. If they were going into a non insulated space I would add some insulation but it would be difficult to add a lot.
> 
> I spent hours and hours reading up on various ceiling speakers, changed my mind odds are 4 times before settling on the Yamaha's from Amazon. One plus is I knew I could return them- if I was careful during installation. For me the demeriting factor was I needed an angled speaker to offset the low slop to the peak of my ceiling, and there are not a lot of speakers to choose from. Plus my budget was tight after dumping $$$$ into a 4K display and $$$$ into a new AVR. I could wait, and get better but I opted to go cheaper and am totally happy. Your money, your choice....



Which Yamaha speakers did you end up with for atmos?


----------



## am2model3

awesome idea! Yes, PCM from your movie player should allow a person to 5ch or 7ch LPCM to the receiver; and vanilla signal from there you could pick DSU or NeuralX! Thank you!!


----------



## Josh Z

am2model3 said:


> awesome idea! Yes, PCM from your movie player should allow a person to 5ch or 7ch LPCM to the receiver; and vanilla signal from there you could pick DSU or NeuralX! Thank you!!


This workaround is good for DVD or Blu-ray. Unfortunately, it does nothing for other sources, such as cable DVRs or streaming devices, which typically do not allow multi-channel PCM output.


----------



## Stereodude

m. zillch said:


> Hmmm. . . maybe Dolby is now preventing using Dolby Surround Upmixling on non-Dolby content on new 2019 gear and threatening to enforce it on older gear via future firmware updates because they see its uncontrolled existence out there as a threat to their new "Music" thang?


The story you linked to doesn't say what you claim it does. In fact it says the exact opposite. There's nothing in the article that says Dolby won't allow the DSU to be used on non Dolby content. It says that Dolby won't allow Auro 3D or DTS's upmixer to be used on Dolby encoded content.


----------



## Matt L

DavidinGA said:


> Which Yamaha speakers did you end up with for atmos?


https://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-NS-IW...&s=gateway&sprefix=yamaha+ceil,aps,197&sr=8-4


----------



## usc1995

Josh Z said:


> This workaround is good for DVD or Blu-ray. Unfortunately, it does nothing for other sources, such as cable DVRs or streaming devices, which typically do not allow multi-channel PCM output.




The ATV4K decodes all the audio internally and outputs all audio as uncompressed multichannel LPCM unless it is Atmos. I can watch all of my streaming apps with my choice of upmixer. The Xbox will either output all audio as uncompressed PCM if you don’t have Atmos enabled or as uncompressed PCM in an Atmos container if you do have it enabled regardless of the content is in Atmos or not. I am not sure how Roku and the Fire TV devices behave but for a lot of us we can choose which upmixer to use on streaming devices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stereodude

Josh Z said:


> This workaround is good for DVD or Blu-ray. Unfortunately, it does nothing for other sources, such as cable DVRs or streaming devices, which typically do not allow multi-channel PCM output.


The stories say that Dolby won't allow 3rd party height virtualization on non-Atmos Dolby streams. It doesn't say that you can't use other upmixers on non-Atmos Dolby streams if you have height channels (non-virtualized).


----------



## noah katz

Stereodude said:


> The stories say that Dolby won't allow 3rd party height virtualization on non-Atmos Dolby streams. It doesn't say that you can't use other upmixers on non-Atmos Dolby streams if you have height channels (non-virtualized).



Huh?

Anyway, I thought the restriction was no 3rd party upmixing on *any* Dolby soundtrack.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I thought the restriction was no 3rd party upmixing on *any* Dolby soundtrack.


3rd party = licensed upmixers or height virtualizers, like Neural:X, Virtual:X and Auro-Matic. 

There is no similar restriction on 1st party (proprietary) upmixers like AnthemLogic, Audyssey DSX, Logic7, Yamaha DSP modes, etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> Stereodude said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stories say that Dolby won't allow 3rd party height virtualization on non-Atmos Dolby streams. It doesn't say that you can't use other upmixers on non-Atmos Dolby streams if you have height channels (non-virtualized).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Anyway, I thought the restriction was no 3rd party upmixing on *any* Dolby soundtrack.
Click to expand...

You are correct... for at least 2018 and later models.


----------



## Josh Z

Stereodude said:


> The stories say that Dolby won't allow 3rd party height virtualization on non-Atmos Dolby streams. It doesn't say that you can't use other upmixers on non-Atmos Dolby streams if you have height channels (non-virtualized).


You are getting lost in the semantics. 2019 model receivers do not allow Neural:X to be used on any Dolby audio tracks.


----------



## Stereodude

Josh Z said:


> You are getting lost in the semantics. 2019 model receivers do not allow Neural:X to be used on any Dolby audio tracks.


I'm not getting lost in the semantics. I'm telling you what the article said. I made no claims on the accuracy of the information in the article.


----------



## m. zillch

To know for sure what Dolby is doing we need to see the actual original Dolby memo, rather than getting second and third party accounts of what it says. Anyone have a link to it or are they intentionally keeping it out of the public's view?


----------



## Josh Z

Stereodude said:


> I'm not getting lost in the semantics. I'm telling you what the article said. I made no claims on the accuracy of the information in the article.


Your interpretation of the article (that "height virtualization" is separate from upmixing to physical speakers, which won't be restricted) has been proven incorrect by the way the restriction is actually implemented in new receivers. Whoever wrote that phrase was using "virtualization" to refer to any form of upmixing from standard 5.1 or 7.1 surround to derive height information.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Stereodude said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not getting lost in the semantics. I'm telling you what the article said. I made no claims on the accuracy of the information in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of the article (that "height virtualization" is separate from upmixing to physical speakers, which won't be restricted) has been proven incorrect by the way the restriction is actually implemented in new receivers. Whoever wrote that phrase was using "virtualization" to refer to any form of upmixing from standard 5.1 or 7.1 surround to derive height information.
Click to expand...

Dolby needs a right good beat down in the press. There is nothing causing this restriction to occur except for pure pettiness.


----------



## Stereodude

Josh Z said:


> Your interpretation of the article (that "height virtualization" is separate from upmixing to physical speakers, which won't be restricted) has been proven incorrect by the way the restriction is actually implemented in new receivers. Whoever wrote that phrase was using "virtualization" to refer to any form of upmixing from standard 5.1 or 7.1 surround to derive height information.


It's not my interpretation. The article made that specific distinction. Apparently it's wrong.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Whoever wrote that phrase was using "virtualization" to refer to any form of upmixing from standard 5.1 or 7.1 surround to derive height information.


The article mentions that Dolby codecs shall not be "up-mixed, surround or height virtualized" by 3rd party competitors. So they mention 3 distinct technologies: upmixing (converting fewer channels to more speakers), surround virtualization (impression of surround sound from only 2 speakers) and height virtualization (impression of height from only floor speakers). Doesn't sound like they're conflating those technologies. Dolby is restricting ALL 3 technologies from being applied to their codecs, but only IF they are licensed from 3rd party vendors.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby needs a right good beat down in the press. There is nothing causing this restriction to occur except for pure pettiness.


What is going on with your "s" key, Dan?


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> What is going on with your "s" key, Dan?


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-forum-operations-center/3072364-115-s.html


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> The article mentions that Dolby codecs shall not be "up-mixed, surround or height virtualized" by 3rd party competitors. So they mention 3 distinct technologies: upmixing (converting fewer channels to more speakers), surround virtualization (impression of surround sound from only 2 speakers) and height virtualization (impression of height from only floor speakers). Doesn't sound like they're conflating those technologies. Dolby is restricting ALL 3 technologies from being applied to their codecs, but only IF they are licensed from 3rd party vendors.


Indeed. For the 2019 models and later, you won't be able to apply any DTS (or Auro 3D where fitted) processing to any Dolby bitstream.
You will definitely still be able to apply Dolby processing to a DTS (or Auro 3D where fitted) bitstream, just as now.

And that restriction (on what can be done with Dolby bitstreams) doesn't apply to the 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018 models.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> What is going on with your "s" key, Dan?



It's random. I have no idea. It used to work through the AVS mobile site on my Android phone (Chrome), but apparently not now. I'm using Firefox at the moment on my PC. Windows 10. 



All I was saying was that Dolby needs to be publicly called out in the industry press for their anti-consumer decision on disallowing Neural: X upmixing on their channel based tracks. This is pure and simple corporate pettiness. There is no technical reasoning behind it at all. Maybe if they received pressure on that front and through the dealers, they might back off.


----------



## Stereodude

So I finally got my Atmos speakers (DIYSG Volt 10's) up on the ceiling and got my system all calibrated yesterday with Audyssey. I have to say that so far the Atmos effect is pretty subtle. Aside from the few Dolby demo clips on the Atmos Demo Blu-rays where they intentionally pan stuff around into the overhead speakers and what not it's hard to really hear what's being brought to the table in a given Atmos track. For example, I listened to a number of tracks from the Hans Zimmer - Live in Prague Blu-ray and I could maybe tell the difference between listening to just the "core" 7.1 TrueHD and using Atmos. My Denon x6500 takes about 5 seconds to switch between playing the core only and enabling Atmos (or the reverse) which given the limits of auditory memory and the subtleness of the change I think I can hear a bit more spaciousness to the sound with Atmos enabled using the extra 4 speakers, but I'm willing to concede it could be the placebo effect also because I want to hear it.

I wish Denon gave me the ability to mute the other speakers with a menu option so I could really hear what's coming out of them for any given Atmos content, that the switch between playing just the 7.1 core and Atmos decoding was faster, and that there was the option to use the DSU to take 5.1 or 2.0 sources to only 7.1 or to 7.1+4 so that the effect of the extra 4 height channels with the DSU could be A/B'd.


----------



## Augerhandle

The AMOS effect has been very subtle (my experience) in a lot of movies. The effect in Forrest Gump was almost non-existent until the Vietnam scenes, and then I was dodging bullets during the fire fight, and looking for cover when the air strike flew over my head after dropping napalm on me. In Mad Max, the voices in his head danced all over the ceiling.

It reminds me of 3D choices made by directors, either subtle, or in-your-face.

I'm all-in.


----------



## chi_guy50

Stereodude said:


> So I finally got my Atmos speakers (DIYSG Volt 10's) up on the ceiling and got my system all calibrated yesterday with Audyssey. I have to say that so far the Atmos effect is pretty subtle. Aside from the few Dolby demo clips on the Atmos Demo Blu-rays where they intentionally pan stuff around into the overhead speakers and what not it's hard to really hear what's being brought to the table in a given Atmos track. For example, I listened to a number of tracks from the Hans Zimmer - Live in Prague Blu-ray and I could maybe tell the difference between listening to just the "core" 7.1 TrueHD and using Atmos. My Denon x6500 takes about 5 seconds to switch between playing the core only and enabling Atmos (or the reverse) which given the limits of auditory memory and the subtleness of the change I think I can hear a bit more spaciousness to the sound with Atmos enabled using the extra 4 speakers, but I'm willing to concede it could be the placebo effect also because I want to hear it.
> 
> I wish Denon gave me the ability to mute the other speakers with a menu option so I could really hear what's coming out of them for any given Atmos content, that the switch between playing just the 7.1 core and Atmos decoding was faster, and that there was the option to use the DSU to take 5.1 or 2.0 sources to only 7.1 or to 7.1+4 so that the effect of the extra 4 height channels with the DSU could be A/B'd.



I understand where you're coming from. When Atmos for the HT first hit, many users were underwhelmed (in part due to under-use of the effects by production teams who had not yet fully bought in to the concept of immersive audio) and wanted to crank up the trim on their overhead speakers to make the output more distinctive. But that is counterproductive for most purposes. The subtlety is not a defect but a feature, similar to the blending of output from your surround speakers. Except when an audio object is intended to emanate from or pass through a point directly overhead, you should not be able to isolate the output of a single speaker. Rather, you should feel yourself immersed in a bubble--or, more accurately, a hemisphere--of sound.

There are some very good examples of mixing where the overhead effects come into the foreground at some intervals; one almost universally cited is Gravity (Diamond Edition). You can search this thread for other titles that have been recommended for the quality of the immersive mix (whether you will find the movies themselves worth watching is another question altogether).


----------



## Stereodude

chi_guy50 said:


> There are some very good examples of mixing where the overhead effects come into the foreground at some intervals; one almost universally cited is Gravity (Diamond Edition).


That's certainly an expensive version of Gravity to buy now. I'll give some of the other highly regarded Atmos equipped titles a spin.


----------



## noah katz

Stereodude said:


> ...I have to say that so far the Atmos effect is pretty subtle...



Try upmixing non-Atnos material.

Some of the best sound I get is from live TV shows w/music, i.e. America's Got Talent, So You Think You can Dance, and best of all, Songland, which has live studio musicians.


----------



## zeonstar

Stereodude said:


> That's certainly an expensive version of Gravity to buy now. I'll give some of the other highly regarded Atmos equipped titles a spin.


Gravity on Apple TV 4K also has the Atmos soundtrack. Albeit lossy of course.


----------



## chi_guy50

Stereodude said:


> That's certainly an expensive version of Gravity to buy now. I'll give some of the other highly regarded Atmos equipped titles a spin.



Definitely pricey. But if you are sufficiently interested, you can always rent the Blu-ray disc from 3D-BlurayRental.com for just $8.99 (two-way shipping included).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

_Gravity_ may be a 4k title being worked on. We'll see. It will most certainly contain the Diamond Luxe's Atmos track. No need to do yet another mix.


----------



## sdurani

pasender91 said:


> [MENTION=210]The Top .2 bed gets converted into 2 fixed objects at coordinates Y=0.5 (surround level on main room axis), this is information we can get from the Dolby documentation.
> But what the documentation does not say is the Z coordinate for those 2 "Top bed objects".


The x,y,z coordinates for those two objects are: 

x = .25 and .75 (quarter points from left to right) 
y = .5 (mid-point front to back) 
z = 1 (all the way up)


----------



## TommyDeVito

Stereodude said:


> So I finally got my Atmos speakers (DIYSG Volt 10's) up on the ceiling and got my system all calibrated yesterday with Audyssey. I have to say that so far the Atmos effect is pretty subtle. Aside from the few Dolby demo clips on the Atmos Demo Blu-rays where they intentionally pan stuff around into the overhead speakers and what not it's hard to really hear what's being brought to the table in a given Atmos track. For example, I listened to a number of tracks from the Hans Zimmer - Live in Prague Blu-ray and I could maybe tell the difference between listening to just the "core" 7.1 TrueHD and using Atmos. My Denon x6500 takes about 5 seconds to switch between playing the core only and enabling Atmos (or the reverse) which given the limits of auditory memory and the subtleness of the change I think I can hear a bit more spaciousness to the sound with Atmos enabled using the extra 4 speakers, but I'm willing to concede it could be the placebo effect also because I want to hear it.
> 
> I wish Denon gave me the ability to mute the other speakers with a menu option so I could really hear what's coming out of them for any given Atmos content, that the switch between playing just the 7.1 core and Atmos decoding was faster, and that there was the option to use the DSU to take 5.1 or 2.0 sources to only 7.1 or to 7.1+4 so that the effect of the extra 4 height channels with the DSU could be A/B'd.



Get yourself a copy of 4k Blade Runner 2049. Turn it up to 75 or more, and reassess.


----------



## aviaction

I get ever more confused with all this. Currently running 7.2 with added front height (presence) and rear height (presence) speakers since Atmos came onto the scene. Wanting to put 1x pair of ceiling in and finally just picked up a pair of Kef130ER which are similar Uni-q to all my other Kefs. But do I run extra wire for these as the receiver will cope, or do I just rewire the Ceiling from (say) the Rear back surrounds and disable them, which never seem to do much?


----------



## batpig

aviaction said:


> I get ever more confused with all this. Currently running 7.2 with added front height (presence) and rear height (presence) speakers since Atmos came onto the scene. Wanting to put 1x pair of ceiling in and finally just picked up a pair of Kef130ER which are similar Uni-q to all my other Kefs. But do I run extra wire for these as the receiver will cope, or do I just rewire the Ceiling from (say) the Rear back surrounds and disable them, which never seem to do much?


What you are describing is a 7.1.6 setup -- a 7.1 ear level base layer with front heights + top middle + rear heights. Your Denon AVC-X8500H can run this complete setup so might as well wire them all up.


----------



## aviaction

batpig said:


> What you are describing is a 7.1.6 setup -- a 7.1 ear level base layer with front heights + top middle + rear heights. Your Denon AVC-X8500H can run this complete setup so might as well wire them all up.



Thats what I was thinking. Hopefully give a bit more "up top"


----------



## Stereodude

TommyDeVito said:


> Get yourself a copy of 4k Blade Runner 2049. Turn it up to 75 or more, and reassess.


I have it already. I watched it several months ago before I got Atmos setup. I'll have to re-watch it. I did try a bit of the _Imagine Dragons - Smoke + Mirrors Live_ Blu-ray and the Atmos track on it adds a nice bit of an upper layer of ambience in the soundtrack with some occasional shift of musical and vocal effects into the upper speakers.


----------



## batpig

aviaction said:


> Thats what I was thinking. Hopefully give a bit more "up top"


Yes, very much so. The big downside of a front/rear height (presence) setup with Atmos is that the height speakers usually don't have enough elevation to really give an overhead effect. If they are mounted high on the front/rear walls the height speakers are likely only 15-20 degrees elevated, way too little for clear separation for the overhead layer. Putting a pair of Top Middle speakers directly above will give clear overhead effects, but I also would consider raising the height speakers up higher if they are only currently a few feet above the lower level speakers.


----------



## Chirosamsung

TommyDeVito said:


> Stereodude said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I finally got my Atmos speakers (DIYSG Volt 10's) up on the ceiling and got my system all calibrated yesterday with Audyssey. I have to say that so far the Atmos effect is pretty subtle. Aside from the few Dolby demo clips on the Atmos Demo Blu-rays where they intentionally pan stuff around into the overhead speakers and what not it's hard to really hear what's being brought to the table in a given Atmos track. For example, I listened to a number of tracks from the Hans Zimmer - Live in Prague Blu-ray and I could maybe tell the difference between listening to just the "core" 7.1 TrueHD and using Atmos. My Denon x6500 takes about 5 seconds to switch between playing the core only and enabling Atmos (or the reverse) which given the limits of auditory memory and the subtleness of the change I think I can hear a bit more spaciousness to the sound with Atmos enabled using the extra 4 speakers, but I'm willing to concede it could be the placebo effect also because I want to hear it.
> 
> I wish Denon gave me the ability to mute the other speakers with a menu option so I could really hear what's coming out of them for any given Atmos content, that the switch between playing just the 7.1 core and Atmos decoding was faster, and that there was the option to use the DSU to take 5.1 or 2.0 sources to only 7.1 or to 7.1+4 so that the effect of the extra 4 height channels with the DSU could be A/B'd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get yourself a copy of 4k Blade Runner 2049. Turn it up to 75 or more, and reassess.
Click to expand...

Or mad max


----------



## Kain

Have a look at the following thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a...lby-official-11-1-8-overhead-atmos-guide.html

sdurani states in that thread that there are only 6 speaker locations on the ceiling and that there is no way to do 8 speakers on the ceiling, at least not while adhering to Dolby's placement guideline. My question is, is this true? I mean "home" Atmos supports 24.1.10 so where do those 10 overhead speakers go if there are only 6 speaker locations on the ceiling?


----------



## noah katz

Kain said:


> I mean "home" Atmos supports 24.1.10 so where do those 10 overhead speakers go if there are only 6 speaker locations on the ceiling?



6 tops + 4 heights (ft & rr); I guess Dolby thinks of the heights as going on the walls so they'll be more aimed at the listening area


----------



## Kain

noah katz said:


> 6 tops + 4 heights (ft & rr); I guess Dolby thinks of the heights as going on the walls so they'll be more aimed at the listening area


But is "commercial" Atmos the same? I mean commercial theaters with Atmos have long rows of ceiling speakers.

Edit: Saw your edit. Are you saying that they put them as heights so they are "easier" to aim at the listening area? So, if you have a long room, you actually could have them all on the ceiling?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> But is "commercial" Atmos the same? I mean commercial theaters with Atmos have long rows of ceiling speakers.
> 
> Edit: Saw your edit. Are you saying that they put them as heights so they are "easier" to aim at the listening area? So, if you have a long room, you actually could have them all on the ceiling?



You can, but the farther away the speakers get from the MLP, the more you need to angle them toward the MLP area and not have them firing straight down. Look at the ceiling of a good Dolby Cinema. The ceiling speakers are not all firing down at the floor.


I think some of these Dolby diagrams are designed to help you fit the various speakers into a smaller home environment with less than ideal speakers. You would need to seek out aimable on-ceiling and on-wall speakers that would allow you do ceiling, front and rear wide array mounting easily. Normally, those cinema type speakers are on adjustable yolks and most consumer speaker brands do not make them this way.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I guess Dolby thinks of the heights as going on the walls so they'll be more aimed at the listening area


That's the way it is shown in the Atmos install guide. However, the Atmos renderer thinks that all 5 pairs are on the ceiling, equally spaced from front to back.


----------



## Swoosh830

batpig said:


> What you are describing is a 7.1.6 setup -- a 7.1 ear level base layer with front heights + top middle + rear heights. Your Denon AVC-X8500H can run this complete setup so might as well wire them all up.


After recently reading about how the Atmos mix in a movie like Saving Private Ryan seems to provide a better experience with a 7.1.4 setup than 7.1.6 (most sound is focused in the TM speakers with .6), would the FH + TM + RH configuration be the recommended setup for 6 overhead speakers?

I still haven't wired up my room, but I have a picture of the speakers staged from a few months back. I've since added a pair of "middle" speakers. For position reference, the new TML is located between the red and green pictures on the wall.

I originally planned on creating multiple profiles with the MultEQ app including TF, TM, TR for Atmos movies and FH, RH (middles ignored) for DTS:X mixes. I recall reading that speakers assigned as top will have more sound coming from above, but the Saving Private Ryan story is disappointing to hear, and the TF, TM, TR might not always be best anyway. I'm curious as to how FH, TM, RH would compare with that movie.


----------



## sdurani

Swoosh830 said:


> After recently reading about how the Atmos mix in a movie like Saving Private Ryan seems to provide a better experience with a 7.1.4 setup than 7.1.6 (most sound is focused in the TM speakers with .6), would the FH + TM + RH configuration be the recommended setup for 6 overhead speakers?


No, because you still have a middle pair, which is where all the height info will end up (on those particular mixes). Without the middle pair, the height info will be split to the overhead speakers that are forward & rearward of you (whether you designate them Tops or Heights), giving you better overhead envelopment rather than hot spotting at the middle of the ceiling (again, on those particular mixes). 

I'm guessing there are relatively few 7.1.2 Atmos mixes on home video. Certainly there are more 7.1.4 mixes. Plus ones that just don't use Wides. Unfortunately, these pre-rendered mixes are on some pretty high profile titles. But I don't know what percentage of home Atmos mixes are limited this way: minority, half, slight majority? 

I'm just wondering if they represent enough home Atmos mixes to justify limiting home Atmos set-ups. If you want to do a 7.1.6 set-up, then maybe you shouldn't let a handful of 7.1.2 mixes worry you out of it. Just something to think about.


----------



## Swoosh830

sdurani said:


> No, because you still have a middle pair, which is where all the height info will end up (on those particular mixes). Without the middle pair, the height info will be split to the overhead speakers that are forward & rearward of you (whether you designate them Tops or Heights), giving you better overhead envelopment rather than hot spotting at the middle of the ceiling (again, on those particular mixes).


Got it, makes sense. I appreciate the response.


----------



## dexth77

Hey guys,
question about Atmos height surround side support on Marantz SR7012. I have setup as 5.1.4 using 9.1 speaker selection. 4 height speakers as Front height and side height.
When using native Atmos track or DSU, the info for active speaker indicate height surround side speaker is inactive and I validate no sound. Switching to native DTS-X, Neural-X and Auro-3D all use height surround side speaker.

Am I doing something wrong or Atmos just dont support height surround side? If so, does it support height surround rear? Simply changing the speaker configuration mapping height side to height rear in AVR resulted in speaker disabled; I believe need to re-run Audessey.


----------



## niterida

dexth77 said:


> Hey guys,
> question about Atmos height surround side support on Marantz SR7012. I have setup as 5.1.4 using 9.1 speaker selection. 4 height speakers as Front height and side height.
> When using native Atmos track or DSU, the info for active speaker indicate height surround side speaker is inactive and I validate no sound. Switching to native DTS-X, Neural-X and Auro-3D all use height surround side speaker.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong or Atmos just dont support height surround side? If so, does it support height surround rear? Simply changing the speaker configuration mapping height side to height rear in AVR resulted in speaker disabled; I believe need to re-run Audessey.



You have to define the speaker as rear - Atmos doesn't do side heights


----------



## dexth77

niterida said:


> You have to define the speaker as rear - Atmos doesn't do side heights


thx for confirming. Would it work fine from surround perspective? the speaker is physically side height.


----------



## niterida

Yes - that is exactly how I had mine - physically mounted above the surrounds but defined as rear heights in AVR. I believe you will get a better Atmos effect if they are mounted behind you though - I plan on moving mine as soon as I can get some motivation !!


----------



## milanjv

I have finally decided to setup atmos system and but I am unsure whether to go with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers.

Room is big enough but I am not convinced that 4 would make a noticable difference given that seating is very close to the back wall.

I am posting few photos of the room in which I have marked with red positions that I will put the first pair of speakers, and with yellow positions for which I am not sure if speakers should be installed.

Would very much appreciate if anyone has experience with how much difference the second pair would make in similar positions.


----------



## noah katz

@milanjv

I would definitely go with four overhead speakers.

IMO the front ones should be moved forward to fill in the angular gap between them and the front speakers.

And I'd move the rear ones as far back as possible to improve ft/rr overhead panning.

Also, I'd be careful not to place them two widely; when I first moved to Atmos I had the overheads high on the side walls (12' wide room), and I didn't get satisfying overhead effects.

I moved them inward 2' and that helped a lot.

Nice room!


----------



## Chirosamsung

milanjv said:


> I have finally decided to setup atmos system and but I am unsure whether to go with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers.
> 
> Room is big enough but I am not convinced that 4 would make a noticable difference given that seating is very close to the back wall.
> 
> I am posting few photos of the room in which I have marked with red positions that I will put the first pair of speakers, and with yellow positions for which I am not sure if speakers should be installed.
> 
> Would very much appreciate if anyone has experience with how much difference the second pair would make in similar positions.


Put your back pair behind and not above the couch like mine and you will be ok


----------



## Chirosamsung

noah katz said:


> @milanjv
> 
> I would definitely go with four overhead speakers.
> 
> IMO the front ones should be moved forward to fill in the angular gap between them and the front speakers.
> 
> And I'd move the rear ones as far back as possible to improve ft/rr overhead panning.
> 
> Also, I'd be careful not to place them two widely; when I first moved to Atmos I had the overheads high on the side walls (12' wide room), and I didn't get satisfying overhead effects.
> 
> I moved them inward 2' and that helped a lot.
> 
> Nice room!


As long as his atmos heights are in line with the front left and right. He looks to have a wide room, like myself, in which case the atmos ceiling speakers may be as wide as the towers


----------



## chi_guy50

milanjv said:


> I have finally decided to setup atmos system and but I am unsure whether to go with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers.
> 
> Room is big enough but I am not convinced that 4 would make a noticable difference given that seating is very close to the back wall.
> 
> I am posting few photos of the room in which I have marked with red positions that I will put the first pair of speakers, and with yellow positions for which I am not sure if speakers should be installed.
> 
> *Would very much appreciate if anyone has experience with how much difference the second pair would make in similar positions.*



Congratulations, you have a gorgeous room! 

I would respond to your query by remarking that it would be a shame to stint on overhead speakers with only a single pair given the level of attention and investment that you have clearly made to this point. That second set will complete the upper plane and result in better coverage front to back overhead. 

Noah has given you some good advice and, regarding speaker placement, I would recommend that you take into consideration the range of elevation angles shown in the diagram below:


----------



## sdurani

New 2019 Denon receivers are supporting both height virtualizers: DTS Virtual:X and Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization. For folks that cannot place height speakers above them, I wonder how effective these virtualizers are compared to upfiring speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> New 2019 Denon receivers are supporting both height virtualizers: DTS Virtual:X and Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization. For folks that cannot place height speakers above them, I wonder how effective these virtualizers are compared to upfiring speakers.


I don’t know, but it’s bound to be more immersive than a soundbar trying to emulate Atmos...


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> I don’t know, but it’s bound to be more immersive than a soundbar trying to emulate Atmos...


Sure, both virtualizers allow up to 7 speakers to do the height effect. A soundbar can't compete with that, even if it has upfiring drivers.


----------



## niterida

milanjv said:


> I have finally decided to setup atmos system and but I am unsure whether to go with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers.
> 
> Room is big enough but I am not convinced that 4 would make a noticable difference given that seating is very close to the back wall.
> 
> I am posting few photos of the room in which I have marked with red positions that I will put the first pair of speakers, and with yellow positions for which I am not sure if speakers should be installed.
> 
> Would very much appreciate if anyone has experience with how much difference the second pair would make in similar positions.



Can you put something like SVS Prime Elevation speakers on (or in) the wall/cabinet behind the sofa - that would work better than directly above.


----------



## dfa973

sdurani said:


> Sure, both virtualizers allow up to 7 speakers to do the height effect. A soundbar can't compete with that, even if it has upfiring drivers.


Yeah, soundbars without surround speakers generate a sound field that is very "frontal" and no amount of DSP virtual "height" and virtual "surround" processing, front-side or front-height speakers will put you in a sound "bubble" like a proper 5.1 or 7.1 setup will do. The uneven room furniture, windows, doors, and room size will break or distort the side walls or ceiling expected reflections, reflections that will fail to "envelop" you.
All these tricks are just more proof that practically nothing will replace an actual physical speaker mounted in the required place that is expected to be the originating source of the sound.
Yes, DTS Virtual:X or Dolby Speaker Virtualizer are better than what was available 20 years ago, DSP's are cheap, the software is cheap, but a trick remains a trick.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

@kbarnes701: You sir, have been a literal inspiration to me! I've recently upgraded to an Atmos system, and am reading this massive thread backwards to get caught up.

My curiosity got the best of me, and I clicked on his Cowshed Cinema build link, and read through all 37 pages. Well done, indeed!

And while I have a living room rather than a shed, I have benefited from Mr Barnes' many posts, in that today, I toed in my Atmos speakers towards the MLP, and sat down and watched Blade Runner: The Final Cut 4K restoration in Atmos. OMG.

I hope you don't mind, I'm going to cut and paste your review of it here:

---

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, oh boy.

On Roger's recommendation at the weekend I bought the 4K remastered, with Dolby Atmos sound, version of Blade Runner The Final Cut on UHD disc.

If you haven't seen Blade Runner in remastered 4K with Dolby Atmos, you haven't seen Blade Runner!

From the very first notes of the wonderful Vangelis score, you know you are in for something very special.

The 4K remaster reveals details and textures you have never seen before. I audibly gasped at the early flyovers of 2019 Los Angeles - never before have I seen such crisp detail, adding a new sense of reality to these images. HDR proves its mettle with the inkiest of blacks, fabulous shadow detail and crisp whites. In a highly graded movie like this, WCG doesn't get much opportunity to shine. But it's the sheer retrieval of detail that wowed me the most. A fabulous effort on the part of Warner Bros.

But if the image quality blows you away, just wait till you hear the Atmos re-mix. From the first seconds of the movie, your jaw will drop as various flying craft pass over your head, come in low from left and right, circle the room. Disembodied voices from advertising vehicles swoosh over your head, and move perfectly in line with what you are seeing on screen as they come in from Top Front Right, to all over the entire overhead soundstage, to disappear via Top Rear Left. In the Tyrell Corporation building, announcements hover above you, coming from the ceilings in the space you are watching on screen.

The score has elements continuously mixed overhead and with the ear level speakers to give a fuller presentation than you have ever heard before, and elements of the score have been remixed with sound effects to create a slightly surreal, 'other world' feeling. Perfect.

Out in the streets, the intensity of the sounds of the large crowds of people swirl all around you, with astonishing clarity, enabling you not to just hear a general 'hubbub' of voices, but dozens of individual voices combining to make the whole.

And the rain! For a movie in which the rain never stops, the Atmos remix adds an entire new dimension, literally. Take the scene where Deckard is sitting in his vehicle and revel in the sound of heavy rain forcefully hitting the roof of the vehicle as he checks in with control. You are just in the vehicle with him. And every other time the action moves to a rain-filled scene, you are totally immersed with the sound of the relentless rain beating down from above and from all around.

In one scene, Deckard and Rachel make a visit to Sebasitan's flat and they take the elevator. The camera remains on the ground floor and as Deckard and Rachel talk as the elevator takes them up several floors, you distinctly hear their conversation and the elevator motor sounds rise gradually from floor level, to mid level to the very top of the screen.

I could go on for pages about this Atmos mix. The overhead speakers are engaged almost constantly throughout the entire movie, whether with small ambient noises, elements of the score, light ambient sounds, or whether full-bodied, full-blooded sounds of flying vehicles, rainstorms, thunder, sound effects and more. This is a go-to disc to demonstrate why you installed Atmos in the first place.

If you enjoy this movie - and who doesn't? - and you don't have the 4K restoration, I urge you to go out right now and buy it. You will not be disappointed!

Pro custom HT build to highest standards - Cowshed Cinema

---

It was all that, and I don't even have a cow shed! Thank you, Mr Barnes!


----------



## LiamSevier

I just ran 4 speaker lines in my attic for an Atmos run. I currently have 2 Paradigm CI Pro P80-A's and will be purchasing 2 more in the near future.
These are the angled-sound field models.
So this means that I'm going to be _starting_ with a 7.1.2 system, and completing it with a 7.1.4 config. 
I will be having only 2 holes cut in the ceiling tomorrow and I'm wondering which position I should start with.
Should I do front Atmos (45 degrees), or rear Atmos (135 degrees) first? 
Thanks.


----------



## Steve Sleeve

LiamSevier said:


> I just ran 4 speaker lines in my attic for an Atmos run. I currently have 2 Paradigm CI Pro P80-A's and will be purchasing 2 more in the near future.
> These are the angled-sound field models.
> So this means that I'm going to be _starting_ with a 7.1.2 system, and completing it with a 7.1.4 config.
> I will be having only 2 holes cut in the ceiling tomorrow and I'm wondering which position I should start with.
> Should I do front Atmos (45 degrees), or rear Atmos (135 degrees) first?
> Thanks.



Front...... you could consider using the rears in a 5.1.4 just for fun.


----------



## kbarnes701

Bill Wolfer said:


> @kbarnes701: You sir, have been a literal inspiration to me! I've recently upgraded to an Atmos system, and am reading this massive thread backwards to get caught up.
> 
> My curiosity got the best of me, and I clicked on his Cowshed Cinema build link, and read through all 37 pages. Well done, indeed!
> 
> And while I have a living room rather than a shed, I have benefited from Mr Barnes' many posts, in that today, I toed in my Atmos speakers towards the MLP, and sat down and watched Blade Runner: The Final Cut 4K restoration in Atmos. OMG.
> 
> I hope you don't mind, I'm going to cut and paste your review of it here:


Wow, Bill, thank you so much. You are making me blush! I am so pleased you are enjoying your Atmos though! I feel duty bound to say that I could never have achieved in my own cinema what I have if it hadn't been for the endless help and advice I have received from many of the AVS members in this thread and in others. I always hesitate to say who these guys are because you can never mention them all and even if you tried you'd inevitably forget some. They know who they are, but a special shout-out to some who have become friends as well as forum members - Sanjay (sdurani), Jerry (AustinJerry), Roger (roger dressler), Stu (sdrucker) especially and many more. Thanks guys - I couldn't have done it without you.


----------



## kbarnes701

Stereodude said:


> So I finally got my Atmos speakers (DIYSG Volt 10's) up on the ceiling and got my system all calibrated yesterday with Audyssey. I have to say that so far the Atmos effect is pretty subtle. Aside from the few Dolby demo clips on the Atmos Demo Blu-rays where they intentionally pan stuff around into the overhead speakers and what not it's hard to really hear what's being brought to the table in a given Atmos track. For example, I listened to a number of tracks from the Hans Zimmer - Live in Prague Blu-ray and I could maybe tell the difference between listening to just the "core" 7.1 TrueHD and using Atmos. My Denon x6500 takes about 5 seconds to switch between playing the core only and enabling Atmos (or the reverse) which given the limits of auditory memory and the subtleness of the change I think I can hear a bit more spaciousness to the sound with Atmos enabled using the extra 4 speakers, but I'm willing to concede it could be the placebo effect also because I want to hear it.
> 
> I wish Denon gave me the ability to mute the other speakers with a menu option so I could really hear what's coming out of them for any given Atmos content, that the switch between playing just the 7.1 core and Atmos decoding was faster, and that there was the option to use the DSU to take 5.1 or 2.0 sources to only 7.1 or to 7.1+4 so that the effect of the extra 4 height channels with the DSU could be A/B'd.


If you like _Blade Runner_ (original) and if you have UHD capability get the Atmos remixed 4k version of the movie. It is an Atmos tour de force and you will most definitely hear what Atmos can really do, right from the opening scenes of the movie.


----------



## petetherock

milanjv said:


> I have finally decided to setup atmos system and but I am unsure whether to go with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers.
> 
> Room is big enough but I am not convinced that 4 would make a noticable difference given that seating is very close to the back wall.
> 
> I am posting few photos of the room in which I have marked with red positions that I will put the first pair of speakers, and with yellow positions for which I am not sure if speakers should be installed.
> 
> Would very much appreciate if anyone has experience with how much difference the second pair would make in similar positions.


Nice digs!

And yes, it will matter, go for it. I have something similar (my setup is in my signature).


----------



## Bill Wolfer

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow, Bill, thank you so much. You are making me blush! I am so pleased you are enjoying your Atmos though! I feel duty bound to say that I could never have achieved in my own cinema what I have if it hadn't been for the endless help and advice I have received from many of the AVS members in this thread and in others. I always hesitate to say who these guys are because you can never mention them all and even if you tried you'd inevitably forget some. They know who they are, but a special shout-out to some who have become friends as well as forum members - Sanjay (sdurani), Jerry (AustinJerry), Roger (roger dressler), Stu (sdrucker) especially and many more. Thanks guys - I couldn't have done it without you.


I forgot to mention that you have also inspired me to start treating my room. I worked in recording studios for years, so I'm familiar with it, but I've been lazy when it comes to my own space. I've got the makings of two 24 x 48 absorption panels on the way. Cheers!


----------



## Bill Wolfer

PioManiac said:


> My Yamaha RX-A3070 has Two Speaker Patterns available,
> So the 4 presence speakers are configured as *Overhead* for ATMOS/Dolby Surround (Speaker Pattern 1)
> and configured as *Height* for DTS:X/Neural:X (Speaker Pattern 2)


I didn't realize this was a thing--is it still? I just popped in the blu-ray to Train to Busan which is DTS:X, and my Yamaha RX-A3070 showed that my four overheads were receiving sound. I set them to "Heights" but I'm not sure I heard any difference in the sound coming from my on-ceiling speakers. What am I missing?

Sorry for responding to an old post, but I'm new to Atmos, and I'm reading this massive thread backwards.


----------



## Steve Sleeve

milanjv said:


> I have finally decided to setup atmos system and but I am unsure whether to go with 2 or 4 in ceiling speakers.
> 
> Room is big enough but I am not convinced that 4 would make a noticable difference given that seating is very close to the back wall.
> 
> I am posting few photos of the room in which I have marked with red positions that I will put the first pair of speakers, and with yellow positions for which I am not sure if speakers should be installed.
> 
> Would very much appreciate if anyone has experience with how much difference the second pair would make in similar positions.


If your receiver can do 5.1.4 I would do it. If you have to spend a lot to get to .4 then the .2 should be reasonable.


----------



## Stereodude

Bill Wolfer said:


> I didn't realize this was a thing--is it still? I just popped in the blu-ray to Train to Busan which is DTS:X, and my Yamaha RX-A3070 showed that my four overheads were receiving sound. I set them to "Heights" but I'm not sure I heard any difference in the sound coming from my on-ceiling speakers. What am I missing?


If you set them to overhead for DTS:X the sound will be mirrored into the lower speakers to try to pull the apparent location down. The height setting doesn't do that.


----------



## bambam

Would adding two overheads be "worth it" in my dedicated theater vs. none at all? Currently have 7.2 running and would go to 7.2.2. No space for "wides" or "heights" and really no space for another pair of overheads - but the two I would ad would be in a "good" spot on the ceiling in relation to my fronts, surrounds and backs.

Thoughts?

Marantz 8805 with Triad Golds all around - and would do Triad Gold/8 Omni SE's in the ceiling.


----------



## chi_guy50

bambam said:


> Would adding two overheads be "worth it" in my dedicated theater vs. none at all? Currently have 7.2 running and would go to 7.2.2. No space for "wides" or "heights" and really no space for another pair of overheads - but the two I would ad would be in a "good" spot on the ceiling in relation to my fronts, surrounds and backs.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Marantz 8805 with Triad Golds all around - and would do Triad Gold/8 Omni SE's in the ceiling.



The age-old wisdom (of this thread) applies: Mo' speakers, mo' better.

In your case, the added speakers would serve to create a height effect missing from your current configuration, which is a significant expansion. It opens the door to enjoyment of immersive audio in the form of Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and/or Auro3D sound tracks. This is potentially a more impactful improvement than front wide or even surround back speakers in a dedicated home theater.

If this is indeed to be the only pair you will deploy, then a good spot to target would be slightly in front of the main listening position, at around 80° elevation.

In short, this is a no-brainer: Just Do It!(™)


----------



## Augerhandle

bambam said:


> Would adding two overheads be "worth it" in my dedicated theater vs. none at all? Currently have 7.2 running and would go to 7.2.2. No space for "wides" or "heights" and really no space for another pair of overheads - but the two I would ad would be in a "good" spot on the ceiling in relation to my fronts, surrounds and backs.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Marantz 8805 with Triad Golds all around - and would do Triad Gold/8 Omni SE's in the ceiling.


​*WARNING! * 

​Once you hear 7.2.2, you will crave 7.2.4!




(you have been warned)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bambam said:


> Would adding two overheads be "worth it" in my dedicated theater vs. none at all? Currently have 7.2 running and would go to 7.2.2. No space for "wides" or "heights" and really no space for another pair of overheads - but the two I would ad would be in a "good" spot on the ceiling in relation to my fronts, surrounds and backs.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Marantz 8805 with Triad Golds all around - and would do Triad Gold/8 Omni SE's in the ceiling.


There may be a way to do four overhead or a combo of height and overhead. Can you provide a pic or two of the room?


----------



## Dawn Gordon

bambam said:


> Would adding two overheads be "worth it" in my dedicated theater vs. none at all? Currently have 7.2 running and would go to 7.2.2. No space for "wides" or "heights" and really no space for another pair of overheads - but the two I would ad would be in a "good" spot on the ceiling in relation to my fronts, surrounds and backs.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Marantz 8805 with Triad Golds all around - and would do Triad Gold/8 Omni SE's in the ceiling.


What are the room dimensions (WDH)?

Like Dan says, a photo or drawing of the room with seating would be really helpful.


----------



## sjm817

bambam said:


> Would adding two overheads be "worth it" in my dedicated theater vs. none at all? Currently have 7.2 running and would go to 7.2.2. No space for "wides" or "heights" and really no space for another pair of overheads - but the two I would ad would be in a "good" spot on the ceiling in relation to my fronts, surrounds and backs.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Marantz 8805 with Triad Golds all around - and would do Triad Gold/8 Omni SE's in the ceiling.


My room layout is with the seating against a wall. To redo that would be a major room layout redo that I didnt want to undertake. In addition, my Denon only supports 7 ch so adding 2 ceiling speakers made sense. My existing setup was 5.2. Klipsch speakers and dual HSU 15" subs. A good setup to start. The addition of the 2 in ceiling speakers was really good. I have them aligned with the LR just a bit forward of the seating. They are set as Top Middle. Atmos tracks are great. Very noticeable improvement over just base level speakers. 

We plan on moving in the next couple years. Maybe sooner. Next house I will probably do a 7.2.4, but the 5.2.2 works very well.


----------



## bambam

Thanks for all the feedback. I'll try to get some photos of the room online - may take a few days. Dimensions are roughly 18' D x 14' W x 7.5' H. Main "workaround" is a soffit/beam that is on the ceiling between the first and second row of seats - that "hangs" down about a foot. From my MLP in the front row - and where I would need to put the ceiling speakers behind the beam - it would probably block the sound a bit. 

As for the front, as the poster above stated, I could align those two ceiling speakers with my front L/R, and place them slightly in front of the first row.


----------



## sjm817

bambam said:


> Thanks for all the feedback. I'll try to get some photos of the room online - may take a few days. Dimensions are roughly 18' D x 14' W x 7.5' H. Main "workaround" is a soffit/beam that is on the ceiling between the first and second row of seats - that "hangs" down about a foot. From my MLP in the front row - and where I would need to put the ceiling speakers behind the beam - it would probably block the sound a bit.
> 
> As for the front, as the poster above stated, I could align those two ceiling speakers with my front L/R, and place them slightly in front of the first row.


I have a big soffit that runs front to back of the listening area which has a big I Beam, AC duct work and such. It aligns with my L speaker. I struggled what to do with this. I wound up putting one speaker in the soffit and the other in the ceiling. This makes the left speaker 1' lower than the right. The AVR Audyssey XT32 seems to do a good job accounting for this. It sounds just fine. I would not want a speaker on the other side of that where it would be blocked.


----------



## Sketcha

*7.1.2 with Front Heights Only*

This thread is a bit daunting in size and scope. So lieu of any more searches...

So it would be easy to add front heights to my room, but not so much overheads or anything else.

I'm considering upgrading my X1300H to a refurb 4400 to get me some "immersion." I have a built-in entertainment center that stops about 18" short of my 10' ceiling. My system is based around the Boston Acoustics' VR line. I'm very happy with them. When I moved into this home 14 years ago I had the rears and surrounds built in... giving me then a spare pair of their VR-MX surrounds now in a box in the garage. They're a quasi di-pole arrangement as one side has a woofer and tweeter and the other has a passive radiator and tweeter. See photo below with grills removed.

I was thinking of laying them on their backs on top of the entertainment center rather than the usual slight downward fire. Sort of emulating those Atmos speakers with a second set of drivers that fires to the ceiling. The reflected sound would basically be coming from the position of a top front rather than front height. But from everything I've read, with the absence of a top middle pair, I'm not sure how much better my room will sound vs. the ol' 7.1. And then I keep reading about so little content that makes good use of Atmos.

The speakers are essentially free. But will it be worth my $750 for the Denon if I only add those 2 "front height" speakers?


----------



## LawCPA

Sketcha said:


> And then I keep reading about so little content that makes good use of Atmos.
> 
> The speakers are essentially free. But will it be worth my $750 for the Denon if I only add those 2 "front height" speakers?



Atmos/DTS:X/Auro-3D are worth it. Don’t forget about the excellent job the upmixers do to Legacy sound tracks (DSU, Neural X, Auromatic). Get Mad Max Blu-Ray, constant use of the top speakers and the musical score shines through them. 

Before investing in a new AVR, test the height effect. Disconnect the rear pair and instead configure the AVR as 5.1.2 with front heights/upfiring. Not a fan of firing at ceiling, but you can try this first and then run an Atmos demo disk of the helicopter clip and then mount them up high and run the same demo...even with two front heights the helicopter sounds right above your head, it will change your mind about up firing. I loved it and had to add two more speakers since I wanted panning from front to back to be imaged accurately. Using the Dolby demos like Amaze or the audio only rain demo will make it feel like the whole ceiling is raining. Please report back on your results. Happy 4th of July!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sketcha

LawCPA said:


> Please report back on your results. Happy 4th of July!



Will do.


Thanks!


And... you too!


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Should I have more power for my surrounds?*

Do you think I need to get more power than my receiver (NAD 758) 60 wpc for ONLY my side surrounds that are MA gold 50 that are 86 dB sensitive or does the surrounds not really demand much juice or need 100-200 watts for background sounds?

My mains are driven by an Anthem 5 channel amp that does 170 wpc but I need to use 2 out of the 5 channels to power 1 pair of overhead speakers because of how the NAD 758 makes you do that in 5.1.4 config. 

My solution would be to pick up a cheap stereo amp for the overheads that are currently supplied by the Anthem power amp and instead use those 2 170 wpc on the side surrounds instead of them powering 1 pair of in-ceiling speakers that are 90 dB sensitive. 

My room is 17x12.5 with 7.5 ceiling height and opens to another room. 

So, leave the 86db side surrounds powered by 60 watt receiver or buy stereo amp to give them more power (170) the same as the front 3 are?


----------



## Jonas2

Chirosamsung said:


> Do you think I need to get more power than my receiver (NAD 758) 60 wpc for ONLY my side surrounds that are MA gold 50 that are 86 dB sensitive or does the surrounds not really demand much juice or need 100-200 watts for background sounds?
> 
> My mains are driven by an Anthem 5 channel amp that does 170 wpc but I need to use 2 out of the 5 channels to power 1 pair of overhead speakers because of how the NAD 758 makes you do that in 5.1.4 config.
> 
> My solution would be to pick up a cheap stereo amp for the overheads that are currently supplied by the Anthem power amp and instead use those 2 170 wpc on the side surrounds instead of them powering 1 pair of in-ceiling speakers that are 90 dB sensitive.
> 
> My room is 17x12.5 with 7.5 ceiling height and opens to another room.
> 
> So, leave the 86db side surrounds powered by 60 watt receiver or buy stereo amp to give them more power (170) the same as the front 3 are?



So, what I might do if you can - if the NAD can do an All Channel mode (assuming it can?) - send some workout (active jazz, rock, etc.) music to all channels, though you likely don't need the ceiling ones involved - and set the volume to a loud enough level that you are comfortable with listening to - pay attention for distortion. If things sound good in those surrounds, I'd say you don't need another amp. I think this is a somewhat decent test of what the system can do before it runs out of power - something more sustained. (And I'm not saying it'll sound good, music in all channels same signal like this, you're just listening for problematic performance. )

You're right, the surrounds are generally less involved, but such a test makes them involved, so should give you a sense of the system's capabilities, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jonas2 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think I need to get more power than my receiver (NAD 758) 60 wpc for ONLY my side surrounds that are MA gold 50 that are 86 dB sensitive or does the surrounds not really demand much juice or need 100-200 watts for background sounds?
> 
> My mains are driven by an Anthem 5 channel amp that does 170 wpc but I need to use 2 out of the 5 channels to power 1 pair of overhead speakers because of how the NAD 758 makes you do that in 5.1.4 config.
> 
> My solution would be to pick up a cheap stereo amp for the overheads that are currently supplied by the Anthem power amp and instead use those 2 170 wpc on the side surrounds instead of them powering 1 pair of in-ceiling speakers that are 90 dB sensitive.
> 
> My room is 17x12.5 with 7.5 ceiling height and opens to another room.
> 
> So, leave the 86db side surrounds powered by 60 watt receiver or buy stereo amp to give them more power (170) the same as the front 3 are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what I might do if you can - if the NAD can do an All Channel mode (assuming it can?) - send some workout (active jazz, rock, etc.) music to all channels, though you likely don't need the ceiling ones involved - and set the volume to a loud enough level that you are comfortable with listening to - pay attention for distortion. If things sound good in those surrounds, I'd say you don't need another amp. I think this is a somewhat decent test of what the system can do before it runs out of power - something more sustained. (And I'm not saying it'll sound good, music in all channels same signal like this, you're just listening for problematic performance. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif)
> 
> You're right, the surrounds are generally less involved, but such a test makes them involved, so should give you a sense of the system's capabilities, at least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you-I’ll try it. Hoping 60 wpc will be ok for the surrounds that are only rated 86dB which is not great but might be ok


----------



## Augerhandle

Chirosamsung said:


> Thank you-I’ll try it. Hoping 60 wpc will be ok for the surrounds that are only rated 86dB which is not great but might be ok


According to this calculator (I assumed a 6 ft distance), you'll be at the limit, but probably okay. https://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html


----------



## Chirosamsung

Augerhandle said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you-Iâ€™️ll try it. Hoping 60 wpc will be ok for the surrounds that are only rated 86dB which is not great but might be ok
> 
> 
> 
> According to this calculator (I assumed a 6 ft distance), you'll be at the limit, but probably okay. https://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588536
Click to expand...

I’m guessing that’s at reference level (-0)?


----------



## Augerhandle

Chirosamsung said:


> I’m guessing that’s at reference level (-0)?


 No, it's 60 watts into your 86 dB sensitive speakers, which equals 104.5 dB at the listening position, based on my assumptions about your speaker placement.

105 dB peaks are Reference Level, and the calculator shows your speakers reaching 104.5 dB, which is only 0.5 dB below Reference (negligible). This all depends however, on whether you're really getting 60 watts. A rule of thumb is to calculate the power you need, and double it. Doubling power gives you about 3 dB more SPL, so using a 120 w/channel amp or replacing your speakers with 89 dB sensitive speakers would accomplish that.

Most people listen at lower volume (-10 or -15 below Reference) though, so if that's you, you should be good to go.


----------



## noah katz

Augerhandle said:


> This all depends however, on whether you're really getting 60 watts.



Given that it's only needed for brief peaks, he should be, unless the specs are inflated.


----------



## Augerhandle

noah katz said:


> Given that it's only needed for brief peaks, he should be, unless the specs are inflated.


Agreed. My point, exactly.


----------



## PioManiac

Most "all channels driven" measurements are done without a powered sub and all speakers set to full range.

Don't most people running smaller satellite speakers for surrounds have the lower frequencies bass managed 
and let the powered sub(s) do the grunt work below the crossover point? 

I've got over 10K watts of Sub power on tap for


----------



## Chirosamsung

noah katz said:


> Augerhandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all depends however, on whether you're really getting 60 watts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that it's only needed for brief peaks, he should be, unless the specs are inflated.
Click to expand...

NAD specs are conservative and accurate I believe


----------



## Chirosamsung

noah katz said:


> Augerhandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all depends however, on whether you're really getting 60 watts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that it's only needed for brief peaks, he should be, unless the specs are inflated.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that would be the case if one is listening to Dolby upmixing (DSU) for music where it is pumping out the full signal to all speakers for full songs....maybe an issue then?


----------



## Craig Mecak

Chirosamsung said:


> I wonder if that would be the case if one is listening to Dolby upmixing (DSU) for music where it is pumping out the full signal to all speakers for full songs....maybe an issue then?



Dolby Surround Upmixing doesn't do that.


Only out-of-phase info is sent to the surround speakers using DSU.



Signals sent to the height speakers using this upmixer are also quite reserved.


Are you thinking of another mode, like All Channel Stereo?


----------



## noah katz

Chirosamsung said:


> I wonder if that would be the case if one is listening to Dolby upmixing (DSU) for music where it is pumping out the full signal to all speakers for full songs....maybe an issue then?





Craig Mecak said:


> Dolby Surround Upmixing doesn't do that.



Right, and even if it did, brief peaks still applies.


----------



## Jonas2

Chirosamsung said:


> I wonder if that would be the case if one is listening to Dolby upmixing (DSU) for music where it is pumping out the full signal to all speakers for full songs....maybe an issue then?



Yeah, the DSU isn't the same thing as sending a signal "All Channels" where every speaker is getting exactly the same signal. That is, if your receiver actually does that, and I don't think it's not how one would generally listen to music anyway. Though you could....and I have done it - but the imaging is just not right in a home theater setup, at least not mine. I found it valuable for testing at one point, but for a smooth music experience, upmixing is the way to go, or music mastered for multi-channel.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

sdrucker said:


> The Matrix came in, and I’m giving it five stars for high channel count. Clean bill of immersive health, with audible activity pretty much everywhere on my 13.x.6 setup at times. Movement all over the place in scene 1, as well as plenty of music score and ambience in the wides and front side surrounds. Plenty of overhead use as well.
> 
> Here's an Input screenshot, about 7 minutes in. The top lines in green, yellow or occasionally red for each bar are db peaks, and the scale is relative to FS:
> View attachment 2407554
> 
> 
> View attachment 2407556


I'm reading backwards through this thread, and this post made me very envious of these Trinnov input meters.

It seems to me that it would be fairly simple for manufacturers of more consumer-level gear to implement this sort of monitoring in their iPad or Android apps. I know that Yamaha doesn't have it in their controller app. Do any others?

Also, it occurs to me that someone clever with writing code could come up with an add-on for Plex or Kodi that would do the same. I'd love to be able to see in real-time what's being sent to my system.


----------



## pappaduke

Bill Wolfer said:


> I'm reading backwards through this thread, and this post made me very envious of these Trinnov input meters.
> 
> It seems to me that it would be fairly simple for manufacturers of more consumer-level gear to implement this sort of monitoring in their iPad or Android apps. I know that Yamaha doesn't have it in their controller app. Do any others?
> 
> Also, it occurs to me that someone clever with writing code could come up with an add-on for Plex or Kodi that would do the same. I'd love to be able to see in real-time what's being sent to my system.


Those meters are impressive.


----------



## paindonthurt

I’m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. I’m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5” or 8”?


----------



## chi_guy50

paindonthurt said:


> I’m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. I’m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5” or 8”?



Go big or go home (said the guy with the 80F/X-RT's to complement his RTiA 9.1 setup).

Seriously, don't skimp on size if you can help it.


----------



## usc1995

paindonthurt said:


> I’m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. I’m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5” or 8”?




I went Polk MC80S with my RTi setup and my room is smaller than yours.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

usc1995 said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. Iâ€™️m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5â€ or 8â€?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went Polk MC80S with my RTi setup and my room is smaller than yours.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I went with Monitor Audio CT280-IDC which are pretty big and my room is smaller then yours


----------



## niterida

I have heaps of old 90's Mordaunt Short speakers and I went from towers and large bookshelfs for my bed level speakers down to 4.5" small bookshelfs all round as they sounded better. I already had the same small bookshelfs as heights so they helps the sound field I guess. 



But I also have seven subs including a 15"monster so my bass is well taken care of.


So my advice is don't waste money chasing "larger"speakers - go for the smallest/cheapest that sound good if you have the bass covered.


----------



## dfa973

Bill Wolfer said:


> I'm reading backwards through this thread, and this post made me very envious of these Trinnov input meters. .....
> Also, it occurs to me that someone clever with writing code could come up with an add-on for Plex or Kodi that would do the same. I'd love to be able to see in real-time what's being sent to my system.


There are some VU Meters for Kodi, but emulating the Trinnov meters would work only if Kodi could decode and send to the amp all the necessary channels, but Kodi can't decode more than 7.1 so Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks would be out of reach for any software implemented VU Meters. Also, bitstreaming will prevent any volume level reading.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

dfa973 said:


> There are some VU Meters for Kodi, but emulating the Trinnov meters would work only if Kodi could decode and send to the amp all the necessary channels, but Kodi can't decode more than 7.1 so Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks would be out of reach for any software implemented VU Meters. Also, bitstreaming will prevent any volume level reading.


I thought that Kodi can play Atmos. And why would bitstreaming prevent volume level reading?


----------



## imabel

I have just decided to pre-order the Panasonic GZ2000 that has built in Dolby Atmos upfiring speakers and I will let you guys know how it sounds when it gets delivered in 2 weeks time.


----------



## stikle

Bill Wolfer said:


> I thought that Kodi can play Atmos.


It can, and it does. 

You have to change the audio output from the default to 7.1, then enable passthrough on the same screen, and below that enable all of the codecs your AVR supports.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

stikle said:


> It can, and it does.
> 
> You have to change the audio output from the default to 7.1, then enable passthrough on the same screen, and below that enable all of the codecs your AVR supports.


Thanks, that's what I thought. I have a Vero 4K+ on order, because I don't think that Apple is ever going to open up the Apple TV 4K to full TrueHD Atmos. It just isn't in their interests to do so--they'd rather sell you the movie in iTunes.


----------



## Matt L

paindonthurt said:


> I’m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. I’m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5” or 8”?


 Toss up. If you have the space go 8" but I'm using 6" and do not feel I'm missing anything. Very happy with my yamahas. Not a lot of bass on the Atmos feed.


----------



## dfa973

Bill Wolfer said:


> I thought that Kodi can play Atmos.


It really depends on what do you think the word *play* means...
Kodi can decode (play) only the core 5.1/7.1 track, it can not decode the Atmos extension that contains the actual audio objects. _So, Kodi cannot actually decode (play) the Atmos format._ Kodi can "see" and "hear" only what it can decode, so any VU Meter will be able to read only the channels that Kodi can decode. 
But it can send (via bitstreaming) the whole audio track (undecoded, untouched) to an external decoder (prepro, receiver, soundbar, etc) that can decode (play) other formats outside of those supported (decoded) by Kodi. If you pretend that bitstreamed audio means "play", yes, you may consider that Kodi can "play" Atmos, but actually Kodi does not care what the audio stream contains, for Kodi it is just a stream of 1's and 0's. Kodi can't apply any VU Meter reading on those bits.



Bill Wolfer said:


> And why would bitstreaming prevent volume level reading?


Because, as I have explained above, Kodi cannot decode the full Atmos soundtrack, and in consequence, cannot read any audio level from that soundtrack.

Trinnov contains the full Atmos decoder and can read the audio level on every channel is derived from that decoding.
Kodi has no access to any free software Atmos decoder...


----------



## Bill Wolfer

dfa973 said:


> It really depends on what do you think the word *play* means...
> Kodi can decode (play) only the core 5.1/7.1 track, it can not decode the Atmos extension that contains the actual audio objects. _So, Kodi cannot actually decode (play) the Atmos format._ Kodi can "see" and "hear" only what it can decode, so any VU Meter will be able to read only the channels that Kodi can decode.
> But it can send (via bitstreaming) the whole audio track (undecoded, untouched) to an external decoder (prepro, receiver, soundbar, etc) that can decode (play) other formats outside of those supported (decoded) by Kodi. If you pretend that bitstreamed audio means "play", yes, you may consider that Kodi can "play" Atmos, but actually Kodi does not care what the audio stream contains, for Kodi it is just a stream of 1's and 0's. Kodi can't apply any VU Meter reading on those bits.
> 
> 
> Because, as I have explained above, Kodi cannot decode the full Atmos soundtrack, and in consequence, cannot read any audio level from that soundtrack.
> 
> Trinnov contains the full Atmos decoder and can read the audio level on every channel is derived from that decoding.
> Kodi has no access to any free software Atmos decoder...


Nice explanation--thank you! 

It would be a nice add-on to a receiver's app, but that would mean the app would have to have access to the soundtrack being currently played, and be in sync. Trinnov envy...


----------



## dfa973

Bill Wolfer said:


> Nice explanation--thank you!
> 
> It would be a nice add-on to a receiver's app, but that would mean the app would have to have access to the soundtrack being currently played, and be in sync. Trinnov envy...


Actually, connecting a bunch of VU Meters to a receiver that has multi-channel pre-outputs is not that complicated and is very doable if you really need this. You can find cheap analog or digital VU Meters on eBay or Aliexpress and DIY a multi-channel VU Meter by "string" them together, slap a channel label on them and press play...


----------



## audiofan1

*Alita Battle Angel *

This is the best use of objects I've heard the format deliver period and in some cases rivaling the Demo disc itself


----------



## zeonstar

audiofan1 said:


> *Alita Battle Angel *
> 
> This is the best use of objects I've heard the format deliver period and in some cases rivaling the Demo disc itself/forum/images/smilies/cool.gif


Did you watch it in streaming or the disc? I can’t wait to get the disc and see the movie again. 

Which demo disc are you referring to?


----------



## audiofan1

zeonstar said:


> Did you watch it in streaming or the disc? I can’t wait to get the disc and see the movie again.
> 
> Which demo disc are you referring to?


Streaming via Vudu 4k UHD Atmos my disc will arrive later. That was really the shocker as the disc will just be over the top.


----------



## Jonas2

audiofan1 said:


> Streaming via Vudu 4k UHD Atmos my disc will arrive later. That was really the shocker as the disc will just be over the top.



Definitely look forward to hearing what you think about the disc compared to streaming!


----------



## zeonstar

audiofan1 said:


> Streaming via Vudu 4k UHD Atmos my disc will arrive later. That was really the shocker as the disc will just be over the top.


Yeah that is surprising to hear that the streaming version is that good. I've come to realize more and more recently that streaming just doesn't compare with disc audio. The dynamics are especially lacking.

If I may ask, how did you get the streaming version before the disc? Did you simply buy it?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zeonstar said:


> Yeah that is surprising to hear that the streaming version is that good. I've come to realize more and more recently that streaming just doesn't compare with disc audio. The dynamics are especially lacking.
> 
> If I may ask, how did you get the streaming version before the disc? Did you simply buy it?



Just like the video, they have to squeeze a lot into a small bandwidth. Something has to give. 



If discs are put out to pasture, it will be a very sad day indeed. It will be as if the only music available was DRM'd MP3's with no high resolution alternative.


----------



## audiofan1

zeonstar said:


> Yeah that is surprising to hear that the streaming version is that good. I've come to realize more and more recently that streaming just doesn't compare with disc audio. The dynamics are especially lacking.
> 
> If I may ask, how did you get the streaming version before the disc? Did you simply buy it?


Sometimes Vudu will package releases this way where as the disc will arrive later but you can have early access to the digital copy, depending which version you buy up to 4k hdr Atmos.



Dan Hitchman said:


> Just like the video, they have to squeeze a lot into a small bandwidth. Something has to give.
> 
> 
> 
> If discs are put out to pasture, it will be a very sad day indeed. It will be as if the only music available was DRM'd MP3's with no high resolution alternative.


 Lets hope this never happens which is why I vote with my wallet.


----------



## vodil

*Tiny not Tinny*



paindonthurt said:


> I’m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. I’m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5” or 8”?


The height speakers are all about providing direction, which comes from the higher frequencies. Bass cannot be used to discern direction in a room. 
The reason up-firing atmos speakers can even work at all is that they bounce the sound off the ceiling.

So any speaker that can reproduce down to let's say 150Hz will work. The powered sub-woofer can take the lower stuff and you won't know the difference. 

The monoprice speakers are all better than that. Might as well go for the smaller ones because an atmos woofer does not matter much as long as there is a sub-woofer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

vodil said:


> The height speakers are all about providing direction, which comes from the higher frequencies. Bass cannot be used to discern direction in a room.
> The reason up-firing atmos speakers can even work at all is that they bounce the sound off the ceiling.
> 
> So any speaker that can reproduce down to let's say 150Hz will work. The powered sub-woofer can take the lower stuff and you won't know the difference.
> 
> The monoprice speakers are all better than that. Might as well go for the smaller ones because an atmos woofer does not matter much as long as there is a sub-woofer.



However, that flies in the face of Dolby's own recommendations for wide frequency bandwidth overheads and surrounds (or as wide as is possible given any particular installation requirements or restrictions). I've noticed that if your overheads and surrounds can reproduce some mid-bass as well, it creates a more full and impactful sound field.


----------



## Bond 007

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, that flies in the face of Dolby's own recommendations for wide frequency bandwidth overheads and surrounds (or as wide as is possible given any particular installation requirements or restrictions). I've noticed that if your overheads and surrounds can reproduce some mid-bass as well, it creates a more full and impactful sound field.


And as strange as it might seem some people actually listen to music on occasion on the system that they spent thousands of dollars on.


----------



## AYanguas

Bond 007 said:


> And as strange as it might seem some people actually listen to music on occasion on the system that they spent thousands of dollars on.


Yes, my friends. I'm a fan of multichannel music upmixed to Heights and or Tops. Some sound really good.

I have also setup a special speaker configuration to redirect the Front channels only to the Tops cealing speakers. This way you can hear "Stereo" only from the Top cealing speakers. This, some times, looks good when doing special effects with music and Philips HUE lighting and/or fireworks shows, with the Hue apps playing via bluetooth to the receiver.

So, why not install also good decent speakers on the ceiling? Its our hobby...


----------



## vodil

*Speaker priorities*



Dan Hitchman said:


> However, that flies in the face of Dolby's own recommendations for wide frequency bandwidth overheads and surrounds (or as wide as is possible given any particular installation requirements or restrictions). I've noticed that if your overheads and surrounds can reproduce some mid-bass as well, it creates a more full and impactful sound field.


One should remember that Dolby is supported by the people who sell us stuff and have a motivation to get us to buy more stuff. It never hurts to have better speakers, of course, but the question is what is one getting in each case.

If mid-bass means 100-150 Hz, I am quite sure you cannot tell which speaker that band is coming out of. [Both the monoprice speakers mentioned cover this band too.] The directionality comes from the higher bands and so a sound like a helicopter will seem to come from where the high frequencies eminate even though the low frequencies are coming from elsewhere.

We certainly want, however, to get good reproduction of the sound from somewhere. [e.g. My sub can cover this range well and certainly better than the monoprice speakers. My surrounds go down to 80Hz and my heights to 100Hz.] If the subs can't reproduce the mid-bass well, then make sure all the other speakers can. Audessy or Dirac or ARC will take care of the matching and crossover.

We all have limited resources and one wants to put them where they do the most good. Unless one is wanting to pipe the main speakers into the ceiling, investment in high speakers can be moderate and still have very good results. Main and subs are where speaker money preferentially should go.


----------



## batpig

zeonstar said:


> Yeah that is surprising to hear that the streaming version is that good. I've come to realize more and more recently that streaming just doesn't compare with disc audio. The dynamics are especially lacking.


Worth pointing out here that the mix itself (in terms of object count etc) isn't going to be "downscaled" for streaming. All of the object audio info will be there, I've listened to quite a few streaming Atmos mixes (both 4K Atmos versions of movies from Vudu or iTunes and Netflix original content) and the "object-ness" of the mix is preserved. The big difference with streaming is compression / dynamics, where the mixes will not sound quite as clear and powerful/dynamic as the disc version. But the Atmos aspect in terms of utilization of all the speakers is not diminished vs. the disc.



zeonstar said:


> If I may ask, how did you get the streaming version before the disc? Did you simply buy it?


Nothing special here, it's standard practice nowadays for the digital version to be available several weeks before the physical disc is released for sale.


----------



## zeonstar

batpig said:


> Worth pointing out here that the mix itself (in terms of object count etc) isn't going to be "downscaled" for streaming. All of the object audio info will be there, I've listened to quite a few streaming Atmos mixes (both 4K Atmos versions of movies from Vudu or iTunes and Netflix original content) and the "object-ness" of the mix is preserved. The big difference with streaming is compression / dynamics, where the mixes will not sound quite as clear and powerful/dynamic as the disc version. But the Atmos aspect in terms of utilization of all the speakers is not diminished vs. the disc.


That has been my experience as well. I know it's all there...just not as pronounced. It's also not even as loud in my experience. Since I have gotten into 4K, one of the things I love most is Atmos. Most movies I care a lot about, I have on disc. I have a very few movies I own "Only" on digital because I thought it would be good enough. Then I turn around and buy it on disc. Blade Runner 2049 was the most recent example. I don't know how I ever thought I would be fine with just streaming for that one!





batpig said:


> Nothing special here, it's standard practice nowadays for the digital version to be available several weeks before the physical disc is released for sale.


\

Oh yes I knew that part. Was basically just asking if the movie had been purchased twice.


----------



## pg22

A few simple questions, presumably. Apologies if they've been asked ad nauseam:

1) When selecting the Atmos track on a UHD film played via Xbox One X, my Atmos-enabled receiver displays "Dolby TrueHD" on the front panel and OSD. I'm guessing that's working as intended? 

I found this curious because the one DTS:X film I have does not act similarly (e.g., displaying DTS-HD MA). And every other activity displays "Atmos/PCM" (e.g., video games, streaming). fwiw, I believe there's an X1X issue that wraps everything in an Atmos container even if it's not actually outputting Atmos-based sound.

2) Has anyone noticed that Atmos-enabled Netflix content doesn't give audio streaming detail, whereas all other Netflix content does? Is there a technical rationale behind that?

Thank you!


----------



## haman

pg22 said:


> A few simple questions, presumably. Apologies if they've been asked ad nauseam:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) When selecting the Atmos track on a UHD film played via Xbox One X, my Atmos-enabled receiver displays "Dolby TrueHD" on the front panel and OSD. I'm guessing that's working as intended?
> 
> 
> 
> I found this curious because the one DTS:X film I have does not act similarly (e.g., displaying DTS-HD MA). And every other activity displays "Atmos/PCM" (e.g., video games, streaming). fwiw, I believe there's an X1X issue that wraps everything in an Atmos container even if it's not actually outputting Atmos-based sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Has anyone noticed that Atmos-enabled Netflix content doesn't give audio streaming detail, whereas all other Netflix content does? Is there a technical rationale behind that?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!


Hi, you need to set to bitstream on the Xbox Blu-ray setting for it to show Atmos on ur AVR display.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## PioManiac

pg22 said:


> A few simple questions, presumably. Apologies if they've been asked ad nauseam:
> 
> 1) When selecting the Atmos track on a UHD film played via Xbox One X, my *Atmos-enabled* receiver displays "Dolby TrueHD" on the front panel and OSD. I'm guessing that's working as intended?
> 
> I found this curious because the one DTS:X film I have does not act similarly (e.g., displaying DTS-HD MA). And every other activity displays "Atmos/PCM" (e.g., video games, streaming). fwiw, I believe there's an X1X issue that wraps everything in an Atmos container even if it's not actually outputting Atmos-based sound.
> 
> 2) Has anyone noticed that Atmos-enabled Netflix content doesn't give audio streaming detail, whereas all other Netflix content does? Is there a technical rationale behind that?
> 
> Thank you!





haman said:


> Hi, you need to set to bitstream on the Xbox Blu-ray setting for it to show Atmos on ur AVR display.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


If the Front panel on the AVR is already reading Dolby TrueHD, the X1X is already set to Bitstream.
(if it wasn't it would be reading "PCM")

Looking into pg22's post history, he has a Yamaha 5.1 setup. It may be an ATMOS CAPABLE receiver, but it's not at ATMOS _Enabled_ receiver
There's no such thing as a 5.1 ATMOS/DTS:X audio, What you want is 5.1.2 the "2" being the missing factor)

You need at least 2 Height/Overhead or ATMOS Enabled up-firing speakers configured/enabled to play an ATMOS audio track, 
In a 5.1 setup only the core TrueHD/DTS-HD audio will be played. The ATMOS/DTS:X metadata stays in the bed layer channels because there's no where else to go.


What my Yamaha AVR shows for my XBO X while playing ATMOS (4K/UHD Disc) 7.2.4


----------



## pg22

PioManiac said:


> If the Front panel on the AVR is already reading Dolby TrueHD, the X1X is already set to Bitstream.
> (if it wasn't it would be reading "PCM")
> 
> Looking into pg22's post history, he has a Yamaha 5.1 setup. It may be an ATMOS CAPABLE receiver, but it's not at ATMOS _Enabled_ receiver
> There's no such thing as a 5.1 ATMOS/DTS:X audio, What you want is 5.1.2 the "2" being the missing factor)
> 
> You need at least 2 Height/Overhead or ATMOS Enabled up-firing speakers configured/enabled to play an ATMOS audio track,
> In a 5.1 setup only the core TrueHD/DTS-HD audio will be played. The ATMOS/DTS:X metadata stays in the bed layer channels because there's no where else to go.
> 
> 
> What my Yamaha AVR shows for my XBO X while playing ATMOS (4K/UHD Disc) 7.2.4


Ah, excellent. Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't able to get a definitive answer despite repeated readings of the receiver manual, in addition to my original presumption that Atmos shouldn't engage since I remain at 5.1.0.

My curiosity/confusion arose following my recent Xbox One X purchase. As previously mentioned, my Yamaha RX-781 displays "Atmos/PCM" at all times (e.g., X1X dashboard, gameplay, streaming); literally everything but two situations: UHD's with an Atmos track (then TrueHD kicks in) and UHD's with a DTS:X, which _doesn't_ drop down to DTS HD: MA.

I just found this all curious.

Another question arising out of your helpful post: you mentioned "bed layer channels." I couldn't ascertain what that meant. Google didn't provide any info. Faulty autocorrect?

Thanks again!


----------



## PioManiac

pg22 said:


> Ah, excellent. Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't able to get a definitive answer despite repeated readings of the receiver manual, in addition to my original presumption that Atmos shouldn't engage since I remain at 5.1.0.
> 
> My curiosity/confusion arose following my recent Xbox One X purchase. As previously mentioned, my Yamaha RX-781 displays "Atmos/PCM" at all times (e.g., X1X dashboard, gameplay, streaming); literally everything but two situations: UHD's with an Atmos track (then TrueHD kicks in) and UHD's with a DTS:X, which _doesn't_ drop down to DTS HD: MA.
> 
> I just found this all curious.
> 
> Another question arising out of your helpful post: you mentioned "bed layer channels." I couldn't ascertain what that meant. Google didn't provide any info. Faulty autocorrect?
> 
> Thanks again!


Bed or Base Layer is often referred to in this thread as "ear" level speakers. Height layer would be at/near the Ceiling.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

batpig said:


> Worth pointing out here that the mix itself (in terms of object count etc) isn't going to be "downscaled" for streaming. All of the object audio info will be there, I've listened to quite a few streaming Atmos mixes (both 4K Atmos versions of movies from Vudu or iTunes and Netflix original content) and the "object-ness" of the mix is preserved. The big difference with streaming is compression / dynamics, where the mixes will not sound quite as clear and powerful/dynamic as the disc version. But the Atmos aspect in terms of utilization of all the speakers is not diminished vs. the disc.


I've been listening to quite a few streaming movies since I upgraded to a Yamaha 3070 and now have a 7.1.4 system. Just the other day I compared the Blu-ray of Hacksaw Ridge to the iTunes version. The digital copy that came with the blu-ray redeemed as 4K with Dolby Vision and Atmos, so I compared them.

All I could hear was that the iTunes version was a good 6 or 7 db lower than the disc. Other than that, I couldn't discern any difference. I ended up watching the iTunes version, because it looked better than the BD (4K, Dolby Vision). As far as sound, I just cranked it to where at -15 it sounded pretty much the same as listening to the BD at -22.

I'll likely open a can of worms by saying this, but I think that streaming gets dismissed too much here. It's come a long way in the last few years. I'm not sure I'm hearing anything other than a difference in volume. It sounds plenty clear and the bass is powerful.

I just wonder if we could tell the difference if we didn't know, and the volume was equal. I know that I can't tell the difference between a well encoded 320 mp3 and the CD, so I don't worry about it. I think people get too hung up on the 'it's lossy' thing when it's all lossy in one way or another. We aren't listening to anything close to the quality of the stems used for the mix even with TrueHD.

I'm not saying it's equal to a disc, but I think that iTunes or Vudu have come a long way. Hell, Netflix sounds really good these days too, for that matter.


----------



## sdurani

Bill Wolfer said:


> We aren't listening to anything close to the quality of the stems used for the mix even with TrueHD.


TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are lossless data packing algorithms, like zipping a file. A TrueHD track is a bit-for-bit copy of the studio master. How can an identical copy of the original not be identical in quality to the original?


----------



## Josh Z

sdurani said:


> TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are lossless data packing algorithms, like zipping a file. A TrueHD track is a bit-for-bit copy of the studio master. How can an identical copy of the original not be identical in quality to the original?


I think what he's saying is that during the sound design and mixing process, the original sound recordings are so heavily processed and EQed and manipulated that the final soundtrack doesn't sound anything like the "real" live sounds.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

sdurani said:


> TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are lossless data packing algorithms, like zipping a file. A TrueHD track is a bit-for-bit copy of the studio master. How can an identical copy of the original not be identical in quality to the original?


What I meant was that it is still compressed. My point, however, is that streaming is not taken seriously here, when I think it's come a long way. Not saying it's as good, just saying it's often good enough for me, and I don't think that I could tell the difference in a blind A/B comparison.

YMMV.


----------



## sdurani

Bill Wolfer said:


> What I meant was that it is still compressed.


Lossless packing, not lossy compression. Do you make a distinction between those two or not really?


> My point, however, is that streaming is not taken seriously here, when I think it's come a long way. Not saying it's as good, just saying it's often good enough for me, and I don't think that I could tell the difference in a blind A/B comparison.


Agreed. Streaming done well is good enough for me.


----------



## Augerhandle

Bill Wolfer said:


> ...I ended up watching the iTunes version, because it looked better than the BD (4K, Dolby Vision)...


What is your setup/equipment? How far away do you sit? Do you have 20/20 vision?

It's not all about resolution. The Dark Knight is a good example of streamed being worse than BD. In dark scenes, such as when Batman sweeps down to kidnap Lau from his corporate fortress, the streamed version is obviously posterized (showing distinct bands of color/blackness) vs the Blu-ray, which has a smooth transition from shade to shade. It really took me out of the movie.

I regularly see defects in streamed video, so much so that if I am really interested in a movie, I will skip watching it streamed, and rent/buy the Bluray.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

sdurani said:


> Lossless packing, not lossy compression. Do you make a distinction between those two or not really? Agreed. Streaming done well is good enough for me.


I don't care to argue about what is nitpicking a minor thing I think I already clarified. The point was not the nature of the algorithm, it was whether or not the end result is worthwhile, and do you really think you could discern the difference between streaming vs disc in a blind test.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bill Wolfer said:


> What I meant was that it is still compressed. My point, however, is that streaming is not taken seriously here, when I think it's come a long way. Not saying it's as good, just saying *it's often good enough for me*, and I don't think that I could tell the difference in a blind A/B comparison.
> 
> YMMV.



You won't be saying that when you read your streaming agreement. You don't own squat. Purchasing a stream for your collection (even on K-Scape as a downloaded file) is a lease. That's it. You can lose the title altogether or get an altered version on their whim.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

Augerhandle said:


> What is your setup/equipment? How far away do you sit? Do you have 20/20 vision?


I find this very patronizing. I can see the difference between a 4K Dolby Vision stream and a blu-ray. I had just compared the two to compare the audio.

I knew I was opening a can of worms with that post. Never mind, please ignore it.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

Dan Hitchman said:


> You won't be saying that when you read your streaming agreement. You don't own squat. Purchasing a stream for your collection (even on K-Scape as a downloaded file) is a lease. That's it. You can lose the title altogether or get an altered version on their whim.


I'm aware of that. I was comparing the SOUND, not what rights are inferred. People here love to argue.


----------



## sdurani

Bill Wolfer said:


> I don't care to argue about what is nitpicking a minor thing I think I already clarified.


Your clarification blurred the distinction between lossy and lossless. Maybe that's a "minor thing" for you.


> ...do you really think you could discern the difference between streaming vs disc in a blind test.


Depends on the quality of the streaming (how badly the audio is compressed), especially when comparing it to a bit-for-bit copy of the studio master. In a blind test with no video to distract, listeners will concentrate 100% on the sound and small differences will stand out more than usual.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bill Wolfer said:


> I'm aware of that. I was comparing the SOUND, not what rights are inferred. People here love to argue.



I'm not arguing. Just stating a fact. Building a collection via streaming or downloads is building on a foundation of sand. Discs are still the only safe bet for the time being.


----------



## Augerhandle

Bill Wolfer said:


> I find this very patronizing. I can see the difference between a 4K Dolby Vision stream and a blu-ray. I had just compared the two to compare the audio.
> 
> I knew I was opening a can of worms with that post. Never mind, please ignore it.


Sorry about that, but your sweeping claim is farfetched and I just wanted you to clarify how a stream looks better than a 4K BD with 4-6 times the bit rate. Hint: It doesn't.

EDIT: Sorry for the thread derail, folks.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

Augerhandle said:


> Sorry about that, but your sweeping claim is farfetched and I just wanted you to clarify how a stream looks better than a 4K BD with 4-6 times the bit rate. Hint: It doesn't.


Hint: reading comprehension is important. Perhaps you might read again. Nowhere did I mention a 4K BD. The stream looked better than the SDR BD. Can you see the difference between SDR and Dolby Vision?


----------



## Augerhandle

Bill Wolfer said:


> Hint: reading comprehension is important. Perhaps you might read again. Nowhere did I mention a 4K BD. The stream looked better than the SDR BD. Can you see the difference between SDR and Dolby Vision?


 Yeah well, a standard BD is 2-3 times the bit rate.

And maybe you should study syntax. From your post:



Bill Wolfer said:


> ...I ended up watching the iTunes version, because it looked better than the BD (4K, Dolby Vision)...


Notice you put the 4K in parentheses after the BD, not the iTunes.

Doesn't matter, point made by both sides.


----------



## batpig

Not related to Atmos per se, but I agree that streaming has a come a long way in quality. I used to consistently notice major compression artifacts with streaming video (blocking / pixelization especially with movement, posterizing / banding on gradients, etc) but with my AppleTV 4K streaming HD and UHD streams from Netflix, Vudu, etc. the video quality is quite excellent at this point. Not quite as good as a 4K HDR disc with great quality, but at this point I find many streams have video quality basically equal to a good Blu-ray. Images are extremely sharp and I don't see a lot of compression artifacts anymore.

And this is on a 10ft wide projection screen, so it's not a display size issue where I can't see the problems because the screen is too small. 

Some older Vudu HD titles I own (e.g. Dr Strange) have fairly mediocre streaming quality, but some newer 4K titles especially can look excellent. 

I'll have to retest some of the audio to make sure it's not just a volume difference vs. the disc track, but listening to some 4K titles like Aquaman (which is well praised for sound quality) it didn't sound quite as good as some of my reference Atmos discs. 

All that said, I'm sure there are variables that explain some of the differences people experience, i.e. the hardware you are using to stream and the internet speed.


----------



## Jonas2

Actual disks are to me as the ring was to Gollum.... 

I like it tangible, and with the extra goodies that might come with disks that will never come with streaming... Each to their own, of course.


----------



## snookfisher

HELP PLEASE. 

So I finished installing 4 ceiling speakers and doing the calibration on my processor and was very excited to settle in and fire up my first ATMOS bluray dics...so I plop TERMINATOR GENISYS in the player and trudge thru the previews and finally get to the menu...I select AUDIO and to my surprise ther is only DOLBY DIGITAL 5.1 and the foreign lang options to choose from....no dolby atmos option. thinking I picked up the wrong version somehow I checked the back of the box and and it clearly has the ATMOS logo....So I chose the 5.1 option thinking that the disc defaulted to ATMOS and the receiver would recocnize the bitstream as ATMOS...well no such luck...the receiver is getting a 5.1 imput and upmixin using DOLBY SURROUND. What am I missing?? I comfimed the same thing on the STAR TREK BEYOND bluray...same issue...I put in VALERIAN and chose the ATMNOS option and receiver confirmed ATMOS imput and playback... What am I missing???


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> HELP PLEASE.
> 
> So I finished installing 4 ceiling speakers and doing the calibration on my processor and was very excited to settle in and fire up my first ATMOS bluray disc..so I plop TERMINATOR GENISYS in the player and trudge thru the previews and finally get to the menu...I select AUDIO and to my surprise there is only DOLBY DIGITAL 5.1 and the foreign lang options to choose from....no dolby atmos option. thinking I picked up the wrong version somehow I checked the back of the box and and it clearly has the ATMOS logo....So I chose the 5.1 option thinking that the disc defaulted to ATMOS and the receiver would recognize the bitstream as ATMOS...well no such luck...the receiver is getting a 5.1 input and upmixing using DOLBY SURROUND. What am I missing?? I confirmed the same thing on the STAR TREK BEYOND bluray...same issue...I put in VALERIAN and chose the ATMOS option and receiver confirmed ATMOS input and playback... What am I missing???



Where are you from? Sometimes different region's discs will not get the same audio tracks as the U.S. and vice versa. Which player do you have? Which receiver or pre-amp? There may be a setting or settings you are missing.


And sometimes, the Dolby Atmos or DTS: X track is only available on the 4k UHD Blu-ray edition.


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> Where are you from? Sometimes different region's discs will not get the same audio tracks as the U.S. and vice versa. Which player do you have? Which receiver or pre-amp? There may be a setting or settings you are missing.
> 
> 
> And sometimes, the Dolby Atmos or DTS: X track is only available on the 4k UHD Blu-ray edition.






IM in Florida..its a us disc bought at wall mart for 5 bucks...it has the atmos logo on the case.


----------



## Augerhandle

snookfisher said:


> HELP PLEASE.
> 
> So I finished installing 4 ceiling speakers and doing the calibration on my processor and was very excited to settle in and fire up my first ATMOS bluray dics...so I plop TERMINATOR GENISYS in the player and trudge thru the previews and finally get to the menu...I select AUDIO and to my surprise ther is only DOLBY DIGITAL 5.1 and the foreign lang options to choose from....no dolby atmos option. thinking I picked up the wrong version somehow I checked the back of the box and and it clearly has the ATMOS logo....So I chose the 5.1 option thinking that the disc defaulted to ATMOS and the receiver would recocnize the bitstream as ATMOS...well no such luck...the receiver is getting a 5.1 imput and upmixin using DOLBY SURROUND. What am I missing?? I comfimed the same thing on the STAR TREK BEYOND bluray...same issue...I put in VALERIAN and chose the ATMNOS option and receiver confirmed ATMOS imput and playback... What am I missing???


I once accidentally loaded the DVD version with the same result. To err is human.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> IM in Florida..its a us disc bought at wall mart for 5 bucks...it has the atmos logo on the case.



The 4k disc has the Dolby Atmos track. It was a typo on the case cover for the Bargain Basement Walmart edition, which will often even drop lossless tracks since they're stripped rental versions. 



However, I still need to know answers to my other questions. Sometimes, it's a matter of settings that aren't correct.


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 4k disc has the Dolby Atmos track. It was a typo on the case cover for the Bargain Basement Walmart edition, which will often even drop lossless tracks since they're stripped rental versions.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I still need to know answers to my other questions. Sometimes, it's a matter of settings that aren't correct.




Samsung ubd m7500 4k player Marantz 6011 receiver


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 4k disc has the Dolby Atmos track. It was a typo on the case cover for the Bargain Basement Walmart edition, which will often even drop lossless tracks since they're stripped rental versions.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I still need to know answers to my other questions. Sometimes, it's a matter of settings that aren't correct.


same problem on the star trek beyond I bought on amazon


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> Samsung ubd m7500 4k player Marantz 6011 receiver



The player must be set to bitstream in the audio setup. Audio output format - HDMI. PCM Downsampling - OFF. Dynamic Range Control - OFF. 



The Marantz needs to have the decode setting set to Auto. 



These cheapo Walmart discs also tend to be a problem, as I mentioned before. 



Keep getting the 4k disc versions whenever available. That assures you will get the immersive audio tracks.


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> The player must be set to bitstream in the audio setup. Audio output format - HDMI. PCM Downsampling - OFF. Dynamic Range Control - OFF.
> 
> 
> 
> The Marantz needs to have the decode setting set to Auto.
> 
> 
> 
> These cheapo Walmart discs also tend to be a problem, as I mentioned before.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep getting the 4k disc versions whenever available. That assures you will get the immersive audio tracks.[/QUOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks...ill double check the settings when I get home...I know I have it set to bitstream.. the thing is it played valerian fine when I selected the ATMOS option...but I had the same problem with the star trek beyond that I DID NOT buy cheap at wall mart...
> 
> ill try some other discs tonight when I get home


----------



## batpig

There's only three possible explanations:

1. You accidentally picked the wrong disc and it doesn't have an Atmos track
2. The disc defaults to the non-Atmos track (this happens!) and you need to select the Atmos track manually 
3. The player is incorrectly set up and won't bitstream the audio (likeliest issue is the "secondary audio" setting)


----------



## snookfisher

batpig said:


> There's only three possible explanations:
> 
> 1. You accidentally picked the wrong disc and it doesn't have an Atmos track
> 2. The disc defaults to the non-Atmos track (this happens!) and you need to select the Atmos track manually
> 3. The player is incorrectly set up and won't bitstream the audio (likeliest issue is the "secondary audio" setting)


There is only one disc in the case...
There is no ATMOS track to select
The player is set to bitstream and played another atmos dis fine.... there is however no "secondary audio" setting in the samsungs menu I could find to set to OFF


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> The 4k disc has the Dolby Atmos track.


The two discs he's cited (Terminator Genisys and Star Trek Beyond) both have Atmos on the regular Blu-ray.


----------



## batpig

snookfisher said:


> There is only one disc in the case...
> There is no ATMOS track to select
> The player is set to bitstream and played another atmos dis fine.... there is however no "secondary audio" setting in the samsungs menu I could find to set to OFF


When you're in the disc menu, and you go to the "languages" or "audio" menu for the disc, does the English audio track selection indicate "Dolby Atmos" as the mix? Or does it say something like "English Dolby 5.1"?


----------



## snookfisher

batpig said:


> When you're in the disc menu, and you go to the "languages" or "audio" menu for the disc, does the English audio track selection indicate "Dolby Atmos" as the mix? Or does it say something like "English Dolby 5.1"?



English Dolby 5.1...there is no ATMOS option..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're in the disc menu, and you go to the "languages" or "audio" menu for the disc, does the English audio track selection indicate "Dolby Atmos" as the mix? Or does it say something like "English Dolby 5.1"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> English Dolby 5.1...there is no ATMOS option..
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, you got a stripped down Walmart bargain bin version, which is a rental disc that has no lossless track.

Don't buy these discs!


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> I put in VALERIAN and chose the ATMNOS option and receiver confirmed ATMOS imput and playback.


Since you're getting Atmos, it means your connections and settings are correct. In which case, the problem is with the other two discs.


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I mentioned, you got a stripped down Walmart bargain bin version, which is a rental disc that has no lossless track.
> 
> Don't buy these discs!


So your saying that wallmart is selling mislabeled and substandard blurays? ...I would think that that would be false advertising and basically fraud...and its not just the wallmart disc...the star trek BEYOND I got from amazon and is not a "budget version"


----------



## TommyDeVito

batpig said:


> Not related to Atmos per se, but I agree that streaming has a come a long way in quality. I used to consistently notice major compression artifacts with streaming video (blocking / pixelization especially with movement, posterizing / banding on gradients, etc) but with my AppleTV 4K streaming HD and UHD streams from Netflix, Vudu, etc. the video quality is quite excellent at this point. Not quite as good as a 4K HDR disc with great quality, but at this point I find many streams have video quality basically equal to a good Blu-ray. Images are extremely sharp and I don't see a lot of compression artifacts anymore.
> 
> And this is on a 10ft wide projection screen, so it's not a display size issue where I can't see the problems because the screen is too small.
> 
> Some older Vudu HD titles I own (e.g. Dr Strange) have fairly mediocre streaming quality, but some newer 4K titles especially can look excellent.
> 
> I'll have to retest some of the audio to make sure it's not just a volume difference vs. the disc track, but listening to some 4K titles like Aquaman (which is well praised for sound quality) it didn't sound quite as good as some of my reference Atmos discs.
> 
> All that said, I'm sure there are variables that explain some of the differences people experience, i.e. the hardware you are using to stream and the internet speed.



That's the issue for me. While streaming quality from various companies has improved, the audio is still crap compared to a disc. I found the difference to be vast. Strange that folks would invest thousands and thousands of dollars on premium panel, premium avr/amp(s), high quality cables, expensive speakers and subs, speaker wiring, electrical work (more or large breakers) then you stream stuff that has low audio quality. To me it's like buying a performance/sports car then putting in 87 octane with 15% ethanol. So much money invested then you neuter it. I will never understand that. 



I tried Amazon and Netflix streaming, noticed immediately how I had to turn the volume dial up on my Marantz WAY up to compensate and even then it didn't sound as good as a disc. Cancelled all streaming, to me it's all bs until they deliver the same exact quality as a disc, video and audio both. All my film watching is on 1080p blu rays or 4K discs if a 4k version is offered. I rent discs for each from 2 different companies (Netflix and 3d Blu Ray). The per disc charge per month I pay is way less than paying for a streaming version. I pay $2.79 per 4K disc rental as an example. Yes I have to wait, but there is rarely a film I can't wait for. It's not like the film industry is cutting classics these days. They are rare. It's like Endgame. A bunch of people I'm friends with do not understand I could wait for it to be on disc. I'm like, it's about 90 days from theatrical release to 4k release these days, +/- 15 days. Add a week or so for me to get it in the mail, no big deal. I enjoy it more when the quality is there and Disneyitis sound tracks are real so I could wait until December to get it since the home release audio track will be muted. 

With bandwidth limitations coming for home internet (max bytes per month) in many places I don't think discs are going anywhere. The ISP's (whether telco or mso) are getting too greedy as it pertains to bandwidth. 
Disc is still king in both video and audio quality. And 4k discs, iirc, are 3 tiers, 50 Gb, 66 Gb, and a whopping 100 Gb per disc. That's a lot of bandwidth if you watch lots of films. Industry answer to that is compression and more compression. No thanks. If some company out there has the balls to go brick and mortar 4k/BD rental, old school Blockbuster style, I'll be right there with my money in my hand telling them to take it. I've got a place like that close to the house (Movie Trading co.). They rent 4k discs and if they are out of it, you write your name down and they call you when it's in. The selection just isn't like Blockbuster was, but it's a start.


Now the panel mfr's are starting to push 8k. Imagine the file size of an 8k disc. LMAO.


----------



## batpig

snookfisher said:


> English Dolby 5.1...there is no ATMOS option..


Yup, then it's the disc. It's a "stripped down" version for Walmart as Dan presumed.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> So your saying that wallmart is selling mislabeled and substandard blurays? ...I would think that that would be false advertising and basically fraud...and its not just the wallmart disc...the star trek BEYOND I got from amazon and is not a "budget version"


Walmart bin titles have almost always been lower end discs. As for your Amazon purchase, was it from Amazon.com LLC directly or a third party seller? Sometimes you run across less than honest sellers on Amazon marketplace and Ebay. 

What are your options for Bitstream that pop up on your Samsung player’s audio setup menu?


----------



## Molon_Labe

Bill Wolfer said:


> Hint: reading comprehension is important.


Hint: Polite behavior and a general lack of condescension are equally important.


----------



## snookfisher

batpig said:


> Yup, then it's the disc. It's a "stripped down" version for Walmart as Dan presumed.


Ok..im not trying to argue...and im sure you are right..the thing is that the star trek bluray has the same issue and it is NOT A WALLMART STRIPED DOWN VERSION.

ill try it all again when I get home and I guess ill return the wallmart disc ...and alert them to their fraudulent practices?..


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> Walmart bin titles have almost always been lower end discs. As for your Amazon purchase, was it from Amazon.com LLC directly or a third party seller? Sometimes you run across less than honest sellers on Amazon marketplace and Ebay.
> 
> What are your options for Bitstream on your Samsung player?


From amazon ..not third party...has the proper packaging ect…

options are 

bitstream unprocessed
bitstream processed to DTS
bitstream processed to DD

I chose bitstream unprocessed of coarse.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> From amazon ..not third party...has the proper packaging ect…
> 
> options are
> 
> bitstream unprocessed
> bitstream processed to DTS
> bitstream processed to DD
> 
> I chose bitstream unprocessed of coarse.


Good. 

Make sure you change all the other settings I mentioned.

It’s the discs for sure.

Push the point with both that you didn’t get what you were supposed to get to receive a refund. But the only way you know you’re going to get Atmos on either title is ALWAYS GET THE 4K DISC, SINCE YOU HAVE A 4K PLAYER. Emphasized by me.


----------



## PioManiac

snookfisher said:


> There is only one disc in the case...
> There is no ATMOS track to select
> The player is set to bitstream and played another atmos dis fine.... there is however no "secondary audio" setting in the samsungs menu I could find to set to OFF





batpig said:


> When you're in the disc menu, and you go to the "languages" or "audio" menu for the disc, does the English audio track selection indicate "Dolby Atmos" as the mix? Or does it say something like "English Dolby 5.1"?





snookfisher said:


> English Dolby 5.1...there is no ATMOS option..


All North American Releases listed with Blu-Ray.com
for Star Trek Beyond and Terminator Genisys come in Bluray Combo pack's (Blu-Ray+DVD+Digital)
(No single disc options available)

Are you sure you have a Bluray and not a DVD?
Does your display indicate a 1080 picture?

Even if you didn't get ATMOS as an audio option,
a Bluray should at least offer TrueHD 7.1 

English Dolby Digital 5.1 isnt even an option unless you buy the DVD


----------



## snookfisher

PioManiac said:


> All North American Releases listed with Blu-Ray.com
> for Star Trek Beyond and Terminator Genisys come in Bluray Combo pack's (Blu-Ray+DVD+Digital)
> (No single disc options available)
> 
> Are you sure you have a Bluray and not a DVD?
> Does your display indicate a 1080 picture?
> 
> Even if you didn't get ATMOS as an audio option,
> a Bluray should at least offer TrueHD 7.1
> 
> English Dolby Digital 5.1 isnt even an option unless you buy the DVD


I wouldn't bet my life on it but ..I think I would have noticed it not being high def on my 127" screen. I do not have a 4k projector but I hope I can tell the difference between bluray and dvd...lol. 

ill look again here in an hour or so when I get home...the star trek is a combo pack but the terminator I believe is a single disc...im confused too believe me!


I will feel silly indeed if I did put the DVD in but that does seem the only logical explanation … if it turns out to be the case a trip to the optometrist is in my very near future!!


----------



## Bill Wolfer

Molon_Labe said:


> Hint: Polite behavior and a general lack of condescension are equally important.


I don't feel that I was impolite, merely reacting in kind. In the future I plan to keep my opinions to myself.


----------



## pappaduke

snookfisher said:


> I wouldn't bet my life on it but ..I think I would have noticed it not being high def on my 127" screen. I do not have a 4k projector but I hope I can tell the difference between bluray and dvd...lol.
> 
> ill look again here in an hour or so when I get home...the star trek is a combo pack but the terminator I believe is a single disc...im confused too believe me!
> 
> 
> I will feel silly indeed if I did put the DVD in but that does seem the only logical explanation … if it turns out to be the case a trip to the optometrist is in my very near future!!


You wouldn’t be the first person to inadvertently put the wrong disc in from a combo pack. If that’s the case, at least the mystery would be solved.


----------



## PioManiac

pappaduke said:


> You wouldn’t be the first person to inadvertently put the wrong disc in from a combo pack. If that’s the case, at least the mystery would be solved.


Guilty of that too, a couple times early after the switch to 4K/UHD 

My first batch of 4K movies in 2016 always had the 4K/UHD on the Right side, Bluray on the left
....I was several minutes into the movie at least once, when I realized I was not seeing HDR effects like I should be. 
(I had grabbed the disc on the right, force of habit, and without the lights on (projector on) I didn't see it was the wrong choice.

Whenever I get a new combo pack now, I open it and make sure the 4K/UHD disc is on the right, if not it gets moved.

I just got home and loaded up my Star Trek Beyond DVD, BD and 4K

DVD menu, static image of Chris Pine (Kirk)









4K and BD 
Both have a dynamic background showing clips from the movie, can't be paused, hence the blurry background









Terminator Genisys (4K/BD both the same, sorry no DVD)


----------



## Molon_Labe

Bill Wolfer said:


> I don't feel that I was impolite, merely reacting in kind. In the future I plan to keep my opinions to myself.


 Sometimes the "react in kind" causes more harm than good because forum posts are easily misunderstood. Maybe your response was received in a way it wasn't intended or you interpreted a post in a way it wasn't intended.. I would suggest just starting fresh and let the by-gones be by-gones. There are many here who are eager to help other enthusiasts.


----------



## stikle

snookfisher said:


> I will feel silly indeed if I did put the DVD in


I wouldn't worry about it. Laugh, remember it for next time, and carry on.



PioManiac said:


> I just got home and loaded up my Star Trek Beyond DVD, BD and 4K


I'm seeing (mostly) the same thing:

Terminator: Genisys Bluray (no DVD or 4K)










Terminator: Genisys Bluray Menu:










Star Trek: Beyond Bluray/4K Discs:










Star Trek: Beyond Bluray/4K Menu (same on both):


----------



## juanej

*ATMOS speakers position*

First of all my current space is very limited at 8 feet by 8 feet, my couch is next to the wall so I don't have any room behind to put the Top rear speaker so telling by this image I should do a Top middle + Top front speaker config is that right? Which 2 speakers should I start with?

I'm maybe upgrading in the future to 4 if you guys tell me that's a good option for my reduced space.


----------



## Matt L

One other thing that might impact Atmos playback, and has happened to be a number of times, for some reason my Samsung UUHD 8500 player decides to switch from bitstream to "Auto". Happened tonight watching *Bad* Times at the *El* *Royale, *I had a few people over and noticed DD 7.1 on the display. waited for some to take a break and checked the player, and yes it went into auto mode. flipped it back and Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> One other thing that might impact Atmos playback, and has happened to be a number of times, for some reason my Samsung UUHD 8500 player decides to switch from bitstream to "Auto". Happened tonight watching *Bad* Times at the *El* *Royale, *I had a few people over and noticed DD 7.1 on the display. waited for some to take a break and checked the player, and yes it went into auto mode. flipped it back and Atmos.



Samsung players are pieces of, well, you know. An upgrade is in order, I'm afraid.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

juanej said:


> First of all my current space is very limited at 8 feet by 8 feet, my couch is next to the wall so I don't have any room behind to put the Top rear speaker so telling by this image I should do a Top middle + Top front speaker config is that right? Which 2 speakers should I start with?
> 
> I'm maybe upgrading in the future to 4 if you guys tell me that's a good option for my reduced space.



Front Height and Top Middle do seem like the best pairing given your limited space and couch location. Make sure the Top Middle are placed just in front of your seating, not directly over. Humans have a hard time discerning sounds from directly above or directly in back of us. They are weak spots in our hearing.


Top Front and Top Middle are not allowed as a configuration. The overhead speakers are too close together.


----------



## Matt L

Why? I paid $45 for it, it plays UHD disks well, streams my NAS content in Atmos, and does what I want. I've spent 10x that amount on BD players had had less satisfaction. A minor annoyance is not enough to get me to fork over $300+ for something marginally better.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> Why? I paid $45 for it, it plays UHD disks well, streams my NAS content in Atmos, and does what I want. I've spent 10x that amount on BD players had had less satisfaction. A minor annoyance is not enough to get me to fork over $300+ for something marginally better.



Players costing less than $300 can best the 8500 in multiple areas. I had one and upgraded as soon as I could... never looked back.


----------



## juanej

Dan Hitchman said:


> Front Height and Top Middle do seem like the best pairing given your limited space and couch location. Make sure the Top Middle are placed just in front of your seating, not directly over. Humans have a hard time discerning sounds from directly above or directly in back of us. They are weak spots in our hearing.
> 
> 
> Top Front and Top Middle are not allowed as a configuration. The overhead speakers are too close together.


What about putting 2 top fronts at less than 45º?

The only front height speakers from the brand I'm using are 5.25" vs 6.5" of the other 7 speakers I already bought


----------



## Matt L

OK I'm curious, what do other players do better than the 8500 to make the investment worth it?


----------



## PioManiac

Matt L said:


> OK I'm curious, what do other players do better than the 8500 to make the investment worth it?


For starters they don't switch to auto mode and play 7.1 instead of ATMOS


----------



## Matt L

I can push that button and keep $$$ in my pocket.


----------



## PioManiac

Better players do a Lot of things better, in addition to better Picture Quality.

3D crosstalk reduction, dynamic range slider control, 
Dolby Vision, HDR Tone Mapping, SACD and Multi-Region DVD/BD playback. 
Physical additions like an all metal case and 7.1 Multi-channel analog connections.
But I guess a lot depends on the quality of the rest of your components and what your media needs are.

For those with projectors in a dark room...even having a back-lit remote is a nice upgrade.


----------



## ronsan3

Matt L said:


> Why? I paid $45 for it, it plays UHD disks well, streams my NAS content in Atmos, and does what I want. I've spent 10x that amount on BD players had had less satisfaction. A minor annoyance is not enough to get me to fork over $300+ for something marginally better.


if i may ask,is your nas connected thruogh your network or to your bd player?


----------



## snookfisher

OK GUYS....well...I do indeed feel silly.. and OLD. I did if fact put the DVD in my player. (smh) . There was some promo material covering the bluray side and my theater was dark and I guess I was laser focused on the new ATMOS toys that I didn't notice sooo….sorry to have wasted everyones time...

Good news is that the WALLMART GENISYS bluray played perfectly well and ATMOS does add to the experience.. although a little more subtle than I expected... and I can say that the DOLBY SURROUND does a very good job..it was similar to the ATMOS playback.


----------



## Augerhandle

snookfisher said:


> OK GUYS....well...I do indeed feel silly.. and OLD. I did if fact put the DVD in my player. (smh) . There was some promo material covering the bluray side and my theater was dark and I guess I was laser focused on the new ATMOS toys that I didn't notice sooo….sorry to have wasted everyones time...
> 
> Good news is that the WALLMART GENISYS bluray played perfectly well and ATMOS does add to the experience.. although a little more subtle than I expected... and I can say that the DOLBY SURROUND does a very good job..it was similar to the ATMOS playback.



I mentioned this yesterday morning. Don't feel silly.



Augerhandle said:


> I once accidentally loaded the DVD version with the same result. To err is human.


----------



## gwsat

snookfisher said:


> OK GUYS....well...I do indeed feel silly.. and OLD. I did if fact put the DVD in my player. (smh) . There was some promo material covering the bluray side and my theater was dark and I guess I was laser focused on the new ATMOS toys that I didn't notice sooo….sorry to have wasted everyones time...
> 
> Good news is that the WALLMART GENISYS bluray played perfectly well and ATMOS does add to the experience.. although a little more subtle than I expected... and I can say that the DOLBY SURROUND does a very good job..it was similar to the ATMOS playback.


Thank God! Whenever I accidentally put in the 1080 version of a film instead of the 4K Atmos version, I had thought I had just experienced (another) senior moment. Can’t tell you how happy I am to learn that it’s not just me. 

I think that Atmos soundtracks often underutilize overhead speakers. To my ears at least, aggressive overheads are better than timid ones.


----------



## Matt L

PioManiac said:


> Better players do a Lot of things better, in addition to better Picture Quality.
> 
> 3D crosstalk reduction, dynamic range slider control,
> Dolby Vision, HDR Tone Mapping, SACD and Multi-Region DVD/BD playback.
> Physical additions like an all metal case and 7.1 Multi-channel analog connections.
> But I guess a lot depends on the quality of the rest of your components and what your media needs are.
> 
> For those with projectors in a dark room...even having a back-lit remote is a nice upgrade.


My thoughts are/were the UHD player is just dumping bits for the AVR and Display to take from there and process. Historically I've never seen any difference in BD players, I've had a number of them, and the display all looked identical. I've been doing this so long I've moved off the highend stuff I spent so much money on over the decades and have no need for metal cases and various outputs, HDMI out fits my needs.

Maybe next year I'll look around and see what I can pick up cheap on CL or Ebay and upgrade the UHD player when someone else moves on to the latest and greatest...



ronsan3 said:


> if i may ask,is your nas connected thruogh your network or to your bd player?


Yes, my 4T WD Easystore is attached to my Asus router and feeds my player via CAT5.


----------



## batpig

snookfisher said:


> OK GUYS....well...I do indeed feel silly.. and OLD. I did if fact put the DVD in my player. (smh) .





batpig said:


> There's only three possible explanations:
> 
> *1. You accidentally picked the wrong disc and it doesn't have an Atmos track*
> 2. The disc defaults to the non-Atmos track (this happens!) and you need to select the Atmos track manually
> 3. The player is incorrectly set up and won't bitstream the audio (likeliest issue is the "secondary audio" setting)


AND WE HAVE A WINNER! 

It's OK, it happens to all of us!  

At least we got it sorted now!


----------



## Josh Z

Matt L said:


> My thoughts are/were the UHD player is just dumping bits for the AVR and Display to take from there and process. Historically I've never seen any difference in BD players, I've had a number of them, and the display all looked identical. I've been doing this so long I've moved off the highend stuff I spent so much money on over the decades and have no need for metal cases and various outputs, HDMI out fits my needs.


True for regular Blu-ray. Less true for UHD/HDR, where the quality of tone-mapping varies so wildly from device to device or display.


----------



## noah katz

TommyDeVito said:


> I rent discs for each from 2 different companies (Netflix and 3d Blu Ray). The per disc charge per month I pay is way less than paying for a streaming version. I pay $2.79 per 4K disc rental as an example.



Why pay for two subscriptions?

Is the 2.79 based on 3d Blu Ray's max 10 discs/mo for 27.99?


----------



## TommyDeVito

noah katz said:


> Why pay for two subscriptions?
> 
> Is the 2.79 based on 3d Blu Ray's max 10 discs/mo for 27.99?



Because Netflix offers 1080p discs for a very reasonable price. Unlimited per month. Watch as many or as little as you have time for. You can get a disc at a time, 2 or 3. They also have local distribution so returns and deliveries are extremely fast. I ship a disc out on Monday, and I get my next disc on Wednesday to replace it.



$2.79 is definitely based on 10 per month with 3d. I'm almost through the back catalog so will drop it soon to 5 per month. That will increase per disc price but still pretty affordable. Unlike Netflix, it takes many days to get discs from them as they aren't big like Netlix and don't have local distribution. All my returns go to Illinois. But it's still worth it because Netflix doesn't offer 4k discs. And I like to support the small guy. 



I don't know what the ratio is for BD vs. UHD discs but it's massively skewed towards the 1080p version. Many films, that I want to see, are still coming out on DVD with no 1080p or 4k versions. So it makes sense to keep Netflix for now.


----------



## chi_guy50

TommyDeVito said:


> Because Netflix offers 1080p discs for a very reasonable price. Unlimited per month. Watch as many or as little as you have time for. You can get a disc at a time, 2 or 3. They also have local distribution so returns and deliveries are extremely fast. I ship a disc out on Monday, and I get my next disc on Wednesday to replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> $2.79 is definitely based on 10 per month with 3d. I'm almost through the back catalog so will drop it soon to 5 per month. That will increase per disc price but still pretty affordable. Unlike Netflix, it takes many days to get discs from them as they aren't big like Netlix and don't have local distribution. All my returns go to Illinois. But it's still worth it because Netflix doesn't offer 4k discs. And I like to support the small guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the ratio is for BD vs. UHD discs but it's massively skewed towards the 1080p version. Many films, that I want to see, are still coming out on DVD with no 1080p or 4k versions. So it makes sense to keep Netflix for now.



As a fellow "dual subscriber" to both Netflix (Premium streaming plus BRD by mail one-disc-at-a-time) and 3D-BluRayRental.com (typically two-discs-per-month), I concur that the two services together provide a synergistic source for physical media rental. It should be noted that the latter not only adds UHD BRD's to the mix but also 3D BRD's, video games (although not my cup of tea), and--not incidentally--some smaller-market source material not available from Netflix despite their enormous library, such as the excellent documentaries from Shout Factory.

And every disc from 3D-BluRayRental.com is the unadulterated retail version (complete with the original audio codecs and any supplemental features), not a neutered rental release such as one sometimes encounters via Netflix (Lionsgate is a particularly egregious offender). Adding insult to injury, Netflix's product listing is pathetically incomplete/inaccurate regarding the audio; so if you are after an Atmos release, you can sometimes be disappointed in the version they will send you. Don't get me wrong, I love Netflix for the length and breadth of their catalog and the efficiency of their distribution network, and I am a loyal customer. But each service has their limitations, making a subscription to both very attractive for me.


----------



## pappaduke

snookfisher said:


> OK GUYS....well...I do indeed feel silly.. and OLD. I did if fact put the DVD in my player. (smh) . There was some promo material covering the bluray side and my theater was dark and I guess I was laser focused on the new ATMOS toys that I didn't notice sooo….sorry to have wasted everyones time...
> 
> Good news is that the WALLMART GENISYS bluray played perfectly well and ATMOS does add to the experience.. although a little more subtle than I expected... and I can say that the DOLBY SURROUND does a very good job..it was similar to the ATMOS playback.


Problem solved is what it’s all about. You weren’t the first and trust me, you won’t be the last to do this. You’ll be the next person to suggest this possible mistake to the next one that makes the same error. Enjoy Atmos!!


----------



## snookfisher

So...question for you guys...

ATMOS claims to be "object based" instead of " channel based" and that means that it can place sounds of objects anywhere in the "dome" created by the overhead and ear level speakers. Well...I watched STAR TREK BEYOND last night and TERMINATOR the night before ( and yes I put in the right disc this time and chose the ATMOS option and confirmed that the receiver WAS receiving and outputting ATMOS). While waiting for my new processor and ceiling speakers to arrive I read all the atmos reviews. And while I ABSOLUTLY notice a perceivable improvement and every once in a while really cool overhead effect... I must say im not getting the "object placed in the dome" claimed by the reviewers....sounds still seem to emanate from one of the 7 "LISTENER LEVEL" speakers and not "free from channels". my 7.2.4 set up is the following:

Marantz 6011 (used as pre pro)
ANTHEM 7ch and 5ch amplifiers
7 MAGNEPAN "listener level" speakers 
4 focal in ceiling speakers
2 EPIK PHEONIX subs


dedicated theater room all speakers aprox equal distance apart and in proper location


Do you guys experience the "free from speakers or channels" effect with objects sound emanating from any point in the dome?


----------



## tigerhonaker

snookfisher said:


> So...question for you guys...
> 
> ATMOS claims to be "object based" instead of " channel based" and that means that it can place sounds of objects anywhere in the "dome" created by the overhead and ear level speakers. Well...I watched STAR TREK BEYOND last night and TERMINATOR the night before ( and yes I put in the right disc this time and chose the ATMOS option and confirmed that the receiver WAS receiving and outputting ATMOS). While waiting for my new processor and ceiling speakers to arrive I read all the atmos reviews. And while I ABSOLUTLY notice a perceivable improvement and every once in a while really cool overhead effect... I must say im not getting the "object placed in the dome" claimed by the reviewers....sounds still seem to emanate from one of the 7 "LISTENER LEVEL" speakers and not "free from channels". my 7.2.4 set up is the following:
> 
> Marantz 6011 (used as pre pro)
> ANTHEM 7ch and 5ch amplifiers
> 7 MAGNEPAN "listener level" speakers
> 4 focal in ceiling speakers
> 2 EPIK PHEONIX subs
> 
> 
> dedicated theater room all speakers aprox equal distance apart and in proper location
> 
> 
> Do you guys experience the "free from speakers or channels" effect with objects sound emanating from any point in the dome?


A very interesting read.
Thanks for sharing .........
A buddy of mine has the Atmos and his opinion is it's great sometimes and other times not so much.
I Do-Not have it, yet, and in chatting with him frequently his take is it's okay but really not all that big a deal unless your watching specific 4K or 4K Ultra HDR disc.

And not all of the above ^^^ are all that great for Atmos.

Terry


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> So...question for you guys...
> 
> ATMOS claims to be "object based" instead of " channel based" and that means that it can place sounds of objects anywhere in the "dome" created by the overhead and ear level speakers. Well...I watched STAR TREK BEYOND last night and TERMINATOR the night before ( and yes I put in the right disc this time and chose the ATMOS option and confirmed that the receiver WAS receiving and outputting ATMOS). While waiting for my new processor and ceiling speakers to arrive I read all the atmos reviews. And while I ABSOLUTLY notice a perceivable improvement and every once in a while really cool overhead effect... I must say im not getting the "object placed in the dome" claimed by the reviewers....sounds still seem to emanate from one of the 7 "LISTENER LEVEL" speakers and not "free from channels". my 7.2.4 set up is the following:
> 
> Marantz 6011 (used as pre pro)
> ANTHEM 7ch and 5ch amplifiers
> 7 MAGNEPAN "listener level" speakers
> 4 focal in ceiling speakers
> 2 EPIK PHEONIX subs
> 
> 
> dedicated theater room all speakers aprox equal distance apart and in proper location
> 
> 
> Do you guys experience the "free from speakers or channels" effect with objects sound emanating from any point in the dome?



Like channel-based mixes, the quality of the Atmos "effect" comes down to one thing and one thing only... THE MIX ITSELF. Given that you have installed your Atmos home system with a little bit of care and don't have really crappy speakers and subs and aren't using a soundbar.



There seems to be only a small handful of sound engineers who understand the concept of mixing in full immersive surround and how to utilize the Dolby Atmos suite of tools, which translates to a few spotlight titles that REALLY sound like immersive surround in the home. 



Listening to an Atmos mix on a high speaker count system, it also has come to my attention that sometimes these mixes make heavy use of the 24 base level speakers and not as much in the upper sphere of speakers. With a 7.1.4 or lower system, you wouldn't be able to check that out.


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> ATMOS claims to be "object based" instead of " channel based" and that means that it can place sounds of objects anywhere in the "dome" created by the overhead and ear level speakers.


Atmos never claimed any of that. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus up to 16 objects. Objects aren't used "instead of" channels, they're used in addition to channels (Atmos added to existing technology, didn't replace it). Also, placing sounds anywhere (within the limits of the speakers) has always been possible, simply by mixing sounds to more than one channel. When stereo was developed 80 years ago, sounds could be placed anywhere between the speakers, even though object-based audio (video games) was still half a century away. Finally, while DTS:X renders to dome-shaped soundfield, the Atmos soundfield is two flat layers forming a rectangular shaped box. 












> Do you guys experience the "free from speakers or channels" effect with objects sound emanating from any point in the dome?


Yes, that's typical. Listen to a good Atmos mix with your eyes closed. Does the sound only come from speaker locations or do you hear sounds floating between speakers? It should be the latter, unless there is something going on with your speakers/system that is preventing them from phantom imaging normally.


----------



## am2model3

yes, your Atmos content is just as important as your Atmos setup. Make sure both are legit. 



There are a lot of Atmos encoded blu rays and 4k UHDs with Atmos soundtracks that do nothing but sound like a regular 5ch or 7ch mix. 

In those cases; let your receiver upmix instead to DolbySurround or NeuralX to get your kicks!


----------



## rekbones

On my ATMOS setup the demos sound absolutely amazing but unfortunately most movies pale in comparison. In a few scenes it does really stand out but rarely is it throughout the movie as I think most mixers are way too conservative. 3D was a major flop for the exact same reason as no one had the guts to go all out and push it to its full potential.


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> Atmos never claimed any of that. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus up to 16 objects. Objects aren't used "instead of" channels, they're used in addition to channels (Atmos added to existing technology, didn't replace it). Also, placing sounds anywhere (within the limits of the speakers) has always been possible, simply by mixing sounds to more than one channel. When stereo was developed 80 years ago, sounds could be placed anywhere between the speakers, even though object-based audio (video games) was still half a century away. Finally, while DTS:X renders to dome-shaped soundfield, the Atmos soundfield is two flat layers forming a rectangular shaped box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's typical. Listen to a good Atmos mix with your eyes closed. Does the sound only come from speaker locations or do you hear sounds floating between speakers? It should be the latter, unless there is something going on with your speakers/system that is preventing them from phantom imaging normally.



Quotes from Dolby...

"ATMOS revolutionizes audio by freeing sound from channels ... placing objects anywhere in a hemisphere" 

"the core of Dolby Atmos technology is Spatial Coding (not to be confused with MPEG Spatial Audio Coding) in which sound objects are assigned a place in space rather than to a specific channel or speaker. Upon playback, the metadata encoded within the bitstream included in content (such as a Blu-ray Disc movie) is decoded on the fly by the Dolby Atmos processing chip in a home theater receiver or AV processor,"

every other industry "expert" or reviewer that I have read make the "object based" claim as well...so I guess im confused. Perhaps I expected too much and had unrealistic expectations (story of my life LOL) ..or more likely I just haven't heard a properly mixed sample yet... I can say again..in the three movies ive played so far (I watched HEART OF THE SEA and LONDON HAS FALLEN last night) my experience so far has been that there are a few moments that are really cool...but not revolutionary or truly immersive in the sense that the 'channels disappeared".


----------



## snookfisher

rekbones said:


> On my ATMOS setup the demos sound absolutely amazing but unfortunately most movies pale in comparison. In a few scenes it does really stand out but rarely is it throughout the movie as I think most mixers are way too conservative. 3D was a major flop for the exact same reason as no one had the guts to go all out and push it to its full potential.



I have not heard any of the DEMO material...perhaps I should get it … Interesting that my closest to " free from channel" experience was with a DTS-X movie LONDON HAS FALLEN. in the opening scene at the wedding there are birds and wind coming from places in the room that had no speaker...it was very realistic and seem to make the room disappear...it was much more convincing than the action scene that followed .


----------



## snookfisher

am2model3 said:


> yes, your Atmos content is just as important as your Atmos setup. Make sure both are legit.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of Atmos encoded blu rays and 4k UHDs with Atmos soundtracks that do nothing but sound like a regular 5ch or 7ch mix.
> 
> In those cases; let your receiver upmix instead to DolbySurround or NeuralX to get your kicks!


In your opinion what would be the discs and or scenes that gave you the experience that dolby claims?


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> Like channel-based mixes, the quality of the Atmos "effect" comes down to one thing and one thing only... THE MIX ITSELF. Given that you have installed your Atmos home system with a little bit of care and don't have really crappy speakers and subs and aren't using a soundbar.
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be only a small handful of sound engineers who understand the concept of mixing in full immersive surround and how to utilize the Dolby Atmos suite of tools, which translates to a few spotlight titles that REALLY sound like immersive surround in the home.
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to an Atmos mix on a high speaker count system, it also has come to my attention that sometimes these mixes make heavy use of the 24 base level speakers and not as much in the upper sphere of speakers. With a 7.1.4 or lower system, you wouldn't be able to check that out.


Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

snookfisher said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like channel-based mixes, the quality of the Atmos "effect" comes down to one thing and one thing only... THE MIX ITSELF. Given that you have installed your Atmos home system with a little bit of care and don't have really crappy speakers and subs and aren't using a soundbar.
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be only a small handful of sound engineers who understand the concept of mixing in full immersive surround and how to utilize the Dolby Atmos suite of tools, which translates to a few spotlight titles that REALLY sound like immersive surround in the home.
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to an Atmos mix on a high speaker count system, it also has come to my attention that sometimes these mixes make heavy use of the 24 base level speakers and not as much in the upper sphere of speakers. With a 7.1.4 or lower system, you wouldn't be able to check that out.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?
Click to expand...

Jupiter Ascending has a very active Atmos mix. In particular, the scene when he rescues her at beginning of the movie and the aliens are chasing them in their spacecraft. To me that whole scene is Atmos demo worthy. 🙂


----------



## Augerhandle

snookfisher said:


> I have not heard any of the DEMO material...perhaps I should get it … Interesting that my closest to " free from channel" experience was with a DTS-X movie LONDON HAS FALLEN. in the opening scene at the wedding there are birds and wind coming from places in the room that had no speaker...it was very realistic and seem to make the room disappear...it was much more convincing than the action scene that followed .


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html

https://thedigitaltheater.com/dolby-trailers/ (look for ATMOS in the right-hand column)


----------



## bobbyhollywood

snookfisher said:


> Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?


If you have Netflix 4K, take a listen to ROMA. Ambient sounds such as birds, traffic and other natural sounds fill the room throughout much of the film.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?



Blade Runner 2049 in 4k (all my suggestions are 4k discs). If you care about image quality too, import the Sony released version as WB did some pre-compression filtering which took away a bit of the fine detail. A warning to you: the movie is mixed with intense and copious low bass frequencies that will test the mettle of any home audio system. 



Blade Runner: The Final Cut



Although I loathed the movie for its less than stellar acting and cringe-worthy, clunky-as-hell script dialog, Alita: Battle Angel is demo worthy. 



Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 



Godzilla (1998)


When it finally releases to 4k... Gravity. 


Fury




The Matrix



Jumanji (the original with the very tasteful Best Buy steelbook case).




The House With a Clock in its Walls


A Quiet Place (too bad the movie itself has a lot of dumb moments, but the track is cool).


REM: Automatic for the People (Deluxe Anniversary Edition boxed set with included Blu-ray Audio disc in Dolby Atmos... absolutely killer immersive music!)


Shazam! (Tom Hanks' "Big" meets Superman)



Those will get you started.


----------



## gwsat

^^^ Dan — I have seen all but a couple of the films you listed and agree that they all sound great. I will add one more: _Braveheart_*http://https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Braveheart-4K-Blu-ray/200176/* I watched it again yesterday and was once again blown away by how great it sounds. See the link above for the Blu-Ray.com reviewers take.


----------



## sdurani

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus *up to 16 objects*.





snookfisher said:


> every other industry "expert" or reviewer that I have read make the "object based" claim as well...so I guess im confused.


The confusion seems to come from taking the Dolby marketing hyperbole literally. The reality is that Atmos is a combination of channels & objects (as I mentioned in my previous post), not 100% objects only.


> Perhaps I expected too much and had unrealistic expectations (story of my life LOL)


Your expectations were not unrealistic; i.e., it is reasonable to expect that you'll hear sounds floating between speakers. But that has nothing to do with Atmos. Phantom imaging has been part of stereo reproduction since stereo was invented. If you if you're playing back 2-channel material on a 2-speaker set-up and you don't hear sounds floating between them, then the issue is the source material or your set-up. But not the format (stereo is capable of placing sounds away from the speakers). 

Likewise, if you're playing back 5.1-channel material on a 5.1-speaker layout and you don't hear sounds around you, then the issue is the source material or your set-up. But not the format (surround sound is capable of creating a seamless ring of sound all around you). And the same is true for immersive audio formats (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D). It could be as simple as turning up the level of your height speakers by 3dB. Try that and see what happens.


----------



## Augerhandle

gwsat said:


> ^^^ Dan — I have seen all but a couple of the films you listed and agree that they all sound great. I will add one more: _Braveheart_
> 
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Braveheart-4K-Blu-ray/200176/
> 
> I watched it again yesterday and was once again blown away by how great it sounds. See the link above for the Blu-Ray.com reviewers take.


Fixed it


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> Blade Runner 2049 in 4k (all my suggestions are 4k discs). If you care about image quality too, import the Sony released version as WB did some pre-compression filtering which took away a bit of the fine detail. A warning to you: the movie is mixed with intense and copious low bass frequencies that will test the mettle of any home audio system.
> 
> 
> 
> Blade Runner: The Final Cut
> 
> 
> 
> Although I loathed the movie for its less than stellar acting and cringe-worthy, clunky-as-hell script dialog, Alita: Battle Angel is demo worthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
> 
> 
> 
> Godzilla (1998)
> 
> 
> When it finally releases to 4k... Gravity.
> 
> 
> Fury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Matrix
> 
> 
> 
> Jumanji (the original with the very tasteful Best Buy steelbook case).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The House With a Clock in its Walls
> 
> 
> A Quiet Place (too bad the movie itself has a lot of dumb moments, but the track is cool).
> 
> 
> REM: Automatic for the People (Deluxe Anniversary Edition boxed set with included Blu-ray Audio disc in Dolby Atmos... absolutely killer immersive music!)
> 
> 
> Shazam! (Tom Hanks' "Big" meets Superman)
> 
> 
> 
> Those will get you started.


Out of curiosity… A lot of reviewers and sites claim TERMINATOR GENYSIS as a top atmos demo worthy movie.. what is your opinion of the atmos presentation ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> Out of curiosity… A lot of reviewers and sites claim TERMINATOR GENYSIS as a top atmos demo worthy movie.. what is your opinion of the atmos presentation ?



I hated the movie so much (big fan of the original two films), I never bought it or listened to it. One time was more than enough.


----------



## Stereodude

snookfisher said:


> Out of curiosity… A lot of reviewers and sites claim TERMINATOR GENYSIS as a top atmos demo worthy movie.. what is your opinion of the atmos presentation ?


Your setup makes it really easy to hear what Atmos is doing in any given movie/show and how active those speakers are. Turn off your 7 channel Anthem amp and listen to what's coming out of the upper layer.


----------



## petetherock

snookfisher said:


> Out of curiosity… A lot of reviewers and sites claim TERMINATOR GENYSIS as a top atmos demo worthy movie.. what is your opinion of the atmos presentation ?


IMHO, it's a nice demo disc.
Hunter Killer is another nice demo disc.. I like sub movies, there's plenty of ambient sounds to show off your immersion and Atmos setup


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> The confusion seems to come from taking the Dolby marketing hyperbole literally. The reality is that Atmos is a combination of channels & objects (as I mentioned in my previous post), not 100% objects only. Your expectations were not unrealistic; i.e., it is reasonable to expect that you'll hear sounds floating between speakers. But that has nothing to do with Atmos. Phantom imaging has been part of stereo reproduction since stereo was invented. If you if you're playing back 2-channel material on a 2-speaker set-up and you don't hear sounds floating between them, then the issue is the source material or your set-up. But not the format (stereo is capable of placing sounds away from the speakers).
> 
> Likewise, if you're playing back 5.1-channel material on a 5.1-speaker layout and you don't hear sounds around you, then the issue is the source material or your set-up. But not the format (surround sound is capable of creating a seamless ring of sound all around you). And the same is true for immersive audio formats (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D). It could be as simple as turning up the level of your height speakers by 3dB. Try that and see what happens.


I hope I don't come off as argumentative as im sure you are vastly more versed on the subject... and understand that I firmly grasp the concept of stereo imaging and soundstage as a 30 audiophile I spent my whole life savings 30 yrs ago on my first set of vandersteen speakers and Boulder amplifier. I have since converted to the home theater/ multi channel camp... 

I hope not to put words into your mouth but it sounds to me like your saying that all ATMOs is is a 5.1 mix with the addition of overhead channels. If that is indeed all it is than I indeed bought into the HYBERBOLI and I did indedd expect too much.

My system sounded fantastic as 7.2 and I did experience the effects intended. And by upgrading to ATMOS my intention wasn't just to increase the number of channels in my system. I achieved as good an experience as possible without spending WAAAY too much on building the room from the ground up and putting $1000000 in electronics in the room... In fact..i did manage to get convincing "overhead" effects from the 7.2 system from certain material...The best NON ATMOS example of this is MASTER AND COMANDER...there is a scene in that movie were it sound like someone was walkingon the deck DIRECTLY ABOVE you. so I guess the point is I get what your saying about stereo imaging. and if I knew that all ATMOS was was additional channels I may not have invested the time and money.. But I had convinced myself that is was more that that...perhaps I was wrong...perhaps there is something im not doing right...but I am not getting the "bullets whizzing by my right ear" and sound 'FLOATING IN 3 DIMENTIONAL SPACE 4 ft AWAY FROM THE WALL WHERE THE SPEAKERS ARE" like some reviewers and dolby claims...

I REALLY wanted to be blown away by it..i wanted it to work...and so far it is cool and in short rare instances REALLY cool...but just simply not as advertised. just as the best 2 channel stereo systems could not produce sounds that floated more that a few inches or so from the plane that they were on and could not project sounds into the room beside you...sometimes a stereo set up could present objects convincingly in between the speakers it had limitations as to the depth of the sound field to produce a truly "3D" effect...just as 7.1 systems do....I believed that (perhaps mistaking so) dolby had indeed found a way to do more that stereo panning across multiple speakers. I guess what im saying is that to me so far the ATMOS experience has been evolutionary (much like the difference from 5.1 to 7.1...or Dolby Digital to TRU HD...or like adding a second sub) and not revolutionary and falls a bit short of the hype...now maybe ill hear an example in the future or do a tweak to my system to change my mind...


----------



## snookfisher

I realize after reading my last post that I say indeed WAY too much


----------



## Renatto

snookfisher said:


> Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?


 Even a movie is good with Atmos, the "overhead action" is less than a minute or two (or ZERO) in a whole movie . The Atmos overall creates better atmosphere, so while in the movie you walk in the forrest or arrive to the airport terminal, you can feel the environment much better, "noise" from everywhere (so from above the birds or people walking on the 2nd floor...), so it feels You are in the centre and that's all. Here is a list of some movies with good Atmos sound:

Jupiter Ascending (has a long battle with awesome sound - around)
San Andreas
Mad Max
Thor Ragnarök
The Hunger Games Mockingjay I-II.
TMNT 2014 and OOTS
Pixels
Transformers movies
The Divergent movies

Here is a link for the exact place in some of the movies: https://www.johnsciacca.com/apps/blog/show/43960197-11-ultimate-dolby-atmos-demo-scenes


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> I firmly grasp the concept of stereo imaging and soundstage as a 30 audiophile I spent my whole life savings 30 yrs ago on my first set of vandersteen speakers and Boulder amplifier.


Then you've already spent a lifetime hearing what Dolby describes as sounds _"assigned a place in space rather than to a specific channel or speaker"_, like a vocalist floating between your Vandersteen speakers, all before there was any object-based audio.


> I hope not to put words into your mouth but it sounds to me like your saying that all ATMOs is is a 5.1 mix with the addition of overhead channels.


Close. It's 7.1 plus audio objects (which can be placed anywhere, including overhead).


> I am not getting the "bullets whizzing by my right ear" and sound 'FLOATING IN 3 DIMENTIONAL SPACE 4 ft AWAY FROM THE WALL WHERE THE SPEAKERS ARE" like some reviewers and dolby claims...


Take those claims the way you would any marketing material. Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. Sounds still image between speakers, but now you have a height layer of speakers, so sound can phantom image vertically. But the sound is still coming from between speakers. That's why you don't hear sounds whizzing by your right ear. Think of which speakers in your system the sound would need to be in to create a phantom image near your right ear. Are any of those speakers near your right ear?


> I guess what im saying is that to me so far the ATMOS experience has been evolutionary (much like the difference from 5.1 to 7.1...or Dolby Digital to TRU HD...or like adding a second sub) and not revolutionary and falls a bit short of the hype...now maybe ill hear an example in the future or do a tweak to my system to change my mind...


The silver lining is you now have a much more realistic idea of what Atmos really is and isn't. Still a positive outcome (despite your disappointment). Again, turn up the level of the height speakers and see if that improves things.


----------



## paindonthurt

vodil said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️m adding Atmos speakers to my current Polk RTiA 7.1 setup. Iâ€™️m looking at Monoprice ceiling speakers. Should I go 6.5â€ or 8â€?
> 
> 
> 
> The height speakers are all about providing direction, which comes from the higher frequencies. Bass cannot be used to discern direction in a room.
> The reason up-firing atmos speakers can even work at all is that they bounce the sound off the ceiling.
> 
> So any speaker that can reproduce down to let's say 150Hz will work. The powered sub-woofer can take the lower stuff and you won't know the difference.
> 
> The monoprice speakers are all better than that. Might as well go for the smaller ones because an atmos woofer does not matter much as long as there is a sub-woofer.
Click to expand...

So next questions

What locations should I use? I was thinking top middle and top rear. 

Should I get angled speakers or straight down firing? 

Thanks again for all the help. 〽


----------



## mrtickleuk

paindonthurt said:


> So next questions
> 
> What locations should I use? I was thinking top middle and top rear.


It wouldn't let you do that. You have to have a gap, so you can't have top middle and top rear. Most people have Top Front and Top Rear.


----------



## vodil

*Aim atmos at MLP*



mrtickleuk said:


> It wouldn't let you do that. You have to have a gap, so you can't have top middle and top rear. Most people have Top Front and Top Rear.


That combo is allowed on my AVR, plus
I don't think downfiring speakers in the front are any good. If they are truly downfiring use middle and rear.
I use Front Height speakers that are high on the wall and aimed at the MLP with Top middle speakers.


----------



## sdurani

paindonthurt said:


> What locations should I use? I was thinking top middle and top rear.


That's what I would do, with the overhead speakers mounted at roughly 45 degrees elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward & rearward of your listening position is 45 degrees elevation).


> Should I get angled speakers or straight down firing?


All your other speakers look like they're aimed towards the listening area, so why wouldn't you do that with the height speakers?


----------



## mrtickleuk

vodil said:


> That combo is allowed on my AVR, plus
> I don't think downfiring speakers in the front are any good. If they are truly downfiring use middle and rear.
> I use Front Height speakers that are high on the wall and aimed at the MLP with Top middle speakers.


You can have Front Height + Top Middle, because there's a gap of Top Front between those two positions that you aren't using.

ie
Front Height (used)
Top Front (gap, unused)
Top Middle (used)
Top Rear
Rear Height

It's possible that the forced gap is only a Denon restriction but I thought it was a dolby one. I haven't read of anyone putting two positions right next to each other like that before.


----------



## paindonthurt

sdurani said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What locations should I use? I was thinking top middle and top rear.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I would do, with the overhead speakers mounted at roughly 45 degrees elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward & rearward of your listening position is 45 degrees elevation).
> 
> 
> 
> Should I get angled speakers or straight down firing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All your other speakers look like they're aimed towards the listening area, so why wouldn't you do that with the height speakers?
Click to expand...

I’m thinking these speakers then. 

Monoprice 2-Way Carbon Fiber in-Ceiling Speakers - 6.5 Inch with 15 Degree Angled Drivers (Pair) - Alpha Series https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JYP88R8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Fj6mDbEAVJ29G


----------



## sdurani

paindonthurt said:


> I’m thinking these speakers then.
> 
> Monoprice 2-Way Carbon Fiber in-Ceiling Speakers - 6.5 Inch with 15 Degree Angled Drivers (Pair) - Alpha Series https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JYP88R8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Fj6mDbEAVJ29G


Any chance of mounting bookshelf speakers on ceiling mounts? 

https://www.polkaudio.com/products/rtia1

Or using the same brand as your other speakers for in-ceiling? 

https://www.polkaudio.com/products/mc60


----------



## Augerhandle

sdurani said:


> ... But the sound is still coming from between speakers. That's why you don't hear sounds whizzing by your right ear. Think of which speakers in your system the sound would need to be in to create a phantom image near your right ear. Are any of those speakers near your right ear? ...


If the bullet sound was equally reproduced between L Front, R Front, L Rear, and R Rear, the sound would appear to be centered in one's head. Making the sound slightly right biased, and steering it from front to back _would_ make it sound like it was whizzing past one's right ear. 

That's what I assume happened to me in the 25th Anniversary Edition of Forest Gump, during the Vietnam segment, right before two planes napalmed the jungle and flew front to back through my living room.


----------



## paindonthurt

sdurani said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️m thinking these speakers then.
> 
> Monoprice 2-Way Carbon Fiber in-Ceiling Speakers - 6.5 Inch with 15 Degree Angled Drivers (Pair) - Alpha Series https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JYP88R8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Fj6mDbEAVJ29G
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance of mounting bookshelf speakers on ceiling mounts?
> 
> https://www.polkaudio.com/products/rtia1
> 
> Or using the same brand as your other speakers for in-ceiling?
> 
> https://www.polkaudio.com/products/mc60
Click to expand...

I have Polk bookshelf speakers but no way to really mount them to ceiling joists. 

I looked at Polk ceiling speakers but everything I read said Atmos ceiling speakers didn’t need to be timbre matched. So I was looking at good speakers that were a bit less expensive.


----------



## sdurani

paindonthurt said:


> I looked at Polk ceiling speakers but everything I read said Atmos ceiling speakers didn’t need to be timbre matched.


I used to read the same thing about surround speakers. If sonic matching is not a concern, then save a little money.


----------



## gwsat

Augerhandle said:


> Fixed it


Thanks. After I saw your post I went back and checked the link I posted. It was indeed broken so thanks again.


----------



## paindonthurt

sdurani said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at Polk ceiling speakers but everything I read said Atmos ceiling speakers didnâ€™️t need to be timbre matched.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to read the same thing about surround speakers. If sonic matching is not a concern, then save a little money.
Click to expand...

According to Polk CS I should get the 70RT ceiling speakers. I just can’t see spending $1000 for ceiling speakers. 

https://www.polkaudio.com/products/70-rt


----------



## niterida

snookfisher said:


> So...question for you guys...
> 
> ATMOS claims to be "object based" instead of " channel based" and that means that it can place sounds of objects anywhere in the "dome" created by the overhead and ear level speakers. Well...I watched STAR TREK BEYOND last night and TERMINATOR the night before ( and yes I put in the right disc this time and chose the ATMOS option and confirmed that the receiver WAS receiving and outputting ATMOS). While waiting for my new processor and ceiling speakers to arrive I read all the atmos reviews. And while I ABSOLUTLY notice a perceivable improvement and every once in a while really cool overhead effect... I must say im not getting the "object placed in the dome" claimed by the reviewers....sounds still seem to emanate from one of the 7 "LISTENER LEVEL" speakers and not "free from channels". my 7.2.4 set up is the following:
> 
> Marantz 6011 (used as pre pro)
> ANTHEM 7ch and 5ch amplifiers
> 7 MAGNEPAN "listener level" speakers
> 4 focal in ceiling speakers
> 2 EPIK PHEONIX subs
> 
> 
> dedicated theater room all speakers aprox equal distance apart and in proper location
> 
> 
> Do you guys experience the "free from speakers or channels" effect with objects sound emanating from any point in the dome?



I had the same issue when I first sat down to listen to my system almost no 3D or immersive effect at all.
Turned out to be positioning and alignment of my speakers and settings in my AVR.
If you can move or aim your speakers try changing them to see what happens and as suggested by someone else -raise the volume of your height level speakers a few db.
Use Atmos demos to set it up since you know these will provide sound all around you.
And yes bullets should whistle past your head enough to make you duck and birds should fly close enough that you can almost feel the wind beneath their wings and raindrops will fill the entire room. etc etc




sdurani said:


> I used to read the same thing about surround speakers. If sonic matching is not a concern, then save a little money.



but it does sound better if they are all matching.


I have all 11 speakers identical in my 7.1.4 setup and the difference from having similar to having identical speakers was massive. 



The soundfield is totally seamless all round and it is much more immersive.


No you don't need identical speakers, but yes you do want them.........


----------



## priitv8

snookfisher said:


> Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?


Reelwood contains a massive selection of good snippets from movies and demo clips.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...demo-clips-collection-4k-atmos-dtsx-more.html


----------



## chi_guy50

paindonthurt said:


> According to Polk CS I should get the 70RT ceiling speakers. I just can’t see spending $1000 for ceiling speakers.
> 
> https://www.polkaudio.com/products/70-rt



How does half that much sound to you ($500 for two pairs)? FWIW, I and many other AVSForum posters have bought slews of refurbished speakers from the Polk Audio eBay store and found them by and large to be indistinguishable from the brand new article.

Or, for slightly less but NIB, you can get the same 80F/X-RT speakers I am using with my RTiA setup.

If you want to go cheaper ($150/pair), many users like the RC80i (although not a timbre-match for your speakers).

Finally, for an on-ceiling option, I can recommend the highly versatile OWM5 ($200/ea).


ETA: If you are looking for additional feedback on Polk Audio speakers, feel free to drop in to the dedicated thread here.


----------



## FilmMixer

snookfisher said:


> I have not heard any of the DEMO material...perhaps I should get it … Interesting that my closest to " free from channel" experience was with a DTS-X movie LONDON HAS FALLEN. in the opening scene at the wedding there are birds and wind coming from places in the room that had no speaker...it was very realistic and seem to make the room disappear...it was much more convincing than the action scene that followed .



London has Fallen is a channel based 7.1.4 mix on disc FYI....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## noah katz

snookfisher said:


> Do you have a movie or scenes that you would recommend that give you the full atmos experience?



The Dolby Amaze and Leaf Atmos demo trailers.

The alleged demo-worthy movies that I've watched, i.e. Bladerunner 2049, Jupiter Ascending, and Bumblebee all had a lot of sound in the height speakers, but nothing approaching the immersion and cohesiveness of the trailers.


----------



## paindonthurt

chi_guy50 said:


> paindonthurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Polk CS I should get the 70RT ceiling speakers. I just canâ€™️t see spending $1000 for ceiling speakers.
> 
> https://www.polkaudio.com/products/70-rt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does half that much sound to you ($500 for two pairs)? FWIW, I and many other AVSForum posters have bought slews of refurbished speakers from the Polk Audio eBay store and found them by and large to be indistinguishable from the brand new article.
> 
> Or, for slightly less but NIB, you can get the same 80F/X-RT speakers I am using with my RTiA setup.
> 
> If you want to go cheaper ($150/pair), many users like the RC80i (although not a timbre-match for your speakers).
> 
> Finally, for an on-ceiling option, I can recommend the highly versatile OWM5 ($200/ea).
> 
> 
> ETA: If you are looking for additional feedback on Polk Audio speakers, feel free to drop in to the dedicated thread here.
Click to expand...

Thanks I’ll look into these. 〽


----------



## snookfisher

FilmMixer said:


> London has Fallen is a channel based 7.1.4 mix on disc FYI....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



The copy I have is DTS -X


----------



## Renatto

snookfisher said:


> The copy I have is DTS -X


I think he want to let you know, even that's a DTS:X track - which should be "object based" - in this case (and most of the cases) it's channel based (FIX) 7.1.4 track, so no objects.


----------



## zeonstar

How is one able to tell if an Atmos/DTS:X mix is object based or channel based like the movie mentioned above?

I read elsewhere (May of been this thread actually) that Disney Atmos movies are locked or something to 7.1.4. Is that the same as being a channel based 7.1.4?


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> How is one able to tell if an Atmos/DTS:X mix is object based or channel based like the movie mentioned above?


No way to tell with Atmos. Lack of sound from certain speakers (e.g., Wides) could indicate a lack of objects OR maybe the soundtrack does have objects but not at those locations. There's no way to tell for sure. 

With DTS:X, the info screen on Yamaha gear used to show channel configuration and number of objects: 










I don't know of any other brand that displays this information (don't even know if newer Yamaha models still do).


> I read elsewhere (May of been this thread actually) that Disney Atmos movies are locked or something to 7.1.4. Is that the same as being a channel based 7.1.4?


Close enough. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus (up to) 16 objects. Since there are only 7.1 channels, that means the 4 overhead channels are technically static objects that don't move AND are assigned to a speaker location (rather than a location in 3D space). Since those overhead objects behave exactly like channels, I just call them channels.


----------



## Renatto

sdurani said:


> I don't know of any other brand that displays this information (don't even know if newer Yamaha models still do).


I never saw anything like that at the info bar (Yamaha RX-A2080). For Atmos/DTS:X, only show Atmos/DTS:X, but no speaker layout or objects. Should I see this at only BluRay or with Media files too (m2ts, MKV)? I don't have any DTS:X disc to check.


----------



## snookfisher

Renatto said:


> I think he want to let you know, even that's a DTS:X track - which should be "object based" - in this case (and most of the cases) it's channel based (FIX) 7.1.4 track, so no objects.



If that's the case.. WTF is the point??! and if its the most convincing material ive heard yet...what does that say for the format??


----------



## FilmMixer

Renatto said:


> I never saw anything like that at the info bar (Yamaha RX-A2080). For Atmos/DTS:X, only show Atmos/DTS:X, but no speaker layout or objects. Should I see this at only BluRay or with Media files too (m2ts, MKV)? I don't have any DTS:X disc to check.



They took that info out after it’s appearance in only one model year.... IIRC it was only on the x060 series... 

I think it’s fairly obvious why they took it out.


----------



## snookfisher

Renatto said:


> I never saw anything like that at the info bar (Yamaha RX-A2080). For Atmos/DTS:X, only show Atmos/DTS:X, but no speaker layout or objects. Should I see this at only BluRay or with Media files too (m2ts, MKV)? I don't have any DTS:X disc to check.


My Marantz 6011 gives all this info. it tells what the imput sources is and the speakers being used...it says nothing about "object based" or not...


----------



## FilmMixer

snookfisher said:


> If that's the case.. WTF is the point??! and if its the most convincing material ive heard yet...what does that say for the format??



It says it’s all about the mix... that same mix would replicate the same with an Atmos encode. 

You seemed to be equating the sense of immersion you heard in that soundtrack to the belief/feeling it was happening because the soundtrack was made of of multiple dynamic objects... which it is not.


----------



## FilmMixer

zeonstar said:


> How is one able to tell if an Atmos/DTS:X mix is object based or channel based like the movie mentioned above?
> 
> I read elsewhere (May of been this thread actually) that Disney Atmos movies are locked or something to 7.1.4. Is that the same as being a channel based 7.1.4?



All of the immersive mixes started out using objects.... rendering out the mixes into channels (7.1.4 for example) results in the same experience as having the processor do it in real time (if your overheads are designated as front and rear tops...). 

In the end it doesn’t really matter unless the playback setup (number of speakers) is greater than the number of channels contained in the payload (a small handful of Atmos titles and almost every DTS:X title to date...)

There are going to be slight differences in how overhead sounds are reproduced depending on whether you have speakers designated as heights or overheads/tops.... so you lose a tiny bit of “spatial panning accuracy...”. 

But it’s not really going to kill the experience IMO..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Renatto

snookfisher said:


> My Marantz 6011 gives all this info. it tells what the imput sources is and the speakers being used...it says nothing about "object based" or not...



I had SR6011 too, but Marantz/Denon - on source side - only shows ATMOS/DTS:X, but no layout + objects (7.1.4 + 5 objects). You see the output, so your speaker layout, but that's not the same...


The good sound depends on the filmmaker and the mix (sound engineer), not because the objects. There are many good movies (sound) simple DD/DTS (without Atmos/DTS:X), while there are many "bad" movies with Atmos/DTS:X (weak sound mixing).


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> They took that info out after it’s appearance in only one model year....


Can't imagine DTS was happy with that feature.


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> If that's the case.. WTF is the point??!


The point is to have a 3D bubble of sound instead of the old 2D ring of sound around you.


> and if its the most convincing material ive heard yet...what does that say for the format??


It says that the formats are flexible enough to deliver the _"most convincing material"_ you've heard using objects or channels. Which means that audio objects are not an absolute requirement for a great immersive audio mix.


----------



## snookfisher

Renatto said:


> I had SR6011 too, but Marantz/Denon - on source side - only shows ATMOS/DTS:X, but no layout + objects (7.1.4 + 5 objects). You see the output, so your speaker layout, but that's not the same...
> 
> 
> The good sound depends on the filmmaker and the mix (sound engineer), not because the objects. There are many good movies (sound) simple DD/DTS (without Atmos/DTS:X), while there are many "bad" movies with Atmos/DTS:X (weak sound mixing).


I admit it...im thoroughly confused. So I think what youre saying is that most atmos and all DTSX is nothing more than taking a 5.1 or 7.1 mix and throwing a few effects into the height channels? is it even possible to get the "object based" experience at home? "objects" are something that can be displayed on an avr's screen? If there are discs available encoded with "objects" and can be rendered in a 7.2.4 system like I have...what are they? 

I get that some mixes are better than others...but if most DOLBY DIGITAL DVDs came with no use of the surround channels the format would have flopped... If for all practical applications ATMOS is nothing more thad a modern rendition of the original 1980's DOLBY SOUROUND where it just throws some reverb and "ambiance" into the ceiling.... then im REALLY sorry that I wasted my time and money.


----------



## Renatto

snookfisher said:


> I admit it...im thoroughly confused. So I think what youre saying is that most atmos and all DTSX is nothing more than taking a 5.1 or 7.1 mix and throwing a few effects into the height channels?
> 
> then im REALLY sorry that I wasted my time and money.


Then you should to sorry. :O


Not 5.1 or 7.1, but most of the HOME Atmos/DTS:X uses NO OBJECTS, not even object based, but mixed in fixed channels. (like DTS:X > mostly 7.1.4 and will be upmixed to Your exact home system, so 7.2.4 or for Me it's 5.2.4 and for other just for 5.1....). I don't know why, maybe because the money, maybe just lazy... Maybe someone know it and let us know.


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> The point is to have a 3D bubble of sound instead of the old 2D ring of sound around you. It says that the formats are flexible enough to deliver the _"most convincing material"_ you've heard using objects or channels. Which means that audio objects are not an absolute requirement for a great immersive audio mix.[/QUOT
> 
> What is an "object" can you direct me somewhere that explains it?
> 
> So ive watched so far these movies:
> 
> Terminator genisys
> olympis has fallen
> bs Dracula
> infinity war (worst so far)
> it (decent effects)
> aquaman (had to quit after 10 min movie was so bad lol)
> fifth element (maybe best ive heard so far?)
> heart of the sea (some cool effects)
> valerian (maybe 15min)
> 
> Are all these just 7.1.4 mixes? because while I have got a few cool effects I have not yet experienced anything like dolby claims or the movie reviews claim with the "placing sound anywhere in a bubble" free from channels
> 
> I have again made sure all my speakers are properly placed and ran audessy eq and then adjusted my height speakers + 3db as suggested. I notice the sound from above more but it is not free from channels...
> 
> Is there a list of discs that are mastered with "objects"


----------



## snookfisher

Renatto said:


> Then you should to sorry. :O
> 
> 
> Not 5.1 or 7.1, but most of the HOME Atmos/DTS:X uses NO OBJECTS, not even object based, but mixed in fixed channels. (like DTS:X > mostly 7.1.4 and will be upmixed to Your exact home system, so 7.2.4 or for Me it's 5.2.4 and for other just for 5.1....). I don't know why, maybe because the money, maybe just lazy... Maybe someone know it and let us know.



So all of the reviewers are full of #@#% then ? and the only way to experience "object based atmos" is at a theater of a dolby demo?? Man do I feel like a chump and a fool that has been separated from my money....


----------



## snookfisher

. Which means that audio objects are not an absolute requirement for a great immersive audio mix.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps.. but I have yet to hear what I would consider "great immersive audio" One bird doesn't make a great mix..and ive heard similar effects without the height channels...if what you say is true then ATMOS for the home is barely more than a gimmick... so much so that it would make BOSE envious!


----------



## pg22

PioManiac said:


> If the Front panel on the AVR is already reading Dolby TrueHD, the X1X is already set to Bitstream.
> (if it wasn't it would be reading "PCM")
> 
> Looking into pg22's post history, he has a Yamaha 5.1 setup. It may be an ATMOS CAPABLE receiver, but it's not at ATMOS _Enabled_ receiver
> There's no such thing as a 5.1 ATMOS/DTS:X audio, What you want is 5.1.2 the "2" being the missing factor)
> 
> You need at least 2 Height/Overhead or ATMOS Enabled up-firing speakers configured/enabled to play an ATMOS audio track,
> In a 5.1 setup only the core TrueHD/DTS-HD audio will be played. The ATMOS/DTS:X metadata stays in the bed layer channels because there's no where else to go.
> 
> 
> What my Yamaha AVR shows for my XBO X while playing ATMOS (4K/UHD Disc) 7.2.4


Simply to follow-up: I added a pair of front presence/height speakers, taking me to 5.1.2. Whereas I noted in my prior post that UHD's would display True HD on the panel when selecting the Atmos track, it now properly displays Atmos. Streaming and gaming still default to Atmos/PCM. Wish MSFT would flag which software is actually decoding in Atmos.

Thanks again.


----------



## FilmMixer

Renatto said:


> Then you should to sorry. :O
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not 5.1 or 7.1, but most of the HOME Atmos/DTS:X uses NO OBJECTS, not even object based, but mixed in fixed channels. (like DTS:X > mostly 7.1.4 and will be upmixed to Your exact home system, so 7.2.4 or for Me it's 5.2.4 and for other just for 5.1....). I don't know why, maybe because the money, maybe just lazy... Maybe someone know it and let us know.




That’s not correct. 

Atmos : almost all Atmos encodes use up to 16 objects plus a 7.1 bed. 

Some (a tiny number) of releases have be pre rendered into channels for encoding on disc. This only matters to the end user has more than a 7.1.4 setup. In less than 7.1.4 setups, or 7.1.4 setups where the overheads are designated as heights vs tops, the decoder will still place the overheads where they are intended to come from.... in practice this usually takes the form of using multiple adjoining speakers to reproduce said sounds to place them where they were intended. 

Doing this (printing out to 7.1.4) changes nothing in regards to how the sounds pan, etc. 

The Dolby encoder supports no less than 12 objects. That doesn’t mean they all have content in them at all times. 

DTS:X is limited in certain ways. It has a total of 16 audio stream (plus LFE) to work with. So you can have 7.1.4 + 5 objects for example. 

The issue with adding 5 objects to the rest of the mix is you must designate 5 such objects when mixing. And that isn’t a trivial endeavor ... but it’s not important to this discussion. 

The DTS:X decoder as it was launched was limited to 11 channels and uses matrix decoders to fee speakers outside of the 7.1.4 recordings (wides, etc..). 

All immersive sounds tracks use objects when mixed. 

Dolby retains those dynamic objects in a vast majority of titles that have been released. 

DTS does not. 

But unless you have more than 7.1.4 you’re not going to notice a difference. 

For those with 9.1.6 setups you are going to notice silence from your wides and top middles ONLY on the few titles released as 7.1.4 channel printouts in Atmos. With DTS:X those channels will almost exclusively remain silent. 

As to your why question.... 

All mixers have different styles, beliefs and techniques... 

For most it’s more important to help tell the story with sound. 

Many on here believe that is best down by using every speaker all the time. I don’t share that belief, and think it’s a myopic way to judge the quality of a mix. 

It’s not different than the variance in quality of stereo music mixes. They vary vastly. Why should movies be any different? 

If the whole point is to have most of your speakers going all the time, output the mixes as PCM and upmix away... that’s not why the tools and technologies were invented. 

But that’s just my .02.


----------



## batpig

Renatto said:


> Not 5.1 or 7.1, but most of the HOME Atmos/DTS:X uses NO OBJECTS, not even object based, but mixed in fixed channels. (like DTS:X > mostly 7.1.4 and will be upmixed to Your exact home system, so 7.2.4 or for Me it's 5.2.4 and for other just for 5.1....). )


This is not accurate for Atmos. It's true that DTS:X is almost always delivered as 7.1.4 "fixed" channels, however most Atmos mixes absolutely use a healthy amount of objects. There are some exceptions (e.g. many Disney Atmos releases appear to be "fixed" at 7.1.4) but it's not at all accurate to say that "most home Atmos uses no objects". There are plenty of Atmos mixes that scale to higher speaker layouts due to aggressive use of objects.


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> What is an "object" can you direct me somewhere that explains it?


It's simply a sound that has been given a location in 3D space instead of being mixed into a channel. Best example is video games, where rotating your point of view causes sound effects to change location. That could not be done if those sounds had been mixed into specific channels. The only reason you're able to move sounds in real time is because those sound effects are encoded as objects (you choose their location).


> Are all these just 7.1.4 mixes?


No. If you played some of them on a set-up with more than 7.1.4 speakers, you would hear sound from the additional speakers (speakers that are only fed objects). That proves they're not just 7.1.4 mixes.


> I notice the sound from above more but it is not free from channels...


What do you mean "free from channels"? Are you not getting any imaging between speakers?


> Is there a list of discs that are mastered with "objects"


No.


snookfisher said:


> So all of the reviewers are full of #@#% then ? and the only way to experience "object based atmos" is at a theater of a dolby demo??


No. EVERY Atmos track uses objects. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus objects. All 7.1 channels feed speakers in the base layer. Which means that ANY time you hear sound from speakers in the height layer, you're hearing objects.


snookfisher said:


> ...if what you say is true then ATMOS for the home is barely more than a gimmick...


It is a gimmick for you, because you invented something in your imagination that reality cannot live up to. But for others, going from a 2D ring of sound to a 3D bubble of sound is anything but a gimmick. No one is going to argue your personal experience. Understand that others are having a very different experience.


----------



## noah katz

noah katz said:


> The Dolby Amaze and Leaf Atmos demo trailers.
> 
> The alleged demo-worthy movies that I've watched, i.e. Bladerunner 2049, Jupiter Ascending, and Bumblebee all had a lot of sound in the height speakers, but nothing approaching the immersion and cohesiveness of the trailers.





FilmMixer said:


> It says it’s all about the mix... that same mix would replicate the same with an Atmos encode...


 @FilmMixer

Can you offer any insight as to what kind of effort was required to get the Dolby trailers' immersiveness, and/or why it's so rarely achieved in commercial film soundtracks (actually never in my admittedly limited experience)?


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> Many on here believe that is best down by using every speaker all the time. I don’t share that belief, and think it’s a myopic way to judge the quality of a mix..... If the whole point is to have most of your speakers going all the time, output the mixes as PCM and upmix away... that’s not why the tools and technologies were invented.


Thanks for chiming in! This attitude you note drives me crazy, as though the only determinant of the quality of an Atmos mix is how much "stuff" is coming from the overheads. 

It must be especially insulting to you and your peers when "armchair experts" on the internet make claims about the mixers being "lazy" or not "understanding" the new mixing tools.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Dan Hitchman said:


> Top Front and Top Middle are not allowed as a configuration. The overhead speakers are too close together.


Just a point of clarification. Both Top Front and Top Middle are allowed as an Atmos x.x.4 layout. It's just that not all SSPs allow all combinations as it layout support is up to the CE manufacturer (within the restrictions of the decording DSP in use). 

I am allowed to configure TF and TM in a x.x.4 layout on both Lyngdorf (ADI ADSP-21489) and NAD (Cirrus Logic), both ≤12ch… but not on the ≤16ch Bryston/StormAudio (TI/MDS) or Emotiva (ADI ADSP-SC587) at this moment.


----------



## jazzrock

as always, FilmMixer, a great technical explanation. And I whole heartily agree that not all speakers sure be firing at 100% all of the time. It is not how life is. Life is full of dynamics and movement.

As a frequent reader here and in other forums I am consistently amazed at the lack of appreciation for the art of sound mixing in films and the many, many great titles that exist. Just because sound can be reproduced from all speakers at the same time doesn’t mean that they should do so. Simply extending ambient information above adds immensely to a film experience. I for one highly value the small details that add to an immersive event. 

Many details add up to what one experiences within their own viewing environment. Our rooms, equipment, setup, etc. Then, of course, you have the artistry of the sound designer. Some films admittedly have been mixed poorly or, I should say, mixed with a less than desirable design. So be it. But I have watched many films way beyond the oft mentioned triumphant titles and appreciate them for their artistry and resulting experience. I really enjoy chocolate syrup on my ice cream. But a whole bottle? Those who demand a constant barrage or highly obvious audio from top/height speakers simply, in my opinion, lack an appreciation of the art form and will always be disappointed. 

There a thousands of design choices to be made during any film. There is absolutely no way in hell anyone is going to be able to please all of the time. But as with any art, I appreciate what is put in front of me and, if I don’t, I won’t go back to it. 

Lastly, whether it is Atmos or dtsX, I believe any difference in how I experience any film is totally unrelated to either platform.....but solely resides in all of the influences down stream as I’ve previously mentioned. 

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> @FilmMixer
> 
> 
> 
> Can you offer any insight as to what kind of effort was required to get the Dolby trailers' immersiveness, and/or why it's so rarely achieved in commercial film soundtracks (actually never in my admittedly limited experience)?



Demos aren’t tied to a 2D front facing images or telling a story. 

And the entire idea of those demos is to show off..... 30 seconds is entirely a different animal than narrative film making. Those demos are usually loud are meant to “show off... “ and they are usually either sound effects only or music only.

When you have constant dialog coming from the front and lots of big music you just take care not to distract from telling the story in order just to do something cool. 

I can only speak for myself, and let the work speak for itself... I had zero constraints when mixing Power Rangers or the upcoming Carnival Row, for examples.... I think we used the format well when the story telling allowed for it... and I think there are many demo worthy small touches within those projects... but you can’t sustain that over 60, 90 or 120 minutes. You would wear the audience out and it really does become distracting... 

That’s just my style and my opinion.... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> It's simply a sound that has been given a location in 3D space instead of being mixed into a channel. Best example is video games, where rotating your point of view causes sound effects to change location. That could not be done if those sounds had been mixed into specific channels. The only reason you're able to move sounds in real time is because those sound effects are encoded as objects (you choose their location). No. If you played some of them on a set-up with more than 7.1.4 speakers, you would hear sound from the additional speakers (speakers that are only fed objects). That proves they're not just 7.1.4 mixes. What do you mean "free from channels"? Are you not getting any imaging between speakers? No. No. EVERY Atmos track uses objects. The home version of Atmos is 7.1 channels plus objects. All 7.1 channels feed speakers in the base layer. Which means that ANY time you hear sound from speakers in the height layer, you're hearing objects. It is a gimmick for you, because you invented something in your imagination that reality cannot live up to. But for others, going from a 2D ring of sound to a 3D bubble of sound is anything but a gimmick. No one is going to argue your personal experience. Understand that others are having a very different experience.




WOW ...thanks for the great answers... 

So the atmos soundtracks ARE mixed with "objects"... that's good news. … but I have yet to experience the 3D space in an atmos movie. The effects are still "tied to the speakers" in the sense that they are panning from one speaker to another...but again... not whizzing by 2 ft from my ear... which I would consider 3D ..and stereo panning on the speakers plane 2D. Objects from above are sill a stereo or quadraphonic pan on the plane of the speakers the sound still originates from the wall the speakers are on or close to...sometimes in between the speakers ..but not halfway from my listening position and the speaker. the overhead sound is not coming from different heights … its coming from 7.5 ft above my head... I get the stereo panning between the speakers... but I do not get the sound originating AWAY from the plane of the speaker...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> @*FilmMixer*
> 
> Can you offer any insight as to what kind of effort was required to get the Dolby trailers' immersiveness, and/or why it's so rarely achieved in commercial film soundtracks (actually never in my admittedly limited experience)?



I would caulk it up to whomever was their trailer mixer at any one point in time was tasked with doing "aggressive" object panning in order to highlight the Atmos experience. 



Some (or possibly many) industry engineers may feel this is "gimmicky" or "distracting" and so they tend not to utilize Atmos to its fullest... even when a particular scene may actually scream out for such mixing techniques. 



Some may not be adequately schooled on immersive mixing in general and so tend to look at the Atmos mixing suite as nothing more than 7.1 "plus" and don't specify most sound effects as pannable objects that can move freely in 3D space. So, you end up with a mostly generic channel based track just like before. It may sound "harsh," but not everyone in any particular field knows every little thing there is to know on a subject.


I, like a lot of folks here and elsewhere on various forums, would rather have a full bore Atmos mix, when appropriate for a scene or mood, than not. It's kind of like mono-ized dialog. Why is the dialog coming out of the center speaker always when the character is clearly off screen or at one section of the screen and not the middle? Now to me, that's distracting and doesn't seem realistic.


----------



## snookfisher

batpig said:


> Thanks for chiming in! This attitude you note drives me crazy, as though the only determinant of the quality of an Atmos mix is how much "stuff" is coming from the overheads.
> 
> It must be especially insulting to you and your peers when "armchair experts" on the internet make claims about the mixers being "lazy" or not "understanding" the new mixing tools.


I agree wholeheartedly!!! im not looking for a hour and a half "atmos demo"... but I am still looking for that instance in a movie where the "object is places within a 3D bubble" im really wondering if something isn't right in my system...although I cant imagine what?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> I agree wholeheartedly!!! im not looking for a hour and a half "atmos demo"... but I am still looking for that instance in a movie where the "object is places within a 3D bubble" im really wondering if something isn't right in my system...although I cant imagine what?



Did you purchase any of the films I listed a few posts back? Those will give your system a workout of various degrees. 



_Lucy_ is another such 4k disc with a fairly hyper-active Atmos mix. 



Sometimes, as I have mentioned, you actually need a system greater than 7.1.4 to notice what is going on in other speaker locations situated about the room. It can spread out the sound with an even more dramatic immersion level. Albeit, you need a track that expands well to more than 7.1.4 in the first place.


----------



## Stereodude

FilmMixer said:


> ...or the upcoming Carnival Row, for examples...


Can I be the first person to preemptively complain about your Atmos mix on Carnival Row not being immersive enough? 

It is going to have an Atmos mix right? :serious:


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Thanks for chiming in! This attitude you note drives me crazy, as though the only determinant of the quality of an Atmos mix is how much "stuff" is coming from the overheads.
> 
> 
> 
> It must be especially insulting to you and your peers when "armchair experts" on the internet make claims about the mixers being "lazy" or not "understanding" the new mixing tools.



It’s certainly true that all immersive formats shine way more in a cinema environment where you actually have multiple audience level speakers that objects can pan through, or space out. One of the best Atmos mixes I’ve heard yet is “Rocket Man...”. The instruments are panned throughout the auditorium along the length of the room... 

It’s easy to forget that we now have 7.1 as the norm rather than the exception with Atmos and DTS:X. That’s huge to me. And the tools we have now for mixing have vastly increased the quality of our mixes regardless of how often we go “up top...”. 

I understand the frustration when you hear Leaf or Amaze and wonder why everything doesn’t sound like that... but I never tried to make all my mixes sound like the THX intro demos either when we started mixing in 5.1. 

All things have their place.... 

It’s not insulting... it’s sometimes discouraging that people let certain criteria diminish their enjoyment of some really great story tellingly d mixes.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Thanks for chiming in! This attitude you note drives me crazy, as though the only determinant of the quality of an Atmos mix is how much "stuff" is coming from the overheads.
> 
> 
> 
> It must be especially insulting to you and your peers when "armchair experts" on the internet make claims about the mixers being "lazy" or not "understanding" the new mixing tools.



It’s certainly true that all immersive formats shine way more in a cinema environment where you actually have multiple audience level speakers that objects can pan through, or space out. One of the best Atmos mixes I’ve heard yet is “Rocket Man...”. The instruments are panned throughout the auditorium along the length of the room... 

It’s easy to forget that we now have 7.1 as the norm rather than the exception with Atmos and DTS:X. That’s huge to me. And the tools we have now for mixing have vastly increased the quality of our mixes regardless of how often we go “up top...”. 

I understand the frustration when you hear Leaf or Amaze and wonder why everything doesn’t sound like that... but I never tried to make all my mixes sound like the THX intro demos either when we started mixing in 5.1. 

All things have their place.... 

It’s not insulting... it’s sometimes discouraging that people let certain criteria diminish their enjoyment of some really great story tellingly d mixes. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

Stereodude said:


> Can I be the first person to preemptively complain about your Atmos mix on Carnival Row not being immersive enough?
> 
> It is going to have an Atmos mix right? :serious:


Yes. We will be the second Amazon title. 

I don’t think there should be many reasons to complain... 

I mean we have a multitude of scenes where it is raining. 

At least I think we got that right


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> So the atmos soundtracks ARE mixed with "objects"...


ALL immersive audio soundtracks are mixed with objects (including Auro-3D soundtracks). But Auro is channel-based during playback. Atmos is hybrid (channels + objects) And, of the roughly 120 DTS:X titles released on home video in the US, around 20 of them are 7.1.4 channels + 5 objects (albeit from one studio: Well Go USA).


> not whizzing by 2 ft from my ear ... not halfway from my listening position and the speaker.


Did you used to routinely get that effect with the 7.1 set-up you had before Atmos?


> the overhead sound is not coming from different heights


Even when I've gotten a chance to listen to cheap upfiring modules, I can hear sounds floating mid-way between ear height and ceiling. Of course the vertical phantom imaging is better with speakers mounted overhead. But the effect was definitely audible.


----------



## Stereodude

FilmMixer said:


> Yes. We will be the second Amazon title.


I think it's the 3rd. _Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan_ has it and _Suspiria_ reportedly has it. I didn't watch Suspiria so I can't give a first hand report. I hope the upcoming season of _The Expanse_ is being mixed for Atmos also.

We need more content to complain about! 

Edit: Oops, Suspiria isn't a show, but a movie. So you were correct.



> I don’t think there should be many reasons to complain...
> 
> I mean we have a multitude of scenes where it is raining.
> 
> At least I think we got that right


Don't sell the crowd here short. I mean the recorded water drops landing on whatever surface can always be too fine for rain or something.


----------



## LNEWoLF

snookfisher said:


> I agree wholeheartedly!!! im not looking for a hour and a half "atmos demo"... but I am still looking for that instance in a movie where the "object is places within a 3D bubble" im really wondering if something isn't right in my system...although I cant imagine what?


You might consider posting some pictures of your your room showing your speaker locations. Front, back and side views in relation to your MLP.

Good luck.


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> Was this not "the" standard that determined how good a surround mix was over the last three decades? Height channels now get a reprieve from that standard?


It's still what many people like, which is why Auro-Matic has so many fans. When you copy the entire soundtrack from the base layer to the height layer, none of the height speakers are ever silent.


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> ALL immersive audio soundtracks are mixed with objects (including Auro-3D soundtracks). But Auro is channel-based during playback. Atmos is hybrid (channels + objects) And, of the roughly 120 DTS:X titles released on home video in the US, around 20 of them are 7.1.4 channels + 5 objects (albeit from one studio: Well Go USA). Did you used to routinely get that effect with the 7.1 set-up you had before Atmos? Even when I've gotten a chance to listen to cheap upfiring modules, I can hear sounds floating mid-way between ear height and ceiling. Of course the vertical phantom imaging is better with speakers mounted overhead. But the effect was definitely audible.


No..no I didn't routinely get that affect with my 7.1 system...then again... no one claimed that I would.

I do not have cheap upfiring modules I have quality in ceiling speakers ...I have everything as close to optimal as possible with a 7.2.4 system.. what movie/scene did you get that effect from?


----------



## Josh Z

snookfisher said:


> I agree wholeheartedly!!! im not looking for a hour and a half "atmos demo"... but I am still looking for that instance in a movie where the "object is places within a 3D bubble" im really wondering if something isn't right in my system...although I cant imagine what?


The ability to image sounds between speakers is not new or exclusive to Atmos. Any pair of stereo speakers can image sounds in a center between them. Any 5.1 system can image sounds between fronts and surrounds. One of the best "sounds projected away from the speakers" effects I've ever heard is on the 5.1 mix for Kill Bill Vol. 1. There's a scene where a mosquito buzzes around The Bride's hospital room, and at a certain point it seemed to zip by me right next to my ear. 

The addition of height speakers with Atmos allows for more imaging possibilities, not just horizontally between ground speakers but also vertically between the ground level and the height level.

If you are not getting any good imaging effects between speakers, that could be a calibration issue, a room issue (lots of reflective surfaces can ruin the effect), or simply a matter of unrealistic expectations. 

It's normal for someone new to Atmos to wonder, "Why don't I hear tons of sounds above me all the time?" But the reality is that most movies don't have a lot of call for sounds to come from above you. What you're going to get a lot more of are atmospherics like wind or rain that may not draw attention to themselves but do enhance the feeling of really being in the environment depicted.

Try to settle in with the format for a while before passing judgment.


----------



## Renatto

FilmMixer said:


> That’s not correct.
> 
> Atmos : almost all Atmos encodes use up to 16 objects plus a 7.1 bed.



Sorry, my mistake. So all Atmos track has objects (12-16)? But some of them not used/empty?

And one more question: TrueHD is not object based, but Atmos is object based which is embedded in the TrueHD. But how?


----------



## FilmMixer

Stereodude said:


> I think it's the 3rd. _Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan_ has it and _Suspiria_ reportedly has it. I didn't watch Suspiria so I can't give a first hand report. I hope the upcoming season of _The Expanse_ is being mixed for Atmos also.
> 
> 
> 
> We need more content to complain about!
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Oops, Suspiria isn't a show, but a movie. So you were correct.



In speaking with Amazon they will continue producing shows with Atmos moving forward. 

Which is great for everyone. . 

They have been amazingly supportive on this project (S1 of JR was kind of handled out of house) and our show will serve as the template moving forward for them....


----------



## FilmMixer

Renatto said:


> Sorry, my mistake. So all Atmos track has objects (12-16)? But some of them not used/empty?
> 
> And one more question: TrueHD is not object based, but Atmos is object based which is embedded in the TrueHD. But how?


At any given point in a soundtrack there may be zero objects in use or up to 118 in the original master and those are “combined” into 12-16 (search the thread for Spatial Coding)... nothing is lost from the original mix. 

The second question has been discussed in this thread many times. 

Short story is the TrueHD container contains sub streams that allow the format to carry multiple lossless versions of the soundtrack, including 5.1 and 7.1 versions. 

They added a new sub stream that contains only the objects. Pre Atmos processors don’t see/ignore the extra sub stream. 

When encoding in Atmos, the objects are folded down into a 7.1 “core” that is the base of the TrueHD soundtrack. 

When decoding the sound track, the audio contained in the Atmos sub stream is audibly subtracted from the bass layer. It is then rendered in real time using the embedded metadata to place it properly in the 3D space using the available speakers in your system. 

That is a fairly generalized and simplified description.


----------



## am2model3

great posts!!


yes, Dolby Atmos and DTS:X can and do feature height effects; you can hear wind, sounds in a tunnel; the creaks of wood in a boat or ship; atmospheric sounds really sound great. so long as the sound engineer digitally mixing the movie soundtrack utilizes the technology correctly. As posted, its also more than "height" effects. Both sound formats create a dome of sound around you; so you feel immersed just listening to what is going on. I use 5.1.4; and its amazing how "smooth" sounds will move around me in the soundfield, a combination of front to back; but also on the side, and from above; when helicopters fly overhead its cool; but when airplanes, ships, spaceships, or helicopters fly from the front to back or back to front; your ears are in for a treat. 



If sound isn't impressing you; you could have a lazy atmos/DTSX movie mix; so engage your DolbySurround (atmos upmix) or NeuralX and get some really immersive sound that can sound great. 



xbox one: download the Dolby app and you watch&listen to dolby video demo clips, movies, games, etc. 

get the dolby atmos demo blu ray disc. 

4K UHD movies that sound good with Dolby Atmos or DTS:X: 

Matrix1,2,3
Transformers1-5
HarryPotter series
JohnWick1,2
BladeRunner1&2


Star Wars 1-6; LOTR trilogy, Hobbit Trilogy, all sound great with DSU or NeuralX. Being familiar with their standard 5ch soundtracks (i watch the films a lot) ; hearing them with DSU and NeuralX definently adds a "whole new dimension" to the viewing experience. = )


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> No..no I didn't routinely get that affect with my 7.1 system...then again... no one claimed that I would.


Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction, so the results are going to be like your old 7.1 system but with the element of height (2D ring vs 3D bubble). That element of height is why it is referred to as 3D, not some ability to place sounds inches from your ears. Expect that sort of effect to happen as often as it did on your old system. The main difference is that, in addition to sounds around you, you will now hear sounds above you. I was never expecting more than that when the immersive audio formats were announced.


> what movie/scene did you get that effect from?


Don't remember specific scenes, but it was on titles like 5th Element, Blade Runner 2049, Gravity, etc. A couple of Atmos demo tracks, like the bird flying around the room and a helicopter circling the room, had those sounds phantom imaging below ceiling height. But they sounded like they were floating between speakers (on the "speaker plane", to use your description), not any closer than that.


----------



## snookfisher

Josh Z said:


> The ability to image sounds between speakers is not new or exclusive to Atmos. Any pair of stereo speakers can image sounds in a center between them. Any 5.1 system can image sounds between fronts and surrounds. One of the best "sounds projected away from the speakers" effects I've ever heard is on the 5.1 mix for Kill Bill Vol. 1. There's a scene where a mosquito buzzes around The Bride's hospital room, and at a certain point it seemed to zip by me right next to my ear.
> 
> The addition of height speakers with Atmos allows for more imaging possibilities, not just horizontally between ground speakers but also vertically between the ground level and the height level.
> 
> If you are not getting any good imaging effects between speakers, that could be a calibration issue, a room issue (lots of reflective surfaces can ruin the effect), or simply a matter of unrealistic expectations.
> 
> It's normal for someone new to Atmos to wonder, "Why don't I hear tons of sounds above me all the time?" But the reality is that most movies don't have a lot of call for sounds to come from above you. What you're going to get a lot more of are atmospherics like wind or rain that may not draw attention to themselves but do enhance the feeling of really being in the environment depicted.
> 
> Try to settle in with the format for a while before passing judgment.


I am certainly NOT wanting/expecting to hear "tons of sounds above me all the time"...AT ALL.

What I would LOVE to hear is a convincing 3D truly "immersive " experience. one that lives up to the hype of anywhere in a dome effect that so many have touted. I simply have not experienced an effect that felt "free of channels" or floating in 3D space yet. I would love to get one of the demo discs to see if it is possible with my system.... but they are pretty expensive to just play for a few moments.


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction, so the results are going to be like your old 7.1 system but with the element of height (2D ring vs 3D bubble). That element of height is why it is referred to as 3D, not some ability to place sounds inches from your ears. Expect that sort of effect to happen as often as it did on your old system. The main difference is that, in addition to sounds around you, you will now hear sounds above you. I was never expecting more than that when the immersive audio formats were announced. Don't remember specific scenes, but it was on titles like 5th Element, Blade Runner 2049, Gravity, etc. A couple of Atmos demo tracks, like the bird flying around the room and a helicopter circling the room, had those sounds phantom imaging below ceiling height. But they sounded like they were floating between speakers (on the "speaker plane", to use your description), not any closer than that.


Well then I guess my expectations were in fact to high.... I guess it comes down to "what your definition of is is" 

To me adding channels and additional panning between thsose channels is NOT 3D... placing sounds in 3D space FREE from the "plane of the speakers" would be 3D...Much like 3D movies...the affect of the sword 2" from your face in 3d space is the whole point of the 3D experience.


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdurani said:


> It's still what many people like, which is why Auro-Matic has so many fans. When you copy the entire soundtrack from the base layer to the height layer, none of the height speakers are ever silent.


That is not the point I was trying to make. Constant on may be good for music, but definitely not for movies. Surround mixes were judged on how well the surrounds channels were utilized, not how often they were on. A good mix to my knowledge was never equated to a "constant on". However, a good surround mix did equate to liberal use of the surround channels i.e. door slams, fly by, car horns, footsteps, explosions, voices, etc. I see very similar parallels between Atmos and the early days of surround channels. There are exceptions, but for the most part there are far more ambience versus liberal use in the mixes. In the previous 5.1 and 7.1 days, this would have been viewed as a poor mix. With that said, I am confident that it will mature and get better just as surround mixes improved over time.


----------



## sdurani

Renatto said:


> So all Atmos track has objects (12-16)? But some of them not used/empty?


All 5.1 tracks contain 5.1 channels. Some of them have little to nothing in the surround channels (essentially 3.1 mixes).


> TrueHD is not object based, but Atmos is object based which is embedded in the TrueHD. But how?


Think of Atmos soundtracks as being made up of 2 parts: data (the audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). If you've got lots of storage space, like on a disc, you can use lossless packing (TrueHD) when encoding the audio. If you don't have much bandwidth, like when streaming, you can use lossy compression (DD+) to encode the audio. So it's not a question of whether TrueHD or DD+ are or aren't object based. They're simply lossless and lossy methods of shrinking the size/datarate of the audio; whether the audio is in one channel or multiple channels or multiple channels plus objects.


----------



## Josh Z

snookfisher said:


> What I would LOVE to hear is a convincing 3D truly "immersive " experience. one that lives up to the hype of anywhere in a dome effect that so many have touted. I simply have not experienced an effect that felt "free of channels" or floating in 3D space yet. I would love to get one of the demo discs to see if it is possible with my system.... but they are pretty expensive to just play for a few moments.


The Atmos demo trailers are available to stream for free on VUDU.

Where I will agree with you is that it seems like a lot of sound mixers are timid with Atmos, not just in failing to put sounds in the height channels (or in the bubble) but in allowing the ground channels to overpower them. In most of the big action/sci-fi/etc. blockbusters, the Atmos effects get totally lost in a barrage of noise blaring from every speaker at once, and it's impossible to even tell where any sound is supposed to be coming from. The best Atmos moments tend to happen in quieter scenes.


----------



## snookfisher

All I know is that I would love to have a toke of whatever the reviewers are smoking...


----------



## sdurani

Molon_Labe said:


> Surround mixes were judged on how well the surrounds channels were utilized, not how often they were on.


I thought you were replying to a comment about quantity, not quality.


batpig said:


> ...how much "stuff" is coming from the overheads.


----------



## Erod

Molon_Labe said:


> That is not the point I was trying to make. Constant on may be good for music, but definitely not for movies. Surround mixes were judged on how well the surrounds channels were utilized, not how often they were on. A good mix to my knowledge was never equated to a "constant on". However, a good surround mix did equate to liberal use of the surround channels i.e. door slams, fly by, car horns, footsteps, explosions, voices, etc. I see very similar parallels between Atmos and the early days of surround channels. There are exceptions, but for the most part there are far more ambience versus liberal use in the mixes. In the previous 5.1 and 7.1 days, this would have been viewed as a poor mix. With that said, I am confident that it will mature and get better just as surround mixes improved over time.


I've been a critic of Atmos because I've found mostly overrated. (I have a 7.2.4 system for reference.) It's simply not (yet) object based as advertised. Plain and simple. 

That said, it does sound good. It does provide discrete channels for the rear speakers. It does broaden the sound stage to the height channels. There are some flyovers and other effects in the top channels. It certainly doesn't sound bad, and upmixing non-Atmos material is definitely worthwhile. 

It simply needs more attention from the sound mixers, and unfortunately, I think the small percentage of people who have true Atmos systems isn't warranting much of their time.


----------



## batpig

Molon_Labe said:


> Was this not "the" standard that determined how good a surround mix was over the last three decades? Height channels now get a reprieve from that standard?


Nice strawman, but no. 

If the "standard" for how good a surround mix is is the amount of "stuff" coming out of the surrounds, then I disagree with that as well.


----------



## snookfisher

Erod said:


> I've been a critic of Atmos because I've found mostly overrated. (I have a 7.2.4 system for reference.) It's simply not (yet) object based as advertised. Plain and simple.
> 
> That said, it does sound good. It does provide discrete channels for the rear speakers. It does broaden the sound stage to the height channels. There are some flyovers and other effects in the top channels. It certainly doesn't sound bad, and upmixing non-Atmos material is definitely worthwhile.
> 
> It simply needs more attention from the sound mixers, and unfortunately, I think the small percentage of people who have true Atmos systems isn't warranting much of their time.


That's well said and very much what im experiencing.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Renatto said:


> Sorry, my mistake. So all Atmos track has objects (12-16)? But some of them not used/empty?
> 
> And one more question: TrueHD is not object based, but Atmos is object based which is embedded in the TrueHD. But how?


This is the most concise description I've come across (by Sanjay, 6/21/2015).


sdurani said:


> In the context of audio, the prefix 'meta' means 'about its own category'. Metadata is info about audio data. It's not the audio itself. So, in the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format, the metadata is not "the discrete additional rear-center-information", but the instructions on how to combine the discrete surround-back info with the surround channels to end up with a discrete 6.1-channel soundtrack. Likewise, in an Atmos soundtrack, the metadata is not "an entirely independent sound stream package", but the instructions on how to combine the various substreams so that you end up with bed channels and audio objects.
> 
> TrueHD doesn't have the core/extension structure in the way you described it; i.e., there is no DD 5.1 core (that's a separately encoded track that is interleaved into the TrueHD track for output as a single bitstream). The TrueHD stream is structured as a series of substreams. The first substream contains the entire soundtrack as a 2-channel mix. So if you're a TV manufacturer, you don't have to use a fancy decoder that unpacks all 7.1 channels only to downmix them to 2 channels for playback over the two TV speakers. Instead, you use the most basic TrueHD decoder that simply unpacks the first substream.
> 
> The second substream contains the audio (data) and instructions (metadata) that, when combined with the first substream, results in a discrete 5.1-channel track. The third substream contains the audio and instructions, when combined with the first two substreams, to recreate a 7.1-channel track. The fourth substream for 9.1-channel soundtracks, and so on, with additional substreams allowing for reconstituting mixes with more discrete channels. However, in an Atmos soundtrack, Dolby chose to use the fourth substream for the audio objects (data) and the information about them (metadata).
> 
> If your AVR has an older TrueHD decoder, then it won't recognize the information in the fourth substream of an Atmos track. It will simply decode the first three substreams, recovering the original 7.1 mix of the soundtrack. Newer TrueHD decoders will recognize the fourth substream and unpack the contents. Since the backwards compatible 7.1 portion of the soundtrack contains all the audio in the mix, you've got copies of the objects sitting in those channels. This is a problem, since you don't want objects in two places at once. So the data in the fourth substream is inverted and used as a cancellation signal to delete that same information in the 7.1 channels. The end result is the original bed channels and audio objects of the encoding master.


----------



## dfa973

Dan Hitchman said:


> However, that flies in the face of Dolby's own recommendations for wide frequency bandwidth overheads and surrounds (or as wide as is possible given any particular installation requirements or restrictions). I've noticed that if your overheads and surrounds can reproduce some mid-bass as well, it creates a more full and impactful sound field.


True.
I have bookshelf speakers mounted on the ceiling for Atmos that are capable of 60Hz (crossover at 80Hz) and if I get closer to them I can hear the lower frequencies during more active scenes on certain movies and feel the air moving from the bass port.
So yes, the Atmos objects/channels do carry full bandwidth audio.
Not all the time, of course, and not every movie has bass on the Top layer.




snookfisher said:


> ATMOS claims to be "object based" instead of " channel based" and that means that it can place sounds of objects anywhere in the "dome" created by the overhead and ear level speakers. Well.........I must say im not getting the "object placed in the dome" claimed by the reviewers....sounds still seem to emanate from one of the 7 "LISTENER LEVEL" speakers and not "free from channels".


Not every Atmos soundtrack is mixed the same way. Some are weak, some are quite strong.

Here you can find a list of movies that have soundtracks that are mixed very well, with midair effects sprinkled here and there, to great effect!


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> Thanks for chiming in! This attitude you note drives me crazy, as though the only determinant of the quality of an Atmos mix is how much "stuff" is coming from the overheads.
> 
> It must be especially insulting to you and your peers when "armchair experts" on the internet make claims about the mixers being "lazy" or not "understanding" the new mixing tools.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Some may not be adequately schooled on immersive mixing in general and so tend to look at the Atmos mixing suite as nothing more than 7.1 "plus" and don't specify most sound effects as pannable objects that can move freely in 3D space. So, you end up with a mostly generic channel based track just like before. It may sound "harsh," but not everyone in any particular field knows every little thing there is to know on a subject..


Well speak of the devil, that was quite timely! 




FilmMixer said:


> It’s not insulting... it’s sometimes discouraging that people let certain criteria diminish their enjoyment of some really great story tellingly d mixes.


The "insulting" part is the armchair expert commenting publicly that the reason the mix doesn't meet their personal standards is that you (or other mixers) don't know what they are doing.


----------



## snookfisher

Does anyone have an extra copy of a demo disc laying around ...or perhaps a "burned" copy for a reasonable price?


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> To me adding channels and additional panning between thsose channels is NOT 3D... placing sounds in 3D space FREE from the "plane of the speakers" would be 3D...Much like 3D movies...the affect of the sword 2" from your face in 3d space is the whole point of the 3D experience.


Since you've lived with a 7.1 system, imagine a friend of yours had just decided to convert their system from stereo to surround. With 7 speakers encircling the listening area, the expectation of the "surround sound" format was that it would be phantom imaging sounds anywhere in the room, including inches from the listeners' ears. When that sort of imaging didn't happen, your friend concluded that surround sound was a gimmick and couldn't understand why you had lived with it for years. Would any surround sound set-up be able to live up to your friend's expectations? Likewise, you can imagine your own definition of 3D audio, but don't expect reality to live up to that.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Erod said:


> I've been a critic of Atmos because I've found mostly overrated. (I have a 7.2.4 system for reference.) It's simply not (yet) object based as advertised. Plain and simple.
> 
> That said, it does sound good. It does provide discrete channels for the rear speakers. It does broaden the sound stage to the height channels. There are some flyovers and other effects in the top channels. It certainly doesn't sound bad, and upmixing non-Atmos material is definitely worthwhile.
> 
> It simply needs more attention from the sound mixers, and unfortunately, I think the small percentage of people who have true Atmos systems isn't warranting much of their time.


 ***I'm not so sure that Dolby Atmos is overrated. (Dolby Vision, on the other hand, has been a worthless technology, IMHO, with the only benefit for me being Dolby Atmos (DD+) soundtracks riding along with the Dolby Vision video.)

Dolby Atmos - Underused, misunderstood, bad mixes? I think it has a lot more to do with incorrect implementation or lack of creativity in Dolby Atmos soundtracks. 

I'm glad that I spent the time to installing my 11.1.4 system (with front wides) as I enjoy the wider sound stage. It wasn't a waste of my time nor did it take that long to setup.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Since you've lived with a 7.1 system, imagine a friend of yours had just decided to convert their system from stereo to surround. With 7 speakers encircling the listening area, the expectation of the "surround sound" format was that it would be phantom imaging sounds anywhere in the room, including inches from the listeners' ears. When that sort of imaging didn't happen, your friend concluded that surround sound was a gimmick and couldn't understand why you had lived with it for years. Would any surround sound set-up be able to live up to your friend's expectations? Likewise, you can imagine your own definition of 3D audio, but don't expect reality to live up to that.


Hey Sanjay, there's been quite a discussion on the Altitude thread lately about DTS:X Pro's capabilities as well as whether it might even offer a superior experience to Atmos, even to at least one poster's thought that just restricting content to the 7.1 core output as PCM from a source player, but then processed with the DTS:X Pro post-processing capability to more channels might be a way to go for a more immersive experience. 

Personally I think that people all too easily forget that above and beyond the overhead use so many focus on, Atmos has always been about precision of effects using object passthrough and rendering in 3D space as determined by the mixer. And ultimately, the extra speakers (wides, extra side and rear surrounds, extra screen speakers) are presence speakers that can, for software/DSP that can do the job, use those speakers to reproduce those locations. 

It was never IMO about having more speakers playing more often, more of the time. So if that's what you want, Atmos isn't going to satisfy you. Whether that's a desirable goal is a different question.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> Well then I guess my expectations were in fact to high.... I guess it comes down to "what your definition of is is"
> 
> To me adding channels and additional panning between thsose channels is NOT 3D... placing sounds in 3D space FREE from the "plane of the speakers" would be 3D...Much like 3D movies...the affect of the sword 2" from your face in 3d space is the whole point of the 3D experience.



The only way they can do that is psychoacoustic mixing of the objects on top of standard sound panning, but then that only works for one or two people within a small sweet spot and very high quality speakers with great imaging properties. 



You REALLY need to get some or all of the various 4k discs that have been discussed for your listening enjoyment instead of going on and on and on about how Atmos is a disappointment. Without reference tracks, you'll never know for yourself.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Well speak of the devil, that was quite timely!



And you like to blow comments out of proportion, so you seem above it all. 



Even if every audio engineer in existence is perfect in every single definition of the word that doesn't mean they will utilize every tool given to them to do their job. Maybe some don't like immersive audio or think old school mixing practices are better? Some may be less experienced than others and are learning their craft. Whose to know. I never said that they don't know what they're doing.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> Hey Sanjay, there's been quite a discussion on the Altitude thread lately about DTS:X Pro's capabilities as well as whether it might even offer a superior experience to Atmos, even to at least one poster's thought that just restricting content to the 7.1 core output as PCM from a source player, but then processed with the DTS:X Pro post-processing capability to more channels might be a way to go for a more immersive experience.


When you spend that much money on gear that allows for more speakers, I don't blame people for wanting to light them ALL up, even if that means using the 7.1 downmix of an Atmos track and then upmixing it using Neural:X. Why buy a 32-channel processor only to end up with most of those speakers silent. 

As for "DTS:X Pro's capabilities", there's only one new capability: no more 11-speaker limit during playback. Every thing else stays the same. Upmixing to extract additional speaker feeds has been part of DTS:X decoding since day one (which is how Wides were fed when playing back a DTS:X soundtrack on a 9.1.2 layout). That's not new with Pro. The way studios mix the soundtracks will remain the same. Encoding those soundtracks (as 7.1.4) will remain the same. Etc. Seems folks are determined to complicate DTS:X Pro beyond what it is.


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> Nice strawman, but no.
> 
> If the "standard" for how good a surround mix is is the amount of "stuff" coming out of the surrounds, then I disagree with that as well.


As an owner and early adopter, I am far from needing to use "straw-man" arguments. I am speaking from my own experience, not an outsider throwing crap over the fence as to why Atmos is dumb, a waste of money, etc. Most of the Atmos mixes have added little to nothing in value to the overall movie experience. There are exceptions, but in general it is not the flowery, glowing experience people portray here. I challenge people to turn off the base channels and listen to the scenes with the heights only. Most of the time, it is just sparse ambiance that is easily recreated with speakers that have decent vertical off-axis response. What I dislike is when someone shows up who ingested all the rave reviews, made a financial investment in the technology, and then posts their frustration about how their experience didn't match up to the glowing fanfare. They are then met with condescension, told they have a lack of knowledge/understanding , their setup is inferior, they are just a hater, and now a "straw-man". I like Atmos, but I find it woefully underutilized for what it is capable of. When its done right, its good - very good.


----------



## sdurani

Marc Alexander said:


> This is the most concise description I've come across (by Sanjay, 6/21/2015).


Thanx. My eyes almost glazed over reading it. I've tried to make my posts a lot LESS technical in the 4 years since.


----------



## FilmMixer

Erod said:


> I've been a critic of Atmos because I've found mostly overrated. (I have a 7.2.4 system for reference.) It's simply not (yet) object based as advertised. Plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> That said, it does sound good. It does provide discrete channels for the rear speakers. It does broaden the sound stage to the height channels. There are some flyovers and other effects in the top channels. It certainly doesn't sound bad, and upmixing non-Atmos material is definitely worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> It simply needs more attention from the sound mixers, and unfortunately, I think the small percentage of people who have true Atmos systems isn't warranting much of their time.



What is your definition of “object based?”

How do you define what sounds are objects and what are not? 

(Hint... the only way you can know in your 7.1.4 room is when there are sounds coming out of the overhead speakers... ) 

What does “yet” refer to? 

The codec is object based... even if a is entirely comprised of objects, such as the Unfold Dolby Demo, unless you’re speaker configuration is greater than the payload (7.1.4) the rendering engine will produce the exact same output on a channel based recoding as if it was reproducing all objects in real time. Adding a channel bed with objects doesn’t negate the presence of objects.... and you cannot further deduce that a sound coming from the floor level speakers (7 channels) are not objects. 

You not might be satisfied with mixes you’ve heard up until now. But that’s your preference and not an indictment of the technology or the codec.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> Demos aren’t tied to a 2D front facing images or telling a story.
> 
> And the entire idea of those demos is to show off..... 30 seconds is entirely a different animal than narrative film making. Those demos are usually loud are meant to “show off... “ and they are usually either sound effects only or music only.



I should have elaborated about what I liked about the trailers and find lacking in movie soundtracks.

As others have said, it's not the bombastics and overdone bass, but the ambient sounds that create the feeling of being in the portrayed space.

Particularly egregious are missed opportunities in jungle scenes, i.e. wind sound, rustling leaves, animal sounds, etc.

I'm still curious about why more soundtracks don't do a better job at this.

Maybe it's harder than I think, as there's a lot I don't know about movie sound creation.

If someone steps outside onto a busy street in a movie, I presume getting sound rich in ambience would be straightforward if you follow them out with a mic.

Or is that actually a logistical nightmare, and street sounds are created in the studio, so it's more akin to the complex and expensive CGI process?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> I should have elaborated about what I liked about the trailers and find lacking in movie soundtracks.
> 
> As others have said, it's not the bombastics and overdone bass, but the ambient sounds that create the feeling of being in the portrayed space.
> 
> Particularly egregious are missed opportunities in jungle scenes, i.e. wind sound, rustling leaves, animal sounds, etc.
> 
> I'm still curious about why more soundtracks don't do a better job at this.
> 
> Maybe it's harder than I think, as there's a lot I don't know about movie sound creation.
> 
> If someone steps outside onto a busy street in a movie, I presume getting sound rich in ambience would be straightforward if you follow them out with a mic.
> 
> Or is that actually a logistical nightmare, and street sounds are created in the studio, so it's more akin to the complex and expensive CGI process?



I would say that a majority of the sounds are synthetically derived from various sources. That's not to say that some mixers may utilize live captured, multi-mic ambient recordings for extra space where available. 



Gotta agree that the use of spatial ambiance to recreate a sense of 3D space using the Atmos toolset, even if subtle and not bombastic, for a given moment has been kind of lacking from what I've heard so far. Part of this could be because the time given to create a really, really solid Atmos soundtrack can be counted in days or maybe a couple weeks, but not a nice, comfortable cushion.


----------



## sdurani

Disney is making for some very expen$ive days with their upcoming Atmos releases on 4K. 

August 13th: Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Thor: Dark World, Avengers: Endgame. 

September 10th: Aladdin (1992), Brave, Cars, Cars 2, Finding Nemo, Finding Dori, Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, Ratatouille.


----------



## chi_guy50

snookfisher said:


> I am certainly NOT wanting/expecting to hear "tons of sounds above me all the time"...AT ALL.
> 
> What I would LOVE to hear is a convincing 3D truly "immersive " experience. one that lives up to the hype of anywhere in a dome effect that so many have touted. I simply have not experienced an effect that felt "free of channels" or floating in 3D space yet. I would love to get one of the demo discs to see if it is possible with my system.... but they are pretty expensive to just play for a few moments.



As far as the Dolby Atmos demo clips are concerned, you can download them yourself, as others have mentioned. There are several web sites that host them; here's the one that I routinely use:

https://www.demo-world.eu/2d-demo-trailers-hd/

As for movies that make notable use (not "demo flashy" but artistically effective) of the Atmos technology, others have made their recommendations. My personal favorite is the nature documentary _Enchanted Kingdom_ (aka _Nature_). It is not only a great immersive audio experience but a stunningly beautiful visual treat.

It is a must-view for any lover of nature documentaries.


----------



## deano86

Molon_Labe said:


> I challenge people to turn off the base channels and listen to the scenes with the heights only.


I would be more interested in reversing that challenge... turn off the heights and Atmos processing and listen to the movie with True HD only and then see what you think of the soundtrack compared to Atmos....


----------



## zeonstar

sdurani said:


> Disney is making for some very expen$ive days with their upcoming Atmos releases on 4K.
> 
> August 13th: Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Thor: Dark World, Avengers: Endgame.
> 
> September 10th: Aladdin (1992), Brave, Cars, Cars 2, Finding Nemo, Finding Dori, Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, Ratatouille.


Pardon me but Holy ****! I knew about the movies coming on 8/13, and I had last seen that the Original Aladdin was unconfirmed for 9/10, but I had no idea all those movies were coming that same day. Geez!

I have been upgrading my Blu-rays (and in some cases 3D Blu-rays) to 4K versions by using the Disney Movie Club and a 60% off coupon. I will usually break even in the end or even be a bit ahead because I sell the 4K codes and my old blu-rays on eBay. It's a lot of work but worth it in the end. To recover from the September batch will take some doing!

Sorry for the tangent. Back on topic and related to this post. For those who may not know, Brave was the first ever movie in Dolby Atmos. Will be nice to have it on a home release.


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> I should have elaborated about what I liked about the trailers and find lacking in movie soundtracks.
> 
> 
> 
> As others have said, it's not the bombastics and overdone bass, but the ambient sounds that create the feeling of being in the portrayed space.
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly egregious are missed opportunities in jungle scenes, i.e. wind sound, rustling leaves, animal sounds, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still curious about why more soundtracks don't do a better job at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's harder than I think, as there's a lot I don't know about movie sound creation.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone steps outside onto a busy street in a movie, I presume getting sound rich in ambience would be straightforward if you follow them out with a mic.
> 
> 
> 
> Or is that actually a logistical nightmare, and street sounds are created in the studio, so it's more akin to the complex and expensive CGI process?



I can only comment on reasons why I might not do things.... but in the end it comes down to taste and choice... and if it serves the directors vision as a whole. 

Time (on feature films) is not really a pressing concern.... it doesn’t take me any longer to mix in Atmos... but you do sometimes need more time to explore more possibilities and experiment. 

But to me it’s like asking why every film doesn’t get a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.... some are subjectively better than others, some better written, some better acted, some better filmed. 

And some “better” mixed.... 

Directors don’t worry about how much there is in the overhead speakers during a mix. They are constantly concerned will making sure the mix serves the story... just because they have the tools doesn’t mean they use them at their full potential all the time. I think some of the most excellent Atmos mixes (Gravity, Mad Max and Oblivion to name a few) lend pair perfectly to the films they belong to... . And for every one of those examples there are several others where the sound track might have indeed be subjectively more immersive, better, etc...

In the end it’s a tool.... it wasn’t designed to be used all the time during a mix.... and overhead usage is only only small part of the decisions made during a final Atmos mix. 

I know that some here won’t like that answer.... that’s just my opinion. 

I shrug my shoulders when I don’t think a mix is “great” in my opinion.... but I’ve never once lamented making the effort or spending the money to hear films as intended when those truly excellent mixes do come along.... 

Things like terrible ADR matching, bad sound effects choices, jumpy background transitions and more are far more distracting than lack of overhead immersion IMO. 

Those things could also usually be fixed and/or improved on but still make it through.... but “bad” mixes have ever made me question my decisions to spend money putting together a decent system to hear movies on.... again it just makes it that much more enjoyable when great mixes come along. 

When you have to integrate music and production dialog you sometimes make longer term decisions.... meaning that you might forgo any over head ambience in a given scene if it’s going to disappear once music starts... or are tied to extremely noisy production sound. That’s not a black and white decision... just one example. 

We have also found that on louder sound tracks the overheads become completely inaudible when things get going.... so you decide on what to focus on. 

Some mixers, and film makers, love the format... some don’t. I am of the mind set that I don’t want all films to sound alike and I always appreciate the differences in styles that come across. 

As I mentioned earlier it’s no different how some music mixes sound ultra wide and some sound almost mono.... not every mixer has the taste that other do.... 

If you’re really pulled out of a film because of the lack of ambience in the overheads, for example, than I think you’ve lost the point of consuming filmed content.... 

I can only stand behind my work. I think I’ve done a decent job when mixing in the format. And I hope I have also created some really compelling and immersive 5.1 and 7.1 mixes...... 

This reply isn’t wholly directed at you or anyone in particular.... I just started typing and gave a long answer to a simple question (the short to the point answer is that it’s not difficult to add more overhead sound and it really comes down to mixer taste and direction they may have been given.. 

For some reason experiencing Atmos seems to have led itself to be judged based on a binary criteria.... which is how much is in the overheads.... I don’t quite get it. 

In terms of logistics and the “how..”. .... if you turn off your center speaker everything else you hear was created after the fact... that will give you examples of what the palette is that we usually have to work with.... so it’s not harder to put any one of the sounds into the overheads if desired. It’s easy to add an additional few tracks of birds or air or car bys if desired. 

Sorry for the long reply Noah.... 

You’ve known me for a long time... I tend to blather.


----------



## sdrucker

> September 10th: Aladdin (1992), Brave, Cars, Cars 2, Finding Nemo, Finding Dori, Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, Ratatouille.


The day before is my son's sixth birthday. He could be VERY busy if we're not careful.

Hope Disney doesn't neuter the bass on Finding Nemo. That scene where the girl, Darla. taps the fish tank is a classic for low bass.


----------



## Joshua Chmiel

Just to add my two cents. When I first started it was Dolby Pro Logic. In 2000 I went to Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1. Christmas 2016 I set up my basement (instead of living room) as a dedicated movie space. Got myself an OLED, upgraded my receiver to a 5.1.2 and used some old outdoor/indoor speakers hanging off my ceiling at the Dolby Atmos recommended angle from my listening position. It grabbed my attention and never let go. It was far superior to any 7.1 system I ever heard. It even sounded better in my room than a big retailer's demo room. I met someone that had a 7.2.4 setup in his living room with SVS elevation speakers just higher up on the wall as his fronts and rears. The experience was nowhere near what I had with mine. I ended up finding a matching pair of the old speakers I already had on my ceiling on ebay. I got those and then a 9 channel receiver at a clearance bargain at the same big retailer mentioned above. I have also upgraded my subs over that time as well. I absolutely love Atmos and DTSX. My uncle has experienced my setup a few times and enjoys watching movies on my setup just for the experience when he comes to town. And it is not just the encoded specific movies I notice the difference. The upcoding or whatever with Dolby Surround and Neural X makes an incredible immersive experience. A couple recent examples for me are Tarzan (2013 animated) and A Bug's Life. The surround nature sounds in both cases had me feeling I was right there with the characters hearing the surroundings with them.

All this experience doesn't need to be expensive. My speakers are getting close to 20 years old. My initial upgrade to my sound was a $500 receiver and mounting some speakers I wasn't using to the ceiling. Every piece of equipment in my room listed in my signature plus Laser Disc player, CD player, Roku, Network switch, speaker wire and cables, theater seats, TV stand, Blu-Ray/DVD shelves, and dedicated 20amp circuit and outlet just for two of the subs cost me less than $8K over 20 years. I can't think of a better way to spend for entertainment over that long of a period. And after the big chunk of spending the past couple years, I see many years ahead of not having to spend more other than more movies to my collection. Atmos/DTSX was the biggest improvement since the introduction of Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zeonstar said:


> Pardon me but Holy ****! I knew about the movies coming on 8/13, and I had last seen that the Original Aladdin was unconfirmed for 9/10, but I had no idea all those movies were coming that same day. Geez!
> 
> I have been upgrading my Blu-rays (and in some cases 3D Blu-rays) to 4K versions by using the Disney Movie Club and a 60% off coupon. I will usually break even in the end or even be a bit ahead because I sell the 4K codes and my old blu-rays on eBay. It's a lot of work but worth it in the end. To recover from the September batch will take some doing!
> 
> Sorry for the tangent. Back on topic and related to this post. For those who may not know, Brave was the first ever movie in Dolby Atmos. Will be nice to have it on a home release.



I don't know if I should be worried or not. Disney Atmos mixes are so hit n miss. And all of them (at least as far as I can find out) are print-outs, not full 3D object mixes that expand to various speaker layouts beyond 7.1.4 (maybe in some instances 7.1.6).


----------



## Stereodude

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know if I should be worried or not. Disney Atmos mixes are so hit n miss. And all of them (at least as far as I can find out) are print-outs, not full 3D object mixes that expand to various speaker layouts beyond 7.1.4 (maybe in some instances 7.1.6).


Even ignoring whether they're pre-rendering the overhead Atmos channels Disney seems to specialize in watered down mixes with compressed dynamics & rolled off LFE, especially for the Marvel movies. What makes you think this next batch of titles might be the exception rather than the rule?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stereodude said:


> Even ignoring whether they're pre-rendering the overhead Atmos channels Disney seems to specialize in watered down mixes with compressed dynamics & rolled off LFE, especially for the Marvel movies. What makes you think this next batch of titles might be the exception rather than the rule?



Hope springs eternal?


----------



## Erod

FilmMixer said:


> What is your definition of “object based?”
> 
> How do you define what sounds are objects and what are not?
> 
> (Hint... the only way you can know in your 7.1.4 room is when there are sounds coming out of the overhead speakers... )
> 
> What does “yet” refer to?
> 
> The codec is object based... even if a is entirely comprised of objects, such as the Unfold Dolby Demo, unless you’re speaker configuration is greater than the payload (7.1.4) the rendering engine will produce the exact same output on a channel based recoding as if it was reproducing all objects in real time. Adding a channel bed with objects doesn’t negate the presence of objects.... and you cannot further deduce that a sound coming from the floor level speakers (7 channels) are not objects.
> 
> You not might be satisfied with mixes you’ve heard up until now. But that’s your preference and not an indictment of the technology or the codec.


Dolby Atmos was sold as three-dimensional sound where an object can be played specifically anywhere within a bubble by using mulitple speakers at varying volumes to triangulate an object to an exact position. 

While I never expected that to be fully realized, i did think it would involve more than helicopter blades above my head or a wind in branches above me. 

That ain't happening yet. Certainly cool, but not even remotely object-based three-dimensional sound.


----------



## noah katz

FilmMixer said:


> I can only comment on reasons why I might not do things.... but in the end it comes down to taste and choice... and if it serves the directors vision as a whole.
> 
> This reply isn’t wholly directed at you or anyone in particular... I just started typing and gave a long answer to a simple question (the short to the point answer is that it’s not difficult to add more overhead sound and it really comes down to mixer taste and direction they may have been given..
> 
> In terms of logistics and the “how..”. .... if you turn off your center speaker everything else you hear was created after the fact...




Thanks for the comprehensive response; all good points.

However, I'm sticking by my (and others') complaints.

I'm sure there are isolated cases where the story wouldn't be served by acoustic ambience appropriate to the scene, but there are way too many times when the cinematography is obviously trying to transport the viewer into the environment (no actors in sight and no dialogue).

I can't imagine that this wouldn't be better served with use of the elevation speakers.


Re the "how", so all of the surround sound is "synthetic", no equivalent to a purist single-mic audio recording where the surround is recorded in the real environment (when there is one)?


----------



## FilmMixer

noah katz said:


> Thanks for the comprehensive response; all good points.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I'm sticking by my (and others') complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there are isolated cases where the story wouldn't be served by acoustic ambience appropriate to the scene, but there are way too many times when the cinematography is obviously trying to transport the viewer into the environment (no actors in sight and no dialogue).
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine that this wouldn't be better served with use of the elevation speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re the "how", so all of the surround sound is "synthetic", no equivalent to a purist single-mic audio recording where the surround is recorded in the real environment (when there is one)?



You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. So I guess you and everyone else will continue to complain... 

Correct.... almost all sound that is recorded on the set consists of mono mic recordings, either from boom or radio/lavaliere mics. There is no equivalent to single mic surround recording. 

Films aren’t shot in a linear fashion, so it would be impossible to maintain and control perspectives, ambience etc as the mic must move as each camera setup is done. 

This gives us the ability to control, as much as possible, all of the other sounds as needed. 

In even a simple dialog scene, we can have up to 10 edited tracks of the on set recorded dialog, 16 tracks of re recorded (ADR) dialog, 20 tracks of background performed dialog (called walla.. all background actors (besides principals) on set are silent during filming so we record all of that in post..). 

For background ambience in any scene we usually have multiple mono, stereo and sometimes tracks per category in a given scene. So maybe 3-4 different air and room tones, 3-4 different traffic beds, 3-4 differ bird tracks, etc... it’s all about choice and control... 

It goes on form there.. Foley (footsteps and props), sound effects and sound design. 

I think the ambience, Foley and sound effects/design for one reel (20 minutes) of Avengers Endgame was a bit over 200 tracks. 

Music is also delivered in multiple splits.. sometimes up to 30 or 40... 

So yes we have a ton of control. And your follow up comment would be “why not put some
of that in the overheads.”

And I gave you that answer best I could.


----------



## FilmMixer

Erod said:


> Dolby Atmos was sold as three-dimensional sound where an object can be played specifically anywhere within a bubble by using mulitple speakers at varying volumes to triangulate an object to an exact position.
> 
> 
> 
> While I never expected that to be fully realized, i did think it would involve more than helicopter blades above my head or a wind in branches above me.
> 
> 
> 
> That ain't happening yet. Certainly cool, but not even remotely object-based three-dimensional sound.




The first sound in Power Rangers (besides the score) you hear is Zordons breathing. It circles overhead, then moves forward and drops down form the overheads into the front center. 

How is that not 3D?

Atmos works as you describe. An object has 3D co-ordinates and is rendered to those positions using the available speakers.... 

If you think that Dolby Amaze or Unfold demos don’t demonstrate that I don’t know what you were expecting. 

I think it’s important to separate content from what the codec is capable of. 

Dolby delivered what they said they would. I’ve heard my work played as it was intended in home environments. 

it also bears noting that Atmos makes the sweet spot smaller, and not bigger... the rendering engine uses the center of the room cube for positional reference... 

I think your issue is with the content.... I think that’s an important distinction to make.


----------



## Erod

FilmMixer said:


> Erod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos was sold as three-dimensional sound where an object can be played specifically anywhere within a bubble by using mulitple speakers at varying volumes to triangulate an object to an exact position.
> 
> 
> 
> While I never expected that to be fully realized, i did think it would involve more than helicopter blades above my head or a wind in branches above me.
> 
> 
> 
> That ain't happening yet. Certainly cool, but not even remotely object-based three-dimensional sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first sound in Power Rangers (besides the score) you hear is Zordons breathing. It circles overhead, then moves forward and drops down form the overheads into the front center.
> 
> How is that not 3D?
> 
> Atmos works as you describe. An object has 3D co-ordinates and is rendered to those positions using the available speakers....
> 
> If you think that Dolby Amaze or Unfold demos donâ€™️t demonstrate that I donâ€™️t know what you were expecting.
> 
> I think itâ€™️s important to separate content from what the codec is capable of.
> 
> Dolby delivered what they said they would. Iâ€™️ve heard my work played as it was intended in home environments.
> 
> it also bears noting that Atmos makes the sweet spot smaller, and not bigger... the rendering engine uses the center of the room cube for positional reference...
> 
> I think your issue is with the content.... I think thatâ€™️s an important distinction to make.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page here.

If you look at my first post on this, I mention that the sound mixing is the problem. The capability is mostly there, but it's not being utilized because so few of us have the needed speakers in the needed locations. I think very little time is spent on the mixing as a result. Hence why I used "yet" in my point.

My hope is this will change although the industry seems to be going the way of streaming, sound bars, and ear buds instead of big theater presentation.


----------



## stikle

LNEWoLF said:


> You might consider posting some pictures of your your room showing your speaker locations. Front, back and side views in relation to your MLP.


 @snookfisher

I too would be interested to know more about your room and speaker layout.

I have fabulous results in my theater that has blown away every visitor. I did have to make a change once it was "done" as I didn't have enough angular separation between the overheads and the bed layer. I still haven't finished the drywall and paint work from the change, but the sound sure is excellent.

@FilmMixer

As always, your posts are thoughtful and illuminating. Thank you.


----------



## Augerhandle

snookfisher said:


> Does anyone have an extra copy of a demo disc laying around ...or perhaps a "burned" copy for a reasonable price?





snookfisher said:


> ...I would love to get one of the demo discs to see if it is possible with my system.... but they are pretty expensive to just play for a few moments.


I gave you two links a few days ago. If your computer has HDMI out, you should be able to play them.



Augerhandle said:


> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html
> 
> https://thedigitaltheater.com/dolby-trailers/ (look for ATMOS in the right-hand column)


----------



## pappaduke

snookfisher said:


> I am certainly NOT wanting/expecting to hear "tons of sounds above me all the time"...AT ALL.
> 
> What I would LOVE to hear is a convincing 3D truly "immersive " experience. one that lives up to the hype of anywhere in a dome effect that so many have touted. I simply have not experienced an effect that felt "free of channels" or floating in 3D space yet. I would love to get one of the demo discs to see if it is possible with my system.... but they are pretty expensive to just play for a few moments.


Xfinity has two short Atmos demo's for free if you subscribe to them.


----------



## LNEWoLF

LNEWoLF said:


> You might consider posting some pictures of your your room showing your speaker locations. Front, back and side views in relation to your MLP.
> 
> Good luck.


Bump for Snookfisher.

To potential solve this concern. Pictures of your setup would be helpful. As well as a complete equipment list. Including speaker model numbers. 

Potential speaker type, speaker placement/position, speaker distance between speakers, speaker distance to MLP, calibration concern, calibration mic placement etc?.

Also what is the media type? All physical discs or streaming. 

Good luck.


----------



## chi_guy50

FilmMixer said:


> The first sound in Power Rangers (besides the score) you hear is Zordons breathing. It circles overhead, then moves forward and drops down form the overheads into the front center.
> 
> How is that not 3D?
> 
> Atmos works as you describe. An object has 3D co-ordinates and is rendered to those positions using the available speakers....
> 
> If you think that Dolby Amaze or Unfold demos don’t demonstrate that I don’t know what you were expecting.
> 
> I think it’s important to separate content from what the codec is capable of.
> 
> Dolby delivered what they said they would. I’ve heard my work played as it was intended in home environments.
> 
> it also bears noting that Atmos makes the sweet spot smaller, and not bigger... the rendering engine uses the center of the room cube for positional reference...
> 
> *I think your issue is with the content.... I think that’s an important distinction to make.*



Speaking of content . . .

I have hesitated to bring this up for fear of delving into what some would (not entirely without justification) deem purely subjective criteria, but the content of the overwhelming majority of the films that folks here seem to care about and for which they are criticizing the lack of sophisticated immersive audio mixing, is puerile dross. Now, after a half century of passionate movie-watching, I realize that the industry is not so much about artistry as profits and so I relish the exceptional film that rises above the ordinary while acknowledging that exceptions prove the rule. 

Please don't misunderstand; I don't begrudge anyone their comic-book entertainment, or action-hero blockbuster, or franchise fantasy romp (my own tastes are rather eclectic), but to carp about the relative effectiveness of their Atmos sound track strikes me as a risible distraction. Why should we place exalted demands on this one aspect of an enterprise that is designed at its core to appeal to unsophisticated consumers? It's as much as to fault the color reproduction in a Dick and Jane book .

When audiences become as discerning in the creativity of the entire substance of Hollywood studio filmmaking, then perhaps we can expect the production teams to make better use of the full palette of technological tools at their disposal. But as long as they can depend on the public to ravenously consume whatever mass-produced, market-tested piffle they churn out, any "demo quality" material will likely remain the aforementioned exception to the rule.

By all means, we should celebrate the rare audio gem (whether immersive or not), but let's temper our expectations to match the overall caliber of the product.


----------



## Molon_Labe

chi_guy50 said:


> Speaking of content . . .
> 
> I have hesitated to bring this up for fear of delving into what some would (not entirely without justification) deem purely subjective criteria, but the content of the overwhelming majority of the films that folks here seem to care about and for which they are criticizing the lack of sophisticated immersive audio mixing, is puerile dross. Now, after a half century of passionate movie-watching, I realize that the industry is not so much about artistry as profits and so I relish the exceptional film that rises above the ordinary while acknowledging that exceptions prove the rule.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand; I don't begrudge anyone their comic-book entertainment, or action-hero blockbuster, or franchise fantasy romp (my own tastes are rather eclectic), but to carp about the relative effectiveness of their Atmos sound track strikes me as a risible distraction. Why should we place exalted demands on this one aspect of an enterprise that is designed at its core to appeal to unsophisticated consumers? It's as much as to fault the color reproduction in a Dick and Jane book .
> 
> When audiences become as discerning in the creativity of the entire substance of Hollywood studio filmmaking, then perhaps we can expect the production teams to make better use of the full palette of technological tools at their disposal. But as long as they can depend on the public to ravenously consume whatever mass-produced, market-tested piffle they churn out, any "demo quality" material will likely remain the aforementioned exception to the rule.
> 
> By all means, we should celebrate the rare audio gem (whether immersive or not), but let's temper our expectations to match the overall caliber of the product.


 Odd. You do realize it was the "unsophisticated consumer" and "comic-book, action-hero entertainment" that made Dolby prime time aka Star Wars in 1977. Enjoy your fine film while sipping on your expensive malt beverage of choice, but don't let your ivory tower, condescension muddle the facts of why you are enjoying Atmos in your home. If your interested in knowing more I provided a link, but I am sure you will probably find it to be more of the "puerile dross" variety  
https://www.tested.com/starwars/460476-star-wars-and-explosion-dolby-stereo/


----------



## Erod

chi_guy50 said:


> Speaking of content . . .
> 
> I have hesitated to bring this up for fear of delving into what some would (not entirely without justification) deem purely subjective criteria, but the content of the overwhelming majority of the films that folks here seem to care about and for which they are criticizing the lack of sophisticated immersive audio mixing, is puerile dross. Now, after a half century of passionate movie-watching, I realize that the industry is not so much about artistry as profits and so I relish the exceptional film that rises above the ordinary while acknowledging that exceptions prove the rule.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand; I don't begrudge anyone their comic-book entertainment, or action-hero blockbuster, or franchise fantasy romp (my own tastes are rather eclectic), but to carp about the relative effectiveness of their Atmos sound track strikes me as a risible distraction. Why should we place exalted demands on this one aspect of an enterprise that is designed at its core to appeal to unsophisticated consumers? It's as much as to fault the color reproduction in a Dick and Jane book .
> 
> When audiences become as discerning in the creativity of the entire substance of Hollywood studio filmmaking, then perhaps we can expect the production teams to make better use of the full palette of technological tools at their disposal. But as long as they can depend on the public to ravenously consume whatever mass-produced, market-tested piffle they churn out, any "demo quality" material will likely remain the aforementioned exception to the rule.
> 
> By all means, we should celebrate the rare audio gem (whether immersive or not), but let's temper our expectations to match the overall caliber of the product.


Indeed, and my criticisms of Atmos to date aren't to suggest that everything has to be layered with overhead noise and object placement at all times. Quite the opposite, in fact, because overly aggressive surround sound can be very distracting and "un"-immersive to an otherwise good movie. In fact, some sound mixers like to crank the volume so high for big action scenes that it completely detracts from a movie. When you have to reach down to turn the volume down because Sir Mix-a-lot decided to amp up the base volume for the chase scene, you're eyes are drawn away from the movie to the remote, and with it your attention.

However, it's rare that I can find a moment when a useful effect is being played out of more than one speaker, which is what Atmos claims to do for "object" placement. There's not a lot of time spent for those opportunities in most cases. Hence, why Atmos is really just DTS-Master-HD with height channels. Good sound, but not as advertised.

At no point do I want mixers to to and dress up _Darkest Hour _or _The King's Speech_ with showy overhead effects throughout a movie of those sorts. 

And I totally agree that Hollywood needs to stop catering to the mindless and make great movies again. However, in this new #metoo world where characters must check a variety of gender, ethnic, and political boxes before a single scene is written, I'm not sure how that's possible. Movies like _Gladiator, Goodfellas, Forrest Gump, and Braveheart_ don't even seem possible right now.


----------



## Erod

chi_guy50 said:


> Speaking of content . . .
> 
> I have hesitated to bring this up for fear of delving into what some would (not entirely without justification) deem purely subjective criteria, but the content of the overwhelming majority of the films that folks here seem to care about and for which they are criticizing the lack of sophisticated immersive audio mixing, is puerile dross. Now, after a half century of passionate movie-watching, I realize that the industry is not so much about artistry as profits and so I relish the exceptional film that rises above the ordinary while acknowledging that exceptions prove the rule.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand; I don't begrudge anyone their comic-book entertainment, or action-hero blockbuster, or franchise fantasy romp (my own tastes are rather eclectic), but to carp about the relative effectiveness of their Atmos sound track strikes me as a risible distraction. Why should we place exalted demands on this one aspect of an enterprise that is designed at its core to appeal to unsophisticated consumers? It's as much as to fault the color reproduction in a Dick and Jane book .
> 
> When audiences become as discerning in the creativity of the entire substance of Hollywood studio filmmaking, then perhaps we can expect the production teams to make better use of the full palette of technological tools at their disposal. But as long as they can depend on the public to ravenously consume whatever mass-produced, market-tested piffle they churn out, any "demo quality" material will likely remain the aforementioned exception to the rule.
> 
> By all means, we should celebrate the rare audio gem (whether immersive or not), but let's temper our expectations to match the overall caliber of the product.





Molon_Labe said:


> Odd. You do realize it was the "unsophisticated consumer" and "comic-book, action-hero entertainment" that made Dolby prime time aka Star Wars in 1977. Enjoy your fine film while sipping on your expensive malt beverage of choice, but don't let your ivory tower, condescension muddle the facts of why you are enjoying Atmos in your home. If your interested in knowing more I provided a link, but I am sure you will probably find it to be more of the "puerile dross" variety
> https://www.tested.com/starwars/460476-star-wars-and-explosion-dolby-stereo/


The problem is, that's about all Hollywood produces these days. How many _Fast and Furious_ movies do we need? How many more comic book characters do they need to invent? When grown-ass men are crying in the theater for the final Avenger movie.....no, that's not normal. 

Those movies are fine, but where are the days when interesting movies poured out of Hollywood? We get a few here and there, but not like we used to, and very few of an original nature. Brad Pitt has a good one coming out later this year, and Tarantino's movie might be good. _First Man_ was cool. But wow are those rare.

Instead, we get comic books and endless remakes almost exclusively. Where are the epics? *Where are the quotable movies like Caddyshack, Forrest Gump, Breakfast Club, Silence of the Lambs, Back to the Future....?* In fact, what was the last truly quotable movie made? Napoleon Dynamite? Today's writing is just putrid.

Truth be told, political correctness and agenda has become the standard, instead of just telling a good story, making us laugh, and entertaining us. So many great movies of the past couldn't even be made today because there are too many landmines with every subject, and you have to check a certain number of boxes or risk a dogpile by the infinite number of social justice causes lurking around every corner.


----------



## Erod

stikle said:


> @snookfisher
> 
> I too would be interested to know more about your room and speaker layout.
> 
> I have fabulous results in my theater that has blown away every visitor. I did have to make a change once it was "done" as I didn't have enough angular separation between the overheads and the bed layer. I still haven't finished the drywall and paint work from the change, but the sound sure is excellent.
> 
> @FilmMixer
> 
> As always, your posts are thoughtful and illuminating. Thank you.


We all get those results and reaction from our home theater visitors, and have since the early 2000s when we installed our 7.1 systems. If you don't have a home theater, going to a house that does and seeing and hearing proper 4K movies on 120-inch screens with disc quality surround sound and multiple big subwoofers will blow you away.

The point is, Atmos hasn't really upped that game to the degree it was promised, at least not yet. Certain advancements like HD, then 1080p blu rays, and HDR/2020 color have made huge differences, while others like 4K and Atmos are far more subtle improvements. (I don't understand this interest in 8K unless we're all going to sit a foot from our screens.)

If you just got into this hobby, of course you're noticing massive improvements to what you've known. For the industry of home theater in general, however, Atmos is not a big leap in its evolution. Again, at least not as of yet.


----------



## Erod

Molon_Labe said:


> Agreed, but Hollywood is a business. They will follow the money as does any other business. If you want change, then you have to provoke change. If you saw any of those comic book movies on the big screen, bought the disc, streamed the movie, etc then you have contributed to the problem. I for one like Marvel and Disney movies. I grew up on all of these Marvel characters. I have enough thought provoking, serious issues in life. When I power on the projector, I simply want entertainment to take me to another galaxy or watch the comic book characters I read back in 1978 come to life on the big screen. If I want in-depth character development and thought provoking content, I pick up a book. I get the political correctness agenda, and I don't like it either. Some things I boycott others I don't. As long as a Marvel movie is guaranteed to pocket 100 million plus of profits, we are going to see more Marvel movies. When people are fed up for whatever reason and stop forking out their disposable income to watch these films, they will stop. I agree with you more than my post probably alludes to, but I get the "mindless entertainment" side of the industry too.


But Hollywood should be able to create more than just that. I like some of that stuff, too, but I'm hungry for epics to return.

And speaking of which.....did it bother you that they took the rebellion in Star Wars and reduced its leadership to 5-6 women while castrating Luke Skywalker before our eyes? When he milked a seacow's teet and drank it, I knew the series was done. (I heard the same kind of thing is about to happen in Star Trek soon.)


----------



## snookfisher

Erod said:


> The problem is, that's about all Hollywood produces these days. How many _Fast and Furious_ movies do we need? How many more comic book characters do they need to invent? When grown-ass men are crying in the theater for the final Avenger movie.....no, that's not normal.
> 
> Those movies are fine, but where are the days when interesting movies poured out of Hollywood? We get a few here and there, but not like we used to, and very few of an original nature. Brad Pitt has a good one coming out later this year, and Tarantino's movie might be good. _First Man_ was cool. But wow are those rare.
> 
> Instead, we get comic books and endless remakes almost exclusively. Where are the epics? *Where are the quotable movies like Caddyshack, Forrest Gump, Breakfast Club, Silence of the Lambs, Back to the Future....?* In fact, what was the last truly quotable movie made? Napoleon Dynamite? Today's writing is just putrid.
> 
> Truth be told, political correctness and agenda has become the standard, instead of just telling a good story, making us laugh, and entertaining us. So many great movies of the past couldn't even be made today because there are too many landmines with every subject, and you have to check a certain number of boxes or risk a dogpile by the infinite number of social justice causes lurking around every corner.



BINGO!! hit it on the head... Movies are not as much about telling a story anymore as they are about browbeating us with the politicly correct billy club. The vast majority of the movies are simply checking off the identity boxes and force feeding us the propaganda. Its VERY rarely about entertainment.. instead its agenda driven political rhetoric. Its sad really as movies have allways been my escape... but increasingly for the last 10 or 15 years its been having to suffer thru a 2hr AOC lecture.


----------



## Josh Z

I love that the people pining for higher quality entertainment are citing Forrest Gump and Gladiator as pinnacles of artistic achievement. FFS... 

Can we please get back on topic here?


----------



## Molon_Labe

Erod said:


> But Hollywood should be able to create more than just that. I like some of that stuff, too, but I'm hungry for epics to return.
> 
> And speaking of which.....did it bother you that they took the rebellion in Star Wars and reduced its leadership to 5-6 women while castrating Luke Skywalker before our eyes? When he milked a seacow's teet and drank it, I knew the series was done. (I heard the same kind of thing is about to happen in Star Trek soon.)


 I think the last Trilogy is a travesty. To be honest, I didn't really pay attention to the gender roles since Leia was always the rational thinker, while Luke and Han were the mindless brawn. Strong female casts don't bother me per say. What I do have issue with is changing well established Marvel character's race/gender for political correctness or some "other" agenda. I honestly don't watch a lot of movies anymore because we try to stick with family friendly content, which is becoming more and more sparse. That is the primary reason I changed the theater room from two rows to one and brought back a pool table and arcade machines in the rear of the room. The room was grossly underutilized as a dedicated theater room due to the lack of viewable content for our family.




Josh Z said:


> I love that the people pining for higher quality entertainment are citing Forrest Gump and Gladiator as pinnacles of artistic achievement. FFS...
> 
> Can we please get back on topic here?


What topic would that be? Speaker angles? 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4, vs 9.1.6. Ceiling vs up-firing? Is Dolby Atmos worth it? Wides vs not? DTS:X vs Atmos? Top middles or not. I am pretty sure every topic has been covered 100 times over in the last five years of this thread. We are 55,000 posts on a topic that could be outlined and summarized in a single sticky. But, to your point, it is a rabbit trail, so I will oblige and stop posting on the topic.


----------



## petetherock

I'm into good mixes and the new 4k version of "Black Hawk Down" is a fabulous smorgasbord of surround sound and bass.. It's one of the top mixes I've ever heard, well recommended as a keeper and a demo disc.


----------



## chi_guy50

Molon_Labe said:


> Odd. You do realize it was the "unsophisticated consumer" and "comic-book, action-hero entertainment" that made Dolby prime time aka Star Wars in 1977. Enjoy your fine film while sipping on your expensive malt beverage of choice, but don't let your ivory tower, condescension muddle the facts of why you are enjoying Atmos in your home. If your interested in knowing more I provided a link, but I am sure you will probably find it to be more of the "puerile dross" variety
> https://www.tested.com/starwars/460476-star-wars-and-explosion-dolby-stereo/



Well, that is just the type of hyper-defensive reaction I anticipated from certain quarters and why I qualified my analytical comments as subjective. If you read more closely you will find that I am not attacking "mindless entertainment" (your words), which I myself am capable of enjoying from time to time.

Rather, my point was not so much to disparage the types of movies you might like to watch for diversion as it was to point out the impracticality of placing lofty expectations on one technical aspect (sound design) of movies that clearly are not produced with exacting artistic standards in other critical areas such as scriptwriting, directing, acting or editing. I only advocate to put our expectations into perspective before waxing apopletic over, say, the height effects on Fast & Furious 43. 



Josh Z said:


> I love that the people pining for higher quality entertainment are citing Forrest Gump and Gladiator as pinnacles of artistic achievement. FFS...
> 
> Can we please get back on topic here?



I wish I could give you more than one "like" for that!



Molon_Labe said:


> What topic would that be? Speaker angles? 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4, vs 9.1.6. Ceiling vs up-firing? Is Dolby Atmos worth it? Wides vs not? DTS:X vs Atmos? Top middles or not. I am pretty sure every topic has been covered 100 times over in the last five years of this thread. We are 55,000 posts on a topic that could be outlined and summarized in a single sticky. But, to your point, it is a rabbit trail, so I will oblige and stop posting on the topic.



That would be wise. I will follow suit.


----------



## Molon_Labe

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, that is just the type of hyper-defensive reaction I anticipated from certain quarters and why I qualified my analytical comments as subjective. If you read more closely you will find that I am not attacking "mindless entertainment" (your words), which I myself am capable of enjoying from time to time.
> 
> Rather, my point was not so much to disparage the types of movies you might like to watch for diversion as it was to point out the impracticality of placing lofty expectations on one technical aspect (sound design) of movies that clearly are not produced with exacting artistic standards in other critical areas such as scriptwriting, directing, acting or editing. I only advocate to put our expectations into perspective before waxing apopletic over, say, the height effects on Fast & Furious 43.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could give you more than one "like" for that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be wise. I will follow suit.


Looks like I am guilty as charged on the hyper-reactive. Thanks for elaborating further and please accept my apology.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Molon_Labe said:


> I typically don't double dip on movie purchases, but what 4k re-releases are a "must have" for their Dolby Atmos soundtrack? As of now, the video improvements are of no concern to me right now because I am waiting on the 4k projector tech and pricing to mature. Which titles have most impressed you from an audio remix perspective?



This is from a purely sound perspective. A few of these movies I find lacking in story and/or acting, etc. from a sheer filmmaking perspective. 



Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse


Shazam! 



Alita: Battle Angel 



Lucy 



Blade Runner: The Final Cut


Blade Runner 2049


Fury


Bridge on the River Kwai (interesting what they could do with a film from 1957 - not as bombastic but still effective when need be)


The Fifth Element


Jumanji 



Blackhawk Down


Godzilla 1998


A Quiet Place


Superman: The Movie


The Matrix



The Wave (on regular Blu-ray only, for now - if you haven't picked it up already)



Gravity (when it's released on 4k disc... it's just a matter of time)



...


Those will get you started.


----------



## Augerhandle

Josh Z said:


> I love that the people pining for higher quality entertainment are citing Forrest Gump and Gladiator as pinnacles of artistic achievement. FFS...
> 
> Can we please get back on topic here?


Forrest Gump was groundbreaking, especially for new special effects. I had never heard of Gary Sinise (Lieutenant Dan) at the time, and thought it uplifting that they hired a paraplegic actor for the role. Now _that's_ movie magic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Augerhandle said:


> Forrest Gump was groundbreaking, especially for new special effects. I had never heard of Gary Sinise (Lieutenant Dan) at the time, and thought it uplifting that they hired a paraplegic actor for the role. Now _that's_ movie magic.



Movie magic indeed, since Gary was made legless by said digital effects.


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> Since you've lived with a 7.1 system, imagine a friend of yours had just decided to convert their system from stereo to surround. With 7 speakers encircling the listening area, the expectation of the "surround sound" format was that it would be phantom imaging sounds anywhere in the room, including inches from the listeners' ears. When that sort of imaging didn't happen, your friend concluded that surround sound was a gimmick and couldn't understand why you had lived with it for years. Would any surround sound set-up be able to live up to your friend's expectations? Likewise, you can imagine your own definition of 3D audio, but don't expect reality to live up to that.


Ok... so I was able to get my hands on a copy of the ATMOS demo disc last night. And I understand why people say it ruins movies for them.. it has MUCH more obvious use of the overheads and is QUITE impressive. in fact there were a couple tracks on it that came quite close to the WOW factor I was hoping for...some were just plain gimmicky. (the helicopter demo) These I thought were the most effective:

The RAINSTORM
The 747 TAKEOFF 
Les Saisons
EVEREST
unbroken
AUDIOSPHERE

These I thought the least effective

Superman vs batman
man from unce
helicopter demo
BOTH SPORTS

while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims.... the best example I can give you is the demo where the pink orb (supposed to represent sound source) is floating around the room above the listener, behind the listener and around the couch next to the listener.... while I did get the pans front to back and side to side both at listener level and from the ceiling... at no time did the sound EVER originate from the little pink orb. And that in my opinion is where it falls short of the hype. 

I GET THAT SOME MIXES WILL BE BETTER THAN OTHERS … and I will continue to tweak my system to try to get the effect that is claimed. I hope that I will discover an obvious or not so obvious culprit that can be fixed to make the sound follow the little pink orb.. for that is the claim that atmos made and the biggest reason I bought in.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Molon_Labe said:


> Some of those I had already added to my Amazon cart. Oblivion was one of my all-time favorite surround mixes, did the Atmos version take it up a notch?



Oblivion has a pretty decent Atmos mix. However, this is one of those early botched Universal 4k discs. They filtered the detail and made it look softer than the Blu-ray. Buy it only for Atmos.


----------



## Augerhandle

Dan Hitchman said:


> Movie magic indeed, since Gary was made legless by said digital effects.


My point exactly.


----------



## Molon_Labe

snookfisher said:


> while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims..


Man, I don't know what to say. If the demo disc didn't give you a stupid grin like a jr high kid seeing his first set of tata's, your a tough customer.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> Ok... so I was able to get my hands on a copy of the ATMOS demo disc last night. And I understand why people say it ruins movies for them.. it has MUCH more obvious use of the overheads and is QUITE impressive. in fact there were a couple tracks on it that came quite close to the WOW factor I was hoping for...some were just plain gimmicky. (the helicopter demo) These I thought were the most effective:
> 
> The RAINSTORM
> The 747 TAKEOFF
> Les Saisons
> EVEREST
> unbroken
> AUDIOSPHERE
> 
> These I thought the least effective
> 
> Superman vs batman
> man from unce
> helicopter demo
> BOTH SPORTS
> 
> while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims.... the best example I can give you is the demo where the pink orb (supposed to represent sound source) is floating around the room above the listener, behind the listener and around the couch next to the listener.... while I did get the pans front to back and side to side both at listener level and from the ceiling... at no time did the sound EVER originate from the little pink orb. And that in my opinion is where it falls short of the hype.
> 
> I GET THAT SOME MIXES WILL BE BETTER THAN OTHERS … and I will continue to tweak my system to try to get the effect that is claimed. I hope that I will discover an obvious or not so obvious culprit that can be fixed to make the sound follow the little pink orb.. for that is the claim that atmos made and the biggest reason I bought in.



What you are looking for is in-room (not headphone generated), binaural surround audio. That is VERY hard to do with in-room speakers because everything has to be just perfect (from seating locations, to speaker locations and types, to room acoustics, to psychoacoustic mixing, etc.) for it to work properly. 




Also, most movie tracks are synthetic. If someone went out and recorded immersive ambiance with a multi-mic rig in real-time and then encoded it as Atmos, it would sound spectacular, but then sound effects are about hyper-realism, not reality. 



Now, there are a few immersive music only discs in Dolby Atmos that give you that bubble of sound and the sensation of a real space, but some you may have to import. INXS: Kick and REM's Automatic for the People deluxe sets, while expensive, make excellent use of Atmos for studio created mixes. 



Four 4k discs you should get immediately are Shazam! and Alita: Battle Angle, if not for the stories (Alita, for instance, was teeth grindingly bad in terms of scripting and line delivery). Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 are the two others. Hell, throw in The Matrix while you're at it.



Those should REALLY wow you.


----------



## FilmMixer

Augerhandle said:


> Forrest Gump was groundbreaking, especially for new special effects.



And one of my favorite mixes of the 90’s... 

And it was 3.1 only... no surrounds. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> And one of my favorite mixes of the 90’s...
> 
> And it was 3.1 only... no surrounds.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



It was interesting what they did with the 4k disc's Dolby Atmos remix. At least it's not totally 3.1 anymore.  



I'd love to hear your opinion of the differences between the two.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> It was interesting what they did with the 4k disc's Dolby Atmos remix. At least it's not totally 3.1 anymore.
> 
> I'd love to hear your opinion of the differences.



You say that like it was deficient. 

I won’t listen to it.... The original is dear to my heart.


----------



## sdurani

snookfisher said:


> does not quite live up to its claims.... the best example I can give you is the demo where the pink orb (supposed to represent sound source) is floating around the room above the listener, behind the listener and around the couch next to the listener.... while I did get the pans front to back and side to side both at listener level and from the ceiling... *at no time did the sound EVER originate from the little pink orb*. And that in my opinion is where it falls short of the hype.


There are a couple of Atmos trailers that have an orb (see below), not sure which one you're talking about. In both cases, the orb remains at the middle of the screen. Because the sound never originated from the middle of your screen you feel the audio falls short?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> You say that like it was deficient.
> 
> I won’t listen to it.... The original is dear to my heart.



You misunderstand me. I'm saying that it's different... not that it is necessarily superior one way or the other. Just different. 



It would be cool to get an expert's opinion coming from a layman on the subject of audio mixing, that's all.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***RE: "For some reason experiencing Atmos seems to have led itself to be judged based on a binary criteria.... which is how much is in the overheads.... I don’t quite get it."

I've never viewed Atmos that way. Binary - - how much is in the overheads. For an Atmos mix - - I don't think we've asked for fireworks all the time in the overhead speakers. There are many immersive sound tracks that are not Dolby Atmos and make extensive use of front to back, back to front and side to side exquisitely. 

But, when there are sounds that logically fit in the overheads - - a helicopter, a plane traveling overhead, rain, audio height differences, etc. - if that's not present in a Dolby Atmos mix, then what's the point? I suspect it has more to do with the mixer and his or her background. And, how long they've been mixing. Maybe the new generation of mixers will use the technology more effectively.


----------



## snookfisher

Molon_Labe said:


> Man, I don't know what to say. If the demo disc didn't give you a stupid grin like a jr high kid seeing his first set of tata's, your a tough customer.


It did..it was really cool... much the same way the first time I heard a really poorly set up 5.1 DD demo with the surrounds cranked way to loud.... im just saying...when the sound im hearing originates from the pink orb....then ATMOS lives up the promise. I will say that the demo provided instances that makes it seem that ATMOS will be worth the upgrade.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> You misunderstand me. I'm saying that it's different... not that it is necessarily superior one way or the other. Just different.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be cool to get an expert's opinion coming from a layman on the subject of audio mixing, that's all.



Oh I understand. 

The LCR + sub mix on that film was on purpose and helped tell the story. That one title at that one time has a personal connection for me (in terms of the mix...) 

While I understand the studios wanting to be able to up sell 4K and immersive audio, I’m not a big fan of the practice. 

Just because they can doesn’t always mean they should...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Oh I understand.
> 
> The LCR + sub mix on that film was on purpose and helped tell the story. That one title at that one time has a personal connection for me (in terms of the mix...)
> 
> While I understand the studios wanting to be able to up sell 4K and immersive audio, I’m not a big fan of the practice.
> 
> Just because they can doesn’t always mean they should...



Fair enough.


----------



## Molon_Labe

snookfisher said:


> It did..it was really cool... much the same way the first time I heard a really poorly set up 5.1 DD demo with the surrounds cranked way to loud.


The _Leaf _and _Amaze_ demos are near perfection. There is nothing in those clips that should remind you of a poorly setup 5.1 DD demo with surrounds being cranked too loud. Are your channels properly level matched?


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims.... the best example I can give you is the demo where the pink orb (supposed to represent sound source) is floating around the room above the listener, behind the listener and around the couch next to the listener.... while I did get the pans front to back and side to side both at listener level and from the ceiling... at no time did the sound EVER originate from the little pink orb. And that in my opinion is where it falls short of the hype.
> 
> I GET THAT SOME MIXES WILL BE BETTER THAN OTHERS … and I will continue to tweak my system to try to get the effect that is claimed. I hope that I will discover an obvious or not so obvious culprit that can be fixed to make the sound follow the little pink orb.. for that is the claim that atmos made and the biggest reason I bought in.


What do you really miss (and want) is the recreation of the room/space sound - *in addition* to the Atmos objects - with its small reverberations, spaciousness, the openness of the listening environment. Those very small delays and reverberations add to the perceived effect that the sounds are coming not from the actual speakers, but from the space between you and them or even beyond the speakers or the room walls. 

In a sense, the Atmos/DTS:X soundtrack is perceived as "dead" if it does not contains those reverberations or your room does not add it's own "right" reverberations. 

An easy way to achieve this is by using an upmixer, like DSurr/DSU/DSV/DTS Neural:X/Auro-Matic against the bed/core 5.1/7.1 soundtrack, or a similar DSP processing that adds this kind of spaciousness to a soundtrack. This is a tricky process because no person hears the same and sometimes the additional processing is too much and the added delays and reverberations are ruining the actual soundtrack (also interacting with the room). 
You enter in the HRTF domain and you need fine control to achieve a good result. No receiver I know lets you control this process. That's why good HRTF effects require headphones and not speakers in a room.

Another way to detach the objects from their speakers is by using Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers - aka DAES or bouncing speakers, adding a natural delay/reverberation to the room and to the whole soundtrack.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know if I should be worried or not. Disney Atmos mixes are so hit n miss. And all of them (at least as far as I can find out) are print-outs, not full 3D object mixes that expand to various speaker layouts beyond 7.1.4 (maybe in some instances 7.1.6).


FYI - I reported a few weeks back in this thread that the Captain America Civil War 4K release does NOT have a fixed print-out, there is near constant activity in the wides. 

I don't have the 4K versions of The First Avenger or Winter Soldier so haven't tested those yet, but I assume they would be similar as they were remixed / re-released together.

Will be very interesting to see how some of these upcoming releases will be done, especially earlier (pre Disney) MCU movies like Iron Man which has an incredible 7.1 mix with stunning bass and dynamics.

The film I am most nervous about is the Dr Strange 4K release. I saw that movie in the theater in Atmos and it was incredible, one of my top 5 Atmos experiences in a commercial theater. With the Inception-like visual effects and stuff flying all over that is a movie that begs for Atmos, hope they do it justice.


----------



## Molon_Labe

batpig said:


> FYI - I reported a few weeks back in this thread that the Captain America Civil War 4K release does NOT have a fixed print-out, there is near constant activity in the wides.


Wow.....That is great news! 
@sdrucker - Do you own this movie? Can you post the wide activity from your Trinnov?


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> Wow.....That is great news!
> @sdrucker - Do you own this movie? Can you post the wide activity from your Trinnov?


No, afraid not. My action movie quota was met with the Incredible Hulk and Hunter Killer last week. LOL.

Next movie I’m buying is The Doors...


----------



## Molon_Labe

sdrucker said:


> No, afraid not. My action movie quota was met with the Incredible Hulk and Hunter Killer last week. LOL.
> 
> Next movie I’m buying is The Doors...


Where is the dislike button?


----------



## sdrucker

FilmMixer said:


> Oh I understand.
> 
> The LCR + sub mix on that film was on purpose and helped tell the story. That one title at that one time has a personal connection for me (in terms of the mix...)
> 
> While I understand the studios wanting to be able to up sell 4K and immersive audio, I’m not a big fan of the practice.
> 
> Just because they can doesn’t always mean they should...


Somehow an immersive audio mix of “Annie Hall” or “Casablanca” seems a tad pointless...


----------



## sdrucker

Molon_Labe said:


> Where is the dislike button?


Some of us liked that movie 😜 . And I have the box set of their albums in DVD-Audio. Nothing like “The Soft Parade” or “Five to One” in surround sound. Although I do nod to modernity and use Auromatic 3D for height level ambience...

Hah. No “Celebration of the Lizard” or “When The Music’s Over” for you...back when rock really mattered....


----------



## chi_guy50

snookfisher said:


> Ok... so I was able to get my hands on a copy of the ATMOS demo disc last night. And I understand why people say it ruins movies for them.. it has MUCH more obvious use of the overheads and is QUITE impressive. in fact there were a couple tracks on it that came quite close to the WOW factor I was hoping for...some were just plain gimmicky. (the helicopter demo) These I thought were the most effective:
> 
> The RAINSTORM
> The 747 TAKEOFF
> Les Saisons
> EVEREST
> unbroken
> AUDIOSPHERE
> 
> These I thought the least effective
> 
> Superman vs batman
> man from unce
> helicopter demo
> BOTH SPORTS
> 
> while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims.... the best example I can give you is the demo where the pink orb (supposed to represent sound source) is floating around the room above the listener, behind the listener and around the couch next to the listener.... while I did get the pans front to back and side to side both at listener level and from the ceiling... at no time did the sound EVER originate from the little pink orb. And that in my opinion is where it falls short of the hype.
> 
> I GET THAT SOME MIXES WILL BE BETTER THAN OTHERS … and I will continue to tweak my system to try to get the effect that is claimed. I hope that I will discover an obvious or not so obvious culprit that can be fixed to make the sound follow the little pink orb.. for that is the claim that atmos made and the biggest reason I bought in.



You have not listed the demo clip _Shattered_. Just for *****$ and giggles, give it a spin (click on the picture with the superimposed Dolby Atmos logo in the center of the page and then download the .m2ts file) and see whether you still feel Atmos does not deliver. (Hint: Don't forget to duck the high and wide one.)


SHATTERED


----------



## snookfisher

sdurani said:


> There are a couple of Atmos trailers that have an orb (see below), not sure which one you're talking about. In both cases, the orb remains at the middle of the screen. Because the sound never originated from the middle of your screen you feel the audio falls short?
> 
> https://youtu.be/2zo3v-jv5pw
> 
> https://youtu.be/hesv-etwK_o


I believe its the introduction on the disc..Dolby Atmos for the home.. ill have to check tonight when I get home


----------



## snookfisher

Molon_Labe said:


> The _Leaf _and _Amaze_ demos are near perfection. There is nothing in those clips that should remind you of a poorly setup 5.1 DD demo with surrounds being cranked too loud. Are your channels properly level matched?


I think you misunderstand. Im not saying the atmos demo SOUNDED LIKE the 5.1 with the surrounds cranked up too loud.....

Im saying it had that COOL FACTOR that I felt the first time I heard discrete 5.1 sound compared to the old dolby surround or stereo

yes ive triple checked levels/ distances ect.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> Somehow an immersive audio mix of “Annie Hall” or “Casablanca” seems a tad pointless...



OTOH, I would pay a small fortune for that same immersive treatment of _The Big Sleep_ (1946) or _His Girl Friday_ (1940).

(Three guesses who my favorite movie director was.)


----------



## snookfisher

So ive listed my system before but ill do it again:

JVC PJ 147 2.35 screen
Marantz 6011 as a pre/pro
Anthem 5 and 7 channel amps
samsung 7500 4k player

Magnepan 1.7 L/R
Maggie cc3 CENTER
MC1 side surrounds and back surrounds
Focal in ceiling front and rear heights

My room is a rectangle with a staircase decending to 1st floor.... the seating is almost centered L/R in the room and slightly past half way towards the back of the room...

These are the speaker distances from ear height main listening position...

FL 10.5
FR 10.9
Center 10.7
SL 9.7
SR 10.2
SBL 7.3
SBR 8.3
TFL 8.6
TFR 8.6
TRL 7.6
TRR 7.2
SUB 11.0

room has appropriate treatments and sounded terrific as 7.2 set up..(still sounds terrific)


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> There are a couple of Atmos trailers that have an orb (see below), not sure which one you're talking about. In both cases, the orb remains at the middle of the screen. Because the sound never originated from the middle of your screen you feel the audio falls short?
> 
> https://youtu.be/2zo3v-jv5pw
> 
> https://youtu.be/hesv-etwK_o



Wow, I had not seen that "Universe" clip before (second one above). It's now my all-time favorite Atmos trailer. Thanks, Sanjay!

P.S.: I downloaded it here (one version in 4K/DV and DD+/Atmos, the other in 4K/HDR10 and Dolby TrueHD/Atmos).


----------



## zeonstar

snookfisher said:


> while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims.... the best example I can give you is the demo where the pink orb (supposed to represent sound source) is floating around the room above the listener, behind the listener and around the couch next to the listener.... while I did get the pans front to back and side to side both at listener level and from the ceiling... at no time did the sound EVER originate from the little pink orb. And that in my opinion is where it falls short of the hype.


I believe I know the demo you are thinking of and if I am right, it's actually a DTS:X demo called Object Emulator. It's one of my favorites actually, as is the Atmos one above called "Audiosphere." (That one makes my kids giggle, they love the "Bouncing ball."


----------



## snookfisher

zeonstar said:


> I believe I know the demo you are thinking of and if I am right, it's actually a DTS:X demo called Object Emulator. It's one of my favorites actually, as is the Atmos one above called "Audiosphere." (That one makes my kids giggle, they love the "Bouncing ball."
> 
> https://youtu.be/xukyod4P0hQ


No it was on the ATMOS DEMO DISC


----------



## Augerhandle

FilmMixer said:


> Oh I understand.
> 
> The LCR + sub mix on that film was on purpose and helped tell the story. That one title at that one time has a personal connection for me (in terms of the mix...)
> 
> While I understand the studios wanting to be able to up sell 4K and immersive audio, I’m not a big fan of the practice.
> 
> Just because they can doesn’t always mean they should...


I appreciate your feelings.

To me, it seemed there was no ATMOS ...until the Vietnam segment. Everything lit up then, from the rain to firefights. When they were ambushed and hunkered down by the side of the road, I could see tracers zipping by to the left and right that I never saw with the other releases. But now, I could _hear_ them zipping by over my head, which brought my attention to them.

Not sure if ATMOS related, but definitely sound design related:

I recently watched Atomic Blonde, and there's a fight scene with an off-camera baddie attacking Charlize Theron's character. She reacts by turning to face the attacker, and the camera turns with her. The sound rotated around my room as we faced the baddie, and the aural sensation was the equivalent of the visual sensation I had the first time I witnessed "Bullet Time" in the Matrix. Very cool.


----------



## zeonstar

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, I had not seen that "Universe" clip before (second one above). It's now my all-time favorite Atmos trailer. Thanks, Sanjay!
> 
> P.S.: I downloaded it here (one version in 4K/DV and DD+/Atmos, the other in 4K/HDR10 and Dolby TrueHD/Atmos).


One of my favorites as well. Saw it for the first time when I had just gotten my LG C8 when the Dolby Access app still had it. It was a perfect Dolby Vision demo for my new OLED TV and a good test for my Atmos system I had just built. Brought a huge smile to myself the first time I watched it. I was really upset when the Access app dropped and only just recently gained access to it again. I have the exact 2 variations you mentioned, actually.


----------



## zeonstar

snookfisher said:


> No it was on the ATMOS DEMO DISC


My mistake. What Atmos demo disc in particular were you listening to? They are named "Dolby Atmos Demo Sept 2016" for example. Driving me nuts which clip you're referring to!


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> Wow, I had not seen that "Universe" clip before (second one above). It's now my all-time favorite Atmos trailer. Thanks, Sanjay!


Started seeing it around 6 months ago at local Atmos movie theatres (not Dolby Cinema - they use a different trailer). Glad it's available for download.


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> ...DTS:X demo called Object Emulator. It's one of my favorites...


Emulator indeed (that track has no objects). Still one of my favourites as well.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Molon_Labe said:


> snookfisher said:
> 
> 
> 
> while I did hear some things that put a smile on my face I still come away with the same opinion on ATMOS. ITS cool...sometimes really cool.... but does not quite live up to its claims..
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I don't know what to say. If the demo disc didn't give you a stupid grin like a jr high kid seeing his first set of tata's, your a tough customer.
Click to expand...

I am sooooo glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this, lol. 😂


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> FYI - I reported a few weeks back in this thread that the Captain America Civil War 4K release does NOT have a fixed print-out, there is near constant activity in the wides.
> 
> I don't have the 4K versions of The First Avenger or Winter Soldier so haven't tested those yet, but I assume they would be similar as they were remixed / re-released together.
> 
> Will be very interesting to see how some of these upcoming releases will be done, especially earlier (pre Disney) MCU movies like Iron Man which has an incredible 7.1 mix with stunning bass and dynamics.
> 
> The film I am most nervous about is the Dr Strange 4K release. I saw that movie in the theater in Atmos and it was incredible, one of my top 5 Atmos experiences in a commercial theater. With the Inception-like visual effects and stuff flying all over that is a movie that begs for Atmos, hope they do it justice.



Hmmm... curiouser and curiouser. It'll be interesting to see (or hear) if a certain batch of these newer titles were done by a different audio crew with a different outlook on Atmos or if it means Disney is starting to turn a corner. 


@sdrucker ... purchase them all and get right on that speaker output analysis!


----------



## petetherock

Molon_Labe said:


> Some of those I had already added to my Amazon cart. Oblivion was one of my all-time favorite surround mixes, did the Atmos version take it up a notch?


Yes, nice movie, hot actress, hotter surround mix. Sweet price 
Get it 

Not Atmos, but the Last Witch Hunter was awesome too ..horrible plot but super surround mix. Gladiator is another good one.


----------



## Stereodude

Dan Hitchman said:


> They filtered the detail and made it look softer than the Blu-ray. Buy it only for Atmos.


That didn't stop reviewers from giving it high scores though. 



> Detail is very impressive. Facial textures are nicely complex. Attire shows plenty of gritty wear: caked-on dirt, primarily, but basic uniform textures underneath are also excellent. The barren terrain and clean, smooth lines don't offer much seriously tactile detailing, but the UHD brings out the very best of the movie's often straightforward environment.


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-4K-Blu-ray/156371/


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stereodude said:


> That didn't stop reviewers from giving it high scores though.
> 
> 
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-4K-Blu-ray/156371/



Some reviewers are just in it for the free screener discs IMHO and might even be afraid to tick off a studio in case those screeners dry up... or some are not very thorough in their reviewing process. There are multiple screen captures that show the heavy filtering. Universal screwed the PQ up like they screwed up The Bourne Identity.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hmmm... curiouser and curiouser. It'll be interesting to see (or hear) if a certain batch of these newer titles were done by a different audio crew with a different outlook on Atmos or if it means Disney is starting to turn a corner.
> 
> 
> @sdrucker ... purchase them all and get right on that speaker output analysis!


Or you could buy your own Altitude and spend your waking hours monitoring Inputs for every disc you can get with Atmos. You know you want to...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Or you could buy your own Altitude and spend your waking hours monitoring Inputs for every disc you can get with Atmos. You know you want to...



I know I want to. But my bank account says... are you f'ing kidding me!!??


----------



## Stereodude

Dan Hitchman said:


> Some reviewers are just in it for the free screener discs IMHO and might even be afraid to tick off a studio in case those screeners dry up... or some are not very thorough in their reviewing process. There are multiple screen captures that show the heavy filtering. Universal screwed the PQ up like they screwed up The Bourne Identity.


Oh, I believe you, I just found it humorous that pretty much everyone agrees that it's subpar yet it got glowing reviews.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stereodude said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some reviewers are just in it for the free screener discs IMHO and might even be afraid to tick off a studio in case those screeners dry up... or some are not very thorough in their reviewing process. There are multiple screen captures that show the heavy filtering. Universal screwed the PQ up like they screwed up The Bourne Identity.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you, I just found it humorous that pretty much everyone agrees that it's subpar yet it got glowing reviews.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah! There are a few on the internet that don't jibe with reality.


----------



## noah katz

I don't think artistic standards are the issue; seems to me that movie makers are interested in providing entertainment, and good sound is very entertaining.



chi_guy50 said:


> ...Rather, my point was not so much to disparage the types of movies you might like to watch for diversion as it was to point out the impracticality of placing lofty expectations on one technical aspect (sound design) of movies that clearly are not produced with exacting artistic standards in other critical areas such as scriptwriting, directing, acting or editing.





I thought that the upmixers extract ambient/out-of-phase sounds from the base layer and put them in the elevation speakers, not generate them.



dfa973 said:


> What do you really miss (and want) is the recreation of the room/space sound - *in addition* to the Atmos objects - with its small reverberations, spaciousness, the openness of the listening environment. Those very small delays and reverberations add to the perceived effect that the sounds are coming not from the actual speakers, but from the space between you and them or even beyond the speakers or the room walls.
> 
> In a sense, the Atmos/DTS:X soundtrack is perceived as "dead" if it does not contains those reverberations or your room does not add it's own "right" reverberations.
> 
> An easy way to achieve this is by using an upmixer, like DSurr/DSU/DSV/DTS Neural:X/Auro-Matic against the bed/core 5.1/7.1 soundtrack, or a similar DSP processing that adds this kind of spaciousness to a soundtrack. This is a tricky process because no person hears the same and sometimes the additional processing is too much and the added delays and reverberations are ruining the actual soundtrack


----------



## Matt L

Joshua Chmiel said:


> Just to add my two cents. When I first started it was Dolby Pro Logic. In 2000 I went to Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1. Christmas 2016 I set up my basement (instead of living room) as a dedicated movie space. Got myself an OLED, upgraded my receiver to a 5.1.2 and used some old outdoor/indoor speakers hanging off my ceiling at the Dolby Atmos recommended angle from my listening position. It grabbed my attention and never let go. It was far superior to any 7.1 system I ever heard. It even sounded better in my room than a big retailer's demo room. I met someone that had a 7.2.4 setup in his living room with SVS elevation speakers just higher up on the wall as his fronts and rears. The experience was nowhere near what I had with mine. I ended up finding a matching pair of the old speakers I already had on my ceiling on ebay. I got those and then a 9 channel receiver at a clearance bargain at the same big retailer mentioned above. I have also upgraded my subs over that time as well. I absolutely love Atmos and DTSX. My uncle has experienced my setup a few times and enjoys watching movies on my setup just for the experience when he comes to town. And it is not just the encoded specific movies I notice the difference. The upcoding or whatever with Dolby Surround and Neural X makes an incredible immersive experience. A couple recent examples for me are Tarzan (2013 animated) and A Bug's Life. The surround nature sounds in both cases had me feeling I was right there with the characters hearing the surroundings with them.
> 
> All this experience doesn't need to be expensive. My speakers are getting close to 20 years old. My initial upgrade to my sound was a $500 receiver and mounting some speakers I wasn't using to the ceiling. Every piece of equipment in my room listed in my signature plus Laser Disc player, CD player, Roku, Network switch, speaker wire and cables, theater seats, TV stand, Blu-Ray/DVD shelves, and dedicated 20amp circuit and outlet just for two of the subs cost me less than $8K over 20 years. I can't think of a better way to spend for entertainment over that long of a period. And after the big chunk of spending the past couple years, I see many years ahead of not having to spend more other than more movies to my collection. Atmos/DTSX was the biggest improvement since the introduction of Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1


I think this bears repeating. You don't have to spend a fortune to get enjoyable Atmos effects. Sometimes I think some folks here scare newcomer's off with all the talk of high end Atmos speakers for the ceiling or Heights. Invariably someone will ask about speakers and almost immediately someone else will chime in with recommendations for $500 + speakers. The bar does not need to be set that high. Had I listened to some suggestions I would not be enjoying my setup as much as I have. I find my 4 speakers I paid $200 more than adequate, sure they may not have the widest dispersion or the deepest bass, but they are a great improvement over not having them.

Let your budget decide - a set of $80 speakers in the ceiling are better than no speakers. Lest we forget everyone does not have an unlimited budget.


----------



## pappaduke

Matt L said:


> I think this bears repeating. You don't have to spend a fortune to get enjoyable Atmos effects. Sometimes I think some folks here scare newcomer's off with all the talk of high end Atmos speakers for the ceiling or Heights. Invariably someone will ask about speakers and almost immediately someone else will chime in with recommendations for $500 + speakers. The bar does not need to be set that high. Had I listened to some suggestions I would not be enjoying my setup as much as I have. I find my 4 speakers I paid $200 more than adequate, sure they may not have the widest dispersion or the deepest bass, but they are a great improvement over not having them.
> 
> Let your budget decide - a set of $80 speakers in the ceiling are better than no speakers. Lest we forget everyone does not have an unlimited budget.


Well stated. Whenever someone ask me what to buy, I immediately ask what is their budget. Then I can start suggesting what they should buy or demo if possible. Being an audiophile/videophile doesn’t mean you have to spend a fortune. Just get the most for your money and needs.


----------



## dfa973

noah katz said:


> I thought that the upmixers extract ambient/out-of-phase sounds from the base layer and put them in the elevation speakers, not generate them.


Yes, but the perceived effect is the same - expansive space. Auro-Matic is known to just copy the ear-level signal and add a little reverb to the ceiling speakers to enhance the separation. The virtualizers (DTS Virtual:X or Dolby Virtual Speaker) probably are even better at this.


----------



## chi_guy50

noah katz said:


> I don't think artistic standards are the issue; seems to me that movie makers are interested in providing entertainment, and good sound is very entertaining.



You could be right and I could be off base. I have no particular knowledge of the workings of the industry other than my own avid interest and what little I have gleaned from my brother, who was an actor/producer and was very active in SAG governance.

But it doesn't seem to me that the studio decision makers, who are looking for the next tent-pole feature, would be focused on dedicating the attention and resources to an aspect of the movie-making that is not going to drive asses in seats. I do believe that audiences, by and large, are impressed or turned off by the relative quality of the sound track in any show, whether movie or TV. But, unlike us here on this forum, it's not a critical element that would sway them from coming back for more of the same. Just think of this: How often do you see a movie review in a mass-circulation news source (take even the lofty N.Y. Times, whose chief film critic A.O. Scott I consider uncommonly insightful and instructive) that so much as mentioned the sound design?

If consumer reaction supported it, then I believe we would see a more rapid adoption of immersive audio in feature movies, and with its more widespread use would come better overall exploitation of its capabilities to impact on the storytelling.


----------



## Stereodude

Dan Hitchman said:


> Oh, yeah! There are a few on the internet that don't jibe with reality.


They were probably distracted with the Atmos track, which I have to admit is pretty sweet from my sampling of it. 



Matt L said:


> I think this bears repeating. You don't have to spend a fortune to get enjoyable Atmos effects. Sometimes I think some folks here scare newcomer's off with all the talk of high end Atmos speakers for the ceiling or Heights. Invariably someone will ask about speakers and almost immediately someone else will chime in with recommendations for $500 + speakers. The bar does not need to be set that high. Had I listened to some suggestions I would not be enjoying my setup as much as I have. I find my 4 speakers I paid $200 more than adequate, sure they may not have the widest dispersion or the deepest bass, but they are a great improvement over not having them.


Nonsense, if you don't have JBL Synthesis M2 speakers on the ceiling you'll never get the Atmos effect as intended by the soundmixer. Anything less would be uncouth.


----------



## jazzrock

snookfisher said:


> I think you misunderstand. Im not saying the atmos demo SOUNDED LIKE the 5.1 with the surrounds cranked up too loud.....
> 
> 
> 
> Im saying it had that COOL FACTOR that I felt the first time I heard discrete 5.1 sound compared to the old dolby surround or stereo
> 
> 
> 
> yes ive triple checked levels/ distances ect.




Have you posted pix of your room, speaker placement, list of all associated equipment? Would be interesting to see.


----------



## jazzrock

snookfisher said:


> So ive listed my system before but ill do it again:
> 
> 
> 
> JVC PJ 147 2.35 screen
> 
> Marantz 6011 as a pre/pro
> 
> Anthem 5 and 7 channel amps
> 
> samsung 7500 4k player
> 
> 
> 
> Magnepan 1.7 L/R
> 
> Maggie cc3 CENTER
> 
> MC1 side surrounds and back surrounds
> 
> Focal in ceiling front and rear heights
> 
> 
> 
> My room is a rectangle with a staircase decending to 1st floor.... the seating is almost centered L/R in the room and slightly past half way towards the back of the room...
> 
> 
> 
> These are the speaker distances from ear height main listening position...
> 
> 
> 
> FL 10.5
> 
> FR 10.9
> 
> Center 10.7
> 
> SL 9.7
> 
> SR 10.2
> 
> SBL 7.3
> 
> SBR 8.3
> 
> TFL 8.6
> 
> TFR 8.6
> 
> TRL 7.6
> 
> TRR 7.2
> 
> SUB 11.0
> 
> 
> 
> room has appropriate treatments and sounded terrific as 7.2 set up..(still sounds terrific)




Just saw this. Would still benefit from seeing photos


----------



## snookfisher

Ok...so ive made a few (quite a few) tweaks and watched the demo disc again last night. and its better. Still not completely 3d or able to project sound into the room beside me...but I am getting the wow factor and at least a taste of the "object" thing. ….

I thinking im not trusting the AUDYSSEY room correction. it was crossing over identical speakers at very different crossover points and had the distances off a bit. I also directed the rear speakers and all 4 ceiling speakers at the listening position...it helped. I then turned off the room correction and manually imput crossovers and distances /levels and that made it even better... once again...better and some of the advertised effect...

what I am discovering is that the "orb" can be somewhat convincingly "placed in 3d space" ABOVE the listener...but not at ear level or even a few feet from ear level. so the "dome" starts roughly a little more than half way from ear height to the ceiling. The ear level sounds still all are pans on the "speaker plane" 

I also watched FURY ROAD last night which is supposed to be an ATMOS reference disc...YUK!! The soundtrack was almost unlistenable … the bass was sooooooo completely OVER THE TOP and CONSTANT that it became EXAUSTING to listen to after about 5 min. NOT a fan! 

I also watched IT... Much much better!! I revisited S T BEYOND and it was pretty cool too. 

I think what im finding is that the bombastic scenes where there is chaos and an over use of LFE the ATMOS effect kinda gets lost. but I can say im feeling better at least for the potential ATMOS.

I also am starting to believe that in order to FULL realize the ATMOS experience you must have 11 of the same ( or very close) speakers PERFECTY placed in an almost OPTIMAL room.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

snookfisher said:


> Ok...so ive made a few (quite a few) tweaks and watched the demo disc again last night. and its better. Still not completely 3d or able to project sound into the room beside me...but I am getting the wow factor and at least a taste of the "object" thing. ….
> 
> I thinking im not trusting the AUDYSSEY room correction. it was crossing over identical speakers at very different crossover points and had the distances off a bit. I also directed the rear speakers and all 4 ceiling speakers at the listening position...it helped. I then turned off the room correction and manually imput crossovers and distances /levels and that made it even better... once again...better and some of the advertised effect...what I am discovering is that the "orb" can be somewhat convincingly "placed in 3d space" ABOVE the listener...but not at ear level or even a few feet from ear level. so the "dome" starts roughly a little more than half way from ear height to the ceiling. The ear level sounds still all are pans on the "speaker plane"
> 
> I also watched FURY ROAD last night which is supposed to be an ATMOS reference disc...YUK!! The soundtrack was almost unlistenable … the bass was sooooooo completely OVER THE TOP and CONSTANT that it became EXAUSTING to listen to after about 5 min. NOT a fan!
> 
> I also watched IT... Much much better!! I revisited S T BEYOND and it was pretty cool too.
> 
> I think what im finding is that the bombastic scenes where there is chaos and an over use of LFE the ATMOS effect kinda gets lost. but I can say im feeling better at least for the potential ATMOS.
> 
> I also am starting to believe that in order to FULL realize the ATMOS experience you must have 11 or the same ( or very close) speakers PERFECTY placed in an almost OPTIMAL room.


Give Roma a try on Netflix. Nice Atmos track in a decidedly non-bombastic film.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I thought that the upmixers extract ambient/out-of-phase sounds from the base layer and put them in the elevation speakers, not generate them.


Depends on the upmixer. PLIIz and DSU extract decorrelated info in order to feed the height speakers. Neo:X and Neural:X extract correlated sounds to feed the height speakers (which is why panned dialogue sometimes ends up there). Audyssey DSX, Yamaha DSP modes and Auro-Matic generate reverb (that was not in the recording) when upmixing to height speakers.


----------



## Josh Z

snookfisher said:


> I thinking im not trusting the AUDYSSEY room correction. it was crossing over identical speakers at very different crossover points and had the distances off a bit.


Keep in mind that the "distance" setting is not supposed to literally match the physical distance of the speakers from your seat. It's actually a measurement of the time the sound takes to reach the microphone. Audyssey does a pretty good job of measuring this and I wouldn't mess with it.

It's also very possible for your crossover points to differ from one location to the next, even when using identical speakers. Your room interaction, such as reflections off nearby walls and so forth, will affect that. If the two crossovers are wildly different (40Hz in one location, 150Hz in another using the same speaker), something may have gone wrong. But if they're fairly close (80Hz in one, 100Hz in the other), it's probably not worth changing.

Personally, after Audyssey calibration, I turn the Dynamic EQ feature off. I find that it messes with the Atmos effect too much.



> I also watched FURY ROAD last night which is supposed to be an ATMOS reference disc...YUK!! The soundtrack was almost unlistenable … the bass was sooooooo completely OVER THE TOP and CONSTANT that it became EXAUSTING to listen to after about 5 min. NOT a fan!


I agree with you here. We may be in a minority, as that disc is routinely cited as a top Atmos demo, but I thought the sound mix was abrasive and frankly terrible. Every channel is cranked to the maximum for the entire movie. "Exhausting" is a good word for it. I hated it. 



> I think what im finding is that the bombastic scenes where there is chaos and an over use of LFE the ATMOS effect kinda gets lost.


I agree with you on this as well. It's a shame that Atmos seems to be mostly reserved for these big action movies. When sounds are blaring from every speaker, it's hard to tell where anything is coming from.


----------



## Josh Z

I watched Bumblebee last night. From what I could tell, this seems to be another Atmos mix that doesn't use Front Wide speakers at all.


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> I thinking im not trusting the AUDYSSEY room correction. it was crossing over identical speakers at very different crossover points and had the distances off a bit.


This is normal and not a failure of Audyssey.
The same speaker, placed in a different position in the room will exhibit different interactions with the room, especially on low frequencies with the speaker near the walls/ceiling/corners and for speakers with rear bass reflex ports. That's why you will actually hear "the room" more than the speakers.
*I would not correct the detected values by Audyssey!*




snookfisher said:


> I think what im finding is that the bombastic scenes where there is chaos and an over use of LFE the ATMOS effect kinda gets lost. but I can say im feeling better at least for the potential ATMOS.


You may still have:
- improper speaker placement/orientation - *please provide photos!!!!!*
- improper calibration/distances/levels/etc;
- improper subwoofer crossover;
- a boomy room/improper subwoofer placement;
- speakers still set as LARGE instead of SMALL;
- other weird AVR settings...




snookfisher said:


> I also am starting to believe that in order to FULL realize the ATMOS experience you must have 11 of the same ( or very close) speakers PERFECTY placed in an almost OPTIMAL room.


Yup, see the second point about improper speaker placement/orientation and other suggestions.
Lots of things that you can have wrong that detracts you to have an excellent Atmos experience!


----------



## zeonstar

snookfisher said:


> No it was on the ATMOS DEMO DISC


I'd still like to know what clip it was. Or at least which atmos demo disc you're using.


----------



## stikle

dfa973 said:


> You may still have:
> - improper speaker placement/orientation - *please provide photos!!!!!*



I have a suspicion that his bed layer is not down at ear level.

Pictures...


----------



## snookfisher

zeonstar said:


> I'd still like to know what clip it was. Or at least which atmos demo disc you're using.


Its the 2016 demo disc I believe the introduction ATMOS for the home.


----------



## snookfisher

stikle said:


> I have a suspicion that his bed layer is not down at ear level.
> 
> Pictures...



They are.


----------



## snookfisher

Josh Z said:


> Keep in mind that the "distance" setting is not supposed to literally match the physical distance of the speakers from your seat. It's actually a measurement of the time the sound takes to reach the microphone. Audyssey does a pretty good job of measuring this and I wouldn't mess with it.
> 
> It's also very possible for your crossover points to differ from one location to the next, even when using identical speakers. Your room interaction, such as reflections off nearby walls and so forth, will affect that. If the two crossovers are wildly different (40Hz in one location, 150Hz in another using the same speaker), something may have gone wrong. But if they're fairly close (80Hz in one, 100Hz in the other), it's probably not worth changing.
> 
> Personally, after Audyssey calibration, I turn the Dynamic EQ feature off. I find that it messes with the Atmos effect too much.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you here. We may be in a minority, as that disc is routinely cited as a top Atmos demo, but I thought the sound mix was abrasive and frankly terrible. Every channel is cranked to the maximum for the entire movie. "Exhausting" is a good word for it. I hated it.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this as well. It's a shame that Atmos seems to be mostly reserved for these big action movies. When sounds are blaring from every speaker, it's hard to tell where anything is coming from.


It had my identical ceiling speakers rated to 50hz like this .. rear 250 front 150 also had the center crossed over at 250hz …. the older ausyssey in my old pre pro didn't come up with the same numbers in the same room for my 7.2 ?


----------



## petetherock

Josh Z said:


> I watched Bumblebee last night. From what I could tell, this seems to be another Atmos mix that doesn't use Front Wide speakers at all.


IMO, the mix was quite quiet... there was no buzz in the immersion or mood (pun intended..)


----------



## snookfisher

stikle said:


> I have a suspicion that his bed layer is not down at ear level.
> 
> Pictures...


I will try to take pics tonight and post tomorrow.


----------



## Josh Z

petetherock said:


> IMO, the mix was quite quiet... there was no buzz in the immersion or mood (pun intended..)


I don't know that "quiet" is the right word, since the track did have plenty of slam-bang explosions and so forth. But, yeah, the Atmos impact was limited. The musical score never left the ground speakers (skipping Front Wides entirely), and hardly any activity was noticeable in the overheads. Even airplane flyovers seemed to be mostly just reverb in those speakers.


----------



## Steve Goff

snookfisher said:


> Well then I guess my expectations were in fact to high.... I guess it comes down to "what your definition of is is"
> 
> 
> 
> To me adding channels and additional panning between thsose channels is NOT 3D... placing sounds in 3D space FREE from the "plane of the speakers" would be 3D...Much like 3D movies...the affect of the sword 2" from your face in 3d space is the whole point of the 3D experience.




Atmos can present sounds free from the plane of the bed speakers, and free from the plane of the overhead speakers. For example, a sound can be presented in one bed channel speaker and a nearby height speaker, and thus image somewhere between those speakers. So sounds can be perceived as emanating from anywhere on a half-dome around the listener. They can’t be presented as emanating from somewhere close to the listener, any more than sounds relegated to the base channels can be presented as close to the listener. Sometimes sounds may seem closer, just as sounds may seem closer when listening to a stereo system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

snookfisher said:


> I think what im finding is that the bombastic scenes where there is chaos and an over use of LFE the ATMOS effect kinda gets lost. but I can say im feeling better at least for the potential ATMOS.


You should check out "Sully". This is an extremely underrated Atmos mix, and one of the very best examples of a movie that doesn't use Atmos for bombast but rather to immerse you in the environment of the movie. Small touches like the ambient noise in the airport, PA announcements in the airport or plane emanating from overhead, and other subtle environmental cues are used to great effect. 

If you're looking for an example of a really thoughtful usage of Atmos to really transport you INTO the movie (vs. bludgeoning you with explosions and rockets zooming overhead) this is one of the most skillfully executed I've heard.


----------



## snookfisher

Steve Goff said:


> Atmos can present sounds free from the plane of the bed speakers, and free from the plane of the overhead speakers. For example, a sound can be presented in one bed channel speaker and a nearby height speaker, and thus image somewhere between those speakers. So sounds can be perceived as emanating from anywhere on a half-dome around the listener. They can’t be presented as emanating from somewhere close to the listener, any more than sounds relegated to the base channels can be presented as close to the listener. Sometimes sounds may seem closer, just as sounds may seem closer when listening to a stereo system.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Well...tell that to the ATMOS marketing folks as well as the reviewers...Because that's how they are selling it!


----------



## snookfisher

batpig said:


> You should check out "Sully". This is an extremely underrated Atmos mix, and one of the very best examples of a movie that doesn't use Atmos for bombast but rather to immerse you in the environment of the movie. Small touches like the ambient noise in the airport, PA announcements in the airport or plane emanating from overhead, and other subtle environmental cues are used to great effect.
> 
> If you're looking for an example of a really thoughtful usage of Atmos to really transport you INTO the movie (vs. bludgeoning you with explosions and rockets zooming overhead) this is one of the most skillfully executed I've heard.


I haven't seen it yet so ill check it out tonight.


----------



## Augerhandle

Sully was a much better movie than I expected.


----------



## noah katz

chi_guy50 said:


> ...I do believe that audiences, by and large, are impressed or turned off by the relative quality of the sound track in any show, whether movie or TV. But, unlike us here on this forum, it's not a critical element that would sway them from coming back for more of the same.



I think you're right about that; I yield the point.





sdurani said:


> Depends on the upmixer. PLIIz and DSU extract decorrelated info in order to feed the height speakers. Neo:X and Neural:X extract correlated sounds to feed the height speakers (which is why panned dialogue sometimes ends up there). Audyssey DSX, Yamaha DSP modes and Auro-Matic generate reverb (that was not in the recording) when upmixing to height speakers.



Good point re DSU vs. Neural:X.

I've been using the latter since the grty-go since it uses the elevation speakers more aggressively, but I'll give DSU another shot; it might actually be more of what I like (ambience).






Steve Goff said:


> Atmos can present sounds free from the plane of the bed speakers, and free from the plane of the overhead speakers. For example, a sound can be presented in one bed channel speaker and a nearby height speaker, and thus image somewhere between those speakers. So sounds can be perceived as emanating from anywhere on a half-dome around the listener. They can’t be presented as emanating from somewhere close to the listener, any more than sounds relegated to the base channels can be presented as close to the listener.



Why couldn't they be presented as emanating from somewhere close to the listener, by phantom images generated by having the same sounds in the opposite side speakers?


----------



## pappaduke

One thing everyone should remember: Garbage in, garbage out. If the mix is bad from the disc/stream, then you probably won’t get the Atmos effect you are looking for even with all sorts of tweaking. That’s not even counting ones setup and calibration. 
I will say this though. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying Atmos with a lot of different movies. There have been some that pissed me off, but then some just simply blow me away. Just my .02.


----------



## chi_guy50

noah katz said:


> I think you're right about that; I yield the point.


Aw, that was too easy.




noah katz said:


> Good point re DSU vs. Neural:X.
> 
> I've been using the latter since the grty-go since it uses the elevation speakers more aggressively, but I'll give DSU another shot; it might actually be more of what I like (ambience).



I use DSU, Neural:X, Auro3D and (believe it or not) Multi Ch Stereo depending on the source; the latter is the only one other than Atmos that allows me to hear all of my 9.1.4 speakers in operation and I've grown to like it on some 2.0 music streams. 

I feel that they all bring something to the party and I like the variety of processing to shake things up a bit.


----------



## Nomad817

So if a receiver does Dolby Atmos, it still does all of the older ones(dolby digital, TrueHD, DTSHD) etc. correct? 



Feels like a dumb question


----------



## niterida

snookfisher said:


> Ok...so ive made a few (quite a few) tweaks and watched the demo disc again last night. and its better. Still not completely 3d or able to project sound into the room beside me...but I am getting the wow factor and at least a taste of the "object" thing. ….
> 
> I thinking im not trusting the AUDYSSEY room correction. it was crossing over identical speakers at very different crossover points and had the distances off a bit. I also directed the rear speakers and all 4 ceiling speakers at the listening position...it helped. I then turned off the room correction and manually imput crossovers and distances /levels and that made it even better... once again...better and some of the advertised effect...
> 
> what I am discovering is that the "orb" can be somewhat convincingly "placed in 3d space" ABOVE the listener...but not at ear level or even a few feet from ear level. so the "dome" starts roughly a little more than half way from ear height to the ceiling. The ear level sounds still all are pans on the "speaker plane"
> 
> I also watched FURY ROAD last night which is supposed to be an ATMOS reference disc...YUK!! The soundtrack was almost unlistenable … the bass was sooooooo completely OVER THE TOP and CONSTANT that it became EXAUSTING to listen to after about 5 min. NOT a fan!
> 
> I also watched IT... Much much better!! I revisited S T BEYOND and it was pretty cool too.
> 
> I think what im finding is that the bombastic scenes where there is chaos and an over use of LFE the ATMOS effect kinda gets lost. but I can say im feeling better at least for the potential ATMOS.
> 
> I also am starting to believe that in order to FULL realize the ATMOS experience you must have 11 of the same ( or very close) speakers PERFECTY placed in an almost OPTIMAL room.



I had the same dissappointment when I first sat down to listen after building a dedicated room with speakers in all the right locations for Auro-3D. Couldn't hear any 3D effect 
After many hours/days/weeks of experimenting I was very disheartened and ready to give up when I ended up ditching my Marantz SR7012 and replaced it with an old 2nd hand Yamaha RXA3040 - wow what a difference !!
The Yamaha was far superior to the Marantz in every aspect alhough I still had to spend time trying different alignments of my speakers to get it spot-on.
I personally suspect Audyssey was doing a crap job but that is just my useless opinion. I never really tried it without. So maybe try and beg borrow or steal a different Atmos receiver and see if that makes a difference.



Read this article ( http://www.soundoctor.com/whitepapers/subs.htm )about setting distances and it recommending just setting all subs to the same distance and then all speakers to the same distance but 12' further than the subs. It doesn't matter what the distances are as long as the speakers are further than subs - apparently this allows the subs output to be phase-aligned with the speakers. You can then adjust that 12' difference to get it spot on. Again I noticed a definite improvement inn my system when I applied this method.


I also have my 4 heights on a separate AVR and can adjust the level quickly and easily to suit the movie, audience, preference etc



Just keep playing with it and it will come.


----------



## petetherock

Nomad817 said:


> So if a receiver does Dolby Atmos, it still does all of the older ones(dolby digital, TrueHD, DTSHD) etc. correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Feels like a dumb question


Yep, it's all proper


----------



## Deezul

sdurani said:


> Disney is making for some very expen$ive days with their upcoming Atmos releases on 4K.
> 
> August 13th: Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Thor: Dark World, Avengers: Endgame.
> 
> September 10th: Aladdin (1992), Brave, Cars, Cars 2, Finding Nemo, Finding Dori, Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, Ratatouille.


Disney has also announced that all movies on their streaming service, if there is 4K version available, will have it available. No idea if that also means Dolby Atmos will be available with the movie. And I know a stream is not the same as a disc, but I'm going to save my pennies and apply the money for discs to pay for a year of Disney's service.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Deezul said:


> Disney has also announced that all movies on their streaming service, if there is 4K version available, will have it available. No idea if that also means Dolby Atmos will be available with the movie. And I know a stream is not the same as a disc, but* I'm going to save my pennies and apply the money for discs to pay for a year of Disney's service.*



Another person who folds so easily.


----------



## Augerhandle

"With streaming, one can watch on any device." 

I still don't ever want to watch a movie on my phone. The Kool-Aid just doesn't taste right.


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> It had my identical ceiling speakers rated to 50hz like this .. rear 250 front 150 also had the center crossed over at 250hz …. the older ausyssey in my old pre pro didn't come up with the same numbers in the same room for my 7.2 ?


With such high crossovers, it does not come as a surprise that the resulting sound is not right....

The right crossovers should be:

Magneplanar 1.7 = 40/50Hz
Magnepan’s CC3 = 80/90Hz
APG MC1 = 65/80Hz
Focal in ceiling (100 series???) = 50/60Hz


----------



## snookfisher

dfa973 said:


> With such high crossovers, it does not come as a surprise that the resulting sound is not right....
> 
> The right crossovers should be:
> 
> Magneplanar 1.7 = 40/50Hz
> Magnepan’s CC3 = 80/90Hz
> APG MC1 = 65/80Hz
> Focal in ceiling (100 series???) = 50/60Hz


I agree...although i ran the 1.7's @ 80hz and the CC3 and mc1's @100hz in my oldest up with great results. 

What would you recommend the LFE be set at?


----------



## Josh Z

snookfisher said:


> It had my identical ceiling speakers rated to 50hz like this .. rear 250 front 150 also had the center crossed over at 250hz …. the older ausyssey in my old pre pro didn't come up with the same numbers in the same room for my 7.2 ?


Those are definitely screwy numbers. Did you try re-running Audyssey to see if something went wrong during the initial run?


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Just keep playing with it and it will come.


Be careful not to go blind. Otherwise, good advice.


----------



## snookfisher

Josh Z said:


> Those are definitely screwy numbers. Did you try re-running Audyssey to see if something went wrong during the initial run?


Ive run it three times.. three different but similar results


----------



## Deezul

Dan Hitchman said:


> Another person who folds so easily.


I have stacks and stacks of DVDs still in shrink wrap that I swore I'd watch one day. And yet they sit. I'd rather not spend $20 on a UHD disk that I'll watch one time then forget about when I can spend $70 a year, watch the new Marvel and Star Wars series, fire up any of the MCU or Star Wars movies, Disney animated movies, any Simpsons episode I want, etc. I also have Netflix and Amazon Prime. I've invested plenty in my home theater set up since my college days in 1994 when I bought my first TV, VCR and AVR. So if waiting 25 years is folding easily, then let me know when folding is allowed.


----------



## Ganymed4

I am setting my xover frequency everywhere to 80 Hz. The problem with Audyssey is that it is measuring nonsense sometime. If I found such measurement I always repeated the measurement until Audyssey's data made sense. Also resetting the AVR might help but depending on the AVR you might loose all your data you have already set.
With Audyssey it is also not a good idea to set the xover frequencies lower than Audyssey measured. E.g. from 120 Hz to 80 Hz. The area between 120 Hz and 80 Hz is then not corrected by Audyssey. Best thing is, that you set the xover correctly, before you measure - if your specific Audyssey implementation allows you to do so.


I found Audyssey more than 'bitchy' and I am happy I am using Dirac now. I can highly recommend MiniDSP to you. However, I achieved good results with Audyssey with Integra and Denon AVRs. 

Are you using the Audyssey app? This would also give you some more control over Audyssey and I am not sure but the Marantz SE6011 should be able to connect to this app.


Why is setting your speakers to different xover frequencies not a good idea? Because you get overlapping frequency areas and this thickens the bass when this is unwanted. I really do not understand, why Audyssey has this feature at all? BTW higher frequencies are OK like larger speakers at 80 Hz and smaller ones at 100 or 120 Hz. But I would strongly recommend not to use different speakers at 40 Hz or 60 Hz.


Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Deezul said:


> I have stacks and stacks of DVDs still in shrink wrap that I swore I'd watch one day. And yet they sit. I'd rather not spend $20 on a UHD disk that I'll watch one time then forget about when I can spend $70 a year, watch the new Marvel and Star Wars series, fire up any of the MCU or Star Wars movies, Disney animated movies, any Simpsons episode I want, etc. I also have Netflix and Amazon Prime. I've invested plenty in my home theater set up since my college days in 1994 when I bought my first TV, VCR and AVR. So if waiting 25 years is folding easily, then let me know when folding is allowed.



You invested plenty in home theater gear to pay for less than the best PQ and AQ via streaming, and if purchasing any title off these services you end up in a lease agreement instead of ownership? You can always rent Blu-ray and 4k discs at various online shops if you are no longer interested in a long term home catalog.


----------



## snookfisher

I watched sully last night.. good movie nice atmos presentation... 

i then out of curiosity put in BUGS LIFE and WOW... The neutral X upmix was really good..as good as any ATMOS movie ive heard...not as cool as some of the stuff on the demo discs but close.


----------



## appelz

snookfisher said:


> I watched sully last night.. good movie nice atmos presentation...
> 
> i then out of curiosity put in BUGS LIFE and WOW... The neutral X upmix was really good..as good as any ATMOS movie ive heard...not as cool as some of the stuff on the demo discs but close.


I use clips from that same movie (A Bug's Life) during client demos to show off the upmixing capabilities of their Trinnov Altitude. You are absolutely spot on about how well it works in high channel count systems.


----------



## Deezul

Dan Hitchman said:


> You invested plenty in home theater gear to pay for less than the best PQ and AQ via streaming, and if purchasing any title off these services you end up in a lease agreement instead of ownership? You can always rent Blu-ray and 4k discs at various online shops if you are no longer interested in a long term home catalog.


Sorry my standards aren't up to the great Dan Hitchman who insists that his way is the only way, and anyone who settles is wrong. I'm going to blow your mind again Dan. I'm happy with my Sony TV, AVR, and speakers. But I guess I should go home and cry because Dan says I'm wrong, and he knows how much I invested.


----------



## snookfisher

Deezul said:


> Sorry my standards aren't up to the great Dan Hitchman who insists that his way is the only way, and anyone who settles is wrong. I'm going to blow your mind again Dan. I'm happy with my Sony TV, AVR, and speakers. But I guess I should go home and cry because Dan says I'm wrong, and he knows how much I invested.


Im a physical media guy as well. To me its like compressed music on an ipod.. its fine for jogging in the am but it could never replace a good record or sacd. Whe i sit in my home theater i want the best image/ sound experience possible.


that being said...i get it.... i am a dinosaur and represent a vanishingly small percentage of consumers. Streaming is the future... i just hope they get to a point that it is all but indistinguishable from discs before the stop releasing on disc. 

Still ...there is something about having and holding the media in your hands and seeing them on the shelf ... i guess its akin to collecting cool stuff like a great stamp collection or old coins or fine art.


----------



## snookfisher

appelz said:


> I use clips from that same movie (A Bug's Life) during client demos to show off the upmixing capabilities of their Trinnov Altitude. You are absolutely spot on about how well it works in high channel count systems.


I have to say... im as excited to revisit some old favorites as i am new ATMOS encoded discs... KUNG FU PANDA is next i think... MASTER AND COMANDER.. 

I may even break out a few old HDDVD's (i still believe it was the better format..they JUST LOOK BETTER to my eyes) for SHI%S and GIGGLES.


----------



## Stereodude

Deezul said:


> I have stacks and stacks of DVDs still in shrink wrap that I swore I'd watch one day. And yet they sit. I'd rather not spend $20 on a UHD disk that I'll watch one time then forget about when I can spend $70 a year, watch the new Marvel and Star Wars series, fire up any of the MCU or Star Wars movies, Disney animated movies, any Simpsons episode I want, etc...


Wait, you really think it's only going to be $6 a month. 

ROFL


----------



## trespoochies

It's already confirmed that Disney + will have an introductory price of $70/year. I highly doubt it'll remain that price as the service matures.

https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-pl...ki-wandavision-scarlet-witch-star-wars-pixar/


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> What would you recommend the LFE be set at?


The speaker's crossover should not be set lower than 80Hz if you use a global crossover (same value for all pairs) - based on your actual speaker's audio range - and also not lower than what Audyssey did detect for each pair. If you do not want to use a global crossover you should keep the detected crossover by Audyssey for each pair.

Do not confuse the speaker's crossover with the "LPF for LFE" parameter - this is the Low Pass Filter point that extracts the bass from all the channels and combines the extracted bass with the LFE 0.1 distinct channel, the resulting signal is routed to the Subwoofer. "LPF for LFE" parameter usually defaults to 120Hz and should not be modified except special cases - like the IMAX Enhanced customization.


----------



## snookfisher

dfa973 said:


> The speaker's crossover should not be set lower than 80Hz if you use a global crossover (same value for all pairs) - based on your actual speaker's audio range - and also not lower than what Audyssey did detect for each pair. If you do not want to use a global crossover you should keep the detected crossover by Audyssey for each pair.
> 
> Do not confuse the speaker's crossover with the "LPF for LFE" parameter - this is the Low Pass Filter point that extracts the bass from all the channels and combines the extracted bass with the LFE 0.1 distinct channel, the resulting signal is routed to the Subwoofer. "LPF for LFE" parameter usually defaults to 120Hz and should not be modified except special cases - like the IMAX Enhanced customization.


Thanks..it is indeed set at 120. What i have done in the past is set the main speakers at 80 the center and surrounds at 120


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> Thanks..it is indeed set at 120. What i have done in the past is set the main speakers at 80 the center and surrounds at 120


Based on your listed models, all the speakers should sound just fine if you use a global crossover of 80Hz. Try it!


----------



## snookfisher

dfa973 said:


> Based on your listed models, all the speakers should sound just fine if you use a global crossover of 80Hz. Try it!


I will...tonight...im getting a bit confused though...should i not use the AUDSSEY correction then? i thought if i changed the crossovers it would mess it up? i did buy the 6011 used so i think i will do a factory reset and start from scratch.


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> I will...tonight...im getting a bit confused though...should i not use the AUDSSEY correction then? i thought if i changed the crossovers it would mess it up? i did buy the 6011 used so i think i will do a factory reset and start from scratch.


A factory reset and start from scratch is a good idea.
But changing the crossovers does not minimize Audyssey's usefulness. 
By all means, keep Audyssey calibrated and enabled. 
A proper Audyssey calibration should find the values of the correct crossovers, very close to the actual speakers lower range value (_as stated in a previous post_). 
In this state, the receiver should sound _very, very good_. Do remember to set all the speakers to SMALL _after_ the calibration.


----------



## Ricoflashback

batpig said:


> You should check out "Sully". This is an extremely underrated Atmos mix, and one of the very best examples of a movie that doesn't use Atmos for bombast but rather to immerse you in the environment of the movie. Small touches like the ambient noise in the airport, PA announcements in the airport or plane emanating from overhead, and other subtle environmental cues are used to great effect.
> 
> If you're looking for an example of a really thoughtful usage of Atmos to really transport you INTO the movie (vs. bludgeoning you with explosions and rockets zooming overhead) this is one of the most skillfully executed I've heard.


***Spot on with the Sully Atmos soundtrack observation. Do you remember the sound of the engines after the geese strike? The weird aircraft noises? That’s when I started to look for the flight attendant button to find out what was going on. Then I remembered I was in my home theater.


----------



## mhmercer

snookfisher said:


> I will...tonight...im getting a bit confused though...should i not use the AUDSSEY correction then? i thought if i changed the crossovers it would mess it up? i did buy the 6011 used so i think i will do a factory reset and start from scratch.


As I recall it, Audyssey does not set the cross-over points; your AVR does. Audyssey make room corrections. Set the cross-over points to where ever your ears say is good.


----------



## dfa973

mhmercer said:


> As I recall it, Audyssey does not set the cross-over points; your AVR does. Audyssey make room corrections. Set the cross-over points to where ever your ears say is good.


Nope, Audyssey discovers (by measuring) the actual range of each speaker pair and sets the crossover value according to the detected value. You can later edit those values.

later edit: the AVR actually receives the values of speaker roll off measured by Audyssey and you can say that the AVR "sets" the values, but the AVR has not done anything to get them.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Spot on with the Sully Atmos soundtrack observation. Do you remember the sound of the engines after the geese strike? The weird aircraft noises? That’s when I started to look for the flight attendant button to find out what was going on. Then I remembered I was in my home theater.



Yeah, better watch out for those flashbacks, Rico.


----------



## usc1995

sdurani said:


> Be careful not to go blind. Otherwise, good advice.




What you did there...I see it...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Deezul said:


> Sorry my standards aren't up to the great Dan Hitchman who insists that his way is the only way, and anyone who settles is wrong. I'm going to blow your mind again Dan. I'm happy with my Sony TV, AVR, and speakers. But I guess I should go home and cry because Dan says I'm wrong, and he knows how much I invested.



Don't be an ass. All I said is that if you have a good audio system and a good 4k TV, there are ways of seeing 4k movies on disc without purchasing in the best possible way. Enjoy streaming and long life.


----------



## noah katz

dfa973 said:


> Do not confuse the speaker's crossover with the "LPF for LFE" parameter - this is the Low Pass Filter point that extracts the bass from all the channels...



I don't believe that's quite correct.

LPF for LFE sets only its nominal* cutoff freq.

Bass management XO settings for the fronts and surrounds determines bass extracted from them and sent to the subs.


* As others have pointed out before, it's not a brick wall XO slope, so there's still output at 120 Hz even if it's set to 80 or 100, and can be used to fine tune bass response.


----------



## Stereodude

trespoochies said:


> It's already confirmed that Disney + will have an introductory price of $70/year. I highly doubt it'll remain that price as the service matures.
> 
> https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-pl...ki-wandavision-scarlet-witch-star-wars-pixar/


So the first hit is "free"... I guess they're going with the same sales model as your local undocumented street pharmacist. Get you hooked and then hike the price.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stereodude said:


> So the first hit is "free"... I guess they're going with the same sales model as your local undocumented street pharmacist. Get you hooked and then hike the price.



An apt analogy. Though, now it's your local doctor with Oxycontin.


----------



## batpig

Stereodude said:


> So the first hit is "free"... I guess they're going with the same sales model as your local undocumented street pharmacist. Get you hooked and then hike the price.


Considering I pay $15.99/month for the Netflix 4K premium streaming subscription, Disney has a LOT of breathing room to gradually increase prices while still staying very competitive in the streaming service space.

I'm happy to give them my money for access to their enormous library of content, I have two little kids.... plus I'm a big kid who will need access to Star Wars + Marvel content. $6/month is relative steal for the service and I'm happy to get hooked like a high school getting my first hit from the street dealer


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> But it doesn't seem to me that the studio decision makers, who are looking for the next tent-pole feature, would be focused on dedicating the attention and resources to an aspect of the movie-making that is not going to drive asses in seats.



And right on cue from today's N.Y. Times Business section:


_"HBO, long the capital of small-screen taste-making, is under orders from its new corporate parent, AT&T, to add more shows that appeal to Middle America."_

_"“They are trying to have massive, breakout global hits,” Rich Greenfield, a media industry analyst formerly at BTIG Research, said of Amazon."_

_"“Each one of the platforms is now under tremendous pressure to drive massive subscriber growth,” said a former senior executive at a large digital property. He added that former colleagues who invested too heavily in outsider voices — at the perceived expense of finding the next blockbuster — sometimes found their jobs at risk. “*You quickly end up having conversations like, ‘How is what you’re doing connected to our commercial goals?’*” the former executive said."_


For Female Comics, Peak TV Has Its Troughs


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Be careful not to go blind. Otherwise, good advice.



Wondered if anybody would pick up on that


----------



## Jonas2

Augerhandle said:


> I still don't ever want to watch a movie on my phone. The Kool-Aid just doesn't taste right.


I do watch some stuff on my phone when it's really late at night, and I can't sleep, but don't want to disturb the household - I don the Apple earbuds and grip the iPhone for a less-than-stellar experience. Never serious watching - and still, it's just pathetic compared to the big screen (yeah, it's only 65", so that's relative....). I feel sorry those millenials that know nothing else and think this is a good entertainment experience.....



sdurani said:


> Be careful not to go blind. Otherwise, good advice.


When I saw this I was just about to take a big swig off a nice, ice-cold beverage - that would have been a disaster for my laptop screen from a containment standpoint....


----------



## sdrucker

So here’s The Doors in Atmos, about 10 minutes in. Looks like the presence channels are busy. Check out those wides and front side surrrounds (SS1)....lots of ambient content here. The concert scene with Crystal Ship is the second snapshot, with organ nicely permeating the right side from wides to surrounds...

Oddly the L/R mains seem to fluctuate a bit, sometimes going silent (as per the screenshots). This movie is a true snapshot of how brilliant, weird and ultimately destructIve the 60s rock scene lcould be...

“Is everybody in? The ceremony is about to begin....”


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

snookfisher said:


> It had my identical ceiling speakers rated to 50hz like this .. rear 250 front 150 also had the center crossed over at 250hz …. the older ausyssey in my old pre pro didn't come up with the same numbers in the same room for my 7.2 ?





dfa973 said:


> With such high crossovers, it does not come as a surprise that the resulting sound is not right....
> 
> The right crossovers should be:
> 
> Magneplanar 1.7 = 40/50Hz
> Magnepan’s CC3 = 80/90Hz
> APG MC1 = 65/80Hz
> Focal in ceiling (100 series???) = 50/60Hz


A few recommendations about crossover points and Audyssey, if I may:
1. Audyssey reads the point where the speaker starts to roll off sharply. This is usually lower than the speaker's -3dB anechoic spec just by virtue of it being in your room. If Audyssey is reading a sharp rolloff higher than that spec'd point, it's because of acoustic issues in the room. The only way to deal with that is by re-positioning, treatments, etc. to fix the issues. Audyssey = garbage in, garbage out.

2. Audyssey's software passes that rolloff data to the AVR to set system crossovers... but different manufacturers use different tolerances and headroom and may set things differently. Not every brand's software follows Audyssey's recommended guideline for this setting.

3. In-ceiling speakers may be rated to 50 or 60Hz, but may not be able to reach that extension once actually in the ceiling. If Audyssey is reading those channels at a much higher recommended crossover, you would usually want to address that with something like a backing box so that it has an enclosure to work with. Depending on your install, you can sometimes fix those issues with something as simple as the proper placement of a little insulation around the speaker. The area above your speakers can reinforce the low end... or cause your ceiling to act a phase-shifted passive radiator that creates a gap in the frequency response. But if Audyssey is detecting 150-250Hz rolloffs for 50Hz in-ceilings, that's a clear sign that you've got a little work to do above your room.

4. LPF of LFE should always stay at 120Hz if your goal is accurate reproduction. This only filters the LFE channel, which tends to be filtered during content creation anyway... but filtering it lower than 120Hz can reduce the level of harmonics that lend sounds in the LFE channel their perceived tone. Whether it will be a noticeable difference varies from person to person and room to room, but as a general rule, you shouldn't cascade the filtering done during content creation with additional filtering of that channel in your gear. The harmonics from the lower frequency sounds won't be significant enough in level to make your subwoofer easier to localize, but they do alter the way you perceive those sounds tonally.

5. Never set a post-Audyssey crossover LOWER than it was detected at. The range between that new crossover point and what Audyssey detected will essentially be unequalized, and worse, if you really do have an acoustic issue that is causing a suckout significant enough to trigger Audyssey's detection of the transition point, you are losing headroom trying to reproduce sound the speaker can't do efficiently in your room. 

6. I've found that a good guideline for what you would WANT the crossover points to be is to take the speaker's lower -3dB spec and multiply it times 1.5 then pick the closest crossover point to this number offered in your AVR. This gives you a half-octave so you get a smooth gap-free transition from the point where the sub and speaker are reproducing those frequencies equally down to the in-room extension you get from the speaker. So if your speaker is good down to 40Hz before it rolls off, set it to 60Hz. If your speaker's good down to 25Hz, as tempting as it may be to set it to large, try it at 40Hz instead. Leave the heavy lifting to the subwoofer, where you likely have more amplification, and you will also get cleaner sound from those channels as a result. I see many say to set your crossover to the -3dB spec'd point, but a lot of times that can cause a loss of response during the crossover's transition because you're cascading the in-AVR filter with the speaker's natural rolloff slope.

7. I've also found that if your AVR provides a coarse display of Audyssey's measured in-room response for each channel, you can use this as a general check for what frequency you should be aiming for. So for instance, if I look at Audyssey's coarse graph and see that a speaker I expect to have a -3dB point of 50Hz is changing from below the 0 line to above it, I can tell at what frequency Audyssey is having to boost to bring it into line. And if that transition point is above the spec'd -3dB point, I know I have some in-room work to do to fix frequency issues. If that transition point shows on the graph at lower than the spec'd -3dB point (which is what you would ideally expect given room reinforcement), then I apply the 1.5x rule to the number on the graph where that transition occurs (i.e. where Audyssey goes from cutting frequencies to having to boost them). Again, the goal is to give a smooth transition from speaker to sub so that you aren't relying heavily on boosted equalization below the speaker's in-room capabilities. My half-octave rule tends to work nicely with the filter slopes typically used in system crossovers.

8. Specific to Atmos and whether you're hearing sounds placed well between the bed-level layer and the overheads: For the bed-level channels, you can easily verify cohesion of cross-channel pans using phase tests (i.e. test material that places sound 50% in one channel and 50% in another channel so you can hear if it images between those two channels). All things being equal, if your system distance/delay is properly detected and set, you should get good cross-channel transitions all the way around. HOWEVER, as the man says, a plan is just a list of things to go wrong. So here's what I recommend... After running Audyssey, setting your crossovers, and making sure DynamicEQ is off (because it plays hell with Atmos, as its development did not take into account the presence of overhead channels and how mixers might adjust that to give the intended results at lower volume levels than reference), play Dolby's LEAF demo on a loop. Listen specifically for the pans from bed level to above and across the room. If it seems like those transitions are going too suddenly from bed to overhead rather than making a smooth pan, try adjusting the distance/delay of ALL your overheads in small increments. More times than not, a relatively minor adjustment can snap that low-to-high imaging into place such that it works better across all of your seats. In other words, listen to the clip as-is... then set all of your overheads +0.1 foot and listen again... then repeat a few times... then go back to Audyssey's detected distance and try -0.1 foot increments. You will KNOW when you find the ideal setting... because you will hear that cohesive DOME of sound that we keep talking about here.

9. Another minor tweak for x.x.4 setups: Play the Helicopter demo on a loop and listen for cross-channel transitions between each overhead. If you hear the transition between each channel pair drop out or transition too quickly, try making small adjustments to that single channel to see if you can get a more cohesive pan between them. This is getting REAL nit-picky and may not matter to anyone outside of the MLP... but if you're in the MLP (and why wouldn't you be), you might as well strive for perfection there.


----------



## Deezul

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't be an ass. All I said is that if you have a good audio system and a good 4k TV, there are ways of seeing 4k movies on disc without purchasing in the best possible way. Enjoy streaming and long life.


Your words - "Another person who folds so easily." If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. But I'm the ass.


----------



## Joshua Chmiel

May have been mentioned before, but Shazam! makes good use of top speakers. There is a mid-credit scene that is almost exclusive front and top with great panning.


----------



## snookfisher

Jeremy Anderson said:


> A few recommendations about crossover points and Audyssey, if I may:
> 1. Audyssey reads the point where the speaker starts to roll off sharply. This is usually lower than the speaker's -3dB anechoic spec just by virtue of it being in your room. If Audyssey is reading a sharp rolloff higher than that spec'd point, it's because of acoustic issues in the room. The only way to deal with that is by re-positioning, treatments, etc. to fix the issues. Audyssey = garbage in, garbage out.
> 
> 2. Audyssey's software passes that rolloff data to the AVR to set system crossovers... but different manufacturers use different tolerances and headroom and may set things differently. Not every brand's software follows Audyssey's recommended guideline for this setting.
> 
> 3. In-ceiling speakers may be rated to 50 or 60Hz, but may not be able to reach that extension once actually in the ceiling. If Audyssey is reading those channels at a much higher recommended crossover, you would usually want to address that with something like a backing box so that it has an enclosure to work with. Depending on your install, you can sometimes fix those issues with something as simple as the proper placement of a little insulation around the speaker. The area above your speakers can reinforce the low end... or cause your ceiling to act a phase-shifted passive radiator that creates a gap in the frequency response. But if Audyssey is detecting 150-250Hz rolloffs for 50Hz in-ceilings, that's a clear sign that you've got a little work to do above your room.
> 
> 4. LPF of LFE should always stay at 120Hz if your goal is accurate reproduction. This only filters the LFE channel, which tends to be filtered during content creation anyway... but filtering it lower than 120Hz can reduce the level of harmonics that lend sounds in the LFE channel their perceived tone. Whether it will be a noticeable difference varies from person to person and room to room, but as a general rule, you shouldn't cascade the filtering done during content creation with additional filtering of that channel in your gear. The harmonics from the lower frequency sounds won't be significant enough in level to make your subwoofer easier to localize, but they do alter the way you perceive those sounds tonally.
> 
> 5. Never set a post-Audyssey crossover LOWER than it was detected at. The range between that new crossover point and what Audyssey detected will essentially be unequalized, and worse, if you really do have an acoustic issue that is causing a suckout significant enough to trigger Audyssey's detection of the transition point, you are losing headroom trying to reproduce sound the speaker can't do efficiently in your room.
> 
> 6. I've found that a good guideline for what you would WANT the crossover points to be is to take the speaker's lower -3dB spec and multiply it times 1.5 then pick the closest crossover point to this number offered in your AVR. This gives you a half-octave so you get a smooth gap-free transition from the point where the sub and speaker are reproducing those frequencies equally down to the in-room extension you get from the speaker. So if your speaker is good down to 40Hz before it rolls off, set it to 60Hz. If your speaker's good down to 25Hz, as tempting as it may be to set it to large, try it at 40Hz instead. Leave the heavy lifting to the subwoofer, where you likely have more amplification, and you will also get cleaner sound from those channels as a result. I see many say to set your crossover to the -3dB spec'd point, but a lot of times that can cause a loss of response during the crossover's transition because you're cascading the in-AVR filter with the speaker's natural rolloff slope.
> 
> 7. I've also found that if your AVR provides a coarse display of Audyssey's measured in-room response for each channel, you can use this as a general check for what frequency you should be aiming for. So for instance, if I look at Audyssey's coarse graph and see that a speaker I expect to have a -3dB point of 50Hz is changing from below the 0 line to above it, I can tell at what frequency Audyssey is having to boost to bring it into line. And if that transition point is above the spec'd -3dB point, I know I have some in-room work to do to fix frequency issues. If that transition point shows on the graph at lower than the spec'd -3dB point (which is what you would ideally expect given room reinforcement), then I apply the 1.5x rule to the number on the graph where that transition occurs (i.e. where Audyssey goes from cutting frequencies to having to boost them). Again, the goal is to give a smooth transition from speaker to sub so that you aren't relying heavily on boosted equalization below the speaker's in-room capabilities. My half-octave rule tends to work nicely with the filter slopes typically used in system crossovers.
> 
> 8. Specific to Atmos and whether you're hearing sounds placed well between the bed-level layer and the overheads: For the bed-level channels, you can easily verify cohesion of cross-channel pans using phase tests (i.e. test material that places sound 50% in one channel and 50% in another channel so you can hear if it images between those two channels). All things being equal, if your system distance/delay is properly detected and set, you should get good cross-channel transitions all the way around. HOWEVER, as the man says, a plan is just a list of things to go wrong. So here's what I recommend... After running Audyssey, setting your crossovers, and making sure DynamicEQ is off (because it plays hell with Atmos, as its development did not take into account the presence of overhead channels and how mixers might adjust that to give the intended results at lower volume levels than reference), play Dolby's LEAF demo on a loop. Listen specifically for the pans from bed level to above and across the room. If it seems like those transitions are going too suddenly from bed to overhead rather than making a smooth pan, try adjusting the distance/delay of ALL your overheads in small increments. More times than not, a relatively minor adjustment can snap that low-to-high imaging into place such that it works better across all of your seats. In other words, listen to the clip as-is... then set all of your overheads +0.1 foot and listen again... then repeat a few times... then go back to Audyssey's detected distance and try -0.1 foot increments. You will KNOW when you find the ideal setting... because you will hear that cohesive DOME of sound that we keep talking about here.
> 
> 9. Another minor tweak for x.x.4 setups: Play the Helicopter demo on a loop and listen for cross-channel transitions between each overhead. If you hear the transition between each channel pair drop out or transition too quickly, try making small adjustments to that single channel to see if you can get a more cohesive pan between them. This is getting REAL nit-picky and may not matter to anyone outside of the MLP... but if you're in the MLP (and why wouldn't you be), you might as well strive for perfection there.


Well...I must admidt….im a little perplexed. I did a factory reset on the 6011 last night and reran audyssey last night. And I got the same crossover and distance measurements... but I hooked up my old onkyo pre pro that has the older AUDYSSEY and it came up with more "normal" numbers. I get that room acoustics and other factors can affect these things but to such a dramatic and extreme way? this is what I got last night with the marantz:

FRONT: 60hz
CENTER 120hz
SURR 250hz
SUR BACK 150hz
TOP FRONT 150hz
TOP BACK 250HZ

I listened to the demo disc with these settings and. it was ok. so I set all speakers to 80hz... not good.. very thin. I really cant believe my room has this bad a problem. especially with the wildly different top channels . they are mounted in the same space and are all identical. In the 4 rooms I have set up my theater over the last 15 yrs.. ive never had issues like this.


----------



## blb1215

*Atmos upfiring help*

I posted in the speaker forum but want to get input from here as well. I am looking for some advise on adding Dolby Atmos upfiring modules to my set-up. I am setting up speakers in new house in 12 x 16 room with 8 foot flat sheet rock ceiling. My seating position will be approximately 9 feet from front wall. My estimate seating distance from front speakers/atmos module will be 7 feet and distance from rear speakers/atmos module will be approx. 6 feet.



I have been planning and analyzing for weeks/month going around and around on my options for 5.1.4 atmos in regard to height speakers. From my understanding the most effective to least effective is in-ceiling > high on side walls > upfiring modules.


I have also read that in a room with lower flat ceiling that upfiring modules can be very effective. I would prefer not to tackle in-ceiling and was considering trying up-firing due to ease of setup and less wire hiding. My current speakers I will be using are older Infinity Beta series. Front Beta 50s, 360 center, and pair ES250s for surrounds (set to mono) and SVS psi 20-39pci sub. My receiver is Denon 4500H. 



The questions I have are as follows:
1. Is my room a good/ideal option for upfiring atmos modules?
2. Is it important to timbre match atmos modules to mains?
3. How effective are upfiring modules in a good room?
4. Are there substantial difference in effectiveness of upfiring modules based on brand/model?
5. Any recommendations on what brand/model?




Thanks in advance..


----------



## fredxr2d2

snookfisher said:


> Well...I must admidt….im a little perplexed. I did a factory reset on the 6011 last night and reran audyssey last night. And I got the same crossover and distance measurements... but I hooked up my old onkyo pre pro that has the older AUDYSSEY and it came up with more "normal" numbers. I get that room acoustics and other factors can affect these things but to such a dramatic and extreme way? this is what I got last night with the marantz:
> 
> FRONT: 60hz
> CENTER 120hz
> SURR 250hz
> SUR BACK 150hz
> TOP FRONT 150hz
> TOP BACK 250HZ
> 
> I listened to the demo disc with these settings and. it was ok. so I set all speakers to 80hz... not good.. very thin. I really cant believe my room has this bad a problem. especially with the wildly different top channels . they are mounted in the same space and are all identical. In the 4 rooms I have set up my theater over the last 15 yrs.. ive never had issues like this.





No one has suggested this yet, but I honestly think your audyssey mic has gone bad. I would suggest contacting Marantz or looking on eBay for a new one.


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> Well...I must admidt….im a little perplexed. I did a factory reset on the 6011 last night and reran audyssey last night. And I got the same crossover and distance measurements... but I hooked up my old onkyo pre pro that has the older AUDYSSEY and it came up with more "normal" numbers. I get that room acoustics and other factors can affect these things but to such a dramatic and extreme way? this is what I got last night with the marantz:
> 
> FRONT: 60hz
> CENTER 120hz
> SURR 250hz
> SUR BACK 150hz
> TOP FRONT 150hz
> TOP BACK 250HZ
> 
> I listened to the demo disc with these settings and. it was ok. so I set all speakers to 80hz... not good.. very thin. I really cant believe my room has this bad a problem. especially with the wildly different top channels . they are mounted in the same space and are all identical. In the 4 rooms I have set up my theater over the last 15 yrs.. ive never had issues like this.


Lowering the crossovers _after_ Auddysey calibration is a BIG NO-NO because you will end up in a state where there is no room correction for the bed+top channels below the detected roll-off frequencies and the resulted sound cannot be good - as you have experienced! 
No wonder the sound is thin!

So there is a low-frequency suck out in the room that Audyssey detects for your surrounds and tops - or other room/speaker problems.

Do you have acoustic room treatment on the front/back of the room?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

fredxr2d2 said:


> No one has suggested this yet, but I honestly think your audyssey mic has gone bad. I would suggest contacting Marantz or looking on eBay for a new one.


Honestly, that's a solid suggestion. The first Audyssey mic I got with my Denon 5200 had a bad mic capsule, and I only realized it because my post-Audyssey levels were a solid 8dB off from reference compared to checking with my SPL meter. Denon sent me a replacement mic and it made a world of difference. It is very possible that he may have a bad mic.


----------



## snookfisher

fredxr2d2 said:


> No one has suggested this yet, but I honestly think your audyssey mic has gone bad. I would suggest contacting Marantz or looking on eBay for a new one.


I was thinking the same thing.... question... 

Would my older AUDYSSEY mic from the onkyo work with the new advanced AUDYSSEY ?


----------



## snookfisher

dfa973 said:


> Lowering the crossovers _after_ Auddysey calibration is a BIG NO-NO because you will end up in a state where there is no room correction for the bed+top channels below the detected roll-off frequencies and the resulted sound cannot be good - as you have experienced!
> No wonder the sound is thin!
> 
> So there is a low-frequency suck out in the room that Audyssey detects for your surrounds and tops - or other room/speaker problems.
> 
> Do you have acoustic room treatment on the front/back of the room?


I do have treatments on front/ back/ walls as well as side walls and ceiling... 2" acoustic foam behind all speakers on front wall 1" foam on side walls at first relection points and on ceiling as well as center of back wall... I do not have "base traps" in the corners though...never needed them with the 7.2 set up


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> I was thinking the same thing.... question...
> 
> Would my older AUDYSSEY mic from the onkyo work with the new advanced AUDYSSEY ?



From what I've read in the past, the included mic is paired to the receiver model or type of Audyssey software contained therein or some such thing. Your proposed plan may not work.


----------



## snookfisher

dfa973 said:


> Lowering the crossovers _after_ Auddysey calibration is a BIG NO-NO because you will end up in a state where there is no room correction for the bed+top channels below the detected roll-off frequencies and the resulted sound cannot be good - as you have experienced!
> No wonder the sound is thin!
> 
> So there is a low-frequency suck out in the room that Audyssey detects for your surrounds and tops - or other room/speaker problems.
> 
> Do you have acoustic room treatment on the front/back of the room?


I thought you suggested to set all speakers at 80HZ... after the calibration all speakers were set to small by the AVR..


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> From what I've read in the past, the included mic is paired to the receiver model or type of Audyssey software contained therein or some such thing. Your proposed plan may not work.


but of coarse...lol

any suggestions where I could obtain a new one for my 6011 ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> but of coarse...lol
> 
> any suggestions where I could obtain a new one for my 6011 ?



Does it have a model number listed on the mic itself or the box it came in? If so, tell me what it is. Thanks.


----------



## shs1234

snookfisher said:


> I thought you suggested to set all speakers at 80HZ... after the calibration all speakers were set to small by the AVR..


I think for several reasons you should probably get and run REW with a mic that is REW compatible. REW will give you an independent assessment of your speakers capability before and after Audyssey calibration. It also has excellent tools to study your room response including room dynamics – how long it takes certain frequencies to decay. 

There is a whole thread on REW in the Audio Theory section of this site with lots of helpful people there to help you run and interpret your REW results. The only shortcoming of REW AFAIK is that it does not measure ceiling speakers without cheating by moving cables around.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

blb1215 said:


> I have also read that in a room with lower flat ceiling that upfiring modules can be very effective. I would prefer not to tackle in-ceiling and was considering trying up-firing due to ease of setup and less wire hiding. My current speakers I will be using are older Infinity Beta series. Front Beta 50s, 360 center, and pair ES250s for surrounds (set to mono) and SVS psi 20-39pci sub. My receiver is Denon 4500H.
> 
> The questions I have are as follows:
> 1. Is my room a good/ideal option for upfiring atmos modules?
> 2. Is it important to timbre match atmos modules to mains?
> 3. How effective are upfiring modules in a good room?
> 4. Are there substantial difference in effectiveness of upfiring modules based on brand/model?
> 5. Any recommendations on what brand/model?


1. Yes, that room spec is fine for upfirers.
2. Timbre matching upfirers isn't super crucial. You're bouncing sound off of a ceiling and likely using the room EQ on your AVR, so it will mitigate any differences. That said, it doesn't hurt to get a brand with similar characteristics to what you have. See 5 below.
3. I had in-ceilings in my previous home but couldn't do them in my new home, so I changed to upfirers. You will still get a good sense of overhead once you properly tweak things, but you definitely don't get the cross-channel precision that you do from in-ceilings. That said, upfirers > no Atmos at all.
4. Some may direct the sound better than others or have better baffles that keep the sound from hitting you directly rather than from the reflection. But overall, they're all designed to do the same thing generally. 
5. I have the el-cheapo Pioneers because I got a deal when they were SUPER cheap and I figured they would mesh well with my existing Polks. In your case, if I had to match a brand up tonally with Infinity speakers, I would try the Klipsch upfirers. Their horn tweeters should mesh with the waveguide setup in your Infinitys and both brands tend to have highs on the crisper side.


----------



## snookfisher

Dan Hitchman said:


> Does it have a model number listed on the mic itself or the box it came in? If so, tell me what it is. Thanks.


Ill look tonight


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

snookfisher said:


> I was thinking the same thing.... question...
> 
> Would my older AUDYSSEY mic from the onkyo work with the new advanced AUDYSSEY ?


All the AVR companies basically get the mics from Audyssey in batches with a +/-2dB tolerance, so if both are the tower-style mic, they're likely similar enough to do the trick. Each AVR company uses their own general mic compensation though, but as long as it's the tower-style mic, you should be good. 

If it's the older puck-shaped mic that came with the original pre-XT32 Audyssey AVRs, that will not be a good match for the tower-style mic. That said, it won't hurt you to try a quick run of Audyssey with it to see if you get a massive difference, and that might indicate that you do indeed have a bad mic.

Either way, try hitting Marantz up for a mic before you poke around looking to buy one. In my experience, D+M are pretty good about sending out a replacement if you think you have a bad mic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> Ill look tonight



If Marantz balks at sending you a new one, this mic looks like it's the right one...


https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...62LoA4M8ll7YZC8vM6eCMlntEsagaAh6hEALw_wcB&p=1


----------



## dfa973

snookfisher said:


> I was thinking the same thing.... question...
> 
> Would my older AUDYSSEY mic from the onkyo work with the new advanced AUDYSSEY ?


If it is the same model as the one shipped with D+M receivers - *ACM1HB* - it will work just fine.



snookfisher said:


> I thought you suggested to set all speakers at 80HZ...


I said that "based on your list of speakers" and their -3dB roll-off specs - all of them are specified below 80Hz so... But I also said that you should not lower the crossover below the value detected by Audyssey.



snookfisher said:


> after the calibration all speakers were set to small by the AVR..


Of course the speakers were set automatically as SMALL when Audyssey measures -3dB roll-offs *above 50Hz*... Only speakers detected having a -3dB roll-off below 50Hz are set as LARGE!


----------



## blb1215

Jeremy Anderson said:


> 1. Yes, that room spec is fine for upfirers.
> 2. Timbre matching upfirers isn't super crucial. You're bouncing sound off of a ceiling and likely using the room EQ on your AVR, so it will mitigate any differences. That said, it doesn't hurt to get a brand with similar characteristics to what you have. See 5 below.
> 3. I had in-ceilings in my previous home but couldn't do them in my new home, so I changed to upfirers. You will still get a good sense of overhead once you properly tweak things, but you definitely don't get the cross-channel precision that you do from in-ceilings. That said, upfirers > no Atmos at all.
> 4. Some may direct the sound better than others or have better baffles that keep the sound from hitting you directly rather than from the reflection. But overall, they're all designed to do the same thing generally.
> 5. I have the el-cheapo Pioneers because I got a deal when they were SUPER cheap and I figured they would mesh well with my existing Polks. In your case, if I had to match a brand up tonally with Infinity speakers, I would try the Klipsch upfirers. Their horn tweeters should mesh with the waveguide setup in your Infinitys and both brands tend to have highs on the crisper side.



Thanks for the input and suggestion on Klipsch. I will check them out.


----------



## snookfisher

dfa973 said:


> If it is the same model as the one shipped with D+M receivers - *ACM1HB* - it will work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I said that "based on your list of speakers" and their -3dB roll-off specs - all of them are specified below 80Hz so... But I also said that you should not lower the crossover below the value detected by Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the speakers were set automatically as SMALL when Audyssey measures -3dB roll-offs *above 50Hz*... Only speakers detected having a -3dB roll-off below 50Hz are set as LARGE!


Right..thanks.


----------



## am2model3

I watched & listened to Fast&Furious 1,4,5 on 4K UHD thru DTS:X. great soundtracks in immersive sound!


----------



## niterida

snookfisher said:


> Well...I must admidt….im a little perplexed. I did a factory reset on the 6011 last night and reran audyssey last night. And I got the same crossover and distance measurements... but I hooked up my old onkyo pre pro that has the older AUDYSSEY and it came up with more "normal" numbers. I get that room acoustics and other factors can affect these things but to such a dramatic and extreme way? this is what I got last night with the marantz:
> 
> FRONT: 60hz
> CENTER 120hz
> SURR 250hz
> SUR BACK 150hz
> TOP FRONT 150hz
> TOP BACK 250HZ
> 
> I listened to the demo disc with these settings and. it was ok. so I set all speakers to 80hz... not good.. very thin. I really cant believe my room has this bad a problem. especially with the wildly different top channels . they are mounted in the same space and are all identical. In the 4 rooms I have set up my theater over the last 15 yrs.. ive never had issues like this.



Did you try listening to anything with the Onkyo ? Like I said it didn't matter what I tried with my brand new Marantz 7012 it sounded like crap. When I replaced it with an older Yamaha it didn't matter what I did to that it sounded fantastic. Whether thats because I too had a faulty Marantz mic or not I don't know. 



Also try not running Ausyssey and just set all speakers to 80hz and distance of 18' and all the subs to 6'. Sounds counter intuitive but that is how I have mine and it sounds better than ever.


----------



## Chirosamsung

snookfisher said:


> dfa973 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your listed models, all the speakers should sound just fine if you use a global crossover of 80Hz. Try it!
> 
> 
> 
> I will...tonight...im getting a bit confused though...should i not use the AUDSSEY correction then? i thought if i changed the crossovers it would mess it up? i did buy the 6011 used so i think i will do a factory reset and start from scratch.
Click to expand...

Maybe half the problem of your atmos sounding not right and questions about your speakers crossovers and distances can be traced back to the fact that you are using Audyssey instead of something like DIRAC room correction. 

Maybe try A receiver with DIRAC and you may suddenly LOVE atmos and find your system sounds even better then usual with other listening 🙂


----------



## pasender91

Chirosamsung said:


> Maybe half the problem of your atmos sounding not right and questions about your speakers crossovers and distances can be traced back to the fact that you are using Audyssey instead of something like DIRAC room correction.
> 
> Maybe try A receiver with DIRAC and you may suddenly LOVE atmos and find your system sounds even better then usual with other listening 🙂


Don't want to start a room-optimizer fight ... but MANY people are happy with Atmos sound and their Audyssey receiver !! 
Dirac may be better, but Audyssey is still good, and anyway, it can't be the root cause for the issue Snookfisher is experiencing ....


----------



## Ganymed4

snookfisher said:


> Right..thanks.



And please spend around 20 US$ and get this: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dmholdings.AudysseyMultEq


This app should work with your Marantz too, because they are D+M group and now Sound United. This app is what the Pro-kit was before software wise and should allow you to set the xover frequencies in advance and measure them correctly. It also allows you to define your own target curve and switch off the nasty Audyssey dip at 3 kHz. 

I used the Pro Kit for quite a while but switched to my Datasat RS20i and Dirac, before the app came out. It should be able to help you a lot to overcome the limitations of the vanilla Audyssey.
Good luck!


----------



## scubasteve2365

Hi, I'm looking for some advice in my in-ceiling atmos placement speakers. Here is an aerial shot of my room via sketchup.










The front row is at about 9 ft, probably a little too far forward as it is, but only shooting a 110" screen and we've been happy with it for years.

My ear to ceiling height is 54". I'm dealing with a rear soffit that limits placement.

I can get 42 inches behind the main row, which would put me at about 128 degrees (within the dolby placement guide). I can then match that in the front which is about 52 degrees. So I think I am in good shape for front to rear coverage. My concern is about the width, because of the soffit I cannot place my rear left in-ceiling to be in-line with the my front mains. The other three in-ceiling I can align with my mains in terms of width. I'm not sure if I should do that however. Would I be better off going with the 4 red locations (in the image above) so that they are aligned with each other? These 4 locations, although roughly located on the image, would be wider than my primary listening positions which are the center seats in my row of 4. The blue circles represent alignment with the mains in the front, not shown (that I didn't consider when I made the graphic) was that the rear right can also be aligned to the width of my mains.

So my question, is should I go with the 4 red circle locations wherein all 4 in-ceiling are aligned with each other width wise and front-to-back, or go with proper width aligned (blue circles) for the front left, front right, and rear right and letting the rear-left be out of alignment?

edit:

Here is an old picture of the room from the side, that shows the soffit in question. Ignore the yellow box, the image comes from when I was researching IB Sub locations.


----------



## Chirosamsung

scubasteve2365 said:


> Hi, I'm looking for some advice in my in-ceiling atmos placement speakers. Here is an aerial shot of my room via sketchup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The front row is at about 9 ft, probably a little too far forward as it is, but only shooting a 110" screen and we've been happy with it for years.
> 
> My ear to ceiling height is 54". I'm dealing with a rear soffit that limits placement.
> 
> I can get 42 inches behind the main row, which would put me at about 128 degrees (within the dolby placement guide). I can then match that in the front which is about 52 degrees. So I think I am in good shape for front to rear coverage. My concern is about the width, because of the soffit I cannot place my rear left in-ceiling to be in-line with the my front mains. The other three in-ceiling I can align with my mains in terms of width. I'm not sure if I should do that however. Would I be better off going with the 4 red locations (in the image above) so that they are aligned with each other? These 4 locations, although roughly located on the image, would be wider than my primary listening positions which are the center seats in my row of 4. The blue circles represent alignment with the mains in the front, not shown (that I didn't consider when I made the graphic) was that the rear right can also be aligned to the width of my mains.
> 
> So my question, is should I go with the 4 red circle locations wherein all 4 in-ceiling are aligned with each other width wise and front-to-back, or go with proper width aligned (blue circles) for the front left, front right, and rear right and letting the rear-left be out of alignment?
> 
> edit:
> 
> Here is an old picture of the room from the side, that shows the soffit in question. Ignore the yellow box, the image comes from when I was researching IB Sub locations.


Heights should be in Line with towers. Either move towers in or heights wider.


----------



## usc1995

scubasteve2365 said:


> Hi, I'm looking for some advice in my in-ceiling atmos placement speakers. Here is an aerial shot of my room via sketchup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The front row is at about 9 ft, probably a little too far forward as it is, but only shooting a 110" screen and we've been happy with it for years.
> 
> 
> 
> My ear to ceiling height is 54". I'm dealing with a rear soffit that limits placement.
> 
> 
> 
> I can get 42 inches behind the main row, which would put me at about 128 degrees (within the dolby placement guide). I can then match that in the front which is about 52 degrees. So I think I am in good shape for front to rear coverage. My concern is about the width, because of the soffit I cannot place my rear left in-ceiling to be in-line with the my front mains. The other three in-ceiling I can align with my mains in terms of width. I'm not sure if I should do that however. Would I be better off going with the 4 red locations (in the image above) so that they are aligned with each other? These 4 locations, although roughly located on the image, would be wider than my primary listening positions which are the center seats in my row of 4. The blue circles represent alignment with the mains in the front, not shown (that I didn't consider when I made the graphic) was that the rear right can also be aligned to the width of my mains.
> 
> 
> 
> So my question, is should I go with the 4 red circle locations wherein all 4 in-ceiling are aligned with each other width wise and front-to-back, or go with proper width aligned (blue circles) for the front left, front right, and rear right and letting the rear-left be out of alignment?
> 
> 
> 
> edit:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an old picture of the room from the side, that shows the soffit in question. Ignore the yellow box, the image comes from when I was researching IB Sub locations.




Glad to see you made it over here to Atmos central. One thought I had for you was using ON ceiling speakers instead of in ceiling speakers. Something like the Polk OWM 5’s or the SVS Prime Elevations would probably work and allow you to mount the rears on that soffit directly in line with your L and R. Hopefully your ceiling is not too low...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

scubasteve2365 said:


> So my question, is should I go with the 4 red circle locations wherein all 4 in-ceiling are aligned with each other width wise and front-to-back, or go with proper width aligned (blue circles) for the front left, front right, and rear right and letting the rear-left be out of alignment?



There is nothing inherently wrong with moving the overhead speakers inboard from the fronts; the Dolby recommendations are just general guidelines, after all, and every room has its own set of parameters. HOWEVER, based on your diagram I fear that you will not get sufficient stereo separation with the proposed (red circle) positioning. OTOH, unless the other (blue circle) plan results in the oddball left rear speaker being too far out of alignment to be adequately compensated for by the room correction software, you may find this to be a more satisfactory solution in any case, other than the aesthetics of it.

All things being equal, I myself would always opt for a symmetrical speaker installation (within tolerance of a few inches) whenever feasible. But in your instance, I think I would probably lean the other way given the two choices you portray.


----------



## howard68

Hi I have an x box and the Netflix show Another life is so over rumberley in the bass that I have to go back to dolby 5.1 on the Roku 
Any other people having problem
ms


----------



## Augerhandle

howard68 said:


> Hi I have an x box and the Netflix show Another life is so over rumberley in the bass that I have to go back to dolby 5.1 on the Roku
> Any other people having problem
> ms


What subwoofer(s)?


----------



## MBrown2020

*Add 4 Atmos Speakers*

I want to replace my heights and install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos (B&W CCM 682). My head is 55" from ceiling. So top front would be 55" in front of MLP and top rear would be 55" behind MLP (See Photo)
I know I should align with front bookshelves for the width of the Atmos speakers, but that would put the ceiling speaker very close (12") to the side walls(Position #1 in photo). I was wondering if I move them in towards the center of the room more (24" - position #2 in photo) if that would be ok? Or should I try to align with front speakers as close as possible?


I posted some questions in the build thread also: LINK: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...ooms/3080888-installing-4-atmos-speakers.html




Excited about the upgrade, but want to do this right.


Thanks for any suggestions!


----------



## howard68

X box and Dolby Atmos on Netflix Another Life 
The sound is distorted and boomy on Atmos sound 
I have done a new calibration and it sounds terrible on the Xbox 
Until I switch to roku and 5.1 sound it all sounds good again and on UHD discs
The sound from the X box is unlikeable 

Any thoughts


----------



## chi_guy50

MBrown2020 said:


> I want to replace my heights and install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos (B&W CCM 682). My head is 55" from ceiling. So top front would be 55" in front of MLP and top rear would be 55" behind MLP (See Photo)
> I know I should align with front bookshelves for the width of the Atmos speakers, but that would put the ceiling speaker very close (12") to the side walls(Position #1 in photo). I was wondering if I move them in towards the center of the room more (24" - position #2 in photo) if that would be ok? Or should I try to align with front speakers as close as possible?
> 
> I posted some questions in the build thread also: LINK: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...ooms/3080888-installing-4-atmos-speakers.html
> 
> Excited about the upgrade, but want to do this right.
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions!



Given your room dimensions and MLP location, I would not hesitate to move the new in-ceiling speakers inboard another foot.


----------



## MBrown2020

chi_guy50 said:


> Given your room dimensions and MLP location, I would not hesitate to move the new in-ceiling speakers inboard another foot.



That's what I figured. They will be about aligned where the heights are now, but the top fronts will be moved up quite a ways compared to the front wall.


----------



## niterida

niterida said:


> Did you try listening to anything with the Onkyo ? Like I said it didn't matter what I tried with my brand new Marantz 7012 it sounded like crap. When I replaced it with an older Yamaha it didn't matter what I did to that it sounded fantastic. Whether thats because I too had a faulty Marantz mic or not I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Also try not running Ausyssey and just set all speakers to 80hz and distance of 18' and all the subs to 6'. Sounds counter intuitive but that is how I have mine and it sounds better than ever.



Further to this I just reset the distances so my heights were all just 1' - this effectively delays the sound to them and makes them appear to be 17' further away than my ear level speakers. This has given a much more spacious feel to the sound and has changed it form a bubble of sound with the sounds all coming from the edge of the bubble to a ball of sound with sound filling in the bubble. 


So this goes down as another massive improvement to the Atmos effect in my room


----------



## Chirosamsung

MBrown2020 said:


> I want to replace my heights and install 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos (B&W CCM 682). My head is 55" from ceiling. So top front would be 55" in front of MLP and top rear would be 55" behind MLP (See Photo)
> I know I should align with front bookshelves for the width of the Atmos speakers, but that would put the ceiling speaker very close (12") to the side walls(Position #1 in photo). I was wondering if I move them in towards the center of the room more (24" - position #2 in photo) if that would be ok? Or should I try to align with front speakers as close as possible?
> 
> 
> I posted some questions in the build thread also: LINK: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...ooms/3080888-installing-4-atmos-speakers.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excited about the upgrade, but want to do this right.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions!


Always align with front towers when possible


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> niterida said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try listening to anything with the Onkyo ? Like I said it didn't matter what I tried with my brand new Marantz 7012 it sounded like crap. When I replaced it with an older Yamaha it didn't matter what I did to that it sounded fantastic. Whether thats because I too had a faulty Marantz mic or not I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Also try not running Ausyssey and just set all speakers to 80hz and distance of 18' and all the subs to 6'. Sounds counter intuitive but that is how I have mine and it sounds better than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further to this I just reset the distances so my heights were all just 1' - this effectively delays the sound to them and makes them appear to be 17' further away than my ear level speakers. This has given a much more spacious feel to the sound and has changed it form a bubble of sound with the sounds all coming from the edge of the bubble to a ball of sound with sound filling in the bubble.
> 
> 
> So this goes down as another massive improvement to the Atmos effect in my room /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

You mean you are actually getting incorrect timing and not accurate sound? Can hardly see this being a positive? Should leave it with what room correction assigns


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> You mean you are actually getting incorrect timing and not accurate sound? Can hardly see this being a positive? Should leave it with what room correction assigns



Apparently so 


According to the article I linked earlier our brain actually compensates for the differing arrivals and it is supposed to actually sound more natural.
All I know is that it works for me in my room - it definitely sounds much, much better.


Doesn't hurt to try it ...............


----------



## Josh Z

howard68 said:


> X box and Dolby Atmos on Netflix Another Life
> The sound is distorted and boomy on Atmos sound
> I have done a new calibration and it sounds terrible on the Xbox
> Until I switch to roku and 5.1 sound it all sounds good again and on UHD discs
> The sound from the X box is unlikeable


Another Life has a very bass heavy soundtrack even in 5.1.


----------



## howard68

Hi 
The sound I am experiencing is destroyed over bassey and sounds very wrong 
Will do a complete denon reset and new that calibration 
I hope will fix it 
You have got ok dolby atmos sound with the x box on this tv show?


----------



## Josh Z

howard68 said:


> You have got ok dolby atmos sound with the x box on this tv show?


I don't have an XBox, just a Roku that won't do Atmos from Netflix. I don't disbelieve you that the Atmos mix is overcooked. I was just pointing out that the bass is pretty hot even in 5.1, especially during the opening theme music.


----------



## howard68

Hi yes I like the mix from the Roku in 5.1
It is just my experience, of the Atmos mix is unListenable


----------



## dlamb83

Without digging through all 1800+ pages. Has anyone determined proper speaker height for 7.2.4 atmos? I keep searching on here and read the atmos guidelines. It doesn’t say 100% definitively if surround sound speakers need to be 2ft above ear level while sitting, or can the speakers be at ear level? 

I see it’s almost split on opinions as to have speakers ear level vs 2ft above. Just need some guidance as I’ll have my room done this weekend. *fingers crossed.


----------



## m. zillch

dlamb83 said:


> Without digging through all 1800+ pages. Has anyone determined proper speaker height for 7.2.4 atmos? I keep searching on here and read the atmos guidelines. It doesn’t say 100% definitively if surround sound speakers need to be 2ft above ear level while sitting, or can the speakers be at ear level?
> 
> I see it’s almost split on opinions as to have speakers ear level vs 2ft above. Just need some guidance as I’ll have my room done this weekend. *fingers crossed.


It the speakers are to your sides then the person's head sitting to your left will block the direct sound of the left surround, hence elevated slightly is recommended by most.


----------



## niterida

dlamb83 said:


> Without digging through all 1800+ pages. Has anyone determined proper speaker height for 7.2.4 atmos? I keep searching on here and read the atmos guidelines. It doesn’t say 100% definitively if surround sound speakers need to be 2ft above ear level while sitting, or can the speakers be at ear level?
> 
> I see it’s almost split on opinions as to have speakers ear level vs 2ft above. Just need some guidance as I’ll have my room done this weekend. *fingers crossed.



Definitely ear level. The more separation between bed and height speakers the better.


----------



## dlamb83

I’ll play around with heigh then. See! It’s split decision. One says above one says ear level. Lol. Thanks all.


----------



## batpig

dlamb83 said:


> Without digging through all 1800+ pages. Has anyone determined proper speaker height for 7.2.4 atmos? I keep searching on here and read the atmos guidelines. It doesn’t say 100% definitively if surround sound speakers need to be 2ft above ear level while sitting, or can the speakers be at ear level?
> 
> I see it’s almost split on opinions as to have speakers ear level vs 2ft above. Just need some guidance as I’ll have my room done this weekend. *fingers crossed.


As with pretty much anything in this hobby, it depends.

The "official" Atmos guidelines from Dolby state: 



> All listener speakers should be at the same height, typically 3.9 feet (1.2 meters), which is ear level for the average seated listener (as defined in ITU-R BS.1116-1)... If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front speakers. If the room design makes this impractical or impossible, the rear speakers may be positioned higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the height of the rear speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers.


So first note that the reference point is NOT ear level, but rather the height of the front (LCR) speakers, which should be around ear level (but might not be). But, ideally, the lower level speakers would be in an equidistant ring around you with all speakers at ear level, with some wiggle room to place the surrounds higher if needed.

1.25x the front speaker height translates to around ~1ft above ear level and still being comfortably within the guidelines.

That said, there are real world complexities to having the surrounds all at ear level. For a single listener sitting in the middle of the room, no problem. But when you've got multiple listeners having the surrounds at ear level likely means the sound will be obstructed by people's heads. And if you've got multiple rows with the back row on a riser, "ear level" is obviously higher for some listeners than for others. And back surrounds can be obstructed by people's heads and/or seatbacks. 

Then you've got the complication of distance -- in a typical domestic sized room that's used for HT, you might have some listeners positioned very close to the side / rear surround speakers, which creates potential issues with hot-spotting (e.g. a listener sitting in the far left seat who is only 2-3ft from the left side surround and 10+ feet from the right side surround will have the sound dominated by the speaker right next to him/her). So it may be necessary to elevate the speaker and aim it down across the row towards the opposite end to place the closest listener more off axis and prevent obstructions.

Nyal Mellor, a pro HT designer and acoustician, has a good blog on the topic: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/

Basically, you start from the "ideal" with all speakers in a ring at ear level, but then you adjust upwards to compensate for issues noted above like multiple rows, listener proximity, etc. So from a "real world" installer perspective, it's not a hard-and-fast rule of "all speakers at ear level" but rather "put the surrounds as low as you can without creating other problems".


----------



## Joshua Chmiel

Just watched The Doors 4K Atmos disc. This is top 5 Atmos for me! This sound mix is amazing and makes incredible use of all channels. Well maybe not much LFE, but WOW! none the less. All the subtle sounds creating the atmosphere of the room. The sounds one would hear if in an urban environment. The integration of music into the scenes. This just a top notch sound mix.


----------



## dareelest1

howard68 said:


> Hi
> The sound I am experiencing is destroyed over bassey and sounds very wrong
> Will do a complete denon reset and new that calibration
> I hope will fix it
> You have got ok dolby atmos sound with the x box on this tv show?


it sounds pretty good on x box to me, i started watching tonite. Since they upped bitrate on netflix, i do get popping noises coming through the speakers on netflix on atmos material only. Non atmos material is ok, and atmos movies on movies and tv app are fine. Also neflix in atmos is fine on my apple tv4k, so thats not it either. Havent been able to figure out what the problem is, even tried reinstalling the app and it didnt work.


----------



## dareelest1

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Spot on with the Sully Atmos soundtrack observation. Do you remember the sound of the engines after the geese strike? The weird aircraft noises? That’s when I started to look for the flight attendant button to find out what was going on. Then I remembered I was in my home theater.


i couldnt agree more! Sulley puts you inside the plane, with all the creaks and vibrations you hear while the plane is flying. Its actually one of my favorite atmos movies; its put to very good use and not overdone, the complete opposite of san andreas.


----------



## Gerry1975

I cannot find a dolby atmos video on the dolby access app that's present on Windows 10. And I have forgot the name of the video, I only remember what kind of video was it. I need help.

Does microsoft or dolby keep changing the atmos videos found in the dolby access app on windows 10? 

Description of video: A couple of years ago there was this snowboarding video on the dolby access app on windows 10, the video was right next to the video named "The Fourth Phase - Alaska" and it had a M83 song 'Un Nouveau Soleil' playing in the background, in dolby atmos. 
The Fourth Phase Alaska video is still there on the windows 10 dolby access app but the video I am looking for is not there, and since I can't remember the name of the video, i can't google search to try and download it from some other place.


PLEASE, can anybody here tell me the name of that dolby atmos video, so i can try to google the name and download the video?


----------



## zeonstar

Gerry1975 said:


> I cannot find a dolby atmos video on the dolby access app that's present on Windows 10. And I have forgot the name of the video, I only remember what kind of video was it. I need help.
> 
> Does microsoft or dolby keep changing the atmos videos found in the dolby access app on windows 10?
> 
> Description of video: A couple of years ago there was this snowboarding video on the dolby access app on windows 10, the video was right next to the video named "The Fourth Phase - Alaska" and it had a M83 song 'Un Nouveau Soleil' playing in the background, in dolby atmos.
> The Fourth Phase Alaska video is still there on the windows 10 dolby access app but the video I am looking for is not there, and since I can't remember the name of the video, i can't google search to try and download it from some other place.
> 
> 
> PLEASE, can anybody here tell me the name of that dolby atmos video, so i can try to google the name and download the video?


Could it be The Art of Flight or The Fourth Phase?


----------



## sdurani

Gerry1975 said:


> A couple of years ago there was this snowboarding video on the dolby access app on windows 10, the video was right next to the video named "The Fourth Phase - Alaska" and it had a M83 song 'Un Nouveau Soleil' playing in the background, in dolby atmos.


Fourth Phase was made by the people that made an earlier documentary called The Art of Flight, which sounds like what you're describing (snowboarding video + M83 song), but that documentary wasn't mixed in Atmos (unless Dolby plucked out a scene to remix for Atmos demo).


----------



## pappaduke

batpig said:


> As with pretty much anything in this hobby, it depends.
> 
> The "official" Atmos guidelines from Dolby state:
> 
> 
> 
> So first note that the reference point is NOT ear level, but rather the height of the front (LCR) speakers, which should be around ear level (but might not be). But, ideally, the lower level speakers would be in an equidistant ring around you with all speakers at ear level, with some wiggle room to place the surrounds higher if needed.
> 
> 1.25x the front speaker height translates to around ~1ft above ear level and still being comfortably within the guidelines.
> 
> That said, there are real world complexities to having the surrounds all at ear level. For a single listener sitting in the middle of the room, no problem. But when you've got multiple listeners having the surrounds at ear level likely means the sound will be obstructed by people's heads. And if you've got multiple rows with the back row on a riser, "ear level" is obviously higher for some listeners than for others. And back surrounds can be obstructed by people's heads and/or seatbacks.
> 
> Then you've got the complication of distance -- in a typical domestic sized room that's used for HT, you might have some listeners positioned very close to the side / rear surround speakers, which creates potential issues with hot-spotting (e.g. a listener sitting in the far left seat who is only 2-3ft from the left side surround and 10+ feet from the right side surround will have the sound dominated by the speaker right next to him/her). So it may be necessary to elevate the speaker and aim it down across the row towards the opposite end to place the closest listener more off axis and prevent obstructions.
> 
> Nyal Mellor, a pro HT designer and acoustician, has a good blog on the topic: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/ten-speaker-layout-tips-for-dolby-atmos-dts-x-auro/
> 
> Basically, you start from the "ideal" with all speakers in a ring at ear level, but then you adjust upwards to compensate for issues noted above like multiple rows, listener proximity, etc. So from a "real world" installer perspective, it's not a hard-and-fast rule of "all speakers at ear level" but rather "put the surrounds as low as you can without creating other problems".


Some will also say set things up for the MLP. Those of us that are selfish. When you think about it, every seat is not going to get ideal sound.


----------



## Augerhandle

pappaduke said:


> Some will also say set things up for the MLP. Those of us that are selfish. When you think about it, every seat is not going to get ideal sound.


Agreed. MY money, MY seat. Well, THE seat (because anyone can sit in THE seat whenever they want, I'm not heartless).


----------



## pappaduke

Augerhandle said:


> Agreed. MY money, MY seat. Well, THE seat (because anyone can sit in THE seat whenever they want, I'm not heartless).


LOL, First come, first serve. I just happen to be first most of the time.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Augerhandle said:


> Agreed. MY money, MY seat. Well, THE seat (because anyone can sit in THE seat whenever they want, I'm not heartless).


----------



## batpig

pappaduke said:


> Some will also say set things up for the MLP. Those of us that are selfish. When you think about it, every seat is not going to get ideal sound.


Yes, absolutely. The level of compromise for all the factors I discussed very much depends on how much you care about mitigating issues for the OTHER seats.


----------



## David Susilo

Yup. That’s why it’s called the “sweet spot” and not “wishy-washy area”.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Wondering if @Snookerfish is experiencing immersion issues due to having 6 bed layer bipolar speakers. I’ve seen people use them for sides in small rooms, but I can’t help but think that the Maggie’s aren’t built for the task.


----------



## Gerry1975

zeonstar said:


> Could it be The Art of Flight or The Fourth Phase?


Thank you. You made me find it. It was titled the 'The Fourth Phase'. The dolby accesss app on W10 had two demos from this movie, one was titled 'The Fourth Phase' and the one next to it 'The Fourth Phase -Alaska'. The latter is still present on the app, the former (which is what i was loking for) has been removed from the app. Dolby was running two different clips from the fourth phase movie as demos in dolby atmos. I streamed the fourth phase movie and the clip with the M83 song i talked of in the last post is there in the movie.
But the streaming version i ran only had stereo sound. There is an itunes downloadable version of the movie but it does not say dolby atmos in the specs. So now here's my next task, i want The Fourth Phase movie in dolby atmos, does anyone know where a downloadable version or a blu ray disc of this movie is available in atmos?


----------



## snookfisher

Polyrythm1k said:


> Wondering if @Snookerfish is experiencing immersion issues due to having 6 bed layer bipolar speakers. I’ve seen people use them for sides in small rooms, but I can’t help but think that the Maggie’s aren’t built for the task.


It crossed my mind as well... however as a 7.2 set up it was absolutely the most realistic engaging and best home theater experience under a 6 figure price tag that I have ever heard.... I came from an all paradigm studio series set up that was OUTSTANDING in its own right...but there is something about the "MAGGIE MAGIC" that is hard to put into words. 

I did in fact run AUDYESSEY again using the OLD mic... and...WOW. It actually came up with similar but slightly different crossover/ distance/ and level numbers. still has my height channels 50HZ different in front and back.. but WOW what a difference... The system sounds better.. way better and I am getting at least a good dose of the "3D" effect..and its awesome. still not perfect but im getting a taste....

I am at a total loss as to why the the old mic would make that much difference. but it did... after watching several ATMOS enabled movies and some UPMIXED here are a few observations....

1) The UPMIX can be at times BETTER than ATMOS encoded movies...Kung Fu Panda was terrific and VERY close to as good as any encoded movie!

2) Certain movies are better with the Tru HD. Some movies either ignore the height channels or simply just throw effects up there that are at best just distracting...at worst ATMOS can be too localized and silly...or nonexistent. 

3) BUT when mixed/used properly...WOW it really adds to the presentation.... im finding that im am really not digging most action/bombastic scenes as I think the magic of atmos is lost/overwheled in the chaos of it all.. there has been a few exceptions... but generally the best ATMOS ive heard is the demos disc.. but a few movies have come close (especially so since my last calibration). 

4)Reviewers REALLY need to do some soul searching before giving every ATMOS disc a 98 score...and should rate the ATMOS presentation to what it ADDS OVER the non ATMOS track.


----------



## batpig

David Susilo said:


> Yup. That’s why it’s called the “sweet spot” and not “wishy-washy area”.


Right, but it's also reasonable for a theater design to make some concessions to make the sound good at multiple seats.

You're a pro with HAA certification (among others), isn't a big part of the philosophy about placing seating / speakers / multiple subs to create a broad "sweet triangle" of sound for multiple seats?


----------



## David Susilo

Yes, we try our best to create the widest area possible but I’ve been in too many HT where the distance from the outermost seat to the wall is only 1ft-2ft. In those cases there is no way I’m able to average the sound because it is very close to near-field monitoring.


----------



## Chirosamsung

snookfisher said:


> Polyrythm1k said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering if @Snookerfish is experiencing immersion issues due to having 6 bed layer bipolar speakers. Iâ€™️ve seen people use them for sides in small rooms, but I canâ€™️t help but think that the Maggieâ€™️s arenâ€™️t built for the task.
> 
> 
> 
> It crossed my mind as well... however as a 7.2 set up it was absolutely the most realistic engaging and best home theater experience under a 6 figure price tag that I have ever heard.... I came from an all paradigm studio series set up that was OUTSTANDING in its own right...but there is something about the "MAGGIE MAGIC" that is hard to put into words.
> 
> I did in fact run AUDYESSEY again using the OLD mic... and...WOW. It actually came up with similar but slightly different crossover/ distance/ and level numbers. still has my height channels 50HZ different in front and back.. but WOW what a difference... The system sounds better.. way better and I am getting at least a good dose of the "3D" effect..and its awesome. still not perfect but im getting a taste....
> 
> I am at a total loss as to why the the old mic would make that much difference. but it did... after watching several ATMOS enabled movies and some UPMIXED here are a few observations....
> 
> 1) The UPMIX can be at times BETTER than ATMOS encoded movies...Kung Fu Panda was terrific and VERY close to as good as any encoded movie!
> 
> 2) Certain movies are better with the Tru HD. Some movies either ignore the height channels or simply just throw effects up there that are at best just distracting...at worst ATMOS can be too localized and silly...or nonexistent.
> 
> 3) BUT when mixed/used properly...WOW it really adds to the presentation.... im finding that im am really not digging most action/bombastic scenes as I think the magic of atmos is lost/overwheled in the chaos of it all.. there has been a few exceptions... but generally the best ATMOS ive heard is the demos disc.. but a few movies have come close (especially so since my last calibration).
> 
> 4)Reviewers REALLY need to do some soul searching before giving every ATMOS disc a 98 score...and should rate the ATMOS presentation to what it ADDS OVER the non ATMOS track.
Click to expand...

3) spider man: into the spider verse is an example of bombastic done well on overheads


----------



## snookfisher

Chirosamsung said:


> 3) spider man: into the spider verse is an example of bombastic done well on overheads


I have to at least not HATE the movie im watching..lol. I tried to watch AQUAMAN and ooof! I tapped out after about 15 or 20 min. Is there a certain scene in spiderverse that I can narrow it down to?


----------



## dapakattack

niterida said:


> ...
> Also try not running Ausyssey and just set all speakers to 80hz and distance of 18' and all the subs to 6'. Sounds counter intuitive but that is how I have mine and it sounds better than ever.


Hi Niterida,


How did you determine to set all your speakers to 18'? Did you run YPAO on the Yamaha and just take the average? Also, did you mean to say that your speakers are at 6' and the subs at 18', because that would line up with what is in the sounddoctor document:



"The BEST overall approach is to seal the ports, operate the 5 channels as "small", crossover at 80 (or even a higher, like 90 Hz, but NEVER lower) and correct the timing issues _inherent in all modern subs_ by setting (in the receiver or processor's setup menu) ALL the distances THE SAME, and to a small number such as 7 feet;  then set the sub distance to 12 feet MORE (i.e. 19 feet) and THEN use the variable phase control on the sub to fine tune the relationship at the 80 Hz crossover point, _at the listening position."_


Thank you for your feedback,


Daniel


----------



## MBrown2020

Hello,


I will be installing 4 Atmos speakers (B&W CCM 682) at 45 degrees front and back(See Pic 1). My speakers have the ability to be aimed at 0, 15, and 30 degrees, with corresponding EQ switches for each setting(see pic 2).


Does anybody recommend I use the angles and which one or should I just leave them straight down? What do the mixing studios have for Atmos speaker angles?


Thanks


----------



## Chirosamsung

snookfisher said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) spider man: into the spider verse is an example of bombastic done well on overheads
> 
> 
> 
> I have to at least not HATE the movie im watching..lol. I tried to watch AQUAMAN and ooof! I tapped out after about 15 or 20 min. Is there a certain scene in spiderverse that I can narrow it down to?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t compare into the spider verse with aqua man. For one, the first one is marvel and the other is a DC production...’nuff said

Into the spider verse is probably top two or three combo or visual eye candy and audio demo material out there. Great for showing off system.

Also, not sure if you have looked into it or read reviews but spiderverse is almost unanimously raved about for the story..,just saying


----------



## Matt L

Agree on Spider verse, in 4k and Atmos it's a treat.

Funny I too turned off Aquaman after a few minutes, it was that bad, and I can tolerate some really bad stuff to explore an Atmos feed, but no to that one....


----------



## Matt L

MBrown2020 said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> I will be installing 4 Atmos speakers (B&W CCM 682) at 45 degrees front and back(See Pic 1). My speakers have the ability to be aimed at 0, 15, and 30 degrees, with corresponding EQ switches for each setting(see pic 2).
> 
> 
> Does anybody recommend I use the angles and which one or should I just leave them straight down? What do the mixing studios have for Atmos speaker angles?
> 
> 
> Thanks


My ceiling speakers have the option of aiming the tweeter and I opted to point it at the general listening area, not just the MLP. Happy with the results - try various settings and see what makes you happy.


----------



## niterida

dapakattack said:


> Hi Niterida,
> 
> 
> How did you determine to set all your speakers to 18'? Did you run YPAO on the Yamaha and just take the average? Also, did you mean to say that your speakers are at 6' and the subs at 18', because that would line up with what is in the sounddoctor document:
> 
> 
> 
> "The BEST overall approach is to seal the ports, operate the 5 channels as "small", crossover at 80 (or even a higher, like 90 Hz, but NEVER lower) and correct the timing issues _inherent in all modern subs_ by setting (in the receiver or processor's setup menu) ALL the distances THE SAME, and to a small number such as 7 feet;  then set the sub distance to 12 feet MORE (i.e. 19 feet) and THEN use the variable phase control on the sub to fine tune the relationship at the 80 Hz crossover point, _at the listening position."_
> 
> 
> Thank you for your feedback,
> 
> 
> Daniel



yeah you are right - I was on night shift when I wrote that .........................


I enjoyed both Spiderverse AND Aquaman - I must be easily pleased


----------



## snookfisher

Chirosamsung said:


> I wouldn’t compare into the spider verse with aqua man. For one, the first one is marvel and the other is a DC production...’nuff said
> 
> Into the spider verse is probably top two or three combo or visual eye candy and audio demo material out there. Great for showing off system.
> 
> Also, not sure if you have looked into it or read reviews but spiderverse is almost unanimously raved about for the story..,just saying


Well... on your recommendation ..ill watch it with my 12 yr old tonight... I hope it is good.


----------



## niterida

snookfisher said:


> Well... on your recommendation ..ill watch it with my 12 yr old tonight... I hope it is good.



It is good - just don't go trying to adjust the picture thinking it is blurry or supposed to be in 3d - some of the scenes are deliberately done with what looks like 3d without 3d glasses but is actually supposed to replicate the old comics when the colour prints didn't quite line up .......


----------



## maikeldepotter

For those interested in a comparison (similarities and differences) between Cinema Atmos and Home Atmos speaker positioning, I grouped together some earlier separately posted diagrams:


----------



## pg22

snookfisher said:


> Well... on your recommendation ..ill watch it with my 12 yr old tonight... I hope it is good.


Hope is not necessary. I'm neither a comic fan nor comic-movie fan. I've made it through, perhaps, 2-3 of those Marvel films.

Into the Spider-Verse is objectively one of the best movies I've seen in recent memory. I was stunned by how much I enjoyed it.


----------



## batpig

pg22 said:


> Hope is not necessary. I'm neither a comic fan nor comic-movie fan. I've made it through, perhaps, 2-3 of those Marvel films.
> 
> Into the Spider-Verse is objectively one of the best movies I've seen in recent memory. I was stunned by how much I enjoyed it.


Couldn't agree more. I am a comic-movie fan, but I was blown away by Spider-Verse as just a legit really good movie. I watched it recently with my wife and kids, and my wife (who has ZERO interest in comic-movies, or action / sci-fi / fantasy in general) really enjoyed it. So that is a major testament to its appeal outside of genre fans.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> I have to at least not HATE the movie im watching..lol. I tried to watch AQUAMAN and ooof! I tapped out after about 15 or 20 min. Is there a certain scene in spiderverse that I can narrow it down to?



The movie itself is not the end-all, be-all of films or even superhero origin stories. There were a few plot points that needed shoring up, and it made fairly short shrift of the secondary characters with not much meat... it suffered from the too much of a good thing curse by throwing too many characters in at once into a fairly simple, straightforward (and short) story. 



However, it was enjoyable enough and the Atmos mix is quite active from subtle to bombastic throughout.


----------



## camd5pt0

Stereodude said:


> That didn't stop reviewers from giving it high scores though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Oblivion-4K-Blu-ray/156371/


Funny you mention Oblivion. I love the movie and this movie is one of 2 main Dolby Atmos demo dics for me. That and Ready Player One

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

petetherock said:


> I'm into good mixes and the new 4k version of "Black Hawk Down" is a fabulous smorgasbord of surround sound and bass.. It's one of the top mixes I've ever heard, well recommended as a keeper and a demo disc.


In case you like the sound but prefer a family version, this is awesome!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=93&v=93J5jNLp75o


----------



## Bond 007

petetherock said:


> In case you like the sound but prefer a family version, this is awesome!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=93&v=93J5jNLp75o


Stupidity.


----------



## scubasteve2365

Got my 4 in-ceiling installed this weekend, calibrated via MultiEQ XT32 on my x4400h.

I like the addition thus-far, but was curious about using non-atmos content and what everyone preferred. The sources I have:

AppleTV (Multi-Channel PCM, not yet sampled any Atmos content from Netflix)
PS4 (Multi-Channel PCM on Non-Atmos content)
HTPC (Multi-Channel PCM, haven't setup Atmos options on it yet, not sure if any games leverage Atmos and even then I guess it wouldnt be passthrough and would stay PCM)
Nvidia Sheild (Only use it for streaming rips, stays on HDR, audio passthrough via Kodi)
Cable Box (Don't care, only use it for sports during Football and Basketball season)

I've never really used sound modes in the past outside of the original "unmolested" track. What are your thoughts on upmixing? Particularly LPCM sources? I was thinking of using the quick-select feature on my Denon to automate sound modes via Harmony remote (and by source if need be) between say DTS Neural X, Dolby Surround Upmixer, or Auro-3D on these LPCM sources. Is one preferred over the other generally? If a source has a discrete 5.1 channel track and I choose one of these sound modes doesn't it mess with the discrete channels or only using the algorithm to extrapolate information to the non-discrete channels?


----------



## fookoo_2010

scubasteve2365 said:


> Got my 4 in-ceiling installed this weekend, calibrated via MultiEQ XT32 on my x4400h..................
> 
> I've never really used sound modes in the past outside of the original "unmolested" track. What are your thoughts on upmixing? Particularly LPCM sources? I was thinking of using the quick-select feature on my Denon to automate sound modes via Harmony remote (and by source if need be) between say DTS Neural X, Dolby Surround Upmixer, or Auro-3D on these LPCM sources. Is one preferred over the other generally? If a source has a discrete 5.1 channel track and I choose one of these sound modes doesn't it mess with the discrete channels or only using the algorithm to extrapolate information to the non-discrete channels?


This is a matter of choice or preference. Try them all. Personally, I prefer Dolby Surround because the width of the stage is wider and more immersive.


----------



## Jonas2

scubasteve2365 said:


> If a source has a discrete 5.1 channel track and I choose one of these sound modes doesn't it mess with the discrete channels or only using the algorithm to extrapolate information to the non-discrete channels?



I use primarily Dolby Surround to upmix, and I've not found it to diminish the performance of the other channels, not 5.1.


----------



## batpig

scubasteve2365 said:


> I've never really used sound modes in the past outside of the original "unmolested" track. What are your thoughts on upmixing? Particularly LPCM sources? Is one preferred over the other generally?


First of all, when upmixing is concerned there's no distinction conceptually between LPCM and other encoded channel-based tracks. Regardless of whether it's Dolby, DTS, or uncompressed PCM, the end result in your processor is always multiple channels of PCM. A 5.1 or 7.1 audio track losslessly compressed with Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio (or lossy compression with DD+ etc) will end up back as 5.1 or 7.1 channels of PCM after the processor decodes it and starts doing stuff with it (bass management, EQ, etc). When a device like the AppleTV 4K sends audio as 5.1 multich PCM, it's just decoding the audio first rather than sending the undecoded bitstream to the AVR to decode, in both cases it ends up as 5.1 PCM.

The upmixers you can choose like Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, and Auromatic are "blind" upmixers, all they see are 5.1 or 7.1 channels of PCM audio then they do their thing. They have no idea whether the original track was delivered uncompressed, or encoded in a Dolby or DTS container. 

So delete the concept in your head that you have to "match" upmixers to input signal, Dolby Surround will not work differently with a 5.1 track that's encoded as DTS-HD vs Dolby TrueHD vs. 5.1 PCM. All it sees is "here's a 5.1 signal" and then it does its thing.

So if your preference is Dolby Surround, or if it's Neural:X, you can use apply that preference to whatever track you want.

(and before someone jumps in with the obvious caveat... starting with 2019 models Dolby has forbade non-Dolby upmixers on Dolby encoded audio tracks.... however that doesn't affect your X4400H)



scubasteve2365 said:


> If a source has a discrete 5.1 channel track and I choose one of these sound modes doesn't it mess with the discrete channels or only using the algorithm to extrapolate information to the non-discrete channels?


Not sure what you mean by the "discrete channels" vs the "non-discrete channels"? There are 5.1 discrete channels in a 5.1 signal, that's what a 5.1 signal it.

The upmixers all work a little differently. There are some upmixers which will "steer" audio by extracting audio from some speakers and moving it to others. For example, if you listen to a 5.1 track and apply Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X to upmix to 7.1, it will look for common (dual mono) information in the 2 surround channels and extract it to the back surround channels. So the original channels are "messed with" because some of the audio is removed and send to other speakers.

Dolby Surround sends audio to the height speakers by looking for out of phase / decorrelated signals in the surround speakers. So what's sent up top is mostly subtle ambiance which helps "stretch" the immersive bubble overhead. It doesn't tamper with the front 3 LCR speakers at all. DTS Neural:X on the other hand looks for direct / correlated signals in the surround channels to move overhead, so you'll hear more aggressive, discrete sounding effects overhead with Neural:X. 

If you want a more "exciting" upmix where stuff is flying overhead (even if it means sometimes you'll hear a sound above you that really shouldn't be above you) then use Neural:X, if you prefer a more subtle effect use Dolby Surround. Personally, I think Neural:X sounds best with action packed 7.1 mixes, where (I speculate) the more complex directional info in the extra surround channels gives the upmixer better info to work with. I think with 5.1 mixes there's a higher likelihood of a "dual mono" effect in the surround channels which Neural:X will route overhead, which can sound weird (e.g. when you're in a crowded area with people talking and instead of the voices coming from around you, you hear someone talking from directly overhead). 

Anyway, moving on, Auromatic represents the other type of upmixing, where instead of extracting the sound for the extra speakers from the existing channel of audio in the input signal, it synthesizes the extra signal by copying the base channels and adding reverb / delay and some other processing. So if you play a 5.1 track on a 5.1.4 system and upmix with Auro3D, it's not changing anything in the base 5.1 channels, but instead using that info to generate "synthesized reflections" in the height speakers to make the overall track feel more naturally immersive.



scubasteve2365 said:


> I was thinking of using the quick-select feature on my Denon to automate sound modes via Harmony remote (and by source if need be) between say DTS Neural X, Dolby Surround Upmixer, or Auro-3D on these LPCM sources.


You can do this more simply than using the Quick Selects (which will also memorize other parameters like input, volume level, etc). The Movie / Music / Game buttons on the remote will toggle through surround modes and memorize your last selection. So for example you can set it such that the "Movie" button selects Dolby Surround, the "Music" button selects DTS Neural:X, and the "Game" button selects Auro3D. Then you can play a movie and quickly toggle between the 3 upmixers (the Quick Select will actually blank the signal for a few seconds including the video and the display/source will have to re-handshake, so it's more cumbersome for quick switches if all you're doing is comparing surround modes).


----------



## stikle

scubasteve2365 said:


> I like the addition thus-far, but was curious about using non-atmos content and what everyone preferred. The sources I have:
> 
> AppleTV (Multi-Channel PCM, not yet sampled any Atmos content from Netflix)
> ..
> ..
> Nvidia Sheild (Only use it for streaming rips, stays on HDR, audio passthrough via Kodi)





fookoo_2010 said:


> Personally, I prefer Dolby Surround because the width of the stage is wider and more immersive.





Jonas2 said:


> I use primarily Dolby Surround to upmix, and I've not found it to diminish the performance of the other channels, not 5.1.



Me as well. My primary streamer is the nVidia Shield TV. I rarely use my ATV 4K, but it's the backup.

I use DSU for everything, and have for years. It just makes everything better.


----------



## scubasteve2365

batpig said:


> You can do this more simply than using the Quick Selects (which will also memorize other parameters like input, volume level, etc). The Movie / Music / Game buttons on the remote will toggle through surround modes and memorize your last selection. So for example you can set it such that the "Movie" button selects Dolby Surround, the "Music" button selects DTS Neural:X, and the "Game" button selects Auro3D. Then you can play a movie and quickly toggle between the 3 upmixers (the Quick Select will actually blank the signal for a few seconds including the video and the display/source will have to re-handshake, so it's more cumbersome for quick switches if all you're doing is comparing surround modes).


Thank you for the very informative post.

Only remaining question I have results in automation, or more accurately set-it-and-forget-it as much as possible. I believe my AVR remembered the 'sound mode' for each HDMI input in my testing this weekend. So, for example, my Nvidia Shield that I only use for UHD Atmos/DTSX content will be set on auto with no sound mode activated.

Whereas my AppleTV, wherein I might want to set the to Dolby Surround for most content but will have to manage disabling the sound mode when I know certain content is Atmos on Netflix (AppleTV sends this as PCM rather than passthrough I believe, so I assume I'll have to manually manage this and wouldn't want to leave it in Dolby Surround).

From what I've seen if I want to disable the sound mode and go back to auto I have to either use a quick select, or I have to cycle with the "pure" button to get it to land back on Auto. Am I missing anything? Is there normally a disable all sound mode IR command or something?


----------



## snookfisher

batpig said:


> First of all, when upmixing is concerned there's no distinction conceptually between LPCM and other encoded channel-based tracks. Regardless of whether it's Dolby, DTS, or uncompressed PCM, the end result in your processor is always multiple channels of PCM. A 5.1 or 7.1 audio track losslessly compressed with Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio (or lossy compression with DD+ etc) will end up back as 5.1 or 7.1 channels of PCM after the processor decodes it and starts doing stuff with it (bass management, EQ, etc). When a device like the AppleTV 4K sends audio as 5.1 multich PCM, it's just decoding the audio first rather than sending the undecoded bitstream to the AVR to decode, in both cases it ends up as 5.1 PCM.
> 
> The upmixers you can choose like Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, and Auromatic are "blind" upmixers, all they see are 5.1 or 7.1 channels of PCM audio then they do their thing. They have no idea whether the original track was delivered uncompressed, or encoded in a Dolby or DTS container.
> 
> So delete the concept in your head that you have to "match" upmixers to input signal, Dolby Surround will not work differently with a 5.1 track that's encoded as DTS-HD vs Dolby TrueHD vs. 5.1 PCM. All it sees is "here's a 5.1 signal" and then it does its thing.
> 
> So if your preference is Dolby Surround, or if it's Neural:X, you can use apply that preference to whatever track you want.
> 
> (and before someone jumps in with the obvious caveat... starting with 2019 models Dolby has forbade non-Dolby upmixers on Dolby encoded audio tracks.... however that doesn't affect your X4400H)
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by the "discrete channels" vs the "non-discrete channels"? There are 5.1 discrete channels in a 5.1 signal, that's what a 5.1 signal it.
> 
> The upmixers all work a little differently. There are some upmixers which will "steer" audio by extracting audio from some speakers and moving it to others. For example, if you listen to a 5.1 track and apply Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X to upmix to 7.1, it will look for common (dual mono) information in the 2 surround channels and extract it to the back surround channels. So the original channels are "messed with" because some of the audio is removed and send to other speakers.
> 
> Dolby Surround sends audio to the height speakers by looking for out of phase / decorrelated signals in the surround speakers. So what's sent up top is mostly subtle ambiance which helps "stretch" the immersive bubble overhead. It doesn't tamper with the front 3 LCR speakers at all. DTS Neural:X on the other hand looks for direct / correlated signals in the surround channels to move overhead, so you'll hear more aggressive, discrete sounding effects overhead with Neural:X.
> 
> If you want a more "exciting" upmix where stuff is flying overhead (even if it means sometimes you'll hear a sound above you that really shouldn't be above you) then use Neural:X, if you prefer a more subtle effect use Dolby Surround. Personally, I think Neural:X sounds best with action packed 7.1 mixes, where (I speculate) the more complex directional info in the extra surround channels gives the upmixer better info to work with. I think with 5.1 mixes there's a higher likelihood of a "dual mono" effect in the surround channels which Neural:X will route overhead, which can sound weird (e.g. when you're in a crowded area with people talking and instead of the voices coming from around you, you hear someone talking from directly overhead).
> 
> Anyway, moving on, Auromatic represents the other type of upmixing, where instead of extracting the sound for the extra speakers from the existing channel of audio in the input signal, it synthesizes the extra signal by copying the base channels and adding reverb / delay and some other processing. So if you play a 5.1 track on a 5.1.4 system and upmix with Auro3D, it's not changing anything in the base 5.1 channels, but instead using that info to generate "synthesized reflections" in the height speakers to make the overall track feel more naturally immersive.
> 
> 
> 
> You can do this more simply than using the Quick Selects (which will also memorize other parameters like input, volume level, etc). The Movie / Music / Game buttons on the remote will toggle through surround modes and memorize your last selection. So for example you can set it such that the "Movie" button selects Dolby Surround, the "Music" button selects DTS Neural:X, and the "Game" button selects Auro3D. Then you can play a movie and quickly toggle between the 3 upmixers (the Quick Select will actually blank the signal for a few seconds including the video and the display/source will have to re-handshake, so it's more cumbersome for quick switches if all you're doing is comparing surround modes).


WOW ..that's very detailed and technical.. thanks. 

My MUCH MUCH less technical observation/experience is that the upmixed non atmos encoded material can be very very close to encoded material. It really is quite amazing.... I watched BUGS LIFE and KUNG FU PANDA the other night and was amazed at how the upmix sounds. I normally just let the receiver choose which upmix to use (im pretty sure it uses NEUTRAL X for DTS material and DOLBY SURROUND to DOLBY material.. )


----------



## aviaction

Just fitted a pair of Kef Ci130er speakers to complete the setup so now running 7.2 plus Front and rear Heights with the kefs in ceiling to hopefully fill the gap. Demo disk sounded better than before yet films eg one of the Starwars with atmos didn't sound much different. will have to play a bit more.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not, but there is a French movie titled The Wolf's Call that has an extremely immersive Atmos soundtrack. It's a Tom Clancy-style thriller taking place on board submarines, and the overheads are used often and well. It made me wish that all submarine movies be recalled and remixed for atmos!

It's on Netflix in lossy Atmos, and I've been told there's also a French UHD BD rip with TrueHD Atmos floating around, if you know where to look for such things.


----------



## AYanguas

aviaction said:


> Just fitted a pair of Kef Ci130er speakers to complete the setup so now running 7.2 plus Front and rear Heights with the kefs in ceiling to hopefully fill the gap. Demo disk sounded better than before yet films eg one of the Starwars with atmos didn't sound much different. will have to play a bit more.


It mainly depends on how the mix has been done in order to have what kind of sounds on the Heigths. 

It could be just ambient, or specific directional sounds. Also relevant how well works the imaging between speakers have been mixed (first) and then how are they played in your equipment/room.

The other day, while I was critical listening a Rock Concert in Atmos, I discovered something that foolish me. I was listening the "Stereo" track (by mistake) and waiting to hear some Atmos sounds in the ceiling, etc. Suddenly I heared some particular instrument sound coming from the top, or perhaps from the rear. I told me: "what a nice effect ! ..."

Whan I realised that it was in "Stereo" I couldnt believe it. I moved from the MLP, and dicovered that the rest of speakers were really silent. What a good stereo imaging... Wonderful.

I then switched to the Atmos track, and, can you believe me? I liked it less. More people "ambient", but the music, really, sounded better in Stereo.

So, as I said before, it is not just the format, it is mainly what the Mixer Artist do with it. Even in Stereo.


----------



## shs1234

Bill Wolfer said:


> I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not, but there is a French movie titled The Wolf's Call that has an extremely immersive Atmos soundtrack. It's a Tom Clancy-style thriller taking place on board submarines, and the overheads are used often and well. It made me wish that all submarine movies be recalled and remixed for atmos!
> 
> It's on Netflix in lossy Atmos, and I've been told there's also a French UHD BD rip with TrueHD Atmos floating around, if you know where to look for such things.


I watched the Wolf's Call recently, and it is a good thriller, no doubt. On my Apple TV 4K, Netflix, the French audio track was Atmos, but the English track was 2.0 PCM. Not quite the same!

Did you find an English version with Atmos?


----------



## Erod

snookfisher said:


> I have to at least not HATE the movie im watching..lol. I tried to watch AQUAMAN and ooof! I tapped out after about 15 or 20 min. Is there a certain scene in spiderverse that I can narrow it down to?


Oh my word that movie was mind-numbingly stupid. When Ariel told Khal Drogo entering Atlantis, "Don't worry, I have security clearance", I tapped out right there. Didn't finish watching until my nephews asked to put it on. 

Hollywood is putting out some childish rubbish these days. But people go see it for some reason.


----------



## snookfisher

Erod said:


> Oh my word that movie was mind-numbingly stupid. When Ariel told Khal Drogo entering Atlantis, "Don't worry, I have security clearance", I tapped out right there. Didn't finish watching until my nephews asked to put it on.
> 
> Hollywood is putting out some childish rubbish these days. But people go see it for some reason.


It really really was terrible...its right up there with the first movie I walked out on...some stupid Polly Shore movie. Im not sure which I hate worse..just plain TERRIBLE ...or... the POLITICALY CORRECT PROPAGANDA coming out of Hollywood...

Either way its hard to watch most of the dribble coming out of Hollywood lately


----------



## chi_guy50

Erod said:


> Oh my word that movie was mind-numbingly stupid. When Ariel told Khal Drogo entering Atlantis, "Don't worry, I have security clearance", I tapped out right there. Didn't finish watching until my nephews asked to put it on.
> 
> Hollywood is putting out some childish rubbish these days. *But people go see it for some reason.*



That "some reason" is as old as the hills. 

The great American journalist, social commentator, satirist and professional curmudgeon H.L. Mencken wrote (in decidedly non-PC fashion) way back in 1926: "No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

One wonders what he would have to say were he alive today. His column would practically write itself.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

shs1234 said:


> I watched the Wolf's Call recently, and it is a good thriller, no doubt. On my Apple TV 4K, Netflix, the French audio track was Atmos, but the English track was 2.0 PCM. Not quite the same!
> 
> Did you find an English version with Atmos?


No, but I always prefer the original language to dubbed versions. I don't mind subtitles. I doubt that there is an English Atmos track.


----------



## pg22

batpig said:


> The upmixers all work a little differently. There are some upmixers which will "steer" audio by extracting audio from some speakers and moving it to others. For example, if you listen to a 5.1 track and apply Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X to upmix to 7.1, it will look for common (dual mono) information in the 2 surround channels and extract it to the *back surround channels*. So the original channels are "messed with" because some of the audio is removed and send to other speakers.


Want to add to the kudos for this remarkably helpful post. Would also like to quickly ask if - in a 5.1.2 setup with the .2 being front height - your explanations hold the same?

Much obliged.


----------



## MBrown2020

MBrown2020 said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> I will be installing 4 Atmos speakers (B&W CCM 682) at 45 degrees front and back(See Pic 1). My speakers have the ability to be aimed at 0, 15, and 30 degrees, with corresponding EQ switches for each setting(see pic 2).
> 
> 
> Does anybody recommend I use the angles and which one or should I just leave them straight down? What do the mixing studios have for Atmos speaker angles?
> 
> 
> Thanks


 @sdurani @batpig or anyone else have any additional thoughts about this?


----------



## sdurani

I would use the 30-degree tilt AND rotate each in-ceiling speaker so that it is aimed at the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance).


----------



## petetherock

MBrown2020 said:


> @sdurani @batpig or anyone else have any additional thoughts about this?


I use Anthony Gallos and I tilt them slightly towards my MLP ..


----------



## MBrown2020

sdurani said:


> I would use the 30-degree tilt AND rotate each in-ceiling speaker so that it is aimed at the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance).



Thanks, I have 2 seats next to each other right in middle of room(See Pic) I was just going to aim the Atmos speakers towards the middle "1". Or Should I aim the left at "3" and the right at "2" ????


----------



## MBrown2020

petetherock said:


> I use Anthony Gallos and I tilt them slightly towards my MLP ..



Thanks, I'll use the 30 degree tilt then


----------



## appelz

MBrown2020 said:


> Thanks, I have 2 seats next to each other right in middle of room(See Pic) I was just going to aim the Atmos speakers towards the middle "1". Or Should I aim the left at "3" and the right at "2" ????


I would follow Sanjay's advice and aim "left at 3, and right at 2", or what my buddy @jamin calls the Cross-Eyed Mary method.


----------



## sdurani

^^^ What he said.


----------



## juanej

So my 2 atmos arrived and I'm planning on installing them this weekend but haven't decided where exactly to put them, by this guide I ended using 67 degrees so they're gonna be top middles, but I can't find any info on how much space to use between the two of them.

By the guides they should be aligned to the front left and front right but my ceiling is just 2.27meters (7.44 feet) tall so maybe they should be a little closer, also my room is just 2.36meters (7.74 feet) wide so I don't like them too close to the sides of it, if I like them I'm planning on using front heights in the near future to get 5.1.4.

Any thoughts?


----------



## deano86

You don't have to put Atmos height speakers perfectly in-line with your front left and rights...don't be afraid to move them closer together than that... but did I read your room dimension correctly? Your room width is less than 8 feet?


----------



## juanej

deano86 said:


> You don't have to put Atmos height speakers perfectly in-line with your front left and rights...don't be afraid to move them closer together than that... but did I read your room dimension correctly? Your room width is less than 8 feet?


Yeah man, that's all what we get here in South America, also it's only 2.7m (8.85feet) long. My monolith 15" just arrived today too, i'm still gonna use it in my small space. That thing is HUGE!


----------



## chi_guy50

juanej said:


> So my 2 atmos arrived and I'm planning on installing them this weekend but haven't decided where exactly to put them, by this guide I ended using 67 degrees so they're gonna be top middles, but I can't find any info on how much space to use between the two of them.
> 
> By the guides they should be aligned to the front left and front right but my ceiling is just 2.27meters (7.44 feet) tall so maybe they should be a little closer, also my room is just 2.36meters (7.74 feet) wide so I don't like them too close to the sides of it, if I like them I'm planning on using front heights in the near future to get 5.1.4.
> 
> Any thoughts?



Do you plan on repositioning the first pair when you move up to x.x.4? If not then I recommend you rethink your options since you are not likely to gain much in audible overhead effects with both pairs well in front of the listening position.

IDK what issues are presented by your room other than its small dimensions, but ideally you will want the first pair in front and the second behind the MLP. If you determine that FH/TM is the best option for your particular room, then I would suggest that you place the first pair just in front of the MLP at about 80°. When you are ready to add the FH's, aim for an elevation angle somewhere around 40° but not less than 30°.

Atmos for the HT is very forgiving in speaker configuration requirements so there is no need to sweat over exact measurements (although those of us with OCD will never let that stop us). The main issue you want to address is the ability to hear sounds pan front to back and side to side (and in consort). That would be severely compromised with all four speakers well in front of you--just as it would be if the L/R in any one pair were too narrowly positioned. On this latter score, and to more directly respond to your specific question, depending on the properties of the speakers you are using, I would move them inboard from the side walls by no more than two feet, thereby maintaining not less than ca. four feet separation between them. If you are concerned about multiple seating positions, then you will probably also want to address hot-spotting by applying the "Cross-Eyed Mary method" (aka time/energy trading) discussed yesterday in this thread.


----------



## batpig

juanej said:


> Yeah man, that's all what we get here in South America, also it's only 2.7m (8.85feet) long. My monolith 15" just arrived today too, i'm still gonna use it in my small space. That thing is HUGE!


¡Dios mío! It's probably too late since I imagine shipping was expensive, but I would have advised a pair of smaller subs vs. one monster sub in a room that small.

The room is so small that you'll probably have to experiment, if possible don't do permanent installation especially if you're thinking of adding a 2nd pair for 5.1.4 (in which case you're going to want to have front + rear overheads if possible).


----------



## noah katz

Juan,

Given your room dimensions, and for four overhead speakers, front heights and rear heights at the wall/ceiling junction would be the easiest installation and give pretty good elevation angles


----------



## juanej

noah katz said:


> Juan,
> 
> Given your room dimensions, and for four overhead speakers, front heights and rear heights at the wall/ceiling junction would be the easiest installation and give pretty good elevation angles


Too late, already bought 2 Klipsch PRO-160RPC, I'm considering what chi_guy50 wrote, top middles at 80 degress + front heights in the future, any more thoughts on this? I really appreciate all your help


----------



## batpig

juanej said:


> Too late, already bought 2 Klipsch PRO-160RPC, I'm considering what chi_guy50 wrote, top middles at 80 degress + front heights in the future, any more thoughts on this? I really appreciate all your help


Are you sitting all the way against the back wall? If you have space behind you then I would not do a FH+TM configuration, but rather a front+rear overhead with the rear pair behind you.


----------



## juanej

batpig said:


> Are you sitting all the way against the back wall? If you have space behind you then I would not do a FH+TM configuration, but rather a front+rear overhead with the rear pair behind you.


Yeah the couch is against the wall and there's no space to move it forward


----------



## slybacon

MBrown2020 said:


> I will be installing 4 Atmos speakers (B&W CCM 682) at 45 degrees front and back


I have the same ceiling speakers as you in my (all B&W) 7.1.4 setup. I'm very pleased with them - for example, I'm glad I went with 8" instead of 6" woofers. But I admit I'm not sure whether the tweeters have been angled or not (behind the grilles), as the installer installed them while I was at work ...  I need to take the grilles off and have a look! If they're not pointed at MLP, I might make the adjustment.


----------



## batpig

juanej said:


> Yeah the couch is against the wall and there's no space to move it forward


OK then your only real choice is Top Middle as discussed.


----------



## petetherock

juanej said:


> So my 2 atmos arrived and I'm planning on installing them this weekend but haven't decided where exactly to put them, by this guide I ended using 67 degrees so they're gonna be top middles, but I can't find any info on how much space to use between the two of them.
> 
> By the guides they should be aligned to the front left and front right but my ceiling is just 2.27meters (7.44 feet) tall so maybe they should be a little closer, also my room is just 2.36meters (7.74 feet) wide so I don't like them too close to the sides of it, if I like them I'm planning on using front heights in the near future to get 5.1.4.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Having spent some time in Hong Kong I can understand..
Basic principles:
Less is best 5.1.2 
Small is nice - smaller speakers even satellite ones give you a pinpoint direction steering- let the sub handle the heavy lifting but a small sealed box 12” sub or two works better than a gigantic one
Limit yourself to a single MLP - yes and don't sit next to a wall if possible.. 
Lots of sound acoustic treatment to help expand the ‘air’ around and make your room feel bigger
The suggested height is one thing but we live in the real world.. or bounce four speakers off the ceiling if it’s flat. 
All the best !


----------



## chi_guy50

juanej said:


> Yeah the couch is against the wall and there's no space to move it forward



Yeah, that was my assumption based on the limited information you provided. In which case, FH + TM in terms of speaker location is probably going to give you the best results. You can always experiment with a different speaker designation in the AVR, such as FH + RH or TF + TR, to see what reproduces the best overhead effects with your preferred content.


----------



## snookfisher

Watched HUNTSMAN WINTERS WAR last night...VERY nice DTSX track! 

Just joined 3D bluray rental last night...even though I don't have a 4k PJ yet.. seems like a lot more ATMOS and DTSX on 4k releases. 

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is on the way.. 

Took another look at MAD MAX again last night...Its great except WAAAAAAAY over the top on the BASS!! I mean I like a good LFE track as much as the next guy...but come on man...

OVERLORD was a ton of fun as well!!


----------



## blb1215

*Amp assign question?*

I just finished installing 4 Klipsch R-41sa speakers and have a question on amp assign in Denon 4500H. I have the speakers installed on side walls as high as possible with 8' ceilings. Room is about 12 x 16 with listing position about 9' from front wall. I have front set at 5' from front wall and rear set at 12' from front wall. I am curious as to how to assign the speakers in the amp assignment setting. Should I use top front and top rear even though the speakers are not ceiling mounted or front height and rear height. I am thinking these are the best 2 options. I have read that some amp assignment do not do all surround formats correctly or as well as others. 



Thanks in advance


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blb1215 said:


> I just finished installing 4 Klipsch R-41sa speakers and have a question on amp assign in Denon 4500H. I have the speakers installed on side walls as high as possible with 8' ceilings. Room is about 12 x 16 with listing position about 9' from front wall. I have front set at 5' from front wall and rear set at 12' from front wall. I am curious as to how to assign the speakers in the amp assignment setting. Should I use top front and top rear even though the speakers are not ceiling mounted or front height and rear height. I am thinking these are the best 2 options. I have read that some amp assignment do not do all surround formats correctly or as well as others.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



If the heights are side wall mounted as per SVS's recommendations, I would assign them as Top Front and Top Rear. Dolby Atmos is the main immersive format and will render the overhead objects best at that designation.


----------



## AYanguas

blb1215 said:


> I just finished installing 4 Klipsch R-41sa speakers and have a question on amp assign in Denon 4500H. I have the speakers installed on side walls as high as possible with 8' ceilings. Room is about 12 x 16 with listing position about 9' from front wall. I have front set at 5' from front wall and rear set at 12' from front wall. I am curious as to how to assign the speakers in the amp assignment setting. Should I use top front and top rear even though the speakers are not ceiling mounted or front height and rear height. I am thinking these are the best 2 options. I have read that some amp assignment do not do all surround formats correctly or as well as others.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance


As per your speakers positions, in theory it would be better to assign as Top Front and Top Rear. 

If the sound decoded for the heights speakers comes from "Objects", either Atmos or DTS:X, it is supposed that there would be some differences in the sound when assigned as Top or assign as Height.

If the 7.1.4 track has discrete channels already rendered, as some studios do for some Blurays, then I think the sound would be the same, either assigned as Top or as Height.

Someone with better knowledge than me could elaborate more about the differences.

If you like to play with it, one recommendation could be that you try both alternatives and stay with the one that you like most, if you can hear differences.


----------



## blb1215

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the heights are side wall mounted as per SVS's recommendations, I would assign them as Top Front and Top Rear. Dolby Atmos is the main immersive format and will render the overhead objects best at that designation.





Thanks, if I have already ran Audyssey with speakers assigned as front height and rear height do I need to re-run audyssey or just change the amp assignment?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blb1215 said:


> Thanks, if I have already ran Audyssey with speakers assigned as front height and rear height do I need to re-run audyssey or just change the amp assignment?



I would reassign the overheads to Top speakers and then re-run Audyssey, yes.


----------



## blb1215

Thanks!


----------



## snookfisher

What would be the correct setting for in ceiling speakers in a 7.2.4 set up?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

snookfisher said:


> What would be the correct setting for in ceiling speakers in a 7.2.4 set up?



Top Front and Top Rear.


----------



## snookfisher

OK.. the best ATMOS ive heard so far is now DEEP WATER HORIZON.. how this movie isn't on the demo disc and every REFERENCE list doesn't make sense.


----------



## snookfisher

Also...MI ROUGE NATION was very disappointing. (strictly from an ATMOS perspective)


----------



## snookfisher

Also something I found interesting.. EX MACHINA was VERY MUCH better when upmixed using neutral X compared to the DTSX. One scene most notable was when the helicopter lands in the field of grass in the beginning...The effect was fantastic with neutralX and merely ok in the DTSX. Found this out by accident but now im compelled to try this with other DTS AND ATMOS movies.


----------



## zeonstar

snookfisher said:


> Also...MI ROUGE NATION was very disappointing. (strictly from an ATMOS perspective)


I actually liked that one a lot. Has a great scene where a car hits a guy on a motorcycle and you can hear him tumble overhead as he rolls on top of the car from front to back.


----------



## snookfisher

zeonstar said:


> I actually liked that one a lot. Has a great scene where a car hits a guy on a motorcycle and you can hear him tumble overhead as he rolls on top of the car from front to back.


I found it to be virtually indistinguishable from the 5.1 mix. There were 1 or two short uses or the overhead..but very limited... in fact I had to check to see if I hadn't selected the wrong option in the set up menu...Fallout was much better. … im going to listen to a few scenes using NEUTRAL X upmix just out of curiosity


----------



## niterida

Bill Wolfer said:


> I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not, but there is a French movie titled The Wolf's Call that has an extremely immersive Atmos soundtrack. It's a Tom Clancy-style thriller taking place on board submarines, and the overheads are used often and well. It made me wish that all submarine movies be recalled and remixed for atmos!
> 
> It's on Netflix in lossy Atmos, and I've been told there's also a French UHD BD rip with TrueHD Atmos floating around, if you know where to look for such things.


I just watched this on Netflix Australia and there was almost no Atmos effects - it may as well have been 5.1.
And yes it was the French version with subtitles and definitely playing Atmos.
So hard to get any Atmos titles where I am without having to buy Blu-Rays which is a very expensive option over here 
Thanks goodness for DSU


----------



## am2model3

yes, some movie mixes Atmos or DTSX they just don't have the overhead stuff; and in those cases, DSU or NeuralX provide a great way for you to hear some cool sounds from your movie!


i just watched Avengers Endgame 4K UHD in Atmos; it looked great in 4k HDR but it also sounded really good!


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Stop whining about the lack of Dolby Atmos correctness. Maybe it's the way the sound mixer and/or director _intended_ you to hear the movie.

Example: just because a helicopter is moving from left to right, overhead - - that doesn't mean that with Dolby Atmos, you should hear the helicopter above you or sounds from left to right. Perhaps the atmospheric pressure was such that the wind was from the "ground up" and therefore no sound was transmitted. Or, it was blocked by a large tree or deflected by a flock of geese that you could not see. Did you even look that close?


----------



## snookfisher

am2model3 said:


> yes, some movie mixes Atmos or DTSX they just don't have the overhead stuff; and in those cases, DSU or NeuralX provide a great way for you to hear some cool sounds from your movie!
> 
> 
> i just watched Avengers Endgame 4K UHD in Atmos; it looked great in 4k HDR but it also sounded really good!


Watch the scene from EX MACHINA that im referring to... its more than cool sounds...the neuralX is far more convincing and lifelike than the DTSX. Just kinda boggles the mind that an "upmixed" version of the same scene would be more effective at the selling point of the format.


----------



## snookfisher

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Stop whining about the lack of Dolby Atmos correctness. Maybe it's the way the sound mixer and/or director _intended_ you to hear the movie.
> 
> Example: just because a helicopter is moving from left to right, overhead - - that doesn't mean that with Dolby Atmos, you should hear the helicopter above you or sounds from left to right. Perhaps the atmospheric pressure was such that the wind was from the "ground up" and therefore no sound was transmitted. Or, it was blocked by a large tree or deflected by a flock of geese that you could not see. Did you even look that close?


Then perhaps they should just use mono or stereo tracks then? Why use the cool new format at all if your not going to make the most of it? Kinda like wearing a tuxedo to wash your car.


----------



## noah katz

Bill Wolfer said:


> I don't know if it's been mentioned here or not, but there is a French movie titled The Wolf's Call that has an extremely immersive Atmos soundtrack. It's a Tom Clancy-style thriller taking place on board submarines, and the overheads are used often and well. It made me wish that all submarine movies be recalled and remixed for atmos!
> 
> It's on Netflix in lossy Atmos, and I've been told there's also a French UHD BD rip with TrueHD Atmos floating around, if you know where to look for such things.



Thanks, was a very interesting movie, esp for audio nerds (talking about the content, not the sound).





chi_guy50 said:


> For future reference (and just for the sake of clarity), that would be DTS Neural:X, not "NEUTRAL X."



Thanks, I was hoping someone else would crack first


----------



## scubasteve2365

My side surrounds and rear surrounds (Klipsh RS-3 II shown here) are mounted about 6' off of the floor. This was considerations made 10-ish years ago when laying out a 7.1 system. I've recently upgraded to Atmos and it seems to be ideal for the surrounds to be more of ear level (bed) to get some separation from the overheads. I know there has been many debates in this very forum and I'm not trying to open up that debate again. I can lower them to about 4 feet off of the floor and not impact any lines of sight. The only cost of doing this are the time involved and most importantly the impact it will make in terms of walkway aisle, where one of the surrounds will just be more in the way of foot traffic than where it is right now.

I'd like to hear from someone's experience that intently lowered their surrounds after adding Atmos and what the change was like. Do you feel the change is a must do if possible in the room?


----------



## snookfisher

scubasteve2365 said:


> My side surrounds and rear surrounds (Klipsh RS-3 II shown here) are mounted about 6' off of the floor. This was considerations made 10-ish years ago when laying out a 7.1 system. I've recently upgraded to Atmos and it seems to be ideal for the surrounds to be more of ear level (bed) to get some separation from the overheads. I know there has been many debates in this very forum and I'm not trying to open up that debate again. I can lower them to about 4 feet off of the floor and not impact any lines of sight. The only cost of doing this are the time involved and most importantly the impact it will make in terms of walkway aisle, where one of the surrounds will just be more in the way of foot traffic than where it is right now.
> 
> I'd like to hear from someone's experience that intently lowered their surrounds after adding Atmos and what the change was like. Do you feel the change is a must do if possible in the room?


I am certainly not an expert. But I did just lower my surrounds from just above ear height to ear height and it did make an appreciable(someone wanna check the spelling) difference. I have Magnepan on wall speakers aimed directly at the listening position. Pans are more convincing and I feel I did get a better "dome of sound" effect. It did bring the sound "closer" to me for lack of a better term. I have to say it was certainly worth the effort and I do prefer the sound this way. The only time I really think it made the speakers more "localized" or noticeable is concert videos. Interestingly...I actually don't notice the rears as much as when they were higher..I think because my theater seats have a high back. I may raise them back up just a bit.


----------



## Nalleh

Don’t know it this has been mentioned here lately, but if anyone want some good Atmos content, check out the following series on Netflix:
DARK.
ALTERED CARBON.
ANOTHER LIFE.
WU ASSASSINS.

DEMO ATMOS QUALITY!!
And if you are setup for HDR, they also have amazing picture.
And if you are setup for BEQ, they have amazing ULF too.

Recommended


----------



## stikle

scubasteve2365 said:


> I'd like to hear from someone's experience that intently lowered their surrounds after adding Atmos and what the change was like. Do you feel the change is a must do if possible in the room?


In my experience, yes absolutely.

In my last house I started with the "bed layer" up high so it had a movie theater look. I lowered them two different times after installing my overheads for Atmos and noticed a difference each time (in a good way).

When I was designing my current theater, I started off with the bed layer just above ear level and don't plan on moving them.

Angular separation between the bed and overheads is key.


----------



## zeonstar

Nalleh said:


> Don’t know it this has been mentioned here lately, but if anyone want some good Atmos content, check out the following series on Netflix:
> DARK.
> ALTERED CARBON.
> ANOTHER LIFE.
> WU ASSASSINS.
> 
> DEMO ATMOS QUALITY!!
> And if you are setup for HDR, they also have amazing picture.
> And if you are setup for BEQ, they have amazing ULF too.
> 
> Recommended



What's BEQ?


----------



## petetherock

snookfisher said:


> OK.. the best ATMOS ive heard so far is now DEEP WATER HORIZON.. how this movie isn't on the demo disc and every REFERENCE list doesn't make sense.


TRY Helios, a Hong Kong action thriller..
Fury is another immersive mix... you will feel claustrophobic in the scenes where there's dialogue going on in the tank..


----------



## snookfisher

petetherock said:


> TRY Helios, a Hong Kong action thriller..
> Fury is another immersive mix... you will feel claustrophobic in the scenes where there's dialogue going on in the tank..


I have fury on my wish list at 3dbluray.com... still waiting for the 4k SAVING PRIVATE RYAN that I ordered on Friday :-(

Watched TRANSFORMERS last night and it was pretty good (again strictly from an ATMOS point of view lol)


----------



## Bill Wolfer

niterida said:


> I just watched this on Netflix Australia and there was almost no Atmos effects - it may as well have been 5.1.
> And yes it was the French version with subtitles and definitely playing Atmos.
> So hard to get any Atmos titles where I am without having to buy Blu-Rays which is a very expensive option over here
> Thanks goodness for DSU


I saw a BD rip with TrueHD Atmos so I don't know how that compares to the Netflix lossy version, but I doubt it's a different mix. I'll check it on Netflix tonight. The scene that has lots of overheads starts around 18 minutes into the film.


----------



## Nalleh

zeonstar said:


> What's BEQ?


Bass EQ 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html


----------



## Swoosh830

snookfisher said:


> I am certainly not an expert. But I did just lower my surrounds from just above ear height to ear height and it did make an appreciable(someone wanna check the spelling) difference. I have Magnepan on wall speakers aimed directly at the listening position. Pans are more convincing and I feel I did get a better "dome of sound" effect. It did bring the sound "closer" to me for lack of a better term. I have to say it was certainly worth the effort and I do prefer the sound this way. The only time I really think it made the speakers more "localized" or noticeable is concert videos. Interestingly...I actually don't notice the rears as much as when they were higher..I think because my theater seats have a high back. I may raise them back up just a bit.


What kind of speakers do you use for your surrounds? Are the tweeters at ear level, or are they a little bit above with the woofers more at ear level?


----------



## snookfisher

Swoosh830 said:


> What kind of speakers do you use for your surrounds? Are the tweeters at ear level, or are they a little bit above with the woofers more at ear level?


They are Magnepan speakers...the tweeter and woofer run vertical to each other (not on top of) so the entire freq. range is at ear height. I have had the MAGGIE surround set up for 15 years (7.2 until recently adding atmos) and it still absolutely amazes me how great they sound.. some more conventional speakers arguably will give a more visceral impack ...but NOTHING ive heard at any SANE price range has been as absolutely realistic as a good MAGGIE set up. I just really wish there was a practical way to get the maggies up on the ceiling


----------



## snookfisher

Nalleh said:


> Don’t know it this has been mentioned here lately, but if anyone want some good Atmos content, check out the following series on Netflix:
> DARK.
> ALTERED CARBON.
> ANOTHER LIFE.
> WU ASSASSINS.
> 
> DEMO ATMOS QUALITY!!
> And if you are setup for HDR, they also have amazing picture.
> And if you are setup for BEQ, they have amazing ULF too.
> 
> Recommended


I would LOVE to check them out...however I don't believe my Samsung 4k player is compatible with atmos on Netflix?


----------



## PioManiac

snookfisher said:


> I would LOVE to check them out...however I don't believe my Samsung 4k player is compatible with atmos on Netflix?


https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066


----------



## snookfisher

I have none of the above


----------



## blb1215

*Klipsch r-41sa?*

I have a question about Dolby enabled speakers in general and specifically about Klipsch R-41sa. I recently added 4 R-41sa as atmos height speaker high on side walls and I am now wondering if they were the best choice. From reading up on this subject recently, I have found out that Dolby enabled speakers that are used to bounce the sound off ceiling have special design and filters designed to optimize this specify use of reflecting sound off the ceiling. This is from Dolby 



Psychoacoustic signal processing

Based on an understanding of how the brain interprets sound, Dolby Atmos enabled speakers modify select audio frequencies to reinforce the sense of sound coming from above. This filtering is also applied to any sound that may leak horizontally from the speaker cabinet to further amplify the perception of sound coming from above.


Since the R-41sa is stated as being Dolby approved and to be used as either a reflecting dolby enabled speaker or as a height speaker on wall, how can it be optimal for both uses? I see some Dolby enabled speakers have a switch to tell the speaker how it is being used in order to enable or disable the circuitry/filters that modify for use a bouncing sound off ceiling.


Klipsch specs only say "meets Dolby standards" . Does anyone know if this speaker has circuitry/filters to optimize as a dolby enabled reflecting speaker or works as a "normal" speaker with just the angle built in? 



Thanks in advance


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blb1215 said:


> I have a question about Dolby enabled speakers in general and specifically about Klipsch R-41sa. I recently added 4 R-41sa as atmos height speaker high on side walls and I am now wondering if they were the best choice. From reading up on this subject recently, I have found out that Dolby enabled speakers that are used to bounce the sound off ceiling have special design and filters designed to optimize this specify use of reflecting sound off the ceiling. This is from Dolby
> 
> 
> 
> Psychoacoustic signal processing
> 
> Based on an understanding of how the brain interprets sound, Dolby Atmos enabled speakers modify select audio frequencies to reinforce the sense of sound coming from above. This filtering is also applied to any sound that may leak horizontally from the speaker cabinet to further amplify the perception of sound coming from above.
> 
> 
> Since the R-41sa is stated as being Dolby approved and to be used as either a reflecting dolby enabled speaker or as a height speaker on wall, how can it be optimal for both uses? I see some Dolby enabled speakers have a switch to tell the speaker how it is being used in order to enable or disable the circuitry/filters that modify for use a bouncing sound off ceiling.
> 
> 
> Klipsch specs only say "meets Dolby standards" . Does anyone know if this speaker has circuitry/filters to optimize as a dolby enabled reflecting speaker or works as a "normal" speaker with just the angle built in?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



These are more like SVS Prime Elevation speakers than actual "enabled" bounce speakers - regular, slimline bookshelf speakers with a built-in angle for use in immersive height or surround situations. The only issue is that they may not be easily mounted to the ceiling (as one option) like the Elevations. SVS's mounting design includes a free, optional safety bracket add-on feature, so their keyhole attachment points cannot loosen up over time due to vibrations, allowing the speaker to fall off while used as on-ceiling speakers. I went with the Prime Elevations myself, for this very reason.


----------



## Augerhandle

blb1215 said:


> I have a question about Dolby enabled speakers in general and specifically about Klipsch R-41sa. I recently added 4 R-41sa as atmos height speaker high on side walls and I am now wondering if they were the best choice. From reading up on this subject recently, I have found out that Dolby enabled speakers that are used to bounce the sound off ceiling have special design and filters designed to optimize this specify use of reflecting sound off the ceiling. This is from Dolby
> 
> 
> 
> Psychoacoustic signal processing
> 
> Based on an understanding of how the brain interprets sound, Dolby Atmos enabled speakers modify select audio frequencies to reinforce the sense of sound coming from above. This filtering is also applied to any sound that may leak horizontally from the speaker cabinet to further amplify the perception of sound coming from above.
> 
> 
> Since the R-41sa is stated as being Dolby approved and to be used as either a reflecting dolby enabled speaker or as a height speaker on wall, how can it be optimal for both uses? I see some Dolby enabled speakers have a switch to tell the speaker how it is being used in order to enable or disable the circuitry/filters that modify for use a bouncing sound off ceiling.
> 
> 
> Klipsch specs only say "meets Dolby standards" . Does anyone know if this speaker has circuitry/filters to optimize as a dolby enabled reflecting speaker or works as a "normal" speaker with just the angle built in?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance


The sound is processed differently by the AVR, depending on whether you assign them as Dolby enabled or Heights in the AVR's setup menu. The speaker itself (oftentimes the grille) is deigned to reduce off-axis sound when used as Dolby enabled speakers


----------



## blb1215

Augerhandle said:


> The sound is processed differently by the AVR, depending on whether you assign them as Dolby enabled or Heights in the AVR's setup menu. The speaker itself (oftentimes the grille) is deigned to reduce off-axis sound when used as Dolby enabled speakers



Thanks, so when used as height speaker then should the grill technically be removed?


If the processing is done in the AVR then why do some Dolby enabled speakers have switch to set which use. Would the AVR then apply duplicate processing/filters?


----------



## blb1215

Dan Hitchman said:


> These are more like SVS Prime Elevation speakers than actual "enabled" bounce speakers - regular, slimline bookshelf speakers with a built-in angle for use in immersive height or surround situations. The only issue is that they may not be easily mounted to the ceiling (as one option) like the Elevations. SVS's mounting design includes a free, optional safety bracket add-on feature, so their keyhole attachment points cannot loosen up over time due to vibrations, allowing the speaker to fall off while used as on-ceiling speakers. I went with the Prime Elevations myself, for this very reason.



I was considering the SVS Elevations but decided on Klipsch due to I was unsure if I would go with height or just try as bouncy speaker off ceiling to make wire management and install a little easier. I didn't even try as bouncing speaker as I read enough opinions that it really is not as effective as a ceiling or height mounted speaker. I feel they are similar but being used as height, I think the Elevations would have the edge due to being full range. Although crossed over with sub, I am not sure there would be much difference on Atmos height track. Maybe noticeable more on music. I am second guessing myself a little as to if I should have gone with SVS. I believe both are excellent products.


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> If the processing is done in the AVR then why do some Dolby enabled speakers have switch to set which use. Would the AVR then apply duplicate processing/filters?


Atmos enabled speakers have processing done inside the speaker, creating a squiggle in the frequency response that fools our human hearing into thinking those sounds are coming from above. 










The room correction in most AVRs would equalize that squiggle away, reducing the height effect. To prevent that, some AVRs allow upfiring modules to be identified as Dolby Speakers. That designation alerts the room correction to not EQ the squiggle. Audyssey does that by duplicating the squiggle in their target curve.


----------



## blb1215

sdurani said:


> Atmos enabled speakers have processing done inside the speaker, creating a squiggle in the frequency response that fools our human hearing into thinking those sounds are coming from above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The room correction in most AVRs would equalize that squiggle away, reducing the height effect. To prevent that, some AVRs allow upfiring modules to be identified as Dolby Speakers. That designation alerts the room correction to not EQ the squiggle. Audyssey does that by duplicating the squiggle in their target curve.



I think I grasp what you are saying but I still a little unclear. Are you saying that Dolby enabled speaker have this "squiggle" in the FR and when assigned as Dolby enabled the AVR knows to not eq that away and if assigned as height, it would eq it away?


I have Denon 4500H so I assume this is being done in my case for the R-41sa speakers I have as height. I have them set in receiver as top front and top rear. 



Do all Dolby enabled speaker have this as a requirement of Dolby? If so why do some models have a switch on speaker. I assume the switch on speaker disables this change in FR but how does AVR eq know that?


I hope my question makes sense and it is confusing to me...


Thanks


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> Are you saying that Dolby enabled speaker have this "squiggle" in the FR and when assigned as Dolby enabled the AVR knows to not eq that away and if assigned as height, it would eq it away?


Yes. Sounds coming from above will reflect off our shoulders and the outer ears, creating a dip and peaks in the frequency response. Whenever we hear that dip and peaks, our brain thinks the sound is coming from above. Atmos Enabled speakers aim the sound at the ceiling AND include height processing circuitry in the crossover network of the speaker (belt & suspenders approach). 

The main function of room correction is to get rid of dips & peaks in the frequency response. Normally this would be good. In the case of Atmos Enabled speakers, it would kill the height effect. How to prevent this from happening? Have a separate "Dolby Speaker" setting for Atmos Enabled upfiring modules that tells the room correction system to not equalize the squiggle away. IF you use the typical Height or Top settings, the squiggle with be EQ'd away.


> Do all Dolby enabled speaker have this as a requirement of Dolby?


Yes.


> If so why do some models have a switch on speaker.


So they can be used as traditional (height or surround) speakers by bypassing the height processing circuitry. Similar to how some surround speakers have dipole/bipole settings.


> I assume the switch on speaker disables this change in FR but how does AVR eq know that?


The ONLY way the AVR will know that is by how you designate the speaker during initial set up.


----------



## blb1215

Thanks Sanjay


I am still trying to digest all of this but I am still unclear and hopefully you can help me understand more. I seem to be stuck on how the receiver knows if the speaker has this filter applied within the speaker. 



Let's say you have two brands of Dolby enable speakers, assuming both should have the FR altered per Dolby specs., one brand has a switch to disable the FR altering and the other does not. Both are mounted high on walls as heights speaker and both are set as top front/top rear.


Without the switch turned to disable, both should be the same as needing the AVR to EQ out the "squiggle". If I use the switch to disable the brand that allows this, then that speaker has already had the "squiggle" removed. 



So both are assigned the same in Amp assign, how can both be treated correctly in EQing? Is it that the EQ process "sees" whether or not the FR needs altering and only does EQ if needed based on how it measures the speaker?


Seems there is no advantage to speakers with the switch option as the end result is going to be the same after EQ. Is this correct.


I hope this makes sense and I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge.


Thanks,
Barry


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Sounds coming from above will reflect off our shoulders and the outer ears, creating a dip and peaks in the frequency response. Whenever we hear that dip and peaks, our brain thinks the sound is coming from above.



Aha; I never knew specifically the cause of the dips and peaks.


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> Let's say you have two brands of Dolby enable speakers, assuming both should have the FR altered per Dolby specs., one brand has a switch to disable the FR altering and the other does not. Both are mounted high on walls as heights speaker and both are set as top front/top rear.


It would not be a good idea to use the speaker without the switch as a traditional height speaker. If you're going to mount a speaker above you, you don't need psychoacoustic processing to fool your brain into thinking those sounds are coming from above you. The speaker is above you; you'll hear those sounds coming from above you. The height processing will add nothing. You'll end up with unnecessary peaks & dips in the frequency response. Like buying a dipole surround speaker and disconnecting the wires to one set of drivers to make it monopole. Better to just use a monopole surround.


> Without the switch turned to disable, both should be the same as needing the AVR to EQ out the "squiggle".


Not sure what you mean by "needing the AVR to EQ out the squiggle".


> If I use the switch to disable the brand that allows this, then that speaker has already had the "squiggle" removed.


Correct. So this speaker can be used as an Atmos Enabled speaker (when it is placed around ear level and aimed at the ceiling) OR it can be used as a traditional height speaker placed above you. You have to make two changes manually, depending on use: 

When used as an upfiring speaker, flip the switch so that the height squiggle is in the frequency response. When placed above you, flip the switch so that the height squiggle is bypassed. 

The AVR doesn't know how you set the switch, sooooo: when using it as an upfiring module, designate it as a "Dolby" speaker; when mounting above you, label it Height or Top. This will change which target curve Audyssey uses.


> So both are assigned the same in Amp assign, how can both be treated correctly in EQing? Is it that the EQ process "sees" whether or not the FR needs altering and only does EQ if needed based on how it measures the speaker?


You're describing a scenario where one pair of speakers (the one without the switch) is being used incorrectly as a height speaker rather than its intended use as an upfiring speaker. Also, each pair of heights can be assigned differently. There is no reason you cannot combine upfiring speakers with traditional height speakers mounted above. In the Denon set up menu, label one pair as Dolby speaker and the other pair Height or Top, so Audyssey knows which is which. Again, if you're going to place speakers above you, don't use Atmos Enabled modules.


> Seems there is no advantage to speakers with the switch option as the end result is going to be the same after EQ.


The advantage is that the speaker with the switch can be used both ways: upfiring and height. If you're renting an apartment, you can use 4 of these aimed at the ceiling, squiggle enabled on the speaker, designated as a Dolby speaker in the AVR. A couple years later you buy your own house. Same speakers can be mounted above you, squiggle switched off on the speaker, designated as Height or Top in the AVR. You don't have that sort of flexibility with Atmos Enabled modules that can't be switched or regular height speakers (small speakers with no processing), since those type of speakers are single purpose.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Aha; I never knew specifically the cause of the dips and peaks.


Would be interesting to velcro on some absorptive shoulder pads and see how it messes with height perception.


----------



## blb1215

sdurani said:


> It would not be a good idea to use the speaker without the switch as a traditional height speaker. .....You're describing a scenario where one pair of speakers (the one without the switch) is being used incorrectly as a height speaker rather than its intended use as an upfiring speaker. ......You don't have that sort of flexibility with Atmos Enabled modules that can't be switched or regular height speakers (small speakers with no processing), since those type of speakers are single purpose.



I think that is what I am stuck on. My original question/concern is with my purchase of Klipsch R-41sa speakers which are a non-switchable Dolby Enabled speaker that is sold as being able to be used as both a up-firing module or mounted as a height speaker. I couldn't wrap my brain around how can it be optimal to use in both configurations. Based on my understanding of what you are saying, using this speaker as a height speaker is not a good idea? Is that correct?


Sorry for all the questions but I really am trying to understand how this speaker can be used effectively in both configurations without being switchable.


Thanks again..


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> Based on my understanding of what you are saying, using this speaker as a height speaker is not a good idea?


Not a good idea compared to using similar bookshelf speakers that don't have the dip & peaks in their frequency response. But if you already have them, then use them. Designate them as Height or Top in your AVR, so Audyssey will minimize the squiggle. You don't need height processing anyway, since those speakers will be above you. 

Going back to my dipole / monopole surround speaker analogy. If you want to use dipole speakers as monopole surrounds, then you can disconnect one set of drivers. Would it be better if you had gotten monopoles to begin with? Sure. But if you already have dipoles, then use them. 

Same with your R-41sa. You already have them. Use Audyssey to minimize the dip & peaks, and they should work fine.


> Sorry for all the questions but I really am trying to understand how this speaker can be used effectively in both configurations without being switchable.


Ask away. That's what forums are for. Keep in mind the discussion involves 3 elements: height *processing* in the speaker, *placement* in your room (firing up from ear height OR mounted above you), and *label* in the AVR (Dolby Speaker vs Top/Height). In the case of your R-41sa speakers: height *processing* built-in that cannot be switched off, but you don't need a squiggle in the frequency response because of *placement* above you, so use the *label* in your AVR that you know will get rid of the squiggle.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blb1215 said:


> I was considering the SVS Elevations but decided on Klipsch due to I was unsure if I would go with height or just try as bouncy speaker off ceiling to make wire management and install a little easier. I didn't even try as bouncing speaker as I read enough opinions that it really is not as effective as a ceiling or height mounted speaker. I feel they are similar but being used as height, I think the Elevations would have the edge due to being full range. Although crossed over with sub, I am not sure there would be much difference on Atmos height track. Maybe noticeable more on music. I am second guessing myself a little as to if I should have gone with SVS. I believe both are excellent products.



The SVS and Klipsch speakers are not full range due to their cabinet and driver sizes (most speakers can not claim full range sound reproduction, even towers). You do need to set the sub cross-over in the receiver or pre-amp to at least 80 Hz (maybe 100 Hz) due to their frequency reproduction capabilities. I'm not a fan of the Klipsch tweeter sound myself... a bit harsher than I like. The SVS Prime Elevation has no height transfer notch filter built-in as it's really just a normal mini bookshelf speaker with multiple ways to mount it, not an "Enabled" upfiring speaker at all.



The more mid-bass an Atmos overhead speaker (or any other speaker) can reproduce, the better (leaving the sub to reproduce the lower frequency range). Objects are recorded full range more often than not. 



At the time I bought the Elevations, I didn't have my newer Triad speakers, and I liked that you could mount them on the ceiling without cutting a big hole in the ceiling as with architectural speakers (if I got in a position where I could place them there) with the safety bracket add-on if you wanted and they had a bit of a driver angle rather than firing straight down (since they're not wide-dispersion coaxial speakers). They're pretty good for the money.


----------



## Augerhandle

blb1215 said:


> Thanks, so when used as height speaker then should the grill technically be removed?


No. There's no seats on the wall, so off axis doesn't matter


> If the processing is done in the AVR then why do some Dolby enabled speakers have switch to set which use.


which speakers?


> Would the AVR then apply duplicate processing/filters?


 Not sure the speaker is filtering anything. Again, what speakers?


----------



## priitv8

Augerhandle said:


> The sound is processed differently by the AVR, depending on whether you assign them as Dolby enabled or Heights in the AVR's setup menu. The speaker itself (oftentimes the grille) is deigned to reduce off-axis sound when used as Dolby enabled speakers


Inside my Sonys I've found a filter, that might also create the psychoacoustic characteristic curve: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1809.html#post57963348


----------



## blb1215

Augerhandle said:


> No. There's no seats on the wall, so off axis doesn't matterwhich speakers? Not sure the speaker is filtering anything. Again, what speakers?



My understanding is a Dolby enabled speaker is designed to reflect/bounce off ceiling has a notch filter applied to FR to help in achieving the desired affect. 



I have seen a few of the switchable atmos speaker. One is the Klipsch RP-500SA https://www.klipsch.com/products/rp-500sa-piano-black




True Piano Black Finish
1” Titanium LTS Vented Tweeters with Hybrid Tractrix® Horns
5.25" Spun Copper Cerametallic™ Woofers
*Switchable Crossover Setting for Dolby Atmos or Surround Sound*
Keyhole Mounting for On-Wall Elevation/Surround Sound
Premium Scratch Resistant Finish
Strong, Flexible Removable Magnetic Grille
Dimensions: 7.39” x 6.81” x 11.16”


----------



## blb1215

sdurani said:


> Not a good idea compared to using similar bookshelf speakers that don't have the dip & peaks in their frequency response. But if you already have them, then use them. Designate them as Height or Top in your AVR, so Audyssey will minimize the squiggle. You don't need height processing anyway, since those speakers will be above you.
> 
> Going back to my dipole / monopole surround speaker analogy. If you want to use dipole speakers as monopole surrounds, then you can disconnect one set of drivers. Would it be better if you had gotten monopoles to begin with? Sure. But if you already have dipoles, then use them.
> 
> Same with your R-41sa. You already have them. Use Audyssey to minimize the dip & peaks, and they should work fine. Ask away. That's what forums are for. Keep in mind the discussion involves 3 elements: height *processing* in the speaker, *placement* in your room (firing up from ear height OR mounted above you), and *label* in the AVR (Dolby Speaker vs Top/Height). In the case of your R-41sa speakers: height *processing* built-in that cannot be switched off, but you don't need a squiggle in the frequency response because of *placement* above you, so use the *label* in your AVR that you know will get rid of the squiggle.



Thanks for all the information and I finally believe I have a good understanding now. I will use my Klispch and I really don't think it will have a noticeable difference but it does kinda sticks in my brain that I possible made not as good of a choice when used for height speaker as maybe the SVS Elevations I was considering. 



One more question. My Denon sets the crossover for the R-41sa at 100 for front and 110 for rears. Do you think I should raise to 120 or maybe a little higher and set both the same? If I go 120 or higher should I rest the LPF in AVR sub setting higher than the default 120?


Thanks again.


----------



## Augerhandle

priitv8 said:


> Inside my Sonys I've found a filter, that might also create the psychoacoustic characteristic curve: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1809.html#post57963348





blb1215 said:


> My understanding is a Dolby enabled speaker is designed to reflect/bounce off ceiling has a notch filter applied to FR to help in achieving the desired affect.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen a few of the switchable atmos speaker. One is the Klipsch RP-500SA https://www.klipsch.com/products/rp-500sa-piano-black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True Piano Black Finish
> 1” Titanium LTS Vented Tweeters with Hybrid Tractrix® Horns
> 5.25" Spun Copper Cerametallic™ Woofers
> *Switchable Crossover Setting for Dolby Atmos or Surround Sound*
> Keyhole Mounting for On-Wall Elevation/Surround Sound
> Premium Scratch Resistant Finish
> Strong, Flexible Removable Magnetic Grille
> Dimensions: 7.39” x 6.81” x 11.16”





That appears to be a typical crossover filter in the Sony. Dolby enhanced speakers are designed to crossover higher than normal to avoid localization. Here's a snip from the Klipsch owners manual, showing the surround and Dolby enabled crossovers











*EDIT:* The diagram on the left is also a Dolby enhanced speaker, but built-in to a floor standing speaker in such a way that it is recessed and surrounded by foam absorption, thus the 80Hz crossover.


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> My Denon sets the crossover for the R-41sa at 100 for front and 110 for rears. Do you think I should raise to 120 or maybe a little higher and set both the same?


I think you should bring them both down to 100Hz.


> If I go 120 or higher should I rest the LPF in AVR sub setting higher than the default 120?


The LFE channel goes up to 120Hz (it is the only channel that is not full range). No need to Low Pass Filter it any lower (i.e., no need to chop off the top end of the LFE channel). Keep it at 120Hz.


----------



## blb1215

sdurani said:


> I think you should bring them both down to 100Hz. The LFE channel goes up to 120Hz (it is the only channel that is not full range). No need to Low Pass Filter it any lower (i.e., no need to chop off the top end of the LFE channel). Keep it at 120Hz.



Thanks...


Do you think having speakers on side walls as I have them now (4 feet in front/4 feet rear) or repositioning to front and back walls would be better. I know "better" is a subjective term and maybe I should ask what pros and cons to each? I as working on the assumption that side walls with amp assign as top front and top rear is best for Atmos material. Is this the most preferred setup when using 4 height speakers. I read that using front height and rear height (high over front speakers and high on rear wall) works well for upmixed material and DTS and also Atmos.


----------



## snookfisher

Watched BLADE RUNNER 2047. Fantastic AMOS presentation except for one thing. Again I thought the bass was over done and way over the top. I just don't get the need for excessive LFE on scenes that its more distracting than anything else.


----------



## tekdredger

sdurani said:


> Atmos enabled speakers have processing done inside the speaker, creating a squiggle in the frequency response that fools our human hearing into thinking those sounds are coming from above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The room correction in most AVRs would equalize that squiggle away, reducing the height effect. To prevent that, some AVRs allow upfiring modules to be identified as Dolby Speakers. That designation alerts the room correction to not EQ the squiggle. Audyssey does that by duplicating the squiggle in their target curve.


Sanjay,

So, conversely, if one were to employ some small bookshelf speakers (without the passive Atmos EQ built in) laid on their backsides and designated in the AVR as Atmos enabled then the Audyssey target curve should effectively create the same psychoacoustic effect of sound coming from overhead. The EQ processing would have to work much harder to produce the squiggle in this case since we can assume the base curve for the bookshelf speakers should be much flatter. Correct?

Always appreciate your insight and clearly written explanations!


----------



## sdurani

tekdredger said:


> So, conversely, if one were to employ some small bookshelf speakers (without the passive Atmos EQ built in) laid on their backsides and designated in the AVR as Atmos enabled then the Audyssey target curve should effectively create the same psychoacoustic effect of sound coming from overhead.


Shhhhh, don't let Dolby see that. But yes, you'd get a similar effect. Atmos enabled speakers vary, with some manufactures going through the extra work to tweak dispersion and add absorptive foam around the drivers in order to de-emphasize direct sound from the speaker location and thereby emphasize the sound bouncing off the ceiling. The typical small bookshelf will be missing that aspect. But otherwise, you're right.


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> Do you think having speakers on side walls as I have them now (4 feet in front/4 feet rear) or repositioning to front and back walls would be better.


Front wall & back wall mounting tends to make it easier to aim the speakers towards the listening area (just tilt them down). With those speakers high up on the side walls, you have to tilt them down AND rotate them towards the listening area. Your current speaker locations are really good. If you can use mounts that allow the speakers to be aimed at the listeners, that would be even better.


> Is this the most preferred setup when using 4 height speakers.


Yes, the Top Front and Top Rear locations are generally preferred, with the speakers elevated roughly 45 degrees forward & rearward of the main listening position.


> I read that using front height and rear height (high over front speakers and high on rear wall) works well for upmixed material and DTS and also Atmos.


Never heard that theory before. The DTS:X format doesn't have speaker locations high up on the front and back walls, though I don't know if their upmixer is designed with DTS:X speaker locations (or any physical speaker locations) in mind.


----------



## audiofan1

snookfisher said:


> Watched BLADE RUNNER 2047. Fantastic AMOS presentation except for one thing. Again I thought the bass was over done and way over the top. I just don't get the need for excessive LFE on scenes that its more distracting than anything else.


 That entire soundtrack is over the top! and in a very good way, if the bass was any less? Well it just wouldn't be Blade Runner 2049


----------



## tekdredger

sdurani said:


> Shhhhh, don't let Dolby see that. But yes, you'd get a similar effect. Atmos enabled speakers vary, with some manufactures going through the extra work to tweak dispersion and add absorptive foam around the drivers in order to de-emphasize direct sound from the speaker location and thereby emphasize the sound bouncing off the ceiling. The typical small bookshelf will be missing that aspect. But otherwise, you're right.


 Mum's the word!


----------



## snookfisher

audiofan1 said:


> That entire soundtrack is over the top! and in a very good way, if the bass was any less? Well it just wouldn't be Blade Runner 2049


Well.. I guess it would be an even BETTER Bladerunnedr 2049 if there wasn't so much pointless bass just for the sake of bass. FURY ROAD was a bit worse as it was Completely overdone. It was relentless and unwarranted and just served no purpose but to distract and irritate.... I found Bladerunner the same but to a lesser degree and not quite as relentless. Other than the overdone bass it was a hellova soundtrack.

I watched FIRST MAN last night and enjoyed its ATMOS soundtrack.


----------



## snookfisher

I am very much looking forward to RATATOUILLE 4k release as it is probably my favorite Pixar movie and one of my demo discs for my theater. I really hope they utilize ATMOS to its fullest effect on this one!!


----------



## Josh Z

This may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but Mission: Impossible - Fallout appears to be a 7.1.4 printout Atmos track that makes zero use of Top Middle speakers in an x.x.6 configuration.


----------



## snookfisher

Is there a way to go more than 7.2.4 without spending $17,000 for a trinnov?


----------



## tigerhonaker

snookfisher said:


> Is there a way to go more than 7.2.4 without spending $17,000 for a trinnov?


Does the new/latest Marantz AV8805 have more options ???

*https://www.us.marantz.com/us/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?productid=av8805*

*AV8805 - AV Pre-Amplifier*

Overview

The versatile Marantz AV8805 pre-amplifier redefines audiophile home cinema and music listening with an unprecedented 13.2 channel processing capability, and supports virtually any high-resolution multichannel audio format. Immerse yourself in three-dimensional audio with the latest surround formats like Dolby Atmos, DTS:X or Auro-3D. Enjoy enhanced audio quality supported by our proprietary current feedback and HDAM technology that passes signals through 15.2 channel XLR or 15.2 RCA outputs. Stream music throughout your home with HEOS multi-room listening and full wireless connectivity through the HEOS app or Amazon Alexa Voice Control, supported by Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Apple Airplay. With the Marantz AV8805, you get incredible fidelity and unparalleled audio precision.

*Key Features*
13.2 channel processing with 15.2 channel XLR and RCA outputs and flexible pre-amplifier stages — ideal for the advanced home cinema enthusiast
*Enjoy immersive, three-dimensional sound with the latest surround formats including Dolby Atmos (up to 7.1.6 or 9.1.4), DTS:X and Auro-3D (up to 13.1)*
High-performance 192kHz/32bit D/A converters for all channels provide the highest resolution for music and movies
Audyssey MultEQ XT32, LFC, Sub EQ HT, Dynamic Volume and DynamicEQ deliver equalization to best suit your listening environment
Built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi with 2.4GHz/5GHz dual band support offer improved network stability even in Wi-Fi-crowded homes
Listen from any room of your home with HEOS wireless music streaming technology and the HEOS app
Ultimate visual quality with 4K/60 Hz full-rate pass-through, 4:4:4 color resolution, HDR, BT.2020, Dolby Vision and HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma) pass-through
eARC (Enhanced Audio Return Channel) functionality via firmware update supports the most advanced surround and object-based audio formats, including Dolby Atmos and DTS:X via single HDMI connection between AVRs and compatible TVs
Eight HDMI inputs, including one on the front, with full HDCP 2.2 support, plus three HDMI outputs (zones), plenty of inputs for your digital devices and the ability to support different video in different rooms
Analog to HDMI conversion and SD to HD/4K Upscaling for legacy video sources, plus full HD and even Ultra HD video quality from existing DVDs or analog sources
Stream music from AirPlay, Bluetooth, TuneIn Internet radio, Pandora, Spotify, SiriusXM, Amazon Prime Music, TIDAL and more via the HEOS app
Network music streaming supported via DSD (2.8/5.6MHz), FLAC, ALAC and WAVsupport for high-resolution, Hi-Fi listening
Installation and operation are seamless with the Setup Assistant and Marantz AVR Remote app


Terry


----------



## Remy.Alexander

Anyone have a more idiots guide to ceiling speaker placement? Ive been running atmos for a few years now and although im a DIY guy I cant help but feel like i have my heights all wrong. Front heights are like 3' away angled twords us a bit and maybe 4' apart from each other(mountable spaekers.)
Rear Heights are closer due to room, they are like 1.5-2' behind us and same width apart.


I hate all these angle guides. Yes im sure you can get really precise but when its a family room and you have three crazy kids running around, taking time to find angles is a pain in the butt, And it doesn't help im a idiot with angles/math


----------



## fookoo_2010

Remy.Alexander said:


> Anyone have a more idiots guide to ceiling speaker placement? Ive been running atmos for a few years now and although im a DIY guy I cant help but feel like i have my heights all wrong. Front heights are like 3' away angled twords us a bit and maybe 4' apart from each other(mountable spaekers.)
> Rear Heights are closer due to room, they are like 1.5-2' behind us and same width apart.
> 
> 
> I hate all these angle guides. Yes im sure you can get really precise but when its a family room and you have three crazy kids running around, taking time to find angles is a pain in the butt, And it doesn't help im a idiot with angles/math


You either have overhead sounds or not. Use the Dolby Atmos demo disc to find out. If you have overhead sounds, then leave it alone.


----------



## Remy.Alexander

fookoo_2010 said:


> You either have overhead sounds or not. Use the Dolby Atmos demo disc to find out. If you have overhead sounds, then leave it alone.



Yeah issue is not with sound, That I have. Just curious if i could place them better


----------



## batpig

snookfisher said:


> Is there a way to go more than 7.2.4 without spending $17,000 for a trinnov?


Yes absolutely. 

The Denon 8500 / Marantz 8805 siblings can do 13.1ch with support for 15 connected speakers if you want to add two extra for Auro3D. 

The upcoming Monoprice HTP processor will be 16ch and support 9.1.6 at a list price of $4K. 

The 16ch Emotiva RMC is $5K, then the Acurus Muse processor at $6K and at $10K+ you get into stuff like Storm Audio and the Acurus ACT4. 

Or you get your Dr Frankenstein cap on and check out the “beyond 7.1.4” thread and add extra processors / mixers to extract and/or matrix extra speakers on top of the 7.1.4 native decoding. This approach isn’t as “philosophically pure” but it’s much much cheaper and you don’t have to worry about 11ch limits for DTS or “fixed print out” Atmos tracks which don’t scale beyond 7.1.4.


----------



## sdurani

Remy.Alexander said:


> Just curious if i could place them better


A good starting point is 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of you. No need to figure out those angles, just measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward & rearward of your listening position is 45 degrees elevation. Spread the speakers roughly the same distance apart as your front L/R speakers. This should allow you to hear good left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation in the height layer. Aim each speaker towards the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance).


----------



## Andrew Stevenson

Somehow only just found this thread today after much Googling around Atmos set-ups etc over the past week or 2. I've had some good posts and advice on my original thread here and getting ready to start cutting holes probably later this week. 

Figured it's worth putting my plans out to this audience to see if I'm missing anything obvious before the first dry-wall cut means I'm committed! 

Upgrade is from 5.1 to 5.1.4, I'm lowering the surrounds that are bi-poles down to just above ear-height close to in-line with the front LCR. Installing Rear in-ceiling speakers (wire is there from initial install) and front height in-walls as getting the wiring to the ceiling for the front speakers would require a lot more work. There's fairly easy access to install the in-walls and drop speaker wire by pulling out the existing in-walls. See the pic and my crude scribbles for the plans. 

I've also shifted the sofa off the left wall a little and in reading through here, think I'll even pull it forward a bit too. 

Shopping wise, only thing I've not pulled the trigger on is the Front Heights, was looking at the Def Tech DI 6.5s, my front LCR are Def Tech UIW 75 and the rear ceiling I've ordered are DI 6.5r. Hoping this all works out!


----------



## happygodavid

Hey, @sdurani, I've been reading through this thread to see if I can find what I'm looking for, and I wondered if you might chime in on my setup questions. Here are a couple of quotes from you that seem to be in the direction of what I'm looking for; I just need some further clarification on my particular setup. Would you mind giving me your thoughts on my post asking for suggestions? I don't want to hijack this thread with all kinds of pics, etc.  https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/3084530-need-help-before-cutting-holes-my-ceiling-atmos.html#post58448288



sdurani said:


> Separation vs height effect. Speakers placed in a tight pattern above you will definitely give the impression of sounds overhead but at the expense of separation. Speakers spread wide apart will give excellent left-vs-right and back-vs-front separation at the expense of sounds directly above. Somewhere in there is spread that yields a good compromise between those two attributes. Other way 'round. When height speaker locations are described as 45 degrees or 55 degrees, that's describing elevation above ear height. You're using those numbers to describe degrees away from you. With that in mind, 55 degrees elevation places those speakers closer to the MLP while 45 degrees elevation provides a wider area of coverage. I'd go for 45 degrees elevation (measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward and rearward is 45 degrees elevation).





sdurani said:


> A good starting point is 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of you. No need to figure out those angles, just measure from your ears to the ceiling, same distance forward & rearward of your listening position is 45 degrees elevation. Spread the speakers roughly the same distance apart as your front L/R speakers. This should allow you to hear good left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation in the height layer. Aim each speaker towards the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance).


----------



## sdurani

happygodavid said:


> Would you mind giving me your thoughts on my post asking for suggestions? I don't want to hijack this thread with all kinds of pics, etc.


Replied in your thread.


----------



## scubasteve2365

I got my side surrounds and my rear surrounds lowered yesterday. There were previously about about 75 inches (6ft 3in) on an 8ft ceiling and now the side surrounds are at about 50 inches, Still a little overhead from reclined ear level. The rear surround are about 55" due to some physical constraints.

This made a pretty big difference in the "bubble". Obviously not everyone can do this and there are some tradeoffs I've had to made where I can bump into the side surrounds now walking the aisle to get to my seats if not paying attention, but sound wise it is a clear improvement. The dynamics, tone, explosiveness of the system remain the same. It never sounded bad before. Most would think it was great, but the spatial audio with the surrounds lowered is notable and welcome to me.


----------



## PoorSignal

I hear other users or even reviewers turn up atmos speaker channels a few db, to appreciate the effects.

Is this really necessary for speakers that are mounted from the ceiling and NOT upfiring?

I ask because I tried a couple of marvel/disney 4k blu ray didn't hear anything amazing yet. 
sometimes the music will come through great when they mix it into the front height but I notice usually the rear height channel is pretty quiet and I havn't experienced any overhead pan to the back.


----------



## sdurani

PoorSignal said:


> I hear other users or even reviewers turn up atmos speaker channels a few db, to appreciate the effects.
> 
> Is this really necessary for speakers that are mounted from the ceiling and NOT upfiring?


Only necessary if it sounds better to you.


----------



## PoorSignal

Does anyone know what the switch on the RP-500SA be set to ATMOS or Surround if it is mounted on the wall?

This diagram seems to make it like wall mounted should use the surround switch setting and the upfiring use the ATMOS switch setting.


----------



## m. zillch

PoorSignal said:


> I hear other users or even reviewers turn up atmos speaker channels a few db, to appreciate the effects.


If you re-adjust them to taste and bypass the results from the microphone test you are defeating the whole concept of calibration. Calibration means you set things to perform as the designer of the signal intended and you are experiencing it fairly close to how you would have in a commercial theater. Only you can decide what to do, but if your goal is high fidelity, aka high accuracy, high faithfulness to the artist's intent, then I'd suggest using a precision calibration device which doesn't guess what level to use, it *measures* it. You have a perfectly adequate one of those built into your AVR. [See my signature for more.]


----------



## usc1995

Good news fellow Atmos junkies! Disney+ will be streaming in 4K, HDR and ATMOS! Of course we all know the Atmos tracks they have released for their films on UHD bluray have not been very good but here is to hoping with lots of practice for their Disney+ service they will get better at it..https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/23...utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=morningafter


----------



## usc1995

PoorSignal said:


> Does anyone know what the switch on the RP-500SA be set to ATMOS or Surround if it is mounted on the wall?
> 
> This diagram seems to make it like wall mounted should use the surround switch setting and the upfiring use the ATMOS switch setting.


While I don't own those speakers it would seem to make sense that the "Atmos" setting is only for when using them as the ceiling bounce Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers as that will employ the special frequency notch created to add the simulated height sound. If you actually mount the speakers in height or top locations such as high on the wall or on the ceiling then they should be direct firing without the frequency notch so my assumption would be you would then switch it to surround mode to not use the frequency notch.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

usc1995 said:


> Good news fellow Atmos junkies! Disney+ will be streaming in 4K, HDR and ATMOS! Of course we all know the Atmos tracks they have released for their films on UHD bluray have not been very good but here is to hoping with lots of practice for their Disney+ service they will get better at it..https://www.engadget.com/2019/08/23...utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=morningafter


As they mix more and more for streaming, things will probably only get worse, not better. The Mouse is clearly going for the lowest common denominator in a majority of their home mixes nowadays, and they’re probably thinking that most Disney+ customers will be playing these tracks through either their TV speakers or a sound bar at best. This is already affecting their disc tracks as I don’t think they’re creating one mix for streaming and another optimized for disc. The only difference will be lossless or lossy encoding of a single, global audio master.

Disney is run by a bunch of cheap bastards as has been discussed time and time again.


----------



## noah katz

m. zillch said:


> If you re-adjust them to taste and bypass the results from the microphone test you are defeating the whole concept of calibration. ...



Actually only defeating the levels part of calibration.

Overall I find your remarks a bit extreme and tending toward "religious."

Anyone is free to adopt this "by the numbers" philosophy, but many subscribe to what sounds right is right.

So IMO (and Sanjay's, so I must be right :wink there's nothing wrong with increasing the surrounds' levels if it produces a more immersive/enjoyable experience.


----------



## m. zillch

noah katz said:


> Actually only defeating the levels part of calibration.


Yes, I was addressing what he was asking about: levels.



PoorSignal said:


> I hear other users or even reviewers turn up atmos speaker channels a few db, to appreciate the effects.


----------



## niterida

PoorSignal said:


> I hear other users or even reviewers turn up atmos speaker channels a few db, to appreciate the effects.
> 
> Is this really necessary for speakers that are mounted from the ceiling and NOT upfiring?
> 
> I ask because I tried a couple of marvel/disney 4k blu ray didn't hear anything amazing yet.
> sometimes the music will come through great when they mix it into the front height but I notice usually the rear height channel is pretty quiet and I havn't experienced any overhead pan to the back.


 
I turned mine down and set them a few feet closer than they really are in the AVR settings to add delay to the sound from them. This makes them sound like they are further away than they really are and actually increases the soundfield making the room dissappear or at least appear to be bigger than it is.


----------



## LawCPA

PoorSignal said:


> Does anyone know what the switch on the RP-500SA be set to ATMOS or Surround if it is mounted on the wall?





usc1995 said:


> While I don't own those speakers it would seem to make sense that the "Atmos" setting is only for when using them as the ceiling bounce Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers as that will employ the special frequency notch created to add the simulated height sound. If you actually mount the speakers in height or top locations such as high on the wall or on the ceiling then they should be direct firing without the frequency notch so my assumption would be you would then switch it to surround mode to not use the frequency notch.




Correct. Switch set to “Surround” removes the Atmos ceiling bounce HRTF EQ. Switch set to “ATMOS” should only be used if used as speaker toppers. Klipsch will confirm this. I own these as well. Love the front and rear height effect! can’t wait to have the electrician hide the wires!


----------



## LawCPA

PoorSignal said:


> I hear other users or even reviewers turn up atmos speaker channels a few db, to appreciate the effects.
> Is this really necessary for speakers that are mounted from the ceiling and NOT upfiring?



I have also heard people using one of the three up mixers and processing the native track as PCM because they prefer more signal to be sent to the height layer. I watched all 6 Star Wars film and the Neural: X up mixer was fantastic and sent a loud amount of detail up top. Check out the DSU thread. Check out this outlining the different between the 3 upmixers. 

https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/dolby-dts-auro-surround-sound-upmixer-comparison/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## PoorSignal

LawCPA said:


> Correct. Switch set to “Surround” removes the Atmos ceiling bounce HRTF EQ. Switch set to “ATMOS” should only be used if used as speaker toppers. Klipsch will confirm this. I own these as well. Love the front and rear height effect! can’t wait to have the electrician hide the wires!
> View attachment 2606872


Hey, I also have the 4 RP-500SA, and also sofa back against wall, with the dangling wires too. Yesterday I went up to set the switch to surround.

Only my back ones are above the rear speakers on the side wall, not sure if it makes a difference or not, can you hear the rear with them firing to the front but the sofa is in line with the wall? It seems that your curtain rail stopped you from mounting on the side wall like I did, I am not saying one way is better, either is probably not ideal.

My other question is what cross over do you have set at? My was original set to 80hz, but I put a little higher 120hz for now. The user here who works at Klipsch said 150hz in the manual was only recommended by dolby and I can set it whatever I want. Since when I use DTS:X or neural X it isn't about dolby.

The Neural X is fun and puts lots of music up the front height. But I heard it can take the "umph" away from the LCRs.. probably because it moved the sound from the LCR and moved it up to the less capable height speakers.
and the Dolby upmixer supposed to only take ambient sounds from the surround channels. So I will be trying that as well .


----------



## Chirosamsung

I use Dirac live for my 5.1.4 NAD 758 and use 2 slots for curves where I bump up the ceiling levels 2-4 dB and it seems to be better


----------



## LawCPA

PoorSignal said:


> Hey, I also have the 4 RP-500SA, and also sofa back against wall, with the dangling wires too. Yesterday I went up to set the switch to surround.
> 
> can you hear the rear with them firing to the front but the sofa is in line with the wall?
> My other question is what cross over do you have set at?
> 
> The Neural X is fun and puts lots of music up the front height. But I heard it can take the "umph" away from the LCRs.. probably because it moved the sound from the LCR and moved it up to the less capable height speakers.
> 
> and the Dolby upmixer supposed to only take ambient sounds from the surround channels. So I will be trying that as well .


Well the other side of the curtain rail is completely open to a kitchen so mounting them as rear heights instead of side heights had to do. I can hear them up top even though they shoot over my head. With an Atmos demo they sound awesome and fill up the ceiling with rain or thunder. This is the proper configuration for Auro-3D also. 

I think that 150Hz cross over from Dolby is due to filtering out as much bass so you can’t localize them if used as bouncy speaker toppers. Mine are at 100Hz just because I set them that way along with the surrounds. 

As far as music, DTS Neural: X dumps everything to the center channel which annoying, else I’d be more inclined to use it. For Dolby Surround Upmixer, there’s an option under audio > surround parameter called center spread which tries to keep the stereo imaging and widens the sound stage instead of dumping info to center speaker like you’d want in a movie to localize it to that speaker. Toggle that on and see how you like it with music. 

Auro-3D Auro-matic upmixer is great because it works for both without any other configuration and you can set how aggressive the upmix is. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
Parasound HCA-1206
Denon DCM-560
Sony UBP-X800
Sony PS4
Apple TV 4K
Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA

2 x Klipsch RP-280F
1 x Klipsch RP-450C
2 x Klipsch RP-250S
4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
4 x Klipsch R-115SW


----------



## Josh Z

Josh Z said:


> This may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but Mission: Impossible - Fallout appears to be a 7.1.4 printout Atmos track that makes zero use of Top Middle speakers in an x.x.6 configuration.


I'm going to walk this back slightly. I rewatched the end of M:I Fallout last night to more closely analyze the height speaker activity, and this soundtrack behaves very oddly.

My Denon X8500H is configured for 7.1.6: Front Height, Top Middle, Rear Height. The end of the movie has a lot of helicopter stunts with the sound of the choppers buzzing around the top of the room. Through most of these, including pans from front to back, only my Front Height and Rear Height speakers produce any audio. The sounds image fairly well between them, but the Top Middle speakers are mostly silent.

However, when I stood up and put my ear next to a TM speaker, I found that it's not completely dead. Every once in a while, a quick sound would pan through it. Meanwhile, the Front Heights and Rear Heights were continuously active with chopper sounds. At one point, even a brief section of the musical score came through the TM speakers for a couple seconds and then faded away.

I find this bizarre, frankly. Was this movie mixed primarily as 7.1.4 channels with only a sporadic use of objects?

Given how much activity is going on in both the Front Heights and Rear Heights, if those were encoded as objects, I'd assume that they'd have to poke into the Top Middle speakers more often than they do.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> I'm going to walk this back slightly. I rewatched the end of M:I Fallout last night to more closely analyze the height speaker activity, and this soundtrack behaves very oddly.
> 
> My Denon X8500H is configured for 7.1.6: Front Height, Top Middle, Rear Height. The end of the movie has a lot of helicopter stunts with the sound of the choppers buzzing around the top of the room. Through most of these, including pans from front to back, only my Front Height and Rear Height speakers produce any audio. The sounds image fairly well between them, but the Top Middle speakers are mostly silent.
> 
> However, when I stood up and put my ear next to a TM speaker, I found that it's not completely dead. Every once in a while, a quick sound would pan through it. Meanwhile, the Front Heights and Rear Heights were continuously active with chopper sounds. At one point, even a brief section of the musical score came through the TM speakers for a couple seconds and then faded away.
> 
> I find this bizarre, frankly. Was this movie mixed primarily as 7.1.4 channels with only a sporadic use of objects?
> 
> Given how much activity is going on in both the Front Heights and Rear Heights, if those were encoded as objects, I'd assume that they'd have to poke into the Top Middle speakers more often than they do.



Is it possible that because you are using Heights rather than Top Front/Top Rear with Top Middle speakers that the objects are not behaving correctly? 



Someone with a Trinnov Altitude would probably have to analyze the track to see which Atmos speaker outputs are active.


----------



## PoorSignal

LawCPA said:


> Well the other side of the curtain rail is completely open to a kitchen so mounting them as rear heights instead of side heights had to do. I can hear them up top even though they shoot over my head. With an Atmos demo they sound awesome and fill up the ceiling with rain or thunder. This is the proper configuration for Auro-3D also.
> 
> I think that 150Hz cross over from Dolby is due to filtering out as much bass so you can’t localize them if used as bouncy speaker toppers. Mine are at 100Hz just because I set them that way along with the surrounds.
> 
> As far as music, DTS Neural: X dumps everything to the center channel which annoying, else I’d be more inclined to use is. For Dolby Surround Upmixer, there’s an option under audio > surround parameter called center spread which tries to keep the stereo imaging and widens the sound stage instead of dumping info to center speaker like you’d want in a movie to localize it to that speaker. Toggle that on and see how you like it with music.
> 
> Auro-3D Auro-matic upmixer is great because it works for both without any other configuration and you can set how aggressive the upmix is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
> Parasound HCA-1206
> Denon DCM-560
> Sony UBP-X800
> Sony PS4
> Apple TV 4K
> Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA
> 
> 2 x Klipsch RP-280F
> 1 x Klipsch RP-450C
> 2 x Klipsch RP-250S
> 4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
> 4 x Klipsch R-115SW


The DTS neural X lifted alot of the movie music to the height channels. I also have RP-280F. I noticed the music coming from the 280F is rather quiet and the height channel above it was loud. The effect was interesting because neural X gets you alot of activity but overall I think the system doesn't sound as good because how much got sent to the smaller height speakers.

I did a couple of movies with Dolby surround upmix and I think I am pretty happy with it.


----------



## bmcleod

*Dolby Widthdraws Upmixing Restrictions*

Figured there’d be some buzz here ...

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-widthdraws-from-restricting-non-native-upmixing-a-win-for-consumers


----------



## m. zillch

Woo-HOO! I don't have to be terrified of firmware upgrades anymore!


----------



## bkeeler10

bmcleod said:


> Figured there’d be some buzz here ...
> 
> https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-widthdraws-from-restricting-non-native-upmixing-a-win-for-consumers


This is good news in my book. Now the question is whether AVR manufacturers that implemented this restriction on products already in the wild will take the time to release firmware that removes it. Something tells me they won't be especially motivated to do this as a standalone firmware update, but may wait until they also have other issues to fix. Which, depending on your AVR, may be never.


----------



## priitv8

Dan Hitchman said:


> Someone with a Trinnov Altitude would probably have to analyze the track to see which Atmos speaker outputs are active.


If we are talking about objects, isn't this very renderer specific? I.e. their results would not necessaritly be relevant to owners of other Atmos decoders / speaker configurations?


----------



## bmcleod

bkeeler10 said:


> This is good news in my book. Now the question is whether AVR manufacturers that implemented this restriction on products already in the wild will take the time to release firmware that removes it. Something tells me they won't be especially motivated to do this as a standalone firmware update, but may wait until they also have other issues to fix. Which, depending on your AVR, may be never.


I’ll have one of those processors needing to be ‘un-restricted’ in a couple of days. While I do hope they ‘fix’ it, I would agree that it should wait until they’re working on the code again and it makes sense to care of it. But yes, definitely good news!


----------



## batpig

priitv8 said:


> If we are talking about objects, isn't this very renderer specific? I.e. their results would not necessaritly be relevant to owners of other Atmos decoders / speaker configurations?


Speaker configuration, yes, but in theory if that's constant the renderer shouldn't do something different in terms of where it positions the sound. If the speaker layout is, say, 7.1.6 with FH+TM+RH for overheads, then any Atmos decoder/renderer should output the same sounds to the same speakers.


----------



## priitv8

batpig said:


> Speaker configuration, yes, but in theory if that's constant the renderer shouldn't do something different in terms of where it positions the sound. If the speaker layout is, say, 7.1.6 with FH+TM+RH for overheads, then any Atmos decoder/renderer should output the same sounds to the same speakers.


This essentially means, all manufacturers use decoder/renderer code base from Dolby Labs and do not develop one by themselves?
My thinking goes so, because only exactly the same code would produce exactly same results.
I am also not sure if the used hardware base could be different and yield different results between different products.


----------



## dschulz

priitv8 said:


> This essentially means, all manufacturers use decoder/renderer code base from Dolby Labs and do not develop one by themselves?
> My thinking goes so, because only exactly the same code would produce exactly same results.
> I am also not sure if the used hardware base could be different and yield different results between different products.


More-or-less correct. All manufacturers are using one of a limited number of DSPs from a small number of DSP manufacturers, who have produced chipsets and firmware to do Atmos decoding - in every case, these chips/firmware have been evaluated by Dolby to confirm they perform correctly. The exception being Trinnov, who implemented Dolby's code base directly in software (running on an x86 platform) rather than running on DSPs. The Atmos feed to identical speaker configurations should be identical across platforms. Any differences would come downstream of the rendering - basic sound quality of the hardware, bass management implementations, room correction, etc.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

priitv8 said:


> This essentially means, all manufacturers use decoder/renderer code base from Dolby Labs and do not develop one by themselves?
> My thinking goes so, because only exactly the same code would produce exactly same results.
> I am also not sure if the used hardware base could be different and yield different results between different products.



Dolby Labs has an Atmos speaker lookup table (like fixed panner coordinates) that the renderer has to follow to place or pan objects contained in the track based on metadata tags. If there is no speaker in a particular spot, it goes to the next nearest one.


----------



## LawCPA

Edit: someone beat me to the punch earlier!

Great news for anyone hesitant to upgrade their AVR. 







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
Parasound HCA-1206
Denon DCM-560
Sony UBP-X800
Sony PS4
Apple TV 4K
Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA

2 x Klipsch RP-280F
1 x Klipsch RP-450C
2 x Klipsch RP-250S
4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
4 x Klipsch R-115SW


----------



## LawCPA

Godzilla (1988)


I’m about 1.5 hrs into the movie and the Atmos soundtrack is amazing. I have my LFE calibrated to reference level and I haven’t boosted my sub woofers at all, so I think it could use at tad more bass. The best way to describe the mix is that you could definitely clearly hear and identify the high effect coming from the top 100%. With all of the Atmos mixes I feel like this is the best one where I could tell there was a definite something on top of my head. My setup is front and rear heights. Normally the heights get lost with Atmosphere or ambience but I could even hear the rear height effect mixed with sides surround perfectly. The imaging in the helicopters and the roars are all amazing and are imaged beautifully across the soundstage in the bubble and where there are not any speakers a.k.a. phantom imaging. Movie looked great also. Not a bad movie, soundtrack helps pull you in. Like Matthew Broderick also haha. Pick this up folks. Steelbook was just $14.99 at Best Buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
Parasound HCA-1206
Denon DCM-560
Sony UBP-X800
Sony PS4
Apple TV 4K
Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA

2 x Klipsch RP-280F
1 x Klipsch RP-450C
2 x Klipsch RP-250S
4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
4 x Klipsch R-115SW


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> All manufacturers are using one of a limited number of DSPs from a small number of DSP manufacturers...





Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby Labs has an Atmos speaker lookup table (like fixed panner coordinates)...


Thank you both! Learned again something new!


----------



## Stereodude

FilmMixer said:


> Yes. We will be the second Amazon title.
> 
> I don’t think there should be many reasons to complain...
> 
> I mean we have a multitude of scenes where it is raining.
> 
> At least I think we got that right


Apparently Amazon didn't get it right because they've omitted your Atmos work from Carnival Row. 

So, I guess I actually am the first person to complain about it. Sorry...


----------



## FilmMixer

Stereodude said:


> Apparently Amazon didn't get it right because they've omitted your Atmos work from Carnival Row.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I guess I actually am the first person to complain about it. Sorry...




I’ve reached out to my contact at Amazon about it. 

I can’t get Jack Ryan season one to stream Atmos either. Tried on Xbox, Vizio and Apple TV.... maybe some behind the scenes changes. 

As soon as I hear an update I’ll let ya know ... 

The 5.1 sounds as intended though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PoorSignal

Godzilla : King of the Monsters have a very distinct ATMOS soundtrack, it is best use of the sound format I have heard so far.
I think the regular Blu Ray also has the same ATMOS as the 4K copy.


----------



## mrtickleuk

FilmMixer said:


> I’ve reached out to my contact at Amazon about it.
> 
> I can’t get Jack Ryan season one to stream Atmos either. Tried on Xbox, Vizio and Apple TV.... maybe some behind the scenes changes.


I think that only a small number of systems can do Atmos from the Amazon Video app. It's definitely supported on LG OLED TVs' internal app, using HDMI ARC carrying a DD+ container (which not many TVs support over ARC):










EDIT: Amazon's help pages, as always, are diabolical to search. I've tried to summarise:

Smart TVs with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sharp *only*. (NOT Sony for example)
Set Top Boxes and Media Players with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Nvidia Shield, Roku and and Apple TV only.
Blu-Ray Players with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Samsung *only*.
Amazon Devices with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for "Fire TV/Fire TV Stick" only. Which models?! How vague can you get? *"Cube" isn't even on the page!!!*
Mobile Devices with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for "Android devices" only. iOS - No.

HTH. For you, Vizio and XBox are definitely not listed as supported.
Apple TV should work, according to their pages.


----------



## Stereodude

FilmMixer said:


> I’ve reached out to my contact at Amazon about it.
> 
> I can’t get Jack Ryan season one to stream Atmos either. Tried on Xbox, Vizio and Apple TV.... maybe some behind the scenes changes.
> 
> As soon as I hear an update I’ll let ya know ...
> 
> The 5.1 sounds as intended though.


As I posted in the Carnival Row thread... Last night I stopped the Carnival Row episode a minute or two into it and tried a Jack Ryan episode just to make sure it was still working in Atmos (to rule out a Firestick 4K issue or an Amazon issue) and then went back to Carnival Row. Jack Ryan had Atmos, whereas Carnival Row did not.


----------



## Bond 007

mrtickleuk said:


> I think that only a small number of systems can do Atmos from the Amazon Video app. It's definitely supported on LG OLED TVs' internal app, using HDMI ARC carrying a DD+ container (which not many TVs support over ARC):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Amazon's help pages, as always, are diabolical to search. I've tried to summarise:
> 
> Smart TVs with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sharp *only*. (NOT Sony for example)
> Set Top Boxes and Media Players with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Nvidia Shield, Roku and and Apple TV only.
> Blu-Ray Players with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Samsung *only*.
> Amazon Devices with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for "Fire TV/Fire TV Stick" only. Which models?! How vague can you get? *"Cube" isn't even on the page!!!*
> Mobile Devices with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for "Android devices" only. iOS - No.
> 
> HTH. For you, Vizio and XBox are definitely not listed as supported.
> Apple TV should work, according to their pages.


Cube supports Atmos.


----------



## b0rnarian

Stereodude said:


> FilmMixer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️ve reached out to my contact at Amazon about it.
> 
> I canâ€™️t get Jack Ryan season one to stream Atmos either. Tried on Xbox, Vizio and Apple TV.... maybe some behind the scenes changes.
> 
> As soon as I hear an update Iâ€™️ll let ya know ...
> 
> The 5.1 sounds as intended though. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> As I posted in the Carnival Row thread... Last night I stopped the Carnival Row episode a minute or two into it and tried a Jack Ryan episode just to make sure it was still working in Atmos (to rule out a Firestick 4K issue or an Amazon issue) and then went back to Carnival Row. Jack Ryan had Atmos, whereas Carnival Row did not.
Click to expand...

Did the op try more than one episode of Jack Ryan... as I dont get Atmos on the 1st episode but get it on the 2nd episode. Did amzn break E1?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Bond 007 said:


> Cube supports Atmos.


Sure. Now just try getting Amazon to fix their own help pages...



b0rnarian said:


> Did the op try more than one episode of Jack Ryan... as I dont get Atmos on the 1st episode but get it on the 2nd episode. Did amzn break E1?


Nope, Episode 1 rock solid Atmos here.


----------



## Bond 007

mrtickleuk said:


> Sure. Now just try getting Amazon to fix their own help pages...


Or provide something in Atmos. Of the millions of videos Ryan is the only one in Atmos afaik.


----------



## Stereodude

Bond 007 said:


> Or provide something in Atmos. Of the millions of videos Ryan is the only one in Atmos afaik.


Try to keep up... The gentleman, @FilmMixer , who mixed the audio for Carnival Row confirmed it was mixed specifically for Atmos and the show was to be the 2nd show on Amazon with Atmos. However, Amazon isn't currently streaming it with Atmos. We're not just blindly complaining about a new show on Amazon not having Atmos.


----------



## 99rook99

FilmMixer said:


> I’ve reached out to my contact at Amazon about it.
> 
> I can’t get Jack Ryan season one to stream Atmos either. Tried on Xbox, Vizio and Apple TV.... maybe some behind the scenes changes.
> 
> As soon as I hear an update I’ll let ya know ...
> 
> The 5.1 sounds as intended though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I thought that the 5.1 mix was fantastic, so much so that at one point my wife and I, thought the Atmos stream had started mid-show.
I really want to hear the Atmos mix now.


----------



## FilmMixer

mrtickleuk said:


> I think that only a small number of systems can do Atmos from the Amazon Video app. It's definitely supported on LG OLED TVs' internal app, using HDMI ARC carrying a DD+ container (which not many TVs support over ARC):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Amazon's help pages, as always, are diabolical to search. I've tried to summarise:
> 
> 
> Smart TVs with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sharp *only*. (NOT Sony for example)
> 
> Set Top Boxes and Media Players with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Nvidia Shield, Roku and and Apple TV only.
> 
> Blu-Ray Players with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for Samsung *only*.
> 
> Amazon Devices with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for "Fire TV/Fire TV Stick" only. Which models?! How vague can you get? *"Cube" isn't even on the page!!!*
> 
> Mobile Devices with the Prime Video App lists Atmos for "Android devices" only. iOS - No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HTH. For you, Vizio and XBox are definitely not listed as supported.
> 
> Apple TV should work, according to their pages.



Fresh start today. 

My Vizio works just fine with Jack Ryan...  all episodes...

An update :

I can get Jack Ryan and Susperia to stream in Atmos. Episode 1 of Jack plays fine in Atmos on TV but not from Shield or ATV... 

CR still not working at all. 

I’m on it...


----------



## mrtickleuk

FilmMixer said:


> Fresh start today.
> 
> My Vizio works just fine with Jack Ryan...  all episodes...
> 
> An update :
> 
> I can get Jack Ryan and Susperia to stream in Atmos. Episode 1 of Jack plays fine in Atmos on TV but not from Shield or ATV...
> 
> CR still not working at all.
> 
> I’m on it...


Cool. It seems (eg Cube, Vizio) that those Amazon pages are out of date, AS WELL AS being very hard to find and navigate. Sigh.


----------



## FilmMixer

mrtickleuk said:


> Cool. It seems (eg Cube, Vizio) that those Amazon pages are out of date, AS WELL AS being very hard to find and navigate. Sigh.



Vizio is listed...


----------



## mrtickleuk

FilmMixer said:


> Vizio is listed...


Ok. I see it in your screenshot. But it was not on the page I linked to, when I looked at it!
https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/...nodeId=GKZQ3LY43DX7RGCF&qid=1567247010&sr=1-1

It's too big for a screenshot, so here is a full cut+paste of what I get.



Spoiler



Smart TVs with the Prime Video App
The Prime Video app is available on smart TVs from the following manufacturers.

Note: Supported features differ depending on the specific model of TV being used. Not all Prime Video titles support all features.

Sony
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - No
Live Streaming - Yes, on 2014 Bravia; 2015/2016 SimpleSmart TVs; 2015 and newer Android TVs
Live ad support - Yes, on 2014 Bravia; 2015/2016 SimpleSmart TVs; 2015 and newer Android TVs
Ad supported channels - Yes, on 2014 Bravia; 2015/2016 SimpleSmart TVs; 2015 and newer Android TVs
Support Website - https://www.sony.com/electronics/support
Samsung
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes, on 2012 and newer TV models
Live Streaming - Yes, on 2015 and newer TV models
Live ad support - Yes, on 2015 and newer TV models
Ad supported channels - Yes, on 2015 and newer TV models
Support Website - https://www.samsung.com/support/
Additional Notes: the Prime Video app is no longer supported on some models released in 2012.
Panasonic
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes, on 2014 and newer TV models
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - Yes, except for Viera models
Ad supported channels - Yes, except for Viera models
Support Website - https://www.panasonic.com/global/support.html
LG
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes, for 2015 released models and newer
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - Yes, for 2016 released models and newer
Ad supported channels - Yes, for 2016 released models and newer
Support Website - https://www.lg.com/support
Hisense
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - No
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - Yes, on selected devices
Ad supported channels - Yes, on selected devices
Support Website - http://global.hisense.com/support
Philips
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - Yes
Ad supported channels - Yes
Support Website - https://www.philips.com/c-cs/global-country-selector.html
Sharp
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - No
Live Streaming - Yes (on select models)
Live ad support - Yes (on select models)
Ad supported channels - Yes (on select models)
Support Website - https://sharpconsumer.eu/support/?type=tv
JVC
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - No
Ad supported channels - No
Support Website - https://www3.jvckenwood.com/english/support/
TCL
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - No
Ad supported channels - No
Support Website - http://news.tcl.com/English.php/Support/index.html
Changhong
Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
Audio Description - Yes
Live Streaming - Yes
Live ad support - No
Ad supported channels - No
Support Website - http://en.changhong.com/html/GLOBALS/


----------



## FilmMixer

mrtickleuk said:


> Ok. I see it in your screenshot. But it was not on the page I linked to, when I looked at it!
> 
> https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/...nodeId=GKZQ3LY43DX7RGCF&qid=1567247010&sr=1-1
> 
> 
> 
> It's too big for a screenshot, so here is a full cut+paste of what I get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Smart TVs with the Prime Video App
> 
> The Prime Video app is available on smart TVs from the following manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Supported features differ depending on the specific model of TV being used. Not all Prime Video titles support all features.
> 
> 
> 
> Sony
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - No
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes, on 2014 Bravia; 2015/2016 SimpleSmart TVs; 2015 and newer Android TVs
> 
> Live ad support - Yes, on 2014 Bravia; 2015/2016 SimpleSmart TVs; 2015 and newer Android TVs
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes, on 2014 Bravia; 2015/2016 SimpleSmart TVs; 2015 and newer Android TVs
> 
> Support Website - https://www.sony.com/electronics/support
> 
> Samsung
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes, on 2012 and newer TV models
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes, on 2015 and newer TV models
> 
> Live ad support - Yes, on 2015 and newer TV models
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes, on 2015 and newer TV models
> 
> Support Website - https://www.samsung.com/support/
> 
> Additional Notes: the Prime Video app is no longer supported on some models released in 2012.
> 
> Panasonic
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes, on 2014 and newer TV models
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - Yes, except for Viera models
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes, except for Viera models
> 
> Support Website - https://www.panasonic.com/global/support.html
> 
> LG
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes, for 2015 released models and newer
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - Yes, for 2016 released models and newer
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes, for 2016 released models and newer
> 
> Support Website - https://www.lg.com/support
> 
> Hisense
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - No
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - Yes, on selected devices
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes, on selected devices
> 
> Support Website - http://global.hisense.com/support
> 
> Philips
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - Yes
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes
> 
> Support Website - https://www.philips.com/c-cs/global-country-selector.html
> 
> Sharp
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound, Dolby Atmos
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - No
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes (on select models)
> 
> Live ad support - Yes (on select models)
> 
> Ad supported channels - Yes (on select models)
> 
> Support Website - https://sharpconsumer.eu/support/?type=tv
> 
> JVC
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - No
> 
> Ad supported channels - No
> 
> Support Website - https://www3.jvckenwood.com/english/support/
> 
> TCL
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - No
> 
> Ad supported channels - No
> 
> Support Website - http://news.tcl.com/English.php/Support/index.html
> 
> Changhong
> 
> Streaming Video Quality - up to Ultra HD
> 
> Sound quality - up to 5.1 surround sound
> 
> Closed Captions (Subtitles) - Yes
> 
> Audio Description - Yes
> 
> Live Streaming - Yes
> 
> Live ad support - No
> 
> Ad supported channels - No
> 
> Support Website - http://en.changhong.com/html/GLOBALS/




US and U.K. device support isn’t the same ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

Update ...

Heard from my contact at Amazon. 

Short answer is they know and they are working on it and have been all week. 

They’ll give me an update when the stream goes live... 

I’ve only been given a time frame of ASAP... 

As a side note the Atmos streams/encodes are entirely separate form the “regular” 5.1/stereo files.... it simply isn’t a stream or tech glitch, but an entirely separate set of “files.”

As a matter of fact the Atmos encodes includes an Atmos Amazon logo ... I think IIRC it is a different color scheme than the...

When you watch a Prime show and see the Prime banner in front that is the service is actually seamlessly “editing” that in real time to the program... 

Netflix actually now does the same thing (it used to be that the logo was part of the show and we would mix in the logos as part of the show... but that has changed over the last few years ...)

While no one is more disappointment right now than me I’m hopeful the stream will be live soon...

I’m very proud of the mix on the show....


----------



## KK in CT

FilmMixer said:


> Update ...
> 
> Heard from my contact at Amazon.
> 
> Short answer is they know and they are working on it and have been all week.
> 
> Theyâ€™️ll give me an update when the stream goes live...
> 
> Iâ€™️ve only been given a time frame of ASAP...
> 
> As a side note the Atmos streams/encodes are entirely separate form the â€œregularâ€ 5.1/stereo files.... it simply isnâ€™️t a stream or tech glitch, but an entirely separate set of â€œfiles.â€
> 
> As a matter of fact the Atmos encodes includes an Atmos Amazon logo ... I think IIRC it is a different color scheme than the...
> 
> When you watch a Prime show and see the Prime banner in front that is the service is actually seamlessly â€œeditingâ€ that in real time to the program...
> 
> Netflix actually now does the same thing (it used to be that the logo was part of the show and we would mix in the logos as part of the show... but that has changed over the last few years ...)
> 
> While no one is more disappointment right now than me Iâ€™️m hopeful the stream will be live soon...
> 
> Iâ€™️m very proud of the mix on the show....


As I’m sure you should be. I’m sure I speak (or type) for a number of us here that we’re all very much looking forward to watching it. But when I sat down to watch last night and it didn’t come up as Atmos for a minute I was second guessing myself that I didn’t remember the show name correctly. Then I came to the thread here to get my sanity back, and now I’ll patiently wait to hear it as you intended. 

I must say everywhere I seemed to go on the internet yesterday Amazon seemed to be advertising the heck out of this show. So they obviously share the same pride for it that you do. 

Can’t wait to watch it. Keep us posted on Atmos!


----------



## mrtickleuk

FilmMixer said:


> US and U.K. device support isn’t the same ....


Indeed, I know. Was responding to the post which implied I couldn't read lol 

ps. I wonder if I could beseech you to reach out to your Amazon contact again - ask when they are going to fix their UI so that 4KHDR titles are not listed separately, doubling the size of their catalogue, making them hard/impossible to find, and generally it being a very very bad way of organising things?  

Example only this week - huge banner for "Jack Ryan Season 2, coming soon" (which, stupidly, I have to add to my "Watchlist" separately to "Jack Ryan Season 1" - it doesn't understand the concept that I might want to add just "Jack Ryan" as a series, like with Netflix). Anyway - I added it, but then realised I'd added the crappy SDR version. (this ALWAYS happens on the website too - and every place Amazon recommends anything. I have to be super careful never to add anything). It didn't have the teeny tiny "4K" 10-pixel size tag on the picture. So I searched for the "Jack Ryan Season 2 (4K HDR)" series, which has to be searched for and found separately. It's not there. Ok, I'll just go to "Jack Ryan Season 1 (4K HDR)" and navigate to "season 2" at the top of the screen from there.... nope. The HDR version doesn't have a link to Season 2, yet the SDR version does. ARGH. 

This has been going on for 3 years now. They bury their HDR content at the bottom of a swamp. Most people I know with HDR-capable TVs aren't watching the HDR versions of anything on Amazon, because they can't find them! Worse, they think that they are! They don't realise they are completely separate - why would they need to know? The way Amazon does this in the UI, instead of the back end (like every other sensible streaming service on the planet), is stupid, very user-hostile, idiotic, dumb, and every angry word I can think of! But they are immune to any and all feedback. I think if you have a contact there, it's a unique opportunity to get through to them, if you would be so kind?


----------



## Bond 007

mrtickleuk said:


> The way Amazon does this in the UI, instead of the back end (like every other sensible streaming service on the planet), is stupid, very user-hostile, idiotic, dumb, and every angry word I can think of! But they are immune to any and all feedback.


+1


----------



## pg22

Count me as another that randomly lost Atmos for Jack Ryan via Fire TV Stick 4K. Yet, Suspiria still does.

I have other devices (X1X, PS4 Pro, TV's built in app), but to my knowledge, the fire tv stick 4k is the only one of mine that could output Atmos on Prime.

Was hoping to re-watch Jack Ryan season 1 before 2 drops, as I didn't have an Atmos setup the first time around.

So weird.


----------



## westbergjoakim

pg22 said:


> Count me as another that randomly lost Atmos for Jack Ryan via Fire TV Stick 4K. Yet, Suspiria still does.


I have Atmos in my Shield for Jack Ryan, but not for Suspiria, only 4K SDR as it seems. I live in Sweden so maybe that's why?


Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## pg22

westbergjoakim said:


> pg22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Count me as another that randomly lost Atmos for Jack Ryan via Fire TV Stick 4K. Yet, Suspiria still does.
> 
> 
> 
> I have Atmos in my Shield for Jack Ryan, but not for Suspiria, only 4K SDR as it seems. I live in Sweden so maybe that's why?
> 
> 
> Skickat frÃ¥n min SM-G960F via Tapatalk
Click to expand...

\_(ツ)_/

In any event, forget Jack Ryan. Give me ATMOS JIM from The Office and I can die a happy man!


----------



## Bond 007

As a side note, Spiderman 3 in 4k won't play in 4k. Summary..Amazon sucks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bond 007 said:


> As a side note, Spiderman 3 in 4k won't play in 4k. Summary..Amazon sucks.


The only way around that is to grab the 4k discs with lossless Dolby Atmos. 

Lesson... streaming is still unreliable and a lesser presentation.


----------



## pappaduke

Dan Hitchman said:


> The only way around that is to grab the 4k discs with lossless Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Lesson... streaming is still unreliable and a lesser presentation.


So true. The technology is there, but the streaming services are screwing this up.


----------



## howard68

Hi 
Anyone having playback issues with Vudu on Dolby Atmos tracks 
I have a Roku Ultra and it has been fine until yesterday 
I changed all Hdmi cables to All 4k cables 
And every so often the atmos sound still drops out for a second on my Denon Avr 6200
Have changed hdmi inputs on the amp 
Any thoughts? 

Howard


----------



## usc1995

howard68 said:


> Hi
> 
> Anyone having playback issues with Vudu on Dolby Atmos tracks
> 
> I have a Roku Ultra and it has been fine until yesterday
> 
> I changed all Hdmi cables to All 4k cables
> 
> And every so often the atmos sound still drops out for a second on my Denon Avr 6200
> 
> Have changed hdmi inputs on the amp
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> Howard




I just tried Wonder Woman on Vudu via my AppleTV and it plays the Atmos track just fine. I would post your question in the Roku thread and see if others have the same issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Joshua Chmiel

I upgraded my ceiling speakers from Yamaha NS-AW1 to JBL S36. Two ways to three ways and mating my already studio series speakers. There is a difference, better, and worth the $250 to me but not crazy improvement. With the Mad Max demo the dialogue in the upper speakers was clearer and more precise. Audyssey did set the crossovers 60Hz lower. Other demo material I didn't hear a dramatic difference. Pictures before and after. I share my experience for those that are considering budget on their ceiling speakers.


----------



## FilmMixer

Regarding Carnival Row. 

We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday. 

Fingers crossed.


----------



## usc1995

FilmMixer said:


> Regarding Carnival Row.
> 
> We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday.
> 
> Fingers crossed.




I’m holding off on watching it until the Atmos is fixed. Much easier to do now that football is back 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 99rook99

FilmMixer said:


> Regarding Carnival Row.
> 
> We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday.
> 
> Fingers crossed.


Have you been signed on for season 2, or isn't how that works for the mixers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Regarding Carnival Row.
> 
> We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday.
> 
> Fingers crossed.



Nice! Can't wait!


----------



## FilmMixer

99rook99 said:


> Have you been signed on for season 2, or isn't how that works for the mixers



As of now I’m 99% sure I will be on.... the producers have been very loyal. 

And last I heard season two is very close to entering production.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> As of now I’m 99% sure I will be on.... the producers have been very loyal.
> 
> And last I heard season two is very close to entering production.



Then we know we'll be in for a wild ride.  As is sometimes said... break a leg!


----------



## camd5pt0

Joshua Chmiel said:


> I upgraded my ceiling speakers from Yamaha NS-AW1 to JBL S36. Two ways to three ways and mating my already studio series speakers. There is a difference, better, and worth the $250 to me but not crazy improvement. With the Mad Max demo the dialogue in the upper speakers was clearer and more precise. Audyssey did set the crossovers 60Hz lower. Other demo material I didn't hear a dramatic difference. Pictures before and after. I share my experience for those that are considering budget on their ceiling speakers.


I'm using Atrium 5 by Polk









Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## 610

Has anyone used Klipsch Quintet for Atmos?


----------



## petetherock

camd5pt0 said:


> I'm using Atrium 5 by Polk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


Interesting setup, will that fan create turbulence and distortion?


----------



## camd5pt0

Thanks, and not at all, the fan clears the speaker









Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## ggsantafe

FilmMixer said:


> Regarding Carnival Row.
> 
> We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday.
> 
> Fingers crossed.


I'm finding that even with "just" DSU ambiance and overall sound stage are quite impressive.


----------



## Bond 007

Godzilla: King of Monsters.

The movie is so bad it's painful to sit through...but the Atmos soundtrack is very good.


----------



## AYanguas

*Why Not Dolby Atmos in dubbed tracks, and only in original English track?*

I would like to know what considerations apply when dubbing productions to other languages.

I’ve read that the dubbed versions of Carnival Row will be released on November 22th. As a non-native English, I will wait for the dubbed version.

Normally, only the English original soundtrack is released in Atmos, while the other languages dubbed tracks are released in AC3/DTS 5.1 at most.

Is it a matter of cost? What cost? Is it about the bigger Atmos tracks that does not fit all languages in a Bluray? I think that restriction would not apply in streaming as the files are kept on servers. Is it because the cost of mixing in Atmos is higher because more complex than in traditional 5.1?

I would imagine that all the music & sounds/effects apart from dialogues would be elaborated and pre-mixed (if that concept exists) only once. Then the final mix, for each dubbed language, is done adding the corresponding voices objects/tracks and compiling the final mix.
@FilmMixer, are you involved in any way into the dubbed soundtracks versions of Carnival Row? As far as you can share with us, could you explain how the dubbed tracks in other languages are mixed? From completely new mix, to just add a language dialogue to an existing music/sound effects track, could you clarify how is this done?


----------



## m. zillch

petetherock said:


> Interesting setup, will that fan create turbulence and distortion?


No. Under silent music conditions you can faintly hear its motor noise though. Sometimes if that is a concern the noise can be reduced by using special, rubber washers for the part which couples to the ceiling because the sound/vibration is amplified by the ceiling acting as a soundboard.


----------



## LawCPA

Well it’s 2:38am and just finished Rambo (2008). What an Atmos audio track and mix!! The thunder through the height channels, sooooo loud! When Stallone set the booby trap literally felt like I was in the middle and when the wind gust followed the imaging was insane I felt swept up in it. The ending was so intense I felt like I was in the middle of war that had me feeling like I was being hit from everywhere. Listening at -6 from reference. Didn’t need to raise my subwoofer levels or anything. Loud and aggressive. Pure bliss.


----------



## LawCPA

camd5pt0 said:


> I'm using Atrium 5 by Polk



Hi what mounting hardware do you have that lets you angle the rears at MLP? Mine shoot straight overhead. Couch against the wall like you. I was thinking about angling them at MLP 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
Parasound HCA-1206
Denon DCM-560
Sony UBP-X800
Sony PS4
Apple TV 4K
Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA

2 x Klipsch RP-280F
1 x Klipsch RP-450C
2 x Klipsch RP-250S
4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
4 x Klipsch R-115SW


----------



## camd5pt0

LawCPA said:


> Hi what mounting hardware do you have that lets you angle the rears at MLP? Mine shoot straight overhead. Couch against the wall like you. I was thinking about angling them at MLP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
> Parasound HCA-1206
> Denon DCM-560
> Sony UBP-X800
> Sony PS4
> Apple TV 4K
> Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA
> 
> 2 x Klipsch RP-280F
> 1 x Klipsch RP-450C
> 2 x Klipsch RP-250S
> 4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
> 4 x Klipsch R-115SW


It's built in, allows for vertical adjustment, however I angled them to fall right at MLP. Sound is an improvement vs not aimed at MLP in my experience.









Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## snpanago

m. zillch said:


> No. Under silent music conditions you can faintly hear its motor noise though. Sometimes if that is a concern the noise can be reduced by using special, rubber washers for the part which couples to the ceiling because the sound/vibration is amplified by the ceiling acting as a soundboard.


I know that this may not be so in all cases. I once helped install ceiling speakers in a friend’s new room construction, and concluded with calibration using his receiver’s proprietary room correction software. It was a fine sounding room. I returned a year later for a visit only to find that he had installed a ceiling fan in the center. I was curious if the fan in action would affect the sound emanating from nearby ceiling speakers. I ran the RC software again with its pink noise and was upset with the resulting helicopter chopping of the pink noise. However, I didn’t listen to normal programming through his system to determine how noticeable the effect of the moving fan blades were. I think some consideration of this may merit further testing by others planning similar installs, esp. if the fan is to be in use during audio playback.


----------



## Chuck666

LawCPA said:


> Hi what mounting hardware do you have that lets you angle the rears at MLP? Mine shoot straight overhead. Couch against the wall like you. I was thinking about angling them at MLP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Denon AVR-X4200W (Auro-3D upgrade)
> Parasound HCA-1206
> Denon DCM-560
> Sony UBP-X800
> Sony PS4
> Apple TV 4K
> Samsung UN50KU6300FXZA
> 
> 2 x Klipsch RP-280F
> 1 x Klipsch RP-450C
> 2 x Klipsch RP-250S
> 4 x Klipsch RP-500SA
> 4 x Klipsch R-115SW


I had those before I switched to the white Atrium 5's. I just used a 4" drywall screw and bent it some and used a rubber door stop to get the other angle.... Worked fine..


----------



## MBrown2020

With just one row of seating, is there any advantage to having "Top Middles". I would think top fronts and top rears at 45 degrees would be enough. Thoughts?


----------



## sdurani

MBrown2020 said:


> With just one row of seating, is there any advantage to having "Top Middles". I would think top fronts and top rears at 45 degrees would be enough. Thoughts?


Not in my experience. Two pairs of height speakers, even when spread apart as far as the front and back walls, are capable of creating surprisingly good phantom imaging directly overhead.


----------



## MBrown2020

sdurani said:


> Not in my experience. Two pairs of height speakers, even when spread apart as far as the front and back walls, are capable of creating surprisingly good phantom imaging directly overhead.



I have 4 atmos ceiling speakers front & rear at 45 degrees from MLP. For Dolby Atmos content I change amp assign to "front top & rear top" and then when playing DTS:X content I would change amp assign to "front heights & rear heights." Is this correct? Since the speakers do not move, just the designation in the preamp.

I have Marantz 8802a and am using dual DRC-88a's, so Audyssey calibration not in play. Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

AYanguas said:


> *Why Not Dolby Atmos in dubbed tracks, and only in original English track?*
> 
> I would like to know what considerations apply when dubbing productions to other languages.
> 
> I’ve read that the dubbed versions of Carnival Row will be released on November 22th. As a non-native English, I will wait for the dubbed version.
> 
> Normally, only the English original soundtrack is released in Atmos, while the other languages dubbed tracks are released in AC3/DTS 5.1 at most.
> 
> Is it a matter of cost? What cost? Is it about the bigger Atmos tracks that does not fit all languages in a Bluray? I think that restriction would not apply in streaming as the files are kept on servers. Is it because the cost of mixing in Atmos is higher because more complex than in traditional 5.1?
> 
> I would imagine that all the music & sounds/effects apart from dialogues would be elaborated and pre-mixed (if that concept exists) only once. Then the final mix, for each dubbed language, is done adding the corresponding voices objects/tracks and compiling the final mix.
> 
> @*FilmMixer* , are you involved in any way into the dubbed soundtracks versions of Carnival Row? As far as you can share with us, could you explain how the dubbed tracks in other languages are mixed? From completely new mix, to just add a language dialogue to an existing music/sound effects track, could you clarify how is this done?



I would imagine time and money are a factor... plus there is always subtitles. I like listening to the original actors' voices and not some dub. I want the original performance. If I'm watching _Star Wars _I want James Earl Jones' booming voice as Darth Vader... if I'm watching _Wings of Desire_ (German language film) I want to hear Bruno Ganz speaking German, not someone else's voice speaking English.


----------



## FilmMixer

AYanguas said:


> *Why Not Dolby Atmos in dubbed tracks, and only in original English track?*
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know what considerations apply when dubbing productions to other languages.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve read that the dubbed versions of Carnival Row will be released on November 22th. As a non-native English, I will wait for the dubbed version.
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, only the English original soundtrack is released in Atmos, while the other languages dubbed tracks are released in AC3/DTS 5.1 at most.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a matter of cost? What cost? Is it about the bigger Atmos tracks that does not fit all languages in a Bluray? I think that restriction would not apply in streaming as the files are kept on servers. Is it because the cost of mixing in Atmos is higher because more complex than in traditional 5.1?
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that all the music & sounds/effects apart from dialogues would be elaborated and pre-mixed (if that concept exists) only once. Then the final mix, for each dubbed language, is done adding the corresponding voices objects/tracks and compiling the final mix.
> 
> 
> @FilmMixer, are you involved in any way into the dubbed soundtracks versions of Carnival Row? As far as you can share with us, could you explain how the dubbed tracks in other languages are mixed? From completely new mix, to just add a language dialogue to an existing music/sound effects track, could you clarify how is this done?



We mix an M and E (music and effects only) track for each project. Then the dubbed language can be added to it for the alternate languages. 

While creating a 5.1 from a 7.1 mix can be done at the same time, Atmos is a it of a different beast. Since you have dialog and effects objects, it presents some differences in workflow which requires a separate pass... 

So the answer in the end is yes... it’s about money.... and I know we did not do an Atmos M and E on Carnival Row. 

Sometimes time is also a factor. Netflix has 27 language versions (9 dubbed and the rest subtitled...). Since Netflix, and Amazon, etc, are responsible for creating and delivering content to all territories, time is tight... and they create so much more content than any one traditional studio at a time... a studio like WB or Sony might be preparing 1 or 2 films a month at a given time... Netflix can have that number every week, sometimes more. 

This is different on a studio film where we created the English masters and also create the M and Es... each territory usually then does the dubbing “in house/country”.... we on occasion handle a few of the language dubs but that is more the exception than the rule in my experience...)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## wseroyer

camd5pt0 said:


> I'm using Atrium 5 by Polk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


Look's like my wife's nightmare


----------



## AYanguas

Dan Hitchman said:


> I would imagine time and money are a factor... plus there is always subtitles. I like listening to the original actors' voices and not some dub. I want the original performance. If I'm watching _Star Wars _I want James Earl Jones' booming voice as Darth Vader... if I'm watching _Wings of Desire_ (German language film) I want to hear Bruno Ganz speaking German, not someone else's voice speaking English.


Yes, many people likes more the original voices than the dubbed ones.

But, here in Spain, and many people of my generation, have had bad learning of other languages in the childhood, and have grown listening all films and TV in the dubbed spanish versions. Althogh I learned English very late, needed for my professional performance, I am very lazy (and so many people like me) on trying to understand film dialogs. Also we have not had the training enough, at childhood, to be used to see original versions with subtitles, that is a little distracting for us. (you make an effort to read the subtitles and loose the beauty of the image...)

Because of this, in Spain, a very good dubbing voice actors have developped over time and the spanish (castellano) dubbed versions are really good. We all know the voices of main famous American or british actors like their counterparts spanish dubbing actors. Usually for main characters the same spanish actor dubbed always to the same original actor, in many different films. Just as an example, James Bond Roger Moore, Clint Eastwood and Captain Kirk WIlliam Shatner are all of them the same voice. And a really very good voice.

Just a glimpse of what is happening in Spain with my generation, perhaps changing very little for new generations that have more english training knowledge than us.


----------



## sdurani

MBrown2020 said:


> I have 4 atmos ceiling speakers front & rear at 45 degrees from MLP. For Dolby Atmos content I change amp assign to "front top & rear top" and then when playing DTS:X content I would change amp assign to "front heights & rear heights." Is this correct?


That's correct: the Tops locations for Atmos are the Heights locations for DTS:X.


----------



## Ganymed4

I can confirm what FilmMixer wrote - not that FilmMixer needs a confirmation, to be clear. I can confirm it, because I was watching a youtube video about Arri Media Studios in Munich, which is only in German - sorry.
They also do Atmos mixes and it was said in this video that it is about money. I would say that everything which cost additional money makes the revenue smaller and the guy from Arri Media said that an Atmos mix takes several days. The funny thing is that in movie theaters, German dubbed versions are shown, which have an Atmos track. But it is not the same as the version for home use - more objects, you know what I want to say. But you don't find them on Blu-Ray or UHD.


If you are interested, this video has three parts and this is the link to part one: 





Because they are not easy to find:


Part 2: 



 - most interesting for 3D Sound

Part 3:


----------



## mrtickleuk

AYanguas said:


> Yes, many people likes more the original voices than the dubbed ones.
> 
> But, here in Spain, and many people of my generation, have had bad learning of other languages in the childhood, and have grown listening all films and TV in the dubbed spanish versions. Althogh I learned English very late, needed for my professional performance, I am very lazy (and so many people like me) on trying to understand film dialogs. Also we have not had the training enough, at childhood, to be used to see original versions with subtitles, that is a little distracting for us. (you make an effort to read the subtitles and loose the beauty of the image...)


I understand your position. For me, the best thing I ever did, was to overcome any dislike of subtitles. I did this as an adult. It has opened a much bigger wide world of fantastic cinema for me. I know always prefer the original soundtrack with subtitles, even if there is an English dubbed version that's in 5.1 or even Atmos! I get the real actors' and actresses' voices, and all the lip-movements are in sync - them not being sync distracts me more than reading the subtitles. After a bit of "training" it becomes easy, and it's done without any thinking at all just like driving a car.


----------



## Augerhandle

camd5pt0 said:


> I'm using Atrium 5 by Polk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk



Loosen up that top cornice with a catspaw, and you have a ready made raceway to hide your wires.


----------



## FilmMixer

I posted this in the local LA area thread. But if anyone is in So Cal or within driving distance it’s an interesting event. 

Every year Mix Magazine hosts an event on the lot at Sony. 

It’s not cheap but if you are interested in sound for film it’s a cool event. There are panels on the mixing stages, demos, manufacturers, etc. 

As a side note I think I’ll be doing a panel on a recent project with some clops along with a q and a session. 

These sessions have not been publicly announced yet but there will be four of them.... I know what two of the other ones are and should be really cool. And the other panels that have been announced “sound” really cool, pun intended. 


https://www.mixsoundforfilm.com


----------



## usc1995

FilmMixer said:


> Regarding Carnival Row.
> 
> We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday.
> 
> Fingers crossed.


Have you heard anything further from your contact at Amazon? Last night I tried checking episode 1 via my AppleTV 4k and I kept getting an error every time I tried to play the UHD stream. I then switched over to my Xbox One S and the UHD stream played fine. The Xbox still has the annoying problem of wrapping every soundtrack in an Atmos container so it was reporting Atmos to my AVR as usual. The soundtrack sounded very full so I stuck my ear up to my ceiling speakers and there was plenty of content being played by them so I am pretty sure I got the Atmos track via the Xbox. I know it wasn't DSU since I cannot apply the upmixer to an Atmos track. It sounded really good! If there is any particular scene you recommend checking out please let us know to confirm we are getting the real thing.


----------



## FilmMixer

usc1995 said:


> Have you heard anything further from your contact at Amazon? Last night I tried checking episode 1 via my AppleTV 4k and I kept getting an error every time I tried to play the UHD stream. I then switched over to my Xbox One S and the UHD stream played fine. The Xbox still has the annoying problem of wrapping every soundtrack in an Atmos container so it was reporting Atmos to my AVR as usual. The soundtrack sounded very full so I stuck my ear up to my ceiling speakers and there was plenty of content being played by them so I am pretty sure I got the Atmos track via the Xbox. I know it wasn't DSU since I cannot apply the upmixer to an Atmos track. It sounded really good! If there is any particular scene you recommend checking out please let us know to confirm we are getting the real thing.




Yes I have heard from them. Still no final eta. Maybe tomorrow. But not confirmed. 

Thanks for the comment


----------



## batpig

In today’s “adventures in soloing pairs of speakers to see what happens when you exceed 7.1.4 channels”, covering our favorite topic, Disney / Marvel! 

I got my Avengers Endgame 4K disc a few days ago, and decided to spend a bit too much time sitting in silence waiting for objects to pass through specific speakers. 

I had heard that Endgame is basically a 7.1.2 mix. So I tested my X8500H with both 7.1.6 and 9.1.4 layouts; in the former, soloing the front, middle and rear heights, and in the latter soloing the wides. 

I used the beginning stretches of the climactic final battle, starting with the iron gauntlet scene. 

While I confirmed that Endgame is, for the most part, 7.1.2, I can report that it is NOT a “fixed printout” and would (rarely) activate all speakers in a 9.1.6 layout.

In 7.1.6, the Top Middle speakers carry essentially all of the ambient effects — musical score, reverberant reflections, explosions wrapping overhead. Zero of this sound makes it to the front/rear heights (or to the wides in 9.1.4). 

However, these extra three pairs of speakers are NOT totally silent 100% of the time. Only 98% of the time. There are specific discrete, directional effects, which very much zing though these extra speakers. The sound of the blast shields closing/opening, the missile launch from above, creaking and rumbling sounds from the collapsing building when they are trapped underground, some lightning zaps when Thor charges up, a few zooming sounds here and there when the big armies clash. 

I would posit therefore that this one is not a “fixed print out”, but rather that it’s just 98% the 7.1.2 cinematic bed. In other words, a 9ch mix with occasional use of objects only for specific directional effects in action scenes. 

As we know, the overhead stereo bed doesn’t array at home across all heights but instead just comes out of the TM. But in those moments when they do choose to use objects for discrete panning effects it will still activate the extra speakers. 

Now of course, this doesn’t make someone with a >11ch setup happy because those extra speakers are still silent 98-99% of the time. But it seems on this disc it’s mostly an unfortunate byproduct of (1) barely using dynamic objects and (2) the way home Atmos doesn’t array the overhead bed.

EDIT: Rechecked a few other MCU 4K discs to compare...

Civil War: retested at 7.1.6 and the overheads are the same as Endgame, 98% of overhead sound is in Top Middle but occasional objects zip through FH/RH. With 9.1.4 the Wides are used *heavily* (more than the overheads!) on this one as I reported previously. So I bet this would sound great on a 9.1.6 layout. 

Thor Ragnarok: a true “fixed 7.1.4”... with a 9.1.4 layout the wides have zero sound, with 7.1.6 the TM have zero sound. Although the heights that do make noise get plenty of effects, music, ambiance / reverb. 

Guardians 2: basically 7.1.6, absolutely zero sound in the wides and surprisingly rare use overhead effects. Heights are never used for musical score or ambiance from what I can hear, just a some rare directional / discrete effects. Plus, it sounds to me like all 6 overheads are making the same noises, almost like it’s a 7.1.2 mix but somehow the .2 does array across all 6 overheads 😕 

Bottom line is there’s a lot of variation in how these Disney “Atmouse” mixes are being done. It’s not as simple as “they are all just fixed 7.1.4”.


----------



## dfa973

batpig said:


> Bottom line is there’s a lot of variation in how these Disney “Atmouse” mixes are being done. It’s not as simple as “they are all just fixed 7.1.4”.


Great info and thanks for the effort!


----------



## 3db

​I'm looking at used Yamaha AVRs and I can pick up an RX-A2000 for $300. I looked at the specs and it dawned on me that it doesn't support Dolby Atmos... That started with the xx40 series. SInce I have all PSBs, I looked at the asking price for their *Imagine XA Dolby Atmos speakers. *These modules would sit on top of my towers. Asking price is $700 which I find absurdly expensive. They got solid reviews but $700? .

For those of you who went with Atmos.. did you find it a game changer over 7.1? Anyone use the speaker modules over ceiling speakers? I ask because my ceiling in the basement is finished and it would be rather difficult to fish wires through the walls into the ceiling.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> In today’s “adventures in soloing pairs of speakers to see what happens when you exceed 7.1.4 channels”,
> 
> As we know, the overhead stereo bed doesn’t array at home across all heights but instead just comes out of the TM.


Do you have a Denon X8500 and switch between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 configurations, or do you derive Top Middles between the Top Front and Top Rear using multiple receivers and the Scatmos method?


----------



## Augerhandle

3db said:


> ​I'm looking at used Yamaha AVRs and I can pick up an RX-A2000 for $300. I looked at the specs and it dawned on me that it doesn't support Dolby Atmos... That started with the xx40 series. SInce I have all PSBs, I looked at the asking price for their *Imagine XA Dolby Atmos speakers. *These modules would sit on top of my towers. Asking price is $700 which I find absurdly expensive. They got solid reviews but $700? .
> 
> For those of you who went with Atmos.. did you find it a game changer over 7.1? Anyone use the speaker modules over ceiling speakers? I ask because my ceiling in the basement is finished and it would be rather difficult to fish wires through the walls into the ceiling.


Unless you can move your sofa away from the back wall, I wouldn't recommend it. That being said, the speakers in question have 4" woofers and are spec'd at 100 Hz-23,000 Hz, so there are much cheaper options that are comparable. I'd say Sony's version is close, and they can be had for under $100/pair, if you watch them on amazon for awhile. Of course, there are other brands out there, from Onkyo to ELAC that may get you there as well.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> In 7.1.6, the Top Middle speakers carry essentially all of the ambient effects — musical score, reverberant reflections, explosions wrapping overhead. Zero of this sound makes it to the front/rear heights (or to the wides in 9.1.4).


Sounds like the type of content that was meant to be arrayed (rather than localized). Maybe it was mixed on a set-up where those channels did array and the mixer didn't know how it would be reproduced at home.


> Guardians 2: basically 7.1.6, absolutely zero sound in the wides and surprisingly rare use overhead effects. Heights are never used for musical score or ambiance from what I can hear, just a some rare directional / discrete effects. Plus, it sounds to me like all 6 overheads are making the same noises, almost like it’s a 7.1.2 mix but somehow the .2 does array across all 6 overheads 😕


The Star Wars movie Solo does something similar: 2 overhead channels copied to all overhead speakers. Except, there's only music up there (no sound effects).


> Bottom line is there’s a lot of variation in how these Disney “Atmouse” mixes are being done. It’s not as simple as “they are all just fixed 7.1.4”.


Yeah, it's like they spin a big wheel to choose random/different methods to under-utilize the Atmos format.


----------



## Joshua Chmiel

3db said:


> ​I'm looking at used Yamaha AVRs and I can pick up an RX-A2000 for $300. I looked at the specs and it dawned on me that it doesn't support Dolby Atmos... That started with the xx40 series. SInce I have all PSBs, I looked at the asking price for their *Imagine XA Dolby Atmos speakers. *These modules would sit on top of my towers. Asking price is $700 which I find absurdly expensive. They got solid reviews but $700? .
> 
> For those of you who went with Atmos.. did you find it a game changer over 7.1? Anyone use the speaker modules over ceiling speakers? I ask because my ceiling in the basement is finished and it would be rather difficult to fish wires through the walls into the ceiling.


With your room setup I wouldn't bother with Atmos. Not only, as @Augerhandle suggested, move your couch in from the wall, you would also need to lower all your surrounds to ear level. Now me personally I found 5.1.2 to be superior to 7.1 in sound envelopment. I have since gone to 5.3.4. I first used indoor/outdoor speakers and their included brackets to hang from my basement ceiling. I have since upgraded to speakers that "match" (same series) my base level speakers. Here is a link to that update with pictures of my small basement space.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1851.html#post58505822


----------



## dfa973

3db said:


> For those of you who went with Atmos.. did you find it a game changer over 7.1?


Yes, Atmos is changing the way we experience audio at home, in better, not in worse. It asks a little bit of effort (ok, maybe more effort...) but it does satisfy you when you play reference material - because not every Atmos mix is doing justice to the format or your setup.

Even if you have the couch against the wall you can do a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 setup just fine - yes, you have no real sound from the rear, but you will see that in practice it does not affect much the way you perceive the soundtracks. I have the same limitation (couch against the wall) and is fine.



3db said:


> Anyone use the speaker modules over ceiling speakers? I ask because my ceiling in the basement is finished and it would be rather difficult to fish wires through the walls into the ceiling.


I have a 5.1.2 setup based on reflected speakers and it is ok, it does not have the precision of my other 5.1.4 (.4 on-ceiling) setup but it does have an expanded audio field, the room seems bigger and filled with sounds. 
- you need to experiment a bit with the modules angles and height because you must minimize the direct sound and maximize the reflected sound;
- do not expect to just put the modules on top of the bed speakers and press play;
- your room will affect the way the sound is reflected;
- the distances between the modules and the ceiling will matter, as well as the distances between modules and your MLP;
- you may find that the usual 20 degrees angle of the modules is not fit for your room or ceiling height or the module-MLP distance;
- it is easier to be dissatisfied by a DAES based setup than a "standard" on-ceiling or in-ceiling setup because there are many factors that can go against a good reflected sound - a DAES based setup can be underwhelming (too many reflections and reverberations, low bed-top perceived separation, diffused sound, unprecise);


----------



## PoorSignal

MBrown2020 said:


> I have 4 atmos ceiling speakers front & rear at 45 degrees from MLP. For Dolby Atmos content I change amp assign to "front top & rear top" and then when playing DTS:X content I would change amp assign to "front heights & rear heights." Is this correct? Since the speakers do not move, just the designation in the preamp.
> 
> I have Marantz 8802a and am using dual DRC-88a's, so Audyssey calibration not in play. Thanks


I have mine set front height and rear heights since they are angled speakers. 
I have read, the DTS Neural upmixer will put different sound up depending on it being height speakers or top speakers. (result being when set as top speaker, it plays effects only and less music)

while that does not say anything about how the AVR processes ATMOS, (and this may not be DTS:X specific or ATMOS specific), the "top" speaker settings is probably best reserved only if you have in ceiling speakers.

I set as height speakers and do get ATMOS and do sound fine. 

Denon does say you can use height speakers for ATMOS playback
https://denon-uk.custhelp.com/app/a...uro-3d-and-dolby-atmos-speaker-configurations


On mine, physically they are installed in a side height left and side height right position (like in that article) I do NOT get ATMOS rear to sound when I do set them up as such. But DTS:X does, I have to set in the receiver as rear height L R to get ATMOs rear.

In theory I could switch the speaker assignment to SHL and SHR when I play DTS:X to get most accurate results, but it seems to sound fine set up as RHL and RHR, most of the disc content are ATMOS so I don't want to risk forgetting to switch back and forth.


----------



## sdurani

PoorSignal said:


> I have read, the DTS Neural upmixer will put different sound up depending on it being height speakers or top speakers. (result being when set as top speaker, it plays effects only and less music)


The Neural:X upmixer can separate direct sound from diffuse sound but it cannot separate sound effects from music.


> In theory I could switch the speaker assignment to SHL and SHR when I play DTS:X to get most accurate results, but it seems to sound fine set up as RHL and RHR, most of the disc content are ATMOS so I don't want to risk forgetting to switch back and forth.


Atmos and DTS:X have 4 overhead speaker locations in common: 










DTS:X calls those locations "Heights" while Atmos calls those same locations "Tops". So @MBrown2020 is correct to switch between those two labels to get the most accurate results. But this is one of those 'desired, not required' things. If switching between those two settings is inconvenient, then leaving them as Heights will be fine.


----------



## Swoosh830

batpig said:


> In 7.1.6, the Top Middle speakers carry essentially all of the ambient effects — musical score, reverberant reflections, explosions wrapping overhead. Zero of this sound makes it to the front/rear heights


Is there any advantage to having the .6 configured as TF, TM, and TR instead of FH, TM, RH as you seem to have? It's my understanding that FH/RH is best when playing DTS:X material, but if having a FH/TM/RH configuration would be kind of a "one size fits all" for both Atmos and DTS:X material, I may consider that for my upcoming 7.2.6 setup. This would prevent me from switching between separate FH/RH and TF, TM, and TR profiles.


----------



## batpig

Swoosh830 said:


> Is there any advantage to having the .6 configured as TF, TM, and TR instead of FH, TM, RH as you seem to have? It's my understanding that FH/RH is best when playing DTS:X material, but if having a FH/TM/RH configuration would be kind of a "one size fits all" for both Atmos and DTS:X material, I may consider that for my upcoming 7.2.6 setup. This would prevent me from switching between separate FH/RH and TF, TM, and TR profiles.


Good question! I actually had this thought myself, and I repeated some of my Endgame tests with a TF+TM+TR layout rather than FH+TM+RH. 

The results appeared to be identical. All of the musical score + ambient effects remained locked to the TM speakers, and the TF/TR speakers just got occasional sounds from discrete effects zinging through those spots. 

I would speculate that Atmos is less "sensitive" to this label change than is DTS:X, because the overhead effects are true objects and not fixed channel outputs. When DTS:X overheads are labeled "top" instead of "height", it engages its remapping algorithm to try and virtually relocate the overhead sound effects, using ear-level speakers to try and pull the sound downward and outward. So for example, if there's a sound in the RHL speaker, but you have it assigned as TRL, that sound will be spread between the TRL, SL, and SBL speakers so the phantom image is pulled outward. 

Atmos, while it does try to position sounds based on speaker locations, doesn't have the sounds fixed to a specific channel. So for example, if a missile zooms overhead, and you have 6 height speakers, it will pass through the front pair, then the middle pair, then the rear pair as the sound travels overhead. Whether the front/rear pair is labeled "height" or "top", that sound is panning through the three pairs of speakers in sequence. So I think it will preserve the directionality of overhead pans either way.

Now, from a practical perspective.... having that extra pair of middle overheads means that overhead sounds should be anchored directly overhead, so you have more flexibility to spread the front/rear overheads farther forward/rearward to create more separation and have more seamless transitions (e.g. if a sound travels up off the screen into the overheads). With only 4 overheads, if you spread them out farther then you create a "gap" in the sound directly overhead. With 6 that's not an issue, so I would lean towards pushing them further apart and labeling them as "FH/RH", which has the side benefit of providing better cross-format support for DTS:X and Auro3D without "penalizing" Atmos so much.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

sdurani said:


> That's correct: the Tops locations for Atmos are the Heights locations for DTS:X.


Won't switching them back and forth disable the Audyssey calibration ?


----------



## batpig

bobbyhollywood said:


> Won't switching them back and forth disable the Audyssey calibration ?


Correct, however if you track back to the original question, the OP is not using Audyssey so this isn't a concern for him.



MBrown2020 said:


> I have 4 atmos ceiling speakers front & rear at 45 degrees from MLP. For Dolby Atmos content I change amp assign to "front top & rear top" and then when playing DTS:X content I would change amp assign to "front heights & rear heights." Is this correct? Since the speakers do not move, just the designation in the preamp.
> 
> *I have Marantz 8802a and am using dual DRC-88a's, so Audyssey calibration not in play. Thanks*


----------



## mrtickleuk

bobbyhollywood said:


> Won't switching them back and forth disable the Audyssey calibration ?


Yes. We have the ridiculous situation now where you have to re-run Audyssey. This was first discovered on the 2015 models (or before).
The only thing Denon have done is make the backup/restore process quicker! That's a ludicrous work-around, not a solution. They still haven't fixed the underlying problem of labelling locations in the 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019 models. 

Maybe in 100 years they will fix it. At the moment they seem to be determined to release the same product every year with a different number on it and all the same problems and bugs.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Sounds like the type of content that was meant to be arrayed (rather than localized). Maybe it was mixed on a set-up where those channels did array and the mixer didn't know how it would be reproduced at home.


100% -- as I was doing these tests I was thinking to myself that some of these "underutilized" or "fixed" sounding Atmos mixes could in part be due to this specific phenomenon. The mixer expects the musical score or the explosion to spread through the stereo overhead beds, but at home it just locks into the single pair of speakers. So if you just did some brief tests it would be easy to assume there's nothing in the other overheads, but when panning object effects are used they do pass through additional speaker. But it would definitely hurt the overhead immersion for multi-row theaters if the vast majority of overhead effects end up collapsing to a single pair of speakers.

Interestingly, I was looking at this old CEDIA presentation from Trinnov on their "universal immersive layout" concepts and they note that in large theaters, they would array a pair of TM speakers overhead to create more even coverage. The "overhead beds don't array" phenomenon would certainly lend credence to this being a viable concept to allow for both even overhead immersion of music/ambient sounds, but still allowing for directional panning when needed.


----------



## PoorSignal

sdurani said:


> The Neural:X upmixer can separate direct sound from diffuse sound but it cannot separate sound effects from music. Atmos and DTS:X have 4 overhead speaker locations in common:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X calls those locations "Heights" while Atmos calls those same locations "Tops". So @MBrown2020 is correct to switch between those two labels to get the most accurate results. But this is one of those 'desired, not required' things. If switching between those two settings is inconvenient, then leaving them as Heights will be fine.


I would think it is best to select the setting that match closest to your setup. 

All I am saying is that processor is supposed to play the object based sound that correspond to where you have your speaker installed. If it is not a ceiling speaker, select the height one (in my opinion), there is a slight difference in position. Denon doesn't say you need to select top speakers setup for ATMOs playback.


----------



## sdurani

PoorSignal said:


> I would think it is best to select the setting that match closest to your setup.


Agreed, but that's the problem: the same ceiling locations have two settings that match closest, Heights for DTS:X = Tops for Atmos. Whichever setting you pick will be right for one format and wrong for the other. Again, if switching settings is not convenient, then no big deal to leave it as Heights.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> Do you have a Denon X8500 and switch between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 configurations, or do you derive Top Middles between the Top Front and Top Rear using multiple receivers and the Scatmos method?


No ScAtmos for me, this is switching configs on the X8500H. If I was deriving TM from TF+TR then it would be impossible to hear (for example) that Thor Ragnarok is fixed at 7.1.4 and has silent TM outputs in 7.1.6 mode.

I use "Custom" amp assign mode, which lets me toggle the speaker layout setting and also mute all the speaker outputs except the one I care about. A bit cumbersome, but allows me to precisely control the speaker layout and the audible speaker output(s) so I can hear exactly what's happening.


----------



## solarrdadd

Stereodude said:


> Can I be the first person to preemptively complain about your Atmos mix on Carnival Row not being immersive enough?
> 
> It is going to have an Atmos mix right? :serious:





FilmMixer said:


> Yes. We will be the second Amazon title.
> 
> I don’t think there should be many reasons to complain...
> 
> I mean we have a multitude of scenes where it is raining.
> 
> At least I think we got that right





FilmMixer said:


> I’ve reached out to my contact at Amazon about it.
> 
> I can’t get Jack Ryan season one to stream Atmos either. Tried on Xbox, Vizio and Apple TV.... maybe some behind the scenes changes.
> 
> As soon as I hear an update I’ll let ya know ...
> 
> The 5.1 sounds as intended though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





FilmMixer said:


> Update ...
> 
> Heard from my contact at Amazon.
> 
> Short answer is they know and they are working on it and have been all week.
> 
> They’ll give me an update when the stream goes live...
> 
> I’ve only been given a time frame of ASAP...
> 
> As a side note the Atmos streams/encodes are entirely separate form the “regular” 5.1/stereo files.... it simply isn’t a stream or tech glitch, but an entirely separate set of “files.”
> 
> As a matter of fact the Atmos encodes includes an Atmos Amazon logo ... I think IIRC it is a different color scheme than the...
> 
> When you watch a Prime show and see the Prime banner in front that is the service is actually seamlessly “editing” that in real time to the program...
> 
> Netflix actually now does the same thing (it used to be that the logo was part of the show and we would mix in the logos as part of the show... but that has changed over the last few years ...)
> 
> While no one is more disappointment right now than me I’m hopeful the stream will be live soon...
> 
> I’m very proud of the mix on the show....





FilmMixer said:


> Regarding Carnival Row.
> 
> We are hoping for next Weds/Thursday.
> 
> Fingers crossed.





FilmMixer said:


> Yes I have heard from them. Still no final eta. *Maybe tomorrow*. But not confirmed.
> 
> Thanks for the comment


nope, not today either. I thought for sure it was going to be today, my TCL's got an update for Prime and I was praying it was for Carnival Row, but, it's still only DD+ which still sounds damn good with DSU on. I am glad it's gotten green lit for Season 2. 

hope they have the sound together by then!


----------



## Craig Mecak

For now, Carnival Row in plain 5.1 UpMixed to 7.1.4 with Neural:X sounds amazing.


----------



## FilmMixer

solarrdadd said:


> nope, not today either. I thought for sure it was going to be today, my TCL's got an update for Prime and I was praying it was for Carnival Row, but, it's still only DD+ which still sounds damn good with DSU on. I am glad it's gotten green lit for Season 2.
> 
> 
> 
> hope they have the sound together by then!



I spoke to Amazon today. No update. Hoping to have a final ETA tomorrow. 

No one is more bummed than me.


----------



## FilmMixer

Craig Mecak said:


> For now, Carnival Row in plain 5.1 UpMixed to 7.1.4 with Neural:X sounds amazing.



Thank you.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> 100% -- as I was doing these tests I was thinking to myself that some of these "underutilized" or "fixed" sounding Atmos mixes could in part be due to this specific phenomenon. The mixer expects the musical score or the explosion to spread through the stereo overhead beds, but at home it just locks into the single pair of speakers. So if you just did some brief tests it would be easy to assume there's nothing in the other overheads, but when panning object effects are used they do pass through additional speaker.


What's weird is the effect you describe seems to be related to what I experienced with M:I Fallout, yet with the opposite result. In that movie, my Front Heights and Rear Heights were constantly active, but the Top Middles were mostly silent except for the rare discrete sound panning through them.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

I've confused myself reading this thread. I have four Polk OWM3 speakers attached to the ceiling and angled towards the MLP. They are in alignment with the main L/R, not near the walls. In my Yamaha 3070, I have them configured as 'overhead' for Atmos and switch them to 'heights' for DTS:X.

Since these aren't in-ceiling facing down speakers, should I configure them as heights regardless of content?

Does anyone know what a receiver does differently between the two settings? And does YPAO (Yamaha's version of Audyssey) need to be run again if this is changed?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bill Wolfer said:


> I've confused myself reading this thread. I have four Polk OWM3 speakers attached to the ceiling and angled towards the MLP. They are in alignment with the main L/R, not near the walls. In my Yamaha 3070, I have them configured as 'overhead' for Atmos and switch them to 'heights' for DTS:X.
> 
> Since these aren't in-ceiling facing down speakers, should I configure them as heights regardless of content?
> 
> Does anyone know what a receiver does differently between the two settings? And does YPAO (Yamaha's version of Audyssey) need to be run again if this is changed?



Tops for Atmos, Heights for DTS: X. I'm not sure if YPAO gets screwed up by doing this.


----------



## blb1215

Dan Hitchman said:


> Tops for Atmos, Heights for DTS: X. I'm not sure if YPAO gets screwed up by doing this.



I am curious as well as to what exactly changes. I have Denon 6500H. What would we notice in having ceiling mounted speakers assigned as tops when listening to DTS:X or listening to Atmos with assigned as heights. Would it be something that would be noticeable?


If having 4 ceiling mounted and you wanted to leave just one setting for convenience is one better than the other in playing both formats?


Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blb1215 said:


> I am curious as well as to what exactly changes. I have Denon 6500H. What would we notice in having ceiling mounted speakers assigned as tops when listening to DTS:X or listening to Atmos with assigned as heights. Would it be something that would be noticeable?
> 
> 
> If having 4 ceiling mounted and you wanted to leave just one setting for convenience is one better than the other in playing both formats?
> 
> 
> Thanks



With DTS: X, the overhead fixed objects (basically channels) start leaking into the lower level speakers if you use Tops. It's all screwy because DTS: X Heights and Dolby Atmos Tops fall along the same recommended positioning plane. DTS should have allowed their Heights to work with the Tops designation for compatibility sake.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Tops for Atmos, Heights for DTS: X. I'm not sure if YPAO gets screwed up by doing this.


It doesn't, since the speaker locations (and therefore their calibration/equalization) aren't changing. Yamaha has presets that can store configurations, so you can make up a preset where those speakers are labeled Heights and copy them to a preset where those same speakers are labeled Overheads (Yamaha's name for Tops).


----------



## blb1215

Dan Hitchman said:


> With DTS: X, the overhead fixed objects (basically channels) start leaking into the lower level speakers if you use Tops. It's all screwy because DTS: X Heights and Dolby Atmos Tops fall along the same recommended positioning plane. DTS should have allowed their Heights to work with the Tops designation for compatibility sake.



With Atmos, what happens when tops are assigned as heights? Any negative affect?


Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

blb1215 said:


> With Atmos, what happens when tops are assigned as heights? Any negative affect?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Objects position slightly differently. I don't think it's quite as dramatic as DTS: X. The trouble is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place.


----------



## solarrdadd

FilmMixer said:


> I spoke to Amazon today. No update. Hoping to have a final ETA tomorrow.
> 
> No one is more bummed than me.


What I find most interesting is that Jack Ryan, day one, streamed both DV & ATMOS with no problems. Yet Carnival Row can’t yet pass ATMOS. No, I don’t wanna hear (no pun intended  ) that it’s two different shows either; if both have ATMOS, both should stream it. Hell, Suspiria also streams both with no issues from day one. I’m just not inclined to believe Prime on this one. I mean this is one of their biggest most ambitious shows this year and the audio doesn’t work right? 

Also, slightly unrelated, I do wish Prime would include the ATMOS label next to the standard 5.1 for titles that support it. 

I will be the first to apologize and thank A Prime if it starts streaming ATMOS for this title before S2 drops.


----------



## blb1215

Dan Hitchman said:


> Objects position slightly differently. I don't think it's quite as dramatic as DTS: X. The trouble is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place.





Thanks. Based on this it appears the "best set it and forget it" compromise is to set the ceiling mounted speakers as front height and rear height. Is that correct?


----------



## Bill Wolfer

The Yamaha 3070 manual says to use height for speakers mounted on the front/rear walls, and overhead for speakers mounted to the ceiling, so I guess I'm doing it right even though my speakers are not in the ceiling, but on.


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> With Atmos, what happens when tops are assigned as heights?


The Atmos renderer thinks that Heights are at the very front & rear of your speaker layout while Tops are inward of those speaker locations. 

Suppose your 4 overhead speakers are labeled Tops: 










If you play Atmos signals intended for the Tops locations, they will image from where the speakers are: 










If you re-label them as Heights, then the Atmos renderer will try to phantom image those sounds inward of those speaker locations, where it thinks the Tops should be: 










The sound is still on the ceiling, as intended, just moved slightly. By comparison, the Tops label will cause the DTS:X renderer to bleed some of the height information downward to the floor speakers in an attempt to phantom image those sounds slightly lower, where it thinks the Heights should be. So if you can't switch easily between labels, then the Heights label is the lesser compromise.


----------



## FilmMixer

solarrdadd said:


> What I find most interesting is that Jack Ryan, day one, streamed both DV & ATMOS with no problems. Yet Carnival Row can’t yet pass ATMOS. No, I don’t wanna hear (no pun intended  ) that it’s two different shows either; if both have ATMOS, both should stream it. Hell, Suspiria also streams both with no issues from day one. I’m just not inclined to believe Prime on this one. I mean this is one of their biggest most ambitious shows this year and the audio doesn’t work right?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, slightly unrelated, I do wish Prime would include the ATMOS label next to the standard 5.1 for titles that support it.
> 
> 
> 
> I will be the first to apologize and thank A Prime if it starts streaming ATMOS for this title before S2 drops.



Jack Ryan was finished differently than CR, and they have since made some back end changes to their encoding platform. Susperia was also done pre changes. 

I’ve spoken to Amazon Studios. I know what the issues are. Once the problem is solved I feel confident this type of delay won’t happen again. 

It is on its way.... very very soon.


----------



## Keenan

FilmMixer said:


> Jack Ryan was finished differently than CR, and they have since made some back end changes to their encoding platform. Susperia was also done pre changes.
> 
> I’ve spoken to Amazon Studios. I know what the issues are. Once the problem is solved I feel confident this type of delay won’t happen again.
> 
> It is on its way.... very very soon.


Are the issues something that might be of interest to this group or is it something boring like files not being placed where they should have been? Or maybe even proprietary info that's not to be shared?


----------



## pappaduke

Bill Wolfer said:


> The Yamaha 3070 manual says to use height for speakers mounted on the front/rear walls, and overhead for speakers mounted to the ceiling, so I guess I'm doing it right even though my speakers are not in the ceiling, but on.


That sounds correct. I would consider in ceiling and on ceiling the as the same thing.


----------



## Jon AA

FilmMixer said:


> Jack Ryan was finished differently than CR, and they have since made some back end changes to their encoding platform.


I tried to load both tonight and got errors on an Apple 4K--they wouldn't play at all. Other shows loaded just fine. Hopefully they get it figured out soon. I did watch CR BTW, and it sounded very good, even without Atmos (used Neural:X).


Do you happen to know (or can you say if you do) if _The Expanse_ is getting Atmos on the upcoming season? Perfect show for it.


----------



## anothermib

FilmMixer said:


> Jack Ryan was finished differently than CR, and they have since made some back end changes to their encoding platform. Susperia was also done pre changes.
> 
> I’ve spoken to Amazon Studios. I know what the issues are. Once the problem is solved I feel confident this type of delay won’t happen again.
> 
> It is on its way.... very very soon.




... and while they are on it it would be really great if they implement it in a way that works in all countries. Jack Ryan is still only available in 5.1 here. I am eager to get my first atmos show on Amazon. CR would be great for that.


----------



## Craig Mecak

anothermib said:


> ... and while they are on it it would be really great if they implement it in a way that works in all countries. Jack Ryan is still only available in 5.1 here. I am eager to get my first atmos show on Amazon. CR would be great for that.



And which country are you from?


We didn't get Jack Ryan in Atmos on Amazon Prime until I contacted them and complained.


Suddenly the next day, BAM! Jack Ryan in Atmos in Australia. They just had to enable it in our region.


----------



## anothermib

Craig Mecak said:


> And which country are you from?
> 
> 
> We didn't get Jack Ryan in Atmos on Amazon Prime until I contacted them and complained.
> 
> 
> Suddenly the next day, BAM! Jack Ryan in Atmos in Australia. They just had to enable it in our region.




I am in Germany. When the show was released I complained as well. However, they told me that it was not worth the effort based on the limited demand. They said they would escalate it, but when I checked the other day it still was 5.1 only.


----------



## AYanguas

FilmMixer said:


> Jack Ryan was finished differently than CR, and they have since made some back end changes to their encoding platform. Susperia was also done pre changes.
> 
> I’ve spoken to Amazon Studios. I know what the issues are. Once the problem is solved I feel confident this type of delay won’t happen again.
> 
> It is on its way.... very very soon.


Yestarday I had Carnival Row in Amazon Prime, But just today I have not available Carnival Row. The App shows the Series but no option available to play any episode.

Are they updating the files and have broken everything?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Craig Mecak said:


> And which country are you from?
> 
> We didn't get Jack Ryan in Atmos on Amazon Prime until I contacted them and complained.
> 
> Suddenly the next day, BAM! Jack Ryan in Atmos in Australia. They just had to enable it in our region.


It's disgusting that you had to complain for them to flick that switch. Absolutely disgusting. Who are these people that do this?

Are you talking about a German dubbed version in Atmos, @anothermib? I think that would be their only excuse for saying "not worth the effort based on the limited demand". Of course, sometimes they deliberately mis-understand you, even if you were clearly asking about the English language Atmos version, and pretend that "not enough German users have Atmos for it to be worth it", which is of course ridiculous.


----------



## FilmMixer

AYanguas said:


> Yestarday I had Carnival Row in Amazon Prime, But just today I have not available Carnival Row. The App shows the Series but no option available to play any episode.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they updating the files and have broken everything?


EDIT: as of right now the shows are working again. But still no CR Atmos.


----------



## Keenan

AYanguas said:


> Yestarday I had Carnival Row in Amazon Prime, But just today I have not available Carnival Row. The App shows the Series but no option available to play any episode.
> 
> Are they updating the files and have broken everything?


I noticed something similar when I checked for Carnival Row Atmos availability the other day, the app acted as if I didn't have a Prime account and wouldn't allow me to play the first 3 episodes but would let me play the 4th. Sadly, this behavior is not all that unusual for Amazon.

On a positive note, I've read that they've finally got both the 4K and 1080p SD version of a title in the same menu location. I wonder how many planets they had to move to make that happen?


----------



## zeonstar

Keenan said:


> On a positive note, I've read that they've finally got both the 4K and 1080p SD version of a title in the same menu location. I wonder how many planets they had to move to make that happen?/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif


What do you mean?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Keenan said:


> On a positive note, I've read that they've finally got both the 4K and 1080p SD version of a title in the same menu location. I wonder how many planets they had to move to make that happen?


Screenshots, please! This would be HUGE if they've finally done it.

However, the fact that you mention "both versions", plural, fills me with dread. If, after all this time, they *still* have "separate versions" exposed to the UI, the user - and all they've done is move them around a bit - then they have *totally missed the point* of all the problems caused by doubling the number of titles in their catalogue...


----------



## Keenan

zeonstar said:


> What do you mean?





mrtickleuk said:


> Screenshots, please! This would be HUGE if they've finally done it.
> 
> However, the fact that you mention "both versions", plural, fills me with dread. If, after all this time, they *still* have "separate versions" exposed to the UI, the user - and all they've done is move them around a bit - then they have *totally missed the point* of all the problems caused by doubling the number of titles in their catalogue...


I'll have to find the post, I believe I saw it in the Fire Stick thread but I'm not 100% positive about that.

Okay, I'm not sure how long this button has been there but in the images below you can see the "More Ways to Watch" button which when selected brings up the following image which shows the different versions of the title.


----------



## solarrdadd

Keenan said:


> I noticed something similar when I checked for Carnival Row Atmos availability the other day, the app acted as if I didn't have a Prime account and wouldn't allow me to play the first 3 episodes but would let me play the 4th. Sadly, this behavior is not all that unusual for Amazon.
> 
> On a positive note, I've read that they've finally got both the 4K and 1080p SD version of a title in the same menu location. I wonder how many planets they had to move to make that happen?





zeonstar said:


> What do you mean?





Keenan said:


> I'll have to find the post, I believe I saw it in the Fire Stick thread but I'm not 100% positive about that.
> 
> Okay, I'm not sure how long this button has been there but in the images below you can see the "More Ways to Watch" button which when selected brings up the following image which shows the different versions of the title.


Keenan, the only way this will be helpful to more people is if you tell us on what are you getting the app and what the app version is.

example, i'm streaming on Roku OS on TCL and my Prime App version is 11.0 build 2019090617
I suspect different TV OS's might have different versions of this (and other) app. 

also, my version of the app does not give the option box to select between UHD and HDR in the same place, also, my version doesn't show the seasons by number to select, I have to go to a separate menu that says "seasons" and click on it then once there select which season i want to watch. yours is laid out very nice, but, I don't think everyone has the same version as you. myself, like many of us, we have to sometimes search for the UHD versions of a show. nobody knows why amazon does that. 

so, where is your app coming from and what version is it? same for everyone asking. we might all have different versions of this thing given our OS and the tv make.


----------



## Keenan

solarrdadd said:


> Keenan, the only way this will be helpful to more people is if you tell us on what are you getting the app and what the app version is.
> 
> example, i'm streaming on Roku OS on TCL and my Prime App version is 11.0 build 2019090617
> I suspect different TV OS's might have different versions of this (and other) app.
> 
> also, my version of the app does not give the option box to select between UHD and HDR in the same place, also, my version doesn't show the seasons by number to select, I have to go to a separate menu that says "seasons" and click on it then once there select which season i want to watch. yours is laid out very nice, but, I don't think everyone has the same version as you. myself, like many of us, we have to sometimes search for the UHD versions of a show. nobody knows why amazon does that.
> 
> so, where is your app coming from and what version is it? same for everyone asking. we might all have different versions of this thing given our OS and the tv make.


It appears that it's only available on Fire TV devices so far. I checked a Roku Ultra, an Apple TV 4K and the Prime app on an Android-powered Sony OLED and only the Fire Stick had the More Ways button.

The Fire TV Stick software version is: 6.2.6.5(NS6265/2157)

BTW, further discussion of the Prime app should probably be done in the Fire TV device thread,
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-n...vision-hdr10-dolby-atmos-23.html#post58559422


----------



## Matt L

Just a thought - would it be worthwhile to to split this thread in two? One technical one programming? The bulk of the thread for some time has been on programming/content not so much of technical which is what the thread was originally. 

I like reading all the behind the scene stuff and programming suggestions, just seems it should stand alone.


----------



## anothermib

mrtickleuk said:


> It's disgusting that you had to complain for them to flick that switch. Absolutely disgusting. Who are these people that do this?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about a German dubbed version in Atmos, @anothermib? I think that would be their only excuse for saying "not worth the effort based on the limited demand". Of course, sometimes they deliberately mis-understand you, even if you were clearly asking about the English language Atmos version, and pretend that "not enough German users have Atmos for it to be worth it", which is of course ridiculous.




Yes, not producing a german dubbed Atmos version would be understandable. However, I was asking for the english version. One could tell, that in this case they felt a bit uneasy about the fact that they were not able to blame it on the evil studios that won’t give them the rights for the Atmos version. Hence they promised to internally escalate the issue - with no effect as far as I can tell.

Finding the right version is difficult enough as the same show tends to appear as a multitude of entries of OV, combination of dubbed and OV, OV with subtitles, OV in UHD, dubbed in UHD, ....
In general it is pretty hard to tell which audio or subtitle track are included in which. Perhaps the Atmos track is still hidden somewhere ;-)


----------



## rosstg

I’ve been enjoying Atmos for a few years now. Currently have Klipsch RP 140sa up firing but decided to mount them on my ceiling. Just waiting for the mounts.


----------



## PoorSignal

Hey all, I wanted to buy the Matrix Trilogy in 4K and I just wanted to check if they didn't messed up the bass or mixing for this?
I think sometimes the immersive audio on 4K get remixed but they don't carry the weight of the older mixes.


----------



## niterida

rosstg said:


> I’ve been enjoying Atmos for a few years now. Currently have Klipsch RP 140sa up firing but decided to mount them on my ceiling. Just waiting for the mounts.


 These are not designed to be used as anything except upfiring - they have special crossovers that give a frequency response specifically for the sound to be bounced off the ceiling.


----------



## rosstg

niterida said:


> These are not designed to be used as anything except upfiring - they have special crossovers that give a frequency response specifically for the sound to be bounced off the ceiling.


They can be used as traditional surround speakers as per Klipsch, hence why they have a keyhole to be mounted.


----------



## pappaduke

PoorSignal said:


> Hey all, I wanted to buy the Matrix Trilogy in 4K and I just wanted to check if they didn't messed up the bass or mixing for this?
> I think sometimes the immersive audio on 4K get remixed but they don't carry the weight of the older mixes.


There’s a ton of reviews here: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Matrix-Trilogy-4K-Blu-ray/211950/


----------



## niterida

rosstg said:


> They can be used as traditional surround speakers as per Klipsch, hence why they have a keyhole to be mounted.



Are you sure ? I only ask because the Klipsch literature that I read did not mention using them as surrounds and there is no crossover switch to set them from upfiring to surround.


----------



## mrtickleuk

niterida said:


> These are not designed to be used as anything except upfiring - they have special crossovers that give a frequency response specifically for the sound to be bounced off the ceiling.


This has been disputed - see previous discussions where people have opened them up. Some say that the frequency shaping is done in the AVR.


----------



## rosstg

niterida said:


> Are you sure ? I only ask because the Klipsch literature that I read did not mention using them as surrounds and there is no crossover switch to set them from upfiring to surround.


Yep, I’m positive. Most reviews say they work better mounted.


----------



## blb1215

sdurani said:


> The Atmos renderer thinks that Heights are at the very front & rear of your speaker layout while Tops are inward of those speaker locations.
> 
> Suppose your 4 overhead speakers are labeled Tops:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you play Atmos signals intended for the Tops locations, they will image from where the speakers are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you re-label them as Heights, then the Atmos renderer will try to phantom image those sounds inward of those speaker locations, where it thinks the Tops should be:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sound is still on the ceiling, as intended, just moved slightly. By comparison, the Tops label will cause the DTS:X renderer to bleed some of the height information downward to the floor speakers in an attempt to phantom image those sounds slightly lower, where it thinks the Heights should be. So if you can't switch easily between labels, then the Heights label is the lesser compromise.



Thank, that makes sense. I do have ceiling mounted speakers and did amp re-assign to FH and RH to see how it sounded. I have the Atmos demo disc that I had listened to several times when the speakers were correctly assigned as Top Front/ Top Rear. After changing amp assign to heights, I am not sure I could tell any change/difference. I know this is not an accurate way to really tell as I am going by memory as to the demos sounded. I do have a couple of questions:


1. Since I will only have one row of seating and am really only concerned with 2 seating in middle, would the phantom positioning be better? or at least a non-issue. Are there any disadvantages from the MLP in this configuration?


2. When I reassigned the speakers, I lost Audyssey info and had to rerun with the amp assign change. In order to switch back and forth, is there a way to do that without having to rerun Audyssey? My receiver is Denon 6500H


Thanks,
Barry


----------



## Lesmor

blb1215 said:


> Thank, that makes sense. I do have ceiling mounted speakers and did amp re-assign to FH and RH to see how it sounded. I have the Atmos demo disc that I had listened to several times when the speakers were correctly assigned as Top Front/ Top Rear. After changing amp assign to heights, I am not sure I could tell any change/difference. I know this is not an accurate way to really tell as I am going by memory as to the demos sounded. I do have a couple of questions:
> 
> 
> 1. Since I will only have one row of seating and am really only concerned with 2 seating in middle, would the phantom positioning be better? or at least a non-issue. Are there any disadvantages from the MLP in this configuration?
> 
> 
> 2. When I reassigned the speakers, I lost Audyssey info and had to rerun with the amp assign change. In order to switch back and forth, is there a way to do that without having to rerun Audyssey? My receiver is Denon 6500H
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry


Is there not a save and restore (to a flash drive) option in your Denon AVR ?
alternatively maybe the Audyssey app is compatible with the Denon 6500H ?


----------



## blb1215

Lesmor said:


> Is there not a save and restore (to a flash drive) option in your Denon AVR ?
> alternatively maybe the Audyssey app is compatible with the Denon 6500H ?



Thanks
There is a save/reload by flash drive option but I was hoping the would be an easier/quicker way. I am not sure if this is possible with the app as I don't have the app at this time.


----------



## sdurani

blb1215 said:


> Since I will only have one row of seating and am really only concerned with 2 seating in middle, would the phantom positioning be better? or at least a non-issue. Are there any disadvantages from the MLP in this configuration?


Only disadvantage with Atmos playback would be that the 4 overhead sound sources phantom image closer to you than their physical speaker locations (won't sound as spread out above you). But if you couldn't hear the difference, then it's a non-issue. Main advantage of using the Heights label for both formats is that it keeps DTS:X height layer info from bleeding down to the base layer speakers.


----------



## blb1215

Thanks Sanjay!


----------



## murlidher

sdurani said:


> Only disadvantage with Atmos playback would be that the 4 overhead sound sources phantom image closer to you than their physical speaker locations (won't sound as spread out above you). But if you couldn't hear the difference, then it's a non-issue. Main advantage of using the Heights label for both formats is that it keeps DTS:X height layer info from bleeding down to the base layer speakers.


Does neural x also bleed sound down if we keep it as top front/middle/rear label instead of front height or rear height? Please clarify.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

murlidher said:


> Does neural x also bleed sound down if we keep it as top front/middle/rear label instead of front height or rear height? Please clarify.


See post # 55574 for clarification.


----------



## murlidher

sdurani said:


> See post # 55574 for clarification.


Thanks i saw. So i assume, the info is same for 5.1 coded movies when we try to change it to DSU or neural mode. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

murlidher said:


> So i assume, the info is same for 5.1 coded movies when we try to change it to DSU or neural mode.


5.1 soundtracks have no height info, so nothing to bleed down.


----------



## rosstg

So I managed to mount my modules last night on my ceiling. Wow what a difference. Sooooo much better. I’ll be adding another pair for the rear this Christmas. All I need to do tonight is run Audyssey again. I think this time I will limit MultiEQ to 300hz and turn off DEQ.


----------



## Lanky

Carnival Row is playing in Atmos on my AppleTV 4K now!


----------



## FilmMixer

I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FilmMixer

I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bond 007

^^^ Atmos on FireTV Cube.


----------



## langers_2004

Hi guys. 

I've been reading through this post and was looking for some assistance. 

I have a 5.2.4 setup. I'm using tannoy mercurcy mx1 speakers all round. They are in a front height and rear position, bookshelf speakers mounted heigh up angled down. 

Is this the best for a non ceiling cutting setup? I see the svs guys recommend front heights to be on the side walls? 

Other than amp assign, is there anthing else I should adjust for the height channels? I get great sound from the rears, bit not impressed with the front height channels.


----------



## Craig Mecak

FilmMixer said:


> I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Although the Carnival Row stream on Prime is now working on the Apple TV 4K in Australia in UHD/HDR (previously wasn't playing at all), audio is NOT Atmos. Only 5.1.


----------



## Stereodude

FilmMixer said:


> I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow.


I'm pretty sure there's some jokes about how many software & web developers it takes to stream a file in there somewhere.

Thanks for the update though!


----------



## stikle

FilmMixer said:


> I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow.


nVidia Shield Carnival Row is streaming in Atmos & HDR10 now.


----------



## solarrdadd

FilmMixer said:


> I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I can confirm this, I’m in VA and I’m getting ATMOS from my both of my TCL TVs in both my ATMOS setups in the bedroom and the HT. 

I’m glad they were able to get it resolved whatever the issue was. 

Now I’ll have to rewatch the entire series to get the full treatment. I’m so happy to be getting all the capabilities out of my 2 ATMOS setups. This is a good day. I’m hoping they do more things with UHD & ATMOS. Thank you Prime. 

Also, thank you FilmMixer for staying on this and keeping us up to date with info.


----------



## westbergjoakim

sdurani said:


> 5.1 soundtracks have no height info, so nothing to bleed down.


Is that also the case when you upmixing a 5.1 or 7.1-movie to say 7.1.4 with DD Surround or Neural:X? You get sound up there, mostly songs and ambience, but sometimes I feel like it's bleeding down or that the sound are in both front and tops/heights.

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

westbergjoakim said:


> Is that also the case when you upmixing a 5.1 or 7.1-movie to say 7.1.4 with DD Surround or Neural:X? You get sound up there, mostly songs and ambience, but sometimes I feel like it's bleeding down or that the sound are in both front and tops/heights.


When you apply DSU or Neural:X to a 5.1 or 7.1 track, sounds bleed in only one direction: up. It's possible that some of the sounds upmixed to the height layer speakers are not completely cancelled from the base layer speakers, so those particular sounds could be present in the Fronts and Tops/Heights. But that's not height information bleeding down, because there is no height information in 5.1/7.1 tracks.


----------



## westbergjoakim

stikle said:


> nVidia Shield Carnival Row is streaming in Atmos & HDR10 now.


It doesn't streaming Atmos in Sweden on Shield yet 

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## Matt L

After all the talk of Carnival Row here I did check it out. The Atmos feed is phenomenal, the story not so much, one and done for me.


----------



## FilmMixer

westbergjoakim said:


> It doesn't streaming Atmos in Sweden on Shield yet
> 
> Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk



Only US and U.K./GB now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## westbergjoakim

FilmMixer said:


> Only US and U.K./GB now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Ah, that's too bad! Do you know if they will later or not at all?

Skickat från min SM-G960F via Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Matt L said:


> After all the talk of Carnival Row here I did check it out. The Atmos feed is phenomenal, the story not so much, one and done for me.



It had potential. The story and acting (mostly by Orlando - who comes across as a plank of curmudgeony wood) is just serviceable. Surprisingly enough, the stand out performance is by Cara Delevingne who genuinely puts real effort into squeezing some heart out of fairly bland dialog. The reason I say that is because most every other role she's done has been awful as she's been cast so often because of her looks rather than acting chops). Maybe she had some acting lessons between then and now.


----------



## 99rook99

FilmMixer said:


> Only US and U.K./GB now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sucks that it not in ATMOS in Canada, yet. You would think, with the time and effort that they put into making an ATMOS track, that they would push it out to as many countries as possible.


----------



## Bond 007

Matt L said:


> After all the talk of Carnival Row here I did check it out. The Atmos feed is phenomenal, the story not so much, one and done for me.


+1


----------



## pappaduke

Watching Star Trek 4K Trilogy with Dolby Atmos. What a wonderful use of the Atmos channels IMO. There are moments during the movie that I find myself ducking out of the way of phasers and other objects. Glad I purchased this 4K trilogy.


----------



## b0rnarian

Very slight off topic Question on Dynamic EQ on Denon X4500... 
Im sure most are familiar with the Amaze Atmos demo clip with lightning thunder and rain. Well, with the DQ turned ON, it sounds great and the rain is amazing from up top. But with it OFF, rain tames off by 50% or so, however, there's a lightning bolt in the clip that sounds Phenomenal there. So, do most ppl use the DQ or not and i feel like it has nothing to do with night time listening as they're doing much more different things than just rounding eveything at a low level. 

Another example is the 2nd chapter song in the SpiderVerse movie and when Miles runs off to his Uncle. With the D EQ off, the amplifer kicked on by the uncle clearly has much pronounced effects on the music and bass and with it on, that difference is much more tame but i wonder what else is then missing. 

I could give a few more examples of vice versa stuff and feel like one is clearly not better than the other but would love to get everyone's opinions. Thanks!


----------



## TheCableMan

b0rnarian said:


> Very slight off topic Question on Dynamic EQ on Denon X4500...
> Im sure most are familiar with the Amaze Atmos demo clip with lightning thunder and rain. Well, with the DQ turned ON, it sounds great and the rain is amazing from up top. But with it OFF, rain tames off by 50% or so, however, there's a lightning bolt in the clip that sounds Phenomenal there. So, do most ppl use the DQ or not and i feel like it has nothing to do with night time listening as they're doing much more different things than just rounding eveything at a low level.
> 
> Another example is the 2nd chapter song in the SpiderVerse movie and when Miles runs off to his Uncle. With the D EQ off, the amplifer kicked on by the uncle clearly has much pronounced effects on the music and bass and with it on, that difference is much more tame but i wonder what else is then missing.
> 
> I could give a few more examples of vice versa stuff and feel like one is clearly not better than the other but would love to get everyone's opinions. Thanks!


I always though the DEQ didn't touch the height later... only the rear and side layer as well as a little more punch to the bass


----------



## rosstg

b0rnarian said:


> Very slight off topic Question on Dynamic EQ on Denon X4500...
> Im sure most are familiar with the Amaze Atmos demo clip with lightning thunder and rain. Well, with the DQ turned ON, it sounds great and the rain is amazing from up top. But with it OFF, rain tames off by 50% or so, however, there's a lightning bolt in the clip that sounds Phenomenal there. So, do most ppl use the DQ or not and i feel like it has nothing to do with night time listening as they're doing much more different things than just rounding eveything at a low level.
> 
> Another example is the 2nd chapter song in the SpiderVerse movie and when Miles runs off to his Uncle. With the D EQ off, the amplifer kicked on by the uncle clearly has much pronounced effects on the music and bass and with it on, that difference is much more tame but i wonder what else is then missing.
> 
> I could give a few more examples of vice versa stuff and feel like one is clearly not better than the other but would love to get everyone's opinions. Thanks!


Ive been using DEQ for 10 years. I’ve been experimenting with DEQ and MultiEQ limited to 300hz on my Denon 4300 since moving my modules to top middle. In my room which is treated when DEQ is on the Atmos speakers aren’t as pronounced. It does sound fuller with DEQ but the bass and surround channels sometimes drown out the detail. 

I demod Bladerunner 2049 at -15bd with MultiEQ full range, DEQ on and then MultiEQ limited to 300hz with DEQ off.

My results:
With DEQ ON the bass and surrounds were very aggressive, too much so. Bass was bloated, I could hear the rafters shake. The Atmos speakers weren’t as defined. Sure they still sounded fuller but I missed nuances. Dialogue was a bit muddy.

Turning off DEQ and limiting MultiEQ to 300hz was more balanced. Bass was sublime. Impactful but had more detail. My Atmos channels sounded more dynamic and precise. The surrounds sounded better as well. More balanced. Dialogue was crystal clear.

I’m leaving DEQ off with MultiEQ limited to 300hz. It sounds more accurate and more cinematic in my room.

It really depends on your speakers and room. I have Klipsch RP’s that are very articulate. When I EQ them with a rolloff they aren’t as clear.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

TheCableMan said:


> I always though the DEQ didn't touch the height later... only the rear and side layer as well as a little more punch to the bass




Iirc, Deq boosts the rear height speakers just the same asthe side and rear surrounds. It does not boost the front heights. It does also affect bass. To me this seems like a bad idea for the height layer.


----------



## rosstg

That is right. I thought DEQ was okay for typical surround sound 5.1/7.1 but it’s not as good for Atmos. I wonder if Audyssey will be revising to align with Atmos but that could be messy. Basically all channels would be bumped up. All but the Center and mains.


----------



## batpig

Audyssey already did revise to align with Atmos, that was a mandatory requirement five years ago when Atmos came to consumer AVRs. 

The had to add support for "Atmos enabled" up-firing speakers by modified the target curve to accommodate HRTF squiggle and also compensating for distance/delay on the bounce, and they updated Dyn EQ to also include rear height speakers in the surround boost because they are also behind you (so the same logic, often criticized, which they apple to surrounds also applies to rear heights).

So this is the finished product, don't get yer hopes up for additional tweaks, other than the Audyssey app (which seems to have been more driven by D+M than Audyssey themselves) Audyssey has shown zero signs that they are going to further develop MultEQ or other consumer AVR technologies.


----------



## murlidher

rosstg said:


> Ive been using DEQ for 10 years. I’ve been experimenting with DEQ and MultiEQ limited to 300hz on my Denon 4300 since moving my modules to top middle. In my room which is treated when DEQ is on the Atmos speakers aren’t as pronounced. It does sound fuller with DEQ but the bass and surround channels sometimes drown out the detail.
> 
> 
> 
> I demod Bladerunner 2049 at -15bd with MultiEQ full range, DEQ on and then MultiEQ limited to 300hz with DEQ off.
> 
> 
> 
> My results:
> 
> With DEQ ON the bass and surrounds were very aggressive, too much so. Bass was bloated, I could hear the rafters shake. The Atmos speakers weren’t as defined. Sure they still sounded fuller but I missed nuances. Dialogue was a bit muddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Turning off DEQ and limiting MultiEQ to 300hz was more balanced. Bass was sublime. Impactful but had more detail. My Atmos channels sounded more dynamic and precise. The surrounds sounded better as well. More balanced. Dialogue was crystal clear.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m leaving DEQ off with MultiEQ limited to 300hz. It sounds more accurate and more cinematic in my room.
> 
> 
> 
> It really depends on your speakers and room. I have Klipsch RP’s that are very articulate. When I EQ them with a rolloff they aren’t as clear.


Curious to know your listening volume. Few like me listen to very low to medium volume 40-60 db n 0-100 scale. DQ on helps a lot, and turned off it's more front heavy sound and surrounds and heights barely producing any.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## b0rnarian

Polyrythm1k said:


> Iirc, Deq boosts the rear height speakers just the same asthe side and rear surrounds. It does not boost the front heights. It does also affect bass. To me this seems like a bad idea for the height layer.


You are 100% right, the setup did boost the rear heights (only technicality is that it was the Dynamic Volume to "Yes" that boosted the Rear heights to 3+ DBs on the levels itself. My SVS Prime Elevation Front and Rear Heights are equal distance from the MLP but rear were set higher and sounded much louder as well. Are you saying, that's where the Dynamic EQ ended or does it boost the rears even more when set to LIGHT, Med, or Heavy on DEQ without seeing an actual number on the settings? 

Regardless, as the above poster, I usually listed to Medium volume (Not in a dedicated HT yet to go Reference) and with the DEQ ON the rain from above and pretty much everything else sounds great but also messes up the sound a bit cuz the fronts are 3 DB lower. And in that one Atmos Demo Clip, the lighting bolt was def. weak. Should i just bump the DBs on the front heights myself or better to listen with DEQ Off? I know I miss a lot of little sounds with DEQ off as they need to be turned up really high to be able to notice them but I cant really do that either. 

Another example of this is: the Logos in the beginning of the Dark Knight (I know not an atmos track) but there's a ticking sound on the DC logo before the Joker's razer sound. You can hardly hear it at all with DEQ Off but with DEQ ON its right there. Any help is appreciated!

OR Better yet, do I need to Re-run Audessey and say no to Dynamic Vol. so that the Rear Heights dont get boosted and listen to everything with DEQ Off?


----------



## rosstg

murlidher said:


> Curious to know your listening volume. Few like me listen to very low to medium volume 40-60 db n 0-100 scale. DQ on helps a lot, and turned off it's more front heavy sound and surrounds and heights barely producing any.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


For critical listening between -15 - -10db.

Again, I have used DEQ for 10 years so I got used to the heavy bass sound. Even the folks at SVS say to use it but it’s creating more problems in my room now that I have Atmos speakers. I found it more useful when I was in apartments and needed the volume low.

I have always disliked the boosted surround channels though. If it’s an aggressive mix like say JW, Aquaman, Bladerunner I don’t see the need in my room. I’m also not a huge fan of EQ full range these days so there is that too.


----------



## rosstg

batpig said:


> Audyssey already did revise to align with Atmos, that was a mandatory requirement five years ago when Atmos came to consumer AVRs.
> 
> The had to add support for "Atmos enabled" up-firing speakers by modified the target curve to accommodate HRTF squiggle and also compensating for distance/delay on the bounce, and they updated Dyn EQ to also include rear height speakers in the surround boost because they are also behind you (so the same logic, often criticized, which they apple to surrounds also applies to rear heights).
> 
> So this is the finished product, don't get yer hopes up for additional tweaks, other than the Audyssey app (which seems to have been more driven by D+M than Audyssey themselves) Audyssey has shown zero signs that they are going to further develop MultEQ or other consumer AVR technologies.


Yes sorry that’s right. I knew about the new curve for up firing.

Interesting about the rear height channels. I won’t have mine installed until December so I’ll have to wait.

Curious, do you use DEQ? I think I recall that you limit MultiEQ as well.


----------



## batpig

I use Dynamic Volume + Dynamic EQ for late night listening when I don't want to disturb sleeping wife+kids. However, I set the Ref Level Offset for DEQ to 15dB to minimize the surround boost (and I don't need boomy bass late at night either).

When I have no volume restrictions, I have all the dynamic stuff turned off since I'm listening loud enough that I don't need it.


----------



## rosstg

batpig said:


> I use Dynamic Volume + Dynamic EQ for late night listening when I don't want to disturb sleeping wife+kids. However, I set the Ref Level Offset for DEQ to 15dB to minimize the surround boost (and I don't need boomy bass late at night either).
> 
> When I have no volume restrictions, I have all the dynamic stuff turned off since I'm listening loud enough that I don't need it.


Makes sense. When you do not use DEQ how many dB do you boost your subs?

Oddly enough I emailed Audyssey last night on the subject of DEQ and Atmos and they replied saying all channels are affected.


----------



## batpig

b0rnarian said:


> You are 100% right, the setup did boost the rear heights (only technicality is that it was the Dynamic Volume to "Yes" that boosted the Rear heights to 3+ DBs on the levels itself. My SVS Prime Elevation Front and Rear Heights are equal distance from the MLP but rear were set higher and sounded much louder as well. Are you saying, that's where the Dynamic EQ ended or does it boost the rears even more when set to LIGHT, Med, or Heavy on DEQ without seeing an actual number on the settings?


You're being sloppy with your terminology and it's confusing things. Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume are NOT the same thing at all. Dynamic EQ does NOT have a "light / medium / heavy" setting, that's Dynamic Volume.

Dynamic EQ does two things: (1) it adjusts the frequency response to compensate for variable human hearing sensitivity (google "equal loudness curves"), the boost is mostly to the bass but it also does boost the highs a bit too, and this boost is constantly varying depending on the volume setting and the moment-to-moment analysis of the program content; (2) and it also applies a fixed volume boost to "rear" speakers (surrounds + rear overheads) which only varies based on the master volume level, not dynamic analysis of content. The only setting which impacts Dyn EQ is the "Reference Level Offset", since Dynamic EQ adjusts its boost based on how far below "reference level" you are on the master volume dial. The goal of Dynamic EQ is to keep the tonal balance and surround envelopment constant as the volume drops, it does NOT compress volume swings or reduce loud sounds for late night listening.

Dynamic Volume is the one that modulates dynamic range to improve late night listening when you don't want big swings between loud and soft parts. It both raises the sound in soft passages and also reduces the sound in loud passages, which allows you to turn the volume to a comfortable level to hear dialogue without blowing out the room when the explosions start. It does this in a more sophisticated way than typical simple compression schemes, as it's constantly analyzing the content and "looking ahead" a few milliseconds to anticipate swings and adjust the volume; it's almost like an invisible gremlin inside your receiver constantly adjusting the volume control for you. The light / medium / heavy setting controls how aggressively it clamps down on swings in volume. 

Note that when Dynamic Volume is on, it will make it appear that everything is louder in non-action scenes because it's boosting the soft sounds. With Dyn Vol off, listening at -40 will be barely audible, but if you turn it on suddenly dialogue sounds a lot louder. That's normal.


----------



## batpig

rosstg said:


> Makes sense. When you do not use DEQ how many dB do you boost your subs?


I boost the subs about 3dB, which works well with the slight downward tilt I try to dial in for my LCR speakers. Here's a recent measurement of my LCR speakers crossed to the subs (heavy 1/3 smoothing to focus on the general shape). I do have my Harmony remote programmed with a discrete code for Sub Volume Up/Down so I can make tweaks on the fly depending on the content.












rosstg said:


> Oddly enough I emailed Audyssey last night on the subject of DEQ and Atmos and they replied saying all channels are affected.


Well, what was the EXACT wording? Remember there are two components to Dynamic EQ, and the loudness comp portion does affect all channels, you have to be specific that you are referring to the Surround boost only. 

What's interesting is there is some confusion on the topic, as I asked Chris K on the Audyssey FB page about this and he said that the DEQ surround boost is NOT applied to the overheads. However, people (on this thread I believe) have demonstrated that it DOES appear to be boosting the rear heights. So take a canned reply from Audyssey with a grain of salt.


----------



## rosstg

batpig said:


> I boost the subs about 3dB, which works well with the slight downward tilt I try to dial in for my LCR speakers. Here's a recent measurement of my LCR speakers crossed to the subs (heavy 1/3 smoothing to focus on the general shape). I do have my Harmony remote programmed with a discrete code for Sub Volume Up/Down so I can make tweaks on the fly depending on the content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I should look at the remote.
> 
> Well, what was the EXACT wording? Remember there are two components to Dynamic EQ, and the loudness comp portion does affect all channels, you have to be specific that you are referring to the Surround boost only.
> 
> What's interesting is there is some confusion on the topic, as I asked Chris K on the Audyssey FB page about this and he said that the DEQ surround boost is NOT applied to the overheads. However, people (on this thread I believe) have demonstrated that it DOES appear to be boosting the rear heights. So take a canned reply from Audyssey with a grain of salt.


Yes I was very careful in my wording. I asked if DEQ boosts height channels. I understand the frequency boost but clearly asked about channel volume. They gave me the token “yes DEQ affects all channels” which is why I replied asking specifically about volume. I will report back.


----------



## batpig

"Yes DEQ affects all channels" is a pretty useless response. Sounds like the support rep didn't really understand the question.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

b0rnarian said:


> You are 100% right, the setup did boost the rear heights (only technicality is that it was the Dynamic Volume to "Yes" that boosted the Rear heights to 3+ DBs on the levels itself. My SVS Prime Elevation Front and Rear Heights are equal distance from the MLP but rear were set higher and sounded much louder as well. Are you saying, that's where the Dynamic EQ ended or does it boost the rears even more when set to LIGHT, Med, or Heavy on DEQ without seeing an actual number on the settings?
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, as the above poster, I usually listed to Medium volume (Not in a dedicated HT yet to go Reference) and with the DEQ ON the rain from above and pretty much everything else sounds great but also messes up the sound a bit cuz the fronts are 3 DB lower. And in that one Atmos Demo Clip, the lighting bolt was def. weak. Should i just bump the DBs on the front heights myself or better to listen with DEQ Off? I know I miss a lot of little sounds with DEQ off as they need to be turned up really high to be able to notice them but I cant really do that either.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of this is: the Logos in the beginning of the Dark Knight (I know not an atmos track) but there's a ticking sound on the DC logo before the Joker's razer sound. You can hardly hear it at all with DEQ Off but with DEQ ON its right there. Any help is appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> OR Better yet, do I need to Re-run Audessey and say no to Dynamic Vol. so that the Rear Heights dont get boosted and listen to everything with DEQ Off?




I’ll defer to @batpig s answer as it’s basically what I was going to say in regards to how Deq and DynamicVolume work. DV makes a soundtrack sound like everything is the same volume with no dynamic range. It’s not responsible for any channel trims. 

I don’t use Deq and instead built a house curve into my system and listen at fairly loud levels. I never like how it boosted surround levels at low to medium volumes so much. I do appreciate what it does for bass, but ime the house curve works for that. Haven’t spent a LOT of time with the offsets so in fairness I can’t speak to that.


----------



## rosstg

batpig said:


> "Yes DEQ affects all channels" is a pretty useless response. Sounds like the support rep didn't really understand the question.


You got that right. They replied with the same response lol. They used to be great but to your point. It’s just maintenance now. 

Just glad we have the app.


----------



## rosstg

Reply from Audyssey...

“Level adjustment for surround envelopment will only affect channels described as surround. Subwoofer, middle, wide, and front are not affected”.


----------



## m. zillch

rosstg said:


> Reply from Audyssey...
> 
> “Level adjustment for surround envelopment will only affect channels described as surround. Subwoofer, middle, wide, and front are not affected”.


"Middle"? I've never heard anyone refer to the center channel as "middle". Also altering the L and R yet _not_ the center simultaneously means the sound stage which relies on both to place sound images part way between the L and C (and R and center) will be whacked out, but, whatever.

Oh wait, they mean middle on the ceiling. Oops.  Never mind.


----------



## rosstg

m. zillch said:


> "Middle"? I've never heard anyone refer to the center channel as "middle". Also altering the L and R yet _not_ the center simultaneously means the sound stage which relies on both to place sound images part way between the L and C (and R and center) will be whacked out, but, whatever.
> 
> Oh wait, they mean on the ceiling. Never mind.


Yes middle is the ceiling channels. 

Either way I won’t use DEQ anymore. It just doesn’t jive with Atmos. If I need extra bass I’ll raise my subs 3db.


----------



## Stereodude

DEQ seems to work fine in my Atmos (7.1.4) setup. DEQ is one of my favorite features of Denon receivers. What am I missing?


----------



## rosstg

Stereodude said:


> DEQ seems to work fine in my Atmos (7.1.4) setup. DEQ is one of my favorite features of Denon receivers. What am I missing?


I don’t think you’re missing anything. Someone brought up DEQ and how it affects Atmos. Some like it, some don’t. For me the boosted surrounds can over power the height channels. Especially if you listen at close to reference levels. At lower volumes I think it’s ok which is the point of the feature.


----------



## Stereodude

rosstg said:


> I don’t think you’re missing anything. Someone brought up DEQ and how it affects Atmos. Some like it, some don’t. For me the boosted surrounds can over power the height channels. Especially if you listen at close to reference levels. At lower volumes I think it’s ok which is the point of the feature.


Are you sure? My understanding is that the closer you are to the reference level offset the less changes it is supposed to make. If you have the reference level offset set to -10dB and you turn the volume to -10dB my understanding is that DEQ should do nothing to the signal.


----------



## rosstg

Stereodude said:


> Are you sure? My understanding is that the closer you are to the reference level offset the less changes it is supposed to make. If you have the reference level offset set to -10dB and you turn the volume to -10dB my understanding is that DEQ should do nothing to the signal.


Yes that’s true but my point is if it’s an aggressive mix like Bladerunner 2049 I don’t see the need for more volume in surrounds. Even at -15 Mv that’s a 3db lift and 6db lift to the subs.


----------



## b0rnarian

batpig said:


> You're being sloppy with your terminology and it's confusing things. Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume are NOT the same thing at all. Dynamic EQ does NOT have a "light / medium / heavy" setting, that's Dynamic Volume.
> 
> Dynamic EQ does two things: (1) it adjusts the frequency response to compensate for variable human hearing sensitivity (google "equal loudness curves"), the boost is mostly to the bass but it also does boost the highs a bit too, and this boost is constantly varying depending on the volume setting and the moment-to-moment analysis of the program content; (2) and it also applies a fixed volume boost to "rear" speakers (surrounds + rear overheads) which only varies based on the master volume level, not dynamic analysis of content. The only setting which impacts Dyn EQ is the "Reference Level Offset", since Dynamic EQ adjusts its boost based on how far below "reference level" you are on the master volume dial. The goal of Dynamic EQ is to keep the tonal balance and surround envelopment constant as the volume drops, it does NOT compress volume swings or reduce loud sounds for late night listening.
> 
> Dynamic Volume is the one that modulates dynamic range to improve late night listening when you don't want big swings between loud and soft parts. It both raises the sound in soft passages and also reduces the sound in loud passages, which allows you to turn the volume to a comfortable level to hear dialogue without blowing out the room when the explosions start. It does this in a more sophisticated way than typical simple compression schemes, as it's constantly analyzing the content and "looking ahead" a few milliseconds to anticipate swings and adjust the volume; it's almost like an invisible gremlin inside your receiver constantly adjusting the volume control for you. The light / medium / heavy setting controls how aggressively it clamps down on swings in volume.
> 
> Note that when Dynamic Volume is on, it will make it appear that everything is louder in non-action scenes because it's boosting the soft sounds. With Dyn Vol off, listening at -40 will be barely audible, but if you turn it on suddenly dialogue sounds a lot louder. That's normal.


Lol Im sorry you had to cover all that with me but my big mistake was just confusing the wording of the two in my previous post. I meant Dynamic Vol with Light/Med/High and DEQ vice versa  

So the question remains - 

I do want the loud rain and other atmos sounds at "Light" Dynamic volume so they are easily heard at non-reference levels but then with DEQ turned on, the rear heights gets a big boost (should I up the DB of front heights manually to match as they are same distance from MLP)? If I turn on DEQ and Dynamic Volume to Off, The atmos sounds are super weak and i cant turn up the volume super loud for me to able to hear/appracaite them. 



Maybe I will repost the whole thing later... with correct terminology this time lol


----------



## Stereodude

rosstg said:


> Yes that’s true but my point is if it’s an aggressive mix like Bladerunner 2049 I don’t see the need for more volume in surrounds. Even at -15 Mv that’s a 3db lift and 6db lift to the subs.


Where did you find numbers for the amount of boost being applied to different channels at different dB value offsets from the reference level offset? Also, I thought it was more frequency response shaping than a straight boost of channels.


----------



## rosstg

Stereodude said:


> Where did you find numbers for the amount of boost being applied to different channels at different dB value offsets from the reference level offset? Also, I thought it was more frequency response shaping than a straight boost of channels.


It’s both. For subwoofers it goes up 2.2db for every 5db lowered. Surround channels is 1db for every 5db. It also boosts the lower and higher frequencies.


----------



## mrtickleuk

rosstg said:


> It’s both. For subwoofers it goes up 2.2db for every 5db lowered. Surround channels is 1db for every 5db. It also boosts the lower and higher frequencies.


Yes but again - *where *did you get those numbers please?


----------



## bobbino421

Hey guys I’m not that well versed in the audio department. Can someone explain to me lossy and PCM? What is recommended and which devices play nice with Atmos or which apps? I’m using a Denon X4500H with an ATV4K, panny 820 and FTV 4K. My display is Sony A9F. I’m experimenting with different signal chains. I’m having a separate issue with low volume thru my AVR in which I will go to the appropriate thread later on. Right now the Panny 820 and the ATV are running direct to the A9F with just the video with the E-Arc from tv to AVR for audio. I guess my question is the Atmos I’m getting the correct kind? Not sure if explaining correctly? 
I’m using every app that is capable with Atmos also Netflix, iTunes, Vudu, movies anywhere and of course physical media ie UHD discs.


----------



## Stereodude

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes but again - *where *did you get those numbers please?


And at what frequency or is that a Z weighted measurement of a full bandwidth signal?


----------



## batpig

Stereodude said:


> Also, I thought it was more frequency response shaping than a straight boost of channels.


I literally just explained a few posts up that it’s both, the frequency response shaping is one aspect (loudness comp) and the channel boosting is a separate aspect (surround envelopment).


----------



## Stereodude

batpig said:


> I literally just explained a few posts up that it’s both, the frequency response shaping is one aspect (loudness comp) and the channel boosting is a separate aspect (surround envelopment).


But you didn't say that the subwoofer channel is boosted. Are his numbers right? They seem far too large to me to be plausible.


----------



## batpig

bobbino421 said:


> Hey guys I’m not that well versed in the audio department. Can someone explain to me lossy and PCM? What is recommended and which devices play nice with Atmos or which apps? I’m using a Denon X4500H with an ATV4K, panny 820 and FTV 4K. My display is Sony A9F. I’m experimenting with different signal chains. I’m having a separate issue with low volume thru my AVR in which I will go to the appropriate thread later on. Right now the Panny 820 and the ATV are running direct to the A9F with just the video with the E-Arc from tv to AVR for audio. I guess my question is the Atmos I’m getting the correct kind? Not sure if explaining correctly?
> I’m using every app that is capable with Atmos also Netflix, iTunes, Vudu, movies anywhere and of course physical media ie UHD discs.


It’s kind of a messy situation...

So at a basic level, multichannel audio consists of several channels of PCM audio — each channel is one PCM stream. These multiple PCM channels are packed into compressed containers (like ZIP files) to save space for transmission. This encoded audio is then decoded on the other end to unpack the actual audio stream (thus the term “codec”) back into multiple channels of PCM. 

Blu-Ray discs will generally use lossless codecs because they have plenty of space — for Atmos this would be Dolby TrueHD. Streaming platforms will use a lossy codec (Dolby Digital Plus) which reduces the audio quality slightly in order to save tons of space (since bandwidth is critical with streaming). Basically the same concept as an MP3 vs full CD quality. 

Now the tricky part: certain hardware (like your AppleTV 4K) cannot bitstream DD+. So when the ATV4K get an Atmos stream from Netflix or iTunes or Vudu, it can’t just pass the bitstream (undecoded audio) to the processor for decoding. Instead, it decodes the audio into PCM itself. 

But the Atmos information is separate from the PCM channels, it’s an extra packet of metadata that describes the object positioning. So how does the Atmos get to the processor? Dolby created this technology called MAT which allows for an extra metadata packet to ride along with the decoded PCM. 

So from a typical player like the UB820, Atmos will ride along with the TrueHD bitstream from discs and DD+ from Netflix. But from the ATV4K it will transmit as multichannel PCM + metadata.


----------



## bobbino421

batpig said:


> bobbino421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys I’m not that well versed in the audio department. Can someone explain to me lossy and PCM? What is recommended and which devices play nice with Atmos or which apps? I’m using a Denon X4500H with an ATV4K, panny 820 and FTV 4K. My display is Sony A9F. I’m experimenting with different signal chains. I’m having a separate issue with low volume thru my AVR in which I will go to the appropriate thread later on. Right now the Panny 820 and the ATV are running direct to the A9F with just the video with the E-Arc from tv to AVR for audio. I guess my question is the Atmos I’m getting the correct kind? Not sure if explaining correctly?
> I’m using every app that is capable with Atmos also Netflix, iTunes, Vudu, movies anywhere and of course physical media ie UHD discs.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s kind of a messy situation...
> 
> So at a basic level, multichannel audio consists of several channels of PCM audio — each channel is one PCM stream. These multiple PCM channels are packed into compressed containers (like ZIP files) to save space for transmission. This encoded audio is then decoded on the other end to unpack the actual audio stream (thus the term “codec”) back into multiple channels of PCM.
> 
> Blu-Ray discs will generally use lossless codecs because they have plenty of space — for Atmos this would be Dolby TrueHD. Streaming platforms will use a lossy codec (Dolby Digital Plus) which reduces the audio quality slightly in order to save tons of space (since bandwidth is critical with streaming). Basically the same concept as an MP3 vs full CD quality.
> 
> Now the tricky part: certain hardware (like your AppleTV 4K) cannot bitstream DD+. So when the ATV4K get an Atmos stream from Netflix or iTunes or Vudu, it can’t just pass the bitstream (undecoded audio) to the processor for decoding. Instead, it decodes the audio into PCM itself.
> 
> But the Atmos information is separate from the PCM channels, it’s an extra packet of metadata that describes the object positioning. So how does the Atmos get to the processor? Dolby created this technology called MAT which allows for an extra metadata packet to ride along with the decoded PCM.
> 
> So from a typical player like the UB820, Atmos will ride along with the TrueHD bitstream from discs and DD+ from Netflix. But from the ATV4K it will transmit as multichannel PCM + metadata.
Click to expand...

I think I follow lol? 
My Denon displays a little PCM icon and I don’t see it when it displays Atmos from any source? I trust the Atmos from my Panasonic 820 and even from the Native apps on my Sony. The ATV give me issues with audio a lot not just with getting Atmos specifically with the Vudu app getting Atmos when it should with certain content.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Now the tricky part: certain hardware (like your AppleTV 4K) cannot bitstream DD+.



The Apple TV could easily bitstream DD+. The reason they decode and pass as MAT is so that Siri and the system sounds can be mixed in. 

Similar reasons why the Xbox doesn’t bitstream.... it would be too difficult to render games in real-time to as a bitstream is addition to adding in system sounds. Plus ionizing to Atmos etc... but the hardware is certainly capable (it does so with UHD and BR discs just fine )


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> rosstg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. When you do not use DEQ how many dB do you boost your subs?
> 
> 
> 
> I boost the subs about 3dB, which works well with the slight downward tilt I try to dial in for my LCR speakers. Here's a recent measurement of my LCR speakers crossed to the subs (heavy 1/3 smoothing to focus on the general shape). I do have my Harmony remote programmed with a discrete code for Sub Volume Up/Down so I can make tweaks on the fly depending on the content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rosstg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough I emailed Audyssey last night on the subject of DEQ and Atmos and they replied saying all channels are affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what was the EXACT wording? Remember there are two components to Dynamic EQ, and the loudness comp portion does affect all channels, you have to be specific that you are referring to the Surround boost only.
> 
> What's interesting is there is some confusion on the topic, as I asked Chris K on the Audyssey FB page about this and he said that the DEQ surround boost is NOT applied to the overheads. However, people (on this thread I believe) have demonstrated that it DOES appear to be boosting the rear heights. So take a canned reply from Audyssey with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I have a harmony remote elite and SVS PC4000 subs-are you saying I can change my sub volumes for each through the remote instead of going into the app on my phone all the time? If so that would be great-is it hard??


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Stereodude said:


> But you didn't say that the subwoofer channel is boosted. Are his numbers right? They seem far too large to me to be plausible.




This is an older graphic that I actually found here, just for a visual aid.


----------



## moviefiend420

Ive been searching all the atmos install guides and i cant find a answer to my question. I have 4 regular big bookshelf speakers (psa110) for my atmos. Which way are they suppose to face? I mounted them directly to the ceiling pointing straight down to the floor. Im confused by which way the top of the speaker should be pointed. I have all 4 so the tops face in towards the mlp and the bottom of the speaker points straight to the side walls. Is this correct or what way should i spin them?


----------



## Chuck666

Generally, they point to MLP...


----------



## dfa973

moviefiend420 said:


> Ive been searching all the atmos install guides and i cant find a answer to my question. I have 4 regular big bookshelf speakers (psa110) for my atmos. Which way are they suppose to face? I mounted them directly to the ceiling pointing straight down to the floor. Im confused by which way the top of the speaker should be pointed. I have all 4 so the tops face in towards the mlp and the bottom of the speaker points straight to the side walls. Is this correct or what way should i spin them?


The front panel of the speaker (where are the drivers, the baffle) should point toward the MLP - only if the speakers have a very wide dispersion should point straight down to the floor. Most speakers do not have a very wide dispersion.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

moviefiend420 said:


> Ive been searching all the atmos install guides and i cant find a answer to my question. I have 4 regular big bookshelf speakers (psa110) for my atmos. Which way are they suppose to face? I mounted them directly to the ceiling pointing straight down to the floor. Im confused by which way the top of the speaker should be pointed. I have all 4 so the tops face in towards the mlp and the bottom of the speaker points straight to the side walls. Is this correct or what way should i spin them?




If I follow you, you’re saying the tweeter is closer to the center of the room and the woofer is to the outside. Like this?









Is say that’s just fine. For ocd sake I might spin them so they’re at 45°, with the bottom pointed towards the corners of the room but I doubt you’d notice any difference. Except visually. 
I would also angle them toward the LP as mentioned above especially since even if you have 10’ ceilings, the installed height will be closer to 9’(insert own math here). I think on axis or close would be best. If you have multiple rows, or seats you might do things to accommodate those things.


----------



## moviefiend420

Great picture, that is exactly how i have them. Okay thank you guys very much. I will point them so they directly fire at the mlp.


----------



## Stereodude

Polyrythm1k said:


> This is an older graphic that I actually found here, just for a visual aid.


Thanks for the graph. IMHO that doesn't show a channel boost, but variable frequency shaping. Do you know what channel that graph is for?


----------



## pg22

FilmMixer said:


> I got word today that Carnival Row Atmos should be streaming on all capable hardware by end of day tomorrow.


I can confirm that there is *no* Atmos audio from neither my SNES Classic Mini nor my Nintendo Switch in portable mode.

Question: has the disappearance of the Jack Ryan Atmos track on Firestick 4K's been addressed? Would like to watch that prior to season 2 with Atmos audio.

Thanks!


----------



## batpig

FilmMixer said:


> The Apple TV could easily bitstream DD+. The reason they decode and pass as MAT is so that Siri and the system sounds can be mixed in.
> 
> Similar reasons why the Xbox doesn’t bitstream.... it would be too difficult to render games in real-time to as a bitstream is addition to adding in system sounds. Plus ionizing to Atmos etc... but the hardware is certainly capable (it does so with UHD and BR discs just fine )


Fair enough, I guess "won't" would have been more precise than "can't"


----------



## batpig

Stereodude said:


> But you didn't say that the subwoofer channel is boosted. Are his numbers right? They seem far too large to me to be plausible.





Stereodude said:


> Thanks for the graph. IMHO that doesn't show a channel boost, but variable frequency shaping. Do you know what channel that graph is for?


My feeling is that he was just being a little loose with the wording and ascribing the "boost" in the graph due to the loudness comp as a single number representing the effective avg SPL increase in the low end as a "sub boost". DEQ doesn't just do a straight boost to the sub, as we know, but the low end does get boosted.


----------



## ergalthema

Why can't I get Atmos from Netflix?

Here is the gear I have:

* Samsung 65"KS8000
* Sony UBP-X800
* Onkyo TX-NR646
* PS4
* Chromecast Ultra

The CCU is connected to the TV. I can't get it to pass anything but 2.0 to the receiver.

The Netflix app on the TV will send 5.1 to the receiver.

The UBP-X800 is the only way I've ever played Atmos content. UHD Blu-rays and files via USB work fine. So, I thought the Netflix app on this would work, but it's only getting 5.1.

How can I get Netflix Atmos to work? 

(I'm trying with Dark Crystal - my understanding is that it's available in Atmos)


----------



## rekbones

ergalthema said:


> Why can't I get Atmos from Netflix?
> 
> Here is the gear I have:
> 
> * Samsung 65"KS8000
> * Sony UBP-X800
> * Onkyo TX-NR646
> * PS4
> * Chromecast Ultra
> 
> The CCU is connected to the TV. I can't get it to pass anything but 2.0 to the receiver.
> 
> The Netflix app on the TV will send 5.1 to the receiver.
> 
> The UBP-X800 is the only way I've ever played Atmos content. UHD Blu-rays and files via USB work fine. So, I thought the Netflix app on this would work, but it's only getting 5.1.
> 
> How can I get Netflix Atmos to work?
> 
> (I'm trying with Dark Crystal - my understanding is that it's available in Atmos)


Netflix ATMOS is only supported on a very limited # of devices. I don't know all of them but Win10 PC is one and ATV is another and possibly XBox. So complain to Netflix and/or the manufacture of your playback device. I have several FireTV's that support ATMOS/DD+ but Netflix doesn't support it.


----------



## ergalthema

rekbones said:


> Netflix ATMOS is only supported on a very limited # of devices. I don't know all of them but Win10 PC is one


Hmm. I just tried my Razer Blade 15 2060 laptop HDMI, but the receiver said it was only getting 7.1 and outputting 5.1. The sound settings on the PC allowed me to select Atmos for home theater, but it didn't seem to be working. Also, the video quality was terrible - compressed and choppy. Any help with that?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Stereodude said:


> Thanks for the graph. IMHO that doesn't show a channel boost, but variable frequency shaping. Do you know what channel that graph is for?




No, I can’t say which channel it’s for. I was under the impression that it was basically for the surround and sub channels, since that’s what I’ve heard being effected. I can’t remember how it was captured either. Seems like it was captured from the preouts of an AVP. I agree it doesn’t necessarily show a channel boost. It does show FR shaping as you said, but it does so at different amplitudes, and shows how the overall boost and tapering is reduced as you approach, and go past -0. Again, I’ve never seen evidence that the LCR is affected by Deq so I think the graph is for surrounds and subwoofers. Deq and the height layer seems a different matter.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

moviefiend420 said:


> Great picture, that is exactly how i have them. Okay thank you guys very much. I will point them so they directly fire at the mlp.




I think that will be great. Let us know how it works!


----------



## rekbones

ergalthema said:


> Hmm. I just tried my Razer Blade 15 2060 laptop HDMI, but the receiver said it was only getting 7.1 and outputting 5.1. The sound settings on the PC allowed me to select Atmos for home theater, but it didn't seem to be working. Also, the video quality was terrible - compressed and choppy. Any help with that?


Should work, do you have the highest tier of Netflix with 4K as it is also required? Also you need to use the Netflix Win10 App not a browser. (Edge might work not sure)


----------



## dfa973

Polyrythm1k said:


> No, I can’t say which channel it’s for. I was under the impression that it was basically for the surround and sub channels, since that’s what I’ve heard being effected. I can’t remember how it was captured either. Seems like it was captured from the preouts of an AVP. I agree it doesn’t necessarily show a channel boost. It does show FR shaping as you said, but it does so at different amplitudes, and shows how the overall boost and tapering is reduced as you approach, and go past -0. Again, I’ve never seen evidence that the LCR is affected by Deq so I think the graph is for surrounds and subwoofers. Deq and the height layer seems a different matter.


What I would like to see is that graph you posted but with the Reference Level Offsets added, and their effect on the DEQ.


----------



## Stereodude

Polyrythm1k said:


> No, I can’t say which channel it’s for. I was under the impression that it was basically for the surround and sub channels, since that’s what I’ve heard being effected. I can’t remember how it was captured either. Seems like it was captured from the preouts of an AVP. I agree it doesn’t necessarily show a channel boost. It does show FR shaping as you said, but it does so at different amplitudes, and shows how the overall boost and tapering is reduced as you approach, and go past -0. Again, I’ve never seen evidence that the LCR is affected by Deq so I think the graph is for surrounds and subwoofers. Deq and the height layer seems a different matter.


I'm pretty certain the LCR are affected as well. For example there's an obvious audible difference toggling DEQ on and off on PCM 2-channel content in the low end for sure when only having the receiver in Stereo (2.1).

A graph like that should be pretty easy to make for any discrete (7.1) channel. Room EQ Wizard (REW) + an audio interface connected to the pre-out of the receiver and the PC feeding the signal into the receiver via HDMI. That would let you measure any of the 7.1 channels and generate a graph like that for one of them. Just change the MV for each sweep.


----------



## Stereodude

dfa973 said:


> What I would like to see is that graph you posted but with the Reference Level Offsets added, and their effect on the DEQ.


Doesn't the RLO just move at what master volume setting that the flat frequency line happens?


----------



## chi_guy50

ergalthema said:


> Why can't I get Atmos from Netflix?
> 
> Here is the gear I have:
> 
> * Samsung 65"KS8000
> * Sony UBP-X800
> * Onkyo TX-NR646
> * PS4
> * Chromecast Ultra
> 
> 
> How can I get Netflix Atmos to work?





rekbones said:


> Netflix ATMOS is only supported on a very limited # of devices. I don't know all of them but Win10 PC is one and ATV is another and possibly XBox.



Netflix used to list the supported devices (viz., the devices for which the Netflix app supports a Dolby Atmos audio stream) on a help page, but it now directs you to search for a particular device at the Help Center (see link below). If that particular device supports Dolby Atmos, it will be listed under "Netflix Features" for that device.



*Dolby Atmos on Netflix*


FWIW, the last time I saved the Netflix Atmos-supporting device list in April of this year it looked like this:


The following devices support Dolby Atmos with Netflix. For exact device models with Dolby Atmos available, please visit the device manufacturer's website.


 Apple TV 4K (requires tvOS 12 or later)
 LG OLED TVs (2017 or newer models)
 Panasonic TVs (2019 or newer models)
 Pixela 4K Smart Tuner
 Sharp TVs (2019 or newer models)
 Sony BRAVIA Android TVs (2018 or newer models)
 Toshiba TVs (2019 or newer models)
 Vizio TVs (2018 or newer models)
 Windows 10 computer or tablet (requires Windows 10 RS3 Build 16299 or later)
 Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X


----------



## dfa973

Stereodude said:


> Doesn't the RLO just move at what master volume setting that the flat frequency line happens?


So the flatness will happen earlier, at -5dB MV / -10dbMV / -15dB MV instead of 0dB MV (reference)?


----------



## pg22

rekbones said:


> Netflix ATMOS is only supported on a very limited # of devices. I don't know all of them but Win10 PC is one and ATV is another and possibly XBox. So complain to Netflix and/or the manufacture of your playback device. I have several FireTV's that support ATMOS/DD+ but Netflix doesn't support it.


Xbox One X, for sure. Some of them, like the F1 Netflix doc, are incredible. Better than many UHD's, imo.


----------



## sdurani

dfa973 said:


> So the flatness will happen earlier, at -5dB MV / -10dbMV / -15dB MV instead of 0dB MV (reference)?


Yes, as the name implies, it just offsets when (-5/-10/-15) Dynamic EQ starts working (offsets the Reference Level).


----------



## FilmMixer

http://investor.dolby.com/news-rele...ic-all-over-again-dolby-atmos-echo-studio-and

“Fall in Love with Music All Over Again with Dolby Atmos on Echo Studio and Amazon Music HD”

I think this is a big deal


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> http://investor.dolby.com/news-rele...ic-all-over-again-dolby-atmos-echo-studio-and
> 
> “Fall in Love with Music All Over Again with Dolby Atmos on Echo Studio and Amazon Music HD”
> 
> I think this is a big deal


Definitely. I was yawning at Amazon Music HD and UHD (I think the merits of hi-res audio are greatly overstated), but this announcement, following the news of UMG adopting Atmos at scale, is intriguing. Surround music has tried and failed many times, though - maybe this time it'll break though?

Any idea what codec Amazon and Dolby are using for this? DD+? AC4?


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Definitely. I was yawning at Amazon Music HD and UHD (I think the merits of hi-res audio are greatly overstated), but this announcement, following the news of UMG adopting Atmos at scale, is intriguing. Surround music has tried and failed many times, though - maybe this time it'll break though?
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea what codec Amazon and Dolby are using for this? DD+? AC4?



I agree about hi-res.... 

However even on streaming the Hd stereo tracks through my phone to my avr via AirPlay at 16/24 and 44.1 or 48k they sound great.... maybe it’s placebo but they sound much less smeared and compressed vs Apple Music... it definitely sound transparent and open so I’m thrilled we might finally have a fairly high quality service.

It’s not live on the FireTv. But it’s safe to assume it will be DD+...


----------



## pappaduke

FilmMixer said:


> http://investor.dolby.com/news-rele...ic-all-over-again-dolby-atmos-echo-studio-and
> 
> “Fall in Love with Music All Over Again with Dolby Atmos on Echo Studio and Amazon Music HD”
> 
> I think this is a big deal


Just read the article. So is it saying these Atmos tracks/songs will be available through Amazon Music HD? If so, how does one go about finding these tracks? If it’s really going to be immersive, I think you may need a little more than an Echo Studio. I just purchased INXS Kick recorded on a Blu-ray audio disc. Sounds great on my setup. If Amazon recreates this through streaming, it will certainly give them the edge over Tidal, Qobuz and Deezer IMO.


----------



## FilmMixer

pappaduke said:


> Just read the article. So is it saying these Atmos tracks/songs will be available through Amazon Music HD? If so, how does one go about finding these tracks? If it’s really going to be immersive, I think you may need a little more than an Echo Studio. I just purchased INXS Kick recorded on a Blu-ray audio disc. Sounds great on my setup. If Amazon recreates this through streaming, it will certainly give them the edge over Tidal, Qobuz and Deezer IMO.



I don’t have concrete answers. But here is what I’ve gleaned. 

The only specific use scenario they have discussed is using the new Amazon Studio speaker alongside a FireTV Cube. That speaker launches November 7...

It would be short sided if they didn’t just have it also stream just like video titles. 

My FireTV cube got a FW update today alongside an updated Music App. 

I’ve reached out to a Dolby contact and will see what I can find out.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

pappaduke said:


> Just read the article. So is it saying these Atmos tracks/songs will be available through Amazon Music HD? If so, how does one go about finding these tracks? If it’s really going to be immersive, I think you may need a little more than an Echo Studio. I just purchased INXS Kick recorded on a Blu-ray audio disc. Sounds great on my setup. If Amazon recreates this through streaming, it will certainly give them the edge over Tidal, Qobuz and Deezer IMO.



If they're lossy encoded, they can keep that s--t.


----------



## pappaduke

FilmMixer said:


> I don’t have concrete answers. But here is what I’ve gleaned.
> 
> The only specific use scenario they have discussed is using the new Amazon Studio speaker alongside a FireTV Cube. That speaker launches November 7...
> 
> It would be short sided if they didn’t just have it also stream just like video titles.
> 
> My FireTV cube got a FW update today alongside an updated Music App.
> 
> I’ve reached out to a Dolby contact and will see what I can find out.


Thanks


----------



## pappaduke

FilmMixer said:


> I don’t have concrete answers. But here is what I’ve gleaned.
> 
> The only specific use scenario they have discussed is using the new Amazon Studio speaker alongside a FireTV Cube. That speaker launches November 7...
> 
> It would be short sided if they didn’t just have it also stream just like video titles.
> 
> My FireTV cube got a FW update today alongside an updated Music App.
> 
> I’ve reached out to a Dolby contact and will see what I can find out.


Forgot to mention the INXS disc is an Atmos recording.


----------



## priitv8

FilmMixer said:


> http://investor.dolby.com/news-rele...ic-all-over-again-dolby-atmos-echo-studio-and
> 
> “Fall in Love with Music All Over Again with Dolby Atmos on Echo Studio and Amazon Music HD”
> 
> I think this is a big deal


Interesting. Sony is stirring the same pot: https://presscentre.sony.eu/pressre...for-streaming-through-amazon-music-hd-2924453
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/360-reality-audio


----------



## maikeldepotter

priitv8 said:


> Interesting. Sony is stirring the same pot: https://presscentre.sony.eu/pressre...for-streaming-through-amazon-music-hd-2924453
> https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/360-reality-audio


Sony shows speaker locations below listeners' level. That can't be Atmos...


----------



## Polyrythm1k

maikeldepotter said:


> Sony shows speaker locations below listeners' level. That can't be Atmos...




I’m assuming you could be kidding. But if not, I wouldn’t put too much stock into the promotional photos. Even the ones on Dolby’s site aren’t directly applicable without proper calculations. However, this does seem exciting.


----------



## dfa973

maikeldepotter said:


> Sony shows speaker locations below listeners' level. That can't be Atmos...


Those speakers below listeners' level are not real speakers, but virtual. The height can also be virtualized.



> 360 Reality Audio - Spatial sound field all around you by creating *multiple virtual speakers.*


360 Reality Audio works with standard 2.0/5.1/whatever setups and sound virtualization - the same way DTS Virtual:X and Dolby Speaker Virtualizer (Atmos Virtualizer) works.

360 Reality Audio is just Sony's version of sound virtualization.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rosstg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. When you do not use DEQ how many dB do you boost your subs?
> 
> 
> 
> I boost the subs about 3dB, which works well with the slight downward tilt I try to dial in for my LCR speakers. Here's a recent measurement of my LCR speakers crossed to the subs (heavy 1/3 smoothing to focus on the general shape). I do have my Harmony remote programmed with a discrete code for Sub Volume Up/Down so I can make tweaks on the fly depending on the content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rosstg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough I emailed Audyssey last night on the subject of DEQ and Atmos and they replied saying all channels are affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what was the EXACT wording? Remember there are two components to Dynamic EQ, and the loudness comp portion does affect all channels, you have to be specific that you are referring to the Surround boost only.
> 
> What's interesting is there is some confusion on the topic, as I asked Chris K on the Audyssey FB page about this and he said that the DEQ surround boost is NOT applied to the overheads. However, people (on this thread I believe) have demonstrated that it DOES appear to be boosting the rear heights. So take a canned reply from Audyssey with a grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a harmony remote elite and SVS PC4000 subs-are you saying I can change my sub volumes for each through the remote instead of going into the app on my phone all the time? If so that would be great-is it hard??
Click to expand...

Bump


----------



## SoundChex

maikeldepotter said:


> Sony shows speaker locations below listeners' level. That can't be Atmos...



IIRC, at CES 2019, Sony was previewing their "360 Reality Audio" technology (initially intended for streaming audio?) based on the MPEG-H 3D Audio codec.

The MPEG-H 3D Audio codec was supposedly designed to perform similarly to AC-4 and DTS:X . . . which should make it work well with our home theater systems*--if only our AVRs came with an appropriate decoder! *    


_


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> If they're lossy encoded, they can keep that s--t.




Your loss Dan.... I’ll be thinking of you while I enjoy the tracks. 

They won’t ever stream VBR lossless codecs.


----------



## SoundChex

SoundChex said:


> IIRC, at CES 2019, Sony was previewing their "360 Reality Audio" technology (initially intended for streaming audio?) based on the MPEG-H 3D Audio codec.
> 
> The MPEG-H 3D Audio codec was supposedly designed to perform similarly to AC-4 and DTS:X . . . which should make it work well with our home theater systems*--if only our AVRs came with an appropriate decoder! *


Alternatively...

*"Amazon launches Echo Studio speaker with Dolby Atmos"* _and Sony 360 Reality Audio too!_ *(link)*

_


----------



## m. zillch

SoundChex said:


> Alternatively...
> 
> *"Amazon launches Echo Studio speaker with Dolby Atmos"* _and Sony 360 Reality Audio too!_ *(link)*
> 
> _


 Oh boy. A complete Dolby Atmos home theater in one box for $199.. I'm sure it's just as good as the bulky, multi speaker systems with all the annoying wires. Finally!


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> Your loss Dan.... I’ll be thinking of you while I enjoy the tracks.
> 
> They won’t ever stream VBR lossless codecs.


Are you positive? Amazon is now streaming lossless FLAC for their new Amazon Music HD Service; a Dolby TrueHD Atmos stream doesn't seem entirely out of the question.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> Bump... I have a harmony remote elite and SVS PC4000 subs-are you saying I can change my sub volumes for each through the remote instead of going into the app on my phone all the time? If so that would be great-is it hard??


Yes, this outside the scope of the Audyssey thread but the way it works is you email Harmony support with the raw hex code of the command(s) you want added and ask them sweetly to add the command(s) to the specific device profile. There are installer docs which contain the discrete codes for a bunch of commands available through RS-232 serial or other control protocols, and there is a free hex converter tool which can generate the full hex code string. 

I did this all years ago so haven't checked on it recently, but I have discrete codes for Subwoofer Vol Up/Down, Center Channel Vol Up/Down, Dynamic EQ / Volume toggles, etc. I'll see if I can dig those up somewhere.


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Are you positive? Amazon is now streaming lossless FLAC for their new Amazon Music HD Service; a Dolby TrueHD Atmos stream doesn't seem entirely out of the question.




Dolby TrueHD’s max bitrate is 18mbos. 

Do you think there is a service that can guarantee that consistently? Is there Amazon, or anyone else, going to allocate that kind of bandwidth to end users?

You can’t cap TrueHDs max bitrate when encoding (nor can you DTS HD-MAs...)... that’s what makes the codecs lossless.. 

So you would have to guarantee 18mbos in order to stream TrueHD. 

FLAC isn’t designed for multichannel audio, nor is it’s max bitrate anywhere near Dolby’s... I think even on 24/192 stereo tracks it rarely approaches >3 mbps... EDIT. And in Amazons FAQs they say their savers Ultra HD nitrates are around 3.7mbps.... and I don’t know if that’s referring to masters or their encodes. 

Regarding Amazon specifically... I know they have different settings for downloads vs streaming. 

My downloads are 24/192 on songs that support it. 

When I stream the same songs vs the local download they only play as 24/48... perhaps this is due to the capabilities of the playback hardware... my iPhone plays at 24/48, my Fire Cube at 16/48...

Amazon doesn’t guarantee streaming quality btw... see the third screen shot 

At this time it doesn’t appear that Amazon has any branded streaming hardware that does 24/48 or better.


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> Dolby TrueHD’s max bitrate is 18mbos.
> 
> Do you think there is a service that can guarantee that consistently? Is there Amazon, or anyone else, going to allocate that kind of bandwidth to end users?


I didn't realize the max bitrate was that high. I guess I was thinking that in a world where Amazon and Netflix are streaming UHD video with Atmos soundtracks (albeit DD+ not lossless), the idea of a lossless Atmos music-only stream didn't seem extraordinary. But yeah, if you have to guarantee 18mbps then that's a nonstarter.



> At this time it doesn’t appear that Amazon has any branded streaming hardware that does 24/48 or better.


Not yet, but the just-announced Amazon Echo Studio will do stereo 192/24 (as well as Atmos with whatever bitrate they're using for Atmos music).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> dschulz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you positive? Amazon is now streaming lossless FLAC for their new Amazon Music HD Service; a Dolby TrueHD Atmos stream doesn't seem entirely out of the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby TrueHDâ€™️s max bitrate is 18mbos.
> 
> Do you think there is a service that can guarantee that consistently? Is there Amazon, or anyone else, going to allocate that kind of bandwidth to end users?
> 
> You canâ€™️t cap TrueHDs max bitrate when encoding (nor can you DTS HD-MAs...)... thatâ€™️s what makes the codecs lossless..
> 
> So you would have to guarantee 18mbos in order to stream TrueHD.
> 
> FLAC isnâ€™️t designed for multichannel audio, nor is itâ€™️s max bitrate anywhere near Dolbyâ€™️s... I think even on 24/192 stereo tracks it rarely approaches >3 mbps... EDIT. And in Amazons FAQs they say their savers Ultra HD nitrates are around 3.7mbps.... and I donâ€™️t know if thatâ€™️s referring to masters or their encodes.
> 
> Regarding Amazon specifically... I know they have different settings for downloads vs streaming.
> 
> My downloads are 24/192 on songs that support it.
> 
> When I stream the same songs vs the local download they only play as 24/48... perhaps this is due to the capabilities of the playback hardware... my iPhone plays at 24/48, my Fire Cube at 16/48...
> 
> Amazon doesnâ€™️t guarantee streaming quality btw... see the third screen shot /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> At this time it doesnâ€™️t appear that Amazon has any branded streaming hardware that does 24/48 or better.
Click to expand...

If it's just an audio service, they ought to have a high quality lossless Atmos, multi-channel, and stereo download option like many audiophile music sites you can purchase HD audio files or albums from. Untethered as well. 

You would think if Amazon and others are going after the high end, audiophile crowd they would offer the very best.

As for FLAC specifically, it supports up to 8 channels.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's just an audio service, they ought to have a high quality lossless Atmos, multi-channel, and stereo download option like many audiophile music sites you can purchase HD audio files or albums from. Untethered as well.
> 
> You would think if Amazon and others are going after the high end, audiophile crowd they would offer the very best.
> 
> As for FLAC specifically, it supports up to 8 channels.



We’re not taking about 5.1/7.1. FLAC doesn’t support Amtos or any other immersive formats. That’s what this thread and the discussion is about. Streaming Atmos content via Amazon was my original post. 

If you think there is a niche market business model to offer lossless immersive downloads that would make financial sense I’m sure Amazon would love to hear it. 

I’m in no position to say that they won’t offer that in the future... I can tell you that the last discussion. I had with a Dolby contact a few weeks back reiterated there is a good amount of Atmos music content ready and in production. A LOT of it. 

I think what Amazon is doing makes sense in the marketplace they’re going after... higher quality music streaming vs Apple and Spotify.... not some niche, audiophile purist audience. 

The fact is streaming and downloads are two different things and two different business models. I think that the absence of TrueHD Atmos downloads will not hurt them in any significant way.... except maybe to annoy you. . 

Amazon makes mass market audio hardware (Echo’s) and I think they certainly do have something to offer over Apple Music and Spotify in terms of audio quality.... I honestly feel they have a hard sell for most consumers who didn’t care AT ALL when Apple and others started offering lossy encodes when all this started..

It was all about convenience over quality those handful of years ago. 

Amazon obviously sees a market for higher quality music they can charge a premium for. But I don’t think that’s a straight line to offering downloadable lossless immersive content. 

Your replies are moving the goal posts IMO. The original discussion was about STREAMING lossless immersive audio..


----------



## rosstg

I’ve done quite a bit more experimenting with Atmos and DEQ on and Audyssey full range. My initial assessment of a more clarity with DEQ off was wrong. Yes there is less high frequencies but the height channels do present more detail and space with a lot more fullness. I’ll be curious when I install my top rears later this year but I’ll be leaving Audyssey full range with DEQ on.


----------



## bmcleod

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a harmony remote elite and SVS PC4000 subs-are you saying I can change my sub volumes for each through the remote instead of going into the app on my phone all the time? If so that would be great-is it hard??





batpig said:


> Yes, this outside the scope of the Audyssey thread but the way it works is you email Harmony support with the raw hex code of the command(s) you want added and ask them sweetly to add the command(s) to the specific device profile. There are installer docs which contain the discrete codes for a bunch of commands available through RS-232 serial or other control protocols, and there is a free hex converter tool which can generate the full hex code string.
> 
> I did this all years ago so haven't checked on it recently, but I have discrete codes for Subwoofer Vol Up/Down, Center Channel Vol Up/Down, Dynamic EQ / Volume toggles, etc. I'll see if I can dig those up somewhere.


I already do this with the Harmony Elite Home and SB-4000’s, these subs are already in the Harmony/Logitech database, including all the codes for the included remote. I mostly use the Presets for my settings, and switch between them.


----------



## deano86

rosstg said:


> I’ve done quite a bit more experimenting with Atmos and DEQ on and Audyssey full range. My initial assessment of a more clarity with DEQ off was wrong. Yes there is less high frequencies but the height channels do present more detail and space with a lot more fullness. I’ll be curious when I install my top rears later this year but I’ll be leaving Audyssey full range with DEQ on.


I stopped using Dynamic EQ because with Atmos and also with DSU, there is no boost supplied to the Front Height channels... just like the front base level LCR channels.... but the Rear Heights get boosted along with the other base level surrounds. For me this creates a noticeable imbalance in my Atmos and DSU surround modes... When I chatted with Ask Audyssey about this imbalance, it was made clear that they simply treat the Front Heights the same as any other "front" speaker.... no boost is considered necessary because they are in "front".


----------



## rosstg

deano86 said:


> I stopped using Dynamic EQ because with Atmos and also with DSU, there is no boost supplied to the Front Height channels... just like the front base level LCR channels.... but the Rear Heights get boosted along with the other base level surrounds. For me this creates a noticeable imbalance in my Atmos and DSU surround modes... When I chatted with Ask Audyssey about this imbalance, it was made clear that they simply treat the Front Heights the same as any other "front" speaker.... no boost is considered necessary because they are in "front".


Thats what I’ve heard, it’ll be interesting what I think when I add my top rears later this year.


----------



## obts000

*Atmos Noob Question*

I built my theater 9 years ago and haven't kept up with a lot of the developments. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 4K projector, so that means I'll need a new pre-pro or a switch. I have a Denon 3808-CI for a pre-pro now. I've been reading a bunch of this thread and am trying to get up to speed on all the Atmos terms and features. It would be difficult to add any ceiling speakers to go to a 7.1.4 setup. Does atmos do much (anything?) for me in this case? If it doesn't I might not upgrade the pre/pro and just get ah HDMI switch. Thanks.


----------



## rosstg

obts000 said:


> I built my theater 9 years ago and haven't kept up with a lot of the developments. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 4K projector, so that means I'll need a new pre-pro or a switch. I have a Denon 3808-CI for a pre-pro now. I've been reading a bunch of this thread and am trying to get up to speed on all the Atmos terms and features. It would be difficult to add any ceiling speakers to go to a 7.1.4 setup. Does atmos do much (anything?) for me in this case? If it doesn't I might not upgrade the pre/pro and just get ah HDMI switch. Thanks.


IMO Atmos is a game changer. It adds so much more to movies. I’ve been into HT since the late 90’s and Atmos and 4K HDR has rejuvenated my love for the hobby.


----------



## PoorSignal

obts000 said:


> I built my theater 9 years ago and haven't kept up with a lot of the developments. I'm thinking of upgrading to a 4K projector, so that means I'll need a new pre-pro or a switch. I have a Denon 3808-CI for a pre-pro now. I've been reading a bunch of this thread and am trying to get up to speed on all the Atmos terms and features. It would be difficult to add any ceiling speakers to go to a 7.1.4 setup. Does atmos do much (anything?) for me in this case? If it doesn't I might not upgrade the pre/pro and just get ah HDMI switch. Thanks.


Yes it does a lot. (Otherwise there wouldn’t be 5000 posts here)
Especially if you have a built theater

You will need to decode atmos, probably a 4k blu ray player because most of the content came from the 4k discs. The movie selection are trickling out daily but no where near abundance like blu ray discs. 

Plus you get to hear about doom and gloom crowd claiming the physical media’s days are numbered. But if you do want to jump on the format now, it offers the best sound and audio quality ever. 

Well there is some fun in upmixing existing non atmos sound as well something you can look up ..

The problem remains projectors handle HDR not so nicely. I think only the $15-20k ones does a good job. You want to research on that. 

Many are using 4 speakers mounted up high or on ceiling.


----------



## anothermib

FilmMixer said:


> Only US and U.K./GB now.




Thanks for confirming the current status. Are you able to share anything on the reasons for this regional limitation? 

The response I got from Amazon support was along the lines of:
a) Amazon does not have any influence at all on the audio format that is being offered per country. This is entirely the decision and responsibility of the studio (Legendary Television)
b) Amazon is working hard to make the highest quality format available as quickly as possible. 
Which I find slightly contradictory, making me think that these were just the standard text blocks that seemed to fit the topic.

I am wondering if there is any point in jumping up and down a little on this issue.


----------



## obts000

PoorSignal said:


> Yes it does a lot. (Otherwise there wouldn’t be 5000 posts here)
> Especially if you have a built theater
> 
> Thanks much. Yes, it's built theater with pretty good accoustic design. The green glued sheetrock and truss space full of blown insulation is why getting ceiling speakers installed would be a pain. I have Klipsch THX Ultra II speakers and Emotiva XPA-2 and XPA-5 amps. I'm thinking upgrading the JVC RS-20 to an RS-2000 and Denon 3808CI to an X3500H or X4500H would be good improvements. Need to research the replacement for the OPPO to a 4K player. It's _possible_ I could tear down some sheetrock ceiling in the adjacent lobby room and snake speaker wires to the theater ceiling, but it would be a giant PITA and I don't think I want to take it on.


----------



## camd5pt0

First off, if you're into gaming in Atmos, MW for Xbox One X is simply amazing. This is what we where promised with Atmos. It's up there with the best of the best media for Atmos. Demo worthy. Here is my glowing review.









Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## camd5pt0

I have been trying to play Dolby Atmos music lately, finally found how to stream Ultra HD music. Sounds very clean, but doesn't show Atmos.
Here is my journey









Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Lesmor

@FilmMixer
Hi
Can you offer any insight as to why studios are filtering (neutering) the bass on discs?
You may be aware that on AVS there is an active thread on how to restore the filtered bass but curious as to why it is removed in the first place


----------



## stikle

rosstg said:


> IMO Atmos is a game changer. It adds so much more to movies. I’ve been into HT since the late 90’s and Atmos and 4K HDR has rejuvenated my love for the hobby.


^ THIS.

Along with true Atmos & DTS:X, you also gain the use of the Dolby Surround Upmixer and DTS:Neural upmixer, which breathe new life into all of your old content as well as pretty much everything else.



obts000 said:


> It's _possible_ I could tear down some sheetrock ceiling in the adjacent lobby room and snake speaker wires to the theater ceiling, but it would be a giant PITA and I don't think I want to take it on.


It's worth _every_ bit of PITA, IMO.

So much so that having a space for a dedicated Atmos theater was one of the primary driving factors when I was house hunting before I bought this one. See the link in my signature to see the journey.


----------



## FilmMixer

Lesmor said:


> @FilmMixer
> 
> Hi
> 
> Can you offer any insight as to why studios are filtering (neutering) the bass on discs?
> 
> You may be aware that on AVS there is an active thread on how to restore the filtered bass but curious as to why it is removed in the first place



I’ve never had anything I’ve worked on “neutered” by a studio. 

I don’t do shows for Disney and know that they put a great deal of effort into remastering their titles, I’m not endorsing the end product I can only reiterate that mixers and sound designers all work differently... (I know there is a lot of unhappiness with the Disney product)

Is there data that shows that all titles from a given studio has “neutered” the bass in a consistent and measurable manner?

If not than any differences between mixes are just that... difference between mixes


----------



## Swoosh830

deano86 said:


> I stopped using Dynamic EQ because with Atmos and also with DSU, there is no boost supplied to the Front Height channels... just like the front base level LCR channels.... but the Rear Heights get boosted along with the other base level surrounds. For me this creates a noticeable imbalance in my Atmos and DSU surround modes... When I chatted with Ask Audyssey about this imbalance, it was made clear that they simply treat the Front Heights the same as any other "front" speaker.... no boost is considered necessary because they are in "front".


When you say Front Height, I'm assuming that's regardless if they're labeled Front Height or Top Front? Is there any information regarding whether or not Top Middle is boosted or not?

Also, could this lack of boost to the front height/top speakers be compensated for by bumping their trim levels?


----------



## Lesmor

FilmMixer said:


> I’ve never had anything I’ve worked on “neutered” by a studio.
> 
> I don’t do shows for Disney and know that they put a great deal of effort into remastering their titles, I’m not endorsing the end product I can only reiterate that mixers and sound designers all work differently... (I know there is a lot of unhappiness with the Disney product)
> 
> Is there data that shows that all titles from a given studio has “neutered” the bass in a consistent and measurable manner?
> 
> If not than any differences between mixes are just that... difference between mixes


Interesting 
on this thread nearly a thousand titles have been modified into the BEQ format 
perhaps it is unfair to ask for a comment but page 1 gives some insight into the process and gives a list of titles here is a link
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html

Thanks in advance


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Really, the only benefit of 8k is the potential for better 4k... at some point in the future. If people have the money to go with the very first 8k sets while everything is up in the air specs-wise and technology-wise and end up having to get replacements almost immediately that is their choice.


----------



## deano86

Swoosh830 said:


> When you say Front Height, I'm assuming that's regardless if they're labeled Front Height or Top Front? Is there any information regarding whether or not Top Middle is boosted or not?
> 
> Also, could this lack of boost to the front height/top speakers be compensated for by bumping their trim levels?


Yes, Top Fronts or Front Heights.... I didn't test the Top Middle designation, but I would assume that Audyssey would assume they are not in "front" of the MLP, thus the normal boost would be applied...Of course you can bump up the trim levels ...and I actually spent some time determining my typical MV level and then measuring the channels with the Dolby Atmos test tones and determined the additional trim level boost needed for my Top Fronts to equal the Rears when using Dynamic EQ. But, that trim level boost will then be too much if you happen to crank up the MV more than normal on a certain title or source and then your Top Rears will be lower. 

For me, depending on the source or title, or time of day, my MV can change dramatically, thus I just prefer knowing that my top speakers' levels are balanced and actually have weaned myself off of my former preference for Dynamic EQ's (in some cases) overly boosted surrounds and bass levels. I must admit though... one trim I did adjust is my subwoofer level up 3 db to help compensate for the lack of EQ punch at my lower MV levels..

I tried to make the point with the Ask Audyssey rep I was emailing, that I felt in regards to Atmos/DSU, that Audyssey should apply their boost to the Top Fronts as well, regardless of their physical label of being in "front".


----------



## FilmMixer

Lesmor said:


> Interesting
> 
> on this thread nearly a thousand titles have been modified into the BEQ format
> 
> perhaps it is unfair to ask for a comment but page 1 gives some insight into the process and gives a list of titles here is a link
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance



You original post started with a false premise. That studios “neuter” the LFE on mixes...

There is no comment to give. 

I see some of my mixes in there. 

It’s the way I mixed those films.... 

In my opinion EQ to restore something that isn’t in the mix is just as useful as trying to re color time the film to add back in hues that were taken out or changing the EQ on the dialog to get it to all sound the same or creating new max nit specular highlights...

In the same way I don’t like every movie in the same way or think all their scripts are as well written, I celebrate the differences in the ways they were mixed and constructed by the sound teams. I don’t want or need them all to have the same ULF or LF content... to me this new “fad” just homogenizes the tracks and it’s certainly not of any interest to me. . 

I would be much more concerned about listening with accuracy rather than adjusting every mix to my personal taste... but again, that’s just me.


----------



## FilmMixer

camd5pt0 said:


> I have been trying to play Dolby Atmos music lately, finally found how to stream Ultra HD music. Sounds very clean, but doesn't show Atmos.
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk



I spoke with some of my Dolby contracts yesterday. 

Amazon Atmos music streaming will launch on November 7th alongside the new Echo Studio speaker. 

It will launch sometime afterwards for capable devices (FireTV Cube, AVRs) etc.. That could be 11/7... could be ???? Dolby reps didn’t know. 

On a side note, I did hear some Atmos music yesterday, in a room with a 48 channel Atmos setup. 

It was stunning... from the Beatles to Prince to Public Enemy... I’m really excited and I know there is a TON of content ready to go and much much more to in pipeline.... IMO this will be nothing live DVD-A or SACD ... the record companies are getting behind this in a big way.


----------



## m. zillch

FilmMixer said:


> I would be much more concerned about listening with accuracy rather than adjusting every mix to my personal taste... but again, that’s just me.


I share your quest and it has a name: high fidelity. I want to enjoy the original artists' intent as closely as I can within the limitations of my budget (and room acoustics). See my signature for more.


----------



## camd5pt0

FilmMixer said:


> I spoke with some of my Dolby contracts yesterday.
> 
> Amazon Atmos music streaming will launch on November 7th alongside the new Echo Studio speaker.
> 
> It will launch sometime afterwards for capable devices (FireTV Cube, AVRs) etc.. That could be 11/7... could be ???? Dolby reps didn’t know.
> 
> On a side note, I did hear some Atmos music yesterday, in a room with a 48 channel Atmos setup.
> 
> It was stunning... from the Beatles to Prince to Public Enemy... I’m really excited and I know there is a TON of content ready to go and much much more to in pipeline.... IMO this will be nothing live DVD-A or SACD ... the record companies are getting behind this in a big way.


That's awesome to hear, I love my music and now I'll finally enjoy listening on a full system. I haven't enjoyed it since my current configuration cause me to lose Auro 3D. 
I'm happy Dolby Atmos is continued to be pushed.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt L

obts000 said:


> PoorSignal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does a lot. (Otherwise there wouldn’t be 5000 posts here)
> Especially if you have a built theater
> 
> Thanks much. Yes, it's built theater with pretty good accoustic design. The green glued sheetrock and truss space full of blown insulation is why getting ceiling speakers installed would be a pain. I have Klipsch THX Ultra II speakers and Emotiva XPA-2 and XPA-5 amps. I'm thinking upgrading the JVC RS-20 to an RS-2000 and Denon 3808CI to an X3500H or X4500H would be good improvements. Need to research the replacement for the OPPO to a 4K player. It's _possible_ I could tear down some sheetrock ceiling in the adjacent lobby room and snake speaker wires to the theater ceiling, but it would be a giant PITA and I don't think I want to take it on.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be any worse than my experience. I opted for in ceiling speakers as I and most here agree that they are the optimum way to set up Atmos. My listening area has scissors trusses with R40 fiberglass insulation and no real access. Only way into the small cavity was via a 6" wide slot I cut in a second floor closet. Took better part of an afternoon by using 15' long pieces of 1/2" Pex plumbing water line I was able to fish wires for 4 speakers into the closet and then run them down into an interior wall cavity to the basement and then up to my AV equipment across the room. When dealing with that much insulation a fish tape was worthless, the flexible PEX made much easier work of the job. Was it worth it -YES. With a good soundtrack, the sound is totally immersive, even using an upmix for non Atmos feeds it adds much to the experience.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesmor

FilmMixer said:


> You original post started with a false premise. That studios “neuter” the LFE on mixes...
> 
> There is no comment to give.
> 
> I see some of my mixes in there.
> 
> It’s the way I mixed those films....
> 
> In my opinion EQ to restore something that isn’t in the mix is just as useful as trying to re color time the film to add back in hues that were taken out or changing the EQ on the dialog to get it to all sound the same or creating new max nit specular highlights...
> 
> In the same way I don’t like every movie in the same way or think all their scripts are as well written, I celebrate the differences in the ways they were mixed and constructed by the sound teams. I don’t want or need them all to have the same ULF or LF content... to me this new “fad” just homogenizes the tracks and it’s certainly not of any interest to me. .
> 
> I would be much more concerned about listening with accuracy rather than adjusting every mix to my personal taste... but again, that’s just me.


Many thanks 
so it appears that the AVS community are working on a false premise in blaming the studios and any disc with perceived weak bass is as the artist intended
enough said and back on thread


----------



## Larold

I’ve been a Recording Engineer for 49 years, and put in a 5.1.4 Atmos setup in our home. I’m sitting in here relaxing and it hit me that my front upfiring Atmos speakers should be phase swapped to match the rear ceiling mounted Atmos speakers...and everything else. Am I overthinking this? Anyone have an answer? Thanks.


----------



## paulst

FilmMixer said:


> If not than any differences between mixes are just that... difference between mixes


So can you explain why the same movie has differences between two formats (BD & 4k UHD) ? The dotted lines are the original mix..

*Hellboy 2 Bluray DTS-HD MA 7.1*










*Hellboy 2 4k DTS:X*


----------



## FilmMixer

paulst said:


> So can you explain why the same movie has differences between two formats (BD & 4k UHD) ? The dotted lines are the original mix..
> 
> 
> 
> *Hellboy 2 Bluray DTS-HD MA 7.1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hellboy 2 4k DTS:X*



Because they are two different mixes. 

One was a 7.1 near field mix from the theatrical delivery which was later redone for DTS:X. 

Whomever did the immersive upmix made changes... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Josh Z

Lesmor said:


> so it appears that the AVS community are working on a false premise in blaming the studios and any disc with perceived weak bass is as the artist intended


I understand everything Filmmixer is saying, and he's obviously in a better position to know what's going on in the industry than I am. That said, when a studio like Disney has a fairly consistent track record of releasing crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie over a multi-year period, all suffering very similar problems with flattened dynamic range, it's hard to see that as just a coincidence or "artist intent," especially when most of the movies have different artists and sound mixers working on them.

Avengers: Age of Ultron and Star Wars: The Last Jedi are a couple of the worst-sounding Blu-rays I own. Perusing their credits on IMDb, I don't see any Sound Department people in common. Yet the movies sound very similar to one another, with negligible bass despite being big action/adventure movies with lots of crashes and explosions all over the place.

I'm not suggesting that someone at the studio issued a corporate mandate that all sound mixes should crush the dynamic range, but it seems like _something_ weird is going on there. Why does Disney stand out as having this problem more than any other studio?


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> I understand everything Filmmixer is saying, and he's obviously in a better position to know what's going on in the industry than I am. That said, when a studio like Disney has a fairly consistent track record of releasing crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie over a multi-year period, all suffering very similar problems with flattened dynamic range, it's hard to see that as just a coincidence or "artist intent," especially when most of the movies have different artists and sound mixers working on them.
> 
> Avengers: Age of Ultron and Star Wars: The Last Jedi are a couple of the worst-sounding Blu-rays I own. Perusing their credits on IMDb, I don't see any Sound Department people in common. Yet the movies sound very similar to one another, with negligible bass despite being big action/adventure movies with lots of crashes and explosions all over the place.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that someone at the studio issued a corporate mandate that all sound mixes should crush the dynamic range, but it seems like _something_ weird is going on there. Why does Disney stand out as having this problem more than any other studio?


It's certainly not mutually exclusive that changes to a mix (e.g. going from a 7.1 or 5.1 Blu-ray mix to an immersive mix for 4K re-release) can be BOTH be products of artistic intent and ALSO be a product of studio policy.


----------



## paulst

FilmMixer said:


> Because they are two different mixes.
> 
> One was a 7.1 near field mix from the theatrical delivery which was later redone for DTS:X.
> 
> Whomever did the immersive upmix made changes...


Yes, one has had it's LFE heavily filtered, the other hasn't  It still doesn't explain why they do this..


----------



## Bill Wolfer

FilmMixer said:


> I spoke with some of my Dolby contracts yesterday.
> 
> Amazon Atmos music streaming will launch on November 7th alongside the new Echo Studio speaker.
> 
> It will launch sometime afterwards for capable devices (FireTV Cube, AVRs) etc.. That could be 11/7... could be ???? Dolby reps didn’t know.
> 
> On a side note, I did hear some Atmos music yesterday, in a room with a 48 channel Atmos setup.
> 
> It was stunning... from the Beatles to Prince to Public Enemy... I’m really excited and I know there is a TON of content ready to go and much much more to in pipeline.... IMO this will be nothing live DVD-A or SACD ... the record companies are getting behind this in a big way.


I listened to the Atmos mix of Abbey Road this weekend, and was blown away. I've never heard it sound so good. I think Atmos music has a ton of potential. I recently bought a two blu-ray set of Karajan's nine Beethoven symphonies remixed in Atmos, and it's ridiculously good. I'd be interested in learning more about the process of converting old two channel masters to Atmos. I think with the Karajan, they put some monitors in the big room where they were recorded in Berlin and mic'ed them for the surrounds and height channels.

Amazon is going to have Atmos music on their high end streaming service, but was there any talk of physical media? I'm not a snob about lossy streaming, I just have eclectic taste, and I'd rather buy what I want piecemeal rather than pay yet another monthly fee.

BTW, congrats on Carnival Row, and thanks to you for rattling Amazon's cage to get the Atmos mix online.


----------



## m. zillch

Josh Z said:


> I'm not suggesting that someone at the studio issued a corporate mandate that all sound mixes should crush the dynamic range, but it seems like _something_ weird is going on there. Why does Disney stand out as having this problem more than any other studio?


Could be a top Disney executive says, paraphrased: "Our research shows when it comes to home distribution 90% of our bread and butter is from kids' playback on tablets, cellphones, and TV sets with 3 inch speakers. Optimize playback for *that* market and screw the people with deep bass capable setups since the same research shows households with playback capability below ~25/30Hz, or so, is around .001%."


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> I'm not suggesting that someone at the studio issued a corporate mandate that all sound mixes should crush the dynamic range, but...


But the consistency certainly makes it appear that way (consistency = across multiple movies AND across multiple studios: Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> I understand everything Filmmixer is saying, and he's obviously in a better position to know what's going on in the industry than I am. That said, when a studio like Disney has a fairly consistent track record of releasing crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie over a multi-year period, all suffering very similar problems with flattened dynamic range, it's hard to see that as just a coincidence or "artist intent," especially when most of the movies have different artists and sound mixers working on them.
> 
> Avengers: Age of Ultron and Star Wars: The Last Jedi are a couple of the worst-sounding Blu-rays I own. Perusing their credits on IMDb, I don't see any Sound Department people in common. Yet the movies sound very similar to one another, with negligible bass despite being big action/adventure movies with lots of crashes and explosions all over the place.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that someone at the studio issued a corporate mandate that all sound mixes should crush the dynamic range, but it seems like _something_ weird is going on there. Why does Disney stand out as having this problem more than any other studio?



BINGO! Something's rotten in the state of Mousemark, especially. 



A lot of the differences in the bass output (not adding crushed dynamic range or lack of surround activity or dimensionality into the discussion) on many of these mixes being compared (from one disc release to another) is that they're seemingly adding a steep filtered roll-off in the low frequency range. To protect soundbars and TV speakers? To be a nanny for our ear health? 



I mean it's one thing to be about artistic intent and another to where there's little to no bass to speak of even when you would expect a particular scene would warrant it. A huge explosion where the sub lets out little more than a small burp? Is that realistic?


----------



## m. zillch

I'd like to point out to people that these bass response curve images are *not* of the LFE channel alone. We know this because they go above 120Hz. So they could be, for example:

- A blend of all channels together ?
- Just the front L and R summed ?

So for instance a recording engineer has the means to record a full range signal all the way down to 3Hz for Dolby Atmos * in the main channels if they want to*, or they can elect to reserve the very deep content, say below 30Hz in this Hellboy case, to exclusively the LFE channel. What we could be seeing in the difference in Hellboy above is that one guy decided on "use LFE only for the


----------



## 3ll3d00d

No, the published charts are always of the post BM subwoofer output channel. The person with both versions can also plot per channel to see where the differences actually lie though.


----------



## paulst

3ll3d00d said:


> No, the published charts are always of the post BM subwoofer output channel. The person with both versions can also plot per channel to see where the differences actually lie though.


Are they not all channels together on the BEQ when mixed to mono? (see last paragraph) Starting to confuse myself here 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bass-eq-filtered-movies-312.html#post58530624


----------



## 3ll3d00d

paulst said:


> Are they not all channels together on the BEQ when mixed to mono? (see last paragraph) Starting to confuse myself here
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bass-eq-filtered-movies-312.html#post58530624


That is what a subwoofer output channel is


----------



## m. zillch

3ll3d00d said:


> That is what a subwoofer output channel is


. . . with the speakers all set to "small" and an unusually high crossover frequency, I guess.


----------



## paulst

3ll3d00d said:


> That is what a subwoofer output channel is


Thought so, after a few JD's I can easily confuse myself 

Off to put a film on now (with BEQ) no fil*turd* (credit to PioManiac) bass here  

I suppose that puts this argument to end? Someone is intentionally filtering the bass, why, we don't know.. But @FilmMixer has insisted those are his intended mixes.. I'm confused, seems to be some contradiction here? especially if the content that "isn't in the mix" can be retrieved using BEQ..



FilmMixer said:


> There is no comment to give.
> 
> I see some of my mixes in there.
> 
> It’s the way I mixed those films....
> 
> In my opinion EQ to restore something that isn’t in the mix


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> . . . with the speakers all set to "small" and an unusually high crossover frequency, I guess.


No filter at all. You can add one in the app if you like to see how it behaves but published graphs are "full range" (so to speak)



paulst said:


> Someone is intentionally filtering the bass, why, we don't know.. But @FilmMixer has insisted those are his intended mixes.. I'm confused, seems to be some contradiction here? especially if the content that "isn't in the mix" can be retrieved using BEQ..


This is going OT for this thread but I don't see the contradiction myself. It seems like the q you are actually asking is why is it mixed like that.


----------



## searsmd

I think it comes down to intended audience. Some modern Atmos mixes (Most Disney) are being mixed specifically for for TV speaker viewing only. Thus they've flattened the curve and neutered the bass in an attempt to get the best sound possible from TV speakers. Having watched several of these movies in the theaters we do know that that is not how they were presented at that time, it's only the home video release that's being treated this way. As Josh Z points out it can't be an artistic vision because that just doesn't hold water. Otherwise when it's shown in it's most premium format why is it so different?


----------



## m. zillch

3ll3d00d said:


> No filter at all. You can add one in the app if you like to see how . . .


Which app is it?


----------



## paulst

3ll3d00d said:


> This is going OT for this thread but I don't see the contradiction myself. It seems like the q you are actually asking is why is it mixed like that.


Yes, I think everyone would like to know that question, but saying 'It’s the way I mixed those films and we're restoring something that isn't in the mix' (but it clearly is as proven by the BEQ's) is surely a contradiction?

Happy to leave it there, to keep the peace


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Which app is it?


BEQDesigner https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/releases


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> Which app is it?


https://beqdesigner.readthedocs.io/en/latest/


----------



## Hopinater

Josh Z said:


> I understand everything Filmmixer is saying, and he's obviously in a better position to know what's going on in the industry than I am. That said, when a studio like Disney has a fairly consistent track record of releasing crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie after crappy-sounding movie over a multi-year period, all suffering very similar problems with flattened dynamic range, it's hard to see that as just a coincidence or "artist intent," especially when most of the movies have different artists and sound mixers working on them.
> 
> Avengers: Age of Ultron and Star Wars: The Last Jedi are a couple of the worst-sounding Blu-rays I own. Perusing their credits on IMDb, I don't see any Sound Department people in common. Yet the movies sound very similar to one another, with negligible bass despite being big action/adventure movies with lots of crashes and explosions all over the place.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that someone at the studio issued a corporate mandate that all sound mixes should crush the dynamic range, but it seems like _something_ weird is going on there. Why does Disney stand out as having this problem more than any other studio?





searsmd said:


> I think it comes down to intended audience. Some modern Atmos mixes (Most Disney) are being mixed specifically for for TV speaker viewing only. Thus they've flattened the curve and neutered the bass in an attempt to get the best sound possible from TV speakers. Having watched several of these movies in the theaters we do know that that is not how they were presented at that time, it's only the home video release that's being treated this way. As Josh Z points out it can't be an artistic vision because that just doesn't hold water. Otherwise when it's shown in it's most premium format why is it so different?


I agree with you guys... the whole idea of "Artist Intent" doesn't add up for the reasons you mentioned above. And I'll add one more thing to think about. What artist in their right mind produces explosions with no impact? A true artist takes pride in their work, how do you take pride in mixing a car explosion so it sounds like a cap gun? I doubt the artists would mix it this way unless they are told to do so. 

Let's be real, there is a reason why you wear ear protection in a blasting zone... explosions are loud and full of deep ULF impact. That's how they are in real life and mixed any other way it just sounds BAD. And sadly Disney is the worse offender which sucks because they are putting out some fun movies.


----------



## Stereodude

Hopinater said:


> Let's be real, there is a reason why you wear ear protection in a blasting zone... explosions are loud and full of deep ULF impact...


Actually they're not. They have a huge pressure wave (shockwave) that registers as a very high SPL. Have you fired a gun before or played with powerful firecrackers?

There's no way to reproduce the actual characteristic of gunshots or explosions in a room with a speaker system. Adding a lot of bass is how they attempt to simulate it, but it's not accurate.


----------



## Stereodude

FilmMixer said:


> Because they are two different mixes.
> 
> One was a 7.1 near field mix from the theatrical delivery which was later redone for DTS:X.
> 
> Whomever did the immersive upmix made changes...


So which of the two is the Director's intent? They can't both be.

As a corollary, should we happily & willingly accept the loudness wars and the horribly compressed dynamic range of modern music as the artist's intent as well instead of pushing for changes and improvements of DR?


----------



## Hopinater

Stereodude said:


> Actually they're not. They have a huge pressure wave (shockwave) that registers as a very high SPL. Have you fired a gun before or played with powerful firecrackers?
> 
> There's no way to reproduce the actual characteristic of gunshots or explosions in a room with a speaker system. Adding a lot of bass is how they attempt to simulate it, but it's not accurate.


Yes I've done all that but I said Blast Zone not gun range and a lot of it depends on size of explosion and other factors. But I mean large explosions like you see in a lot of action movies. You may be right and it may not be able to be perfectly reproduced in theaters but it's a lot more accurate with big bass than neutered bass.


----------



## Josh Z

paulst said:


> Yes, I think everyone would like to know that question, but saying 'It’s the way I mixed those films and we're restoring something that isn't in the mix' (but it clearly is as proven by the BEQ's) is surely a contradiction?


I think one point that needs to be clarified here is that (to my knowledge) none of the movies or TV shows Filmmixer has worked on have suffered the flattened dynamic range problem we're talking about. He's commenting about what he knows about how things work in the industry. He's not saying that he personally mixed a movie with no dynamic range. 

What he's saying is that, in his experience, the things he's mixed have translated correctly to home video without a studio mucking around or changing his work. That being the case, if you are unimpressed with a particular movie's soundtrack, the most likely answer is that you just don't like the decisions that mixer made.

As far as "restoring something that isn't in the mix," you're not "restoring" anything. You're adding something that the original mixer may not have wanted. Which is your prerogative, but what it comes down to is personal preference.

However, all that said, what this argument doesn't address is why Disney has such a consistent track record for soundtracks with flattened dynamic range across different movies and different sound departments. That seems too much to be a coincidence.


----------



## Josh Z

Stereodude said:


> So which of the two is the Director's intent? They can't both be.


Well, they can be, if the director changed his mind later. 

One thing I'd like to know is how much, if at all, the original directors are involved with all these new Atmos and DTS:X remixes that are being cranked out. Are the original filmmakers consulted, or is a mixer at some post-house making those decisions unilaterally?


----------



## paulst

Josh Z said:


> I think one point that needs to be clarified here is that (to my knowledge) none of the movies or TV shows Filmmixer has worked on have suffered the flattened dynamic range problem we're talking about. He's commenting about what he knows about how things work in the industry. He's not saying that he personally mixed a movie with no dynamic range.
> 
> What he's saying is that, in his experience, the things he's mixed have translated correctly to home video without a studio mucking around or changing his work. That being the case, if you are unimpressed with a particular movie's soundtrack, the most likely answer is that you just don't like the decisions that mixer made.
> 
> As far as "restoring something that isn't in the mix," you're not "restoring" anything. You're adding something that the original mixer may not have wanted. Which is your prerogative, but what it comes down to is personal preference.
> 
> However, all that said, what this argument doesn't address is why Disney has such a consistent track record for soundtracks with flattened dynamic range across different movies and different sound departments. That seems too much to be a coincidence.


Yes, I heard he did Fury, and TNMT, Fury isn't too bad.. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-83.html#post57144132

But the TNMT films have a steady roll off at 40hz and TNMT 2 at 30hz.. which are still neutered IMO, especially when you look at the content that has been 'restored' with BEQ, the experience is a night and day difference IMO..
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-36.html#post56868576
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-55.html#post56974136

At the end of the day, it's all their preference, but for those of us that have half decent subwoofers, it's not what we want when you're paying a price for supposedly premium product, so we add BEQ to compensate for this. Really not looking to upset anyone but it's about time they realised what they're doing isn't what people expect..


----------



## Stereodude

paulst said:


> Yes, I heard he did Fury, and TNMT, Fury isn't too bad.. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-83.html#post57144132
> 
> But the TNMT films have a steady roll off at 40hz and TNMT 2 at 30hz.. which are still neutered IMO, especially when you look at the content that has been 'restored' with BEQ, the experience is a night and day difference IMO..
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-36.html#post56868576
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-55.html#post56974136
> 
> At the end of the day, it's all their preference, but for those of us that have half decent subwoofers, it's not what we want when you're paying a price for supposedly premium product, so we add BEQ to compensate for this. Really not looking to upset anyone but it's about time they realised what they're doing isn't what people expect..


I don't see TNMT in his Filmography on IMDB.


----------



## paulst

Stereodude said:


> I don't see TNMT in his Filmography on IMDB.


My bad, I was going by the post here which mentioned TNMT.. https://www.avforums.com/threads/ma...er-with-bass-eq.2212871/page-39#post-27422134

Some still have a BEQ for them though

Transformers TLK..https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-10.html#post56735602
Source Code..https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-42.html#post56891922
Sicario DOTS..https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-22.html#post56793370

I'd also imagine Riddick would need some BEQ, and The Pacific has been done as well. But I'm not specifically targeting one film mixer, we're talking a lot of movies in general and it's becoming more and more frequent.. whether they're filtered at 20hz or 40hz.. it's not what we want


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> BEQDesigner https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/releases


Thanks. I have not downloaded it yet but as best as I can tell this app is to restore missing bass, but unless you have the EQ correction file _because it has been given to you_ this app itself does not _analyze_ the amount of missing bass. Did I get that right?

I'm actually seeking what app is used to generate the "before" and "after" bass filtration response curves we see with the Movie Posters above them, showing the user the bass that's been lost. Thanks.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Thanks. I have not downloaded it yet but as best as I can tell this app is to restore missing bass, but unless you have the EQ correction file _because it has been given to you_ this app itself does not _analyze_ the amount of missing bass. Did I get that right?
> 
> I'm actually seeking what app is used to generate the "before" and "after" bass filtration response curves we see with the Movie Posters above them, showing the user the bass that's been lost. Thanks.


That's decided by the individual applying the filters.. @aron7awol does most of the BEQ's, hopefully he'll respond to you, I'm off to bed (getting late here in the UK)


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> I'm actually seeking what app is used to generate the "before" and "after" bass filtration response curves we see with the Movie Posters above them, showing the user the bass that's been lost. Thanks.


The app is the tool used to create all of those graphs and design the filters


----------



## Stereodude

paulst said:


> My bad, I was going by the post here which mentioned TNMT.. https://www.avforums.com/threads/ma...er-with-bass-eq.2212871/page-39#post-27422134
> 
> Some still have a BEQ for them though
> 
> Transformers TLK..https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-10.html#post56735602
> Source Code..https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-42.html#post56891922
> Sicario DOTS..https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-bass-eq-filtered-movies-22.html#post56793370
> 
> I'd also imagine Riddick would need some BEQ, and The Pacific has been done as well. But I'm not specifically targeting one film mixer, we're talking a lot of movies in general and it's becoming more and more frequent.. whether they're filtered at 20hz or 40hz.. it's not what we want


I think you're going about this in the wrong way. Here's the opportunity to get insight into why they look the way they do.

@FilmMixer Did you do the UHD-BD Atmos mix for Transformers TLK, Source Code, or Sicario DOTS? If so, to the best of your knowledge at any point were any of the channels (post sound design) intentionally high passed to remove content below a particular frequency? If not, why do you think they show a precipitous drop off in low frequency content below 20-30Hz (depending on the movie)? Did someone else filter all the sounds you built the mix from?


----------



## rosstg

FilmMixer said:


> I spoke with some of my Dolby contracts yesterday.
> 
> Amazon Atmos music streaming will launch on November 7th alongside the new Echo Studio speaker.
> 
> It will launch sometime afterwards for capable devices (FireTV Cube, AVRs) etc.. That could be 11/7... could be ???? Dolby reps didn’t know.
> 
> On a side note, I did hear some Atmos music yesterday, in a room with a 48 channel Atmos setup.
> 
> It was stunning... from the Beatles to Prince to Public Enemy... I’m really excited and I know there is a TON of content ready to go and much much more to in pipeline.... IMO this will be nothing live DVD-A or SACD ... the record companies are getting behind this in a big way.


So in that regard what is your thoughts on Dynamic EQ? Or even EQ in general. Since movies are mixed for near field do you feel it’s appropriate to apply EQ with a high frequency rolloff?


----------



## paulst

Stereodude said:


> I think you're going about this in the wrong way. Here's the opportunity to get insight into why they look the way they do.
> 
> @FilmMixer Did you do the UHD-BD Atmos mix for Transformers TLK, Source Code, or Sicario DOTS? If so, to the best of your knowledge at any point were any of the channels (post sound design) intentionally high passed to remove content below a particular frequency? If not, why do you think they show a precipitous drop off in low frequency content below 20-30Hz (depending on the movie)? Did someone else filter all the sounds you built the mix from?


I thought that was asked yesterday? Not for those specific films though. But yes I think we all want to know the answer to that question 



Lesmor said:


> @FilmMixer
> Hi
> Can you offer any insight as to why studios are filtering (neutering) the bass on discs?
> You may be aware that on AVS there is an active thread on how to restore the filtered bass but curious as to why it is removed in the first place


----------



## Apgood

FilmMixer said:


> Because they are two different mixes.
> 
> One was a 7.1 near field mix from the theatrical delivery which was later redone for DTS:X.
> 
> Whomever did the immersive upmix made changes...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Only major change seems the rolloff below 30Hz. If the rolloff point (and level of rolloff) is consistent across impacted movies it suggests a defaults in mixing tools (or a used profile) that has a steep filter at 30Hz.

QSC amplifiers for example has a 30Hz Filter dip switch that can be turned on off.

I guess the question is how does the measured mix differ from the cinematic mix (differences in format layout aside) since I would think that's what we would want to recreate as HT enthusiasts. Anything after that is "season to personal taste", which of course is perfectly fine. 

For streaming only type movies and programming of course what you get is the original and therefore the original intent.


----------



## dfa973

deano86 said:


> I stopped using Dynamic EQ because with Atmos and also with DSU, there is no boost supplied to the Front Height channels... just like the front base level LCR channels.... but the Rear Heights get boosted along with the other base level surrounds. For me this creates a noticeable imbalance in my Atmos and DSU surround modes... When I chatted with Ask Audyssey about this imbalance, it was made clear that they simply treat the Front Heights the same as any other "front" speaker.... no boost is considered necessary because they are in "front".


Do we know if DEQ is also applied for Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (DAES) when assigned as Surround DAES (not Front DAES)?


----------



## jazzrock

FilmMixer said:


> You original post started with a false premise. That studios “neuter” the LFE on mixes...
> 
> There is no comment to give.
> 
> I see some of my mixes in there.
> 
> It’s the way I mixed those films....
> 
> In my opinion EQ to restore something that isn’t in the mix is just as useful as trying to re color time the film to add back in hues that were taken out or changing the EQ on the dialog to get it to all sound the same or creating new max nit specular highlights...
> 
> In the same way I don’t like every movie in the same way or think all their scripts are as well written, I celebrate the differences in the ways they were mixed and constructed by the sound teams. I don’t want or need them all to have the same ULF or LF content... to me this new “fad” just homogenizes the tracks and it’s certainly not of any interest to me. .
> 
> I would be much more concerned about listening with accuracy rather than adjusting every mix to my personal taste... but again, that’s just me.




This post is the most articulate and yet succinct philosophical statements of the art and appreciation of sound design I’ve yet read. Bravo, FilmMixer. 

While I don’t condemn those who always must tinker, I want to experience exactly what the artist intended me to experience. I could easily dissect every movie or album to micro details second guessing every frequency, placement within the mix, tonal palate, etc. But to what end? I would be left with no enjoyment at all. Only desires for many elements to be different. 

I see many complain about the lack of signal in the tops in Atmos/X mixes. Granted, there are some mixes that may not have achieved full potential of the format, many do. And just because I don’t always hear isolated the tops doesn’t mean it’s not a great mix. It’s about the sum of all its parts that bring me great joy watching and listening to what the artist created. 

My job is to provide a good room, good equipment that is professionally calibrated. Beyond that, I let the artists do their work. And I enjoy it immensely!


----------



## Stereodude

jazzrock said:


> This post is the most articulate and yet succinct philosophical statements of the art and appreciation of sound design I’ve yet read. Bravo, FilmMixer.
> 
> While I don’t condemn those who always must tinker, I want to experience exactly what the artist intended me to experience. I could easily dissect every movie or album to micro details second guessing every frequency, placement within the mix, tonal palate, etc. But to what end? I would be left with no enjoyment at all. Only desires for many elements to be different.


But it's a legitimate question as to why frequencies below a certain point are rolled off on certain movies and in some cases only on certain versions of the soundtrack. There's nothing special about Atmos that requires rolling off the bass below 30Hz more aggressively (in the case of Hellboy II).

Would you be happy with a "HD" 24bit/96kHz recording of a pipe organ performance that was made on an organ with a 32' pipe (16Hz) where that 32' pipe was used in the performance if someone using their "artistic intent" decided to high pass the recording at 25Hz and removed the 16Hz content from the 32' pipe that should have been there? What if the 16Hz content is there in the lossy streaming version, but not the "HD" 24bit/96kHz recording? Would you still be sure that the omission in the "HD" 24bit/96kHz version was the "artistic intent" and not an unintentional oversight or an error?

It looks like there is needless low frequency filtering being applied to some movie's multichannel surround mixes, particularly Atmos mixes. Oblivion is another one showing the same symptoms as Hellboy II. It has additional low frequency rolloff below 30Hz in the Atmos track vs. the DTS-HD MA mix. From what I've seen I have to strongly question whether it is intentional "artistic intent" or if it's happening unwittingly at some point in the process and wasn't noticed.


----------



## PoorSignal

*DTS:X vs Atmos mixes*

So recently I stood up a ladder and put my ears next to the Atmos channel at random times during a movie.

There seem to be something different about DTS:X, although there are not many titles with DTS:X, they always have the music blasting out the height speakers.
But with Atmos mixes, usually it stays completely silent with a single sound effect sometime.
If I turn volume quite high, I may hear a little reverb of the music up top from ATMOS mixes, but not all the time.

Now I have mine set has height speakers, because they are on top of a wall, I don't know if I set it to "top" speaker I will get more sound out of the ATMOS speakers? But from what I understand the processor will put the sound via imaging even if it is set as height speakers. 

I also didn't think music was supposed to come out of ceiling speakers (if it was installed as a ceiling speaker) all the time or will it sound much good.
But DTS:X always have many activity out of the height speakers which sounded similar to surround channel.

This is the selection I used:


----------



## PioManiac

I have trouble excepting that an Apollo Saturn V launch sequence produces no significant output below 40Hz



















If it was artistic intent or not, it needed correction in order to place you in the moment.
I wanted to _Feel_ what it was like to be strapped into that marvel of human engineering,

...not like someone who was watching it happen in their living room on a black & white TV from the 60's (Already been there, done that )


----------



## jazzrock

Stereodude said:


> But it's a legitimate question as to why frequencies below a certain point are rolled off on certain movies and in some cases only on certain versions of the soundtrack. There's nothing special about Atmos that requires rolling off the bass below 30Hz more aggressively (in the case of Hellboy II).
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be happy with a "HD" 24bit/96kHz recording of a pipe organ performance that was made on an organ with a 32' pipe (16Hz) where that 32' pipe was used in the performance if someone using their "artistic intent" decided to high pass the recording at 25Hz and removed the 16Hz content from the 32' pipe that should have been there? What if the 16Hz content is there in the lossy streaming version, but not the "HD" 24bit/96kHz recording? Would you still be sure that the omission in the "HD" 24bit/96kHz version was the "artistic intent" and not an unintentional oversight or an error?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like there is needless low frequency filtering being applied to some movie's multichannel surround mixes, particularly Atmos mixes. Oblivion is another one showing the same symptoms as Hellboy II. It has additional low frequency rolloff below 30Hz in the Atmos track vs. the DTS-HD MA mix. From what I've seen I have to strongly question whether it is intentional "artistic intent" or if it's happening unwittingly at some point in the process and wasn't noticed.




I’m not necessarily suggesting that some of the practices you mention aren’t questionable or undesirable. I am among those who have been very disappointed with Disney releases. However, for the majority of other films I tend to accept the design intentions of the mixer and others within that process. If I knew the reasons that lead to those decisions I then might have a basis to form a more generalized opinion. I do concede that there are some films (like Disney) where they very obviously have not taken advantage of the format capabilities.


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> I have trouble excepting that an Apollo Saturn V launch sequence produces no significant output below 40Hz
> 
> If it was artistic intent or not, it needed *correction* in order to place you in the moment.
> I wanted to _Feel_ what it was like to be strapped into that marvel of human engineering,
> 
> ...not like someone who was watching it happen in their living room on a black & white TV from the 60's (Already been there, done that )


Indeed, not only does the audio need correction (using BEQ filters) but likewise the grain needs to be filtered out of video. The movie looks and sounds like it was made in the 1960s. As you said, artistic intent or not, it "needs correction" to look and sound like a movie from 2018.


----------



## jazzrock

sdurani said:


> Indeed, not only does the audio need correction (using BEQ filters) but likewise the grain needs to be filtered out of video. The movie looks and sounds like it was made in the 1960s. As you said, artistic intent or not, it "needs correction" to look and sound like a movie from 2018.




I disagree, especially with the film appearance. But, that’s a matter of opinion and artistic preference and what tools like BEQ are for.


----------



## paulst

jazzrock said:


> This post is the most articulate and yet succinct philosophical statements of the art and appreciation of sound design I’ve yet read. Bravo, FilmMixer.


I'm surprised you see it that way as the original question was..



Lesmor said:


> [MENTION=210]
> Can you offer any insight as to why studios are filtering (neutering) the bass on discs?


Still as of yet unanswered, seems to be talking about everything from colour timing, dialogue, personal taste in movies, scripts whilst calling BEQ a 'fad' (when BEQ makes it sound better than the job they originally did) but not mentioning the actual filtering process issue once


----------



## Polyrythm1k

jazzrock said:


> I disagree, especially with the film appearance. But, that’s a matter of opinion and artistic preference and what tools like BEQ are for.




So what about people who haven’t the tech skills to do BEQ. I know it’s simple, but I use a minidsp and rew already. For the uninitiated, why not just be able to have a movie that has good bass energy to 20hz anyway. No fuss no muss just turn it up and not have your subwoofer investment wasted. The Apollo example is perfect. What was that mixed on? An iPhone?


----------



## jazzrock

paulst said:


> I'm surprised you see it that way as the original question was..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still as of yet unanswered, seems to be talking about everything from colour timing, dialogue, personal taste in movies, scripts whilst calling BEQ a 'fad' (when BEQ makes it sound better than the job they originally did) but not mentioning the actual filtering process issue once




I found that he answered that question a few times from his perspective. If he isn’t inclined to go into more detail I don’t believe he owes anyone anything beyond what he’s expressed.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

PioManiac said:


> I have trouble excepting that an Apollo Saturn V launch sequence produces no significant output below 40Hz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was artistic intent or not, it needed correction in order to place you in the moment.
> 
> I wanted to _Feel_ what it was like to be strapped into that marvel of human engineering,
> 
> 
> 
> ...not like someone who was watching it happen in their living room on a black & white TV from the 60's (Already been there, done that )




If this WAS artistic intent, they need to have their brush taken away, and get smacked with it. 








My system rolls off at 14hz, so not the be all end all, but seriously? 40hz? My mains can do that all day!


----------



## paulst

jazzrock said:


> I found that he answered that question a few times from his perspective.


Well quite a few of didn't as the same or similar questions have been asked multiple times since, he only actually replied 3 times with the best answer being '2 different mixes'


----------



## jazzrock

Polyrythm1k said:


> So what about people who haven’t the tech skills to do BEQ. I know it’s simple, but I use a minidsp and rew already. For the uninitiated, why not just be able to have a movie that has good bass energy to 20hz anyway. No fuss no muss just turn it up and not have your subwoofer investment wasted. The Apollo example is perfect. What was that mixed on? An iPhone?




You mean me? I enjoy what I’ve got. I don’t obsess with the minutia of each movie I watch or recordings I listen too. If I did, I could easily find many details to complain about in everything. If I dislike the production value that strongly I simply don’t go back to it. I have an excellent room/system that is capable of delivering good bass. Certainly not into the single digits. In most cases I don’t feel as though I missing anything and hence no need to use BEQ. Just not my bag, man.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

jazzrock said:


> You mean me? I enjoy what I’ve got. I don’t obsess with the minutia of each movie I watch or recordings I listen too. If I did, I could easily find many details to complain about in everything. If I dislike the production value that strongly I simply don’t go back to it. I have an excellent room/system that is capable of delivering good bass. Certainly not into the single digits. In most cases I don’t feel as though I missing anything and hence no need to use BEQ. Just not my bag, man.




No not all. What I meant was the average joe who is being short changed. Let’s say he buys good gear, places it correctly and then is stuck with gutless bass. My point is, we shouldn’t need beq. We should at least have good 20hz soundtracks. 

I am also one who can enjoy content as it’s shipped to me, but sometimes that content sux... And no, I don’t believe that bass is the only factor in a good track. I LOVE atmos and all of the subtle things it does, and the way the room just disappears. I just think it’s dumb to have all these soundbar mixes. I DO get nervous for my ported subs once in awhile BUT I’d rather it be MY choice to back off then not have the choice.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

The idea of a soundbar mix is new to me. Are people thinking that the bass is filtered out to protect soundbars and TV speakers? Why on earth would you need to protect a speaker from something that it is incapable of reproducing?


----------



## sdurani

Bill Wolfer said:


> Why on earth would you need to protect a speaker from something that it is incapable of reproducing?


Because it will try to reproduce it. That's how speakers blow drivers.


----------



## m. zillch

Polyrythm1k said:


> If this WAS artistic intent, they need to have their brush taken away, and get smacked with it.


It does seem to be a rather aggressive roll-off but perhaps it was chosen because the deep bass rumble of a rocket takeoff is a* very* long, sustained, loud deep bass event which can overheat amps, completly drain amp power supply reserves, trip thermal safety sensors, and overheat voicecoils [especially if there's clipping] to abnormally high levels, so they consciously did this for playback system safety.


Super loud deep bass for one second is *completely* different from long, sustained events. [Which is why good dynamic headroom in an amp is quite useful. If loud content is sustained, dynamic headroom gets you nothing.] I have not seen the movie but I just watched a clip on line and the loud, constant rocket rumble lasted _over _2 continuous minutes:





Doing that at 10Hz is asking for trouble.

Do we have evidence the frequency response of this movie in given to commercial cinemas didn't similarly have a response rolled off below 40Hz? To me *that's* the real question.


----------



## jazzrock

Polyrythm1k said:


> No not all. What I meant was the average joe who is being short changed. Let’s say he buys good gear, places it correctly and then is stuck with gutless bass. My point is, we shouldn’t need beq. We should at least have good 20hz soundtracks.
> 
> I am also one who can enjoy content as it’s shipped to me, but sometimes that content sux... And no, I don’t believe that bass is the only factor in a good track. I LOVE atmos and all of the subtle things it does, and the way the room just disappears. I just think it’s dumb to have all these soundbar mixes. I DO get nervous for my ported subs once in awhile BUT I’d rather it be MY choice to back off then not have the choice.




I have no clue why they filter it or even if they do as I’ve never looked into it myself. I’m only aware of what’s reported on these forums and I don’t question the success those who use BEQ successfully. There’s a lot of speculation here as to why. Some of those reasons seem reasonable if not an ugly solution. 

I get it. I’ve watched many films that I would have like more low end. But every decision involves compromise. Example, if the primary reason to filter is to provide a soundtrack for the masses who’s system cannot reproduce those frequencies, those of us whose equipment can perform suffer. Equally, those discs that contain the lower frequencies intact we will enjoy but the masses may actually have a worse experience or suffer damage to a speaker. 

I don’t know what the answer is and have know where near the insight needed to figure it out. So I just keep enjoying what I got in the hopes things improve. 

Aside from the filtering issues, I do believe the designers are gaining more experience with these formats which will provide a significant improvement for future releases. I think we’re seeing some of that now.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

sdurani said:


> Because it will try to reproduce it. That's how speakers blow drivers.


In my experience, speakers blow when they're fed more power than they are designed for, or fed a clipped signal. Also, soundbars will have the lows rolled off in their crossover.

I am doubting the existence of so-called soundbar mixes is all. We have an industry professional here with a ton of credits to his name, and he is unaware of this practice as well. It's conspiracy theory territory in my opinion. I realize that I will never convince anyone here of this, nor do I intend to try.


----------



## GPBURNS

Be sue to check out Brightburn 4k release - very cool immersive atmos mix


----------



## paulst

Bill Wolfer said:


> The idea of a soundbar mix is new to me. Are people thinking that the bass is filtered out to protect soundbars and TV speakers? Why on earth would you need to protect a speaker from something that it is incapable of reproducing?


They have High Pass Filters (HPF) to protect against this, otherwise you'd blow them every time you play War Of The Worlds, Overlord etc! and any other full bandwidth movies.. If they didn't have HPF you be taking your TV/soundbar back for repair/replacement every time  There's a lot more to it than the soundbar argument 



m. zillch said:


> Do we have evidence the frequency response of this movie in commercial cinemas didn't similarly have a response rolled off below 40Hz? To me *that's* the real question.


Almost every cinema bottoms out at around 30hz so not really the question to ask, the question is, why do the disks roll off early when we have systems capable of reproducing it 

Just watched that Youtube video through my laptop speakers, sounded very similar to the Bluray disk through my home cinema system ie: no real bass Maybe you should try this demo clip with BEQ applied to the second audio track here and see if you notice the difference with some added bass weight applied.. https://mega.nz/#!0RM3VK5J!w8Mb8fpHvbhgXp2vzq5GeoVIu4emuLJ3iodJ3piFhu0


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> Almost every cinema bottoms out at around 30hz so not really the question to ask, the question is, why do the disks roll off early when we have systems capable of reproducing it


30Hz and 40Hz aren't the same thing. I apologize for my poor wording [I have now corrected]. My question was not really: "Are there commercial cinemas capable of reproducing the super deep content which appears to be filtered away in this movie?" The question was _meant_ to be: "Is the digital soundtrack provided to commercial cinemas filtered this way too, or is our home version filtered differently?"


----------



## sdurani

Bill Wolfer said:


> I am doubting the existence of so-called soundbar mixes is all.


I too doubt such mixes exist. I was simply replying to the part of your post that I quoted.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

m. zillch said:


> It does seem to be a rather aggressive roll-off but perhaps it was chosen because the deep bass rumble of a rocket takeoff is a* very* long, sustained, loud deep bass event which can overheat amps, completly drain amp power supply reserves, trip thermal safety sensors, and overheat voicecoils [especially if there's clipping] to abnormally high levels, so they consciously did this for playback system safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Super loud deep bass for one second is *completely* different from long, sustained events. [Which is why good dynamic headroom in an amp is quite useful. If loud content is sustained, dynamic headroom gets you nothing.] I have not seen the movie but I just watched a clip on line and the loud, constant rocket rumble lasted _over _2 continuous minutes:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FubpK1Tho6M
> 
> 
> 
> Doing that at 10Hz is asking for trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we have evidence the frequency response of this movie in commercial cinemas didn't similarly have a response rolled off below 40Hz? To me *that's* the real question.




I can’t disagree. 10hz at over 2min could be considered subwoofer abuse lol. I’m definitely not saying it should be like that either, but a complete castration at 40 is unforgivable. I wonder if there’s room on a BD or 4kBD for a soundbar mix and a “theater” mix. I think there is...
Can’t say about the commercial version. Iirc most of those are around 30hz due to the capability of those huge theaters.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> 30Hz and 40Hz aren't the same thing. I apologize for my poor wording [I have now corrected]. My question was not really: "Are there commercial cinemas capable of reproducing the super deep content which appears to be filtered away in this movie?" The question was _meant_ to be: "Is the digital soundtrack provided to commercial cinemas filtered this way too, or is our home version filtered differently?"


Edited my post while you were replying..

Maybe you should try this demo clip with BEQ applied to the *second audio track* here and see if you notice the difference with some added bass weight applied.. (note it's 10db lower than normal so up the volume by 10db to compensate) https://mega.nz/#!0RM3VK5J!w8Mb8fpHvbhgXp2vzq5GeoVIu4emuLJ3iodJ3piFhu0


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Bill Wolfer said:


> The idea of a soundbar mix is new to me. Are people thinking that the bass is filtered out to protect soundbars and TV speakers? Why on earth would you need to protect a speaker from something that it is incapable of reproducing?




I think it’s just a nickname given to weak soundtracks. IE: no bass, or limited dynamic range.


----------



## paulst

There's quite a few BEQ demo clips in this post here if you fancy sampling the difference the BEQ resolves..
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html#post56612588

In most cases the first track is the original audio, the second track is with the BEQ filters remuxed. Just switch audio tracks to 'hear or feel' the difference


----------



## sdurani

Polyrythm1k said:


> If this WAS artistic intent, they need to have their brush taken away, and get smacked with it.


Like I said, it sounds like a movie from the 1960s. Even looks like a movie from that era. As you said, if that was intentional, then they need to get smacked. Thankfully we have a way to correct their intent, at least the audio part.


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> Maybe you should try this demo clip with BEQ applied to the second audio track here and see if you notice the difference with some added bass weight applied.. https://mega.nz/#!0RM3VK5J!w8Mb8fpHvbhgXp2vzq5GeoVIu4emuLJ3iodJ3piFhu0


Why?  I've never questioned if applying EQ to a movie can have audible consequences or not. If people like it that's fine, but it is not what I personally seek.

I don't seek what is most pleasing; I seek what is most accurate. Like I say in my signature, if one's goal is high fidelity then one does not dial in the bass to what they dig best, they dial it in to what instrumentation says is the most accurate, faithful, reproduction level that most closely mimics what the content creators experienced themselves.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> I don't seek what is most pleasing; I seek what is most accurate. Like I say in my signature, if one's goal is high fidelity then one does not not dial in the bass to what they dig best, they dial it in to what instrumentation says is the most accurate, faithful, reproduction level that closely mimicks what the content creators experienced themselves.


Your loss I suppose  It's quite clear the content creators have no idea on how bass should be produced going by the First Man movie and it's it's 40hz roll off, not to mention the hundreds of other movies with similar crap bass


----------



## Hopinater

m. zillch said:


> Why?  I've never questioned if applying EQ to a movie can have audible consequences or not. If people like it that's fine, but it is not what I personally seek.
> 
> I don't seek what is most pleasing; I seek what is most accurate. Like I say in my signature, if one's goal is high fidelity then one does not not dial in the bass to what they dig best, they dial it in to what instrumentation says is the most accurate, faithful, reproduction level that closely mimicks what the content creators experienced themselves.


That's interesting and I've seen others make posts with your point of view in other threads. I respect it but to be honest it makes zero sense to me. If some film mixer (I guess we'll call him the artist) decides that an explosion should fall off at 40 Hz because to him he's making an artistic statement of some sort why should I suffer through such a ridiculous mix? 

Blindly accepting something that is not pleasing to me just to be able to say, "I heard it the way the artist wanted me to hear it, it was high fidelity... it sucked and it was unpleasant but it was pure," makes no sense to me. What do I care what the artist wanted? I don't even know the guy why should I let him make my listening experience unpleasant? Why should I allow him to take a good movie and ruin it with a bad mix? 

It's almost like saying, "This food is really bland and I find it unpleasant but I refuse to add salt to it because then this meal would no longer be accurate to the chef's intent." No one would do that so why do we act like audio should be different? 

Anyway, that's how I see this hobby. After all I'm the one who paid good money for subs that can dig down to 13Hz and pound out ULF all day long. Why should I let some guy I don't know ruin my experience?


----------



## m. zillch

Hopinater said:


> That's interesting and I've seen others make posts with your point of view in other threads. I respect it but to be honest it makes zero sense to me. If some film mixer (I guess we'll call him the artist) decides that an explosion should fall off at 40 Hz because to him he's making an artistic statement of some sort why should I suffer through such a ridiculous mix? . . .
> It's almost like saying, "This food is really bland and I find it unpleasant but I refuse to add salt to it because then this meal would no longer be accurate to the chef's intent."


The "salting food" analogy doesn't work well because food is not an artwork replication copier machine/device.

There's certainly no rule everyone has to be like me and seek high fidelity in video monitors, cameras, DVRs, CD/DAT/audio recorders, photo copiers/scanners, and sound reproduction gear. I don't want any of these things editorializing/modifying the signal to what pleases my senses the most, either by my decision nor a third party's [after the artist]. I want (ideally if possible) perfectly accurate replication of their artwork, not alteration/modification.

I personally want to take in the work of art as closely as I can [within my budget at least] to how the artist(s) intended I should and if I don't like it for whatever reason then maybe I won't buy any more of their art in the future. But I want to know I didn't like it because of* them,* not how I've happened to tweak it.

Needless to say I am also against colorizing classic B&W movies like Casablanca for the exact same reason. [Unless the original artists approve]


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Like I said, it sounds like a movie from the 1960s. Even looks like a movie from that era. As you said, if that was intentional, then they need to get smacked. Thankfully we have a way to correct their intent, at least the audio part.


I can't believe Spielberg decided to release _*Schindler's List*_ in black and white, and I definitely look forward to seeing it colorized so it looks halfway decent.


----------



## m. zillch

dschulz said:


> I can't believe Spielberg decided to release _*Schindler's List*_ in black and white, and I definitely look forward to seeing it colorized so it looks halfway decent.


And when the pivotal scene comes where you suddenly see something briefly in color, what I thought was a very well done creative touch, will you want _that_ part to be in black and white?
---

When Dorothy first enters Oz a similar artistic choice is being made. I respect these decisions and want to preserve them, as best I can, when I reproduce their art at home.

I don't want to see bastardizations of these classics which would make the original artists turn in their graves. . . Well, Spielberg is still alive but I bet he'd fight tooth and nail to prevent colorization of his classic.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

Polyrythm1k said:


> I think it’s just a nickname given to weak soundtracks. IE: no bass, or limited dynamic range.


Yet there are people here insinuating that there are differences between theatrical and home releases as pertains to low end, that the home versions are rolled off deliberately. That's what I meant by conspiracy theory.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I can't believe Spielberg decided to release _*Schindler's List*_ in black and white, and I definitely look forward to seeing it colorized so it looks halfway decent.


You know me too well; figured out the intent of my recent posts.


----------



## Cannikin

This thread is way too long to see if anyone mentioned this yet, but Another Life on Netflix has some of the best use of Atmos I've heard so far. The show itself is horrible, but the first couple of episodes that I was able to suffer through were worth it for the sound.

Once scene that stands out is where someone is working on some pipes with a wrench and it's just out of frame at the upper right and you hear them working from the front right ceiling speaker, pretty neat.


----------



## jazzrock

dschulz said:


> I can't believe Spielberg decided to release _*Schindler's List*_ in black and white, and I definitely look forward to seeing it colorized so it looks halfway decent.




This. This is the belief of the mass audience. Not of one who appreciates art. 

Thanks for posting this. It’s quite exemplifying.


----------



## Stereodude

jazzrock said:


> This. This is the belief of the mass audience. Not of one who appreciates art.
> 
> Thanks for posting this. It’s quite exemplifying.


I think you need to recharge the batteries in your sarcasm detector. It seems to be letting you down.


----------



## jazzrock

Stereodude said:


> I think you need to recharge the batteries in your sarcasm detector. It seems to be letting you down.





Thankfully that’s the case! After replying I began to suspect something was amiss. )

But his statement still stands as a good example. 

Been a long day. Going to recharge.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Stereodude said:


> jazzrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is the most articulate and yet succinct philosophical statements of the art and appreciation of sound design Iâ€™️ve yet read. Bravo, FilmMixer.
> 
> While I donâ€™️t condemn those who always must tinker, I want to experience exactly what the artist intended me to experience. I could easily dissect every movie or album to micro details second guessing every frequency, placement within the mix, tonal palate, etc. But to what end? I would be left with no enjoyment at all. Only desires for many elements to be different.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's a legitimate question as to why frequencies below a certain point are rolled off on certain movies and in some cases only on certain versions of the soundtrack. There's nothing special about Atmos that requires rolling off the bass below 30Hz more aggressively (in the case of Hellboy II).
> 
> Would you be happy with a "HD" 24bit/96kHz recording of a pipe organ performance that was made on an organ with a 32' pipe (16Hz) where that 32' pipe was used in the performance if someone using their "artistic intent" decided to high pass the recording at 25Hz and removed the 16Hz content from the 32' pipe that should have been there? What if the 16Hz content is there in the lossy streaming version, but not the "HD" 24bit/96kHz recording? Would you still be sure that the omission in the "HD" 24bit/96kHz version was the "artistic intent" and not an unintentional oversight or an error?
> 
> It looks like there is needless low frequency filtering being applied to some movie's multichannel surround mixes, particularly Atmos mixes. Oblivion is another one showing the same symptoms as Hellboy II. It has additional low frequency rolloff below 30Hz in the Atmos track vs. the DTS-HD MA mix. From what I've seen I have to strongly question whether it is intentional "artistic intent" or if it's happening unwittingly at some point in the process and wasn't noticed.
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## ereed

m. zillch said:


> Why?  I've never questioned if applying EQ to a movie can have audible consequences or not. If people like it that's fine, but it is not what I personally seek.
> 
> I don't seek what is most pleasing; I seek what is most accurate. Like I say in my signature, if one's goal is high fidelity then one does not not dial in the bass to what they dig best, they dial it in to what instrumentation says is the most accurate, faithful, reproduction level that most closely mimics what the content creators experienced themselves.


You say you seek what is most accurate and high fidelity. Both pre BEQ and post BEQ are both accurate and high fidelity. Just one is missing the full bandwidth bass. 

Lets suppose you listen to content or music that plays deep notes and you listen through your laptop computer speakers.....then try same content on full range speakers that can reproduce the bass. Which speaker you wanna listen to? That's pretty much what pre Beq and post Beq is like.


----------



## PioManiac

Strawman arguements referencing film grain and colorization of classic black and white films??

I expected higher quality discussions from this group. 
...and I'm actually a fan of natural film grain and classic B&W films.

The biggest question regarding LFE/ULF remains unanswered,
Despite lame attempts and excuses to divert attention elsewhere.

When two mixes are released on Bluray/UHD, one obviously filtered/neutered,
How are we supposed to know what the original mixers intent was?

Is the crippled release imposed by the studio?
Is it intentionally decided by the mixer or director.

I suspect we may never know.

To argue that BEQ is altering the artistic intent is ludicrous 
If you cannot prove it was sound editor/ mixers intent or the studio
that mandated the filter implementation.


I have to make alterations to my home designs on a daily basis.
Changes I dont necessarily agree with, but I also like getting paid.


----------



## bkeeler10

After reading through the comments regarding mixing philosophies and such, I have a couple thoughts fwiw

First, I seriously doubt that film mixing engineers think about potential damage to speakers when they create mixes. And frankly, that's not something they should have to worry about. That's what audiovisual engineers and equipment manufacturers are supposed to do. Any commercial cinema sound system is almost certainly designed and set up by folks who know how to make it safely run any content thrown at it, at the levels it was designed to achieve. If it can't pull off 20 Hz at design SPL (and I'm betting hardly any can), it is high passed out.

Competently designed consumer gear should do the same. Especially powered subwoofers and anything else with built-in amplification, which are closed systems whose capability should be known and designed to. They should be designed to not be at risk of blowing themselves up.

Second, I'm pretty sure no film mixer runs his mixes through an analyzer to see whether he has put "sufficient" subsonic content in. It seems to me mixing is mostly an art, and very subjective, so a mixing engineers will use the tools available to him to make things sound subjectively the way he thinks they should.

Now, that's not to say that every mixing engineer is equally good at this, or that they all have sufficient experience to create a fantastic mix. Or even the gear to create a fantastic mix. So, I see no problem with "salting to taste" via a rising low end or BEQ if one desires.

Now, dynamic range is a different issue. I have a sister in law with a decent 5.1 system that frequently adjusts volume during a movie because when dialogue is loud enough, the louder moments in the film are louder than she wants (yes, that's what Dynamic volume is for). And for people running only TV speakers, well they sound like crap when they're trying to play loud. So I can see why the masses get annoyed by a track with high dynamic range and why they might prefer that everything play at about the same level *shudders* I don't like it one bit though.

Perhaps the best solution is to have two tracks for a film. The default could be the one with squashed dynamic range, and those in the know could choose the proper, full dynamic range soundtrack in the menu. I don't know how much more work is involved to make that happen. Seems like it wouldn't take much more space on disc though - it could be a compressed track, even two-channel.

Starting to ramble now, so I'm done 

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## fbov

m. zillch said:


> ... I personally want to take in the work of art as closely as I can [within my budget at least] to how the artist(s) intended ...


I see BEQ as art restoration. The art was damaged. Artistic content is suppressed, but it can be retrieved. Art restoration is necessary if you want to experience the art as the artist intended. 
Frank


----------



## m. zillch

ereed said:


> You say you seek what is most accurate and high fidelity.


High fidelity to the digital soundtrack the commercial cinema goers were given although what they actually_ experienced_ will vary theater to theater and seat to seat.



ereed said:


> Both pre BEQ and post BEQ are both accurate and high fidelity.


No, post EQ has not been signed-off on by the original artists as what they _intended_ me to hear. The "restored bass" part might actually have been intentionally filtered away for many reasons:

- plosives
- faulty pop screens
- wind noise
- mic cord chaffing noise
- fan hum
- hard drive hum
- a refrigerator
- HVAC system
- mic bumps
- boom operator foot fall
- room rumble
- subway/train rumble from across the street from the studio
- adjacent sound stage leakage
- Foley artist foot fall (unintended while concocting some other sound which required them to take a step)

etc. . . .


----------



## m. zillch

fbov said:


> I see BEQ as art restoration. The art was damaged. Artistic content is suppressed, but it can be retrieved. Art restoration is necessary if you want to experience the art as the artist intended.
> Frank


Well put. I don't oppose art restoration if I am convinced the original artist's work is being restored to a state *they* signed off on. Just because a soundtrack has some visible wiggling going on at 5 Hz doesn't prove it was meant to be reproduced at a higher level.
---

This is what film creators actually expect Dolby Atmos LFE will be played back on, as per Dolby:

"3.2 Frequency Response: 31.5–120 Hz, ±3 dB"

Although the system *can* technically record down to 3Hz.


----------



## audiofan1

BEQ has even made its way to the Atmos thread! Can we get back to talking about home Atmos


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> The "restored bass" part might actually have been intentionally filtered away for many reasons:
> 
> etc. . . .


These seem like reasonable theoretical concerns but in practice, I have never noticed such cruft when beq is applied. BEQ makes certain effects carry more weight without introducing other noise. This suggests such problems are dealt with earlier in the mixing pipeline and make it nowhere near the end product.

Ultimately though this debate is futile because it is a debate about dogma. You either accept the purity of the "artist's intent" or you don't.


----------



## m. zillch

3ll3d00d said:


> These seem like reasonable theoretical concerns but in practice, I have never noticed such cruft when beq is applied.


You don't need to necessarily _hear_ it for it to be detrimental to optimal playback. As you can see from the this threshold of human hearing chart (bottom curve) a signal at 10Hz would need to be around 95 dBSPL to be perceptible (according to my extrapolation), and this is assuming you have ideal circumstances: a dead quiet anechoic chamber where there are no simultaneous sounds which may cause masking of the target signal. [95 dBSPL for a higher frequency like 1 kHz would make me run out out the room screaming with my hands over my ears yet for 10Hz content you can only _possibly_ detect it under ideal conditions.]

So let's say there's a 94 dBSPL signal at 10Hz just below your perception, due to one of the the movie soundtrack mic's picking up the rumble of a refrigerator in their break room or the building's HVAC system. How might that alter your sound despite the fact you don't actually hear it directly? Here's how:
*
- Saps available amplifier reserves.* Instead of your 1000 watt amp playing an important 40Hz note as loudly as it normally can, you notice that oddly it is clipping at only 250 watts output. Why? Because it is secretly attempting to amplify a frequency you or your subwoofer(s) are incapable of dealing with. But that doesn't mean your amplifier isn't breaking a heavy sweat and huffing and puffing _amplifying_ it. Filter away that 10Hz signal however and you are back up to 1000 watts for the important _audible_ range above ~20Hz.
*
- Increased bass distortion from your subs and reduces maximum output level.* You will notice your sub's maximum clean output at 40Hz plummets if it is also simultaneously attempting to reproduce 10Hz, even if _you_ don't hear the 10Hz part because it is below your threshold for detection.

*- Doppler distortion.* Normally this distortion is inaudibly low in most systems but that's because the research on it never anticipated there would be people reproducing *infrasonic* bass well below 20Hz where the cone moves many centimeters towards and away from the listener rather than just one or two. Just like as an ambulance siren's frequency rises and lowers as the sound source moves towards or away from the listener, so too does upper bass content frequencies when the sub woofer cone is moving towards or away from the listener by appreciable amounts, in this case _many_ centimeters.
*
- Intermodulation distortion.* Even though both frequencies may not be audible, whenever a system attempts to reproduce two (or more) frequencies there can be unintended (difference) frequencies generated which _are_ detectable. This is largely why most of the world purposefully filters out content outside of the audible band, 20-20kHz. The content is harmful.

*- Sympathetic vibrations.* Ever play your infrasonic bass so loudly it makes your dishware across the room rattle? I have. _That's bad._ It is an unintended noise, a distortion, which has nothing to do with your music or movie content. [I want to hear _the movie_, not the problems with my room.] Although this can happen with 40Hz content it is markedly more likely to happen with 10Hz content. Remember, content at 10 Hz needs to be a whopping 45dB louder than 40Hz content according to the threshold chart I linked to for us to detect it, but dishware and other small items in a room are not so picky about what will make them rattle and dance about on their shelf, as if there's an earthquake going on!


----------



## Lesmor

Gentlemen with the greatest of respect 
if had known that my question would result in this thread becoming derailed I wouldn't have bothered asking 

I pointed Film mixer specifically towards the BEQ thread where if he so wished the subject could be debated 
as is his prerogative he obviously doesn't want to engage any further on the matter

Could you kindly now let this thread get back on track and to the subject of Dolby Atmos


----------



## Stereodude

Lesmor said:


> Could you kindly now let this thread get back on track and to the subject of Dolby Atmos


This is directly on topic. Dolby Atmos tracks seem to be the most heavily affected by the removal of LFE from them.


----------



## Lesmor

Stereodude said:


> This is directly on topic. Dolby Atmos tracks seem to be the most heavily affected by the removal of LFE from them.


Well unfortunately perhaps we now need a ruling from a moderator


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> You don't need to necessarily _hear_ it for it to be detrimental to optimal playback.


None of these points have anything to do with artistic intent and all to do with underpowered and/or inadequately designed subwoofer systems. They are certainly a practical concerns for anyone choosing to use beq though.


----------



## maikeldepotter

3ll3d00d said:


> None of these points have anything to do with artistic intent and all to do with underpowered and/or inadequately designed subwoofer systems. They are certainly a practical concerns for anyone choosing to use beq though.


Your remark suggests that the very definition of what would be an underpowered and/or inadequately designed subwoofer system is very much determined by the ability to effortlessly reproduce BEQ'ed soundtracks. If so, does this not form a large part of the answer to this "neutering bass" discussion: The mixer's (artistic) intent put onto a soundtrack includes measures to prevent any audible detrimental effects to occur when being reproduced by a more "average" sound system?


----------



## 3ll3d00d

maikeldepotter said:


> Your remark suggests that the very definition of what would be an underpowered and/or inadequately designed subwoofer system is very much determined by the ability to effortlessly reproduce BEQ'ed soundtracks.


There are numerous soundtracks in the world that contain full bandwidth effects. BEQ is only relevant in so far as it makes such tracks more common. Inadequately or underpowered means cannot play such content safely. For example, a ported sub with an inadequate or nonexistent hpf or a user with a sub that is being asked to play louder than it can handle. 

Effortless reproduction of a soundtrack at my desired listening levels seems a sensible goal, i don't know what another goal for a soundsystem would be mind you so this seems quite uncontroversial!



maikeldepotter said:


> If so, does this not form a large part of the answer to this "neutering bass" discussion: The mixer's (artistic) intent put onto a soundtrack includes measures to prevent any audible detrimental effects to occur when being reproduced by a more "average" sound system?


It is certainly possible that the reason this situation exists is because people target mass market equipment. I wouldn't call this artistic intent myself, commercial reality perhaps but not "art".


----------



## searsmd

Hopinater said:


> That's interesting and I've seen others make posts with your point of view in other threads. I respect it but to be honest it makes zero sense to me. If some film mixer (I guess we'll call him the artist) decides that an explosion should fall off at 40 Hz because to him he's making an artistic statement of some sort why should I suffer through such a ridiculous mix?
> 
> Blindly accepting something that is not pleasing to me just to be able to say, "I heard it the way the artist wanted me to hear it, it was high fidelity... it sucked and it was unpleasant but it was pure," makes no sense to me. What do I care what the artist wanted? I don't even know the guy why should I let him make my listening experience unpleasant? Why should I allow him to take a good movie and ruin it with a bad mix?
> 
> It's almost like saying, "This food is really bland and I find it unpleasant but I refuse to add salt to it because then this meal would no longer be accurate to the chef's intent." No one would do that so why do we act like audio should be different?
> 
> Anyway, that's how I see this hobby. After all I'm the one who paid good money for subs that can dig down to 13Hz and pound out ULF all day long. Why should I let some guy I don't know ruin my experience?


If that was case you'd never go to a museum either. While I only know a few painters, none of them paint with the idea of them being displayed with the type of lighting they end up getting when on display. After the artist is done, someone else (probably studio or authoring process) is changing it. We keep using First Man as an example. You mean to tell me the sound mixer spent the time putting all the LFE into the mix only to filter it out at the last minute. That is bogus and just ridiculous. They spent tons of time on the mix and that is clear to see, they wouldn't have done so if their intent was to neuter it.

Something happened afterwards to change their intent and it is clearly no longer how it was intended to be seen in it's best format. The only argument would be that they mixed it that way for the big screen with higher quality audio and disc release is conditioned for TV speakers / soundbars and they didn't feel it was needed anymore. I wonder if some developing countries have some cheap stuff that doesn't have filters and they are mixing for the lowest common denominator?


----------



## searsmd

m. zillch said:


> Well put. I don't oppose art restoration if I am convinced the original artist's work is being restored to a state *they* signed off on. Just because a soundtrack has some visible wiggling going on at 5 Hz doesn't prove it was meant to be reproduced at a higher level.
> ---
> 
> This is what film creators actually expect Dolby Atmos LFE will be played back on, as per Dolby:
> 
> "3.2 Frequency Response: 31.5–120 Hz, ±3 dB"
> 
> Although the system *can* technically record down to 3Hz.


This may be the problem right here. They've made the film and they go to author it. The authoring settings state 31.5 - 120Hz, ±3 dB. The authoring software then inserts the filters. The directors then listen to everything and go this sucks, but it's up to spec and do to time and monetary constraints.... we can't change it now. This actually sounds like disney too. While there are some exceptions they've typically used the cheapest cameras and equipment out there when filming their movies. How many movies are they still filming in 2.6 and 3.4K. It's silly to force your artists to perform under those restrictions in this day and age. I may be wrong, but I don't think they've done a single movie with a 4k intermediate. To me it's not artistic intent, if it's just the best they could do with what they were giving. Coppola's statements on the remastering of Apocalypse now prove that.


----------



## PioManiac

It's not just subwoofers that are nerfed when a track is filtered,
...many home theater enthusiasts also incorporate tactile devices.
(Crowsons, Buttkickers and Bass Shakers)

I have very near field subs directly behind my seating for 25-80Hz punch
Funk Audio 18.0's up front that are capable of reference levels down to about 10Hz
...anything below that, the Crowson motion actuators deliver in spades right down to 3Hz.

The Crowsons require very little power in comparison to subwoofer systems, but the effect is quite convincing...








http://imgur.com/hbltRBb.png%5B/img%5D









http://imgur.com/XTJlDaL.png%5B/img%5D


Neither of those Movies required BEQ for those scenes to be effective.
The Sound Mixers put the 6Hz Chinook effects in the mix, and the Studio did not impose any limitations on them either.

Reproducing ULF obviously isn't important to those who've never really experienced it while watching a movie.

But consider that we experience ULF on a daily basis and don't even pay attention to things like a train crossing.
Filter that rumble out while its happening and it would immediately become apparent that something is missing from the experience,
....not the sound, the_ Feeling_.

Even slamming a door can create a


----------



## pg22

I feel like this thread went from Atmos 101 to _Atmos 110: Graduate Students Only_. Or, in the alternative, _Atmos & the Stock Market: Charts, Graphs, and Esoteric Acronyms_.



I do have two questions that are hopefully somewhat relevant: 

1) Ex Machina is the only UHD I have that features a DTS:X Headphone track. I'm curious as to what that is, precisely. How does that differ than the regular DTS:X track? Does it perform spacial mixing intended for stereo headphones in a (rare) usecase where someone plugs said headphones directly into their AVR?

2) Atmos, as I'm sure no one here is surprised about, does not show a speaker configuration when a movie (or an XB1X game) is played on my AVR. It's just blank. I think I know why that is. My question is related to DTS:X and why that _does_ show a speaker configuration? I guess I would have expected similar behavior.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## sdurani

searsmd said:


> We keep using First Man as an example.


Because it is a good example of the split in how folks here think of the soundtrack. Some look at the subject matter and consider whether the filmmakers intended to have the audio fidelity (and film grain) of a movie from the 1960s. Others reflexively want the bass to sound like movie from 2018.


----------



## PioManiac

sdurani said:


> Because it is a good example of the split in how folks here think of the soundtrack. Some look at the subject matter and consider whether the filmmakers intended to have the audio fidelity (and film grain) of a movie from the 1960s. *Others reflexively want the bass to sound like movie from 2018*.


I don't think that's the point at all, and you're the only one who keeps tossing in "film grain" to further conflate things.

Mixers didn't have access to multi-channel ATMOS audio in the 60's either.
Using your reference/preference... shouldn't the audio also be authentic to the era and the ATMOS track replaced with stereo 2.0?

If they choose to expand the audio to use all of the speakers available, why not simply *include* the subwoofers in the mix?
I wonder how many people owned color TV's during the first Apollo missions, So why bother with 4K/UHD/DV/HDR?

a Rocket "should" produce


----------



## dfa973

pg22 said:


> 1) Ex Machina is the only UHD I have that features a DTS:X Headphone track. I'm curious as to what that is, precisely. How does that differ than the regular DTS:X track? *Does it perform spacial mixing intended for stereo headphones in a (rare) usecase where someone plugs said headphones directly into their AVR?*


Yes!



pg22 said:


> 2) Atmos, as I'm sure no one here is surprised about, does not show a speaker configuration when a movie (or an XB1X game) is played on my AVR. It's just blank. I think I know why that is. My question is related to DTS:X and why that _does_ show a speaker configuration? I guess I would have expected similar behavior.


Probably you talk about the signal channel indicators on the AVR's display.
1. Those signal channel indicators can be switched between showing the INPUT or OUTPUT configuration.
2. Probably you have set signal channel indicators to INPUT.
3. Atmos is a object-based audio format and it does use the local available speaker's layout to output those objects in the room, so it is not bound to a specific INPUT channel configuration (hence the blank signal channel indicators), but it has many specific OUTPUT channel configurations.
4. So, if you switch the signal channel indicators to show the OUTPUT you will see your speakers setup.

The conclusion: Atmos is a dynamic format that tries to fit your current setup - so it cannot show you the INPUT configuration because *there is nothing to show until the objects are rendered into OUTPUT*.

DTS:X is also a dynamic object-based format but is used in that way only rarely. 
Most DTS:X soundtracks are used in a channel-based format and in this form the channels are fixed (mostly 7.1.4) so the AVR can show you the INPUT signal channel indicators (hence the proper channel labels light up).


----------



## pasender91

Wow, i come back after one week off, notice i'm 130 posts late,and wondered if there was a new version of Atmos or something else major 
But then no, about 120 of the posts are about BEQ 

Yes subjects are related, but i believe BEQ should be discussed in the proper thread, we can all click a link and go there if we want to !
Else we can also start speaking about Dirac, Audiyssey, amplifiers, power supplies, ... those subjects are all related somehow to Atmos


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> DTS:X is also a dynamic object-based format but is used in that way only rarely.
> Most DTS:X soundtracks are used in a channel-based format and in this form the channels are fixed (mostly 7.1.4) so the AVR can show you the INPUT signal channel indicators (hence the proper channel labels light up).


My Denon X4400H just shows "DTS:X" for the output and no individual channels. It's the same thing it does for Atmos tracks.


----------



## PioManiac

pasender91 said:


> Wow, i come back after one week off, notice i'm 130 posts late,and wondered if there was a new version of Atmos or something else major
> But then no, about 120 of the posts are about BEQ
> 
> Yes subjects are related, but i believe BEQ should be discussed in the proper thread, we can all click a link and go there if we want to !
> Else we can also start speaking about Dirac, Audiyssey, amplifiers, power supplies, ... those subjects are all related somehow to Atmos


The discussion is centered around sound editing on recent ATMOS releases and whether it's done at the mixing stage or imposed by the studio for home release.


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> I don't think that's the point at all, and you're the only one who keeps tossing in "film grain" to further conflate things.


My "film grain" analogy points to another aspect they chose to mimic from that era, eschewing the look of current digital photography (or even modern film stock). Same with aspects of the audio.


> Mixers didn't have access to multi-channel ATMOS audio in the 60's either.


They also didn't have access to IMAX.


> Using your reference/preference... shouldn't the audio also be authentic to the era and the ATMOS track replaced with stereo 2.0?


Only if the filmmakers were locked into an all or nothing mindset. Apparently they weren't, so that freed them up to pick & choose which technical aspects of the movie they could use to enhance the feel of the 1960s. Otherwise they wouldn't have done an IMAX sequence, since that format didn't exist in the '60s.


> If they choose to expand the audio to use all of the speakers available, why not simply *include* the subwoofers in the mix?


Subwoofers? You mean the LFE channel? It was in the mix. 

Whatever they did, it was enough to remind you of how you had experienced those events:


PioManiac said:


> ...not like someone who was watching it happen in their living room on a black & white TV from the 60's (*Already been there, done that* )


Interesting that they were able to trigger that memory.


----------



## PioManiac

sdurani said:


> Subwoofers? You mean the LFE channel? It was in the mix.


My mains are quite capable down to 40Hz, 
The audio has no significantly difference whether the subs are on or off with this title.

That was my point and I think your knew that.




sdurani said:


> Whatever they did, it was enough to remind you of how you had experienced those events: Interesting that they were able to trigger that memory.


I only watched it with full bandwidth audio and it did not detract from my experience at all, it only enhanced it.


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> My mains are quite capable down to 40Hz,
> The audio has no significantly difference whether the subs are on or off with this title.


The soundtrack wasn't mixed with your system in mind.


PioManiac said:


> I only watched it with full bandwidth audio and it did not detract from my experience at all, it enhanced it.


The full bandwidth audio reminded you of watching it on a TV in the '60s? You had a better TV than I did.


----------



## PioManiac

sdurani said:


> The full bandwidth audio *reminded* you of watching it on a TV in the '60s? You had a better TV than I did.


You're the one that said that, not me.


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> You're the one that said that, not me.


I quoted what you compared the soundtrack to.


----------



## PioManiac

sdurani said:


> I quoted what you compared the soundtrack to.



My point was that I paid for an updated 4K/UHD with Dolby Vision and ATMOS audio experience,
If they can deliver an Ultra High Definition Experience, I fully expect the Audio to carry the same upgrades.

...and I'm certainly NOT the only one that felt that way...


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> I said I experienced the original live broadcast in the late 60's on a TV.


You compared the lack of bass during the rocket launch sequence to watching it on a '60s TV.


> My point was that I paid for an updated 4K/UHD with Dolby Vision and ATMOS audio experience,
> If they can deliver an Ultra High Definition Experience, I fully expect the Audio to carry the same upgrades.


This is why there are analogies posted about filtering grain and colourizing black & white. You want to change the content, because it doesn't meet your assumptions. The soundtrack did deliver, just not what you wanted. That was their choice, not a technical flaw that _"needed correction"_.


----------



## PioManiac

sdurani said:


> That was their choice, not a technical flaw that _"needed correction"_.


Whom exactly is the "Who" you are referencing and how do you know?

We still, and may never know with this title, or any recent Disney home release,
if it was indeed the intent of the original sound mixer or a studio imposed limitation on home releases.

This was just one example of many movies that fall short of peoples expectations, and I'm clearly not the only one that feels that way.

Agree to Disagree 

Oblivion 

Bluray/DTS-HD MA (Left) vs 4K/ATMOS (Right)
(directly from disc, no BEQ applied to either graph)


----------



## sdurani

PioManiac said:


> Whom exactly is the "Who" you are referencing and how do you know?


Whoever owns the content. Since we weren't in the mixing room with them we can only go by the product they delivered.


> Are you going to defend all the Disney'd titles that have been nerfed too?


Wasn't defending anything, merely pointing out an alternate explanation for the soundtrack that doesn't require the assumption that it includes a mistake that needs fixing. If the idea that it was a deliberate choice doesn't make sense to you, then we can agree to disagree.


----------



## ereed

There are plenty of titles that have DTS version that are full bandwith and same exact content the bass has been neutered on the atmos track. Guess which one most will want to watch if you have a capable system? You guess it...DTS!!! So why would I want to watch atmos track and have less enjoyable experience? Its like they are removing the bass to give me overhead sound. If I want both I should have both, not one or the other. But if I had to pick one, the DTS non atmos is going to be much more enjoyable than atmos with no bass. That's just me.

Those that are disagreeing with BEQ either have never tried it, have 10 inch polk subs, or just have a fear to mess with system. Also for those that say that BEQ is not the "artist intent" have no idea what they are missing. Not one person who has tried BEQ has decided to switch back to filtered bass. 

So those that don't want to try BEQ, that is fine....but I'm over here enjoying my movies MUCH more with it. At least it was free and I tried it to see if I like it before I gave my opinion unlike some others. Bet some in here that say using EQ is not artist intent is also using room correction on their prepro for their speakers.


----------



## paulst

Out of curiosity, to the people that frequent this thread often.. what are your favourite sounding movies (Atmos/non Atmos, doesn't matter)? just a single movie or a top 5 will suffice..


----------



## m. zillch

ereed said:


> Those that are disagreeing with BEQ either have never tried it, have 10 inch polk subs, or just have a fear to mess with system.


No, there are other categories than those three.


----------



## sdrucker

paulst said:


> Out of curiosity, to the people that frequent this thread often.. what are your favourite sounding movies (Atmos/non Atmos, doesn't matter)? just a single movie or a top 5 will suffice..


Well....this is an Atmos thread, so I'll stick with Atmos content.

"Favorite sounding movie" that makes the most use of Atmos - Gravity, The House with a Clock on Its Walls, the Matrix releases, Overlord. Special mention for REM Automatic for the People, but's that an album not a movie.
"Favorite sounding movie" that includes Atmos but not necessarily optimally - Hans Zimmer Live in Prague, Oblivion, Apocalypse Now

All of these with BEQ (Bass EQ) with the exception of the REM disc, but that's just me.


----------



## batpig

paulst said:


> Out of curiosity, to the people that frequent this thread often.. what are your favourite sounding movies (Atmos/non Atmos, doesn't matter)? just a single movie or a top 5 will suffice..


Some excellent Atmos mixes with plenty of height effects, deep bass, etc.:

- John Wick(s)
- Venom
- Spider-Man: Homecoming
- Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
- The Matrix (4K remaster)
- Blade Runner (4K remaster) + Blade Runner 2049
- Hacksaw Ridge (2nd half / battle scenes)
- Ready Player One

These are all at least decently watchable movies IMO. There are plenty of craptastic action flicks with great Atmos tracks like Power Rangers, The Great Wall, King Kong, etc. but I wouldn't want to watch them often!


----------



## audiofan1

ereed said:


> There are plenty of titles that have DTS version that are full bandwith and same exact content the bass has been neutered on the atmos track. Guess which one most will want to watch if you have a capable system? You guess it...DTS!!! So why would I want to watch atmos track and have less enjoyable experience? Its like they are removing the bass to give me overhead sound. If I want both I should have both, not one or the other. But if I had to pick one, the DTS non atmos is going to be much more enjoyable than atmos with no bass. That's just me.
> 
> Those that are disagreeing with BEQ either have never tried it, have 10 inch polk subs, or just have a fear to mess with system. Also for those that say that BEQ is not the "artist intent" have no idea what they are missing. Not one person who has tried BEQ has decided to switch back to filtered bass.
> 
> *So those that don't want to try BEQ, that is fine....but I'm over here enjoying my movies MUCH more with it. At least it was free and I tried it to see if I like it before I gave my opinion unlike some others. Bet some in here that say using EQ is not artist intent is also using room correction on their prepro for their speakers. *





So does that mean we can make this an Atmos thread again


----------



## d-rail34

audiofan1 said:


> So does that mean we can make this an Atmos thread again


NOOOOOOO!!! 










...still waiting for the answer to @Lesmor's question!


----------



## PioManiac

sdrucker said:


> Well....this is an Atmos thread, so I'll stick with Atmos content.
> 
> "Favorite sounding movie" that makes the most use of Atmos - Gravity, The House with a Clock on Its Walls, the Matrix releases, Overlord. Special mention for REM Automatic for the People, but's that an album not a movie.
> "Favorite sounding movie" that includes Atmos but not necessarily optimally - Hans Zimmer Live in Prague, Oblivion, Apocalypse Now
> 
> All of these with BEQ (Bass EQ) with the exception of the REM disc, but that's just me.


You pretty much covered my most often re-played Atmos titles.

Hans Zimmer always gets included for at least a few songs when its time to demo my system for someone.
(also tends to get the highest bump on the master volume)


----------



## audiofan1

d-rail34 said:


> NOOOOOOO!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...still waiting for the answer to @Lesmor's question!


 Lol somehow I don't think that will be happening.

Perhaps!


----------



## pg22

dfa973 said:


> Yes!
> 
> 
> Probably you talk about the signal channel indicators on the AVR's display.
> 1. Those signal channel indicators can be switched between showing the INPUT or OUTPUT configuration.
> 2. Probably you have set signal channel indicators to INPUT.
> 3. Atmos is a object-based audio format and it does use the local available speaker's layout to output those objects in the room, so it is not bound to a specific INPUT channel configuration (hence the blank signal channel indicators), but it has many specific OUTPUT channel configurations.
> 4. So, if you switch the signal channel indicators to show the OUTPUT you will see your speakers setup.
> 
> The conclusion: Atmos is a dynamic format that tries to fit your current setup - so it cannot show you the INPUT configuration because *there is nothing to show until the objects are rendered into OUTPUT*.
> 
> DTS:X is also a dynamic object-based format but is used in that way only rarely.
> Most DTS:X soundtracks are used in a channel-based format and in this form the channels are fixed (mostly 7.1.4) so the AVR can show you the INPUT signal channel indicators (hence the proper channel labels light up).


Thank you for the fantastic explanation. Much obliged. My Yamaha RX-781 actually shows both input and output on it's OSD. Here's a picture during Gears 5 gameplay, though it shows exactly the same for any UHD Atmos track.

edit: lmao that picture below looks like I took it with a Motorola RAZR Potato Edition.


----------



## d-rail34

audiofan1 said:


> Lol somehow I don't think that will be happening.
> 
> Perhaps!


Sadly, I think you are correct. Which is highly unfortunate, as I do believe that we deserve a proper explanation.

Maybe someday it will happen. Until then, I'll suppose we'll just have to continue enjoying these wondeful debates. Lol


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> My Denon X4400H just shows "DTS:X" for the output and no individual channels. It's the same thing it does for Atmos tracks.


See the attachment, your X4400 should display the Input/output signal channel indicators - and the labels should light up at least when set to OUTPUT, regardless of the used codec.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

FWIW, my Marantz will show input/output by pushing the info button. I would assume denon is the same(from the same mothership).


----------



## PoorSignal

Watched Frozen 4K and it has very good Atmos. One of the best. Movie does not yield to a lot of action but the use is very consistent. The music is played through all 4 height channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PoorSignal said:


> Watched Frozen 4K and it has very good Atmos. One of the best. Movie does not yield to a lot of action but the use is very consistent. The music is played through all 4 height channels.



I wonder if it is another locked print-out or a "free-wheeling object" encoding.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> See the attachment, your X4400 should display the Input/output signal channel indicators - and the labels should light up at least when set to OUTPUT, regardless of the used codec.


Sorry this is my mistake, I was thinking of the INPUT signal where it says just "DTS:X" or "ATMOS."


----------



## PoorSignal

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wonder if it is another locked print-out or a "free-wheeling object" encoding.


I don't think it is locked. Frozen had atmos originally. 

If it was an upmix job, it fooled me. I felt like the sound was so good I was watching it in the theater.


----------



## PioManiac

PoorSignal said:


> I don't think it is locked. *Frozen had atmos originally. *


I'm pretty sure Frozen (2013) Bluray came out March 18, 2014 with DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio










ATMOS didnt show up until the 4K/UHD release Oct.1,2019


----------



## PoorSignal

PioManiac said:


> I'm pretty sure Frozen (2013) Bluray came out March 18, 2014 with DTS-HD MA 7.1 audio


I meant it had Atmos when it was released in the theater. The 4K also have the theatrical aspect ratio.


----------



## chi_guy50

Polyrythm1k said:


> FWIW, my Marantz will show input/output by pushing the info button.* I would assume denon is the same*(from the same mothership).



Used to was, ain't no more.

The dual input/output active signal channel indicator feature on the front display panel was dropped from Denon AVR's several years ago. You can only toggle between the one or the other at any given time on recent models.

However, the full i/o picture is still graphically displayed on a connected display device via the Info button on the remote and on the iOS and Android apps.


----------



## richardsim7

Just to add to the First Man fire, there's a deleted scene of the launch of Apollo 8 with plenty of LFE content below 40Hz, all the way down to 20Hz (that's an entire _octave _below 40Hz) so make of that what you will...













I also saw First Man in an IMAX theater and it definitely wasn't filtered then


----------



## paulst

richardsim7 said:


> Just to add to the First Man fire, there's a deleted scene of the launch of Apollo 8 with plenty of LFE content below 40Hz, all the way down to 20Hz (that's an entire _octave _below 40Hz) so make of that what you will...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also saw First Man in an IMAX theater and it definitely wasn't filtered then


Oops, looks like they missed something  Artist intent? what a load of BS .. Still, luckily there's an easy solution 'cough'.. BEQ


----------



## zeonstar

PoorSignal said:


> I don't think it is locked. Frozen had atmos originally.
> 
> If it was an upmix job, it fooled me. I felt like the sound was so good I was watching it in the theater.


Does a movie being in Atmos originally mean it's more likely to not be a printed track?

When a movie was made for Atmos in theaters originally and them comes to 4K disc, do they remix the audio? I know that Home Atmos has way less objects than theatrical Atmos, so they have to "group" objects together but does that mean actually remixing it?

Sorry, just some questions I have been wondering!


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> Does a movie being in Atmos originally mean it's more likely to not be a printed track?


No.



zeonstar said:


> When a movie was made for Atmos in theaters originally and them comes to 4K disc, do they remix the audio?


Yes. 



zeonstar said:


> I know that Home Atmos has way less objects than theatrical Atmos, so they have to "group" objects together but does that mean actually remixing it?


Yes. 
The Cinema Atmos mix and format is different than the Home Atmos. The system capabilities differ so it must be at least converted or even re-mixed. Probably part of the process is automated (conversion to Home) and part manual (re-mix, adjustments, etc.).


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> The Cinema Atmos mix and format is different than the Home Atmos. The system capabilities differ so it must be at least converted or even re-mixed. Probably part of the process is automated (conversion to Home) and part manual (re-mix, adjustments, etc.).


Thank you for the info!

I was just googling with no luck trying to find out if we lose much as far as effectiveness when objects are grouped for Home theater atmos. Also, why do they need to be grouped in the first place? Can home AVRs simply not handle all those objects individually?


----------



## PioManiac

richardsim7 said:


> Just to add to the First Man fire, there's a deleted scene of the launch of Apollo 8 with plenty of LFE content below 40Hz, all the way down to 20Hz (that's an entire _octave _below 40Hz) so make of that what you will...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I can't recall, but was the deleted scene in Atmouse?


----------



## sdurani

dfa973 said:


> Probably part of the process is automated (conversion to Home) and part manual (re-mix, adjustments, etc.).


Yup, translating the cinema Atmos track to home Atmos used to be manual until _'Terminator Genisys'_, which was the first title to use Dolby's automated cinema to home encoder. As you said, other aspects can be adjusted manually, if desired.


----------



## paulst

dfa973 said:


> The Cinema Atmos mix and format is different than the Home Atmos. The system capabilities differ so it must be at least converted or even re-mixed. Probably part of the process is automated (conversion to Home) and part manual (re-mix, adjustments, etc.).


You forgot to add, they have a screw the people over with a '****e bass' button  Anyone seen the Zombieland Atmos mix yet? I'm sure you'll see it soon enough lol 

Just '2 different mixes' apparently


----------



## m. zillch

richardsim7 said:


> Just to add to the First Man fire, there's a deleted scene of the launch of Apollo 8 with plenty of LFE content below 40Hz, all the way down to 20Hz (that's an entire _octave _below 40Hz) so make of that what you will...


Excellent find! Thank you for posting that. It now allows me to do some analysis. Assuming this deleted scene's content is only filtered below 20Hz (as it appears to by my eye) however it is the "correct" value for content *above* 20Hz [i.e., it lacks the drastic 40Hz filtering we see in the full length movie curves], then by my analysis BEQ is in error in its attempt at restoration by about ~5 or 6 dB at 20 Hz both for the peak value in green:










and also for what I assume is the average level in red [I can't say I'm an expert on BEQ, but these are what I assume these two colors show. Please correct me, people, if I'm wrong.]:









As I denote in the 2nd superimposed image, I have normalized the two curves on the level (dB) axis. No normalization was applied to the first image however, although arguably it should have been nudged just a bit. Needless to say I have faded away the curves which don't apply but you can still make them out in light gray.

Are the corrective values BEQ applies dialed in by the user or is this an automated process?


----------



## gwsat

sdrucker said:


> Well....this is an Atmos thread, so I'll stick with Atmos content.
> 
> "Favorite sounding movie" that makes the most use of Atmos - Gravity, The House with a Clock on Its Walls, the Matrix releases, Overlord. Special mention for REM Automatic for the People, but's that an album not a movie.
> "Favorite sounding movie" that includes Atmos but not necessarily optimally - Hans Zimmer Live in Prague, Oblivion, Apocalypse Now


Because of your having mentioned what a good sounding movie _Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut_ is I finally bought the 4K TrueHD Atmos version and watched it earlier. I agree that the basic 7.1 audio is wonderful. I also agree that the Atmos treatment on the film is disappointing. The Atmos effects were underused to the point of being nonexistent. Too bad but there it is. Every other aspect of the video and audio both were terrific. Obviously, the film itself is a classic.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> Are the corrective values BEQ applies dialed in by the user or is this an automated process?


Filter design is a manual process so anyone can design their own (based on their own preference/judgement) if they want to.



m. zillch said:


> Assuming this deleted scene's content is only filtered below 20Hz (as it appears to by my eye) however it is the "correct" value for content *above* 20Hz [i.e., it lacks the drastic 40Hz filtering we see in the full length movie curves], then by my analysis BEQ is in error in its attempt at restoration by about ~5 or 6 dB at 20 Hz both for the peak value in green:


Hard to say when looking at this on my phone but it looks like the blue curve needs to be lifted about 2-3dB higher to meet the green. I would say the beq design you are looking at does have a slightly elevated target compared to a filter that purely corrects the rolloff. It also continues correcting below 20Hz because, from a beq point of view, this is still an unwelcome rolloff.


----------



## m. zillch

3ll3d00d said:


> . . . it looks like the blue curve needs to be lifted about 2-3dB higher to meet the green.


 Yes, I fully acknowledged that here:



m. zillch said:


> No normalization was applied to the first image however, although arguably it should have been nudged just a bit.


If normalized for just above the frequency we suspect filtration occurred at for the main movie, ~40/45Hz, the splice looks pretty close to me. [i.e., at 50Hz they match]

Keep in mind these are _not_ identical scenes. One is the full movie and the other is just a rocket takeoff scene, as I understand it, so a perfect splicing everyone agrees with is unlikely. 

---


3ll3d00d said:


> It also continues correcting below 20Hz because, from a beq point of view, this is still an unwelcome rolloff.


So am I to understand that from this beq point of view "all soundtracks in movies are 'meant' to go flat down to 3Hz" once BEQ'd (the Atmos delivery medium's hard limit)?


----------



## DesertDog

m. zillch said:


> So am I to understand that from this beq point of view "all soundtracks in movies are 'meant' to go down to 3Hz" once BEQ'd (the delivery medium's hard limit)?


Most but not all. We've found that the music based movies that came out over the last year (Yesterday, Rocketman, A Star is Born, etc) worked better with not boosting the ULF as much. They usually still get some boost due to use low shelf filters but it's not targeted like with an action movie or something like First Man. And that's assuming there's any content down there. We don't dig down into the noise floor. Sense and Sensibility isn't going to be a bass monster no matter what you do.

For less than 20 hz, to an extent, you can think of BEQ more as running a custom house curve for each movie over restoring filtered content. Most of us are running our subs and TR devices fairly flat, especially when compared to pre-BEQ. So instead of always having the lows boosted the same for everything, it's targeted now.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> So am I to understand that from this beq point of view "all soundtracks in movies are 'meant' to go down to 3Hz" once BEQ'd (the delivery medium's hard limit)?


Certainly not. In a perfect world, BEQ would only add beneficial content to the effects that can see benefit, while leaving the others alone. In reality, that doesn't always happen as a particular design is a compromise based on incomplete information. However, it's without a doubt a massive improvement in the minds of many of us with systems with ULF capabilities and, more importantly, a preference for ULF within effects which correspond to actions on screen that deserve, in our minds, the weight that ULF brings to go with it.

I'd like to emphasize that it is absolutely a preference and so really, where we draw the lines on mixer's intent, artist's intent, what is a direct result of filtering by the mixer and what isn't, isn't particularly important to me. I wholeheartedly respect that the mixer (with or without influence from the studio) is presenting the mix that they feel is best for a particular title, and appreciate the stance that many will take that it shouldn't be messed with at all. Others take the stance that personal enjoyment is more important than anything else, and if EQing a mix is an improvement for them, they should absolutely do it.

Neither is right nor wrong, and that's why I've stayed out of the discussion to this point. I'm obviously in the latter group, and the project has always been for me about enjoyment, from the first primitive designs I did in Excel up until now, and the sharing of them for others of similar preference to enjoy just seemed like a no-brainer. I'm proud, honored, and humbled by the great community we have grown into in the BEQ thread, and think that this thread has also been a goldmine of information with a good sense of community and some brilliant minds collaborating, as I see so often across AVS.

So personally, I'd rather not argue about where all these lines should be drawn, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter to me where they actually lie. My goal is to maximize my enjoyment on my system, and if that means applying EQ to a mix that people worked very hard on, I hope that doesn't offend those people, as I'm not trying to say they could/should have done a better job. I recognize each mix as a piece of art, with no benchmark to necessarily be judged against. In a similar way, I feel that a BEQ is also a piece of art, with the same sort of subjective qualities that consensus can never be reached on because preference varies so much.


----------



## avsngaiouser

dschulz said:


> I can't believe Spielberg decided to release _*Schindler's List*_ in black and white, and I definitely look forward to seeing it colorized so it looks halfway decent.





m. zillch said:


> And when the pivotal scene comes where you suddenly see something briefly in color, what I thought was a very well done creative touch, will you want _that_ part to be in black and white?
> ---


I think @dschulz had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek - well placed sarcasm is a wonderful thing.


----------



## m. zillch

avsngaiouser said:


> I think @dschulz had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek - well placed sarcasm is a wonderful thing.


Accepted, but my general notion stands: I would never add or subtract frequencies that I didn't have good reason to believe were supposed to be there, just because the result sounded "pleasing" to my ear, just as I would never add or subtract colors to a movie just because I "liked it". I want to replicate what the creators experienced, not modify it. But that's just me: I seek high fidelity. YMMV.

Similarly I notice many posts complaining when an Atmos movie has very little overhead content. OK, fine, but if it had very little overhead content_ in the commercial theater also_, then it is being reproduced in my home *exactly* as I want it to be in my home.


----------



## sdrucker

gwsat said:


> Because of your having mentioned what a good sounding movie _Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut_ is I finally bought the 4K TrueHD Atmos version and watched it earlier. I agree that the basic 7.1 audio is wonderful. I also agree that the Atmos treatment on the film is disappointing. The Atmos effects were underused to the point of being nonexistent. Too bad but there it is. Every other aspect of the video and audio both were terrific. Obviously, the film itself is a classic.


Not sure Atmos is nonexistent, but it's certainly sporadic outside of 7.1 when I've run my Input Meters on the Altitude. You have odd bits where just a left front height lights up, or nothing but 7.1 on the famous Ride of the Valkyries raid on the VC village until near the very end of that scene where the heights or other Atmos speakers light up. However, the mix is so good that I'm not sure how much you should really care, meaning that the way the content is mixed, you'd swear there were overhead helicopter blades from the heights except that they're actually silent.


Doing this from memory but I'll see if I can cite some specific instances where something other than 7.1 lights up. But having said that, a great soundtrack is still a great soundtrack.


----------



## richardsim7

piomaniac said:


> i can't recall, but was the deleted scene in atmouse?



2.0 ac-3


----------



## ereed

To the people who are against BEQ or refuse to try it or understand it......here it is to understand this more clearly. Since this is atmos thread I will use atmos speakers as an example.

So lets assume you cross your atmos speakers at 80 or 100hz currently or even full range....helicopter sounds great and overhead sounds, and whatnot. BUT THEN atmos sounds get botched 200hz drop-off. You still think you're going to enjoy the helicopter fly over you with 200hz filtered vs fullband??? Yep....that's how we feel about our bass when its filtered and have capable subs to produce it! 

Bet then they will finally understand our gripe and come up with software to bring it back full bandwidth atmos channel since it was filtered. And even if it was the artist intent and those that don't want to change it since its no longer high fidelity....why would you accept 200hz as lowest it can go? Maybe if you have 3 inch mids it wouldn't matter much...but what if you have 8 inch or 10 inch atmos speakers? Yep...not gonna be happy with 200hz filtered when you could get full bandwitdh for more realistic and enjoyment with atmos-eq!


----------



## m. zillch

For decades stereo systems had a button which injected Fletcher-Munson equal loudness compensation into the sound, at a fixed value, but then the manufacturers finally realized consumers didn't have a clue how and when to use it properly and they usually just left it on, perpetually, 24/7. "I makes the music fuller" they'd say. 










Thankfully they removed this button on most modern systems so this error can no longer occur, not that I have anything against equal loudness compensation when used properly.

I also cringe when newbs ask, "Should I use the option "double bass mode" [Speakers "Large" +Sub] and people respond with, "Try it and see if you like it.". Um, we already know the answer: it's a variety of bass boost; _they'll love it!_


----------



## audiofan1

ereed said:


> To the people who are against BEQ or refuse to try it or understand it......here it is to understand this more clearly. Since this is atmos thread I will use atmos speakers as an example.
> 
> So lets assume you cross your atmos speakers at 80 or 100hz currently or even full range....helicopter sounds great and overhead sounds, and whatnot. BUT THEN atmos sounds get botched 200hz drop-off. You still think you're going to enjoy the helicopter fly over you with 200hz filtered vs fullband??? Yep....that's how we feel about our bass when its filtered and have capable subs to produce it!
> 
> Bet then they will finally understand our gripe and come up with software to bring it back full bandwidth atmos channel since it was filtered. And even if it was the artist intent and those that don't want to change it since its no longer high fidelity....why would you accept 200hz as lowest it can go? Maybe if you have 3 inch mids it wouldn't matter much...but what if you have 8 inch or 10 inch atmos speakers? Yep...not gonna be happy with 200hz filtered when you could get full bandwitdh for more realistic and enjoyment with atmos-eq!


----------



## DesertDog

m. zillch said:


> Accepted, but my general notion stands: I would never add or subtract frequencies that I didn't have good reason to believe were supposed to be there, just because the result sounded "pleasing" to my ear, just as I would never add or subtract colors to a movie just because I "liked it". I want to replicate what the creators experienced, not modify it. But that's just me: I seek high fidelity. YMMV.
> 
> Similarly I notice many posts complaining when an Atmos movie has very little overhead content. OK, fine, but if it had very little overhead content_ in the commercial theater also_, then it is being reproduced in my home *exactly* as I want it to be in my home.


I don't want to belabor BEQ more in this thread but I want to just clarify this. BEQ isn't adding or subtracting frequencies from the mix. It's not colorizing a BW film which I also find sacrilegious. All of the content is in the mix that's on disc. It's just EQing the levels on those frequencies back to be normalized with the rest spectrum since they were artificially lowered at some point. 

I really have to wonder what the creator's artistic intent/experience was too when I see a different mix between streaming, BD, UHD, and DVD releases (if it's old enough). Is the director involved with each one or is it someone else giving their interpretation of it? This is something I've wondered for the Atmos remixes too, not just on the bass filtering issue. My guess is that the further away from the theatrical release the less chance of involvement. So with a title like Oblivion, is watching it with BEQ closer to the director's intent since it make the UHD soundtrack match the old BD soundtrack?

Also, I too don't want to hear people whine about Atmos movies having little overhead content but I think constructive criticism and complaints are valid. Atmos is still relatively new and I feel most directors/mixers are still getting a feel for how to best utilize it. So saying something like "I expected to hear X due to the on screen action" or" Y was too much and was distracting" can be useful feedback.


----------



## m. zillch

DesertDog said:


> I don't want to belabor BEQ more in this thread but I want to just clarify this. BEQ isn't adding or subtracting frequencies from the mix.


If the content at, let's say 10Hz, fell _below_ the threshold level of audibility (perhaps 95 dBSPL if we extrapolate the bottom curve in the supplied image) during playback on the mixing stage, mastering room, etc. [and we'll pretend for the moment their monitoring systems are actually 10Hz capable at the listening position (unlikely in my opinion, especially considering the Dolby Atoms Theater spec is not expecting much below 30Hz), and there's no masking of the target signal with other sounds] yet a home theater user opts to apply enough boost such that this 10Hz frequency _breaks_ the threshold level and becomes detectable (perhaps ~96dBSPL and above?), then effectively they *have* "added a frequency" which didn't exist as far as the content creators are concerned. That is, the creators never experienced that 10Hz sound, _at all_. And *my* intent, perhaps not everyone's, is to hear the movie as closely to the way _they_ did (within my budget and room constraints).








https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Lindos1.svg/400px-Lindos1.svg.png


----------



## dfa973

paulst said:


> Anyone seen the Zombieland Atmos mix yet? I'm sure you'll see it soon enough lol
> 
> Just '2 different mixes' apparently


Is the Zombieland Atmos mix filtered?
Pre-printed 7.1.2/7.1.4? 
Compressed?


----------



## paulst

dfa973 said:


> Is the Zombieland Atmos mix filtered?
> Pre-printed 7.1.2/7.1.4?
> Compressed?


Certainly filtered, more so than the Bluray. Comparison pic was posted here.. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bass-eq-filtered-movies-336.html#post58639658


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> So am I to understand that from this beq point of view "all soundtracks in movies are 'meant' to go flat down to 3Hz" once BEQ'd (the Atmos delivery medium's hard limit)?


A "beq filter" seeks to reverse a high pass filter so there is no static target, it is content specific.

Heretical comment I know but I suggest doing some practical research will almost certainly be a more productive use of time. Look at some actual tracks that have beq'ed on here and data-bass, see what approach is taken to the filter and what that means for the content. The software is free and it's not hard to access the content so beqd itself to drill into what happens to specific scenes (that have content to recover and those which don't).


----------



## maikeldepotter

paulst said:


> Certainly filtered, more so than the Bluray. Comparison pic was posted here.. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bass-eq-filtered-movies-336.html#post58639658


I do not want to choose sides in this BEQ versus "artistic intent" debate, but can anyone give me some possible "artistic" considerations mixer's/directors might have when deciding for differentiating the amount of bass content between an Atmos and a DTS-HD soundtrack. I consider myself pretty resourceful but have a hard time thinking of any ...


----------



## paulst

maikeldepotter said:


> I do not want to choose sides in this BEQ versus "artistic intent" debate, but can anyone give me some possible "artistic" considerations the mixer might have had when deciding for lower bass content on the Atmos soundtrack as compared to the DTS-HD soundtrack. I consider myself pretty resourceful but have a hard time thinking of any ...


Seems to be the question everyone is wondering. I asked FilmMixer about the difference between Hellboy 2 DTS-HD MA and the new DTS:X mix.. The best answer so far has been..



FilmMixer said:


> Because they are two different mixes.
> 
> One was a 7.1 near field mix from the theatrical delivery which was later redone for DTS:X.
> 
> Whomever did the immersive upmix made changes...


----------



## maikeldepotter

paulst said:


> Seems to be the question everyone is wondering. I asked FilmMixer about the difference between Hellboy 2 DTS-HD MA and the new DTS:X mix.. The best answer so far has been..


OK, so we are still waiting to learn from someone with either hands-on experience and/or a more imaginative mind what those artistic considerations could possibly be. We are on a "science" forum, if we cannot agree based on evidence, could someone at least formulate some hypothesis ... 

PS Carefully re-reading @*FilmMixer* 's answer it appears to me that he could be suggesting that the immersive (up)mix was carried out by someone (or something?) else than the original mixer, referred to as "whomever". Whether this someone else is actually a mixer, or an automated process, or a combination of the two is still an open question, as is whether or not there was even any "artistic motivation" involved.


----------



## d-rail34

ROUND TWO!!


----------



## searsmd

maikeldepotter said:


> OK, so we are still waiting to learn from someone with either hands-on experience and/or a more imaginative mind what those artistic considerations could possibly be. We are on a "science" forum, if we cannot agree based on evidence, could someone at least formulate some hypothesis ...
> .


My hypothesis is that it being performed as part of a final authoring process with default settings that filter it out. I will see this sometime with logo's that I deliver. While I sent high res copies in jpeg, png as well as the original ai file, I often see some super low resolution copy being placed on a website or a complaint about the printed quality of the logo. I didn't order the banner and and I didn't give them the crappy 5k jpeg file they then enlarged to be place on a banner. It looks like crap, I always point out which file they should have used and get something back along the lines of, but that file size was just too big / it would have taken forever to upload. Well if you want the best version, you cant' use defaults and you have to use all the pixels the vector image will create. I believe the audio team / director or presenting their work to whomever does the final authoring and this is just what we end up with. Remember whoever is doing this final authoring doesn't have the high end tools used to create it or even view / hear it. There just transferring it to the codecs that can go on a disk and are using some mix of crappy default settings.

I only have 1 piece of evidence for this. Earlier in the thread Zillch said that there is a default Dolby Atmos configuration for LFE that is 31.5–120 Hz, ±3 dB. I'm sure this default is causing alot of the issues. Especially for conversions from DTS to Atmos. The final authoring guy just hits the defaults and says convert to this format. The simple answer is usually the correct answer.


----------



## PoorSignal

Someone posted on this thread that the movies remix in atmos are outsourced and it takes a couple days to do. Don’t know if it is done in US or not. Not sure how many movies are done that way?

I can totally tell a lot of the atmos mix are just a random sprinkle of sound and never consistently applied. Since the height speakers stays silent a lot of times.. a lot of times I read a review about certain height sound atmos effects like wind or rain on a title but when I play it I get up on a ladder there was absolutely nothing. Movie like black hawk down there was some sound effect in the market but when there are bunch of helicopters flying in formation there seems to be nothing.


----------



## searsmd

PoorSignal said:


> Someone posted on this thread that the movies remix in atmos are outsourced and it takes a couple days to do. Don’t know if it is done in US or not. Not sure how many movies are done that way?
> 
> I can totally tell a lot of the atmos mix are just a random sprinkle of sound and never consistently applied. Since the height speakers stays silent a lot of times.. a lot of times I read a review about certain height sound atmos effects like wind or rain on a title but when I play it I get up on a ladder there was absolutely nothing. Movie like black hawk down there was some sound effect in the market but when there are bunch of helicopters flying in formation there seems to be nothing.


That could be it to. I know that we I send something out to be outsorced the people doing it almost never have the same tools that I have available and there is a be range in how familiar they are in working with them too. We know to skip some companies because all they are doing is slapping a few filters together while others aren't watching the radius on the brush strokes. I usually just need to some fine tuning when we get back, but once you know who to use it's not too bad. We have had people give us crappy small size jpegs back and they still expect to get paid, which I point to the contract and do not pay. Sometimes however, I'm the middleman, and the client almost always pays. That really ticks me off. It just encourages crappy work.


----------



## PioManiac

maikeldepotter said:


> OK, so we are still waiting to learn from someone with either hands-on experience and/or a more imaginative mind what those artistic considerations could possibly be. *We are on a "science" forum*, if we cannot agree based on evidence, could someone at least formulate some hypothesis ...
> 
> PS Carefully re-reading @*FilmMixer* 's answer it appears to me that he could be suggesting that the immersive (up)mix was carried out by someone (or something?) else than the original mixer, referred to as "whomever". Whether this someone else is actually a mixer, or an automated process, or a combination of the two is still an open question, as is whether or not there was even any "artistic motivation" involved.


THANK YOU!


The irony of recent discussions is the wall that has been placed by some here arguing between BEQ >||< Artistic Intent
is BEQ for the most part, was designed to help REVERSE something that we feel was altered from the Original mix by someone/something 
OTHER than the Original Artist. So in a way, we are Both fighting for the same result for the same reasons.

We already have scientific evidence this has been happening, the graphs come right from the source, it's not fabricated.
Since we are powerless to stop this blasphemy, we are taking steps to help restore the audio to its original glory.

Anyone remember back to 2008 when Master and Commander first came out on bluray with a new lossless DTS-HD MA 5.1 track?
...What happened to the Deep bass during the battle scene with canon fire rocking our rooms from the old 2003 DVD's DTS-5.1 audio track?

A 30Hz filter is what happened! 



















*After BEQ*











As far as restoring Bass below the threshold of human hearing,
Tactile Response has already been proven by Science to be a _real_ thing. Sorry, the world is round.
Most decent subs can certainly extend well below 20Hz, and tactile transducers down to 3Hz.

You don't even need ears to experience ULF
a deaf, dumb and blind person can certainly tell when you are walking towards/away from them.
...and no, it doesn't need to be 96dB to be detected.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

I'm in agreement with you, especially with the amount of overwhelming evidence.



PioManiac said:


> The irony of recent discussions is the wall that has been placed by some here arguing between BEQ >||< Artistic Intent


I think the lie can be given to "artistic intent" if the differences are simply restricted to neuter the bass. Is this what you've found so far in your analysis of BD vs UHD/Atmos discs?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

PioManiac said:


> THANK YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of recent discussions is the wall that has been placed by some here arguing between BEQ >||< Artistic Intent
> 
> is BEQ for the most part, was designed to help REVERSE something that we feel was altered from the Original mix by someone/something
> 
> OTHER than the Original Artist. So in a way, we are Both fighting for the same result for the same reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> We already have scientific evidence this has been happening, the graphs come right from the source, it's not fabricated.
> 
> Since we are powerless to stop this blasphemy, we are taking steps to help restore the audio to its original glory.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone remember back to 2008 when Master and Commander first came out on bluray with a new lossless DTS-HD MA 5.1 track?
> 
> ...What happened to the Deep bass during the battle scene with canon fire rocking our rooms from the old 2003 DVD's DTS-5.1 audio track?
> 
> 
> 
> A 30Hz filter is what happened!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *After BEQ*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as restoring Bass below the threshold of human hearing,
> 
> Tactile Response has already been proven by Science to be a _real_ thing. Sorry, the world is round.
> 
> Most decent subs can certainly extend well below 20Hz, and tactile transducers down to 3Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even need ears to experience ULF
> 
> a deaf, dumb and blind person can certainly tell when you are walking towards/away from them.
> 
> ...and no, it doesn't need to be 96dB to be detected.




Yep. I remember when I demoed M&C in BD. I was so embarrassed. I had been using the dvd versions dts track for demo material and when the BD was released I was like, SWEET!!! Then I played it for my brother and he was like, meh... I was like, WTF?!?!?!?!!!!!!!! I soon found out what the deal was and what a let down. IMO, the BD experience was supposed to be better in EVERY way. Same for uhd and atmos. 

One thing zillich keeps saying is “high fi”. IMO, beq is still High Fidelity and actually more so. Something else he mentions is the 31.5hz roll off of the atmos spec. I’m pretty sure that’s for the commercial versions no?


----------



## Lesmor

Polyrythm1k said:


> IMO, the BD experience was supposed to be better in EVERY way. Same for uhd and atmos.
> 
> One thing zillich keeps saying is “high fi”. IMO, beq is still High Fidelity and actually more so. Something else he mentions is the 31.5hz roll off of the atmos spec. I’m pretty sure that’s for the commercial versions no?


Well I would concur even more so for UHD as we are expected to pay a high premium for what I thought was being sold as "the best of the best of the best" (Men in Black) 

but lets face it if 31.5hz roll off is the Atmos theater spec ( where is the white paper to back this up ?) for commercial then it looks like this is mainly on average what is being ported across to the Home and playing Devils Advocate that is on spec and "as intended "

BUT as per @PioManiac example of Master and Commander on DVD (I am sure there are many other DVD examples" why on gods earth are we paying a premium just to get shafted with a sub-par mix ?????


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Lesmor said:


> Well I would concur even more so for UHD as we are expected to pay a high premium for what I thought was being sold as "the best of the best of the best" (Men in Black)
> 
> 
> 
> but lets face it if 31.5hz roll off is the Atmos theater spec ( where is the white paper to back this up ?) for commercial it looks like this is mainly on average what is being ported across to the Home and playing Devils Advocate that is on spec and "as intended "
> 
> 
> 
> BUT as per your example of Master and Commander on DVD (I am sure there are many other DVD examples" why on gods earth are we paying a premium just to get shafted with a sub-par mix ?????




Well that’s exactly right. Why am I expected to pay MORE, and not get MOAR? 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...t-generation-audio-for-cinema-white-paper.pdf
As for specs, this is all I have. Can’t remember off hand if the commercial LF spec is in there or not. Don’t have time atm but if you do...


----------



## sdurani

ereed said:


> To the people who are against BEQ or refuse to try it or understand it......


That's not what most of those people are disagreeing with. Can't disagree on the fact that _'First Man'_ has bass that rolls off below 40Hz. The question is why: intent or error? As someone who uses tone controls without hesitation, I wouldn't never begrudge the use of BEQ. But is that being done simply to make playback subjectively more pleasing or is the claim a forensic restoration of what the mix was like prior to delivery? If the latter, how do you know that? That's where most of the disagreement is, not so much against the use of BEQ or refusal to understand it. If someone asked me why I use tone controls, I would tell them that it was to adjust the sound to my liking. Imagine instead if I claimed that I was fixing an error in the mix and restoring it to what it was meant to be. How would I know that?


----------



## PioManiac

I think we've moved past "the First Man" debate already. 
That was probably a poor choice as an example, and better suited as fodder to further divide us.

There's a plethora of scientific data collected that clearly indicates disparity between BD audio vs the immersive re-mix on many new UHD discs.
My concern is the same standard is being applied to new releases (Like First Man) that had no previous BD release to compare to prior to the filter implementation.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

You guys are neglecting your own thread. There is no Atmos mix of Master and Commander as far as I know. How about taking the BEQ talk to its own thread?


----------



## Augerhandle

.


----------



## PioManiac

Back to ATMOS, no Problem...

Francis Ford Coppola understands audio impact ....all the way down to 13Hz 




> *Apocalypse Now 40th Anniversary 4K Blu-ray*
> 
> https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=25025
> 
> 
> 
> *NEW 4K RESTORATION OF THE FILM FROM THE ORIGINAL CAMERA NEGATIVE*
> *DOLBY VISION HDR PRESENTATION OF THE FILM*
> *DOLBY ATMOS TRACK/Sensual Sound enhanced*
> 
> *Apocalypse Now re-released with Meyer Sound Sensual Sound technology*
> 
> 
> *Sensual Sound* is implemented in both the post-production of the soundtrack and in
> the film’s exhibition using Meyer Sound’s VLFC very low frequency control element.
> Unlike conventional subwoofers that roll off at the threshold of hearing (about 20Hz),
> the VLFC bridges across this threshold to *deliver infrasonic response down to 13 Hz*.
> All very low frequency sounds are bolstered by a corporeal sensation of physical force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.psneurope.com/studio/apocalypse-now-final-cut-meyer-sound


----------



## 3ll3d00d

searsmd said:


> I only have 1 piece of evidence for this. Earlier in the thread Zillch said that there is a default Dolby Atmos configuration for LFE that is 31.5–120 Hz, ±3 dB. I'm sure this default is causing alot of the issues. Especially for conversions from DTS to Atmos. The final authoring guy just hits the defaults and says convert to this format.  The simple answer is usually the correct answer.


The evidence (shape of the rolloff) does not support this at all.


----------



## m. zillch

3ll3d00d said:


> A "beq filter" seeks to reverse a high pass filter so there is no static target, it is content specific.


And set by user taste.


----------



## m. zillch

3ll3d00d said:


> . . . I suggest doing some practical research will almost certainly be a more productive use of time. Look at some actual tracks that have beq'ed



Already done.


----------



## Augerhandle

If someone's sub only goes down to 25 Hz, it's like trying to explain the difference between red and green to a colorblind person. They're never going to get it.


----------



## m. zillch

PioManiac said:


> As far as restoring Bass below the threshold of human hearing,
> Tactile Response has already been proven by Science to be a _real_ thing. Sorry, the world is round.


Has it been proven the movie content creators intend a [non D-box encoded] movie's inaudible infrasonic content to be altered through a transducer, and then greatly amplified, so we can experience it through a different sense, namely _touch_? Maybe they *actually* intended the inaudible infrasonic audio content below threshold to be transduced and reproduced with flashing colored lights so we could experience it through yet a third sense, vision? Ya never know.


----------



## m. zillch

sdurani said:


> That's not what most of those people are disagreeing with. Can't disagree on the fact that _'First Man'_ has bass that rolls off below 40Hz. The question is why: intent or error? As someone who uses tone controls without hesitation, I wouldn't never begrudge the use of BEQ. But is that being done simply to make playback subjectively more pleasing or is the claim a forensic restoration of what the mix was like prior to delivery? If the latter, how do you know that? That's where most of the disagreement is, not so much against the use of BEQ or refusal to understand it. If someone asked me why I use tone controls, I would tell them that it was to adjust the sound to my liking. Imagine instead if I claimed that I was fixing an error in the mix and restoring it to what it was meant to be. How would I know that?


Well put.


----------



## PoorSignal

PioManiac said:


> Can you define "greatly amplified"?
> My Crowsons are less than 5% of my subs power.
> 
> Black Hawk Down 4K/UHD/ATMOS, no BEQ required at all because the 6Hz content is completely unfiltered.
> 
> 4 Crowson Motion Actuators (3 seat powered recliner HT chairs with 4 armrests)
> Powered by a single 500 watt amp, gain set at about 70% of maximum. AVR volume well below reference levels...
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/0E1NkVluuZE


Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't seem to have the bass that match that scene.

I am sure you have tried lone survivor when they also take off on a helicopter? It's longer in duration and stronger.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> And set by user taste.


Yes I know, you don't need to repeat this. 

Does HDR tone mapping send you into meltdown? how do you square artist intent unless you only watch on a dolby pulsar?



m. zillch said:


> Already done.


You have not completed even a cursory investigation into the available content.


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> That's not what most of those people are disagreeing with. Can't disagree on the fact that _'First Man'_ has bass that rolls off below 40Hz. The question is why: intent or error? As someone who uses tone controls without hesitation, I wouldn't never begrudge the use of BEQ. But is that being done simply to make playback subjectively more pleasing or is the claim a forensic restoration of what the mix was like prior to delivery? If the latter, how do you know that? That's where most of the disagreement is, not so much against the use of BEQ or refusal to understand it. If someone asked me why I use tone controls, I would tell them that it was to adjust the sound to my liking. Imagine instead if I claimed that I was fixing an error in the mix and restoring it to what it was meant to be. How would I know that?


I agree with all that, and from a purist standpoint that is a good reason to not favor BEQ, no matter how "pleasing" the added BEQ filters sound. That same purist though would like to know what could possibly be the reason why the bass content in the soundtrack of a given movie is reduced after being re-mixed into an immersive (Atmos) track. I have asked this earlier, but nobody has yet given me a singe possible explanation of how this could be an intended artistic decision.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Already done.


Maybe you should try actually 'listening' to the BEQ demo clips provided? instead of putting all that time and effort into creating your own 'flat' graphs.. this is something that's been tried and tested already by many people with zero complaints.. If you can't hear a difference between the two audio tracks on the First Man demo clip, then stick with you what you prefer (ie: no bass) 

I'm just watching Star Wars ep 1 with BEQ and it's like it's a different movie, the added ULF in the Pod Race is absolutely amazing, felt like I was being pulverised for 10 mins   far better than the original mix (and yes I've switched configs on my 2x4HD to compare it)


----------



## Augerhandle

paulst said:


> Maybe you should try actually 'listening' to the BEQ demo clips provided? instead of putting all that time and effort into creating your own 'flat' graphs.. this is something that's been tried and tested already by many people with zero complaints.. If you can't hear a difference between the two audio tracks on the First Man demo clip, then stick with you what you prefer (ie: no bass)
> 
> I'm just watching Star Wars ep 1 with BEQ and it's like it's a different movie, the added ULF in the Pod Race is absolutely amazing, far better than the original mix (and yes I've switched configs on my 2x4HD to compare it)


He can't hear a difference. His sub is only about 25 Hz capable.




m. zillch said:


> ...When I play my Youtube frequency sweep with my* modest SVS sub **I hear the bass plummet* but at about that same point my dishware starts dancing around frantically to the point I'm scared it could break....


----------



## noah katz

maikeldepotter said:


> ...That same purist though would like to know what could possibly be the reason why the bass content in the soundtrack of a given movie is reduced after being re-mixed into an immersive (Atmos) track. I have asked this earlier, but nobody has yet given me a singe possible explanation of how this could be an intended artistic decision.



FilmMixer gave a simple possible answer - the remix was done by a different artist.


----------



## zeonstar

I missed some stuff in this thread recently. What is BEQ?


----------



## d-rail34

zeonstar said:


> I missed some stuff in this thread recently. What is BEQ?


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html

You're welcome.


----------



## paulst

zeonstar said:


> I missed some stuff in this thread recently. What is BEQ?


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html



Augerhandle said:


> He can't hear a difference. His sub is only about 25 Hz capable.





m. zillch said:


> When I play my Youtube frequency sweep with my modest SVS sub I hear the bass plummet but at about that same point my dishware starts dancing around frantically to the point I'm scared it could break. Even just a remote sitting on a coffee table could similarly start dancing but this doesn't prove "I can hear 10Hz", it proves my playback environment is causing unintentional sympathetic vibrations.


Maybe, should be thinking about securing any room rattles instead of dismissing ULF as a cause of the problem then  (blu-tak should do it)  Doesn't sound like a 'hi fidelity' purist to me if that's the reason  If my door latch starts to rattle or my LG remote (that sits on my sofa) mouse cursor appears on screen while watching a movie, I know the bass is good


----------



## m. zillch

PioManiac said:


> As far as restoring Bass below the threshold of human hearing,
> Tactile Response has already been proven by Science to be a _real_ thing. Sorry, the world is round.
> Most decent subs can certainly extend well below 20Hz, and tactile transducers down to 3Hz.


20Hz you say? There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz*, so your claim infrasonic bass reproduction is the intent of the content creators implies they aren't really concerned with the sound for the *commercial* cinemas but rather for the [I'm guessing < .1%] of the _home_ market with flat response, with low distortion, at the seated position, well below 20Hz, at reference playback level. I disagree: They are focused on commercial cinema sound.

Most ANSI Class 2 calibration analyzers used by professional cinema calibrators, including THX, pretty much ignore content much below 20Hz or so [note the bottom bar graph *is* 20Hz in this example in the video] because any lower is out of SMPTE spec. hence they simply don't care:






I also see now that the way people get around the fact that reproducing the infrasonic content in movies at levels which will actually exceed threshold (and aren't masked by other concurrent content) yet are at cinema reference playback level is to cheat and jack it up artificially via EQ until they *do* experience it, such as the example I documented here, or they transduce it into another sensory modality such as touch/vision. No thanks, not for me: that's* not* what the artists intended hence it is not high fidelity, my goal. YMMV.
---

Obviously neither side will back down and since my invitation earlier to Floyd Toole to back me went unanswered, in my opinion because he knew speaking the truth would ruffle feathers and hurt people's feelings, I'm done for now since nearly everyone here disagrees with me and seems to either errantly or disingenuously imply that I'm claiming "infrasonic content doesn't ever exist" or that artificially jacking it up via EQ "isn't ever perceptible". I never said that _at all_. I simply don't have the time to respond to each post since I'm one against _many._ I'm out manned. Bye.

Enjoy your infrasonic sound people:
[must watch in HD1080]





* The lowest I know of is JBL's biggest and baddest with dual 18" woofs which claims "Frequency Response (± 3 dB) 24 Hz - 155 Hz (2π) / 27 Hz - 1.5 kHz (4π)" and I assume that's measured near field, not at the seated position, and with unstated distortion limits nor playback level. Examples of actual measurements I've seen at the golden seat position are another matter.


----------



## zeonstar

d-rail34 said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html
> 
> You're welcome.


Holy Crap. Had no idea such a thing existed. I was gonna make a joke that BEQ must exist solely for Disney movies but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I don't think this is a rabbit hole I want to go down, but thank you nonetheless!


----------



## maikeldepotter

noah katz said:


> FilmMixer gave a simple possible answer - the remix was done by a different artist.


Yes, that was the closest answer: Another artist decided to reduce bass content. But why? Did he just not like nor respect the “artistic intent” of the original mix on that aspect? What other possible motivation could he have had? And why have we seen this phenomenon to occur quite regularly with legacy mixes that have been up-mixed into immersive ones?


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> 20Hz you say?...*Most ANSI Class 2 calibration analyzers used by professional cinema calibrators, including THX, **pretty much ignore content much below 20Hz or so [note the bottom bar graph is 20Hz in this example in the video]* because any lower is out of SMPTE spec. hence they simply don't care:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wysYbtDSrO4...


Really? In the video that plays after your video, they clearly show (at around timestamp 4:50) the analyzer goes down to 6 Hz with a click of a button.


----------



## Stereodude

noah katz said:


> FilmMixer gave a simple possible answer - the remix was done by a different artist.


I think you mean "artist". How come that "artist" isn't being flogged for altering the artist intent of the original mixer? So it's cool if you get paid to mess it up for everyone, but not cool if you try to straighten it out for yourself?


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> I'm done for now since nearly everyone here disagrees with me and seems to either errantly or disingenuously imply that I'm claiming "infrasonic content doesn't ever exist" or that artificially jacking it up via EQ "isn't ever perceptible". I never said that _at all_. I simply don't have the time to respond to each post since I'm one against _many._ I'm out manned. Bye.


People don't necessarily disagree with your personal preference, as there's no right or wrong in AV. It's more that you seem to be coming up with every reason under the sun to dismiss BEQ while refusing to try it for yourself, then you'd actually have a valid opinion on the topic.. It's a bit like someone saying I've never driven a car, but I don't like driving..


----------



## m. zillch

Augerhandle said:


> Really? In the video that plays after your video, they clearly show (at around timestamp 4:50) the analyzer goes down to 6 Hz with a click of a button.


Useful for several *non*-cinema calibration applications which the analyzer does:


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> Useful for several *non*-cinema calibration applications which the analyzer does:


Just because a hammer can be used to break windows doesn't mean it isn't used to drive nails. Besides, straw man. Your original argument was that it only went to 20 Hz.


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> there's no right or wrong in AV.


If your goal is high fidelity, my goal, you are incorrect. 20kHz, 2kHz, 200Hz, and 20Hz should all be reproduced at the *same* level they occur at in mastering room. If your system boosts or cuts any frequency, or you manually apply an EQ to do the same [other than for restoration purposes which I would never advise applying by _guessing_ what it should be, I only use instrumentation] your system has an inaccurate frequency response. My goal is to faithfully replicate the sound the engineers heard, not embellish it by jacking up the 20Hz level by 5dB which by my analysis BEQ did.


It is impossible to properly set infrasonic EQ by eye since none of us know the natural rolloff of the original unfiltered sound, so instead you guys have decided to wing it and I now have evidence that in this one example where we assume the deleted First Man scene was more accurate, at least down to 20Hz, that BEQ was already in error by 5 dB at that point, perhaps it got even worse below that; we'll never know for sure. No thanks.


----------



## m. zillch

Augerhandle said:


> Just because a hammer can be used to break windows doesn't mean it isn't used to drive nails. Besides, straw man. Your original argument was that it only went to 20 Hz.


When he was describing and showing its use _for cinema calibration_ he purposefully invoked a mode for us where it only went down to 20Hz. [Lower would be useful for catering to home users though since they seem to want even lower, and music goes much lower too.]


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> It is impossible to properly set infrasonic EQ by eye since none of us know the natural rolloff of the original unfiltered sound, so instead you guys have decided to wing it and I now have evidence that in this one example where we assume the deleted First Man scene was more accurate, at least down to 20Hz, that BEQ was already in error by 5 dB at that point, perhaps it got even worse below that; we'll never know for sure. No thanks.


I already stated that it is a compromise based on incomplete information. You are also quantifying its error based on incomplete information. But that's okay, because I really don't care if it's a perfect restoration of anything. It's intended to maximize enjoyment. It is as simple as that. I'm not winging anything. I'm doing my best to make each mix as enjoyable as possible on my system, to my own personal preference, based on thousands of hours of design and testing on my system. I have more than enough experience to hit the mark pretty well to my own personal preference the vast majority of the time. It seems that there are quite a few others who share a preference that is very close to my own.

You call it error, but then I hope you would call a house curve (or anything but what perfectly matches the mixing room each film was mixed in) error as well. That's okay with me, I totally respect your stance that you want to experience a mix as closely as possible to what was experienced in the mixing room. You should certainly do that if that's what you want to do.

I can't help but wonder, if all films were mixed in a room as capable as many of our systems are in ULF, how different some of them would be. Of course we'll never know, but I find it interesting to think about.


----------



## aron7awol

paulst said:


> People don't necessarily disagree with your personal preference, as there's no right or wrong in AV.





m. zillch said:


> If your goal is high fidelity, my goal, you are incorrect.


Who's to say that maximizing fidelity instead of enjoyment is right or wrong? I can only speak to my goals, and a goal of mine is certainly "high fidelity", just not at the expense of my enjoyment. To me, it makes no sense for me to do anything other than maximize my enjoyment, because that's exactly why I do everything I do: to enjoy it. I hope that in your case you maximize enjoyment *by* maximizing fidelity, because I would think that enjoyment is the reason you spend all the time and money on your system as you do. But if not, and you'd rather maximize fidelity even if the result is less enjoyable than it could be, I totally respect that too. I just wish you would respect our choice in a similar manner instead of trying to tell people they are wrong for trying to enjoy these films as much as they can.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> You call it error, but then I hope you would call a house curve (or anything but what perfectly matches the mixing room each film was mixed in) error as well. .


I think you made some good/valid points overall in your post. 

Regarding this part I've quoted, yes I think a house curve would be an error from the perspective of high fidelity* if* we had reason to believe the monitoring systems they used were flat, however most survey studies have found they usually _aren't_. So to hear it the way they did we need to either use speakers with a gentle roll-off into the highs ourselves, mimicking what they have, or we need to invoke this via EQ.


As @Floyd Toole points out in his "audio's circle of confusion" concept, if they used a declining treble when they mix/mastered our sound, then we are forced to do the same upon playback or else it will sound too bright to us. It is a never ending circle.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Who's to say that maximizing fidelity instead of enjoyment is right or wrong? I can only speak to my goals, and a goal of mine is certainly "high fidelity", just not at the expense of my enjoyment. To me, it makes no sense for me to do anything other than maximize my enjoyment, because that's exactly why I do everything I do: to enjoy it. I hope that in your case you maximize enjoyment *by* maximizing fidelity, because I would think that enjoyment is the reason you spend all the time and money on your system as you do. But if not, and you'd rather maximize fidelity even if the result is less enjoyable than it could be, I totally respect that too. I just wish you would respect our choice in a similar manner instead of trying to tell people they are wrong for trying to enjoy these films as much as they can.


You are putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said people are "wrong for trying to enjoy these films as much as they can." What I might have said is that from the perspective of high fidelity, an accurate frequency response is correct and artificially cutting or boosting a particular frequency or range of frequencies knowingly is an error, but I never said nobody should do that. I used the expression YMMV at least once or twice in this thread. You know that term? [Younger people than me might not, I don't really know, because it is from a TV ad _many_ decades ago.]

Fidelity has several synonyms: accuracy, faithfulness, truthfulness. Knowingly altering/modifying something to one's desired taste rather than attempting to make adjustments to replicate the source signal so faithfully, so accurately, and so truthfully that it is indistinguishably different, aka transparent, [it appears to be a perfect clone of the original, that is] is the opposite of high fidelity. One is catering to your desires and the other is making adjustments towards signal faithfulness, ideally so good the replication is indistinguishable from the master source.

High fidelity is not an opinion. A gigantic problem arises however when we don't have access to the original art to compare to the replication. However this does not mean "fidelity" is suddenly up for grabs and a subjective opinion. It is more that we just don't know for sure what's truly accurate and what's not. Zillions of people don't get this and apparently my signature doesn't explain it successfully either.


----------



## PoorSignal

When you use EQ to boost a signal that is in the inaudible frequencies below 30hz. 

How do you detect distortion?


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> .I can't help but wonder, if all films were mixed in a room as capable as many of our systems are in ULF, how different some of them would be. Of course we'll never know, but I find it interesting to think about.


My guess is they are sort of half way between commercial cinemas and what you've got. And they purposefully then apply filtration for many different reasons, i.e. they are neutering the signal even for _their_ very own listening rooms.


----------



## m. zillch

PoorSignal said:


> When you use EQ to boost a signal that is in the inaudible frequencies below 30hz.
> 
> How do you detect distortion?


When you distort a signal lower than you can hear or that your system can successfully play it can still be manifested in upper (detectable) frequencies, called harmonics, from the signal you are distorting. Hence the term THD, total harmonic distortion, which is the sum of all those various harmonics of distortion added together.

Example where 40Hz is the signal, at a very high level of 100 dB it can't do cleanly so it distorts. All the higher frequency bumps at multiples, 80 Hz, 120Hz, etc. are the THD:


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> You are putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said people are "wrong for trying to enjoy these films as much as they can." What I might have said is that from the perspective of high fidelity, an accurate frequency response is correct and artificially cutting or boosting a particular frequency or range of frequencies knowingly is an error, but I never said nobody should do that. I used the expression YMMV at least once or twice in this thread. You know that term? [Younger people than me might not, I don't really know, because it is from a TV ad _many_ decades ago.]


Of course I can't quote that, you didn't say that verbatim. It's just how I interpreted your response to a cherry-picked portion of paul's statement where he was trying to say that it's a matter of preference, and since a preference is subjective it cannot be right or wrong:



paulst said:


> People don't necessarily disagree with your personal preference, as there's no right or wrong in AV.


Your preference for the closest thing to perfect fidelity isn't right nor wrong, it's a preference just like ours is. Your stance has come across as if you feel it's superior to value fidelity over enjoyment, but again, that's just how it's come across to me. Maybe that's not actually how you feel or meant to come across.



m. zillch said:


> Fidelity has several synonyms: accuracy, faithfulness, truthfulness. Knowingly altering/modifying something to one's desired taste rather than attempting to make adjustments to replicate the source signal so faithfully, so accurately, and so truthfully that it is indistinguishably different, aka transparent, [it appears to be a perfect clone of the original, that is] is the opposite of high fidelity. One is catering to your desires and the other is making adjustments towards signal faithfulness, ideally so good the replication is indistinguishable from the master source.
> 
> High fidelity is not an opinion. A gigantic problem arises however when we don't have access to the original art to compare to the replication. However this does not mean "fidelity" is suddenly up for grabs and a subjective opinion. It is more that we just don't know for sure what's truly accurate and what's not. Zillions of people don't get this and apparently my signature doesn't explain it successfully either.


There's no lack of understanding of what constitutes fidelity here. I fully understand everything you're trying to do, and the difficulties in doing so. It's an impossible task, really, since you have incomplete information just as we do. The circle of confusion makes it so, as you know. That doesn't mean you shouldn't get as close as you can, of course, since that is your preference and priority.


----------



## m. zillch

OK fair enough. Sorry if I came off sounding as if high fidelity is right for everyone and everything else is wrong. That was not my intent.


----------



## m. zillch

If I were one of you BEQ guys I would use First Man as the Rosetta Stone. You have been handed a secret key to what they are doing.

If we assume Saturn V rocket take off is flat "pink noise" then you have your filtration curve right in front of you. I highly doubt they do anything other than a HPF above X frequency with Y slope, end of story. I doubt they do things differently per movie (per studio/format release) but apparently for amazingly long, constant, 2 minute long sequences of constant loud bass they use a higher cut off point than usual, which implies to me they are doing so for voicecoil safety. 

Bye.

P.S. I'd guess they use 24dB/octave at either 20, 30, or in the case of a rocket takeoff movie, 40Hz.


----------



## noah katz

m. zillch said:


> 20Hz you say? There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz*, so your claim infrasonic bass reproduction is the intent of the content creators implies they aren't really concerned with the sound for the *commercial* cinemas but rather for the [I'm guessing < .1%] of the _home_ market with flat response, with low distortion, at the seated position, well below 20Hz, at reference playback level. I disagree: They are focused on commercial cinema sound.



So all of the sub-20 Hz content on soundtracks wasn't the intention of the mixers?

That's doubtful.

And why should they limit themselves to the practical limitations of cinemas when home theaters (including many their own I'm sure) can outdo them?





maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, that was the closest answer: Another artist decided to reduce bass content. But why? Did he just not like nor respect the “artistic intent” of the original mix on that aspect? What other possible motivation could he have had? And why have we seen this phenomenon to occur quite regularly with legacy mixes that have been up-mixed into immersive ones?





Stereodude said:


> I think you mean "artist". How come that "artist" isn't being flogged for altering the artist intent of the original mixer? So it's cool if you get paid to mess it up for everyone, but not cool if you try to straighten it out for yourself?



Hey, don't jump one me, I didn't say it was a good or satisfying answer.

In which case I guess there was no point in offering it.

My bad.


----------



## m. zillch

noah katz said:


> So all of the sub-20 Hz content on soundtracks wasn't the intention of the mixers?
> 
> That's doubtful


There are oddball movies like War of the Worlds where there appears to be a conscious decision to use a brief, 10Hz tone [completely synthetic, I might add, i.e. the sound never traveled in the air to a microphone] here and there but I'd bet money the mixer who made that decision was not experiencing it in the flesh through their monitors/subwoofer [because they were incapable of faithfully reproducing it in that room, at the seated position, at or above threshold level, even over masking sounds, with low distortion] , nor has any commercial theater goer anywhere in the US. At best the content creator heard what it did (objectionably) to the simultaneous loud 30Hz content they _could_ hear and they enjoyed the change it invoked, so they stuck with it.

Meanwhile that loud 10Hz tone harms the vast majority of playback systems [which is why movies made for the masses usually filter out this dangerous stuff] in their efforts to reproduce the important and audible 30Hz part because it:



m. zillch said:


> - *Saps available amplifier reserves.* Instead of your 1000 watt amp playing an important 40Hz note as loudly as it normally can, you notice that oddly it is clipping at only 250 watts output. Why? Because it is secretly attempting to amplify a frequency you or your subwoofer(s) are incapable of dealing with. But that doesn't mean your amplifier isn't breaking a heavy sweat and huffing and puffing _amplifying_ it. Filter away that 10Hz signal however and you are back up to 1000 watts for the important _audible_ range above ~20Hz.
> *
> - Increased bass distortion from your subs and reduces maximum output level.* You will notice your sub's maximum clean output at 40Hz plummets if it is also simultaneously attempting to reproduce 10Hz, even if _you_ don't hear the 10Hz part because it is below your threshold for detection.
> 
> *- Doppler distortion.* Normally this distortion is inaudibly low in most systems but that's because the research on it never anticipated there would be people reproducing *infrasonic* bass well below 20Hz where the cone moves many centimeters towards and away from the listener rather than just one or two. Just like as an ambulance siren's frequency rises and lowers as the sound source moves towards or away from the listener, so too does upper bass content frequencies when the sub woofer cone is moving towards or away from the listener by appreciable amounts, in this case _many_ centimeters.
> *
> - Intermodulation distortion.* Even though both frequencies may not be audible, whenever a system attempts to reproduce two (or more) frequencies there can be unintended (difference) frequencies generated which _are_ detectable. This is largely why most of the world purposefully filters out content outside of the audible band, 20-20kHz. The content is harmful.
> 
> *- Sympathetic vibrations.* Ever play your infrasonic bass so loudly it makes your dishware across the room rattle? I have. _That's bad._ It is an unintended noise, a distortion, which has nothing to do with your music or movie content. [I want to hear _the movie_, not the problems with my room.] Although this can happen with 40Hz content it is markedly more likely to happen with 10Hz content. Remember, content at 10 Hz needs to be a whopping 45dB louder than 40Hz content according to the threshold chart I linked to for us to detect it, but dishware and other small items in a room are not so picky about what will make them rattle and dance about on their shelf, as if there's an earthquake going on!


----------



## m. zillch

noah katz said:


> And why should they limit themselves to the practical limitations of cinemas when home theaters (including many their own I'm sure) can outdo them?


I don't think it is actually _their_ decision just like the people who have decided to give us "loudness war" compressed pop/rock music aren't the ones sitting behind the consoles doing the sound and turning on the compressors and limiters: _it is their bosses/executives telling them they must_.


----------



## AmerCa

m. zillch said:


> Meanwhile that loud 10Hz tone harms the vast majority of playback systems [which is why movies made for the masses usually filter out this dangerous stuff] in their efforts to reproduce the important and audible 30Hz part because it:


I've been following this interesting conversation, and this is the second time I've seen you bring the above point. It was my understanding that if a subwoofer (or speaker) is sent a signal it can't reproduce, it simply doesn't do it. But you're stating it does try to reproduce it, and therefore it's harmful to the equipment.

If it is indeed true, that would be a compelling and convincing argument to filter tracks below 30 or 20 hz, and in practice BEQ would be better suited for people with really capable subs. Can you confirm it? Because there are a good amount of releases that have content below 20 hz (*Power Rangers* 2017, *Kong: Skull Island*), that in your words, would be dangerous to non capable systems 


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

AmerCa said:


> I've been following this interesting conversation, and this is the second time I've seen you bring the above point. It was my understanding that if a subwoofer (or speaker) is sent a signal it can't reproduce, it simply doesn't do it. But you're stating it does try to reproduce it, and therefore it's harmful to the equipment.
> 
> If it is indeed true, that would be a compelling and convincing argument to filter tracks below 30 or 20 hz, and in practice BEQ would be better suited for people with really capable subs. Can you confirm it? Because there are a good amount of releases that have content below 20 hz (*Power Rangers* 2017, *Kong: Skull Island*), that in your words, would be dangerous to non capable systems


Sending a speaker (or sub) an amplified frequency (EQ'd) below its tuning frequency is especially dangerous if it is a vented (ported or passive radiator) design. Acoustic suspenion (sealed box) designs on the other hand aren't as much in danger because they sort of "self protect", as I understand it. I will go see if I can find a third party account and will return in a moment. . .


----------



## m. zillch

Kicker on ported/vented subs, bold text mine:

"Below the tuning frequency of the enclosure, there is no acoustic suspension for the woofer and it will perform like an infinite baffle. This is called “unloading” and this can damage the suspension of the woofer due to excessive cone travel. * All ported enclosures should have a subsonic filter to limit very low frequencies.* There are a lot of amplifiers that have a subsonic filter built in to them. Some are subsonic filters are fixed and some are adjustable in frequency. You should have a subsonic filter set close to the tuning frequency to limit frequencies below tuning of the enclosure."


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Thanks for the response. So:

1. Most (if not all) commercial subs shouldn't have any issues trying to reproduce frequencies below its port tune. There should be some filter built in.

2. Subsonic frequencies (like used in your _War of the Worlds_ example) are not really harmful if used for short periods of time, given that a subwoofer can play them.

3. The dangers of BEQ would lie in feeding the sub constant high level subsonic frequencies, that are not supposed to be present in the mix in such high and frequent amounts. This conclusion is an inference in my part given the info you've provided. Not sure how true that is in practice, but on paper it gives good reason to be careful when applying BEQ. The aforementioned two movies have content below 20hz, but are either short duration or lower in level than the rest of the higher frequencies.


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

Another mode of speaker failure can happen from how it reacts to amp clipping, true of all speakers not just vented, and as I understand it asking an amplifier to reproduce 10Hz is markedly more strenuous for it (hence it is more prone to clip/distort) than asking it to do 40Hz, plus due to the nature of Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves you are going to need to reproduce that 10Hz tone 10's of dB higher to break human hearing threshold than you are at say 40Hz.

Although a controversial topic, I made a diagram explaining why it is said clipping, which physically resembles a squared off wave, causes dangerous heat build up in a voice coil because for much of its cycle it remains pegged in one position, either pushed fully outward or fully inward (where the motionless voice coil gets_ hotter and hotter_), rather than constantly moving in and out, where it gets "air cooled", here:









Eventually if it gets too hot it can melt the former and other nearby assemblies, causing a scraping noise (distortion) for that driver at_ any_ level, and it can even melt itself in two: Dead driver.

Regardless if you believe clipping an amp is dangerous to the speaker or not, it definitely sounds bad and means you've capped your maximum output right there.


----------



## m. zillch

AmerCa said:


> 1. Most (if not all) commercial subs shouldn't have any issues trying to reproduce frequencies below its port tune. There should be some filter built in.
> 
> 2. Subsonic frequencies (like used in your _War of the Worlds_ example) are not really harmful if used for short periods of time, given that a subwoofer can play them.
> 
> 3. The dangers of BEQ would lie in feeding the sub constant high level subsonic frequencies, that are not supposed to be present in the mix in such high and frequent amounts. This conclusion is an inference in my part given the info you've provided. Not sure how true that is in practice, but on paper it gives good reason to be careful when applying BEQ. The aforementioned two movies have content below 20hz, but are either short duration or lower in level than the rest of the higher frequencies.


Sorry, it is hard to make safety recommendations over the web. One person's "loud and for a long period of time" can mean "medium and for a short duration" to another.


I've heard of people blowing up their subs simply from playing the movie Lone Survivor [but I have no idea how loudly and under what conditions] but I'm not a good source for safety tips, sorry.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
I wasn't asking (or talking about) for safety tips. You were the one who say 10hz frequencies (or any other high level infrasonics) could damage speakers, and as such, that was possibly a reason for mixers to filter low frequencies. I expanded on that based on your provided example. But now you don't seen so sure as to what is dangerous or not. It's getting late, so let's leave it at that.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

AmerCa said:


> ^°^°^°^
> Thanks for the response. So:
> 
> 1. Most (if not all) commercial subs shouldn't have any issues trying to reproduce frequencies below its port tune. There should be some filter built in.





m. zillch said:


> [Kicker: ]" All ported enclosures should have a subsonic filter to limit very low frequencies. "


Just to be sure this is part is clear, because it can be taken different ways, Kicker is not saying, [paraphrased] "All properly designed ported designs will have a passive subsonic filter in them to limit very low frequencies". They are saying: "The use of ported enclosures means you should definitely make it a point to install a subsonic filter somewhere in your system's electrical chain, [or at the very least built into the source signal itself- m. zillch], to provide safety."
---

*PRO TIP:* "Subsonic" technically means "slower than the speed of sound." The proper term in science is actually "infrasonic filter" or a "High pass filter", HPF, although so many people say "subsonic filter" so everyone knows what you mean.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Subsonic = Below the speed of sound.


When we really should be using the word:


Infrasonic. Just FYI.


Edit: m. zillch beat me to it.


----------



## PoorSignal

AmerCa said:


> ^Â°^Â°^Â°^
> I wasn't asking (or talking about) for safety tips. You were the one who say 10hz frequencies (or any other high level infrasonics) could damage speakers, and as such, that was possibly a reason for mixers to filter low frequencies. I expanded on that based on your provided example. But now you don't seen so sure as to what is dangerous or not. It's getting late, so let's leave it at that.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


If a system is not capable and is reaching its limits, things can be damaged, not including subwoofer, sometimes speakers too. 

Before there was BEQ I was convinced by a peer I needed “house curve”. It was all the rage. And needed to buy a feedback destroyer and boost the low hz. This easily start to make my sub at the time bottom out and not sound so good. 

Also when I was looking to DIY my own sub. I bought a circuit board that will roll off the signal below the designed port tune. as a kind of protection. I think, many of the subs you can buy don’t have that.

If it was me and my sub is not that capable I don’t expect to be able to play those ULF movies at high volumes. Most people will realize it is making their sub strain and turn it down. I know I would. 

I think spending a couple thousand on a single sub or buying multiple orbit shifters are not the norm for most people.


----------



## aron7awol

PoorSignal said:


> Also when I was looking to DIY my own sub. I bought a circuit board that will roll off the signal below the designed port tune. as a kind of protection. I think, many of the subs you can buy don’t have that.


Every commercial ported sub should have a HPF, and I'm not aware of any that do not.


----------



## moviefiend420

I have set up my new atmos set up and would like to know what you guys think about the way i have them facing/ pointing and is it optimal. i have the tops of the speakers pointing out to the corners of the room and everything is angled directly at mlp. There is 4 of them up there. Thanks in advanced for any help i receive.


----------



## Stereodude

m. zillch said:


> There are oddball movies like War of the Worlds where there appears to be a conscious decision to use a brief, 10Hz tone [completely synthetic, I might add, i.e. the sound never traveled in the air to a microphone] here and there but I'd bet money the mixer who made that decision was not experiencing it in the flesh through their monitors/subwoofer [because they were incapable of faithfully reproducing it in that room, at the seated position, at or above threshold level, even over masking sounds, with low distortion] , nor has any commercial theater goer anywhere in the US. At best the content creator heard what it did (objectionably) to the simultaneous loud 30Hz content they _could_ hear and they enjoyed the change it invoked, so they stuck with it.


You seem woefully misinformed about infrasonic content. It's everywhere. The idea that it's only present when synthesized and never actually recorded by microphones is dead wrong. Put a good wide band mic in a car and close the door. You'll record content basically down to DC. Start the engine and take the car for a drive. You'll record gobs of infrasonic content from the suspension and wheels moving across the road.


----------



## PoorSignal

moviefiend420 said:


> I have set up my new atmos set up and would like to know what you guys think about the way i have them facing/ pointing and is it optimal. i have the tops of the speakers pointing out to the corners of the room and everything is angled directly at mlp. There is 4 of them up there. Thanks in advanced for any help i receive.


It is about perfect. I would have put a little further out so it is less “concentrated” but that’s just my opinion.


----------



## m. zillch

Stereodude said:


> You seem woefully misinformed about infrasonic content. It's everywhere. The idea that it's only present when synthesized and never actually recorded by microphones is dead wrong.


You have misread my post. I was describing a _specific_ movie and simply pointed out it was not a real occurrance of sound and had nothing to do with sound traveling through air striking microphone; it was synthetically produced in a computer. I also earlier listed a whole slew of real infrasonic events a mic might indeed pick up during movie production:



m. zillch said:


> . . . The "restored bass" part might actually have been intentionally filtered away for many reasons:
> 
> - plosives
> - faulty pop screens
> - wind noise
> - mic cord chaffing noise
> - fan hum
> - hard drive hum
> - a refrigerator
> - HVAC system
> - mic bumps
> - boom operator foot fall
> - room rumble
> - subway/train rumble from across the street from the studio
> - adjacent sound stage leakage
> - Foley artist foot fall (unintended while concocting some other sound which required them to take a step)
> 
> etc. . . .


----------



## m. zillch

Stereodude said:


> Put a good wide band mic in a car and close the door. You'll record content basically down to DC. Start the engine and take the car for a drive. You'll record gobs of infrasonic content from the suspension and wheels moving across the road.


My understanding is that infrasonic content in typical movie production of car scenes if purposefully avoided/eliminated through mic selection and filtration. Might you recommend to me a specific model of movie production mic they use when they record the scene but when they _want_ the infrasonic content intact? Thanks.


----------



## AmerCa

PoorSignal said:


> If a system is not capable and is reaching its limits, things can be damaged, not including subwoofer, sometimes speakers too.
> 
> If it was me and my sub is not that capable *I don’t expect to be able to play those ULF movies at high volumes. *Most people will realize it is making their sub strain and turn it down.


I agree with your first paragraph. But the core of the issue was the bolded part, which is important both for the argument pro-filtering and for the people who are not ULF capable, and that's why I bring this up again.

*m. zillch* affirms that 

1. A high level 10hz signal (and I assume he means any ULF frequency) can be dangerous for any (or most?) subwoofer to play, and consequently, that could be one of the reasons mixes are filtered.

2. I asked if he could confirm his statement, and many sound mixes are not filtered and often contain decent amount of ULF. It was my understanding that, at least, commercial subwoofers had already some form of HPF of limiter to prevent damage to the unit reproducing signals below its capacity. Then we have this quote:



aron7awol said:


> Every commercial ported sub should have a HPF, and I'm not aware of any that do not.


Which was what I said in the first place. Therefore, the argument of filtering tracks for potential sub damage playing _high level_ ULF is rendered essentially useless. Of course, regardless of built-in protections, any equipment can be damaged if pushed beyond its limit.

However, the argument of dangerous 10hz content keeps coming up, and this could bring serious confusion to other people reading this thread. People who aggressively apply BEQ are assumed to have very capable equipment and are (or should be) conscious of the _potential_ dangers of it. "Regular" people should be really concerned with it.

Beyond that, high level ULF signals doesn't seem to bear much weight regarding bass filtering. If anything I said is wrong, please correct me.



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

My understanding is the majority of commercial subwoofers used in cinemas have no infrasonic protection built in since they are passive subwoofers, i.e. all crossovers, possible filtration, and amplification is _external_ and up to the owner.

https://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/subwoofers


----------



## paulst

Aren't we discussing commercial home subwoofers? not cinema subwoofers? You keep bringing the cinema into the equation (most of which sound pretty crap when it comes to bass) I'd be willing to bet there are zero home cinema enthusiasts using a commercial cinema subwoofer in their house, also, we're discussing the filtered content on the actual disk  You seem to clutching at straws trying to validate your argument.

I use two PSA S1811 subs (sealed) in a 1700cuft room and have never had any issues playing any BEQ'd content, ever  I get decent extension around to 10hz where it starts to roll off gradually, and IIRC my first real subwoofer back in 2006 (an SVS PB12+) could comfortably play titles like WOTW (DTS DVD) at ref level without blowing itself apart so I imagine a HPF was well implemented back over 13 years ago.. so I imagine almost every other ported design since has followed suit?


----------



## m. zillch

m. zillch said:


> The "restored bass" part might actually have been intentionally filtered away for many reasons:
> 
> - plosives
> - faulty pop screens
> - wind noise
> - mic cord chaffing noise
> - fan hum
> - hard drive hum
> - a refrigerator
> - HVAC system
> - mic bumps
> - boom operator foot fall
> - room rumble
> - subway/train rumble from across the street from the studio
> - adjacent sound stage leakage
> - Foley artist foot fall (unintended while concocting some other sound which required them to take a step)
> 
> etc. . . .


Relying on infrasonic filtration somewhere along the reproduction signal path, if not built into the recording itself, won't cut it is the infrasonic content is harming the microphone's rendition of the event right from the get go. This is why _mechanical_ infrasonic filtration is often important. A good demo of one variety of this good for stopping "~1 Hz", the pop filter, is shown in this video, at about 4m16s:


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> My understanding is the majority of commercial subwoofers used in cinemas have no infrasonic protection built in since they are passive subwoofers, i.e. all crossovers, possible filtration, and amplification is _external_ and up to the owner.
> 
> https://www.jblpro.com/www/products/cinema-market/subwoofers


Sure, but with passive ported subs it is still up to the integrator to properly set up the amplifier path to include an appropriate HPF. If they forego a HPF thinking that the content will always be filtered enough to protect the subs, that's simply irresponsible IMO.


----------



## m. zillch

If [theoretically] a movie destroys an home user's subwoofer, in normal use, I see it as the movie's fault.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> The "restored bass" part might actually have been intentionally filtered away for many reasons:
> 
> - plosives
> - faulty pop screens
> - wind noise
> - mic cord chaffing noise
> - fan hum
> - hard drive hum
> - a refrigerator
> - HVAC system
> - mic bumps
> - boom operator foot fall
> - room rumble
> - subway/train rumble from across the street from the studio
> - adjacent sound stage leakage
> - Foley artist foot fall (unintended while concocting some other sound which required them to take a step)
> 
> etc. . . .


Sure, and the intent is certainly not to boost any of that stuff. Like I said previously, if everything went perfectly none of that stuff would get boosted, and only beneficial ULF which corresponds with the actions on-screen and that adds to the experience would. Of course that isn't always possible, but I think most of us have found that any negative effects are few and far between, while the beneficial effects are much more frequent. In the rare cases where a proper balance hasn't been struck, I revisit and tweak things. However, as I've gained more and more experience, I can often identify these sort of things on the peak spectrum and adjust my approach right from the start.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Relying on infrasonic filtration somewhere along the reproduction signal path, if not built in to the recording itself, won't cut it is the infrasonic content is harming the microphone's rendition of the event right from the get go. This is why _mechanical_ infrasonic filtration is often important. A good demo of one variety of this good for stopping "1 Hz", the pop filter, is shown in this video:


You seem to be thinking that every special effect has to be recorded via a microphone  I'm pretty sure you'll find that many are created using pure imagination or a computer to emphasise the intended audio.. take the WOTW Pod Emergence scene for example.. what authentic recording of a natural event do you think they used to re-create the 'laser sounds' coming from an imaginative alien craft?

Admittedly, many sounds are probably from actual recordings (gun shots, a plane flying overhead, thunder and lighting etc! etc!) But surely you agree that many are re-created using pure imagination?


----------



## sdurani

Stereodude said:


> How come that "artist" isn't being flogged for altering the artist intent of the original mixer? So it's cool if you get paid to mess it up for everyone, but not cool if you try to straighten it out for yourself?


You aren't being flogged for using BEQ. Even those that might disagree philosophically with its use are explaining why they wouldn't use it rather than telling everyone else not to. The issue isn't with the idea that BEQ is used based on preference. The main disagreement is with the claim that the mixer messed up the soundtrack and BEQ is straightening it out. Understand that not everyone will buy into that premise (even if they enjoy what BEQ does for playback).


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> You seem to be thinking that every special effect has to be recorded via a microphone


You are incorrect. I do not think that.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> If [theoretically] a movie destroys an home user's subwoofer, in normal use, I see it as the movie's fault.


I agree to a very limited extent only in an extreme case such as the EoT intro which contains square waves that are hotter than pretty much any other normal content within other mixes. If the EoT intro destroys a sub, I'll assign partial blame to the mix, just because it's extraordinarily demanding, far beyond anything else, really, and even systems that are set up properly but are being pushed close to their limits during normal full-bandwidth mixes might not have the headroom to deal with the EoT intro.

However, there is no good reason for a sub manufacturer or integrator to assume that no signal will ever contain high-level infrasonic content. That's just foolish and irresponsible in my mind, and would make me seriously question if they are even qualified to be in that position. It's trivial to include a proper HPF.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> You are incorrect. I do not think that.


Glad to hear it. At least we are starting to agree on something  

So have you tried any of the BEQ demo clips to see if you can hear/feel things from our perspective? Only, at this time, I know how your experience sounds (a flat response / easily re-created), but I'm not quite sure you know how 'our' experience sounds ??


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I didn't say it was a good or satisfying answer.


Apt description of the problem. Even when answers are given about lack of low bass, something about them isn't completely satisfying to everyone. Likewise, I've heard more than one explanation about why Disney pre-renders their Atmos soundtracks; none of them were satisfying (to me). Who knows, they might be factually correct. But it's understandable why some people remain skeptical.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

m. zillch said:


> If [theoretically] a movie destroys an home user's subwoofer, in normal use, I see it as the movie's fault.




That’s giving way too much credit to way too many users. Lol


----------



## DesertDog

m. zillch said:


> 20Hz you say? There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz*, so your claim infrasonic bass reproduction is the intent of the content creators implies they aren't really concerned with the sound for the *commercial* cinemas but rather for the [I'm guessing


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> So have you tried any of the BEQ demo clips to see if you can hear/feel things from our perspective?


This is like the third time you've asked a variation of this. Why do you keep asking this over and over again when I have already given you my answer? 



paulst said:


> Maybe you should try this demo clip with BEQ applied to the *second audio track* here and see if you notice the difference with some added bass weight applied..





m. zillch said:


> Why?  I've never questioned if applying EQ to a movie can have audible consequences or not. If people like it that's fine, but it is not what I personally seek.
> 
> I don't seek what is most pleasing; I seek what is most accurate. Like I say in my signature, if one's goal is high fidelity then one does not dial in the bass to what they dig best, they dial it in to what instrumentation says is the most accurate, faithful, reproduction level that most closely mimics what the content creators experienced themselves.





paulst said:


> Maybe you should try actually 'listening' to the BEQ demo clips provided? instead of putting all that time and effort into creating your own 'flat' graphs.. this is something that's been tried and tested already by many people with zero complaints.. If you can't hear a difference between the two audio tracks on the First Man demo clip, then stick with you what you prefer (ie: no bass)


Once again: *No thanks*, it is not for me and my pursuit of high fidelity, especially now that I have evidence it creates a 5dB error at 20Hz according to my First Man measurements at least, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets even worse below that. YMMV.


----------



## m. zillch

I've already gone through my phase of "Oh my god, subs can make the room shake!" when I played around with sub harmonic synthesizers in my youth. Then I got older and realized: "Wait, this isn't _accuracy_ and it is not what the artist intended I should hear; this is goofing around." YMMV.


----------



## m. zillch

DesertDog said:


> FYI, they used this system for the theaters they set up for Apocalypse Now The Final Cut.


"Frequency Response 13–30 Hz ±4 dB" at 4m, according to them not a third party, and _not_ at the seated position, and with unspecified output level and distortion limits. Probably using more typical 3dB tolerances it is around 16/17 - 30Hz +/- 3dB, so hardly "infrasonic" in my book just because it can go a scooch under 20Hz, if you are right on top of it at least.


"15 to 30 Hz.” - John Meyer, President & CEO, Meyer Sound [unspecified tolerances, distance, room loading, output level, distortion - m. zillch]

Sounds interesting though and maybe a BD I'd buy.


----------



## noah katz

DesertDog said:


> FYI, they used this system for the theaters they set up for Apocalypse Now The Final Cut



Interesting; they must use have to use a lot of them as a pair of ported 18's is insufficient for a lot of HT's (at least for the creazies around here), let alone a cinema.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> This is like the third time you've asked a variation of this. Why do you keep asking this over and over again when I have already given you my answer?
> 
> Once again: *No*, it is not for me and my pursuit of high fidelity, especially now that I have evidence it creates a 5dB error at 20Hz according to my measurements and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets even worse below that. YMMV.





3ll3d00d said:


> You have not completed even a cursory investigation into the available content.



Because you keep banging on with the same ****, over and over again with no real understanding of what's going on with regard to BEQ, you mention the 5db discrepancy of a 2ch AC3 track in a deleted scene compared to the full Atmos track and yet it's still something you've not listened to in the first place, just because you made a graph, means absolutely nothing.. all you're doing is wasting peoples time reading your dross over and over again.. either sample it first hand or shut up about it.. I'm trying not to go out out of my way and be impolite, it's the last thing I want, but you haven't a clue how a BEQ'd track sounds have you? I've sampled a so called 'high fidelity' 'flat response' for many years (like many of us have) it's easily re-created with both REW and Audyssey, it doesn't even come close to a BEQ'd track. No matter how you try and twist it by saying it's 'high fidelity, adding cinema specs and Youtube videos'. The fact you refuse to try it, says it all.. ignorance is bliss for you, just a shame ;(

All we originally wanted was an answer to why the disks are being filtered in the first place, all you've done is added your own variation of BS at every opportunity to complicate matters over and over again.. 

Sorry to those reading this but it's about time something was said


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> all you've done is added your own variation of BS at every opportunity to complicate matters over and over again..


Thank you for your kind and polite words. Be advised I will continue to post in exactly the same manner as I have been.


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> either sample it first hand or shut up about it.


No.


----------



## farsider3000

m. zillch said:


> I've already gone through my phase of "Oh my god, subs can make the room shake!" when I played around with sub harmonic synthesizers in my youth. Then I got older and realized: "Wait, this isn't _accuracy_ and it is not what the artist intended I should hear; this is goofing around." YMMV.



What is defined as “accurate”? Which mix is supposedly the one with the “artists intent”? A good example is the Master and Commander DVD vs blu-ray.

When a movie comes out with neutered bass In the 4K UHD Atmos version vs the previously released 1080p blu-ray which one is accurate ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Kain

I have a small room (12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high) and am planning a 9.1.6 setup. LCRs will be about 7 ft away, front wides 5 ft away, and side and rear surrounds will be 4 ft away from the main listening position. All speakers will be monopoles. Is a 4 ft listening distance too close for the side and rear surrounds? Will they be too localizable even after calibrating everything?


----------



## m. zillch

noah katz said:


> Interesting; they must use have to use a lot of them as a pair of ported 18's is insufficient for a lot of HT's (at least for the creazies around here), let alone a cinema.


27 by my count are used here, but it is an outside venue I guess.


----------



## m. zillch

farsider3000 said:


> What is defined as “accurate”?


That's not always easy to tell, but that doesn't mean arbitrarily monkeying around with an EQ is achieving accuracy, it is only achieving personal preference, which is not my goal. YMMV. [ I guess I'm the only one here who doesn't seek preference; I seek high fidelity.] If the master is unavailable to compare to the copy this doesn't mean everything is up for grabs, it just means we don't know the answer and restoration can only be a guess. I personally choose not to guess, especially when I have good reason to believe there are many and common false sources for infrasonic content which are actually mistakes/noise. YMMV.


----------



## farsider3000

Kain said:


> I have a small room (12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high) and am planning a 9.1.6 setup. LCRs will be about 7 ft away, front wides 5 ft away, and side and rear surrounds will be 4 ft away from the main listening position. All speakers will be monopoles. Is a 4 ft listening distance too close for the side and rear surrounds? Will they be too localizable even after calibrating everything?



I do t think 4 ft is too close for rears or surrounds but I will say you don’t need 6 ceiling speakers or wides in such a small room... will elaborate in a minute 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Thank you for your kind and polite words. Be advised I will continue to post in exactly the same manner as I have been.


If that's the best you can do to my reply.. You're welcome  I wouldn't expect anything less, it's your subjective personal preference  All you had to to do was try it, to have a valid opinion..



m. zillch said:


> No.


Like I said, ignorance is bliss


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Sure, and the intent is certainly not to boost any of that stuff. Like I said previously, if everything went perfectly none of that stuff would get boosted, and only beneficial ULF which corresponds with the actions on-screen and that adds to the experience would. Of course that isn't always possible, but I think most of us have found that any negative effects are few and far between, while the beneficial effects are much more frequent. In the rare cases where a proper balance hasn't been struck, I revisit and tweak things. However, as I've gained more and more experience, I can often identify these sort of things on the peak spectrum and adjust my approach right from the start.


Thanks. I have a question. How do you identify and differentiate an infrasonic noise which is accidental from an infrasonic sound which is intentional (but filtered downward by them) during a chaotic scene with multiple sound sources?


----------



## farsider3000

Kain said:


> I have a small room (12 ft long x 11 ft wide x 9.5 ft high) and am planning a 9.1.6 setup. LCRs will be about 7 ft away, front wides 5 ft away, and side and rear surrounds will be 4 ft away from the main listening position. All speakers will be monopoles. Is a 4 ft listening distance too close for the side and rear surrounds? Will they be too localizable even after calibrating everything?



Okay more opinion based on my 23.5ft long room. I feel that my middle row of Atmos is a bit overkill and in a 12ft long room there would not be enough separation between each row and the front row ceiling speakers would be too close to the LCR.

I just helped a friend with a 12ft long room and we designed with one row of Atmos. 

My thoughts are the same for wides in a small room. They will be too close to the L/R and surround speakers. I don’t even know if they are needed in my room.

If you want to put that many speakers I would recommend treating the heck out of your walls with acoustic panels since any reflection will not allow you to distinguish between the six ceiling speakers / wides vs LCR .... wides are also not used very extensively in today’s releases but hopefully it will improve 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Kain

farsider3000 said:


> Okay more opinion based on my 23.5ft long room. I feel that my middle row of Atmos is a bit overkill and in a 12ft long room there would not be enough separation between each row and the front row ceiling speakers would be too close to the LCR.
> 
> I just helped a friend with a 12ft long room and we designed with one row of Atmos.
> 
> My thoughts are the same for wides in a small room. They will be too close to the L/R and surround speakers. I don’t even know if they are needed in my room.
> 
> If you want to put that many speakers I would recommend treating the heck out of your walls with acoustic panels since any reflection will not allow you to distinguish between the six ceiling speakers / wides vs LCR .... wides are also not used very extensively in today’s releases but hopefully it will improve
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks. Will think about it more but someone here on AVS did 9.1.6 in a 12 ft x 12 ft room. Have a look here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...633-tower-cinema-budget-9-1-6-12x12-room.html

Whatever I end up doing, I will be heavily treating the room especially since it is concrete all around.

By the way, in your first post, were you trying to say 4 ft is too close to the sides and rears or isn't too close?


----------



## farsider3000

Kain said:


> Thanks. Will think about it more but someone here on AVS did 9.1.6 in a 12 ft x 12 ft room. Have a look here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...633-tower-cinema-budget-9-1-6-12x12-room.html
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I end up doing, I will be heavily treating the room especially since it is concrete all around.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, in your first post, were you trying to say 4 ft is too close to the sides and rears or isn't too close?



I was trying to say that I believe 4ft is not too close if MLP is that distance from sides and rears.

Someone may have put that many speakers in such a small space but if they give an honest assessment I can’t believe there is any benefit to six ceiling speakers so close together and so close to the LCR. I really don’t see how wides spaced two feet from LCR will provide any benefit at all.

At a total max I would go with 4 Atmos ceiling speakers and no wides... but two spaced further from LCR and rears is bear in my opinion and from my own experience with my room.

The big concern is placing the ceiling speakers too close to LCR. Having wides is not going to degrade the sound field but having front row ceiling speakers too close to LCR or rear ceiling too close to rears will very likely make it seem like the sound is coming from LCR/rears vs Atmos ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> Thanks. I have a question. How do you identify and differentiate an infrasonic noise which is accidental from an infrasonic sound which is intentional (but filtered away by them) during a chaotic scene with multiple sound sources?


Well, for one thing, all those things you listed that _could_ happen on a set, if they do happen I've never experienced them make it to the final mix at any perceivable level, even after BEQ. Honestly, not once. I think your list might be a little extreme 

I think an important thing to consider is that it is only the strongest ULF that exists in the mix that what will end up strong enough to be perceptible. In most mixes, the vast majority of that strongest ULF is what we would consider beneficial content. If there is what we would consider detrimental content, it is almost always much lower in level and doesn't end up perceivable. Now, of course, on the rare mix where there is none of that beneficial content, the strongest ULF in the mix will end up being car door slams or music infrasonics. Those are the mixes that I try to identify ahead of time and avoid boosting that detrimental content. It's really not anywhere near as dire as you're imagining, though, with Moe in the mixing room, Larry on the boom, and Curly as the foley artist.


----------



## richardsim7

maikeldepotter said:


> And why have we seen this phenomenon to occur quite regularly with legacy mixes that have been up-mixed into immersive ones?



On the contrary, Fury (2014), one of the movies @FilmMixer said he worked on actually gained bass/ULF in its UHD Blu-Ray Atmos release


----------



## mrtickleuk

farsider3000 said:


> What is defined as “accurate”? Which mix is supposedly the one with the “artists intent”? A good example is the Master and Commander DVD vs blu-ray.
> 
> When a movie comes out with neutered bass In the 4K UHD Atmos version vs the previously released 1080p blu-ray which one is accurate ?


The truth is that we don't know. It could be that the previously-released 1080p blu-ray was the one which had too much bass, and it was "corrected" for the later release. You would have to ask the people who created each one.

But if you use loaded terms like "*neutered* bass" then my opinion is that you seem to be starting with a pre-judged view of which you you believe is "right".

Also, they could both be wrong. The earlier release could have a bit too much bass, and the later release could have not enough bass.

We do not know for certain, we have feelings, memories of what it sounded like in the cinema, and a crowd-sourced view of things. This is all fine, but adding all those things up doesn't then produce facts, as much as we would like them to.

And of course, it goes without saying, you don't have to try something to have a view on it. Applies to many things in life. I know that I don't want to do a parachute jump. Anyone who tells me that I can't make that decision unless I do a parachute jump first, and then I can decide whether I liked it afterwards, would get short shrift.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> It's really not anywhere near as dire as you're imagining, though, with Moe in the mixing room, Larry on the boom, and Curly as the foley artist.


No, it was intelligent guy 1, 2, and 3. Intelligent guy 3, the Foley artist, knew it wasn't critical to turn off the room's oscillating fan and take their shoes off before they gently walk on a rubber mat like a sneaky ninja (since otherwise the thump of foot fall could cause an infrasonic thump and the fan a changing hum) because he knew it was all going to be filtered away after the mic. What he didn't anticipate though is that some home hobbyists were going to alter the mix by inserting a reverse EQ to not only undo the studio's filtration but possibly even jack up the 20Hz and below content even further than it was being filtered away.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> That's not always easy to tell, but that doesn't mean arbitrarily monkeying around with an EQ is achieving accuracy, it is only achieving personal preference, which is not my goal. YMMV. [ I guess I'm the only one here who doesn't seek preference; I seek high fidelity.] If the master is unavailable to compare to the copy this doesn't mean everything is up for grabs, it just means we don't know the answer and restoration can only be a guess. I personally choose not to guess, especially when I have good reason to believe there are many and common false sources for infrasonic content which are actually mistakes/noise. YMMV.


Again, I totally respect your desire for high fidelity, as far as reproducing what was heard in the mixing room.

But I guess I also take a step back and ask myself if I want what I hear to be "accurate" according to what was heard in the mixing room, or to use First Man as an example, more "accurate" as far as how the Saturn V rocket actually sounded. Now, of course, one could certainly argue that the mixer intended to filter the bass out "for effect", and there are certainly times where there are filters/modifications applied to sound effects "for effect". Is the launch in First Man one of those? Maybe, but that would seem like a very strange choice. If you watched that demo clip on your system having never seen the movie or knowing what the stock mix is like, with and without BEQ, even with modest subs, the perceivable difference between the two would be like someone is simply turning your subs on and off. It won't be over the top with BEQ, it will be balanced and feel normal. It actually feels abnormal with BEQ off, you're expecting *some* bass given what's happening on-screen, and there's just...nothing.

So I think we're all just left wondering if the mixer really intended for that entire mix of First Man to sound that weak, and if so, why? Is it because they think microphones in 1969 weren't capable of recording infrasonics? Is it because there's no ULF on the moon? Is it because Neil Armstrong's grandson has a soundbar?

Obviously I'm kidding with that stuff, but it's just such an unusual mix in that respect, with essentially zero bass throughout the entire film, that it makes us wonder what is intentional and what is not? What is accurate and what is not? I think it totally depends on the context, and the circle of confusion means the type of absolute "accurate to what the mixer heard" standard you're chasing is out the window anyway. That doesn't mean you shouldn't chase it, but I guess we don't feel that standard is the "end all, be all" like you do.

So I think that sort of wonder and questioning of what is intentional is what spurred the initial discussion in here, knowing @FilmMixer posts in here, and wanting to get his take on this stuff. His opinion is just one opinion, but it offers a special insight and is valuable to know. The discussion has obviously at this point shifted and derailed this thread as it has turned into a debate on the merits of BEQ. But I don't think that was anyone's intention from the beginning (here we go trying to determine intent again), and didn't want it to offend anyone in here. At this point, it feels to me a lot like a political discussion, or sealed vs. ported, where I cringe when I see those discussions happening as they always seem to incite passion and make emotions run high. And like I said in my first post weighing in on this stuff, I don't really care where the various lines actually fall, because my goal is to maximize enjoyment above all else. If nothing else, I think it's tough to argue with that as a goal for a man living a short life on this Earth.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> No, it was intelligent guy 1, 2, and 3. Intelligent guy 3, the Foley artist, knew it wasn't critical to turn off the room's oscillating fan and take their shoes off before they gently walk on a rubber mat like a sneaky ninja (since otherwise the thump of foot fall could cause an infrasonic thump and the fan a changing hum) because he knew it was all going to be filtered away after the mic. What he didn't anticipate though is that some home hobbyists were going to alter the mix by inserting a reverse EQ to not only undo the studio's filtration but possibly even jack up the 20Hz and below content even further than it was being filtered away.


I know, I was totally joking. But seriously, they didn't have to anticipate any of that, because it seems if any of those things happened, they were removed during editing. They never made it to the mix at any level high enough to be perceptible. You can take my word for it based on the thousands of hours of experience I have watching mixes I've BEQed, or not. But if not, then I'll just challenge you to find an example. And after thousands of hours of watching BEQed content that you don't want to watch, if you do find one, I'll just point out that it was one fleeting moment out of thousands of hours and thus irrelevant as an issue in the real-world.


----------



## m. zillch

mrtickleuk said:


> We do not know for certain, we have feelings, memories of what it sounded like in the cinema, and a crowd-sourced view of things. This is all fine, but adding all those things up doesn't then produce facts


But, but, but we all know _exactly_ what an alien death ray sounds like so we know exactly how to correct it in a filtered mix. Don't give me any of this "I've never heard one/They don't exist" malarkey.


----------



## DesertDog

m. zillch said:


> "Frequency Response 13–30 Hz ±4 dB" at 4m, according to them not a third party, and _not_ at the seated position, and with unspecified output level and distortion limits. Probably using more typical 3dB tolerances it is around 16/17 - 30Hz +/- 3dB, so hardly "infrasonic" in my book just because it can go a scooch under 20Hz, if you are right on top of it at least.
> 
> 
> "15 to 30 Hz.” - John Meyer, President & CEO, Meyer Sound [unspecified tolerances, distance, room loading, output level, distortion - m. zillch]
> 
> Sounds interesting though and maybe a BD I'd buy.


So now you're speculating on how it actually performed and saying their claim of having the studio and theater set up to go do to 13 hz is just a "scooch under 20 hz" and not infrasonic? Way to move the goal posts from "There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz" when shown one. They set the theater up specifically for it with a bunch of those units. I'm going to go with their claim based on everything I've read about it over someone trying to twist it to fit their narrative. 

The movie and disc are great though if you don't have them. This is the one movie that I'll confidently say is 100% artist intent. Coppola was involved with the remastering for "sensual sound" (I still can't get back that term ) and Atmos. It's what he wanted to do for the release in 79 but didn't have the technology to do it. 



noah katz said:


> Interesting; they must use have to use a lot of them as a pair of ported 18's is insufficient for a lot of HT's (at least for the creazies around here), let alone a cinema.


It looks like they used 12 of those plus another 6 of another one of their subs that have a 30-85 hz range. They have a blog post on it. There was also a good article on it if you want to read more. 

Re-reading that article there was a part that I found interesting for all of this discussion:



> During the back and forth with the mixers, the Meyer team figured out how best to calibrate the subs so that they could print the LFE channel without losing headroom. Too much LF energy, and headroom is shot, forcing people to sometimes highpass the LFE channel to preserve their headroom.


I wonder if that's playing a part in these Atmos mixes. Could it be that some of the mixers or studios are being over cautious with headroom and adding the high pass filters?


----------



## aron7awol

DesertDog said:


> I wonder if that's playing a part in these Atmos mixes. Could it be that some of the mixers or studios are being over cautious with headroom and adding the high pass filters?


I almost posted about exactly this in this thread at least 3 times this week, but was hesitant to open up another off-topic can of worms in here. Oh well, the can's open now! 

In my mind, it definitely plays some part in this. For example, I looked at the mix for Power Rangers, and most of the channels (including LFE) have zero headroom. Now, Power Rangers is a pretty neutral mix volume-wise, and it's running out of headroom without having a ton of strong content


----------



## m. zillch

DesertDog said:


> So now you're speculating on how it actually performed and saying their claim of having the studio and theater set up to go do to 13 hz is just a "scooch under 20 hz" and not infrasonic? Way to move the goal posts from "There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz" when shown one. They set the theater up specifically for it with a bunch of those units. I'm going to go with their claim based on everything I've read about it over someone trying to twist it to fit their narrative.


What I wrote stands: "flat well below 20Hz". You noticed the word "well", right? And flat means flat, not reduced 3 or 4 dB. It does not equal 3 dB down at 16Hz, nor 4dB down at 13Hz. Plus these are the 4m distance readings. I don't expect anyone to be sitting within 12 feet of these things when they go to a cinema.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> What I wrote stands: "flat well below 20Hz". You noticed the word "well", right? And flat means flat, not reduced 3 or 4 dB. It does not equal 3 dB down at 16Hz, nor 4dB down at 13Hz. Plus these are the 4m distance readings. I don't expect anyone to be sitting within 12 feet of these things when they go to a cinema.


Are you ignoring room gain and EQ?


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Are you ignoring room gain and EQ?


Large rooms like commercial theaters don't have room gain.
---

Here's what most are shooting for.

ISO 2969:









Although this curve takes into account sitting 2/3rds back and the greater reverberation element, as measured by pink noise and an RTA which hears all those reflections too. So this is not exactly like our home FR plots.


----------



## m. zillch

There's a more detailed graphic and it shows a slight difference for the x-curve depending on the size of the auditorium:









https://www.lafontaudio.com/dossiers/images/xcurve.jpg


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> Large rooms like commercial theaters don't have room gain.


Mixing rooms do. Didn't you say you were trying to match the experience in the mixing room as closely as possible? Isn't that the pinnacle of fidelity?

Why aren't commercial theaters flat to the single-digits? Because they don't want them to be, or because it's impractical in such a large space? Is that intent or just the reality of physics and finances?

Edit to add: What about the fact that Dolby Cinema seats have transducers to produce ULF?


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Mixing rooms do.


Oh they use these Meyers VLFC Very Low Frequency Control devices, *the current topic of our conversation,* in _mixing rooms_ too? That was not my understanding.



m. zillch said:


> What I wrote stands: "flat well below 20Hz". You noticed the word "well", right? And flat means flat, not reduced 3 or 4 dB. It does not equal 3 dB down at 16Hz, nor 4dB down at 13Hz. Plus these are the 4m distance readings. I don't expect anyone to be sitting within 12 feet of these things when they go to a cinema.





aron7awol said:


> Are you ignoring room gain and EQ?


---

I've had enough with the hostility and "gotcha" mentality showing an incredibly rare device used in only a handful of theaters for maybe one movie, that for all I know is only flat to 20, no better, then 3dB down at 16Hz, 4dB at 13Hz, and this assumes you are 12 feet away or less. Good night.


----------



## DesertDog

aron7awol said:


> I almost posted about exactly this in this thread at least 3 times this week, but was hesitant to open up another off-topic can of worms in here. Oh well, the can's open now!


I figured it was on topic since it's talking about the master process for Atmos titles. 



m. zillch said:


> Oh they use these Meyers VLFC Very Low Frequency Control devices, *the current topic of our conversation,* in _mixing rooms_ too? That was not my understanding.


Directly from the article I post:

"After the months at Zoetrope, we took two VLFCs over to the Dolby mix studio and they played with them, adding not just low frequency, but textures, like a pulsing sound. After a couple months, they were adding depth with low frequency." 

Earlier in the article they talk about having them at Coppola's private studio too where they were doing the initial mixing.


----------



## aron7awol

m. zillch said:


> Oh they use these Meyers VLFC Very Low Frequency Control devices, *the current topic of our conversation,* in _mixing rooms_ too? That was not my understanding.


Just because you move the goalposts a few times doesn't mean the previous topics aren't still in play. You are choosing not to answer questions in my post that I am legitimately asking so I can understand your goals, because some of it is seeming contradictory. 



m. zillch said:


> 20Hz you say? There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz*, so your claim infrasonic bass reproduction is the intent of the content creators implies they aren't really concerned with the sound for the *commercial* cinemas but rather for the [I'm guessing < .1%] of the _home_ market with flat response, with low distortion, at the seated position, well below 20Hz, at reference playback level. I disagree: They are focused on commercial cinema sound.


This includes Dolby Cinema with transducers, right?


----------



## Augerhandle

Why are we still discussing commercial cinema sound when the movies are going to be remixed (the directors, mixers, and editors KNOW this) specifically for home use (Blu-ray and UHD)?


----------



## m. zillch

m. zillch said:


> There's not a single commercial cinema sub in production which extends flat to well below 20Hz


Oops. My bad, how incredibly sloppy of me not to specify when I wrote commercial cinema sub in production I meant _in use in a commercial cinema sized room._ You boys got me there.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Didn't you say you were trying to match the experience in the mixing room as closely as possible?


No I did not (mean to) say I was trying to match the experience in the mixing room. They listen in several rooms of varying sizes, and also headphones under certain circumstances I'd think. I want to hear it as they intended the audience to experience it in a commercial cinema.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Isn't that the pinnacle of fidelity?


 Since the target playback room has completely different acoustics, I'd say no. YMMV.


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Why aren't commercial theaters flat to the single-digits? Because they don't want them to be, or because it's impractical in such a large space?


 Because they understand Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves and the threshold of hearing. So they don't do single digit bass in their production rooms either nor their private homes.


----------



## farsider3000

m. zillch said:


> Because they understand Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves and the threshold of hearing.



It’s not just about hearing but also feeling the bass. 

What is your home system setup like? What type of subs/speaker set up do you listen on? Just trying to understand your point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## m. zillch

aron7awol said:


> Is that intent or just the reality of physics and finances?


 Intent.


----------



## m. zillch

farsider3000 said:


> It’s not just about hearing but also feeling the bass.
> 
> What is your home system setup like?


Fisher Price and Mattel. Why would it matter since my understanding of Fletcher-Munson equal loudness and the threshold of hearing is not from my own testing, if that's what you think, it is from research?


----------



## farsider3000

m. zillch said:


> Fisher Price and Mattel. Why would it matter since my understanding of Fletcher-Munson equal loudness is not from my own testing, if that's what you think, it is from research?



I’m specifically wondering about your inferred point that theaters should not produce sounds below the threshold of hearing.... that it does not add anything to the experience. Is that your position?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

m. zillch said:


> Fisher Price and Mattel. Why would it matter since my understanding of Fletcher-Munson equal loudness is not from my own testing, if that's what you think, it is from research?



It would help to understand if you experience, in your home, the pure joy of a system that can produce “relatively” clean 10-20Hz bass at “relatively” high SPL or if you have no subs and are using flat panel tv speakers.

Maybe that is the disconnect from us “bass heads”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## m. zillch

farsider3000 said:


> I’m specifically wondering about your inferred point that theaters should not produce sounds below the threshold of hearing.... that it does not add anything to the experience. Is that your position?


Don't have it handy but papers by Feidler(?) and others have found the seated position in commercial theaters are incapable of deep bass flat well below ~20Hz or so. . . . I don't think he used 27 2x18" woofer subs though.


----------



## farsider3000

m. zillch said:


> Don't have it handy but papers by Feidler(?) and others have found the seated position in commercial theaters are incapable of deep bass. I don't think he used 27 2x18" woofer subs though.




I’m not talking commercial I mean any home theater, tv room or commercial stage or theater. You inferred that only audible frequencies matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Medi0gre

m. zillch said:


> Because they understand Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves and the threshold of hearing. So they don't do single digit bass in their production rooms either nor their private homes.


Seems presumptuous 

https://nofilmschool.com/2017/06/disquieting-uses-infrasound


----------



## m. zillch

farsider3000 said:


> It would help to understand if you experience, in your home, the pure joy of a system that can produce “relatively” clean 10-20Hz bass at “relatively” high SPL or if you have no subs and are using flat panel tv speakers.
> 
> Maybe that is the disconnect from us “bass heads”?


Since I answered your question, now please answer mine. What is the lowest frequency you hear in my video with your system set for flat playback response and no tactile transducers? [You must select HD 1080 mode to get the single digits]


----------



## farsider3000

m. zillch said:


> Since I answered your question, now please answer mine. What is the lowest frequency you hear in my video with your system set for flat playback response and no tactile transducers? [You must select HD 1080 mode to get the single digits]
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rFT1UNp7tE



I don’t think you answered my question about your system but...
I am out of town now but will do the test late this week... 
but unless I am superhuman I should not hear anything below 20-22Hz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## m. zillch

farsider3000 said:


> I don’t think you answered my question about your system but...


I said I have junk. It does not play single digit bass. What else do you need to know?


----------



## DesertDog

m. zillch said:


> Since I answered your question, now please answer mine. What is the lowest frequency you hear in my video with your system set for flat playback response and no tactile transducers? [You must select HD 1080 mode to get the single digits]


From that video I could hear down to 17 hz and feel down to 4 hz with my system.


----------



## m. zillch

Medi0gre said:


> Seems presumptuous
> 
> https://nofilmschool.com/2017/06/disquieting-uses-infrasound


From that link I only quickly scanned we only learn (the claim) "Check out how filmmakers use these almost inaudible frequencies to quietly unnerve moviegoers." 

A) The said they are audible, not inaudible. "Almost inaudible" = audible

B) No movies and the specific frequencies they use are mentioned


----------



## m. zillch

DesertDog said:


> From that video I could hear down to 17 hz and feel down to 4 hz with my system.


And you have designed your system to be dead flat in sound reproduction from 4Hz -20kHz, you aren't using any "house curve" or anything, and there are no transducers. Yes?


----------



## m. zillch

DesertDog said:


> From that video I could hear down to 17 hz and feel down to 4 hz with my system.


Also what infrasonic mic did you use to achieve this flat room response down to 4Hz when you designed it? Do you have room curves to show us this response taken at the listening chair?


----------



## DesertDog

m. zillch said:


> From that link I only quickly scanned we only learn (the claim) "Check out how filmmakers use these almost inaudible frequencies to quietly unnerve moviegoers."
> 
> A) The said they are audible, not inaudible. "Almost inaudible" = audible
> 
> B) No movies and the specific frequencies they use are mentioned


Are you trying to say that they don't want to use or look to use inaudible frequencies? You're mistaken on that. The director I mentioned that I worked with was using it and from the Apocalypse Now article:

“When you see the B-52 strikes in this new version, you hear them and then you feel them,” he [Coppola] adds. “It’s the difference between just hearing something and being inside a room that’s shaking. You get scared when the room is shaking.”

“Not only could they monitor and hear into the Infrasonic for the very first time, they could feel it in a way so that they could creatively design, make it a part of the story. ‘Do we want the rumble to roll out, or do we want it to kick you in the chest?’ With a full-frequency, linear system, you can do that.”

So they are definitely looking to use sound for feel and not hearing.


----------



## Medi0gre

m. zillch said:


> From that link I only quickly scanned we only learn (the claim) "Check out how filmmakers use these almost inaudible frequencies to quietly unnerve moviegoers."
> 
> A) The said they are audible, not inaudible. "Almost inaudible" = audible
> 
> B) No movies and the specific frequencies they use are mentioned


The article covers both bullet points


----------



## m. zillch

DesertDog said:


> Are you trying to say that they don't want to use or look to use inaudible frequencies? You're mistaken on that. The director I mentioned that I worked with was using it and from the Apocalypse Now article:
> 
> “When you see the B-52 strikes in this new version, you hear them and then you feel them,” he [Coppola] adds. “It’s the difference between just hearing something and being inside a room that’s shaking. You get scared when the room is shaking.”
> 
> “Not only could they monitor and hear into the Infrasonic for the very first time, they could feel it in a way so that they could creatively design, make it a part of the story. ‘Do we want the rumble to roll out, or do we want it to kick you in the chest?’ With a full-frequency, linear system, you can do that.”
> 
> So they are definitely looking to use sound for feel and not hearing.


I'm not seeing a frequency being mentioned. How do I know it is not a loud thump at 20Hz for those B52, I guess bombs?


----------



## m. zillch

Medi0gre said:


> The article covers both bullet points


Name the movie and the frequency please.


----------



## varun432

Interesting Read https://www.academia.edu/16781233/Quantitative_analysis_of_sound_in_a_short_horror_film_DRAFT_

Quantitative analysis of sound in a horror film 

It is interesting that a horror film such as
Behold the Noose 
includes sounds inthe frequency range 1-20 Hz because infrasound has been associated with theproduction or enhancement of subjective paranormal experiences:
The inability of most people to ‘hear’ infrasound means that its effects upon
a person are largely unexpected and therefore more likely to be attributedto other causes, and in some instances where the percipient is in a hauntedlocation or involved in the pursuit of ghost-hunting such effects arefrequently blamed upon a paranormal agent or cause (Parsons 2012: 155).Studies on psychological effects of infrasound report subjects feeling ill-at-ease,anxious, troubled, or terrified; while reported physiological effects include nausea,vertigo, ear-pressure, and feelings of pressure in the upper chest and throat (seeLandström 2000, Moller and Pedersen 2004, and Parsons 2012 for reviews ofthese findings). Paranormal researchers suggest that such effects when reportedin the context of poltergeist activity or hauntings are in fact produced by natural orman-made sources of infrasound: Tandy and Lawrence (1998) and Tandy (2000)attributed reported paranormal phenomena to infrasound at a frequency of ~19Hz, while subjects reported similar experiences in the presence of infrasound in
an artificially created ‘haunted’ room (French
at al. 2009).Close analysis of the data matrix underpinning the spectrogram in Figure 1 (b)reveals that in
Behold the Noose 
infrasound features in the soundtrack at variouspoints and is associated with the unfortunate deputy. In the first part of sectionII.A (19.3-73.9s) sounds with frequencies in the range 10-20 Hz are a constantfeature of the soundtrack as the dispatcher sends the deputy to look for themissing girl. At three points in this section the range of low frequency noise usedincreases to 5-20 Hz: these moments occur at 27.3s, 43.4s, and 55.9s and allbegin and end when the deputy talks to his dispatcher. There are no soundsbelow 20 Hz when the dispatcher speaks. This pattern is not present after 73.9swhen the dispatcher warns the deputy to take care because there might be
‘ghosts’ at the farmhouse and the deputy laughs off the suggestion.
On arrival atthe farmhouse the deputy exits his vehicle and retrieves his shotgun from thetrunk (123.7-146.7s) and during these actions there is an increase in amplitude infrequencies in the range 8-20 Hz. It is very clear from the sound design andediting in this section that the use of low frequency sound is deliberate, and isintended to create a tense, brooding atmosphere in general and to make usanxious for the deputy in particular even though there are no horrific images oraction to disturb us.Section II.B uses very low frequency sounds to increase tension as the deputysearches the grounds. Beginning at 160.0s running until 233.5s, there areincreases in the amplitude of frequencies in the 10-20 Hz and 1-5 Hz ranges.These sounds are intermittent throughout this sequence increasing anddecreasing in amplitude as the deputy makes his way through the grounds butpeak at the most emotionally intense moments (i.e. the shot of the bloody sheet,
the ‘false shock’ of the escaping birds, and the reveal of the body hanging in the shed). In section III the amplitude of sounds with frequencies below 5 Hzincreases from the moment the deputy discovers the skull in a jar to a peak whenthe deputy hears the noises that draw him outside and to his doom. Infrasound ishere used as part of the sustain in this section of the film and, unlike the use ofinfrasound in section II.B, not part of the attack. A final use of infrasound occursin section IV.A
as the deputy is stabbed and runs until the trumpets of ‘WitchLynching’ punctuate the soundtrack (
435.3-458.4s), and includes sounds in therange 1-20 Hz along with increased amplitude in the sub-bass range (20-60 Hz).Infrasound in these sequences is associated with moments of heightened anxietyand (eventually) violence featuring the deputy, building on the earlier use of lowfrequency sound to prime the audience to deliver the required shocks.In the sequences described above the peak amplitude of infrasonicfrequencies is just below the peak level of the film (normalised to a peak volumeof 0.0 dB). For example, sounds below 5 Hz in section III have a true-peakamplitude of -2.06 dB and so it is reasonable to assume that these are soundsthat could be experienced by an audience. However, determining their effect ismore difficult: it is clear from the above description the filmmakers use infrasoundat various points of
Behold the Noose 
with conscious intent but the degree towhich this psychologically or physiologically impacts the audience is unknown.Theatres are being equipped with infrasonic systems in order to make lowfrequency noise a part of the cinema experience (Symonds 2007), but there havebeen no systematic studies of the use or effects of infrasound in film soundtracks


----------



## paulst

farsider3000 said:


> It’s not just about hearing but also feeling the bass.
> 
> What is your home system setup like? What type of subs/speaker set up do you listen on? Just trying to understand your point of view.





m. zillch said:


> My Yamaha TSR-7810, an introductory level Atmos AVR





m. zillch said:


> my modest SVS sub


Not sure why it's such a big secret.. took about 2 mins to find these.. Do Yamaha AVR's EQ the sub correctly I know there were issues some time ago with them not applying EQ below 63hz IIRC 



m. zillch said:


> Do you have room curves to show us this response taken at the listening chair?


Can you post a graph of your flat response please? Do you use REW for measurements or just rely on the YPAO to EQ?


----------



## m. zillch

varun432 said:


> Behold the Noose


It's a short, apparently, independently distributed by what I'm guessing is a small web based distributor, not a full length film by a major label. 

I haven't watched it but here:





I also posted the movie "20Hz", IIRC, in another one of these debates. SCARY  but I liked it. [I have to be in the right mood for these sorts of flicks though.]


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> Not sure why it's such a big secret.. took about 2 mins to find these..


Sorry, since I never claimed to have good deep bass extension and thought I made it pretty darn clear that I didn't when asked about it:



m. zillch said:


> Fisher Price and Mattel. Why would it matter since my understanding of Fletcher-Munson equal loudness and the threshold of hearing is not from my own testing, if that's what you think, it is from research?





m. zillch said:


> I said I have junk. It does not play single digit bass. What else do you need to know?


It never occurred to me that knowing *specifically* what low-end gear with poor bass extension I was currently using was of much significance. 

I'm probably older than you [although I don't share my age over the web so don't bother asking] and, believe it or not, this system I've had for about _one year_ isn't the only one I've ever owned or experienced, but since I rent in an apt. building it doesn't make sense to me to invest in anything other than a temporary, bare bones setup since I'm not allowed to play stuff at full level, in fact I leave my sub completely off most of the time because bass is the part of the music/movies which migrates through walls [and generates warning notices from the landlord] the most easily.



paulst said:


> Do Yamaha AVR's EQ the sub correctly I know there were issues some time ago with them not applying EQ below 63hz IIRC


Oh, I get it now. You needed to know specifics in order to slam my gear with a slight._ Now_ I understand. I disapprove of trash talk/belittling other people's gear and look down on such behavior. But that's just my opinion.

To answer your question, not that I think you really care and instead merely wanted an angle to belittle my gear, I'm not sure how Yamaha handles the bass. I have not looked into it. I know my Audyssey based Marantz prepro is said to EQ down to 10Hz if it feels it goes that low, but I'm not currently using it.



paulst said:


> Can you post a graph of your flat response please?


No, sorry, in this temporary place I'm renting I've not had any interest in bothering to measure nor play around with it and largely listen to near-field monitors un-EQ'd most of the time anyways (and also headphones), plus I don't currently own an infrasonic range mic. [The fact that so many in forums use UMIKs, Behringer, Dayton, etc. limited bandwidth mics I personally think is a_ big_ mistake (if one is concerned with infrasonic bass), but I'll save that for another thread] Plus I have never referred to my system as having a "flat response" in the first place. My current room acoustics are quite poor too, by the way.



paulst said:


> Do you use REW for measurements or just rely on the YPAO to EQ?


Answered above.


----------



## AmerCa

m. zillch said:


> It's a short, apparently, independently distributed by what I'm guessing is a small web based distributor, not a full length film by a major label.


And that fact magically eliminates artistic intent?

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## m. zillch

AmerCa said:


> And that fact magically eliminates artistic intent?


Well since I've made a movie that goes down to 1 Hz this proves 1 Hz is perceptible?

There are also movies with intentional _ultra_sonics. This also does not prove much of anything other than that there are some people who think it matters, who make films.


----------



## AmerCa

Artistic intent isn't limited in theory by a frequency range, although in practice it is by playback equipment limitations or the instrumentation used in its composition.

Some sound designers and/or mixers may take into consideration playback equipment (at theaters or at home) when designing/mixing sound, but other may not care and include full bandwidth tracks for the people who can play them. This is still artistic intent, and should be included by definition in the search for high fidelity, even if it's not currently achievable for some reason or another.

Electronic music artists are among the least concerned for typical music conventions/limitations , and have experimented at the very extremes of the audible range. Recently I posted in the Ultimate Bass thread a track called Veronex Cypher by UK artist Bola which has the following graphs:


















He's actually asking for the listener to play content at very high levels at around 3-4hz for nearly 90 secs straight. Maybe he's crazy, maybe he wasn't aware of the infrasonic content (doubt it) but it's what's on record. Not all his music is like this, but he has a some tracks with high amounts of infrasonics. The quest for high fidelity as a pure concept has ended before it even has started for the majority of mortals.

The irony of this is that people with ultra high capable systems (which do exist, many of the frequent this site) and people with transducers and similar devices are closer to the artistic intent than people who stopped at 20hz. It seems to me that you're then one who is limiting artistic intent at 20hz, and it's not truly searching for high fidelity, and whatever it means in reality.

And, for the record, if you have crap as a system, then I have triple crap. We all try to enjoy movies/music to the extent of our capabilities, but I wouldn't easily dismiss ULF content, especially on the notion that it doesn't have a true artistic intention or because it's unplayable or inaudible.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Oh, I get it now. You needed to know specifics in order to slam my gear with a slight._ Now_ I understand. I disapprove of trash talk/belittling other people's gear and look down on such behavior. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> To answer your question, not that I think you really care and instead merely wanted an angle to belittle my gear, I'm not sure how Yamaha handles the bass. I have not looked into it. I know my Audyssey based Marantz prepro is said to EQ down to 10Hz if it feels it goes that low, but I'm not currently using it.
> 
> 
> No, sorry, in this temporary place I'm renting I've not had any interest in bothering to measure nor play around with it and largely listen to near-field monitors un-EQ'd most of the time anyways (and also headphones), plus I don't currently own an infrasonic range mic. [The fact that so many in forums use UMIKs, Behringer, Dayton, etc. limited bandwidth mics I personally think is a_ big_ mistake (if one is concerned with infrasonic bass), but I'll save that for another thread] Plus I have never referred to my system as having a "flat response" in the first place. My current room acoustics are quite poor too, by the way.


No not at all, I'm always curious as to what equipment people use regardless, I've heard a Yamaha system (AVR) and have never considered them to be inferior sounding, even back when the YPAO didn't EQ below 63hz (which is easily fixed with external EQ device like an AntiMode) But it seems the newer models have a 4 band PEQ now from what I've read? So perfectly adept to EQ most subwoofers.. Like I said I'm just curious  Not trying to belittle anything.. Also, I've never heard any SVS that sounded crap (I've had a few myself) so no doubt you have a perfectly capable subwoofer IMO.. which model is it?

You seem like you're quite a helpful chap on these forums, offering some good advice in the Marantz and Yamaha AVR owners threads, it's just in this thread you come across as a bit obsessive trying to get your point across without actually trying it for yourself (talking BEQ).. No harm in sampling a little bit is there? You never know, you might like it  But you won't know until you try it 

Anyways, no offense intended


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> without actually trying it for yourself (talking BEQ).. No harm in sampling a little bit is there? You never know, you might like it


Rather understandably, you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that unlike the _vast_ majority of people, I don't seek what I like visually and aurally. That's called "preference". Instead what I seek is high fidelity, warts and all, to the master. I seek what I have reason to believe is an accurate, faithful, high fdelity recreation of the signal on the master tape as I have reason to believe was the way the artist intended theater goers to hear it. [ ERm, master hard drive I guess these days, not "tape".]

Say theoretically I listened to a BEQ track and thought, "Wow, this sounds _fantastic._ It sounds exactly like a Saturn V take off in real life, and I'd know, I've heard one in person!" [_Not true._ Remember, this is just a theoretical event.] Would I then use it? *NO!* For reasons which may very well be creative intent, we aren't dead sure, the film/music creators make decisions about EQing music and films I wish to replicate, as exactly as I can within my budget and room constraints. [There are also voice coil safety concerns at play in some instances.]

You seem to want the sound of a Saturn V rocket in your living room. I get that.

I want the sound of the processed and manipulated *recording* of a Saturn V rocket played in my living room because that's what was intended for the commercial theater goers to hear.


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> But it seems the newer models have a 4 band PEQ now from what I've read?


The main channels each have 7 independent parametric bands each, of freq/Q/.5 dB increments of cut/boost, with a lowest center frequency setting of 15.6 Hz. The sub channel has 4 bands, also with 15.6Hz being the lowest center freq..


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> which model is it?


This one, which I load with pi placement (actually, it is also within a quarter wave length of a room corner I believe), I'm near-field, and my room is small:








I have never measured mine nor attempted EQ, which I will, some day, when I care about the room.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Rather understandably, you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that unlike the _vast_ majority of people, I don't seek what I like visually and aurally. That's called "preference". Instead what I seek is high fidelity, warts and all, to the master. I seek what I have reason to believe is an accurate, faithful, high fdelity recreation of the signal on the master tape as I have reason to believe was the way the artist intended theater goers to hear it. [ ERm, master hard drive I guess these days, not "tape".]
> 
> Say theoretically I listened to a BEQ track and thought, "Wow, this sounds _fantastic._ It sounds exactly like a Saturn V take off in real life, and I'd know, I've heard one in person!" [_Not true._ Remember, this is just a theoretical event.] Would I then use it? *NO!* For reasons which may very well be creative intent, we aren't dead sure, the film/music creators make decisions about EQing music and films I wish to replicate, as exactly as I can within my budget and room constraints. [There are also voice coil safety concerns at play in some instances.]
> 
> You seem to want the sound of a Saturn V rocket in your living room. I get that.
> 
> I want the sound of the processed and manipulated *recording* of a Saturn V rocket played in my living room because that's what was intended for the commercial theater goers to hear.


Yes but going the variations of the different audio tracks within the same movie (ie: DVD to BD to UHD versions) surely you're confidence in artistic intend is slowly starting to wither? I personally think they're stitching us up at every opportunity with inferior audio tracks, otherwise all audio tracks would be the same surely? 



m. zillch said:


> This one, which I load with 2-pi placement, I'm nearfeild, and my room is small:


I had the previous model (an SB12+) cracking little sub for it's size.. I've also had an original PB12+ (2006 model), a PC13 Ultra and then two SB13 Ultras.. every one put a smile on my face.. you can't go wrong with SVS IMO, It's just being UK based, the prices have doubled over the years (I paid £875 for my original PC13U, before being discontinued their rrp increased to £1800 ) so now PSA are the best for buck over here.. currently running two PSA S1811 and I doubt they'll be going anywhere soon (unless I need to downsize for whatever reason but I certainly hope not)


----------



## m. zillch

My NAD preamp, Monitor Series 1300, has a Bass EQ button, BTW.  And I have tried that.









I've also owned in the past an Allison Electronic Subwoofer, if you guys know what those are, which had a similar bass roll-off correction EQ but it was variable. This general concept is not new although the exact implementation varies.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Say theoretically I listened to a BEQ track and thought, "Wow, this sounds _fantastic._ It sounds exactly like a Saturn V take off in real life, and I'd know, I've heard one in person!" [_Not true._ Remember, this is just a theoretical event.] Would I then use it? *NO!* For reasons which may very well be creative intent, we aren't dead sure, the film/music creators make decisions about EQing music and films I wish to replicate, as exactly as I can within my budget and room constraints. [*There are also voice coil safety concerns at play in some instances*.]


You know your SVS sub has built in protection to avoid this don't you? You shouldn't be able to damage the sub or VC if you played that scene all day, plus if you have warranty, then surely you're safe to do as you please?

See this vids for example (SB13U).. I've never had excursion like this ever, it's clear he hasn't EQ'd the sub, but regardless it's clearly capable of driving that hard.. the second one actually blows the metal grille off


----------



## CallingMrBenzo

paulst said:


> You know your SVS sub has built in protection to avoid this don't you? You shouldn't be able to damage the sub or VC if you played that scene all day, plus if you have warranty, then surely you safe to as you as you please?
> 
> 
> 
> See this vids for example (SB13U).. I've never had excursion like this ever, it's clear he hasn't EQ'd the sub, but regardless it's clearly capable of driving that hard.. the second one actually blows the metal grille off
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgmVGTYXolM
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVjiOrjQ6oM




Why bother responding in this thread any longer. He doesn’t even run his subwoofer most of the time per his own admission. Seems to defeat the whole high fidelity argument, cutting out a lot of the low end by having the sub off


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> You know your SVS sub has built in protection to avoid this don't you?


 Yes I know it is said to have such protection but I suspect it may just be for _peak excursion_, not super long sustained, two and a half minutes+, Saturn V rocket 20Hz (or lower) take off sound. That's a wacky scenario which almost never occurs in most movies and as I explained earlier voice coil safety has an element of "duration of dangerous content" to it.


----------



## paulst

CallingMrBenzo said:


> Why bother responding in this thread any longer. He doesn’t even run his subwoofer most of the time per his own admission. Seems to defeat the whole high fidelity argument, cutting out a lot of the low end by having the sub off


I think everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves by realising what they're missing out on  Even my mate who has a B&W PV1 sub can tell the difference on the First Man demo clip (and his sub survived), someone with an SB-2000 should easily be able to.. Every person that realises what a game changer BEQ is, is another member who won't go back  Some just need a bit more convincing than others


----------



## CallingMrBenzo

paulst said:


> I think everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves by realising what they're missing out on  Even my mate who has a B&W PV1 sub can tell the difference on the First Man demo clip, someone with an SB-2000 should easily be able to.. Every person that realises what a game changer BEQ is another member who won't go back  Some just need a bit more convincing than others




Yeah but most of those people don’t have a stubborn pompous attitude. If you haven’t tried it you can’t have an opinion on it.


----------



## m. zillch

CallingMrBenzo said:


> Why bother responding in this thread any longer. He doesn’t even run his subwoofer most of the time per his own admission. Seems to defeat the whole high fidelity argument, cutting out a lot of the low end by having the sub off


I don't always listen at Reference level either.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> I don't always listen at Reference level either.


You don't need to, your regular MV should be enough (although the demo clips are -10db below so you'd have to compensate for that)


----------



## 3ll3d00d

m. zillch said:


> Yes I know it is said to have such protection but I suspect it may just be for _peak excursion_, not super long sustained, two and a half minutes+, Saturn V rocket 20Hz (or lower) take off sound. That's a wacky scenario which almost never occurs in most movies and as I explained earlier voice coil safety has an element of "duration of dangerous content" to it.


you're not going to melt a voice coil with that sort of content


----------



## PoorSignal

paulst said:


> You know your SVS sub has built in protection to avoid this don't you? You shouldn't be able to damage the sub or VC if you played that scene all day, plus if you have warranty, then surely you safe to as you as you please?
> 
> See this vids for example (SB13U).. I've never had excursion like this ever, it's clear he hasn't EQ'd the sub, but regardless it's clearly capable of driving that hard.. the second one actually blows the metal grille off
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgmVGTYXolM
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVjiOrjQ6oM


I used to have the SB13 and while I don't pay attention to the woofer movement, it would make some kind of mechanical noise if driven too hard. 
mine had a magnet grill, not sure if it was hitting that or the mech limits.

however mine was used only for playing movies, not music.

As far as I know there was a time the same sledge amp is used on a PB13 and SB13. Same part number, if it had a HPF on the amp shouldn't there be a difference in the HPF values between the models? That's why I kind of think they don't have one. Question to verify with SVS of course.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Yes I know it is said to have such protection but I suspect it may just be for _peak excursion_, not super long sustained, two and a half minutes+, Saturn V rocket 20Hz (or lower) take off sound. That's a wacky scenario which almost never occurs in most movies and as I explained earlier voice coil safety has an element of "duration of dangerous content" to it.


The demo clip is actually the first 5 mins of the movie so no Saturn V launch in there, you'd need to buy the movie to sample that


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> You don't need to, your regular MV should be enough (although the demo clips are -10db below so you'd have to compensate for that)


That's not what I meant. I meant that besides the blasphemy that I don't always use my sub for all content, dues to neighbors, which I agree is not "high fidelity", I_ also_ err from correct playback by not listening at Reference level.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> That's not what I meant. I meant that besides the blasphemy that I don't always use my sub for all content, dues to neighbors, which is not "high fidelity", I_ also_ err from correct playback by not listening at Reference level.


Doesn't matter, 'high fidelity' actually means hi-fi (ie: 2ch and no sub).. you don't have a 2ch system do you?  Just man up and try it 

Do a Google search for 'hi-fi systems' and see if any multi channel systems appear


----------



## m. zillch

"high fidelity

n.
The electronic reproduction of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded sources, with minimal distortion."

Failure to reproduce a frequency range of that content by failing to activate a subwoofer [or use large, full range speakers] is arguably not high fidelity because it introduces a variety of distortion.


----------



## paulst

Hi-fi systems https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwir_b-KvojlAhWPilwKHWtgDKUQ4dUDCAs&uact=5


----------



## Bill Wolfer

Where have all the moderators gone? Or is it fine that two or three members argue incessantly off topic for page after page?

I remember when this was the official dolby atmos thread home theater version.


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Failure to reproduce a frequency range of that content by failing to activate a subwoofer is not high fidelity because it introduces a variety of distortion.


Which one of us fails to activate a subwoofer? Hi-fi is an abbreviation of high fidelity however you look at it.. You can see what I mean't by obsession in refusing to accept now?.. I just feel sorry for those that subscribe to this thread hoping to see Atmos discussion  Sorry people, clearly there's no convincing some people


----------



## Polyrythm1k

m. zillch said:


> "high fidelity
> 
> 
> 
> n.
> 
> The electronic reproduction of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded sources, with minimal distortion."
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to reproduce a frequency range of that content by failing to activate a subwoofer [or use large, full range speakers] is arguably not high fidelity because it introduces a variety of distortion.




Ok mr high fi. So you keep saying high fi is your goal. What steps have you taken to ensure that your experience is sooooo accurate above the subwoofer range? Is your room treated? Are you using studio monitors? Do you sit at a mixing board? I doubt your room is doing any favors. 
I ask in this way because it seems like your thumbing your nose at everyone with your big pursuit for high fi. It’s hard to detect over the internet someone’s tone(no pun intended), and what they’re actually saying.
Atmos.(my post now contains atmos discussion lol)


----------



## m. zillch

Polyrythm1k said:


> Ok mr high fi. So you keep saying high fi is your goal.


Correct. That's my right and as I've said repeatedly I mean 

A. within my budget/room constraints [I guess also neighbor complaint constraints.]

B. I have not not, nor ever have, achieved perfect reproduction; this is simply a goal I strive for

C. YMMV. There's no rule everyone has to have the same goals.


----------



## richardsim7

m. zillch said:


> And you have designed your system to be dead flat in sound reproduction from 4Hz -20kHz, you aren't using any "house curve" or anything, and there are no transducers. Yes?





m. zillch said:


> Also what infrasonic mic did you use to achieve this flat room response down to 4Hz when you designed it? Do you have room curves to show us this response taken at the listening chair?



I do 


Just my 2 subs. No EQ below 30Hz, and measured with a MiniDSP UMIK-1 calibrated by CSL to 5Hz


----------



## m. zillch

richardsim7 said:


> I do


Then the same question to you: Please follow my video's spoken instructions on how to set your volume and please tell me what's the lowest frequency you hear? Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=_rFT1UNp7tE


----------



## paulst

m. zillch said:


> Then the same question to you: Please follow my video's spoken instructions on how to set your volume and please tell me what's the lowest frequency you hear? Thanks.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=_rFT1UNp7tE


I'd try it, but your reluctance to try 'our stuff' maybe puts people off from trying 'your stuff'? Maybe richardsim7 might be more forgiving to your requests? But I can see by his FR you're not going to get the answer you're looking for


----------



## Polyrythm1k

paulst said:


> I'd try it, but your reluctance to try 'our stuff' maybe puts people off from trying 'your stuff'? Maybe richardsim7 might be more forgiving to your requests? But I can see by his FR you're not going to get the answer you're looking for




I did...


----------



## Eggtuary

Let me know if I'm asking this in the wrong thread.

I've got a pretty decent 5.2 setup, with JBL Studio 590 towers all the way around, including a center behind my 65" Samsung QLED (yes, I know that seems weird, but it works surprisingly well.) Now I want to upgrade to Atmos.

The problem is that my TV has to go in a corner, due to the layout of the room. For 5.2, it works fine, as I'm able to put towers on either side of the TV (along with the one behind the TV) and my surrounds are out to the sides at roughly +/- 80 degrees from center. 

I'd like to upgrade to 7.2.4. I can't install in-ceiling speakers for a variety of reasons (it's the family room, and there's another room above, so I can't run wire through an attic, and it would get expensive quick to run wires without it being unacceptable to my wife, who has been surprisingly tolerant of five huge towers in said family room.)

The SVS Prime Elevations look like they would work great for the front top speakers, which I could install roughly over my front L/R. Yes, they'll end up pointed at a point about 3' in front of my TV. But when I watch movies, I pull a single chair to a spot about 6' in front of the TV, so I think it will work fine.

But what about rear top speakers? They'll have to be much further away from each other than the fronts. Will that create a weird distortion in the "sound bubble"? I'd think that sounds panning from top front to top rear would go from very focused to more diffuse. But maybe that's not a problem?


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> But I can see by his FR you're not going to get the answer you're looking for


Microphones can hear 5Hz at 80 dBSPL. Humans can not. [See the attached graphic.]

Although they _can_ often hear all sorts of "tells" there's loud infrasonic sound going on in the room (they just can't sense the infrasound _directly_), and this can be confusing and cause cognitive bias. These noises include: 

- port chuffing (on vented designs) aka "port noise complaint". Get it?, 
- upper harmonics of the fundamental (distortion), 
- sympathetic vibrations, like objects/dishware/silverware/remotes on the coffee table in the room rattling,
- cord chaffing external, 
- cord chaffing internal (woofer cones make _just_ as much sound internally as they do externally, and if that wire to the driver isn't secured and/or wrapped in a tube of spongy foam it can slap against a solid object . . . ), 
- motor assembly/voice coil former scraping, 
- excursion limit distortion (my colleagues liked to call this "stamping", LOL ) . . .
- changes in the lower _audible_ frequencies being simultaneously reproduced via Doppler distortion 
- changes in the lower _audible_ frequencies being simultaneously reproduced via intermodulation distortion
- changes in the lower _audible_ frequencies being simultaneously reproduced via excessive cone motion distortion
- changes in the lower _audible_ frequencies being simultaneously reproduced via driver output compression









https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=...udiogram_files/human%20hearing.gif&f=1&nofb=1


----------



## m. zillch

Eggtuary said:


> But what about rear top speakers? They'll have to be much further away from each other than the fronts. Will that create a weird distortion in the "sound bubble"? I'd think that sounds panning from top front to top rear would go from very focused to more diffuse. But maybe that's not a problem?


It may not be ideal but when you calibrate the added distance is measured and accommodated for in electrical delay differences applied, so I don't think it will be much of a problem.


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> Microphones can hear 5Hz at 80 dBSPL. Humans can not....


How many times do you have to be told? Infrasonic sound in movies is _felt_, not heard.

in·fra·son·ic
/ˌinfrəˈsänik/
adjective
adjective: infrasonic
relating to or denoting sound waves with a frequency below the lower limit of human audibility.


----------



## m. zillch

The first sentence is the one I wish to point out but I'm including the rest for its interesting info:

"*Infrasound*

The threshold for infrasound is around 140dB at 20Hz increasing to about 162dB at 2 Hz and to 175-180dB for static pressure. Due to the ethical issues regarding testing human subjects, experiments on dogs were conducted at levels of 170dB at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. Curiously the dogs stopped breathing because of lung ventilation due to the high intensity pressure changes, although the 0.5 Hz frequency of the sound acted as an artificial respirator and the dogs showed no ill effects afterwards.Many of the most profound effects of sound are attributed to infrasound in the region of 7Hz. This corresponds with the median alpha-rhythm frequencies of the brain.It is also commonly alleged that this is the resonant frequency of the body’s organs and hence organ rupture and death can occur at high intensity exposures."

Source.


----------



## audiofan1

So after who knows how many days since the Home Atmos thread has been seen , the discussion at hand has gone absolutely nowhere!


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> ...- sympathetic vibrations, like objects/dishware/silverware/remotes on the coffee table in the room rattling,...


I don't understand your premise. If an earthquake or Saturn V launch occurred near your location, I would expect your dishes would rattle.


----------



## m. zillch

Augerhandle said:


> {Expletives redacted, infraction received willingly} I don't understand your premise. If an earthquake or Saturn V launch occurred near your location, I would expect your dishes would rattle.


I can't find science on the infrasound threshold level of what makes objects rattle in the room, and in my case they are often eating surfaces like spoons, cups, saucers, etc [so there's no way I'm putting Blu-tac or other inedible gluey things on them to hold them down, by the way] but the point is the rattle sounds instructs me there's loud infrasound present from my sub but* I* don't feel (nor hear) anything other than the dishware rattling. [When it is pure infrasound without any content at ~20Hz and above which is audible, if over threshold]

As for what levels are necessary for humans to sense it _directly,_ here are a bunch of studies overlapped and they all show roughly the same pattern: a really big increase in necessary SPL to invoke human perception as the frequency of the infrasound descends:









https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/1caeb9d9a78ae539310579dd9563578d7da2d4c4/4-Figure3-1.pnghttps://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...oner/1caeb9d9a78ae539310579dd9563578d7da2d4c4

There's a problem though that they may be using very different methodologies. For example:

- Some may be performed in an anechoic chamber with zero other sounds whereas others may have typical room rumble (masking sounds obscuring the target sound) present. 

- Some may only present the sound to the ears while others to the whole body. 

- If it is the whole body, how thick was the clothing? I would think a person wearing a business suit would be less sensitive to a person wearing a light T-shirt, for example.

- Some studies use test tones like sine waves and others use bands of limited range pink noise.

- Was the SPL measured in the room or exactly at the entrance of the ear canal?

- How accurate is the frequency response of their transducers?

- Most of these studies are focused on worker safety, not home theater entertainment

- some aren't asking the "listener" (feeler?) if they are sensing it, instead they are using electrodes sensing bodily functions like eye movement and also disturbances in balance

- some are waiting to see what makes the feeler nauseous .  . .


----------



## m. zillch

audiofan1 said:


> So after who knows how many days since the Home Atmos thread has been seen , the discussion at hand has gone absolutely nowhere!


Fair enough.* I have started a new thread on infrasound science here:* https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a.../3094810-infrasound-science.html#post58653052


----------



## paulst

Polyrythm1k said:


> I did...


You shouldn't waste your time on him, I certainly won't anymore..


----------



## m. zillch

paulst said:


> You shouldn't waste your time on him, I certainly won't anymore..


Actually put downs and insults directed at me being a "waste of time" should be in the _other_ thread if it is about the perception of infrasonic sound. This is an Atmos thread.


----------



## Matt L

farsider3000 said:


> I was trying to say that I believe 4ft is not too close if MLP is that distance from sides and rears.
> 
> Someone may have put that many speakers in such a small space but if they give an honest assessment I can’t believe there is any benefit to six ceiling speakers so close together and so close to the LCR. I really don’t see how wides spaced two feet from LCR will provide any benefit at all.
> 
> At a total max I would go with 4 Atmos ceiling speakers and no wides... but two spaced further from LCR and rears is bear in my opinion and from my own experience with my room.
> 
> The big concern is placing the ceiling speakers too close to LCR. Having wides is not going to degrade the sound field but having front row ceiling speakers too close to LCR or rear ceiling too close to rears will very likely make it seem like the sound is coming from LCR/rears vs Atmos ceiling.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have to agree. My space is almost double the op's at 18'x24' and I 've used wides for a decade but with 4 atmos speakers in the ceiling ( my system is 9.2.4 with wides support) I do not miss the wides. I flip back and forth occasionaly using the wides, but I loose the Atmos speaker and feel the sense of space is better with Atmos vs. wides. In a 12x12 space I would think 4 Atmos speakers would be fine.


----------



## Matt L

Eggtuary said:


> Let me know if I'm asking this in the wrong thread.
> 
> I've got a pretty decent 5.2 setup, with JBL Studio 590 towers all the way around, including a center behind my 65" Samsung QLED (yes, I know that seems weird, but it works surprisingly well.) Now I want to upgrade to Atmos.
> 
> The problem is that my TV has to go in a corner, due to the layout of the room. For 5.2, it works fine, as I'm able to put towers on either side of the TV (along with the one behind the TV) and my surrounds are out to the sides at roughly +/- 80 degrees from center.
> 
> I'd like to upgrade to 7.2.4. I can't install in-ceiling speakers for a variety of reasons (it's the family room, and there's another room above, so I can't run wire through an attic, and it would get expensive quick to run wires without it being unacceptable to my wife, who has been surprisingly tolerant of five huge towers in said family room.)
> 
> The SVS Prime Elevations look like they would work great for the front top speakers, which I could install roughly over my front L/R. Yes, they'll end up pointed at a point about 3' in front of my TV. But when I watch movies, I pull a single chair to a spot about 6' in front of the TV, so I think it will work fine.
> 
> But what about rear top speakers? They'll have to be much further away from each other than the fronts. Will that create a weird distortion in the "sound bubble"? I'd think that sounds panning from top front to top rear would go from very focused to more diffuse. But maybe that's not a problem?


You are in the correct thread, it's just been hijacked for a few days by a couple of members who do not know when to quit.

The spacing of the rears may be handled by your AVR depending on whatever sound correction method it uses, it will account for delays if you place the mic in the listening position.


----------



## maikeldepotter

richardsim7 said:


> On the contrary, Fury (2014), one of the movies @*FilmMixer* said he worked on actually gained bass/ULF in its UHD Blu-Ray Atmos release.


The good thing is that @*FilmMixer* shows consistency in his mixes as far as bass content is concerned. Not sure if this observed bass gain could be intentional though, and whether it is an artifact of the re-mix: A 2 dB increased in the 30-60 Hz region will hardly be noticeable, and while an increases of 5 and 10 dB at resp. 20 and 10 Hz are dB are more significant, the resulting SPL levels (50 to 60 dB at reference level) seem still too low to be heard or felt at these frequencies (I think).
*
Edit: My bad. I have looked at averages, and not at maximum levels in those graphs. The differences remain more or less the same, but the absolute levels at 20 Hz and 10 Hz put those frequencies in the audible resp. tactile range. This suggests a intentional alteration, and not an artifact.*


----------



## Jon AA

m. zillch said:


> Large rooms like commercial theaters don't have room gain.


False.










[Toole]





This mistaken belief explains why much of what you've been saying is incorrect.


----------



## richardsim7

maikeldepotter said:


> The good thing is that @*FilmMixer* shows consistency in his mixes as far as bass content is concerned. Not sure if this observed bass gain could be intentional though, and whether it is an artifact of the re-mix: A 2 dB increased in the 30-60 Hz region will hardly be noticeable, and while an increases of 5 and 10 dB at resp. 20 and 10 Hz are dB are more significant, the resulting SPL levels (50 to 60 dB at reference level) seem still too low to be heard or felt at these frequencies (I think).



mm I think you might be misreading the graphs, as I understand it -10 is basically max SPL so 20Hz on the Atmos mix is about 113dB at reference


----------



## maikeldepotter

richardsim7 said:


> mm I think you might be misreading the graphs, as I understand it -10 is basically max SPL so 20Hz on the Atmos mix is about 113dB at reference


Which graphs are you referring to? I was looking at the graphs you posted, and I do not see a -10 dB but a -50 and -45 dB at 20 Hz ...


----------



## DesertDog

maikeldepotter said:


> Which graphs are you referring to? I was looking at the graphs you posted, and I do not see a -10 dB but a -50 and -45 dB at 20 Hz ...


For the Atmos release the average is about in the -45 dB and the peak is at about -12 dB at 20 Hz.


----------



## m. zillch

Jon AA said:


> False.
> ...
> 
> This mistaken belief explains why much of what you've been saying is incorrect.


Perhaps you missed it. We have a new thread splintered off from this one for this topic since it is only peripherally related to Dolby Atmos. Would you like to repost in the correct thread or should I address your error here, backed with a reference to Toole himself?

"Fig. 11(b) shows an informative superimposition of all
50 front loudspeakers in the 18 cinemas ["typical 500 seat cinemas"].
These curves show the spectra of the direct sound in these venues, revealing
just how varied the playback of film sound is across a selec-
tion of loudspeakers and venues. They basically fill in the
shaded area of possibilities shown in Fig. 7(b). There was
no information about the loudspeakers. The lower boundary
is the two-woofer sound power prediction from Fig. 7(c),
identified as the “completely reflective cinema,”* implying
that there is little additional “gain” associated with these
rooms, mainly losses due to absorption.*"

"The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems" - Toole, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 63, No. 7/8, 2015 July/August


----------



## Jon AA

m. zillch said:


> Perhaps you missed it. We have a new thread splintered off from this one for this topic since it is only peripherally related to Dolby Atmos. Would you like to repost in the correct thread or should I address your error here, backed with a reference to Toole himself?


I see, you post 100 posts of nonsense in this thread, when I post once on the subject I'm told to post it somewhere else without even providing a link so the new thread can be found.


The quotation you gave is addressing a different figure, one that does not directly speak to the false statement you made. The figure I posted (*known speakers known to have a flat, direct response* showing room gain in cinemas) does, in fact, show your statement to be false.



In the new thread, do you explain away this figure?












You are advocating for (c). Toole is advocating *AGAINST* it. 





> "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems" - Toole, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 63, No. 7/8, 2015 July/August


Are you standing on your head and reading this paper upside down? That's the only way I can fathom your belief that it reinforces your point of view, when in fact, Dr. Toole is directly advocating against it.


----------



## maikeldepotter

DesertDog said:


> For the Atmos release the average is about in the -45 dB and the peak is at about -12 dB at 20 Hz.


Thank you. I have edited my earlier post accordingly.


----------



## m. zillch

Jon AA said:


> I see, you post 100 posts of nonsense in this thread, when I post once on the subject I'm told to post it somewhere else without even providing a link so the new thread can be found..


I did not _tell_ you to post elsewhere, I asked if you'd like to or if I should just address it here.

I have added a link in that post since you seem to have read my other "99 posts of nonsense" but not number 100 where I provided a link. 

And also I duplicate it here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a.../3094810-infrasound-science.html#post58653052
---

As I understand it, large venue commercial cinemas ["500 seat" variety] may exhibit things like room boundary reinforcement but _not_ the PVG component of "room gain". Also the "leaky" nature of even many smaller rooms, where we might indeed expect it at least theoretically, it is often not as much as is calculated. It depends on how well sealed the room is and perhaps how stiff and non-flexing the walls/ceiling/floor are.

Perhaps @Floyd Toole can clarify this matter for us?


----------



## Jon AA

m. zillch said:


> Perhaps @*Floyd Toole* can clarify this matter for us?


That paper is pretty comprehensive, all you need to do is read it. Even just looking at the two charts I posted should be enough--actual measurements and average/estimated in-room responses. The middle line of 5 (b) is the steady state response you can expect in a "typically reflective cinema" when the speakers are calibrated to a flat, direct response. If you instead, as you suggest, calibrate to a flat steady state in-room response, the "consequence" is 5 (c), a direct sound with the bass sucked out of it to some degree. Floyd's whole argument throughout the paper is that is certainly *not* "Hi-Fi."


----------



## searsmd

m. zillch said:


> Once again: *No thanks*, it is not for me and my pursuit of high fidelity, especially now that I have evidence it creates a 5dB error at 20Hz according to my First Man measurements at least, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets even worse below that. YMMV.


I've seen you make this statement several times now, but your not comparing apples to apples. The finished movie is BEQ'd and most agree it sounds great and is certainly entertaining. That bonus scene hasn't been BEQ'd and we are just assuming it's pure w/o filtering or editing and we just don't know that. The scene clearly didn't go through the same process that the movie did, but we don't know what it did go through, so we can't compare graphs made for 1 process with another.

For me, I have to believe that the director wants his movie to sound at it's absolute best. So for me, if they know about BEQ; they are watching their movies with Aaron's BEQs and wishing the studios would just let them make them that way to begin with. But again, we don't know. We do know that several high ranking directors have been outspoken with their disdain for the theatrical equipment available to them. It wouldn't surprise me if many lower level directors feel the same way, but won't say that in front of the microphones. They can't all just go start their own studios if execs take offense. Again we don't know, but I have to believe they want their movies to sound the best they can and we should all be able to agree on that.


----------



## m. zillch

searsmd said:


> I've seen you make this statement several times now, but your not comparing apples to apples. The finished movie is BEQ'd and most agree it sounds great and is certainly entertaining. That bonus scene hasn't been BEQ'd and we are just assuming it's pure w/o filtering or editing and we just don't know that. The scene clearly didn't go through the same process that the movie did, but we don't know what it did go through, so we can't compare graphs made for 1 process with another.
> 
> For me, I have to believe that the director wants his movie to sound at it's absolute best. So for me, if they know about BEQ; they are watching their movies with Aaron's BEQs and wishing the studios would just let them make them that way to begin with. But again, we don't know. We do know that several high ranking directors have been outspoken with their disdain for the theatrical equipment available to them. It wouldn't surprise me if many lower level directors feel the same way, but won't say that in front of the microphones. They can't all just go start their own studios if execs take offense. Again we don't know, but I have to believe they want their movies to sound the best they can and we should all be able to agree on that.


Discussion if the creators intend their movies to be listened to with discernible infrasonic [


----------



## mrtickleuk

CallingMrBenzo said:


> If you haven’t tried it you can’t have an opinion on it.


Of _course_ you can have an opinion, as I said in my previous post.


----------



## Kain

farsider3000 said:


> I was trying to say that I believe 4ft is not too close if MLP is that distance from sides and rears.
> 
> Someone may have put that many speakers in such a small space but if they give an honest assessment I can’t believe there is any benefit to six ceiling speakers so close together and so close to the LCR. I really don’t see how wides spaced two feet from LCR will provide any benefit at all.
> 
> At a total max I would go with 4 Atmos ceiling speakers and no wides... but two spaced further from LCR and rears is bear in my opinion and from my own experience with my room.
> 
> The big concern is placing the ceiling speakers too close to LCR. Having wides is not going to degrade the sound field but having front row ceiling speakers too close to LCR or rear ceiling too close to rears will very likely make it seem like the sound is coming from LCR/rears vs Atmos ceiling.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks.

The distances of the speakers that I mentioned were from the main listening position, not how far they are from each other. The 5 ft distance from the front wides is a diagonal line from the center of the listening position to the speakers. If you want to know the distance of the speakers from each other, the front wides will be 3 ft from the LCR which are 3 ft from the side surrounds which are 3 ft from the rear surrounds. Do you still think they will be too close for 9.1.6 vs. 7.1.4?

Also, in Dolby's 9.1.6 layout diagram, they have the rear overhead speakers right over the rear surrounds.


----------



## farsider3000

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> The distances of the speakers that I mentioned were from the main listening position, not how far they are from each other. The 5 ft distance from the front wides is a diagonal line from the center of the listening position to the speakers. If you want to know the distance of the speakers from each other, the front wides will be 3 ft from the LCR which are 3 ft from the side surrounds which are 3 ft from the rear surrounds. Do you still think they will be too close for 9.1.6 vs. 7.1.4?
> 
> Also, in Dolby's 9.1.6 layout diagram, they have the rear overhead speakers right over the rear surrounds.


My opinion is that you will not get any benefit from the wides and they may be distracting visually since they will likely be very visible while watching movies/tv. I would also still go with one set of Atmos ceiling speakers.

The goal of Atmos is to create a hemisphere of sound around the listening position but you also need separation of speakers. That is why you want the "bed" speakers (LCR, surround and rears) just at or slightly above ear level with one row of seating to allow for differentiation from the ceiling Atmos. Go sit in your room and visualize all the speakers and think about them creating a sound hemisphere. Due to reflections I am certain that you do not need wides and 99% sure that you do not need more than one row of ceiling speakers since they will start to interfere with rears and LCR. 

You can always wire for wides and if you think you are missing something (you won't) you can add them later. For Atmos Ceiling speakers I would mount them one foot in front of your ears as my experience has been that this position provides the best directional cues and if you mount them 3-4 ft in front of your ears sound will appear to come from your LCR due to reflections (in your size room).


----------



## noah katz

What are the angular separations between the fronts and wides, and between wides and surrounds?




Kain said:


> The distances of the speakers that I mentioned were from the main listening position, not how far they are from each other. The 5 ft distance from the front wides is a diagonal line from the center of the listening position to the speakers. If you want to know the distance of the speakers from each other, the front wides will be 3 ft from the LCR which are 3 ft from the side surrounds which are 3 ft from the rear surrounds. Do you still think they will be too close for 9.1.6 vs. 7.1.4?


----------



## ergalthema

Just realizing how common it is for people to "upmix" 5.1 content into Atmos. Anyone happen to know if my Onkyo TX-NR646 is worthy of attempting this? Here are the Onkyo TX-NR646 modes:

AllCh Stereo
Direct
Dolby Atmos
Dolby D (Dolby Digital)
Dolby D+ (Dolby Digital Plus)
Dolby Surround
Dolby TrueHD
DSD
DTS
DTS 96/24
DTS Express
DTS-HD HR (DTS-HD High Resolution Audio)
DTS-HD MSTR (DTS-HD Master Audio)
DTS Neo:6
DTS Neural:X
DTS:X
ES Discrete (DTS-ES Discrete)
ES Matrix (DTS-ES Matrix)
Full Mono
Game-Action
Game-Rock
Game-RPG
Game-Sports
Mono
Multich (Multichannel)
Orchestra
Pure Audio (European, Australian and Asian models)
Stereo
Studio-Mix
T-D (Theater-Dimensional)
TV Logic
Unplugged

Should I force one of those when listening to 5.1 (DD or DTS) content?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ergalthema said:


> Just realizing how common it is for people to "upmix" 5.1 content into Atmos. Anyone happen to know if my Onkyo TX-NR646 is worthy of attempting this? Here are the Onkyo TX-NR646 modes:
> 
> 
> 
> AllCh Stereo
> 
> Direct
> 
> Dolby Atmos
> 
> Dolby D (Dolby Digital)
> 
> Dolby D+ (Dolby Digital Plus)
> 
> Dolby Surround
> 
> Dolby TrueHD
> 
> DSD
> 
> DTS
> 
> DTS 96/24
> 
> DTS Express
> 
> DTS-HD HR (DTS-HD High Resolution Audio)
> 
> DTS-HD MSTR (DTS-HD Master Audio)
> 
> DTS Neo:6
> 
> DTS Neural:X
> 
> DTS:X
> 
> ES Discrete (DTS-ES Discrete)
> 
> ES Matrix (DTS-ES Matrix)
> 
> Full Mono
> 
> Game-Action
> 
> Game-Rock
> 
> Game-RPG
> 
> Game-Sports
> 
> Mono
> 
> Multich (Multichannel)
> 
> Orchestra
> 
> Pure Audio (European, Australian and Asian models)
> 
> Stereo
> 
> Studio-Mix
> 
> T-D (Theater-Dimensional)
> 
> TV Logic
> 
> Unplugged
> 
> 
> 
> Should I force one of those when listening to 5.1 (DD or DTS) content?




Yes. Dolby surround(DSU) or dts nueralx are great. Sometimes as good as a real atmos/dtsx track. Assuming of course you have the speakers for it.


----------



## Matt L

I am using Neural X for non-atmos content and I finally got around to painting out my in ceiling speakers yesterday and was surprised how much content was directed to them. At a normal seating distance the sound just seems to envelope me, but up close I was very aware of how much sound they are putting out.


----------



## dfa973

Matt L said:


> I am using Neural X for non-atmos content and I finally got around to painting out my in ceiling speakers yesterday and was surprised how much content was directed to them. At a normal seating distance the sound just seems to envelope me, but up close I was very aware of how much sound they are putting out.


Yup, the Neural:X upmixer is more aggressive than DSU - sometimes TOO aggressive (puts sounds on the height plane where they do not belong). But otherwise, it is fine and anyway, its a matter of taste.


----------



## Ganymed4

Just a short statement from my side to this BEQ discussion as a sound engineer. Usually and for stereo recordings you cut off all frequencies below 50 Hz because they cause unwanted low frequency noise which is not wanted in a mix. On many mixing consoles you find a button per channel for a HPF at this frequency mentioned.

This might be different with an LFE channel - think of what that stands for: Low Frequency Effects. This might be ok for some EFFECTS purposes but not for other channels. In my opinion a quite academic discussion.
Just my 2 cents...


For the up-mixer discussion, if you have the chance, try the Auromatic. You don't need the Auro 3D layout for this, it also works with an Atmos layout. This sounds best for me and gives the best results. 

Now it's my 5 cents...


----------



## paulst

CallingMrBenzo said:


> If you haven’t tried it you can’t have an opinion on it.





mrtickleuk said:


> Of _course_ you can have an opinion, as I said in my previous post.


Certainly not a valid one.. How many people have an opinion on a film they've never seen? or a song they've never heard? I've never swam with sharks so I wouldn't go guessing what their experience was like.. Just because you drive a car, you wouldn't tell a Formula One driver he drives it incorrectly and/or attempt to give advise would you? It's a bit like a console gamer telling a War Veteran how close to realism they think their game of Battlefield is.. They'd just laugh.. Same applies with BEQ 

Everyone can have an opinion on any subject in the world, but it's only a valid one if you've sampled it for yourself (IMO)


----------



## farsider3000

noah katz said:


> What are the angular separations between the fronts and wides, and between wides and surrounds?



His room is 12ft long and about as wide so not much room for wides but especially not enough “room” for multiple rows of Atmos ceiling (top) speakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ScottieBoysName

dfa973 said:


> Yup, the Neural:X upmixer is more aggressive than DSU - sometimes TOO aggressive (puts sounds on the height plane where they do not belong). But otherwise, it is fine and anyway, its a matter of taste.




I have a Marantz 7704 - it seems to default to Neural:X. How can I switch it to DSU?


----------



## dfa973

ScottieBoysName said:


> I have a Marantz 7704 - it seems to default to Neural:X. How can I switch it to DSU?


IR Remote - Sound Mode group - Movie button - until you select the desired combination


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ScottieBoysName said:


> I have a Marantz 7704 - it seems to default to Neural:X. How can I switch it to DSU?












Should look something like this. When you press it, you’ll have a few choices on screen. Scroll up/down, or keep pressing “movie” until you get what you want.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Polyrythm1k said:


> Should look something like this. When you press it, you’ll have a few choices on screen. Scroll up/down, or keep pressing “movie” until you get what you want.




Thanks Everyone!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ScottieBoysName said:


> Thanks Everyone!


----------



## ScottieBoysName

dfa973 said:


> IR Remote - Sound Mode group - Movie button - until you select the desired combination




Thanks!


----------



## liverpool_for_life

paulst said:


> Certainly not a valid one..


He disagrees with the idea of BEQ on _principle_. Therefore, he doesn't need to experience it in order to have an opinion. It's not personal. He just doesn't want the content altered in any way.

FWIW, I'm with the BEQ folks. If the content is there on disk, I'm perfectly fine with trying to reverse engineer it back in. Especially when the subjective experience is much improved.


----------



## m. zillch

liverpool_for_life said:


> He disagrees with the idea of BEQ on _principle_. Therefore, he doesn't need to experience it in order to have an opinion. It's not personal. He just doesn't want the content altered in any way.


You are partly correct, but I have nothing against faithful art restoration to what I believe the *artist* intended, as I understand it. But since this is not Atmos related I responded in greater detail in the Infrasound science thread.


----------



## noah katz

Ganymed4 said:


> Usually and for stereo recordings you cut off all frequencies below 50 Hz because they cause unwanted low frequency noise which is not wanted in a mix.



Seriously, 50 Hz?

Sounds like inadequate gear if it can't deal with musical fundamentals, i.e. bass and bass guitar ~40 Hz, lowest piano note 27.5 Hz.





farsider3000 said:


> His room is 12ft long and about as wide so not much room for wides but especially not enough “room” for multiple rows of Atmos ceiling (top) speakers.



Those dimensions don't necessarily preclude wides; my room is 12' wide and my Wides nicely expand the front soundfield.


----------



## Augerhandle

m. zillch said:


> You are partly correct, but I have nothing against faithful art restoration to *what I believe* the artist intended, *as I understand it*. But since this is not Atmos related I responded in greater detail in the Infrasound science thread.


Fixed it for you. Your opinion is no different than the BEQ gang's, you just go the other way with it.


----------



## farsider3000

noah katz said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> Those dimensions don't necessarily preclude wides; my room is 12' wide and my Wides nicely expand the front soundfield.



It’s not the width but his depth of around 12’ That puts wides at only 3’ from his face. Seems like overkill to me but if it improves the sound then great.

I just don’t want speakers pointed at my face only 3’ away. Maybe they can be hidden behind fabric.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## noah katz

farsider3000 said:


> It’s not the width but his depth of around 12’ That puts wides at only 3’ from his face.



If they're properly located at around 60 deg azimuth, they'll be mostly to the sides in the peripheral field of view.

Would definitely be problematic for non-centered listener though.

My wides are Mirage Omnipolar which are hard to localize because of the high ratio of reflected to direct sound, so not an issue.

If I had conventional speakers, I'd try pointing them upward.


----------



## Ganymed4

noah katz said:


> Seriously, 50 Hz?
> 
> Sounds like inadequate gear if it can't deal with musical fundamentals, i.e. bass and bass guitar ~40 Hz, lowest piano note 27.5 Hz.



As I already wrote, if you had been doing this by yourself you would know, that the people doing this professional have a completely different point of view and these low frequencies are better avoided. That what you experience as bass is in higher frequencies than 50 Hz. It is more between 60 and 100 Hz more broad speaking. If you look at the tables shown before a signal this low consumes a lot of energy and this is the reason why a subwoofer needs a lot of Watts to make a good subwoofer. And aren't you cutting off the surrounds and LCR usually at around 80 Hz or even higher. 

Analyze music and you will see, there is not very much going on this low under 50 Hz. This is definitely not inadequate gear, this is it maybe from the POV of an audiophile but not from the POV of a sound engineer. We are talking about studio equipment here and these low frequencies are considered 'rumble' and should be avoided at all cost. Ask filmmixer if you like. You see this from a different point of view, which has nothing to do with reality of music production.



This does not apply to the LFE where these low frequencies are wanted. Don't misunderstand me here please.


Also, hearing full dynamics is the exception. All channels are sent through limters and compressors today. Sounds presumably better, but not my style. I love full dynamics. Using this kind of gear is the absolute exception for me but everybody likes them today. Also, mixes are compared from the studio with thousands, sometimes millions of dollars of equipment to the car stereo to mobile phones. This is a requirement from those people paying the money, to sound everywhere good. Personally, I don't like this approach. 

I want to do the best mix and don't care about kitchen radios or car stereos. But again, I am the absolute exception in this sense.



Just to tell you some bit of background information, what is done and what are the constraints of mixes and why the result is sometimes not exactly according the academic and audiophiles believe and much different from people from the outside and non-professionals see this.


Just for your information.


----------



## Augerhandle

Ganymed4 said:


> ...And aren't you cutting off the surrounds and LCR usually at around 80 Hz or even higher.


That's a totally different subject, and part of bass management. Below 80 Hz is not cut off, it is crossed over and the lows are sent to the subwoofer.


----------



## mrtickleuk

paulst said:


> Certainly not a valid one..
> 
> [...]
> 
> Everyone can have an opinion on any subject in the world, but it's only a valid one if you've sampled it for yourself (IMO)


I'm glad for the smiley because it shows where we agree. This is more about meta-opinions, I think?

In my (meta)opinion, one can have an opinion without sampling for yourself. This is why I used my parachuting analogy, which I tried, unsuccessfully, to point you to. I *know* I won't like parachuting *without* "needing to try it for myself". This is based on knowing myself, knowing about the science of what will happen to my body and mental state (won't be good), and extrapolating very accurately. Therefore, the more people chant "just try it" and "your dislike of parachuting is invalid because you haven't tried it", the more it irks me. .

Reductio ad absurdum: "I don't want to eat poison because I know it will kill me". "Not valid until you've tried it!" 

In your (meta)opinion, one cannot have an opinion without sampling for yourself. You used the movie criticism analogy with which I completely agree (except with Adam Sandler movies, I don't need to see any more to know* they are going to be completely without merit  ), but I would just say I'm not fully sold on how it maps onto this subject. But I'm glad we can disagree respectfully at least 




*ok, there's a small chance, and that's a bit of a joke as an example.


----------



## Ganymed4

Augerhandle said:


> That's a totally different subject, and part of bass management. Below 80 Hz is not cut off, it is crossed over and the lows are sent to the subwoofer.



Not really if you think of the capacity and the frequency range of the speakers and if you think WHY this is done at all.
It is to protect satellite speakers of draining too much power in the low frequency range and give this range to specialized speakers having - thinking of main stream AVRs - much less power than a typical subwoofer. 



Just think about it from a different perspective and you will see, it makes absolutely sense. Sure, it is Bass Management but why is there Bass Management in the first place?


----------



## paulst

mrtickleuk said:


> In your (meta)opinion, one cannot have an opinion without sampling for yourself. You used the movie criticism analogy with which I completely agree (except with Adam Sandler movies, I don't need to see any more to know* they are going to be completely without merit  ), but I would just say I'm not fully sold on how it maps onto this subject. But I'm glad we can disagree respectfully at least
> 
> *ok, there's a small chance, and that's a bit of a joke as an example.


I like your style  In agreement with the Adam Sandler movies (although I'm still quite partial to Happy Gilmour and The Longest Yard) but that's where it ends for me  But if there's even the tiniest chance you're in agreement then it should be something worth considering if you like 'real bass' and not that weak crappy bass you're getting from most of the disks


----------



## noah katz

Ganymed4 said:


> Analyze music and you will see, there is not very much going on this low under 50 Hz. This is definitely not inadequate gear, this is it maybe from the POV of an audiophile but not from the POV of a sound engineer. We are talking about studio equipment here and these low frequencies are considered 'rumble' and should be avoided at all cost. Ask filmmixer if you like. You see this from a different point of view, which has nothing to do with reality of music production.



There may not be a lot, but it's there.

I thought rumble referred to spurious LF content; is the problem traffic, HVAC noise etc getting through to the studio?

I can understand that film mixers can get away with HP filtering as you described, because voices don't go that low, and LF effects are not recorded w/mic's but added synthetically anyway.


----------



## batpig

OMG, I can't f'ing believe this BEQ discussion is still going on. 

I've read literally every single post in this Atmos thread, going back over FIVE YEARS, until the last few days. I just skimmed over a few pages of BEQ BLAH BLAH BLAH and it's STILL happening. A few of you are ruining this thread for your own petty arguments about the merits of BEQ.

CAN WE PLEASE PUT THIS TO BED AND TAKE IT TO THE BEQ THREAD. PLEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAASSSSEEEEEE

That poor guy who tried to ask an actual Atmos question has to wade through dozens of posts that have nothing to do with Atmos. And, yes, I understand that some of the tracks under discussion are Atmos tracks, BUT IT IS STILL NOT AN ATMOS ISSUE. IT IS A MIXING ISSUE.

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, KILL THIS DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD AND TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.

I'm going to start aggressively reporting posts to mods if this doesn't cease. Enough is enough. It's been like a week of this. ENOUGH.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^^

I've been saying!


----------



## Matt L

batpig said:


> FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, KILL THIS DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD AND TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.
> 
> I'm going to start aggressively reporting posts to mods if this doesn't cease. Enough is enough. It's been like a week of this. ENOUGH.


Report please. These guys don't seem to know how to take a hint. I had the same thought but held off thinking it would die but I think it need to be staked to kill it.


----------



## chi_guy50

I'm definitely not a religious man, but


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

Hello everyone. I currently have SKS-HT993THX 7.1 speakers. I am thinking of replacing the surround speakers with in-ceiling speakers. I already have them mounted on top of the ceiling and while it sounded good, it doesn't feel as immersive as I've heard some demos in showroom. So my question is, does moving to ceiling speakers really improve atmos playback? Also my surround speakers are rated at 50-45khz while most of the ceiling speakers I've seen are rated till 20khz. Does it impact in any way? Thank you in advance


----------



## Marc Alexander

Now I understand why a certain topic was actually banned in a certain thread (which is much more relevant to the topic than this one). This is so out of hand that the Atmos discussions are now taking place in another thread.


----------



## sdurani

xavierlehnsherr said:


> I am thinking of replacing the surround speakers with in-ceiling speakers. I already have them mounted on top of the ceiling and while it sounded good, it doesn't feel as immersive as I've heard some demos in showroom. So my question is, does moving to ceiling speakers really improve atmos playback?


Are you playing back surround information from these speakers or height information?


> Also my surround speakers are rated at 50-45khz while most of the ceiling speakers I've seen are rated till 20khz. Does it impact in any way?


No, if you're a normal adult, your hearing likely doesn't even extend to 20kHz.


----------



## Ganymed4

noah katz said:


> There may not be a lot, but it's there.
> 
> I thought rumble referred to spurious LF content; is the problem traffic, HVAC noise etc getting through to the studio?
> 
> I can understand that film mixers can get away with HP filtering as you described, because voices don't go that low, and LF effects are not recorded w/mic's but added synthetically anyway.



What you are writing is correct and it applies mainly to microphones and not DI boxes or instruments needing this low frequency but it can happen. And you are also correct in regard of the LFE. I will also stop now here, because this also doesn't belong to this Atmos thread. It is more of a general nature. Sorry about this.


----------



## harrisu

Anyone here running ceiling speaker independent of Room correction from floor speakers? I use Minidsp 88a as room correction that works on all of my floor speakers since it can drive maximum of 8 channels. So, I set the delays on my ceiling speakers accordingly and let it run without any room correction. Issue that I"m running into is that different Blu Ray have different volume on them. For example, when watching Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague, the avr volume is around -18 for it to be plenty loud but at that level, ceiling speakers are barely making any sound. If all the speakers were run from same source, they all would produce sound level based on what's on bluray but in my case, I don't know what would happen since each blu ray can have its own volume level. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If I'm right, is there anything I can do to avoid this?


----------



## PoorSignal

harrisu said:


> Anyone here running ceiling speaker independent of Room correction from floor speakers? I use Minidsp 88a as room correction that works on all of my floor speakers since it can drive maximum of 8 channels. So, I set the delays on my ceiling speakers accordingly and let it run without any room correction. Issue that I"m running into is that different Blu Ray have different volume on them. For example, when watching Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague, the avr volume is around -18 for it to be plenty loud but at that level, ceiling speakers are barely making any sound. If all the speakers were run from same source, they all would produce sound level based on what's on bluray but in my case, I don't know what would happen since each blu ray can have its own volume level.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If I'm right, is there anything I can do to avoid this?


It’s not the fault of the blu ray movies 
I am not familar with minidsp but
You need to set the speaker level with a spl meter and test tone.


----------



## maikeldepotter

(taking this from the DTS:X thread to here)



dschulz said:


> I wonder if this explains why Dolby is unable to array the beds? If the bed channels are treated (in a weird sort of way) as a static object for element-counting purposes, you can see why it'd be difficult to program a channel bed to be spread across multiple output channels.


Didn't someone report that Dolby's own CP-850 processor can now take a home Atmos soundtrack through HDMI and do exactly that: Array the bed channels?

*Edit*: Found it!



sdurani said:


> With the CP-850 being used so much in the Bel-Air circuit, Dolby added HDMI and full consumer Atmos decoding a couple years back.





Dan Hitchman said:


> As well as the ability to array the surround channel bed in consumer Atmos. It is baffling to me that they won't add that feature to Trinnov coding or any other >7.1.4 processor.


This would seem impossible even for the CP-850. The home Atmos encoded soundtrack contains spatial coded clusters that may hold a bed channel together with one or more dynamic objects. For arraying purposes it needs to be able to extract the bed channel information from that audio substream. How?


----------



## maikeldepotter

(taking this from the DTS:X thread to here)



sdurani said:


> Indeed, thanx for the correction. Numbers revised to 16 total (instead of 7.1+16).


So apart from our recent knowing that bed channels and LFE channel are included in the total number of objects/streams being 12 (default) to 16 max, how does this jibe with the max of 20 reported earlier?



FilmMixer said:


> Home Atmos:
> 
> 5.1 or 7.1 bed. Between 12-20 objects carried as an extension. During encoding, the objects are mixed into the bed for backwards compatibility. During deciding, the object extension is read and the audio is "subtracted" out of the bed and then the objects are rendered and positioned in the sound field based on the metadata contained with each object.
> 
> When the encoder input object count exceeds the encoder max setting (12-20), Dolby uses a tech called "spatial coding." This combines co-located objects together for encoding. It is a dynamic process... think of it as slicing the sound field into zones and co-located objects get encoded together as long as they are in the same area.... as they move out of said area they either a.) join another spatially coded object or b.) separate back out into a unique object.


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

sdurani said:


> Are you playing back surround information from these speakers or height information?


Not sure if I understood your question properly, but I have 5.1.2 setup with my surround speakers mounted on the ceiling and set it to top middle in my receiver. 



sdurani said:


> No, if you're a normal adult, your hearing likely doesn't even extend to 20kHz.


I see. So it is safe to ignore the higher number for frequency response when it comes to choosing ceiling speakers. I'm thinking of Micca m8c after reading a lot of positive reviews from here.


----------



## ergalthema

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Not sure if I understood your question properly, but I have 5.1.2 setup with my surround speakers mounted on the ceiling and set it to top middle in my receiver.


Confused what you mean about surround speakers mounted on the ceiling. Do you have 8 total speakers? Or only 6 and moved LS and RS to the ceiling?


----------



## sdurani

xavierlehnsherr said:


> I have 5.1.2 setup with my surround speakers mounted on the ceiling and set it to top middle in my receiver.


The confusion was you referring to your height speakers as surround speakers. A 5.1.2 layout is 3 front speakers (in front of you), 2 surround speakers (at your sides or behind you) and 2 height speakers (above you). To answer your original question: moving from your current height speakers to in-ceiling speakers won't necessarily improve Atmos playback, since it depends on the quality of the speakers and where they are placed. 

Your current height speakers are a sonic match for your other speakers, so my first choice wouldn't be to replace them. Where are your current height speakers mounted: directly above you or forward of your listening position? Are they mounted flat on the ceiling pointing straight down or aimed towards the listeners?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Not sure if I understood your question properly, but I have 5.1.2 setup with my surround speakers mounted on the ceiling and set it to top middle in my receiver.
> So you don’t have any bed layer surrounds? And the surrounds in the ceiling are designated as top middle?
> If that’s the case, I would first install some surround speakers for the bed layer.
> 
> 
> I see. So it is safe to ignore the higher number for frequency response when it comes to choosing ceiling speakers. I'm thinking of Micca m8c after reading a lot of positive reviews from here.


Yes.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> (taking this from the DTS:X thread to here)


Just so people who aren't reading in the DTS:X thread understand the context, it has long been a common understanding that home Atmos allows for a 7.1 bed and then up to 16 dynamic objects... and, if in a given scene, the object count exceeds 16, then the "spatial coding" feature would cluster the additional objects into "zones" to get the total count to 16 (or whatever the max is set to, it can be set lower than 16).

However, new poster @-Henry- pointed out that this is not the case, and the 16 max refers to TOTAL ELEMENTS including beds (channels), not just objects separately. It's pretty easy to google up the "Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide" PDF document which details these kind of technical aspects, which confirms that -Henry- is 100% correct and the spatial coding process clusters objects AND beds together, not just objects:










It is also noted in the document that, as part of the spatial coding, "In order to maximize efficiency, spatial coding converts bed channels to equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations.... " and later, "When beds are converted to objects, they also receive canonical coordinates that may lead to a rerendering that is different from the cinema bed downmixing rules. For instance, the side and overhead beds generally receive a Y=0.5 coordinate when converted to objects and would therefore be re-rendered fully to the side speakers in 7.1."

So with spatial coding, the beds are effectively converted to "static objects" and then become part of the clustering process. We are theorizing the conversion of "side surround" to an object with coordinate Y=0.5 (i.e. directly to the sides) and "top middle" to the direct midpoint of the ceiling / directly above could explain why home Atmos doesn't array this content (thus a mix like Avengers:Endgame effectively behaving like 7.1.2 fixed channels and the overhead sounds not spreading across the entire overhead array).


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> So with spatial coding, the beds are effectively converted to "static objects" and then become part of the clustering process.


Until we came to this new understanding, it was not quite so obvious to me what aspect of spatial coding was triggering negative reactions at DisneyLand. But with the bed channels more directly involved, I could speculate as follows. 

Consider how spatial coding works. On a moment to moment basis it evaluates all the incoming objects and condenses them to utilize x number of final objects based on what will best minimize spatial errors and other criteria. Finally, those bitstream objects are rendered to the available speakers at home.

So let's say the movie has a bunch of music objects parked around the room. Spatial coding will cluster them into objects in pattern A. I would submit that playing these back would result in no audible artefacts from the spatial coding process.

Now here comes some other object, moving, like a drive-by. Spatial coding will create object pattern B to reflect the needs of the new object relative to the other music objects. Pattern B will actually be patterns B1, B2, B3 in a continuous sequence as the drive-by object moves over time.

Each time the object pattern changes, the stationary music components will be altered within the output objects, and thus rendered ever so slightly differently among the speakers in the region near the drive-by. Those small changes in the music components may be calculated to sum to a constant power for each successive pattern to minimize artefacts, but the human ear might still detect something is going on.

To whatever extent such minimal artefacts are produced by spatial rendering, they are not present when directly rendering the original theatrical mix to any given set of speakers, be it 2, 5, 7.1.4, 50.1... Hence, pre-rendering eliminates that issue.

If anyone wants to read more about the many strategies that might be used to optimize the spatial coding process, see *Dolby's patent application on clustering*. But regardless of the strategy, it appears safe to say that spatial coding can be though of as a form of lossy bitrate reduction perceptual coding, much like MP3 or DD+. They serve a valuable purpose, but their fingerprints are sometimes audible.


----------



## batpig

^^ excellent points, Roger. To that end, several of us who have spent time "soloing" the extra speakers beyond 7.1.4 (e.g. Front Wide) have noted that there are mixes which appear to be "fixed" but every now and then will get a "blip" of sound in the extra speaker, despite that speaker being dead silent for the other 99.9% of the movie runtime. I've also noticed some weirdness even with mixes that don't appear to be "fixed", where if you solo the FW speakers you'll hear a sound appear in the wide, disappear for a second, then appear again. It's not really audible with all the speakers playing but when you isolate only those speakers, it's very obvious. I'm assuming that's all attributable to spatial coding artifacts. 

Also, to your point about "constant power", there's this other note, which seems relevant (although I admit that I'm still digesting this and don't fully understand what it's saying from my amateur enthusiast perspective):



> Conversion of beds to objects: As previously mentioned, spatial coding is more effective when beds can
> be converted to objects. However, the bed and object paths are not 100% identical in the renderer. In
> particular, the Dolby Atmos Renderer software for home theater implements an automatic level
> adjustment algorithm on the objects to avoid level buildup and better preserve the screen-to-surround
> balance of the mix as the number of output speakers is reduced. This may introduce a slight change in
> surround bed levels (compared to cinema bed downmix equations). For example, surround beds and
> objects near the surround or overhead speakers get attenuated up to –1.5 dB in 7.1, up to –3 dB in 5.1,
> and up to –4.5 dB in stereo.
> With Spatial coding, all beds are transformed to objects and therefore trims are also applied to beds.


----------



## Marc Alexander

dschulz said:


> I wonder if this explains why Dolby is unable to array the beds? If the bed channels are treated (in a weird sort of way) as a static object for element-counting purposes, you can see why it'd be difficult to program a channel bed to be spread across multiple output channels.


This certainly could be why Dolby has not allowed the arraying in the consumer Atmos processors. I can imagine unexpected results w/arraying if a mixer allows objects to be clustered into the 5.1/7.1 "bed" during spatial encoding. But I would think this is something most mixers would strive to avoid.


Spoiler



24.3.3 
Spatial coding in the authoring chain
Spatial coding is present at two distinct stages in the Dolby Atmos authoring chain: during monitoring of the mix, and when encoding the Dolby Atmos master file set. At the first stage (monitoring and mastering), spatial coding occurs as a real-time emulation process running on the Dolby Atmos Renderer during monitoring of the mix. Here, the mixer can listen to the effect of spatial coding while making adjustments to the mix for near-field presentation. The Dolby Atmos Renderer software generates a Dolby Atmos master file set (including the top-level .atmos file), which still carries the full set of up to 128 signals, and therefore contains the mixing decisions for home theater or VR, but has not yet been processed by spatial coding. 
At the second stage (encoding), spatial coding is finally applied to the original beds and objects as part of the encoding process by a software tool (such as Dolby Media Encoder). This tool reads the .atmos (or .damf) file, applies spatial coding to create the same clustered objects heard during the first stage of Dolby Atmos authoring, and then encodes the clustered objects into the delivery codec format (in the Dolby Media Encoder, the delivery codec format is specified in the job setup). The Encoder generates a coded bitstream that consists of objects and one or more bed channels.



Once @FilmMixer chimes back in he may fill in the gaps and confirm some of these hypothesis. 

There was a high-end integrator (who's name escapes me) at CEDIA who was partnered with PRO (Pro Audio Technologies). This integrator uses the Dolby CP850-C processor exclusively (I believe he said that the C is a custom version specifically for home cinemas). They simply eschew Dts:X and Auro3D. Any content not native Atmos is upmixed with Dolby Surround. It seems that he chooses the CP850 (rather than Trinnov A32) for the ability to array surrounds. I believe the PRO CEDIA sound room was setup for SS, SS1 & SS2 rather than Wides.

https://hometheaterreview.com/pro-alc-3316-cedia-2019/


----------



## Marc Alexander

sdurani said:


> The intent was there from the beginning: each Side channel to 3 speakers, each Rear channel to 4 speakers, each Top channel to 5 speakers.


What document is this diagram from?


----------



## Marc Alexander

MagnumX said:


> I think the confusion is massive as certain things are still not clear by this post by Henry. He talked about the 12, 14, and 16 limit in the previous post and then is back to 9.1 bed and 118 objects (which is cinema) in the quote above which says HOME ATMOS. If he means you can IMPORT a cinema Atmos track into the home mixing setup, that is a big difference between what you import and what you get to play back in home Atmos.


AFAICT, there is just one mixing setup, not separate cinema & home. While the Atmos mix utilizes a 7.1.2 bed + objects, the home encoding is going to feature a 5.1 or 7.1 bed + objects (but it could be anything down to 2.0 or even 0.1). While I believe most mixers are going to segregate the x.x.2 + objects (up to 118) from the 5.1/7.1 bed in encoding, it's possible for objects to be clustered into the beds.


----------



## Marc Alexander

-Henry- said:


> Check the pages 195 and 199 of above mentioned document.
> 
> Old version of RMU allowed to re-render atmos mix to classic 7.1 and 5.1 channel based format.
> 
> New RMU (I do not know how long is new, since 2016 or later?), as part of Dolby Production Suite and Mastering Suite allows to re-render atmos mix (full or partially) to channel based format and to save result as waveforms including 2.0, 5.0, 5.1, 5.1, 5.1.4, 7.0, 7.1.2, 9.1.6 schemes, as well as Binaural and AmbiX. The listing does not include the 7.1.4 channels re-rendering. Is it accidentally? Does Dolby would like to prevent the possibility of using of atmos mixes to 7.1.4 immersive tracks with competitors' encoders?


The Dolby Atmos Renderer guide refers to Send and Return plug-ins as part of workflow templates. 7.1.4 is mentioned specifically. 

Maybe it's simply an oversight not listing 7.1.4 as a re-render option? I would think any subset of 9.1.6 would be an option.


Spoiler



2.2.2 Dolby Atmos Renderer session templates 
The Renderer installer includes DAW templates for Dolby Atmos Production Suite workflows. Use the installer to install templates on the computer running the DAW. Pro Tools session templates Pro Tools session templates are installed in a Pro Tools session templates folder, based on the operation (home theater or VR). 
• Home theater templates: ~/Documents/Pro Tools/Session Templates/Dolby Atmos Production Suite
Template names are based on the system setup and number of Renderer channels the session supported.





> Auxiliary input tracks with Dolby Renderer Send and Return plug-ins inserted and set up so that they provide audio and metadata routing to and from the Dolby Atmos Renderer.
> • Dolby Renderer Send plug-ins inserted on auxiliary input tracks: These tracks are configured for a Dolby Atmos mix using one 7.1.2 bed and up to 118 mono objects (depending on the template).
> • Dolby Renderer Return plug-ins inserted on auxiliary input tracks: These tracks are configured for returning a headphone mix of rendered audio and 12 tracks designed to feed a room configured as 7.1.4.


----------



## dschulz

Marc Alexander said:


> There was a high-end integrator (who's name escapes me) at CEDIA who was partnered with PRO (Pro Audio Technologies). This integrator uses the Dolby CP850-C processor exclusively (I believe he said that the C is a custom version specifically for home cinemas). They simply eschew Dts:X and Auro3D. Any content not native Atmos is upmixed with Dolby Surround. It seems that he chooses the CP850 (rather than Trinnov A32) for the ability to array surrounds. I believe the PRO CEDIA sound room was setup for SS, SS1 & SS2 rather than Wides.


That would be Cortex VIP Cinemas. I know them well, as one of their principals is ex-Datasat staff like me.


----------



## batpig

Marc Alexander said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the confusion is massive as certain things are still not clear by this post by Henry. He talked about the 12, 14, and 16 limit in the previous post and then is back to 9.1 bed and 118 objects (which is cinema) in the quote above which says HOME ATMOS. If he means you can IMPORT a cinema Atmos track into the home mixing setup, that is a big difference between what you import and what you get to play back in home Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> AFAICT, there is just one mixing setup, not separate cinema & home. While the Atmos mix utilizes a 7.1.2 bed + objects, the home encoding is going to feature a 5.1 or 7.1 bed + objects (but it could be anything down to 2.0 or even 0.1). While I believe most mixers are going to segregate the x.x.2 + objects (up to 118) from the 5.1/7.1 bed in encoding, it's possible for objects to be clustered into the beds.
Click to expand...

The confusion is MagnumX's, and it's the difference between MIXING vs ENCODING, i.e. the limitation of 12/14/16 elements is for the final deliverable OUTPUT intended for the disc / stream.

EDIT: Quoting from the guide (with my emphasis), it's clear the element limit only applies to the output intended for final encoding for consumer playback:



> Spatial coding is present at two distinct stages in the Dolby Atmos authoring chain: during monitoring of the
> mix, and when encoding the Dolby Atmos master file set.
> 
> At the first stage (monitoring and mastering), spatial coding occurs as a real-time emulation process running
> on the Dolby Atmos Renderer during monitoring of the mix. Here, the mixer can listen to the effect of spatial
> coding while making adjustments to the mix for near-field presentation. The Dolby Atmos Renderer software
> generates a Dolby Atmos master file set (including the top-level .atmos file), *which still carries the full set of
> up to 128 signals, and therefore contains the mixing decisions for home theater, but has not yet been
> processed by spatial coding.*
> 
> At the second stage (encoding), spatial coding is finally applied to the original beds and objects as part of
> the encoding process by a software tool (such as Dolby Media Encoder). This tool reads the .atmos (or .damf)
> file, applies spatial coding to create the same clustered objects heard during the first stage of Dolby Atmos
> authoring, and then encodes the clustered objects into the delivery codec format (in the Dolby Media
> Encoder, the delivery codec format is specified in the job setup). The Encoder generates a coded bitstream
> that consists of objects and one or more bed channels. T*he encoded bitstream can then be delivered to
> consumer playback devices.*


----------



## Kain

noah katz said:


> What are the angular separations between the fronts and wides, and between wides and surrounds?


Front left/right will be around 25-30 degrees (7 ft away from face), front wides will be at around 50-55 degrees (5 ft away from face), and side surrounds at 90 degrees (4 ft away from face).


----------



## priitv8

batpig said:


> So with spatial coding, the beds are effectively converted to "static objects" and then become part of the clustering process.


Isn't it so, that in the consumer-deliverable format, the bed channels need to be there and behave like they always have, due to backward compatibility requirement?
I do not believe a pre-Atmos TrueHD (or DD+ for that matter) decoder would go silent when fed with Atmos signal. It would still render the 7.1 listener-level channels as it used to.
So in essence, these 7.1 channels are the transport media real-estate that the encoder can use, they still need to play back the base (bed) 7.1 channels, and also now need to carry the possible objects transparently to the non-Atmos decoder.
PS The ETSI TS 103 420 V1.2.1 (2018-10) document says this:


ETSI TS 103 420 V1.2.1 (2018-10) said:


> *C.3.2.3 complexity_index_type_a*
> The element complexity_index_type_a is an unsigned integer that indicates the decoding complexity of the
> enhanced AC-3 extension defined in the present document. *The value of this field shall be equal to the total number of
> bed objects, ISF objects and dynamic objects* indicated by the parameters in the program_assignment section of the
> object audio metadata payload. The *maximum value* of this field *shall be 16*.


----------



## batpig

priitv8 said:


> Isn't it so, that in the consumer-deliverable format, the bed channels need to be there and behave like they always have, due to backward compatibility requirement?


Not necessarily, because for a 5.1 or 7.1 decode the OAR (object audio renderer) wouldn't even be activated. It would ignore the 4th substream (with the objects / metadata) and decode the first 2 or 3 substreams.

I'm just speculating here but that's my (educated?) assumption based on my amateur enthusiast info :/


----------



## Marc Alexander

priitv8 said:


> Isn't it so, that in the consumer-deliverable format, the bed channels need to be there and behave like they always have, due to backward compatibility requirement?


Yes, it is so

Backwards compatibility, concise description: 


FilmMixer said:


> During encoding, the objects are mixed into the bed for backwards compatibility. During deciding, the object extension is read and the audio is "subtracted" out of the bed and then the objects are rendered and positioned in the sound field based on the metadata contained with each object.


Comprehensive:


Spoiler






sdurani said:


> You're conflating matrix cancelling with analogue audio when the two are unrelated. The DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format did not "analogely" matrix out surround-back information; the entire operation was done in the digital domain. Those soundtracks contained all the content in the 5.1 core, including a copy of the surround-back channel content, which was mixed equally in the left & right surround channels. Along with the core, there was an extension packet containing a copy of the surround-back info as a discrete channel. During decoding, this surround-back channel audio data was used to identify the same audio data in the L/R surrounds and delete that info from those surround channels. The end result was 3 surround channels.
> 
> In the context of audio, the prefix 'meta' means 'about its own category'. Metadata is info about audio data. It's not the audio itself. So, in the DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 format, the metadata is not "the discrete additional rear-center-information", but the instructions on how to combine the discrete surround-back info with the surround channels to end up with a discrete 6.1-channel soundtrack. Likewise, in an Atmos soundtrack, the metadata is not "an entirely independent sound stream package", but the instructions on how to combine the various substreams so that you end up with bed channels and audio objects.
> 
> TrueHD doesn't have the core/extension structure in the way you described it; i.e., there is no DD 5.1 core (that's a separately encoded track that is interleaved into the TrueHD track for output as a single bitstream). The TrueHD stream is structured as a series of substreams. The first substream contains the entire soundtrack as a 2-channel mix. So if you're a TV manufacturer, you don't have to use a fancy decoder that unpacks all 7.1 channels only to downmix them to 2 channels for playback over the two TV speakers. Instead, you use the most basic TrueHD decoder that simply unpacks the first substream.
> 
> The second substream contains the audio (data) and instructions (metadata) that, when combined with the first substream, results in a discrete 5.1-channel track. The third substream contains the audio and instructions, when combined with the first two substreams, to recreate a 7.1-channel track. The fourth substream for 9.1-channel soundtracks, and so on, with additional substreams allowing for reconstituting mixes with more discrete channels. However, in an Atmos soundtrack, Dolby chose to use the fourth substream for the audio objects (data) and the information about them (metadata).
> 
> If your AVR has an older TrueHD decoder, then it won't recognize the information in the fourth substream of an Atmos track. It will simply decode the first three substreams, recovering the original 7.1 mix of the soundtrack. Newer TrueHD decoders will recognize the fourth substream and unpack the contents. Since the backwards compatible 7.1 portion of the soundtrack contains all the audio in the mix, you've got copies of the objects sitting in those channels. This is a problem, since you don't want objects in two places at once. So the data in the fourth substream is inverted and used as a cancellation signal to delete that same information in the 7.1 channels. The end result is the original bed channels and audio objects of the encoding master.
> 
> Nothing "analogely" done at any step.


----------



## batpig

Marc Alexander said:


> Backwards compatibility, concise description:


This does raise an interesting question though. Those descriptions you quoted are still in the context of the objects and 7.1 bed channels being separated into two different groups, as the "old understanding" prior to this recent development was that they were, indeed, separate (Home Atmos = 7.1 + up to 16 objects).

But what if a bed channel signal ends up lumped with an object as part of spatial coding? For example, the SL signal ends up getting clustered with some other stuff and is converted to an object with Y=0.5 coordinate as per the documentation. When the object gets subtracted, is the end result that the "channel" part of the side surround signal is silence and the side surround is now producing 100% rendered objects (because the channel has become part of the object)?


----------



## noah katz

Kain said:


> Front left/right will be around 25-30 degrees (7 ft away from face), front wides will be at around 50-55 degrees (5 ft away from face), and side surrounds at 90 degrees (4 ft away from face).



IMO that's not far off optimum placement.

Of course the best thing would be to set it up temporarily and decide from there whether it's worthwhile to commit to.


----------



## Marc Alexander

batpig said:


> But what if a bed channel signal ends up lumped with an object as part of spatial coding?


 Don't get tripped up by the "beds are converted to objects" in spatial coding. 

The bed channels/clusters will be static and the object-clusters dynamic. Dynamic objects can move between both bed channels/clusters and dynamic object-clusters. 


> For example, the SL signal ends up getting clustered with some other stuff and is converted to an object with Y=0.5 coordinate as per the documentation. When the object gets subtracted….


 The object would not be subtracted from a bed-cluster until it moves to a dynamic object-cluster.

Perhaps the terminology of static-clusters and dynamic-clusters is less confusing. Beds (10) and objects (118) exist during mixing. Spatial coding translates the beds and objects to spatial clusters, static and dynamic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

It's too damn bad that this bit of semi-humor someone cooked up is indicative of so many Disney audio tracks these days:


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

ergalthema said:


> Confused what you mean about surround speakers mounted on the ceiling. Do you have 8 total speakers? Or only 6 and moved LS and RS to the ceiling?





sdurani said:


> The confusion was you referring to your height speakers as surround speakers. A 5.1.2 layout is 3 front speakers (in front of you), 2 surround speakers (at your sides or behind you) and 2 height speakers (above you). To answer your original question: moving from your current height speakers to in-ceiling speakers won't necessarily improve Atmos playback, since it depends on the quality of the speakers and where they are placed.
> 
> Your current height speakers are a sonic match for your other speakers, so my first choice wouldn't be to replace them. Where are your current height speakers mounted: directly above you or forward of your listening position? Are they mounted flat on the ceiling pointing straight down or aimed towards the listeners?


I'm sorry for not being clear. I have 7 speakers (and a subwoofer) and mounted 2 of them on the ceiling, thus making it a 5.1.2. They are placed slightly in front of my listening position and are pointed towards this direction at a certain angle. My plan is to buy ceiling speakers and place them directly on top of my position. It makes sense to have all matching speakers, but somehow I feel like I'm not getting the best out of atmos. Do you think changing the speaker position to point straight down would make any difference? Thank you for your responses.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Marc Alexander said:


> Don't get tripped up by the "beds are converted to objects" in spatial coding.
> 
> The bed channels/clusters will be static and the object-clusters dynamic. Dynamic objects can move between both bed channels/clusters and dynamic object-clusters.
> The object would not be subtracted from a bed-cluster until it moves to a dynamic object-cluster.
> 
> Perhaps the terminology of static-clusters and dynamic-clusters is less confusing. Beds (10) and objects (118) exist during mixing. Spatial coding translates the beds and objects to spatial clusters, static and dynamic.


Static as in permanent? Meaning that if the mixer starts his mix with a 7.1.2 bed, these bed channels or static objects or static clusters will after encoding to home Atmos use 10 out of the 12 to 16 audio substreams throughout the whole track?


----------



## -Henry-

Marc Alexander said:


> .
> 
> Perhaps the terminology of static-clusters and dynamic-clusters is less confusing. Beds (10) and objects (118) exist during mixing. Spatial coding translates the beds and objects to spatial clusters, static and dynamic.


 
I assume that element's metadata (including position) is dynamic, changed during the playback for each element . An element could be used time by time as object and as bed (when the element/object has "zero" (speaker) position metadata)


----------



## maikeldepotter

-Henry- said:


> I assume that element's metadata (including position) is dynamic, changed during the playback for each element . An element could be used time by time as object and as bed (when the element/object has "zero" (speaker) position metadata)


That. Which is in contradict with my question two posts back. Also, your explanation would make it impossible for any processor to array exclusively the surround bed channels (and not the objects which can be included in the same sub stream as a result of the spatial coding process). Yet, the CP-850(C) seems to be able to do exactly that. How?


----------



## niterida

xavierlehnsherr said:


> I'm sorry for not being clear. I have 7 speakers (and a subwoofer) and mounted 2 of them on the ceiling, thus making it a 5.1.2. They are placed slightly in front of my listening position and are pointed towards this direction at a certain angle. My plan is to buy ceiling speakers and place them directly on top of my position. It makes sense to have all matching speakers, but somehow I feel like I'm not getting the best out of atmos. Do you think changing the speaker position to point straight down would make any difference? Thank you for your responses.


I would just keep your existing setup - there will be little difference between the 2 setups and your current one is probably better.
To get a better Atmos experience you will have to go to 5.1.4 set up.


----------



## -Henry-

maikeldepotter said:


> That. Which is in contradict with my question two posts back. Also, your explanation would make it impossible for any processor to array exclusively the surround bed channels (and not the objects which can be included in the same sub stream as a result of the spatial coding process). Yet, the CP-850(C) seems to be able to do exactly that. How?



You question is not clear for me. There are up to 16 elements extracted from Atmos bitstream. Is it not enough to perform exclusively all or several beds?


----------



## maikeldepotter

-Henry- said:


> You question is not clear for me. There are up to 16 elements extracted from Atmos bitstream. Is it not enough to perform exclusively all or several beds?


That is what I mean. To make it work those arrayable bed channels would each need to have an exclusive audio sub stream all of the time. Those exclusive and static objects reduce the amount of sub streams available for dynamic objects/clusters moving in between the bed channels/ static objects.


----------



## -Henry-

maikeldepotter said:


> That is what I mean. To make it work those arrayable bed channels would each need to have an exclusive audio sub stream all of the time. Those exclusive and static objects reduce the amount of sub streams available for dynamic objects/clusters moving in between the bed channels/ static objects.



Agree. There was performed a good idea that the spatial coding looks like a compression of PCM to mp3. Finally in both cases we have less resolution.


----------



## harrisu

PoorSignal said:


> It’s not the fault of the blu ray movies
> I am not familar with minidsp but
> You need to set the speaker level with a spl meter and test tone.


That I already did. I setup the Speakers Levels and delays both.


----------



## sdurani

xavierlehnsherr said:


> My plan is to buy ceiling speakers and place them directly on top of my position.


In my experience, it can be distracting to have speakers directly above. YMMV.


> ...somehow I feel like I'm not getting the best out of atmos.


What do you feel is missing?


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Each time the object pattern changes, the stationary music components will be altered within the output objects, and thus rendered ever so slightly differently among the speakers in the region near the drive-by. Those small changes in the music components may be calculated to sum to a constant power for each successive pattern to minimize artefacts, but the human ear might still detect something is going on.


When DVD first debuted a couple decades back, I saw a demo of how the video compression worked. It used video of a boy sitting next to a tree. Felt like we could see every leaf on the tree. Then the boy got up and moved out of frame. 

The demonstrator covered up the bottom half of the frame, so all we could see were the leaves, and asked us to raise our hands when we thought the boy moved. Again, felt like we could see every leaf on the tree. Suddenly, they became a green blur momentarily but returned to being detailed again. Bits directed elsewhere. So not only could we tell when the boy moved but we could also tell when he left the frame. 

When viewing the full frame, we didn't notice the change in the leaves because we were distracted by the moving object (the boy walking out of frame). Makes me wonder how audible the change in stationary music would be in your above example, considering our attention would likely be distracted by the drive-by object. No question it would change, just questioning whether we'd notice.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Yet, the CP-850(C) seems to be able to do exactly that. How?


Consider the premise you're starting from might not be correct and the CP-850 has the same version of home Atmos that every one else does.


----------



## farsider3000

niterida said:


> I would just keep your existing setup - there will be little difference between the 2 setups and your current one is probably better.
> To get a better Atmos experience you will have to go to 5.1.4 set up.




Not necessarily true. He may have an overly reflective and/or small room which does not allow him to distinguish the ceiling speakers from the LCR or sides. I have this issue with some soundtracks in my 14’ x 23.5’ room which is treated with acoustic panels. I need to add some additional panels in certain areas.

I would consider adding rear speakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## maikeldepotter

sdurani said:


> Consider the premise you're starting from might not be correct and the CP-850 has the same version of home Atmos that every one else does.


Exactly. That’s why I changed to this premise:



maikeldepotter said:


> To make it work those arrayable bed channels would each need to have an exclusive audio sub stream all of the time. Those exclusive and static objects reduce the amount of sub streams available for dynamic objects/clusters moving in between the bed channels/ static objects.


----------



## batpig

Marc Alexander said:


> Perhaps the terminology of static-clusters and dynamic-clusters is less confusing.


Yes that makes sense. So if the payload is 16 "elements" then 8 of those will be "static" representing the 7.1 bed PLUS any other objects that end up clustered with them (or potentially 10 if the overhead stereo bed also converts to a static cluster pair). 

But it does seem to explain the no-array problem, because if the OAR thinks it's an object stuck at Y=0.5 and not a bed, then why would it spread it across the side surround or top surround array?


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

sdurani said:


> In my experience, it can be distracting to have speakers directly above. YMMV. What do you feel is missing?


Not sure what's the right word for it, maybe it's sound immersion or the ambience which I had experienced when I heard some demos (especially leaf video ) in a showroom. That demo room has 5.1 and 2 ceiling speakers. I didn't really care about my setup until I went there  I can feel the overhead effects like explosions, thunders and planes/helicopters fine in my case, but the lack of immersiveness is what lead me to believe that having ceiling speakers might make a difference.


----------



## batpig

-Henry- said:


> You question is not clear for me. There are up to 16 elements extracted from Atmos bitstream. Is it not enough to perform exclusively all or several beds?


We are talking specifically here about arraying the bed signals across multiple speakers. The question from some of us is that if beds + objects are being "clustered" during the spatial coding process, how can the OAR treat the beds differently than the objects?

With Cinema Atmos there's the 9.1 bed + up to 118 objects, and they are treated different. The surround arrays are not individually addressable from the beds, for example the "side surround left" signal will array across the entire left sidewall array. However with objects each of those speakers can be addressed individually with objects.

For Home Atmos, if the beds+objects are clustered together, how can the decoder possibly treat these two types of signals differently (array the bed but NOT the object)?


----------



## Marc Alexander

maikeldepotter said:


> Static as in permanent? Meaning that if the mixer starts his mix with a 7.1.2 bed, these bed channels or static objects or static clusters will after encoding to home Atmos use 10 out of the 12 to 16 audio substreams throughout the whole track?


 No. The mix is 7.1.2 + 118 objects. The home encode will result in a 5.1 or 7.1 bed. 



maikeldepotter said:


> That. Which is in contradict with my question two posts back. Also, your explanation would make it impossible for any processor to array exclusively the surround bed channels (and not the objects which can be included in the same sub stream as a result of the spatial coding process). Yet, the CP-850(C) seems to be able to do exactly that. How?





batpig said:


> For Home Atmos, if the beds+objects are clustered together, how can the decoder possibly treat these two types of signals differently (array the bed but NOT the object)?


↓↓↓


Marc Alexander said:


> This certainly could be why Dolby has not allowed the arraying in the consumer Atmos processors. I can imagine unexpected results w/arraying if a mixer allows objects to be clustered into the 5.1/7.1 "bed" during spatial encoding. *But I would think this is something most mixers would strive to avoid. *
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 24.3.3
> Spatial coding in the authoring chain
> Spatial coding is present at two distinct stages in the Dolby Atmos authoring chain: during monitoring of the mix, and when encoding the Dolby Atmos master file set. At the first stage (monitoring and mastering), bulation process running on the Dolby Atmos Renderer during monitoring of the mix. Here, the mixer can listen to the effect of spatial coding while making adjustments to the mix for near-field presentation. The Dolby Atmos Renderer software generates a Dolby Atmos master file set (including the top-level .atmos file), which still carries the full set of up to 128 signals, and therefore contains the mixing decisions for home theater or VR, but has not yet been processed by spatial coding.
> At the second stage (encoding), spatial coding is finally applied to the original beds and objects as part of the encoding process by a software tool (such as Dolby Media Encoder). This tool reads the .atmos (or .damf) file, applies spatial coding to create the same clustered objects heard during the first stage of Dolby Atmos authoring, and then encodes the clustered objects into the delivery codec format (in the Dolby Media Encoder, the delivery codec format is specified in the job setup). The Encoder generates a coded bitstream that consists of objects and one or more bed channels.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Marc Alexander said:


> No. The mix is 7.1.2 + 118 objects. The home encode will result in a 5.1 or 7.1 bed.


Inaccurate wording from my side. The choice of bed channel config does not come into play until the mix is ready to be encoded, just like the choice of total amount of audio sub streams to be used (12 to 16).



> ↓↓↓


You seem to be ignoring the fact that Dolby’s CP-850(C) processor apparently can array bed channels playing a home Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## farsider3000

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Not sure what's the right word for it, maybe it's sound immersion or the ambience which I had experienced when I heard some demos (especially leaf video ) in a showroom. That demo room has 5.1 and 2 ceiling speakers. I didn't really care about my setup until I went there  I can feel the overhead effects like explosions, thunders and planes/helicopters fine in my case, but the lack of immersiveness is what lead me to believe that having ceiling speakers might make a difference.



Ceiling speakers do add to the immersive ness in my opinion. I also have tested and my middle row of ceiling speakers located about one foot in front of my ears on the ceiling provides the most immersion. The row behind me gets lost in the rears and surrounds while the row of ceiling speakers closer to the screen gets lost in the screen action.

So for one row of Atmos and one row of seating, I would mount ceiling speakers one to two feet in front of the main listening position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jamesyates

I have to admit when I first played Apocalypse Atmos I had the 7.1 track playing in error and I thought what great height effects. It was not being upmixed. The opening scene sounded atmos to me on 7.1 and no upmixing.


----------



## batpig

jamesyates said:


> I have to admit when I first played Apocalypse Atmos I had the 7.1 track playing in error and I thought what great height effects. It was not being upmixed. The opening scene sounded atmos to me on 7.1 and no upmixing.


Many people would be shocked if they realized how many surround effects they perceive as "height effects" are actually NOT coming from the height speakers.


----------



## Marc Alexander

maikeldepotter said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact that Dolby’s CP-850(C) processor apparently can array bed channels playing a home Atmos soundtrack.


To the contrary, I've been posting in regards to the CP-850 vs consumer processors. 

The goal of spatial coding is to faithfully but efficiently reproduce the mix


----------



## Marc Alexander

We should consider that monitoring is an important part of the workflow. From "Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater October 2016":


> Production houses that create Dolby Atmos content for home theaters will use a tool called Dolby Media Producer, along with its suite of professional encoding, decoding, and media-related tools.Before using Dolby Media Producer, though, production houses have the option to perform several preliminary steps, including a near-field remix and remastering of the cinematic master file. In this stage of the process, audio mixers may make small adjustments to the mix to ensure that it sounds as they intended in Dolby Atmos enabled home theaters.


According to the "Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide" spatial coding transforms all beds to "equivalent objects at predifined canonical locations" which re-render to speaker locations. It states that the spatial coding defaults may not lead to the desirable results and recommends "configuring spatial coding with 11 to 15 output objects and one bed channel for the LFE." This along with adjusting the spatial coding config options allow for more user control and fine tuning. 

Someone (I forget who) in the know told me (circa 2016/2017) that monitoring at up to 9.1.6 has always been an option for mixers (via Pro Tools), but 7.1.4 was most common. Perhaps 9.1.6 is more common now. I'm not a mixer, but theoretically I would want to monitor layouts from 9.1.6 down to 5.1.2 (time permitting).

(2/2)


----------



## Kain

noah katz said:


> IMO that's not far off optimum placement.
> 
> Of course the best thing would be to set it up temporarily and decide from there whether it's worthwhile to commit to.


Will see what I can do. However, do you feel that a 4 ft listening distance for the side and rear surrounds is too close? Will they become too localizable even after calibration?


----------



## mcb61

harrisu said:


> That I already did. I setup the Speakers Levels and delays both.



Your initial post on this issue implies to me you are using the 88A's volume control and not the AVR's. I (and I believe most others) set the 88A's volume conrol at max (after completing the config of the 88A) and then use the AVR's volume control. This ensures that all channels (88A and non-88A) are adjusted equally.


If you are using the AVR vol control, I don't understand why there are issues with the volume of the non 88A channels.


----------



## Marc Alexander

harrisu said:


> Anyone here running ceiling speaker independent of Room correction from floor speakers? I use Minidsp 88a as room correction that works on all of my floor speakers since it can drive maximum of 8 channels. So, I set the delays on my ceiling speakers accordingly and let it run without any room correction. Issue that I"m running into is that different Blu Ray have different volume on them. For example, when watching Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague, the avr volume is around -18 for it to be plenty loud but at that level, ceiling speakers are barely making any sound. If all the speakers were run from same source, they all would produce sound level based on what's on bluray but in my case, I don't know what would happen since each blu ray can have its own volume level.
> 
> 
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If I'm right, is there anything I can do to avoid this?


What is the main processor or AVR you have? Do you have a SPL meter?


----------



## sdurani

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Not sure what's the right word for it, maybe it's sound immersion or the ambience which I had experienced when I heard some demos (especially leaf video ) in a showroom.


Could be any number of reasons why the demo sounded better to you, including how well the room was treated acoustically. I wouldn't automatically conclude it was the in-ceiling speakers that were responsible for the difference. Meanwhile, go into your receiver's speaker set-up menu and try turning up the level of your Top Middle speakers (2-3 dB to start) and see if that helps.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> But what if a bed channel signal ends up lumped with an object as part of spatial coding?


What if the 4th substream only contains object sounds that need to be cancelled, so that the entire spatially coded element (bed + objects) doesn't go silent?


----------



## ScottieBoysName

farsider3000 said:


> Ceiling speakers do add to the immersive ness in my opinion. I also have tested and my middle row of ceiling speakers located about one foot in front of my ears on the ceiling provides the most immersion. The row behind me gets lost in the rears and surrounds while the row of ceiling speakers closer to the screen gets lost in the screen action.
> 
> So for one row of Atmos and one row of seating, I would mount ceiling speakers one to two feet in front of the main listening position.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




I’ve noticed this as well. I have 4 Atmos speakers, and I think my front two are too close to the front stage and sometimes get lost in it.


----------



## noah katz

Kain said:


> Will see what I can do. However, do you feel that a 4 ft listening distance for the side and rear surrounds is too close? Will they become too localizable even after calibration?



It's hard to say.

If you don't already have speakers, I'd strongly consider bipoles or something else with a higher ratio of reflected to direct sound, or pointing them up to reflect off of the wall and ceiling.

Also, if you have only one row of listeners, I'd drop the Top Middles and use those channels for more subs to smooth bass response.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Kain said:


> Will see what I can do. However, do you feel that a 4 ft listening distance for the side and rear surrounds is too close? Will they become too localizable even after calibration?


 4ft should be fine. You can raise them above ear level to reduce localization. Something closer to ½ ceiling height.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Glancing through my available Atmos library it appears that most if not all Blu-ray tracks are 7.1 + Atmos, Netflix titles appear to be 5.1 + Atmos and Vudu has a mix of both.


----------



## batpig

Marc Alexander said:


> Glancing through my available Atmos library it appears that most if not all Blu-ray tracks are 7.1 + Atmos, Netflix titles appear to be 5.1 + Atmos and Vudu has a mix of both.


How are you determining this exactly? Super curious. Which device reports that type of info?


----------



## Nalleh

^^^ I believe pressing the info button on say a OPPO 203 would give that info(doesn’t report Atmos etc, only base info like Dolby 7.1 True HD).


----------



## -Henry-

batpig said:


> We are talking specifically here about arraying the bed signals across multiple speakers. The question from some of us is that if beds + objects are being "clustered" during the spatial coding process, how can the OAR treat the beds differently than the objects?
> 
> With Cinema Atmos there's the 9.1 bed + up to 118 objects, and they are treated different. The surround arrays are not individually addressable from the beds, for example the "side surround left" signal will array across the entire left sidewall array. However with objects each of those speakers can be addressed individually with objects.
> 
> For Home Atmos, if the beds+objects are clustered together, how can the decoder possibly treat these two types of signals differently (array the bed but NOT the object)?


 
You always keep in mind cinema atmos "beds+objects" scheme, and trying to understands how it is extracted from each other, and to make a calculation likes "16 streams minus 7.1 beds". It's wrong way. *Decoder does not treat or array any bed*. Because *home atmos does not have beds more *(excl. LFE). It has *objects only* (new spatial coded objects - a.k.a. elements). And each element (physically) is a stream with a lot of episodes and dynamic metadata updated during playback.




sdurani said:


> What if the 4th substream only contains object sounds that need to be cancelled, so that the entire spatially coded element (bed + objects) doesn't go silent?


 The "4th substream with objects" it's just marketing trick. The 4th substream (in MAT 2.0 container with MLP or PCM) contains *the information about objects (metadata)* only, but not the sound.


----------



## Roger Dressler

-Henry- said:


> The "4th substream with objects" it's just marketing trick. The 4th substream (in MAT 2.0 container with MLP or PCM) contains *the information about objects (metadata)* only, but not the sound.


With reference to the diagram we have seen before







the 4th substream does indeed carry audio essence plus metadata when we're talking about Blu-ray (TrueHD) coded audio or MAT 2.0. 
If we are talking about DD+ (streaming), then yes, there is no audio in the extension substream. Just metadata. This is covered in the Production Suite Guide, p. 191:



> • Dolby TrueHD: In this case, the spatially coded objects are losslessly delivered to
> consumer playback devices. Typically, the Dolby TrueHD encoder creates a bitstream
> containing the spatially coded objects, a 7.1-ch render of the objects, and 5.1-ch and 2-ch
> downmixes. The 7.1, 5.1 and 2-ch presentations are backward-compatible with legacy
> Dolby TrueHD decoders. A Dolby Atmos-capable Dolby TrueHD decoder losslessly reverses
> the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects. Dolby TrueHD
> also supports independent 7.1, 5.1, and 2-channel presentations of 7.1.
> 
> • Dolby Digital Plus: In this case, the spatially coded objects are rendered to a backwards
> compatible 5.1 or 7.1 core mix and side metadata is generated to extract the individual
> objects from the mix. The core mix is encoded with Dolby Digital Plus in a backward compatible
> manner and can be played back directly by older Dolby Digital Plus decoders.
> This is a lossy process due to the downmixing process, as well as the subsequent lossy
> coding of the base mix.


----------



## maikeldepotter

-Henry- said:


> The "4th substream with objects" it's just marketing trick. The 4th substream (in MAT 2.0 container with MLP or PCM) contains *the information about objects (metadata)* only, but not the sound.


Just as the proclaimed arraying capability of Dolby’s CP-850 could just be a marketing trick? If there is no way to recover the bed channel once an object sound has been added to that same audio substream by the spatial coding process, all that the CP-850 can do is take all of that information and array it to additional speakers. Everyone with a Trinnov Altitude can do the same already ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> With reference to the diagram we have seen before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 4th substream does indeed carry audio essence plus metadata when we're talking about Blu-ray (TrueHD) coded audio or MAT 2.0.
> If we are talking about DD+ (streaming), then yes, there is no audio in the extension substream. Just metadata. This is covered in the Production Suite Guide, p. 191:


Ok, so is there our answer? With TrueHD, and not with DD+, a capable processor is able to extract “pure” bed channel info (for arraying purposes) from a home encode.


----------



## -Henry-

Roger Dressler said:


> With reference to the diagram we have seen before
> the 4th substream does indeed carry audio essence plus metadata when we're talking about Blu-ray (TrueHD) coded audio or MAT 2.0.
> If we are talking about DD+ (streaming), then yes, there is no audio in the extension substream. Just metadata. This is covered in the Production Suite Guide, p. 191:


 
The old customer's (non Atmos) AVR/AVP ignore the 4th sub-stream. If this sub-stream could contain the whole objects (with audio signal) - the part of sound information will be loosed by old Dolby decoder. But it is not true. 




maikeldepotter said:


> Just as the proclaimed arraying capability of Dolby’s CP-850 could just be a marketing trick? If there is no way to recover the bed channel once an object sound has been added to that same audio substream by the spatial coding process, all that the CP-850 can do is take all of that information and array it to additional speakers. Everyone with a Trinnov Altitude can do the same already ...


Sorry,but I do not understand your question regarding "arraying capability of Dolby’s CP-850" and "marketing trick" at once. 


If you are talking about possibility to use additional speakers at Atmos home setup using customer's (non cinema) processors (like Trinnov) , so my answer is simple - it means - "scalability". Isn't it?


----------



## maikeldepotter

-Henry- said:


> Sorry,but I do not understand your question regarding "arraying capability of Dolby’s CP-850" and "marketing trick" at once.


If there would be no way to from a home Atmos encode retrieve the “clean” (identical to the theatrical mix) bed channel info, the claim that Dolby’s CP-850 could do just that would be false, no?




> If you are talking about possibility to use additional speakers at Atmos home setup using customer's (non cinema) processors (like Trinnov) , so my answer is simple - it means - "scalability". Isn't it?


No, this is about arraying original bed channel info over a speaker array, while at the same time keeping those speaker locations individually addressable for dynamic objects or clusters. Currently no consumer processor, not even Trinnov’s Altitude, does offer that feature.


----------



## -Henry-

maikeldepotter said:


> Ok, so is there our answer? With TrueHD, and not with DD+, a capable processor is able to extract “pure” bed channel info (for arraying purposes) from a home encode.



In accordance with your idea the lossy DD+ is decoded by old (non Atmos) Dolby processor will have all sound information. Lossless TrueHD is decoded by old processor (ignoring the 4th sub-stream) loosed the part of sound information. Is it logical? Both Atmos TrueHD and DD+ have to be backward-compatible with old decoders and includes full original sound information.


Again, you are trying to use Cinema scheme "beds+objects" to understand the home Atmos technology. Again and again you are trying "to extract" the beds from encoded customer's mix. 
I'm trying to explain that it is wrong way, because home Atmos does not have beds, and it does not work exactly as Cinema Atmos


----------



## maikeldepotter

-Henry- said:


> Again, you are trying to use Cinema scheme "beds+objects" to understand the home Atmos technology. Again and again you are trying "to extract" the beds from encoded customer's mix.
> I'm trying to explain that it is wrong way, because home Atmos does not have beds, and it does not work exactly as Cinema Atmos


It’s not me who claims the CP-850 can take an Atmos home encodes and do exactly that: take the bed out of the mix and array it over multiple speakers. I will again and again try to find out how that is possible ...


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

farsider3000 said:


> Ceiling speakers do add to the immersive ness in my opinion. I also have tested and my middle row of ceiling speakers located about one foot in front of my ears on the ceiling provides the most immersion. The row behind me gets lost in the rears and surrounds while the row of ceiling speakers closer to the screen gets lost in the screen action.
> 
> So for one row of Atmos and one row of seating, I would mount ceiling speakers one to two feet in front of the main listening position.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks for sharing your feedback. I too have placed my speakers at around 2 feet in front of my listening position. I initially thought of having them right on top of mlp, but I decided to go with the showroom's setup.



sdurani said:


> Could be any number of reasons why the demo sounded better to you, including how well the room was treated acoustically. I wouldn't automatically conclude it was the in-ceiling speakers that were responsible for the difference. Meanwhile, go into your receiver's speaker set-up menu and try turning up the level of your Top Middle speakers (2-3 dB to start) and see if that helps.


Hmm you're probably right. My room looks kinda congested with all the furniture and other stuff  I did increase those speakers' level by 1-3db, but all it did was increase the overall sound from them, but the immersion was still missing. Should I change the crossover setting for those speakers? Currently all my speakers are set at 80hz, enabled thx mode and set sound mode as direct input for atmos movies in my AVR (Onkyo NR686)


----------



## -Henry-

maikeldepotter said:


> It’s not me who claims the CP-850 can take an Atmos home encodes and do exactly that: take the bed out of the mix and array it over multiple speakers. I will again and again try to find out how that is possible ...


 
Ah, I just would like to ask you to explain an experience with CP-850, which sounds for me as Space Shuttle, I never flew on it and will never fly in future. Meanwhile, me, as you, is trying to understand it.


By the way, I began to study DTS:X and now assume that both companies use the very similar technology of near field mix & spatial coding in order to reduce the bitrate of original mix, but with different output result. DTS gets the same spatial encoded 16 (or 17) "elements", but to opposite to Dolby, the DTS original beds&objects are generally encoded to static "elements" (aka beds) and several objects (in theory 7.1 beds + up to 8-9 objects, or 11.1 beds + up to 5 objects, or any another combination). So DTS keeps beds/objects scheme as well as it's possible.


----------



## harrisu

mcb61 said:


> Your initial post on this issue implies to me you are using the 88A's volume control and not the AVR's. I (and I believe most others) set the 88A's volume conrol at max (after completing the config of the 88A) and then use the AVR's volume control. This ensures that all channels (88A and non-88A) are adjusted equally.
> 
> 
> If you are using the AVR vol control, I don't understand why there are issues with the volume of the non 88A channels.





Marc Alexander said:


> What is the main processor or AVR you have? Do you have a SPL meter?


This is what I do. I'm taking out how I set the distance because that is irreverent to how we set speakers level.
1 - Take Dirac measurements (for floor speakers).
2 - Set volume to max (this really shouldn't matter since we level match the floor speakers with ceiling).
3 - Once all done, place mic at MLP at ear level
4 - Make sure avr proccessing (Yamaha 3050 YPAO) is set to off
5 - Turn on the tone generator from avr and have it produce from Left speaker (or any other floor one that are handled by Dirac)
6 - Open SPL Meter in REW and see what it shows.
7 - Then move the tone generator to each of ceiling speaker and make sure it produces the same level that Left speaker did by changing its trim level.

I believe my method is correct. Now my question. Based on the comments I have read about Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague the dolby atmos version is that its one of the best atmos recording. So to check it, I mute all the speakers besides ceiling and to my surprise, there wasn't much coming and also the level of sound produced was less than the surrounds. My surrounds and ceiling speakers are pretty much at the same distance. I then checked the volume on avr and it was at -15 and it was pretty loud. When I play Mad Max, I can go up to -11. When I play John Wick, I can go to -10. They all are Bluray and all have different level of sound in them. What I am concerned is that atmos bluray that are at higher volumne, do my ceiling speakers need to be adjusted for it since its not driven by the same processor that is driving my floor speakers?


----------



## batpig

-Henry- said:


> You always keep in mind cinema atmos "beds+objects" scheme, and trying to understands how it is extracted from each other, and to make a calculation likes "16 streams minus 7.1 beds". It's wrong way. *Decoder does not treat or array any bed*. Because *home atmos does not have beds more *(excl. LFE). It has *objects only* (new spatial coded objects - a.k.a. elements). And each element (physically) is a stream with a lot of episodes and dynamic metadata updated during playback.


Respectfully, I don't think you're understanding the nuance of what we are actually talking about here, perhaps because of the language barrier and also I'm sure in part because you (being new here) are missing some of the context of prior discussions about arraying. We are trying to process how the new information you uncovered recontextualizes previous discussions which you were not part of.

Please re-read my comments about how Cinema Atmos arrays bed information (each speaker in the array plays the exact same signal) but does NOT array objects (each speaker in the array can be addressed individually).

In the past, end users have noticed that Home Atmos does not appear to array the bed (channel) information. For example, someone with a 7.1.6 setup who plays the 4K Atmos disc of Avengers: Endgame or Saving Private Ryan will hear 99.9% of the sound from only the Top Middle speakers, vs having the audio array across all 6 overheads. Or a Trinnov user who has multiple side surrounds (e.g. 11.x.x or 13.x.x) will hear 99% of the audio from just a single side surround, vs having it spread across all the side surrounds as would happen in the cinema.

If the bed information doesn't array, it largely defeats the purpose of having these additional speakers to make the surround effects more even across multiple rows of seating. 

*So I am NOT disagreeing with what you said above, rather we are discussing how this info you provided explains a mysterious phenomenon that had already been observed (bed sound not arraying as it does in the cinema).* If as you say "with Home Atmos it has objects only, there are no beds" then that perfectly explains the observed behavior.


----------



## Roger Dressler

-Henry- said:


> The old customer's (non Atmos) AVR/AVP ignore the 4th sub-stream. If this sub-stream could contain the whole objects (with audio signal) - the part of sound information will be loosed by old Dolby decoder. But it is not true.


The whole objects are never lost for any listener. They are always and completely mixed with the bed channels to create a "complete mix" that is playable by the old customers with legacy (non-Atmos) AV systems that only understand up to 7.1-channel bitstreams. 

In the case of TrueHD, the objects are transmitted, in effect, twice. Once in the complete mix (core 7.1 channels) and again as separate objects in the 4th substream. In the Atmos decoder, the 4th substream is rendered using the identical mapping as in the encoder tool that created the 7.1 complete mix, except this time the signals are merged with polarity inversion into the complete mix channels so as to be canceled. That reveals the 7.1 bed channels which, when combined with the 4th substream objects rendered to fit the current playback system's speakers, creates the full Atmos presentation.

In the case of DD+, the parallel object delivery is not used in order to reduce bitrate to the bare minimum. Instead, a technique called parametric coding is used to create metadata that tells the DD+ decoder how to extract and reconstruct, in an approximate/lossy manner, the objects.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> In the case of TrueHD, the objects are transmitted, in effect, twice. Once in the complete mix (core 7.1 channels) and again as separate objects in the 4th substream. In the Atmos decoder, the 4th substream is rendered using the identical mapping as in the encoder tool that created the 7.1 complete mix, except this time the signals are merged with polarity inversion into the complete mix channels so as to be canceled. That reveals the 7.1 bed channels which, when combined with the 4th substream objects rendered to fit the current playback system's speakers, creates the full Atmos presentation.
> 
> In the case of DD+, the parallel object delivery is not used in order to reduce bitrate to the bare minimum. Instead, a technique called parametric coding is used to create metadata that tells the DD+ decoder how to extract and reconstruct, in an approximate/lossy manner, the objects.


Would you say that in both cases a capable processor (like the CP-850) could extract the bed channels for arraying?


----------



## -Henry-

batpig said:


> Respectfully, I don't think you're understanding the nuance of what we are actually talking about here, perhaps because of the language barrier and also I'm sure in part because you (being new here) are missing some of the context of prior discussions about arraying. We are trying to process how the new information you uncovered recontextualizes previous discussions which you were not part of.
> 
> Please re-read my comments about how Cinema Atmos arrays bed information (each speaker in the array plays the exact same signal) but does NOT array objects (each speaker in the array can be addressed individually).


 
I appreciate your answer and detailed explanation. Meanwhile I'm reading this thread from beginning and I know this nuance. But during all years I was reader, not writer. 



batpig said:


> In the past, end users have noticed that Home Atmos does not appear to array the bed (channel) information. For example, someone with a 7.1.6 setup who plays the 4K Atmos disc of Avengers: Endgame or Saving Private Ryan will hear 99.9% of the sound from only the Top Middle speakers, vs having the audio array across all 6 overheads. Or a Trinnov user who has multiple side surrounds (e.g. 11.x.x or 13.x.x) will hear 99% of the audio from just a single side surround, vs having it spread across all the side surrounds as would happen in the cinema.
> 
> If the bed information doesn't array, it largely defeats the purpose of having these additional speakers to make the surround effects more even across multiple rows of seating. .


I discussed the same in DTS:X thread. I can speculate only: 
1) Old Dolby tool (RMU, used in 2014) can re-render atmos mix to the classic 7.1 and 5.1 channel mix only. With current Renderer it's possible to re-render atmos mix (including beds or objects only, or full mix) to the 2.0, 5.0, 5.1, 5.1, 5.1.4, 7.0, 7.1.2, 9.1.6 channel based output format (waveforms). It's on one hand. 


On other hand the Dolby Encoders also allow to use channel-based pre-mixes to encode to the home atmos. In that case output delivery atmos track will have the same elements/objects but with "zero" coordinates, i.e. hard-locked to the concrete speakers, and not scalable. So Avengers: Endgame and Saving Private Ryan master mixes could be re-rendered to channel-based format like 7.1.2 and encoded as is. So I do not see here any *mysterious phenomenon*. 




Roger Dressler said:


> In the case of TrueHD, the objects are transmitted, in effect, twice. Once in the complete mix (core 7.1 channels) and again as separate objects in the 4th substream. In the Atmos decoder, the 4th substream is rendered using the identical mapping as in the encoder tool that created the 7.1 complete mix, except this time the signals are merged with polarity inversion into the complete mix channels so as to be canceled. That reveals the 7.1 bed channels which, when combined with the 4th substream objects rendered to fit the current playback system's speakers, creates the full Atmos presentation.


Your idea is clear, no doubt. It has logic in accordance with the Dolby "re-construct 5.1 and 7.1" structure - base stream (2.0) +/- Ext. A (3/1) +/- Ext. B (2.0). So 4th sub-stream could be next extension "C" including sound signal. Perhaps I think wrong.


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> Would you say that in both cases a capable processor (like the CP-850) could extract the bed channels for arraying?


Yes -- "could" being the operative condition. Based on the information *Batpig cited*, “spatial coding converts bed channels to equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations.” Those canonical locations are shown in the right hand diagram at the same 9 locations as the 9 bed channels in the left diagram. Notice further than even when one of those objects is a cluster, as in the yellow cluster on the left side wall, the location remains in the canonical position. 










Thus, the Atmos decoder can identify which objects represent bed channels and which do not, and could, theoretically, distribute bed audio across an array if it wished. 

Yes, there could be a second object flying through that very same canonical position, and it would not want to be “arrayed” at that moment then revert back to point-source rendering as it moves on. Is the decoder smart enough to avoid that? Maybe – it already sees a static object at that position, so all others could either be flagged as dynamic objects or inferred to be so. That level of detail is not mentioned.


----------



## sdurani

xavierlehnsherr said:


> I did increase those speakers' level by 1-3db, but all it did was increase the overall sound from them, but the immersion was still missing.


It's sometimes difficult to describe what we're hearing using only text, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that your set-up is missing "immersion". IF your room is filled with stuff, then you might not be getting as much reflected energy as the demo room, so you feel less enveloped by the sound. Again, I'm skeptical that the problem is your height speakers when there are so many other variables at play.


> Should I change the crossover setting for those speakers?


Doubt it would make a difference in immersion, but try other crossover settings, like 60Hz and 100Hz. Won't cost anything to experiment and you can always return the crossover to your original 80Hz setting if you don't like what you hear.


----------



## mcb61

harrisu said:


> This is what I do. I'm taking out how I set the distance because that is irreverent to how we set speakers level.
> 1 - Take Dirac measurements (for floor speakers).
> 2 - Set volume to max (this really shouldn't matter since we level match the floor speakers with ceiling).
> 3 - Once all done, place mic at MLP at ear level
> 4 - Make sure avr proccessing (Yamaha 3050 YPAO) is set to off
> 5 - Turn on the tone generator from avr and have it produce from Left speaker (or any other floor one that are handled by Dirac)
> 6 - Open SPL Meter in REW and see what it shows.
> 7 - Then move the tone generator to each of ceiling speaker and make sure it produces the same level that Left speaker did by changing its trim level.
> 
> I believe my method is correct. Now my question. Based on the comments I have read about Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague the dolby atmos version is that its one of the best atmos recording. So to check it, I mute all the speakers besides ceiling and to my surprise, there wasn't much coming and also the level of sound produced was less than the surrounds. My surrounds and ceiling speakers are pretty much at the same distance. I then checked the volume on avr and it was at -15 and it was pretty loud. When I play Mad Max, I can go up to -11. When I play John Wick, I can go to -10. They all are Bluray and all have different level of sound in them. What I am concerned is that atmos bluray that are at higher volumne, do my ceiling speakers need to be adjusted for it since its not driven by the same processor that is driving my floor speakers?



That all seems logical to me! I am unable to comment on either of the DVD's.

As a next step, I would repeat most of steps 3 - 7 but:


i) not adjusting any trim levels; and
ii) at different volumes and rather then use the tone generator, run measuring sweeps, for the left speaker and also each of the ceiling speakers. 

This should show that for each location, the movement in volume equivalent to the change in volume you have made. IE if you initially measure at -40, then -20 and -10, there should be 20db and 10db step changes for each speaker. Assuming this is the case, then it is not a configuration issue and you know the volumes are tracking correctly. I can't think why they would not be.


A couple of after thoughts:
i) you can probably use the signal generator to do the same verification.
ii) have you made sure that the Atmos mix is actually playing in each instance and not the non-atmos mix, with DSU engaged.


----------



## harrisu

mcb61 said:


> ii) have you made sure that the Atmos mix is actually playing in each instance and not the non-atmos mix, with DSU engaged.


I always keep my avr on Straight mode which means that it plays what's on Blu ray and won't make any change to it. I guess the only really left if someone can jump in who has all the speaker running from same room correction and play Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague Atmos version and mute all the floor speakers and see how much of ceiling speakers make sound and how loud does it get. My concern start with the fact that its considered a demo material for Atmos so its fair to assume that it should be doing some good stuff using ceiling speakers. If I hear just some basic surround sound then its no different than any other demo material.


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

sdurani said:


> It's sometimes difficult to describe what we're hearing using only text, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that your set-up is missing "immersion". IF your room is filled with stuff, then you might not be getting as much reflected energy as the demo room, so you feel less enveloped by the sound. Again, I'm skeptical that the problem is your height speakers when there are so many other variables at play. Doubt it would make a difference in immersion, but try other crossover settings, like 60Hz and 100Hz. Won't cost anything to experiment and you can always return the crossover to your original 80Hz setting if you don't like what you hear.


Yeah, it's kinda hard for me to explain just with words. I'll try to play more with my current setup and see if I could improve things. Thank you for your suggestions


----------



## AYanguas

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Yeah, it's kinda hard for me to explain just with words. I'll try to play more with my current setup and see if I could improve things. Thank you for your suggestions


*My Atmos Immersión experience.*

Matt Darey – Wolf - Dolby Atmos music album. 

It is not my favorite music at all, but I think It can be an Atmos reference Demo Disc, more even than the official demo ones. IMO, it is more "effective" than the acclaimed R.E.M. Automatic for the people, or the recent Abbey Road from Beatles.

I have a 7.1.4 setup with in-ceiling speakers at more or less the recommended 45° angle. With tweeters that can be aimed to the MLP. Standard Auddyssey calibration.

The whole album is very "immersive Atmos" with a very good sound Bubble and music effects moving on top of your head and in the surrounds. In the first song I hear the singer voice coming directly from above top ceiling. Seating at MLP, I lift my head and look at above and clearly notice her voice coming from the Top Surround Speaker just above me. BUT, that is an Auro-3D speaker that is not connected, when in Atmos configuration, but I really listen the sound coming just from that point above me, even makes me look at above.

When I stand up and closer to the TS speaker the immersion and phantom image from the 4 top atmos speakers disappear a little and the sound changes to a more traditional Surround coming from more lateral directions.

Really impressive which tells me that I may be getting enough Atmos "Immersion" with my setup, at least seated at MLP.


----------



## niterida

harrisu said:


> I always keep my avr on Straight mode which means that it plays what's on Blu ray and won't make any change to it. I guess the only really left if someone can jump in who has all the speaker running from same room correction and play Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague Atmos version and mute all the floor speakers and see how much of ceiling speakers make sound and how loud does it get. My concern start with the fact that its considered a demo material for Atmos so its fair to assume that it should be doing some good stuff using ceiling speakers. If I hear just some basic surround sound then its no different than any other demo material.




AFAIK STRAIGHT won't play Atmos - it will only play the channels it is being fed (5.1 or 7.1). Atmos is embedded in the base channels and needs to be processed to be removed and sent to the heights.
That would explain why you don't get any height sound.


----------



## Craig Mecak

niterida said:


> AFAIK STRAIGHT won't play Atmos - it will only play the channels it is being fed (5.1 or 7.1). Atmos is embedded in the base channels and needs to be processed to be removed and sent to the heights.
> That would explain why you don't get any height sound.


Both STRAIGHT and Dolby Surround will play Atmos soundtracks as Atmos on his Yamaha receiver, no problem.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> Thus, the Atmos decoder can identify which objects represent bed channels and which do not, and could, theoretically, distribute bed audio across an array if it wished.
> 
> Yes, there could be a second object flying through that very same canonical position, and it would not want to be “arrayed” at that moment then revert back to point-source rendering as it moves on. Is the decoder smart enough to avoid that? Maybe – it already sees a static object at that position, so all others could either be flagged as dynamic objects or inferred to be so. That level of detail is not mentioned.


I have asked Trinnov about the feasibility of this arraying beds, and their answer is clear and conclusive. In short: Arraying of bed channels is *not possible* with consumer Atmos. This is not a limitation of the decoder but of the way it is encoded. The spatial coding mechanism merges bed and objects into dynamic objects. *There is no way *to differentiate one from the other from the encoded content, *the information simply is lost*.


----------



## Cal68

AYanguas said:


> *My Atmos Immersión experience.*
> 
> Matt Darey – Wolf - Dolby Atmos music album.
> 
> It is not my favorite music at all, but I think It can be an Atmos reference Demo Disc, more even than the official demo ones. IMO, it is more "effective" than the acclaimed R.E.M. Automatic for the people, or the recent Abbey Road from Beatles.
> 
> I have a 7.1.4 setup with in-ceiling speakers at more or less the recommended 45° angle. With tweeters that can be aimed to the MLP. Standard Auddyssey calibration.
> 
> The whole album is very "immersive Atmos" with a very good sound Bubble and music effects moving on top of your head and in the surrounds. In the first song I hear the singer voice coming directly from above top ceiling. Seating at MLP, I lift my head and look at above and clearly notice her voice coming from the Top Surround Speaker just above me. BUT, that is an Auro-3D speaker that is not connected, when in Atmos configuration, but I really listen the sound coming just from that point above me, even makes me look at above.
> 
> When I stand up and closer to the TS speaker the immersion and phantom image from the 4 top atmos speakers disappear a little and the sound changes to a more traditional Surround coming from more lateral directions.
> 
> Really impressive which tells me that I may be getting enough Atmos "Immersion" with my setup, at least seated at MLP.


Hello AYangaus

Can you please tell me where you bought the Matt Darey-Wolf album that has the Dolby Atmos soundtrack? I cannot seem to find it on Amazon and a few other places I've looked do not specify that the disc contains the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Sounds like it would be a good demo disc to have. Thanks for your help.

Cal68


----------



## AYanguas

Cal68 said:


> Hello AYangaus
> 
> Can you please tell me where you bought the Matt Darey-Wolf album that has the Dolby Atmos soundtrack? I cannot seem to find it on Amazon and a few other places I've looked do not specify that the disc contains the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. Sounds like it would be a good demo disc to have. Thanks for your help.
> 
> Cal68


You have to buy it directly from his web site: https://www.mattdarey.com/ and you get a download of the choosed file format.

Be careful to buy the Atmos version, as there is also a stereo only version. You have to choose the file format .mp4, .m2ts or .mkv that can be well reproduced with your media player in your home cinema. You can find also a very cheap single song in the three formats to check which of them can be properly played in your system. The .mkv format is standard with video (static) and the Atmos track. Other album has two audio tracks (Atmos and surround 5.1).

I got the Wolf album for free when it was in promotion from his Facebook. Now you have to pay. It is a little bit expensive, but for having a very good Music Atmos reference Demo, I think one can afford it.

I have recently bought his second Atmos album: Retrospective, from the same web page.

If you get it, I would like to here from you how do you feel it, with respect to the Atmos Immersive sound.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> *There is no way *to differentiate one from the other from the encoded content, *the information simply is lost*.


We usually use the term "lossy" to describe compression codecs (DD vs TrueHD), but this is a good example of spatially lossy encoding, where the information maintains its uncompressed PCM nature during encoding and the information lost has to do with precise locations of objects.


----------



## dschulz

*Heretical solution to the arrayed surrounds problem*

The (current) upper bound for Atmos processing appears to be 9.1.6 (Trinnov aside), and we also seem to be converging on the idea that even with the ability to process more channels you can't get arrayed side surrounds.

For those of us that really prefer to have a side sound array for a 2 or 3 row home theatre - how bad would it be to simply array them yourselves - just duplicate the side surround outputs across 2 speakers? Obviously this eliminates pinpoint imaging of objects, but in practice, how bad would this effect be?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> The (current) upper bound for Atmos processing appears to be 9.1.6 (Trinnov aside), and we also seem to be converging on the idea that even with the ability to process more channels you can't get arrayed side surrounds.
> 
> For those of us that really prefer to have a side sound array for a 2 or 3 row home theatre - how bad would it be to simply array them yourselves - just duplicate the side surround outputs across 2 speakers? Obviously this eliminates pinpoint imaging of objects, but in practice, how bad would this effect be?



I would think, from my own listening experiences at trade expos like CEDIA that happen to have somewhat larger than 9.1.6 demos using the Trinnov, you could probably get away with two to three side surround pairs (plus Front Wides for the times they're used with Atmos or DTS Neural: X upmixing) and not miss bed arraying that much. Once you start expanding beyond something like 13.1.8, I believe the laws of diminishing returns kick in as it will start to be more apparent that many of the speakers along the sides and rear are sitting silently except for the occasional object fly by. 



If what we are just now reading about is completely accurate, it's really kind of disappointing given that Dolby didn't bother to improve their Atmos encoding and decoding methodology for UHD Blu-ray since there is a bit more space to work with (especially given how many 4k discs don't use their full capacity anyway). They were working with regular Blu-ray spec constraints when they released home Atmos into the wild.


----------



## noah katz

dschulz said:


> ...how bad would it be to simply array them yourselves - just duplicate the side surround outputs across 2 speakers? Obviously this eliminates pinpoint imaging of objects, but in practice, how bad would this effect be?



I don't know, seems like an L/C/R array images at C just fine.


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

AYanguas said:


> *My Atmos Immersión experience.*
> 
> Matt Darey – Wolf - Dolby Atmos music album.
> 
> It is not my favorite music at all, but I think It can be an Atmos reference Demo Disc, more even than the official demo ones. IMO, it is more "effective" than the acclaimed R.E.M. Automatic for the people, or the recent Abbey Road from Beatles.
> 
> I have a 7.1.4 setup with in-ceiling speakers at more or less the recommended 45° angle. With tweeters that can be aimed to the MLP. Standard Auddyssey calibration.
> 
> The whole album is very "immersive Atmos" with a very good sound Bubble and music effects moving on top of your head and in the surrounds. In the first song I hear the singer voice coming directly from above top ceiling. Seating at MLP, I lift my head and look at above and clearly notice her voice coming from the Top Surround Speaker just above me. BUT, that is an Auro-3D speaker that is not connected, when in Atmos configuration, but I really listen the sound coming just from that point above me, even makes me look at above.
> 
> When I stand up and closer to the TS speaker the immersion and phantom image from the 4 top atmos speakers disappear a little and the sound changes to a more traditional Surround coming from more lateral directions.
> 
> Really impressive which tells me that I may be getting enough Atmos "Immersion" with my setup, at least seated at MLP.


Hey, thank you for sharing your feedback . Which ceiling speakers do you have? Unfortunately my AVR only supports 7 speakers and I won't be upgrading it anytime soon  I might buy a pair of ceiling speakers once I find a good deal here


----------



## Roger Dressler

maikeldepotter said:


> I have asked Trinnov about the feasibility of this arraying beds, and their answer is clear and conclusive. In short: Arraying of bed channels is *not possible* with consumer Atmos. This is not a limitation of the decoder but of the way it is encoded. The spatial coding mechanism merges bed and objects into dynamic objects. *There is no way *to differentiate one from the other from the encoded content, *the information simply is lost*.


I have no doubt that what Trinnov reports is 100% true, from their perspective. 

However, I was not thinking that Trinnov, or anyone else, would be applying the array processing themselves. That is a task that only the core Amos renderer can perform, and that is the exclusive domain of Dolby to control. Usually Dolby provides "implementers" with object code that gets compiled and or optimized for the DSP platform. The kind of changes that would be needed in this case would need to happen at the source code level, and only Dolby has access to that.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> For those of us that really prefer to have a side sound array for a 2 or 3 row home theatre - how bad would it be to simply array them yourselves - just duplicate the side surround outputs across 2 speakers? Obviously this eliminates pinpoint imaging of objects, but in practice, how bad would this effect be?


Wouldn't be bad at all, considering it has been common practice for decades (in commercial cinemas and home theatres). Just have to apply some delays when doing it in home theatres since there are fewer speakers involved.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Roger Dressler said:


> I have no doubt that what Trinnov reports is 100% true, from their perspective.
> 
> However, I was not thinking that Trinnov, or anyone else, would be applying the array processing themselves. That is a task that only the core Amos renderer can perform, and that is the exclusive domain of Dolby to control. Usually Dolby provides "implementers" with object code that gets compiled and or optimized for the DSP platform. The kind of changes that would be needed in this case would need to happen at the source code level, and only Dolby has access to that.


Possibly, but for now I choose to believe that not even Dolby can retrieve "pure"bed channel info from a home Atmos encode. Some first hand experience from someone with a CP-850(C) that proves otherwise might of course change that view. Anyone ?


----------



## Roger Dressler

I doubt the CP850 can do it, as it likely uses the very same object code they license. 

My theory is that Dolby might be able to do array processing In a new renderer implementation if they really wanted to, and if there's sufficient bread crumbs in the bitstream. A lot of ifs there. 😉


----------



## harrisu

niterida said:


> AFAIK STRAIGHT won't play Atmos - it will only play the channels it is being fed (5.1 or 7.1). Atmos is embedded in the base channels and needs to be processed to be removed and sent to the heights.
> That would explain why you don't get any height sound.


Straight does play ATMOS. Receiver shows it and also if I mute floor speakers, I can hear sound coming from ceiling. Issue isn't with sound not coming. It has to do with how loud it comes.


----------



## m. zillch

I can confirm on my Yamaha AVR, I just tested, that the word "Atmos" is indeed illuminated in both "Dolby Surround" and "Straight" modes, but no others.


----------



## AYanguas

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Hey, thank you for sharing your feedback . Which ceiling speakers do you have? Unfortunately my AVR only supports 7 speakers and I won't be upgrading it anytime soon  I might buy a pair of ceiling speakers once I find a good deal here


Bowers & Wilkins CCM683


----------



## Polyrythm1k

m. zillch said:


> I can confirm on my Yamaha AVR, I just tested, that the word "Atmos" is indeed illuminated in both "Dolby Surround" and "Straight" modes, but no others.




Another reason I find Yamaha to be confusing. Dolby surround is DSU, upmixer for everyone else. DSU can’t be activated on an Atmos track. Except Yamaha...


----------



## m. zillch

Works fine by me.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Wouldn't it be possible to create a phantom side surround between the SS1 and SS2 speakers. That way you'd have an array of 2 for the side surround, and discrete objects could still address both speakers individually. It is actually sort of the same way as 5.1 + FW atmos works. Maybe this is possible with the Trinnov remapping?


----------



## Cal68

AYanguas said:


> You have to buy it directly from his web site: https://www.mattdarey.com/ and you get a download of the choosed file format.
> 
> Be careful to buy the Atmos version, as there is also a stereo only version. You have to choose the file format .mp4, .m2ts or .mkv that can be well reproduced with your media player in your home cinema. You can find also a very cheap single song in the three formats to check which of them can be properly played in your system. The .mkv format is standard with video (static) and the Atmos track. Other album has two audio tracks (Atmos and surround 5.1).
> 
> I got the Wolf album for free when it was in promotion from his Facebook. Now you have to pay. It is a little bit expensive, but for having a very good Music Atmos reference Demo, I think one can afford it.
> 
> I have recently bought his second Atmos album: Retrospective, from the same web page.
> 
> If you get it, I would like to here from you how do you feel it, with respect to the Atmos Immersive sound.


Thanks my friend, I appreciate your help. I have not had much success downloading and playing hi-rez music in the past (I don't know why) so I was hoping that there was a disc that I could purchase. Oh well, maybe one will come out soon.

Cal68


----------



## sdurani

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Wouldn't it be possible to create a phantom side surround between the SS1 and SS2 speakers.


Unfortunately you cannot activate SS1 and SS2 without first activating Side Surrounds (they are prerequisites, just like Front L/R are prerequisites for activating the Centre speaker).


> That way you'd have an array of 2 for the side surround, and discrete objects could still address both speakers individually.


SS1 and SS2 do not get any channel information, only object info.


----------



## niterida

harrisu said:


> Straight does play ATMOS. Receiver shows it and also if I mute floor speakers, I can hear sound coming from ceiling. Issue isn't with sound not coming. It has to do with how loud it comes.



I have an RX-A3040 and when I put it to STRAIGHT I 1005 definitely lose my overhead speakers - maybe my unit is faulty ??
I know the HDMI board is faulty as some inputs and one output doesn't work but I wouldn't think that would affect the sound modes in that way ?


----------



## Bond 007

niterida said:


> I have an RX-A3040 and when I put it to STRAIGHT I definitely lose my overhead speakers - maybe my unit is faulty ??


Source is not Atmos.


----------



## niterida

Bond 007 said:


> Source is not Atmos.



Source is definitely Atmos. I have also just noticed that in DSU mode all the speakers are showing on the display panel but it only plays in stereo but only when playing YouTube from my Xbox - all other stereo source upmix OK 


My HDMI board is faulty with a couple of inputs and one output not working and occasionally it completely locks up and I have to do a master reset. So assuming that is also causing these other problems it looks like I have no choice but to replace my HDMI board - for a mere $750AUD plus labour to install


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

sdurani said:


> Unfortunately you cannot activate SS1 and SS2 without first activating Side Surrounds (they are prerequisites, just like Front L/R are prerequisites for activating the Centre speaker). SS1 and SS2 do not get any channel information, only object info.


I would think Rear Surrounds couldn't be possible without Side Surrouds either, but 5.1 + FW does sort of work that way.

I offcourse have no experience with a Trinnov, but I thought with it's speaker remapping tools it may be possible to create a virtual Side Surround in between two real Side Surround speakers. That way they would both play the Side Surround bed and object content, but still might play they're own object information individually.


----------



## maikeldepotter

G4n0nD0rf said:


> I would think Rear Surrounds couldn't be possible without Side Surrouds either, but 5.1 + FW does sort of work that way.


The fact that the rear surround channels are combined with the side surrounds channels to create the surround feeds of a 5.1 config, doesn't make those surround speakers suddenly rear surround speakers. It's true that the home Atmos decoder also copies surround info to the wides in a 5.1+wides config, but that info is not completely removed from the surrounds.



> I offcourse have no experience with a Trinnov, but I thought with it's speaker remapping tools it may be possible to create a virtual Side Surround in between two real Side Surround speakers. That way they would both play the Side Surround bed and object content, but still might play they're own object information individually.


That is correct. If you have three pairs of side surround speakers assigned to respectively SS1, SS, and SS2, you can subsequently physically reposition the SS speakers to a very different location, and the remapping function of the Altitude will try and create a virtual SS speaker in-between SS1 and SS2, using predominantly those two speakers.

PS If you would put the SS speakers at locations where you do not expect they will used by the remapping function (e.g. below the listeners' level), you could in theory physically remove them from your room after the calibration and optimization (a process during which the Altitude needs to "see" them).

*It might be an interesting suggestion for those with an Altitude that are employing two pairs of side surround speakers, and do not mind using two extra outputs on their processor for this 'trick'. *


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

maikeldepotter said:


> The fact that the rear surround channels are combined with the side surrounds channels to create the surround feeds of a 5.1 config, doesn't make those surround speakers suddenly rear surround speakers. It's true that the home Atmos decoder also copies surround info to the wides in a 5.1+wides config, but that info is not completely removed from the surrounds.


Exactly. The side surround is thereby in fact phantomed betweed the wides and surround speakers.



maikeldepotter said:


> That is correct. If you have three pairs of side surround speakers assigned to respectively SS1, SS, and SS2, you can subsequently physically reposition the SS speakers to a very different location, and the remapping function of the Altitude will try and create a virtual SS speaker in-between SS1 and SS2, using predominantly those two speakers.


Which would create a side surround array of two speakers right?


----------



## maikeldepotter

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Which would create a side surround array of two speakers right?



Effectively yes.


----------



## noah katz

maikeldepotter said:


> It's true that the home Atmos decoder also copies surround info to the wides in a 5.1+wides config, but that info is not completely removed from the surrounds.



I thought Atmos Wides were only used for objects, and that what you describe above pertains to the DTS NeuralX upmixer.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I thought Atmos Wides were only used for objects, and that what you describe above pertains to the DTS NeuralX upmixer.


An Atmos speaker layout with 5.1+Wides in the base layer will send object audio to the Wide speakers and Rear channel audio to the Surround speakers while Side channel audio will be split to the Wide speakers & Surround speakers (causing it to phantom image at your sides, where the Side speakers would have been in a traditional 7.1 layout). This is part of the native remapping that happens during Atmos decoding.


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> I thought Atmos Wides were only used for objects, and that what you describe above pertains to the DTS NeuralX upmixer.


No, as Sanjay described the situation changes when you drop the back surrounds. The renderer now assumes the Surrounds are further back (not 90 degrees but ~120 deg AFAIK) so objects at Y=0.5 (90 deg) will be phantomed between adjacent speakers (surround + wide). Remember what we've learned recently that even the "beds" are converted into objects as part of spatial coding, they become "static" objects with fixed cardinal coordinates (Y=0.5 for side surrounds) so the renderer will reproduce the audio signal for that "bed" with the available speakers based on the object metadata, vs. locking them to a single "channel" output.


----------



## obts000

I'm looking for advice on placing ATMOS ceiling speakers. The attached diagram shows current speaker placement and seating. The two MLP positions are the most important. Sometimes I use the center SLP seat for a 1.85 movie, but I'm not too worried about the front row. I think I'll be doing 4 ceiling speakers, but possibly 6. If I do 6, I'm assuming that two would go above or in front of the front row, which would then require rethinking the ceiling sound absortion, but that is doable. I'm also wondering about moving the two rear speakers closer to the center. There is a window between them now, but I have finally gotten WAF approval to remove that, so I have the opportunity do it at that time, and would like opinions on whether that's worth doing. Thanks.


----------



## dschulz

maikeldepotter said:


> I have asked Trinnov about the feasibility of this arraying beds, and their answer is clear and conclusive. In short: Arraying of bed channels is *not possible* with consumer Atmos. This is not a limitation of the decoder but of the way it is encoded. The spatial coding mechanism merges bed and objects into dynamic objects. *There is no way *to differentiate one from the other from the encoded content, *the information simply is lost*.


According to Cortex VIP Cinemas, the Dolby CP850C will array the bed channels for consumer Atmos. I am not clear on how this is accomplished, and I haven't yet seen anything official from Dolby on the 850C. Has anyone seen an 850C in the wild, or know of anyone installing them apart from Cortex?


----------



## farsider3000

obts000 said:


> I'm looking for advice on placing ATMOS ceiling speakers. The attached diagram shows current speaker placement and seating. The two MLP positions are the most important. Sometimes I use the center SLP seat for a 1.85 movie, but I'm not too worried about the front row. I think I'll be doing 4 ceiling speakers, but possibly 6. If I do 6, I'm assuming that two would go above or in front of the front row, which would then require rethinking the ceiling sound absortion, but that is doable. I'm also wondering about moving the two rear speakers closer to the center. There is a window between them now, but I have finally gotten WAF approval to remove that, so I have the opportunity do it at that time, and would like opinions on whether that's worth doing. Thanks.



I have six Atmos speakers which I believe is overkill and my room is a bit longer than yours.

Based on my experiments and in my room with 9.5’ ceilings I would recommend that you use two rows with the front row very slightly (two feet maximum) in front of the MLP. My front row of ceiling speakers is based on Dolby recommendations and is too close to the LCR even though it is still 8’ 10” from LCR. My ceiling speakers are not angled toward the MLP but they are controlled dispersion Procella speakers with an 80 degree high frequency coaxial driver and waveguide.

What happens is that if just the front row is engaged the sound gets lost in the LCR.

So I placed my middle row right over the MLP and those are the ones I feel give me the best envelopment.
Terrible pic of my middle and front row Atmos ceiling speakers:











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> According to Cortex VIP Cinemas, the Dolby CP850C will array the bed channels for consumer Atmos. I am not clear on how this is accomplished, and I haven't yet seen anything official from Dolby on the 850C. Has anyone seen an 850C in the wild, or know of anyone installing them apart from Cortex?



Cortex was making similar claims at CEDIA and saying the 850C did something "special" that no other Atmos processor was able to do for consumer home Atmos tracks. I don't know if they're confused about the product or if they know something Dolby is not readily divulging (I noticed too many marketers and industry reps at the expo were ill informed about their own products, especially since the bulk are just US reps or distributors and the products are made by foreign companies - so take it as you will).


----------



## maikeldepotter

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't know if they're confused about the product or if they know something Dolby is not readily divulging.


Confused probably. It surely is possible to array selected audio sub-streams over multiple speakers, while keeping those speakers individually addressable for other sub streams, whether being single objects or spatial coded clusters. But, if such selected audio sub-stream happens to be a cluster itself (e.g. containing original cinematic bed channel info + one or more original cinematic objects), the whole cluster will be spread over the speaker array. The home Atmos encode simple contains no metadata to “dissect” a spatial encoded cluster into its separate components. And while @Roger Dressler believes that theoretically there might be sufficient bread crumbs in the bitstream to let a new renderer implementation do just that, software engineers at Trinnov have seriously been looking for them and concluded that they are just not there ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

dschulz said:


> Has anyone seen an 850C in the wild, or know of anyone installing them apart from Cortex?


I believe Peter C. is planning a shoot-out after finishing his current project. I have asked him to keep me (us) updated ...


----------



## -Henry-

Roger Dressler said:


> With reference to the diagram we have seen before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 4th substream does indeed carry audio essence plus metadata when we're talking about Blu-ray (TrueHD) coded audio or MAT 2.0.


 
I would like to thank you for this note. Of course each TrueHD sub-stream includes audio signal. But I woudl like to check it in another side
1). This diagram above is a little bit incorrect. In accordance with classic TrueHD structure the main sub-stream should be full stereo downmix 2.0 (not 5.1). Decoder reconstructs 5.1 from the main stereo downmix 2.0 plus the 3.1 channel extension A (re-matrixing). The same for 7.1 - the decoder uses the reconstructed 5.1 and reconstructs 7.1 with the next 2.0 channel extension B.


2) In theory the 4th sub-stream (with objects) could be used as next extension for this "re-construct & re-matrixing". And in this case it could be possible to present beds+objects Home Atmos looks like the Cinema Atmos, i.e. to extract the independent beds and objects from the bitstream. But it does not work like that.


I assume that I found the answer in old white paper - Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater, August 2014. This edition is not available at Dolby website (it has modified edition from 2016) but you will find it at http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/en/series_pdf/Dolby-Atmos-for-the-Home-Theater.pdf


Page 13. 
Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
Dolby has extended the Dolby TrueHD format, used in Blu-ray discs, to allow the format to carry Dolby Atmos content. Before Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD included lossless support for channel-based audio, such as 5.1 and 7.1. *We have added a fourth substream* for Dolby Atmos sound. 
This *substream represents* a losslessly *encoded fully object-based mix*.




I can interpreter this that 4th sub-stream is totally independent, and includes all 12-16 atmos elements/objects (full mix). As well as old decoder ignores 4th sub-stream, the new Atmos decoder ignores the 3 sub-streams (main mix, extensions A and B) and uses only 4th sub-stream for Atmos playback. Only one problem with this idea, the size of this TrueHD track should be (estimated) 2 times more, but it is not.


----------



## maikeldepotter

-Henry- said:


> Page 13. Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
> Dolby has extended the Dolby TrueHD format, used in Blu-ray discs, to allow the format to carry Dolby Atmos content. Before Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD included lossless support for channel-based audio, such as 5.1 and 7.1. *We have added a fourth substream* for Dolby Atmos sound.
> This *substream represents* a losslessly *encoded fully object-based mix*.
> 
> I can interpreter this that 4th sub-stream is totally independent, and includes all 12-16 atmos elements/objects (full mix). As well as old decoder ignores 4th sub-stream, the new Atmos decoder ignores the 3 sub-streams (main mix, extensions A and B) and uses only 4th sub-stream for Atmos playback. Only one problem with this idea, the size of this TrueHD track should be (estimated) 2 times more, but it is not.


This size of 4th sub-stream could IMO be reduced by using the reconstructed 7.1 information. That would mean that this 4th sub stream only has to carry the audio objects (including its positional metadata) that are NOT part of the 7 main speaker feeds after the home Atmos decoder has done its work. The information carried by the 4th sub stream is used to extract those audio objects from the 7 main speaker feeds of the 7.1 reconstruct, after which the Atmos decoder repositions those extracted audio objects according to the available Atmos speakers. However, extracting those selected objects from the 7 main speaker feeds does not necessarily recover the cinematic bed channels, as they still contain object information when they are part of a spatial coded cluster.



> 2) In theory the 4th sub-stream (with objects) could be used as next extension for this "re-construct & re-matrixing". And in this case it could be possible to present beds+objects Home Atmos looks like the Cinema Atmos, i.e. to extract the independent beds and objects from the bitstream. *But it does not work like that*.


Because of my theory above ... ?


----------



## Roger Dressler

-Henry- said:


> This diagram above is a little bit incorrect. In accordance with classic TrueHD structure the main sub-stream should be full stereo downmix 2.0 (not 5.1). Decoder reconstructs 5.1 from the main stereo downmix 2.0 plus the 3.1 channel extension A (re-matrixing). The same for 7.1 - the decoder uses the reconstructed 5.1 and reconstructs 7.1 with the next 2.0 channel extension B.


You are quite correct. I'm not sure where that diagram originated -- but apparently not Dolby. 



> 2) In theory the 4th sub-stream (with objects) could be used as next extension for this "re-construct & re-matrixing". And in this case it could be possible to present beds+objects Home Atmos looks like the Cinema Atmos, i.e. to extract the independent beds and objects from the bitstream. But it does not work like that.
> 
> >>Dolby has extended the Dolby TrueHD format, used in Blu-ray discs, to allow the format to carry Dolby Atmos content. Before Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD included lossless support for channel-based audio, such as 5.1 and 7.1. We have added a fourth substream for Dolby Atmos sound. This substream represents a losslessly encoded fully object-based mix.


----------



## dfa973

-Henry- said:


> I would like to thank you for this note. Of course each TrueHD sub-stream includes audio signal. But I woudl like to check it in another side[/FONT]
> 1). This diagram above is a little bit incorrect. In accordance with classic TrueHD structure the main sub-stream should be full stereo downmix 2.0 (not 5.1). Decoder reconstructs 5.1 from the main stereo downmix 2.0 plus the 3.1 channel extension A (re-matrixing). The same for 7.1 - the decoder uses the reconstructed 5.1 and reconstructs 7.1 with the next 2.0 channel extension B.




That diagram was drawn based on the info from this thread and TrueHD papers from Dolby.

In the _*Channel Extensions, Downmixing, and Dolby TrueHD*_ section, you can read:


> One channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels. In these codecs, *a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”). The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.*


Immediately after this paragraph, the paper forgets about the 5.1 downmix and states:


> *So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.*





Roger Dressler said:


> You are quite correct. I'm not sure where that diagram originated -- but apparently not Dolby.


True, not by Dolby, but by me.




Roger Dressler said:


> Thus, the 4th substream is fully comprised of objects, but only those objects that are necessary to reconstruct the spatially coded Atmos version of the soundtrack.


True, if the 4th substream would contain full bed+objects the core 5.1/7.1 bed extraction would be more difficult, the spatial coding is used just to limit the bandwidth by mixing objects together in time (waveform) and space (by metadata), and the resulting object mix is used to cancel the objects from the legacy substreams. 
So instead of a maximum of 118 objects - spatial coding clumps (mixes) together the objects in time and space. Near (in space) and simultaneous playing objects are mixed in the same waveform (cluster), other objects separated by space get another waveform (cluster), reducing the need to store a maximum of original 118 objects/waveforms to very few waveforms (clusters).

But things are a little more complicated than that, the TrueHD+Atmos format supports the following combination of content when the TrueHD container is set as "Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation" - very common on 4K UHD BluRays:



> 1. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds
> 2. 16-ch presentation consists of Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio
> 3. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds followed by Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio
> 4. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds followed by dynamic objects
> 5. 16-ch presentation consists of Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio followed by dynamic objects
> 6. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds followed by Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio followed by dynamic objects


So, the TrueHD container can carry ISF clusters AND objects besides legacy channels (loudspeaker feeds), or other combinations.
In Dolby's above document, dynamic objects are defined as _"objects with potentially varying properties such as position"_ that are not to be confused with ISF audio (clusters).
ISF audio can be used as bed channels but not necessarily, the document shows that you can have ISF's that "emulate" channels and at the same time ISF's that are separate from bed channels, along with dynamic objects (non-ISF).

Example using MediaInfo:



> Zombieland 2009 4K UHD BluRay TrueHD 7.1
> Audio #1
> ID : 2
> Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
> Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
> Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
> Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
> Duration : 1 h 27 min
> Bit rate mode : Variable
> Maximum bit rate : 4 956 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 8 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossless
> Title : Atmos 7.1
> Language : English
> Default : Yes
> Forced : No
> Number of dynamic objects : 11
> Bed channel count : 1 channel
> Bed channel configuration : LFE


----------



## Roger Dressler

dfa973 said:


> That diagram was drawn based on the info from this thread and TrueHD papers from Dolby.


Nice work on the diagram. I would suggest a revision of how the substreams are handled as below:











> [Quoted from Dolby's paper on MLP:]
> >>
> 1. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds
> 2. 16-ch presentation consists of Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio
> 3. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds followed by Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio
> 4. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds followed by dynamic objects
> 5. 16-ch presentation consists of Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio followed by dynamic objects
> 6. 16-ch presentation consists of loudspeaker feeds followed by Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio followed by dynamic objects


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> Zombieland 2009 4K UHD BluRay TrueHD 7.1
> Audio #1
> ID : 2
> Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
> Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
> Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
> Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
> Duration : 1 h 27 min
> Bit rate mode : Variable
> Maximum bit rate : 4 956 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 8 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossless
> Title : Atmos 7.1
> Language : English
> Default : Yes
> Forced : No
> * Number of dynamic objects : 11*
> * Bed channel count : 1 channel*
> Bed channel configuration : LFE


Yes, very illustrative: 1 bed channel and 11 dynamic objects. 
I wonder what "Forced: no" indicates.


----------



## AYanguas

Just a curiosity.

The theremin and surround sound implementation. Still missing the height speakers for 3D sound 

https://www.facebook.com/carolinaeyck/videos/564183920990718/


----------



## dfa973

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, very illustrative: 1 bed channel and 11 dynamic objects.
> I wonder what "Forced: no" indicates.


It means that the BluRay player is not forced to select this soundtrack when the user presses Play, so the BluRay player uses the default region/language/audio quality setting it has - in this particular case, the Zombieland 4K BluRay has three soundtracks on disk:

1. Atmos 7.1 - default=yes, forced=no
2. AC-3 5.1 - default=yes, forced=no (the mandatory legacy soundtrack)
3. DTS-HD MA 5.1 - default=no, forced=no

So the player will choose between the first two default soundtracks based on region, language AND audio quality preferences of the user and the third soundtrack become optional (unless a player setting is overriding this behavior).


----------



## batpig

Roger Dressler said:


> The Atmos encoder knows which incoming elements are bed channels and which are objects. It also knows that any objects clustered with bed channels do not have to be separated in an Atmos presentation because the spatial coder has already decided that psychoacoustically that is not necessary.
> 
> Thus, the 4th substream is fully comprised of objects, but only those objects that are necessary to reconstruct the spatially coded Atmos version of the soundtrack.


I think this gets to the core of why the Atmos soundtracks take up so little extra space on the disc vs a 7.1 mix (I believe Filmmixer has stated only ~20% larger).

The prior consensus interpretation had been that the 4th substream could contain up to 16 unique objects, but with the newly unearthed info it appears the maximum is actually 8 (16 total elements minus 7.1 channels). Any additional objects which have been clustered with the beds as part of the spatial coding process would be redundant to store separately and subtract from the 7.1 mix, as you note "the spatial coder has already decided" as such.

So this seems to imply that the max data payload of the 4th substream is at most 1/2 the size of what had been inferred previously.

This seems to make for a very efficient system, which is of course important when you have real world constraints such as space on the disc/stream. 



> Number of dynamic objects : 11
> Bed channel count : 1 channel
> Bed channel configuration : LFE


 @dfa973 - what software is giving you that info? In your experience, do all Atmos tracks appear to be structured as such (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects) or are there cases where you see more than 1 bed channel?


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> The prior consensus interpretation had been that the 4th substream could contain up to 16 unique objects, but with the newly unearthed info it appears *the maximum is actually 8 *(16 total elements minus 7.1 channels).


Not all bed channels need to be active all of the time. Theoretically, if the original cinema version at any moment carries no bed channel content (except for LFE), the 4th sub stream can still contain up to 15 unique dynamic objects. If the track is made exclusively for home Atmos, the mixer can decide to not use the bed channels if he wants maximum positional resolution for a higher number of audio objects flying around.


----------



## Irwinroad

> what software is giving you that info?


https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo


----------



## Dan Hitchman

maikeldepotter said:


> Not all bed channels need to be active all of the time. Theoretically, if the original cinema version at any moment carries no bed channel content (except for LFE), the 4th sub stream can still contain up to 15 unique dynamic objects. If the track is made exclusively for home Atmos, the mixer can decide to not use the bed channels if he wants maximum positional resolution for a higher number of audio objects flying around.



With all these Atmos encoding options coming to light... I still wonder what the hell Disney is doing. They must hit the "crap" option button a lot of the time.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> Not all bed channels need to be active all of the time. Theoretically, if the original cinema version at any moment carries no bed channel content (except for LFE), the 4th sub stream can still contain up to 15 unique dynamic objects. If the track is made exclusively for home Atmos, the mixer can decide to not use the bed channels if he wants maximum positional resolution for a higher number of audio objects flying around.


While that's theoretically true, it seems unlikely to be done that way in practice. Especially since there is attention paid to the backwards compatibility of the 5.1/7.1 versions of the soundtrack.


----------



## -Henry-

Roger Dressler said:


> Consider an Atmos mix with 7.1 bed and zero height objects. Substream 4 should be empty, not the same 7.1 channels coded as objects.


But zero hight objects are still objects with own metatada (coordinates, size etc). Where is metadata placed? So 4th substream is not empty in any case.



dfa973 said:


> if the 4th substream would contain full bed+objects the core 5.1/7.1 bed extraction would be more difficult,


In that case core 5.1/7.1 bed extraction is not required, due to truehd has 1st, 2nd and 3rd substreams for this. 




batpig said:


> do all Atmos tracks appear to be structured as such (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects) or are there cases where you see more than 1 bed channel?


15+1 is also available (16 elements). In theory there should be 13 objects+1bed (14 elements), but I never saw it, as well as 2 or more beds + X objects


----------



## Roger Dressler

-Henry- said:


> But zero hight objects are still objects with own metatada (coordinates, size etc). Where is metadata placed? So 4th substream is not empty in any case.


Point taken. I was just trying to say there's no audio in the 4th substream.


----------



## mrtickleuk

dfa973 said:


> That diagram was drawn based on the info from this thread and TrueHD papers from Dolby.
> 
> In the _*Channel Extensions, Downmixing, and Dolby TrueHD*_ section, you can read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One channel extension technique is *the method* by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”). The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.
> 
> 
> 
> Immediately after this paragraph, the paper forgets about the 5.1 downmix and states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't think that those two contradict each other? It just rephrases the same thing.

The first one says:
a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which we’ll call “extension B”). 
The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel “extension A.​
ie, 7.1 is split: => 5.1 + 2-channel extension B.
and then the 5.1 is split => 2-channel stereo mix + 3.1 extension A.

so together: 7.1 => [2-channel stereo mix + 3.1 extension A] + 2-channel extension B.

It just goes into detail as to the *process* by which the 3 pieces are created. It doesn't ever say that there is a discrete 5.1 mix left in there. It's describing "the method".

The second one says:
So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two-channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B.

ie 7.1 => [2-channel stereo mix + 3.1 extension A] + 2-channel extension B.


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> While that's theoretically true, it seems unlikely to be done that way in practice. Especially since there is attention paid to the backwards compatibility of the 5.1/7.1 versions of the soundtrack.


If I understand correctly, this backwards compatibility, as organized in sub streams 1,2 and 3, is totally independent from how in sub stream 4 the 15 (16 minus LFE) available waveforms are divided over either stationary objects/clusters representing the ITU speaker locations, or free floating objects/clusters. I can imagine that any "bed channel" that is not active in the Atmos mix gets an "OFF" flag in sub stream 4, as it makes no sense to take that content from the 7.1 construct and subsequently cancel out all its information to make it empty. So the waveform that this specific "bed channel" would occupy is now available for another object/cluster. This is of course all dynamic, meaning that every time in the soundtrack a "bed channel" is not active, that waveform can be used to increase the positional resolution of the non-stationary objects as organized by the spatial coding process.


----------



## dfa973

batpig said:


> @dfa973 - what software is giving you that info?


 MediaInfo against an unencrypted/ripped on HDD UHD Bluray contents. 



batpig said:


> In your experience, do all Atmos tracks appear to be structured as such (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects) or are there cases where you see more than 1 bed channel?


There are *lots* of UHD BluRays in this configuration (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects)! 

MediaInfo does not present the _"16ch_intermediate_spatial_format"_ parameter, so we can see the ISF structure - ISF enumeration (and count the ISF clusters), but only the _"16ch_dynamic_object_count"_ parameter (the "Number of dynamic objects" in the MediaInfo output, see the below examples of soundtracks).
So we can't see how many ISFs are beside the dynamic objects count. 

What we can infer from the MediaInfo output is:

 Bed channel count: 1 channel - it means that all the bed channels (except one) are in fact objects - most probably ISFs/clusters;

 Bed channel configuration: LFE - another hint that all the bed channels (except LFE) are in fact ISFs/objects, and the only speaker feed is the LFE channel;

 Number of dynamic objects: 11/13/15/etc. - if there are 11 dynamic objects it means that there are at least 7 ISFs/clusters that make the bed + 11 dynamic objects, so the total is LFE + 7 ISFs + 11 dynamic objects = 19 waveforms;
In this new light, I do not think that Atmos via TrueHD is limited to only 16 waveforms, but in fact, can store 8 "fixed" waveforms (as LFE+bed/ISFs) + 15 dynamic objects, so the maximum is 23 waveforms.

I have never seen an Atmos soundtrack carrying more than 15 dynamic objects but all have the legacy 7.1 beds (that are not always true bed channels, but ISFs).



Spoiler



*Transformers Age of Extinction 2014 - THE FIRST ATMOS BLURAY release - Audio #1*
ID : 2
Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
Duration : 2 h 45 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 5 025 kb/s
Maximum bit rate : 8 262 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossless
Delay relative to video : 32 ms
Stream size : 5.80 GiB (14%)
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Number of dynamic objects : 11
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE





Spoiler



*Ant-Man 2015 UHD BluRay (Disney) Audio #1*
ID : 2
Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
Duration : 1 h 57 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 4 485 kb/s
Maximum bit rate : 8 226 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossless
Stream size : 3.67 GiB (37%)
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Number of dynamic objects : 13
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE





Spoiler



*Anna 2019 UHD BluRay (non-Disney) Audio #1*
ID : 2
Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
Duration : 1 h 58 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 3 616 kb/s
Maximum bit rate : 6 441 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossless
Stream size : 3.01 GiB (31%)
Title : English TrueHD
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Number of dynamic objects : 15
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE





Spoiler



Hellboy 2004 UHD BluRay (non-Disney) Audio #1
ID : 2
Format : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
Duration : 2 h 1 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Maximum bit rate : 3 708 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossless
Title : Atmos 7.1
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Statistics Tags Issue : no_variable_data 1970-01-01 00:00:00 / no_variable_data 2010-02-22 21:41:29
FromStats_BitRate : 3165280
FromStats_Duration : 02:01:55.309000000
FromStats_FrameCount : 8778370
FromStats_StreamSize : 2894375568
Number of dynamic objects : 11
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE







-Henry- said:


> In that case core 5.1/7.1 bed extraction is not required, due to truehd has 1st, 2nd and 3rd substreams for this.


The objects that reside in the 4th substream are used to cancel out the objects that are embedded in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd substreams so that the bed 7.1 can be "made clean" and feed to the bed speakers. The same objects that were used for canceling are now placed in the 3D space using the metadata stored along with the audio objects. This canceling is meant only for audio objects (that need to be separated from the bed), the Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio (clusters) do not need to be canceled from the bed (in some situations, *the ISFs are the bed*) - the only situation when an ISF can be canceled is when an ISF needs to be placed outside of the bed - like an object - but it is, in fact, a cluster of objects. In this case, the 4th substream will store a copy of the ISF/cluster so it can be detached from the rest of the ISFs/bed and placed accordingly with the metadata.



-Henry- said:


> 15+1 is also available (16 elements). In theory there should be 13 objects+1bed (14 elements), but I never saw it, as well as 2 or more beds + X objects


There are lots of Atmos soundtracks with 13 audio objects + 1 LFE in bed. See the above Ant-Man 2015 UHD BluRay example.




mrtickleuk said:


> I don't think that those two contradict each other? It just rephrases the same thing.


Thanks for the explanation!


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

dfa973 said:


> What we can infer from the MediaInfo output is:
> 
> Bed channel count: 1 channel - it means that all the bed channels (except one) are in fact objects - most probably ISFs/clusters;
> 
> Bed channel configuration: LFE - another hint that all the bed channels (except LFE) are in fact ISFs/objects, and the only speaker feed is the LFE channel;
> 
> Number of dynamic objects: 11/13/15/etc. - if there are 11 dynamic objects it means that there are at least 7 ISFs/clusters that make the bed + 11 dynamic objects, so the total is LFE + 7 ISFs + 11 dynamic objects = 19 waveforms;
> In this new light, I do not think that Atmos via TrueHD is limited to only 16 waveforms, but in fact, can store 8 "fixed" waveforms (as LFE+bed/ISFs) + 15 dynamic objects, so the maximum is 23 waveforms.


Shouldn't this be LFE + 11 dynamic objects (7 ISFs + 4 other dynamic objects) = 12 waveforms?


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> [*]Number of dynamic objects: 11/13/15/etc.


There is no etcetera. The maximum number of "dynamic objects" is 15 (16 waveforms minus one LFE bed channel).



> - if there are 11 dynamic objects it means that there are at least 7 ISFs/clusters that make the bed + 11 dynamic objects, so the total is LFE + 7 ISFs + 11 dynamic objects = 19 waveforms;
> 
> In this new light, I do not think that Atmos via TrueHD is limited to only 16 waveforms, but in fact, can store 8 "fixed" waveforms (as LFE+bed/ISFs) + 15 dynamic objects, so the maximum is 23 waveforms.


I believe there could be some misunderstanding about the term "dynamic object". Those 15 dynamic objects can consist of a single original (cinematic) audio object, a cluster of such objects, a positional static object representing an original (cinematic) bed channel, or clusters in which original audio objects and original bed channels are combined. The dynamics of those objects/clusters is represented by the constant change in which the different elements are combined. In other words: a "dynamic object" can also be a (temporarily or permanent) static object located at an ITU speaker position.

PS I understand that this definition of "dynamic object" could be contradicting Dolby's explanation of the difference between "dynamic objects" and "bed objects", in which the latter are objects with positional metadata that do not change over time. However, since the (dynamic) spatial coded clusters (same as ISF's?) can include those static bed objects, I suspect that was decided to categorize dynamic objects, static objects and spatial coded clusters all under the same name: dynamic objects ... just my 2 cts.


----------



## dfa973

maikeldepotter said:


> I suspect that was decided to categorize dynamic objects, static objects and spatial coded clusters all under the same name: dynamic objects ... just my 2 cts.


Nope, the Dolby papers contradict this theory (that ISFs and dynamic objects are counted the same).

From the Dolby TrueHD (MLP) high-level bitstream description ©2018 Dolby Laboratories paper:



> 16ch_dynamic_object_count -u(5)
> *The 5-bit 16ch_dynamic_object_count field specifies the number of dynamic objects (i.e. objects with potentially varying properties such as position)* present in the 16-channel presentation. The value of the 16ch_dynamic_object_countfield shall be one less than the number of dynamic objects present in the 16-channel presentation.
> 
> *When the 16-channel presentation consists of a mixture of loudspeaker feeds, intermediate spatial format audio channels and/or dynamic objects, the full channel assignment of the 16-channel presentation is given by the combination of the lfe_only, 16ch_channel_assignment,16ch_intermediate_spatial_format, and 16ch_dynamic_object_countfields. *
> 
> *For example, if the fields in 16ch_channel_meaning are set to the following values:
> 16ch_content_description: 0111b
> lfe_only: 0b
> 16ch_channel_assignment: 0000000110b (indicating C and LFE channels)
> 16ch_intermediate_spatial_format: 010b (indicating a 10-channel intermediate spatial format of M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 U1 U2 U3)
> 16ch_dynamic_object_count: 00001b indicating 2 dynamic objects *
> The overall channel assignment of the 16-channel presentation is C LFE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 U1 U2 U3 Obj1 Obj2 (where Obj1 and Obj2 are the two dynamic objects).
> Channels are input to an encoder, and output from a decoder, in the order specified by this channel assignment.


As you can see, the dynamic objects are counted separately from ISFs.
And the "16ch_dynamic_object_count" parameter is output as the "Number of dynamic objects" by the MediaInfo.
And the ISFs (16ch_intermediate_spatial_format) are counted separately from the dynamic objects (16ch_dynamic_object_count).


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> Nope, the Dolby papers contradict this theory (that ISFs and dynamic objects are counted the same).





> As you can see, the dynamic objects are counted separately from ISFs.
> And the "16ch_dynamic_object_count" parameter is output as the "Number of dynamic objects" by the MediaInfo.
> And the ISFs (16ch_intermediate_spatial_format) are counted separately from the dynamic objects (16ch_dynamic_object_count).


Well, I would say they are indeed not considered to be the same, but as far as the counting is concerned, added up they still cannot exceed the number of 16, like in the example that is given (15 waveforms in total):



> The overall channel assignment of the 16-channel presentation is C LFE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 U1 U2 U3 Obj1 Obj2 (where Obj1 and Obj2 are the two dynamic objects).
> Channels are input to an encoder, and output from a decoder, in the order specified by this channel assignment.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

This makes my head hurt.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> noah katz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Atmos Wides were only used for objects, and that what you describe above pertains to the DTS NeuralX upmixer.
> 
> 
> 
> No, as Sanjay described the situation changes when you drop the back surrounds. The renderer now assumes the Surrounds are further back (not 90 degrees but ~120 deg AFAIK) so objects at Y=0.5 (90 deg) will be phantomed between adjacent speakers (surround + wide). Remember what we've learned recently that even the "beds" are converted into objects as part of spatial coding, they become "static" objects with fixed cardinal coordinates (Y=0.5 for side surrounds) so the renderer will reproduce the audio signal for that "bed" with the available speakers based on the object metadata, vs. locking them to a single "channel" output.
Click to expand...

I may only have the option to do this in the future (5.1 plus wides in base layer) due to layout-is this a noticeable upgrade vs just 5.1.4? 
The true sides would be 110-120 and the wife’s would perhaps be 80...


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> I may only have the option to do this in the future (5.1 plus wides in base layer) due to layout-is this a noticeable upgrade vs just 5.1.4?
> The true sides would be 110-120 and the wife’s would perhaps be 80...


Yes, IMO, filling that "gap" between a single pair of surrounds behind you and the LCR speakers is clearly noticeable. And also in this configuration the wides will get nearly constant activity, vs. a 9.x.x. layout where they will only make noise occasionally with object pass through.

The only issue is the limited number of processors that actually support wides.


----------



## batpig

dfa973 said:


> MediaInfo against an unencrypted/ripped on HDD UHD Bluray contents.


Thanks, interesting stuff.



dfa973 said:


> There are *lots* of UHD BluRays in this configuration (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects)!


But are there any that do NOT show this configuration? 

Because if the working theory (that all beds get converted into objects once the Atmos decoder kicks in) is accurate then it would seem as though the 1 bed + X objects format would be universal.




> What we can infer from the MediaInfo output is:
> - Bed channel count: 1 channel - it means that all the bed channels (except one) are in fact objects - most probably ISFs/clusters;
> - Bed channel configuration: LFE - another hint that all the bed channels (except LFE) are in fact ISFs/objects, and the only speaker feed is the LFE channel;
> - Number of dynamic objects: 11/13/15/etc. - if there are 11 dynamic objects it means that there are at least 7 ISFs/clusters that make the bed + 11 dynamic objects, so the total is LFE + 7 ISFs + 11 dynamic objects = 19 waveforms;
> In this new light, I do not think that Atmos via TrueHD is limited to only 16 waveforms, but in fact, can store 8 "fixed" waveforms (as LFE+bed/ISFs) + 15 dynamic objects, so the maximum is 23 waveforms.


I'm sorry, respectfully I do not agree with your logic about inferring that there are 7 "hidden" extra ISF/cluster elements that are separate from the "dynamic objects" and therefore implies there are more than 16 total elements. I don't see at all how it's implied these are also floating around in there.

It seems much more likely to me that the simpler explanation is true -- you are seeing exactly what there is, the LFE (1 bed) and all the beds+objects (the X) clustered via spatial coding and reported as "dynamic objects" whether they have fixed coordinates or now.

We now know that the encoder specifies a 16 element limit, and that dynamic objects can be clustered with the beds during the spatial coding process, the Renderer Guide document is quite clear about this and how the 16 element limit applies to everything. Some selected quotes from the guide:



> In order to deliver Dolby Atmos in home theater or mobile devices, a massive bit rate and complexity reduction must be achieved.... The spatial coding process takes as input a full Dolby Atmos movie mix in Pro Tools (one 9.1 bed, and up to 118 objects), *and outputs a configurable number of output objects.*


Note -- the input is the FULL MIX, and the output is the "configurable number of output objects", an we know that can be configured to 12, 14, or 16 elements which corresponds perfectly to what your data shows (1 bed + 11 objects, 1 bed + 13 objects, 1 bed + 15 objects). Again, I see no evidence that there are "hidden extras" in the form of these ISF clusters that aren't represented by the 12/14/16 element limit.

A limited number of spatial coding configurations are available based on the desired number of output clusters.



> In order to maximize efficiency, spatial coding converts bed channels to equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations. Because of this, the best results are generally obtained by configuring spatial coding with 11 to 15 output objects and one bed channel for the LFE. (This budget of audio signals is referred to as the number of elements in both the Dolby Atmos Renderer and the Dolby Media Encoder software application. Both Dolby Atmos Renderer software and Dolby bitstream codecs support choices of 12, 14, or 16 elements.)


It is quite explicit reading section 26.4 of the guide that beds are converted into objects as part of spatial coding for home delivery.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> If I understand correctly, this backwards compatibility, as organized in sub streams 1,2 and 3, is totally independent from how in sub stream 4 the 15 (16 minus LFE) available waveforms are divided over either stationary objects/clusters representing the ITU speaker locations, or free floating objects/clusters. I can imagine that any "bed channel" that is not active in the Atmos mix gets an "OFF" flag in sub stream 4, as it makes no sense to take that content from the 7.1 construct and subsequently cancel out all its information to make it empty. So the waveform that this specific "bed channel" would occupy is now available for another object/cluster. This is of course all dynamic, meaning that every time in the soundtrack a "bed channel" is not active, that waveform can be used to increase the positional resolution of the non-stationary objects as organized by the spatial coding process.


Again, this just doesn't seem practical and feels more like a theoretical discussion disconnected with how movies are actually mixed. Sure, if a mixer wanted to they could have 4 beds (LCR+LFE) and then everything outside of the screen channels is 100% objects, so now you've got potential for 12 fully dynamic object elements zooming around.

But in reality, the core of the soundtrack is the 7.1 mix and then objects are sprinkled on top. The substream independence which you cite isn't really relevant, I'm talking about the real world practicality that as the mixer is assembling the deliverable, they know in the back of their head that there will also be a 7.1ch downmix. And Atmos mixing is built as beds+objects so why would they NOT have the 7.1 bed as the foundation?


----------



## maikeldepotter

batpig said:


> Again, this just doesn't seem practical and feels more like a theoretical discussion disconnected with how movies are actually mixed.


IMO we are discussing the technicalities of the format, in order to establish an understanding of its possibilities and its limitations. How movies are actually mixed is up to the re-recording engineers and movie directors, I would not dare ... 



> Sure, if a mixer wanted to they could have 4 beds (LCR+LFE) and then everything outside of the screen channels is 100% objects, so now you've got potential for 12 fully dynamic object elements zooming around.


Not so hypothetical at all. I have seen (unfortunately not presentable) a 3D diagram showing objects of a home mix distributed in a room with a 9.1.6 Atmos configuration in which at least 10 out of 15 objects were NOT positioned at or near any of the speaker positions.



> But in reality, the core of the soundtrack is the 7.1 mix and then objects are sprinkled on top.


But even then, not all of those original (cinematic) bed channels are necessarily active all of the time.



> The substream independence which you cite isn't really relevant, I'm talking about the real world practicality that as the mixer is assembling the deliverable, they know in the back of their head that there will also be a 7.1ch downmix. And Atmos mixing is built as beds+objects so why would they NOT have the 7.1 bed as the foundation?


I am not saying the 7.1 bed is not being used as foundation most of the time. But at any given time a mixer can also choose to not use one or more bed channels, and/or to let predominantly objects dominate his mix, if he feels that would better serve his goal. Ultimately it is an automated process, the spatial coding, that determines how those beds and objects are transferred into the 11 to 15 available waveforms.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may only have the option to do this in the future (5.1 plus wides in base layer) due to layout-is this a noticeable upgrade vs just 5.1.4?
> The true sides would be 110-120 and the wifeâ€™️s would perhaps be 80...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, IMO, filling that "gap" between a single pair of surrounds behind you and the LCR speakers is clearly noticeable. And also in this configuration the wides will get nearly constant activity, vs. a 9.x.x. layout where they will only make noise occasionally with object pass through.
> 
> The only issue is the limited number of processors that actually support wides.
Click to expand...

Shoot-I’m guessing my lowly 758 NAD isn’t one that can


----------



## Roger Dressler

dfa973 said:


> There are *lots* of UHD BluRays in this configuration (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects)!


Indeed that appears to be the dominant format. 

I'm seeing some confusion about ISF, Intermediate Spatial Format. This is understandable because the terminology resembles Spatial Coding, and both are able to be carried in an Atmos bitstream. Examples below.



> So we can't see how many ISFs are beside the dynamic objects count.





> I have never seen an Atmos soundtrack carrying more than 15 dynamic objects but all have the legacy 7.1 beds (that are not always true bed channels, but ISFs).





> The objects that reside in the 4th substream are used to cancel out the objects that are embedded in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd substreams so that the bed 7.1 can be "made clean" and feed to the bed speakers. The same objects that were used for canceling are now placed in the 3D space using the metadata stored along with the audio objects. This canceling is meant only for audio objects (that need to be separated from the bed), the Intermediate Spatial Format (ISF) audio (clusters) do not need to be canceled from the bed (in some situations, *the ISFs are the bed*) - the only situation when an ISF can be canceled is when an ISF needs to be placed outside of the bed - like an object - but it is, in fact, a cluster of objects. In this case, the 4th substream will store a copy of the ISF/cluster so it can be detached from the rest of the ISFs/bed and placed accordingly with the metadata.


But I would assert that these are completely different things. ISF is a >> format that defines spatial position by distributing the signal to speakers located in a stacked-ring configuration


----------



## dfa973

batpig said:


> But are there any that do NOT show this configuration?


I have run MediaInfo today against at least 30 Atmos BluRays and I have not found any with more than 1 bed channel, all are made using the same pattern, *1 LFE bed channel + X dynamic objects*. This is so constant that I become bored sifting trough so many discs and rips and I gave up. 
FHD, 3D, UHD BluRays, old, or new, it does not matter, all are encoded in the same way, the only variable is the number of dynamic objects.
The Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Sep 2016) has also the same pattern.



batpig said:


> Because if the working theory (that all beds get converted into objects once the Atmos decoder kicks in) is accurate then it would seem as though the 1 bed + X objects format would be universal.


It seems to be that way.




batpig said:


> I'm sorry, respectfully I do not agree with your logic about inferring that there are 7 "hidden" extra ISF/cluster elements that are separate from the "dynamic objects" and therefore implies there are more than 16 total elements. I don't see at all how it's implied these are also floating around in there.


Maybe you are right, but without any meaning to see the contents of the following TrueHD parameters:
_16ch_content_description
16ch_channel_assignment
16ch_intermediate_spatial_format_
we cannot be sure how the objects are split between ISF/clusters and dynamic objects. If they are split. Maybe the clusters and the dynamic objects are conflated and counted the same. The Dolby papers do not confirm this and the dynamic object's definition does separate dynamic objects from ISFs/clusters.
To me, the fact that the TrueHD can carry channels+ISFs+objects is proof that ISFs/clusters are treated separately from the dynamic objects and the decoder job is made easier by treating ISFs/clusters as a hybrid of bed+objects - the exact definition of spatially encoded objects that are near predefined canonical locations, so the ISFs are in fact the objects that will feed the actual physical speakers.
Since ISFs are in fact used as speaker feeds, there is no need for these special objects to be present in the 4th substream because there is no need for them to be placed outside of the bed, the 4th substream will contain only the dynamic objects, that need to be placed outside of the bed and outside of the ISFs/clusters.
The free, non-ISF objects - outside of the clusters - are those objects that are dynamic, with a position or trajectory that prevents them to be clustered.

In the _Dolby Atmos Renderer guide_, the workflow that is given as an example is around the *Dolby Atmos Leaf trailer* demo.

I have attached 3 screens from that _Dolby Atmos Renderer guide_.

In the _Dolby Atmos Renderer guide - Input Configuration 1-13, page 127_ image we can see that the Leaf trailer has a 10 channel bed configuration, followed by at least 4 objects.

In the _Dolby Atmos Renderer guide - Input Configuration 11-23, page 129_ image the configuration is modified to test the limits of assigning the beds. In this image, we can see that the Leaf trailer has a lot more objects that 4, in fact, we can see at least 14 configured objects, in addition to the 10 channels.

The last _Dolby Atmos Renderer guide - Export ADM BWF - Leaf, page 155_ image shows the fact that the guide is made around the Leaf trailer.

And the resulting file is:



> *dolby-atmos-trailer_leaf_1080.mp4 - Audio*
> ID : 2
> Format : E-AC-3 JOC
> Format/Info : Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding
> Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
> Codec ID : ec-3
> Duration : 59 s 297 ms
> Bit rate mode : Constant
> Bit rate : 448 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 6 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossy
> Stream size : 3.17 MiB (5%)
> Service kind : Complete Main
> Default : Yes
> Alternate group : 2
> Encoded date : UTC 2018-05-03 17:08:01
> Tagged date : UTC 2018-05-03 17:08:01
> Complexity index : 16
> Number of dynamic objects : 15
> Bed channel count : 1 channel
> Bed channel configuration : LFE


What if the real layout of the Leaf trailer is:
1 bed channel - the LFE;
5 ISFs - that will feed the L R C Ls Rs speakers;
15 dynamic objects
-----------------
Total of 21 waveforms.


----------



## dfa973

Roger Dressler said:


> But I would assert that these are completely different things. ISF is a >> format that defines spatial position by distributing the signal to speakers located in a stacked-ring configuration


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> How can we know for sure that ISFs are not used in TrueHD/MLP/Atmos?


A trustworthy source saying so might be a way to get _some_ assurance, wouldn’t it?


----------



## Roger Dressler

dfa973 said:


> How can we know for sure that ISFs are not used in TrueHD/MLP/Atmos?


To date, of all the Atmos soundtracks that have been examined by MediaInfo, not a single one has identified the presence of ISF content. 



> The ETSI TS 103 420 describes perfectly the Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding (JOC) used today for streaming Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos content.


Yes, it does. JOC is what keeps the DD+ Atmos bitrates low.


----------



## dfa973

Roger Dressler said:


> To date, of all the Atmos soundtracks that have been examined by MediaInfo, not a single one has identified the presence of ISF content.


True, but MediaInfo outputs only the parameters that are chosen by the author to be read, not all the parameters are dumped to the screen.
I have contacted the MediaInfo author about the 16ch_content_description, 16ch_channel_assignment and 16ch_intermediate_spatial_format parameters in the TrueHD container to see whether they are scanned or not.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Not to divert from the Dolby audio specs tech info but
If anyone knows any scenes in Blade runner 2049 that are reference quality Dolby audio and/or bass I would love to know. Just ordered it but want to show a few min off to friends this weekend


----------



## priitv8

dfa973 said:


> I have contacted the MediaInfo author about the 16ch_content_description, 16ch_channel_assignment and 16ch_intermediate_spatial_format parameters in the TrueHD container to see whether they are scanned or not.


Luckily enough MediaInfoLib is open source project, so theoretically you can read their code yourself.
https://github.com/MediaArea/MediaInfoLib
Seems they have not done much lately on TrueHD. Also they do not seem to parse the specific parameters you list. They seem to skip other 16_xxx params, except for 16ch_channel_count. Counless elements in the bitstream are still being skipped as "Unknown".


----------



## dfa973

priitv8 said:


> Seems they have not done much lately on TrueHD. Also they do not seem to parse the specific parameters you list. They seem to skip other 16_xxx params, except for 16ch_channel_count. Counless elements in the bitstream are still being skipped as "Unknown".


Indeed, the AC-3, E-AC-3, and TrueHD streams are treated together (in the File_Ac3.cpp).

The TrueHD+Atmos substream detection is pretty simple:


Code:


if (HD_StreamType==[B]0xBA[/B])
        {
            Element_Begin1("substream_info");
                Get_SB (    [B]HD_HasAtmos[/B],                        "[B]16-channel presentation is present[/B]");

And then, it uses an E-AC-3 JOC parameter "num_dynamic_objects" to get the objects in the stream and to output the value in the "16ch_channel_count" variable/string:



Code:


if ([B]HD_HasAtmos[/B])
                    {
                        Element_Begin1("16ch_channel_meaning");
                        Skip_S1(5,                              "16ch_dialogue_norm");
                        Skip_S1(6,                              "16ch_mix_level");
                        [B]Get_S1 (5, num_dynamic_objects,         "16ch_channel_count");
                        num_dynamic_objects++;[/B]
                        program_assignment();
                        Element_End0();
                   }

But the "num_dynamic_objects" parameter is not used in TrueHD streams..., only in E-AC-3 JOC streams...
The right field for TrueHD is "16ch_dynamic_object_count".

The only instance of ISF detection is ignored (skipped), but the "intermediate_spatial_format_idx" field is specific only to E-AC-3 JOC streams, not TrueHD.



Code:


if (content_description_mask & 0x2)
            Skip_S1(3,                                          "intermediate_spatial_format_idx");

Let's see if the MediaInfo author can shed some light on this issue.


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> Not to divert from the Dolby audio specs tech info but
> If anyone knows any scenes in Blade runner 2049 that are reference quality Dolby audio and/or bass I would love to know. Just ordered it but want to show a few min off to friends this weekend


The opening of the movie has devastating bass and a flyover. Should get you going.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Not to divert from the Dolby audio specs tech info but
> If anyone knows any scenes in Blade runner 2049 that are reference quality Dolby audio and/or bass I would love to know. Just ordered it but want to show a few min off to friends this weekend



Watch the whole thing. It's bass and immersion city throughout, but yes, the opening is earth shattering, especially if your subwoofer(s) can handle it (many can not). Hope you got it on 4k disc.


----------



## Cla55clown

My MLP is about 1.5 foot off the back wall. There is a 4 foot wide soffit on the ceiling in the front of the room towards the projector screen. I will be doing a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. MLP to screen will be about 11 feet. With this, what Atmos ceiling speaker layout should I be wiring for? This is my 1st Atmos experience in my home.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> Not to divert from the Dolby audio specs tech info but
> If anyone knows any scenes in Blade runner 2049 that are reference quality Dolby audio and/or bass I would love to know. Just ordered it but want to show a few min off to friends this weekend


Basically the entire movie is reference quality.

Besides the opening, if you have 4+ overhead speakers the scene near the end where K re-enters the city and pauses to watch the huge hologram of Joi, the hologram's voice comes precisely from the upper left to match the on-screen visuals. This scene was actually used in a CEDIA demo last year to demonstrate the precise spatial positioning possible with Atmos. Also boobs. 

Then, immediately after, it heads into one of the final scenes with the chase outside the city with crashing waves, explosions, rain, etc. which is definitely demo worthy.


----------



## batpig

Cla55clown said:


> My MLP is about 1.5 foot off the back wall. There is a 4 foot wide soffit on the ceiling in the front of the room towards the projector screen. I will be doing a 5.1.4 Atmos setup. MLP to screen will be about 11 feet. With this, what Atmos ceiling speaker layout should I be wiring for? This is my 1st Atmos experience in my home.


Any chance you can scoot the seating forward a bit more? That would help acoustically and give you a little more wiggle room with the rear overheads (and, honestly, you could even do 7.1.4 at that point). You will definitely want to add broadband absorption on the wall behind the seating to catch that hard reflection from behind you.

Does the soffit run side-to-side, parallel to the screen / seating? So the face of the soffit is 4' closer to you than the screen itself? If you, it seems like you could use the front face of the soffit to mount "Front Height" speakers angled down towards the seating. And then a matching pair of "Rear Heights" at the top of the rear wall behind you angled down.


----------



## -Henry-

batpig said:


> Sure, if a mixer wanted to they could have 4 beds (LCR+LFE) and then everything outside of the screen channels is 100% objects.



Or do not want any bed:




Code:


Audio #1
ID                                       : 2
ID in the original source medium         : 4352 (0x1100)
Format                                   : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info                              : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name                          : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID                                 : A_TRUEHD
Duration                                 : 16 min 8 s
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 4 069 kb/s
Maximum bit rate                         : 5 043 kb/s
Channel(s)                               : 8 channels
Channel layout                           : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Bit depth                                : 24 bits
Compression mode                         : Lossless
Delay relative to video                  : 9 s 83 ms
Stream size                              : 470 MiB (57%)
Title                                    : Surround 7.1
Language                                 : English
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No
Original source medium                   : Blu-ray
Number of dynamic objects                : [B]16[/B]


It's 9.1.6 demo from Dolby Atmos Demo Blu-ray2016


----------



## Cla55clown

batpig said:


> Any chance you can scoot the seating forward a bit more? That would help acoustically and give you a little more wiggle room with the rear overheads (and, honestly, you could even do 7.1.4 at that point). You will definitely want to add broadband absorption on the wall behind the seating to catch that hard reflection from behind you.
> 
> Does the soffit run side-to-side, parallel to the screen / seating? So the face of the soffit is 4' closer to you than the screen itself? If you, it seems like you could use the front face of the soffit to mount "Front Height" speakers angled down towards the seating. And then a matching pair of "Rear Heights" at the top of the rear wall behind you angled down.


Not sure if i can go up much more. We'll see after it's completed (it's a unfinished basement starting construction next week!). Yes, the soffit will run side to side and be parallel to the screen and seating. I understand what you're saying but the DW wants in-ceilings for a cleaner look. She's already putting up with my big Polk LSiMs placed around the room. So, top front, top rear?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to divert from the Dolby audio specs tech info but
> If anyone knows any scenes in Blade runner 2049 that are reference quality Dolby audio and/or bass I would love to know. Just ordered it but want to show a few min off to friends this weekend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the whole thing. It's bass and immersion city throughout, but yes, the opening is earth shattering, especially if your subwoofer(s) can handle it (many can not). Hope you got it on 4k disc.
Click to expand...

Omg I just watched the first few minutes and the bass is INSANE. My dual PC4000s dog down to 15Hz so I’d say they can handle this movie and show off some serious tactile feel. 

I usually watch movies at -15 (-10 marvel) but this movie I can’t lower past -19 without shaking the house!

Yes, 4k blu ray is the only way for my 5.1.4

Is the atmos heights good as well throughout?


----------



## Roger Dressler

-Henry- said:


> Or do not want any bed:
> It's 9.1.6 demo from Dolby Atmos Demo Blu-ray2016


Hi Henry. Which track is that?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

batpig said:


> Basically the entire movie is reference quality.
> 
> Also boobs.


Boobs!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Is the Atmos heights good as well throughout?



Yes. The Blade Runner Final Cut 4k has a pretty decent Atmos track too.


----------



## Roger Dressler

dfa973 said:


> True, but MediaInfo outputs only the parameters that are chosen by the author to be read, not all the parameters are dumped to the screen.


Good point. Clearly, we cannot rely on MediaInfo to inform about data it does not probe.

Based on the Dolby Media Encoder User's manual, that result seems reasonable, since there's no support for ISF there either, or in any other Atmos literature, for that matter.


----------



## priitv8

dfa973 said:


> Let's see if the MediaInfo author can shed some light on this issue.


My wild guess is : e-ac-3 JOC.coding is public standard and completely available. Atmos encoding specifics in TrueHD are still proprietary, possibly call for licensing, and what medialab has achieved is pure reverse engineering.


----------



## maikeldepotter

FilmMixer said:


> According to what I have been told, and now what they confirmed on the Onkyo site, DTS:X for the home can handle 16 audio "streams.." + 2 LFE tracks..
> 
> So 7.1 + 9 objects.. or 16 objects.. or 7.1 + 3.0 LCR dialog + 6 objects.. or......
> 
> As I understand it Atmos is max 20 objects + 7.1 bed with the current encoder toolset... The default encoder setting is 7.1 + 12 objects.
> 
> There is no reason for Atmos to scale more than 20 when the max outputs are 34... what you might see if less spacial coding on those with the higher bit budget.. but 20 objects to 34 outputs is enough to do the job well enough IMO.


This post dates back to 2015. While for DTS:X the maximum number of available waveforms was always known to be 16 + 2 LFE, for home Atmos our common AVS understanding went from 28 (7.1+20), to 24 (7.1+16), to (recently discovered) a mere 16 (with 12 being the default). Apparently, Dolby has been keeping this information from everybody, including re-recording engineers. Just an observation ...


----------



## -Henry-

Roger Dressler said:


> Hi Henry. Which track is that?



Dolby Atmos Demo Disc Blu-ray 2016 > Test Tones > Test Tones 9.1.6 (16:17)


Spoiler


----------



## Roger Dressler

-Henry- said:


> Dolby Atmos Demo Disc Blu-ray 2016 > Test Tones > Test Tones 9.1.6 (16:17)


Thanks. I see that the Nature's Fury trailer does the same -- 15 dynamic objects, 1 LFE channel.


----------



## drd66

Sevenfeet said:


> Sports is one of the "holy grails" of HDR/Atmos content. I'm not surprised that NBC is doing serious tests on it....I just hadn't heard about this. I'm sorry it's not on Comcast since the Comcast 4K X1 boxes are Atmos capable (and did do Atmos content during the Olympics). It would be nice if they could truly do 4K through the entire workflow instead of an upscale...I get it about the data issues but again, Japanese TV did figure this stuff out for the Olympics feed they sent to NBC including high speed cameras, graphics overlays, etc. In defense of NBC, none of the 4K/HDR Olympic broadcasts were live in real time.


I realize the above post is > 1 yr old, but thought you might like an update. As of game 2 this year (Virginia @ Notre Dame 9/282019), NBC's 4kHDR/Atmos coverage IS available via Comcast 4K boxes. It is still also available via DirecTV 4k.

If you or Motodop or anyone else on this forum is listening to these games in Atmos, whether via a discrete system or a sound bar, I would love to hear any comments or complaints. Mods, not sure if replies here would be appropriate, but PM-ing me is always an option. I will check in after each home game. 

-Doug


----------



## Sevenfeet

drd66 said:


> I realize the above post is > 1 yr old, but thought you might like an update. As of game 2 this year (Virginia @ Notre Dame 9/282019), NBC's 4kHDR/Atmos coverage IS available via Comcast 4K boxes. It is still also available via DirecTV 4k.
> 
> If you or Motodop or anyone else on this forum is listening to these games in Atmos, whether via a discrete system or a sound bar, I would love to hear any comments or complaints. Mods, not sure if replies here would be appropriate, but PM-ing me is always an option. I will check in after each home game.
> 
> -Doug


The Texas Tech vs Kansas game is on FOX Sports 1 in 4K-HDR as we speak. It's late in the day so the colors are in shadow but it still looks pretty. The 4K broadcast is probably an upscale but it the colors make the broadcast. Curiously, there are no commercials which tells me that this is all still experimental.....no ability to insert the ads in the regular national broadcast. All other graphics (including on-field graphics) look good. Sound is NOT Atmos on my processor.


----------



## jsb75

drd66 said:


> I realize the above post is > 1 yr old, but thought you might like an update. As of game 2 this year (Virginia @ Notre Dame 9/282019), NBC's 4kHDR/Atmos coverage IS available via Comcast 4K boxes. It is still also available via DirecTV 4k.
> 
> If you or Motodop or anyone else on this forum is listening to these games in Atmos, whether via a discrete system or a sound bar, I would love to hear any comments or complaints. Mods, not sure if replies here would be appropriate, but PM-ing me is always an option. I will check in after each home game.
> 
> -Doug


We just got rid of Comcast like a month ago. Didn’t realize they were that close to pushing 4K and atmos through. But me personally wouldn’t be that pumped about a game having atmos. Guess they gotta start somewhere though


----------



## harrisu

Hi guys,
In a 7.x.4 setup, should the atmos speaker be pointing straight down or angled towards MLP? I have seen many images where they are directly pointing down hence my curiosity.


----------



## mustafa811

I saw somebody claiming that the TrueHD 7.1 core track sounds much better than the Atmos mix on Charlie’s Angels 4K UHD release.
I checked it and found the same thing.
The Atmos track sounds flat, very low in volume and surrounds are even lower.
There is a lack in dynamics too unlike other Sony UHD releases.
When playing the TrueHD 7.1 core track by using Direct Mode or using DTS: Neural X, the sound is much better. It is night and day. Just flawless.
Can this be a faulty Atmos track from Sony?
Shouldn’t the Atmos track be just an extension of the TrueJD 7.1 core and share similar characteristics?


----------



## drd66

I don't know about the Fox 4k signal, but the NBC Notre Dame games are native 4k/HDR. Some elements are upconverted, but the signal that leaves the truck at ND is 4K. Actually, two separate signals go out - one 1080i HD-SDR/5.1 and a separate 1080p 4k-HDR/Atmos. I'm an audio person, so that's about the extent of my video knowledge. 

Even the Fox 4k games are not immersive audio. Notre Dame on NBC is the only football of any kind available in Atmos. As far as I know, the only other US sports broadcast produced in Atmos is NHRA drag racing on FS1, and it sounds amazing.


----------



## Chirosamsung

drd66 said:


> I don't know about the Fox 4k signal, but the NBC Notre Dame games are native 4k/HDR. Some elements are upconverted, but the signal that leaves the truck at ND is 4K. Actually, two separate signals go out - one 1080i HD-SDR/5.1 and a separate 1080p 4k-HDR/Atmos. I'm an audio person, so that's about the extent of my video knowledge.
> 
> Even the Fox 4k games are not immersive audio. Notre Dame on NBC is the only football of any kind available in Atmos. As far as I know, the only other US sports broadcast produced in Atmos is NHRA drag racing on FS1, and it sounds amazing.


Don’t really know what the big deal about the Dolby atmos part of sports-are you supposed to hear the baseball over your head on a pop fly or when a field goal is kicked in football?? Lol


----------



## maikeldepotter

mustafa811 said:


> I saw somebody claiming that the TrueHD 7.1 core track sounds much better than the Atmos mix on Charlie’s Angels 4K UHD release.
> I checked it and found the same thing.
> *The Atmos track sounds flat, very low in volume and surrounds are even lower.*
> There is a lack in dynamics too unlike other Sony UHD releases.
> When playing the TrueHD 7.1 core track by using Direct Mode or using DTS: Neural X, the sound is much better. It is night and day. Just flawless.
> Can this be a faulty Atmos track from Sony?
> Shouldn’t the Atmos track be just an extension of the TrueJD 7.1 core and share similar characteristics?


Did you try turning up the volume on the Atmos track?


----------



## mustafa811

maikeldepotter said:


> Did you try turning up the volume on the Atmos track?


I did turn the volume up and it helped.
The overall quality of the track isn’t bad but it is also not the usual Sony quality.
What really confuses me is why the TrueHD 7.1 core is flawless and doesn’t even need turning up the volume while the Atmos extension is very different.
Can an Atmos extension be mixed at a lower dB than the TrueHD 7.1 core?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Chirosamsung said:


> Don’t really know what the big deal about the Dolby atmos part of sports-are you supposed to hear the baseball over your head on a pop fly or when a field goal is kicked in football?? Lol


"LOL" to you too. Atmos*pheric*. You could say the exact same thing arguing against having 5.1 sound instead of 2.0 stereo for sport, mocking the idea of balls flying around behind you.


----------



## drd66

Chirosamsung said:


> Don’t really know what the big deal about the Dolby atmos part of sports-are you supposed to hear the baseball over your head on a pop fly or when a field goal is kicked in football?? Lol


Nah, not much stuff flying over your head. As Mrtickleuk alluded too, for arena and stadium sports it's all about the atmosphere. Hearing a huge stadium crowd coming from all around and above you is pretty cool. Almost immersive, one might say. You hear the PA more in the overheads than the fronts or rears, just like in the stadium. Will be awesome to hear the hockey goal horn from overhead while the crowd screams all around you. In the drag racing show, the launch just envelops you. 

Your response is honestly the one I hear the most, from both viewers and people in the broadcast industry. It's a legitimate question that people are actively trying to answer. Which is pretty much the main reason I'm posting here looking for comments. Keep 'em coming.


----------



## chi_guy50

drd66 said:


> Nah, not much stuff flying over your head. As Mrtickleuk alluded too, for arena and stadium sports it's all about the atmosphere. Hearing a huge stadium crowd coming from all around and above you is pretty cool. Almost immersive, one might say. You hear the PA more in the overheads than the fronts or rears, just like in the stadium. Will be awesome to hear the hockey goal horn from overhead while the crowd screams all around you. In the drag racing show, the launch just envelops you.
> 
> Your response is honestly the one I hear the most, from both viewers and people in the broadcast industry. It's a legitimate question that people are actively trying to answer. Which is pretty much the main reason I'm posting here looking for comments. Keep 'em coming.



Speaking of stadium crowds, I just finished watching The Doors - The Final Cut on UHD Blu-ray disc. This is a native 2160p transfer in Dolby Vision of the original 1991 Oliver Stone biopic with a remastered Dolby Atmos sound track, and it is visually and aurally sumptuous. The live concert scenes bring a genuine sense of crowd immersion with both vocals/music and audience reactions interspersed throughout the sound field. There is an extra feature on the disc with Lon Bender, who created the Dolby Atmos mix from the original near-field masters, explaining his aesthetic approach and some of the techniques he used to realize the director's vision for the film.

I would have to agree with Joshua's post from last July (below) regarding the quality of this Atmos movie. Even though I am not a fan of the rock genre and had never bothered to watch the original movie, I found this rendition enthralling and musically impactful. 



Joshua Chmiel said:


> Just watched The Doors 4K Atmos disc. This is top 5 Atmos for me! This sound mix is amazing and makes incredible use of all channels. Well maybe not much LFE, but WOW! none the less. All the subtle sounds creating the atmosphere of the room. The sounds one would hear if in an urban environment. The integration of music into the scenes. This just a top notch sound mix.


----------



## amdar

My ceiling height is 8 ft and MLP is 10ft. i would like to setup 5.2.4.
what is the best or preferred distance from MLP to top middle and top rear atmos speaker?


----------



## petetherock

Given some of the revelations that certain tracks, eg Saving Private Ryan and some others are actually limited to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, is Atmos truly object based?
We have all been drinking from that fountain which gives us surround effects which are supposed to be placed anywhere and not limited by our speaker positions ... so how true is this now?


----------



## chi_guy50

amdar said:


> My ceiling height is 8 ft and MLP is 10ft. i would like to setup 5.2.4.
> what is the best or preferred distance from MLP to top middle and top rear atmos speaker?



Assuming that you have the room, the generally accepted rule is to aim for a 45° elevation angle both front and rear. IOW, if the distance from your ear height in the seated position at the MLP to the ceiling is five feet, then you would measure five feet forward for the top front and five feet to the rear for the top rear. Unless there is a cogent reason for it (e.g., ceiling obstructions), there is no need to forgo top front for top middle when configuring two pairs of overhead speakers. 

If you do not have sufficient room to the rear of the MLP, you can easily afford to cheat the rear set forward a bit without compromising the immersion effect significantly since we do not hear sounds behind us as well as we do in front of us.

See also the illustration below showing the recommended angular ranges for the various height speaker pairs.


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> Given some of the revelations that certain tracks, eg Saving Private Ryan and some others are actually limited to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, is Atmos truly object based?
> We have all been drinking from that fountain which gives us surround effects which are supposed to be placed anywhere and not limited by our speaker positions ... so how true is this now?



FWIW, if I understood Lon Bender's explanation correctly regarding his mixing technique on _The Doors - The Final Cut _(see my post from yesterday), it seems that he encoded the bed speakers themselves as objects. He seemed to say that the only element that was not treated as an object was the LFE channel.


----------



## gec5741

I don't have an atmos speaker setup but have a standard 7.1 setup. My side surrounds are up near the ceiling pointed down at the listing position. I'm curious about upgrading my receiver to one that supports atmos virtualization? Does anyone have any suggestions on the best AVR's for this and if it would be worth it?

Currently I have an onkyo TX-NR737. looking at the denon X2600H. I am just starting to research this new "virtualization". Right now adding in heights isn't something I'm ready to tackle in my current HT space.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Augerhandle

gec5741 said:


> I don't have an atmos speaker setup but have a standard 7.1 setup. My side surrounds are up near the ceiling pointed down at the listing position. I'm curious about upgrading my receiver to one that supports atmos virtualization? Does anyone have any suggestions on the best AVR's for this and if it would be worth it?
> 
> Currently I have an onkyo TX-NR737. looking at the denon X2600H. I am just starting to research this new "virtualization". Right now adding in heights isn't something I'm ready to tackle in my current HT space.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 You could repurpose your high surrounds as Atmos heights, and install new surrounds at ear level. For 7.1.2, the 2 heights are recommended to be fronts, so you would need to go 7.1.4 and add front Atmos speakers as well. You could buy Dolby enabled modules (up-firing) to set on top of your fronts.


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> Given some of the revelations that certain tracks, eg Saving Private Ryan and some others are actually limited to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, is Atmos truly object based?
> We have all been drinking from that fountain which gives us surround effects which are supposed to be placed anywhere and not limited by our speaker positions ... so how true is this now?


Sounds encoded as objects can be placed anywhere in 3D space, including in between speaker locations. But this doesn't mean that objects cannot mimic a channel, but being assigned a speaker location AND remaining static (rather than moving around). If you assign all the sounds to 9 or 11 speaker locations, you end up with a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 mix, whether those sounds were in channels or objects.


----------



## batpig

Augerhandle said:


> You could repurpose your high surrounds as Atmos heights, and install new surrounds at ear level. For 7.1.2, the 2 heights are recommended to be fronts, so you would need to go 7.1.4 and add front Atmos speakers as well. You could buy Dolby enabled modules (up-firing) to set on top of your fronts.


While I agree that he could convert his side surrounds into Atmos heights, it is NOT the case that for x.x.2 the "2 heights are recommended to be fronts". Where did you come up with that? Top Middle is the standard recommendation for Atmos positioning of only 2 overhead speakers, so overhead sound comes from (wait for it) over your head.


----------



## batpig

gec5741 said:


> I don't have an atmos speaker setup but have a standard 7.1 setup. My side surrounds are up near the ceiling pointed down at the listing position. I'm curious about upgrading my receiver to one that supports atmos virtualization? Does anyone have any suggestions on the best AVR's for this and if it would be worth it?
> 
> Currently I have an onkyo TX-NR737. looking at the denon X2600H. I am just starting to research this new "virtualization". Right now adding in heights isn't something I'm ready to tackle in my current HT space.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


There's literally no point in trying to do Atmos if your side surrounds are up near the ceiling. 

As the other poster noted, the best approach would be to try to use those side surrounds as Atmos speakers (Top Middle) and then have the current back surrounds operate as surrounds. Although you may need to do some speaker re-positioning to accommodate this if the back surrounds are narrowly space behind you. Best case you'd get a 9ch capable receiver and supplement with surrounds at ear level, keep the current back surrounds, repurpose the side surrounds as Top Middle and you have 7.1.2.


----------



## Augerhandle

batpig said:


> ... the "2 heights are recommended to be fronts". Where did you come up with that? ...


Um, from *Dolby*. 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

*EDIT: * This refers to Dolby enabled speakers. If using ceiling speakers they recommend Top Middle, as you stated.

Page 12


----------



## gec5741

batpig said:


> There's literally no point in trying to do Atmos if your side surrounds are up near the ceiling.
> 
> As the other poster noted, the best approach would be to try to use those side surrounds as Atmos speakers (Top Middle) and then have the current back surrounds operate as surrounds. Although you may need to do some speaker re-positioning to accommodate this if the back surrounds are narrowly space behind you. Best case you'd get a 9ch capable receiver and supplement with surrounds at ear level, keep the current back surrounds, repurpose the side surrounds as Top Middle and you have 7.1.2.


Every time I start thinking of a way to get atmos I usually come back to the realization that It may just be easiest to suck it up and look to do 4 in ceiling height speakers installed. I'm looking to possibly add some can lights down there so maybe when I ever get around to doing that I will look to buy and have wire pulled for the speakers as well. for my room I guess I just have to figure out placement. It's a relatively small rectangle shaped room. One issue I have is the ceiling is fairly low where I have soffits on either side of my main listening position (a couple feet off back wall). I'd have to measure but I'd say there's a bout 5 feet or so in-between. I could take some pictures of my setup. I have some up now on my small "build" of this room I have now. Pretty much just fitting in my gear from my old theater I had built into this new somewhat temporary house. I say temporary but I'll be here probably another 3 or so years so I'm not apposed to doing some work. I guess what I'd like to also know is would I benefit much from upgrading my AVR? I know since a firmware update that my onkyo 737 is capable of atmos. I've just never tried setting it up. I can't remember now on the speaker inputs but are their separate ones that are just for heights?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Augerhandle said:


> Um, from *Dolby*.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> *EDIT: * This refers to Dolby enabled speakers. If using ceiling speakers they recommend Top Middle, as you stated.
> 
> Page 12


Yes, I see you've edited it. Dolby's document is talking about their *bouncy-house upfiring speakers*. Not normal speakers which are mounted high up. You would never mount just two speakers high up at the front, unless you're travelling back in time and using Dolby Pro Logic IIz with its 2 "front height" speakers, or Audyssey DSX. 
The only reason Dolby say to put them on top of your front L+R , is because they have to be on top of SOMETHING!


----------



## noah katz

petetherock said:


> Given some of the revelations that certain tracks, eg Saving Private Ryan and some others are actually limited to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, is Atmos truly object based?
> We have all been drinking from that fountain which gives us surround effects which are supposed to be placed anywhere and not limited by our speaker positions ... so how true is this now?



Is object-based necessary to place objects anywhere?

Phantom imaging with suitably placed speakers already does that; I thought object-based was more an improvement to the logistics of soundtrack production.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> I thought object-based was more an improvement to the logistics of soundtrack production.


It helps with scaling the soundtrack to more speakers. On a 5.1 set-up, a pan from front to back can go from a Front speaker to a Surround speaker. That same pan on a 9.1 set-up can go from Front to Wide to Side to Rear. Same pan, scaled to more speakers (without matrix extracting additional speaker feeds).


----------



## amdar

Great info. Thanks. I will configure as top front and top rear. I do have enough space in the rear. 
I am interested on these two RSL c34E or Micca M-8C? Any recommendations?



chi_guy50 said:


> Assuming that you have the room, the generally accepted rule is to aim for a 45° elevation angle both front and rear. IOW, if the distance from your ear height in the seated position at the MLP to the ceiling is five feet, then you would measure five feet forward for the top front and five feet to the rear for the top rear. Unless there is a cogent reason for it (e.g., ceiling obstructions), there is no need to forgo top front for top middle when configuring two pairs of overhead speakers.
> 
> If you do not have sufficient room to the rear of the MLP, you can easily afford to cheat the rear set forward a bit without compromising the immersion effect significantly since we do not hear sounds behind us as well as we do in front of us.
> 
> See also the illustration below showing the recommended angular ranges for the various height speaker pairs.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> It helps with scaling the soundtrack to more speakers. On a 5.1 set-up, a pan from front to back can go from a Front speaker to a Surround speaker. That same pan on a 9.1 set-up can go from Front to Wide to Side to Rear. Same pan, scaled to more speakers (without matrix extracting additional speaker feeds).



Fair enough.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

amdar said:


> Great info. Thanks. I will configure as top front and top rear. I do have enough space in the rear.
> 
> I am interested on these two RSL c34E or Micca M-8C? Any recommendations?




I used 4, rsl c34e’s. Excellent speakers, I love them. Also, the CS is first rate. I give them the nod.


----------



## Marc Alexander

petetherock said:


> We have all been drinking from that fountain which gives us surround effects which are supposed to be placed anywhere and not limited by our speaker positions ... so how true is this now?


It is as true today as it was yesterday and the day before. Physical laws are absolute and were not rewritten. With any technology, 100% of a system's capabilities are rarely if every 100% realized. A marketer's job is to captivate your imagination based on a system's capabilities/potential (did anyone watch Mad Men?). You will often get a vastly different view from the sales and marketing people than the engineers. We must see and hear with our marketing eyes & ears [in life]. Sales and marketing work within the law and confidence-men outside of it, via many of the same principals. Would this forum exist if everything was as advertised, to each of our own personal expectations? "Personal" expectations being a significant qualifier.



noah katz said:


> Is object-based necessary to place objects anywhere?
> 
> Phantom imaging with suitably placed speakers already does that; I thought object-based was more an improvement to the logistics of soundtrack production.


Suitably placing speakers for phantom imaging is easier said than done. That would be with every speaker equidistant from the MLP. I would say anything >2.0 is rarely setup this way for a single listener and is not possible for multiple (outside of headphones for each listener). How often do you see speakers setup this way (outside of the Dts:X lab)?














Studio Tour : Emmy Winner Paula Fairfield's Dolby Atmos Studio

Are you setup this way? I am not.










Atmos, Dts:X and Auro3D are all spherical systems but are rarely setup spherically. 










Rooms and speaker layouts are predominately rectangular and a rectangular layout representation is less confusing to most people. Speaker distance/delay settings in the SSP are used to approximate equidistance.


----------



## noah katz

Marc Alexander said:


> Suitably placing speakers for phantom imaging is easier said than done...



Speaker placement is beside the point I was trying to make.

Which was that for a given speaker layout, a soundtrack with objects does not necessarily give better sound placement.

But I guess that only applies to specific cases, i.e. a 7.1.4 printout played on 7.1.4 speakers, but not for layouts with more speakers.

In my defense I'll say that the comment I was responding to seemed overly general in decrying the object-debasement situation.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Speaker placement is beside the point I was trying to make.
> 
> Which was that for a given speaker layout, a soundtrack with objects does not necessarily give better sound placement.


True. Simplest example: for a 2-speaker layout, a centre object won't give better placement than those same sounds mixed into the L/R channels. In both cases, those sounds will phantom image at the middle of the front soundstage. 

IF you add a Centre speaker to the example layout, then it will be discrete centre object vs matrix centre extraction. The latter won't be perfect, but I doubt you'd notice leakage when listening to program material.


----------



## Marc Alexander

noah katz said:


> Speaker placement is beside the point I was trying to make.
> 
> Which was that for a given speaker layout, a soundtrack with objects does not necessarily give better sound placement.
> 
> But I guess that only applies to specific cases, i.e. a 7.1.4 printout played on 7.1.4 speakers, but not for layouts with more speakers.
> 
> In my defense I'll say that the comment I was responding to seemed overly general in decrying the object-debasement situation.


In the mixing stage, there should be no debasement of objects. I don't think we have any evidence of channel-based mixing with Atmos or Dts:X. It has become obvious that [at times] some studios are choosing to perform all object rendering in the coding stage (delivering channel-based printouts) rather than delivering object-based (spatially coded) encodes for rendering in the SSP. Rendering in the SSP to ANY speaker layout was/is touted as the main advantages of the object-based formats over Auro-3D (channel-based).

I think it is fair to examine how Dts-HD overtook Dolby on Blu-ray (lower licensing costs?). Perhaps Dts/Xperi has a similar plan with Dts:X licensing vs Atmos? Provide a lower cost license and perhaps simpler workflow? What monitoring is necessary for object based mixing? It appears that up to 11.1.10 is supported by the Dolby Atmos rendering and mastering workstation. What is standard? I can easily see 7.1.4 being standard.










What about screening? Is screening a standard part of the cinema workflow? Or is the track already finalized by this stage? What about for the home (especially for original content)? Are any utilizing high-channel count screening? Does anyone know? I haven't seen any news from Trinnov in this regard. Dolby offers Premier Screening Rooms as well as 
Dolby's *Digital Cinema Screening Services*


> Expanding on our traditional Dolby screening services for 35 mm soundtracks, we now offer the complete package of equipment and engineering support for digital cinema screenings, including special one-off events, film festivals, marketing screenings, and premieres.
> 
> We can arrange the installation of a server system (the Dolby Digital Cinema presentation system) and a digital cinema projector, and perform on-site alignment of all technical aspects, including both picture and sound.


Now Xperi comes with Dts:X Pro which provides upmixing of 7.x.4 tracks up to a 30.x layout. I'm sure Dolby is doing whatever they can (including trying to restrict upmixers) to prevent Dts from gaining share. Is Dolby Atmos Plus forthcoming to compete with Dts:X Pro? Upmixing of fixed co-ordinate objects with rendering of dynamic objects? Is it even possible?


----------



## Chirosamsung

*Amazon hifi music*

Does anyone have any first hand experience with the new tier of amazon HIFI music? Is it comparable to tidal in library and quality in your opinion? Up in Canada wondering if I should switch from tidal since it seems half the price...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

harrisu said:


> Hi guys,
> In a 7.x.4 setup, should the atmos speaker be pointing straight down or angled towards MLP? I have seen many images where they are directly pointing down hence my curiosity.


It depends on the speaker type and tastes IMO, I have 4x KEF Ci200rr which are all pointed straight down and I get fantastic imaging. Those speakers have high dispersion. 

My bro in law had a pair of in ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters (forget which brand), the tweeters were aimed at MLP. 

Both approaches IMO have their positives and negatives. 

What I enjoyed about his setup was the sound got filled in between the front sound stage and the top. 

Whereas on my setup the sound just sounds like it's coming from up above. I prefer the latter 

Eventually I'd like to upgrade to 9.1.6, and maybe just tip the front and rear speakers at a 10 degree angle towards MLP. I did see one user experiment with this concept and he said he didn't like the results, that was like 4 years ago though. 

Given that Atmos cinema mixers toe in their speakers, I'd say it's worth a shot to try it before cutting up the ceiling. When I move I plan to build boxes for my speakers so that I can give that a shot.


----------



## gerchy

Hi!

Been away for a while and took me quite some time to catch up. 
An interesting debate has been going on and I remember some movies playing height effects only from one pair. TF Revenge of the Fallen was one of them. Height effects are audible only on rear pair. However, both pairs are active in Saving private Ryan (with Atmos track).

As I'm eagerly excpecting Dirac Live Bass Management I took a look at latest processors. No sign of it yet but pretty much all of them are supporting 9.1.6. channels. Can those extra channels be found in the 4th substream? This got me thinking: does all movies we saw in Atmos in the last few years contain 9.1.6 channel sound or will this be available in newer releases?


----------



## harrisu

Aras_Volodka said:


> It depends on the speaker type and tastes IMO, I have 4x KEF Ci200rr which are all pointed straight down and I get fantastic imaging. Those speakers have high dispersion.
> 
> My bro in law had a pair of in ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters (forget which brand), the tweeters were aimed at MLP.
> 
> Both approaches IMO have their positives and negatives.
> 
> What I enjoyed about his setup was the sound got filled in between the front sound stage and the top.
> 
> Whereas on my setup the sound just sounds like it's coming from up above. I prefer the latter
> 
> Eventually I'd like to upgrade to 9.1.6, and maybe just tip the front and rear speakers at a 10 degree angle towards MLP. I did see one user experiment with this concept and he said he didn't like the results, that was like 4 years ago though.
> 
> Given that Atmos cinema mixers toe in their speakers, I'd say it's worth a shot to try it before cutting up the ceiling. When I move I plan to build boxes for my speakers so that I can give that a shot.


Thx. I have had my ceiling speakers pointing at MLP and they have a very high dispersion. What I realized recently thought is that when I make the back wall absorptive (acoustic panel on back wall), it made the ceiling speakers stand out more. My Front speakers are JBL 4722N and they have a HUGE sound stage. The front wall is fully treated and yet treating back wall a little bit made the ceiling speakers stand out. This clearly shows that ATMOS needs its own room acoustic treatment which can bring a big difference.


----------



## RuatoTre

Hi, First time poster in this thread. I tried to find an answer but couldn't, so forgive if this has already been discussed before.

So, I am building a 5.1.2 Atmos (and maybe uppgrade it to 5.2.4 later) system. I cannot install speakers to the ceiling but I have planned to do the height speakers installation to the intersection of a wall and the ceiling. Now I am wondering, which would be better for the 5.1.2 Atmos?

Install the two height speakers as
1) Top Middle speakers (to the intersections of a wall and the ceiling, tilted towards MLP)
or
2) Front Height speakers to the front wall (tilted towards MLP).

Which placement would give me better Atmos installation? I know, neither is perfect but it is the best I can do now with the room. The dimensions of the room are: 16ft/5m width, 12ft/3.5m length, 8ft/2.5m height.

Any help highly appreciated!


----------



## sdurani

RuatoTre said:


> Which placement would give me better Atmos installation? I know, neither is perfect but it is the best I can do now with the room.


2 height speakers high up on the front wall will give the impression of a taller front soundstage. 2 height speakers placed directly to your sides, as high up as possible on the side walls, will create as soundstage above you with plenty of overhead imaging. The latter is much more in keeping with the intent of Atmos and DTS:X. Might not be perfect, but you'll still get excellent separation between sounds around you versus sounds above you.


----------



## skylarlove1999

RuatoTre said:


> Hi, First time poster in this thread. I tried to find an answer but couldn't, so forgive if this has already been discussed before.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am building a 5.1.2 Atmos (and maybe uppgrade it to 5.2.4 later) system. I cannot install speakers to the ceiling but I have planned to do the height speakers installation to the intersection of a wall and the ceiling. Now I am wondering, which would be better for the 5.1.2 Atmos?
> 
> 
> 
> Install the two height speakers as
> 
> 1) Top Middle speakers (to the intersections of a wall and the ceiling, tilted towards MLP)
> 
> or
> 
> 2) Front Height speakers to the front wall (tilted towards MLP).
> 
> 
> 
> Which placement would give me better Atmos installation? I know, neither is perfect but it is the best I can do now with the room. The dimensions of the room are: 16ft/5m width, 12ft/3.5m length, 8ft/2.5m height.
> 
> 
> 
> Any help highly appreciated!


Top middle. You might consider SVS elevation speakers for your situation. Offers different mounting options and the speakers are direct radiating full range speakers. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## RuatoTre

sdurani said:


> 2 height speakers high up on the front wall will give the impression of a taller front soundstage. 2 height speakers placed directly to your sides, as high up as possible on the side walls, will create as soundstage above you with plenty of overhead imaging. The latter is much more in keeping with the intent of Atmos and DTS:X. Might not be perfect, but you'll still get excellent separation between sounds around you versus sounds above you.


Thank you very much for the fast reply!

Should I tilt the speakers on the side walls down towards MLP?


----------



## RuatoTre

skylarlove1999 said:


> Top middle. You might consider SVS elevation speakers for your situation. Offers different mounting options and the speakers are direct radiating full range speakers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Thank you for the fast reply and for the tip of speakers! I'll take a look at them. My 5 speakers are from Q Acoustics 3050i Cinema Pack together with a SVS PB-1000 subwoofer. And my first idea was to get another set of 3010i speakers but they are not that easy to install.


----------



## noah katz

harrisu said:


> Thx. I have had my ceiling speakers pointing at MLP and they have a very high dispersion. What I realized recently thought is that when I make the back wall absorptive (acoustic panel on back wall), it made the ceiling speakers stand out more.



I believe that that highlights the fact that a higher ratio of reflected to direct sound is desirable.

Instead of aiming at the MLP, I'd try cross-firing them to the far side of the listening area.

This will give more reflection off of the far surfaces, and since they're high dispersion, you will still get good response at MLP.

And as a side benefit there will be better coverage for non-centered listeners.

Also if possible it would be good to have diffusion at the back wall, either adding it to the absorption or to replace it.


----------



## skylarlove1999

noah katz said:


> I believe that that highlights the fact that a higher ratio of reflected to direct sound is desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of aiming at the MLP, I'd try cross-firing them to the far side of the listening area.
> 
> 
> 
> This will give more reflection off of the far surfaces, and since they're high dispersion, you will still get good response at MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> And as a side benefit there will be better coverage for non-centered listeners.


I 100% agree with this statement. I have two sets of SVS Elevation speakers up high where sidewall meets the ceiling, crossfiring at each and it sounds fantastic. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

RuatoTre said:


> Should I tilt the speakers on the side walls down towards MLP?


Yes, tilt them down, but I would aim each height speaker towards the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance). This will result in better seat to seat consistency across your couch.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Alexander said:


> I think it is fair to examine how Dts-HD overtook Dolby on Blu-ray (lower licensing costs).


Well, there's no licensing cost for content makers from either Dolby or DTS. The cost advantage was simply that DTS could encode the lossless and mandatory lossy companion in one step, one QC pass. Dolby has two separate streams, so 2 QC passes.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Roger Dressler said:


> Well, there's no licensing cost for content makers from either Dolby or DTS. The cost advantage was simply that DTS could encode the lossless and mandatory lossy companion in one step, one QC pass. Dolby has two separate streams, so 2 QC passes.


How are the licenses monetized? Players and processors? 
Does either Dolby or Dts have a similar cost advantage in this latest generation of immersive formats?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> Does anyone have any first hand experience with the new tier of amazon HIFI music? Is it comparable to tidal in library and quality in your opinion? Up in Canada wondering if I should switch from tidal since it seems half the price...


Bump


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Disney has released a lot of their older movies on UHD blu-ray with Dolby Atmos the last months. Are they still all locked in 7.1.4? How about the dynamic range?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Disney has released a lot of their older movies on UHD blu-ray with Dolby Atmos the last months. Are they still all locked in 7.1.4? How about the dynamic range?


So far it's hit and miss with Disney. Far too many releases are misses. It still sounds like most tracks are hard locked to 7.1.4 or even 7.1.2.


----------



## am2model3

the disney UHD releases on the back of the box list sound as 7.1.4. i am not sure how it would sound if your setup was 7.1.6? 



the real issue with Disney UHD soundtracks with dolby atmos is that the soundtracks sound compressed, and low quality in that they have lots of seemingly missing bass effects, and heavy hitting sounds; you can clearly hear from other movie studio UHD atmos or dtsX releases. 



an article i read speculated or investigated that the problem might be Disney is making one atmos/spatial soundtrack to apply for all avenues, digital, streaming, etc; and then applying that same (low-data/compressed) soundtrack to the UHD disc release. (when in actuality Disney should be giving us the highest possible quality data soundtrack instead) 



I have all the big Disney UHD atmos releases; I would have to agree; the soundtracks are just not very good sounding if you are particular about sound. It is ashame; whoever is making the call with this for Disney's UHD movie releases is doing a disservice to those of us serious home theater movie/collectors; because the whole point of disc releases is to have the highest data bit-rate for video and audio quality. 

We understand if Disney needs to create a lower video/audio file for digital, streaming, etc; but don't get lazy and give us that low-quality Audio on our physical video discs.


----------



## noah katz

am2model3 said:


> I have all the big Disney UHD atmos releases; I would have to agree; the soundtracks are just not very good sounding if you are particular about sound.



Do regular Bluray and streamed HD versions also have this problem?

I'd give up UHD/HDR for better sound.


----------



## Chirosamsung

am2model3 said:


> the disney UHD releases on the back of the box list sound as 7.1.4. i am not sure how it would sound if your setup was 7.1.6?
> 
> 
> 
> the real issue with Disney UHD soundtracks with dolby atmos is that the soundtracks sound compressed, and low quality in that they have lots of seemingly missing bass effects, and heavy hitting sounds; you can clearly hear from other movie studio UHD atmos or dtsX releases.
> 
> 
> 
> an article i read speculated or investigated that the problem might be Disney is making one atmos/spatial soundtrack to apply for all avenues, digital, streaming, etc; and then applying that same (low-data/compressed) soundtrack to the UHD disc release. (when in actuality Disney should be giving us the highest possible quality data soundtrack instead)
> 
> 
> 
> I have all the big Disney UHD atmos releases; I would have to agree; the soundtracks are just not very good sounding if you are particular about sound. It is ashame; whoever is making the call with this for Disney's UHD movie releases is doing a disservice to those of us serious home theater movie/collectors; because the whole point of disc releases is to have the highest data bit-rate for video and audio quality.
> 
> We understand if Disney needs to create a lower video/audio file for digital, streaming, etc; but don't get lazy and give us that low-quality Audio on our physical video discs.


Disney is Inproving-Captain Marvel and Avengers End Game, although not Atmos reference, are definetly at least average to decent atmos sound and not nearly as compressed as older stuff like Thor Ragnarok etc.


----------



## zeonstar

am2model3 said:


> the disney UHD releases on the back of the box list sound as 7.1.4. i am not sure how it would sound if your setup was 7.1.6?
> 
> 
> 
> the real issue with Disney UHD soundtracks with dolby atmos is that the soundtracks sound compressed, and low quality in that they have lots of seemingly missing bass effects, and heavy hitting sounds; you can clearly hear from other movie studio UHD atmos or dtsX releases.
> 
> 
> 
> an article i read speculated or investigated that the problem might be Disney is making one atmos/spatial soundtrack to apply for all avenues, digital, streaming, etc; and then applying that same (low-data/compressed) soundtrack to the UHD disc release. (when in actuality Disney should be giving us the highest possible quality data soundtrack instead)
> 
> 
> 
> I have all the big Disney UHD atmos releases; I would have to agree; the soundtracks are just not very good sounding if you are particular about sound. It is ashame; whoever is making the call with this for Disney's UHD movie releases is doing a disservice to those of us serious home theater movie/collectors; because the whole point of disc releases is to have the highest data bit-rate for video and audio quality.
> 
> We understand if Disney needs to create a lower video/audio file for digital, streaming, etc; but don't get lazy and give us that low-quality Audio on our physical video discs.


Do you recall what article it was? I’d love to read it.


----------



## scarabaeus

dfa973 said:


> MediaInfo against an unencrypted/ripped on HDD UHD Bluray contents.
> 
> There are *lots* of UHD BluRays in this configuration (1 LFE bed + X dynamic objects)!
> 
> MediaInfo does not present the _"16ch_intermediate_spatial_format"_ parameter, so we can see the ISF structure - ISF enumeration (and count the ISF clusters), but only the _"16ch_dynamic_object_count"_ parameter (the "Number of dynamic objects" in the MediaInfo output, see the below examples of soundtracks).
> So we can't see how many ISFs are beside the dynamic objects count.
> 
> What we can infer from the MediaInfo output is:
> 
> Bed channel count: 1 channel - it means that all the bed channels (except one) are in fact objects - most probably ISFs/clusters;
> 
> 
> Bed channel configuration: LFE - another hint that all the bed channels (except LFE) are in fact ISFs/objects, and the only speaker feed is the LFE channel;
> 
> 
> Number of dynamic objects: 11/13/15/etc. - if there are 11 dynamic objects it means that there are at least 7 ISFs/clusters that make the bed + 11 dynamic objects, so the total is LFE + 7 ISFs + 11 dynamic objects = 19 waveforms;



Looking at the MediaInfo source, it looks like it only parses the TrueHD stream header. I think it might be possible that the object info in that one is only a placeholder, and does not reflect the actual configuration.


You have to consider that Atmos is using dynamic meta data, which is changing over time, and therefore has to be carried along the audio data in the stream payload. MediaInfo does not look that deep into the audio content. That meta data might contain the actual, and potentially changing, configuration of which channels are beds, dynamic objects, or part of an ISF. This would give more flexibility, and only require the overall number of objects to remain the same.


By the way, do you still get the "One bed: LFE" with the latest version of MediaInfo? I think they fixed something in that area, I no longer see that, and only get the dynamic object count as the final output. Using the CLI version with the --Details=1 option, I usually see:


Code:


00001D    extra_channel_meaning_present:       Yes
00001E    extra_channel_meaning_length:        1 (0x1) - (4 bits)
00001E    16ch_channel_meaning (2 bytes)
00001F     16ch_dialogue_norm:                 31 (0x1F) - (5 bits)
00001F     16ch_mix_level:                     46 (0x2E) - (6 bits)
00001F     16ch_channel_count:                 15 (0x0F) - (5 bits)
000020     program_assignment (0 bytes)
000020      b_dyn_object_only_program:         Yes
000020      b_lfe_present:                     No


This indicates that all channels are dynamic objects, and no dedicated LFE channel.


----------



## batpig

am2model3 said:


> the disney UHD releases on the back of the box list sound as 7.1.4. i am not sure how it would sound if your setup was 7.1.6?


It depends on the mix, but the most common scenario seems to be either:
(1) the soundtrack plays back as 7.1.4 and the Top Middle speakers are basically silent
(2) the soundtrack plays back as 7.1.2 and the front/rear heights are basically silent


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Chirosamsung said:


> Does anyone have any first hand experience with the new tier of amazon HIFI music? Is it comparable to tidal in library and quality in your opinion? Up in Canada wondering if I should switch from tidal since it seems half the price...


I have Amazon Prime music and can find no evidence the HD service is even available in Canada yet....


----------



## zeonstar

I've been wondering about the Atmos music on Amazon Music HD. I signed up for a free trial for the service but I have not found any Atmos content.


----------



## Chirosamsung

bobbyhollywood said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any first hand experience with the new tier of amazon HIFI music? Is it comparable to tidal in library and quality in your opinion? Up in Canada wondering if I should switch from tidal since it seems half the price...
> 
> 
> 
> I have Amazon Prime music and can find no evidence the HD service is even available in Canada yet....
Click to expand...

Still not in Canada?? That stinks. Guess I’m stuck with tidal for twice the price then 😞


----------



## dfa973

scarabaeus said:


> Looking at the MediaInfo source, it looks like it only parses the TrueHD stream header. I think it might be possible that the object info in that one is only a placeholder, and does not reflect the actual configuration.


Maybe.
To me, it seems that MediaInfo uses the same approach to count the dynamic objects for DD+ and TrueHD, but the formats differ quite a bit... 
I may be wrong.



scarabaeus said:


> You have to consider that Atmos is using dynamic meta data, which is changing over time, and therefore has to be carried along the audio data in the stream payload. MediaInfo does not look that deep into the audio content. That meta data might contain the actual, and potentially changing, configuration of which channels are beds, dynamic objects, or part of an ISF. This would give more flexibility, and only require the overall number of objects to remain the same.


I'm not sure that Atmos can do that - changing a waveform status from bed to ISF to dynamic object on the fly - I did not find anywhere something like this...
It is very probable that once a soundtrack is rendered, the status of the stored waveforms does not change on the fly - beds remain beds, ISFs remain ISFs, dynamic objects remain dynamic objects for the whole duration of the soundtrack. The fact that Atmos uses a spatial encoding that mixes waveforms into "larger" objects will make it very hard to convert that to something else.
If you were thinking that different objects can be stored at different times as different types of objects - it might be possible, but unheard of.




scarabaeus said:


> By the way, do you still get the "One bed: LFE" with the latest version of MediaInfo? I think they fixed something in that area, I no longer see that, and only get the dynamic object count as the final output. Using the CLI version with the --Details=1 option, I usually see:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 00001D    extra_channel_meaning_present:       Yes
> 00001E    extra_channel_meaning_length:        1 (0x1) - (4 bits)
> 00001E    16ch_channel_meaning (2 bytes)
> 00001F     16ch_dialogue_norm:                 31 (0x1F) - (5 bits)
> 00001F     16ch_mix_level:                     46 (0x2E) - (6 bits)
> 00001F     16ch_channel_count:                 15 (0x0F) - (5 bits)
> 000020     program_assignment (0 bytes)
> 000020      b_dyn_object_only_program:         Yes
> 000020      b_lfe_present:                     No
> 
> 
> This indicates that all channels are dynamic objects, and no dedicated LFE channel.


The latest GUI 19.09 version still does it:



Code:


[B]Big Hero 6 UHD Bluray - Audio #1[/B]
ID                                       : 2
Format                                   : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info                              : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Commercial name                          : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID                                 : A_TRUEHD
Duration                                 : 1 h 41 min
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 7 470 kb/s
Maximum bit rate                         : 11.2 Mb/s
Channel(s)                               : 8 channels
Channel layout                           : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Sampling rate                            : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate                               : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression mode                         : Lossless
Stream size                              : 5.32 GiB (52%)
Language                                 : English
Default                                  : Yes
Forced                                   : No
Number of dynamic objects                : 13
Bed channel count                        : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration                : LFE

The same Big Hero 6 UHD Bluray but via CLI 19.09:



Code:


000002F81    Data (804 bytes)
000002F81     HD - PTS 00:00:00.000 - 0 (0x0) - major_sync (804 bytes)
000002F81      Header (4 bytes)
000002F81       CRC?:                             4 (0x4) - (4 bits)
000002F81       Size:                             402 (0x192) - (12 bits)
000002F83       Timestamp?:                       7144 (0x1BE8)
000002F85      major_sync_info (32 bytes)
000002F85       major_sync:                       4168249274 (0xF8726FBA) - TrueHD
000002F89       format_info (4 bytes)
000002F89        audio_sampling_frequency:        0 (0x0) - (4 bits) - 48000 (0xBB80) Hz
000002F89        6ch_multichannel_type:           No
000002F89        8ch_multichannel_typ:            No
000002F89        reserved:                        0 (0x0) - (2 bits)
000002F8A        2ch_presentation_channel_modifier: 0 (0x0) - (2 bits)
000002F8A        6ch_presentation_channel_modifier: 1 (0x1) - (2 bits)
000002F8A        6ch_presentation_channel_assignment: 15 (0x0F) - (5 bits) - 6 (0x6) - Front: L C R, Side: L R, LFE
000002F8B        8ch_presentation_channel_modifier: 0 (0x0) - (2 bits)
000002F8B        8ch_presentation_channel_assignment: 79 (0x004F) - (13 bits) - 8 (0x8) - Front: L C R, Side: L R, Back: L R, LFE
000002F8D       signature:                        46930 (0xB752)
000002F8F       flags:                            4096 (0x1000)
000002F91       reserved:                         0 (0x0000)
000002F93       variable_rate:                    Yes
000002F93       peak_data_rate:                   3730 (0x0E92) - (15 bits) - 11190000 (0xAABEF0) bps
000002F95       [B]substreams:                       4[/B] (0x4) - (4 bits)
000002F95       reserved:                         0 (0x0) - (2 bits)
000002F95       extended_substream_info:          1 (0x1) - (2 bits)
000002F96       substream_info (1 bytes)
000002F96        [B]16-channel presentation is present: Yes[/B]
000002F96        8-ch presentation:               4 (0x4) - (3 bits)
000002F96        6-ch presentation:               3 (0x3) - (2 bits)
000002F96        reserved:                        0 (0x0) - (2 bits)
000002F97       channel_meaning (12 bytes)
000002F97        Unknown:                         0 (0x00)
000002F98        Unknown:                         58 (0x3A)
000002F99        Unknown:                         194 (0xC2)
000002F9A        Unknown:                         238 (0xEE)
000002F9B        Unknown:                         227 (0xE3)
000002F9C        Unknown:                         6 (0x06)
000002F9D        Unknown:                         227 (0xE3)
000002F9E        Unknown:                         0 (0x0) - (7 bits)
000002F9E        extra_channel_meaning_present:   Yes
000002F9F        extra_channel_meaning_length:    1 (0x1) - (4 bits)
000002F9F        16ch_channel_meaning (2 bytes)
000002FA0         16ch_dialogue_norm:             27 (0x1B) - (5 bits)
000002FA0         16ch_mix_level:                 35 (0x23) - (6 bits)
000002FA0         [B]16ch_channel_count:             13[/B] (0x0D) - (5 bits)
000002FA1         program_assignment (0 bytes)
000002FA1          [B]b_dyn_object_only_program:     Ye[/B]s
000002FA1          [B]b_lfe_present:                 Yes[/B]
000002FA1        padding:                         0 (0x000)
000002FA3       major_sync_info_CRC:              876 (0x036C)
000002FA5      substream_directory (4 bytes)
000002FA5       extra_substream_word:             Yes
000002FA5       restart_nonexistent:              No
000002FA5       crc_present:                      Yes
000002FA5       reserved:                         Yes
000002FA5       substream_end_ptr:                33 (0x021) - (12 bits)
000002FA7       drc_gain_update:                  465 (0x1D1) - (9 bits)
000002FA8       drc_time_update:                  0 (0x0) - (3 bits)
000002FA8       reserved:                         0 (0x0) - (4 bits)
000002FA9      substream_directory (4 bytes)
000002FA9       extra_substream_word:             Yes
000002FA9       restart_nonexistent:              No
000002FA9       crc_present:                      Yes
000002FA9       reserved:                         No
000002FA9       substream_end_ptr:                69 (0x045) - (12 bits)
000002FAB       drc_gain_update:                  6 (0x006) - (9 bits)
000002FAC       drc_time_update:                  0 (0x0) - (3 bits)
000002FAC       reserved:                         0 (0x0) - (4 bits)
000002FAD      substream_directory (4 bytes)
000002FAD       extra_substream_word:             Yes
000002FAD       restart_nonexistent:              No
000002FAD       crc_present:                      Yes
000002FAD       reserved:                         No
000002FAD       substream_end_ptr:                161 (0x0A1) - (12 bits)
000002FAF       drc_gain_update:                  19 (0x013) - (9 bits)
000002FB0       drc_time_update:                  0 (0x0) - (3 bits)
000002FB0       reserved:                         0 (0x0) - (4 bits)
000002FB1      substream_directory (4 bytes)
000002FB1       extra_substream_word:             Yes
000002FB1       restart_nonexistent:              No
000002FB1       crc_present:                      Yes
000002FB1       reserved:                         No
000002FB1       substream_end_ptr:                340 (0x154) - (12 bits)
000002FB3       drc_gain_update:                  3 (0x003) - (9 bits)
000002FB4       drc_time_update:                  0 (0x0) - (3 bits)
000002FB4       reserved:                         0 (0x0) - (4 bits)
000002FB5      (Data):                            (752 bytes)

So, no change at my side.
What version do you use?


----------



## Josh Z

noah katz said:


> Do regular Bluray and streamed HD versions also have this problem?
> 
> I'd give up UHD/HDR for better sound.



The problem exists on all Disney soundtracks, not just Atmos. Many of us first noticed the issue with the DTS-HD MA soundtrack on the Avengers: Age of Ultron Blu-ray.


----------



## scarabaeus

dfa973 said:


> Maybe.
> To me, it seems that MediaInfo uses the same approach to count the dynamic objects for DD+ and TrueHD, but the formats differ quite a bit...
> I may be wrong.



There's some overlap, when it comes to the channel meta data, as they are both from Dolby. So it makes sense to handle them in one code file, with some shared functionality, e.g. the 'program_assignment()' function.




> I'm not sure that Atmos can do that - changing a waveform status from bed to ISF to dynamic object on the fly - I did not find anywhere something like this...
> It is very probable that once a soundtrack is rendered, the status of the stored waveforms does not change on the fly - beds remain beds, ISFs remain ISFs, dynamic objects remain dynamic objects for the whole duration of the soundtrack. The fact that Atmos uses a spatial encoding that mixes waveforms into "larger" objects will make it very hard to convert that to something else.
> If you were thinking that different objects can be stored at different times as different types of objects - it might be possible, but unheard of.


I was just looking at the seemingly conflicting info we hear from the sound creators and what MediaInfo parses from the files. This was the most likely explanation I could come up with. Occam's Razor... I still might be wrong.



> The latest GUI 19.09 version still does it:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [B]Big Hero 6 UHD Bluray - Audio #1[/B]
> Number of dynamic objects                : 13
> Bed channel count                        : 1 channel
> Bed channel configuration                : LFE
> 
> The same Big Hero 6 UHD Bluray but via CLI 19.09:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 000002FA0         [B]16ch_channel_count:             13[/B] (0x0D) - (5 bits)
> 000002FA1         program_assignment (0 bytes)
> 000002FA1          [B]b_dyn_object_only_program:     Ye[/B]s
> 000002FA1          [B]b_lfe_present:                 Yes[/B]
> 
> So, no change at my side.
> What version do you use?



Thank you for providing that. I also used 19.09. The '16ch_channel_count' value is actually the number of PCM channels minus one, so you have 14 PCM channels total, one LFE and 13 objects. I must have found a TrueHD file with all 16 channels used, and all of them objects. I suppose designating a fixed LFE is making it easier for bass management, so it has a fixed PCM channel to extract, that's probably why you see it in a majority of files.



If the 'b_dyn_object_only_program' flag is set, which it seems in all our cases, that indicates that all PCM channels (except the dedicated LFE, if present) are dynamic objects. No bed channels and no ISF. Those are separate in the program_assignment() function in File_Ac3.cpp, which is used for both TrueHD and E-AC-3. There are values that can be parsed regarding bed channel assignment and intermediate spatial format, but the code never gets to that if that initial flag is set.


That does not match with what we are hearing from the sound editing people, and that's why I thought this program assignment might be a ruse. Also, MediaInfo mashes the number of channels (PCM channels in the 16 channel presentation) and the number of dynamic objects (from the program assignment) into one number, and tweaks it based on whether there's a LFE or not. I might have to provide them a patch to consider those separately...


----------



## dfa973

scarabaeus said:


> Also, MediaInfo mashes the number of channels (PCM channels in the 16 channel presentation) and the number of dynamic objects (from the program assignment) into one number, and tweaks it based on whether there's a LFE or not. I might have to provide them a patch to consider those separately...


Yeah, I am puzzled why MediaInfo does not extract the 16ch_dynamic_object_count but instead, it shows the 16ch_channel_count as "Number of dynamic objects"...

The 16ch_channel_count field stores the total number of audio channels present in the 16-channel presentation, not the dynamic objects...

BUT, reading again the "Dolby TrueHD (MLP) high-level bitstream description" paper I see why MediaInfo does not parse the 16ch_content_description that can show what is actually stored in the bitstream.
The 16ch_content_description is not parsed because "is a bit field that is used to describe the types of audio channels that make up the 16-channel presentation when the 16-channel presentation contains channels that are not dynamic objects".

In conjunction with the lfe_present field AND the dyn_object_only field - when both are set to 1 it means that "all the channels (except the first - the LFE) of the 16-channel presentation are full-bandwidth dynamic object audio channels"...

So, there we have, MediaInfo is right - when b_dyn_object_only_program and b_lfe_present are enabled (set as binary 1), the 16ch_channel_count field shows all the objects that exist in the bitstream, even if not all of them are actually "dynamic" - maybe some are fixed, maybe some are dynamic, only the metadata can show what happens with what object, where it is positioned or if it moves, the size of it, etc.

If all the bed channels (except LFE) are converted to objects, and we expect 7 bed channels-as-objects (for TrueHD at least - most DD+ have 5 bed ch.), for the given example of Big Hero 6 that has "Number of dynamic objects: 13" we can say that we have 13 obj. minus 7 bed ch. = 6 remaining objects that can be fixed somewhere, at the Top or zoom around in the room...

The spatial coding must "catch" most fixed objects that are near standard bed positions, so the 6 remaining objects probably are "rogue" objects that are far away from standard bed positions or are true dynamic (moving around) or in the height plane (fixed or dynamic).

So, the Home Atmos can carry all the objects from the Cinema Atmos, but individual objects (the waveforms) are few, most are mixed in the spatially encoded clusters.

And the DD+/TrueHD Atmos cannot carry more than 16 individual waveforms at the same moment as channels, clusters and the rest of the objects.

It may seem limited, but it will matter only for large Home setups, the usual 5.1.4/7.1.4 setups are not going to reveal the immovable clusters at the ear level or the limited number of individual objects that are available at a one moment in the height plane.

The more objects you need to have at the same moment in time, the encoder has to do more work to find near objects and to mix them so it can cram all of them into the confines of the Home Atmos.

Since a lot of movies have only 11/12/13 objects, it seems that the encoder does a terrific job!

Very few movies are maxed out at 15 objects + LFE...


----------



## scarabaeus

dfa973 said:


> In conjunction with the lfe_present field AND the dyn_object_only field - when both are set to 1 it means that "all the channels (except the first - the LFE) of the 16-channel presentation are full-bandwidth dynamic object audio channels"...
> 
> So, there we have, MediaInfo is right - when b_dyn_object_only_program and b_lfe_present are enabled (set as binary 1), the 16ch_channel_count field shows all the objects that exist in the bitstream, even if not all of them are actually "dynamic" - maybe some are fixed, maybe some are dynamic, only the metadata can show what happens with what object, where it is positioned or if it moves, the size of it, etc.



Precisely what I have thought, too.


And the rest of your comment seems very accurate as well.


----------



## dfa973

Interesting!
https://twitter.com/SoularitySound/status/1190292651960090624?s=19


----------



## Magnus_CA

I feel like I'm on a tightrope trying to squeeze a 7.3.4 system into a 300 sq foot room! When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP. I prepared and attached 3 diagrams to illustrate what I'm considering but please feel free to suggest your own out of the box recommendation if you have one.

Note: all 4 height speakers are aimable.

Option A preserves front to back equidistance between the front Atmos pair and the rear Atmos pair from the MLP (position 'X'). The front pair is 3' 5" in front of the MLP and the rear atmos pair is also 3' 5" from the MLP. This symmetry comes at the cost of only having 1' 7" between the rear pair and the rear wall. This configuration puts both the front pair and left pair vertical position relative to the MLP at 60 degrees.

Option B pulls the rear pair farther away from the rear wall and pushes the front pair far enough away from the MLP to be within Dolby guidelines. In this scenario the rear pair is positioned at 67 degrees relative to the MLP and 2' 5" from the rear wall. The front pair is 55 degrees relative to the MLP and 4' 2" away. I have about another 6" I could push the front channels away from the MLP but I'm already more than half the distance to the mains, which I'm not sure is a problem or not.

Option C is a meld of A and B. It foregoes equidistance from the MLP and pushes the front pair and rear pair as close to Dolby guidelines as possible. The rear pair is only 1' 7" from the rear wall but its vertical position relative to the MLP is 60 degrees. The front pair is at 55 degrees.

Questions...


Is there a clear winner here between options A, B and C?
Should I be concerned about the front Atmos pair being positioned more than half the distance of the MLP to the mains?
How about the spread between the right and left Atmos channels. Does 8 feet sound about right? I'm aware Dolby recommends spreading them the same distance apart as your mains but I think they're better as far off the side walls as possible to minimize reflections.

Thanks in advance for your replies.


----------



## pg22

Apple TV+ launched today with Fire Stick 4K support, as many here likely know. As someone who does not own the Apple TV 4K box, it was surprising to see all my Apple iTunes movies play in 4K HDR.

Those movies, however, are limited to Dolby Digital+ (this includes digital films that do have Atmos-capable tracks).

This leads me to one question: would you consider the Atmos tracks from Apple TV 4K a worthy upgrade over the Fire Stick 4K's Dolby Digital Plus?


----------



## Roger Dressler

Marc Alexander said:


> How are the licenses monetized? Players and processors?


Yes, the decoders.


> Does either Dolby or Dts have a similar cost advantage in this latest generation of immersive formats?


I am not privy to that.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Netflix Update Guidance On Dolby Atmos Workflows 


Mastering Home Theater Atmos Natively
Pro Tools Ultimate 2019.10 + Dolby Atmos Production Suite v3.3


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> True. Simplest example: for a 2-speaker layout, a centre object won't give better placement than those same sounds mixed into the L/R channels. In both cases, those sounds will phantom image at the middle of the front soundstage.
> 
> IF you add a Centre speaker to the example layout, then it will be discrete centre object vs matrix centre extraction. The latter won't be perfect, but I doubt you'd notice leakage when listening to program material.


For a single listening position, of course. Adding that center speaker will improve "sound placement' for everyone.

Not exactly the same point you guys are making, but I did want to add that aspect back in.


----------



## sdurani

appelz said:


> For a single listening position, of course.


Of course. Unlike DTS:X, the Atmos format doesn't think in terms of listening position when rendering objects, just how to split the sound. So if an object is supposed to image at a location exactly between two speakers, then its sound will be split evenly to both speakers. If the object is supposed to image at a location that happens to be closer to one of those speakers, then its sound will be split unevenly (more will go to the nearby speaker). Since the format was originally designed for listeners spread out across an auditorium, it is understandable why the rendering was done based on distribution of sound rather than listening position.


----------



## sdurani

Magnus_CA said:


> When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP.


The elevation angles of the front and rear height speakers need not be the same. After all, our human hearing is not symmetrical front to back. 

Behind us, it is difficult to perceive differences in height imaging above 45 degrees elevation, so I wouldn't mount the rear height pair any higher. In your case, that probably means they will be at or near the back wall. Keep your rear speakers as close to ear level as possible, so that they are well separated from the rear heights above them. 

In front of us, the ability to perceive differences in height is pretty good up to about 60-70 degrees elevation. Still, no harm in mounting the front heights at the same 45-degree elevation as the rear heights. 

Only other suggestion would be to move your side speakers so that they are forward of the listeners (like just forward of the window). This will give you better side-vs-rear separation and wrap-around envelopment than have both pairs of surrounds behind you.


----------



## Magnus_CA

sdurani said:


> The elevation angles of the front and rear height speakers need not be the same. After all, our human hearing is not symmetrical front to back.
> 
> 
> 
> Behind us, it is difficult to perceive differences in height imaging above 45 degrees elevation, so I wouldn't mount the rear height pair any higher. In your case, that probably means they will be at or near the back wall. Keep your rear speakers as close to ear level as possible, so that they are well separated from the rear heights above them.
> 
> 
> 
> In front of us, the ability to perceive differences in height is pretty good up to about 60-70 degrees elevation. Still, no harm in mounting the front heights at the same 45-degree elevation as the rear heights.
> 
> 
> 
> Only other suggestion would be to move your side speakers so that they are forward of the listeners (like just forward of the window). This will give you better side-vs-rear separation and wrap-around envelopment than have both pairs of surrounds behind you.


Thanks for the reply. I have 10 foot ceilings so 45 degrees in the rear is not possible. I can only get them about 5 feet behind the MLP, which yields about 57 degrees. Do you think I should get the rear Atmos pair as far back as possible even if there will no breathing room between them and the rear wall?

As far as separation with the surrounds, I'll have no problem there. The tweeters in my surrounds will be mounted 50" off the ground. You're about four days late with your recommendation to move the side surrounds forward of the window as the holes are cut, but you did give me an idea to install an extra pair of speakers there in anticipation of upgrading to 9.3.4.


----------



## sdurani

Magnus_CA said:


> Do you think I should get the rear Atmos pair as far back as possible even if there will no breathing room between them and the rear wall?


Yes, mount the rear heights as far back as possible. Don't worry about the breathing room.


----------



## noah katz

Regardless of what the two formats are thinking about, I'm not discerning what the difference is in the end result at the speakers.




sdurani said:


> Of course. Unlike DTS:X, the Atmos format doesn't think in terms of listening position when rendering objects, just how to split the sound. So if an object is supposed to image at a location exactly between two speakers, then its sound will be split evenly to both speakers. If the object is supposed to image at a location that happens to be closer to one of those speakers, then its sound will be split unevenly (more will go to the nearby speaker). Since the format was originally designed for listeners spread out across an auditorium, it is understandable why the rendering was done based on distribution of sound rather than listening position.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Regardless of what the two formats are thinking about, I'm not discerning what the difference is in the end result at the speakers.


As I mentioned earlier, there's no difference between a phantom image created by an object versus a phantom image resulting from the same sound in adjacent speakers.


----------



## m. zillch

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14174


----------



## niterida

Magnus_CA said:


> I feel like I'm on a tightrope trying to squeeze a 7.3.4 system into a 300 sq foot room! When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP. I prepared and attached 3 diagrams to illustrate what I'm considering but please feel free to suggest your own out of the box recommendation if you have one.
> 
> Note: all 4 height speakers are aimable.
> 
> Option A preserves front to back equidistance between the front Atmos pair and the rear Atmos pair from the MLP (position 'X'). The front pair is 3' 5" in front of the MLP and the rear atmos pair is also 3' 5" from the MLP. This symmetry comes at the cost of only having 1' 7" between the rear pair and the rear wall. This configuration puts both the front pair and left pair vertical position relative to the MLP at 60 degrees.
> 
> Option B pulls the rear pair farther away from the rear wall and pushes the front pair far enough away from the MLP to be within Dolby guidelines. In this scenario the rear pair is positioned at 67 degrees relative to the MLP and 2' 5" from the rear wall. The front pair is 55 degrees relative to the MLP and 4' 2" away. I have about another 6" I could push the front channels away from the MLP but I'm already more than half the distance to the mains, which I'm not sure is a problem or not.
> 
> Option C is a meld of A and B. It foregoes equidistance from the MLP and pushes the front pair and rear pair as close to Dolby guidelines as possible. The rear pair is only 1' 7" from the rear wall but its vertical position relative to the MLP is 60 degrees. The front pair is at 55 degrees.
> 
> Questions...
> 
> 
> Is there a clear winner here between options A, B and C?
> Should I be concerned about the front Atmos pair being positioned more than half the distance of the MLP to the mains?
> How about the spread between the right and left Atmos channels. Does 8 feet sound about right? I'm aware Dolby recommends spreading them the same distance apart as your mains but I think they're better as far off the side walls as possible to minimize reflections.
> Thanks in advance for your replies.


 
My suggestions :


Ditch the in-ceilings and use bookshelfs instead (and ideally matched to you base level speakers) - it seems to be the general consensus now, that in-ceilings are flawed, unless you can get them truly aimed at MLP.


Mount the rear heights right at the ceiling/wall boundary.


Move the front heights to be exactly 45deg 


Build a 12" riser for the seats to reduce angle of rear heights closer to 45deg


Turn the riser into a BOSS : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...gn-construction/2991522-hideaway-theater.html


----------



## Magnus_CA

niterida said:


> My suggestions :
> 
> 
> Ditch the in-ceilings and use bookshelfs instead (and ideally matched to you base level speakers) - it seems to be the general consensus now, that in-ceilings are flawed, unless you can get them truly aimed at MLP.
> 
> 
> Mount the rear heights right at the ceiling/wall boundary.
> 
> 
> Move the front heights to be exactly 45deg
> 
> 
> Build a 12" riser for the seats to reduce angle of rear heights closer to 45deg
> 
> 
> Turn the riser into a BOSS : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...gn-construction/2991522-hideaway-theater.html


Speakers are purchased and I'm not interested in building a riser to accommodate what amounts to an effects speaker. Thanks anyway.


----------



## niterida

Magnus_CA said:


> Speakers are purchased and I'm not interested in building a riser to accommodate what amounts to an effects speaker. Thanks anyway.


They are more than effects speakers - they will immerse you in a movie and can carry serious amount of "sounds" - the better they are and the better they are setup is worth the effort IMO and IME. I think the cost of selling the in-ceilings and buying bookshelfs (especially if you can better match them to your base level speakers) would be money well spent - unless you have quality in-ceilings with 45deg aimable woofers ?? But even with that they won't go far enough back to point directly at the seating, but bookshelfs (or SVS Prime Elevations etc) mounted high on the wall will give you closer to (and maybe exactly) the correct 45deg.


Did you check out the BOSS riser thread - with a full riser it can do double duty as a secondary subwoofer and then triple duty as your Tactile Response and will definitely get you a 45deg rear height angle. Your single subwoofer placed where it is, is flawed, as is most of your room design. For such a small outlay the riser solves a couple of major issues.


But having said all that if you can't meet the exact Atmos guidelines getting as close as possible is better than not doing it at all.


----------



## elee532

*Need helping locating speakers for new ATMOS setup*

I'm struggling with where to locate 4 in-celling and 2 surround speakers create a 4.2.4 setup with two rows of seating in a relatively small room. I've looked at the Dolby recommendations, but I can't seem to get anywhere close to that with my surround and second set of ceiling speakers. I've included a very rudimentary map and a few photos of my room below. The room is about 22' long, the first row of seating is about 13' back from the projector screen and the second row is only about 4 feet from the back wall. To further complicated things, there is a Window on the rear left wall that limits placement of the surround speakers. 

1. Surround Speakers: 
* Is it okay for the surround speakers to be all the way in the back corner of the room? 

2. Ceiling Speakers:
* How far from the back wall would it be acceptable to place the second pair of ceiling speakers? 
* How far in front of the surround speakers should the second pair of ceiling speakers be placed?
* How far to the right and left of the seating should the ceiling speakers be located?

For what it's worth, I am looking at the Klipsch CDT-5800-C in-celing speakers which have woofers and tweeters that can pivot. 

Any other suggestions for optimizing speaker placement in this space is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!


----------



## farsider3000

Magnus_CA said:


> I feel like I'm on a tightrope trying to squeeze a 7.3.4 system into a 300 sq foot room! When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP. I prepared and attached 3 diagrams to illustrate what I'm considering but please feel free to suggest your own out of the box recommendation if you have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Note: all 4 height speakers are aimable.
> 
> 
> 
> Option A preserves front to back equidistance between the front Atmos pair and the rear Atmos pair from the MLP (position 'X'). The front pair is 3' 5" in front of the MLP and the rear atmos pair is also 3' 5" from the MLP. This symmetry comes at the cost of only having 1' 7" between the rear pair and the rear wall. This configuration puts both the front pair and left pair vertical position relative to the MLP at 60 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Option B pulls the rear pair farther away from the rear wall and pushes the front pair far enough away from the MLP to be within Dolby guidelines. In this scenario the rear pair is positioned at 67 degrees relative to the MLP and 2' 5" from the rear wall. The front pair is 55 degrees relative to the MLP and 4' 2" away. I have about another 6" I could push the front channels away from the MLP but I'm already more than half the distance to the mains, which I'm not sure is a problem or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Option C is a meld of A and B. It foregoes equidistance from the MLP and pushes the front pair and rear pair as close to Dolby guidelines as possible. The rear pair is only 1' 7" from the rear wall but its vertical position relative to the MLP is 60 degrees. The front pair is at 55 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Questions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a clear winner here between options A, B and C?
> 
> Should I be concerned about the front Atmos pair being positioned more than half the distance of the MLP to the mains?
> 
> How about the spread between the right and left Atmos channels. Does 8 feet sound about right? I'm aware Dolby recommends spreading them the same distance apart as your mains but I think they're better as far off the side walls as possible to minimize reflections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your replies.




Your room is not large enough to need two rows of Atmos. The rear row will sound like it is coming from the rear speakers and the front row will sound like it is coming from the LCR. Place one row about 18 inches in front of your ears. This will greatly increase the separation between ceiling top speakers and rears/LCR.

Unless you plan to have extreme acoustic panel coverage and you can angle your top/ceiling speakers and even then I would not do it.

The goal is to create a hemisphere of sound around the listener but if speakers blend into each other the effect is lost.

I have experienced this first hand and I know the tendency is to add as many speakers as possible you can actually add too many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

Magnus_CA said:


> I feel like I'm on a tightrope trying to squeeze a 7.3.4 system into a 300 sq foot room! When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP. I prepared and attached 3 diagrams to illustrate what I'm considering but please feel free to suggest your own out of the box recommendation if you have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Note: all 4 height speakers are aimable.
> 
> 
> 
> Option A preserves front to back equidistance between the front Atmos pair and the rear Atmos pair from the MLP (position 'X'). The front pair is 3' 5" in front of the MLP and the rear atmos pair is also 3' 5" from the MLP. This symmetry comes at the cost of only having 1' 7" between the rear pair and the rear wall. This configuration puts both the front pair and left pair vertical position relative to the MLP at 60 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Option B pulls the rear pair farther away from the rear wall and pushes the front pair far enough away from the MLP to be within Dolby guidelines. In this scenario the rear pair is positioned at 67 degrees relative to the MLP and 2' 5" from the rear wall. The front pair is 55 degrees relative to the MLP and 4' 2" away. I have about another 6" I could push the front channels away from the MLP but I'm already more than half the distance to the mains, which I'm not sure is a problem or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Option C is a meld of A and B. It foregoes equidistance from the MLP and pushes the front pair and rear pair as close to Dolby guidelines as possible. The rear pair is only 1' 7" from the rear wall but its vertical position relative to the MLP is 60 degrees. The front pair is at 55 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Questions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a clear winner here between options A, B and C?
> 
> Should I be concerned about the front Atmos pair being positioned more than half the distance of the MLP to the mains?
> 
> How about the spread between the right and left Atmos channels. Does 8 feet sound about right? I'm aware Dolby recommends spreading them the same distance apart as your mains but I think they're better as far off the side walls as possible to minimize reflections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your replies.



Forgot to tell you that 8 feet is too wide for Atmos, based on my experience, since the sound will bounce off the side walls. I would do six feet and the. It still may be an issue. I have this issue now with my Atmos speakers at 7’ apart side to side... and my room is 14’ wide x 23.5’ long. I am going to place 3”-4” thick acoustic panels to absorb higher frequencies and reduce reflections.

Edit : I notice that you have more room on one side but in my experience the Atmos speakers sound better if they are closer together than the Dolby recommendation to keep them in line with the L/R speakers. I would still go with 6 ft.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Magnus_CA

farsider3000 said:


> Edit : I notice that you have more room on one side but in my experience the Atmos speakers sound better if they are closer together than the Dolby recommendation to keep them in line with the L/R speakers. I would still go with 6 ft.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks. My mains are 9 feet apart (my screen is 8' wide) so I'd be inside Dolby's recommendation with a left and right spread of 8'. I'm going to throw some templates up on the ceiling and see what a spread of 7 and 6 feet looks like.


----------



## Magnus_CA

farsider3000 said:


> Your room is not large enough to need two rows of Atmos. The rear row will sound like it is coming from the rear speakers and the front row will sound like it is coming from the LCR. Place one row about 18 inches in front of your ears. This will greatly increase the separation between ceiling top speakers and rears/LCR.
> 
> Unless you plan to have extreme acoustic panel coverage and you can angle your top/ceiling speakers and even then I would not do it.
> 
> The goal is to create a hemisphere of sound around the listener but if speakers blend into each other the effect is lost.
> 
> I have experienced this first hand and I know the tendency is to add as many speakers as possible you can actually add too many.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Interesting...what is your ceiling height and how high off the floor is your surround speakers? I've got a 70" vertical separation between where I plan to have my surround and height layer, plus the tweeters in my height channels are aimable. I do plan to treat my room too.


----------



## farsider3000

Magnus_CA said:


> Interesting...what is your ceiling height and how high off the floor is your surround speakers? I've got a 70" vertical separation between where I plan to have my surround and height layer, plus the tweeters in my height channels are aimable. I do plan to treat my room too.



Ceiling height is 9’ 10” and the center of my surround speaker is 4’ 10” high so 5’ of vertical separation.

I have six feet measured “direct line” between middle row of ceiling and surround.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Magnus_CA

niterida said:


> They are more than effects speakers - they will immerse you in a movie and can carry serious amount of "sounds" - the better they are and the better they are setup is worth the effort IMO and IME. I think the cost of selling the in-ceilings and buying bookshelfs (especially if you can better match them to your base level speakers) would be money well spent - unless you have quality in-ceilings with 45deg aimable woofers ?? But even with that they won't go far enough back to point directly at the seating, but bookshelfs (or SVS Prime Elevations etc) mounted high on the wall will give you closer to (and maybe exactly) the correct 45deg.
> 
> 
> Did you check out the BOSS riser thread - with a full riser it can do double duty as a secondary subwoofer and then triple duty as your Tactile Response and will definitely get you a 45deg rear height angle. Your single subwoofer placed where it is, is flawed, as is most of your room design. For such a small outlay the riser solves a couple of major issues.
> 
> 
> But having said all that if you can't meet the exact Atmos guidelines getting as close as possible is better than not doing it at all.


My ceiling speakers, in-wall surrounds, and mains are made by the same manufacturer and have identical tweeters. They don't make bookshelves.

I actually have three subs (hence 7.3.4) since my mains are powered, with LFE inputs, so your opinion about my design (that I'm confident is the best it could be given the space) is almost as flawed as your recommendation to install a riser, which would solve one issue and create at least two more.


----------



## Magnus_CA

farsider3000 said:


> Ceiling height is 9’ 10” and the center of my surround speaker is 4’ 10” high so 5’ of vertical separation.
> 
> I have six feet measured “direct line” between middle row of ceiling and surround.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks. When I first researched going with two or four Atmos speakers it seemed like there was a huge contingent of folks in favor of four or nothing. However, I get that everyone's space is not created equal so I can see your point.


----------



## kagtha

Do any of you prefer Atmos up-mixing (Denon & Marantz) vs regular Dolby Digital+ Surround? (On a regular 5.1 ch DD+ signal)

And/or what minimum sound mode setting do you keep your AVR on for Movie content? (If I understand this correctly, I can keep it on Stereo, but if a DD+ Atmos signal is received it will automatically change my sound mode to Atmos)

My setup:
I only use 1 HDMI in since I use Fire Stick 4k for all my Movie/TV needs.. as well as Music.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

kagtha said:


> Do any of you prefer Atmos up-mixing (Denon & Marantz) vs regular Dolby Digital+ Surround? (On a regular 5.1 ch DD+ signal)


Not sure I understand, but Atmos cannot be upmixed, you either have the required decoder and the right setup or you don't.

The classic 5.1/7.1 soundtracks can be upmixed by Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X or AuroMatic.



kagtha said:


> And/or what minimum sound mode setting do you keep your AVR on for Movie content?


I prefer the native 3D audio format (Atmos or DTS:X), but if unavailable I use either Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X to upmix the flat 2.0/5.1/7.1 soundtracks.



kagtha said:


> (If I understand this correctly, I can keep it on Stereo, but if a DD+ Atmos signal is received it will automatically change my sound mode to Atmos)


The receiver should remember your settings (audio mode) for each source and for each type of codec.
If the audio mode is set to AUTO, the receiver should choose the mode using the type of signal/codec.


----------



## kagtha

dfa973 said:


> The receiver should remember your settings (audio mode) for each source and for each type of codec.
> If the audio mode is set to AUTO, the receiver should choose the mode using the type of signal/codec.


It is great to know that you hear a benefit when up-mixing 2 ch / 5.1 / 7.1 DD+ content.

Where exactly can I verify the "auto" setting you mention above? Since I only use one input (It is in Cable renamed currently) with the Firestick (Yes it can push Atmos but it is obviously compressed via DD+)

Sorry for the seemingly simple question. I use the colored buttons to change audio modes all the time but I do not see an "auto" option in "movie" ,"music", or "game".

Is it the "ECO Mode" as seen in the attached? Both my Denon & Marantz seem to make it hard to find the "auto sound input setting" even though I feel like I know every setting like the back of my hand after days of trying to achieve decent sound using REW. (I know Audessy does most of this for me but I wanted to learn)


----------



## dfa973

kagtha said:


> Where exactly can I verify the "auto" setting you mention above?


You have 4 buttons in the SOUND MODE group on the IR remote - MOVIE, MUSIC, GAME and PURE. The PURE button has an AUTO surround playback feature - press PURE until you select “Auto”.

The AUTO mode detects the type of input digital signal, and automatically selects the corresponding mode for playback. Perform stereo playback when the input signal is PCM. When the input signal is Dolby Digital or DTS, the music is played back according to the respective channel number.


----------



## fatherom

So, the recent talk of ceiling speakers and where they should be positioned (with respect to side walls) has got me thinking/agonizing a bit about how I recently mounted mine.

I *could* move them from where they're mounted currently, but it would involve more drilling into the ceiling, etc...ugh. 

My room is 12' wide. Currently I have my front L&R speakers pretty much in the corners since my screen is so large and nearly fills up that 12' width. I followed Dolby's PDF advice and mounted my ceiling speakers pretty much in-line with the front L&R speakers, such that the ceiling speakers are only about 14" away from the wall. I do have reflections in this room (irrespective of Atmos), so at some point I do plan to treat the walls with something to reduce those reflections.

So, yeah, my ceiling speakers are fairly far apart (a little over 8' apart from each other). Things sound good, I've run Audyssey, so I don't know if that will help compensate, but the recent posts have got me thinking. Do I leave well enough alone? Or do I embark on moving the speakers in more so they're in a "tighter rectangle" above the MLP?

Thanks all,

Chris


----------



## kagtha

dfa973 said:


> You have 4 buttons in the SOUND MODE group on the IR remote - MOVIE, MUSIC, GAME and PURE. The PURE button has an AUTO surround playback feature - press PURE until you select “Auto”.
> 
> The AUTO mode detects the type of input digital signal, and automatically selects the corresponding mode for playback. Perform stereo playback when the input signal is PCM. When the input signal is Dolby Digital or DTS, the music is played back according to the respective channel number.


IT WORKED!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG I feel stupid now.

Thanks.


----------



## Magnus_CA

fatherom said:


> So, the recent talk of ceiling speakers and where they should be positioned (with respect to side walls) has got me thinking/agonizing a bit about how I recently mounted mine.
> 
> 
> 
> I *could* move them from where they're mounted currently, but it would involve more drilling into the ceiling, etc...ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> My room is 12' wide. Currently I have my front L&R speakers pretty much in the corners since my screen is so large and nearly fills up that 12' width. I followed Dolby's PDF advice and mounted my ceiling speakers pretty much in-line with the front L&R speakers, such that the ceiling speakers are only about 14" away from the wall. I do have reflections in this room (irrespective of Atmos), so at some point I do plan to treat the walls with something to reduce those reflections.
> 
> 
> 
> So, yeah, my ceiling speakers are fairly far apart (a little over 8' apart from each other). Things sound good, I've run Audyssey, so I don't know if that will help compensate, but the recent posts have got me thinking. Do I leave well enough alone? Or do I embark on moving the speakers in more so they're in a "tighter rectangle" above the MLP?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks all,
> 
> 
> 
> Chris


If it sounds good to you then just enjoy it.


----------



## fatherom

Magnus_CA said:


> If it sounds good to you then just enjoy it.


I don't disagree with that philosophy. But it was actually the responses to your posts that got me thinking about all this  where the other member suggested you not do 4 speakers (and just do 2), and to change their positioning.

I guess what I wonder is: if I move my speakers in from the wall more, will the change be subtle or revelatory?

I admittedly haven't watched many Atmos movies since getting my setup installed (kids/life getting in the way  ... but as we all know (and struggle with), things can always be made better. I guess I just wouldn't be able to know HOW much better it would sound unless I embark on the project of actually moving all 4 speakers.


----------



## dfa973

fatherom said:


> I guess what I wonder is: if I move my speakers in from the wall more, will the change be subtle or revelatory?


If the ceiling speakers are nearer to MLP the effects would be "closer" to you, more above you, less diffused, less distanced.
Some want Atmos on steroids.
Some prefer the perfect bubble.

A "perfect" setup will need:

a larger room

a higher ceiling than the usual

all the speakers equidistant to the MLP

with acoustic treatments and all the rest...


----------



## niterida

fatherom said:


> So, the recent talk of ceiling speakers and where they should be positioned (with respect to side walls) has got me thinking/agonizing a bit about how I recently mounted mine.
> 
> I *could* move them from where they're mounted currently, but it would involve more drilling into the ceiling, etc...ugh.
> 
> My room is 12' wide. Currently I have my front L&R speakers pretty much in the corners since my screen is so large and nearly fills up that 12' width. I followed Dolby's PDF advice and mounted my ceiling speakers pretty much in-line with the front L&R speakers, such that the ceiling speakers are only about 14" away from the wall. I do have reflections in this room (irrespective of Atmos), so at some point I do plan to treat the walls with something to reduce those reflections.
> 
> So, yeah, my ceiling speakers are fairly far apart (a little over 8' apart from each other). Things sound good, I've run Audyssey, so I don't know if that will help compensate, but the recent posts have got me thinking. Do I leave well enough alone? Or do I embark on moving the speakers in more so they're in a "tighter rectangle" above the MLP?
> 
> Thanks all,
> 
> Chris



Dolby also recommend heights to be within 0.5 to 0.7 times the width of the room apart.
So for your 12' room they should be 6' to 8'5" apart - or a minimum of 1'10" from the sidewalls.
Yours are currently in spec


----------



## noah katz

niterida said:


> Dolby also recommend heights to be within 0.5 to 0.7 times the width of the room apart.



Interesting; seems to me that their spacing should depend on the width of the listening area, not the width of the room.


----------



## niterida

noah katz said:


> Interesting; seems to me that their spacing should depend on the width of the listening area, not the width of the room.



I guess they are assuming the room is not much wider than the listening area ?? 

Now that you mention it - all the diagrams I saw with this recommendation were rectangular rooms with 3' or so either side of the seats.
As I have found out - almost everything is a compromise when it comes to this hobby.........


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> Interesting; seems to me that their spacing should depend on the width of the listening area, not the width of the room.


The actual text appears to reference the "overall layout", not the room per se.

This is the advise Dolby provides quoting from pg 7 of their Home Atmos installation guide:



> Figures 3 and 4 show the preferred locations of the four overhead speakers as seen from above. The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds. It is best to keep the overhead arrangement centered, front to back, over the listening area, even if the front speakers and screen are at a greater distance than the surround speakers.


Remember also that in the commercial cinema the overhead arrays are lined up 1/2 between the Center and the L/R screen speakers. 

The render software appears to assume this as well, with the FR/FL speakers and the SBR/SBL speakers forming the boundaries of the "room" and the overheads being at the 1/4 and 3/4 room width points (and, incidentally, the 1/4 and 3/4 room length points for TF/TR speakers), which is probably where the "0.5 to 0.7 the width of the overall layout" advice derives from (as you can see in the middle graphic of this screenshot):


----------



## fatherom

batpig said:


> The actual text appears to reference the "overall layout", not the room per se.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the advise Dolby provides quoting from pg 7 of their Home Atmos installation guide:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember also that in the commercial cinema the overhead arrays are lined up 1/2 between the Center and the L/R screen speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> The render software appears to assume this as well, with the FR/FL speakers and the SBR/SBL speakers forming the boundaries of the "room" and the overheads being at the 1/4 and 3/4 room width points (and, incidentally, the 1/4 and 3/4 room length points for TF/TR speakers), which is probably where the "0.5 to 0.7 the width of the overall layout" advice derives from (as you can see in the middle graphic of this screenshot):




I wish I had seen this picture sooner. The dolby pdfs don't show the ceiling speakers that far in from the sides at all, and basically in line with the mains, which in my case are along the walls and in corners unfortunately. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> The render software appears to assume this as well, with the FR/FL speakers and the SBR/SBL speakers forming the boundaries of the "room" and the overheads being at the 1/4 and 3/4 room width points (and, incidentally, the 1/4 and 3/4 room length points for TF/TR speakers), which is probably where the "0.5 to 0.7 the width of the overall layout" advice derives from...


Question is, do those quarter-point rendering assumptions translate to the most effect locations for four height speakers? One of the reasons that Dolby might have recommended spreading the height speakers wider apart (in line with the front L/R speakers) is to make it easier to hear left-vs-right separation overhead (where our human hearing is not so hot). When it comes to Atmos playback at home, Dolby could be prioritizing stereo discrimination (left/right AND front/back) over strict adherence to the format's rendering assumptions. And I would agree with those priorities.


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Question is, do those quarter-point rendering assumptions translate to the most effect locations for four height speakers? One of the reasons that Dolby might have recommended spreading the height speakers wider apart (in line with the front L/R speakers) is to make it easier to hear left-vs-right separation overhead (where our human hearing is not so hot). When it comes to Atmos playback at home, Dolby could be prioritizing stereo discrimination (left/right AND front/back) over strict adherence to the format's rendering assumptions. And I would agree with those priorities.


Yes, for sure, their "home Atmos" recommendations differ from the rendering assumptions / commercial cinema layouts in a number of ways, as you already know


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Yes, for sure, their "home Atmos" recommendations differ from the rendering assumptions / commercial cinema layouts in a number of ways, as you already know


Yup, my point was that those differences were likely beneficial, so folks need not lament following the Dolby placement recommendations upon seeing the Atmos rendering assumptions.


fatherom said:


> I wish I had seen this picture sooner. The dolby pdfs don't show the ceiling speakers that far in from the sides at all, and basically in line with the mains, which in my case are along the walls and in corners unfortunately.


----------



## Chirosamsung

farsider3000 said:


> Magnus_CA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I'm on a tightrope trying to squeeze a 7.3.4 system into a 300 sq foot room! When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP. I prepared and attached 3 diagrams to illustrate what I'm considering but please feel free to suggest your own out of the box recommendation if you have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Note: all 4 height speakers are aimable.
> 
> 
> 
> Option A preserves front to back equidistance between the front Atmos pair and the rear Atmos pair from the MLP (position 'X'). The front pair is 3' 5" in front of the MLP and the rear atmos pair is also 3' 5" from the MLP. This symmetry comes at the cost of only having 1' 7" between the rear pair and the rear wall. This configuration puts both the front pair and left pair vertical position relative to the MLP at 60 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Option B pulls the rear pair farther away from the rear wall and pushes the front pair far enough away from the MLP to be within Dolby guidelines. In this scenario the rear pair is positioned at 67 degrees relative to the MLP and 2' 5" from the rear wall. The front pair is 55 degrees relative to the MLP and 4' 2" away. I have about another 6" I could push the front channels away from the MLP but I'm already more than half the distance to the mains, which I'm not sure is a problem or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Option C is a meld of A and B. It foregoes equidistance from the MLP and pushes the front pair and rear pair as close to Dolby guidelines as possible. The rear pair is only 1' 7" from the rear wall but its vertical position relative to the MLP is 60 degrees. The front pair is at 55 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Questions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a clear winner here between options A, B and C?
> 
> Should I be concerned about the front Atmos pair being positioned more than half the distance of the MLP to the mains?
> 
> How about the spread between the right and left Atmos channels. Does 8 feet sound about right? I'm aware Dolby recommends spreading them the same distance apart as your mains but I think they're better as far off the side walls as possible to minimize reflections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your replies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot to tell you that 8 feet is too wide for Atmos, based on my experience, since the sound will bounce off the side walls. I would do six feet and the. It still may be an issue. I have this issue now with my Atmos speakers at 7â€™️ apart side to side... and my room is 14â€™️ wide x 23.5â€™️ long. I am going to place 3â€Â-4â€Â thick acoustic panels to absorb higher frequencies and reduce reflections.
> 
> Edit : I notice that you have more room on one side but in my experience the Atmos speakers sound better if they are closer together than the Dolby recommendation to keep them in line with the L/R speakers. I would still go with 6 ft.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

My room is long and my atmos left and right spread is about 9-10 feet, same as my towers and it seems ok...does it seem too far judging by pics??


----------



## Magnus_CA

Chirosamsung said:


> My room is long and my atmos left and right spread is about 9-10 feet, same as my towers and it seems ok...does it seem too far judging by pics??


It appears as though you followed the Dolby spec best you could so I don't know if I'd move those in if I were you, especially if it sounds good as is. I'd throw some acoustic panels on the right wall to balance out the space you have on the left and call it a day. Your setup looks very comfortable!


----------



## elee532

So, I think I am honing in on a better idea of where to locate the 4 ceiling speakers for a 4.2.4 setup. However, I still have a few outstanding questions/issues, and I have someone coming over *tomorrow *to run speaker cabling for me. So, any help here would be most appreciated!!


Room is 22' from front to back wall. 
Front speakers are 9' from each other measured from the inside edges and about 13.25' apart measured from the outside edge. 
Ceiling height is 8.5'
First row of seating is about 11' from the front wall.
Second row of seating is about 6' from the back wall.

1. Placing the first row of ceiling speakers about 5' from the front wall seems about right. That puts the speaker about 5' in front of the first row of seating, and roughly hits that 45 degree angle recommendation.

2. Placement of the second row of ceiling speakers looks to be more complicated. There is a big soffit basically right above the second row of seating. If I place it behind the soffit, I assume the soffit will somewhat block the sound for the first row (see attached image)? Maybe it could be placed in the soffit, but because the second row of seating is on a 12" riser and the soffit comes down 12", that would put the speakers pretty close to those seated in the second row. What would you advise here? 

3. Lastly, I've had two different recommendation for how wide apart from each other to place the ceiling speakers. It looks like the Dolby recommendations have then being placed in line with the front speakers... In my case, that would put them about 2' from the side walls. The other recommendation I had was to put them about 2' left and right of the center of the room. What would you suggest here?


----------



## Magnus_CA

So what is the consensus on what Dolby is referring to when they say 'overall layout' when defining the recommended separation between left and right Atmos channels/pairs?

Is it the walls, your listening area, the distance between your mains, or perhaps the left and right surrounds? Pretty much every diagram and rendering they provide certainly looks like they want you to put them in line with your mains.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Magnus_CA said:


> So what is the consensus on what Dolby is referring to when they say 'overall layout' when defining the recommended separation between left and right Atmos channels/pairs?
> 
> Is it the walls, your listening area, the distance between your mains, or perhaps the left and right surrounds? Pretty much every diagram and rendering they provide certainly looks like they want you to put them in line with your mains.




This diagram is to simply get N idea more than exact calculations. 
That’s what this is for.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

I think the more important thing is to maintain the “X” than worry about the width matching the mains.








I believe the .5-.7 is for the room. 
Atmos is pretty forgiving.


----------



## Magnus_CA

Polyrythm1k said:


> This diagram is to simply get N idea more than exact calculations.
> That’s what this is for.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> I think the more important thing is to maintain the “X” than worry about the width matching the mains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the .5-.7 is for the room.
> Atmos is pretty forgiving.


Thanks. Do you have any advice on how to prioritize acheiving the 'X' and meeting the target elevation angles if you can't meet both?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Magnus_CA said:


> Thanks. Do you have any advice on how to prioritize acheiving the 'X' and meeting the target elevation angles if you can't meet both?




Well...my priority might be different than yours, but I think sticking closer to the elevation is more important than the width. This would make the X more rectangular front to back. I would rather go that way, in MY room. However, SVS recommends their “height” speakers be high and on the sides. To me that’s like Wx1.00 so... that would make it a rectangle width wise. 
I guess you’ll need some imagination to visualize how it will play out. Every room has compromises! Maybe some pics? We love pics!


----------



## Magnus_CA

Polyrythm1k said:


> Maybe some pics? We love pics!


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58763536


----------



## elee532

Polyrythm1k said:


> This diagram is to simply get N idea more than exact calculations.
> That’s what this is for.
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> 
> I think the more important thing is to maintain the “X” than worry about the width matching the mains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the .5-.7 is for the room.
> Atmos is pretty forgiving.


Pardon my ignorance, but was does the "W" represent in this diagram?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

elee532 said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but was does the "W" represent in this diagram?




Width. I believe it’s room width. I think Dolby is assuming something of a rectangular room, at least semi dedicated to a theater. Versus a LR with open concept, or “L” shape etc.


----------



## elee532

Polyrythm1k said:


> Width. I believe it’s room width. I think Dolby is assuming something of a rectangular room, at least semi dedicated to a theater. Versus a LR with open concept, or “L” shape etc.


Got it. Thanks! That's pretty much what I figured, although in the various dolby setup diagrams looks to me like the ceiling speakers are placed wider apart than .5 to .7.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

elee532 said:


> Got it. Thanks! That's pretty much what I figured, although in the various dolby setup diagrams looks to me like the ceiling speakers are placed wider apart than .5 to .7.




Yeah, I think the ones on their site are pretty generic and I kinda wish they’d put notes on them saying something like “just for reference, actual measurements will vary from room to room” or something like that. Or just include the actual install guide, which isn’t easy to find.


----------



## RuatoTre

Hi,

A lot of good discussion on Dolby Atmos speaker placement.

I have currently a 5.1 system and have already purchased a set of height speakers for a 5.1.2 configuration. I will install the new speakers to the side walls in an intersection between a wall and the ceiling. According to the Dolby setup guide (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/5.1.2-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html, "Side view of a 5.1.2 setup") the height speakers should be installed a bit front of the MLP. That is, the angle should be 80 degrees. I have also been instructed to install them to the level of MPL. My surround speakers are a bit backwards from the MPL, the angle is about 110 degrees. I will not install a second set of height speakers or two additional back surrounds for a 7.1.2. There just is not room for them in the space.

So, which one should I do for the height sepakers, a bit front the MPL of or on the MPL?

Any info appreciated!


----------



## elee532

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yeah, I think the ones on their site are pretty generic and I kinda wish they’d put notes on them saying something like “just for reference, actual measurements will vary from room to room” or something like that. Or just include the actual install guide, which isn’t easy to find.


 @Polyrythm1k, can I ask you one more question while I have your attention... I have someone coming in about an hour to help me run wire for two pairs of ceiling speakers. I think I'm feeling okay on location of the front pair. But, there is a 2' wide soffit where the second pair should go. If I locate the speakers behind the soffit, will the sound totally be blocked by that soffit (see photo).


----------



## Polyrythm1k

elee532 said:


> @Polyrythm1k, can I ask you one more question while I have your attention... I have someone coming in about an hour to help me run wire for two pairs of ceiling speakers. I think I'm feeling okay on location of the front pair. But, there is a 2' wide soffit where the second pair should go. If I locate the speakers behind the soffit, will the sound totally be blocked by that soffit (see photo).




I wouldn’t say totally, it it will be altered for sure. I would suggest building a box to mount them flush with the plane of the soffit but I think it looks like the back row is too close to the ceiling. If the back row doesn’t get much use then I might still do that, or use bookshelf speakers that hang just enough so the baffle is flush. Kinda hard to say for me without being actually in the room. Sorry.


----------



## elee532

Polyrythm1k said:


> I wouldn’t say totally, it it will be altered for sure. I would suggest building a box to mount them flush with the plane of the soffit but I think it looks like the back row is too close to the ceiling. If the back row doesn’t get much use then I might still do that, or use bookshelf speakers that hang just enough so the baffle is flush. Kinda hard to say for me without being actually in the room. Sorry.


Thanks @Polyrythm1k. I think I might not be in such bad shape after all? Correct me if I'm wrong here... if I can see the speakers, then for the most part that means that I should be able to hear them okay, correct? If my assumption is correct, then by mounting the second pair of in-ceiling speakers about 12 to 18" behind the soffit, I can see the speakers from my sitting position in the front row. So, not so bad... right?

And, if so, here's where I think I landed...

My listening area is roughly 13.75' wide x 22' long. My primary row of seating is roughly 12.75' from the front wall. My very large Klipsch LaScala speakers are at the very edge of the listening area (9' from each other measured from the inside edges and about 13.25' apart measured from the outside edges). Ceiling height is 8.5'. So...


Mount the first pair of ceiling speakers about 2.75' from the side wall and 6.3' from the front wall. 
Mount the second pair of ceiling speakers about 2.75' from the side wall and 19' from the front wall. 
Place the two surround speakers in the back corner.

Sound about right? 

Thank you!!!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

elee532 said:


> Thanks @Polyrythm1k. I think I might not be in such bad shape after all? Correct me if I'm wrong here... if I can see the speakers, then for the most part that means that I should be able to hear them okay, correct? If my assumption is correct, then by mounting the second pair of in-ceiling speakers about 12 to 18" behind the soffit, I can see the speakers from my sitting position in the front row. So, not so bad... right?
> 
> 
> 
> And, if so, here's where I think I landed...
> 
> 
> 
> My listening area is roughly 13.75' wide x 22' long. My primary row of seating is roughly 12.75' from the front wall. My very large Klipsch LaScala speakers are at the very edge of the listening area (9' from each other measured from the inside edges and about 13.25' apart measured from the outside edges). Ceiling height is 8.5'. So...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount the first pair of ceiling speakers about 2.75' from the side wall and 6.3' from the front wall.
> 
> Mount the second pair of ceiling speakers about 2.75' from the side wall and 19' from the front wall.
> 
> Place the two surround speakers in the back corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound about right?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!!!




Without the facilities to doodle for my own reference I’d say your logic is sound, and measurements good. I’m not a real firm believer in amiable tweeters but in this case anything you can do to aim them towards the front row should be helpful as well.


----------



## elee532

Thanks @Polyrythm1k!! My plan is Klipsch CDT-5800-C-II ceiling speakers, which are aimable if needed. 

In the event that anyone cares, and can make sense of my rudimentary sketch, I attached my own "doodle" of what I'm planning. 

One last question... are there any concerns with having the surround speakers all the way in the back corner/against the back wall?


----------



## farsider3000

elee532 said:


> Thanks @Polyrythm1k!! My plan is Klipsch CDT-5800-C-II ceiling speakers, which are aimable if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> In the event that anyone cares, and can make sense of my rudimentary sketch, I attached my own "doodle" of what I'm planning.
> 
> 
> 
> One last question... are there any concerns with having the surround speakers all the way in the back corner/against the back wall?




I can’t see the photo but you definitely don’t want the surrounds in the back corner unless your room permits no other placement. I have found that surrounds placed to the side of my head (90 degrees) or maybe six inches behind that plane provides the best envelopment.

I don’t know if you will have rears but 1) rears are important if you have room and 2) you want separation between rears and surrounds.

You also don’t want your seating position on the back wall if it can be helped. Reason is regarding reflections from back wall and the fact that the rears will not sound right if there is no gap between rears and ears.

If you need to save space in-wall rears or something like the on-wall KEF T301 might work for you depending on how large your room is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Agree with farsider in the corner surround placement. I seem to remember you weren’t gonna do rear surrounds. If I read right, one side of the room is totally open so I can see where that might be a problem for surrounds, but that’s up to you. I would personally go on stands if you can train kids Lol!


----------



## farsider3000

Guys if you want to hear what can be done with Atmos please watch “See”, the new Apple TV plus series. All I can say is wow! Some of the coolest, highly produced and clear Atmos effects I have ever heard! .... this was just in the opening credits....Really awesome... I just paused the show to post this so hopefully the sound envelopment on the rest of the show is as good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## elee532

farsider3000 said:


> I can’t see the photo but you definitely don’t want the surrounds in the back corner unless your room permits no other placement. I have found that surrounds placed to the side of my head (90 degrees) or maybe six inches behind that plane provides the best envelopment.
> 
> I don’t know if you will have rears but 1) rears are important if you have room and 2) you want separation between rears and surrounds.
> 
> You also don’t want your seating position on the back wall if it can be helped. Reason is regarding reflections from back wall and the fact that the rears will not sound right if there is no gap between rears and ears.


Thanks for responding @farsider3000! 



I currently only have surrounds, no rears. 



I am up against a few challenges (I tried attaching a few photos):




I don't completely trust my kids yet with speakers on stands. 
There is a large window on one side of the room that limits where I could wall mount.
The second row of seating is only about 5' from the back of the room. So, even if I could address #1 and #2, this makes it impossible to (1) get the surrounds behind the second row of seating and (2) get the surrounds behind the second pair of ceiling speakers.
Any thoughts on this?


One question... I have been assuming it is necessary that the surround speakers be located behind the ceiling speakers. Is my understanding correct here?


Thanks!


----------



## farsider3000

elee532 said:


> Thanks for responding @farsider3000!
> 
> 
> 
> I currently only have surrounds, no rears.
> 
> 
> 
> I am up against a few challenges (I tried attaching a few photos):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't completely trust my kids yet with speakers on stands.
> There is a large window on one side of the room that limits where I could wall mount.
> The second row of seating is only about 5' from the back of the room. So, even if I could address #1 and #2, this makes it impossible to (1) get the surrounds behind the second row of seating and (2) get the surrounds behind the second pair of ceiling speakers.
> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> One question... I have been assuming it is necessary that the surround speakers be located behind the ceiling speakers. Is my understanding correct here?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


With two rows it is not essential, or possible (unless you go with two sets of surrounds) to get the surrounds to be in line or behind the second row. Having surrounds beside the first row and having rears will create the desired surround bubble. 

For your last question just remember that you are trying to create a hemisphere of surround sound "points". If you go with two rows of ceiling speakers the ceiling speakers sound best (in my opinion) located just about 6"-12" in front of the point where the ears are when seated and reclined (if you will use your recliners). There is flexibility as I personally don't agree with some of the angles Dolby recommends for Ceiling speakers since it places them too close to the front / rear speakers.

Just try to imagine creating the best sound hemisphere around the main seating position with the second row having less priority. Actually my second row sounds incredible when it comes to surround effects and my surrounds are lined up with first row ears. I have wired for a second row but the acoustic engineer that designed my room, Nyal Mellor, recommended that I not use a second row of surrounds and I don't think I am missing much without them. I think there was concern that we would lose the effect somewhat since the second row of surrounds would be fairly close to the back wall as my second row is only about 3' from the rear wall.


----------



## farsider3000

elee532 said:


> Thanks for responding @farsider3000!
> 
> 
> 
> I currently only have surrounds, no rears.
> 
> 
> 
> I am up against a few challenges (I tried attaching a few photos):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't completely trust my kids yet with speakers on stands.
> There is a large window on one side of the room that limits where I could wall mount.
> The second row of seating is only about 5' from the back of the room. So, even if I could address #1 and #2, this makes it impossible to (1) get the surrounds behind the second row of seating and (2) get the surrounds behind the second pair of ceiling speakers.
> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> One question... I have been assuming it is necessary that the surround speakers be located behind the ceiling speakers. Is my understanding correct here?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Is there any way to reconfigure your seating and screen etc so that the play area is to the rear? Could you then get surrounds in the proper place (so the side of the first row)? Surrounds are probably the most important speakers in a surround sound set up. With them in the rear as you have them placed now you are losing out on a huge amount of the effect. Even though the surrounds would be far away from the seating due to the 22' room width they would still sound excellent since you can adjust the SPL manually for the surrounds or have Audyssey (or whatever your room correction brand is within your receiver/processor) automatically do it.

EDIT: Never mind... lol.. I just saw the riser... but in my opinion it is worth taking the riser down and rebuilding it in another location so you can get the surround speakers in the proper location. Adding ceiling speakers to your set up will add some good effects in certain movie scenes and tv shows but it is critical to move the surrounds to the locations mentioned previously.


----------



## elee532

farsider3000 said:


> With two rows it is not essential, or possible (unless you go with two sets of surrounds) to get the surrounds to be in line or behind the second row. Having surrounds beside the first row and having rears will create the desired surround bubble.
> 
> For your last question just remember that you are trying to create a hemisphere of surround sound "points". If you go with two rows of ceiling speakers the ceiling speakers sound best (in my opinion) located just about 6"-12" in front of the point where the ears are when seated and reclined (if you will use your recliners). There is flexibility as I personally don't agree with some of the angles Dolby recommends for Ceiling speakers since it places them too close to the front / rear speakers.
> 
> Just try to imagine creating the best sound hemisphere around the main seating position with the second row having less priority. Actually my second row sounds incredible when it comes to surround effects and my surrounds are lined up with first row ears. I have wired for a second row but the acoustic engineer that designed my room, Nyal Mellor, recommended that I not use a second row of surrounds and I don't think I am missing much without them. I think there was concern that we would lose the effect somewhat since the second row of surrounds would be fairly close to the back wall as my second row is only about 3' from the rear wall.


Interesting. So now I'm concerned that i wired to the wrong place for the ceiling speakers. I put the first pair about 6' in front of the first row and the second pair about 6' behind the first row.

To your other point, maybe i need add two more rear speakers... 2 main front speakers, 2 surrounds (just behind the first row of seats, but in front of second seating row), 4 ceiling, and 2 back surrounds?

Until I can add some back surrounds, I'll relocate the surrounds to be just behind row 1, and the folks in row 2 will have to live without. The only thing that sucks about that is when its family movie night, my 6 and 10 year-olds get row 1. 😁


----------



## farsider3000

elee532 said:


> Interesting. So now I'm concerned that i wired to the wrong place for the ceiling speakers. I put the first pair about 6' in front of the first row and the second pair about 6' behind the first row.
> 
> To your other point, maybe i need add two more rear speakers... 2 main front speakers, 2 surrounds (just behind the first row of seats, but in front of second seating row), 4 ceiling, and 2 back surrounds?


If you can angle the speakers I would say that you are okay. If they are in ceiling speakers that cannot be angled I would recommend moving them to a location more directly overhead.

Yes the best set up is having surrounds, rears and ceiling speakers to create the sound hemisphere (LCR of course also  ). It does not have to be perfect as there are always some compromises (sometimes small ones and some rather large).

Your "bed" speakers are the Front Left, Center, Front Right, Left surround, right surround , left rear and right rear. Then you can add one or two rows of Atmos. That is per the Dolby specification.

In my opinion Dolby's recommendation to keep the ceiling speakers even with the front L/R speakers can make them too far apart and too close to the side walls, especially on a low ceiling (8ft). With a 10-12 ft ceiling it is not as much a problem. If you have an 8 or 9 ft ceiling I would reduce the side to side distance between each ceiling speaker.


----------



## elee532

farsider3000 said:


> If you can angle the speakers I would say that you are okay. If they are in ceiling speakers that cannot be angled I would recommend moving them to a location more directly overhead.
> 
> Yes the best set up is having surrounds, rears and ceiling speakers to create the sound hemisphere (LCR of course also  ). It does not have to be perfect as there are always some compromises (sometimes small ones and some rather large).


I've got some Klipsch CDT-5800's on the way, which allow both woofer and tweeter to be aimed.

Adding surround backs shouldn't be too difficult. Wiring should be easier than it has been for the ceilings. The plan is to upgrade my AVR from the Denon X3400h to the 3600h which supports 11.2 as long as it has 2 extra channels of amplification (which I do). The main challenge is budget... I was planning to replace my current B&W surrounds with Klipsch to match the rest of my setup. I may have to keep them for though and repurpose those funds to adding the surround backs. 😁

I'll have to start a whole new thread someday to discuss my "C" questions.


----------



## RuatoTre

RuatoTre said:


> Hi,
> 
> A lot of good discussion on Dolby Atmos speaker placement.
> 
> I have currently a 5.1 system and have already purchased a set of height speakers for a 5.1.2 configuration. I will install the new speakers to the side walls in an intersection between a wall and the ceiling. According to the Dolby setup guide (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/5.1.2-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html, "Side view of a 5.1.2 setup") the height speakers should be installed a bit front of the MLP. That is, the angle should be 80 degrees. I have also been instructed to install them to the level of MPL. My surround speakers are a bit backwards from the MPL, the angle is about 110 degrees. I will not install a second set of height speakers or two additional back surrounds for a 7.1.2. There just is not room for them in the space.
> 
> So, which one should I do for the height sepakers, a bit front the MPL of or on the MPL?
> 
> Any info appreciated!


Anything on this? Thank you!


----------



## Chirosamsung

RuatoTre said:


> RuatoTre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A lot of good discussion on Dolby Atmos speaker placement.
> 
> I have currently a 5.1 system and have already purchased a set of height speakers for a 5.1.2 configuration. I will install the new speakers to the side walls in an intersection between a wall and the ceiling. According to the Dolby setup guide (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/5.1.2-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html, "Side view of a 5.1.2 setup") the height speakers should be installed a bit front of the MLP. That is, the angle should be 80 degrees. I have also been instructed to install them to the level of MPL. My surround speakers are a bit backwards from the MPL, the angle is about 110 degrees. I will not install a second set of height speakers or two additional back surrounds for a 7.1.2. There just is not room for them in the space.
> 
> So, which one should I do for the height sepakers, a bit front the MPL of or on the MPL?
> 
> Any info appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> Anything on this? Thank you!
Click to expand...

I would definetly wire for 5.1.4


----------



## RuatoTre

Chirosamsung said:


> I would definetly wire for 5.1.4


Good point, thanks! I will first do 5.1.2 with one set of height speaker and in the future can expand to 5.1.4. So, the first set of height speakers should be installed a bit in front of the MLP as instructed in https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html (Side view of 5.1.4 setup)? Should I also tilt the speakers towards the MLP? 

Kind regards,
Kari


----------



## niterida

hmmmm you come here asking for suggestions :




Magnus_CA said:


> I feel like I'm on a tightrope trying to squeeze a 7.3.4 system into a 300 sq foot room! When it comes to locating my 4 in-ceiling Atmos channels I'm having trouble deciding what aspect to compromise...the 30 to 55 degree vertical position, the distance between the rear pair and the rear wall, and equidistance between the front and rear Atmos pair and the MLP. I prepared and attached 3 diagrams to illustrate what I'm considering but *please feel free to suggest your own out of the box recommendation* if you have one.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for your replies.



So I offer you some :




niterida said:


> My suggestions :
> 
> 
> Ditch the in-ceilings and use bookshelfs instead (and ideally matched to you base level speakers) - it seems to be the general consensus now, that in-ceilings are flawed, unless you can get them truly aimed at MLP.
> 
> 
> Mount the rear heights right at the ceiling/wall boundary.
> 
> 
> Move the front heights to be exactly 45deg
> 
> 
> Build a 12" riser for the seats to reduce angle of rear heights closer to 45deg
> 
> 
> Turn the riser into a BOSS : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-d...gn-construction/2991522-hideaway-theater.html



and you contradict yourself with your reply :




Magnus_CA said:


> Speakers are purchased and I'm not interested in building a riser to accommodate what amounts to an effects speaker. Thanks anyway.



Seems pretty childish to me to ask for advice on how best to setup your expensive Atmos speakers, which I assume are attached to an expensive receiver and then state you don't want to do anything to accommodate them because they are only "effects" speakers.


----------



## elee532

So, I've decided to definitely pull the trigger and add two more surround speakers so now I'll have a 6.4.2 system. Are there any guidelines for the distance between the ceiling speakers and surround back speakers? I don't have a lot of space to work with in the back of my room. 

I'll be placing the pair of surround back speakers on the back wall. I've then got about 5' of space to work with for placement of the second pair of ceiling speakers. The further from the back wall that I go with this row of ceiling speakers, the closer they get to being directly above, or even a little bit in front of the second row of seating. So, is it preferable to (1) have a little more space between the surround back speakers and second row of ceiling speakers or (b) get the second pair of ceiling speakers further behind the second row of seating and thus shrining the distance between the ceiling speakers and the back surround speakers?

Thoughts on this? 

Thanks!


----------



## Magnus_CA

niterida said:


> hmmmm you come here asking for suggestions :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I offer you some :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you contradict yourself with your reply :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems pretty childish to me to ask for advice on how best to setup your expensive Atmos speakers, which I assume are attached to an expensive receiver and then state you don't want to do anything to accommodate them because they are only "effects" speakers.


There was nothing contradictory in my responses. I was never soliciting for advice beyond where to cut holes in my ceiling. Good day to you. I've fed you enough.


----------



## Turpentine22

*Atmos and 5.1*

I need to ask a silly question, because somehow doing a web search did not manage to answer it. Or, more specifically, it provided wildly different answers!

Here it is: All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?

I'm asking because when I read about Atmos, I see two types of things being discussed: (1) object-based audio and (2) height channels. I understand both, but don't see why they would be directly connected. Let's assume for a moment that I cannot move away from my current 5.1 setup in the short run and so don't add height speakers, wouldn't an Atmos soundtrack through an Atmos-ready receiver improve the experience because of #1 , since the system now distributes the sound "between speakers" in a way that enhances the traditional channel-based approach?

I'm really sorry if this is a moronic question.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Turpentine22 said:


> All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?


It's a good question IMO, and the short answer is: No. There is in principle no difference in the way sounds are perceptually positioned in-between speakers, whether it's channel based or object based. An Atmos track played on an Atmos capable AVR configured to 5.1, will sound exactly the same as a legacy 5.1 down-mix of that same Atmos track.


----------



## rekbones

Turpentine22 said:


> I need to ask a silly question, because somehow doing a web search did not manage to answer it. Or, more specifically, it provided wildly different answers!
> 
> Here it is: All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?
> 
> I'm asking because when I read about Atmos, I see two types of things being discussed: (1) object-based audio and (2) height channels. I understand both, but don't see why they would be directly connected. Let's assume for a moment that I cannot move away from my current 5.1 setup in the short run and so don't add height speakers, wouldn't an Atmos soundtrack through an Atmos-ready receiver improve the experience because of #1 , since the system now distributes the sound "between speakers" in a way that enhances the traditional channel-based approach?
> 
> I'm really sorry if this is a moronic question.


I think most manufactures ATMOS capable AVR's won't even decode/display ATMOS unless the are configured with at least 2 height speakers.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Turpentine22 said:


> I need to ask a silly question, because somehow doing a web search did not manage to answer it. Or, more specifically, it provided wildly different answers!
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is: All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking because when I read about Atmos, I see two types of things being discussed: (1) object-based audio and (2) height channels. I understand both, but don't see why they would be directly connected. Let's assume for a moment that I cannot move away from my current 5.1 setup in the short run and so don't add height speakers, wouldn't an Atmos soundtrack through an Atmos-ready receiver improve the experience because of #1 , since the system now distributes the sound "between speakers" in a way that enhances the traditional channel-based approach?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really sorry if this is a moronic question.




Short answer is no. The non Atmos AVR will treat the Atmos material in the same manner as an Atmos AVR, IF there aren’t any height speakers available. The atmos metadata will still be folded into the bed speakers. The difference would be that the Atmos AVR would have the ability to handle the metadata and place objects If there are speakers available for it to use. 
I can say that Ime, before I had an Atmos AVR and speakers, many Atmos tracks sounded better on my system. I always attributed that to how they were mixed. After upgrading, I still noticed how great the tracks were, but now it was better with objects and top speakers. I’m dozing off so maybe someone with better words can add.


----------



## zeonstar

Polyrythm1k said:


> Short answer is no. The non Atmos AVR will treat the Atmos material in the same manner as an Atmos AVR, IF there aren’t any height speakers available. The atmos metadata will still be folded into the bed speakers. The difference would be that the Atmos AVR would have the ability to handle the metadata and place objects If there are speakers available for it to use.
> I can say that Ime, before I had an Atmos AVR and speakers, many Atmos tracks sounded better on my system. I always attributed that to how they were mixed. After upgrading, I still noticed how great the tracks were, but now it was better with objects and top speakers. I’m dozing off so maybe someone with better words can add.


I could be off base here but I read his post as that if he DID have an Atmos enabled AVR but simply did not have any height speakers, would benefit from Atmos audio at all. In my brief experience, the answer is yes.

About a year ago my old Onkyo AVR went out and I bought a new Denon AVR that was Atmos enabled. Even though I didn't initially have any height speakers, I swear I could hear an improvement even in a base 5.1 sound track that just happened to be Atmos. There seem to be a bit more spacial movement and fullness, even just from 5.1. I quickly bought a 4K player and started buying 4K movies just to have Atmos, before I even had a 4K TV. I was in love with Atmos even before I got the "Full benefit" of it. 

I don't see any downside to buying an Atmos Ready AVR and simply adding speakers to it as you can.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zeonstar said:


> I could be off base here but I read his post as that if he DID have an Atmos enabled AVR but simply did not have any height speakers, would benefit from Atmos audio at all. In my brief experience, the answer is yes.
> 
> 
> 
> About a year ago my old Onkyo AVR went out and I bought a new Denon AVR that was Atmos enabled. Even though I didn't initially have any height speakers, I swear I could hear an improvement even in a base 5.1 sound track that just happened to be Atmos. There seem to be a bit more spacial movement and fullness, even just from 5.1. I quickly bought a 4K player and started buying 4K movies just to have Atmos, before I even had a 4K TV. I was in love with Atmos even before I got the "Full benefit" of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any downside to buying an Atmos Ready AVR and simply adding speakers to it as you can.




Well I can’t discount your experience. But in fairness it’s possible that audyssey, or something in the setup had more to do with it than anything. The core track is the core track, so it should be played back the same on any AVR(Audyssey, mcacc, ypao etc. notwithstanding)
I do agree with you that Atmos tracks DO have something about them, even on a 5.1 system. But I don’t think it’s the AVR. It’s the way the tracks are mastered.


----------



## zeonstar

Polyrythm1k said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could be off base here but I read his post as that if he DID have an Atmos enabled AVR but simply did not have any height speakers, would benefit from Atmos audio at all. In my brief experience, the answer is yes.
> 
> 
> 
> About a year ago my old Onkyo AVR went out and I bought a new Denon AVR that was Atmos enabled. Even though I didn't initially have any height speakers, I swear I could hear an improvement even in a base 5.1 sound track that just happened to be Atmos. There seem to be a bit more spacial movement and fullness, even just from 5.1. I quickly bought a 4K player and started buying 4K movies just to have Atmos, before I even had a 4K TV. I was in love with Atmos even before I got the "Full benefit" of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any downside to buying an Atmos Ready AVR and simply adding speakers to it as you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I canâ€™️t discount your experience. But in fairness itâ€™️s possible that audyssey, or something in the setup had more to do with it than anything. The core track is the core track, so it should be played back the same on any AVR(Audyssey, mcacc, ypao etc. notwithstanding)
> I do agree with you that Atmos tracks DO have something about them, even on a 5.1 system. But I donâ€™️t think itâ€™️s the AVR. Itâ€™️s the way the tracks are mastered.
Click to expand...

With an Atmos enabled AVR (and of course Atmos content) won’t it still decode as and play as Atmos even in a 5.1 setup? That’s all I’m really getting at.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zeonstar said:


> With an Atmos enabled AVR (and of course Atmos content) won’t it still decode as and play as Atmos even in a 5.1 setup? That’s all I’m really getting at.




Nope. If the speakers aren’t available, there’s no difference. 
What IS different is when there are speakers available, then the AVR can unpack the metadata, and place the objects accordingly. If there are no speakers, all the metadata stays folded into the bed channels. The AVR can’t change that.


----------



## Augerhandle

zeonstar said:


> ...my old Onkyo AVR went out and I bought a new Denon AVR that was Atmos enabled. Even though I didn't initially have any height speakers, I swear I could hear an improvement...


I replaced an Onkyo with a Marantz receiver. It sounded much different, just as in your experience. I'm sure it's because of better circuitry or settings, and not due to ATMOS.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Augerhandle said:


> I replaced an Onkyo with a Marantz receiver. It sounded much different, just as in your experience. I'm sure it's because of better circuitry or settings, and not due to ATMOS.




A big difference would be audyssey vs accueq. Even xt vs XT32 in my room was a big difference. 
Agreed. It was not due to Atmos from the AVR’s standpoint. The source though...yes.


----------



## Augerhandle

Polyrythm1k said:


> A big difference would be audyssey vs accueq. Even xt vs XT32 in my room was a big difference.
> Agreed. It was not due to Atmos from the AVR’s standpoint. The source though...yes.


Not even the source, as I noticed the difference with normal content as well. Anyway, it for sure was not ATMOS.


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> With an Atmos enabled AVR (and of course Atmos content) won’t it still decode as and play as Atmos even in a 5.1 setup?


No. Think of home Atmos soundtracks as having a nested structure for backwards compatibility: inside the Atmos mix is the entire movie as a 7.1 mix, inside the 7.1 mix is the entire movie as a 5.1 mix, inside the 5.1 mix is the entire movie as a 2-channel mix. When playing an Atmos soundtrack on a 5.1-speaker set-up, the 5.1 version of the mix is decoded. No different than any other 5.1 track.


----------



## m. zillch

Turpentine22 said:


> I need to ask a silly question, because somehow doing a web search did not manage to answer it. Or, more specifically, it provided wildly different answers!
> 
> Here it is: All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?


Although your specific example is not discussed directly, this article addresses how the latest Dolby processing, confusingly called "Dolby Surround" [confusing because back in the analog days that term meant something else], differs from earlier versions of the processing: Meet the new Dolby Surround


----------



## Ladeback

Turpentine22 said:


> I need to ask a silly question, because somehow doing a web search did not manage to answer it. Or, more specifically, it provided wildly different answers!
> 
> Here it is: All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?
> 
> I'm asking because when I read about Atmos, I see two types of things being discussed: (1) object-based audio and (2) height channels. I understand both, but don't see why they would be directly connected. Let's assume for a moment that I cannot move away from my current 5.1 setup in the short run and so don't add height speakers, wouldn't an Atmos soundtrack through an Atmos-ready receiver improve the experience because of #1 , since the system now distributes the sound "between speakers" in a way that enhances the traditional channel-based approach?
> 
> I'm really sorry if this is a moronic question.


Funny you asked this. This weekend my wife and I rented Anna Blu-ray and the sound processing I picked was Dolby Atmos. Now the movie didn't sound much different, but the Dolby Atmos sound clip before it started sounded like more sound was all around us with my 5.1 system. Missing was the sound from about from height speakers and I am really wanting Atmos even more now. My receiver is a Marantz 6013. The movie sound like a normal 5.1 sound track would sound like. I am not sure why the opening clip sounded different or better, but was interesting to hear. I told my wife about Atmos and she was like ok, what ever and how much will that cost?


----------



## Azekecse

Ladeback said:


> Funny you asked this. This weekend my wife and I rented Anna Blu-ray and the sound processing I picked was Dolby Atmos. Now the movie didn't sound much different, but the Dolby Atmos sound clip before it started sounded like more sound was all around us with my 5.1 system. Missing was the sound from about from height speakers and I am really wanting Atmos even more now. My receiver is a Marantz 6013. The movie sound like a normal 5.1 sound track would sound like. I am not sure why the opening clip sounded different or better, but was interesting to hear. I told my wife about Atmos and she was like ok, what ever and how much will that cost?


I’ve experienced that, sometimes the trailers sound better than the movie itself. The Example is the movie Crawl, good movie but the intro trailer sounded much better than the movie itself, perhaps purposely Go figure.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke


----------



## sdurani

Atmos demos are promotional material, intended to sell the format. Same with movie trailers; intended to sell the movie. As such, they tend to be noticeably punchier than movie soundtracks. A good example is the opening bank heist from _'The Dark Knight'_. The version included as a bonus on the _'Batman Begins'_ disc sounds more exaggerated and exciting than how that same scene sounds in the movie. Different crew mixed the promotional version than the movie version. Likewise, movie trailers are typically mixed by a different crew than the one mixing the movie.


----------



## Swoosh830

sdurani said:


> The Atmos renderer thinks that Heights are at the very front & rear of your speaker layout while Tops are inward of those speaker locations.
> 
> Suppose your 4 overhead speakers are labeled Tops:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you play Atmos signals intended for the Tops locations, they will image from where the speakers are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you re-label them as Heights, then the Atmos renderer will try to phantom image those sounds inward of those speaker locations, where it thinks the Tops should be:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sound is still on the ceiling, as intended, just moved slightly. By comparison, the Tops label will cause the DTS:X renderer to bleed some of the height information downward to the floor speakers in an attempt to phantom image those sounds slightly lower, where it thinks the Heights should be. So if you can't switch easily between labels, then the Heights label is the lesser compromise.


Does anyone have experience with how the DSU and Neural:X upmixer are affected with these different speaker assignments?

I plan on running a 7.2.6 setup with the .6 configured as FH/TM/RH. Is the Neural:X upmixer limited to 11 speakers total, rendering the TM speakers useless in this case? Alternatively, will the DSU use all 6 top layer speakers with a FH/TM/RH configuration?


----------



## sdurani

Swoosh830 said:


> Does anyone have experience with how the DSU and Neural:X upmixer are affected with these different speaker assignments?


Won't have any effect on DSU since the upmixer extracts only stereo height info: i.e., ALL the height speakers on the left play back the same signal; ditto all the height speakers on the right. There is no front-to-back difference to mess up (only left-vs-right signals). Not sure about Neural:X.


> Is the Neural:X upmixer limited to 11 speakers total, rendering the TM speakers useless in this case?


Yes, the DTS:X format and their Neural:X upmixer are limited to 11 outputs. With 7.1.6, the Top Middle pair will be silent. DTS:X Pro is on the horizon and will allow the format and its upmixer to go beyond 11 outputs.


> Alternatively, will the DSU use all 6 top layer speakers with a FH/TM/RH configuration?


Yes, even if you had the maximum 10 overhead speakers allowed by the Atmos format, DSU would light them all up. Remember, DSU only extracts 2 height channels, with each channel arrayed to up to 5 speakers.


----------



## Josh Z

Swoosh830 said:


> Does anyone have experience with how the DSU and Neural:X upmixer are affected with these different speaker assignments?
> 
> I plan on running a 7.2.6 setup with the .6 configured as FH/TM/RH. Is the Neural:X upmixer limited to 11 speakers total, rendering the TM speakers useless in this case? Alternatively, will the DSU use all 6 top layer speakers with a FH/TM/RH configuration?


DSU only has two effective channels of height audio, which are arrayed across all the speakers on the left side of the room and the right side of the room. Although all six of the speakers in your proposed layout will be used with DSU, it doesn't really matter whether you choose Front Height vs Top Front, or Rear Height vs Top Rear, because all of those speakers on one side of the room will get the same audio regardless.

Meanwhile, DTS Neural:X and DTS:X are limited to 11 channels total and cannot support more than four height channels currently, so your Top Middles will go unused.

Only native Dolby Atmos soundtracks can theoretically support six or more discrete height channels. Even in that case, however, we're finding that many movie soundtracks are locked to only four height channels (or sometimes even just two).


----------



## Turpentine22

Turpentine22 said:


> Here it is: All else equal and given a 5.1 speaker setup, would an Atmos-capable AVR with Atmos material improve sound quality relative to a non-Atmos AVR playing the same soundtrack?


Thanks a lot for the replies! I learned a lot. Looks like it was not such a stupid question in the end...

P.S.: what prompted me to ask the question was that I have noticed a better SQ for my Atmos UHDs. I knew it had to do with simply a better soundtrack, nothing Atmos related, but it got me thinking about Atmos AVR + standard 5.1.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Turpentine22 said:


> I knew it had to do with simply a better soundtrack, nothing Atmos related, ...


You could also say that it ís Atmos related on the production side. At the mixing table, object based audio has enabled movie directors and re-recording engineers to make better soundtracks, which is also noticeable in legacy down-mixes.


----------



## Josh Z

I had a person tell me today that the copy of Star Wars: A New Hope streaming on the new Disney+ service has an Atmos sound mix. I haven't installed Disney+ yet. Can any new subscribers check this out? I expected some of the Disney movies that were released on UHD Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks (Moana, Avengers: Infinity War, etc.) to stream in Atmos, but I'd be very surprised if Disney remixed the original Star Wars movies. Does the movie stream in 4K?

Update: The original person sent me a screenshot from the Disney+ menu on his AppleTV showing that A New Hope streams in 4k with Dolby Vision.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> I had a person tell me today that the copy of Star Wars: A New Hope streaming on the new Disney+ service has an Atmos sound mix. I haven't installed Disney+ yet. Can any new subscribers check this out? I expected some of the Disney movies that were released on UHD Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks (Moana, Avengers: Infinity War, etc.) to stream in Atmos, but I'd be very surprised if Disney remixed the original Star Wars movies. Does the movie stream in 4K?



If they're not the Original Theatrical cuts, then they could have non-Atmoused 1,000 channel audio and I wouldn't give a crap. 



I also won't give a dime to Disney streaming. You're just feeding the beast and ensuring physical media fades away.


----------



## farsider3000

RuatoTre said:


> Good point, thanks! I will first do 5.1.2 with one set of height speaker and in the future can expand to 5.1.4. So, the first set of height speakers should be installed a bit in front of the MLP as instructed in https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html (Side view of 5.1.4 setup)? Should I also tilt the speakers towards the MLP?
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Kari



If your room is small too many Atmos ceiling speaker rows can be detrimental to creating the proper surround hemisphere due to reflections from front, rear or side walls.

Many of us find that the best sensation of height speakers is when they are mounted about six to 18 inches from the MLP towards the screen.... too far forward, and especially if they can’t be angled to point at the MLP, and the sound is not really distinguishable from the LCR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Swoosh830

Josh Z said:


> Only native Dolby Atmos soundtracks can theoretically support six or more discrete height channels. Even in that case, however, we're finding that many movie soundtracks are locked to only four height channels (or sometimes even just two).


I appreciate the responses.

I do recall that bit about some Atmos tracks (Saving Private Ryan for example) being locked to only two height channels. IIRC, when that track was played with a .6 setup, the TM speakers were used much more than the TF and TR speakers which hardly played anything. When it was played in a .4 setup with the TM speakers omitted, the sound was spread between the TF and TR speakers, giving a more desirable effect. With a FH/TM/RH configuration, I suppose I can expect the TM to be the dominant speakers with this track.

It's a shame that a .6 height speaker configuration can't take full advantage of all Atmos tracks. In the case of Saving Private Ryan, it almost seems worthwhile to have a separate profile with only enabling/assigning the TF and TR speakers while skipping the TM to get a better effect out of the height speakers. It'd be nice to 'set it and forget it' after taking the time to install a .6 height speaker setup. From what I've read thus far, the FH/TM/RH configuration seems to be the closest thing to it.


----------



## zeonstar

Josh Z said:


> I had a person tell me today that the copy of Star Wars: A New Hope streaming on the new Disney+ service has an Atmos sound mix. I haven't installed Disney+ yet. Can any new subscribers check this out? I expected some of the Disney movies that were released on UHD Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks (Moana, Avengers: Infinity War, etc.) to stream in Atmos, but I'd be very surprised if Disney remixed the original Star Wars movies. Does the movie stream in 4K?
> 
> Update: The original person sent me a screenshot from the Disney+ menu on his AppleTV showing that A New Hope streams in 4k with Dolby Vision.


It's been reported that Episodes 1-7 are on Disney+ in 4K with Dolby Vision and Atmos.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> If they're not the Original Theatrical cuts, then they could have non-Atmoused 1,000 channel audio and I wouldn't give a crap.


I don't disagree, but I'm curious about this from a technical perspective. Until now, I hadn't heard anything about Disney remastering the old Star Wars movies into 4k or Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> I don't disagree, but I'm curious about this from a technical perspective. Until now, I hadn't heard anything about Disney remastering the old Star Wars movies into 4k or Atmos.



It would be interesting to find out if all of a sudden their streamed Atmos tracks aren't locked to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 fixed channel patterns as most of their lossless disc tracks are... or if they're at full dynamics or squeezed to death. That would tell you something.


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> It would be interesting to find out if all of a sudden their streamed Atmos tracks aren't locked to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 fixed channel patterns as most of their lossless disc tracks are... or if they're at full dynamics or squeezed to death. That would tell you something.


I think we can all guess how that's going to go.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> I think we can all guess how that's going to go.



Atmoused to death.


----------



## bobbino421

Josh Z said:


> I had a person tell me today that the copy of Star Wars: A New Hope streaming on the new Disney+ service has an Atmos sound mix. I haven't installed Disney+ yet. Can any new subscribers check this out? I expected some of the Disney movies that were released on UHD Blu-ray with Atmos soundtracks (Moana, Avengers: Infinity War, etc.) to stream in Atmos, but I'd be very surprised if Disney remixed the original Star Wars movies. Does the movie stream in 4K?
> 
> Update: The original person sent me a screenshot from the Disney+ menu on his AppleTV showing that A New Hope streams in 4k with Dolby Vision.


Several sources have confirmed this on several threads in the forum and outside news sources too! I have yet to see it myself. Also it’s a new version of the movie as a new cut was inserted in the cantina scene with Solo and Greedo!


----------



## LNEWoLF

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-...tles-will-updated-often-943.html#post58809814

https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/12/star-wars-movie-4k-disney-plus-dolby-vision-atmos/

https://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-4k-blu-ray-box-set/

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/film/content/105409/star-wars-4k/


----------



## Jacob305

I am able to get dolby atmos off disney plus. I do not have a 4k tv set. I am able to listen to atmos.. many titles including star wars, marvel and pixar . Just have a projector. 
the roku premiere plus is what I have.

Jacob


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-...tles-will-updated-often-943.html#post58809814
> 
> https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/12/star-wars-movie-4k-disney-plus-dolby-vision-atmos/
> 
> https://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-4k-blu-ray-box-set/
> 
> https://www.thedigitalfix.com/film/content/105409/star-wars-4k/



As I had feared. They're just small alterations of the Special Editions and not the original theatrical versions. Hard pass even with Atmouse.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I had feared. They're just small alterations of the Special Editions and not the original theatrical versions. Hard pass even with Atmouse.


Of course hard pass - not on disc, not lossless audio


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mrtickleuk said:


> Of course hard pass - not on disc, not lossless audio



Yup. I haven't lost all good sense yet to switch over to streaming. Discs or bust.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yup. I haven't lost all good sense yet to switch over to streaming. Discs or bust.


Sentimentally I agree with you, but then you give up on original Netflix content.

Not sure if I really want to take one for the team (again!) and spring for Disney+ just to find out if the Atmos Star Wars releases are of the "pre-rendered" variety or more interesting than that. Maybe I'll ping the Trinnov thread to see if someone is willing to take over for me on this one.


----------



## zeonstar

sdrucker said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. I haven't lost all good sense yet to switch over to streaming. Discs or bust.
> 
> 
> 
> Sentimentally I agree with you, but then you give up on original Netflix content.
> 
> Not sure if I really want to take one for the team (again!) and spring for Disney+ just to find out if the Atmos Star Wars releases are of the "pre-rendered" variety or more interesting than that. Maybe I'll ping the Trinnov thread to see if someone is willing to take over for me on this one.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if this will help you but if you go to This post it has come Disney+ Technical Info. 

It may partially answer your question. I don’t know exactly what pre-rendered Atmos is but it sounds bad!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. I haven't lost all good sense yet to switch over to streaming. Discs or bust.
> 
> 
> 
> Sentimentally I agree with you, but then you give up on original Netflix content.
> 
> Not sure if I really want to take one for the team (again!) and spring for Disney+ just to find out if the Atmos Star Wars releases are of the "pre-rendered" variety or more interesting than that. Maybe I'll ping the Trinnov thread to see if someone is willing to take over for me on this one.
Click to expand...

Sure, for exclusive web TV shows you're stuck unless like Jack Ryan, Stranger Things, Lost in Space, and similar they get a disc release.

You certainly don't have to sign up just to do that. Let another Trinnov owner try it out and take one for the team.


----------



## sdrucker

zeonstar said:


> I don’t know if this will help you but if you go to post #28286 in this thread
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription#/topics/2202713?page=1416
> 
> It may partially answer your question. I don’t know exactly what pre-rendered Atmos is but it sounds bad!


I get directed right back to the beginning of this Dolby Atmos thread. Can you check to see what the correct link is?


----------



## zeonstar

sdrucker said:


> I get directed right back to the beginning of this Dolby Atmos thread. Can you check to see what the correct link is?


I fixed my post. Sorry I was trying to do that from mobile. Now I am on a real computer!


----------



## zeonstar

So it seems The Mandalorian definitely isn't in Atmos huh? That's really surprising.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zeonstar said:


> So it seems The Mandalorian definitely isn't in Atmos huh? That's really surprising.



Disney's decision making process is schizophrenic.


----------



## zeonstar

Heh. Tell me about it. Let’s remaster all the old movies in Atmos but we will skip it for the BRAND NEW FLAGSHIP SERIES on our new streaming service.


----------



## Nalleh

zeonstar said:


> So it seems The Mandalorian definitely isn't in Atmos huh? That's really surprising.


It is on ATV4K


----------



## zeonstar

That’s what I have. But it wasn’t in Atmos. Other things are like the Star Wars movies but that one only shows 5.1 for me.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> That’s what I have. But it wasn’t in Atmos. Other things are like the Star Wars movies but that one only shows 5.1 for me.


The "Chapter One" of "The Mandalorian" is available in 4K HDR10/DV with DD+Atmos soundtrack (DD+ JOC 5.1 768 kb/s).


----------



## steelman1991

sdrucker said:


> Sentimentally I agree with you, but then you give up on original Netflix content.
> 
> Not sure if I really want to take one for the team (again!) and spring for Disney+ just to find out if the Atmos Star Wars releases are of the "pre-rendered" variety or more interesting than that. Maybe I'll ping the Trinnov thread to see if someone is willing to take over for me on this one.


AFAIK there is a 7 day free trial - go on you know you want to


----------



## skylarlove1999

steelman1991 said:


> AFAIK there is a 7 day free trial - go on you know you want to


The original trilogy is the special edition so unfortunately Greedo still shoots first

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## skylarlove1999

sdrucker said:


> Sentimentally I agree with you, but then you give up on original Netflix content.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if I really want to take one for the team (again!) and spring for Disney+ just to find out if the Atmos Star Wars releases are of the "pre-rendered" variety or more interesting than that. Maybe I'll ping the Trinnov thread to see if someone is willing to take over for me on this one.


It is the special editions of the original trilogy for the Star Wars films so Greedo still shoots first

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## skylarlove1999

Jacob305 said:


> I am able to get dolby atmos off disney plus. I do not have a 4k tv set. I am able to listen to atmos.. many titles including star wars, marvel and pixar . Just have a projector.
> 
> the roku premiere plus is what I have.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob


Roku Ultra give me Dolby Atmos off of Disney Plus.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## steelman1991

skylarlove1999 said:


> The original trilogy is the special edition so unfortunately Greedo still shoots first
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Think Steve's interest was more on the audio configuration, rather than the storylines.


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> The "Chapter One" of "The Mandalorian" is available in 4K HDR10/DV with DD+Atmos soundtrack (DD+ JOC 5.1 768 kb/s).


Are you in the US? Why wouldn't it be in Atmos for me, but other content from the service is. I watched some stuff last night and it was definitely in Atmos. However, the Mandalorian was definitely 5.1. I just don't get it. (imDB also does not list the show as having Atmos which is further confusing matters.)


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> I don’t know exactly what pre-rendered Atmos is but it sounds bad!


The objects in an Atmos soundtrack are supposed to be rendered to your particular speaker layout (scale to whatever speaker layout you have). Pre-rendered Atmos tracks behave like they've already been rendered to a particular speaker layout (e.g., 7.1.4) before being put on disc. So if you have a 7.1.4 speaker layout, it's not a problem because all your speakers will produce sound. However, if you have a 9.1.6 layout, then some of the speakers will be silent, since the soundtrack was pre-rendered for 7.1.4 and cannot scale (render) to your 9.1.6 layout. Some Atmos soundtracks are pre-rendered to 7.1.2, which means only 2 of the 6 overhead speakers will produce sound, with the other 4 remaining silent.


----------



## tigerhonaker

sdurani said:


> The objects in an Atmos soundtrack are supposed to be rendered to your particular speaker layout (scale to whatever speaker layout you have). Pre-rendered Atmos tracks behave like they've already been rendered to a particular speaker layout (e.g., 7.1.4) before being put on disc. So if you have a 7.1.4 speaker layout, it's not a problem because all your speakers will produce sound. However, if you have a 9.1.6 layout, then some of the speakers will be silent, since the soundtrack was pre-rendered for 7.1.4 and cannot scale (render) to your 9.1.6 layout. Some Atmos soundtracks are pre-rendered to 7.1.2, which means only 2 of the 6 overhead speakers will produce sound, with the other 4 remaining silent.


Sanjay,

I don't ever recall any AVS member addressing this as you have above *^^^*.
Thanks for bringing this to all our attentions. 
In my case I had not a clue .........

No Atmos yet but making plans currently for adding it.
Terry


----------



## bobbino421

skylarlove1999 said:


> Jacob305 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am able to get dolby atmos off disney plus. I do not have a 4k tv set. I am able to listen to atmos.. many titles including star wars, marvel and pixar . Just have a projector.
> 
> the roku premiere plus is what I have.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob
> 
> 
> 
> Roku Ultra give me Dolby Atmos off of Disney Plus.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Did you physically check your speaker set up to see if the separate channels were in Atmos, like for example are your height channels firing when you get over head sounds. I only ask cause some others on here are reading Atmos off their AVR and soundbar displays and are not actually getting Atmos with certain devices? As far as I know the ATV4K is the only device capable of proper Atmos at this time with Disney+, I could be wrong a lot of conflicting reports on the forums in different threads! 
But I was sampling A new hope with my ATV4K but was not getting height effects even though it was saying Atmos on my Dennon display. I only watched the opening with the star destroyer over head chasing Rebel ship and the millennium falcon escape from the Death Star and the tie fighter battle right after and nothing? I have to watch the whole movie. It could also mean the Atmos mix isn’t very good for the film. The force awakens my heights we’re firing like crazy in just a few scenes! There are reports of a lot of people also having trouble with Atmos on the ATV4K! I have not seen the mandalorian yet but the screen is showing as 5.1?


----------



## sdrucker

steelman1991 said:


> AFAIK there is a 7 day free trial - go on you know you want to


OK OK, I did the trial, although for $6.99/month someone in the house will appreciate it on our Roku account. I'm going to put on the Star Wars movies (I see that Disney+ Atmos does work on my Roku Ultra, BTW) and see what I can find about whether mixes are just "pre-rendered" to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2, or are more dynamic than that using the 13.4.6 set up I have.

Give me a couple of days and I'll take a look on the Altitude processor input meters to see if the wides and other floor-based presence speakers (front side surrounds, and also left/right centers inside LCR) wake up or are in permanent hibernation...


----------



## zeonstar

sdurani said:


> The objects in an Atmos soundtrack are supposed to be rendered to your particular speaker layout (scale to whatever speaker layout you have). Pre-rendered Atmos tracks behave like they've already been rendered to a particular speaker layout (e.g., 7.1.4) before being put on disc. So if you have a 7.1.4 speaker layout, it's not a problem because all your speakers will produce sound. However, if you have a 9.1.6 layout, then some of the speakers will be silent, since the soundtrack was pre-rendered for 7.1.4 and cannot scale (render) to your 9.1.6 layout. Some Atmos soundtracks are pre-rendered to 7.1.2, which means only 2 of the 6 overhead speakers will produce sound, with the other 4 remaining silent.


Appreciate the explanation, thank you. That stinks that is a thing. One of the best strengths of Atmos is how it scales. I wont ever have more than a 7.1.4 setup, but If I could go more, I would hate to discover some of my Atmos tracks are...limited.

Is there a particular reason why they do this pre-rendered thing?


----------



## bobbino421

Apparently the Mandalorian on the Disney+ App is mislabeled 5.1 on the roku and possibly on the ATV and is actually a Atmos sound mix.


----------



## sdurani

zeonstar said:


> One of the best strengths of Atmos is how it scales.


Agreed. The pre-rendered tracks still qualify as Atmos (base layer + height layer) but they don't take advantage of the native scaling built into the format.


> Is there a particular reason why they do this pre-rendered thing?


From what I've heard, some mixers can hear an audible artifact when objects and channels are combined (clustered). Simple example: imagine an Atmos track that is made up of only 3 Front channels and one object panning through them. When the object pans through the Left channel, there is a chance that combining those sounds will cause the left output to clip (overload). So the level of the Left channel and object have to be reduced by 3dB to keep from clipping. They can go back to their previous levels when the object has panned out of the Left channel. But now the object has to go through the Centre channel, which requires their levels to be attenuated and restored after the pan through. Same when the object pans through the Right channel. 

Most people might not hear these level changes in a busy soundtrack. But with the example above, would the pumping be audible? (And annoying?) Maybe. Remember that Atmos is adjusting levels dynamically (on the fly) as the object moves around and clusters with each of the 3 channels. If you were doing this as a 3-channel mix, you'd keep all 3 channels slightly attenuated because you would know ahead of time which channels the object would be panning through. Neither the Atmos encoder in the studio nor the Atmos decoder in your AVR know ahead of time where that object is going to go, so they have to adjust levels on a moment to moment basis. 

If you could hear that pumping, you'd consider releasing the mix as a 3.0 track rather than an Atmos track. The advantage with the Atmos track is that if you expanded your front soundstage to 5 or 7 speakers, the object would be played back through the speakers placed between the L/C/R speakers. But it might be worth giving up that scaling to avoid the level change artifact (assuming it is audible). BTW, this isn't something new. Prior to Disney, I'd heard the same excuse reason used by other studios.


----------



## Jacob305

bobbino421 said:


> Did you physically check your speaker set up to see if the separate channels were in Atmos, like for example are your height channels firing when you get over head sounds. I only ask cause some others on here are reading Atmos off their AVR and soundbar displays and are not actually getting Atmos with certain devices? As far as I know the ATV4K is the only device capable of proper Atmos at this time with Disney+, I could be wrong a lot of conflicting reports on the forums in different threads!
> But I was sampling A new hope with my ATV4K but was not getting height effects even though it was saying Atmos on my Dennon display. I only watched the opening with the star destroyer over head chasing Rebel ship and the millennium falcon escape from the Death Star and the tie fighter battle right after and nothing? I have to watch the whole movie. It could also mean the Atmos mix isn’t very good for the film. The force awakens my heights we’re firing like crazy in just a few scenes! There are reports of a lot of people also having trouble with Atmos on the ATV4K! I have not seen the mandalorian yet but the screen is showing as 5.1?





my denon 920 said it was dolby atmos.. most of the time I get dolby digital plus and dolby surround.. not atmos. 



Jacob


----------



## zeonstar

sdurani said:


> Agreed. The pre-rendered tracks still qualify as Atmos (base layer + height layer) but they don't take advantage of the native scaling built into the format. From what I've heard, some mixers can hear an audible artifact when objects and channels are combined (clustered). Simple example: imagine an Atmos track that is made up of only 3 Front channels and one object panning through them. When the object pans through the Left channel, there is a chance that combining those sounds will cause the left output to clip (overload). So the level of the Left channel and object have to be reduced by 3dB to keep from clipping. They can go back to their previous levels when the object has panned out of the Left channel. But now the object has to go through the Centre channel, which requires their levels to be attenuated and restored after the pan through. Same when the object pans through the Right channel.
> 
> Most people might not hear these level changes in a busy soundtrack. But with the example above, would the pumping be audible? (And annoying?) Maybe. Remember that Atmos is adjusting levels dynamically (on the fly) as the object moves around and clusters with each of the 3 channels. If you were doing this as a 3-channel mix, you'd keep all 3 channels slightly attenuated because you would know ahead of time which channels the object would be panning through. Neither the Atmos encoder in the studio nor the Atmos decoder in your AVR know ahead of time where that object is going to go, so they have to adjust levels on a moment to moment basis.
> 
> If you could hear that pumping, you'd consider releasing the mix as a 3.0 track rather than an Atmos track. The advantage with the Atmos track is that if you expanded your front soundstage to 5 or 7 speakers, the object would be played back through the speakers placed between the L/C/R speakers. But it might be worth giving up that scaling to avoid the level change artifact (assuming it is audible). BTW, this isn't something new. Prior to Disney, I'd heard the same excuse reason used by other studios.


I appreciate the explanation, thank you!


----------



## noah katz

Sanjay,

Very interesting explanation.

But why would it not apply to other studios' Atmos soundtracks?




sdurani said:


> Agreed. The pre-rendered tracks still qualify as Atmos (base layer + height layer) but they don't take advantage of the native scaling built into the format. From what I've heard, some mixers can hear an audible artifact when objects and channels are combined (clustered). Simple example: imagine an Atmos track that is made up of only 3 Front channels and one object panning through them. When the object pans through the Left channel, there is a chance that combining those sounds will cause the left output to clip (overload). So the level of the Left channel and object have to be reduced by 3dB to keep from clipping. They can go back to their previous levels when the object has panned out of the Left channel. But now the object has to go through the Centre channel, which requires their levels to be attenuated and restored after the pan through. Same when the object pans through the Right channel.
> 
> Most people might not hear these level changes in a busy soundtrack. But with the example above, would the pumping be audible? (And annoying?) Maybe. Remember that Atmos is adjusting levels dynamically (on the fly) as the object moves around and clusters with each of the 3 channels. If you were doing this as a 3-channel mix, you'd keep all 3 channels slightly attenuated because you would know ahead of time which channels the object would be panning through. Neither the Atmos encoder in the studio nor the Atmos decoder in your AVR know ahead of time where that object is going to go, so they have to adjust levels on a moment to moment basis.
> 
> If you could hear that pumping, you'd consider releasing the mix as a 3.0 track rather than an Atmos track. The advantage with the Atmos track is that if you expanded your front soundstage to 5 or 7 speakers, the object would be played back through the speakers placed between the L/C/R speakers. But it might be worth giving up that scaling to avoid the level change artifact (assuming it is audible). BTW, this isn't something new. Prior to Disney, I'd heard the same excuse reason used by other studios.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Very interesting explanation.


Not my explanation, just the one that seemed to make most sense out of the various explanations I've been told.


> But why would it not apply to other studios' Atmos soundtracks?


Dunno. Maybe other studios are translating theatrical tracks to home manually (with liberal massaging) rather than some automated process or maybe they don't hear any artifacting or...? 

When home Atmos debuted in 2014, one of the earliest Blu-ray titles promoted was the Dwayne Johnson starrer _'Hercules'_ (which I had seen in Atmos theatrically). When the BD arrived, it was 7.1. No Atmos. When I asked around, I was told that it had to do with the studios hearing artifacts on the home Atmos encode, maybe related to spatial coding (clustering). I kinda dismissed it at the time. How come other early Atmos BDs didn't have this problem? 

A couple years later, the number of home Atmos titles was supposed to take a sudden jump when Fox delved into 4K UHD. Their first batch of 14 or 16 UHDs showed up and not an Atmos soundtrack in sight (even though many of those movies had theatrical Atmos tracks). When I asked around, same story about audible artifacts. 

Who knows, maybe that's Disney's reason as well (though it doesn't explain the lack of bass and crushed dynamics). 5 years into the format and I'm starting to wonder if DTS was on to something with their channel-based encodes. Still, other studios seem to be taking full advantage of the home Atmos format without a problem. So if you (or anyone) has heard a better explanation, I'm all ears.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Agreed. The pre-rendered tracks still qualify as Atmos (base layer + height layer) but they don't take advantage of the native scaling built into the format. From what I've heard, *some mixers can hear an audible artifact when objects and channels are combined* (clustered).
> [...]
> . BTW, this isn't something new. Prior to Disney, I'd heard the same excuse reason used by other studios.


A-ha! Thankyou. 

What's new IIRC is that this is the first time I've actually seen any understandable reason for doing it that way, written down into a post here which is so clearly explained 

Presumably, if Dolby had jumped on that artefact problem and fixed it fully, nice and early say in 2015, the studios would not have this excuse available to them now.



sdurani said:


> Still, other studios seem to be taking full advantage of the home Atmos format without a problem. So if you (or anyone) has heard a better explanation, *I'm all ears*.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Not my explanation, just the one that seemed to make most sense out of the various explanations I've been told. Dunno. Maybe other studios are translating theatrical tracks to home manually (with liberal massaging) rather than some automated process or maybe they don't hear any artifacting or...?
> 
> When home Atmos debuted in 2014, one of the earliest Blu-ray titles promoted was the Dwayne Johnson starrer _'Hercules'_ (which I had seen in Atmos theatrically). When the BD arrived, it was 7.1. No Atmos. When I asked around, I was told that it had to do with the studios hearing artifacts on the home Atmos encode, maybe related to spatial coding (clustering). I kinda dismissed it at the time. How come other early Atmos BDs didn't have this problem?
> 
> A couple years later, the number of home Atmos titles was supposed to take a sudden jump when Fox delved into 4K UHD. Their first batch of 14 or 16 UHDs showed up and not an Atmos soundtrack in sight (even though many of those movies had theatrical Atmos tracks). When I asked around, same story about audible artifacts.
> 
> Who knows, maybe that's Disney's reason as well (though it doesn't explain the lack of bass and crushed dynamics). 5 years into the format and I'm starting to wonder if DTS was on to something with their channel-based encodes. Still, other studios seem to be taking full advantage of the home Atmos format without a problem. So if you (or anyone) has heard a better explanation, I'm all ears.


My cynical side will have more of an opinion on this when Disney+ has its content for The Last Jedi or Solo on their service with Atmos. If the mix is 1:1 identical to what we already have with "Atmos Lite", that's one thing and it would provide additional backing for your theory. If it's more scalable with "Atmos Platinum" (my names are an inside joke from last year) , then I have to wonder if there's a marketing tier imperative at work.

The simple explanation is probably right, meaning your theory is possibly closer to the truth.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> If it's more scalable with "Atmos Platinum" (my names are an inside joke from last year) , then I have to wonder if there's a marketing tier imperative at work.


Marketing as in making streaming appear to be the better choice for Atmos compared to those same titles on disc?


----------



## Azekecse

Ok I found this odd, on my XboxX Rogue One is not native Dolby Atmos, however on my Apple 4K TV it is Dolby Atmos, go figure. Thoughts anyone?

Peace and blessings,

Azeke


----------



## bobbino421

So my Denon X4500H is displays Multi ch PCM for the mandalorian on my ATV4K. That’s pretty disappointing that it’s not Atmos!


----------



## noah katz

mrtickleuk said:


> What's new IIRC is that this is the first time I've actually seen any understandable reason for doing it that way, written down into a post here which is so clearly explained



Same here; last thing I remember is no plausible reason, and Marc knowing something but not being permitted to share it.

If this is the reason, what I find surprising is that there's not sufficient dynamic range that they couldn't just lower soundtracks' overall level by whatever amount necessary to prevent clipping.


----------



## sdurani

mrtickleuk said:


> What's new IIRC is that this is the first time I've actually seen any understandable reason for doing it that way, written down into a post here which is so clearly explained


Thanx. My inspiration:


Roger Dressler said:


> Until we came to this new understanding, it was not quite so obvious to me what aspect of spatial coding was triggering negative reactions at DisneyLand. But with the bed channels more directly involved, I could speculate as follows.
> 
> Consider how spatial coding works. On a moment to moment basis it evaluates all the incoming objects and condenses them to utilize x number of final objects based on what will best minimize spatial errors and other criteria. Finally, those bitstream objects are rendered to the available speakers at home.
> 
> So let's say the movie has a bunch of music objects parked around the room. Spatial coding will cluster them into objects in pattern A. I would submit that playing these back would result in no audible artefacts from the spatial coding process.
> 
> Now here comes some other object, moving, like a drive-by. Spatial coding will create object pattern B to reflect the needs of the new object relative to the other music objects. Pattern B will actually be patterns B1, B2, B3 in a continuous sequence as the drive-by object moves over time.
> 
> Each time the object pattern changes, the stationary music components will be altered within the output objects, and thus rendered ever so slightly differently among the speakers in the region near the drive-by. Those small changes in the music components may be calculated to sum to a constant power for each successive pattern to minimize artefacts, but the human ear might still detect something is going on.
> 
> To whatever extent such minimal artefacts are produced by spatial rendering, they are not present when directly rendering the original theatrical mix to any given set of speakers, be it 2, 5, 7.1.4, 50.1... Hence, pre-rendering eliminates that issue.
> 
> If anyone wants to read more about the many strategies that might be used to optimize the spatial coding process, see *Dolby's patent application on clustering*. But regardless of the strategy, it appears safe to say that spatial coding can be though of as a form of lossy bitrate reduction perceptual coding, much like MP3 or DD+. They serve a valuable purpose, but their fingerprints are sometimes audible.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Marketing as in making streaming appear to be the better choice for Atmos compared to those same titles on disc?


That might seem odd to us, but if it a) helps promote a proprietary service and b) they get more incremental volume in revenue with the audience from a subscription service than from licensing/royalties from a “perpetual” one-time purchase of shiny discs on an individual basis, it might be the better choice for an entertainment provider.

Factor in continual revenue vs. cost and churn (how long subscribers stay, when they are predicted to drop out, continued subscription growth, etc.) and the answer may be that Disney is operating to plan.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> That might seem odd to us, but if it a) helps promote a proprietary service and b) they get more incremental volume in revenue with the audience from a subscription service than from licensing/royalties from a “perpetual” one-time purchase of shiny discs on an individual basis, it might be the better choice for an entertainment provider.
> 
> Factor in continual revenue vs. cost and churn (how long subscribers stay, when they are predicted to drop out, continued subscription growth, etc.) and the answer may be that Disney is operating to plan.


Sure, from a business perspective it makes a certain amount of sense. As a consumer, I might not like it, but I don't have shareholders to answer to. 

I'd still be surprised if they went through the extra expense of having two tiers of Atmos mixes, just so they could use the better one with their streaming service as an enticement (who is going to pay attention to such minutiae besides us hobbyists?).


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Thanx. My inspiration:...



Ah, I remember reading that but it didn't register on me that it might be something as annoying as pumping.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Ah, I remember reading that but it didn't register on me that it might be something as annoying as pumping.


Might not be. Keep in mind that all of this is speculation. Albeit speculation that makes more sense than other theories. But it's not like Disney has issued a press release confirming any of it.


----------



## joms

I am planning to buy a Denon X3500 and install a klipsch in-ceiling speaker to get a 5.1.2 setup. 

My question is, will my klipsch in-ceiling height speaker work if the video i am watching is not encoded with Atmos? Will it just remain silent or is there a mixing feature in the amp that will make the in-ceiling height speaker still function while watching non-Atmos movies/videos? 

note: I mostly watch from netflix streaming and other households watch netflix korean drama films which im sure isn't atmos encoded. We dont play blurays. 

Am I just wasting my money in installing an in-ceiling height speaker if i mostly watch non-Atmos videos/movies? 

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

joms said:


> I am planning to buy a Denon X3500 and install a klipsch in-ceiling speaker to get a 5.1.2 setup.
> 
> My question is, will my klipsch in-ceiling height speaker work if the video i am watching is not encoded with Atmos? Will it just remain silent or is there a mixing feature in the amp that will make the in-ceiling height speaker still function while watching non-Atmos movies/videos?
> 
> note: I mostly watch from netflix streaming and other households watch netflix korean drama films which im sure isn't atmos encoded. We dont play blurays.
> 
> Am I just wasting my money in installing an in-ceiling height speaker if i mostly watch non-Atmos videos/movies?
> 
> Thanks.



Channel-based soundtracks can be upmixed with Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X, which will pull certain sounds into the overhead speakers. If you want the best and the most content in Dolby Atmos and DTS: X (lossless), you need a 4k Blu-ray player and discs. Streaming alone won't cut it.


----------



## joms

Dan Hitchman said:


> Channel-based soundtracks can be upmixed with Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X, which will pull certain sounds into the overhead speakers. If you want the best and the most content in Dolby Atmos and DTS: X (lossless), you need a 4k Blu-ray player and discs. Streaming alone won't cut it.


So if i am solely watching movies via netflix streaming 100% of the time, do you think it is a waste to install in-ceiling speakers or will the upmixed signal via dolby surround or DTS Netural X still give me my money's worth?


----------



## farsider3000

Just confirmed re: Disney streaming:

1.) A new hope looks fantastic in 4K on Apple TV 4K but Atmos ceiling sounds seem to be mapped to my middle row (I have three rows of ceiling speakers ).... at least in opening few minutes

2.) The Mandalorian shows as 5.1 and it seems to play in 5.1 as I am getting no sound from my rear or ceiling speakers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

farsider3000 said:


> Just confirmed re: Disney streaming:
> 
> 1.) A new hope looks fantastic in 4K on Apple TV 4K but Atmos ceiling sounds seem to be mapped to my middle row (I have three rows of ceiling speakers ).... at least in opening few minutes
> 
> 2.) The Mandalorian shows as 5.1 and it seems to play in 5.1 as I am getting no sound from my rear or ceiling speakers
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



1) It sounds like it's another one of those Atmoused 7.1.2 print-outs. F--king Disney!!


----------



## farsider3000

joms said:


> So if i am solely watching movies via netflix streaming 100% of the time, do you think it is a waste to install in-ceiling speakers or will the upmixed signal via dolby surround or DTS Netural X still give me my money's worth?



It is well worth it in my opinion since many Netflix original shows and movies are in Atmos. Many shows have great mixes that really take advantage of Atmos!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

joms said:


> So if i am solely watching movies via netflix streaming 100% of the time, do you think it is a waste to install in-ceiling speakers or will the upmixed signal via dolby surround or DTS Netural X still give me my money's worth?



It can help flesh out the audio a bit. However, I STRONGLY recommend getting content from discs too. Lossless audio (instead of lossy) and MORE immersive audio source material (not to mention usually better picture quality). Netflix streaming is sorely lacking for a variety of content.


For instance... if you like Stranger Things, the 4k disc sets look and sound better than the streaming version.


----------



## noah katz

farsider3000 said:


> It is well worth it in my opinion since many Netflix original shows and movies are in Atmos. Many shows have great mixes that really take advantage of Atmos!



And it's not just w/native Atmos; upmixing works great, even on OTA TV shows (though perhaps that's expected because of less compression than streaming).


----------



## joms

Thanks guys, by the way im from the Philippines so buying Blue-ray discs are somewhat expensive for us in the 3rd world country. (FYI, our minimum wage here is roughly USD $240/month).

Anyway, i'm decided now to install an atmos in-ceiling height speaker (klipsch CDT-3650-C II). The question now is, is there a reason i should go for a higher model than the amplifier I am interested to purchase which is the Denon X3500H. I only plan to use it on a 5.1.2 system (bedroom at 15sqm)

Thanks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

joms said:


> Thanks guys, by the way im from the Philippines so buying Blue-ray discs are somewhat expensive for us in the 3rd world country. (FYI, our minimum wage here is roughly USD $240/month).
> 
> Anyway, i'm decided now to install an atmos in-ceiling height speaker (klipsch CDT-3650-C II). The question now is, is there a reason i should go for a higher model than the amplifier I am interested to purchase which is the Denon X3500H. I only plan to use it on a 5.1.2 system (bedroom at 15sqm)
> 
> Thanks.


If all you plan to do is 5.1.2 in a small room then the x3500 is good enough. If you want better object placement and movement, then you need a model that will allow for 5.1.4 decoding. I've put 4 overheads in a bedroom before and it can work. 4 overheads are better than 2.


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that all of this is speculation. Albeit speculation that makes more sense than other theories.


Very interesting speculation.
That brings 2 thoughts into my head:
a) Looks like Atmos needs some headroom to avoid clipping due to summation of objects and beds. The bad thing seems to be - it is needed on DAC input side, as I believe this summation occurs in digital domain?
b) I still do not fully understand this spatial coding. Especially the reason for artefacts we are discussing here. I imagined, that this spatial coding is just a signal compaction scheme to fit into the available 16 digital channels (8 in case of DD+?) in the transport stream. I thought that this won't affect the freedom to locate and size them objects in space (metadata remains unaltered). Do I overlook something important? Need to read the patent, perhaps...


----------



## sdrucker

farsider3000 said:


> Just confirmed re: Disney streaming:
> 
> 1.) A new hope looks fantastic in 4K on Apple TV 4K but Atmos ceiling sounds seem to be mapped to my middle row (I have three rows of ceiling speakers ).... at least in opening few minutes


Not completely. I put it on with the Altitude's meters and there's at least three scenes where there's sporadic use of other Atmos presence speakers than Top Middles and the 7.1 beds. 

Notably a few scenes with Luke and his speeder when he's on Tatooine (going to his uncle's house after the massacre of the Jawas), when the Millennium Falcon comes out of hyperdrive and is getting hit by debris from Alderaan (everything momentarily gets activated and sound comes around you, among my front and rear heights, wides and front side surrounds), and the landing on Yavin. There's more at the beginning of the movie, but I wound up putting the movie on where it left off on Tuesday, and my iPad needed charging so I stopped right after they got on Yavin.

However, these fall into "blink or you'll miss them", maybe 5-10 seconds each if that. I'm going to rewatch the first 30 minutes and also the epic battle with Tie Fighters around the Death Star and see if I notice other scenes tomorrow and if they're more sustained.

One odd thing in how the movie was mixed is that the front and rear heights don't get activated except for object passthrough, but they're used more than, say, Saving Private Ryan. This is one movie where I might try my preset that is .4 for less clinical listing. Although to be honest the mix is immersive enough that you don't notice with one row of seats.



> 2.) The Mandalorian shows as 5.1 and it seems to play in 5.1 as I am getting no sound from my rear or ceiling speakers


Haven't tried that but I will tomorrow.


----------



## tigerhonaker

joms said:


> Thanks guys, by the way im from the Philippines so buying Blue-ray discs are somewhat expensive for us in the 3rd world country.
> 
> *(FYI, our minimum wage here is roughly USD $240/month).*
> 
> Anyway, i'm decided now to install an atmos in-ceiling height speaker (klipsch CDT-3650-C II). The question now is, is there a reason i should go for a higher model than the amplifier I am interested to purchase which is the Denon X3500H. I only plan to use it on a 5.1.2 system (bedroom at 15sqm)
> 
> Thanks.


Joms,

Now that does actually surprises me.   

I had no idea about income where you are but that seems to be low ..............

Terry


----------



## Swoosh830

farsider3000 said:


> 1.) A new hope looks fantastic in 4K on Apple TV 4K but Atmos ceiling sounds seem to be mapped to my middle row (I have three rows of ceiling speakers ).... at least in opening few minutes





sdrucker said:


> Not completely. I put it on with the Altitude's meters and there's at least three scenes where there's sporadic use of other Atmos presence speakers than Top Middles and the 7.1 beds.


Are the ceiling speakers assigned as TF/TM/TR in these cases?

If so, would assigning them as FH/TM/RH make any difference whatsoever? I'm assuming not, but I thought I'd get feedback from those who know much more about this than I do.


----------



## Josh Z

farsider3000 said:


> The Mandalorian shows as 5.1 and it seems to play in 5.1 as I am getting no sound from my rear or ceiling speakers


The Mandalorian is mislabeled as 5.1 on the Disney+ menus (whereas other shows and movies correctly state Atmos when available), but the soundtrack plays as Atmos through Roku. Could be an issue with Apple TV not passing the signal correctly on that one.


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> I put it on with the Altitude's meters and there's at least three scenes where there's sporadic use of other Atmos presence speakers than Top Middles and the 7.1 beds.
> 
> However, these fall into "blink or you'll miss them", maybe 5-10 seconds each if that.


So then @farsider3000 is correct: seems 99% of the height info is in the Top Middles.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> Looks like Atmos needs some headroom to avoid clipping due to summation of objects and beds.


Would be difficult to guess how much attenuation would be needed since the combining is constantly/dynamically changing, what with up to 10 channels and up to 118 objects clustering and unclustering.


> I still do not fully understand this spatial coding.


Fancy way of saying combining or clustering the various channels & objects into a manageable number for home Atmos delivery.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Would be difficult to guess how much attenuation would be needed since the combining is constantly/dynamically changing, what with up to 10 channels and up to 118 objects clustering and unclustering.



Wouldn't this mean that Atmos soundtracks are intrinsically louder, or at least have greater dynamic range, than the same channel-based track that doesn't have the clipping issue?


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Wouldn't this mean that Atmos soundtracks are intrinsically louder, or at least have greater dynamic range, than the same channel-based track that doesn't have the clipping issue?


Never measured & compared average levels of Atmos tracks vs their 7.1 counterparts.


----------



## dr515

bobbino421 said:


> So my Denon X4500H is displays Multi ch PCM for the mandalorian on my ATV4K. That’s pretty disappointing that it’s not Atmos!



My Denon X4300H displays Dolby Surround but the indicator lights show Atmos speakers and they are playing sound. Still wish the display showed "Dolby Atmos"- does for Netflix

LG 77 C8 - LG App
??


----------



## Bond 007

dr515 said:


> My Denon X4300H displays Dolby Surround but the indicator lights show Atmos speakers and they are playing sound. Still wish the display showed "Dolby Atmos"- does for Netflix
> 
> LG 77 C8 - LG App
> ??


Source is not Atmos.


----------



## dr515

Bond 007 said:


> Source is not Atmos.


Suggestions?
Thanks in advance


----------



## Bond 007

dr515 said:


> Suggestions?
> Thanks in advance


Contact Disney?


----------



## dr515

Bond 007 said:


> Contact Disney?




Seems to be LG app, noted on another thread


sent feedback to Disney and LG


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Ah, I remember reading that but it didn't register on me that it might be something as annoying as pumping.


I did not mention pumping in my prognostications. In fact, I ruled that out by saying constant power was maintained.


----------



## bobbino421

There are a few reports of the Mandalorian getting Atmos from the ATV4K but it’s sporadic.
There has to be an issue with app with that particular title. I get Atmos all day long with content that has it! I just want more clarification on why one device is getting it.


----------



## bobbino421

Bond 007 said:


> dr515 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggestions?
> Thanks in advance
> 
> 
> 
> Contact Disney?
Click to expand...

I emailed them earlier have not received a response yet.


----------



## Roger Dressler

noah katz said:


> Wouldn't this mean that Atmos soundtracks are intrinsically louder, or at least have greater dynamic range, than the same channel-based track that doesn't have the clipping issue?


Dolby gives a hint about this in the Atmos Production Suite Guide.


> You should use the 7.1 full mix re-render for loudness measurement during post production to ensure that content meets delivery specifications.


To me, that implies the overall program loudness (and peaks) should conform to the same specs as a 7.1 mix. The side benefit of course being that the immersive mix does not have to be hammered down to fit through a 7.1 pipe. (Assuming they are aware of these delivery requirements when mixing.)

That is consistent with the advice DTS offers, which is to have loudness metering looking at the 5.1 render of the soundtrack available while creating the full immersive mix. This makes sure that the immersive mix's essence will be preserved in 5.1 (and 7.1) cinemas, which are still the bread and butter of the industry.


----------



## Roger Dressler

priitv8 said:


> I still do not fully understand this spatial coding. Especially the reason for artefacts we are discussing here. I imagined, that this spatial coding is just a signal compaction scheme to fit into the available 16 digital channels (8 in case of DD+?) in the transport stream. I thought that this won't affect the freedom to locate and size them objects in space (metadata remains unaltered). Do I overlook something important? Need to read the patent, perhaps...


Aside from Sanjay's reply, I'd add that by the time the signal is down to 16 channels, spatial coding is already finished. Fitting the 16, or more commonly 12) elements into the bitstream is the task for TrueHD (lossless) or DD+ (lossy) coding. 

A concise overview is in the same Atmos Production Suite Guide I mentioned in the previous post. Though it only says: "side metadata is generated to extract the individual objects from the mix" which is a vague reference to JOC (joint object coding, aka parametric coding). This is the technique used in the DD+ stream to compress the object audio much more than the DD+ lossy process used for the main channels, a deeper topic you might find interesting.


----------



## joms

*Need help*











Planned system:
TV = Samsung 78"
Amp = Denon X3500H or X4500H
Speakers = Klipsch RP-600M
Sub = 1x SVS PC13 Ultra
Center = Klipsch RP-504C
Surround = Mission M7DS Bipolar
Atmos Height 1 = 2x Klipsch in-ceiling CDT-3650-C II
Atmos Height 2 = 2x Klipsch in-ceiling CDT-3650-C II

Note1: This will be done in our Bedroom. Room size is around 15sqm. Ceiling height is around 9 feet. There is a bay window in front where the TV and speakers sit. There is a big window on the right side as well.
Note2: No space for another subwoofer unless I give up my SVS PC13 Ultra and get 2x small SVS SB12 (sealed)
Note3: This will be used for 100% movies/video via Netflix. No blueray player and no music listening and the like. 


Question: 

1) With my room setup, will I see a significant benefit in going 5.1.4 or should 5.1.2 be good enough? (note: additional $1000+ to go 5.1.4)
2) In "A" (see picture), will it be a problem if my Atmos rear speakers are just on top of the MLP and not in the rear? 
3) In "B" (see picture), what would be the best surround for me, monopole or bipole? (should i get a new surround or is my current mission M7ds good enough? I read somewhere that Atmos doesn't work well with bipolar/dipolar speakers that much)
4) In "B" (see picture), should I angle the surround speakers downwards? It is currently around 5 feet above ear level.


----------



## noah katz

Very interesting, thanks, Roger.

So it looks like we're back to having no satisfying answer.




Roger Dressler said:


> I did not mention pumping in my prognostications. In fact, I ruled that out by saying constant power was maintained.





Roger Dressler said:


> Dolby gives a hint about this in the Atmos Production Suite Guide. To me, that implies the overall program loudness (and peaks) should conform to the same specs as a 7.1 mix. The side benefit of course being that the immersive mix does not have to be hammered down to fit through a 7.1 pipe. (Assuming they are aware of these delivery requirements when mixing.)
> 
> That is consistent with the advice DTS offers, which is to have loudness metering looking at the 5.1 render of the soundtrack available while creating the full immersive mix. This makes sure that the immersive mix's essence will be preserved in 5.1 (and 7.1) cinemas, which are still the bread and butter of the industry.


----------



## chi_guy50

joms said:


> Question:
> 
> 1) With my room setup, will I see a significant benefit in going 5.1.4 or should 5.1.2 be good enough? (note: additional $1000+ to go 5.1.4)
> 2) In "A" (see picture), will it be a problem if my Atmos rear speakers are just on top of the MLP and not in the rear?
> 3) In "B" (see picture), what would be the best surround for me, monopole or bipole? (should i get a new surround or is my current mission M7ds good enough? I read somewhere that Atmos doesn't work well with bipolar/dipolar speakers that much)
> 4) In "B" (see picture), should I angle the surround speakers downwards? *It is currently around 5 feet above ear level.*



Your elevated surrounds are the most significant problem you have to resolve. There is little point in going to the trouble and expense of installing overhead speakers unless you can find a way to lower your surrounds.


----------



## Chirosamsung

joms said:


> Thanks guys, by the way im from the Philippines so buying Blue-ray discs are somewhat expensive for us in the 3rd world country. (FYI, our minimum wage here is roughly USD $240/month).
> 
> Anyway, i'm decided now to install an atmos in-ceiling height speaker (klipsch CDT-3650-C II). The question now is, is there a reason i should go for a higher model than the amplifier I am interested to purchase which is the Denon X3500H. I only plan to use it on a 5.1.2 system (bedroom at 15sqm)
> 
> Thanks.


I would go with a NAD 758-it is relatively inexpensive for what it gives you. Can drive all 7 channels and has DIRAC which is the best room correction software you can get under about 10 grand.


----------



## sdurani

joms said:


> No space for another subwoofer unless I give up my SVS PC13 Ultra and get 2x small SVS SB12 (sealed)


Single sub against a side wall can result in a bass null at the midpoint of room width (your main listening position). You can avoid that by moving the sub to the midpoint of room width OR using two subs placed on opposite side walls.


> With my room setup, will I see a significant benefit in going 5.1.4 or should 5.1.2 be good enough? (note: additional $1000+ to go 5.1.4)


With your seating against the back wall AND your surrounds elevated, I would stick to a 5.1.2 layout (height speakers will be well separated from all the base layer speakers).


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> So then @farsider3000 is correct: seems 99% of the height info is in the Top Middles.


If you mean 99% of the time (as opposed to 100%), I think that's unfortunately about right. After watching A New Hope again last night, there's probably collectively less than two minutes of scenes that aren't 7.1.2 which both show up on the Input Meters and are audible. it's almost as conservative use of the Atmos format as, say, Apocalypse Now. I mentioned the debris from Alderaan after the Millenium Falcon came out of hyperspace; likewise there's a scene where a number of speakers fleetingly light up for 5-10 seconds after the Death Star is destroyed. Still not 100% 7.1.2, for what that's worth, so it's not literally 100% Atmouse. At best the height content aside from top middle and speakers like wides are used as a final exclamation point, and nothing like, say, Gravity.

So far I'd say the same thing about The Empire Strikes Back, but I still think it's an enjoyable mix. And the bass, at least in my setup with four subs, doesn't seem particularly lacking in either ANH or Empire, although I'm not sure about whether the dynamic range is anything but Disneyfied.


----------



## usc1995

sdrucker said:


> If you mean 99% of the time (as opposed to 100%), I think that's unfortunately about right. After watching A New Hope again last night, there's probably collectively less than two minutes of scenes that aren't 7.1.2 which both show up on the Input Meters and are audible. it's almost as conservative use of the Atmos format as, say, Apocalypse Now. I mentioned the debris from Alderaan after the Millenium Falcon came out of hyperspace; likewise there's a scene where a number of speakers fleetingly light up for 5-10 seconds after the Death Star is destroyed. Still not 100% 7.1.2, for what that's worth, so it's not literally 100% Atmouse. At best the height content aside from top middle and speakers like wides are used as a final exclamation point, and nothing like, say, Gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> So far I'd say the same thing about The Empire Strikes Back, but I still think it's an enjoyable mix. And the bass, at least in my setup with four subs, doesn't seem particularly lacking in either ANH or Empire, although I'm not sure about whether the dynamic range is anything but Disneyfied.




Can you check out The Force Awakens when you get a chance? The YouTuber SpareChange gave the mix a pretty positive review that sounds different than the Atmouse mixes we have had to deal with. I typically agree with his reviews and am curious if they measure via your Trinnov meters any better than what we have seen with the other mixes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

For reference 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## am2model3

star wars 4k atmos on disney plus sounded cool until we get the real results. 



the blu rays with dts hd upmixed with Neural X or DSU sound great as is!


----------



## joms

chi_guy50 said:


> Your elevated surrounds are the most significant problem you have to resolve. There is little point in going to the trouble and expense of installing overhead speakers unless you can find a way to lower your surrounds.


Can't i just angle my surrounds downwards?


----------



## joms

sdurani said:


> Single sub against a side wall can result in a bass null at the midpoint of room width (your main listening position). You can avoid that by moving the sub to the midpoint of room width OR using two subs placed on opposite side walls. With your seating against the back wall AND your surrounds elevated, I would stick to a 5.1.2 layout (height speakers will be well separated from all the base layer speakers).


Thanks. 

If I go 2x SVS 12SB, I can only place them in front 1 meter apart. I can't put them on the outer edges as those are have closet doors and fixed computer table. There's really no more space to move it around.

Would the 2x SVS SB12 NSD 1 meter apart in front be better than 1x SVS PC12 Ultra?

May I also know the reason why you think 5.1.2 layout would be better for me instead of 5.1.4?

Thanks.


----------



## farsider3000

joms said:


> Planned system:
> 
> TV = Samsung 78"
> 
> Amp = Denon X3500H or X4500H
> 
> Speakers = Klipsch RP-600M
> 
> Sub = 1x SVS PC13 Ultra
> 
> Center = Klipsch RP-504C
> 
> Surround = Mission M7DS Bipolar
> 
> Atmos Height 1 = 2x Klipsch in-ceiling CDT-3650-C II
> 
> Atmos Height 2 = 2x Klipsch in-ceiling CDT-3650-C II
> 
> 
> 
> Note1: This will be done in our Bedroom. Room size is around 15sqm. Ceiling height is around 9 feet. There is a bay window in front where the TV and speakers sit. There is a big window on the right side as well.
> 
> Note2: No space for another subwoofer unless I give up my SVS PC13 Ultra and get 2x small SVS SB12 (sealed)
> 
> Note3: This will be used for 100% movies/video via Netflix. No blueray player and no music listening and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) With my room setup, will I see a significant benefit in going 5.1.4 or should 5.1.2 be good enough? (note: additional $1000+ to go 5.1.4)
> 
> 2) In "A" (see picture), will it be a problem if my Atmos rear speakers are just on top of the MLP and not in the rear?
> 
> 3) In "B" (see picture), what would be the best surround for me, monopole or bipole? (should i get a new surround or is my current mission M7ds good enough? I read somewhere that Atmos doesn't work well with bipolar/dipolar speakers that much)
> 
> 4) In "B" (see picture), should I angle the surround speakers downwards? It is currently around 5 feet above ear level.




Lower your surrounds to no more than 12 inches above ear height. You don’t need four ceiling speakers since the back row will reflect off the back wall and create too much sound from the rear. It is also never recommended to place the seating directly against the back wall. Atmos speakers should be mounted a bit closer together to avoid reflections from side wall.

Can you provide a drawing with dimensions ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## chi_guy50

joms said:


> Can't i just angle my surrounds downwards?



There are a number of things you could do to mitigate the problem, but the fact remains that you have severely compromised one of the basic tenets of Dolby Atmos immersive audio: the creation of three-dimensional sound through the use of a biplanar speaker layout involving listener-level (e.g., 7.1) and overhead (e.g., x.x.4) speakers.

Here's the caveat from the Dolby Atmos® for the Home Theater white paper: 


*" . . . It is important not to position listener-level speakers too high on the wall. At the listener level or 2 feet higher is optimal. Avoid placing your speakers close to the ceiling as this will also disrupt the accurate positioning of objects in the listening space. Installing listener-level speakers and overhead speakers in the ceiling of the room is equally a non-desirable solution for recreating the immersiveness and object movement of Dolby Atmos."
*


----------



## noah katz

joms said:


> Can't i just angle my surrounds downwards?



That would give you more high freq, but it doesn't change the direction the sound is coming from.


----------



## joms

farsider3000 said:


> Lower your surrounds to no more than 12 inches above ear height. You don’t need four ceiling speakers since the back row will reflect off the back wall and create too much sound from the rear. It is also never recommended to place the seating directly against the back wall. Atmos speakers should be mounted a bit closer together to avoid reflections from side wall.
> 
> Can you provide a drawing with dimensions ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


- I can't lower the surrounds because if i do then the left surround would be mounted on the door (the drawing isnt entirely accurate, the door is bigger than what is shown)
- Also, I have no option to adjust the seating place since it's a king size bed which can't be moved anymore due to space constraints.
- Thanks for pointing out that i don't need to go 4 ceiling speakers for my setup. That would save me $1000+


----------



## joms

chi_guy50 said:


> There are a number of things you could do to mitigate the problem, but the fact remains that you have severely compromised one of the basic tenets of Dolby Atmos immersive audio: the creation of three-dimensional sound through the use of a biplanar speaker layout involving listener-level (e.g., 7.1) and overhead (e.g., x.x.4) speakers.
> 
> Here's the caveat from the Dolby Atmos® for the Home Theater white paper:
> 
> 
> *" . . . It is important not to position listener-level speakers too high on the wall. At the listener level or 2 feet higher is optimal. Avoid placing your speakers close to the ceiling as this will also disrupt the accurate positioning of objects in the listening space. Installing listener-level speakers and overhead speakers in the ceiling of the room is equally a non-desirable solution for recreating the immersiveness and object movement of Dolby Atmos."
> *


Would it be better to position the surround speakers on the wall behind the bed? Problem is, it will still be high near the ceiling as WAF will certainly object placing the surrounds behind our pillows lol.


----------



## joms

noah katz said:


> That would give you more high freq, but it doesn't change the direction the sound is coming from.



So given my situation where I can't bring the surrounds down (not really an option since if i do, the left surrounds will be located at the bathroom door), would you still opt to point the surround downwards or just make it remain mounted as it is in its current location as shown in the picture?


----------



## chi_guy50

joms said:


> Would it be better to position the surround speakers on the wall behind the bed? Problem is, it will still be high near the ceiling as WAF will certainly object placing the surrounds behind our pillows lol.



If I were in your shoes (and I have been there), I would not bother with overhead speakers until you can get the surrounds down near ear level. Perhaps you can find a way with a little ingenuity. If not, I would try to obtain the best 5.1 performance possible--an admirable achievement in itself.

As I said, I have been in your position. I had installed in-ceiling surrounds because I could not figure out a way to set them up otherwise in my living room HT. But I eventually devised a plan for getting speaker wires to the back of the room and I then repurposed the in-ceiling speakers for my rear heights by installing an identical pair in front of the MLP. That could be a way forward for you.

OTOH, Sanjay (who has probably forgotten more about sound reproduction than any of us will ever learn) seems to think that you can make a decent 5.1.2 setup out of your current situation. There is definitely more than one approach; it's up to you to decide which solution best suits your needs.


----------



## noah katz

I looked back and don't see where it said how high your surrounds are, but if I were in your situation I'd move the tops closer together to increase the angular separation from the surrounds.

It will also make the sounds more clearly come from "up".


Based on my experience, I disagree with the recommendation against bipolars for surrounds; dipoles are another matter.

I've found that for surrounds, the more reflected vs. direct sound the better, and moreso the closer they are to you.

The creation of an ambient soundfield that transports you to the scene's environment is far more important to me than precision of location of the odd gunshot or shout.

And you don't lose all directionality with bipolars (or even omnipolars, which I have); that's guaranteed by the way our ears/brain respond to first arriving sounds.

You already have them so listen for yourself.


----------



## sdurani

joms said:


> Would the 2x SVS SB12 NSD 1 meter apart in front be better than 1x SVS PC12 Ultra?


Yes, but only if you can place the subs symmetrically on both sides of the room centre line.


> May I also know the reason why you think 5.1.2 layout would be better for me instead of 5.1.4?


Keeps height info well separated from surround info. Otherwise the rear height speakers would end up being overpowered by the elevated surrounds.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Just save some money and do 5.1


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> joms said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the 2x SVS SB12 NSD 1 meter apart in front be better than 1x SVS PC12 Ultra?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only if you can place the subs symmetrically on both sides of the room centre line.
> 
> 
> 
> May I also know the reason why you think 5.1.2 layout would be better for me instead of 5.1.4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keeps height info well separated from surround info. Otherwise the rear height speakers would end up being overpowered by the elevated surrounds.
Click to expand...

I have 2 subs (PC4000) and they are in the 2 front corners or the room and I have a great flat response with them (pics in the REW thread)-so I wouldn’t say he absolutely has to have centre of walls. YMMV


----------



## maikeldepotter

Chirosamsung said:


> I have 2 subs (PC4000) and they are in the 2 front corners or the room and I have a great flat response with them (pics in the REW thread)-so I wouldn’t say he absolutely has to have centre of walls. YMMV


If you have your subs in the 2 front corners, wouldn't that put them exactly symmetrical on both side sides of the center of the front wall, just like @sdurani is saying?


----------



## elee532

farsider3000 said:


> Lower your surrounds to no more than 12 inches above ear height.


So, I'm wondering @farsider3000... Is this 12" typically measured to the bottom, middle, or top of the speaker?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

elee532 said:


> So, I'm wondering @*farsider3000* ... Is this 12" typically measured to the bottom, middle, or top of the speaker?



Some use the height of the tweeter as a guide. Often it's putting the surround speakers' drivers just high enough above seated head height, so that sound isn't blocked by the average viewer's head for others seated in the same row.


----------



## elee532

Any opinions on this location for my side surround? It's just a few inches in FRONT of the listening position, and about 10" above ear level. Also, is there any problem with it being somewhat enclosed in that shelving area (it's a sealed speaker, and plenty of space behind it). I could move it back a foot if needed, It'll just stick out into the room a bit and be a bumping into hazard for those walking by. Not a big deal, but it would be nice to avoid if possible without compromising sound quality.


----------



## dschulz

elee532 said:


> Any opinions on this location for my side surround? It's just a few inches in FRONT of the listening position, and about 10" above ear level. Also, is there any problem with it being somewhat enclosed in that shelving area (it's a sealed speaker, and plenty of space behind it). I could move it back a foot if needed, It'll just stick out into the room a bit and be a bumping into hazard for those walking by. Not a big deal, but it would be nice to avoid if possible without compromising sound quality.


Looks fine to me. In a 7.1 system, having the side surrounds just barely in front of the listening position is fine.


----------



## Augerhandle

joms said:


> ...Note1: This will be done in our Bedroom...


Watch movies in your Living Room, sleep in your Bedroom. Problem solved.


----------



## amdar

i just installed 4 overhead Atmos Speakers. Most of the time the overhead sound is coming just behind me not above my head. 
I have 8ft ceilings and top front are at 4.5 ft and top rear are at 5 ft from MLP. Do i have to move the top rear speakers little front(4 FT) to get more accurate overhead sound?


----------



## joms

Augerhandle said:


> Watch movies in your Living Room, sleep in your Bedroom. Problem solved.


Nah, i prefer that my home theater gear serves me rather than the other way around. I understand that I won't get the best home theater experience in my bedroom but I would just like to maximize what I can given the restrictions I have. Sometimes you just want to stay in your bed no matter what (specially if you are so tired and want to doze off while watching). By the way, I do have a living room home theater setup as well but again, I want to maximize both setups given their restrictions.


----------



## Augerhandle

amdar said:


> i just installed 4 overhead Atmos Speakers. Most of the time the overhead sound is coming just behind me not above my head.
> I have 8ft ceilings and top front are at 4.5 ft and top rear are at 5 ft from MLP. Do i have to move the top rear speakers little front(4 FT) to get more accurate overhead sound?


Did you run Audyssey? You can also lower the trim on the rear overheads, or raise the trim on the front overheads, or both.


----------



## amdar

Yes, I did run the Audyssey setup in my Denon X4300h. 



Augerhandle said:


> Did you run Audyssey? You can also lower the trim on the rear overheads, or raise the trim on the front overheads, or both.


----------



## Augerhandle

amdar said:


> Yes, I did run the Audyssey setup in my Denon X4300h.


Are your surrounds mounted near ear level, or high on the wall?


----------



## sdurani

amdar said:


> Do i have to move the top rear speakers little front(4 FT) to get more accurate overhead sound?


Raise the levels for the Top Fronts till you get the result you want.


----------



## elee532

dschulz said:


> Looks fine to me. In a 7.1 system, having the side surrounds just barely in front of the listening position is fine.


Thanks @dschulz!! Two follow-up questions...

1. Should the side surrounds face directly forward at the opposite wall, or should they be angled some amount towards the back of the room. 

2. Similar question for the surround hack speakers. Should they face directly forward towards the front wall, angled towards the main listening position, or something else?


----------



## harrisu

Anyone using Atmos decoder for stereo music? Is there any level adjustments need to be for that?


----------



## amdar

My surrounds are near ear level. My Atmos speakers are Micca M-8C and surrounds are Klipsch bookshelf. 



Augerhandle said:


> Are your surrounds mounted near ear level, or high on the wall?


----------



## amdar

Netflix Earthquake bird movie, the earthquake rumbling scenes are Atmos demo material. Sounds fantastic.


----------



## b0rnarian

amdar said:


> Netflix Earthquake bird movie, the earthquake rumbling scenes are Atmos demo material. Sounds fantastic.


Are there actual earthquakes in the movie, the description of the movie seems like it has nothing to do with earthquakes.


----------



## amdar

Few rumbling scenes with earthquake. 


b0rnarian said:


> Are there actual earthquakes in the movie, the description of the movie seems like it has nothing to do with earthquakes.


----------



## sdurani

elee532 said:


> Should the side surrounds face directly forward at the opposite wall, or should they be angled some amount towards the back of the room.


I would move the Side speakers to the front end of the cavity (a few inches forward of where they are now) and then aim them towards the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance). This will help with each pair of speakers (Fronts, Sides, Rears, Heights), for the same reason. Also, fill up the cavity with some acoustically absorbent material.


----------



## MagnumX

Anyone try out Disney+ yet? With my Apple TV 4K, most of the newer Disney, Marvel and Pixar (and many of the old ones as well) are in Dolby Atmos (as well as 4K if you have the set or projector, but at least with Apple TV running it, you don't need 4K to get Atmos (for Apple or Netflix either; I think Prime and Vudu require 4K or an HD Fury to fool it to get Amos). 

I watched Toy Story 2 and part of Dumbo last night and both were in Atmos. All six original and prequel Star Wars movies are in 4K with HDR or Dolby Vision and Atmos now as well. I know what I'll be trying out the next few days.... The above two had excellent overhead use (Dumbo right from the start had a train go through a tunnel and you could hear the tunnel reverb effect on its sound overhead plain as day).

My system uses Scatmos top middle and matrixed front wides and surround #1 speakers (11.1.6) over three rows of seats and so it's utterly unaffected by Disney 7.1.4 print-through limitations. Toy Story 2 had tons of sounds imaging at or near the front wide locations for example and when the chicken guy toy store owner walks around the room after putting Woody in that clear display case, it pans nicely all the way around the left side of the room through front wides to surround left and then surround #1 and then to the rear left and finally out the rear center door. 

Of course, the old 6.1 track does the same with Neural X, but misses some discrete overhead stuff like Andy dangling Bo Peep from a string right over your head near the beginning....


----------



## batpig

harrisu said:


> Anyone using Atmos decoder for stereo music? Is there any level adjustments need to be for that?


I'm not sure what you mean by "the Atmos decoder for stereo music"... do you mean upmixing with Dolby Surround? That's not the same as "Atmos decoding" of native material, it's upmixing.

Upmixing of stereo music is always going to be variable depending on the source content (some 2ch music upmixes better than others), your room + speaker layout, personal preference, etc. Let your ears be your guide, it's all about subjective taste.

IMO, Dolby Surround is a bit too aggressive in terms of how much ambiance it pushes to the surrounds and overheads with music, especially noticeable if you use Dynamic EQ (assuming you're using Denon/Marantz) which boosts the surrounds separately. I prefer to drop the surround levels about 3dB for 2ch music upmix. 

Dolby Surround also has a "Center Spread" parameter which prevents the audio from collapsing too much to the center channel when upmixing 2ch music. Again, this will be personal preference if you like the wider spread on the front LCR speakers (I prefer it on).


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "the Atmos decoder for stereo music"... do you mean upmixing with Dolby Surround? That's not the same as "Atmos decoding" of native material, it's upmixing.
> 
> Upmixing of stereo music is always going to be variable depending on the source content (some 2ch music upmixes better than others), your room + speaker layout, personal preference, etc. Let your ears be your guide, it's all about subjective taste.
> 
> IMO, Dolby Surround is a bit too aggressive in terms of how much ambiance it pushes to the surrounds and overheads with music, especially noticeable if you use Dynamic EQ (assuming you're using Denon/Marantz) which boosts the surrounds separately. I prefer to drop the surround levels about 3dB for 2ch music upmix.
> 
> Dolby Surround also has a "Center Spread" parameter which prevents the audio from collapsing too much to the center channel when upmixing 2ch music. Again, this will be personal preference if you like the wider spread on the front LCR speakers (I prefer it on).



Following ample experimentation, I have long since settled on using the Auro upmixer for 2ch music. It is the only time I use Auro, but I find that it produces the most pleasing effect to my ears for this purpose.


----------



## bmcleod

Some time back (2-3 months ago?) I went to the link in the first post of this thread and downloaded the Atmos setup test tones for my system. Recently I recommend a friend get them as well and sent him the link, but he couldn’t find them, just the two demo files. I now can’t find them either, are they still there and I’m missing a link, or have they been taken down?


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched _Star Wars: A New Hope_ in *Dolby Atmos* off Disney+. 

I have to say that it blows away the DTS 6.1 version on Blu-Ray. There's plenty of overhead action in the movie and much improved bed level immersion as well into the front wide and rear speaker areas (again via Matrix/Scatmos expansion to 11.1.6). I heard sounds floating in mid-air in points in the room overhead I've never heard them in before, 2/3 the way up the wall floating in places just above my head and what not instead of all the way to the ceiling. IN actuality, they were also in the rear mid regions as well from other seats (phantom array imaging in a relativistic manner). Music was all over the place at different times. It started in the front like the original soundtrack and then moved into the front wide region throughout much of the film and by the end credits, it was in strongly both the side beds and top middle speakers as well as the front wide region creating an all encompassing tunnel of John Williams music (oddly not in the rears, but surround #1 had partial, coming from the side component of the dual-matrix combination). Ships flew well around the room into all conceivable areas in various scenes. Radio chatter floating in large bubbles overhead during the X-Wing attack on the Death Star (Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer. What's wrong?) There was even some dialog panning in a couple of spots on Tatooine (going from the left side of the screen to the center, although dialog was usually in the center only). I suppose the subwoofer deep bass could have been more there, but it never was as strong as in the prequels in any prior release (Revenge of the Sith's opening drum beats reminding of Taiko drums). The only thing that could have made it better immersed, really is if it were also in 3D video (It's too bad those finished conversions were never released. With 3D fading, they may never be.) 

My projector is 2K/3D, so I cannot comment on 4K/HDR, but that's the sharpest I've ever seen A New Hope in 2K, now rivaling Revenge of the Sith for picture quality on the same projector (save many of the cheap saber special effects are still cheap looking by comparison, etc., although I think I prefer the model shot special effects for the space scenes). And the best thing of all is that Han now shoots first! (Ok, they shoot more or less simultaneously, although I think it looks more like Greedo bumped the trigger as he was hit just ahead first which appeared to knock his aim off to the right. Regardless, it's better than Greedo shooting first. I didn't really have that big a problem with the other effects other than than terrible Jabba scene still being there, which it could have done without, IMO (just because the footage existed for the scene, doesn't mean it should be used. Part of the appeal of Return of the Jedi was seeing Jabba for the first time, although I suppose if you watched the prequels that would give it away. It'll never be quite the same for future generations as seeing the originals at the theater or drive-in).


----------



## wozman

MagnumX said:


> I just watched _Star Wars: A New Hope_ in *Dolby Atmos* off Disney+.
> 
> I have to say that it blows away the DTS 6.1 version on Blu-Ray. There's plenty of overhead action in the movie and much improved bed level immersion as well into the front wide and rear speaker areas (again via Matrix/Scatmos expansion to 11.1.6). I heard sounds floating in mid-air in points in the room overhead I've never heard them in before, 2/3 the way up the wall floating in places just above my head and what not instead of all the way to the ceiling. IN actuality, they were also in the rear mid regions as well from other seats (phantom array imaging in a relativistic manner). Music was all over the place at different times. It started in the front like the original soundtrack and then moved into the front wide region throughout much of the film and by the end credits, it was in strongly both the side beds and top middle speakers as well as the front wide region creating an all encompassing tunnel of John Williams music (oddly not in the rears, but surround #1 had partial, coming from the side component of the dual-matrix combination). Ships flew well around the room into all conceivable areas in various scenes. Radio chatter floating in large bubbles overhead during the X-Wing attack on the Death Star (Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer. What's wrong?) There was even some dialog panning in a couple of spots on Tatooine (going from the left side of the screen to the center, although dialog was usually in the center only). I suppose the subwoofer deep bass could have been more there, but it never was as strong as in the prequels in any prior release (Revenge of the Sith's opening drum beats reminding of Taiko drums). The only thing that could have made it better immersed, really is if it were also in 3D video (It's too bad those finished conversions were never released. With 3D fading, they may never be.)
> 
> My projector is 2K/3D, so I cannot comment on 4K/HDR, but that's the sharpest I've ever seen A New Hope in 2K, now rivaling Revenge of the Sith for picture quality on the same projector (save many of the cheap saber special effects are still cheap looking by comparison, etc., although I think I prefer the model shot special effects for the space scenes). And the best thing of all is that Han now shoots first! (Ok, they shoot more or less simultaneously, although I think it looks more like Greedo bumped the trigger as he was hit just ahead first which appeared to knock his aim off to the right. Regardless, it's better than Greedo shooting first. I didn't really have that big a problem with the other effects other than than terrible Jabba scene still being there, which it could have done without, IMO (just because the footage existed for the scene, doesn't mean it should be used. Part of the appeal of Return of the Jedi was seeing Jabba for the first time, although I suppose if you watched the prequels that would give it away. It'll never be quite the same for future generations as seeing the originals at the theater or drive-in).



Thanks for the detailed review, if you don't mind me asking what did you use to run your Disney+ App on? was it thru your smart TV feature or a PS4 or a Amazon Fire Stick, Apple TV? I am trying to find the right host to maximize my Atmos experience when and if I subscribe to Disney+. I am planning on buying a Panasonic OLED 65GZ1000 today and I don't think that Disney+ is or will be included on there operating system built in smart feature. I do however have a HTCP / PS4 to use, but not sure those will give me the Atmos sound thru my Pioneer Elite SC-95 and my Atmos speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

wozman said:


> Thanks for the detailed review, if you don't mind me asking what did you use to run your Disney+ App on? was it thru your smart TV feature or a PS4 or a Amazon Fire Stick, Apple TV? I am trying to find the right host to maximize my Atmos experience when and if I subscribe to Disney+. I am planning on buying a Panasonic OLED 65GZ1000 today and I don't think that Disney+ is or will be included on there operating system built in smart feature. I do however have a HTCP / PS4 to use, but not sure those will give me the Atmos sound thru my Pioneer Elite SC-95 and my Atmos speakers.


It was an AppleTV 4K. I also have an NVidia Shield and it only gave me DD+ as did my old FireTV 4K. The AppleTV 4K will even do Atmos on 2K TV/Projectors for Netflix, Apple iTunes stuff and Disney+ (not so for Vudu and Prime so far). 


I watched the first 30 minutes of Revenge of the Sith last night and then compared to the 6.1 version immediately after. The video looked similar (it was filmed in 2K digital), but there were clear differences in sound even for bed level material. There was a lot more going on in the Atmos mix, IMO. It almost seemed "quiet" by comparison in 6.1. OTOH, it almost felt forced for overhead material at times like when the elevator in Dooku's ship was flying down out of control, the camera showed an angle that made it look like it was coming right at it for a moment and the sound shifted overhead, but while Neural X mainly gave it a little bit of height in the front of the room where the elevator sound from a side angle sound also was (keeping it consistent), the Atmos one shifted right overhead as if the elevator were out in the middle of the room rather than on-screen. It was impressive sounding, yes, but I think it would have made more sense to be overhead in the front of the room, not in the middle. There were several moments like that in the first 30 minutes where it had big directly overhead sound that would have made more sense in the front. I almost got the feeling I was listening to a 7.1.2 mix at times, but music would be more in the front heights so I don't think so. I was getting too sleepy to continue at that point.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> I just watched _Star Wars: A New Hope_ in *Dolby Atmos* off Disney+.
> 
> I have to say that it blows away the DTS 6.1 version on Blu-Ray. There's plenty of overhead action in the movie and much improved bed level immersion as well into the front wide and rear speaker areas (again via Matrix/Scatmos expansion to 11.1.6). I heard sounds floating in mid-air in points in the room overhead I've never heard them in before, 2/3 the way up the wall floating in places just above my head and what not instead of all the way to the ceiling. IN actuality, they were also in the rear mid regions as well from other seats (phantom array imaging in a relativistic manner). Music was all over the place at different times. It started in the front like the original soundtrack and then moved into the front wide region throughout much of the film and by the end credits, it was in strongly both the side beds and top middle speakers as well as the front wide region creating an all encompassing tunnel of John Williams music (oddly not in the rears, but surround #1 had partial, coming from the side component of the dual-matrix combination). Ships flew well around the room into all conceivable areas in various scenes. Radio chatter floating in large bubbles overhead during the X-Wing attack on the Death Star (Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer. What's wrong?) There was even some dialog panning in a couple of spots on Tatooine (going from the left side of the screen to the center, although dialog was usually in the center only). I suppose the subwoofer deep bass could have been more there, but it never was as strong as in the prequels in any prior release (Revenge of the Sith's opening drum beats reminding of Taiko drums). The only thing that could have made it better immersed, really is if it were also in 3D video (It's too bad those finished conversions were never released. With 3D fading, they may never be.)
> 
> My projector is 2K/3D, so I cannot comment on 4K/HDR, but that's the sharpest I've ever seen A New Hope in 2K, now rivaling Revenge of the Sith for picture quality on the same projector (save many of the cheap saber special effects are still cheap looking by comparison, etc., although I think I prefer the model shot special effects for the space scenes). And the best thing of all is that Han now shoots first! (Ok, they shoot more or less simultaneously, although I think it looks more like Greedo bumped the trigger as he was hit just ahead first which appeared to knock his aim off to the right. Regardless, it's better than Greedo shooting first. I didn't really have that big a problem with the other effects other than than terrible Jabba scene still being there, which it could have done without, IMO (just because the footage existed for the scene, doesn't mean it should be used. Part of the appeal of Return of the Jedi was seeing Jabba for the first time, although I suppose if you watched the prequels that would give it away. It'll never be quite the same for future generations as seeing the originals at the theater or drive-in).


You may get more sound using Scatmos, but others using a Trinnov and discrete decoding have noted that the Star Wars Special Edition Trilogy remixes are almost completely 7.1.2 just like a lot of "Atmoused" disc tracks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

wozman said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just watched _Star Wars: A New Hope_ in *Dolby Atmos* off Disney+.
> 
> I have to say that it blows away the DTS 6.1 version on Blu-Ray. There's plenty of overhead action in the movie and much improved bed level immersion as well into the front wide and rear speaker areas (again via Matrix/Scatmos expansion to 11.1.6). I heard sounds floating in mid-air in points in the room overhead I've never heard them in before, 2/3 the way up the wall floating in places just above my head and what not instead of all the way to the ceiling. IN actuality, they were also in the rear mid regions as well from other seats (phantom array imaging in a relativistic manner). Music was all over the place at different times. It started in the front like the original soundtrack and then moved into the front wide region throughout much of the film and by the end credits, it was in strongly both the side beds and top middle speakers as well as the front wide region creating an all encompassing tunnel of John Williams music (oddly not in the rears, but surround #1 had partial, coming from the side component of the dual-matrix combination). Ships flew well around the room into all conceivable areas in various scenes. Radio chatter floating in large bubbles overhead during the X-Wing attack on the Death Star (Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer. What's wrong?) There was even some dialog panning in a couple of spots on Tatooine (going from the left side of the screen to the center, although dialog was usually in the center only). I suppose the subwoofer deep bass could have been more there, but it never was as strong as in the prequels in any prior release (Revenge of the Sith's opening drum beats reminding of Taiko drums). The only thing that could have made it better immersed, really is if it were also in 3D video (It's too bad those finished conversions were never released. With 3D fading, they may never be.)
> 
> My projector is 2K/3D, so I cannot comment on 4K/HDR, but that's the sharpest I've ever seen A New Hope in 2K, now rivaling Revenge of the Sith for picture quality on the same projector (save many of the cheap saber special effects are still cheap looking by comparison, etc., although I think I prefer the model shot special effects for the space scenes). And the best thing of all is that Han now shoots first! (Ok, they shoot more or less simultaneously, although I think it looks more like Greedo bumped the trigger as he was hit just ahead first which appeared to knock his aim off to the right. Regardless, it's better than Greedo shooting first. I didn't really have that big a problem with the other effects other than than terrible Jabba scene still being there, which it could have done without, IMO (just because the footage existed for the scene, doesn't mean it should be used. Part of the appeal of Return of the Jedi was seeing Jabba for the first time, although I suppose if you watched the prequels that would give it away. It'll never be quite the same for future generations as seeing the originals at the theater or drive-in).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the detailed review, if you don't mind me asking what did you use to run your Disney+ App on? was it thru your smart TV feature or a PS4 or a Amazon Fire Stick, Apple TV? I am trying to find the right host to maximize my Atmos experience when and if I subscribe to Disney+. I am planning on buying a Panasonic OLED 65GZ1000 today and I don't think that Disney+ is or will be included on there operating system built in smart feature. I do however have a HTCP / PS4 to use, but not sure those will give me the Atmos sound thru my Pioneer Elite SC-95 and my Atmos speakers.
Click to expand...

As noted above... these tracks are mostly 7.1.2 with only a smattering of localized object placement. Scatmos is not an accurate rendering of an Atmos track.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> As noted above... these tracks are mostly 7.1.2 with only a smattering of localized object placement. Scatmos is not an accurate rendering of an Atmos track.


That explains why the overhead sounds like the elevator coming down towards the camera were directly overhead rather than where it made more sense (front height only). I thought Disney was supposed to do 7.1.4 print-through, not 7.1.2, though. But the fact I heard it directly overhead shows it's putting the sound exactly where it's supposed to be, contrary to your next statement. If there's an inaccuracy here (i.e. music seemed to come out of the heights in the front), it's a combination of natural stereo placement clues combined with the "dialog lift" mixing feature, which due to natural stereo recorded phase variance and the like can make some sounds seem to be lower or higher than they are imaging, even if if they're centered on the _middle_ of the screen.

Your comment about Scatmos is sadly in error. There is no _placement_ difference between "rendering" a third speaker moving between two points and extracting it there. There may be some leakage compared to rendering (obviously more with matrixed, but then cinemas have been using matrixed or arrayed surround for decades), but I'd hardly put it that as not being an 'accurate rendering' (this is precisely how DTS:X Pro will create more speakers with existing 7.1.4 mixes, allowing larger rooms to be be played back as accurately as smaller ones). It's in the top middle when it's supposed to be in the top middle as the Atmos helicopter demo proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. Frankly, the comment sounds like the kind of arrogance/ego displayed in Stereophile magazine about things that are _supposed_ to sound better, but in reality don't. I'd prefer more scientific reasoning and less attitude.

Good luck waiting for that new 9.1.6 system to arrive that still won't play back Atmos tracks that don't use those speakers correctly while I enjoy 11.1.6 with literally everything but Auro-3D, which only does 9.1.6 with it (no rear bed speakers unless I copy them with a speaker switch in parallel). I didn't make a choice based purely on price (although I cannot justify $30k+ on a Trinnov just to say it's rendered), but rather even the new 9.1.6 systems will have inherent limitations with channel fixed Atmos that will make them unplayable in a large room. If I had one of those new 9.1.6 systems, I might very well get NO direct overhead sound with Disney. I might get front height + rear height with a 'hole' over my head where the angular phantom imaging doesn't work due to the large angle distance in the room (being 24' long with the heights at the extreme ends). This is what the top middle speaker is there for and Disney thwarts its proper usage. If they used true 7.1.2, the renderer would select top middle as it does in Saving Private Ryan. But with rendered 7.1.4 using 7.1.2 sourced, you'd get a phantom stereo combination instead. So where is the real accuracy problem? It's in the system thwarting proper usage. My system renders what's in-between front height and rear height to top middle where it belongs regardless of the shenanigans of Disney or anyone else and frankly, there's a deterrent factor there that makes me think twice about replacing my 11.1 AVR with a 15.1 version. Which one would give me the better overall result with real material rather than theoretical accuracy? Thanks to Disney, that result is not so clear.


----------



## dschulz

elee532 said:


> Thanks @dschulz!! Two follow-up questions...
> 
> 1. Should the side surrounds face directly forward at the opposite wall, or should they be angled some amount towards the back of the room.
> 
> 2. Similar question for the surround hack speakers. Should they face directly forward towards the front wall, angled towards the main listening position, or something else?





sdurani said:


> I would move the Side speakers to the front end of the cavity (a few inches forward of where they are now) and then aim them towards the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance). This will help with each pair of speakers (Fronts, Sides, Rears, Heights), for the same reason. Also, fill up the cavity with some acoustically absorbent material.


Seconding Sanjay's recommendations, he knows of what he speaks.


----------



## harrisu

batpig said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "the Atmos decoder for stereo music"... do you mean upmixing with Dolby Surround? That's not the same as "Atmos decoding" of native material, it's upmixing.
> 
> Upmixing of stereo music is always going to be variable depending on the source content (some 2ch music upmixes better than others), your room + speaker layout, personal preference, etc. Let your ears be your guide, it's all about subjective taste.
> 
> IMO, Dolby Surround is a bit too aggressive in terms of how much ambiance it pushes to the surrounds and overheads with music, especially noticeable if you use Dynamic EQ (assuming you're using Denon/Marantz) which boosts the surrounds separately. I prefer to drop the surround levels about 3dB for 2ch music upmix.
> 
> Dolby Surround also has a "Center Spread" parameter which prevents the audio from collapsing too much to the center channel when upmixing 2ch music. Again, this will be personal preference if you like the wider spread on the front LCR speakers (I prefer it on).


Hey sorry yeah I meant Dolby upmixing with Dolby Surround. Ok this makes sense. I guess the best way to go is to try it out and see what levels adjustments are needed to get the satisfaction level. Trial and Error it is then


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Not completely. I put it on with the Altitude's meters and there's at least three scenes where there's sporadic use of other Atmos presence speakers than Top Middles and the 7.1 beds.
> 
> Notably a few scenes with Luke and his speeder when he's on Tatooine (going to his uncle's house after the massacre of the Jawas), when the Millennium Falcon comes out of hyperdrive and is getting hit by debris from Alderaan (everything momentarily gets activated and sound comes around you, among my front and rear heights, wides and front side surrounds), and the landing on Yavin. There's more at the beginning of the movie, but I wound up putting the movie on where it left off on Tuesday, and my iPad needed charging so I stopped right after they got on Yavin.
> 
> However, these fall into "blink or you'll miss them", maybe 5-10 seconds each if that. I'm going to rewatch the first 30 minutes and also the epic battle with Tie Fighters around the Death Star and see if I notice other scenes tomorrow and if they're more sustained.
> 
> One odd thing in how the movie was mixed is that the front and rear heights don't get activated except for object passthrough, but they're used more than, say, Saving Private Ryan. This is one movie where I might try my preset that is .4 for less clinical listing. Although to be honest the mix is immersive enough that you don't notice with one row of seats.



Well, that's more interesting (this is the first i'm reading it since I typically avoid this mega-thread) than reading a certain negative post above that you 'liked' anyway (who has obviously not listened to it but feels the need to put down my mini-review anyway). I don't have the luxury of "watching" the speakers used (only listening to them) and since my room is narrow enough that 7.1 can image any point in the room on its own for the MLP (the matrixed front wides and surround #1 are more for off-axis seating), it would be difficult to tell whether a sound phantom images through the wides or actually uses them even if they were discrete without going over and putting my ear against them. 

I did notice the 'over top middle' effects in the first 30 minutes of _Revenge of the Sith_ (I thought it was weird how much direct overhead sound there was for things that made more sense to be in the front height only area), but I noticed it less in A New Hope. I could have sworn the Star Destroyer panned overhead at the beginning *(EDIT: I just rechecked and The Star Destroyer itself was mostly in the top middle, but the rebel ship CLEARLY panned loudly from right rear height through top middle to the right front height speaker here, clear as daylight. Yeah, it was probably in a 5-10 second "blink or you'll miss it" but that would be reading the speaker reading on your Trinnov, I think. Clearly, it registered with my EARS when I heard an overhead pan from behind me overhead through the room into the front. Now I cannot say whether it used "top middle" or it just panned rear height to front height since I extract Top Middle with Pro Logic, but it definitely panned overhead and wasn't only using 7.1.2 there). Isn't that the point of objects? They pan and they're gone again? That hardly makes the soundtrack 7.1.2, IMO.)* I'll have to play it again and walk around the room, but then if overhead blends with cues at bed level, it might sound like a pan still if the speakers mesh well (i.e. I cannot tell where one speaker begins and ends in my system normally; it's just a big bubble of sound as I believe it's meant to be, not a bunch of separate speakers kicking on/off). 

I also use a dialog lift feature (mix some bed info into heights to raise the soundstage upward to the middle of the screen so voices come from it) so some bits could 'seem' higher than they are, especially if they mix with actual height information in the top middle area. Pans don't live alone. Frankly, I've heard stereo recordings where instruments seem to be at different heights due to phase/reverb/timbre/whatever in the recording itself, not because they're actually coming from some phantom speaker higher or lower than they are (If I try that with a binaural recording using multi-channel stereo across all 17 speakers, the sounds will image where they would using headphones rather than some big wall of sound that is only left/right). So not all sounds image due to being objects (especially premixed pans and the like) so when I read above a "smattering of object localization" I didn't take that to mean your comments I just read about a few objects used here and there, but rather I'm referring to actually LISTENING to the movie (where the Falcon pans across the room regardless of whether 'active' objects are used or they're anchored bed objects. If it sounds good, I'll say so regardless not poo-poo a soundtrack purely on its technical specs as someone did above.

What's strange is that apparently there are ANY objects panning through speakers like wides here. I thought Disney soundtracks were print-through LOCKED 7.1.4 (or now 7.1.2?) soundtracks? There aren't supposed to be ANY 'moving' objects according to the people that told us they're all locked. Is that now no longer the case? Or does your Trinnov activate more speakers with that room compensation mode? All the 7012 says is "Atmos" (it doesn't display active speakers or objects or the like).

To my ears, _A New Hope_ sounded better than the 6.1 soundtrack overall (admittedly my limited audio memory isn't that great for comparing individual scenes from my previous 6.1 viewing, just overall impressions). What I've heard of _Revenge of the Sith_ so far (where I did play the first 30 minutes in 6.1 right after the Atmos version for the same period) leaves me wondering if any gains are nullified by overzealous mono overhead sound use. It's hard to say. Overall, I enjoyed the sound on the Atmos track for those 30 minutes more, but the overhead info gave me a few pauses. Other sounds like the electro-sword (or whatever they call them) sticks the robots were righting the Jedi with on the bridge sounded incredible in Atmos (almost like they came spinning out into the room buzzing in front of my face) whereas they were flat on the screen in Neural X + 6.1. It's clear to me that regardless of HOW they changed the soundtrack, it's quite different in many places for various sounds than the previous mix. Whether it's 'better' or not is subjective. I'd have to hear the rest of the movie first in that case to decide for myself. 

I would say _A New Hope_ is worth hearing in Atmos over 6.1, but that's just my personal opinion (rather than the train wreck posts that declare 'Scatmos' isn't accurate based on NOTHING but making crap up that I read above). I really don't understand why some people don't want to come here to have fun talking about surround sound, but rather want to play "my system sounds better than yours which isn't accurate" type of games.... It's sad, IMO.


----------



## MagnumX

Oh, The Mandalorian IS in Dolby Atmos, after all as some have said. It's a mistake on the Disney+ site that says 5.1 here. I started the first episode and immediately got Atmos.

*EDIT: * I take it back after actually watching it. It's a FARCE (not The Force). It _says_ Dolby Atmos on the front of the 7012, but it's just a label. It means nothing. If I watch The Mandalorian on my NVidia Shield I get real 5.1 + DSU (or whatever I choose). I believe it's only in stereo in actuality on the AppleTV 4K. I hear nothing out of the surround speakers. I tried another title that says 5.1 (TRON). I know that one has only been in 5.1 so far and says 5.1 on the screen. It says ATMOS on the receiver anyway. I get NO surround (not even 5.1) out of the surround speakers once again. It's stereo. If I play it on the Shield, I get DD+ true 5.1 with actual surround use. So there seems to be a problem with the AppleTV 4K app. It plays the actual Atmos titles in Atmos, but the 5.1 titles get stereo with an Atmos label (so far). I haven't tried forcing the AppleTV in to Dolby Digital mode to see if it gets 5.1 out of it that way. DD+ (that works) is far better sounding on the NVidia Shield than that FARCE of Atmos on the AppleTV 4K with The Mandalorian.

*EDIT 2:* A reboot of the AppleTV appears to fix the problem. It then played in "Multi-In + DSU" on my AVR and I get actual working 5.1 sound with The Mandalorian like with the NVidia Shield instead of the "Atmos" label with only stereo sound in reality. I recalled it doing something similar once before which gave me the idea to try it. That would explain why some get "Atmos" and some don't. It's a GLITCH in AppleTV that occurs after using it for some time for whatever reason (bug).


----------



## elee532

Is there a glossary of Atmos terms somewhere? What is Atmouse? Scatmos? Bed speakers? Pann? Print-through? Etc.

Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> Is there a glossary of Atmos terms somewhere? What is Atmouse? Scatmos? Bed speakers? Pann? Print-through? Etc.
> 
> Thanks!


I don't know if someone made a glossary or not, but I can explain them for you.

The first two are just nicknames. 

"*AT MOUSE*" (Disney Mickey Mouse) for "ATMOS". (AKA "Hackmos/Hackmouse", "Crapmos/Crapmouse", "Dismos/Dismouse")


----------



## Dan Hitchman

elee532 said:


> Is there a glossary of Atmos terms somewhere? What is Atmouse? Scatmos? Bed speakers? Pann? Print-through? Etc.
> 
> Thanks!



I'll expand further: 



Atmouse... a derogatory term for Disney Studio's home Atmos mixes (anything that falls under the auspices of the Disney empire) where they squash dynamics, filter bass frequencies, drop the volume more than normal, under utilize the surround speakers even when they obviously should be utilized, and/or lock their Atmos tracks to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 or possibly use only those speakers 99% of the time in a mix. Sub-optimal immersive audio. To be fair, they've been doing relatively poor to mediocre channel-based mixes since the release of Marvel's _The Age of Ultron_ on regular Blu-ray and the practice has leaked over to many of their Atmos tracks.


Scatmos... a kludgy way of adding more output speakers using two or more Atmos capable receivers or pre-amps or matrix logic steering using older surround processors and their upmixers to help fill in speaker gaps. This is different than spending the money on a more expensive Atmos decoder that can create a discrete immersive track with more speakers with 3D objects that can address individual speakers.



Bed Speakers... in a home Atmos track there are the standard fixed 7.1 base channels (just like a regular 7.1 mix) and then there are additional discrete 3D objects that can move around in 3D (x/y/z) space... that is unless they are fixed to specific locations like channels and cannot move about (any audio can then pan through them like a normal channel). In the cinema version there are 9.1 base channels (7.1 + two overhead channels) plus 3D objects that can move about the auditorium.



Print-Through... a Dolby Atmos track can be "locked" to a fixed channel pattern without the use of traditional 3D objects, though Dolby Labs does not recommend this post-production encoding practice. They cannot be scaled and expanded to larger Dolby Atmos systems with more rendered speaker outputs as they act more like standard channel-based mixes (one channel addresses only one speaker). 



Audio Object... a metadata tagged audio element (like a gunshot, a door slam, a starship engine whoosh, a bit of dialog, etc.) that contains information on panning (movement) parameters in an x/y/z grid of pre-determined speaker locations. The data can also include object sizing (how many speakers will get the same audio information - 1 or more), whether or not the element should be snapped (locked) to the nearest speaker like it was "magnetized" (if the correct speaker location is not present in the home theater layout), or if it is free floating in 3D space, etc. The renderer in a receiver or surround processor will read the metadata on-the-fly and create a custom mix for whatever the capability of a particular Atmos system.


----------



## Roger Dressler

MagnumX said:


> "*Scatmos*" (no idea where the original person got the term from


From @Scott Simonian who originated the practice, IIRC.


----------



## elee532

Wow, thank you @MagnumX and @Dan Hitchman, lots of great information there!!!


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> I did notice the 'over top middle' effects in the first 30 minutes of _Revenge of the Sith_ (I thought it was weird how much direct overhead sound there was for things that made more sense to be in the front height only area), but I noticed it less in A New Hope. I could have sworn the Star Destroyer panned overhead at the beginning *(EDIT: I just rechecked and The Star Destroyer itself was mostly in the top middle, but the rebel ship CLEARLY panned loudly from right rear height through top middle to the right front height speaker here, clear as daylight. Yeah, it was probably in a 5-10 second "blink or you'll miss it" but that would be reading the speaker reading on your Trinnov, I think. Clearly, it registered with my EARS when I heard an overhead pan from behind me overhead through the room into the front. Now I cannot say whether it used "top middle" or it just panned rear height to front height since I extract Top Middle with Pro Logic, but it definitely panned overhead and wasn't only using 7.1.2 there). Isn't that the point of objects? They pan and they're gone again? That hardly makes the soundtrack 7.1.2, IMO.)* not a bunch of separate speakers kicking on/off).


I watched the first five minutes or so of Revenge of the Sith a few times last night, and while the vast majority of the track was indeed 7.1.2, there were several times (probably a half dozen) where the front heights lit up for that 5 to 10 second period I cited. I don't know if that's detectable in a 7.1.4 setup, where the top middle is split between front and rear heights/tops, but I saw it on the Trinnov. You can start about two minutes into the movie through where Anakin and Obi-Wan crash into the landing bay.

Likewise the same thing happened two or three times with my wides, the front side surrounds, and my L/R centers. I played the beginning of the movie with only these speakers playing (others muted on the Trinnov's Output) and there is fleeting content there during the period I looked at. And this is the Altitude's discrete rendering of the Atmos track; no Scatmos or Pro Logic here.

Does it matter? Not if you grade the success of an Atmos mix by how aggressively the presence speakers are used, but the mixers did take use of these speakers in the treatment of the movie. If anything, more so than the original trilogy.



> What's strange is that apparently there are ANY objects panning through speakers like wides here. I thought Disney soundtracks were print-through LOCKED 7.1.4 (or now 7.1.2?) soundtracks? There aren't supposed to be ANY 'moving' objects according to the people that told us they're all locked. Is that now no longer the case? Or does your Trinnov activate more speakers with that room compensation mode? All the 7012 says is "Atmos" (it doesn't display active speakers or objects or the like).


All I know is what I'm observing on the Disney+ Star Wars stream in Atmos. It could be that a different mixing crew was using a different approach to the content for these movies. Trinnov only "activates" speakers if you have them available in designations supported by Atmos (e.g. front wides), AND the mixers have placed content/objects that make use of those speaker locations, either as fixed static objects on some mixes, or dynamic objects based on 3D location for passthrough on the presence speakers. Maybe they're not so completely locked on some Disney mixes, but hardly all. And regardless, we're talking about 1% or 2% of the film on these Star Wars releases, maybe 5% if you're charitable.

I don't think there's a way to get a timestamp directly from my Roku to tell you exactly when a scene starts to use something outside of beds or the top middles with Disney+, but I can try to run the stopwatch function on my iPhone and see if I can get some time specifics.


----------



## b0rnarian

MagnumX said:


> Oh, The Mandalorian IS in Dolby Atmos, after all as some have said. It's a mistake on the Disney+ site that says 5.1 here. I started the first episode and immediately got Atmos.
> 
> *EDIT: * I take it back after actually watching it. It's a FARCE (not The Force). It _says_ Dolby Atmos on the front of the 7012, but it's just a label. It means nothing. If I watch The Mandalorian on my NVidia Shield I get real 5.1 + DSU (or whatever I choose). I believe it's only in stereo in actuality on the AppleTV 4K. I hear nothing out of the surround speakers. I tried another title that says 5.1 (TRON). I know that one has only been in 5.1 so far and says 5.1 on the screen. It says ATMOS on the receiver anyway. I get NO surround (not even 5.1) out of the surround speakers once again. It's stereo. If I play it on the Shield, I get DD+ true 5.1 with actual surround use. So there seems to be a problem with the AppleTV 4K app. It plays the actual Atmos titles in Atmos, but the 5.1 titles get stereo with an Atmos label (so far). I haven't tried forcing the AppleTV in to Dolby Digital mode to see if it gets 5.1 out of it that way. DD+ (that works) is far better sounding on the NVidia Shield than that FARCE of Atmos on the AppleTV 4K with The Mandalorian.
> 
> *EDIT 2:* A reboot of the AppleTV appears to fix the problem. It then played in "Multi-In + DSU" on my AVR and I get actual working 5.1 sound with The Mandalorian like with the NVidia Shield instead of the "Atmos" label with only stereo sound in reality. I recalled it doing something similar once before which gave me the idea to try it. That would explain why some get "Atmos" and some don't. It's a GLITCH in AppleTV that occurs after using it for some time for whatever reason (bug).


So you are saying you've actually lost the atmos track now and its only now 5.1?


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> I watched the first five minutes or so of Revenge of the Sith a few times last night, and while the vast majority of the track was indeed 7.1.2, there were several times (probably a half dozen) where the front heights lit up for that 5 to 10 second period I cited. I don't know if that's detectable in a 7.1.4 setup, where the top middle is split between front and rear heights/tops, but I saw it on the Trinnov. You can start about two minutes into the movie through where Anakin and Obi-Wan crash into the landing bay.
> 
> Likewise the same thing happened two or three times with my wides, the front side surrounds, and my L/R centers. I played the beginning of the movie with only these speakers playing (others muted on the Trinnov's Output) and there is fleeting content there during the period I looked at. And this is the Altitude's discrete rendering of the Atmos track; no Scatmos or Pro Logic here.
> 
> Does it matter? Not if you grade the success of an Atmos mix by how aggressively the presence speakers are used, but the mixers did take use of these speakers in the treatment of the movie. If anything, more so than the original trilogy.


Well, given how many "real" Atmos movies don't make a "lot" of use of the overheads (save maybe for music), I don't know how different it is really. When a ship/plane flies overhead, they use an effect. Once it's over, it's probably 'gone' from the list of objects so it would only appear for a few seconds. I'd love to see movies that have a more Auro-3D dual-miked constant environment sound (totally realistic sounding in the demo), but that will never happen for movies. They're too used to creating artificial reality by panning sounds (objects, whatever). They sound good, but those dual-miked recordings sound like binaural (utterly real). The problem with Auro-3D is that's what they promised, but the reality is that you can't really realistically use that technique with movies. You could create some background sounds that did it for a scene, I suppose, but the whole movie? That'd be a job. The reality of filmmaking is they don't do one continuous take so you can't really use one long recording of a given scene (with exceptions).

With a "Scatmos" speaker, all I hear is whether the speaker is being used or not. In fact, with Audyssey turned on (and probably even a tiny bit when it's off), there's a little bit of leakage if you stick your ear right up against the speaker (can't hear it from a seating location) so it 'seems' to be in use at low volume even when it's not. So I can tell whether something pans from to back, but I can't tell if it specifically used "Top Middle" or it just panned from front height to rear height without using Top Middle as it uses Top Middle in both cases. Frankly, I think that's how Atmos is "supposed" to function with real objects, but Disney's locked speaker trickery defeats it as do mixes (Saving Private Ryan) that only use top middle. No real sounds are limited to one side of the room. At the very least, there would be reflections in the front/back region in the real world (save outer space where there technically should be NO SOUNDS in Star Wars and others). So the advantage is I get all my speakers all the time if anything moves into that area (whether panned between front/rear height or moving through top middle; they get rendered through the speakers either way. The only disadvantage is I can't tell whether something is actually selecting those speakers. 

But then on a 11.1 AVR, you can't tell anyway as Top Middle isn't supported in the first place and it shouldn't matter as long as the soundtrack is rendered usable in my 24' long room (i.e. the whole point of having top middle for me is to get strong imaging across the entire ceiling. The angle is so long it won't make it without the extra speakers in the middle. I could have used the tops locations instead and it would make it OK then, I think, but then all overhead sounds would be in front of the rear position and well in front of the screen area. I like edge-to-edge. It also locks sounds to the middle of the room for all rows of seats (advantage of real speaker over phantom in any case. My matrixed front wides and surround #1 do the same thing for left/right and front/back off-axis seats). 

If I eventually get an AVR that can do 17.1 (or even 15.1 plus one set of 'Scatmos'), I would lose some nice array effect advantages, although I suppose you could (with mixers) send channels like "side surround" to all side speakers in addition to the discrete information of objects. That would be the most cinema-like of all, really but would require extra effort that should have been handled by the AVRs themselves (i.e. _after_ rendering, mix in main channels to selected surround speakers for array groups).



> All I know is what I'm observing on the Disney+ Star Wars stream in Atmos. It could be that a different mixing crew was using a different approach to the content for these movies.


Well, one theory before floated the idea that Disney was saving the "real" Atmos for a later date. Maybe that date was streaming only material? I'm curious how things light up on other titles on your Trinnov. I just watched _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_ last night, for example and it appeared to have distinct front height material that drifted into the overhead speakers (but that could be a pan between front/rear heights since "Scatmos" makes no distinction between the two). It had a lot of music in the front heights, unlike Star Wars.



> Trinnov only "activates" speakers if you have them available in designations supported by Atmos (e.g. front wides), AND the mixers have placed content/objects that make use of those speaker locations, either as fixed static objects on some mixes, or dynamic objects based on 3D location for passthrough on the presence speakers. Maybe there's not so completely locked on some Disney mixes, but hardly all. And regardless, we're talking about 1% or 2% of the film on these Star Wars releases, maybe 5% if you're charitable.


I just think Star Wars is getting a raw deal of sorts as I've heard far less overhead sounds from non-Disney movies with retro-fits like Laybrinth. Here and there is fine if that's what's happening on-screen. Yes, you could throw some ambient stuff up there, but I'd settle for starships and weapons fire overhead and the like. It seemed like a clear improvement overall to the 6.1 tracks to me for the two I've watched so far. The Mandalorian was only in 5.1, but with Neural X it didn't sound too bad either, really (once I got it actually working sans the Apple TV bug/glitch).



> I don't think there's a way to get a timestamp directly from my Roku to tell you exactly when a scene starts to use something outside of beds or the top middles with Disney+, but I can try to run the stopwatch function on my iPhone and see if I can get some time specifics.


Like I said, I can't really audibly tell a pan with stationary objects (phantom pan between say front/rear heights or through the matrixed wides) from moving objects as once they're rendered, they end up sounding the same with Scatmos and/or Matrixed speakers. They just add more hard sources so the imaging is clean and works better off-center. I think if your theater sounds "different" with real objects moving compared to pans then the soundfield isn't blended perfectly due to large angles or sitting off-center. At the MLP, a small 7.x.4 room should sound the same as a large 13.x.8 room in terms of where in the 'rectangle' the sounds are moving if objects are correctly used or you get around it with something like Scatmos or Neural X (with DTS:X Pro coming). The idea is that the object sounds like it's coming from xx% into the room above/below for all seats and regardless of room size. A smaller room with one row and only a couple of seats doesn't need >7.1.4. Some might say it doesn't need >5.1.4 even. But as you move further off-axis from the MLP, you need more hard sources to get the same imaging positions (generally speaking) for everyone. Any arrayed speakers would sound different to some extent (depending on how close you are to one of them), but discrete sources should image the object in the same relative position in the room. Atmos does have "center" limitations in that there are no center height speakers (front, middle or back) to anchor overhead sounds in the middle EXACTLY in the middle. They will move slightly even in the most expensive setups unless you created some centers with something like "Scatmos".


----------



## MagnumX

b0rnarian said:


> So you are saying you've actually lost the atmos track now and its only now 5.1?


I'm saying there is NO Atmos track. It's a bug/glitch of the AppleTV after it's been running for 'x' amount of time. It gets 'stuck' in Atmos mode and only outputs stereo for non-Atmos sources. It should say "Multi-Channel Out" or something similar (for being multi-channel PCM) on these soundtracks. When I rebooted the AppleTV, I then got true 5.1 and the "Multi-channel" output. When it SAID "Atmos" it was only _really_ outputting sound to the front L/R speakers. The label "Atmos" was utterly meaningless. But I believe this is why some people THINK The Mandalorian is available in Atmos in some parts of the country. The reality is there is no Atmos version period (for now at least).


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll expand further:
> 
> 
> Scatmos... a kludgy way of adding more output speakers using two or more Atmos capable receivers or pre-amps or matrix logic steering using older surround processors and their upmixers to help fill in speaker gaps. This is different than spending the money on a more expensive Atmos decoder that can create a discrete immersive track with more speakers with 3D objects that can address individual speakers.


I suppose it's _especially_ "different" for snobby types of personalities that look down on everyone else that can't afford $30k processors that are then still thwarted by companies like Disney. The REALITY is that an "object" STILL has to be RENDERED into the real world (rather than just staying coordinates in a processor) and once it's rendered, it's just another PAN from one speaker to another. _Discrete_ simply means there is no leakage of the channels. Pro Logic leaks very little (impossible to hear from the seating locations). The final positional differences are NON-EXISTENT (save if "snap to" function in Atmos is used, but it can't pan at all; it jumps from speaker to speaker, hence the "snap" in "snap to") so you'd either get a sound there or you wouldn't (it gets folded into the nearest available speaker on the processor list). Otherwise, they image in the exact same places (except on locked object mixes like some Disney where the more expensive processor FAILS to render at the additional speakers AT ALL and if your room is large enough, you get GAPS in imaging that sound awful. That NEVER happens with Pro Logic steering based "Scatmos" (using multiple Atmos AVRs is a bit of a kludge and volume and other things can get out of sync, but when working properly it also renders identical output the more expensive processor within its limitations, which is to say only a Trinnov can render every possible home Atmos position available currently. But with enough processing, you could recreate every one of those speakers using Neural X or Pro Logic steering (which is what DTS:X Pro will do). The only question is NOISE after going through multiple processors, something which won't be an issue for DTS:X Pro as it's all digital processing until the final output).


----------



## zeonstar

MagnumX said:


> Oh, The Mandalorian IS in Dolby Atmos, after all as some have said. It's a mistake on the Disney+ site that says 5.1 here. I started the first episode and immediately got Atmos.
> 
> *EDIT: * I take it back after actually watching it. It's a FARCE (not The Force). It _says_ Dolby Atmos on the front of the 7012, but it's just a label. It means nothing. If I watch The Mandalorian on my NVidia Shield I get real 5.1 + DSU (or whatever I choose). I believe it's only in stereo in actuality on the AppleTV 4K. I hear nothing out of the surround speakers. I tried another title that says 5.1 (TRON). I know that one has only been in 5.1 so far and says 5.1 on the screen. It says ATMOS on the receiver anyway. I get NO surround (not even 5.1) out of the surround speakers once again. It's stereo. If I play it on the Shield, I get DD+ true 5.1 with actual surround use. So there seems to be a problem with the AppleTV 4K app. It plays the actual Atmos titles in Atmos, but the 5.1 titles get stereo with an Atmos label (so far). I haven't tried forcing the AppleTV in to Dolby Digital mode to see if it gets 5.1 out of it that way. DD+ (that works) is far better sounding on the NVidia Shield than that FARCE of Atmos on the AppleTV 4K with The Mandalorian.
> 
> *EDIT 2:* A reboot of the AppleTV appears to fix the problem. It then played in "Multi-In + DSU" on my AVR and I get actual working 5.1 sound with The Mandalorian like with the NVidia Shield instead of the "Atmos" label with only stereo sound in reality. I recalled it doing something similar once before which gave me the idea to try it. That would explain why some get "Atmos" and some don't. It's a GLITCH in AppleTV that occurs after using it for some time for whatever reason (bug).


I had the exact same thing happen with D+ and my ATV4K. Somehow my ATV got "Stuck" where it was showing as EVERYTHING in Atmos, including things I know definitely aren't. A Reboot fixed mine as well.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Well, one theory before floated the idea that Disney was saving the "real" Atmos for a later date. Maybe that date was streaming only material?


That was my theory  and I called it "Atmos Platinum" as a possible brand name. I meant it half seriously as something a cynical marketer would do, which is create product tiers to keep revenue coming in incrementally. The jury is still out if that's just my imagination or an actual idea by certain entertainment providers (see me when The Last Jedi or Solo come to Disney+, since I own both on UHD). Actually I'm impressed with the Disney+ stream's quality and the audio, but I have a 100+ Gbps Xfinity broadband connection at home. While I like owning content on shiny disc, I'm happy enough with a subscription to Disney+ or Netflix for movies that I don't feel compelled to buy outside of playback from a monthly subscription.



> I'm curious how things light up on other titles on your Trinnov. I just watched _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_ last night, for example and it appeared to have distinct front height material that drifted into the overhead speakers (but that could be a pan between front/rear heights since "Scatmos" makes no distinction between the two). It had a lot of music in the front heights, unlike Star Wars.


Star Wars, at least Revenge of the Sith, has quite a lot of music content playing from my top middles. And if you're running .4, and that content is divided between front and rear heights/overheads, I don't think I really care whether someone mixed two overhead stereo objects into front/rear height-level speakers by intent or the .4 configuration produced that effect from two pairs of overheads that would otherwise have went to a single set of top middles. To quote Mr. Spock, "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" .

I might check Roger Rabbit, but I think I'm actually going to just watch movies for a bit now. 



> I just think Star Wars is getting a raw deal of sorts as I've heard far less overhead sounds from non-Disney movies with retro-fits like Laybrinth. Here and there is fine if that's what's happening on-screen. Yes, you could throw some ambient stuff up there, but I'd settle for starships and weapons fire overhead and the like. It seemed like a clear improvement overall to the 6.1 tracks to me for the two I've watched so far. The Mandalorian was only in 5.1, but with Neural X it didn't sound too bad either, really (once I got it actually working sans the Apple TV bug/glitch).


Let's just say that I'm not complaining about the LFE I'm getting from Ep I to VI. At first glance TFA still sounds like crap Disney compressed range, but I only watched it for a few minutes. I do see that you get all six overhead speakers lighting up all the time, probably because the overhead stereo pair was mixed to play on all three pairs.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> I might check Roger Rabbit, but I think I'm actually going to just watch movies for a bit now.


Who Framed Roger Rabbit IS a movie (whether it's a good one or not is up for debate), but it's only like 1 hour and 43 minutes or something like that. It didn't have a ton of overhead stuff, but scenes like Yosemite Sam flying up over the fence and landing on the street went high in the front and then came down towards the top middle (before the view changed and showed him hit the street from another angle that wouldn't bring the sound down further from above).

I just wish their new show The Mandalorian really was in Atmos. The show seems pretty good so far (only two episodes).


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I'm saying there is NO Atmos track. It's a bug/glitch of the AppleTV after it's been running for 'x' amount of time. It gets 'stuck' in Atmos mode and only outputs stereo for non-Atmos sources. It should say "Multi-Channel Out" or something similar (for being multi-channel PCM) on these soundtracks. When I rebooted the AppleTV, I then got true 5.1 and the "Multi-channel" output. When it SAID "Atmos" it was only _really_ outputting sound to the front L/R speakers. The label "Atmos" was utterly meaningless. But I believe this is why some people THINK The Mandalorian is available in Atmos in some parts of the country. The reality is there is no Atmos version period (for now at least).


I feel like this has already been explained with sufficient clarity, but to reiterate for the record:

The Mandalorian DOES have an Atmos soundtrack. The lack of Atmos on this show when watched on an Apple TV is an Apple TV specific problem. If you watch the same episodes on a different device, you will get full Atmos with surround sound and overhead effects and the whole deal (just very little bass, because someone at Disney hates bass). 

Please stop saying that The Mandlorian doesn't have an Atmos soundtrack. It does have an Atmos soundtrack. You just can't play it from an Apple TV until Apple fixes this problem. That's entirely on Apple.


----------



## TheCableMan

What would you all think about using Klipsch is rs 52ii for atmos. They are not bipolar or dipole but klipsch "Wide Dispersion Technology" I have a extra set just sitting around and wondering it they would do better then my current Micca in ceiling. They would also be Timbre matched to the rest of my system which would be a plus.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> I feel like this has already been explained with sufficient clarity, but to reiterate for the record:


You do, eh? That's news to me. You expect me to be able to tell hearsay reports of Atmos from a bug that says ATMOS when it's actually delivering STEREO? Most devices don't have Atmos support period from the posts I've been reading here and elsewhere. Exactly what device has Atmos working for the Mandalorian? Regardless, chill out. For god's sake, it's just a TV show. Everything on Disney+ on AppleTV 4K that says it's in Atmos so far has been in Atmos when I start it. So it's an Apple bug, they missed ONE show apparently.



> The lack of Atmos on this show when watched on an Apple TV is an Apple TV specific problem. If you watch the same episodes on a different device, you will get full Atmos with surround sound and overhead effects and the whole deal (just very little bass, because someone at Disney hates bass).


And what devices would that be? My NVidia Shield, for instance, offers NOTHING in Atmos from Disney+. Instead of screaming about me telling the TRUTH about my experience, maybe you could do something helpful like provide a list of devices that get Atmos with the show. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed in the tone of your post. It's like you come out of nowhere to contradict something that doesn't matter. It doesn't work on an AppleTV and it presents itself with a bug that existed LONG BEFORE Disney+ existed (false Atmos readings that come in as stereo instead). All the programs that are marked Atmos are in Atmos on Disney+ and yet you blame Apple instead of Disney. Unbelievable. It's not Apple's fault if Disney cannot make their own App work. That bug for a false reading is probably Apple's fault, but Disney has NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES to blame for The Mandalorian not being in Atmos if it's supposed to be on AppleTV as everything else they marked Atmos is in Atmos. Someone apparently screwed up if what you say is true about Atmos existing for the show and I'd be money it was Disney.



> Please stop saying that The Mandlorian doesn't have an Atmos soundtrack. It does have an Atmos soundtrack. You just can't play it from an Apple TV until Apple fixes this problem. That's entirely on Apple.


Maybe it's not intentional, but this really comes across as an attitude. My information is accurate for my device and every device I own (around FIVE that have Disney+ on them and NONE show The Mandalorian listed as being in Atmos). If ROKU or something I don't use has it in Atmos, great. How does that help AppleTV owners? My posts make it clear what I'm using, but you make it sound like I'm intentionally deceiving people or something. God, I'm starting to hate these forums. Hobbies are supposed to be fun, but between people with massive egos telling me that my system doesn't render sounds correctly (absolute BS) and people screaming at me for saying I don't get Atmos with The Mandalorian (I don't) and plenty of people in the past telling me to basically sit down and shut up the moment I asked a single question about Atmos a year and a half ago, I have to say these forums kind of suck. Go to Audioholics and see what a friendly forum with people enjoying their hobby is like because people are way on the edge here about nothing.


----------



## rboster

Josh Z said:


> I feel like this has already been explained with sufficient clarity, but to reiterate for the record:
> 
> The Mandalorian DOES have an Atmos soundtrack. The lack of Atmos on this show when watched on an Apple TV is an Apple TV specific problem. If you watch the same episodes on a different device, you will get full Atmos with surround sound and overhead effects and the whole deal (just very little bass, because someone at Disney hates bass).
> 
> Please stop saying that The Mandlorian doesn't have an Atmos soundtrack. It does have an Atmos soundtrack. You just can't play it from an Apple TV until Apple fixes this problem. That's entirely on Apple.





MagnumX said:


> You do, eh? That's news to me. You expect me to be able to tell hearsay reports of Atmos from a bug that says ATMOS when it's actually delivering STEREO? Most devices don't have Atmos support period from the posts I've been reading here and elsewhere. Exactly what device has Atmos working for the Mandalorian? Regardless, chill out. For god's sake, it's just a TV show. Everything on Disney+ on AppleTV 4K that says it's in Atmos so far has been in Atmos when I start it. So it's an Apple bug, they missed ONE show apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> And what devices would that be? My NVidia Shield, for instance, offers NOTHING in Atmos from Disney+. Instead of screaming about me telling the TRUTH about my experience, maybe you could do something helpful like provide a list of devices that get Atmos with the show. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed in the tone of your post. It's like you come out of nowhere to contradict something that doesn't matter. It doesn't work on an AppleTV and it presents itself with a bug that existed LONG BEFORE Disney+ existed (false Atmos readings that come in as stereo instead). All the programs that are marked Atmos are in Atmos on Disney+ and yet you blame Apple instead of Disney. Unbelievable. It's not Apple's fault if Disney cannot make their own App work. That bug for a false reading is probably Apple's fault, but Disney has NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES to blame for The Mandalorian not being in Atmos if it's supposed to be on AppleTV as everything else they marked Atmos is in Atmos. Someone apparently screwed up if what you say is true about Atmos existing for the show and I'd be money it was Disney.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's not intentional, but this really comes across as an attitude. My information is accurate for my device and every device I own (around FIVE that have Disney+ on them and NONE show The Mandalorian listed as being in Atmos). If ROKU or something I don't use has it in Atmos, great. How does that help AppleTV owners? My posts make it clear what I'm using, but you make it sound like I'm intentionally deceiving people or something. God, I'm starting to hate these forums. Hobbies are supposed to be fun, but between people with massive egos telling me that my system doesn't render sounds correctly (absolute BS) and people screaming at me for saying I don't get Atmos with The Mandalorian (I don't) and plenty of people in the past telling me to basically sit down and shut up the moment I asked a single question about Atmos a year and a half ago, I have to say these forums kind of suck. Go to Audioholics and see what a friendly forum with people enjoying their hobby is like because people are way on the edge here about nothing.


Guys let's take a deep breath and move on. If want to continue the discussion, please take it to PM....but IMHO nothing will be accomplished by continuing.


----------



## batpig

TheCableMan said:


> What would you all think about using Klipsch is rs 52ii for atmos. They are not bipolar or dipole but klipsch "Wide Dispersion Technology" I have a extra set just sitting around and wondering it they would do better then my current Micca in ceiling. They would also be Timbre matched to the rest of my system which would be a plus.


Using wide-dispersion speakers for Atmos is very viable, especially if you have typical 8' or less domestic ceiling height and/or you are only doing x.x.2 with a pair directly overhead (where hot-spotting can be a problem).

Companies like Triad (which was very active with Dolby in the development of home Atmos) recommend using their bipole surround speakers for Atmos overheads with lower ceiling heights. 

I've experimented in my room, where I installed a pair of Niles in-ceilings overhead as Top Middle initially when I was only running x.x.2. These speakers have dual tweeters with a switchable bipole/dipole design. For years I was mildly annoyed by hot-spotting and having them be too overbearing with overhead effects (my ceiling is only about 7.5'), and even when I installed additional overheads (first Front Height, later moving them to more of a Top Front position) I found that the Top Middle still dominated the overhead sound, annoyingly so at times.

Finally, at some point I decided to try the dipole setting. Blasphemy!! But turns out it's much more pleasant, I still get clear overhead effects but with a much less distracting, more diffuse/immersive sound. I used to have to drag down the levels on the Top Middle trying to restore balance, but switching to dipole alleviated the problem. 

This type of effect is probably why in the initial staged Dolby Atmos demos back in 2014, many people preferred the up-firing bounce speakers when presented with blind A/B comparisons. It provides a more diffuse, immersive overhead sound, at the expense of pinpoint precision.... but with speakers only 4-5 feet above your head, pinpoint precision can actually be distracting at times. Same exact logic as to why using a bookshelf speaker for side surround at the end of the couch can be distracting vs. a more diffuse design. Direct-firing speakers need some space to image properly.


----------



## TheCableMan

batpig said:


> Using wide-dispersion speakers for Atmos is very viable, especially if you have typical 8' or less domestic ceiling height and/or you are only doing x.x.2 with a pair directly overhead (where hot-spotting can be a problem).
> 
> Companies like Triad (which was very active with Dolby in the development of home Atmos) recommend using their bipole surround speakers for Atmos overheads with lower ceiling heights.
> 
> I've experimented in my room, where I installed a pair of Niles in-ceilings overhead as Top Middle initially when I was only running x.x.2. These speakers have dual tweeters with a switchable bipole/dipole design. For years I was mildly annoyed by hot-spotting and having them be too overbearing with overhead effects (my ceiling is only about 7.5'), and even when I installed additional overheads (first Front Height, later moving them to more of a Top Front position) I found that the Top Middle still dominated the overhead sound, annoyingly so at times.
> 
> Finally, at some point I decided to try the dipole setting. Blasphemy!! But turns out it's much more pleasant, I still get clear overhead effects but with a much less distracting, more diffuse/immersive sound. I used to have to drag down the levels on the Top Middle trying to restore balance, but switching to dipole alleviated the problem.
> 
> This type of effect is probably why in the initial staged Dolby Atmos demos back in 2014, many people preferred the up-firing bounce speakers when presented with blind A/B comparisons. It provides a more diffuse, immersive overhead sound, at the expense of pinpoint precision.... but with speakers only 4-5 feet above your head, pinpoint precision can actually be distracting at times. Same exact logic as to why using a bookshelf speaker for side surround at the end of the couch can be distracting vs. a more diffuse design. Direct-firing speakers need some space to image properly.


Thank you for the education and in depth response. I am really curious to try them out but mounting them up there poses a challenge.


----------



## bryantc

Josh Z said:


> I feel like this has already been explained with sufficient clarity, but to reiterate for the record:
> 
> The Mandalorian DOES have an Atmos soundtrack. The lack of Atmos on this show when watched on an Apple TV is an Apple TV specific problem. If you watch the same episodes on a different device, you will get full Atmos with surround sound and overhead effects and the whole deal (just very little bass, because someone at Disney hates bass).
> 
> Please stop saying that The Mandlorian doesn't have an Atmos soundtrack. It does have an Atmos soundtrack. You just can't play it from an Apple TV until Apple fixes this problem. That's entirely on Apple.


It can't be an Apple problem when all the other Atmos content on Disney+ works fine.


----------



## batpig

For what it's worth, I have an AppleTV 4K and it shows Mandalorian as 5.1 in the Disney+ UI. When I played the first episode, my Denon reported it as a 5.1 DD+ input.

Last night I watched episode 2, and all of a sudden it reported it as an Atmos input. I didn't do any detailed tests to determine if there was "actual" Atmos (i.e. use of overheads) or if there was a glitch where it was really 5.1 in an Atmos container.

I will say that I have found the volume level to be annoyingly low, it was really bad on episode 2 especially (which potentially points to some glitch with the input signal). In episode 1 there's a blaster shootout scene with lots of explosions and I cranked it up and the lack of bass dynamics was quite disappointing.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> For what it's worth, I have an AppleTV 4K and it shows Mandalorian as 5.1 in the Disney+ UI. When I played the first episode, my Denon reported it as a 5.1 DD+ input.
> 
> Last night I watched episode 2, and all of a sudden it reported it as an Atmos input. I didn't do any detailed tests to determine if there was "actual" Atmos (i.e. use of overheads) or if there was a glitch where it was really 5.1 in an Atmos container.
> 
> I will say that I have found the volume level to be annoyingly low, it was really bad on episode 2 especially (which potentially points to some glitch with the input signal). In episode 1 there's a blaster shootout scene with lots of explosions and I cranked it up and the lack of bass dynamics was quite disappointing.


Next on the testing queue  for Atmos use. It will be interesting to compare to what I think are relatively nice dynamics for the original trilogy and prequels.


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> Next on the testing queue  for Atmos use. It will be interesting to compare to what I think are relatively nice dynamics for the original trilogy and prequels.


After reading these last few comments I'm going to try resetting the ATV4K to see if it fixes the issue. The volume was definitely low on Ep1 but Ep2 was ridiculous, which makes me think something was buggy with that title.

As a sanity check, I played some demo scenes from other SW movies like the pod race in Phantom Menace and the opening space battle in Revenge of the Sith, and found them to sound quite dynamic with solid bass, so definitely something goofy with the Mandalorian.

Since you have Disney+ now to play with, can you check those fancy Trinnov lights on Captain America: Civil War? That's the one Disney/Marvel title I found which actually behaves like Atmos, with tons of activity in the wides and all overheads during any action scene. Haven't tested it streaming yet but curious if that made it to the online version!


----------



## chi_guy50

What's that you say, bubeleh? You say the lack of LFE on Mouse releases has you down?

Sei ruhig, Kind! Just pop the IMAX Space Station 4K in your BRD player and strap in for the ride of your life (quite literally).

When the Discovery shuttle blasts off, I could almost feel the g-forces pushing me into my seat as the entire room around me vibrated. The DTS:X IMAX track truly leaves nothing to be desired. Here's how the reviewer at Blu-Ray.com describes it:


_A rocket blasts off at the six-minute mark and the presentation is simply something else. The feel of powerful thrust and rushing debris (which breaks the camera lens) is spectacular. It's a rare occurrence when the combination of raw power and seemingly random excess and jumbles of noise merge in harmony to absolutely pull the listener right outside the launch. A similar effect is heard -- and felt -- in chapter five when Discovery blasts off with so much force and feeling and sounding so close that it's amazing one's skin isn't seared by the fiery blast. _


----------



## MagnumX

chi_guy50 said:


> What's that you say, bubeleh? You say the lack of LFE on Mouse releases has you down?
> 
> Sei ruhig, Kind! Just pop the IMAX Space Station 4K in your BRD player and strap in for the ride of your life (quite literally).
> 
> When the Discovery shuttle blasts off, I could almost feel the g-forces pushing me into my seat as the entire room around me vibrated. The DTS:X IMAX track truly leaves nothing to be desired. Here's how the reviewer at Blu-Ray.com describes it:
> 
> 
> _A rocket blasts off at the six-minute mark and the presentation is simply something else. The feel of powerful thrust and rushing debris (which breaks the camera lens) is spectacular. It's a rare occurrence when the combination of raw power and seemingly random excess and jumbles of noise merge in harmony to absolutely pull the listener right outside the launch. A similar effect is heard -- and felt -- in chapter five when Discovery blasts off with so much force and feeling and sounding so close that it's amazing one's skin isn't seared by the fiery blast. _



DTS always did seem to go for the extra bass compared to Dolby soundtracks clear back to DVD days. Maybe the more things change, the more they stay the same. With streaming, you ought to be able to select whatever soundtrack version you'd like (DTS:X, Atmos, Auro-3D), but that would mean actual competition and choices for the consumer. We can't have that! 

The 7012 has a "subwoofer" setting that can override the system setup at the push of a button or two (they got rid of it with the 7013, unfortunately). I just leave it at +6dB for those kind of soundtracks that are lacking. It usually perks them the right up. The Mandalorian sounded fairly decent afterward, although I did have to set the volume to ZERO (but that's pretty much true of all Apple TV 4K movies, give or take a few dB). Blu-Rays are usually played here at -10 to -6 by comparison (Audyssey is calibrated)


----------



## noah katz

batpig said:


> Using wide-dispersion speakers for Atmos is very viable...
> 
> Finally, at some point I decided to try the dipole setting. Blasphemy!! But turns out it's much more pleasant, I still get clear overhead effects but with a much less distracting, more diffuse/immersive sound. I used to have to drag down the levels on the Top Middle trying to restore balance, but switching to dipole alleviated the problem.
> 
> This type of effect is probably why in the initial staged Dolby Atmos demos back in 2014, many people preferred the up-firing bounce speakers when presented with blind A/B comparisons. It provides a more diffuse, immersive overhead sound, at the expense of pinpoint precision.... but with speakers only 4-5 feet above your head, pinpoint precision can actually be distracting at times. Same exact logic as to why using a bookshelf speaker for side surround at the end of the couch can be distracting vs. a more diffuse design. Direct-firing speakers need some space to image properly.



Exactly my experience, as I've shared more than once about the improvement I got with Mirage Omnipolars for surrounds.

Wide dispersion isn't just viable, it's highly desirable.

The Omnipolars actually aren't quite; there's an offset in the reflectors to bias the sound toward the front to keep them suitable as mains.

For surrounds and most especially for heights, I think it would be even better to go fully omnidirectional.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I think it would be very helpful if someone could actually pull out a full list of Disney+ Atmos supported devices.


It sounds like maybe the ATV4K. Any others?


Also, I've tweeted at them several times and I waited for more than 2 hours on their chat function without ever getting to someone to talk to. All I want is a list of devices. I don't know why that is so hard for them to provide.


----------



## MagnumX

Just ask Josh. He clearly knows everything there is to know about the subject. 😉

What else other than smart TVs is left, but ROKU and possibly newer FireTV (2nd gen 4K doesn't work here)? XBox? PS4? Zidoo here has mobile apps only. It's great for playing 3D movies off hard drives, though.

NVidia Shield doesn't offer Atmos for Disney+ here, but it's always possible some devices require 4K TVs/projectors or an HDFury to fool them to offer Atmos for a given app too (Vudu and Prime here on Apple still do here). Apple TV offers Atmos for iTunes, Netflix and Disney+ regardless here (my projector is still 2K/3D).


----------



## Nick V

Has anybody pulled off a 4.1.4 Atmos system in a multi-purpose living area that's open to two stories?


It would be in this room:
























I have a framed 2019 Samsung The Frame 65" 4K TV on the wall now, and a non-combustible stone mantel going between the TV and the fireplace, so there's no room for a center channel.









I'm thinking phantom center with in-wall Wisdom Audio Insight P6i for the Front L/R (this system will do double duty as a 2 channel system), then maybe Goldenear (to save a bit of money) for the rear Height channels and in-ceiling surrounds. I was thinking the front heights will be directly in-line with the main L/R installed at 10' height on the front wall (Wisdom Insight P2i), and the rear heights will be installed at 10' height on the rear wall (was thinking GE Invisa HTR 7000 with square grilles so that the sound can be angled down towards the couch) and then the surround L/R will be a pair of in-ceiling GE Invisa HTR 7000's behind the couch.


I think it should work pretty well, am I on the right track?


----------



## batpig

batpig said:


> After reading these last few comments I'm going to try resetting the ATV4K to see if it fixes the issue. The volume was definitely low on Ep1 but Ep2 was ridiculous, which makes me think something was buggy with that title.


Quick follow-up ... I tried the ATV4K reset and after resetting, Mandalorian played as 5.1 (not Atmos) on both episodes. Titles listed as having Atmos (like Dr Strange) played in Atmos. 

Also, it's not a Mandalorian-specific issue, it's clearly an issue with the ATV4K Disney+ app. I know this because I tried to play a completely different title (the old X-Men cartoon which is stereo) and it ALSO showed as Atmos, even though it was clearly actually playing in stereo, which is what reminded my to try resetting the ATV. After the reset the X-Men series played back in stereo in addition to Mandalorian playing back in 5.1.


----------



## MagnumX

@Nick V - Technically, I run 4.1 in a similar layout living room, except it's at the top of the stairs with on open side, on draped side and a long hallway on one side behind. It's the best room response I've ever had (+/- 3.5dB total with no correction and +/- 2.5dB for bass up to 200Hz with no correction in REW). It's currently a full analog path from preamp to Carver ribbon speakers with custom active crossovers biamped with an add on surround processor for occasional TV or movie use with 2.1 Klipsch surrounds. They actually are mounted at either base of the chair pointed at the side walls and sounds like the surrounds are coming from a point on the side walls from the MLP. I could add a center on top of my piano, but it'd never match the Carvers exactly and I typically have a Macbook Pro there for recording that would be in the way. I'm usually the only listener anyway and sit in the middle in a recliner across from the piano.

I've been giving some thought about adding Atmos/X to it and if so, it would either be 4.1.4 or 6.1.4 (no center). I kind of hate to put speakers on the ceiling in that room though (in ceiling could look OK, though). 

Alternatively, I've thought about using virtual height speakers. I've played with DTS Virtual X downstairs (disable overheads and it becomes available and works surprisingly well, IMO for on-axis seats). I'm usually the only on using that system for anything but music so it could be a viable alternative, especially with Dolby rescinding the upmixer restrictions. I'd probably have to give up the pure analog 2-channel operation capability (with LPs anyway) to do it either way (in ceiling or virtual since It'd need a modern AVR processor) though, although perhaps direct input would preserve it internally with some AVRs for stereo operation.

So that's another possibility, although for more than one seat, I'd probably stick with in-ceiling, but then a phantom center could be problematic for more than one seat as well.


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> batpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these last few comments I'm going to try resetting the ATV4K to see if it fixes the issue. The volume was definitely low on Ep1 but Ep2 was ridiculous, which makes me think something was buggy with that title.
> 
> 
> 
> Quick follow-up ... I tried the ATV4K reset and after resetting, Mandalorian played as 5.1 (not Atmos) on both episodes. Titles listed as having Atmos (like Dr Strange) played in Atmos.
> 
> Also, it's not a Mandalorian-specific issue, it's clearly an issue with the ATV4K Disney+ app. I know this because I tried to play a completely different title (the old X-Men cartoon which is stereo) and it ALSO showed as Atmos, even though it was clearly actually playing in stereo, which is what reminded my to try resetting the ATV. After the reset the X-Men series played back in stereo in addition to Mandalorian playing back in 5.1.
Click to expand...

Actually, the false Atmos issue goes beyond just that one app, but only occurs with 5.1 material, not Atmos material so there's actually two separate issues at play. 

It's probably Disney's fault that The Mandalorian doesn't appear AVAILABLE in Atmos if it should be, but the false Atmos problem that shows up after extended use is an Apple bug as it occurs in Netflix too here over time, which is why I did the reboot when I noticed it wasn't actually playing back in Atmos after all as I've seen the bug before.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Quick follow-up ... I tried the ATV4K reset and after resetting, Mandalorian played as 5.1 (not Atmos) on both episodes. Titles listed as having Atmos (like Dr Strange) played in Atmos.
> 
> Also, it's not a Mandalorian-specific issue, it's clearly an issue with the ATV4K Disney+ app. I know this because I tried to play a completely different title (the old X-Men cartoon which is stereo) and it ALSO showed as Atmos, even though it was clearly actually playing in stereo, which is what reminded my to try resetting the ATV. After the reset the X-Men series played back in stereo in addition to Mandalorian playing back in 5.1.


For what it's worth, I have Disney+ on my Roku Ultra, and while the listing for Mandalorian is 5.1, the content shows up on the Altitude as Dolby Atmos. The bad news is that it's entirely 7.1.2 with all the overhead content always on in the top middles. And it's got the signature crappy bass and dynamic range for the soundbar crowd that's consistent with TFA and TLJ, as well as Solo. However, Episodes 1 to 6 have the robust bass and clearly more open dynamic range than the latter films or Mandalorian.

I took a screenshot of a representative first 15 minutes from Revenge of the Sith and Mandalorian with Input Meter peaks for each of my channels in both cases, and there's clearly more subdued use of surrounds on the channels for Mandalorian than Revenge of the Sith. in fact, the LFE at about the same db level than the height speakers on my Input Meters and about 10-20 db lower than the mains, where for Revenge of the Sith, the LFE peaks at about the same level if not higher than the mains. I think that's before the +10 LFE boost (which you can defeat if you really want on the Trinnov's bass management), so it's raw inputs, but you get the idea. Also, you can see that RotS is just playing louder, at a given master volume, than Mandalorian.

EDIT: I worked up this comparison. Lc/Rc are the inside screen left and right centers, hopefully the rest of the speaker designations are familiar. And the lack of content for rear heights is accurate; I have a 13.4.6 setup. The listed db levels are relative to full scale (what the Altitude reports), so less negative is louder. 

Not that peaks are representative of an entire movie, but it plays up that even leaving Atmos aside, Disney likely has a philosophy they've adapted for the 2015+ efforts that didn't exist for the earlier trilogies.


----------



## MagnumX

But the "old" trilogies are "new" Atmos conversions so why don't they have weak bass on the new mixes? Because they started with someone else's work that liked more bass as the starting point? 

It sounds inconsistent either way, almost like they had different people do the old mixes as Atmos (contracted it out to another company or group?) compared to someone else doing new movie mixing. Apparently that group also uses moving objects as well. I like that group better, whomever they are. A New Hope sounded quite good here, IMO.

Edit: 

I'm still not sure about the XBox One, but this article (https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/disney-plus-dolby-atmos-problems/) clearly points to The Mandalorian only working in Atmos on ROKU devices and confirms AppleTV 4K only does 5.1 for that, but does Atmos on the movies. NVidia Shield (even the new 2019 one) doesn't do anything in Atmos (as usual it seems). I don't know if any Smart TVs get Atmos with Disney+ or which ones even have it (my Samsung QLED has Disney+, but I gave it to my mother to use at her house and she only has a 5.1 receiver so I don't know if the QLED does Atmos or not with its Disney+ app. (I ended up liking my old Plasma better for SD material and can't see 4K resolution improvements at my living room distances anyway so I gave her the Samsung QLED and went back to my Panasonic Plasma for my living room; meanwhile I still haven't found a true 4K projector with 3D support that has horizontal and vertical lens shift I need in my room other than Sharp's "Pseudo 4K" units)

This article shows all the devices supported for Disney+ (https://sonyreconsidered.com/how-to-get-disney-on-ps4-33722c14fe0d) It implies PS4 and PS4 Pro supports Atmos. I'm going to go try that as it's hard to believe (but then I haven't used my PS4 in ages).


----------



## niterida

noah katz said:


> Exactly my experience, as I've shared more than once about the improvement I got with Mirage Omnipolars for surrounds.
> 
> Wide dispersion isn't just viable, it's highly desirable.
> 
> The Omnipolars actually aren't quite; there's an offset in the reflectors to bias the sound toward the front to keep them suitable as mains.
> 
> For surrounds and most especially for heights, I think it would be even better to go fully omnidirectional.



I just tried bipolar in place of my direct firing surrounds.


The hot-spotting effect went away but so did the immersion. 



Without doing a direct back-to-back comparison you would say that the bipoles sound great and the sound still appears to be locatable. But as soon as you go back to direct-firing you realise that it is not anywhere near as accurate and in my room actually felt less immersive.


Note that my surrounds are about 10deg in front of MLP so the seat closest is about 30deg off-axis which I found helps to remove hot-spotting anyway.



So as usual I think every room, speaker and person is different and there is no clear answer


----------



## noah katz

Interesting.

How were the bipolars oriented?

Was that with just the surrounds?

I wonder if it's because when surrounds are directly to the sides, they're maximally unlocatable because the far ear is in the acoustic shadow of the head, and firing more of the sound





niterida said:


> I just tried bipolar in place of my direct firing surrounds.
> 
> 
> The hot-spotting effect went away but so did the immersion.
> 
> 
> 
> Without doing a direct back-to-back comparison you would say that the bipoles sound great and the sound still appears to be locatable. But as soon as you go back to direct-firing you realise that it is not anywhere near as accurate and in my room actually felt less immersive.
> 
> 
> Note that my surrounds are about 10deg in front of MLP so the seat closest is about 30deg off-axis which I found helps to remove hot-spotting anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> So as usual I think every room, speaker and person is different and there is no clear answer


----------



## niterida

noah katz said:


> Interesting.
> 
> How were the bipolars oriented?
> 
> Was that with just the surrounds?
> 
> I wonder if it's because when surrounds are directly to the sides, they're maximally unlocatable because the far ear is in the acoustic shadow of the head, and firing more of the sound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> niterida said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just tried bipolar in place of my direct firing surrounds.
> 
> 
> The hot-spotting effect went away but so did the immersion.
> 
> 
> 
> Without doing a direct back-to-back comparison you would say that the bipoles sound great and the sound still appears to be locatable. But as soon as you go back to direct-firing you realise that it is not anywhere near as accurate and in my room actually felt less immersive.
> 
> 
> Note that my surrounds are about 10deg in front of MLP so the seat closest is about 30deg off-axis which I found helps to remove hot-spotting anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> So as usual I think every room, speaker and person is different and there is no clear answer /forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
Click to expand...

I put the bipolar at 90deg and same height as the direct firing surrounds. I didn't try them at different azimuth since I imagine you would lose the bipole effect.
I tested them with Kraftwerk Atmos bluray and you clearly lost track of the pinpoint sound darting around the room in track 3.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> I just tried bipolar in place of my direct firing surrounds.
> ...
> 
> Note that my surrounds are about 10deg in front of MLP so the seat closest is about 30deg off-axis which I found helps to remove hot-spotting anyway.


Your surround speakers are "in front of" your MLP? That's slightly unusual. They're normally directly to the side (typical of 7.1) or 10-20 degrees behind the MLP (typical of 5.1), although the room plays a big part in the decision. There are some famous speaker designers that prefer them in front of instead of behind, though. 



niterida said:


> I put the bipolar at 90deg and same height as the direct firing surrounds. I didn't try them at different azimuth since I imagine you would lose the bipole effect.
> I tested them with Kraftwerk Atmos bluray and you clearly lost track of the pinpoint sound darting around the room in track 3.


I think part of the problem may be in how they are being used. Dipoles were commonly used with the null area directly to the sides to create more ambience (hard to locate speakers effect). Bipoles used that way with no drivers facing towards the seating do it to a lesser degree and image somewhat more like direct drivers. Used this way, bipoles are kind of a halfway solution between the old Pro Logic recommendations for dipoles and 5.1 imaging that needed more precision and works well in the old 5.1 only surround setups, IMO (My first 5.1 system used this). It's not as dispersed as a dipole, but not as pin-point as a direct firing radiator, which is what I believe you are describing here. It's probably not the best choice for Atmos, however as more precision is needed, particularly with more speakers available with overhead and/or rear surrounds in use). 

Bipoles used between rows with partially angled drivers (typically not front/back, but angled 30-40 degrees into the room towards rows in front of or behind the speaker) act like two sets of closely arrayed monopoles (sound similar to direct drivers, but get rid of the bad off-axis response when you only have ONE direct firing speaker which can only face one row of seats. By putting them between rows with two sets of angled drivers, you essentially get perfect on-axis response in both directions. This should sound almost identical to a direct firing speaker used that way. My side heights used as surround height for Auro-3D or DTS:X and "Top Middle" for Atmos are set up like this, placed between rows and directly in the middle of the room between both sets of front/rear height speakers. This sounds similar above as two sets of sides that are arrayed sound below. They image to the side the same as the front/rear heights image from those directions as they are really two arrayed direct radiators aimed like that. The rear wave from either direction acts more like the method below (i.e. a rear wave reverb-like reflection).

The other way to use bipoles (That Definitive Technology pushed along with Mirage and some others) is placing the front of the bipole speaker (drivers forward) in front of the MLP like a regular stereo speaker with the rear drivers facing the front (or rear if used in the back) walls. This requires the drivers be at least 12" from the wall with bipolar (or 3+ feet with dipolar) speakers. Used that way, they create an extra set of reflections that anchor the phantom images in space, creating a more "realistic" sounding phantom image (e.g. with my Carver Dipole Ribbons upstairs, a vocalist sounds like they're really in the room singing as opposed to a stereo "image" of someone singing, if you take my meaning). This is more of an ambient/spatial effect than any type of surround use, however.

In your case, if you orientated the bipoles such that one set of drivers faced directly towards the MLP, you'd get a much sharper imaged effect. But then it also matters whether the bipoles in question are at 180 degrees to each other (front/back like my old Definitive Tech BP2 speakers) or one of these side wall types that have them angled closer to 30/150. The former would work better angled towards you. The latter works better between rows of seats (or as a null directly to the side in old 5.1 systems only). This would be purely to salvage the speakers if you didn't want to buy another direct firing set or whatever.

Frankly, with one row of seating, you're probably better off with direct firing monopoles regardless as there's not much useful to do with the other set of drivers (save perhaps the front/back ambient usage which is hard to do from the side unless you have a very wide room that you can put the side surrounds 12 inches away from the side walls without being too close to the seating). I think the angled bipoles in an Atmos type system are only really appropriate between multiple rows of seating, which really just fix the off-axis response issue of having one speaker between rows facing neither row, although if the speaker has excellent off-axis response that can work instead.


----------



## noah katz

niterida said:


> I put the bipolar at 90deg and same height as the direct firing surrounds. I didn't try them at different azimuth since I imagine you would lose the bipole effect.
> I tested them with Kraftwerk Atmos bluray and you clearly lost track of the pinpoint sound darting around the room in track 3.



Fair enough.

I guess the Omnipolars are just the ticket since the angle of strongest output faces forward.


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Since you have Disney+ now to play with, can you check those fancy Trinnov lights on Captain America: Civil War? That's the one Disney/Marvel title I found which actually behaves like Atmos, with tons of activity in the wides and all overheads during any action scene. Haven't tested it streaming yet but curious if that made it to the online version!


The fancy Trinnov lights tell me it’s a solid 9.1.2, with frequent music swells and occasional special effects in the wides and top middles. Very infrequently, you’ll see everything momentarily light up for a few seconds, like front or rear overheads.


----------



## MagnumX

@sdrucker - I just finished watching the rest of Revenge of the Sith. I'm curious (seeing as you have PSB brand speakers as well) if you found some of the dialog in that movie to have excess sibilance? It was bad enough in a few places that I actually turned Audyssey off to see if it helped any (it didn't). It almost reminded me of bit-starved compression a few times (like 8-bit audio on the Commodore Amiga). In that regard, it seemed noticeably worse than A New Hope here. I also heard far less front/rear height activity (far more in the top middle only) for brief moments, although I believe there were several short bits (e.g. When Anakin takes off in that speeder/ship to go to the Emperor at the end, chasing after Mace Windoo, it briefly pans through front to back height and then part of the sound settles off to the left of top middle). 

Bass in Revenge of the Sith was still far better than The Mandalorian Episode 2, which when I ran it again to compare, had me trying to turn up the overall volume past 0 and found it wouldn't let me turn it up past +1 for some reason. If I turned Audyssey OFF, I could crank the show much much higher (I stopped at +8 where it was actually getting quite loud; previous tests showed +18 with Audyssey off). I only can assume the correction must need some EQ headroom or something in reserve. In any case, that show seemed very low volume and had far less bass, as well (and still stuck in 5.1). I downloaded Disney+ for my PS4 as well (which I hadn't used in many months) and it only does 5.1 as well. I think ROKU is the only device out there (save possibly some Smart TVs?) that apparently gets Atmos with The Mandalorian. This time after watching ROTS in Atmos, it switched properly to 5.1 without a reboot, though so clearly that bug only rears its head after extended use, not every time it switches between Atmos and 5.1 in the same App.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Your surround speakers are "in front of" your MLP? That's slightly unusual. They're normally directly to the side (typical of 7.1) or 10-20 degrees behind the MLP (typical of 5.1), although the room plays a big part in the decision. There are some famous speaker designers that prefer them in front of instead of behind, though.
> 
> 
> 
> I think part of the problem may be in how they are being used. Dipoles were commonly used with the null area directly to the sides to create more ambience (hard to locate speakers effect). Bipoles used that way with no drivers facing towards the seating do it to a lesser degree and image somewhat more like direct drivers. Used this way, bipoles are kind of a halfway solution between the old Pro Logic recommendations for dipoles and 5.1 imaging that needed more precision and works well in the old 5.1 only surround setups, IMO (My first 5.1 system used this). It's not as dispersed as a dipole, but not as pin-point as a direct firing radiator, which is what I believe you are describing here. It's probably not the best choice for Atmos, however as more precision is needed, particularly with more speakers available with overhead and/or rear surrounds in use).
> 
> Bipoles used between rows with partially angled drivers (typically not front/back, but angled 30-40 degrees into the room towards rows in front of or behind the speaker) act like two sets of closely arrayed monopoles (sound similar to direct drivers, but get rid of the bad off-axis response when you only have ONE direct firing speaker which can only face one row of seats. By putting them between rows with two sets of angled drivers, you essentially get perfect on-axis response in both directions. This should sound almost identical to a direct firing speaker used that way. My side heights used as surround height for Auro-3D or DTS:X and "Top Middle" for Atmos are set up like this, placed between rows and directly in the middle of the room between both sets of front/rear height speakers. This sounds similar above as two sets of sides that are arrayed sound below. They image to the side the same as the front/rear heights image from those directions as they are really two arrayed direct radiators aimed like that. The rear wave from either direction acts more like the method below (i.e. a rear wave reverb-like reflection).
> 
> The other way to use bipoles (That Definitive Technology pushed along with Mirage and some others) is placing the front of the bipole speaker (drivers forward) in front of the MLP like a regular stereo speaker with the rear drivers facing the front (or rear if used in the back) walls. This requires the drivers be at least 12" from the wall with bipolar (or 3+ feet with dipolar) speakers. Used that way, they create an extra set of reflections that anchor the phantom images in space, creating a more "realistic" sounding phantom image (e.g. with my Carver Dipole Ribbons upstairs, a vocalist sounds like they're really in the room singing as opposed to a stereo "image" of someone singing, if you take my meaning). This is more of an ambient/spatial effect than any type of surround use, however.
> 
> In your case, if you orientated the bipoles such that one set of drivers faced directly towards the MLP, you'd get a much sharper imaged effect. But then it also matters whether the bipoles in question are at 180 degrees to each other (front/back like my old Definitive Tech BP2 speakers) or one of these side wall types that have them angled closer to 30/150. The former would work better angled towards you. The latter works better between rows of seats (or as a null directly to the side in old 5.1 systems only). This would be purely to salvage the speakers if you didn't want to buy another direct firing set or whatever.
> 
> Frankly, with one row of seating, you're probably better off with direct firing monopoles regardless as there's not much useful to do with the other set of drivers (save perhaps the front/back ambient usage which is hard to do from the side unless you have a very wide room that you can put the side surrounds 12 inches away from the side walls without being too close to the seating). I think the angled bipoles in an Atmos type system are only really appropriate between multiple rows of seating, which really just fix the off-axis response issue of having one speaker between rows facing neither row, although if the speaker has excellent off-axis response that can work instead.



I have my direct firing surrounds slightly in front because they are a bit too close to the outside seats if they at 90deg. I found this gives much better front soundstage and because the closest listener is now 17.5 deg off-axis it has dramatically reduced the hot-spotting. They are only 15" forward of MLP and this allows them clear line of sight to MLP.


The bipoles I tried are Wharfedale Diamonds with the angled drivers (not 180deg back to back) and they wer directly to the side at 90deg - I only have one row of seating


----------



## fredxr2d2

So, I finally waited long enough in the line to get to talk to a support representative of Disney+. Here is the answer to my question, What are the devices that support Dolby Atmos with Disney+?


"So we do not have a list of compatible devices. The Disney+ website states the following: To enjoy the highest-quality Disney+ experience, all components, including HDMI cables, should support high-bandwidth digital content. External displays should support HDCP 2.2 for 4K Ultra HD and HDR content. Older audio and video components can have an impact on quality or possibly prevent playback entirely."


----------



## mtbdudex

fredxr2d2 said:


> So, I finally waited long enough in the line to get to talk to a support representative of Disney+. Here is the answer to my question, What are the devices that support Dolby Atmos with Disney+?
> 
> 
> "So we do not have a list of compatible devices. The Disney+ website states the following: To enjoy the highest-quality Disney+ experience, all components, including HDMI cables, should support high-bandwidth digital content. External displays should support HDCP 2.2 for 4K Ultra HD and HDR content. Older audio and video components can have an impact on quality or possibly prevent playback entirely."




I’d expect that answer , as if they said device a, b, c does ... and it did not for whatever reason, then it’s Disney’s fault ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

It seems we've established that Atmos does work on The Mandalorian from a Roku, but not from an Apple TV or NVIDIA Shield. Has anyone tried an Amazon Fire TV device?


----------



## Augerhandle

Strange. Every time I play an ATMOS disc, whether it's Blu-ray or UHD, the ATMOS feature actually works as advertised. Every single time.


----------



## MagnumX

Unofficial Atmos with Disney+ list (feel free to modify as results come in). I've personally tested ATV 4K, NVidia Shield, PS4 and a FireTV 2nd gen (4K)

Atmos support in Disney+

Roku Ultra - yes

Atv4K - yes (Except The Mandalorian)

------

Xbox One - unknown

Newest FireTVs -unknown (Older no)

TVs - unknown

Computers - Unknown 

--------

PS4 - no

NVidia Shield - no

Phones - You're kidding, right?


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> Strange. Every time I play an ATMOS disc, whether it's Blu-ray or UHD, the ATMOS feature actually works as advertised. Every single time.


Apples to oranges (movie vs player). Did you try those discs in every single Blu-ray player? I've read a lot of stories about Oppo players in particular given their popularity with home theater.


----------



## bmcleod

*Dolby Atmos Setup / Test Tones / Downloads*



bmcleod said:


> Some time back (2-3 months ago?) I went to the link in the first post of this thread and downloaded the Atmos setup test tones for my system. Recently I recommend a friend get them as well and sent him the link, but he couldn’t find them, just the two demo files. I now can’t find them either, are they still there and I’m missing a link, or have they been taken down?


I’m going to bump this as I’d really like to find these setup/test files. I downloaded one of them (7.2.2) a couple months ago, but now can’t find them, does anyone know if they’re still available somewhere?

From the first post in this thread:
Atmos test tones download (E-AC3 audio in .mp4 container):
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html


----------



## MagnumX

If you have a Mac, you can download the 9.1.6 test tone Atmos demo from Dolby's web site (mp4 version has 'snap to' off so it will work with matrix and 'Scatmos' (extracted/steering) front wides.). For some reason, the last time I looked, the web site download didn't work correctly with Windows for some reason. Maybe someone should let Dolby know. The mac has a downloader app that worked fine when I tried it (It downloaded the mp4 version). The Dolby Blu-ray demo discs have the 'Snap to' versions on them.


----------



## Deezul

MagnumX said:


> Unofficial Atmos with Disney+ list (feel free to modify as results come in). I've personally tested ATV 4K, NVidia Shield, PS4 and a FireTV 2nd gen (4K)
> 
> Atmos support in Disney+
> 
> 
> Xbox One - unknown
> 
> 
> Phones - You're kidding, right?


Xbox One X doesn't show anything in Atmos on their app for me.

There are phones with Dolby Atmos - https://www.dolby.com/us/en/categories/smartphone.html


----------



## fredxr2d2

mtbdudex said:


> I’d expect that answer , as if they said device a, b, c does ... and it did not for whatever reason, then it’s Disney’s fault ...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I 100% get this logic, only that it is not the logic that the other streaming services seem to use (or use to use): Netflix always provided (a much too short, IMO) list of devices that worked with their Atmos streams, Hulu will tell you which devices do 4K and Amazon is pretty open about what devices (usually only Amazon ones) that can do Atmos from their very limited selection.


----------



## MagnumX

Deezul said:


> Xbox One X doesn't show anything in Atmos on their app for me.


Good to know.



> There are phones with Dolby Atmos - https://www.dolby.com/us/en/categories/smartphone.html


Wow. I can't imagine that doing anything useful with the speakers other than sounding a bit wider or whatever as even the orientation of the screen is up for grabs. Maybe Dolby headphone would work well there for movies, but without a screen reference to the sounds all over the place, I don't see the point, really other than maybe that's cool sounding (like binaural is).


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Wow. I can't imagine that doing anything useful with the speakers other than sounding a bit wider or whatever as even the orientation of the screen is up for grabs. Maybe Dolby headphone would work well there for movies, but without a screen reference to the sounds all over the place, I don't see the point, really other than maybe that's cool sounding (like binaural is).


I think the intent is to stream the video from your phone to your TV and sound equipment, not to watch and listen to it on the phone itself.


----------



## mtbdudex

Deezul said:


> Xbox One X doesn't show anything in Atmos on their app for me.
> 
> 
> 
> There are phones with Dolby Atmos - https://www.dolby.com/us/en/categories/smartphone.html




I followed the link, got this screen 









It’s an old iPhone listed, the X.
I clicked on it, that took me to apple site, there I saw nothing about Dolby technology in it.
I’ve got a 11Pro ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bmcleod

MagnumX said:


> If you have a Mac, you can download the 9.1.6 test tone Atmos demo from Dolby's web site (mp4 version has 'snap to' off so it will work with matrix and 'Scatmos' (extracted/steering) front wides.). For some reason, the last time I looked, the web site download didn't work correctly with Windows for some reason. Maybe someone should let Dolby know. The mac has a downloader app that worked fine when I tried it (It downloaded the mp4 version). The Dolby Blu-ray demo discs have the 'Snap to' versions on them.


Do you have a link or location to that file? I do have a Mac but can't find the test files on the Dolby site any more, you used to be able to download a specific file for your setup (5.1.4, 7.1.2, 9.1.6, etc). I can't find anything so if you do know where it is, please post a link. Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

bmcleod said:


> Do you have a link or location to that file? I do have a Mac but can't find the test files on the Dolby site any more, you used to be able to download a specific file for your setup (5.1.4, 7.1.2, 9.1.6, etc). I can't find anything so if you do know where it is, please post a link. Thanks.


http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/DolbyTestToneAndTrailerDownloader.dmg

Download and run on a Mac. Select Dolby 9.1.6 trailer (also available are 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and the amaze and leaf demos). Just point it to a directory. It doesn't have a to be an actual flash drive. I just tested it. It works fine. It's 265.3MB for the 9.1.6 MP4 demo. You can even download all of them at once.



Josh Z said:


> I think the intent is to stream the video from your phone to your TV and sound equipment, not to watch and listen to it on the phone itself.


Well, it's news to me. It seems like I read about DTS on phones/pads before and it wasn't for streaming. It was to make the device sound better than a crummy set of little speakers. An MP4 file can obviously host Atmos, after all (e.g. like the demos here). It shouldn't need a special phone for it. An AppleTV ought to be able to stream Atmos Airplay files, but I don't think that's quite supported yet (easy to test I suppose if you have an iPhone and can send it that MP4 file).


----------



## Keenan

mtbdudex said:


> I followed the link, got this screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s an old iPhone listed, the X.
> I clicked on it, that took me to apple site, there I saw nothing about Dolby technology in it.
> I’ve got a 11Pro ...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That looks like an old link. Maybe the below will help.

https://developer.dolby.com/platforms/apple/ios/device-support/


----------



## raynist

I used DIY Soundgroup’s Volt 10’s in my gameroom. I cut Baltic birch plywood the same size as my drop ceiling tiles and mounted the volts. There are no enclosures for these as they can be run free air. Audyssey set them at 60hz. They sound amazing!!

Here is a small thread about them if anyone is interested. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-...g-baltic-birch-no-enclosure.html#post58835008


----------



## dschulz

*MOAR Atmos Music*

Looks like Warner Music Group is joining Universal Music Group on the Atmos music bandwagon:

*SAN FRANCISCO and LOS ANGELES, Nov. 21, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB), a leader in immersive entertainment experiences, and Warner Music Group (WMG) are introducing an elevated way to experience WMG songs and albums with Dolby Atmos Music. Dolby Atmos is redefining how music is experienced by giving artists a platform that allows listeners to experience a deeper connection with their favorite artists and songs.*

Link to full press release here.


----------



## MagnumX

raynist said:


> I used DIY Soundgroup’s Volt 10’s in my gameroom. I cut Baltic birch plywood the same size as my drop ceiling tiles and mounted the volts. There are no enclosures for these as they can be run free air. Audyssey set them at 60hz. They sound amazing!!
> 
> Here is a small thread about them if anyone is interested.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-...g-baltic-birch-no-enclosure.html#post58835008


Nice. What's the speaker high on the side wall in the background and what are you using it for? It looks like a good spot for Auro-3D surround height. Or is that's what is being replaced with in-ceiling?


----------



## bmcleod

MagnumX said:


> http://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/DolbyTestToneAndTrailerDownloader.dmg
> 
> Download and run on a Mac. Select Dolby 9.1.6 trailer (also available are 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and the amaze and leaf demos). Just point it to a directory. It doesn't have a to be an actual flash drive. I just tested it. It works fine. It's 265.3MB for the 9.1.6 MP4 demo. You can even download all of them at once.
> ...


Thank you, I was able to successfully download the macOS installer, and successfully run it once, so I have one more file than before. Before and after that one success, it's crashed on both a MacBook Pro running Catalina, and a Mac mini running High Sierra, single files or all at once, internal drive, external drive. Doesn't like something about my systems. Anyway thank you, I'm one step closer, they must have taken the page down as you used to be able to get this same collection from a browser.


----------



## MagnumX

bmcleod said:


> Thank you, I was able to successfully download the macOS installer, and successfully run it once, so I have one more file than before. Before and after that one success, it's crashed on both a MacBook Pro running Catalina, and a Mac mini running High Sierra, single files or all at once, internal drive, external drive. Doesn't like something about my systems. Anyway thank you, I'm one step closer, they must have taken the page down as you used to be able to get this same collection from a browser.


Which one did you get? I'm running 10.14.6 Mojave (2012 Mac Mini Server Quad I7 16GB Ram, 2TB SSD). It runs fine. I downloaded all the files after that one. No crashes. This Mac in particular has been mighty stable for me now for 7 years and it ran dual 1TB RAID0 for over 6 years with no disk errors before I decided to get a faster SSD which let me put Windows 10 on it if I need it, which I set up to read my Mac media drives so KODI on various devices around the house can access the media library regardless of which OS I'm in as they appear the same to it. (It has typically run for many months without a reboot, which is usually only necessitated by either needing to use Windows 10 for something beyond VMWare or for a system update).


----------



## raynist

MagnumX said:


> Nice. What's the speaker high on the side wall in the background and what are you using it for? It looks like a good spot for Auro-3D surround height. Or is that's what is being replaced with in-ceiling?


Hi - that is my left rear surround. It is angled down towards the MLP. If I lower it any more it points into the back of my subs behind the MLP. It is about 10 ft behind the MLP and 6ft behind the left rear atmos.


----------



## anothermib

dschulz said:


> Looks like Warner Music Group is joining Universal Music Group on the Atmos music bandwagon:



That is great news. Hopefully it will really get some traction and is not just mainly driven by the desire to market the Echo Studio.


----------



## am2model3

yeah disney+ app on my xbox one x, best it shows me is 4k HDR10 dd 5.1 My DolbyAtmos system is 5.1.4. Disney, microsoft, you need to fix this! Call the techs at Vudu app for Xbox; they know how to make Atmos work over streaming! = )


----------



## Thomas W. Scutro

Klipsch 500SA question. I want to add dobly atmos speakers to my system. I do not want in ceiling speakers for various reasons. I have a 4k tv, receiver that is atmos capable. I currently have a 5.1 system. I am on the fence as whether or not to get the klipsch 41SA atmos or the 500SA. Any advice appreciated. Also. I will 1st try to place them on my klipsch floor standing speakers hoping that will suffice. BUT. If i purchase the 500SA’s which have a surround / atmos switch in back and hang them as front height speakers, can I still keep them in the atmos position and get atmos effects when they are on wall? Or is the atmos sound only effective while on speaker bouncing sound off ceiling? New to atmos...as you can tell. Thank you.


----------



## Constantine Zachariadis

*Windows 10 Atmos Issue*

I use a windows 10 7-gen NUC as a mediaplayer.
I have the Atmos app installed.
The NUC is connected to an Onkyo TX-NR777. From there to two Klipsch Rp-280FA for L&R, and LH, RH.
Got a subwoofer a center and 2 rear surrounds.


I setup up Atmos speaker layout in the receiver accordingly and it sends test sounds to all speakers fine.
When I try to test from Windows though, everything is messed up. It does not send test notes to the height speakers and it think my rear speakers are side speakers. What's the best way to set it up in Windows 10?


Thx


----------



## Augerhandle

Constantine Zachariadis said:


> I use a windows 10 7-gen NUC as a mediaplayer.
> I have the Atmos app installed.
> The NUC is connected to an Onkyo TX-NR777. From there to two Klipsch Rp-280FA for L&R, and LH, RH.
> Got a subwoofer a center and 2 rear surrounds.
> 
> 
> I setup up Atmos speaker layout in the receiver accordingly and it sends test sounds to all speakers fine.
> When I try to test from Windows though, everything is messed up. It does not send test notes to the height speakers and it think my rear speakers are side speakers. What's the best way to set it up in Windows 10?
> 
> 
> Thx


Under Setting/ sound/ there is a setting for atmos. You need to be connectecd for it to be available. Windows10 has a tutorial about it somewhere.


----------



## Augerhandle

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Klipsch 500SA question. I want to add dobly atmos speakers to my system. I do not want in ceiling speakers for various reasons. I have a 4k tv, receiver that is atmos capable. I currently have a 5.1 system. I am on the fence as whether or not to get the klipsch 41SA atmos or the 500SA. Any advice appreciated. Also. I will 1st try to place them on my klipsch floor standing speakers hoping that will suffice. BUT. If i purchase the 500SA’s which have a surround / atmos switch in back and hang them as front height speakers, can I still keep them in the atmos position and get atmos effects when they are on wall? Or is the atmos sound only effective while on speaker bouncing sound off ceiling? New to atmos...as you can tell. Thank you.


ATMOS is overhead effects. Mount them on the wall, and the sound will come from...well, the wall.


----------



## Constantine Zachariadis

Augerhandle said:


> Under Setting/ sound/ there is a setting for atmos. You need to be connectecd for it to be available. Windows10 has a tutorial about it somewhere.


 So it got better. I set the Onkyo to 'Direct' mode. Now when I play streams that have Atmos tracks, all the little speaker indicators go on except the red one that indicates 'Atmos'.
Under sound/settings 'Atmos for Home theater' is selected and the correct speaker layout is also set.


----------



## Augerhandle

Constantine Zachariadis said:


> So it got better. I set the Onkyo to 'Direct' mode. Now when I play streams that have Atmos tracks, all the little speaker indicators go on except the red one that indicates 'Atmos'.
> Under sound/settings 'Atmos for Home theater' is selected and the correct speaker layout is also set.


Don't use direct mode. Look for an Auto mode. It should switch to ATMOS when the source is ATMOS. I play ATMOS demos through my Windows 10 with no problems. I don't have an Onkyo for ATMOS, so I haven't any ideas on your setting menus.


----------



## Constantine Zachariadis

Augerhandle said:


> Don't use direct mode. Look for an Auto mode. It should switch to ATMOS when the source is ATMOS. I play ATMOS demos through my Windows 10 with no problems. I don't have an Onkyo for ATMOS, so I haven't any ideas on your setting menus.


There's no auto mode that I am aware of. Direct mode is essentially like 'passthrough' which means no processing done by receiver.


----------



## Thomas W. Scutro

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Klipsch 500SA question. I want to add dobly atmos speakers to my system. I do not want in ceiling speakers for various reasons. I have a 4k tv, receiver that is atmos capable. I currently have a 5.1 system. I am on the fence as whether or not to get the klipsch 41SA atmos or the 500SA. Any advice appreciated. Also. I will 1st try to place them on my klipsch floor standing speakers hoping that will suffice. BUT. If i purchase the 500SA’s which have a surround / atmos switch in back and hang them as front height speakers, can I still keep them in the atmos position and get atmos effects when they are on wall? Or is the atmos sound only effective while on speaker bouncing sound off ceiling? New to atmos...as you can tell. Thank you.





Augerhandle said:


> Thomas W. Scutro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Klipsch 500SA question. I want to add dobly atmos speakers to my system. I do not want in ceiling speakers for various reasons. I have a 4k tv, receiver that is atmos capable. I currently have a 5.1 system. I am on the fence as whether or not to get the klipsch 41SA atmos or the 500SA. Any advice appreciated. Also. I will 1st try to place them on my klipsch floor standing speakers hoping that will suffice. BUT. If i purchase the 500SAâ€™️s which have a surround / atmos switch in back and hang them as front height speakers, can I still keep them in the atmos position and get atmos effects when they are on wall? Or is the atmos sound only effective while on speaker bouncing sound off ceiling? New to atmos...as you can tell. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> ATMOS is overhead effects. Mount them on the wall, and the sound will come from...well, the wall.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. Ok. Well. Makes sense. That said...I have also been told that even though they are on the wall...they are high on the wall in front way above your ears. Top of speaker to ceiling...so it’s the 2nd best option for atmos. 1. In ceiling...2. On wall. High up. 3. Up-firing sitting on front speaker...so to confirm. This is wrong. Only way to achieve atmos sound effects is option 1. OR 3. ? Thanks again.


----------



## Augerhandle

Constantine Zachariadis said:


> There's no auto mode that I am aware of. Direct mode is essentially like 'passthrough' which means no processing done by receiver.


Well, you ain't getting ATMOS without processing.


----------



## Augerhandle

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Thanks for your reply. Ok. Well. Makes sense. That said...I have also been told that even though they are on the wall...they are high on the wall in front way above your ears. Top of speaker to ceiling...so it’s the 2nd best option for atmos. 1. In ceiling...2. On wall. High up. 3. Up-firing sitting on front speaker...so to confirm. This is wrong. Only way to achieve atmos sound effects is option 1. OR 3. ? Thanks again.


Why not find out from the source? https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html


----------



## Augerhandle

Constantine Zachariadis said:


> There's no auto mode that I am aware of. Direct mode is essentially like 'passthrough' which means no processing done by receiver.


According to page 32 of your USER Manual, you can cycle through Listening Modes by pressing one of three remote control buttons repeatedly until you land on Dolby Atmos. Those three buttons are _Movie/TV_, _Music_, and _Game_.


----------



## rekbones

Constantine Zachariadis said:


> I use a windows 10 7-gen NUC as a mediaplayer.
> I have the Atmos app installed.
> The NUC is connected to an Onkyo TX-NR777. From there to two Klipsch Rp-280FA for L&R, and LH, RH.
> Got a subwoofer a center and 2 rear surrounds.
> 
> 
> I setup up Atmos speaker layout in the receiver accordingly and it sends test sounds to all speakers fine.
> When I try to test from Windows though, everything is messed up. It does not send test notes to the height speakers and it think my rear speakers are side speakers. What's the best way to set it up in Windows 10?
> 
> 
> Thx


You don't want windows to process anything. Set your player to bitstream and in the windows audio setup set it to stereo only. If you set it to anything else windows will confuse the AVR with any audio not bitstreamed. I am assuming your using HDMI.


----------



## Thomas W. Scutro

Augerhandle said:


> Constantine Zachariadis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no auto mode that I am aware of. Direct mode is essentially like 'passthrough' which means no processing done by receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you ain't getting ATMOS without processing.
Click to expand...


Yes. Understood. I have a atmos capable receiver. Im just asking that if i hang the Klipsch 500sa’s in front. High up...if i should switch them to surround as opposed to atmos position? Is there a way to experience atmos with these hung high on wall in front? It seems not. But I’m still not 100% sure. Thanks.


----------



## Newuser2018

Help needed PLEASE....
Receiver - Yamaha RX-A780
2 tower front speakers (Polk signature S60) 
Center polk S35
Subwoofer Polk 
2 Rear speakers
2 small Atmos enabled add-on speakers on top of my FL & FR tower speakers
Playing John Wick bluray (with dolby atmos) in my Sony bluray player
Attached Yamaha receiver Setup menu says Input is 5.1 though Output clearly says 5.1.2
Also when playing this disc, yamaha receiver never says Dolby atmos but as in attached says DSP surround.
Of course, i only selected dolby atmos in disc audio option
Spoke to Yamaha support now he says that all set up is fine but something missing in bluray player which does not send atmos to receiver & hence receiver menu Input still says 5.1 but it should say 5.1.2

Attached pic is my Sony bluray player model

Checked settings in bluray player & no idea how to make it send atmos to receiver

Help needed please....


----------



## Bond 007

^^^Sony set to output bitstream audio?


----------



## MagnumX

Newuser2018 said:


> Help needed PLEASE....
> Receiver - Yamaha RX-A780
> 2 tower front speakers (Polk signature S60)
> Center polk S35
> Subwoofer Polk
> 2 Rear speakers
> 2 small Atmos enabled add-on speakers on top of my FL & FR tower speakers
> Playing John Wick bluray (with dolby atmos) in my Sony bluray player
> Attached Yamaha receiver Setup menu says Input is 5.1 though Output clearly says 5.1.2
> Also when playing this disc, yamaha receiver never says Dolby atmos but as in attached says DSP surround.
> Of course, i only selected dolby atmos in disc audio option
> Spoke to Yamaha support now he says that all set up is fine but something missing in bluray player which does not send atmos to receiver & hence receiver menu Input still says 5.1 but it should say 5.1.2
> 
> Attached pic is my Sony bluray player model
> 
> Checked settings in bluray player & no idea how to make it send atmos to receiver
> 
> Help needed please....


Output needs to be bitstream from the Sony BD player and it must use an HDMI cable, not the coaxial jack. You don't specify any information about your connection or the settings listed in the BD player. The other pictures only show the BD player is outputting mere Dolby Digital. That's not even TrueHD so I suspect you're using either the coaxial connection for sound or have the settings on the player wrong somewhere. I looked up the manual. Make sure it's set like this:


Digital Audio Out: AUTO (If this is set to PCM, it will only output PCM and you'll never get Atmos or TrueHD)

BD Audio Mix: OFF (This is the MOST LIKELY culprit according to the manual's own troubleshooting guide)

Dolby D Compatible Output: OFF (Probably not relevant, but it's better to do DTS straight than convert when it comes up)

Downmix: (questionable as to having any relevance, but I'd turn it OFF)


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Yes. Understood. I have a atmos capable receiver. Im just asking that if i hang the Klipsch 500sa’s in front. High up...if i should switch them to surround as opposed to atmos position? Is there a way to experience atmos with these hung high on wall in front? It seems not. But I’m still not 100% sure. Thanks.




Yes. Leave them in the normal position. Iirc, the “Atmos” position engages the notch I the FR that allows them to bounce off the ceiling and trick your brain into not hearing it at ear height.


----------



## Thomas W. Scutro

Polyrythm1k said:


> Thomas W. Scutro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Understood. I have a atmos capable receiver. Im just asking that if i hang the Klipsch 500saâ€™️s in front. High up...if i should switch them to surround as opposed to atmos position? Is there a way to experience atmos with these hung high on wall in front? It seems not. But Iâ€™️m still not 100% sure. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Leave them in the normal position. Iirc, the â€œAtmosâ€ position engages the notch I the FR that allows them to bounce off the ceiling and trick your brain into not hearing it at ear height.
Click to expand...


Thank you. So to confirm. If hung high in front. Flip switch to “surround” as opposed to atmos. And so I’m clear...i will still experience atmos effects? Appreciate the help. 

T.


----------



## Newuser2018

MagnumX said:


> Output needs to be bitstream from the Sony BD player and it must use an HDMI cable, not the coaxial jack. You don't specify any information about your connection or the settings listed in the BD player. The other pictures only show the BD player is outputting mere Dolby Digital. That's not even TrueHD so I suspect you're using either the coaxial connection for sound or have the settings on the player wrong somewhere. I looked up the manual. Make sure it's set like this:
> 
> 
> Digital Audio Out: AUTO (If this is set to PCM, it will only output PCM and you'll never get Atmos or TrueHD)
> 
> BD Audio Mix: OFF (This is the MOST LIKELY culprit according to the manual's own troubleshooting guide)
> 
> Dolby D Compatible Output: OFF (Probably not relevant, but it's better to do DTS straight than convert when it comes up)
> 
> Downmix: (questionable as to having any relevance, but I'd turn it OFF)


Hi,
Digital Audio Out is by default 'AUTO'
Yes, i just changed BD Audio Mix as suggested by you. Attached pic.
After changing, i played back movie and still yamaha menu does not say 5.1.2 input and also receiver display always say DSP Surround
Pls review my setting & advise me....

BTW, receiver and bluray player are connected always Via HDMI & i can clearly watch all 3D moves using this HDMI.
Do you suspect HDMI's version or something?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Anybody know if Band of Brothers will ever see a 4k and atmos release? 

I feel like that would be one of the better mini series for this format and an update...


----------



## Newuser2018

Newuser2018 said:


> Hi,
> Digital Audio Out is by default 'AUTO'
> Yes, i just changed BD Audio Mix as suggested by you. Attached pic.
> After changing, i played back movie and still yamaha menu does not say 5.1.2 input and also receiver display always say DSP Surround
> Pls review my setting & advise me....
> 
> BTW, receiver and bluray player are connected always Via HDMI & i can clearly watch all 3D moves using this HDMI.
> Do you suspect HDMI's version or something?


Also i tried changing HDMI control options but still not getting Atmos

See screen pic for Dolby..


----------



## MagnumX

Newuser2018 said:


> Hi,
> Digital Audio Out is by default 'AUTO'
> Yes, i just changed BD Audio Mix as suggested by you. Attached pic.
> After changing, i played back movie and still yamaha menu does not say 5.1.2 input and also receiver display always say DSP Surround
> Pls review my setting & advise me....
> 
> BTW, receiver and bluray player are connected always Via HDMI & i can clearly watch all 3D moves using this HDMI.
> Do you suspect HDMI's version or something?


That looks good there in the pictures. It says it's getting Atmos now on the input. If you're not hearing something from the height speakers, they might need their levels adjusted or something. "DSP Surround" on the front of the Yamaha just means you're using a DSP mode and that probably shows that over "Atmos" on the front panel, although from the Yamaha I had before, there was a button on the remote that cycled what it showed on the front panel. But your on-screen display clearly shows it's getting Atmos input into it now and outputting 5.1.2 so it should be working.


----------



## Newuser2018

MagnumX said:


> That looks good there in the pictures. It says it's getting Atmos now on the input. If you're not hearing something from the height speakers, they might need their levels adjusted or something.


I always get sound/effect from those small atmos speakers regardless of settings..
But why receiver setup of Input does not say 5.1.2 and also receiver display says always 'Cinema DSP' not Dolby atmos.
Yamaha support guys says i should see 5.1.2 as Input in receiver setup under Information


----------



## MagnumX

Newuser2018 said:


> I always get sound/effect from those small atmos speakers regardless of settings..
> But why receiver setup of Input does not say 5.1.2 and also receiver display says always 'Cinema DSP' not Dolby atmos.
> Yamaha support guys says i should see 5.1.2 as Input in receiver setup under Information


As I just edited above, "DSP Surround" means you have a Yamaha DSP mode engaged (don't know which, but Yamahas have modes like "Spectacle" or "Jazz Club" etc.. There should be a way to turn that DSP mode off on the remote). It's showing that on the front panel instead. There might be a button on your remote to change the information displayed as well on the front panel. OK, I just looked up your remote. It doesn't have the button (they seemed to have removed many buttons from their remotes). It might be under settings for the receiver. But I think if you press the "Straight" button it will disable DSP and just do straight Atmos. 

As for the INPUT on-screen display, most AVRs I've seen just say "Atmos" for the INPUT. They don't say 5.1.2 because that movie has far more than 5.1.2 in it (the entire Atmos signal). The Output says 5.1.2 because you only have the front presence speakers connected.

The Surround Decode button might offer some alternate decoding modes as well, but I think "Straight" does basic decoding without DSP enhancement.


----------



## Newuser2018

MagnumX said:


> As I just edited above, "DSP Surround" means you have a Yamaha DSP mode engaged (don't know which, but Yamahas have modes like "Spectacle" or "Jazz Club" etc.. There should be a way to turn that DSP mode off on the remote). It's showing that on the front panel instead. There might be a button on your remote to change the information displayed as well on the front panel. OK, I just looked up your remote. It doesn't have the button (they seemed to have removed many buttons from their remotes). It might be under settings for the receiver. But I think if you press the "Straight" button it will disable DSP and just do straight Atmos.
> 
> As for the INPUT on-screen display, most AVRs I've seen just say "Atmos" for the INPUT. They don't say 5.1.2 because that movie has far more than 5.1.2 in it (the entire Atmos signal). The Output says 5.1.2 because you only have the front presence speakers connected.
> 
> The Surround Decode button might offer some alternate decoding modes as well, but I think "Straight" does basic decoding without DSP enhancement.


Ok, did that. Attached pics.
Pressed STRAIGHT n my remote and took these pics
Still receiver LCD display does not say anything on Atmos but i assumed receiver says disc format being played. So not even sure if i am hearing atmos


----------



## MagnumX

Newuser2018 said:


> Ok, did that. Attached pics.
> Pressed STRAIGHT n my remote and took these pics
> Still receiver LCD display does not say anything on Atmos but i assumed receiver says disc format being played. So not even sure if i am hearing atmos


Older Yamahas had a button to change what is displayed on the front panel. But if it says Atmos in on the on-screen display and 5.1.2 out, you should be getting Atmos to your speakers.


----------



## Newuser2018

MagnumX said:


> Older Yamahas had a button to change what is displayed on the front panel. But if it says Atmos in on the on-screen display and 5.1.2 out, you should be getting Atmos to your speakers.


Ok, very basic question.
Attached pics.
which option should i select if i have those 2 small add-on speakers kept on top of front speakers?
is it Atmos enabled SP or front height speakers?


----------



## MagnumX

Newuser2018 said:


> Ok, very basic question.
> Attached pics.
> which option should i select if i have those 2 small add-on speakers kept on top of front speakers?
> is it Atmos enabled SP or front height speakers?


Enabled is for the kind that bounces off the ceiling.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Thank you. So to confirm. If hung high in front. Flip switch to “surround” as opposed to atmos. And so I’m clear...i will still experience atmos effects? Appreciate the help.
> 
> T.




Yes. That is correct.


----------



## Bond 007

Newuser2018 said:


> Ok, very basic question.
> Attached pics.
> which option should i select if i have those 2 small add-on speakers kept on top of front speakers?
> is it Atmos enabled SP or front height speakers?


Dolby enabled sp


----------



## Bond 007

Newuser2018 said:


> Ok, did that. Attached pics.
> Pressed STRAIGHT n my remote and took these pics
> Still receiver LCD display does not say anything on Atmos but i assumed receiver says disc format being played. So not even sure if i am hearing atmos


Press Info button on remote to change display.


----------



## Bond 007

MagnumX said:


> Older Yamahas had a button to change what is displayed on the front panel.


Still do. Info button.


----------



## Thomas W. Scutro

Polyrythm1k said:


> Thomas W. Scutro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. So to confirm. If hung high in front. Flip switch to â€œsurroundâ€ as opposed to atmos. And so Iâ€™️m clear...i will still experience atmos effects? Appreciate the help.
> 
> T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is correct.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much. Can always count on the AVS forum folks. Appreciate it.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> Anybody know if Band of Brothers will ever see a 4k and atmos release?
> 
> I feel like that would be one of the better mini series for this format and an update...


Bump


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> Bump




Wish I could answer that, but I am hopeful. It’s pretty damn good on BD with DTS-nx however.


----------



## Thomas W. Scutro

Best Speaker wire for Atmos Speakers? Getting a pair of atmos up-firing speakers. I have heard the type or speaker wire you get actually might matter when it comes to Atmos. Is this correct? If so any recommendations appreciated. They will sit on top of my tower speakers. 8’ run at most. Thanks.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Best Speaker wire for Atmos Speakers? Getting a pair of atmos up-firing speakers. I have heard the type or speaker wire you get actually might matter when it comes to Atmos. Is this correct? If so any recommendations appreciated. They will sit on top of my tower speakers. 8’ run at most. Thanks.




I would just use the same cable that’s on your mains, but no it won’t matter. Not even a little. Any 14 or 16ga will be fine. 
Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to elaborate on the reasons you were told it mattered?


----------



## MagnumX

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Best Speaker wire for Atmos Speakers? Getting a pair of atmos up-firing speakers. I have heard the type or speaker wire you get actually might matter when it comes to Atmos. Is this correct? If so any recommendations appreciated. They will sit on top of my tower speakers. 8’ run at most. Thanks.


Yes, you've heard correct! STAINLESS STEEL FISHING LINE works wonders with Atmos! It makes the sound sparkle with just a hint of the salty brine of the sea. What makes it even better is to use sinkers to attach the wire to the binding posts. Of course, this works best with B&W _Nautilus_ speakers! Only the best will do! 


Seriously, unless you're using 32 gage wire or something absurdly high in reactance, it's probably not going to matter much. Rather, they're just speakers. Use the same speaker wire you would use for any other speakers. For 8' runs, even 16 gauge wouldn't be out of the question. I think I mostly used 12 and 14 gauge wire in my home theater (12 for the longer surround sound runs). I've got 10 gauge upstairs with my Carver speakers, but I bought that when I was clueless and thought Monster sounded like a good brand (and didn't cost quite as much when they first came out). Actually 10 gauge is lovely for long runs (just not at Monster prices).


----------



## Augerhandle

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Best Speaker wire for Atmos Speakers? Getting a pair of atmos up-firing speakers. I have heard the type or speaker wire you get actually might matter when it comes to Atmos. Is this correct? If so any recommendations appreciated. They will sit on top of my tower speakers. 8’ run at most. Thanks.


Sounds to me like your salesman is trying to make some extra $$. Don't fall for it. What model speakers? You can probably find them cheaper online.


----------



## dfa973

*Dolby Institute - Conversations with Sound Artists: Carnival Row*

Featuring:
Marc Fishman—Dialog & music re-recording mixer (our own @FilmMixer)
Robert Carr—Effects re-recording mixer


----------



## Worf

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Best Speaker wire for Atmos Speakers? Getting a pair of atmos up-firing speakers. I have heard the type or speaker wire you get actually might matter when it comes to Atmos. Is this correct? If so any recommendations appreciated. They will sit on top of my tower speakers. 8’ run at most. Thanks.


Of course it matters. I mean, do you not want the salesman to be able to buy that new car for Christmas? Just how cheap are you to deny Christmas to another person! And the CEO of that wire company needs to pay down his new yacht too, so why aren't you helping him? Won't anyone think of the sales people, the marketing departments and CEOs of those companies?


----------



## Jonas2

Thomas W. Scutro said:


> Best Speaker wire for Atmos Speakers? Getting a pair of atmos up-firing speakers. I have heard the type or speaker wire you get actually might matter when it comes to Atmos. Is this correct? If so any recommendations appreciated. They will sit on top of my tower speakers. 8’ run at most. Thanks.



Same as Polyrythm1k....very curious as to what you've heard about how cable might matter for Atmos specifically....


----------



## chi_guy50

Jonas2 said:


> Same as Polyrythm1k....very curious as to what you've heard about how cable might matter for Atmos specifically....



There are some audio enthusiasts (I could name a few of them who post on this forum) for whom cabling and interconnects have close to a religious significance. They swear by the "cleanliness" of the output through their fancy-pants boutique cables or else they make their own out of high-end materials. We could easily get into a hot war here by engaging in a debate on the topic.

I suspect OP got a whiff of whatever that camp is smoking.


----------



## gene4ht

chi_guy50 said:


> There are some audio enthusiasts (I could name a few of them who post on this forum) for whom cabling and interconnects have close to a religious significance. They swear by the "cleanliness" of the output through their fancy-pants boutique cables or else they make their own out of high-end materials. We could easily get into a hot war here by engaging in a debate on the topic.
> 
> I suspect OP got a whiff of whatever that camp is smoking.


It seems there will always be the no-win debates over certain aspects of our hobby...i.e. wire/cable, all amps sound the same, etc. In any case, the conventional wisdom and the collective experience of the majority is the camp I prefer. The other camp, well, can maintain their beliefs and spend their money as they wish. My .02!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

gene4ht said:


> It seems there will always be the no-win debates over certain aspects of our hobby...i.e. wire/cable, all amps sound the same, etc. In any case, the conventional wisdom and the collective experience of the majority is the camp I prefer. The other camp, well, can maintain their beliefs and spend their money as they wish. My .02!






chi_guy50 said:


> There are some audio enthusiasts (I could name a few of them who post on this forum) for whom cabling and interconnects have close to a religious significance. They swear by the "cleanliness" of the output through their fancy-pants boutique cables or else they make their own out of high-end materials. We could easily get into a hot war here by engaging in a debate on the topic.
> 
> I suspect OP got a whiff of whatever that camp is smoking.




Good points. I totally agree. After the fact, I almost felt like I was poking a beehive with my original question. But in the moment, I was seriously wondering, what new thing could some putz at BB be making up? Mostly for my file of misinformation that’s out in the Wild. Lol


----------



## Jonas2

chi_guy50 said:


> There are some audio enthusiasts (I could name a few of them who post on this forum) for whom cabling and interconnects have close to a religious significance. They swear by the "cleanliness" of the output through their fancy-pants boutique cables or else they make their own out of high-end materials. We could easily get into a hot war here by engaging in a debate on the topic.
> 
> I suspect OP got a whiff of whatever that camp is smoking.



Oh yes, I'm familiar with this - I must have misunderstood, I thought OP was getting some misdirection about cabling just due to Atmos, so I was wondering if that was in some interesting form of Atmos being "different" in some respect, so it required cables with even more unique properties than just a normal system....


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Jonas2 said:


> Oh yes, I'm familiar with this - I must have misunderstood, I thought OP was getting some misdirection about cabling just due to Atmos, so I was wondering if that was in some interesting form of Atmos being "different" in some respect, so it required cables with even more unique properties than just a normal system....




Kinda what I thought too. Wasn’t sure if it was some “requirement” for Atmos or the usual snake charmer goodness. Lol


----------



## chi_guy50

Jonas2 said:


> Oh yes, I'm familiar with this - I must have misunderstood, I thought OP was getting some misdirection about cabling just due to Atmos, so I was wondering if that was in some interesting form of Atmos being "different" in some respect, so it required cables with even more unique properties than just a normal system....





Polyrythm1k said:


> Kinda what I thought too. Wasn’t sure if it was some “requirement” for Atmos or the usual snake charmer goodness. Lol



Could be the one or the other--or both. 

Personally, I cringe whenever I see a reference to "Atmos speakers," which is a misnomer that can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. It has been postulated here by experienced hands that the overhead speakers should be treated just as one would any other speakers in the system. Whether regarding size, capability, timbre-matching, toe-in, cabling, or other audio parameters--there is no characteristic that would identify them as Atmos-specific (as opposed to the Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers) and, in fact, they are used by non-immersive formats as well.

Language matters. (Anyone interested in a satiric discourse on the subject should look up The Roger Price Theory of Nomenclature.)


----------



## elee532

So, now that I've gone all in on upgrading my media room to Atmos, it appears that my Nvidia Shield (2017 version) will not stream Atmos from Netflix or Disney+. Is this true? Is there any workaround? Does the new 2019 Shield work better?


----------



## skylarlove1999

elee532 said:


> So, now that I've gone all in on upgrading my media room to Atmos, it appears that my Nvidia Shield (2017 version) will not stream Atmos from Netflix or Disney+. Is this true? Is there any workaround? Does the new 2019 Shield work better?


The 2019 supports Dolby Atmos for Netflix. Not yet on Disney +. Supports Atmos on Prime and Vudu. It is really the app that does not provide the support on specific devices not the device itself. If you aren't getting it in Netflix check your picture mode on the Shield. Netflix only provides Atmos when it recognizes a 4K/60FPS HDR capable display. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

elee532 said:


> So, now that I've gone all in on upgrading my media room to Atmos, it appears that my Nvidia Shield (2017 version) will not stream Atmos from Netflix or Disney+. Is this true? Is there any workaround? Does the new 2019 Shield work better?



If you want to go "all in" on Atmos (and DTS: X), you need to purchase (if you haven't already) a 4k Blu-ray player. Don't rely on streaming for your best immersive experience.


----------



## sjm817

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you want to go "all in" on Atmos (and DTS: X), you need to purchase (if you haven't already) a 4k Blu-ray player. Don't rely on streaming for your best immersive experience.


Which wont help for streaming only content such as Netflix originals


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sjm817 said:


> Which wont help for streaming only content such as Netflix originals



4k Players (except the now non supported Oppo) have streaming apps included.


----------



## MagnumX

skylarlove1999 said:


> elee532 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now that I've gone all in on upgrading my media room to Atmos, it appears that my Nvidia Shield (2017 version) will not stream Atmos from Netflix or Disney+. Is this true? Is there any workaround? Does the new 2019 Shield work better?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2019 supports Dolby Atmos for Netflix. Not yet on Disney +. Supports Atmos on Prime and Vudu. It is really the app that does not provide the support on specific devices not the device itself. If you aren't getting it in Netflix check your picture mode on the Shield. Netflix only provides Atmos when it recognizes a 4K/60FPS HDR capable display.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That unfortunately appears to be true for the Shield (an HDFury linker or vertex can enable 4K streams for 2K TVs and projectors, though), but Netflix will do Atmos with my 2K/3D projector on Apple TV 4K as well as Atmos iTunes content and Disney+ content. No 4K set required. 

The same is sadly not true of Vudu and Prime apps on Apple thus far (they do check for 4K, which shouldn't be a thing regardless, IMO since downconverted higher bitrate/better code 4k streams often look better in 2K than the 2K streams which are possibly lower bit-rate and almost certainly using a less efficient codec (same overall difference). Ever do a higher resolution scale down in Photoshop? It typically looks better than a straight camera at same resolution photo here even at lossless, IMO. Plus Atmos has nothing to do with 4K other than unscrupulous companies combining them to make higher margin sales.


----------



## sjm817

Dan Hitchman said:


> 4k Players (except the now non supported Oppo) have streaming apps included.


Yeah, they do as poorly supported afterthoughts. How would this help the OP get Atmos and DTS:X support? Your original reply appeared to be the Disc is "all in" and streaming is "not" which is really common on AVS. There is content that is streaming only. If you want Atmos and DTS support for those services, using a device with poor support wont help.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sjm817 said:


> Yeah, they do as poorly supported afterthoughts. How would this help the OP get Atmos and DTS:X support? Your original reply appeared to be the Disc is "all in" and streaming is "not" which is really common on AVS. There is content that is streaming only. If you want Atmos and DTS support for those services, using a device with poor support wont help.



You can have both. But you shouldn't just rely on streaming.


----------



## joms

What if my TV is 4K but NOT yet HDR, will the AppleTV or Shield (2019) or Zidoo send Netflix Atmos signals to me? My TV is a Samsung UA78JU7500 and my Amp is a Denon X8500H. I am still thinking what player i should buy - AppleTV 4K, Shield 2019 (i have the 2017) or Zidoo Z9S. (or perhaps 2x players, 1x for streaming and 1x for playing local ripped 4k files)


----------



## MagnumX

joms said:


> What if my TV is 4K but NOT yet HDR, will the AppleTV or Shield (2019) or Zidoo send Netflix Atmos signals to me? My TV is a Samsung UA78JU7500 and my Amp is a Denon X8500H. I am still thinking what player i should buy - AppleTV 4K, Shield 2019 (i have the 2017) or Zidoo Z9S. (or perhaps 2x players, 1x for streaming and 1x for playing local ripped 4k files)


As I ALREADY INDICATED a few posts up, your TV doesn't even need to be 4K to get Atmos on Apple TV 4K for Netflix, iTunes movies and Disney+. I get Atmos just fine with my 2K projector for those three (but not for Vudu or Prime which apparently do need a 4K set connected as it looks for it while those three apparently do not).


----------



## joms

MagnumX said:


> As I ALREADY INDICATED a few posts up, your TV doesn't even need to be 4K to get Atmos on Apple TV 4K for Netflix, iTunes movies and Disney+. I get Atmos just fine with my 2K projector for those three (but not for Vudu or Prime which apparently do need a 4K set connected as it looks for it while those three apparently do not).




But what is indicated above is 4K vs 2K, im asking about HDR vs non-HDR TVs. Is there a 2K HDR TV? 

Anyway, will the AppleTV 4K play on a 4k non-HDR TV? Sorry I'm not that versed in TV technology.


----------



## MagnumX

joms said:


> but what is indicated above is 4k vs 2k, im asking about hdr vs non-hdr tvs. Is there a 2k hdr tv?
> 
> Anyway, will the appletv 4k play on a 4k non-hdr tv? Sorry i'm not that versed in tv technology.


yes


----------



## elee532

Wow. I'm totally confused. I've got a Denon x3600h with 6.2.4 speakers, OPPO 103D, Epson 3700 1080p projector, and Nvidia Shield TV 2017. Can I get Atmos sound from:



Blurays via the OPPO?
Netflix via the Shield?
Prime via the Shield?
Disney Plus via the Shield?

Thanks!!


----------



## joms

elee532 said:


> Wow. I'm totally confused. I've got a Denon x3600h with 6.2.4 speakers, OPPO 103D, Epson 3700 1080p projector, and Nvidia Shield TV 2017. Can I get Atmos sound from:
> 
> 
> 
> Blurays via the OPPO?
> Netflix via the Shield?
> Prime via the Shield?
> Disney Plus via the Shield?
> 
> Thanks!!


I'm not sure about the OPPO but im quite certain that Nvidia shield 2017 cannot output Atmos in Netflix. I think it can do Atmos Prime.


----------



## batpig

elee532 said:


> Wow. I'm totally confused. I've got a Denon x3600h with 6.2.4 speakers, OPPO 103D, Epson 3700 1080p projector, and Nvidia Shield TV 2017. Can I get Atmos sound from:
> 
> 
> Blurays via the OPPO?
> Netflix via the Shield?
> Prime via the Shield?
> Disney Plus via the Shield?
> 
> Thanks!!


Let's separate the hardware from the apps (software). All you need for Atmos audio is the ability to bitstream hi-rez audio codecs (e.g. Dolby Digital Plus or TrueHD) which the Shield is fully capable of doing. As can many other boxes like AppleTV 4K or Roku Ultra etc. 

However, confusing things is that there is inconsistent support of the software with different hardware. So the previous Shield, despite having no real hardware limitation, does NOT support Atmos streaming with Netflix, whereas the new Shield does. That is 100% a software limitation with Netflix, not a real limitation of the Shield itself.

It does support Atmos streaming with Vudu, however Vudu is one of the pesky streaming providers which does NOT allow Atmos audio with HD streams, only UHD streams. So that 1080p projector prevents Vudu Atmos with any device.

The AppleTV 4K is the streaming box with the most comprehensive Atmos support across many apps (iTunes, Vudu, Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+), however the new Shield is very close and is superior if you want to use it to stream local ripped media (e.g. w/ Plex).

Obviously, the Oppo can bitstream TrueHD from discs so it fully support Atmos.... the problem is that several studios restrict the Atmos mix to the 4K disc only.

So, TL;DR, they've made this is a huge PITA for consumers to sort out. Streaming support is spotty and confusing to figure out what supports what, and physical media gets screwed with the 4K exclusives. So the best bet for comprehensive Atmos support is to pair an ATV4K or a new Shield Pro with a 4K UHD disc player that has great HDR>SDR tone mapping, aka the Panny UBP line. The UBP 420 has been on sale recently around BF, so if you're looking to add 4K disc support for more lossless Atmos content, it's a great deal to extend the life of that 1080p projector.


----------



## joms

batpig - thanks for the info. Do you think the Zidoo Z9S is a good option to be paired with the Apple TV 4K? 

Apple TV 4k= streaming Atmos from netflix/etc
Zidoo Z9S = playing ripped Bluray Atmos discs


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

joms said:


> batpig - thanks for the info. Do you think the Zidoo Z9S is a good option to be paired with the Apple TV 4K?
> 
> Apple TV 4k= streaming Atmos from netflix/etc
> Zidoo Z9S = playing ripped Bluray Atmos discs


I have the previous Zidoo X9S and it works great with ripped UHD blu-ray's with Atmos in mkv format. I'v read it has problems with seamless branching when using isos or m2ts streams.


----------



## elee532

Thank you @batpig!! Very helpful! Hope you don't mind a few follow up questions...



The 2019 Shield is able to stream Netflix and Disney Atmos even if my projector is only 1080p?
Is there a way to tell whether a disc restricts the Atmos mix to the 4K disc BEFORE purchasing it?

Replacing my OPPO 103d is not an ideal option because (1) it's integrated into a Control4 system which means extra costs and hassle of having my dealer reprogram the system and (2) I need a player that can also handle SACD and DVD-A.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into with this upgrade.


----------



## PoshFrosh

elee532 said:


> Replacing my OPPO 103d is not an ideal option because (1) it's integrated into a Control4 system which means extra costs and hassle of having my dealer reprogram the system and (2) I need a player that can also handle SACD and DVD-A.
> 
> I had no idea what I was getting myself into with this upgrade.


This may not be an ideal suggestion, but instead of replacing the OPPO 103, you could add a 4K disc player. I believe your OPPO 103 even has HDMI-in so you could just plug the new disc player into it... as I said, not ideal, but I just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Red_Elrond

I have the Marantz AV8805 and 11.1 speaker system. How do I set the audio out for broadcast TV (I have Spectrum). Also, when watching a Blu-ray that doesn’t have Atmos, what settings do I use?

Thanks,

David
Austin, TX


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> Wow. I'm totally confused. I've got a Denon x3600h with 6.2.4 speakers, OPPO 103D, Epson 3700 1080p projector, and Nvidia Shield TV 2017. Can I get Atmos sound from:
> 
> 
> 
> Blurays via the OPPO?
> Netflix via the Shield?
> Prime via the Shield?
> Disney Plus via the Shield?
> 
> Thanks!!


Wow. Some people post even more confusing information without answering any of his questions pertaining to him specifically (who cares what the Shield 2019 can do or what it can do with a 4K set when he doesn't have one!) when all he wanted was an answer.

1> I don't own an Oppo, but it SHOULD be able to do Atmos with your setup. If it does not do 4K, then you cannot use the Atmos on 4K discs (see back of disc jacket whether a 2K discs has Atmos)
2> NO (Both software and 2K projector prevents Atmos)
3> NO (2K projector prevents Atmos)
4> NO (NOTHING has Atmos with Disney+ using a Shield as I write this AFAIK, but support has been promised by Disney so "maybe", but given the Shield's apparent checks against 4K, I doubt it)

You can get Atmos from KODI on a 2017 Shield with a 3700 projector. That's it. Period. I have an Espon 3100 projector. Only KODI does Atmos (and X and Auro-3D).


You CAN get Atmos from an AppleTV 4K with the Epson 3700 (or AFAIK any other 2K set) for:

1> iTunes movies/rentals
2> Netflix
3> Disney+

You cannot get Atmos from Vudu and Prime (you need a 4K set) with an AppleTV 4K.

IF you buy an *HDFury* Linker, Vertex or Integral 2, you can get 4K with everything as it fools the devices into thinking you have a 4K set. They will also let you use "deep color" on the 3700 from what I've been told (my PS4 will do that in 2K also here). That gives more than 256 colors for red, green and blue (no dithering needed). It doesn't give wider bandwidth color or HDR or anything of the sort, but does convert them down to display in 2K.



elee532 said:


> Thank you @batpig!! Very helpful! Hope you don't mind a few follow up questions...
> 
> 
> 
> The 2019 Shield is able to stream Netflix and Disney Atmos even if my projector is only 1080p?
> Is there a way to tell whether a disc restricts the Atmos mix to the 4K disc BEFORE purchasing it?
> 
> Replacing my OPPO 103d is not an ideal option because (1) it's integrated into a Control4 system which means extra costs and hassle of having my dealer reprogram the system and (2) I need a player that can also handle SACD and DVD-A.
> 
> I had no idea what I was getting myself into with this upgrade.



NO and NO! Batpig is apparently leading you to believe the WRONG thing. 

1> Absolutely NOT. You will get Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 only.

2> Look on the disc's back cover. Most Sony discs are Atmos on 4K only. However, many BD players will play 4K on 2K sets. My LG UHD Player ($92 on sale 2 years ago) plays 4K discs just fine on my Epson 3700 projector with full Atmos, X or Auro-3D. I also rip and remux them with MakeMKV and a 4K 'ready' drive to get the Atmos soundtracks for KODI for use with the Zidoo X9S or Shield. Bluray.com is sometimes helpful for finding these things out.

If you get an HDFury Linker, Integral 2 or Vertex, all those devices will think you have a 4K set and work normally. They're not exactly cheap, however.


----------



## Augerhandle

Sounds like ATMOS support while streaming is as half-baked as 3D was when it came out.


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> Sounds like ATMOS support while streaming is as half-baked as 3D was when it came out.


I'm not sure what your problem is with 3D or why it was "half baked", but the problems with Atmos and streaming have everything to do with Hollywood wanting to associate Atmos with 4K as if they are one and the same thing. This started because 4K didn't start to catch on until HDR came out and HDR has nothing to do with the resolution any more than Atmos has to do with "4K sound". They're packaged together but not the same thing. HDR could be applied to 2K and Atmos could work with SD movies even over streaming if they wanted it. Just wait and see what they eventually package with 8K to try and sell it to the masses.... (then 16K!)


----------



## batpig

elee532 said:


> Thank you @batpig!! Very helpful! Hope you don't mind a few follow up questions...
> 
> 
> The 2019 Shield is able to stream Netflix and Disney Atmos even if my projector is only 1080p?
> Is there a way to tell whether a disc restricts the Atmos mix to the 4K disc BEFORE purchasing it?


1. As I noted above, Vudu is the ONLY streaming service which restricts Atmos audio to 4K UHD streams only. As far as I know there are no such inherent restrictions with Netflix or Disney+ content, although as of now the Shield Disney+ app doesn't support Atmos streaming.

2. Yes, you have to look at the audio specs. There's a complete list of UHD discs that contain Atmos here and a corresponding list of HD Blu-rays with Dolby Atmos here if you want a reference to check. You'll find that it mostly aligns by studio.... Paramount, Warner Bros, and Universal will put Atmos on the regular BD with recent releases, whereas Sony, Disney, and Fox will not.



elee532 said:


> Replacing my OPPO 103d is not an ideal option because (1) it's integrated into a Control4 system which means extra costs and hassle of having my dealer reprogram the system and (2) I need a player that can also handle SACD and DVD-A.


As suggested above, a reasonable option may be to add a Panasonic UB420 (on sale for $150 currently) as a dedicated 4K disc player, and let it convert to SDR while outputting Atmos when needed.


----------



## batpig

joms said:


> batpig - thanks for the info. Do you think the Zidoo Z9S is a good option to be paired with the Apple TV 4K?
> 
> Apple TV 4k= streaming Atmos from netflix/etc
> Zidoo Z9S = playing ripped Bluray Atmos discs


Honestly I know nothing about the Zidoo or local streaming of rips in general. Whatever hardware you are using to stream the local rips just needs to be able to bitstream the HD audio track that's on the rip, it's not involved in the "Atmos processing" at all, it's just a go-between from the software to the processor which decodes it.


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> 1. As I noted above, *Vudu is the ONLY* streaming service which restricts Atmos audio to 4K UHD streams only. As far as I know there are no such inherent restrictions with Netflix or Disney+ content, although as of now the Shield Disney+ app doesn't support Atmos streaming.



This has not been my experience at all with a 2K projector. Vudu and Prime will not play Atmos on any of my devices using 2K displays. Netflix will only play Atmos on a 2K device for me on Apple TV (although I have not tested the 2019 shield). I've read from other users that the ROKU Ultra will NOT play Atmos on 2K displays either. So it doesn't really matter whether it's the streaming service or just their app or the device itself if it won't play on your system, it won't play. I can only recommend (for streaming Atmos) the AppleTV 4K for people still using 2K sets as it at least offers Netflix, Disney+ and iTunes movies/rentals in Atmos with 2K displays attached. 

I have these sources personally I can attest to one way or the other:

AppleTV 4K (best of bunch for streaming, IMO on a 2K set)

Sony PS4 (No Atmos on anything but the few 2K Blu-rays that have them)

Amazon FireTV 4K (2nd gen) (No Atmos period on 2K sets)

Nvidia Shield Pro version (2017) (passthrough on KODI works with 2K, but nothing else has)

Zidoo X9S (apps are mobile versions not good for streaming, although KODI works and it's wonderful for playing back ripped material off a hard drive and supports full 3D playback of MKV rips)

As for a BD player, I bought (two) LG UP875 players almost two years ago from Best Buy for $92 on sale. The LGUP875 doesn't do apps, but it does do UHD HDR discs to 2K SDR perfectly for very little money and supports 3D playback as well. I don't know if it's since been replaced or not.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure what your problem is with 3D or why it was "half baked", but the problems with Atmos and streaming have everything to do with Hollywood wanting to associate Atmos with 4K as if they are one and the same thing. This started because 4K didn't start to catch on until HDR came out and HDR has nothing to do with the resolution any more than Atmos has to do with "4K sound". They're packaged together but not the same thing. HDR could be applied to 2K and Atmos could work with SD movies even over streaming if they wanted it. Just wait and see what they eventually package with 8K to try and sell it to the masses.... (then 16K!)


I don't have a problem with 3D, UHD, HDR, ATMOS, or any technology. I understand it.

Like you said, it's the industry itself. The general population was confused by 3D: "What do I need? How do I get it? Why doesn't it work? I bought _this_, but now I need _that_?"

I'm seeing all the same questions and confusion with ATMOS, even between two knowledgeable people in this thread.


----------



## Augerhandle

Hell, I remember people with the first HDTVs complaining about the black bars, because they didn't know they needed HD content.


----------



## GLBright

If I had known two years ago that accessing Atmos via either disc or streaming would be contingent upon me also purchasing a new 4K projector and player I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of converting. Disappointed is an understatement.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

joms said:


> batpig - thanks for the info. Do you think the Zidoo Z9S is a good option to be paired with the Apple TV 4K?
> 
> Apple TV 4k= streaming Atmos from netflix/etc
> Zidoo Z9S = playing ripped Bluray Atmos discs


I use an Apple TV 4K for streaming from Netflix, etc., and I use a Vero 4K+ for playing ripped Bluray Atmos discs. The Vero is a great little box.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Augerhandle said:


> Sounds like ATMOS support while streaming is as half-baked as 3D was when it came out.


No it doesn't, and no it isn't.


----------



## Augerhandle

mrtickleuk said:


> No it doesn't, and no it isn't.


No?

"You can get it on this device, unless you're streaming from these services"
"It's available on this service, but only using these devices"
"It's available on this service, and this device, but only on Tuesdays"

:yawn:


----------



## batpig

GLBright said:


> If I had known two years ago that accessing Atmos via either disc or streaming would be contingent upon me also purchasing a new 4K projector and player I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of converting. Disappointed is an understatement.


Well, I will point out that you do NOT need a new 4K projector. As I noted above, the solution there is to get the Panny UB420 while it's on sale and for $150 you are set on the disc front. It will take 4K HDR discs and convert them to 1080p SDR and they will look great, problem solved. Pair it with an AppleTV 4K for streaming and you have access to pretty much any Atmos source without upgrading your PJ, the only thing you'd be missing out on are those titles which are Vudu-exclusive for Atmos if you tend to rent/buy digital copies. Many of those films will still be available on iTunes with Atmos, which won't have the restriction for 4K resolution, but there are some titles which are in Atmos on Vudu but not on iTunes. 

But, that aside, the UB420/820 + AppleTV 4K combo will give you access to pretty much all the other available Atmos content without a display upgrade.


----------



## GLBright

I think you've made my point @batpig. I have all the hardware necessary for the Atmos experience. Now software providers are telling me I have to upgrade the video hardware in order to receive Atmos audio. That's just wrong.


----------



## batpig

Not disagreeing with the main thrust of how this is annoyingly anti-consumer behavior by content providers. I'm just pointing out that the projector upgrade (which is BY FAR the most expensive aspect) is not necessary at all, so the situation isn't nearly as dire as you stated in your post.

IMO the worst part is the physical media aspect where specific studios refuse to put Atmos on non-4K discs. That's just a purely cynical move to create artificial value for 4K disc sales, and there's no conceivable technical reason for them to do it that way. 

The streaming aspect is much more forgivable, I don't think it's unreasonable for a mfgr to say that a 2-3+ year old version of a streaming box (like Roku or FireTV) doesn't support the newest codecs, since streaming Atmos is much newer than disc-based Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

There's a very simple solution to the 4K projector/TV question that I've mentioned before. It's not a "cheap" solution, really, although it's MUCH cheaper than a new projector and that's the HD Fury Linker, Integral II and Vertex. The Linker doesn't support every possible mode, but you don't need every mode. It's also eventually going to disappear when stock runs out. But it's under $150. The other two are both under $300. You put that in your chain between your AVR and TV/Projector and EVERY device you have will think you have 4K and output it to it. 

The HDFury device will transcode it to 2K at the highest levels your projector/TV can use (e.g. if your Epson 3100/3700 is connected, it can use "Deep Color" with more shades of Red, Green and Blue to avoid dithering effects. It doesn't increase bandwidth, but it does make the most of what you already have (e.g. My PS4 will use deep color and the background screen has no dithering at all, despite a ton of shades of blue). NOTHING other than my PS4 that I've used has ever made use of 1080p "deep color" modes as the 4K wide bandwidth stuff has supplanted it, but the Vertex can use it where possible (or so I've been told by its creator). Frankly, given the limits on Vudu and Prime here and the Shield limits on EVERYTHING so far except KODI, I've been thinking of buying one for some time. But as Batpig points out, a proper UHD player and an AppleTV 4K will give you "most" of what's available and some creative ripping with a computer can give you nearly everything from discs with KODI regardless if it's only on 4K or not (I just dumped the Gladiator DTS:X soundtrack and applied it to the 2K video for KODI to use here just today, for example).

Personally, I've been waiting for a model projector I really like to go to 4K. They've all been "near 4K" (and weight too much for my current mount to chance it at over 25 pounds for the Epson "near 4K" models) or they have very little LENS SHIFT to enable me to use my current projector mount location and/or don't support 3D video (I have over 200 3D movies and I'm not giving them up for a little more sharpness and some highly questionable contrast effects with HDR that doesn't work so well with ANY projectors like it does OLED. I'm pretty happy with 2K for movies as it's very film-like even at 8 feet with a 92" screen. How sharp does it need to be? Do I really want all my movies to look like the old AGFA or Ektar (oversaturated) films??? That's not reality. It's fiction and looks FAKE in many cases, IMO. Yes, it looks good. Too good. Real life doesn't look like some of the stuff I've seen on OLED in UHD with HDR. I'll take the blacker blacks. I could live without HDR and with a projector, you will mostly live without it anyway. You trade HDR for a gigantic picture that is far more immersive than oversaturated, overly bright pictures. If I got a Epson "near 4K" projector, I'd want a 2:35:1 screen next so there's more money and moving the front height speakers over to be out of the way of the extra width (I can do 115" 2.35:1 instead of 92" 16x9), but man would Star Wars be awesome covering over 2/3 the width of the entire front wall...maybe too big for the front row really, but would look great in the second and third rows.

With audio, I went BIG with speaker count so the only thing I have to upgrade in the future is the number of "discrete" channels by the processor. 11.1.6 covers a lot of space in a 12x24 room from edge to edge in both directions, although even there I could still add chair shakers. At some point, you just know floor speakers for "under you" are going to be added some day. It's almost inevitable (well unless home theater as we know it dies off due to lack of interest from future generations that seem to think earbuds + phone = good enough.


----------



## m0j0

MagnumX said:


> There's a very simple solution to the 4K projector/TV question that I've mentioned before. It's not a "cheap" solution, really, although it's MUCH cheaper than a new projector and that's the HD Fury Linker, Integral II and Vertex. The Linker doesn't support every possible mode, but you don't need every mode. It's also eventually going to disappear when stock runs out. But it's under $150. The other two are both under $300. You put that in your chain between your AVR and TV/Projector and EVERY device you have will think you have 4K and output it to it.
> 
> The HDFury device will transcode it to 2K at the highest levels your projector/TV can use (e.g. if your Epson 3100/3700 is connected, it can use "Deep Color" with more shades of Red, Green and Blue to avoid dithering effects. It doesn't increase bandwidth, but it does make the most of what you already have (e.g. My PS4 will use deep color and the background screen has no dithering at all, despite a ton of shades of blue). NOTHING other than my PS4 that I've used has ever made use of 1080p "deep color" modes as the 4K wide bandwidth stuff has supplanted it, but the Vertex can use it where possible (or so I've been told by its creator). Frankly, given the limits on Vudu and Prime here and the Shield limits on EVERYTHING so far except KODI, I've been thinking of buying one for some time. But as Batpig points out, a proper UHD player and an AppleTV 4K will give you "most" of what's available and some creative ripping with a computer can give you nearly everything from discs with KODI regardless if it's only on 4K or not (I just dumped the Gladiator DTS:X soundtrack and applied it to the 2K video for KODI to use here just today, for example).
> 
> Personally, I've been waiting for a model projector I really like to go to 4K. They've all been "near 4K" (and weight too much for my current mount to chance it at over 25 pounds for the Epson "near 4K" models) or they have very little LENS SHIFT to enable me to use my current projector mount location and/or don't support 3D video (I have over 200 3D movies and I'm not giving them up for a little more sharpness and some highly questionable contrast effects with HDR that doesn't work so well with ANY projectors like it does OLED. I'm pretty happy with 2K for movies as it's very film-like even at 8 feet with a 92" screen. How sharp does it need to be? Do I really want all my movies to look like the old AGFA or Ektar (oversaturated) films??? That's not reality. It's fiction and looks FAKE in many cases, IMO. Yes, it looks good. Too good. Real life doesn't look like some of the stuff I've seen on OLED in UHD with HDR. I'll take the blacker blacks. I could live without HDR and with a projector, you will mostly live without it anyway. You trade HDR for a gigantic picture that is far more immersive than oversaturated, overly bright pictures. If I got a Epson "near 4K" projector, I'd want a 2:35:1 screen next so there's more money and moving the front height speakers over to be out of the way of the extra width (I can do 115" 2.35:1 instead of 92" 16x9), but man would Star Wars be awesome covering over 2/3 the width of the entire front wall...maybe too big for the front row really, but would look great in the second and third rows.
> 
> With audio, I went BIG with speaker count so the only thing I have to upgrade in the future is the number of "discrete" channels by the processor. 11.1.6 covers a lot of space in a 12x24 room from edge to edge in both directions, although even there I could still add chair shakers. At some point, you just know floor speakers for "under you" are going to be added some day. It's almost inevitable (well unless home theater as we know it dies off due to lack of interest from future generations that seem to think earbuds + phone = good enough.


I see a 4K Sony or JVC in your future with a 115” 2.35:1 screen! I bought a used Sony 695es and upgraded my screen to a 115” 2.35:1 Stewart Cima screen and get an amazing and immersive picture with excellent color (92% DCI P3 coverage) and very good black levels, contrast and very sharp picture with the Sony reality creation processing. Of course, you need good tone mapping to make it all work on a projector (I have a Panasonic UB820 which handles the tone mapping for my 4K discs), but I am blown away by how good the picture looks every night. It did cost a good amount, but looking back on it, I think it was worth the cost and effort and I have no regrets taking the leap.


----------



## elee532

Thanks for all the super helpful information and suggestions!!! So, here's where I think I landed...



Just ordered the new Shield 2019 Pro with the HOPE that Netflix will work now, and Disney+ will add support soon.
I'll focus on physical media that supports Atmos on the SHD disc and plan for either a new player or one of the devices @MagnumX mentioned next year.

I wonder, in the meantime, is there a way to rip a 4K disk and play to my 1080p projector using Kodi to get the Atmos track?


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> Thanks for all the super helpful information and suggestions!!! So, here's where I think I landed...
> 
> 
> 
> Just ordered the new Shield 2019 Pro with the HOPE that Netflix will work now, and Disney+ will add support soon.
> I'll focus on physical media that supports Atmos on the SHD disc and plan for either a new player or one of the devices @MagnumX mentioned next year.
> 
> I wonder, in the meantime, is there a way to rip a 4K disk and play to my 1080p projector using Kodi to get the Atmos track?


Unfortunately, I don't think the Shield will give you Atmos with a 2k projector. That's why I recommended the AppleTV 4K as it works for me with my 2K projector for Netflix and Disney+ (and iTunes). My LG UP875 does 4K to 2K just fine (cost me $92). You can rip regular 2K discs with most drives using MakeMKV and 4K discs with so-called "4K Ready" drives, which I have one and I can rip most 4K discs for audio to "remux" with the 2K discs with KODI. I miss very little Atmos here. In fact, my current "disc based" count is 70 Atmos, 37 DTS:X and 11 Auro-3D and about 40-60 more without overlap on iTunes (haven't done a count recently).


----------



## Roger Dressler

MagnumX said:


> There's a very simple solution to the 4K projector/TV question that I've mentioned before. It's not a "cheap" solution, really, although it's MUCH cheaper than a new projector and that's the HD Fury Linker, Integral II and Vertex. The Linker doesn't support every possible mode, but you don't need every mode. It's also eventually going to disappear when stock runs out. But it's under $150. The other two are both under $300. You put that in your chain between your AVR and TV/Projector and EVERY device you have will think you have 4K and output it to it.


Just as an alternative, for about $50 I use the Gofanco Prophecy splitter. All sources think they are feeding a 4k device, provides simultaneous 4k and 2k outputs, and passes Atmos bitstreams. 

https://www.gofanco.com/4k-hdr-1x2-splitter-pro-hdrsplit2p-c.html


----------



## MagnumX

Roger Dressler said:


> Just as an alternative, for about $50 I use the Gofanco Prophecy splitter. All sources think they are feeding a 4k device, provides simultaneous 4k and 2k outputs, and passes Atmos bitstreams.
> 
> https://www.gofanco.com/4k-hdr-1x2-splitter-pro-hdrsplit2p-c.html


How well does it down-convert 4K HDR material to 2K, though? Fooling it for Atmos is one thing, having to watch the video if it's faded out looking is another. 

This bit gives me pause, for instance: "- Splitter can bypass 4K HDR data content but cannot process it to make 4K HDR content fit 1080p proportionally."

_Bypass_ HDR content? If it's HDR, it's HDR in the data. You can't just "bypass" it without changing the color mapping AFAIK. It has to be "tone mapped" or whatever the term is to match the nearest equivalent colors in the lower bandwidth spectrum. Supposedly, what makes the HD Fury Vertex worthwhile, is it's capable of downscaling and converting the color spectrum to whatever mode you need or have available.


----------



## elee532

MagnumX said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think the Shield will give you Atmos with a 2k projector.


Ugh. What a bummer! Is this a limitation on the Netflix side or the Shield side? Nvidia really should note this somewhere!



> That's why I recommended the AppleTV 4K as it works for me with my 2K projector for Netflix and Disney+ (and iTunes). My LG UP875 does 4K to 2K just fine (cost me $92).


I just can't bring myself to add yet another device into my system (nor can I drop the Shield). The cost of programming into my C4 setup, getting my family to understand yet another media device, more source switching, etc. 




> You can rip regular 2K discs with most drives using MakeMKV and 4K discs with so-called "4K Ready" drives, which I have one and I can rip most 4K discs for audio to "remux" with the 2K discs with KODI.


Good to know this is possible. I'll have to check out whether my drive is 4K ready.

Thanks!


----------



## Roger Dressler

MagnumX said:


> How well does it down-convert 4K HDR material to 2K, though? Fooling it for Atmos is one thing, having to watch the video if it's faded out looking is another.


In my understanding, it simply parses out the core 2k video carried within the 4k bitstream. Same as happens when you play a UHD Blu-ray Disc into a regular 2k HDTV. You get 2k SDR picture that looks perfectly fine.



> This bit gives me pause, for instance: "- Splitter can bypass 4K HDR data content but cannot process it to make 4K HDR content fit 1080p proportionally."
> 
> _Bypass_ HDR content? If it's HDR, it's HDR in the data. You can't just "bypass" it without changing the color mapping AFAIK.


When it says "bypass" I take that to mean the full HDR 4k data is preserved as it passes to the 4k output, but when it creates the 2k output, it does not apply the HDR, which makes sense because there's no actual video processing in the device -- it's a parser. They use the term "downscaling" which sounds like it's creating the 2k output from the 4k data, but it's really just throwing away data, IMHO.



> It has to be "tone mapped" or whatever the term is to match the nearest equivalent colors in the lower bandwidth spectrum.


Tone mapping is necessary if you want to play 4k HDR content on a 4k non-HDR display. But the 2k portion of the stream does not have the HDR extension, so that core works directly on 2k (and 4k SDR) displays without need of tone mapping.



> Supposedly, what makes the HD Fury Vertex worthwhile, is it's capable of downscaling and converting the color spectrum to whatever mode you need or have available.


If you want to do tone mapping, then the GoFanco is not relevant.


----------



## MagnumX

Roger Dressler said:


> In my understanding, it simply parses out the core 2k video carried within the 4k bitstream. Same as happens when you play a UHD Blu-ray Disc into a regular 2k HDTV. You get 2k SDR picture that looks perfectly fine.


That's news to me. Now I don't know how Apple is handling 4K. They might have some sort of combined format in use, but most of the early complaints about 4K UHD BD Players was that they looked god awful connected to a 2K display and it was some time before some quality tone-mapping models started showing up. Now perhaps it's not the HDR that's the real issue, but the Wide Color Gamut aspect of it? HDR might be "meta" but I think the wider color bandwidth is baked in. If it was as simple as just using the "core 2K" feed (like some DTS core in the DTS-HD added signal), it seems to me that would have never been an issue. This is the first time I've ever read of any such thing as a 2K video stream within the 4K stream. AFAIK, it's a 4K video feed, not "2+2" or something. You can easily scale 4K to 2K, but HDR and Wide Color Gamut are another matter.  If you convert UHD HDR BD discs to 2K using Handbrake, you will get a faded color mess. If it were as simple as just ignoring some meta data, I think they would have had the feature added by now. I think the broader bandwidth color spectrum is baked in to the 4K picture and has to be converted to display at the 2K standard. That is perhaps the issue more than HDR.




> If you want to do tone mapping, then the GoFanco is not relevant.


I want to be able to watch the video it's going to send if I select a 4K streaming source in relative quality (similar to the separate 2K feed). It's unclear to me whether I'll get a faded picture like with HDR on SDR sets or if it converts it or as you say bypasses the HDR part somehow.


----------



## Roger Dressler

MagnumX said:


> That's news to me. Now I don't know how Apple is handling 4K. They might have some sort of combined format in use, but most of the early complaints about 4K UHD BD Players was that they looked god awful connected to a 2K display and it was some time before some quality tone-mapping models started showing up. Now perhaps it's not the HDR that's the real issue, but the Wide Color Gamut aspect of it? HDR might be "meta" but I think the wider color bandwidth is baked in. If it was as simple as just using the "core 2K" feed (like some DTS core in the DTS-HD added signal), it seems to me that would have never been an issue. This is the first time I've ever read of any such thing as a 2K video stream within the 4K stream. AFAIK, it's a 4K video feed, not "2+2" or something. You can easily scale 4K to 2K, but HDR and Wide Color Gamut are another matter. If you convert UHD HDR BD discs to 2K using Handbrake, you will get a faded color mess. If it were as simple as just ignoring some meta data, I think they would have had the feature added by now. I think the broader bandwidth color spectrum is baked in to the 4K picture and has to be converted to display at the 2K standard. That is perhaps the issue more than HDR.


I'm sure my assumptions are mostly wrong. Sorry for the detour to nonsense. 

When it comes to HDR video, and HDR10 and Dolby Vision, there's clearly no simple answer. Even in the case of DV, >>Dolby Vision allows content producers to have either one or two ‘layers’ of data; one carrying just an HDR signal, the other carrying a standard dynamic range (SDR) signal.


----------



## MagnumX

Roger Dressler said:


> I'm sure my assumptions are mostly wrong. Sorry for the detour to nonsense.
> 
> When it comes to HDR video, and HDR10 and Dolby Vision, there's clearly no simple answer. Even in the case of DV, >>Dolby Vision allows content producers to have either one or two ‘layers’ of data; one carrying just an HDR signal, the other carrying a standard dynamic range (SDR) signal.


----------



## amdar

Are there any difference in the Dolby Atmos mix in Streaming contents vs Disc? I watched the movie IT in ATV4 streaming, the Atmos sound was good but when i watched the same movie IT in 4K UHD the ATMOS sound was fantastic and i heard more overhead sounds.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

amdar said:


> Are there any difference in the Dolby Atmos mix in Streaming contents vs Disc? I watched the movie IT in ATV4 streaming, the Atmos sound was good but when i watched the same movie IT in 4K UHD the ATMOS sound was fantastic and i heard more overhead sounds.


Yes. Streaming services use a lossy DD+ stream to carry Atmos, while Blu-rays use a lossless TrueHD stream. The number of objects and their placement will most likely be the same, but the sound quality is not.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

MagnumX said:


> Just wait and see what they eventually package with 8K to try and sell it to the masses.... (then 16K!)


Maybe real cinema 128 waveforms Atmos


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

batpig said:


> The streaming aspect is much more forgivable, I don't think it's unreasonable for a mfgr to say that a 2-3+ year old version of a streaming box (like Roku or FireTV) doesn't support the newest codecs, since streaming Atmos is much newer than disc-based Atmos.


All devices that pass through the DD+ stream should be able to pass through the DD+ with Atmos stream. I find it unforgivable that they refuse to activate it. Same is true for my 2016 LG OLED. It's only forgivable for devices that decode the DD+ stream to PCM imho.


----------



## MagnumX

*Theatrical Mix Versus Near-Field Should Be More Important*



G4n0nD0rf said:


> Yes. Streaming services use a lossy DD+ stream to carry Atmos, while Blu-rays use a lossless TrueHD stream. The number of objects and their placement will most likely be the same, but the sound quality is not.


I've yet to see someone prove they can tell a decent bit rate lossy format from lossless. It's an audiophile myth there's a difference and the number of people deluding themselves that they NEED lossless is beyond incredible. TrueHD and Master-HD has been, IMO a massive waste of disc space in home theater and more marketing than reality. Above a certain bit-rate, nearly all "lossy" formats become indistinguishable from the lossless one, but save about 10:1 space at that point on average (e.g. I've never seen anyone prove they could tell 256kbps VBR AAC from the CD lossless original with DBX testing, but I've seen hundreds CLAIM they can to no avail). 

Meanwhile, the industry _could_ have used that space to include something that DOES sound different and sometimes VERY different from the *original Theatrical Soundtrack Mix* and that are these so-called "Near Field" mixes that claim to adjust the sound for home theater rooms that typically sit closer to speakers (the "standard" setup seems to be to place speakers 8-feet away from the console from what I've read). There's two problems with Near-Field mixes. One is that THX "RE-EQ" and modern Audyssey "Reference" (and similar settings on other brands) ALREADY adjust the ONE thing that truly differs between the two spaces and that is the X-Curve measurement of high frequency (treble) fall-off as you get further away from tweeters. If you run a Theatrical Mix at home, it will have more treble to balance that space out. That is what RE-EQ/Audyssey Reference, etc. are for). The other problem is that they don't just change those parameters, but are free to change anything they think "sounds better" for the home mix. 

I'll point out right now that there was an interesting discussion with someone that edits (or edited; I don't know if he's still active) soundtracks over at the Film Tech Forums (http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f16/t001428/p1.html). He explains exactly what is "typically" done and with remasters it's often a different team that does it (from the award winning soundtracks in some cases) and that ultimately it's "subjective" what they change based on what they 'hear' in this large mixing room with speakers placed closer to the console to hear "near field". They don't just pre-adjust the EQ (making the setting do it DOUBLE again if you use it at home), but also reduce dynamic range under the assumption people won't play it at theatrical levels at home and raise center dialog levels (and also sometimes reduce stereo separation assuming you have speakers to the sides that make it wider than it should be, but too bad if you have them behind an acoustically transparent screen or underneath the screen and now get a "shrunk" width). 

That EQ defeats Audyssey reference levels since once you raise dialog well past the sound effects and reduce their range so they're louder "sooner", you make a soundtrack that sounds BAD at theater levels. People often complain that they can't play their home theater anywhere NEAR "reference" levels and that's why. The soundtracks are pre-baked to sound "optimal" anywhere from 6dB to even 16dB lower than the theatrical mix and going above that makes them hard to listen to as certain elements are then "too loud". There are no "standards" (beyond the seemingly common 8 foot speaker distance used) to what is changed. It's all up to the team doing the work. But this guy suggests that if they did turn in a Theatrical Mix and label it "near field" someone's head would roll. The Studios are convinced it will affect sales if they use the Theatrical Soundtracks like they did before the year 2000, but instead of aiming for the people who CARE about the soundtrack the most (high-end), they cater to the low-end that wouldn't know the difference instead! It's probably why Disney does 7.1.4 print-out "Atmos Lite" soundtracks too. Who cares about the handful of people going above 7.1.4 or that have rooms large enough that they actually "need" the extra speakers to cover the phantom imaging angles that are now much larger. Marketing BS always wins over common sense. TrueHD and Master-HD promised the studio quality masters, the same as the theater went the marketing hype. Except, that no, they're NOT the same as the theater mixes! They had already moved to "near field" mixes that often do more than they're supposed to (http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f12/t001084.html).

It's all about mass marketing. You're supposed to be able to set your listening level for movies at a STANDARD (and adjust for taste) and then leave it there (one of the goals of THX and Dolby "Standards" for levels, etc.), but I think most of us know that is simply no longer the case. In 2000, they abandoned that practice and went to this "near field" stuff that does whatever it wants instead. I have a version of The Matrix in Cinematic DTS (converted from the APT original cinema CD) and when compared to the new Atmos version and level matched for dialog, the sound effects are 6-8dB louder on the Cinematic version and oh boy, does it sound awesome on my setup compared to the Atmos version, which sounds kind of weak when you compare them at dialog matched levels. But The Matrix is a MINOR example. 6dB isn't the end of the world (although significant, IMO) and most people thought the Atmos version sounded great, but then they didn't have the Theatrical version to compare it to and thus don't realize what they're missing. Yes, that cinema version is LOSSY. So what? It still sounds better in terms of IMPACT than the new Atmos "home version". Yes, the latter adds some overhead effects, but Neural X does a good job adapting older soundtracks and personally, I'd take the dynamic range over positioning in that movie. Plus that's the version heard in theaters with DTS in 1999. And I think that should matter to people that want to see the _ORIGINAL_ STAR WARS and the like as it was at the theater in 1977, not some washed and rewashed and then cut to pieces and put back together again George Lucas editing. Why is the soundtrack less important than the picture?

People should be _upset_ that the true theatrical mixes generally ended around the year 2000 or so (save some exceptions like Paramount whom I read rarely changes the theatrical mix and according to an interview with someone from IMAX, the "Imax Enhanced" Blu-Rays will use the THEATRICAL MIX, not the near-field ones as the primary soundtrack on the discs! See: https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/interview-geir-skaaden-dts/). Before 2000, generally ALL home theater mixes were the theatrical one. But that is probably why since then so many home mixes are so inconsistent now as some mixes get very little changed and others get completely screwed up (e.g. Back to the Future) as it's very subjective and up to the mixing guys how much they screw with the original (and in some cases award winning) soundtracks. But we almost never hear a peep about that in home theater forums. All we hear is whining about how streaming sucks and the occasional disc (e.g. Fast and the Furious 6) ABSOLUTELY SUCKS (to paraphrase some comments on the blueray.com site) because it used DTS-High Resolution Audio instead of DTS-Master Audio and so clearly is must be GARBAGE. There's ZERO AUDIBLE difference, but hey, who cares that it's a near-field mix that sounds nothing like the theatrical experience, but let's instead harp about an extremely high bit-rate "lossy" format that sounds not ONE IOTA different from the Master version. 

People have even complained about Apple's ALAC *LOSSLESS* format thinking it still loses "something" because it's half the file size of the WAV file version and people have to explain how lossless packing works and they still claim they think it sounds inferior to FLAC, despite all common sense. But not a peep about "Near Field" versus "Theatrical Soundtracks" that can sound similar or sometimes sound completely different based on the whims of a sound team or guy that may not even be the original one that made or mixed the soundtrack in the first place when it comes to remastering old soundtracks. No, the attitude there seems to be "We NEED near-field at home because we're in smaller rooms!" when that's horse crap. The ONLY factor that needs addressing (based on the size of your room and speakers) is the high frequency X-Curve which is typically taken care of by "Reference" on Audyssey products and "RE-EQ" on THX, etc. 

In short, there's no need for a "near-field" soundtrack and in reality, it's often used to "dumb down" the track so they don't blow up cheap sound bars and the like (cough Disney). You can claim that's not the purpose of "near field" and that it's only to make the soundtrack sound good in smaller rooms sitting closer to speaker than a typical theater, but THAT is the MIX that gets screwed with. Besides, there's thousands of different rooms and configurations at "home". Some people have 50x50 rooms with 34 speakers and Trinnov and they aren't sitting "near field" (8 feet) at all. How can they mix for all those rooms and expect consistency? No, consistency would be using ONE mix and giving the hardware some tools to adjust it to match that standard (Audyssey, RE-EQ and the like along with dynamic range compression setting OPTIONS that can adjust the level for you if you find the theatrical mix to be too much). 

But again, more importantly, with all the _unneeded_ foreign language soundtracks included (they can use subtitles or get discs for their region), it shouldn't even be a problem with lossless to include _BOTH_ Theatrical _AND_ Near-Field mixes, but that's the excuse I've seen when someone from the industry was asked at another forum. There's usually not enough space for both! I just bought "Death Machine" (1994) from Germany by Turbine and it's outfitted with Auro-3D soundtracks in both English and German (plus the original German and English stereo mixes also in lossless) and manages to fit on ONE disc. Perhaps that's because it only contains TWO languages (the original English and the subs for the market/country it's aimed at, Germany instead of trying to fit 6 languages on one disc and 50 subtitle sets). IMO, it all comes down to greed and the marketing nonsense and propaganda wins over common sense every single time.


----------



## farsider3000

MagnumX said:


> I've yet to see someone prove they can tell a decent bit rate lossy format from lossless. It's an audiophile myth there's a difference and the number of people deluding themselves that they NEED lossless is beyond incredible. ).
> 
> .



I can’t prove it to you but, with my system, which is, I would say, near the top of what is possible in home theater dynamics I can tell a big difference in the lower frequency sounds when comparing streaming Atmos vs the Atmos or true HD track on a 4K blu-ray.

The compressed streaming signal (10-70Hz is my guess) sounds muddy and bloated many times vs the more precise ultra low frequencies and the 40-70 Hz slam and punch I hear with a disc.

It very much depends on the system you are listening on. I do agree though that many Netflix tv shows in Dolby Atmos sound fantastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

farsider3000 said:


> I can’t prove it to you but, with my system, which is, I would say, near the top of what is possible in home theater dynamics I can tell a big difference in the lower frequency sounds when comparing streaming Atmos vs the Atmos or true HD track on a 4K blu-ray.
> 
> The compressed streaming signal (10-70Hz is my guess) sounds muddy and bloated many times vs the more precise ultra low frequencies and the 40-70 Hz slam and punch I hear with a disc.
> 
> It very much depends on the system you are listening on. I do agree though that many Netflix tv shows in Dolby Atmos sound fantastic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I've noticed a kind of thinness to a lot of lossy compressed streaming audio, often in the upper frequency range and on dialog. There's something missing in the slam and attack too. I have a THX 15" Monolith sub and Triad Gold speakers up front, so not exactly a low end system either.


Also, in the Netflix notes for prepping and mastering audio tracks, it looks like they ask for a kind of "normalization" and built-in dynamic compression (based on volume peaks) on submitted audio files for programming added to their service. This can subdue soundtracks as well, beyond what they normally do for near-field mixing on disc.


I'll continue to stay it until proven otherwise... streaming sucks.


----------



## smdelaney

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'll continue to stay it until proven otherwise... streaming sucks.


That is an unfair absolute statement (understanding that I've removed some of the context).
What IS fair to say is that the streaming services used by the average consumer cannot provide the same level of quality in their audio content as from a BD or 4k BD. 

Streaming has it positives...convenience first and foremost. The average user has probably never listened to a quality source via good headphones or a decent HiFi system so if all they have ever experienced is lossy formats through their soundbar, cheap earbuds or BT speakers then they have no idea what they are missing and no...streaming won't sound any better or worse than whatever audio files they have saved to their phone.


----------



## dormie1360

farsider3000 said:


> I can’t prove it to you but, with my system, which is, I would say, near the top of what is possible in home theater dynamics I can tell a big difference in the lower frequency sounds when comparing streaming Atmos vs the Atmos or true HD track on a 4K blu-ray.
> 
> The compressed streaming signal (10-70Hz is my guess) sounds muddy and bloated many times vs the more precise ultra low frequencies and the 40-70 Hz slam and punch I hear with a disc.
> 
> It very much depends on the system you are listening on. I do agree though that many Netflix tv shows in Dolby Atmos sound fantastic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



First I would categorize myself as a lossless snob. 

In my limited testing I agree differences are there, but I'd also guess the differences (if heard) would not be a big deal for most consumers. As you alluded to the room itself, along with calibration, speakers, etc., have the most impact on the sound heard, certainly much more than lossy vs lossless.

Having said all that, I would dread the day we no longer have lossless, physical media.


----------



## MagnumX

It would be hard to account for any single difference in a given stream from a provider if the rates are not known or if they screwed with something like Dynamic Range even further than the studios already have in the "home mix". But I maintain proper high bit-rate lossy sounds identical to the original. That is an easy test to do with a home encoder and a simple music CD. 256kbps AAC...can't tell it from a CD any of the times I've tried. 

Now the APPLE versions? They are known to go for "loud" on their "Remastered for iTunes" editions and even many CDs do the same thing. I bought Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game" from the remastered greatest hits album and it went into clipping several times and it's like 8-9dB louder than the one from his original album that it was on and that version does NOT clip at all and both are from iTunes. 

It's really easy to blame digital problems on lossy compression, but in my experience, there's usually something else going on other than JUST the use of a lossy compression algorithm. Until recently Netflix used LOW RATE LOSSY. That does cause crappy sound. They've since supposedly moved up to 640kbps DD+ (The same rate as the core Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-Rays only in superior DD+ rather than Dolby Digital and thus it should sound as good or better than the Blu-Ray lossy track, which is already at a rate where I hear little if any difference from the lossless one. But whether they've left everything else alone in the process is unknown. The audio has improved considerably at the very least, however. I certainly have a hard time trying to hear ANY difference between the core Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-Rays versus the TrueHD one as 640kbps DD sounds pretty transparent and DD+ at that rate indistinguishable in most situations.

But other things I suspect something else is going on. For example, the lack of "punchy bass" is not a sign of digital lossy compression, IMO, which mostly affects the treble/highs of the track with swirly/harsh crap. It's a sign of dynamic compression to the signal before that point (i.e. they've altered the levels and probably beyond just overall volume).

Given a choice, however, I'd gladly take 640kbps DD+ lossy with the original Theatrical Soundtrack Mix over Lossless with some crappy remixed "home mix" using "near field" as an excuse to compress the crap out of dynamics and other areas that have nothing to do with sitting closer to speakers.


----------



## mrtickleuk

dormie1360 said:


> First I would categorize myself as a lossless snob.
> 
> In my limited testing I agree differences are there, but I'd also guess the differences (if heard) would not be a big deal for most consumers. As you alluded to the room itself, along with calibration, speakers, etc., have the most impact on the sound heard, certainly much more than lossy vs lossless.
> 
> Having said all that, I would dread the day we no longer have lossless, physical media.


I agree wholeheartedly. Also our access to lossless physical media has been very short-lived and fleeting when you look back.

For video, we've _never _had it: analogue formats like VHS were lossy due to lower resolution and bandwidth, digital formats are lossy with MPEG/HEVC/etc compression. For audio music, we had it for a few short years with physical CDs before everything was ruined in the "loudness wars" of 1990s onwards. So really it only lasted for the second half of the 1980s!


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. Also our access to lossless physical media has been very short-lived and fleeting when you look back.
> 
> For video, we've _never _had it: analogue formats like VHS were lossy due to lower resolution and bandwidth, digital formats are lossy with MPEG/HEVC/etc compression. For audio music, we had it for a few short years with physical CDs before everything was ruined in the "loudness wars" of 1990s onwards. So really it only lasted for the second half of the 1980s!


FYI, Laserdiscs had lossless CD quality digital soundtracks since 1984, only seven years after VHS came out (they also were first with 1235kbps DTS). And if you gave two bits about _quality_ home theater back then you sure as hell owned a laserdisc player. I had one since 1989 and I was only 15 at the time. My father had a VHS player in 1976. We had all the movies recorded off Star Channel and HBO. The neighborhood kids always wanted to come over and watch Star Wars and Willy Wonka. I've still got over 200 laserdiscs today. I just compared the DTS Jurassic Park laserdisc wtih the DTS:X UHD version for sound. Amazingly, the levels of dialog and bass were within an average of 2dB of each other. They may have reduced the subsonic bass (below 20Hz) in the DTS:X version, though. My sub is only flat to 20Hz. But I was shocked with all the comments about DTS being "overcooked" with bass in the 1990s that the new version is faithful to the original version for the most part (the laserdisc still sounds darn good today!). The bass goes nowhere NEAR the levels of Blade Runner 2049, however (my nomination for best sounding movie soundtrack of all time I've heard thus far) and I have Blade Runner 2049 in Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D here. They are both excellent.

The comments about CDs are lumping the few into the piles of the many. Not every artist/studio went "loud" and even a certain amount of compression is normal for rock (instead of classical). I have tons of CDs from the 1990s that are AWESOME sounding. Hell, if anything, the early CDs from the early '80s were often direct copies of albums mastered for LP and had almost NO BASS on them compared to more modern albums. I found the best CDs started appearing in the late '80s and for quality artists have never stopped. If you listen to mainstream crap, you get what you get, I guess. And yet your are not upset by them using near-field mixes in home theater? That's compressed crap for the 21st Century (loudness wars all over again). TrueHD doesn't give you what you think it does. It's still at the whim of the mixing guys, all too many listen to their bosses tell them to make it sound good on sound bars, not high-end home cinemas.

Given comments on lossless audio, I'm starting to feel these forums have more in common with Stereophile than honest to goodness SCIENCE which well knows the limits of lossy audibility in double blind testing.


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> FYI, Laserdiscs had lossless CD quality digital soundtracks since 1984, only seven years after VHS came out (they also were first with 1235kbps DTS). And if you gave two bits about _quality_ home theater back then you sure as hell owned a laserdisc player.


Charming - I was being supportive. Sheesh.


----------



## chi_guy50

smdelaney said:


> That is an unfair absolute statement (understanding that I've removed some of the context).
> What IS fair to say is that the streaming services used by the average consumer cannot provide the same level of quality in their audio content as from a BD or 4k BD.
> 
> Streaming has it positives...convenience first and foremost. The average user has probably never listened to a quality source via good headphones or a decent HiFi system so *if all they have ever experienced is lossy formats through their soundbar, cheap earbuds or BT speakers then they have no idea what they are missing* and no...streaming won't sound any better or worse than whatever audio files they have saved to their phone.



This is a perfect illustration of what Thomas Gray was referring to when he penned that "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly (and costly in terms of both money and WAF) to be wise."

I'm paraphrasing.


----------



## dormie1360

MagnumX said:


> Given comments on lossless audio, I'm starting to feel these forums have more in common with Stereophile than honest to goodness SCIENCE which well knows the limits of lossy audibility in double blind testing.



Ouch, comparing me with Stereophile hurts me more than you know. :frown:

I'd be curious if @*appelz* has an opinion on lossy vs lossless in home theaters and if, in his opinion, there are any sonic differences perceived or otherwise. I know he used lossless material with me, but that may just be due to convenience and familiarity.


----------



## Augerhandle

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html


----------



## MagnumX

chi_guy50 said:


> This is a perfect illustration of what Thomas Gray was referring to when he penned that "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly (and costly in terms of both money and WAF) to be wise."
> 
> I'm paraphrasing.


I'd agree except I know you're on the side of hear-say instead of science. Lossy audio has to be the single most poison pill in the audio world, well at least since "digital audio" came out which Stereophile and their followers instantly HATED as sounding "robotic" or "harsh" or some other crap based not on science, but on advertising dollars. These are the same people that believed Shakti stones placed "just so" in the room could greatly improve sound (the "liquidity" of it or some other nonsensical term), that rubber CD mats did anything but load the electric motors down so they performed worse for tracking and that painting the edges of a CD with green markers SOMEHOW magically improved their sound quality! When I was dealing with THAT level of Voodoo Hoodoo SNAKE OIL, I suppose anything is a step up from selling one's soul for marketing dollars in a magazine. 

Yes, there's a lot of bad streaming audio out there, but just blaming it on lossy audio is like blaming bad sounding cable music on digital audio in general instead of the fact they neutered the dynamic range and levels before broadcasting it. It's not digital's fault people do bad things to audio nor is "lossy" encoding "evil". It's just a space saving mechanism like MPEG. Blu-Rays and all Hi-Def and Ultra-High-Def VIDEO has LOSSY compression, but you don't see the mass HATRED of it in video like you do audio for some bizarre reason and I dare say it's MUCH HARDER to get perfect looking lossy video than it is to get to the point in audio where people can't tell the difference in blind testing. I have few doubts that many of these streaming services have poor audio, but just using Netflix as an example, they had very low bit-rates until recently where you can finally get 640kbps DD+, which is quite transparent in blind testing. Does that mean they won't touch something else? I can't guarantee that. Why does AppleTV 4K have lower overall volume levels? That's not a quality issue per se, but it causes problems with some equipment just the same as you run out of volume range sooner with lower voltage input levels.



mrtickleuk said:


> Charming - I was being supportive. Sheesh.


I don't see what you're upset about. I simply stated a fact about when lossless digital audio soundtracks were first available. I forgot how sensitive people get when it comes to FACTS overriding PERCEPTION on some forums. I got used to people on Audioholics generally listening to science rather than hear-say, I suppose. The simple fact is VHS was a very poor home theater medium regardless of how popular it was. Sony Betamax was a little better (with its own unique problems, not the least of which was cost), but laserdisc had far more resolution than either. SVHS came closer, but it was never popular as a commercial movie outlet as not enough people had them (they bought the cheapest models available). I had VHS, but tried to get my favorite movies on Laserdisc. They weren't cheap and neither were large screens back then (A decent front projector was $25k and up in 1990s dollars with mere scan doubling). After a decade, I had slightly over 200 titles. I've purchased more 3D titles in the past two years than that, let alone in general. 

Never have large screen TVs and projectors been as cheap as they are now and never has video and audio quality been capable of such feats and that is why it's a shame when I get some crappy near-field mix that sounds like ear-piercing noise at Reference theater levels. They're not ALL like that. Some near-field mixes are only slightly different than the original theatrical mixes, but that lack of standardization is what bothers me. TRON:Legacy was REFERENCE material. What happened to Disney after that? Why does even the Atmos track on The Matrix have 6-8dB less dynamic range than the original DTS (lossy) mix? It's a HOME mix, that's why. I simply don't see why they could deliver the theatrical mixes in the 1990s on Laserdisc and even early DVD, but after about 2000 we started getting these "home" versions that lacked the same dynamics as the home theater mixes. There's more than enough space on a UHD disc to have more than ONE lossless mix, even in Atmos or DTS:X. My "Death Machine" (1994) disc from Germany has TWO Lossless Auro-3D soundtracks (English and German dubbed) AND TWO 2.0 channel lossless DTS-HD Master Audio mixes of the theatrical mix (English and German dubbed) and it's a regular Blu-Ray, not even an UHD one (that generally has more space available). I don't need SIX to EIGHT foreign language tracks on my Blu-Ray discs. Streaming is great for that market. If I'm going to buy physical discs, I think I deserve the option of the original Theatrical Mix. All modern AVRs have near-field EQ options on them (whether Audyssey's Cinema Reference mode or THX's RE-EQ). 

While I don't believe we "need" lossless, I don't mind it being present either. I simply think it's being used as an excuse to not include the theatrical mix as an option (not to mention the original mono and stereo mixes should be preserved for older movies! You should be able to hear Star Wars in Mono, Stereo and 70mm soundtracks, even if it's just on an "Archive Release" or something, not to mention the original video footage instead of these Lucas "edits" where Greedo shoots first when he didn't shoot at all in 1977!) Streaming can be good with enough bandwidth. The problem is the lack of a high-end service. It's 2019 and you still cannot buy lossless CD quality tracks on iTunes when Internet bandwidth has long eclipsed the rates necessary to make them available (whether they are "needed" is beside the point in a world where the consumer is supposed to be king so even though I think 256kbps AAC sounds good enough, I think people should be able to buy what they want regardless, whether that's LPs or 8-tracks if there's enough demand). We've moved instead to music services (e.g. Apple Music) where you have NO control over what quality you get. They can change to a "remaster" for a given album at any time and there's nothing you can do. If you owned the good CD, they can't take it from you!

I do mind sub-standard "home mixes" being sold under the guise of "near-field" when they have no standards for what constitutes a "near-field" mix. You can't make an optimized mix for every home when they vary so much. We don't all sit 8 feet from our speakers either. It's better to have a theatrical standard and then dilute it down with EQ and dynamic range compression for those that don't want cinema levels and/or don't have larger home theater rooms. Clearly, some studio mixes as of recent years (Disney being the worst, but not only offender) have walked away from standardization and moved into subjective home mixes (and even theater ones according to some) that took Lucas' original concept of THX STANDARDS and threw them down the toilet. Yes, THX sold itself out long before that point, but the idea of standard levels and dynamic range was a good one. But now the home mixes take that and crap on it. What's the point in having Audyssey set up a reference 0dB level when the home mixes have the dynamic range reduced 10dB or more already?


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> I don't see what you're upset about. I simply stated a fact about when lossless digital audio soundtracks were first available. I forgot how sensitive people get when it comes to FACTS overriding PERCEPTION on some forums.


Not "upset"; just that the barrage of negativity - including SHOUTING CAPITALS - towards a supportive post was unwelcome and unnecessary.


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> Not "upset"; just that the barrage of negativity - including SHOUTING CAPITALS - towards a supportive post was unwelcome and unnecessary.


I don't "shout capitals" they're simply easier to type for italics/bold than having to stop typing and outline or hypertext, particularly when I'm on a phone. Shouting is continuous capitals in a sentence, not one word or a phrase. I'm not trying to shout at you.  (you have to admit they stand out better than italics; bold is almost too much anyway)


----------



## mrtickleuk

*F*aiR eNo_*u*_Gh


----------



## bytor

Would it be worth it to put overhead Atmos speakers up high on the wall behind me? My head is only about a foot away from the wall while viewing so they would be almost directly above me. Or would it be better to just put them on top of my floorstanders? I already have a Klipsch system so these are the speakers I'm looking at. 

https://www.klipsch.com/products/r-41sa-dolby-atmos-speaker


----------



## amdar

I had the similar setup as you and put 4 ATMOS speakers(2 front height and two rear height). My Atmos speakers were SVS elevation speakers. The sound was fantastic and enjoyed the ATMOS and DTS:X Movies. 

When i moved to a new home in last summer, i installed 4 overhead ceiling speakers for ATMOS. Definitely i see much difference in the over head vs height speakers for ATMOS movies(Conjuring 2 cops visit scene is the best example of overhead. The sound moves from right to left just above your head. I didn't experience the similar sound when i used height speakers.) But same time didn't see much difference in the DTS:X movies. This is just my personal observation. 





bytor said:


> Would it be worth it to put overhead Atmos speakers up high on the wall behind me? My head is only about a foot away from the wall while viewing so they would be almost directly above me. Or would it be better to just put them on top of my floorstanders? I already have a Klipsch system so these are the speakers I'm looking at.
> 
> https://www.klipsch.com/products/r-41sa-dolby-atmos-speaker


----------



## MagnumX

Heights phantom image between them overhead so they can pull towards the nearest speaker like any stereo set if you're not sitting directly midway in-between them. After a certain angle of separation (~90-100 degrees give or take ten degrees front to back between them), imaging gets weak in the middle a well which is where top middle helps tremendously by bridging the distance.

I've had no trouble with overhead sounds using top middle extraction with heights. It's the angle, not the setting IMO. Heights are further apart than tops by nature and work better in smaller rooms length wise unless top middle is also employed.

Unfortunately, I don't have The Conjuring in Atmos to compare here (I looked; I don't even see an Atmos version anywhere; my iTunes copy is 4K but no Atmos; The Conjuring 2 will supposedly be in Atmos when the 4K version comes out so I'm not sure what you're talking about unless you mean a Neural X upmix or something of the scene). Jumanji (original) in Atmos had those giant mosquitos buzzing right above my head to the point I almost started swatting at them.


----------



## leigh13

MagnumX said:


> I do mind sub-standard "home mixes" being sold under the guise of "near-field" when they have no standards for what constitutes a "near-field" mix. You can't make an optimized mix for every home when they vary so much.


Thanks for sharing all your thoughts on the subject. I really enjoyed reading it!

Remember back in the early days of DVD when most discs would default to a 2.0 soundtrack and you had to manually select the secondary DD5.1 track if you wanted discrete surround sound? 

Seems like it would be reasonable for studios to do something similar today for Blu-Ray: Include a basic DD5.1 mix as the default with all the near field mixing and compression to satisfy the masses with TV speakers and soundbars. Then include the high-end original Theatrical Mix as an alternate soundtrack, be it Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA or whatever. Those of you with the reference quality THX 11.4.6 systems (or whatever) could enjoy the actual mix as created by the sound designers and mixers of the film. And the rest of us with more mid-range systems could enjoy the theatrical mix as well, using the built in Audyssey Re-EQ or other DSP tools in the receiver to calibrate the audio appropriately for a better home experience.

Doing so wouldn't use up much storage space, it would placate the masses (who still get a 5.1 track mixed for near-field) and satisfy the true enthusiasts who want to get the closest experience to a theater as possible. Even for streaming services using DD+, a theatrical mix could be available as an alternate soundtrack.


----------



## batpig

bytor said:


> Would it be worth it to put overhead Atmos speakers up high on the wall behind me? My head is only about a foot away from the wall while viewing so they would be almost directly above me. Or would it be better to just put them on top of my floorstanders? I already have a Klipsch system so these are the speakers I'm looking at.
> 
> https://www.klipsch.com/products/r-41sa-dolby-atmos-speaker


Generally, having one a single pair of up-firing speakers up front is pretty ineffective. In addition to only having two reflections trying to trick you that there's overhead sound, the angles are typically bad. For example, if you're sitting 10' away and there's 5' distance to the ceiling, the reflection point will be 45 degrees off axis from the Atmos module. They are typically aimed at ~20 degrees, so the focus of the reflection will be too far forward to reach your ears effectively. 

On the other hand, having only a single pair of Atmos speakers BEHIND you isn't that effective either, since your ears/brain are much more sensitive to sounds in front of you, and you're already going to get a lot of ambient effects behind you from the surrounds. However, in your case, being only 1ft from the wall means that mounting them at the top of the wall angled down will put them close to directly above you, so you should get a pretty solid "over your head" effect.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've noticed a kind of thinness to a lot of lossy compressed streaming audio, often in the upper frequency range and on dialog. There's something missing in the slam and attack too. I have a THX 15" Monolith sub and Triad Gold speakers up front, so not exactly a low end system either.
> 
> 
> Also, in the Netflix notes for prepping and mastering audio tracks, it looks like they ask for a kind of "normalization" and built-in dynamic compression (based on volume peaks) on submitted audio files for programming added to their service. This can subdue soundtracks as well, beyond what they normally do for near-field mixing on disc.
> 
> 
> I'll continue to stay it until proven otherwise... streaming sucks.


You can call this damning with faint praise, but I can't say that I've suffered very much with the Disney+ Atmos mixes of the first six Star Wars movies. While they're mostly 7.1.2 (top middle), the bass is certainly robust enough for, say, the pod race or the beginning of Revenge of the Sith (enough so that I didn't miss having the old Bass EQ settings from the BD for that movie), and I don't notice much of a sense of compression on dialog or sound effects playing at about 75-80 db in my home theatre. And with my JVC RS600 PJ, the 4K is acceptable given the time that these movies were produced.

If I didn't have streaming at 50 Gbps according to my Roku with no buffering, I might feel differently about the video quality, though.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> and I don't notice much of a sense of compression on dialog or sound effects playing at about 75-80 db in my home theatre. And with my JVC RS600 PJ, the 4K is acceptable given the time that these movies were produced.


75-80? I assume that's because you're in an apartment-like complex? (i.e. I KNOW your system can go _much_ louder based on its specs). When I was testing the Jurassic Park DTS Laserdisc to compare to DTS:X, my Marantz -10dB setting was hitting 95 on sound effects at the start with the Raptor screeching (both versions) and the sub was hitting 107dB (105 on DTS:X) (measured with a sound meter to compare; both the original DTS Laserdisc and the DTS:X UHD Blu-Ray measured within 2dB in those scenes of each other). That was just for testing. I actually watched the movie at the -6dB setting (99dB peaks for sound effects), but I could have ran it to 0dB (definitely scary effects at that setting, but regular (not shouting) dialog was fine on the Laserdisc at that level and only slightly louder on the DTS:X version, which seems to follow the theatrical mix closely, at least). I ran Star Wars at 0dB, but then Apple TV seems to be about 4-6dB quieter than most Blu-Rays. 

Meanwhile, I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (THX BD) at 0dB (Paramount doesn't do near-field mixes as far as I can tell so I can crank it to full theater levels no problem without it sounding the least bit harsh) and that's with all PSB brand speakers for the main 17 speakers I have setup, as I'm sure you know (save the subwoofer). It was easily hitting close to 105dB A-weighted peaks on loud sound effects scenes. And that's why I say down with near-field mixes as the theatrical mixes can go all the way to Dolby theatrical volume levels without sounding too harsh, but the near-field mixes have to be turned down 6-10dB to sound comfortable in a home environment, IMO. I find most vary somewhere in-between 6-10. I can push -4 on some near-field mixes, but there are some intensely loud moments and dialog is rather high (works well for second row where response is down 4dB, but then that's no longer near-field seating).


----------



## raynist

batpig said:


> 1. As I noted above, Vudu is the ONLY streaming service which restricts Atmos audio to 4K UHD streams only. As far as I know there are no such inherent restrictions with Netflix or Disney+ content, although as of now the Shield Disney+ app doesn't support Atmos streaming.
> 
> 2. Yes, you have to look at the audio specs. There's a complete list of UHD discs that contain Atmos here and a corresponding list of HD Blu-rays with Dolby Atmos here if you want a reference to check. You'll find that it mostly aligns by studio.... Paramount, Warner Bros, and Universal will put Atmos on the regular BD with recent releases, whereas Sony, Disney, and Fox will not.
> 
> 
> 
> As suggested above, a reasonable option may be to add a Panasonic UB420 (on sale for $150 currently) as a dedicated 4K disc player, and let it convert to SDR while outputting Atmos when needed.


Does the Panasonic UB420 do a good job of converting 4K HDR to SDR 1080p out of the box or are there a bunch of settings to tweak?


----------



## batpig

raynist said:


> Does the Panasonic UB420 do a good job of converting 4K HDR to SDR 1080p out of the box or are there a bunch of settings to tweak?


There are a few settings to tweak, not a bunch.

In the main setup menus you want to configure it for the output you want (e.g. 4K SDR / BT.2020 or 1080p SDR / Rec709), and you also change a setting for display brightness so it tone maps properly (the lowest setting is for "projector" iirc). 

Then during playback there's an on-the-fly options menu where you can tweak a dynamic range adjustment slider which will help dial in appropriate overall brightness (since HDR will probably look dark on the default setting).

There's also an "HDR Optimizer" option you can enable, which mostly will clip some of the extreme highlights a bit more to allow for more detail in mid level highlights.

But that's it, you don't have to tweak endlessly.


----------



## raynist

batpig said:


> There are a few settings to tweak, not a bunch.
> 
> In the main setup menus you want to configure it for the output you want (e.g. 4K SDR / BT.2020 or 1080p SDR / Rec709), and you also change a setting for display brightness so it tone maps properly (the lowest setting is for "projector" iirc).
> 
> Then during playback there's an on-the-fly options menu where you can tweak a dynamic range adjustment slider which will help dial in appropriate overall brightness (since HDR will probably look dark on the default setting).
> 
> There's also an "HDR Optimizer" option you can enable, which mostly will clip some of the extreme highlights a bit more to allow for more detail in mid level highlights.
> 
> But that's it, you don't have to tweak endlessly.


Thanks. Is this an easier solution than one of the HD fury Linkers that was talked about earlier? I guess that device would allow me to get atmos from some of the streaming services sending a 1080p signal to my projector. I don’t want to have to constantly tweak though.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched *IT Chapter 2* in _Dolby Atmos_ 11.1.6 (12'x24' room with three rows of seats sitting center first row) and all I can say is if you want to hear an immersive Atmos movie, that is _IT_! Simply stunning use of surround. There are movies with more distinct moments of direct overhead use (there are several here just the same), but few movies I've heard have sounds moving in and around the main floor the theater (e.g. behind my head in the first row when there are two more sets of speakers behind that) and even a moment near the end with the deadlights when Pennywise screams there's this river of alien-esque sound floating through the air between heights and beds and snaked its way through the room like an invisible hologram. Now THAT was a great use of surround! My only complaint is that I would have liked a few more louder overhead moments spaced out over the different areas of the ceiling instead of just directly overhead. Some ambient bits could have been more effective louder, IMO (and I had the system playing back at Audyssey calibrated +3dB ABOVE reference so they were quite apparent in quiet moments, but would be hard to distinguish some of the quieter bits at lower volumes, IMO. Overall, I don't think I've heard anything at the Cinema that comes within 10% of this experience (then again, I don't have an Atmos theater near me and not all Atmos movies are as immersive at this one).

The best example of sounds that are distinctly and totally just all over the ceiling, IMO so far is the opening title sequence of the newer FLATLINERS movie, both in Atmos, but even more so in Auro-3D. Voices just come from everywhere imaginable overhead and you can tell that your brain's ability to focus on sounds in front of you rather than behind you at work there as they sound larger and less distinct behind you overhead than when it's above you or to the sides overhead or in front of you overhead. I'd conclude if I had to choose only four overhead speakers, front and middle overhead would be more effective than front/back in a room that wouldn't support strong phantom imaging behind you. Of course, with six, you don't have to choose. 

(Oh and the movie itself was quite good too, IMO, especially for a Stephen King movie, which usually don't translate well. I think this and the first chapter tops the charts, really for an effective translation. Almost three hours passed very quickly. The first movie is also excellent and has pretty darn good Atmos sound too).


----------



## MagnumX

raynist said:


> Thanks. Is this an easier solution than one of the HD fury Linkers that was talked about earlier? I guess that device would allow me to get atmos from some of the streaming services sending a 1080p signal to my projector. I don’t want to have to constantly tweak though.


AppleTV 4K does Netflix, Disney+ and iTunes movie purchases and rentals in Atmos without a Linker (any HD screen connected). It's the easiest option for getting quite a lot of Atmos other than getting a 4K set. An HD Fury Linker or Vertex or Integral II just fools the devices into thinking you have a 4K set connected and also scales it down and translates the palette, etc. for you to the most features your set supports (e.g. Here it would do Deep Color on my projector in 2K).


----------



## ragged

Just upgraded to 4k with 7.1.4 and a dp-ub820, cut the cable cord and this has been quite an interesting read. The 820 has been fantastic. Just my opinion, but streaming is the future and will only get better. Will it get to the point where its equal to a physical disc, I can only hope. Just like I'm hoping for the day when for $30 I can stream a new movie same day as its released in theaters. There's no commercial theater I've been to that I would say has better audio and video than what I have at home.


----------



## Hawks07

I have a couple of questions regarding my Atmos speaker placement if anybody would like to help out with.
First, I am using 4 bookshelf speakers mounted on my ceiling that are currently firing down toward the ground as Dolby suggests or did suggest when they were installed a few years ago.
Would it be better to angle them more to the MLP, tilting them back and turning them toward center?
I can adjust with my current mounts and would have to buy new mounts if I wanted to do this, so seeing if I would benefit first.
Second they are currently lined up with the L/R speakers which is about 32" from the side walls in an 18' wide room, once again which is what Dolby suggests.
I have heard though that some people are moving them closer in toward center, is that what is suggested now and people are finding it better? If so by how much should I move them in? 
Any suggestions would be great. Thanks!


----------



## raynist

MagnumX said:


> AppleTV 4K does Netflix, Disney+ and iTunes movie purchases and rentals in Atmos without a Linker (any HD screen connected). It's the easiest option for getting quite a lot of Atmos other than getting a 4K set. An HD Fury Linker or Vertex or Integral II just fools the devices into thinking you have a 4K set connected and also scales it down and translates the palette, etc. for you to the most features your set supports (e.g. Here it would do Deep Color on my projector in 2K).


Using my Apple TV 4K with my 1080p projector I and getting atmos using Netflix and Disney+, however I am not getting atmos when watching movies in iTunes (just tried It 2 and a few others). None of these movies were purchased directly in iTunes though. I am wondering if I have a setting wrong somewhere, but I am thinking not since it works with Netflix/Disney.

I am also getting atmos with Apple TV+ shows.

Edit - even when I use my 4k projector I am not getting atmos or HDR from iTunes movies. Both work with vudu, Netflix, prime and Apple TV+. Very strange. I am going to try a different ATV4k on a different tv/system and see what happens

Edit again. Everything worked on a different ATV 4k. I reset my ATV 4k with the issue back to factory and it now is working fine.

Edit again - ugh....this is pain in the butt. Everything works except Vudu and prime. Neither pass hdr or atmos to my 4k projector/receiver. Even tried a different Apple TV in this system and it has problems. Netflix, iTunes, movies anywhere all work. I’ve tried different HDMI cords also between Apple TV and receiver and receiver and projector. Must be something not compatible somewhere.


----------



## MagnumX

raynist said:


> Using my Apple TV 4K with my 1080p projector I and getting atmos using Netflix and Disney+, however I am not getting atmos when watching movies in iTunes (just tried It 2 and a few others). None of these movies were purchased directly in iTunes though. I am wondering if I have a setting wrong somewhere, but I am thinking not since it works with Netflix/Disney.
> 
> I am also getting atmos with Apple TV+ shows.
> 
> Edit - even when I use my 4k projector I am not getting atmos or HDR from iTunes movies. Both work with vudu, Netflix, prime and Apple TV+. Very strange. I am going to try a different ATV4k on a different tv/system and see what happens
> 
> Edit again. Everything worked on a different ATV 4k. I reset my ATV 4k with the issue back to factory and it now is working fine.
> 
> Edit again - ugh....this is pain in the butt. Everything works except Vudu and prime. Neither pass hdr or atmos to my 4k projector/receiver. Even tried a different Apple TV in this system and it has problems. Netflix, iTunes, movies anywhere all work. I’ve tried different HDMI cords also between Apple TV and receiver and receiver and projector. Must be something not compatible somewhere.


There's an HDR verification mode in the AppleTV under video settings. I think you have to "prove" your projector/TV can work in a mode before it will use it. There's also settings for default video mode and whether to change the mode based on the video (either for for frame range or "dynamic range" (HDR). 

Oddly, my projector reads on Apple TV 4K as 1080p HDR even though it doesn't seem to have the correct video bandwidth mode, but I modified one preset (dynamic) to different settings (picture was kind of washed out being in the wrong spectrum) and strangely, the picture is quite good in "1080p HDR" mode now and switching back and forth, looks quite accurate. It's still probably not "HDR" but looks much closer to colors/saturations of such a display. The projector does have deep color mode. I don't think the Apple TV is using it, though (The Shield and PS4 will use it for their own graphics, though and you can tell with blue backgrounds the "banded" effect disappears completely in deep color mode. But in any case, the AppleTV lets me use every possible 1080p mode it supports with it (all frame rates and bandwidth settings). It just doesn't use 4K resolution. Frankly, as sharp as IT Chapter 2 looked in 1080p HDR, it's hard to imagine it looking much sharper still even at 8 feet from a 92" screen. The resolving charts for the human eye I've seen suggest about 25% noticeably sharper at that size/distance for 20/20 and obviously a 2x more if you have 20/10 vision. It's even hard to tell good 2K from 4K in resolution terms on the Samsung 2018 QLED I have (in Grease, the wire fence behind Danny when he's trying out for baseball you could see every ***** in the chain, but in 2K the ones more distant were blurred a bit, but it's not something I would have normally noticed. I can see it'd be important if you have a 120+" screen at 8 feet, though. But I sometimes think HDR is a bit overrated. I see people picking apart the picture and getting angry with every little error/mistake or bloom or whatever and I just want to enjoy the movie. I'm far pickier about sound.


----------



## raynist

MagnumX said:


> There's an HDR verification mode in the AppleTV under video settings. I think you have to "prove" your projector/TV can work in a mode before it will use it. There's also settings for default video mode and whether to change the mode based on the video (either for for frame range or "dynamic range" (HDR).
> 
> Oddly, my projector reads on Apple TV 4K as 1080p HDR even though it doesn't seem to have the correct video bandwidth mode, but I modified one preset (dynamic) to different settings (picture was kind of washed out being in the wrong spectrum) and strangely, the picture is quite good in "1080p HDR" mode now and switching back and forth, looks quite accurate. It's still probably not "HDR" but looks much closer to colors/saturations of such a display. The projector does have deep color mode. I don't think the Apple TV is using it, though (The Shield and PS4 will use it for their own graphics, though and you can tell with blue backgrounds the "banded" effect disappears completely in deep color mode. But in any case, the AppleTV lets me use every possible 1080p mode it supports with it (all frame rates and bandwidth settings). It just doesn't use 4K resolution. Frankly, as sharp as IT Chapter 2 looked in 1080p HDR, it's hard to imagine it looking much sharper still even at 8 feet from a 92" screen. The resolving charts for the human eye I've seen suggest about 25% noticeably sharper at that size/distance for 20/20 and obviously a 2x more if you have 20/10 vision. It's even hard to tell good 2K from 4K in resolution terms on the Samsung 2018 QLED I have (in Grease, the wire fence behind Danny when he's trying out for baseball you could see every ***** in the chain, but in 2K the ones more distant were blurred a bit, but it's not something I would have normally noticed. I can see it'd be important if you have a 120+" screen at 8 feet, though. But I sometimes think HDR is a bit overrated. I see people picking apart the picture and getting angry with every little error/mistake or bloom or whatever and I just want to enjoy the movie. I'm far pickier about sound.


Thanks for the reply. I did check all of the setting on the Apple TV and had them set correctly. 

I feel stupid though.....got up and was messing with it before work. Everything was passing atmos and hdr like it should except Vudu. Looked in the Vudu video setting and it was set to pass the HDX signal instead of UHD —- DOH!!!!! Set it to UHD and everything is working - for now!!


----------



## humbland

batpig said:


> There are a few settings to tweak, not a bunch.
> 
> In the main setup menus you want to configure it for the output you want (e.g. 4K SDR / BT.2020 or 1080p SDR / Rec709), and you also change a setting for display brightness so it tone maps properly (the lowest setting is for "projector" iirc).
> 
> Then during playback there's an on-the-fly options menu where you can tweak a dynamic range adjustment slider which will help dial in appropriate overall brightness (since HDR will probably look dark on the default setting).
> 
> There's also an "HDR Optimizer" option you can enable, which mostly will clip some of the extreme highlights a bit more to allow for more detail in mid level highlights.
> 
> But that's it, you don't have to tweak endlessly.


Hi BP,
Can you point us to a specific "play by play" set up protocol to enable the Panasonic UB420 to convert 4K HDR content to 1080p for front projectors?
Thanks


----------



## ragged

Question guys. Please see picture attached of the avr info screen. Playing the mandalorian with a firetv through marantz sr6014.

Trying figure if I am getting or how I can get atmos signal from the firetv. Input shows only FR/FL but al all speakers active.

Thanks.


----------



## Augerhandle

ragged said:


> Question guys. Please see picture attached of the avr info screen. Playing the mandalorian with a firetv through marantz sr6014.
> 
> Trying figure if I am getting or how I can get atmos signal from the firetv. Input shows only FR/FL but al all speakers active.
> 
> Thanks.


Cant read the thumbnail. Clicked on it, but no picture.


----------



## ragged

Augerhandle said:


> Cant read the thumbnail. Clicked on it, but no picture.


Ok deleted and reattached. Should be ok now.

I think I have it sorted now. I was using the original 4k fire tv (the flat box), once I switched to the newer stick, I was able to select atmos on the avr. See the picture attached with post. Also was able to select hdr. Still not sure why the input doesn't show the atmos speakers active though?


----------



## usc1995

ragged said:


> Ok deleted and reattached. Should be ok now.
> 
> I think I have it sorted now. I was using the original 4k fire tv (the flat box), once I switched to the newer stick, I was able to select atmos on the avr. See the picture attached with post. Also was able to select her. Still not sure why the input doesn't show the atmos speakers active though?




Atmos playback for The Mandalorian is actually dependent on your streaming device. The Roku is so far the only device I know that can play The Mandalorian in Atmos. On my ATV4K I get Atmos on all the other Star Wars movies but NOT The Mandalorian. It is very frustrating. It is a known issue https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/disney-plus-dolby-atmos-problems/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ragged

usc1995 said:


> Atmos playback for The Mandalorian is actually dependent on your streaming device. The Roku is so far the only device I know that can play The Mandalorian in Atmos. On my ATV4K I get Atmos on all the other Star Wars movies but NOT The Mandalorian. It is very frustrating. It is a known issue https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/disney-plus-dolby-atmos-problems/
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yup, that's what I gathered from what I've read, so I'm guessing my avr is just processing the Dolby digital + and outputting atmos?

I'm definitely now getting output from the atmos speakers and hdr10 while watching Mandalorian.


----------



## Augerhandle

ragged said:


> Yup, that's what I gathered from what I've read, so I'm guessing my avr is just processing the Dolby digital + and outputting atmos?
> 
> I'm definitely now getting output from the atmos speakers and hdr10 while watching Mandalorian.


Depending on what sound setting you're on, the receiver will matrix he input to the ATMOS speakers. I still can't see your picture.


----------



## ragged

Augerhandle said:


> ragged said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what I gathered from what I've read, so I'm guessing my avr is just processing the Dolby digital + and outputting atmos?
> 
> I'm definitely now getting output from the atmos speakers and hdr10 while watching Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on what sound setting you're on, the receiver will matrix he input to the ATMOS speakers. I still can't see your picture.
Click to expand...

Hmm one more try with the pics, hope these work. Left pic is atmos/hd with the new firestick, right pic is the older firecube no atmos/hdr.


----------



## MagnumX

ragged said:


> Hmm one more try with the pics, hope these work. Left pic is atmos/hd with the new firestick, right pic is the older firecube no atmos/hdr.


I can see all your pictures just fine (not sure what the issue is with the other person). You are getting STEREO PCM with the old FireTV (flat box) and you're Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 with the new FireTV Stick. You aren't getting Atmos with anything. Neural X is upmixing your output. Only the ROKU Ultra is getting Atmos with The Mandalorian for some reason. Disney seems pretty tight lipped about Atmos issues from what I've seen. I think they're hoping to quietly fix it, but it's taking them forever in the case of the Apple TV 4K as it just seems to have the wrong linked version as Atmos works on it for everything else.


----------



## Augerhandle

ragged said:


> Hmm one more try with the pics, hope these work. Left pic is atmos/hd with the new firestick, right pic is the older firecube no atmos/hdr.


^What he said^
I can see the pictures now. Thanks for reposting them.


----------



## ragged

MagnumX said:


> ragged said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm one more try with the pics, hope these work. Left pic is atmos/hd with the new firestick, right pic is the older firecube no atmos/hdr.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see all your pictures just fine (not sure what the issue is with the other person). You are getting STEREO PCM with the old FireTV (flat box) and you're Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 with the new FireTV Stick. You aren't getting Atmos with anything. Neural X is upmixing your output. Only the ROKU Ultra is getting Atmos with The Mandalorian for some reason. Disney seems pretty tight lipped about Atmos issues from what I've seen. I think they're hoping to quietly fix it, but it's taking them forever in the case of the Apple TV 4K as it just seems to have the wrong linked version as Atmos works on it for everything else.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Just an upmix. Still sounds great though!


----------



## mrtickleuk

ragged said:


> Hmm one more try with the pics, hope these work. Left pic is atmos/hd with the new firestick, right pic is the older firecube no atmos/hdr.


You have highlighted one of the most confusing parts of Denon's UI. They actually have two different sizes of "+", which mean two different things.

And what is worse, is that they even *swap over the sizes and the meanings* . No wonder people get confused! 

They should definitely use an Ampersand, not a Plus sign, when they add in the up-mixer!

The bottom row - "signal" - always shows what it's getting and is the thing to check first.

If it is Atmos inside DD+, it will say (on my X4200W anyway) "Dolby Atmos/Digital +"
So if it only says Dolby Digital +, and it's showing a speaker layout for the Input signal, the Atmos isn't present

The middle row "Sound" is just what you have chosen to output, your choice of up-mixer, etc.

Using your pictures:










ps answering this post has been very helpful for me, so thankyou! When I was getting the wording of "Dolby Atmos/Digital +" I was using the Denon App on my telephone, playing Jack Ryan from the internal Amazon app which I happen to know is Atmos and I've had Atmos before. It wasn't saying Atmos! I changed "HDMI ARC" from "auto" to "PCM" and then back to "Auto". I turned "AV Sync Adjustment" off, and it restored the Atmos for me. Must be a bug in my LG C8's firmware. Atmos continues to work with the "AV Sync Adjustment" turned back on.


----------



## MagnumX

Hmmm, I never noticed big and little plus signs, but then I've never found the display confusing either. I mean if there's another thing listed to the right, of course it means 'and'. 

I blame Dolby for giving it such a lame name in the first place clear back to "Dolby Digital" as if it's just Surround or Pro Logic in digital form. Now look at the new DSU upmixer. It will just say "Dolby Surround". We're back to the 1970s or perhaps even earlier. It's the SAME NAME as their original analog surround cinema format. No, that's not confusing at all.... 

To DTS' credit, they have at least kept things relatively consistent as far as I can tell, except perhaps the original Cinema DTS using APT (different codec than home DTS). The DTS-ES Matrix versus ES discrete wasn't so well done either, but the matrixed version was rarely used and at least D&M AVRs will say matrix or discrete after it. Dolby EX didn't even offer a discrete sixth channel. That meant DTS could technically pan between the side surrounds while Dolby could not (as it would end up in the rear speakers instead). That's only really noticeable with rears further back (mine are ten feet behind the sides with a second set of sides between them) and I'm not sure if anyone used them that way, but it's definitely being done now with Atmos and X. 

A few examples I can think of offhand are in Gravity in Atmos (Clooney panning between side and rears as he talks shortly after the station is hit and the are heading back to it), Jurassic Park in X right at the beginning with the raptor in the cage screaming right between the side surrounds (middle of my room, not back) and it was done a few times in IT Chapter Two. 

The Atmos demo with the girl playing the organ pans right through me at the start as it starts panning between the side surrounds and then moves forward through the front wides and into the front center stage. It's subtle due to the low volume of the effect compared to the music playing at the beginning before the organ breaks, but kind of freaky sounding (like you or it are a ghost as it just passes right through you sitting at the MLP).


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> Hmmm, I never noticed big and little plus signs, but then I've never found the display confusing either. I mean if there's another thing listed to the right, of course it means 'and'.
> 
> I blame Dolby for giving it such a lame name in the first place clear back to "Dolby Digital" as if it's just Surround or Pro Logic in digital form. Now look at the new DSU upmixer. It will just say "Dolby Surround". We're back to the 1970s or perhaps even earlier. It's the SAME NAME as their original analog surround cinema format. No, that's not confusing at all....


I do agree. Lots of little extensions and add-ons. No-one is blameless in this. I'm just saying that given the name of the codec has a plus in it, don't then use a plus yourself for something different - and if you do, don't swap over the sizes, that is inexcusable.

It's particularly nasty when you have these two different cases:
DD+ + DSur
DD + DSur

It's just too easy to misread the second one and think that you have DD+ audio. I think Denon's job is to deal with the codecs as they are, ie make the best of a bad job, and they should make it impossible to misread. Use any character except a "+"!



> The Atmos demo with the girl playing the organ


Sounds interesting, I have a few Atmos demos - do you remember what that one is called please? TIA


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Atmos demo with the girl playing the organ
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds interesting, I have a few Atmos demos - do you remember what that one is called please? TIA
Click to expand...

Couldn't think of the name offhand...had to look it up to jog my memory (not at home). It is called SILENT.

You can get it at https://thedigitaltheater.com/dolby-trailers/

I see they have added a few new ones this year. I'll have to check them out when I get home.


----------



## elee532

Wondering if anyone could say whether the side surrounds or back surrounds get more use in a 7.1/Atmos setup? Would it be the same for music as for movies. I'm trying to decide which surround pair to connect to my external amp.


----------



## Augerhandle

elee532 said:


> Wondering if anyone could say whether the side surrounds or back surrounds get more use in a 7.1/Atmos setup? Would it be the same for music as for movies. I'm trying to decide which surround pair to connect to my external amp.


It varies with the movie. I think the Sound Designer makes that decision.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

elee532 said:


> Wondering if anyone could say whether the side surrounds or back surrounds get more use in a 7.1/Atmos setup? Would it be the same for music as for movies. I'm trying to decide which surround pair to connect to my external amp.



From what I've heard, it's the side surrounds more than the back surrounds.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

MagnumX said:


> I just watched *IT Chapter 2* in _Dolby Atmos_ 11.1.6 (12'x24' room with three rows of seats sitting center first row) and all I can say is if you want to hear an immersive Atmos movie, that is _IT_! Simply stunning use of surround. There are movies with more distinct moments of direct overhead use (there are several here just the same), but few movies I've heard have sounds moving in and around the main floor the theater (e.g. behind my head in the first row when there are two more sets of speakers behind that) and even a moment near the end with the deadlights when Pennywise screams there's this river of alien-esque sound floating through the air between heights and beds and snaked its way through the room like an invisible hologram. Now THAT was a great use of surround! My only complaint is that I would have liked a few more louder overhead moments spaced out over the different areas of the ceiling instead of just directly overhead. Some ambient bits could have been more effective louder, IMO (and I had the system playing back at Audyssey calibrated +3dB ABOVE reference so they were quite apparent in quiet moments, but would be hard to distinguish some of the quieter bits at lower volumes, IMO. Overall, I don't think I've heard anything at the Cinema that comes within 10% of this experience (then again, I don't have an Atmos theater near me and not all Atmos movies are as immersive at this one).
> 
> The best example of sounds that are distinctly and totally just all over the ceiling, IMO so far is the opening title sequence of the newer FLATLINERS movie, both in Atmos, but even more so in Auro-3D. Voices just come from everywhere imaginable overhead and you can tell that your brain's ability to focus on sounds in front of you rather than behind you at work there as they sound larger and less distinct behind you overhead than when it's above you or to the sides overhead or in front of you overhead. I'd conclude if I had to choose only four overhead speakers, front and middle overhead would be more effective than front/back in a room that wouldn't support strong phantom imaging behind you. Of course, with six, you don't have to choose.
> 
> (Oh and the movie itself was quite good too, IMO, especially for a Stephen King movie, which usually don't translate well. I think this and the first chapter tops the charts, really for an effective translation. Almost three hours passed very quickly. The first movie is also excellent and has pretty darn good Atmos sound too).


Thank you for the head's up, I will be watching this for next Halloween. I saw Dr. Sleep in Dolby Cinema, if that gets a UHD atmos track I think that will be one to look out for as well, some cool stuff going on with the overheads. 

I'm pondering going from 7.1.4 to something like 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 two or three years from now (assuming Denon's flagship has it at the time), but when hearing Stu's Trinnov it seems like only half of Atmos content goes beyond the 7.1.4 bed, and when it does those extra channels get very sparse usage. I'm also concerned about the state of physical media at that point, and if streaming will allow for anything beyond 7.1.4?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thank you for the head's up, I will be watching this for next Halloween. I saw Dr. Sleep in Dolby Cinema, if that gets a UHD atmos track I think that will be one to look out for as well, some cool stuff going on with the overheads.
> 
> I'm pondering going from 7.1.4 to something like 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 two or three years from now (assuming Denon's flagship has it at the time), but when hearing Stu's Trinnov it seems like only half of Atmos content goes beyond the 7.1.4 bed, and when it does those extra channels get very sparse usage. I'm also concerned about the state of physical media at that point, and if streaming will allow for anything beyond 7.1.4?



Having 6 overheads seems to be a problem with some of these hard encoded Atmos tracks. I think 8 is supposed to be better as the content is spread wider.


----------



## MagnumX

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm pondering going from 7.1.4 to something like 9.1.6 or 11.1.6 two or three years from now (assuming Denon's flagship has it at the time), but when hearing Stu's Trinnov it seems like only half of Atmos content goes beyond the 7.1.4 bed, and when it does those extra channels get very sparse usage. I'm also concerned about the state of physical media at that point, and if streaming will allow for anything beyond 7.1.4?


That concerns me too (the non use of speakers beyond 7.1.4 and one of the reasons I went with extracted extra channels between the main ones instead of discrete (the others being cost and/or availability). They're all active and used all the time regardless of what Disney or whomever does. I thought the whole point of Atmos was that it used the configuration you HAVE available, not what they feel like dishing out. Just look how few 7.1 Blu-rays were available until Atmos became available and how many of even the existing ones did anything interesting with them. They just assume everyone has some tiny and/or crappy setup and that if you have 7.1, they're right behind you and so 5.1 could handle 90% of that with a good set of speakers. 

Put surround #1 and maybe even surround #2 in place with a longer room with more rows of seats and suddenly the rear speakers make an almost night and day difference as they are way behind you. And while we don't image sounds behind us as accurately as those in front of us, let me tell you a good rear effect is instantly noticeable in my system. That Dolby "Amaze" demo has that poor bird flying 12 feet behind me and around to maybe 6 feet in front of me and back around to the left again. I only wish it changed height as it goes along too (a test of upper channels show only light echoes if it present). 

Some Atmos movies clearly make little use of rears (quite noticeable sitting in the second, let alone third row here as nothing much comes even directly from the sides (surround #1 having only half the side content, even being matrixed), let alone the mostly silent rears.). Other movies at least put ambient stuff back there so it's not utterly silent all around you while people are outdoors in the woods no less (e.g. Some points in Annihilation ambient forest sounds are only in the front speakers, believe it or not. Talk about Dolby Flatmos.... Yeah it puts action and strange other sounds around, but the natural stuff that SHOULD be there outdoors? I was like WTF! Immersive should be all the time, not just here and there, IMO.

Now take IT and other GREAT Atmos tracks and it's all active with ambience when appropriate. I think some sound guys get it and some just don't. They think it's distracting. Well, it's weirder to me to be in a forest with bird sounds, etc. only in the front than any distraction from too much surround.


----------



## howard68

Has anyone published a list of films that has 
More than a 11 channel mix?
I know most of the Disney films are fixed


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> Has anyone published a list of films that has
> More than a 11 channel mix?
> I know most of the Disney films are fixed



No, but there are more >11.1 Atmos mixes than not. The bulk come from Disney with a handful from other studios.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> No, but there are more >11.1 Atmos mixes than not. The bulk come from Disney with a handful from other studios.


Why Disney, Why? Do you hate anyone who wants to spend extra on an overpriced UHD disc?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> Why Disney, Why? Do you hate anyone who wants to spend extra on an overpriced UHD disc?



They even had to, seemingly, jury rig a way to create these limited Atmos encodes as it's not a recommended procedure.


----------



## Matt L

Too bad Dolby can't pull their license.. I resent paying for something and not getting it. I canceled my NF account until I can get Atmos on the equipment I own, not paying an extra $100-200 on top of the premium price for the 4K service.


----------



## elee532

MagnumX said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think the Shield will give you Atmos with a 2k projector.


I wanted to report back that I hooked up the 2019 Shield Pro last light, and the Netflix app did show Atmos on my receiver connected to a 1080p projector. I only had a few minutes to test, so ill try some more tonight. But, looks good!


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> I wanted to report back that I hooked up the 2019 Shield Pro last light, and the Netflix app did show Atmos on my receiver connected to a 1080p projector. I only had a few minutes to test, so ill try some more tonight. But, looks good!


That's interesting and given the 2017 model's capability disturbing that it doesn't have the same features. I hate when companies don't update features just to force you to buy newer hardware that offers few improvements over the existing model. With KODI randomly stopping playback on the Shield since the last firmware update (and the KODI team blaming Android the last time I heard), I no longer have any reason to use the device whatsoever. 

My Zidoo X9S running KODI Krypton does not stop playback (I've been told it can finally run Leia as of its own most recent firmware update). The Zidoo has poor apps for streaming, but it does do 3D playback and KODI, the two things I need for my local library and it was cheaper than the Shield, which now appears to have been a waste of money. 

I'm also still waiting for Apple and/or Disney to get Atmos working on The Mandalorian on my AppleTV 4K. You'd think after a month, they'd have that fixed since it just seems to be pointing to the wrong version (all other Atmos works). I had to watch Episode 5 in 5.1 still.


----------



## elee532

MagnumX said:


> That's interesting and given the 2017 model's capability disturbing that it doesn't have the same features. I hate when companies don't update features just to force you to buy newer hardware that offers few improvements over the existing model.


I read somewhere - can't recall where though - that the limitation with the 2017 Shield was due to a Dolby license they didn't have or couldn't get. Not sure though.

I'll be curious to see if Atmos works with Prime content. 

Also, really hope Disney+ support comes quickly. I won't subscribe until my Shield can get Atmos content.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

Hi, does anyone have access to the UK version of the Game of Thrones 1-8 Boxset and can confirm if all seasons include Atmos? Blu-ray.com lists half of the seasons as DTS-HD only (same for US version).


----------



## dfa973

anothermib said:


> Hi, does anyone have access to the UK version of the Game of Thrones 1-8 Boxset and can confirm if all seasons include Atmos? Blu-ray.com lists half of the seasons as DTS-HD only (same for US version).


I have only the UHD versions of Season 1 & 8, and both of them include Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## anothermib

dfa973 said:


> I have only the UHD versions of Season 1 & 8, and both of them include Atmos soundtracks.




Thanks. Season 8 had always been in Atmos even on the BD, I believe. However, I am wondering if they may be limiting the Atmos soundtrack for the earlier Seasons to the UHD. To my knowledge there is no UHD boxset yet.


----------



## dfa973

anothermib said:


> To my knowledge there is no UHD boxset yet.


True. 

Maybe next year...


----------



## MagnumX

What I want to know is if the iTunes streaming version of GOT has Atmos. They only list available audio for movies, not TV shows, but then maybe nothing has Atmos in TV shows. I know I'm not paying $200 for the whole thing either way. I might as well get the physical discs that come with a digital copy at that price. 

I hate using discs, though and normally dump them for KODI use, but eight seasons is a lot of bother. I've been buying shows on iTunes on sale and then no bother at all. Mist of the complete boxsets go on sale sooner or later (e.g. Smallville in HD was $60 recently for ten seasons. I think I paid $29 for the original Magnum PI in HD.)


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> What I want to know is if the iTunes streaming version of GOT has Atmos. They only list available audio for movies, not TV shows, but then maybe nothing has Atmos in TV shows. I know I'm not paying $200 for the whole thing either way. I might as well get the physical discs that come with a digital copy at that price.


Be interesting to see if HBO Max supports Atmos when it launches next year. I still haven't seen GoT, and although $15/month is a lot to pay for a streaming service, I can get 6 months of it for the cost of buying GoT.


----------



## Berland

maikeldepotter said:


> DTS:X on the Altitude is much more flexible than that. As long as you don't exceed the number of 11 main channels (the maximum DTS currently allows), even exotic configurations like the ones below get all speakers fed directly from the DTS:X decoder (no remapping, no arraying):
> 
> View attachment 2322770
> 
> (L, R, Lc, Rc, Ls, Rs, Rc, Ltm, Rtm, Ch, Chr)
> View attachment 2322772
> 
> 
> View attachment 2322812
> 
> (L, C, R, Ls, Rs, Ltf, Rtf, Ltm, Rtm, Ltr, Rtr)
> 
> View attachment 2322824
> 
> (L, C, R, Lrs, Rrs, Lh, Rh, Lhr, Rhr, Ltm, Rtm)


Last time I checked I could not apply any form of upmix on DTS:X at least. What DTS:X rendering is doing in the background when set to native is unknown to me.


----------



## Berland

dschulz said:


> Be interesting to see if HBO Max supports Atmos when it launches next year. I still haven't seen GoT, and although $15/month is a lot to pay for a streaming service, I can get 6 months of it for the cost of buying GoT.


Don't watch GoT Season 8 on streaming; its a mess. This material really needs high bitrate; much higher than available over streaming.


----------



## MagnumX

Berland said:


> dschulz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be interesting to see if HBO Max supports Atmos when it launches next year. I still haven't seen GoT, and although $15/month is a lot to pay for a streaming service, I can get 6 months of it for the cost of buying GoT.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't watch GoT Season 8 on streaming; its a mess. This material really needs high bitrate; much higher than available over streaming.
Click to expand...

I don't know about HBO, but iTunes Atmos streaming rates in DD+ are quite sufficient for quality sound.


----------



## batpig

Berland said:


> Don't watch GoT Season 8 on streaming; its a mess. This material really needs high bitrate; much higher than available over streaming.


Unfortunately improved bitrate won't fix the horrible writing of Season 8. I loved GoT but I'm honestly not sure I would recommend someone start watching the show knowing they would be investing 70+ hours of their life into something I know is going to end in disaster


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> Berland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't watch GoT Season 8 on streaming; its a mess. This material really needs high bitrate; much higher than available over streaming.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately improved bitrate won't fix the horrible writing of Season 8. I loved GoT but I'm honestly not sure I would recommend someone start watching the show knowing they would be investing 70+ hours of their life into something I know is going to end in disaster /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

I've read something similar. That's too bad. I was looking forward to watching this show from start to finish based on its stellar ratings...until the makers apparently pulled a Star Wars Episode 7 (bad) and 8 (horrible). It's ironic they share the same numbers, really.

I'd still like to know if the iTunes version is in Atmos or not. I kind of doubt it, but you never know given how many movies are in Amos on iTunes already.

I have wondered if Apple screwed up a few titles, though. Angels & Demons is the only one of the Dan Brown movies on iTunes that didn't get an Atmos upgrade with the 4K version (UHD disc has Atmos) and yet down in the info section on it says it's available in Atmos and 5.1, but not at the top where the Dolby Atmos logo would go and playing it gives only 5.1 output (other two have the logo and output Atmos). 

There's some others like that on iTunes where the UHD disc got Atmos, but the 4K iTunes one did not for reasons unknown when most do sooner or later (e.g. Original Blade Runner).


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Berland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't watch GoT Season 8 on streaming; its a mess. This material really needs high bitrate; much higher than available over streaming.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately improved bitrate won't fix the horrible writing of Season 8. I loved GoT but I'm honestly not sure I would recommend someone start watching the show knowing they would be investing 70+ hours of their life into something I know is going to end in disaster /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

I agree-what an epic let down. It had a CHANCE to be a better all time show then The Wire and maybe sopranos as number two...until the last season. Nope-don’t invest 70 hours for the fall of quality and writing that was GOT season 8. 

As a converse, the ONLY reason I watched Breaking Bad at all back in the day was because it was already in the last season when I started and people told me how good IT GETS. 
It actually got BETTER every season especially the last 2. If it wasn’t for people telling me about the payoff in the series I definetly would have stopped in season 2 as they were very mediocre to start.

Then there was series such as DEXTER and LOST that completely fell off the cliff after a few good seasons.

But alas, nothing has yet to rival the overall series of The Wire yet.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Berland said:


> Last time I checked I could not apply any form of upmix on DTS:X at least.


There were a few eccentric 11 channel configs that did not generate feeds to all speakers, but I can’t remember that wides were NOT activated when testing configs that included wides. What did you check to come to the conclusion that there was no up-mixing with DTS:X engaged?


----------



## anothermib

batpig said:


> Unfortunately improved bitrate won't fix the horrible writing of Season 8. I loved GoT but I'm honestly not sure I would recommend someone start watching the show knowing they would be investing 70+ hours of their life into something I know is going to end in disaster




Knowing how poorly the ending was executed after they ran out of original source material takes a lot fun out of it for sure. However, it had been more enjoyable than most other shows for a very long time. So I am still planning to rewatch it once they find it in their hearts to publish an all Atmos version.


----------



## sdurani

Berland said:


> What DTS:X rendering is doing in the background when set to native is unknown to me.


DTS:X does 3 things natively: send each channel to its respective speaker, scale the number of channels (up or down) to the number of speakers, and render objects to their intended locations. Since all 3 steps are part of decoding (not processing), no step can be turned off. You can't, for example, decide you don't want the number of channels to be scaled to your speaker layout and turn that decoding step off. The scaling is part of native decoding.


----------



## b0rnarian

Finished S8 of GOT in UHD recently and oh what a satisfying ending its got. Episode 3 alone is worth watching the entire show but last few episodes also had me grinning throughout. As far as atmos goes, theres a few moments that FLY over you at times but other than that its mostly front heavy and i dont think anybody would miss much listening to an upmix. PQ of uhd was very good too, zero banding.


----------



## MagnumX

> You can't, for example, decide you don't want the number of channels to be scaled to your speaker layout and turn that decoding step off. The scaling is part of native decoding.


I must have just _imagined_ being able to configure my Marantz to play DTS:X through only front height or top middle or leave out rear speakers or even turn off Neural X moving sounds to front wides on my 7010 when it was connected in the amp assignment screen rather than 7.1.4..... It's just not possible. 

I think someone is trying to say something about decoding versus object rendering in a rather nonsensical sounding way since the end result is all that matters for a given layout not what it does at this or that step internally. DTS:X Pro is really a bit more flexible than Atmos in practice as it can also use Auro-3D locations as well as most Atmos ones.

Atmos _could_ have been more flexible than DTS:X by taking into account and adjusting for your room's particular layout (i.e. Where you could fit speakers as opposed to where Dolby demands they be put (generally even intervals). In other words, it doesn't use objects to their obvious and full potential (agnostic setup capability). It has no advantages to a channel based steering system like DTS:X Pro (without objects) in its current form on the playback end and either system can use objects on the mastering end. But a layout agnostic version of Atmos (call it home Atmos 2.0) would have a real advantage indeed since most homes are not designing room's with home theater in mind and so don't always conform to a nice even layout with as many speakers as you'd care to use.


----------



## lax01

b0rnarian said:


> Finished S8 of GOT in UHD recently and oh what a satisfying ending its got. Episode 3 alone is worth watching the entire show but last few episodes also had me grinning throughout. As far as atmos goes, theres a few moments that FLY over you at times but other than that its mostly front heavy and i dont think anybody would miss much listening to an upmix. PQ of uhd was very good too, zero banding.


Not even the best Atmos and best 4K Dolby Vision or HDR could get me to rewatch the travesty that is Season 8 of GOT


----------



## b0rnarian

lax01 said:


> Not even the best Atmos and best 4K Dolby Vision or HDR could get me to rewatch the travesty that is Season 8 of GOT


Oh this was my first time watching S8, I thoroughly enjoyed it but yeah none of it is worth re-watching (maybe except E3 of S8).


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> I must have just _imagined_ being able to configure my Marantz to play DTS:X through only front height or top middle or leave out rear speakers or even turn off Neural X moving sounds to front wides on my 7010 when it was connected in the amp assignment screen rather than 7.1.4..... It's just not possible.


I believe the discussion was about how the DTS:X decoder works with a given speaker configuration, rather than what flexibility DTS:X offers in being able to be played on a variety of speaker configurations.


----------



## MagnumX

maikeldepotter said:


> I believe the discussion was about how the DTS:X decoder works with a given speaker configuration, rather than what flexibility DTS:X offers in being able to be played on a variety of speaker configurations.


My issue is with the way it's worded as it made it sound like DTS:X cannot alter its output to fit different speaker layouts and that is not true. DTS:X is a channel based system with optional objects. Of course all channels have to be decoded first when objects are not in use just as TrueHD channels (even bed channels) have to be decoded (or Disney print-outs simulating channels). The Atmos renderer alters the final output panning based on the layout. Am I being told that DTS:X does not alter the ultimate output panning based on the assigned speaker layout? Is that not the function of Neural X? Yes, you can turn Neural X off with X material, but even then it still has to scale to smaller layouts (downmix). 

Ultimately, I see little effective difference between the two formats taken to their logical conclusions. You've got rendered outputs based on set up layouts where the renderer produces the panning data to fit the layout (Atmos) or pre-rendered channels that are altered to fit a given layout (X using channels + Neural X). Either can use different speaker configurations, but the post made it sound like DTS:X cannot work with other speaker configurations and that's absurd. That is the whole point of Neural X's integration in the system. I've got two different movies that are in Atmos and X here and they sound pretty much identical (Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom and Angry Birds 2). 

I hear more differences between my Auro-3D titles and the same title in Atmos (of which I have a half dozen or so to compare) and even there, most sound quite similar in a similar configuration of Atmos (i.e. 5.1.4) and probably share the same master in most cases. If Auro-3D had gone somewhere and added their object cinema system to the home format, it'd be almost exactly identical to DTS:X using an Auro layout at that point in terms of functionality, barring differences in the ultimate number of objects supported. Neither DTS or Atmos have support for very many objects compared to the theater versions. 

Theoretically, at least, I like the idea of DTS:X Pro creating the extra speakers from the 7.1.4 framework rather than having limited objects grouped together which could theoretically introduce rendering errors on maxed out Pro (e.g. Trinnov) systems where theoretically, DTS:X Pro should expand 7.1.4 to 30.2 while maintaining the integrity of the 7.1.4 panning only on a larger scale as all added speakers are at halfway points between other discrete speakers which are easily extracted. Atmos could theoretically have a more significant placement error in certain scenarios where it runs out of objects and has to group them with objects not near the optimal locations to render the sounds. How different this would be in practice would require a "torture test" of sorts to see what happens in given scenarios (assuming DTS:X Pro EVER gets released into the wild; the original announcement suggested THIS YEAR (2019) and this year is quickly coming to and end with no release in sight for whatever unknown reasons).


----------



## carp

Chirosamsung said:


> I agree-what an epic let down. It had a CHANCE to be a better all time show then The Wire and maybe sopranos as number two...until the last season. Nope-don’t invest 70 hours for the fall of quality and writing that was GOT season 8.
> 
> As a converse, the ONLY reason I watched Breaking Bad at all back in the day was because it was already in the last season when I started and people told me how good IT GETS.
> It actually got BETTER every season especially the last 2. If it wasn’t for people telling me about the payoff in the series I definetly would have stopped in season 2 as they were very mediocre to start.
> 
> Then there was series such as DEXTER and LOST that completely fell off the cliff after a few good seasons.
> 
> But alas, nothing has yet to rival the overall series of The Wire yet.



I totally agree with your opinion on The Wire. More than any other show I get lost in it and almost forget that it's not real. A while back I watched them again (3rd time for me) with my wife and it has lost nothing over time, still as great as the first time I watched it. The only negative is that it ruined me for anything that is even close to cookie cutter.


----------



## Chirosamsung

lax01 said:


> b0rnarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finished S8 of GOT in UHD recently and oh what a satisfying ending its got. Episode 3 alone is worth watching the entire show but last few episodes also had me grinning throughout. As far as atmos goes, theres a few moments that FLY over you at times but other than that its mostly front heavy and i dont think anybody would miss much listening to an upmix. PQ of uhd was very good too, zero banding.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even the best Atmos and best 4K Dolby Vision or HDR could get me to rewatch the travesty that is Season 8 of GOT
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Season 8 was terrible.

There will not be any show that dethrones “The Wire” for GOAT drama


----------



## anothermib

... while we are on the topic of great TV shows - is The Expanse Season 4 available in Atmos in the US?


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> I believe the discussion was about how the DTS:X decoder works with a given speaker configuration, rather than what flexibility DTS:X offers in being able to be played on a variety of speaker configurations.


Yup, which is why I said:


sdurani said:


> scale the number of channels (*up or down*) to the number of speakers


The main point was that the scaling step during decoding cannot be turned off the way normal upmixing can. So if you're playing 7.1.4 channels on 9.1.6 speakers or 5.1.2 speakers, there is no 'native' or 'pure direct' setting that I know of that avoids the scaling. It's part of the format decoding.


----------



## MagnumX

> Yup, which is why I said: The main point was that the scaling step during decoding cannot be turned off the way normal upmixing can. So if you're playing 7.1.4 channels on 9.1.6 speakers or 5.1.2 speakers, there is no 'native' or 'pure direct' setting that I know of that avoids the scaling. It's part of the format decoding.


1> Neural X upscales to more or different speakers available compared to those recorded, not DTS:X (Pro or not) and Neural X FOR DTS:X can be turned off (in my AVR as a setting at least) making DTS:X "pure" or "direct" in that sense that it will only play the channels available and not try to play non-existent channel recorded locations like front wide that are simulated with Neural X expansion/scaling. Thus, yes, in a way it _does_ have something comparable a "Native" or "Pure Direct" mode in the upward direction, at least. With Neural X for DTS:X turned OFF, the system will only play actual channels available, not extra locations. Thus on a DTS:X Pro system, you would get 7.1.4 (the actual channels available) even on a 14.2.10 system with Neural X for DTS:X turned off. With it turned on, it will scale up or out to whatever you're using. 

Now how is that NOT a "direct" mode if it doesn't scale up any longer? It still scales DOWN? That's a bit of a strawman since Atmos scales down too even with Disney locked soundtracks (see #2 ).

2> Both formats downmix no matter what. It cannot be turned off for either (as that would throw out information at some point) so making a comparison between the two is ultimately moot, although it can be tricked into doing so for both formats (Auro-3D as well) by not actually having speakers connected to a configured setup or by turning off the amps to them if external.

3> Atmos cannot scale up or upmix *at all* in so-called "print through" soundtracks like Disney. You get 7.1.4 on 9.1.6 systems as well as 22.1.10 systems. DTS:X Pro will be able to scale via Neural X to anything you have available, but that can be turned off to play the native channel output as in point #1 . 

4> Either format can be told to scale to a particular output configuration by changing the setup (within the channel limits of regular DTS:X and the print-through issues of certain Atmos soundtracks). And yes, that type of setup _can_ send information to non-existent (as in they are not connected) speaker configurations that an AVR allows. In other words, if I set my AVR to play 7.1.4, but i only have stereo speakers connected, it will only play front left and right. Everything else will be thrown out in that sense. DTS:X 7.1.4 would play "direct" alright. It'd throw out anything you don't have connected. But downmixing is standard on both formats in normal circumstances (assuming you truthfully tell it your setup).

So exactly what point are you trying to make again? DTS:X decodes all the channels it has internally? Yes and so what? It's mostly being used as a channel based format, but it could use objects if directed to do so (most discs do not make use of them thus far). Atmos claims to not be a channel based format, but it has the bed channels as fixed objects that cannot be altered in the home format (to be backwards compatible with TrueHD). What either format does internally is rather meaningless to its ultimate output (i.e. Do I or should I care if something is an object or a channel internally if the net output result is identical in practice?)

Perhaps that is why both soundtracks I own that are available in both formats (i.e. Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom and Angry Birds 2) via UHD versus iTunes in both cases sound IDENTICAL here. I'd bet they'd both sound identical on 32 speaker identically configured systems with a Trinnov using DTS:X Pro as well. There is no inherent advantage of Atmos over DTS:X Pro. There may be an advantage to DTS:X Pro over Atmos due to the combining/clustering of nearby objects in Atmos with possible errors in rendering as a result, however as opposed to DTS:X Pro's direct scaling to extra mid-point speakers via Neural X. Print-through soundtracks are limited to whatever they are configured in Atmos with no internal way to upmix them whatsoever whereas DTS:X Pro will be able to expand channel-only 7.1.4 soundtracks to the full 30.2 speakers available to it (including alternate Auro-3D speaker locations Atmos does not support like SH, CH and TS). 

In my estimation, score 2:0 to DTS:X Pro over Atmos as a home format for more setup flexibility (supporting Atmos and Auro-3D layouts) and for better possible overall faithful accuracy to the master soundtrack by not clustering objects which could theoretically introduce spatial rendering error. Now full home Atmos soundtracks (without print-through) versus 11-channel limited "regular" DTS:X? Yes, Atmos wins there in supporting up to 34.1 speakers compared to 11.1. DTS:X Pro, however will offer 30.2 speakers for *all* DTS:X soundtracks, not just _some_ of them (e.g. Disney locked 7.1.4 will stay 7.1.4 forever unless some future upmixer does something similar to Neural X for them).


----------



## marffeus

*5.1.4 Help*

I'm trying to finish out my 5.1.4 setup finally and have a little problem on placement of my height speakers (Micca R-8C in ceiling). Per Dolby specifications, you should attempt to create a side-to-side separation distance equal to 0.5 - 0.7x the width of the room and in addition form an angle of elevation equal to 45-degrees from the main listening position (MLP) (or between 30 and 55 degrees).

My issue is based on my ceiling height (10') and room layout and beam placements in attic, I kind of have to pick only one of these 2. Which would people say is more important? I created some basic diagram layouts showing my options (A meets angle requirement and B meets separation requirement). Of these 2, which would you recommend I move forward with? I'm leaning more towards B since it more closely matches the cartoon diagrams Dolby has put out for 5.1.4 setups (i.e. the cartoons show the height speakers close to the rear surrounds and option A pushes the heights further away from my rear surrounds) and feel having more Left and Right channel separation will be more important.

Option A:
S-2-S = 0.46x Width of Room
Elevation Angle = 55-degrees from MLP

Option B:
S-2-S = 0.56x Width of Room
Elevation Angle = 60-degrees from MLP


https://imgur.com/a/Qced9c5


----------



## sdurani

marffeus said:


> Of these 2, which would you recommend I move forward with?


I would choose option A. Easier for our human hearing to hear left vs right than front vs back above us, so option A gives up a bit of left/right spread but helps with greater front/back spread.


----------



## Matt L

Amazon Unlimited Music and Atmos -

There are a few deals out there for AUM, just wondering if anyone has tried it and got Atmos music, however limited it is. If so how did you get ti? Firestick 4K?

I am tempted to try it, just wondering how well it works.


----------



## usc1995

Matt L said:


> Amazon Unlimited Music and Atmos -
> 
> There are a few deals out there for AUM, just wondering if anyone has tried it and got Atmos music, however limited it is. If so how did you get ti? Firestick 4K?
> 
> I am tempted to try it, just wondering how well it works.




Right now my understanding is the only way to get access to this content is via the Echo Studio speaker. Obviously this is worthless to those of us with legit Atmos setups. Tidal just announced that they have some Atmos content available and theirs is only available via certain Android devices (mobile phones) so they too have not made it available to us. It is very frustrating! The first service to give us access on more than just one gimmicky speaker or a pair of headphones will get my money but until then I will wait.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Javaman12

I am planning on upgrading my “home theater” to a Dolby Atmos system and would really appreciate some guidance and help with respect to the speakers (a bonus would advice on a new AVR!). My current AVR is a Denon AVR X 2000. It is a 7.1 receiver. Existing speakers are good quality Polk’s. Configuration is three in the wall facing me. Left channel and right channel (TV in the middle) and center channel (under the TV) Four speakers in the ceiling (over and behind the couch). Questions are:
Will the current speaker configuration work?
Do I need “Atmos” speakers?
Do I need to add two speakers if I go with a 7.2 receiver?
Thank you all for taking the time to read my post and passing on your advice!


----------



## gwsat

anothermib said:


> ... while we are on the topic of great TV shows - is The Expanse Season 4 available in Atmos in the US?


The short answer to your question is “no.” Although Season 4 of _The Expanse_ has beautiful UHD HDR video, it has only 5.1 audio. There is a silver lining, though. The surround effects of the sound design are so well done that upconverting it to 7.2.4 with the Dolby Surround upconverter builtin to my Yamaha 3060 rendered quite a nice faux Atmos effect. Try it, I think you will like it. There is nothing like native Atmos, of course, but I found what I did to be surprisingly effective.


----------



## dormie1360

Matt L said:


> Amazon Unlimited Music and Atmos -
> 
> There are a few deals out there for AUM, just wondering if anyone has tried it and got Atmos music, however limited it is. If so how did you get ti? Firestick 4K?
> 
> I am tempted to try it, just wondering how well it works.



You are not limited to Amazon devices, but you do need a way to run the Amazon Music App with you audio equipment. I have an Amazon Music HD account. (AUM with lossless quality.) I use a Firestick plugged into the HDMI input on my Oppo Blu Ray player. (Works very well).


----------



## usc1995

dormie1360 said:


> You are not limited to Amazon devices, but you do need a way to run the Amazon Music App with you audio equipment. I have an Amazon Music HD account. (AUM with lossless quality.) I use a Firestick plugged into the HDMI input on my Oppo Blu Ray player. (Works very well).




Do you have access to the Atmos tracks? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dormie1360

usc1995 said:


> Do you have access to the Atmos tracks?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Doesn't look like it. I'm setup to upmix PCM to Auro3d unless it's native ATMOS. I never checked a specific ATMOS track.  Apologies for the incorrect information. I will say their Music HD service wtih Auro3d does sound very nice.


----------



## bertk

*Speaker Placement*

Hello

I am looking for some input on speaker placement in my unconventional living room/kitchen listening area. Current system is a 7.2 with rear heights that act like rear surrounds do to room constraints. The room is 28’x16’ with a vaulted ceiling, skylights and ceiling fans. Attached layout and pics below.

What I’m planning on doing is replacing the Denon X3400H with a X4500H AVR (which I already have) to be able to add two more speakers and have the ability to assign speaker locations. 

AVR: Replacing the Denon X3400H with the X4500H 
Front: Klipsch RP-280F 
Center: RP-450C 
Front Surrounds: RP-240S 
Rear Heights: RP-500SA 
Subs: (2) Monolith 12" THX Subwoofers

I purchased two Klipsch CDT-5800-C II Ceiling Speaker with two ME-800-C Speaker Box’s. The plan is to place the ceiling speakers over the MSP and move the RP-500SA’s to the front wall. The reason being is the RP-500SA’s don’t perform well in their current location. I also have a pair of Klipsch RP-160M Bookshelf Speakers on hand for front height speakers if need be. My main concern is the ceiling speaker placement without having rear surrounds. I don’t want to have to move them after installation! The new setup would be a 5.2.4 without rear surrounds. 
So I have a couple of questions.

1. Should I place the ceiling speakers just behind the MSP?
2. Are the front heights going to be to far away to be effective?
3. In the room diagram should the ceiling speakers moved closer to the center of the MSP or sofa?
4. With my ceiling as it is, is placing the 500SA's on top of the towers out of the question?


Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## rekbones

Javaman12 said:


> I am planning on upgrading my “home theater” to a Dolby Atmos system and would really appreciate some guidance and help with respect to the speakers (a bonus would advice on a new AVR!). My current AVR is a Denon AVR X 2000. It is a 7.1 receiver. Existing speakers are good quality Polk’s. Configuration is three in the wall facing me. Left channel and right channel (TV in the middle) and center channel (under the TV) Four speakers in the ceiling (over and behind the couch). Questions are:
> Will the current speaker configuration work?
> Do I need “Atmos” speakers?
> Do I need to add two speakers if I go with a 7.2 receiver?
> Thank you all for taking the time to read my post and passing on your advice!


What you are lacking is ear level side surrounds. Add ear level side surrounds and set speakers over the couch as top and either have the back ceiling be rear for 7.1.2 or rear tops for 5.1.4. Regardless you should get a 9 channel AVR. If you stick to a 7.1 AVR you still should add ear level side surrounds and not use the ceiling rears for 5.1.2


----------



## MagnumX

rekbones said:


> What you are lacking is ear level side surrounds. Add ear level side surrounds and set speakers over the couch as top and either have the back ceiling be rear for 7.1.2 or rear tops for 5.1.4. Regardless you should get a 9 channel AVR. If you stick to a 7.1 AVR you still should add ear level side surrounds and not use the ceiling rears for 5.1.2


He's got ear level side surrounds. They're just in front of the couch to the sides (due to a good place to put them closer to the couch since it's open on one side). I think that placement is a little bit of a limiting factor, but some people actually seem to prefer surrounds in front of the couch instead of behind it or to the side. I think if he could add rear speakers, the placement of the side would be acceptable, but that doesn't look practical in his room. 

Personally, I'd move the couch forward so the side surrounds are along side or much closer to the sides. They might hot spot, though (that's why I used bipolar surrounds when I had sides fairly close to my couch where I used to live so the speakers faced forward/backward and didn't point right at me. That worked pretty well). But just in front of the couch (instead of way in front) would be OK, I think. He could move the rear heights forward, but frankly, he'll get some rear fill with them where they're at to some extent (it's hard to tell rear height from rear bed with a lot of material, IMO, especially the further away it is as the brain isn't all that great at imaging accurately with sounds behind it). The distance to the front isn't too far for phantom imaging at 12' to the rear heights. I'd pull the couch forward a bit and try it out in both positions and see how some Atmos demos sound. That's with 9.1 (5.1.4). For 7.1 doing 5.1.2, I'd go with the rear ceilings set to top middle and perhaps move them closer to the final couch position. "Overhead" is more effective than front height, IMO, but then that's subjective too.


----------



## anothermib

gwsat said:


> The short answer to your question is “no.” Although Season 4 of _The Expanse_ has beautiful UHD HDR video, it has only 5.1 audio. There is a silver lining, though. The surround effects of the sound design are so well done that upconverting it to 7.2.4 with the Dolby Surround upconverter builtin to my Yamaha 3060 rendered quite a nice faux Atmos effect. Try it, I think you will like it. There is nothing like native Atmos, of course, but I found what I did to be surprisingly effective.



Thanks for the info. I agree the 5.1 sound of the show always had really excellent. With all the things happening around you Atmos would just have been a great addition to that. 
On the other hand I can now watch the show without being annoyed that Amazon did remove the Atmos track from the international release again. For what ever reason they may find it necessary to do so in general.


----------



## rekbones

MagnumX said:


> He's got ear level side surrounds. They're just in front of the couch to the sides (due to a good place to put them closer to the couch since it's open on one side). I think that placement is a little bit of a limiting factor, but some people actually seem to prefer surrounds in front of the couch instead of behind it or to the side. I think if he could add rear speakers, the placement of the side would be acceptable, but that doesn't look practical in his room.
> 
> Personally, I'd move the couch forward so the side surrounds are along side or much closer to the sides. They might hot spot, though (that's why I used bipolar surrounds when I had sides fairly close to my couch where I used to live so the speakers faced forward/backward and didn't point right at me. That worked pretty well). But just in front of the couch (instead of way in front) would be OK, I think. He could move the rear heights forward, but frankly, he'll get some rear fill with them where they're at to some extent (it's hard to tell rear height from rear bed with a lot of material, IMO, especially the further away it is as the brain isn't all that great at imaging accurately with sounds behind it). The distance to the front isn't too far for phantom imaging at 12' to the rear heights. I'd pull the couch forward a bit and try it out in both positions and see how some Atmos demos sound. That's with 9.1 (5.1.4). For 7.1 doing 5.1.2, I'd go with the rear ceilings set to top middle and perhaps move them closer to the final couch position. "Overhead" is more effective than front height, IMO, but then that's subjective too.


Your confused as my answer was for @Javaman12 not @bertk.


----------



## MagnumX

rekbones said:


> Your confused as my answer was for @Javaman12 not @bertk.


You're right. I jumped to a conclusion based on the location right below bertk's photos. My bad.


----------



## Javaman12

MagnumX said:


> You're right. I jumped to a conclusion based on the location right below bertk's photos. My bad.


Rekbones, MagnumX, my thanks to you both for your thoughtful and through advice. Moving the speakers is not an option as they are set into the TV wall and ceiling. Moving the couch is really not an option either. I did take some measurements of the existing speaker placement.
Left channel to right channel (65” TV in between) is 76”
LC - RC height from floor is 49” (ear level)
Center channel is 6” under TV
First set of ceiling speakers is 77” to “ears”. Distance between is 135”
Second set of ceiling speakers is 67” to “ears”. Distance 74”
Distance between the two sets of ceiling speakers is 39”.
I really hope the existing speaker/couch placement will work with an Atmos system. I love what I currently have but really want to take it to the next level.
Thank you both again!
Javaman12


----------



## bertk

MagnumX said:


> He's got ear level side surrounds. They're just in front of the couch to the sides (due to a good place to put them closer to the couch since it's open on one side). I think that placement is a little bit of a limiting factor, but some people actually seem to prefer surrounds in front of the couch instead of behind it or to the side. I think if he could add rear speakers, the placement of the side would be acceptable, but that doesn't look practical in his room.
> 
> Personally, I'd move the couch forward so the side surrounds are along side or much closer to the sides. They might hot spot, though (that's why I used bipolar surrounds when I had sides fairly close to my couch where I used to live so the speakers faced forward/backward and didn't point right at me. That worked pretty well). But just in front of the couch (instead of way in front) would be OK, I think. He could move the rear heights forward, but frankly, he'll get some rear fill with them where they're at to some extent (it's hard to tell rear height from rear bed with a lot of material, IMO, especially the further away it is as the brain isn't all that great at imaging accurately with sounds behind it). The distance to the front isn't too far for phantom imaging at 12' to the rear heights. I'd pull the couch forward a bit and try it out in both positions and see how some Atmos demos sound. That's with 9.1 (5.1.4). For 7.1 doing 5.1.2, I'd go with the rear ceilings set to top middle and perhaps move them closer to the final couch position. "Overhead" is more effective than front height, IMO, but then that's subjective too.


 Not trying to muddy things up here, but were these suggestions inadvertently referencing my post? 


Regards,
Bertk


----------



## MagnumX

Javaman12 said:


> Rekbones, MagnumX, my thanks to you both for your thoughtful and through advice. Moving the speakers is not an option as they are set into the TV wall and ceiling. Moving the couch is really not an option either. I did take some measurements of the existing speaker placement.
> Left channel to right channel (65” TV in between) is 76”
> LC - RC height from floor is 49” (ear level)
> Center channel is 6” under TV
> First set of ceiling speakers is 77” to “ears”. Distance between is 135”
> Second set of ceiling speakers is 67” to “ears”. Distance 74”
> Distance between the two sets of ceiling speakers is 39”.
> I really hope the existing speaker/couch placement will work with an Atmos system. I love what I currently have but really want to take it to the next level.
> Thank you both again!
> Javaman12


What he was saying is that you can keep the existing speakers you have. Just make the ceiling surround speakers the new overhead "tops" speakers and ADD some new speakers at or near ear level. Now having overheads above the couch and behind it are great for a six channel overhead Atmos setup. You would need to add two in the front in the ceiling (or on it or near it) to have a full front/back panning overhead setup, but what you have is better than nothing. You could always just use the ones over the couch. 

Given how poorly the brain images behind compared to above and in front I'd say you _could_ even leave the ones behind the couch as rear bed speakers to simplify things and not waste the speakers or space and just set the ones directly overhead as tops, but you'd still need to somehow add two more side surround speakers at or near ear level or Atmos just isn't going to work. Setting it up that way would give you 7.1.2 (or 5.1.4 if you use the rear ceilings as tops channels). Either way, you'd need a 9-channel AVR. If you wanted front heights as well and rear beds (using the rear ceiling speakers as tops), you'd then need an 11-channel model for 7.1.4.


----------



## MagnumX

bertk said:


> Not trying to muddy things up here, but were these suggestions inadvertently referencing my post?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bertk


Yes, those comments were meant for you setup (i.e. pull couch forward, etc.). My post directly above this one is meant for Javaman12. I hope that's straightened out now.


----------



## Javaman12

MagnumX said:


> What he was saying is that you can keep the existing speakers you have. Just make the ceiling surround speakers the new overhead "tops" speakers and ADD some new speakers at or near ear level. Now having overheads above the couch and behind it are great for a six channel overhead Atmos setup. You would need to add two in the front in the ceiling (or on it or near it) to have a full front/back panning overhead setup, but what you have is better than nothing. You could always just use the ones over the couch.
> 
> Given how poorly the brain images behind compared to above and in front I'd say you _could_ even leave the ones behind the couch as rear bed speakers to simplify things and not waste the speakers or space and just set the ones directly overhead as tops, but you'd still need to somehow add two more side surround speakers at or near ear level or Atmos just isn't going to work. Setting it up that way would give you 7.1.2 (or 5.1.4 if you use the rear ceilings as tops channels). Either way, you'd need a 9-channel AVR. If you wanted front heights as well and rear beds (using the rear ceiling speakers as tops), you'd then need an 11-channel model for 7.1.4.


So it seems that my existing speaker configuration will work with some “tweaks”. . Not sure what “tops” are - please forgive my ignorance. From what I understand, I need to add two more speakers. That will give me 9 in total. Next, instead of a 7.1 AVR, I will need a 9.1 receiver. 
New setup will be 5.1.4. Am I correct?


----------



## bertk

MagnumX said:


> He's got ear level side surrounds. They're just in front of the couch to the sides (due to a good place to put them closer to the couch since it's open on one side). I think that placement is a little bit of a limiting factor, but some people actually seem to prefer surrounds in front of the couch instead of behind it or to the side. I think if he could add rear speakers, the placement of the side would be acceptable, but that doesn't look practical in his room.
> 
> Personally, I'd move the couch forward so the side surrounds are along side or much closer to the sides. They might hot spot, though (that's why I used bipolar surrounds when I had sides fairly close to my couch where I used to live so the speakers faced forward/backward and didn't point right at me. That worked pretty well). But just in front of the couch (instead of way in front) would be OK, I think. He could move the rear heights forward, but frankly, he'll get some rear fill with them where they're at to some extent (it's hard to tell rear height from rear bed with a lot of material, IMO, especially the further away it is as the brain isn't all that great at imaging accurately with sounds behind it). The distance to the front isn't too far for phantom imaging at 12' to the rear heights. I'd pull the couch forward a bit and try it out in both positions and see how some Atmos demos sound. That's with 9.1 (5.1.4). For 7.1 doing 5.1.2, I'd go with the rear ceilings set to top middle and perhaps move them closer to the final couch position. "Overhead" is more effective than front height, IMO, but then that's subjective too.





MagnumX said:


> Yes, those comments were meant for you setup (i.e. pull couch forward, etc.). My post directly above this one is meant for Javaman12. I hope that's straightened out now.



Thank you MagnumX. I moved the sofa forward and surround speakers back some with improvement in surround sound which I am very satisfied with. As you suggested, the rear heights are limited to adding some fill. This is why I wanted to replace them with ceiling speakers. For a 9.1 (5.1.4) setup I'm not sure where you are suggesting placing the ceiling and height speakers?


Bert


----------



## farsider3000

Javaman12 said:


> So it seems that my existing speaker configuration will work with some “tweaks”. . Not sure what “tops” are - please forgive my ignorance. From what I understand, I need to add two more speakers. That will give me 9 in total. Next, instead of a 7.1 AVR, I will need a 9.1 receiver.
> 
> New setup will be 5.1.4. Am I correct?




I would draw out your planned design with dimensions and post it. Based on my experience in my theater with six Atmos in ceiling (top) speakers (three rows) , six speakers is overkill as very few movies use the middle row. Also you need a fairly long theater to need three rows since you have to be very careful about placing the front row of ceiling speakers too close to the LCR speakers. If this happens you will not be able to hear the difference in the LCR vs the front row of Atmos. The same goes for the rear row of ceiling speakers being too close to the rear speakers.

My theater is 23.5 ft long and I could remove the middle row and not lose any immersion.

I think others have mentioned it but the key is to have separation between speakers and create a sound “hemisphere” with the “bed” channel speakers (LCR, surround and rear... and wides) being about 12” above ear level.

Also I have found that I like the individual ceiling speakers to be closer together than Dolby recommends (side to side).

Dimensions need to be altered if the room is “smaller”. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

bertk said:


> Hello
> 
> I am looking for some input on speaker placement in my unconventional living room/kitchen listening area. Current system is a 7.2 with rear heights that act like rear surrounds do to room constraints. The room is 28’x16’ with a vaulted ceiling, skylights and ceiling fans. Attached layout and pics below.
> 
> What I’m planning on doing is replacing the Denon X3400H with a X4500H AVR (which I already have) to be able to add two more speakers and have the ability to assign speaker locations.
> 
> AVR: Replacing the Denon X3400H with the X4500H
> Front: Klipsch RP-280F
> Center: RP-450C
> Front Surrounds: RP-240S
> Rear Heights: RP-500SA
> Subs: (2) Monolith 12" THX Subwoofers
> 
> I purchased two Klipsch CDT-5800-C II Ceiling Speaker with two ME-800-C Speaker Box’s. The plan is to place the ceiling speakers over the MSP and move the RP-500SA’s to the front wall. The reason being is the RP-500SA’s don’t perform well in their current location. I also have a pair of Klipsch RP-160M Bookshelf Speakers on hand for front height speakers if need be. My main concern is the ceiling speaker placement without having rear surrounds. I don’t want to have to move them after installation! The new setup would be a 5.2.4 without rear surrounds.
> So I have a couple of questions.
> 
> 1. Should I place the ceiling speakers just behind the MSP?
> 2. Are the front heights going to be to far away to be effective?
> 3. In the room diagram should the ceiling speakers moved closer to the center of the MSP or sofa?
> 4. With my ceiling as it is, is placing the 500SA's on top of the towers out of the question?
> 
> 
> Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.




My suggestion is to place your ceiling speakers about 12” in front of your ears towards the screen and about six feet apart. I have three rows of Atmos and this has the best effect in my room.

Also are you sure you have room for the back boxes as it does not appear that you would have attic over your angled ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

Javaman12 said:


> So it seems that my existing speaker configuration will work with some “tweaks”. . Not sure what “tops” are - please forgive my ignorance. From what I understand, I need to add two more speakers. That will give me 9 in total. Next, instead of a 7.1 AVR, I will need a 9.1 receiver.
> New setup will be 5.1.4. Am I correct?


First off, "tops" means ceiling speakers, generally speaking or more specifically speakers at an angle above 30 degrees from the 0 degree plane from the front or back (typically 45/90/-45 if you had six overhead in ideal locations).

You can either do 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 the way I suggested with the only difference whether you call the rear ceiling speakers rear tops (5.1.4) or rear surrounds (7.1.2). The receiver might not like "top middle" + "top rear", however. It would probably prefer some front height/tops instead hence the reason I came up with the idea of using the rear ceiling speakers as rear beds even though they're not at bed level. The brain doesn't do well with height behind you so I think it would quite possibly sound OK like that. You'd have all you overhead sound above you from the ones over the couch, although rear information would seem to have some height as well that way. If you want to add height or ceiling (tops) speakers in the front, you could do 7.1.4 that way, which I think would do much better (if you don't want to do 11-channel, you could just not use the rear ceiling speakers or connect them in parallel as mid/rear ceiling (tops) speakers). Either way, an 11-channel receiver will give you more flexibility.


----------



## MagnumX

bertk said:


> Thank you MagnumX. I moved the sofa forward and surround speakers back some with improvement in surround sound which I am very satisfied with. As you suggested, the rear heights are limited to adding some fill. This is why I wanted to replace them with ceiling speakers. For a 9.1 (5.1.4) setup I'm not sure where you are suggesting placing the ceiling and height speakers?


That's certainly closer to ideal. With the couch in that position you could certainly do 5.1.4. The rear ceiling speakers would give at least some back fill in that position as they can pan front/back then. 

You _could_ possibly add a second set of the RP500SA speakers to the front instead of moving them and designate them the existing ones as rear surrounds (giving you 7.1.4). It's not ideal (less separation between the two), but it may still sound better than no rear designated speakers. The question is how much and that's hard to answer precisely. While the brain is less sensitive to imaging sounds behind you (my rear heights and rear beds in the back often sound similar to my ears if there's nothing to tell me which is running ;I just notice something behind me), it also varies by distance. I can tell when there's a speaker callout and that sort of thing, but it blurs together more easily there as the MLP is farther from the rear than the front. It's hard to say for certain how much difference it might make without trying it out, though. This is where an 11-channel AVR is more flexible as you can try it out first and if it's worthwhile, buy the second set and if not, move them. I can only make suggestions. I can't guarantee you'll be 100% thrilled either way. Some people prefer front wides to rear surrounds they notice so little behind them. I think they're worthwhile, but the back of my room where the front of the rear speaker is like 16 feet from the MLP.


----------



## MagnumX

After the newest Apple TV 4K Update (and more likely an app update that happened at some point since last week), I see The Mandalorian now displays ATMOS sound instead of 5.1 on the startup screen for the show (where it says HDR10 and all that other info). Unfortunately, that's the only place there's any sign of Atmos for the show as the sound itself is still 5.1 when you start an episode (and yes Atmos is working on the movies still here). 

So...after about a month, they've fixed the menu screen credit for the Apple TV for The Mandalorian, but not the sound. What a GREAT debug team Disney has! I mean why even bother with an update for the menus if you aren't going to follow through with the actual sound?


----------



## rekbones

Javaman12 said:


> So it seems that my existing speaker configuration will work with some “tweaks”. . Not sure what “tops” are - please forgive my ignorance. From what I understand, I need to add two more speakers. That will give me 9 in total. Next, instead of a 7.1 AVR, I will need a 9.1 receiver.
> New setup will be 5.1.4. Am I correct?


You absolutely need some side surround speakers back near your listening position down near your ear level to get any separation. Even a 7.1 ATMOS AVR would work with a 5.1.2 setup and not even use the rear ceiling speakers but a 9 channel AVR would be better. TOP's are what make ATMOS work to give your height presence and you can use your ceiling speakers for tops but with out the side surrounds all separation is lost.


----------



## bertk

farsider3000 said:


> My suggestion is to place your ceiling speakers about 12” in front of your ears towards the screen and about six feet apart. I have three rows of Atmos and this has the best effect in my room.


Ok, that sounds like a plan. That will place them over the outside armrests of the sofa. They may end up slightly more overhead than 12" in front of my ears unless I move the sofa back some. 



> Also are you sure you have room for the back boxes as it does not appear that you would have attic over your angled ceiling.


 The roof is made up of trusses, 24" on center. I have been up there many times.  I'm going to build out the box with wood, and use brackets to hold it in place and not let the weight of box and speaker sit on the drywall.


Bert


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> My suggestion is to place your ceiling speakers about 12” in front of your ears towards the screen and about six feet apart. I have three rows of Atmos and this has the best effect in my room.


12 inches? What do you base that on? The speakers should ideally be at a 45 degree angle in front of, 90 degree overhead and 45 degrees further behind for six overhead (and just the 45/-45 for four tops), not some arbitrary number of inches. 12 inches? That's almost right overhead (that must be like 75-80 degrees in his room). Why even bother with two or three rows? Just throw two up there and call it 7.1.2 as there's almost no separation with the speakers only 12 inches apart. 

My front/rear heights are 20 FEET apart (with top middle in-between) and IMO that's STILL not enough separation for some distant things behind me as they still sound much closer than they actually are. Frankly, the way people talk about bed level rear surrounds not doing much, I can certainly see why people think that when most people place them a few feet at most behind their listening couch. You might as well just use side surrounds in that scenario too as the rears aren't going to do much the sides can't already do with phantom imaging between them. 




bertk said:


> Ok, that sounds like a plan. That will place them over the outside armrests of the sofa. They may end up slightly more overhead than 12" in front of my ears unless I move the sofa back some.
> 
> The roof is made up of trusses, 24" on center. I have been up there many times.  I'm going to build out the box with wood, and use brackets to hold it in place and not let the weight of box and speaker sit on the drywall.
> 
> Bert


You ideally want 45 degrees from the MLP with in or on "tops" ceiling speakers, whatever the distance may be (I'm estimating around 5 feet from the couch in front of you), not some arbitrary distance if you want accurate playback. You can do 30-55 degrees, but what he's suggesting sounds more like 75-80 degrees. 

However, given your cathedral ceiling, you might be better off using side heights. Speakers dangling from above (to get them even) won't look very good, IMO. You could easily put a set of front height speakers on top of the cabinets in the front and leave the rear side heights where they are (use "height" instead of "tops" in the setup menu). That would not involve any real work beyond adding those two speakers. It would certainly be easier to test out first before doing major work on your ceiling, IMO. 7.5 feet above the listening couch is more than adequate for height speakers at that distance apart (i.e. only 12 feet between the front/rear height speakers in that scenario).


----------



## farsider3000

MagnumX said:


> 12 inches? What do you base that on? The speakers should ideally be at a 45 degree angle in front of, 90 degree overhead and 45 degrees further behind for six overhead (and just the 45/-45 for four tops), not some arbitrary number of inches. 12 inches? That's almost right overhead (that must be like 75-80 degrees in his room). Why even bother with two or three rows? Just throw two up there and call it 7.1.2 as there's almost no separation with the speakers only 12 inches apart.
> 
> 
> 
> My front/rear heights are 20 FEET apart (with top middle in-between) and IMO that's STILL not enough separation for some distant things behind me as they still sound much closer than they actually are. Frankly, the way people talk about bed level rear surrounds not doing much, I can certainly see why people think that when most people place them a few feet at most behind their listening couch. You might as well just use side surrounds in that scenario too as the rears aren't going to do much the sides can't already do with phantom imaging between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ideally want 45 degrees from the MLP with in or on "tops" ceiling speakers, whatever the distance may be (I'm estimating around 5 feet from the couch in front of you), not some arbitrary distance if you want accurate playback. You can do 30-55 degrees, but what he's suggesting sounds more like 75-80 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> However, given your cathedral ceiling, you might be better off using side heights. Speakers dangling from above (to get them even) won't look very good, IMO. You could easily put a set of front height speakers on top of the cabinets in the front and leave the rear side heights where they are (use "height" instead of "tops" in the setup menu). That would not involve any real work beyond adding those two speakers. It would certainly be easier to test out first before doing major work on your ceiling, IMO. 7.5 feet above the listening couch is more than adequate for height speakers at that distance apart (i.e. only 12 feet between the front/rear height speakers in that scenario).




Relax buddy, no need to jam the Dolby white paper down my throat. I base it on trial and error and listening in my room. In a smaller room with one row of Atmos and in my experience in my room I can detect the sound coming from above me nest when I am sitting about 12 inches back from the row of Atmos speakers.

Room acoustics make a huge difference and adjustments need to be made. I have in wall ceiling speakers so I can not angle them toward my MLP. That is also something that needs to be considered. If the ceiling speakers can be angled then it’s likely the Dolby recommended angles would work in my room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

MagnumX said:


> 12 inches? What do you base that on? The speakers should ideally be at a 45 degree angle in front of, 90 degree overhead and 45 degrees further behind for six overhead (and just the 45/-45 for four tops), not some arbitrary number of inches. 12 inches? That's almost right overhead (that must be like 75-80 degrees in his room). Why even bother with two or three rows? Just throw two up there and call it 7.1.2 as there's almost no separation with the speakers only 12 inches apart.
> 
> 
> 
> My front/rear heights are 20 FEET apart (with top middle in-between) and IMO that's STILL not enough separation for some distant things behind me as they still sound much closer than they actually are. Frankly, the way people talk about bed level rear surrounds not doing much, I can certainly see why people think that when most people place them a few feet at most behind their listening couch. You might as well just use side surrounds in that scenario too as the rears aren't going to do much the sides can't already do with phantom imaging between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ideally want 45 degrees from the MLP with in or on "tops" ceiling speakers, whatever the distance may be (I'm estimating around 5 feet from the couch in front of you), not some arbitrary distance if you want accurate playback. You can do 30-55 degrees, but what he's suggesting sounds more like 75-80 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> However, given your cathedral ceiling, you might be better off using side heights. Speakers dangling from above (to get them even) won't look very good, IMO. You could easily put a set of front height speakers on top of the cabinets in the front and leave the rear side heights where they are (use "height" instead of "tops" in the setup menu). That would not involve any real work beyond adding those two speakers. It would certainly be easier to test out first before doing major work on your ceiling, IMO. 7.5 feet above the listening couch is more than adequate for height speakers at that distance apart (i.e. only 12 feet between the front/rear height speakers in that scenario).




Not 12 inches apart... a single row 12 inches in front of the MLP ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> Not 12 inches apart... a single row 12 inches in front of the MLP ears.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I thought you said you had three rows of them. How far apart are the other two rows? I agree if you're going to have only one row (top middle) that 12 inches in front of the MLP is fine (or even 12 inches behind if necessary).


----------



## bertk

MagnumX said:


> You ideally want 45 degrees from the MLP with in or on "tops" ceiling speakers, whatever the distance may be (I'm estimating around 5 feet from the couch in front of you), not some arbitrary distance if you want accurate playback. You can do 30-55 degrees, but what he's suggesting sounds more like 75-80 degrees.


 I'm adding an updated room layout which includes ceiling speakers moved forward ~38* from MLP. Unfortunately the right speaker land just under an A/C duct.  And one with the ceiling speakers over head and slightly forward. Or I could move them just behind the seating area. The tweeter and woofer rotate and pivot.



> However, given your cathedral ceiling, you might be better off using side heights. Speakers dangling from above (to get them even) won't look very good, IMO. You could easily put a set of front height speakers on top of the cabinets in the front and leave the rear side heights where they are (use "height" instead of "tops" in the setup menu). That would not involve any real work beyond adding those two speakers. It would certainly be easier to test out first before doing major work on your ceiling, IMO. 7.5 feet above the listening couch is more than adequate for height speakers at that distance apart (i.e. only 12 feet between the front/rear height speakers in that scenario).


I really don't want to hang speakers from the ceiling. 

I placed a RP-160M speaker on top of the front cabinet and they fit. I tilted it downward some also. This places them about 14' apart from the existing rear heights. 

What do you think about placing the ceiling speakers just behind the sofa?

Bert


----------



## MagnumX

bertk said:


> I'm adding an updated room layout which includes ceiling speakers moved forward ~38* from MLP. Unfortunately the right speaker land just under an A/C duct.  And one with the ceiling speakers over head and slightly forward. Or I could move them just behind the seating area. The tweeter and woofer rotate and pivot.


I personally think you're better off with them just behind the sofa than too far in front of it, IMO. In fact, I thought the old location for the RP-500SA would work. 



> I really don't want to hang speakers from the ceiling.


Yes, it wouldn't look good from a cathedral ceiling, IMO, although oddly for Auro-3D, having a "top surround" (voice of god) up real high would be awesome if there were more Auro material.



> I placed a RP-160M speaker on top of the front cabinet and they fit. I tilted it downward some also. This places them about 14' apart from the existing rear heights.
> 
> What do you think about placing the ceiling speakers just behind the sofa?


They look good on the cabinet. I think behind the sofa would be fine or even the old high wall RP-500SA location would work reasonably well seeing that it's almost right in line with the front height location. That might be considerably easier as well. You could try it out. If you don't like the result, you can always go for ceiling speakers.


----------



## Javaman12

farsider3000 said:


> I would draw out your planned design with dimensions and post it. Based on my experience in my theater with six Atmos in ceiling (top) speakers (three rows) , six speakers is overkill as very few movies use the middle row. Also you need a fairly long theater to need three rows since you have to be very careful about placing the front row of ceiling speakers too close to the LCR speakers. If this happens you will not be able to hear the difference in the LCR vs the front row of Atmos. The same goes for the rear row of ceiling speakers being too close to the rear speakers.
> 
> My theater is 23.5 ft long and I could remove the middle row and not lose any immersion.
> 
> I think others have mentioned it but the key is to have separation between speakers and create a sound “hemisphere” with the “bed” channel speakers (LCR, surround and rear... and wides) being about 12” above ear level.
> 
> Also I have found that I like the individual ceiling speakers to be closer together than Dolby recommends (side to side).
> 
> Dimensions need to be altered if the room is “smaller”.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I did take some measurements of the existing speaker placement.
Left channel to right channel (65” TV in between) is 76”
LC - RC height from floor is 49” (ear level)
Center channel is 6” under TV
First set of ceiling speakers is 77” to “ears”. Distance between is 135”
Second set of ceiling speakers is 67” to “ears”. Distance 74”
Distance between the two sets of ceiling speakers is 39”.
We live in Florida and as typical here, our system is in a "Great Room". That is basically an open kitchen/living room floor plan.


----------



## Javaman12

rekbones said:


> You absolutely need some side surround speakers back near your listening position down near your ear level to get any separation. Even a 7.1 ATMOS AVR would work with a 5.1.2 setup and not even use the rear ceiling speakers but a 9 channel AVR would be better. TOP's are what make ATMOS work to give your height presence and you can use your ceiling speakers for tops but with out the side surrounds all separation is lost.


Okay guys - it's finally starting to sink in (I think - LOL!) The existing 4 speakers in my ceiling can remain as "tops". I will need to add two speakers to the existing LC/RC/CC setup on the wall facing me (under the TV). This will give me 5.1.4. Now I will need a 9 channel receiver. Next question (and again thanks for everybody's patience) - what AVR would you recommend? Budget for the receiver is $600 (unless I get a better deal from Accessories 4 Less).


----------



## avsngaiouser

MagnumX said:


> After the newest Apple TV 4K Update (and more likely an app update that happened at some point since last week), I see The Mandalorian now displays ATMOS sound instead of 5.1 on the startup screen for the show (where it says HDR10 and all that other info). Unfortunately, that's the only place there's any sign of Atmos for the show as the sound itself is still 5.1 when you start an episode (and yes Atmos is working on the movies still here).
> 
> So...after about a month, they've fixed the menu screen credit for the Apple TV for The Mandalorian, but not the sound. What a GREAT debug team Disney has! I mean why even bother with an update for the menus if you aren't going to follow through with the actual sound?



I thought I was going mad - seeing the ATMOS was available and only getting 5.1. Even with MAT I'd been expecting at least 7.1 PCM to make it through to my non-ATMOS AVR.


----------



## rekbones

Javaman12 said:


> Okay guys - it's finally starting to sink in (I think - LOL!) The existing 4 speakers in my ceiling can remain as "tops". I will need to add two speakers to the existing LC/RC/CC setup on the wall facing me (under the TV). This will give me 5.1.4. Now I will need a 9 channel receiver. Next question (and again thanks for everybody's patience) - what AVR would you recommend? Budget for the receiver is $600 (unless I get a better deal from Accessories 4 Less).


As long as you understand the added speakers don't go anywhere near the front LCR. The 3 front speakers are fine in the wall using as LCR. What you are missing is side surrounds directly to the side or there about of where you are sitting IE directly to the left and right of your couch or what ever you are sitting on down at your ear level not up at or near the ceiling.

We are not allowed to discus where to buy and prices here reference the deals section. $600 is a little low so might be difficult for a 9 channel receiver without resorting to used.


----------



## bertk

MagnumX said:


> I personally think you're better off with them just behind the sofa than too far in front of it, IMO. In fact, I thought the old location for the RP-500SA would work.
> 
> Yes, it wouldn't look good from a cathedral ceiling, IMO, although oddly for Auro-3D, having a "top surround" (voice of god) up real high would be awesome if there were more Auro material.
> 
> They look good on the cabinet. I think behind the sofa would be fine or even the old high wall RP-500SA location would work reasonably well seeing that it's almost right in line with the front height location. That might be considerably easier as well. You could try it out. If you don't like the result, you can always go for ceiling speakers.


 Thanks for your for all your input. As you suggest, I think the next step is to hook-up the Denon 4500 and listen what the existing speakers along with the 160M's on the front cabinet sound like before installing the ceiling speakers. I've just never been satisfied with the 500SA's in the current location. With my limited experience with height speakers maybe I'm just expecting to much. If it wasn't for putting big holes in the ceiling experimenting would be much easier.  

I have to investigate Auro-3D. 

I was open to either placing the ceiling speakers just in front, or behind the sofa but if the front height's work out I think it would make sense to place the ceiling speakers behind the sofa rather than having four height speaker in front of the MLP. There is room to move the ceiling speakers back even further. I'm attaching both layouts.


Bert


----------



## MagnumX

bertk said:


> Thanks for your for all your input. As you suggest, I think the next step is to hook-up the Denon 4500 and listen what the existing speakers along with the 160M's on the front cabinet sound like before installing the ceiling speakers. I've just never been satisfied with the 500SA's in the current location. With my limited experience with height speakers maybe I'm just expecting to much. If it wasn't for putting big holes in the ceiling experimenting would be much easier.
> 
> I have to investigate Auro-3D.
> 
> I was open to either placing the ceiling speakers just in front, or behind the sofa but if the front height's work out I think it would make sense to place the ceiling speakers behind the sofa rather than having four height speaker in front of the MLP. There is room to move the ceiling speakers back even further. I'm attaching both layouts.


That location that didn't work so well for surround _might_ be a little different when combined with front heights as it can then image between them. Also surrounds in normal pre-immersive soundtracks rarely put sounds between the speakers, IMO, which would be the rear speakers in upmixed modes and few 7.1 soundtracks existed. So, if those were used as rears, they probably didn't get a lot of action to begin with. You might be surprised with them doing overhead sound, especially combined with the front heights. My side heights are in a similar position and they image well with front and rear heights and things that are meant to be directly overhead image right over my head. Mine are slightly behind the MLP at the halfway point of the room with front heights and rear heights at the extreme ends of the room. But like I said, it doesn't hurt to try them out first. Your side surrounds still aren't in the optimal position, IMO to handle sounds at bed level directly to the sides and behind you, but with the couch forward, it's better than it was. Otherwise, the angles don't look too bad on paper, at least.


----------



## Javaman12

rekbones said:


> As long as you understand the added speakers don't go anywhere near the front LCR. The 3 front speakers are fine in the wall using as LCR. What you are missing is side surrounds directly to the side or there about of where you are sitting IE directly to the left and right of your couch or what ever you are sitting on down at your ear level not up at or near the ceiling.
> 
> We are not allowed to discus where to buy and prices here reference the deals section. $600 is a little low so might be difficult for a 9 channel receiver without resorting to used.


Really appreciate the advice (and patience) you guys have given me. As far as the two "side surrounds", would bluetooth be an option? 
Completely what you've said with respect to advice on an AVR. I do realize $600 is a little low. Now to convince my wife that with a 9.1 system, I'll never have to update again. Like she hasn't heard that one before! LOL!!


----------



## clckwrkorange

*Atmos Low Ceiling Placement*

I'm about to cut holes in my ceiling and have a placement question.

This will be a 7.1.4 system. The Room is 12' Wide, 18' Deep and 7' High. The screen is on the 12' Wide wall with a 120" AT screen.

It seems with the average listener position (seating to change at some point, currently a futon), the distance between the front and back ceiling speakers will be right around 6'. My question is how far in from the side walls should I go? The ceiling speakers will be Polk Audio RC80i's.

I can move the front left and right's located behind the screen wall without issue.


----------



## Bond 007

clckwrkorange said:


> I'm about to cut holes in my ceiling and have a placement question.
> 
> This will be a 7.1.4 system. The Room is 12' Wide, 18' Deep and 7' High. The screen is on the 12' Wide wall with a 120" AT screen.
> 
> It seems with the average listener position (seating to change at some point, currently a futon), the distance between the front and back ceiling speakers will be right around 6'. My question is how far in from the side walls should I go? The ceiling speakers will be Polk Audio RC80i's.
> 
> I can move the front left and right's located behind the screen wall without issue.


3 feet


----------



## backinsdle

*what size speakers for ceiling*

Hi,
New to Atmos. In fact never heard it as I do not go to movies and went back to 2 channel years ago. What size speaker for In ceiling? The room has no walls, 28x18x10 but only half will be set up for theater. I am figuring they are only effects but the Dolby white paper basically states full range? I will have a swarm subwoofer installed also. Are 8 inch a better way to go or 6.5 sufficient ?
Integrating a 2 channel system with the Atmos takes a little planning and just want to get it right the first time. It will be a 4.4.4 system as I do not use a center.
Thanks for the input.
Russ


----------



## bertk

MagnumX said:


> That location that didn't work so well for surround _might_ be a little different when combined with front heights as it can then image between them. Also surrounds in normal pre-immersive soundtracks rarely put sounds between the speakers, IMO, which would be the rear speakers in upmixed modes and few 7.1 soundtracks existed. So, if those were used as rears, they probably didn't get a lot of action to begin with. You might be surprised with them doing overhead sound, especially combined with the front heights. My side heights are in a similar position and they image well with front and rear heights and things that are meant to be directly overhead image right over my head. Mine are slightly behind the MLP at the halfway point of the room with front heights and rear heights at the extreme ends of the room. But like I said, it doesn't hurt to try them out first. Your side surrounds still aren't in the optimal position, IMO to handle sounds at bed level directly to the sides and behind you, but with the couch forward, it's better than it was. Otherwise, the angles don't look too bad on paper, at least.


Thanks for explaining how the heights work together. I'm going to start setting up the X4500 now. 

As far as assignments go is this how they should be set?
Surround = SR + SL
Height 1 = FHR + FHL
Height 2 = RHR + RHL

Bert


----------



## sdurani

backinsdle said:


> Dolby white paper basically states full range?


Yes, the front and surround and height outputs are ALL full range. But that doesn't mean the speakers have to be (at least not in this day & age of bass management). Since you will have a swarm of subs, you just need surround speakers & height speakers that will properly reproduce the sound above the subwoofer range.


> Are 8 inch a better way to go or 6.5 sufficient ?


6.5" is sufficient; 8" would be better. What are you currently using in your 2-channel set-up?


----------



## MagnumX

bertk said:


> Thanks for explaining how the heights work together. I'm going to start setting up the X4500 now.
> 
> As far as assignments go is this how they should be set?
> Surround = SR + SL
> Height 1 = FHR + FHL
> Height 2 = RHR + RHL
> 
> Bert


Yeah, that looks fine.


----------



## backinsdle

sdurani said:


> Yes, the front and surround and height outputs are ALL full range. But that doesn't mean the speakers have to be (at least not in this day & age of bass management). Since you will have a swarm of subs, you just need surround speakers & height speakers that will properly reproduce the sound above the subwoofer range. 6.5" is sufficient; 8" would be better. What are you currently using in your 2-channel set-up?


Thanks for the reply 


I have Person 5 Fs as my mains driven by a pair of Odyssey Kismet Mono blocks. Looking to integrate a Anthem Mrx1120 into the system.


----------



## sdurani

backinsdle said:


> I have Person 5 Fs as my mains driven by a pair of Odyssey Kismet Mono blocks.


Consider Persona B speakers for surrounds, to keep the sound consistent as it moves around the room. For in-ceiling speakers, I would get one of the Paradigm models with the angled baffle and aim them towards the main listening position.


----------



## Jonas2

MagnumX said:


> My front/rear heights are 20 FEET apart (with top middle in-between) and IMO that's STILL not enough separation for some distant things behind me as they still sound much closer than they actually are. Frankly, the way people talk about bed level rear surrounds not doing much, I can certainly see why people think that when most people place them a few feet at most behind their listening couch. You might as well just use side surrounds in that scenario too as the rears aren't going to do much the sides can't already do with phantom imaging between them.


Yeah, not sure what to make of folks saying the rears don't do much. Yeah, maybe not with the Hallmark channel. They're pretty busy at least with what I prefer watching, or multi-channel music. Mine are only a few feet behind the couch, but it's quite noticeable. I'd never not have a 7.1 as opposed to a 5.1 if I can help it. I'm gonna disagree - at least in my circumstances sides and rears is better than phantom imaging from two side surrounds, even at close distance. 



backinsdle said:


> Hi,
> New to Atmos. In fact never heard it as I do not go to movies and went back to 2 channel years ago. What size speaker for In ceiling? The room has no walls, 28x18x10 but only half will be set up for theater. I am figuring they are only effects but the Dolby white paper basically states full range? I will have a swarm subwoofer installed also. Are 8 inch a better way to go or 6.5 sufficient ?
> Integrating a 2 channel system with the Atmos takes a little planning and just want to get it right the first time. It will be a 4.4.4 system as I do not use a center.
> Thanks for the input.
> Russ


Atmos is often considered only effects - but I find a lot of content to be quite active and more than just mere effects. As you and Dolby both stated - full range. There is also music up-mixing to put a twist on it. I personally think height speakers should be capable of getting down to min. 100Hz or lower. Some might disagree. I think you'd be fine with either size. I myself went with an 8" in an 8' ceiling, and quite pleased with the results. 



backinsdle said:


> I have Person 5 Fs as my mains driven by a pair of Odyssey Kismet Mono blocks. Looking to integrate a Anthem Mrx1120 into the system.


Not that you need to spend this kind of money, but the Paradigm Elites would be an in-ceiling for you to consider then. Have you ever tried a center channel, or just have a preference for phantom center?


----------



## backinsdle

Jonas2 said:


> Yeah, not sure what to make of folks saying the rears don't do much. Yeah, maybe not with the Hallmark channel. They're pretty busy at least with what I prefer watching, or multi-channel music. Mine are only a few feet behind the couch, but it's quite noticeable. I'd never not have a 7.1 as opposed to a 5.1 if I can help it. I'm gonna disagree - at least in my circumstances sides and rears is better than phantom imaging from two side surrounds, even at close distance.
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos is often considered only effects - but I find a lot of content to be quite active and more than just mere effects. As you and Dolby both stated - full range. There is also music up-mixing to put a twist on it. I personally think height speakers should be capable of getting down to min. 100Hz or lower. Some might disagree. I think you'd be fine with either size. I myself went with an 8" in an 8' ceiling, and quite pleased with the results.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you need to spend this kind of money, but the Paradigm Elites would be an in-ceiling for you to consider then. Have you ever tried a center channel, or just have a preference for phantom center?


Love phantom center. The Persona's do a great job with center image plus not messing up my 2 channel sound stage. I may upgrade to the elites but the 3fs are out of the question just for the floor space and cost.. 

Anybody know where I can buy speaker boxes for the Paradigms? I had to pull permits and the Township I live treats it as a new build. Do the boxes improve sound as I would imagine? I have an ******* neighbor so hopefully the boxes would help keeping sound in? I am going with an Iso max wall system but just double drywall- green glue for the ceiling. I bumped up my doorwall to the highest STC rating I could get to keep my sound in the room..

thanks for the tips.


----------



## backinsdle

is there a big difference between the Paradigm Pro and the Elite series? I have no way of auditioning and don't mind spending the money if it would be worthwhile.
Thanks,
Russ


----------



## Jonas2

backinsdle said:


> Love phantom center. The Persona's do a great job with center image plus not messing up my 2 channel sound stage. I may upgrade to the elites but the 3fs are out of the question just for the floor space and cost..
> 
> Anybody know where I can buy speaker boxes for the Paradigms? I had to pull permits and the Township I live treats it as a new build. Do the boxes improve sound as I would imagine? I have an ******* neighbor so hopefully the boxes would help keeping sound in? I am going with an Iso max wall system but just double drywall- green glue for the ceiling. I bumped up my doorwall to the highest STC rating I could get to keep my sound in the room..
> 
> thanks for the tips.


Sounds good. I know one member here was running I believe 5Fs with a 3B center and it sounded like it was pretty awesome, so I was thinking to suggest that IF you had been thinking about a center. I wasn't paying clear enough attention - you are looking for the surrounds AND the in-ceilings then. Yeah, the Elites all around! The E3, E5, And E7 all have built-on boxes, the E80-IW does not, nor do the in-ceiling ones. If you had to build boxes for the Elite in-ceilings if you went that router, Paradigm can advise on the appropriate volume. 

I've also concluded I use the word "Yeah" far too often in my posts....


----------



## Jonas2

backinsdle said:


> is there a big difference between the Paradigm Pro and the Elite series? I have no way of auditioning and don't mind spending the money if it would be worthwhile.
> Thanks,
> Russ



One of the gents in the Paradigm owners forum that has both said, yes, there is a difference - but both are good. Still, those Personas are serious speakers - the Elite would be a closer match in my opinion.


----------



## backinsdle

Does anyone know the amount of travel in the clamps. I need about an 1.5 inches to account for the double drywall and the ship lap that will be used to finish the ceiling. 
Thanks,
Russ


----------



## MagnumX

I noticed on my Apple TV 4K with Disney+ that The Mandalorian is not the only show/movie that claims to have Atmos and doesn't on the device. Movies I saw before that did not claim Atmos, but 5.1 now say Atmos, but like The Mandalorian only deliver 5.1 as they originally claimed (e.g. The live action Lady and the Tramp). Others still correctly say 5.1 and the ones that were originally Atmos still work as Atmos here. What I don't know is if that means the new ones with Atmos are available in Atmos on a Roku right now or soon will be or it's an error. What a mess.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> I noticed on my Apple TV 4K with Disney+ that The Mandalorian is not the only show/movie that claims to have Atmos and doesn't on the device. Movies I saw before that did not claim Atmos, but 5.1 now say Atmos, but like The Mandalorian only deliver 5.1 as they originally claimed (e.g. The live action Lady and the Tramp). Others still correctly say 5.1 and the ones that were originally Atmos still work as Atmos here. What I don't know is if that means the new ones with Atmos are available in Atmos on a Roku right now or soon will be or it's an error. What a mess.


Thus my post a few weeks ago.


Augerhandle said:


> Sounds like ATMOS support while streaming is as half-baked as 3D was when it came out.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I noticed on my Apple TV 4K with Disney+ that The Mandalorian is not the only show/movie that claims to have Atmos and doesn't on the device. Movies I saw before that did not claim Atmos, but 5.1 now say Atmos, but like The Mandalorian only deliver 5.1 as they originally claimed (e.g. The live action Lady and the Tramp). Others still correctly say 5.1 and the ones that were originally Atmos still work as Atmos here. What I don't know is if that means the new ones with Atmos are available in Atmos on a Roku right now or soon will be or it's an error. What a mess.


I would have to check again to be sure, but I believe the Lady and the Tramp remake did have an Atmos soundtrack when I watched it with my kids (via Roku) a few weeks ago. There wasn't much of anything going on in the soundtrack, but it did technically come through in an Atmos container.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed on my Apple TV 4K with Disney+ that The Mandalorian is not the only show/movie that claims to have Atmos and doesn't on the device. Movies I saw before that did not claim Atmos, but 5.1 now say Atmos, but like The Mandalorian only deliver 5.1 as they originally claimed (e.g. The live action Lady and the Tramp). Others still correctly say 5.1 and the ones that were originally Atmos still work as Atmos here. What I don't know is if that means the new ones with Atmos are available in Atmos on a Roku right now or soon will be or it's an error. What a mess.
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to check again to be sure, but I believe the Lady and the Tramp remake did have an Atmos soundtrack when I watched it with my kids (via Roku) a few weeks ago. There wasn't much of anything going on in the soundtrack, but it did technically come through in an Atmos container.
Click to expand...

Apparently, there's several titles pointed to the wrong versions on Apple TV. They fixed the labels, but not the links. Hopefully, they'll fix it some time soon.


----------



## bertk

MagnumX said:


> That location that didn't work so well for surround _might_ be a little different when combined with front heights as it can then image between them. Also surrounds in normal pre-immersive soundtracks rarely put sounds between the speakers, IMO, which would be the rear speakers in upmixed modes and few 7.1 soundtracks existed. So, if those were used as rears, they probably didn't get a lot of action to begin with. You might be surprised with them doing overhead sound, especially combined with the front heights. My side heights are in a similar position and they image well with front and rear heights and things that are meant to be directly overhead image right over my head. Mine are slightly behind the MLP at the halfway point of the room with front heights and rear heights at the extreme ends of the room. But like I said, it doesn't hurt to try them out first. Your side surrounds still aren't in the optimal position, IMO to handle sounds at bed level directly to the sides and behind you, but with the couch forward, it's better than it was. Otherwise, the angles don't look too bad on paper, at least.


I set everything up yesterday as shown in the room layout and added some distance measurements. Do to having a Christmas tree in the room I was unable to run Audyssey and just add speaker distance manually from my previous setup. Also wanted to add, while running setup on the X4500 the test tones to confirm correct wiring to speaker location the rear heights had equal volume to the front heights which is a good sign. I played a few demos and the room feels more full of sound. Today I'm going to drag the tree out of the living room and plan on running Audyssey. The other night we were watching MIB: International and I was pleasantly surprised how it utilized the side surrounds. I'm looking forward to rerunning MIB after tuning. 

Bert


----------



## Jonas2

backinsdle said:


> Does anyone know the amount of travel in the clamps. I need about an 1.5 inches to account for the double drywall and the ship lap that will be used to finish the ceiling.
> Thanks,
> Russ



They should have at least that much available, but contact Paradigm to be sure.


----------



## Cichlid109

*Atmos??*

Still on the fence concerning Dolby Atmos. Yes when you go see a movies at the theater you feel like your part of the movie and yes I do like it but prior to Atmos everyone thought Audyessy XT32 was the greatest and the list goes on. I have a Denon AVR-4520 its being used as a pre amp 9 stereo channels 8 subs to me I think it sound great is Atmos going to be that much better because in my line of thinking sooner or later Atmos will fade and something better will evolve as technology improves. Any opinions??


----------



## skylarlove1999

Cichlid109 said:


> Still on the fence concerning Dolby Atmos. Yes when you go see a movies at the theater you feel like your part of the movie and yes I do like it but prior to Atmos everyone thought Audyessy XT32 was the greatest and the list goes on. I have a Denon AVR-4520 its being used as a pre amp 9 stereo channels 8 subs to me I think it sound great is Atmos going to be that much better because in my line of thinking sooner or later Atmos will fade and something better will evolve as technology improves. Any opinions??


Atmos isn't going anywhere for at least a couple of years and even then whatever improves upon Atmos will utilize the Atmos speakers if not more. I have four Atmos speakers and 7 horizontal speakers. I am sure your room sounds amazing without them. Could it sound better? Probably. Worth enough for the additional expenses and work to install? I would say yes. Curious what others who actually have 4 Atmos speakers installed properly have to say. 

Most of the time much of the feedback is from people who haven't installed Atmos speakers and usually have already convinced themselves " My home theater couldn't possibly sound any better." Then 6 months to 12 months later, after they installed Atmos speakers, they are the first to tell others how much of a difference Atmos makes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phillihp23

In the last few months i installed atmos speakers in my theater... I previously ran a 11.4 setup DTS:X (Heights and Wides) .....now I have a 9.4.6 setup...although only 7.4.6 atmos and 9.4.2 DTS NEO:X are ever really utilized due to system limitations. 

The truth be told IMO atmos isn't quit there yet. Lots of material has limited sound to the atmos speakers. DTS:X Pro is supposed to be released sometime in the next year. This would allow for a setup which would utilize Auro, Atmos, DTS:X Pro with a centralized setup. Your standard 7 floor level speakers, Front heights, Rear Heights, Middle in-ceiling, and front wides I believe. 9.4.6.....

I was highly skeptical of atmos being an improvement from DTS NEO:X. Also there are a lot of people that did not run DTS NEO:X...so going from a traditional 7.X setup to 7.X.4/6 obviously adds to the overall experience. For some atmos allowed the installation of more speakers were they did not have traditional floor space to do so...ceiling. 

Currently I'm still not won over on atmos....once again i came from DTS NEO:X (Heights and Wides).


----------



## batpig

Phillihp23 said:


> I previously ran a 11.4 setup DTS:X (Heights and Wides) .........once again i came from DTS:X (Heights and Wides).


DTS:X is the immersive competitor to Dolby Atmos. You have DTS Neo:X upmixing, not DTS:X. NOT the same thing.


----------



## farsider3000

Cichlid109 said:


> Still on the fence concerning Dolby Atmos. Yes when you go see a movies at the theater you feel like your part of the movie and yes I do like it but prior to Atmos everyone thought Audyessy XT32 was the greatest and the list goes on. I have a Denon AVR-4520 its being used as a pre amp 9 stereo channels 8 subs to me I think it sound great is Atmos going to be that much better because in my line of thinking sooner or later Atmos will fade and something better will evolve as technology improves. Any opinions??



In my opinion Atmos is an improvement (I have three rows of Atmos. But it really depends on the surround mix. Some soundtracks are fantastic and the Atmos speakers really provide an amazing experience over the standard mix. For instance the new Netflix action movie by Michael Bay “6 Underground” and many more movies and streaming TV shows benefit from Atmos.

My thought is that the Atmos effect is best when it is used when less of the other surround speakers are active or when the Atmos signal is louder than the others.

Overall now that I am considering it I am definitely happy input the time and money into upgrading my system to 7.4.6 (four subs and six Atmos speakers).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Polyrythm1k

farsider3000 said:


> In my opinion Atmos is an improvement (I have three rows of Atmos. But it really depends on the surround mix. Some soundtracks are fantastic and the Atmos speakers really provide an amazing experience over the standard mix. For instance the new Netflix action movie by Michael Bay “6 Underground” and many more movies and streaming TV shows benefit from Atmos.
> 
> My thought is that the Atmos effect is best when it is used when less of the other surround speakers are active or when the Atmos signal is louder than the others.
> 
> Overall now that I am considering it I am definitely happy input the time and money into upgrading my system to 7.4.6 (four subs and six Atmos speakers).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




Absolutely agree. I only have 7.3.4 but it was totally worth it. I’ve always appreciated the subtleties of surround mixes and Atmos is great at that. You’re right too. It is very dependent on the mix. Some are great and some are...not so much. But that’s nothing new. I’ve also come to appreciate DSU and DTSNX. My system is in the LR and if the tv is on, so is the system. So everything from wheel of fortune to Vikings is played back in surround. I’m constantly surprised by the way some shows sound upmixed. Cut scenes, and background music etc really change the scope and become truly immersive. 
But one of the best things is the way that my room and speakers just disappear. Very natural. Many people judge Atmos by how much they hear from overhead. While that’s a big part of it, it so much more.


----------



## rekbones

I think ATMOS is well worth the investment. My issue is the lack of quality in 90% of the mixes. Listening to the ATMOS demo's they sound absolutely amazing but in most movie mixes it is very poorly executed. There are a few scenes in some movies that it stands out but in the most part it is very under utilized. I rarely see movies in the theater and ATMOS is not available in any of the nearby theaters so I have no reference if it is just the home mixes compromised maybe because the majority of home users don't have it so it's watered down for the average consumer. I just saw Star Wars in a Cinimark XD theater that has something similar to ATMOS but I don't think they have the licence for it but sound was just average and didn't stand out like ATMOS demos at home.


----------



## ragged

clckwrkorange said:


> I'm about to cut holes in my ceiling and have a placement question.
> 
> This will be a 7.1.4 system. The Room is 12' Wide, 18' Deep and 7' High. The screen is on the 12' Wide wall with a 120" AT screen.
> 
> It seems with the average listener position (seating to change at some point, currently a futon), the distance between the front and back ceiling speakers will be right around 6'. My question is how far in from the side walls should I go? The ceiling speakers will be Polk Audio RC80i's.
> 
> I can move the front left and right's located behind the screen wall without issue.


Your room is approximately the same dimension as mine and I just completed my atmos upgrade. I put the ceiling speakers so they lined up with the LF and RF speakers, which put them 30" from the side walls (to the center of the ceiling speaker).

Works great, totally happy with it. Some mediocre pics here. LOL.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/index.php#/topics/3102690


----------



## clckwrkorange

ragged said:


> Your room is approximately the same dimension as mine and I just completed my atmos upgrade. I put the ceiling speakers so they lined up with the LF and RF speakers, which put them 30" from the side walls (to the center of the ceiling speaker).
> 
> Works great, totally happy with it. Some mediocre pics here. LOL.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/index.php#/topics/3102690


The link brings me back to the main forum page for some reason! 36" seemed a bit close, I went 33 OC. Can't wait to fire this up. I'll move the front LF and RF's in-line. Thank you, I was getting a bit nervous! Can you PM some pics? I'll send back some worse ones when I get them in


----------



## Mark Tulbert

Tried the virtual Atmos with the Denon X3600H. Not sure if I had it set up correctly but when I engaged that mode I lost the sound out of subs and it only came out of the left and right mains. Is that correct? Big change in the sound and not much better.


----------



## ragged

Mark Tulbert said:


> Tried the virtual Atmos with the Denon X3600H. Not sure if I had it set up correctly but when I engaged that mode I lost the sound out of subs and it only came out of the left and right mains. Is that correct? Big change in the sound and not much better.


If the denon setup is same as my marantz, there should be a setting somewhere under audio to set bass to main+sub. I'm not 100% certain, will check tomorrow, but I didn't get proper bass until I changed that setting.


----------



## LNEWoLF

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Skywalker-Saga-4K-Blu-ray/259357/

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-w...lu-ray-only--best-buy/6393929.p?skuId=6393929

All 4K video and all with Atmos audio. yippee 27 disc set. March 31 of 2020. Just hoping the price comes way down. ME want


----------



## CBdicX

*Front and Rear Height advice please.*

Hi, i have a 7.2.4 setup with my front at 3 meters wide, and back speakers at 5 meters wide.
Now i have the *Height speakers* exact above the front and rear speakers, but in front i can set them wider, at 5 meters wide, so wider then where my front speakers are.
Would this be "better" to have the Heights wider then the now 3 meters and not exact above the floorspeakers ?

I sit exact in the middle of the front and back wall at 3 meters from front and back wall.

So in general, is as wide as possible better for the Height speakers effects regardless where the floorspeakers are ?

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> *Front and Rear Height advice please.*
> 
> Hi, i have a 7.2.4 setup with my front at 3 meters wide, and back speakers at 5 meters wide.
> Now i have the *Height speakers* exact above the front and rear speakers, but in front i can set them wider, at 5 meters wide, so wider then where my front speakers are.
> Would this be "better" to have the Heights wider then the now 3 meters and not exact above the floorspeakers ?
> 
> *I sit exact in the middle of the front and back wall at 3 meters from front and back wall.*


It's probably not the height speaker locations you should be worrying about, but your seating location, unless you found a way to effectively eliminate the strong and numerous room modes at that position.


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> *Front and Rear Height advice please.*
> 
> Hi, i have a 7.2.4 setup with my front at 3 meters wide, and back speakers at 5 meters wide.
> Now i have the *Height speakers* exact above the front and rear speakers, but in front i can set them wider, at 5 meters wide, so wider then where my front speakers are.
> Would this be "better" to have the Heights wider then the now 3 meters and not exact above the floorspeakers ?
> 
> I sit exact in the middle of the front and back wall at 3 meters from front and back wall.
> 
> So in general, is as wide as possible better for the Height speakers effects regardless where the floorspeakers are ?
> 
> Thanks for the advice.


Most of the Atmos setup information I've looked at has them anywhere from directly above to less wide than bed level speakers, probably to put more sounds directly above on the ceiling as moving them outward pushes overhead speaker sounds at the speakers (or out of phase) further out to the sides and sound more like high side wall sounds than overhead. Look at a Dolby Cinema layout. The ceiling speakers are more like the mid-center left/right speaker locations than the main left/right ones, let alone the wider arc of side surrounds where Auro-3D wants the side height speakers to be consistent with the bed level immersion.

Of course, in phase sounds will be directly on the ceiling, but my experience with many Atmos soundtracks show the mixing guys often not using in phase much except directly overhead sounds, probably with the assumption the speakers are narrow on the ceiling towards the middle to begin with and so there's little need to pan left or right between them and I believe it's this odd counter intuitive assumption that leads to so much, "Where's the ceiling sounds?" disappointment with many Atmos tracks as I think most people try to space the ceiling speakers at least close to the main channel distances so there's some stereo separation above, but most Atmos soundtracks seem to pan very little overhead compared to bed level. There's obviously exceptions, but I think there's far more bed to height and pop up height material (starts in overhead and stays there) than in-phase overhead pans whereas front to side pans are extremely common and side overhead pans are also common as an extension of that. Those are the sounds that will be more on the ceiling if you place them closer together and more above the sides as a height extension if you place them further apart or even directly above like the Auro-3D layout. Of course, Auro-3D expects them to be there and theoretically pans accordingly (in reality they often get Atmos master hand me downs that don't take that into consideration) if on-ceiling is desired, which then also goes to the Voice of God speaker right overhead when appropriate that Atmos doesn't have or use since it places overheads closer together.

So it's rather subjective in the sense that you could get a varying result depending where you sit in a very large Atmos cinema. For example, sitting in the middle will get you overhead pans if/when they are used, but sitting closer to the sides places them more in a general overhead perspective as stereo pulls to the nearest speaker and both overheads are to the left if you sit to the right of them. 

This is why Auro used a central overhead set of speakers with panning heights. Those are then consistent for everyone whereas Atmos' utter lack of stabilizing center speakers overhead means a somewhat varying experience depending on where you sit.

I've got my setup wider like the Auro-3D one as it didn't present the PITA experience of trying to install in-ceiling speakers in-between floor levels where there no space to get in there to run the wires. I then use extracted top middle for Atmos with some array leakage on purpose to pull the phantom side images over closer to the front/rear heights (which are still closer to left/right mains). This gives an Atmos overhead effect closer to in-ceiling by utilizing the array effect to move the phantom location. I've got a speaker switch which can swap rear height to to the true surround height for actual Auro-3D content and copy it to rear height (like Auro 11.1 cinemas) if desired (when more than the front row is in use) OR I can use the same extraction for Auro, which then for Atmos mastered Auro soundtracks sounds almost the same as the Atmos versions. Similarly, Atmos over 5.1.4 sounds very similar to true Auro-3D if the use the same master (i.e. The door swings both ways).

The gist is that the different locations for heights and overheads simply move the images slightly inward or outward or forward or backward in space and in some respects is at least somewhat similar to moving to a different seat in a larger theater. Which perspective is best is rather subjective and also highly dependent on how the sounds was mixed (i.e. Some film mixing guys are clearly better at it than others given the huge discrepancy between various immersive format soundtracks).


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> Most of the Atmos setup information I've looked at has them anywhere from directly above to less wide than bed level speakers, probably to put more sounds directly above on the ceiling as moving them outward pushes overhead speaker sounds at the speakers (or out of phase) further out to the sides and sound more like high side wall sounds than overhead. Look at a Dolby Cinema layout. The ceiling speakers are more like the mid-center left/right speaker locations than the main left/right ones, let alone the wider arc of side surrounds where Auro-3D wants the side height speakers to be consistent with the bed level immersion.
> 
> Of course, in phase sounds will be directly on the ceiling, but my experience with many Atmos soundtracks show the mixing guys often not using in phase much except directly overhead sounds, probably with the assumption the speakers are narrow on the ceiling towards the middle to begin with and so there's little need to pan left or right between them and I believe it's this odd counter intuitive assumption that leads to so much, "Where's the ceiling sounds?" disappointment with many Atmos tracks as I think most people try to space the ceiling speakers at least close to the main channel distances so there's some stereo separation above, but most Atmos soundtracks seem to pan very little overhead compared to bed level. There's obviously exceptions, but I think there's far more bed to height and pop up height material (starts in overhead and stays there) than in-phase overhead pans whereas front to side pans are extremely common and side overhead pans are also common as an extension of that. Those are the sounds that will be more on the ceiling if you place them closer together and more above the sides as a height extension if you place them further apart or even directly above like the Auro-3D layout. Of course, Auro-3D expects them to be there and theoretically pans accordingly (in reality they often get Atmos master hand me downs that don't take that into consideration) if on-ceiling is desired, which then also goes to the Voice of God speaker right overhead when appropriate that Atmos doesn't have or use since it places overheads closer together.
> 
> So it's rather subjective in the sense that you could get a varying result depending where you sit in a very large Atmos cinema. For example, sitting in the middle will get you overhead pans if/when they are used, but sitting closer to the sides places them more in a general overhead perspective as stereo pulls to the nearest speaker and both overheads are to the left if you sit to the right of them.
> 
> This is why Auro used a central overhead set of speakers with panning heights.  Those are then consistent for everyone whereas Atmos' utter lack of stabilizing center speakers overhead means a somewhat varying experience depending on where you sit.
> 
> I've got my setup wider like the Auro-3D one as it didn't present the PITA experience of trying to install in-ceiling speakers in-between floor levels where there no space to get in there to run the wires. I then use extracted top middle for Atmos with some array leakage on purpose to pull the phantom side images over closer to the front/rear heights (which are still closer to left/right mains). This gives an Atmos overhead effect closer to in-ceiling by utilizing the array effect to move the phantom location. I've got a speaker switch which can swap rear height to to the true surround height for actual Auro-3D content and copy it to rear height (like Auro 11.1 cinemas) if desired (when more than the front row is in use) OR I can use the same extraction for Auro, which then for Atmos mastered Auro soundtracks sounds almost the same as the Atmos versions. Similarly, Atmos over 5.1.4 sounds very similar to true Auro-3D if the use the same master (i.e. The door swings both ways).
> 
> The gist is that the different locations for heights and overheads simply move the images slightly inward or outward or forward or backward in space and in some respects is at least somewhat similar to moving to a different seat in a larger theater. Which perspective is best is rather subjective and also highly dependent on how the sounds was mixed (i.e. Some film mixing guys are clearly better at it than others given the huge discrepancy between various immersive format soundtracks).


Thanks for your thoughts 

I will keep it the way it is now, exact above the Front speakers, and in the Rear Height exact in the same line as Front Height speakers, but the rear floor speakers are then a small bit more to the sides.

Think having F and R Height in a straight line (rectangle) is preferd having them exact above the floor speakers, what will result in a trapezium Height setup.

Would you do a Audyssey run as Front and Rear Height, or as Top Front and Top Rear ? (even they are height speakers)
I read that running them as TF and TR give a better (Atmos) effect.
Do not know what this setting will do with DTSX ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Skywalker-Saga-4K-Blu-ray/259357/
> 
> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-w...lu-ray-only--best-buy/6393929.p?skuId=6393929
> 
> All 4K video and all with Atmos audio. yippee 27 disc set. March 31 of 2020. Just hoping the price comes way down. ME want



Too bad they couldn't bother releasing the original theatrical trilogy and not that damn special edition trilogy (now with even more unnecessary changes). And the Atmos audio is just average if they're the same mixes as on their streaming platform, only in lossless.


----------



## Cichlid109

*Atmos Rcvr??*

Driving myself nuts but have narrowed my choices down to 3 rcvrs. My current rcvr is a Denon 4520 really a good solid piece no complaints with one does not have dolby atmos. I am not interested in internal amplification since I am using all external. Not too worried about room correction for subs currently use minidsp umik1 mic and rew. Key things looking for has to be 9.2 able to use preouts have atmos as well as DTS X. Looking online is driving me nuts have it narrowed down to 3 Denon AVR3600H, Onkyo TX-RZ840, Pioneer VSX-LX503. If you do not look at their internal amps these 3 seem to be somewhat the same I could be wrong?? I know Denon is a good brand like mine, Onkyo based on what I read hesitant, Pioneer set up can be confusing? So can anyone help?


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Would you do a Audyssey run as Front and Rear Height, or as Top Front and Top Rear ? (even they are height speakers)
> I read that running them as TF and TR give a better (Atmos) effect.
> Do not know what this setting will do with DTSX ?


I didn't notice much of any difference here with the Atmos and DTS demos with it set to "tops" instead of heights, but then I have that in-between extracted top middle, which might make a difference. The one difference I did notice was the helicopter demo seemed to move up/down more noticeably in "tops" setting than heights as it approached and left the side height speaker that is a bit lower due to the steel beam box. The funny thing is the height distance is smaller (8 inches) than the distance "outward" (~2 feet) by having the speaker on the side wall instead of the "ceiling" (would have been the beam box) yet the "outward" panning was less noticeable than the height change. Using the "heights" setting this was less noticeable, but still there. Purposely leaking front/back from the center extraction (like an array) actually improved this demo as I could barely detect any change with both running, yet it retained the strong overhead sounds it was missing without the side height speakers so I think that worked out rather well, although I'm sure many would hate the idea of having anything like a matrixed overhead center (your brain just combines the images into one except with pink noise where you can tell a difference by the sound of the noise being slightly different). I get a "wall" of side height/top middle sound with it leaking and a pin-point speaker without it with pink noise. With the helicopter, I hear no difference at all except it not seems to move pretty close to an even height, etc.

I think there's a lot of rooms where ceiling speakers just won't work and I think it's a shame Dolby is pushing "bounce" speakers over an option for side heights when cathedral ceilings and some other ceilings materials, etc. won't support bounce speakers at all (and they don't work _that_ great, IMO even when they do "work"). Side heights make sense from a deployment standpoint matching height "layers" as Auro-3D has done and even rooms with cathedral ceilings can typically do side heights. The odd thing is that Atmos cinemas often have "side surrounds" at heights that Auro-3D would call "height" speakers (i.e. way above "ear level" that they recommend at home). If you look at an Auro-3D Auro-Max theater, they have "voice of god" speakers that take objects that are very similar to the ceiling speakers of Atmos, heights where Atmos have side surrounds and another layer of side surrounds that are only a few feet above ear level. In terms of a "shell" of a layout, I have to say Auro-Max wins for the most coverage. It's kind of a shame they didn't start with Auro-Max and bring that to the home market as I think it would have laid Atmos to waste with the extra speaker coverage. In fact, I'd still like to see some floor level speaker options added to one of the formats for the occasional "under you" effect (like a rope bridge above a river or volcano) so you hear you the sounds below you. It's easy to put speakers on the floor (much easier than on the ceiling). 

Frankly, the home Atmos 'ear level' thing is a mixed bag. They do it because the room is smaller and the ceilings lower and you need some separation (in reality, you don't often need the "voice of god" speaker in Auro-3D in a home setting, but side heights work just as well as ceiling speakers if the mix is designed for it as you can move sounds anywhere between them across the ceiling if they are up by the ceiling on the sides. "Flatliners" in Auro-3D here has voices all over my ceiling at the beginning title sequence. Atmos does to, but to a lesser extent and I think it's because it assumes your ceiling speakers are closer together than in Auro-3D with the side heights so more of those sounds end up on the ceiling at the side wall (or beyond it with your eyes closed). That makes it "seem" more like a side wall sound because you "see" a wall there. It all just comes down to an assumption of where the speakers are at. But at home, you can't assume people have the ceiling speakers relatively close together, IMO and that's precisely why people end up disappointed, as I indicated above. The mixes should use more in-phase panning of overhead sounds (my ceiling is 12 feet wide and overhead sounds always seem to be in the middle 3 feet or on the sides whereas Flatliners had sounds everywhere conceivable on the ceiling. So did "Crimson Peak" in DTS:X. It all just comes down to mixing and assumptions of "good enough" I think. 

Now there are plenty of exceptions with panning I've heard in Atmos (e.g. the ball rolling front/back overhead in Overlord on the ceiling or the clown moving across the ceiling and up/down the wall in IT Chapter 2), but they are few and far between compared to the average "boring" Atmos track of an occasional overhead sound and some crickets here and there. _Annihilation_ gets raves about the weird sounds all over the room, but those are synthesizer sounds. What about all the forest scenes where there's birds chirping ONLY in the front sound stage instead of all around you??? WTF happened there??? How can it get a high rating with oversights like that? Use Atmos for special effects, but not actual _immersion_??? I was very irritated with those scenes in that movie. 

Then you look at _Groundhog Day_, a movie that you'd think wouldn't even need Atmos and for which I didn't remember ANY "surround" effects on the old version when I watched it, but DAMN, someone did a GREAT job of adding immersive sound effects to that movie, especially in the outdoor scenes! They weren't necessarily overhead, but my god there was a lot going on all around me outdoors that was _not_ there in the old 5.1 or stereo mixes! Now _that_ is what Atmos should be doing, making it sound like real life outdoors, not just focusing on certain action scenes. That's what surround _used to do_. "Atmos" means "Atmospheric" (as in _immersion_) and that's what I keep expecting from Atmos and for some sad reason I often don't get from Hollywood that still has this mindset of "surround is distracting so use it sparingly." Yeah, make a boring/crap sound bar home version for that belief system and give us a sound guy that will go full on tilt balls nuts with surround for the immersive mix on the disc! That is what I want. I think _that_ is what most of us want from Atmos (or X or Auro-3D even). *REAL IMMERSION!*


----------



## LNEWoLF

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad they couldn't bother releasing the original theatrical trilogy and not that damn special edition trilogy (now with even more unnecessary changes). And the Atmos audio is just average if they're the same mixes as on their streaming platform, only in lossless.


With 27 disc’s. 9 4K UHD, 9 Bluray. That leaves 9 disc’s up for possibilities. I’m sure some will be special features. Until I actually have them in my hands and can SEE and HEAR them. Your guess is a good as mine.

Lets hope the head mouse kept Goofy away from the audio mixing control panel. 

Hopefully an audio mixer gone “ROGUE” was at the audio mixing control panel creating the Atmos audio mixes.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

LNEWoLF said:


> With 27 disc’s. 9 4K UHD, 9 Bluray. That leaves 9 disc’s up for possibilities. I’m sure some will be special features. Until I actually have them in my hands and can SEE and HEAR them. Your guess is a good as mine.
> 
> Lets hope the head mouse kept Goofy away from the audio mixing control panel.
> 
> Hopefully an audio mixer gone “ROGUE” was at the audio mixing control panel creating the Atmos audio mixes.



Kidding aside, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi Special Editions (altered further) have Atmos tracks on Disney+. They're nothing to write home about, like most of Disney's Atmos mixes... and they're primarily mixed to 7.1.2.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Kidding aside, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi Special Editions (altered further) have Atmos tracks on Disney+. They're nothing to write home about, like most of Disney's Atmos mixes... and they're primarily mixed to 7.1.2.


I thought the Star Wars Atmos versions were pretty damn good compared to the 6.1 mixes. I feel the characterization of 7.1.2 is utterly misleading since they use objects (unlike most/all Disney discs). 7.1.2 is the constantly active channels according to Sdrucker if I read his posts correctly. They clearly use moving objects for overhead pans like the Star Destroyer chase in the opening scene of A New Hope (you only have to listen to hear it plain as day). Sdrucker referred to these as short 6-10 second clips or something to that effect. Yeah, they're relatively fast moving objects (so short object times) and there's quite a few of them. Those moving objects are PURE/REAL Atmos, not "*Sadmouse*" or whatever. I've heard FAR worse Atmos tracks than these Star Wars tracks. They're a MAJOR step up from the UHD BD discs we've been given until now in terms of how Atmos is used. The bass was not awful either (right on part with the prior 6.1 BDs that did not use "low levels" etc.) Are they the best Atmos tracks ever? Hardly. But they're for movies never designed for Atmos and considering, do a pretty decent job, IMO. Star Wars - A New Hope never sounded so good. Out of the over 150 Atmos/X/Auro movies I have here, they're far from awful (e.g. Labyrinth) and probably at least above average (many barely use distinct overhead sounds at all).


----------



## sdrucker

One more 7.1.2 mix is Ad Astra. I picked up the UHD with Atmos and watched last night. Only the top middles lit up beyond 7.1, but they did so consistently at times in the movie. Lots of deep bass too.


----------



## skylarlove1999

LNEWoLF said:


> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Skywalker-Saga-4K-Blu-ray/259357/
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-w...lu-ray-only--best-buy/6393929.p?skuId=6393929
> 
> 
> 
> All 4K video and all with Atmos audio. yippee 27 disc set. March 31 of 2020. Just hoping the price comes way down. ME want


Already preordered here in the US.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> *REAL IMMERSION!*


Thanks, so to keep it a bit shorter 

Its better to have the Heights (4 or 6) in a tighter rectangle than in a wider rectangle.


And this is what *i would like to have*, *but my wife not*………


----------



## Augerhandle

Maybe we should petition the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences for a new category. Best Sound Re-recording for Home Distribution. Maybe a shot at an Oscar would motivate better sound mixes.


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Thanks, so to keep it a bit shorter
> 
> Its better to have the Heights (4 or 6) in a tighter rectangle than in a wider rectangle.


If you want the overhead sounds more on the ceiling and less towards the edges of the room, I'd say yes. If you want better panning *when* it is used, I'd say no. The movies that do pan overhead sound better with them further apart, IMO and the ones that are more static will probably give you more "on the ceiling" closer together as most Atmos movies do very little overhead that's interesting. I just watched "_Escape Plan_" last night in Atmos and it missed all kind of opportunities to do things overhead in those closed-in prison cells. VERY disappointing use of Atmos, IMO. It sounded like a typical poor 5.1 movie with the Atmos logo slapped on the AVR front.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Kidding aside, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi Special Editions (altered further) have Atmos tracks on Disney+. They're nothing to write home about, like most of Disney's Atmos mixes... and they're primarily mixed to 7.1.2.


As much as it pains me to say it as a Star Wars fan since childhood.... that 9-disc set is a hard pass for me.

- 3 movies I actually love (the original trilogy) with garbage Special Edition "enhancements" and mediocre Atmos upmixes
- the rest of the lot (3 prequels, 3 sequels) I already have on Disney+ if I feel like watching, which is "rarely" in the case of the prequels

Not interested in paying whatever exorbitant sum they will ask for that box set just to have slightly better PQ/AQ for a bunch of movies I don't actually like. I have the "Despecialized" original trilogy and the other movies I'm fine with Disney+.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding aside, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi Special Editions (altered further) have Atmos tracks on Disney+. They're nothing to write home about, like most of Disney's Atmos mixes... and they're primarily mixed to 7.1.2.
> 
> 
> 
> As much as it pains me to say it as a Star Wars fan since childhood.... that 9-disc set is a hard pass for me.
> 
> - 3 movies I actually love (the original trilogy) with garbage Special Edition "enhancements" and mediocre Atmos upmixes
> - the rest of the lot (3 prequels, 3 sequels) I already have on Disney+ if I feel like watching, which is "rarely" in the case of the prequels
> 
> Not interested in paying whatever exorbitant sum they will ask for that box set just to have slightly better PQ/AQ for a bunch of movies I don't actually like. I have the "Despecialized" original trilogy and the other movies I'm fine with Disney+.
Click to expand...

Check out the 4k77 and 4k83 fan restorations as well. Nice!

The set holds no interest for me either.


----------



## am2model3

yup, some movie mixes whether it is Dolby Atmos or DTSX; the sound engineer mixing these tracks sometimes seems to fail to utilize the spatial sound to its fullest capability. 

in those cases; sometimes you get more fun using DSU or NeuralX from the base 5.1 or 7.1 track. 



even Atmos on xbox x games can vary; for me, Rise of Tomb Raider was subtle enough that DSU or NeuralX sounds just as good for me; Gears 4 & 5 and COD MW are superb for Atmos; these amazing Atmos games make me wonder what are the 4K UHD movie sound engineers doing when they mix the tracks? (asleep at the switch) 

You can see scenes where you would expect atmospherics or overheads; and the engineer just fails to mix it.


----------



## Chirosamsung

am2model3 said:


> yup, some movie mixes whether it is Dolby Atmos or DTSX; the sound engineer mixing these tracks sometimes seems to fail to utilize the spatial sound to its fullest capability.
> 
> in those cases; sometimes you get more fun using DSU or NeuralX from the base 5.1 or 7.1 track.
> 
> 
> 
> even Atmos on xbox x games can vary; for me, Rise of Tomb Raider was subtle enough that DSU or NeuralX sounds just as good for me; Gears 4 & 5 and COD MW are superb for Atmos; these amazing Atmos games make me wonder what are the 4K UHD movie sound engineers doing when they mix the tracks? (asleep at the switch)
> 
> You can see scenes where you would expect atmospherics or overheads; and the engineer just fails to mix it.


Btw, a very good atmos game is Red Dead Redemption 2 for Xbox One X


----------



## clckwrkorange

*ONKYO TX-RZ830 and Fosi TPA3116 for 7.1.4*

Will the Fosi TPA3166 be sufficient for the rear heights when used with the TX-RZ830?


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> As much as it pains me to say it as a Star Wars fan since childhood.... that 9-disc set is a hard pass for me.
> 
> - 3 movies I actually love (the original trilogy) with garbage Special Edition "enhancements" and mediocre Atmos upmixes
> - the rest of the lot (3 prequels, 3 sequels) I already have on Disney+ if I feel like watching, which is "rarely" in the case of the prequels
> 
> Not interested in paying whatever exorbitant sum they will ask for that box set just to have slightly better PQ/AQ for a bunch of movies I don't actually like. I have the "Despecialized" original trilogy and the other movies I'm fine with Disney+.


After springing for Disney+, I have little incentive to buy a boxed set of anything from the Mouse as long as they offer UHD and the same Atmos mix for their service as for the discs. If anything, if you have a fast enough Internet to stream at UHD quality, Disney+ looks like a relative bargain as a monthly subscription goes. And the bass for the original trilogy doesn’t suck.


----------



## gwsat

As has been noted, again, in recent posts, there are a lot of disappointing Atmos sound tracks. I saw another of them yesterday when I watched the UHD HDR Atmos version of _The Aeronauts_ on Prime. Despite its distinguished cast and high production values, it was disappointing. The story was weak but the so called Atmos audio was weaker still. The overhead speakers were virtually unused and the surround effects were weak too. I know it was lossy audio but I have come to expect far better Atmos sound designs even from the streaming services than Prime gives us on this one.


----------



## CBdicX

Seems according to the Dolby specs, the FH and RH must be at 30 degree messured from the MLP. 
Then my front and rear heights must move at least 40-50cm to the left and right.
Front heights will move a away from my front speakers, Rear heights will move to my Rear floor speakers.
In this possition the FH and RH will be in a nice rectangle and a bit wider then now.

Think that will be a good change compared to now, the more narrow setup, and when a human *thinks* its good/better, it will be…….


----------



## Jonas2

clckwrkorange said:


> Will the Fosi TPA3166 be sufficient for the rear heights when used with the TX-RZ830?



Unless you really need more than the rated power for whatever reason, yes, it'll work.


----------



## wpbpete

MagnumX said:


> If you want the overhead sounds more on the ceiling and less towards the edges of the room, I'd say yes. If you want better panning *when* it is used, I'd say no. The movies that do pan overhead sound better with them further apart, IMO and the ones that are more static will probably give you more "on the ceiling" closer together as most Atmos movies do very little overhead that's interesting. I just watched "_Escape Plan_" last night in Atmos and it missed all kind of opportunities to do things overhead in those closed-in prison cells. VERY disappointing use of Atmos, IMO. It sounded like a typical poor 5.1 movie with the Atmos logo slapped on the AVR front.


I've been a little confused about this since every example on the Dolby site shows the overheads lined up with the L&R. I hoped it was just for illustration and one could adjust to taste or need. Thanks


----------



## CBdicX

wpbpete said:


> I've been a little confused about this since every example on the Dolby site shows the overheads lined up with the L&R. I hoped it was just for illustration and one could adjust to taste or need. Thanks


This is from the Dolby white paper, Front and Rear Heights at 30 degree from the center MLP, so 60 degree in total.
If you set your fronts also at 60 degree (30 left and 30 right) then yes, they will be lined up with L&R, think in other situations they will not be lined up.
I have the Heights, front and rear, at 30 degree from MLP, but my fronts are a bit more narrow, on the rear they are lined up with my rear floor speakers.
I can not put the fronts at the same 30 degree as the heights……

Here also a example for speaker placement from Yamaha, not exact above the fronts 
Yamaha names Height as Presence.


----------



## zhenya01

Need an advice for going from 5.2 to 5.2.2 (Onkyo TX-SR805 to Denon AVR-X3600H). The amplifier will be Outlaw 7700. 

If I had a choice between Polk RC60i and JBL SP8CII for my in-ceiling in 5.2.2, would one speaker be clearly better than the other? I understand that both have swivel mounted tweeters... Neither will "sound signature" match my B&W CDM in the theater, but this is purely for Atmos. SP8CII is cheaper right now locally. Thank you.


----------



## elee532

*Side surround placement challenges*

I'm looking for some guidance with placement of my side surrounds in a new 6.2.4 setup. I've got choices between a few compromised locations...

*Option A:* I can locate the side surrounds straight to the right and left of the main listening position at ear height (top of speaker about 39" from floor). The DRAWBACK here is that this places the *main listing position equidistant from the front and back wall*. My understanding is that there is a big null in this location.

*Option B:* I can slide the main listening position back about 3' or 4'. This would put the MLP about 14' from the front wall and 9' from the back wall. The DRAWBACK here is that the surrounds would be about *3' in front of the MLP*, but at ear height.. 

*Option C: *MLP in the same location as Option B, with the side surrounds straight to the right and left. The DRAWBACK with this option though is that the side surrounds would be about *2' above ear height*. One other drawback here is that the left side surround is about 3.5' from the second listening position. With options A&B, it's a little over 5'. 

Which compromised location would you recommend? 

BTW, Option C is by far the easiest installation wise.


----------



## niterida

CBdicX said:


> This is from the Dolby white paper, Front and Rear Heights at 30 degree from the center MLP, so 60 degree in total.
> If you set your fronts also at 60 degree (30 left and 30 right) then yes, they will be lined up with L&R, think in other situations they will not be lined up.
> I have the Heights, front and rear, at 30 degree from MLP, but my fronts are a bit more narrow, on the rear they are lined up with my rear floor speakers.
> I can not put the fronts at the same 30 degree as the heights……
> 
> Here also a example for speaker placement from Yamaha, not exact above the fronts
> Yamaha names Height as Presence.



I think you are confusing where the angles are measured from for the different sets of speakers.


Fronts are Azimuth degrees - think compass points on a map. So 0deg is exactly in front of you as you are looking at the screen, 90 deg is directly to the side (either left or right) and 180deg is directly behind you.


Heights are Altitude degrees between 0 and 90 deg. 90deg is directly above you, 0deg is on the horizon directly in front or behind you.


So when it says heights at 30deg it has no relation to the fronts at 30deg as they are measuring two completely different angles.
Dolby do not list a L to R separation angle for the heights as this will change with the width of the Front L & R speakers.
So you can put the heights at any angle you want AND still have them lined up with the Front L & R. 



Also the Yamaha diagram is just a "mud map" for the AVR output, not a document to be used for exact placement.


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> wpbpete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been a little confused about this since every example on the Dolby site shows the overheads lined up with the L&R. I hoped it was just for illustration and one could adjust to taste or need. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> This is from the Dolby white paper, Front and Rear Heights at 30 degree from the center MLP, so 60 degree in total.
> If you set your fronts also at 60 degree (30 left and 30 right) then yes, they will be lined up with L&R, think in other situations they will not be lined up.
Click to expand...


The white paper guidelines show 22-40 degrees for L/R mains and 30-60 degrees for overheads in the horizontal plane (30-55 for vertical above ear level in the vertical plane). These are Dolby guidelines, not laws. 

You also need to consider the room and screen. If you want dialog panning to work with movies that use it, you need to have the mains as close to the sides of the screen as possible or better yet under it or behind it with audio transparent screens. Obviously, the size/width of your screen could possibly compromise the guidelines, especially with smaller screens. You'd have to decide what is more important to you there, wider imaging or screen accurate/matched imaging. Most movies don't pan dialog (most common with Disney animation like Toy Story films), but other sounds are typically aligned with the screen boundaries in mind as well.

The home guidelines take into consideration the smaller environment, but that doesn't mute the laws of physics either. If you put bed speakers at ear level, chairs or even people's heads can block sound with more than one row of seats. Hence, "guidelines" not laws. Thus, you'd have to choose between putting bed speakers higher (above head level) or compromising sound for the second row, which might depend on how often the row may be used or how much you like the people using it. 😉

In the cinema environment, you'll notice Dolby puts side surround "bed" speakers way above ear level, closer to Auro's height levels. I assume this is to maintain the angles between sides and overhead speakers, which is more important to phantom imaging integrity than some notion of having sound literally at "ground/bed" level. 

At home, the average ceiling height isn't high enough to support such configurations so the "ear level" concept keeps it simple. Atmos doesn't stop working with the overheads closer to the sides. The separation simply decreases. You don't want them too far apart either or you won't get continuous imaging, but more ping-pong like imaging. In other words, IF you do have a large room with fourteen foot ceilings, you might want to go higher with side surrounds, etc., heading towards the cinema setup for the same reasons (imaging integrity). I've seen mixing rooms closer to home sized rooms setup with sides way above ear level. I can only assume this is for a good reason and cinema mixing takes priority over home mixing. If it works in the mixing room good enough to mix Atmos, it should work at home too.

Some rooms have obstacles in the way (e.g. My room has a steel beam box across the center line). I could put speakers under the box, on the sides as high as possible or use tops on the ceiling (in the ceiling would be difficult as it's between floors). I ended up using Auro side heights as high as I could put them with Atmos/Auro front and rear heights as well. The side heights are extracted "top middle" signal wise and then blended with Atmos front/rear height signals to at least partially correct both horizontal and vertical placement error using arrayed phantom imaging (a switchbox offers true surround height for Auro-3D). 

This works surprisingly well. The Atmos helicopter sounds like a straight consistent path now and imaging is strong with height level front/rear overheads at the height positions requiring no speakers on the ceiling out in the middle of the room and I have true Auro-3D available as well. I also create front wides and surround #1 and use arraying to keep the speakers in front of and behind the rows while the imaged sound for the listeners appears to come from the sides.

Stuart Bowling from Dolby, one of the "fathers of Atmos" had a look at my system and liked it...like I said guidelines not rules.


----------



## niterida

elee532 said:


> I'm looking for some guidance with placement of my side surrounds in a new 6.2.4 setup. I've got choices between a few compromised locations...
> 
> *Option A:* I can locate the side surrounds straight to the right and left of the main listening position at ear height (top of speaker about 39" from floor). The DRAWBACK here is that this places the *main listing position equidistant from the front and back wall*. My understanding is that there is a big null in this location.
> 
> *Option B:* I can slide the main listening position back about 3' or 4'. This would put the MLP about 14' from the front wall and 9' from the back wall. The DRAWBACK here is that the surrounds would be about *3' in front of the MLP*, but at ear height..
> 
> *Option C: *MLP in the same location as Option B, with the side surrounds straight to the right and left. The DRAWBACK with this option though is that the side surrounds would be about *2' above ear height*. One other drawback here is that the left side surround is about 3.5' from the second listening position. With options A&B, it's a little over 5'.
> 
> Which compromised location would you recommend?
> 
> BTW, Option C is by far the easiest installation wise.





*Option D:* move the seating forward 2' 9" (this will put it at the often recommended 38% of the room length). Leave surrounds in position A or move them forward the same amount (or any where in between) or even a little further forward - whichever is the easiest install.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> CBdicX said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is from the Dolby white paper, Front and Rear Heights at 30 degree from the center MLP, so 60 degree in total.
> If you set your fronts also at 60 degree (30 left and 30 right) then yes, they will be lined up with L&R, think in other situations they will not be lined up.
> I have the Heights, front and rear, at 30 degree from MLP, but my fronts are a bit more narrow, on the rear they are lined up with my rear floor speakers.
> I can not put the fronts at the same 30 degree as the heightsâ€¦â€¦
> 
> Here also a example for speaker placement from Yamaha, not exact above the fronts /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> Yamaha names Height as Presence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing where the angles are measured from for the different sets of speakers.
> 
> 
> Fronts are Azimuth degrees - think compass points on a map. So 0deg is exactly in front of you as you are looking at the screen, 90 deg is directly to the side (either left or right) and 180deg is directly behind you.
> 
> 
> Heights are Altitude degrees between 0 and 90 deg. 90deg is directly above you, 0deg is on the horizon directly in front or behind you.
> 
> 
> So when it says heights at 30deg it has no relation to the fronts at 30deg as they are measuring two completely different angles.
> Dolby do not list a L to R separation angle for the heights as this will change with the width of the Front L & R speakers.
> So you can put the heights at any angle you want AND still have them lined up with the Front L & R.
> 
> 
> 
> Also the Yamaha diagram is just a "mud map" for the AVR output, not a document to be used for exact placement.
Click to expand...

Actually, the full white paper DOES specify 30 degrees in the horizontal plane for both bed and height speakers as the supposed ideal angle. The fact heights also start at 30 degrees vertical is a coincidence of sorts. While he may be confusing the two, I didn't assume so.

22-40 horizontal for beds, 30-60 for overheads horizontal (30-55 vertical above ear level for vertical plane overheads). For more than one row, beds should be above head and/or chair level to avoid the sound being blocked or diffracted for the second (or more) rows.


----------



## Jonas2

elee532 said:


> *Option B:* I can slide the main listening position back about 3' or 4'. This would put the MLP about 14' from the front wall and 9' from the back wall. The DRAWBACK here is that the surrounds would be about *3' in front of the MLP*, but at ear height..



Can you make an adjustment to this Option? Slide the MLP back just enough to land the side surrounds at around 80 degrees instead of 90, or do circumstances force you rigidly into those options?


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Actually, the full white paper DOES specify 30 degrees in the horizontal plane for both bed and height speakers as the supposed ideal angle.



I have never seen this on the consumer guidelines and it would be a significant difference between 30 deg azimuth and in line with Front L & R in most home theatres. Applying that to the Dolby guidelines would be good for a central listening position but not so good for the L & R seats - it would potentially put the listener outside of the L & R heights which I am pretty sure you don't really want. See my quickly modified diagram :


----------



## faiz

Dear friends 
I would like to connect the hdmi audio out of my Oppo 203 to a Dolby atmos receive (stormaudio isp av receiver ) , since the audio hdmi out is 1.4 will it be able to bitstream a Dolby atmos content , as I have researched and found that a hdmi 1.4 can only do 8 channels where as my setup is a 7.1.4 ie totally 12 channels also will there be any SQ difference as when connected to an hdmi 2.0 
My reason for asking is that I intend to connect the Oppo hdmi 2..0 out directly to the projector and hdmi 1.4 to the receiver 


Thanks and Regards


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the full white paper DOES specify 30 degrees in the horizontal plane for both bed and height speakers as the supposed ideal angle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen this on the consumer guidelines and it would be a significant difference between 30 deg azimuth and in line with Front L & R in most home theatres. Applying that to the Dolby guidelines would be good for a central listening position but not so good for the L & R seats - it would potentially put the listener outside of the L & R heights which I am pretty sure you don't really want. See my quickly modified diagram :
Click to expand...

That's an example diagram, not the full installation guidelines. See pages 7-9 here: 

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

Many seats are outside the overheads in Atmos theaters. (see attached diagram as an example and notice overheads are in line with the optional mid-left and mid-right screen speakers, not the far left and right mains.). I think Atmos (at the cinema at least) wants to emphasize "directly overhead" more than panning left and right overhead with this layout as more will be on the ceiling high up. Front to back panning would be quite long by comparison in a large theater).

It's why I talked about a "possible" reason/explanation earlier for the lack of overhead panning in the first place on many Atmos movies and an emphasis more on 7.1.2 than 7.1.4 in many cases as they only really care about overhead in general not necessarily panning overhead. That does not apply to all, but in my mindit should never be the case.

Compared to Auro-3D, Dolby's overheads are more narrow and thus less likely to be panned as often between them as there's often very little space to pan left and right in a typical small home theater and right at the speaker plane is typically already overhead whereas Auro's heights are on the side walls and so ALL "ceiling" effects need to be in-phase between them. They also totally encompass all seats. Auro does have the VOG for direct overhead, but it's typically used in conjunction with the heights to put sound everywhere but not pull to either side if sitting off center. Ideally, it's also at a higher elevation than the sides, but that's not often possible in the home environment, something Auro's founder has mentioned, but pointed out as an advantage as it's one less speaker most homes would have to worry about.


----------



## sdurani

faiz said:


> I have researched and found that a hdmi 1.4 can only do 8 channels...


...8 channels of uncompressed PCM audio. Atmos is transmitted as a bitstream, so HDMI 1.3 and above should work. Do you have the StormAudio receiver? If so, have you connected your player to it to find out whether it transmits Atmos?


----------



## elee532

Jonas2 said:


> Can you make an adjustment to this Option? Slide the MLP back just enough to land the side surrounds at around 80 degrees instead of 90, or do circumstances force you rigidly into those options?


I'm not sure if this will work. I will need to go check when I get home. I do have a follow-up question though @Jonas2...

My seating is NOT CENTERED left to right. Given that, would it be better to make sure both side surrounds are at 80 degrees from main listening position *OR *is it more critical that both side surrounds are straight across from each other?

Thanks!


----------



## elee532

niterida said:


> *Option D:* move the seating forward 2' 9" (this will put it at the often recommended 38% of the room length). Leave surrounds in position A or move them forward the same amount (or any where in between) or even a little further forward - whichever is the easiest install.


Thanks @niterida! This seems to introduce another challenge though... 38% of my 22' long room puts me roughly 7.5 feet from a 133" screen. Wouldn't that be considered far too close? As a secondary complication, the further forward I move the first row of seats, the harder it is for the second row to see over the first. 

Thoughts?

Really makes me wish I could just build my house from scratch!


----------



## sdurani

elee532 said:


> 38% of my 22' long room puts me roughly 7.5 feet from a 133" screen.


38% room length also puts you in a 103Hz null.


----------



## Jonas2

elee532 said:


> I'm not sure if this will work. I will need to go check when I get home. I do have a follow-up question though @*Jonas2* ...
> 
> My seating is NOT CENTERED left to right. Given that, would it be better to make sure both side surrounds are at 80 degrees from main listening position *OR *is it more critical that both side surrounds are straight across from each other?
> 
> Thanks!



So, here's my situation, hope this helps - but I've got asymmetry going on in my space - 13' wide, but only a little more than 10' of that is useful space as the other 3 feet lead to a hallway - so I am centered on all of the speakers EXCEPT the side surrounds. Right surround is really too close to listeners, left is fine as it is out there taking advantage of that 13' width that that the right just can't - so solution to minimize localization was to move these from their former 90 degrees to forward of MLP (about that 80) and the speakers are not aimed at each other - rather the right speaker is aimed at the space just in front of the left most listener, and vice versa for the left. This definitely helps with localization and remains totally convincing that sounds are coming from their intended places. I can't recall who recommended this to me, but hats off to whomever that was.  While not "perfect", just that shift and aiming tweak made a significant difference at MLP - kinda still sucks to be the dude sitting closest to that right surround, but even then, it's not horrible. 

Not sure how closely this might match with your situation, but hopefully gives you something to at least try or other insight.


----------



## elee532

sdurani said:


> 38% room length also puts you in a 103Hz null.


Interesting @sdurani. So, there really is no placement that is totally free of nulls? It looks like maybe somewhere between 9' and 10' back would be ideal in a 22' long room?


----------



## sdurani

elee532 said:


> So, there really is no placement that is totally free of nulls?


The graph shows the first 4 length modes (resonances) of your room. Each problem frequency (26Hz, 51Hz, 77Hz, 103Hz) is colour coded, so you can see where each mode's peaks & nulls end up along the length of your room. Notice that ALL nulls fall at even divisions (half, quarters, sixths) of room length. To avoid nulls, simply place the listeners' ears at one of the odd divisions (thirds, fifths) of room length. Pretty easy solution.


----------



## elee532

Jonas2 said:


> So, here's my situation, hope this helps - but I've got asymmetry going on in my space - 13' wide, but only a little more than 10' of that is useful space as the other 3 feet lead to a hallway - so I am centered on all of the speakers EXCEPT the side surrounds. Right surround is really too close to listeners, left is fine as it is out there taking advantage of that 13' width that that the right just can't - so solution to minimize localization was to move these from their former 90 degrees to forward of MLP (about that 80) and the speakers are not aimed at each other - rather the right speaker is aimed at the space just in front of the left most listener, and vice versa for the left. This definitely helps with localization and remains totally convincing that sounds are coming from their intended places. I can't recall who recommended this to me, but hats off to whomever that was.  While not "perfect", just that shift and aiming tweak made a significant difference at MLP - kinda still sucks to be the dude sitting closest to that right surround, but even then, it's not horrible.
> 
> Not sure how closely this might match with your situation, but hopefully gives you something to at least try or other insight.


That does bear a lot of similarity to my situation @Jonas2. I too am off center in a roughly 16.5' wide room. Likewise, my front, rear surround, and ceiling speakers are all aligned to the seating, but the side surrounds are the main problem. I've got two recliners in the front row... really wish I could fit a third, but... The seat on the left is only about 4' from the side surround. I can't move any further to the right due to a support post. 

So, in your case, are your side surrounds each 80 degrees f*rom the main listing position*? Does this mean that they are each a different distance from the front wall?

Thanks!!


----------



## elee532

sdurani said:


> The graph shows the first 4 length modes (resonances) of your room. Each problem frequency (26Hz, 51Hz, 77Hz, 103Hz) is colour coded, so you can see where each mode's peaks & nulls end up along the length of your room. Notice that ALL nulls fall at even divisions (half, quarters, sixths) of room length. To avoid nulls, simply place the listeners' ears at one of the odd divisions (thirds, fifths) of room length. Pretty easy solution.


Sorry, I'm feeling a little dense on this. 1/3, 1/5, and 1/7 all put me too close. What about something like 2/5 or 3/7?


----------



## MagnumX

I got a ROKU+ 4K stick for Christmas from someone and I set it up on my system (with 2K projector) and tested Disney+ with it on my system and sure enough (like it was said of the Roku Ultra), The Mandalorian definitely shows up as *Dolby Atmos* on it here. The Roku channel is even offering season one of Game of Thrones for free for a limited time so I'm finally getting to check that out as well (it's in 5.1, but with Neural X it sounds pretty good). Netflix doesn't do Atmos on it (yet), though apparently (unless it wants a 4K projector connection? I doubt it since ATV 4K does Atmos with a 2K projector.)


----------



## Jonas2

elee532 said:


> So, in your case, are your side surrounds each 80 degrees f*rom the main listing position*? Does this mean that they are each a different distance from the front wall?



Correct! The further out speaker is closer to the front wall. But at these distances it's not all that much. It might be because that side of the space is "busy" anyway, but you don't really even visually notice the difference. And my right speaker is closer to listener than is your left speaker, so your distances wouldn't be even as dramatic as mine, if I am visualizing everything in my head properly that is....


----------



## niterida

elee532 said:


> Thanks @*niterida* ! This seems to introduce another challenge though... 38% of my 22' long room puts me roughly 7.5 feet from a 133" screen. Wouldn't that be considered far too close? As a secondary complication, the further forward I move the first row of seats, the harder it is for the second row to see over the first.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Really makes me wish I could just build my house from scratch!



Wow 133" is bigger than I thought you would have and I worked out your room to be 23' (you mentioned 9' from back wall 14' from front). 




elee532 said:


> Sorry, I'm feeling a little dense on this. 1/3, 1/5, and 1/7 all put me too close. What about something like 2/5 or 3/7?



You can sit 1/3 1/5 1/7 from the either the front or rear wall. 

And you can sit at 2/5, 3/5 , 2/7, 2/7, 5/7 etc




sdurani said:


> 38% room length also puts you in a 103Hz null.



Why do I read over and over that 38% is a recommended distance (and from supposedly 'knowledgeable' people and 'scientific' research) ?
Especially when you can clearly see it is at a null (well not exactly at a null but with .5% ) and clearly see that 1/3 (where the yellow red and blue frequencies cross and the red freq is highest) is the better location ??
So I stand corrected - ignore my 38% recommend 


elee532 - I can see that your current seating position is just behind the 13 3/4 mark (assuming room is actually 22' and not 23' ??) so you would be best moving it back a fraction (to 1/3) or forward a bit to where the yellow and blue lines cross - yiu will still have a 26hz and 103hz null but thats better than the massive 103hz null.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> That's an example diagram, not the full installation guidelines. See pages 7-9 here:
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf



OK I have read that and I think you are interpreting it worng. Here is the quote from the link :


*The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees.*


My understanding of that sentence is still that the 30deg refers to the Front L & R only and should be read as :


_*The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers, when the the L & R speakers are placed at ±30 degrees.*_
_*
*_
You can't have the heights at "horizontal width same as horizontal separation of L & R" AND at 30deg unless the heights are directly above the fronts.Even the diagram in that link shows them at same width and clearly not at 30deg.


----------



## sdurani

elee532 said:


> 1/3, 1/5, and 1/7 all put me too close. What about something like 2/5 or 3/7?


ANY of the odd divisions of room length avoids nulls. As @niterida points out, notice that most of the problem frequencies are around the same level at 1/3 and 2/3 room length. The latter location might be worth considering, especially if you're going with a really big screen.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Why do I read over and over that 38% is a recommended distance (and from supposedly 'knowledgeable' people and 'scientific' research) ?


Dunno, but I read the same thing over and over as well (with no explanation about what makes it such an ideal seating location).


> Especially when you can clearly see it is at a null (well not exactly at a null but with .5% ) and clearly see that 1/3 (where the yellow red and blue frequencies cross and the red freq is highest) is the better location ??


At the 1/3 and 2/3 locations, the blue, black and yellow traces (1st, 2nd & 4th length modes) cross, while the red trace (3rd length mode) is peaking. So anyone sitting 1/3 room length from the back wall will hear that frequency really loudly. However, EQ can bring down a peak. And since everybody in that row is the same distance from the back wall, it's the same peak in every seat. Fix it in one seat and you've fixed it for all listeners.


----------



## elee532

niterida said:


> Wow 133" is bigger than I thought you would have and I worked out your room to be 23' (you mentioned 9' from back wall 14' from front).
> 
> You can sit 1/3 1/5 1/7 from the either the front or rear wall.
> 
> And you can sit at 2/5, 3/5 , 2/7, 2/7, 5/7 etc.





> Why do I read over and over that 38% is a recommended distance (and from supposedly 'knowledgeable' people and 'scientific' research) ?
> Especially when you can clearly see it is at a null (well not exactly at a null but with .5% ) and clearly see that 1/3 (where the yellow red and blue frequencies cross and the red freq is highest) is the better location ??
> So I stand corrected - ignore my 38% recommend


Yeah, I've seen 38% a bunch too. Here for example,




> elee532 - I can see that your current seating position is just behind the 13 3/4 mark (assuming room is actually 22' and not 23' ??) so you would be best moving it back a fraction (to 1/3) or forward a bit to where the yellow and blue lines cross - you will still have a 26hz and 103hz null but that's better than the massive 103hz null.


Yeah, I was off a little bit in my first post. Room length is closer to 22 feet. 

If I'm understanding and reading that chart correctly, then roughly midway between 8 1/4' and 11' or midway between 11' and 13 3/4' would be decent locations"


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> Why do I read over and over that 38% is a recommended distance (and from supposedly 'knowledgeable' people and 'scientific' research) ?
> Especially when you can clearly see it is at a null (well not exactly at a null but with .5% ) and clearly see that 1/3 (where the yellow red and blue frequencies cross and the red freq is highest) is the better location ??


In many rooms, the 4th length mode will be above the subwoofer crossover. In this case, 103Hz. Still not the best seating location, but often not a big problem, especially since higher order modes tend to be less strong.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> OK I have read that and I think you are interpreting it worng. Here is the quote from the link :
> 
> 
> *The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees.*
> 
> 
> My understanding of that sentence is still that the 30deg refers to the Front L & R only and should be read as :
> 
> 
> _*The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers, when the the L & R speakers are placed at ±30 degrees.*_
> _*
> *_
> You can't have the heights at "horizontal width same as horizontal separation of L & R" AND at 30deg unless the heights are directly above the fronts.Even the diagram in that link shows them at same width and clearly not at 30deg.



Obviously, 30 degrees and 30 degrees will be in the same position if they are right above/below each other. I believe the 30-60 degree number is accounting for placement (movement in a sense down the line) on the z-axis. If it's at 45 degrees elevation, it's further into the room than if it's at 30 degrees and hence the angle change overhead relative to the MLP. All of this is academic to my original point about what happens if you move them inward or outward. You images overhead MOVE (and movement going straight up from the speaker plane will move in a more diagonal fashion, assuming your ears can tell). My original point stands. If you move them inward, you will have more overhead sounds directly on the ceiling (the same is true if the side walls are further away in a sense) and as they are moved outward closer to the side walls (or if the side walls are closer in a smaller room) they will seem to be more on the top of the side wall (that assumes you can see the walls, of course. If they were totally black with no reflections, you wouldn't have a reference point, but they would still decrease in angle the further away they get from you. 

Now your bed speaker range is still 22-40 degrees so if you want the overheads directly above the same line on the z-axis, they will have to be moved 22-40 degrees also, regardless of the vertical angle. Atmos was never meant to be directly above the main speakers in the same sense that Auro-3D is meant to have them there (stacked layers of sound) as mixed sound and quad-miked sound are really two different things. Hence, you see the overheads in the cinema are in line with the mid-center left/right (optional on the chart) speakers not the main left/right ones. If it were critical, they would be above the left/right in both cinema and home layouts, IMO. 

If you look at Auro-3D layouts, by comparison, the overheads are ALWAYS right above the main speakers (left, right and side surrounds regardless of where you sit and how far apart you place them). This is the "layer" idea of sound fields that ideally recorded dual-quad miked recordings need to be strictly aligned to sound holographic. In reality, it's not like the image falls apart if they aren't identical and cinema soundtracks aren't recorded that way anyway. But if you're going to play Atmos over an Auro layout or vice versa, it's helpful to know what will happen with the imaging as you can make adjustments ahead of time before the setup is locked in place. With arrays, you can move the phantom image left/right or front/back depending on where your extra speakers are located (change mix to pull image in either direction). As you might imagine, you could easily have a setup that mimics both setups if you could adjust the mix in real time (something the new Auro-3D 3.0 decoder is supposed to have built in if I read the release right). I think Trinnov can remap virtual/phantom speaker locations as well already.


----------



## MagnumX

MagnumX said:


> I got a ROKU+ 4K stick for Christmas from someone and I set it up on my system (with 2K projector) and tested Disney+ with it on my system and sure enough (like it was said of the Roku Ultra), The Mandalorian definitely shows up as *Dolby Atmos* on it here. The Roku channel is even offering season one of Game of Thrones for free for a limited time so I'm finally getting to check that out as well (it's in 5.1, but with Neural X it sounds pretty good). Netflix doesn't do Atmos on it (yet), though apparently (unless it wants a 4K projector connection? I doubt it since ATV 4K does Atmos with a 2K projector.)


I watched three episodes of The Mandalorian in Atmos tonight and I have to say, overall, you're not missing much if you can't get it in Atmos. I think I counted about one or two noticeable sound overhead per episode on average. You'd think ship flybys would be a big thing...well not in those three episodes (1,2,4). It was kind of shocking how little surrounds were used in general and at much lower volume on average than the main channels. I had to double check on the first episode that any sound was actually coming out of the speakers and then check again to make sure when I switched to Neural X it wasn't just that (I put it into straight DD+ decoding). No, it was definitely 5.1 DD+ on the Roku if Atmos decoding was turned off. After comparing back and forth a few times with the 5.1 on the AppleTV even using Neural X, I concluded Atmos wasn't hurting anything either. Both were rather weak sounding until a big action scene occurred and then suddenly there was sounds going into the rear of the room and that use of rear speakers seemed a bit better than steered to me, but without a comparison I probably wouldn't have noticed anything at all. Atmos was quite disappointing on it. Hopefully, it'll improve eventually. I'm glad I didn't buy the Roku (it was a gift) just for that.


----------



## CBdicX

niterida said:


> I think you are confusing where the angles are measured from for the different sets of speakers.
> 
> 
> Fronts are Azimuth degrees - think compass points on a map. So 0deg is exactly in front of you as you are looking at the screen, 90 deg is directly to the side (either left or right) and 180deg is directly behind you.
> 
> 
> Heights are Altitude degrees between 0 and 90 deg. 90deg is directly above you, 0deg is on the horizon directly in front or behind you.
> 
> 
> So when it says heights at 30deg it has no relation to the fronts at 30deg as they are measuring two completely different angles.
> Dolby do not list a L to R separation angle for the heights as this will change with the width of the Front L & R speakers.
> So you can put the heights at any angle you want AND still have them lined up with the Front L & R.
> 
> 
> 
> Also the Yamaha diagram is just a "mud map" for the AVR output, not a document to be used for exact placement.


Eeeeh, what am i missing here, see pic.

And if Yamaha places the Height speakers outside the fronts ("mud map"), *and this is not correct*, why do they not place them above the fronts ?

I my situation my fronts just 2 meters in between them, when i put the Heights at 30 degree (horizontal) they will be at 3.50 meter.
If i put the Heights above the fronts i will be sitting on the "border" of the Height rectangle and sounds will be moving inside this rectangle.
Now the sounds moves outside the MLP so for me having the Heights not above and wider the the Fronts, is a better setup.
Think when i could have the Fronts further apart i could put the Heights above the fronts, but can not.


----------



## niterida

CBdicX said:


> Eeeeh, what am i missing here, see pic.
> 
> And if Yamaha places the Height speakers outside the fronts ("mud map"), *and this is not correct*, why do they not place them above the fronts ?



Probably because they are Yamaha Presence speakers, not Dolby Atmos heights.


At the end of the day they are all guidelines or best practices - you can put them wherever you want/can fit/can afford etc and as long as they are roughly correct it should still sound ok.


----------



## CBdicX

niterida said:


> Probably because they are Yamaha Presence speakers, not Dolby Atmos heights.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day they are all guidelines or best practices - you can put them wherever you want/can fit/can afford etc and as long as they are roughly correct it should still sound ok.


Yamaha Presence is just a different name for Height speakers, they do exact the same thing.
But like you say, as long as they are roughly correct it should sound ok, and it does


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> Eeeeh, what am i missing here, see pic.


You are correct. Dolby _does_ recommend the height speakers to be placed at 30 degrees azimuth, but _only_ when mounted on the wall. When mounted on the ceiling they will be closer to MLP, and following the guidelines to keep them _in line_ with L and R, the azimuth angle will inevitably increase. On the other hand, the extent to which the guidelines allow you to move ceiling mounted height speakers into the room is extremely limited: _no more than 1/8 the distance to the middle of the room_. For an 8 meter long room, the distance to the middle of the room is 4 meter, 1/8th of that is only 0.5 meter. That means that following Dolby's guidelines, the azimuth of the height speakers will always remain close to the mentioned 30 degrees.


----------



## niterida

maikeldepotter said:


> You are correct. Dolby _does_ recommend the height speakers to be placed at 30 degrees azimuth,



Please show me where Dolby recommends this. 



It is not possible for the heights to be at 30deg azimuth AND in line with L & R unless they are directly above the Front L & R.



Dolby clearly states when you draw a line between the L & R heights the that line should be between 30-55deg elevation AND they then should be in line with the Front L & R when viewed from above (plan view) - this precludes them from then being at 30deg azimuth.


Even their diagrams show them in line and nowhere near 30deg azimuth.


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> Yamaha Presence is just a different name for Height speakers, they do exact the same thing.


The only function that Atmos heights speakers and Yamaha presence speakers share, is that they produce sound from an elevated angle. Yamaha's presence speakers may do "the exact same thing" as DSU, but even then only in terms of both producing reverberant cues (Yamaha adds reverb derived from sonic footprints of real-world venues, Dolby's Upmixer extract out-of-phase info from the original recording).


----------



## maikeldepotter

niterida said:


> Please show me where Dolby recommends this.


You left out a part of my statement: "Dolby does recommend the height speakers to be placed at 30 degrees azimuth, but only *when mounted on the wall*.



> It is not possible for the heights to be at 30deg azimuth AND in line with L & R unless they are *directly above the Front L & R*.


Exactly. Which you can get *when mounted on the wall*.



> Dolby clearly states when you draw a line between the L & R heights the that line should be between 30-55deg elevation AND they then should be in line with the Front L & R when viewed from above (plan view) - this precludes them from then being at 30deg azimuth.


No it doesn't, as you said yourself: "unless they are ... etc"



> Even their diagrams show them in line and nowhere near 30 deg azimuth.


Look better (see attached)

BTW: Dolby's guidelines show inconsistency with regard to the elevation ranges of the heights: The diagrams show 20-30 degrees, instead of the 30-55 degrees in the text.


----------



## CBdicX

niterida said:


> Please show me where Dolby recommends this.
> 
> 
> 
> *It is not possible for the heights to be at 30deg azimuth AND in line with L & R unless they are directly above the Front L & R.*
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby clearly states when you draw a line between the L & R heights the that line should be between 30-55deg elevation AND they then should be in line with the Front L & R when viewed from above (plan view) - this precludes them from then being at 30deg azimuth.
> 
> 
> Even their diagrams show them in line and nowhere near 30deg azimuth.


They will be in line with the fronts *IF the fronts are also at 30 degree azimuth*.
My fronts are around 20 degree azimuth, as i do not want them wider.
If i want them at the same 30 degree as the Heights, i need to drill new holes in the concrete wall (and wired in the wall), as my fronts are wall mounted, beside the 65 inch Oled screen.
(I have space between the fronts for a 70-77 inch in the future  )

Look at my setup, Heights at 30 degree (from MLP), 60 degree in total, Fronts not …………...


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> They will be in line with the fronts *IF the fronts are also at 30 degree azimuth*.
> My fronts are around 20 degree azimuth, as i do not want them wider.
> If i want them at the same 30 degree as the Heights, i need to drill new holes in the concrete wall (and wired in the wall), as my fronts are wall mounted, beside the 65 inch Oled screen.
> (I have space between the fronts for a 70-77 inch in the future  )
> 
> Look at my setup, Heights at 30 degree (from MLP), 60 degree in total, Fronts not …………...


Moving the heights closer together, and putting yourself closer to the screen, will definitely increase your sense of immersion ...


----------



## CBdicX

maikeldepotter said:


> moving the heights closer together, and putting yourself closer to the screen, will definitely increase your sense of immersion ...



 LOL

Or i can ask the neighbours to move the wall ………


----------



## mrtickleuk

maikeldepotter said:


> The only function that Atmos heights speakers and Yamaha presence speakers share, is that they produce sound from an elevated angle. Yamaha's presence speakers may do "the exact same thing" as DSU, but even then only in terms of both producing reverberant cues (Yamaha adds reverb derived from sonic footprints of real-world venues, Dolby's Upmixer extract out-of-phase info from the original recording).


Yes, thanks for this post. I've seen quite a few Yamaha owners referring to "Presence" speakers as if they were equivalent to DTS:X or Atmos height/top. That can't be right.

To me the very word "presence" means some vague feeling of hearing a distant reflection of a sound which may have once been there. Like a ghost sound. Not at all the same thing as a height/top speaker used for real DTS:X or Atmos full-range audio. To accuse height/top of being "presence" effects channels is slightly insulting to both DTS:X and Atmos, IMHO!

The "Presence" _effects channels_ seem a lot more like the "front height" audio from Dolby Pro Logic IIz, or Audyssey DSX. Ambient stuff.


----------



## maikeldepotter

mrtickleuk said:


> The "Presence" _effects channels_ seem a lot more like the "front height" audio from Dolby Pro Logic IIz, or Audyssey DSX


... or DSU.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, thanks for this post. I've seen quite a few Yamaha owners referring to "Presence" speakers as if they were equivalent to DTS:X or Atmos height/top. That can't be right.
> 
> 
> 
> To me the very word "presence" means some vague feeling of hearing a distant reflection of a sound which may have once been there. Like a ghost sound. Not at all the same thing as a height/top speaker used for real DTS:X or Atmos full-range audio. To accuse height/top of being "presence" effects channels is slightly insulting to both DTS:X and Atmos, IMHO!
> 
> 
> 
> The "Presence" _effects channels_ seem a lot more like the "front height" audio from Dolby Pro Logic IIz, or Audyssey DSX. Ambient stuff.




Another reason I hate Yamahas proprietary language....


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> Dolby's guidelines show inconsistency with regard to the elevation ranges of the heights: The diagrams show 20-30 degrees, instead of the 30-55 degrees in the text.


Yup, seems to be a new option when using 6 height speakers, which puts the Front Heights directly above the mains (or slightly inward, if the Dolby diagram below is to be taken literally). 



















https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/7.1.6-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide.pdf


----------



## Augerhandle

niterida said:


> ...Why do I read over and over that 38% is a recommended distance (and from supposedly 'knowledgeable' people and 'scientific' research) ?...





sdurani said:


> Dunno, but I read the same thing over and over as well (with no explanation about what makes it such an ideal seating location)...





elee532 said:


> Yeah, I've seen 38% a bunch too...




38% (37.5%) is halfway between 50% and 25% (the nodes of the 1st and 2nd order axial room modes). It's not a rule, it's a suggested starting point, to get you away from the two strongest nodes.


----------



## sdurani

Augerhandle said:


> 38% (37.5%) is halfway between 50% and 25% (the nodes of the 1st and 2nd order axial room modes). It's not a rule, it's a suggested starting point, to get you away from the two strongest nodes.


The idea makes sense, but half way between 1/2 and 1/4 is still an even division of room length. I would tweak the recommendation slightly to 1/3 room length (in percent terms it would be 33 1/3, which should be an easy number for audiophiles to remember).


----------



## MagnumX

Yamaha called their front height speakers "presence" long before Atmos was a twinkle in someone's eye. They STILL call them presence speakers regardless if the position you put them in (their diagram was never about absolute accuracy). I see no problem with this as they used them first. Dolby is the one who used a different label and it IS just a label now since Yamaha uses it in Atmos/X positions too. 

Besides, these are GUIDELINES as I've said before. It's not like Atmos stops working entirely if you go past a suggested angle. I argued over a year ago Atmos works perfectly fine with lower (e.g. 20-something angle) as long as you have a top middle speaker to bridge the gap as the numbers are actually based on phantom imaging numbers well known from stereo, not some magic 8-ball number out of a hat. I used 22 degrees just fine with six overheads for about five months until I got my new furniture that let me move the front row closer. Even then, the rear heights cannot possibly be at -30 degrees (150) in that size room with three rows of seats for the MLP let alone the other rows. Dolby's guidelines aren't meant for that. They're basic setup guidelines. All that really matters are the angles.

Thus, the notion 30 degree heights "must be on the wall" is absurd. It depends entirely on the seating location. If you sat close enough wall speakers could be at 45 degrees or ceiling speakers could be at 20 (keep moving back far enough and/or from rows further back.). The absolutist language some are using is therefore utterly absurd and irrelevant. The phantom image formed couldn't care less if the speaker is mounted on the wall, the ceiling or floating in mid-air. It's utterly irrelevant. Only the angles matter. Thus, you could also sit higher or lower and affect the angles that way too!

So color me surprised Dolby now shows what I already knew to be true. 20 works fine with six overheads.

Who cares if the speakers are slightly inward or outward from the main speaker azimuth? Dolby gave a range in the diagrams for a reason. Atmos doesn't stop working if you move the speakers slightly. So if you like 20 for the mains (panned dialog comes to mind with a smaller screen; "Immersive" doesn't have to mean wider angles. 

Matching sounds to screen visuals should get FAR more attention than it does. Most movies just shove dialog out the center speaker. We've got people worrying to death about ten degrees azimuth while Hollywood makes almost zero effort to align on-screen effects and dialog with the images when it's simple to do if you have standard speaker placement relative to the screen. 

WHO CARES if the helicopter in the back of the room is slightly left or right? There is no visual reference so it doesn't really matter. But why is the voice for the guy on the right of the screen coming out of the middle of the screen??? WTF!? Why isn't THAT important, but nit-picking over where the cricket is exactly in the room IS??? It's ridiculous.

No, your Atmos experience won't be totally ruined if you don't put the overheads right above the left and right speakers! They aren't right above the left and right speakers in a Dolby Cinema! (as I showed in a previous diagram; they're aligned with the optional speakers between left and center and again for right and center). There are seats inside and outside those speakers! That's ok at a movie theater, but not at home??? Right..... Atmos sounds great in an Auro-3D theater and its heights are on the side walls! They can still image anywhere between them above you so what's wrong with that?


----------



## elee532

Augerhandle said:


> 38% (37.5%) is halfway between 50% and 25% (the nodes of the 1st and 2nd order axial room modes). It's not a rule, it's a suggested starting point, to get you away from the two strongest nodes.


Thanks @Augerhandle and @sdurani! 

So, my room is 22' long. The furthest back I could put my main listing position is just under 14' from the front wall. The closest I could get would be about 10'. Give these constraints, would you have a recommendation? Alternatively, is there a location between 10' and 14' that I should avoid?

Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> Augerhandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 38% (37.5%) is halfway between 50% and 25% (the nodes of the 1st and 2nd order axial room modes). It's not a rule, it's a suggested starting point, to get you away from the two strongest nodes.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks @Augerhandle and @sdurani!
> 
> So, my room is 22' long. The furthest back I could put my main listing position is just under 14' from the front wall. The closest I could get would be about 10'. Give these constraints, would you have a recommendation? Alternatively, is there a location between 10' and 14' that I should avoid?
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

My MLP is about 9' from the screen in a 24' room. This has worked well with some correction. 

In your room, 11' is quite possibly a bad location as it's the 50% point. You might want to consider your screen viewing size/experience as well. I'd try ten first with that in mind and see what you get. You can measure the response with REW on a notebook and a UMIK microphone (around $90-100). With a tripod, you could test several locations very quickly along that path (e.g. 10, 12, 13, 14). Audyssey can give you a basic idea as well (don't trust the "corrected" graphs as they are are just predictions/estimates.


----------



## elee532

MagnumX said:


> My MLP is about 9' from the screen in a 24' room. This has worked well with some correction.
> 
> In your room, 11' is quite possibly a bad location as it's the 50% point. You might want to consider your screen viewing size/experience as well. I'd try ten first with that in mind and see what you get. You can measure the response with REW on a notebook and a UMIK microphone (around $90-100). With a tripod, you could test several locations very quickly along that path (e.g. 10, 12, 13, 14). Audyssey can give you a basic idea as well (don't trust the "corrected" graphs as they are are just predictions/estimates.


Thanks MagnumX!

I'm not sure if I did this correctly, but I tried taking readings using OminMic with main listening position at 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14'. I used Monophonic Short Sine Sweep track with no smoothing. Assuming I did this correctly, what do you think?

10 Feet:









11 Feet









12 Feet









13 Feet









14 Feet


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> Thanks MagnumX!
> 
> I'm not sure if I did this correctly, but I tried taking readings using OminMic with main listening position at 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14'. I used Monophonic Short Sine Sweep track with no smoothing. Assuming I did this correctly, what do you think?


No smoothing always looks way worse for bass than say psycho-acoustical smoothing, but it's easy for Audyssey to bring down the highs to meet the average lows. There is a lot of variation in the room, however. You seem to have a lot of reinforcement below 20Hz, which is surprising. But 12 and 13 feet both have some big dips, but they seem to trade off so it might be best overall right in the middle around 12.5'. I'm actually surprised 11' isn't worse than it is. Other than the one big dip at 200Hz, it actually doesn't look terrible for correction, but that dip is probably uncorrectable. It doesn't really dissipate until 13' either where another one starts to appear around 130Hz. I'd give Audyssey a shot around 12.5' and see what it can do with it to get an idea. It's possible some bass traps could help as well if you don't have any in any of the corners. I think I read you were aiming for a two subwoofer setup as well, which means you can experiment combining the two as well in different locations (e.g. pick a spot like 12.5 and leave one sub in place and move the other around a few feet at a time and see how it affects the graphs. In other words, get it as good as you can and then see what room correction can do with it.


----------



## elee532

MagnumX said:


> No smoothing always looks way worse for bass than say psycho-acoustical smoothing, but it's easy for Audyssey to bring down the highs to meet the average lows. There is a lot of variation in the room, however. You seem to have a lot of reinforcement below 20Hz, which is surprising. But 12 and 13 feet both have some big dips, but they seem to trade off so it might be best overall right in the middle around 12.5'. I'm actually surprised 11' isn't worse than it is. Other than the one big dip at 200Hz, it actually doesn't look terrible for correction, but that dip is probably uncorrectable. It doesn't really dissipate until 13' either where another one starts to appear around 130Hz. I'd give Audyssey a shot around 12.5' and see what it can do with it to get an idea. It's possible some bass traps could help as well if you don't have any in any of the corners. I think I read you were aiming for a two subwoofer setup as well, which means you can experiment combining the two as well in different locations (e.g. pick a spot like 12.5 and leave one sub in place and move the other around a few feet at a time and see how it affects the graphs. In other words, get it as good as you can and then see what room correction can do with it.


Thanks!! Yeah, I had the same reaction to 11'.

However, I think I need to give this another try. I thought I had turned Audyssey off when I ran these. But, when I just went to turn it back on it was set to reference. 

BTW, I do have a good amount of bass trapping in the front of the room. I unfortunately don't have too much flexibility with sub location either. I have one is back right corner and one along the left wall about 6' from the front of the room. I could move the one in the back corner over up to about 6' and I can slide the other one another 3' or 4' further from the front wall. But that's about it. All sorts of headaches in this room... stairs, nooks, kids place space, windows, etc.


----------



## MagnumX

elee532 said:


> Thanks!! Yeah, I had the same reaction to 11'.
> 
> However, I think I need to give this another try. I thought I had turned Audyssey off when I ran these. But, when I just went to turn it back on it was set to reference.
> 
> BTW, I do have a good amount of bass trapping in the front of the room. I unfortunately don't have too much flexibility with sub location either. I have one is back right corner and one along the left wall about 6' from the front of the room. I could move the one in the back corner over up to about 6' and I can slide the other one another 3' or 4' further from the front wall. But that's about it. All sorts of headaches in this room... stairs, nooks, kids place space, windows, etc.


Yes, if Audyssey was turned on already, that could affect the results greatly as it would be applying compensation to a room location it wasn't measured to compensate for and probably lead to worse results than none at all.


----------



## elee532

It seems that I can no longer see the last two days worth of posts. Anyone else experiencing this? Thoughts?


----------



## raynist

elee532 said:


> It seems that I can no longer see the last two days worth of posts. Anyone else experiencing this? Thoughts?


I see the last 2 days.


----------



## CBdicX

Any truth in when having TM along with Front and Rear Height (or TF and TR) the front and rear speakers will almost never play du to the fact that a TM (or TS for Auro) will do 90% of the Height effects ?
With no TM or TS the front and rear heights get 50/50...…….. (?)


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> No, your Atmos experience won't be totally ruined if you don't put the overheads right above the left and right speakers! They aren't right above the left and right speakers in a Dolby Cinema! (as I showed in a previous diagram; they're aligned with the optional speakers between left and center and again for right and center). There are seats inside and outside those speakers! That's ok at a movie theater, but not at home??? Right.....


For an Atmos cinema, Dolby defines a Center Listening Area (CLA) around the Reference Listening Position (RLP) where all seats are positioned within the top speaker arrays. I suppose that's where you should sit for experiencing the soundtrack as intended by the mixer and director.


----------



## MagnumX

maikeldepotter said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your Atmos experience won't be totally ruined if you don't put the overheads right above the left and right speakers! They aren't right above the left and right speakers in a Dolby Cinema! (as I showed in a previous diagram; they're aligned with the optional speakers between left and center and again for right and center). There are seats inside and outside those speakers! That's ok at a movie theater, but not at home??? Right.....
> 
> 
> 
> For an Atmos cinema, Dolby defines a Center Listening Area (CLA) around the Reference Listening Position (RLP) where all seats are positioned within the top speaker arrays. I suppose that's where you should sit for experiencing the soundtrack as intended by the mixer and director.
> 
> View attachment 2660602
Click to expand...

I guess everyone else is ripped off and screwed, then eh? People should boycott movie theaters! Forget Dolby's marketing lies that one of the purposes of Atmos is a more consistent experience for ALL seats. Clearly, if you don't sit in one exact seat or small seating area, you haven't experienced the movie at all as it wasn't as "intended" and wasted your time and money. ("If you haven't had the Pig Sandwich at the Hard Rock Café, you haven't been to the Hard Rock Café at all!" is marketing gold.)

Actually, that is why I pointed out AuroMax is superior to Atmos in that it has the overheads outside of ALL seats *and* has center height and top surround speakers to anchor centerline effects for ALL listeners, not just those in some small central area.

But I guess my story is still the same as in your quote. Atmos doesn't stop working outside the guidelines, especially considering multiple rows of seating and off axis seating. It may not be "ideal," but it's still better than telling someone they can't do Atmos because their room isn't perfect as I've heard many audio shops tell people with low ceilings, etc. Less than perfect Atmos is still better than 5.1, IMO and I'd much rather sit in one of those seats outside the "reference zone" in a real Atmos theater than listen with a cheap Atmos sound bar and a 55" set.

Less than perfectly placed overheads will probably still best "Atmos Enabled" bouncy speakers for getting sounds truly overhead an I'd rather hear less than perfect overhead panning than sounds that don't really convince me they're overhead at all and yet Dolby marketing has even claimed once they sound better than real overheads. If you've got money, I can find some swamp land to sell you.


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> Less than perfectly placed overheads will probably still best "Atmos Enabled" bouncy speakers for getting sounds truly overhead an I'd rather hear less than perfect overhead panning than sounds that don't really convince me they're overhead at all and yet Dolby marketing has even claimed once they sound better than real overheads.


Agreed. FWIW this is what I posted some years ago:



maikeldepotter said:


> A stroke of genius marketing wise? Absolutely. Can its sound - given the right set-up en demo material - impress the most critical listener? Obviously. Is it technically up to its task for discrete sounds? Doubtful at the least. Overheard a Dolby guy talking to a colleague over a glass of beer at IBC last year saying about the up-firing speakers: 'let's be honest, it is a crap solution'.


And a personal impression of a demonstration in a what I believe a most optimized room for presenting indirect sounds, like carefully positioned reflective panels on walls and ceiling:



maikeldepotter said:


> At ISE I attended an Atmos demonstration at the Dolby booth hosted by Craig Eggers, (Senior Director, Home Theater Marketing, Dolby Laboratories). Below are my impressions of the Yamaha Soundbar and the Dolby enabled speakers (PSB Imagine XA). During the demo there was multiple switching between in-ceiling speakers and soundbar or upfiring speakers.
> 
> *Yamaha Soundbar + Subwoofer*
> In the relatively small Dolby demo room with me sitting at MLP, the first impression was that this combo performed surprisingly well. Especially the side surround imaging was convincing. Sounds meant to be overhead where perceptually clearly elevated, but not really right above me like they were with the in-ceiling speakers (more like they coming from elevated surrounds). Rear imaging (both at ear height and elevated) was virtually absent though.
> 
> *Dolby enabled speakers (up-firing)*
> For me this was the first time to hear Dolby enabled speakers. First impression: Hey, this really works! Higher pitched overhead sounds (like bird chirping sounds) remained clearly defined and really above you, especially when there was reverb added to them like in the last clip showing bouncing balls making music (this could be a psycho-acoustical effect enforcing the illusion of sound coming from above). With the helicopter flying overhead though, the sound was noticeably less defined and less powerful.


----------



## MagnumX

@maikeldepotter - It seems like there's a lack of in-phase overhead sound in many Atmos tracks for reasons I can only guess. Now I'm sure you're probably right about bouncy speakers and a lack of direct overhead impressions, but the other issue is the precedence effect and it even affects actual overheads. This is an observational theory that human hearing "pulls" significantly towards the closer speaker when two or more speakers are playing correlated (in-phase) material. Thus, stereo imaging doesn't work very well when you're not sitting precisely in the middle and it gets worse the further away from center you get.

So one problem with side heights is that you need in-phase (correlated) material to get the phantom images on the ceiling in the first place. Sounds "at" the speakers will naturally be high on the side walls, even if at or even *in* the ceiling next to the side walls since that is their physical location. Uncorrelated (out of phase) sounds if present could sound beyond the physical walls, although with your eyes open you might not get that impression since it screws with your perception a bit.

But now sit off center and even the correlated images that were directly on the ceiling before will start to pull towards the closest speaker and seem more "high on the wall like" the further over you go in that direction. This is the real reason why Auro-3D has center height and top surround (Voice of God) channels, to lock overhead sounds on the ceiling the same way a center channel speaker locks dialog to the screen. The side heights then combine to pan images left and right across the ceiling the same way your left and right mains do for floor sounds. The one issue at home is the lack of a center height option on most AVRs that support Auro (not to mention the lack of titles) and the lack of 13.1 support for rear channels.

Atmos is a mixed bag too. Ideally, it places the overhead speakers on or in the ceiling at or somewhat between the left and right mains. This gets all sounds "at" the speakers themselves on the ceiling at least (it could possibly limit how far over towards the walls overhead sounds can accurately go, but there's always out of phase options and combining with the bed sides to reach further, although I'm not sure how much that is used, if at all. One would assume the renderer would handle it automatically if an object ventured over there at height.) However, you now have the quite similar problem of panning pulling towards the nearest speaker overhead and front to back as well if you're not dead center between all of them which would quite possibly be at the 50% point in the room which could introduce strong room mode issues in the bass department. Worse yet, you don't have the stabilizing options of center height and top surround to correct most of the problem for you like Auro-3D can do if properly implemented.

So even if you sit directly between the left and right mains, but sit at say ~38% into the room you could still get an uneven front to back panning effect because you're closer to the front top speakers than the rear tops. Cinema Atmos has many more speakers to go through, though which helps. Having top middle would largely stabilize the front to back effect for centerline seats at home (unless you have many rows in which case you'd need more overheads like theater Atmos), but both home and cinema Atmos overhead left/right panning goes wonky outside that "reference" zone due to precedence, but at least it's still overhead, but probably starts to sound closer to mono overhead at some distance. Proper Auro-3D setups theoretically avoid this issue due to the side walls plus stabilizing center points, but the reality is it will never be "perfectly" even except for one spot dead in the middle of the theater, but again that point may not have the most even bass. Near-field bass at home might help and give pants shaking tactile feedback as well, but it's not simple to get a truly perfect system (let alone cost efficient). I suppose it just depends on how much money you have and how much you're willing to spend to get as far along as you possibly can. Most people aren't that picky (or at least rich enough) to be that obsessive, but I'm sure some are.


----------



## batpig

maikeldepotter said:


> For an Atmos cinema, Dolby defines a Center Listening Area (CLA) around the Reference Listening Position (RLP) where all seats are positioned within the top speaker arrays. I suppose that's where you should sit for experiencing the soundtrack as intended by the mixer and director.
> 
> View attachment 2660602


In the Trinnov papers/presentations on a "universal layout", they make the argument that all "left side" speakers (surrounds + overheads) should be to the left of all the seats, and same for the "right side" speakers. In other words, everyone in the "seating box" (which corresponds conceptually to the CLA you reference) should hear sounds that are supposed to come from the left... coming from their left. So they would argue for a wider spacing of the overheads, to keep the left array to the left of all seats and the right array to the right (as well as Front Left/Right and Surround Back Left/Right, respectively, at ear level).


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> In the Trinnov papers/presentations on a "universal layout", they make the argument that all "left side" speakers (surrounds + overheads) should be to the left of all the seats, and same for the "right side" speakers. In other words, everyone in the "seating box" (which corresponds conceptually to the CLA you reference) should hear sounds that are supposed to come from the left... coming from their left. So they would argue for a wider spacing of the overheads, to keep the left array to the left of all seats and the right array to the right (as well as Front Left/Right and Surround Back Left/Right, respectively, at ear level).


So in effect, they argue for an Auro-3D layout more or less (I mean how much space do you need to have to the sides to keep everyone in the box? Why doesn't Dolby put the overheads in line with the left/right speakers in the cinemas instead of in line with left-center and right-center? Wouldn't that put MORE seats inside the overhead panning range area? It's rather odd in a way and I think Dolby must have a reason for it in the cinema space. Front wides and side surrounds potentially widen the bed level stage beyond left/right so why no love for overhead speakers on those sides? Dolby places side beds at "height" levels in the cinema and overheads in a narrower range on the ceiling. It doesn't correspond very well to a home layout with bed level speakers, a much lower ceiling and much wider spaced widths for overhead sounds. 

Besides, if everyone is supposed to be inside the overhead "rectangle" then why are so few sounds actually on the ceiling in that rectangle? I sit dead center in the room and overhead effects work when present just fine. Flatliners has voices panning all across my ceiling in circles and all kinds of weird patterns for a couple of minutes as the voices talk up there. But I think most movies have most overhead sounds at the speakers or even outward from them, making them sound closer to the walls if the speakers are widely spaced in a relatively narrow room, even if they aren't "on the walls". I expected more sounds correlated directly overhead and most movies disappoint in this regard. My favorites Atmos movies tend to be the ones that actually do use that space.

Frankly, Maikeldepotter's diagram of the reference spot in an Atmos theater is pretty small (20-some seats at most in that diagram). I guess people better get there early.


----------



## Tygeezy

Is there going to be a big difference in quality using my apple tv and itunes copy of a uhd film with atmos vs the disc version with atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Tygeezy said:


> Is there going to be a big difference in quality using my apple tv and itunes copy of a uhd film with atmos vs the disc version with atmos?



In my system, there is a difference, either a little or a lot. It depends on how squashed the streaming version audio is beyond what the studio does to it when being packaged for a particular streaming service. On _Blade Runner 2049_, the disc's Dolby Atmos track is one mean MF'er and on the streaming version it sounds subdued, for instance.



The disc Dolby Atmos or DTS: X version (sometimes only available in the 4k disc release) is bit-for-bit lossless to the PCM soundtrack master used during the disc authoring stage. You lose nothing during the packing and unpacking stage of the audio codec (either TrueHD or DTS Master Audio).


----------



## MagnumX

Tygeezy said:


> Is there going to be a big difference in quality using my apple tv and itunes copy of a uhd film with atmos vs the disc version with atmos?


I've heard no discernible difference whatsoever. I tend to think that the "subdued" difference people talk about is at least possibly due to the fact the Apple TV (for whatever reason) plays the movies typically at a volume level 4-8dB lower than the disc version on average (i.e. yes, if I play the Atmos BD of say, _Blade Runner 2049_ and then the streaming Atmos off iTunes without touching the volume control between them, the iTunes one sounds very wimpy by comparison). Thus, if you don't turn up the volume enough to compensate in comparison, it will sound _subdued_ indeed as softer volumes always sound "wimpy" next to louder ones. In fact, things like "bass is weaker" or "not as punchy" and similar comments are almost invariably level mismatches as actual compression artifacts sound more like "swirlies" in the highs or harsh voices, etc. not bass or dynamic differences (i.e. lossy doesn't change volume levels of bass or loud parts, but different devices and streaming services can. Cable "music channels" often compress or reduce volume levels giving them a bad impression compared to the real CD discs. That is not the fault of lossy compression. They've changed those purposely. A low rate MP3, for example will sound harsh and swirly, but it's not any less loud nor does it have less bass. So why would Dolby streaming formats?)

Level differences is something Sony supposedly took advantage of with SACD with doubled sided albums as the SACD side was always about 4dB louder than the CD side (DTS releases were often louder in bass for similar reasons; to make them sound DIFFERENT. If compression alone were enough with DTS's higher bit-rate you'd think that would be enough, but clearly it was not in most cases). Once level matched to compare, the Sony SACD and CD sides of the same _remastered_ album (keep in mind remastering also changes the sound of the albums) they typically sounded IDENTICAL as higher bit-rates and word lengths literally do *NOTHING* to improve _sound quality_ on a typical album, but by god they sure would like you to believe it does (so you keep buying the same crap over and over again; but now they've gone to a RENTAL model and that will soon likely kill music forever as there's no money to be made in pennies on the dollar by artists and most music is completely formulaic as well (computers even come up with much of the songs with a random generator following rules, from what I read, which would explain why it all sounds more or less like the same song) and half the artists can't sing at all and use constant pitch correct, but I digress).

But lossy versus lossless compression? As long as the bit-rate is high enough, there should be NO audible difference. Netflix used to be bad, but even they have gone to 640kbps Dolby Digital Plus which is higher than the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-Rays even (as Plus is about 2x as efficient). You never used to see people complain about DTS 1500kbps tracks either as they are extremely high quality...until Master-HD came along and everyone bought the marketing hype that they MUST sound better as uncompressed is always better than lossy...except when you can't tell the difference, which is normally true most of the time even at 640kbps regular Dolby Digital. It was largely marketing hype. It's somewhat ironic since now the industry has somewhat shot itself in the foot as at least some people complain streaming isn't good enough, even when it is. I mean if you have to ask comparing the two, I'd say they're close enough. 

But perhaps that will keep discs alive longer and that's a good thing as you OWN the disc, unlike the streaming versions that they can delete at any time (like Ultraviolet that just went POOF!) Well, that is if you've ripped them and/or they don't issue recall/kill codes to your player for a disc at which point it won't play. That option was supposedly done for piracy reasons, but there's nothing on earth to stop them from using those codes to kill Blu-Ray discs off entirely if they want to so long as the law allows it and frankly laws change (or their interpretations by those it suits, at least). The outcry would be loud so it's unlikely it will ever happen (they will just let it die off slowly like laserdiscs, et al), but it's technically possible (if your BD player isn't connected to the Net it can't get the recall codes, but then it can't get the newest codes for newer movies either. DVDs have no such codes, though so low definition discs will always be around regardless, at least until they oxidize some day).

Of course, I'm sure someone will say that's nonsense. Blade Runner 2049 still sounds wimpy even adjusted for volume! My system must suck! Yeah, OK. I can't change the perceived reality for some people. Shakti Stones will always be magical for some people no matter what. And if there is any real perceptual difference with the streaming version level matched, it must be mighty small that my audible memory doesn't notice anything. Do people connect these with quick switch DBX boxes (that somehow don't cause HDMI to re-sync and cut the output as the source is switched) that they can compare them that closely or is it more likely the levels are off? I've got a sound meter here. I can match them precisely using a snippet on both.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> I've heard no discernible difference whatsoever. I tend to think that the "subdued" difference people talk about is at least possibly due to the fact the Apple TV (for whatever reason) plays the movies typically at a volume level 4-8dB lower than the disc version on average (i.e. yes, if I play the Atmos BD of say, _Blade Runner 2049_ and then the streaming Atmos off iTunes without touching the volume control between them, the iTunes one sounds very wimpy by comparison). Thus, if you don't turn up the volume enough to compensate in comparison, it will sound _subdued_ indeed as softer volumes always sound "wimpy" next to louder ones. In fact, things like "bass is weaker" or "not as punchy" and similar comments are almost invariably level mismatches as actual compression artifacts sound more like "swirlies" in the highs or harsh voices, etc. not bass or dynamic differences (i.e. lossy doesn't change volume levels of bass or loud parts, but different devices and streaming services can. Cable "music channels" often compress or reduce volume levels giving them a bad impression compared to the real CD discs. That is not the fault of lossy compression. They've changed those purposely. A low rate MP3, for example will sound harsh and swirly, but it's not any less loud nor does it have less bass. So why would Dolby streaming formats?)
> 
> Level differences is something Sony supposedly took advantage of with SACD with doubled sided albums as the SACD side was always about 4dB louder than the CD side (DTS releases were often louder in bass for similar reasons; to make them sound DIFFERENT. If compression alone were enough with DTS's higher bit-rate you'd think that would be enough, but clearly it was not in most cases). Once level matched to compare, the Sony SACD and CD sides of the same _remastered_ album (keep in mind remastering also changes the sound of the albums) they typically sounded IDENTICAL as higher bit-rates and word lengths literally do *NOTHING* to improve _sound quality_ on a typical album, but by god they sure would like you to believe it does (so you keep buying the same crap over and over again; but now they've gone to a RENTAL model and that will soon likely kill music forever as there's no money to be made in pennies on the dollar by artists and most music is completely formulaic as well (computers even come up with much of the songs with a random generator following rules, from what I read, which would explain why it all sounds more or less like the same song) and half the artists can't sing at all and use constant pitch correct, but I digress).
> 
> But lossy versus lossless compression? As long as the bit-rate is high enough, there should be NO audible difference. Netflix used to be bad, but even they have gone to 640kbps Dolby Digital Plus which is higher than the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-Rays even (as Plus is about 2x as efficient). You never used to see people complain about DTS 1500kbps tracks either as they are extremely high quality...until Master-HD came along and everyone bought the marketing hype that they MUST sound better as uncompressed is always better than lossy...except when you can't tell the difference, which is normally true most of the time even at 640kbps regular Dolby Digital. It was largely marketing hype. It's somewhat ironic since now the industry has somewhat shot itself in the foot as at least some people complain streaming isn't good enough, even when it is. I mean if you have to ask comparing the two, I'd say they're close enough.
> 
> But perhaps that will keep discs alive longer and that's a good thing as you OWN the disc, unlike the streaming versions that they can delete at any time (like Ultraviolet that just went POOF!) Well, that is if you've ripped them and/or they don't issue recall/kill codes to your player for a disc at which point it won't play. That option was supposedly done for piracy reasons, but there's nothing on earth to stop them from using those codes to kill Blu-Ray discs off entirely if they want to so long as the law allows it and frankly laws change (or their interpretations by those it suits, at least). The outcry would be loud so it's unlikely it will ever happen (they will just let it die off slowly like laserdiscs, et al), but it's technically possible (if your BD player isn't connected to the Net it can't get the recall codes, but then it can't get the newest codes for newer movies either. DVDs have no such codes, though so low definition discs will always be around regardless, at least until they oxidize some day).
> 
> Of course, I'm sure someone will say that's nonsense. Blade Runner 2049 still sounds wimpy even adjusted for volume! My system must suck! Yeah, OK. I can't change the perceived reality for some people. Shakti Stones will always be magical for some people no matter what. And if there is any real perceptual difference with the streaming version level matched, it must be mighty small that my audible memory doesn't notice anything. Do people connect these with quick switch DBX boxes (that somehow don't cause HDMI to re-sync and cut the output as the source is switched) that they can compare them that closely or is it more likely the levels are off? I've got a sound meter here. I can match them precisely using a snippet on both.



Besides any sonic loss that may occur during a lossy compression encoding, certain per-scene volume limiting can occur dictated by the various streaming company's audio mastering policies when studios submit tracks for uploading. Sometimes, like with Netflix, they can re-encode the audio tracks to their set specifications. This can have a deleterious impact on soundtrack reproduction quality. 



It's bad enough the amount of tinkering that can occur during a home theater near-field remix that caters to the lowest common denominator (like many Disney Atmouse mixes), but when streaming goes even further... we're talking TV speaker and soundbar friendly practices to the max... the lowest of the low. 



To say you can hear no difference whatsoever can be attributed to a less capable sound system and/or hearing loss.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Besides any sonic loss that may occur during a lossy compression encoding, certain per-scene volume limiting can occur dictated by the various streaming company's audio mastering policies when studios submit tracks for uploading. Sometimes, like with Netflix, they can re-encode the audio tracks to their set specifications. This can have a deleterious impact on soundtrack reproduction quality.
> 
> It's bad enough the amount of tinkering that can occur during a home theater near-field remix that caters to the lowest common denominator (like many Disney Atmouse mixes), but when streaming goes even further... we're talking TV speaker and soundbar friendly practices to the max... the lowest of the low.


This is possible, but that doesn't mean it happens on higher quality sites. Netflix had lower rates to save bandwidth, for instance, but have upped the bitrate lately to acceptable levels. I've never heard poor quality sound on iTunes. In fact, all the Atmos tracks I've heard from iTunes sound perfectly lovely once adjusted for volume and I've compared several to actual Blu-Rays and once adjusted for volume, they sound similar enough I wouldn't care to hunt for tiny differences that you'd only notice with a DBX test. But then I didn't get a DBX box out to compare. 

Whatever "obvious" thing you seem to hear is far more likely to be the volume differences as they are quite substantial on AppleTV 4K versus Blu-Ray players (often 4-8dB difference in volume settings). I can't rule out imagining perceived differences either as that seems to be quite common with certain groups of people including audiophiles and the more recent groups of "cinemaphiles" that nit-pick every tiny difference in HDR rather than actually enjoying the movie. In fact, it was common lore to express that most audiophiles had proportionally more money in equipment with very few music albums (mostly demo stuff to show off) while music lovers owned more modest systems, but owned thousands and thousands of albums. I'd like to think I'm somewhere in the middle. I can easily hear less than 1dB changes in volume and my hearing is still good to 17kHz in my 40s. I spent probably 6 hours last night tweaking settings and small levels to give a more consistent experience between all three rows of seats and testing each change with a dozen demos from all six chairs. THAT is nit-picking. I can't control the content in a soundtrack, however and most Atmos tracks pale compared to a select 20% or so. You can tweak all you want. They won't really sound any better when all the content is up front or at pale levels in the surround channels. 85% of my titles are on disc (I have around 1200-1300 movies, depending on what you call a movie versus concert, etc. and a little over 1000 are on disc, although many (250+) are duplicated with digital copies, making them easy to compare). Some have been upgraded to Atmos on streaming that are still 5.1 or 7.1 on disc. I even have Auro-3D versions of 11 movies, about 7 of which I have Atmos copies to compare and two Atmos/DTS:X soundtracks I can compare directly (Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom and Angry Bird 2). 

Now video quality is another matter. If you want 4K to be pristine, you want a disc. However, 4K streaming to 2K devices now looks quite close to 2K BDs, IMO off iTunes. That's at least an improvement.



> To say you can hear no difference whatsoever can be attributed to a less capable sound system and/or hearing loss.


Audiophiles always _claim_ to hear differences, even with Shakti Stones, painting the edges of CDs green, using $10,000 interconnect cables and $25,000 DACs. I've never see ONE prove such a claim in a double blind DBX test with levels matched. But they do seem to love to tell people they're either deaf or have inferior systems all the time, which I can only assume helps their egos and sense of superiority over mere mortals.


----------



## Tygeezy

MagnumX said:


> I've heard no discernible difference whatsoever. I tend to think that the "subdued" difference people talk about is at least possibly due to the fact the Apple TV (for whatever reason) plays the movies typically at a volume level 4-8dB lower than the disc version on average (i.e. yes, if I play the Atmos BD of say, _Blade Runner 2049_ and then the streaming Atmos off iTunes without touching the volume control between them, the iTunes one sounds very wimpy by comparison). Thus, if you don't turn up the volume enough to compensate in comparison, it will sound _subdued_ indeed as softer volumes always sound "wimpy" next to louder ones. In fact, things like "bass is weaker" or "not as punchy" and similar comments are almost invariably level mismatches as actual compression artifacts sound more like "swirlies" in the highs or harsh voices, etc. not bass or dynamic differences (i.e. lossy doesn't change volume levels of bass or loud parts, but different devices and streaming services can. Cable "music channels" often compress or reduce volume levels giving them a bad impression compared to the real CD discs. That is not the fault of lossy compression. They've changed those purposely. A low rate MP3, for example will sound harsh and swirly, but it's not any less loud nor does it have less bass. So why would Dolby streaming formats?)
> 
> 
> 
> Level differences is something Sony supposedly took advantage of with SACD with doubled sided albums as the SACD side was always about 4dB louder than the CD side (DTS releases were often louder in bass for similar reasons; to make them sound DIFFERENT. If compression alone were enough with DTS's higher bit-rate you'd think that would be enough, but clearly it was not in most cases). Once level matched to compare, the Sony SACD and CD sides of the same _remastered_ album (keep in mind remastering also changes the sound of the albums) they typically sounded IDENTICAL as higher bit-rates and word lengths literally do *NOTHING* to improve _sound quality_ on a typical album, but by god they sure would like you to believe it does (so you keep buying the same crap over and over again; but now they've gone to a RENTAL model and that will soon likely kill music forever as there's no money to be made in pennies on the dollar by artists and most music is completely formulaic as well (computers even come up with much of the songs with a random generator following rules, from what I read, which would explain why it all sounds more or less like the same song) and half the artists can't sing at all and use constant pitch correct, but I digress).
> 
> 
> 
> But lossy versus lossless compression? As long as the bit-rate is high enough, there should be NO audible difference. Netflix used to be bad, but even they have gone to 640kbps Dolby Digital Plus which is higher than the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-Rays even (as Plus is about 2x as efficient). You never used to see people complain about DTS 1500kbps tracks either as they are extremely high quality...until Master-HD came along and everyone bought the marketing hype that they MUST sound better as uncompressed is always better than lossy...except when you can't tell the difference, which is normally true most of the time even at 640kbps regular Dolby Digital. It was largely marketing hype. It's somewhat ironic since now the industry has somewhat shot itself in the foot as at least some people complain streaming isn't good enough, even when it is. I mean if you have to ask comparing the two, I'd say they're close enough.
> 
> 
> 
> But perhaps that will keep discs alive longer and that's a good thing as you OWN the disc, unlike the streaming versions that they can delete at any time (like Ultraviolet that just went POOF!) Well, that is if you've ripped them and/or they don't issue recall/kill codes to your player for a disc at which point it won't play. That option was supposedly done for piracy reasons, but there's nothing on earth to stop them from using those codes to kill Blu-Ray discs off entirely if they want to so long as the law allows it and frankly laws change (or their interpretations by those it suits, at least). The outcry would be loud so it's unlikely it will ever happen (they will just let it die off slowly like laserdiscs, et al), but it's technically possible (if your BD player isn't connected to the Net it can't get the recall codes, but then it can't get the newest codes for newer movies either. DVDs have no such codes, though so low definition discs will always be around regardless, at least until they oxidize some day).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm sure someone will say that's nonsense. Blade Runner 2049 still sounds wimpy even adjusted for volume! My system must suck! Yeah, OK. I can't change the perceived reality for some people. Shakti Stones will always be magical for some people no matter what. And if there is any real perceptual difference with the streaming version level matched, it must be mighty small that my audible memory doesn't notice anything. Do people connect these with quick switch DBX boxes (that somehow don't cause HDMI to re-sync and cut the output as the source is switched) that they can compare them that closely or is it more likely the levels are off? I've got a sound meter here. I can match them precisely using a snippet on both.



Wow, excellent response. Thanks for going into great detail.

You know, I did notice how the webos version of Netflix actually is louder than the Netflix app on my Apple TV.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched the first episode of _Game of Thrones_ on ROKU now that I have one while Season one is free (never watched it before). It's in Dolby Digital 5.1 (effects upmixed well with Neural X, however) and to my ears, the bit-rate might be on the low side as several scenes had slightly tinny sounding dialog. There's no way to verify the streaming rate on the Marantz 7012, however. I still have no way to verify if it has Atmos on iTunes as Apple does not display this information for TV Shows, only movies. I have read at least some TV Shows are in 4K (like the new Stephen King series), but it'd be nice if Apple would list this information like they do for movies. I must say I can see where the show looks promising after just one episodes. Too bad I've been told it was ruined in Season 8. 

I watched the final episode (#8) of The Mandalorian for season 1 on the Roku in Atmos. There's not much overhead in the episode, but lots of rear surround effects, which is nice for a TV Show. It definitely lacks bass and dynamics and surround is sparse compared to good surround movies or TV Shows (Game of Thrones had MUCH BETTER surround effects even in 5.1. At higher bit-rates or lossless, it would sound excellent, IMO).


----------



## MagnumX

I watched Angel Has Fallen in Atmos off iTunes last night. There are a few parts where immersion could be better (e.g. I distinctly recall an outdoor scene with birds oddly only in the front speakers similar to Annihilation's oddly quiet surround forests where birds are only in front of you), but there's a LOT of excellent helicopter activity overhead on the ceiling throughout the movie (along with much of the musical score being elevated, which seems to be a thing lately, although I'm less sure I like that as much as few orchestras I've ever seen have been overhead so it seems oddly unnatural just by its very nature, but I suppose it leave clearer sound effects and dialog while both are going on). There's plenty of gunfire and explosions all around as well. Overall, it's a pretty decent Atmos track.

I'm not sure what the low critic ratings are all about. Yes, it's absurd to a large degree, but so are the Die Hard movies. It's a popcorn flick with good action and quality surround effects and a surprisingly fun performance by Nick Nolte who seems to be having a bit of a renaissance with also starring in the first season of The Mandalorian. I have spoken.


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> Too bad I've been told it was ruined in Season 8.



FWIW my gf and I liked S8 as much as the others, which is to say a lot.


----------



## MagnumX

noah katz said:


> FWIW my gf and I liked S8 as much as the others, which is to say a lot.


That's good to know not everyone didn't like it.


----------



## CBdicX

CBdicX said:


> Any truth in when having TM along with Front and Rear Height (or TF and TR) the front and rear speakers will almost never play du to the fact that a TM (or TS for Auro) will do 90% of the Height effects ?
> With no TM or TS the front and rear heights get 50/50...…….. (?)


Ideas, info, anyone ?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> That's good to know not everyone didn't like it.



If you think about parts of Season 7 and Season 8, the whole thing unravels. The showrunners really didn't know what to do once they had no real direction from George R. R. Martin. They also rushed things thinking they were a lock for a new Star Wars Trilogy and then they were pushed aside. Some say Disney got spooked after the backlash from the GOT fans.


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Any truth in when having TM along with Front and Rear Height (or TF and TR) the front and rear speakers will almost never play du to the fact that a TM (or TS for Auro) will do 90% of the Height effects ?
> With no TM or TS the front and rear heights get 50/50...…….. (?)
> ...
> Ideas, info, anyone ?


No truth I know. I think I hear more overhead height effects in the front height speakers than directly overhead here, especially parts of the soundtrack often end up there (Neural X _really_ likes to put music up front and high). 

I just watched _Pixels_ in 3D with Atmos (I also have the Auro-3D version/soundtrack and both are muxed onto the 3D video on my Zidoo X9S). The movie was a little on the hokey side, but nostalgic for '80s arcade games. The 3D was utterly fantastic (all kinds of stuff flying out of the screen and great depth as well) as was the Atmos soundtrack. It had sounds panning all over the place overhead and around the room. It definitely wasn't just right above. _Angel has Fallen_ that I watched yesterday had helicopters flying all over the ceiling, not just right overhead, etc. Some movies seem (at least largely) limited to 7.1.2, but I think they're on the uncommon side of things.


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> No truth I know. I think I hear more overhead height effects in the front height speakers than directly overhead here, especially parts of the soundtrack often end up there (Neural X _really_ likes to put music up front and high).
> 
> I just watched _Pixels_ in 3D with Atmos (I also have the Auro-3D version/soundtrack and both are muxed onto the 3D video on my Zidoo X9S). The movie was a little on the hokey side, but nostalgic for '80s arcade games. The 3D was utterly fantastic (all kinds of stuff flying out of the screen and great depth as well) as was the Atmos soundtrack. It had sounds panning all over the place overhead and around the room. It definitely wasn't just right above. _Angel has Fallen_ that I watched yesterday had helicopters flying all over the ceiling, not just right overhead, etc. Some movies seem (at least largely) limited to 7.1.2, but I think they're on the uncommon side of things.


Hi MagnumX (and other "users"  ),

i need some advice for a good media streamer.
Now i use a *Zappiti One 4K *but this is running on crappy software.
Picture quality is good, it plays all download files (from my NAS) so no problems there but the software is very buggy. 

So i need a media player i can put beside my Denon X4500H, connect it to the NAS and play my MKV and MP4 files (H264 and H265) Dolby Atmos / DTSX sound support, HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

Advice please…….thanks


----------



## ssaddict

I downloaded the two trailers from https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html and copied them to my phone. I used VLC for Android to play them, and cast them to my chromecast which is plugged into the HDMI port of my sound system.

The sound system only reports PCM sound, not ATMOS, not even Dolby audio. Just wondering why this doesn't give me ATMOS sound.


----------



## Carnajo

Hi everyone, looking for some insights and comparisons. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before but searching the forum or even google doesn't return much specifically (this thread is 1902 pages after all and most google results are about overhead vs enabled speakers). What I'd like is opinion on front and rear height speakers as opposed to overhead speakers. I can do overhead but it is much more of a pain (especially given that my ceiling is a concrete slab so not just installing into ceiling board) but setting up front and rear heights (i.e. on the wall at practically ceiling level) would be much simpler. How would this compare to having 4 overhead speakers (my setup would be 5.1.4 for either)? I've hear some say height speakers are comparable to overhead (90 to 95% there) but I've also read that heights aren't officially supported by dolby and that I would just be getting L/R effects into the overhead for height/presence and not actual Atmos?


Any feedback is welcome!


----------



## Onward74

MagnumX said:


> That's good to know not everyone didn't like it.


I think most viewers really enjoyed it, then there are the very vocal nitpickers complaining online.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Onward74 said:


> I think most viewers really enjoyed it, then there are the very vocal nitpickers complaining online.


Agreed. I enjoyed it. It's art not democracy, it's not reality TV, readers of a book don't get to vote what happens at the end, and viewers of a TV drama don't get to vote either. The ending was what the creator intended. What I found most saddening was all the self-righteousness of people thinking that they were entitled to demand the ending of _their _choice; petitions for it to be remade as _they _thought it should have ended, etc. By all means be surprised at the ending, say you expected something else etc, but anything else - no. People acting as if they had been "conned", "let down", "betrayed", etc - utterly ludicrous.


----------



## Bond 007

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed. I enjoyed it. It's art not democracy, it's not reality TV, readers of a book don't get to vote what happens at the end, and viewers of a TV drama don't get to vote either. The ending was what the creator intended. What I found most saddening was all the self-righteousness of people thinking that they were entitled to demand the ending of _their _choice; petitions for it to be remade as _they _thought it should have ended, etc. By all means be surprised at the ending, say you expected something else etc, but anything else - no. People acting as if they had been "conned", "let down", "betrayed", etc - utterly ludicrous.


Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## usc1995

Carnajo said:


> Hi everyone, looking for some insights and comparisons. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before but searching the forum or even google doesn't return much specifically (this thread is 1902 pages after all and most google results are about overhead vs enabled speakers). What I'd like is opinion on front and rear height speakers as opposed to overhead speakers. I can do overhead but it is much more of a pain (especially given that my ceiling is a concrete slab so not just installing into ceiling board) but setting up front and rear heights (i.e. on the wall at practically ceiling level) would be much simpler. How would this compare to having 4 overhead speakers (my setup would be 5.1.4 for either)? I've hear some say height speakers are comparable to overhead (90 to 95% there) but I've also read that heights aren't officially supported by dolby and that I would just be getting L/R effects into the overhead for height/presence and not actual Atmos?
> 
> 
> Any feedback is welcome!


What are the dimensions of your room? Where is you main listening position? If your room is longer and your MLP is greater than 6 feet or so from the front wall then the height speakers would have the effect of increasing the height of the soundstage more than providing a sense of a three dimensional sound bubble like overhead speakers do. If you are unable to mount speakers overhead then I would mount them at the same 45 degree locations as you would the overhead speakers but place them at the top of the sidewalls where the sidewalls meet the ceiling. This would sound much more overhead than having them further away on the front and back walls. When I first moved to Atmos that is what I did and I loved it so much I went through the trouble of mounting ceiling speakers to improve the Atmos experience even more.


----------



## usc1995

ssaddict said:


> I downloaded the two trailers from https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-trailers.html and copied them to my phone. I used VLC for Android to play them, and cast them to my chromecast which is plugged into the HDMI port of my sound system.
> 
> The sound system only reports PCM sound, not ATMOS, not even Dolby audio. Just wondering why this doesn't give me ATMOS sound.


In order to get Atmos from those files the audio and the Atmos metadata need to be bitstreamed to your AVR for your AVR to do the decoding. By using VLC you are decoding the audio on your phone and casting the decoded PCM without the Atmos metadata. You will need to use a device that can bitstream the audio like an Nvidia Shield, Zidoo, Oppo bluray player or a computer configured correctly so that your AVR can receive the Atmos information.


----------



## Tygeezy

How well does atmos work on a 7.1 setup? I currently have 5.1, but I’m thinking of adding two rear surround speakers. Height speakers are out of the question. My ceiling is high and vaulted, and the wife will never allow it.


----------



## Carnajo

usc1995 said:


> What are the dimensions of your room? Where is you main listening position? If your room is longer and your MLP is greater than 6 feet or so from the front wall then the height speakers would have the effect of increasing the height of the soundstage more than providing a sense of a three dimensional sound bubble like overhead speakers do. If you are unable to mount speakers overhead then I would mount them at the same 45 degree locations as you would the overhead speakers but place them at the top of the sidewalls where the sidewalls meet the ceiling. This would sound much more overhead than having them further away on the front and back walls. When I first moved to Atmos that is what I did and I loved it so much I went through the trouble of mounting ceiling speakers to improve the Atmos experience even more.



Thanks! Guess I should have explained my room layout a bit better. Room is around 4.5m/14.8 ft long (TV to back) and my couch is roughly in the middle (2.25m/7.4ft) so sounds like I should mount overhead speakers rather than going for heights. I can mount overhead, it would just be much much simpler to mount heights because ceiling is a concrete slab so I need to make sure I don't hit any steel reinforcement and I'm always worried about structural issues (I mean, people mount chandeliers so I don't see why speakers would be a problem...).


As for your suggestion, thanks, but that won't work because I only have one wall, to the left, the right side of the lounge opens up into the dining area (open plan first floor, so not the greatest for HT speaker positioning). so I may as well place them on the wall.


----------



## usc1995

Carnajo said:


> Thanks! Guess I should have explained my room layout a bit better. Room is around 4.5m/14.8 ft long (TV to back) and my couch is roughly in the middle (2.25m/7.4ft) so sounds like I should mount overhead speakers rather than going for heights. I can mount overhead, it would just be much much simpler to mount heights because ceiling is a concrete slab so I need to make sure I don't hit any steel reinforcement and I'm always worried about structural issues (I mean, people mount chandeliers so I don't see why speakers would be a problem...).
> 
> 
> As for your suggestion, thanks, but that won't work because I only have one wall, to the left, the right side of the lounge opens up into the dining area (open plan first floor, so not the greatest for HT speaker positioning). so I may as well place them on the wall.


That is about the length of my room and my MLP is at about 10ft. Front heights would not have been very effective for me had I gone that way. What is the height of your ceiling? If you have a very high ceiling you may get some overhead sensation with height speakers but if your ceiling is lower like mine (7.5ft) then I wouldn't bother. It is worth the effort to install overheads. Go for it!


----------



## usc1995

Tygeezy said:


> How well does atmos work on a 7.1 setup? I currently have 5.1, but I’m thinking of adding two rear surround speakers. Height speakers are out of the question. My ceiling is high and vaulted, and the wife will never allow it.


To my knowledge most AVR's will not decode the Atmos metadata if they are not set up with at least one pair of height/ceiling speakers. You will just get the core TrueHD audio without the Atmos information so even though there may be objects in the base 5.1 or 7.1 layer you will not hear them.


----------



## Tygeezy

usc1995 said:


> To my knowledge most AVR's will not decode the Atmos metadata if they are not set up with at least one pair of height/ceiling speakers. You will just get the core TrueHD audio without the Atmos information so even though there may be objects in the base 5.1 or 7.1 layer you will not hear them.


If my speaker configuration is setup for 7.1 or 5.1.2 it will display atmos on the receiver:

"Dolby Atmos is decoded as Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD if the speaker pattern is set to “2.0”, “2.1”,
“3.0”, “3.1”, “4.0”, “4.1”, “5.0” or “5.1”.

Dolby Atmos – Dolby Digital Plus
(“ATMOS”)1),2) 5.1.2 or 7.1 HDMI, eARC, ARC
Dolby Atmos – Dolby TrueHD (“ATMOS”)1),2) 5.1.2 or 7.1 HDMI, eARC"

https://www.sony.com/electronics/su...90436b47fd2ffcc4003f34dc5f2592c/47269051M.pdf
page 59

I've tested this out myself. When i'm bitstreaming and speakers config is set to 7.1 I get atmos in dd+ for my webos apps and atmos true hd while bit streaming from pc.

If im using my apple tv I can have my speaker config at 5.1 and it will send atmos as linear pcm. Same for if im using the dolby access app on windows 10 when I play atmos pc titles like Modern Warfare.


----------



## blb1215

Tygeezy said:


> How well does atmos work on a 7.1 setup? I currently have 5.1, but I’m thinking of adding two rear surround speakers. Height speakers are out of the question. My ceiling is high and vaulted, and the wife will never allow it.



The short answer is ....it doesn't 



Atmos has to have the height information for atmos to work. Having all speakers on same plane as in 5.1 or 7.1 will not work for Atmos. There is benefit to having side and rear surround of a 7.1 set-up but just not in regards to Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Tygeezy said:


> Height speakers are out of the question. My ceiling is high and vaulted, and the wife will never allow it.


Newer receivers, like the Denon 3600, have height virtualizers from Dolby and DTS. They do a decent job of giving the impression of sounds floating above you. Of course they cannot compete with height speakers physically placed overhead. But some height effect (even virtual) is better than no height effect.


----------



## usc1995

Tygeezy said:


> If my speaker configuration is setup for 7.1 or 5.1.2 it will display atmos on the receiver:
> 
> "Dolby Atmos is decoded as Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD if the speaker pattern is set to “2.0”, “2.1”,
> “3.0”, “3.1”, “4.0”, “4.1”, “5.0” or “5.1”.
> 
> Dolby Atmos – Dolby Digital Plus
> (“ATMOS”)1),2) 5.1.2 or 7.1 HDMI, eARC, ARC
> Dolby Atmos – Dolby TrueHD (“ATMOS”)1),2) 5.1.2 or 7.1 HDMI, eARC"
> 
> https://www.sony.com/electronics/su...90436b47fd2ffcc4003f34dc5f2592c/47269051M.pdf
> page 59
> 
> I've tested this out myself. When i'm bitstreaming and speakers config is set to 7.1 I get atmos in dd+ for my webos apps and atmos true hd while bit streaming from pc.
> 
> If im using my apple tv I can have my speaker config at 5.1 and it will send atmos as linear pcm. Same for if im using the dolby access app on windows 10 when I play atmos pc titles like Modern Warfare.


Since your AVR uses the same speaker outputs for both the surround back speakers and the height speakers you will need to choose a speaker pattern when you attach the speakers. Take a look at page 44 in your manual. You can see that if you choose the speaker pattern 5.1 or 7.1 it indicates that height speakers are not used. Height speakers are only used in 5.1.2, 5.0.2, 4.1.2, 4.0.2, 3.1.2, 3.0.2, 2.1.2 and 2.0.2. I can see on page 59 where it shows that Dolby Atmos - Dolby Digital Plus and and Dolby Atmos - Dolby True HD show a maximum of 5.1.2 or 7.1 decoded channels but I cannot understand why since it clearly says the height speakers are not used for 7.1 speaker patterns. That is very confusing by Sony.


----------



## Tygeezy

Okay, another question for you guys... How good are front high speakers? Mounting on the ceiling just isn't going to happen, and since my ceiling is vaulted; speakers that try to bounce off the ceiling just isn't going to work... I could however mount some speakers a few feet above where my front left and right speakers are. Are these setups okay? We sit about 10 feet away from where my front speakers are sitting.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Tygeezy said:


> Okay, another question for you guys... How good are front high speakers? Mounting on the ceiling just isn't going to happen, and since my ceiling is vaulted; speakers that try to bounce off the ceiling just isn't going to work... I could however mount some speakers a few feet above where my front left and right speakers are. Are these setups okay? We sit about 10 feet away from where my front speakers are sitting.


Svs Elevation speakers work very well for Atmos when ideal speaker placement isn't possible. They can be mounted on the angled ceiling and directed at your MLP.

https://hometheaterreview.com/svs-prime-elevation-satellite-speaker-reviewed/

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tygeezy

skylarlove1999 said:


> Svs Elevation speakers work very well for Atmos when ideal speaker placement isn't possible. They can be mounted on the angled ceiling and directed at your MLP.
> 
> https://hometheaterreview.com/svs-prime-elevation-satellite-speaker-reviewed/
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Nice, thanks for the link. Do you have to do any special configuration software wise through your receiver to tell it you are using height speakers instead of ceiling or upfiring. DO you just maybe put the distance away from?


----------



## skylarlove1999

Tygeezy said:


> Nice, thanks for the link. Do you have to do any special configuration software wise through your receiver to tell it you are using height speakers instead of ceiling or upfiring. DO you just maybe put the distance away from?


Definitely need to adjust distance. Would need a mic and software program to know in your room what else should be adjusted.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

Tygeezy said:


> Okay, another question for you guys... How good are front high speakers? Mounting on the ceiling just isn't going to happen, and since my ceiling is vaulted; speakers that try to bounce off the ceiling just isn't going to work... I could however mount some speakers a few feet above where my front left and right speakers are. Are these setups okay? We sit about 10 feet away from where my front speakers are sitting.


Since you are sitting pretty close to the TV I would think they could sound ok. Height speakers really work to provide a taller soundstage but with some careful positioning they should provide some overhead sensation. Would you be able to mount them further up the "vault" or just where the front wall meets the incline of the vault? The higher you could go the better but test and see...


----------



## Tygeezy

usc1995 said:


> Since you are sitting pretty close to the TV I would think they could sound ok. Height speakers really work to provide a taller soundstage but with some careful positioning they should provide some overhead sensation. Would you be able to mount them further up the "vault" or just where the front wall meets the incline of the vault? The higher you could go the better but test and see...


The highest I could get away with is the top of the wall before it starts to vault. Even then my wife would probably complain about drooping wires. I might have to get two really tall shelves to sell it.


----------



## ssaddict

usc1995 said:


> In order to get Atmos from those files the audio and the Atmos metadata need to be bitstreamed to your AVR for your AVR to do the decoding. By using VLC you are decoding the audio on your phone and casting the decoded PCM without the Atmos metadata. You will need to use a device that can bitstream the audio like an Nvidia Shield, Zidoo, Oppo bluray player or a computer configured correctly so that your AVR can receive the Atmos information.


Ah, I see. Thanks for the quick reply. Technology has moved on fast since my last 5.1 system.


----------



## ssaddict

usc1995 said:


> In order to get Atmos from those files the audio and the Atmos metadata need to be bitstreamed to your AVR for your AVR to do the decoding. By using VLC you are decoding the audio on your phone and casting the decoded PCM without the Atmos metadata. You will need to use a device that can bitstream the audio like an Nvidia Shield, Zidoo, Oppo bluray player or a computer configured correctly so that your AVR can receive the Atmos information.



Happy to report that your info allowed me to find a way to do it. Instead of using a player app, like VLC, I downloaded an app called "Cast Web Video". This app also allows casting of local files, and casting the ATMOS demo files to my Chromecast device, works perfectly. The sound system reports DOLBY ATMOS on it's display and the sound I hear is truly impressive.

I am very glad to get this working, as there are posts all around the web saying ATMOS will not work through a Chromecast. Obviously they are wrong, and any lack of ATMOS from casting apps like Netflix, are due to the app, not the Chromecast device.

Again thanks for pointing me in the right direction.


----------



## usc1995

ssaddict said:


> Happy to report that your info allowed me to find a way to do it. Instead of using a player app, like VLC, I downloaded an app called "Cast Web Video". This app also allows casting of local files, and casting the ATMOS demo files to my Chromecast device, works perfectly. The sound system reports DOLBY ATMOS on it's display and the sound I hear is truly impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very glad to get this working, as there are posts all around the web saying ATMOS will not work through a Chromecast. Obviously they are wrong, and any lack of ATMOS from casting apps like Netflix, are due to the app, not the Chromecast device.
> 
> 
> 
> Again thanks for pointing me in the right direction.




Great, I am glad I could help!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

usc1995 said:


> That is about the length of my room and my MLP is at about 10ft. Front heights would not have been very effective for me had I gone that way. What is the height of your ceiling? If you have a very high ceiling you may get some overhead sensation with height speakers but if your ceiling is lower like mine (7.5ft) then I wouldn't bother. It is worth the effort to install overheads. Go for it!


I'm sorry, but I have to correct this notion of "height" versus "ceiling" which have NOTHING to do with the speaker being designated height or tops or whether a speaker is "in" the ceiling. There's two (well three really) real situations in which overhead speakers are used. One is sounds AT the speaker (left or right only) and the other two are in-phase (correlated) or out-of-phase (uncorrelated). Just like with regular speakers, correlated in-phase material images BETWEEN the speakers and out-of-phase "uncorrelated" material images outside the speakers. So when you have a sound that is only coming out of the left height speaker, the sound will naturally come from wherever that speaker is placed. If it's on the ceiling 1/4 the way into the room as typical 45 degree "tops" speakers are, yes the sound will be on the ceiling while a height speaker mounted at or above the screen on the wall beside or above it, even at the ceiling will image right where the speaker is. That could make you think the sound is coming from the wall near the ceiling in the front of the room. 

However, Atmos movies are not limited to sounds coming only from the speakers directly by themselves. Sounds can pan between them and can be correlated or uncorrelated. Thus, a height speaker panning halfway between the front height and rear height speakers will appear in the middle of your ceiling even though the speakers are not on the ceiling. This is the mid-way point between them and at lesser pans, it can appear anywhere in-between as well. That's your entire ceiling in a small room. Panning left/right works the same. Thus, technically speaking front/rear wall mounted "height" speakers can image ANYWHERE on the ceiling and correlate items better to the screen itself if the object is high on the screen (as opposed to 1/4 the way out into the room with a tops speaker). In other words, not all sounds necessarily should come from the ceiling, but some from the top of the screen, for example. I think I explained this a page or two ago. There is a distance, however where the speakers would not have a strong central "phantom" image. That point is somewhere between 15-20 feet with an 8 foot ceiling. Adding a top middle set of speakers (or voice of god with the Auro layout) bridges the two sets and allows a very long room indeed with heights. In fact, Trinnov allows heights and tops together at the same time with no overlap. 

Thus, the ONLY question should be whether it's worth it to have "more" sounds on the ceiling (i.e. starting 1/4 into the room puts more on the ceiling than starting at the front wall). A lot of movies have overhead sounds at the very front (music in particular). So do you want "those" sounds to come from the top of the screen or from the ceiling ~1/4 the way out into the room (typical)? Sounds panning between front and back will be on the ceiling (or technically at the plane they are installed at above your head, which if next to the ceiling will sound like the ceiling) regardless. The only difference is the starting point. A true Trinnov setup with all 10 overhead speakers would start at whatever speaker the object was closest to with relevant panning amounts at the others to fit the object size. But with just 4 overheads, the only real difference is the starting point. 

In summary, yes, tops have more on the ceiling precisely because they're mounted on the ceiling typically 1/4 the way out into the room so sounds start on the ceiling. But that doesn't mean heights can't image things on the ceiling once they start to pan front to back. Overhead sounds in the middle should be overhead with either one exactly the same. Only the starting point changes. I've got 6 overheads using front/rear heights and top middle and I just watched Pixels, Jumanji - Welcome to the Jungle and Drive Angry (all in 3D with Atmos) and all three had sounds all over my ceiling.




blb1215 said:


> The short answer is ....it doesn't
> 
> 
> 
> Atmos has to have the height information for atmos to work. Having all speakers on same plane as in 5.1 or 7.1 will not work for Atmos. There is benefit to having side and rear surround of a 7.1 set-up but just not in regards to Atmos.



I'm sorry, but this is also technically incorrect even though it applies to most setups as most AVRs do not support front wides or other extra bed level speakers beyond the 7.1 basic setup. Atmos will work with ANY speakers being used over the 7.1 configuration. In other words, 7.1 + front wides on my Marantz 7010 will use Atmos decoding in order to send the proper information to the front wide speakers which are above and beyond the 7.1 bed track. As for labeling, it varies. On my 7012 for instance, it says Atmos if I configure for 7.1 or higher and "TrueHD" for 5.1 or less even though 7.1 should be TrueHD as well.

A Trinnov Altitude 32 could technically have a 22.1.0 configuration and it will still use Atmos object rendering. It will just render the overhead information in the bed channels, but all those bed channels would be rendered correctly for objects moving between them.


----------



## Tygeezy

MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to correct this notion of "height" versus "ceiling" which have NOTHING to do with the speaker being designated height or tops or whether a speaker is "in" the ceiling. There's two (well three really) real situations in which overhead speakers are used. One is sounds AT the speaker (left or right only) and the other two are in-phase (correlated) or out-of-phase (uncorrelated). Just like with regular speakers, correlated in-phase material images BETWEEN the speakers and out-of-phase "uncorrelated" material images outside the speakers. So when you have a sound that is only coming out of the left height speaker, the sound will naturally come from wherever that speaker is placed. If it's on the ceiling 1/4 the way into the room as typical 45 degree "tops" speakers are, yes the sound will be on the ceiling while a height speaker mounted at or above the screen on the wall beside or above it, even at the ceiling will image right where the speaker is. That could make you think the sound is coming from the wall near the ceiling in the front of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> However, Atmos movies are not limited to sounds coming only from the speakers directly by themselves. Sounds can pan between them and can be correlated or uncorrelated. Thus, a height speaker panning halfway between the front height and rear height speakers will appear in the middle of your ceiling even though the speakers are not on the ceiling. This is the mid-way point between them and at lesser pans, it can appear anywhere in-between as well. That's your entire ceiling in a small room. Panning left/right works the same. Thus, technically speaking front/rear wall mounted "height" speakers can image ANYWHERE on the ceiling and correlate items better to the screen itself if the object is high on the screen (as opposed to 1/4 the way out into the room with a tops speaker). In other words, not all sounds necessarily should come from the ceiling, but some from the top of the screen, for example. I think I explained this a page or two ago. There is a distance, however where the speakers would not have a strong central "phantom" image. That point is somewhere between 15-20 feet with an 8 foot ceiling. Adding a top middle set of speakers (or voice of god with the Auro layout) bridges the two sets and allows a very long room indeed with heights. In fact, Trinnov allows heights and tops together at the same time with no overlap.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the ONLY question should be whether it's worth it to have "more" sounds on the ceiling (i.e. starting 1/4 into the room puts more on the ceiling than starting at the front wall). A lot of movies have overhead sounds at the very front (music in particular). So do you want "those" sounds to come from the top of the screen or from the ceiling ~1/4 the way out into the room (typical)? Sounds panning between front and back will be on the ceiling (or technically at the plane they are installed at above your head, which if next to the ceiling will sound like the ceiling) regardless. The only difference is the starting point. A true Trinnov setup with all 10 overhead speakers would start at whatever speaker the object was closest to with relevant panning amounts at the others to fit the object size. But with just 4 overheads, the only real difference is the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> In summary, yes, tops have more on the ceiling precisely because they're mounted on the ceiling typically 1/4 the way out into the room so sounds start on the ceiling. But that doesn't mean heights can't image things on the ceiling once they start to pan front to back. Overhead sounds in the middle should be overhead with either one exactly the same. Only the starting point changes. I've got 6 overheads using front/rear heights and top middle and I just watched Pixels, Jumanji - Welcome to the Jungle and Drive Angry (all in 3D with Atmos) and all three had sounds all over my ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is also technically incorrect even though it applies to most setups as most AVRs do not support front wides or other extra bed level speakers beyond the 7.1 basic setup. Atmos will work with ANY speakers being used over the 7.1 configuration. In other words, 7.1 + front wides on my Marantz 7010 will use Atmos decoding in order to send the proper information to the front wide speakers which are above and beyond the 7.1 bed track. As for labeling, it varies. On my 7012 for instance, it says Atmos if I configure for 7.1 or higher and "TrueHD" for 5.1 or less even though 7.1 should be TrueHD as well.
> 
> 
> 
> A Trinnov Altitude 32 could technically have a 22.1.0 configuration and it will still use Atmos object rendering. It will just render the overhead information in the bed channels, but all those bed channels would be rendered correctly for objects moving between them.


Yeah, that was going to be my next question. Do the regular 5 channels I have benefit from atmos or do only the height speakers get that information?

This makes more sense to me. Objects being rendered in height could instead be routed to my existing channels.

So if I’m bit streaming a true hd track but since my speaker config is setup as 5.1 my receiver labels it as true hd and I still getting that atmos metadata?


----------



## MagnumX

Tygeezy said:


> Yeah, that was going to be my next question. Do the regular 5 channels I have benefit from atmos or do only the height speakers get that information?
> 
> This makes more sense to me. Objects being rendered in height could instead be routed to my existing channels.
> 
> So if I’m bit streaming a true hd track but since my speaker config is setup as 5.1 my receiver labels it as true hd and I still getting that atmos metadata?


The height channels are folded into the bed channels in 5.1. In other words, there's no difference than playing the same movie on an older 5.1 TrueHD receiver. OTOH, you're not missing anything either. All the sounds are in the bed channels is all. A lot of the marketing hype made it sound like Atmos makes 5.1 or 7.1 more precise, but that's nonsense. Panning is panning. It makes it easier perhaps to make a 5.1 soundtrack using objects instead of channel panning, but the end result is still backwards compatible 5.1 or 7.1.


----------



## Matt L

Tygeezy said:


> The highest I could get away with is the top of the wall before it starts to vault. Even then my wife would probably complain about drooping wires. I might have to get two really tall shelves to sell it.


There are multiple ways of hiding the wires, I wouldn't want wires showing in my room either. They all require a bit of work, but are doable. Easiest in my book is simply to run them behind the drywall, a short fish tape can work wonders or the flex fiberglass rods that attach together. If you are adverse to that there is a flat wire that can be applied to the walls and mudded over to become invisible, more work in my book but doable.

I have a vaulted ceiling with almost zero attic access and managed to put in 4 speakers with aim-able cones well worth the effort and the 200' of wire I fished through various walls. Tried height speakers first, they were of but do not compare to in ceiling setups.


----------



## Daniel Ickes

I'm at work right now, downloading Atmos demo files. (.m2ts)
Can I put them on a USB stick, then when I get home, plug the stick into the front of my new receiver and get Atmos sound?
I would appreciate a quick answer before I waste more time setting up this stick.


----------



## MagnumX

Daniel Ickes said:


> I'm at work right now, downloading Atmos demo files. (.m2ts)
> Can I put them on a USB stick, then when I get home, plug the stick into the front of my new receiver and get Atmos sound?
> I would appreciate a quick answer before I waste more time setting up this stick.


I don't think AVRs do video off USB thumb drives. You can transfer them to a media player when you get home, though.


----------



## Daniel Ickes

MagnumX said:


> I don't think AVRs do video off USB thumb drives. You can transfer them to a media player when you get home, though.


OK. Thanks. My Sony BluRay has a USB on front of it too. I'll try that.
You may be right about AVR's playing video off the USB. I'm reading the manual now and it lists a bunch of music formats for the USB.


----------



## sdurani

Tygeezy said:


> Do the regular 5 channels I have benefit from atmos or do only the height speakers get that information?


Information in the soundtrack is never discarded, so you hear all the sound irrespective of how few speakers you're using. 

The TrueHD bitstream is made up of a series of substreams. The first substream carries the entire soundtrack as a 2-channel mix. The second substream carries the audio & instructions needed to reconstruct the entire soundtrack as a 5.1 mix. The third substream carries the audio & instructions needed to reconstruct the entire soundtrack as a 7.1 mix. The fourth substream carries the audio & instructions needed to reconstruct the entire soundtrack as an Atmos mix (original beds & audio objects). 

If you are listening to the soundtrack using the 2 speakers on your TV, then only the first substream needs to be decoded. If you're listening to the soundtrack on your 5.1-speaker set-up, then only the first & second substreams need to be decoded. For all intents & purposes, it is as though you were playing back a legacy 2-channel or 5.1-channel soundtrack. No need to decode the entire soundtrack and downmix it.


> So if I’m bit streaming a true hd track but since my speaker config is setup as 5.1 my receiver labels it as true hd and I still getting that atmos metadata?


Think of home Atmos soundtracks as being made up of 2 main parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). The audio data can be losslessly packed (TrueHD) if there is plenty of storage room on a disc or it can be transmitted using lossy compression (DD+) if there is limited bandwidth. The metadata is mostly the same for lossless & lossy versions. 

The part of the metadata that deals with Atmos playback (e.g., where to place objects) never comes into play. When playing back an Atmos soundtrack on your 5.1-speaker set-up, only the 5.1 mix is decoded and each channel is sent to its respective speaker. Again, it's just like playing back a 5.1 soundtrack. Nothing to do with Atmos or Atmos metadata.


----------



## Tygeezy

Matt L said:


> There are multiple ways of hiding the wires, I wouldn't want wires showing in my room either. They all require a bit of work, but are doable. Easiest in my book is simply to run them behind the drywall, a short fish tape can work wonders or the flex fiberglass rods that attach together. If you are adverse to that there is a flat wire that can be applied to the walls and mudded over to become invisible, more work in my book but doable.
> 
> I have a vaulted ceiling with almost zero attic access and managed to put in 4 speakers with aim-able cones well worth the effort and the 200' of wire I fished through various walls. Tried height speakers first, they were of but do not compare to in ceiling setups.


Since your ceiling is vaulted like mine are yo I running a .2 or .4 atmos setup? The speakers in a .4 ceiling wouldn’t be level so wouldn’t that mess up the acoustics?

Thanks for the advice! She didn’t even like the idea of speakers sticking out of the wall. I could probably do in ceiling though.

She cares way more about aesthetics than actual performance. Are current 5.1 is very much hidden. The middle speaker is actually inside the entertainment center and the door has just a black screen.


----------



## Carnajo

Thanks @MagnumX for the very detailed and thorough response, makes perfect sense. I suspect though that it also shows that any front/rear height/ceiling speakers in such a setup should be matched brand and model since any difference in "voicing" could ruin the image.
Also, from what you're saying, if one has top middle or top front speakers, I suspect that the processing could create a "height" image using the top speakers and the front left/rights?


I would love to set up an x.1.6 setup, front and rear heights with top middles on ceiling, but I don't think my lowly AVR can process that. 









MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but I have to correct this notion of "height" versus "ceiling" which have NOTHING to do with the speaker being designated height or tops or whether a speaker is "in" the ceiling. There's two (well three really) real situations in which overhead speakers are used. One is
> 
> sounds AT the speaker (left or right only) and the other two are in-phase (correlated) or out-of-phase (uncorrelated). Just like with regular speakers, correlated in-phase material images BETWEEN the speakers and out-of-phase "uncorrelated" material images outside the speakers. So when you have a sound that is only coming out of the left height speaker, the sound will naturally come from wherever that speaker is placed. If it's on the ceiling 1/4 the way into the room as typical 45 degree "tops" speakers are, yes the sound will be on the ceiling while a height speaker mounted at or above the screen on the wall beside or above it, even at the ceiling will image right where the speaker is. That could make you think the sound is coming from the wall near the ceiling in the front of the room.
> 
> However, Atmos movies are not limited to sounds coming only from the speakers directly by themselves. Sounds can pan between them and can be correlated or uncorrelated. Thus, a height speaker panning halfway between the front height and rear height speakers will appear in the middle of your ceiling even though the speakers are not on the ceiling. This is the mid-way point between them and at lesser pans, it can appear anywhere in-between as well. That's your entire ceiling in a small room. Panning left/right works the same. Thus, technically speaking front/rear wall mounted "height" speakers can image ANYWHERE on the ceiling and correlate items better to the screen itself if the object is high on the screen (as opposed to 1/4 the way out into the room with a tops speaker). In other words, not all sounds necessarily should come from the ceiling, but some from the top of the screen, for example. I think I explained this a page or two ago. There is a distance, however where the speakers would not have a strong central "phantom" image. That point is somewhere between 15-20 feet with an 8 foot ceiling. Adding a top middle set of speakers (or voice of god with the Auro layout) bridges the two sets and allows a very long room indeed with heights. In fact, Trinnov allows heights and tops together at the same time with no overlap.
> 
> Thus, the ONLY question should be whether it's worth it to have "more" sounds on the ceiling (i.e. starting 1/4 into the room puts more on the ceiling than starting at the front wall). A lot of movies have overhead sounds at the very front (music in particular). So do you want "those" sounds to come from the top of the screen or from the ceiling ~1/4 the way out into the room (typical)? Sounds panning between front and back will be on the ceiling (or technically at the plane they are installed at above your head, which if next to the ceiling will sound like the ceiling) regardless. The only difference is the starting point. A true Trinnov setup with all 10 overhead speakers would start at whatever speaker the object was closest to with relevant panning amounts at the others to fit the object size. But with just 4 overheads, the only real difference is the starting point.
> 
> In summary, yes, tops have more on the ceiling precisely because they're mounted on the ceiling typically 1/4 the way out into the room so sounds start on the ceiling. But that doesn't mean heights can't image things on the ceiling once they start to pan front to back. Overhead sounds in the middle should be overhead with either one exactly the same. Only the starting point changes. I've got 6 overheads using front/rear heights and top middle and I just watched Pixels, Jumanji - Welcome to the Jungle and Drive Angry (all in 3D with Atmos) and all three had sounds all over my ceiling.


----------



## Quetzalcoalt

sdurani said:


> Information in the soundtrack is never discarded, so you hear all the sound irrespective of how few speakers you're using.
> 
> The TrueHD bitstream is made up of a series of substreams. The first substream carries the entire soundtrack as a 2-channel mix. The second substream carries the audio & instructions needed to reconstruct the entire soundtrack as a 5.1 mix. The third substream carries the audio & instructions needed to reconstruct the entire soundtrack as a 7.1 mix. The fourth substream carries the audio & instructions needed to reconstruct the entire soundtrack as an Atmos mix (original beds & audio objects).
> 
> If you are listening to the soundtrack using the 2 speakers on your TV, then only the first substream needs to be decoded. If you're listening to the soundtrack on your 5.1-speaker set-up, then only the first & second substreams need to be decoded. For all intents & purposes, it is as though you were playing back a legacy 2-channel or 5.1-channel soundtrack. No need to decode the entire soundtrack and downmix it. Think of home Atmos soundtracks as being made up of 2 main parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). The audio data can be losslessly packed (TrueHD) if there is plenty of storage room on a disc or it can be transmitted using lossy compression (DD+) if there is limited bandwidth. The metadata is mostly the same for lossless & lossy versions.
> 
> The part of the metadata that deals with Atmos playback (e.g., where to place objects) never comes into play. When playing back an Atmos soundtrack on your 5.1-speaker set-up, only the 5.1 mix is decoded and each channel is sent to its respective speaker. Again, it's just like playing back a 5.1 soundtrack. Nothing to do with Atmos or Atmos metadata.


Wait, so if i have a 5.1.2, the avr won't mix the back surround into to the side surrounds ? I've hear back surround panning on some tracks, even thou i have only sides. So the back channels should be mapped to the sides and give the illusion (imaging) like the front left and right are doing with stereo music.


----------



## sdurani

Quetzalcoalt said:


> Wait, so if i have a 5.1.2, the avr won't mix the back surround into to the side surrounds ?


It will.


sdurani said:


> Information in the soundtrack is never discarded, so you hear all the sound irrespective of how few speakers you're using.


----------



## Matt L

Tygeezy said:


> Since your ceiling is vaulted like mine are yo I running a .2 or .4 atmos setup? The speakers in a .4 ceiling wouldn’t be level so wouldn’t that mess up the acoustics?
> 
> Thanks for the advice! She didn’t even like the idea of speakers sticking out of the wall. I could probably do in ceiling though.
> 
> She cares way more about aesthetics than actual performance. Are current 5.1 is very much hidden. The middle speaker is actually inside the entertainment center and the door has just a black screen.


My ceiling has a gentler slope, so I used speakers that had a -if I recall- a 19 degree slope. There are a number of speakers out there designed for your application. The problem will be running the wires in what ever attic space you have. My family room was adjacent to a second story bedroom closet and I was only able to cut a 4" wide slot to work with, but I got it done.


----------



## MagnumX

Carnajo said:


> Thanks @MagnumX for the very detailed and thorough response, makes perfect sense. I suspect though that it also shows that any front/rear height/ceiling speakers in such a setup should be matched brand and model since any difference in "voicing" could ruin the image.
> Also, from what you're saying, if one has top middle or top front speakers, I suspect that the processing could create a "height" image using the top speakers and the front left/rights?
> 
> 
> I would love to set up an x.1.6 setup, front and rear heights with top middles on ceiling, but I don't think my lowly AVR can process that.


I would say they should have the same or similar drivers. Many speaker lines have identical midranges and/or tweeters in their various models. Timbre is the most important for a consistent image, although room correction "might" potentially help there if you use it full range (even the same speaker in different positions can sound a bit different due to the room response, etc.) 

My AVR doesn't do six overhead. I use dual Dolby Pro Logic processors to "extract" a top middle speaker using the center output of each (i.e. input left front height and left rear height and center output will give you top middle left, etc.) This also gets around the infamous 11-channel DTS:X limitation and works with Auro-3D as well. Unless the distance/angle is too great (say more than 120 degrees from the MLP), you shouldn't need top middle to image all the way across the ceiling. I need it here because while my front heights are at ~32 degrees relative to the MLP, the rear heights (despite being mounted on the ceiling, not the wall) are so far back into the room (24' long room and they're about at 22' into it) puts their angle closer to 21 degrees from the front row/MLP which is about 37% into the room. The imaging gets weak near the center (you can tell with the helicopter demo and things directly overhead). By using top middle, it bridges the angles and drops them to only 60 degrees between any set of speakers, which image quite evenly from edge to edge across the ceiling). 


Tops/ceiling speakers (which would be at higher angles and likely further into the room) will give you more overhead since they start overhead, but they sacrifice imaging close to the screen and the back of the room (if you have a row of seats back there, the rear tops might be in front of you, for instance). I don't believe "tops" to be "superior" to heights. You get slightly different results (edge to edge versus starting higher overhead). I also think heights blend better with the bed channels than tops, which might be a bit more abrupt depending on how high they are above the bed speakers (that creates another phantom imaging angle between the two when it pans vertically). So it's a bit subjective when you consider what you're looking for (more screen relevance versus starting more overhead). 

I also went for a combined Auro-3D/Atmos/X setup so heights were a must or Auro-3D wouldn't work. Auro-3D doesn't seem to be getting a ton of tractions, but I have 11 movies and a few dozen songs in just a year and a half time so it's not useless to me so far either. Red Tails and Death Machine are available in Auro-3D and they're both quite good, IMO. More may eventually be on the way as Turbine is doing more Auro-only titles in the future from what I read, but you have to order them from Germany (they do have English Auro-3D tracks on them). Of course, if you have a Yamaha or Onkyo AVR or a lower tier D&M AVR, Auro-3D isn't offered.


DTS:X might try to image "heights" combining with the fronts and tops with Neural X, but I don't know that Atmos tries to simulate missing speaker positions.


----------



## Tygeezy

Matt L said:


> My ceiling has a gentler slope, so I used speakers that had a -if I recall- a 19 degree slope. There are a number of speakers out there designed for your application. The problem will be running the wires in what ever attic space you have. My family room was adjacent to a second story bedroom closet and I was only able to cut a 4" wide slot to work with, but I got it done.


I don know if you have seen my slope angle from the previous page, but it looks like 25-30 degrees. I know she doesn't want to see speakers sticking out of walls, but I know she would be cool if it was flush with the ceiling. Unfortunately I couldn't put speakers right above our sitting location to have it flush with the ceiling since it would be putting out sound right behind us. Optimally it would have to be at a point in the ceiling where the speakers can be flush and facing right at our viewing location. I might just crawl up in our attic this weekend and see what im working with as far as space.


----------



## Tygeezy

So I hooked up an old speaker yesterday as a height right speaker to do some tests. A few things of note. Games that supported atmos were fantastic. Using dolby surround to upscale on 5.1 games seems cool, but it wasn't nearly as accurate. The movies that I have that supported it sounded like they would be awesome, but I tried two different tv shows with atmos that hardly used the overhead speakers.. Is this a common for atmos tv shows? Tv shows rated for atmos not actually being very good?


----------



## ssaddict

Tygeezy said:


> So I hooked up an old speaker yesterday as a height right speaker to do some tests. A few things of note. Games that supported atmos were fantastic. Using dolby surround to upscale on 5.1 games seems cool, but it wasn't nearly as accurate. The movies that I have that supported it sounded like they would be awesome, but I tried two different tv shows with atmos that hardly used the overhead speakers.. Is this a common for atmos tv shows? Tv shows rated for atmos not actually being very good?



Games and certain movies, and demos, try to show off and exaggerate. They should be striving for reality. Don't expect to hear surround all the time.


----------



## Tygeezy

ssaddict said:


> Games and certain movies, and demos, try to show off and exaggerate. They should be striving for reality. Don't expect to hear surround all the time.


For games that supported it I found it accurate. It was changing perfectly when panning the camera with noise from overhead. If I was upmixing a 5.1 game it seemed to be sending some audio from my right front right that maybe shouldn't have been positioned to the top right.

I tested the mandalorian and peaky blinders for the tv shows. Peaky Im not sure I heard anything other than a tap or two, and the mandalorian didn't send much of anything when a speaker bike drove through the camera which I would think would have significant audio being sent to the top.


----------



## ssaddict

Tygeezy said:


> For games that supported it I found it accurate. It was changing perfectly when panning the camera with noise from overhead. If I was upmixing a 5.1 game it seemed to be sending some audio from my right front right that maybe shouldn't have been positioned to the top right.
> 
> I tested the mandalorian and peaky blinders for the tv shows. Peaky Im not sure I heard anything other than a tap or two, and the mandalorian didn't send much of anything when a speaker bike drove through the camera which I would think would have significant audio being sent to the top.



I interpret "accurate" a bit differently to "reality". Games tend to place sounds very accurately, but at much higher volumes than they should be.

As for movies, some only do it enough to be able to put the logo on the movie. Peaky blinders, I thought, was fairly real. I actually was so involved with the show, I hardly paid attention to the sound


----------



## Tygeezy

ssaddict said:


> I interpret "accurate" a bit differently to "reality". Games tend to place sounds very accurately, but at much higher volumes than they should be.
> 
> As for movies, some only do it enough to be able to put the logo on the movie. Peaky blinders, I thought, was fairly real. I actually was so involved with the show, I hardly paid attention to the sound


You make a great point. Accuracy of both position and noise level are ideal. Id have to hook up a much better speaker to get an idea of the volume level, but I found the placement very accurate for games that had spacial audio.

Borderlands 3 despite not being labeled as atmos actually has my receiver displaying atmos. So my guess is any game that supports surround sound "spacial audio" will be decoded as atmos which is very cool because the actual games branded as atmos are limited.


----------



## BuffSJ

I have a somewhat similar situation as a previous poster with the vaulted ceilings, so somewhat relevant to the recent heights vs tops discussion, and was hoping for some advice with a pretty constrained situation.

I have a room 18' long with the MLP (couch) at 8' from the front wall, and a 5.1 current setup and looking to add heights or rears. Vaulted ceiling is 12' on one side and 16' on the other, so ceiling mount isn't an option. Additional wiring on the sides (beyond current 5.1 sides) is also unfortunately not an option, so I am left with the possibility of adding front wall / rear wall heights (5.1.4), or front heights and rear surrounds (7.1.2), but not both. I thought I had great foresight to pre-wire the back wall with 2 additional speaker wire runs when I did major remodel years ago, but unfortunately only did 2. So I can utilize those for either traditional ear level rear surrounds or pull them higher for rear heights.

So in this situation would you suggest proceeding with 4 height speakers? Seems a bit odd to me to have rear heights with no rear surround, given the long room and distance to back wall (fyi current side surrounds are at ~110 degrees, just behind MLP). On the other hand moving from 5.1 to 7.1 and then just two front heights may not be particularly impactful?

The height that looks possible is 8' high, likely something like the angled SVSs.

Of course a simpler option if those aren't worth the work might be to just move to 7.1 and wait for the AVR to get the virtual height firmware updates promised (Monoprice HTP-1, eventually).

thanks for any suggestions!

p.s. I'm also adding a second sub at long last, but that isn't too relevant to my question


----------



## fookoo_2010

BuffSJ said:


> .....So in this situation would you suggest proceeding with 4 height speakers? Seems a bit odd to me to have rear heights with no rear surround, given the long room and distance to back wall (fyi current side surrounds are at ~110 degrees, just behind MLP). On the other hand moving from 5.1 to 7.1 and then just two front heights may not be particularly impactful?


I would think that rear surrounds would be a lot more impact-full than two rear height speakers, given the choice between the two. The front heights will vertically and horizontally stretch the sound field in the front, not so much in the rear (where your ears are less sensitive) where they provide more room ambiance.


----------



## Matt L

Tygeezy said:


> I don know if you have seen my slope angle from the previous page, but it looks like 25-30 degrees. I know she doesn't want to see speakers sticking out of walls, but I know she would be cool if it was flush with the ceiling. Unfortunately I couldn't put speakers right above our sitting location to have it flush with the ceiling since it would be putting out sound right behind us. Optimally it would have to be at a point in the ceiling where the speakers can be flush and facing right at our viewing location. I might just crawl up in our attic this weekend and see what im working with as far as space.


As I mentioned there are speakers designed for just your application from a number of manufacturers with varying angles . I did 4 in ceiling speakers, and you do want a set behind you. There are many references in this thread to proper placement. The speakers should be in line with your front speakers spaced forward of you MLP and if you are doing a second set they need to be behind you. Look at some of the Dolby diagrams posted here and on Dolby's Atmos site.

If you like me are dealing with an R40+ blanket of insulation I found using the 12' pex water lines from Lowe's or HD to be the perfect tool to get the wires up and over. I no longer had my ceiling paint available so I took one of the cut outs and had HD color match it and painted out the speaker grills. I won't say they are totally unnoticeable, but they are no an eyesore - and I'm pretty picky...


----------



## MagnumX

I would go 5.1.4 over 7.1.2 with only front heights. With only front heights, you will get no sounds directly overhead as it needs to be able to pan to put sounds between front and rear heights overhead whereas rear beds folded into sides at 110 degrees still image behind you, just not as far back. You could possibly add front wides in the future for already enveloping effect without major wiring with a compatible receiver.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Onward74 said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to know not everyone didn't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think most viewers really enjoyed it, then there are the very vocal nitpickers complaining online.
Click to expand...

You are kidding right?? I LOVED game of thrones. Was even ready to proclaim it the best dram of all time-taking the crown from The Wire-UNTIL season 8. If you believe that most people didn’t think it was a huge drop off in quality and story telling then I have a bridge in Manhattan I’d like to sell you. 

It was bad. Don’t need to be vocal but let’s be real. It was not great


----------



## MagnumX

Although the movie was weak, especially compared to the prior movies with Ron Pearlman, the new *Hellboy* reboot does one thing well and that is Atmos. Sounds were well placed all over the room with plenty of ambience as well and a lot of rear and overhead use (well above average, IMO). If you want a freaky cool panning effect, the scene with the rolling metal ball going in circles at bed level is pretty interesting (at first less distinct and mostly behind you as it's coming from a different room in the movie and then more precise as they enter the room). It goes on for some time so there's plenty of opportunity to observe it. 

It's a shame the movie struck such a "cheesy" nerve, mostly in the areas of bad acting and bad dialog. Honestly, when Milla Jovovitch outacts the main actor you know it's bad (as much as I love to watch Milla, dialog is not her strong suit). It's hard to tell if it's more the acting or the poor dialog and generally poorly written script that's at fault. I'm apt to believe the latter as it constantly feels like someone needed to step in and say, this is stupid like creatures and giants that magically appear out of nowhere and a main character that somehow magically loses his free will when he picks up a sword rather than any play on temptation or the like as a plot motivator.

As good as the sound is, I don't know if I could sit through it again.....


----------



## sanj101

Might anyone have any suggestions for what speakers to mount on or near the ceiling as downfiring speakers for front and rear heights in a 5.1.4 system? I'd appreciate the input. I've tried two high end soundbars both of which had upfiring speakers but I was not impressed. I'm thinking for my family room (13ftW x 17ftL x 8.5ftH) I need to get near ceiling downfiring speakers. I'm not good at wiring in walls so wasn't considering in ceiling. I have a lot of openness at the walls, a half wall behind the couch (which is the kitchen), a stone fireplace, and a few other less than ideal barriers in the room so the reflecting off ceiling and walls doesn't work well for me.
​
My total budget is ~$2400. The 2 set up options I'm considering are:​
​
1) ELAC Debut B6.2 bookshelves in the fronts and rears, and the ELAC 5.2 center ($2020 with sub and AVR)​
​
OR​
​
2) Cheaper option of Pioneer SP-FS52 floorstanding for fronts, SP-BS22 bookshelves for rears and C-22 center ($1460 with sub and AVR)​
​
* Any suggestions for a different set up would be welcome!

I'm really impressed with SVS Elevations from what I've read but they're a little expensive, and I'd break my budget with the first system if I used them for both front and rear heights ($400/pair x 2 = $800) for the first system. With the 2nd system, I'm not sure if it makes sense to spend almost a third of the cost of the entire system on just the heights … or does it? For other alternate height speakers, I was looking at Fluance SXBP2 or Polk S10 or T15 satellites. Any suggestions for downfiring heightswould be much appreciated!


----------



## MagnumX

@sanj101 - I like the PSB CS500 for on my ceiling in the rear of the room. Like all PSB, they're very neutral and the CS500 can be rotated to aim at the listening position. They're pretty easy to mount and pretty reasonably priced if you look around. There's also a larger version (CS1000). They are the same speaker as the PSB Imagine B inside so it's easy to match with mains or surrounds as well. They come on white or black to match a theater or regular ceiling.


----------



## Daniel Ickes

MagnumX said:


> I don't think AVRs do video off USB thumb drives. You can transfer them to a media player when you get home, though.





Daniel Ickes said:


> OK. Thanks. My Sony BluRay has a USB on front of it too. I'll try that.
> You may be right about AVR's playing video off the USB. I'm reading the manual now and it lists a bunch of music formats for the USB.


I downloaded about 20 ATMOS demo files onto a thumb drive. (Amaze, Audiosphere, Leaf, Shattered...) Played them through my Sony BD, front USB port.

A few said "file corrupt" and did nothing. A few said "Audio not supported" these played in silence.

About 10 or 15 files played well and output in ATMOS. the ones that played were in
Dolby TrueHD 7.1 ATMOS and Dolby Digital Plus ATMOS.

What were the other files?


----------



## Augerhandle

sanj101 said:


> ...I'm not good at wiring in walls so wasn't considering in ceiling...


Hire someone to run the wires to the ceiling.


----------



## MagnumX

Daniel Ickes said:


> I downloaded about 20 ATMOS demo files onto a thumb drive. (Amaze, Audiosphere, Leaf, Shattered...) Played them through my Sony BD, front USB port.
> 
> A few said "file corrupt" and did nothing. A few said "Audio not supported" these played in silence.
> 
> About 10 or 15 files played well and output in ATMOS. the ones that played were in
> Dolby TrueHD 7.1 ATMOS and Dolby Digital Plus ATMOS.
> 
> What were the other files?


I have several demos in M2TS format (that's the format they're stored in on Blu-Ray discs). KODI can play them, for example. There's also MKV and MP4 versions out there. I'm not sure which ones you downloaded so I cannot be sure which ones didn't play on the Blu-Ray player, but it's probably MKV or M2TS (latter possibly because it's not expecting BD discs files on a flash drive?)


----------



## MagnumX

MagnumX said:


> @sanj101 - I like the PSB CS500 for on my ceiling in the rear of the room. Like all PSB, they're very neutral and the CS500 can be rotated to aim at the listening position. They're pretty easy to mount and pretty reasonably priced if you look around. There's also a larger version (CS1000). They are the same speaker as the PSB Imagine B inside so it's easy to match with mains or surrounds as well. They come on white or black to match a theater or regular ceiling.


Here's a picture of the CS500 on the ceiling in the rear of my home theater room:


----------



## sanj101

Augerhandle said:


> sanj101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not good at wiring in walls so wasn't considering in ceiling...
> 
> 
> 
> Hire someone to run the wires to the ceiling.
Click to expand...

 @Augerhandle - Yea that's a possibility. I think its just a little daunting this whole task of finding someone and then not knowing much about the ins and outs of doing in ceiling speakers, testing and positioning, etc. I may still do it though after researching more about but have to consider cost of labor.

Would you recommend any in ceiling speakers for my budget? I guess I would still need both front and rear heights? Or could I combine front heights with upfiring with rear heights in-ceiling?


----------



## sanj101

MagnumX said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> @sanj101 - I like the PSB CS500 for on my ceiling in the rear of the room. Like all PSB, they're very neutral and the CS500 can be rotated to aim at the listening position. They're pretty easy to mount and pretty reasonably priced if you look around. There's also a larger version (CS1000). They are the same speaker as the PSB Imagine B inside so it's easy to match with mains or surrounds as well. They come on white or black to match a theater or regular ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a picture of the CS500 on the ceiling in the rear of my home theater room:
Click to expand...

 @MagnumX - Nice. I like PSBs. Have the older pair of Image T6 in the basement for music. Are you using either the psb imagine Bs or CS500 for the front heights? I understand one should match the fronts and center but I heard different things about matching others or just getting something tonally similar. I imagine (no pun intended) that the front heights and rear heights should be same/very similar and rears can be a little different. Not sure if this is true. I was also thinking if I should get fronts as combo with upfiring to save money on front heights and spend more money on dedicated rear heights but if I do that heights won't match.


----------



## MagnumX

sanj101 said:


> @MagnumX - Nice. I like PSBs. Have the older pair of Image T6 in the basement for music. Are you using either the psb imagine Bs or CS500 for the front heights? I understand one should match the fronts and center but I heard different things about matching others or just getting something tonally similar. I imagine (no pun intended) that the front heights and rear heights should be same/very similar and rears can be a little different. Not sure if this is true. I was also thinking if I should get fronts as combo with upfiring to save money on front heights and spend more money on dedicated rear heights but if I do that heights won't match.


Here's the details of my home theater setup (it's in my signature, but the mobile version of the site doesn't show signatures) : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...r-set-up-immersive-audio-54.html#post56799092

Basically, all the speakers I'm using have the exact same drivers except the rear speakers (T45 Main towers have an extra matching woofer, but are otherwise the same as the B15, which are used everywhere else except the side heights which are the S50 angled bipolars, but still use the same exact drivers, just two sets angled). The rears use newer versions of the same drivers (X1T and CS500 have stiffer same sized woofers and titanium instead of aluminum tweeters). These match each other driver wise, but both are still extremely similar to the rest, as are most PSB speakers). Basically, you want drivers that are very close to each other timbre-wise. Room correction can help a little, but similar drivers are still important.

I would recommend against using upfiring speakers. I don't think the effect is very good. Matching heights would work very well overhead by comparison. I'm using an 11.1.6 configuration so that's 17 speakers. I saved a lot of money by buying several used on eBay and even the X1T and CS500 are much cheaper from dealers in Canada, IMO. You don't need in-ceiling to get a good overhead effect. They do look neater, but my ceiling is in-between floors so it would not have been easy (or cheap hiring someone) to run the wiring. I use B15 bookshelf speakers at the ceiling in the front, S50s pointed towards the front and mid/rear rows on the sides near the ceiling (acting like two sets of overheads as they point both directions) and the CS500 on the rear ceiling in line with the front speakers. I leak a little from the extracted top middle (I use dual Pro Logic processors to extract a "top middle" set of channels between the front and rear heights given the length of my room and this with a speaker selector box gives me an optional "true Auro-3D" playback as well) to pull the side phantom image over more in line (can't tell the difference as such with the helicopter demo) and get a nice consistent sound around the room now as the helicopter flies around. I've 11.1 on the floor and the Atmos "Amaze" demo has the bird flying around the room in a giant circular pattern and sounds even and consistent here so clearly using same/similar drivers works quite well. 

It's absolute nonsense that "height" configured speakers can't image on the ceiling as I explained a page ago. Any panning front to back is on the ceiling. The only difference is in/on ceiling at 45 degrees tends to be out into the room so the sounds start on the ceiling instead of at the top of the screen giving the impression more is out in the room on the ceiling, but it's just a different starting location and is still at ceiling height and matches action on the screen better, IMO.

This is the pattern of speakers in my room (layout and speaker angles):


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> I have several demos in M2TS format (that's the format they're stored in on Blu-Ray discs). KODI can play them, for example. There's also MKV and MP4 versions out there. I'm not sure which ones you downloaded so I cannot be sure which ones didn't play on the Blu-Ray player, but it's probably MKV or M2TS (latter possibly because it's not expecting BD discs files on a flash drive?)


It is the other way around - TrueHD Atmos can only be played from m2ts files, not from MKV-s or MP4-s (that standard does not even foresee lossless tracks).
DD+ Atmos plays also from MP4 files but not from MKV-s.


----------



## dfa973

CBdicX said:


> Hi MagnumX (and other "users"  ),
> 
> i need some advice for a good media streamer.
> Now i use a *Zappiti One 4K *but this is running on crappy software.
> Picture quality is good, it plays all download files (from my NAS) so no problems there but the software is very buggy.
> 
> So i need a media player i can put beside my Denon X4500H, connect it to the NAS and play my MKV and MP4 files (H264 and H265) Dolby Atmos / DTSX sound support, HDR10 and Dolby Vision.
> 
> Advice please…….thanks


I use Intel NUCs as media players, with Kodi - a very flexible combination - you can add many other media players than Kodi (like PowerDVD 19), but Kodi does a lot (including PowerDVD as an external player) and supports a lot of A/V formats (but no Dolby Vision, not even PowerDVD does support DV). 
My content is also stored on a NAS.
Kodi 18 does not natively support HDR10 passthrough (only via MPC-BE external player and madVR), but there is a forked Kodi 19 HDR edition that does that natively (no MPC-BE+madVR needed, including switching back to SDR after HDR10 playback, just like any player will do).


----------



## MagnumX

priitv8 said:


> It is the other way around - TrueHD Atmos can only be played from m2ts files, not from MKV-s or MP4-s (that standard does not even foresee lossless tracks).
> DD+ Atmos plays also from MP4 files but not from MKV-s.


What's the "other way around" ? I didn't state which formats could be carried in which container. I was speculating which format his BD player wouldn't play. 

1> TrueHD and Atmos most certainly *CAN* be played from MKV files! MKV can hold everything out there. All my movies ripped from MakeMKV are in (surprise) MKV format. That includes TrueHD Atmos, DTS-HD Master X and even DTS-HD carrying Auro-3D. They all play back fine with KODI and with my Zidoo X9S in its home theater mode.

2> He didn't say and didn't know what format the files that wouldn't play were in, only the ones that _were_ playing. 

There are Atmos demos out there in MP4 including the ones directly from Dolby themselves (they are DD+ MAT carriers). He mentioned some that played were DD+ Atmos. Those were "probably" the MP4 since MP4 is played on most (but not all) players out there (no idea what his Sony BD player will play for sure, though). He mentioned some TrueHD Atmos played. Those could be M2TS or MKV and it's up in the air which won't play since most "file players" on BD players I've seen only play limited file formats sometimes even when discs have better support on the same player. MT2S is common for discs, but less so for file players. Meanwhile, MKV is often _not_ supported since it's commonly seen a "pirated" format given no known commercial supplier uses the format. But both these formats can carry both TrueHD and DD+. Thus, my guess is the ones that wouldn't play are one of these two (MT2S or MKV) for different reasons.

While I've never seen TrueHD lossless on an MP4 file (There is no technical reason it can't be updated to carry such, however) that most certainly does NOT mean the format cannot carry lossless audio files. Apple has supported ALAC lossless on MP4 (M4V) files for over 14 years now! Handbrake supports storing DTS-HD Master Audio (and DTS lossy cores) in MP4/M4V files and KODI, VLC, Zidoo and others will play it back (while iTunes will still play any stereo/DD/DD+ files on said files while ignoring the DTS files as if they don't exist making this a good choice for files compatible with AppleTV players but carrying better audio for KODI (ATV won't play MKV, although some of the apps for it will on the newer app compatible models).


----------



## sanj101

MagnumX said:


> sanj101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> @MagnumX - Nice. I like PSBs. Have the older pair of Image T6 in the basement for music. Are you using either the psb imagine Bs or CS500 for the front heights? I understand one should match the fronts and center but I heard different things about matching others or just getting something tonally similar. I imagine (no pun intended) that the front heights and rear heights should be same/very similar and rears can be a little different. Not sure if this is true. I was also thinking if I should get fronts as combo with upfiring to save money on front heights and spend more money on dedicated rear heights but if I do that heights won't match.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the details of my home theater setup (it's in my signature, but the mobile version of the site doesn't show signatures) : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...r-set-up-immersive-audio-54.html#post56799092
> 
> Basically, all the speakers I'm using have the exact same drivers except the rear speakers (T45 Main towers have an extra matching woofer, but are otherwise the same as the B15, which are used everywhere else except the side heights which are the S50 angled bipolars, but still use the same exact drivers, just two sets angled). The rears use newer versions of the same drivers (X1T and CS500 have stiffer same sized woofers and titanium instead of aluminum tweeters). These match each other driver wise, but both are still extremely similar to the rest, as are most PSB speakers). Basically, you want drivers that are very close to each other timbre-wise. Room correction can help a little, but similar drivers are still important.
> 
> I would recommend against using upfiring speakers. I don't think the effect is very good. Matching heights would work very well overhead by comparison. I'm using an 11.1.6 configuration so that's 17 speakers. I saved a lot of money by buying several used on eBay and even the X1T and CS500 are much cheaper from dealers in Canada, IMO. You don't need in-ceiling to get a good overhead effect. They do look neater, but my ceiling is in-between floors so it would not have been easy (or cheap hiring someone) to run the wiring. I use B15 bookshelf speakers at the ceiling in the front, S50s pointed towards the front and mid/rear rows on the sides near the ceiling (acting like two sets of overheads as they point both directions) and the CS500 on the rear ceiling in line with the front speakers. I leak a little from the extracted top middle (I use dual Pro Logic processors to extract a "top middle" set of channels between the front and rear heights given the length of my room and this with a speaker selector box gives me an optional "true Auro-3D" playback as well) to pull the side phantom image over more in line (can't tell the difference as such with the helicopter demo) and get a nice consistent sound around the room now as the helicopter flies around. I've 11.1 on the floor and the Atmos "Amaze" demo has the bird flying around the room in a giant circular pattern and sounds even and consistent here so clearly using same/similar drivers works quite well.
> 
> It's absolute nonsense that "height" configured speakers can't image on the ceiling as I explained a page ago. Any panning front to back is on the ceiling. The only difference is in/on ceiling at 45 degrees tends to be out into the room so the sounds start on the ceiling instead of at the top of the screen giving the impression more is out in the room on the ceiling, but it's just a different starting location and is still at ceiling height and matches action on the screen better, IMO.
> 
> This is the pattern of speakers in my room (layout and speaker angles):
Click to expand...

Thanks Magnum8. That's a really nice set up. Maybe one day when I grow up i can do one of those 😀 I think pricing out the PSBs even on Ebay it's over budget since then I'd want to get PSB for other speaker positions also. I was thinking about doing the Pioneer or ELAC system with the Polk S10 or T15 as heights, or something else I found browsing - Orb Audio speakers. Gotta see if the timbre is close. What do you think about either of these? 

Also I appreciate the lesson on ceiling imaging. I'm curious since the front and rear speakers are usually at or about ear level facing the listener, should the heights always be angled 45 degrees or is it a good idea to aim the heights at different angles so that the heights are always aimed at the MLP? For me the rear much closer to my seat than front heights. 

Thanks.


----------



## Daniel Ickes

MagnumX said:


> What's the "other way around" ? I didn't state which formats could be carried in which container. I was speculating which format his BD player wouldn't play.
> 
> 1> TrueHD and Atmos most certainly *CAN* be played from MKV files! MKV can hold everything out there. All my movies ripped from MakeMKV are in (surprise) MKV format. That includes TrueHD Atmos, DTS-HD Master X and even DTS-HD carrying Auro-3D. They all play back fine with KODI and with my Zidoo X9S in its home theater mode.
> 
> 2> He didn't say and didn't know what format the files that wouldn't play were in, only the ones that _were_ playing.
> 
> There are Atmos demos out there in MP4 including the ones directly from Dolby themselves (they are DD+ MAT carriers). He mentioned some that played were DD+ Atmos. Those were "probably" the MP4 since MP4 is played on most (but not all) players out there (no idea what his Sony BD player will play for sure, though). He mentioned some TrueHD Atmos played. Those could be M2TS or MKV and it's up in the air which won't play since most "file players" on BD players I've seen only play limited file formats sometimes even when discs have better support on the same player. MT2S is common for discs, but less so for file players. Meanwhile, MKV is often _not_ supported since it's commonly seen a "pirated" format given no known commercial supplier uses the format. But both these formats can carry both TrueHD and DD+. Thus, my guess is the ones that wouldn't play are one of these two (MT2S or MKV) for different reasons.
> 
> While I've never seen TrueHD lossless on an MP4 file (There is no technical reason it can't be updated to carry such, however) that most certainly does NOT mean the format cannot carry lossless audio files. Apple has supported ALAC lossless on MP4 (M4V) files for over 14 years now! Handbrake supports storing DTS-HD Master Audio (and DTS lossy cores) in MP4/M4V files and KODI, VLC, Zidoo and others will play it back (while iTunes will still play any stereo/DD/DD+ files on said files while ignoring the DTS files as if they don't exist making this a good choice for files compatible with AppleTV players but carrying better audio for KODI (ATV won't play MKV, although some of the apps for it will on the newer app compatible models).


^^^ There is some good info right there. Thank you.
I believe my Sony BDP-S590 played video from all 3 formats (MKV MT2S and the MP4's from Dolby) I'll confirm that tonight. When they play I can hit 'info' on the remote and get the details of what format it is and what output. When it won't play I'm cluless. I'll try to go back to the download site, they had a description of what the file is.
Today I downloaded some DTS:X files, both MKV and M2TS and will try those.
The reason for all this playing around is my BD player is a bit dated and I have yet to get a disk and try it. There is a Family Video store near me I'll go there and rent a few. Hopefully they will have some movies with Atmos on them.


----------



## gene4ht

Daniel Ickes said:


> There is a Family Video store near me I'll go there and rent a few. Hopefully they will have some movies with Atmos on them.


Family Video has an abundance of both BD and 4K UHD’s with Atmos. You might want to begin with recent releases Joker, Hobbs & Shaw, It, and Angel Has Fallen but there are plenty to choose from.

The following is a popular site to assist in finding titles with Atmos...

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248132


----------



## Daniel Ickes

gene4ht said:


> Family Video has an abundance of both BD and 4K UHD’s with Atmos. You might want to begin with recent releases Joker, Hobbs & Shaw, and Angel Has Fallen but there are plenty to choose from.


That's good to know.
I see you are from Troy. I'm in Wixom now and I Live in Canton. Howdy neighbor.


----------



## gene4ht

Daniel Ickes said:


> That's good to know.
> I see you are from Troy. I'm in Wixom now and I Live in Canton. Howdy neighbor.


I have worked in Brighton and Novi much of my career so I’ve logged many miles on 96 and 275! Anyway, as a further FYI, Atmos titles are also available from RedBox but more so from Family Video.


----------



## stikle

priitv8 said:


> TrueHD Atmos can only be played from m2ts files, *not from MKV-s*


This is 100% incorrect. MKV can contain TrueHD & Atmos as well as DTS Master Audio & DTS:X (all of which are lossless).



priitv8 said:


> or MP4-s (that standard does not even foresee lossless tracks).


This is correct.



priitv8 said:


> DD+ Atmos plays also from MP4 files but not from MKV-s.


Also incorrect.


----------



## niterida

sanj101 said:


> should the heights always be angled 45 degrees or is it a good idea to aim the heights at different angles so that the heights are always aimed at the MLP? For me the rear much closer to my seat than front heights.



I think you might have misunderstood the height guidelines. The speakers should be PLACED at 45deg forward and back so that they are the same distance forward and back of MLP, and then angled at 45deg.

If they are not placed at 45deg then they should not be angled at 45 deg, but angled to point at MLP.


----------



## MagnumX

stikle said:


> This is 100% incorrect. MKV can contain TrueHD & Atmos as well as DTS Master Audio & DTS:X (all of which are lossless).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ONE MORE TIME. The statement is INCORRECT. MP4/M4V can do LOSSLESS ALAC for over 14 years now and has been able to contain (and playback via KODI, ZIDOO, VLC and others DTS-HD MASTER AUDIO LOSSLESS) tracks currently. The only one it's not capable (so far) of containing is TrueHD. I have numerous ALAC and DTS-HD MA MP4/M4V tracks here and none of the above players I use has any issue playing them, only Apple's player and even it can play lossless ALAC.
Click to expand...


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> What's the "other way around" ? I didn't state which formats could be carried in which container. I was speculating which format his BD player wouldn't play.


Sorry, I misread your reply. I thought you contemplated M2TS would not play.


MagnumX said:


> 1> TrueHD and Atmos most certainly *CAN* be played from MKV files! MKV can hold everything out there. All my movies ripped from MakeMKV are in (surprise) MKV format. That includes TrueHD Atmos, DTS-HD Master X and even DTS-HD carrying Auro-3D. They all play back fine with KODI and with my Zidoo X9S in its home theater mode.
> 2> He didn't say and didn't know what format the files that wouldn't play were in, only the ones that _were_ playing.


But he said he has a Sony BD player and that one definitely does not play TrueHD from MKV (I also own one), because they destroy the BD-compatible track layout when storing TrueHD in MKV container. There are other players that won't care, Sony does. Has been discussed extensively on all the UBP-Xnnn threads here.


MagnumX said:


> Thus, my guess is the ones that wouldn't play are one of these two (MT2S or MKV) for different reasons.


That's what I meant with "other way around".
Indeed, I stand corrected regarding the standard codecs defined for ISO container, all lossless home theater formats are listed.
I was just being narrow-minded. Lack of DTS support was fixated in my head thanks to appleTV. I shall try if the UBP will play DTS from MP4 file.


----------



## priitv8

stikle said:


> This is 100% incorrect. MKV can contain TrueHD & Atmos as well as DTS Master Audio & DTS:X (all of which are lossless).
> 
> This is correct.
> 
> Also incorrect.


Well, it is all correct in the context of Sony UBP player. That was the original poster's question.
Sony has no love towards MKV and also does everything by the book. If your MKV contains TrueHD track, which has been ripped from disc (where it is a single track inside M2TS container, TrueHD frames interleaved with AC3 frames. Stream starts with AC3 frame, TrueHD muxed as "stream extension" (also vital for Sony player!)).
MKV splits them into separate tracks (one TrueHD/MLP + one AC3). That is what Sony does not like - now the audio stream is not in BD-compatible format.


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> I guess people better get there early.


Most places are now reserved seating, so get your tickets early.


----------



## mrvideo

Tygeezy said:


> She cares way more about aesthetics than actual performance.


She sounds like my daughter. Hates wires. Did I mention she hates wires?


----------



## mrvideo

priitv8 said:


> DD+ Atmos plays also from MP4 files but not from MKV-s.


You can find MKV files out the for TV shows that are marked as DDPlus + Atmos.


----------



## sanj101

niterida said:


> sanj101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> should the heights always be angled 45 degrees or is it a good idea to aim the heights at different angles so that the heights are always aimed at the MLP? For me the rear much closer to my seat than front heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you might have misunderstood the height guidelines. The speakers should be PLACED at 45deg forward and back so that they are the same distance forward and back of MLP, and then angled at 45deg.
> 
> If they are not placed at 45deg then they should not be angled at 45 deg, but angled to point at MLP.
Click to expand...

Niterida thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Gelfling

Just hopped over here from the projector forum. I bought a new onkyo AVR and its atmos capable. I have 7.1 already, but might want to try a 5.4.2 since my receiver supports this. The issues I have is that my theater construction is tank like, with a completely sealed room within a room, double layer drywall, etc. Running cables for ceiling speakers is going to be an issue.

My question is, are there are suppliers of Atmos speakers that will screw into my 6" HAT to provide light and wireless sound. This seems like it would be an obvious solution, as lots of people would have 4 well positioned lights in their theater, so being able to screw in a wireless speaker/bulb would be a super easy solution.


----------



## blb1215

*Atmos test disk*

Is anyone aware of a dolby atmos audio test disk the can be used to check voice matching of speakers? I am looking for a disk that would do a "walk around" through each speaker to see how well speakers timbre match. I seem to remember something like this on an old Avia disk that had audio of person speaking that would move around through a 5.1 speaker set-up. I am looking for something similiar for 7.1.4 set-up.


----------



## batpig

blb1215 said:


> Is anyone aware of a dolby atmos audio test disk the can be used to check voice matching of speakers? I am looking for a disk that would do a "walk around" through each speaker to see how well speakers timbre match. I seem to remember something like this on an old Avia disk that had audio of person speaking that would move around through a 5.1 speaker set-up. I am looking for something similiar for 7.1.4 set-up.


The Atmos test tones on the demo disc are just pink noise, so not a person speaking.

However, several recent DTS demo discs include a 7.1.4 DTS:X "callout" track that has a female speaking the name of each speaker in succession (e.g. Left Front.... Right Front.... Center.... Left Surround.... ). I use this track to check timbre matching and also to tweak speaker levels (especially surrounds/overheads) to make sure they are perceptually level at my MLP. 

The only thing to be aware of there is that if your overheads are NOT assigned as "front / rear height" then the DTS:X height callouts will "bleed" to other speakers as DTS:X tries to remap their location.


----------



## blb1215

batpig said:


> The Atmos test tones on the demo disc are just pink noise, so not a person speaking.
> 
> However, several recent DTS demo discs include a 7.1.4 DTS:X "callout" track that has a female speaking the name of each speaker in succession (e.g. Left Front.... Right Front.... Center.... Left Surround.... ). I use this track to check timbre matching and also to tweak speaker levels (especially surrounds/overheads) to make sure they are perceptually level at my MLP.
> 
> The only thing to be aware of there is that if your overheads are NOT assigned as "front / rear height" then the DTS:X height callouts will "bleed" to other speakers as DTS:X tries to remap their location.



Which DTS demo disk has this "callout" track?


Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

blb1215 said:


> Which DTS demo disk has this "callout" track?
> 
> 
> Thanks


https://www.demolandia.net/cinema/dts-demo-trailers-hd/page-6.html

See: *Sound "Unbound" Callout 11.1* on that page.


----------



## blb1215

MagnumX said:


> https://www.demolandia.net/cinema/dts-demo-trailers-hd/page-6.html
> 
> See: *Sound "Unbound" Callout 11.1* on that page.



Thanks!


----------



## batpig

blb1215 said:


> Which DTS demo disk has this "callout" track?


Any of the recent ones with DTS:X should have it.

The older (pre DTS:X) discs will have 5.1 and 7.1 callouts, but you want a DTS Demo Disc with DTS:X for the 7.1.4 callouts


----------



## desray2k

batpig said:


> The only thing to be aware of there is that *if your overheads are NOT assigned as "front / rear height" then the DTS:X height callouts will "bleed" to other speakers* as DTS:X tries to remap their location.



Interesting. I didn’t realise that. I’m using Dolby Atmos enabled speaker modules. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fatherom

batpig said:


> The only thing to be aware of there is that if your overheads are NOT assigned as "front / rear height" then the DTS:X height callouts will "bleed" to other speakers as DTS:X tries to remap their location.


In my case, I have a Denon 6500H and an Atmos/DTS:X speaker setup (4 ceiling speakers).

Is it still generally preferred to assign them as Top Front and Top Rear (basically an Atmos config) and leave it as such when listening to DTS:X tracks? (I didn't know about the front/rear height thing you mentioned, until now).

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> In my case, I have a Denon 6500H and an Atmos/DTS:X speaker setup (4 ceiling speakers).
> 
> Is it still generally preferred to assign them as Top Front and Top Rear (basically an Atmos config) and leave it as such when listening to DTS:X tracks? (I didn't know about the front/rear height thing you mentioned, until now).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris


That'd be too much bother for me (as to keep Audyssey working, you'd have to load the config every time you switch formats). I set mine once and leave it (as heights so Auro-3D works too here).


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> That'd be too much bother for me (as to keep Audyssey working, you'd have to load the config every time you switch formats). I set mine once and leave it (as heights so Auro-3D works too here).



Sorry that wasn't what I was asking. 

If I set the denon as top front and top rear and leave it that way all the time, is that ok? Am I getting a subpar experience when I do happen to listen to a dts:x track?

I guess I'm asking if it's typical (what do "most" people do) to set up the receiver in an "atmos" config and just leave it that way even though other audio codecs may not be as optimized for "top speakers" and would rather have "height speakers". 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## noah katz

fatherom said:


> If I set the denon as top front and top rear and leave it that way all the time, is that ok? Am I getting a subpar experience when I do happen to listen to a dts:x track?



Yes, because DTS will try to remap to where it wants its heights, by feeding height information to the floor level fronts/rears.

The consensus is to designate them as top F/R, which has little if any effect on Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> Sorry that wasn't what I was asking.


I'm saying I don't really care at this point if it's slightly "subpar" as it's too darn much bother to switch it every time I play a DTS:X movie. 

I've listened to ALL the demos for Atmos/X with "tops" and "heights" and the only one I ever heard any noticeable difference with was the Atmos helicopter demo whereby it was easier to hear the copter's flight deviation with my "top middle extracted" side heights being "outward" from the line of the front/rear heights with the "tops" setting than the heights. I heard no other difference whatsoever. Maybe others have. I couldn't say what's typical. But I can tell here at least I can't hear any real difference and "heights" sounded better with the helicopter demo to my ears anyway. DTS:X works perfect (no bleed) with the heights setting. But if I had in-ceiling speakers, I'd probably set it to tops and leave it unless I needed Auro-3D to work. Any 'bleed' just works as an array and if they timbre match near perfectly, the effect is quite good for moving the sound. You can hear both speakers are running with pink noise, but with real sounds it's very different (unless the match is terrible). 



> If I set the denon as top front and top rear and leave it that way all the time, is that ok? Am I getting a subpar experience when I do happen to listen to a dts:x track?


That will depend on whom you ask. Certain people on here will tell you that speaker "bleed" is bad. But it's designed to do that for a reason. The problem is that DTS:X shows "heights" at 45 degrees and Atmos shows heights at 30-45 degrees. How much does that matter? None worth talking about, IMO after testing with actual DTS:X demos. With the height setting, it doesn't leak for me anyway and works with all three formats just fine. Some people are too picky on these forums and think Atmos stops working at 44 degrees (must be 45 degrees exactly or don't bother even if Dolby says 30-55 is OK and now with 6 overheads that 20-55 is OK with them. Clearly, the starting point changes. How much does it matter with off-screen effects? Only as much as one worries about it).



> I guess I'm asking if it's typical (what do "most" people do) to set up the receiver in an "atmos" config and just leave it that way even though other audio codecs may not be as optimized for "top speakers" and would rather have "height speakers".


I don't know what's "typical" but I'm guessing it's to buy a sound bar and call it a day. 

Really, the best thing is to try it yourself and judge for yourself. Some say "tops" has way more sounds in the overheads. I haven't found a demo that makes me think that. And with DTS:X using floor speakers to move the soundstage downward with "tops" it seems like you'd end up with less overhead with that setting, not more.



noah katz said:


> Yes, because DTS will try to remap to where it wants its heights, by feeding height information to the floor level fronts/rears.
> 
> The consensus is to designate them as top F/R, which has little if any effect on Atmos.


Whose consensus is that, pray tell? It's "tops" that get "remapped" with DTS:X, not heights. I've heard almost no difference with Atmos using either heights or tops as you seem to also say, so "heights" is the best setting, IMO and it also work with Auro-3D as well on D&M AVRs so it's golden. Dolby rates them 30-45 degrees and tops 45-55 degrees. Clearly, you can use 45 degrees with either setting and Dolby says it's fine. I believe that. I hear no obvious difference at all. I'd be curious to hear what heights and tops do on a Trinnov when used in combination as there SHOULD be a real difference then in terms of panning from on to another, but I don't know of anyone offhand who has both.


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> Whose consensus is that, pray tell? It's "tops" that get "remapped" with DTS:X, not heights.



You're right, my bad, I was in a rush and got it backwards.


----------



## fatherom

I suppose one aspect to consider is the number of dtsx vs atmos soundtracks. I have about 4x as many atmos soundtracks in my collection. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

fatherom said:


> I suppose one aspect to consider is the number of dtsx vs atmos soundtracks. I have about 4x as many atmos soundtracks in my collection.


Yeah, Dolby is probably feeling revenge now for the "beating" they took in the DVD era...


----------



## zeonstar

dfa973 said:


> Yeah, Dolby is probably feeling revenge now for the "beating" they took in the DVD era...


Are you referring to how many discs used Dolby vs how many used DTS? Did you mean the Blu-ray era? I only ask because it seems to me that at least as far as my collection (which was decent) Dolby was far more prevalent on DVDs than DTS was. DTS was the exception and I always went out of my way to get a movie in DTS when possible.

OTOH, if we are talking about Blu-rays... then DTS was most definitely more common. I've actually always wondered why that is. And now with 4K UHD's, we are back to Dolby again.


----------



## MagnumX

I assumed he meant Blu-ray era. There were very few DTS DVDs by comparison.


----------



## dfa973

zeonstar said:


> Are you referring to how many discs used Dolby vs how many used DTS? Did you mean the Blu-ray era? I only ask because it seems to me that at least as far as my collection (which was decent) Dolby was far more prevalent on DVDs than DTS was. DTS was the exception and I always went out of my way to get a movie in DTS when possible.


During the DVD era, the DTS audio was optional - DTS was not included in the mandatory audio list. After a while, DTS was seen as a "better" or "premium" audio format and every good movie was released with DTS. DD was practically relegated to "average" releases (despite the fact that was mandatory) and seen as a "joke" format.



zeonstar said:


> OTOH, if we are talking about Blu-rays... then DTS was most definitely more common. I've actually always wondered why that is.


Because of the domination during the DVD era.



zeonstar said:


> And now with 4K UHD's, we are back to Dolby again.


True.


----------



## Transplantking

*Denon X4500H Atmos Upgrade Help*

Hi All,


Looking for some friendly advice for my basement man cave. I have a home theater setup in half of my unfinished basement. My setup consists of a 144" screen with a BenQ HT3550 4K projector. My new AVR-X4500H receiver is connected to my old 5.1 setup. The speakers are all Paradigm. Monitor 7's front and rear. CC350 (center), and PW 2200 Subwoofer. The room is 30' x 12'. The main theater seating (2 seats) is 17' from the screen. The rear speakers are mounted horizontal at the ceiling angled down to the listener 8' straight back. (I know that will make people cringe, but it was the best thing for the multi use space.)


The Denon is also connected to 4 speakers upstairs in the house, 2 of which are powered by the Denon's amps. This leaves me with 2 channels left to add ceiling speakers to take advantage of the abundance of Dolby Atmos shows that are available. 

Based on my research that I've done on this fine forum, I'm thinking that the best spot to mount the ceiling speakers is about 5' towards the screen from the seating position. I'm looking for any advice as to whether this sounds good or bad. Also, which speakers should I get, how far from the side walls should they be mounted, and should I build enclosures for them as they will just get mounted between the floor joists overhead as the room is still unfinished. I should also mention that one side of the room is completely open into the other side of the basement, and the concrete floor is about 80% covered by throw rugs. Any advice is much appreciated!


----------



## Josh Z

dfa973 said:


> During the DVD era, the DTS audio was optional - DTS was not included in the mandatory audio list. After a while, DTS was seen as a "better" or "premium" audio format and every good movie was released with DTS. DD was practically relegated to "average" releases (despite the fact that was mandatory) and seen as a "joke" format.
> 
> Because of the domination during the DVD era.
> 
> True.


I'm afraid that your memory of this is a little rose-colored. DTS never dominated anything during the DVD era. While it's true that DTS was (rightly or wrongly - mostly wrongly, IMO) often regarded as a "premium" audio format, it never had the widespread prevalence you imply. Every movie, good or bad, was released with Dolby Digital, and only a small percentage of them had DTS editions. 

DTS has dominated on the Blu-ray format, however. Dolby really dropped the ball during the early days of the format's development, and DTS swooped in with a faster encoder and authoring software that were easier for studios to use. By the time Dolby improved its own equipment to be comparable in speed and ease of use, DTS had already established its footprint and locked up most of the valuable studio contracts. 

Dolby learned from that mistake with the development of Atmos, which is far ahead of DTS:X on the 4k Ultra HD format.

And, of course, Dolby has a virtual monopoly over movie streaming. DTS has almost no presence at all there. As physical media wanes in the marketplace and everything moves to streaming, it's going to be incredibly difficult for DTS to catch up with Dolby again.


----------



## UKenGB

*Atmos, Yamaha RX-A3050 and TV 4K*

Basically, with the 2nd and third items in the title, I'm not getting the first.

As indicated, I have a Yamaha RX-A3050 with 11 channel output (additional external amp) and an Apple TV 4K, with which I subscribe to Amazon Prime and Apple TV+. Both of those services purport to offer Dolby Atmos, but I am NEVER seeing this indicated on the Yam. So either those service providers (Amazon and Apple) are lying (who'd have thought) or I have something in my configuration that is preventing Atmos from being utilised.

I have repeatedly checked the Settings of both the TV and the Yam and as far as I can tell, both are configured to be able to use Atmos if it is available. Both Prime and ATV+ state several programs have Atmos. But the Yam never shows this. The best I see is 5.1 input. If the Atmos signals were there, as far as I know the Yam should show Atmos on its front display and when viewing its 'Information' screen. But it doesn't. I have never seen ANY Atmos indication on the Yam.

There is one possibility that explains this. I have an HD TV, not 4K. Although it would be utter stupidity to lock Atmos audio to 4K video as there is NO reason to do so, but I wouldn't discount that as an idiotic possibility. Netflix have confirmed they do NOT do this and Atmos is provided on all content if it is available. But I don't (yet) subscribe to Netflix. I have read conflicting information about whether Amazon only provide Atmos with 4K, but I've tried streaming the 4K version of shows I know are specified to have Atmos (Jack Ryan etc) and I still don't get it. I have no idea if Apple do anything like this, but it's possible.

Oh and I'm in the UK. Do the companies in question restrict our content here in this way?

Can anyone please advise whether or not I should be able to receive Atmos on Prime and/or ATV+ with an HD (only) TV and equipment I'm using. If so, how?


----------



## afrogt

If you want to take full advantage of Dolby Atmos then you should add 4 ceiling speakers instead of 2. Make it a 5.1.4 setup

Use Zone 2 RCA outs for the 4 speakers upstairs with this amp. It can power two sets of speakers, A & B
https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source...rds=audiosource+amp-100&qid=1578686721&sr=8-3


----------



## Transplantking

afrogt said:


> If you want to take full advantage of Dolby Atmos then you should add 4 ceiling speakers instead of 2. Make it a 5.1.4 setup
> 
> Use Zone 2 RCA outs for the 4 speakers upstairs with this amp. It can power two sets of speakers, A & B
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source...rds=audiosource+amp-100&qid=1578686721&sr=8-3


I'm already using an old amp for the one pair upstairs, and have another I could use for the other pair, so I will keep that option in mind. If I add 4 speakers, where is the optimal placement for them? Still might just stick with 2 for now... so would appreciate advice for both setups. Already bought the new Denon and BenQ this season, so I need to stop the bleeding (at least that what my wife thinks).


----------



## zeonstar

Josh Z said:


> I'm afraid that your memory of this is a little rose-colored. DTS never dominated anything during the DVD era. While it's true that DTS was (rightly or wrongly - mostly wrongly, IMO) often regarded as a "premium" audio format, it never had the widespread prevalence you imply. Every movie, good or bad, was released with Dolby Digital, and only a small percentage of them had DTS editions.
> 
> DTS has dominated on the Blu-ray format, however. Dolby really dropped the ball during the early days of the format's development, and DTS swooped in with a faster encoder and authoring software that were easier for studios to use. By the time Dolby improved its own equipment to be comparable in speed and ease of use, DTS had already established its footprint and locked up most of the valuable studio contracts.
> 
> Dolby learned from that mistake with the development of Atmos, which is far ahead of DTS:X on the 4k Ultra HD format.
> 
> And, of course, Dolby has a virtual monopoly over movie streaming. DTS has almost no presence at all there. As physical media wanes in the marketplace and everything moves to streaming, it's going to be incredibly difficult for DTS to catch up with Dolby again.


This lines up much more with what I remember regarding the audio formats of the DVD (and blu-ray) days. (Not that the Blu-ray days are done!)


----------



## afrogt

5.1.4 speaker setup

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/speaker-setup-guides/5.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide.html

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/s...-dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-setup-guide.html


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> I'm afraid that your memory of this is a little rose-colored. DTS never dominated anything during the DVD era.


I think people need to keep in mind that "DVD" in much of the world is now a generic term for "digital video disc" and NOT referring to a specific iteration of it (its meaning seems to have changed over time anyway like "digital versatile disc" and what not). In other words, "Blu-Ray" is essentially a stupid name and even though HD-DVD lost the war, the term "DVD" for a video disc has stuck in the lexicon of much of the world's vocabularly to be a generic term for a physical video disc rather than the Standard Definition most of us think of it as. Whether that was the case in this example, I do not know for certain, but it's clearly to any of us that lived through that time period that DVDs were almost always Dolby Digital (and with a rather low bit-rate 448 kbps version at that which probably didn't help its reputation any while 640kbps on Blu-Rays that use it or in the TrueHD cores is relatively transparent, IMO). I had hundreds of DVDs and only around 16 had DTS with only a few that were DTS only (higher bit-rate used). Others like the Lethal Weapon box set crammed Dolby Digital AND DTS onto them and had to use lower rates for DTS as a result (nobody wins).


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> As indicated, I have a Yamaha RX-A3050 with 11 channel output (additional external amp) and an Apple TV 4K, with which I subscribe to Amazon Prime and Apple TV+. Both of those services purport to offer Dolby Atmos, but I am NEVER seeing this indicated on the Yam. So either those service providers (Amazon and Apple) are lying (who'd have thought) or I have something in my configuration that is preventing Atmos from being utilised.


I'm not certain all world markets offer Atmos yet. Your info suggests you're from London and living here in the USA, I can only state what I know to be true here for certain. I would think if an iTunes movie says it's in Atmos, though you should be golden in that regard, but I have read of Atmos not working in some markets on various services before. 

Audio settings need to be "best available" audio and say Atmos available in there somewhere and use an HDMI connection. Certainly here I don't need or have a 4K projector to get Atmos from iTunes, Netflix or Disney+. You cannot get Atmos from Vudu or Amazon Prime without 4K due to their inept/awful handling of their apps that only include the Atmos tracks in the 4K versions which it won't offer to you without a 4K set (even though they'd be better quality in 2K viewing as well). You can get around that with an HD Fury Vertex and Integral device, but you shouldn't need it for the aforementioned three.


----------



## niterida

Transplantking said:


> I'm already using an old amp for the one pair upstairs, and have another I could use for the other pair, so I will keep that option in mind. If I add 4 speakers, where is the optimal placement for them? Still might just stick with 2 for now... so would appreciate advice for both setups. Already bought the new Denon and BenQ this season, so I need to stop the bleeding (at least that what my wife thinks).


 Optimal placement for .4 atmos speakers is equidistant behind and in front of MLP.
Optimal placement for .2 atmos speakers is directly above MLP.


So if you go .2 to start with, you have to move them and repair the hole left if you go to .4 in the future


----------



## Polyrythm1k

afrogt said:


> If you want to take full advantage of Dolby Atmos then you should add 4 ceiling speakers instead of 2. Make it a 5.1.4 setup
> 
> 
> 
> Use Zone 2 RCA outs for the 4 speakers upstairs with this amp. It can power two sets of speakers, A & B
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Source...rds=audiosource+amp-100&qid=1578686721&sr=8-3




I agree with using .4, but curious, how is zone two going to be helpful?


----------



## Matt L

Transplantking said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> Looking for some friendly advice for my basement man cave. I have a home theater setup in half of my unfinished basement. My setup consists of a 144" screen with a BenQ HT3550 4K projector. My new AVR-X4500H receiver is connected to my old 5.1 setup. The speakers are all Paradigm. Monitor 7's front and rear. CC350 (center), and PW 2200 Subwoofer. The room is 30' x 12'. The main theater seating (2 seats) is 17' from the screen. The rear speakers are mounted horizontal at the ceiling angled down to the listener 8' straight back. (I know that will make people cringe, but it was the best thing for the multi use space.)
> 
> 
> The Denon is also connected to 4 speakers upstairs in the house, 2 of which are powered by the Denon's amps. This leaves me with 2 channels left to add ceiling speakers to take advantage of the abundance of Dolby Atmos shows that are available.
> 
> Based on my research that I've done on this fine forum, I'm thinking that the best spot to mount the ceiling speakers is about 5' towards the screen from the seating position. I'm looking for any advice as to whether this sounds good or bad. Also, which speakers should I get, how far from the side walls should they be mounted, and should I build enclosures for them as they will just get mounted between the floor joists overhead as the room is still unfinished. I should also mention that one side of the room is completely open into the other side of the basement, and the concrete floor is about 80% covered by throw rugs. Any advice is much appreciated!


That space and setup really deserves better audio. You need at least to get the side speakers down to a proper level at about ear height. You have room for 4 ceiling speakers and that is what we are all suggesting. In that space you should go for 7.x.4 I'm doing 7.1.4 in my smaller space and the sound is outstanding, I did use the Dolby guidelines for speaker placement and just moving a few speakers a bit made a dramatic difference in imaging.


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> I'm not certain all world markets offer Atmos yet. Your info suggests you're from London and living here in the USA, I can only state what I know to be true here for certain. I would think if an iTunes movie says it's in Atmos, though you should be golden in that regard, but I have read of Atmos not working in some markets on various services before.
> 
> Audio settings need to be "best available" audio and say Atmos available in there somewhere and use an HDMI connection. Certainly here I don't need or have a 4K projector to get Atmos from iTunes, Netflix or Disney+. You cannot get Atmos from Vudu or Amazon Prime without 4K due to their inept/awful handling of their apps that only include the Atmos tracks in the 4K versions which it won't offer to you without a 4K set (even though they'd be better quality in 2K viewing as well). You can get around that with an HD Fury Vertex and Integral device, but you shouldn't need it for the aforementioned three.


I had a sneaking suspicion that Amazon don't offer Atmos in the UK, I will need to confirm with them - somehow. However, I have tried the 4K versions which also produced no Atmos, although I'm not sure how it was down-converted to HD. Does the TV do that? It is configured to output HD, so in this case was it receiving 4K from Prime and then sending as HD to the Yamaha A3050, or does it tell Prime it only wants HD and that what is streamed (presumably without Atmos)?

But I've not read anything that suggests TV+ (and maybe Disney+, but not yet available here) don't offer Atmos in the UK. I guess I need to confirm that, but otherwise it still leaves me perplexed as I cannot seem to get Atmos on e.g. The Morning Show which is clearly specified as offering Atmos.

I guess I need to obtain something that IS Atmos (like an iTunes movie) and confirm my system is actually dealing with it correctly. Then I'll at least know any problem is with the streaming service.

Anyone getting Atmos from TV+ or Prime here in the UK? With HD screen?


----------



## Lesmor

UKenGB said:


> I had a sneaking suspicion that Amazon don't offer Atmos in the UK, I will need to confirm with them - somehow. However, I have tried the 4K versions which also produced no Atmos, although I'm not sure how it was down-converted to HD. Does the TV do that? It is configured to output HD, so in this case was it receiving 4K from Prime and then sending as HD to the Yamaha A3050, or does it tell Prime it only wants HD and that what is streamed (presumably without Atmos)?
> 
> But I've not read anything that suggests TV+ (and maybe Disney+, but not yet available here) don't offer Atmos in the UK. I guess I need to confirm that, but otherwise it still leaves me perplexed as I cannot seem to get Atmos on e.g. The Morning Show which is clearly specified as offering Atmos.
> 
> I guess I need to obtain something that IS Atmos (like an iTunes movie) and confirm my system is actually dealing with it correctly. Then I'll at least know any problem is with the streaming service.
> 
> Anyone getting Atmos from TV+ or Prime here in the UK? With HD screen?


because of the above ^ Edited to add 
with a Epson 9300 projector
using a 4K Firestick Amazon Prime in the UK does offer Atmos but its not easy to find the content
when I tried it you only had a choice of Jack Ryan which definitely had Atmos in the UK

might be worth checking "Carnival Row" it is supposed to be mastered in Atmos


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> I had a sneaking suspicion that Amazon don't offer Atmos in the UK, I will need to confirm with them - somehow. However, I have tried the 4K versions which also produced no Atmos, although I'm not sure how it was down-converted to HD. Does the ï£¿TV do that? It is configured to output HD, so in this case was it receiving 4K from Prime and then sending as HD to the Yamaha A3050, or does it tell Prime it only wants HD and that what is streamed (presumably without Atmos)?
> 
> But I've not read anything that suggests ï£¿TV+ (and maybe Disney+, but not yet available here) don't offer Atmos in the UK. I guess I need to confirm that, but otherwise it still leaves me perplexed as I cannot seem to get Atmos on e.g. The Morning Show which is clearly specified as offering Atmos.
> 
> I guess I need to obtain something that IS Atmos (like an iTunes movie) and confirm my system is actually dealing with it correctly. Then I'll at least know any problem is with the streaming service.
> 
> Anyone getting Atmos from ï£¿TV+ or Prime here in the UK? With HD screen?


I can tell you this much for 100% certainty. PRIME does not work in Atmos for a non-4K TV (without an HD Fury to fool it) period. I don't care which version you select. It just doesn't work. I've tried it on every box I have. The same is true for Vudu here in the states. It detects you are 2K and refuses to use the 4K siganl and/or Atmos even if you select the "4K" versions.

It sounds like you haven't tried an iTunes movie yet? That should be first on your list, IMO as it should work. Rent one that says Atmos even if you don't want to buy one. Frankly, I've got a load of Atmos titles from digital copies alone. Even Movies Anywhere 2K redeems still have Atmos here if it's available on the 4K version. But then I guess you don't get Movies Anywhere in the UK so that would probably explain it.

Netflix may not offer Atmos in the UK yet either. But iTunes movies should if their info page says Atmos at the top.


----------



## franky932

I am new at this..receive my sony strdn1080 this week ,,,what are the better file for a disc Atmost.....i saw a post in 2016..with 50 atmost file for a disc...they are not all the same.


is there a update post of these file?


Have a great week end


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> I can tell you this much for 100% certainty. PRIME does not work in Atmos for a non-4K TV (without an HD Fury to fool it) period. I don't care which version you select. It just doesn't work. I've tried it on every box I have. The same is true for Vudu here in the states. It detects you are 2K and refuses to use the 4K siganl and/or Atmos even if you select the "4K" versions.
> 
> It sounds like you haven't tried an iTunes movie yet? That should be first on your list, IMO as it should work. Rent one that says Atmos even if you don't want to buy one. Frankly, I've got a load of Atmos titles from digital copies alone. Even Movies Anywhere 2K redeems still have Atmos here if it's available on the 4K version. But then I guess you don't get Movies Anywhere in the UK so that would probably explain it.
> 
> Netflix may not offer Atmos in the UK yet either. But iTunes movies should if their info page says Atmos at the top.




I’ve wondered why I can’t get Atmos from Vudu. I have a Sony x700 and when I play UHD’s on my 2k plasma, it works great. Thought Vudu would be the same, but nope. It’s like slamming my head in a door!


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> I can tell you this much for 100% certainty. PRIME does not work in Atmos for a non-4K TV (without an HD Fury to fool it) period. I don't care which version you select. It just doesn't work. I've tried it on every box I have. The same is true for Vudu here in the states. It detects you are 2K and refuses to use the 4K siganl and/or Atmos even if you select the "4K" versions.
> 
> It sounds like you haven't tried an iTunes movie yet? That should be first on your list, IMO as it should work. Rent one that says Atmos even if you don't want to buy one. Frankly, I've got a load of Atmos titles from digital copies alone. Even Movies Anywhere 2K redeems still have Atmos here if it's available on the 4K version. But then I guess you don't get Movies Anywhere in the UK so that would probably explain it.
> 
> Netflix may not offer Atmos in the UK yet either. But iTunes movies should if their info page says Atmos at the top.


Thanks for that, even though not really what I want to hear. It leaves me dumbfounded when content providers make these arbitrary decisions, like Atmos only with 4K streams. There is no reason why that should be and surely not what Dolby have in mind for Atmos.

I will try to find something on the iTunes Store, but that's not easy. Search on Atmos returns NO FILMS WHATSOEVER. Why do these operators make it so hard. If I can't find it, I ain't gonna be buying it. Simple really, but so many just don't get it.

Another surprise is that the Yamaha A3050 seems unable to down-convert 4K to HD. I must admit I had assumed it would be able to do that, but on checking, I find the manual seems to state it cannot do this. Can anyone confirm if it really is incapable of down-converting 4K to HD?


----------



## robert600

Hi,


I'm thinking of making the jump to a atmos enabled receiver but until I do that I was wondering if anyone could help me with my current receiver. It's a 6 or 7 year old (Onkyo HT-R2295) 7.1 receiver. It makes no mention of Atmos but it does allow 2 of the channels to be configured as either back-surround OR front-high. I've only ever used it as back-surround. If I configured it front-high is that like a primative Atmos set-up? In terms of supported audio is says:

•2-channel linear PCM (32–192kHz, 16/20/24 bit) 

•Multichannel linear PCM (up to 7.1 ch, 32–192kHz, 16/20/24 bit)
•Bitstream (DSD, Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS, DTS-HD High Resolution Audio, DTS-HD Master Audio) 



Any help/advise would be much appreciated.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert600 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of making the jump to a atmos enabled receiver but until I do that I was wondering if anyone could help me with my current receiver. It's a 6 or 7 year old (Onkyo HT-R2295) 7.1 receiver. It makes no mention of Atmos but it does allow 2 of the channels to be configured as either back-surround OR front-high. I've only ever used it as back-surround. If I configured it front-high is that like a primative Atmos set-up? In terms of supported audio is says:
> 
> â€¢2-channel linear PCM (32â€“192kHz, 16/20/24 bit)
> 
> â€¢Multichannel linear PCM (up to 7.1 ch, 32â€“192kHz, 16/20/24 bit)
> â€¢Bitstream (DSD, Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS, DTS-HD High Resolution Audio, DTS-HD Master Audio)
> 
> 
> 
> Any help/advise would be much appreciated.


Long story short.... replace your receiver.

Bare minimum Atmos setup: 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 based on your room dimensions and seating arrangement.


----------



## robert600

Dan Hitchman said:


> Long story short.... replace your receiver.
> 
> Bare minimum Atmos setup: 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 based on your room dimensions and seating arrangement.



Thanks for quick reply. Yes, replacement is definitely happening in the next few months. In the meantime though would setting up my receiver with front-high give me any sort of taste of Atmos, or should I just leave things alone and keep running it as back-surround?


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB; said:


> I will try to find something on the iTunes Store, but that's not easy. Search on Atmos returns NO FILMS WHATSOEVER. Why do these operators make it so hard. If I can't find it, I ain't gonna be buying it. Simple really, but so many just don't get it.


Most of the newer blockbusters (that aren't by Disney) are in Atmos. IT Chapter 1 and the sequel Chapter 2 both have phenomenal Atmos, for example. No, you can't search by Atmos, but at least in the US store there's almost always the "4K" sale header and if you click on it, there's usually an Atmos header for 4K Atmos titles.



> Another surprise is that the Yamaha A3050 seems unable to down-convert 4K to HD. I must admit I had assumed it would be able to do that, but on checking, I find the manual seems to state it cannot do this. Can anyone confirm if it really is incapable of down-converting 4K to HD?


Can't help you with Yamaha. I've got a Marantz 7010 and a 7012. Both will scale 4K.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert600 said:


> Thanks for quick reply. Yes, replacement is definitely happening in the next few months. In the meantime though would setting up my receiver with front-high give me any sort of taste of Atmos, or should I just leave things alone and keep running it as back-surround?



I wouldn't bother until you're ready to install a proper Dolby Atmos speaker setup (hopefully with overheads) sporting a new receiver. Depending on the type of speakers and how loud you like to crank them, I would recommend a receiver with a full array of pre-amp outputs, so you can add outboard power amplifiers as needs arise. Yamaha has had (or may still have) an issue with their pre-amp output voltage, so I would stick with perhaps a Marantz or Denon.


----------



## usc1995

robert600 said:


> Thanks for quick reply. Yes, replacement is definitely happening in the next few months. In the meantime though would setting up my receiver with front-high give me any sort of taste of Atmos, or should I just leave things alone and keep running it as back-surround?




The height information in the Atmos metadata that directs the sounds and object info to the height speakers will not be readable by your older non-Atmos AVR. The most you will get would be extracted ambient sounds like in Dolby IIz or DTS Neo:X but not Atmos. It might be a an interesting introduction to hearing sounds above you but that is it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Daniel Ickes

Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.


----------



## Augerhandle

Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.


Do you have an ATMOS capable disc player?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.



Go get Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 (preferably on 4k Blu-ray). The latter sequel, especially, will tear your room apart. The Matrix Atmos remixed track on 4k Blu-ray is good. A Quiet Place's Atmos track is good. Gravity's Atmos track is superb like 2049 (though currently only on the Diamond Luxe Blu-ray edition... out of print). Shazam!'s Atmos track is very good in certain scenes.


----------



## Selden Ball

Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.


The movie review by Ralph Potts at https://www.avsforum.com/cold-pursuit-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review/ describes its soundtrack "to be of the less aggressive variety." In many cases, the director designs the surround channels to provide only ambient sounds, not a full, dynamic 3D experience. That would seem to be the case here.

If you want to watch movies that have strong Atmos soundtracks, you'll have to search them out, especially if you aren't a Marvel fan. A Web search for 
best movie atmos soundtracks 
would be one place to start.


----------



## MagnumX

Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.


There are lots of disappointing Atmos movies out there (too many, IMO). It gets treated like Dolby Digital did when it first came out (surround is distracting so use it as little as possible!) which of course defeats the entire premise of "immersive" surround sound. Unfortunately, Dolby can't force these types in Hollywood to make proper soundtracks with their tech. I honestly wish they would make two soundtracks (a highly immersive one and a crappy barely stereo one for those that agree with that line of thinking). It'd have to be better than spending thousands on an Atmos setup to find half the movies out there suck with it. 

There is a thread or two on here for "best of" type movies for Atmos and/or X (e.g. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html). Audioholics had an even larger list with thoughts on all three formats (mostly by one other guy and myself), but I can no longer recommend the site given the owner's behavior recently that I'd rather not go into here. Interest in the topic here seemed minimal for some reason so I saw no point in writing reviews if no one seemed to care.

I see Dan mentioned Blade Runner 2049 above. It's a GREAT soundtrack overall (killer bass for example), but the overhead effects are less than even the original movie on UHD Blu-Ray, IMO which is way more aggressive with direct overhead sounds. *FURY* with Brad Pitt has incredible overhead sounds! *Overlord* is pretty impressive too (especially the opening and the bit with the kid dropping the ball on the floor upstairs, etc.) *Jumanji* (the original movie on UHD) is darn impressive (crazy good, even better than the its sequel, which has a decent soundtrack too and is the funnier movie, IMO). *Angel has Fallen* has pretty great overhead effects too, especially the helicopters. Speaking of helicopters, *Mission Impossible FALLOUT* has a fantastic helicopter sequence too and great overall sound. There are more, of course (e.g. DTS:X, the *Harry Potter *movies are all great with overhead sounds and "*Crimson Peak*" has sounds all over the ceiling. The best quick demo award has to go to the opening of the newer *Flatliners* movie (the voices talking about near death experiences during the title sequence are crazy good all over the room's ceiling! The rest of the movie doesn't match up to that two minutes, though, but I still liked it. Even the Dan Brown based *INFERNO* has a great overhead opening. I actually have Blade Runner 2049, Flatliners and Inferno in Auro-3D as well (excellent there as well, but sound very similar on the same speaker layout).


----------



## Daniel Ickes

Augerhandle said:


> Do you have an ATMOS capable disc player?


Yes. It was playing in Atmos but there was not a lot of sound.
The movie was good (good plot)


----------



## robert600

Dan Hitchman said:


> I wouldn't bother until you're ready to install a proper Dolby Atmos speaker setup (hopefully with overheads) sporting a new receiver. Depending on the type of speakers and how loud you like to crank them, I would recommend a receiver with a full array of pre-amp outputs, so you can add outboard power amplifiers as needs arise. Yamaha has had (or may still have) an issue with their pre-amp output voltage, so I would stick with perhaps a Marantz or Denon.



Ok, I'll leave things as is for now. I'm sure the receivers you mention are good but they will probably be a bit beyond my budget ... I'm kinda limited to low end. I've been eyeing the Onkyo TX-RZ830. It is 9.2 out-of -the-box and has 11.2-multichannel pre-outs. I figure I'll use my current amp to power the back-surrounds to give me 7.2.4. It seems to regularly go on sale for $800 cndn ($600 us).


----------



## Daniel Ickes

MagnumX said:


> There are lots of disappointing Atmos movies out there (too many, IMO). It gets treated like Dolby Digital did when it first came out (surround is distracting so use it as little as possible!) which of course defeats the entire premise of "immersive" surround sound. Unfortunately, Dolby can't force these types in Hollywood to make proper soundtracks with their tech. I honestly wish they would make two soundtracks (a highly immersive one and a crappy barely stereo one for those that agree with that line of thinking). It'd have to be better than spending thousands on an Atmos setup to find half the movies out there suck with it.
> 
> There is a thread or two on here for "best of" type movies for Atmos and/or X (e.g. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html). Audioholics had an even larger list with thoughts on all three formats (mostly by one other guy and myself), but I can no longer recommend the site given the owner's behavior recently that I'd rather not go into here. Interest in the topic here seemed minimal for some reason so I saw no point in writing reviews if no one seemed to care.
> 
> I see Dan mentioned Blade Runner 2049 above. It's a GREAT soundtrack overall (killer bass for example), but the overhead effects are less than even the original movie on UHD Blu-Ray, IMO which is way more aggressive with direct overhead sounds. *FURY* with Brad Pitt has incredible overhead sounds! *Overlord* is pretty impressive too (especially the opening and the bit with the kid dropping the ball on the floor upstairs, etc.) *Jumanji* (the original movie on UHD) is darn impressive (crazy good, even better than the its sequel, which has a decent soundtrack too and is the funnier movie, IMO). *Angel has Fallen* has pretty great overhead effects too, especially the helicopters. Speaking of helicopters, *Mission Impossible FALLOUT* has a fantastic helicopter sequence too and great overall sound. There are more, of course (e.g. DTS:X, the *Harry Potter *movies are all great with overhead sounds and "*Crimson Peak*" has sounds all over the ceiling. The best quick demo award has to go to the opening of the newer *Flatliners* movie (the voices talking about near death experiences during the title sequence are crazy good all over the room's ceiling! The rest of the movie doesn't match up to that two minutes, though, but I still liked it. Even the Dan Brown based *INFERNO* has a great overhead opening. I actually have Blade Runner 2049, Flatliners and Inferno in Auro-3D as well (excellent there as well, but sound very similar on the same speaker layout).


Thank you. I'll try some of those. I also rented Batman Vs Superman. I'll be watching that tonight.


----------



## MagnumX

Daniel Ickes said:


> Thank you. I'll try some of those. I also rented Batman Vs Superman. I'll be watching that tonight.


I've got that one. I don't remember being impressed by it so I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. 

Heck, I was more impressed watching an episode of Magnum PI (the new one), namely season 1 episode 3 on iTunes (I own both the old and new versions and my screen name is a combination of Magnum PI and the Magnum XL Rollercoaster from Cedar Point (I'm also a fan of the _other_ product out there with the same name as the rollercoaster, although they're still a bit too small, IMO  ). The show is only in 5.1. But with Neural X when Magnum hits golf balls onto the roof (which annoys Higgins), darn if those balls aren't sounding up there in the middle 1/3 of the ceiling in front of me! Kudos to Neural X. That was especially impressive given the show/episode is pretty conservative with the side surround effects so I wouldn't expect ceiling effects to be so strong, but darn Neural X nailed that roof hit! I don't know how it tells with some sounds like that where to put it. I don't think Magnum PI was mixed with Atmos in mind.


----------



## Daniel Ickes

Let me ask a couple nagging questions because my manual Sucks.
Is "Front High" and "Top Front" very close to the same thing?
My receiver has a settings for Dolby Speaker (Front) Center and Rear. And settings for ceiling type Top (Front) Center and Rear.
If for example the Dolby speaker is supposed to bounce the sound off top center wouldn't that speaker assignment be Top Center? Why the extra set of speaker type?


----------



## MagnumX

Daniel Ickes said:


> Let me ask a couple nagging questions because my manual Sucks.
> Is "Front High" and "Top Front" very close to the same thing?
> My receiver has a settings for Dolby Speaker (Front) Center and Rear. And settings for ceiling type Top (Front) Center and Rear.
> If for example the Dolby speaker is supposed to bounce the sound off top center wouldn't that speaker assignment be Top Center? Why the extra set of speaker type?


Front *Heights* are defined (in Dolby terms) as speakers mounted from 30-45 degrees above your ears (obviously, it will vary a bit by a person's height) at the primary seating position. They seem to have made this 20-45 degrees now if you use 6 overhead speakers, meaning top middle is included).

Front *Tops* are defined as being 45 degrees to 55 degrees above the main listening position (MLP).

"Bounce" speakers are called "Dolby Enabled" speakers and they're not anything of the sort and have their own setting (they have guidelines on ceiling height and type, etc., but good luck getting it to work reliably well, especialy for more than one seat).

Rear speakers are the same elevations backwards, but that only assumes one row of seats, really (defined as either -45 backwards or 135 forwards for the 45 degree angle).

Are they hugely different? In terms of the setting, IMO is no they are not. But where they are placed affects where the sounds begin (e.g. near the top of the screen versus like 1/3 out into the room on the ceiling) and thus also the sounds right at the speakers sound more like high on the wall for height and well onto the ceiling for tops. But as they pan from to back, the sound goes across the ceiling anyway. 

The Full Atmos spec includes BOTH heights AND tops and with say a Trinnov Altitude 32, you can have both heights and tops (along with top middle as well giving you 10 overheads total).


----------



## noah katz

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’ve wondered why I can’t get Atmos from Vudu...



Did you make sure max quality is enabled in Vudu settings?





Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing...I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds...



Next time that happens, try DSU or Neural X upmixer, may well be better.


----------



## gene4ht

Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.


Most of us have probably neglected to mention that not all Atmos titles are created equal. Like most everything in life, there is poor, average, good, better, and best. Early Atmos titles had very little activity in the overheads as studios moved along the Atmos learning curve. With the passage of time, film mixers have become increasingly better at their craft resulting in some of the current excellent titles mentioned by members above. Even so, some studios/titles/mixers have not fully taken advantage of maximizing 3D audio opportunities. And lastly, although we AVS members are well aware of and sensitive to the quality of the current state of 3D audio, the general public is likely still not aware of its existence.

I’m also in agreement with @noah katz. Where some 3D titles may not impress, the DSU and DTS Neural: X upmixers may be a pleasant surprise...even for older non 3D titles.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Front *Heights* are defined (in Dolby terms) as speakers mounted from 30-45 degrees above your ears (obviously, it will vary a bit by a person's height) at the primary seating position. They seem to have made this 20-45 degrees now if you use 6 overhead speakers, meaning top middle is included).
> 
> Front *Tops* are defined as being 45 degrees to 55 degrees above the main listening position (MLP).
> 
> "Bounce" speakers are called "Dolby Enabled" speakers and they're not anything of the sort and have their own setting (they have guidelines on ceiling height and type, etc., but good luck getting it to work reliably well, especialy for more than one seat).
> 
> Rear speakers are the same elevations backwards, but that only assumes one row of seats, really (defined as either -45 backwards or 135 forwards for the 45 degree angle).
> 
> Are they hugely different? In terms of the setting, IMO is no they are not. But where they are placed affects where the sounds begin (e.g. near the top of the screen versus like 1/3 out into the room on the ceiling) and thus also the sounds right at the speakers sound more like high on the wall for height and well onto the ceiling for tops. But as they pan from to back, the sound goes across the ceiling anyway.
> 
> The Full Atmos spec includes BOTH heights AND tops and with say a Trinnov Altitude 32, you can have both heights and tops (along with top middle as well giving you 10 overheads total).



I have read a few of your posts about the differences between heights and tops but not sure which one you are recommending. I currently have extracted middles and running bookshelfs for all 6 with front and rear heights at the wall/ceiling intersection in a 20'long room. 

I was planning on moving the front and rears to 45deg which gives an equidistant arc between fronts, top front, top middle, top rear and rears - all will be 45 deg apart. So a pan would effectively travel the same 'distance' between speakers', but reading your posts I think you are saying the front and rear tops should be closer to 30deg ??


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> I have read a few of your posts about the differences between heights and tops but not sure which one you are recommending. I currently have extracted middles and running bookshelfs for all 6 with front and rear heights at the wall/ceiling intersection in a 20'long room.
> 
> I was planning on moving the front and rears to 45deg which gives an equidistant arc between fronts, top front, top middle, top rear and rears - all will be 45 deg apart. So a pan would effectively travel the same 'distance' between speakers', but reading your posts I think you are saying the front and rear tops should be closer to 30deg ??


I'm not saying one or the other is necessarily superior to the other as it's subjective to some extent. The Atmos renderer is supposed to account for the angle/starting points so supposedly having heights near the screen would start a sound sooner from the screen while tops part way out into the room would start as an object is further away from the screen, but whether it does this or not is hard to tell without the tools they use to make it in the first place to compare. Plus Atmos folds sounds down to other nearby channels when the actual ones aren't available, which further complicates things when comparing. 

In your situation, I'd probably go for all equal angles all else being equal. That sounds like a nice symmetry to have. Whether it's actually better is hard to say. I kind of like the idea of having sounds in the heights start right above the screen area as opposed to starting way out in the room, but I also see the appeal of having more of the sounds seem to come from the ceiling itself as it just seems "cooler" somehow, but then it's kind of cool to hear sounds come from the ceiling when there's nothing there too (phantom imaging in front of me clear to the bookshelves since top middle is behind me).


----------



## GLBright

MagnumX said:


> I can tell you this much for 100% certainty. PRIME does not work in Atmos for a non-4K TV (without an HD Fury to fool it) period. I don't care which version you select. It just doesn't work. I've tried it on every box I have. The same is true for Vudu here in the states. It detects you are 2K and refuses to use the 4K siganl and/or Atmos even if you select the "4K" versions.


Do you think that this device might fool the Fire TV Stick 4K and cause it to pass an Atmos signal despite having only a 1080p display? I understand that it backfeeds a 4K EDID to the source.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WR7KP1B/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I'm not saying one or the other is necessarily superior to the other as it's subjective to some extent. The Atmos renderer is supposed to account for the angle/starting points so supposedly having heights near the screen would start a sound sooner from the screen while tops part way out into the room would start as an object is further away from the screen, but whether it does this or not is hard to tell without the tools they use to make it in the first place to compare. Plus Atmos folds sounds down to other nearby channels when the actual ones aren't available, which further complicates things when comparing.
> 
> In your situation, I'd probably go for all equal angles all else being equal. That sounds like a nice symmetry to have. Whether it's actually better is hard to say. I kind of like the idea of having sounds in the heights start right above the screen area as opposed to starting way out in the room, but I also see the appeal of having more of the sounds seem to come from the ceiling itself as it just seems "cooler" somehow, but then it's kind of cool to hear sounds come from the ceiling when there's nothing there too (phantom imaging in front of me clear to the bookshelves since top middle is behind me).



Thanks for that - didn't help me though 
When I get home in 4 weeks I was planning on making some moveable stands to try my Atmos speakers at different locations and aiming angles to see if I can hear a difference. I was hoping your reply was going to mean I didn't have to do this. Anyway I will report back here with my findings once I do it.



I hear you on the ''çool'' aspect of phantom imaging. I love seeing the looks on peoples faces when I show them my surround setup and there is sound coming from everywhere and then I tell them it is running in stereo and only actually coming out of 2 speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

GLBright said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you this much for 100% certainty. PRIME does not work in Atmos for a non-4K TV (without an HD Fury to fool it) period. I don't care which version you select. It just doesn't work. I've tried it on every box I have. The same is true for Vudu here in the states. It detects you are 2K and refuses to use the 4K siganl and/or Atmos even if you select the "4K" versions.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that this device might fool the Fire TV Stick 4K and cause it to pass an Atmos signal despite having only a 1080p display? I understand that it backfeeds a 4K EDID to the source.
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WR7KP1B/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Click to expand...

No idea, but I doubt it. HD Fury Integral or Vertex will work. Yes, expensive. It's why I haven't bought one just to get Atmos when other services have the same movies that do work. The heck on Vudu and Prime. Neural X often works as well. Given only Jack Ruan even has Atmos on Prime, the heck on it too.


----------



## Lesmor

UKenGB said:


> Thanks for that, even though not really what I want to hear. It leaves me dumbfounded when content providers make these arbitrary decisions, like Atmos only with 4K streams. There is no reason why that should be and surely not what Dolby have in mind for Atmos.
> 
> I will try to find something on the iTunes Store, but that's not easy. Search on Atmos returns NO FILMS WHATSOEVER. Why do these operators make it so hard. If I can't find it, I ain't gonna be buying it. Simple really, but so many just don't get it.
> 
> Another surprise is that the Yamaha A3050 seems unable to down-convert 4K to HD. I must admit I had assumed it would be able to do that, but on checking, I find the manual seems to state it cannot do this. Can anyone confirm if it really is incapable of down-converting 4K to HD?


Another thing that leaves me dumbfounded and is when you take the time out to respond 
it really is a annoyance when your reply is ignored by the OP
so thanks for that


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> Most of the newer blockbusters (that aren't by Disney) are in Atmos. IT Chapter 1 and the sequel Chapter 2 both have phenomenal Atmos, for example. No, you can't search by Atmos, but at least in the US store there's almost always the "4K" sale header and if you click on it, there's usually an Atmos header for 4K Atmos titles.
> 
> Can't help you with Yamaha. I've got a Marantz 7010 and a 7012. Both will scale 4K.


Well I bought Jumanji from the iTunes store as it was clearly listed as having Atmos, it was on special offer and I wanted to see it anyway, so a good test movie.

Just tried it and NO Atmos showing on the amp. The Yamaha just shows input as 7.1 PCM.

As far as I understand it, the TV sends the main channels as PCM, but includes the Atmos data which again, as far as I understand it, the Yamaha A3050 should figure out that means Atmos and display that it is receiving Atmos. Currently it just says it's using Dolby Sur with DD Surround which to me clearly indicates it is NOT seeing this as Atmos.

So right now I'm stumped. If I cannot get an Atmos movie from iTunes to play in Atmos, no point worrying about on-line streaming services.

Is this an TV or Yamaha A3050 problem?


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> Well I bought Jumanji from the iTunes store as it was clearly listed as having Atmos, it was on special offer and I wanted to see it anyway, so a good test movie.
> 
> Just tried it and NO Atmos showing on the amp. The Yamaha just shows input as 7.1 PCM.
> 
> As far as I understand it, the TV sends the main channels as PCM, but includes the Atmos data which again, as far as I understand it, the Yamaha A3050 should figure out that means Atmos and display that it is receiving Atmos. Currently it just says it's using Dolby Sur with DD Surround which to me clearly indicates it is NOT seeing this as Atmos.
> 
> So right now I'm stumped. If I cannot get an Atmos movie from iTunes to play in Atmos, no point worrying about on-line streaming services.
> 
> Is this an TV or Yamaha A3050 problem?


It could possibly be either one. Are both units up-to-date with the latest firmware versions? Is the Yamaha in Straight Mode? Does Apple TV say Atmos content is allowed in the settings? (I forget the exact thing it says, but I'm pretty sure there's a verification that Atmos is allowed or something to that effect). You could also try asking in the Yamaha 3050 owner's thread. Maybe someone had the same problem and found a solution? 

That you're getting 7.1 input is a good sign that the original file is probably in Atmos (most 7.1 titles other than Disney on there are). Somehow it's not getting or recognizing the MAT stream.


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> There are lots of disappointing Atmos movies out there (too many, IMO). It gets treated like Dolby Digital did when it first came out (surround is distracting so use it as little as possible!) which of course defeats the entire premise of "immersive" surround sound. Unfortunately, Dolby can't force these types in Hollywood to make proper soundtracks with their tech. I honestly wish they would make two soundtracks (a highly immersive one and a crappy barely stereo one for those that agree with that line of thinking). It'd have to be better than spending thousands on an Atmos setup to find half the movies out there suck with it.
> 
> There is a thread or two on here for "best of" type movies for Atmos and/or X (e.g. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html). Audioholics had an even larger list with thoughts on all three formats (mostly by one other guy and myself), but I can no longer recommend the site given the owner's behavior recently that I'd rather not go into here. Interest in the topic here seemed minimal for some reason so I saw no point in writing reviews if no one seemed to care.
> 
> I see Dan mentioned Blade Runner 2049 above. It's a GREAT soundtrack overall (killer bass for example), but the overhead effects are less than even the original movie on UHD Blu-Ray, IMO which is way more aggressive with direct overhead sounds. *FURY* with Brad Pitt has incredible overhead sounds! *Overlord* is pretty impressive too (especially the opening and the bit with the kid dropping the ball on the floor upstairs, etc.) *Jumanji* (the original movie on UHD) is darn impressive (crazy good, even better than the its sequel, which has a decent soundtrack too and is the funnier movie, IMO). *Angel has Fallen* has pretty great overhead effects too, especially the helicopters. Speaking of helicopters, *Mission Impossible FALLOUT* has a fantastic helicopter sequence too and great overall sound. There are more, of course (e.g. DTS:X, the *Harry Potter *movies are all great with overhead sounds and "*Crimson Peak*" has sounds all over the ceiling. The best quick demo award has to go to the opening of the newer *Flatliners* movie (the voices talking about near death experiences during the title sequence are crazy good all over the room's ceiling! The rest of the movie doesn't match up to that two minutes, though, but I still liked it. Even the Dan Brown based *INFERNO* has a great overhead opening. I actually have Blade Runner 2049, Flatliners and Inferno in Auro-3D as well (excellent there as well, but sound very similar on the same speaker layout).


MagnumX,

Thank-You ... Sir for all your coverage of the outstanding DVDs. 
(I'm referring to All hard-disc ^^^)

That gives me now a small list of Awesome ones to get !!!

Terry


----------



## elee532

robert600 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of making the jump to a atmos enabled receiver but until I do that I was wondering if anyone could help me with my current receiver. It's a 6 or 7 year old (Onkyo HT-R2295) 7.1 receiver. It makes no mention of Atmos but it does allow 2 of the channels to be configured as either back-surround OR front-high. I've only ever used it as back-surround. If I configured it front-high is that like a primative Atmos set-up?


It looks like that receiver offers Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height as one of the Listening Mode options. This is probably as close as you'll get to Atmos. No experience with it, and I'm brand new myself to Atmos. But, I suspect this would be a very poor approximation of Atmos. Maybe someone who has used Pro Logic IIz Height mode can chime in for you here?


----------



## Daniel Ickes

Good news Batman Vs Superman restored my faith in Atmos. The movie wasn't all that good but the sound was much more like what I wanted.
Sorry for the silly questions.

This from my manual.
I think I want it on? Thoughts?

*Dolby Loudness Management*:
Defult: On
When playing Dolby TrueHD, enable the dialog normalization function which keeps the volume of dialog at a certain level. Note that when this setting is Off, the Midnight function that allows you to enjoy surround at low volumes is fixed to off when playing Dolby Digital Plus/Dolby TrueHD.
"On": When this function is used
"Off": When this function is not used 

I'll try to find some pictures of my Theater.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Daniel Ickes said:


> Good news Batman Vs Superman restored my faith in Atmos. The movie wasn't all that good but the sound was much more like what I wanted.
> Sorry for the silly questions.
> 
> This from my manual.
> I think I want it on? Thoughts?
> 
> *Dolby Loudness Management*:
> Defult: On
> When playing Dolby TrueHD, enable the dialog normalization function which keeps the volume of dialog at a certain level. Note that when this setting is Off, the Midnight function that allows you to enjoy surround at low volumes is fixed to off when playing Dolby Digital Plus/Dolby TrueHD.
> "On": When this function is used
> "Off": When this function is not used
> 
> I'll try to find some pictures of my Theater.



Dolby Loudness Management : OFF


In disc player settings: Dynamic Range Control : OFF


Make sure Secondary Audio is OFF and that you are actually bitstreaming from your player.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Daniel Ickes said:


> Well that was disappointing. I made sure everything worked, learned all about the MCACC and played with all the Atmos Demo files I could find. Then yesterday I rented my first Atmos bluray movie (Cold Pursuit) I barely even heard the surrounds. There was one scene with a gun shoot out that sounded ok but even that was about the same as my old receiver.


***Try some of these, as well: https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dolby-atmos-movies/

Also — the bombing run on Unbroken will knock your socks off with the side to side, front to back and overhead Dolby Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## Daniel Ickes

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby Loudness Management : OFF
> 
> 
> In disc player settings: Dynamic Range Control : OFF
> 
> 
> Make sure Secondary Audio is OFF and that you are actually bitstreaming from your player.


OK. I have the player settings covered.
I'll turn the Dolby Loudness off (receiver). I figured since it was under the Dolby section of the manual that the default could be right.


----------



## MagnumX

Daniel Ickes said:


> OK. I have the player settings covered.
> I'll turn the Dolby Loudness off (receiver). I figured since it was under the Dolby section of the manual that the default could be right.


I like Dynamic EQ on my Marantz AVR. It compensates for human hearing loss of bass sensitivity at lower volume levels by turning the bass up to match the curve (It requires Audyssey to work so it knows how loud it is in the room). Otherwise, bass goes down faster than the rest of the volume at lower volume levels (undesirable IMO, but some people hate any intervention in their system). Dynamic Volume kills dynamic range, OTOH and is more for a "quiet" listening mode, IMO. The issue I see is your "terms" don't match the Marantz ones. Loudness compensation was historically what Dynamic EQ on my AVR does, but "Dolby Loudness" described there sounds more like the Marantz's "Loudness management" that is more for compressing the sound and keeping things like dialog loud even when it's supposed to be quiet (so you can set an overall lower volume level and not disturb others as much).


----------



## Daniel Ickes

MagnumX said:


> I like Dynamic EQ on my Marantz AVR. It compensates for human hearing loss of bass sensitivity at lower volume levels by turning the bass up to match the curve (It requires Audyssey to work so it knows how loud it is in the room). Otherwise, bass goes down faster than the rest of the volume at lower volume levels (undesirable IMO, but some people hate any intervention in their system). Dynamic Volume kills dynamic range, OTOH and is more for a "quiet" listening mode, IMO. The issue I see is your "terms" don't match the Marantz ones. Loudness compensation was historically what Dynamic EQ on my AVR does, but "Dolby Loudness" described there sounds more like the Marantz's "Loudness management" that is more for compressing the sound and keeping things like dialog loud even when it's supposed to be quiet (so you can set an overall lower volume level and not disturb others as much).


That sounds like 'Midnight mode' on Pioneer.
This is why I got confused with Dolby loudness management. Having both features on the same receiver seems redundant. 

Midnight: Make small sounds easily heard. It is useful when you need to reduce
the volume while watching a movie late night. You can enjoy the effect only when
playing Dolby series and DTS series input signals.
• It cannot be set if the listening mode is Direct or Pure Direct.
• The setting cannot be used in the following cases.
– If "Loudness Management" is set to "Off" when playing Dolby Digital Plus or
Dolby TrueHD
– When the input signal is DTS:X and "Dialog Control" is other than 0 dB


----------



## Matt L

UKenGB said:


> Well I bought Jumanji from the iTunes store as it was clearly listed as having Atmos, it was on special offer and I wanted to see it anyway, so a good test movie.
> 
> Just tried it and NO Atmos showing on the amp. The Yamaha just shows input as 7.1 PCM.
> 
> As far as I understand it, the TV sends the main channels as PCM, but includes the Atmos data which again, as far as I understand it, the Yamaha A3050 should figure out that means Atmos and display that it is receiving Atmos. Currently it just says it's using Dolby Sur with DD Surround which to me clearly indicates it is NOT seeing this as Atmos.
> 
> So right now I'm stumped. If I cannot get an Atmos movie from iTunes to play in Atmos, no point worrying about on-line streaming services.
> 
> Is this an TV or Yamaha A3050 problem?


With my system, I have a Samsung player and the Marantz 7010 the only way I get Atmos from a disk is if I have audio set to Bitstream, PCM will not generate Atmos for me. But the TV is a different matter, how is it connected? ARC? Optical? ARC is the only way to get Atmos from a streamer, is the Apple plugged into the TV or the AVR? Swap the connections to the tv or AVR and see if it works. There is very little Atmos available to me streaming, I canceled NF due to the fact they can't be bothered to support any of the equipment I have. Amazon has one or two titles in Atmos. At this point I have Roku, 4K Firestick and Xfinity's 4K streamer box, no desire to buy more.


----------



## UKenGB

Matt L said:


> With my system, I have a Samsung player and the Marantz 7010 the only way I get Atmos from a disk is if I have audio set to Bitstream, PCM will not generate Atmos for me. But the TV is a different matter, how is it connected? ARC? Optical? ARC is the only way to get Atmos from a streamer, is the Apple plugged into the TV or the AVR? Swap the connections to the tv or AVR and see if it works. There is very little Atmos available to me streaming, I canceled NF due to the fact they can't be bothered to support any of the equipment I have. Amazon has one or two titles in Atmos. At this point I have Roku, 4K Firestick and Xfinity's 4K streamer box, no desire to buy more.


I'm now using the TV for everything (I used to have a cabinet full of different sources) and on the whole it's all working very well. Except for this Atmos problem.

The TV sends audio and HD video via HDMI to the Yamaha RX-A3050 which sends the HD video (only) on to the TV (also via HDMI). So the only way the TV can affect things is that it limits video to HD. But, that should NOT affect the audio capabilities. I realise some streaming services may link Atmos to 4K, but that only makes sense if they can charge more for it. Otherwise, why bother.

As I said, playing the Dolby Atmos trailers (that MUST have Atmos, right?) on the TV (which has 'Immersive Audio' checked ON) and to the Yam 3050 (which has 'Object Audio' enabled and 11 fully functional channels) still does not show Atmos on the 3050.

Since the Dolby trailers (must) have Atmos, either the TV is not passing it, or the Yam 3050 is ignoring it. At this stage I have no idea which is the problem so I'll have to look further at the problem.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

UKenGB said:


> Well I bought Jumanji from the iTunes store as it was clearly listed as having Atmos, it was on special offer and I wanted to see it anyway, so a good test movie.
> 
> Just tried it and NO Atmos showing on the amp. The Yamaha just shows input as 7.1 PCM.
> 
> As far as I understand it, the TV sends the main channels as PCM, but includes the Atmos data which again, as far as I understand it, the Yamaha A3050 should figure out that means Atmos and display that it is receiving Atmos. Currently it just says it's using Dolby Sur with DD Surround which to me clearly indicates it is NOT seeing this as Atmos.
> 
> So right now I'm stumped. If I cannot get an Atmos movie from iTunes to play in Atmos, no point worrying about on-line streaming services.
> 
> Is this an TV or Yamaha A3050 problem?


Apple TV does not bitstream the DD+ Atmos stream itself, but converts it into an MAT Atmos stream wich includes uncompressed PCM audio. This is not the same as a PCM stream! If your receiver shows 7.1 PCM, then your Apple TV is not sending out an Atmos stream.


----------



## steelman1991

UKenGB said:


> I'm now using the TV for everything (I used to have a cabinet full of different sources) and on the whole it's all working very well. Except for this Atmos problem.
> 
> The TV sends audio and HD video via HDMI to the Yamaha RX-A3050 which sends the HD video (only) on to the TV (also via HDMI). So the only way the TV can affect things is that it limits video to HD. But, that should NOT affect the audio capabilities. I realise some streaming services may link Atmos to 4K, but that only makes sense if they can charge more for it. Otherwise, why bother.
> 
> As I said, playing the Dolby Atmos trailers (that MUST have Atmos, right?) on the TV (which has 'Immersive Audio' checked ON) and to the Yam 3050 (which has 'Object Audio' enabled and 11 fully functional channels) still does not show Atmos on the 3050.
> 
> Since the Dolby trailers (must) have Atmos, either the TV is not passing it, or the Yam 3050 is ignoring it. At this stage I have no idea which is the problem so I'll have to look further at the problem.


I may have missed it - this thread moves quite quickly - but which TV model are you using?


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> I'm now using the TV for everything (I used to have a cabinet full of different sources) and on the whole it's all working very well. Except for this Atmos problem.
> 
> The TV sends audio and HD video via HDMI to the Yamaha RX-A3050 which sends the HD video (only) on to the TV (also via HDMI). So the only way the TV can affect things is that it limits video to HD. But, that should NOT affect the audio capabilities. I realise some streaming services may link Atmos to 4K, but that only makes sense if they can charge more for it. Otherwise, why bother.
> 
> As I said, playing the Dolby Atmos trailers (that MUST have Atmos, right?) on the TV (which has 'Immersive Audio' checked ON) and to the Yam 3050 (which has 'Object Audio' enabled and 11 fully functional channels) still does not show Atmos on the 3050.
> 
> Since the Dolby trailers (must) have Atmos, either the TV is not passing it, or the Yam 3050 is ignoring it. At this stage I have no idea which is the problem so I'll have to look further at the problem.


This may sound silly, but have you tried the INFO button on the Yamaha? I've never used a Yamaha Atmos receiver, but I know their older non-Atmos receivers didn't always display the message you expected on the front panel. There's always this small chance it's reporting the underlying stream format, but not displaying "Atmos" as the Yamaha I set up at my mother's house didn't say "Dolby Digital" or "TrueHD" until I changed the display with the Info button. Being Atmos is wrapped around a PCM signal, I suddenly get this nagging feeling maybe it's just a display issue. 

Have you tried Blu-Ray based Atmos on the same receiver to compare what it displays with a disc?


----------



## steelman1991

MagnumX said:


> This may sound silly, but have you tried the INFO button on the Yamaha? I've never used a Yamaha Atmos receiver, but I know their older non-Atmos receivers didn't always display the message you expected on the front panel. There's always this small chance it's reporting the underlying stream format, but not displaying "Atmos" as the Yamaha I set up at my mother's house didn't say "Dolby Digital" or "TrueHD" until I changed the display with the Info button. Being Atmos is wrapped around a PCM signal, I suddenly get this nagging feeling maybe it's just a display issue.
> 
> Have you tried Blu-Ray based Atmos on the same receiver to compare what it displays with a disc?


He's also passing audio through his TV which might have restrictions on what is received at the receiver.


----------



## MagnumX

steelman1991 said:


> He's also passing audio through his TV which might have restrictions on what is received at the receiver.


Not according to what he said himself:



> "The *TV sends audio and HD video via HDMI to the Yamaha RX-A3050* which sends the HD video (only) on to the TV (also via HDMI). So the only way the TV can affect things is that it limits video to HD. But, that should NOT affect the audio capabilities. I realise some streaming services may link Atmos to 4K, but that only makes sense if they can charge more for it. Otherwise, why bother."


----------



## steelman1991

MagnumX said:


> Not according to what he said himself:





> "The TV sends audio and HD video via HDMI to the Yamaha RX-A3050 which sends the HD video (only) on to the TV (also via HDMI). So the only way the TV can affect things is that it limits video to HD. But, that should NOT affect the audio capabilities. I realise some streaming services may link Atmos to 4K, but that only makes sense if they can charge more for it. Otherwise, why bother."


Sorry yes my bad - that square I presume should have "A" in it's place? - read it as it was his TV that was sending audio to the receiver.


----------



## Roger Dressler

zeonstar said:


> OTOH, if we are talking about Blu-rays... then DTS was most definitely more common. I've actually always wondered why that is. And now with 4K UHD's, we are back to Dolby again.


Simple. It was less expensive for the studios to encode in DTS (e.g., a single QC pass for DTS because the lossy core is embedded in the lossless stream, instead of two pass QC to check the TrueHD and the DD lossy separately). There were other related factors involved wrt workflow, but they, too, accrued to cost. Dolby learned from that and improved their tools.


----------



## UKenGB

G4n0nD0rf said:


> …If your receiver shows 7.1 PCM, then your Apple TV is not sending out an Atmos stream.


This is my conclusion too.


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> This may sound silly, but have you tried the INFO button on the Yamaha? I've never used a Yamaha Atmos receiver, but I know their older non-Atmos receivers didn't always display the message you expected on the front panel. There's always this small chance it's reporting the underlying stream format, but not displaying "Atmos" as the Yamaha I set up at my mother's house didn't say "Dolby Digital" or "TrueHD" until I changed the display with the Info button. Being Atmos is wrapped around a PCM signal, I suddenly get this nagging feeling maybe it's just a display issue.
> 
> Have you tried Blu-Ray based Atmos on the same receiver to compare what it displays with a disc?


The Yam displays Sur. Decode as the DSP mode and the decoder is DD Surround. The [Info] button switches between those 2 displays.

I have no Blu-Ray Atmos disc. I figured buying an iTunes movie that was clearly listed as having Atmos would be as good a test. The net result is I'm just not getting Atmos. However I try to access it.


----------



## UKenGB

steelman1991 said:


> Sorry yes my bad - that square I presume should have "A" in it's place? - read it as it was his TV that was sending audio to the receiver.


Ah that is my fault. This  is the Apple logo on everything I use even when reading it back on forums I've posted to. I should have realised that even so, some others may not see the correct image.

So if I've used TV, that means Apple TV. I won't use that single character again. My apologies.


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> The Yam displays Sur. Decode as the DSP mode and the decoder is DD Surround. The [Info] button switches between those 2 displays.
> 
> I have no Blu-Ray Atmos disc. I figured buying an iTunes movie that was clearly listed as having Atmos would be as good a test. The net result is I'm just not getting Atmos. However I try to access it.


It doesn't sound like you're getting the PCM MAT output at all. Apple only outputs "Dolby Digital" for 5.1 bitstream. The correct mode outputs PCM multi-channel for everything (Atmos shows up as "Atmos" on my display, though, but it's actually multi-channel PCM underneath with the meta information contained within.

I just looked at my own Apple TV 4K downstairs and the current settings say, "Auto" for both Audio Format and Audio Output. If it says anything else, change it.


----------



## UKenGB

*no Atmos on Yamaha RX-A3050 from Apple TV 4K*

Just to clarify, the Apple TV is connected to the A3050 by a short HDMI cable and the A3050 then connects to the (Pnasonic 65" HD Plasma) TV via a slightly longer HDMI cable. So the TV is at the end and not involved in the routing of any signals. But, the Apple TV is therefore configured to output HD video and that can be seen by streaming services that may then opt to only send the HD stream which may not contain Atmos.

To avoid this, I have an iTunes movie that purports to have Atmos and I also have Dolby's own Atmos demo trailers. None of these have allowed me to see that magical 'Atmos' on the A3050.

I downloaded the Dolby videos onto a USB stick and hoped to plug that into the A3050 for direct access to the files, avoiding any other devices that might confuse the issue. But, the 3050 cannot access video files over USB 

I then inserted the stick into my Panasonic DMP-BDT500EB Blu-Ray player which was able to play them. However there was no audio output whatsoever. I've spent half a day messing with every setting I can think of on the BDT500 and the 3050 (Bitstream on/off every which way) all to no avail. Although a regular mp4 video file plays perfectly, with audio, these Dolby demos will not provide any audio although the 3050 reports that the signal is 2.0 PCM - which it should not be.

So I copied them into iTunes on my Mac and accessed then using the Computers app on the Apple TV. They play with audio (reported by the 3050 as 7.1 PCM) and the Amaze trailer sounds great, but it's not Atmos. When the 3050 is set to 'Straight', Atmos would still play to the height/overhead speakers, but they are utterly silent. So it's not Atmos. However, when set to Surround Decode, I can hear some sounds from those upper speakers, which means that the Dolby Surround upmixer is doing it's job. But it's not Atmos.

Interestingly, I also have Dolby's Atmos 7.4.1 test tones demo. If I play that in the same way as the other trailers (form Mac via Computers app on Apple TV), there is audio, but completely out of wack from what the screen shows. There's a schematic of all the speakers in the room, which highlight in turn as the white noise is emitted from presumably the highlighted speaker. Nope. In some cases it's correct, but the height speaker sounds emanate from others (ok, so if it's not Atmos it could get confused), but the others are mostly messed up as well. So Left Front is correct, but Right Front comes out from the Centre channel. Surround Backs both emanate from the Surround speakers. It's as if the sounds are sent to some random selection of what speakers are available. I immediately checked by amp and speaker setup and when using the 3050's test tone, everything comes from the correct speaker. So it's the Dolby demo that's at fault. Maybe with Atmos working they would come from the correct speakers, but I really cannot understand how the low level channels would get so mixed up. Anyway…

So that's where I am at the moment. One way or another I've failed to get anything playing in Atmos. In fact the only audio I can try is from the Apple TV, so there's still nothing to confirm whether it's the Apple TV, or the Yamaha 3050. I'm leaning towards the former, but nothing to prove it either way yet.

Other suggestions of course still welcome.


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> It doesn't sound like you're getting the PCM MAT output at all. Apple only outputs "Dolby Digital" for 5.1 bitstream. The correct mode outputs PCM multi-channel for everything (Atmos shows up as "Atmos" on my display, though, but it's actually multi-channel PCM underneath with the meta information contained within.


Yes, it does rather look as if the Apple TV is simply not passing the MAT data. Or is the Yamaha 3050 simply ignoring it? Still not confirmed which.



> I just looked at my own Apple TV 4K downstairs and the current settings say, "Auto" for both Audio Format and Audio Output. If it says anything else, change it.


Audio Format and Audio Mode are both set to Auto, but Audio Output is where the audio is sent (it could AirPlay to other devices) so it's set to output to itself. I guess you meant Audio Mode.


----------



## Craig Mecak

It is confirmed that the Yamaha 3050 can decode Atmos via MAT?


Perhaps it can only decode Atmos when it's DD+ or TrueHD.


----------



## Augerhandle

The ESID works on the lowest common denominator, so if your TV is not 4K, it will report back all the way to the Apple TV device. If the app won't pass ATMOS unless 4K, then that is the problem. If you have an ATMOS capable player, rent an ATMOS Blu-ray (such as one of the John Wick series) to test your Yamaha.


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> The ESID works on the lowest common denominator, so if your TV is not 4K, it will report back all the way to the Apple TV device. If the app won't pass ATMOS unless 4K, then that is the problem. If you have an ATMOS capable player, rent an ATMOS Blu-ray (such as one of the John Wick series) to test your Yamaha.


As I've _already_ stated earlier, Apple TV 4K (in the US at least) will play Atmos via iTunes movies, Netflix and Disney+. It doesn't care if you have a 2K set for those apps. Vudu and Prime are the ones that don't work without a 4K set. The movie he purchased (Jumanji) is in Atmos and _should_ have worked. I highly doubt the problem is the Apple TV at this point. I'm guessing there's a receiver setting somewhere that's off or perhaps the 3050 cannot handle MAT signals. I'm not familiar with that receiver personally, which is why I suggested he ask in a Yamaha 3050 thread.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> As I've _already_ stated earlier, Apple TV 4K (in the US at least) will play Atmos via iTunes movies, Netflix and Disney+. It doesn't care if you have a 2K set for those apps. Vudu and Prime are the ones that don't work without a 4K set. The movie he purchased (Jumanji) is in Atmos and _should_ have worked. I highly doubt the problem is the Apple TV at this point. I'm guessing there's a receiver setting somewhere that's off or perhaps the 3050 cannot handle MAT signals. I'm not familiar with that receiver personally, which is why I suggested he ask in a Yamaha 3050 thread.


That's why I suggested using a physical disk to narrow down the problem. One step at a time. I'd rather not guess. That's your department.


----------



## Augerhandle

UKenGB said:


> Yes, it does rather look as if the Apple TV is simply not passing the MAT data. Or is the Yamaha 3050 simply ignoring it? Still not confirmed which.
> 
> 
> 
> Audio Format and Audio Mode are both set to Auto, but Audio Output is where the audio is sent (it could AirPlay to other devices) so it's set to output to itself. I guess you meant Audio Mode.



Please check your settings. Refer to page 20 in the Manual. You must select the speaker system being used, before running YPAO. If you haven't run YPAO since adding speakers, that is probably the issue.


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> That's why I suggested using a physical disk to narrow down the problem. One step at a time. I'd rather not guess.


I already asked that too and he already gave an answer. (see: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1907.html#post59092368 above). I cannot force him to buy a disc.



> That's your department.


If _my_ department is _guessing_ yours must be _wasting time_ repeating the same things I'm "guessing" at.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> I already asked that too and he already gave an answer. (see: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1907.html#post59092368 above). I cannot force him to buy a disc.


You asked if he had a disk, and he replied to you that he didn't have one. I told him to get one. There's a difference.


> If _my_ department is _guessing_ yours must be _wasting time_ repeating the same things I'm "guessing" at.


Actually, my department is trouble-shooting, which has precise scientific steps, leading to a solution. I decided to chime in to help the OP actually solve his issue. You criticized my post, which wasn't directed at you, and you seem to be upset that someone other than yourself might have a contribution. I'm sorry about that. I'll gladly bow out, if the OP doesn't want my help.


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> You asked if he had a disk, and he replied to you that he didn't have one. I told him to get one. There's a difference.


Well, let's hope he wants to spend some money and let's hope his Blu-Ray player (if he has one) has no issues either. Spending money to find out the obvious (that it will most likely work just fine) isn't my style as it costs my company money. I test all the easy/cheap stuff first for that reason as time is money but so are expensive parts. He wants to use Apple TV so that's what I've been looking at.

It seemed pretty clear to me he has no real interest in Blu-Ray discs. It also seems pretty clear the ATV is not the problem at this point. I read over the 3050 manual. It's an early Atmos model. It may very well not support MAT out of the box. That's why I mentioned checking for a firmware update. It also needs to have the speakers set up correctly. He appears to have the ATV set up correctly. 



> Actually, my department is trouble-shooting, which has precise scientific steps, leading to a solution.


Is that what you call what you've been doing? 



> I decided to chime in to help the OP actually solve his issue. You criticized my post, which wasn't directed at you, and you seem to be upset that someone other than yourself might have a contribution. I'm sorry about that. I'll gladly bow out, if the OP doesn't want my help.


From where I stand, you decided to chime in and ask the same questions and do the same things that have already been done. I'm fine with you solving his problem, but I didn't want you to start from scratch as it's a waste of time (his time, that is; you can waste yours all you want). For that I get the "guessing department" treatment. If you want to be hostile for saving us both some time, go ahead. I'll leave the problem to you, sir.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> ...Is that what you call what you've been doing?


Well, yes, and I only posted because you obviously haven't even come close to solving the problem.



> From where I stand, you decided to chime in and ask the same questions and do the same things that have already been done.


Actually, I didn't. I stated a possible scenario that could be corrupting his results, and a sure fire way to narrow the problem to the component level. That's Troubleshooting 101


> ...For that I get the "guessing department" treatment...


hmm



MagnumX said:


> ...*I'm guessing *there's a receiver setting somewhere that's off...I'm not familiar with that receiver personally...


Again, my troubleshooting post wasn't even directed at you, so what's your deal? (that was a rhetorical question, no response is needed, nor wanted.)


----------



## Matt L

UKenGB said:


> Just to clarify, the Apple TV is connected to the A3050 by a short HDMI cable and the A3050 then connects to the (Pnasonic 65" HD Plasma) TV


For me, that's the red flag. I stay far away from anything Apple, but I know from past experience having a 1080p item in the chain can block stuff. As suggested go rent a disk with an Atmos track if you have a player and make sure you get Atmos from that. You need a known good source to track down the issue. Getting a movie from Apple does not do that. There are all kind of handshakes and restrictions in the chain and it may simply not like your 1080p tv.


----------



## maikeldepotter

UKenGB said:


> Just to clarify, the Apple TV is connected to the A3050 by a short HDMI cable.


Short HDMI cables are prone to causing all kinds of issues. For starters I would advice you to use one that is at least 1.5-2 meter.


----------



## ssaddict

Matt L said:


> For me, that's the red flag. I stay far away from anything Apple, but I know from past experience having a 1080p item in the chain can block stuff. As suggested go rent a disk with an Atmos track if you have a player and make sure you get Atmos from that. You need a known good source to track down the issue. Getting a movie from Apple does not do that. There are all kind of handshakes and restrictions in the chain and it may simply not like your 1080p tv.


I think that's what's happening to me with Prime, playing via a Chromecast to a 1080p TV. No ATMOS


----------



## ssaddict

maikeldepotter said:


> Short HDMI cables are prone to causing all kinds of issues. For starters I would advice you to use one that is at least 1.5-2 meter.


I am curious why ?


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> Well, let's hope he wants to spend some money and let's hope his Blu-Ray player (if he has one) has no issues either. Spending money to find out the obvious (that it will most likely work just fine) isn't my style as it costs my company money. I test all the easy/cheap stuff first for that reason as time is money but so are expensive parts. He wants to use Apple TV so that's what I've been looking at.
> 
> It seemed pretty clear to me he has no real interest in Blu-Ray discs. It also seems pretty clear the ATV is not the problem at this point. I read over the 3050 manual. It's an early Atmos model. It may very well not support MAT out of the box. That's why I mentioned checking for a firmware update. It also needs to have the speakers set up correctly. He appears to have the ATV set up correctly.
> …


The last thing I ever wanted was to start an argument between 2 other members simply trying to help me. Please, I really appreciate all that is being said. I'm not ignorant when it comes to AV and IT related stuff (working in IT and the music industry for years), but I am totally perplexed by this issue and the only way to track down the root cause is asking what others are able to achieve. There would be no point in wasting any more time if the Yamaha A3050 did not support Atmos by MAT so that's a very valid question. One that I have been pondering. However, on the A3050 thread it has been reported that the A3050 DOES provide Atmos from AppleTV sourced content which means MAT.

Which is good-ish news. It means my amp is capable, but I'm no nearer to isolating the cause of this problem.

I am not against disks, but I just don't have any with Atmos and getting hold of one would take longer than I thought it would take to figure this out otherwise. But it is a route I will look at. I did try using my Panasonic DMP-BDT500EB Blu Ray player to play the Dolby Atmos demos from a USB stick, but there was no audio at all. A regular MP4 played fine however. So I guess there may be some restriction on playing USB files. So yes, a good Atmos Blu Ray would be a good test right now. I need to eliminate the AppleTV from the equation, just to ascertain whether it is the problem or it's the A3050.

A few more points. The DMP-BDT500EB is not specified for Atmos, but as it is configured to output audio as Bitstream that won't matter. It also should not matter what HDMI cable is used as Atmos does not require anything special. However I take the point that some short cables can be an issue so although I don't fully understand why, I will try a different cable.

Otherwise, I'm still stumped.


----------



## maikeldepotter

ssaddict said:


> I am curious why ?


The why is way over my head, and I even wonder if someone has a conclusive explanation for it. It's however an empirical fact known amongst integrators and calibrators. I believe @appelz even suggest at 2 to 3 meter as minimum.


----------



## MagnumX

All the bias and hate against Apple TV and/or Apple itself I'm still seeing from some people is misplaced, for example as it's already been stated (and I can personally vouch for) that Atmos on it _does_ work with 1080p from iTunes (and in the US Netflix and Disney+ also). Vudu and Prime do look for a 4K set, but that is not Apple's fault. I have an Apple TV 4K and it's connected to a 1080p projector. Atmos still works fine with it.



maikeldepotter said:


> Short HDMI cables are prone to causing all kinds of issues. For starters I would advice you to use one that is at least 1.5-2 meter.


I've never had a problem with "short" HDMI cables (I have several in the 2-4 foot long category) other than them not reaching or getting pulled on as longer cables create more clutter in short distances. But certainly extra long HDMI cables can be an issue as HDMI is known for signal reduction in really long runs without a booster). However, regardless, trying a _different_ HDMI cable is a very good idea indeed and based on the user's above tests thus far, the most likely candidate at this point. I think most of my "shorter" cables have been Amazon Basics and they have all have been fine.

The "short HDMI cables are prone to causing all kinds of issues" thing has me curious. If the cable is being flexed too much, yes, the wires can be damaged inside and you don't want something tugging on the connectors either), but the length itself? I've been searching, but I haven't found any evidence so far outside of overly inflexible connections that get tugged on can damage short cable runs (or any run where the cable is too short for the distance) and some contractors that seem to be using the idea to sell longer more expensive cables (the Monster cable thing is profitable).

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/hdmi-cables-quality-issues-with-cables-being-too-short.2051146/ (consensus here seems to think it's an installer scam to get people to buy longer more profitable runs of cable)

https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-0-3m-Short-Speed-Cable/dp/B00K3HF276 (pretty high reviews on this 1 foot (0.3m) long cable if "short" is an issue).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-...roblem-why-1080i-component-instead-1080p.html (gives an explanation of why short cables fail despite HDMI being designed for internal connections in mere inches and it seems to be design issues, not the length itself).

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-all-hdmi-cables-are-the-same/ (old article and so not 4K "high speed" friendly) but length is only mentioned for runs over 25 feet. 50 feet seems to be the limit without boosting the signal.


----------



## fatherom

With respect to 6 foot cables being the "sweet spot", this is talked about all the time by Jim Peterson, president of Lumagen. I'm including some text of his...not completely related to the discussion here, but signal tolerances on different lengths of cable is something we discuss on the Lumagen thread constantly.

From Jim Peterson at Lumagen on the Lumagen thread (last week):

_Concerning audio dropouts after an update:

I can say from experience that if you do an update and then get any dropouts, this comes down to the HDMI cabling. The different releases can have slightly different output jitters. The Pro has some of the lowest jitter measurements of any HDMI device I know about, but the low jitter does vary from release to release by a small margin. However, this should not affect either audio or the video. If it does check your cables:

- Make sure you did not loosen a HDMI plug while updating. It happens. I did this to myself on the latest release. I had a drop out in video and then discovered a plug slightly moved out. Plugged it back in and no more dropouts.

- Make sure all passive HDMI cables are 2 to 3 meters long and 18 GHz Certified. Very important. Cables under 2 meter can cause issues with the signal being "too hot" and audio goes first due to the IMO poor decision that it is carried as a non-coherent data stream on top of video. I solve issues in the field all the time by getting people to replace their 1 meter cables with 2 meter cables.

- I recommend the Tributaries UHDP passive HDMI cables, but there are a few other good HDMI cables available. Getting people to switch to the UHDP has solved issues on a number of occasions.

- Might even help to clean the contacts. Pull each end of every HDMI cable half way out and push back in five times. This cleans the contacts and better forms the contacts together. This little trick has resolved a lot of issues in various systems._


----------



## UKenGB

*Atmos solved - YAY!*

So finally I get to see the longed for 'Atmos' displayed on the front of the Yamaha RX-A3050, actually playing content from the AppleTV. Anyone guessing it was the AppleTV causing the problem can pat themselves on the back. But the solution was not what I would call obvious.

First of all, I totally failed to make any headway playing content from a USB stick in either the A3050 itself or my Blu-Ray player. Both have real problems with anything 'unusual' and simply refused to play ball.

As suggested, I swapped the HDMI cable from the AppleTV to the A3050 to a longer one from a Sky Q setup we no longer have. Since Sky Q can play 4K and Atmos, I figured it must be capable. But no difference. Still no Atmos.

So I swapped the Apple TV as I have another 4K one elsewhere and 2 of them cannot both be faulty. Well, faulty may be the wrong word, but they both exhibited the same problem - no Atmos. Until…

Looking at the Apple TV setup, in Audio and Video section, the Audio Format is set to Auto and in that main section screen, displays 'Auto', even when you enter that option and see 'Immersive Audio' is enabled.

Then while looking at the settings thinking I wish I could simply select 4K and be done with it, on a whim I tried changing the video from 1080P/50 SDR -> 1080P/50 HDR. I don't believe my Panasonic plasma is actually HDR, but what the hell, might as well try. If it doesn't work, it will revert back so no problem. However although it did actually produce a display on the TV, the AppleTV menus and screens look really washed out. Dreadful picture in fact, but not expecting much I tried the Dolby demos again…

Yay! The A3050 finally actually shows Atmos and all is working. I'm not sure if the picture quality is actually worse, like the AppleTV's own screens, but the all important Atmos is now functioning. So…

You may imagine from this that the AppleTV requires the video output set to HDR before Atmos will function and indeed when checking the Audio and Video section of Settings, Audio Format now shows 'Auto, Atmos available', so it has definitely now got its act together and all set to work with Atmos.

However, this was all with the other AppleTV that I was trying and that had to go back to another room with a TV that is definitely SDR, so I switched back to 1080P/50 SDR and was rather surprised to see that Audio Format still said 'Auto, Atmos available' (but much more clearly now set back to SDR) and when I again tried the Dolby demos, they still play perfectly with Atmos.

I then swapped back to the original AppleTV for that room and changed to 1080P/50 HDR resulting in the same washed out AppleTV screens and Audio Format now showing 'Auto, Atmos available'. But I then immediately switched back to 1080P/50 SDR and lo and behold Audio Format remains as 'Auto, Atmos available' and the Dolby demos play perfectly with Atmos.

Apart from my obvious joy and relief to get Atmos working, I am completely bemused by this. In order to actually play Atmos, the Apple TV 4K must have been switched to an HDR video mode, even though it can then be reset to SDR. This is totally bizarre. First of all, why in any way link those 2 features. The sound quality has NOTHING to do with any video format or quality setting. Secondly, why will it refuse to work on SDR until HDR has been selected, enabling Atmos but then still working once switched back to SDR.

Needless to say, thank you to all who assisted, but I'll bet NO-ONE expected this to be the cause. However, if anyone can shed any light on this bizarre AppleTV behaviour - please do.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> ..I highly doubt the problem is the Apple TV at this point. I'm guessing there's a receiver setting somewhere that's off or perhaps the 3050 cannot handle MAT signals....





MagnumX said:


> ...It also seems pretty clear the ATV is not the problem at this point...





UKenGB said:


> ...Anyone guessing it was the AppleTV causing the problem can pat themselves on the back...


I'm glad you finally got it to work.


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> Then while looking at the settings thinking I wish I could simply select 4K and be done with it, on a whim I tried changing the video from 1080P/50 SDR -> 1080P/50 HDR. I don't believe my Panasonic plasma is actually HDR, but what the hell, might as well try. If it doesn't work, it will revert back so no problem. However although it did actually produce a display on the TV, the AppleTV menus and screens look really washed out. Dreadful picture in fact, but not expecting much I tried the Dolby demos again…
> 
> Yay! The A3050 finally actually shows Atmos and all is working. I'm not sure if the picture quality is actually worse, like the AppleTV's own screens, but the all important Atmos is now functioning. So…


You know, I enabled all the "HDR" modes while playing with it (since it claims my Epson can display that mode, which it can, but the colors have to shifted to "dynamic" for them to look remotely correct along with some adjustments). I don't think it's actually "HDR" but I did leave the modes on the AppleTV. I thought about this, but since others said their Apple TVs worked on 2K/1080P sets also, I figured it probably had nothing to do with it, but I did wonder when I first used the unit if that was going to fool it into thinking I had a 4K set (but it never once suggested I had any 4K modes, just HDR and I switched back to SDR and Atmos still worked so I figured it had nothing to do with it.) It's interesting that it apparently does need to switch at least once. I don't know if that's intentional or an oversight.

In any case, congratulations. Let us know how you like Jumanji in Atmos (makes sure your levels are set well; you won't want to miss the overhead mosquito effect).


----------



## noah katz

ssaddict said:


> I am curious why ?



The explanation that I've heard is that because there is never a perfect impedance match between the cable and the device, there are signal reflections at their interface.

With short cables, the reflection is so close behind the main signal that it confuses the receiving device.

Not sure if that's plausible given that signals travel at light speed, but when we're talking GHz, maybe.


----------



## Kain

Is it true that overhead/Atmos channels don't get "stressed" too much and thus you can get away with smaller/lower-SPL speakers? What's the most "crazy" a movie has gone with effects/SPL for the overhead channels?


----------



## sdrucker

fatherom said:


> With respect to 6 foot cables being the "sweet spot", this is talked about all the time by Jim Peterson, president of Lumagen. I'm including some text of his...not completely related to the discussion here, but signal tolerances on different lengths of cable is something we discuss on the Lumagen thread constantly.
> 
> From Jim Peterson at Lumagen on the Lumagen thread (last week):
> (snip)
> - Make sure you did not loosen a HDMI plug while updating. It happens. I did this to myself on the latest release. I had a drop out in video and then discovered a plug slightly moved out. Plugged it back in and no more dropouts.
> 
> - Make sure all passive HDMI cables are 2 to 3 meters long and 18 GHz Certified. Very important. Cables under 2 meter can cause issues with the signal being "too hot" and audio goes first due to the IMO poor decision that it is carried as a non-coherent data stream on top of video. I solve issues in the field all the time by getting people to replace their 1 meter cables with 2 meter cables.
> [/I]


All things considered, having a 6' (minimum) length HDMI cable to minimize potential complications from too short a cable is a small price to pay to reduce audio dropouts and glitches. It's not like the price difference between a 3 foot and 6 foot cable is hundreds of dollars...and if you buy, say, Blue Jeans Cable's BJC Series-FE (which they claim is Premium certified for up to 18 Gbps), it's liable to be within a few dollars: $15.75 for 3 feet vs. $23.25 for 6 feet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Kain said:


> Is it true that overhead/Atmos channels don't get "stressed" too much and thus you can get away with smaller/lower-SPL speakers? What's the most "crazy" a movie has gone with effects/SPL for the overhead channels?


Off the top of my head... Blade Runner 2049.


----------



## jsgrise

Kain said:


> Is it true that overhead/Atmos channels don't get "stressed" too much and thus you can get away with smaller/lower-SPL speakers? What's the most "crazy" a movie has gone with effects/SPL for the overhead channels?




Good question - it can be true be the most important thing to keep in mind, high or low SPL, is that your overhead speakers need to blend in with the rest of the system, if not it might be distracting and steer you away from the perceived 3D sound bubble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Off the top of my head... Blade Runner 2049.


Blade Runner is incredibly loud, especially the subwoofer channel, but the overhead channels? What scenes other than the flying car and interrogation cell for Agent K uses overheads "that" much in Blade Runner 2049? It wouldn't make my top 10 list for overhead sounds by a long shot. Overall list, perhaps, but I didn't hear that much overhead sounds in it. The original had a ton (every time that blimp thing passed overhead for starters and the cars made way longer more sustained overhead sounds in the original as well, IMO).

I still like the opening to _Flatliners_ the best for a quick overhead demo. The voices moving all over the ceiling is incredible.

In any case, the overheads are technically full range channels and really should be treated as such unlike the old "you can get by with a Radio Shack AM radio speaker" advice they used to give for Pro Logic which didn't do a whole lot with the surround channel and they were bandwidth limited to boot. I'd recommend bookshelf speakers designed for overhead use. People can get away with less bass (the bass driver takes up the most space anyway) and run a crossover at 120Hz or whatever, but the speakers should be able to pump out the same 105dB requirement as the mains, IMO.


----------



## chi_guy50

We just finished watching the UHD Blu-Ray edition of _The Joker_ (in DV/Atmos). The movie far exceeded my expectations based on the reviews I had read. Amazing, haunting performance by Joaquin Phoenix and very effective atmospherics created by both the cinematography and score. 

I would highly recommend it both for content as well as A/V quality.


----------



## MagnumX

I installed new tweeters (4) into my PSB S50 side height/top middle bipolar wall-mount speakers, the same 3rd party brand fabric tweeters I used in to the front heights due to very good off-axis response (where you can't tilt them very well). Wow. What an improvement. The helicopter blades are absolutely unchanging in the highs of the rotors now when it flies through the middle of the room. With a little leaked to the front/back to combat the location (side and slightly lower), they sound pretty much invisible in that demo now with no change between the speakers at all to speak of. I'm actually quite happy with the sound of every speaker now (after turning off full range Audyssey and letting the speakers do their own thing as flat as they are anyway) and the first two rows now both sound excellent, IMO. The third row is a little loud for the rears being so close to them, but the fronts and sides are quite even (easier to do with 3 sets of arrayed sides). I'm actually thinking I might be able to even that out too if I connect the rear surrounds into the matrix mixers as well and stagger the volume levels so they always appear behind in the 2nd and 3rd rows, but provide a little more volume sooner for the first row so it doesn't need to be quite as loud in the back to even it all out (although the 2nd and 3rd rows get little use and the rears aren't as active as the sides).

After first doing some Atmos and X demo tests with without leaking front/rear heights to compare the soundstage, I then proceeded to test my 3 new Auro-3D albums (I have a 4th one on the way, "Spektral Quartet - Serious Business" that also has an Atmos version on it). Mando Diao's Aelita, Tiesto's Elements of Life and Lichtmond 3. Totally awesome. Lichtmond is very Pink Floyd-esque in some respects and the sounds flying around the room are crazy good. I've listened to the first 4th of it and the first few songs of the other two (Mando Diao is very good, IMO. They site the Beatles as their big influence, but I sense more of a Bryan Adams with a touch of Billy Idol in the single "Black Saturday".) Tiesto is more synth-based DJ style music, but seems interesting as well, although the tracks seem to take a while to get going. It'll be interesting to compare the Atmos versus Auro mix of Spektral Quartet.


----------



## Matt L

UKenGB said:


> So finally I get to see the longed for 'Atmos' displayed on the front of the Yamaha RX-A3050, actually playing content from the AppleTV. Anyone guessing it was the AppleTV causing the problem can pat themselves on the back. But the solution was not what I would call obvious.
> 
> First of all, I totally failed to make any headway playing content from a USB stick in either the A3050 itself or my Blu-Ray player. Both have real problems with anything 'unusual' and simply refused to play ball.


Now that the Apple issue is resolved -
Do you have a network connection on your BD player? Can it play files from your network? My UHD player would not play files from my USB stick easily, but has no issues with streaming files from my NAS. No issues getting Atmos from my NAS.


----------



## UKenGB

Matt L said:


> Now that the Apple issue is resolved -
> Do you have a network connection on your BD player? Can it play files from your network? My UHD player would not play files from my USB stick easily, but has no issues with streaming files from my NAS. No issues getting Atmos from my NAS.


Yes it is network connected and I tried to access my server, but it failed to connect. Thinking back on it, I was probably trying to use the wrong protocol, but all a moot point now that it's all working and I have no need of the disc player except to, well, play discs.


----------



## leboche

good morning

my dimention for my home theater is 11 large to 25 long and 7 hight .

now my home theater system room is 7.4.6 but some friends tell me ,is better you put your system to 9.4.4.

what you think.

thank you for your answers.


----------



## pasender91

Hi all,

I have a question regarding Dolby Atmos Music as it was launched recently and now supported thru Amazon Music HD.

I understand i need the following:
1) Amazon music HD account (obvious)
2) Heos app on my Iphone, connecting one side to Amazon music and the other side to a Denon or Marantz AVR
3) Then can start streaming Atmos music from the AVR and enjoy multi-channel HD music 

Can someone confirm this works as designed and what is the overall result and quality ?


----------



## tigerhonaker

jsgrise said:


> Good question -* it can be true be the most important thing to keep in mind, high or low SPL, is that your overhead speakers need to blend in with the rest of the system,*
> if not it might be distracting and steer you away from the perceived 3D sound bubble.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


jsgrise,

That was one of the most important considerations for me when looking into the addition of Atmos.
I have all JML Utopia speakers and wanted to get the Atmos in-ceiling speakers to match those as close as possible.
Hopefully, I'll be adding Atmos in the coming months I decided after extensive research to go with Triad.

Terry


----------



## jsgrise

tigerhonaker said:


> jsgrise,
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the most important considerations for me when looking into the addition of Atmos.
> 
> I have all JML Utopia speakers and wanted to get the Atmos in-ceiling speakers to match those as close as possible.
> 
> Hopefully, I'll be adding Atmos in the coming months I decided after extensive research to go with Triad.
> 
> 
> 
> Terry




You will be rewarded for it. One common misconception of Dolby Atmos (and other immersive format) is that it is to add sound from above. Will it is in part true, it is much more than that by adding sound objects in the 3D space.

I was watching Apocalypse Now in Atmos last night and there was one scene where you could swear there was flies flying around the IN THE ROOM.

When well done:

2D audio = sound around you
3D audio = you are in the sound

To accomplish that, you need matching speakers the best you can.

Looking forward for you impressions once you have it installed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

leboche said:


> my dimention for my home theater is 11 large to 25 long and 7 hight .
> 
> now my home theater system room is 7.4.6 but some friends tell me ,is better you put your system to 9.4.4.
> 
> what you think.


Do you have a receiver/processor that can decode 13 channels? Most max out at 11.

The Dolby Surround Upmixer never uses Front Wide speakers. Ever. Dolby Atmos soundtracks can, but unfortunately most are authored to not use them.

All DTS audio formats (which includes using the DTS Neural:X upmixer) are limited to a maximum of 11 channels of audio. You will need to choose between 7.x.4 or 9.x.2 when using Neural:X. Worse, native DTS:X soundtracks will not use the Front Wide speakers at all if Surround Backs are engaged. 

Long story short, 7.x.4 is the sweet spot for most current audio formats.


----------



## Josh Z

jsgrise said:


> You will be rewarded for it. One common misconception of Dolby Atmos (and other immersive format) is that it is to add sound from above. Will it is in part true, it is much more than that by adding sound objects in the 3D space.
> 
> I was watching Apocalypse Now in Atmos last night and there was one scene where you could swear there was flies flying around the IN THE ROOM.


An even bigger misconception is that utilizing sound objects through the ground level speakers is perceptually any different than mixing in regular channels. It is not. Any standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel-based soundtrack is equally capable of imaging sounds between speakers.

The 5.1 soundtrack on Kill Bill Vol. 1 has a scene similar to what you describe, where a mosquito will buzz through the center of the room right by your ear.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Josh Z said:


> An even bigger misconception is that utilizing sound objects through the ground level speakers is perceptually any different than mixing in regular channels. It is not. Any standard 5.1 or 7.1 channel-based soundtrack is equally capable of imaging sounds between speakers.
> 
> The 5.1 soundtrack on Kill Bill Vol. 1 has a scene similar to what you describe, where a mosquito will buzz through the center of the room right by your ear.


Exactly. It is the mixing process wich has been greatly improved by Atmos. A downmix of an Atmos mix profits from this as well.


----------



## m0j0

Kain said:


> Is it true that overhead/Atmos channels don't get "stressed" too much and thus you can get away with smaller/lower-SPL speakers? What's the most "crazy" a movie has gone with effects/SPL for the overhead channels?



I recall a scene from Ready Player One where the shield is brought down that seemed incredibly loud in the atmos speakers (I do run my atmos speakers about +5 db hot). I used to run mine with a crossover at 80Hz, but after listening to that scene a few times, I bumped the crossover up to 100hz and seems to sound much better to me.


----------



## tigerhonaker

jsgrise said:


> You will be rewarded for it. One common misconception of Dolby Atmos (and other immersive format) is that it is to add sound from above. Will it is in part true, it is much more than that by adding sound objects in the 3D space.
> 
> I was watching Apocalypse Now in Atmos last night and there was one scene where you could swear there was flies flying around the IN THE ROOM.
> 
> *When well done:
> 
> 2D audio = sound around you
> 3D audio = you are in the sound*
> 
> To accomplish that, you need matching speakers the best you can.
> 
> Looking forward for you impressions once you have it installed!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


jsgrise,



I'm so glad I stumbled on you and your comments. 

You have actually said and pointed out what I have been thinking a True-Atmos-System would provide if done "Professionally".
If your interested follow me on my Main-Dedicated-Thread below in my Signature.
I just now completed my H/T Components/Gear below My-Signature a few minutes ago less the Up-Coming Atmos below if your interested.
I'm thinking I might have the rest of my Atmos information by week ending, hopefully.
Once I receive that I will be doing an In-Depth post with lots & lots of Highly-Detailed information and pictures.

Have a Good-Day,
Terry in the USA


----------



## KK in CT

pasender91 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have a question regarding Dolby Atmos Music as it was launched recently and now supported thru Amazon Music HD.
> 
> I understand i need the following:
> 1) Amazon music HD account (obvious)
> 2) Heos app on my Iphone, connecting one side to Amazon music and the other side to a Denon or Marantz AVR
> 3) Then can start streaming Atmos music from the AVR and enjoy multi-channel HD music /forum/images/smilies/cool.gif
> 
> Can someone confirm this works as designed and what is the overall result and quality ?


I can confirm as of about two weeks ago that setup did not work for Atmos unfortunately. I had their 3 month free trial which just ended Jan 6th at which point I canceled because all that time the only way to experience their Atmos music was by purchasing their own (Amazon’s) single speaker and playing back through that. So at the moment their just using their affiliation with Dolby to attempt to sell their new speaker. For us with nice Atmos setups - no thanks. Maybe since 1/6 they have released it to other devices but I try to look for news updates and have yet to see any. Since around September of last year thus appears to be a ploy to sell their new “Atmos” speaker. Oh well.


----------



## MagnumX

jsgrise said:


> You will be rewarded for it. One common misconception of Dolby Atmos (and other immersive format) is that it is to add sound from above. Will it is in part true, it is much more than that by adding sound objects in the 3D space.
> 
> I was watching Apocalypse Now in Atmos last night and there was one scene where you could swear there was flies flying around the IN THE ROOM.


Yeah, it does the exact same thing in 7.1. No difference whatsoever as 7.1 can do everything 7.1.4 Atmos can except overheads, which is the 7.1 in 7.1.4.

Now Atmos CAN do more than that, but you need more bed level speakers (say surround #1 and surround #2 that go between the side surrounds and rear surrounds) and you need Atmos soundtracks that will actually use those speakers (oddly, they seem to disable things like front wides on many soundtracks or don't use them much, which defeats the entire point of an object based system. We might as well just used Auro 11.1 or 13.1



> When well done:
> 
> 2D audio = sound around you
> 3D audio = you are in the sound


And yet most people had no interest in 3D video whatsoever (I loved it; I have well over 200 movies in 3D here, but oddly most 3D movies don't have 3D sound for some bizarre reason. I've remuxed as many as I can to add it, though). I guess people don't want to be in the action. They'd rather view it on their phones, I think.


----------



## sdurani

leboche said:


> now my home theater system room is 7.4.6 but some friends tell me ,is better you put your system to 9.4.4.


Some Atmos soundtracks are mixed so that they only use the middle pair of height speakers. If you have 6 speakers above you, then only 2 speakers (middle pair) will get used. 

However, if you don't have the middle pair of height speakers, then those 2 channels are split to the front AND back pair of height speakers (same way the centre channel is split to L/R speakers if you don't have a centre speaker). 

That might be why your friends are telling you that 4 height speakers is better than 6 height speakers. On 7.1.2 soundtracks, it's the difference between hearing sound from 2 speakers above you versus hearing the sound from 4 speakers above you.


----------



## jsgrise

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, it does the exact same thing in 7.1. No difference whatsoever as 7.1 can do everything 7.1.4 Atmos can except overheads, which is the 7.1 in 7.1.4.
> 
> Now Atmos CAN do more than that, but you need more bed level speakers (say surround #1 and surround #2 that go between the side surrounds and rear surrounds) and you need Atmos soundtracks that will actually use those speakers (oddly, they seem to disable things like front wides on many soundtracks or don't use them much, which defeats the entire point of an object based system. We might as well just used Auro 11.1 or 13.1


In my case, maybe Atmos has been a major improvement because I added Front Wides. In my setup, it sounded much more natural than having Sides and Rears (typical 7.1).


----------



## jsgrise

tigerhonaker said:


> jsgrise,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so glad I stumbled on you and your comments.
> 
> You have actually said and pointed out what I have been thinking a True-Atmos-System would provide if done "Professionally".
> If your interested follow me on my Main-Dedicated-Thread below in my Signature.
> I just now completed my H/T Components/Gear below My-Signature a few minutes ago less the Up-Coming Atmos below if your interested.
> I'm thinking I might have the rest of my Atmos information by week ending, hopefully.
> Once I receive that I will be doing an In-Depth post with lots & lots of Highly-Detailed information and pictures.
> 
> Have a Good-Day,
> Terry in the USA












Man you have some killer gear. You are doing things right, you are taking your time and adding top quality equipment rather than going fast with cheap stuff. 

I am very jealous of your projector. It is my next component to upgrade but I am waiting for a cheaper version of a native 4K laser projector with good black levels. 

Looking forward to your Atmos setup! I would love to go to Nashville one day, I'm a big Country Music fan. Might pay you a visit!


----------



## tigerhonaker

jsgrise said:


> Man you have some killer gear. You are doing things right, *you are taking your time and adding top quality equipment rather than going fast with cheap stuff. *
> 
> I am very jealous of your projector. It is my next component to upgrade but I am waiting for a cheaper version of a native 4K laser projector with good black levels.
> 
> Looking forward to your Atmos setup! I would love to go to Nashville one day, I'm a big Country Music fan. Might pay you a visit!


*jsgrise*,



Well me being now an older fellow and us choosing not to have children plus us being married over 35-years.
I can do things (Within) reason the right way the 1st time.
(Definitely not what some of us refer to as a 1% Upper Wealthy-Class)

It might possibly be next week before I hear back from Charles at  as I know he is waiting for the rest of the information

from Steve Colburn at*. *

Well buddy speaking of the JVC RS4500 laser projector.
It is costly but I went through a lot of other brands of projectors over the past 30-years.
Including the Runco brand and those all were in the $25,000 to $30,000 US dollar range.
I made up my mind I was never-ever going to get another Lamp-Based-Projector and have to change Lamp-Assemblies.
I put around 2,500 hours a year on my projectors as I am retired.
So replacing lamp assemblies around $1,100 US dollars each to me was expensive.
Just so you know this RS4500 I do dearly luv !!!

Oh, if you do ever decide to come to Nashville, Tennessee I live maybe 20-miles South of Nashville off I-65 South.
I'm approximately 1-mile off the interstate.
*I live in Franklin, Tennessee.*
Please drop by and check-out my H/T if you like. 

Oh, Atmos, I'll be doing that extensive documentation for sure once I get All the completed information.

Nice meeting you my Canadian AVS Internet Buddy,
Terry



.


----------



## scooter_29

Quick overhead speaker install question. I am putting in 4 overhead ceiling speakers. However, I cannot get the rear speakers placed at 135 degrees behind the listener according to the Dolby install guide. They would be more like 120 degrees. For the overhead speakers in front of the listener, am I better off matching the angle of the rear two or should I go with 45 degrees as the diagram suggests.

Dolby 7.1.4 overhead guidelines


----------



## Matt L

scooter_29 said:


> Quick overhead speaker install question. I am putting in 4 overhead ceiling speakers. However, I cannot get the rear speakers placed at 135 degrees behind the listener according to the Dolby install guide. They would be more like 120 degrees. For the overhead speakers in front of the listener, am I better off matching the angle of the rear two or should I go with 45 degrees as the diagram suggests.
> 
> Dolby 7.1.4 overhead guidelines


The guidelines are suggestions for best case scenario, real life does not always work out that way. I would focus on getting the front set right, and the rears as close to the mark as you can. Mine fell into a similar situation, I put the rears as far back as I could, moved the furniture just a bit and it sounds fine.


----------



## maikeldepotter

*Why a center height speaker is missing in home Atmos*

I suspect that with the upcoming expansion of DTS:X to allow more than 11 main speakers, the center height speaker will start to become more important in high channel count systems. The function of this speaker for the height layer, can be compared to what the legacy center speaker does to the lower layer: allowing off-axis listeners to experience centered sound as coming from the center, and not from the nearest L or R speaker caused by the precedence effect. 

Imagine a sound producing object positioned in the middle of the screen, moving up towards the ceiling. If the director/re-recording engineer wishes to give us the illusion that this object continues to move up after having reached the top of the screen, he will pan its sound towards the height/top speakers. Without having a center height speaker, the off-axis listeners will experience the sound moving from the center speaker to the height speaker on their side, diagonally instead of straight up. This effect will be stronger the more the overhead arrays are positioned further apart from each other

IMO Dolby should have taken such effect into account when deciding that for home Atmos the overhead arrays were to be positioned wider as compared to theatrical Atmos. Especially for the front sound stage the anchoring of centered height sound is important, as in that area we are most sensitive for the localization of sounds both in the vertically as horizontal pane, and on top of that, it's the place where on-screen sound steering can play a role.

Going from Theatrical Atmos to Home Atmos -> overhead arrays further apart:









Example of Home Atmos with narrow (theatrical) overhead arrays -> centered sound remains relatively centerd for off-axis listeners:









Example of Home Atmos with wide (acc. home installation guidelines) arrays -> centered sound collapses to the sides for off-axis listeners:


----------



## pasender91

good idea but you must not forget that as Cinema Atmos does NOT have Height center to start with, then it is very unlikely Dolby would create that position in the HT Atmos


----------



## maikeldepotter

pasender91 said:


> good idea but you must not forget that as Cinema Atmos does NOT have Height center to start with, then it is very unlikely Dolby would create that position in the HT Atmos


Yes, I know Cinema Atmos does not have Center Height, it does not _need_ one. Home Atmos IMO does need one, and that doesn't change because Dolby did not and is not going to take care of it.

PS In analogy: Cinema Atmos does NOT have overhead arrays in line with L and R fronts, still Dolby decided to change that for Home Atmos. In doing so they 'forgot' to come up with some form of compensating the "hole in the middle". A simple center-extraction using DSU would have taken care of it, but I do indeed not expect Dolby to reverse their decision. I truly believe it could be beneficial to the overall sound, especially with regard to set-to-seat consistency, and maybe in the future some AVR/processor manufacturers will come up with post-processing options to take care of it ...


----------



## MagnumX

You could say the same regarding top surround (VOG). It is not really needed in cinema Atmos, but it's very helpful at home to anchor sounds moving through the center of the room across the ceiling.

I'm using Auro positioned side heights for an extracted Atmos "top middle" and theses speakers driver plane is only about two and a half feet off the path of the front heights. That's how wide home Atmos already is in a relatively narrow width room. With just a little arrayed "leakage" from the Pro Logic tracking processors, the path sounds straight and works fine for Atmos and with a little speaker signal swap using a speaker switch box with rear height and I have pure Auro-3D as well. 

This would not be possible with narrow cinema aligned overhead speakers as it would be too great a difference. Thus, home Atmos is more compatible with Auro-3D than people realize including the manufacturers with their lack of compatible speaker options when they aren't that different at home.

I've been saying that for over a year while people continue to say they are incompatible over very small azimuth differences for top middle. Having the speakers wider in the middle has the added benefit of getting the overhead sounds to "surround" the listeners sitting off-axis rather than placing them outside of the overhead path, the same way bed sides do for the audience as I mentioned before on here which happens for almost 2/3 the seats in a real cinema Atmos theater. 

But at least those sounds appear on the ceiling. Cinema Atmos side surrounds are at "height" elevations compared to home Atmos bed level sides so it can get away with it without losing the impression of overhead sounds missing near the boundaries of the room. 

At home, I think the Auro-3D layout makes more sense for fitting as many seats as possible into a small space while still fully surrounding them. Atmos makes only a narrow sweet spot work best as your own cinema (let alone home theater) diagram pointed out a few days ago. 

Auro-3D's anchored center height and top surround combined with room wide side heights mean every seat gets more or less the same experience (although even then you could argue to include rear centers for both formats and rear support is the one area Auro 11.1 falls short whereas Auro13.1 is almost ideal with an extracted surround height added to go with rear heights (i.e. Auro 16.1 would have been almost perfect save rear centers. I guess you'd actually need "18.1" to cover it all, but even then there would be no mid-floor center bed channel to anchor the off-axis bed path like top surround does for overhead. I guess perfection is nearly impractible if not impossible.)


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> You could say the same regarding top surround (VOG). It is not really needed in cinema Atmos, but it's very helpful at home to anchor sounds moving through the center of the room across the ceiling.


True, but if I were to choose one, I would give the Center Height priority over Top Center, especially in the scenario described below (narrow Top Middles).



> I've been saying that for over a year while people continue to say they are incompatible over very small azimuth differences for top middle. Having the speakers wider in the middle has the added benefit of getting the overhead sounds to "surround" the listeners sitting off-axis rather than placing them outside of the overhead path, the same way bed sides do for the audience as I mentioned before on here which happens for almost 2/3 the seats in a real cinema Atmos theater.


If your ceiling height is just 8 to 10 feet, and you don't mind having a row of only 2 seats wide (or at most 3 small seats or a 2.5-3 seater), as an alternative you could have narrow Top Middles placed just above the L and R outer edges of the row, and use them as paired VOG speaker for Auro3D. In such scenario the Atmos rear Top Speakers can be positioned in such a way that they also work as Auro side heights.



> Atmos makes only a narrow sweet spot work best as your own cinema (let alone home theater) diagram pointed out a few days ago.


Yes, 3 seats wide at max, mostly just 2 ...


----------



## MagnumX

maikeldepotter said:


> True, but if I were to choose one, I would give the Center Height priority over Top Center, especially in the scenario described below (narrow Top Middles).


But narrow top middles would place both speakers closer to center and so it should be less of a disruption than wider ones and therefore less of a need for a center height speaker. That's one of the reasons the cinema Atmos doesn't need a center height as its overheads are closer together.

What I think would work is to follow the cinema Atmos guidelines instead. Place the overheads closer together (halfway between the L/R speakers on either side) and then place your side surrounds above ear level on the side walls. If you have more than one row, it's probably better to have them just above ear level anyway so chairs and heads don't block the sound. But this would place them a bit higher still, maybe halfway between just above ear level and the old 2/3-3/4 Dolby 5.1 guidelines. You wouldn't have as much vertical separation as bed/overhead levels, true, but then neither does Cinema Atmos. What you get instead is side height + DIRECT overhead instead and it would work for all seats as the narrow overheads would be close to centered on the ceiling and the higher sides would blend into the narrow overheads better placed higher up just as it does in the cinema. You would lose a bit of left/right panning overhead, but the side to top panning would make up for it. So in reality, you'd only really lose "ear level" sounds, but then I know in my home theater the screen starts at ear level and goes up (I know many want it straight ahead, but most real movie theaters were always above eye level and with reclining chairs, higher is optimum for watching in a reclined position. In other words, everything would be shifted upward including the screen. This would keep the sides in line with the screen and overheads would work well for all seats. It's basically cinema Atmos at home scaled down. 

It's actually the home Atmos standards that are altered from all previous existing movie speaker standards. The cinemas mostly added overheads and replaced arrayed banks of side surrounds with individually controlled ones and perhaps added more of them in some cases. I don't think they changed the height of the sides much, if at all. All the Atmos cinema photos I've seen have them around 2/3 up the side wall, the same as always. Dolby's thinking at home is that you'd notice the effect more if the bed speakers sat lower and I think that's due in part to their desire to make those horrible "bouncy" speakers "work". The further down they are, the more you might notice some sound coming from above. But I think that may be faulty logic as well since if the speakers were sitting higher up, the top bounce part would be less likely to interact with the room before it hits the ceiling and thus more likely to work in a given room (the angle might need to be different where it's pointed, but it'd already be closer to the ceiling than you and thus the first sound arrival would be closer to the bounced one and appear to be higher up as well. Of course, in the front, most TVs don't sit well above ear level so I'm sure they were thinking about that too. 

Most of my whole front wall starting at ear level is the screen so it takes up quite a lot of space either way. But then I still need a dialog lift effect to the get the main channels to seem higher up than they are or it sounds like it comes from below the screen. That also improves dialog in the rows further back that might get obstructed by lower front mains as some sound is sent above as well, which is less noticeable the further you sit away where the front sound is coming from as the entire angle decreases the further away you go (like I have a hard time telling rear beds from rear heights in the very back of the room as the angle is lower for both, but from the middle of the room, the angle is nice and high and huge in the back. But since they pan together, it doesn't matter as the sounds still track the ceiling either way. More sound from the front heights reaches the 2nd and 3rd rows than the lower speakers, especially the center that is somewhat obstructed by the MLP chair, but sending 40% to the front heights makes it clear as a bell for those seats anyway but still only sounds a couple of feet higher in the front row due to the precedence effect (the front mains are closer to the front row than the front heights which are in the bookshelf and by sitting lower also closer in elevation. That means it takes more mix upward to get the dialog to move upward. At 50% height, it takes over 50% panning. I just raise it up 1/3 the screen height which happens around 40% mix, but that still gets 40% center dialog to the heights for the other rows, effectively acting as if I had higher mains (from there, dialog just sounds like its coming from the screen, maybe slightly above halfway, but closer than the average center speaker does sitting below a screen). It's a bit like cheating all the way around, but such is the magic of arrays. I also think sound coming from the sides "sounds higher" than it is compared to the front since if I turn dialog lift off, the front seems a little bit lower compared to where the voice sound from the side surrounds even though they're the same height. The dialog lift just moves the apparent height slightly above in the front instead of seeming slightly below. There's still a ton of separation in the Atmos demos using height differences in the front (the equivalent of 2/3 the screen height). I think it blends quite well yet the voices coming from the lower 1/3 middle of the screen instead of below it (some variance depending on frequency, etc. places some bits slightly lower or higher such that most of the Atmos demos like "*Unfold*" sound more or less the same in the front anyway and some dialog might seem slightly lower or higher depending on interaction, but always at least equal with the bottom of the screen instead of below it, but then the speakers sit just below it within 2 inches. I couldn't have the screen any lower without needing shorter mains or having to put them on the sides instead. This lets me use identical speakers in L/C/R positions for zero comb effects.



> If your ceiling height is just 8 to 10 feet, and you don't mind having a row of only 2 seats wide (or at most 3 small seats or a 2.5-3 seater), as an alternative you could have narrow Top Middles placed just above the L and R outer edges of the row, and use them as paired VOG speaker for Auro3D. In such scenario the Atmos rear Top Speakers can be positioned in such a way that they also work as Auro side heights.


What the Auro 11.1 theaters do is copy the surround height speakers down the sides and into the back as an array. Thus, you can use surround height on the sides above the side surrounds and rear heights in the back in the regular Atmos position as Auro front/rear heights are still supposed to be mounted above the main speakers. With Auro 13.1 this makes even more sense as you would then have surround heights above sides and rear heights above rear beds. If you cheat and extract the "surround height" from between the front/rear heights you'd have discrete sound at all 15 speaker locations (well other than where the VOG seems to array with front height). I already use that setup here (minus rear beds as Auro 11.1 on the 7012 doesn't support them, but if I added one more speaker switch box I could copy the sides back there). I can already pick between copied/arrayed surround height/rear height or an extracted channel in-between and my front wides and surround #1 are matrixed and work as well. Suffice to say rows 1 & 2 both sound excellent with Auro-3D and have sounds behind them as well thanks to the rear heights and surround #1 both being behind row 2 while row 3 at least has sound above and behind it with sides going to just in front of the row, which still sounds good (Atmos goes just behind it to the rear beds). Thus, with a few additions, Auro-3D can support multiple rows as well. Other than the rear beds, they sound almost identical when played over the same setup (Auro '9.1.6' versus Atmos 11.1.6 or Auro '9.1' versus Atmos set to 5.1.4 sound incredibly similar on the same movies, which probably share the same master so it makes sense they'd have little difference when using the same speakers for output. Most people that think Auro-3D sounds incredibly different with movies heard it on a different speaker layout on two different systems. Yes, True Auro 9.1 sounds like true Atmos 5.1.4 here since both use only the first 1/2 of the room (up to side height and side surround with side heights acting as rear heights in Atmos and as surround height in Auro-3D). That leaves 6 more speakers in the back half of the room unused. When I switch to "Scatmos", Auro uses 4 of those 6 and Atmos uses all 6 so they both change drastically, especially for the second and third rows, but also from the front as the rear depth doubles for Atmos and increases maybe 3/4 of the way for Auro.


Put succinctly, if you use 6 overheads for Atmos, it's good to at least copy the rear height to the "top middle" speakers to give the room a full effect for Auro-3D. If you use 4, I'd just go for rear height. For most movies, the differences are almost nil. It might make more of a difference for "dual quad miked" recordings, but even then it's hard to tell, IMO when I compare them. It's only a couple of feet to the side wall here. Maybe in a wider room it would make more difference, but even then you could set up side heights and switch to them with a speaker box and/or copy the sounds in a larger room with 6 overheads. Monoprice makes a nice 2-in, 2-out box that lets you select A/B speakers for both inputs and outputs and/or turn off either or both speakers. That's what I used to select between Rear height -> Surround height (Select "B" on side height and turn off rear speaker), "Copy" Rear Height to Surround Height (Select "B" on the side height and leave rear height ON and set to "B" also), and normal "Scatmos" operation (Rear height set to "B" and ON and Side Height set to "A" and On where as is the output of the Dolby Pro Logic processor that extracts the top middle speaker feed. If set to the prior two settings, I change the Pro Logic Processor from "3-channel stereo" mode to "Bypass" and it's like it's not even there.

The NEAT THING is that *you can add your own center height to Atmos* if you want. Just add a Pro Logic processor between front height left and front height right and extract a channel in-between. Bingo. You've got the extra channel Dolby will probably never support and it works for everything. You won't even need CH support on the AVR (as most/all 11-channel AVRs don't for some odd reason despite having enough pre-amp channels). You can do the same with extracted top middle (take the pre-outs for the top middle output and add a 3rd processor to extract a "top middle" that works with EVERYTHING including those locked Disney tracks and all Atmos soundtracks). More speakers (as long as they're matched in timbre and level) are almost always better than less as each new speaker wipes out more and more of the precedence effect, which is just _pure evil_ for home theater sound issues, but can be utilized (via cheap matrixed speakers) to work for you instead of against you. It let me move the "apparent" phantom location of my side surrounds to the chair row instead of where they are actually located in-between rows by doing a 3-way array between front wides, side surround and surround #1 speakers just like the cinema uses. So "the side" callouts always come from your side even if you're in the 2nd row and just in front of you to the side in the 3rd row despite the fact there are no speakers directly to the side of any seats (well the rears are pretty close in the back row just behind and to the sides). I then used the level controls to shift it just a bit forward with surround #1 so that the "Nature's Fury" demo still moves evenly around the room between all speakers (and with the front wides adjusted for the front row so it's nice and even). A bit of tweaking is needed to make it all run smoothly, but the end result Pseudo 11.1.6 is much better than regular 7.1.4, IMO, especially with 3 rows of seating.

Even if I had a processor that could do true 11.1.6, it'd probably be a good idea to array the main side surround channels together for multiple rows like the theater does so sounds that are supposed to be larger or for older soundtracks behave normally. Without it, you'd have dead speakers on the sides with older soundtracks in home Atmos. The only issue might be objects wouldn't know a single side form an arrayed side so the image might seem a bit 'fatter' than normal if you went beyond 3 side surrounds (three sound normal to me; the arrayed phantom position varies a bit relative to the seats not the 'fatness' really), but then there's only 4 max anyway in home Atmos, I believe (and that includes the front wide as a "side"). Here, all 17 speakers are active even for 2-channel soundtracks using upmixers.


----------



## Augerhandle

maikeldepotter said:


> I suspect that with the upcoming expansion of DTS:X to allow more than 11 main speakers, the center height speaker will start to become more important in high channel count systems. The function of this speaker for the height layer, can be compared to what the legacy center speaker does to the lower layer: allowing off-axis listeners to experience centered sound as coming from the center, and not from the nearest L or R speaker caused by the precedence effect.
> 
> Imagine a sound producing object positioned in the middle of the screen, moving up towards the ceiling. If the director/re-recording engineer wishes to give us the illusion that this object continues to move up after having reached the top of the screen, he will pan its sound towards the height/top speakers. Without having a center height speaker, the off-axis listeners will experience the sound moving from the center speaker to the height speaker on their side, diagonally instead of straight up. This effect will be stronger the more the overhead arrays are positioned further apart from each other
> 
> IMO Dolby should have taken such effect into account when deciding that for home Atmos the overhead arrays were to be positioned wider as compared to theatrical Atmos. Especially for the front sound stage the anchoring of centered height sound is important, as in that area we are most sensitive for the localization of sounds both in the vertically as horizontal pane, and on top of that, it's the place where on-screen sound steering can play a role.
> 
> Going from Theatrical Atmos to Home Atmos -> overhead arrays further apart:
> 
> View attachment 2670618
> 
> 
> Example of Home Atmos with narrow (theatrical) overhead arrays -> centered sound remains relatively centerd for off-axis listeners:
> 
> View attachment 2670620
> 
> 
> Example of Home Atmos with wide (acc. home installation guidelines) arrays -> centered sound collapses to the sides for off-axis listeners:
> 
> View attachment 2670622


I disagree. Let's say, for example, that Listener B is sitting to the right of Room Center. When the sound pans to the proposed Center Top speaker, it will appear to be to the top left for Listener B. Without the proposed Top Center speaker, the sound would seem to be to the right of Room Center for Listener B, which would be closer to overhead for Listener B. Thus it works better as originally designed, the sound pannning overhead for all listeners.


----------



## maikeldepotter

Augerhandle said:


> I disagree. Let's say, for example, that Listener B is sitting to the right of Room Center. When the sound pans to the proposed Center Top speaker, it will appear to be to the top left for Listener B. Without the proposed Top Center speaker, the sound would seem to be to the right of Room Center for Listener B, which would be closer to overhead for Listener B. Thus it works better as originally designed, the sound pannning overhead for all listeners.


Yes, that’s exactly why I said in my next post that a top center speaker for Atmos would not be my first choice if overhead center speakers were to be added (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1909.html#post59107296). Front heights are a different story though. That is what I described and why I suggested a Center Height speaker is needed, which essentially boils down to the same reason why you’d want a center speaker in-between your L and R fronts.


----------



## MagnumX

maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, that’s why I said that a top center speaker for Atmos would not be my first choice if overhead center speakers were to be added. Front heights are a different story though. That is what I described and why I suggested a Center Height speaker is needed, which essentially boils down to the same reason why you’d want a center speaker in-between your L and R fronts.


Depth is harder to gauge straight in front of you than to the sides, IMO so I don't know how noticeable it would be, exactly in terms of depth if you mixed an actual center height speaker with tops that aren't in line with each other. However, there's no technical reason you couldn't put the "center height" speaker in a "front center tops" position if you're going to use them with tops speakers only. What matters is the sound in-between your overhead speakers stays centered for all listeners, not the exact depth it's at. Yes, the "height" renderer is supposedly meant to be close to the screen and the "tops" out into the room a bit, but I sure as heck can't hear any real noticeable difference playing the Atmos demos with the "tops" setting versus "heights" here. Sure if the speaker was moved, it would move, but how different is the rendering really and would you even notice? Now maybe if you had BOTH heights and tops (i.e. A Trinnov could do that properly), you might have some concern, but even then having "centers" for every set of height speakers should theoretically only improve things (you'd have to do "scatmos" extracted to do it, but it could be done).

Now I've seen where someone has used an extra center height speaker ONLY for dialog lift that is above the screen with tops in the room. That makes sense to use in addition (you could use three up there and raise the entire front soundtrack for dialog panning even) and certainly those mixed with "real" height data on Trinnov in addition to tops would work as well if money was no object.


----------



## raynist

MagnumX said:


> Blade Runner is incredibly loud, especially the subwoofer channel, but the overhead channels? What scenes other than the flying car and interrogation cell for Agent K uses overheads "that" much in Blade Runner 2049? It wouldn't make my top 10 list for overhead sounds by a long shot. Overall list, perhaps, but I didn't hear that much overhead sounds in it. The original had a ton (every time that blimp thing passed overhead for starters and the cars made way longer more sustained overhead sounds in the original as well, IMO).
> 
> I still like the opening to _Flatliners_ the best for a quick overhead demo. The voices moving all over the ceiling is incredible.
> 
> In any case, the overheads are technically full range channels and really should be treated as such unlike the old "you can get by with a Radio Shack AM radio speaker" advice they used to give for Pro Logic which didn't do a whole lot with the surround channel and they were bandwidth limited to boot. I'd recommend bookshelf speakers designed for overhead use. People can get away with less bass (the bass driver takes up the most space anyway) and run a crossover at 120Hz or whatever, but the speakers should be able to pump out the same 105dB requirement as the mains, IMO.


I am looking at Flatliners (2017) and the blu ray says DTS-MA 5.1. Is there an atmos version available?


----------



## MagnumX

raynist said:


> I am looking at Flatliners (2017) and the blu ray says DTS-MA 5.1. Is there an atmos version available?


Hmmm, I never looked at the US Blu-Ray as I bought the Auro-3D one and redeemed its video copy (when you could do it through Flixster even if it's from the UK with a VPN). Yeah, it appears the US Blu-Ray is only 5.1.

The iTunes version, however is 4K Dolby Vision & Dolby Atmos (there is no 4K UHD Blu-Ray currently it seems) and that's the version I have here (although I only get a 2K presentation since it registered through UV to Movies Anywhere, but even so that still gets me Dolby Atmos here). Thus, I have Dolby Atmos on the iTunes version and Auro-3D on the Blu-Ray (and the digital dump I made of it to actually use on my house server) here. I'm sure at 4K the video is at least as good as the regular Blu-Ray, but you'd need an Apple TV 4K to get in 4K and/or Atmos. However, it's also available on Vudu in 4K/Atmos as well (buying one 'should' get you the other as well through Movies Anywhere). I assume Fandango Now and others might have it as well.

I see the movie only got a 4% critic rating (3 stars user rating, 4 stars for the 1990 version). That's too bad. I enjoyed it.


----------



## raynist

MagnumX said:


> Hmmm, I never looked at the US Blu-Ray as I bought the Auro-3D one and redeemed its video copy (when you could do it through Flixster even if it's from the UK with a VPN). Yeah, it appears the US Blu-Ray is only 5.1.
> 
> The iTunes version, however is 4K Dolby Vision & Dolby Atmos (there is no 4K UHD Blu-Ray currently it seems) and that's the version I have here (although I only get a 2K presentation since it registered through UV to Movies Anywhere, but even so that still gets me Dolby Atmos here). Thus, I have Dolby Atmos on the iTunes version and Auro-3D on the Blu-Ray (and the digital dump I made of it to actually use on my house server) here. I'm sure at 4K the video is at least as good as the regular Blu-Ray, but you'd need an Apple TV 4K to get in 4K and/or Atmos. However, it's also available on Vudu in 4K/Atmos as well (buying one 'should' get you the other as well through Movies Anywhere). I assume Fandango Now and others might have it as well.
> 
> I see the movie only got a 4% critic rating (3 stars user rating, 4 stars for the 1990 version). That's too bad. I enjoyed it.


Thanks!

I do have several Apple TV 4k’s.


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> Depth is harder to gauge straight in front of you than to the sides, IMO so I don't know how noticeable it would be, exactly in terms of depth if you mixed an actual center height speaker with tops that aren't in line with each other. However, there's no technical reason you couldn't put the "center height" speaker in a "front center tops" position if you're going to use them with tops speakers only.


If you put your Top Front speakers not higher than say 40-45 degrees longitudinal (Atmos) elevation, positioning a Center Height speaker at about 30-35 degrees elevation will put it close enough to the straight line between the Top Fronts. A 10 degrees decrease in elevation (and the slight increase in depth) of the center-extracted sounds will perceptually be very hard to notice.

PS Remember that if IMAX Enhanced content is decoded by DTS:X Pro, the IMAX sound intended to be positioned at the top of the screen will be distributed between DTS:X's Center Height channel and the L and R front channels in order to perceptually lower this sound from the anticipated 45 degrees to 30 (??) degrees elevation. If your Center Height is already at 35 degrees, that will maybe bring that sound to 20-25 degrees instead. Again, that difference will hardly be noticeable.



> What matters is the sound in-between your overhead speakers stays centered for all listeners, not the exact depth it's at.


Exactly.


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> What I think would work is to follow the cinema Atmos guidelines instead. Place the overheads closer together (halfway between the L/R speakers on either side) and then place your side surrounds above ear level on the side walls.


You could do that, but DSU will be much less impressive with fronts heights/ top fronts placed inward of L and R fronts. So my advice would be to only position the Top Middles according to the cinema guidelines (including the elevated surrounds), and for the front and rear ceiling speakers adhere to the home guidelines.



> In other words, everything would be shifted upward including the screen. This would keep the sides in line with the screen and overheads would work well for all seats. It's basically cinema Atmos at home scaled down.


Yes.



> Dolby's thinking at home is that you'd notice the effect more if the bed speakers sat lower and I think that's due in part to their desire to make those horrible "bouncy" speakers "work". The further down they are, the more you might notice some sound coming from above.


The other hypothesis is that DSU didn't sound so good with narrow overhead arrays, so they had to spread them apart, and consequently had to lower the surrounds ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> @maikeldepotter - It seems like there's a lack of in-phase overhead sound in many Atmos tracks for reasons I can only guess.


If at the mixing table a sound is projected up in the middle, the position of that sound can only be reproduced by in-phase sound between overhead pairs. The apparent lack thereof can IMO only be explained by re-recording engineers hardly putting any sounds there. Reason for that? Artistic choice I guess. Difficult to discuss the why's. Maybe @FilmMixer can shed a light...


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> Dolby's thinking at home is that you'd notice the effect more if the bed speakers sat lower and I think that's due in part to their desire to make those horrible "bouncy" speakers "work". The further down they are, the more you might notice some sound coming from above.


I have a setup with DAES speakers and the lower you set up those speakers the more direct sound you get from them, thus drowning the ceiling reflection.
*In fact, you must set up them higher than ear level to get a decent enough reflected sound (minimizing the direct sound).* The higher you set up them, the more reflected sound you get!
This is the reason that the best DAES speakers have the drivers much lower in the speaker enclosure (masking them) and have absorbent materials on at least three sides of the drive - limiting as much as they can the direct sound.


----------



## sdurani

maikeldepotter said:


> IMAX sound intended to be positioned at the top of the screen will be distributed between DTS:X's Center Height channel and the L and R front channels in order to perceptually lower this sound from the anticipated 45 degrees to 30 (??) degrees elevation.


The discrete High Centre channel of an IMAX 12-track mix is delivered on home video as an object, encoded at 25 degrees elevation (0 degrees azimuth). Even with DTS:X Pro, there is no speaker at that location, so the High Centre channel was always going to be rendered as a phantom image (even if IMAX had chosen Atmos for home delivery).


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> I have a setup with DAES speakers and the lower you set up those speakers the more direct sound you get from them, thus drowning the ceiling reflection.
> *In fact, you must set up them higher than ear level to get a decent enough reflected sound (minimizing the direct sound).* The higher you set up them, the more reflected sound you get!
> This is the reason that the best DAES speakers have the drivers much lower in the speaker enclosure (masking them) and have absorbent materials on at least three sides of the drive - limiting as much as they can the direct sound.


Yes, I was speculating that might be the case so I don't know what Dolby was thinking, really. Part of what makes converting to Atmos a relative PITA is that they had guidelines for over two decades to put your surround speakers 2/3 up the wall so most people with dedicated home theaters did exactly that. Along comes Atmos and says to forget about those speakers. They are no longer going to be used ever and you should now patch your walls and put them down at ear level (while themselves ignoring the fact that if you have more than one row of seats that furniture or people's heads will likely block direct sound from those speakers--I mean you think they'd at least bring that up (i.e. I've seen plenty of installers bring it up and their advice is put them just above ear level for that reason). If your side surrounds are straight in line with a sofa, the person next to you's head might block your sound even whereas before you were fine, especially with mains on the side of the screen and a center just above the screen (just below is fine for one row again, but more than one row the sound can again be blocked). 

But now imagine had they instead told people to leave their surround speakers where they are and put the speakers on the ceiling in a more narrow configuration just like Cinema Atmos. You'd still have tons of stuff on the ceiling. In fact, you'd have _more_ direct overhead sounds, which are the ones people seem to crave the most and with side surrounds higher, even more sound would be elevated. If you screen is remotely large or if it's above eye level, it'd match up better visually as well and with your main speakers along side the screen more of the sound would be coming from the screen level where the visuals are actually taking place instead of below it that makes no sense. Best of all, you would have only had to add four overhead speakers. Everything else could have been more or less left alone. It would also have provided 100% compatibility with Pro Logic IIx modes that would have worked exactly like before and you could play the original soundtracks in their original format without worrying whether surround effects might end up "too low" without an upmixer like Neural X. If you don't think that's a problem, try watching Top Gun in 5.1 or 6.1 (as high as it's been released thus far) on a home Atmos system in direct 6.1 mode or even the DSU upmixer. The jets are flying at head level, which is absurd. Thank goodness Neural X manages to elevate them back up where they are supposed to be with the old guidelines or the movie would be ridiculous sounding. But that wouldn't even be an issue if they had retained the old side surround locations more or less and/or at least put those as "acceptable" setups in the guidelines for maximum compatibility or when your screen is elevated with the center significantly above eye level. You'd think they would have at least considered giving this as an alternate layout. They probably would have gotten more people on board earlier too as it would be less work to convert most home theaters. Sadly, I'm afraid their thinking is that the effect wouldn't be as noticeable in terms of sheer height differences (i.e. "cars" should be at ground/ear level and "planes" should be overhead rather than matching up with the visuals on the screen, which sadly most of Hollywood has never given a crap about given the dearth of panned dialog soundtracks out there compared just sticking all the dialog in the center of the screen even when the actors are to the sides). 

The idea of creating a much larger height difference than the cinema (where ceilings are higher) was perhaps even more motivated since you could technically put sounds "close" to the ceiling with high side surrounds using in-phase material when they're 2/3 up. But then that's what older soundtracks expected to do with the old guidelines (most seem to stray away from doing so, though for some reason. I'm guessing they thought having things image in locations that might be "through" you if they are mounted lower or right above your head might freak people out or something as it was rarely done even when they could have done it more. With side surrounds just behind you, such sounds would largely image directly behind you when used instead, but if they panned forward to the mains it would pass right through you at ear level. I can only think of one time I noticed that effect outside an Atmos type soundtrack and that was in Pirates of The Caribbean _On Stranger Tides_ right at the opening Disney Castle logo start. The flag on top the castle makes a flapping sound as it pans through the seating location. If the side surrounds are 2/3 above you, the flapping sound will appear to fly over your head. If they are at ear level, it pretty much passes either just over your head or goes right through it! It freaked me out the first time I heard that (in a good way). I immediately wondered why "surround sounds" were always either to the sides or behind me when they could clearly image them in the middle of the room like that! I don't have an answer as it was a VERY cool effect, almost holographic in nature. With 7.1 speakers, they could pan sounds anywhere in-between the speakers at ear level. Atmos acts like it invented that, but it was already possible. It just wasn't done very much. Besides, if they assumed your mains weren't at the same height as your surround speakers, sounds that pan would possibly change height as it move through the room and this could be noticeable. I think it would still be cool sounding like that, but who knows what they think in Hollywood. 

But now some Atmos tracks do exactly that (place sounds "in" the room rather than just on the sides). This happens more with sounds meant to be at least somewhat overhead, but I have heard holographic like sounds pass through me before, even on Atmos demos. The Dolby demo short feature, "Silent" does this right at the beginning when it shows initial the zoom outward shot you can hear the hand cranking cart sound start in the back of the room between the rear speakers and pan forward to the front speakers straight through the room rather slowly at that. If your system is set up properly, it should move evenly and sound freakishly realistic in terms of a squeaky sounding cart being pulled through the room RIGHT THROUH YOU (like a ghost) to get to the front speakers. I was astounded when I heard that. It's better than anything else in that demo, IMO. Thunder overhead? Half their demos do that. But ghostly objects passing right through the couch? Yeah! Give me more of that! An airplane does something similar just above ear level a bit later in the demo, but it starts in the middle so it's not nearly as freaky as panning all the way from the back of the room, at least in my room where the wagon/cart sound travels 15 feet before it even gets to the MLP and then goes right through it on up to the main speakers another 9 feet in front of me. And people say the rear speakers don't do anything!!! The front wides assist in getting the sound to image between me and the main speakers in a believable fashion, but in 5.1.4 the car starts just behind you or inside you (depending on where your side surrounds are placed) whereas with rears they start as far back as where they are placed. I have my rears 22 feet back in the room with surround #1 speakers between them and the side surrounds (the latter are at the mid-point of the room and just behind the MLP which is at 37% or so, which also gives the 110 angle for 5.1.4 material if I switch operating modes, yet with the extra side matrixed speakers (front wide and surround #1 ) engaged, the IMAGE of the sides appears nearly directly to the sides of the MLP instead of where the speakers are giving the option of a phantom version of either side location. Thus, rear sounds are VERY noticeable as they are 14 feet behind me in the MLP. That's how rear channels should be heard, IMO, not just behind your couch. I made a circle, not a half circle. 

In GRAVITY, the circular pan that occurs right after the debris hits the station pans right behind me at the MLP not at the back of the room as you would expect such pans to do. This is because with Atmos, it can pan at any point in the room instead so a side surround (5.1) pan sounds very different from from the rear (7.1) pan around the room. With 5.1 soundtracks using anything from DSU to Neural X to Pro Logic IIx that just isn't possible as the 'in-phase' material ends up in the back of the room instead. With 7.1, as I mentioned above, they can pan anywhere in-between the speakers in the room instead, but don't seem to do that much until Atmos came out and now it happens not because the guy mixing the film thinks about it like that, but because they draw an object that moves through that point in the room and the renderer does the mix of panning for them. This means you are more likely to get those types of sounds since more complex panning is handled by the object motion system rather than having to manually pan things in space with all those pan pots. In other words, while you could do this in 7.1 only, it was likely a lot more work to do so and easier to keep pans at the sides of the environment except special occasions. Now they can flood the room with all kinds of 3D pan without having to think about it, just where the object would likely move relative to the visuals. And yet many Atmos soundtracks still sound like the mixing guy is trying to do what he did before, perhaps consciously trying to get that "sound" he thought he perfected on the old system or something. This is unfortunate. The whole point of "immersion" is to go nuts with it, putting sounds where they would be in real life and not worrying about whether a car passes through someone in the audience or not. The problem is I want to be "wowed" with that while there's probably still this perception that I'm supposed to be watching Nicolas Cage turn the steering wheel on the screen rather than paying more attention to the debris he just kicked up up fly through me. Hey, that's on me to watch the movie AGAIN, then, right? I still think that's a good thing. Give me IMMERSION!


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> The discrete High Centre channel of an IMAX 12-track mix is delivered on home video as an object, encoded at 25 degrees elevation (0 degrees azimuth). Even with DTS:X Pro, there is no speaker at that location, so the High Centre channel was always going to be rendered as a phantom image (even if IMAX had chosen Atmos for home delivery).


And yet with a physical speaker at ~30 degrees in that location, _most_ of the sound from that object will come from that speaker. Without it, the precedent effect "pull" will be _much worse_ sitting off axis. 

I'm using only two front height speakers for "dialog lift" in my home theater. You might think that would mean off-axis seats have dialog still pulling over, but because of the center bed speaker, the dialog still appears to come from the screen, just not dead center. Given Hollywood doesn't care about panned dialog, that's still much better, IMO than leaving the dialog centered perfectly, but coming from _under_ the screen instead. At least the dialog still comes from the screen, itself. Add a center height speaker to the lift effect (along with L/R) and even panned dialog would move almost perfectly for all seats. Thus, having a center height speaker (even if you have to use "Scatmos" to derive it for Atmos soundtracks) is still better than no center height speaker for off-axis seating. Dolby should have thought long and hard about including it as an option. They have an option on Trinnov processors for real speakers half-between center and L/R, but not a single one for above the center? That's very short-sighted on Dolby's part and having it would have made the three formats that much more compatible with each other to boot.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Guys,

For those interested I made my choice on the in-ceiling speakers.

Left click on link below if interested.

*https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-15.html#post59114246*

Terry


----------



## MagnumX

I'm curious about one aspect of the Home Atmos format, namely the bed tracks containing height information folded into them and how that relates to recreating the Atmos mix. It seems like everything I've read thus far kind of glosses over the fact the height data appears to be hard coded into the bed tracks. You can't just remove them with a push of a button. You'd have to use a method like phase and level reversal opposite of the "fold down" process, but even then it seems like there might be a remnant/trace of it left. There aren't separate bed tracks for Atmos without the height data in them are there? That would seem like a waste of space. Pure object data makes sense, but that wouldn't preserve the backwards compatible tracks that need that information hard coded into them.


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> I'm curious about one aspect of the Home Atmos format, namely the bed tracks containing height information folded into them and how that relates to recreating the Atmos mix. It seems like everything I've read thus far kind of glosses over the fact the height data appears to be hard coded into the bed tracks.


As I understand, that is exactly how it happens in DD+ JOC coding. But reading about TrueHD, it appears to me there the height channels are encoded into separate tracks.


----------



## CBdicX

dfa973 said:


> I have a setup with DAES speakers and the lower you set up those speakers the more direct sound you get from them, thus drowning the ceiling reflection.
> *In fact, you must set up them higher than ear level to get a decent enough reflected sound (minimizing the direct sound).* The higher you set up them, the more reflected sound you get!
> This is the reason that the best DAES speakers have the drivers much lower in the speaker enclosure (masking them) and have absorbent materials on at least three sides of the drive - limiting as much as they can the direct sound.


This is why i mounted the my reflecting speakers behind the screen to get maximum masking, and it works great !!
Only sound from above and when i point to the speaker with my eyes closed, they would be mounted say a meter from the front wall on the ceiling


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> This is why i mounted the my reflecting speakers behind the screen to get maximum masking, and it works great !!
> Only sound from above and when i point to the speaker with my eyes closed, they would be mounted say a meter from the front wall on the ceiling


So you have installed them as double-bounce speakers, pointing away from the listener. 
It apparently can work when you have two highly reflective surfaces. 
Nice idea.


----------



## CBdicX

maikeldepotter said:


> So you have installed them as double-bounce speakers, pointing away from the listener.
> It apparently can work when you have two highly reflective surfaces.
> Nice idea.


Indeed, double speakers for a wider effect, and double bounce, first to the wall, then to the ceiling/MLP. Ceiling is popcorn and creates a nice diffuse effect.

Want to try this also for Dialog Lift, but have a X4500H and this will not support this.
Maybe the new 2020 models will………...


----------



## JonFo

*Center Height*



maikeldepotter said:


> Yes, that’s exactly why I said in my next post that a top center speaker for Atmos would not be my first choice if overhead center speakers were to be added (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1909.html#post59107296). Front heights are a different story though. That is what I described and why I suggested a Center Height speaker is needed, which essentially boils down to the same reason why you’d want a center speaker in-between your L and R fronts.


Good idea, and due to the object-based nature of Atmos, no reason why it can't be implemented by the renderer engines in the pre-pro's. 
A software renderer engine such as the Trinnov could implement that new channel and map your example front-center to top center pan using primarily the center height to anchor the objects apparent position. And given the soft-configuration of output channels on the Trninovs, easy to add a hookup.

Man, really wanting an Altitude32 right now ...


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> Ceiling is popcorn and creates a nice diffuse effect.


The 'diffuse effect' you are noticing is probably due to the wide dispersion of the sound beams, as they are travelling quite a distance (towards wall - from wall - towards ceiling - from ceiling) before they reach your ear. Your ceiling (looks like sprayed spack on hard concrete) is highly reflective, and not diffusive by itself.


----------



## CBdicX

maikeldepotter said:


> The 'diffuse effect' you are noticing is probably due to the wide dispersion of the sound beams, as they are travelling quite a distance (towards wall - from wall - towards ceiling - from ceiling) before they reach your ear. Your ceiling (looks like sprayed spack on hard concrete) is highly reflective, and not diffusive by itself.


Its hard popcorn.....


----------



## dfa973

CBdicX said:


> Ceiling is popcorn and creates a nice diffuse effect.


The popcorn has no influence on the audio reflections.
Why?
At 20KHz the wavelength is huge (14989 meters) and the popcorn is so small...
It is a myth that popcorn can interact with sound - from the point of view of the sound, the popcorn ceiling is just a wall, like any wall - nothing special.


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> It seems like everything I've read thus far kind of glosses over the fact *the height data appears to be hard coded into the bed tracks*.


True.



MagnumX said:


> You can't just remove them with a push of a button. You'd have to use a method like phase and level reversal opposite of the "fold down" process, but even then it seems like* there might be a remnant/trace of it left*.


Yes, but the leftover audible signal - the remnant - is way weaker than the "extracted" signal - so the clean object that is played instead of the canceled bed signal overpowers the remnant.
You can check the "extraction" results by disconnecting the overhead speakers.



MagnumX said:


> There aren't separate bed tracks for Atmos without the height data in them are there?


Yes - the OBA stream does not add too much to the rest of the TrueHD streams.



MagnumX said:


> That would seem like a waste of space. Pure object data makes sense, but that wouldn't preserve the backwards compatible tracks that need that information hard coded into them.


True.


----------



## CBdicX

dfa973 said:


> The popcorn has no influence on the audio reflections.
> Why?
> At 20KHz the wavelength is huge (14989 meters) and the popcorn is so small...
> It is a myth that popcorn can interact with sound - from the point of view of the sound, the popcorn ceiling is just a wall, like any wall - nothing special.


Clear, good to hear it has no effect


----------



## Augerhandle

dfa973 said:


> The popcorn has no influence on the audio reflections.
> Why?
> At 20KHz the wavelength is huge (14989 meters) and the popcorn is so small...
> It is a myth that popcorn can interact with sound - from the point of view of the sound, the popcorn ceiling is just a wall, like any wall - nothing special.



14989 meters is over 9 miles long. 

At 20Khz the wavelength is about .017 meters, or less than 3/4". 
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/calculator/sound-frequency-wavelength/


----------



## Vengeance2020

New question

Going to attempt a DIY Atmos ceiling speaker install with four RC80I ceiling speakers but getting different feedback on placements. Was looking for some pro advice here.

The room...open concept roughly 15x20 foot area. Tv and front speakers (L/C/R) centered on the 15 foot wall above fire place, rear speakers slightly behind sitting area and directly left and right mounted on the walls. We have 9 foot walls with a 10 foot Tray ceiling about 10x14 slightly offset in the middle of the room.

Question for the front two ceiling speakers no issues I can easily do 45 degrees in front of sitting area in the tray ceiling but the rears are the debate. I can place the rears into the tray and for visual appeal align them to the front but they would be at ~95-100 degrees above sitting area or roughly a foot behind sitting area OR I can place them at ~135 degrees not in the tray and 3-4feet behind sitting area. Visually they would be less noticeable but I am getting told to put them into the tray area. With the directional tweeters does it really matter much?also running a Denon avr 3600x

Should have added will be 5.1.4 with maybe in the future considering 7.1.4.

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated, planning to install this coming weekend..


----------



## dfa973

@CBdicX


Augerhandle said:


> 14989 meters is over 9 miles long.
> 
> At 20Khz the wavelength is about .017 meters, or less than 3/4".
> https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/calculator/sound-frequency-wavelength/


Oops - wrong calculator - my bad!

*Sounds reflect off objects when the wavelength is less than the size of the object.*

So, even with the correct wavelength, the popcorn is smaller than the wavelength at 20khz so you get reflections from the entire wall/ceiling surface, not scattering from the popcorn.


----------



## StevenC56

How many of you have had acceptable results with in-ceiling .4 setups when your main seating area is close to the rear wall? Ear placement when seated is about 3' from the rear wall, and I'll most likely have to settle on about 1.5-2' forward from the rear ceiling corner due to joist placement. I really have no desire to do only a .2 Atmos setup. I'm also unable to move my seating forward since it's on a riser, and that just isn't a possibility. I have 4 DT in-ceiling 9" coax speakers with pivoting tweeters that I purchased several years ago to go with my DT system. I finally bought a Yamaha Atmos pre-pro last year, and I need to get this done in the next couple months before my attic starts getting too hot for running the wiring.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> How many of you have had acceptable results with in-ceiling .4 setups when your main seating area is close to the rear wall? Ear placement when seated is about 3' from the rear wall, and I'll most likely have to settle on about 1.5-2' forward from the rear ceiling corner due to joist placement. I really have no desire to do only a .2 Atmos setup. I'm also unable to move my seating forward since it's on a riser, and that just isn't a possibility. I have 4 DT in-ceiling 9" coax speakers with pivoting tweeters that I purchased several years ago to go with my DT system. I finally bought a Yamaha Atmos pre-pro last year, and I need to get this done in the next couple months before my attic starts getting too hot for running the wiring.


My MLP isn't near a real wall, but if I shrink the system down to 5.1.4 (drop rear speakers and switch top middle to be rear height), the distance to the side/top middle speakers is similar to what you describe (no wall behind me to account for reflections, etc., though). It sounds fine, definitely better than 5.1.2 (which I could set to be either front height or top middle, but in the same locations). As long as you have speakers to pan to front to back, you'll have it better than .2, IMO. You can always alter the balance a bit by adjusting the levels down to the closer speakers a few dB to account for the precedence effect which will then pull the phantom image closer forward to be similar to if you were sitting closer to the middle of the two. It's not ideal, but ultimately still very enjoyable, IMO.


----------



## bearr48

*Advice re overhead speaker placement*

I want to install 4 overhead speakers (SVS Prime Elevation), to be mounted on the ceiling, about 45 degrees forward and back of the main listening position. I believe Dolby's recommendation is to place them in line with the front left and right main speakers. But my otherwise rectangular room has a large overhead HVAC duct running the length of the left wall, against the ceiling.

If I locate the left front and back elevation speakers at the ceiling where it meets the HVAC duct, they (by coincidence) line up fairly well in the same front-to-back plane as the left front main speaker.
But what about the right side front and back elevation speakers? If I place them on the ceiling near the right side wall, they'll be working into a somewhat similar space as the left elevation speakers (i.e., adjacent to a corner), but will be well outside the plane of the front right main speaker...by about 2 1/2 feet.

I realize there's no perfect solution here, but which is worse? (A) Mount the right elevations near the wall, maybe making the room feel "wider" but not lining up with the front right main speaker, or (B) Mount the right elevations in the front-to-back plane of the front right main speaker, even though that places it more than two feet in from the nearest wall?

Thanks for your opinions and advice. Jack


----------



## chi_guy50

StevenC56 said:


> How many of you have had acceptable results with in-ceiling .4 setups when your main seating area is close to the rear wall? Ear placement when seated is about 3' from the rear wall, and I'll most likely have to settle on about 1.5-2' forward from the rear ceiling corner due to joist placement. I really have no desire to do only a .2 Atmos setup. I'm also unable to move my seating forward since it's on a riser, and that just isn't a possibility. I have 4 DT in-ceiling 9" coax speakers with pivoting tweeters that I purchased several years ago to go with my DT system. I finally bought a Yamaha Atmos pre-pro last year, and I need to get this done in the next couple months before my attic starts getting too hot for running the wiring.



I see no problem with your proposed layout. In fact, my rear overhead in-ceiling speakers are in approximately the same position as you describe and the immersive effects are perfectly fine. Just make sure that the forward pair offer decent front to back separation and you should be good to go.


----------



## MagnumX

bearr48 said:


> I want to install 4 overhead speakers (SVS Prime Elevation), to be mounted on the ceiling, about 45 degrees forward and back of the main listening position. I believe Dolby's recommendation is to place them in line with the front left and right main speakers. But my otherwise rectangular room has a large overhead HVAC duct running the length of the left wall, against the ceiling.
> 
> If I locate the left front and back elevation speakers at the ceiling where it meets the HVAC duct, they (by coincidence) line up fairly well in the same front-to-back plane as the left front main speaker.
> But what about the right side front and back elevation speakers? If I place them on the ceiling near the right side wall, they'll be working into a somewhat similar space as the left elevation speakers (i.e., adjacent to a corner), but will be well outside the plane of the front right main speaker...by about 2 1/2 feet.
> 
> I realize there's no perfect solution here, but which is worse? (A) Mount the right elevations near the wall, maybe making the room feel "wider" but not lining up with the front right main speaker, or (B) Mount the right elevations in the front-to-back plane of the front right main speaker, even though that places it more than two feet in from the nearest wall?
> 
> Thanks for your opinions and advice. Jack


So you're saying the system and listening couch aren't centered in the room or it's an odd shaped room that lining the speakers up results in a disparity relative to the side walls? In any case, what matters (if they're going on the ceiling) is not how far away the side walls are, but that you're sitting as symmetrically as possible relative to the 4 overhead speakers and the main speakers. If you have to move the overheads inward or outward a bit relative to the floor speakers, that doesn't matter that much, IMO. But if you place one set of speakers further away from the MLP than the others compared to the bed/ear level speakers, that could cause some uneven panning due to the precedence effect You can't keep that effect away for all listening positions completely, but it's nice when the main seat is "perfect" at least. So if I'm reading that right above, I think it's better that the right side overheads are in symmetrical alignment with the rest of the system and more importantly the MLP than how far away the side wall is from the right speakers (I realize it might look better room wise to have them symmetrically aligned with the walls but then it sounds like the mains system already isn't in that alignment). But you have to live with the room. 2.5' isn't a huge amount usually, but then you didn't sate the overall dimensions of the room.


----------



## niterida

bearr48 said:


> I want to install 4 overhead speakers (SVS Prime Elevation), to be mounted on the ceiling, about 45 degrees forward and back of the main listening position. I believe Dolby's recommendation is to place them in line with the front left and right main speakers. But my otherwise rectangular room has a large overhead HVAC duct running the length of the left wall, against the ceiling.
> 
> If I locate the left front and back elevation speakers at the ceiling where it meets the HVAC duct, they (by coincidence) line up fairly well in the same front-to-back plane as the left front main speaker.
> But what about the right side front and back elevation speakers? If I place them on the ceiling near the right side wall, they'll be working into a somewhat similar space as the left elevation speakers (i.e., adjacent to a corner), but will be well outside the plane of the front right main speaker...by about 2 1/2 feet.
> 
> I realize there's no perfect solution here, but which is worse? (A) Mount the right elevations near the wall, maybe making the room feel "wider" but not lining up with the front right main speaker, or (B) Mount the right elevations in the front-to-back plane of the front right main speaker, even though that places it more than two feet in from the nearest wall?
> 
> Thanks for your opinions and advice. Jack


Run a false HVAC duct on the other side to match


----------



## bearr48

MagnumX said:


> So you're saying the system and listening couch aren't centered in the room or it's an odd shaped room that lining the speakers up results in a disparity relative to the side walls? In any case, what matters (if they're going on the ceiling) is not how far away the side walls are, but that you're sitting as symmetrically as possible relative to the 4 overhead speakers and the main speakers. If you have to move the overheads inward or outward a bit relative to the floor speakers, that doesn't matter that much, IMO. But if you place one set of speakers further away from the MLP than the others compared to the bed/ear level speakers, that could cause some uneven panning due to the precedence effect You can't keep that effect away for all listening positions completely, but it's nice when the main seat is "perfect" at least. So if I'm reading that right above, I think it's better that the right side overheads are in symmetrical alignment with the rest of the system and more importantly the MLP than how far away the side wall is from the right speakers (I realize it might look better room wise to have them symmetrically aligned with the walls but then it sounds like the mains system already isn't in that alignment). But you have to live with the room. 2.5' isn't a huge amount usually, but then you didn't sate the overall dimensions of the room.


MagnumX: Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, everything was symmetrical until I started installing overhead speakers...the only asymmetry is the HVAC duct on the left, from about 7 feet up to the ceiling.

The room is abt. 17 feet long, 11 feet wide (except up where the duct is), and 8 feet high. I'd been foolishly assuming that Audyssey could correct for a disparity in arrival time between left and right overhead speakers, but thinking about it, that would require adding delay to all the other speakers in the system, which seems absurd even if it were possible. So I think I'll take your advice.

Secondary issue (slightly off-topic): Given that there are not that many music disks or movies that use more than 5.1, and given that I am not terribly impressed with the upmixing options available in my Marantz SR7011 (Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, "Multichannel Stereo", "Virtual"), is it worth spending $200 to install Auro 3D into a 3-year-old receiver?
I am ok with the receiver generally, and am using an outboard monster 2-channel amplifier for the main right and left front speakers. Waddaya think? And thanks again! Jack


----------



## bearr48

niterida said:


> Run a false HVAC duct on the other side to match


Niterida, that is a truly funny response! If you'll install it and pay your plane fare (to greater Seattle area), I'll buy the materials? And Sanjay, don't encourage him...he's wicked.


----------



## niterida

bearr48 said:


> MagnumX: Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, everything was symmetrical until I started installing overhead speakers...the only asymmetry is the HVAC duct on the left, from about 7 feet up to the ceiling.
> 
> The room is abt. 17 feet long, 11 feet wide (except up where the duct is), and 8 feet high. I'd been foolishly assuming that Audyssey could correct for a disparity in arrival time between left and right overhead speakers, but thinking about it, that would require adding delay to all the other speakers in the system, which seems absurd even if it were possible. So I think I'll take your advice.
> 
> Secondary issue (slightly off-topic): Given that there are not that many music disks or movies that use more than 5.1, and given that I am not terribly impressed with the upmixing options available in my Marantz SR7011 (Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, "Multichannel Stereo", "Virtual"), is it worth spending $200 to install Auro 3D into a 3-year-old receiver?
> I am ok with the receiver generally, and am using an outboard monster 2-channel amplifier for the main right and left front speakers. Waddaya think? And thanks again! Jack



I had a 7012 and while it sounded OK I was never impressed with the Atmos effect and overall the sound was just OK. It didn't matter what I did with speaker placement or settings or how many times I ran Audyssey it never impressed me. Isold it and bought an older Yamaha RX-A3040 and it sounded fantastic - it didn't matter what I did with speaker placement or settings or YPAO it always sounded great. Now I know how many people love the higher end Marantz receivers and Audyssey so I am not sure if it is just my tastes or non-trained ear or if I had a "faulty" unit. So maybe you could try borrowing another receiver and see if that makes any difference ?


Having said all that the Auro-3d upmixer on the Marantz definitely made music come alive and I wish I still Auro for just that reason 


And happy for you to pay my air-fare - but you do realise I live in remote country Western Australia - it costs about $300USD just to get to the nearest international airport !!


----------



## CBdicX

bearr48 said:


> MagnumX: Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, everything was symmetrical until I started installing overhead speakers...the only asymmetry is the HVAC duct on the left, from about 7 feet up to the ceiling.
> 
> The room is abt. 17 feet long, 11 feet wide (except up where the duct is), and 8 feet high. I'd been foolishly assuming that Audyssey could correct for a disparity in arrival time between left and right overhead speakers, but thinking about it, that would require adding delay to all the other speakers in the system, which seems absurd even if it were possible. So I think I'll take your advice.
> 
> Secondary issue (slightly off-topic): Given that there are not that many music disks or movies that use more than 5.1, and given that I am not terribly impressed with the upmixing options available in my Marantz SR7011 (Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, "Multichannel Stereo", "Virtual"), is it worth spending $200 to install Auro 3D into a 3-year-old receiver?
> I am ok with the receiver generally, and am using an outboard monster 2-channel amplifier for the main right and left front speakers. Waddaya think? And thanks again! Jack


I use AuroMatic for all my audio modes, even for *Atmos and DTS Master*.
(DTSX can not be upmixed by AuroMatic  )
As you also say that you are not impressed by the upmixing, you will find AuroMatic will do the job.
Auro have several options to let you decide how and how strong the Height speakers are used.
Never could understand why Dolby and DTS do not have this option.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

.....


----------



## Dave-T

Now that Atmos has been out for a while has anybody setup 5.2.6 with 6 top speakers not front and rear height with only a couch or one row of seating? I have plenty of room/amplification/channel space available( I run a Marantz 8805 and have 14 channels of amplification and only utilizing 9 and cannot place surround bed channel speakers at 90 degrees because there is no wall). I was just wondering if I would get more of a panning effect with 6 verse 4? I would leave the current top front and top rear where they ate and add top center at 90 degrees.

thanks 

Dave-t


----------



## MagnumX

bearr48 said:


> MagnumX: Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, everything was symmetrical until I started installing overhead speakers...the only asymmetry is the HVAC duct on the left, from about 7 feet up to the ceiling.
> 
> The room is abt. 17 feet long, 11 feet wide (except up where the duct is), and 8 feet high. I'd been foolishly assuming that Audyssey could correct for a disparity in arrival time between left and right overhead speakers, but thinking about it, that would require adding delay to all the other speakers in the system, which seems absurd even if it were possible. So I think I'll take your advice.
> 
> Secondary issue (slightly off-topic): Given that there are not that many music disks or movies that use more than 5.1, and given that I am not terribly impressed with the upmixing options available in my Marantz SR7011 (Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, "Multichannel Stereo", "Virtual"), is it worth spending $200 to install Auro 3D into a 3-year-old receiver?
> I am ok with the receiver generally, and am using an outboard monster 2-channel amplifier for the main right and left front speakers. Waddaya think? And thanks again! Jack


Given the lack of Auro-3D titles, I'd personally say it's not worth it for most people. Some like the Auro upmixer for music, but I think it's mostly fake reverb like those Yamaha DSP modes. I find after trying it dozens of times that I never use it. DSU is better, IMO in at least it does something other than reverb, but I miss PLIIx music mode. Dolby really screwed up by getting rid of it for music, IMO. But even then I usually chose stereo for music, the way it's meant to be heard. YMMV of course.


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> Given the lack of Auro-3D titles, I'd personally say it's not worth it for most people. Some like the Auro upmixer for music, but I think it's mostly fake reverb like those Yamaha DSP modes. I find after trying it dozens of times that I never use it. DSU is better, IMO in at least it does something other than reverb, but I miss PLIIx music mode. Dolby really screwed up by getting rid of it for music, IMO. But even then I usually chose stereo for music, the way it's meant to be heard. YMMV of course.


I find DSU is doing to little to "create" Height effects.
AuroMatic on full power (16 and Large) is great to hear, and the Hight speakers are used a lot.
Do not find it less or more artificial then DSU, and as long as real Atmos or DTSX is used in this bad way we get now, I give AuroMatic thumps up for movies 

For music I use Auro 2D, less use of the Center and more to the Fronts like Stereo, but then all the 7.x speakers.


----------



## zeonstar

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but it is Dolby Atmos related.

I recently upgraded my front speakers to Towers and so I had tor rerun Audyssey. I had previously "Double checked" my Audyssey levels with an SPL meter after Audyssey calibration and was set to do it again but learned that was a no-no. So this time I have not changed what Audyssey did.

I now feel my Atmos speakers are harder to hear but I don't know if it's just the movies I have seen lately, or if it's my calibration.

So my question is can you recommend some Dolby Atmos SCENES with some good _discreet_ Atmos audio?

Thank you.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

It looks like Sony is switching over to the lesser DTS: X format, possibly due to their partnership with the IMAX Enhanced program. Grumble, grumble.


Angry Birds 2 (supposedly a disappointing mix), Zombieland 2 (supposedly yet another disappointing mix compared to the Dolby Atmos track on the first film), and now Sony's latest Charlie's Angels, and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood will have DTS: X.


----------



## Josh Z

zeonstar said:


> So my question is can you recommend some Dolby Atmos SCENES with some good _discreet_ Atmos audio?


You have to go straight for Dolby's Atmos demo trailers. You can stream them for free on VUDU (or at least used to be able to).


----------



## zeonstar

Dan Hitchman said:


> It looks like Sony is switching over to the lesser DTS: X format, possibly due to their partnership with the IMAX Enhanced program. Grumble, grumble.



Is DTS:X considered to be lesser? I never actually knew that.


----------



## zeonstar

Josh Z said:


> You have to go straight for Dolby's Atmos demo trailers. You can stream them for free on VUDU (or at least used to be able to).


I have a few of the demo discs, actually. They are good for what I am looking for? In thinking about them, I feel that they just have a more blended sound, not so much with really discreet Atmos audio.

What I mean is, I am looking for some scenes where the Height speakers dominate. At least momentarily.


----------



## Josh Z

zeonstar said:


> I have a few of the demo discs, actually. They are good for what I am looking for? In thinking about them, I feel that they just have a more blended sound, not so much with really discreet Atmos audio.
> 
> What I mean is, I am looking for some scenes where the Height speakers dominate. At least momentarily.


If you have some of the demo discs, you probably have one with the Helicopter Demo, which only has sound in the heights and none in the ground.

My favorite trailer for this is Audiosphere. Lots of dominating overhead activity in that one.


----------



## tigerhonaker

zeonstar said:


> I have a few of the demo discs, actually. They are good for what I am looking for? In thinking about them, I feel that they just have a more blended sound, not so much with really discreet Atmos audio.
> 
> What I mean is, I am looking for some scenes where the Height speakers dominate. At least momentarily.


Below is a Demo disc my buddy Tom C. in San Antonio, TX. sent me not long ago.
He had his Audio system with Atmos Custom Calibrated and used this disc.
He got me one also so when my Atmos is installed they can use it if they wish.







Terry


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> I find DSU is doing to little to "create" Height effects.


I was referring to using DSU for music. I use Neural X for movie upmixing. Auro only adds reverb. It does nothing for moving effects anywhere up or down at all, IMO, just creating a larger space, essentially. At least that's how it sounds to me. I like the real movies encoded in it just fine (Red Tails and Death Machine are Auro-3D only for example and sound great). There's just not enough of them for me to recommend paing extra just for two titles (the others are all also available in Atmos).



> AuroMatic on full power (16 and Large) is great to hear, and the Hight speakers are used a lot.


Used a lot for heavy reverb and bass is way too high on the higher settings, unnaturally so, IMO.




zeonstar said:


> Josh Z said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to go straight for Dolby's Atmos demo trailers. You can stream them for free on VUDU (or at least used to be able to).
> 
> 
> 
> I have a few of the demo discs, actually. They are good for what I am looking for? In thinking about them, I feel that they just have a more blended sound, not so much with really discreet Atmos audio.
> 
> What I mean is, I am looking for some scenes where the Height speakers dominate. At least momentarily.
Click to expand...

Get Flatliners (2017) off iTunes or Vudu in Atmos. The voices talking about near death experiences for a minute and a half move all over the ceiling and pretty much only the ceiling. It's incredible sounding for that minute and a half. Instant demo material and right at 1 minute and 30 seconds into it so it's easy to find for a demo. The rest of the movie is OK, but that opening is a show stopper for overhead sound demoing, IMO. Unlike the helicopter demo that is mostly around the periphery (especially with height speakers pulling it all the way to the screen and rear walls), these move all over the entire ceiling including directly in the middle areas front, back and overhead).


As for Sony and DTS:X, don't blame poor mixes on DTS itself. Angry Birds 2 has an Atmos mix too on iTunes an it's identical (poor dynamics), but then so was the first movie in Atmos. It has nothing to do with the carrier and with DTS:X Pro, I'd rate DTS:X roughly equal to Atmos in capability with more speaker configuration support to boot. Auro 13.1 is also quite good for most systems; it just lacks software support. 

At least DTS will give Dolby some competition. Without it, we'd probably see no changes for another 50 years or something. I'd like to see floor level speaker support added to something to do under the feet level effects. It's not really a surround bubble without it, more like a dome.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

zeonstar said:


> Is DTS:X considered to be lesser? I never actually knew that.



As long as the Dolby Atmos track isn't a fixed printout, DTS: X is 7.1.4. All DTS: X Pro does is stretch that out with matrix upmixing.


----------



## Josh Z

zeonstar said:


> Is DTS:X considered to be lesser? I never actually knew that.


It's the lesser format in that it is (currently) limited to a maximum of 11 speakers, and almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels with no audio objects.


----------



## noah katz

CBdicX said:


> I use AuroMatic for all my audio modes, even for *Atmos and DTS Master*.
> (DTSX can not be upmixed by AuroMatic  )



Nor can Atmos.


----------



## CBdicX

noah katz said:


> Nor can Atmos.


Yes it will, as TrueHD, and this works automatic.
As soon as I select Auro, the TrueHD track will be used.
With DTSX there is no (auto) step back to DTS Master, DTSX will not be upmixed, DTS Master will.


----------



## bearr48

niterida said:


> I had a 7012 and while it sounded OK I was never impressed with the Atmos effect and overall the sound was just OK. It didn't matter what I did with speaker placement or settings or how many times I ran Audyssey it never impressed me. Isold it and bought an older Yamaha RX-A3040 and it sounded fantastic - it didn't matter what I did with speaker placement or settings or YPAO it always sounded great. Now I know how many people love the higher end Marantz receivers and Audyssey so I am not sure if it is just my tastes or non-trained ear or if I had a "faulty" unit. So maybe you could try borrowing another receiver and see if that makes any difference ?
> 
> 
> Having said all that the Auro-3d upmixer on the Marantz definitely made music come alive and I wish I still Auro for just that reason
> 
> 
> And happy for you to pay my air-fare - but you do realise I live in remote country Western Australia - it costs about $300USD just to get to the nearest international airport !!


Niterida, thanks for your reply...but you got one part wrong. I'd said "If you'll install it and pay your plane fare (to greater Seattle area), I'll buy the materials?". Awaiting your revised offer.....
Still thinking about Auro 3D. Thanks again!

Jack


----------



## zeonstar

Josh Z said:


> If you have some of the demo discs, you probably have one with the Helicopter Demo, which only has sound in the heights and none in the ground.
> 
> My favorite trailer for this is Audiosphere. Lots of dominating overhead activity in that one.


That is the very disc I have. I kind of forgotten about the Helicopter demo. I will give that a listen tonight. I love the Audiosphere one too. One of my favorites. My children (2 and 4) actually love that one. They call it the bouncy ball. It makes them giggle like you wouldn't believe. It's pure joy listening to them listen to it. 





tigerhonaker said:


> Below is a Demo disc my buddy Tom C. in San Antonio, TX. sent me not long ago.
> He had his Audio system with Atmos Custom Calibrated and used this disc.
> He got me one also so when my Atmos is installed they can use it if they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry


Yep, that is the very one I have. I was fortunate to get it from Denon upon request. 



MagnumX said:


> Get Flatliners (2017) off iTunes or Vudu in Atmos. The voices talking about near death experiences for a minute and a half move all over the ceiling and pretty much only the ceiling. It's incredible sounding for that minute and a half. Instant demo material and right at 1 minute and 30 seconds into it so it's easy to find for a demo. The rest of the movie is OK, but that opening is a show stopper for overhead sound demoing, IMO. Unlike the helicopter demo that is mostly around the periphery (especially with height speakers pulling it all the way to the screen and rear walls), these move all over the entire ceiling including directly in the middle areas front, back and overhead).


I will make a note of it, thank you!


----------



## jsgrise

You guys can find some Atmos and DTS:X demo clips here: https://kodi.wiki/view/Samples


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> As long as the Dolby Atmos track isn't a fixed printout, DTS: X is 7.1.4. All DTS: X Pro does is stretch that out with *matrix upmixing*.


DTS:X Pro / Neural X is NOT "matrixed". Logic steering is utterly different (almost discrete) whereas matrixing creates an array with only 3dB of separation between the combined channels (simple addition).

DTS:X/Neural X doesn't "stretch" anything just like Pro Logic doesn't "stretch" the center speaker image as the distance between the left and right speakers before adding the center remains constant. Putting a hard source in the middle doesn't change the relative imaging size at all. It's the outer framework distance that forms the imaging limits (panning object amount 0-100% to move it in any given direction). I see two different ways to skin a cat here for panning data whereas you seem to see inferior vs superior without even having heard the DTS:X Pro system. And yet DTS:X Pro can make a "fixed" 7.1.4 soundtrack use all available speakers while Atmos just has speakers missing and thus "holes" in the middle if the theater is large enough (24 feet is long enough hear to screw up the middle without top middle speakers).



Josh Z said:


> It's the lesser format in that it is (currently) limited to a maximum of 11 speakers, and almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels with no audio objects.


None of which will make a whit of difference once DTS:X Pro is released. DTS:X will then be superior in the sense that ALL DTS:X soundtracks will use ALL available speakers (unlike Atmos that can be told to IGNORE any number of speakers in the system thus destroying larger systems ability to image correctly as the entire point of the extra speakers beyond 7.1.4 is to increase the available room size without compromising imaging. There are no "new" locations beyond 7.1.4 in the sense that it can fully phantom image any point in the overall rectangle in a small enough room from the MLP. As the room size increases and off-axis seating is used, more and more speakers are needed to maintain that ability, but no "new locations" are added. The rectangle is simply scaled and hard sources are placed to avoid the precedence effect). This notion that Atmos is some magical system because it uses "objects" is abject nonsense. Objects are useful to make it easier to place sounds in the room without complicated large numbers of panning knobs for individual channels, but that doesn't mean it cannot be done without objects (like the Auro system or DTS:X without objects). And yet objects are used in DTS:X to place the sounds. The objects are simply pre-rendered to a channel output. DTS:X Pro uses logic steering to put hard sources between existing 7.1.4 framework locations. The end result should be very nearly audibly the same as rendering to the same size system.

Ultimately, both formats are about SCALING to larger rooms once you get beyond 7.1.4. There is no other purpose to those extra speakers but to anchor sounds and defeat the limits of phantom imaging in larger rooms.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> None of which will make a whit of difference once DTS:X Pro is released.


You will note that I said "currently" in my last reply.

DTS:X Pro is vaporware at this point. Lots of big promises, no indication of when or if it will really ever be available.


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> You will note that I said "currently" in my last reply.
> 
> DTS:X Pro is vaporware at this point. Lots of big promises, no indication of when or if it will really ever be available.


It exists. Some AVSers (e.g. Dan Hitchman) heard it at CEDIA or at other sites, there's at least one beta tester (Berland) with it on the Trinnov Altitude thread, and Trinnov announced that they've completed DTS Certification and it will be released for free to Altitude owners some time "very soon" (that was a week ago). That was reported in a press release carried in WSR.

It's more proper to say that it is "vaporware" for non-Altitude owners in the near future, but that may change in upcoming months and prove otherwise. Or it may not.


----------



## libertyguy20

I have a "quick" question:  Please indulge me going into details to explain

I have a 7.1.4 setup via a Marantz 6013 + external amp. For the front, I have the klipsch 140sa upfiring and placed on top of the front L and R speakers. Due to a few reasons, my rear atmos drivers (klipsch 500sa) are placed on the rear wall at the top corner of the ceiling and angled downward to my MLP. The rear driver has a switch for atmos or surround and I have it set to surround since I am not positioning it as an upfiring atmos driver.

Now my reciever's amp assign has many options: 1) 4 atmos and no height speaker placement, 2) 4 height no atmos option placement, 3) 2 height + 2 atmos option, and many other variation within all off these options (i.e., side atmos versus rear atmos, versus ceiling mounted height options and combo's of both and more, etc).

Bear with me on this paragraph.......I currently have it set to the 4 atmos option with front and rear selected, but the rear is not upfiring like the graphic shows you in the amp assign menu (does that matter?) and technically due to the rear drivers actual positioning, I could (or should?) select the "2 atmos (front) + 2 rear height" right? However, I do not believe I am going to get true .4 atmos processing with the "2 atmos + 2 height" amp configuration. Yet, with my current amp assign of 4 atmos, the only graphics are for 4 atmos set as upfiring placement (again only my fronts are upfiring). I oddly do not see in the amp assign menu a 4 atmos speaker graphic with ceiling mounted atmos locations (lol, like Dolby actually recommends most), yet those amp assign options do have a ceiling graphic if one were to select those speakers as height speakers (?). Just confuses me why Marantz would not show a 4 atmos option with graphics that reflect either ceiling mount, upfiring mount, rear height mount and or all those combination (unless it doesn't matter). They did that afterall for all the height options. 

So, if you are still with me (bless you), does anyone know if the marantz's 4 atmos speaker option, which I have selected, is the right setting regardless of upfiring, versus rear height placement, verses ceiling placement? Or, if I chose the "2 atmos + 2 rear height" option due to my actual positioning, will i get a true .4 atmos processing? I think instead it would give me a heightened sound on other, non atmos encoded formats like DTS-X. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## sdurani

libertyguy20 said:


> Or, if I chose the "2 atmos + 2 rear height" option due to my actual positioning, will i get a true .4 atmos processing?


Atmos Enabled upfiring speakers have psychoacoustic processing built into the crossover network to trick our human hearing into perceiving sounds as coming from above. The filter used for processing the height effect looks like this: 










When you label a pair of upfiring speakers as Dolby speakers, your Marantz receiver will insert that elevation squiggle into the Audyssey target curve. If it didn't do that, Audyssey would flatten out those peaks & dip (which is what Audyssey is designed to do) and ruin the height effect. So it is important to label upfiring speakers correctly during initial speaker set-up. 

If you use the same label on regular speakers, especially ones placed above you, then the height effect is wasted (those sounds are ALREADY coming from above you) and you're unnecessarily introducing peaks/dip into the speaker response that will make it sound worse.


----------



## MagnumX

@libertyguy20 - If I'm reading that right, you seem confused as to the meanings assigned. "Atmos speakers" or more properly "Atmos Enabled Speakers" refer to ceiling bounce speakers. If you are mounting a selectable speaker high up on the rear walk pointed down it is functioning as a "height" speaker not an "Atmos speaker" which is why you don't see a graphic showing it up high.

"Top" speakers are typically on or in ceiling further out into the room.

You want Atmos enabled + rear height in the setup menu. You might also want to check the rated bass on those speakers and make sure the crossover isn't set too low for rear height as many speakers designed for Atmos Enabled use aren't designed to output much bass.


----------



## libertyguy20

MagnumX said:


> @*libertyguy20* - If I'm reading that right, you seem confused as to the meanings assigned. "Atmos speakers" or more properly "Atmos Enabled Speakers" refer to ceiling bounce speakers. If you are mounting a selectable speaker high up on the rear walk pointed down it is functioning as a "height" speaker not an "Atmos speaker" which is why you don't see a graphic showing it up high.
> 
> "Top" speakers are typically on or in ceiling further out into the room.
> 
> You want Atmos enabled + rear height in the setup menu. You might also want to check the rated bass on those speakers and make sure the crossover isn't set too low for rear height as many speakers designed for Atmos Enabled use aren't designed to output much bass.


Ok, so if I switch to the "2 atmos front + 2 rear height" setting in my amp, when the Atmos signal comes in, the amp will produce the Atmos sound out to my 4 speakers and rears specifically will not have the upfiring psychoacoustical curve adjustments due to being placed as a height speaker, whereas the fronts would. I was thinking if I did that, on atmos content, it would simply not play the rear atmos speakers at all since those are for a differently encoded content. I also could have sworn last night that when I was listening to both modes, I heard very very little when I selected rear height on those rears...may just have due to changes in the source content (ie different scene). 


Edit.....the x/o that audyssey set for those rear heigfhts was 80h, which is in line with the speaker size (5 1/2) and referenced in the actual install manual by klipsch. It recommended 140h if using as an upfiring driver.


Last, so it is still correct to say I have 7.1.4 Atmos setup, but the detail is that I am using a rear height speaker placement...not a top (i.e., ceiling) nor atmos enabled upfiring driver for the rear channel). 


Time to re-calibrate! I am switching the front 140sa's out for a listen to the KEF Q50's.....I like their speaker design much better but need to listen!


----------



## MagnumX

libertyguy20 said:


> Ok, so if I switch to the "2 atmos front + 2 rear height" setting in my amp, when the Atmos signal comes in, the amp will produce the Atmos sound out to my 4 speakers and rears specifically will not have the upfiring psychoacoustical curve adjustments due to being placed as a height speaker, whereas the fronts would.


Correct.



> I was thinking if I did that, on atmos content, it would simply not play the rear atmos speakers at all since those are for a differently encoded content.


Nope. Same content. "Atmos speaker" in the sense you're thinking just refers to bounce off the ceiling speakers. Tops and heights do Atmos, X etc.



> I also could have sworn last night that when I was listening to both modes, I heard very very little when I selected rear height on those rears...may just have due to changes in the source content (ie different scene).


Rear overhead effects are probably less common than in the front, but both are combined to produce stuff in the middle overhead with just four speakers.

There are demos you can use to test them.



> Edit.....the x/o that audyssey set for those rear heigfhts was 80h, which is in line with the speaker size (5 1/2) and referenced in the actual install manual by klipsch. It recommended 140h if using as an upfiring driver.


That sounds fine.



> Last, so it is still correct to say I have 7.1.4 Atmos setup, but the detail is that I am using a rear height speaker placement...not a top (i.e., ceiling) nor atmos enabled upfiring driver for the rear channel).


Yeah, it's still called 7.1.4.


----------



## mystickid

Is there a *BEST * speaker brand for Atmos height speakers? Are there audio quality differences/improvements on one brand over another?

I want the most immersive sound possible within "Atmos".

I'm debating between the Klipsch 500SA and the SVS Prime Elevations?


----------



## Roger Dressler

CBdicX said:


> Yes it will, as TrueHD, and this works automatic.
> As soon as I select Auro, the TrueHD track will be used.
> With DTSX there is no (auto) step back to DTS Master, DTSX will not be upmixed, DTS Master will.


Interesting. But it was still worth clarifying (as you did) that Auro is not upmixing Atmos, it's upmixing TrueHD. 

And if your BD player has 7.1 PCM output capability, you could upmix DTS:X soundtracks, too, cumbersome though it may be.


----------



## Roger Dressler

MagnumX said:


> I'm curious about one aspect of the Home Atmos format, namely the bed tracks containing height information folded into them and how that relates to recreating the Atmos mix. It seems like everything I've read thus far kind of glosses over the fact the height data appears to be hard coded into the bed tracks. You can't just remove them with a push of a button. You'd have to use a method like phase and level reversal opposite of the "fold down" process, but even then it seems like there might be a remnant/trace of it left.


In the case of Atmos content delivered with TrueHD, the reversal is indeed complete. The losslessly delivered objects are removed by the exact inverse of the process that mixed them into the bed. 

However, all bets are off when the soundtrack is delivered with DD+. There, the objects are not delivered as discrete lossless elements, but as parametrically coded signals. It's a lossy process, so they cannot be completely removed. No one seems to have noticed, though.


----------



## tigerhonaker

mystickid said:


> Is there a *BEST * speaker brand for Atmos height speakers? Are there audio quality differences/improvements on one brand over another?
> 
> *I want the most immersive sound possible within "Atmos".*
> 
> I'm debating between the Klipsch 500SA and the SVS Prime Elevations?


mystickid,

In "*Blue*" above it reads like cost/price is not all that important you just want the best.

Here is 1-option given cost is No-Concern.

*Left click on link below,

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-15.html#post59114246*



Terry


----------



## audiofan1

For those who have pined away for what many may consider the proper use for overheads in an Atmos mix, Warner bros. in my opinion has nailed it in a special home Atmos mix for* "Dr. Sleep"* I was un aware of the special mix going in till I read @Ralph Potts preview for the movie today after last nights viewing via Hulu 4k Atmos ,Dolby Vision early peek and was glad as I had no expectation to what was just some of the best use of the platform to date. Just to add, the movie? A must watch if you have seen or your a fan of the "Shining "


----------



## tigerhonaker

audiofan1 said:


> For those who have pined away for what many may consider the proper use for overheads in an Atmos mix, Warner bros. in my opinion has nailed it in a special home Atmos mix for* "Dr. Sleep"* I was un aware of the special mix going in till I read @Ralph Potts preview for the movie today after last nights viewing via Hulu 4k Atmos ,Dolby Vision early peek and was glad as I had no expectation to what was just some of the best use of the platform to date. Just to add, the movie? A must watch if you have seen or your a fan of the "Shining "


audiofan1,

Just added it to my Netflix queue ............



Terry


----------



## MagnumX

mystickid said:


> Is there a *BEST * speaker brand for Atmos height speakers? Are there audio quality differences/improvements on one brand over another?
> 
> I want the most immersive sound possible within "Atmos".
> 
> I'm debating between the Klipsch 500SA and the SVS Prime Elevations?


I'm a fan of PSB speakers as they're always very strict on the frequency response (typically +/- 1.5 db on-axis compared to most at more like +/- 3db) which at least gives you a head start on room response. I used PSB CS500 on the ceiling here (easy to point them to the MLP). I believe @sdrucker uses PSB CS1000 (deeper bass response overhead if you want it) in his Trinnov based system (you can ask him about it for truly high end) along with higher end bed models (largely furniture finish for the increased costs at that level compared to some similar response models, IMO, but some other improvements as well). 

Overall, I'm pretty happy with my system response at this point (Im currently only using Audyssey up to the Schrodinger limit (~250Hz)) and by using used PSB speakers in some cases to do a full 11.1.6 layout (still planning on a second sub to even out the bass or the second/third rows a bit more) saved me a bundle as well (that I used on furniture and movie prop decorations). I get a full 14' of separation between side and full rear sounds (24' across the full front to rear speakers) so it cannot be said that rear surround speakers don't add much as I've seen claimed all too often on here. 5.1.x cannot replicate the scale of having 8 bed surrounds (and six overheads with eight sets of drivers) in play across three rows of seats. The bird in the "Amaze" demo has a long flight around my room!

It wasn't easy to fit 18 speakers and six recliners in a 12'x24' room that was also challenged by a half bath in the back and an outboard fireplace on the middle right side along with a sliding rear door that made rear surrounds hard to fit as well, but careful planning and shopping made it work along with a lot of tinkering for the best mix of the added matrix and Dolby powered extraction speakers while maintaining an Atmo/X layout also fully compatible with true Auro 9.1 yet capable of an enhanced Auro 9.1.6 operation using the extra extracted and matrixed speakers at the push of a few buttons.

It is relatively easy to add four CS500/1000 overheads, though. Mounting the speaker is pretty simple, but hiding the wiring might not be depending on the room and ceiling.


----------



## audiofan1

tigerhonaker said:


> audiofan1,
> 
> Just added it to my Netflix queue ............
> 
> 
> 
> Terry


 Solid plan but do treat you and the wife to this one with the full 4k Dolby Atmos once you get those overheads installed


----------



## libertyguy20

libertyguy20 said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> Nope. ^
> 
> So... I recalibrated with the rear atmos channels set to 'rear height' instead of 'rear atmos' (due to actual speaker placement) and listened to some atmos demos (i.e., leaf and amazon scenes). I could hear the front channel atmos when the leaf went from right to left, but when it went back behind me, the "rear height" setting didnt include the leaf as it circled back around to front right atmos driver...same for the bird in Amazon scene. I did hear rear height sound effects here and there, but I'm 100% positive it did not isolate the leaf/bird between the .4 channels and it sounded very back to front and front to back intermittently in a non-immersive way.
> 
> I then switched it back (4 atmos, 0 height amp assign setting), and I heard the leaf wiz around me as all 4 speakers played/averaged the content.
> 
> Since I then need to set the rears to the atmos setting in the amp assign AND I dont want to add unnecessary peaks peaks and dips into the f/r on those rears (since I am not upfiring the rear drivers), I may just then edit the target curves in my MultEQ app after calibration, so as to gently slope down the high end similar to the other channels in the Audyssey house curve. sound.......Actually, since my klipsch 500sa switch is set to 'surround mode' and not Atmos, it will not employ the atmos crossover points (needed when used for upfiring); but I need to check on what my marantz will do to the curve (i.e., not smooth it out).
> 
> But again, setting the rear side of my .4 to 'rear height' in my amp assign, which is my actual placement, TOOK AWAY the atmos information and replaced it with other non-atmos rear height. If you want the emersive atmos content I think you need to set to atmos...rear height wont do it and I only guess the same for the 'top' setting because again...those were subset options of height speakers...Dolby atmos only has 'front and surround' or 'front and rears'. I think something is off.


----------



## MagnumX

libertyguy20 said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> Nope. ^
> 
> So... I recalibrated with the rear atmos channels set to 'rear height' instead of 'rear atmos' (due to actual speaker placement) and listened to some atmos demos (i.e., leaf and amazon scenes). I could hear the front channel atmos when the leaf went from right to left, but when it went back behind me, the "rear height" setting didnt include the leaf as it circled back around to front right atmos driver...same for the bird in Amazon scene.


You didn't hear them in the rear height channel because those sounds are not in the rear height channel on those demos (not here anyway); they're in the rear surround bed channel (the bird and leaf "circle" at bed level). Clearly, the Atmos enabled setting blends more of the rear bed and height together expecting your speaker to be on the ground. I mean if you want the sounds in the wrong place, by all means use the Atmos enabled setting. But those sounds are not overhead here. I was surprised myself that the bird flying around the room in the "Amaze" demo is at bed level, but it is. You can set the speakers both to tops to check too and it won't be in there as the bird is not flying around the ceiling, but at or just above your head. In other words, to gauge whether things are placed correctly, you need to know where the the sounds are supposed to be in the demos.

Examples of rear height effects in Atmos demos....

Dolby _Horizon_ Demo - The spaceship traveling from rear height to rear front across the ceiling and then the two ships traveling from front to rear after the car part.

Dolby _Helicopter_ Demo - The helicopter travels around the ceiling in a circular pattern

Dolby _Rainstorm_ Demo - The first clap of thunder is in the back of the room on the ceiling followed by directly overhead and then somewhat in front with the heavy rain starting in the front and moving towards the back afterwards

Dolby _Unfold_ Demo - Right before it zooms out to the word Dolby it starts laying down tiles overhead from front to back on the ceiling (followed by the logos shooting from behind to the front)

You can also download the *DTS:X* demos for "*Sound Callout*" and "*Object Emulator*" and they will show you precisely on the screen where the sounds are supposed to be coming from in a 7.1.4 setup.


----------



## libertyguy20

MagnumX said:


> libertyguy20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> Nope. ^
> 
> So... I recalibrated with the rear atmos channels set to 'rear height' instead of 'rear atmos' (due to actual speaker placement) and listened to some atmos
> 
> You didn't hear them in the rear height channel because those sounds are not in the rear height channel on those demos (not here anyway); they're in the rear surround bed channel (the bird and leaf "circle" at bed level). Clearly, the Atmos enabled setting blends more of the rear bed and height together expecting your speaker to be on the ground. I mean if you want the sounds in the wrong place, by all means use the Atmos enabled setting. But those sounds are not overhead here. I was surprised myself that the bird flying around the room in the "Amaze" demo is at bed level, but it is. You can set the speakers both to tops to check too and it won't be in there as the bird is not flying around the ceiling, but at or just above your head. In other words, to gauge whether things are placed correctly, you need to know where the the sounds are supposed to be in the demos.
> 
> Something is off then, because the bird did not play in my 4 surround bed channels at all...it was like it didn't exist and it audibly cut out. I'm using demos from XBox dolby app...have a blu Ray coming in mail. Maybe that demo mixes it differently like you said, but the bird noticeably dissapeared with rear height activated across the entire back stage, same for the speed pod. My 7.1 has been working well, so I will need to assess more. Wish my AVR had a more simple channel mute feature to help you isolate individual drivers. Cheers
Click to expand...


----------



## MagnumX

libertyguy20 said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> libertyguy20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> Nope. ^
> 
> So... I recalibrated with the rear atmos channels set to 'rear height' instead of 'rear atmos' (due to actual speaker placement) and listened to some atmos
> 
> You didn't hear them in the rear height channel because those sounds are not in the rear height channel on those demos (not here anyway); they're in the rear surround bed channel (the bird and leaf "circle" at bed level). Clearly, the Atmos enabled setting blends more of the rear bed and height together expecting your speaker to be on the ground. I mean if you want the sounds in the wrong place, by all means use the Atmos enabled setting. But those sounds are not overhead here. I was surprised myself that the bird flying around the room in the "Amaze" demo is at bed level, but it is. You can set the speakers both to tops to check too and it won't be in there as the bird is not flying around the ceiling, but at or just above your head. In other words, to gauge whether things are placed correctly, you need to know where the the sounds are supposed to be in the demos.
> 
> Something is off then, because the bird did not play in my 4 surround bed channels at all...it was like it didn't exist and it audibly cut out. I'm using demos from XBox dolby app...have a blu Ray coming in mail. Maybe that demo mixes it differently like you said, but the bird noticeably dissapeared with rear height activated across the entire back stage, same for the speed pod. My 7.1 has been working well, so I will need to assess more. Wish my AVR had a more simple channel mute feature to help you isolate individual drivers. Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> You should never "lose" something in Atmos as it should always get folded into another channel or partial channel or whatever if something isn't available. Normally, the only way you'd lose something is if something isn't set right or connected wrong.
> 
> Try the DTS:X demos and see what happens.
> 
> Sound Callout DTS:X Demo: https://www.demolandia.net/downloads.html?id=87980801 (this has a lady announcing which speaker is playing as it shows it on screen)
> 
> Object Emulator Demo: https://www.demolandia.net/downloads.html?id=168339619 (a ball moves around the room shown on-screen past the various speakers which you hear as it passes through your actual speakers)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## batpig

mystickid said:


> Is there a *BEST * speaker brand for Atmos height speakers? Are there audio quality differences/improvements on one brand over another?
> 
> I want the most immersive sound possible within "Atmos".
> 
> I'm debating between the Klipsch 500SA and the SVS Prime Elevations?


You're making a common error, which is thinking of speakers in isolation vs the entire system.  You don't find the brand with the best fronts, then separately find the "the best center speaker brand", then surrounds etc. It's a speaker *system* and and you can't just ask for advice in a vacuum with no context for the rest of your setup.

If you "want the most immersive sound possible" then you want ALL the speakers to match as closely as possible. Everything works together. Do they have to be literally identical? No, your ears / brain is fairly tolerant and most of the sounds above and around you are ambient or spurious direct effects where you're not likely to notice minor imperfections in timbre matching.

So, the "best speaker for Atmos" is the one which (1) is capable of complementing the output and dynamics of the other speakers, (2) can be aimed at the seating area, (3) has wide enough dispersion to cover the seating area with good sound, and (4) is the best timbre match possible for your other speakers while still managing the previous goals.


----------



## CBdicX

*Surround Back*

Why can i have *1* Surround Back speaker with Auro 2 - 3D, with DTS, but not with Dolby ?
Is there a way around this so i cab still use 1 SB speaker in Dolby also ?

Thanks


----------



## CBdicX

batpig said:


> You're making a common error, which is thinking of speakers in isolation vs the entire system. You don't find the brand with the best fronts, then separately find the "the best center speaker brand", then surrounds etc. It's a speaker *system* and and you can't just ask for advice in a vacuum with no context for the rest of your setup.
> 
> If you "want the most immersive sound possible" then you want ALL the speakers to match as closely as possible. Everything works together. Do they have to be literally identical? No, your ears / brain is fairly tolerant and most of the sounds above and around you are ambient or spurious direct effects where you're not likely to notice minor imperfections in timbre matching.
> 
> So, the "best speaker for Atmos" is the one which (1) is capable of complementing the output and dynamics of the other speakers, (2) can be aimed at the seating area, (3) has wide enough dispersion to cover the seating area with good sound, and (4) is the best timbre match possible for your other speakers while still managing the previous goals.


I see no harm in getting various speakers in a setup.
We almost all do the same with subwoofers, most of the HT usurers will never get the same brand subwoofer then the set speakers.
An a subwoofer is also for a big part "shaping" the timbre.
And then we have Audyssey that's also doing its part, matching brands or not.


----------



## fookoo_2010

CBdicX said:


> I see no harm in getting various speakers in a setup.


But not optimal for the seven base layers.


----------



## MagnumX

I think timbre match is less important for overheads than the bed level speakers. I've heard very few movies pan "upward" other than helicopters, etc. Sadly, most overhead sounds are thunder, birds, helicopters, etc. Now with the few Atmos/Auro music discs out there, the overheads get used a lot more for more important information. Of course, if your speakers are pretty accurate (neutral), matching timbre isn't as hard as it sounds (Audyssey can even help a bit run full range). Bed level panning of dialog, etc. is much more common, though than with overhead so far.


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> I think timbre match is less important for overheads than the bed level speakers. I've heard very few movies pan "upward" other than helicopters, etc. Sadly, most overhead sounds are thunder, birds, helicopters, etc. Now with the few Atmos/Auro music discs out there, the overheads get used a lot more for more important information. Of course, if your speakers are pretty accurate (neutral), matching timbre isn't as hard as it sounds (Audyssey can even help a bit run full range). Bed level panning of dialog, etc. is much more common, though than with overhead so far.


Indeed, and almost every brand is claiming to have "neutral" sounding speakers. 

You have a "creative" setup 
Do you know a way around this:

Why can i have 1 Surround Back speaker with Auro 2 - 3D, with DTS, but not with Dolby ?
Is there a way around this so i can still use 1 SB speaker in Dolby also ?

Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> You have a "creative" setup /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> Do you know a way around this:
> 
> Why can i have 1 Surround Back speaker with Auro 2 - 3D, with DTS, but not with Dolby ?
> Is there a way around this so i can still use 1 SB speaker in Dolby also ?
> 
> Thanks


As I understand it, Atmos will use one surround back (6.1 bed), but DSU will not (I mean DSU only has two channels for up to ten overheads so you can't expect much from it, IMO. It's kind of sad since PLIIx could use 6.1 just fine. I had that setup for over ten years.

The way I see it, you have a few options to consider:

1> Use Neural X (and/or Auro) for non-Atmos movies. This is the simplest and IMO Neural X is by far the best upmixer for movies anyway. You lose nothing, IMO.

2> Get a stereo mixer and combine the stereo rear surround channels into one (it's what Neural X is doing already except you can use it with DSU also since it won't know the difference). The down side here is you need an extra external amp channel, but if you happen to already have one available, it's a good option and lets you keep your existing rear speaker.

3> Use a bipole speaker like the PSB "S" series if there's one available in your speaker lineup. This speaker can take two separate inputs for one speaker (half and half) and essentially let you do stereo rear surround from one speaker. 7.1 would function like normal, but only take up the space of one speaker which could sit in the rear center surround position. You'd also get at least some stereo separation to boot (i.e. It really is 7.1). The downside is you need to buy another speaker and if there's not one in your brand speaker lineup it may not match timbre.

Likewise, you could set two speakers side by side in the center if there's enough space. You wouldn't get a ton of separation, but you won't get any with just one regular speaker. I'm assuming the room won't take two speakers in the normal position, but might fit two in the rear center location.


----------



## Kurvenal

*Ambient Atmos Soundscape Content*

I am looking for immersive ambient soundscapes to have playing in the background as people enter the theater and take their seats. I was thinking it would be great to be able to play crowd noise from famous venues (e.g. Carnegie Hall, Hollywood Bowl, a cathedral, a stadium, etc.) or else nature soundscapes recorded in forests or jungles, etc. 

Has anyone found a source for this type of content in Dolby Atmos format? I found this kind of site for sound effects (https://www.asoundeffect.com/sound-category/misc-sounds/), but although the content is there it does not really fit the bill. Ideally I would love to see some ambient soundscape collections available for purchase from Kaleidescape. Any thoughts on where the source content for something like this could be obtained?

Thanks.


----------



## tigerhonaker

batpig said:


> You're making a common error, which is thinking of speakers in isolation vs the entire system. You don't find the brand with the best fronts, then separately find the "the best center speaker brand", then surrounds etc. It's a speaker *system* and and you can't just ask for advice in a vacuum with no context for the rest of your setup.
> 
> *If you "want the most immersive sound possible" then you want ALL the speakers to match as closely as possible. Everything works together. Do they have to be literally identical? No, your ears / brain is fairly tolerant and most of the sounds above and around you are ambient or spurious direct effects where you're not likely to notice minor imperfections in timbre matching.
> 
> So, the "best speaker for Atmos" is the one which (1) is capable of complementing the output and dynamics of the other speakers, (2) can be aimed at the seating area, (3) has wide enough dispersion to cover the seating area with good sound, and (4) is the best timbre match possible for your other speakers while still managing the previous goals.*


When my Atmos is installed those 6-in-ceiling Triad speakers will be a very-very close match to my now JMLab Utopia speakers.
My (Opinion) is your correct ...........

Terry


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> As I understand it, Atmos will use one surround back (6.1 bed), but DSU will not (I mean DSU only has two channels for up to ten overheads so you can't expect much from it, IMO. It's kind of sad since PLIIx could use 6.1 just fine. I had that setup for over ten years.
> 
> The way I see it, you have a few options to consider:
> 
> 1> Use Neural X (and/or Auro) for non-Atmos movies. This is the simplest and IMO Neural X is by far the best upmixer for movies anyway. You lose nothing, IMO.
> 
> 2> Get a stereo mixer and combine the stereo rear surround channels into one (it's what Neural X is doing already except you can use it with DSU also since it won't know the difference). The down side here is you need an extra external amp channel, but if you happen to already have one available, it's a good option and lets you keep your existing rear speaker.
> 
> 3> Use a bipole speaker like the PSB "S" series if there's one available in your speaker lineup. This speaker can take two separate inputs for one speaker (half and half) and essentially let you do stereo rear surround from one speaker. 7.1 would function like normal, but only take up the space of one speaker which could sit in the rear center surround position. You'd also get at least some stereo separation to boot (i.e. It really is 7.1). The downside is you need to buy another speaker and if there's not one in your brand speaker lineup it may not match timbre.
> 
> Likewise, you could set two speakers side by side in the center if there's enough space. You wouldn't get a ton of separation, but you won't get any with just one regular speaker. I'm assuming the room won't take two speakers in the normal position, but might fit two in the rear center location.


What do you mean with: *Get a stereo mixer* ?
Please explain, picture ?

Thanks for the great help


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> What do you mean with: *Get a stereo mixer* ?
> Please explain, picture ?
> 
> Thanks for the great help


This is what I use for matrixed extra speakers (mixer adds the two channels together to create a new channel with both combined into one; in phase material is up to 3db louder and out of phase may cancel altogether if it's correlated between the two sets of channels. Material present in just one channel will play as normal. Thus, you can create a matrixed channel in-between two discrete channels, but in your case you just want one speaker to play both channels. It will be slightly louder for centered rear material than non-centered an will still array with the sides with correlated material. In other words, sounds will pan from side to rear normally.)

https://www.amazon.com/Rolls-MX51S-...active+audio+mini+mixer&qid=1580063017&sr=8-3

Plug left/right rear surround pre-outs into a set of input jacks and the output jacks will contain both channels, which then go to a power amp. The input dials control how much of each channel. For a centered rear speaker, these would be even (e.g. Both set to 12 o'clock). They also effect the output level so you will want to check levels and adjust to match when you're done, either at the dials or the AVR, although like a sub gain control, the mixer controls can go higher or lower than the AVR can change so you might have to turn them up or down if you go too far.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CBdicX said:


> *Surround Back*
> 
> 
> 
> Why can i have *1* Surround Back speaker with Auro 2 - 3D, with DTS, but not with Dolby ?
> 
> Is there a way around this so i cab still use 1 SB speaker in Dolby also ?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks




Just curious. Why is is a point of interest for you?


----------



## CBdicX

Polyrythm1k said:


> Just curious. Why is is a point of interest for you?


As i remembered from the past, Dolby had no problems in using one SB speaker, now they do. 
I would like to use just one speaker, with 2 speakers they are to close and then I still have to use 2 speakers in a tight spot.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CBdicX said:


> As i remembered from the past, Dolby had no problems in using one SB speaker, now they do.
> 
> I would like to use just one speaker, with 2 speakers they are to close and then I still have to use 2 speakers in a tight spot.




Ok. So basically you don’t have room? I seem to recall from early documents that Atmos was somehow dependent on pairs of speakers for phantom imaging to be correct. That was a loooong time ago for my old brain though. Older systems that just panned from speaker to speaker, and points in between were comparatively simpler. I am speculating to be honest, but I think the short answer is processing isn’t available for a single back anymore. I also seem to recall the single rear center conflicted with the front center. Not sure.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> CBdicX said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Surround Back*
> 
> 
> 
> Why can i have *1* Surround Back speaker with Auro 2 - 3D, with DTS, but not with Dolby ?
> 
> Is there a way around this so i cab still use 1 SB speaker in Dolby also ?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious. Why is is a point of interest for you?
Click to expand...

Perhaps some rooms cannot accommodate 7.1 bed speakers. I didn't think my theater room could until I found a smaller width speaker that wouldn't block the doorway and got different furniture that let me squeeze another pair between the new rows (barely).

When I bought my previous receiver around 2006, there was 7.1 outputs on it, but nothing yet had 7.1 decoding support (that model didn't anyway). It did DTS-ES 6.1 discrete maximum and PLIIx 7.1 decoding. No TrueHD or DTS-HD Master recordings. A 6.1 layout made sense given the room limitations. Even though discrete 7.1 came out shortly thereafter (amidst the HD-DVD/BD war I chose to sit out with an Apple TV first gen with my mere 720p projector at the time), very few BDs actually supported 7.1 until Atmos came out (even fewer seemed to have discrete 6.1). 

It's a small wonder Auro Technologies thought a 5.1 based height layout would be sufficient in 2010 given the unpopularity of 7.1 (even today I still see a lot comments suggesting they hear very little from the rear speakers and/or they'd prefer front wides to rear speakers. I certainly noticed very little from my rear center in 6.1 unless I used PLIIx and sat in the recliner that was behind them (it seemed to pull the sides into the back of the room by comparison instead of only in front of me). That may have been partially due to the "sounds like it's in front of you" psycho-acoustic effect of only using one rear center that sometimes occurs with some frequency sounds, although I found if I turned the speaker backwards or used a bipole, that no longer happened (former affected frequency response, though).

Rear effects are much more noticeable with many Atmos and X soundtracks for me these days, particularly with six (four bed and two overhead) speakers now behind my side surrounds and top middle speakers. There are also now three more chairs and two more rows to sit in than before so 6.1 beds weren't going to cut it any longer. But other rooms may not accommodate more and still I think 6.1 is preferable to 5.1 so I can imagine why he'd wan to keep it.


----------



## steinbes

Finally got my system all setup and calibrated correctly! Running a 7.2.4 (or 7.4.4 as i have 4 subs connected.) Watched San Andreas today, it has some amazing Atmos sounds in it. Had a few issues with my external amp for the rear heights, figured out i had to turn the db to +12 to get enough signal to them, works great now! The amaze and the other atmos demo on xbox really show what it can do, I am quite impressed. This forum has been great for helping me research and working out the kinks.
My system:

My system;
Marantz SR 6013 
Klipsch R 28F fronts
klipsch RP450c center
Klipsch RP402s surrounds 
Klipsch RP 140 sa rear height 
Klipsch CDT 2650 C II ceilings 
Klipsch R 51 rears
Klipsch R120 sw dual front subs 
SVS PB 2000 Pro dual rear subs
Russound P75 for the rear heights


----------



## k2dak

Newb question...

I have a Yamaha RX-V685 and am using a 5.1.2 configuration, and from what I understand, I would set it to use the Straight decoder to get unprocessed sound when playing Atmos content from my Nvidia Shield using Plex via audio passthrough.

This works perfectly, however when I go to play stereo content, the vocal sounds come through the front right and left, and nothing through the centre, which doesn't sound good to me.

If I use the Dolby Surround decoder, the centre is used for vocals, and in general it sounds fine.

Question is, if I leave it on Dolby Surround all of the time (instead of Straight), how will this affect playing Atmos content from my Nvidia Shield using Plex (eg: will it treat Atmos audio as if Straight is still selected, or will it apply some sort of processing, or...?)?


----------



## grassy

Is there an ideal crossover setting for our Atmos in ceiling speakers.? I have a dedicated rectangular room with a 4 speaker in ceiling Atmos setup being 7.1.4.They are Yamaha ic800 speakers, but just wondering what the crossovers on them speakers should be set at.


----------



## MagnumX

grassy said:


> Is there an ideal crossover setting for our Atmos in ceiling speakers.? I have a dedicated rectangular room with a 4 speaker in ceiling Atmos setup being 7.1.4.They are Yamaha ic800 speakers, but just wondering what the crossovers on them speakers should be set at.


They're good from 50Hz up. I'd cross them at 80Hz like everything else. It's what I use here with my overheads which are all rated something similar. It keeps the directional bass out of the subwoofer (e.g. If I set mine to 120Hz, I can plainly hear the Atmos helicopter demo deeper sounds coming straight from my sub, but at 80Hz, nothing.)


----------



## MagnumX

k2dak said:


> Newb question...
> 
> I have a Yamaha RX-V685 and am using a 5.1.2 configuration, and from what I understand, I would set it to use the Straight decoder to get unprocessed sound when playing Atmos content from my Nvidia Shield using Plex via audio passthrough.
> 
> This works perfectly, however when I go to play stereo content, the vocal sounds come through the front right and left, and nothing through the centre, which doesn't sound good to me.
> 
> If I use the Dolby Surround decoder, the centre is used for vocals, and in general it sounds fine.
> 
> Question is, if I leave it on Dolby Surround all of the time (instead of Straight), how will this affect playing Atmos content from my Nvidia Shield using Plex (eg: will it treat Atmos audio as if Straight is still selected, or will it apply some sort of processing, or...?)?


I don't have a Yamaha, but on my Marantz, it usually doesn't screw up Atmos processing unless I specifically select "Neural X" from a Dolby source. Otherwise, Straight and most Surround settings still bring Atmos up automatically just fine here. It would be nice if there were a 3-channel stereo mode without having to disable other speakers....


----------



## grassy

MagnumX said:


> They're good from 50Hz up. I'd cross them at 80Hz like everything else. It's what I use here with my overheads which are all rated something similar. It keeps the directional bass out of the subwoofer (e.g. If I set mine to 120Hz, I can plainly hear the Atmos helicopter demo deeper sounds coming straight from my sub, but at 80Hz, nothing.)


 Hey Magnum thanks for the reply. Audyssey Pro set the front 2 at 40hz and set the 2 rears at 60hz. I can hear them but not clearly.


----------



## libertyguy20

You can also download the *DTS:X* demos for "*Sound Callout*" and "*Object Emulator*" and they will show you precisely on the screen where the sounds are supposed to be coming from in a 7.1.4 setup.[/QUOTE]

So I re-ran Audyssey with the rear height amp assign and listened again. I heard everything this time...something must have negatively impacted my last calibration. I also noticed the surround and Surround backs more as a muted the height and atmos one time also...so...all is well! Thx for your time.

3 more quick questions: I noticed the doby atmos height speakers frequency curve on the high end (i.e., +3-4 db around 10k with then a dip and then slight bump again)...any benefit from exaggerating that peak and dip by a few db for the upfiring? 

Also, read another thread that encouraged increasing the level of the 4 atmos channels overall by 3 db to give the height a more obvious presence...I did and it really brought it to life...especially up front. Thoughts?

Last, understanding the distance from atmos to ceiling is set into the amp assign settings pre-calibration, should I then calibrate and then manually adjust the speaker distance to me based on 1) distance from ceiling bounce location to my position or 2) assess the distance from my position to the actual speaker? Calibration seems to go back to the speaker instead of the ceiling bounce area.... I understand also is more about the speakers wave link bet it's adjusting than the actual distance but wasn't sure I should tweak further.


----------



## AYanguas

libertyguy20 said:


> Also, read another thread that encouraged increasing the level of the 4 atmos channels overall by 3 db to give the height a more obvious presence...I did and it really brought it to life...especially up front. Thoughts?
> 
> Last, understanding the distance from Atmos to ceiling is set into the amp assign settings pre-calibration, should I then calibrate and then manually adjust the speaker distance to me based on 1) distance from ceiling bounce location to my position or 2) assess the distance from my position to the actual speaker? Calibration seems to go back to the speaker instead of the ceiling bounce area.... I understand also is more about the speakers wave link bet it's adjusting than the actual distance but wasn't sure I should tweak further.


I have 4 In-ceiling speakers configured as TOP. After run Audyssey I had the "correct" distances and level set according to the Audyssey microphone is "hearing".

When I listen to the "test tones" from the AVR (Denon 8500) I more or less hear the same volume level the four speakers Top Front and Top Rear.

BUT, running the Atmos Helicopter Demo I don't hear correctly the same volume and the Helicopter flying around in a circular and regular fashion.

I ended up with the Top Fronts manually up 2.0 and 3.0 dB and the Top Front Left, that was aiming to my MLP position, just changed to aim to downwards to the floor. I think the different room shape, near wall at the left and a more open space in the living room at the right makes that difference in listening for me. 

After that manually adjusts I then can hear the Helicopter almost nearly circling around at the same volume rear and front and at the sides.

So, I think it is a matter of your hearing and the room shape. Take an Atmos demo as a reference and play with the settings to find the most pleasant immersive effect for you.


----------



## blb1215

AYanguas said:


> I have 4 In-ceiling speakers configured as TOP. After run Audyssey I had the "correct" distances and level set according to the Audyssey microphone is "hearing".
> 
> When I listen to the "test tones" from the AVR (Denon 8500) I more or less hear the same volume level the four speakers Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> BUT, running the Atmos Helicopter Demo I don't hear correctly the same volume and the Helicopter flying around in a circular and regular fashion.
> 
> I ended up with the Top Fronts manually up 2.0 and 3.0 dB and the Top Front Left, that was aiming to my MLP position, just changed to aim to downwards to the floor. I think the different room shape, near wall at the left and a more open space in the living room at the right makes that difference in listening for me.
> 
> After that manually adjusts I then can hear the Helicopter almost nearly circling around at the same volume rear and front and at the sides.
> 
> So, I think it is a matter of your hearing and the room shape. Take an Atmos demo as a reference and play with the settings to find the most pleasant immersive effect for you.



Are you running Dynamic EQ? I believe Dynamic EQ could explain the higher level of top rear. I believe Dynamic EQ increases the rear top but not front top speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

You can't use the internal volume settings to gauge levels after you run Audyssey as it may seriously alter them. It's one of the reasons I now use Schrodinger frequency limits. It was doing some strange things with the side surround levels, like setting them low and then cranking them up with the curve instead which made on/off Audyssey very different in output, even though once set at the right levels they sounded nearly identical anyway. It seems like tall chair backs and other furniture items can really make Audyssey behave oddly.

In any case, it's best to use the speaker level demos to check your volume levels after calibration and adjust from there. I often go one step further and disable the subwoofer too, particularly if it's set above normal so it doesn't weight the speaker readings. Always use A-weighting at the very least for non-subs.

I used to think turning up overheads helped, but getting the other levels dialed in, it just seems to exaggerate certain things. I think certain effects become almost holographic when everything is right where it should be, particularly here with 17.1 speakers. 

The Dolby "Silence" demo becomes uncanny, almost creepy holographic at the start with my front wides and surround #1 speakers just so. With my eyes shut, that zoom with the hand cranking box at the start sounds almost like someone pulling a wagon from the back of the room straight up through the middle of the room back to front quite evenly paced through the three rows of centered chairs and passes right through me like a ghost on its way to the front center speaker at the screen! It reminds me of those binaural headphone recordings where you get a haircut or something and you'd swear it was really happening with your eyes closed. 

The effect subtleties are lost if the levels are off or the wagon like squeak sounds uneven in motion. It's easier to set with fewer speakers but less holographic sounding, particularly across a 24' long room. It's also a very quiet effect compared to most. The audience claps at the end are silky smooth from starting in the back and similarly moving forward into the room all around you with no jumps, but like a curtain of rain moving forward until it's rainy all around. The Atmos Rainstorm demo does something similar front to back with a rain curtain overhead and all around.


----------



## AYanguas

blb1215 said:


> Are you running Dynamic EQ? I believe Dynamic EQ could explain the higher level of top rear. I believe Dynamic EQ increases the rear top but not front top speakers.


Yes, I have Dynamic EQ activated. It sounds better and warming for me as I don't use to run at high volume levels.

EDITED: Next test will be with Helicopter Demo, without Dynamic EQ and see differences with the default Audyssey levels.


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> You can't use the internal volume settings to gauge levels after you run Audyssey as it may seriously alter them.



I change the speaker levels using the Option button on the remote and then selecting the channel levels while I'm watching a source. It is source input dependent but the altered settings are easily rolled back to the default proper "Audyssey" ones. I do not alter the Speaker level settings that have been put by Audyssey to keep them as a reference. I use same method to give some 3 to 5 dB more to the Central Speaker when listening films with dialog too low and explosions too high, for the average MV.




MagnumX said:


> ... It's one of the reasons I now use Schrodinger frequency limits.


I do not exactly know what are you referring to. Could you please explain?


----------



## MagnumX

AYanguas said:


> I do not exactly know what are you referring to. Could you please explain?


This article can explain it better than I can about how bass is affected differently in rooms than higher ranges. (https://www.soundandvision.com/content/schroeder-frequency-show-and-tell-part-1) 

But basically, the idea is that Audyssey at higher levels is more like correcting the speaker and/or the whole room rather than just the initial wavefront. Some think this sounds less natural or whatever than letting the room do its thing and expecting the first arrival from the speaker will be pretty good if it's a pretty good speaker above the 200Hz (or so) range. I can't argue too much as it certainly didn't "hurt" the sound here to switch to below 250Hz only. 

If anything, the surrounds sound much closer to each other now, particularly the extracted "top middle" ones which I would have had to buy an external box to correct separately. Well, they're derived from the front/rear heights, so if those are changed, it affects the top middle as well, but not in a good way. Instead, I got a 3rd party set of fabric tweeters for the front height and side heights that have excellent off-axis response and wide dispersion. This improved the timbre change at high frequencies _far_ more than Audyssey did. Now I can't hear any real difference as the Atmos helicopter circles the ceiling between front, middle and rear heights. It just sounds like a continuous sound (bleeding a bit from the extracted speakers also improved panning as Pro Logic 1 is a bit hard on the steering mechanism for center output; that made it behave more like Pro Logic II Music mode with nice even continuous pans). So between the two changes, the overhead layer is now as smooth as the bed level, IMO. The side heights are dual driver offset speakers in a bipolar configuration, though (front facing the front row and back facing the other two rows) so I really have 8 sets of drivers overhead and 11 on the floor even though they're technically 17 speakers (plus a 15" sub).


----------



## Augerhandle

CBdicX said:


> Indeed, and almost every brand is claiming to have "neutral" sounding speakers.
> 
> You have a "creative" setup
> Do you know a way around this:
> 
> Why can i have 1 Surround Back speaker with Auro 2 - 3D, with DTS, but not with Dolby ?
> Is there a way around this so i can still use 1 SB speaker in Dolby also ?
> 
> Thanks



What AVR are you using? I have the SR7012, and am running 6.3.4. Audyssey had no problem with the single back surround. Select 7.1.x, and Audyssey will automatically detect that you have only one speaker in back and calibrate accordingly. SB right and left channels image properly between the single rear and the side surrounds.

EDITED to include screenshot. 

As you can see, the single back surround is shown, and active, even with a Dolby ATMOS source.










View attachment 2676736


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> This article can explain it better than I can about how bass is affected differently in rooms than higher ranges. (https://www.soundandvision.com/content/schroeder-frequency-show-and-tell-part-1)



OK. I know! It is Schroeder (physicist of acoustics and computer graphics), not Schrodinger (the physicist of some quantum mechanics theories).

Yes I think i'm doing that when I use the Audyssy MultEQ App to limit the Audyssey frequency correction to 1kHz. Audyssey filters compensate Bass (up to 1 KHz in my current settings) to be more even at MLP, but leave the medium and high frequencies (above 1 KHz) as is letting the room make its effect. Sometimes it is supposed that the Audyssey Room correction of high frequencies gives an artificial (metallic??) sound and it is better to avoid it.

I know that Schroeder frequency for most rooms is about 250 Hz, but I chose 1 KHz because was the range that was said by some tutorials and posts that some people are using.

Eventually I will compare and adjust more, but for now I have decided to stop testing and enjoy listening content... Life is so short...


----------



## CBdicX

Augerhandle said:


> What AVR are you using? I have the SR7012, and am running 6.3.4. Audyssey had no problem with the single back surround. Select 7.1.x, and Audyssey will automatically detect that you have only one speaker in back and calibrate accordingly. SB right and left channels image properly between the single rear and the side surrounds.
> 
> EDITED to include screenshot.
> 
> As you can see, the single back surround is shown, and active, even with a Dolby ATMOS source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2676736


Hi, correct, with *Atmos*, it will not be active with DSU where AuroMatic and NeuralX will use 1 SB speaker.


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> What AVR are you using? I have the SR7012, and am running 6.3.4. Audyssey had no problem with the single back surround. Select 7.1.x, and Audyssey will automatically detect that you have only one speaker in back and calibrate accordingly. SB right and left channels image properly between the single rear and the side surrounds.


That picture shows Atmos, though. Atmos has always worked fine with surround back (as it's one of the rendered speakers in the Atmos list). It's DSU that doesn't seem to work with only 6.1 speakers. Have you tried DSU and actually listened at the rear speaker for sound?





AYanguas said:


> OK. I know! It is Schroeder (physicist of acoustics and computer graphics), not Schrodinger (the physicist of some quantum mechanics theories).


Yeah, I always get those names screwed up (I keep thinking of Schroeder as the Peanut character that plays the piano.  )



> Yes I think i'm doing that when I use the Audyssy MultEQ App to limit the Audyssey frequency correction to 1kHz. Audyssey filters compensate Bass (up to 1 KHz in my current settings) to be more even at MLP, but leave the medium and high frequencies (above 1 KHz) as is letting the room make its effect. Sometimes it is supposed that the Audyssey Room correction of high frequencies gives an artificial (metallic??) sound and it is better to avoid it.
> 
> I know that Schroeder frequency for most rooms is about 250 Hz, but I chose 1 KHz because was the range that was said by some tutorials and posts that some people are using.
> 
> Eventually I will compare and adjust more, but for now I have decided to stop testing and enjoy listening content... Life is so short...


Audyssey is basically an EQ system (really complex one, but still EQ) so how it sounds is highly dependent on a number of factors (flat doesn't always sound better to the ear) and objects can cause it to raise/lower some higher frequencies. I actually get a slightly more sibilant sound with it off now than on, but the first time I used it was far worse sibilance so that tells me higher frequencies were all over the place. It's not even easy to measure higher frequencies precisely with sweeps because the wavelengths are so small, they dip/peak in inches (i.e. move your head or the mic slightly and it's up/down). I decided to trust my PSB speakers' tweeters instead. The speakers are all rated +/- 1.5dB across most of range (80Hz up) so beyond bass, they're already pretty accurate and I hear no timbre changes (at least after changing the side heights to use better off-axis response tweeters) so I'm happy with it as it is now.


----------



## blb1215

AYanguas said:


> Yes, I have Dynamic EQ activated. It sounds better and warming for me as I don't use to run at high volume levels.
> 
> EDITED: Next test will be with Helicopter Demo, without Dynamic EQ and see differences with the default Audyssey levels.



I think you will find the levels even out when you run the helicopter demo without Dynamic EQ. I agree Dynamic EQ can have benefit especially at lower levels but most find the increase in surround levels overly aggressive especially with only rear surrounds being increased. I personally have a love/hate relationship and go back and forth with Dynamic EQ. I especially like the way it handles sub.


----------



## StevenC56

Looks like I'm back to the drawing board on my Atmos speaker install. There are 2 ceiling joists running side to side at the rear of my HT about 8" apart and starting 8" from the rear wall, so the farthest back I can mount the 9" round coax Definitive Technology in-ceiling speakers I have is pretty much 0 degrees back from our heads although they would be closer to the side walls and not directly overhead. Still, I don't want to cut large holes in my ceiling and find out it doesn't sound good. So I'm thinking maybe something like the SVS prime elevation model might be better, and if that's the case should I use those for the front Atmos as well and abort on the in-ceiling speakers all together. DT doesn't make anything like this, and even if they did all my system speakers are the older BP series anyway. The SVS uses a similar aluminum dome tweeter to the ones in all my Def Tech BP's. Thoughts and opinions?


----------



## Augerhandle

CBdicX said:


> Hi, correct, with *Atmos*, it will not be active with DSU where AuroMatic and NeuralX will use 1 SB speaker.


In your original post, you wrote "Dolby". Atmos is Dolby, and this is a Dolby Atmos thread. I wish you'd been clearer.


----------



## k2dak

MagnumX said:


> I don't have a Yamaha, but on my Marantz, it usually doesn't screw up Atmos processing unless I specifically select "Neural X" from a Dolby source. Otherwise, Straight and most Surround settings still bring Atmos up automatically just fine here. It would be nice if there were a 3-channel stereo mode without having to disable other speakers....


Thanks for the reply 


I did some more testing over the weekend and couldn't hear a difference with Atmos using either Straight or Dolby Surround decoders, so will stick with Dolby Surround.


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> In your original post, you wrote "Dolby". Atmos is Dolby, and this is a Dolby Atmos thread. I wish you'd been clearer.


Given the decoders all say "Dolby Surround" for DSU and "Atmos" or "Dolby Atmos" for Atmos, it seemed clear enough to me. It would never be wise to refer to Atmos as "Dolby" only given how many surround formats Dolby has produced over the years from "Dolby Surround" cinema (the old 1970/80s format that was usually decoded as "Pro Logic" at home) to "Dolby Surround" as an upmixer get the same title (It was stupid of Dolby, IMO to reuse the same name so casually) to Pro Logic II, IIx, IIz, etc. It'd be even more confusing if AVRs typically also carried PLII modes (although I wish more did as it was probably the best for music upmixing).


----------



## CBdicX

Augerhandle said:


> In your original post, you wrote "Dolby". Atmos is Dolby, and this is a Dolby Atmos thread. I wish you'd been clearer.


DSU is also Dolby...…..
We discus Atmos, DSU, well almost every immersive format here (I think), but sorry I put you on the wrong track.
As Atmos will use one SB, thought it was clear I ment DSU...…


----------



## Demetri Zuev

Hey everyone!

I have a 4 channel Atmos setup, the back height channels are located right above my head, the front heights are placed similarly to Auro3D layout, on the front wall and angled towards MLP. My LCR is SVS Ultra Bookshelfs/Center, the heights are Cambridge Audio Minx 22. Room correction is handled by Audyssey MultEQ XT32 on my Denon X4400H, all four speakers are marked correctly in receiver's settings.

I'm having trouble hearing a distinct soundstage from my front heights, it seems that the floor level of my system kind of eats them up. I can hear effects coming directly from the speakers that are over my head, but the front heights sound gets lost in action of effect heavy mixes. I also can't clearly discern them even in Atmos demos. Raising sound levels in settings doesn't help much. Minx 22 are compact speakers that can go down to 120Hz only, so I was thinking that, maybe, this is the reason why. My ceiling is 8.2ft high and I'm sitting about 6.5ft from the screen.

Been looking at SVS Prime Elevations as a possible solution and replacement for my front heights, since they go down to 55Hz and have a fuller sound. What do you guys think?


----------



## Augerhandle

CBdicX said:


> DSU is also Dolby...…..
> We discus Atmos, DSU, well almost every immersive format here (I think), but sorry I put you on the wrong track.
> As Atmos will use one SB, thought it was clear I ment DSU...…


No problem. Dolby means brand, which includes Dolby 5.1, Dolby 7.1, Dolby TrueHD, Atmos, etc.. You were comparing "Dolby" to DTS and Auro in your post, which threw me off. I see a lot of posts where people just don't know how to set up their system. I should have given you more credit. Sorry.


----------



## Samfan75

I watched the Turtles tonight in True Atmos with all speakers working. I have an 11.1 system but this was the first time I set my BD to Bitstream and I almost felt bad for the neighbors and they are 75 yards away, So awesome. Need to set up one more top center and I can have Auro 3D as my Denon has been upgraded. Wonder if it will be worth it?


----------



## sdurani

The only studio that was releasing DTS:X titles with objects, Well Go USA, seems to have dropped DTS:X starting in 2019. Their last few titles (_'Master Z: Ip Man Legacy'_, _'Shadow'_, and the upcoming _'Ne Zha'_) are all in Atmos. 

Meanwhile, Sony has started doing new releases (_'Angry Birds 2'_, _'Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood'_, _'Charlie's Angles'_ and _'Zombieland: Double Tap'_) in IMAX Enhanced DTS:X, and using Atmos for catalogue titles (_'Boyz n the Hood'_).


----------



## Josh Z

Demetri Zuev said:


> I have a 4 channel Atmos setup, the back height channels are located right above my head, the front heights are placed similarly to Auro3D layout, on the front wall and angled towards MLP. My LCR is SVS Ultra Bookshelfs/Center, the heights are Cambridge Audio Minx 22. Room correction is handled by Audyssey MultEQ XT32 on my Denon X4400H, all four speakers are marked correctly in receiver's settings.
> 
> I'm having trouble hearing a distinct soundstage from my front heights, it seems that the floor level of my system kind of eats them up. I can hear effects coming directly from the speakers that are over my head, but the front heights sound gets lost in action of effect heavy mixes. I also can't clearly discern them even in Atmos demos. Raising sound levels in settings doesn't help much. Minx 22 are compact speakers that can go down to 120Hz only, so I was thinking that, maybe, this is the reason why. My ceiling is 8.2ft high and I'm sitting about 6.5ft from the screen.
> 
> Been looking at SVS Prime Elevations as a possible solution and replacement for my front heights, since they go down to 55Hz and have a fuller sound. What do you guys think?


Honestly, I don't know that changing the speaker itself will make much difference. The main problem is likely that the Front Height speakers are too close to the front mains, so the sound blurs together. (I have much the same problem in my room.) Moving them to a Top Front position further away (45-degrees in front of your seating) would give more separation to the sounds. You'd also then have to move your back heights (which I assume are in Top Middle locations) further back if possible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> The only studio that was releasing DTS:X titles with objects, Well Go USA, seems to have dropped DTS:X starting in 2019. Their last few titles (_'Master Z: Ip Man Legacy'_, _'Shadow'_, and the upcoming _'Ne Zha'_) are all in Atmos.
> 
> Meanwhile, Sony has started doing new releases (_'Angry Birds 2'_, _'Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood'_, _'Charlie's Angles'_ and _'Zombieland: Double Tap'_) in IMAX Enhanced DTS:X, and using Atmos for catalogue titles (_'Boyz n the Hood'_).


Yes, I'm definitely not happy about Sony's new found "love" for IMAX Enhanced.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, I'm definitely not happy about Sony's new found "love" for IMAX Enhanced.


Agreed, since they routinely released Atmos mixes (e.g., _'Spider-Man: Homecoming'_) that made good use of Wides. Then again, they used to release Atmos tracks on BD. Now it's only on UHD (like Fox & Disney).


----------



## StevenC56

Ceiling mounted 9" coax speakers at 0-10 degrees to our MLP for the rear Atmos, VS SVS Prime Elevation speakers at the rear ceiling wall angled down or rear wall ceiling angled forward? (The MLP is 3' from the rear wall) That's my dilemma. Anybody have a similar situation? I was hoping I could mount the ceiling speakers farther back, but the ceiling joists will not allow. So the best I can do with ceiling mounted rear speakers is only 6-12" back from ear level and towards the outside of the MLP. I already have 4 brand new coax in-ceiling speakers same brand as my others in the system, (Definitive Tech) and would have to sell them and then purchase the SVS Prime's if I went that direction.


----------



## MagnumX

The above Sony title are _still_ available in Atmos on iTunes, making the first real movies (other than Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom) available in both DTS:X _and_ Dolby Atmos (more choices = better for consumers). 

Get used to streaming. It's the future whether we like it or not. 8K will likely be streaming only.


----------



## jsgrise

MagnumX said:


> The above Sony title are _still_ available in Atmos on iTunes, making the first real movies (other than Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom) available in both DTS:X _and_ Dolby Atmos (more choices = better for consumers).
> 
> Get used to streaming. It's the future whether we like it or not. 8K will likely be streaming only.


Give me streaming with lossless audio and I'm good. I can't stand compressed audio, it just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jsgrise said:


> Give me streaming with lossless audio and I'm good. I can't stand compressed audio, it just doesn't cut it.



That will probably never happen unless some enterprising company wishes to offer a premium streaming service with a high variable bitrate video stream to go along with variable bitrate lossless (current streaming protocols call for a constant data bitrate, so they couldn't use variable bitrate audio muxed together anyway). However, since most studios are starting up their own streaming sites, an aggregated streaming service with content from various sources is becoming less and less likely. Studios are starting to pull their content from Netflix and elsewhere or not renewing licenses in order to place them on their proprietary studio streaming apps. 

There is also little incentive to do premium streaming as the bulk of their revenue comes from people who really don't give a darn about quality. So... why bother?

There is Kaleidascape as far as downloads, but they are tethered and the cost for their proprietary servers and files are very pricey. Plus, if they go under, all your movies go with it and your ultra expensive servers become useless.


----------



## jsgrise

Dan Hitchman said:


> That will probably never happen unless some enterprising company wishes to offer a premium streaming service with a high variable bitrate video stream to go along with variable bitrate lossless (current streaming protocols call for a constant data bitrate, so they couldn't use variable bitrate audio muxed together anyway). However, since most studios are starting up their own streaming sites, an aggregated streaming service with content from various sources is becoming less and less likely. Studios are starting to pull their content from Netflix and elsewhere or not renewing licenses in order to place them on their proprietary studio streaming apps.
> 
> There is also little incentive to do premium streaming as the bulk of their revenue comes from people who really don't give a darn about quality. So... why bother?
> 
> There is Kaleidascape as far as downloads, but they are tethered and the cost for their proprietary servers and files are very pricey. Plus, if they go under, all your movies go with it and your ultra expensive servers become useless.


You are right Dan, I think it would be a shame that people like us who invested a lot of money in our systems can't have access to lossless audio anymore...


----------



## Demetri Zuev

Josh Z said:


> Honestly, I don't know that changing the speaker itself will make much difference. The main problem is likely that the Front Height speakers are too close to the front mains, so the sound blurs together. (I have much the same problem in my room.) Moving them to a Top Front position further away (45-degrees in front of your seating) would give more separation to the sounds. You'd also then have to move your back heights (which I assume are in Top Middle locations) further back if possible.


I really want the Front Height position to work because my ceiling cannot be drilled (it's a concrete/metal mix) and I had a really hard time mounting my first pair of height speakers to it, that involved some plaster carving to the shape of speaker mounts and supergluing them. Youtube reviewers seem to confirm a better soundstage from Prime Elevations than from speakers crossed over at 120-200Hz, but I want more opinions before committing


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> That will probably never happen unless some enterprising company wishes to offer a premium streaming service with a high variable bitrate video stream to go along with variable bitrate lossless (current streaming protocols call for a constant data bitrate, so they couldn't use variable bitrate audio muxed together anyway). However, since most studios are starting up their own streaming sites, an aggregated streaming service with content from various sources is becoming less and less likely. Studios are starting to pull their content from Netflix and elsewhere or not renewing licenses in order to place them on their proprietary studio streaming apps.
> 
> 
> There is also little incentive to do premium streaming as the bulk of their revenue comes from *people who really don't give a darn about quality*. So... why bother?


Given there is no proven audible quality difference with high bit-rate lossy compared to TrueHD, why bother? I guess it's easier to invent a strawman argument around people that "don't care about quality" than prove any claims to the contrary. Even lowly Netflix increased their maximum negotiated audio bit-rates to 640kbps DD+ which is extremely transparent (I've yet to see anyone prove they can hear a difference at that bit-rate with regular Dolby Digital let alone Dolby Digital Plus which is supposedly twice as efficient meaning that's equivalent to 1280kbps regular Dolby Digital).

I know. I know. _Audiophile_ ears can _always_ hear the difference between lossy and lossless no matter the bit-rate so there's no need to prove anything. 



> Studios are starting to pull their content from Netflix and elsewhere or not renewing licenses in order to place them on their proprietary studio streaming apps.


Other than Disney's feud with iTunes for 4K/Atmos content, I'm not aware of a single studio pulling content from *any* _Movies Anywhere_ site, including Fandango Now that now offers DTS:X as well as Dolby Atmos. There's a very real difference between BUYING licensed content and _renting_ HBO-like "whatever we happen to offer" content from sites like Netflix or Hulu that lose their licenses to carry content all the time. 

The bit-rates are quite high on iTunes as well for Atmos audio. Other than magical hearing claims that are never _ever_ proven, a person that "cares about quality" should be quite happy indeed with the sound quality on these offerings. But those that continue to believe in magical Shakti Stones that improve the room's _feng shui_, CD green marker pens that magically erase jitter and disc transport "mats" that supposedly also improve jitter (rather than loading down the motor so it can't work as well as _Science_ dictates), well they're probably going to be disappointed no matter what. They weren't even happy with lossless CD quality. It wasn't good enough despite Science saying otherwise and hence the invention of every snake oil device ever made in the past 38 years since the Compact Disc came out including the aforementioned devices. 

And I dare say that _quality_ is far more important for music than explosions on soundtracks.


----------



## jsgrise

MagnumX said:


> Given there is no proven audible quality difference with high bit-rate lossy compared to TrueHD, why bother? I guess it's easier to invent a strawman argument around people that "don't care about quality" than prove any claims to the contrary. Even lowly Netflix increased their maximum negotiated audio bit-rates to 640kbps DD+ which is extremely transparent (I've yet to see anyone prove they can hear a difference at that bit-rate with regular Dolby Digital let alone Dolby Digital Plus which is supposedly twice as efficient meaning that's equivalent to 1280kbps regular Dolby Digital).
> 
> I know. I know. _Audiophile_ ears can _always_ hear the difference between lossy and lossless no matter the bit-rate so there's no need to prove anything.


Do a test by watching The Dark Knight in TrueHD(BD) or DTS-HD(UHDBD) and then on Netflix DD+. There is a clear difference in audio quality, not even close.


----------



## mrtickleuk

jsgrise said:


> Do a test by watching The Dark Knight in TrueHD(BD) or DTS-HD(UHDBD) and then on Netflix DD+. There is a clear difference in audio quality, not even close.


Which one do you think sounds better?


----------



## jsgrise

mrtickleuk said:


> Which one do you think sounds better?


Lossless


----------



## mrtickleuk

jsgrise said:


> Lossless


Did you carry out a proper double-blind test? Not valid if you didn't.


----------



## jsgrise

mrtickleuk said:


> Did you carry out a proper double-blind test? Not valid if you didn't.


It is my opinion based on listening experience, but no I didn't do a double blind test. Did you do one? If so what was your conclusion?


----------



## Augerhandle

jsgrise said:


> Do a test by watching The Dark Knight in TrueHD(BD) or DTS-HD(UHDBD) and then on Netflix DD+. There is a clear difference in audio quality, not even close.


Whether or not one can hear a difference in the audio, there are obvious video artifacts when streaming. Check out the scene in Hong Kong where Batman jumps off the building. There is very obvious banding (posterization) of the dark sky in the streamed version which does not exist on the disc version. It so glaringly bad, I stopped streaming and finished the movie on disc.

Of course none of this matters when watching on one's phone. 

I apologize if this is too far off-topic.


----------



## jsgrise

Augerhandle said:


> Whether or not one can hear a difference in the audio, there are obvious video artifacts when streaming. Check out the scene in Hong Kong where Batman jumps off the building. There is very obvious banding (posterization) of the dark sky in the streamed version which does not exist on the disc version. It so glaringly bad, I stopped streaming and finished the movie on disc.
> 
> Of course none of this matters when watching on one's phone.


Indeed, I can clearly see artifact in dark scenes or backdrops on most streaming material.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> The only studio that was releasing DTS:X titles with objects, Well Go USA, seems to have dropped DTS:X starting in 2019. Their last few titles (_'Master Z: Ip Man Legacy'_, _'Shadow'_, and the upcoming _'Ne Zha'_) are all in Atmos.
> 
> Meanwhile, Sony has started doing new releases (_'Angry Birds 2'_, _'Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood'_, _'Charlie's Angles'_ and _'Zombieland: Double Tap'_) in IMAX Enhanced DTS:X, and using Atmos for catalogue titles (_'Boyz n the Hood'_).


If you don't have an IMAX Enhanced capable processor, so you're just getting plain vanilla DTS:X (presumably), how much is this going to matter if those Sony releases are mostly using 7.1.4 or 7.1.2? If you're missing some wides love, I suppose wait for DTS:X Pro coming to a processor near you....

Having said that, I personally prefer Atmos over anything DTS:X can do as a good Atmos mix can dynamically use objects and make the soundtrack feel more realistically immersive around you than just having sound from more speakers. Think Overlord, or Netflix movies like Dracula, or A House with a Clock on its Walls. YMMV of course.


----------



## mhmercer

mrtickleuk said:


> Did you carry out a proper double-blind test? Not valid if you didn't.


Wouldn't that be a double-deaf test?


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> If you don't have an IMAX Enhanced capable processor, so you're just getting plain vanilla DTS:X (presumably), how much is this going to matter if those Sony releases are mostly using 7.1.4 or 7.1.2?


IMAX Enhanced is a combination of pre-bass-managed IMAX versions of movies AND automatic settings changes in the processor. If you don't have an IMAX Enhanced capable processor, just set the crossovers to 70Hz and turn off any dynamic range compression. Should be good to go with plain vanilla DTS:X decoding.


----------



## StevenC56

This is as far back as I can install my rear ceiling Atmos speakers due to 2 ceiling joists only about 8" apart at the rear of my HT. And the fronts would be about 6' forward from that which would be at the recommended 45 degrees. I can install the fronts farther forward, but the rears unfortunately can't go back any further. The center of the rear speakers will be about 2' from the rear wall. and 1.5' front the side wall. My MLP is right at 3' from the rear wall.


----------



## MagnumX

jsgrise said:


> Do a test by watching The Dark Knight in TrueHD(BD) or DTS-HD(UHDBD) and then on Netflix DD+. There is a clear difference in audio quality, not even close.


I wouldn't call Netflix a definitive test on that matter. There is no way to verify they are using the same mix at all or that they've got the newer 640 rate in place for all movies they carry (levels are often not matched as well with many streaming devices, especially Apple TV and psycho-acoustic testing shows a preference for the "louder" result every single time. Apple TV is 6-8dB lower in levels on most soundtracks than the BD. I'm not sure if this applies to Netflix as well, but it could). 

A _far_ _better_ test is to take the lossless TrueHD soundtrack off the disc and encode it as DD+ at 640kbps and compare with the levels matched. I've compared countless TrueHD and regular DD at 640kbps (not even DD+) and there's no obvious audible differences I can detect that jump out at me. 

At what level would a lossy JPEG or AAC track approach lossless quality in your opinion? When they reach the same file size??? I get the concept of not wanting to worry about it, but then I don't regardless. If I hear weird audio coming out of the speakers _then_ I worry. 



sdrucker said:


> If you don't have an IMAX Enhanced capable processor, so you're just getting plain vanilla DTS:X (presumably), how much is this going to matter if those Sony releases are mostly using 7.1.4 or 7.1.2? If you're missing some wides love, I suppose wait for DTS:X Pro coming to a processor near you....
> 
> Having said that, I personally prefer Atmos over anything DTS:X can do as a good Atmos mix can dynamically use objects and make the soundtrack feel more realistically immersive around you than just having sound from more speakers. Think Overlord, or Netflix movies like Dracula, or A House with a Clock on its Walls. YMMV of course.


Is that really a fair comparison when you don't have the DTS:X Pro upgrade yet to compare? How do you know it 'just [has] sound from more speakers" ? Given I can't tell extracted Pro Logic steering "top middle" from the rendered version, I have no reason to think DTS:X Pro will be in any way inferior to a "rendered object" as they do exactly the same thing from different ends (one renders out to an extra speaker and the other steers into a speaker in-between. The result panning data should be more or less the same, going to the speaker in the middle as the object passes through it).


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> This is as far back as I can install my rear ceiling Atmos speakers due to 2 ceiling joists only about 8" apart at the rear of my HT. And the fronts would be about 6' forward from that which would be at the recommended 45 degrees. I can install the fronts farther forward, but the rears unfortunately can't go back any further. The center of the rear speakers will be about 2' from the rear wall. and 1.5' front the side wall. My MLP is right at 3' from the rear wall.


I think you'll get a satisfying overhead sound with the in-ceiling speakers (are they aligned or could be aligned with the fronts at that location?) On the other hand, if you don't mind speakers on your ceiling, that will work too and you can line them up more precisely. It's not an easy decision to make, but I don't think you'll hate the sound either way.


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> I think you'll get a satisfying overhead sound with the in-ceiling speakers (are they aligned or could be aligned with the fronts at that location?) On the other hand, if you don't mind speakers on your ceiling, that will work too and you can line them up more precisely. It's not an easy decision to make, but I don't think you'll hate the sound either way.


The front and rear overheads would be inline-Center of the speakers 1.5' from the side wall. The 3rd picture is actually marking where the front and rear left overheads would go.


----------



## galonzo

MagnumX said:


> StevenC56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as far back as I can install my rear ceiling Atmos speakers due to 2 ceiling joists only about 8" apart at the rear of my HT. And the fronts would be about 6' forward from that which would be at the recommended 45 degrees. I can install the fronts farther forward, but the rears unfortunately can't go back any further. The center of the rear speakers will be about 2' from the rear wall. and 1.5' front the side wall. My MLP is right at 3' from the rear wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll get a satisfying overhead sound with the in-ceiling speakers (are they aligned or could be aligned with the fronts at that location?) On the other hand, if you don't mind speakers on your ceiling, that will work too and you can line them up more precisely. It's not an easy decision to make, but I don't think you'll hate the sound either way.
Click to expand...

Or @StevenC56 , would you be better off with rear heights even further back, as in at that rear wall (which I believe you're open to?) Didn't you say that those TRs would be nearly right above the MLP?


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> The front and rear overheads would be inline-Center of the speakers 1.5' from the side wall. The 3rd picture is actually marking where the front and rear left overheads would go.


I still think they'd work fine. You'd have more akin to "top middle + top front" but that sounds good here when I switch down to 5.1.4 or 7.1.4. You could do speakers back on the ceiling or back wall. I don't think you'd could call them "height" speakers as suggested as they'd still be mighty tall angles compared to "height", but that extra 2 feet or whatever it is might give you a bit more panning, but not much. I doubt there'd be enough difference to make a big deal about either way in terms of imaging. I have my rear heights 15 feet behind me and they "sound" more like 6 feet behind me for some reason much of the time (i.e. they sound much closer than they are).

What's the extra two rear surround speakers you have?


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> I still think they'd work fine. You'd have more akin to "top middle + top front" but that sounds good here when I switch down to 5.1.4 or 7.1.4.
> 
> What's the extra two rear surround speakers you have?


Long time Yamaha guy here. (Starting with the DSP-A1000 back in the day) Those are the rear "presence" or what used the be "effects" speakers. There's 2 on the front wall in the exact same position as well. My goal is to setup 2 different speaker "patterns" with my CX-A5200. (1) using the front and rear presence speakers for non-Atmos material like I'm currently doing, and (2) using the 4 overhead speakers for Atmos.


----------



## StevenC56

galonzo said:


> Or @StevenC56 , would you be better off with rear heights even further back, as in at that rear wall (which I believe you're open to?) Didn't you say that those TRs would be nearly right above the MLP?


About 1' back of the MLP plane but towards the outside of the 4 seats. My wife and I typically watch by ourselves and use the 2 center seats just in front of the PJ.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> Long time Yamaha guy here. (Starting with the DSP-A1000 back in the day) Those are the rear "presence" or what used the be "effects" speakers. There's 2 on the front wall in the exact same position as well. My goal is to setup 2 different speaker "patterns" with my CX-A5200. (1) using the front and rear presence speakers for non-Atmos material like I'm currently doing, and (2) using the 4 overhead speakers for Atmos.


Well, you could move those higher up on the walls in the front and back and you'd have your "height" speakers already in place. I had (well still have; it's being used as a 6.1 amp now) a Yamaha and tried the presence speakers in the current front height position at the top of my screen here and it sounded pretty cool (it's why I bothered to do a manual mixer "dialog lift" effect as the dialog lift it offered was even cooler than the DSP effects, which I never liked until I tried the front height presence speaker with it). I think the newer Yamahas recommend height speakers and presence speakers in the same locations now high on the front/rear walls. With a switch box, you could even swap them out for material with the ceiling ones (or combine two AVRs and have both running even).


----------



## aarn

A question about the placement of the SVS prime elavation as atmos speakers. I plan to place the pair on the wall above front speakers as front heights. Dimensions of the room: 17' L, 11'10" W, 10' H. MLP 12' from front. What is a better HEIGHT position for the speakers? Is 7' from the ground OK? Or is it the higher the better? Thanks.

Edit: From the manual, the speakers should be mounted as close to the ceiling as possible. Why is that?


----------



## batpig

aarn said:


> A question about the placement of the SVS prime elavation as atmos speakers. I plan to place the pair on the wall above front speakers as front heights. Dimensions of the room: 17' L, 11'10" W, 10' H. MLP 12' from front. What is a better HEIGHT position for the speakers? Is 7' from the ground OK? Or is it the higher the better? Thanks.


As high as possible. Remember, Atmos wants the "tops" at ~45 degree elevation and the "heights" should still be 30+ degrees. Once the heights get lower than 30 degrees it's hard to hear clear separation vs. the ear level speakers and it won't give the "over your head" spatial effect.

In a typical room with 8' ceilings, 3.5' ear height, the front heights may only be 4' above ear level. If you're sitting 10' away, you'll get closer to ~20 degree elevation. 

Luckily your ceilings are 10' high, which is a huge advantage with Atmos (and room acoustics generally). Placing them as high as possible on the front wall should get you close to 30 degrees elevation.

Alternatively, since your room is not very wide, you could go with the mounting option high on the side walls firing down and across, which would put them more directly overhead:


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> Well, you could move those higher up on the walls in the front and back and you'd have your "height" speakers already in place. I had (well still have; it's being used as a 6.1 amp now) a Yamaha and tried the presence speakers in the current front height position at the top of my screen here and it sounded pretty cool (it's why I bothered to do a manual mixer "dialog lift" effect as the dialog lift it offered was even cooler than the DSP effects, which I never liked until I tried the front height presence speaker with it). I think the newer Yamahas recommend height speakers and presence speakers in the same locations now high on the front/rear walls. With a switch box, you could even swap them out for material with the ceiling ones (or combine two AVRs and have both running even).


Being a longtime Yamaha DSP user, I can tell you that not having discrete effects/presence speakers never sounds great since the DSP signals get mixed into the main channels. I learned this early in the game. I would have people listen to my systems that hated the way the Yamaha DSP modes sounded, and say that sounds great-What the heck? They had never heard it implemented with discrete effects speakers properly placed. My presence speakers are Def Tech bipolars, so they really aren't the best for Atmos which specs direct radiating speaker design. Plus, I ran the wires and mounting blocks when the house was being built. If I moved them up there would only be sheetrock to mount them to, and I'd have to extend the wiring and possibly run it on the surface which would lose my clean aesthetics. I recently purchased 2 Yamaha MX-A5000 amps that I'm going to using for only the 4 presence, 4 Atmos, and back surrounds so I can use the A-B switching on the MX between the presence and Atmos using different speaker patterns on my CX for both. In theory I'll be able to run all of them at the same time, but I doubt that will sound right.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

StevenC56 said:


> Long time Yamaha guy here. (Starting with the DSP-A1000 back in the day) Those are the rear "presence" or what used the be "effects" speakers. There's 2 on the front wall in the exact same position as well. My goal is to setup 2 different speaker "patterns" with my CX-A5200. (1) using the front and rear presence speakers for non-Atmos material like I'm currently doing, and (2) using the 4 overhead speakers for Atmos.




I think using DSU or DTS-X would be better personally.


----------



## alangsk

My theater design has two rows of 4 seats.

Am I better off to just pick one MLP and position the Atmos speakers based on that following the Dolby specs, or center them more like the top view below?











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

alangsk said:


> My theater design has two rows of 4 seats.
> 
> Am I better off to just pick one MLP and position the Atmos speakers based on that following the Dolby specs, or center them more like the top view below?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Looks very symmetrical. What are the dimensions of your room? Almost looks square, but I see there is a wall behind the screen that makes the overall space more rectangle. Why don't you install another pair of overheads halfway in between? That would give you more flexibility and maybe future proof the system a bit.


----------



## alangsk

The room seat side of the screen is 19 ft by 16 ft.


----------



## aarn

batpig said:


> As high as possible. Remember, Atmos wants the "tops" at ~45 degree elevation and the "heights" should still be 30+ degrees. Once the heights get lower than 30 degrees it's hard to hear clear separation vs. the ear level speakers and it won't give the "over your head" spatial effect.
> 
> In a typical room with 8' ceilings, 3.5' ear height, the front heights may only be 4' above ear level. If you're sitting 10' away, you'll get closer to ~20 degree elevation.
> 
> Luckily your ceilings are 10' high, which is a huge advantage with Atmos (and room acoustics generally). Placing them as high as possible on the front wall should get you close to 30 degrees elevation.
> 
> Alternatively, since your room is not very wide, you could go with the mounting option high on the side walls firing down and across, which would put them more directly overhead:


Thank you so much @batpig! I'll try the side walls option.


----------



## Matt L

StevenC56 said:


> This is as far back as I can install my rear ceiling Atmos speakers due to 2 ceiling joists only about 8" apart at the rear of my HT. And the fronts would be about 6' forward from that which would be at the recommended 45 degrees. I can install the fronts farther forward, but the rears unfortunately can't go back any further. The center of the rear speakers will be about 2' from the rear wall. and 1.5' front the side wall. My MLP is right at 3' from the rear wall.


 I have a similar situation and placed my rear ceiling speakers as far back as possible and while not ideal they function quite well. They ended up not to far out from the rear wall, but in application the sound is fine, enveloping the space very well.


----------



## dfa973

Demetri Zuev said:


> I have a 4 channel Atmos setup, the back height channels are located right above my head, the front heights are placed similarly to Auro3D layout, on the front wall and angled towards MLP. My LCR is SVS Ultra Bookshelfs/Center, the heights are Cambridge Audio Minx 22. Room correction is handled by Audyssey MultEQ XT32 on my Denon X4400H, all four speakers are marked correctly in receiver's settings.
> 
> *I'm having trouble hearing a distinct soundstage from my front heights, it seems that the floor level of my system kind of eats them up. I can hear effects coming directly from the speakers that are over my head, but the front heights sound gets lost in action of effect heavy mixes.* I also can't clearly discern them even in Atmos demos. Raising sound levels in settings doesn't help much.


This is a general problem with using Front Heights in an Atmos set up. The Front Heights will get drowned by the Main LR channels, no matter what speakers do you use for Front Heights.
I have the same problem and I have disabled the Front Heights and now I am using Surround Atmos Enabled speakers (DAES) instead of Front Heights with very good results.



Demetri Zuev said:


> Minx 22 are compact speakers that can go down to 120Hz only, so I was thinking that, maybe, this is the reason why.


No, the type/size of the speaker is of little importance - basically the Front Heights position is not a good position to get a nice Atmos set up.

Cambridge Audio Minx Min 22 are the perfect speakers for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speakers because of very, very good dispersion - you do not need to aim those speakers to MLP - so if you can change the Front Heights to Top Front and the current Top Middle to Top Rear you will be very pleased by the results!



Demetri Zuev said:


> Been looking at SVS Prime Elevations as a possible solution and replacement for my front heights, since they go down to 55Hz and have a fuller sound. What do you guys think?


The difference will be small.
You need to get away from using Front Heights and switch to full Top Front+Rear speakers. Those Minx Min 22 are perfect as Tops!


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> Given there is no proven audible quality difference with high bit-rate lossy compared to TrueHD, why bother? I guess it's easier to invent a strawman argument around people that "don't care about quality" than prove any claims to the contrary. *Even lowly Netflix increased their maximum negotiated audio bit-rates to 640kbps DD+ *which is extremely transparent (I've yet to see anyone prove they can hear a difference at that bit-rate with regular Dolby Digital let alone Dolby Digital Plus which is supposedly twice as efficient meaning that's equivalent to 1280kbps regular Dolby Digital).


Netflix has used in the past (2016, 2017) mostly DD below 640kbps.



> *Spectral (2016)*
> ID : 2
> Format : AC-3
> Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
> Commercial name : Dolby Digital
> Codec ID : A_AC3
> Duration : 1 h 48 min
> Bit rate mode : Constant
> Bit rate : 576 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 6 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossy
> Delay relative to video : 10 ms
> Stream size : 445 MiB (4%)
> Language : English
> Service kind : Complete Main
> Default : No
> Forced : No



Then they switched to DD+ mostly at 640kbps.



> *The Kindergarten Teacher (2018)*
> ID : 2
> Format : E-AC-3
> Format/Info : Enhanced AC-3
> Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus
> Codec ID : A_EAC3
> Duration : 1 h 37 min
> Bit rate mode : Constant
> Bit rate : 640 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 6 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossy
> Stream size : 444 MiB (16%)
> Language : English
> Service kind : Complete Main
> Default : Yes
> Forced : No


After that, in 2019 they upgraded to DD+ at 768kbps, including Atmos soundtracks.



> *Klaus (2019)*
> ID : 2
> Format : E-AC-3 JOC
> Format/Info : Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding
> Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
> Codec ID : A_EAC3
> Duration : 1 h 38 min
> Bit rate mode : Constant
> Bit rate : 768 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 6 channels
> Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossy
> Stream size : 539 MiB (19%)
> Title : English
> Language : English
> Service kind : Complete Main
> Default : Yes
> Forced : No
> Complexity index : 16
> Number of dynamic objects : 15
> Bed channel count : 1 channel
> Bed channel configuration : LFE


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> Netflix has used in the past (2016, 2017) mostly DD below 640kbps.
> 
> Then they switched to DD+ mostly at 640kbps.
> 
> After that, in 2019 they upgraded to DD+ at 768kbps, including Atmos soundtracks.


I have the impression that the past year Netflix also increased the dynamic range by reducing (or abandoning?) dynamic compression. Any confirmation on that?


----------



## Demetri Zuev

dfa973 said:


> Cambridge Audio Minx Min 22 are the perfect speakers for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speakers because of very, very good dispersion - you do not need to aim those speakers to MLP - so if you can change the Front Heights to Top Front and the current Top Middle to Top Rear you will be very pleased by the results!


Thank you for your reassuring response!

The one thing I'm concerned with in regards to moving my Top Middle speakers to Top Rear position is that I have my Surround backs sitting behind the couch and firing their sound up (space constraints compromise). Do you think it will cause the sound from Surround Backs to collide with sound coming from Top rears?

I've also attached a schematic of my room with all speaker placement, what would be the best way to adjust their positions based on this one?


----------



## dfa973

maikeldepotter said:


> I have the impression that the past year Netflix also increased the dynamic range by reducing (or abandoning?) dynamic compression. Any confirmation on that?


Yes, in 2018 (or earlier...) they did introduce some dialnorm and LRA changes to their content.
But in April 2019 they removed those changes and updated those specs - see the changelog here (at the end).


----------



## dfa973

Demetri Zuev said:


> The one thing I'm concerned with in regards to moving my Top Middle speakers to Top Rear position is that I have my Surround backs sitting behind the couch and firing their sound up (space constraints compromise).


Not an ideal setup, for sure - I have the same space constraints and I use a 5.1.4 setup instead of 7.1.4 just for this reason - not enough rear space behind the couch...




Demetri Zuev said:


> Do you think it will cause the sound from Surround Backs to collide with sound coming from Top rears?


In theory, yes. In practice it may be OK, the Surround Back speakers are not used as much as we expect...



Demetri Zuev said:


> I've also attached a schematic of my room with all speaker placement, what would be the best way to adjust their positions based on this one?


I would just remove the Surround Back speakers and use those Minx Min 22 speakers as Top Front and Top Rear, in a classic 5.1.4 setup.
The Top Rear speakers on the ceiling, right above the L+R edge of the couch.
The Top Front speakers at the same alignment to the L+R of the couch, but a little in front of the couch (halfway between the Front LR and Top Rear LR) - so that sound destined for "Top Middle" will phantom right above the couch.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Demetri Zuev said:


> Thank you for your reassuring response!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing I'm concerned with in regards to moving my Top Middle speakers to Top Rear position is that I have my Surround backs sitting behind the couch and firing their sound up (space constraints compromise). Do you think it will cause the sound from Surround Backs to collide with sound coming from Top rears?
> 
> 
> 
> I've also attached a schematic of my room with all speaker placement, what would be the best way to adjust their positions based on this one?




I completely agree with dfa that the rear surrounds should just come out. IMO, you should have 5-6’ behind you for rear surrounds to be effective, and not a distraction. Less is more. From the picture, it looks like your front end is about the same width as the couch. I think you might get better results overall AND be able to use 7.1.4 if you rotated the gear clockwise 90°. Your room and useage might not allow for this but might be worth a try.


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> This is a general problem with using Front Heights in an Atmos set up. The Front Heights will get drowned by the Main LR channels, no matter what speakers do you use for Front Heights.


I'm sorry, but I can't let that pass. That's absolute nonsense. I have zero trouble hearing my front height speakers and they blend in perfectly with my top middle and rear heights and can image at any point on the 24' long ceiling (e.g. Flatliners intro in Atmos or Auro-3D has voices moving all over the ceiling from all three rows of seats). They also do double duty for dialog lift via mixer and match perfectly (same drivers). 

I get one continuous bubble of sound. I think some ceiling speakers transition too abruptly with nothing in-between and start 1/3 the way out into the room instead of correlating directly with the screen.




> No, the type/size of the speaker is of little importance - basically the Front Heights position is not a good position to get a nice Atmos set up.


Yeah, I'm sure the rules of physics change with front height. You can't get imaging or volume with a fifteen degree drop in elevation. They cease to function along with the rest of reality. 



> The difference will be small.
> You need to get away from using Front Heights and switch to full Top Front+Rear speakers. Those Minx Min 22 are perfect as Tops!


Absolute nonsense.


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't let that pass. That's absolute nonsense. I have zero trouble hearing my front height speakers and they blend in perfectly with my top middle and rear heights and can image at any point on the 24' long ceiling (e.g. Flatliners intro in Atmos or Auro-3D has voices moving all over the ceiling from all three rows of seats).


I understand your point of view but try to set up a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 audio system with .2 as Front Heights (in assignment AND position, of course).
After that, come back and tell us how those Front Heights blend in and how much are you satisfied by your Atmos setup.
Then, add Top Middle (in assignment AND position) and calibrate+test again. Do you "feel" that those Front Heights are there or that are drowned by L+R and the Top Middles?
Demos that use overheads almost exclusively do not count. Only real content (actual movies) counts in this assessment.


----------



## Demetri Zuev

MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't let that pass. That's absolute nonsense. I have zero trouble hearing my front height speakers and they blend in perfectly with my top middle and rear heights and can image at any point on the 24' long ceiling (e.g. Flatliners intro in Atmos or Auro-3D has voices moving all over the ceiling from all three rows of seats). They also do double duty for dialog lift via mixer and match perfectly (same drivers).
> 
> I get one continuous bubble of sound. I think some ceiling speakers transition too abruptly with nothing in-between and start 1/3 the way out into the room instead of correlating directly with the screen.


What would you suggest for my situation?


----------



## Demetri Zuev

dfa973 said:


> I would just remove the Surround Back speakers and use those Minx Min 22 speakers as Top Front and Top Rear, in a classic 5.1.4 setup.
> The Top Rear speakers on the ceiling, right above the L+R edge of the couch.
> The Top Front speakers at the same alignment to the L+R of the couch, but a little in front of the couch (halfway between the Front LR and Top Rear LR) - so that sound destined for "Top Middle" will phantom right above the couch.


I do have one thing that prevents me from an ideal placement for Top Fronts and that is a ceiling light.

Here's a picture of the ceiling (an old one, before I got the front heights)

So the question really is - to put my front heights closer to the TV or to the couch on the other side of the light, where the top middles are in the picture...


----------



## dfa973

Demetri Zuev said:


> So the question really is - to put my front heights closer to the TV or to the couch on the other side of the light, where the top middles are in the picture...


A little ahead of the light, not nearer to the couch.


----------



## Kliptick

This may be a stupid question and one that has already been answered. But I am new to ATMOS and can't find it.

I bought a new house back in November and with a new house comes a new TV and more speakers. At my old house I didn't really have a need for ATMOS as the room was much smaller. So I upgraded from a 60" Samsung JU6400 to a 82" Samsung Q80. But now that the living room and TV is much bigger I want to put speakers in the ceiling for ATMOS to fill the room with sound. I can't use the optical audio cable, it has to be newer HDMI cables for ATMOS right? How do I go about hooking it up, do I go from HDMI (ARC) input 4 on the TV to the HDMI (ARC) output on the receiver? Or do I go from HDMI (ARC) input 4 on the TV to the TV HDMI input on the receiver? I want to just the apps through the TV so I can use my Nvidia Shield in another room.

Again sorry if this has been asked before but I couldn't find it.

Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> I understand your point of view but try to set up a 5.1.2 or 7.1.2 audio system with .2 as Front Heights (in assignment AND position, of course).


I must have missed the part where he said he was doing .2 .....



> After that, come back and tell us how those Front Heights blend in and how much are you satisfied by your Atmos setup.


So you're of the opinion Atmos overheads shouldn't "blend" into the soundstage, but should stick out like a sore thumb? Do you like your side surrounds to stick out too and not smoothly pan from front to side to back so you notice them more? 

I'm of the opinion an Atmos setup should make the speakers disappear and sounds should come from wherever they're supposed to, not notice all the time they're coming from a specific speaker. A lot of material doesn't use Atmos much at all, so it's hard to tell over the Net if there's even something wrong with his setup. The DTS:X speaker callout demo is a good place to start. The voice should sound about even from each speaker and he would know instantly whether they're working correctly or not and adjust from there. The Atmos "Horizon" demo pans a spaceship above from behind to front. It's a good test for even movement and response.

Front Height wouldn't be my first choice for only two overheads (top middle is best there), but it's better than nothing if that's the only thing that would fit. But if you want front screen to back coverage and/or Auro-3D compatibility there's not much else choice.


----------



## galonzo

@Kliptick , owning 2014 and 2015 Sammy flagship TVs, and passing on 2016 and 2017s, I wouldn't think you could get Atmos out of the Q80, but I could be wrong; a better place to search/ask is the dedicated thread for your TV.


----------



## aarn

@MagnumX, so if I want to have a 5.2.2 setup, is it better to place the pair of atmos speakers on the side walls near the MLP or as front heights?


----------



## asharma

*Paradigm 25S surrounds for Dolby Atmos*

Hi Folks


I know Dolby recommends monopoles for Atmos (correct me if I am wrong) and I currently have Paradigm 15b's as side surrounds...I just bought a pair of Paradigm 25s's (bipoles)...My room is 12 wide and 17 deep with seating 12 feet back (ie.5 ft available behind the seating)...


Where should I put the bipoles? Back wall or move the 15b's to the back wall and use the bipoles on the side wall? I only have 1 row of seating with 2 chairs and I am in the sweetspot 100 percent of the time...


If the bipoles are on the side walls, will I still "feel" the discreet placement of Atmos on the sides?


Thanks folks...


----------



## MagnumX

aarn said:


> @MagnumX, so if I want to have a 5.2.2 setup, is it better to place the pair of atmos speakers on the side walls near the MLP or as front heights?


As long as you can get them high enough (like SVS) and your ceiling is close to 8' or more, I'd go with the high side wall speakers as you'll get sounds directly overhead. With only front heights, they'll be in front of you and less noticeable as a result. 

Now in a small room, front/rear heights work fine overhead, but as the room gets too long (say >15' or so), you either need a top middle of some kind to bridge the angles (preferably always active like extracted or matrixed as many Atmos tracks won't use them and the DTS 11-channel limit on the other end prevents them; I use extracted) or "tops" speakers or even side heights like SVS spaced out into the room so the angle between them isn't too large (i.e. Side heights mounted the same distances into the room as tops).

With one row of seats, I'd tend to go seat orientated, but with more than one row I'd lean more towards room symmetry (e.g. My top middle/side heights are at the middle of the room (two sets of drivers facing forward and backward) with side surrounds directly below them and front/rear heights at the front/back of the room within a couple feet and then front wides in front of the front row, sides behind it and surround #1 between the second and third row and rear surrounds behind that so everyone gets surrounded.


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> Hi Folks
> 
> 
> I know Dolby recommends monopoles for Atmos (correct me if I am wrong) and I currently have Paradigm 15b's as side surrounds...I just bought a pair of Paradigm 25s's (bipoles)...My room is 12 wide and 17 deep with seating 12 feet back (ie.5 ft available behind the seating)...
> 
> 
> Where should I put the bipoles? Back wall or move the 15b's to the back wall and use the bipoles on the side wall? I only have 1 row of seating with 2 chairs and I am in the sweetspot 100 percent of the time...
> 
> 
> If the bipoles are on the side walls, will I still "feel" the discreet placement of Atmos on the sides?
> 
> 
> Thanks folks...


Bipoles are fine in the back drivers facing forward/backward. This gives them some extra sense of space and may improve the imaging as sounding more palpable in space. Just don't push them right up against the back wall. I'd leave at least 12" for a bipole and 3.5' for a dipole used that way.

You can use them on the sides, but sitting in the null side between drivers doesn't image as well, IMO as a monopole, but if the are used between rows like my side heights, one set of drivers face the front and the other the back. As long as the seats are in the "on-axis" part of the dispersion, it just sounds lie having a monopole facing each direction (kind of like having surround #1 for the rows behind it and side surround in front). But with one row of seats, I don't recommend it used that way. 

In short, I'd put them as rear surrounds 12"-16" off the back wall drivers facing front/back towards the MLP and back wall for a more spacious rear sound.


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> Bipoles are fine in the back drivers facing forward/backward. This gives them some extra sense of space and may improve the imaging as sounding more palpable in space. Just don't push them right up against the back wall. I'd leave at least 12" for a bipole and 3.5' for a dipole used that way.
> 
> You can use them on the sides, but sitting in the null side between drivers doesn't image as well, IMO as a monopole, but if the are used between rows like my side heights, one set of drivers face the front and the other the back. As long as the seats are in the "on-axis" part of the dispersion, it just sounds lie having a monopole facing each direction (kind of like having surround #1 for the rows behind it and side surround in front). But with one row of seats, I don't recommend it used that way.
> 
> In short, I'd put them as rear surrounds 12"-16" off the back wall drivers facing front/back towards the MLP and back wall for a more spacious rear sound.


 Thanks really appreciate the help here...I'll try to provide more context...17' long room, and seating 12 feet back leaving 5 feet between seating and rear wall...In these 5 feet I'll have side surrounds, my 2 ceiling rears, and then rear surrounds...If I follow your suggestion of essentially placing them sideways 12" off the back wall they will essentially be right under my ceiling rears and I only have 88" ceilings...Is that common to place bipoles sideways or are you suggesting given my particular "predicament" sideways will be best? I'm not sure aesthetically I will win any points...I was "hoping" someone would say side wall is fine, even with 1 row of seating, and move my monopoles to the rear wall...But please don't tell me what I want to hear...What would the downside be on the sidewall for the bipoles? Thanks again...


Edit: I know you mentioned the null but I didn't think bipoles had a null, only dipoles...


----------



## MagnumX

@asharma - It's not technically a null on a bipole. I just don't know what else to call it. The point is you are sitting between two sets of drivers and the are typically not facing you so response isn't usually as good and you're sitting between a two speaker array so it will sound like a monopole facing you in terms of imaging, but not as clear in terms of frequency response.

Def Tech makes bipole for front/back use (i.e.One driver faces you and the other faces the rear wall). Used like this, they sound more spacious like a natural dipole radiator (e.g. My Carver ribbon speakers upstairs are dipoles used front back and sit like four feet from the front wall to avoid cancelling themselves out) except dipoles don't need to sit so far away from the reflecting wall as the are in phase with each other.

You can use the bipoles on the wall if you like, but you might want to space them forwards or backwards relative to the seating so one driver acts more like a monopole (why mine as side heights are between rows of seats so drivers face each set of seats instead of sitting between the two drivers like you do with surround dipoles.). The frequency response will be better. 

If you only have five feet behind you, either put the bipoles on the side walls a few feet in front of you or just behind you with the rears close to the back walls.


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> @*asharma* - It's not technically a null on a bipole. I just don't know what else to call it. The point is you are sitting between two sets of drivers and the are typically not facing you so response isn't usually as good and you're sitting between a two speaker array so it will sound like a monopole facing you in terms of imaging, but not as clear in terms of frequency response.
> 
> Def Tech makes bipole for front/back use (i.e.One driver faces you and the other faces the rear wall). Used like this, they sound more spacious like a natural dipole radiator (e.g. My Carver ribbon speakers upstairs are dipoles used front back and sit like four feet from the front wall to avoid cancelling themselves out) except dipoles don't need to sit so far away from the reflecting wall as the are in phase with each other.
> 
> You can use the bipoles on the wall if you like, but you might want to space them forwards or backwards relative to the seating so one driver acts more like a monopole (why mine as side heights are between rows of seats so drivers face each set of seats instead of sitting between the two drivers like you do with surround dipoles.). The frequency response will be better.
> 
> If you only have five feet behind you, either put the bipoles on the side walls a few feet in front of you or just behind you with the rears close to the back walls.


Thanks again, in your last sentence u mention behind me with the rears close to the back walls. Do u still mean place them "sideways" and 12" away from the back wall? I'm sensing I may have been better off just buying another pair of monopoles for the rears and leaving my side monopoles in place...Would that have been better? I have to admit I do like the aesthetic of the side wall with the bipole and like you said perhaps have them forward a bit so the rear driver is firing into my seating row...


----------



## aarn

MagnumX said:


> aarn said:
> 
> 
> 
> @MagnumX, so if I want to have a 5.2.2 setup, is it better to place the pair of atmos speakers on the side walls near the MLP or as front heights?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you can get them high enough (like SVS) and your ceiling is close to 8' or more, I'd go with the high side wall speakers as you'll get sounds directly overhead. With only front heights, they'll be in front of you and less noticeable as a result.
Click to expand...

I see. My ceiling is 10', and I have one row 12' from the screen. Thank you!


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*asharma* - It's not technically a null on a bipole. I just don't know what else to call it. The point is you are sitting between two sets of drivers and the are typically not facing you so response isn't usually as good and you're sitting between a two speaker array so it will sound like a monopole facing you in terms of imaging, but not as clear in terms of frequency response.
> 
> Def Tech makes bipole for front/back use (i.e.One driver faces you and the other faces the rear wall). Used like this, they sound more spacious like a natural dipole radiator (e.g. My Carver ribbon speakers upstairs are dipoles used front back and sit like four feet from the front wall to avoid cancelling themselves out) except dipoles don't need to sit so far away from the reflecting wall as the are in phase with each other.
> 
> You can use the bipoles on the wall if you like, but you might want to space them forwards or backwards relative to the seating so one driver acts more like a monopole (why mine as side heights are between rows of seats so drivers face each set of seats instead of sitting between the two drivers like you do with surround dipoles.). The frequency response will be better.
> 
> If you only have five feet behind you, either put the bipoles on the side walls a few feet in front of you or just behind you with the rears close to the back walls.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, in your last sentence u mention behind me with the rears close to the back walls. Do u still mean place them "sideways" and 12" away from the back wall? I'm sensing I may have been better off just buying another pair of monopoles for the rears and leaving my side monopoles in place...Would that have been better? I have to admit I do like the aesthetic of the side wall with the bipole and like you said perhaps have them forward a bit so the rear driver is firing into my seating row...
Click to expand...

I'd have to see what they look like to be sure, but with two sets five feet behind you they're probably ok to use as you originally imagined. Are the angled bipoles (like 50-70 degrees apart) or 180 degrees apart (front and back drivers)?

I was thinking of my front/back BP10 bipoles for front/back, but I'm getting he impression these ar all angled. I also assume you are saying all four surrounds are bipoles? I apparently wasn't paying close enough attention I've looked at so many setups recently and my phone kind of sucks for going back to look (doesn't seem to like the mobile interface too well; it reloads a lot).

The bottom line is as long as you're getting a good on-axis response in terms of clarity, it'll probably do ok. I can't guarantee they'll sound as good as straight monopoles in terms of pinpoint imaging, but certainly my S50 PSBs do OK bridging my front/rear heights.


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> I'd have to see what they look like to be sure, but with two sets five feet behind you they're probably ok to use as you originally imagined. Are the angled bipoles (like 50-70 degrees apart) or 180 degrees apart (front and back drivers)?
> 
> I was thinking of my front/back BP10 bipoles for front/back, but I'm getting he impression these ar all angled. I also assume you are saying all four surrounds are bipoles? I apparently wasn't paying close enough attention I've looked at so many setups recently and my phone kind of sucks for going back to look (doesn't seem to like the mobile interface too well; it reloads a lot).
> 
> The bottom line is as long as you're getting a good on-axis response in terms of clarity, it'll probably do ok. I can't guarantee they'll sound as good as straight monopoles in terms of pinpoint imaging, but certainly my S50 PSBs do OK bridging my front/rear heights.


Thanks, the existing sided surrounds are monopoles, the yet to arrive speakers are bipoles...I was planning on moving the existing monopoles to the back wall and using the yet to arrive bipoles on the side wall...I’ll try to attach a pic of the bipoles...here goes


----------



## StevenC56

Here's my HT using Def Tech bipole BPVX's for both side and back surrounds. The smaller BPX's on the outer back walls are for Yamaha's "presence" effects channels and another pair is mirrored on the front wall for the front "presence" effects channels. They are 4' down from the 10' ceiling per Yamaha's specs back in the day, so they are too low to use effectively as height speakers. The side BPVX's are placed in between the rear MLP riser seats and the lower secondary seating. The back surrounds are on stands in between seats 1/2 & 3/4 in the MLP recliners. It creates a decent bubble in the MLP. Just need 4 top speakers now. Heading up into my attic to take a few more measurements before I cut four 9" round holes in my ceiling. I have to say that I'm a bit nervous about this.


----------



## asharma

StevenC56 said:


> Here's my HT using Def Tech bipole BPVX's for both side and back surrounds. The smaller BPX's on the outer back walls are for Yamaha's "presence" effects channels and another pair is mirrored on the front wall for the front "presence" effects channels. They are 4' down from the 10' ceiling per Yamaha's specs back in the day, so they are too low to use effectively as height speakers. The side BPVX's are placed in between the rear MLP riser seats and the lower secondary seating. The back surrounds are on stands in between seats 1/2 & 3/4 in the MLP recliners. It creates a decent bubble in the MLP. Just need 4 top speakers now. Heading up into my attic to take a few more measurements before I cut four 9" round holes in my ceiling. I have to say that I'm a bit nervous about this.


Are u running Atmos now? If u r, do u feel u r getting pinpoint accuracy from the side bipoles?


----------



## StevenC56

asharma said:


> Are u running Atmos now? If u r, do u feel u r getting pinpoint accuracy from the side bipoles?


Yes, because of the angled design on the Def Techs and the placement, the arrays on the rear of the side surrounds and the inside of the back surrounds aim directly at the 2 center seats where my wife and I sit.


----------



## asharma

StevenC56 said:


> Yes, because of the angled design on the Def Techs and the placement, the arrays on the rear of the side surrounds and the inside of the back surrounds aim directly at the 2 center seats where my wife and I sit.


Thanks, So for your side surrounds, you have them positioned a little more forward that your MLP so the rear drivers of the side surrounds fire directly at the MLP? If yes, what’s the audio implication of having the front drivers of your side surrounds in front of your MLP?


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> Thanks, So for your side surrounds, you have them positioned a little more forward that your MLP so the rear drivers of the side surrounds fire directly at the MLP? If yes, what’s the audio implication of having the front drivers of your side surrounds in front of your MLP?


Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest when I said either a little forward or backward of the seating area so a set of tweeters and midrange face the seating area. With the other speakers behind, you having the sides a bit in front of you actually works well, IMO. My 2nd row sounds like that and it's probably got freakier surround effects than the front row, although the main stage isn't quite as hard hitting (the volume starts dropping off towards the back and vice versa so it's hard to get all seats "perfect". I actually thought about storing two sets of settings on USB for "compromised for 6 seats in 3 rows" and "optmiized for the front 3 seats. It would basically just crank the front channels a few db and reduce the back channels a few dB so it's more even in the middle row and rear "seat" (hard to call it a 'row' with one seat back there, but it is a centered seat so the surround is quite good).

Here's a little "virtual slideshow" of my home theater room (going in a circle) with the layout diagram I made (not 100% up to date for decorations, but the theater equipment is the same). You can see the S50 bipole wall speakers sitting above the monopole B15 below it just behind the first row and then another B15 "surround #1 ) between the second and third rows with the X1T rears and CS500 Rear heights above them in the back. There's B15s for front wides and front heights (on the bookshelf) as well. They all use the same drivers except the X1T/CS500 in the back and they're just updated drivers from a slightly newer lineup but sound quite similar in practice (all rated +/- 1.5dB across the on-axis main range of each speaker). Notice how the surround and wides, etc. are between the rows instead of on the sides. That let me put the first and second rows much closer to the walls than would otherwise work and thus otherwise I wouldn't be able to fit even six recliners in the room (3 are powered lift chairs I got on sale, BTW, another is a powered massage/heat chair (the MLP) plus two oversized "plush" manual recliners (right front and center mid) so lots of comfy seating options in my Geriatric Theater Mark 2.0.


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest when I said either a little forward or backward of the seating area so a set of tweeters and midrange face the seating area. With the other speakers behind, you having the sides a bit in front of you actually works well, IMO. My 2nd row sounds like that and it's probably got freakier surround effects than the front row, although the main stage isn't quite as hard hitting (the volume starts dropping off towards the back and vice versa so it's hard to get all seats "perfect". I actually thought about storing two sets of settings on USB for "compromised for 6 seats in 3 rows" and "optmiized for the front 3 seats. It would basically just crank the front channels a few db and reduce the back channels a few dB so it's more even in the middle row and rear "seat" (hard to call it a 'row' with one seat back there, but it is a centered seat so the surround is quite good).
> 
> Here's a little "virtual slideshow" of my home theater room (going in a circle) with the layout diagram I made (not 100% up to date for decorations, but the theater equipment is the same). You can see the S50 bipole wall speakers sitting above the monopole B15 below it just behind the first row and then another B15 "surround #1 ) between the second and third rows with the X1T rears and CS500 Rear heights above them in the back. There's B15s for front wides and front heights (on the bookshelf) as well. They all use the same drivers except the X1T/CS500 in the back and they're just updated drivers from a slightly newer lineup but sound quite similar in practice (all rated +/- 1.5dB across the on-axis main range of each speaker). Notice how the surround and wides, etc. are between the rows instead of on the sides. That let me put the first and second rows much closer to the walls than would otherwise work and thus otherwise I wouldn't be able to fit even six recliners in the room (3 are powered lift chairs I got on sale, BTW, another is a powered massage/heat chair (the MLP) plus two oversized "plush" manual recliners (right front and center mid) so lots of comfy seating options in my Geriatric Theater Mark 2.0.


Wholly crap, THAT is a boatload of speakers...you must feel totally surrounded! Very nice!

As per your advice, I think I’m going to move the monopoles to rear wall and put the bipoles on the side walls just ahead of the MLP so the rear tweeter and midrange fires into the MLP...that, as you say, when combined with rear ceilings and rear surrounds should work well...What’s your opinion on the forward firing driver being in front of the MLP? What’s the implication when the Atmos signal hits the bipole side surround?


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> Wholly crap, THAT is a boatload of speakers...you must feel totally surrounded! Very nice!


Thanks. I kind of went nuts finding a way to stuff speakers in every nook and cranny. But it really improves off-axis imaging for the other seats plus looks pretty cool. There aren't too many 17.1 (or more) home theaters out there (yet). I've kind of gone nuts with the movie poster/prop theming though. I wouldn't want to guess how much I have in props at this point (that Cross of Coronado alone back there hanging by the Raiders poster was around $400 with 24K gold plating, real pearls, etc. and looks 99.9% just like the one made for the movie, made by a guy that goes by "Relic Maker" on the RPF (prop) site. I paid just over $800 for the REAL pearl/black touch tip clock/watch lighter from the Maltese Falcon from Sam Spade's desk in mint condition. Ridiculous, I know. 




> As per your advice, I think I’m going to move the monopoles to rear wall and put the bipoles on the side walls just ahead of the MLP so the rear tweeter and midrange fires into the MLP...that, as you say, when combined with rear ceilings and rear surrounds should work well...What’s your opinion on the forward firing driver being in front of the MLP? What’s the implication when the Atmos signal hits the bipole side surround?


Well, it's going to send a sound wave towards the front of the room and create a reflection for better (or more likely worse). Without any seats up there, it's an unnecessary one. I suppose you could always disconnect the drivers if you're worried about them muddying the sound (on my S50, you just unscrew the screws around the drivers and they come forward out the front and are just friction fit tab connectors (I changed the tweeters to extremely good off-axis fabric tweeters for front height and side height since I couldn't tilt them down much or at all, respectively, which gave me better response, but I could have easily disabled the drivers on one side inside of 5 minutes each if I wanted to. But mine point towards front/rear rows so they're both on).


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> Thanks. I kind of went nuts finding a way to stuff speakers in every nook and cranny. But it really improves off-axis imaging for the other seats plus looks pretty cool. There aren't too many 17.1 (or more) home theaters out there (yet). I've kind of gone nuts with the movie poster/prop theming though. I wouldn't want to guess how much I have in props at this point (that Cross of Coronado alone back there hanging by the Raiders poster was around $400 with 24K gold plating, real pearls, etc. and looks 99.9% just like the one made for the movie, made by a guy that goes by "Relic Maker" on the RPF (prop) site. I paid just over $800 for the REAL pearl/black touch tip clock/watch lighter from the Maltese Falcon from Sam Spade's desk in mint condition. Ridiculous, I know.
> 
> 
> Well, it's going to send a sound wave towards the front of the room and create a reflection for better (or more likely worse). Without any seats up there, it's an unnecessary one. I suppose you could always disconnect the drivers if you're worried about them muddying the sound (on my S50, you just unscrew the screws around the drivers and they come forward out the front and are just friction fit tab connectors (I changed the tweeters to extremely good off-axis fabric tweeters for front height and side height since I couldn't tilt them down much or at all, respectively, which gave me better response, but I could have easily disabled the drivers on one side inside of 5 minutes each if I wanted to. But mine point towards front/rear rows so they're both on).


It’s a crazy hobby so go crazy on the props you want...there is nooooo way that I could possibly justify all the $$ spent on this hobby when it would be much cheaper to just go to the theatre 

Uggg, so the front firing driver “sounds” like it will be a problem...I’m thinking I should just go buy another set of monopoles  and scrap the whole bipole idea...I’m thinking bipoles are made for multiple rows where you want dispersion but not for a single row of seating...


----------



## StevenC56

asharma said:


> It’s a crazy hobby so go crazy on the props you want...there is nooooo way that I could possibly justify all the $$ spent on this hobby when it would be much cheaper to just go to the theatre
> 
> Uggg, so the front firing driver “sounds” like it will be a problem...I’m thinking I should just go buy another set of monopoles  and scrap the whole bipole idea...I’m thinking bipoles are made for multiple rows where you want dispersion but not for a single row of seating...


Don't be so hard on yourself. Just like life, Home Theater at times requires some compromises. Unless you are building a theater totally from scratch without any restrictions, have a wealth of knowledge in acoustics and physics, and carry the Nostradamus gene to forecast future technology changes.


----------



## asharma

StevenC56 said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself. Just like life, Home Theater at times requires some compromises. Unless you are building a theater totally from scratch without any restrictions, have a wealth of knowledge in acoustics and physics, and carry the Nostradamus gene to forecast future technology changes.


Thanks and understood, but rightly or wrongly I am a stickler on the science of this “stuff” to a point as I’m sure someone could walk into my room and easily point out where improvements could be made...

For Atmos, for a single row of seating, I’m now convinced a monopole is scientifically the right answer...the question is, if I mount the bipoles as my sides, will I be able to hear any difference even tho in my mind, I know a monopole scientifically is the proper solution...the bipoles will only be 5-6 feet from each ear...


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> It’s a crazy hobby so go crazy on the props you want...there is nooooo way that I could possibly justify all the $$ spent on this hobby when it would be much cheaper to just go to the theatre
> 
> Uggg, so the front firing driver “sounds” like it will be a problem...I’m thinking I should just go buy another set of monopoles  and scrap the whole bipole idea...I’m thinking bipoles are made for multiple rows where you want dispersion but not for a single row of seating...


Why not rig it up to try it first while you have them. I'm not saying it will sound bad. In all likelihood you might not be able to tell the difference either way. Hell set them on some step ladders or chairs or something and try them at different points to the sides and see how they sound. If the off-axis response is good, it might even sound good straight across from the seating or just behind it or whatever (unless can't get a refund if you open them or hook them up, etc.) I probably wouldn't have gone for the S50s offhand if I hadn't already owned them from my previous home theater setup there using 6.1. I just reused a lot of speakers since I like PSB and replaced some tweeters and bought more and found a way to make it all work. I'm still using a Def Tech sub from 1995 for goodness sake! I get flat 20Hz-100Hz response within 1.5dB at the MLP so what do I care if some people have told me it's ancient and no good (like at Audioholics). It sounds damn good to me in the room and the REW curves say it IS damn good. So what if it's old? I'll use it until it breaks and meanwhile add a second sub in the back area near surround #1 by the fireplace (stick that fake fern I have there on top of it to look good). I'll get something better, probably. Maybe something crazy. Hell, for the price of those props, I almost could have had the subwoofer of my dreams (1400W 24" driver based system flat to 14Hz with good response to 7Hz!) called the Mariana 24SR from Deep Sea Sound. (https://www.deepseasound.com/products/mariana-24sr-24-subwoofer). Get the pipe organ music out baby!


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> Why not rig it up to try it first while you have them. I'm not saying it will sound bad. In all likelihood you might not be able to tell the difference either way. Hell set them on some step ladders or chairs or something and try them at different points to the sides and see how they sound. If the off-axis response is good, it might even sound good straight across from the seating or just behind it or whatever (unless can't get a refund if you open them or hook them up, etc.) I probably wouldn't have gone for the S50s offhand if I hadn't already owned them from my previous home theater setup there using 6.1. I just reused a lot of speakers since I like PSB and replaced some tweeters and bought more and found a way to make it all work. I'm still using a Def Tech sub from 1995 for goodness sake! I get flat 20Hz-100Hz response within 1.5dB at the MLP so what do I care if some people have told me it's ancient and no good (like at Audioholics). It sounds damn good to me in the room and the REW curves say it IS damn good. So what if it's old? I'll use it until it breaks and meanwhile add a second sub in the back area near surround #1 by the fireplace (stick that fake fern I have there on top of it to look good). I'll get something better, probably. Maybe something crazy. Hell, for the price of those props, I almost could have had the subwoofer of my dreams (1400W 24" driver based system flat to 14Hz with good response to 7Hz!) called the Mariana 24SR from Deep Sea Sound. (https://www.deepseasound.com/products/mariana-24sr-24-subwoofer). Get the pipe organ music out baby!


Thanks, yeah I’m gonna give them a whirl in a few different positions...I doubt I’ll even be able to hear a difference with these old ears...

Edit: Also just read in the Dolby Atmos white paper monopoles or bipoles are fine, just NOT dipoles...


----------



## blake

How high should I place my side surround speakers in 9.1.4 atmos system ? 2nd row seats are 12” higher than front row. The whole surround bed will, or course, be the same height BUT should I :

1. Keep side surrounds at ear level or slightly lower (relative to row 2) , to ensure they are


----------



## MagnumX

@blake - I think you've covered the crutch of the matter. It's a trade off and rather subjective which might be preferred. The theaters go higher but also have high ceilings. You could also consider aligning the surround sounds with the screen 1/3 to 1/2 up so it's more "realistic" in that sense. 

Actually the theaters typically stagger the surrounds with the change in elevation of the seating with stadium seating so you could start lower in front and raise the surrounds up with the 2nd row change in height.


----------



## jsgrise

Netflix Dracula season 1, episode 1, is it me or there is a fly in the room?


----------



## niterida

asharma said:


> Thanks, yeah I’m gonna give them a whirl in a few different positions...I doubt I’ll even be able to hear a difference with these old ears...
> 
> Edit: Also just read in the Dolby Atmos white paper monopoles or bipoles are fine, just NOT dipoles...



Late to the party on this one but in my testing you do not want bipoles as surrounds unless they are between 2 rows.


Bipoles directly to the side sound like crap compared to monopoles. You can clearly hear the difference and they are not suited for Atmos. I know this from direct testing of replacing a monopole wih a bipole and playing the same source material.


If you put a bipole in front so only one driver is aligned to the MLP you are defeating the purpose of a bipole and may as well just use a monopole.


Put the bipoles on the back wall and enjoy


----------



## usc1995

niterida said:


> Late to the party on this one but in my testing you do not want bipoles as surrounds unless they are between 2 rows.
> 
> 
> Bipoles directly to the side sound like crap compared to monopoles. You can clearly hear the difference and they are not suited for Atmos. I know this from direct testing of replacing a monopole wih a bipole and playing the same source material.
> 
> 
> If you put a bipole in front so only one driver is aligned to the MLP you are defeating the purpose of a bipole and may as well just use a monopole.
> 
> 
> Put the bipoles on the back wall and enjoy




Bipoles are useful if you have sit close to them. In my room the two outside seats of my couch are only three feet from the side surrounds. If I used monopoles there I would get overwhelmed by that channel quickly. Bipoles do a good job of spreading the sound without diffusing in it such a way that would muddy the object sounds like dipoles would.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

usc1995 said:


> Bipoles are useful if you have sit close to them. In my room the two outside seats of my couch are only three feet from the side surrounds. If I used monopoles there I would get overwhelmed by that channel quickly. Bipoles do a good job of spreading the sound without diffusing in it such a way that would muddy the object sounds like dipoles would.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


My surrounds are also 3' away and I would still not recommend bipoles. I actually turn the settings down by 1.5db on the AVR just to attenuate them a little and I also put them at the lowest distance available on the AVR - this has the effect of delaying that sound and actually makes them appear to be further away - probably not recommended by technical purists but it definitely works for me.

With the bipoles I found that sounds that panned from front to back did not pan smoothly and jumped from just in front of you to just behind you immediately, creating a hole in the sound right beside you. 

I usually say that there is no right or wrong for speaker setup (as long as you are roughly in the recommendations) but for this one I am going to stick to my opinion that you should not use bipoles for surrounds (except between rows). It simply does not sound right.


----------



## asharma

niterida said:


> My surrounds are also 3' away and I would still not recommend bipoles. I actually turn the settings down by 1.5db on the AVR just to attenuate them a little and I also put them at the lowest distance available on the AVR - this has the effect of delaying that sound and actually makes them appear to be further away - probably not recommended by technical purists but it definitely works for me.
> 
> With the bipoles I found that sounds that panned from front to back did not pan smoothly and jumped from just in front of you to just behind you immediately, creating a hole in the sound right beside you.
> 
> I usually say that there is no right or wrong for speaker setup (as long as you are roughly in the recommendations) but for this one I am going to stick to my opinion that you should not use bipoles for surrounds (except between rows). It simply does not sound right.


Appreciate the input from everyone...that’s why this forum is great...given I’m committed to my bipoles like the pig is to bacon, I’ll do some testing first...if I don’t like em, I’ll flip em out and buy another pair of Paradigm 15bs...

I not sure these old ears will hear a difference...the back 5 feet of my room, behind and beside my seating position I have side surrounds, rear ceilings (ceilings only 88” high) and rear surrounds so I don’t have a lot of separation to begin with which probably results in a bunch of non standard wacky things that happen with sound...


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Dipoles can work very nicely in the right room for side surround speakers. I don't think saying blank statements like "Dipoles are crap for side surrounds" is the right approach. That "one size fits all" attitude can lead to less than optimal sound performance with Dolby Atmos, IMHO. It's really room dependent, first and foremost. 

Case in point - - I have a small man cave with a less than eight foot ceiling. My current configuration is 9.1.4 with FH, RH and Wide Left & Wide Right (DTS Neo X - older Denon x5200 AVR) speakers with Paradigm Studio ADP-590's as my side surrounds that are just forward of my listening position. When I had direct firing speakers as side surrounds, their placement coupled with the small room size, close proximity to the listening position and lower ceiling made them stand out and didn't blend in well for any audio or soundtrack. They slapped you in the face and constantly drew attention to themselves. Not the immersive sound field that I was looking for. So, the Paradigm Studio ADP-590's work great for my situation. Everything works together to provide an all encompassing, immersive experience.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***By the way and this might have been mentioned before, but Netflix is providing a great amount of Dolby Atmos soundtracks with their Dolby Vision offerings. Yes, via DD+ (ARC) and compressed but still a very nice ride along. I have an older Bluray player but honestly, I stream everything these days. It's just more convenient and I also find myself using the Dolby Surround upmixer for 5.1 and cable broadcasts. I have an older AVR and use DTS Neo X for talk shows and news. I'm a very happy camper with DD+ Dolby Atmos audio via Netflix.


----------



## asharma

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Dipoles can work very nicely in the right room for side surround speakers. I don't think saying blank statements like "Dipoles are crap for side surrounds" is the right approach. That "one size fits all" attitude can lead to less than optimal sound performance with Dolby Atmos, IMHO. It's really room dependent, first and foremost.
> 
> Case in point - - I have a small man cave with a less than eight foot ceiling. My current configuration is 9.1.4 with FH, RH and Wide Left & Wide Right (DTS Neo X - older Denon x5200 AVR) speakers with Paradigm Studio ADP-590's as my side surrounds that are just forward of my listening position. When I had direct firing speakers as side surrounds, their placement coupled with the small room size, close proximity to the listening position and lower ceiling made them stand out and didn't blend in well for any audio or soundtrack. They slapped you in the face and constantly drew attention to themselves. Not the immersive sound field that I was looking for. So, the Paradigm Studio ADP-590's work great for my situation. Everything works together to provide an all encompassing, immersive experience.


Your feedback is very much appreciated...My room is only 12' wide and 17' long with seating at 12' back and 1 row of seating, so only 5 feet behind me for side surrounds, rear surrounds and rear ceiling...I have a set of monopoles for side surrounds right now...Would you place my new bipoles on the sides or in the rear?


----------



## Ricoflashback

asharma said:


> Your feedback is very much appreciated...My room is only 12' wide and 17' long with seating at 12' back and 1 row of seating, so only 5 feet behind me for side surrounds, rear surrounds and rear ceiling...I have a set of monopoles for side surrounds right now...Would you place my new bipoles on the sides or in the rear?


***Thanks for your post. I'd try the bipoles on the side. I have straight firing, monopoles, for my rear surrounds and back height speakers. I'm only three feet from my rear surrounds and four feet from my back height speakers. They work fine. Maybe it's because the side surrounds are more directly aligned to your ears that they are very noticeable when sounds emanate from them. And, the soundtracks for the rear surrounds and especially the back height speakers seem to blend in with Dolby Atmos audio. As I mentioned before - - it's really room dependent and my original monopole side surround location was way too invasive for me. Experiment, if you can, but I believe dipoles will work best in the side surround position while keeping monopoles for rear surround and back height speakers. Enjoy!


----------



## asharma

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Thanks for your post. I'd try the bipoles on the side. I have straight firing, monopoles, for my rear surrounds and back height speakers. I'm only three feet from my rear surrounds and four feet from my back height speakers. They work fine. Maybe it's because the side surrounds are more directly aligned to your ears that they are very noticeable when sounds emanate from them. And, the soundtracks for the rear surrounds and especially the back height speakers seem to blend in with Dolby Atmos audio. As I mentioned before - - it's really room dependent and my original monopole side surround location was way too invasive for me. Experiment, if you can, but I believe dipoles will work best in the side surround position while keeping monopoles for rear surround and back height speakers. Enjoy!


Thanks...My side surrounds are approx. 5-6 feet on either side of me...How far away are your side surrounds?


----------



## Ricoflashback

asharma said:


> Thanks...My side surrounds are approx. 5-6 feet on either side of me...How far away are your side surrounds?


***Just about the same distance as your location for my right side surround speaker but my left side surround is much closer to my main listening position - - hence it was really noticeable with monopole speakers.


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> ...only 5 feet behind me for side surrounds, rear surrounds and rear ceiling...


Rather than placing all 4 surrounds rearward of your listening position, I would place the Sides slightly forward of the listening position. This will give you better side-vs-rear separation and wrap-around envelopment in the surround field compared to having all 4 surrounds behind you.


> Would you place my new bipoles on the sides or in the rear?


Bipoles on the rear wall, so that the reflections from their wide (180 degree) dispersion remain in the surround field. Monopoles on the side walls, a couple feet forward of your listening position, aimed at the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance).


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> Rather than placing all 4 surrounds rearward of your listening position, I would place the Sides slightly forward of the listening position. This will give you better side-vs-rear separation and wrap-around envelopment in the surround field compared to having all 4 surrounds behind you. Bipoles on the rear wall, so that the reflections from their wide (180 degree) dispersion remain in the surround field. Monopoles on the side walls, a couple feet forward of your listening position, aimed at the listener farthest away (to compensate for distance).



Thanks Sanjay


That config is definitely worth trying...I like your thought of the monopoles being forward and "aimed"...For one of the rear bipoles, unfortunately the right rear right driver will be firing into the side wall as that portion of the rear wall is only 20" wide and the bipole is 16' wide...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Demetri Zuev said:


> dfa973 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cambridge Audio Minx Min 22 are the perfect speakers for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speakers because of very, very good dispersion - you do not need to aim those speakers to MLP - so if you can change the Front Heights to Top Front and the current Top Middle to Top Rear you will be very pleased by the results!
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your reassuring response!
> 
> The one thing I'm concerned with in regards to moving my Top Middle speakers to Top Rear position is that I have my Surround backs sitting behind the couch and firing their sound up (space constraints compromise). Do you think it will cause the sound from Surround Backs to collide with sound coming from Top rears?
> 
> I've also attached a schematic of my room with all speaker placement, what would be the best way to adjust their positions based on this one?
Click to expand...

Hi, I have a similar room to yours (long and narrow) with a tv and 5.2.4 setup. 

I chose (was kinda recommended) to stay with 5.2.4 over 7.1.4 because 
1) the surround backs would be very close (1.5-2 feet If in wall depending On if chairs reclined back) away from the MLP row seats. And 
2) doing the 7.x.x would mean that all the surround 4 speakers are “mostly” in line with each other along the back of the room 

I was told it’s better to do 5.1.4 unless you can have 1) a fair bit of distance behind you for the rear surrounds
2) having the side surrounds a bit in front of back surrounds in room and if possible beside or if possible in front slightly of MLP in 7.x.x

Should I regret or reexplore 7.x.x or do you think you are making a mistake in the same room to not leave it at 5.x.4?

Any thoughts or people with have similar dimensions that chose to go 7.x.4 or should I keep the more recommended placement of 5.x.4?

Pics below


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> I like your thought of the monopoles being forward and "aimed"...


Speakers sound louder when closer to you. Speakers also sound louder on-axis (pointing at you). Which is why I aim each speaker (Fronts, Sides, Rears) at the listener farthest away. The listener closest to the speaker hears it off-axis, so the level cut compensates for proximity. The listener farthest away hears it on-axis, so the level boost compensates for distance. It's an old trick called 'time/energy trading'. Helps reduce seat-to-seat level differences for greater consistency across all seats.


> For one of the rear bipoles, unfortunately the right rear right driver will be firing into the side wall as that portion of the rear wall is only 20" wide and the bipole is 16' wide...


Fortunately, that little bit of asymmetry is happening behind you, where our human hearing is not that good. Do you have a diagram/drawing of the rear wall placement?


----------



## batpig

I also want to reiterate the statements from those who say "try for yourself". Not all rooms are created equal, not all speakers are created equal. Some nominally "bipole" designs will have better on axis performance and/or better dispersion than other designs. Some rooms will have more difficulty with localization / hot-spotting than others (depending on seating layout, room acoustics, distance, etc).

In a perfect world you'd use monopoles everywhere, but it's not a perfect world. 

And you also want to consider how much you care about the sweet spot vs off axis seats.

My room is about 15.5' wide and the leftmost seat is about 3-4ft from the left side surround, and the rightmost seat is about 2-3ft away. I only have one row (big L-shaped couch) so no concerns about wide dispersion. I've experimented with a variety of different surrounds and positioning (both azimuth and elevation). 

I did NOT like monopoles at ~80-90 degrees (i.e. directly to the side) near ear level, too much hot-spotting / localization of the speaker even at MLP and the surrounds were horribly distracting when sitting at the outside seats. Placing the side surrounds slightly behind the seating mitigated this (side seats no longer directly on axis) but that increases the gap between screen speakers and side surrounds. Unfortunately my room doesn't allow for side surrounds slightly further forward (~70deg) which I think would mitigate the hot spotting on the end seats. I've recently been using Triad bipoles as side surrounds slightly above ear level and, while it's not as "precise" as the monopoles for direct effects, the speaker "disappears" much more and hot spotting / localization is greatly minimized.

I'm not advocating one method vs the other, but pointing out that there are many variables that impact the situation so you should try for yourself. If I had more space and/or I didn't care at all about the end seats having a decent surround impression, I'd stick with monopoles and position them (and/or position acoustic treatment) to minimize localization. But no amount of positioning or acoustic treatment can prevent a person sitting 3 feet from one speaker not hear it much louder than the other side speaker 12 feet away.


----------



## steelman1991

Dan Hitchman said:


> There is Kaleidascape as far as downloads, but they are tethered and the cost for their proprietary servers and files are very pricey. Plus, if they go under, all your movies go with it and your ultra expensive servers become useless.


Dan - just a FYI - the movies would not go with it - they reside on the HDD's in the system and do not need to "phone home" to play on the system. Now - should K go down and the hardware fails, that's an entirely different ball-game.


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> Speakers sound louder when closer to you. Speakers also sound louder on-axis (pointing at you). Which is why I aim each speaker (Fronts, Sides, Rears) at the listener farthest away. The listener closest to the speaker hears it off-axis, so the level cut compensates for proximity. The listener farthest away hears it on-axis, so the level boost compensates for distance. It's an old trick called 'time/energy trading'. Helps reduce seat-to-seat level differences for greater consistency across all seats. Fortunately, that little bit of asymmetry is happening behind you, where our human hearing is not that good. Do you have a diagram/drawing of the rear wall placement?


Thanks again...here is a crude drawing of my rear wall...u can see 20 inches between the side wall and door. After the door there are shelves and then 3ft to the other side wall...16” wide bipoles at ear level Would fit in the 20” section and the 3ft section...Welcome your thoughts...


----------



## sdurani

^^^^ No drawing attached.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

steelman1991 said:


> Dan - just a FYI - the movies would not go with it - they reside on the HDD's in the system and do not need to "phone home" to play on the system. Now - should K go down and the hardware fails, that's an entirely different ball-game.



That's not what would happen according to their own admissions at CEDIA. Instead, they said you _might_ be able to exchange lost movie or TV files with those titles from a different _streaming service_. Of course, it would be a downgrade if that should happen (high video bitrate with lossless audio for the exact opposite) or it's possible the studios would tell you to go pound sand because the files from a different company were no long accessible. There were no iron clad promises made. The storage hardware purchased would become non-operational as they do need key links every so often from home base and those servers would go dark if the company went under. 



This kind of tethering was agreed upon as part of K-scape's deal to keep getting studio support. They didn't want the files to be hacked and spread around willy nilly. They only work with DRM keys and the keys are with K-scape.


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> ^^^^ No drawing attached.


Sorry, editing...pic is upside down, hang tight 😀

Sorry, posted now...


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> 16” wide bipoles at ear level Would fit in the 20” section and the 3ft section...Welcome your thoughts...


I would place one bipole at the edge of the door, leaving a 4" gap to the side wall. Mirror that placement on the other side. If the shelving unit is built into (flush with) the back wall, then the two Rears speakers will sound symmetrical. If the shelving unit sticks out from the back wall, then the side of the shelving unit will act like a small reflector, so stick a piece of absorption on it to kill the reflection and restore symmetry. Again, our human hearing is not so hot behind us AND movie mixers don't put important content in the surround-back channels, so it's not critical whether you absorb the small reflection or not.


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> I would place one bipole at the edge of the door, leaving a 4" gap to the side wall. Mirror that placement on the other side. If the shelving unit is built into (flush with) the back wall, then the two Rears speakers will sound symmetrical. If the shelving unit sticks out from the back wall, then the side of the shelving unit will act like a small reflector, so stick a piece of absorption on it to kill the reflection and restore symmetry. Again, our human hearing is not so hot behind us AND movie mixers don't put important content in the surround-back channels, so it's not critical whether you absorb the small reflection or not.


Thanks again...would it be ok to place the bipole that will be on the 3ft wall, 4” from the side wall also or even just have it centered in the 3ft section for aesthetics.? Between room correction software and my old ears, will I really be missing something if I don’t put it 4” from the protruding shelving unit?

Edit: sorry when u say mirror that placement did u mean place it 4” from the side wall on the 3ft wall side?


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> ...when u say mirror that placement did u mean place it 4” from the side wall on the 3ft wall side?


Yes, both Rear speakers 4" from their respective side walls for consistency/symmetry.


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> Yes, both Rear speakers 4" from their respective side walls for consistency/symmetry.


And sorry, please refresh my memory why you are not recommending bipoles as side surrounds and monopoles as rear surrounds?


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> And sorry, please refresh my memory why you are not recommending bipoles as side surrounds and monopoles as rear surrounds?


On the rear wall, their wide dispersion will bounce off the side walls rather than the front & back walls. Keeps more of the surround information in the surround field. Ideally, I'd do monopoles all around.


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> On the rear wall, their wide dispersion will bounce off the side walls rather than the front & back walls. Keeps more of the surround information in the surround field. Ideally, I'd do monopoles all around.


Thanks, uggggggg, I was “afraid” you were going to make that last statement 🤭

I juuuust can’t imagine my ears being able to tell any difference between monopoles vs bipoles, given we are discussing rear surround location...


----------



## StevenC56

Ya know-Many of us have used bipoles for the side and back surrounds for years, because that is what used to be recommended and we already own them. This hobby is expensive enough without caving in to every technology change. My point is, they work fine in my room and for lots of others as well. I say mock it up and give it a go.


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> I juuuust can’t imagine my ears being able to tell any difference between monopoles vs bipoles, given we are discussing rear surround location...


In that case, don't worry about it. Put the bipoles and monopoles at whichever locations you want. It's not like your ears will be able to tell any difference.


----------



## asharma

​


sdurani said:


> In that case, don't worry about it. Put the bipoles and monopoles at whichever locations you want. It's not like your ears will be able to tell any difference.


Well, that’s not “quite” what I stated...I meant in the rear surround position I may not be able to hear the difference between the 2 technologies...


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> I did NOT like monopoles at ~80-90 degrees (i.e. directly to the side) near ear level, too much hot-spotting / localization of the speaker even at MLP and the surrounds were horribly distracting when sitting at the outside seats. Placing the side surrounds slightly behind the seating mitigated this (side seats no longer directly on axis) but that increases the gap between screen speakers and side surrounds. Unfortunately my room doesn't allow for side surrounds slightly further forward (~70deg) which I think would mitigate the hot spotting on the end seats. I've recently been using Triad bipoles as side surrounds slightly above ear level and, while it's not as "precise" as the monopoles for direct effects, the speaker "disappears" much more and hot spotting / localization is greatly minimized.



This is exactly my experience except my room is even narrower at 10.5 ft and I am using Polk FXi A6’s and not Triads. I have monopoles in the rear that I could swap with my bipoles and move them forward as Sanjay suggests but that would involve some surgery on my nice hidden wire setup. Maybe someday...



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> I meant in the rear surround position I may not be able to hear the difference between the 2 technologies...


Then don't worry about it and concentrate on things you are more able to hear (like the front soundstage).


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> Then don't worry about it and concentrate on things you are more able to hear (like the front soundstage).


First trial will be with monopole side surrounds pulled forward and aimed as u suggested, with bipoles in the rear...I think your suggestion of positioning the monopoles properly will go a long way with giving me the separation I need between sides and rears and the combination of sides and rears will give me an expansive surround field...appreciate the help...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> Demetri Zuev said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dfa973 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cambridge Audio Minx Min 22 are the perfect speakers for Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear speakers because of very, very good dispersion - you do not need to aim those speakers to MLP - so if you can change the Front Heights to Top Front and the current Top Middle to Top Rear you will be very pleased by the results!
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your reassuring response!
> 
> The one thing I'm concerned with in regards to moving my Top Middle speakers to Top Rear position is that I have my Surround backs sitting behind the couch and firing their sound up (space constraints compromise). Do you think it will cause the sound from Surround Backs to collide with sound coming from Top rears?
> 
> I've also attached a schematic of my room with all speaker placement, what would be the best way to adjust their positions based on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi, I have a similar room to yours (long and narrow) with a tv and 5.2.4 setup.
> 
> I chose (was kinda recommended) to stay with 5.2.4 over 7.1.4 because
> 1) the surround backs would be very close (1.5-2 feet If in wall depending On if chairs reclined back) away from the MLP row seats. And
> 2) doing the 7.x.x would mean that all the surround 4 speakers are “mostly” in line with each other along the back of the room
> 
> I was told it’s better to do 5.1.4 unless you can have 1) a fair bit of distance behind you for the rear surrounds
> 2) having the side surrounds a bit in front of back surrounds in room and if possible beside or if possible in front slightly of MLP in 7.x.x
> 
> Should I regret or reexplore 7.x.x or do you think you are making a mistake in the same room to not leave it at 5.x.4?
> 
> Any thoughts or people with have similar dimensions that chose to go 7.x.4 or should I keep the more recommended placement of 5.x.4?
> 
> Pics below
Click to expand...

Anyone?


----------



## StevenC56

Chirosamsung said:


> Hi, I have a similar room to yours (long and narrow) with a tv and 5.2.4 setup.
> 
> I chose (was kinda recommended) to stay with 5.2.4 over 7.1.4 because
> 1) the surround backs would be very close (1.5-2 feet If in wall depending On if chairs reclined back) away from the MLP row seats. And
> 2) doing the 7.x.x would mean that all the surround 4 speakers are “mostly” in line with each other along the back of the room
> 
> I was told it’s better to do 5.1.4 unless you can have 1) a fair bit of distance behind you for the rear surrounds
> 2) having the side surrounds a bit in front of back surrounds in room and if possible beside or if possible in front slightly of MLP in 7.x.x
> 
> Should I regret or reexplore 7.x.x or do you think you are making a mistake in the same room to not leave it at 5.x.4?
> 
> Any thoughts or people with have similar dimensions that chose to go 7.x.4 or should I keep the more recommended placement of 5.x.4?
> 
> Pics below


My back bipole surrounds are right behind my MLP, and they work fine.


----------



## filmgeek47

Hey guys,

Any thoughts in bi-pole vs direct radiating for Atmos specifically? Currently running a mix of direct radiating sides with bi-pole rears, but I’m looking to upgrade my surrounds and I’m not sure which direction to go. My room is small, and I’ve just gotten a new sofa so people may end up sitting quite close to the side surrounds.


----------



## StevenC56

Sounds like we need a 20-20 show about this thread for the week. Stayed tuned, as 20-20 discusses Atmos Home Theater. This weeks episode is- "Monopole versus bipole surround speakers. What you need to know so that you can be even more confused than you already were."


----------



## MagnumX

*A Little Atmos Switchbox Experiment*

I've been doing some Auro-3D listening (I highly recommend Mando Diao's Aelita album) and thus I switched my system (normally using 11.1.6 with matrixed FW and S#1 added plus extracted top middle near discrete) over to send a copy of the rear height channels to my side height channels and turned down the channel 3dB (since it will add 3dB). I can do this since I have a Monoprice 2-in,2-out switchbox through which I feed the output of the Pro Logic units into "A" and the rear height channel into "B" and you can turn either speaker on/off or use A or B, which means they can both use A or B. Both using A wouldn't make any sense, but "B" puts a rear height copy into the side heights like the Auro-3D 11.1 Barco cinemas do. I left all my other matrixed speakers on (pulls sound all the way to the third row even if the rears aren't active since surround #1 has a copy of the side surround channel through the matrix mixer. But since I had it switched over anyway, I tweaked a few things in the surround #1 output to array better with the two overhead arrays and the album sounded fantastic from all the seats. So what does this have to do with Atmos?

What I did then was do some Atmos testing with this double array overhead setup with the rear channels active (7+4.1.4+2) instead of using the Pro Logic "top middle" extraction boxes and tested how Atmos and X would sound like that. It was actually pretty interesting as I've always thought rear channels sound closer than they are even when they're 15' away. But having an overhead 4-channel "rear height" array basically puts the virtual phantom speakers in the rear "tops" position instead for the MLP (I'm actually thinking that top middle as a matrixed channel instead would actually pull _both_ "height" channels virtually via phantom images into the "tops" positions). Even so, essentially the system sounded much closer to a tops configuration Atmos system for the front row (i.e. more sounds were directly overhead yet since the front are still discrete heights, the sounds would go all the way to the top of the screen instead of starting further into the room. Even with a 24' long room, I'm not sure that's a lot of panning distance with all tops, but it obviously would keep virtually _all_ overhead sound high on the ceiling (hence the real reason why I think many prefer the "tops" locations as it keeps more sounds away from the walls and more directly overhead with the obvious downside being less panning distance and less screen interaction). 

But what I thought wouldn't be so good were the other two rows since the top middle "anchor" is no longer there in a discrete way, but creating an array. But the thing is arrays are also affected by the precedence effect. They only image directly between the two speakers if you are sitting halfway between them. Otherwise, they will 'pull' more towards the speaker you are sitting closer to and that means front/back in addition to the typical left/right issues of stereo music. The upside is that things like the Dolby Atmos Helicopter demo still worked exceedingly well with an array of top middle plus rear height as it anchored itself regardless. But unlike actual "tops" speakers, the rear height position was still behind the third row and imaged as such due to precedence (that seat is much closer to the rear height sitting just in front of it than the top middle speakers). Thus, the system behaves BOTH like a "tops" system AND a "height" system depending on where you sit (the upside of precedence and arraying).

In any case, I found it interesting since it's yet another configuration I can optionally choose to play movies in with Atmos that give a little bit different presentation thanks to the 2-in,2-out switchbox I'm employing (i.e. more direct overhead sounds in the front row without hurting the other rows). It definitely aligns better with Auro-3D (e.g. the tractor demo moves perfectly for all seats whereas the "extracted top middle" with Auro-3D puts the top/bottom layers out of alignment slightly leading the tractor to turn as it passes rather than moving in a straight line in the left lane so-to-speak. With most of the demos and movies, it'd be hard to notice, but something large like that which stretches across both layers sounds better in full alignment with what it expects (i.e. height layer directly over bed channel layer). Atmos shifts as well, but it's typically not using real world dual mic recordings so the effect in things like the demos is just to move the rear height layer closer to the front row (rear tops location). The renderer could be switched then to be "tops" instead to supposedly fully correct the alignment, but that would disable Audyssey, unfortunately (I could store an Audyssey config set using that layout on a USB stick, though if I really wanted to use it precisely. That could also automatically reduce the rear channel level 3dB at the same time).

I'd kind of be curious to hear how it sounds with the top middle speakers set to matrix the sound instead (theoretically pulling both channels into the "tops" positions in behavior other than the precedence effect moving them a bit depending on the row). I'd basically need another switch and mixer (and some splitters) to make that work. I doubt it's worth the effort as I like the front heights starting at the top of the screen as it matches the action on the screen better, IMO.


----------



## filmgeek47

Okay... let me revise my question having read a bit more of the thread.

Currently running 7.1.4. With bipole rears and all other speakers direct radiating. All of my surrounds are raised about 8 inches above ear level. I’m happy with the surround field I’m getting, BUT my new sofa is complicating my upgrade path.

Room is 12 wide 15 long and 8 high with the listening position about two feet off the back wall.

My new seating is going to go nearly wall to wall (only about a foot, maybe two feet between the wall and the listeners on the outer edge seats). I’ve been looking for an excuse to upgrade my surround speakers, but I’m not sure which direction to go in.

90% of the time I’m going to be watching/listening solo, but I want group movie watching to be a tolerable experience for the people on the sides.

Given all that, do I:

A- do bi-poles on the sides and rear, and keep them elevated?
b- do mono-poles everywhere and keep them elevated?
C- switch to bi-poles on the sides as well, but drop them to ear level?

Also, a bit off topic, but any experience with the Martin Logan Motion FX for bi-poles? Considering that, the motion 15 for monopoles, or the Emotiva E2 for a cheaper bi-pole.

Appreciate any help you guys can offer!


----------



## dfa973

Chirosamsung said:


> Any thoughts or people with have similar dimensions that chose to go 7.x.4 or should I keep the more recommended placement of 5.x.4?


I have a room similar to yours and I recommend that you stick with a 5.1.4 setup.


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> I must have missed the part where he said he was doing .2 .....


There is no need to be ironical.
I know that the OP has FH+TM.
It was a call to a test/experiment.




MagnumX said:


> So you're of the opinion Atmos overheads shouldn't "blend" into the soundstage, but should stick out like a sore thumb?


Nope. FH are not overheads. And FH are very easily masked by the Main L+R.




MagnumX said:


> *Front Height wouldn't be my first choice for only two overheads* (top middle is best there), but it's better than nothing if that's the only thing that would fit.


My opinion also.


----------



## asharma

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay... let me revise my question having read a bit more of the thread.
> 
> Currently running 7.1.4. With bipole rears and all other speakers direct radiating. All of my surrounds are raised about 8 inches above ear level. I’m happy with the surround field I’m getting, BUT my new sofa is complicating my upgrade path.
> 
> Room is 12 wide 15 long and 8 high with the listening position about two feet off the back wall.
> 
> My new seating is going to go nearly wall to wall (only about a foot, maybe two feet between the wall and the listeners on the outer edge seats). I’ve been looking for an excuse to upgrade my surround speakers, but I’m not sure which direction to go in.
> 
> 90% of the time I’m going to be watching/listening solo, but I want group movie watching to be a tolerable experience for the people on the sides.
> 
> Given all that, do I:
> 
> A- do bi-poles on the sides and rear, and keep them elevated?
> b- do mono-poles everywhere and keep them elevated?
> C- switch to bi-poles on the sides as well, but drop them to ear level?
> 
> Also, a bit off topic, but any experience with the Martin Logan Motion FX for bi-poles? Considering that, the motion 15 for monopoles, or the Emotiva E2 for a cheaper bi-pole.
> 
> Appreciate any help you guys can offer!


I started a very similar discussion with similar room dimensions 3-4 pages back...feel free to review...


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> There is no need to be ironical.
> I know that the OP has FH+TM.
> It was a call to a test/experiment.


It's irrelevant to his room and setup. Two overhead speakers aren't going to image/pan at all front to back regardless of where you put them.



> Nope. FH are not overheads. And FH are very easily masked by the Main L+R.


How are they not overheads if they're over your head? Mine are at the ceiling. I'd bloody well call that overhead.... 

And top middle are easily masked by side surrounds and top rear are easily masked by rear surrounds. It's a non sequitur. They're all supposed to blend with the lower beds. If you have _total_ separation where they do not blend together as a seamless soundstage you are doing Atmos incorrectly, IMO.


----------



## steelman1991

Dan Hitchman said:


> That's not what would happen according to their own admissions at CEDIA. Instead, they said you _might_ be able to exchange lost movie or TV files with those titles from a different _streaming service_. Of course, it would be a downgrade if that should happen (high video bitrate with lossless audio for the exact opposite) or it's possible the studios would tell you to go pound sand because the files from a different company were no long accessible. There were no iron clad promises made. The storage hardware purchased would become non-operational as they do need key links every so often from home base and those servers would go dark if the company went under.
> 
> This kind of tethering was agreed upon as part of K-scape's deal to keep getting studio support. They didn't want the files to be hacked and spread around willy nilly. They only work with DRM keys and the keys are with K-scape.


I was sufficiently perturbed by your reply that I reached out to K for their take on the position - here is a copy of their reply

*"Hello

I'm assuming you are referring to Kaleidescape store content. Any downloaded content would remain and nothing would change. Content that is owned but not downloaded I cannot say what would happen.

Systems need to call home for new software and guide updates, but will continue to function just the way they were if they do not call home. (this often happens for a year or two on yacht systems).

Sincerely,"*

So as I had suggested, the movies would continue to be available and play as normal, in the event of close down.

I know it's off-topic so apologies to anyone not interested in the reply. Now back to our scheduled programming.


----------



## Chirosamsung

StevenC56 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, I have a similar room to yours (long and narrow) with a tv and 5.2.4 setup.
> 
> I chose (was kinda recommended) to stay with 5.2.4 over 7.1.4 because
> 1) the surround backs would be very close (1.5-2 feet If in wall depending On if chairs reclined back) away from the MLP row seats. And
> 2) doing the 7.x.x would mean that all the surround 4 speakers are â€œmostlyâ€ in line with each other along the back of the room
> 
> I was told itâ€™️s better to do 5.1.4 unless you can have 1) a fair bit of distance behind you for the rear surrounds
> 2) having the side surrounds a bit in front of back surrounds in room and if possible beside or if possible in front slightly of MLP in 7.x.x
> 
> Should I regret or reexplore 7.x.x or do you think you are making a mistake in the same room to not leave it at 5.x.4?
> 
> Any thoughts or people with have similar dimensions that chose to go 7.x.4 or should I keep the more recommended placement of 5.x.4?
> 
> Pics below
> 
> 
> 
> My back bipole surrounds are right behind my MLP, and they work fine.
Click to expand...

Ok-so one person in favour of all the surrounds being able to be at back of room and not far behind MLP seating vs 1person saying staying with 5.x.x...

Any tie breakers from experience?


----------



## StevenC56

I think we have reached a point in surround sound technology where the complexity of the systems negates any hard fast rules since there are so many variables from system/room to system/room. Although there are maybe some basic do this or don't do thats, it's a matter of mocking up if that is possible, or just trial and error with hopefully positive results, And once again, there may be some compromises due to physical limitations, aesthetics, and personal preferences.


----------



## gene4ht

StevenC56 said:


> I think we have reached a point in surround sound technology where the complexity of the systems negates any hard fast rules since there are so many variables from system/room to system/room. Although there are maybe some basic do this or don't do thats, it's a matter of mocking up if that is possible, or just trial and error with hopefully positive results, And once again, there may be some compromises due to physical limitations, aesthetics, and personal preferences.


I agree 100%...Using Dolby guidelines as a starting point and experimenting with your particular room conditions/constraints will yield very good results. Don’t fall prey to analysis paralysis or attempt to achieve that angle or within those inches. Ultimately, most of us have been able to achieve positive results even with significant departures from “suggested/recommended” guidelines. Again, experimentation is the key. To paraphrase member @kbarnes701, some Atmos is better than no Atmos!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> Ok-so one person in favour of all the surrounds being able to be at back of room and not far behind MLP seating vs 1person saying staying with 5.x.x...
> 
> Any tie breakers from experience?




Based on the pics I’ve seen of your space, I wouldn’t add rear surrounds. Someone did mention there’s were right behind, but from the picture they looked like they’d be considerably farther than you have room for. Maybe it was just the angle? 
Another vote for 5.x.4. FWIW, I have 7.x.4 but also bout 6’ behind the couch so...


----------



## MagnumX

@Chirosamsung - Why not just try it and see how they sound like that? Just don't permanently mount them until you're sure.

I had bipole S50s to the side and just behind me on the sides (90-110 degrees) for a decade (meaning I tried moving the couch. The S50s were and still are mounted high on the side walls just under the steel beam box. They are now side heights instead as per Auro-3D and with a little bleed through on the Pro Logic decoder shift to sound like top middle instead (off by 2.5' outward and 8 inches vertical. The array effect of allowing audio leakage effectively cuts the difference nearly in half). 

They image just fine there, but better at 100-110 as the on-axis response is better aimed more toward the listening position. New wider dispersion tweeters have made them effectively audibly invisible now. Sitting right between the drivers instead of in front of or behind cuts high frequency response down, which can be noticeable with some sounds like the higher frequency component of the helicopter demo. Audyssey could help correct that through EQ, but just placing the speaker so the tweeters are facing the listeners is a simpler solution.

I agree solutions are often room dependent. You could have all bed layer dipoles (e.g. Martin Logan full size electrostatics) with a large enough room to give them space away from the walls and an acoustically transparent screen in the front. They could sound awesome handled correctly, but like total crap if crammed into a room willy-nilly. It's hard to screw up monopoles by comparison.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Chirosamsung said:


> Ok-so one person in favour of all the surrounds being able to be at back of room and not far behind MLP seating vs 1person saying staying with 5.x.x...
> 
> Any tie breakers from experience?


You might consider this as a way to try to see if you like it. Leave your surround speakers where they are currently located. Just switch their AVR speaker terminals to surround back speakers. Temporarily install a pair of speakers just slightly forward of your MLP. About inline with the largest tree trunk in your picture hanging on the wall. Even moving the sectional forward 12” if your willing/can. Reposition the surrounds forward again. if you are able to move the sectional. Then connect those to the surround speakers AVR speaker terminals. Perform a calibration.

Hard to tell from pictures room and furniture dimensions. If you could rotate your setup 45 degrees. Where wall picture is would be where TV would be. You would probably have the ability to position the surround back speakers.

Good luck


----------



## filmgeek47

asharma said:


> I started a very similar discussion with similar room dimensions 3-4 pages back...feel free to review...


Sorry! Thought I'd already reviewed the relevant info. This is what happens with these long threads. It's too long to look through, so people end up reposting... which makes it longer. Lol. Search function wasn't very helpful for me in this case.

To sum up, it sounds like in my case, with a single wide row of seating, I'm best off with monopoles that are set forward and tilted in, so the MLP gets perfect on-axis but the side listeners don't get blasted head on?

Forgive me, but I didn't see much info there about height offset. Are most people putting their rear tweeters at ear height, or do people still like to offset upwards?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

filmgeek47 said:


> Sorry! Thought I'd already reviewed the relevant info. This is what happens with these long threads. It's too long to look through, so people end up reposting... which makes it longer. Lol. Search function wasn't very helpful for me in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> To sum up, it sounds like in my case, with a single wide row of seating, I'm best off with monopoles that are set forward and tilted in, so the MLP gets perfect on-axis but the side listeners don't get blasted head on?
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but I didn't see much info there about height offset. Are most people putting their rear tweeters at ear height, or do people still like to offset upwards?




Iirc the spec says 1.25x H1 which is the tweeter height of the mains. I think you can go a little higher to clear extra people or Høgh backed chairs but IMO you’ll want to be lower than higher.


----------



## jazzrock

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay... let me revise my question having read a bit more of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently running 7.1.4. With bipole rears and all other speakers direct radiating. All of my surrounds are raised about 8 inches above ear level. I’m happy with the surround field I’m getting, BUT my new sofa is complicating my upgrade path.
> 
> 
> 
> Room is 12 wide 15 long and 8 high with the listening position about two feet off the back wall.
> 
> 
> 
> My new seating is going to go nearly wall to wall (only about a foot, maybe two feet between the wall and the listeners on the outer edge seats). I’ve been looking for an excuse to upgrade my surround speakers, but I’m not sure which direction to go in.
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the time I’m going to be watching/listening solo, but I want group movie watching to be a tolerable experience for the people on the sides.
> 
> 
> 
> Given all that, do I:
> 
> 
> 
> A- do bi-poles on the sides and rear, and keep them elevated?
> 
> b- do mono-poles everywhere and keep them elevated?
> 
> C- switch to bi-poles on the sides as well, but drop them to ear level?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, a bit off topic, but any experience with the Martin Logan Motion FX for bi-poles? Considering that, the motion 15 for monopoles, or the Emotiva E2 for a cheaper bi-pole.
> 
> 
> 
> Appreciate any help you guys can offer!




Especially since you do most of your viewing solo, I suggest you simply creat the very best listening environment for you....in the sweet spot. I’m not a fan of anything but direct radiating but you should use what you like best. Seriously...... I realize you want your guests to have the very best experience. But this hobby, hell life, involves compromise. You will be much more rewarded tuning your system for you primary experience.


----------



## asharma

filmgeek47 said:


> Sorry! Thought I'd already reviewed the relevant info. This is what happens with these long threads. It's too long to look through, so people end up reposting... which makes it longer. Lol. Search function wasn't very helpful for me in this case.
> 
> To sum up, it sounds like in my case, with a single wide row of seating, I'm best off with monopoles that are set forward and tilted in, so the MLP gets perfect on-axis but the side listeners don't get blasted head on?
> 
> Forgive me, but I didn't see much info there about height offset. Are most people putting their rear tweeters at ear height, or do people still like to offset upwards?


Correct on your summation...that’s what I’m going to try when my bipoles arrive...Bipoles in the rear, monopoles to the side...in regards to tweeter height, I always go ear level but others can feel free to chime in...


----------



## usc1995

filmgeek47 said:


> Sorry! Thought I'd already reviewed the relevant info. This is what happens with these long threads. It's too long to look through, so people end up reposting... which makes it longer. Lol. Search function wasn't very helpful for me in this case.
> 
> To sum up, it sounds like in my case, with a single wide row of seating, I'm best off with monopoles that are set forward and tilted in, so the MLP gets perfect on-axis but the side listeners don't get blasted head on?
> 
> Forgive me, but I didn't see much info there about height offset. Are most people putting their rear tweeters at ear height, or do people still like to offset upwards?


I would follow Sanjay's (@sdurani) advice in post 57460:

"Speakers sound louder when closer to you. Speakers also sound louder on-axis (pointing at you). Which is why I aim each speaker (Fronts, Sides, Rears) at the listener farthest away. The listener closest to the speaker hears it off-axis, so the level cut compensates for proximity. The listener farthest away hears it on-axis, so the level boost compensates for distance. It's an old trick called 'time/energy trading'. Helps reduce seat-to-seat level differences for greater consistency across all seats."

Keep your bipoles on the backwall and place your side surrounds at 70 degrees aimed at the opposite ends of the couch as he describes. You are sitting pretty close to your back wall so you don't want to get blasted by the rear speakers either.


----------



## filmgeek47

Thanks all! Very helpful!


----------



## joms

Hi, 

I am installing atmos speakers soon turning my 5.1 to a 5.1.4 system. Due to this, the rear atmos speakers will be very near my surrounds. 

In this regard, may I ask some questions:

1) Is it a good idea to move my rear surround speakers to the sides (marked with a red circle and the letter A) as shown in the attached pictures? 

2) If I put my surrounds to the sides, is it a good idea to to retain my Mission M7DS (bipole) or upgrade it to Monitor Audio FX bronze (bipole) or perhaps change it to a monopole surround like the SVS elevation or something else? (Is there a monopole speaker which is a bit flat like the Mission M7DS and preferably color white. The SVS elevation is rather thick and I might get hit with WAF since I can't install it way up so it would look awkward)

Rest of my system: 
Room = small masters bedroom (14ft x 11ft with 9ft height)
Amp = Denon X4500h
Speakers = Kef Q350
Center = Kef Q650c
Rear = Mission M7DS
Ceiling = 4x Klipsch 6" in-ceiling speakers 
Subs = 1x SVS PC13-Ultra
TV = Samsung 78"

note1: If I will move the surround to the sides, the distance of the speaker from the ceiling is only 10 inches and 9 inches from the rear wall
note2: If I will move the surround to the sides, the distance of the speaker from the MLP is approx 8 feet


(sorry for the picture, i can't get a full pic of the room so i just stitched it up quickly with photoshop)


----------



## rekbones

joms said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am installing atmos speakers soon turning my 5.1 to a 5.1.4 system. Due to this, the rear atmos speakers will be very near my surrounds.
> 
> In this regard, may I ask some questions:
> 
> 1) Is it a good idea to move my rear surround speakers to the sides (marked with a red circle and the letter A) as shown in the attached pictures?
> 
> 2) If I put my surrounds to the sides, is it a good idea to to retain my Mission M7DS (bipole) or upgrade it to Monitor Audio FX bronze (bipole) or perhaps change it to a monopole surround like the SVS elevation or something else? (Is there a monopole speaker which is a bit flat like the Mission M7DS and preferably color white. The SVS elevation is rather thick and I might get hit with WAF since I can't install it way up so it would look awkward)
> 
> Rest of my system:
> Room = small masters bedroom (14ft x 11ft with 9ft height)
> Amp = Denon X4500h
> Speakers = Kef Q350
> Center = Kef Q650c
> Rear = Mission M7DS
> Ceiling = 4x Klipsch 6" in-ceiling speakers
> Subs = 1x SVS PC13-Ultra
> TV = Samsung 78"
> 
> note1: If I will move the surround to the sides, the distance of the speaker from the ceiling is only 10 inches and 9 inches from the rear wall
> note2: If I will move the surround to the sides, the distance of the speaker from the MLP is approx 8 feet
> 
> 
> (sorry for the picture, i can't get a full pic of the room so i just stitched it up quickly with photoshop)


Tough room!! If it was my room I would move them down to ear level somehow. Maybe mounted on the door or what we can't see to this side of the door. Move the junk from the corner and get the right side down to maybe under the window.


----------



## joms

rekbones said:


> Tough room!! If it was my room I would move them down to ear level somehow. Maybe mounted on the door or what we can't see to this side of the door. Move the junk from the corner and get the right side down to maybe under the window.


If the decision was only upto me then things would've been much easier but there's this thing called WAF which makes it hard to place speakers in better locations. Actually moving it to the sides is already a stretch.


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> How are they not overheads if they're over your head? Mine are at the ceiling. I'd bloody well call that overhead....


Sorry, but FH are "overhead" only if you have a very small room or a very high ceiling. In a decent living room, FH would not put any sound _over-your-head_...



MagnumX said:


> And top middle are easily masked by side surrounds and top rear are easily masked by rear surrounds. It's a non sequitur. They're all supposed to blend with the lower beds. If you have _total_ separation where they do not blend together as a seamless soundstage you are doing Atmos incorrectly, IMO.


True, but I was not talking about blending or layer separation, but about the fact that FH do not add much to the Atmos experience - you practically just get a front wall of sound.


----------



## dfa973

What an article full of negativity and pessimism ... We probably should have stayed on Stereo. Or even Mono. This is sad.



> *Predictions of Dolby Atmos Success or Failure Five Years Later*
> 
> Five years ago, Dolby launched Home Atmos, and Audioholics published two articles that took different views of its potential for success: ‘5 Reasons Dolby Atmos May be DOA’ and ‘5 Reasons Why Dolby Atmos Will Succeed.’ Now that some time has passed to see how the Atmos has panned out, we decided to revisit these predictions to see what was correct and what turned out not to be.
> 
> Regular readers of Audioholics will remember that the more pessimistic article of the two turned out to be a source of controversy for Audioholics that earned us an anti-Atmos reputation merely for publishing the pessimistic predictions of a single contributing writer. Of course, it is not the case that Audioholics as a whole holds animosity against Dolby or Atmos. Audioholic’s content is created by a group of contributing writers, and, as with any group, not all of the writers hold identical views, but Audioholics is willing to publish differing viewpoints so long as they are well-informed.
> 
> So how well did the authors of these respective articles do in predicting the future? Of course, the answer to that is well-known by most home theater enthusiasts by now, and Home Atmos has achieved a resounding victory, at least in terms of wide adaptation. Most Blu-ray releases of new Hollywood movies include an Atmos sound mix, and support for the Atmos format is now included on all newer UHD Blu-ray players and mid-priced and higher AVRs. But ‘success’ here can mean more than just market share, and we should also ask the question has Home Atmos improved home audio in general? The answer to that is complicated and not as clear-cut.
> 
> Full article: https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-atmos-success


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> Sorry, but FH are "overhead" only if you have a very small room or a very high ceiling. In a decent living room, FH would not put any sound _over-your-head_...


I'm afraid your logic is flawed here. By definition, "overhead" literally means above your head level. If the front height speaker is 9 feet up and I'm sitting with my head at 4 feet, how is it *not* "over my head" ??? In other words, "Over-your-head" doesn't necessarily mean *DIRECTLY* Overhead. Or would you say just because a plane at 5000 feet altitude is a quarter mile in front of me it's not overhead? That's getting ridiculous. But then apparently a "decent living room" is not a small one (mine is 24 feet long with 6 overheads that include front height and rear height and thus track the entire 24' length of ceiling. I'd call that at least decent.)

I think what you're really looking for are sounds on the ceiling instead of above or at the top of the screen (closer to "directly overhead" like the VOG or TM location) because that seems more impressive to you (arbitrarily so, however as the walls at the screen point themselves are arbitrary and disappear if you close your eyes). The one problem with using top middle as the only overhead speakers is that the correlated parts on the ceiling itself have no real connection to the bed level speakers. They just float there. That means it's great for someone hitting a hammer on the roof over your head in the film (like in Fury with the tank top), but pretty miserable for a plane flyover as it goes from bed level to overhead to bed level as it passes by.



> True, but I was not talking about blending or layer separation, but about the fact that FH do not add much to the Atmos experience - you practically just get a front wall of sound.


I don't see any difference between the locations in terms of providing a layer above whatever speakers are there at the bed level. If the height speakers are above the front speakers, above the side surrounds or above the rear surrounds, they are creating a layer ABOVE the existing bed layer. An airplane would at least fly overhead and drift downward towards the bed level rather than appearing to appearing to be ground level, fly up and then land again as it would seem in a flyover. When only top middle is activated in Revenge of the Sith on Disney+ in Atmos during the elevator scene, it seems odd that the on-screen elevator is making sounds 10+ feet out into my room above my head when the camera shows it at the screen level. It belong in the front height position above the actors on screen from that vantage point, but Disney chose not to use those speakers there for some odd reason.

Basically, you can prefer top middle for only two overheads or whatever position you like, but that doesn't make top height not overhead. unless you standing on a ladder.


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> What an article full of negativity and pessimism ... We probably should have stayed on Stereo. Or even Mono. This is sad.


I disagreed with the site owner about an article one of his staff wrote and he called me dumb and somehow slowed my account to a crawl so that it loads pages there while logged in slow as molasses (on every device and every browser; if I log out it goes back to full speed). I'd call that pretty juvenile to say the least. I no longer give a damn about Audioholics as a result (I actually quite enjoyed talking to some of the other readers there but I'm not going to sit 2 minutes per page load to participate). They need to grow up and learn that not all opinions match their own. Apparently, I took the same position as some engineer in the past that suggested their room layout wasn't optimal in terms of room treatments. I guess I inadvertently rubbed a nerve. The fact the staff there seem to hate Atmos (despite that thread indicating over 60% of their readers love Atmos) well.... Tick off enough readers and you're out of business. Good riddance I'd say.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> I agree 100%...Using Dolby guidelines as a starting point and experimenting with your particular room conditions/constraints will yield very good results. Don’t fall prey to analysis paralysis or attempt to achieve that angle or within those inches. Ultimately, most of us have been able to achieve positive results even with significant departures from “suggested/recommended” guidelines. Again, experimentation is the key. To paraphrase member @kbarnes701, some Atmos is better than no Atmos!


Still alive!  Totally agreed - measuring speaker positions to the millimetre is OK if it works for you, but it is by no means necessary for the enjoyment of Atmos. Nobody did this with 7.1 - they put their speakers broadly where they should be and then sat back and enjoyed the (usually) terrific result. I don't recall anyone, ever, agonising over an inch here or an inch there wrt to their LCR or surround speakers. And of course, as Dolby themselves said 5 years ago (it really is that long!), "it's hard to not get a good Atmos result" (I paraphrase).


----------



## gene4ht

kbarnes701 said:


> Still alive!


LOL! Some of us have been away awhile as well...enjoying our theaters rather than talking about them I guess.


----------



## joms

How is the KEF Q50a compared to the SVS elevation and the Klipsch RP500SA? Which among the 3x would you choose for my side surrounds?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

joms said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> I am installing atmos speakers soon turning my 5.1 to a 5.1.4 system. Due to this, the rear atmos speakers will be very near my surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> In this regard, may I ask some questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Is it a good idea to move my rear surround speakers to the sides (marked with a red circle and the letter A) as shown in the attached pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> 2) If I put my surrounds to the sides, is it a good idea to to retain my Mission M7DS (bipole) or upgrade it to Monitor Audio FX bronze (bipole) or perhaps change it to a monopole surround like the SVS elevation or something else? (Is there a monopole speaker which is a bit flat like the Mission M7DS and preferably color white. The SVS elevation is rather thick and I might get hit with WAF since I can't install it way up so it would look awkward)
> 
> 
> 
> Rest of my system:
> 
> Room = small masters bedroom (14ft x 11ft with 9ft height)
> 
> Amp = Denon X4500h
> 
> Speakers = Kef Q350
> 
> Center = Kef Q650c
> 
> Rear = Mission M7DS
> 
> Ceiling = 4x Klipsch 6" in-ceiling speakers
> 
> Subs = 1x SVS PC13-Ultra
> 
> TV = Samsung 78"
> 
> 
> 
> note1: If I will move the surround to the sides, the distance of the speaker from the ceiling is only 10 inches and 9 inches from the rear wall
> 
> note2: If I will move the surround to the sides, the distance of the speaker from the MLP is approx 8 feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry for the picture, i can't get a full pic of the room so i just stitched it up quickly with photoshop)




I’m afraid to say, I think you should forgo Atmos if the surrounds are going to be that high.


----------



## kbarnes701

gene4ht said:


> LOL! Some of us have been away awhile as well...enjoying our theaters rather than talking about them I guess.


Exactly it (in my case anyway). Huge enjoyment almost every day.


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’m afraid to say, I think you should forgo Atmos if the surrounds are going to be that high.


+1. It will be next to impossible to differentiate sounds from the ceiling speakers and sounds from the surround speakers.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

kbarnes701 said:


> +1. It will be next to impossible to differentiate sounds from the ceiling speakers and sounds from the surround speakers.




Hi Keith! Good to see you. 
This was my point exactly. I think it’s possible though to upgrade his 5.1 system if he moved the surrounds to the sides and used something like the prime elevation, or angled down towards his LP.


----------



## batpig

IMO you could still do Atmos but it would be better to run 5.1.2 and just do a single "Top Middle" pair a few feet forward of the listening position (to create more separation from the elevated surrounds). 

Trying to run 5.1.4 will be pointless, the back heights will be inseparable from the surround speakers given the minimal separation.


----------



## joms

batpig said:


> IMO you could still do Atmos but it would be better to run 5.1.2 and just do a single "Top Middle" pair a few feet forward of the listening position (to create more separation from the elevated surrounds).
> 
> Trying to run 5.1.4 will be pointless, the back heights will be inseparable from the surround speakers given the minimal separation.


Thanks. I somewhat understand all this but i already have the atmos speakers and denon x4500 so i guess ill just make the most out of it even if it gives me minimal to no improvement with the rear atmos. 

By the way, do you know how the Kef Q50a compares to the SVS Elevation? I'm leaning towards the Q50a since I have Q350 and Q650c as LCR. I just need to know 2 things, 1) if the Q50a is loud enough to perform as side surrounds and 2) if it is only good as an atmos up firing speaker. (and not really good as direct down firing drivers - something to do with a frequency cut/bump used on up firing atmos speakers that helps them bounce the audio with the ceiling)


----------



## joms

Ok guys ive been thinking this through a lot....

If i buy a bed frame then i might be able to lower the current surrounds (bipole) to location B (hopefully my better half approves). 

Do you think this is better than putting my surrounds at the sides?

Which is better:
Location A - Sides (I will use a monopole/direct speaker like the KEF Q50a or SVS Elevation) - but it is mounted up high
Location B - Rear ( I will use bipole perhaps using my current surrounds) - but is mounted low although it's quite near the rear of our head


----------



## asharma

*Atmos Rear surround distance from floor question*

Hi folks
Atmos config question
Side surround tweeters are at 38” as per the Paradigm recommended stand for the speaker...side surrounds are at 80 degrees to my 2 recliners

Rear surround tweeters at 38” also...recliner seat backs also about 38-39” with my ears being at about 35”...

Would the recliner seatbacks block out the rear surround sounds meaning should I raise the height of the rear surrounds to clear the height of the recliner backs making the rears higher than the sides or should the rears be fine at 38”? Rears are about 6 feet back of recliners and essentially diagonal to each ear...Thanks folks...

Edit: front L&R tweeters are at 42”...


----------



## gerchy

dfa973 said:


> What an article full of negativity and pessimism ... We probably should have stayed on Stereo. Or even Mono. This is sad.


True.
I was just thinking the other day and was surprised that almost every movie I see has an Atmos track.
To be honest, not all the tracks are truly taking advantage of Atmos capabilities but some of them are really good and IMO that is enough to make an upgrade. 
Even without height channels Atmos tracks are offering more detailed position information.
After almost six years I'm still happy with it and I have never regret extensive climbing on the ladder.


----------



## maikeldepotter

dfa973 said:


> What an article full of negativity and pessimism ... We probably should have stayed on Stereo. Or even Mono. This is sad.


Well, it's still not a bad idea and a good advice to anyone stepping into the audio world, to start with a good center speaker and a couple of decent subs, and get that to sound really good, before adding additional speakers. But for those striving to get the maximum immersive experience, that's only the beginning ... as we all know ...


----------



## Augerhandle

joms said:


> Ok guys ive been thinking this through a lot....
> 
> If i buy a bed frame then i might be able to lower the current surrounds (bipole) to location B (hopefully my better half approves).
> 
> Do you think this is better than putting my surrounds at the sides?
> 
> Which is better:
> Location A - Sides (I will use a monopole/direct speaker like the KEF Q50a or SVS Elevation) - but it is mounted up high
> Location B - Rear ( I will use bipole perhaps using my current surrounds) - but is mounted low although it's quite near the rear of our head


Dude, it's your bedroom. Enjoy your 5.1 sex, and relegate the Atmos to the living room.


----------



## kbarnes701

Polyrythm1k said:


> Hi Keith! Good to see you.
> This was my point exactly. I think it’s possible though to upgrade his 5.1 system if he moved the surrounds to the sides and used something like the prime elevation, or angled down towards his LP.


Thanks. You too.

Basically, what the batpig said!  He could go for 5.1.2 using TM, or move the surrounds much lower to create more angular separation between them and the ceiling speakers.


----------



## kbarnes701

joms said:


> Ok guys ive been thinking this through a lot....
> 
> If i buy a bed frame then i might be able to lower the current surrounds (bipole) to location B (hopefully my better half approves).
> 
> Do you think this is better than putting my surrounds at the sides?
> 
> Which is better:
> Location A - Sides (I will use a monopole/direct speaker like the KEF Q50a or SVS Elevation) - but it is mounted up high
> Location B - Rear ( I will use bipole perhaps using my current surrounds) - but is mounted low although it's quite near the rear of our head


With the room limitations you have you will have to compromise. What you are trying to achieve is a 'dome' of sound, so ideally you would have a set of speakers across the front (LCR), side surrounds at about 80 degrees forward of MLP and at roughly ear height, and rear surrounds behind you, also at ear height. Then you would add ceiling speakers to give you a TF and TR setup for Atmos. You cannot achieve this due to the physical limitations of your room. So you have to do the best you can to create that 'dome' of sound. I can tell you without doubt that if you leave the surrounds in their current locations and add two TR speakers to the ceiling, you will not hear where the sounds are coming from, discretely, as there is insufficient angular separation between the surrounds and the ceiling speakers. Atmos *requires* this separation in order to work properly. Given this, and notwithstanding that you already have the speakers, I would personally not take the time and trouble to install TR speakers unless you can significantly lower the surrounds. Trouble is, lowering the surrounds will put them either side of your head and that will not really give a very good result.

For these reasons, I would go the baptpig route and leave your surrounds where they are and mount one pair of overhead speakers in the middle of the ceiling (front to back 'middle') and designate them as TM for a 5.1.2 setup. This is the best overall compromise IMO.

Sometimes what we would ideally like to do, in a perfect world, is just not possible to achieve. But, as my old buddy Sanjay would say - do not let perfect be the enemy of good. You can get a good result by adopting a 5.1.2 setup, so go for it. Then sit back )lie back in your case ) and enjoy! Atmos has created a subculture of overthinking which we never saw in the old 5.1 or 7.1 days, and it really isn't necessary.


----------



## kbarnes701

Uh oh..... note to self: do NOT get sucked back in to the Great Forum Time Suck  LOL.


----------



## kbarnes701

Augerhandle said:


> Dude, it's your bedroom. Enjoy your 5.1 sex.


 

Have I missed this important new add-on to Atmos while I've been away??


----------



## joms

ok got it, so stick to old surround location then just add 2x atmos speaker.

But just for curiosity's sake i installed the 4x atmos in-ceiling speaker, which among the 3x setup is the best and which is the worst among the 3? (yes i understand its not ideal but what's the lesser evil?)
a) use the current location of the surround speaker
b) surround speaker in location A (using a monopole speaker like the KEF Q50a)
c) surround speaker in location B (using the current Mission M7Ds surrounds)


----------



## kbarnes701

joms said:


> ok got it, so stick to old surround location then just add 2x atmos speaker.


That would be the way to go for me. You will genuinely not lose anything, since you will not hear any separation between sounds from the high-mounted surrounds and TR in the other setup.



joms said:


> But just for curiosity's sake i installed the 4x atmos in-ceiling speaker, which among the 3x setup is the best and which is the worst among the 3? (yes i understand its not ideal but what's the lesser evil?)
> a) use the current location of the surround speaker
> b) surround speaker in location A (using a monopole speaker like the KEF Q50a)
> c) surround speaker in location B (using the current Mission M7Ds surrounds)


a) is, IMO, pointless for the reasons already given.
b) if you can get much better angular separation between the surrounds and the TR, this would be better than a) but may still not give a great result with the surrounds so high up.
c) That would be the best out of these three options, but I would still go with 5.1.2 as I think that in your room 5.1.4 wouldn't really be all that much, if any, better than the other options.


----------



## LNEWoLF

kbarnes701 said:


> Uh oh..... note to self: do NOT get sucked back in to the Great Forum Time Suck  LOL.


Too late for you. The 1st step is to admit you have a problem.

For assistance in overcoming your audio addiction try www.audioholicsanonymous.com good luck. 

I’m a lifetime member, started at the age of two. Banging on my mothers pots and pans. Later progressed to a small transistor radio hidden under my pillow at night. Then a Gibson tobacco sunburst ES335TD guitar. Now many years later.............This website forum and 7.2.4 Atmos. Save yourself theres NO hope for ME 

Good to see you again. Always enjoyed reading your posts.


----------



## kbarnes701

LNEWoLF said:


> Too late for you. The 1st step is to admit you have a problem.


 Good point. My name is Keith and I am an audioholic....



LNEWoLF said:


> For assistance in overcoming your audio addiction try www.audioholicsanonymous.com good luck.






LNEWoLF said:


> I’m a lifetime member, started at the age of two. Banging on my mothers pots and pans. Later progressed to a small transistor radio hidden under my pillow at night. Then a Gibson tobacco sunburst ES335TD guitar. Now many years later.............This website forum and 7.2.4 Atmos. Save yourself theres NO hope for ME
> 
> Good to see you again. Always enjoyed reading your posts.


 Thanks. 

My name is Keith and I am an audioholic.... My name is Keith and I am an audioholic....


----------



## asharma

asharma said:


> Hi folks
> Atmos config question
> Side surround tweeters are at 38” as per the Paradigm recommended stand for the speaker...side surrounds are at 80 degrees to my 2 recliners
> 
> Rear surround tweeters at 38” also...recliner seat backs also about 38-39” with my ears being at about 35”...
> 
> Would the recliner seatbacks block out the rear surround sounds meaning should I raise the height of the rear surrounds to clear the height of the recliner backs making the rears higher than the sides or should the rears be fine at 38”? Rears are about 6 feet back of recliners and essentially diagonal to each ear...Thanks folks...
> 
> Edit: front L&R tweeters are at 42”...


Any input would be appreciated, thanks


----------



## StevenC56

asharma said:


> Any input would be appreciated, thanks


I would think since your rears are that far behind your MLP, that it would be fine. How does it sound? That would be the determining factor for me.


----------



## asharma

StevenC56 said:


> I would think since your rears are that far behind your MLP, that it would be fine. How does it sound? That would be the determining factor for me.


 Thanks, have not had a chance to run room correction yet but, it sounds "ok" from what I can tell...its not like the rear content is meant to overwhelm the sound stage, so its hard to tell...I'm trying to keep all speakers on the same sound plane, but 38" even looks physically a bit low to me...You may be right, given the distance between seating and rear wall there is enuf room for the sound to dissipate properly...


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Good point. My name is Keith and I am an audioholic....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> My name is Keith and I am an audioholic.... My name is Keith and I am an audioholic....


He is BACK!  Not that he exactly went away completely...

Speaking of .2, something I've noticed lately is that more mixers are putting a pair of stereo overheads into the top middles (ala Private Ryan) vs. having an object playing from both the front and rear heights/tops. It's particularly evident on the Disney+ releases of the Ep I-VI of Star Wars.

Interestingly, when I've experimented with my special Disney 7.1.4 preset vs. my more standard .6, I've found that there's very little difference in the overhead dome of sound, meaning that what is more or less a phantom image above you around MLP sounds about the same when you just have content from the considerably closer (80 degrees in my case) top middles. So I'm not sure I'd obsess too much about mixers going to 7.1.2 vs. 7.1.4 in the majority of the content you hear in an Atmos mix (leaving presence speakers like wides out of it for the moment). 

Also, in case you don't know, DTS:X Pro is now available in the wild on your favorite processor that will not be named in this post....the improvement in my room for side to side and overhead from the Neural:X in the Pro release is somewhere between marginal and "nice to have", but if there's anywhere the extra channels are a plus, it's my inside the screen Lc/Rc, where there's more detail and seat to seat consistency by having five front speakers vs. three and applying the upmix to multichannel music content (5.1). YMMV of course. My comments are here, if anyone is curious.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...516103-trinnov-altitude-347.html#post59198472

I really didn't think you were coming back full force. Weren't you happy just enjoying your movies?


----------



## kbarnes701

asharma said:


> Thanks, have not had a chance to run room correction yet but, it sounds "ok" from what I can tell...its not like the rear content is meant to overwhelm the sound stage, so its hard to tell...I'm trying to keep all speakers on the same sound plane, but 38" even looks physically a bit low to me...You may be right, given the distance between seating and rear wall there is enuf room for the sound to dissipate properly...


I always like my ears to have 'line of ear' to each speaker, even if that means deviating slightly from 'recommended guidelines'. In my case for example, my side surrounds would fire directly into the heads of the listeners either side of me, so I raised them up a bit, even though strictly speaking I advocate surrounds at ear level for Atmos. As ever, common sense prevails.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdrucker said:


> He is BACK!  Not that he exactly went away completely...
> 
> Speaking of .2, something I've noticed lately is that more mixers are putting a pair of stereo overheads into the top middles (ala Private Ryan) vs. having an object playing from both the front and rear heights/tops. It's particularly evident on the Disney+ releases of the Ep I-VI of Star Wars.
> 
> Interestingly, when I've experimented with my special Disney 7.1.4 preset vs. my more standard .6, I've found that there's very little difference in the overhead dome of sound, meaning that what is more or less a phantom image above you around MLP sounds about the same when you just have content from the considerably closer (80 degrees in my case) top middles. So I'm not sure I'd obsess too much about mixers going to 7.1.2 vs. 7.1.4 in the majority of the content you hear in an Atmos mix (leaving presence speakers like wides out of it for the moment).
> 
> Also, in case you don't know, DTS:X Pro is now available in the wild on your favorite processor that will not be named in this post....the improvement in my room for side to side and overhead from the Neural:X in the Pro release is somewhere between marginal and "nice to have", but if there's anywhere the extra channels are a plus, it's my inside the screen Lc/Rc, where there's more detail and seat to seat consistency by having five front speakers vs. three and applying the upmix to multichannel music content (5.1). YMMV of course. My comments are here, if anyone is curious.
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...516103-trinnov-altitude-347.html#post59198472
> 
> I really didn't think you were coming back full force. Weren't you happy just enjoying your movies?


Hey Stu! How y'all doin'?

I'm not really 'back'. Just dropped by to see how you're all doing. Interesting stuff in your post, especially wrt to DTS:X Pro, about which I know nothing. Agree that Lc/Rc make a lot more difference and bring a lot more benefit, especially if the screen is wiiiiiide. My screen is just under 12 feet wide but my JBL monsters being, er, monsters, there's no way to fit more speakers across the front even if my gear would permit it (it won't). I'm not noticing any issues re SQ. I went along to the legendary Odeon in London's Leicester Square recently to see *1917 *and I have to say that my enjoyment of my SQ and PQ at home was every bit as satisfying. Also saw *Jojo Rabbit* in the same theater - same comment applies.


----------



## sdrucker

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey Stu! How y'all doin'?
> 
> I'm not really 'back'. Just dropped by to see how you're all doing. Interesting stuff in your post, especially wrt to DTS:X Pro, about which I know nothing. Agree that Lc/Rc make a lot more difference and bring a lot more benefit, especially if the screen is wiiiiiide. My screen is just under 12 feet wide but my JBL monsters being, er, monsters, there's no way to fit more speakers across the front even if my gear would permit it (it won't). I'm not noticing any issues re SQ. I went along to the legendary Odeon in London's Leicester Square recently to see *1917 *and I have to say that my enjoyment of my SQ and PQ at home was every bit as satisfying. Also saw *Jojo Rabbit* in the same theater - same comment applies.


Glad to hear. The jury is still "out" about the value of Neural:X in the Pro release (given that it's been than of a week, we're in small sample territory), but real proof of the pudding will be what it adds to native DTS:X releases. I'll be curious what it adds to those folks buying an HTP-1 or something where Neural:X or DTS:X is intended more for a single listener or single row 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 setup. 

These days my theatre is also more or less "done", aside from occasionally fiddling with target curves  , and I'm sometimes commenting but more enjoying content. Lately, on the movie side, I've been doing mostly Nextflix, Amazon Video, Apple+, and Disney+ streaming with Atmos content aside from checking out the new release. I was going to buy Ford vs. Ferrari but the ATV's Apple+ beat me to the bunch with UHD and an Atmos track. My next UHD shiny disc purchase may wind up being 1917, but it won't be anything from Star Wars given that all the films are on or will be on Disney+. And like you, our theatre going is way down except for art films or an occasional kid movie.


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> ...DTS:X Pro, about which I know nothing.


Lifts the 11-speaker limit of DTS:X.


----------



## gwsat

Keith — It’s really great to have you back. Don’t stay away so long the next time. The more of my fellow OCD nerds there are around, the better. 

I had no place but a bookcase on the back wall of my viewing room to place my back surrounds. The result has been that my back surrounds are about three feet higher than optimum. Because my L, C, R, side surround, and overhead speakers are well placed, I enjoy excellent surround effects. Atmos is terrific too when the Atmos speakers have been effectively used by the sound engineers. Unfortunately, way too many 7.x.4 mixes underuse the overhead speakers. Don’t know why that is but it’s what my ears tell me way too often.


----------



## StevenC56

Here's what I ended up with for my rear and front in-ceiling Atmos speaker locations. The fronts locations will allow me to pass the wires through a false roof to the rears with this location. Running the wiring is going to be a bit of a challenge. I'm also going to run wiring to the front L&R area while I'm at it for future use in case I ever get a processor that will do .6, or whatever else technology change pops up that may require a couple more speakers in the front ceiling area. Next step is to cut the holes and watch the blown in insulation make a mess all over my room. I bought this special circle cutter and practiced on a piece of sheetrock. It makes a really nice circle. Then I have to paint the speakers matte black, as well as my in ceiling lights which have been white for almost 24 years.


----------



## joms

kbarnes701 said:


> That would be the way to go for me. You will genuinely not lose anything, since you will not hear any separation between sounds from the high-mounted surrounds and TR in the other setup.
> 
> a) is, IMO, pointless for the reasons already given.
> b) if you can get much better angular separation between the surrounds and the TR, this would be better than a) but may still not give a great result with the surrounds so high up.
> c) That would be the best out of these three options, but I would still go with 5.1.2 as I think that in your room 5.1.4 wouldn't really be all that much, if any, better than the other options.



Let me clarify something as I want to learn from this. 

Choice C, while being the best among the three, still isn't acceptable with a 5.1.4 setup because in location B, the rear surrounds, despite being brought down to its position, are now too near the back of our head and will be easily localized even if it is a bipole. Did I get this right? 

Also, what do you mean by "angular separation"? Will the Kef Q50a or SVS elevation give me angular separation as it is pointing downwards? What is "TR" ?


Thanks.


----------



## asharma

kbarnes701 said:


> I always like my ears to have 'line of ear' to each speaker, even if that means deviating slightly from 'recommended guidelines'. In my case for example, my side surrounds would fire directly into the heads of the listeners either side of me, so I raised them up a bit, even though strictly speaking I advocate surrounds at ear level for Atmos. As ever, common sense prevails.


Raised em 4” to match front towers. Aesthetically better looking too a bit higher and clears the seatbacks of the recliners...happy camper!


----------



## eta1345

I posted this in the Speaker thread but did not get a response.

I was wondering if any one had any experience or thoughts on using a single speaker, designed for stereo (example being the HTD SDX-S65), for atmos use?

My room has a vaulted ceiling with a flat service, around 2 feet, in the middle that I have my atmos speakers in. I was just curious if maybe using speakers like the one I talk about would be worth it?

Also how do you think this would affect room correction such as Audyssey?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Matt L

StevenC56 said:


> Here's what I ended up with for my rear and front in-ceiling Atmos speaker locations. The fronts locations will allow me to pass the wires through a false roof to the rears with this location. Running the wiring is going to be a bit of a challenge. I'm also going to run wiring to the front L&R area while I'm at it for future use in case I ever get a processor that will do .6, or whatever else technology change pops up that may require a couple more speakers in the front ceiling area. Next step is to cut the holes and watch the blown in insulation make a mess all over my room. I bought this special circle cutter and practiced on a piece of sheetrock. It makes a really nice circle. Then I have to paint the speakers matte black, as well as my in ceiling lights which have been white for almost 24 years.


 Regarding running the wiring, I have a difficult ceiling also - no blown insulation but R40 fiberglass - with scissor trusses plus a tiny access area to work in. I found the 16' long pieces of 1/2"pex water line from Lowes or HD worked wonders. Tried fish tape and that was terrible, but was easily able to maneuver the pex where I needed it. I looped from left rear to right rear then to front right, running scrap wire or clothesline. Then left front to right front and from there into a wall cavity and down, used the scrap wire to hook the actual speaker wire to to pull the run. I used about 225' of wire total. Got 14-2 speaker cable rated for in-wall. Hope you have better access than I did, but it was well worth the effort.


----------



## kbarnes701

joms said:


> Let me clarify something as I want to learn from this.
> 
> Choice C, while being the best among the three, still isn't acceptable with a 5.1.4 setup because in location B, the rear surrounds, despite being brought down to its position, are now too near the back of our head and will be easily localized even if it is a bipole. Did I get this right?
> 
> Also, what do you mean by "angular separation"? Will the Kef Q50a or SVS elevation give me angular separation as it is pointing downwards? What is "TR" ?
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Yes, my view is that 5.1.2 is the way I would go in your room. TR is Top Rear (TF is Top Front and TM is Top Middle) - the designations in your AVR for the ceiling speakers.

Angular separation is the 'angle difference' from MLP to the relevant speakers. Take a look at this frequently posted diagram:










Note where the LCR and surrounds are in relation to the ceiling speakers in this 'ideal' layout.


----------



## joms

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, my view is that 5.1.2 is the way I would go in your room. TR is Top Rear (TF is Top Front and TM is Top Middle) - the designations in your AVR for the ceiling speakers.
> 
> Angular separation is the 'angle difference' from MLP to the relevant speakers. Take a look at this frequently posted diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note where the LCR and surrounds are in relation to the ceiling speakers in this 'ideal' layout.


Thanks for the diagram, that's very informative. 

Actually what i originally planned to use for my 5.1.4 setup is Top front and Top Middle only, there will be no Top rear since the rear atmos speakers will be directly above my head.


----------



## StevenC56

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on processors that allow .6, I don't think you can run only TM & TF without TR?


----------



## StevenC56

Matt L said:


> Regarding running the wiring, I have a difficult ceiling also - no blown insulation but R40 fiberglass - with scissor trusses plus a tiny access area to work in. I found the 16' long pieces of 1/2"pex water line from Lowes or HD worked wonders. Tried fish tape and that was terrible, but was easily able to maneuver the pex where I needed it. I looped from left rear to right rear then to front right, running scrap wire or clothesline. Then left front to right front and from there into a wall cavity and down, used the scrap wire to hook the actual speaker wire to to pull the run. I used about 225' of wire total. Got 14-2 speaker cable rated for in-wall. Hope you have better access than I did, but it was well worth the effort.


Thanks for the tip on the PEX. I bought the fiberglass wire pulling rods from HF, so I'll see how that goes. The back of the room inside the false roof has batting type insulation, but the rest of the room is the messy blown in stuff.


----------



## Josh Z

StevenC56 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but on processors that allow .6, I don't think you can run only TM & TF without TR?


That is correct. When you configure for x.x.4 (even if the receiver/processor allows up to x.x.6), you cannot have two heights in adjacent positions. 

You can't do TF and TM. However, you can do FH and TM, because there's a position open between them.

When you configure for x.x.6, then you can do adjacent positions of TF, TM, and TR.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but on processors that allow .6, I don't think you can run only TM & TF without TR?


He should just set either top front to front height or top middle to top rear. The info from top rear just gets moved to top middle anyway and vice versa when all aren't available. I noticed that immediately with the various Atmos demos when I knocked things down to 5.1.4. 

The same is true for side/rears. They're getting the same thing when one isn't present. I think you have to call the speakers behind you side surrounds if you only have surrounds in a lot of software. It doesn't matter since it carries the same signals regardless. Rendering doesn't really mean jack up to 7.1.4 as it has nowhere to move major missing speaker content except to the next nearest pair. 

Neural X attempts to image closer to where things should be by leaking array info to other speakers, but it seems like most people hate that with a passion for no reason other than they've been taught to believe discrete is best at all times despite the fact your brain often can't tell the difference.

@eta1345 Regarding two in one speakers. It's hard to answer. Yes, it will function. Whether you get enough separation to tell it from one combined channel is highly questionable. But 6.1 was still better than 5.1 here so it seems like any overhead content us better than none. The VOG channel for Auro-3D works well enough blending with nearby speakers and it's only on me channel in the middle.


----------



## kbarnes701

sdurani said:


> Lifts the 11-speaker limit of DTS:X.


Thank you Sanj! I really am behind the curve on much of the latest developments.


----------



## kbarnes701

joms said:


> Thanks for the diagram, that's very informative.
> 
> Actually what i originally planned to use for my 5.1.4 setup is Top front and Top Middle only, there will be no Top rear since the rear atmos speakers will be directly above my head.


Just to elaborate a little on what the others have said, most AVRs do not allow adjacent pairs to be used for the overhead layout so TF + TM isn't a permitted combination. However FH (Front Height) and TM is, and that may suit you. If you look at the diagram, you will see that there is considerable 'overlap' between the designated speaker sets, so clearly Dolby did not feel that the speaker placement has to be all that precise anyway. As ever, use common sense and judgement along with the practical room limitations which affect almost all of us and remember that you are trying to create a 'dome' of sound as best you can. I am confident that you will find that "some Atmos beats no Atmos at all".


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> I really am behind the curve on much of the latest developments.


No big developments in immersive audio except for the DTS:X Pro label for devices that go beyond 11 outputs. When playing back DTS:X 7.1.4 tracks on a 9.1.2 layout, matrix centre extraction (2 in, 3 out) was used to feed the Wides, like it did on your old Denon receiver. That upscaling of channels is still part of DTS:X decoding, but with Pro there is the opportunity to use it for many more speakers that are between channels. 

Atmos is still Atmos, just that home mixes have gotten worse. For example, Disney has gone from pre-rendered 7.1.4 tracks to 7.1.2 encodes (ironically, right when affordable 9.1.6 gear is starting to show up). Unfortunately, "Disney" means Walt Disney Productions, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and now Fox. So their lazy approach to home Atmos mixes affects a lot of the most popular movie titles.


----------



## StevenC56

sdurani said:


> No big developments in immersive audio except for the DTS:X Pro label for devices that go beyond 11 outputs. When playing back DTS:X 7.1.4 tracks on a 9.1.2 layout, matrix centre extraction (2 in, 3 out) was used to feed the Wides, like it did on your old Denon receiver. That upscaling of channels is still part of DTS:X decoding, but with Pro there is the opportunity to use it for many more speakers that are between channels.
> 
> Atmos is still Atmos, just that home mixes have gotten worse. For example, Disney has gone from pre-rendered 7.1.4 tracks to 7.1.2 encodes (ironically, right when affordable 9.1.6 gear is starting to show up). Unfortunately, "Disney" means Walt Disney Productions, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and now Fox. So their lazy approach to home Atmos mixes affects a lot of the most popular movie titles.


So all Walt Disney discs and streaming has only 1 L&R overhead/Atmos channel?


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Atmos is still Atmos, just that home mixes have gotten worse. For example, Disney has gone from pre-rendered 7.1.4 tracks to 7.1.2 encodes (ironically, right when affordable 9.1.6 gear is starting to show up). Unfortunately, "Disney" means Walt Disney Productions, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and now Fox. So their lazy approach to home Atmos mixes affects a lot of the most popular movie titles.


For what it's worth, Netflix isn't always encoding in 7.1.4 on their content. Releases like 6 Underground and their Dracula mini-series made use of beyond 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 during certain scenes. At least that's what I saw on my Altitude's input meters. And wasn't Altered Carbon 9.1.6? And the Atmos track on Fox’s Ford vs. Ferrari on Apple+ had scenes where all of my presence speakers lit up in sequence during racing scenes. I'll see if I can document some when I watch the movie again. So while worse is happening more often due to the volume from the Mouse Collective, there's still bright spots out there.

I'll note that even on a release like Star Wars Ep 4 (A New Hope) that while the vast majority of the film is at most 7.1.2, there's times that you'll see front/rear heights or wides light up very momentarily as a kind of exclamation point, above and beyond 7.1.2. Think the scene when the Millennium Falcon leaves hyperspace and winds up in the debris of what was Alderaan. So while I agree Disney is lazy - I think you even lose that effect once you get to the Ep. 7-9/post ROTJ films that really are encoded in 7.1.4 - strictly speaking it's not just a 7.1.2 encode on those films. Just 95% or 97% mixed that way.

Besides, once DTS:X Pro and its Neural:X component removes the 11 channel limit for folks other than Trinnov owners, I think you'll see that as the compromise solution if a user really wants all the speakers firing away, all the time. Of course, that means either selecting a 5.1/7.1 track or more typically, outputting the source as PCM to remove the metadata and give Neural:X a clean slate, so to speak, for upmixing beyond 7.1.


----------



## rbolen

Maybe this is the wrong place to post this (I apologize if so), but I have read the entire thread over the past few weeks prior to completing my atoms set-up and this seems the most appropriate place. 

I am going to have a 6.1.4 setup (only 1 surround back, but that is a different topic, irrelevant to my current question). A Denon AVR x4400 will be the main AVR. I have an old Denon AVR 1712 that I plan to use to power the 2 top/rear speakers, BUT, I also plan to use the "Zone 2" assignment of the AVR to allow FOUR total externally power channels (top/rear AND top/front atmos speakers). I've read up on this and it seems this is completely possible if I turn the "amp assign" on the 1712 to zone 2, and hook up stereo RCA inputs to 2 different sources (BD and DVD for example) from the appropriate pre-outs on my 4400; I will just be running both zone 1 and zone 2 at the same time, with different input sources (correlating with the RCAs I have plugged into the back from the pre-outs on the 4400). 

So, the question is, I will turn the 1712 to "Pure Direct" mode, but will this also apply to zone 2? If it does not apply to zone 2, will it even matter after I run Audessy on the 4400? Or, does this level of detail even matter at all given the sound that will be going through these speakers?

By the way, I know that I don't HAVE to use an external amp for more than just 2 channels, but I see no reason NOT to offload 2 more channels (to total all 4 atmos speakers) from the 4400 if I am able. 

If this was addressed somewhere in the past, I really missed it. 

Thanks!


----------



## sdrucker

StevenC56 said:


> So all Walt Disney discs and streaming has only 1 L&R overhead/Atmos channel?


Or more like "blink or you'll miss it" unless you listen for it beyond 7.1.2. At least for the streaming Atmos versions of the first two Star Wars trilogies. To be fair, I've mostly been focusing on Netflix and Apple+ content lately so I'm not up on the last couple of months of Disney family releases. I've got Disney+ so I might take a look at some of the most recent Marvel films or something from Disney proper over the weekend.


----------



## MagnumX

I have to disagree to some extent. Star Wars has short front/back overhead object pans, but they're used when appropriate (e.g. Star Destroyer chase). Having speakers "active" all the time when they're not really doing anything doesn't mean much (i.e. Watching channel meters to tell me if something is used enough isn't my style). Cinema Atmos has two overheads active with the bed channels all the time. That doesn't mean they're doing anything useful.

Frankly, I think people ought to be happy Disney actually uses objects in Star Wars instead of a locked channel mix. It's a real improvement with them not totally obliterating the bass and dynamics for a change as well.


----------



## galonzo

sdrucker said:


> ...These days my theatre is also more or less "done", aside from occasionally fiddling with target curves  , and I'm sometimes commenting but more enjoying content. Lately, on the movie side, I've been doing mostly Nextflix, Amazon Video, Apple+, and Disney+ streaming with Atmos content aside from checking out the new release. I was going to buy Ford vs. Ferrari but the ATV's Apple+ beat me to the bunch with UHD and an Atmos track. My next UHD shiny disc purchase may wind up being 1917, but it won't be anything from Star Wars given that all the films are on or will be on Disney+. And like you, our theatre going is way down except for art films or an occasional kid movie


I have always, and still continue to purchase every shiny disk with TrueHD Atmos I'm interested in seeing, including Disney/Marvel/Star Wars (even though we also subscribe to D+), mainly for the whole lossy vs. lossless argument, but even more so since another compelling reason recently came to light here; when you stream the lossy, DD+ Atmos track, the objects are never completely "unfolded" from the bed layer 

That said, I have the shiny, Ford vs. Ferrari UHD Blu on pre-order


----------



## The Dead Chain

Certain movies really use Atmos well, why others barely have any sound at all.
Will be interesting when Atmos becomes more common if the audio will be put to more use?


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched the new Midway movie. The storytelling could have been better, but the sound was definitely above average in Atmos, comparable to Red Tails in Auro-3D, I think. Plane footage was mostly very good as well.


----------



## joms

kbarnes701 said:


> Just to elaborate a little on what the others have said, most AVRs do not allow adjacent pairs to be used for the overhead layout so TF + TM isn't a permitted combination. However FH (Front Height) and TM is, and that may suit you. If you look at the diagram, you will see that there is considerable 'overlap' between the designated speaker sets, so clearly Dolby did not feel that the speaker placement has to be all that precise anyway. As ever, use common sense and judgement along with the practical room limitations which affect almost all of us and remember that you are trying to create a 'dome' of sound as best you can. I am confident that you will find that "some Atmos beats no Atmos at all".


wow, this is a big info that i didn't know. I never thought that the AVR would not permit TF+TM. Thanks for this. Now I need to do some research if FH+TM is better than TF+TR.

By the way, is FH still part of atmos? I might be able to make one of my in-ceiling speakers FH since it can be partially angled towards the listener. (klipsch CDT-5650-c). Will this work or do I need a different type of speaker for FH? (something like the KEF Q50a or SVS elevation)


----------



## Josh Z

joms said:


> wow, this is a big info that i didn't know. I never thought that the AVR would not permit TF+TM. Thanks for this. Now I need to do some research if FH+TM is better than TF+TR.
> 
> By the way, is FH still part of atmos? I might be able to make one of my in-ceiling speakers FH since it can be partially angled towards the listener. (klipsch CDT-5650-c). Will this work or do I need a different type of speaker for FH? (something like the KEF Q50a or SVS elevation)


Atmos allows for five possible height speaker locations (per pair): Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear, and Rear Height. Most A/V receivers only allow you to use two of these at a time, and not in adjacent positions. A few higher-end models can accommodate three pairs, and expensive boutique processors like Trinnov may go further.


----------



## MagnumX

joms said:


> wow, this is a big info that i didn't know. I never thought that the AVR would not permit TF+TM. Thanks for this. Now I need to do some research if FH+TM is better than TF+TR.
> 
> By the way, is FH still part of atmos? I might be able to make one of my in-ceiling speakers FH since it can be partially angled towards the listener. (klipsch CDT-5650-c). Will this work or do I need a different type of speaker for FH? (something like the KEF Q50a or SVS elevation)


As I mentioned above, selecting rear height instead of top middle will have no appreciable effect on the content of the speaker in regards to if you COULD select Top Middle as Atmos will just move the rear material forward with top middle and front height or backward to Top Rear (to contain both basically). Thus, you can just select Top Front and Top Rear and it will work fine in the Top Middle location. You could select Front Height and Top Middle if you prefer, but I think I'd stick with the top designation in the front unless you're going to use Auro-3D, in which case I'd set both to "height".


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> This is what I use for matrixed extra speakers (mixer adds the two channels together to create a new channel with both combined into one; in phase material is up to 3db louder and out of phase may cancel altogether if it's correlated between the two sets of channels. Material present in just one channel will play as normal. Thus, you can create a matrixed channel in-between two discrete channels, but in your case you just want one speaker to play both channels. It will be slightly louder for centered rear material than non-centered an will still array with the sides with correlated material. In other words, sounds will pan from side to rear normally.)
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Rolls-MX51S-...active+audio+mini+mixer&qid=1580063017&sr=8-3
> 
> Plug left/right rear surround pre-outs into a set of input jacks and the output jacks will contain both channels, which then go to a power amp. The input dials control how much of each channel. For a centered rear speaker, these would be even (e.g. Both set to 12 o'clock). They also effect the output level so you will want to check levels and adjust to match when you're done, either at the dials or the AVR, although like a sub gain control, the mixer controls can go higher or lower than the AVR can change so you might have to turn them up or down if you go too far.


Hi, when i get the Rolls mixer, connect the SBL and SBR pre-out to the mixer, and dial the volume up to say 10-11 o'clock on the mixer, the signal will be mixed from both channels into again L and R output, correct ?
So for one speaker I can connect L *or* R mixer out to the external amp and run one speaker and it will produce both channel signals ?

Isn't using a Y splitter one the SBR and SBL pre-out and running this to the external amp not the same ? 

Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Hi, when i get the Rolls mixer, connect the SBL and SBR pre-out to the mixer, and dial the volume up to say 10-11 o'clock on the mixer, the signal will be mixed from both channels into again L and R output, correct ?
> So for one speaker I can connect L *or* R mixer out to the external amp and run one speaker and it will produce both channel signals ?


Yes, but since you only want one output, you will want SBL into one input and SBR into another separate input (not as "stereo" into one input). Make sure they're both in the same relative channel as well (e.g. Both in the "R" or both in the "L").



> Isn't using a Y splitter one the SBR and SBL pre-out and running this to the external amp not the same ?


Y Splitters should only be used to split an RCA output into two channels, not combine two into one, which carries some risk of backfeeding current into the pre-out outputs themselves (not worth risking blowing up a multi-kilobuck AVR, IMO). You can make a cable with a diode to prevent any DC leaking back into it, but it's easier just to buy the mixer. The active mixer also makes sure you have enough power (passive sometimes have very poor levels).


----------



## kbarnes701

joms said:


> wow, this is a big info that i didn't know. I never thought that the AVR would not permit TF+TM. Thanks for this. Now I need to do some research if FH+TM is better than TF+TR.
> 
> By the way, is FH still part of atmos? I might be able to make one of my in-ceiling speakers FH since it can be partially angled towards the listener. (klipsch CDT-5650-c). Will this work or do I need a different type of speaker for FH? (something like the KEF Q50a or SVS elevation)


FH + TM will work for you. Also try TF +TR even if the speakers designated as TR are mounted more in a TM physical location. In my old 'Hobbit Theater' which was as tiny as the name suggests (10.5 ft x 10.5 ft) for various reasons I could not mount my rearmost ceiling speakers in an 'approved' rear location so I was basically running a TF + TM *physical* designation, but in the AVR I set them to TF + TR and this worked pretty well for me. I tried FH + TM and I didn't find that as satisfactory, but it was years ago now and I can't recall exactly why not. I posted extensively about it in this thread at the time, but the search tool being what it is, you'll likely never find the posts even if you tried. Once your speakers' physical locations have been settled, try the different designations in the AVR and see which gives you the best effect. Use content you know well which has good overhead effects (something maybe like *Mad Max Fury Road* for example).


----------



## joms

kbarnes701 said:


> FH + TM will work for you. Also try TF +TR even if the speakers designated as TR are mounted more in a TM physical location. In my old 'Hobbit Theater' which was as tiny as the name suggests (10.5 ft x 10.5 ft) for various reasons I could not mount my rearmost ceiling speakers in an 'approved' rear location so I was basically running a TF + TM *physical* designation, but in the AVR I set them to TF + TR and this worked pretty well for me. I tried FH + TM and I didn't find that as satisfactory, but it was years ago now and I can't recall exactly why not. I posted extensively about it in this thread at the time, but the search tool being what it is, you'll likely never find the posts even if you tried. Once your speakers' physical locations have been settled, try the different designations in the AVR and see which gives you the best effect. Use content you know well which has good overhead effects (something maybe like *Mad Max Fury Road* for example).


Thanks. your posts are really informative.

Is there a way in the Denon setup page where i can turn off LCR and just listen to the atmos speakers and surround?


----------



## Josh Z

joms said:


> Is there a way in the Denon setup page where i can turn off LCR and just listen to the atmos speakers and surround?



Go the Amp Assign section and turn off the amps to the speakers you don't want to hear. Or pull the speaker wire out.


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> *Yes, but since you only want one output, you will want SBL into one input and SBR into another separate input (not as "stereo" into one input). Make sure they're both in the same relative channel as well (e.g. Both in the "R" or both in the "L")*.
> 
> Y Splitters should only be used to split an RCA output into two channels, not combine two into one, which carries some risk of backfeeding current into the pre-out outputs themselves (not worth risking blowing up a multi-kilobuck AVR, IMO). You can make a cable with a diode to prevent any DC leaking back into it, but it's easier just to buy the mixer. The active mixer also makes sure you have enough power (passive sometimes have very poor levels).


Sorry Magnum, i am lost here. Do you mean with:

"*you will want SBL into one input and SBR into another separate input*" 
that i put SBL into one input channel and SBR into one ?

"*Make sure they're both in the same relative channel as wel*l"
So how do i get both Left and Right into one input channel, with a Y splitter ?

Could you show me with a pic what you mean ?

Sorry...…….


----------



## CBdicX

*Less is more* …………. 

Hi guys, 
had a 7.2.6 setup but never had the "*wow*" factor with the heights, it was always something of, its ok but...….
So i had 2 Front and Rear Heights, and a set of Kef T101 as Top Middle (great speakers for Height use on the ceiling).

Now i have just the Kef TM and now its: *WOW* !
Big, big differents compared to the split signal between 6 speakers, or just 2.
MLP is exact below the 2 TM's.

I like it (again)


----------



## blake

CBdicX said:


> *Less is more* ………….
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> had a 7.2.6 setup but never had the "*wow*" factor with the heights, it was always something of, its ok but...….
> 
> So i had 2 Front and Rear Heights, and a set of Kef T101 as Top Middle (great speakers for Height use on the ceiling).
> 
> 
> 
> Now i have just the Kef TM and now its: *WOW* !
> 
> Big, big differents compared to the split signal between 6 speakers, or just 2.
> 
> MLP is exact below the 2 TM's.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it (again)




Interesting. Why would this be the case ? Seems odd that 2 heights sound better and is more immersive than 6! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

CBdicX said:


> *Less is more* ………….
> 
> Hi guys,
> had a 7.2.6 setup but never had the "*wow*" factor with the heights, it was always something of, its ok but...….
> So i had 2 Front and Rear Heights, and a set of Kef T101 as Top Middle (great speakers for Height use on the ceiling).
> 
> Now i have just the Kef TM and now its: *WOW* !
> Big, big differents compared to the split signal between 6 speakers, or just 2.
> MLP is exact below the 2 TM's.
> 
> I like it (again)



I have a 7.1.6 (FH, TM, RH) setup and it is far superior to 7.1.2 - I think you may have had setup/settings issues with your .6
There is NO WAY that .2 is better than .6 unless there is something wrong somewhere


----------



## CBdicX

To me it seems in a x.x.6 setup the Height signal is deviated between the 6, and ending up in a very large Height field.
Now with 2 straight above the MLP, all signals go to just 2 speakers and giving me a "feeling" that having just 2 Top Middle is far better then having 6, and hearing pin pointed field i have now, instead of a large field.

Ok, the helicopter is not flying around the room, but what i hear now is far more impressive.
With 6 i hear a Huey helicopter, now i hear a *Chinook* helicopter, and its making tight circles above me


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Sorry Magnum, i am lost here. Do you mean with:
> 
> "*you will want SBL into one input and SBR into another separate input*"
> that i put SBL into one input channel and SBR into one ?
> 
> "*Make sure they're both in the same relative channel as wel*l"
> So how do i get both Left and Right into one input channel, with a Y splitter ?
> 
> Could you show me with a pic what you mean ?
> 
> Sorry...â€¦â€¦. /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif


I can't do that on a phone, unfortunately, but it's not complex.

There's 4 sets of stereo inputs on the mixer (input 1 left and right, input 2 left and right, input 3 left and right and input 4 left and right and stereo output). 

Normally, you'd use the mixer to combine sets of stereo inputs into one set of stereo outputs.

Here, you want to combine left and right together so you don't plug SBL and SBR into input 1 left and right. You plug SBL into input 1 left and SBR into input 2 left and use output left to the amp and then to the speaker. 

Now one of those inputs doesn't use RCA jacks and it might be input 1 in which case use any two RCA inputs and their associated knobs (e.g. Inputs 2 & 3) and the output. It doesn't have to be left either. They could both go in right, so long as they're both the same as the mixer adds only the same channels in each set of inputs.


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> CBdicX said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Less is more* â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> had a 7.2.6 setup but never had the "*wow*" factor with the heights, it was always something of, its ok but...â€¦.
> 
> So i had 2 Front and Rear Heights, and a set of Kef T101 as Top Middle (great speakers for Height use on the ceiling).
> 
> 
> 
> Now i have just the Kef TM and now its: *WOW* !
> 
> Big, big differents compared to the split signal between 6 speakers, or just 2.
> 
> MLP is exact below the 2 TM's.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it (again) /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Why would this be the case ? Seems odd that 2 heights sound better and is more immersive than 6!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think it's the same reason some people don't like heights in general. The sounds start at the walls and move across a large expanse. With tops, they move less, but more sounds are higher on the ceiling away visually from the walls. People associate this _more_ with above their heads on the ceiling as many sounds start full front or full back and those seem more high on the wall to them than overhead. 

Now take this to just two directly overhead. ALL overhead sound are now _directly_ overhead and nowhere near the walls (well left and right might be to the side walls depending how far apart you place them). So now _every_ sound in the overhead channels is directly overhead and thus more noticeable more often.

I like more area and movement, but I also have three rows to cover. But it's not hard to imagine why someone would like everything directly overhead, especially in a small room

Of course, you could get a similar basic effect with by placing speakers closer together on the ceiling without losing all panning.


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> I can't do that on a phone, unfortunately, but it's not complex.
> 
> There's 4 sets of stereo inputs on the mixer (input 1 left and right, input 2 left and right, input 3 left and right and input 4 left and right and stereo output).
> 
> Normally, you'd use the mixer to combine sets of stereo inputs into one set of stereo outputs.
> 
> Here, you want to combine left and right together so you don't plug SBL and SBR into input 1 left and right. You plug SBL into input 1 left and SBR into input 2 left and use output left to the amp and then to the speaker.
> 
> Now one of those inputs doesn't use RCA jacks and it might be input 1 in which case use any two RCA inputs and their associated knobs (e.g. Inputs 2 & 3) and the output. It doesn't have to be left either. They could both go in right, so long as they're both the same as the mixer adds only the same channels in each set of inputs.


Clear, but I think instead of input 1 and input 2, you mean input 2 and input 3, as input 1 is a MIC input on the Rolls.

So i use input 2/3, and *on both only the left (red) input*, white will not be used on input 2/3. 
Set the gains and again just one Rolls output (also the red) will go to the external amp, CD input red, and one L speaker wire to the one speaker.

  

PS.* is the powered version of this mixer needed ?*


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> *Less is more* ………….
> 
> Hi guys,
> had a 7.2.6 setup but never had the "*wow*" factor with the heights, it was always something of, its ok but...….
> So i had 2 Front and Rear Heights, and a set of Kef T101 as Top Middle (great speakers for Height use on the ceiling).
> 
> Now i have just the Kef TM and now its: *WOW* !
> Big, big differents compared to the split signal between 6 speakers, or just 2.
> MLP is exact below the 2 TM's.
> 
> I like it (again)


Didn’t you had bouncers as height speakers? If so, that could also explain your disappointing experiences with 7.x.6 ... 



CBdicX said:


> This is why i mounted the my reflecting speakers behind the screen to get maximum masking, and it works great !!
> Only sound from above and when i point to the speaker with my eyes closed, they would be mounted say a meter from the front wall on the ceiling


----------



## CBdicX

maikeldepotter said:


> Didn’t you had bouncers as height speakers? If so, that could also explain your disappointing experiences with 7.x.6 ...


No, not any more.
But the 2 bouncers did also a "better job" then the previous 6...…….


----------



## maikeldepotter

CBdicX said:


> No, not any more.
> But the 2 bouncers did also a "better job" then the previous 6...…….


So in 2 weeks you went from *bouncing front heights* to *wall mounted front heights* to *no front heights*?
While you're at it, you should indeed also try *ceiling mounted front heights* ...


----------



## Lesmor

The problem with front heights is that they are *usually *above or behind the main Left and Right speakers 
when in or on ceiling speakers are usually in front of the mains which is better for mapping xyz co-ordinates and gives better separation


----------



## Josh Z

CBdicX said:


> To me it seems in a x.x.6 setup the Height signal is deviated between the 6, and ending up in a very large Height field.
> Now with 2 straight above the MLP, all signals go to just 2 speakers and giving me a "feeling" that having just 2 Top Middle is far better then having 6, and hearing pin pointed field i have now, instead of a large field.
> 
> Ok, the helicopter is not flying around the room, but what i hear now is far more impressive.
> With 6 i hear a Huey helicopter, now i hear a *Chinook* helicopter, and its making tight circles above me


Unfortunately, many Atmos soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels and make no use of Top Middle speakers if you have more than 4 heights. Even some authored with audio objects leave the TM speakers silent much of the time. Additionally, almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4.

I suspect that your problem was that your Front Height speakers were blending in with your front mains, and your Rear Heights were blending in with your Surround Backs, making it hard to differentiate the heights from the ground level. And since most Atmos and DTS:X tracks weren't using Top Middles, you hardly ever heard anything above your head. Once you downscaled to 7.1.2, your receiver consolidated all height information into the Top Middles and suddenly the top of your room came alive.


----------



## Josh Z

Also, if you use Neural:X as your upmixer of choice, that's limited to 11 channels and will never use Top Middles if you have six heights.


----------



## CBdicX

maikeldepotter said:


> So in 2 weeks you went from *bouncing front heights* to *wall mounted front heights* to *no front heights*?
> While you're at it, you should indeed also try *ceiling mounted front heights* ...


Thanks, great advice, will to try that also ...……… 

At least I am no afraid to make changes and try until I like it, or get a better result, despite what Dolby, DTS or Auro recommends.


----------



## CBdicX

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, many Atmos soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels and make no use of Top Middle speakers if you have more than 4 heights. Even some authored with audio objects leave the TM speakers silent much of the time. Additionally, almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4.
> 
> I suspect that your problem was that your Front Height speakers were blending in with your front mains, and your Rear Heights were blending in with your Surround Backs, making it hard to differentiate the heights from the ground level. And since most Atmos and DTS:X tracks weren't using Top Middles, you hardly ever heard anything above your head. Once you downscaled to 7.1.2, your receiver consolidated all height information into the Top Middles and suddenly the top of your room came alive.


Yup, and that works for me, having speakers that work


----------



## CBdicX

Josh Z said:


> Also, if you use Neural:X as your upmixer of choice, that's limited to 11 channels and will never use Top Middles if you have six heights.


Indeed, and now they work all the time, and where I want the Height sound coming from, 90 degree above me, and not in front of me or behind me


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> Also, if you use Neural:X as your upmixer of choice, that's limited to 11 channels and will never use Top Middles if you have six heights.


That's just for now. Trinnov rolled out DTS:X Pro (removing the 11 channel limit for Neural:X as well) last week, Storm Audio is demoing a DTS:X Pro setup at ISE, and other manufacturers are planning rollouts themselves. Give it a year and you'll be able to take better advantage of a .6 setup with Neural:X.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, many Atmos soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels and make no use of Top Middle speakers if you have more than 4 heights. Even some authored with audio objects leave the TM speakers silent much of the time. Additionally, almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4.
> 
> I suspect that your problem was that your Front Height speakers were blending in with your front mains, and your Rear Heights were blending in with your Surround Backs, making it hard to differentiate the heights from the ground level. And since most Atmos and DTS:X tracks weren't using Top Middles, you hardly ever heard anything above your head. Once you downscaled to 7.1.2, your receiver consolidated all height information into the Top Middles and suddenly the top of your room came alive.


You are aware that front height plus rear height can image anywhere on the ceiling so long as the angles between them aren't too large, right? Because it doesn't sound like it with that comment....


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> You are aware that front height plus rear height can image anywhere on the ceiling so long as the angles between them aren't too large, right? Because it doesn't sound like it with that comment....


You are aware that if the Front Height speakers are too close to the front mains, it can be difficult to differentiate between them, right? Same with Rear Heights and Surround Backs. Imaging isn't magic. It has its limitations.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> You are aware that if the Front Height speakers are too close to the front mains, it can be difficult to differentiate between them, right? Same with Rear Heights and Surround Backs. Imaging isn't magic. It has its limitations.


I've got news for you Josh Z, that's the way it's _supposed to be_. You are supposed to have one continuous bubble of sound. It's not supposed to "break" between high and low so you can say, "Look up there!" I hear sound coming from that speaker! I don't get any sounds "from speakers" here at all now unless it's a speaker callout (and even then some don't because of dialog lift). The sounds come from wherever they're supposed to. If I play the opening to Flatliners 2017 in Atmos or Auro-3D, the voices come from all across the ceiling in a giant circular arc (many of the voices actually move in a circular fashion in concentric larger/smaller circles on the ceiling and then bounce here to there and all kinds of weird pans. But they're all 100% on the ceiling. If I turn heights and top middle off (through the amp assign), it then forces the same exact sounds to ear level. Guess what? They're not on the ceiling anymore AT ALL. The voices are wandering all around me at ear level instead (kind of cool too, really). 

But most Atmos movies have some level of panning between the speakers if they're real objects and not just the mixing guy trying to only use bed level speakers, etc. Those may very well be hard to tell between the speakers because both are being used. But bed level speakers do not go above ear level here except a little bit in the front for the dialog effect and even then it's set to the lower 1/3 of the screen (moves up 2 feet out of the remaining 6 to the ceiling). Unless binaural clues are used, it cannot image over that height without the height speakers. So if I'm hearing sounds at the top of the screen or even the upper 2/3 of the screen in the front, I can be pretty sure it's the height speakers. But once those sounds start moving towards the back of the room, they move at whatever height level the sound is at. The Atmos "Silence" demo has a plane that is in the bed level speakers that flies forward. It's just above my head (nowhere near the ceiling). That's a bed level effect. I'd love some GROUND speakers to let sounds go BELOW that level (waist or foot level sounds or even on the floor like it's coming from underneath). Atmos isn't really a full 360 bubble. It's more like a 180 dome starting at the height of your bed level speakers.

So why would I want to (or even care) if I can't tell the heights from the beds? That just means it BLENDS PERFECTLY. But if a sound is supposed to be directly overhead on the ceiling, it's there. If it's lower, it's lower. There is no obvious magic "cut off" point because it's panning perfectly between layers of sound. If there's a "gap" between bed level and "overheads" then Atmos isn't really immersive. It's just overhead sounds with no connection to the rest of the movie below. That doesn't sound right to me. It's why I suggested that with ceiling speakers (particularly on a high 9 or 10 foot ceiling) that people might want to put their surrounds a bit higher than ear level for a smooth transition (that's what Dolby does in the movie theater; their "side surrounds" are 2/3 up the wall and no one says, "Gee, I don't hear car sounds right by my ear!" because the movie screen itself is usually higher than ear level (maybe not in stadium seating, but then those speakers are typically diagonally placed relative to the seats, not the screen so the height level is consistent per row). 

But my point is in a 12'x14'x room, front/rear heights will image perfectly fine directly over your head or anywhere in-between. As long as they are at or close to the ceiling, the sounds will pan across the ceiling (the image height is consistent with the height level of the speakers. That doesn't really change for direct overhead sounds even if you use "Tops" speakers instead. They just start further out into the room, but the direct overhead sounds are in EXACTLY the same place either way! Now if the room is too long (like my 24' long room), I would have to use the tops position to do Atmos with only four overhead speakers since the heights locations are well beyond the phantom panning angle for precise placement. But by adding "top middle" the angles are bridged (now less than the tops position) so anything panning front to back smoothly moves across the entire 24' long ceiling. This is true in an Atmos theater too. They just use ALL the overhead speaker locations. 

But if you don't start by the screen, you don't get the connection of sounds to the screen. If I used 45 degrees, the sounds would almost be directly overhead already and the helicopter wouldn't fly in a very big circle. By using FH+TM+RH, the helicopter flies in a giant 24 foot diameter circle around the room. It would only be HALF that diameter with Tops (Top Front would be 6' into the room and Rear Tops 6' in from the rear. That's 12' out of 24'! That's a huge reduction in overhead sounds when the bed level pans the full 24'! Why wouldn't I want them both to be 24' for HUGE panning capability? Indeed, my room sounds twice as large as a result and for all the people that say they cannot hear much in the rear surrounds, I've got news for them. Rear surrounds are AWESOME. Objects pan 15' behind me in the first row MLP! That's huge. There's no mistaking side surrounds for rear surrounds. But sit in row 2 and they blend together more as it now sits between side surround and surround #1 with rears more like 10' behind it and in row three only 2' (with three sets of side surrounds (FW/SS/SS#1 ) in front of it before the front mains. It's like a tornado of surround sound with some material (quite freaky really) with thing passing all through different points in the room between that rear seat and the very front.

Are "heights" for everyone? No. I'd say there for either smaller rooms (especially when you don't want to mess with the ceiling) or larger rooms in combination with top middle (or more) to give the full length of the room instead of only half it overhead. If you want more sounds "directly overhead" then Tops shrinks the ceiling to HALF the total length and thus panning is half the distance front to back. So of course more sounds are "on the ceiling" as they don't even start until 1/4 the way into the room and end 1/4 early. So if you like that better, go with in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers at 45 degrees (do 55 if you really want stuff overhead). But if you want front to back at the same diamter as the bed level in a 7.1 system, you want to start at the top of the room at or above the screen level and go all the way to the back of the room. If that means you have to add top middle, then add it. If AVRs or certain Atmos movies (Disney) won't use top middle, then do what I did and use Pro Logic processors to extract them instead. It works with ALL movies, even Auro-3D ones and doesn't count towards any arbitrary speaker limit. It's not that hard to do.


----------



## mgoldsmith

MagnumX said:


> I've got news for you Josh Z, that's the way it's _supposed to be_. You are supposed to have one continuous bubble of sound. It's not supposed to "break" between high and low so you can say, "Look up there!" I hear sound coming from that speaker! I don't get any sounds "from speakers" here at all now unless it's a speaker callout (and even then some don't because of dialog lift). The sounds come from wherever they're supposed to. If I play the opening to Flatliners 2017 in Atmos or Auro-3D, the voices come from all across the ceiling in a giant circular arc (many of the voices actually move in a circular fashion in concentric larger/smaller circles on the ceiling and then bounce here to there and all kinds of weird pans. But they're all 100% on the ceiling. If I turn heights and top middle off (through the amp assign), it then forces the same exact sounds to ear level. Guess what? They're not on the ceiling anymore AT ALL. The voices are wandering all around me at ear level instead (kind of cool too, really).
> 
> But most Atmos movies have some level of panning between the speakers if they're real objects and not just the mixing guy trying to only use bed level speakers, etc. Those may very well be hard to tell between the speakers because both are being used. But bed level speakers do not go above ear level here except a little bit in the front for the dialog effect and even then it's set to the lower 1/3 of the screen (moves up 2 feet out of the remaining 6 to the ceiling). Unless binaural clues are used, it cannot image over that height without the height speakers. So if I'm hearing sounds at the top of the screen or even the upper 2/3 of the screen in the front, I can be pretty sure it's the height speakers. But once those sounds start moving towards the back of the room, they move at whatever height level the sound is at. The Atmos "Silence" demo has a plane that is in the bed level speakers that flies forward. It's just above my head (nowhere near the ceiling). That's a bed level effect. I'd love some GROUND speakers to let sounds go BELOW that level (waist or foot level sounds or even on the floor like it's coming from underneath). Atmos isn't really a full 360 bubble. It's more like a 180 dome starting at the height of your bed level speakers.
> 
> So why would I want to (or even care) if I can't tell the heights from the beds? That just means it BLENDS PERFECTLY. But if a sound is supposed to be directly overhead on the ceiling, it's there. If it's lower, it's lower. There is no obvious magic "cut off" point because it's panning perfectly between layers of sound. If there's a "gap" between bed level and "overheads" then Atmos isn't really immersive. It's just overhead sounds with no connection to the rest of the movie below. That doesn't sound right to me. It's why I suggested that with ceiling speakers (particularly on a high 9 or 10 foot ceiling) that people might want to put their surrounds a bit higher than ear level for a smooth transition (that's what Dolby does in the movie theater; their "side surrounds" are 2/3 up the wall and no one says, "Gee, I don't hear car sounds right by my ear!" because the movie screen itself is usually higher than ear level (maybe not in stadium seating, but then those speakers are typically diagonally placed relative to the seats, not the screen so the height level is consistent per row).
> 
> But my point is in a 12'x14'x room, front/rear heights will image perfectly fine directly over your head or anywhere in-between. As long as they are at or close to the ceiling, the sounds will pan across the ceiling (the image height is consistent with the height level of the speakers. That doesn't really change for direct overhead sounds even if you use "Tops" speakers instead. They just start further out into the room, but the direct overhead sounds are in EXACTLY the same place either way! Now if the room is too long (like my 24' long room), I would have to use the tops position to do Atmos with only four overhead speakers since the heights locations are well beyond the phantom panning angle for precise placement. But by adding "top middle" the angles are bridged (now less than the tops position) so anything panning front to back smoothly moves across the entire 24' long ceiling. This is true in an Atmos theater too. They just use ALL the overhead speaker locations.
> 
> But if you don't start by the screen, you don't get the connection of sounds to the screen. If I used 45 degrees, the sounds would almost be directly overhead already and the helicopter wouldn't fly in a very big circle. By using FH+TM+RH, the helicopter flies in a giant 24 foot diameter circle around the room. It would only be HALF that diameter with Tops (Top Front would be 6' into the room and Rear Tops 6' in from the rear. That's 12' out of 24'! That's a huge reduction in overhead sounds when the bed level pans the full 24'! Why wouldn't I want them both to be 24' for HUGE panning capability? Indeed, my room sounds twice as large as a result and for all the people that say they cannot hear much in the rear surrounds, I've got news for them. Rear surrounds are AWESOME. Objects pan 15' behind me in the first row MLP! That's huge. There's no mistaking side surrounds for rear surrounds. But sit in row 2 and they blend together more as it now sits between side surround and surround #1 with rears more like 10' behind it and in row three only 2' (with three sets of side surrounds (FW/SS/SS#1 ) in front of it before the front mains. It's like a tornado of surround sound with some material (quite freaky really) with thing passing all through different points in the room between that rear seat and the very front.
> 
> Are "heights" for everyone? No. I'd say there for either smaller rooms (especially when you don't want to mess with the ceiling) or larger rooms in combination with top middle (or more) to give the full length of the room instead of only half it overhead. If you want more sounds "directly overhead" then Tops shrinks the ceiling to HALF the total length and thus panning is half the distance front to back. So of course more sounds are "on the ceiling" as they don't even start until 1/4 the way into the room and end 1/4 early. So if you like that better, go with in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers at 45 degrees (do 55 if you really want stuff overhead). But if you want front to back at the same diamter as the bed level in a 7.1 system, you want to start at the top of the room at or above the screen level and go all the way to the back of the room. If that means you have to add top middle, then add it. If AVRs or certain Atmos movies (Disney) won't use top middle, then do what I did and use Pro Logic processors to extract them instead. It works with ALL movies, even Auro-3D ones and doesn't count towards any arbitrary speaker limit. It's not that hard to do.


Hi all,

Am curious to know where this atmos "fixed/pre-rendered/pinned" 7.1.4 information came from and where has it been confirmed?

just found an updated article (dated Jan 2020) on the official dolby website that states the MAX bed channelling possible is 7.1.2.

wondering if they've posted this in response?
====================


https://developerkb.dolby.com/suppo...at-s-the-difference-between-beds-and-objects-

The choice of using an object versus a bed is entirely up to the mixer however there are a few things to keep in mind:

• Objects have no access natively to the Low-Frequency Effects channel. In most circumstances, this is not
a consideration, as the content that exists in the LFE channel should also exist in the main mix. (That is,
do not rely on the LFE to be the “bass channel.”)


• Bed channels map differently to different overhead speaker configurations. Overheads in an x.y.4
configuration will create a phantom center of the x.y.2 component, whereas in an x.y.6 overhead
configuration, it will use the point source speakers. If you have a concern about a source in the overhead
beds, try switching it to an object so you can have more control over how it renders.


• Depending upon the position and size metadata applied to an object, objects and bed channels can be
sonically identical. For instance, an object placed in the left front with size set to zero will be identical to
placing the audio in the Left channel bed.


• A Dolby Atmos input bed can be 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 5.1, 7.0, 7.1, 7.0.2, or 7.1.2. Distribution of the bed in the
Renderer is defined by the number of speakers in a particular room. For example, if a room is configured
with no center speaker for playback purposes, 3.0 and greater bed configurations will try to phantom
image the content in the bed Center channel to the available left and right positions. This is further
accentuated in the overhead domain. Overheads in a x.y.4 configuration will create a phantom center
(front/back center) of the x.y.2 component, whereas in an x.y.6 overhead configuration, it will use the 

point source speakers. If you have a concern about a source in the overhead beds, try switching it to an

object so you can have more control over how it renders.
================

thx


----------



## MagnumX

mgoldsmith said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Am curious to know where this atmos "fixed/pre-rendered/pinned" 7.1.4 information came from and where has it been confirmed?
> 
> just found an updated article (dated Jan 2020) on the official dolby website that states the MAX bed channelling possible is 7.1.2.



It seems like Disney is using 7.1.2 as a bed channel setup (not sure they're "actual" bed channels as I think home Atmos is more like pinned objects in a sense, but nevertheless that seems to be what they have active the entire movie according to Sdrucker with his Trinnov with other speakers used for moving object panned sounds in key moments (Star Destroyer Chase has the rebel ship pan rear to front, for example). I tend to think Disney did it largely right this time. Compared to their locked soundtracks, it's a big improvement. I hope they keep the object system for the new UHD BDs when they come out. Bass is also intact and not terrible. I don't think they are mega immersive, but it's a nice improvement over 6.1 and definitely has overhead panning objects in addition to direct overhead sounds.


----------



## blake

Should :

1. front L and R
2. ceiling/height speakers 
3. rear surrounds 

All be aligned (left to right) in one’s home theater ? I.E. in a straight line going front to back ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

blake said:


> Should :
> 
> 1. front L and R
> 2. ceiling/height speakers
> 3. rear surrounds
> 
> All be aligned (left to right) in one’s home theater ? I.E. in a straight line going front to back ?


1 + 2 = Yes.
3. No


----------



## blake

dfa973 said:


> 1 + 2 = Yes.
> 
> 3. No




Where would you recommend rear surrounds then ? Most diagrams show them in line with front L and R ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

blake said:


> Where would you recommend rear surrounds then ? Most diagrams show them in line with front L and R ?


What setup do you have? 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.1.4???
The Side Surrounds at what angle are?


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> Should :
> 
> 1. front L and R
> 2. ceiling/height speakers
> 3. rear surrounds
> 
> All be aligned (left to right) in oneâ€™️s home theater ? I.E. in a straight line going front to back ?



Yes to ALL. I don't get some people's advice. Rear surrounds can and ideally should align with the front mains to create a circular or at least oval like bubble of sound around you. There is leeway, of course, but symmetry is normally good with Atmos.

With more than one row, room symmetry makes more sense than seat symmetry (e.g. Sides at 50%, FW at 25%, S#1 at 75% if used, rears and fronts at or near the front/back if the room in line with each other when possible. Front/Rear heights can go inward or outward if needed (cinema Atmos aligns them with the speakers between the center and mains (Lc and Rc) not the mains, but homes are typically smaller so that would mean less separation of left/right, but with larger rooms it can make sense (VOG locale sounds stay centered better off axis with them closer together for example.)


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I've got news for you Josh Z, that's the way it's _supposed to be_. You are supposed to have one continuous bubble of sound. It's not supposed to "break" between high and low so you can say, "Look up there!" I hear sound coming from that speaker! I don't get any sounds "from speakers" here at all now unless it's a speaker callout (and even then some don't because of dialog lift). The sounds come from wherever they're supposed to. If I play the opening to Flatliners 2017 in Atmos or Auro-3D, the voices come from all across the ceiling in a giant circular arc (many of the voices actually move in a circular fashion in concentric larger/smaller circles on the ceiling and then bounce here to there and all kinds of weird pans. But they're all 100% on the ceiling. If I turn heights and top middle off (through the amp assign), it then forces the same exact sounds to ear level. Guess what? They're not on the ceiling anymore AT ALL. The voices are wandering all around me at ear level instead (kind of cool too, really).


If all you have is Front and Rear Heights and you're in a room layout where those speakers don't image well between them (due to distance and/or ceiling height), your "bubble of sound" will break and leave a huge opening at the top. In a x.x.6 configuration, the Top Middle speakers are supposed to resolve this. However, as explained, the TM speakers are completely or near-completely dead on many (perhaps even most) Atmos soundtracks, on all DTS:X soundtracks, and on all content upmixed with DTS Neural:X.

Ideally, an x.x.4 configuration with properly placed Top Front and Top Rear speakers should do a pretty good job of imaging sounds between the height speakers. However, that imaging is more difficult with Front Heights and Rear Heights.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you Josh Z, that's the way it's _supposed to be_. You are supposed to have one continuous bubble of sound. It's not supposed to "break" between high and low so you can say, "Look up there!" I hear sound coming from that speaker! I don't get any sounds "from speakers" here at all now unless it's a speaker callout (and even then some don't because of dialog lift). The sounds come from wherever they're supposed to. If I play the opening to Flatliners 2017 in Atmos or Auro-3D, the voices come from all across the ceiling in a giant circular arc (many of the voices actually move in a circular fashion in concentric larger/smaller circles on the ceiling and then bounce here to there and all kinds of weird pans. But they're all 100% on the ceiling. If I turn heights and top middle off (through the amp assign), it then forces the same exact sounds to ear level. Guess what? They're not on the ceiling anymore AT ALL. The voices are wandering all around me at ear level instead (kind of cool too, really).
> 
> 
> 
> If all you have is Front and Rear Heights and you're in a room layout where those speakers don't image well between them (due to distance and/or ceiling height), your "bubble of sound" will break and leave a huge opening at the top. In a x.x.6 configuration, the Top Middle speakers are supposed to resolve this. However, as explained, the TM speakers are completely or near-completely dead on many (perhaps even most) Atmos soundtracks, on all DTS:X soundtracks, and on all content upmixed with DTS Neural:X.
> 
> Ideally, an x.x.4 configuration with properly placed Top Front and Top Rear speakers should do a pretty good job of imaging sounds between the height speakers. However, that imaging is more difficult with Front Heights and Rear Heights.
Click to expand...

I already addressed that above. Your original reply did not, however blaming imaging on heights without enough information to determine that.

Generally speaking, if you are within the recommended range for "heights" (30-45 degrees without top middle or 20-45 degrees with it) for both sets of speakers the imaging directly overhead (or close to it due to precedence relative to your chair location) should function fine.

In other words, the "problem speakers" for this imaging are typically out of spec for one or both pairs so it's like blaming a car's brakes for failing to stop in time when the brake shoes are down to the nub. If they were in spec, they should function correctly barring other systemic problems. Tops systems can have the same exact issues in larger home theaters as it's not possible to have multiple rows of seats without adding more speakers overhead to bridge the ever decreasing angles.

As for top middle, the blame should fall squarely on Dolby for allowing these printout soundtracks to exist within their software license. They are defeating the entire point of the object rendering system and the real point of those extra speakers are for scaling purposes, not new image locations.

DTS:X used to have the same issue, but their new Pro upmixer solves it automatically by utilizing all available speakers regardless of locked channel layouts. If only it worked with Atmos decoded signals as well. Perhaps it will in the future with Dolby's threats out of the way.

Even so, top middle can operate as either matrixed (cheap and simple mini mixer will do the trick) or extracted "near discrete" with Pro Logic style center extraction rather easily and this will restore six channel overhead operation regardless of format and locked soundtrack and allow direct overhead imaging once again even with extremely large rooms.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Generally speaking, if you are within the recommended range for "heights" (30-45 degrees without top middle or 20-45 degrees with it) for both sets of speakers the imaging directly overhead (or close to it due to precedence relative to your chair location) should function fine.
> 
> In other words, the "problem speakers" for this imaging are typically out of spec for one or both pairs so it's like blaming a car's brakes for failing to stop in time when the brake shoes are down to the nub. If they were in spec, they should function correctly barring other systemic problems. Tops systems can have the same exact issues in larger home theaters as it's not possible to have multiple rows of seats without adding more speakers overhead to bridge the ever decreasing angles.


I don't know why you have to take everything so personally and get defensive. I'm speaking from experience here, not theory. I have a Denon X8500 and a room with Front Heights, Rears Heights, and Top Middles. Due to room limitations, the FH and RH speakers are pretty far apart and my ceiling is low at just 7'. On their own, the FH and RH speakers do not image well between them. It's hard to distinguish the height layer from the ground layer, and there's a big hole over my head. The TM speakers were supposed to fill that hole, but with the receiver configured for 7.1.6, those speakers are hardly ever used. 

"Scatmos" extraction does a better job of utilizing the TM speakers than native 7.1.6 decoding, but has its own problems. Scatmos will collapse all the height information on content upmixed with DSU (and on all of Disney's 7.1.2 soundtracks) into the TM speakers and leave the FH and RH speakers silent.



> As for top middle, the blame should fall squarely on Dolby for allowing these printout soundtracks to exist within their software license. They are defeating the entire point of the object rendering system and the real point of those extra speakers are for scaling purposes, not new image locations.


Your insistence on blaming Dolby for something that sound mixing artists do with their tool is like blaming Ford when a drunk drives one of their cars over a bridge.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> I don't know why you have to take everything so personally and get defensive. I'm speaking from experience here, not theory. I have a Denon X8500 and a room with Front Heights, Rears Heights, and Top Middles. Due to room limitations, the FH and RH speakers are pretty far apart and my ceiling is low at just 7'. On their own, the FH and RH speakers do not image well between them. It's hard to distinguish the height layer from the ground layer, and there's a big hole over my head. The TM speakers were supposed to fill that hole, but with the receiver configured for 7.1.6, those speakers are hardly ever used.
> 
> "Scatmos" extraction does a better job of utilizing the TM speakers than native 7.1.6 decoding, but has its own problems. Scatmos will collapse all the height information on content upmixed with DSU (and on all of Disney's 7.1.2 soundtracks) into the TM speakers and leave the FH and RH speakers silent.
> 
> 
> 
> Your insistence on blaming Dolby for something that sound mixing artists do with their tool is like blaming Ford when a drunk drives one of their cars over a bridge.



I could have sworn that FilmMixer said a while back that in order to create these limited print-out Atmos tracks it actually took more time and hassle than letting the 3D objects behave as normal. I also thought he said that what Disney was often futzing with was not recommended by Dolby in the first place. If my memory is fuzzy, then by all means please correct any misstatements I may have made. If this was indeed the case, I still cannot fathom Disney's (or any other studio that does this) reasoning.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> I could have sworn that FilmMixer said a while back that in order to create these limited print-out Atmos tracks it actually took more time and hassle than letting the 3D objects behave as normal. I also thought he said that what Disney was often futzing with was not recommended by Dolby in the first place. If my memory is fuzzy, then by all means please correct any misstatements I may have made. If this was indeed the case, I still cannot fathom Disney's (or any other studio that does this) reasoning.


Dan, Disney family isn't even consistent about how they're doing the "limited print-outs". I've found Atmos mixes that are 7.1.4, with both front and rear heights/tops playing the same content, but with different db levels for front vs. rear. I've seen the same thing with 7.1.6 (Zootopia comes to mind). And then there's plain old 7.1.2.

It's as if they know they just want one pair of static overhead stereo pairs, but they mix up how they get there. However, the practical results is the same.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, if you are within the recommended range for "heights" (30-45 degrees without top middle or 20-45 degrees with it) for both sets of speakers the imaging directly overhead (or close to it due to precedence relative to your chair location) should function fine.
> 
> In other words, the "problem speakers" for this imaging are typically out of spec for one or both pairs so it's like blaming a car's brakes for failing to stop in time when the brake shoes are down to the nub. If they were in spec, they should function correctly barring other systemic problems. Tops systems can have the same exact issues in larger home theaters as it's not possible to have multiple rows of seats without adding more speakers overhead to bridge the ever decreasing angles.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you have to take everything so personally and get defensive.
Click to expand...

So when you reply every time with an argument, you're _not_ getting defensive, but I _am_? Convenient. /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I should just roll over and let deceptive statements go by.




> I'm speaking from experience here, not theory. I have a Denon X8500 and a room with Front Heights, Rears Heights, and Top Middles. Due to room limitations, the FH and RH speakers are pretty far apart and my ceiling is low at just 7'. On their own, the FH and RH speakers do not image well between them. It's hard to distinguish the height layer from the ground layer, and there's a big hole over my head. The TM speakers were supposed to fill that hole, but with the receiver configured for 7.1.6, those speakers are hardly ever used.


My room has the same problem, but it's a large room length-wise. I could have just did one row, I suppose and avoid the issue or put the surrounds in front of the other rows. At least one person on here prefers only direct overhead so why not?



> "Scatmos" extraction does a better job of utilizing the TM speakers than native 7.1.6 decoding, but has its own problems. Scatmos will collapse all the height information on content upmixed with DSU (and on all of Disney's 7.1.2 soundtracks) into the TM speakers and leave the FH and RH speakers silent.


Isn't that where 0.2 overhead soundtracks are supposed to be? IF the overheads image correctly, that's where they end up with your own brain unless you're sitting next to the front or rear pair (precedence) with all four or all six playing. That's how the Atmos decoder typically handles 0.2 with six overheads as well (not DSU).

I have two solutions to offer, however. One is simple. Don't use DSU. Neural X is mostly better anyway.

Two, change your distance setting between front/rear heights on the Dolby Pro Logic decoder. This will start to leak sound to the front and rear heights while still outputting top middle. The net effect is an array with controllable amounts of separation between them. This not only gets all six functioning with DSU and 0.2 soundtracks, but smooths the panning between the heights and top middle just like PLII's music setting (which you could also try if you use PLII) and lessens the harder steering of Pro Logic I to sound more like Pro Logic II. 

It's been win-win here. The helicopter demo is now smooth as four speakers and moves in a pretty straight line as well now vertically (corrects much of the offset of my side heights doing top middle duty in both directions as they also sit 8 inches lower due to the steel beam box in the middle of the room as well as 2.5' outward from being on the side wall. That effectively changes it to 4 inches and 1.25' which is virtually unnoticeable now while leaving the option of true Auro-3D intact with a speaker switch.)



> Your insistence on blaming Dolby for something that sound mixing artists do with their tool is like blaming Ford when a drunk drives one of their cars over a bridge.


I'd compare it more to Microsoft or Apple blatantly leaving a wide open known bug alone that everyone knows is used for malware, but saying it's not their fault if someone uses their software in a way it's not designed to be used. 

Yes, they can take that stance, but if Microsoft lets it go while Apple patches it, who are users more likely to prefer over the long run? This gives DTS Pro an edge despite being the underdog. Few may have the issue, but for those that do like your system and mine, it's a fatal bug as we get no top middle output using their decoder in rooms that NEED it to function as it's supposed to. 

People are paying a lot extra for speaker support above 11.1 channels only to find they wasted their money as front wides and top middle aren't utilized much even when they should be.

Suddenly, a tweaked "Scatmos" is sounding a whole lot better.


----------



## Rob Greer

Help! Can you provide me with some Atmos top rear speaker position advice? 

I hired a HT installer to run wires and cut ceiling holes in my recently purchased home. During the install, I questioned the top rear Atmos speaker placement. I was assured "that's how everybody places Atmos speakers in room shaped like this one." I was skeptical, but I didn't see a better solution given my weird ceiling. And I was in a hurry. So, I let it go. 

Fast forward 6 months. I've purchased a Marantz 8805 (thanks @SteveH) and I'm looking at 7.2.6 options (instead of just 7.2.4) and I'm wondering about speaker placement. 

Thinking hard about my room, I'm sad that my top rear speakers aren't behind the MLP. I suspect I'm not hearing the optimal Atmos experience. Although my room sounds great, I want great PLUS. 

To take advantage of the new additional channels (and amps I have on hand), I'm thinking about adding a pair of matching in-ceiling top speakers behind my seating to serve as my new top rear Atmos speakers. But I'm not sure if that's the best move. And that's my problem. Here are my thoughts / concerns:


The 3 Atmos speaker pair distances would be different to the MLP (and the current top pairs are already failing in that regard). If I added the new pair, I'm hoping Audyssey speaker distance settings will help. Or not?
If I added a new speaker pair behind the seating (which would then serve as the new top rear Atmos), those speakers wouldn't be very far behind the MLP and wouldn't be at the recommend 45-degree angle from the MLP.
Installing the new pair in the corner would put them very close to room boundaries (corner and walls) perhaps creating a different sound from the other 2 top pairs. Will it matter? Will Audyssey be able to correct?
The ceiling is sloped upward. Therefore, the 2 current Atmos pairs are downward firing but they're angled a bit toward the MLP. The new pair would be directly downward firing because that ceiling area is flat.
The current top rear Atmos pair is pointing directly to the MLP.
I'd don't want to move the current top front and/or rear Atmos speakers (big patch job).
My options are:
Install a new top pair behind the current 2 top pairs (worries are documented above).
Install a new top pair between the current 2 top pairs. But will it many any difference in sound?
Do nothing.
I'm happy with small improvements. This change doesn't need to provide an earth-shaking difference. Every small improvement helps. WWYD?

@sdurani?

Please excuse the photos. My room is dark AF and these were iPhone grabs.


----------



## sdurani

Rob Greer said:


> I'm looking at 7.2.6 options (instead of just 7.2.4) and I'm wondering about speaker placement.


Judging by your current height speaker placement relative to the listeners, looks like you already have the Top Front and Top Middle locations filled. All you need to add is a pair of heights (Top Rear) as far back as possible (they would end up on the lower part of the ceiling behind you).


> The 3 Atmos speaker pair distances would be different to the MLP (and the current top pairs are already failing in that regard). If I added the new pair, I'm hoping Audyssey speaker distance settings will help. Or not?


Audyssey will set distances AND levels for each speaker, so that all speakers sound like they are the same distance from you.


> If I added a new speaker pair behind the seating (which would then serve as the new top rear Atmos), those speakers wouldn't be very far behind the MLP and wouldn't be at the recommend 45-degree angle from the MLP.


Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Some height sounds coming from behind you is better than no height sounds coming from behind you (your current situation), even if it's not from the optimal 45 degree elevation spot.


> Installing the new pair in the corner would put them very close to room boundaries (corner and walls) perhaps creating a different sound from the other 2 top pairs. Will it matter? Will Audyssey be able to correct?


Sure. Audyssey's main function is equalization, so it should be able to compensate for any bass boost that results from placement near a boundary.


> Please excuse the photos. My room is dark AF and these were iPhone grabs.


Doesn't look like the room I visited years ago. Did you move?


----------



## Rob Greer

sdurani said:


> Doesn't look like the room I visited years ago. Did you move?


Yep. I sold my house in Pasadena and moved to Houston so I could afford a home with a dedicated theater and attic access for closet wiring and Atmos.**

**keeping it on topic


----------



## MagnumX

Rob Greer said:


> Help! Can you provide me with some Atmos top rear speaker position advice?
> 
> I hired a HT installer to run wires and cut ceiling holes in my recently purchased home. During the install, I questioned the top rear Atmos speaker placement. I was assured "that's how everybody places Atmos speakers in room shaped like this one." I was skeptical, but I didn't see a better solution given my weird ceiling. And I was in a hurry. So, I let it go.
> 
> Fast forward 6 months. I've purchased a Marantz 8805 (thanks @SteveH) and I'm looking at 7.2.6 options (instead of just 7.2.4) and I'm wondering about speaker placement.
> 
> Thinking hard about my room, I'm sad that my top rear speakers aren't behind the MLP. I suspect I'm not hearing the optimal Atmos experience. Although my room sounds great, I want great PLUS.
> 
> To take advantage of the new additional channels (and amps I have on hand), I'm thinking about adding a pair of matching in-ceiling top speakers behind my seating to serve as my new top rear Atmos speakers. But I'm not sure if that's the best move. And that's my problem. Here are my thoughts / concerns:
> 
> 
> The 3 Atmos speaker pair distances would be different to the MLP (and the current top pairs are already failing in that regard). If I added the new pair, I'm hoping Audyssey speaker distance settings will help. Or not?
> If I added a new speaker pair behind the seating (which would then serve as the new top rear Atmos), those speakers wouldn't be very far behind the MLP and wouldn't be at the recommend 45-degree angle from the MLP.
> Installing the new pair in the corner would put them very close to room boundaries (corner and walls) perhaps creating a different sound from the other 2 top pairs. Will it matter? Will Audyssey be able to correct?
> The ceiling is sloped upward. Therefore, the 2 current Atmos pairs are downward firing but they're angled a bit toward the MLP. The new pair would be directly downward firing because that ceiling area is flat.
> The current top rear Atmos pair is pointing directly to the MLP.
> I'd don't want to move the current top front and/or rear Atmos speakers (big patch job).
> My options are:
> Install a new top pair behind the current 2 top pairs (worries are documented above).
> Install a new top pair between the current 2 top pairs. But will it many any difference in sound?
> Do nothing.
> I'm happy with small improvements. This change doesn't need to provide an earth-shaking difference. Every small improvement helps. WWYD?
> 
> @sdurani?
> 
> Please excuse the photos. My room is dark AF and these were iPhone grabs.


The elevation may affect your perception of distance more than actual distance. You can put the speakers "on" or in the rear wall instead of the ceiling to get 45 degrees (or wherever it turns out to be measuring) relative to your seated location. Tops isn't really a location so much as it is an angle of elevation, at least with just one row of seats. It looks like there's some potential locations between the rear ceiling and the lighting on the back wall.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Dan, Disney family isn't even consistent about how they're doing the "limited print-outs". I've found Atmos mixes that are 7.1.4, with both front and rear heights/tops playing the same content, but with different db levels for front vs. rear. I've seen the same thing with 7.1.6 (Zootopia comes to mind). And then there's plain old 7.1.2.
> 
> It's as if they know they just want one pair of static overhead stereo pairs, but they mix up how they get there. However, the practical results is the same.



Either way you encode it, their choice to limit Atmos so severely is dumbfounding.


----------



## Rob Greer

MagnumX said:


> The elevation may affect your perception of distance more than actual distance. You can put the speakers "on" or in the rear wall instead of the ceiling to get 45 degrees (or wherever it turns out to be measuring) relative to your seated location. Tops isn't really a location so much as it is an angle of elevation, at least with just one row of seats. It looks like there's some potential locations between the rear ceiling and the lighting on the back wall.


The column heading treatments are a problem. Each column has a platform at the top. So putting an angled speaker on top of that pointed down is going to be an issue. And it wouldn't give me than an 8" distance advantage since the front of that angled speaker would be even (at best) with the deepest edge of the in-ceiling speaker.

Also, from my reading Atmos top speakers aren't meant to be directional so pointing that rear at the MLP isn't necessarily given the recommended method. Or am I misunderstanding something.


----------



## MagnumX

Rob Greer said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> The elevation may affect your perception of distance more than actual distance. You can put the speakers "on" or in the rear wall instead of the ceiling to get 45 degrees (or wherever it turns out to be measuring) relative to your seated location. Tops isn't really a location so much as it is an angle of elevation, at least with just one row of seats. It looks like there's some potential locations between the rear ceiling and the lighting on the back wall.
> 
> 
> 
> The column heading treatments are a problem. Each column has a platform at the top. So putting an angled speaker on top of that pointed down is going to be an issue. And it wouldn't give me than an 8" distance advantage since the front of that angled speaker would be even (at best) with the deepest edge of the in-ceiling speaker.
Click to expand...

It looks like you might be able to hang a pair off the ceiling area on either side of the projector (thinking PSB CS500/1000 type speakers as opposed to in-ceiling).




> Also, from my reading Atmos top speakers aren't meant to be directional so pointing that rear at the MLP isn't necessarily given the recommended method. Or am I misunderstanding something.


I've heard of lots of in-ceiling speakers with aimable tweeters and/o midranges. Even response is important. Not aiming just rolls off response with most speakers as you are going off-axis.


----------



## StevenC56

Rob Greer said:


> Help! Can you provide me with some Atmos top rear speaker position advice?
> 
> I hired a HT installer to run wires and cut ceiling holes in my recently purchased home. During the install, I questioned the top rear Atmos speaker placement. I was assured "that's how everybody places Atmos speakers in room shaped like this one." I was skeptical, but I didn't see a better solution given my weird ceiling. And I was in a hurry. So, I let it go.
> 
> Fast forward 6 months. I've purchased a Marantz 8805 (thanks @SteveH) and I'm looking at 7.2.6 options (instead of just 7.2.4) and I'm wondering about speaker placement.
> 
> Thinking hard about my room, I'm sad that my top rear speakers aren't behind the MLP. I suspect I'm not hearing the optimal Atmos experience. Although my room sounds great, I want great PLUS.
> 
> To take advantage of the new additional channels (and amps I have on hand), I'm thinking about adding a pair of matching in-ceiling top speakers behind my seating to serve as my new top rear Atmos speakers. But I'm not sure if that's the best move. And that's my problem. Here are my thoughts / concerns:
> 
> 
> The 3 Atmos speaker pair distances would be different to the MLP (and the current top pairs are already failing in that regard). If I added the new pair, I'm hoping Audyssey speaker distance settings will help. Or not?
> If I added a new speaker pair behind the seating (which would then serve as the new top rear Atmos), those speakers wouldn't be very far behind the MLP and wouldn't be at the recommend 45-degree angle from the MLP.
> Installing the new pair in the corner would put them very close to room boundaries (corner and walls) perhaps creating a different sound from the other 2 top pairs. Will it matter? Will Audyssey be able to correct?
> The ceiling is sloped upward. Therefore, the 2 current Atmos pairs are downward firing but they're angled a bit toward the MLP. The new pair would be directly downward firing because that ceiling area is flat.
> The current top rear Atmos pair is pointing directly to the MLP.
> I'd don't want to move the current top front and/or rear Atmos speakers (big patch job).
> My options are:
> Install a new top pair behind the current 2 top pairs (worries are documented above).
> Install a new top pair between the current 2 top pairs. But will it many any difference in sound?
> Do nothing.
> I'm happy with small improvements. This change doesn't need to provide an earth-shaking difference. Every small improvement helps. WWYD?
> 
> @sdurani?
> 
> Please excuse the photos. My room is dark AF and these were iPhone grabs.


Nice HT! And an interesting shaped room. I can see where the complexity of the ceiling is certainly going to make it a bit difficult, and some compromise will be the result. I think the rear heights will have to go in the rear dropped ceiling high as possible to separate them from the back surrounds as much as possible. But I'm no expert. My MLP is only a 2.5-3' away from the rear wall, and some tricky ceiling joists at the rear of the room are restricting my top rears from being very far back unfortunately.


----------



## filmgeek47

Hey guys,

I’ve got an idiot’s placement question for you. Sought advice a few days back, and people suggested I place my side surrounds slightly in front of my MLP toed in, with the rear surrounds on the wall behind me. Won’t this result in 5.1 mixes sounding off (i.e. sounds that should be coming from behind sounding like they’re partially in front of you? Does the upmixing compensate for that?) what am I missing here?


----------



## MagnumX

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I’ve got an idiot’s placement question for you. Sought advice a few days back, and people suggested I place my side surrounds slightly in front of my MLP toed in, with the rear surrounds on the wall behind me. Won’t this result in 5.1 mixes sounding off (i.e. sounds that should be coming from behind sounding like they’re partially in front of you? Does the upmixing compensate for that?) what am I missing here?


It's a bit arbitrary to some extent. If a car horn is to my exact right (90 degrees) and I walk forward a bit, isn't it now behind me to the side? If I go the other direction isn't in front of me to the side? Where you sit changes your perspective slightly. That didn't really used to be the case in the theaters as each row (or couple of rows) had its own side surround speakers. But now they're fixed with objects moving through them so if you sit further back in the theater and a bird flies front to back, it'll take longer to get to you than someone sitting in the front. In other words, who is to say what's "supposed" to be behind you or to the side of you or just in front of you? They're all off-screen anyway. If I sit in my front row the speaker callout for side surround are directly to my sides (I can adjust this with my extra matrixed speakers, however by changing their relative mix to front wide and surround#1). If I sit in my second row, the side call out is in front of me. If I sit in the third row, it's REALLY in front of me to the side. Rear speakers are 13 feet behind me in the front row. In the third row they're more like 2 feet behind me. Things sound a little different in terms of emphasis and where things are. A clock tower going off in Harry Potter is overhead and just behind me in the front row. It's overhead and in front of me in the second, etc.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve got an idiot’s placement question for you. Sought advice a few days back, and people suggested I place my side surrounds slightly in front of my MLP toed in, with the rear surrounds on the wall behind me. Won’t this result in 5.1 mixes sounding off (i.e. sounds that should be coming from behind sounding like they’re partially in front of you? Does the upmixing compensate for that?) what am I missing here?




The upmixer won’t necessarily “compensate” but they will use all the available speakers so I think you’ll find that it’s fine.


----------



## mrtickleuk

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I’ve got an idiot’s placement question for you. Sought advice a few days back, and people suggested I place my side surrounds slightly in front of my MLP toed in, with the rear surrounds on the wall behind me. Won’t this result in 5.1 mixes sounding off (i.e. sounds that should be coming from behind sounding like they’re partially in front of you? Does the upmixing compensate for that?) what am I missing here?


When I go to the cinema, the side surrounds are in a big bank on the wall, pretty much all in front of me.


----------



## blake

mrtickleuk said:


> When I go to the cinema, the side surrounds are in a big bank on the wall, pretty much all in front of me.




That is wrong information. What you are seeing is front wide. For home applications, Atmos Side surrounds should be even with the MLP or up to 20 degree behind it (90-110’ per Dolby guidelines). This applies to all setups. 


Front wide is 50 to 70 degrees in front of you. That said many experts say to place the front wides even further forward , like 40 degrees. Anyone agree with this ? The idea is to make a larger bubble in transition of sound from LCR to side surrounds. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

blake said:


> That is wrong information. What you are seeing is front wide.


No it wasn't, in both cases. 



blake said:


> For home applications, Atmos Side surrounds should be even with the MLP or up to 20 degree behind it (90-110’ per Dolby guidelines). This applies to all setups.


Perhaps I should have been clearer, I've only been to an Atmos-fitted cinema once. I was speaking for most cinemas. 5.1 and 7.1 don't have "Front Wides". There are very few Atmos-fitted cinemas around here. But they do definitely have a bank of side surrounds along the walls and the only way to avoid having any of them in front of me is to sit in the front row and get neck-strain, so no I do not do that.


----------



## kbarnes701

blake said:


> That is wrong information. What you are seeing is front wide. For home applications, Atmos Side surrounds should be even with the MLP or up to 20 degree behind it (90-110’ per Dolby guidelines). This applies to all setups.
> 
> 
> Front wide is 50 to 70 degrees in front of you. That said many experts say to place the front wides even further forward , like 40 degrees. Anyone agree with this ? The idea is to make a larger bubble in transition of sound from LCR to side surrounds.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


IMO the ideal placement for the side surrounds, for a ground level 7.1 set of speakers, is at about 80 degrees. This has many benefits:



It 'closes the gap' between the front, sides and rear surrounds, giving a more even spacing between all of the speakers. 
It smooths the transition of the sound from front to back and minimises any tendency for the sound to 'jump the gap'.
It avoids sound being 'shot down the ears' of people at the end of the center (or only) row.
It is also within the ITU guidelines for 7.1 systems as the diagram below shows.
And, overall, it helps with the 'dome' of sound/overall immersion which we should be aiming for in an Atmos system with speakers mounted overhead.











In an Atmos system that has a 5.1 floor level setup, the surrounds may be placed slightly behind the 90 degree spot if this avoids shooting the sound directly into the ears of those in the relevant row of seats, and this layout also helps sounds appear from 'behind' when necessary (which of course isn't needed in a 7.1 setup since there are physical speakers at the surround back locations.

Dolby guidelines for Atmos are just that: guidelines, but Dolby didn't rewrite the guidelines for 7.1 or 5.1 when they introduced Atmos. 

As always, individual room factors and limitations need also to be taken into account.


----------



## MagnumX

It's amazing even with published guidelines how much controversy there seems to be with speaker placement.

Those side wall speakers in Atmos theaters (often placed at height-like elevations) are still side surrounds in a big array just like the old days. The difference now is that they are ALSO Atmos numbered object speakers. In other words side surround bed channels may come out of some or all of them depending on the configuration, but individual objects pass through them in sequence when they're moving.

Thus, the notion the side surround bed channels should come from an exact location seems at least partially erroneous to me. I use a three side channel array at home here and I can tell you that you can move the image forward or backward depending on the levels of the channel sent to each so even then it's not set in stone. I set mine to phantom image directly to the sides and oddly enough (due to the precedence effect), the image moves with me as I set my chair to recline. 

At home, without arrays, it may still depend on your setup (Would you really want side surrounds at 80 degrees if you have front wides already? True rendered front wides aren't always used, so what then? It greatly affects the now less than predictable results. It's another reason I'm hesitant to go full discrete as movie quality imaging could vary greatly spending on the soundtrack instead of my speaker layout.

It's why arrays should have been an option on all higher speaker count processors, IMO. They solve many ills when it comes to bad behaved soundtracks (and yet often get talked about like they're a disease in the age of discrete rendering) and modes like DSU as they are secondary to the need for a continuous sound field, especially in larger home theaters that actually need those speakers to function so as to not collapse the surround bubble.

Fortunately, you can always create your own array/object combos with an active mixer (add split side to each discrete side you render to and the mixer can also set relative array volume versus the discrete channel. Mixers can also array the height of dialog (when speakers sit below the screen) and other useful effects (matrixed extra channels, for example).


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> It's a bit arbitrary to some extent. If a car horn is to my exact right (90 degrees) and I walk forward a bit, isn't it now behind me to the side? If I go the other direction isn't in front of me to the side? Where you sit changes your perspective slightly. That didn't really used to be the case in the theaters as each row (or couple of rows) had its own side surround speakers. But now they're fixed with objects moving through them so if you sit further back in the theater and a bird flies front to back, it'll take longer to get to you than someone sitting in the front. In other words, who is to say what's "supposed" to be behind you or to the side of you or just in front of you? They're all off-screen anyway.


Agreed.

For the MLP I try to apply the following rules of thumb:
- Front is up to 45 degrees;
- Side (incl. wides) is from 45 to 135 degrees;
- Rear is beyond 135 degrees.

And further:
- try to create ipsi-lateral (on the same side) side-wall reflection for the L and R fronts (especially if you can't do the next).
- try to get at least one speaker in the 30 to 60 degrees area (this is usually a width speaker).
- try to avoid radial gaps between speakers of 60 degrees or more (especially in front and side area).
- try to get evenly spaced speakers all around, where gaps would better get bigger going from front to back then vice versa.


----------



## blake

maikeldepotter said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> For the MLP I try to apply the following rules of thumb:
> 
> - Front is up to 45 degrees;
> 
> - Side (incl. wides) is from 45 to 135 degrees;
> 
> - Rear is beyond 135 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> And further:
> 
> - try to create ipsi-lateral (on the same side) side-wall reflection for the L and R fronts (especially if you can't do the next).
> 
> - try to get at least one speaker in the 30 to 60 degrees area (this is usually a width speaker).
> 
> - try to avoid radial gaps between speakers of 60 degrees or more (especially in front and side area).
> 
> - try to get evenly spaced speakers all around, where gaps would better get bigger going from front to back then vice versa.




It’s probably better to have both your side surround and front wides moving forward from adjacent to the main seating row. Not covering behind this row (much). The reason is the most important soundtrack in the movie is a panoramic bubble in front of you and this is what your want filled in the most. One set of rear surrounds behind you (+\- rear height) is more than adequate, as perceptually your cannot distinguish location behind you nearly as well. I believe this is why atmos guidelines are somewhat “front heavy” with the front wides. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

kbarnes701 said:


> IMO the ideal placement for the side surrounds, for a ground level 7.1 set of speakers, is at about 80 degrees.


Another way to think of it is with seating location. Imagine a U-shaped surround field created by the Sides & Rears. If you place your seating directly in line with the Side speakers, then you are sitting at the front edge of the surround field. If you move your seating back a bit so that the Sides are slightly forward of you, then you are sitting inside the surround field (noticeably more immersive). Just like in movie theatres and mixing rooms. You end up with better side-vs-rear separation and greater wrap-around envelopment.


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> It’s probably better to have both your side surround and front wides moving forward from adjacent to the main seating row. Not covering behind this row (much). The reason is the most important soundtrack in the movie is a panoramic bubble in front of you and this is what your want filled in the most. One set of rear surrounds behind you (+\- rear height) is more than adequate, as perceptually your cannot distinguish location behind you nearly as well. I believe this is why atmos guidelines are somewhat “front heavy” with the front wides.


It's only front heavy in the lower speaker count implementations (since the screen takes precedence). Go to 22.x.10 and you are surround heavy with 6 of the 10 overheads above or behind the MLP, 13 of the 24 bed level speakers to the side or behind the front row. Clearly Dolby disagrees with your assessment that one set of rear surrounds are adequate as they offer 11 more bed level behind 90 degrees and just as many heights behind as in front of the mid-line. I also think you'll find you can hear imaging behind you better than you think you can with a speaker demo using all speakers and a running click sound going through them in a circle (kind of like the chase sound in the Nature's Fury demo). Dolby also shows SS BEHIND 90 degrees in a full 24.x.10 setup, not to the side or in front of it (i.e. 100 degrees is better than 90 degrees with all speakers available for side surround as it's typically carrying both side and rear information for lower channel setups, not side and front information. You can count them yourself. DTS:X by comparison is slightly more front-centric with one more regular speaker plus the three possible bottom speakers for the screen. 

But in reality, you're looking for a circular angle layout, even if placed in a rectangular room. The extra surround speakers are even more important if you have more than one row of seats. If you're only going to do one row, you can actually get away with 5.1.4 and not really miss anything (the distance of separation of effects is a smaller diameter circle, though. I'm not going to lie and say it's not WAY more impressive sounding to have the rear channels 15-25 feet behind the MLP if enough speakers are used to keep it even in terms of imaging. My rear speakers are 21 feet back in a 24' long room (front of the speaker that is. That puts it about 12 feet behind my MLP. I need two rows of side surrounds to make it evenly pan smoothly the entire distance for three rows of seats (I array FW/SS/SS#1 together) and six overheads with 8 sets of drivers. There's absolutely no mistaking rear surround effects at that distance (9' back from the 100 degree side surrounds, which sit behind the front row with front wides in front of the front row bridging the mains).










If I were doing *5.1*, I'd go 100-110 degrees for the surrounds.
If I were doing *7.1*, I'd go 80-100 degrees for the side surrounds depending on the location of the front row relative to the mains (distance changes the angle between the speakers ever higher).
If I were doing *9.1 or greater*, I'd go back to 100-110 degrees as it's optimal at that point to put the surrounds between rows as I currently have them at 11.1.6.

The real key is to keep the angular distances low enough that phantom imaging remains strong. The actual position has some leeway (and hence the varying numbers in the guidelines). You can always check your circular imaging by running the Atmos helicopter test through the bed level speakers (just turn off overheads and run it). It should pan evenly in a big circle/oval around the bed level (and do the same for overhead as well). If it pans smoothly and evenly, you're golden. If not, make some adjustments.


----------



## maikeldepotter

mrtickleuk said:


> When I go to the cinema, the side surrounds are in a big bank on the wall, pretty much all in front of me.


Yes, and the precedence effect will make you hear that sound coming only from the side surround speaker nearest to you, probably somewhere between 80 and 100 degrees azimuth. Also, in an Atmos theater, the first couple of side wall speakers are only getting objects and no bed channel sound (see yellow "buffer zone" in picture below, where a cinema and a home Atmos lay-out is compared).


----------



## filmgeek47

Fantastic info guys. Thanks so much! I think I’m gonna stick with about 80-85°. Just playing with the height now, as running them with the tweeters at ear level toed-in is almost too clear (not sure if I’m just not used to it or if it’s actually too easy to localize). Gonna play around with it a few different ways.


----------



## filmgeek47

Any ideas on where I might download the helicopter demo etc? Only thing I’ve been able to find and play are the leaf and amaze demos on Xbox. I’ve got a player hooked up with kodi to play files from directly, but I’m not finding downloads.

EDIT:

Lol. I was searching for demo disc. Thanks!


----------



## fatherom

filmgeek47 said:


> Any ideas on where I might download the helicopter demo etc? Only thing I’ve been able to find and play are the leaf and amaze demos on Xbox. I’ve got a player hooked up with kodi to play files from directly, but I’m not finding downloads.


I just searched on google "atmos helicopter demo" and got tons of hits. The first hit was a kodi site with all the downloads.


----------



## MagnumX

filmgeek47 said:


> Any ideas on where I might download the helicopter demo etc? Only thing I’ve been able to find and play are the leaf and amaze demos on Xbox. I’ve got a player hooked up with kodi to play files from directly, but I’m not finding downloads.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Lol. I was searching for demo disc. Thanks!


From KODI wiki (https://kodi.wiki/view/Samples)

It's under Helicopter Demo.


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> Another way to think of it is with seating location. Imagine a U-shaped surround field created by the Sides & Rears. If you place your seating directly in line with the Side speakers, then you are sitting at the front edge of the surround field. If you move your seating back a bit so that the Sides are slightly forward of you, then you are sitting inside the surround field (noticeably more immersive). Just like in movie theatres and mixing rooms. You end up with better side-vs-rear separation and greater wrap-around envelopment.


Hi Sanjay,
The Trinnov DTS:X Pro upgrade had me opening my mapping setups to assign the new DTS:X speakers locations. It jogged my memory when looking at my Atmos mapping. I seem to remember you posting a while ago that the Atmos HT decoding for multiple side surrounds (Ls1, Ls, Ls2) that Ls must be declared and that you could not declare Ls1,Ls2 and not have Ls. Is this correct or has it been addressed by Dolby? Thanks Brad


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> I seem to remember you posting a while ago that the Atmos HT decoding for multiple side surrounds (Ls1, Ls, Ls2) that Ls must be declared and that you could not declare Ls1,Ls2 and not have Ls. Is this correct or has it been addressed by Dolby?


AFAIK, the 4 main surrounds (Sides, Rears) are prerequisites for adding numbered surrounds (S1, S2, RS1, RS2). See chart below:


----------



## The Dead Chain

Hey check out these Dolby Atmos setup videos for Xbox One.
Discovered that 2 receivers can be connected to get 5.1.4 or 5.1.6 setups.


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> AFAIK, the 4 main surrounds (Sides, Rears) are prerequisites for adding numbered surrounds (S1, S2, RS1, RS2). See chart below:


Thanks Sanjay, a little confusing at first. Ls1 and Ls2 are dependant on Lrs, but Lrs is dependant on Ls so dependance is inherited. I'll be putting in a question to Trinnov to see if their code line still has this dependency (probably does) but if not I'll post here just as an FYI.


----------



## MagnumX

After reading some more about the DTS:X Pro "Bottom" channels, which were apparently an outgrowth of a discovery using regular DTS music albums with speakers that went from the floor up (think line source behavior) and that the DTS:X Pro "bottom" channels are just copies of L/C/R mains, I decided to do some testing by moving my front wide speakers next to my L/R mains and turn them upside down (tweeter near floor) and then in combination with front heights "dialog lift" the stereo mode would be low, medium and high copies of itself. I figured this should reveal any HRTF related effects with various material.

I tried out DTS Music discs, 2-channel music discs, a binaural album and a whole bunch of Dolby Atmos an DTS:X demos and a few movie clips.

Conclusions: 

- Very little difference with most DTS material I tried. I think I heard a few sounds a bit lower here and there, but they usually imaged lower even without the extra speakers (i.e. shutting them off to compare). More appeared lower using regular DTS decoding than Neural X and I'm guessing this is because Neural X has this tendency to want to lift large parts of the music sound stage overhead so any lower effects get pulled up to mid-level. With regular DTS decoding, you get bottom and middle with occasional higher effects from HRTF clues.

- Very little noticeable difference with the movie clips I tried (but they're far from conclusive as I just didn't have time to compare many).

-Binaural albums were not helped one way or another, IMO. If anything, they do best with surround speakers in a circle enabled (i.e. 5.1 or 7.1 bed only).

- 2-Channel music was a different story altogether. Loads of albums had content below ear level in 2-channel mode (and above as well as I had 3 layers of speakers running copies, bottom, ear level and front heights). One of the most impressive sounding (which was already impressive for 2-channel surround effects) was Billy Idol's Cyberpunk album. That album can do 90+ degree surround effects with 2 speakers alone. Throw in the extra bottom and top height channels and sounds were all over the place in the room! The down side is that "some" albums sounded a little fuzzier than before (e.g. Tori Amos' Scarlet's Walk) that uses some non-standard vocals to begin with. Many albums (e.g. Most Billy Joel albums) sounded pretty much the same as they did. 

- Albums like Roger Waters' Amused To Death that already use Q-Sound seemed to be unaffected. I heard nothing different either way.


Overall Conclusion:

2-channel stereo albums are very interesting like that (kind of similar to my Carver dipole ribbon line-sources if they started lower to the ground, I think as they tend to image from just below ear level to near ceiling height depending on the material). Basically, the extra speakers are just giving some extra length to the starting points, I think. Theoretically, you should be able to get lower/higher sound with DTS music albums. Perhaps I simply had the wrong ones? Most tracks I heard had more going on in the surround areas than the front channels. It'd be interesting to hear low/mid drivers in the surround positions to see if the overall sound stage when from floor to ceiling. With just the front, these albums had very little to work with when they move at least half the sounds into the surround tracks.

I think if you've got the room and the Trinnov processor to make it even easier to set up, adding bottom speakers could contribute to the overall soundstage _some_ of the time. I don't know if the new Neural X does anything additional or not in support of those speakers, but I'm guessing from the posts above that the initial discovery worked with regular DTS decoding and thus it really is more of a HRTF effect that gets more breathing room with taller speakers (in both directions). Bob Carver's new 8-foot floor to ceiling "Amazing" ribbon speaker would probably be ideal for this sort of effect naturally.


*3.1.2 Tested:*

While I was at it, I recall being told front height couldn't do ceiling effects on its own and I realized I could test this quite easily. So I ran the Atmos demos in 3.1.2 configuration and also ran Flatliners Atmos from iTunes which has crazy overhead ceiling voices at just past 1:30 into it. 

The results were surprising even to me. I was expecting to be able to tell mid from high sounds as I've tested that before briefly. But what was really surprising is that sounds could come out from the speakers up to about 60% of the way to the first row (38% into the room) or about halfway between the front heights and top middle speakers. While I was listening to Billy Idol and some other albums above for the bottom speaker test, it reminded me that regular stereo speakers can image up to around 90-100 degrees all on their own with the side walls not too far away (Cyberpunk certainly puts sounds and voices at 90 degrees to my left and right without any surround speakers) so it appears that front heights can do something similar with out-of-phase material). Flatliners sounded more like 5.1.4 does overhead than some flat soundstage with some voices making it at least 60% of the way to my seat on the ceiling with only 2 front heights active even with the screen! Even the helicopter demo managed to come 1/3 the way out with only two speakers. The same was true with just stereo and the helicopter demo. The out-of-phase effects pull the sound out to the sides part way into the room. 

Add the other four speakers back in and the voices go in a giant circle at the start around the room (kind of like a voice helicopter and then move in all kinds of patterns across the ceiling. With only 2 speakers, it's just much shorter, but still on the ceiling to the top of the screen. So much for the notion that using ONLY two front heights can't put sounds on the ceiling. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif


----------



## dfa973

The entire "Ford V Ferrari" ending race is really a reference ATMOS demo. Dethroned Ready Player One.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

The Dead Chain said:


> Discovered that 2 receivers can be connected to get 5.1.4 or 5.1.6 setups.


Some of us discovered that 4 years ago, it works great: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> The entire "Ford V Ferrari" ending race is really a reference ATMOS demo. Dethroned Ready Player One.


Dethroned it from what? I don't recall RP1 being reference to begin with. Well above average, yes.

For a quick sheer overhead demo, I've found nothing better than Flatliners (2017) in Atmos (iTunes) or Auro-3D (BD). 2 minutes of constant moving voices on the ceiling only 1:30 into the movie.

Sheer everything? Jumanji (original) and Fury (Brad Pitt) stick out in my mind the most on Atmos (Overlord was also great). Crimson Peak and Harry Potter for DTS:X.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dfa973 said:


> The entire "Ford V Ferrari" ending race is really a reference ATMOS demo. Dethroned Ready Player One.



I think Trinnov owners will need to analyze this to see if it's loud, bassy, and if there is more to it than just another 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 effort by Disney. Sometimes you can be fooled, especially if you don't have a >7.1.4 setup.


----------



## Bill Wolfer

dfa973 said:


> The entire "Ford V Ferrari" ending race is really a reference ATMOS demo. Dethroned Ready Player One.


This was a well deserved Oscar for Sound Editing. All the car sounds were added in post, as the car used in the film didn't have the same engine. They hunted for an exotic race car to record to use in the film. It's brilliant work.

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/ford-v-ferrari-sound-editing-mixing-le-mans-1202208518/


----------



## Josh Z

dfa973 said:


> The entire "Ford V Ferrari" ending race is really a reference ATMOS demo. Dethroned Ready Player One.


What sounds go the heights? I don't want to hear cars over my head.


----------



## doni01

Hi guys,
I posted this on the Speaker Section but figured may get more answers in here. I know, i know, i should have paid attention in school but here it is ...I am trying to calculate dolby atmos locations on a 7.1.2 and not sure if my math is correct. Ear to ceiling is 40" and looking at a placing the speakers at 80 degree angle based on Dolby. My math says I need to place the speakers at 7" ahead of me. Does that sound right?? Thank you in advance guys.


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> What sounds go the heights? I don't want to hear cars over my head.


I’ll watch today or tomorrow with the Altitude and its Input Meters and see what can be heard with the solo channeling too...
@Dan Hitchman: I’ve already seen enough to know this isn’t strictly 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. Stay tuned for some specifics on that final scene.


----------



## batpig

Josh Z said:


> What sounds go the heights? I don't want to hear cars over my head.


I would assume (if done logically) the heights would carry ambient reverb from crowd noise, PA announcements, car engines, etc. to enhance the sense of space and "being there" for the race.


----------



## The Dead Chain

Mashie Saldana said:


> Some of us discovered that 4 years ago, it works great: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


Yes, I see, but with Dolby Atmos on the Xbox One its a little tricky, the article you showed doesn't describe the Xbox One setup at all.
Xbox One S, will not allow the 2 receivers to pick Atmos as is, with the sets I gave it won't work.
Anyways, how come my videos are only available when logged into the forums?


----------



## The Dead Chain

Meant to say without the setup I gave. It won't work.


----------



## dfa973

Josh Z said:


> I don't want to hear cars over my head.


You won't! 

It is a very, very well done Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## chi_guy50

doni01 said:


> Hi guys,
> I posted this on the Speaker Section but figured may get more answers in here. I know, i know, i should have paid attention in school but here it is ...I am trying to calculate dolby atmos locations on a 7.1.2 and not sure if my math is correct. Ear to ceiling is 40" and looking at a placing the speakers at 80 degree angle based on Dolby. *My math says I need to place the speakers at 7" ahead of me. Does that sound right??* Thank you in advance guys.



Yes, your math is correct. You can use the calculator below to confirm:



*Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


----------



## doni01

chi_guy50 said:


> Yes, your math is correct. You can use the calculator below to confirm:
> 
> 
> 
> *Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


Thank you sir!!


----------



## ran1283

*New to Atmos*

Hi all, I'm just beginning to explore the possibility of upgrading my home theater to an Atmos system. Given my current space it would have to be a 5.1.2 system and I had a question I haven't been able to find an answer to. Hoping those of you with real world experience with Atmos systems will be able to provide some insight. 

So, I'm in the unfortunate position of not being able to physically install height speakers in the ceiling or walls. I can't drill into anything. However, I do have two bookshelves on either side of my TV that are roughly 7 feet off the floor. I currently have a 5.1 system and my front surrounds are positioned at about 4 feet high. I was thinking I could get two more bookshelf speakers and position them on the tops of the bookshelves. Another potential issue is that the bookshelves aren't exactly the same height. One of them is roughly 4 inches taller. I'm assuming the speaker calibration/audio eq software in any modern day AVR can correct for these discrepancies? 

Sorry if this is confusing (it's all pretty confusing to me as a total novice), but I guess my questions are: 1) if I can only position my height speakers 7 feet off the ground, is it even worth having a height channel? 2) is it okay to have the height speakers at slightly different heights? Now, one caveat -- I am in no way an audio purist. I don't need this system to be perfect right now, just workable in my current home theater situation. And honestly, I just want to be able to play around with Atmos as so many movies and streaming services are now using it. As long as the sound is robust and layered, I'll be happy.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## MagnumX

My ceiling is only 8.5', so I'd say yes, a 7' stand is acceptable (figure the speakers are likely to be over a foot also). With only two, I'd go for the sides perhaps just in front of the seating location or over the side speakers).

EQ won't really correct for height differences, but you're unlikely to notice a 4" difference. You could always put a 4" book or something under the shorter one if it really bothers you.


----------



## skylarlove1999

ran1283 said:


> Hi all, I'm just beginning to explore the possibility of upgrading my home theater to an Atmos system. Given my current space it would have to be a 5.1.2 system and I had a question I haven't been able to find an answer to. Hoping those of you with real world experience with Atmos systems will be able to provide some insight.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm in the unfortunate position of not being able to physically install height speakers in the ceiling or walls. I can't drill into anything. However, I do have two bookshelves on either side of my TV that are roughly 7 feet off the floor. I currently have a 5.1 system and my front surrounds are positioned at about 4 feet high. I was thinking I could get two more bookshelf speakers and position them on the tops of the bookshelves. Another potential issue is that the bookshelves aren't exactly the same height. One of them is roughly 4 inches taller. I'm assuming the speaker calibration/audio eq software in any modern day AVR can correct for these discrepancies?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if this is confusing (it's all pretty confusing to me as a total novice), but I guess my questions are: 1) if I can only position my height speakers 7 feet off the ground, is it even worth having a height channel? 2) is it okay to have the height speakers at slightly different heights? Now, one caveat -- I am in no way an audio purist. I don't need this system to be perfect right now, just workable in my current home theater situation. And honestly, I just want to be able to play around with Atmos as so many movies and streaming services are now using it. As long as the sound is robust and layered, I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!


https://www.svsound.com/products/prime-elevation

I have four of these mounted on the sidewalls at ceiling height. They provide intense Atmos effects. They could be a solution. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> I would assume (if done logically) the heights would carry ambient reverb from crowd noise, PA announcements, car engines, etc. to enhance the sense of space and "being there" for the race.


That's actually what you get, based on running the Altitude's Input Meters on the last half hour (from about 1:50:00 on) of Ford vs. Ferrari last night. This is another ideosyncratic mix: heavily 7.1, even during much of the racing scenes. But when the heights do come in (probably for about 15% of the last half hour, if that), this time it's the front heights (top front) and top middles. The rear height/tops are only used very sporadically for effects, for example a few scenes with a helicopter panning in the front and overhead to the top middles (and fading into the top rears). Remember, I've got a .6 height setup. But probably 90% of the time that more than 7.1 is engaged overhead, it's the same "static pair of stereo overheads" effect in one form or another (same sound, just different levels for front heights/tops vs. top middles).

You're getting car engines, the sound of rain above and around the drivers, wipers running, occasional bursts of effect for zooming around a competitor or some weather effect, all of which add to the scenes for emphasis (in my opinion). But it's not nearly as active as a 6 Underground. On that film, once the Ghost team gets into action in Hong Kong and Turgistan, you get some in-your-face use of the Atmos presence speakers (wides, front sides, screen center) to emphasize the breakneck action (i.e. the bad guys getting magnetized). 

When the heights do light up on Ford, you're often also getting the front surrounds (ss1) lighting up as well. Perhaps there's an object placement that's using both speakers to produce a more ambient "close to the listener" effect. But very odd that the rear heights are almost silent in my 13.x.6 setup. My screen centers are pretty much silent as well, and likewise (at least in my room, but I'll verify this) for the wides. I'm guessing that since I have front surrounds, it's carrying content that might be played in wides if I didn't have them. Maybe I'll try that preset and rewatch.

Leaving the technical aside, one other thing to consider is that the mixer might have been going for the feel of a documentary, and more of a 60's vibe rather than a more modern Michael Bay kinetic intensity. So perhaps a relatively more conservative sound was the goal.

So summarizing - sure, if you crank the sound and have the subs using Bass EQ, it's a better than average experience if you're running 7.1.4 (where the top fronts and top rears will split the top middle). But IMO there are "better" examples of a more sophisticated use of native Atmos once you get outside of that. I'd put Ready Player One or 6 Underground, or Overlord on the list ahead of Ford, to be honest.

I also took a look at the Bass EQ chart for Ford - it's not just me that for all the excitement, this isn't a heavy LFE movie out of the box. Check out the rolloff starting at about 45 Hz on the red dashed line, peaks aside (green dashed), and the use of LS filters to shape the curve below 40 Hz. If anything, there's a db rise from 40 to 70 Hz relative to above or below that point. Perhaps this helping to give the sense of pounding bass without digging too deep into the ULF for subsonic rumble without enhancement.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bass-eq-filtered-movies-403.html#post59177802

Disclaimer: I'm watching on Apple TV from an ATV source (as opposed to Roku's limitation of lossy 5.1), but I've verified that I'm indeed getting Dolby Atmos as advertised on the description. I'm almost tempted to do the perverse thing and upmix the 5.1 track from the Roku with Neural:X in the Trinnov's DTS:X Pro and compare...


----------



## The Dead Chain

Hey, I got a question about Front Wide speakers and connection?
Been seeing alot about this but when searching can't find the information I am needing.
Do these speakers require a special connection, or just front channel?
Are there specific speakers.
Really, any more info would be great thanks!
Or, just lead me to the info...


----------



## Josh Z

The Dead Chain said:


> Hey, I got a question about Front Wide speakers and connection?
> Been seeing alot about this but when searching can't find the information I am needing.
> Do these speakers require a special connection, or just front channel?
> Are there specific speakers.
> Really, any more info would be great thanks!
> Or, just lead me to the info...


Front Wides are separate speakers from the front mains. You need an A/V receiver that supports these channels. Then you would wire out to them from the appropriate terminals on the receiver, just like you would wire out to any other speakers.


----------



## Hawks07

I have a quick question about height speaker placement.
I currently have four height speakers installed, the are installed at 40 degrees forward and rear of the MLP.
I know 45 degrees is the recommended distance and was wondering if moving them would be better. If I attach them to the next beam in the ceiling it would put them at 47 degrees distance. Would that be better/worse? It wouldn't be too much trouble to change them just wondering if it would help.
Thanks for any help.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Front Wides are separate speakers from the front mains. You *need* an A/V receiver that supports these channels. Then you would wire out to them from the appropriate terminals on the receiver, just like you would wire out to any other speakers.



How very odd I have front wides (and TM and SS#1) connected in my system without AVR support..... I realize it's not typical, but its a piece of cake to do and works with literally everything. Pretending it doesn't exist helps no one, IMO.

I suggest the original poster look up "Scatmos" and/or "matrixed front wides" to learn more.

...

@sdrucker - Have you ever analyzed the Atmos version of the original Jumanji or Brad Pitt's Fury? Unlike this so-called "Reference Atmos" car race (Fast and the Furious 1 in DTS:X has excellent 7.1 usage, but similarly doesn't do much overhead), they actually make heavy use of the overhead speakers. I'm curious if they use more speakers (wides, screens, etc).


----------



## GMil

Hi Guys,

I'm new here. Been lurking for about 4 months trying to gain knowledge of my new atmos system and best speaker placement in my room. I'm located in the US on the east coast. It seems to me that is fairly important because I'm getting the impression a lot of people here are European. 





Josh Z said:


> CBdicX said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seems in a x.x.6 setup the Height signal is deviated between the 6, and ending up in a very large Height field.
> Now with 2 straight above the MLP, all signals go to just 2 speakers and giving me a "feeling" that having just 2 Top Middle is far better then having 6, and hearing pin pointed field i have now, instead of a large field.
> 
> Ok, the helicopter is not flying around the room, but what i hear now is far more impressive.
> With 6 i hear a Huey helicopter, now i hear a *Chinook* helicopter, and its making tight circles above me /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, many Atmos soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels and make no use of Top Middle speakers if you have more than 4 heights. Even some authored with audio objects leave the TM speakers silent much of the time. Additionally, almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4.
> 
> I suspect that your problem was that your Front Height speakers were blending in with your front mains, and your Rear Heights were blending in with your Surround Backs, making it hard to differentiate the heights from the ground level. And since most Atmos and DTS:X tracks weren't using Top Middles, you hardly ever heard anything above your head. Once you downscaled to 7.1.2, your receiver consolidated all height information into the Top Middles and suddenly the top of your room came alive.
Click to expand...

So are you supporting CBdicX's opinion that .6 in a home atmos system is pretty much a waste?

G


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I'm new here. Been lurking for about 4 months trying to gain knowledge of my new atmos system and best speaker placement in my room. I'm located in the US on the east coast. It seems to me that is fairly important because I'm getting the impression a lot of people here are European.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you supporting CBdicX's opinion that .6 in a home atmos system is pretty much a waste?
> 
> G


It's not a waste if you extract top middle instead of counting on a high-end AVR to do it that doesn't allow it to do its job properly. I use two Dolby Pro Logic processors to extract top middle (using center channel output with front/rear inputs, one processor for left and one for right) and it works with EVERYTHING and allows full end-to-end room panning overhead with no loss directly overhead. I got the two processors for about $40 each off eBay and used my old non-Atmos Yamaha AVR (7.1 Input mode) to power the overheads. Fantastic.


----------



## smashr

@MagnumX and anyone else who was waiting, note that Atmos on AppleTV 4k for Mandalorian seems to be fixed! I saw an app update and I confirmed Atmos via my AVR.


----------



## Josh Z

smashr said:


> @*MagnumX* and anyone else who was waiting, note that Atmos on AppleTV 4k for Mandalorian seems to be fixed! I saw an app update and I confirmed Atmos via my AVR.



Does it also still have HDR? The last time they "fixed" the Atmos they took away HDR. Hopefully it has both now.


----------



## Josh Z

GMil said:


> So are you supporting CBdicX's opinion that .6 in a home atmos system is pretty much a waste?



I would not say it's a waste, but as currently implemented, four properly placed height speakers in the Top Front and Top Rear positions are pretty much the sweet spot for Atmos. Unfortunately, room limitations and other considerations (such as multiple seating rows) may prevent putting the speakers in those positions.


----------



## StevenC56

I have 3 of the 4 holes cut in my ceiling for the overhead Atmos speakers, and the wiring ran to the TLF and TLR locations. I need to finish the left side before I can rearrange my furniture and gain access to cut hole #4 (TRR) and finish the right side. I was up and down from my attic so many times this week that this 63 year old man needs a couple days off! My ceiling speakers are 9" coax with a pivoting tweeter. Any advice on aiming those, or is that pretty much trial and error? The rears are barely behind my MLP as the seating is just in front of the rear wall, (But outward towards the side walls) and the fronts are mid room and 45 degrees from my MLP.


----------



## galonzo

*New top "real-world" Atmos demo *



dfa973 said:


> The entire "Ford V Ferrari" ending race is really a reference ATMOS demo. Dethroned Ready Player One.


I "only" have a 5.1.4 setup, and I would have to agree (TRs at ~45°, TFs slightly forward of MLP, so level-adjusted using the ATMOS and DTS:X demos for placement discrepancy). Also, the panning overhead flyby earlier in the film was substantially better than the Atmos demo overhead flyby (I believe it's in the Horizon demo?)



sdrucker said:


> ...Disclaimer: I'm watching on Apple TV from an ATV source (as opposed to Roku's limitation of lossy 5.1), but I've verified that I'm indeed getting Dolby Atmos as advertised on the description. I'm almost tempted to do the perverse thing and upmix the 5.1 track from the Roku with Neural:X in the Trinnov's DTS:X Pro and compare...


 Assuming you're talking about the iTunes version, the Atmos version on the ATV would still be the lossy DD+ Atmos track, which, if you have your iTunes linked to Movies Anywhere, you should get the same lossy Atmos track in VUDU on the Roku (you would also need to have VUDU linked to MA).


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> It's not a waste if you extract top middle instead of counting on a high-end AVR to do it that doesn't allow it to do its job properly. I use two Dolby Pro Logic processors to extract top middle (using center channel output with front/rear inputs, one processor for left and one for right) and it works with EVERYTHING and allows full end-to-end room panning overhead with no loss directly overhead. I got the two processors for about $40 each off eBay and used my old non-Atmos Yamaha AVR (7.1 Input mode) to power the overheads. Fantastic.


Interesting, 
How do you set this up? Pre outs on the AVR? I wasn't aware RCAs passed Atmos. 

Thanks, 
G


----------



## smashr

Josh Z said:


> Does it also still have HDR? The last time they "fixed" the Atmos they took away HDR. Hopefully it has both now.


I'm one of those 4K early adopters who are stuck with a SDR set, so I'm not personally sure.


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> Interesting,
> How do you set this up? Pre outs on the AVR? I wasn't aware RCAs passed Atmos.
> 
> Thanks,
> G


You would be using individual channels to create a new channel. A traditional "Pro Logic" Dolby processor extracts a center channel from the Left/Right mains. Instead of extracting a center channel, you simply use it as a generic "center between any two channels" extraction. I feed one Pro Logic processor Left Front Height and Left Rear Height and out of the center output comes Left Top Middle (and the sounds from the middle are removed from the outputs of the front/rear inputs on the outputs of the processor so you end up with "near discrete" output of top middle. You then repeat this with a processor for the Right height channels to get Right Top Middle output and send both to an amp (and the main channels as well with the middle material removed). Since the receiver is totally unaware of this happening, it doesn't count against things like 11-channel limits and it works with everything including locked Disney 7.1.4 tracks, all 7.1.4 DTS tracks and can even extract a top middle channel with Auro-3D (using front/rear heights). 

The down side is these processors and extra amps do take up some extra rack space (you can use a Dolby Pro Logic II receiver instead which already has amps, but you'll need two and that does take up some space). If you want room correction, you'll have to have that in the receiver or use external modules (I just correct up to 250Hz anyway so it's virtually unnoticeable with just top middle as the sub handles up to 80Hz anyway). I found purposely leaking a bit of top middle back into the mains (changing the distance setting) helps correct for any offsets in the top middle speakers (e.g. I'm using side wall mounted "surround heights", but since the room is relatively narrow, they're only 2.5 feet off from where the top middles would be on the ceiling next to it and that leaking effectively cuts it down to 1.25 feet by the array effect such that it's pretty much unnoticeable with Atmos material. I can then use a speaker switchbox and swap rear height to side height for "true" Auro-3D as well (and/or run both the same time since the switchbox allows you to run them in parallel).

The other option is Matrixed extra speakers. You take stereo pre-outs into an active mixer box (e.g. Rolls makes a nice one on Amazon) and combine front height and rear height (or mains and side surrounds for front wide output, etc.) and it adds them together to create a matrixed extra channel that contains both with the center point +3dB louder than the mains. Nothing is removed from either set so it's an array, but for off-axis seats (left of center, etc.) it still makes a big improvement having a real speaker in-between the positions as opposed to just a phantom image that will completely come apart from the precedent effect. 

I use two sets (front wides and surround #1 ) of matrixed speakers. The array effect with the mixers lets me "move" the effective point where the phantom image for the main signal sits as well. In other words, I can put the side speakers between rows, but move the phantom image so it sounds like the speakers are directly to the sides. This lets me get the seats closer to the walls without having a speaker in someone's ear and I can fit more chairs in the room than I otherwise could (and in a 12' wide room that means up to 3 comfy recliners with one centered instead of just 2 with none centered).

So I use a "near discrete" top middle extraction and two bed level matrixed speakers and the result is quite good for all three rows of seats, IMO with a speaker layout that is 11.1.6.


----------



## stikle

Josh Z said:


> Does it also still have HDR? The last time they "fixed" the Atmos they took away HDR. Hopefully it has both now.


FYI- Just tested on my Shield (2019) - Dolby Vision but no Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

stikle said:


> FYI- Just tested on my Shield (2019) - Dolby Vision but no Atmos.


He said AppleTV 4K, not the Shield.


----------



## stikle

I'm aware. Hence why I specified the Shield, as there has been no change there.

Additionally, I hooked my ATV 4K back up and The Mandalorian Episode 1 is in DV and my Denon is reporting Atmos.


----------



## Keenan

Josh Z said:


> Does it also still have HDR? The last time they "fixed" the Atmos they took away HDR. Hopefully it has both now.


I just looked(ATV4K>Denon>Sony A9F) and it's playing with both Atmos and Dolby Vision if that's what you're asking.


----------



## MagnumX

Keenan said:


> I just looked(ATV4K>Denon>Sony A9F) and it's playing with both Atmos and Dolby Vision if that's what you're asking.


Thats's good to hear. Too bad I already watched all but 2 episodes in upmixed 5.1 (until I got the Roku for Christmas which let me watch them in Atmos, which sadly didn't sound all that different from the Neural X upmix, meaning they didn't use a whole lot of surround effects compared to most better Atmos movies).


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting,
> How do you set this up? Pre outs on the AVR? I wasn't aware RCAs passed Atmos.
> 
> Thanks,
> G
> 
> 
> 
> You would be using individual channels to create a new channel. A traditional "Pro Logic" Dolby processor extracts a center channel from the Left/Right mains. Instead of extracting a center channel, you simply use it as a generic "center between any two channels" extraction. I feed one Pro Logic processor Left Front Height and Left Rear Height and out of the center output comes Left Top Middle (and the sounds from the middle are removed from the outputs of the front/rear inputs on the outputs of the processor so you end up with "near discrete" output of top middle. You then repeat this with a processor for the Right height channels to get Right Top Middle output and send both to an amp (and the main channels as well with the middle material removed). Since the receiver is totally unaware of this happening, it doesn't count against things like 11-channel limits and it works with everything including locked Disney 7.1.4 tracks, all 7.1.4 DTS tracks and can even extract a top middle channel with Auro-3D (using front/rear heights).
> 
> The down side is these processors and extra amps do take up some extra rack space (you can use a Dolby Pro Logic II receiver instead which already has amps, but you'll need two and that does take up some space). If you want room correction, you'll have to have that in the receiver or use external modules (I just correct up to 250Hz anyway so it's virtually unnoticeable with just top middle as the sub handles up to 80Hz anyway). I found purposely leaking a bit of top middle back into the mains (changing the distance setting) helps correct for any offsets in the top middle speakers (e.g. I'm using side wall mounted "surround heights", but since the room is relatively narrow, they're only 2.5 feet off from where the top middles would be on the ceiling next to it and that leaking effectively cuts it down to 1.25 feet by the array effect such that it's pretty much unnoticeable with Atmos material. I can then use a speaker switchbox and swap rear height to side height for "true" Auro-3D as well (and/or run both the same time since the switchbox allows you to run them in parallel).
> 
> The other option is Matrixed extra speakers. You take stereo pre-outs into an active mixer box (e.g. Rolls makes a nice one on Amazon) and combine front height and rear height (or mains and side surrounds for front wide output, etc.) and it adds them together to create a matrixed extra channel that contains both with the center point +3dB louder than the mains. Nothing is removed from either set so it's an array, but for off-axis seats (left of center, etc.) it still makes a big improvement having a real speaker in-between the positions as opposed to just a phantom image that will completely come apart from the precedent effect.
> 
> I use two sets (front wides and surround #1 ) of matrixed speakers. The array effect with the mixers lets me "move" the effective point where the phantom image for the main signal sits as well. In other words, I can put the side speakers between rows, but move the phantom image so it sounds like the speakers are directly to the sides. This lets me get the seats closer to the walls without having a speaker in someone's ear and I can fit more chairs in the room than I otherwise could (and in a 12' wide room that means up to 3 comfy recliners with one centered instead of just 2 with none centered).
> 
> So I use a "near discrete" top middle extraction and two bed level matrixed speakers and the result is quite good for all three rows of seats, IMO with a speaker layout that is 11.1.6.
Click to expand...

 Wow, that's pretty intense man. Definitely not for the faint of heart but I like it. Let me run this by you. 

Here's my dilemma. I just made the jump to an atmos setup about 6 months ago. I'm currently running a 5.1.2 system. I installed 2 in ceiling speakers in a top middle placement at 55 degrees from M"ost"LP's ( it's just a sectional in a multi-use living room with open floor plan). While my experience has been mostly positive I did experience a little drop out while watching Game of Thrones season 8 a few weeks ago. It was the long night episode where the white walkers are closing in on winterfell and the battle begins. The sounds of the arrows coming from the archers inside the castle walls out into the battlefield made me feel as if I was standing on the battlements myself. However, as the arrows passed over my head there was an ever so slight delay. Probably only about a second. Between the TM(where they were over my head) to the Front Mains (where they landed in the battlefield). This left me with the notion that I could possibly be missing content by not having a set of speakers in the TF location at ~30-35 degrees. So I began planning to install the new speakers. Now after reading on this thread the last few days before I broke out the saw. I'm coming to find out that I can't run this .4 arrangement as TF and TM. This sucks! Not really sure why this is. You would think a $1500 AVR should be able to accomplish this. Anyways, I cant really see getting any gain out of this running FH/TM or TF/TR. Everything I've been reading points to not being able to live without TM in a system/ room as small as mine. By the way, installing the second set of speakers in the TR is pretty much a no go as the couch is all the way up against the wall. I sadly relegated back to living with .2 (some atmos is better than no atmos) and worked on coming to grips with that being the best it will get. Fast forward to last night and it seems that there may be "a new hope" ( help me obi wan....lol)

I'm beginning to think I may benefit from your "near discrete" TM channel extraction method. I could install the 2 new speakers in the position I had originally planned. Configure them as TF in my AVR then extract the TM with the pro logic processors? Not exactly the layout you are using nor for the reasons I think the method was originally intended but may work for me none the less. Any thoughts?

G


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched *Jumanji* (*original* movie 4K Dolby Atmos version) again and I have to reiterate this is one of the most impressive Atmos movies I've watched the past year and a half! In fact, it might even be deserving of the *BEST ATMOS MOVIE I've EVER heard*. I know a lot of people didn't care for the movie itself, but it blows away Overlord, Fury and anything else I can think of for sheer massive surround use. Not only does it regularly use the overhead channels to great effect (like crazy good with tornadoes of sound flying in circles, giant bugs buzzing at your head, etc.), but it makes extensive use of rear channels and all kinds of sound effect panning and switching when the camera view changes. It's too bad the CGI effects suck (monkeys and lion looked particularly fake), but the sound is spectacular (way better than the first sequel; I haven't seen the second sequel to compare yet).

I also watched *10 Cloverfield Lane* earlier this night in Atmos and while there are large lengths of dialog and quiet time in the bunker, the overhead effects for the cars and "other" things later overhead are quite good indeed. My whole ceiling lit up several times.


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> However, as the arrows passed over my head there was an ever so slight delay. Probably only about a second. Between the TM(where they were over my head) to the Front Mains (where they landed in the battlefield). This left me with the notion that I could possibly be missing content by not having a set of speakers in the TF location at ~30-35 degrees.


Delays or gaps can also indicate level issues or speaker placement issues. 



> So I began planning to install the new speakers. Now after reading on this thread the last few days before I broke out the saw. I'm coming to find out that I can't run this .4 arrangement as TF and TM. This sucks! Not really sure why this is. You would think a $1500 AVR should be able to accomplish this. Anyways, I cant really see getting any gain out of this running FH/TM or TF/TR. Everything I've been reading points to not being able


You can just set the top middle speakers to use Top Rear instead. The way Atmos folds material down to the nearest speakers in those cases means all the information would end up there anyway if you don't have any kind of overhead "rear" speaker. In other words, if I set my system to be 5.1.4, the rear bed speakers just get played through the side surrounds instead. Rear Tops information would get played through Top Middle if you didn't have Rear Tops (or Heights) to play through, so similarly, playing "top rear" through the Top Middle location would have the same content as Top Middle would have without Top Rears if you COULD select them as it would be forced to pull the rear info back into Top Middle the same way rear bed sounds end up in side surrounds without rear speakers.



> I'm beginning to think I may benefit from your "near discrete" TM channel extraction method. I could install the 2 new speakers in the position I had originally planned. Configure them as TF in my AVR then extract the TM with the pro logic processors? Not exactly the layout you are using nor for the reasons I think the method was originally intended but may work for me none the less. Any thoughts?


I'm unclear on the rear content. Are you saying you want to assign a rear tops position but not use it and then extract the top middle in-between? If so, you'd end up with missing information if there are no rear overhead speakers to play the assigned channel content as the system has no idea you're using top middle speakers to redirect it. If you do have some kind of rear overhead speaker (rear heights even), yes you can extract a top middle speaker and have six overheads like I do. Otherwise, I'd recommend just setting your "top middle speakers" as "Top Rear" speakers. That will play rear info directly overhead and mid stuff will end up a bit in front of you between the fronts (not a huge deal, IMO).


----------



## JPHCCFC

What is the current state of Dolby music Atmos..is there any way we can get access to this apart from buying the REM BluRay for our HT setups?


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> I just watched *Jumanji* (*original* movie 4K Dolby Atmos version) again and I have to reiterate this is one of the most impressive Atmos movies I've watched the past year and a half! In fact, it might even be deserving of the *BEST ATMOS MOVIE I've EVER heard*. I know a lot of people didn't care for the movie itself, but it blows away Overlord, Fury and anything else I can think of for sheer massive surround use. Not only does it regularly use the overhead channels to great effect (like crazy good with tornadoes of sound flying in circles, giant bugs buzzing at your head, etc.), but it makes extensive use of rear channels and all kinds of sound effect panning and switching when the camera view changes. It's too bad the CGI effects suck (monkeys and lion looked particularly fake), but the sound is spectacular (way better than the first sequel; I haven't seen the second sequel to compare yet).
> 
> I also watched *10 Cloverfield Lane* earlier this night in Atmos and while there are large lengths of dialog and quiet time in the bunker, the overhead effects for the cars and "other" things later overhead are quite good indeed. My whole ceiling lit up several times.


*MagnumX,*

Is this the correct version   

I'm trying my best to now get the Best-of-the-Best (Before) my Atmos is installed. 

*https://www.amazon.com/Jumanji-4K-Ultra-Blu-ray-Digital/dp/B075G3J9HB
*



Thanks for your assistance,
Terry


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> *MagnumX,*
> 
> Is this the correct version
> 
> I'm trying my best to now get the Best-of-the-Best (Before) my Atmos is installed.
> 
> *https://www.amazon.com/Jumanji-4K-Ultra-Blu-ray-Digital/dp/B075G3J9HB
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your assistance,
> Terry



Yes, it is. 



However, the Best Buy 4k steel book looks the best, if you're into better cover art.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> 
> 
> However, the Best Buy 4k steel book looks the best, if you're into better cover art.




Dan,

I'm fortunate enough to have a Christmas AMAZON (Gift-Card). 

Going to use it for this as I have really-really been paying Super-Close attention to which 4K Ultra HD Atmos disc to get.

Thanks for the assist Big-Guy. 
Terry


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> Dan,
> 
> I'm fortunate enough to have a Christmas AMAZON (Gift-Card).
> 
> Going to use it for this as I have really-really been paying Super-Close attention to which 4K Ultra HD Atmos disc to get.
> 
> Thanks for the assist Big-Guy.
> Terry



Blade Runner 4k


https://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner...eywords=Blade+Runner+4k&qid=1581872027&sr=8-3


Blade Runner 2049 4k (the sequel)


https://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner...ds=Blade+Runner+2049+4k&qid=1581872058&sr=8-3


Two worthy choices.


Your subwoofer will also get a serious workout.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Guys,

If you were to pick 2 additional 4K Ultra HD for Atmos what would those 2 be   

I'm looking for the Best-of-the-Best guys ..................

Thanks,
Terry

Note*
I do know there are *HUGE *list of Atmos on multiple threads I'm asking for those of you that have a lot of those which is comparable to Jumanji   

.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> Guys,
> 
> If you were to pick 2 additional 4K Ultra HD for Atmos what would those 2 be
> 
> I'm looking for the Best-of-the-Best guys ..................
> 
> Thanks,
> Terry
> 
> Note*
> I do know there are *HUGE *list of Atmos on multiple threads I'm asking for those of you that have a lot of those which is comparable to Jumanji
> 
> .



It's a dumb movie, but the Atmos track is pretty "huge."


https://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Blu...&pd_rd_r=9e7d33b2-af3e-4341-adfc-f15d85366b2d


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Blade Runner 4k
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner...eywords=Blade+Runner+4k&qid=1581872027&sr=8-3
> 
> 
> Blade Runner 2049 4k (the sequel)
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner...ds=Blade+Runner+2049+4k&qid=1581872058&sr=8-3
> 
> 
> Two worthy choices.
> 
> 
> Your subwoofer will also get a serious workout.




Dan,

 I was typing as you were. 

My buddy in San Antonio, Texas sent me both of those so I'm good on them. 

Would you or someone else have 2 suggestions to match as close as possible to Jumanji 4K 



Terry


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's a dumb movie, but the Atmos track is pretty "huge."
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Blu...&pd_rd_r=9e7d33b2-af3e-4341-adfc-f15d85366b2d


Dan,

I do now recall AVS members RAVING about the Audio/Atmos on it. 

*https://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Blu...&pd_rd_r=9e7d33b2-af3e-4341-adfc-f15d85366b2d
*


Need 1 more guys 

Terry


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> Dan,
> 
> I was typing as you were.
> 
> My buddy in San Antonio, Texas sent me both of those so I'm good on them.
> 
> Would you or someone else have 2 suggestions to match as close as possible to Jumanji 4K
> 
> 
> 
> Terry





Here's another:


https://www.amazon.com/Matrix-UHD-B..._title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581873198&sr=8-3


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> Here's another:
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Matrix-UHD-B..._title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581873198&sr=8-3




Dan,

I have the older ones so this is going to be "KILLER" !!!

Your the "Man" buddy 



It's all over for now ...........

*https://www.amazon.com/Matrix-UHD-B..._title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581873198&sr=8-3
*


Terry


----------



## tigerhonaker

Thanks guys,

I'm slowly getting the "Atmos" Hard-Disc Mini-Library going thanks to all of you.

And especially my Old-Buddy/Friend in San Antonio, Texas, Tom Cochran. 




Terry


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> Thanks guys,
> 
> I'm slowly getting the "Atmos" Hard-Disc Mini-Library going thanks to all of you.
> 
> And especially my Old-Buddy/Friend in San Antonio, Texas, Tom Cochran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry



Terry, if you buy Godzilla 4k from Amazon.com directly, it's cheaper. You picked the wrong seller for that title. It's only $13 from Amazon. You can still cancel and re-order if done so immediately.


----------



## MagnumX

tigerhonaker said:


> *MagnumX,*
> 
> Is this the correct version


Yes. I'd also HIGHLY recommend *FURY* with Brad Pitt 4K. Personally, I think it's better than Overlord and the Matrix for overhead use (haven't heard Godzilla yet). Shells flying overhead, guys banging on top of the tank (ceiling) trying to get to them inside, etc.











I wouldn't ignore *DTS:X* titles either. *Crimson Peak* is cheaper (only 2K version but still has DTS:X) and has all kinds of creepy haunted house sounds on the ceiling. It's a decent movie. All the 4K Harry Potters have _great_ overhead sound as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Fury on 4k Blu-ray is indeed very, very good for Atmos effects.


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> Yes. I'd also HIGHLY recommend *FURY* with Brad Pitt 4K. Personally, I think it's better than Overlord and the Matrix for overhead use (haven't heard Godzilla yet). Shells flying overhead, guys banging on top of the tank (ceiling) trying to get to them inside, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't ignore *DTS:X* titles either. *Crimson Peak* is cheaper (only 2K version but still has DTS:X) and has all kinds of creepy haunted house sounds on the ceiling. It's a decent movie. All the 4K Harry Potters have _great_ overhead sound as well.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Fury on 4k Blu-ray is indeed very, very good for Atmos effects.


Okay you guys I'm done 






> *Fury [Blu-ray]
> Brad Pitt
> Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> $22.99*





Terry


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> Delays or gaps can also indicate level issues or speaker placement issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback! It's definitely not a level issue. I feel it's more of a LACK of speakers to be placed. In other words, I need AT LEAST a .4 overhead configuration to render this soundtrack properly and in the way it was intended to be heard. It's as if they mixed it in 7.1.6 and the signals sent to TF absolutely, unequivocally refused to be folded anywhere else but there due to the nature of the effect and if you don't have the TF active you lose the sound. If that makes sense. I do have the room and the ability to install a row of TF overheads as there is almost a 7 foot physical gap between my current TM and the front soundstage/screen(its a Sony panel). I dont know if anyone else on here has the 4k Game of Thrones BDs but the atmos mixes are phenomenal. Blows away a lot of mixes I've heard from major motion picture companies. So, I'm wondering if they wrote a mix larger than 7.1.4 to the discs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I began planning to install the new speakers. Now after reading on this thread the last few days before I broke out the saw. I'm coming to find out that I can't run this .4 arrangement as TF and TM. This sucks! Not really sure why this is. You would think a $1500 AVR should be able to accomplish this. Anyways, I cant really see getting any gain out of this running FH/TM or TF/TR. Everything I've been reading points to not being able
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can just set the top middle speakers to use Top Rear instead. The way Atmos folds material down to the nearest speakers in those cases means all the information would end up there anyway if you don't have any kind of overhead "rear" speaker. In other words, if I set my system to be 5.1.4, the rear bed speakers just get played through the side surrounds instead. Rear Tops information would get played through Top Middle if you didn't have Rear Tops (or Heights) to play through, so similarly, playing "top rear" through the Top Middle location would have the same content as Top Middle would have without Top Rears if you COULD select them as it would be forced to pull the rear info back into Top Middle the same way rear bed sounds end up in side surrounds without rear speakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the crux of my concerns. In addition, to reasons mentioned above. Up to this point ALL of my overhead material (that has been able to be rendered in my system that is) has been dumped to ONLY 2 speakers (TM) . These speakers have been so dominant for me in all my watching over the last 6 months if I go and install a row of TF and set existing set to TR according to what I'm reading it may render my current TM nearly mute and I may ultimately be extremely disappointed with the end results. Regardless, of the addition of another set of speakers.
> Almost, a "less is more" and more will be less mentality. It is my understanding that there is very little to no use of rear height/Top Rear in atmos mixes and configuring a .4 overhead system in this manner will move a good majority of the program material to the middle of the room instead of practically over my head. In essence, potentially thinning out the overhead effects and creating a less than satisfying experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think I may benefit from your "near discrete" TM channel extraction method. I could install the 2 new speakers in the position I had originally planned. Configure them as TF in my AVR then extract the TM with the pro logic processors? Not exactly the layout you are using nor for the reasons I think the method was originally intended but may work for me none the less. Any thoughts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unclear on the rear content. Are you saying you want to assign a rear tops position but not use it and then extract the top middle in-between? If so, you'd end up with missing information if there are no rear overhead speakers to play the assigned channel content as the system has no idea you're using top middle speakers to redirect it. If you do have some kind of rear overhead speaker (rear heights even), yes you can extract a top middle speaker and have six overheads like I do. Otherwise, I'd recommend just setting your "top middle speakers" as "Top Rear" speakers. That will play rear info directly overhead and mid stuff will end up a bit in front of you between the fronts (not a huge deal, IMO).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe this is where my confusion is coming in as I don't fully understand the extraction method and the reason for my inquiry.
> 
> After stumbling on your posts it seemed that I thought I may have found a solution to my problem but I'm beginning to think this 'scatmos' solution will only work fully if you're willing to go all out to x.x.6.
> 
> Initially, my plan was to install the new row of speakers in the TF location. I would place then approximately 30 - 35° from MLP. In between currently installed TM(55° from MLP) and the front mains. I would then run my AVR(Marantz SR6014)
> In a 5.1.2 configuration with the newly installed TF set as such in the receiver. I would then use your method to "extract" the TM channel and feed this to my currently existing TM speakers so as to still have a TM where most of the atmos mixes play. If the "extracted" signal creates a center channel between FH and RH wouldn't it in essence fold the TR sounds into this newly created channel? If so, this would dump all RH/TR material into my existing TM which is what is happening now. Nothing changes there giving continuity to my experience. FH would get (faintly?) dumped into TM (due to center channel creation) plus into the newly installed TF(AVR processing). I dont have any FH assigned.
> In essence, ALL 4 overheads would play ALL FH material? If I understand this correctly, it seems that the downside is that a FH mix is being reproduced in the rear row theorecitally behind the TF when it should be IN FRONT of it between Fronts and TF but this might end up being kind of cool. I may be able to fix this with levels too.
> 
> Your advice and time are greatly appreciated!
> 
> G
Click to expand...


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of my concerns. In addition, to reasons mentioned above. Up to this point ALL of my overhead material (that has been able to be rendered in my system that is) has been dumped to ONLY 2 speakers (TM) . These speakers have been so dominant for me in all my watching over the last 6 months if I go and install a row of TF and set existing set to TR according to what I'm reading it may render my current TM nearly mute
> 
> 
> 
> Top Rears are used more than people think. If I go sit in the second row or third row, they're plenty coming from them. I also think a lot of soundtracks have sounds mixed or even arrayed over the entire ceiling as I can still hear a front-to-back mix sitting in row 2 and row 3 forward 'x' amount in front of me, but nowhere near the very front of the room. Other things like Atmos demos are discrete and only in the front or rear. Thus, when you're sitting in the front row, you won't notice things in the rear channel that are also in the top middle vicinity since they're arrayed together and only seem to be somewhat behind you. But move to the middle and they're still somewhat behind you. In other words, I think a lot of Atmos tracks bake in some things similar to DSU whereby 4-6 (or more?) speakers are all playing the same thing, perhaps at different levels, but picture a large object covering the whole ceiling and that would easily do it automatically. Plus we don't image sound above and behind us as accurately as directly above or in front of us so that may play into the feeling "top rear" isn't used that much compared to front or directly overhead. In other words, people are reporting what they're "hearing" but what they're hearing would change if they moved somewhere further back in the room.
> 
> Now are there lots of DISCRETE top rear sounds? Probably not as much as middle or front just like rear beds are often not use as much discretely as the sides in many movies (plenty of exceptions, though). But my point is that Atmos folds the stuff into the existing speakers so using top rear for your top middle speaker location means it will play a combination of top rear and top middle. Some of the directly overhead stuff may be a few feet in front of you instead of 90 degrees straight up, but it should still be well onto the ceiling. Alternatively, you could call your top fronts "front heights" instead (front heights are 30-45 degrees and top fronts are 45-55 degrees so there is some overlap leeway there at 45 even in the Dolby specs) and then it will allow you to select TOP MIDDLE for right overhead. I think you'll still find only a slight difference, though in what goes where since it's going to pan between them for moving objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I may ultimately be extremely disappointed with the end results. Regardless, of the addition of another set of speakers.
> Almost, a "less is more" and more will be less mentality. It is my understanding that there is very little to no use of rear height/Top Rear in atmos mixes and configuring a .4 overhead system in this manner will move a good majority of the program material to the middle of the room instead of practically over my head. In essence, potentially thinning out the overhead effects and creating a less than satisfying experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I think you'll find there's plenty overhead with either setting, especially with speakers actually in the top front position (they're not that far apart on the ceiling so everything will be way up there).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initially, my plan was to install the new row of speakers in the TF location. I would place then approximately 30 - 35° from MLP. In between currently installed TM(55° from MLP) and the front mains. I would then run my AVR(Marantz SR6014)
> In a 5.1.2 configuration with the newly installed TF set as such in the receiver. I would then use your method to "extract" the TM channel and feed this to my currently existing TM speakers so as to still have a TM where most of the atmos mixes play. If the "extracted" signal creates a center channel between FH and RH wouldn't it in essence fold the TR sounds into this newly created channel? If so, this would dump all RH/TR material into my existing TM which is what is happening now. Nothing changes there giving continuity to my experience. FH would get (faintly?) dumped into TM (due to center channel creation) plus into the newly installed TF(AVR processing). I dont have any FH assigned.
> In essence, ALL 4 overheads would play ALL FH material? If I understand this correctly, it seems that the downside is that a FH mix is being reproduced in the rear row theorecitally behind the TF when it should be IN FRONT of it between Fronts and TF but this might end up being kind of cool. I may be able to fix this with levels too.
> 
> Your advice and time are greatly appreciated!
> 
> G
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sounds like you would effectively be throwing away the top rear information (not a good thing to do as it will just be "missing"). "Scatmos" extracts a center between two channels so yes you'd pretty much need 6 speakers to make it work. If you just used the center output between top front and top rear you'd lose top rear entirely. Just selecting top rear will put both into all four existing speakers automatically (see two options above).
Click to expand...


----------



## AYanguas

JPHCCFC said:


> What is the current state of Dolby music Atmos..is there any way we can get access to this apart from buying the REM BluRay for our HT setups?


I think nothing has evolved yet.

Apart from the R.E.M one you comment I can recommend some music from Matt Darey: https://www.mattdarey.com/dolby-atmos-club
He manages to give a real “bubble of sound” with objects panning around. One thing that I enjoy is that the main sound stage, specially vocals, is not coming from the Front, as usually, but much of the time is coming from above.
You may not like that electronic music genre, perhaps, but for me is the most reference Atmos music that I have heard in my Home Theater.

There are some other Music Atmos releases like The Beatles Abbey Road 50th anniversary.

The supposed streaming from Amazon Music HD, that I’m still waiting to see if it is true or not. If that amazon music Atmos is only to be played by the Amazon Echo Studio speaker, which looks worse than any decent sound bar, that’s not what we want.
We want to play streaming Dolby Atmos music, the same way we feed an Atmos signal from a BD to an HDMI input to our Home Theater AVR.

Worse yet: Tidal announcement of Atmos music to be played at... figured out: Only in an android Phone. https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/12/tidal-hifi-dolby-atmos-music/

We have seen announcements about Dolby negotiating with record labels as important as Universal Music to mix records in Dolby Atmos and make it become a standard when it comes to recording and producing music. But Nothing released yet that I'm aware.


----------



## dfa973

AYanguas said:


> I think nothing has evolved yet.


True!

I had a "dialog" with a Dolby representative a week ago and he said that for HT there is no solution except some Atmos Blu-rays (R.E.M, Kraftwerk’s 3D The Catalogue, Imagine Dragons’ Smoke and Mirrors Live) and Dolby Atmos Music is limited right now on smart speakers and smartphones...

He had nothing to say about future support for HT, I quote: "we don't have any announcements for new integrations".


----------



## sdrucker

dfa973 said:


> True!
> 
> I had a "dialog" with a Dolby representative a week ago and he said that for HT there is no solution except some Atmos Blu-rays (R.E.M, Kraftwerk’s 3D The Catalogue, Imagine Dragons’ Smoke and Mirrors Live) and Dolby Atmos Music is limited right now on smart speakers and smartphones...
> 
> He had nothing to say about future support for HT, I quote: "we don't have any announcements for new integrations".


Don’t forget Hans Zimmer Live in Prague BD. Truly excellent.


----------



## dfa973

sdrucker said:


> Don’t forget Hans Zimmer Live in Prague BD. Truly excellent.


Indeed!


----------



## MazingerZ

This site has a list of music available in Atmos and/or Auro 3D.
Click on the "Musik" tab:

https://surround-sound.info/3d-sound/titel/


----------



## GPBURNS

MagnumX said:


> I just watched *Jumanji* (*original* movie 4K Dolby Atmos version) again and I have to reiterate this is one of the most impressive Atmos movies I've watched the past year and a half! In fact, it might even be deserving of the *BEST ATMOS MOVIE I've EVER heard*. I know a lot of people didn't care for the movie itself, but it blows away Overlord, Fury and anything else I can think of for sheer massive surround use. Not only does it regularly use the overhead channels to great effect (like crazy good with tornadoes of sound flying in circles, giant bugs buzzing at your head, etc.), but it makes extensive use of rear channels and all kinds of sound effect panning and switching when the camera view changes. It's too bad the CGI effects suck (monkeys and lion looked particularly fake), but the sound is spectacular (way better than the first sequel; I haven't seen the second sequel to compare yet).
> 
> I also watched *10 Cloverfield Lane* earlier this night in Atmos and while there are large lengths of dialog and quiet time in the bunker, the overhead effects for the cars and "other" things later overhead are quite good indeed. My whole ceiling lit up several times.


Nice - Have not watched Jumanji yet - moved up the que - besides the titles mention a lot - A Quiet Pace / Resident Evil - final Chapter and Ford vs Ferrari are spectacular in Atmos- 
Going to watch Doctor Sleep tonight and reports are maybe the best atmos track yet- will report back


----------



## AYanguas

dfa973 said:


> True!
> 
> I had a "dialog" with a Dolby representative a week ago and he said that for HT there is no solution except some Atmos Blu-rays (R.E.M, Kraftwerk’s 3D The Catalogue, Imagine Dragons’ Smoke and Mirrors Live) and Dolby Atmos Music is limited right now on smart speakers and smartphones...
> 
> He had nothing to say about future support for HT, I quote: "we don't have any announcements for new integrations".


It's a pitty. We'll have to wait for a different market for this.

Meanwhile we can enjoy the upmixers (DSU, Neural:X, Auromatic) that give good results for some stereo and 5.1 mixes. It is not the same as a good artist Atmos mix, but that is what we have for now.


----------



## dfa973

I have wondered, how is actually delivered Dolby Atmos Music to smart speakers?
Amazon Echo Studio is a kind of a small 2.1.1 audio system. 
I see that the Echo Studio supports DD and DD+.
Probably is an Atmos downmix made specifically to music streaming services - their Ultra HD service (lossless, max 192 kHz sample rate) has an average bandwidth of 728kbps.


----------



## AYanguas

Obviously Music Atmos, as everything else, is market driven for the artist-producer-reseller by the amount of demand.

Technically, nothing stops to deliver Dolby Atmos lossless via streaming. 4K Video streaming with Atmos is already delivered, for example to a device like Fire Stick 4K working with WI-FI.

They now deliver the same content (perhaps with additional compression) that before was delivered mainly by physical discs (BR, BD, UHD BD). The same way, BD disks with Atmos Music could be delivered via streaming to be played at the HT. BUT... How much demand is there for consuming BD disks with DTS HD-MA 5.1 Music? And for real HD Atmos Music?


----------



## LNEWoLF

AYanguas said:


> Obviously Music Atmos, as everything else, is market driven for the artist-producer-reseller by the amount of demand.
> 
> Technically, nothing stops to deliver Dolby Atmos lossless via streaming. 4K Video streaming with Atmos is already delivered, for example to a device like Fire Stick 4K working with WI-FI.
> 
> They now deliver the same content (perhaps with additional compression) that before was delivered mainly by physical discs (BR, BD, UHD BD). The same way, BD disks with Atmos Music could be delivered via streaming to be played at the HT. BUT... How much demand is there for consuming BD disks with DTS HD-MA 5.1 Music? And for real HD Atmos Music?


For ME, I have possibly a 100 or more bluray lossless concerts within my media library. From various Artists that contain audio between DTS Master HD and Dolby True HD audio formats. There’s a Atmos concert in there also. Another 100 or more possible DVD concerts of various DTS and Dolby audio in lossy audio formats. I really enjoy reliving the concert video and audio experience. There are many GREAT ones.


----------



## helvetica bold

I need some advice on my set up. Going to pick up a new Yamaha RX-A6 later in the year. 
I just bought a pair of Q Acoustics 3010is and the 3090Ci center. I’m using a pair of take classics for my rears for now. I might upgrade the rears to Miccas RB42 or should I just get matching 3010is? I’m also going to get a 
SVS SB-1000 next. When I pick up the AVR later in the year I want to round out the system with 2 pairs of SVS height elevation speakers to complete 5.1.4. Any thoughts or concerns on this set up for a 11’x10’ living room in a small apt. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AYanguas

LNEWoLF said:


> For ME, I have possibly a 100 or more bluray lossless concerts within my media library. From various Artists that contain audio between DTS Master HD and Dolby True HD audio formats. There’s a Atmos concert in there also. Another 100 or more possible DVD concerts of various DTS and Dolby audio in lossy audio formats. I really enjoy reliving the concert video and audio experience. There are many GREAT ones.


I have something similar too. Concerts are very good films and in the HT you feel like being there in the Concert.

But for Music (Bluray audio 5.1) I was referring specifically to the studio recorded and then mixed to 5.1 (SACD, DVD-A, BD). Those special releases, many in box sets Anniversary compilations re-editions that I like most. But they are expensive and I think just a niche market demand. It is not a format for the mainstream mass of people. Things like Steven Wilson/King Crimson and the like, to name some of my favourites.

For instance, Steven Wilson has done a lot of 5.1 mixes of his music and from 70's Prog Rock classics, he likes the artistic intention of surround sound with moving sounds. But the target consumer for that I'm afraid is too reduced. Thus, when asked Steven Wilson in an interview about the new 3D formats (Atmos) he didn't have the intention to enter that arena because of the few market acceptance.

I hope there would be an eventual increase of the mainstream mass demand of Atmos music for the phones, Amazon Echo Studio and small sound bars or whatever. That would then eventually make an increase in real Atmos editions for HT, once the mix is done. Just my hope for the future.


----------



## sdrucker

MazingerZ said:


> This site has a list of music available in Atmos and/or Auro 3D.
> Click on the "Musik" tab:
> 
> https://surround-sound.info/3d-sound/titel/


Most of these titles are in Auro. Not much available in Atmos that hasn't already been discussed in a few AVS threads.


----------



## LNEWoLF

AYanguas said:


> I have something similar too. Concerts are very good films and in the HT you feel like being there in the Concert.
> 
> But for Music (Bluray audio 5.1) I was referring specifically to the studio recorded and then mixed to 5.1 (SACD, DVD-A, BD). Those special releases, many in box sets Anniversary compilations re-editions that I like most. But they are expensive and I think just a niche market demand. It is not a format for the mainstream mass of people. Things like Steven Wilson/King Crimson and the like, to name some of my favourites.
> 
> For instance, Steven Wilson has done a lot of 5.1 mixes of his music and from 70's Prog Rock classics, he likes the artistic intention of surround sound with moving sounds. But the target consumer for that I'm afraid is too reduced. Thus, when asked Steven Wilson in an interview about the new 3D formats (Atmos) he didn't have the intention to enter that arena because of the few market acceptance.
> 
> I hope there would be an eventual increase of the mainstream mass demand of Atmos music for the phones, Amazon Echo Studio and small sound bars or whatever. That would then eventually make an increase in real Atmos editions for HT, once the mix is done. Just my hope for the future.


I understand now, there is an AVS thread that was started about Atmos music. I believe someone in this thread posted the link which is contained within this thread. I know I subscribed to it. I take a [email protected]@ky Loo and post if I find it.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...073442-official-dolby-atmos-music-thread.html


----------



## LNEWoLF

tigerhonaker said:


> I'm trying my best to now get the Best-of-the-Best (Before) my Atmos is installed.


Came across this link one of several on AVS for best Atmos audio mixes. When I was [email protected]@king thru my subscribed threads for the Atmos Music thread

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html

Enjoy your new Atmos system. Remember to hit the deck and keep your head down when the shells start bouncing off the [email protected]@r. I know I have on several occasions. 

Also don’t be embarrassed if you open your front door and no one is there. Good luck your in for a real sonic treat.


----------



## sdrucker

AYanguas said:


> Obviously Music Atmos, as everything else, is market driven for the artist-producer-reseller by the amount of demand.
> 
> Technically, nothing stops to deliver Dolby Atmos lossless via streaming. 4K Video streaming with Atmos is already delivered, for example to a device like Fire Stick 4K working with WI-FI.
> 
> They now deliver the same content (perhaps with additional compression) that before was delivered mainly by physical discs (BR, BD, UHD BD). The same way, BD disks with Atmos Music could be delivered via streaming to be played at the HT. BUT... How much demand is there for consuming BD disks with DTS HD-MA 5.1 Music? And for real HD Atmos Music?


There's enough demand for Netflix and Amazon Prime Video to stream original series in Atmos. Why there's no market for some of the same people that might play that music content in 5.1.4, 7.1.4, or (ugh) a soundbar that virtualizes Atmos is beyond me. That's even leaving the hi-end market of >7.1.4 or .6 aside.

I'm cynical enough to believe that there's licensing restrictions that Amazon and Android manufacturers insisted on to limit "Dolby Atmos Music" to their type of devices. Or that the actual content is little more than upmixed to 7.1.2 with some sort of virtualization to play back on headphones, Amazon Echo or Android speakers, and not close to the real thing you'd have on the R.E.M. or Hans Zimmer releases. Meaning that it's more of a branding of DSU for mobile device or media room owners than Atmos per se.


----------



## MagnumX

Maybe Dolby wants to let Auro-3D have all the music releases.... Atmos on a phone? WTF is the point of that? How do you get more speakers out of phone Atmos? It sounds like Dolby is going down the THX path to utter obscurity (how can you trust a label that calls 2-channel headphone mixes ATMOS?) With no quality control and "everything" being given the "Atmos" label, it's a path to destruction, IMO. Clearly, they want DTS:X to catch up and pass them by even in the mid-end, let alone high-end (DTS:X Pro is a good start on the latter as NOTHING can limit DTS:X Pro from using ALL speakers, unlike Dolby who thought it wise to let a company hamper the product from every possible angle (limit channels, limit to "smart speakers" or cell phones where it makes no sense at all. Garbage In = Garbage Out.

BTW, for Auro-3D, Mando Diao's Aelito album is quite excellent in its mix.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Maybe Dolby wants to let Auro-3D have all the music releases.... Atmos on a phone? WTF is the point of that?


No weirder than the Auro Beautifyer (Auro for iOS) or Auro 3D for headphones, the latter of which plays back content as well as upmixes on headphones. 
http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats/

If anything, "Dolby Atmos Music" as it's been rolled out is just an updated version of "Dolby Headphone" that virtualized Dolby PLII. The difference is you can get the virtualization beyond 7.1 on an Amazon Echo or an Android device (including Android Speakers). The disappointment for those of us with HTs with 7.1.4 or more is that it's useless for us. We're stuck with our REM, Hans Zimmer, Matt Larey etc. for now.

I just see "Dolby Atmos Music" as branding, using the Atmos umbrella for something that's rendered (virtually or to actual individual speakers) beyond a 7.1 format.



> Clearly, they want DTS:X to catch up and pass them by even in the mid-end, let alone high-end (DTS:X Pro is a good start on the latter as NOTHING can limit DTS:X Pro from using ALL speakers, unlike Dolby who thought it wise to let a company hamper the product from every possible angle (limit channels, limit to "smart speakers" or cell phones where it makes no sense at all. Garbage In = Garbage Out.


Bah, humbug?

Dolby is still the king of native immersive content. That's not changing. If anything it's expanding thanks to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc. streaming Atmos content. Plenty of even high end HT people use a Roku, ATV, etc. to enjoy this.

With DTS:X Pro, right now there's exactly one processor that takes advantage of it to its full potential, specifically the implementation of the Neural:X processing for both upmix and application to DTS:X content proper, and that's Trinnov Altitude. Storm Audio, the #2 player right now in the high channel count space will likely be next once they've got it in their ISP MK2 line. Everyone else is hurry up and wait for certification, which in practice means you'll know around CEDIA this year or maybe even CES next year what's coming down the pike.

As much as I'm a Trinnov enthusiast personally  , let's be honest. A couple of thousand users with DTS:X Pro isn't large enough to wipe out Dolby's dominance in immersive audio. And as you know from your hanging out on the Altitude thread, using DTS:X Pro for native content or Neural:X upmix is just utilizing another codec at this point, not exactly an either/or vs. Dolby by any means.



> BTW, for Auro-3D, Mando Diao's Aelito album is quite excellent in its mix.


I don't have it, but I really liked the Ozark Henry Auro demo at CEDIA a few years ago.


----------



## blake

LNEWoLF said:


> I understand now, there is an AVS thread that was started about Atmos music. I believe someone in this thread posted the link which is contained within this thread. I know I subscribed to it. I take a [email protected]@ky Loo and post if I find it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...073442-official-dolby-atmos-music-thread.html




Atmos music seems somewhat of a joke. I watched the interview with their marketing guy at its launch and it’s basically limited to a “smart speaker” and he would not comment on support for those who spent thousands on an atmos prepro. Incredible.


----------



## tigerhonaker

LNEWoLF said:


> Came across this link one of several on AVS for best Atmos audio mixes. When I was [email protected]@king thru my subscribed threads for the Atmos Music thread
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/44-m...5172-what-blu-rays-have-best-dolby-atmos.html
> 
> Enjoy your new Atmos system. Remember to hit the deck and keep your head down when the shells start bouncing off the [email protected]@r. I know I have on several occasions.
> 
> *Also don’t be embarrassed if you open your front door and no one is there.*
> 
> Good luck your in for a real sonic treat.


LNEWoLF,

Thanks for the Heads-Up. 

I'm so looking forward to the day I actually get to personally experience (My-Atmos-System).

Terry


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> No weirder than the Auro Beautifyer (Auro for iOS) or Auro 3D for headphones, the latter of which plays back content as well as upmixes on headphones.
> http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats/


Auro likes to confuse its upmixer with its decoder. Given they're pretty much dead in the water at the moment, I'll cut them some slack.



> If anything, "Dolby Atmos Music" as it's been rolled out is just an updated version of "Dolby Headphone" that virtualized Dolby PLII. The difference is you can get the virtualization beyond 7.1 on an Amazon Echo or an Android device (including Android Speakers). The disappointment for those of us with HTs with 7.1.4 or more is that it's useless for us. We're stuck with our REM, Hans Zimmer, Matt Larey etc. for now.
> 
> I just see "Dolby Atmos Music" as branding, using the Atmos umbrella for something that's rendered (virtually or to actual individual speakers) beyond a 7.1 format.


That sounds like THX branding to me as I said above. THX started out strong. They expanded like crazy too! Then one day they were a joke.



> Dolby is still the king of native immersive content. That's not changing. If anything it's expanding thanks to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc. streaming Atmos content. Plenty of even high end HT people use a Roku, ATV, etc. to enjoy this.


You'll excuse me if I root for the underdog to do some damage over the long haul. It's never good to have one king at the top. They get complacent or worse yet, incompetent. Dolby has already let Disney hornswoggle their format, defeating the entire point of it for larger installs (i.e. If you NEED for example, "TM" to bridge front and rear height without leaving a hole overhead and 1/4 of the Atmos titles refuse to use it at all, well you have yourself a BROKEN home theater. Such owners would have little choice but to use something like Neural X to at least make the sound listenable again, even if it's not as accurate in placement.

People seem to think I shouldn't blame Dolby for this. It's all Disney's fault. Well, where there's a goose, there's a gander. Dolby could have easily licensed the format such that its purpose/intent should not be purposely hacked, compromised or worked around. You see it all the time with software and what is Atmos but software in the end? 




> With DTS:X Pro, right now there's exactly one processor that takes advantage of it to its full potential, specifically the implementation of the Neural:X processing for both upmix and application to DTS:X content proper, and that's Trinnov Altitude.


It's just the beginning. I fully expect all >11.x processors to have it within the next two years and as the DSP chips come down in price with more power eventually added, it'l eventually become not only fairly common, but affordable. Look how much D&M AVRs get discounted around August every year. Who would pay retail with cuts like that?



> As much as I'm a Trinnov enthusiast personally  , let's be honest. A couple of thousand users with DTS:X Pro isn't large enough to wipe out Dolby's dominance in immersive audio.


Ferrari and even Mercedes don't sell as many cars as GM. Would anyone in their right mind confuse the two companies or say GM is the better high-end car? Do you really CARE if Atmos is selling tons of sound bars if your high-end system can play ANY DTS:X 7.1.4 title with 32 speakers? I think I'd root for LOTS of DTS:X 7.1.4 titles that at least WORK with my home theater than getting random CRAP under the Atmos name that refuses to use my top middle or front wide speakers, let alone surround #1 . In fact, I'd encourage DTS to take advantage of the upmixer fiasco being eliminated and make DTS:X Pro work with an already rendered Atmos soundtrack in future AVRs! Neural X upmixing of Disney _Crapmos_ soundtracks would be the ultimate insult to Dolby's policies and their god-awful limited upmixer "DSU".

In other words, "DTS:X Pro" is about the high-end, not the mass consumer. It takes >11.1 speakers to even notice it.



> And as you know from your hanging out on the Altitude thread, using DTS:X Pro for native content or Neural:X upmix is just utilizing another codec at this point, not exactly an either/or vs. Dolby by any means.


If it quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck and even tastes like a duck, I'm calling it a duck. Yes, it's Neural X that makes DTS:X Pro sing, but it's their crowning glory. It makes DSU look like an amateur player. People talk about cars flying overhead, but I have YET to hear such a thing even ONCE with Neural X. I asked for examples of things placed incorrectly that would be jarring like that and I got no takers, just theoretical scenarios. Yet I can point straight to Top Gun with DSU that has jets flying at ear level on flybys on-screen that are clearly meant to be overhead (as in the old Dolby Digital systems had surround speakers overhead and so yes, that's where the jet should be). I throw in Neural X and the jets are back where they're supposed to be. I'd call that fixing Dolby's mess. Dolby should have left the surround speakers where they were or at least set DSU to balance the two at 2/3 to put older soundtracks where they were meant to be. Nope. Surround events are rendered at EAR LEVEL (by their recommendation at least; you could do a cinema layout with 2/3 + ceiling and avoid the problem, but without high ceilings you'd get less separation, but it'd still work).

As for Atmos music, what's disappointing was to see all that news coverage online about how the music studios are going to embrace Atmos like crazy and we're going to see a golden age of surround sound music that's been promised since the days of Quadraphonic only to find out it's 99% horse manure. If you can't even run it on a 5.1.4 system, WTF!?!? What's the POINT even??? As far as I'm concerned, they've left the gates wide open for someone else to step in. DTS should concentrate on getting them to do master it on their system and render out to Atmos for those deals and then let them sell the high-end goods.


Oh, I've removed my subscription to the Altitude thread now that most of the DTS:X talk (beyond setup questions) appears to be over. I'm sure several there will be thrilled as it the quiet was deafening when I posted from the regulars. I'm clearly the wrong financial class (to them at least I think; I can afford one; I just have better things to do with my money when I've gotten around all the limitations of both Atmos and X on the cheap with extraction) and tend to want to correct bizarre notions put forth like DB25 connectors to carry digital signals are what make the Altitude great, not more channels (WTF!?). I was hoping for more DTS:X Pro commentary and testing, but it's already turned into mostly setup talk and who's selling their old model type banter.


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you would effectively be throwing away the top rear information (not a good thing to do as it will just be "missing"). "Scatmos" extracts a center between two channels so yes you'd pretty much need 6 speakers to make it work. If you just used the center output between top front and top rear you'd lose top rear entirely. Just selecting top rear will put both into all four existing speakers automatically (see two options above).
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. It seems the easiest solution is the correct one in this situation. I'm going to install the second set of overheads and
> just label them TF/TR and go from there.
> 
> However, am I correct in thinking that the signal that was once only sent to my TM will now be split between TF/TR. I.E. a +3 dB sound being sent to TM only will now be +1.5 dB to TF and +1.5 dB to TR?
> 
> G
Click to expand...


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. It seems the easiest solution is the correct one in this situation. I'm going to install the second set of overheads and
> just label them TF/TR and go from there.
> 
> However, am I correct in thinking that the signal that was once only sent to my TM will now be split between TF/TR. I.E. a +3 dB sound being sent to TM only will now be +1.5 dB to TF and +1.5 dB to TR?
> 
> G
> 
> 
> 
> More or less. Some of that info once sent to TM only was supposed to be in the front and rear too so you could think of it that way. True TM will be imaged between the two.
Click to expand...


----------



## fredxr2d2

MagnumX said:


> If it quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck and even tastes like a duck, I'm calling it a duck. Yes, it's Neural X that makes DTS:X Pro sing, but it's their crowning glory. It makes DSU look like an amateur player. People talk about cars flying overhead, but I have YET to hear such a thing even ONCE with Neural X. I asked for examples of things placed incorrectly that would be jarring like that and I got no takers, just theoretical scenarios. Yet I can point straight to Top Gun with DSU that has jets flying at ear level on flybys on-screen that are clearly meant to be overhead (as in the old Dolby Digital systems had surround speakers overhead and so yes, that's where the jet should be). I throw in Neural X and the jets are back where they're supposed to be. I'd call that fixing Dolby's mess. Dolby should have left the surround speakers where they were or at least set DSU to balance the two at 2/3 to put older soundtracks where they were meant to be. Nope. Surround events are rendered at EAR LEVEL (by their recommendation at least; you could do a cinema layout with 2/3 + ceiling and avoid the problem, but without high ceilings you'd get less separation, but it'd still work).



I definitely had a problem with the 2.0 soundtrack on Batman Mask of the Phantasm where Neural X sent voices careening around the room when they should have been anchored in the center channel. Switched to DSU and the voices were properly centered again. Made me very curious about how Neural X was handling other soundtracks. I didn't do any other exhaustive testing (mostly because my wife hates it when I do), but it was a clear error in how Neural was handling the upmixing of 2.0 mixes and DSU was not.


----------



## DigiWega

I watched Frozen 2 last night and it had a very active Atmos mix with a pleasing amount of low end bass.

Definitely add it to the list!


----------



## sdurani

fredxr2d2 said:


> I definitely had a problem with the 2.0 soundtrack on Batman Mask of the Phantasm where Neural X sent voices careening around the room when they should have been anchored in the center channel. Switched to DSU and the voices were properly centered again.


Some upmixers work by separating the contents of the soundtrack into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds. Direct sounds are usually kept in the front soundstage while diffuse sounds are usually sent to the surrounds & heights. Usually. Neural:X can sometimes steer direct sounds to other speakers, including heights, while DSU sticks to steering diffuse sounds to other speakers. Hence the difference you heard with voices (likely panned dialogue).


----------



## zeonstar

DigiWega said:


> I watched Frozen 2 last night and it had a very active Atmos mix with a pleasing amount of low end bass.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely add it to the list!




Been looking forward to this movie at home. Thought it had some great Atmos in theaters. I especially remember voices above during “Into the Unknown.”


----------



## leehan76

DigiWega said:


> I watched Frozen 2 last night and it had a very active Atmos mix with a pleasing amount of low end bass.
> 
> Definitely add it to the list!


I’m looking forward to seeing this movie! Studio who did the sound in the two most recent Avengers films could learn a thing or two on giving the consumer proper Atmos mixes and bass...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dfa973 said:


> I have wondered, how is actually delivered Dolby Atmos Music to smart speakers?
> Amazon Echo Studio is a kind of a small 2.1.1 audio system.
> I see that the Echo Studio supports DD and DD+.
> Probably is an Atmos downmix made specifically to music streaming services - their Ultra HD service (lossless, max 192 kHz sample rate) has an average bandwidth of 728kbps.



It's more than likely binaural stereo to create added "depth" using psychoacoustic matrixing and height transfer filters. Streaming Dolby Atmos music, in its current forum, seems to be no more than a marketing ploy. Whether or not the original Atmos mixing sessions would have true objects and support for 24.1.10 lossless decoding if they output a TrueHD stream for lossless high resolutions sites and/or Blu-ray Audio discs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

DigiWega said:


> I watched Frozen 2 last night and it had a very active Atmos mix with a pleasing amount of low end bass.
> 
> Definitely add it to the list!



It'll be interesting to see what Trinnov Altitude owners have to say about the Atmos encoding on this one - if it's yet another 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 mix with a couple moments of object panning or an actual 24.1.10 capable track unlike any Disney Atmos track ever done before. 



If you have a 7.1.4 or lower Atmos system you can be easily fooled with these kinds of limited soundtracks.


----------



## gwsat

The Blu-Ray.com review of the Atmos audio was decidedly underwhelming. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Frozen-II-4K-Blu-ray/257295/ This outfit isn’t the be all and end all, of course, but I have found them to be objective and reliable for the most part.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

gwsat said:


> The Blu-Ray.com review of the Atmos audio was decidedly underwhelming. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Frozen-II-4K-Blu-ray/257295/ This outfit isn’t the be all and end all, of course, but I have found them to be objective and reliable for the most part.



Hard to know what to expect, but I don't believe the reviewers at Blu-ray.com have the greatest sound systems in the world, to be frank.


----------



## fredxr2d2

sdurani said:


> Some upmixers work by separating the contents of the soundtrack into "direct" and "diffuse" sounds. Direct sounds are usually kept in the front soundstage while diffuse sounds are usually sent to the surrounds & heights. Usually. Neural:X can sometimes steer direct sounds to other speakers, including heights, while DSU sticks to steering diffuse sounds to other speakers. Hence the difference you heard with voices (likely panned dialogue).



Thanks sanjay for that concise explanation. I was mostly responding to Magnum's assertion that he had never heard Neural X perform badly and couldn't find concrete examples - this was a concrete example.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Dan Hitchman said:


> Hard to know what to expect, but I don't believe the reviewers at Blu-ray.com have the greatest sound systems in the world, to be frank.



This is definitely OT, but it seems like some of their reviewers have well put-together systems with reasonable components and properly calibrated displays and others have soundbars with out of the box settings for a cheap TV. And it is very hard to know which review is from which system.


----------



## MagnumX

fredxr2d2 said:


> I definitely had a problem with the 2.0 soundtrack on Batman Mask of the Phantasm where Neural X sent voices careening around the room when they should have been anchored in the center channel. Switched to DSU and the voices were properly centered again. Made me very curious about how Neural X was handling other soundtracks. I didn't do any other exhaustive testing (mostly because my wife hates it when I do), but it was a clear error in how Neural was handling the upmixing of 2.0 mixes and DSU was not.


I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there. What I'm getting at is it's so uncommon I can't think of a single example I noticed over the years. It's nice that we can select DSU or Auro-3D or even just plain DTS decoding (without the Neural X upmixer) in those cases. Compare that to DSU that almost never gets "height" objects correct (beyond perhaps crickets and other ambient effects). Basically, any movie with an aircraft will render incorrectly unless your side surrounds are well above ear level. 

So I use Neural X by default for movies and I'll change it if there's a weird problem (but haven't had to yet with my movie collection -- i.e. I don't have that title). I did notice watching Biggles: Adventures in time that the biplanes etc. were still overhead even though it's only 2.0 channels. It did a pretty good job for a regular 2.0 Dolby Surround title from 1986, IMO.


----------



## BriscoCountyJr

I ran some tests today with Amazon Prime Video and Jack Ryan UHD episodes to see if I could get my new Denon AVR-S950H receiver to play the title with Atmos audio.
First of all I discovered the pilot episode of Jack Ryan (S1 E1) apparently doesn't have Atmos at all, but S1 E2 and later do.
I found Atmos only came thru if I was playing the UHD 4K version and HDR had to be enabled and active on a 4K display too. 

With a 1080p display or a 4K display in plain 4K 60Hz but with HDR off, I only got DD+ 5.1


This was with a Roku Ultra but I believe its Amazon limiting Atmos for all devices to those actively playing 4K HDR.
Don't know why they make it so difficult/selective, my old plasma 1080p display is perfectly useable with Atmos on newer Bluray titles, so why not allow it for streaming from amazon too?

I wish amazon provided an audio format and video resolution selection button as well as an info button to display what the current video and audio formats are!


----------



## Matt L

Just tweaked my setup a bit, built some speaker stands at the right height and moved the bed rears back a bit, but to do so unfortunately they end up closer together. Not sure what is better 2' further back and closer together or where they were set the same as the front speaker distance apart. Reran Audyssey and that is my main question, It set all the cross overs to 40hz, my speakers are smaller and if I recall I read here many are setting the xover higher. What would be the best option frequency wise?

Someday I'll have to trudge through the Audyssey thread but it's almost as massive as this one.


----------



## dfa973

Matt L said:


> Just tweaked my setup a bit, built some speaker stands at the right height and moved the bed rears back a bit, but to do so unfortunately they end up closer together. Not sure what is better 2' further back and closer together or where they were set the same as the front speaker distance apart. Reran Audyssey and that is my main question, It set all the cross overs to 40hz, my speakers are smaller and if I recall I read here many are setting the xover higher. What would be the best option frequency wise?
> 
> Someday I'll have to trudge through the Audyssey thread but it's almost as massive as this one.


OK, so Audyssey detected that your speakers are capable of 40Hz. Probably those speakers are set as Large (default if they are capable of lower than 50Hz).
If you use a subwoofer, set all the speakers as Small and set the crossover at 80Hz (or the value recommended for each pair - if you have a setup with different speakers, with different capabilities).
There are many variables at play...


----------



## GPBURNS

Doctor Sleep is one of best Atmos track released to date - enjoy


----------



## Matt L

BriscoCountyJr said:


> I ran some tests today with Amazon Prime Video and Jack Ryan UHD episodes to see if I could get my new Denon AVR-S950H receiver to play the title with Atmos audio.
> First of all I discovered the pilot episode of Jack Ryan (S1 E1) apparently doesn't have Atmos at all, but S1 E2 and later do.
> I found Atmos only came thru if I was playing the UHD 4K version and HDR had to be enabled and active on a 4K display too.
> 
> With a 1080p display or a 4K display in plain 4K 60Hz but with HDR off, I only got DD+ 5.1
> 
> 
> This was with a Roku Ultra but I believe its Amazon limiting Atmos for all devices to those actively playing 4K HDR.
> Don't know why they make it so difficult/selective, my old plasma 1080p display is perfectly useable with Atmos on newer Bluray titles, so why not allow it for streaming from amazon too?
> 
> I wish amazon provided an audio format and video resolution selection button as well as an info button to display what the current video and audio formats are!


I never had an issue with Jack Ryan episode 1 not being Atmos. The explosions early on sounded powerful in Atmos. When I watched it I was using my roku TV but I've also used my firestick and got the same results.


----------



## farsider3000

BriscoCountyJr said:


> I ran some tests today with Amazon Prime Video and Jack Ryan UHD episodes to see if I could get my new Denon AVR-S950H receiver to play the title with Atmos audio.
> First of all I discovered the pilot episode of Jack Ryan (S1 E1) apparently doesn't have Atmos at all, but S1 E2 and later do.
> I found Atmos only came thru if I was playing the UHD 4K version and HDR had to be enabled and active on a 4K display too.
> 
> With a 1080p display or a 4K display in plain 4K 60Hz but with HDR off, I only got DD+ 5.1
> 
> 
> This was with a Roku Ultra but I believe its Amazon limiting Atmos for all devices to those actively playing 4K HDR.
> Don't know why they make it so difficult/selective, my old plasma 1080p display is perfectly useable with Atmos on newer Bluray titles, so why not allow it for streaming from amazon too?
> 
> I wish amazon provided an audio format and video resolution selection button as well as an info button to display what the current video and audio formats are!



I just had issues with a roku 4K ultra not working with my friends set up and Jack Ryan with atmos. Atmos works fine through his amazon fire stick. I also get Dolby atmos on Jack Ryan through my Apple TV. I believe it’s a Roku issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> I just had issues with a roku 4K ultra not working with my friends set up and Jack Ryan with atmos. Atmos works fine through his amazon fire stick. I also get Dolby atmos on Jack Ryan through my Apple TV. I believe it’s a Roku issue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yes, but do you use a 4K TV with HDR? Neither of those work here with Prime (Jack Ryan) on ANY device I have and I have almost all of them (FireTV 4K Stick, Roku 4K+, AppleTV 4K, PS4, Nvidia Shield Pro). I assume they MUST have a 4K connection before Prime will let the Atmos stream version go. The only solution I know of is to get a 4K projector or certain HDFury devices that fool it to think I have one.


----------



## mrtickleuk

farsider3000 said:


> I just had issues with a roku 4K ultra not working with my friends set up and Jack Ryan with atmos. Atmos works fine through his amazon fire stick. I also get Dolby atmos on Jack Ryan through my Apple TV. I believe it’s a Roku issue.


I agree. Episode 1 is definitely both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision.


----------



## skylarlove1999

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree. Episode 1 is definitely both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision.


I thought episode one for some reason didn't have Atmos. Are you saying Episode one through ATV4K has Atmos? 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## am2model3

I have DAES speakers, the Pioneer elites 5.1.4. I have listened to them first calibrated as "height" speakers. (seemed louder) Then i recalibrated as "dolby sp" speakers, daes. (still great; but seems quieter) 

When we tell the receiver Dolby SP speakers; DAES, it applies the Dolby HRTF (analog) response curve to the sound, system, speakers. Some places I read online said the HRTF curve that Dolby has in place isn't always necessary; or helpful to the sound experience for some people. If the HRTF curve applied sounds ok, I wonder if calibrating DAES speakers as "height" speakers then might actually sound better; for certain listeners. 

Please let me know what you think. I might try it again anyway and go back to Height calibration. (the idea being that the HRTF analogue curve isn't entirely necessary for us to hear the dolby atmos signal via the DAES speakers; if this is the case; maybe running them as "height" speakers could potentially sound better if we let our "ears" do the processing instead of the HRTF curve)


----------



## tigerhonaker

*Atmos is getting with-in weeks now I hope ...........*

Guys,

My A/V Dealer and his tech did their thing this morning in my H/T.

I won't double post all that but a link below to it for those interested.

The Triad 6 in-ceiling speakers locations were marked this morning in preparation for the soon to be "Atmos System" install. 

*https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-16.html#post59268372*

Terry


----------



## am2model3

another general question; is the full Dolby Atmos signal 96khz or 48khz? my receiver tells me all my signals are 48khz; if i could get my device to output at 96khz; would dolby atmos sound better than 48khz? How can i tell my device to do 96khz? (panasonic ub820)


----------



## skylarlove1999

tigerhonaker said:


> Guys,
> 
> 
> 
> My A/V Dealer and his tech did their thing this morning in my H/T.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't double post all that but a link below to it for those interested.
> 
> 
> 
> The Triad 6 in-ceiling speakers locations were marked this morning in preparation for the soon to be "Atmos System" install.
> 
> 
> 
> *https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-16.html#post59268372*
> 
> 
> 
> Terry


Thanks Terry. I cannot wait to hear your feedback pun intended. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

am2model3 said:


> another general question; is the full Dolby Atmos signal 96khz or 48khz? my receiver tells me all my signals are 48khz; if i could get my device to output at 96khz; would dolby atmos sound better than 48khz? How can i tell my device to do 96khz? (panasonic ub820)


Most audio sources are 48 kHz, except for high-res music such as SACD or DVD-Audio and a tiny handful of movies on Blu-ray. If you use Audyssey room correction, everything gets downsampled to 48 kHz because that's all Audyssey can process.

As to whether you can hear the difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz, some people will tell you there's a mind-blowing dramatic improvement. That's called "Placebo Effect" and is well-documented.


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


> another general question; is the full Dolby Atmos signal 96khz or 48khz? my receiver tells me all my signals are 48khz; if i could get my device to output at 96khz; would dolby atmos sound better than 48khz? How can i tell my device to do 96khz? (panasonic ub820)


It's 48. You can't. And why would you want to? 

Can you hear above 24kHz? I didn't think so. 

24/96+ is often sold as MAGIC. It's not. Almost nothing even utilizes the full bandwidth of 16/44.1. It's a joke, really. But Stereophile and other high-end rags that sell advertising and hell, even certain clueless musicians (e.g. Neil Young) believe that more bits and a higher sampling rate is "more like analog". Absolute rubbish. The reconstruction filter can PERFECTLY reconstruct anything at 1/2 the sampling rate. Some believe in "stair-steps". There is NO SUCH THING (more audiophile horse manure passed down for DECADES). You get PERFECT sine waves from the reconstruction filter. There are no stair steps. It's an utter deception perpetrated by those that stand to profit from selling more expensive equipment that does NOTHING on the playback side (there are good reasons on the recording end to pad the bit-rate, namely for headroom, but the final mix is more than adequate with noise-shaped 16-bit (gives ~18-bit resolution in the frequencies that actually matter). As for sampling, hell, most adults are lucky to hear 17kHz in their 20s and 30s and 15kHz in their 40s. 

I don't think any human has ever been shown to hear over about 21kHz. There's been this notion of "brick wall filtering" but the truth is oversampling took care of that within 2 years (or less) of the CDs launch (alternates included Sony's 1-bit and some other ones that all used different ways of smoothly transitioning to the bandwidth limits. So again, more distortion of reality.


----------



## mrtickleuk

skylarlove1999 said:


> I thought episode one for some reason didn't have Atmos. Are you saying Episode one *through ATV4K* has Atmos?


Through *that* hardware? Absolutely I am not saying that. I didn't mention the hardware, I was talking about that episode. One guy has a Roku, someone else an Apple, someone else a FireTV. I just confirmed the basic details of what it should be, I didn't imply which hardware I was using except that all my hardware is in my sig on every post 

I'm saying that the episode definitely has both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, as created and being streamed to all devices which actually work properly! If you don't get both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, then it means there is something wrong with your equipment. This is what it looks like with my equipment:










If you see the same problems with some other programme in the future - don't just assume "ah, X doesn't have Atmos". If I were you I would ask other users to check, and then when you realise you should get Atmos, you need to complain loudly to your providers until they fix the bugs.

I don't own an Apple TV, I use my internal LG app which is a lot better technically for picture and sound quality. Internal apps will *always *have a big advantage for picture quality over an external device, for this reason.

HTH


----------



## mrtickleuk

am2model3 said:


> I have DAES speakers, the Pioneer elites 5.1.4. I have listened to them first calibrated as "height" speakers. (seemed louder) Then i recalibrated as "dolby sp" speakers, daes. (still great; but seems quieter)


Are they Dolby upfiring "bouncy house"* speakers, the sort which you put on top of your fronts, have a slopey angle, firing sound up to the ceiling to bounce down and hopefully sound as if the noise is coming from above? These are used for people who can't - for whatever reason - put proper real speakers in the ceiling or up high on/near the ceiling.

If YES: You *must* configure them as "dolby" bouncy-house speakers in your AVR. You can't use "top" or "height".
If NO: You *must not* configure them as "dolby" bouncy-house speakers in your AVR. You must use "top" or "height".

There's no middle ground, there's no judgement required, and it is that simple. It's fundamental to how they need to work. HTH 

*correct technical term as recommended by Gene DellaSala of Audioholics.


----------



## skylarlove1999

mrtickleuk said:


> Through *that* hardware? Absolutely I am not saying that. I didn't mention the hardware, I was talking about that episode. One guy has a Roku, someone else an Apple, someone else a FireTV. I just confirmed the basic details of what it should be, I didn't imply which hardware I was using except that all my hardware is in my sig on every post
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that the episode definitely has both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, as created and being streamed to all devices which actually work properly! If you don't get both Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, then it means there is something wrong with your equipment. This is what it looks like with my equipment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you see the same problems with some other programme in the future - don't just assume "ah, X doesn't have Atmos". If I were you I would ask other users to check, and then when you realise you should get Atmos, you need to complain loudly to your providers until they fix the bugs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own an Apple TV, I use my internal LG app which is a lot better technically for picture and sound quality. Internal apps will *always *have a big advantage for picture quality over an external device, for this reason.
> 
> 
> 
> HTH


Thank you . I appreciate your reply. I thought it was strange that only one episode was missing Atmos. It is strange though that all other episodes with the same setup provide Atmos except for the first episode. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

No worries! Hope you can get it fixed


----------



## howard68

Hi 
I have got a Roku Ultra and also have had issues playing EP 1


----------



## erwos

Dumb question time:

We just remodeled our basement, which forced some changes for the home theater. On the plus side, with the furniture all out of there, it was a prime opportunity to upgrade speakers and rewire everything a lot more nicely. My new speaker setup is 7.1.4 - PSB Image front stage and surrounds, PSB CW80Rs as Atmos top middle, and Klipsch R-41SAs as Atmos front height. (This wasn't optimal compared to going top front and top rear, but such is life.) Sub is an SVS cylinder sub whose name is escaping me. My early experiences with Atmos have been phenomenal, but...

The problem I've got is that my _receiver_ is a Denon AVR-X3200W, and it has a max limit of 7 channels - no ability to toss in an amp to get more, either. This has resulted in me having disconnected 4 of my 11 channels, which is _not optimal_. I am currently eying the Denon AVR-X3600H and a separate two channel amp to fill the gap. *Are there any other sub-$1k (street) receivers that can drive 11 channels (powered or pre-out)?* I have a rack, so adding amps isn't a big deal if it's necessary. (Speaking of which, a rack-mountable receiver would be preferred.) I have a bunch of game consoles hooked up as well, so lots of HDMI inputs is a plus. Obviously, 4k60/HDR/DV support is also a necessity.

Thanks!


----------



## dfa973

erwos said:


> *Are there any other sub-$1k (street) receivers that can drive 11 channels?*


Marantz SR6013
Marantz SR6014
Denon AVR-X4500H
Onkyo TX-RZ730
Onkyo TX-RZ740


----------



## mikebernardo

Looking for advice on setting up some Atmos heights. (in-ceiling vs front/back heights)

Setup: 12x14' theater area but open on both left and right. Main seating is up against back wall. Currently have: 3.1 KEF/SVS + Marantz SR6013. I have access to in-ceiling and in-rear wall. I can bump the seating away from rear wall a little but not much.

My initial thought is to at least add 2 rear and 2 ceiling (Top middle). 2 KEF T101 (because they are thin and can possibly toe-in without being too obtrusive) + 2 in-ceiling. Or maybe some in-wall rear.

The SR6013 can do 4 height speakers in any combination of front/back height/top. Is there a huge advantage to going to 4 heights? I don't think I would do all 4 top (TF + TR), since I don't have the necessary distance rear of seating for the TR. But maybe a in-ceiling TM + rear-wall mount Rear Height?

1) What configuration of heights (2 vs 4, height vs top) would be recommended when seating is up against back wall?
2) Is in-wall rear a good option, or should I stick with the thin T101s? (I can't really do bookshelf sized for the rears)

TIA

Mike


----------



## erwos

dfa973 said:


> Marantz SR6013
> Marantz SR6014
> Denon AVR-X4500H
> Onkyo TX-RZ730
> Onkyo TX-RZ740


Thank you. Still appears like the X3600H is my best bet based on my priorities, but the 6013 and RZ740 were both worth a look. (6014 was out of my price range, alas.)


----------



## Polyrythm1k

erwos said:


> Thank you. Still appears like the X3600H is my best bet based on my priorities, but the 6013 and RZ740 were both worth a look. (6014 was out of my price range, alas.)




Yeah, the 3600 seems to be the hero of the day. I use a 6012 and a Yamaha amp for 7.1.4. If you can find one, and deal with the porthole lol, it’s also a good choice.


----------



## MagnumX

mikebernardo said:


> Looking for advice on setting up some Atmos heights. (in-ceiling vs front/back heights)
> 
> Setup: 12x14' theater area but open on both left and right. Main seating is up against back wall. Currently have: 3.1 KEF/SVS + Marantz SR6013. I have access to in-ceiling and in-rear wall. I can bump the seating away from rear wall a little but not much.
> 
> My initial thought is to at least add 2 rear and 2 ceiling (Top middle). 2 KEF T101 (because they are thin and can possibly toe-in without being too obtrusive) + 2 in-ceiling. Or maybe some in-wall rear.
> 
> The SR6013 can do 4 height speakers in any combination of front/back height/top. Is there a huge advantage to going to 4 heights? I don't think I would do all 4 top (TF + TR), since I don't have the necessary distance rear of seating for the TR. But maybe a in-ceiling TM + rear-wall mount Rear Height?
> 
> 1) What configuration of heights (2 vs 4, height vs top) would be recommended when seating is up against back wall?
> 2) Is in-wall rear a good option, or should I stick with the thin T101s? (I can't really do bookshelf sized for the rears)
> 
> TIA
> 
> Mike


You'd be better off with front height + top middle, IMO. There's way more information up front than in back. All the back stuff would get moved to top middle and the mid-information would appear in-between it and the front height. Without 4 overheads, you won't really get any overhead panning (helicopter won't move around the room, just stay overhead).


----------



## mikebernardo

MagnumX said:


> You'd be better off with front height + top middle, IMO. There's way more information up front than in back. All the back stuff would get moved to top middle and the mid-information would appear in-between it and the front height. Without 4 overheads, you won't really get any overhead panning (helicopter won't move around the room, just stay overhead).


Thanks. The reason I was thinking the rear heights are important is because all the Dolby guides with > 2 heights (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html) put them in front and _behind_ the seating position.


----------



## MagnumX

mikebernardo said:


> Thanks. The reason I was thinking the rear heights are important is because all the Dolby guides with > 2 heights (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/speaker-setup-guides/index.html) put them in front and _behind_ the seating position.


All I'm saying is the renderer is going to collapse the rear or middle either way with 4 overhead (i.e. rear height + front height and front height + top middle are going to sound more or less the same, I think as it will put the rear content to the nearest speaker either way. At that distance, rear bed could be an issue as you don't want the speakers playing straight in your ear (bipolar on the sides can work OK if they're not too close to the couch). 

With that size room front height (or tops) plus rear tops (set overhead) will work fine. The top middle content will end up halfway between them on the ceiling. It's the same as sitting in the back of an Atmos theater more or less. Top middle is in front of you. No one says it has to be right overhead. It's in the middle of the room, not necessarily right over your head (e.g. I have 3 rows of seats; they can't all be centered for direct overhead sounds, although many are array effects and move with the seating anyway).


----------



## blake

I am building a dedicated basement HT, which was just drywalled. My integrator used laser measurement to pre-wire the speaker location following official Dolby Atmos 9.x.6 recommendations. I attached all the speaker layout drawings. What do you guys think? Note the on-wall speakers face downwards so they are placed a little above ear height. Row 1 is MLP and is about 10 feet from the screen. Note this isn't drawn exactly to scale but it is generally close.



My concerns:



1) Note the ceiling at the back of the theater is lower due to a bulkhead. This makes ceiling speaker placement challenging. Top middle and top rear looks crowded to me, but if you use angles relative to MLP (like they did), this is evidently to Dolby specs?



2) Should front wides be pushed closer to the screen?



3) Why are the rear surrounds so far apart (dolby specifies 135 to 150' from MLP). Is this okay?

4) Any suggestions ? It’s already prewired but we have some slack in the cable.


----------



## MagnumX

@blake - I think you're right to be concerned about the rear overhead speakers. That's a huge difference in height (it will be extremely noticeable, IMO. My side heights are only 8 inches lower than the front/rear heights and I can tell in the Helicopter demo until I bleed (array) the front/rears a bit to cut the distance in half to a phantom 4 inches). At 11 inches difference in height (that's 119" in the front and 108" in the back if I'm reading that right?), it will be more noticeable than here.

The problem is you can't mount top middle properly due to the bulkhead blocking the sound for the second row. It'd likely be very muffled. You could perhaps do an array of two sets of top middle and the front row would at least get half the height restored (i.e. mount a second set directly above the front row carrying the same signal and the array effect will divide the difference between the two (i.e. it will sound only 6.5" difference in height and image at the mid-way point of the room). It's not ideal, but would lessen the effect, I think.

What I think I'd do is this. Forget top front (I'd reuse it as VOG, but pull the speaker in more towards the front row) and do front height above the screen. That would lower the starting angle a bit so the overall heights of the overhead speakers are much closer together. You could then do top middle where planned (or better mount it flush with the edge of the bulk head just in front of the bulkhead with a hanger or angle bracket at the real mid-point of the room, but I suppose you could keep the original location, but it would be a bit uneven there. But at the mid-point, it'd be even and keep things like the Dolby helicopter moving smoothly. Then mount the rear overheads where planned and you'll have a nice relatively EVEN overhead soundstage, which IMO is more important than the absolute height above your head as that "diving" effect would drive me mad. But that ceiling location would be awesome for Auro-3D/DTS:X "VOG" as it's meant to be above the rest of the overhead speakers and your layout is one of the few I've seen that would be pretty much ideal to pull a second layer off like that.


----------



## Rob Greer

blake said:


> My concerns:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Note the ceiling at the back of the theater is lower due to a bulkhead. This makes ceiling speaker placement challenging. Top middle and top rear looks crowded to me, but if you use angles relative to MLP (like they did), this is evidently to Dolby specs?




I have a similar ceiling in my Theater. And my rear top speakers are lower than my front or middle speakers (and closer). I had a similar question that I asked here. As @Pointed out, good better than perfect. And audyssey should do its job of correcting the distance settings (assuming you’re using audyssey). 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## blake

MagnumX said:


> @blake - I think you're right to be concerned about the rear overhead speakers. That's a huge difference in height (it will be extremely noticeable, IMO. My side heights are only 8 inches lower than the front/rear heights and I can tell in the Helicopter demo until I bleed (array) the front/rears a bit to cut the distance in half to a phantom 4 inches). At 11 inches difference in height (that's 119" in the front and 108" in the back if I'm reading that right?), it will be more noticeable than here.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you can't mount top middle properly due to the bulkhead blocking the sound for the second row. It'd likely be very muffled. You could perhaps do an array of two sets of top middle and the front row would at least get half the height restored (i.e. mount a second set directly above the front row carrying the same signal and the array effect will divide the difference between the two (i.e. it will sound only 6.5" difference in height and image at the mid-way point of the room). It's not ideal, but would lessen the effect, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> What I think I'd do is this. Forget top front (I'd reuse it as VOG, but pull the speaker in more towards the front row) and do front height above the screen. That would lower the starting angle a bit so the overall heights of the overhead speakers are much closer together. You could then do top middle where planned (or better mount it flush with the edge of the bulk head just in front of the bulkhead with a hanger or angle bracket at the real mid-point of the room, but I suppose you could keep the original location, but it would be a bit uneven there. But at the mid-point, it'd be even and keep things like the Dolby helicopter moving smoothly. Then mount the rear overheads where planned and you'll have a nice relatively EVEN overhead soundstage, which IMO is more important than the absolute height above your head as that "diving" effect would drive me mad. But that ceiling location would be awesome for Auro-3D/DTS:X "VOG" as it's meant to be above the rest of the overhead speakers and your layout is one of the few I've seen that would be pretty much ideal to pull a second layer off like that.



Thanks for your suggestions. You don’t think room correction (Dirac 2.0 hopefully) will compensate for the roughly 1 foot height difference of the ceiling speakers ? 

Another option is perhaps dropping the front 3 ceiling panels down as much as possible, so I can somehow suspend the front height pair a bit lower. 

(I would be interested to hear your comments on my question 2 and 3! )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> Thanks for your suggestions. You don’t think room correction (Dirac 2.0 hopefully) will compensate for the roughly 1 foot height difference of the ceiling speakers ?
> 
> Another option is perhaps dropping the front 3 ceiling panels down as much as possible, so I can somehow suspend the front height pair a bit lower.
> 
> (I would be interested to hear your comments on my question 2 and 3! )


I think I left the word "huge" from misreading the height difference that I corrected. 11 inches isn't as bad as the 17 inches I was somehow thinking originally, but still probably noticeable, especially since you're sitting closer to the lower speakers in the back. There's any number of solutions in terms of a speaker mount. Instead of flush mounting the front, something that would drop it about one foot and angle it towards the listening position would work fine as well (i.e. it doesn't have to be at the screen, but could still be at the top front position, although front heights would give you Auro-3D capability if your AVR supports it). Something like my PSB CS500 already hangs about 6-8 inches lower or thereabouts and has a built in angular rotation system to aim the speakers (it's what I use in the back for rear heights). I'm not familiar with your chosen speaker brand's offerings in that regard. The only important part is to have the same basic mid-range and tweeter drivers to keep a very close timbre match.

Room correction doesn't correct for height differences AFAIK, just frequency response issues and distance delays. 

The other speakers in the room look good at a glance.


----------



## Trojan35

Okay, so I've spent 30 minutes googling and can't find a good recommendation. Looking for a scene to show off ATMOS home theater *and* dialogue clarity, and unfortunately this needs to be constrained to Disney+ for this test. Most of the stuff I've seen in SW or Marvel has great ATMOS but not a lot of isolated dialogue (testing out center channels). I'm thinking of something like Oblivion's opening great ATMOS + Dialogue, or Deadpool's opening that does ATMOS + Dialogue + Music.

What say you, Disney+ ATMOS people?


----------



## MagnumX

Trojan35 said:


> Okay, so I've spent 30 minutes googling and can't find a good recommendation. Looking for a scene to show off ATMOS home theater *and* dialogue clarity, and unfortunately this needs to be constrained to Disney+ for this test. Most of the stuff I've seen in SW or Marvel has great ATMOS but not a lot of isolated dialogue (testing out center channels). I'm thinking of something like Oblivion's opening great ATMOS + Dialogue, or Deadpool's opening that does ATMOS + Dialogue + Music.
> 
> What say you, Disney+ ATMOS people?


Too bad TRON Legacy isn't Atmos.... 2 out of 3. I don't know if the dialog is the best quality, but the opening to Revenge of the Sith certainly has a gamut of effects, music and talking between Anakin and Obi-Wan.


----------



## niterida

Trojan35 said:


> Okay, so I've spent 30 minutes googling and can't find a good recommendation. Looking for a scene to show off ATMOS home theater *and* dialogue clarity, and unfortunately this needs to be constrained to Disney+ for this test. Most of the stuff I've seen in SW or Marvel has great ATMOS but not a lot of isolated dialogue (testing out center channels). I'm thinking of something like Oblivion's opening great ATMOS + Dialogue, or Deadpool's opening that does ATMOS + Dialogue + Music.
> 
> What say you, Disney+ ATMOS people?


Its not Disney but the opening scene to 6 Underground would be a good candidate


----------



## Rob Greer

MagnumX said:


> Room correction doesn't correct for height differences AFAIK, just frequency response issues and distance delays.



Distance delay changes via correction change the timing of when sounds reach the MLP. Physical speaker height changes the timing of when sounds reach the MLP. They’re the same thing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

Rob Greer said:


> Distance delay changes via correction change the timing of when sounds reach the MLP. Physical speaker height changes the timing of when sounds reach the MLP. *They’re the same thing*.


In a home theater, setting time delays is a given so all wavefronts arrive at the MLP at the same time. So if "they're the same thing" then how do you tell the center speaker from the left side surround from the top middle left speaker if they all arrive at the same time? The distance delays have NOTHING to do with it direction of the sound effect. It has to do with HRTF information created by your outer ear shape that your brain can then interpret direction from. 

Room correction cannot correct for angular direction of sound. If it _could_, we could just stack all speakers in one place and let room correction make them sound like they come from somewhere else in the room. This is, in fact, what DTS Virtual:X attempts to do for the height locations by modifying the HRTF cues in the sounds coming to your ears from the main speakers (it still requires precise alignment of the front speakers and generally only works for correctly for the MLP). 

If the original poster doesn't want to hear a difference in placement due to different speaker heights, Audyssey won't do a thing to correct it. The helicopter will move downward when it goes between the higher speaker and the lower speaker.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Rob Greer said:


> Distance delay changes via correction change the timing of when sounds reach the MLP. Physical speaker height changes the timing of when sounds reach the MLP. They’re the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




“Physical speaker height changes the timing when sounds reach the MLP”. 
This is true, but audyssey cannot correct for height changes. Only distances. So even though it can address the difference in distance, it can’t make a speaker sound higher than it is.


----------



## Augerhandle

blake said:


> ... *My integrator used laser measurement to pre-wire the speaker location following official Dolby Atmos 9.x.6 recommendations*. I attached all the speaker layout drawings...use angles relative to MLP (like they did), this is evidently to Dolby specs...





MagnumX said:


> In a home theater, setting time delays is a given so all wavefronts arrive at the MLP at the same time. So if "they're the same thing" then *how do you tell the center speaker from the left side surround from the top middle left speaker if they all arrive at the same time*...


It's all about the angle (taken care of by the installer), and the delay set for distance (taken care of by room correction).



> The helicopter will move downward when it goes between the higher speaker and the lower speaker.


No, it won't.


----------



## Rob Greer

Polyrythm1k said:


> “Physical speaker height changes the timing when sounds reach the MLP”.
> This is true, but audyssey cannot correct for height changes. Only distances. So even though it can address the difference in distance, it can’t make a speaker sound higher than it is.




This doesn’t make sense to me. If a top front speaker is at a 45 degree angle forward of the MLP on a 10’ section of ceiling and the top rear speaker angle is at a 45 degree angle on an 8’ ceiling then correction software can handle that because the direction is the same. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> It's all about the angle (taken care of by the installer), and the delay set for distance (taken care of by room correction).


The _installer_? Does that mean you had someone else do it? 



> The helicopter will move downward when it goes between the higher speaker and the lower speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it won't.
Click to expand...

If you don't think having front heights at 96", top middles at 72" and rear heights at 96" won't result in that Dolby Atmos helicopter dipping downward and then climbing back up as it moves around the room, that means you've NEVER TRIED IT. I guarantee you 100% it will exactly that! This is why overheads are normally installed at the same height as each other (bed speakers too). It's also how I can do dialog height with a mixer by changing the virtual height of the dialog to move upward from bed level to mid-screen level by mixing overhead with bed level. The angle changes typically by the distance from the listener, not physically different heights, particularly near the listener (i.e. mid-room speakers near the MLP).

Normally, you'd need side heights to even have the top middle location at a different height than the rest, but a bulkhead or beam can easily force a speaker into a different height position (clearly the case here). It's quite easy to hear differences in distance even with the same overhead angles. There's a huge difference between a person talking at 10 feet away and one at 100 feet away, particularly when they're phantom imaging between speakers that are at different heights. 

How do you think Atmos images things at different heights between bed level and height level? It phantoms in-between them. If you place the bed speaker higher, it can't image sounds lower. By moving the height of the speaker, you are moving the hard image with it. Phantoms only work in-between hard sources. So if the first source is 11 inches higher, the phantom image will start moving lower the moment in starts moving between the to locations and will end up right at the top middle (or whatever) speaker when the pan completes to that speaker. The sound is now coming from that speaker directly. It will sound like it's coming right from it at whatever height it's at. Thus, if a sound sound moves from one to the other, it will move in a diagonal line between the two. That means it will change height by that 11 inches by the time it gets there. 

And my top middles (as side heights) were only off by 8 inches (due to a steel beam box not letting me mount that on the ceiling), not 24 inches and I could clearly hear the helicopter changing height as moved around the room. How could it not, would be the better question. By leaking some front/rear height, that arrayed the speaker and reduced the difference (in phantom height as a result) by about half, resulting in a helicopter that was no longer diving downward in the middle of the room. But with pure discrete and even larger differences, it would eventually start dive bombing in the middle. 

Perhaps your _installer_ could verify this for you?


----------



## eaayoung

Question about Atmos Height speakers...

I'll be adding four in-ceiling speakers to my HT system for a 5.1.4 system. How critical is the the placement of in-ceiling speakers from the MLP as long as they are installed at the same height and also running Audyssey?


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> The _installer_? Does that mean you had someone else do it?...
> ...Perhaps your _installer_ could verify this for you?


Please re-read my post. I don't know why you misunderstood it, as I bolded the relevant parts in both the OP's quote, and yours. The *OP*'s installer (or you, in your system.) set the proper angles, his room correction will account for distances to MLP. 

Since you obviously didn't understand, I'll try to draw you a picture. If the speakers are in the red locations (due to soffits, beams, ect), they are still at the same angle from MLP as the original locations. Room correction will set delays (and volume levels) accordingly. As long as the angle is correct, the sounds image correctly.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Rob Greer said:


> This doesn’t make sense to me. If a top front speaker is at a 45 degree angle forward of the MLP on a 10’ section of ceiling and the top rear speaker angle is at a 45 degree angle on an 8’ ceiling then correction software can handle that because the direction is the same.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




If it maintains 45° then yeah maybe it would work. I responded rather quickly but was thinking of the post by Blake. He referenced a 1’ difference which I doubt he’d notice. In my minds eye, you were saying Audyssey would correct for a height difference as I’ve loosely sketched in the photo. In that case, I still say it can’t but following a 45° line from a rear top to the MLP audyssey should be able to account for that with delay and spl. 








Edit: my point is illustrated further by augerhandles image.


----------



## Augerhandle

Polyrythm1k said:


> If it maintains 45° then yeah maybe it would work. I responded rather quickly but was thinking of the post by Blake. He referenced a 1’ difference which I doubt he’d notice. In my minds eye, you were saying Audyssey would correct for a height difference as I’ve loosely sketched in the photo. In that case, I still say it can’t but following a 45° line from a rear top to the MLP audyssey should be able to account for that with delay and spl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: my point is illustrated further by augerhandles image.


Agreed. In your drawing, lowering the speaker also changes the angle from MLP.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Augerhandle said:


> Agreed. In your drawing, lowering the speaker also changes the angle from MLP.




Indeed it does. I also think I was putting a couple different posts together lol. Took the grill out for the first time since early November. I shouldn’t multitask lol.


----------



## Augerhandle

You put yours away?


----------



## blake

Augerhandle said:


> Agreed. In your drawing, lowering the speaker also changes the angle from MLP.




Thanks for all the discussion about the heights. Yes it makes sense to me so long as you maintain the same angle from MLP the room correction should adjust for the height difference if it’s mounted at a different absolute height from the floor. I believe we did that, which is why the top middle speaker is a little closer forward on the bulkhead. 

I just don’t understand the exact angles and will have to ask ex. top rear seems off. But I guess with two rows this is the best way to mount them. 

Should I move the front wides closer forward ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Augerhandle said:


> You put yours away?




That looks great! I have a Weber as well. Except mine has the charcoal storage and counter top with a propane burner for the charcoal chimney. I do sometimes use it in the winter, but i loathe the cold and living in MN, it can be difficult to convince myself to leave the house. Lol.


----------



## sdurani

eaayoung said:


> How critical is the the placement of in-ceiling speakers from the MLP as long as they are installed at the same height and also running Audyssey?


Not very critical. Try to have them at 45 degrees elevation above ear height. Keep the placement as symmetrical as possible from left to right. Front/back symmetry is not as important.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Not very critical. Try to have them at 45 degrees elevation above ear height. Keep the placement as symmetrical as possible from left to right. Front/back symmetry is not as important.


Trying to have them at 45 degrees from the MLP determines their _precise_ front/back symmetry. If they are both exactly 45 degrees from the MLP, they are precisely symmetrical as vertical elevation determines the z-coordinate on the ceiling if the overheads are at the same height as he indicated. If they were not symmetrical, you might have 50 and 145 or 45 and 125, although I suspect he may have even meant 30 and 120 or whatever. 

There's also listening position symmetry and room symmetry (latter being more important for multiple rows of seating).

What's actually _really_ important is the angular distance between overhead pairs. If they are too far apart (~ >120 degrees total), they won't phantom image well in the middle.

Of course, according to some advice a few posts above, the left/right symmetry shouldn't matter one bit either. You can easily correct for it with a simple speaker delay (for _one_ seat anyway).


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> AFAIK, the 4 main surrounds (Sides, Rears) are prerequisites for adding numbered surrounds (S1, S2, RS1, RS2). See chart below:


FYI, Trinnov has confirmed this dependency is in their code line as well, they use their 3D mapping to accommodate a Ls1,Ls2 setup., but Lss does need to be specified.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> ...they use their 3D mapping to accommodate a Ls1,Ls2 setup.


What does that mean? Are the S1 & S2 locations not natively decoded/rendered?


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> What does that mean? Are the S1 & S2 locations not natively decoded/rendered?


Sorry for the cryptic response. For example, if you have 2 side surrounds per side one at the S1 position and one between the side surround and S2 position. If assign S1 to the S1 Atmos position then assign the 2nd surround (which may be closer to S2) to the S (side surround position) but tell the Trinnov 3D mapping its actual location. My understanding is it will then image the side surround output to where the side surround location should be.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> If assign S1 to the S1 Atmos position then assign the 2nd surround (which may be closer to S2) to the S (side surround position) but tell the Trinnov 3D mapping its actual location. My understanding is it will then image the side surround output to where the side surround location should be.


Sure, any re-mapping feature will use nearby speakers to phantom image the sound to its intended location. Are you unable to place the 2nd surround speaker at the S location? A hard source (speaker) would give you greater imaging stability than a phantom image at that location.


----------



## blake

MagnumX said:


> The _installer_? Does that mean you had someone else do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think having front heights at 96", top middles at 72" and rear heights at 96" won't result in that Dolby Atmos helicopter dipping downward and then climbing back up as it moves around the room, that means you've NEVER TRIED IT. I guarantee you 100% it will exactly that! This is why overheads are normally installed at the same height as each other (bed speakers too). It's also how I can do dialog height with a mixer by changing the virtual height of the dialog to move upward from bed level to mid-screen level by mixing overhead with bed level. The angle changes typically by the distance from the listener, not physically different heights, particularly near the listener (i.e. mid-room speakers near the MLP).
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, you'd need side heights to even have the top middle location at a different height than the rest, but a bulkhead or beam can easily force a speaker into a different height position (clearly the case here). It's quite easy to hear differences in distance even with the same overhead angles. There's a huge difference between a person talking at 10 feet away and one at 100 feet away, particularly when they're phantom imaging between speakers that are at different heights.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think Atmos images things at different heights between bed level and height level? It phantoms in-between them. If you place the bed speaker higher, it can't image sounds lower. By moving the height of the speaker, you are moving the hard image with it. Phantoms only work in-between hard sources. So if the first source is 11 inches higher, the phantom image will start moving lower the moment in starts moving between the to locations and will end up right at the top middle (or whatever) speaker when the pan completes to that speaker. The sound is now coming from that speaker directly. It will sound like it's coming right from it at whatever height it's at. Thus, if a sound sound moves from one to the other, it will move in a diagonal line between the two. That means it will change height by that 11 inches by the time it gets there.
> 
> 
> 
> And my top middles (as side heights) were only off by 8 inches (due to a steel beam box not letting me mount that on the ceiling), not 24 inches and I could clearly hear the helicopter changing height as moved around the room. How could it not, would be the better question. By leaking some front/rear height, that arrayed the speaker and reduced the difference (in phantom height as a result) by about half, resulting in a helicopter that was no longer diving downward in the middle of the room. But with pure discrete and even larger differences, it would eventually start dive bombing in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your _installer_ could verify this for you?




So even if I maintain symmetrical angles for top front and top middle (relative to MLP) , since the top middle pair sits at a lower height, my processor delay will ONLY adjust for this when there is a “phantom image”? So once all sound output pans to the top middles, it will suddenly sound lower ? Not Good. 

I can’t add another speaker / array in front of bulkhead to “average up” the height. I think the difference is 12-14” or so in height. I guess the only solution is to rig top front to hang down a bit lower. 

Downside is less separation from bed layer to top heights. Based on my drawings will this be an issue ?


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> Sure, any re-mapping feature will use nearby speakers to phantom image the sound to its intended location. Are you unable to place the 2nd surround speaker at the S location? A hard source (speaker) would give you greater imaging stability than a phantom image at that location.


My second surround is at 107 degrees, so still technically within the 90-110 range, 3 side surrounds (plus Wides and a Rear Surround) for a 2-row theater is a bit of an overkill (even for me).


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> My second surround is at 107 degrees, so still technically within the 90-110 range...


I would just designate them as Ls, Rs and not bother with the remapping. YMMV.


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> I would just designate them as Ls, Rs and not bother with the remapping. YMMV.


Agreed, and that's the way they are now. I only re-visited this because I needed to assign the additional DTS:X Pro speakers, I got me thinking- always a dangerous thing


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> So even if I maintain symmetrical angles for top front and top middle (relative to MLP) , since the top middle pair sits at a lower height, my processor delay will ONLY adjust for this when there is a “phantom image”? So once all sound output pans to the top middles, it will suddenly sound lower ? Not Good.


It's more of a "ramp". You may not notice it depending on the room conditions. My side heights sit directly under a steel beam box. That may be part of what is giving away its exact location that I notice the change in height (before leaking front/rears a bit on the extracted channel which splits the difference and makes it very hard to hear any change in height). Frankly, I was surprised at how much easier it was to hear a height change than it was to tell the lateral distance (side heights are almost 2.5 feet over further than they would be on the ceiling). The helicopter sounded more or less the same distance away (things like the tweeter distribution seemed to confuse that a bit; I changed to better off-axis response tweeters and that cleared up), but the vertical height change from a mere 8" difference in tweeter/woofer height compared to the front/rear speakers (which are within a couple of inches of each other) was much more noticeable. In the rear heights, I reversed the orientation so the tweeters were in line with the speakers below as closely as possible even though it looks backwards as the ceiling studs were too far away to place them directly over the rear speakers. The tweeters seem more important than the midrange in that regard for localization to my ears).

This is from Wikipedia, so take it with a small grain of salt, but I don't feel like looking up the relevant information elsewhere right now, but this will give you a basic idea of how we locate sound sources. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization) 

Specifically, for *distance*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Distance_of_the_sound_source

Unlike what was implied rudely to me above that implies that only ANGLE (direction) and ITDG (initial time delay gap) matter (and perhaps implied "level" as well), there are also other these other factors that help your brain to localize a source of sound. The fact you can tell a real mono source sound like a bird is 20 feet up in the rafters of a gym ceiling vs say only 10 feet above you or whatever proves these other methods can be effective indeed. 

These other factors for *distance of a source* are:

1> *Direct/ Reflection ratio*: In enclosed rooms, two types of sound are arriving at a listener: The direct sound arrives at the listener's ears without being reflected at a wall. Reflected sound has been reflected at least one time at a wall before arriving at the listener. The ratio between direct sound and reflected sound can give an indication about the distance of the sound source.

This is the one I'm talking about when I say my speakers are near a steel beam box on the side walls. Well, that could be a dead giveaway. But I maintain the larger the distance, the more likely you are to notice. Otherwise, you could have your side surrounds directly under your top middle speakers and according to the individual above (and perhaps the people who 'liked' his message as well since the seemed to agree with it), you should not be able to tell it's at a different height because it's at the same vertical angle (0 degrees in line with your seat for instance). Only its Y-axis elevation is different. Well, that's the same as having a speaker at 20 feet above or 10 feet above or 5 feet over or on the floor. That change in height doesn't matter so long as the delay is changed? I should be able to use my side surrounds as TM if that were true (if it were sitting directly under them) as the ONLY axis coordinate that changed is HEIGHT (y-axis). 

In reality, all 3-axis change with any movement of a speaker in ANY direction. Your speakers sitting under the bulkhead have changed the vertical angle compared to where it would be at the same distance in the same plane as the rest of the ceiling. The top middle location has been moved back further as well, which further changes the angle. Just because it's at an accepted Dolby angle doesn't mean it won't affect panning. The panning sound is now moving at a different trajectory. The bulkhead above it will create early reflections that will give your ears clues as to the speakers location. Is it enough to notice? I can't say for certain. Dampening the ceiling around the speaker may help, for instance.

2> *Loudness*: Distant sound sources have a lower loudness than close ones. This aspect can be evaluated especially for well-known sound sources.
Sound spectrum: High frequencies are more quickly damped by the air than low frequencies. Therefore, a distant sound source sounds more muffled than a close one, because the high frequencies are attenuated. For sound with a known spectrum (e.g. speech) the distance can be estimated roughly with the help of the perceived sound.

While you can adjust for level to make them even, the high frequency spectral change is another matter. "Cinema" modes (sometimes called "Cinema EQ" or wth THX "RE-EQ", etc.) actually seeks to CORRECT for that change from far-field to near-field based on a cinema environment, but it's a flat change, not one based on your room. Audyssey further seeks to correct frequency response issues, which means it might actually make things worse (perhaps one of the reasons my rear heights actually sound "closer" than they really are; I should demo the sound call out with Audyssey on/off and see if it sounds any further away). Changing the distance setting makes little to no appreciable difference, IMO for the callout (which is one speaker at a time).

3> *ITDG: The Initial Time Delay Gap* describes the time difference between arrival of the direct wave and first strong reflection at the listener. Nearby sources create a relatively large ITDG, with the first reflections having a longer path to take, possibly many times longer. When the source is far away, the direct and the reflected sound waves have similar path lengths.

This is your distance/delay setting. It's primary effect is on PRECEDENCE. This talks about reflections, but in home theater it's more about levels. I use a dialog "lift" effect, but my overheads are further away than my mains. It takes more volume to move the stereo image upwards than it would if they were equidistant. This can be up to 10dB to defeat the effect, but with close distances in practice it's typically less. My overheads are at about 40% to achieve a 1/3 lift, which gets it well onto the screen (and helps further back rows that get partially blocked from the mains). Oddly, this effect is more talked about with DIRECTION than it is "distance" per se in most usages with stereo, but the same would apply to distance. 

Thus, if you had two speakers at different distances playing the same signal (say TM left) and one was at 20 feet and the other at 10 feet, you'd hear the 10 foot speaker first without any delay added and it would seem to be closer than the combination of the two would imply. Add a delay, however, so the 20 foot wavefront arrives FIRST and it will sound 20 feet away even with the 10 foot speaker playing until the 10 foot speaker is playing upwards of 10dB louder. The delay doesn't mean you can't localize the 10 foot speaker at 10 feet if it's playing by itself just because you gave it a delay for a speaker 20 feet away. That does correct for precedence when mixing with another speaker (panning) and that means you'll get a nice even stereo pan between the two if you are the same delayed distance (one seat), BUT that doesn't mean the sound of the speaker can't change depth during the pan. If there's enough other cues to give away the speaker's position, you'll be able to tell. It might only be across certain frequency ranges you might notice with a sharp thunder crack, but not with a plane motor sound or whatever. 


4>* Movement*: Similar to the visual system there is also the phenomenon of motion parallax in acoustical perception. For a moving listener nearby sound sources are passing faster than distant sound sources.

You might get some cues if you move your head with this one. I used to notice a marked change between the overhead "rain" sound in various Atmos demos if I tilted my head up to look at the ceiling. It might suddenly no longer seem directly above me, but somewhat in front of me. Changing the levels and/or mix of leaked/arrayed sound and/or delay could affect this presentation. When I found a setting that gave me consistent rain directly above for all chairs, I knew it was good. It doesn't matter if there's anomalies in the room where you're not going to sit, only where you are sitting.


5> *Level Difference*: Very close sound sources cause a different level between the ears.

If delay, level and angle were all that mattered, you could put rear surrounds just behind the couch that is only a foot or two from the rear wall. Most of us know that doesn't sound very good, especially for the left/right seats on the couch. You've got the Haas/Precedence effect (closer speaker wave arrives first) in play for off-axis seats (one speaker will sound louder and image at that speaker), you've got the level difference (sitting closer to one speaker than the other will sound louder in that seat) and you've got boundary effects off your back wall telling you the speakers are RIGHT THERE and not much different from the side surrounds even if they sound "OK" for the centered seat. You've also got extreme near-field effects (tweeters will be exceptionally loud close to your head compared to even a few feet away). 

As with any factor, how much you fan "fudge" it before your brain notices will vary and may vary by individual and even how closely they're paying attention (I noticed different behaviors of the helicopter demo on different listening times. Sometimes, it sounded to me like a rectangle and other times like a circle. With no visual to verify it, it's hard to be sure. Changing the tweeters on my side heights helped change one of those other factors.

Also keep in mind, that any delay or level correction for ONE seat will NOT apply (as much or even at all depending on the location of the other seats) for the other seats in the home theater. What works for 1-2 seats in 1 row may not work so well with 2-3 rows or more. Room treatments and symmetrical speaker placement generally improve the sound for ALL seats, while things like Audyssey improve it for 1-2 seats or maybe a couch if you're lucky.

I felt the need to explain that since clearly I don't read too well or whatever..... 



> I can’t add another speaker / array in front of bulkhead to “average up” the height. I think the difference is 12-14” or so in height. I guess the only solution is to rig top front to hang down a bit lower.


Given the mix of the above factors, it may be you wouldn't notice most or even possibly all of the time with just a foot of difference. I can't say my steel beam box is the same as your bulkhead and gauging distance of a foot or less might hard to tell for your brain. But once I noticed the helicopter dipping, it bugged the hell out of me. 

If you're doing the install yourself, you might want to try it first as-is or whatever and do something later if you do notice it. You could connect the top middle as a matrixed speaker which would split the difference in the middle instead (less noticeable, IMO as it cuts it in half). You can do that with just a basic active mixer instead of discrete top middle output (and if it's on something like a Denon 8500, use the extra channels for front wide instead or whatever). 



> Downside is less separation from bed layer to top heights.


You've got that in the back of the room regardless, I think. Maybe they back overheads will sound higher up (or high enough), but that bulkhead is a good source of early reflections to localize the speakers back there. But then a foot isn't ten feet so it may be acceptable to you and possibly not noticeable. I think "some" overhead distances with delay will be unnoticeable, but if you can localize it will sound like a change in height with a moving object. For some objects that may be no big deal. You may not even care if the helicopter dips a foot as it moves even if you can notice it every time. I wanted a nice even overhead sound, however and thankfully bleeding the front/rears into an array seemed to fix the issue. 

Personally, I had to do something about that dipping helicopter. It was driving me nuts (even though that was the ONLY Atmos demo I could plainly hear the difference in, although I'm pretty sure the ceiling sounded lower (and it is with that steel beam there) versus not using the top middle speaker, but that lead to a bit of a "hole" above as well, even though what was up there sounded higher up to me. By combining a bit of the front/rear with the extra speaker (kind of an in-between a "matrixed" and "discrete" top middle), it evened it out enough that it sounds like the difference isn't there anymore. Your mileage may vary whether it's noticeable in your room and/or whether even if you do hear a difference whether it's worth bothering with it. But if you're talking about an installer's dime or whatever, it may be cheaper just to choose ahead of time.

Even though I only noticed the dip on the helicopter demo, I have noticed far better (even) front-to-back panning now as well, but that may have been due to Pro Logic 1's "harder steering" than PLII or discrete rendering. Generally speaking, that helicopter demo is a good way to gauge panning in your room in general, IMO. If you disable overheads, it will move around the bed speakers instead at ear level. I was able to correct a few "close" level issues with my extra matrixed speakers that way. Now things like the moving "squeaky crank" sound in the "SILENCE" demo sound absolutely holographic panning right through my body as it comes in from the rear on that demo. It all comes down to perfectly even coverage and timing. A sound meter isn't always easy to tell since it's greatly affected by frequency range (slight movements at higher frequencies hit dips/peaks and not all pink noise is created equal either; I like to turn my sub off for measurements, for example as even the A-weighting wasn't enough in some cases. DTS's setup noises were different from Dolby's).


----------



## noah katz

blake said:


> So even if I maintain symmetrical angles for top front and top middle (relative to MLP) , since the top middle pair sits at a lower height, my processor delay will ONLY adjust for this when there is a “phantom image”? So once all sound output pans to the top middles, it will suddenly sound lower ?



From your pictures the TM's are at the greatest elevation angle, so that should help them sound higher, or at least more overhead.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> ...Unlike what was implied rudely to me above that implies that only ANGLE (direction) and ITDG (initial time delay gap) matter (and perhaps implied "level" as well), there are also other these other factors that help your brain to localize a source of sound. The fact you can tell a real mono source sound like a bird is 20 feet up in the rafters of a gym ceiling vs say only 10 feet above you or whatever proves these other methods can be effective indeed.
> 
> These other factors for distance of a source are:
> 
> 1> Direct/ Reflection ratio: In enclosed rooms, two types of sound are arriving at a listener: The direct sound arrives at the listener's ears without being reflected at a wall. Reflected sound has been reflected at least one time at a wall before arriving at the listener. The ratio between direct sound and reflected sound can give an indication about the distance of the sound source.... But I maintain the larger the distance, the more likely you are to notice. Otherwise, you could have your side surrounds directly under your top middle speakers and according to the individual above (and perhaps the people who 'liked' his message as well since the seemed to agree with it), you should not be able to tell it's at a different height because it's at the same vertical angle (0 degrees in line with your seat for instance). Only its Y-axis elevation is different. Well, that's the same as having a speaker at 20 feet above or 10 feet above or 5 feet over or on the floor. That change in height doesn't matter so long as the delay is changed?......


What you say directly contradicts the Dolby setup paper on the subject. They clearly show a hybrid setup with "Dolby Enabled" speakers mixed with ceiling mount speakers. The Dolby Enabled speakers reflect off the ceiling, so the sound travels farther than the ceiling mount speakers, effectively making the DE speakers seem higher and farther away.. The angle is correct, however, and delay and levels are set accordingly. 

Dolby must be wrong, I guess.


----------



## MagnumX

@Augerhandle - I haven't contradicted anything. The wavefront total delay must be set right or you'll get precedence issues with panning in particular. The fact "enabled" speakers "work" at all proves the bounce off the ceiling changes the apparent location to the ceiling rather than the source. Changing the delay won't make it image closer or farther from the ceiling, only screw up the panning via precedence. It's the ceiling bounce that makes it seem to come from the ceiling if the direct sound doesn't override it first. 

His speakers are at the ceiling. They will likely sound like they're at the ceiling. The problem is they are a different height along it. Correct panning is not the same as precise localization. Put a speaker 5 feet above your head and another at 20 feet. You will be able to tell the difference with or without delay. Other clues as above will give the position away. For small differences it may not matter. But no one confuses a sound ten feet above their head for one 100 feet above under normal circumstances.


----------



## Augerhandle

MagnumX said:


> @Augerhandle - I haven't contradicted anything. The wavefront total delay must be set right or you'll get precedence issues with panning in particular. The fact "enabled" speakers "work" at all proves the bounce off the ceiling changes the apparent location to the ceiling rather than the source. Changing the delay won't make it image closer or farther from the ceiling, only screw up the panning via precedence. It's the ceiling bounce that makes it seem to come from the ceiling if the direct sound doesn't override it first.
> 
> His speakers are at the ceiling. They will likely sound like they're at the ceiling. The problem is they are a different height along it. Correct panning is not the same as precise localization. Put a speaker 5 feet above your head and another at 20 feet. You will be able to tell the difference with or without delay. Other clues as above will give the position away. For small differences it may not matter. But no one confuses a sound ten feet above their head for one 100 feet above under normal circumstances.


I believe we were talking about his speakers being one foot lower, yet at the correct angle, as specified by Dolby. 20 feet, and 100 feet is a straw man argument, and does not apply.

EDITED for clarification:

We're talking about a 1 ft. difference with the speakers being at the correct angle. You insist on worrying the OP over what amounts to about a 1 millisecond difference in position, instead of letting him get on with enjoying his system. Why?


----------



## MagnumX

Augerhandle said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Augerhandle - I haven't contradicted anything. The wavefront total delay must be set right or you'll get precedence issues with panning in particular. The fact "enabled" speakers "work" at all proves the bounce off the ceiling changes the apparent location to the ceiling rather than the source. Changing the delay won't make it image closer or farther from the ceiling, only screw up the panning via precedence. It's the ceiling bounce that makes it seem to come from the ceiling if the direct sound doesn't override it first.
> 
> His speakers are at the ceiling. They will likely sound like they're at the ceiling. The problem is they are a different height along it. Correct panning is not the same as precise localization. Put a speaker 5 feet above your head and another at 20 feet. You will be able to tell the difference with or without delay. Other clues as above will give the position away. For small differences it may not matter. But no one confuses a sound ten feet above their head for one 100 feet above under normal circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we were talking about his speakers being one foot lower, yet at the correct angle, as specified by Dolby. 20 feet, and 100 feet is a straw man argument, and does not apply.
> 
> EDITED for clarification:
> 
> We're talking about a 1 ft. difference with the speakers being at the correct angle. You insist on worrying the OP over what amounts to about a 1 millisecond difference in position, instead of letting him get on with enjoying his system. Why?
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man. It's a more extreme example to get my point across to someone who clearly is more interested in winning an argument than learning something. There are more than three variables (see previous post) that humans use to determine distance. Reflections off nearby surfaces are one of them. That's why you hear an enabled speaker on the ceiling when they work correctly. It's a surface reflection. Like a mirror, over certain frequencies, it behaves similar to light. Like with light and stereoscopic vision that has binocular and monocular clues to depth, sound has several.

Why 1 foot? I've answered this before. My top middles (100 degrees inside Dolby elevation specs) were off by 8 inches (less not more than his) relative to front and rear heights. They were under a bulkhead (also similar; in this case a steel beam box) and I could plainly hear the helicopter in the Atmos demo dip downward as it flew between front and rear heights through top middle. You consider 1 foot irrelevant. If I can hear 8 inches plainly, he can probably hear 12! My ceiling is only 8.5' high and the bed speakers are at like 4' or so. That's only a 4.5' difference to begin with. A 1/6-1/7 change in height is noticeable. If the walls were 20 feet with 15++ feet of separation, 8 inches probably wouldn't matter at all. Why did I respond? He asked! I have a similar situation here so I considered it relevant.

In his case the rears are also lower, so he may notice the change in elevation less than a dip and climb, but I think he'll still be able to tell if he listens carefully. I offered a solution guaranteed to eliminate any possibility if the problem (hang front overheads lower. For that, you jump all over my claims when I know it's the same difference. Same vertical angle and distance along that angle aren't the same thing as they are not the same position in space. Four feet above your head doesn't sound the same as eight feet even at 90 degrees straight up.

Notice all Dolby drawings show overhead speakers at the same height at those angles. The basic guidelines don't address odd room conditions like changes in ceiling height.

Delay is important for proper even PANNING between two locations. That does NOT necessarily mean the distance (z-axis) can't change while it smoothly pans along the x and/or y-axis. 

Without nearby surfaces (say a hanging speaker in mid air), it might be harder to gauge distance. But even then other clues still distinguish larger distances.


----------



## Augerhandle

From your previous posts, your system seems to be setup differently than most, so I can't comment on its issues and how you solved them. I also couldn't care less about your "argument" comment. It's clear I won that several posts ago. I just wanted to help the OP. I think I did that, so I'm done here, but I'm confident you'll write several more paragraphs in reply anyway. Have a nice day.


----------



## Zilenzio

I currently have Denon AVR-X3600H and 5.1.4 setup. I use DTS Neural:X if Atmos is not available and that works well. I could add extra two rear surround speakers to get 7.1.4. Does DTS Neural:X mode fill all the channels for example if the input is only 5.1. I mainly use streaming services so only 5.1 + Atmos is available. Or do I get the benefit of 7 channels only from Blu-ray discs?


----------



## Craig Mecak

Zilenzio said:


> I currently have Denon AVR-X3600H and 5.1.4 setup. I use DTS Neural:X if Atmos is not available and that works well. I could add extra two rear surround speakers to get 7.1.4. Does DTS Neural:X mode fill all the channels for example if the input is only 5.1. I mainly use streaming services so only 5.1 + Atmos is available. Or do I get the benefit of 7 channels only from Blu-ray discs?



Both Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X UpMix lesser channel counts to the full 7.1.4 that you require.


So it works on both 2.0, 5.1 as well as 7.1 channel-based signals.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Maybe this has been covered before but when I was researching ATSC 3.0, eARC and at the ability to expand audio out to 7.1 (and potentially, uncompressed audio) - I ran across a question that I'm not sure the answer to. Namely, how much of a difference is there between compressed and uncompressed audio AND can your ears tell the difference? I know it's a loaded question but right now, I am enjoying Dolby Atmos audio via ARC & DD+ from Netflix (primarily). I've really stopped using any Bluray discs for about two years now as I find streaming to be more than adequate for my needs.

Any blind tests conducted between compressed & uncompressed audio (namely Dolby Atmos soundtracks?)


----------



## MagnumX

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Maybe this has been covered before but when I was researching ATSC 3.0, eARC and at the ability to expand audio out to 7.1 (and potentially, uncompressed audio) - I ran across a question that I'm not sure the answer to. Namely, how much of a difference is there between compressed and uncompressed audio AND can your ears tell the difference? I know it's a loaded question but right now, I am enjoying Dolby Atmos audio via ARC & DD+ from Netflix (primarily). I've really stopped using any Bluray discs for about two years now as I find streaming to be more than adequate for my needs.
> 
> Any blind tests conducted between compressed & uncompressed audio (namely Dolby Atmos soundtracks?)


It depends on the compression rate. I remember talking to one if the guys that worked on AAC compression clear back in the late 1990s, I believe (JJ something I think). They, of course, did EXTENSIVE tests on where the audible rates were and how to minimize the worst effects (e.g. MP3 warble) even at lower bit rates. Suffice to say 256kbps is pretty much transparent for AAC and 320kbps for MP3. AC3 is pretty transparent at 640kbps. AC4 (DD+) is pretty transparent at half that rate so 640kbps with DD+ should be acceptable. DTS always sounded fine to me at ~1200+ kbps (laserdisc or better)

But some people believe all "lossy" compression is evil and unacceptable. Then again some people believe Shakti stones improve the sound as well so.... /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

MagnumX said:


> It depends on the compression rate. I remember talking to one if the guys that worked on AAC compression clear back in the late 1990s, I believe (JJ something I think). They, of course, did EXTENSIVE tests on where the audible rates were and how to minimize the worst effects (e.g. MP3 warble) even at lower bit rates. Suffice to say 256kbps is pretty much transparent for AAC and 320kbps for MP3. AC3 is pretty transparent at 640kbps. AC4 (DD+) is pretty transparent at half that rate so 640kbps with DD+ should be acceptable. DTS always sounded fine to me at ~1200+ kbps (laserdisc or better)
> 
> But some people believe all "lossy" compression is evil and unacceptable. Then again some people believe Shakti stones improve the sound as well so.... /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


When talking about AC3 and DTS, I assume we're talking about 5.1. At what bitrate would a stereo AC3 track be transparent?

BTW AC4 is not the same as DD+ !!!


----------



## Ricoflashback

MagnumX said:


> It depends on the compression rate. I remember talking to one if the guys that worked on AAC compression clear back in the late 1990s, I believe (JJ something I think). They, of course, did EXTENSIVE tests on where the audible rates were and how to minimize the worst effects (e.g. MP3 warble) even at lower bit rates. Suffice to say 256kbps is pretty much transparent for AAC and 320kbps for MP3. AC3 is pretty transparent at 640kbps. AC4 (DD+) is pretty transparent at half that rate so 640kbps with DD+ should be acceptable. DTS always sounded fine to me at ~1200+ kbps (laserdisc or better)
> 
> But some people believe all "lossy" compression is evil and unacceptable. Then again some people believe Shakti stones improve the sound as well so.... /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


***You mean my investment in Shakti stones was all for naught? Say it ain't so...


----------



## sdurani

G4n0nD0rf said:


> BTW AC4 is not the same as DD+ !!!


Yup, DD+ is E-AC-3 (Extended AC-3).


----------



## LNEWoLF

Zilenzio said:


> I currently have Denon AVR-X3600H and 5.1.4 setup. I use DTS Neural:X if Atmos is not available and that works well. I could add extra two rear surround speakers to get 7.1.4. Does DTS Neural:X mode fill all the channels for example if the input is only 5.1. I mainly use streaming services so only 5.1 + Atmos is available. Or do I get the benefit of 7 channels only from Blu-ray discs?


You should be experiencing this with a 5.1.4 speaker setup. DTS Neural X will upmix a DTS Master HD 5.1 audio mix to DTS Neural X 5.1.4

Funny you should ask this. I just enjoyed Raiders of the Lost Ark last night. The bluray disc contains a DTS Master HD 5.1 audio. DTS Neural X upmixed the audio to 7.2.4. My Sony 85X850G upconverted the video to near 4K quality. Overall [email protected]@ked and sounded pretty good. Some parts better than others. Hopeful for a 4K disc in the near future


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Yup, DD+ is *E-AC-3* (Extended AC-3).


That's l33t!


----------



## MagnumX

G4n0nD0rf said:


> When talking about AC3 and DTS, I assume we're talking about 5.1. At what bitrate would a stereo AC3 track be transparent?


Well, 640 / 5 = 128, but I'd leave more leeway since stereo channels are more likely to be on all the time instead of a shared bit pool. 192 would probably be pretty decent for movies, but probably not quite equivalent to lossless. AC3 isn't as advanced as AAC so to be sure I'd probably go 320kbps for stereo music type tracks, but I think 256 would do quite well for most movies. I don't know the exact point in studies. I only talked with someone about AAC testing.



> BTW AC4 is not the same as DD+ !!!


Oops.  I was going by memory on a phone. Can't win them all.



Ricoflashback said:


> ***You mean my investment in Shakti stones was all for naught? Say it ain't so...


Not everything decorative or artifact-like are useless. I've found tapestries work quite well for taming mid to high frequencies (wiped out my slap echo completely too on top of catching the first side wall reflections on both sides) and looked quite nice (Thomas Kincade scenes with internal battery for night-lighting the winter side).


----------



## MagnumX

Anyone ever read the Audiosciencereview site's reviews? They just tore the new Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor (15.x channel Atmos) a new one yet its ratings are right in line with their D&M reviews. According to them, something like the Denon 8500 is probably MEDIOCRE and UNACCEPTABLE for the price (They didn't actually review it, but gave bad reviews to the Marantz AV7500, for example, despite a "92" score out of 100 on SINAD). 

Oh those awful sounding DACs!  

But it seems like the ONLY thing their main reviewer cares about is textbook perfect test readings (well beyond the hearing range). I keep reading about how a pocket DAC does better. Yeah, it's not a pocket DAC! It has to pack 15.x channels of Atmos processing into it with switching, etc. The buggy software is what really concerns me (since most/all the measurement data is not likely to be audible at any sane playback level in a realistic environment).

It seems to me, most of the people's comments who AVRs like the Denon 8500 have been quite happy with them. How is that possible? It's mediocre and Emotiva is "budget" gear according to the reviewer. Budget gear for $5K? God, I must be poorer than I thought.... I almost feel sorry for Emotiva as this will damage their product before it even gets off the ground (let alone the bugs in their software).


----------



## Sorny

MagnumX said:


> Anyone ever read the Audiosciencereview site's reviews? They just tore the new Emotiva RMC-1 AV Processor (15.x channel Atmos) a new one yet its ratings are right in line with their D&M reviews. According to them, something like the Denon 8500 is probably MEDIOCRE and UNACCEPTABLE for the price (They didn't actually review it, but gave bad reviews to the Marantz AV7500, for example, despite a "92" score out of 100 on SINAD).
> 
> Oh those awful sounding DACs!
> 
> But it seems like the ONLY thing their main reviewer cares about is textbook perfect test readings (well beyond the hearing range). I keep reading about how a pocket DAC does better. Yeah, it's not a pocket DAC! It has to pack 15.x channels of Atmos processing into it with switching, etc. The buggy software is what really concerns me (since most/all the measurement data is not likely to be audible at any sane playback level in a realistic environment).
> 
> It seems to me, most of the people's comments who AVRs like the Denon 8500 have been quite happy with them. How is that possible? It's mediocre and Emotiva is "budget" gear according to the reviewer. Budget gear for $5K? God, I must be poorer than I thought.... I almost feel sorry for Emotiva as this will damage their product before it even gets off the ground (let alone the bugs in their software).


Damage product before it gets off the ground? It's been out for like 15 months... Unstable firmware after over a year! Not cool.


----------



## MagnumX

Sorny said:


> Damage product before it gets off the ground? It's been out for like 15 months... Unstable firmware after over a year! Not cool.


I was referring more to the measurements (including D&M products, etc.; the Emotiva is just the review I happened to read. I agree the firmware thing is awful and the real reason I wouldn't consider that product, not the measurements in particular). D&M products are rated no better. I simply don't hear the "mediocre" sound the reviews of D&M imply. In fact, I don't hear anything at all (i.e. Audio gear shouldn't impart a sound of its own at all).


----------



## Sorny

MagnumX said:


> I was referring more to the measurements (including D&M products, etc.; the Emotiva is just the review I happened to read. I agree the firmware thing is awful and the real reason I wouldn't consider that product, not the measurements in particular). D&M products are rated no better. I simply don't hear the "mediocre" sound the reviews of D&M imply. In fact, I don't hear anything at all (i.e. Audio gear shouldn't impart a sound of its own at all).


Agreed. I was amused to death when I read his tests on the Elite 504 that I'm running. For such a giant POS, it sure sounds good.


----------



## Sgt Tee

*Firestick or Roku*

Guys I am new so please forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place. I graduated to a flat screen tv and need help choosing a new home receiver. 
I would like to know which receivers are compatible with fire stick. The tv I purchased was a Samsung.
Sony claims their receivers work with fire stick but then I found this site of professionals.
I want my sound and video to go through my home receiver Using fire stick.I have read lots of mixed reply’s about this on Amazon feed back but who are those people giving advice, so I come here to see if this is even possible, Thank You, Pete


----------



## Sgt Tee

Sgt Tee said:


> Guys I am new so please forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place. I graduated to a flat screen tv and need help choosing a new home receiver.
> I would like to know which receivers are compatible with fire stick. The tv I purchased was a Samsung.
> Sony claims their receivers work with fire stick but then I found this site of professionals.
> I want my sound and video to go through my home receiver Using fire stick.I have read lots of mixed reply’s about this on Amazon feed back but who are those people giving advice, so I come here to see if this is even possible, Thank You, Pete


I might add I do not care about Dolby or enhanced etc. I just need the stick to play through a receiver


----------



## Erod

Sgt Tee said:


> Guys I am new so please forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place. I graduated to a flat screen tv and need help choosing a new home receiver.
> I would like to know which receivers are compatible with fire stick. The tv I purchased was a Samsung.
> Sony claims their receivers work with fire stick but then I found this site of professionals.
> I want my sound and video to go through my home receiver Using fire stick.I have read lots of mixed reply’s about this on Amazon feed back but who are those people giving advice, so I come here to see if this is even possible, Thank You, Pete


Any receiver with HDMI source inputs should work, I would think.

I use the Roku Ultra and have it directly connected to a Denon, and another directly connected to an Anthem.

I wouldn't think the firestick would be different unless there's an issue with it picking up the remote.


----------



## gene4ht

Sgt Tee said:


> Guys I am new so please forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place. I graduated to a flat screen tv and need help choosing a new home receiver.
> I would like to know which receivers are compatible with fire stick. The tv I purchased was a Samsung.
> Sony claims their receivers work with fire stick but then I found this site of professionals.
> *I want my sound and video to go through my home receiver Using fire stick.*I have read lots of mixed reply’s about this on Amazon feed back but who are those people giving advice, so I come here to see if this is even possible, Thank You, Pete





Erod said:


> *Any receiver with HDMI source inputs should work*, I would think.
> 
> I use the Roku Ultra and have it directly connected to a Denon, and another directly connected to an Anthem.
> 
> I wouldn't think the firestick would be different unless there's an issue with it picking up the remote.


+1

I’m in agreement with Erod. Any of the current receivers (AVR’s) with HDMI source inputs should accommodate any of the current media streaming devices (Apple TV, Fire Stick, Roku, etc.)


----------



## Sgt Tee

gene4ht said:


> +1
> 
> I’m in agreement with Erod. Any of the current receivers (AVR’s) with HDMI source inputs should accommodate any of the current media streaming devices (Apple TV, Fire Stick, Roku, etc.)


Hope I am not breaking rules by posting names of amps, I have my eyes on this one, not sure if these are above Sony or Yahama


/Denon-AVR-S940


----------



## Sgt Tee

Sgt Tee said:


> Hope I am not breaking rules by posting names of amps, I have my eyes on this one, not sure if these are above Sony or Yahama
> 
> 
> /Denon-AVR-S940


Or spring for the newer model....
Denon AVR-S950H 
I was hoping to stay under 400, but I know you get what you pay for


----------



## gene4ht

Sgt Tee said:


> Guys *I am new so please forgive me if this is posted in the wrong place.* I graduated to a flat screen tv and need help choosing a new home receiver.
> I would like to know which receivers are compatible with fire stick. The tv I purchased was a Samsung.
> Sony claims their receivers work with fire stick but then I found this site of professionals.
> I want my sound and video to go through my home receiver Using fire stick.I have read lots of mixed reply’s about this on Amazon feed back but who are those people giving advice, so I come here to see if this is even possible, Thank You, Pete





Sgt Tee said:


> I might add I do not care about Dolby or enhanced etc. I just need the stick to play through a receiver





Sgt Tee said:


> Hope I am not breaking rules by posting names of amps, I have my eyes on this one, not sure if these are above Sony or Yahama
> 
> 
> /Denon-AVR-S940





Sgt Tee said:


> Or spring for the newer model....
> Denon AVR-S950H
> I was hoping to stay under 400, but I know you get what you pay for


Since you are now asking about specific brands and models, you will be better served by posting in their specific threads. This thread is specific to Dolby Atmos related questions and information. In any case, the 940 is a 2018 model whereas the 950 is 2019 model. If you’re so inclined, both are likely available as refurbs for substantially less than $400 from Accessories 4 Less (A4L).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...eries-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-posts-1-8-a.html

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...eries-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-posts-1-8-a.html


----------



## jnick1

Is a Dolby 5.1.6 setup a “thing”? Or is 5.1.4 the highest you can go? 

I just installed a 5.1.4 setup using an X3600H. The front Heights are 17ft from the listening position. I’m wondering if they should have been on the side wall, slightly in front of the seating instead, due to the distance. However, since the speakers are up, I’d rather not move them and be left with the holes in the wall that would require patching, but instead, add to the system. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

jnick1 said:


> Is a Dolby 5.1.6 setup a “thing”? Or is 5.1.4 the highest you can go?
> 
> I just installed a 5.1.4 setup using an X3600H.


The Denon X3600 can decode up to 11 channels of audio but only has 9 channels of amplification. By adding an external 2-channel amp, you can go to 7.1.4. I do not believe the X3600 supports Front Wide speakers. 

The flagship X8500 has 13 channels of both decoding and amplification, and can do 9.1.4 or 7.1.6.



> The front Heights are 17ft from the listening position. I’m wondering if they should have been on the side wall, slightly in front of the seating instead, due to the distance. However, since the speakers are up, I’d rather not move them and be left with the holes in the wall that would require patching, but instead, add to the system.


The only Denon receiver that supports more than 4 height channels is the $4,000 X8500. Moving your Front Height speakers forward and patching the wall is probably a more pragmatic solution.


----------



## MagnumX

jnick1 said:


> Is a Dolby 5.1.6 setup a â€œthingâ€? Or is 5.1.4 the highest you can go?
> 
> I just installed a 5.1.4 setup using an X3600H. The front Heights are 17ft from the listening position. Iâ€™️m wondering if they should have been on the side wall, slightly in front of the seating instead, due to the distance. However, since the speakers are up, Iâ€™️d rather not move them and be left with the holes in the wall that would require patching, but instead, add to the system.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The sad thing on these forums is several people on here KNOW there's another solution, but NEVER mention it. They'd rather tell you to patch your walls and cut into your ceiling (yeah that's not very pragmatic, IMO).

The akternate solution is add top middle (you can put them on the sides if need be. That's where mine are and my AVR is only 11.2 channels). You can add this channel either as a simple active mixer "matrix" speaker (mixer adds the front and rear channels together and outputs a middle one) or an "extracted" channel using two Dolby Pro Logic processors (they can be Pro Logic I or II). You use the center output from each with front and rear inputs for each unit (one set for left and one for right). This gets around 11-channel DTS limits and Disney locked 7.1.4 soundtracks in both cases. You'll need external amps typically in both cases, but matrixed only needs a two channel amp as it does not remove the output of the middle channel from the front/rear channels (you get an array effect). The Dolby Pro Logic method does remove it and is nearly as discrete as a rendered channel. Both will extend phantom imaging for longer distances. I use it in a 24' long room and have wall to wall coverage on the ceiling. The Dolby helicopter circles overhead perfectly. 

You can read more about it in the Beyond 7.1.4 thread on here.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> The sad thing on these forums is several people on here KNOW there's another solution, but NEVER mention it. They'd rather tell you to patch your walls and cut into your ceiling (yeah that's not very pragmatic, IMO).


At the risk of incurring another 4,000-word rant, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "pragmatic." Using multiple AVRs in tandem (at least three in this scenario) is not a solution most users are willing or able to consider. Besides, in the o/p's situation, matrixing an extra channel between the Front and Rear heights will not solve the problem that this Front Heights are too far away. Any sound that goes to those speakers is still going to be too far away. The more logical solution is to move those speakers forward.

Listen, I actually do the same thing you do, Magnum. I'm currently running four AVRs for a 9.1.8 speaker layout. I literally wrote the instructional guide for how to do Scatmos. Google "Scatmos" or "Atmos Beyond 7.1.4" and my articles are the first hits. Yet I recognize that it's an impractical process that appeals only to a small niche of edge use cases, and I would not blindly recommend it to someone without taking their entire situation into consideration.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> At the risk of incurring another 4,000-word rant, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "pragmatic." Using multiple AVRs in tandem (at least three in this scenario) is not a solution most users are willing or able to consider.


First of all, calling my post which is trying to help the guy a "rant" is rather offensive. I don't call your posts a pointless read or something. I can't explain Scatmos and Matrix options in 10 words or less. It just doesn't work. I'm thinking of seriously creating some FAQ/WIKI type posts in the future on some of these topics. It's too much work typing the same basic thing over and over. I'd rather just point to a FAQ post.

It comes down to whether you think removing speakers and patching a wall and cutting out more speakers is LESS work than hooking up a couple of boxes. Three AVRs? I don't know where you get your numbers from either. I use two Onkyo ES-600 units that are at least half height compared to a single AVR (i.e. you can fit BOTH needed in one slot) AND they're powered to boot (~65 watts for the center output). That means all you need is four channels of amplification for the main channels. There are some nice TINY Class D amps out there that won't take up much space to do the job. If he feels he really needs room correction, you can always add a MiniDSP with DIRAC to handle the two channels (also tiny). You seem to be still locked into the mind-set that you need full size AVRs to do Scatmos. Any processor will do. I'm not of the opinion overhead speakers need full range correction. Frankly, the tiny bit of space between 80Hz (cutoff) and 200-250Hz (Schroder frequency where I cut my system off) is that big a deal for two speakers so the MiniDSP wouldn't be needed either (or DPLII AVRs with Audyssey or whatever).

Regardless, my point is I would at least give the guy the option to consider an alternative than leave him thinking his only option is to start patching the wall.



> Besides, in the o/p's situation, matrixing an extra channel between the Front and Rear heights will not solve the problem that this Front Heights are too far away. Any sound that goes to those speakers is still going to be too far away. The more logical solution is to move those speakers forward.


I don't know what makes you think a matrixed top middle wouldn't be enough. He never gave the full dimensions of his room. He only said the front heights were 17' away. That's about the distance you can still image between two discrete signals. Top Middle, however may be in front of the listening couch for all I know. Without knowing where his couch is and where the rear heights would be, it's hard to say for sure about either option. 

However, the great thing about matrixed, though is that it actually moves the "apparent" distances closer together. In other words, the front height will actually sound like it's half the distance away with a top middle array in place (i.e. front height effects will be more like 8.5 feet away ("virtual" top fronts) than where they currently are without patching the wall). That is certainly within panning distance at that point. The arrayed "matrixed" top middle speaker bridges the gap and halves the apparent distance (if the couch is in a weird spot, a delay box might need to be inserted before amplification, though).



> Listen, I actually do the same thing you do, Magnum. I'm currently running four AVRs for a 9.1.8 speaker layout. I literally wrote the instructional guide for how to do Scatmos. Google "Scatmos" or "Atmos Beyond 7.1.4" and my articles are the first hits. Yet I recognize that it's an impractical process that appeals only to a small niche of edge use cases, and I would not blindly recommend it to someone without taking their entire situation into consideration.


I don't think it's all that impractical. It cost me about $125 for the Onkyo hardware (active mixers for matrixed channels cost half that). I already had the amps in my old Yamaha receiver. I needed to break front height out anyway for dialog lift and rear heights needed an external amp (7012 onl has 9 amps internal). I used 2 more channels on it to power matrixed front wides (and bought a small 2-channel Class D amp to power matrixed surround #1 speakers). It took some adjustments on the dials for matrixed speakers (test tones for everything would have helped, although I finally got the Atmos test that had front wides with "snap to" OFF that helped; surround #1 was a little bit trickier). But compared to patching walls and cutting new holes in the ceiling? The ceiling wasn't even a real option here (it's between floors and so very difficult to fish wire to those locations and top middle proper on the ceiling is obstructed by a steel beam to boot).


----------



## StevenC56

Well-After about 40 trips up and down in my attic the last couple weeks, this old man is finally done running wires and installing the .4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers. I felt like I was working out on a jungle gym every time I went up there! Thank goodness I ran some pull wires when the house was being built in 1996! It would have been even more difficult without those. Painted the 4 white ceiling lights in each corner black too since I had to paint the speakers. (Matte black). Now I have to spend about $300 on 4 black Lutron Caseta switches and nothing will be white in the room anymore. Next, I have to work on my equipment and move a few things around before I can test them out. I'm adding 2 Yamaha MX-A5000 amps and removing my trusty RX-Z11 that I have been using for amp duty. I have to relocate my 2 MX-D1's onto a shelf I'm installing on the front center wall as my equipment tower has runneth over. Paint and install the racetrack conduit for my HDMI cable to the PJ at the back of the room, and it will be 100% complete! Well, at least until the next upgrade.


----------



## Augerhandle

This thread wears me out. I'm not sure why I even come back here.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Hello,

I have had some further inquires on my Atmos system that hopefully will be firmed-up this next month.

Post Title:
Okay everyone my thoughts on the Triad/Atmos system project ...

If any of you are interested below is the link to my reply.

*Left Click on the Link below,

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-16.html#post59305554*

Terry


----------



## Matt L

StevenC56 said:


> Well-After about 40 trips up and down in my attic the last couple weeks, this old man is finally done running wires and installing the .4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers. I felt like I was working out on a jungle gym every time I went up there! Thank goodness I ran some pull wires when the house was being built in 1996! It would have been even more difficult without those. Painted the 4 white ceiling lights in each corner black too since I had to paint the speakers. (Matte black). Now I have to spend about $300 on 4 black Lutron Caseta switches and nothing will be white in the room anymore. Next, I have to work on my equipment and move a few things around before I can test them out. I'm adding 2 Yamaha MX-A5000 amps and removing my trusty RX-Z11 that I have been using for amp duty. I have to relocate my 2 MX-D1's onto a shelf I'm installing on the front center wall as my equipment tower has runneth over. Paint and install the racetrack conduit for my HDMI cable to the PJ at the back of the room, and it will be 100% complete! Well, at least until the next upgrade.



Glad you got it done. It will all be worth it when you finally fire up he new .4 speakers and sit down and watch a movie or play with the Atmos demos. In recent vintage movies Ford. V. Ferrari has some great effects.


----------



## Rob Greer

StevenC56 said:


> Painted the 4 white ceiling lights in each corner black too since I had to paint the speakers. (Matte black). Now I have to spend about $300 on 4 black Lutron Caseta switches and nothing will be white in the room anymore.



Since you like black too and I like the idea of spending your money, you can also switch out your fan with this one:

https://store.bigassfans.com/en_us/haiku-ceiling-fan-52-aluminum-black-low-profile-mount-black-1



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

Rob Greer said:


> Since you like black too and I like the idea of spending your money, you can also switch out your fan with this one:
> 
> https://store.bigassfans.com/en_us/haiku-ceiling-fan-52-aluminum-black-low-profile-mount-black-1
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That one is a bit beyond my budget, but you've got me thinking. I did change the original high gloss walnut blades to black a few years ago. How about this one:

https://www.hunterfan.com/ceiling-fans/casablanca-stingray-with-led-light-60-inch-fam686

I can get a manufacturer refurbished on eBay for about half of retail.


----------



## gwsat

Rob Greer said:


> Since you like black too and I like the idea of spending your money, you can also switch out your fan with this one:
> 
> https://store.bigassfans.com/en_us/haiku-ceiling-fan-52-aluminum-black-low-profile-mount-black-1


Holy cow! P.T. Barnum was right.


----------



## tbook

Hi,

Mighty curious if there is a "height" to atmos sounds. Been experimenting with atmos for the past view weeks after being bitten by the bug. Specifically:

1. Was watching Dr Strange on Disney + not long ago, without thinking about atmos at all, had picked up a LG sound bar with it built in but at the time zero interest or proper knowledge of atmos at the time, when one scene actually made me look up at the ceiling (some bridge scene with collapsing buildings etc.), physically craned my neck upwards to look at the ceiling thinking is that snow shifting outside on the roof or what. Wow. Haven't stopped tinkering since then.

2. Experimenting with various netflix shows and movie streams along with different speakers and a new avr for it all, seems rather hard to replicate or experience the exact same thing with different room and set up etc. But on the same tv and the same sound bar, was watching I think some show called "iron fist" for testing purpose and absolutely most distinctively one scene with rain and a thunderstorm, the thunderstorm was booming and clapping a couple feet above the tv ( see the Monet below).

Is this correct or is something wrong? Can atmos sound be "steered" by the engineers as such? One sound says at roof top level another sound in between that? Is it bouncing off the ceiling and coming down or dissipating as it drops, or does it not even reach the ceiling and is 'hovering'? Or multiple same sounds at the same volume / frequency one after the other to make it all appear to be roof top?

It seems when you are looking for atmos it is the most hard to find i.e. setting up something. So the question I guess would be, should it always be ceiling level if it works? I also ask this because nearly everything atmos doesn't do as described above (I'm using up firing atmos speakers), but absolutely 100% there is a fantastic overall column or corridor of sound regardless and at all times. But this wow factor clearly quite rare. I also wonder if people are expecting it always to be cracking or booming or whirling or whatever at ceiling height and maybe that is never the case and they think atmos is not working?

Any insight appreciated.


----------



## sdurani

Immersive audio formats (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D) can place sounds anywhere between the base layer (ear height) and the height layer (ceiling). Some sounds will float above your TV while others will appear all the way up on the ceiling.


----------



## tbook

sdurani said:


> Immersive audio formats (Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D) can place sounds anywhere between the base layer (ear height) and the height layer (ceiling). Some sounds will float above your TV while others will appear all the way up on the ceiling.


Excellent! Thank you. It explains a lot. 100% there is a column of sound almost at all times from ear height to ceiling height and in between from my simple testing and hearing but that boom crack or bang at the ceiling height is somewhat rare. As a newb to atmos I have been looking for that in all cases which is not correct as you point out. Half the time is fiddling with the speakers and settings to try and capture something that is not there.


----------



## StevenC56

gwsat said:


> Holy cow! P.T. Barnum was right.


Half that price from other retailers, but still a bit high for my budget.


----------



## LNEWoLF

tbook said:


> Hi,
> 
> Mighty curious if there is a "height" to atmos sounds. Been experimenting with atmos for the past view weeks after being bitten by the bug. Specifically:
> 
> 1. Was watching Dr Strange on Disney + not long ago, without thinking about atmos at all, had picked up a LG sound bar with it built in but at the time zero interest or proper knowledge of atmos at the time, when one scene actually made me look up at the ceiling (some bridge scene with collapsing buildings etc.), physically craned my neck upwards to look at the ceiling thinking is that snow shifting outside on the roof or what. Wow. Haven't stopped tinkering since then.
> 
> 2. Experimenting with various netflix shows and movie streams along with different speakers and a new avr for it all, seems rather hard to replicate or experience the exact same thing with different room and set up etc. But on the same tv and the same sound bar, was watching I think some show called "iron fist" for testing purpose and absolutely most distinctively one scene with rain and a thunderstorm, the thunderstorm was booming and clapping a couple feet above the tv ( see the Monet below).
> 
> Is this correct or is something wrong? Can atmos sound be "steered" by the engineers as such? One sound says at roof top level another sound in between that? Is it bouncing off the ceiling and coming down or dissipating as it drops, or does it not even reach the ceiling and is 'hovering'? Or multiple same sounds at the same volume / frequency one after the other to make it all appear to be roof top?
> 
> It seems when you are looking for atmos it is the most hard to find i.e. setting up something. So the question I guess would be, should it always be ceiling level if it works? I also ask this because nearly everything atmos doesn't do as described above (I'm using up firing atmos speakers), but absolutely 100% there is a fantastic overall column or corridor of sound regardless and at all times. But this wow factor clearly quite rare. I also wonder if people are expecting it always to be cracking or booming or whirling or whatever at ceiling height and maybe that is never the case and they think atmos is not working?
> 
> Any insight appreciated.


What you are experiencing Is real. 1st hand knowledge. I experience phantom imaging daily with both music and movies. With a 7.2.4 speaker system. My MLP is positioned dead center of screen. Each speaker is less than 7’ from the MLP. Each speaker is placed an equal distance from each other. I use to sit off center to the screen. Two chairs with an end table in between. I repositioned all speakers and the MLP last year and will never go back to off center. 

The improvements were significant and jaw dropping. I don’t hear speaker positions and audio sounds phantom image anywhere within the space. Some right at my face. At my ears. Literally floating in space and will transitions smoothly throughout the space. Emulating the onscreen action. The phantom imaging at times can create layers of sounds that can literally float in various layers or positions within the space. The vocals may be at one position or elevation, back up singers at another position, drums another and guitars. Sometimes the sounds can be stacked vertically but spread out wide across the entire soundstage. Anywhere up, down, left, right, front and back. It brings a HuGE  to my face each time.


----------



## tbook

Sounds fantastic. I can totally feel and hear the difference with the atmos speakers. So much so I fear it has opened up a can of worms for me. Below is my current setup as I am experimenting. The problem is I feel like I am at the end of a corridor of sound. Maybe even standing at the end of a diving board but facing towards dry land. This corridor from front to back to ceiling is significant regardless of what is playing. As you say like a new world. Now I fear I am getting greedy...

I don't have a lot of room to play with at all. The seating position is 1 ft away from the back wall. I might be able to move it to 2 ft away. The surrounds I have (B&W 686 S2) are at 90 degrees right by my ear. The atmos I have placed on top of them toe'd in a bit facing towards the tv etc. So as you can see I feel like I am at the end of this monumental corridor of sound and want more. I've sat in the middle of the room and just wow. But alas permanently that cannot happen.

At the same time I have to keep this all neat and tidy. Even the the atmos facing the opposite direction of the surrounds has drawn question marks. How to solve this?

1. Certainly I can move the surround back 1ft max 2 ft along with the untidy atmos speaker on top. But would that be worth it? Having it all just behind my ears to make me feel included more? Or leave the surrounds were they are and get another set of speaker stands and move the atmos back behind me?

2. Can't put anything on the walls either. How about turning the atmos around and bouncing it off the back wall so that it falls on top / behind me? Can that work? How many bounces can they do? or

3. Just a flat speaker (small kef comes to mind and have a spare pair) lay that flat or slight angle on top of the surrounds so it goes straight up and down onto me?

Terrible terrible predicament lol I am sorry to say, I can't stress how it feels right now like standing or sitting at the tail end of a 3d corridor of sound ! To sit on the floor like a 10 y/o child in the middle of the room is an absolute treat!

Has to be a suitable solution somehow somewhere??


----------



## tbook

Further to the above, stupid question perhaps. Can I move the entire canopy or envelope of atmos sound itself? Move it all to the back seating area (as below) or must it come from the front speakers location and back speakers location?

Take the front upfiring PSB Imagine XA's place them half way or more back towards the seating area, place the back atmos behind the seat where the 7.1 set up is, and create a cabin of sorts over the seating area? Or would that throw everything out of whack?


----------



## LNEWoLF

tbook said:


> I don't have a lot of room to play with at all. The seating position is 1 ft away from the back wall. I might be able to move it to 2 ft away. I've sat in the middle of the room and just wow. But alas permanently that cannot happen.
> 
> At the same time I have to keep this all neat and tidy.
> 
> 2. Can't put anything on the walls either.


Curious, where are all these room constraints originating from?. 

It might be helpful if you posted actual pictures of the room. Take several, standing at the back perimeter of each wall. Take a picture of each wall [email protected]@king forward. This will help so others may provide any potential solutions.

Also what size screen do you have?.

Good luck


----------



## StevenC56

Finally opened up the boxes for these little guys that I bought almost 4 months ago. I'll be using them to power my presence and ceiling Atmos speakers. With the A-B speaker switching built in, I'll be able to select one or the other and there will be 2 separate speaker patterns on my CX-A5200. There really aren't any speaker single switcher that would do this-I'd have to use 2 and I really couldn't find anything great anyway. So these guys will power those channels plus the surround backs. That will leave plenty of availability for more channels as surround processors evolve in the future and most likely add additional channels.


----------



## Augerhandle

I just received the Abbey Road Anniversary Super Deluxe set today. I hear the Atmos mix is pretty good. I'll be checking it out later tonight.


----------



## tbook

LNEWoLF said:


> Curious, where are all these room constraints originating from?.
> 
> It might be helpful if you posted actual pictures of the room. Take several, standing at the back perimeter of each wall. Take a picture of each wall [email protected]@king forward. This will help so others may provide any potential solutions.
> 
> Also what size screen do you have?.
> 
> Good luck


Hi

Main issues are a fireplace in the way and the entry way (second pic as below). Seating area is about 3 ft from the wall on the right and 4 ft from the fire place. The left surround is in line with the entry way. TV is actually 11.5 ft from the MLP (room is total 15 ft). TV is 86" (lg-86SJ9570). Moving the MLP forward encroaches on the fire place. I could perhaps squeeze out a 1 ft to 2 ft forward leaving some room more room behind it and the back wall (got two KEF T301 's back there from the original 7.1 setup now)..

All 4 surrounds are 686's back one's facing 90 degrees. I could push the back a bit along with moving the seating forward a bit, but the back of couch would obstruct about half of it. I'd have to get taller speaker stands in that case. This would bring the base of the stand to above one's heading when sitting down. Right now on the sides at 90 degree the tweeter is right at ear level.

1. Big question: must the rear atmos speakers face towards the tv or their opposing pairs in the front? If I placed them also at 90 degrees I'm thinking it could create a canopy over the seating area, but will it affect the sound? Yellow lines:











Was even thinking of turning them completely around and bouncing them off the back wall here again would it completely mess up everything? Even at 90 degrees would it nullify the whole atmos sound? I'll certainly try it all unless specification wise it is a bad idea.

2. What's interesting to me is now I have noticed that the red pot lights are precisely inline with everything. There are 2 exactly above the front surrounds and 2 exactly above one's knees when sitting down. Just ahead of the rear surrounds. WOW. Total of 9 spaced out absolutely perfectly....thinking... Are 4 inch ceilings even worth it? I don't think this idea would fly in the household though, effectively removing all the lighting in that room lol. Anyone make a combo speaker/light perhaps?


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, is it ok to mount surround speakers, the tweeters, (i my case behind me instead beside me) higher then ear level, about 50-60 cm higher ?

I sit around 2.50 meter in front of the surround speakers, so enough space between the speakers ands MLP.
This is *KEF T301* on the back wall, a speaker designed for wall use.

Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Hi, is it ok to mount surround speakers, the tweeters, (i my case behind me instead beside me) higher then ear level, about 50-60 cm higher ?
> 
> I sit around 2.50 meter in front of the surround speakers, so enough space between the speakers ands MLP.
> This is *KEF T301* on the back wall, a speaker designed for wall use.
> 
> Thanks


If you have to, you have to. With multiple rows, seats blocking audio at ear level becomes a real problem. It just raises the level the sound that amount.


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Hi, is it ok to mount surround speakers, the tweeters, (i my case behind me instead beside me) higher then ear level, about 50-60 cm higher ?
> 
> I sit around 2.50 meter in front of the surround speakers, so enough space between the speakers ands MLP.
> This is *KEF T301* on the back wall, a speaker designed for wall use.
> 
> Thanks


My side and back surrounds are bipoles mounted on the walls near the ceiling and sound great.


----------



## farsider3000

CBdicX said:


> Hi, is it ok to mount surround speakers, the tweeters, (i my case behind me instead beside me) higher then ear level, about 50-60 cm higher ?
> 
> 
> 
> I sit around 2.50 meter in front of the surround speakers, so enough space between the speakers ands MLP.
> 
> This is *KEF T301* on the back wall, a speaker designed for wall use.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks




I just helped a friend install an all KEF T301 system and those speakers sound amazing for their size. Mounting the tweeter about 55cm above ear level should not be an issue but I would mount so that the bottom woofer is about 25cm above ear level.

It’s best to mount surrounds just beside the ear (90 degrees) or slightly behind the ear (110 degrees). If you have no other choice than you will still get a surround effect with the speakers further behind you. Will you also mount rear speakers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> If you have to, you have to. With multiple rows, seats blocking audio at ear level becomes a real problem. It just raises the level the sound that amount.


Think i have read that for surround its no big deal, heaving them (a bit) higher. 
I seen pics of T301 as front speakers beside the screen, also well above ear level.
*The T301 on Kef stands will have the tweeter at 108 meter* !!

Could it be that KEF made this serie to be used above ear level ?


----------



## MagnumX

CBdicX said:


> Think i have read that for surround its no big deal, heaving them (a bit) higher.
> I seen pics of T301 as front speakers beside the screen, also well above ear level.
> *The T301 on Kef stands will have the tweeter at 108 meter* !!
> 
> Could it be that KEF made this serie to be used above ear level ?


Any speaker can be used above ear level. There is a pretty good "on-axis" range for most speakers. The only reason to put them lower is separation from the height layer. If we had higher ceilings (e.g. a 10-foot ceiling would be good), it wouldn't be any big deal at all. But separation is overrated, IMO. People are upset when they don't hear specific speakers, which isn't how it's supposed to work anyway. The channels should all blend together and you shouldn't be able to tell without looking where the speakers are as sounds should be able to image anywhere in-between. Get too much separation and you've got a blank zone in the middle. But I get the impression some like that because they want to know their overheads are working and want all sounds on the ceiling, when "height" can be anywhere in-between. Only 100% should be flat on the ceiling so-to-speak.


----------



## CBdicX

farsider3000 said:


> I just helped a friend install an all KEF T301 system and those speakers sound amazing for their size. Mounting the tweeter about 55cm above ear level should not be an issue but I would mount so that the bottom woofer is about 25cm above ear level.
> 
> It’s best to mount surrounds just beside the ear (90 degrees) or slightly behind the ear (110 degrees). If you have no other choice than you will still get a surround effect with the speakers further behind you. Will you also mount rear speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks 
I see in the KEF info about the T stands, that with the 301 on the stands the tweeter will be at 1.08 meter, this is also above ear level.
When i mount them on the wall the *tweeter* will be at 1.32 meter so (just) 24 cm higher then when they would be on the stands.
Just did the measure with the tamplate, so its lower then i first thought.


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> Any speaker can be used above ear level. There is a pretty good "on-axis" range for most speakers. The only reason to put them lower is separation from the height layer. If we had higher ceilings (e.g. a 10-foot ceiling would be good), it wouldn't be any big deal at all. But separation is overrated, IMO. People are upset when they don't hear specific speakers, which isn't how it's supposed to work anyway. The channels should all blend together and you shouldn't be able to tell without looking where the speakers are as sounds should be able to image anywhere in-between. Get too much separation and you've got a blank zone in the middle. But I get the impression some like that because they want to know their overheads are working and want all sounds on the ceiling, when "height" can be anywhere in-between. Only 100% should be flat on the ceiling so-to-speak.


Ok, see what you mean.
I have no problems because i use only Top Middle, no Front or Rear Heights


----------



## farsider3000

CBdicX said:


> Thanks
> 
> I see in the KEF info about the T stands, that with the 301 on the stands the tweeter will be at 1.08 meter, this is also above ear level.
> 
> When i mount them on the wall the *tweeter* will be at 1.32 meter so (just) 24 cm higher then when they would be on the stands.
> 
> Just did the measure with the tamplate, so its lower then i first thought.



You may want to go a bit higher since the T301 are a tall speaker and a lot of sound will come from the lower woofer which, as you know, is below the tweeter. But it really depends on how far away from the near wall seating position they will be mounted (how wide your room is). If someone will sit right beside the speaker I would mount so the bottom of the lower woofer is at least some distance above ear level. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Any speaker can be used above ear level. There is a pretty good "on-axis" range for most speakers. The only reason to put them lower is separation from the height layer. If we had higher ceilings (e.g. a 10-foot ceiling would be good), it wouldn't be any big deal at all. But separation is overrated, IMO. People are upset when they don't hear specific speakers, which isn't how it's supposed to work anyway. The channels should all blend together and you shouldn't be able to tell without looking where the speakers are as sounds should be able to image anywhere in-between. Get too much separation and you've got a blank zone in the middle. But I get the impression some like that because they want to know their overheads are working and want all sounds on the ceiling, when "height" can be anywhere in-between. Only 100% should be flat on the ceiling so-to-speak.


That's why I like my surround speakers in bipole mode. They are high and spread the sound around the room so that I don't hear the speakers but I still get a great sense of immersion without height speakers.


----------



## blake

CBdicX said:


> Think i have read that for surround its no big deal, heaving them (a bit) higher.
> 
> I seen pics of T301 as front speakers beside the screen, also well above ear level.
> 
> *The T301 on Kef stands will have the tweeter at 108 meter* !!
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that KEF made this serie to be used above ear level ?




You can put surround bed higher , the key is to have separation from the height/ceiling layer. Dolby suggests the surround bed height be at or less than 50% the ceiling height . 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Polyrythm1k

blake said:


> You can put surround bed higher , the key is to have separation from the height/ceiling layer. Dolby suggests the surround bed height be at or less than 50% the ceiling height .
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Never seen the 50% Rec before, but this is in the guide. 








It says h3(height speakers) should be 2-3 times h1(LR tweeter height). So at 4’ mains height, you have a range of 8’-12’. Changing h2 to x1.25 obviously raises that but nothing to sweat. Probably works out to be the same 50% thing in most rooms lol!
Obviously these are merely guidelines as is the whole install guide. Just wondered if you’ve seen it.


----------



## Augerhandle

Augerhandle said:


> I just received the Abbey Road Anniversary Super Deluxe set today. I hear the Atmos mix is pretty good. I'll be checking it out later tonight.


Nice box set. I especially enjoyed the Easter Egg video (in ATMOS) on the "audio only" Blu-ray.


----------



## CBdicX

farsider3000 said:


> You may want to go a bit higher since the T301 are a tall speaker and a lot of sound will come from the lower woofer which, as you know, is below the tweeter. But it really depends on how far away from the near wall seating position they will be mounted (how wide your room is). If someone will sit right beside the speaker I would mount so the bottom of the lower woofer is at least some distance above ear level.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The 301 has 2 Mid/woofers, one below the tweeter and one above the tweeter.
The 101 has only one below the tweeter, but makes no differents in the "bass" department.
Both will do on paper 80 Hz, Audyssey will set them at 120 Hz, also the KEF recommendation for HT use.
The 301 can handle 150 watt, the 101 will do 100 watt.

Great speakers, and I will not say "for this size"...……….


----------



## Augerhandle

CBdicX said:


> The 301 has 2 Mid/woofers, one below the tweeter and one above the tweeter.
> The 101 has only one below the tweeter, but makes no differents in the "bass" department.
> Both will do on paper 80 Hz, Audyssey will set them at 120 Hz, also the KEF recommendation for HT use.
> The 301 can handle 150 watt, the 101 will do 100 watt.
> 
> Great speakers, and I will not say "for this size"...……….


To be fair, he did say "the lower woofer", which implies more than one. I believe he was referring to the 301.



farsider3000 said:


> You may want to go a bit higher since the T301 are a tall speaker and a lot of sound will come from the *lower woofer *which, as you know, is below the tweeter. But it really depends on how far away from the near wall seating position they will be mounted (how wide your room is). If someone will sit right beside the speaker I would mount so the bottom of the lower woofer is at least some distance above ear level.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

blake said:


> You can put surround bed higher , the key is to have separation from the height/ceiling layer. Dolby suggests the surround bed height be at or less than 50% the ceiling height .
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I thought the 50% or less ceiling height recommendation was for upfiring “fake” height modules?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

CBdicX said:


> The 301 has 2 Mid/woofers, one below the tweeter and one above the tweeter.
> 
> The 101 has only one below the tweeter, but makes no differents in the "bass" department.
> 
> Both will do on paper 80 Hz, Audyssey will set them at 120 Hz, also the KEF recommendation for HT use.
> 
> The 301 can handle 150 watt, the 101 will do 100 watt.
> 
> 
> 
> Great speakers, and I will not say "for this size"...……….



Yes I am aware. I recommended the lower woofer should still be a bit higher than ear level especially if a person will be sitting very close.

Sorry but they can’t produce 80Hz at high SPL. They are very small enclosures. Audyssey will set them higher than 120Hz depending on your room boundaries. I have seen audyssey set the T301 at 200 Hz before.

If you have a very small room then you can cross them much lower since you will not have to produce high SPL at 100 or 110 Hz. I would not cross any lower than 110Hz for any room and they likely need to be crossed at 120-130 Hz.

You will definitely need a high quality sub than can play up to about 200Hz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## blake

Polyrythm1k said:


> Never seen the 50% Rec before, but this is in the guide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says h3(height speakers) should be 2-3 times h1(LR tweeter height). So at 4’ mains height, you have a range of 8’-12’. Changing h2 to x1.25 obviously raises that but nothing to sweat. Probably works out to be the same 50% thing in most rooms lol!
> Obviously these are merely guidelines as is the whole install guide. Just wondered if you’ve seen it.




Yes I think I interpreted it from that diagram. The ceiling speakers must be at least double the surround bed height (2-3x). Or read another way, the surround bed must be less than half the height of ceiling speakers. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

Augerhandle said:


> To be fair, he did say "the lower woofer", which implies more than one. I believe he was referring to the 301.


Ok, sorry, have read this wrong...…..


----------



## CBdicX

farsider3000 said:


> I just helped a friend install an all KEF T301 system and those speakers sound amazing for their size. Mounting the tweeter about 55cm above ear level should not be an issue but I would mount so that the bottom woofer is about 25cm above ear level.
> 
> It’s best to mount surrounds just beside the ear (90 degrees) or slightly behind the ear (110 degrees). If you have no other choice than you will still get a surround effect with the speakers further behind you. Will you also mount rear speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


When you did the setup, Kef talks about setting the subwoofer in the receiver at 80Hz.
Is this the LPF of LFE, as this is the only option I have to set something concerning the subwoofers cross-over ? (Denon X4500H)

The sub I use is a Kef T2 that is controlled 100% by the receiver, no cross-over and no volume settings on the sub, but it works great (for me).

Thanks for your help 

PS. I use 2x KEF T101 for Top Middle, looks and works great...…


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> When you did the setup, Kef talks about setting the subwoofer in the receiver at 80Hz.
> Is this the LPF of LFE, as this is the only option I have to set something concerning the subwoofers cross-over ? (Denon X4500H)
> 
> The sub I use is a Kef T2 that is controlled 100% by the receiver, no cross-over and no volume settings on the sub, but it works great (for me).
> 
> Thanks for your help
> 
> PS. I use 2x KEF T101 for Top Middle, looks and works great...…


Your Denon allows you to change both the crossover from the speakers to the sub as well as change the LPF for LFE.

With the speakers set to small, you can select a crossover from 40 to 250 Hz with a default of 80 Hz. You can set the LPF for LFE from 80 Hz to 250 Hz with a default of 120 Hz.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CBdicX said:


> When you did the setup, Kef talks about setting the subwoofer in the receiver at 80Hz.
> 
> Is this the LPF of LFE, as this is the only option I have to set something concerning the subwoofers cross-over ? (Denon X4500H)
> 
> 
> 
> The sub I use is a Kef T2 that is controlled 100% by the receiver, no cross-over and no volume settings on the sub, but it works great (for me).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help
> 
> 
> 
> PS. I use 2x KEF T101 for Top Middle, looks and works great...…




The lpf of lfe only effects the .1 in movie soundtracks. That part of the soundtrack has special effects that are between 3-120hz. Lowering the lpf is usually done to minimize localization of subwoofers. The XO KEF is talking about is for all the redirected bass below that point(80hz) which goes to the sub from all the rest of the speakers. Have you run audyssey, and where did the XO get set from that? You can change it in the speaker menu.


----------



## CBdicX

Polyrythm1k said:


> The lpf of lfe only effects the .1 in movie soundtracks. That part of the soundtrack has special effects that are between 3-120hz. Lowering the lpf is usually done to minimize localization of subwoofers. The XO KEF is talking about is for all the redirected bass below that point(80hz) which goes to the sub from all the rest of the speakers. Have you run audyssey, and where did the XO get set from that? You can change it in the speaker menu.


Here you can read what Kef is talking about.

They specific say: 
set the subwoofer frequency on the amp/rec to 80Hz.

I can not set the cross-over for the subwoofer in the Denon, just the speakers.
So is Kef talking about something I van not change, or are they talking about LPF/LFE ?


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Here you can read what Kef is talking about.
> 
> They specific say:
> set the subwoofer frequency on the amp/rec to 80Hz.
> 
> I can not set the cross-over for the subwoofer in the Denon, just the speakers.
> So is Kef talking about something I van not change, or are they talking about LPF/LFE ?


Did you read my post?

You are not setting a sub crossover. You are setting the crossover from your speakers (set to small) to the sub. You are also setting the low pass filter for the LFE channel.


----------



## farsider3000

CBdicX said:


> When you did the setup, Kef talks about setting the subwoofer in the receiver at 80Hz.
> 
> Is this the LPF of LFE, as this is the only option I have to set something concerning the subwoofers cross-over ? (Denon X4500H)
> 
> 
> 
> The sub I use is a Kef T2 that is controlled 100% by the receiver, no cross-over and no volume settings on the sub, but it works great (for me).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help
> 
> 
> 
> PS. I use 2x KEF T101 for Top Middle, looks and works great...…



For your KEF T301 and T101 speakers: 
In your Denon receiver set up you should set all speakers to small. Then in the setup menu select “Speakers”, then select “Manual Setup”, then select “Crossovers”,... this will allow you to play around with different crossover settings for each group of speakers. I would try listening to movies at your normal listening level with speakers crossed from 140 Hz down to 110Hz.

For your subwoofer:
After “Manual setup” from instructions above then select “Bass”. For “Subwoofer Mode” choose LFE+Main. This sends all frequencies below the cutoff for your speakers to the sub as well as pure LFE. Then set LPF for LFE to between 120Hz and 200Hz (try different settings)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CBdicX

farsider3000 said:


> For your KEF T301 and T101 speakers:
> In your Denon receiver set up you should set all speakers to small. Then in the setup menu select “Speakers”, then select “Manual Setup”, then select “Crossovers”,... this will allow you to play around with different crossover settings for each group of speakers. I would try listening to movies at your normal listening level with speakers crossed from 140 Hz down to 110Hz.
> 
> For your subwoofer:
> After “Manual setup” from instructions above then select “Bass”. For “Subwoofer Mode” choose LFE+Main. This sends all frequencies below the cutoff for your speakers to the sub as well as pure LFE. Then set LPF for LFE to between 120Hz and 200Hz (try different settings)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I am a bit puzzled now.
In the 301 manual it says:

Bass output must be sent to "Subwoofer" not "Main or Both".

Think as I have it now I am ok.
Have the 5x (Front, Center, Surround) T301 set to 120 Hz (Audyssey setting) and LPF/LFE set to 80 Hz.


----------



## farsider3000

CBdicX said:


> I am a bit puzzled now.
> 
> In the 301 manual it says:
> 
> 
> 
> Bass output must be sent to "Subwoofer" not "Main or Both".
> 
> 
> 
> Think as I have it now I am ok.
> 
> Have the 5x (Front, Center, Surround) T301 set to 120 Hz (Audyssey setting) and LPF/LFE set to 80 Hz.




You are missing the frequency range between 120Hz and 80Hz. I am not being demeaning but you are missing major movie impact and accurate frequency response with the small KEF subwoofer.

I assume KEF recommends this because their sub can’t play accurately above 80Hz. I would still try setting the sub crossover a lot higher and you should set at LFE+Main or low frequencies sent to your speaker will be cut off and not reproduced. It’s not the correct setting if you don’t use LFE+Main. Strongly recommend buying a small 10” sub from SVS if you don’t have room. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CBdicX said:


> Here you can read what Kef is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> They specific say:
> 
> set the subwoofer frequency on the amp/rec to 80Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> I can not set the cross-over for the subwoofer in the Denon, just the speakers.
> 
> So is Kef talking about something I van not change, or are they talking about LPF/LFE ?




Well that’s not very clear I guess. But my initial response is that it means setting the speakers crossovers to 80hz. There’s not a “subwoofer crossover”, so I assume it means the speakers. The “subwoofer frequency” as they write, in my mind is top of the range it will operate to. This is where the speakers gradually stop playing below 80hz and the subwoofer starts playing below 80hz but gradually decreasing above that point. 

I wouldn’t adjust the LPF of LFE unless you’re having localization issues with movies. 
This is what it looks like on paper.


----------



## CBdicX

farsider3000 said:


> You are missing the frequency range between 120Hz and 80Hz. I am not being demeaning but you are missing major movie impact and accurate frequency response with the small KEF subwoofer.
> 
> I assume KEF recommends this because their sub can’t play accurately above 80Hz. I would still try setting the sub crossover a lot higher and you should set at LFE+Main or low frequencies sent to your speaker will be cut off and not reproduced. It’s not the correct setting if you don’t use LFE+Main. Strongly recommend buying a small 10” sub from SVS if you don’t have room.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


And this is the puzzling part.
Here they say subwoofer must be set to "Subwoofer" (LFE) and not Main or Both (LFE+Main).
Also they speak here over 120Hz and not like the T2 manual about 80Hz.
Think this 120Hz are the 301 speakers.

But what is the exact differents between using LFE and a speaker x-over of 120Hz for the speakers, 
and using LFE+Main and a speaker x-over of 120Hz ?

Will LFE+Main still use the cross-over set in the menu ?

I will keep LPF/LFE at 120Hz. 

Thanks, hope your not getting a headache from me...……..


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CBdicX said:


> And this is the puzzling part.
> 
> Here they say subwoofer must be set to "Subwoofer" (LFE) and not Main or Both (LFE+Main).
> 
> Also they speak here over 120Hz and not like the T2 manual about 80Hz.
> 
> Think this 120Hz are the 301 speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> But what is the exact differents between using LFE and a speaker x-over of 120Hz for the speakers,
> 
> and using LFE+Main and a speaker x-over of 120Hz ?
> 
> 
> 
> Will LFE+Main still use the cross-over set in the menu ?
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep LPF/LFE at 120Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, hope your not getting a headache from me...……..




If you have some time. This is very informative with input from SVS’s Ed Mullen. 

https://subwoofer101.com/setting-up-your-gear/large-vs-small-lfe-main-double-bass-etc/


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> And this is the puzzling part.
> Here they say subwoofer must be set to "Subwoofer" (LFE) and not Main or Both (LFE+Main).
> Also they speak here over 120Hz and not like the T2 manual about 80Hz.
> Think this 120Hz are the 301 speakers.
> 
> But what is the exact differents between using LFE and a speaker x-over of 120Hz for the speakers,
> and using LFE+Main and a speaker x-over of 120Hz ?
> 
> Will LFE+Main still use the cross-over set in the menu ?
> 
> I will keep LPF/LFE at 120Hz.
> 
> Thanks, hope your not getting a headache from me...……..


You are overthinking this and getting wrong advice.

Run Audyssey. What does Audyssey say the -3 dB point of your speakers are? The AVR will call it "crossover". After running Audyssey you can go into the manual speaker setup menu.

1. Set your speakers to Small
2. Set the sub control on the AVR to LFE. DO NOT use LFE+Main.
3. Set the LPF for LFE to 120 Hz.
4. If Audyssey says the -3dB point for each speaker is 80 Hz or less, set the crossover for 80 Hz. If Audyssey says the -3dB point for a speaker is higher than 80 Hz, choose a crossover at that frequency. 
5. Done.

Any further questions on this subject should be moved to the Audyssey thread.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bluesky636 said:


> You are overthinking this and getting wrong advice.
> 
> 
> 
> Run Audyssey. What does Audyssey say the -3 dB point of your speakers are? The AVR will call it "crossover". After running Audyssey you can go into the manual speaker setup menu.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Set your speakers to Small
> 
> 2. Set the sub control on the AVR to LFE. DO NOT use LFE+Main.
> 
> 3. Set the LPF for LFE to 120 Hz.
> 
> 4. If Audyssey says the -3dB point for each speaker is 80 Hz or less, set the crossover for 80 Hz. If Audyssey says the -3dB point for a speaker is higher than 80 Hz, choose a crossover at that frequency.
> 
> 5. Done.
> 
> 
> 
> Any further questions on this subject should be moved to the Audyssey thread.




This.


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> You are missing the frequency range between 120Hz and 80Hz. I am not being demeaning but you are missing major movie impact and accurate frequency response with the small KEF subwoofer.
> 
> I assume KEF recommends this because their sub can’t play accurately above 80Hz. I would still try setting the sub crossover a lot higher and you should set at LFE+Main or low frequencies sent to your speaker will be cut off and not reproduced. It’s not the correct setting if you don’t use LFE+Main. Strongly recommend buying a small 10” sub from SVS if you don’t have room.


Unless he has stereo subs, setting ANY sub above 80Hz royally screws up imaging in those bands, IMO. Just setting my front heights to 120Hz to compare (I kept blowing the grills off with some material as they're too loose on some of the PSBs) results in a clear bass tone coming from the sub instead of the right front height speaker. If his subs cannot handle 80Hz-200Hz, he should buy TWO that can if he wants to continue to use those KEF 301s and set them up in a stereo configuration (which may not be ideal for the rest of the spectrum in the room). Frankly, I'd avoid any main speakers like the plague that can't play down to 80Hz for that region. 

Of course, most of my rooms have seemed to peak around 100-120Hz in most locations so his 301s might do better for less than reference volumes than we might think. It wouldn't hurt to try crossing them at 100Hz (and the sub as well) and see what happens after Audyssey is run rather than making assumptions solely on the driver size (thickness seems to be more an issue than the diameter as my 5.5" woofers on heights have no issue doing 80Hz, but they are full sized 5.5" woofers).


----------



## farsider3000

Polyrythm1k said:


> This.



What’s your basis for not setting LFE+Main. Also audyssey is not perfect and in very reflective rooms can give grossly incorrect crossover points.

Audyssey just told me to set my friends T301 crossover at 200Hz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

MagnumX said:


> Unless he has stereo subs, setting ANY sub above 80Hz royally screws up imaging in those bands, IMO. Just setting my front heights to 120Hz to compare (I kept blowing the grills off with some material as they're too loose on some of the PSBs) results in a clear bass tone coming from the sub instead of the right front height speaker. If his subs cannot handle 80Hz-200Hz, he should buy TWO that can if he wants to continue to use those KEF 301s and set them up in a stereo configuration (which may not be ideal for the rest of the spectrum in the room). Frankly, I'd avoid any main speakers like the plague that can't play down to 80Hz for that region.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, most of my rooms have seemed to peak around 100-120Hz in most locations so his 301s might do better for less than reference volumes than we might think. It wouldn't hurt to try crossing them at 100Hz (and the sub as well) and see what happens after Audyssey is run rather than making assumptions solely on the driver size (thickness seems to be more an issue than the diameter as my 5.5" woofers on heights have no issue doing 80Hz, but they are full sized 5.5" woofers).




I generally agree but we are dealing with 1.5” thin speaker cabinets so just because it has decent size woofers we can’t compare to other typical box speakers. I am trying to work with him as I have experience with his exact speakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## simple_audio303

I need some help, not sure where to start. Guess I'll start with my setup so far and what I plan to do. So far I have a pair of RP6000F's run by a Denon X3500H(7.2 / 5.2.2). I ran audyssey XT32 room calibration. Kept the XT32 room Eq. But disabled the dynamic stuff, dont really need volume control. I planned on getting pair or rp500m for surround but recently considering the bipole rp502s. I also want to get rp500sa or SVS Elevations for back surround OR as rear OR front height/atmos, which is my dilemma...although front puts them pretty far 

My listening area is 10.5ft(according to audyssey)12ft actual x13ftx16ft. Couch 4" off back wall and can place side surround on speaker stands 3'-5' max from sides of couch. Right side having a big window, left being more open room. Cant do side heights or on ceiling.

For best listening experience in a situation where couch is against wall(actually about 4" off wall) 1. Should I use bipole or monopole for side surrounds?
2. Should I run the rp500sa as surround back (7.2)and little closer to MLP. Or throw them like 8ft above and 4-5ft apart MLP and do height / atmos (5.2.2)  I'm so torn lol. Thanks in advance! -Paul L. 

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

MagnumX said:


> Unless he has stereo subs, setting ANY sub above 80Hz royally screws up imaging in those bands, IMO. Just setting my front heights to 120Hz to compare (I kept blowing the grills off with some material as they're too loose on some of the PSBs) results in a clear bass tone coming from the sub instead of the right front height speaker. If his subs cannot handle 80Hz-200Hz, he should buy TWO that can if he wants to continue to use those KEF 301s and set them up in a stereo configuration (which may not be ideal for the rest of the spectrum in the room). Frankly, I'd avoid any main speakers like the plague that can't play down to 80Hz for that region.
> 
> Of course, most of my rooms have seemed to peak around 100-120Hz in most locations so his 301s might do better for less than reference volumes than we might think. It wouldn't hurt to try crossing them at 100Hz (and the sub as well) and see what happens after Audyssey is run rather than making assumptions solely on the driver size (thickness seems to be more an issue than the diameter as my 5.5" woofers on heights have no issue doing 80Hz, but they are full sized 5.5" woofers).


I will get a 2nd T2 next week, now I have one.
And they will be straight below the front T301.
All the 4 T301 (all 4 on the wall) are set by Audyssey at 120 Hz, also what Kef recements.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

farsider3000 said:


> What’s your basis for not setting LFE+Main. Also audyssey is not perfect and in very reflective rooms can give grossly incorrect crossover points.
> 
> Audyssey just told me to set my friends T301 crossover at 200Hz.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




I agree that audyssey can be hit or miss. That’s why we have to stop and think about what it’s actually done. For example, 200hz on your friends speakers is ridiculous. It likely picked up on a higher order reflection and thought it was the f3. 
For LFE+mains, my experience has been that it makes bass very muddy and not very articulate. Secondly, while kef shows a FR of 80hz we don’t know if it’s f3 or f6 or even f10. It doesn’t make sense to me anyway, to set them as large and send a full range signal. It seems like a good way to cook a speaker. The “crossover” that’s available when using large, lfe+mains is really only an LPF for the duplicate signal sent to the subwoofer. The mains still get full range signal. 
So imo, never use LFE+mains unless you have very capable mains, or some other use case that would call for it.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CBdicX said:


> I will get a 2nd T2 next week, now I have one.
> 
> And they will be straight below the front T301.
> 
> All the 4 T301 (all 4 on the wall) are set by Audyssey at 120 Hz, also what Kef recements.




I didn’t see above. How did you choose the T2? They seem horribly inadequate for HT.


----------



## bluesky636

All, this is the Dolby Atmos thread. These last several discussions have nothing to do with Atmos and should be moved to either the Audyssey thread or the subwoofer calibration thread. They do not belong in this thread.

Mods: Can you move them?

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2958528-guide-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


----------



## CBdicX

Polyrythm1k said:


> I didn’t see above. How did you choose the T2? They seem horribly inadequate for HT.


I just tried one, had a 14 day trial periode, and its all but inadequate for HT.
At first I also thought this could never "shake" the room, and it will not, but what it will do is give a strong bass in the "hearing" frequencies.
Its working around 30Hz up to 250Hz, and has a DSP so it will never go into distortion, how hard you drive it.
But indeed limited, I had 18Hz subs and they do shake the room, but I very much like what Kef did with this sub, its something you will not expect. 
I has also a bass boost at 40Hz, 0 - +6 and +12, I have it on the +12 setting and its great.
Small room, 5 x 7 meter, 2.50 meter high.

So to even out the bass I will get a 2nd T2, and as I hear what one will do, think 2 will give me a big  

I will stop now, as indeed this is the Atmos forum, and thank you all for the help !!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bluesky636 said:


> All, this is the Dolby Atmos thread. These last several discussions have nothing to do with Atmos and should be moved to either the Audyssey thread or the subwoofer calibration thread. They do not belong in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Mods: Can you move them?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html




Roger that.


----------



## Augerhandle

CBdicX said:


> And this is the puzzling part.
> Here they say subwoofer must be set to "Subwoofer" (LFE) and not Main or Both (LFE+Main).
> Also they speak here over 120Hz and not like the T2 manual about 80Hz.
> Think this 120Hz are the 301 speakers.
> 
> But what is the exact differents between using LFE and a speaker x-over of 120Hz for the speakers,
> and using LFE+Main and a speaker x-over of 120Hz ?
> 
> Will LFE+Main still use the cross-over set in the menu ?
> 
> I will keep LPF/LFE at 120Hz.
> 
> Thanks, hope your not getting a headache from me...……..


In the Denon, if you set the main speakers to small, it works the same as LFE+Main (sends everything below the crossover to the sub), so don't worry about it. 

Keep your LPF of LFE at 120 for the Low Frequency Effects channel. It only affects the Low Frequency Effects channel, which is the .1 channel. The crossovers of the other channels (mains, ATMOS, and surrounds) will send the bass those speakers can't handle also to the subwoofer. The subwoofer then plays the LFE channel, and the low notes of the other channels.

Set your main, ATMOS, and surround speaker crossovers to 80Hz, or higher if Audyssey says they should be higher.


----------



## Augerhandle

simple_audio303 said:


> I need some help, not sure where to start. Guess I'll start with my setup so far and what I plan to do. So far I have a pair of RP6000F's run by a Denon X3500H(7.2 / 5.2.2). I ran audyssey XT32 room calibration. Kept the XT32 room Eq. But disabled the dynamic stuff, dont really need volume control. I planned on getting pair or rp500m for surround but recently considering the bipole rp502s. I also want to get rp500sa or SVS Elevations for back surround OR as rear OR front height/atmos, which is my dilemma...although front puts them pretty far
> 
> My listening area is 10.5ft(according to audyssey)12ft actual x13ftx16ft. Couch 4" off back wall and can place side surround on speaker stands 3'-5' max from sides of couch. Right side having a big window, left being more open room. Cant do side heights or on ceiling.
> 
> For best listening experience in a situation where couch is against wall(actually about 4" off wall) 1. Should I use bipole or monopole for side surrounds?
> 2. Should I run the rp500sa as surround back (7.2)and little closer to MLP. Or throw them like 8ft above and 4-5ft apart MLP and do height / atmos (5.2.2)  I'm so torn lol. Thanks in advance! -Paul L.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk


What are your room dimensions? I don't think bi-poles are recommended as surrounds in an Atmos setup, because of the diffuse sound. I would strongly recommend finding a way to move your seating farther from the back wall. This helps with future Atmos and surround rear speakers, as well as potentially improving bass frequency room modes.


----------



## elee532

MagnumX said:


> Trying to have them at 45 degrees from the MLP determines their _precise_ front/back symmetry. If they are both exactly 45 degrees from the MLP, they are precisely symmetrical as vertical elevation determines the z-coordinate on the ceiling if the overheads are at the same height as he indicated. If they were not symmetrical, you might have 50 and 145 or 45 and 125, although I suspect he may have even meant 30 and 120 or whatever.


How does one actually go about measuring the angle of overhead speakers to MLP? 

Thanks.


----------



## DigiWega

elee532 said:


> How does one actually go about measuring the angle of overhead speakers to MLP?
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## usc1995

Augerhandle said:


> What are your room dimensions? I don't think bi-poles are recommended as surrounds in an Atmos setup, because of the diffuse sound.



Sorry, this wrong. Dolby advises against DI-poles as their diffuse sound can act to muddy the sound in a way that can hinder object location in an Atmos soundtrack. Bipole speakers do not diffuse the sound in the same way and depending on the room can be beneficial when speakers are placed very close to the audience or between two rows of seats in a longer theater.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

usc1995 said:


> Sorry, this wrong. Dolby advises against DI-poles as their diffuse sound can act to muddy the sound in a way that can hinder object location in an Atmos soundtrack. Bipole speakers do not diffuse the sound in the same way and depending on the room can be beneficial when speakers are placed very close to the audience or between two rows of seats in a longer theater.


You are correct. (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf) Under "Use of Existing Speaker" on PAGE 6, it says, "Note: Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback." There is no mention of bipolar speakers in the home setup guidelines whatsoever. Bipoles are directional while not having to face directly at the listener (typically with a frequency response graph to match that placement) and thus can be used closer to the listeners than a monopole could in the very situations you mention.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> You are correct. (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf) Under "Use of Existing Speaker" on PAGE 6, it says, "Note: Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback." There is no mention of bipolar speakers in the home setup guidelines whatsoever. Bipoles are directional while not having to face directly at the listener (typically with a frequency response graph to match that placement) and thus can be used closer to the listeners than a monopole could in the very situations you mention.



But from experience they sound like crap if placed exactly 90 deg to the listener. They need to be placed so that one of the drivers is pointing at the listener - so as mentioned they work effectively between 2 rows where each driver points at a row - effectively just 2 monopoles.


----------



## niterida

DigiWega said:


>



And realise that the measurement to the speaker is not actually to the speaker but directly forward from the MLP to the LINE between the L&R speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> But from experience they sound like crap if placed exactly 90 deg to the listener. They need to be placed so that one of the drivers is pointing at the listener - so as mentioned they work effectively between 2 rows where each driver points at a row - effectively just 2 monopoles.


So you've tried all brands to know this to be a fact? I had DefTech BP-2s (still have them upstairs repurposed, but on-axis now for more of a spacious effect than surround sound in my exercise room) for several years at my old house on the sides and they sounded perfectly fine for 5.1. I haven't had a use for them with Atmos, but the frequency response seemed purposely bright to account for flatter off-axis response, at least to my ears (didn't have REW back then to see how they did; I suppose I could rig something up now if I really wanted to know their off-axis response).

But yes, I did repurpose my PSB S50 bipolars for in-between row "surround height" speakers (play towards front row and back two rows). That would be an ideal case use, but I can't say every brand would sound awful in surround use in every room. If someone already has a pair, it wouldn't hurt to try them out. There are also "tripoles" out there that some seem to love for wide-band on-axis sound (front row and direct to side).


----------



## Augerhandle

Augerhandle said:


> What are your room dimensions? *I don't think bi-poles are recommended as surrounds in an Atmos setup*, because of the diffuse sound. I would strongly recommend finding a way to move your seating farther from the back wall. This helps with future Atmos and surround rear speakers, as well as potentially improving bass frequency room modes.





usc1995 said:


> *Sorry, this wrong. *Dolby advises against DI-poles as their diffuse sound can act to muddy the sound in a way that can hinder object location in an Atmos soundtrack. Bipole speakers do not diffuse the sound in the same way and depending on the room can be beneficial when speakers are placed very close to the audience or between two rows of seats in a longer theater.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, I got it mixed up. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## AYanguas

niterida said:


> And realise that the measurement to the speaker is not actually to the speaker but directly forward from the MLP to the LINE between the L&R speakers.


OK, that was a doubt I had before when designing my HT.

So, the elevation angle recommendation (i.e. 45º) is to be measured* to a plane forward in front of you*, in line with the Top speakers row. NOT directly to the top speaker itself that will be at some lateral degrees azimuth. Am i right?

I hope I explained myself well


----------



## mrtickleuk

AYanguas said:


> OK, that was a doubt I had before when designing my HT.
> 
> So, the elevation angle recommendation (i.e. 45º) is to be measured* to a plane forward in front of you*, in line with the Top speakers row. NOT directly to the top speaker itself that will be at some lateral degrees azimuth. Am i right?
> 
> I hope I explained myself well


Yes that's it - for Atmos. The elevation angle recommendation is a *range*, it's not just 45°, it's _anything between 30° and 55°_ by the way. But it is to an imaginary line in front of you, which runs between your "top front left" and "top front right" speaker positions. And the similar deal for behind you.

For DTS:X, the elevation angle (iirc 45° azimuth + very steep 60° elevation) *is* directly to the speaker on the ceiling. Making the compromise between the two more tricky (but still possible). There is only one height of ceiling possible where the two sets of speaker positions line up! . 

Aside: I bet there's someone reading this thread who has designed their room deliberately with that ceiling height, if they are building a room... 

See @aaranddeeman's Atmos Speaker Placement Calculator and Validator which I got from earlier in this very thread . That could be a link to an earlier version of the sheet without DTS:X though. I can't remember where later versions came from


----------



## MagnumX

Atmos is now 20-55 degrees for a six overhead setup.

DTS is shown as 45 for a height setting, but I've had no noticeable issues doing 33 degrees. All it does is put the sounds a couple of feet closer to the screen to start. 

I think some people get too worked up about off-screen angles, especially DTS vs Atmos when DTS is typically not even rendered. 

Oh my, the helicopter is supposed to be two feet further onto the ceiling.... How can you tell? It's off screen. It doesn't matter one iota, IMO. What matters is smooth overhead imaging with a strong image overhead. Everything else changes with seating in a real theater anyway since it's room relative now, not seating based. (i.e. If you sit in the back, the helicopter might be in front of you overhead a the same moment it's behind the rows in the front and directly overhead in the middle).


----------



## eaayoung

DigiWega said:


>


. 

WTH..., I just bought four Atmos that I plan to install. And 9th grade was years ago! Screwed.


----------



## chi_guy50

eaayoung said:


> .
> 
> WTH..., I just bought four Atmos that I plan to install. And 9th grade was years ago! Screwed.



You might find the below tool more to your liking. All you have to do is plug in two of your values (e.g., distance to ceiling and desired elevation angle or distance to speaker) and it does the remaining distance or angle calculation for you:


*Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


----------



## sdurani

eaayoung said:


> WTH..., I just bought four Atmos that I plan to install. And 9th grade was years ago! Screwed.


Measure from your ears to the ceiling. Same distance forward & rearward of you is 45° elevation. No math.


----------



## gene4ht

eaayoung said:


> .
> 
> WTH..., I just bought four Atmos that I plan to install. And 9th grade was years ago! Screwed.





elee532 said:


> How does one actually go about measuring the angle of overhead speakers to MLP?
> 
> Thanks.





sdurani said:


> *Measure from your ears to the ceiling. Same distance forward & rearward of you is 45° elevation. No math. *


+1

Understanding that it’s not always possible to locate/position speakers precisely at 45 degrees due to room/ceiling constraints, good performance results are still possible with deviations from the ideal recommendations. As has been iterated in these threads, some Atmos is better than no Atmos!


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> Measure from your ears to the ceiling. Same distance forward & rearward of you is 45° elevation. No math.


Finally, a common sense answer.

I don't have an Atmos setup in my home and never will. My room is just not compatible with it. But I have been ready all the posts about how to calculate the angles to the ceiling speakers and scratching my head over all the math and measurements. Even the Dolby paper on Atmos for home theaters just shows a person sitting in the MLP and the speakers set at 45 degree angles (yes, I know that number is not absolute but a range) measured from the listener's ears. So sit in you chair and use your arm to point at a spot on the ceiling approximately 45 degrees from you. Easy. Done. If I can figure out how to post the drawings from the paper, I will.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bluesky636 said:


> Finally, a common sense answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an Atmos setup in my home and never will. My room is just not compatible with it. But I have been ready all the posts about how to calculate the angles to the ceiling speakers and scratching my head over all the math and measurements. Even the Dolby paper on Atmos for home theaters just shows a person sitting in the MLP and the speakers set at 45 degree angles (yes, I know that number is not absolute but a range) measured from the listener's ears. So sit in you chair and use your arm to point at a spot on the ceiling approximately 45 degrees from you. Easy. Done. If I can figure out how to post the drawings from the paper, I will.




Have you looked through this guide?

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
It’s far more useful than what’s on their regular site. 
Also. What kind of room do you have? It can’t be THAT bad.


----------



## bluesky636

Polyrythm1k said:


> Have you looked through this guide?
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf
> It’s far more useful than what’s on their regular site.
> Also. What kind of room do you have? It can’t be THAT bad.


That's the paper I referred to in my post. The drawings showing the angular measurements from the MLP to the ceiling speakers or Atmos speakers are on pages 18 to 51 or so. No trigonometry required. Just point.

My HT is in our great room. Front wall is solid, left wall is floor to ceiling built in cabinets and shelves, back wall is floor to ceiling windows, there is no right hand wall except for a very short one as room opens up into kitchen and living room. Cathedral ceiling. Side and rear surrounds are bipoles mounted on walls near ceiling. Side surrounds are actually about two feet in front of the MLP. I hear sounds all around and above me. Great bass. Room in general sounds terrific. No need for Atmo.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bluesky636 said:


> That's the paper I referred to in my post. The drawings showing the angular measurements from the MLP to the ceiling speakers or Atmos speakers are on pages 18 to 51 or so. No trigonometry required. Just point.
> 
> My HT is in our great room. Front wall is solid, left wall is floor to ceiling built in cabinets and shelves, back wall is floor to ceiling windows, there is no right hand wall except for a very short one as room opens up into kitchen and living room. Cathedral ceiling. Side and rear surrounds are bipoles mounted on walls near ceiling. Side surrounds are actually about two feet in front of the MLP. I hear sounds all around and above me. Great bass. Room in general sounds terrific. No need for Atmos.



Atmos has separate audio information going to the overhead speakers, so actually, no, it's not the same as what you currently have with your system. You have your side and rear surrounds too high up as it is.


----------



## bluesky636

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos has separate audio information going to the overhead speakers, so actually, no, it's not the same as what you currently have with your system. You have your side and rear surrounds too high up as it is.


No need to explain Atmos to me. I am well aware of how it and DTS:X function. 

As far as my side and rear surrounds location goes, so what? It's the only way the speakers can be installed in the room and since they are bipoles they do an excellent job of filling the room with sound.


----------



## MagnumX

The most amusing thing about over-analyzing precise angles for overheads is that the angle invariably changes with a person's height since it's measured from your ears, not a fixed standard. Thus, someone who is 6'5" is going to have a significantly different angle to the overheads than someone that's 5'2" tall. Imagine having heights set up at 30 degrees for the MLP and then someone considerably taller than you sits in the MLP and it's now only 27 degrees for them! Their Atmos experience in your home theater is now ruined and it's all _your_ fault!!!!  (I hope you have lift chairs that can be lowered to fix it for them. Perhaps they should recline while watching the movie? Now imagine sitting in that bean bag on the floor and the front heights are now at 45 degrees and the tops are 60 degrees! OMG! You've just ruined the movie again! That's now where Dolby said to put that image! Can't you tell??? 

Even more amusing, the sounds will still come from the exact same hard speaker locations regardless of the angle.... Aren't these sounds normally coming from a movie that's on a movie screen or TV screen? Shouldn't it be more important that things line up with where they are shown on the screen than unseen sources of sounds out in the room that have no visual clue to verify where they "should" be? Yet most movies use ONE speaker to do all dialog and it comes from wherever your center speaker might be, which is most often BELOW the screen level so exactly NO sounds come from where they "should" be relative to their visible sources on-screen..... And yet people are so SO worried about where that helicopter is in the room, whether it's 10 feet into the room or 12 feet (never mind the room sizes are also variable and thus the travel distances as well).

Folks, these are why they are called guidelines. The layout diagrams are also mostly not for multiple row home theaters, etc. either. They're for the general public to do basic one or possibly two row setups yet some people treat and talk about them like they're immutable laws of nature or something.... 

The reason why Dolby lowered the height setting to 20 degrees for 6 overhead speaker layouts is precisely because the 30/150 degree numbers chosen were chosen because that's approaching the limits of phantom imaging in terms of absolute angle (~120 degrees). But with a bridging top middle, you can go lower and still get proper imaging over the full length of the room. The front height speaker location should really be chosen based on its location relative to the top of the screen since that's probably where the overhead sounds should be coming from at the "height" designation/rendering location to align with the screen itself (or some offset relative to it). Given most homes don't use projection sized screens, that's probably not going to give enough separation with a 55" TV. But with larger screens, people should probably be looking at a hybrid setup somewhere in-between the theater and home guidelines. In fact, the screen size should probably be chosen with the speaker locations planned in mind or vice versa so there is a good match, particularly with panned dialog. 

The Japanese are going one step further with their own broadcast system and having bottom, middle and top locations for speakers all around the screen itself so that ANY sound or dialog bit can be panned _precisely_ to the object on screen's exact location (both horizontally and vertically). Now that, to me, seems far more important (given the interaction with video) than dozens of speakers out on the floor that get very little use compared to on-screen sounds.


----------



## DigiWega

bluesky636 said:


> No need to explain Atmos to me. I am well aware of how it and DTS:X function.
> 
> As far as my side and rear surrounds location goes, so what? It's the only way the speakers can be installed in the room and since they are bipoles they do an excellent job of filling the room with sound.


I understand what your saying but I will always try to keep to spec as much as possible. If you are limited in your speaker placement so be it, but filling the room with sound and sounding good or accurate are two different things. 

Most people are here to optimize Atmos in their space the best they can. So with that said your method of just using your arm and pointing at the ceiling is not great advice IMHO. Sometimes we dive too much into the details but that is the total opposite end of the spectrum. It's not hard to use a tape measure and calculator.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> The most amusing thing about over-analyzing precise angles for overheads is that the angle invariably changes with a person's height since it's measured from your ears, not a fixed standard. Thus, someone who is 6'5" is going to have a significantly different angle to the overheads than someone that's 5'2" tall. Imagine having heights set up at 30 degrees for the MLP and then someone considerably taller than you sits in the MLP and it's now only 27 degrees for them! Their Atmos experience in your home theater is now ruined and it's all _your_ fault!!!!  (I hope you have lift chairs that can be lowered to fix it for them. Perhaps they should recline while watching the movie? Now imagine sitting in that bean bag on the floor and the front heights are now at 45 degrees and the tops are 60 degrees! OMG! You've just ruined the movie again! That's now where Dolby said to put that image! Can't you tell???
> 
> Even more amusing, the sounds will still come from the exact same hard speaker locations regardless of the angle.... Aren't these sounds normally coming from a movie that's on a movie screen or TV screen? Shouldn't it be more important that things line up with where they are shown on the screen than unseen sources of sounds out in the room that have no visual clue to verify where they "should" be? Yet most movies use ONE speaker to do all dialog and it comes from wherever your center speaker might be, which is most often BELOW the screen level so exactly NO sounds come from where they "should" be relative to their visible sources on-screen..... And yet people are so SO worried about where that helicopter is in the room, whether it's 10 feet into the room or 12 feet (never mind the room sizes are also variable and thus the travel distances as well).
> 
> Folks, these are why they are called guidelines. The layout diagrams are also mostly not for multiple row home theaters, etc. either. They're for the general public to do basic one or possibly two row setups yet some people treat and talk about them like they're immutable laws of nature or something....
> 
> The reason why Dolby lowered the height setting to 20 degrees for 6 overhead speaker layouts is precisely because the 30/150 degree numbers chosen were chosen because that's approaching the limits of phantom imaging in terms of absolute angle (~120 degrees). But with a bridging top middle, you can go lower and still get proper imaging over the full length of the room. The front height speaker location should really be chosen based on its location relative to the top of the screen since that's probably where the overhead sounds should be coming from at the "height" designation/rendering location to align with the screen itself (or some offset relative to it). Given most homes don't use projection sized screens, that's probably not going to give enough separation with a 55" TV. But with larger screens, people should probably be looking at a hybrid setup somewhere in-between the theater and home guidelines. In fact, the screen size should probably be chosen with the speaker locations planned in mind or vice versa so there is a good match, particularly with panned dialog.
> 
> The Japanese are going one step further with their own broadcast system and having bottom, middle and top locations for speakers all around the screen itself so that ANY sound or dialog bit can be panned _precisely_ to the object on screen's exact location (both horizontally and vertically). Now that, to me, seems far more important (given the interaction with video) than dozens of speakers out on the floor that get very little use compared to on-screen sounds.


Bravo. Excellent write up.

Anything that is too complicated to set up and use will never become popular with the general public. Most of the younger generation (where are we now, X, Y, Z? I can't keep track. I am a boomer and proud of it) are watching tv and movies on their phones. The people who really get into all this stuff are usually older and have the money to do so. I just retired from 40+ years working mostly as a SATCOM systems engineer for a US government contractor. I fully understand pointing angles and spacial relationships. If I have to go through a bunch of detailed calculations on where to put speakers, I'm not going to bother. I have had plenty of people tell me my speaker setup is all wrong and can't possibly work. But you know what? I and the people who have heard it think it sounds great and that is all that matters.

I have nothing against Atmos or DTS:X. As an engineer I am very interested in the technology behind them. I just have no interest in implementing them in my home.


----------



## bluesky636

DigiWega said:


> I understand what your saying but I will always try to keep to spec as much as possible. If you are limited in your speaker placement so be it, but filling the room with sound and sounding good or accurate are two different things.
> 
> Most people are here to optimize Atmos in their space the best they can. So with that said your method of just using your arm and pointing at the ceiling is not great advice IMHO. Sometimes we dive too much into the details but that is the total opposite end of the spectrum. It's not hard to use a tape measure and calculator.


Yet amazingly I am able to do both. 

If you can't figure out a simple 45 degree angle without a calculator and tape measure, then by all means use them.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Atmos has separate audio information going to the overhead speakers, so actually, no, it's not the same as what you currently have with your system. You have your side and rear surrounds too high up as it is.


If he's *not* doing Atmos (and he's not), he's far more correct about his placement than you think. The old standards were typically 2 feet above seated height, standing height or 2/3 up the wall from the sources I've seen and what they assumed about the room. Dolby was far more flexible about surround height placement as there was no other layer to be concerned about. 

The ironic thing is now Dolby says ear height for 7.1, which is absolutely WRONG by their OWN GUIDELINES of the past. How can a helicopter be overhead with ear height surrounds in a non-Atmos system? It cannot. Dolby is doing themselves a major disservice trying to erase their own past now, it seems with advice that makes no sense whatsoever except in situations where the person plans to add Atmos at a not-so-distant future date. Even then, choosing speakers near or on the ceiling would be the preferred choice as it's far easier to add bed level speakers than have to fill in holes in the wall for locations that Dolby no longer recommends for anything. 

His setup is fine for 5.1 or 7.1 only and fairly easy to add Auro-3D and/or Atmos if he chooses as he'd only need bed speakers to do 7.1 + side and/or rear heights for Auro and front heights and side/rear beds for an Atmos layout.




DigiWega said:


> I understand what your saying but I will always try to keep to spec as much as possible. If you are limited in your speaker placement so be it, but filling the room with sound and sounding good or accurate are two different things.
> 
> Most people are here to optimize Atmos in their space the best they can. So with that said your method of just using your arm and pointing at the ceiling is not great advice IMHO. Sometimes we dive too much into the details but that is the total opposite end of the spectrum. It's not hard to use a tape measure and calculator.


As my prior post indicated, the "guidelines" are just that. _Guidelines_. Two people of different heights will ruin your precision measurements for the elevation angles that you consider gospel. That's just a fact. 45 for someone 5 feet tall is not 45 for someone 6 feet tall or anywhere in-between by the geometric differences thereof.

The truth is Atmos room layouts should _ideally_ be _room_ based for absolute consistency, not listener based, particularly with more than one row of seats when using more than just 7.1.4 speakers. Tops should be 25%/75% (with bed level FW/SS#1 in the same positions), Sides should be 50% as should top middle. Heights should 30+ relative to the top of the screen (higher if needed). Ideal listening locations are typically between those locations (~37.5%, ~62.5%, ~87.5%) based on room nodes. This is the basic setup (adjusted slightly due to reclining feet locations in the front for FW and some other room anomalies) I used in a 3-row Atmos/X/Auro setup. It is the ONLY way to get consistent wall to wall coverage. Too many Dolby diagrams make it appear the overheads don't start until halfway out in the room with seating starting in the back of the room. But if you move MLP forward, the overheads and distances for the other speakers have to move along those axis as well. 

Once you go to multiple rows, you'd want the speaker locations to be stable and the seats placed in the best possible locations for minimizing room problems and that means the numbers I just named, not some random value or one based on the height of a single listener. Using those percentages, the tops will be in the correct place for EVERYONE and the ear level based geometry won't matter as all sounds will be able to pan to _all_ locations in the ENTIRE ROOM (wall to wall, wall to ceiling and and ceiling to ceiling) with zero ability to locate the speaker with proper playback material. Now if the room doesn't use the entire dimensions (great room), that's another matter, but you'd still want delineate the "theater boundaries" and go from there. (i.e. 25% is always halfway between 0 and 50, etc. and ALL speaker locations in both Atmos and X are based on 50% speaker boundaries on paper. Yes, you have some latitude to move the placement with correction in distances and levels, but an _ideal_ layout has even speaker coverage across the entire room and ceiling).


----------



## bluesky636

If I could put my surround speakers at ear level, they would be blasting right into the seated listener's ears. Plus, my head would be blocking the sound from the left side surrounds and my wife's head would be blocking the right side surrounds.

Do Dolby Atmos theaters lower the surround speakers to ear level? The surround speakers in my town's movie theater (3 theater rooms in a historic building in Lexington VA) are well above ear level and it is one of the best, if not the best, theaters I have ever been in and it is not Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> If I could put my surround speakers at ear level, they would be blasting right into the seated listener's ears. Plus, my head would be blocking the sound from the left side surrounds and my wife's head would be blocking the right side surrounds.
> 
> Do Dolby Atmos theaters lower the surround speakers to ear level? The surround speakers in my town's movie theater (3 theater rooms in a historic building in Lexington VA) are well above ear level and it is one of the best, if not the best, theaters I have ever been in and it is not Atmos.


They not only put them above ear level, they put them well _above_ ear level. In fact, to my eyes, it seems like they're at the same level the've always been in most cinemas or at least closer to it than at home. They added speakers to the ceiling and left the surrounds high on the side walls. There's a reason Dolby doesn't support "Side Heights" and that's because at the theater, the regular side surrounds _are_ side heights! 

Dolby Atmos Cinema Picture (note side surround height on the side walls relative to the seating. They're not even CLOSE!)










The thing is that theaters have very high ceilings and if they lowered the side surrounds too low, they wouldn't pan well to the ceiling speakers (that pesky 120 degree maximum angle thing without speakers in-between to bridge them). Thus, with speakers on the ceilings in a theater with a 100 foot ceiling, the side surrounds have to be high on the wall to pan between smoothly. At home, there wouldn't be much distance between a 8-10 foot ceiling and surround speakers at say 6 feet. So they moved them to "ear level" to give some separation between them. But it definitely doesn't match Cinema Atmos in terms of the relative height to the ears. There's no such thing as "ear level" sounds at an Atmos theater.

The funny thing is that Auro-Max theaters DO have speakers just a few feet above ear level and another set at a side height level and then ceiling speakers on top of that! (Regular Auro on the ceiling is a mono channel, but Auro-max is not) Auro-max should be technically capable of far more immersive sound than Dolby Atmos for that reason, but Auro doesn't have Dolby's riches to ensure their survival and Auro-max is all but dead now AFAIK.

Regular Auro-3D theater (note side height levels):










Auro-Max Theater (note side, side height and dual-overhead ceiling speakers)











Now if you had a 20 foot ceiling at home, it might very well be advisable to put side surrounds well above ear height at around the 8 to 10 foot level. Of course, with more than one row, you almost have to put the speakers a foot or two above ear level to avoid playing into people's heads or chairs or whatever. 

Even so, you can do Atmos with speakers closer together. You just lose increasing amounts of separation, but _some_ isn't ALL and that's the part all the naysayers on here _always_ seem to forget.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> They not only put them above ear level, they put them well _above_ ear level. In fact, to my eyes, it seems like they're at the same level the've always been in most cinemas or at least closer to it than at home. They added speakers to the ceiling and left the surrounds high on the side walls. There's a reason Dolby doesn't support "Side Heights" and that's because at the theater, the regular side surrounds _are_ side heights!
> 
> Dolby Atmos Cinema Picture (note side surround height on the side walls relative to the seating. They're not even CLOSE!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that theaters have very high ceilings and if they lowered the side surrounds too low, they wouldn't pan well to the ceiling speakers (that pesky 120 degree maximum angle thing without speakers in-between to bridge them). Thus, with speakers on the ceilings in a theater with a 100 foot ceiling, the side surrounds have to be high on the wall to pan between smoothly. At home, there wouldn't be much distance between a 8-10 foot ceiling and surround speakers at say 6 feet. So they moved them to "ear level" to give some separation between them. But it definitely doesn't match Cinema Atmos in terms of the relative height to the ears. There's no such thing as "ear level" sounds at an Atmos theater.
> 
> The funny thing is that Auro-Max theaters DO have speakers just a few feet above ear level and another set at a side height level and then ceiling speakers on top of that! (Regular Auro on the ceiling is a mono channel, but Auro-max is not) Auro-max should be technically capable of far more immersive sound than Dolby Atmos for that reason, but Auro doesn't have Dolby's riches to ensure their survival and Auro-max is all but dead now AFAIK.
> 
> Regular Auro-3D theater (note side height levels):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auro-Max Theater (note side, side height and dual-overhead ceiling speakers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you had a 20 foot ceiling at home, it might very well be advisable to put side surrounds well above ear height at around the 8 to 10 foot level. Of course, with more than one row, you almost have to put the speakers a foot or two above ear level to avoid playing into people's heads or chairs or whatever.
> 
> Even so, you can do Atmos with speakers closer together. You just lose increasing amounts of separation, but _some_ isn't ALL and that's the part all the naysayers on here _always_ seem to forget.



Thank you MagnumX. That was a very enjoyable and interesting read.


Here are some photos of my room showing why I cannot mount my surround speakers at ear level and could probably not install ceiling speakers without considerable work and expense that being retired I can't really afford.


Front wall.










Left side wall.










Back wall with couch. MLP (right most seat) is about 2 feet from the back windows. Also a view of the ceiling. Seating has been shifted about 4" - 6" to the MLP's right to better align with the L/R/C speakers.











Right side wall.










Being bipoles, I mounted the surround speakers to take advantage of reflective surfaces to bounce the sound off of and help fill the room. Obviously there is no place to mount the left side surround on the built in cabinets that would be acceptable sonically or aesthetically. The side surrounds are actually mounted a couple of feet in front of the MLP as moving them back in line with the MLP would put them almost in the corners. The back surrounds could be mounted lower but again they would have to be almost in the corners on both sides and the left back would be firing into the book case. Neither location would sound very good. The ceiling is obviously a cathedral type and quite high. Not sure how I could easily mount speakers there. 

So my speaker setup is what it is and I am quite happy with the sound of it (after Audyssey calibration) and have no plans to change it.


----------



## AYanguas

bluesky636 said:


> ............
> .............
> So my speaker setup is what it is and I am quite happy with the sound of it (after Audyssey calibration) and have no plans to change it.


After seeing your room pictures, if anything I would change, according to my preferences, would be the Display. You have a big front wall without any relevant forniture so it would accommodate a more large Display Panel, even a projector screen. That would improve a lot (acc. to my preferences) the Home Cinema Experience, providing you have a reasonable good sound already.

How to install the projector on your ceiling and the daily light conditions in the room would be another issue. Perhaps a Short Throw Projector on the floor could be an alternative.

Sorry if this is a non Atmos post from me, but I have enjoyed reading bluesky636 posts about the challenging that some rooms present to implement Atmos at Home.


----------



## bluesky636

AYanguas said:


> After seeing your room pictures, if anything I would change, according to my preferences, would be the Display. You have a big front wall without any relevant forniture so it would accommodate a more large Display Panel, even a projector screen. That would improve a lot (acc. to my preferences) the Home Cinema Experience, providing you have a reasonable good sound already.
> 
> How to install the projector on your ceiling and the daily light conditions in the room would be another issue. Perhaps a Short Throw Projector on the floor could be an alternative.
> 
> Sorry if this is a non Atmos post from me, but I have enjoyed reading bluesky636 posts about the challenging that some rooms present to implement Atmos at Home.


Thanks.

A projector is really out of the question.

I could put a 75" flat screen up but we are retired and the house we purchased required a lot more work and money than anticipated so a bigger screen is a luxury we really can't afford.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> I'd much rather have _you_ stay. You are polite and want to talk about home theater rather than point out errors and get angry when everyone doesn't conform to your particular views.


Thanks MagnumX. I appreciate the support and kind words.


----------



## keeper

bluesky636 said:


> Thank you MagnumX. That was a very enjoyable and interesting read.
> 
> 
> Here are some photos of my room showing why I cannot mount my surround speakers at ear level and could probably not install ceiling speakers without considerable work and expense that being retired I can't really afford.
> 
> 
> Front wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left side wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back wall with couch. MLP (right most seat) is about 2 feet from the back windows. Also a view of the ceiling. Seating has been shifted about 4" - 6" to the MLP's right to better align with the L/R/C speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right side wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being bipoles, I mounted the surround speakers to take advantage of reflective surfaces to bounce the sound off of and help fill the room. Obviously there is no place to mount the left side surround on the built in cabinets that would be acceptable sonically or aesthetically. The side surrounds are actually mounted a couple of feet in front of the MLP as moving them back in line with the MLP would put them almost in the corners. The back surrounds could be mounted lower but again they would have to be almost in the corners on both sides and the left back would be firing into the book case. Neither location would sound very good. The ceiling is obviously a cathedral type and quite high. Not sure how I could easily mount speakers there.
> 
> So my speaker setup is what it is and I am quite happy with the sound of it (after Audyssey calibration) and have no plans to change it.


I use BPVX as surrounds and they work well in my big room. I know that it isn't spec but oh well. My belief is to go with the best speaker possible. As back surrounds and heights they do a nice job.


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> Do Dolby Atmos theaters lower the surround speakers to ear level?


No, but home theatre enthusiasts should not limit themselves to what commercial theatres do. You can do better at home. Also, many home Atmos mixes (especially re-mixes of catalogue titles) are done in smaller mix rooms that are closer in size to residential rooms with surrounds closer to ear height. 

The main point of Atmos is to have separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. Most effective way of accomplishing that separation is with two layers of speakers, base layer & height layer, spread well apart vertically. Not telling you to do that, since you are happy with your system, just pointing out the difference between surrounds mounted near the ceiling vs the vertical separation that Atmos achieves.


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> No, but home theatre enthusiasts should not limit themselves to what commercial theatres do. You can do better at home. Also, many home Atmos mixes (especially re-mixes of catalogue titles) are done in smaller mix rooms that are closer in size to residential rooms with surrounds closer to ear height.
> 
> The main point of Atmos is to have separation between sounds around you vs sounds above you. Most effective way of accomplishing that separation is with two layers of speakers, base layer & height layer, spread well apart vertically. Not telling you to do that, since you are happy with your system, just pointing out the difference between surrounds mounted near the ceiling vs the vertical separation that Atmos achieves.


Thank you.

As you can see in my photos, my room configuration is not conducive to lowering the surrounds from where I currently have them mounted.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bluesky636 said:


> That's the paper I referred to in my post. The drawings showing the angular measurements from the MLP to the ceiling speakers or Atmos speakers are on pages 18 to 51 or so. No trigonometry required. Just point.
> 
> 
> 
> My HT is in our great room. Front wall is solid, left wall is floor to ceiling built in cabinets and shelves, back wall is floor to ceiling windows, there is no right hand wall except for a very short one as room opens up into kitchen and living room. Cathedral ceiling. Side and rear surrounds are bipoles mounted on walls near ceiling. Side surrounds are actually about two feet in front of the MLP. I hear sounds all around and above me. Great bass. Room in general sounds terrific. No need for Atmo.




I can definitely see your point after looking at the pics. 
My point was just that you could use some pendant speakers, or some angled baffle IC speakers possibly. If you were so inclined to do Atmos. I can see it’s working very well for you. Enjoy!


----------



## bluesky636

Polyrythm1k said:


> I can definitely see your point after looking at the pics.
> My point was just that you could use some pendant speakers, or some angled baffle IC speakers possibly. If you were so inclined to do Atmos. I can see it’s working very well for you. Enjoy!


Unfortunately there is no real space between the cathedral ceiling and roof peak at that part of the house so no real way to mount speakers or run wires except maybe externally. That would not meet the WAF.


----------



## jal11

*atmos with only ceiling speaker system?*

Hi,
I have what is prob a dumb question? My 5.1 system is 5 ceiling speakers (episode 700 series; I know not ideal but wife factor). x3600h denon avr. Is atmos relevant to my situation. If so what settings would I use? (speakers oriented 3 above tv and 2 behind listening area).


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> No, but home theatre enthusiasts should not limit themselves to what commercial theatres do.


That gives the impression they don't do it for a good _reason_ (namely smooth phantom imaging between sides and ceiling speakers due to the extremely high ceilings compared to at home). Atmos at a large ceiling cinema essentially cannot do any better due to the limits of phantom imaging over large distances. The speakers are high on the walls to maintain the integrity of the phantom imaging sound field which starts to fall apart around the 120 degree of separation point in the vertical field (from just above ear level to where Atmos puts its overheads is probably closer to 140 degrees in a large theater. Ideally, the separation is better at no more than closer to 100 degrees without bridging speakers in-between). 

Auro-Max does do better (it has surrounds only a few feet above seating level plus side heights in a similar position to where Atmos puts its regular side surrounds" and then fully addressable dual overhead ceiling speakers to boot. It's essentially a 3-tiered surround in a large room instead of Dolby's rather mere 2-tiered system. For cinema, that is _way_ more immersive as you have a true domed bubble in a large room. At home, the shorter ceilings make that possible with Atmos, but large cinemas with Atmos are quite limited despite the large possible number of overall speakers. 

There's a certain irony that the best system for cinemas (Auro-Max) has all but disappeared from the market while far inferior Atmos dominates due to nothing but the company's clout and money. Atmos is vastly better at home, but still made its product harder to install in the best manner possible due to promoting ceiling speakers (which are hard to install in most rooms for the average consumer) or those crappy "bounce" speakers which often don't work in many rooms. They could have teamed up with Auro to ensure compatible formats all around and offered alternatives in the process for side height rendering (with the renderer accounting for its position on the walls) which would allow for more installs without issues in more home theaters world-wide. What's _best_ for a commercial theater is not necessarily best for a home theater and vice versa.

Ultimately, an object based DTS:X Pro would be the best possible home format (as it supports both Atmos and Auro layouts, giving the consumer the most options) while Auro-Max was definitely the best possible cinema format offering a full bubble dome from just above ear level all the way around (Atmos is more like "lifted dome" where the surround field starts 20+ feet above your head, basically wiping out any "ground level" effects. It's disappointing, to say the least.

IMO, cinemas should be doing _better_ than the home environment if they want to survive well into the future (that is one of the primary reasons the Vide Arcades disappeared as the home market _surpassed_ the arcades in quality of 3D rendering, etc.). Atmos should add not only side heights (so they can move their surrounds lower in the cinema) but floor level speakers as well for things coming from BELOW the screen. That would give them a clear audio edge over the home environment. They should also move to 4K 3D or even 8K 3D to further differentiate themselves (which would then in turn give 3D video a second chance at home theater beyond the limited offerings (projector + only 4 studios) we have today.


----------



## Josh Z

jal11 said:


> I have what is prob a dumb question? My 5.1 system is 5 ceiling speakers (episode 700 series; I know not ideal but wife factor). x3600h denon avr. Is atmos relevant to my situation. If so what settings would I use? (speakers oriented 3 above tv and 2 behind listening area).


The goal of Atmos is to have separation between sounds on the ground layer and sounds in the height layer, forming a bubble around your listening position. If all of your speakers are in the ceiling, you will have no separation. There's no point to putting "Atmos" speakers right next to your main speakers, as you won't be able to tell the difference between them.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

jal11 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have what is prob a dumb question? My 5.1 system is 5 ceiling speakers (episode 700 series; I know not ideal but wife factor). x3600h denon avr. Is atmos relevant to my situation. If so what settings would I use? (speakers oriented 3 above tv and 2 behind listening area).




No, I’m afraid Atmos is not relevant for you. Sorry.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bluesky636 said:


> Bravo. Excellent write up.
> 
> Anything that is too complicated to set up and use will never become popular with the general public. Most of the younger generation (where are we now, X, Y, Z? I can't keep track. I am a boomer and proud of it) are watching tv and movies on their phones.


This Generation Xer isn't watching TV and movies on his telephone, and never will!

But to answer your question, I made a note of the terms 


Generation X: born 1965-1980 : Turned 18 in 1983-1998.
Millennials aka Generation Y: born 1981-1995 : Turned 18 in 1999-2013.
Generation Z: born 1996 from onwards : Turned 18 from 2014 onwards.

HTH!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mrtickleuk said:


> This Generation Xer isn't watching TV and movies on his telephone, and never will!




Damn right!


----------



## mrtickleuk

Polyrythm1k said:


> Damn right!


I saw this posted the other day. It was posted as a lament, just to be clear!










What else is there to say.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mrtickleuk said:


> I saw this posted the other day. It was posted as a lament, just to be clear!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else is there to say.




I’m guess that’s just a wallpaper. But it illustrates very well the state of content consumption today. Sad indeed...
I’d at least get a wide screen one.


----------



## eaayoung

Question about the height and placement of surround speakers... 

I have four Definitive Technology DI 8R in-ceilings speakers that I'll be installing for a Atmos system. I'm considering installing two Definitive Technology in-wall speakers (either the DT 8" or 6.5"). I'm currently using two ProMonitor 1000 on stands as my surround speakers which are at ear level. I'm thinking the in-wall speakers would look much better than the PM 1000 attached to the walls. Plus, I could get rid of the speakers and their stands.

My questions is, is it a problem to install two of Def Tech's in-wall speakers on the side walls for the surrounds but higher than ear level? They would be installed 8 or 9 ft high and around 2 ft below the ceiling. Also, the speaker placement for those speakers would not the same distance from the front since the side walls are slightly different. The right surround speaker would the same position as the MLP but the left would 4 ft forward of the MLP. These in-wall speakers also don't have tweeters that can be directed toward the MLP. 

Thoughts? I don't expect perfect sound. I would like a quality 5.1.4 surround experience.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

eaayoung said:


> Question about installation the height of surround speakers...
> 
> 
> 
> I have four Definitive Technology DI 8R in-ceilings speakers that I'll be installing for a Atmos system. I'm considering installing two Definitive Technology in-wall speakers (either the DT 8" or 6.5"). I'm currently using two ProMonitor 1000 on stands as my surround speakers which are at ear level. I'm thinking the in-wall speakers would look much better than the PM 1000 attached to the walls. Plus, I could get rid of the speakers and their stands.
> 
> 
> 
> My questions is, is it a problem to install two of Def Tech's in-wall speakers on the side walls for the surrounds but higher than ear level? They would be installed 8 or 9 ft high and around 2 ft below the ceiling. Also, the speaker placement for those speakers would not the same distance from the front since the side walls are slightly different. The right surround speaker would the same position as the MLP but the left would 4 ft forward of the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts? I don't expect perfect sound. But I want them to provide a quality 5.1.4 surround experience.




IMO, that’s gonna be too high, and would stick with the PM’s. My AudiOCD would also give me fits for the lack of symmetry, and 4’ in front of the MLP would be a deal breaker. But for the surrounds, yeah I think that’s too high and you’d just have a blanket of sound above vs more of sphere, or hemisphere rather.


----------



## Jonas2

eaayoung said:


> Question about installation the height of surround speakers...
> 
> I have four Definitive Technology DI 8R in-ceilings speakers that I'll be installing for a Atmos system. I'm considering installing two Definitive Technology in-wall speakers (either the DT 8" or 6.5"). I'm currently using two ProMonitor 1000 on stands as my surround speakers which are at ear level. I'm thinking the in-wall speakers would look much better than the PM 1000 attached to the walls. Plus, I could get rid of the speakers and their stands.
> 
> My questions is, is it a problem to install two of Def Tech's in-wall speakers on the side walls for the surrounds but higher than ear level? They would be installed 8 or 9 ft high and around 2 ft below the ceiling. Also, the speaker placement for those speakers would not the same distance from the front since the side walls are slightly different. The right surround speaker would the same position as the MLP but the left would 4 ft forward of the MLP.
> 
> Thoughts? I don't expect perfect sound. But I want them to provide a quality 5.1.4 surround experience.



As intrusive as the speakers on stands might be, if they are better placed, I'd live with this. The other scenario just places the speakers where they don't want to be. If you can get creative, maybe a pair of ladders or something, prop your existing speakers as close as you can to where the in-walls would be if you were to try that, and have a listen for yourself. There is something to be said for aesthetics, and some compromises are understandable, and acceptable. Only you can call that one for yourself, but I'd take the SQ from better placement over the aesthetic in this case, it's a bit too extreme in my opinion!


----------



## eaayoung

Polyrythm1k said:


> IMO, that’s gonna be too high, and would stick with the PM’s. My AudiOCD would also give me fits for the lack of symmetry, and 4’ in front of the MLP would be a deal breaker. But for the surrounds, yeah I think that’s too high and you’d just have a blanket of sound above vs more of sphere, or hemisphere rather.


I could go lower. Maybe as low as 1 ft higher than the MLP. But would still have the problem with the left surround being 3-4 ft forward of the right surround speaker. I'm not OCD with this. At least I hope I'm not. But who knows, after I completed the install it could drive me nuts! 

Would really like to get rid of the PM 1000 and their stands. I've already got two Sonos speakers on stands sitting next to them. The PM are used most for movies only.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

eaayoung said:


> I could go lower. Maybe as low as 1 ft higher than the MLP. But would still have the problem with the left surround being 3-4 ft forward of the right surround speaker. I'm not OCD with this. At least I hope I'm not. But who knows, after I completed the install it could drive me nuts!
> 
> 
> 
> Would really like to get rid of the PM 1000 and their stands. I've already got two Sonos speakers on stands sitting next to them. The PM are used most for movies only.




One foot higher would definitely be fine, and help with multiple listeners, but for ME the symmetry would be a mind anchor. Everyone is different though so ya never know. But once you see something...


----------



## galonzo

Hey, you do you @eaayoung , but I put my foot down and fought tooth and nail for my surrounds to be at ear level on stands, even though they _could_ "look" better in the walls in my situation


----------



## denyam

THANK YOU FOR THAT, I hope everyone takes notice of what you just said! Some are really over thinking the whole Atmos thing. At times I hear an immersive sound overhead, and at times it's a distinct sound in a certain direction


----------



## denyam

My post is in response to magnum x #57892 , let's not be so dogmatic about how we MUST setup


----------



## MagnumX

denyam said:


> THANK YOU FOR THAT, I hope everyone takes notice of what you just said! Some are really over thinking the whole Atmos thing. At times I hear an immersive sound overhead, and at times it's a distinct sound in a certain direction



Some people need step-by-step instructions, especially if they don't understand the technology involved and that's fine, but my issue is when they then spread those exact steps/numbers as "gospel" so-to-speak onto everyone else. Dolby wrote "guidelines" for basic setups. They can not and do not cover every room type or more advanced setups for more rows, etc. At that point, you're expected to have a basic working knowledge of how the system functions or let someone (installer) who does handle it. Sometimes, compromises must be made, but IMO less than perfect Atmos is still probably better than none at all. What matters is if you're happy with it. I wouldn't let someone else decide _that_ for me.


----------



## batpig

eaayoung said:


> I could go lower. Maybe as low as 1 ft higher than the MLP. But would still have the problem with the left surround being 3-4 ft forward of the right surround speaker. I'm not OCD with this. At least I hope I'm not. But who knows, after I completed the install it could drive me nuts!
> 
> Would really like to get rid of the PM 1000 and their stands. I've already got two Sonos speakers on stands sitting next to them. The PM are used most for movies only.


The one surround being 3-4ft forward of the other is a big problem IMO. Much more problematic than the surrounds being a bit too high (especially since you have high ceilings so easier to maintain separation between overheads and surrounds).

With 7.1.4 it would be somewhat more tolerable IMO, but with only 2 surrounds they should really be to the sides and slightly behind so you get side and rear imaging. 

And the asymmetry will be huge. You can certainly "get away" with stuff in the surrounds that wouldn't be as problematic with the LCR speakers, but having surround imaging be coming from the side to your right and from in front of you to the left would be really weird, and you'd have no rear imaging.

Maybe show some photos and/or a diagram of the room? Maybe there's an option you're not considering.


----------



## denyam

Magnumx, and bluesky636, I truly appreciate your post! Although we have never met in person, your manner of sharing of experience has always been supportive of others opinions, while still engaging in straightforwardly endeavoring to aid others in our journey into immersive audio. I have an AVR X4100 Denon ( one of the 3 first Atmos receiver). I have experimented with DTS NEO:X, and Audyssey DSX with various speaker configurations. Now I'm back to 5.1.4 front and rear heights, I setup the height speakers according to the Dolby " guidelines " of top front, and top rear, but in my x4100 settings they are listed as front, and rear heights ( which gives me a uniform standard for the 3 formats). The height speakers are equal distance from the MLP, by the way I'm the only person who's into movies in the family. I have an extra bedroom about 12'x14'x8' ish . I've run audyssey calibration for 8 places around my chair. I love results, and I think DSU gives me a more immersive perspective when listening (watching) movies!! I especially enjoy rewatching my legacy bds. From what I've read on the various websites I've searched, regardless of the configuration of my height speakers I'm going to get the same audio effects, whether it's configured as front and rear height, or top front,and top rear. In your experience is this correct ? I think it's time to stop changing my setup, and get back to enjoying the experience


----------



## denyam

P.S. what do you think of placing the front height actually in the front of the room on the front wall, and ceiling junction? Will this provide a more immersive experience?


----------



## denyam

In addition I have placed the rear heights on the back wall, ceiling junction. I particularly appreciate your advice that the sound will be heard from the top plane, and move through the room


----------



## MagnumX

denyam said:


> P.S. what do you think of placing the front height actually in the front of the room on the front wall, and ceiling junction? Will this provide a more immersive experience?


That location should be fine. It will "move across the room" at the height of the speaker. A few inches either way won't be noticeable.


----------



## denyam

Thanks so much, I had discounted that configuration, because of the negative comments that I read about the audio will sound like it came from the front base speakers. After the post you mentioned of the sound just being in the room, I remembered the scenes of Gravity. Man the sound was just there in the room, and not attached to the speakers! Keep providing us with the top notch experience you have gained over the years. Have a great night and rest assured I really appreciate your guidance


----------



## alangsk

I need some advice. I am designing a dedicated theater room and I am trying to figure out speaker placement for two rows of seats. Here are two cross sections from the model I am designing.

Speakers:
Atmos - Beale Street Audio ICA6-B
Surrounds - DIYSG HT-8

Option A has 4 Atmos speakers placed to try and get coverage for all 8 seats, but may mean less immersive for each seat. It also has just one set of side surrounds placed between the two sets of seats, behind the first row, but in front of the second row.

Option B has 6 Atmos speakers with the center speakers being matrixed from the front and rear speakers. It also has 2 sets of side surrounds with each placed just slightly in front of listener.

I know Option B adds quite a bit of cost, but would it create a lot more immersive experience for all seats? Or would Option A be able to work (perhaps with some tweaking of speaker location)? Or would some other combination of options be better?


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Hi all, I'm slowly getting into Atmos and have a pair of upfiring Klipsch R-41SA that I've put on top of my front towers. I know it's not the best, but it's a start. Where should I set the crossover in the AVR? Audyssey has them at 90Hz but I've read that higher is better for upfiring (maybe 150 or 200Hz)? Also, the distances seem a bit out of whack...is that due to the reflections?


Thanks for any help you can provide!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Hi all, I'm slowly getting into Atmos and have a pair of upfiring Klipsch R-41SA that I've put on top of my front towers. I know it's not the best, but it's a start. Where should I set the crossover in the AVR? Audyssey has them at 90Hz but I've read that higher is better for upfiring (maybe 150 or 200Hz)? Also, the distances seem a bit out of whack...is that due to the reflections?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can provide!


Those are actually not upfiring speaker models, though marketed as if they could be. Think of them more like SVS Prime Elevation bookshelves: angled wall mount surrounds. 

Put them up at the wall/ceiling juncture on the side walls. Set them as Top Middle if you only have two.


----------



## usc1995

Dan Hitchman said:


> Those are actually not upfiring speaker models, though marketed as if they could be. Think of them more like SVS Prime Elevation bookshelves: angled wall mount surrounds.
> 
> Put them up at the wall/ceiling juncture on the side walls. Set them as Top Middle if you only have two.




I’m not sure about that - from Klipsch.com “ By leveraging Klipsch proprietary horn-loaded controlled directivity technology, the R-41SA bounces sound off the ceiling to create an astonishing, immersive listening experience. The R-41SA can also be utilized as an on-wall elevation or surround speaker via its easy-to-use keyhole mounting system - delivering the perfect angle for enhanced sound effects.” https://www.klipsch.com/products/r-...taV5tWphtYPr4ivKKUwRPMkRFnZ9VjOkaAni4EALw_wcB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

alangsk said:


> I need some advice. I am designing a "budget" build, so resources are not unlimited and I am trying to figure out speaker placement for two rows of seats. Here are two cross sections from the model I am designing.
> 
> Speakers:
> Atmos - Beale Street Audio ICA6-B or RSL C34E
> Surrounds - DIYSG HT-8
> 
> Option A has 4 Atmos speakers placed to try and get coverage for all 8 seats, but may mean less immersive for each seat. It also has just one set of side surrounds placed between the two sets of seats, behind the first row, but in front of the second row.
> 
> Option B has 6 Atmos speakers with the center speakers being matrixed from the front and rear speakers. It also has 2 sets of side surrounds with each placed just slightly in front of listener.
> 
> I know Option B adds quite a bit of cost, but would it create a lot more immersive experience for all seats? Or would Option A be able to work (perhaps with some tweaking of speaker location)? Or would some other combination of options be better?



option A is the best considering a budget approach. Use Bipole surrounds and you will get one set of drivers aimed at front row and one set at rear row.
You can always add an extra pair of height speakers later.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

usc1995 said:


> I’m not sure about that - from Klipsch.com “ By leveraging Klipsch proprietary horn-loaded controlled directivity technology, the R-41SA bounces sound off the ceiling to create an astonishing, immersive listening experience. The R-41SA can also be utilized as an on-wall elevation or surround speaker via its easy-to-use keyhole mounting system - delivering the perfect angle for enhanced sound effects.” https://www.klipsch.com/products/r-...taV5tWphtYPr4ivKKUwRPMkRFnZ9VjOkaAni4EALw_wcB
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



They're not designed like any Dolby approved upfiring module I've ever seen. The drivers in those are usually inset and focused for upward frequency beaming. This looks like a standard bookshelf with a built-in cabinet angle. SVS Prime Elevations are also marketed as being potential upfiring speakers too, but if you dig deeper, they're mountable bookshelf speakers primarily. 



I stand by my recommendation to use them as height speakers rather than upfiring types. I just don't see that they have brackets for ceiling usage too like Prime Elevations.


----------



## alangsk

niterida said:


> option A is the best considering a budget approach. Use Bipole surrounds and you will get one set of drivers aimed at front row and one set at rear row.
> You can always add an extra pair of height speakers later.


Thank you for the response. I already have the HT-8s that I am using for side surrounds, but I am trying to figure out if I should buy a second pair. I will spend the extra for the second pair of sides as well as the middle Atmos, if it would make a big difference in sound across the eight seats. I am building a dedicated room, so I want to make sure I do it right, but if the extra speakers won't add much, then I can save that money.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Dan Hitchman said:


> They're not designed like any Dolby approved upfiring module I've ever seen. The drivers in those are usually inset and focused for upward frequency beaming. This looks like a standard bookshelf with a built-in cabinet angle. SVS Prime Elevations are also marketed as being potential upfiring speakers too, but if you dig deeper, they're mountable bookshelf speakers primarily.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand by my recommendation to use them as height speakers rather than upfiring types. I just don't see that they have brackets for ceiling usage too like Prime Elevations.




Looking at the Klipsch site isn’t much help either. It a)describes them as bouncy speakers and even has pics on top of some towers but all the verbiage below the opening description is all about wall mounted height speakers. B) I seem to recall they had a speaker just like this, but it had a switch to be used either on wall, or as bouncy. When switching to bouncy it uses the circuit in the XO with the “notch” for upfiring and bypasses it for wall mount. From what I read on their site I think you’re right. If I’m talking out of turn, my apologies.


----------



## MagnumX

The Klipsch speakers in question look somewhat similar to PSB's Xa up-firing modules, except they have some foam baffle to help block direct sound and the woofer and tweeter are in reverse positions, but otherwise sit at a similar angle on their back (meant to sit on top of a tower speaker or the like). But yes, they look quite similar to the SVS overhead design.

PSB Xa:










Klipsch R-42SA:










SVS have tweeter on bottom like the PSB Xa, but I don't think they're meant for any kind of bounce usage:


----------



## niterida

alangsk said:


> Thank you for the response. I already have the HT-8s that I am using for side surrounds, but I am trying to figure out if I should buy a second pair. I will spend the extra for the second pair of sides as well as the middle Atmos, if it would make a big difference in sound across the eight seats. I am building a dedicated room, so I want to make sure I do it right, but if the extra speakers won't add much, then I can save that money.



For 2 rows of dedicated seating a 3rd overflow row, the more speakers the better. 

A lot depends on how often the 2nd row will be filled and how critical the listeners are vs how much extra the 4 speakers will cost vs your budget.
You can always add them later if funds are tight now.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, with a *3.2.2* setup, the .2 being Top Middle, will the Surround info be sent to the Fronts or to TM ?


----------



## dfa973

CBdicX said:


> Hi, with a *3.2.1* setup, the 1 being Top Middle, will the Surround info be sent to the Fronts or to TM ?


There's no such thing as 3.2.1. Maybe 3.2.2 or 3.1.2, but speakers are paired, not single - mono, with some exceptions (VoG, CH).
Your answer is: to the Fronts. 

Sent from my Nokia 8 Sirocco using Tapatalk


----------



## rec head

alangsk said:


> I need some advice. I am designing a "budget" build, so resources are not unlimited and I am trying to figure out speaker placement for two rows of seats. Here are two cross sections from the model I am designing.


I don't have any great insight besides to run wires everywhere you think you might want speakers.


----------



## StevenC56

StevenC56 said:


> Painted the 4 white ceiling lights in each corner black too since I had to paint the speakers. (Matte black). Now I have to spend about $300 on 4 black Lutron Caseta switches and nothing will be white in the room anymore.





Rob Greer said:


> Since you like black too and I like the idea of spending your money, you can also switch out your fan with this one:
> 
> https://store.bigassfans.com/en_us/haiku-ceiling-fan-52-aluminum-black-low-profile-mount-black-1
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for putting the idea in my head Rob! It was time for that Brass Casablanca to go anyway. So, here's what we ended up with while staying within a reasonable budget. The globe was white, so 10 coats of Plasti Dip "smoke" and Voila! Now the black out is complete.


----------



## LNEWoLF

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Hi all, I'm slowly getting into Atmos and have a pair of upfiring Klipsch R-41SA that I've put on top of my front towers. I know it's not the best, but it's a start. Where should I set the crossover in the AVR? Audyssey has them at 90Hz but I've read that higher is better for upfiring (maybe 150 or 200Hz)? Also, the distances seem a bit out of whack...is that due to the reflections?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help you can provide!


Both Dolby and Klipsch recommends a minimum crossover of 150hz for DAES (Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers.) To protect the DAES from damage from frequency’s that they may not be able to produce. Dolby also states that a crossover of 150hz helps to reinforce the psychoacoustic effect of the DAES.

Before you performed your AVR auto calibration. Did you select your speaker system. In particular that you are using DAES. Once DAES are selected most AVR will ask you to enter the distance between the ceiling and the DAES.

Why would you believe that “I know it’s not the best, but it’s a start.”


----------



## LNEWoLF

https://f072605def1c9a5ef179-a0bc3f.../product-specsheets/R-41SA_Spec-Sheet_v01.pdf

TAKE YOUR MOVIES AND MUSIC TO NEW HEIGHTS
Immersive sound comes alive from all directions (including overhead!) with these Dolby Atmos® enabled speakers. Add them to any monitor or tower speaker or use as surround speakers for a hemisphere of rich, detailed sound.

The Klipsch DAES R41SA. Note the S (Surround) and the A (Atmos) contained within the Klipsch model number.


----------



## Augerhandle

LNEWoLF said:


> ...Why would you believe that “I know it’s not the best, but it’s a start.”


I'd bet it's because of posts in this thread denigrating DEAS, calling them "fake Atmos" and "bouncy house".


----------



## batpig

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Hi all, I'm slowly getting into Atmos and have a pair of upfiring Klipsch R-41SA that I've put on top of my front towers. I know it's not the best, but it's a start. Where should I set the crossover in the AVR? Audyssey has them at 90Hz but I've read that higher is better for upfiring (maybe 150 or 200Hz)? Also, the distances seem a bit out of whack...is that due to the reflections?





LNEWoLF said:


> Both Dolby and Klipsch recommends a minimum crossover of 150hz for DAES (Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers.) To protect the DAES from damage from frequency’s that they may not be able to produce. Dolby also states that a crossover of 150hz helps to reinforce the psychoacoustic effect of the DAES.
> 
> Before you performed your AVR auto calibration. Did you select your speaker system. In particular that you are using DAES. Once DAES are selected most AVR will ask you to enter the distance between the ceiling and the DAES.
> 
> Why would you believe that “I know it’s not the best, but it’s a start.”


The biggest reason for a higher crossover is directivity -- lower frequencies become more omnidirectional, and the key to the bounce effect is tricking your brain into thinking the sound source is the ceiling, not the speaker firing upwards. The more direct sound you hear from the speaker, the more likely the precedence effect will take over and cause your brain to localize the true sound source.

The more the sound "beams" upwards, the more likely you are to hear the reflection on the ceiling as the sound source. That's why DAE speakers have specific, limited directivity requirements. The fact that bass is more omnidirectional leads to these speakers being intentionally designed to not have much bass output, which also leads to the higher crossover being smarter because it will also prevent potential damage from a speaker not designed to produce bass. But the primary reason is directivity / psychoacoustics.

Like Dan, I am highly skeptical of this kind of "hybrid design" being able to perform well in an up-firing capacity. The best DAE speakers have (as Dan described) recessed drivers with a "wall" around the drivers lined with absorbent foam to minimize direct sound reaching your ears and enhance the "beaming" directivity towards the ceiling. 










An open speaker design like that Klipsch is going to "leak" direct sound towards the listener. Compare to the Klipsch "Atmos enabled" towers with built in modules, they are deeply recessed and have been reviewed to be much more effective with up-firing effects. 










IMO, the labeling as "atmos enabled" on those speakers is purely for marketing hype so Klipsch can sell more of them, and I agree with Dan that they will probably perform worse than average for an up-firing speaker and should almost certainly be used in a high wall mounted / down-firing configuration for best results.


----------



## CBdicX

dfa973 said:


> There's no such thing as 3.2.1. Maybe 3.2.2 or 3.1.2, but speakers are paired, not single - mono, with some exceptions (VoG, CH).
> Your answer is: to the Fronts.
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 8 Sirocco using Tapatalk


Indeed, a brain fart, sorry, 3.2.2 
Corrected the fart...…..

So nothing of the "missing" surrounds will be sent to TM.


----------



## Rob Greer

StevenC56 said:


> Thanks for putting the idea in my head Rob!


Nice!


----------



## am2model3

I have watched and listened to two films in an AMC Dolby Cinema; saw Captain Marvel and TerminatorDarkFate. The Dolby Vision HDR looked great; but it didn't super wow me. The DolbyAtmos I was hoping would be really cool; but found myself straining to hear overhead sounds. The sound was almost too loud with insanely loud bass..... not sure if i was missing something. I know sometimes the visual and sound experience varies depending on how the movie was shot visually and how the sound was mixed. 



watching both films at home on 4K UHD hdr with dolby atmos 5.1.4 in my home; i could see that they are somewhat darkly shot films; with some bright lights and colors; but the Dolby Atmos sounded somewhat better at home to me than it did in the theater; go figure!


----------



## mkiv808

am2model3 said:


> I have watched and listened to two films in an AMC Dolby Cinema; saw Captain Marvel and TerminatorDarkFate. The Dolby Vision HDR looked great; but it didn't super wow me. The DolbyAtmos I was hoping would be really cool; but found myself straining to hear overhead sounds. The sound was almost too loud with insanely loud bass..... not sure if i was missing something. I know sometimes the visual and sound experience varies depending on how the movie was shot visually and how the sound was mixed.
> 
> 
> 
> watching both films at home on 4K UHD hdr with dolby atmos 5.1.4 in my home; i could see that they are somewhat darkly shot films; with some bright lights and colors; but the Dolby Atmos sounded somewhat better at home to me than it did in the theater; go figure!




I feel like Atmos localization seems to be harder in a big theater space where people sit in a lot of different areas.

A very big space makes a lot of things sonically harder. That’s why a good home theater can often have better results.


----------



## AYanguas

am2model3 said:


> I have watched and listened to two films in an AMC Dolby Cinema; saw Captain Marvel and TerminatorDarkFate. ...
> 
> ... The sound was almost too loud with insanely loud bass..... not sure if i was missing something. ...!


This is something I hate. Not only loud bass but loud sound overall. It is harmful to the ears.

It's a usual thing also in some rock concerts. It seems it is liked by the young generations.

At home you can adjust the sound to the level you want.

We are all becoming deaf sooner than in previous generations.


----------



## DigiWega

am2model3 said:


> I have watched and listened to two films in an AMC Dolby Cinema; saw Captain Marvel and TerminatorDarkFate. The Dolby Vision HDR looked great; but it didn't super wow me. The DolbyAtmos I was hoping would be really cool; but found myself straining to hear overhead sounds. The sound was almost too loud with insanely loud bass..... not sure if i was missing something. I know sometimes the visual and sound experience varies depending on how the movie was shot visually and how the sound was mixed.
> 
> watching both films at home on 4K UHD hdr with dolby atmos 5.1.4 in my home; i could see that they are somewhat darkly shot films; with some bright lights and colors; but the Dolby Atmos sounded somewhat better at home to me than it did in the theater; go figure!


I sort of agree with you in some respects. I never found Atmos in my local Dolby Cinema (Tysons Corner, VA) to be overly impressive. However I love the dynamics of the speakers, that clean abundance of output is great. In terms of bass I don't think it's "insanely loud" at all, maybe compared to regular theater but at home I prefer way more bass. 

In terms of the picture coming from the projector, I feel like its draw dropping. So crisp, inky blacks and amazing contrast. It's really a picture only achievable by the best of the best PJ's. And the FOV of that massive screen is amazing as well.

I don't go often as I prefer to watch movies at home but I'm definitely a fan.




AYanguas said:


> This is something I hate. Not only loud bass but loud sound overall. It is harmful to the ears.
> 
> It's a usual thing also in some rock concerts. It seems it is liked by the young generations.
> 
> At home you can adjust the sound to the level you want.
> 
> We are all becoming deaf sooner than in previous generations.


I've pulled out my phone during a number of movies to check the SPL and I've never seen it hit over 105 db's which is in line with THX specs. A few peaks of 105 db's should be safe in moderation and should not cause hearing loss.


----------



## batpig

I think excessively hot bass -- especially the seat shakers -- is a common issue with AMC Dolby Cinema venues. There are two close to me down here in San Diego, and both had way overcooked bass IMO, with the seat shakers sometimes being so hot that you could hear rattles/vibrations in the theater. Despite the somewhat inferior PQ (worse black levels primarily) I much prefer my local Atmos theater which is NOT a Dolby Cinema, there are no seat shakers and the overall sound is much more smooth and balanced and (best part) they don't play it insanely loud.

Also, as others have noted, the sheer scale of the venue and the different speaker placement (surrounds high up on the walls, overheads like 30-50 feet above you) makes it harder to hear discrete separation between "ear level" vs "overhead" sound effects. Also, many Atmos tracks aren't crazy with discrete overhead effects. There's only been a few movies where I was able to REALLY notice the discrete 3D Atmos effect in the commercial theater -- Dr. Strange, the first Fantastic Beasts, Logan, Blader Runner 2049 come to mind.


----------



## batpig

DigiWega said:


> I've pulled out my phone during a number of movies to check the SPL and I've never seen it hit over 105 db's which is in line with THX specs. A few peaks of 105 db's should be safe in moderation and should not cause hearing loss.


Worth noting that a phone app is not going to be accurate with very high SPL and/or very deep bass. Mics have sensitivity ranges and the typical cheap microphone in the phone is not going to be optimized to be sensitivity with 100+ dB sounds and extremely long deep bass wavelengths.

Also, the THX spec would be 115dB peaks in the bass range, not 105dB.... and that's with a test signal. Actual program content, combined with bass management from other channels, could result in brief dynamic peaks of 120dB+ in the deep bass range at full reference level. Thankfully, most people don't listen anywhere close to full reference level.


----------



## MagnumX

Dolby is also 115dB for bass peaks. 105 is for non-bass.


----------



## shandito

*Klipsch Shootout*

Can someone enlighten me and explain the differences in the Klipsch RP-140SA and the R-41SA? I understand the Reference Premier is supposedly higher quality, and I know the plastic horn on it has a rubberized coating, but why is it so much cheaper than the "normal" Reference model?

https://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-RP-1...CASTF3ZRJ8D&psc=1&refRID=R63A4RRD0CASTF3ZRJ8D

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FKCP7PY/ref=psdc_12097481011_t1_B00ZIQZBTG


----------



## Dan Hitchman

shandito said:


> Can someone enlighten me and explain the differences in the Klipsch RP-140SA and the R-41SA? I understand the Reference Premier is supposedly higher quality, and I know the plastic horn on it has a rubberized coating, but why is it so much cheaper than the "normal" Reference model?
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-RP-1...CASTF3ZRJ8D&psc=1&refRID=R63A4RRD0CASTF3ZRJ8D
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FKCP7PY/ref=psdc_12097481011_t1_B00ZIQZBTG



The regular Reference speaker is a newer model build than the other. The older model lowers in price over time.


----------



## LNEWoLF

shandito said:


> Can someone enlighten me and explain the differences in the Klipsch RP-140SA and the R-41SA? I understand the Reference Premier is supposedly higher quality, and I know the plastic horn on it has a rubberized coating, but why is it so much cheaper than the "normal" Reference model?
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-RP-1...CASTF3ZRJ8D&psc=1&refRID=R63A4RRD0CASTF3ZRJ8D
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FKCP7PY/ref=psdc_12097481011_t1_B00ZIQZBTG


The R41SA is the latest version (3rd) in the Klipsch DAES Reference line. 2nd was the R14SA. Can’t think of the 1st gen DAES Reference line.

The RP140SA are the 1st generation in the Klipsch Reference Premier DAES line. The latest (I believe 3rd generation) would be the RP500SA DAES.

I would have to believe that the Klipsch engineers would continue to improve on the performance of each DAES generation.


----------



## MagnumX

I finally got around to watching _Saving Private Ryan_ for the first time in Atmos. I've read this is basically a 7.1.2 movie, but I could have sworn at least a half dozen times I heard distinct sounds in the front height speakers (especially the right front height speaker) and at some points in-between the front and top middle speakers (e.g. when the planes flew overhead at the end). Are we certain this movie is only 7.1.2 or could it be like Star Wars on Disney+ that it's "mostly" 7.1.2 (as in .2 active all the time), but with SOME objects that briefly appear to move across the top? I have no direct way of measuring that like a Trinnov can, for example.

For anyone that has an NVidia Shield and has had problems with it just "stopping" randomly with KODI Leia, someone told me that changing the Shield to a fully static IP address (from just a reserved router one here, for example), which you do on the Shield itself may solve the problem or at least greatly improve things. So far, so good as it played that entire _Saving Private Ryan_ movie here without a hitch (credits ran at 2 hours and 45 minutes) for a change and I was averaging a "stop" every 20-60 minutes. 

EDIT: Scrap the latter. It might have helped with the random stops, but it stopped once on the next movie for no apparent reason. Still, one stop in 5 hours is down from every 2-3 times per movie. It could be the router getting interference for all I know. My theater is on the opposite side of the house. I might have to run a cable or perhaps use the existing cable company cable with an adapter or something to get a more reliable signal (despite the Shield saying "Excellent" on its readout for WiFi).


----------



## Jonas2

MagnumX said:


> I finally got around to watching _Saving Private Ryan_ for the first time in Atmos. I've read this is basically a 7.1.2 movie, but I could have sworn at least a half dozen times I heard distinct sounds in the front height speakers (especially the right front height speaker) and at some points in-between the front and top middle speakers (e.g. when the planes flew overhead at the end). Are we certain this movie is only 7.1.2 or could it be like Star Wars on Disney+ that it's "mostly" 7.1.2 (as in .2 active all the time), but with SOME objects that briefly appear to move across the top? I have no direct way of measuring that like a Trinnov can, for example.



Interesting. I'll have to go back and check it. I'll just run my Atmos speakers in the battle scenes to see what they do.....


----------



## mogrub

alangsk said:


> I need some advice. I am designing a dedicated theater room and I am trying to figure out speaker placement for two rows of seats ...


FWIW I have a similar scale home theater with two rows and a overflow third row as needed. When I installed Atmos last year I did 4 overhead Atmos speakers, not 6, creating a 7.2.4 system. It has all the depth and spacial impact I could have possibly hoped for. Going with 6 overhead would have been fun, no doubt, and done correctly would probably have added something, but the truth is that I have never missed doing that in the slightest. It would probably just be overkill in my particular room. I'm a sucker for a razor with 9 zillion blades, but enough is enough. One sharp one does just fine.

The one thing that I'll say that literally goes without saying is that where you place each speaker is probably more important than how many you place. Really mine down hard on your exact speaker placement for each and every speaker. The Atmos White Paper is a good starting point, but the advice on this thread that can help with knowing where and when to deviate slightly from the White Paper is hugely useful. A big shoutout to kbarnes701 and sdurani for nudging me off the White Paper in small ways that made a huge difference. 👍


----------



## alangsk

mogrub said:


> FWIW I have a similar scale home theater with two rows and a overflow third row as needed. When I installed Atmos last year I did 4 overhead Atmos speakers, not 6, creating a 7.2.4 system. It has all the depth and spacial impact I could have possibly hoped for. Going with 6 overhead would have been fun, no doubt, and done correctly would probably have added something, but the truth is that I have never missed doing that in the slightest. It would probably just be overkill in my particular room. I'm a sucker for a razor with 9 zillion blades, but enough is enough. One sharp one does just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that I'll say that literally goes without saying is that where you place each speaker is probably more important than how many you place. Really mine down hard on your exact speaker placement for each and every speaker. The Atmos White Paper is a good starting point, but the advice on this thread that can help with knowing where and when to deviate slightly from the White Paper is hugely useful. A big shoutout to kbarnes701 and sdurani for nudging me off the White Paper in small ways that made a huge difference.




Thank you! Would you be willing to share your placement, so I can compare with what I have in my design? Especially for the Atmos locations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogrub

alangsk said:


> ... Would you be willing to share your placement, so I can compare with what I have in my design ... especially for the Atmos locations?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sure, but you definitely need to start with (I bet you already have) and put more weight on the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines than you do on what I did in my unique room.

Tell us where your MLP is going to be, and whether you want to give that spot a little extra love. My room is slightly tweaked to enhance the MLP. 

(Answer: you probably should too, since most sane guests, spouses, etc. aren't going to care half as much about any of this as you / we do. And they'll still get a great experience regardless.)


----------



## mogrub

mogrub said:


> (Answer: you probably should too, since most sane guests, spouses, etc. aren't going to care half as much about any of this as you / we do. And they'll still get a great experience regardless.)


IMHO, I should add.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jonas2 said:


> Interesting. I'll have to go back and check it. I'll just run my Atmos speakers in the battle scenes to see what they do.....



From my recollection, the OP is using a Scatmos type of arrangement with some matrix derived overheads. That kludge can cause the sound to behave differently from a true, fully discrete Atmos presentation like when using a Trinnov Altitude. Those who reported a 7.1.2 presentation for SPR were using Trinnov's and were also looking at the actual speaker output meters.


----------



## alangsk

mogrub said:


> Sure, but you definitely need to start with (I bet you already have) and put more weight on the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines than you do on what I did in my unique room.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us where your MLP is going to be, and whether you want to give that spot a little extra love. My room is slightly tweaked to enhance the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> (Answer: you probably should too, since most sane guests, spouses, etc. aren't going to care half as much about any of this as you / we do. And they'll still get a great experience regardless.)




Good point! My MLP is the center of the 2nd row. The loveseat there will be where my wife and I will sit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogrub

alangsk said:


> Good point! My MLP is the center of the 2nd row. The loveseat there will be where my wife and I will sit.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Okay, just visited your build thread too, and what you are doing is going to be fantastic. Congrats in advance! You asked for my two cents, so FWIW here goes: 

Based in part on your MLP, and based in part on what the Dolby guidelines depict, for your Option A, I would be inclined to move the front overhead speakers (i.e., those closest to the screen) back towards your seating area by what looks to be about a foot to 18 inches. I think that will enhance the experience for the MLP, placing you more in the middle of Atmos overhead effects, with the same benefit for the third row seats, while not materially degrading the sonic experience for the front row.

And looking at the pics from your theater build thread, I vastly prefer the wider spread option for placement of your rear surrounds. 

One little nuance to consider is the real world geometry of your seating, and how the size and shape of your seats may impact how sound arrives at the ears of your listeners, especially higher, more directional frequencies. That's one of the reasons why I like the wider spread on the rear surrounds.

Another little nuance to consider, and I bet you already have, is how your riser (and also the more elevated 3rd row seats) may impact how you define the elevation of "ear level" for speakers so designated. Recline level also impacts ear level obviously, and is probably your most useful reference.

I am totally down in the weeds, which is where I spent a lot of time during my build. You are doing great work and it is going to come out fantastic, regardless of whatever OCD issues I or anybody else raises. But now, for sure, is the time to raise them!

Good luck and keep us posted. ✌


----------



## metalsaber

So stupid question: With Atmos configurations containing: Front/Rear Heights, Front/Middle/Rear Tops. 
My understanding is that the atmos speakers are discrete channels, so is there any speaker combination that provides the most audio support?
So do movies tend to favor Front/Rear tops over say a Top Middle and Front heights? I guess if one was limited to a .4 setup, whats the most ideal setup that most Atmos mixes will utilize?


----------



## sdurani

metalsaber said:


> I guess if one was limited to a .4 setup, whats the most ideal setup that most Atmos mixes will utilize?


Top Front, Top Rear.


----------



## batpig

Jonas2 said:


> Interesting. I'll have to go back and check it. I'll just run my Atmos speakers in the battle scenes to see what they do.....





Dan Hitchman said:


> From my recollection, the OP is using a Scatmos type of arrangement with some matrix derived overheads. That kludge can cause the sound to behave differently from a true, fully discrete Atmos presentation like when using a Trinnov Altitude. Those who reported a 7.1.2 presentation for SPR were using Trinnov's and were also looking at the actual speaker output meters.


Yes, you can't glean much about this specific topic from a matrix/scatmos type setup. 

Dan, FWIW, it's not just Trinnov, there are many processors that can run x.x.6 to test this. I confirmed the SPR conclusion on my Denon X8500H, with the "Custom" free amp assign it's very easy for me to edit configurations and "solo" specific speakers to test output with a given speaker layout. I tested both FH+TM+RH and TF+TM+TR and the result were the same for SPR.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> From my recollection, the OP is using a Scatmos type of arrangement with some *matrix derived* overheads. That *kludge* can cause the sound to behave differently from a true, fully discrete Atmos presentation like when using a Trinnov Altitude.


I know I've explained this before to you before so you either didn't read it or didn't believe it. There's a big difference between "matrixed" (summed channels to create a 3rd channel with up to 3dB difference due to the summation, but retaining the original channels as well and "Steered" Logic (from Pro Logic decoding) that REMOVES the information they have in common from the original channels and places them increasingly in the center channel. Functionally, speaking, steered placement is nearly identical to Atmos "rendered" channels and it's also what DTS:X Pro uses to derive 50% in-between channels. There is no overlap and there is no "errors" in imaging that would place a sound to the left or right of that "center steering". Even the matrixed channels will not create new imaging locations from the center-point (typically MLP) position. They are there as hard sources only for off-center seating! If you sit off-center, they might move the imaging (due to precedence) towards the closest speaker, but this will be a continual effect. Neither can magically create sounds to the left/right of center out of nowhere! 

Furthermore, I do NOT use matrixed speakers them for ANY overhead speakers (I use two sets for bed speakers, namely FW and SS#1 as arrayed sets because I have three rows of seating). For overhead, I use Pro Logic Steered to create "top middle" which extracts the in-phase material and rejects the same from the main channels they're derived from. This is EXACTLY the same end result as a rendering doing the same thing in reverse (it splits it up first and then sends it out) but getting the same end result. Beyond some slight possible leakage signal (in audible at normal listening distances), there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between steered Pro Logic channels and rendered Atmos channels. I know this has been explained to you before, but you continue to post erroneous information and then question what I say as a result. It's getting tiring. 

I posted what I heard when I watched it. Whatever I heard, (whether a stereo anomaly of HRTF info stored or a result of the dialog lift function making a bed channel seem a bit higher than typical, it's not due to incorrect front-to-middle or rear-to-middle imaging. An actual MONO centered evenly mixed sound event (as in 0.2 overhead) CANNOT end up in the front or rear speakers only or even partly with center-extraction Pro Logic! It's IMPOSSIBLE by the sheer audio physics of it all. If you understood those physics, you would never suggest whatever I heard was the result of either matrixed or steered speakers. 

It IS possible it was a bed level front effect that rendered higher due to a combination of inherent HRTF data in a stereo recorded signal and/or in combination with the dialog lift effect feature I use which raises the bed speakers 1/3 up the level of my screen as a phantom image. These sounds were imaging considerably higher (about 4/5 up the screen), but HRTF might under some circumstances create sounds in those areas (as anyone who has ever listened to a large number of stereo music albums can attest as they often image height and depth on top of left/right due to that HRTF data in the stereo recording (as binaural is even more atp to do, even when played back on speakers).



> Those who reported a 7.1.2 presentation for SPR were using Trinnov's and were also looking at the actual speaker output meters.


As was the case with Star Wars on Disney+, you have to watch those meters/signals 100% of the time (unless you're willing to just shut off your bed speakers entirely if it allows you to easily and listen to the entire movie without them) or you will miss short object bursts as was pointed out with Star Wars and verified by the said Trinnov owner as correct (i.e. Star Wars movies in Atmos on Disney+ have OBJECTS in them that do use other speakers beyond 7.1.2 or even 7.1.4 in some key places). I'm suggesting the same thing MIGHT be happening here. Without the meters, I cannot know for sure. Sometimes, stereo sounds image outside their regular width or height specifications due to inherent phase and HRTF data within recorded sounds.

In any case, we'll never get to the bottom of it by posting erroneous information that blames it on my system based on false information. I also don't appreciate the negative connotation of the word "_kludge_" used there. Howe well something works should not be based on how much it costs, which has been the bane of audiophiles for decades who seem to believe along the lines that a $5k speaker MUST sound better than a $2k one even if the guy who made the $5k speaker has no engineering knowledge and the guy who made the $2k one does.

I would have gotten up and rewound the sections to listen right at the speakers in question at the time except I was testing a router/networking issue and did not want to interrupt the playback. When I get some time, I will check some of the sections again. Other than the planes (which were less obvious and may have used some cues from the bed channels that just made them seem to move front to rear or rear to front, I don't recall the exact time locations of the other instances I heard sounds in upper corner areas of the screen. I'd have to watch most of the movie again.

*EDIT:*

I went back and played back the scenes in Saving Private Ryan with the planes flying overhead and it was indeed the "bed speakers" that made them seem to fly front to back (only top middle save a tiny bit of leakage played in those scenes, but the front/rear bed speakers had a quite a bit of apparent "height" to the sounds that even STANDING just in front of them (my ears nearly 3 feet above the rear surrounds), I'd sear they were still overhead (must be some serious phase or other clues involved). It's quite possible the other sounds were similar in nature, especially in the front where the "dialog lift" effect has the bed level a couple of feet higher than the bed speakers. But then I mentioned those possibilities earlier. I was just surprised to hear what sounded like front to back and back to front overhead effects with the planes when only two overhead speakers were supposed to be involved. I don't know why they'd bother to pan them at bed level but not use 4+ overhead panning as well. It makes little sense.

In any case, the effect locations had NOTHING to do with matrixed or Pro Logic steered sounds (the dialog lift may have contributed to some sounds in the front only but that's separate from the overhead effects channels other than being sent through a mixer to send them both to the same front overhead speakers).


----------



## blondie88

I'm about to install 4 Polk Audio OWM3's on-ceiling for a 5.1.4 atmos setup, however my couch is only 50cm away from my rear wall and I can't meet the recommended Dolby 135 degree rear speaker guideline.

I aim to just do the best with my space I can, and will install my rear atmos speakers on-ceiling as close to my rear wall as possible, giving me about a 115 degree rear angle, which will be just slightly behind the one row MLP. Taking this into consideration, where should I now aim to install my front atmos overheads? Do I stick with the recommended 45 degree angle? My ceiling is 2.75m high, and around 2.1m above MLP and the 45 degree angle would place the front overheads quite far in front of the MLP, with regards to the rear overheads only being 50cm behind.

Has anyone had a similar situation? What front overhead on-ceiling placement sounds best?

Should any of the speakers be pointed towards the MLP? Or better that they are all just facing straight down?

Many thanks


----------



## niterida

Angle mount the rears on the rear wall - you should be able to get them close to the recommended 45deg (50cm above ear height if your ears are 50cm from the rear wall etc)

And then mount the fronts the same angle as whatever you end up mounting the rears at. Its angles that are important to keep the same not distances in this instance.
You should experiment with the height of the rears before fixing them.


They should all be pointing at MLP as much as possible - but using the fixed angle mount of these speakers should be pretty good.


----------



## Marin_ri

My 5.1.4. configuration with dali alteco c1 as front and rear heights.
Room is 5x4x3.5m.
Sofa is just against the wall...
Overhead effects are preety good! 
Very pleased with this configuration...









Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

Marin_ri said:


> Sofa is just against the wall...
> Overhead effects are preety good!
> Very pleased with this configuration...


If you move the couch forward 1.7m (1/3 room length) I think you will be even more pleased 

The closer to 1/3 you can sit the flatter the frequency response of the sound and the closer to the middle of your Atmos speakers the better the imaging of them.
Ideally you would also move the front heights forward 1.7m to be in that middle spot.


----------



## stikle

Marin_ri said:


> My 5.1.4. configuration with dali alteco c1 as front and rear heights.
> Room is 5x4x3.5m.
> Sofa is just against the wall...
> Overhead effects are preety good!
> Very pleased with this configuration...


What a nice looking room!


----------



## Marin_ri

niterida said:


> If you move the couch forward 1.7m (1/3 room length) I think you will be even more pleased
> 
> 
> 
> The closer to 1/3 you can sit the flatter the frequency response of the sound and the closer to the middle of your Atmos speakers the better the imaging of them.
> 
> Ideally you would also move the front heights forward 1.7m to be in that middle spot.


Yes, i do that when watching movies..  

Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk


----------



## Marin_ri

stikle said:


> What a nice looking room!


Tnx..  

Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnyboy632

blondie88 said:


> I'm about to install 4 Polk Audio OWM3's on-ceiling for a 5.1.4 atmos setup, however my couch is only 50cm away from my rear wall and I can't meet the recommended Dolby 135 degree rear speaker guideline.
> 
> I aim to just do the best with my space I can, and will install my rear atmos speakers on-ceiling as close to my rear wall as possible, giving me about a 115 degree rear angle, which will be just slightly behind the one row MLP. Taking this into consideration, where should I now aim to install my front atmos overheads? Do I stick with the recommended 45 degree angle? My ceiling is 2.75m high, and around 2.1m above MLP and the 45 degree angle would place the front overheads quite far in front of the MLP, with regards to the rear overheads only being 50cm behind.
> 
> Has anyone had a similar situation? What front overhead on-ceiling placement sounds best?
> 
> Should any of the speakers be pointed towards the MLP? Or better that they are all just facing straight down?
> 
> Many thanks



I personally wouldn’t go by those recommendations literally, they are guides and every room is different and can’t always meet those exact requirements. If you move your seating another 50cm further from back wall that make a little more ideal when fixing rear heights. If I had your room I would place them in back corners as high up on the wall as possible and aim at seating area. Attached is brackets I used that have worked great for me. I am using the owm3 as height also with great results by the way. Once you setup and autoEQ which ever way you position the heights they will sound great anyway otherwise you could setup them up just in front on listening position and configure it as a top middle channel, all the best with you setup
Cheers










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## blondie88

johnnyboy632 said:


> I personally wouldn’t go by those recommendations literally, they are guides and every room is different and can’t always meet those exact requirements. If you move your seating another 50cm further from back wall that make a little more ideal when fixing rear heights. If I had your room I would place them in back corners as high up on the wall as possible and aim at seating area. Attached is brackets I used that have worked great for me. I am using the owm3 as height also with great results by the way. Once you setup and autoEQ which ever way you position the heights they will sound great anyway otherwise you could setup them up just in front on listening position and configure it as a top middle channel, all the best with you setup
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for your response. 
One thing I never understand when reading about atmos, is why it is sometimes suggested to point some of the speakers at the MLP. The Dolby guidelines for 5.1.4 have two speakers in front and two speakers behind MLP, facing straight down, presumably so the sound sources feel like they are originating both in front and behind you, which when combined creates an all-encompassing effect. So why therefore would you put a speaker behind you, but then point it straight at the MLP? Wouldn't it be better to point it so the main line of sound falls behind the MLP and thus creating the same feeling that the recommended Dolby positioning does of the sound falling behind you?

I'm not trying oppose what you are saying, I just don't understand why sometimes it is suggested to point the speakers straight down and other times straight at the listener..

It gives me hope that you're pleased with your sound! It's just hard for me to try the speakers in various positions because I would have to somehow suspend them in each position first, and Im not sure that is possible until I go all in and make the installation.


----------



## gene4ht

blondie88 said:


> It's just hard for me to try the speakers in various positions because I would have to somehow suspend them in each position first, and Im not sure that is possible until I go all in and make the installation.


The key for Atmos speakers is not the speakers themselves but location and positioning. Everyone has a set of different challenges due to room, obstacles, and WAF constraints. The solution is “experimenting” with locations and positioning allowed by your conditions. The Atmos guidelines are just that...guidelines...don’t be overly concerned about a foot or two here or there. The consensus/mantra in these threads is some Atmos is better than no Atmos. Lastly, the simplest and best advice for determining the best speaker location for your situation is four friends standing on four chairs. Of course, afterwards four beers and a pizza.


----------



## Petkatalbc

Hello guys 
I have 5.2.4 Atmos Surround set up
Onkyo speakers.
What is the best option for atmos speakers.
In-ceiling, high on the wall or up-firing speakers 

I am considering changing my speakers and I am think going to 7.2.4 but I do not know what brand. Thinking of Klipsch vs SVS

What you think?Which are better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

blondie88 said:


> I'm about to install 4 Polk Audio OWM3's on-ceiling for a 5.1.4 atmos setup, however my couch is only 50cm away from my rear wall and I can't meet the recommended Dolby 135 degree rear speaker guideline.
> 
> I aim to just do the best with my space I can, and will install my rear atmos speakers on-ceiling as close to my rear wall as possible, giving me about a 115 degree rear angle, which will be just slightly behind the one row MLP. Taking this into consideration, where should I now aim to install my front atmos overheads? Do I stick with the recommended 45 degree angle? My ceiling is 2.75m high, and around 2.1m above MLP and the 45 degree angle would place the front overheads quite far in front of the MLP, with regards to the rear overheads only being 50cm behind.
> 
> Has anyone had a similar situation? What front overhead on-ceiling placement sounds best?
> 
> Should any of the speakers be pointed towards the MLP? Or better that they are all just facing straight down?
> 
> Many thanks



I wouldn't worry about the 115° elevation angle of those rear overhead speakers; our acuity for sounds behind us is not as great as it is in front (aka "localization accuracy"), so the precise placement of those rears is not as critical as it might be for the front overheads. But I would be tempted to cheat toward the upper edge of Dolby's recommended angles for the fronts (i.e., 55°) as compensation for the rear placement. If practicable, try to experiment with various locations to see what works best for you using the Dolby Atmos demo clips or other demonstration-quality content.

FWIW, my in-ceiling speakers (Polk Audio 80FX-RT) are at approx. 40° and 120° (designated as Front Height and Rear Height), and I am happy with the results.

As for toeing in, I believe in following the same advice for overheads as for the rest of the speakers. Mine are all angled toward the MLP.

BTW, one factor you have working in your favor is that those OWM3 speakers afford a variety of installation options as shown below.


----------



## sdurani

blondie88 said:


> One thing I never understand when reading about atmos, is why it is sometimes suggested to point some of the speakers at the MLP. The Dolby guidelines for 5.1.4 have two speakers in front and two speakers behind MLP, facing straight down, presumably so the sound sources feel like they are originating both in front and behind you, which when combined creates an all-encompassing effect. So why therefore would you put a speaker behind you, but then point it straight at the MLP? Wouldn't it be better to point it so the main line of sound falls behind the MLP and thus creating the same feeling that the recommended Dolby positioning does of the sound falling behind you?


Most speakers tend to sound best on-axis (pointing at you) and progressively worse as you move off-axis (pointing away from you). So aiming speakers at the MLP doesn't change the location of the sound, just improves the quality. By comparison, I don't see what pointing speakers straight down at an arbitrary spot on the floor buys you. Speakers behind you will still sound like they're behind you, whether aimed at you or not, because that's where the sound is originating from.


----------



## Selden Ball

How you arrange your speakers and their orientations depends on the goals you have for your sound system. For example, you might decide that you want it to sound best in the location where you yourself sit (aka the main listening position) or perhaps you want it to sound best for the majority of your audience, sacrificing somewhat in what you hear. Many people really don't pay a lot of attention to sound quality. They're used to hearing highly distorted sounds coming from inexpensive audio systems, so even if you optimize your Atmos system for your main listening position, to most of your audience it'll still sound far better than what they're used to.

Pointing overhead speakers straight down (assuming those speakers have a sufficiently wide dispersion) is one way to try to make the sound better for the majority of the audience, not for you.


----------



## eaayoung

Selden Ball said:


> How you arrange your speakers and their orientations depends on the goals you have for your sound system. For example, you might decide that you want it to sound best in the location where you yourself sit (aka the main listening position) or perhaps you want it to sound best for the majority of your audience, sacrificing somewhat in what you hear. Many people really don't pay a lot of attention to sound quality. They're used to hearing highly distorted sounds coming from inexpensive audio systems, so even if you optimize your Atmos system for your main listening position, to most of your audience it'll still sound far better than what they're used to.
> 
> Pointing overhead speakers straight down (assuming those speakers have a sufficiently wide dispersion) is one way to try to make the sound better for the majority of the audience, not for you.


That's my dilemma. I want the sound to be good for the majority of the audience and not just the MLP. I will be installing four Def Tech DI 8R for my in-ceiling speakers for my Atmos system. The ceiling is 12 ft high. The speakers have pivoting tweeters for fine tuning the sound. But I was thinking straight down would probably be the best for most listeners.


----------



## Selden Ball

eaayoung said:


> That's my dilemma. I want the sound to be good for the majority of the audience and not just the MLP. I will be installing four Def Tech DI 8R for my in-ceiling speakers for my Atmos system. The ceiling is 12 ft high. The speakers have pivoting tweeters for fine tuning the sound. But I was thinking straight down would probably be the best for most listeners.


Unfortunately, having aimable tweeters implies that they are not wide-dispersion speakers. That means that people sitting off-axis will hear significantly less of the higher frequencies than those who sit on-axis. When you use the audio system's calibration procedure (Audyssey, Dirac, ARC, whatever), since its microphone will be off axis, it too will not hear the higher frequencies very well. As a result, it'll boost the high frequencies to compensate, making the sound that much shriller for those people who'll be close to on-axis. It's a no-win situation. That's one reason why people either point the speakers toward the MLP (so the person who cares most hears the best sound) or orient them in the "equal energy" configuration, with the left-most speakers pointing toward the right-most seating, and vice-versa, so that the speakers' outputs are attenuated either by distance or by being off-axis.

However, you need to experiment. Configure your speakers the way you want, listen to the results, then adjust them again (and again...). Eventually you'll find a configuration which sounds the best to you in your room with its unique acoustics and with your goals in mind. It'll doubtless take a while.


----------



## Jonas2

eaayoung said:


> That's my dilemma. I want the sound to be good for the majority of the audience and not just the MLP. I will be installing four Def Tech DI 8R for my in-ceiling speakers for my Atmos system. The ceiling is 12 ft high. The speakers have pivoting tweeters for fine tuning the sound. But I was thinking straight down would probably be the best for most listeners.



So, I've got an 8' ceiling, 3-person couch. FWIW - my DI8Rs are pretty close to in line with the main, fronts are at that "perfect" 45 degree angle, rears had to be somewhat closer, but still within the Dolby specs (can't remember the exact angle....). I initially started with just aimed straight down. Then aimed biased at the MLP. Those positions sounded fine, but I did ultimately settle on the tweeters being aimed at the position roughly between the MLP and each listener, so the left speakers aimed at space between left-most listener and center person, and same on the right. This seemed to sound the best for me when I was at MLP and then sitting at either side position on the couch. Probably talking splitting hairs though at that point, but it is somewhat different from aimed straight down.


Like Selden said, just experiment!


----------



## blondie88

Jonas2 said:


> So, I've got an 8' ceiling, 3-person couch. FWIW - my DI8Rs are pretty close to in line with the main, fronts are at that "perfect" 45 degree angle, rears had to be somewhat closer, but still within the Dolby specs (can't remember the exact angle....). I initially started with just aimed straight down. Then aimed biased at the MLP. Those positions sounded fine, but I did ultimately settle on the tweeters being aimed at the position roughly between the MLP and each listener, so the left speakers aimed at space between left-most listener and center person, and same on the right. This seemed to sound the best for me when I was at MLP and then sitting at either side position on the couch. Probably talking splitting hairs though at that point, but it is somewhat different from aimed straight down.
> 
> 
> Like Selden said, just experiment!


So you noticed a definite improvement when you angled the speakers towards the MLP as opposed to when they were just facing straight down? Did you angle both front and back speakers towards the MLP?


----------



## Jonas2

blondie88 said:


> So you noticed a definite improvement when you angled the speakers towards the MLP as opposed to when they were just facing straight down? Did you angle both front and back speakers towards the MLP?



I did notice an improvement (for me, right? YMMV...), but it was not a night and day difference, a bit more subtle, but noticeable. Yes, I did angle both the fronts and the rears in this manner.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

eaayoung said:


> That's my dilemma. I want the sound to be good for the majority of the audience and not just the MLP. I will be installing four Def Tech DI 8R for my in-ceiling speakers for my Atmos system. The ceiling is 12 ft high. The speakers have pivoting tweeters for fine tuning the sound. But I was thinking straight down would probably be the best for most listeners.




I think at 12’ high, that’s enough height to aim straight down, or somewhere in between right at the MLP and straight down. That should be between 8 and 9 feet above the listeners. Definitely more than an average 7 or 8 foot ceiling and IMO plenty of room to open up dispersion. I’ve never found aimable tweeters to be useful but YMMV naturally.


----------



## johnnyboy632

blondie88 said:


> Thanks for your response.
> One thing I never understand when reading about atmos, is why it is sometimes suggested to point some of the speakers at the MLP. The Dolby guidelines for 5.1.4 have two speakers in front and two speakers behind MLP, facing straight down, presumably so the sound sources feel like they are originating both in front and behind you, which when combined creates an all-encompassing effect. So why therefore would you put a speaker behind you, but then point it straight at the MLP? Wouldn't it be better to point it so the main line of sound falls behind the MLP and thus creating the same feeling that the recommended Dolby positioning does of the sound falling behind you?
> 
> I'm not trying oppose what you are saying, I just don't understand why sometimes it is suggested to point the speakers straight down and other times straight at the listener..
> 
> It gives me hope that you're pleased with your sound! It's just hard for me to try the speakers in various positions because I would have to somehow suspend them in each position first, and Im not sure that is possible until I go all in and make the installation.



I am not too sure why there are different ways to position some speakers. Possibly either way would be ok because sounds are hard for us human to localise when sounds are coming from behind, I read this somewhere. That could be a reason or that with atmos it is object based and not channel based so if speaker is pointed at listener sounds not only come out of speaker direct to MLP but sounds move around depending where object are meant to be positioned in room therefore sounds appear to further behind, direct and slightly in front due to panning of sound, don’t know if I have explained it properly or not. I think you would get a better and fuller sound if speaker are directed at you rather than directed somewhere else but it’s great to hear your views also and if anyone has any other views. I think atmos or any hi res audio has no right or wrong and it what sounds pleasing to you is what counts most importantly 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

MagnumX said:


> I finally got around to watching _Saving Private Ryan_ for the first time in Atmos. I've read this is basically a 7.1.2 movie, but I could have sworn at least a half dozen times I heard distinct sounds in the front height speakers (especially the right front height speaker) and at some points in-between the front and top middle speakers (e.g. when the planes flew overhead at the end). Are we certain this movie is only 7.1.2 or could it be like Star Wars on Disney+ that it's "mostly" 7.1.2 (as in .2 active all the time), but with SOME objects that briefly appear to move across the top? I have no direct way of measuring that like a Trinnov can, for example.
> 
> For anyone that has an NVidia Shield and has had problems with it just "stopping" randomly with KODI Leia, someone told me that changing the Shield to a fully static IP address (from just a reserved router one here, for example), which you do on the Shield itself may solve the problem or at least greatly improve things. So far, so good as it played that entire _Saving Private Ryan_ movie here without a hitch (credits ran at 2 hours and 45 minutes) for a change and I was averaging a "stop" every 20-60 minutes.
> 
> EDIT: Scrap the latter. It might have helped with the random stops, but it stopped once on the next movie for no apparent reason. Still, one stop in 5 hours is down from every 2-3 times per movie. It could be the router getting interference for all I know. My theater is on the opposite side of the house. I might have to run a cable or perhaps use the existing cable company cable with an adapter or something to get a more reliable signal (despite the Shield saying "Excellent" on its readout for WiFi).


I've never really bothered with whether it's .2 active or .4 
I've thoroughly enjoyed the movie.. for the story (a movie I've sat through more than ten times, even the painful scene of the bayonet slow death) and immerse in the sound system (played the opening scene more than a hundred times)... 
I just sat back and enjoyed the sonic experience


----------



## flipswitch84

Just wondering, if you have a 5.1 setup, is there any benefit in running atmos over something different like DTS:MA or standard DD?


----------



## MagnumX

flipswitch84 said:


> Just wondering, if you have a 5.1 setup, is there any benefit in running atmos over something different like DTS:MA or standard DD?


It wouldn't be "Atmos" if it were DTS or Dolby Digital (core Atmos still has Dolby Digital available in it, though). If you mean would an upmixer like Neural X sound better for 5.1 systems, I doubt it would make any difference at all since the "bed" speakers are core layout locations. I think everything would be routed to them regardless of the upmixer format, even Auromatic.


----------



## flipswitch84

Thanks for the reply.


Sorry, I think I didn’t word it right. I meant since I just have a 5.1 setup and no height speakers, could I hear any difference between an atmos track compared to a DTS:MA track?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

flipswitch84 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I think I didn’t word it right. I meant since I just have a 5.1 setup and no height speakers, could I hear any difference between an atmos track compared to a DTS:MA track?




Depends on the track, but before I finished my Atmos install, I watched some Atmos movies on my 7.1 system and was surprised that they seemed to have better “movement” in my room. I can’t attribute to anything but did notice yes.


----------



## niterida

blondie88 said:


> Thanks for your response.
> One thing I never understand when reading about atmos, is why it is sometimes suggested to point some of the speakers at the MLP. The Dolby guidelines for 5.1.4 have two speakers in front and two speakers behind MLP, facing straight down, presumably so the sound sources feel like they are originating both in front and behind you, which when combined creates an all-encompassing effect. So why therefore would you put a speaker behind you, but then point it straight at the MLP? Wouldn't it be better to point it so the main line of sound falls behind the MLP and thus creating the same feeling that the recommended Dolby positioning does of the sound falling behind you?
> 
> I'm not trying oppose what you are saying, I just don't understand why sometimes it is suggested to point the speakers straight down and other times straight at the listener..
> 
> It gives me hope that you're pleased with your sound! It's just hard for me to try the speakers in various positions because I would have to somehow suspend them in each position first, and Im not sure that is possible until I go all in and make the installation.


I pondered that very same dilemma until I saw (I think it was in this thread but I can't find it now) a pic of Dolbys own Atmos Demo Room and they used bookshelf speakers pointing at MLP. End of argument for me - I ditched my in-ceilings and went bookshelfs aimed at MLP.


----------



## blondie88

niterida said:


> I pondered that very same dilemma until I saw (I think it was in this thread but I can't find it now) a pic of Dolbys own Atmos Demo Room and they used bookshelf speakers pointing at MLP. End of argument for me - I ditched my in-ceilings and went bookshelfs aimed at MLP.


Were the Dolby bookshelves on ceiling? And yours?


----------



## niterida

blondie88 said:


> Were the Dolby bookshelves on ceiling? And yours?


 Yes and yes


Don't ask me to compare to in-ceiling though because I never installed them before deciding to go on-ceiling - the Dolby demo room (I think it was at an expo - CEDIA or something - wish I could find the post about it) was enough to sway me.


----------



## MagnumX

flipswitch84 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I think I didn’t word it right. I meant since I just have a 5.1 setup and no height speakers, could I hear any difference between an atmos track compared to a DTS:MA track?


It'll be completely movie (mix) dependent. Atmos movies on average perhaps MIGHT have more or better use of surround as they aim for "immersion" instead of traditional surround, but there are plenty of good and bad examples of both to go around that I wouldn't want to generalize too much at this point in time. 

There's also DTS:X soundtracks to consider versus 5.1/7.1 only versions, but it's the same difference. If the mixing guy made a more immersive mix using the new object based tools than they would have using the old methods you will probably get a better sounding mix in 5.1 as well. It really just comes down to the final mix quality either way.


----------



## Josh Z

If anyone is looking for some new Atmos show-off demos but have maybe gotten a little tired of the handful of Dolby trailers, I was browsing Disney+ last night and discovered a program in the Originals menu called Short Circuit. It's a showcase for Disney animated short films, mostly running around 5 minutes or less (plus a director intro). They all appear to have Atmos soundtracks, some of them pretty aggressive. 

One called "Downtown" was pretty neat with lots of immersive overhead activity. Nice 4k HDR imagery as well. If you skip the director intro, it's only about 90 seconds long.


----------



## skylarlove1999

Josh Z said:


> If anyone is looking for some new Atmos show-off demos but have maybe gotten a little tired of the handful of Dolby trailers, I was browsing Disney+ last night and discovered a program in the Originals menu called Short Circuit. It's a showcase for Disney animated short films, mostly running around 5 minutes or less (plus a director intro). They all appear to have Atmos soundtracks, some of them pretty aggressive.
> 
> 
> 
> One called "Downtown" was pretty neat with lots of immersive overhead activity. Nice 4k HDR imagery as well. If you skip the director intro, it's only about 90 seconds long.


Thank you very much for sharing that is definitely one of those more eclectic Atmos demos that very few people would have found so much appreciated I shall have to give it a try. I hope you and yours are safe and healthy.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenC56

Got my system back up finally with my Atmos .4 update. Interesting observation is that the addition of the 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers hasn't given me a "Wow" moment yet although I've only watched a couple movies so far. But I can definitely tell my MLP is in more of an acoustic bubble now instead of just a back soundstage.


----------



## Sorny

StevenC56 said:


> Got my system back up finally with my Atmos .4 update. Interesting observation is that the addition of the 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers hasn't given me a "Wow" moment yet although I've only watched a couple movies so far. But I can definitely tell my MLP is in more of an acoustic bubble now instead of just a back soundstage.


Try Ready Player One or Blade Runner 2047 or Mad Max Fury Road. All 3 are reference quality sound mixes.


----------



## jmbgator

StevenC56 said:


> Got my system back up finally with my Atmos .4 update. Interesting observation is that the addition of the 4 in-ceiling Atmos speakers hasn't given me a "Wow" moment yet although I've only watched a couple movies so far. But I can definitely tell my MLP is in more of an acoustic bubble now instead of just a back soundstage.


A lot of members here raise their Atmos speaker levels on their receiver by about +3db or +4db... Maybe try that as well.


----------



## StevenC56

jmbgator said:


> A lot of members here raise their Atmos speaker levels on their receiver by about +3db or +4db... Maybe try that as well.


I'll play around with the level a bit. I think I was expecting too much, and with the front and rear presence speakers prior to adding the overheads it already sounded quite good. Like I mentioned, the MLP has more of a surround bubble now than before, so that's probably the best it's going to get.


----------



## DigiWega

StevenC56 said:


> I'll play around with the level a bit. I think I was expecting too much, and with the front and rear presence speakers prior to adding the overheads it already sounded quite good. Like I mentioned, the MLP has more of a surround bubble now than before, so that's probably the best it's going to get.


What have you watched so far? The bubble is 80% of it but trust me it gets better.


----------



## StevenC56

DigiWega said:


> What have you watched so far? The bubble is 80% of it but trust me it gets better.


San Andreas BR and The Fifth Element 4K.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

StevenC56 said:


> San Andreas BR and The Fifth Element 4K.



Try midway and Hacksaw ridge too.


----------



## Matt L

try Ford v. Ferrari


----------



## MagnumX

Matt L said:


> try Ford v. Ferrari


Overhead use in a car race? I haven't watched it yet, but the original Fast and the Furious in DTS:X has excellent 7.1 bed sound, but very little overhead use other than atmospheric reverb, etc. Is there something specific overhead that happens in that movie (helicopters or something)?

I know I was massively disappointed by _The Fifth Element_'s Atmos sound. I expected so much more (typical of many Atmos titles, IMO where overhead effects are either not directly overhead or at lower levels where they're hard to hear clearly).


If he wants to be dazzled with overheads, get _Flatliners_ off a streaming site in Atmos (e.g. iTunes). 1 minute 30 seconds in the introduction voiceovers begin with about near death experiences and they just crawl around all over the ceiling for a few minutes. I still think it's the best short demo of on-ceiling sounds in a short time of anything out there (sadly the rest of the movie doesn't live up to that level). 

Best war movie overheads I've heard so far (haven't watched _Hacksaw Ridge_ yet even though I have it here; _Midway_ was good, but not spectacular) is FURY with Brad Pitt. Crazy good and distinct. Those Germans trying to get into the tank on the ceiling and mortars flying over your head throughout are excellent. _Overlord_ has pretty good Atmos as well. The Last Mission Impossible movie (_Fallout_) has excellent Atmos sound, especially the helicopter chase near the end.

Harry Potter movies in DTS:X (4K UHD BDs) have all kinds of overhead sounds where appropriate from flying brooms and cars to church bells, etc.

I've read TOP GUN is being re-released in 4K with Atmos sound. That should be interesting.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Overhead use in a car race? I haven't watched it yet, but the original Fast and the Furious in DTS:X has excellent 7.1 bed sound, but very little overhead use other than atmospheric reverb, etc. Is there something specific overhead that happens in that movie (helicopters or something)?


Even in my traditional 7.1 system with four Polk FXiA4 speakers running in bipole mode, the envelopement in Ford V Ferrari is phenomenal. There is one scene where Shelby flies an old twin engine airplane into the airport where the 64 Mustang is being introduced. The plane comes around and flies from directly behind you, overhead, and onto the runway directly in front of you. It scared the crap out of my dog and wife and I too. Also the scenes in the hangers where the cars are being worked on is very realistic, feels like you are in the hanger with the crew. With car crashes I felt like I was in the driver's seat. I can only imagine what it would sound like in full Atmos.


----------



## cathodeRay

I have a typical attic, plywood over the joists with fiber insulation in between, drywall ceiling. No obstructions but quite a few webs chriss-crossing everywhere.

What should I expect to pay just for the installation of 4 ceiling mounted speakers plus wiring. Speakers will be on adjustable mounts, not "in ceiling".


----------



## StevenC56

Watched Blade runner 2049, and the effects were good. Amazing low frequency workout throughout the whole movie as well. Hadn't watched it in a while, but I don't recall the bass being so aggressive.


----------



## batpig

StevenC56 said:


> Watched Blade runner 2049, and the effects were good. Amazing low frequency workout throughout the whole movie as well. Hadn't watched it in a while, but I don't recall the bass being so aggressive.


Your memory (or previous subwoofers) must be going bad because this disc is notorious for having some of the most powerful bass of any movie!  

This movie has a lot of great Atmos effects but one of the coolest ones in terms of highlighting the precise 3D positioning in space is the scene near the end where K returns to the city and interacts with the giant hologram of his "girlfriend". The hologram is so tall and the voice emanates from the upper right to reflect that relative spatial positioning.


----------



## johng

StevenC56 said:


> Watched Blade runner 2049, and the effects were good. Amazing low frequency workout throughout the whole movie as well. Hadn't watched it in a while, but I don't recall the bass being so aggressive.


The bass in Blade Runner 2049 is very aggressive. It literally shook some things in our room, and we've got things tied down. The 4K version of the original Blade Runner is also very good. We watched it with a friend a few weeks ago and she literally jumped at the opening bass note. That version of the original features a new mix from the original stems and the overall directionality is outstanding. Both 4K films are reference quality.


----------



## StevenC56

batpig said:


> Your memory (or previous subwoofers) must be going bad because this disc is notorious for having some of the most powerful bass of any movie!
> 
> This movie has a lot of great Atmos effects but one of the coolest ones in terms of highlighting the precise 3D positioning in space is the scene near the end where K returns to the city and interacts with the giant hologram of his "girlfriend". The hologram is so tall and the voice emanates from the upper right to reflect that relative spatial positioning.


Same 5 subwoofers, but I do have CRS.


----------



## batpig

Ha! I sometimes have CRS but I will always remember that giant nekked hologram of Ana de Armas  



StevenC56 said:


> San Andreas BR and The Fifth Element 4K.


San Andreas is actually well known as having virtually zero overhead effects. It was one of the first Atmos BD releases and people complained a lot back then about obvious "missed opportunities" like helicopters flying around. The movie has a very powerful and dynamic soundtrack overall but it's just about the worst possible test disc for Atmos overhead effects.

The Fifth Element remaster from my recollection has minimal discrete overhead effects, mostly immersive ambient stuff.

Also, as a reminder, Atmos isn't just about hearing discrete overhead effects, a lot of the benefit is the "3D bubble" where you just feel more enveloped / immersed in the "sonic space" of the movie. If you hear individual speakers, vs. a seamless blend with certain effects "floating" at points in space, that's actually not a good thing.


----------



## davehale

cathodeRay said:


> I have a typical attic, plywood over the joists with fiber insulation in between, drywall ceiling. No obstructions but quite a few webs chriss-crossing everywhere.
> 
> What should I expect to pay just for the installation of 4 ceiling mounted speakers plus wiring. Speakers will be on adjustable mounts, not "in ceiling".


A downtown electrical Tradesman Union charged me $200 but I provided the 4 pre cut wires and the pinpointed center for all 4 ceiling speakers. Plus I draped plastic around the entire 4 speaker area. Wife appreciated that as well as I would have had to clean it up anyway.


----------



## StevenC56

Looking to order a couple 4K discs from Amazon. Already have Harry Potter DHII, but just the blu ray so maybe a contender? Ready Player One keeps getting mentioned. Godzilla? Fantastic Beasts 1&2? Trying to get a couple more expensive ones to maximize the 2 for 30 special. Tonight it's either Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy 2 which we already own.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> Looking to order a couple 4K discs from Amazon. Already have Harry Potter DHII, but just the blu ray so maybe a contender?


4K Harry Potter movies are night and day for overhead effects as they weren't designed for overhead when they were released. They did a really great job with DTS:X, but it's only on the 4K discs. I'd get the box set when it's on sale for $99 or less (best bang for buck). Some new ones coming out... Bloodshot is DTS:X on 4K disc and no Atmos version on iTunes while Jumanji 3 is DTS:X on 4K UHD disc, but it is in Atmos on iTunes.



> Ready Player One keeps getting mentioned. Godzilla? Fantastic Beasts 1&2? Trying to get a couple more expensive ones to maximize the 2 for 30 special. Tonight it's either Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy 2 which we already own.


Ready Player One is good. It's not my favorite "movie" though. I liked the second Fantastic Beasts movie (3D video was great; the sound was very good). The first movie was kind of boring, IMO (critics seem to think the opposite, but I don't usually care for critic reviews). I haven't seen the newest Godzilla. King Kong Skull Island is GREAT, though (in Atmos and 3D video version as well). 

It's a tough call on Wonder Woman and GOTG Part 2. They're both great movies. I only have the latter in 7.1 since it's a 3D Disney disc, but it upmixes well so I assume the Atmos track is OK (although I shouldn't assume anything with Disney). Wonder Woman in Atmos, however is excellent all around (Atmos sound and 3D video version as well. As you can tell, I'm 3D orientated so I go 3D over 4K, especially since my projector is still 2K).


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> 4K Harry Potter movies are night and day for overhead effects as they weren't designed for overhead when they were released. They did a really great job with DTS:X, but it's only on the 4K discs. I'd get the box set when it's on sale for $99 or less (best bang for buck). Some new ones coming out... Bloodshot is DTS:X on 4K disc and no Atmos version on iTunes while Jumanji 3 is DTS:X on 4K UHD disc, but it is in Atmos on iTunes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ready Player One is good. It's not my favorite "movie" though. I liked the second Fantastic Beasts movie (3D video was great; the sound was very good). The first movie was kind of boring, IMO (critics seem to think the opposite, but I don't usually care for critic reviews). I haven't seen the newest Godzilla. King Kong Skull Island is GREAT, though (in Atmos and 3D video version as well).
> 
> It's a tough call on Wonder Woman and GOTG Part 2. They're both great movies. I only have the latter in 7.1 since it's a 3D Disney disc, but it upmixes well so I assume the Atmos track is OK (although I shouldn't assume anything with Disney). Wonder Woman in Atmos, however is excellent all around (Atmos sound and 3D video version as well. As you can tell, I'm 3D orientated so I go 3D over 4K, especially since my projector is still 2K).


Good idea on the HP boxed set. My wife is a big HP fan and already has 2 different limited edition sets including the big crate one that had tons of extras. Found out we have Endgame in 4K too, so we'll have to give that a go soon. GOG 2 is a steelbook that has BR. BR 3D, and 4K discs. They should all be that way in my opinion!


----------



## Matt L

After a bit of work I'm finally getting NF DV & Atmos on my firestick, all I can say is it's a great improvement over the regular audio. The sonic bubble Atmos creates adds a lot to the experience. If anyone is interested I used a pure Kodi v.18.6 and installed the correct Netflix plug in. Info is in the Firestick4k thread here. Glad I did not have to shell out $$$ for another full functioned streamer, though I don't think there are many that do DV and Atmos. The setup has it's quirks but nothing other than an annoyance or two.


----------



## _Jim_

The Quiet Place has a very distinct jump scare in the overheads.


----------



## MagnumX

gbaby said:


> While I don't have ATMOS, this does not appear to be a properly set up ATMOS configuration. /forum/images/smilies/confused.gif


What doesn't?


----------



## gbaby

MagnumX said:


> What doesn't?


This was posted on the wrong thread and will be deleted. Sorry.


----------



## GMil

Ok guys, 

I just baked my noodle and I need someone to set me straight. I'm trying to get a second set of in ceiling atmos speakers installed to get to 5.1.4. I want to install the new set at 30° from MLP in a front height position and I am thinking about going with a speaker that is angled at 30° like the golden ear Invisa HTR 7000. If I do this will this put this speaker smack dap 'in my face' on a 0° axis or am I missing something here. 

Thanks, 
G


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> Ok guys,
> 
> I just baked my noodle and I need someone to set me straight. I'm trying to get a second set of in ceiling atmos speakers installed to get to 5.1.4. I want to install the new set at 30° from MLP in a front height position and I am thinking about going with a speaker that is angled at 30° like the golden ear Invisa HTR 7000. If I do this will this put this speaker smack dap 'in my face' on a 0° axis or am I missing something here.
> 
> Thanks,
> G


Unfortunately, something in the font changed the numbers as you can possibly see in the quote. I'm not sure what you mean by in your face at 30 degrees height position. Why would that be in your face? My front heights are at ~34 degrees for the front row (rears are at like -22 or something from the front row as the room is 24' long and they're on the back wall/ceiling and the front are at the top/front of the room. I bridge the two sets with top middle speakers in the middle of the room (Pro Logic Extraction of the center output for the channels). Sounds start at the front ceiling/top edge of the screen and move transparently across the ceiling as needed by the movie. The helicopter demo has that thing moving in 24' long ellipse around the room, which is probably 2x-3x as far as most 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 setups go and lines up with the front mains and rear surrounds and blend seamlessly together for a total rectangular dome of sound. The speakers are more or less invisible unless the soundtrack plays something right at them (snap function) for some reason.

The only way any speaker would be "in your face" in my opinion is if it's only a few feet away from your head. You should always have 3-4 feet minimum distance from any given speaker when possible.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> The helicopter demo has that thing moving in 24' long ellipse around the room,


When I played this demo the helicopter went around behind me but then instead of going around in front, it went right to left directly overhead.
This was with a .6 setup with matrixed middles, so I removed the matrix processing and ran as .4 with F&R heights in the top corners of my 20' long room.
Didn't make any difference - the copter still went directly overhead - not across the front 

Don't know if it this is specifically Atmos effect, but I was watching a scene in a prison cell and heard what sounded like my little girl screaming out in another area of the house - I ignored it as any caring dad would because her mother was out there with her. Then a couple of minutes later I heard it again but a bit louder and more sustained. As I almost got up to check it out I realised it was other prisoners being tortured in the other cells !!
I then told the missus about it and said how real it sounded. A few days later I had her sit down and watch the same scene - and she actually did get up to check who was screaming outside


----------



## GMil

Thx man,
My room is only like 15 feet wide by 13 deep so I don't need anything that wide in coverage. 8 feet is livable. 12 feet is ideal. We sit 11.5 feet from the screen. 

What I'm really trying to understand is if I install atmos in ceiling speakers at a 30 degree angle from my MLP (in essence a front height position) and use a speaker that is fixed at a 30 degree angle. Would this put me directly on axis with the front heights? Or is the geometry weird , and the 30 degree angle of the speaker is only off setting my tangent angle of 60 degrees thus netting me a 30 degrees off axis listening position of these speakers. In which case, I would consider the very limit of an acceptable range in which I would install these speakers and most likely a better solution would be a speaker angled at 45 degrees. 

I hope this makes sense. 

Thanks, 
G


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok guys,
> 
> I just baked my noodle and I need someone to set me straight. I'm trying to get a second set of in ceiling atmos speakers installed to get to 5.1.4. I want to install the new set at 30° from MLP in a front height position and I am thinking about going with a speaker that is angled at 30° like the golden ear Invisa HTR 7000. If I do this will this put this speaker smack dap 'in my face' on a 0° axis or am I missing something here.
> 
> Thanks,
> G
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way any speaker would be "in your face" in my opinion is if it's only a few feet away from your head. You should always have 3-4 feet minimum distance from any given speaker when possible.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I should've clarified. I meant that I would be directly, on center, 0 degree axis of the speaker as 'smack dab in your face' 
I hope this helps. 

G


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> When I played this demo the helicopter went around behind me but then instead of going around in front, it went right to left directly overhead.
> This was with a .6 setup with matrixed middles, so I removed the matrix processing and ran as .4 with F&R heights in the top corners of my 20' long room.
> Didn't make any difference - the copter still went directly overhead - not across the front


That sounds like maybe the front height levels are too low compared to the rear ones so the stereo image (which would include matrixed since it uses the same levels as inputs) would tend to pull towards the rear even if you're sitting right in the middle.


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> Sorry, I should've clarified. I meant that I would be directly, on center, 0 degree axis of the speaker as 'smack dab in your face'
> I hope this helps.
> 
> G


If I'm understanding this correctly (and I'm not sure I am), you're asking if the front height speakers should be in line with the center channel (i.e. directly in front of you) at 30 degrees elevation? They're typically lined up with the front main speakers, not directly in front of you. The mains might be at +/- 30 degrees azimuth (as in a left/right 30 degree angle from the center), but front heights typically start at 30 degrees elevation (that is the Y-axis floor to ceiling that is directly overhead at 90 degrees and directly behind you at 180 degrees). Thus front/rear heights would be 30 degrees and 150 degree elevation (although they could be up to 45 degrees and 135 degrees, respectively). 

So in other words, front heights would typically sit directly above your Left/Right mains, which in most rooms would be right at the edge of the ceiling or in the ceiling in the front of the room. So the right front speaker would be 30 degrees azimuth, 0 degree elevation (relative to your face) and the right front height would be 30 degrees azimuth, 30 degrees elevation. The left main would be -30 degrees azimuth and 0 degree elevation and the left front height would be -30 degrees azimuth and 30 degrees elevation. Your center speaker would be 0 degrees azimuth (straight in front of you) at 0 degrees elevation (ideally anyway; some center speakers have to sit lower if the screen is in the way). If you had a center height speaker (Auro-3D/DTS:X can use this), it would be 0 degrees azimuth, 30 degree elevation (straight in front of you above the screen at the ceiling with a typical 8-9' ceiling). Obviously, your distance from the speakers will change the relative elevation as will your seated height (the lower you head is sitting, the higher the relative elevation angle and that actually varies a bit between different people so these are guidelines, not hard fixed rules. With top middle speakers added, Dolby guidelines say front heights be as low as 20 degrees in height (at that point, you're probably free to align them to the screen itself). The only problem is some Dolby Atmos movies don't use top middle which ruins it all (my personal pet peeve with Dolby for EVER allowing that to happen as it defeats the point of it all).

I hope that answers your question. I'm still not 100% clear if that's what you were asking or not.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> Would this put me directly on axis with the front heights?


To be on-axis with those speakers, you would have to draw a circle on the ceiling at 30 degrees elevation from ear height and place the speakers on that circle AND aim the speaker baffle at the main listening position. 

Keep in mind that most speakers sound best on-axis. They also tend to measure best (smoothest, flattest response) on-axis. Your posts make it sound like you're concerned about listening to the speakers on-axis (like that's a bad thing). 

For better height effect, I would mount the speakers on a line at 45 degrees elevation forward of you AND aim each speaker at the listener at the opposite end of the couch (to compensate for distance).


----------



## niterida

GMil said:


> Thx man,
> My room is only like 15 feet wide by 13 deep so I don't need anything that wide in coverage. 8 feet is livable. 12 feet is ideal. We sit 11.5 feet from the screen.
> 
> What I'm really trying to understand is if I install atmos in ceiling speakers at a 30 degree angle from my MLP (in essence a front height position) and use a speaker that is fixed at a 30 degree angle. Would this put me directly on axis with the front heights? Or is the geometry weird , and the 30 degree angle of the speaker is only off setting my tangent angle of 60 degrees thus netting me a 30 degrees off axis listening position of these speakers. In which case, I would consider the very limit of an acceptable range in which I would install these speakers and most likely a better solution would be a speaker angled at 45 degrees.
> 
> I hope this makes sense.
> 
> Thanks,
> G


I think the drawing on the left is what you are planning and the drawing on the right is what you need to do to be on axis. Which is why bookshelf/satellites work better as they can be aimed properly with the right bracket.
Note that the speaker can still be twisted on the ceiling to point at the MLP rather than straight down the room (which will change the actual angles slightly but hopefully not by too much).
And also remember the angle from MLP to the speaker is as drawn directly forward of the MLP to a line drawn on the ceiling BETWEEN the 2 speakers, not directly to the speaker.
But also remember these are guidelines and do not need to be exact to the millimetre or degree


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> That sounds like maybe the front height levels are too low compared to the rear ones so the stereo image (which would include matrixed since it uses the same levels as inputs) would tend to pull towards the rear even if you're sitting right in the middle.


All levels are set correctly - using SPL app so they are accurate to each other at least.
But I will double check and do some testing. 
I had trouble downloading and playing the file initially so maybe its corrupted ? Do you know where I can download a certified/accurate/valid copy ?


----------



## Augerhandle

niterida said:


> When I played this demo the helicopter went around behind me but then instead of going around in front, it went right to left directly overhead.
> This was with a .6 setup with matrixed middles, so I removed the matrix processing and ran as .4 with F&R heights in the top corners of my 20' long room.
> Didn't make any difference - the copter still went directly overhead - not across the front...


Same effect in my (6.2.4) system.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> All levels are set correctly - using SPL app so they are accurate to each other at least.
> But I will double check and do some testing.
> I had trouble downloading and playing the file initially so maybe its corrupted ? Do you know where I can download a certified/accurate/valid copy ?


I can probably explain why it would do that with TOPS speakers instead of HEIGHTS, but in your case, it's a bit more baffling since you say you have the heights speakers in the corners of the room. That's why I wondered about levels.

I've attached a diagram of my room and where the flight path would be if I used TOPS instead of HEIGHTS in my room (tops waste 1/2 the ceiling area as they start 6 feet out in a 24' long room) and it would seem to move almost directly overhead for the front row on the front pass and directly overhead in the rear for the middle row and entirely in front of the third row. Tops are great for having more sounds "directly overhead" (the diagram makes this visually clear I think) while heights could use the same amount of space as the bed speakers, creating a nice even bubble instead of a pinched bubble.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this put me directly on axis with the front heights?
> 
> 
> 
> To be on-axis with those speakers, you would have to draw a circle on the ceiling at 30 degrees elevation from ear height and place the speakers on that circle AND aim the speaker baffle at the main listening position.
Click to expand...

Done. Just haven't placed the speakers yet until I get this right. 


sdurani said:


> Keep in mind that most speakers sound best on-axis. They also tend to measure best (smoothest, flattest response) on-axis. Your posts make it sound like you're concerned about listening to the speakers on-axis (like that's a bad thing).


Not at all. In fact, just the opposite. I am trying to get as on axis as humanly possible with speakers at this location and distance. I think that is going to be highly important in order to get the best results from my plan. Considering I am already a bit unorthodox as it stands. 


sdurani said:


> For better height effect, I would mount the speakers on a line at 45 degrees elevation forward of you AND aim each speaker at the listener at the opposite end of the couch (to compensate for distance).


Do you mean 100 percent cross toe each height? Anyways, I can't. Hence my dilemma, I already have a pair of speakers mounted at 55 degrees in a TM position due to couch being up against a wall. I am concerned that if I drop a pair of height(in ceiling) speakers up there at 0 degree elevation(as magnum put it which is accurate) even with a 90 degree dispersion pattern. I will still be 30 degrees off axis. I dont even know if these speakers do 90 degree dispersion. If they only do 45 degrees. I am completely outside the range of the speaker and will hear almost nothing. Yielding unsatisfactory results. Or am I all mixed up in this logic(if it's logic at all)?

I attached a picture of my living room. Hopefully, you guys can see the green tape marks I used to indicate potential speaker locations. 

Thanks,
G


----------



## StevenC56

Watched Oblivion last night. Decent effects and of course the video is awesome on the 4K disc.


----------



## Josh Z

StevenC56 said:


> Watched Oblivion last night. Decent effects and of course the video is awesome on the 4K disc.


I believe the consensus is that the 4k disc actually looks inferior to the 1080p Blu-ray in this case.


----------



## deano86

niterida said:


> When I played this demo the helicopter went around behind me but then instead of going around in front, it went right to left directly overhead.
> This was with a .6 setup with matrixed middles, so I removed the matrix processing and ran as .4 with F&R heights in the top corners of my 20' long room.
> Didn't make any difference - the copter still went directly overhead - not across the front


By chance are you using a receiver/prepro with Audyssey?...and more importantly are you also using Dynamic EQ? If so, that could possibly explain what you are hearing... as Dynamic EQ only boosts the Rears and not the Fronts.... which would be quite noticeable at lower listening volumes...Just a thought...


----------



## StevenC56

Josh Z said:


> I believe the consensus is that the 4k disc actually looks inferior to the 1080p Blu-ray in this case.


I have both, but I don't think the 1080P BR has the Atmos soundtrack. Not sure where people say the 4K version falls short, it looked really good.


----------



## Josh Z

StevenC56 said:


> I have both, but I don't think the 1080P BR has the Atmos soundtrack. Not sure where people say the 4K version falls short, it looked really good.


You are correct that the Blu-ray does not have Atmos, only the 4k disc. 

I don't have the 4k disc, but the reports I've read claim that the Blu-ray is sharper and more detailed. The color temperature is also different between the two discs. There are some screenshot comparisons on this page:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=11748&d2=11747&c=4635


----------



## GMil

niterida said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thx man,
> My room is only like 15 feet wide by 13 deep so I don't need anything that wide in coverage. 8 feet is livable. 12 feet is ideal. We sit 11.5 feet from the screen.
> 
> What I'm really trying to understand is if I install atmos in ceiling speakers at a 30 degree angle from my MLP (in essence a front height position) and use a speaker that is fixed at a 30 degree angle. Would this put me directly on axis with the front heights? Or is the geometry weird , and the 30 degree angle of the speaker is only off setting my tangent angle of 60 degrees thus netting me a 30 degrees off axis listening position of these speakers. In which case, I would consider the very limit of an acceptable range in which I would install these speakers and most likely a better solution would be a speaker angled at 45 degrees.
> 
> I hope this makes sense.
> 
> Thanks,
> G
> 
> 
> 
> I think the drawing on the left is what you are planning and the drawing on the right is what you need to do to be on axis. Which is why bookshelf/satellites work better as they can be aimed properly with the right bracket.
Click to expand...

OK. I think this is closer to what I'm trying to figure out but still confused as my math indicates the 30 degree azimuth is more visually representative of your left side sketch vs. The right. In other words, the 30 degrees location I am calculating is quite some distance into the room and not directly overhead as indicated in the right side sketch. 


niterida said:


> Note that the speaker can still be twisted on the ceiling to point at the MLP rather than straight down the room (which will change the actual angles slightly but hopefully not by too much).


Maybe this helps. I always thought speakers dispersed in a 360 pattern thus an in ceiling speaker installed flat on the ceiling with 0 degree elevation would not matter how it was rotated but rather azimuth and elevation to determine axis?


niterida said:


> And also remember the angle from MLP to the speaker is as drawn directly forward of the MLP to a line drawn on the ceiling BETWEEN the 2 speakers, not directly to the speaker.
> But also remember these are guidelines and do not need to be exact to the millimetre or degree


Ok. I think this is getting closer to what I'm trying to figure out just still confused. What I did to determine the speaker location was to measure from my ear to the ceiling. I took the 2 angles that I know. 90 degrees and 30 degrees and found my tangent angle of 60 degrees. I took the tangent of 60 and multiplied that times the opposite side(the distance of my ear to the ceiling) to determine the distance across the ceiling to a location of 30 degrees from listening position. That number was 7 feet 1 and 3/4 of an inch. Is this not right? Or are we saying the same thing just inverse?

Thanks,
G


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this put me directly on axis with the front heights?
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that most speakers sound best on-axis. They also tend to measure best (smoothest, flattest response) on-axis. Your posts make it sound like you're concerned about listening to the speakers on-axis (like that's a bad thing).
Click to expand...

The other dilemma that I'm wrestling with is do I even want these speakers to be on axis in an atmos set up. Are the speakers that have built in elevations mainly for in ceiling LCR? So that you have that 'in your face' directional sound and you dont have a sensation of the sound coming from distance and/or the ceiling. If I do achieve this, will it mess up the 3D atmos effect? Is the idea of atmos to have more of a direct columnar type sound that just shoots like a laser beam down into the room below it even though there may be no one sitting there or it's out in the room somewhere. It's just a part of the effect to create a "bubble of sound" to fill the entire room and I'm wasting time worrying about directionality in a system that doesn't call for it? The more I think about it might turn out a little weird. It could certainly mess with sounds that were meant to give the listener a perceived effect of an object off in the distance or something moving away from the listener like a star destroyer passing overhead from back to front. I can certainly get a pairs of tops with no built in elevation a lot cheaper if it is only going to ruin the effects. 

G


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> I have both, but I don't think the 1080P BR has the Atmos soundtrack. Not sure where people say the 4K version falls short, it looked really good.


I moved the 4K Atmos track to the 2K video here (what with not having a 4K projector anyway) so I can't comment on the 4K video, but I thought the Atmos sound was quite good on Oblivion.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> I moved the 4K Atmos track to the 2K video here (what with not having a 4K projector anyway) so I can't comment on the 4K video, but I thought the Atmos sound was quite good on Oblivion.


Man, that must get expensive, buying the 4K discs to get their Atmos track (since most 2K blus don't include Atmos, sadly).


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> Man, that must get expensive, buying the 4K discs to get their Atmos track (since most 2K blus don't include Atmos, sadly).


Well, I don't buy the 2K disc and I have the 4K version which comes with a 2K disc also (and usually a digital copy that usually has Atmos on it too) so I'm set for when I do get my 4K projector (my BD Player can play 4K discs directly to my projector with Atmos sound as well). If it's not a movie I'm enthralled with and I get a good price, I might just buy the streaming version from Apple which includes 2K/4K with Atmos support in 2K mode as well. For a good long while I got a number of 2K BDs for cheap that included a 4K copy through iTunes redemption codes as well. Why buy 2K only when I'll eventually get a 4K projector? Plus I have a 55" 4K set (I'm not crazy about watching movies on it, though as it doesn't compare to 92").


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> Do you mean 100 percent cross toe each height?


What's with the absolutism? Aim each speaker at the listener farthest away. It's an old trick called time/energy trading that keeps the nearby speaker from dominating. Doesn't have "100 percent". Just aim in the general direction of the opposite listener.


GMil said:


> I attached a picture of my living room.


Don't see a pic attached to the post.


GMil said:


> I am trying to get as on axis as humanly possible with speakers at this location and distance. I think that is going to be highly important in order to get the best results from my plan.





GMil said:


> The other dilemma that I'm wrestling with is do I even want these speakers to be on axis in an atmos set up. Are the speakers that have built in elevations mainly for in ceiling LCR? So that you have that 'in your face' directional sound and you dont have a sensation of the sound coming from distance and/or the ceiling. If I do achieve this, will it mess up the 3D atmos effect?


Do you want to hear your speakers on-axis for "best results" or are you concerned that listening to your speakers on-axis will "mess up the 3D atmos effect"?


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean 100 percent cross toe each height?
> 
> 
> 
> What's with the absolutism? Aim each speaker at the listener farthest away. It's an old trick called time/energy trading that keeps the nearby speaker from dominating. Doesn't have "100 percent". Just aim in the general direction of the opposite listener.
Click to expand...

Just seems it makes the most sense that the farthest you would toe in a speaker would be to the farthest opposite listener position. Sounds like an absolute to me. Hence, 100%


GMil said:


> I attached a picture of my living room.





sdurani said:


> Don't see a pic attached to the post.


My bad. Try this...


GMil said:


> I am trying to get as on axis as humanly possible with speakers at this location and distance. I think that is going to be highly important in order to get the best results from my plan.





GMil said:


> The other dilemma that I'm wrestling with is do I even want these speakers to be on axis in an atmos set up. Are the speakers that have built in elevations mainly for in ceiling LCR? So that you have that 'in your face' directional sound and you dont have a sensation of the sound coming from distance and/or the ceiling. If I do achieve this, will it mess up the 3D atmos effect?





sdurani said:


> Do you want to hear your speakers on-axis for "best results" or are you concerned that listening to your speakers on-axis will "mess up the 3D atmos effect"?


I'm looking for reassurance that installing my speakers on axis with "best results" will not be detrimental to the Atmos 3D effect and is , in fact, a recommended practice. 
I appreciate your time. 

Thanks,
G


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> Sounds like an absolute to me. Hence, 100%


It's your system, so you can be as abolutist as you want about toe-in.


> I'm looking for reassurance that installing my speakers on axis with "best results" will not be detrimental to the Atmos 3D effect and is , in fact, a recommended practice.


I don't know where you got the impression that if you aim a height speaker at the listener, then _"you dont have a sensation of the sound coming from distance and/or the ceiling"_. Toe-in doesn't change directionality, just sound quality. If you aim your left speaker at you, doesn't it still sound like it's at your left? 

Are the in-ceiling speakers in your pic currently active (i.e., are you trying to turn your 5.1.2 set-up into 5.1.4)? 

Speaking of pic, consider pulling your centre speaker forward so that it is just past the edge of the stand and not getting surface reflections.


----------



## MarshMPH

I know this isn't strictly hardware related, but this thread has the most traffic of all the active Atmos threads.

Trying to figure out if Amazon Prime Movies (streaming) 4K/UHD is Dolby Atmos mixed? 

I can't find anywhere within the Amazon Streaming app or on the google machine that can confirm this or not.


----------



## GMil

niterida said:


> And also remember the angle from MLP to the speaker is as drawn directly forward of the MLP to a line drawn on the ceiling BETWEEN the 2 speakers, not directly to the speaker.
> But also remember these are guidelines and do not need to be exact to the millimetre or degree





GMil said:


> Ok. I think this is getting closer to what I'm trying to figure out just still confused. What I did to determine the speaker location was to measure from my ear to the ceiling. I took the 2 angles that I know. 90 degrees and 30 degrees and found my tangent angle of 60 degrees. I took the tangent of 60 and multiplied that times the opposite side(the distance of my ear to the ceiling) to determine the distance across the ceiling to a location of 30 degrees from listening position. That number was 7 feet 1 and 3/4 of an inch. Is this not right? Or are we saying the same thing just inverse?
> 
> Thanks,
> G


Sorry. I meant to post 8.66 was the result or what I rounded up to as 8 feet 8 inches. The 7 feet 1 and 3/4 of an inch was from a different calculation. I don't want to confuse anyone. I hope this helps. 

G

G


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> I don't have the 4k disc, but the reports I've read claim that the Blu-ray is sharper and more detailed. The color temperature is also different between the two discs. There are some screenshot comparisons on this page:
> 
> https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=11748&d2=11747&c=4635


Of course, a 10-bit HDR 4K grade with a vastly higher bitrate is always going to be different to an 8-bit SDR 2K grade of the same movie. Even before you take into account artistic intent and what's possible to bring out in one version that wasn't possible in the other. Comparing tone-mapped-to-SDR screenshots isn't really going to help since one of them is HDR yet the screenshots of it are SDR.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for reassurance that installing my speakers on axis with "best results" will not be detrimental to the Atmos 3D effect and is , in fact, a recommended practice.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got the impression that if you aim a height speaker at the listener, then _"you dont have a sensation of the sound coming from distance and/or the ceiling"_. Toe-in doesn't change directionality, just sound quality. If you aim your left speaker at you, doesn't it still sound like it's at your left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is exactly what I've been asking all the long. Let's forget about toe-in for now as these speakers will be "in ceiling" like my current pair but the baffles will be angled to 30 degrees. I was under the impression that the original reason they began designing angled baffle speakers was for a LCR in ceiling solution. Where as the sound from the speakers, due to on axis directionality, made them sound as if they were right in front of you and not in the ceiling. Not exactly the result you would want for Atmos. I am simply trying to ascertain if this is not the case from users with experience.
> 
> 
> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the in-ceiling speakers in your pic currently active (i.e., are you trying to turn your 5.1.2 set-up into 5.1.4)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of pic, consider pulling your centre speaker forward so that it is just past the edge of the stand and not getting surface reflections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the advice,
> G
Click to expand...


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> I was under the impression that the original reason they began designing angled baffle speakers was for a LCR in ceiling solution.


Angled baffles were designed into in-ceiling speakers because speakers tend to sound better the closer you get on-axis (instead of point straight down to an arbitrary spot on the floor where there are no listeners, like most in-ceiling speakers do). This is the same as toe-in (aiming speakers towards listeners). Despite having angled baffles, the drivers won't always be on-axis to the listeners, but some toe-in is better than none. That's why I don't think of this in terms of absolutes. It's not like an on/off switch. Having in-ceiling speakers with some toe-in is helpful, even when they're not 100% on-axis to any of the listeners.


----------



## flipswitch84

How common is ‘static’ from your speakers and anyone here experience it?


I found some coming from my speakers recently that I could hear from sitting distance.

What helped was clearing up the power cords from my devices, I just made them more neatly, tied some up.

Seems it has helped. 

But is very little static acceptable? I mean, you have to go right up to a speaker to hear it, and at that it’s still very hard to hear.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I can probably explain why it would do that with TOPS speakers instead of HEIGHTS, but in your case, it's a bit more baffling since you say you have the heights speakers in the corners of the room. That's why I wondered about levels.
> 
> I've attached a diagram of my room and where the flight path would be if I used TOPS instead of HEIGHTS in my room (tops waste 1/2 the ceiling area as they start 6 feet out in a 24' long room) and it would seem to move almost directly overhead for the front row on the front pass and directly overhead in the rear for the middle row and entirely in front of the third row. Tops are great for having more sounds "directly overhead" (the diagram makes this visually clear I think) while heights could use the same amount of space as the bed speakers, creating a nice even bubble instead of a pinched bubble.



My speakers are located as per your yellow ones and defined as heights in the AVR. Distances were pretty much accurate and levels were identical.
I played around with adjusting all the above - including setting them to extremes and changing Heights to Tops and nothing seemed to make much of an audible difference.
I set it back to how it was and I think it might just be a figment of my psychoacoustical imagination - what I thought was directly overhead is in actual fact more in front of me than overhead after all :eeksurprise:


----------



## Josh Z

MarshMPH said:


> Trying to figure out if Amazon Prime Movies (streaming) 4K/UHD is Dolby Atmos mixed?
> 
> I can't find anywhere within the Amazon Streaming app or on the google machine that can confirm this or not.


Prime has some Atmos, but a limited amount. The Suspiria remake should be Atmos on Prime, as well as the original series Carnival Row and the first season of Jack Ryan. I'm not sure if there's more than that available yet.


----------



## MarshMPH

Josh Z said:


> Prime has some Atmos, but a limited amount. The Suspiria remake should be Atmos on Prime, as well as the original series Carnival Row and the first season of Jack Ryan. I'm not sure if there's more than that available yet.


I've seen the limited Atmos list for their series. I'm wondering about movies that you can rent/buy from 'Prime Video' that are available in 4K/UHD.

Specifically, I've heard Midway is a weak movie from an acting and content standpoint, but visuals and Atmos track are great. I'd rather not buy a $20 disc to watch once, as it is probably something I don't need in my library. Amazon Prime Movies has the 4K/UHD version for rent. If the sound is mixed in Dolby Atmos, I'll gladly pay the rental fee.

Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

flipswitch84 said:


> How common is ‘static’ from your speakers and anyone here experience it?
> 
> 
> I found some coming from my speakers recently that I could hear from sitting distance.
> 
> What helped was clearing up the power cords from my devices, I just made them more neatly, tied some up.
> 
> Seems it has helped.
> 
> But is very little static acceptable? I mean, you have to go right up to a speaker to hear it, and at that it’s still very hard to hear.



Do you mean "hiss" or actual "static" (like zaps or crackles)? Hiss is always there (that's the noise floor). It's just a question of whether it's so low you cannot hear it. I've got three sets of inputs in an active mixer and running through an external AVR amp for my front heights (all the noise from each gets added together), so I can hear a bit of hiss if I stand right in front of them, but normally I cannot hear it from the MLP. I think those are the only ones I hear any hiss from short of putting my ear up against the speaker grill. 

I don't hear "static" as in crackles you'd get if you static zapped something nearby on the electrical line. That would indicate a possible loose wire or something arcing/shorting somewhere (not good). I used to get sometimes get static crackles in my old analog phone line at the house I lived before this one. It would get much worse when in rained. The phone company said it was probably inside the house and so my problem. So why did it get worse when it rained then? It wasn't raining in the house. That's one reason I got digital cable phone instead when I moved. The phone company was the pits (and nickled and dimed to death plus charged long distance, etc. when cable phone was $29 flat and had free long distance across North America).


----------



## Josh Z

MarshMPH said:


> I've seen the limited Atmos list for their series. I'm wondering about movies that you can rent/buy from 'Prime Video' that are available in 4K/UHD.
> 
> Specifically, I've heard Midway is a weak movie from an acting and content standpoint, but visuals and Atmos track are great. I'd rather not buy a $20 disc to watch once, as it is probably something I don't need in my library. Amazon Prime Movies has the 4K/UHD version for rent. If the sound is mixed in Dolby Atmos, I'll gladly pay the rental fee.


Unfortunately, the Amazon Prime app is not particularly useful for determining this info.

A quick search tells me that you can rent the movie from VUDU with 4k and Atmos, if that helps.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, the Amazon Prime app is not particularly useful for determining this info.
> 
> A quick search tells me that you can rent the movie from VUDU with 4k and Atmos, if that helps.


Amazon FireTV/Sticks do not support Vudu the last time I checked and given he didn't mention any other devices, I'd assume he doesn't have them. I'd suggest iTunes to rent, but you won't get 4K/Atmos on the Apple App except on AppleTV 4K devices. He'd only get 5.1. I think if the newer FireTV/Stick devices are set up for Atmos correctly, they should say on the listing at the top if they're in 4K and/or Atmos or not (requires 4K TV unlike AppleTV to get Atmos).


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Amazon FireTV/Sticks do not support Vudu the last time I checked and given he didn't mention any other devices, I'd assume he doesn't have them.


Nowhere in Marsh's posts does he say he has a FireTV. He only mentions using the Amazon Prime streaming app, which could be any device.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Nowhere in Marsh's posts does he say he has a FireTV. He only mentions using the Amazon Prime streaming app, which could be any device.


I think it more likely if that's all he mentioned that's all he has, but really, you cannot give advice based on no knowledge of his hardware. As long as the "Prime App" supports 4k/Atmos, it should still say. But you cannot assume Vudu anymore than I can assume iTunes will work.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I think it more likely if that's all he mentioned that's all he has, but really, you cannot give advice based on no knowledge of his hardware. As long as the "Prime App" supports 4k/Atmos, it should still say. But you cannot assume Vudu anymore than I can assume iTunes will work.


Must you try to turn every single post on this site into an argument? 

Whether the Prime app "should say" what content has Atmos is irrelevant given that the app *does not* provide that info. I'm not going to pay $5.99 to rent Midway on Amazon just to find out. What I can say with certainty is, if he wants to rent the movie with guaranteed 4k and Atmos, VUDU is confirmed to offer it that way. 

Whether that information is useful to MarshMPH is up to him to decide, not you.


----------



## MarshMPH

Josh Z said:


> Whether the Prime app "should say" what content has Atmos is irrelevant given that the app *does not* provide that info. I'm not going to pay $5.99 to rent Midway on Amazon just to find out. What I can say with certainty is, if he wants to rent the movie with guaranteed 4k and Atmos, VUDU is confirmed to offer it that way.
> 
> Whether that information is useful to MarshMPH is up to him to decide, not you.


I appreciate your replies Josh. I think you provided a viable option with the Vudu rental. My streaming device is Roku Ultra, which I confirmed supports Vudu + Atmos.

Generally I wouldn't care so much, but if I'm dropping coin for the visual/audio experience, it better be the right audio mix.

PS - If you are Amazon Prime subscribers, their 'No Rush Shipping - Digital Coupon' is now $3 per order (used to be $1). I've banked quite a bit over the past couple weeks as they are trying to incentivize 'No Rush' shipping with COVID-19 order surge.


----------



## JonasHansen

sdurani said:


> Agreed. The pre-rendered tracks still qualify as Atmos (base layer + height layer) but they don't take advantage of the native scaling built into the format. From what I've heard, some mixers can hear an audible artifact when objects and channels are combined (clustered). Simple example: imagine an Atmos track that is made up of only 3 Front channels and one object panning through them. When the object pans through the Left channel, there is a chance that combining those sounds will cause the left output to clip (overload). So the level of the Left channel and object have to be reduced by 3dB to keep from clipping. They can go back to their previous levels when the object has panned out of the Left channel. But now the object has to go through the Centre channel, which requires their levels to be attenuated and restored after the pan through. Same when the object pans through the Right channel.
> 
> Most people might not hear these level changes in a busy soundtrack. But with the example above, would the pumping be audible? (And annoying?) Maybe. Remember that Atmos is adjusting levels dynamically (on the fly) as the object moves around and clusters with each of the 3 channels. If you were doing this as a 3-channel mix, you'd keep all 3 channels slightly attenuated because you would know ahead of time which channels the object would be panning through. Neither the Atmos encoder in the studio nor the Atmos decoder in your AVR know ahead of time where that object is going to go, so they have to adjust levels on a moment to moment basis.
> 
> If you could hear that pumping, you'd consider releasing the mix as a 3.0 track rather than an Atmos track. The advantage with the Atmos track is that if you expanded your front soundstage to 5 or 7 speakers, the object would be played back through the speakers placed between the L/C/R speakers. But it might be worth giving up that scaling to avoid the level change artifact (assuming it is audible). BTW, this isn't something new. Prior to Disney, I'd heard the same excuse reason used by other studios.


 @sdurani, sorry if this has been mentioned before, but the things you are writing above, is that special for the home mix? Wouldn't that be an issue in the theater-playback as well?


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Must you try to turn every single post on this site into an argument?
> 
> Whether the Prime app "should say" what content has Atmos is irrelevant given that the app *does not* provide that info. I'm not going to pay $5.99 to rent Midway on Amazon just to find out. What I can say with certainty is, if he wants to rent the movie with guaranteed 4k and Atmos, VUDU is confirmed to offer it that way.
> 
> Whether that information is useful to MarshMPH is up to him to decide, not you.


YOU continue to argue back to me, but AS USUAL, it's always OK when *YOU* do it. 

Vudu is no guarantee as it won't run Atmos on 2K devices like many projectors out there (it requires a 4K set) and more importantly, as I already said, IF he has a FireTV 4K type device, Vudu isn't an available app on it the last time I looked in which case it won't run on it so Vudu wouldn't be an option (note the IF there; I see now he says he as Roku Ultra so it WILL work, but I was just pointing out the possibilities). I was simply pointing out the flaw in your advice so the guy is aware of it. It wasn't really meant for you, but you should learn something from that as well, but instead you scream at me for pointing it out anyway. 

Apple TV 4K IMO is always the best bet as it works with 2K also with Atmos, even if you don't own the 4K version but have a digital copy that has Atmos on the 4K version, you STILL get Atmos. It also says point blank what's in Atmos and/or 4K every single time (but as I pointed out, the "Apple TV App" for other devices will not do 4K or Atmos at this time so he should be aware of that as well). But that advice is no good. JUST YOURS.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that the original reason they began designing angled baffle speakers was for a LCR in ceiling solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Angled baffles were designed into in-ceiling speakers because speakers tend to sound better the closer you get on-axis (instead of point straight down to an arbitrary spot on the floor where there are no listeners, like most in-ceiling speakers do). This is the same as toe-in (aiming speakers towards listeners). Despite having angled baffles, the drivers won't always be on-axis to the listeners, but some toe-in is better than none. That's why I don't think of this in terms of absolutes. It's not like an on/off switch. Having in-ceiling speakers with some toe-in is helpful, even when they're not 100% on-axis to any of the listeners.
Click to expand...

Thx. I appreciate this. So am I 30 degrees off-axis from these speakers or 60? This was the other half of the equation I couldn't solve. 

G


----------



## sdurani

JonasHansen said:


> @sdurani, sorry if this has been mentioned before, but the things you are writing above, is that special for the home mix? Wouldn't that be an issue in the theater-playback as well?


"Spatial coding" (clustering to save space) is only used for home encodes, not the theatrical tracks.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> So am I 30 degrees off-axis from these speakers or 60?


To be on-axis with an in-ceiling speaker that has a 30 degree tilted baffle, the speaker needs to be 30 degrees forward of you (same as being at 60 degrees elevation from ear level).


----------



## niterida

GMil said:


> Thx. I appreciate this. So am I 30 degrees off-axis from these speakers or 60? This was the other half of the equation I couldn't solve.
> 
> G


 See my new drawing.
On the bottom 3 you can see that flat in ceiling speakers point straight down and you are far off-axis. You can't toe these or change that dispersion/axis angle at all (unless you mount them on an angle)
If you change them to 30deg angled speakers you become more on-axis.
To get them completely on-axis you must move them closer at mount them at 60 deg vertical from MLP. eg; if your ears are 6' from the ceiling they will will 3'4" in front of you.


Now the top drawings show the effect of rotating angled speakers - if you rotate them from pointing straight down the room then this will toe them in.


I think you can clearly see the effect all these changes make and the idea is to get all your seats as close possible to on-axis.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So am I 30 degrees off-axis from these speakers or 60?
> 
> 
> 
> To be on-axis with an in-ceiling speaker that has a 30 degree tilted baffle, the speaker needs to be 30 degrees forward of you (same as being at 60 degrees elevation from ear level).
Click to expand...

Can it be safe to assume that Audyssey will be sophisticated enough to compensate for any roll offs I will experience by being 30 degrees of axis?

G


----------



## GMil

niterida said:


> GMil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thx. I appreciate this. So am I 30 degrees off-axis from these speakers or 60? This was the other half of the equation I couldn't solve.
> 
> G
> 
> 
> 
> See my new drawing.
> On the bottom 3 you can see that flat in ceiling speakers point straight down and you are far off-axis. You can't toe these or change that dispersion/axis angle at all (unless you mount them on an angle)
> If you change them to 30deg angled speakers you become more on-axis.
> To get them completely on-axis you must move them closer at mount them at 60 deg vertical from MLP. eg; if your ears are 6' from the ceiling they will will 3'4" in front of you.
> 
> 
> Now the top drawings show the effect of rotating angled speakers - if you rotate them from pointing straight down the room then this will toe them in.
> 
> 
> I think you can clearly see the effect all these changes make and the idea is to get all your seats as close possible to on-axis.
Click to expand...

Thx guys,

I truly appreciate all the help.😎👍

G


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> Can it be safe to assume that Audyssey will be sophisticated enough to compensate for any roll offs I will experience by being 30 degrees of axis?


Safe to assume that it will boost the high frequencies (to whatever extent it can) to compensate for the roll off.


----------



## Matt L

Last night I was watching "Home Before Dark" in Atmos. It stuck me that this is what Amos is, no planes flying in circles over my head, no gun shots whizzing by, just simply a sense of space. It added subtly to the on-screen action but it was not in your face. I think may here treat Atmos like a new toy and want to see all the flashy stuff it does, much like the early days of any format, from ping pong balls with stereo, to voices popping up all over with Quad and later with 5.1 and so on. Stereo and 5.1/7.1 just is, we don't focus on hearing specific things from specific speakers most of the time it just envelopes us. That is the true function of Atmos as I see it adding one more piece to the tapestry that is AV.


----------



## AVTrauma

I need a little help understanding a few things...

I _promise it has *nothing* to do with speaker angles, distances or placement! But it is important for me to fully understand my options...

*Back Story:* I am coming at this ATMOS/DTS:X/AURO upgrade out of enthusiasm and excitment for what it can offer to my modest HT, as well as a small degree of necessity. I recently lost my 7.2 channel AVR. The disceased AVR was an Onkyo TX-NR 708; purchased January 2011. Many will know this AVR was one of the many models Onkyo had that went out with faulty HDMI boards that dropped network connections and audio outputs (from all sources). This occurred with mine about 6 months after set up; I phoned Onkyo support who provided the box and shipping label to the nearest repair center. Had it back just under 2 weeks, and worked without problem till a month ago, when all audio output ceased. (HDMI pass thru continued to work, I could get the sound from all sources on the TV... same as before!) I contacted Onkyo... the "Special Program" they had for these models ended January 1st 2020. (Timing is everything! ) I asked about an "Upgrade Path"... all such activity has also been suspended indefinetly.
*Wants & Needs:* I was torn between Denon and Onkyo back then, and I got a smoking hot deal on the 708 that couldn't be matched (pricewise) with the current Denons. The 708 had 11 speaker outputs... the typical for a 7.2 plus R & L heights and wides (curtesy of PLIIz - heights and Audesssy DSX -heights & wides). I have (had) wired identical bookshelf speakers in all positions, and appreciated the added option to switch from 7.2 to 5.2+wides or 5.2+heights. To be honest, I liked the 5.2+wides and preferred that over 5.2+heights when not using 7.2 (on 7.2 material, not matrixed from 5.2). I mean I really  liked the wides ! So, my minimuim amplified channels needed for proper ATMOS/DTS:X/AURO has increased to 9 for "proper" 5.2.4

My apologies here... I started at the beginning of this thread, honestly! I read all the way up to post 1,900 and that was mostly 2014 when it was announced and had not been released broadly with many "hands on" experiences. So I skipped forward to December 2019 and I know I probably missed all the posts related to my confusion.

I read/see things like "9.1" or even "11.1" *beds...* Okay, where are the extra pair (9.1) or pairs (11.1)? I want to believe the 9.1 includes a "wide" beween the fronts and the surrounds. That "sounds" like something I should definitely consider. My 1st inquiry (uninformed as it may seem)... how do you get the wides? Don't see any "Audessy DSX" or anything similar on the Denon 9 amp models (or the 11 amp X6500, or the 13 amp x8500 {batpig, help!}. What am I missing? (something I haven't read about DSU and/orDTS:X ?)

I have made the determination that no Onkyo up grade will occur, since the loss of MultEQ XT32 among other things. Denon X4500 beats out the X3600 for me (not worried about 8K with HDCP2.3 too much), but the (?)X4700 might be obtainable this Fall with the release of the 2020 models. Which also may put the X6500 in reach also!

So how do I achieve the wides in my future set up? (and thanks for your help!)_


----------



## DigiWega

Matt L said:


> Last night I was watching "Home Before Dark" in Atmos. It stuck me that this is what Amos is, no planes flying in circles over my head, no gun shots whizzing by, just simply a sense of space. It added subtly to the on-screen action but it was not in your face. I think may here treat Atmos like a new toy and want to see all the flashy stuff it does, much like the early days of any format, from ping pong balls with stereo, to voices popping up all over with Quad and later with 5.1 and so on. Stereo and 5.1/7.1 just is, we don't focus on hearing specific things from specific speakers most of the time it just envelopes us. That is the true function of Atmos as I see it adding one more piece to the tapestry that is AV.


We often call this the bubble effect. It’s definitely one of the most impressive aspects of Atmos.

However I’ll say what I enjoy the most is an object moving all around the room not just overhead. I don’t hear it often but when I do it give me the chills.


----------



## Rob Greer

AVTrauma said:


> I need a little help understanding a few things...


If you want wides and Atmos then you’re looking for 9.2.4 and that means a Denon 8500. None of the lesser Denon receivers are going to get you there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AVTrauma

What about wides on a 5.2.4?

What about external amps with a 9 channel ATMOS AVR?


----------



## Rob Greer

AVTrauma said:


> What about wides on a 5.2.4?
> 
> What about external amps with a 9 channel ATMOS AVR?



I’m not sure I understand. You’d rather have wide speakers instead of surround speakers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AVTrauma

To be clear...
5.2.4+wides = 11 channels, or even 5.2.2+wides = 9 channels
trading the rear surrounds for wides with either 2 or 4 ATMOS ceiling speakers.

But again... _this does not answer the 1st inquiry!_ Where are the wide channels coming from?


----------



## fookoo_2010

AVTrauma said:


> To be clear...
> 
> But again... _this does not answer the 1st inquiry!_ Where are the wide channels coming from?


Unless you have a more expensive AVR or pre-pro than the Denon 8500, the wide channels only come into use with a Dolby Atmos track. And even then the audio difference is generally speaking not overwhelming unless the wides have been programmed extensively via Atmos to be used extensively and that is rare. So the choice between wides and height speakers falls to height speakers in terms of usage implemented. But that could change, but who knows when.


----------



## usc1995

AVTrauma said:


> To be clear...
> 5.2.4+wides = 11 channels, or even 5.2.2+wides = 9 channels
> trading the rear surrounds for wides with either 2 or 4 ATMOS ceiling speakers.
> 
> But again... _this does not answer the 1st inquiry!_ Where are the wide channels coming from?



Some Atmos tracks do make use of Wide speakers but you will need an AVR that can specifically output to those positions. Rob Greer is right in that the only current mainstream AVR that has wide channels is the Denon 8500. There are some high end processors like the Trinnov and Monoprice HTP1 that can process wides too but they are more money. If you are ok with buying used you can look for the Denon 7200 and 6200 from 2015.

If those options won’t work one idea to consider would be to move your side surround speakers in a 7.x.x setup forward from the common 90 degrees to 80 or even 70 degrees helping to fill in the front sound stage from the LCR position and giving you more of a wraparound sound like you would get from wide speakers. You could then move your rears out wider to fill in the back. This is something Sanjay @sdurani has advocated in the past that should provide the most convincing sound field for those of us that can only afford 11 channels.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Craig Mecak

usc1995 said:


> If those options won’t work one idea to consider would be to move your side surround speakers in a 7.x.x setup forward from the common 90 degrees to 80 or even 70 degrees helping to fill in the front sound stage from the LCR position and giving you more of a wraparound sound like you would get from wide speakers. You could then move your rears out wider to fill in the back. This is something Sanjay @*sdurani* has advocated in the past that should provide the most convincing sound field for those of us that can only afford 11 channels.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



That's exactly what I have done. My surrounds are at around 80 degrees in my 7.1.4 set up, and the whole experience is fine. Totally enjoyable and sounds fantastic.


----------



## stikle

I have wides in my 9.4.4 Atmos system. It _did_ take a second AVR and some creative configuring to accomplish it, but it works just fine and dandy.

AVR-6200X: L, C, R, _LW_, _RW_, LS, RS, RLS, RRS, Sub1, & Sub2 (both split for a total of 4 subs) - This is the 9.4.x
AVR-4200X: TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR - this is the x.x.4

Most normal systems do not have wides. 

5.1 would be: L, C, R, LS, RS, & Sub1 
7.1 would be: L, C, R, LS, RS, RLS, RRS, & Sub1.

I do not recommend sacrificing any of your surrounds just to get wides as very little content supports them.

I did it because A] I could and B] I already had the extra matching speakers.


----------



## blake

stikle said:


> I have wides in my 9.4.4 Atmos system. It _did_ take a second AVR and some creative configuring to accomplish it, but it works just fine and dandy.
> 
> AVR-6200X: L, C, R, _LW_, _RW_, LS, RS, RLS, RRS, Sub1, & Sub2 (both split for a total of 4 subs) - This is the 9.4.x
> AVR-4200X: TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR - this is the x.x.4
> 
> Most normal systems do not have wides.
> 
> 5.1 would be: L, C, R, LS, RS, & Sub1
> 7.1 would be: L, C, R, LS, RS, RLS, RRS, & Sub1.
> 
> I do not recommend sacrificing any of your surrounds just to get wides as very little content supports them.
> 
> I did it because A] I could and B] I already had the extra matching speakers.



I always thought the front wides were considered one of the best features of a high channel count / Atmos systems ?


----------



## AVTrauma

Okay, I think I got it now, but please correct me if I and where I am wrong.

It appeears older AVR's that had Audessy DSX had the ability to run wides in a 7 channel amp (5.2+wides) or in a 9 channel amp (7.2+wides). Newer AVR's have "upscaled" to Dolby ATMOS, and something like DSX (wide) is not available (except on the Denon "flagship" X8500, or separate processors along the lines of a Trinnov). {Out of curiosity, what does the X8500 label that 12th & 13th channel, and what "surround setting" activates those speakers }

I am just wanting to make sure I have all my options understood. I appreciated the wides with 5.2 running, I just want to make sure how possible it would or would not be with my next AVR. Wides were cool, but not as cool as ATMOS will be I'm sure. Now I only have to find the nearest "surround sound anonymous" support group while I wait to see what the 2020 models offer at what price point {X4700, X6700 and X8700} and compare with the discounts for the 2018 models (X4500, X6500 and X8500}... it has been (and will continue to be) a long haul till the Fall models start hitting the shelves. It will be a test of my resolve to hold out for the new models/wait for the old models to drop in price... I have even considered refurbs. 

I can't wait to join the ATMOS/DTS:X/AURO experience!


----------



## batpig

blake said:


> I always thought the front wides were considered one of the best features of a high channel count / Atmos systems ?


IN THEORY, yes, they are fantastic WHEN USED effectively by the soundtrack. Unfortunately, a lot of Atmos mixes don't use them a lot (if at all).

In a way, they are more effective with upmixing since they get used nearly constantly by Neural:X.... the downside is that until DTS:X Pro becomes widespread, the 11ch limit is a big downer since the wides are the odd speaker out with a 9.1.4 setup.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> ...until DTS:X Pro becomes widespread, the 11ch limit is a big downer since the wides are the odd speaker out with a 9.1.4 setup.


Are the Wides active on the D&M flagship models when playing a DTS:X track with a 9.1.2 speaker layout?


----------



## Matt L

I've had wides for many, many years with my Onkyo, and really liked them. My room is 24' wide so the wides added a lot. I bought the Marantz 7010 because it does do wides - but at a cost of loosing other speakers. After I added my 4 in ceiling speakers I have not switched in my wides for some time. I have a 7.1.4 setup and the sonic bubble is great even without the wides. I am planning on using a method others here have done and add the wides back in with outboard Dolby processing since I have the matched speakers and I miss them. There is an extensive discussion in the thread Beyond 7.1.4 thread.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-7-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio.html


----------



## AVTrauma

Up to my bloodshot eyeballs with all the posts in this thread, but will be checking out the "Beyond 7.1.4" thread in the near future... while I'm killing time waiting for the 2020's to hit the shelves! 5.2.4 will be my minimum, with a fair possibility of 7.2.4 if the savings on a X6500 make this AVR obtainable this fall... (and I wouldn't turn my noise up on X8500 if the price drops into the 2 to 3 Grand range). It sounds like Neural:X does the wide processing on the X8500, which is the only Denon AVR with the 2 extra channels past 7.x.4... unfortunately, I haven't found a picture of the back end of the X8500, so I am curious what those channels are labeled.

Thanks for all the input. I will report back when I finally pull the trigger, expect a lot of smile emoji's!


----------



## mechtheist

MarshMPH said:


> PS - If you are Amazon Prime subscribers, their 'No Rush Shipping - Digital Coupon' is now $3 per order (used to be $1). I've banked quite a bit over the past couple weeks as they are trying to incentivize 'No Rush' shipping with COVID-19 order surge.


Maybe it's where I live, rural central TX, but the vast majority of things are something like 4 weeks delivery is fastest, what's no rush, this year sometime?


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Are the Wides active on the D&M flagship models when playing a DTS:X track with a 9.1.2 speaker layout?


unfortunately no, but to be clear I was talking about upmixing (somewhat awkwardly worded) since I already knew that :/


----------



## batpig

AVTrauma said:


> Up to my bloodshot eyeballs with all the posts in this thread, but will be checking out the "Beyond 7.1.4" thread in the near future... while I'm killing time waiting for the 2020's to hit the shelves! 5.2.4 will be my minimum, with a fair possibility of 7.2.4 if the savings on a X6500 make this AVR obtainable this fall... (and I wouldn't turn my noise up on X8500 if the price drops into the 2 to 3 Grand range). It sounds like Neural:X does the wide processing on the X8500, which is the only Denon AVR with the 2 extra channels past 7.x.4... unfortunately, I haven't found a picture of the back end of the X8500, so I am curious what those channels are labeled.
> 
> Thanks for all the input. I will report back when I finally pull the trigger, expect a lot of smile emoji's!


You may not be aware, but since you've mentioned 5.2.4+wides a few times, there are some older models which can do wides on an 11ch setup (no surround backs). This is a very viable setup for people who don't have a lot of space behind them for SB speakers.

The Marantz SR7010 and Denon AVR-X6200W would be the main targets. The following year D+M dropped FW support and it did not return until the flagship 8500/8805 models were introduced. 

So if you want FW speakers but don't need 13ch processing, consider one of those older models which can probably be found used for under $800. Much easier to swallow than paying thousands for a flagship unit when you don't even needs its full capabilities.

An interesting wrinkle: when deploying this modified 7.1.4 layout (FW instead of SB), the wides suddenly become much more useful....

First, with native Atmos material the AVR knows the SB speakers are missing so the Atmos renderer assumes the surrounds are more like 120deg (not 90) since the wides are at ~60deg, so the side surround (90deg) content gets phantom imaged between the FW and SS speakers. That means ALL the noises intended for the side surround are now split between the FW and SS, so the FW go from being sparingly used with native Atmos to being used *constantly*.

Second, with DTS:X/Neural:X you are now under the 11ch limit, so again the FW speakers can be used effectively with legacy 5.1/7.1 tracks which Neural:X will expand to the 5.1.4+FW layout.

A lot of the fancy higher channel count processors (like the Monoprice HTP-1) have cut off this option, not even allowing you to configure FW unless you have SS+SB speakers, but for whatever reason D+M models allow it. And it's actually a cool setup since the FW speakers get used heavily.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Are the Wides active on the D&M flagship models when playing a DTS:X track with a 9.1.2 speaker layout?



Yes, indeedy.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> unfortunately no, but to be clear I was talking about upmixing (somewhat awkwardly worded) since I already knew that :/



The AVR shows them as active, but you are perhaps referring to how much content is actually encoded in the mix?


----------



## Irwinroad

batpig said:


> An interesting wrinkle: when deploying this modified 7.1.4 layout (FW instead of SB), the wides suddenly become much more useful....
> 
> First, with native Atmos material the AVR knows the SB speakers are missing so the Atmos renderer assumes the surrounds are more like 120deg (not 90) since the wides are at ~60deg, so the side surround (90deg) content gets phantom imaged between the FW and SS speakers. That means ALL the noises intended for the side surround are now split between the FW and SS, so the FW go from being sparingly used with native Atmos to being used *constantly*.


In a 5.1.4 + FW setup when playing Atmos material how much of the Surround Back material is folded into the Side Surrounds?


----------



## AVTrauma

Thank you! As I have found over the years, the answers you (batpig) provide are clear and concise... a pleasure to read and informative for more than just the poster. Much appreciated!


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> The AVR shows them as active, but you are perhaps referring to how much content is actually encoded in the mix?


The reason I asked is because I vaguely remember reading a couple years back that the Wides were silent with 9.1.2 configurations when playing DTS:X tracks. However, they were active with 9.1 configurations (base layer only, no heights). Didn't know if that had changed. The current DTS 11-channel limit keeps Wides from being active with 9.1.4 configurations. 

Note: this wasn't the case with older D&M gear that supported Wides. If you played a DTS:X track on a 9.1.2 layout, the Wides were active (either with Neural:X extracted content or a copy of the Side channels; user got to choose).


----------



## sdurani

Irwinroad said:


> In a 5.1.4 + FW setup when playing Atmos material how much of the Surround Back material is folded into the Side Surrounds?


All of it. There is no where else for the Surround-Back channels to go. With a 5.1 base layer (with or without Wides), there is only a single pair of Surround speakers (no Sides & Rears), so each Surround channel and Surround-Back channel is downmixed to a single Surround speaker. (I'm trying to be careful about using "channel" and "speaker" labels). 

As batpig mentioned, when you configure for 5.1+Wides, you have a pair of speakers (Wides) around 30° forward of you and another pair of speakers (Surrounds) roughly 30° rearward of you. You're basically sitting in the middle of a big X. Object sounds are routed to the Wide speakers. The Rear channels are routed to the Surround speakers. Here's the interesting part: the Side channels are split equally between the Wide speakers and Surround speakers, so they end up phantom imaging exactly in between both pairs. So you end up hearing the Side channels directly at your sides (at 90°, which is where the Side speakers would have been). Pretty slick.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> The reason I asked is because I vaguely remember reading a couple years back that the Wides were silent with 9.1.2 configurations when playing DTS:X tracks. However, they were active with 9.1 configurations (base layer only, no heights). Didn't know if that had changed. The current DTS 11-channel limit keeps Wides from being active with 9.1.4 configurations.
> 
> Note: this wasn't the case with older D&M gear that supported Wides. If you played a DTS:X track on a 9.1.2 layout, the Wides were active (either with Neural:X extracted content or a copy of the Side channels; user got to choose).



Yes, now that you mention it, I dimly recall that discussion. If memory serves, I think it was concluded that the AVR's active speaker output display was misleading. 

And, upon further inspection running a few demo clips in my setup, it seems that the FW receive no content under DTS:X (even without any height speakers in the configuration) unless the DTS Neural:X sound parameter is on.


----------



## blake

If you have 9.1.4 speakers , how should the 4 ceiling speakers be assigned ?
-top front and top rear
-top front and top middle 
-top middle and top rear

This is a 2 row theater with the front row main position (ie heights in front and behind )


----------



## batpig

chi_guy50 said:


> sdurani said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I asked is because I vaguely remember reading a couple years back that the Wides were silent with 9.1.2 configurations when playing DTS:X tracks. However, they were active with 9.1 configurations (base layer only, no heights). Didn't know if that had changed. The current DTS 11-channel limit keeps Wides from being active with 9.1.4 configurations.
> 
> Note: this wasn't the case with older D&M gear that supported Wides. If you played a DTS:X track on a 9.1.2 layout, the Wides were active (either with Neural:X extracted content or a copy of the Side channels; user got to choose).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now that you mention it, I dimly recall that discussion. If memory serves, I think it was concluded that the AVR's active speaker output display was misleading. /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif
> 
> And, upon further inspection running a few demo clips in my setup, it seems that the FW receive no content under DTS:X (even without any height speakers in the configuration) unless the DTS Neural:X sound parameter is on.
Click to expand...

It’s a bit confusing. 

With a 9.1.2 setup, DTS:X will effectively play as 7.1.2 assuming there are no objects. The FW are technically “active” in the sense that an object could pass through them, but as we all know the vast majority of DTS:X tracks don’t use objects. 

With a 9.1.0 setup the Neural:X parameter allows the 7.1 mix to spread to the wides, but for some unknown reason DTS decided to disallow this with a 9.1.2 setup.


----------



## chi_guy50

batpig said:


> It’s a bit confusing.
> 
> With a 9.1.2 setup, DTS:X will effectively play as 7.1.2 assuming there are no objects. The FW are technically “active” in the sense that an object could pass through them, but as we all know the vast majority of DTS:X tracks don’t use objects.
> 
> With a 9.1.0 setup the Neural:X parameter allows the 7.1 mix to spread to the wides, but for some unknown reason DTS decided to disallow this with a 9.1.2 setup.



Yes, that all tracks with what I am seeing here.

Fortunately, we should be able to put this limitation behind us once DTS:X Pro hits our gear (assuming we are not hell-bent on exceeding 30.2 channels).


----------



## noah katz

batpig,

In post 58119 how did you get a quote within a quote to appear in your reply?


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> batpig,
> 
> In post 58119 how did you get a quote within a quote to appear in your reply?


For some reason when I quote a post that's replying / quoting another post from the mobile version of AVS, it does that automatically. In the standard browser version like I'm using now it just quotes the post I'm replying to.

If I want to reference multiple replies using the standard browser version I will use the "multi-quote" feature. If you want it to look cool like that with the quote embedded in the quote you can do it manually by embedding the quote tags within the other quote tags (should just require cutting/pasting the opening quote tag from the second quote up to the top so it starts quote tag > quote tag > embedded quote > close quote tag > other quote > close quote tag).


----------



## AVTrauma

"With a 9.1.0 setup the Neural:X parameter allows the 7.1 mix to spread to the wides, but for some unknown reason DTS decided to disallow this with a 9.1.2 setup."

Hence my confusion about running wides, since my _old_ 7 channel AVR could accomplish this. (I do realize there is/are tremendous differences in the hardware and software utilized... like a decade's worth. which is a life time in consumer electronics!)


----------



## batpig

AVTrauma said:


> "With a 9.1.0 setup the Neural:X parameter allows the 7.1 mix to spread to the wides, but for some unknown reason DTS decided to disallow this with a 9.1.2 setup."
> 
> Hence my confusion about running wides, since my _old_ 7 channel AVR could accomplish this. (I do realize there is/are tremendous differences in the hardware and software utilized... like a decade's worth. which is a life time in consumer electronics!)


Easy to be confused, they don't really make this simple. 

But, to be clear, what I am talking about is distinct from what your old AVR was doing. You are thinking probably of DTS Neo:X upmixing, which can upmix to Front Wide + Front Height speakers. The current DTS Neural:X upmxier can do the exact same thing, and more, with expanded support for additional overhead speaker positions (not just Front Height). So nothing is lost at all with respect to this feature.

What we are referring to is a special feature of DTS:X (native immersive audio), which has an option for using Neural:X upmixing within the native immersive track decoding process. Immersive audio tracks (Atmos + DTS:X) are a hybrid of a channel-based "bed" with objects layered on top. DTS:X lets you enable a special Neural:X parameter (again, NOT the same thing as standard Neural:X upmixing of legacy channel-based material) which can, in theory, "spread out" the channel-based portion of the mix. 

Why would you want to do this? Well, let's take this current example of a 9.1.2 speaker setup. If the DTS:X mix is 7.1.4 with no objects (most are like this), then what happens is the 4 overhead outputs are mixed down to the single pair of overhead speakers (like like downmixing a 7.1 track to play on a 5.1 system). With no additional processing, the 7.1.4 track downmixes to 7.1.2 and the wides sit there doing nothing. Any benefit of "scaling" from an object-based audio track is gone. The promise of that Neural:X parameter is that the DTS decoder will extract a Front Wide signal in between the Front + Surround speakers, and that 7.1.4 mix is "remapped" to a 9.1.2 layout and all the speakers make happy noise.

This is actually how it worked when DTS:X first came out in 2015-2016, but then wides were dropped and didn't reappear until the Denon 8500 / Marantz 8805 came out. Fairly recently Josh Z discovered that the 7.1.4 > 9.1.2 remapping wasn't working, the wides remained silent. I confirmed with Denon directly that this behavior is per DTS's specifications and D+M is just complying with DTS. Bizarrely, with a 9.1 setup (no heights/overheads) it works as expected, and the mix expands to use all speakers. And, of course, with the 11ch limit, it's a moot point with a 9.1.4 layout (until DTS:X Pro is deployed more widely).

*To be crystal clear, this ONLY applies to native DTS:X decoding.* The upshot here is that there's very little DTS:X native content, and there are very few 9.1.2 setups, which is probably why nobody noticed until the 8500/8805 had been out for over a year :/


----------



## AVTrauma

I appreciate the further/thorough explination. Like I said, I really enjoyed 5.2+wides... when not viewing native 7.1, and especially with music (loved the expanded "sound stage"). Change happens, and maybe the issue will be adressed, included in future models.

{Sorry, off topic but do you think the X8500 will be updated (X8700) this year? HDCP 2.3 would be the only significant change, and flagship models aren't routinely replaced eveery other year...}


----------



## chi_guy50

AVTrauma said:


> I appreciate the further/thorough explination. Like I said, I really enjoyed 5.2+wides... when not viewing native 7.1, and especially with music (loved the expanded "sound stage"). Change happens, and maybe the issue will be adressed, included in future models.


FWIW, you can still employ the FW on the X8500 by engaging the Multi Ch Stereo DSP mode as I mentioned just the other day in the thread dedicated to that AVR. I sometimes use it for music for the very reason you mention, although Auro3D is my default sound mode for music sources.


----------



## rosstg

I sold my house so I lost my dedicated theatre room that was treated. I’ve used a several brands mounted on my ceiling, as well as upfiring in my old room. 

I’m now in a typical living room setup. I have Klipsch RP 140sa’s that I mounted on my ceiling. It sounded good mounted on the ceiling but to my surprise they sound much better in a top height configuration. I have the mounted directly above my mains and the soundstage sounds so much better. More open and realistic. Anyone else feel that top height sounds better than I’m ceilings? I am going to add another pair of 140’s as side heights soon.


----------



## distoga

*Atmos angles*

I had a few questions regarding how angles effect Atmos's imaging abilities. I currently am running a 9.2 and just bought a Denon 8500 to do Atmos. I can't place atmos speakers in/on my ceiling so I'm left with the option of either placing them high on the side walls and/or combination of FH/RH. I can barely get 20 degrees of separation to my MLP for front heights vs LCR's. Rear heights I can get 27 degrees and 35 with some power tools from rears. For side I can get about 32 degrees from surrounds, 36 with power tools and if I attach the speakers at the ends of some ugly metal rods cantilevered/sticking 2' out of the side walls I can get to the recommended 45 degrees. My FR and FL are in 30" from the side walls and already at the recommended max 30 degree separation so I can't move them wider. The room is heavily, heavily acoustically treated and fairly anechoic (I prefer this to a live room) so reflections are very minimal/non-existent.

I'm trying to achieve the best 9.2.6 setup for my hurdles. I've wondered about doing 6 Atmos via the side wall options (30-45 degrees), all angled down plus back/forward at the MLP. I could also do FH (20 degrees), RH (27-35 degrees) and then "TM" via the side walls (32-45 degrees). I did recently purchase 10 RBH signature bookshelves for the atmos/heights to compliment my bed level, but obviously can only make use of 6 (for now) with the denon 8500. I did debate on doing 7 heights all around for a 7.1.7 (not sure if the denon 8500 can do that, I'll have to ask on that thread) or prepare for the future with a 9.1.9+VOG (for auro-3d if that took off in the US). 

Where I'm stuck is knowing which compromises are worse than others for when it comes to Atmos? How aggressive do I get with power tools or ugly sticks with speakers on the ends? Is there a good compromise in these equations? Auro 3d and DTS, from what I've read, prefer FH/RH over ceiling and it could be nice to be well setup for all 3 formats, hence why I pre-purchased 10 height/ceiling speakers now. I also can't find reports of if FH, RH, TM for is a good solution or not compared to say a TF and TR.

As a subnote, I've read front wides aren't as helpful to overall imaging as more ceiling speakers and I started considering a 7 speaker (instead of 9) bed then adding FH, RH, TF(via side options), TR(via side options) -- again though the 8500 can only do 13 channels at once so it'd drop 2 (?4?) of those (hopefully depending on least important for the current track, which might not be an Atmos track at times).


----------



## rosstg

distoga said:


> I had a few questions regarding how angles effect Atmos's imaging abilities. I currently am running a 9.2 and just bought a Denon 8500 to do Atmos. I can't place atmos speakers in/on my ceiling so I'm left with the option of either placing them high on the side walls and/or combination of FH/RH. I can barely get 20 degrees of separation to my MLP for front heights vs LCR's. Rear heights I can get 27 degrees and 35 with some power tools from rears. For side I can get about 32 degrees from surrounds, 36 with power tools and if I attach the speakers at the ends of some ugly metal rods cantilevered/sticking 2' out of the side walls I can get to the recommended 45 degrees. My FR and FL are in 30" from the side walls and already at the recommended max 30 degree separation so I can't move them wider. The room is heavily, heavily acoustically treated and fairly anechoic (I prefer this to a live room) so reflections are very minimal/non-existent.
> 
> I'm trying to achieve the best 9.2.6 setup for my hurdles. I've wondered about doing 6 Atmos via the side wall options (30-45 degrees), all angled down plus back/forward at the MLP. I could also do FH (20 degrees), RH (27-35 degrees) and then "TM" via the side walls (32-45 degrees). I did recently purchase 10 RBH signature bookshelves for the atmos/heights to compliment my bed level, but obviously can only make use of 6 (for now) with the denon 8500. I did debate on doing 7 heights all around for a 7.1.7 (not sure if the denon 8500 can do that, I'll have to ask on that thread) or prepare for the future with a 9.1.9+VOG (for auro-3d if that took off in the US).
> 
> Where I'm stuck is knowing which compromises are worse than others for when it comes to Atmos? Auro 3d and DTS, from what I've read, prefer FH/RH over ceiling and it could be nice to be well setup for all 3 formats, hence why I pre-purchased 10 height/ceiling speakers now.
> 
> As a subnote, I've read front wides aren't as helpful to overall imaging as more ceiling speakers and I started considering a 7 speaker (instead of 9) bed then adding FH, RH, TF(via side options), TR(via side options) -- again though the 8500 can only do 13 channels at once so it'd drop 2 (?4?) of those (hopefully depending on least important for the current track, which might not be an Atmos track at times).


Unfortunately it’s all about experimenting. You won’t know until you listen. I was shocked at how good my front heights sound. Even my girlfriend makes comments when we watch. They just blend much better. When I mounted on the ceiling I found them distracting for some content, mostly when I listened to movies that aren’t in Atmos.


----------



## distoga

rosstg said:


> Unfortunately it’s all about experimenting. You won’t know until you listen. I was shocked at how good my front heights sound. Even my girlfriend makes comments when we watch. They just blend much better. When I mounted on the ceiling I found them distracting for some content, mostly when I listened to movies that aren’t in Atmos.


You're quick, I made a little edit to my question/comments. 

I am planning to experiment. I do have hours of work depending on which option I try and some require permanent adjustment. I was hoping for some thoughts/suggestion, knowledge or personal experiences on the technology or what others found when doing what I'm considering. Where to start is a wide range of options. I'm a bit concerned there's general flaws in what I'm attempting, especially if the front height angle difference between LCR's and heights would make no meaningful improvement. I also don't have deep knowledge of Atmos PIIz, DTS-X, Neural-X, Auro 3d and how interchangeable they are for speaker layouts. I know all the diagrams and recommendations but the lack of experience installing various setups hinders me.


----------



## rosstg

distoga said:


> You're quick, I made a little edit to my question/comments.
> 
> I am planning to experiment. I do have hours of work depending on which option I try and some require permanent adjustment. I was hoping for some thoughts/suggestion, knowledge or personal experiences on the technology or what others found when doing what I'm considering. Where to start is a wide range of options. I'm a bit concerned there's general flaws in what I'm attempting, especially if the front height angle difference between LCR's and heights would make no meaningful improvement. I also don't have much knowledge of PIIz, DTS, Auro and how incompatible they are for speaker layouts. I know all the diagrams and recommendations but the lack of experience installing various setups hinders me.


That’s what she said 

Everyone will suggest ceiling then wall mount then upfiring as a last resort.

Now that we have established your only option is wall mounting can I ask which speakers? When I had my Klipsch RP’s on the ceiling I had them crossed at 150hz. They sounded very small with it impact. When I installed as top fronts like in the picture my Denon set then as 60hz, I bumped up to 80hz and the impact is much better.

Because my Atmos speakers are from the same line as the rest of my speakers they are perfectly timbre matched and create a truly excellent Atmos experience. 

Because you have a great AVR with the ability to add more speakers I would suggest a front height configuration - mounted directly above your mains (if possible) then rear height if your room allows. When I add another pair of heights I will be installing them as side heights because I have a floating shelf behind my couch. I also have my surrounds and surround backs behind my couch so a rear side configuration would likely yield the best results to get that bubble effect.

I’ve tried so many configurations with different speakers for Atmos and honestly the onky way you will know is trial and error. 

https://images2.static-bluray.com/htgallery/178189_full.jpg


----------



## noah katz

I expect it depends on the program material.

With front-centric sound, which is most of the time, I'd think the heights would give an expanded front stage as you've noticed, but that the height effects wouldn't be as good as with tops.




rosstg said:


> I have Klipsch RP 140sa’s that I mounted on my ceiling. It sounded good mounted on the ceiling but to my surprise they sound much better in a top height configuration. I have the mounted directly above my mains and the soundstage sounds so much better. More open and realistic. Anyone else feel that top height sounds better than I’m ceilings?


----------



## rosstg

mausse said:


> This is my setup 5.1.2 atmos. Would you recommend my height channels 1 or 2? Please advice
> 
> 
> Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


Nice and cozy setup.

Since you already have top middle channels I would go with front heights. I think that would likely provide the best results.


----------



## mausse

rosstg said:


> Nice and cozy setup.
> 
> Since you already have top middle channels I would go with front heights. I think that would likely provide the best results.



Thanks rosstg! So connect the 2 atmos speakers to “height 1” correct?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

rosstg said:


> I sold my house so I lost my dedicated theatre room that was treated. I’ve used a several brands mounted on my ceiling, as well as upfiring in my old room.
> 
> I’m now in a typical living room setup. I have Klipsch RP 140sa’s that I mounted on my ceiling. It sounded good mounted on the ceiling but to my surprise they sound much better in a *top height* configuration. I have the *mounted directly above my mains* and the soundstage sounds so much better. More open and realistic. Anyone else feel that top height sounds better than I’m ceilings? I am going to add another pair of 140’s as side heights soon.


By Top Height and the location, I assume you actually mean "front height" ? That's where I have mine mounted (above the bed speakers, front/back and side as well). That's the recommended Auro-3D position for all overheads (above the equivalent bed speakers so they "combine" evenly/perfectly for a sound anywhere in-between without altering the distance. I think that makes more sense than Atmos to some degree, even though most home Atmos installs tend to put the height/tops in-line with the bed speakers most of the time anyway (theatrical usually aligns it with the speakers halfway between the mains and center behind the screen). If you have Auro-3D support, I think if you try some Auro-3D music discs out with those locations, you'll be impressed (they work fairly well in Neural X mode if you don't have Auro-3D). 

I recommend to try:

Mando Daio's Aelita (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N4RQ3MK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) and

Lichtmond 3: Days of Eternity (https://www.amazon.com/Days-Eternit...d+3+blu-ray&qid=1586193450&s=movies-tv&sr=1-7) This one might be cheaper on eBay, though.

The soundstaging is immaculate on these. I use rear heights and surround heights in parallel via switch box (I turn down rear by 3dB so they're the same level as the front). The latter is also 3D video capable (very surreal).

I use front/rear height plus extracted "top middle" surround heights to bridge the full 24 foot long room. I think it worked great. Using speakers in the 45 degree tops position would have limited the ceiling to only 1/2 the area (see diagram of my theater below to compare locations of the helicopter in the Atmos helicopter demo of height versus tops; as you can see, the tops would have severely limited how far objects can move around the ceiling. It puts more objects "directly overhead" but at the cost of not matching the bed level distances and shrinking the overhead soundstage significantly. This is probably why you think it sounds more natural with the speakers over the mains as it evens it out (tops make a "pinched bubble" instead of a "round" or "elliptical" one, IMO. But many prefer overhead sounds more directly over their head so to each their own.


----------



## distoga

rosstg said:


> Now that we have established your only option is wall mounting can I ask which speakers?


RBH Signature (2010 SE's) 6 series for bed. New heights are some one-off RBH speakers that match the bed level acoustics - basically smaller Impression series boxes with signature tweeters in them and a custom woofer.



rosstg said:


> Because you have a great AVR with the ability to add more speakers I would suggest a front height configuration - mounted directly above your mains (if possible) then rear height if your room allows.


I can only get front heights 20 degrees above the LCR's. ... Should I be doing a front center height channel or is FCH kind of dead nowdays?

Does atmos do well at mixing FH/TM(SH actually)/RH for overhead sound or is that a inferior combination to something else that can be done with heights?


----------



## rosstg

mausse said:


> Thanks rosstg! So connect the 2 atmos speakers to “height 1” correct?
> 
> 
> Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


I would from your layout. But again I lapis’s listen and see what you like best.


----------



## Josh Z

mausse said:


> This is my setup 5.1.2 atmos. Would you recommend my height channels 1 or 2? Please advice





mausse said:


> Thanks rosstg! So connect the 2 atmos speakers to “height 1” correct?


If you're asking how you should configure the two ceiling speakers shown in your photo, "Top Middle" would be best. I don't know what you have for an A/V receiver, but the Height 1 terminals are probably correct.

If you are thinking about adding two more ceiling speakers for 5.1.4, then you should put those above the TV and configure them as Front Heights with the existing speakers as Top Middle.


----------



## mausse

Josh Z said:


> If you're asking how you should configure the two ceiling speakers shown in your photo, "Top Middle" would be best. I don't know what you have for an A/V receiver, but the Height 1 terminals are probably correct.
> 
> If you are thinking about adding two more ceiling speakers for 5.1.4, then you should put those above the TV and configure them as Front Heights with the existing speakers as Top Middle.



Ok just to clear I’m not adding any channels but want to use my two ceiling speakers to the atmos mix. I can configure them as top front/top middle/top rear/Dolby enabled surround or Dolby enabled front, what will be the best choice you think? 

Right now I have them at top front but with Netflix atmos I don’t really get they feeling that I hearing a special Audio mix...


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

mausse said:


> Ok just to clear I’m not adding any channels but want to use my two ceiling speakers to the atmos mix. I can configure them as top front/top middle/top rear/Dolby enabled surround or Dolby enabled front, what will be the best choice you think?
> 
> Right now I have them at top front but with Netflix atmos I don’t really get they feeling that I hearing a special Audio mix...


Based on your photo, those two speakers would be best as Top Middle.


----------



## distoga

blake said:


> If you have 9.1.4 speakers , how should the 4 ceiling speakers be assigned ?
> -top front and top rear
> -top front and top middle
> -top middle and top rear
> 
> This is a 2 row theater with the front row main position (ie heights in front and behind )


Blake's question didn't get answered on the previous page and I'm curious what the answer is as well as I have some questions that build on it.

My question is where Atmos's .2 ceiling bed channels map to if more than 2 ceiling or height channels are used. Here's the various scenarios I'm considering:
FH, RH
FH, SH, RH
FH, TM, RH
TF, TM, TR
TF, TR

I'm still learning about Atmos and hopefully this isn't an invalid question.


----------



## mrtickleuk

distoga said:


> Blake's question didn't get answered on the previous page and I'm curious what the answer is as well as I have some questions that build on it.
> 
> My question is where Atmos's .2 ceiling bed channels map to if more than 2 ceiling or height channels are used. Here's the various scenarios I'm considering:
> FH, RH
> FH, SH, RH
> FH, TM, RH
> TF, TM, TR
> TF, TR
> 
> I'm still learning about Atmos and hopefully this isn't an invalid question.


That's fine, we are all learning  The question isn't invalid, but it is flawed, so cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise. 

The only "bed" channels in Atmos are the bed channels. That is, the 5.1 or 7.1 traditional channels.

There's no such thing as "*ceiling bed*" channels - that's a contradiction in terms! . Do you have your bed on your ceiling? 
[EDIT: Yes there is, I'm wrong - see batpig's post below]

You need to get away from thinking of any ceiling speaker as being tied to a "channel". It is not (this is a simplification*). There are not 2 height "channels" which then "map" somewhere if you have more than two. Instead, you need to think of all speakers in the height "layer" up above you as being slave speakers for the Atmos renderer in your AVR, and it is the Atmos renderer which will decide, at playback time, which sounds to send to which speakers for the correct result. If you've only got 2 ceiling speakers it will be forced into massive compromises and you won't get the front-rear movement above you, for example. If you have 4 - or, even in some rare cases, 6 - then it can do a far better job. But it's not starting with that crappy (relatively, not that crappy) output you would have had for "2" and then expanding or mapping it in some way. The Atmos renderer will from scratch do a better job and create sounds to route to 4 or 6 ceiling speakers instead.

HTH

* before I get jumped on. Yes, I know. But I'm just talking about the basics.


----------



## distoga

mrtickleuk said:


> That's fine, we are all learning  The question isn't invalid, but it is flawed, so cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.
> 
> The only "bed" channels in Atmos are the bed channels. That is, the 5.1 or 7.1 traditional channels.
> 
> There's no such thing as "*ceiling bed*" channels - that's a contradiction in terms! . Do you have your bed on your ceiling?
> 
> You need to get away from thinking of any ceiling speaker as being tied to a "channel". It is not (this is a simplification*). There are not 2 height "channels" which then "map" somewhere if you have more than two. Instead, you need to think of all speakers in the height "layer" up above you as being slave speakers for the Atmos renderer in your AVR, and it is the Atmos renderer which will decide, at playback time, which sounds to send to which speakers for the correct result. If you've only got 2 ceiling speakers it will be forced into massive compromises and you won't get the front-rear movement above you, for example. If you have 4 - or, even in some rare cases, 6 - then it can do a far better job. But it's not starting with that crappy (relatively, not that crappy) output you would have had for "2" and then expanding or mapping it in some way. The Atmos renderer will from scratch do a better job and create sounds to route to 4 or 6 ceiling speakers instead.
> 
> HTH
> 
> * before I get jumped on. Yes, I know. But I'm just talking about the basics.


Thanks. I had read that there were bed (or bus) channels for music and other ambient sound that were not 3d object based for the two ceiling channels in Atmos default bed of 7.1.2. Wikipedia also said there are 7.1.2 bed channels for Atmos. But primarily it was in one of the videos I saw about pro tools and the difference between bus/channel vs 3d object sound for Atmos and working with sounds in upper elevation areas of that tool. They made a point to say you could have either bed/bus channel sounds for the .2 channels for Atmos's default 7.1.2 spec or 3d object based sound. It sounds like they're missing something.

Just to confirm, height/ceiling speakers can only produce 3d object based sound (and front wides I believe too?)


----------



## batpig

mrtickleuk said:


> The only "bed" channels in Atmos are the bed channels. That is, the 5.1 or 7.1 traditional channels.
> 
> There's no such thing as "*ceiling bed*" channels - that's a contradiction in terms! . Do you have your bed on your ceiling?


With respect, you're confusing things by using terminology imprecisely. There absolutely ARE "ceiling beds" in Atmos. You seem to be using "bed" to be synonymous with ear level channels, but Atmos is mixed with a 7.1.2 bed, or perhaps the 7.1 TrueHD mix that exists if the Atmos renderer doesn't kick in. 

The term "bed" in Atmos mixing refers to the channel-like static sounds, which 100% includes a stereo overhead pair. When translated to the home, if there are no other objects floating around overhead in a x.1.6 setup the "bed" would be reproduced by the Top Middle only. If you have an x.1.4 setup the overhead bed will be split between the front/rear overheads (just like a phantom center up front).

This is why some mixes (e.g. Saving Private Ryan or Avengers Endgame) sound basically like 7.1.2 when played back on a higher channel count system.

I agree with your broader point that one shouldn't worry too much about this aspect when deciding on speaker layout / speaker positioning, but it's important to be accuate with the terminology and concepts.


----------



## blake

mrtickleuk said:


> That's fine, we are all learning  The question isn't invalid, but it is flawed, so cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.
> 
> The only "bed" channels in Atmos are the bed channels. That is, the 5.1 or 7.1 traditional channels.
> 
> There's no such thing as "*ceiling bed*" channels - that's a contradiction in terms! . Do you have your bed on your ceiling?
> 
> You need to get away from thinking of any ceiling speaker as being tied to a "channel". It is not (this is a simplification*). There are not 2 height "channels" which then "map" somewhere if you have more than two. Instead, you need to think of all speakers in the height "layer" up above you as being slave speakers for the Atmos renderer in your AVR, and it is the Atmos renderer which will decide, at playback time, which sounds to send to which speakers for the correct result. If you've only got 2 ceiling speakers it will be forced into massive compromises and you won't get the front-rear movement above you, for example. If you have 4 - or, even in some rare cases, 6 - then it can do a far better job. But it's not starting with that crappy (relatively, not that crappy) output you would have had for "2" and then expanding or mapping it in some way. The Atmos renderer will from scratch do a better job and create sounds to route to 4 or 6 ceiling speakers instead.
> 
> HTH
> 
> * before I get jumped on. Yes, I know. But I'm just talking about the basics.



But my (original) question was: what do you tell your Atmos processor your height/ceiling channels are if there are only 4 of them. 

Most prepro assign a specific name/output to the channels. Options would be TF and TR , TM and TR, TF and TM for example. Does it matter ?


----------



## batpig

blake said:


> But my (original) question was: what do you tell your Atmos processor your height/ceiling channels are if there are only 4 of them.
> 
> Most prepro assign a specific name/output to the channels. Options would be TF and TR , TM and TR, TF and TM for example. Does it matter ?


Top Front + Top Rear is the baseline x.x.4 overhead layout. The only reason not to use that is if there's some compromise involved (e.g. seats against the back wall).


----------



## mrtickleuk

Ok. Apologies for any confusion and it's an honour to be corrected by @batpig 



blake said:


> But my (original) question was: what do you tell your Atmos processor your height/ceiling channels are if there are only 4 of them.
> 
> Most prepro assign a specific name/output to the channels. Options would be TF and TR , TM and TR, TF and TM for example. Does it matter ?


Sort-of. Denon makes you have a "gap" when you choose the setup. So if you have Top Front, you can't choose Top Middle for the other two, because Middle is the next position along from Front. Similarly you can't have Top Middle and Top Rear because those two are next to each other. You can't make a mistake - it just doesn't let you select pairs next to each other in the FH - TF - TM - TR - RH line.

Normally, you would select Top Front and Top Rear as long as they are physically positioned in front/ behind you. But there are many many past discussions on this and I'll probably make it worse if I say any more


----------



## batpig

mrtickleuk said:


> Ok. Apologies for any confusion and it's an honour to be corrected by @batpig


I wish my wife felt the same way....


----------



## distoga

batpig said:


> With respect, you're confusing things by using terminology imprecisely. There absolutely ARE "ceiling beds" in Atmos. You seem to be using "bed" to be synonymous with ear level channels, but Atmos is mixed with a 7.1.2 bed, or perhaps the 7.1 TrueHD mix that exists if the Atmos renderer doesn't kick in.
> 
> The term "bed" in Atmos mixing refers to the channel-like static sounds, which 100% includes a stereo overhead pair. When translated to the home, if there are no other objects floating around overhead in a x.1.6 setup the "bed" would be reproduced by the Top Middle only. If you have an x.1.4 setup the overhead bed will be split between the front/rear overheads (just like a phantom center up front).


No worries!  I actually wasn't using 'bed' for ear level but did mean the channel-like static sounds. In my research today I also noticed the multi-use of that term and began to wonder why people use the term 'bed' for ear level when atmos uses the word to describe their ?template? base for 7.1.2. I'm not sure which use came first...

I think the last question I have (out of curiosity of how Atmos really is implemented and not for speaker location design), is if FH vs TM, SH vs TM, and RH vs TR all receive the same bed/static channel-like tracks as their vs counterpart, including same volume db. And if the only variance in their vs counterpart is 3d object x,y,z differences that effect position/timing and loudness of the 3d sound object?


----------



## MagnumX

distoga said:


> Blake's question didn't get answered on the previous page and I'm curious what the answer is as well as I have some questions that build on it.
> 
> My question is where Atmos's .2 ceiling bed channels map to if more than 2 ceiling or height channels are used. Here's the various scenarios I'm considering:
> FH, RH
> FH, SH, RH
> FH, TM, RH
> TF, TM, TR
> TF, TR
> 
> I'm still learning about Atmos and hopefully this isn't an invalid question.



People are making this way too complicated in this thread, IMO. All Atmos rendering at home has fallback "folding" into other channels when they're not present. Atmos normally wants to render an object to the nearest speaker. But the problem is that if an object is overhead (say in the back of the room) and you only have top front or front height speakers, where's it going to render? In Atmos, it renders to front height or top front. I've verified this with my own testing of setting only certain channels to exist despite having 6 overheads.

IN DTS:X (or Neural X), however, it TRIES to "simulate" the speaker as best it can using other speakers in the room (e.g. With that example it would probably use rear surrounds if available, possibly with a little of the front overhead).

So if you only have 2 channels overhead, it doesn't matter what you set them to with Atmos because it's going to fold the sounds into that overhead channel REGARDLESS (it has "no choice" so-to-speak) as it cannot just discard sounds. It does NOT put overhead sounds into the bed channels with Atmos unless NO overheads are available. With only .2 you can set it to anything you want! Top front, Top Middle, Top Rear or one of the heights. It won't matter. It'll fold ALL overhead sounds into the only two that are available (that will differ with DTS:X once again and Auro-3D needs front height at a minimum to function as Auro-3D instead of Auro-2D).

So if you go from .2 overhead to .4, now you have to choose two locations and they usually have to be at least two speaker locations apart (i.e. you can select front height + top middle, but not top front + top middle). But guess what happens to the rear height/tops information if you choose top middle? That's right; they get folded into Top Middle. So what happens if you select Top Rear instead with the information that was supposed to go to Top Middle? It gets folded into Top Rear. You end up with a phantom image in-between front/rear for top middle. It might be slightly panned towards one over the other with height versus top, etc. (I haven't tested this precisely; to my ears the settings sounded the same with the speakers in the same relative positions), but it's not night and day. This is all due to Atmos folding missing channels into the nearest channels it can find. It prefers overheads to overheads unlike DTS:X which tends to pick the nearest available speakers (even if they're bed channels) and mixes a combination of the channels to try and produce the channel as close to where it was supposed to be as it can (using multiple speakers if need be with DTS:X Pro).


----------



## batpig

distoga said:


> No worries!  I actually wasn't using 'bed' for ear level but did mean the channel-like static sounds. In my research today I also noticed the multi-use of that term and began to wonder why people use the term 'bed' for ear level when atmos uses the word to describe their ?template? base for 7.1.2. I'm not sure which use came first...


I think there are a few explanatory factors here....

- first, people in a non-technical context tend to be loose with terminology, so I don't fault anyone for colloquial usage
- second, it seems somewhat intuitive that the "bed" implies the "base" or "foundation" of the sound, so it's not surprising people infer that means the ear-level layer, especially because many people think of Atmos as just adding on height effects to the standard 2D "bed" of surround sound
- third, there's some confusion about the 7.1ch TrueHD "core" or "base" track and how that relates to the home Atmos rendering, and I think people conflate that 7.1 track with the "bed" (with some overlap with the above two points)




distoga said:


> I think the last question I have (out of curiosity of how Atmos really is implemented and not for speaker location design), is if FH vs TM, SH vs TM, and RH vs TR all receive the same bed/static channel-like tracks as their vs counterpart, including same volume db. And if the only variance in their vs counterpart is 3d object x,y,z differences that effect position/timing and loudness of the 3d sound object?


First of all, SH is NOT an Atmos speaker location. It's Auro3D only. In theory there's no reason why Atmos couldn't render to any arbitrary speaker location as long as it knows the x/y/z coordinates of the speaker, but in practice there is a finite number of locations in the system and SH is not one of them. 

There's no need to really overthink it, especially when you're taking about fairly low spatial resolution in a typical 4 overhead setup. In a commercial theater with 16-20 overhead speakers (two arrays of 8-10 speakers each) 

Any sound that's supposed to be directly above (i.e. Top Middle content) will be split between the front/rear pairs, no different than if you don't have a center the content is split between the front left/right stereo speakers (phantom center).

So in that sense, it really doesn't matter if you set them to FH+RH instead of TF+TR, the "directly overhead" content (which includes the stereo overhead bed) is just split between front + rear equally, so it phantom images overhead.

Moving objects will go where they go. If something is supposed to come from the upper right corner, it's coming from the right front overhead whether it's designated Top Middle or Front Height. Again, this is a fairly low spatial resolution layout with only 4 "quadrants" of sound.


----------



## Jonas2

distoga said:


> Just to confirm, height/ceiling speakers can only produce 3d object based sound (and front wides I believe too?)


No. They produce whatever the processor directs to them - like upmixing, for example, a stereo source into the height speakers. So if you were thinking that they are useless UNLESS they are being used with Atmos or whatever, that's not strictly true.


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> ... I don't fault anyone for colloquial usage


Just for long diatribes? 



> First of all, SH is NOT an Atmos speaker location. It's Auro3D only. In theory there's no reason why Atmos couldn't render to any arbitrary speaker location as long as it knows the x/y/z coordinates of the speaker, but in practice there is a finite number of locations in the system and SH is not one of them.


There's a simple reason Atmos doesn't support SH and it's because Dolby Labs have ZERO interest in cooperating with companies they consider to be their competitors (trying to lock out AVRs from upmixing non-Dolby signals was a good example of this until the EU Courts threatened to stop them and they gave it up). Atmos COULD support those extra speakers, but they choose not to. This does not benefit the consumer at all, only Dolby.



> There's no need to really overthink it, especially when you're taking about fairly low spatial resolution in a typical 4 overhead setup.


The term "spatial resolution" is typically used with video, not audio as panning is actually a temporal resolution and how smooth is pans is a result of the resolution of the panning equipment (how many 'steps' in a digital pan between two points). Like visual acuity, there are limits to how smooth you can hear a transition from one point to another. It need not be defined by the number of speakers, however. 4 speakers overhead is more than ample in a small room from the MLP to hear smooth panning to every point on the ceiling. What changes in a larger room is the phantom imaging between two sets of speakers starts to degrade the further apart they are from each other. 120 degrees is generally considered the maximum you would want to have between speakers pairs an expect any kind of stable phantom image at the mid-point between the two. This is why Top Middle is recommended if you must put front/rear heights at 20/160 degrees instead of the suggested 4-channel overhead minimum of 30/150. Increasing the number of hard speakers sources does help reduce the precedent effect for off-axis seating and since technically there is only one point in the room that is 'truly' on-axis for all speakers, having more speakers generally helps if you have more than one seat in your home theater, but having more speakers will generally not improve things for that one seat if the speakers are imaging strong in terms of phantom panning. 

Thus, a small room can do just fine with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4. However, the physical distances traveled are less than in a larger room, which can sound more impressive, but also speeds up the relative sound travel since in a movie soundtrack, an object moving from 0 to 100 in the z-axis in 2 seconds will arrive at the rear wall in 2 seconds whether it has to travel 10 feet or 100 feet.



> In a commercial theater with 16-20 overhead speakers (two arrays of 8-10 speakers each)


The speakers are needed to bridge the phantom angular transitions and reduce the precedent effect for so many seats that are off-axis from the central point in larger theaters. That does not mean the listener is "missing" anything in a smaller theater with less speakers once the minimum number are met to move a sound across every corner of the room (typically 4.1.4 could technically do this for 1 seat; aka "Quadraphonic Sound" from the 1970s with added height information. Binaural recordings can do with just 2 drivers for every axis infinity to infinity. "Spatial" Resolution is not diminished despite having only two drivers there. You hear all directions using only two ears, after all.



> Any sound that's supposed to be directly above (i.e. Top Middle content) will be split between the front/rear pairs, no different than if you don't have a center the content is split between the front left/right stereo speakers (phantom center).
> 
> So in that sense, it really doesn't matter if you set them to FH+RH instead of TF+TR, the "directly overhead" content (which includes the stereo overhead bed) is just split between front + rear equally, so it phantom images overhead.


It also doesn't matter because Atmos folds down unused rendered channels into the nearest ones in the bed/overhead zone. Thus, front height and tops are negligible as far as settings go. The physical location is far more important than the rendering setting. So long as the angular distances are small enough, more speakers are not needed for the MLP. In fact, one could argue that for off-axis seating, having "CH" and "TS" would be far more congruent to reducing the precedent effect for all off-axis seats than adding more side surrounds or overheads front-to-back as Atmos sound will always be limited compared to Auro-3D and DTS:X for having congruent centered sound across the ceiling (Atmos will pull to either side for off-axis seats while Auro-3D and DTS:X with Auro-3D rendered speakers will not. In that sense, they are superior to Dolby Atmos.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> 4 speakers overhead is more than ample in a small room from the MLP to hear smooth panning to every point on the ceiling. having more speakers will generally not improve things for that one seat if the speakers are imaging strong in terms of phantom panning.
> 
> Thus, a small room can do just fine with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4.


I can completely concur with this. I tried a 7.1.7 setup with matrixed middles and a matrixed VOG/Top Surround and when I went back to a 7.1.4 I couldn't tell the difference - I physically had to put my ear next to my VOG speaker to check that it wasn't actually putting out any sound. This is with my 4 Atmos speakers being ceiling mounted bookshelfs in the height locations (30/150deg) and aimed at MLP.


----------



## jabberwockie

*Atmos help (Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus)*

Hi, I haven't posted much and I'm just getting into Amos so forgive me if i'm in the wrong area or sound like a nubie but I need someone to shed some light a couple of things.

Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus
I have a theater room that is now Atmos ready (finally). I have an Nvidia shield, 4k TV and plenty of 4k content (rips) that I can confirm "flags" Atmos on the NAD M17v2 processor.
Now then, when I go to play Atmos encoded content from Disney +, or Netflix it is not flagging Atmos on the NAD. I am told this content is Atmos in (DD+ (aka Enhanced AC-3, E-AC3).

This has brought me to an unconfirmed assumption; This... in order to Play Atmos content from both blu-rays AND streaming services such as Netflix, Disney + etc, you need a processor that supports both Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD AND Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus. In other words; my very expensive NAD m17v2 taht supports Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD won't play both.
Is this true? And, if so, what processors out there do both?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

jabberwockie said:


> Hi, I haven't posted much and I'm just getting into Amos so forgive me if i'm in the wrong area or sound like a nubie but I need someone to shed some light a couple of things.
> 
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus
> I have a theater room that is now Atmos ready (finally). I have an Nvidia shield, 4k TV and plenty of 4k content (rips) that I can confirm "flags" Atmos on the NAD M17v2 processor.
> Now then, when I go to play Atmos encoded content from Disney +, or Netflix it is not flagging Atmos on the NAD. I am told this content is Atmos in (DD+ (aka Enhanced AC-3, E-AC3).
> 
> This has brought me to an unconfirmed assumption; This... in order to Play Atmos content from both blu-rays AND streaming services such as Netflix, Disney + etc, you need a processor that supports both Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD AND Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus. In other words; my very expensive NAD m17v2 taht supports Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD won't play both.
> Is this true? And, if so, what processors out there do both?


I would imagine you have a setting wrong in your streaming device that isn't allowing audio bitsreaming. That said, not all streaming content is Dolby Atmos lossy encoded. Also you must have a 4k TV in your setup as some streaming apps will only output the Atmos track on their 4k streams.


----------



## zeonstar

jabberwockie said:


> Hi, I haven't posted much and I'm just getting into Amos so forgive me if i'm in the wrong area or sound like a nubie but I need someone to shed some light a couple of things.
> 
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus
> I have a theater room that is now Atmos ready (finally). I have an Nvidia shield, 4k TV and plenty of 4k content (rips) that I can confirm "flags" Atmos on the NAD M17v2 processor.
> Now then, when I go to play Atmos encoded content from Disney +, or Netflix it is not flagging Atmos on the NAD. I am told this content is Atmos in (DD+ (aka Enhanced AC-3, E-AC3).
> 
> This has brought me to an unconfirmed assumption; This... in order to Play Atmos content from both blu-rays AND streaming services such as Netflix, Disney + etc, you need a processor that supports both Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD AND Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus. In other words; my very expensive NAD m17v2 taht supports Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD won't play both.
> Is this true? And, if so, what processors out there do both?



I’m fairly certain any Processor than can do TrueHD can decode DD+ NO problem. As Dan mentioned, it’s gotta be a wrong setting somewhere. Or your streaming device isn’t outputting an Atmos stream.


----------



## MagnumX

jabberwockie said:


> Hi, I haven't posted much and I'm just getting into Amos so forgive me if i'm in the wrong area or sound like a nubie but I need someone to shed some light a couple of things.
> 
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus
> I have a theater room that is now Atmos ready (finally). I have an Nvidia shield, 4k TV and plenty of 4k content (rips) that I can confirm "flags" Atmos on the NAD M17v2 processor.
> Now then, when I go to play Atmos encoded content from Disney +, or Netflix it is not flagging Atmos on the NAD. I am told this content is Atmos in (DD+ (aka Enhanced AC-3, E-AC3).
> 
> This has brought me to an unconfirmed assumption; This... in order to Play Atmos content from both blu-rays AND streaming services such as Netflix, Disney + etc, you need a processor that supports both Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD AND Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus. In other words; my very expensive NAD m17v2 taht supports Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD won't play both.
> Is this true? And, if so, what processors out there do both?


I'm not sure the Shield (especially the older one) has Atmos support yet in the Netflix and Disney+ apps (they didn't the last time I looked anyway; I think Vudu supports Atmos on the Shield and Prime on the newer model at least). 

Personally, I'd recommend an AppleTV 4K. I think it has the most Atmos support for apps of any of the devices (iTunes purchases/rentals, Vudu, Prime, Netflix and Disney+ all have Atmos support with a 4K TV as far as I know. iTunes, Netflix and Disney+ will even support Atmos with a 2K set (as long as you 'test' the HDR modes first for some reason, it seems). 

I doubt your NAD unit is the problem in any case. It's far more likely to be the Shield (or possibly a setting if it has added support since I last checked).


----------



## Sorny

MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure the Shield (especially the older one) has Atmos support yet in the Netflix and Disney+ apps (they didn't the last time I looked anyway; I think Vudu supports Atmos on the Shield and Prime on the newer model at least).
> 
> Personally, I'd recommend an AppleTV 4K. I think it has the most Atmos support for apps of any of the devices (iTunes purchases/rentals, Vudu, Prime, Netflix and Disney+ all have Atmos support with a 4K TV as far as I know. iTunes, Netflix and Disney+ will even support Atmos with a 2K set (as long as you 'test' the HDR modes first for some reason, it seems).
> 
> I doubt your NAD unit is the problem in any case. It's far more likely to be the Shield (or possibly a setting if it has added support since I last checked).


Spot on advice. I concur.


----------



## audiofan1

MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure the Shield (especially the older one) has Atmos support yet in the Netflix and Disney+ apps (they didn't the last time I looked anyway; I think Vudu supports Atmos on the Shield and Prime on the newer model at least).
> 
> Personally, I'd recommend an AppleTV 4K. I think it has the most Atmos support for apps of any of the devices (iTunes purchases/rentals, Vudu, Prime, Netflix and Disney+ all have Atmos support with a 4K TV as far as I know. iTunes, Netflix and Disney+ will even support Atmos with a 2K set (as long as you 'test' the HDR modes first for some reason, it seems).
> 
> I doubt your NAD unit is the problem in any case. It's far more likely to be the Shield (or possibly a setting if it has added support since I last checked).


The 2019 Shield does indeed now support Dolby Vision and Atmos for both Disney + and Netflix


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> ...Personally, I'd recommend an AppleTV 4K. I think it has the most Atmos support for apps of any of the devices (iTunes purchases/rentals, Vudu, Prime, Netflix and Disney+ all have Atmos support with a 4K TV as far as I know. iTunes, Netflix and Disney+ will even support Atmos with a 2K set (as long as you 'test' the HDR modes first for some reason, it seems)...


I agree and use several Apple TV 4Ks, however if anyone is not seeing Atmos when they expect it, there's a couple of gotchas:-

I had everything set correctly, but simply could not get Atmos, from any streaming service, nor from a movie purchased from iTunes for the specific purpose of testing (but was also good to watch). What I discovered by accident was that although the Apple TV (and other equipment) had Atmos enabled, this was not happening until I switched to HDR video. No idea why this was and disappointing as it seemed to ruin the video quality (on my non HDR plasma). So I switched back to SDR and miraculously Atmos continued and continues to work perfectly for all Atmos content. I verified this procedure on several Apple TV 4Ks and in each case they required being set to HDR and then back before Atmos would actually work. I can only assume this is a stupid bug in TVOS.

Then there's the actual content. Amazon Prime will only send Atmos if the receiving screen is 4K. If you have a 2K screen, you CANNOT get Atmos from Prime. NOW TV has NO Atmos content (and not even 1080p video), Netflix I have no idea, but the Apple TV app (not the device) happily provides Atmos even for my 2K screen. Why the idiots at Amazon think that Atmos should be tied to only 4K streaming I have no idea. It is either monstrously stupid or simply greedy (wanting to charge you more).

I still don't know about Disney+ however. Much of their content is stated as being with Atmos, but I can't get it. This cannot be the Apple TV problem but Disney do warn that due to the current epidemic all services have been asked to reduce bandwidth and so their content may be reduced in quality until the restriction is lifted. Even saying you may not get Atmos. I'm not sure I really understand why Atmos is the first to get the chop (maybe 4K is gone too, but I have no way of knowing that) since the purportedly Atmos content streams instead with 5.1. Would Atmos really increase the amount of data to stream by such a large amount? 2K to 4K is obviously a big difference, but would 5.1 to Atmos make such a difference?

Anyway, my point is that once you have sorted the Apple TV to produce Atmos from those services that stream it, some of those services are not actually streaming in Atmos even when it seems they should. Makes setting up and troubleshooting an Atmos setup somewhat more, taxing.


----------



## priitv8

UKenGB said:


> I agree and use several Apple TV 4Ks, however if anyone is not seeing Atmos when they expect it, there's a couple of gotchas


I think it is important to mention, though, that appleTV is one of the few devices out there, that handles DD+ Atmos differently - it does not bitstream, it decodes the 7.1 channels of DD+ internally and transfers objects in Dolby MAT 2.0.
As we've heard on this forum, some AVR firmwares lacked the Dolby MAT support in early days. By today, I would assume that a processor or AVR carrying Dolby Atmos certification, can decode all three variations (TrueHD, DD+ and LPCM+MAT).


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> Then there's the actual content. Amazon Prime will only send Atmos if the receiving screen is 4K. If you have a 2K screen, you CANNOT get Atmos from Prime. NOW TV has NO Atmos content (and not even 1080p video), Netflix I have no idea, but the Apple TV app (not the device) happily provides Atmos even for my 2K screen. Why the idiots at Amazon think that Atmos should be tied to only 4K streaming I have no idea. It is either monstrously stupid or simply greedy (wanting to charge you more).


It should be mentioned that ALL known streaming boxes have that problem with Vudu and Prime (the 4K only thing). Apple is one of the few that allows Atmos on 2K sets period (My Roku allows it for Disney+). And yes Netflix has Atmos in 2K here for ATV 4K.



> Anyway, my point is that once you have sorted the Apple TV to produce Atmos from those services that stream it, some of those services are not actually streaming in Atmos even when it seems they should. Makes setting up and troubleshooting an Atmos setup somewhat more, taxing.


My point is the other devices won't give you Atmos on 2K sets period. That's even more frustrating. The poster in question has a 4K set so it shouldn't be an issue for them either way.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

UKenGB said:


> I still don't know about Disney+ however. Much of their content is stated as being with Atmos, but I can't get it. This cannot be the Apple TV problem but Disney do warn that due to the current epidemic all services have been asked to reduce bandwidth and so their content may be reduced in quality until the restriction is lifted. Even saying you may not get Atmos. I'm not sure I really understand why Atmos is the first to get the chop (maybe 4K is gone too, but I have no way of knowing that) since the purportedly Atmos content streams instead with 5.1. Would Atmos really increase the amount of data to stream by such a large amount? 2K to 4K is obviously a big difference, but would 5.1 to Atmos make such a difference?



Here in Canada I have been unable to get Atmos on _any_ Disney+ titles for well over a week now. While searching for a complaint address I also came across the warning that they have been temporarily reducing bandwidth. My guess is that they have disabled all 4K streams in favour of HD. I don't believe they offer any HD streams with Atmos.

I'm using an Apple TV 4K . I still get Atmos on the Netflix and Prime titles that are marked as such.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bobbyhollywood said:


> Here in Canada I have been unable to get Atmos on _any_ Disney+ titles for well over a week now. While searching for a complaint address I also came across the warning that the have been temporarily reducing bandwidth. My guess is that they have disabled all 4K streams in favour of HD. I don't believe they offer any HD streams with Atmos.
> 
> I'm using an Apple TV 4K . I still get Atmos on the Netflix and Prime titles that are marked as such.


This is a prime example as to the continued needed support of Blu-ray and 4k discs. Streaming is not the end all be all.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> *This is a prime example as to the continued needed support of Blu-ray and 4k discs.*
> Streaming is not the end all be all.


Dan,

*Not that my opinion matters all that much but I agree with you ^^^*

I just spent like $1,000.00 US dollars on 4K disc as I still think the Hard-Disc are Superior right now to any streaming.
I want a nice 4K Hard-Disc library ............
And I stream a lot and some of it is pretty darn good but not like the Hard-Disc currently.

T.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

tigerhonaker said:


> Dan,
> 
> *Not that my opinion matters all that much but I agree with you ^^^*
> 
> I just spent like $1,000.00 US dollars on 4K disc as I still think the Hard-Disc are Superior right now to any streaming.
> I want a nice 4K Hard-Disc library ............
> And I stream a lot and some of it is pretty darn good but not like the Hard-Disc currently.
> 
> T.


You are also at the whim of the streaming service and/or studios. They can truncate the bandwidth as talked about above or if you have “purchased” a streaming title it can be pulled from the service or the file changed or downgraded for any reason. And there goes part of your supposed collection. If you look at the user agreement, you are basically doing a lease and you own nothing, just air.


----------



## batpig

jabberwockie said:


> Hi, I haven't posted much and I'm just getting into Amos so forgive me if i'm in the wrong area or sound like a nubie but I need someone to shed some light a couple of things.
> 
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD
> Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus
> I have a theater room that is now Atmos ready (finally). I have an Nvidia shield, 4k TV and plenty of 4k content (rips) that I can confirm "flags" Atmos on the NAD M17v2 processor.
> Now then, when I go to play Atmos encoded content from Disney +, or Netflix it is not flagging Atmos on the NAD. I am told this content is Atmos in (DD+ (aka Enhanced AC-3, E-AC3).
> 
> This has brought me to an unconfirmed assumption; This... in order to Play Atmos content from both blu-rays AND streaming services such as Netflix, Disney + etc, you need a processor that supports both Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD AND Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital Plus. In other words; my very expensive NAD m17v2 taht supports Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD won't play both.
> Is this true? And, if so, what processors out there do both?


Which version of Shield do you have? Only the newest models released last year support Atmos on Netflix and I believe only recently added support for Disney+. 

I agree with others that it’s clearly the source, not the receiver, which is causing the “issue”.


----------



## jabberwockie

I have the 2015/2017 shield and had assumed it supported atmos based on this:
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...-app-now-supports-dolby-atmos-on-all-shield-/


----------



## batpig

jabberwockie said:


> I have the 2015/2017 shield and had assumed it supported atmos based on this:
> https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...-app-now-supports-dolby-atmos-on-all-shield-/


The older Shield for sure does not support Atmos on Netflix. 

As I mentioned, and as is discussed in that link, Disney+ Atmos support was recently added. However, note the caveats in that link -- it ONLY appears to work with 4K streams, PLUS there have been reports of Disney+ turning off Atmos/4K streaming in some markets due to bandwidth concerns related to the current pandemic.



> [email protected]
> We received some clarification from Disney today:
> 1. ATMOS is only streamed with 4k content.
> 2. DIsney+ does not support 4k SDR content today, they only support 4k HDR/DV streams.
> This means you will only get 4k and you will only get ATMOS if you have a 4k HDR/DV display today.





> danlat1415
> 
> Disney have removed Atmos in UK and Europe temporarily due to the coronavirus, to reduce internet traffic.
> They have also now started doing this in the US, so you may receive intermittent streams depending on how they're implementing it across the US.
> 
> https://help.disneyplus.com/csp?id=csp_article_content&sys_kb_id=7fdee493db2b849860f3eacb139619e2


----------



## jabberwockie

batpig said:


> The older Shield for sure does not support Atmos on Netflix.
> 
> As I mentioned, and as is discussed in that link, Disney+ Atmos support was recently added. However, note the caveats in that link -- it ONLY appears to work with 4K streams, PLUS there have been reports of Disney+ turning off Atmos/4K streaming in some markets due to bandwidth concerns related to the current pandemic.





jabberwockie said:


> I have the 2015/2017 shield and had assumed it supported atmos based on this:
> https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...-app-now-supports-dolby-atmos-on-all-shield-/


*Update - I just picked up a 2019 Shield. I am able to get Atmos to light up on the NAD while playing Some Amazon Prime content.
That said, I CANNOT get Atmos to light up on any content from Netflix .e.g. The Dirt, House Arrest, Luke cage. (NAD displays Dolby Digital Plus but no Atmos).
Disney+ same thing. NO ATMOS but probably for reasons stated above regarding COVID.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Except for exclusive streaming content, Blu-ray discs (4k discs for studios keeping them as exclusive premium tracks) are your friend for the best Atmos content. 

Plus you actually own a physical copy that cannot be taken from you.


----------



## UKenGB

batpig said:


> The older Shield for sure does not support Atmos on Netflix.
> 
> As I mentioned, and as is discussed in that link, Disney+ Atmos support was recently added. However, note the caveats in that link -- it ONLY appears to work with 4K streams, PLUS there have been reports of Disney+ turning off Atmos/4K streaming in some markets due to bandwidth concerns related to the current pandemic.


So Disney are playing the same game as Amazon. What is the reason they think it appropriate to link Atmos to 4K only. This sort of stupidity/greed angers me beyond belief.

With all that technology can offer with incredible audio and video formats and direct download to view (streaming) I am constantly disappointed by the shoddy service one is able to obtain in that way.


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> It should be mentioned that ALL known streaming boxes have that problem with Vudu and Prime (the 4K only thing). Apple is one of the few that allows Atmos on 2K sets period (My Roku allows it for Disney+). And yes Netflix has Atmos in 2K here for ATV 4K.
> My point is the other devices won't give you Atmos on 2K sets period. That's even more frustrating. The poster in question has a 4K set so it shouldn't be an issue for them either way.


And my point was not to criticise the Apple TV. I wouldn't be using 5 of them if I didn't think they are a pretty good piece of kit. I was merely pointing out why the lack of Atmos can be confusing, not just with the Apple TV.


----------



## Bond 007

UKenGB said:


> With all that technology can offer with incredible audio and video formats and direct download to view (streaming) I am constantly disappointed by the shoddy service one is able to obtain in that way.


Agreed. Amazon in particular is pathetic.


----------



## UKenGB

Dan Hitchman said:


> This is a prime example as to the continued needed support of Blu-ray and 4k discs. Streaming is not the end all be all.


Completely agree. In fact i think it's very disappointing compared to what they could actually be providing.

Apart from the lack of metadata they usually provide (so it is often impossible to actually find out audio and/or video quality, or even the language), it completely destroys the whole concept of watching a whole series when you realise the episodes are disappearing faster than you can watch them. That's assuming you can remember what episode you last viewed as e.g. NOW TV are totally unable to help you with that and scrolling between the many series of some shows is tortuously tedious and if you're not careful, you'll have to do it all again next time. Ok, NOW is particularly bad (an atrociously badly designed app in fact) and others are better in some respects, but all services seem to have significant failings that seriously mar the user experience.

Having left Sky Q due to becoming fed up with the constantly rising cost, I have to say what you get is pretty good. Relatively easy to find stuff, with good access to all the catch-up services and you can easily record anything, building up your own collection which by and large would remain available until you decided to delete it (apart from good old BBC deleting its content before you had a chance to view it). And it would record future series for you too. Not perfect, but moving to streaming has resulted in a very haphazard service. Content is all over the place in different apps (Apple TV is supposed to help, but actually does a poor job of that) whose controls are often slightly different and all of them want to bury the 'free' stuff (i.e. what you already pay for with your subscription) under copious amounts of dross you have no desire to watch and certainly no intention of paying any more for. Despite my irritation I am able to navigate this minefield, but my wife finds it hopelessly unsatisfactory and complains we should return to Sky (which it has to be said she was keen to leave on account of the constantly escalating cost). Sky Q was far from perfect, but it was certainly easier to get a better and more consistent viewing experience than all this streaming malarky which is often misrepresented when you sign up. I took the special offer to get Disney+ for a year, thinking I would enjoy their Atmos content. NOWHERE did they forewarn me that they have decided I am not worthy of such a superior audio experience. Come to think of it, neither did Amazon when we joined Prime. They are basically lying to you by being so economical with the truth. If they feel so justified in not provided Atmos with 2K streams, then why don't they make it plain up front? Simple, because they're happy to mislead you just to get your money. I think this sort of business practice sucks. Apple don't do it with the Apple TV+ service and quite frankly I'm surprised at Disney being so parsimonious.

What I really want from streaming is the ability to 'hide' all content that requires additional payment and specify TV Series and Movies to be recorded/downloaded to any local storage you make available, both able to be scheduled in advance to record as and when they become available. Apple could easily offer this with the Apple TV. Just run a local file server and be able to record to there so that I KNOW what I want to watch will be there when I get around to watching it. In the great scheme of things, TV is pretty unimportant compared to the current pandemic, but when you've decided to watch a particular show/movie, it sucks to find some ****head has decreed thou art not worthy and shalt not be allowed to watch it. If I want to keep a recording for years before watching it, that's my business. I've paid for the ability to watch it and no-one else should be allowed to slap me on the wrist for being such a naughty boy and not watching it within the time *they* decided I should watch it. Yes BBC, I'm talking about you.

Sorry, rant over. Amazon and Disney, please rethink your current Atmos strategy.


----------



## eaayoung

So if I want to watch streamed Atmos content on my 1080p plasma, is Apple TV my best bet? Also, does Directv have content with Atmos enabled?


----------



## MagnumX

eaayoung said:


> So if I want to watch streamed Atmos content on my 1080p plasma, is Apple TV my best bet? Also, does Directv have content with Atmos enabled?


It's your _only_ bet. Well, Roku does Atmos in 2K for Disney+, but that's it. I get iTunes (including Movies Anywhere titles), Disney+ and Netflix in 2K on my projector with Apple TV 4K.



UKenGB said:


> So Disney are playing the same game as Amazon. What is the reason they think it appropriate to link Atmos to 4K only. This sort of stupidity/greed angers me beyond belief.
> 
> With all that technology can offer with incredible audio and video formats and direct download to view (streaming) I am constantly disappointed by the shoddy service one is able to obtain in that way.



Disney+ doesn't do any such thing. It's up to the streaming box if it's limited like that. My Roku 4K and Apple TV 4K both show Disney+ with Atmos on my 2K/3D projector. The Apple TV also does Netflix and its own iTunes material in Atmos. It's the Vudu and Prime Apps that don't cooperate on the Apple TV.


----------



## usc1995

jabberwockie said:


> *Update - I just picked up a 2019 Shield. I am able to get Atmos to light up on the NAD while playing Some Amazon Prime content.
> That said, I CANNOT get Atmos to light up on any content from Netflix .e.g. The Dirt, House Arrest, Luke cage. (NAD displays Dolby Digital Plus but no Atmos).
> Disney+ same thing. NO ATMOS but probably for reasons stated above regarding COVID.



Do you have the 4K UHD subscription to Netflix? The Atmos streams are only available at that subscription level.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

eaayoung said:


> So if I want to watch streamed Atmos content on my 1080p plasma, is Apple TV my best bet? Also, does Directv have content with Atmos enabled?


Generally, yes. ATV4K supports Atmos with Netflix original content even if outputting at 1080p. 

Unfortunately Vudu (which has the biggest library of Atmos 4K streaming movies to rent/own) does NOT allow Atmos with 1080p, only the 4K UHD stream. However, with an ATV4K most movies you own will port over to iTunes through Movies Anywhere, and (if available) then you'll be able to stream that movie from iTunes in Atmos even at 1080p. Disney doesn't let iTunes have the 4K Atmos streaming versions of its content however, so no go with Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, etc. on iTunes (5.1 only). There are plenty of sources online to buy digital codes for cheap as well if you want to build a library.

If you want to get goofy and extend the life of that plasma, you may want to buy a 3rd party EDID/HDCP device (probably an HDFury product) which can "spoof" the sources into believing the HDMI Sink supports 4K resolution, and then downscale the video to 1080p so the old plasma is happy. Then you can do whatever you want upstream since the sources will happily spit out 4K streaming stuff.


----------



## ki11abee

batpig said:


> Generally, yes. ATV4K supports Atmos with Netflix original content even if outputting at 1080p.
> 
> Unfortunately Vudu (which has the biggest library of Atmos 4K streaming movies to rent/own) does NOT allow Atmos with 1080p, only the 4K UHD stream. However, with an ATV4K most movies you own will port over to iTunes through Movies Anywhere, and (if available) then you'll be able to stream that movie from iTunes in Atmos even at 1080p. Disney doesn't let iTunes have the 4K Atmos streaming versions of its content however, so no go with Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, etc. on iTunes (5.1 only). There are plenty of sources online to buy digital codes for cheap as well if you want to build a library.
> 
> If you want to get goofy and extend the life of that plasma, you may want to buy a 3rd party EDID/HDCP device (probably an HDFury product) which can "spoof" the sources into believing the HDMI Sink supports 4K resolution, and then downscale the video to 1080p so the old plasma is happy. Then you can do whatever you want upstream since the sources will happily spit out 4K streaming stuff.


This^^^^
I’m so glad Netflix and apple movies and shows put out ATMOS audio even though I don’t have a 4k display. One of the reasons I canceled Disney+. I emailed vudu and also said they only support atmos for 4k streams. But like u said, most are ported to Apple as well so it works out


----------



## UKenGB

usc1995 said:


> Do you have the 4K UHD subscription to Netflix? The Atmos streams are only available at that subscription level.





batpig said:


> Generally, yes. ATV4K supports Atmos with Netflix original content even if outputting at 1080p.


So this appears to be saying that you may need to be paying Netflix for the 4K subscription, but can actually receive it even with a 2K display.

However, when I contacted Netflix about this, they were quite adamant that Atmos would be available with 2K and a 4K subscription was not required. As long as the content had Atmos, it would be available with the basic subscription. I specifically asked as I would only need the basic (2K, 2 simultaneous streams), but cannot confirm either way as I've not yet signed up for Netflix.

Anyway, it is different from Prime where even though you choose a 4K stream (at no extra cost), you don't get Atmos if you only have a 2K display.

All of which supports my previous rant that it is all way too complicated currently. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to even figure out what we're being allowed to have, let alone what we actually get. If Dolby want to increase the usage of Atmos they need to get involved and tell the streaming services to stop messing around like this.


----------



## niterida

UKenGB said:


> So this appears to be saying that you may need to be paying Netflix for the 4K subscription, but can actually receive it even with a 2K display.
> 
> However, when I contacted Netflix about this, they were quite adamant that Atmos would be available with 2K and a 4K subscription was not required. As long as the content had Atmos, it would be available with the basic subscription. I specifically asked as I would only need the basic (2K, 2 simultaneous streams), but cannot confirm either way as I've not yet signed up for Netflix.
> 
> Anyway, it is different from Prime where even though you choose a 4K stream (at no extra cost), you don't get Atmos if you only have a 2K display.
> 
> All of which supports my previous rant that it is all way too complicated currently. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to even figure out what we're being allowed to have, let alone what we actually get. If Dolby want to increase the usage of Atmos they need to get involved and tell the streaming services to stop messing around like this.


Yep here in Australia I have to pay for 4k Netflix to get Atmos but I only have a 1080 projector.
Worse thing is the only option for streaming non Disney/Netflix/amazon movies is via Optus and they don't even offer Atmos and doesn't look like they have any intention of doing so 
And even worse is there is no rental store in town and the only postal rental service don't list if the title is in Atmos or not.
So I have no option but to buy blu-rays and even that is either too expensive or too difficult - the joys of living in a small town 400kms from the nearest city !!


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> UKenGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Disney are playing the same game as Amazon. What is the reason they think it appropriate to link Atmos to 4K only....
> 
> 
> 
> Disney+ doesn't do any such thing. It's up to the streaming box if it's limited like that. My Roku 4K and Apple TV 4K both show Disney+ with Atmos on my 2K/3D projector. The Apple TV also does Netflix and its own iTunes material in Atmos. It's the Vudu and Prime Apps that don't cooperate on the Apple TV.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't get at me about that, I was merely responding to what was said previously:-



batpig said:


> ... Disney+ Atmos support was recently added. However, note the caveats in that link -- it ONLY appears to work with 4K streams...


I myself can only report that I do NOT get Atmos with Disney+, but until reading the above, I thought it was just due to the current pandemic related restrictions.

Yet more conflicting information. I've said it before but I'll say it again, it really shouldn't be this hard.


----------



## niterida

UKenGB said:


> I've said it before but I'll say it again, it really shouldn't be this hard.


Especially when it is just the bloody sound we are talking about - how much extra bandwidth does it take up - just allow the highest native source to be streamed so if it has Atmos we get Atmos.......


----------



## MagnumX

UKenGB said:


> Hey, don't get at me about that, I was merely responding to what was said previously:-


I'm not "getting at you". I simply want the correct information out there so the false stuff doesn't propagate.

Some streaming boxes (e.g. Firestick 4K) require a 4K set to be connected (or at least fooled with an HDFury) to get any Atmos at all. I don't know why they did this. It's stupid. I think some studios do it to push more expensive UHD discs and for awhile to push 4K TV sales (one of the reasons 3D was deemphasized so to not compete with the almighty important 4K TV sales).

You actually get a better quality picture with a 4K signal on a 2K set with streaming since there's less artifacts when downscaled than a typical lower bandwidth 1080p streaming signal. Why Vudu, etc insist on a 4K set is beyond me. I just figure the world is run by unqualified people in all walks of life. They either have an ulterior motive (e.g. Push 4K TV sales at the cost of tivking off a few consumers who they figure will get over it and buy the 4K set even if they can't see a difference) or are ignorant. There are no other possibilities I can think of. 

Notice how HDR was added to the 4K standard when early sales weren't that great. You can't see the resolution increase on most typical sized sets at typical viewing distances so they needed something you _could_ see.

I don't know how they're going to convince consumers to buy 8K sets. Unless you're going to 90"+, there's little benefit (and even then you'd need to sit close). 35mm film transfers are approaching the limits at 4K for realistic resolution increases. Some high grade stuff and 70mm might go a bit higher, but 8K isn't going to offer much for older films and TV is mostly still 2K. Can you imagine the skin details at 8K on talk shows? I don't think I want to see that blown up that close. 😉


----------



## usc1995

UKenGB said:


> So this appears to be saying that you may need to be paying Netflix for the 4K subscription, but can actually receive it even with a 2K display.
> 
> However, when I contacted Netflix about this, they were quite adamant that Atmos would be available with 2K and a 4K subscription was not required. As long as the content had Atmos, it would be available with the basic subscription. I specifically asked as I would only need the basic (2K, 2 simultaneous streams), but cannot confirm either way as I've not yet signed up for Netflix.
> 
> Anyway, it is different from Prime where even though you choose a 4K stream (at no extra cost), you don't get Atmos if you only have a 2K display.
> 
> All of which supports my previous rant that it is all way too complicated currently. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to even figure out what we're being allowed to have, let alone what we actually get. If Dolby want to increase the usage of Atmos they need to get involved and tell the streaming services to stop messing around like this.



View attachment Dolby Atmos on Netflix.pdf

Sounds like the CSR that replied to you needs to review their own website https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> I don't know how they're going to convince consumers to buy 8K sets. *Unless you're going to 90"+, there's little benefit* (and even then you'd need to sit close). 35mm film transfers are approaching the limits at 4K for realistic resolution increases. Some high grade stuff and 70mm might go a bit higher, but 8K isn't going to offer much for older films and TV is mostly still 2K. Can you imagine the skin details at 8K on talk shows? I don't think I want to see that blown up that close. 😉


Thankyou. I agree with this so much! The "elephant in the room", or really the *elephant-sized TV* not really in the room because it won't fit, is no-one has ever answered my question of who's going to rebuild all the UK houses to take those 90" TVs, and re-house us all? That's a monumental undertaking just to sell the next generation of TVs. Our lounges and houses are just too small here. UK builders build *the smallest houses they possibly can* (yet normally charge the most).








And who is going to give us all the money with which to buy those massive TVs? Those are things that the manufacturers should have thought of first.

Having 8K on the production side of things is great. It will bring all the same benefits for 4K viewing, that you've described above for 2K viewing of 4K streams. I fully support that side of things. But 8K in the home is just ludicrous. I want fully 12 bit panels, full rec2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero vignetting, etc. A higher resolution is at the absolute BOTTOM of my wish-list of things I want next.

By the way, the vast majority of UK TV is still Standard Definition... over here, some channel that had launched HD versions, have since shut down their HD versions because they lost too much money and gone back to SD-only! This is the landscape of things here, and the year is 2020! The disconnect between what manufacturers want to sell, and what's practical and makes sense, is huge.


----------



## UKenGB

usc1995 said:


> View attachment 2709052
> 
> Sounds like the CSR that replied to you needs to review their own website https://help.netflix.com/en/node/64066
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


So it would appear. But then even their own help page to specifically explain what you get with each of their Streaming Plans does not mention Atmos. How hard can it be to make all this clear.

Is it just me finds this economy of information so aggravating. It really shouldn't be this hard. Oh, I already said that.


----------



## UKenGB

mrtickleuk said:


> ...By the way, the vast majority of UK TV is still Standard Definition... over here, some channel that launch HD versions have shut down their HD versions because they lost too much money and gone back to SD-only. The disconnect between what manufacturers want to sell, and what's practical and makes sense, is huge.


Yup. The primary sources of TV for the masses here is FreeView and/or FreeSat and both are ABYSMAL in their proportion of even HD content and neither have UHD at all. We're several steps behind and yet being effectively forced to buy a 4K display just to get Atmos while most UK video content is still stuck at SD.


----------



## tloi26

Hi all,

Just moved into a new home so I need to set up my home theater system again. Previously, I have a 7.1 system with Polk CSI A6 as center; Polk RTI A7 as main, Polk FXI A4 as surround, Polk Monitor 30 for rear, and Hsu VTF-3 MK5 as sub. Receiver is Yamaha Aventage RX-A1080 with Emotiva XPA-2 and XPA-3 as amplifiers.

Now, my new living room is not ideal. It's 16 ft wide, 9 ft heigh that open to the kitchen with a countertop island. With the layout, I don't think I can set up my surround in the traditional way so I think of going dolby atmos system of 5.1.2. Right now I'm thinking of two ways

1) Ceiling mount my Monitor 30 and use the FXI A4 as rear. If going this route, what would be a nice ceiling mount rack that can hold the monitor 30, and what would be the ideal angle?

2) Or should I need to buy a pair of ceiling Dolby Atmos speaker? If I need to, what would be a good speaker to buy? My budget is around $300.

Here are some pictures for visualization. Any ideas are welcomed. Thanks


----------



## niterida

tloi26 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Just moved into a new home so I need to set up my home theater system again. Previously, I have a 7.1 system with Polk CSI A6 as center; Polk RTI A7 as main, Polk FXI A4 as surround, Polk Monitor 30 for rear, and Hsu VTF-3 MK5 as sub. Receiver is Yamaha Aventage RX-A1080 with Emotiva XPA-2 and XPA-3 as amplifiers.
> 
> Now, my new living room is not ideal. It's 16 ft wide, 9 ft heigh that open to the kitchen with a countertop island. With the layout, I don't think I can set up my surround in the traditional way so I think of going dolby atmos system of 5.1.2. Right now I'm thinking of two ways
> 
> 1) Ceiling mount my Monitor 30 and use the FXI A4 as rear. If going this route, what would be a nice ceiling mount rack that can hold the monitor 30, and what would be the ideal angle?
> 
> 2) Or should I need to buy a pair of ceiling Dolby Atmos speaker? If I need to, what would be a good speaker to buy? My budget is around $300.
> 
> Here are some pictures for visualization. Any ideas are welcomed. Thanks



That space will work really well with a 5.1.2 setup (5.1.4 would be better but that would require a new AVR and another pair of speakers) and IMO is far superior to 7.1

I would use in-ceiling speakers for a 5.1.2 setup as they are aimed straight down (or almost straight down - I believe the recommendation is to mount them just slightly in front of the MLP.) at the listener so you will be on-axis with them. 

For the surrounds (rears don't exist in 5.1 although they are physically to the rear) I would use which ones timbre match your fronts the best.
Where you have drawn them looks pretty much ideal.


----------



## anothermib

eaayoung said:


> So if I want to watch streamed Atmos content on my 1080p plasma, is Apple TV my best bet? Also, does Directv have content with Atmos enabled?



Just to add a word of caution to the general recommendation for the ATV. There is a substantial number of people having occasional sound issues watching Netflix Atmos content on the ATV with sound jumping erratically between channels. The ATV forums are full of these complaints. It is not entirely clear what is causing this, one suspicion is that it happens when the Netflix bitrate is adjusting during the streaming session. However, the problem seems to be ATV specific. Many people having these issues (including me) started to use a different device like the FTV cube or the XBox for Netflix Atmos.


----------



## HT_Geek

batpig said:


> If you want to get goofy and extend the life of that plasma, you may want to buy a 3rd party EDID/HDCP device (probably an HDFury product) which can "spoof" the sources into believing the HDMI Sink supports 4K resolution, and then downscale the video to 1080p so the old plasma is happy. Then you can do whatever you want upstream since the sources will happily spit out 4K streaming stuff.


I've had the same issues you mentioned, and I am intrigued by this spoofer. I visited HDFury, but there are so many products they sell. Could you point us to the device that does what you mention. Thanks much.


----------



## batpig

HT_Geek said:


> I've had the same issues you mentioned, and I am intrigued by this spoofer. I visited HDFury, but there are so many products they sell. Could you point us to the device that does what you mention. Thanks much.


Sorry, not an expert on the individual products. I would contact them directly for advice on which product will meet your needs, they are pretty responsive and they also have a presence here at AVS posting in the HDFury official owner's threads.


----------



## MagnumX

HT_Geek said:


> I've had the same issues you mentioned, and I am intrigued by this spoofer. I visited HDFury, but there are so many products they sell. Could you point us to the device that does what you mention. Thanks much.


I believe the HDFury Integral 2 or Vertex 2 will do the job. The Linker that the Integral replaces also works and is cheaper, but supports fewer 4K modes.


----------



## AVTrauma

In terms of *"supports fewer 4K modes"*...
If you are using something like an HD Fury product to fool the signal into believing it sinks to a 4K display, would it matter if the cheaper Linker was used? I mean if you don't have a 4K display and wish to enjoy Atmos with Disney+, what would be the "minimal requirements" for any one of the multiple HDMI scalers they offer? Which ones to avoid because they won't work? (and if anyone can be so kind to explain why they would or wouldn't work?)

Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

AVTrauma said:


> In terms of *"supports fewer 4K modes"*...
> If you are using something like an HD Fury product to fool the signal into believing it sinks to a 4K display, would it matter if the cheaper Linker was used? I mean if you don't have a 4K display and wish to enjoy Atmos with Disney+, what would be the "minimal requirements" for any one of the multiple HDMI scalers they offer? Which ones to avoid because they won't work? (and if anyone can be so kind to explain why they would or wouldn't work?)
> 
> Thanks!


I'm not an expert on 4K, but perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask the guy that makes them. I believe I've seen him on here before in a thread on HDFury. In fact, his name on here is @HDfury. 

At a glance, here's a link to the HDFury Linker owners' thread. I'm sure they could answer your questions about it: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/37-video-processors/2905929-hdfury-linker-owners-thread.html


----------



## AVTrauma

Sheesh! Don't I feel stupid... shoulda known!  Thanks for the link... and more reading!


----------



## priitv8

AVTrauma said:


> Sheesh! Don't I feel stupid... shoulda known!  Thanks for the link... and more reading!


I have the Vertex and it will do what you want/need and more (e.g. up/downscale, HDMI infoframes injection etc).
It is also much more compact and cheaper than current Vertex 2.
It can handle up to HDMI 2.0 (18Gbps) signals, so good for most contemporary equipment.
Linker would be even cheaper and smaller and can handle both scaling and EDID massage.


----------



## burton14e7

mrtickleuk said:


> Thankyou. I agree with this so much! The "elephant in the room", or really the *elephant-sized TV* not really in the room because it won't fit, is no-one has ever answered my question of who's going to rebuild all the UK houses to take those 90" TVs, and re-house us all? That's a monumental undertaking just to sell the next generation of TVs. Our lounges and houses are just too small here. UK builders build *the smallest houses they possibly can* (yet normally charge the most).
> 
> And who is going to give us all the money with which to buy those massive TVs? Those are things that the manufacturers should have thought of first.
> 
> Having 8K on the production side of things is great. It will bring all the same benefits for 4K viewing, that you've described above for 2K viewing of 4K streams. I fully support that side of things. But 8K in the home is just ludicrous. I want fully 12 bit panels, full rec2020 coverage, improved near-black rendering, perfect mura uniformity, better anti-reflective coatings, longer lifespans, zero vignetting, etc. A higher resolution is at the absolute BOTTOM of my wish-list of things I want next.
> 
> By the way, the vast majority of UK TV is still Standard Definition... over here, some channel that had launched HD versions, have since shut down their HD versions because they lost too much money and gone back to SD-only! This is the landscape of things here, and the year is 2020! The disconnect between what manufacturers want to sell, and what's practical and makes sense, is huge.


I have a 135" screen and I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k from 12' away. 720p to 1080p is immediately noticable though. I have no desire to go to 8k but would love HDR & HFR in 1080p and 4k.


----------



## David Susilo

burton14e7 said:


> I have a 135" screen and I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k from 12' away. 720p to 1080p is immediately noticable though. I have no desire to go to 8k but would love HDR & HFR in 1080p and 4k.


Without a joke, have you checked your vision lately? Enough people don’t realize their vision are compromised until they checked their eyes and the doctor told them that they need glasses/new prescription. I have a handful of clients that say the same thing as you and turned out they mildly need to wear glasses. Suddenly after wearing their prescription they can see the difference greatly. 

Also, which projector you use? It’s somewhat hard to distinguish between 4K shift vs HD but it’s a lot easier to distinguish between 4K native vs HD. Plus the screen you use matters once it gets to 4K. On some screens I have difficulty distinguishing HD vs 4K (native) but on screens such as SI and Stewart, the difference is clear.


----------



## burton14e7

David Susilo said:


> Without a joke, have you checked your vision lately? Enough people don’t realize their vision are compromised until they checked their eyes and the doctor told them that they need glasses/new prescription. I have a handful of clients that say the same thing as you and turned out they mildly need to wear glasses. Suddenly after wearing their prescription they can see the difference greatly.
> 
> Also, which projector you use? It’s somewhat hard to distinguish between 4K shift vs HD but it’s a lot easier to distinguish between 4K native vs HD. Plus the screen you use matters once it gets to 4K. On some screens I have difficulty distinguishing HD vs 4K (native) but on screens such as SI and Stewart, the difference is clear.


Haha, that's funny. I'm usually the one telling people to get their eyes checked when they talk about not seeing the whiteboard at work. I wear corrective lenses with routine checkups.  I have a Screen Innovations Model No. 5TF135PW(pure white), technically rated up to 8k. I just can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at home.


----------



## AYanguas

burton14e7 said:


> Haha, that's funny. I'm usually the one telling people to get their eyes checked when they talk about not seeing the whiteboard at work. I wear corrective lenses with routine checkups.  I have a Screen Innovations Model No. 5TF135PW(pure white), technically rated up to 8k. I just can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at home.


I think this is dependent of several factors:

- The upscaling job done by the projector, assuming it is fed by a 1080p signal not upscaled by the source player.

- And more important, the video quality of the source. There are 1080p content very clear and sharp and also 4K content with poor quality, film grain (original or artificially added) or whatever.

I am 60+ age, wear corrective lenses, have myopia and astigmatism, and have my vision degraded according to my age. BUT I still clearly distinguish between 1080p and 4K in my 120'' screen at 340 cm distance


----------



## gwsat

burton14e7 said:


> Haha, that's funny. I'm usually the one telling people to get their eyes checked when they talk about not seeing the whiteboard at work. I wear corrective lenses with routine checkups.  I have a Screen Innovations Model No. 5TF135PW(pure white), technically rated up to 8k. I just can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at home.


I had cataract surgery some years ago, which restored my corrected vision to 20/20. I have been regularly examined by an ophthalmologist ever since. Despite 20/20 vision I find the improvement provided by native 4K video without HDR, compared to1080P upconverted to 4K on my 75 inch Sony 940D, ranges between slim and none. HDR, of course, is another matter, entirely.


----------



## dschulz

I'm not gonna die on this hill, because the 4K ship is sailing - if you're buying a new television set it's gonna be 4K, and projectors are going to follow suit. The streamers are quickly standardizing on 4K as well.

That said, FWIW I saw a comprehensive demo on a cinema-sized screen that convinced me that when you are controlling all of the other variables, you cannot see the difference between 2K and 4K at normal viewing distances. And 4K, when you are careful with the post pipeline, works as a display format for even 15/70 IMAX film projected on an IMAX screen, so I can't see the use case for 8K at all.

In retrospect, I'd rather have 2K but with immersive sound, HDR, Rec2020 color and relatively little compression rather than 4K with all of those things but with more compression. 

But, as I said, the ship has already sailed.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> I'm not gonna die on this hill, because the 4K ship is sailing - if you're buying a new television set it's gonna be 4K, and projectors are going to follow suit. The streamers are quickly standardizing on 4K as well.
> 
> That said, FWIW I saw a comprehensive demo on a cinema-sized screen that convinced me that when you are controlling all of the other variables, you cannot see the difference between 2K and 4K at normal viewing distances. And 4K, when you are careful with the post pipeline, works as a display format for even 15/70 IMAX film projected on an IMAX screen, so I can't see the use case for 8K at all.
> 
> In retrospect, I'd rather have 2K but with immersive sound, HDR, Rec2020 color and relatively little compression rather than 4K with all of those things but with more compression.
> 
> But, as I said, the ship has already sailed.


The problem is that 4K conceptually is a bucket item for many consumers, as in "more is better". That's why you'll see 8K (COVID-19 permitting) on TVs for the home when there will be little to no actual content supporting it.


----------



## am2model3

Star Wars 4K UHD movie discs; they are ok. The DolbyAtmos sound mixes are very good; but I will have to say the DTS-HD 7.1 tracks from the blu ray upmixed with NeuralX or DSU sound very good themselves!


----------



## MagnumX

8K? That is SO last year! No, 16K is the ONLY way to fly!  

Just give it a few more years and it will be there. I think ~23K is the point where the human eye can't tell a projected picture from reality so that's what you need for Marty McFly's "Scenery Channel" to look like it's a real window instead of a picture of one.


----------



## b_scott

what's a decent but not highest end receiver that will do 5.2.4? I don't really care what brand. I've had Onkyo and a Pioneer Elite in the past.

I just purchased a 7.2 Denon (S750H) which I could do 5.2.2. with but I'm building a room so I figured I might as well do 5.2.4

speakers = Polk 65, 255, 265 in walls. And sub is PB-1000.

projector = Epson 5040UBe


----------



## Augerhandle

b_scott said:


> what's the cheapest "not crap" receiver that will do 5.2.4? I don't really care what brand. I've had Onkyo and a Pioneer Elite in the past.
> 
> I just purchased a 7.2 Denon (S750H) which I could do 5.2.2. with but I'm building a room so I figured I might as well do 5.2.4
> 
> speakers = Polk 65, 255, 265 in walls. And sub is PB-1000.
> 
> projector = Epson 5040UBe




https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...re-buy-outside-deals-sticky.html#post54630731


----------



## b_scott

Augerhandle said:


> b_scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's the cheapest "not crap" receiver that will do 5.2.4? I don't really care what brand. I've had Onkyo and a Pioneer Elite in the past.
> 
> I just purchased a 7.2 Denon (S750H) which I could do 5.2.2. with but I'm building a room so I figured I might as well do 5.2.4
> 
> speakers = Polk 65, 255, 265 in walls. And sub is PB-1000.
> 
> projector = Epson 5040UBe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...re-buy-outside-deals-sticky.html#post54630731
Click to expand...

Not asking for a deal. Just want to know decent vs high end. Updated my post.


----------



## eaayoung

Onkyo 787 is on clearance at BB. Or 797.


----------



## b_scott

eaayoung said:


> Onkyo 787 is on clearance at BB. Or 797.


Thanks. Grabbed the 797


----------



## mlmiller

*Atmos related ?*



VenomAwakens said:


> Both movies are downloaded , i prefer and i buy bluray disks but since atmos became a 4k UHD exclusive there is not other way to have atmos support for the new releases. Ps4 can not playback 4k movies, most 1080p movies does not support atmos like the 4k ones so i download them and i play them through mpc-hc or kodi.


Hello,

So you are using MPC-hc to play TrueHD/Atmos files? My receiver Denon AVRX1200-W is decoding the sound formats as DolbyTHD, Atmos/surround, DolbyTHD+ Neural:x. So my opinion is it is not splitting the files correctly bc to my recollection (4 years ago, prior to DTS:x updates) it displayed DolbyTHD+Atmos like files read? It did not sound good in the Atmos/surround setting. Only the DolbyTHD+Neural:x sounded appropriate for an Atmos file. These files also read 1080p. Oddly enough when reconfiguring MPC to enhanced video the 2160p video looks amazing on a 1080p tv.


----------



## rads03

*Amp Help Please.*

i just finished installing 4 rsl ceiling speakers and would appreciate any suggestions for amps. avr: nad 777v3; monitor audio gold (gs20 fronts, center, surrounds and 2 subs). i am currently using my old nad 775 to power the ceiling speakers but would like to get rid of it.

what amp would be adequate for this setup? should i be looking at a 4 channel, two 2 channel amps, or a 4+ channel amp? would it be best to power the ceiling speakers with a separate amp or is there a significant benefit in powering the fronts and perhaps the surrounds separately as well?

any amp suggestions are appreciated.


----------



## tigerhonaker

rads03 said:


> *Amp Help Please.*
> 
> i just finished installing 4 rsl ceiling speakers and would appreciate any suggestions for amps. avr: nad 777v3; monitor audio gold (gs20 fronts, center, surrounds and 2 subs). i am currently using my old nad 775 to power the ceiling speakers but would like to get rid of it.
> 
> what amp would be adequate for this setup? should i be looking at a 4 channel, two 2 channel amps, or a 4+ channel amp? would it be best to power the ceiling speakers with a separate amp or is there a significant benefit in powering the fronts and perhaps the surrounds separately as well?
> 
> any amp suggestions are appreciated.


Go with the 

I went with the 6-Channel for my Triad in-ceiling 6 speakers when it get's installed after the "Virus" thing gets over-with.

*https://www.ati-amp.com/products.php

https://www.ati-amp.com/AT54XNC.php

AT524NC 4-channel Amplifier (200W RMS per channel) $2,995.00

https://www.wwsp.com/ati/at524nc.htm*



Terry


----------



## rads03

tigerhonaker said:


> Go with the
> 
> I went with the 6-Channel for my Triad in-ceiling 6 speakers when it get's installed after the "Virus" thing gets over-with.
> 
> *https://www.ati-amp.com/products.php
> 
> https://www.ati-amp.com/AT54XNC.php
> 
> AT524NC 4-channel Amplifier (200W RMS per channel) $2,995.00
> 
> https://www.wwsp.com/ati/at524nc.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> Terry



thx terry. do you need 200w/channel for atmos/ceiling speakers? is there that much info coded/directed to them in a given movie? how did you choose ati? i suppose i could go back and review your ht update thread, but im lazy.


----------



## MagnumX

This video someone pointed out on the BD forums sure explains some reasons why many "near field" mixes suck compared to the Cinema ones.... This explains why the Cinema DTS soundtrack of The Matrix has 6-8dB higher sound effects when matched to relative volume levels compared to the home Atmos mix. It's so you can hear the dialog! What a great reason to ruin film soundtracks. I really wish they'd give us the OPTION of the original cinema track instead. Make the crappy home version in just 5.1 or something. Better yet, use a separate dialog track that can have its volume altered independently as DTS has brought up before.


----------



## blake

tigerhonaker said:


> Go with the
> 
> I went with the 6-Channel for my Triad in-ceiling 6 speakers when it get's installed after the "Virus" thing gets over-with.
> 
> *https://www.ati-amp.com/products.php
> 
> https://www.ati-amp.com/AT54XNC.php
> 
> AT524NC 4-channel Amplifier (200W RMS per channel) $2,995.00
> 
> https://www.wwsp.com/ati/at524nc.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> Terry



I’ll vouch for Terry’s decision to use ATi. I researched many amplifiers and if you want a great class D amp, ATi make one of the best with the Hypex NCore technology (ex AT52xNC). The x specifies channels, up to 8’supported. 

I went “old school” and used a massive class AB ATI signature 5 channel for LCR (and front wides)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ricoflashback

dschulz said:


> I'm not gonna die on this hill, because the 4K ship is sailing - if you're buying a new television set it's gonna be 4K, and projectors are going to follow suit. The streamers are quickly standardizing on 4K as well.
> 
> That said, FWIW I saw a comprehensive demo on a cinema-sized screen that convinced me that when you are controlling all of the other variables, you cannot see the difference between 2K and 4K at normal viewing distances. And 4K, when you are careful with the post pipeline, works as a display format for even 15/70 IMAX film projected on an IMAX screen, so I can't see the use case for 8K at all.
> 
> In retrospect, I'd rather have 2K but with immersive sound, HDR, Rec2020 color and relatively little compression rather than 4K with all of those things but with more compression.
> 
> But, as I said, the ship has already sailed.


***Well said. Outside of marketing hype, whether it be 4K or 8K, most consumers will automatically think a 4K picture is better than a 1080p picture. And they’d probably think an 8K set is better than a 4K set. I couldn’t agree with you more about immersive sound. That technology is already here with DD+ Dolby Atmos audio with Dolby Vision via Netflix. Nothing adds more to a movie or a series than a high quality, multi-channel soundtrack. 

It’s obvious that we have an impedance mismatch between TV technology and capability versus current video sources - - more prominent with cable TV in the U.S. One look at a true, high production 4K/HDR video on You Tube will show you that. We have cars that can go 180 mph but we are stuck in the 65 mph content lane. 

All things being equal, I’m very content with a solid 1080p, less compressed signal than a heavily compressed or even post production 4K content from a 2K source. I don’t have the largest TV (75”) and someday, space permitting, I would love to have a 120” screen (probably a 4K UST laser projector.). A true 4K or heaven forbid, 8K source would probably make a big difference, picture wise, with that large of a screen. But with today’s content, if you have the right processing and a clean, uncompressed 1080p signal upscaled to 4K, the picture quality is quite stunning.


----------



## tigerhonaker

rads03 said:


> thx terry. do you need 200w/channel for atmos/ceiling speakers? is there that much info coded/directed to them in a given movie? how did you choose ati? i suppose i could go back and review your ht update thread, but im lazy.


rads03,

I can understand that for some it would take a long time to go through my complete "Dedicated-Build-Thread".

So below will take you to exactly what is going to take place once the "Virus" threat has gotten under control.
I feel confident if you read that Post carefully all your questions will be answered.

*I have now made my Final choice on the Atmos System, January 17th 2020 ...*

*https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-15.html#post59114246*





blake said:


> I’ll vouch for Terry’s decision to use ATi. I researched many amplifiers and if you want a great class D amp, ATi make one of the best with the Hypex NCore technology (ex AT52xNC). The x specifies channels, up to 8’supported.
> 
> I went “old school” and used a massive class AB ATI signature 5 channel for LCR (and front wides)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi Blake,

I did a lot and when I say I did a lot of extensive research on the ATI Amps that's a Fact.
They come close as far as I am concerned to my current Classe' amps.
I read and watched everything I could find on the ATI amps.

Also, Steve Colburn that was at  speakers before very-very recently retiring also said that was an excellent choice.



He was very familiar with them.


Terry


----------



## howard68

Hello All
Looking at the Emotiva XPA 11 Amp
300 w for front speakers sounds good

However 65 w for my top six speakers?
I have Polk in-ceiling speaker that are 91 sensitivity 100 

Amp do people think?


----------



## howard68

Hello All
Looking at the Emotiva XPA 11 Amp
300 w for front speakers sounds good

However 65 w for my top six speakers?
I have Polk in-ceiling speaker that are 91 sensitivity 100 

What do people think?


----------



## Ricoflashback

howard68 said:


> Hello All
> Looking at the Emotiva XPA 11 Amp
> 300 w for front speakers sounds good
> 
> However 65 w for my top six speakers?
> I have Polk in-ceiling speaker that are 91 sensitivity 100
> 
> Amp do people think?


***Wow, that's one beefy amplifier! I have an older Emotiva XPA-3 for the front channels and my AVR & a smaller, two channel amp for my 7.1.4 / 9.1.2 configuration. Keep in mind - - depending on the mix, those height speakers won't be that active. I don't think much bass goes to the height speakers as they provide special effects and sounds to enhance the main channels. I think 65w should be fine for your top six speakers. Maybe other folks can chime in.


----------



## batpig

Personally I prefer the Monolith 11. A more balanced configuration with 200wpc across the LCR and then 100wpc for the other 8 channels. And it can actually put out that power with all channels driven. ATI built, rock solid.


----------



## StevenC56

batpig said:


> Personally I prefer the Monolith 11. A more balanced configuration with 200wpc across the LCR and then 100wpc for the other 8 channels. And it can actually put out that power with all channels driven. ATI built, rock solid.


That thing is a beast for the price. Would have been on my short list had I not purchased 2 Yamaha MX-A5000's at the end of last year when they cleared them out at half price.


----------



## rads03

tigerhonaker said:


> rads03,
> 
> I can understand that for some it would take a long time to go through my complete "Dedicated-Build-Thread".
> 
> So below will take you to exactly what is going to take place once the "Virus" threat has gotten under control.
> I feel confident if you read that Post carefully all your questions will be answered.
> 
> *I have now made my Final choice on the Atmos System, January 17th 2020 ...*
> 
> *https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-15.html#post59114246*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Blake,
> 
> I did a lot and when I say I did a lot of extensive research on the ATI Amps that's a Fact.
> They come close as far as I am concerned to my current Classe' amps.
> I read and watched everything I could find on the ATI amps.
> 
> Also, Steve Colburn that was at  speakers before very-very recently retiring also said that was an excellent choice.
> 
> 
> 
> He was very familiar with them.
> 
> 
> Terry


thank you for the link and the extremely detailed discussion. i had not made it to post 432 in your build. your transparency is refreshing. my kids are now both in their teens and i finally have some time to devote towards my home theater (and a million other projects that i've started) thus the atmos exploration. depending on how this experiment turns out i will have to start thinking about upgrading. i will definitely look into ati amps to power my cheap rsl ceiling speakers (purchased solely based on my cousin's recommendation).


----------



## rads03

blake said:


> I’ll vouch for Terry’s decision to use ATi. I researched many amplifiers and if you want a great class D amp, ATi make one of the best with the Hypex NCore technology (ex AT52xNC). The x specifies channels, up to 8’supported.
> 
> I went “old school” and used a massive class AB ATI signature 5 channel for LCR (and front wides)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


do i want a "great class d amp"? blake, i am ashamed to admit that i actually received a degree in ee but never really practiced. i should know what a class d amp is but i don't. i appreciate your input. i am seriously looking at ati amps for my atmos speakers.

thank you for your input.


----------



## tigerhonaker

rads03 said:


> thank you for the link and the extremely detailed discussion. i had not made it to post 432 in your build. your transparency is refreshing. my kids are now both in their teens and i finally have some time to devote towards my home theater (and a million other projects that i've started) thus the atmos exploration. depending on how this experiment turns out i will have to start thinking about upgrading. i will definitely look into ati amps to power my cheap rsl ceiling speakers (purchased solely based on my cousin's recommendation).


rads03,

The way I think is why post something for others to possibly benefit from if I am not going to cover everything in detail and with extensive use of pictures.
Text is okay I suppose but honestly to me when we see a picture along with a text description it then tells the complete story.

I'm a 74 year old fellow and have been retired since 2008.

I have the time to do post with all the details anyone would love seeing if they are looking for information and facts.

If you have so far enjoyed what you have seen on my Dedicated-Build-Thread then take the time to sit back and go all through it.
It has a great deal of Highly-Detailed and informative information.

Regarding the ATI amps they are Rated as one of the Top Amplifier Manufactures, period.
If they were not you wouldn't ever see one in my H/T I promise you.

Terry


----------



## tommarra

Folks I have a question

Currently I have a 7.3.4 system with the height channels being front in ceiling and back on wall. 

I am upgrading my receiver to a 16 channel processor and am looking to add a center height channel. Basically go 7.3.6 system.

Folks who have six over head speakers do you think it’s worth it?

Any thoughts will be much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

tommarra said:


> Folks I have a question
> 
> Currently I have a 7.3.4 system with the height channels being front in ceiling and back on wall.
> 
> I am upgrading my receiver to a 16 channel processor and am looking to add a center height channel. Basically go 7.3.6 system.
> 
> Folks who have six over head speakers do you think itâ€™️s worth it?
> 
> Any thoughts will be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It won't get used very much since Dolby refuses to support that speaker (That might give credence to a competitor or something which they want to avoid at all costs).

I personally would add it using Pro Logic extraction so everything uses it (VOG too) not just Auro-3D (or DTS/Neural X with DTS:X Pro support for more than 11 channels). I do that for TM, for example and even locked Disney Atmos tracks use it along with DTS and Auro-3D. 

In general, industry support for more than 7.x.4 has been uneven at best, IMO. Even if the processor supports the extra speakers the format or movie itself (Disney) may not. If you have a large room that needs something like Top Middle to image directly overhead properly, that REALLY throws a monkey wrench into the works.


----------



## tigerhonaker

tommarra said:


> Folks I have a question
> 
> Currently I have a 7.3.4 system with the height channels being front in ceiling and back on wall.
> 
> I am upgrading my receiver to a 16 channel processor and am looking to add a center height channel. Basically go 7.3.6 system.
> 
> Folks who have six over head speakers do you think it’s worth it?
> 
> Any thoughts will be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can't really say right now but maybe in a few months after the "*Virus*" situation finally comes to a halt.

*https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-15.html#post59114246

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-18.html#post59353606*



Terry


----------



## niterida

tommarra said:


> Folks I have a question
> 
> Currently I have a 7.3.4 system with the height channels being front in ceiling and back on wall.
> 
> I am upgrading my receiver to a 16 channel processor and am looking to add a center height channel. Basically go 7.3.6 system.
> 
> Folks who have six over head speakers do you think it’s worth it?
> 
> Any thoughts will be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Unless you have more than one row going to 6 Atmos speakers is not worth it at all. 

Yes it may be an improvement but it is so slight that it is not worth the extra cost and hassle IMO.
I recently tested 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4 vs 7.1.6 (with Pro Logic extracted middles - not real Atmos) and 7.1.7 (with Pro Logic extracted VOG) and came to the conclusion that 5.1.4 was the best value as each increase was so small it was almost insignificant, This was in a 20x14x9 room with speakers placed pretty much in the perfect locations for each setup and using bookshelf speakers aimed at listeners for the heights.


----------



## b_scott

I will have a 13x13 room with one row of 4 chairs. I will be seated about 10' back from screen. Where should I place my 4 height speakers on the ceiling?


----------



## niterida

b_scott said:


> I will have a 13x13 room with one row of 4 chairs. I will be seated about 10' back from screen. Where should I place my 4 height speakers on the ceiling?



Measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. Speakers go that distance in front and behind you and in line with your Front L&R speakers


----------



## Matt L

niterida said:


> Measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. Speakers go that distance in front and behind you and in line with your Front L&R speakers


.....Or as close to that ideal as your room can accommodate. No room is perfect and compromises have to be made. My rear speakers are a bit closer than they should be per the Dolby diagram posted here many times, but the AVR takes that into account when running whatever system it uses to measure the room's speaker placement and helps mitigate it - mostly.

Although with a 13x13 room the ceiling rears might be overkill.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Unless you have more than one row going to 6 Atmos speakers is not worth it at all.
> 
> Yes it may be an improvement but it is so slight that it is not worth the extra cost and hassle IMO.
> I recently tested 5.1.2 vs 5.1.4 vs 7.1.2 vs 7.1.4 vs 7.1.6 (with Pro Logic extracted middles - not real Atmos) and 7.1.7 (with Pro Logic extracted VOG) and came to the conclusion that 5.1.4 was the best value as each increase was so small it was almost insignificant, This was in a 20x14x9 room with speakers placed pretty much in the perfect locations for each setup and using bookshelf speakers aimed at listeners for the heights.


To be fair, your room is only 14 feet long. That's approximately half the length of my room. If I only mounted speakers for a 14' room, I'd agree front/rear heights would work just fine by themselves. But in my 24' room with front/rear heights, I can honestly say the sounds that are directly above without top middle sound like there's a gazebo or something blocking half the sound or more for things like rain/thunder. It images very weak directly overhead. With the extra speakers, it images perfectly all 24' across the ceiling (with the caveats that I didn't use an extra expensive processor that doesn't work with many Disney Atmos titles or has an 11-channel limit with DTS, etc.) If I reduce the room to half length (12') and use only 4 overheads (front height + top middle defined as rear height) it images perfectly across the front half of the room, for example. Thus, I only recommend top middle for larger rooms, especially with height speakers as they are mounted at the room boundaries rather than relative to the MLP.

You are correct that having more than one row would also gain benefit regardless of room size as top middle stabilizes the center point for all locations front-to-back.

I've said all along that beyond 7.1.4, ALL the extra speakers are really only for larger rooms. They do not add new locations (unless you mount them in odd locations like front wides directly to the left/right of the mains instead of in a circular/angular pattern as the latter matches the phantom locations perfectly. But as the room size increases, the phantom imaging starts to fall apart (or for more rows, extras help stabilize the image for all seats and/or allow you to fine tune phantom imaging with some adjustments).

The other thing I would point out is he asked about *center height (CH)*, not top middle, which is an Auro-3D/DTS location only and it's more for stabilizing the front height image for off-axis seats. That can work for just one row of seats as the seats left/right of center will not get even panning across the top of the screen due to the precedence effect (think how bad stereo imaging sounds sitting off center). Unfortunately, a 16-channel processor won't solve the issue that Atmos doesn't use the center height location and up until now, I believe only the Trinnov has received the DTS:X Pro upgrade for DTS use beyond 11-speakers total. That should change for the Monolith processor, however.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> To be fair, your room is only 14 feet long. That's approximately half the length of my room. If I only mounted speakers for a 14' room, I'd agree front/rear heights would work just fine by themselves. But in my 24' room with front/rear heights, I can honestly say the sounds that are directly above without top middle sound like there's a gazebo or something blocking half the sound or more for things like rain/thunder. It images very weak directly overhead. With the extra speakers, it images perfectly all 24' across the ceiling (with the caveats that I didn't use an extra expensive processor that doesn't work with many Disney Atmos titles or has an 11-channel limit with DTS, etc.) If I reduce the room to half length (12') and use only 4 overheads (front height + top middle defined as rear height) it images perfectly across the front half of the room, for example. Thus, I only recommend top middle for larger rooms, especially with height speakers as they are mounted at the room boundaries rather than relative to the MLP.
> 
> You are correct that having more than one row would also gain benefit regardless of room size as top middle stabilizes the center point for all locations front-to-back.
> 
> I've said all along that beyond 7.1.4, ALL the extra speakers are really only for larger rooms. They do not add new locations (unless you mount them in odd locations like front wides directly to the left/right of the mains instead of in a circular/angular pattern as the latter matches the phantom locations perfectly. But as the room size increases, the phantom imaging starts to fall apart (or for more rows, extras help stabilize the image for all seats and/or allow you to fine tune phantom imaging with some adjustments).
> 
> The other thing I would point out is he asked about *center height (CH)*, not top middle, which is an Auro-3D/DTS location only and it's more for stabilizing the front height image for off-axis seats. That can work for just one row of seats as the seats left/right of center will not get even panning across the top of the screen due to the precedence effect (think how bad stereo imaging sounds sitting off center). Unfortunately, a 16-channel processor won't solve the issue that Atmos doesn't use the center height location and up until now, I believe only the Trinnov has received the DTS:X Pro upgrade for DTS use beyond 11-speakers total. That should change for the Monolith processor, however.


I agree with everything you said - and usually do 
Except for the Centre Height bit 

I agree that a real Centre Height is a single speaker mounted in the centre above the screen, but I think @tommarra misunderstood CH as he says he wants to add CH to go 7.3.6 which infers 2 more speakers and then he asks if folks with 6 overhead speakers are worth it, so I assume he really meant Top Middles


----------



## b_scott

niterida said:


> b_scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have a 13x13 room with one row of 4 chairs. I will be seated about 10' back from screen. Where should I place my 4 height speakers on the ceiling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. Speakers go that distance in front and behind you and in line with your Front L&R speakers
Click to expand...

Thanks!


----------



## b_scott

Matt L said:


> niterida said:
> 
> 
> 
> Measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. Speakers go that distance in front and behind you and in line with your Front L&R speakers
> 
> 
> 
> .....Or as close to that ideal as your room can accommodate. No room is perfect and compromises have to be made. My rear speakers are a bit closer than they should be per the Dolby diagram posted here many times, but the AVR takes that into account when running whatever system it uses to measure the room's speaker placement and helps mitigate it - mostly.
> 
> Although with a 13x13 room the ceiling rears might be overkill.
Click to expand...

Thanks!


----------



## tommarra

Thank you all for such valuable insights.



MagnumX said:


> In general, industry support for more than 7.x.4 has been uneven at best, IMO. Even if the processor supports the extra speakers the format or movie itself (Disney) may not. If you have a large room that needs something like Top Middle to image directly overhead properly, that REALLY throws a monkey wrench into the works.





niterida said:


> Unless you have more than one row going to 6 Atmos speakers is not worth it at all.
> 
> This was in a 20x14x9 room with speakers placed pretty much in the perfect locations for each setup and using bookshelf speakers aimed at listeners for the heights.





MagnumX said:


> Thus, I only recommend top middle for larger rooms, especially with height speakers as they are mounted at the room boundaries rather than relative to the MLP.


Thanks for all the inputs - my room is 20x20, with the MLP perfectly in teh middle of teh Back wall heights, and front (middle?) ceiling height (not on the front wall). Both use B&W bookshelves pointed towards the MLP. I do have spare book shelves and would experiment with them to see if they add any more atmospherics.

Did i understand it correctly, most receivers and movie titles only have 11 channel worth of data? I thought Atmos goes for higher number of speakers



MagnumX said:


> The other thing I would point out is he asked about *center height (CH)*, not top middle,r.


I agree that a real Centre Height is a single speaker mounted in the centre above the screen, but I think @tommarra misunderstood CH as he says he wants to add CH to go 7.3.6 which infers 2 more speakers and then he asks if folks with 6 overhead speakers are worth it, so I assume he really meant Top Middles [/QUOTE]

You are correct - sorry - i meant top middle (i was mixing my axes when i wrote this) I am looking to add 2 more overheads directly above my MLP


----------



## rads03

tigerhonaker said:


> rads03,
> 
> The way I think is why post something for others to possibly benefit from if I am not going to cover everything in detail and with extensive use of pictures.
> Text is okay I suppose but honestly to me when we see a picture along with a text description it then tells the complete story.
> 
> 
> 
> Terry



i for one (and i would bet a large number of others on this forum) appreciate you taking time to detail the research you have done. thank you. i have every intention to finish reading thru your whole thread soon.


----------



## MagnumX

tommarra said:


> Thanks for all the inputs - my room is 20x20, with the MLP perfectly in teh middle of teh Back wall heights, and front (middle?) ceiling height (not on the front wall). Both use B&W bookshelves pointed towards the MLP. I do have spare book shelves and would experiment with them to see if they add any more atmospherics.
> 
> Did i understand it correctly, most receivers and movie titles only have 11 channel worth of data? I thought Atmos goes for higher number of speakers


The room is probably long enough to make good use of them. Most receivers were topping out at 11-channels, but there are a few with more channels these days. The Denon 8500 has 13-channels. The new Monoprice HTP-1 AV processor does 16-channels as does the Emotiva RMC-1 (it's been buggy, but supposedly it working much better lately from what I've been reading). The Trinnov Altitude 32 can do all 34 possible Atmos channels, but it's the price of a mid-sized car. 

As for movies, Atmos technically supports the 34-channel layout, but it turns out there's a way to bypass that and force it to use only 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 and for some odd/largely unknown but well speculated reasons, Disney has been doing this for years. As far as I know, the other studios all use Atmos properly and support whatever you got (although that doesn't mean most of those speakers will do much of anything most of the time; an Atmos 'object' needs to move by them or be big enough to engage them, etc. But those titles should technically use them.

DTS:X is has been limited to 11-channels only until recently. That Trinnov Altitude 32 has gotten the new DTS:X Pro update and supports 32.2 channels of DTS:X now with ALL titles (it uses a method similar to Pro Logic center channel steering extraction to create new channels mid-way between channels). Some other receivers with more than 11-channels are scheduled to eventually get a firmware upgrade to use more than 11-channels with DTS:X and Neural X.

Some of us have gotten around the limitations and expensive solutions for >11-channel processing by some other methods. 

One method uses multiple Atmos receivers daisy-chained to get to 9.1.4 or slightly compromised 9.1.6, although one of the two receivers has to support front wides and most newer AVRs no longer do other than the ones already above 11-channels (e.g. My first Atmos AVR, the Marantz 7010 has FW support). 

Another method which I mentioned before which I use utilizes older Dolby Pro Logic or Pro Logic II processors or AVRs for their center channel steered extraction to create new channels in-between (similar to how DTS:X Pro does it with Neural X). That works, but it needs a lot of boxes (one processor or AVR per channel) and room correction can sometimes be an issue, particularly full range room correction. 

There's also Matrix extraction (which I also use for 4 channels) which is just an active mixer that adds two channels together to create a new channel in-between. It's only 3dB of separation, but it's enough to bridge phantom imaging issues in larger rooms and it's quite handy for manipulating phantom imaging (e.g. I use it to put my front wides, side surrounds and side surround#1 speakers between the rows of seats yet they sound like they're coming from the sides of the chairs by manipulating the combined imaging to move the phantom imaging. This lets me fit chairs closer to the side walls than I could do with actual speakers there and still puts hard sources in locations that would not phantom image at all (off-axis seats) due to the precedence effect (sitting off-center with stereo pairs pulls the image to the nearest speaker instead of even imaging across them). It's not perfect in that regard, but an improvement nonetheless.


----------



## niterida

tommarra said:


> Thank you all for such valuable insights.
> 
> Thanks for all the inputs - my room is 20x20, with the MLP perfectly in teh middle of teh Back wall heights, and front (middle?) ceiling height (not on the front wall). Both use B&W bookshelves pointed towards the MLP. I do have spare book shelves and would experiment with them to see if they add any more atmospherics.
> 
> Did i understand it correctly, most receivers and movie titles only have 11 channel worth of data? I thought Atmos goes for higher number of speakers
> 
> You are correct - sorry - i meant top middle (i was mixing my axes when i wrote this) I am looking to add 2 more overheads directly above my MLP


In that case don't waste your time or money and just stick to 4 - you will not see any worthwhile (if any at all) benefit going to 6.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> In that case don't waste your time or money and just stick to 4 - you will not see any worthwhile (if any at all) benefit going to 6.


His room is 20' long. If he's not getting good direct overhead sound, he'll get a real benefit from top middle, IMO. It probably depends just how far out into the room the ceiling speakers are. If they're 25% in from the walls (5 feet), he won't need top middle. If they're closer to the front wall he might. He should be able to tell this with the 9.1.6 test tones from Dolby, however.


----------



## tommarra

Thanks. I get okay overhead sound. With the new processor I will have two spare channels and also have two spare speakers so I thought I can get even better (if incrementally) sound.

But sounds like the benefit isn’t that even marginal.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> His room is 20' long. If he's not getting good direct overhead sound, he'll get a real benefit from top middle, IMO. It probably depends just how far out into the room the ceiling speakers are. If they're 25% in from the walls (5 feet), he won't need top middle. If they're closer to the front wall he might. He should be able to tell this with the 9.1.6 test tones from Dolby, however.


I assumed he was able to mount his .4 at, or near, the 45deg ideal location.



tommarra said:


> Thanks. I get okay overhead sound. With the new processor I will have two spare channels and also have two spare speakers so I thought I can get even better (if incrementally) sound.
> 
> But sounds like the benefit isn’t that even marginal.


If you have the channels, amplification and speakers already then why not try it and see for yourself - would be interested in hearing your thoughts


----------



## spencer777

I placed my on ceiling speakers facing down on the end two seating position of my couch. Is that considered middle or rear when setting up my receiver?


----------



## batpig

spencer777 said:


> I placed my on ceiling speakers facing down on the end two seating position of my couch. Is that considered middle or rear when setting up my receiver?


That's Top Middle -- they are directly above


----------



## MagnumX

spencer777 said:


> I placed my on ceiling speakers facing down on the end two seating position of my couch. Is that considered middle or rear when setting up my receiver?


Technically, it's supposed to be based on their location in the room as the renderer needs to know what sounds to put where (in practice, with fewer than six overheads, the remaining speakers get folded into the available ones so it probably makes zero difference which ones you pick in an Atmos system with only two overheads. It may affect DTS:X, however). 

Is your couch in the middle of the room or the back? If it's in the middle, it would be top middle. If it's in the back it's top rear. Again, there will be no functional difference for Atmos, but it can matter for DTS:X/Neural X as it blends the speakers with bed level speakers to phantom locations with no speakers.


----------



## spencer777

MagnumX said:


> spencer777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I placed my on ceiling speakers facing down on the end two seating position of my couch. Is that considered middle or rear when setting up my receiver?
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, it's supposed to be based on their location in the room as the renderer needs to know what sounds to put where (in practice, with fewer than six overheads, the remaining speakers get folded into the available ones so it probably makes zero difference which ones you pick in an Atmos system with only two overheads. It may affect DTS:X, however).
> 
> Is your couch in the middle of the room or the back? If it's in the middle, it would be top middle. If it's in the back it's top rear. Again, there will be no functional difference for Atmos, but it can matter for DTS:X/Neural X as it blends the speakers with bed level speakers to phantom locations with no speakers.
Click to expand...

The couch is 2 feet from the wall.


----------



## MagnumX

spencer777 said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spencer777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I placed my on ceiling speakers facing down on the end two seating position of my couch. Is that considered middle or rear when setting up my receiver?
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, it's supposed to be based on their location in the room as the renderer needs to know what sounds to put where (in practice, with fewer than six overheads, the remaining speakers get folded into the available ones so it probably makes zero difference which ones you pick in an Atmos system with only two overheads. It may affect DTS:X, however).
> 
> Is your couch in the middle of the room or the back? If it's in the middle, it would be top middle. If it's in the back it's top rear. Again, there will be no functional difference for Atmos, but it can matter for DTS:X/Neural X as it blends the speakers with bed level speakers to phantom locations with no speakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The couch is 2 feet from the wall.
Click to expand...

For DTS sake, I'd go with Top Rear. Atmos should be unaffected either way.


----------



## spencer777

MagnumX said:


> spencer777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spencer777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I placed my on ceiling speakers facing down on the end two seating position of my couch. Is that considered middle or rear when setting up my receiver?
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, it's supposed to be based on their location in the room as the renderer needs to know what sounds to put where (in practice, with fewer than six overheads, the remaining speakers get folded into the available ones so it probably makes zero difference which ones you pick in an Atmos system with only two overheads. It may affect DTS:X, however).
> 
> Is your couch in the middle of the room or the back? If it's in the middle, it would be top middle. If it's in the back it's top rear. Again, there will be no functional difference for Atmos, but it can matter for DTS:X/Neural X as it blends the speakers with bed level speakers to phantom locations with no speakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The couch is 2 feet from the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For DTS sake, I'd go with Top Rear. Atmos should be unaffected either way.
Click to expand...

.
Thanks.I do prefer DTS up mixing over Dolby surround


----------



## burton14e7

Hi all, I've been planning the theater upgrade to 7.1.4 atmos and upgrading all my speakers along the way. I'm now questioning my surround speaker placement after reading the Dolby guide. Do you think I should lower them to be more in line with where my ears are at with my seats reclined, which is our normal seating position? My rear surrounds are wired at the same height but I don't have speakers back there yet, coming with the atmos upgrade.


----------



## tommarra

burton14e7 said:


> Hi all, I've been planning the theater upgrade to 7.1.4 atmos and upgrading all my speakers along the way. I'm now questioning my surround speaker placement after reading the Dolby guide. Do you think I should lower them to be more in line with where my ears are at with my seats reclined, which is our normal seating position? My rear surrounds are wired at the same height but I don't have speakers back there yet, coming with the atmos upgrade.


If you are using Heights then for sure you should lover them so that you are slightly above ear level from your LP. If not about 12 - 18 inches higer is recommended


----------



## MagnumX

burton14e7 said:


> Hi all, I've been planning the theater upgrade to 7.1.4 atmos and upgrading all my speakers along the way. I'm now questioning my surround speaker placement after reading the Dolby guide. Do you think I should lower them to be more in line with where my ears are at with my seats reclined, which is our normal seating position? My rear surrounds are wired at the same height but I don't have speakers back there yet, coming with the atmos upgrade.


Offhand, they look perhaps a little bit high, but if you have more than one row of seats that can be a good thing. How much higher is the ceiling than the photo shows? Is it a 9 foot ceiling? 10 feet? The more distance to the ceiling, generally the higher up you can put the side surrounds and still have pretty good separation (they're way above ear height in most theaters, for example). Ear height isn't really ideal in some senses since heads and furniture can get in the way of the sound, especially in multi-row home theaters. Offhand, it doesn't look like it would be worth bothering to move it (especially if that means filling holes in the wall and cutting new ones for the mount) just a bit lower if you do decide you want it above ear height as it's not cray higher than the upright position, but if you intend to be reclined all the time and the ceiling is closer to 8.5' or 9' or something, you might want to move it down a foot or two. Having the the overhead speakers in the "tops" (45 degrees ideal on the ceiling relative the main seating) will probably blend better with surrounds a bit higher than with heights too, but there's quite a bit of wiggle room either way. You'll get a bit more separation with them mounted lower. I'd also consider the screen height (i.e. I like to align events on-screen with the speakers in the room as much as possible so things flying towards the camera into the room (or panned dialog with front mains) matches the stuff on screen as much as possible). Not everyone cares about that sort of thing, though.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

burton14e7 said:


> Hi all, I've been planning the theater upgrade to 7.1.4 atmos and upgrading all my speakers along the way. I'm now questioning my surround speaker placement after reading the Dolby guide. Do you think I should lower them to be more in line with where my ears are at with my seats reclined, which is our normal seating position? My rear surrounds are wired at the same height but I don't have speakers back there yet, coming with the atmos upgrade.



If it was my room, yeah. I’d lower them. You could try them at 80° too instead of 90 or 110. That could help with the multiple people thing too.


----------



## burton14e7

MagnumX said:


> Offhand, they look perhaps a little bit high, but if you have more than one row of seats that can be a good thing. How much higher is the ceiling than the photo shows? Is it a 9 foot ceiling? 10 feet? The more distance to the ceiling, generally the higher up you can put the side surrounds and still have pretty good separation (they're way above ear height in most theaters, for example). Ear height isn't really ideal in some senses since heads and furniture can get in the way of the sound, especially in multi-row home theaters. Offhand, it doesn't look like it would be worth bothering to move it (especially if that means filling holes in the wall and cutting new ones for the mount) just a bit lower if you do decide you want it above ear height as it's not cray higher than the upright position, but if you intend to be reclined all the time and the ceiling is closer to 8.5' or 9' or something, you might want to move it down a foot or two. Having the the overhead speakers in the "tops" (45 degrees ideal on the ceiling relative the main seating) will probably blend better with surrounds a bit higher than with heights too, but there's quite a bit of wiggle room either way. You'll get a bit more separation with them mounted lower. I'd also consider the screen height (i.e. I like to align events on-screen with the speakers in the room as much as possible so things flying towards the camera into the room (or panned dialog with front mains) matches the stuff on screen as much as possible). Not everyone cares about that sort of thing, though.





Polyrythm1k said:


> If it was my room, yeah. I’d lower them. You could try them at 80° too instead of 90 or 110. That could help with the multiple people thing too.


Thanks! I didn't know about the ceiling dynamics and I only have the one row of seating. My ceilings are 10' so it's probably not worth the hassle as you pointed out.


----------



## batpig

Personally, they look fine to me. If you lower them to ear height when reclined they will be below ear height when NOT reclined. And those are wide dispersion designs, plus you have high ceilings.... I think having them a bit above ear level like that, around 1/2 up the side wall, is just about perfect.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Maybe mentioned before but Extraction on Netflix with Dolby Atmos via DD+ is an exceptional sound mix. Lots of over head pinging, gun fire and grenades going off. Also excellent spatial effects, side to side, front to back. Certainly worth watching if you'd like to hear how well your Atmos system is working.


----------



## Tom Monahan

I'm really in need of advice for my room. The room is 11' wide and 13" deep. My listening position is 7' ears to projection screen. That puts me just a touch back from the center of the 13' long room. I currently use identical bookshelf speakers in a classic 7.1 layout and will be using 1 to 2 identical pairs for Atmos.. I have 3 under the screen, two to the sides and two on the back wall. The surround speakers are about a foot above ear level angled down at my one and only seat. 

I'm wanting to upgrade to an atmos setup soon. I plan on using the exact same bookshelf speakers for either a 2 or 4 atmos height speakers arrangement. I followed dolby guidelines for all speakers but due to my corner subs, can't pace my left and right as far as the dolby specifies. Due to projectors hanging out from the wall and storage cabinets, with doors, to it's sides. My ears to ceiling is 5.5' so I can't do rear heights base on dolby specs. I'm considering either one pair of speakers above my viewing seat/top middle for 2 height only Atmos or one pair top middle and a second pair on the front wall above my screen or on the ceiling a little bit in front of the screen.

What do you guys think would work best in my tiny room? Also, any guide as to their placement would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, I've been eyeing either a Denon 6500, 4500 or 3600. Any idea if these can do 7.1 plus a top middle height and front height with no rear height?

Thanks 
Tom


----------



## niterida

Tom Monahan said:


> I'm really in need of advice for my room. The room is 11' wide and 13" deep. My listening position is 7' ears to projection screen. That puts me just a touch back from the center of the 13' long room. I currently use identical bookshelf speakers in a classic 7.1 layout and will be using 1 to 2 identical pairs for Atmos.. I have 3 under the screen, two to the sides and two on the back wall. The surround speakers are about a foot above ear level angled down at my one and only seat.
> 
> I'm wanting to upgrade to an atmos setup soon. I plan on using the exact same bookshelf speakers for either a 2 or 4 atmos height speakers arrangement. I followed dolby guidelines for all speakers but due to my corner subs, can't pace my left and right as far as the dolby specifies. Due to projectors hanging out from the wall and storage cabinets, with doors, to it's sides. My ears to ceiling is 5.5' so I can't do rear heights base on dolby specs. I'm considering either one pair of speakers above my viewing seat/top middle for 2 height only Atmos or one pair top middle and a second pair on the front wall above my screen or on the ceiling a little bit in front of the screen.
> 
> What do you guys think would work best in my tiny room? Also, any guide as to their placement would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> By the way, I've been eyeing either a Denon 6500, 4500 or 3600. Any idea if these can do 7.1 plus a top middle height and front height with no rear height?
> 
> Thanks
> Tom


Can you post some pics and/or drawings with dimensions ? 

.2 Atmos is good but .4 is sooo much better and I am sure we can help you get there


----------



## sdurani

Tom Monahan said:


> My ears to ceiling is 5.5' so I can't do rear heights base on dolby specs.


How close to the back wall can you get them?


----------



## Matt L

Dolby setup is a guideline that the real world intrudes on. I'd opt for 4 atmos speakers in that setup.


----------



## davcole

New into the Atmos world and loving it! Didn't realize my Hans Zimmer Blu-ray had it?

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Monahan

sdurani said:


> How close to the back wall can you get them?


My projectors stick out about two feet so I can't mount back heights baffle further back. The distance from the projector front to my ears is 30". That's why I thought a pair on the ceiling above me for top middle or a bit behind would work along with a pair on the top front wall. The front wall would work but would be difficult to mount angled down and toed in above my projection screen. That's why I'm giving some thought to just using a 7.2.2 Atmos setup.


----------



## sdurani

Unless the projector is as wide as the room, I don't see why it would stop you from mounting height speakers farther back. In any case, try to get one pair of heights as far back as possible. IF that turns out to be 30" behind you, then so be it. Place the other height pair a few feet forward of you. I would avoid limiting the height layer to only one pair of speakers (no back-vs-front panning overhead). As mentioned above, a diagram of the room would be helpful.


----------



## Ricoflashback

davcole said:


> New into the Atmos world and loving it! Didn't realize my Hans Zimmer Blu-ray had it?
> 
> Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


***I don't know what your setup is but with Netflix streaming and Dolby Vision, you can get Dolby Atmos via DD+. While it is compressed audio - - it is still excellent, IMHO. (I'm not sure if my older ears can they tell that much difference between the two.) 

There are a lot more Netflix Series with Dolby Atmos soundtracks, as well. I mentioned this in an earlier post - - The Netflix movie Extraction is really an enjoyable Atmos mix. And, many regular Bluray discs (non 4K/HDR) have Dolby Atmos soundtracks, as well. 

Here is a great research site (Blu-ray.com) to filter on Dolby Atmos movies (specify Dolby Atmos in Audio) - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php 

Welcome to the wonderful world of Dolby Atmos!


----------



## davcole

Ricoflashback said:


> ***I don't know what your setup is but with Netflix streaming and Dolby Vision, you can get Dolby Atmos via DD+. While it is compressed audio - - it is still excellent, IMHO. (I'm not sure if my older ears can they tell that much difference between the two.)
> 
> There are a lot more Netflix Series with Dolby Atmos soundtracks, as well. I mentioned this in an earlier post - - The Netflix movie Extraction is really an enjoyable Atmos mix. And, many regular Bluray discs (non 4K/HDR) have Dolby Atmos soundtracks, as well.
> 
> Here is a great research site (Blu-ray.com) to filter on Dolby Atmos movies (specific Dolby Atmos in Audio) - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/search.php
> 
> Welcome to the wonderful world of Dolby Atmos!


Thank you! 7.1.2

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich 63

I'm now not getting any atmos in Ottawa Canada. Must be the internet being throttled back or Netflix. Trying to figure which. I'm getting 7.68 Mbps used to get 16.82. According to my tv. When I do internet test on tv it says 45 Mbps so guessing Netflix.
Funny the service has picked up 16 million new subscribers since the outbreak,my service is being throttled back but not what's coming out of my bank account.
Rich


----------



## bigzee3

Hi guys,

I’m running a 7.1 set up and was wondering if I could change my amp configuration to 5.1.2 and use the side wall speakers for atmos and the rear wall speakers fro surround. Any thoughts?


----------



## Rich 63

Just figured this out. I reset my tv and missed one setting. Under sound, Digital audio out. It was set to PCM and not auto.all good. Rant taken back on Netflix.


----------



## rekbones

bigzee3 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I’m running a 7.1 set up and was wondering if I could change my amp configuration to 5.1.2 and use the side wall speakers for atmos and the rear wall speakers fro surround. Any thoughts?


No the whole point of ATMOS is to get height sounds separated from ear level. Whats the point if your sides are on the same plain as the rest of the audio.


----------



## MagnumX

rekbones said:


> bigzee3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Iâ€™️m running a 7.1 set up and was wondering if I could change my amp configuration to 5.1.2 and use the side wall speakers for atmos and the rear wall speakers for surround. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> No the whole point of ATMOS is to get height sounds separated from ear level. Whats the point if your sides are on the same plain as the rest of the audio.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume his surround speakers are on the same plane as the main speakers. A proper 5.1 or 7.1 setup has them about 2/3 up the wall as per Dolby's original specs. If that's the case (or they are even higher), he could move one set down and at least have a functional setup. It wouldn't be ideal by any means, but probably still better than 7.1 with very little work to do. 

I ended up using my old bipole side surrounds (mounted just under the steel beam box as high as they could go) as side height for Auro and as extracted top middle for Atmos and just put ear level speakers below them (they face forward/backward so all three rows get even on-axis coverage). Their tweeters are 7 inches lower than the front/rear heights mounted near/on the ceiling, but it's not really noticeable. I couldn't mount them any higher due to the steel beam box anyway and it meant I didn't have to patch the walls. My rear surrounds were already at ear level. I added rear heights on the ceiling and front heights above my mains, but I could have just gone with 7.1.2 by just adding the ear level side surrounds and it still would have been a solid improvement over 7.1, IMO as any separation is still better than none and it's 85% the way there anyway (not all that different than side surrounds just above ear level instead plus ceiling speakers in terms of separation).


----------



## Capfan11

Rich 63 said:


> I'm now not getting any atmos in Ottawa Canada. Must be the internet being throttled back or Netflix. Trying to figure which. I'm getting 7.68 Mbps used to get 16.82. According to my tv. When I do internet test on tv it says 45 Mbps so guessing Netflix.
> Funny the service has picked up 16 million new subscribers since the outbreak,my service is being throttled back but not what's coming out of my bank account.
> Rich


I'm there as well. Atmos still working for me on Netflix, Amazon, and Disney via XBox. Was on within past hour...


----------



## Newuser2018

Capfan11 said:


> I'm there as well. Atmos still working for me on Netflix, Amazon, and Disney via XBox. Was on within past hour...


I never thought I can get Atmos in Netflix & Amazon 
Here is my set up:
Epson 2150 PJ->Yamaya AX-780 receiver->2 sony players hooked
120" screen 
Yamaha receiver->Amazon Fire Cube latest version
Of course I have 2 ceiling speakers mounted attached to Ht channel in my receiver and i have been enjoying Atmos from my regular Bluray discs like John wick, etc. 
Now, how do i get Atmos from Netflix and amazon? 
any sample movies/series you can recommend? any special config i need to do?


----------



## am2model3

just watched my xmen dark phoenix 4k UHD disc. wow, the Dolby Atmos is really good! Sound effects are awesome! 5.1.4.


----------



## ss nimrod

Newuser2018 said:


> I never thought I can get Atmos in Netflix & Amazon
> Here is my set up:
> Epson 2150 PJ->Yamaya AX-780 receiver->2 sony players hooked
> 120" screen
> Yamaha receiver->Amazon Fire Cube latest version
> Of course I have 2 ceiling speakers mounted attached to Ht channel in my receiver and i have been enjoying Atmos from my regular Bluray discs like John wick, etc.
> Now, how do i get Atmos from Netflix and amazon?
> any sample movies/series you can recommend? any special config i need to do?


You will need to upgrade your Netflix plan for Atmos, its like another $ 3-4 a month.


----------



## rekbones

Newuser2018 said:


> I never thought I can get Atmos in Netflix & Amazon
> Here is my set up:
> Epson 2150 PJ->Yamaya AX-780 receiver->2 sony players hooked
> 120" screen
> Yamaha receiver->Amazon Fire Cube latest version
> Of course I have 2 ceiling speakers mounted attached to Ht channel in my receiver and i have been enjoying Atmos from my regular Bluray discs like John wick, etc.
> Now, how do i get Atmos from Netflix and amazon?
> any sample movies/series you can recommend? any special config i need to do?


Yes you do need the UHD highest package from Netflix. The only FireTV that might support it is the latest 4K FireTV stick, don't think the cube does and know for sure the 2nd gen FireTV Box does't. The latest Sheild does but it stopped working for me just recently and I suspect Netflix may be cutting back on bandwidth. My Win10 PC app is still working for ATMOS. Netflix ATMOS support is still fairly limited to a few devices AppleTV, Xbox to name a few others. All the 4K capable FireTV's support ATMOS from Amazon but you need to play the UHD version and you may need to have a UHD capable display.


----------



## rekbones

I suspect all this crap we need to go through to get ATMOS to work can all be related to the red tape associated with the Dolby Licencing Fee. The restrictions aren't hardware related. Forcing us to get the UHD version just for the ATMOS tracks and the lack of support for all the streaming devices is most likely all legal crap. As far as I am concerned we payed for the licence when we bought our AVR's with ATMOS decoders. Rant over.


----------



## N0LA

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Maybe mentioned before but Extraction on Netflix with Dolby Atmos via DD+ is an exceptional sound mix. Lots of over head pinging, gun fire and grenades going off. Also excellent spatial effects, side to side, front to back. Certainly worth watching if you'd like to hear how well your Atmos system is working.


I’ve watched it four times in one week during my time at home, just for this very reason. The sniper shot by the colonel in the bridge scene comes from the right rear overhead, right back surround, right front surround, right front to center. 
I love it


----------



## Matt L

rekbones said:


> Yes you do need the UHD highest package from Netflix. The only FireTV that might support it is the latest 4K FireTV stick, don't think the cube does and know for sure the 2nd gen FireTV Box does't. The latest Sheild does but it stopped working for me just recently and I suspect Netflix may be cutting back on bandwidth. My Win10 PC app is still working for ATMOS. Netflix ATMOS support is still fairly limited to a few devices AppleTV, Xbox to name a few others. All the 4K capable FireTV's support ATMOS from Amazon but you need to play the UHD version and you may need to have a UHD capable display.


Actually I think it's the opposite. I KNOW my 4K FS does not support it natively, have to use Kodi on the FS to get NF Atmos, I was researching the cube and IIRC it does, but you loose some other functionality.


----------



## Josh Z

rekbones said:


> I suspect all this crap we need to go through to get ATMOS to work can all be related to the red tape associated with the Dolby Licencing Fee. The restrictions aren't hardware related. Forcing us to get the UHD version just for the ATMOS tracks and the lack of support for all the streaming devices is most likely all legal crap. As far as I am concerned we payed for the licence when we bought our AVR's with ATMOS decoders. Rant over.


If that were the case, do you really think the studios would pay the fee only for use on the format its consumers use the least? The number of viewers watching 4k UHD pales in comparison to the much larger base watching content in regular HD. If the fee were really the issue, why would the studios pay it at all? Either they'd want to get the most out of their expense and put Atmos on the format with the broadest usage, or they'd say "Screw Atmos" and not pay for it at all.

The truth is that Atmos is deliberately being restricted to 4k UHD as a marketing tool to drive consumers to upgrade to that format. It's a bullet point they can put on the sales sheet to make UHD look more appealing, nothing more.

Note that DTS:X is being used the same way. This isn't just a Dolby issue.


----------



## CactusJack

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Maybe mentioned before but Extraction on Netflix with Dolby Atmos via DD+ is an exceptional sound mix. Lots of over head pinging, gun fire and grenades going off. Also excellent spatial effects, side to side, front to back. Certainly worth watching if you'd like to hear how well your Atmos system is working.


 I tried Extraction from Netflix through a Roku Ultra. I get Dolby Digital+ but not Atmos. In the audio options, it says the "default" audio track is the only track available. Am I missing something here?


Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

I was told by Filmmixer some time ago that there is no licensing fee to the studios to encode in Atmos. If there's a fee, it's in the playback hardware. If a given device or streaming service requires 4K streams for Atmos, ask them why, as it's not a requirement from Dolby or else you wouldn't see Atmos (or DTS:X) on many regular 2K blurays nor would Atmos work on ATV with both 2K sets and with titles I have that are only 2K playback here (e.g. Due to regular BD Movies Anywhere redemption codes only giving the 2K version; if Atmos is available for that title typically on the 4K version, those titles still play in Atmos here with the 2K version).


----------



## MagnumX

CactusJack said:


> Ricoflashback said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***Maybe mentioned before but Extraction on Netflix with Dolby Atmos via DD+ is an exceptional sound mix. Lots of over head pinging, gun fire and grenades going off. Also excellent spatial effects, side to side, front to back. Certainly worth watching if you'd like to hear how well your Atmos system is working.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried Extraction from Netflix through a Roku Ultra. I get Dolby Digital+ but not Atmos. In the audio options, it says the "default" audio track is the only track available. Am I missing something here?
> 
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...

I haven't tried Netflix on my Roku recently so things may have changed, but I don't think it had Atmos support in Netflix back in January. Only Disney+ gave me Atmos, but then I have a 2K projector. Netflix does work in Atmos for me on my Apple TV 4K on the same projector as does Disney+ and Apple hosted content. Vudu and Prime do not as their apps require the 4K streams even on Apple. 

I'd love to sign a petition to get that changed, but I doubt there's enough of us for them to care and I don't feel like paying hundreds for an HDFury when I can get almost all the same titles from Apple with Atmos anyway (quite a few more really; Vudu's Atmos capable selections suck compared to Apple).


----------



## Ricoflashback

MagnumX said:


> I haven't tried Netflix on my Roku recently so things may have changed, but I don't think it had Atmos support in Netflix back in January. Only Disney+ gave me Atmos, but then I have a 2K projector. Netflix does work in Atmos for me on my Apple TV 4K on the same projector as does Disney+ and Apple hosted content. Vudu and Prime do not as their apps require the 4K streams even on Apple.
> 
> I'd love to sign a petition to get that changed, but I doubt there's enough of us for them to care and I don't feel like paying hundreds for an HDFury when I can get almost all the same titles from Apple with Atmos anyway (quite a few more really; Vudu's Atmos capable selections suck compared to Apple).


***I gave up on my Roku Ultra as I couldn't get Dolby Atmos content. The only way I get Atmos now on my Sony TV is via the native app (Netflix) and DD+ via ARC. Down the road, I'll be looking at Samsung but they do not have Dolby Vision. There has been some conflicting information on getting Dolby Atmos from Netflix with a Samsung. As best I understand it - - Dolby Atmos accompanies the Dolby Vision Netflix offering (via ARC & DD+). Now, if you are going through an AVR that is Dolby Vision capable, can it split off the video (DV to HDR) and pass the Dolby Atmos soundtrack intact? 

Also - are there any enlightened Samsung users that can help here? I can't imagine having any TV or projector without the ability to obtain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack from Netflix and other sources.


----------



## rekbones

Josh Z said:


> If that were the case, do you really think the studios would pay the fee only for use on the format its consumers use the least? The number of viewers watching 4k UHD pales in comparison to the much larger base watching content in regular HD. If the fee were really the issue, why would the studios pay it at all? Either they'd want to get the most out of their expense and put Atmos on the format with the broadest usage, or they'd say "Screw Atmos" and not pay for it at all.
> 
> The truth is that Atmos is deliberately being restricted to 4k UHD as a marketing tool to drive consumers to upgrade to that format. It's a bullet point they can put on the sales sheet to make UHD look more appealing, nothing more.
> 
> Note that DTS:X is being used the same way. This isn't just a Dolby issue.


Regardless of where the bottleneck is my point is it has nothing to do with the hardware. It's all legal with licensing fees, marketing contracts and exclusive deals that the lawyers have made it as complicated as they can to get their piece of the pie.


----------



## Josh Z

rekbones said:


> Regardless of where the bottleneck is my point is it has nothing to do with the hardware. It's all legal with licensing fees, marketing contracts and exclusive deals that the lawyers have made it as complicated as they can to get their piece of the pie.


You are correct that there is no hardware restriction causing this. It's entirely possible to put an Atmos soundtrack on 1080p video. 

However, saying it this way implies that Dolby is at fault for charging too high a fee or playing hardball with the contracts. My understanding is that that Dolby does not charge a licensing fee to put Atmos on a movie. The only fees are for the encoding hardware, and it's a very modest expense that amounts to pocket change for the studios. Dolby would love to have Atmos on everything. The decision to limit Atmos to 4k is made entirely by the studios and/or the streaming services for marketing purposes.


----------



## rosstg

I’m well versed with Atmos speaker placement but thought I would get some recommendations. I currently have a 7.2.2 configuration with front heights shown in my pic. I installed 2 Emotiva amps so now I’m looking at adding another pair of heights but I’m not sure where I should place them. I’m really leaning towards a top rear placement instead of rear heights. I was planning placing them right above my sofa in the pick so they are firing down on us - about 15 inches from the back wall. Or would they be better to place them 30 inches?

All feedback is appreciated.


----------



## rekbones

Josh Z said:


> You are correct that there is no hardware restriction causing this. It's entirely possible to put an Atmos soundtrack on 1080p video.
> 
> However, saying it this way implies that Dolby is at fault for charging too high a fee or playing hardball with the contracts. My understanding is that that Dolby does not charge a licensing fee to put Atmos on a movie. The only fees are for the encoding hardware, and it's a very modest expense that amounts to pocket change for the studios. Dolby would love to have Atmos on everything. The decision to limit Atmos to 4k is made entirely by the studios and/or the streaming services for marketing purposes.


You'll notice I didn't mention Dolby in that statement they are all involved. If it was just limited to UHD why do many devices not support it even if they do support 4K. It's a lot more involved then just restricting it to UHD. The ATV supports more ATMOS then any other device and is also one of the most expensive streamers, is Apple paying more for the privilege?


----------



## Don112

rosstg said:


> I’m well versed with Atmos speaker placement but thought I would get some recommendations. I currently have a 7.2.2 configuration with front heights shown in my pic. I installed 2 Emotiva amps so now I’m looking at adding another pair of heights but I’m not sure where I should place them. I’m really leaning towards a top rear placement instead of rear heights. I was planning placing them right above my sofa in the pick so they are firing down on us - about 15 inches from the back wall. Or would they be better to place them 30 inches?
> 
> All feedback is appreciated.


I would place two upfiring speakers on the bookshelf. You could experiment with where the speakers should be pointed. The two rear heights are the least important speaker, so the first priority is probably getting the sound separate from the rear surround channel.


----------



## usc1995

rosstg said:


> I’m well versed with Atmos speaker placement but thought I would get some recommendations. I currently have a 7.2.2 configuration with front heights shown in my pic. I installed 2 Emotiva amps so now I’m looking at adding another pair of heights but I’m not sure where I should place them. I’m really leaning towards a top rear placement instead of rear heights. I was planning placing them right above my sofa in the pick so they are firing down on us - about 15 inches from the back wall. Or would they be better to place them 30 inches?
> 
> All feedback is appreciated.


You should check in your Denon's setup guide as to which locations you can assign to help decide where to place the speakers. I am not sure if it will allow a Front Height designation along with a Top Rear designation. I would probably get another pair of those Klipsch height speakers and place them on the back wall where it meets the ceiling and designate them as rear height. You should see what is possible in the Denon and then experiment with some of the Atmos demos to see what sounds best.


----------



## rosstg

Don112 said:


> I would place two upfiring speakers on the bookshelf. You could experiment with where the speakers should be pointed. The two rear heights are the least important speaker, so the first priority is probably getting the sound separate from the rear surround channel.


Thanks . But I hate upfiring. I’ve never had good results. I actually had them mounted on my ceiling before in my dedicated room and they sound much better as front heights.


----------



## usc1995

Ricoflashback said:


> ***I gave up on my Roku Ultra as I couldn't get Dolby Atmos content. The only way I get Atmos now on my Sony TV is via the native app (Netflix) and DD+ via ARC. Down the road, I'll be looking at Samsung but they do not have Dolby Vision. There has been some conflicting information on getting Dolby Atmos from Netflix with a Samsung. As best I understand it - - Dolby Atmos accompanies the Dolby Vision Netflix offering (via ARC & DD+). Now, if you are going through an AVR that is Dolby Vision capable, can it split off the video (DV to HDR) and pass the Dolby Atmos soundtrack intact?
> 
> Also - are there any enlightened Samsung users that can help here? I can't imagine having any TV or projector without the ability to obtain a Dolby Atmos soundtrack from Netflix and other sources.


Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision are not tied together from Netflix requiring you to have both capabilities. I use an Apple TV 4K that shows the Netflix titles as having Dolby Vision and Atmos when they apply but mine is plugged into a Pioneer Elite SC95 and then to a JVC x550r that are both incapable of displaying Dolby Vision. I get HDR10 from those titles and Dolby Atmos. In my case I believe the ATV is converting the Dolby Vision to HDR10 but I also know that Netflix does have HDR10 available to devices that cannot handle Dolby Vision. I first got Atmos from Netflix on my Xbox One S that was not Dolby Vision capable. I cannot speak to how the built in Netflix app in Samsung TV's behave but provided Netflix has enabled Atmos on that app it should work fine.


----------



## galonzo

Newuser2018 said:


> I never thought I can get Atmos in Netflix & Amazon
> Here is my set up:
> Epson 2150 PJ->Yamaya AX-780 receiver->2 sony players hooked
> 120" screen
> Yamaha receiver->Amazon Fire Cube latest version
> Of course I have 2 ceiling speakers mounted attached to Ht channel in my receiver and i have been enjoying Atmos from my regular Bluray discs like John wick, etc.
> Now, how do i get Atmos from Netflix and amazon?
> any sample movies/series you can recommend? any special config i need to do?




rekbones said:


> Yes you do need the UHD highest package from Netflix. The only FireTV that might support it is the latest 4K FireTV stick, don't think the cube does and know for sure the 2nd gen FireTV Box does't. The latest Sheild does but it stopped working for me just recently and I suspect Netflix may be cutting back on bandwidth. My Win10 PC app is still working for ATMOS. Netflix ATMOS support is still fairly limited to a few devices AppleTV, Xbox to name a few others. All the 4K capable FireTV's support ATMOS from Amazon but you need to play the UHD version and you may need to have a UHD capable display.





Matt L said:


> Actually I think it's the opposite. I KNOW my 4K FS does not support it natively, have to use Kodi on the FS to get NF Atmos, I was researching the cube and IIRC it does, but you loose some other functionality.





CactusJack said:


> I tried Extraction from Netflix through a Roku Ultra. I get Dolby Digital+ but not Atmos. In the audio options, it says the "default" audio track is the only track available. Am I missing something here?


Here's the current list of devices that Netflix supports for Atmos on each device's *native* Netflix app:

Apple TV 4K (requires tvOS 12 or later)
LG OLED TVs (2017 or newer models)
Nvidia Shield (2019 models only, even though all other models support Atmos in other apps)
Panasonic TVs (2019 or newer models)
Pixela 4K Smart Tuner
Sony Bravia Android TVs (2018 or newer models)
Toshiba TVs (2019 or newer models)
Vizio TVs (2018 or newer models)
Windows 10 computer or tablet (requires Windows 10 RS3 Build 16299 or later)
Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X

I didn't list the one Amazon device (I believe it's the latest cube?), because Netflix doesn't currently have it listed, but some have reported it working.


----------



## Josh Z

rekbones said:


> You'll notice I didn't mention Dolby in that statement they are all involved. If it was just limited to UHD why do many devices not support it even if they do support 4K. It's a lot more involved then just restricting it to UHD. The ATV supports more ATMOS then any other device and is also one of the most expensive streamers, is Apple paying more for the privilege?


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Apple's HD streaming is downconverted from the 4k file when available. So if the 4k file had Atmos, they'll output that at any resolution you set the video for. Whereas other streaming services have separate 4k and HD files, which may come with their own soundtrack options. 

Amazon is notorious for creating entirely separate listings for a movie or show in HD vs 4k, and then burying the 4k option deep in the menu system. Vudu at least only creates one listing for a movie, with SD, HD, and 4k options to watch within that listing. Netflix will automatically default playback to the highest resolution your streaming device and display support. But with Amazon, you often have to go out of the way to search specifically for the 4k listing.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

rosstg said:


> I’m well versed with Atmos speaker placement but thought I would get some recommendations. I currently have a 7.2.2 configuration with front heights shown in my pic. I installed 2 Emotiva amps so now I’m looking at adding another pair of heights but I’m not sure where I should place them. I’m really leaning towards a top rear placement instead of rear heights. I was planning placing them right above my sofa in the pick so they are firing down on us - about 15 inches from the back wall. Or would they be better to place them 30 inches?
> 
> All feedback is appreciated.



I’d probably do something like this, right up against the wall and configure as top rear. Not sure this answers any other questions but iirc, the height layer can in fact be configured any way you want, as long as there is one location in between. IE: you can do Front height and top middle, but not front height and top front, or top front and top middle etc...
I’d maybe scoot the couch forward a bit too as that’s gonna be a LOT going on behind/around/above the MLP. In fact, if it were mine, I would seriously consider losing the rear surrounds as IME, unless you can have 5’ or 6’ behind you, they can be more of a distraction than an immersion. Less is more...
Can shoot a wider shot of the back?


----------



## rosstg

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’d probably do something like this, right up against the wall and configure as top rear. Not sure this answers any other questions but iirc, the height layer can in fact be configured any way you want, as long as there is one location in between. IE: you can do Front height and top middle, but not front height and top front, or top front and top middle etc...
> I’d maybe scoot the couch forward a bit too as that’s gonna be a LOT going on behind/around/above the MLP. In fact, if it were mine, I would seriously consider losing the rear surrounds as IME, unless you can have 5’ or 6’ behind you, they can be more of a distraction than an immersion. Less is more...
> Can shoot a wider shot of the back?


That’s pretty much where I was thinking but just a bit out, 15 inches from the back.


----------



## MagnumX

rosstg said:


> I’m well versed with Atmos speaker placement but thought I would get some recommendations. I currently have a 7.2.2 configuration with front heights shown in my pic. I installed 2 Emotiva amps so now I’m looking at adding another pair of heights but I’m not sure where I should place them. I’m really leaning towards a top rear placement instead of rear heights. I was planning placing them right above my sofa in the pick so they are firing down on us - about 15 inches from the back wall. Or would they be better to place them 30 inches?
> 
> All feedback is appreciated.


Based on my own room, I think you'd appreciate "some" overhead sound coming from behind you, even if it's not far. I'd probably go with the rear heights in your room. Otherwise, the helicopter (for example) will only travel to right overhead and not behind you. I see a shelf of some kind, but it doesn't look like it'd interfere with the same style speakers in the back. Your room doesn't look too big to do heights on both ends, IMO.


----------



## EAS

Based on the surface mount wiring you already have I'm guessing you aren't interested in in ceiling speakers? That's an option and Klipsch offers some that would work. If you did 4 in-ceiling it *might* sharpen the effect. Without a high ceiling it might sharpen it more than you like. In-ceiling in an open floor plan can help with aesthetics for some people. Some of like the rock concert look of speakers hanging everywhere.



I'm not surprised you get mixed results with upfiring in that room seeing you have a texture or acoustic spray on the ceiling. Do you think that had an impact in your space and why you didn't like them?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

rosstg said:


> That’s pretty much where I was thinking but just a bit out, 15 inches from the back.



Just curious, why you were thinking of moving it forward into the room. IMO you’d get much better results getting those rear tops/heights as far back as you can. That’s why I was suggesting to move the couch forward. And to get away from those rear surrounds...


----------



## rosstg

MagnumX said:


> Based on my own room, I think you'd appreciate "some" overhead sound coming from behind you, even if it's not far. I'd probably go with the rear heights in your room. Otherwise, the helicopter (for example) will only travel to right overhead and not behind you. I see a shelf of some kind, but it doesn't look like it'd interfere with the same style speakers in the back. Your room doesn't look too big to do heights on both ends, IMO.


Yeah I’m worried about the shelf. It’s not my house, it’s my girlfriend’s. She’s been amazing with me taking over the living room, don’t want to remove her photos lol.

It definitely could work there but I’m leaning towards firing down on the sofa.


----------



## rosstg

Polyrythm1k said:


> Just curious, why you were thinking of moving it forward into the room. IMO you’d get much better results getting those rear tops/heights as far back as you can. That’s why I was suggesting to move the couch forward. And to get away from those rear surrounds...


I had it moved away from the wall but the fireplace is there. It looked bad.

I was concerned about the rear channels when I moved in. My old dedicated room they were about 4ft away. To my surprise they sound better closer in this room. The surrounds and surround backs are seamless in this room. It’s actually kind of eerie, I love the effect.


----------



## rosstg

EAS said:


> Based on the surface mount wiring you already have I'm guessing you aren't interested in in ceiling speakers? That's an option and Klipsch offers some that would work. If you did 4 in-ceiling it *might* sharpen the effect. Without a high ceiling it might sharpen it more than you like. In-ceiling in an open floor plan can help with aesthetics for some people. Some of like the rock concert look of speakers hanging everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you get mixed results with upfiring in that room seeing you have a texture or acoustic spray on the ceiling. Do you think that had an impact in your space and why you didn't like them?


I initially had the modules upfiring in my old room, could barely hear them. I mounted them on my ceiling and they were too distracting. I had them back as upfiring when I moved in but again, they were useless.

We are selling this house next year so I don’t want to drill holes. I thought the front height configuration would be a compromise but they really sound amazing.


----------



## batpig

Honestly, I would do 5.1.4 in that space. It appears that the 4 surrounds are all kind of crammed together with minimal separation between "side" and "rear". 

For overheads definitely go behind you, not directly above. The area above and behind you is probably the the zone where your ears/brain are the worst at assessing precise directionality... as long as you can clearly hear there is "stuff" above and behind you, it will have the intended effect. Especially important because your FH speakers aren't really at a significant elevation angle, you're really missing the above+behind zone of the Atmos bubble.

So I would mount satellites at the top of the rear wall / rear of the ceiling angled down and in.


----------



## rosstg

Thanks for the advice everyone. I decided to upgrade my subs last night - upgrading my PB-1000’s to dual PC2000 Pro’s.

My girl bought the modules for a birthday present, I’ll have them next month. So I have some time to decide. I think I’ll mount them on the rear wall.


----------



## highmr

MagnumX said:


> I was told by Filmmixer some time ago that there is no licensing fee to the studios to encode in Atmos. If there's a fee, it's in the playback hardware. If a given device or streaming service requires 4K streams for Atmos, ask them why, as it's not a requirement from Dolby or else you wouldn't see Atmos (or DTS:X) on many regular 2K blurays nor would Atmos work on ATV with both 2K sets and with titles I have that are only 2K playback here (e.g. Due to regular BD Movies Anywhere redemption codes only giving the 2K version; if Atmos is available for that title typically on the 4K version, those titles still play in Atmos here with the 2K version).


Although some physical 4K disks that contain a 1080p version have that 1080p version not contain Atmos, others do, so there is no technical restriction.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

highmr said:


> Although some physical 4K disks that contain a 1080p version have that 1080p version not contain Atmos, others do, so there is no technical restriction.



Some studios and streaming services consider immersive audio a premium feature along with 4k with their product (to make you pay more for the pleasure), so those companies bundle them together. It's the same idea with disc distribution.


----------



## priitv8

highmr said:


> Although some physical 4K disks that contain a 1080p version have that 1080p version not contain Atmos, others do, so there is no technical restriction.


I think there is one technical limitation with optical media - max read bitrate. 
On regular BD it is 60Mbps, on UHD BD (aka BD-XL) it is 100Mbps. 
So I found that muxing Gravity 3D with TrueHD Atmos soundtrack exceeded BD bitrate and did not work. So I had to burn it onto BD-XL then read speed was sufficient to put both audio and video through.


----------



## highmr

priitv8 said:


> I think there is one technical limitation with optical media - max read bitrate.
> On regular BD it is 60Mbps, on UHD BD (aka BD-XL) it is 100Mbps.
> So I found that muxing Gravity 3D with TrueHD Atmos soundtrack exceeded BD bitrate and did not work. So I had to burn it onto BD-XL then read speed was sufficient to put both audio and video through.


Does the 3D version require more video bandwidth?


----------



## zombie10k

priitv8 said:


> I think there is one technical limitation with optical media - max read bitrate.
> On regular BD it is 60Mbps, on UHD BD (aka BD-XL) it is 100Mbps.
> So I found that muxing Gravity 3D with TrueHD Atmos soundtrack exceeded BD bitrate and did not work. So I had to burn it onto BD-XL then read speed was sufficient to put both audio and video through.





highmr said:


> Does the 3D version require more video bandwidth?


hi, I have large collection of 3D + ATMOS remuxes that i've burned on standard Verbatim BD-R 50 GB disks and they play perfect on my Oppo 203 and Panasonic UB820.


----------



## MagnumX

I just remux to MKV for 3D + Atmos (or X or Auro-3D; in fact I have some files with both Auro and Atmos soundtracks on them) and play them back directly from a Zidoo X9S off two hard drives. That means between it and Kodi I never have to load an actual disc ever again (well save Red Tails as its Auro-3D soundtrack is in PCM instead of wrapped in DTS-HD and Kodi won't play back PCM perfectly for some reason. It's literally the only disc I have to play directly.)

No hunting for discs or carrying them around the house. Click and play. They can be 100% quality or you can recompress the video to save space (non-3D).


----------



## priitv8

highmr said:


> Does the 3D version require more video bandwidth?


Yes. Now you need to push 2 full-HD images (L and R eye) through, in same amount of time (1/24 sec). Thanks to some clever encoding (MVC) it does not take exactly double the bandwidth, but approx +75%. See the attached screenshot - number in parentheses is the bitrate of the other eye's image.
Looking at that Gravity, it seems that they still try to keep total bitrate within 40Mbps, occasionally peaking at 50.


zombie10k said:


> hi, I have large collection of 3D + ATMOS remuxes that i've burned on standard Verbatim BD-R 50 GB disks and they play perfect on my Oppo 203 and Panasonic UB820.


I tried to re-create this stutter on my current UBP-X1100ES but during the first 15 minutes I could spend, couldn't. May have been a player-related issue (had the UBP-X700 then), otherwise I would not have taken the trouble to source a BD-XL writable disc. But that same player had no issues playing it back from the BD-XL media. I may have to take another full watch of it.
That captured frame is already pretty close to the limit 29,7 + 22,2 + 5,9 = 57,8 and it does not account for the bitrate of subtitle track (which may be negligible). As I understand it, the drive still reads the whole Transport Stream from the disc media, so total bandwidth of all encapsulated streams is what matters, not just what is currently being rendered.


----------



## jsanders

Does anyone know of an audio extractor/passthrough that can downmix Dolby Atmos to 5.1ch or 7.1ch. audio?

Can a 7.1ch DD+ decoder do it?

Even something that could just decode the base channels would be ok in my application, it's only used for visualization. 

I've seen this one: 
https://www.kanexpro.com/item/?id=HAECOAX3

The language is a bit ambiguous for me to figure out if it can do it.

Any ideas?

Thanks!


----------



## fredxr2d2

jsanders said:


> Does anyone know of an audio extractor/passthrough that can downmix Dolby Atmos to 5.1ch or 7.1ch. audio?
> 
> Can a 7.1ch DD+ decoder do it?
> 
> Even something that could just decode the base channels would be ok in my application, it's only used for visualization.
> 
> I've seen this one:
> https://www.kanexpro.com/item/?id=HAECOAX3
> 
> The language is a bit ambiguous for me to figure out if it can do it.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks!



Why would you need to do this? Atmos auto-downmixes to whatever your speaker system is.


----------



## Josh Z

jsanders said:


> Does anyone know of an audio extractor/passthrough that can downmix Dolby Atmos to 5.1ch or 7.1ch. audio?
> 
> Can a 7.1ch DD+ decoder do it?
> 
> Even something that could just decode the base channels would be ok in my application, it's only used for visualization.
> 
> I've seen this one:
> https://www.kanexpro.com/item/?id=HAECOAX3
> 
> The language is a bit ambiguous for me to figure out if it can do it.


It might help if you could explain what you're trying to do. Any A/V receiver can play back an Atmos track in 5.1 or 7.1 configurations by ignoring the Atmos metadata.


----------



## Greg McNichol

Okay, here is my proposed room build: 

https://i.imgur.com/X6PteZA.png 

MLP = 13 feet from screen 

L and R fronts = 11 feet from each other and 14 feet from MLP 

Does this all look right? So, going off of that, should I also have the Atmos speakers be 11 feet apart from each other? That close to the side wall? If I do, the angles won't be right because of less than ideal ceiling height (~ 7 feet). 

The other option is to bring them in even closer to the center of the room for closer to "ideal" angle, but we're talking either 9 feet of separation or only 6 feet separation from each other (3 feet from side walls or 4.5 feet from the side walls). What would you do?


----------



## sdurani

Greg McNichol said:


> Okay, here is my proposed room build:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/X6PteZA.png
> 
> What would you do?


I would move the rear pair of heights farther back (same distance away from the main listening position as the front pair of heights). I would also move the Side speakers a couple feet forward of the listeners AND add a pair of Rear speakers on the back wall for a 7.1.4 set-up. This will give you side-vs-rear separation in the surround field that you cannot get with a single pair of Surrounds.


----------



## jsanders

Josh Z said:


> Any A/V receiver can play back an Atmos track in 5.1 or 7.1 configurations by ignoring the Atmos metadata.


I sure wish that was the case. My $4,000 Emotiva RMC-1L decodes dolby Atmos but only outputs stereo on the TOSLINK out. I've tried an HDMI audio extractor that passes through dolby Atmos just fine, but doesn't extract it. The Emotiva XMC-1 did output 5.1 ch. audio.

I made a 5.1ch spectrum analyzer — it's a box with 6 discreet spectrum analyzers. I like to be able to visualize what I'm hearing. It displays the audio at while I'm watching a movie or listening to music. 

I thought if the audio extractor could decode DD+, it would be able to at least send the base channels without Atmos meta data.

I'm guessing a product like that will be a hot seller in the future. There are a lot of people with legacy receivers/processors that may want an Atmos decoder that converts to 5.1 ch. 

Has anyone seen something like this? A Dolby Atmos audio extractor that has either a TOSLINK out, or a bunch of discrete RCA outputs? 

Thanks!


----------



## Josh Z

jsanders said:


> I'm guessing a product like that will be a hot seller in the future. There are a lot of people with legacy receivers/processors that may want an Atmos decoder that converts to 5.1 ch.


I don't know what the deal is with your Emotiva processor, but literally every mainstream brand A/V receiver will do this. Atmos tracks are even backwards compatible with older receivers built before Atmos.


----------



## avsngaiouser

fredxr2d2 said:


> Why would you need to do this? Atmos auto-downmixes to whatever your speaker system is.





Josh Z said:


> I don't know what the deal is with your Emotiva processor, but literally every mainstream brand A/V receiver will do this. Atmos tracks are even backwards compatible with older receivers built before Atmos.



+1 My old Denon AVR-890 does TrueHD 7.1 when I throw an ATMOS track at it, no problem at all, the 7.1 is always there


----------



## priitv8

My 2 cents:
1. TOSLINK is dead end for anything beyond DD 5.1 / DTS Core 5.1
2. Conversion of TrueHD to DD+ is a major undertaking and entails full re-encode. In your scenario also in real time. I have not seen any really working (free) DD+ encoders around.


----------



## MagnumX

jsanders said:


> I sure wish that was the case. My $4,000 Emotiva RMC-1L decodes dolby Atmos but only outputs stereo on the TOSLINK out. I've tried an HDMI audio extractor that passes through dolby Atmos just fine, but doesn't extract it. The Emotiva XMC-1 did output 5.1 ch. audio.
> 
> I made a 5.1ch spectrum analyzer — *it's a box with 6 discreet spectrum analyzers*. I like to be able to visualize what I'm hearing. It displays the audio at while I'm watching a movie or listening to music.
> 
> I thought if the audio extractor could decode DD+, it would be able to at least send the base channels without Atmos meta data.
> 
> I'm guessing a product like that will be a hot seller in the future. There are a lot of people with legacy receivers/processors that may want an Atmos decoder that converts to 5.1 ch.
> 
> Has anyone seen something like this? A Dolby Atmos audio extractor that has either a TOSLINK out, or a bunch of discrete RCA outputs?
> 
> Thanks!


I don't think they understand what you're asking for. I gather you're already using the Emotiva for Atmos sound. You just want a secondary output to drive your spectrum analyzers? You've got two problems and therefore two possible solutions. I suggest the latter one below first unless you think there's an issue with it (Y-splitter idea). 

Your idea was to use toslink to drive an external box and/or an external passthrough switcher to extract a toslink that can be decoded. The problem is I don't think there are any external HDMI switchers out there that decode DD+ and the other is your unit is already using the XLRs for output to the amplifiers. (e.g. I use an external decoder on my 2-channel high-end ribbon speaker system with an old external regular Dolby Digital box. It passes HDMI through to my TV and outputs optical to my old external decoder box. That would work for DD signals like a TrueHD signal would contain (e.g. for Blu-Rays with Atmos), but you'd need an old external Dolby Digital decoder with analog outputs to drive your spectrum analyzers (e.g. I'm using an old Technics unit; these can be found on eBay). That won't solve your problem for DD+ signals, however (streaming Atmos). FireTV units can typically convert to regular Dolby Digital, but they'd probably drop Atmos in the process, which you don't want. I'm not aware of any Dolby Digital Plus stand alone units offhand. There might be one (China makes a lot of small stand alone type units). Here's a 5.1 output unit that MIGHT work for up to 5.1 (claims to work with Atmos signals, but I don't see DD+ specifically mentioned: https://www.amazon.com/decoder-Sepa...pY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU&th=1)

If you were using any other AVR, you could just use the pre-outs to drive the spectrum analyzers for any/all outputs (including the overhead channels if you had enough spectrum analyzers). Since the Emotiva in question is only a surround processor, you'd need the outputs for the amplifiers to drive your sound system. *However*, you COULD get XLR *Y-adapters* for the channels you want to use and then an *XLR to RCA cable* to connect one of the Y-outputs to your spectrum analyzers and the other to your amplifiers. This would theoretically let you have your cake and watch it too and should be fairly cheap to implement. 

Here's an example XLR Y-splitter: https://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matter...keywords=xlr+y+splitter&qid=1588684205&sr=8-6

I don't know what kind of connectors your spectrum analyzers are using. If they're XLR, then the splitters are all you need. If they use RCA, you'd then need one of these for each set of channels (example; many brands available in different lengths): https://www.amazon.com/Splitter-Unb...xlr+y+splitter+rca&qid=1588684194&sr=8-5&th=1

You'd just connect the channels you want to watch on your spectrum analyzers to one side of each Y-splitter output and the power amps to the other side as normal and let the Emotiva decode Atmos as normal.


----------



## batpig

I think the disconnect here is that he wants to output the decoded signal over toslink to some OTHER device, which I don't really understand the point of.

As many have pointed out, Atmos is always backwards compatible so the processor / receiver that decodes it will just decode what is needed. If you have a 5.1 setup, it decodes as 5.1.

However, that is NOT what the OP is getting at from what I can tell, he wants to take that 5.1 signal and then output it to something else. 

That is not an Atmos limitation per se, it's just that processors/receivers do NOT have a "pass through" output that sends a multichannel signal to other devices after the decoding step. Because that's not at all what their job is.



> I'm guessing a product like that will be a hot seller in the future. There are a lot of people with legacy receivers/processors that may want an Atmos decoder that converts to 5.1 ch.


It will be a terrible seller because literally nobody needs it, outside of strange special use cases like yours (which I'm still not quite sure what it is). Again, because it's all backwards compatible, there's no need for something special to decode Atmos. If your receiver/processor doesn't support Atmos, it won't even "see" the Atmos metadata and it will just be decoded as a standard channel-based track which is embedded in the package. And if you don't even have an HDMI processor, then you will have to get the legacy DD 5.1 track over old school toslink / coax digital connections directly from the source, just like in the pre-HDMI days.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> It will be a terrible seller because literally nobody needs it, outside of strange special use cases like yours (which I'm still not quite sure what it is).


I dare say that jsanders may literally be the only person in the world who needs such a product. That's a niche of just one person.


----------



## shs1234

I could see a device that would show the output levels of all the various channels, including the Atmos ceiling channels, but an RTA for each channel seems like overkill.


----------



## jsanders

MagnumX said:


> I don't think they understand what you're asking for. I gather you're already using the Emotiva for Atmos sound. You just want a secondary output to drive your spectrum analyzers? You've got two problems and therefore two possible solutions. I suggest the latter one below first unless you think there's an issue with it (Y-splitter idea).
> 
> Your idea was to use toslink to drive an external box and/or an external passthrough switcher to extract a toslink that can be decoded. The problem is I don't think there are any external HDMI switchers out there that decode DD+ and the other is your unit is already using the XLRs for output to the amplifiers. (e.g. I use an external decoder on my 2-channel high-end ribbon speaker system with an old external regular Dolby Digital box. It passes HDMI through to my TV and outputs optical to my old external decoder box. That would work for DD signals like a TrueHD signal would contain (e.g. for Blu-Rays with Atmos), but you'd need an old external Dolby Digital decoder with analog outputs to drive your spectrum analyzers (e.g. I'm using an old Technics unit; these can be found on eBay). That won't solve your problem for DD+ signals, however (streaming Atmos). FireTV units can typically convert to regular Dolby Digital, but they'd probably drop Atmos in the process, which you don't want. I'm not aware of any Dolby Digital Plus stand alone units offhand. There might be one (China makes a lot of small stand alone type units). Here's a 5.1 output unit that MIGHT work for up to 5.1 (claims to work with Atmos signals, but I don't see DD+ specifically mentioned: https://www.amazon.com/decoder-Sepa...pY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU&th=1)
> 
> If you were using any other AVR, you could just use the pre-outs to drive the spectrum analyzers for any/all outputs (including the overhead channels if you had enough spectrum analyzers). Since the Emotiva in question is only a surround processor, you'd need the outputs for the amplifiers to drive your sound system. *However*, you COULD get XLR *Y-adapters* for the channels you want to use and then an *XLR to RCA cable* to connect one of the Y-outputs to your spectrum analyzers and the other to your amplifiers. This would theoretically let you have your cake and watch it too and should be fairly cheap to implement.
> 
> Here's an example XLR Y-splitter: https://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matter...keywords=xlr+y+splitter&qid=1588684205&sr=8-6
> 
> I don't know what kind of connectors your spectrum analyzers are using. If they're XLR, then the splitters are all you need. If they use RCA, you'd then need one of these for each set of channels (example; many brands available in different lengths): https://www.amazon.com/Splitter-Unb...xlr+y+splitter+rca&qid=1588684194&sr=8-5&th=1
> 
> You'd just connect the channels you want to watch on your spectrum analyzers to one side of each Y-splitter output and the power amps to the other side as normal and let the Emotiva decode Atmos as normal.


Thanks for the suggestions MagnumX! Very insightful and creative! I used to have a couple of Technics receivers too btw! I've tried the Chinese stand-alone units and ran into the exact issues you mentioned, no DD+. I looked at your link, in the questions, the seller says it does work with Dolby Atmos and he says he's not lying! :laugh: It's cheap enough I could give it a try. One buyer posted a video of a commercial with the audio distorted so everyone sounded like chipmunks. :laugh: You never know what you're gonna get.... :laugh:

The XLR is an interesting idea though. There is a problem with it, and that's why I switched to toslink on my XMC-1 to begin with. The toslink has no attenuation or gain control. If you use an RCA output or XLR, it adjusts the signal output with the volume knob. Some spectrum analyzers can have a limited AGC, but they're not adequate. If you turn down the volume on your system to a listening level, the RCA outputs will be a small enough signal that they won't show anything on the spectrum analyzer. Toslink removes that problem. 

The poorly crafted screenshot is my visualizer. The top row is front left, center, front right. The bottom is surround left, subwoofer, surround right.


----------



## MagnumX

jsanders said:


> Thanks for the suggestions MagnumX! Very insightful and creative! I used to have a couple of Technics receivers too btw! I've tried the Chinese stand-alone units and ran into the exact issues you mentioned, no DD+. I looked at your link, in the questions, the seller says it does work with Dolby Atmos and he says he's not lying! :laugh: It's cheap enough I could give it a try. One buyer posted a video of a commercial with the audio distorted so everyone sounded like chipmunks. :laugh: You never know what you're gonna get.... :laugh:


I always liked spectrum analyzers myself for the light display. I have KODI set up for on-screen visualizations with music to watch the light show. 


I think you should just ignore the naysayers. I'm pretty certain it can be done one way or another. You want what you want and if there's a way to do it, why _not_ do it? 



> The XLR is an interesting idea though. There is a problem with it, and that's why I switched to toslink on my XMC-1 to begin with. The toslink has no attenuation or gain control.


Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Good point. Of course, if you really wanted to get crazy, you could have external volume controls installed between the pre-outs and the amplifiers (some amps out there even have their own gain knobs). You would then set those output to unity and use the external controls instead. It'd be a lot of bother, but then some might say so would making a spectrum analyzer just to watch the lights bounce, but where there's a will there's a way.


----------



## fredxr2d2

MagnumX said:


> I think you should just ignore the naysayers. I'm pretty certain it can be done one way or another. You want what you want and if there's a way to do it, why _not_ do it?



I'm not sure if we were naysaying per se - just wondering why he would want this very specific thing from a system that really isn't designed to work that way. We were explaining the basics of Atmos, which makes sense since it is more likely, in my opinion, for a person to be confused about backwards compatibility than it is for someone to be confused about using toslink to go to an external spectrum analyzer system.


----------



## AYanguas

jsanders said:


> ...
> 
> The poorly crafted screenshot is my visualizer. The top row is front left, center, front right. The bottom is surround left, subwoofer, surround right.


I like it. 

For the 13 amp channels of my 8500 I would need more than double of that analyzer screens.

Its nice to see flying lights for each channel, and perhaps enough with line level only, instead of the full frequency spectrum.

I have started to think about doing a VUmeter levels for each of the 13 channels, with some cheap chinese LEDs kits, using the pre-outs AVR outputs.


----------



## shs1234

What I would like to see is a VUmeter for each channel or LEDs representing the sound level, not hidden away in a cabinet or viewed from a distance, but rather available on my iPhone so I can see what is going on in the various channels while sitting in the MLP. Unfortunately that is not as easy to piece together as a bunch of VUmeters mounted on a panel although that would be a fun place to start.


----------



## jsanders

fredxr2d2 said:


> We were explaining the basics of Atmos, which makes sense since it is more likely, in my opinion, for a person to be confused about backwards compatibility than it is for someone to be confused about using toslink to go to an external spectrum analyzer system.


Not at all confused about backwards compatibility. There's one small piece of info that you need for a complete picture.

Atmos is fully backwards compatible with DD+, it's NOT fully backwards compatible with Dolby Digital. DD+ tracks need to be converted to 640kbps to make them compatible with DD. The Chinese converter boxes haven't caught up with this yet. When someone makes a converter box for legacy systems, it will be a great commodity because they can seamlessly decode a lot more content.

I enjoyed having a spectrum analyzer for all 5.1 channels on my XMC-1 and I want to make it work for the RMC-1L. Maybe you don't want one, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with people that do. 

If you have any suggestions on how to solve this issue, it's greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## Josh Z

jsanders said:


> Atmos is fully backwards compatible with DD+, it's NOT fully backwards compatible with Dolby Digital.


Yeah, actually, they are. An old Dolby Digital receiver from 1997 (long before Atmos was invented) can play back an Atmos track as DD5.1.

Where are you getting your info? DD+ is also backwards compatible with DD.


----------



## jsanders

AYanguas said:


> I like it.
> [...]
> I have started to think about doing a VUmeter levels for each of the 13 channels, with some cheap chinese LEDs kits, using the pre-outs AVR outputs.


The pre-outs are most likely controlled by the volume knob on your Rx. The chinese LED kits seem to be mostly designed to work with a headphone jack instead of an RCA jack. The RCA jack for consumer audio is .894Vpp with 100Ω to 600Ω impedance. They're designed to drive a 10kΩ load. The headphone jack looks like a 32Ω. The RCA jack simply won't drive such a small load, it can't source enough current.

Make sure you find one that is designed for use with RCA and not a headphone jack. The other thing you might do is connect them in parallel to your speakers or connect a line converter to your speaker terminals.

The impedance on your speaker terminals would decrease slightly. Let's say you have 8Ω speakers, and the headphone jack is 32Ω:

New impedance is (32Ω * 8Ω) / (32Ω + 8Ω) = 6.4Ω 

If you do that btw, your frequency response could change and you would have to do re-do your room correction.


----------



## jsanders

Josh Z said:


> Yeah, actually, they are. An old Dolby Digital receiver from 1997 (long before Atmos was invented) can play back an Atmos track as DD5.1.
> 
> Where are you getting your info? DD+ is also backwards compatible with DD.


From the dolby developer website: https://developer.dolby.com/technology/dolby-atmos/overview/

It says, "Dolby Atmos® is an immersive audio format that can be delivered via multiple audio codecs including Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD (*but NOT Dolby Digital*)"

It further talks about conversion for backwards compatibility here: "Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks are easily converted to a 640 kbps Dolby Digital signal without decoding and reencoding, for output via S/PDIF."

Your experience isn't proof of the conclusion you arrived at.


----------



## calculon68

jsanders said:


> It further talks about conversion for backwards compatibility here: "Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks are easily converted to a 640 kbps Dolby Digital signal without decoding and reencoding, for output via S/PDIF."



That's how my bedroom soundbar (S/PDIF connected) works with DD+ and Atmos content. The 4K FireStick is set to DD+ only, but the soundbar detects a DD signal. Same with the Shield playing Atmos through the S/PDIF soundbar.


But I know it's not true Atmos or DD+.


----------



## Josh Z

jsanders said:


> From the dolby developer website: https://developer.dolby.com/technology/dolby-atmos/overview/
> 
> It says, "Dolby Atmos® is an immersive audio format that can be delivered via multiple audio codecs including Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD (*but NOT Dolby Digital*)"
> 
> It further talks about conversion for backwards compatibility here: "Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks are easily converted to a 640 kbps Dolby Digital signal without decoding and reencoding, for output via S/PDIF."
> 
> Your experience isn't proof of the conclusion you arrived at.


Are you watching Atmos from disc or streaming? On disc, Atmos soundtracks are authored as Dolby TrueHD with metadata extensions. Every TrueHD soundtrack comes with a backup 640 kb/s Dolby Digital track embedded with it for backwards compatibility. When you play it back through a receiver that can't decode Atmos, the AVR will read the DD version instead.


----------



## Tygeezy

So we know that atmos works over headphones if you use the dolby access app in windows 10 and im assuming xbox as well as other formats for positional audio like hrtf thats in games such as counter-strike, pub g, and fortnite. What about if you use the 3.5 headphone output on your tv and play and watch something in atmos say in one of the streaming apps such as netflix, disney plus or streaming a file on a plex client app that has atmos?


----------



## jsanders

Josh Z said:


> Are you watching Atmos from disc or streaming? On disc, Atmos soundtracks are authored as Dolby TrueHD with metadata extensions. Every TrueHD soundtrack comes with a backup 640 kb/s Dolby Digital track embedded with it for backwards compatibility. When you play it back through a receiver that can't decode Atmos, the AVR will read the DD version instead.


AppleTV 4k. It changes the game I guess. I can rent a 4k Blu-ray from Redbox and try a disc too. The Dolby developer website said you don't even need a transcoder to convert it to DD which it makes it sound like all that would be needed for trans-modulation would be an IF mixer or something.


----------



## Josh Z

jsanders said:


> AppleTV 4k. It changes the game I guess. I can rent a 4k Blu-ray from Redbox and try a disc too. The Dolby developer website said you don't even need a transcoder to convert it to DD which it makes it sound like all that would be needed for trans-modulation would be an IF mixer or something.


I had assumed that all Dolby Digital Plus tracks also come with a backup Dolby Digital track, but apparently that is no longer required and some streaming services drop the DD backup track in order to make room for Atmos metadata. I was not aware of that until now.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Yeah, actually, they are. An old Dolby Digital receiver from 1997 (long before Atmos was invented) can play back an Atmos track as DD5.1.
> 
> Where are you getting your info? DD+ is also backwards compatible with DD.


Dolby _claims_ it's backwards compatible on their web site still, but the fact is that if I output a DD+ signal from my NVidia Shield to my Technics DD decoder from the 1990s, it will _not_ work. I get no signal or PCM stereo only. My FireTV will convert the DD+ signal to regular DD (there's a menu option explicitly for this), but my NVidia Shield will NOT do it. I was told the difference is that Amazon paid for the conversion license that will work regardless of the actual DD+ signal, while Nvidia did not and so if the DD+ signal lacks the DD core, it will not play in 5.1. I only got stereo with my old 2005 era AVR with the Shield. Both handle 640kbps DD just fine so that's not it.

TrueHD, OTOH, always contains a DD core and it has always worked fine here.

This blog explains the problem: https://blog.son-video.com/en/2018/03/does-your-av-receiver-handle-dolby-digital-plus/

I quote:



> Is Dolby Digital Plus not backward compatible?
> Here is where the problem lies. Initially, Dolby claimed that Dolby Digital Plus would be backward compatible with the Dolby Digital decoders which equip a large number of A/V receivers, yet the truth of the matter is quite different. Back when the Dolby TrueHD lossless multichannel audio format was integrated into Blu-ray discs, all existing Dolby Digital decoders were backward compatible.
> 
> The simple explanation for this is that the Dolby TrueHD bitstream contains a Dolby Digital core (transmitted at a speed of 640Kbps), which has been “augmented” with audio data compressed using a lossless codec (up to 18Mbps total). As such, all Blu-ray players and TVs connected to an older A/V receiver only transmit this AC3 core (640Kbps) to the Dolby Digital decoder.
> 
> This on-the-fly extraction is quite simple in practice: the optical player or TV detects the receiver’s audio decoding abilities via its HDMI controller. If the receiver doesn’t provide a list containing Dolby TrueHD, then the source transmits the Dolby Digital core.
> 
> With Dolby Digital Plus, it would be possible to take the same approach, and yet this isn’t always the case. Sometimes, the Dolby Digital Plus soundtrack contains a Dolby Digital core. However, as compression rates rise and Dolby Atmos metadata is added, this is becoming less common. If Dolby Atmos metadata is present, your older Dolby Digital receiver will not recognize any of the data and will tell you it is not compatible. The TV will then downmix the DD+ soundtrack to obtain a PCM stereo soundtrack, and the original, 5- or 7-channel mix will be lost. Best case scenario, the TV will generate a PCM soundtrack for 5.1 channels, but the possibility of activating the receiver’s Night Mode (dynamic compression) unique to Dolby audio decoders is lost.


The bottom line is you MIGHT get DD out of a DD+ signal, but you might not.


----------



## MBrown2020

I get level meters for all 16 of my channels by using 2 MiniDSP 88a BM's for Dirac Live. The plugins have real time level meters, pretty awesome.


----------



## batpig

ATV4K also outputs Atmos as multichannel PCM with metadata (Dolby MAT format) so I'm wondering if an HDMI converter box that has the ability to convert to 5.1 SPDIF output would be able to handle the signal, since it would present as 5.1 LPCM, and not mess with the Dolby MAT metadata passthrough


----------



## tidwelr1

I’m getting ready to install atmos speakers in my media room. I went into the attic and noticed that the space where the back atmos speakers are going has a pvc pipe running in the space. I think it connects to the exhaust fan in the middle bathroom upstairs. I’m thinking it could be re-routed around that space and back into where it’s currently running fairly easily. Cut the pvc, add a joint or two and a new longer piece and tie it back into the original route. I would hire someone experienced to do this. Thoughts? 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gene4ht

tidwelr1 said:


> I’m getting ready to install atmos speakers in my media room. I went into the attic and noticed that the space where the back atmos speakers are going has a pvc pipe running in the space. I think it connects to the exhaust fan in the middle bathroom upstairs. I’m thinking it could be re-routed around that space and back into where it’s currently running fairly easily. Cut the pvc, add a joint or two and a new longer piece and tie it back into the original route. I would hire someone experienced to do this. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep...simple enough job for any handyman and most DIY’ers.


----------



## EAS

tidwelr1 said:


> I’m getting ready to install atmos speakers in my media room. I went into the attic and noticed that the space where the back atmos speakers are going has a pvc pipe running in the space. I think it connects to the exhaust fan in the middle bathroom upstairs. I’m thinking it could be re-routed around that space and back into where it’s currently running fairly easily. Cut the pvc, add a joint or two and a new longer piece and tie it back into the original route. I would hire someone experienced to do this. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That is likely a vent stack for the plumbing in the bathroom and not attached to the fan. Moving this will mean ensuring that the roof boot isn't disturbed to the point where the roof will leak. There is also a right way and a wrong way to modify something that ensures your toilets flush and don't back up....


----------



## FilmMixer

I meant to post this a while back but have been a bit busy. 

Thursday (tomorrow/today already)at 8am PST there will be a Dolby hosted webinar on Atmos.... they will also take questions from the live audience via the chat function. 

If you miss it live it will be online to view in the next few weeks. 

https://register.gotowebinar.com/re...email&utm_campaign=Webinar:+Hear+from+Masters


----------



## Matt L

EAS said:


> That is likely a vent stack for the plumbing in the bathroom and not attached to the fan. Moving this will mean ensuring that the roof boot isn't disturbed to the point where the roof will leak. There is also a right way and a wrong way to modify something that ensures your toilets flush and don't back up....


The vent stack goes through a rubber boot and allows for a good deal of movement, no issue there. This appears to be an 1 1/2" line so it only connects to a sink or such and can be rerouted just about any way you want as it only provides air. A toilet would have at least a 3" line. Cut it and reroute it yourself for a few $, all you need is fittings and glue. No worries.


----------



## Roger Dressler

batpig said:


> ATV4K also outputs Atmos as multichannel PCM with metadata (Dolby MAT format) so I'm wondering if an HDMI converter box that has the ability to convert to 5.1 SPDIF output would be able to handle the signal, since it would present as 5.1 LPCM, and not mess with the Dolby MAT metadata passthrough


I have never heard of a 5.1 S/PDIF signal carrying PCM. It is always something lossy coded. Right? DD, DTS... The bitrate limit of ~1.5 Mbps is the showstopper.


----------



## tidwelr1

Matt L said:


> The vent stack goes through a rubber boot and allows for a good deal of movement, no issue there. This appears to be an 1 1/2" line so it only connects to a sink or such and can be rerouted just about any way you want as it only provides air. A toilet would have at least a 3" line. Cut it and reroute it yourself for a few $, all you need is fittings and glue. No worries.



I appreciate the response, but why would there be a vent stack for a sink?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tidwelr1

EAS said:


> That is likely a vent stack for the plumbing in the bathroom and not attached to the fan. Moving this will mean ensuring that the roof boot isn't disturbed to the point where the roof will leak. There is also a right way and a wrong way to modify something that ensures your toilets flush and don't back up....



Thanks for the response but do you have more to back up having a vent stack for a toilet that goes to the roof? If that were the case or needed, seems every house would need vent stacks for all the toilets. Never seen or heard of that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eaayoung

tidwelr1 said:


> I appreciate the response, but why would there be a vent stack for a sink?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not a plumber. But the air from the vent stack helps the water flow in the drain. I think each drain gets its own vent stack.


----------



## EAS

tidwelr1 said:


> Thanks for the response but do you have more to back up having a vent stack for a toilet that goes to the roof? If that were the case or needed, seems every house would need vent stacks for all the toilets. Never seen or heard of that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Good morning. I'm sure you are just being curious and don't intend to sound like you are calling me out to back up a position you think I am taking on some kind of debate. 



I carefully worded my reply above because I'm working from a picture and some hints in the responses. First, in the US if a home was built to code and with normal building practices the white PVC pipe seen in the picture running laterally under some blown in fiberglass insulation and then running vertically through the roof would be part of the plumbing of the house. If this is a single family home it would be atypical to vent a fan through the roof. Also, venting a fan does not use PVC. If you go outside and look at this pipe exiting the roof its likely not to have any sort of hood on it. If rain and such falls into that pipe as a plumbing pipe the water ends up in the sewer. No harm done. If that was a vent for the fan.. well... in a storm you would get water coming out of your fan.


I have no idea what the vent is for or how many this house has or needs from one picture, but houses that have plumbing have vents to ensure that water drains and P-traps stay full of water to prevent the backup of sewer gases into our homes. Small homes designed well can have one vent. Other homes that are big and have many architectural considerations may need a lot of vents. I have maybe 8 vents in my current home. Lots of bathrooms and plumbing on different sides of the house etc.


I can't tell from the photo what the vent is actually for. It could be for any plumbing, but the poster said they guessed a bathroom fan so I'm guessing based on the bathroom comment that the stack leads to the general area of a bathroom. It could be for the drain of a washer in a laundry, who knows. I also didn't put a lot of thought into trying to determine the size of the vent because knowing its a plumbing vent made me want to help by clarifying its not a fan vent.


I think my message was essentially to be smart about modifying a vent going through a roof. The boot that is typically on the vent should be able to handle a little wiggling. After all, houses move a little, temp changes make things move and weather and snow can put pressure on the stacks. That being said, I don't know what condition your boot is in and from experience its wise to be careful and consider that the boot may not be in great condition to handle moving the pipe in and out or side to side while cutting and and reattaching to re-routed plumbing. Its a little gotcha that I have seen. Leaks in roofs are expensive and of the boot is damaged or isn't performing well there can be a small leak that isn't noticed until its a pretty serious issue. So, just be mindful that the plumbing it going through the roof and that there is a risk of creating a leak whenever something like this is getting service.


The other point to consider is not to reduce the vent capacity when changing the route and maybe not violate any local building codes so that if there is an issue in the future your insurance company doesn't challenge the responsibility of the loss.


Ok, that was a lot of words, but I hope it helps. Googling plumbing vent diagrams can be helpful. You can see how plumbing works and what kind of vents exist in a home, typically.


----------



## tidwelr1

EAS said:


> Good morning. I'm sure you are just being curious and don't intend to sound like you are calling me out to back up a position you think I am taking on some kind of debate.
> 
> 
> 
> I carefully worded my reply above because I'm working from a picture and some hints in the responses. First, in the US if a home was built to code and with normal building practices the white PVC pipe seen in the picture running laterally under some blown in fiberglass insulation and then running vertically through the roof would be part of the plumbing of the house. If this is a single family home it would be atypical to vent a fan through the roof. Also, venting a fan does not use PVC. If you go outside and look at this pipe exiting the roof its likely not to have any sort of hood on it. If rain and such falls into that pipe as a plumbing pipe the water ends up in the sewer. No harm done. If that was a vent for the fan.. well... in a storm you would get water coming out of your fan.
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the vent is for or how many this house has or needs from one picture, but houses that have plumbing have vents to ensure that water drains and P-traps stay full of water to prevent the backup of sewer gases into our homes. Small homes designed well can have one vent. Other homes that are big and have many architectural considerations may need a lot of vents. I have maybe 8 vents in my current home. Lots of bathrooms and plumbing on different sides of the house etc.
> 
> 
> I can't tell from the photo what the vent is actually for. It could be for any plumbing, but the poster said they guessed a bathroom fan so I'm guessing based on the bathroom comment that the stack leads to the general area of a bathroom. It could be for the drain of a washer in a laundry, who knows. I also didn't put a lot of thought into trying to determine the size of the vent because knowing its a plumbing vent made me want to help by clarifying its not a fan vent.
> 
> 
> I think my message was essentially to be smart about modifying a vent going through a roof. The boot that is typically on the vent should be able to handle a little wiggling. After all, houses move a little, temp changes make things move and weather and snow can put pressure on the stacks. That being said, I don't know what condition your boot is in and from experience its wise to be careful and consider that the boot may not be in great condition to handle moving the pipe in and out or side to side while cutting and and reattaching to re-routed plumbing. Its a little gotcha that I have seen. Leaks in roofs are expensive and of the boot is damaged or isn't performing well there can be a small leak that isn't noticed until its a pretty serious issue. So, just be mindful that the plumbing it going through the roof and that there is a risk of creating a leak whenever something like this is getting service.
> 
> 
> The other point to consider is not to reduce the vent capacity when changing the route and maybe not violate any local building codes so that if there is an issue in the future your insurance company doesn't challenge the responsibility of the loss.
> 
> 
> Ok, that was a lot of words, but I hope it helps. Googling plumbing vent diagrams can be helpful. You can see how plumbing works and what kind of vents exist in a home, typically.



I appreciate the fair warning response. That’s sort of what I was looking for in responses. Come to think of it, it seems like I’ve seen in the past the flex “tubing” material that’s used for a bath vent if I’m not mistaken. I’m definitely going to be cautious in what route I take with it. My questions were definitely coming from a position of trying to understand and not be confrontational. Your last response is very valid in that a “simple solution” can lead to big problems if you don’t know what you’re doing. So, it sounds like I need to be very careful when cutting the pvc so that we don’t damage the boot. I’m thinking my handy man guy I normally use will should be equipped for this task. He’ll tell me if not. Been using him for years. He’s an electrician for a large company but does handy man stuff on the side. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zeonstar

FilmMixer said:


> I meant to post this a while back but have been a bit busy.
> 
> Thursday (tomorrow/today already)at 8am PST there will be a Dolby hosted webinar on Atmos.... they will also take questions from the live audience via the chat function.
> 
> If you miss it live it will be online to view in the next few weeks.
> 
> https://register.gotowebinar.com/re...email&utm_campaign=Webinar:+Hear+from+Masters


Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I am attending!


----------



## mrtickleuk

zeonstar said:


> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I am attending!


I hope someone will ask a question about "Printed out" Dolby Atmos tracks, and the other issues people have perceived with Disney's Dolby Atmos output.


----------



## zeonstar

mrtickleuk said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I am attending!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope someone will ask a question about "Printed out" Dolby Atmos tracks, and the other issues people have perceived with Disney's Dolby Atmos output.
Click to expand...

You do it. 🙂


----------



## AYanguas

jsanders said:


> The pre-outs are most likely controlled by the volume knob on your Rx. The chinese LED kits seem to be mostly designed to work with a headphone jack instead of an RCA jack. The RCA jack for consumer audio is .894Vpp with 100Ω to 600Ω impedance. They're designed to drive a 10kΩ load. The headphone jack looks like a 32Ω. The RCA jack simply won't drive such a small load, it can't source enough current.
> 
> Make sure you find one that is designed for use with RCA and not a headphone jack. The other thing you might do is connect them in parallel to your speakers or connect a line converter to your speaker terminals.
> 
> The impedance on your speaker terminals would decrease slightly. Let's say you have 8Ω speakers, and the headphone jack is 32Ω:
> 
> New impedance is (32Ω * 8Ω) / (32Ω + 8Ω) = 6.4Ω
> 
> If you do that btw, your frequency response could change and you would have to do re-do your room correction.


Thank you very much for your advice.

I have bought a DIY kit based on LM3915 IC that is a 10 LED VUmeter, logarithmic 3dB steps, with High Impedance input.

So I think it would be appropriate to sense the voltage from the AVR pre-outs and represent well the high dynamic audio levels with its logarithmic scale.

If it does not work... OK, it's a very cheap Chinese KIT. I would loose my time and gather more experience...


----------



## zeonstar

FilmMixer said:


> I meant to post this a while back but have been a bit busy.
> 
> Thursday (tomorrow/today already)at 8am PST there will be a Dolby hosted webinar on Atmos.... they will also take questions from the live audience via the chat function.
> 
> If you miss it live it will be online to view in the next few weeks.
> 
> https://register.gotowebinar.com/re...email&utm_campaign=Webinar:+Hear+from+Masters



Does anyone know where the replay is for this event?


----------



## Roger Dressler

AYanguas said:


> I have bought a DIY kit based on LM3915 IC that is a 10 LED VUmeter, logarithmic 3dB steps, with High Impedance input.
> 
> So I think it would be appropriate to sense the voltage from the AVR pre-outs and represent well the high dynamic audio levels with its logarithmic scale.


It will work fine with preamp outputs. It will not affect room EQ. If the meter is not sensitive enough for lower volume levels, can use the speaker signals. 

In 2017 I was thinking of putting 4 of those in a box to monitor the height channels, as I have found many comments extolling amazing Atmos effects only to find those channels are silent.  

I already had a 2-ch LED level meter on hand so that displays the top front speaker levels. It's very useful and gets the job done. It sits right under my center speaker so I only use it when checking Atmos mixes.


----------



## priitv8

Roger Dressler said:


> I have never heard of a 5.1 S/PDIF signal carrying PCM. It is always something lossy coded. Right? DD, DTS... The bitrate limit of ~1.5 Mbps is the showstopper.


It can do PCM2.0. Straight off the 44.1/16 CD. And the showstopper is missing copy protection. Light travels fast enough for much higher speeds than 1.5Mbps and fiber networks prove this.


----------



## jsanders

AYanguas said:


> I have bought a DIY kit based on LM3915 IC that is a 10 LED VUmeter, logarithmic 3dB steps, with High Impedance input.
> 
> So I think it would be appropriate to sense the voltage from the AVR pre-outs and represent well the high dynamic audio levels with its logarithmic scale.


Sounds like fun. The LM3915 looks a chip with a bunch of comparators in it to do 3dB steps in voltage as expressed through 20*Log10(x). If you do this through the pre-outs, you may need an op-amp with rails that go up to 20V or so depending on how many of these LM3915s you have daisy chained together. You can adjust the gain of the op-amp to your preferred listening level. If you turn up the volume above the level you tuned your display for, the display will saturate. The good news is that op-amps have very high impedance inputs and the pre-outs will have no problem driving them.

Have fun!


----------



## audiovideoholic

Can someone please link the paper which shows all 24 bed locations by name please?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Roger Dressler

audiovideoholic said:


> Can someone please link the paper which shows all 24 bed locations by name please?


Could you clarify your question? Are you looking for locations or names? To what end, if we may ask?

Even the cinema Atmos format has only 10 bed channels (9.1). The additional speakers have names like Lss1, Lss2... and are spread at even intervals along the walls/ceiling.


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> Can someone please link the paper which shows all 24 bed locations by name please?


Beds are channels that can have objects laid on top of them. LFE is the only channel that is not a bed. The cinema version of Atmos has 9 beds (3 Fronts, 2 Side Surrounds, 2 Rear Surrounds, 2 Top Surrounds), plus LFE channel. The home version of Atmos has 7 beds (3 Front, 2 Sides, 2 Rears), plus LFE channel. 

The home version of Atmos has 34 speaker locations: 24 in the base layer and 10 in the height layer. ALL speaker locations can play object audio but only 7 speaker locations in the base layer (3 Front, 2 Sides, 2 Rears) can play bed channel information. 

All 34 speaker locations and their names are mentioned in the Dolby Atmos Home Theatre Install Guide: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf


----------



## AYanguas

jsanders said:


> Sounds like fun. The LM3915 looks a chip with a bunch of comparators in it to do 3dB steps in voltage as expressed through 20*Log10(x). If you do this through the pre-outs, you may need an op-amp with rails that go up to 20V or so depending on how many of these LM3915s you have daisy chained together. You can adjust the gain of the op-amp to your preferred listening level. If you turn up the volume above the level you tuned your display for, the display will saturate. The good news is that op-amps have very high impedance inputs and the pre-outs will have no problem driving them.
> 
> Have fun!


Well, the LM3915 seems to have an input buffer inside already build with an op-amp. The kit come with an adjustable resistor, I do not know if for the LED brightness or for the reference voltage level.

In any case I will test it, adjust it and will post here with my results. Long wait as the delivery is estimated for more than one month!


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Beds are channels that can have objects laid on top of them. LFE is the only channel that is not a bed. The cinema version of Atmos has 9 beds (3 Fronts, 2 Side Surrounds, 2 Rear Surrounds, 2 Top Surrounds), plus LFE channel.


Dolby 'splaines it like this:


> Up to 10 bed channels (7.1 + 2 overhead beds) and 118 objects. The 128 tracks can be rendered into a maximum of 64 loudspeaker locations.


LFE is one of the bed channels.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> LFE is one of the bed channels.


In that case, what's the difference between a channel and a bed channel?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> In that case, what's the difference between a channel and a bed channel?


Channel is context-sensitive term. If we are talking about channels as in a 5.1 program, all 6 are channels that carry content with a defined destination -- a particular loudspeaker, e.g., Left Front, Right Surround, Subwoofer. Taken together, the 6 channels comprise the complete soundtrack.

If we are talking about Atmos, the content carries bed channels and audio objects. The bed channels are intended for defined loudspeaker destinations, just like other channels. The special aspect of bed channels is that they only comprise the "bed sounds" of the soundtrack, e.g., music, ambience, etc. The rest of the soundtrack is carried as objects. Only when the bed channels are presented together with the objects is the soundtrack complete.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Channel is context-sensitive term. ... If we are talking about Atmos, the content carries bed channels and audio objects. The bed channels are intended for defined loudspeaker destinations, just like other channels. The special aspect of bed channels is that they only comprise the "bed sounds" of the soundtrack, e.g., music, ambience, etc. The rest of the soundtrack is carried as objects. Only when the bed channels are presented together with the objects is the soundtrack complete.


The context in this case was Atmos. By Dolby's description, I was mistaken about the LFE. By your earlier description, maybe not so much.


Roger Dressler said:


> Just guessing, but I think the choice of the term "bed" instead of channel was intended to convey a distinction in use case. In the film sound world for many decades, a channel is the one and only, complete, conveyance of sound to a speaker. Now, in Atmos, the speakers may receive signals from both channels and objects -- in other words, *these "channels" no longer represent the totality of the sound driving the speaker. The function has changed, the name change follows that.*
> 
> The "bed" is composed of the bedrock sound elements -- the music, the ambience, any spatial effects requiring multiple speakers e.g. reverb or decorrelated effects. Even the dialog is commonly in the bed. That's most of the soundtrack -- but not all of it.
> 
> Objects come into play when sounds are positioned or panned to smaller subsets of the bed speaker arrays -- this is the new territory enabled by Atmos that is not possible to achieve with the bed channels alone.
> 
> Perhaps I am grasping for logic where none exists. Wouldn't be the first time...


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> The context in this case was Atmos. By Dolby's description, I was mistaken about the LFE. By your earlier description, maybe not so much.


I fail to see any distinction in my posts wrt LFE...


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> I fail to see any distinction in my posts wrt LFE...


Your earlier guess at the distinction had to do with the totality of the sound driving the speaker. Does the LFE channel have objects overlaid? IF not, is it still a bed? 

Hmmm, maybe that depends on context too. In an Atmos cinema, the main sub(s) behind the screen are fed LFE only (totality of sound driving the speaker). At home, bass management combines LFE with re-directed bass (from channels and objects).


----------



## snookfisher

I just watched a couple of DTS MA 7.1 movies ( 1st MALEFICENT) and (MASTER AND COMANDER) "upconverted" with DTS NEUTRAL X and WOW!!!! IT was the best and most convincing expierience ive had with "object based audio. The first Maleficent was soooo much more engaging with neutral x than the Mistress of evil's atmos soundtrack. everything from sounds from offscreen creatures to pans from back to front...it really was better than any atmos ive heard other than perhaps the atmos demo disc. im not trying to bash atmos or even DTSx ...just wondering if anyone else has had simular experience?


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Your earlier guess at the distinction had to do with the totality of the sound driving the speaker. Does the LFE channel have objects overlaid? IF not, is it still a bed?


Totality referring to hearing the soundtrack in its entirety. Object overlay is not a requirement in order for the LFE channel to be part of the bed.


----------



## MagnumX

audiovideoholic said:


> Can someone please link the paper which shows all 24 bed locations by name please?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I find it both odd and yet not surprising NO ONE actually answered the question you asked (Clearly to anyone that can read you want to know the 24 ear-level speaker names and specifically the paper that shows them), but instead people started fiddling with the wording you used and then argue about it, even though "bed" speakers in HOME Atmos are the ear level speakers and overhead speakers are above. Cinema Atmos uses "bed" terminology differently, but the Home Atmos naming paradigm uses Beds.Subs.Overheads so I don't know WTF the lectures are from the "usual" crowd I don't get along with very well that seems to enjoy talking down to everyone around them, but I'll actually answer your question for you.

The paper you want is located here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ) and the abbreviations in parenthesis):

These are the names and abbreviations (it's all spread out in the paper) of the 24 ear-level speakers (subwoofer excluded):

Starting with the center channel going clockwise:

Center (C)
Right Screen (Rsc) 
Right Center (Rc)
Right (R)
Right Front Wide (Rfw) 
Right Surround (Rs)
Right Surround #1 (Rs1)
Right Surround #2 (Rs2)
Right Rear Surround (Rrs)
Right Rear Surround #1 (Rrs1)
Right Rear Surround #2 (Rrs2)
Right Center Surround (Rcs)
Center Surround (Cs)
Left Center Surround (Lcs)
Left Rear Surround #2 (Lrs2)
Left Rear Surround #1 (Lrs1)
Left Rear Surround (Lrs)
Left Surround #2 (Ls2)
Left Surround #1 (Ls1)
Left Surround (Ls)
Left Front Wide (Lfw)
Left (L)
Left Center (Lc)
Left Screen (Lcs)


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> Beds are channels that can have objects laid on top of them. LFE is the only channel that is not a bed. The cinema version of Atmos has 9 beds (3 Fronts, 2 Side Surrounds, 2 Rear Surrounds, 2 Top Surrounds), plus LFE channel. The home version of Atmos has 7 beds (3 Front, 2 Sides, 2 Rears), plus LFE channel.


Sanjay - minor nitpick, and you could be correct, but where are you getting that home Atmos has 7.1 (8) beds not 9.1 (10)? It seems to me that the clear beds vs objects distinction is basically moot for consumer Atmos since the full Atmos mix (10 beds + up to 118 objects) is converted to 12/14/16 elements in the spatial coding process, and the only part that typically remains a "bed" is the LFE.

My understanding is based on recent discussions about the Dolby Renderer Guide and some new insights it provide, this was a few months back... below are the relevant screenshots from the renderer guide. It explicitly notes that "all beds are transformed to objects ... at predefined canonical locations". And it specifically recommends that "the best results are generally obtained by configuring spatial coding with 11 to 15 output objects and one bed channel for the LFE". When we discussed this, people posted the metadata from Atmos tracks and it corroborated that they were showing 1 bed (LFE) + 11/13/15 objects.

So it seems logical to me that a Top Surround Left/Right beds in the full cinema Atmos mix would convert to "equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations" just the same as the Side Surround Left/Right do. In other words, if you make a theoretical Atmos mix with only the 10 bed elements, and no audio in the remaining 118 slots, and then run that through the encoder to package for home delivery, you would end up with a 7.1.2 mix (1 bed for LFE + 9 fixed location objects which directly correlate to the 9 beds from the cinema mix).


----------



## audiovideoholic

Dang!!! Come on guys I’m sorry I used the word “bed” instead of “base” in regards to the 24 channels that are located on the floor at ear level. No sense in making something more complicated than it has to be ;-). 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

MagnumX said:


> I find it both odd and yet not surprising NO ONE actually answered the question you asked (Clearly to anyone that can read you want to know the 24 ear-level speaker names and specifically the paper that shows them), but instead people started fiddling with the wording you used and then argue about it, even though "bed" speakers in HOME Atmos are the ear level speakers and overhead speakers are above. Cinema Atmos uses "bed" terminology differently, but the Home Atmos naming paradigm uses Beds.Subs.Overheads so I don't know WTF the lectures are from the "usual" crowd I don't get along with very well that seems to enjoy talking down to everyone around them, but I'll actually answer your question for you.
> 
> 
> 
> The paper you want is located here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ) and the abbreviations in parenthesis):
> 
> 
> 
> These are the names and abbreviations (it's all spread out in the paper) of the 24 ear-level speakers (subwoofer excluded):
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with the center channel going clockwise:
> 
> 
> 
> Center (C)
> 
> Right Screen (Rsc)
> 
> Right Center (Rc)
> 
> Right (R)
> 
> Right Front Wide (Rfw)
> 
> Right Surround (Rs)
> 
> Right Surround #1 (Rs1)
> 
> Right Surround #2 (Rs2)
> 
> Right Rear Surround (Rrs)
> 
> Right Rear Surround #1 (Rrs1)
> 
> Right Rear Surround #2 (Rrs2)
> 
> Right Center Surround (Rcs)
> 
> Center Surround (Cs)
> 
> Left Center Surround (Lcs)
> 
> Left Rear Surround #2 (Lrs2)
> 
> Left Rear Surround #1 (Lrs1)
> 
> Left Rear Surround (Lrs)
> 
> Left Surround #2 (Ls2)
> 
> Left Surround #1 (Ls1)
> 
> Left Surround (Ls)
> 
> Left Front Wide (Lfw)
> 
> Left (L)
> 
> Left Center (Lc)
> 
> Left Screen (Lcs)




Lol. Thanks man! Can’t imagine how bad it would have been if I had asked a complicated question eh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

MagnumX said:


> I find it both odd and yet not surprising NO ONE actually answered the question you asked (Clearly to anyone that can read you want to know the 24 ear-level speaker names and specifically the paper that shows them), but instead people started fiddling with the wording you used and then argue about it, even though "bed" speakers in HOME Atmos are the ear level speakers and overhead speakers are above. Cinema Atmos uses "bed" terminology differently, but the Home Atmos naming paradigm uses Beds.Subs.Overheads so I don't know WTF the lectures are from the "usual" crowd I don't get along with very well that seems to enjoy talking down to everyone around them, but I'll actually answer your question for you.
> 
> 
> 
> The paper you want is located here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ) and the abbreviations in parenthesis):
> 
> 
> 
> These are the names and abbreviations (it's all spread out in the paper) of the 24 ear-level speakers (subwoofer excluded):
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with the center channel going clockwise:
> 
> 
> 
> Center (C)
> 
> Right Screen (Rsc)
> 
> Right Center (Rc)
> 
> Right (R)
> 
> Right Front Wide (Rfw)
> 
> Right Surround (Rs)
> 
> Right Surround #1 (Rs1)
> 
> Right Surround #2 (Rs2)
> 
> Right Rear Surround (Rrs)
> 
> Right Rear Surround #1 (Rrs1)
> 
> Right Rear Surround #2 (Rrs2)
> 
> Right Center Surround (Rcs)
> 
> Center Surround (Cs)
> 
> Left Center Surround (Lcs)
> 
> Left Rear Surround #2 (Lrs2)
> 
> Left Rear Surround #1 (Lrs1)
> 
> Left Rear Surround (Lrs)
> 
> Left Surround #2 (Ls2)
> 
> Left Surround #1 (Ls1)
> 
> Left Surround (Ls)
> 
> Left Front Wide (Lfw)
> 
> Left (L)
> 
> Left Center (Lc)
> 
> Left Screen (Lcs)




What am I missing here?

If I count from Front Widths to Right Center Surround I get 8 pairs but in the image it shows 9 pairs. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

audiovideoholic said:


> Dang!!! Come on guys I’m sorry I used the word “bed” instead of “base” in regards to the 24 channels that are located on the floor at ear level. No sense in making something more complicated than it has to be ;-).


You must be new here, this complicated discussion is part of the fun.

You don't have to participate in this side track if you don't want to


----------



## audiovideoholic

MagnumX said:


> I find it both odd and yet not surprising NO ONE actually answered the question you asked (Clearly to anyone that can read you want to know the 24 ear-level speaker names and specifically the paper that shows them), but instead people started fiddling with the wording you used and then argue about it, even though "bed" speakers in HOME Atmos are the ear level speakers and overhead speakers are above. Cinema Atmos uses "bed" terminology differently, but the Home Atmos naming paradigm uses Beds.Subs.Overheads so I don't know WTF the lectures are from the "usual" crowd I don't get along with very well that seems to enjoy talking down to everyone around them, but I'll actually answer your question for you.
> 
> 
> 
> The paper you want is located here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf ) and the abbreviations in parenthesis):
> 
> 
> 
> These are the names and abbreviations (it's all spread out in the paper) of the 24 ear-level speakers (subwoofer excluded):
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with the center channel going clockwise:
> 
> 
> 
> Center (C)
> 
> Right Screen (Rsc)
> 
> Right Center (Rc)
> 
> Right (R)
> 
> Right Front Wide (Rfw)
> 
> Right Surround (Rs)
> 
> Right Surround #1 (Rs1)
> 
> Right Surround #2 (Rs2)
> 
> Right Rear Surround (Rrs)
> 
> Right Rear Surround #1 (Rrs1)
> 
> Right Rear Surround #2 (Rrs2)
> 
> Right Center Surround (Rcs)
> 
> Center Surround (Cs)
> 
> Left Center Surround (Lcs)
> 
> Left Rear Surround #2 (Lrs2)
> 
> Left Rear Surround #1 (Lrs1)
> 
> Left Rear Surround (Lrs)
> 
> Left Surround #2 (Ls2)
> 
> Left Surround #1 (Ls1)
> 
> Left Surround (Ls)
> 
> Left Front Wide (Lfw)
> 
> Left (L)
> 
> Left Center (Lc)
> 
> Left Screen (Lcs)




I think The Left and Right Screen Speakers are hiding in that diagram somewhere on the sides and I am not reading it correctly because I clearly only see 5 total screen speakers from what I can tell. 

Maybe that’s it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

batpig said:


> You must be new here, this complicated discussion is part of the fun.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to participate in this side track if you don't want to




I just don’t get how someone can get caught up in technical terms that one clearly can see that the person asking for help has miss matched them and instead of actually helping them they pretend like they are confused by the question at hand. 

Who does that help?

Obviously I will use the word base level when addressing people on this forum from now on but the ones that made the technical term such a big deal didn’t even bother to help answer the question which brought me here. I thought this was a place to get help and guidance not a place for getting lectured for using an improper term that was far from confusing. 

I’m not butt hurt or anything. Just childish in my opinion. Why not at least help the person at the same time as correcting them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> Totality referring to hearing the soundtrack in its entirety.


OK, I read it as totality of the sound driving the speaker.


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> Can someone please link the paper which shows all 24 bed locations by name please?





sdurani said:


> All 34 speaker locations and their names are mentioned in the Dolby Atmos Home Theatre Install Guide: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf





audiovideoholic said:


> Why not at least help the person at the same time as correcting them?


Linked to the paper that shows all Atmos speaker locations by their name in my initial reply to you.


----------



## audiovideoholic

I might as well put my reasoning behind trying to decipher the diagram in question regarding base layer speakers here in case anyone wants to help my long room situation. 

My room has three rows but am using Cineramax’s Self Seat layout with the MLP being center seat of second row. The third row is being totally ignored for the most part being that it will rarely get any use. 

I am using an Altitude32 so am wanting to optimize all the extra Atmos/DTS-X Pro positions as possible which means that 12 degrees of spacing between channels should be the absolute minimum. 

I can place the Widths in either of the two locations I have lines drawn to in the diagram no problem except the R/L speakers and closer Width placement option will place them closer than 12 degrees. The location below the door is 55 degrees and the position above the door is 65 degrees so thinking about discarding the position above the door since the angles are better if I only use the position below the door for Widths. 

I can use the extra surround 1 and 2 channels for the other locations but wasn’t sure what I would label these two locations if I kept them? I see 9 pairs of speakers going clockwise starting with Widths and stopping directly behind the listener before reaching the Center Surround location but the wording for these channels does line up with the diagram since it only has 5 screen speakers. 

Can the Side Surround 1 and 2 options be placed forward or rearward of Side Surround or are they locked into set positions angled greater than 90-110?












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> These are the names and abbreviations (it's all spread out in the paper) of the 24 *ear-level* speakers (subwoofer excluded):


I like what you did there


----------



## audiovideoholic

sdurani said:


> Linked to the paper that shows all Atmos speaker locations by their name in my initial reply to you.




That paper does not have their locations labeled on the diagram. 

I posted above about it though. 

It shows a 24.1.10 diagram but when it mentions the extra channels that can be used it contradicts its diagram. 

I’m wanting to know what channels forward of Side Surrounds can be used and how many basically?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## batpig

audiovideoholic said:


> I just don’t get how someone can get caught up in technical terms that one clearly can see that the person asking for help has miss matched them and instead of actually helping them they pretend like they are confused by the question at hand.
> 
> Who does that help?


Sorry, as I mentioned this became a side discussion and frankly I wasn't addressing your question anymore. I was just nerding out on my own path, for my own enjoyment.


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> If I count from Front Widths to Right Center Surround I get 8 pairs but in the image it shows 9 pairs.





audiovideoholic said:


> I think The Left and Right Screen Speakers are hiding in that diagram somewhere on the sides and I am not reading it correctly because I clearly only see 5 total screen speakers from what I can tell.


Should be 7 speakers across the front. Think of the Atmos base layer as having its 4 corners defined by Front & Rear speaker pairs. Midway between the Front & Rear pairs are the Sides. Mid-way between the Front pair is the Centre. Mid-way between the Rear pair is the Center Surround. Now place 2 speakers between each of those locations. That's what the Atmos renderer sees.


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> That paper does not have their locations labeled on the diagram.


Not on the diagram at the beginning of the paper, but the second half of the paper gives speaker names and angular locations. The diagram is misleading anyway (Fronts are where the Wides should be).


----------



## MagnumX

audiovideoholic said:


> That paper does not have their locations labeled on the diagram.
> 
> I posted above about it though.
> 
> It shows a 24.1.10 diagram but when it mentions the extra channels that can be used it contradicts its diagram.
> 
> I’m wanting to know what channels forward of Side Surrounds can be used and how many basically?


It also shows Side Surround #1 BEHIND the side surrounds in the 11.1.8 diagram. I've seen that in that position before. The extra position pages shows it in front of the side surrounds between them and the front wides. Where it shows it in the 11.1.8 diagram is the side surround #2 speaker. Dolby doesn't seem very intent on showing the full home Atmos layout (possibly because no one but Trinnov supports it and they have their own manuals). I find it very haphazard on Dolby's part, really. I never know whether to call my extra side surround speakers side surround #1 or #2 . If made outside the encoder (i.e. Matrixed or Pro Logic Steering), you could call front wides side surround #1 if you wanted to since you can set it up in that location and skip front wides (I think Trinnov requires front wides before even allowing Side Surround #1 , however). 

Dolby's "object" system isn't really quite what they want it to seem, in my opinion. The promise of objects defining surround instead of speaker channels isn't quite what I expected when I first heard about it. In reality, it just uses 50% points between speaker pairs in the "renderer" more or less the same as DTS does with its Neural X enhancements and its own optional 'objects'. In other words, it has a FIXED number of speaker channels available even in its maxed out home configuration (34.1), some of which have to be present for others to work. If it were truly independent of "channels", there wouldn't need to be fixed limits on the number of channels a high-end processor could use. It could add as many as the processor could handle, automatically panning sound to those speakers when the object coordinates approached those locations! It CANNOT do that. You have to actually have certain speakers FIRST before you can define other locations (like surround #1 and surround#2 ). It and DTS have a lot more in common than it might appear at first do the marketing nonsense and fixed layout angles that certain people on hear take so seriously, it's rather ridiculous, especially since off-screen surround sounds have absolutely no visual reference and the automatic down-mixing/folding puts objects FAR *FAR* away from their intended locations. 

For instance, that's why it doesn't matter one WHIT in Atmos whether you call 2 speakers directly over your couch "Top Middle" or "Top Front" or "Top Rear" or even "Front Height" or "Rear Height" because it will output the EXACT SAME RESULT regardless!!! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. You can verify it yourself with the Atmos demos and changing two connected overheads to any setting you want. It will move the front height sounds to the rear height location if that's all you have available! It will NOT move them into the 'bed' (ear level) channels (DTS will attempt to simulate those locations so in a way it's more advanced, IMO. I mean think about it. The lower bed channels (particularly if they're located at the screen center height behind the screen) are MUCH CLOSER to the front height location than the rear height location, but Dolby places those sounds in the rear height location as far back behind you as it can be (in my room that would be 16 feet behind me instead of 8 feet in front of me). How is THAT an accurate "render" of the "object" ? It's just placing front height sounds in the rear height speakers. That's not very impressive at all, IMO. 

DTS at least makes some meager attempt to place objects where they're supposed to be using combinations of other speakers with Neural X. That's closer to a real object render, IMO and it will do it even if the DTS soundtrack doesn't have any actual "objects" in it! What is a panning mix of channels, but a matrices of panning locations that can be mapped out just like an object can be mapped? Talking to 'some' people on here you'd think Dolby invented a moon rocket or something. It's a hodge podge. The end result is no better than DTS; some might say WORSE given the completely inaccurate mapping when few overheads are used.

The real question is SCALING. Atmos had an advantage (if you had an AVR that could do >11 channels or a Trinnov) for awhile, but with DTS:X Pro, I'd say DTS has the advantage, overall since it has more interesting speaker mapping locations and it can use them ALL on a Trinnov (e.g. Center Height between the front height speakers like Auro-3D has or the so-called "Voice of God" for direct overhead centered sound that's locked in place for off-axis seats which Atmos absolutely CANNOT do). Again, it can use these speakers with no objects in the mix whatsoever too. Dolby can't do squat with print-out mixes and their upmixer doesn't even use individual overhead speakers just a massive L/R array whereas DTS:X Pro's Neural X can use all 32.2 speakers even with regular 5.1 soundtracks! Dolby may be leading in market share, but DTS has the better system at this point. It can actually use more "objects" at the same time than Dolby's home system as well (if any soundtracks would actually make use of them).

But listening to some on here, you'd think Dolby invented Swiss Cheese.... 

Personally, I think the absolute BEST system from a technical standpoint at this point is the cinematic AUROMAX system since by having 3 full stereo layers, it can handle just above ear level straight up the wall to the ceiling 3rd layer without any gaps, whereas Atmos has only two layers so in a cinema with a really tall ceiling, the side surrounds have to be very high above your head to blend seamlessly with the ceiling speakers and the brain isn't really great at telling 30 feet above your head from 50 feet above your head. In other words, Atmos works better at home as you can achieve a full ear level to ceiling effect there, although the thunder never really sounds like it's up in the sky (10 feet isn't 10,000 feet even with poor overhead locating of the ears/brain). 

They could fix that, of course by using binaural sound effects in the system (e.g. Play a binaural thunderstorm recording over your Atmos speaker system in multi-channel stereo or even Neural X (heck you don't even need overheads; it will sound overhead on a 5.1/6.1/7.1 system in multi-channel stereo mode). It will sound like REAL thunder, not thunder 10 feet over your head ("toy thunder"). They could use the same technique to get floor level effects without floor level speakers. Just send binaural recorded effects as 'large objects' in the system and they will image high or low based on the binaural clues rather than the actual speaker position. This is easily tested (I have a bunch of binaural recordings and have fiddled with them with 6.1 and 11.1.6. Oddly, they sound very similar on both systems).


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Should be 7 speakers across the front. Think of the Atmos base layer as having its 4 corners defined by Front & Rear speaker pairs. Midway between the Front & Rear pairs are the Sides. Mid-way between the Front pair is the Centre. Mid-way between the Rear pair is the Center Surround. Now place 2 speakers between each of those locations. That's what the Atmos renderer sees.


This isn't really an issue in the real world, but it's always bugged me that this layout has 7 speakers across the front, when even cinema-sized screens have no more than 5 (as with 70mm, or SDDS 8-channel mixes). Likewise, it bugs me that they include a Centre back when the practice of utilizing a single Centre Back was dropped long ago due to the weird psychoacoustic effects of having a mono back surround. 

I get that no one would likely implement all 24 base speakers, but I find it annoying that if you did you'd have these sort of nonsensical speaker placements.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> This isn't really an issue in the real world, but it's always bugged me that this layout has 7 speakers across the front, when even cinema-sized screens have no more than 5 (as with 70mm, or SDDS 8-channel mixes). Likewise, it bugs me that they include a Centre back when the practice of utilizing a single Centre Back was dropped long ago due to the weird psychoacoustic effects of having a mono back surround.


I don't think the 24-speaker rendering assumption of the base layer was designed with any of those considerations in mind. They just seemed to pick the number of speakers that gave them enough spatial resolution, then divided it up evenly. So it's not that the home version of Atmos has 7 speakers across the front, it has 7 speakers in every cardinal direction (corner speakers overlapping). The number of speakers used in cinema, screen size, our human hearing, etc., don't appear to be factors.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Sanjay - minor nitpick, and you could be correct, but where are you getting that home Atmos has 7.1 (8) beds not 9.1 (10)?


From the Atmos SDK, which described it as a hybrid format: 7.1 channels + up to 16 objects. It was differentiated from the cinema version by the number of objects and 2 optional height channels. This jibed with what FilmMixer posted, the only difference being that he thought there were up to 20 objects. That was all contradicted by the Atmos encoding guide.


> When we discussed this, people posted the metadata from Atmos tracks and it corroborated that they were showing 1 bed (LFE) + 11/13/15 objects.


OK, the home version of Atmos has 1 bed. If the LFE is a channel in non-Atmos tracks but a bed in Atmos tracks, what is the difference between channel and bed?


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> I don't think the 24-speaker rendering assumption of the base layer was designed with any of those considerations in mind. They just seemed to pick the number of speakers that gave them enough spatial resolution, then divided it up evenly. So it's not that the home version of Atmos has 7 speakers across the front, it has 7 speakers in every cardinal direction (corner speakers overlapping). The number of speakers used in cinema, screen size, our human hearing, etc., don't appear to be factors.


There is a certain logic to their approach, but it falls apart when you try to, you know, build a home theatre. No one wants their L/R speakers in the corner of the room, they want them behind their screen.


----------



## galonzo

Okay guys, here's my dilemma: 

Attached is a crude layout of my 5.1.4 setup, where I have already been enjoying in-ceiling TRs as depicted (~45° from the MLP), and in-ceiling TFs that are currently not depicted, but are exactly in the ideal TM location, just forward of the MLP (levels slightly lowered to get a better TF "feel", MLP dead-center of the seating area):








I ordered these to replace the TRs, and my thinking was to move the better-quality TRs to the newly-depicted TF locations (in-ceiling), however, now I'm thinking that since the TFs will be about 30° from the MLP, maybe it would be better to place the new ones there instead, as they are angled 15°? 

Is my thinking flawed, or should I put the better speakers in the new TF positions? 

Any feedback is appreciated.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> No one wants their L/R speakers in the corner of the room, they want them behind their screen.


Those are rendering assumptions, not speaker placement recommendations. You can place your L/R speakers anywhere you want, they don't even have to be against the front wall. Just understand that their physical locations define the front corners of the base layer. Meaning that no objects can be rendered left or right of them, or forward of them. Same with the Rear speakers. Where ever you put them in your room, those locations define the back corners of the base layer. No rendering outside those locations, only inward.


----------



## niterida

dschulz said:


> There is a certain logic to their approach, but it falls apart when you try to, you know, build a home theatre. No one wants their L/R speakers in the corner of the room, they want them behind their screen.


 I have an AT screen and I have my L&R outside the screen as it sounded much, much better. It allowed me to place them at the preferred 30/60deg equilateral triangle position for better 'sound' and being outside the screen seemed to give a more natural placement for discrete sounds, especially those off-screen in the image.


----------



## niterida

galonzo said:


> Okay guys, here's my dilemma:
> 
> Attached is a crude layout of my 5.1.4 setup, where I have already been enjoying in-ceiling TRs as depicted (~45° from the MLP), and in-ceiling TFs that are currently not depicted, but are exactly in the ideal TM location, just forward of the MLP (levels slightly lowered to get a better TF "feel", MLP dead-center of the seating area):
> View attachment 2723428
> 
> 
> I ordered these to replace the TRs, and my thinking was to move the better-quality TRs to the newly-depicted TF locations (in-ceiling), however, now I'm thinking that since the TFs will be about 30° from the MLP, maybe it would be better to place the new ones there instead, as they are angled 15°?
> 
> Is my thinking flawed, or should I put the better speakers in the new TF positions?
> 
> Any feedback is appreciated.



I would put the angled ones at TF - the further away a speaker is the more important it is to angle them towards the listener.


----------



## niterida

I did some actual testing today with my own system. I have 4 bookshelf speakers mounted on the ceiling and suddenly realised the mounting brackets allowed me to rotate the speakers in any direction. So I pointed them all straight down. Yes I know they don't have the same dispersion as a ceiling speaker, so I rotated them so the 'horizontal' dispersion was 'aimed' at the (adjusted for new height of speaker face) MLP while the speaker was still pointing straight down.
I then powered off the amp so that only the heights were playing from the AVR and played Kraftwerks Atmos Bluray.
It sounded really good - and the objects were still whizzing around as and where they should. I would be happy with that if it was my Atmos system I thought.
Then I pointed the speakers directly at MLP and replayed the same tracks. OMG what a difference. The objects were still whizzing around as and where they should but they were much more defined and seemed to follow a distinct path, rather than just being "up there in that general direction" with the down facing speakers.
Also the general sound was improved with much more clarity and definition - I guess that would be expected since I was now listening on-axis.

Anyway the moral of this story is that height speakers aimed at MLP are far superior to down-firing speakers aimed at the dog lying on the floor


----------



## audiovideoholic

batpig said:


> Sorry, as I mentioned this became a side discussion and frankly I wasn't addressing your question anymore. I was just nerding out on my own path, for my own enjoyment.




It’s all good. I have thick skin and assume you do as well. We all are here because we love this stuff so we also learn to deal with each other’s quirks at times being that we all have them too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

sdurani said:


> Should be 7 speakers across the front. Think of the Atmos base layer as having its 4 corners defined by Front & Rear speaker pairs. Midway between the Front & Rear pairs are the Sides. Mid-way between the Front pair is the Centre. Mid-way between the Rear pair is the Center Surround. Now place 2 speakers between each of those locations. That's what the Atmos renderer sees.




Forgive me if this has been answered later in the thread as I am reading I am responding in order so....

That is exactly how I understand the four corners to be, the centers to be, and thought that’s how the extra side surround could be used. But what about using two Side Surround 1/2 channels forward of “Side Surround”? The 24.1.10 diagram shows two pairs forward of the mid point and that is what would fit my room/seating the best? I would like to avoid any arraying which is why I’m so interested in the proper 24.1.10 layout. It’s not that I want to use all 24 base channels it’s that I would like to use those that appear forward in the diagrams. 










I could use the Rear Side Surrounds after the mid point in my room because I’m ignoring the last row. Notice I used the rear corners for my rear L,C,R because it fit my room well in this configuration. It also fits with the rendered boundaries so a plus in my opinion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## galonzo

Thanks for the reassurance, @niterida , now I'm contemplating ordering another pair of the 15° in-ceilings to replace the existing down-firing ones


----------



## Rich 63

niterida said:


> I did some actual testing today with my own system. I have 4 bookshelf speakers mounted on the ceiling and suddenly realised the mounting brackets allowed me to rotate the speakers in any direction. So I pointed them all straight down. Yes I know they don't have the same dispersion as a ceiling speaker, so I rotated them so the 'horizontal' dispersion was 'aimed' at the (adjusted for new height of speaker face) MLP while the speaker was still pointing straight down.
> I then powered off the amp so that only the heights were playing from the AVR and played Kraftwerks Atmos Bluray.
> It sounded really good - and the objects were still whizzing around as and where they should. I would be happy with that if it was my Atmos system I thought.
> Then I pointed the speakers directly at MLP and replayed the same tracks. OMG what a difference. The objects were still whizzing around as and where they should but they were much more defined and seemed to follow a distinct path, rather than just being "up there in that general direction" with the down facing speakers.
> Also the general sound was improved with much more clarity and definition - I guess that would be expected since I was now listening on-axis.
> 
> Anyway the moral of this story is that height speakers aimed at MLP are far superior to down-firing speakers aimed at the dog lying on the floor


.

Just finished the you tube series by home audio guru I think. That was his point as well. He doesn't agree with in ceiling speakers. Location is often a compromise due to structural issues amongst others. His feeling which I agree with is that actual enclosed speakers are far more customizable and are often cheaper. 
I run 5.4.2 and I used an old set of small bookshelfs as my heights for cost purposes when I first setup thinking that I would replace when funds were there. That has never happened because the bookshelfs work great. 
They are mounted on the wall but right against the ceiling. They work very well. In fact because I'm in a basement my speakers are mounted at 6ft9from center of speaker. Not ideal but the fact that they are mounted the way they are allowed me to aim them almost across my head angled slightly down. This had the effect of raising my height sound and seperating them better from the bed channels. I also aimed them a few degrees to the left and right of each other thus widening the sound plane. Plus I feel because they are bouncing some sound of the opposing walls that it is dispersing the height info better. The end result is fantastic.
Rich


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> But what about using two Side Surround 1/2 channels forward of “Side Surround”? The 24.1.10 diagram shows two pairs forward of the mid point and that is what would fit my room/seating the best?


Side Surrounds are the midpoints, so the two pairs forward of them are Side Surround 1 and Wides (the latter being the pair closer to the Fronts). Side Surround 2 is rearward of Side Surround.


> I would like to avoid any arraying which is why I’m so interested in the proper 24.1.10 layout. It’s not that I want to use all 24 base channels it’s that I would like to use those that appear forward in the diagrams.


The home version of Atmos was supposed to share an aspect of the cinema version when it came to arraying surround channels. The original idea was that each Side channel would be arrayed to up to 3 Side speakers (SS1, SS, SS2), while objects would be able to move through the array, panning from speaker to speaker. That never happened. Turns out that Side channel audio only goes to one pair of speaker (SS), while the other two pairs (SS1, SS2) only get object audio. So arraying is not part of home Atmos. 

Looking at your speaker placement diagram, the Wides appear too close to the Fronts to have distinct separation, especially considering how far back your main listening position is. With that in mind, I would place the Wides just rearward of the door, so that they are clearly separated from the Fronts and do a better job of plugging the gap between the Fronts and Sides. I would place the Sides between the first two rows (slightly forward of the sweet spot for better envelopment) and keep the Rears in the back corners of the room. 

BTW, what are the dimensions of your room?


----------



## audiovideoholic

sdurani said:


> Side Surrounds are the midpoints, so the two pairs forward of them are Side Surround 1 and Wides (the latter being the pair closer to the Fronts). Side Surround 2 is rearward of Side Surround. The home version of Atmos was supposed to share an aspect of the cinema version when it came to arraying surround channels. The original idea was that each Side channel would be arrayed to up to 3 Side speakers (SS1, SS, SS2), while objects would be able to move through the array, panning from speaker to speaker. That never happened. Turns out that Side channel audio only goes to one pair of speaker (SS), while the other two pairs (SS1, SS2) only get object audio. So arraying is not part of home Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at your speaker placement diagram, the Wides appear too close to the Fronts to have distinct separation, especially considering how far back your main listening position is. With that in mind, I would place the Wides just rearward of the door, so that they are clearly separated from the Fronts and do a better job of plugging the gap between the Fronts and Sides. I would place the Sides between the first two rows (slightly forward of the sweet spot for better envelopment) and keep the Rears in the back corners of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, what are the dimensions of your room?




You are missing what I’m saying....

Look at the diagram. It’s the only diagram for 24.1.10 or 24.anything released by Dolby. They are all exactly like this one. 










It shows 2 channel pairs between the Widths and Side Surrounds. 

Unless you are saying that the side Surround is less than 90 degrees in this diagram?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> It shows 2 channel pairs between the Widths and Side Surrounds.


As I said earlier:


sdurani said:


> The diagram is misleading anyway (Fronts are where the Wides should be).


The front wall should have 7 speakers: Left, Left Centre, Left Screen, Centre, Right Screen, Right Centre, Right. The diagram shows only 5 speakers on the front wall. That means speakers 6 & 7 (Left & Right) are the first pair of speakers shown on the side wall in that diagram. The Fronts are where the Wides should be. Two pairs later are the Sides directly to the sides (±90°) of the main listening position (blue dot). The diagram is misleading. Refer to the diagram I posted earlier or the linked-to Atmos install guide to confirm that there is only one pair of speakers (SS1) between the Wides and the Sides.


----------



## audiovideoholic

Here are the two but mine includes the names so is more clear how Dolby is pulling wool over the eyes. They don’t have Screen Surrounds behind the screen and instead have an extra pair of channel locations forward of 90* so the diagram looks pleasing being that human perception is much greater forward of one’s ears. They have placed more channels rearward of the listeners than forward which makes zero sense. 



















I understand all that really matters is envelopment but if we can’t truly place speakers where Dolby claims we can according to their diagram then that is just down right lying. Maybe the Trinnov can do it, I don’t know, but I’m positive chip based units won’t be able to magically know where the speakers are located unless they have preassigned location names for general areas. 

So I’m betting they just made the diagram spitting all the main coordinates by 15 degrees and said the heck with it being accurate with relevance to those forward locations which doesn’t make much sense being that the more forward locations provide the better spaciousness. 

Maybe the Trinnov and other non chip processors can assign Side Surround 1 and 2 anywhere in the room which would address this issue since it mainly affects rooms with more than 2-3 rows. My angles would be really pushing the envelope since they are spaced by more than 12.5* between all of them. I can move the risers so that issue will be more in line with proper spacing no big deal but don’t want to mess with it if Dolby’s diagram isn’t even possible to recreate with the Trinnov or near future processors. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

sdurani said:


> As I said earlier: The front wall should have 7 speakers: Left, Left Centre, Left Screen, Centre, Right Screen, Right Centre, Right. The diagram shows only 5 speakers on the front wall. That means speakers 6 & 7 (Left & Right) are the first pair of speakers shown on the side wall in that diagram. The Fronts are where the Wides should be. Two pairs later are the Sides directly to the sides (±90°) of the main listening position (blue dot). The diagram is misleading. Refer to the diagram I posted earlier or the linked-to Atmos install guide to confirm that there is only one pair of speakers (SS1) between the Wides and the Sides.




That makes no sense. I’m ok with trying to have faith in Dolby and back them but those angles do not match with how you are portraying the layout. 

The Screen Surrounds are directly beside the Center, then L/R Center, and then L/R all the way out to 30* from Center but the L/R must never be anywhere near 70* or 140* triangle which is how you’re saying that diagram is laid out. That just doesn’t make sense. 

Overlay it like I have done and you will clearly see that they have eliminated a pair of screen speakers and added an extra set of surrounds between the Widths and Side Surrounds. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

And not to mention where they have the Tops aligned from front to rear with the L/R and L/R Rear Surrounds. And the Tops also start where the Widths are located on the side walls. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

Oops


----------



## ccool96

audiovideoholic said:


> And not to mention where they have the Tops aligned from front to rear with the L/R and L/R Rear Surrounds. And the Tops also start where the Widths are located on the side walls.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




Here is the reference Dolby Atmos positions in the Trinnov. I posted in response to your earlier post in the Trinnov thread. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> The Screen Surrounds are directly beside the Center, then L/R Center, and then L/R all the way out to 30* from Center but the L/R must never be anywhere near 70* or 140* triangle which is how you’re saying that diagram is laid out. That just doesn’t make sense.


Atmos doesn't use angles when rendering. So if you are looking at the angles in the diagram, it won't make sense. If you are instead counting the number of speakers, then it is apparent that the L/R speakers are shown on the side walls, not the front wall.


----------



## audiovideoholic

ccool96 said:


> Here is the reference Dolby Atmos positions in the Trinnov. I posted in response to your earlier post in the Trinnov thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Yep. That layout is much better than Dolby’s crazy one. 

Thanks Cool! I didn’t get notification. I posted there in hopes of finding if SS2 can be used in any arbitrary place?

I haven’t toyed with my unit at all. Are those channel location icons locked into place or do they appear after running the mic?

Do you know if SS2 can be moved forward of SS? It could be tested easily enough if someone has the channels needed in order to use SS2 I assume. I wouldn’t think one would need anything else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ccool96

audiovideoholic said:


> Yep. That layout is much better than Dolby’s crazy one.
> 
> Thanks Cool! I didn’t get notification. I posted there in hopes of finding if SS2 can be used in any arbitrary place?
> 
> I haven’t toyed with my unit at all. Are those channel location icons locked into place or do they appear after running the mic?
> 
> Do you know if SS2 can be moved forward of SS? It could be tested easily enough if someone has the channels needed in order to use SS2 I assume. I wouldn’t think one would need anything else.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




So those are the reference positions. You would want to place them as close to those positions as possible. 

SS2 can not be relocated to a different position. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ccool96

Here is a couple other quick layouts to show all the Atmos Heights and Tops as well. 














Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

audiovideoholic said:


> Do you know if SS2 can be moved forward of SS? It could be tested easily enough if someone has the channels needed in order to use SS2 I assume. I wouldn’t think one would need anything else.



You can just put the SS in that position and SS2 where SS would be if you need more in front (or rather that would indicate your listening seat/couch is aligned with SS2 rather than SS). Atmos renders in a straight line order. The names are abritrary as are the angles in a way (it's not like the sounds are out of order if your angles are somewhat off; Dolby even shows a range for the locations for this reason), since with more than one row of seats, there can only be one row of seats that sit with SS at 90 degrees anyway (I have SS behind my front row in-between it and the 2nd row, for example; the SS are at the mid-point of the room itself rather than orientated around the listener). 

You see, Atmos is really meant to be a ROOM BASED orientation (L/R at front, Rear at back and SS at mid-point and the extra speakers at 50% midpoints in-between), but Dolby knows most people will only have 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 and maybe 7.1.4 at most so they draw their diagrams around what they think is a common one row layout instead of the room like the cinema version is expected to match. But the 24.1.10 layout is a 360 circle arc meant to be divided into speakers that are mid-points (50%) from each other. The layout is supposed to be fixed; the couch(es) (or individual seats) can go ANYWHERE in the room. The perspective changes by where you sit, but the sounds move around the room more or less the same no matter what (theoretically at least; in the real world off-axis seats end up with precedent issues since Atmos has not center height or top surround speakers to anchor the middle) and sitting really close to any single speaker can skew things as well, but the more speakers you have, the less pronounced the precedent effect will be off-axis. With only one seat in a small room centered, you can get away with just 4 speakers (quad arrangement) on the floor/ear level and it should phantom image everywhere it needs to. 

That is actually the basis of Auro-3D's 8.1 configuration (9.1 adds a center speaker, 10.1 adds TS and 11.1 adds CH). Auro-3D 8.1-11.1 was actually designed to be compatible with Dolby's 5.1 layout. Auro-3D 13.1 was designed around Dolby's 7.1 layout. Their problem was that the extra CH/TS speakers made for a bad combo with 11.1 limited AVRs. They seemed to come up with an 11.1 compatible layout that used 9.1+RS (i.e. 7.1 based without CH/TS) as an alternative (the test disc has this as a signal test mode, for example), but for some reason it didn't end up in the firmware and/or D&M never updated the firmware to use it. They seem dead in the water now anyway. People act like Auro-3D wasn't trying to be Dolby layout compatible, but it was always based on the most common surround format used in people's homes, which is 5.1. Their miscalculation seems to be that is the common "low-end" config when their product is only sold in higher level (mid-priced) AVR equipment. There people wanted rear surround support. That along with their seeming inability to get the Blu-Ray manufacturers to include an Auro soundtrack on the disc (a bit ironic since it really doesn't use up that much more space than a typical 7.1 soundtrack so they could probably fit both Atmos and Auro on many discs if they left out all those foreign language tracks). 

Auro-3D is probably unnecessary at this point, though since there isn't much difference between the Auro and Atmos (or X) soundtracks when played back on the same 5.1 based speaker setup (tested here against the Atmos versions limiting my room to half length as 5.1.4 (plus matrixed FW) the Atmos titles were almost identical to the Auro-3D ones like that. DTS:X (particularly the Pro version) can use the Auro speaker layout anyway so it can leverage both room layouts or even a combination of them. The extra speakers really just anchor off-axis seats in practice, IMO. It's not like Atmos can't image something at the CH/TS locations if you're sitting in the center seat(s). Many Atmos titles have objects move across those locations as a matter of course as do DTS:X titles. DTS:X, however can use CH/TS speakers and render them directly (as long as you're below the 11-channel limit or have the Pro iteration with no limit). Some might even prefer to use Neural X with Atmos base soundtracks to make use of those speakers. It's theoretically possible Neural X may give a better overhead impression from some Atmos base soundtracks with Neural X than Atmos itself (given many Atmos movies make poor use of overheads). The worst thing about Auro-3D not gaining traction is they really supported nice binaural-like music recordings with fixed dual-quad microphone stands. This renders the performance in your room exactly like you're there. Atmos "could" make music recordings that way, theoretically, but given they don't want to push fixed channel configurations, they don't really want to push fixed channel recordings. DTS:X, on the other hand could easily handle the same Auro-3D style music recordings as it does support fixed channel layouts in addition to objects. Neural X will use more speakers even with fixed channel recordings and thus the "binaural-like" reality effect would be preserved even with higher count speakers in operation.


----------



## batpig

audiovideoholic said:


> I would like to avoid any arraying which is why I’m so interested in the proper 24.1.10 layout. It’s not that I want to use all 24 base channels it’s that I would like to use those that appear forward in the diagrams.


I want to reiterate something Sanjay said, just in case you blew past it on the hunt to make your primary point. 

The surround info will not be arrayed across multiple speakers like it is in commercial cinema, with objects being treated separately and allowed to pass through individual speakers within the array. 

The vast majority of the ear level sounds in Atmos (with some mixes, in fact, it will be 100% of the ear level sounds) will behave exactly like a 7.1 track. One speaker on each side wall (the "side" surrounds) will make noise during the movie, even if you have 4 speakers lining the side wall (FW > SS1 > SS > SS2). 

The reason I mention this is because your diagram depicted a multi-row theater, and if the goal is to have an even surround field across both rows, it's important to be aware that you're going to have a single speaker on each side wall producing all the side surround effects. So if the Ls/Rs speakers are positioned adjacent to one row, they will be way out of position for the other row (and vice versa) and it will be impossible to balance the sound between the two rows. Especially if you've gone to all direct-firing monopole speakers to adhere to Atmos "specs" vs the old diffuse / wide dispersion surrounds that were typical previously.

Most people assume the "channel" part of the mix will array across those side surrounds, spreading the sound and providing even coverage across the rows. Arraying the side surrounds for multiple rows was common pre-Atmos, but now instead of those 2-3 side surround speakers all putting out surround info, with an Atmos mix (with no arrays) only 1 of the 2-3 speakers is producing it (worse coverage / more hot-spotting).

Trinnov themselves recommends arraying some side surrounds + top surrounds if you want even coverage across multiple rows, specifically because of this unfortunate behavior. If you installed a 15.1.10 setup and popped in that 4K + Atmos remaster of Saving Private Ryan, you might be surprised to discover only 9 of your 25 speakers make any noise. The extra 16 speakers are only used for dynamic objects, but if the mixer / studio decides to "print" the mix to a specific channel layout, tough luck

If you think "Dolby was pulling the wool over your eyes" because you took a simple marketing diagram too literally and couldn't reconcile a rectangle vs a circle so you decided "THIS INJUSTICE WILL NOT STAND, time to raise hell on an internet forum".... imagine how the affront of realizing only 9 out of 25 speakers are active would feel to you!! Thankfully Trinnovs are magical things and they have workarounds, for example they let you save different presets so you can switch on the fly between arrayed and non-arrayed setups.

Condescension and (well-earned) snark aside, can I ask a serious question? You are talking about a Trinnov setup with a lot of speakers and what looks like a really, really nice room. So I can only assume you've got a healthy budget. Can I ask why you are not working with a professional calibrator who is an expert with Trinnovs and knows the answers to these questions? It seems odd to me that you are making this kind of investment and yet determinedly seeking precise answers FROM STRANGERS ON AN INTERNET FORUM, when you can clearly afford to at minimum to consult with a world-class audio calibrator like Adam Pelz or Curt Hoyt who knows Trinnovs inside/out and would work closely with you to produce the desired result. 

I'm not (well, only partially) trying to be a jerk about it, but I sincerely think you'd be happier working with a pro who is a literal expert in what we are discussing, someone who could be your consultant and guide and ensure you get the results you are looking for. Even if you're a DIY guy who doesn't want to contract out the whole project to an integrator/installer, you could at least leverage their vast experience and detailed knowledge as a consultant/advisory basis. 

If you already are doing so, forgive me for ass-u-me-ing, but I also ass-u-me that if you had Adam or Curt already on staff as the Trinnov calibrator, you wouldn't be asking these questions here.


----------



## audiovideoholic

MagnumX said:


> You can just put the SS in that position and SS2 where SS would be if you need more in front (or rather that would indicate your listening seat/couch is aligned with SS2 rather than SS). Atmos renders in a straight line order. The names are abritrary as are the angles in a way (it's not like the sounds are out of order if your angles are somewhat off; Dolby even shows a range for the locations for this reason), since with more than one row of seats, there can only be one row of seats that sit with SS at 90 degrees anyway (I have SS behind my front row in-between it and the 2nd row, for example; the SS are at the mid-point of the room itself rather than orientated around the listener).
> 
> 
> 
> You see, Atmos is really meant to be a ROOM BASED orientation (L/R at front, Rear at back and SS at mid-point and the extra speakers at 50% midpoints in-between), but Dolby knows most people will only have 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 and maybe 7.1.4 at most so they draw their diagrams around what they think is a common one row layout instead of the room like the cinema version is expected to match. But the 24.1.10 layout is a 360 circle arc meant to be divided into speakers that are mid-points (50%) from each other. The layout is supposed to be fixed; the couch(es) (or individual seats) can go ANYWHERE in the room. The perspective changes by where you sit, but the sounds move around the room more or less the same no matter what (theoretically at least; in the real world off-axis seats end up with precedent issues since Atmos has not center height or top surround speakers to anchor the middle) and sitting really close to any single speaker can skew things as well, but the more speakers you have, the less pronounced the precedent effect will be off-axis. With only one seat in a small room centered, you can get away with just 4 speakers (quad arrangement) on the floor/ear level and it should phantom image everywhere it needs to.
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually the basis of Auro-3D's 8.1 configuration (9.1 adds a center speaker, 10.1 adds TS and 11.1 adds CH). Auro-3D 8.1-11.1 was actually designed to be compatible with Dolby's 5.1 layout. Auro-3D 13.1 was designed around Dolby's 7.1 layout. Their problem was that the extra CH/TS speakers made for a bad combo with 11.1 limited AVRs. They seemed to come up with an 11.1 compatible layout that used 9.1+RS (i.e. 7.1 based without CH/TS) as an alternative (the test disc has this as a signal test mode, for example), but for some reason it didn't end up in the firmware and/or D&M never updated the firmware to use it. They seem dead in the water now anyway. People act like Auro-3D wasn't trying to be Dolby layout compatible, but it was always based on the most common surround format used in people's homes, which is 5.1. Their miscalculation seems to be that is the common "low-end" config when their product is only sold in higher level (mid-priced) AVR equipment. There people wanted rear surround support. That along with their seeming inability to get the Blu-Ray manufacturers to include an Auro soundtrack on the disc (a bit ironic since it really doesn't use up that much more space than a typical 7.1 soundtrack so they could probably fit both Atmos and Auro on many discs if they left out all those foreign language tracks).
> 
> 
> 
> Auro-3D is probably unnecessary at this point, though since there isn't much difference between the Auro and Atmos (or X) soundtracks when played back on the same 5.1 based speaker setup (tested here against the Atmos versions limiting my room to half length as 5.1.4 (plus matrixed FW) the Atmos titles were almost identical to the Auro-3D ones like that. DTS:X (particularly the Pro version) can use the Auro speaker layout anyway so it can leverage both room layouts or even a combination of them. The extra speakers really just anchor off-axis seats in practice, IMO. It's not like Atmos can't image something at the CH/TS locations if you're sitting in the center seat(s). Many Atmos titles have objects move across those locations as a matter of course as do DTS:X titles. DTS:X, however can use CH/TS speakers and render them directly (as long as you're below the 11-channel limit or have the Pro iteration with no limit). Some might even prefer to use Neural X with Atmos base soundtracks to make use of those speakers. It's theoretically possible Neural X may give a better overhead impression from some Atmos base soundtracks with Neural X than Atmos itself (given many Atmos movies make poor use of overheads). The worst thing about Auro-3D not gaining traction is they really supported nice binaural-like music recordings with fixed dual-quad microphone stands. This renders the performance in your room exactly like you're there. Atmos "could" make music recordings that way, theoretically, but given they don't want to push fixed channel configurations, they don't really want to push fixed channel recordings. DTS:X, on the other hand could easily handle the same Auro-3D style music recordings as it does support fixed channel layouts in addition to objects. Neural X will use more speakers even with fixed channel recordings and thus the "binaural-like" reality effect would be preserved even with higher count speakers in operation.




Right but SS2 is an object only channel not a true Surround so it wouldn’t sound as good if I aligned the MLP with SS2 for those reasons. If I had a CP-850-C then that would be perfect since the channels are used with that processor. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

batpig said:


> I want to reiterate something Sanjay said, just in case you blew past it on the hunt to make your primary point.
> 
> 
> 
> The surround info will not be arrayed across multiple speakers like it is in commercial cinema, with objects being treated separately and allowed to pass through individual speakers within the array.
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the ear level sounds in Atmos (with some mixes, in fact, it will be 100% of the ear level sounds) will behave exactly like a 7.1 track. One speaker on each side wall (the "side" surrounds) will make noise during the movie, even if you have 4 speakers lining the side wall (FW > SS1 > SS > SS2).
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I mention this is because your diagram depicted a multi-row theater, and if the goal is to have an even surround field across both rows, it's important to be aware that you're going to have a single speaker on each side wall producing all the side surround effects. So if the Ls/Rs speakers are positioned adjacent to one row, they will be way out of position for the other row (and vice versa) and it will be impossible to balance the sound between the two rows. Especially if you've gone to all direct-firing monopole speakers to adhere to Atmos "specs" vs the old diffuse / wide dispersion surrounds that were typical previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people assume the "channel" part of the mix will array across those side surrounds, spreading the sound and providing even coverage across the rows. Arraying the side surrounds for multiple rows was common pre-Atmos, but now instead of those 2-3 side surround speakers all putting out surround info, with an Atmos mix (with no arrays) only 1 of the 2-3 speakers is producing it (worse coverage / more hot-spotting).
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnov themselves recommends arraying some side surrounds + top surrounds if you want even coverage across multiple rows, specifically because of this unfortunate behavior. If you installed a 15.1.10 setup and popped in that 4K + Atmos remaster of Saving Private Ryan, you might be surprised to discover only 9 of your 25 speakers make any noise. The extra 16 speakers are only used for dynamic objects, but if the mixer / studio decides to "print" the mix to a specific channel layout, tough luck
> 
> 
> 
> If you think "Dolby was pulling the wool over your eyes" because you took a simple marketing diagram too literally and couldn't reconcile a rectangle vs a circle so you decided "THIS INJUSTICE WILL NOT STAND, time to raise hell on an internet forum".... imagine how the affront of realizing only 9 out of 25 speakers are active would feel to you!! Thankfully Trinnovs are magical things and they have workarounds, for example they let you save different presets so you can switch on the fly between arrayed and non-arrayed setups.
> 
> 
> 
> Condescension and (well-earned) snark aside, can I ask a serious question? You are talking about a Trinnov setup with a lot of speakers and what looks like a really, really nice room. So I can only assume you've got a healthy budget. Can I ask why you are not working with a professional calibrator who is an expert with Trinnovs and knows the answers to these questions? It seems odd to me that you are making this kind of investment and yet determinedly seeking precise answers FROM STRANGERS ON AN INTERNET FORUM, when you can clearly afford to at minimum to consult with a world-class audio calibrator like Adam Pelz or Curt Hoyt who knows Trinnovs inside/out and would work closely with you to produce the desired result.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not (well, only partially) trying to be a jerk about it, but I sincerely think you'd be happier working with a pro who is a literal expert in what we are discussing, someone who could be your consultant and guide and ensure you get the results you are looking for. Even if you're a DIY guy who doesn't want to contract out the whole project to an integrator/installer, you could at least leverage their vast experience and detailed knowledge as a consultant/advisory basis.
> 
> 
> 
> If you already are doing so, forgive me for ass-u-me-ing, but I also ass-u-me that if you had Adam or Curt already on staff as the Trinnov calibrator, you wouldn't be asking these questions here.




Nope. I didn’t blow past it and this is a Selfish Bastard Seat built theater room designed for one seat to have all the envelopment. I’ll have a separate preset for when other seats/rows are being used that will take advantage of my ultra wide dispersion Mundorf AMT driven speakers. It will work great ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

@audiovideoholic - You can easily make your own Atmos arrays to behave like the cinema even without a Trinnov. Contrary to what certain holier-than-thous think, there's nothing particularly complicated about Atmos. A simple Y-adapter can split the side surround pre-out to handle more channels and if you use the internal amp on an AVR, you can get a three channel array for "side surround" with one Y-adapter. If you want separate room correction, you'd need something like a Mini-DSP for the pre-outs. You'd then combine the outputs with the extra speaker (object output) using an active mixer, which also gives you independent level control. Voila. Arrayed Atmos at home. 

You can combine that with steered Pro-Logic extracted channels (or matrixed ones) and have >7.1.4 without a $30k+ Trinnov plus cinema arrays and even dialog lift (so speakers above/below place dialog and/or front stage effects at screen level rather than below it in home theaters that don't have the mains behind an audibly transparent screen.

You, however, have indicated you do NOT want arrays. That's viable too. Real world sounds are NOT magically at 90 degrees to your side at every seat in the room so there's a valid argument that Atmos should not array ANY speakers for that reason as the whole point of Atmos is that sounds will travel through the room like real "objects" would (hence the name 'objects' in Atmos). Everyone should agree where in the room a bird flying around is. Arrays mean that changes by seating position. Of course, due to the precedent effect, there will always be some level of placement error using speakers, but arrays make it worse. 

Objects can already span across multiple speakers using a larger object size so arrays shouldn't be needed to achieve a more dispersed effect. But Hollywood is slow to change how they mix movie soundtracks which is probably why so many Atmos soundtracks are anything BUT "immersive". 

For example, why are birds in the forest in the Natalie Portman movie "Annihilation" only in the front mains? Ineptitude that's why. People rave about how all those weird synth sounds move around the room and ceiling, but they couldn't even manage to make it feel like you're in the forest with birds all around. They only use Atmos for special "jump" moments instead of always being immersive the entire movie, which I feel misses the entire point of Atmos (Atmospheric sound). It's disappointing to say the least. Hopefully, old school mixing guys will retire and let people with more imagination take over in the near future.


----------



## audiovideoholic

batpig said:


> I want to reiterate something Sanjay said, just in case you blew past it on the hunt to make your primary point.
> 
> 
> 
> The surround info will not be arrayed across multiple speakers like it is in commercial cinema, with objects being treated separately and allowed to pass through individual speakers within the array.
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the ear level sounds in Atmos (with some mixes, in fact, it will be 100% of the ear level sounds) will behave exactly like a 7.1 track. One speaker on each side wall (the "side" surrounds) will make noise during the movie, even if you have 4 speakers lining the side wall (FW > SS1 > SS > SS2).
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I mention this is because your diagram depicted a multi-row theater, and if the goal is to have an even surround field across both rows, it's important to be aware that you're going to have a single speaker on each side wall producing all the side surround effects. So if the Ls/Rs speakers are positioned adjacent to one row, they will be way out of position for the other row (and vice versa) and it will be impossible to balance the sound between the two rows. Especially if you've gone to all direct-firing monopole speakers to adhere to Atmos "specs" vs the old diffuse / wide dispersion surrounds that were typical previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people assume the "channel" part of the mix will array across those side surrounds, spreading the sound and providing even coverage across the rows. Arraying the side surrounds for multiple rows was common pre-Atmos, but now instead of those 2-3 side surround speakers all putting out surround info, with an Atmos mix (with no arrays) only 1 of the 2-3 speakers is producing it (worse coverage / more hot-spotting).
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnov themselves recommends arraying some side surrounds + top surrounds if you want even coverage across multiple rows, specifically because of this unfortunate behavior. If you installed a 15.1.10 setup and popped in that 4K + Atmos remaster of Saving Private Ryan, you might be surprised to discover only 9 of your 25 speakers make any noise. The extra 16 speakers are only used for dynamic objects, but if the mixer / studio decides to "print" the mix to a specific channel layout, tough luck
> 
> 
> 
> If you think "Dolby was pulling the wool over your eyes" because you took a simple marketing diagram too literally and couldn't reconcile a rectangle vs a circle so you decided "THIS INJUSTICE WILL NOT STAND, time to raise hell on an internet forum".... imagine how the affront of realizing only 9 out of 25 speakers are active would feel to you!! Thankfully Trinnovs are magical things and they have workarounds, for example they let you save different presets so you can switch on the fly between arrayed and non-arrayed setups.
> 
> 
> 
> Condescension and (well-earned) snark aside, can I ask a serious question? You are talking about a Trinnov setup with a lot of speakers and what looks like a really, really nice room. So I can only assume you've got a healthy budget. Can I ask why you are not working with a professional calibrator who is an expert with Trinnovs and knows the answers to these questions? It seems odd to me that you are making this kind of investment and yet determinedly seeking precise answers FROM STRANGERS ON AN INTERNET FORUM, when you can clearly afford to at minimum to consult with a world-class audio calibrator like Adam Pelz or Curt Hoyt who knows Trinnovs inside/out and would work closely with you to produce the desired result.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not (well, only partially) trying to be a jerk about it, but I sincerely think you'd be happier working with a pro who is a literal expert in what we are discussing, someone who could be your consultant and guide and ensure you get the results you are looking for. Even if you're a DIY guy who doesn't want to contract out the whole project to an integrator/installer, you could at least leverage their vast experience and detailed knowledge as a consultant/advisory basis.
> 
> 
> 
> If you already are doing so, forgive me for ass-u-me-ing, but I also ass-u-me that if you had Adam or Curt already on staff as the Trinnov calibrator, you wouldn't be asking these questions here.




I’m not doing all this by myself by any means. I have Cineramax and TheWolf working on this project and may have Appelz join in at some point. Walter (TheWolf my acoustician) has what I will say a very modest hourly wage ;-). I spent over $8,000 just to get my Altitude32 calibrated, LCRs laid out, room measurements for acoustic plan, and Altitude32 setup. 

So when I can research on my own when there is an issue like we have now where Two channels fit the room best ahead of the MLP I don’t have any grievance at all by researching some on my own. Heck this is my hobby that I’ve been into since the age of 11-12. I bought my first AVR and 4 KLH big box three way 15” speakers for my bedroom. One thing about working with Pros is that they have all kinds of ways of dealing with small issues such as I’m debating now that may seem trivial to them is that all the extra expenses in regards to physical speakers, amps, DSP, labor for mounting it aesthetically, design, calibration, etc... goes by the wayside so to speak when they are making it an option. 

Just to be clear I am by no means a tech guru or Altitude32 tinkerer. I love Home Theat and have been into it for over a decade and a half but when it comes to the Altitude32 and digital audio I’m a rookie. Heck I’m actually afraid to mess with my Altitude32 unit for real! I could blow up my entire room by pressing the wrong button casually. That would be the fastest $100,000+ mistake ever created is how I look at it. Sure it’s an awesome piece of kit but it’s for the Pros and for those who take the time to learn its ins and outs to a tee. I’ve read and watched every seminar, white paper, etc that Trinnov has published to its community and they are the BEST when it comes to community support but that doesn’t mean I am ready to jump in and start toying with my unit just yet. 

What people have to realize with the Trinnov is that it can do so so much more than what is published that many would be surprised by some of its features. That’s why I asked here and in the Trinnov page specifically about the SS2 channel. That Dolby Diagram is pinched which screws with all their specified angles they published throughout that document so looks like can have more rearward facing channels than what actually can. It just doesn’t make sense in my head why they would limit the front half of rooms by focusing more on the rear half. The angles work out mathematically so that if a room with 3 or more rows have a MLP in the middle/rear of a long room that more than 12.5* spacing between each forward channel is easily doable but that doesn’t seem to be the case with processing unless array which I want to avoid. 

My room is 34’x18’x10’ so it’s long and more narrow than wide which was done on purpose back before all these other channels were possible. It was from the ground up build by Dennis E back years ago before wides or Dolby Atmos. It’s being totally renovated now based around the custom Quested LT20 LCRs. Walter came and installed those at the same time he did all the Trinnov work and now we are moving forward slowly one step at a time with everything being carefully considered. I am far from rich/wealthy so can’t just give free reign to Walter like some of his bigger clients so have to pick where and when I need to bring him on board. He is extremely enthusiastic about my approach of taking on the majority of this process as it gives him a different approach for a change. This is the only time he has done a project like this but we have talked a ton both “on the clock” and “off the clock” leading up to starting my project. Heck I feel like he has good faith in me/my decisions acoustically by offering such an agreement in the first place. If you compare my acoustic knowledge to my Trinnov/digital knowledge I’m a digital idiot by all measures lol. Give me a room, poor speakers, and a mic, I can make it sound good I’m fairly confident but give Walter just the Trinnov along with his ears he can make it sound magical before any room treatment not to mention after....

It’s an odd situation that’s for sure but it’s what I can afford. I can read and learn all day at zero expense so I choose to take advantage of that. But at the end of the day it will be magical because I did spend my money in the correct places when needed is how I view it. 

Hope that clears up some questions being asked. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

MagnumX said:


> You can just put the SS in that position and SS2 where SS would be if you need more in front (or rather that would indicate your listening seat/couch is aligned with SS2 rather than SS). Atmos renders in a straight line order. The names are abritrary as are the angles in a way (it's not like the sounds are out of order if your angles are somewhat off; Dolby even shows a range for the locations for this reason), since with more than one row of seats, there can only be one row of seats that sit with SS at 90 degrees anyway (I have SS behind my front row in-between it and the 2nd row, for example; the SS are at the mid-point of the room itself rather than orientated around the listener).
> 
> 
> 
> You see, Atmos is really meant to be a ROOM BASED orientation (L/R at front, Rear at back and SS at mid-point and the extra speakers at 50% midpoints in-between), but Dolby knows most people will only have 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 and maybe 7.1.4 at most so they draw their diagrams around what they think is a common one row layout instead of the room like the cinema version is expected to match. But the 24.1.10 layout is a 360 circle arc meant to be divided into speakers that are mid-points (50%) from each other. The layout is supposed to be fixed; the couch(es) (or individual seats) can go ANYWHERE in the room. The perspective changes by where you sit, but the sounds move around the room more or less the same no matter what (theoretically at least; in the real world off-axis seats end up with precedent issues since Atmos has not center height or top surround speakers to anchor the middle) and sitting really close to any single speaker can skew things as well, but the more speakers you have, the less pronounced the precedent effect will be off-axis. With only one seat in a small room centered, you can get away with just 4 speakers (quad arrangement) on the floor/ear level and it should phantom image everywhere it needs to.
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually the basis of Auro-3D's 8.1 configuration (9.1 adds a center speaker, 10.1 adds TS and 11.1 adds CH). Auro-3D 8.1-11.1 was actually designed to be compatible with Dolby's 5.1 layout. Auro-3D 13.1 was designed around Dolby's 7.1 layout. Their problem was that the extra CH/TS speakers made for a bad combo with 11.1 limited AVRs. They seemed to come up with an 11.1 compatible layout that used 9.1+RS (i.e. 7.1 based without CH/TS) as an alternative (the test disc has this as a signal test mode, for example), but for some reason it didn't end up in the firmware and/or D&M never updated the firmware to use it. They seem dead in the water now anyway. People act like Auro-3D wasn't trying to be Dolby layout compatible, but it was always based on the most common surround format used in people's homes, which is 5.1. Their miscalculation seems to be that is the common "low-end" config when their product is only sold in higher level (mid-priced) AVR equipment. There people wanted rear surround support. That along with their seeming inability to get the Blu-Ray manufacturers to include an Auro soundtrack on the disc (a bit ironic since it really doesn't use up that much more space than a typical 7.1 soundtrack so they could probably fit both Atmos and Auro on many discs if they left out all those foreign language tracks).
> 
> 
> 
> Auro-3D is probably unnecessary at this point, though since there isn't much difference between the Auro and Atmos (or X) soundtracks when played back on the same 5.1 based speaker setup (tested here against the Atmos versions limiting my room to half length as 5.1.4 (plus matrixed FW) the Atmos titles were almost identical to the Auro-3D ones like that. DTS:X (particularly the Pro version) can use the Auro speaker layout anyway so it can leverage both room layouts or even a combination of them. The extra speakers really just anchor off-axis seats in practice, IMO. It's not like Atmos can't image something at the CH/TS locations if you're sitting in the center seat(s). Many Atmos titles have objects move across those locations as a matter of course as do DTS:X titles. DTS:X, however can use CH/TS speakers and render them directly (as long as you're below the 11-channel limit or have the Pro iteration with no limit). Some might even prefer to use Neural X with Atmos base soundtracks to make use of those speakers. It's theoretically possible Neural X may give a better overhead impression from some Atmos base soundtracks with Neural X than Atmos itself (given many Atmos movies make poor use of overheads). The worst thing about Auro-3D not gaining traction is they really supported nice binaural-like music recordings with fixed dual-quad microphone stands. This renders the performance in your room exactly like you're there. Atmos "could" make music recordings that way, theoretically, but given they don't want to push fixed channel configurations, they don't really want to push fixed channel recordings. DTS:X, on the other hand could easily handle the same Auro-3D style music recordings as it does support fixed channel layouts in addition to objects. Neural X will use more speakers even with fixed channel recordings and thus the "binaural-like" reality effect would be preserved even with higher count speakers in operation.




Yea there are always pros and cons to everything and I just feel at this point that I don’t want to array only because I want the smooth object panning provided by DTS-X Pro and Atmos. Heck if I feel like these channels are being wasted then it won’t be hard to add some external DSP to try it out. That’s the beauty of all this. Nothing other than the baffle wall is in stone. One should never need to change the screen wall speakers anyway as long as they were installed correctly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## skylarlove1999

audiovideoholic said:


> I’m not doing all this by myself by any means. I have Cineramax and TheWolf working on this project and may have Appelz join in at some point. Walter (TheWolf my acoustician) has what I will say a very modest hourly wage ;-). I spent over $8,000 just to get my Altitude32 calibrated, LCRs laid out, room measurements for acoustic plan, and Altitude32 setup.
> 
> So when I can research on my own when there is an issue like we have now where Two channels fit the room best ahead of the MLP I don’t have any grievance at all by researching some on my own. Heck this is my hobby that I’ve been into since the age of 11-12. I bought my first AVR and 4 KLH big box three way 15” speakers for my bedroom. One thing about working with Pros is that they have all kinds of ways of dealing with small issues such as I’m debating now that may seem trivial to them is that all the extra expenses in regards to physical speakers, amps, DSP, labor for mounting it aesthetically, design, calibration, etc... goes by the wayside so to speak when they are making it an option.
> 
> Just to be clear I am by no means a tech guru or Altitude32 tinkerer. I love Home Theat and have been into it for over a decade and a half but when it comes to the Altitude32 and digital audio I’m a rookie. Heck I’m actually afraid to mess with my Altitude32 unit for real! I could blow up my entire room by pressing the wrong button casually. That would be the fastest $100,000+ mistake ever created is how I look at it. Sure it’s an awesome piece of kit but it’s for the Pros and for those who take the time to learn its ins and outs to a tee. I’ve read and watched every seminar, white paper, etc that Trinnov has published to its community and they are the BEST when it comes to community support but that doesn’t mean I am ready to jump in and start toying with my unit just yet.
> 
> What people have to realize with the Trinnov is that it can do so so much more than what is published that many would be surprised by some of its features. That’s why I asked here and in the Trinnov page specifically about the SS2 channel. That Dolby Diagram is pinched which screws with all their specified angles they published throughout that document so looks like can have more rearward facing channels than what actually can. It just doesn’t make sense in my head why they would limit the front half of rooms by focusing more on the rear half. The angles work out mathematically so that if a room with 3 or more rows have a MLP in the middle/rear of a long room that more than 12.5* spacing between each forward channel is easily doable but that doesn’t seem to be the case with processing unless array which I want to avoid.
> 
> My room is 34’x18’x10’ so it’s long and more narrow than wide which was done on purpose back before all these other channels were possible. It was from the ground up build by Dennis E back years ago before wides or Dolby Atmos. It’s being totally renovated now based around the custom Quested LT20 LCRs. Walter came and installed those at the same time he did all the Trinnov work and now we are moving forward slowly one step at a time with everything being carefully considered. I am far from rich/wealthy so can’t just give free reign to Walter like some of his bigger clients so have to pick where and when I need to bring him on board. He is extremely enthusiastic about my approach of taking on the majority of this process as it gives him a different approach for a change. This is the only time he has done a project like this but we have talked a ton both “on the clock” and “off the clock” leading up to starting my project. Heck I feel like he has good faith in me/my decisions acoustically by offering such an agreement in the first place. If you compare my acoustic knowledge to my Trinnov/digital knowledge I’m a digital idiot by all measures lol. Give me a room, poor speakers, and a mic, I can make it sound good I’m fairly confident but give Walter just the Trinnov along with his ears he can make it sound magical before any room treatment not to mention after....
> 
> It’s an odd situation that’s for sure but it’s what I can afford. I can read and learn all day at zero expense so I choose to take advantage of that. But at the end of the day it will be magical because I did spend my money in the correct places when needed is how I view it.
> 
> Hope that clears up some questions being asked. ;-)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Rich and wealthy are relative to the perspective of the people making those assessments. To a billionaire a multi millionaire is a pauper. Many people who can afford a Trinnov Altitude, along with all the programming costs associated with it, would consider themselves rich in the monetary sense. Before this global pandemic there were approximately 50 million people in the world who would be considered a millionaire. 7.5 billion people in the world.

Even less of those millionaires whose hobby is AV. So you certainly are in the upper stratosphere of AV enthusiasts. Rare air where you find yourself. Like NBA player rare, of all the millions of people worldwide who dribble a basketball. 

I admire that you have higher expectations of yourself as to when you would consider yourself wealthy. Thanks for sharing about your home theater. Very interesting to read , knowing 99.99% of people will never experience the levels of AV you have created, but can live somewhat vicariously through your postings. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> That Dolby Diagram is pinched which screws with all their specified angles they published throughout that document so looks like can have more rearward facing channels than what actually can. It just doesn’t make sense in my head why they would limit the front half of rooms by focusing more on the rear half. The angles work out mathematically so that if a room with 3 or more rows have a MLP in the middle/rear of a long room that more than 12.5* spacing between each forward channel is easily doable but that doesn’t seem to be the case with processing unless array which I want to avoid.


The Dolby diagram shows SS as the midpoint of the layout, directly in line with MLP, with 11 speakers forward of the midpoint and 11 speakers rearward of the midpoint. Since the diagram shows an even distribution of speakers, what do you mean when you ask _"why they would limit the front half of rooms by focusing more on the rear half"_? The Atmos renderer sees the same number of speakers in every cardinal direction (front, back, left, right). 

As mentioned earlier:


sdurani said:


> The diagram is misleading.





sdurani said:


> Atmos doesn't use angles when rendering.


IF you are willing to ignore the diagram (rather than continue to dwell on it) and put aside the notion of specified angles (because Atmos rendering isn't based on angles), then you can get a better understanding of how Atmos works, making it easier to figure out where to place your speakers and why.


----------



## eaayoung

Finally got my Atmos system up and running. My Atmos journey started about year and a half ago when I upgraded my Onkyo 876 to a Denon 4500. I had my Onkyo setup as a 7.1 system in my old house. In my new downsized home, was only setup as a 5.1 system. My family room is around 20x24 but opens into the kitchen and breakfast area. My current system is all Def Tech with two SM55, PC2000 center, SC6000 sub, two DI 6.5S in-wall speakers for surrounds and four DI 8R in-wall speakers for the height. Modest compared to most on this forum. The new setup sounds great so far. And I haven’t had the time to run Audyssey. Really like how immersive Atmos is. Watched 1917 after getting the system set and it sounded really good. Even the wife agrees it was worth the expense.

I can’t recall who on this forum recommended I go with four Atmos speakers. But they were right.


----------



## skylarlove1999

eaayoung said:


> Finally got my Atmos system up and running. My Atmos journey started about year and a half ago when I upgraded my Onkyo 876 to a Denon 4500. I had my Onkyo setup as a 7.1 system in my old house. In my new downsized home, was only setup as a 5.1 system. My family room is around 20x24 but opens into the kitchen and breakfast area. My current system is all Def Tech with two SM55, PC2000 center, SC6000 sub, two DI 6.5S in-wall speakers for surrounds and four DI 8R in-wall speakers for the height. Modest compared to most on this forum. The new setup sound great so far. I haven’t had the time to run Audyssey. Really like how immersive Atmos is. Watched 1917 after getting the system set and it sounded really good. Even the wife agrees it was worth the expense.
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t recall who on this forum recommended I go with four Atmos speakers. But they were right.


Everybody who has heard 4 Atmos speakers recommends 4 . Everybody who has heard 6 Atmos speakers recommends 6. People who have the room and processing for more recommend more. LOL . The more the better. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

skylarlove1999 said:


> Everybody who has heard 4 Atmos speakers recommends 4 . Everybody who has heard 6 Atmos speakers recommends 6. People who have the room and processing for more recommend more. LOL . The more the better.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Not everyone - I tried 6 in my 20 x 14 room and didn't think it had any benefit over 4, and that was with the 4 being front and rear heights so only at 30deg elevation.


----------



## skylarlove1999

niterida said:


> Not everyone - I tried 6 in my 20 x 14 room and didn't think it had any benefit over 4, and that was with the 4 being front and rear heights so only at 30deg elevation.


LOL obviously you have to have the room length and the height to be able to take advantage of 6 Atmos speakers

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## audiovideoholic

skylarlove1999 said:


> Rich and wealthy are relative to the perspective of the people making those assessments. To a billionaire a multi millionaire is a pauper. Many people who can afford a Trinnov Altitude, along with all the programming costs associated with it, would consider themselves rich in the monetary sense. Before this global pandemic there were approximately 50 million people in the world who would be considered a millionaire. 7.5 billion people in the world.
> 
> Even less of those millionaires whose hobby is AV. So you certainly are in the upper stratosphere of AV enthusiasts. Rare air where you find yourself. Like NBA player rare, of all the millions of people worldwide who dribble a basketball.
> 
> I admire that you have higher expectations of yourself as to when you would consider yourself wealthy. Thanks for sharing about your home theater. Very interesting to read , knowing 99.99% of people will never experience the levels of AV you have created, but can live somewhat vicariously through your postings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk




Well I saved my money for 5 years to be able to afford the Altitude and the custom LT20 LCRs along with their amps so if saving for 5 years for $40,000-$50,000 is in the class of NBA then they have taken a huge pay cut. No way would I work as hard as an NBA player on my salary!!!!!! 

Saving $5,000-$10,000 a year isn’t really all that hard as long as one is disciplined enough by their goals/wants. Sure we make more than the average American but we are not “rich” by any means. I have AV and fishing as hobbies now that I can’t play golf because of major back injuries. 

There a tons of ways to make extra money which I have also done so could add to my savings. 

Just wanted to point out this all wasn’t just purchased. I literally went without purchasing other items for years so I could have my dream AV setup. To each their own when it comes to dreams and goals as anything is possible if one sets their mind on it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

sdurani said:


> The Dolby diagram shows SS as the midpoint of the layout, directly in line with MLP, with 11 speakers forward of the midpoint and 11 speakers rearward of the midpoint. Since the diagram shows an even distribution of speakers, what do you mean when you ask _"why they would limit the front half of rooms by focusing more on the rear half"_? The Atmos renderer sees the same number of speakers in every cardinal direction (front, back, left, right).
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned earlier: IF you are willing to ignore the diagram (rather than continue to dwell on it) and put aside the notion of specified angles (because Atmos rendering isn't based on angles), then you can get a better understanding of how Atmos works, making it easier to figure out where to place your speakers and why.




That diagram is skewed. Check out the Trinnov diagram for 24 channel layout. All 7 screen channels are crammed together leaving far wider variations between the other channels in the front of the room. 

There is no way one could tell the difference between 5 screen channels and 7 screen channels in a room that would be classified as residential. Spread out the love!!!!! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## skylarlove1999

audiovideoholic said:


> Well I saved my money for 5 years to be able to afford the Altitude and the custom LT20 LCRs along with their amps so if saving for 5 years for $40,000-$50,000 is in the class of NBA then they have taken a huge pay cut. No way would I work as hard as an NBA player on my salary!!!!!!
> 
> Saving $5,000-$10,000 a year isn’t really all that hard as long as one is disciplined enough by their goals/wants. Sure we make more than the average American but we are not “rich” by any means. I have AV and fishing as hobbies now that I can’t play golf because of major back injuries.
> 
> There a tons of ways to make extra money which I have also done so could add to my savings.
> 
> Just wanted to point out this all wasn’t just purchased. I literally went without purchasing other items for years so I could have my dream AV setup. To each their own when it comes to dreams and goals as anything is possible if one sets their mind on it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks for sharing your journey. Kudos for that discipline. I wasn't saying your net worth was in the NBA range just that owning a Trinnov Altitude 32 was statistically in the same ratio of people playing basketball who make the NBA. Enjoy. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

audiovideoholic said:


> Right but SS2 is an object only channel not a true Surround so it wouldn’t sound as good if I aligned the MLP with SS2 for those reasons. If I had a CP-850-C then that would be perfect since the channels are used with that processor.


The only difference is where the sound comes from for "sides". I have mine behind the front row so that 5.1 type material can be run straight if desired and still be behind me (the matrixed FW creates a nice even fill in-between). From the 2nd row (sits between side and SS#2), the side sounds are somewhat forward (adjusted slightly because SS#2 is also matrixed so I can adjust its "side" output to where I want it, but I didn't like it directly to the side as the Atmos pans weren't even then with things like the bird that flies around the room in the one Atmos demo. I basically got it where the Atmos demos are evenly moving around the room and the side fill sounds good regardless. Because FW and SS#2 are matrixed, they're technically "half" arrays (down 3dB for each channel and even 0dB where they meet the way I have it set up). The top middle is Pro Logic steered so it sounds just like a discrete channel for the most part (I ended up leaking a little bit on purpose to even it out a bit as Pro Logic 1 steers a bit hard towards center). Now it all sounds even with the helicopter test run at ear level (shut off overheads) or overhead no matter which row I sit in in terms of a center seat. Off-axis isn't 'perfect', but better than it would have been with 7.1.4 or even 7.1.6 by far). The partial arrays also work particularly well with older material that was meant to be arrayed in the first place (5.1/7.1), even when upmixed with Neural X.


----------



## sdurani

audiovideoholic said:


> Check out the Trinnov diagram for 24 channel layout. All 7 screen channels are crammed together leaving far wider variations between the other channels in the front of the room.


The Atmos renderer sees the same number of speakers in all directions with the same spacing between them. That means the separation between the Fronts & Rears is the same as the separation between the Front Left & Right. 










The Trinnov diagram has the separation between the Fronts & Rears (120°) as double the separation between the Front Left & Right (60°). That's not how the Atmos renderer spaces them.


----------



## audiovideoholic

MagnumX said:


> The only difference is where the sound comes from for "sides". I have mine behind the front row so that 5.1 type material can be run straight if desired and still be behind me (the matrixed FW creates a nice even fill in-between). From the 2nd row (sits between side and SS#2), the side sounds are somewhat forward (adjusted slightly because SS#2 is also matrixed so I can adjust its "side" output to where I want it, but I didn't like it directly to the side as the Atmos pans weren't even then with things like the bird that flies around the room in the one Atmos demo. I basically got it where the Atmos demos are evenly moving around the room and the side fill sounds good regardless. Because FW and SS#2 are matrixed, they're technically "half" arrays (down 3dB for each channel and even 0dB where they meet the way I have it set up). The top middle is Pro Logic steered so it sounds just like a discrete channel for the most part (I ended up leaking a little bit on purpose to even it out a bit as Pro Logic 1 steers a bit hard towards center). Now it all sounds even with the helicopter test run at ear level (shut off overheads) or overhead no matter which row I sit in in terms of a center seat. Off-axis isn't 'perfect', but better than it would have been with 7.1.4 or even 7.1.6 by far). The partial arrays also work particularly well with older material that was meant to be arrayed in the first place (5.1/7.1), even when upmixed with Neural X.




Do you have a diagram or pic of your setup to better demonstrate where each speaker is located in relevance to seating and screen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## audiovideoholic

sdurani said:


> The Atmos renderer sees the same number of speakers in all directions with the same spacing between them. That means the separation between the Fronts & Rears is the same as the separation between the Front Left & Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trinnov diagram has the separation between the Fronts & Rears (120°) as double the separation between the Front Left & Right (60°). That's not how the Atmos renderer spaces them.




Yes I’m aware of everything you are mentioning regarding how Atmos is rendered. Im just speaking about how to set up channels in the room based on angles relevant to the MLP and screen. 

I will never bring my L/R way outside of the screen unless the processor can make well and certain no onscreen content will be played by those channels!!!!!! 

What the Trinnov does better than any other processor I have ever experienced from $500-$30,000 is sync ALL sounds with the objects on the screen. It’s literally magical and seems like the actors are truly speaking right where they are on screen. 

If the processor could only use the Screen Channels and L/R Center Channels for “on-screen” content then that would open up placing the L/R at the furthest most points in the square as long as the speakers played well in those locations. 

I have my Rear L/R in the corners for a number of reasons, one being your example above! ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

audiovideoholic said:


> Do you have a diagram or pic of your setup to better demonstrate where each speaker is located in relevance to seating and screen?


Theater Page: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...r-set-up-immersive-audio-54.html#post56799092

Angle Diagram and Layout Diagram:

















360 Views attached below


----------



## niterida

skylarlove1999 said:


> LOL obviously you have to have the room length and the height to be able to take advantage of 6 Atmos speakers
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Well with my front heights 10' in front and rears 8' behind and 9' ceilings I would have thought mine would really benefit from top middles. But I couldn't tell any difference between 4 and 6 - but it was matrixed Top Middles so maybe that would skew my results.


----------



## skylarlove1999

niterida said:


> Well with my front heights 10' in front and rears 8' behind and 9' ceilings I would have thought mine would really benefit from top middles. But I couldn't tell any difference between 4 and 6 - but it was matrixed Top Middles so maybe that would skew my results.


I am curious why adding 2 more to your setup didn't make a more immersive experience. What processor and room correction were you using?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

skylarlove1999 said:


> I am curious why adding 2 more to your setup didn't make a more immersive experience. What processor and room correction were you using?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk



I was amazed as well !!
I don't run any room correction or EQ and I don't have any acoustic treatments either 


For some reason, even though I don't even sit right in the middle of the front/rear heights I still get really good stereo imaging. I even tried it with a matrixed VOG and though that was an improvement, once I went back to just 4 I had to physically check the VOG wasn't actually putting out sound as it certainly sounded like it was.
I should say that running 6 and/or VOG was probably a slight improvement, just not enough of one to worry about the extra hassle/cost of the setup.


But for some reason I think my room is a freak - it doesn't seem to matter what I do in terms of speaker/sub postioning and correction on or off it just always sounds amazing.
Yes I do have a bass peak (and manually EQ that one peak out) and ringing/echo (brick walls all around and concrete floor) but I am working on it.............


Or maybe its just my old ears can't tell differences anymore or I just don't know what I am listening for (this is my first real theatre and proper audio setup)


----------



## liverpool_for_life

niterida said:


> Anyway the moral of this story is that height speakers aimed at MLP are far superior to down-firing speakers aimed at the dog lying on the floor


Not disputing your subjective impressions, but is this always true? If the on-ceilings have a wide dispersion pattern and uniform off-axis response, do you really gain that much from speakers aimed more towards (or even directly like yours) at MLP?


----------



## niterida

liverpool_for_life said:


> Not disputing your subjective impressions, but is this always true? If the on-ceilings have a wide dispersion pattern and uniform off-axis response, do you really gain that much from speakers aimed more towards (or even directly like yours) at MLP?


 I would say yes - have a look at my drawing of 90deg dispersion down-firing speakers versus speakers angled at just 30deg (but still aimed along the length of the room - not directly at MLP).
You can clearly see the MLP is outside the 90deg dispersion cone with the downfiring and almost completely in it eith the 30 deg angled speakers. If they were rotated to poit at MLP you would be completely on-axis to all 4 angled/aimed speakers.


Also my subjective impressions were such a night and day difference they could almost be classed as objective


----------



## DigiWega

@niterida what speakers are you using for the height channels?

And correct me if I'm wrong but did you say that your front height speakers are 10' in front of the MLP and the back height speakers are 8' behind the MLP with 9' ceilings?


----------



## niterida

DigiWega said:


> @*niterida* what speakers are you using for the height channels?
> 
> And correct me if I'm wrong but did you say that your front height speakers are 10' in front of the MLP and the back height speakers are 8' behind the MLP with 9' ceilings?


 I am using old 1990s Mordaunt Short MS3.10 5" bookshelf speakers and yes that is exactly where they are mounted (its about 30deg so at the minimum of Dolby specs I belive) and it still sounds great. 

When I did my testing of aiming them straight down and then at MLP, I actually put my ears at the midpoint between them and at the correct height so I was exactly 45deg from the acoustic centre for each test.

It was originally an Auro 3D layout but I found out that I can't get Auro 3D source material so I went back to just an Atmos AVR and haven't got around to repositioning the heights.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> I couldn't tell any difference between 4 and 6 - but it was matrixed Top Middles so maybe that would skew my results.


Same here: with a single row of seating, I couldn't tell the difference between 4 and 6 overheads. I've compared it to matrix derived Top Middles and natively decoded Top Middles. Had I not heard it for myself, I would have been skeptical that our human hearing could phantom image that well directly above us. I moved across the couch and the imaging remained stable and directionality remained precise.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Same here: with a single row of seating, I couldn't tell the difference between 4 and 6 overheads. I've compared it to matrix derived Top Middles and natively decoded Top Middles. Had I not heard it for myself, I would have been skeptical that our human hearing could phantom image that well directly above us. I moved across the couch and the imaging remained stable and directionality remained precise.


Isn't it also the case that with some tracks, 4 overheads arguably sound better than 6? Something about overhead objects getting pinned to only the Top Middle pair if you have 6 Tops, but if you have only 4 Tops the overhead objects get spread around.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Isn't it also the case that with some tracks, 4 overheads arguably sound better than 6? Something about overhead objects getting pinned to only the Top Middle pair if you have 6 Tops, but if you have only 4 Tops the overhead objects get spread around.


Yes, Saving Private Ryan is a famous example of an Atmos mix pre-rendered (printed) to 7.1.2. Not to mention lots of Disney titles. If doing multiple overhead pairs of speakers, I would just avoid an odd number of pairs. 2 pairs and 4 pairs are OK, but I would avoid 3 pairs or all 5 pairs.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Isn't it also the case that with some tracks, 4 overheads arguably sound better than 6? Something about overhead objects getting pinned to only the Top Middle pair if you have 6 Tops, but if you have only 4 Tops the overhead objects get spread around.


True rendering uses only top middle when there's only two overheads used (assuming the soundtrack has those 2 set as top middle; it will use whatever two it's set to use). But that's where the sounds are supposed to be coming from. If you use 4 overhead, it phantom in-between and will sound identical sitting near the center of the room. It only sounds different if you sit towards the front or back due to the precedent effect. That's actually inaccurate, though, although you might prefer the effect. With extracted top middle, you have some choices. You can actually leak front/rear wtih Pro Logic extraction by simply changing the distance of the speakers so they're no longer identical. It's not as matrixed as a mixer, but does give some more sound around the entire room. It's mostly inaudible, though except with those tracks (here it helps balance my top middles being on the side walls and 8 inches lower than the front/rear heights so it sounds even). Matrixed, of course would have all six active no matter what so it wouldn't be an issue. 

Neither of those options should deter from having 6 overheads, IMO. Putting pairs only in even/odds is absurd, IMO. Six overhead sound fantastic here. But it's also room dependent. My room is 24' long with front/rear heights so the image directly overhead falls apart at that distance without top middle so top middle makes a huge improvement here, but if my room were half that length or I used top instead of heights, I'd get a good phantom image overhead and top middle wouldn't be necessary. It's still useful to anchor off-axis seats, but most home theaters don't have multiple rows of seats so those people wouldn't notice that either. There's this misconception that having >7.1.4 speakers gives "new sound locations". It does not. The extra speakers in Atmos are ONLY to scale to larger rooms and anchor off-axis seats so everyone gets the same experience. As I said in an earlier post, if you were in small room and sitting dead center, you could get the same experience with 8 overheads (4 ear level, 4 overhead) like the Auro-3D 8.0 setup as every position in that room would phantom image perfectly fine. They discovered this in the 1970s with Quad (ear level only).


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> There's this misconception that having >7.1.4 speakers gives "new sound locations". It does not. The extra speakers in Atmos are ONLY to scale to larger rooms and anchor off-axis seats so everyone gets the same experience. As I said in an earlier post, if you were in small room and sitting dead center, you could get the same experience with 8 overheads (4 ear level, 4 overhead) like the Auro-3D 8.0 setup as every position in that room would phantom image perfectly fine. They discovered this in the 1970s with Quad (ear level only).


This is wrong, and I explained why in another thread when you brought this up. Dolby Atmos for Home allows up to 24 ear level speakers and 10 overhead speakers. Speakers above 7.x.4 aren't arrays or used to anchor sounds for more seats. Each is a discrete channel, fully capable of independent playback of objects.


----------



## Ricoflashback

appelz said:


> This is wrong, and I explained why in another thread when you brought this up. Dolby Atmos for Home allows up to 24 ear level speakers and 10 overhead speakers. Speakers above 7.x.4 aren't arrays or used to anchor sounds for more seats. Each is a discrete channel, fully capable of independent playback of objects.


***O.K. - I get the concept. But I haven't seen any 24.x.10 Dolby Atmos mixes these days. I take it that you refer to a "discrete channel" and independent playback of objects that are rendered (I'm not sure upscaled is the word but maybe matrixed?) and you need a processor like the Trinnov (and the speakers, of course) to achieve this effect?


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> This is wrong, and I explained why in another thread when you brought this up.


Please explain how in a rectangular shaped room, you get "new" physical imaging locations with 34 speakers rather than 8 speakers in a small room. If you're just one person watching a movie at the MLP, do you NEED a center channel speaker? No, you do not. It will phantom image just fine with two speakers and the center set to phantom. In fact, it's likely to sound better than using a speaker that may not match your mains precisely and that's still true whether the center channel speaker is "discrete" or not. It makes no difference as two speakers are more than capable of phantom imaging a center and a phantom center sound IDENTICAL to a hard center using identical speakers. So if you have 8 (four ear level and four overheads) speakers in a small room that can phantom image between themselves just fine, what NEW locations do you get adding more speakers in that room? Side surrounds are just 50% between front and rears. FW are just 50% between side and front, etc. etc. etc. Those aren't NEW locations. They are in-between locations. 

If the room gets too large, the phantom imaging doesn't work very well between speakers (starts to fall apart at the middle first), even for one person so you need more speakers to increase the phantom imaging resolution so the image is nice and solid once again. If you sit off-axis, the precedence effect destroys the imaging as it pulls hard towards the closer speaker. That's why there's a center speaker in the first place so dialog comes from the screen direction even if you're sitting off to the left or right of center. That's true of other locations as well as you add more rows of seats (more off axis in every direction and larger rooms need more speakers). The difference between discrete and arrays at that point is the precedent effect is greatly REDUCED with discrete locations whereas arrays just pull to a point in-between the speakers and with more speakers that point varies even further. That is evidence if you do a center channel speaker and create it with a powered mixer from the left/right channels versus a Pro Logic decoder with "steering" that is more discrete. If you sit halfway between the left speaker and the center speaker with the matrixed center, the dialog will come from about halfway between the left and center speaker (array effect) whereas with the more discrete Pro Logic steering, it will come directly from the center channel speaker just as it will for the MLP. Imaging panning across the front still won't be as "even" as it is for the MLP, but it will be better than with just 2 speakers. Add MORE speakers across the front (left center, right center and left/right screen) and the panning across the front will be a LOT more EVEN sounding for people not sitting in the center! 

That's the whole point of having many many discrete speakers. EVERYONE in the theater gets the same experience! The bird comes from the same point in the theater for the guy in the front row center, the guy one third back off to the left and the guy 2/3 back off to the right! They will all point to the same point in the room when asked where the bird is as it flies around (within the error of the resolution of the room to the number of discrete speakers. The more speakers, the more accurate they will agree where the bird is located!) 

Top Middle or Surround #2 are _not_ "new" locations. They are to increase the accuracy of the sound placement for all seats in a theater (whether a cinema or a home theater). If you're sitting MLP in a very small room, they aren't needed to gauge accurately where the bird is located. Adding more speakers in a small room with one listener isn't going to increase that resolution because you're already hearing the location pretty accurate.

Hence, I'll say AGAIN. The purpose of having MORE speakers in a home theater environment beyond 7.1.4 is for SCALING (to keep imaging accurate in larger rooms with or without more rows of seats) and to defeat the precedence effect when sitting off-axis (more off-center seats whether it be left/right or front/back).

Seeing as you're apparently an installer, I can see why you'd want people to believe more speakers are better even in a bathroom sized room. Those Trinnov systems must be pretty lucrative in the profit margin department.


----------



## appelz

Ricoflashback said:


> ***O.K. - I get the concept. But I haven't seen any 24.x.10 Dolby Atmos mixes these days. I take it that you refer to a "discrete channel" and independent playback of objects that are rendered (I'm not sure upscaled is the word but maybe matrixed?) and you need a processor like the Trinnov (and the speakers, of course) to achieve this effect?


Correct, You would need a processor capable of more than 9.x.6, which currently is just the Trinnov Altitude and Storm Audio. There is lots of content tho that takes full advantage of those additional speakers, both music and movies. 

Those movies are upscaled or upmixed tho. There is specific content (objects) intended to be played from LeftTopFront, or LeftSide2, etc.


----------



## dschulz

Ricoflashback said:


> ***O.K. - I get the concept. But I haven't seen any 24.x.10 Dolby Atmos mixes these days. I take it that you refer to a "discrete channel" and independent playback of objects that are rendered (I'm not sure upscaled is the word but maybe matrixed?) and you need a processor like the Trinnov (and the speakers, of course) to achieve this effect?


You won't see a mix labeled as 24.x.10 Atmos - that's the whole *point* of Atmos, the mix is now independent of the playback channel count. Setting aside the unfortunate mixes that get hard printed to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, an Atmos mix is just an Atmos mix - it can be played back properly on any Atmos configuration, from a minimum of 5.1.2 up to 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 all the way up to 24.1.10. The increased speaker count increases the spatial resolution of object placement.

For what it's worth, most of the rooms where home Atmos mixes are created are 7.1.4 or perhaps 9.1.6.


----------



## dormie1360

MagnumX said:


> Seeing as you're apparently an installer, I can see why you'd want people to believe more speakers are better even in a bathroom sized room. Those Trinnov systems must be pretty lucrative in the profit margin department.



Is this really necessary? Would it be possible to articulate are opinions without silly personal stuff?


----------



## Jon AA

dschulz said:


> Isn't it also the case that with some tracks, 4 overheads arguably sound better than 6? Something about overhead objects getting pinned to only the Top Middle pair if you have 6 Tops, but if you have only 4 Tops the overhead objects get spread around.


This is true with specific movies, but it still isn't a reason not to go for 6 if your room/seating length calls for it. You can always shut off the top middle pair in the processor for a particular movie that may be mixed this way.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Jon AA said:


> This is true with specific movies, but it still isn't a reason not to go for 6 if your room/seating length calls for it. You can always shut off the top middle pair in the processor for a particular movie that may be mixed this way.


***Why limit yourself to six speakers? Think in the future - a twenty-five years from now when you have 100 micro “height” speakers that simulate rain falling, each drop a nanosecond behind each other. Just kidding. 

It’s really dependent on your room size and how effectively you can layout speakers. And having a processor like the Trinnov must be a real thrill. I get great enjoyment out of my 7.1.4 setup in my modest man cave. Outside of the switch from SD to HDTV, I can think of no other technological advancement better than Dolby Atmos sound in the last 20+ years that’s provided the biggest bang for your hard earned buck.


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> Setting aside the unfortunate mixes that get hard printed to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4...


While we are on this topic - how would one technically print an atmos mix with fixed .2 or .4 height channels?
I was under impression, that there are no dedicated channels available for the height plane and signals to these speakers are exclusively rendered from the objects?
Or would the sound mixer then use only 2 objects with fixed room coordinates and call it a day?
My understanding of the whole object-based audio was nicely summed up in your 2 statements:


dschulz said:


> ...the mix is now independent of the playback channel count.
> ...
> The increased speaker count increases the spatial resolution of object placement.


The "channel" printing of height plane contradicts this understanding in my head.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

priitv8 said:


> While we are on this topic - how would one technically print an atmos mix with fixed .2 or .4 height channels?
> I was under impression, that there are no dedicated channels available for the height plane and signals to these speakers are exclusively rendered from the objects?
> Or would the sound mixer then use only 2 objects with fixed room coordinates and call it a day?
> My understanding of the whole object-based audio was nicely summed up in your 2 statements:
> 
> The "channel" printing of height plane contradicts this understanding in my head.



You snap 2, 4, or 6 objects to specific overhead speaker locations. They then become... basically... fixed channels. The mixers then run the panned audio from the session through those fixed objects (now acting as channels) plus the 7 base speaker channels and the LFE and call it a day. 



FilmMixer did say a while back that it was actually more time consuming to futz up a Dolby Atmos mix this way (like Disney often does and a smattering of other random mixes from other studios) than letting the objects move about a specific speaker lookup table (62 for commercial mixes or 34 for the home, as the case may be) based on metadata panning coordinates as they normally would and as Dolby Labs originally intended.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> Please explain how in a rectangular shaped room, you get "new" physical imaging locations with 34 speakers rather than 8 speakers in a small room. If you're just one person watching a movie at the MLP, do you NEED a center channel speaker? No, you do not. It will phantom image just fine with two speakers and the center set to phantom. In fact, it's likely to sound better than using a speaker that may not match your mains precisely and that's still true whether the center channel speaker is "discrete" or not. It makes no difference as two speakers are more than capable of phantom imaging a center and a phantom center sound IDENTICAL to a hard center using identical speakers. So if you have 8 (four ear level and four overheads) speakers in a small room that can phantom image between themselves just fine, what NEW locations do you get adding more speakers in that room? Side surrounds are just 50% between front and rears. FW are just 50% between side and front, etc. etc. etc. Those aren't NEW locations. They are in-between locations.
> 
> If the room gets too large, the phantom imaging doesn't work very well between speakers (starts to fall apart at the middle first), even for one person so you need more speakers to increase the phantom imaging resolution so the image is nice and solid once again. If you sit off-axis, the precedence effect destroys the imaging as it pulls hard towards the closer speaker. That's why there's a center speaker in the first place so dialog comes from the screen direction even if you're sitting off to the left or right of center. That's true of other locations as well as you add more rows of seats (more off axis in every direction and larger rooms need more speakers). The difference between discrete and arrays at that point is the precedent effect is greatly REDUCED with discrete locations whereas arrays just pull to a point in-between the speakers and with more speakers that point varies even further. That is evidence if you do a center channel speaker and create it with a powered mixer from the left/right channels versus a Pro Logic decoder with "steering" that is more discrete. If you sit halfway between the left speaker and the center speaker with the matrixed center, the dialog will come from about halfway between the left and center speaker (array effect) whereas with the more discrete Pro Logic steering, it will come directly from the center channel speaker just as it will for the MLP. Imaging panning across the front still won't be as "even" as it is for the MLP, but it will be better than with just 2 speakers. Add MORE speakers across the front (left center, right center and left/right screen) and the panning across the front will be a LOT more EVEN sounding for people not sitting in the center!
> 
> That's the whole point of having many many discrete speakers. EVERYONE in the theater gets the same experience! The bird comes from the same point in the theater for the guy in the front row center, the guy one third back off to the left and the guy 2/3 back off to the right! They will all point to the same point in the room when asked where the bird is as it flies around (within the error of the resolution of the room to the number of discrete speakers. The more speakers, the more accurate they will agree where the bird is located!)
> 
> Top Middle or Surround #2 are _not_ "new" locations. They are to increase the accuracy of the sound placement for all seats in a theater (whether a cinema or a home theater). If you're sitting MLP in a very small room, they aren't needed to gauge accurately where the bird is located. Adding more speakers in a small room with one listener isn't going to increase that resolution because you're already hearing the location pretty accurate.
> 
> Hence, I'll say AGAIN. The purpose of having MORE speakers in a home theater environment beyond 7.1.4 is for SCALING (to keep imaging accurate in larger rooms with or without more rows of seats) and to defeat the precedence effect when sitting off-axis (more off-center seats whether it be left/right or front/back).
> 
> Seeing as you're apparently an installer, I can see why you'd want people to believe more speakers are better even in a bathroom sized room. Those Trinnov systems must be pretty lucrative in the profit margin department.


Eh, the snide remark doesn't contribute much of value. Although I do occasionally sell equipment, my core business is supporting manufacturers, dealers/integrators, home cinema designers, and end-users. Admittedly, a very high percentage of them are high channel count systems, including somewhere around 100 Trinnov calibrations by now, but also many more 7.x.4 and such over the years, using DSP to array multiple side channels and the like. 

Anyway, having read through your recent explanation of your position, I'm more in agreement than I was previously. There are a few nit picky things I disagree on regarding how good phantom imaging can sound. 

You are largely correct however. More or less, no "new speaker locations" are created when adding more speakers beyond 7.1.4. Accuracy and smoothness in transitions from speaker to speaker are improved of course, even for a single listener. I misunderstood your intent earlier, but refrained from personal attacks. In the previous post that I quoted, your much briefer statement led me to believe that you were suggesting there was no additional "content" beyond 7.1.4, and that any additional speakers were simply arrays or merely replacing phantom images with actual speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> Eh, the snide remark doesn't contribute much of value.


It wasn't meant to be snide or an insult so I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I saw it simply as a possible motivation to claim my post is incorrect. The higher end the products sold, the higher the profit margins tend to be so I see very good reason for 34 count Atmos systems to be pushed in the same way that an automobile salesman pushes to sell features a customer may not actually need or want, but are soon convinced otherwise. You'll have to forgive my assumption thereof as your sudden appearance shortly after someone suggested someone here might need a professional salesman/installer seems highly coincidental to me and my post suggesting all but the largest installs probably don't need all 34 Atmos speakers would be contrary to the said person's seeming intent on setting them all up for just one seat in a mid-sized room. My own room is 12x24 and I have 17.1 speakers installed. That's considerably more than 7.1.4, but not even close to 24.1.10.



> Although I do occasionally sell equipment, my core business is supporting manufacturers, dealers/integrators, home cinema designers, and end-users. Admittedly, a very high percentage of them are high channel count systems, including somewhere around 100 Trinnov calibrations by now, but also many more 7.x.4 and such over the years, using DSP to array multiple side channels and the like.


In other words, higher count high end systems are in your best interests, yes? You don't have to be the direct sales person. You may simply not like people suggesting such systems aren't needed in most cases as their orders from you are predicated upon demand like any other product. If I hurt demand, even slightly, it's a detriment to your business and thus possible motivation from my perspective. It's perfectly understandable. The auto sales guy certainly encouraged me to get a Hellcat when I only wanted a scat pack and even then it was overkill unless I intended to break speeding laws. The AWD Challenger is the best choice for the climate I'm in, but it's hard to give up a manual transmission as I find automatics boring, even with paddle shifters.



> Anyway, having read through your recent explanation of your position, I'm more in agreement than I was previously. There are a few nit picky things I disagree on regarding how good phantom imaging can sound.


Certainly, it would be a small room indeed to get by with just eight speakers and expect precision movement and yet most people seem quite happy with only four overhead speakers (I have six and wouldn't mind eight or even ten to nearly completely eliminate the front-to-back precedence effect and that's with only 3 rows of seats), but then those are usually "tops" speakers which of course only utilize 1/2 the room length. But you see my motivation is greater accuracy for more seats. Six overheads in a 24' room is perfectly adequate for just the MLP. Four overheads is not because the middle point disintegrates over that distance (using heights to utilize the full length of the room overhead). Even so, some speakers phantom image better or worse than others even as stereo, let alone as part of a home theater where the ear is less sensitive in some directions than others.



> You are largely correct however. More or less, no "new speaker locations" are created when adding more speakers beyond 7.1.4. Accuracy and smoothness in transitions from speaker to speaker are improved of course, even for a single listener. I misunderstood your intent earlier, but refrained from personal attacks. In the previous post that I quoted, your much briefer statement led me to believe that you were suggesting there was no additional "content" beyond 7.1.4, and that any additional speakers were simply arrays or merely replacing phantom images with actual speakers.


The content in Atmos is rendered and thus more speakers will give more panning accuracy in larger rooms, but I was essentially suggesting that there is a point of greatly diminishing returns where most people cannot tell a difference (hence some claiming that six overheads sounded the same to them as four, etc. I have six overheads and they do not sound at all like four when I use the full length of the room. If I cut the output to only half the room length and switch to essentially 5.1.4, it sounds quite good for only 12' in length/coverage. 7.1.6 is adequate for the room dimensions (and is the extent of my "discrete" or "near discrete" speaker output. The matrixed FW/SS#2 speakers are purely to improve imaging for the extra off-axis seats. I'd switch them to discrete as soon as a reasonably priced 18-channel AVP becomes available. It's not worth Trinnov prices to me for seats that are hardly ever used. 

The matrixed front wides do seem to enhance stereo playback, however (as does the mixing to front heights for "dialog lift" effects) as they do cancel some lower frequency (


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> In other words, higher count high end systems are in your best interests, yes?


Not really. I charge the same for a 2 day calibration whether it is 7.x.4 or 21.x.10. I enjoy working on the higher channel count systems tho! Those are generally larger rooms, have larger screens and better projectors, and are often purpose built isolated rooms with good acoustic designs. The high channel count systems generally have Trinnov/StormAudio audio processors and/or external DSP, which gives me a lot of tools to craft a truly amazing sound.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> The content in Atmos is rendered and thus more speakers will give more panning accuracy in larger rooms, but I was essentially suggesting that there is a point of greatly diminishing returns where most people cannot tell a difference (hence some claiming that six overheads sounded the same to them as four, etc. I have six overheads and they do not sound at all like four when I use the full length of the room. If I cut the output to only half the room length and switch to essentially 5.1.4, it sounds quite good for only 12' in length/coverage. 7.1.6 is adequate for the room dimensions (and is the extent of my "discrete" or "near discrete" speaker output. The matrixed FW/SS#2 speakers are purely to improve imaging for the extra off-axis seats. I'd switch them to discrete as soon as a reasonably priced 18-channel AVP becomes available. It's not worth Trinnov prices to me for seats that are hardly ever used.


Editing posts seems to be broken for me this morning, so multiple posts.

In your system, Lw/Rw and Ls2/Rs2 may be arrayed/matrixed (I think you are running what some have called FrankenAtmos?) but with a Trinnov Altitude/StormAudio those are discrete channels, and not just used to improve things for additional rows of seating, of course. There is discrete content associated with those speakers in properly mixed Atmos movies, so would also be an upgrade for a single seat theater. I only mention that because of your last sentence that suggests that a pre-pro capable of higher channel counts has value only for additional seats, which is not the case.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> Editing posts seems to be broken for me this morning, so multiple posts.
> 
> In your system, Lw/Rw and Ls2/Rs2 may be arrayed/matrixed (I think you are running what some have called FrankenAtmos?) but with a Trinnov Altitude/StormAudio those are discrete channels, and not just used to improve things for additional rows of seating, of course. There is discrete content associated with those speakers in properly mixed Atmos movies, so would also be an upgrade for a single seat theater. I only mention that because of your last sentence that suggests that a pre-pro capable of higher channel counts has value only for additional seats, which is not the case.


I see that you're once again back to claiming Atmos prouduces "new sounds" rather than ones that will already appear in those locations in a properly sized and set up home theater with phantom imaging. I thought we were past that, but clearly not.  

FrankenAtmos? That's a new one I've not heard before with clear negative connotations. There's nothing "new" about matrixing. Mixers have been around forever and the effects of arrays are well known and still improve accuracy at least 50% (depending on how far off-axis you sit) over phantom imaging for off-axis seats due to the precedence effect. In fact, a highly regarded processor (The Lyngdorf-MP60) has it built-in to add up to four extra non-discrete channels. I didn't see anyone demeaning that unit when it came out, but now it's "FrankenAtmos" if you do it yourself. Gotcha.  The speakers don't need to be changed if/when I get true discrete rendering either, but there is little to no benefit either way for the MLP in that size room (it is only 12' wide) based on my testing thus far. Matrixed front wides when you sit in the sweet spot also tend to sound virtually identical to discrete rendering to the same location as it is the 50% point and the rendered sounds end up there anyway. The only difference between matrixed and discrete is the array effect and it images in the same location when sitting halfway in-between the two speakers. That means, (you got it), it only really benefits off-axis seats to go to discrete.

As for not having a proper way to compare, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I also have a 7010 AVR here with actual Front Wide rendered outputs to compare that I used when I first set the room up. The various Atmos demos and movies tested sounded identical in terms of the imaging moving through that position when it was properly set up to switching the front wides off from the MLP. _Identical_ meaning I could not hear any difference with the demos and movie selections with or without the front wides added from the MLP because they imaged in the same place. It's one of the reasons I didn't mind moving to the 7012 when the 7010 broke (I've since repaired the 7010 myself and it's now a backup). It's like trying to tell the difference between a center channel and phantom center imaging when 3 identical speakers are used and set up properly. They tend to sound the same (whereas using most of the so-called "center channel speakers" out there results in a clear difference because they're using different arrangements of drivers, if they're even the same drivers).


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> You snap 2, 4, or 6 objects to specific overhead speaker locations. They then become... basically... fixed channels. The mixers then run the panned audio from the session through those fixed objects (now acting as channels) plus the 7 base speaker channels and the LFE and call it a day.
> 
> FilmMixer did say a while back that it was actually more time consuming to futz up a Dolby Atmos mix this way (like Disney often does and a smattering of other random mixes from other studios) than letting the objects move about a specific speaker lookup table (62 for commercial mixes or 34 for the home, as the case may be) based on metadata panning coordinates as they normally would and as Dolby Labs originally intended.


***If I understand you correctly, you have a base Dolby Atmos mix (7.1.4?) and then "height" objects (or any other objects) get snapped to specific locations based on the number of speakers (channels) you have? Is this where calibration would come in for Trinnov or Storm Audio processors? Or is that an automatic process? As always, I'm sure the quality of the Dolby Atmos mix makes a difference in the sound. I wonder if there are certain movies via Bluray disc that sound better, for the lack of the right term, than other content with sophisticated processors past 7.1.4. Last question and I appreciate everyone's responses. How about plain old Dolby Atmos via DD+ (ARC)? Probably a basic mix that the processor handles and renders the objects to your channel locations?


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Last question and I appreciate everyone's responses. How about plain old Dolby Atmos via DD+ (ARC)? Probably a basic mix that the processor handles and renders the objects to your channel locations?


Think of Atmos as being made up of 2 basic parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on where to place the audio). The instructions don't take up much storage space or transmission bandwidth, so the metadata can be the same whether delivered on disc or via streaming. The problem is the audio. When there is plenty of storage space (like on disc), you can use lossless packing (TrueHD). When there is limited transmission bandwidth (like with streaming), you need to use lossy compression (DD+). But how you pack/compress the audio doesn't change the instructions. So the same mix can be used for disc and streaming. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if studios sometimes have a separate "basic mix" to make it easier to squeeze an Atmos track through a narrow transmission pipe for streaming. Just pointing out that it isn't a necessity.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> ...how would one technically print an atmos mix with fixed .2 or .4 height channels?


Substitute the term "pre-render" when you see "print". Imaging you're hired to mix an Atmos track for the home video release of a movie. You monitor the mix on a 7.1.4 speaker layout and use as many objects as you want. When it comes time to put your mix on disc, the studio doesn't use your Atmos mix but instead uses the feeds to your 7.1.4 speaker layout. Your Atmos mix has been delivered essentially as an 11.1 channel mix that was pre-rendered to your 7.1.4 configuration. That's what printed means. Technically, it is as easy as pushing a button (the Atmos encoder allows the mix to be output as 7.1.2, 7.1.4, etc.).


> I was under impression, that there are no dedicated channels available for the height plane and signals to these speakers are exclusively rendered from the objects?


Correct. But keep in mind that objects can mimic channels by: a) not moving throughout the movie, and b) being assigned to a speaker rather than an arbitrary location in 3D space. For all intents and purposes, those objects would be indistinguishable from height channels.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> Think of Atmos as being made up of 2 basic parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on where to place the audio). The instructions don't take up much storage space or transmission bandwidth, so the metadata can be the same whether delivered on disc or via streaming. The problem is the audio. When there is plenty of storage space (like on disc), you can use lossless packing (TrueHD). When there is limited transmission bandwidth (like with streaming), you need to use lossy compression (DD+). But how you pack/compress the audio doesn't change the instructions. So the same mix can be used for disc and streaming. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if studios sometimes have a separate "basic mix" to make it easier to squeeze an Atmos track through a narrow transmission pipe for streaming. Just pointing out that it isn't a necessity.


***Thanks Sanjay. I always value and enjoy your posts. And while DD+ is lossy audio, I find that some mixes via Netflix and DV (DD+ via ARC) sound fantastic. Case in point "Extraction." 

It sounds like the audio metadata is the same (lossy or lossless) as well as the instructions in terms of unpacking. I made a decision a while back to go with streaming versus buying or renting Dolby Atmos Bluray discs. Most of my Dolby Atmos content is via Netflix and Dolby Vision. I'm not sure how much I'm missing, sound wise, with the same material on a Bluray disc versus streaming on my simple 7.1.4 system. But nevertheless - - I'll take a Dolby Atmos soundtrack any day over 5.1, even if it's in the lossy format. Thx again.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> I'm not sure how much I'm missing, sound wise, with the same material on a Bluray disc versus streaming on my simple 7.1.4 system.


Just the difference between lossy and lossless. But with modern lossy codecs being so efficient, I don't know how audible that difference would be.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Ricoflashback said:


> ***If I understand you correctly, you have a base Dolby Atmos mix (7.1.4?) and then "height" objects (or any other objects) get snapped to specific locations based on the number of speakers (channels) you have? Is this where calibration would come in for Trinnov or Storm Audio processors? Or is that an automatic process? As always, I'm sure the quality of the Dolby Atmos mix makes a difference in the sound. I wonder if there are certain movies via Bluray disc that sound better, for the lack of the right term, than other content with sophisticated processors past 7.1.4. Last question and I appreciate everyone's responses. How about plain old Dolby Atmos via DD+ (ARC)? Probably a basic mix that the processor handles and renders the objects to your channel locations?



By my understanding of your STANDARD home Dolby Atmos mix (as normally accomplished in a Pro Tools HD session with a consumer Atmos plug in), especially if coming from a professional theatrical Atmos session, you allocate 7.1 channels (the standard base bed layer) and two fixed objects in the Top Middle position (acting as the two overhead bed channels from the theatrical session). You then have a few leftover discrete objects that can move through any of 34 speaker positions in the lookup table depending on where you pan them (which creates metadata control packets). If your theatrical mix has more discrete objects than allowed in the home Atmos session, those get clustered with the handful of discrete objects available plus the 7 base speakers (now considered objects within the count too) using "spatial compression" based on object location metadata.



This spatial "zoning" feature of consumer Atmos limits the overall precision of the mix, but some engineers (like FilmMixer) seem to believe it is hard to discern much of a sonic difference in comparison to a theatrical Atmos mix with 118 or so discrete objects to play with at any one time. It may be because the busier the audio mix, the more the human hearing system lumps the sounds together anyway where you cannot pick out as easily discrete moments of pinpoint sound locations as one or more sound frequencies and volume levels output at once may mask others.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> I see that you're once again back to claiming Atmos prouduces "new sounds" rather than ones that will already appear in those locations in a properly sized and set up home theater with phantom imaging. I thought we were past that, but clearly not.
> 
> FrankenAtmos? That's a new one I've not heard before with clear negative connotations. There's nothing "new" about matrixing. Mixers have been around forever and the effects of arrays are well known and still improve accuracy at least 50% (depending on how far off-axis you sit) over phantom imaging for off-axis seats due to the precedence effect. In fact, a highly regarded processor (The Lyngdorf-MP60) has it built-in to add up to four extra non-discrete channels. I didn't see anyone demeaning that unit when it came out, but now it's "FrankenAtmos" if you do it yourself. Gotcha.  The speakers don't need to be changed if/when I get true discrete rendering either, but there is little to no benefit either way for the MLP in that size room (it is only 12' wide) based on my testing thus far. Matrixed front wides when you sit in the sweet spot also tend to sound virtually identical to discrete rendering to the same location as it is the 50% point and the rendered sounds end up there anyway. The only difference between matrixed and discrete is the array effect and it images in the same location when sitting halfway in-between the two speakers. That means, (you got it), it only really benefits off-axis seats to go to discrete.
> 
> As for not having a proper way to compare, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I also have a 7010 AVR here with actual Front Wide rendered outputs to compare that I used when I first set the room up. The various Atmos demos and movies tested sounded identical in terms of the imaging moving through that position when it was properly set up to switching the front wides off from the MLP. _Identical_ meaning I could not hear any difference with the demos and movie selections with or without the front wides added from the MLP because they imaged in the same place. It's one of the reasons I didn't mind moving to the 7012 when the 7010 broke (I've since repaired the 7010 myself and it's now a backup). It's like trying to tell the difference between a center channel and phantom center imaging when 3 identical speakers are used and set up properly. They tend to sound the same (whereas using most of the so-called "center channel speakers" out there results in a clear difference because they're using different arrangements of drivers, if they're even the same drivers).


I didn't come up with the name... https://www.avsforum.com/forum/29-w...785-my-11-4-12-franken-atmos-living-room.html 
While I would never suggest such a system to a client, I absolutely appreciate the creativity. It probably isn't that much different than what DTS:X Pro is doing to increase their channel count beyond 7.1.4. 

You keep moving the target here. New sounds, new speaker locations, etc. which are your words, and never stated by me. I'm not claiming either one. I also never said anything about you not having a way to make a direct comparison, or being disappointed by that. Please try not to put words in my mouth. You also mention mixing/matrixing, neither of which is happening in your system. You are cascading surround processors, and using ProLogic or some other center channel extraction to create your 11.1.6 system from 9.1.2. 

It is a fact that that Dolby Atmos contains objects that are encoded with spatial coordinates, size, and diffusion characteristics, in addition to the bed channels. The Dolby Renderer takes into account the number of speakers in the playback system, and sends the appropriate content to the speakers. You are correct that no sound is lost when Atmos is played on a 5.1.2 system, and you won't hear anything extra on a 24.1.10 system. 

However, spatial resolution certainly improves, along with overall immersion for everyone in the room, not just the MLP. Phantom imaging only works for one seat. In the case of "center channel vs phantom center", it has also been researched and proven that dialogue intelligibility improves when a dedicated center channel is used (large dip around 2kHz), so clearly not identical. In addition, when dialogue is constrained to the center channel, you can avoid masking of other sounds, by having the L&R speakers reproduce a phantom image for those sounds. This same effect applies to every possible stereo pair in the system. 

In your cascaded surround processor system, imaging for voice, soundtracks etc is probably fine for your single middle seat. Looking at your room thread, the other seats are so close to speakers that I suspect those listeners are overwhelmed by the speaker in their ear. But even for the MLP, *moving* objects intended to travel in 360° around the room can't possibly sound the same as true discretely rendered outputs, and especially not for multiple seats.


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> [...]I also have a 7010 AVR here with actual Front Wide rendered outputs to compare that I used when I first set the room up. The various Atmos demos and movies tested sounded identical in terms of the imaging moving through that position when it was properly set up to switching the front wides off from the MLP. _Identical_ meaning I could not hear any difference with the demos and movie selections with or without the front wides added from the MLP because they imaged in the same place. It's one of the reasons I didn't mind moving to the 7012 when the 7010 broke (I've since repaired the 7010 myself and it's now a backup). It's like *trying to tell the difference between a center channel and phantom center imaging when 3 identical speakers are used and set up properly*. They tend to sound the same (whereas using most of the so-called "center channel speakers" out there results in a clear difference because they're using different arrangements of drivers, if they're even the same drivers).


Thank-you for this analogy - very helpful


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> It probably isn't that much different than what DTS:X Pro is doing to increase their channel count beyond 7.1.4.


What DTS:X Pro does is exactly what I'm doing with Top Middle. I'm not trying to improve rendering panning "resolution" so much as to get solid imaging directly overhead in a room that's too long for just four overhead speakers. Panning resolution can improve with pre-rendered object data, but it's a question of whether it's really noticeable, particularly given off-screen sounds have no frame of reference as to where they 'should' appear. You will get different locations of overhead objects using "Tops" versus "Heights" as Tops only use 1/2 the ceiling and put more sounds directly overhead. Which is actually correct for where it's "supposed" to be. You'd need a Trinnov system with BOTH Heights and Tops to even figure that out. Beyond that it's subjective to whether "Heights" or "Tops" are preferred as one puts more sounds directly overhead and the other lets sounds pan further around the room and align better with music sources like Auro-3D that are designed to be played back with "overhead over bed" layouts.



> You keep moving the target here.


I haven't moved a darn thing. You say one thing, retract a bit and then say it again. It's hard to follow and frankly, I don't know what your point is other than my original assumption that you want everyone to believe higher speaker counts always equal "better" to push sales in that direction.



> You also mention mixing/matrixing, neither of which is happening in your system.


This is where you cross a line with me as you're basically calling me a liar about my own system when I know full well what's in it. This so-called "cascading" surround processors (there's nothing _cascaded_ about them so I don't know WTF you come up with that term; there's exactly one processor per channel to extract a center-point, exactly as DTS:X Pro does with Neural X.) But that is *ONLY* for "Top Middle". As *I'VE ALREADY SAID SEVERAL TIMES*, my front wide and SS#2 speakers are *MATRIXED* (two channels added summed together with a +3dB correlated maximum and summed uncorrelated canceling each other out where equal) using ACTIVE MIXERS made by ROLLS. They are NOT using any kind of Pro Logic Decoder setup. That is EXACTLY what the Lyngdorf MP-60 does internally for its extra two matrixed channels. I've said that already. You seem to want to insist to dispose of what I actually said and make something up instead and then accuse me of putting words in YOUR mouth. Unbelievable. 



> You are cascading surround processors, and using ProLogic or some other center channel extraction to create your 11.1.6 system from 9.1.2.


No. I'm not. I've tested 9.1.2 before, but I don't use it. I am creating 11.1.6 from 7.1.4. Top Middle is created using Steered Pro Logic (very similar as Neural X does internally). FW and SS#2 are matrixed from L/R Main + Side Surround = FW and Side Surround + Rear Surround = SS#2. They use ROLLS active mixers to do the summation and set levels, which allows me to actually MOVE the phantom image for side surround forward or backward as desired. This allows me to put the surround speakers in-between rows of seats (BTW, all surround speakers are over 3 feet from the listener save one beside the left middle seat, which is barely audible to that location given it's pointed away from it. NOTHING is playing _into_ anyone's ears anywhere! 



> It is a fact that that Dolby Atmos contains objects that are encoded with spatial coordinates, size, and diffusion characteristics, in addition to the bed channels.


You mostly argue about more panning precision with more speakers. That's fine, but when you have people here who cannot hear any improvement with 6 overheads than with 4 overheads in their "typical?" rooms, one has to question at what size room is the extra precision more or less inaudible or more to the point, meaningless? Assuming, an extra set of speakers correct the course of an object's travel through the room even by a couple of feet, can I hear that change reliably sitting 10 feet away? Does it matter if the helicopter veers 18 inches inward with the extra speaker than without it? Would I even notice it? As the room get larger, the margin of error increases and that object is "off course" by maybe 10 feet or more and perhaps that is objectionable sounding for some seats in a larger theater for some reason. But there are other issues as the theater gets larger that are far more important, like phantom images being solid between speakers when the speakers are getting ever further apart. That's why I'd prioritize more speakers for larger rooms or when there's more than one listening seat that's important to you that your guests get a great experience. That's what I've said from the start. Getting a slightly more accurate object travel path with no visual frame of reference is near meaningless and becomes ever more so the smaller the room gets. 

To compare to something visual, it'd be like saying you need 4K with a 55" screen when you plant to sit 20 feet away. You couldn't tell 480p from 720p at that distance, let alone 4K. A 4K set may not hurt anything, but it's not going to improve anything either (excluding HDR).



> Phantom imaging only works for one seat.


Correct. But I said from the start that more speakers would improve accuracy for off-axis seating and for keeping panning resolution acceptable as the room size increases. Go back to my first post. That's EXACTLY what I said.



> In the case of "center channel vs phantom center", it has also been researched and proven that dialogue intelligibility improves when a dedicated center channel is used (large dip around 2kHz), so clearly not identical.


Tell that to my ears when I turned the phantom center on/off to compare my three identical B15 speakers in my original 6.1 setup. Whatever research "proved" I sure as heck couldn't hear any difference kicking it on/off instantly (Atmos systems are slow to switch but old school 5.1/7.1 systems were often instantaneous). 



> In addition, when dialogue is constrained to the center channel, you can avoid masking of other sounds, by having the L&R speakers reproduce a phantom image for those sounds. This same effect applies to every possible stereo pair in the system.


You do realize you're arguing you need multiple speakers for better quality (less "masked" sounds from a speaker and yet everything you hear on the receiving end is heard by just TWO eardrums, right?) Personally, I'd question this. You'll get more interference and cancellation from using multiple speakers than just two. There's a reason some of the best loudspeakers in the world are two-way designs. My Carver AL-III ribbons cover 200Hz-20kHz with a single line-source ribbon. There's no "loss of resolution" or "more masking". Those are some of the finest reproductions of sound I've ever heard. I can often hear detail on those speakers I cannot on regular driver speakers. Line sources cancel the room out vertically, so the "extra resolution" is from less muddling of reflections from the vertical plane.

Frankly, I've grown tired arguing pointless details about something that is very subtle and subjective in smaller rooms at best and a waste of money at worst for a single listener. If you want to slam my post, go ahead. I'm done here.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> I'm done here.


Ok.


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> But keep in mind that objects can mimic channels by: a) not moving throughout the movie, and b) being assigned to a speaker rather than an arbitrary location in 3D space. For all intents and purposes, those objects would be indistinguishable from height channels.


OK, now comes the tricky part - because these are objects and not dedicated channels (tied to specific speakers) - now the renderer has to find best output channels according to available speakers at hand. OK, maybe it is not that different from "downmixing" 7.1 content into 5.1 available speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

priitv8 said:


> OK, now comes the tricky part - because these are objects and not dedicated channels (tied to specific speakers) - now the renderer has to find best output channels according to available speakers at hand. OK, maybe it is not that different from "downmixing" 7.1 content into 5.1 available speakers.


A "renderer" is basically an "automatic" panning/width system. Instead of panning manually sound effects across two or more channels and increasing the sound width by spreading it across the two or more channels, it does it automatically based on drawn "paths" of sound "objects". Object size tells it how "wide" to spread the sound and the path determines where and when to pan through various speakers (from staying in one with a "snap" assignment to coming out of all the speakers at various levels depending on how big the object is. Because the rendering is done on the fly, the "spatial resolution" is increased in the sense that it can smoothly pan more than just 7.1 channels. It can pan through up to 34 channels. Hence, Atmos. "Print through" soundtracks are more or less like the old 7.1 soundtracks pre-rendered or even manually controlled and assigned as stationary objects. They still pan, but it's all pre-done and therefore makes Atmos seem like a channel based system rather than an object based one. It also eliminates the ability to pan across more than the pre-rendered channels and thus you lose ALL the extra speakers beyond the stationary ones. Typically this means you're limited to 7.1.4.

DTS:X Pro uses something called Neural X to determine the mid-points (similar to the old Pro Logic "steering" mechanisms) and extract that audio out of the panning process and move it to an extra speaker in-between. It takes this to 32.2 speakers, however. This solves "part" of the problem. The spatial resolution is still lower because it's using pre-panned data (it can't make say a tiny course correction between just two of the 'extra' speakers like an object can), but it does let your system "scale" to larger sizes where phantom imaging falls apart, thus making 7.1.4 soundtracks completely viable in a very large home theater. It doesn't add more "panning steps" but it spreads it through the extra speakers, still helping to eliminate the precedence effect and giving hard locations to the sounds in the room and still behaving very much like a discrete system in that regard. For the way most soundtracks are done (very basic paths of object panning), you probably wouldn't notice a difference. DTS:X Pro can also use object rendering similar to Atmos, but thus far most DTS:X soundtracks have not used them much at all. But the capability is there. Auro-3D is a strict channel only based system for 8.1-13.1 sets of speakers. In theaters it used arrays to add more speakers until Auromax came out which is its object based system for theaters, but never came to the home environment.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> OK, now comes the tricky part - because these are objects and not dedicated channels (tied to specific speakers) - now the renderer has to find best output channels according to available speakers at hand.


Atmos allows objects to be given x,y,z coordinates in 3D space or be tied to a specific speaker (e.g., Left Top Front). The Atmos test tones on Dolby demo discs are good examples of this. Those static objects (as opposed to dynamic objects) behave just like channels.


> OK, maybe it is not that different from "downmixing" 7.1 content into 5.1 available speakers.


IF the intended speaker is not configured, then the renderer will use nearby speakers. Like you said, not that different from downmixing (e.g., when the Centre speaker is not configured, the Centre channel just goes to the L/R speakers).


----------



## tigerhonaker

Rich 63 said:


> Would you children give it a rest already. Is it so important to be right. Arguing a point over the internet seems kind of useless especially now that it's personal.
> 
> *And to top it off, its people arguing over a system setup that 99% of us will never have.*


Hey Rich,









Terry


----------



## Rich 63

Hey Terry. I know you have been in the unintended middle of a pi$$ing match over your choice of atmos speakers. Any word on said speaker install date yet or did I miss something and your up and running now.
Rich


----------



## MagnumX

I often think Atmos largely hasn't turned out to be quite what it promised in terms of immersion with demos that do far more than actual soundtracks. I think part of the problem is Dolby has tried to upset the old school paradigm that believes that surround sounds are distracting and thus should only be used for high action moments and largely silent the rest of the time. 

Old school film mixers seem to largely continue to do what they do best, making underwhelming soundtracks that fail to immerse 75% of the time. A couple of short overhead flybys or a helicopter taking off and cars that drive off-screen, but seem to audibly disappear before the barely make it to the side surround as if they've already driven a mile away seem to be all too common, IMO.

I just watched The Rise of Skywalker in 3D with Atmos added. It had to be the most underwhelming Atmos soundtrack (or any soundtrack as I heard the 7.1 only version also with Neural X and it wasn't that different) I've heard this year so far. Sonic The Hedgehog ran circles around it (quite literally) and it's only average for immersion itself, IMO. 

It's sad when Groundhog Day's retrofit does a better Atmos soundtrack in terms of actual immersion and realistic surround effects (even when it's just normal town/street sounds, it at least truly attempts to make you feel like you're actually there rather than just watching a movie, which I naively thought was the entire point of a format that's short for "Atmospheric"). Groundhog Day also better dynamic range than Star Wars, which is absurd for a comedy to claim, yet it's true. So much for the inventors of THX. They apparently now cater mostly to TV speakers and sound bars now....


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> I often think Atmos largely hasn't turned out to be quite what it promised in terms of immersion with demos that do far more than actual soundtracks. I think part of the problem is Dolby has tried to upset the old school paradigm that believes that surround sounds are distracting and thus should only be used for high action moments and largely silent the rest of the time.
> 
> Old school film mixers seem to largely continue to do what they do best, making underwhelming soundtracks that fail to immerse 75% of the time. A couple of short overhead flybys or a helicopter taking off and cars that drive off-screen, but seem to audibly disappear before the barely make it to the side surround as if they've already driven a mile away seem to be all too common, IMO.


I think (hope) there is still a learning/experience curve that hasn't been overcome yet. There were similar growing pains in each of the previous technological leaps in audio (mono>stereo>quad>DTS-Dolby-Auro3D). I'm sure some of you remember some truly horrible quad recordings with a 4 piece band and one musician in each speaker... 

Initially, access to Dolby Atmos for film makers was a difficult and expensive process. Dolby has continued to improve their process, it is far more accessible, and on-line workflows and tutorials abound. So I remain optimistic that the content will improve. More affordable 16ch surround processors are entering the market, so consumer interest in higher channel counts will increase. New music, gaming and Netflix content will expose more end-users and content creators to the format, hopefully creating a demand for better mixes, and a personal desire for the content creators to release their products in a high quality format.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Rich 63 said:


> Hey Terry. I know you have been in the unintended middle of a pi$$ing match over your choice of atmos speakers. Any word on said speaker install date yet or did I miss something and your up and running now.
> Rich


Rich,

If you by chance have not been over on my main dedicated thread for awhile ???
Left click on the link below and start reading from there and you will be 100% up to date once again. 

*https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-20.html#post59577668
*
Terry


----------



## sdrucker

appelz said:


> I think (hope) there is still a learning/experience curve that hasn't been overcome yet. There were similar growing pains in each of the previous technological leaps in audio (mono>stereo>quad>DTS-Dolby-Auro3D). I'm sure some of you remember some truly horrible quad recordings with a 4 piece band and one musician in each speaker...


What's not to like about having bass in the left surround and drums in the right surround? With vocals and organ in the left speaker and guitars in the right? LOL.


----------



## appelz

sdrucker said:


> What's not to like about having bass in the left surround and drums in the right surround? With vocals and organ in the left speaker and guitars in the right? LOL.


Fond memories of your favorite album growing up?? 

That approach can be done well, of course. AIX records has quite a few multichannel "stage mixes", along with traditional stereo and audience 5.1 mixes.


----------



## appelz

3D Immersive Audio at this stage reminds me somewhat of the path 3D video has taken over the years. Early on, 3D movies were primarily a special effects extravaganza, with bodies and blood and swords and car wrecks etc etc jumping out of the screen into your lap. Amusing, but not terribly interesting, and it certainly didn't pull me into the movie. Then Avatar was released in 3D, and suddenly viewers got a true sense of depth and realism, of being there. 

@MagnumX mentioned Groundhog Day as an example of how well that movie did the same for immersive audio. Hopefully we will hear more of that, as Immersive Audio matures.


----------



## Rich 63

tigerhonaker said:


> Rich 63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Terry. I know you have been in the unintended middle of a pi$$ing match over your choice of atmos speakers. Any word on said speaker install date yet or did I miss something and your up and running now.
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> If you by chance have not been over on my main dedicated thread for awhile ???
> Left click on the link below and start reading from there and you will be 100% up to date once again. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> *https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-20.html#post59577668
> *
> Terry
Click to expand...

Thanks Terry


----------



## Rich 63

appelz said:


> 3D Immersive Audio at this stage reminds me somewhat of the path 3D video has taken over the years. Early on, 3D movies were primarily a special effects extravaganza, with bodies and blood and swords and car wrecks etc etc jumping out of the screen into your lap. Amusing, but not terribly interesting, and it certainly didn't pull me into the movie. Then Avatar was released in 3D, and suddenly viewers got a true sense of depth and realism, of being there.
> 
> @MagnumX mentioned Groundhog Day as an example of how well that movie did the same for immersive audio. Hopefully we will hear more of that, as Immersive Audio matures.


While avatar showed the public what is possible it did not result in 3d becoming the norm at home. I think the same could be true of immersive audio. Of the friends I have only 2 have surround in at least a 5 channel configuration, there systems are older dd, dts. They hardly use them too. I'm a contractor and in 17 years of business I have seen maybe a handful of surround systems in homes.
Which is all to say that at this point there is not enough skin in the game for studios/sound mixers to bother with great soundtracks. The public watches what they watch either in theatre or at home with crappy TV speakers or a crappy sound bar.
We had some old friends stay with us for a week when they moved back into town a while back. You should have heard the comments about how much more enjoyable viewing was. I offered them my old gear that is sitting in storage. This would have gotten them 5.1. It was free to them including my help with setup
They are now proud owners of a Vizio soundbar with atmos support. Haven't gotten Dave to admit it but I'm pretty sure waf was at play.
So again. Surround. Very small market. Atmos. Small market of a small market.
Rich


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> 3D Immersive Audio at this stage reminds me somewhat of the path 3D video has taken over the years. Early on, 3D movies were primarily a special effects extravaganza, with bodies and blood and swords and car wrecks etc etc jumping out of the screen into your lap. Amusing, but not terribly interesting, and it certainly didn't pull me into the movie. Then Avatar was released in 3D, and suddenly viewers got a true sense of depth and realism, of being there.
> 
> @MagnumX mentioned Groundhog Day as an example of how well that movie did the same for immersive audio. Hopefully we will hear more of that, as Immersive Audio matures.


There are a lot of great Atmos soundtracks out there. I simply mention Groundhog Day because although I love the movie as a comedy, other than the opening song, I never noticed the surround in it at all on older releases (I had it on laserdisc when it first came out even). What's striking about the new Atmos version other than asking whether it even needed it is what a GREAT JOB the mixing guy did with it. While I don't recall a ton of overhead sounds (there's not a lot of things happening to put overhead, really), what I did notice in spades was that every little outside sound was present when Bill Murray's character goes around the town (indoors as well really). It was "almost" distracting it's so "atmospheric" but I think that's a good thing. It was like watching the movie again for the first time. My feeling is that older titles should probably include the original soundtrack (2-channel Dolby Surround if that's what it was in theaters, although I'm sure they could easily fit the prior 5.1 soundtrack in there too as Dolby Digital or whatever) for preservation sake, but then go wild with Atmos. If people don't like the end result, watch the original soundtrack. 

I saw a lot of complaints by "purists" about the new Blade Runner 4K Atmos soundtrack retrofit on the Blu-ray.com site. Some were quite angry how aggressive it is compared to the original soundtrack. I think it's bloody brilliant, personally, but I can understand why some might be upset about it being so very different sounding. I mean it's night and day. I think I have every version of Blade Runner there is (even a VHS copy from the '80s) and the Blu-Ray box set that has all the versions prior to the 4K Atmos version (all 5 of them) to compare or even remux. Neural X does a credible job with the originals, but the Atmos version goes far beyond just putting various sounds overhead. It's also much more aggressive and dynamic. The only place it fails, IMO is there are some damaged bits (mostly red line clipping, if I remember correctly) that couldn't be completely corrected, but it's pretty darn good, IMO. I actually prefer the US and UK Release versions (the voiceover by Ford reminds me of Bogart film noir and really Blade Runner is kind of futuristic film noir, really and a detective story to some extent so it made sense. It's also good (but different) without the voiceovers. I'm not sure how I feel about the added unicorn dream sequence and even Harrison Ford disagrees with Scott about whether Decker was meant to be human or not (Since everyone knew him from long back, it doesn't make sense he'd be a non-expiring model that just came out and even that notion was added for a "happy ending" with Rachel, so it was all out there, really. 

I actually love that Blade Runner 2049 leaves hints that still leave it somewhat open, although Deckard's apparent resilience to radiation in Vegas for being there so long might be considered a telling clue, but we don't know if he wore something outdoors, etc. so that doesn't mean the hotel itself was still contaminated inside or why people wouldn't raid Vegas for wooden items and ancient whiskey with radiation suits, especially given they have flying cars to get there and out again, but those are 2049 issues). Speaking of 2049, it may be the single most impressive over Atmos (or Auro-3D; I have both versions here) soundtrack there is in terms of overall dynamics, earth shaking bass and full use of all the available channels you can muster. I have better overhead examples, but the overall quality of Blade Runner 2049 is very impressive. The 3D version is excellent as well (I remuxed it with both Atmos and Auro-3D for my Zidoo X9S player so it's 3D video and audio). 

The overall issue is that only about 15-20% of Atmos (or DTS:X for that matter) soundtracks are what I'd call "excellent". Another 25-45% are very good to just acceptable. The rest are disappointing in almost every possible way. When a 5.1 mix blows away an Atmos soundtrack, I'd say there's a problem and I could point to many excellent 5.1 soundtracks. In some cases (e.g. Labyrinth or Superman The Movie), it seems like they wanted to keep "most" of the original soundtrack intact and just enhance it here and there. The problem with that is it pleases neither purists or fans of Atmos. It's the worst possible combination, in my opinion. Other soundtracks (mostly Disney) are greater or lesser examples of "mix for the lowest common denominator" by the sounds of them. FilmMixer said he was surprised at the real reason they're doing print-through soundtracks with lower volumes, etc. (implying there IS a reason of sorts), but wouldn't tell us and Disney sure as heck has literally nothing to say about them. Given they bought Skywalker Sound, it's particularly distressing, IMO as they used to do some of the best soundtracks around in the 1990s. Even as recently as something like TRON: Legacy, the soundtrack (7.1) is just a spectacle. At some point after that movie (around 2014 or 2015?) they suddenly shifted into sub-grade soundtracks. Some are better than others, but none seem to rise to the standards of something like TRON: Legacy. I'm afraid they're just mixing for sound bars at this point. 

I really wish they'd include a higher grade soundtrack, even if it's not the default. People who would accept those level soundtracks probably don't care one whit about Atmos anyway. Do what The Matrix did and include the old Dolby Digital track as the default if they're worried and use a better Atmos one (and even it suffers from a 6-8dB drop in maximum sound effect levels relative to dialog compared to the Cinema DTS (AptX) soundtrack I've got to compare them side-by-side. So it's not just Disney that's reducing maximum levels to 'improve dialog intelligibility" or whatever changes beyond just "near field" mixes (which most AVRs have a setting on them to compensate for anyway and by having both out there it's hard to know whether to use that setting or not; they should have had a flag embedded, IMO). I can play cinema mixes at reference levels (e.g. The THX rated Raiders of the Lost Ark BD mix) or at least close to it and they sound great (Paramount supposedly doesn't do near field mixes from what I read). Movies that have their sound effect levels reduced have too loud of dialog when raised to reference levels, forcing a level drop or having your ears bleed. It's not the near field part that screws it up, but the level ratio changes, which an interview I read with an industry guy made no bones about it. It's to "sound better on typical home theater levels and equipment" meaning people in apartments can't play loud if they wanted to and most people don't have equipment that cleanly plays to 105/115dB (Peaked average/LFE) anyway. Those of us that do, don't get to listen at those levels even if we want to with those kind of changes due to the loud dialog.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> By my understanding of your STANDARD home Dolby Atmos mix (as normally accomplished in a Pro Tools HD session with a consumer Atmos plug in), especially if coming from a professional theatrical Atmos session, you allocate 7.1 channels (the standard base bed layer) and two fixed objects in the Top Middle position (acting as the two overhead bed channels from the theatrical session). You then have a few leftover discrete objects that can move through any of 34 speaker positions in the lookup table depending on where you pan them (which creates metadata control packets). If your theatrical mix has more discrete objects than allowed in the home Atmos session, those get clustered with the handful of discrete objects available plus the 7 base speakers (now considered objects within the count too) using "spatial compression" based on object location metadata.


(not picking on you specifically, Dan, just your comment spurred me to remember this) I'll raise up a minor nitpick that I didn't have a chance to follow up on from a few days back -- I think recent discussion of the info in the Atmos Renderer Guide has changed how we should be thinking of the structure of home Atmos mixes. It's a minor thing, but I do think it clarifies some of the behavior of home Atmos to think about it with the correct common framework of understanding.

TL;DR: We have tended over the years to think of home Atmos as "7.1 channels + objects", but I think it's more accurately "11, 13, or 15 objects (plus LFE), of which up to 9 of the objects mimic channels". In other words, the distinction you make between "7.1 channels (the standard base bed layer) and two fixed objects in the Top Middle position (acting as the two overhead bed channels from the theatrical session)" is actually a non-distinction. ALL NINE of those operate identically once the Atmos renderer kicks in, they ALL become "fixed objects acting as channels". If the cinema track had 9 beds + LFE, the home Atmos track will have 9 fixed bed-like objects + LFE.

I've shared these screenshots before, but see below for the actual text / graphics in the Renderer Guide. There's a few important highlights:

- Note that beds + objects can be combined in the spatial coding process, there's no distinction once the process is done, just a set of 11/13/15 "elements". Any of the 9 "fixed" elements will behave as channels, but could be a combination of original bed content + any clustered objects. Again, no distinction between the ear level "channels" and the two Top Middle "channels" in this process.



> In the example, the original presentation (the Dolby Atmos mix without spatial coding) includes nine bed channels (in red) and ten objects (in blue). Then, spatial coding is applied. The spatial coding dynamically and optimally aggregates the beds and objects into a target number of clusters (here, 11 clusters with representative position highlighted in red). Some clusters can comprise several original objects, *or be the combination of an original bed and one or more original objects.*



- This next quote is important IMO, note the comment that "spatial coding converts bed channels to equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations" -- again, no distinction between ear level and overhead, they all map directly into a "fixed object" when converted into home Atmos format. And then it continues and explicitly recommends "configuring spatial coding with 11 to 15 output objects and one bed channel for the LFE". The posted metadata from the media files when this came up a few months back corroborates this is happening, as every Atmos mix posted showed 1 bed (LFE) and 11/13/15 objects.



> In order to maximize efficiency,* spatial coding converts bed channels to equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations. Because of this, the best results are generally obtained by configuring spatial coding with 11 to 15 output objects and one bed channel for the LFE.* (This budget of audio signals is referred to as the number of elements in both the Dolby Atmos Renderer and the Dolby Media Encoder software application. *Both Dolby Atmos Renderer software and Dolby bitstream codecs support choices of 12, 14, or 16 elements*.)



- I also think there's a common false conflation with the 7.1 TrueHD downmix and the Atmos "bed" that has created this shared misconception that "home Atmos = 7.1 bed + objects". I've also seen people infer that because streaming Atmos is carried on a 5.1 DD+ track, that implies that "streaming DD+ Atmos has 5.1 channels + objects whereas TrueHD Atmos on Blu-rays is 7.1 + objects". I don't think that's accurate at all, and is a misunderstanding of how home Atmos works. Instead, I think that the 7.1 (or 5.1) mix literally ceases to exist once the Atmos OAR kicks in, it's completely broken apart into 11/13/15 objects/elements that are then rendered on the fly based on the speaker layout (again, with up to 9 of those elements mimicking channels).

Note the paragraph about delivery over TrueHD; it refers to the 7.1 mix as a "render of the objects" (i.e. it's a downmix, not the mix), and then later notes that when Atmos kicks in, it "losslessly reverses the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects". In other words, the 7.1 render ceases to exist, it's converted back into the original output of the spatial coding process: 11/13/15 objects + an LFE channel/bed. The "7.1 channel render" and "the original spatially coded objects" are consistently referred to as mutually exclusive entities.



> Dolby TrueHD: In this case, the spatially coded objects are losslessly delivered to consumer playback devices. Typically, the Dolby TrueHD encoder creates a bitstream containing the spatially coded objects, a 7.1-channel render of the objects, and 5.1-channel and 2-channel downmixes. The 7.1-, 5.1-, and 2 channel presentations are backward-compatible with legacy Dolby TrueHD decoders. *A Dolby Atmos capable Dolby TrueHD decoder losslessly reverses the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects.* Dolby TrueHD also supports independent 7.1-, 5.1-, and 2-channel presentations of 7.1.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> (not picking on you specifically, Dan, just your comment spurred me to remember this) I'll raise up a minor nitpick that I didn't have a chance to follow up on from a few days back -- I think recent discussion of the info in the Atmos Renderer Guide has changed how we should be thinking of the structure of home Atmos mixes. It's a minor thing, but I do think it clarifies some of the behavior of home Atmos to think about it with the correct common framework of understanding.
> 
> TL;DR: We have tended over the years to think of home Atmos as "7.1 channels + objects", but I think it's more accurately "11, 13, or 15 objects (plus LFE), of which 7 or 9 of the objects mimic channels". In other words, the distinction you make between "7.1 channels (the standard base bed layer) and two fixed objects in the Top Middle position (acting as the two overhead bed channels from the theatrical session)" is actually a non-distinction. ALL NINE of those operate identically once the Atmos renderer kicks in, they ALL become "fixed objects acting as channels".
> 
> I've shared these screenshots before, but see below for the actual text / graphics in the Renderer Guide. There's a few important highlights:
> 
> - Note that beds + objects can be combined in the spatial coding process, there's no distinction once the process is done, just a set of 11/13/15 "elements". Any of the 9 "fixed" elements will behave as channels, but could be a combination of original bed content + any clustered objects. Again, no distinction between the ear level "channels" and the two Top Middle "channels" in this process.
> 
> 
> 
> - This next quote is important IMO, note the comment that "spatial coding converts bed channels to equivalent objects at predefined canonical locations" -- again, no distinction between ear level and overhead, they all map directly into a "fixed object" when converted into home Atmos format. And then it continues and explicitly recommends "configuring spatial coding with 11 to 15 output objects and one bed channel for the LFE". The posted metadata from the media files when this came up a few months back corroborates this is happening, as every Atmos mix posted showed 1 bed (LFE) and 11/13/15 objects.
> 
> 
> 
> - I also think there's a common false conflation with the 7.1 TrueHD downmix and the Atmos "bed" that has created this shared misconception that "home Atmos = 7.1 bed + objects". I've also seen people infer that because streaming Atmos is carried on a 5.1 TrueHD downmix, that implies that "streaming Atmos has 5.1 channels + objects whereas TrueHD Atmos on Blu-rays is 7.1 + objects". I don't think that's accurate at all, and is a misunderstanding of how home Atmos works. Instead, I think that the 7.1 (or 5.1) mix literally ceases to exist once the Atmos OAR kicks in, it's completely broken apart into 11/13/15 objects/elements that are then rendered on the fly based on the speaker layout (again, with up to 9 of those elements mimicking channels).
> 
> Note the paragraph about delivery over TrueHD; it refers to the 7.1 mix as a "render of the objects" (i.e. it's a downmix, not the mix), and then later notes that when Atmos kicks in, it "losslessly reverses the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects". In other words, the 7.1 render ceases to exist, it's converted back into the original output of the spatial coding process: 11/13/15 objects + an LFE channel/bed. The "7.1 channel render" and "the original spatially coded objects" are consistently referred to as mutually exclusive entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



I'm of the opinion (of course it's in hindsight given what we know now) that Dolby moved too quickly to add Dolby Atmos to the more limited Blu-ray spec and shoe horn it with existing TrueHD specs at the time rather than hold off for the BDA's next implementation of UHD Blu-ray. Given that UHD Blu-ray was to have a)greater storage and b) greater bandwidth, the immersive home format wouldn't have had to rely quite so heavily on spatial coding as you would have had more room for discrete 3D objects (also there's the fact that video is usually not allocated with as much bandwidth during encoding anyway even with the capability of 100 Megabits/sec peaks). Perhaps, objects would not have been necessary at all for a consumer immersive format and a lossless 22.2 channel (or similar) format layout (sort of like the NHK proposal, but without the center rear surround as this is not a good speaker position anyway) could have taken its place. Therefore, you wouldn't have this problem of studios locking Atmos mixes to 11.1 or 13.1 like they sometimes do (or have to do with DTS: X). Plus, this 20+ channel layout would cover most every home theater you could conceive of since the majority could not afford luxury private screening rooms and there most clients would opt for cinema gear anyway.


----------



## batpig

The promise of object-audio was that what you described wouldn't be necessary -- the mix natively scales to any layout. When you hear a top notch Atmos mix it's clear that 15 elements is sufficient to create fantastic immersive audio on a home theater layout even with 15+ speakers. The problem isn't the technology, it's how it's being used. And, anecdotally, it's an outcome which Dolby was not anticipating and isn't happy about.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> The promise of object-audio was that what you described wouldn't be necessary -- the mix natively scales to any layout. When you hear a top notch Atmos mix it's clear that 15 elements is sufficient to create fantastic immersive audio on a home theater layout even with 15+ speakers. The problem isn't the technology, it's how it's being used. And, anecdotally, it's an outcome which Dolby was not anticipating and isn't happy about.


But weren't Dolby Labs the ones who added the "feature" of locked Atmos encodes that they are now not happy about?? Talk about shooting your own toes off!


----------



## UKenGB

I have to agree with the many comments about disappointing Atmos and extend that to surround sound in general. There are too many mixes that simply do not take advantage of what is possible. Atmos is by definition supposed to be 'atmospheric' but often is not. That is forsaken for a largely stereo mix with occasional audio 'bling', by which I mean e.g. the helicopter that zooms by. Then basic stereo again once it's gone.

Jungles are noisy places, with sound ALL AROUND. But in even an Atmos movie the sounds mainly emanate from the front, with just the occasional bird flying past (like the helicopter example). But with a decent surround setup, all those jungle sounds should be all around you, that's what would make it truly immersive and 'atmospheric' and encourage the viewer to feel like they are actually there, because that's what it's like in real life. A real jungle doesn't concentrate all the sound from in front of you. It's background noise and that means all around you. I have never heard what I would consider a true to life mix of this sort of movie scene.

As is typical in so many walks of life these days, the producers of prepared content we experience seem to not be interested in realism, but concentrate instead on flashy effects. Whether that be in the audio or visual realm. The statement (by producers of said content) that true immersive audio is too distracting is utter tosh. What is distracting is a helicopter or bird that suddenly appears behind you while all the rest of the sound is concentrated at the front. Same problem with 3D video. Mostly used for flashy 'shock' effects rather than to make the experience more lifelike which is what it should be used for.

I've been messing with home theatre surround sound for almost 30 years and yet, even with the advent of clever and extremely capable technologies like Atmos etc, I still find myself occasionally running the AVR's 'test tone' around all the speakers, just to confirm they are all still working. Maybe I should give in, throw away all the decent AV kit and just get a soundbar, to suit what the sound engineers seem to be aiming at.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Dan Hitchman said:


> But weren't Dolby Labs the ones who added the "feature" of locked Atmos encodes that they are now not happy about?? Talk about shooting your own toes off!


I'm pretty sure it is more of an unintended abuse of the Dolby tools as such a recording involves more steps in the workflow. First you do the proper object based encode, then render it (play it) in the target "printed" layout where those speaker outputs locations are recorded to be used as individual fixed objects in the final encode.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***RE: "So again. Surround. Very small market. Atmos. Small market of a small market."

That's their loss. I understand your well founded observation but with a little bit of effort, you can make most home Dolby Atmos layouts work. And what a huge difference in bringing to life to a movie or a TV show with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack via streaming & ARC & DD+ or a Bluray disc. I remember the first time I heard Saving Private Ryan in 5.1. A real game changer. As I've said before, outside of the switch from SD to HDTV, I can't think of anything else that has provided a bigger bang for the buck and enjoyment. 

Yes, there will be the majority of home owners that use a soundbar or won't invest in any speaker setup at all. Part of that is education (Dolby Atmos isn't as complex and confusing as some folks think) as well as cost considerations (AVR/speaker cost/room limitations.) But most AVR's are Dolby Atmos capable. Hopefully, new house construction builds in wiring for an extended speaker layout in the main room or a separate, dedicated theater room. It always gets down to cost and what you value. How can Dolby expand this "small market of a small market" beyond us home enthusiasts?


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

UKenGB said:


> Jungles are noisy places, with sound ALL AROUND. But in even an Atmos movie the sounds mainly emanate from the front, with just the occasional bird flying past (like the helicopter example). But with a decent surround setup, all those jungle sounds should be all around you, that's what would make it truly immersive and 'atmospheric' and encourage the viewer to feel like they are actually there, because that's what it's like in real life. A real jungle doesn't concentrate all the sound from in front of you. It's background noise and that means all around you. I have never heard what I would consider a true to life mix of this sort of movie scene.



Same. After having watched a lot of atmos content, I still didn't get this feeling of getting surrounded especially during these scenes. I always used to think it was due to my setup with only 2 overhead speakers that none of them took advantage of. What really surprised me was the way DTS:X content sounded overall. I watched bourne trilogy and throughout most of the movies, I really felt like I was in the middle of the city with vehicle movements and ambient noise was all over me. This was even clearly felt during chase sequences. Also for atmos movies, I had to bump my overhead speakers by 2 or 3 db, but it wasn't necessary for DTS:X. 

I'm planning to watch the entire harry potter collection with dts:x audio as I heard good things about that too.


----------



## sdrucker

Ricoflashback said:


> ***RE: "So again. Surround. Very small market. Atmos. Small market of a small market."
> 
> That's their loss. I understand your well founded observation but with a little bit of effort, you can make most home Dolby Atmos layouts work. And what a huge difference in bringing to life to a movie or a TV show with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack via streaming & ARC & DD+ or a Bluray disc. I remember the first time I heard Saving Private Ryan in 5.1. A real game changer. As I've said before, outside of the switch from SD to HDTV, I can't think of anything else that has provided a bigger bang for the buck and enjoyment.
> 
> Yes, there will be the majority of home owners that use a soundbar or won't invest in any speaker setup at all. Part of that is education (Dolby Atmos isn't as complex and confusing as some folks think) as well as cost considerations (AVR/speaker cost/room limitations.) But most AVR's are Dolby Atmos capable. Hopefully, new house construction builds in wiring for an extended speaker layout in the main room or a separate, dedicated theater room. It always gets down to cost and what you value. How can Dolby expand this "small market of a small market" beyond us home enthusiasts?


Say what you will, but that's where COVID-19 may present an opportunity in the midst of the pandemic. If the large cinema model becomes an albatross due to the need for social distancing and (at least as important) the potential risk factor of contracting the disease for moviegoers, getting a blast of the "good old days" looks a lot better when you have a PJ, screen and an AVR with supporting speakers and sub(s). You don't need to exactly own a Trinnov (although it's recommended LOL) to do a reasonable job for an HT with a 7.1.4 system, a late model AVR that supports Atmos, and a used or inexpensive PJ + screen. All you need is a separate room or at least one with where you can have a drop-down screen (hell, you could do a bedsheet on a wall as a rough start) and a portable PJ. And in the area of perfect not being the enemy of the good, those Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers that it was fashionable to mock a few years ago look a LOT better for a midrange home A/V users with a spare room and minimal design skills.

It won't be like anything we'd do as best practice, but it can be affordable enough to be in the reach of at least upper middle class America. And if the studios are forced to move to a model where Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ are primary delivery vehicles, this change may eventually start to happen. The economics of how movie releases are priced, and what kind of movies get released will need some changes, though.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Ricoflashback said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***RE: "So again. Surround. Very small market. Atmos. Small market of a small market."
> 
> That's their loss. I understand your well founded observation but with a little bit of effort, you can make most home Dolby Atmos layouts work. And what a huge difference in bringing to life to a movie or a TV show with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack via streaming & ARC & DD+ or a Bluray disc. I remember the first time I heard Saving Private Ryan in 5.1. A real game changer. As I've said before, outside of the switch from SD to HDTV, I can't think of anything else that has provided a bigger bang for the buck and enjoyment.
> 
> Yes, there will be the majority of home owners that use a soundbar or won't invest in any speaker setup at all. Part of that is education (Dolby Atmos isn't as complex and confusing as some folks think) as well as cost considerations (AVR/speaker cost/room limitations.) But most AVR's are Dolby Atmos capable. Hopefully, new house construction builds in wiring for an extended speaker layout in the main room or a separate, dedicated theater room. It always gets down to cost and what you value. How can Dolby expand this "small market of a small market" beyond us home enthusiasts?
> 
> 
> 
> Say what you will, but that's where COVID-19 may present an opportunity in the midst of the pandemic. If the large cinema model becomes an albatross due to the need for social distancing and (at least as important) the potential risk factor of contracting the disease for moviegoers, getting a blast of the "good old days" looks a lot better when you have a PJ, screen and an AVR with supporting speakers and sub(s). You don't need to exactly own a Trinnov (although it's recommended LOL) to do a reasonable job for an HT with a 7.1.4 system, a late model AVR that supports Atmos, and a used or inexpensive PJ + screen. All you need is a separate room or at least one with where you can have a drop-down screen (hell, you could do a bedsheet on a wall as a rough start) and a portable PJ. And in the area of perfect not being the enemy of the good, those Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers that it was fashionable to mock a few years ago look a LOT better for a midrange home A/V users with a spare room and minimal design skills.
> 
> It won't be like anything we'd do as best practice, but it can be affordable enough to be in the reach of at least upper middle class America. And if the studios are forced to move to a model where Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ are primary delivery vehicles, this change may eventually start to happen. The economics of how movie releases are priced, and what kind of movies get released will need some changes, though.
Click to expand...

The trouble with everything being produced for the small screen is that more and more audio mixes will be designed for the lowest common denominator, mainly soundbars and TV speakers. The bulk of the mixes will no longer be monitored in large auditoriums with powerful audio systems and multi speaker arrays in order to shave production costs.

Our A/V hobby and audio mixing and presentation quality in general are going to be hit as badly as the economy.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Dan Hitchman said:


> The trouble with everything being produced for the small screen is that more and more audio mixes will be designed for the lowest common denominator, mainly soundbars and TV speakers. The bulk of the mixes will no longer be monitored in large auditoriums with powerful audio systems and multi speaker arrays in order to shave production costs.
> 
> Our A/V hobby and audio mixing and presentation quality in general are going to be hit as badly as the economy.


***You're correct about the movie theater industry. From "The Motley Fool" last month - "The prognosis isn't getting any better for the movie theater industry. *AMC* (NYSE:AMC) -- in a letter obtained by Deadline -- wrote to its landlords late last month, explaining that it will stop paying rent this month. The sobering report finds Loop Capital analyst Alan Gould downgrading the stock to "sell" on Wednesday, concerned about the liquidity of the country's largest multiplex operator. 

AMC argues that its theaters have been closed since mid-March. It has furloughed 25,000 employees, reduced salaries of its general managers, and slashed payroll at its corporate office. It can't afford to pay the lease on theaters it can't use. Gould sees bankruptcy a "distinct" possibility for AMC, and even if it can line up financing, it will be highly dilutive. He is lowering his price target on the stock from $4 to $1."

Like Mr. Drucker said - - the entire motion picture industry "model" will have to change with the temporary home delivery of first run films. (But not at the ridiculous price of $20 for a movie like the "Invisible Man" from Comcast. They have to be out of their minds.) I'm not sure how much production costs can be saved on the audio side - - it would seem that on the video side, location selection as well as actors' salaries would make much more of an impact on the bottom line. 

I do know one thing - - cash will be "King" in the next couple of years and you'll be able to get some incredible deals on lots of things besides home theater equipment. A very unfortunate outcome of the Coronavirus. I just don't see peoples' spending habits going back to what they were before COVID-19. Many folks will be digging out from the lost income.


----------



## sdrucker

mrtickleuk said:


> Social Justice Warrior movies, apparently. Never heard of that term before. I've never seen any evidence of people stopping going based on that - here in the UK we have a wide variety of movies shown to cater for all tastes, not just what Hollywood pumps out.


I was actually thinking of less big blockbuster remakes and Marvel movies, and more of the original series kind of thing Netflix does. Although I wouldn't mind a sequel to 6 Underground on Netflix  as long as it's mixed in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> The trouble with everything being produced for the small screen is that more and more audio mixes will be designed for the lowest common denominator, mainly soundbars and TV speakers. The bulk of the mixes will no longer be monitored in large auditoriums with powerful audio systems and multi speaker arrays in order to shave production costs.


Why does everything have to be produced for the small screen? A 75" or 85" TV isn't exactly "small screen" except to us, it runs as low as $1100 (just did a random Google search and found a Samsung 75" UHD Class 7 TV for that price from Best Buy), and UHD/HDR is a going concern. No reason why audio has to be dumbed down to 5.1 or 2.0 anymore than Netflix is following the current model right now for their own content, and the likes of Disney is doing what it does with Atmos on its own releases on Disney+. To some extent simply labeling a movie as having "Dolby Atmos" is a marketing play, but why should that go back to the future especially since even simpler HT setups can have a Dolby Atmos virtualized soundbar?



> Our A/V hobby and audio mixing and presentation quality in general are going to be hit as badly as the economy.


Maybe our hobby. The rest I think the jury is out, considering what's already probably went through the production pipeline. The latest Marvel whatever or a remake of some 90's blockbuster may suffer a slowdown or even get cancelled due to the societal changes - as well as how movies will need to be made - in at least the intermediate term IMO.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Why does everything have to be produced for the small screen? A 75" or 85" TV isn't exactly "small screen" except to us, it runs as low as $1100 (just did a random Google search and found a Samsung 75" UHD Class 7 TV for that price from Best Buy), and UHD/HDR is a going concern. No reason why audio has to be dumbed down to 5.1 or 2.0 anymore than Netflix is following the current model right now for their own content, and the likes of Disney is doing what it does with Atmos on its own releases on Disney+. To some extent simply labeling a movie as having "Dolby Atmos" is a marketing play, but why should that go back to the future especially since even simpler HT setups can have a Dolby Atmos virtualized soundbar?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe our hobby. The rest I think the jury is out, considering what's already probably went through the production pipeline. The latest Marvel whatever or a remake of some 90's blockbuster may suffer a slowdown or even get cancelled due to the societal changes - as well as how movies will need to be made - in at least the intermediate term IMO.



Even if the product is produced and released with Dolby Atmos (or DTS: X), the concern is that the dynamics, the surround "intensity," and bass output will continue to be neutered and maybe even more than it can be now because there will be little or no use for pro auditorium mixing and studios will feel that high end home theater systems are not important (if traditional commercial distribution grinds to a crawl or has a final death rattle), where immersive audio of any merit may indeed be mostly a marketing thing like IMAX Enhanced and non existent. Plus, there goes lossless audio.


----------



## Eggtuary

xavierlehnsherr said:


> I'm planning to watch the entire harry potter collection with dts:x audio as I heard good things about that too.


I've only had my Atmos system a few months, but I've watched a decent number of the most recommended immersive soundtracks. The Harry Potter series with DTS:X was easily some of my favorites. Enjoy!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Same. After having watched a lot of atmos content, I still didn't get this feeling of getting surrounded especially during these scenes. I always used to think it was due to my setup with only 2 overhead speakers that none of them took advantage of. What really surprised me was the way DTS:X content sounded overall. I watched bourne trilogy and throughout most of the movies, I really felt like I was in the middle of the city with vehicle movements and ambient noise was all over me. This was even clearly felt during chase sequences. Also for atmos movies, I had to bump my overhead speakers by 2 or 3 db, but it wasn't necessary for DTS:X.
> 
> I'm planning to watch the entire harry potter collection with dts:x audio as I heard good things about that too.



On a 7.1.4 or smaller system the different in Dolby Atmos or DTS: X is all down to the quality of the mix itself, not the immersive format the movie is encoded in.


----------



## priitv8

Thank you for thorough explanation. It makes sense to me.


MagnumX said:


> ... It can pan through up to 34 channels. Hence, Atmos.


But here you are referring to the channels of the rendering system (available power amps and speakers) and not the channels of encoding in transport stream, right? That is where usage of term "channel" gets confusing.


MagnumX said:


> A couple of short overhead flybys or a helicopter taking off and cars that drive off-screen, but seem to audibly disappear before the barely make it to the side surround as if they've already driven a mile away seem to be all too common, IMO.


Now that you mention helicopters (and not rain) - I have always had a weird suspicion about the new Dolby Upmixer. I watch my cable-tv on the Dolby Surround setting, as my TV provider only sends two channels. Most of the Hollywood movies seem to be encoded to ProLogic, still. So I get a good old 4.0 sound out of it. But any time there is a helicopter or rain sound, the upmixer knows to lift it to height channels. Is it in my head, or does the Dolby upmixer really recognise some common "coming from above" sounds, like helicopters, jets and rain?


----------



## Bond 007

I love Atmos.


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

Dan Hitchman said:


> On a 7.1.4 or smaller system the different in Dolby Atmos or DTS: X is all down to the quality of the mix itself, not the immersive format the movie is encoded in.



That is true, but with the way DTS:X works, I think my system is getting benefitted a lot. Here's batpig's detailed explanation about how both the formats work:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-142.html#post59544848


Because of the phantom imaging DTS:X creates, it treats as if I have rear height speakers too (even though I only have 2 overheads and only if I set them to Top Front). And that's the reason why I could hear sound from the top a lot and why it really gave me an impression that it was more immersive than Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

*4k non Dolby lossless DSU vs 4k streaming lossy atmos*

What would be considered better when watching marvel movies like Gaurdians of the Galaxy 1 if I have the original 4k LOSSLESS blueray that doesn’t have atmos but can be upmixed on my 5.1.4 with DSU VS me streaming the newer Dolby atmos version of the movie on my Apple TV through Disney Plus that would be LOSSY but formally atmos..?


----------



## usc1995

Chirosamsung said:


> What would be considered better when watching marvel movies like Gaurdians of the Galaxy 1 if I have the original 4k LOSSLESS blueray that doesn’t have atmos but can be upmixed on my 5.1.4 with DSU VS me streaming the newer Dolby atmos version of the movie on my Apple TV through Disney Plus that would be LOSSY but formally atmos..?



The 4K Blu-ray of Guardians of the Galaxy should have Atmos according to Blu-ray.com https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Guardians-of-the-Galaxy-4K-Blu-ray/245549/

Regardless you should compare both the streamed version and your disc and see which you prefer. I am currently watching the Marvel movies in order with my kids and I own a number of the films on regular Blu-ray or 4K Blu-ray or even a few 3D Blu-Rays. I also have a Disney Plus subscription and an Apple TV 4K. So far I am not terribly impressed with the streamed Atmos but I would still stream it over my regular Blu-Rays. The 4K discs are still the best but are still not as dynamic as they could have been. Lots of complaints about the “Atmouse” mixes from Disney.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> What would be considered better when watching marvel movies like Guardians of the Galaxy 1 if I have the original 4k LOSSLESS Blu-ray that doesn’t have atmos but can be upmixed on my 5.1.4 with DSU VS me streaming the newer Dolby atmos version of the movie on my Apple TV through Disney Plus that would be LOSSY but formally atmos..?



Your Samsung 4k player (I do recommend upgrading that thing) may not be setup correctly. Make sure you have it set to Bitsream (unprocessed), make sure Secondary Audio is OFF, and that Dynamic Range Control is OFF too. 



The 4k disc release of Guardians has an Atmos track and so it should decode in Atmos on a compatible receiver or pre-amp/processor and with the correct overhead speakers (four or more is recommended).


Lossless Atmos or DTS: X is always preferable to lossy audio via streaming. 



However, as mentioned above, many Disney Atmos tracks are less than stellar for a variety of reasons compared to other studios' efforts in regards to immersive surround.


----------



## blake

Question about Atmos surround speaker height. 

Why does Dolby list average floor to ear height of 45" ? I looked at the seats I have ordered, which are fairly typical theater seats (Seatcraft Equinox), and they list floor to cushion = 21.5". The average bum to eye/ear height in males is 31.5" (googled anthroprometric data). So this puts your ears 53" off the floor (not 45").

Since Atmos surrounds should be equal to ear height (Trinnov actually recommends 12" above ear height), my required speaker height seems to be considerably higher than the usual recommendations.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> What would be considered better when watching marvel movies like Gaurdians of the Galaxy 1 if I have the original 4k LOSSLESS blueray that doesn’t have atmos but can be upmixed on my 5.1.4 with DSU VS me streaming the newer Dolby atmos version of the movie on my Apple TV through Disney Plus that would be LOSSY but formally atmos..?


Mixes can change when they do new Atmos versions and given Disney's reputation for making wimpy soundtracks that seem to be made for sound bars and TV speakers lately, it's always possible an older 5.1/7.1 soundtrack will sound miles better than a new Atmos mix (e.g. Tron: Legacy's 7.1 mix was excellent; it wouldn't take much for them to screw it up if they remixed for Atmos). It's also possible it won't be any worse or might even be better. It also comes down to who is doing the mix and whether it's approved. Beyond that, streaming and lossless _should_ (but don't always) sound virtually identical as long as the streaming version's bitrate is high enough and they haven't screwed with something along the way (compression is common on cable VOD etc.). It's an audiophile myth that lossless always equals better. Throw enough bits at a JPEG even and it will look good and audio codecs are far superior at retaining quality audio than JPEG is with video. Sites like Netflix that used really low bitrates gave the 'lossy' codecs bad reputations.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be considered better when watching marvel movies like Guardians of the Galaxy 1 if I have the original 4k LOSSLESS Blu-ray that doesnâ€™️t have atmos but can be upmixed on my 5.1.4 with DSU VS me streaming the newer Dolby atmos version of the movie on my Apple TV through Disney Plus that would be LOSSY but formally atmos..?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Samsung 4k player (I do recommend upgrading that thing) may not be setup correctly. Make sure you have it set to Bitsream (unprocessed), make sure Secondary Audio is OFF, and that Dynamic Range Control is OFF too.
> 
> 
> 
> The 4k disc release of Guardians has an Atmos track and so it should decode in Atmos on a compatible receiver or pre-amp/processor and with the correct overhead speakers (four or more is recommended).
> 
> 
> Lossless Atmos or DTS: X is always preferable to lossy audio via streaming.
> 
> 
> 
> However, as mentioned above, many Disney Atmos tracks are less than stellar for a variety of reasons compared to other studios' efforts in regards to immersive surround.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don’t use the Samsung I use an Xbox x for blu rays now


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> .... Beyond that, streaming and lossless _should_ (but don't always) sound virtually identical as long as the streaming version's bitrate is high enough and they haven't screwed with something along the way (compression is common on cable VOD etc.). * It's an audiophile myth that lossless always equals better. * Throw enough bits at a JPEG even and it will look good and audio codecs are far superior at retaining quality audio than JPEG is with video.


I have learned that is much much much important the kind of mix/master of the soundtrack/music album than the codec format and resolution.

CD resolution 16/44,1 is enough to give the good sound quality. DAC restores the "complete" analogue signal at least as far a human ear can detect.

But Hires had to sell and they started to make different masters for either CD or Hirez new formats. Of course the Hires sounded better, because the master was better, without compression, weird equalisation, etc.

I remember long time ago when I was listening MP3 and it sounded better for me than the Hires DVD-A in a medium quality Sound equipment. It was the same song but, of course, different master. In that case you are not comparing apples with apples.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Sorry I don’t use the Samsung I use an Xbox x for blu rays now



Turn off Dolby Digital Dynamic Range Control


Let My Receiver Decode Audio (that should be enabled). 





The Xbox X has been a notoriously bad 4k Blu-ray player. FYI.


----------



## MagnumX

AYanguas said:


> I have learned that is much much much important the kind of mix/master of the soundtrack/music album than the codec format and resolution.
> 
> CD resolution 16/44,1 is enough to give the good sound quality. DAC restores the "complete" analogue signal at least as far a human ear can detect.
> 
> But Hires had to sell and they started to make different masters for either CD or Hirez new formats. Of course the Hires sounded better, because the master was better, without compression, weird equalisation, etc.
> 
> I remember long time ago when I was listening MP3 and it sounded better for me than the Hires DVD-A in a medium quality Sound equipment. It was the same song but, of course, different master. In that case you are not comparing apples with apples.


That's it, exactly. Scientifically speaking, it's not hard to prove there's no sonic benefit beyond 18-bit @48kHz on the playback side. There's good reason on the recording side and it's called headroom, which is particularly great to avoid clipping. 

You see arguments about brick wall filters on the sampling side, but oversampling solved that early on. Then came jitter, which was blamed for all the evils of mankind. DACs today at very advanced and yet the myths that digital audio "sucks" persists in some circles even today with scant evidence to prove a word of it (DBX double blind testing can wipe out any doubt, but it's rarely used by the people making the claims as it tends to debunk the claims on proper testing like recording an LP to digital form with levels matched and seeing if someone can tell it from the live signal).

But when you try to explain to some that Redbook CD audio is more than sufficient for 99.9% of all music recordings they won't believe you even though most recordings don't even come close to the technical limits. 

The real problems with audio are on the recording and mastering stages. Compression (not lossy compression, but dynamic range compression) is used in digital to the nth degree to make it louder with almost no dynamic range and people blame digital for the sound instead of the executives that demand the abuse of the signals.

Meanwhile lossy codecs were designed to save space, but I don't think many people appreciate how much effort went into something like the AAC codec to make it as transparent as possible, but even when it's near perfect at a mere 256kbps (128 per channel) people will use lower rates to save even more space and then the complaints lead to the notion it sucks. Add to that the industry will promote anything that might sell more product and suddenly "lossless" is the best thing ever even if there's no audible improvement whatsoever, once again leading some people to automatically conclude some bad soundtracks are the result of streaming lossy codecs rather than crappy mixes (Disney).


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I donâ€™️t use the Samsung I use an Xbox x for blu rays now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off Dolby Digital Dynamic Range Control
> 
> 
> Let My Receiver Decode Audio (that should be enabled).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Xbox X has been a notoriously bad 4k Blu-ray player. FYI.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what makes the Xbox x “bad” at being a blu rah player? Does it do something to not play the 4k or HDR or atmos that’s on the disc properly?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I donâ€™️t use the Samsung I use an Xbox x for blu rays now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off Dolby Digital Dynamic Range Control
> 
> 
> Let My Receiver Decode Audio (that should be enabled).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Xbox X has been a notoriously bad 4k Blu-ray player. FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, what makes the Xbox x “bad” at being a blu rah player? Does it do something to not play the 4k or HDR or atmos that’s on the disc properly?
Click to expand...

The Xbox X has been known to fudge with video signals such as screwing up HDR and has had other compatibility issues with certain discs. Given that no current 4k player is perfect, it's been a more unstable disc platform than others.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I donâ€™️t use the Samsung I use an Xbox x for blu rays now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn off Dolby Digital Dynamic Range Control
> 
> 
> Let My Receiver Decode Audio (that should be enabled).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Xbox X has been a notoriously bad 4k Blu-ray player. FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, what makes the Xbox x “bad” at being a blu rah player? Does it do something to not play the 4k or HDR or atmos that’s on the disc properly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Xbox X has been known to fudge with video signals such as screwing up HDR and has had other compatibility issues with certain discs. Given that no current 4k player is perfect, it's been a more unstable disc platform than others.
Click to expand...

Good to know. I must have gotten lucky with mine-I have about 50 blu rays mostly 4k and haven’t had any issues.


----------



## Jonas2

blake said:


> Question about Atmos surround speaker height.
> 
> Why does Dolby list average floor to ear height of 45" ? I looked at the seats I have ordered, which are fairly typical theater seats (Seatcraft Equinox), and they list floor to cushion = 21.5". The average bum to eye/ear height in males is 31.5" (googled anthroprometric data). So this puts your ears 53" off the floor (not 45").
> 
> Since Atmos surrounds should be equal to ear height (Trinnov actually recommends 12" above ear height), my required speaker height seems to be considerably higher than the usual recommendations.



Dunno. I've got what I'd call just a "typical" couch, and I'm an average guy (5'9", pretty average?) - and my seated ear is pretty dang close to 45" off the floor. Maybe I'm deformed.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Xbox X has been known to fudge with video signals such as screwing up HDR and has had other compatibility issues with certain discs. Given that no current 4k player is perfect, it's been a more unstable disc platform than others.



Seems like it sends everything out as “Atmos” iirc even if it’s not, and as such you can’t use any upmixers. Or has that been addressed somewhere, and I’m sniffing old news print?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Xbox X has been known to fudge with video signals such as screwing up HDR and has had other compatibility issues with certain discs. Given that no current 4k player is perfect, it's been a more unstable disc platform than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like it sends everything out as â€œAtmosâ€ iirc even if itâ€™️s not, and as such you canâ€™️t use any upmixers. Or has that been addressed somewhere, and Iâ€™️m sniffing old news print?
Click to expand...

Fixed


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Polyrythm1k said:


> Seems like it sends everything out as “Atmos” iirc even if it’s not, and as such you can’t use any upmixers. Or has that been addressed somewhere, and I’m sniffing old news print?



The last I read, it looks like the Xbox rewraps everything Dolby at least into Atmos even if it actually isn't. Unless MS fixed this, it would be super annoying.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Dan Hitchman said:


> The last I read, it looks like the Xbox rewraps everything Dolby at least into Atmos even if it actually isn't. Unless MS fixed this, it would be super annoying.



Yes. This would give me fits.


----------



## usc1995

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yes. This would give me fits.



The Xbox bitstreams the audio from the Blu-ray player correctly just fine. It is all the other audio that always gets wrapped in an Atmos container. You can’t upmix Netflix audio but you can upmix your Blu-ray movies fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Polyrythm1k

usc1995 said:


> The Xbox bitstreams the audio from the Blu-ray player correctly just fine. It is all the other audio that always gets wrapped in an Atmos container. You can’t upmix Netflix audio but you can upmix your Blu-ray movies fine.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Ok. I was under the impression it sent everything wrapped in Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

usc1995 said:


> Polyrythm1k said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. This would give me fits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Xbox bitstreams the audio from the Blu-ray player correctly just fine. It is all the other audio that always gets wrapped in an Atmos container. You canâ€™️t upmix Netflix audio but you can upmix your Blu-ray movies fine.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Suits me just find as I only use the Xbox for blu Ray atmos and games do it is correct if atmos or non atmos and use Apple TV for other streaming atmos and non atmos. I suspect most people don’t use their blu Ray for Netflix or amazon


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> Suits me just find as I only use the Xbox for blu Ray atmos and games do it is correct if atmos or non atmos and use Apple TV for other streaming atmos and non atmos. I suspect most people don’t use their blu Ray for Netflix or amazon



I actually do use my X700 for Netflix, and sometimes the PS3. Our Xbox is in a different media area and I haven’t messed with it, although I’m dying to try modern warfare in Atmos in our theater. The box is just in a 5.1 room. I can see how the Xbox would be just fine. I just was under the impression it went everything as “Atmos” so that could be an issue.


----------



## jabberwockie

jabberwockie said:


> *Update - I just picked up a 2019 Shield. I am able to get Atmos to light up on the NAD while playing Some Amazon Prime content.
> That said, I CANNOT get Atmos to light up on any content from Netflix .e.g. The Dirt, House Arrest, Luke cage. (NAD displays Dolby Digital Plus but no Atmos).
> Disney+ same thing. NO ATMOS but probably for reasons stated above regarding COVID.


[UPDATE] turns out it's the NOHASSLEAV matrix switch from Amazon that wont make the HDMI handshake with the NAD M17v2. Hooking up the 2019 NVidia Shield PRO directly to the NAD solved the ATMOS issue (Atmos via Netflix, Disney + works fine). Put the Matrix switch back in the mix and found that switching the inputs back and forth on the NAD solves the problem but it's essentially a bandaid fix.


----------



## schwock5

blake said:


> Question about Atmos surround speaker height.
> 
> Why does Dolby list average floor to ear height of 45" ? I looked at the seats I have ordered, which are fairly typical theater seats (Seatcraft Equinox), and they list floor to cushion = 21.5". The average bum to eye/ear height in males is 31.5" (googled anthroprometric data). So this puts your ears 53" off the floor (not 45").
> 
> Since Atmos surrounds should be equal to ear height (Trinnov actually recommends 12" above ear height), my required speaker height seems to be considerably higher than the usual recommendations.


yes, but do these seats recline? where are your ears when this seat is in reclined position?


----------



## Chirosamsung

jabberwockie said:


> jabberwockie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Update - I just picked up a 2019 Shield. I am able to get Atmos to light up on the NAD while playing Some Amazon Prime content.
> That said, I CANNOT get Atmos to light up on any content from Netflix .e.g. The Dirt, House Arrest, Luke cage. (NAD displays Dolby Digital Plus but no Atmos).
> Disney+ same thing. NO ATMOS but probably for reasons stated above regarding COVID.
> 
> 
> 
> [UPDATE] turns out it's the NOHASSLEAV matrix switch from Amazon that wont make the HDMI handshake with the NAD M17v2. Hooking up the 2019 NVidia Shield PRO directly to the NAD solved the ATMOS issue (Atmos via Netflix, Disney + works fine). Put the Matrix switch back in the mix and found that switching the inputs back and forth on the NAD solves the problem but it's essentially a bandaid fix.
Click to expand...

For some reason when I watch Disney plus programs with atmos or anything on Netflix that Has atmos through my Apple TV 4K it only shows “PCM Surround” on the Reciever (NAD 758) instead of Dolby Atmos like it does when I play Dolby atmos movies or games on my XBOX X-is this normal and same for wveryone else?


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> For some reason when I watch Disney plus programs with atmos or anything on Netflix that Has atmos through my Apple TV 4K it only shows “PCM Surround” on the Reciever (NAD 758) instead of Dolby Atmos like it does when I play Dolby atmos movies or games on my XBOX X-is this normal and same for wveryone else?


Why do you waste people's time by asking the same question over and over again in different threads without ever following through? https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2895049-nad-758-v3-393.html#post59661952


----------



## Chirosamsung

markus767 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason when I watch Disney plus programs with atmos or anything on Netflix that Has atmos through my Apple TV 4K it only shows â€œPCM Surroundâ€ on the Reciever (NAD 758) instead of Dolby Atmos like it does when I play Dolby atmos movies or games on my XBOX X-is this normal and same for wveryone else?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you waste people's time by asking the same question over and over again in different threads without ever following through? https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2895049-nad-758-v3-393.html#post59661952
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just wanted clarification if the PCM was truly atmos from other people’s experience to see if it is just a NAD quirk. That’s why.


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> Sorry, I just wanted clarification if the PCM was truly atmos from other people’s experience to see if it is just a NAD quirk. That’s why.


And when can you bring yourself to answer the questions in the linked thread so this issue has a chance of getting resolved?


----------



## eaayoung

Anyone know if Directv outputs Atmos? I have the Genie server plus the 4K mini and have setup the menu to pass Atmos but not getting it. Passes PCM only per my Denon receiver. I should add, I’m splitting the content via HDMI after the mini with one HDMI cable to the receiver and another cable to the TV.


----------



## deano86

eaayoung said:


> Anyone know if Directv outputs Atmos? I have the Genie server plus the 4K mini and have setup the menu to pass Atmos but not getting it. Passes PCM only per my Denon receiver. I should add, I’m splitting the content via HDMI after the mini with one HDMI cable to the receiver and another cable to the TV.


You probably answered your own question.... splitting the HDMI audio output will most likely limit it to the capabilities of the lowest available option... thus if your TV can not process Dolby audio, it will force your Directv to output in PCM... Why are you splitting? I take it your receiver has Atmos decoding capability but is not 4K compliant?


----------



## eaayoung

My Denon 4500 receiver and splitter are both 4K capable. But my Panasonic ZT tv isn’t. I tried it with HDMI and optical and neither one would pass Atmos. But maybe the problem is the content.


----------



## UKenGB

Chirosamsung said:


> For some reason when I watch Disney plus programs with atmos or anything on Netflix that Has atmos through my Apple TV 4K it only shows “PCM Surround” on the Reciever (NAD 758) instead of Dolby Atmos like it does when I play Dolby atmos movies or games on my XBOX X-is this normal and same for wveryone else?


I had the exact same problem with my AppleTV 4K. No matter what I played, the AVR (Yamaha 3050) NEVER showed it as Atmos. It was hard to determine what was the cause.

In the end I found it was a 'quirk' of the AppleTV. Although it was correctly set to use Atmos when available, it was NOT doing that. I had to first set it to use HDR, which made the picture worse as my TV is not HDR, but the AVR did then show it was receiving Atmos. I then turned HDR OFF in the AppleTV, so back to normal picture, however it continued to correctly output Atmos when appropriate.

I have no idea why the AppleTV behaved like this, seems like a bug to me and I've no idea if Chirosamsung is suffering from the same problem. BUT, I can say that I had the 'no Atmos' problem on all 4 AppleTVs here and I was able to fix it 100% by following the above procedure on each of my AppleTVs, so they all now reliably output Atmos when they should, whereas previously, they never did.

Try it. Hope it helps.


----------



## anothermib

Dan Hitchman said:


> The last I read, it looks like the Xbox rewraps everything Dolby at least into Atmos even if it actually isn't. Unless MS fixed this, it would be super annoying.



I read somewhere, that they resolved that in some beta. However, that is still the behavior I am getting for all streamed media. What has changed is that the Xbox now appears to do some sort of upmixing on its own, so all channels are actually being used even for non Atmos content. Previously the unused channels remained silent and the Atmos encoding prevented upmixing on the processor. Still not perfect as one can’t influence what is actually happening, but ok for most practical purposes IMHO.


----------



## Chirosamsung

markus767 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I just wanted clarification if the PCM was truly atmos from other peopleâ€™️s experience to see if it is just a NAD quirk. Thatâ€™️s why.
> 
> 
> 
> And when can you bring yourself to answer the questions in the linked thread so this issue has a chance of getting resolved?
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes


"Yes" what?


----------



## mrtickleuk

markus767 said:


> "Yes" what?


Indeed. . I feel your pain!

Q: "When will you answer the question you keep refusing to answer?"
A: "Yes".

You couldn't make it up!


----------



## Chirosamsung

UKenGB said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason when I watch Disney plus programs with atmos or anything on Netflix that Has atmos through my Apple TV 4K it only shows â€œPCM Surroundâ€ on the Reciever (NAD 758) instead of Dolby Atmos like it does when I play Dolby atmos movies or games on my XBOX X-is this normal and same for wveryone else?
> 
> 
> 
> I had the exact same problem with my AppleTV 4K. No matter what I played, the AVR (Yamaha 3050) NEVER showed it as Atmos. It was hard to determine what was the cause.
> 
> In the end I found it was a 'quirk' of the AppleTV. Although it was correctly set to use Atmos when available, it was NOT doing that. I had to first set it to use HDR, which made the picture worse as my TV is not HDR, but the AVR did then show it was receiving Atmos. I then turned HDR OFF in the AppleTV, so back to normal picture, however it continued to correctly output Atmos when appropriate.
> 
> I have no idea why the AppleTV behaved like this, seems like a bug to me and I've no idea if Chirosamsung is suffering from the same problem. BUT, I can say that I had the 'no Atmos' problem on all 4 AppleTVs here and I was able to fix it 100% by following the above procedure on each of my AppleTVs, so they all now reliably output Atmos when they should, whereas previously, they never did.
> 
> Try it. Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

Hi-I tried moving the Apple TV video from HDR and then back to SDR and HDR again but that didn’t change my NAD receiver to show Dolby atmos-it still shows PCM surround on Dolby atmos content...


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> Hi-I tried moving the Apple TV video from HDR and then back to SDR and HDR again but that didn’t change my NAD receiver to show Dolby atmos-it still shows PCM surround on Dolby atmos content...


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2895049-nad-758-v3-393.html#post59661952


----------



## Chirosamsung

markus767 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> "Yes" what?
Click to expand...

Yes is answering your question. The question that I answered from you was will you post on the NAD thread once I figure out a solution to the problem of not having my Apple TV 4K display “ATMOS” on the receiver instead of “PCM SURROUND”

That’s what you asked and that’s what I replied yes to

I PMed you to explain-now I will do so to the other poster as well-that if I can get the answer to the question from the broader sample of people in the Dolby atmos thread that perhaps have an Apple TV that doesn’t display atmos on their receiver either, I can then see if it is unique to the NAD 758 or if this is a Apple TV 4K and all receiver displaying atmos question. Hence me posting this also in the Dolby Atmos Thread

Does this make sense or does it seem like “you can’t make this stuff up” still?


----------



## PeterTHX

xavierlehnsherr said:


> And that's the reason why I could hear sound from the top a lot and why it really gave me an impression that it was more immersive than Atmos.


Unfortunately for me it makes DTS:X more "annoying" than immersive.
Being able to hear the tops all time doesn't make it more natural sounding, particularly when dialogue and other sounds get routed there or to the surrounds when they're supposed to be up front.


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes is answering your question. The question that I answered from you was will you post on the NAD thread once I figure out a solution to the problem of not having my Apple TV 4K display “ATMOS” on the receiver instead of “PCM SURROUND”
> 
> That’s what you asked and that’s what I replied yes to
> 
> I PMed you to explain-now I will do so to the other poster as well-that if I can get the answer to the question from the broader sample of people in the Dolby atmos thread that perhaps have an Apple TV that doesn’t display atmos on their receiver either, I can then see if it is unique to the NAD 758 or if this is a Apple TV 4K and all receiver displaying atmos question. Hence me posting this also in the Dolby Atmos Thread
> 
> Does this make sense or does it seem like “you can’t make this stuff up” still?


Looks like you have a very hard time understanding what was said. Is there some kind of language barrier?

I've asked you to post your current settings. Screenshots would suffice. This would be a first step in methodically finding a solution for your issue.
I did NOT ask you to post AFTER you've resolved the issue as my ATV4K and 758 is working just fine and I do get Atmos. So the problem is likely YOU and nothing else.

So can you please send those 2 screenshots so we all can move on to something more productive and less time consuming?


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Jesus, tough crowd today. Holier than thou, piling on - - so what if the person has asked the question twice or didn't fully research the answer? Maybe other folks will benefit from the information again - - and not a link. In the time you took to beat down that person, you could have posted the answer already.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

PeterTHX said:


> Unfortunately for me it makes DTS:X more "annoying" than immersive.
> Being able to hear the tops all time doesn't make it more natural sounding, particularly when dialogue and other sounds get routed there or to the surrounds when they're supposed to be up front.


 Much of the discussion of Atmos and how it's utilized reminds me of the old days when surround sound started to take hold in home theatre. A good number of adopters took the attitude that if they had paid for surround, they should be hearing it all the time - ignoring the intents of the original sound mixers. Some of them would adjust their levels so the surrounds played much higher than they were supposed to be in order to get a more constant surround presence. 

This is of course quite different than discussions of films whose Atmos mixes are just plain underwhelming, even at correct levels.


----------



## markus767

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Jesus, tough crowd today. Holier than thou, piling on - - so what if the person has asked the question twice or didn't fully research the answer? Maybe other folks will benefit from the information again - - and not a link. In the time you took to beat down that person, you could have posted the answer already.


Are you referring to my post? If yes, how absurd! Chirosamsung asked for help in the NAD 758 thread. I've asked him to provide additional information in order to help him troubleshoot the issue which more likely than not is simply user error. Instead of following up he posted the same question here. When asked when he ever will provide the information necessary for troubleshooting he answered "yes".


----------



## Chirosamsung

markus767 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes is answering your question. The question that I answered from you was will you post on the NAD thread once I figure out a solution to the problem of not having my Apple TV 4K display â€œATMOSâ€ on the receiver instead of â€œPCM SURROUNDâ€
> 
> Thatâ€™️s what you asked and thatâ€™️s what I replied yes to
> 
> I PMed you to explain-now I will do so to the other poster as well-that if I can get the answer to the question from the broader sample of people in the Dolby atmos thread that perhaps have an Apple TV that doesnâ€™️t display atmos on their receiver either, I can then see if it is unique to the NAD 758 or if this is a Apple TV 4K and all receiver displaying atmos question. Hence me posting this also in the Dolby Atmos Thread
> 
> Does this make sense or does it seem like â€œyou canâ€™️t make this stuff upâ€ still?
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you have a very hard time understanding what was said. Is there some kind of language barrier?
> 
> I've asked you to post your current settings. Screenshots would suffice. This would be a first step in methodically finding a solution for your issue.
> I did NOT ask you to post AFTER you've resolved the issue as my ATV4K and 758 is working just fine and I do get Atmos. So the problem is likely YOU and nothing else.
> 
> So can you please send those 2 screenshots so we all can move on to something more productive and less time consuming?
Click to expand...

 No language barrier. I reside in Canada. Can you remind me of the screen shots needed and I’ll take them shortly-I May have missed that part in the various back and forths


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> No language barrier. I reside in Canada. Can you remind me of the screen shots needed and I’ll take them shortly-I May have missed that part in the various back and forths


I've posted that link multiple times and just 7 posts back.

Here it is again: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2895049-nad-758-v3-393.html#post59661952


----------



## Chirosamsung

markus767 said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> No language barrier. I reside in Canada. Can you remind me of the screen shots needed and Iâ€™️ll take them shortly-I May have missed that part in the various back and forths
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted that link multiple times and just 7 posts back.
> 
> Here it is again: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2895049-nad-758-v3-393.html#post59661952
Click to expand...

Replied in other thread but these are my settings


----------



## GeorgeHolland

I’m just starting to research this now that it seems my Onkyo PR-SC5508 had another HDMI board failure and I have a Marantz AV7705 arriving Thursday.

I will scan the thread and try some search terms but can’t see reading all 1952 pages.

If anyone wants to make quick recommendations for my initial setup while I’m getting up to speed, I would appreciate it.

I currently have FL, center (with bass bin), FR, RS, RR, LR, LS, 18” Subwoofer, 2 ea. 15” subwoofers calibrated as one sub. Speakers include an Infinity Compositions Prelude FL/C/FR and surrounds and two Infinity Cascade Model Three V's. I have 3 additional Infinity Cascade Model Three V’s available if they would work. I have a better set of 5 speakers in another room I can move to replace the Preludes but I want to try these first. I use the other room for my music listening.

My room is a sealed dedicated Theater in my Basement. Approximately 12’ 6” Wide, 18’ Long and a 7’ 10’ high ceiling. Main Listening position has my eyes just over 9 feet away from the screen. 

Edit: I just set up my AV7705 and noticed I can configure a single speaker for Surround Back. I'm not opposed to new speakers but configuring a single rear back would give me 4 ea, Infinity Cascade Model Three V’s I could use for Heights. I'll need to find 3 amp channels somewhere. They do have wall mount brackets. 

https://www.crutchfield.com/S-ctCym...inity-Cascade-Model-Three-V-Silver-gloss.html

Thank you.


----------



## Rich 63

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Jesus, tough crowd today. Holier than thou, piling on - - so what if the person has asked the question twice or didn't fully research the answer? Maybe other folks will benefit from the information again - - and not a link. In the time you took to beat down that person, you could have posted the answer already.


 
Thumbs up. This site has a lot of poison. Well really the internet, but at 57 I'm just a dinasuer


----------



## avsngaiouser

Chirosamsung said:


> Sorry, I just wanted clarification if the PCM was truly atmos from other people’s experience to see if it is just a NAD quirk. That’s why.



I don't have the receiver you have, but the MAT decoding that ATV4k uses outputs PCM and an ATMOS capable receiver should decode it properly. Will the NAD tell you that's what it's doing? Found the following in another forum, it should apply to the ATV4k as well:


*Dolby Atmos in Dolby MAT*

The Dolby Metadata-enhanced Audio Transmission (Dolby MAT) encoder resides in a Blu-ray player to pack the variable bit-rate Dolby TrueHD bitstreams for transmission over the fixed bit-rate HDMI connections. A MAT decoder is subsequently employed in an AVR to unpack the Dolby TrueHD bitstreams. With the introduction of Dolby Atmos, we have expanded this technology to support encoding of Dolby Atmos content as lossless pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio.

A key benefit of Dolby MAT 2.0 is that Dolby Atmos object-based audio can be live encoded and transmitted from a source device with limited latency and processing complexity. Among the possible sources are broadcast set-top boxes, PCs, and game consoles. The Dolby MAT 2.0 decoder in an AVR outputs the object-based audio and its metadata for  further processing. The Dolby MAT 2.0 container is scalable and leverages the full potential of the HDMI audio pipeline.


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> Replied in other thread but these are my settings


This way: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2895049-nad-758-v3-394.html#post59682536


----------



## chi_guy50

Rich 63 said:


> Thumbs up. This site has a lot of poison. Well really the internet, but at 57 *I'm just a dinasuer*



I didn't realize they had lawyers in prehistoric times!


----------



## Josh Z

GeorgeHolland said:


> My room is a sealed dedicated Theater in my Basement. Approximately 12’ 6” Wide, 18’ Long and a 7’ 10’ high ceiling. Main Listening position has my eyes just over 9 feet away from the screen.


I approve of your choice of room colors.


----------



## Chirosamsung

avsngaiouser said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I just wanted clarification if the PCM was truly atmos from other peopleâ€™️s experience to see if it is just a NAD quirk. Thatâ€™️s why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the receiver you have, but the MAT decoding that ATV4k uses outputs PCM and an ATMOS capable receiver should decode it properly. Will the NAD tell you that's what it's doing? Found the following in another forum, it should apply to the ATV4k as well:
> 
> 
> *Dolby Atmos in Dolby MAT*
> 
> The Dolby Metadata-enhanced Audio Transmission (Dolby MAT) encoder resides in a Blu-ray player to pack the variable bit-rate Dolby TrueHD bitstreams for transmission over the fixed bit-rate HDMI connections. A MAT decoder is subsequently employed in an AVR to unpack the Dolby TrueHD bitstreams. With the introduction of Dolby Atmos, we have expanded this technology to support encoding of Dolby Atmos content as lossless pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio.
> 
> A key benefit of Dolby MAT 2.0 is that Dolby Atmos object-based audio can be live encoded and transmitted from a source device with limited latency and processing complexity. Among the possible sources are broadcast set-top boxes, PCs, and game consoles. The Dolby MAT 2.0 decoder in an AVR outputs the object-based audio and its metadata for further processing. The Dolby MAT 2.0 container is scalable and leverages the full potential of the HDMI audio pipeline.
Click to expand...

So from the help in the other thread by Markus We have come to realize that the common denominator is the Disney App on the Apple TV 4K. My NAD reciever correctly displays “ATMOS” when playing a atmos title in either my TV app or Netflix but displays “PCM surround” when playing a atmos title in the Disney plus app. 

Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??


----------



## bryantc

Chirosamsung said:


> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??


Yes it works fine with my Denon AVRs.


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

PeterTHX said:


> Unfortunately for me it makes DTS:X more "annoying" than immersive.
> Being able to hear the tops all time doesn't make it more natural sounding, particularly when dialogue and other sounds get routed there or to the surrounds when they're supposed to be up front.



But that's not really the case.It is true (atleast in my case) that I could hear a lot from the tops, but no, it doesn't route the dialogues and other sounds which are supposed to come from the LCR. That would definitely make me annoying too. One example of what DTS:X does is it tries to play the sounds which are supposed to come from the rear location (like vehicle moment which usually happens behind the view) into the tops and surrounds combined, and the transition will be smooth that you'd never notice that the sound is coming only from above. I could give other examples too after watching first 2 harry potter movies (they are simply amazing in DTS:X), but again, to each their own I guess


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Chirosamsung said:


> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??


Like you, I am also in *Canada*, which appears to be relevant to this discussion. I had Disney+ from launch day, and it played Atmos content correctly for a couple of months. I have not been able to get any Atmos signals from any Disney+ title for several months now. Disney has a FAQ section that suggest they may be reducing bandwidth at governmental requests since the corona outbreak shot internet use into the stratosphere and there were concerns capacity would be plugged during critical times.

They are still sending out 4K signals, as I still get the Dolby Vision or HDR tags on my tv when those streams play, but everything sound-wise only comes through as 5.1 PCM. My understanding is that the Atmos signals are buried within those core 5.1 tracks so I don't understand how they would add any extra bandwidth to the signal as received.

I use a Marantz SR8012 receiver. I can still get Atmos on my ATV 4K Netflix account, so it is not an issue with how the ATV or receiver processes the Atmos signal.

Disney+ still displays Atmos as an available format when you select a given title and go to the start page, which adds to the confusion.

This seems to be a Disney+ Canada issue as I've seen little about it on these forums which are heavily U.S. focused.

Would love for some other Canadians to chime in with their results.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??


Works fine here and I have a 2K projector.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

bobbyhollywood said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??
> 
> 
> 
> Like you, I am also in *Canada*, which appears to be relevant to this discussion. I had Disney+ from launch day, and it played Atmos content correctly for a couple of months. I have not been able to get any Atmos signals from any Disney+ title for several months now. Disney has a FAQ section that suggest they may be reducing bandwidth at governmental requests since the corona outbreak shot internet use into the stratosphere and there were concerns capacity would be plugged during critical times.
> 
> They are still sending out 4K signals, as I still get the Dolby Vision or HDR tags on my tv when those streams play, but everything sound-wise only comes through as 5.1 PCM. My understanding is that the Atmos signals are buried within those core 5.1 tracks so I don't understand how they would add any extra bandwidth to the signal as received.
> 
> I use a Marantz SR8012 receiver. I can still get Atmos on my ATV 4K Netflix account, so it is not an issue with how the ATV or receiver processes the Atmos signal.
> 
> Disney+ still displays Atmos as an available format when you select a given title and go to the start page, which adds to the confusion.
> 
> This seems to be a Disney+ Canada issue as I've seen little about it on these forums which are heavily U.S. focused.
> 
> Would love for some other Canadians to chime in with their results.
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again... your best bet is to buy Blu-ray and 4k Blu-ray titles (or rent them as there are services available even for 4k discs) as often as you can.

The content doesn't just play correctly at the whim of some streaming company or ISP and the quality is usually better. 

That's my advice.


----------



## Chirosamsung

bobbyhollywood said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??
> 
> 
> 
> Like you, I am also in *Canada*, which appears to be relevant to this discussion. I had Disney+ from launch day, and it played Atmos content correctly for a couple of months. I have not been able to get any Atmos signals from any Disney+ title for several months now. Disney has a FAQ section that suggest they may be reducing bandwidth at governmental requests since the corona outbreak shot internet use into the stratosphere and there were concerns capacity would be plugged during critical times.
> 
> They are still sending out 4K signals, as I still get the Dolby Vision or HDR tags on my tv when those streams play, but everything sound-wise only comes through as 5.1 PCM. My understanding is that the Atmos signals are buried within those core 5.1 tracks so I don't understand how they would add any extra bandwidth to the signal as received.
> 
> I use a Marantz SR8012 receiver. I can still get Atmos on my ATV 4K Netflix account, so it is not an issue with how the ATV or receiver processes the Atmos signal.
> 
> Disney+ still displays Atmos as an available format when you select a given title and go to the start page, which adds to the confusion.
> 
> This seems to be a Disney+ Canada issue as I've seen little about it on these forums which are heavily U.S. focused.
> 
> Would love for some other Canadians to chime in with their results.
Click to expand...

This parallels my experience exactly


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??
> 
> 
> 
> Works fine here and I have a 2K projector.
Click to expand...

Must be a Canadian thing since you are in the states


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again... your best bet is to buy Blu-ray and 4k Blu-ray titles (or rent them as there are services available even for 4k discs) as often as you can.
> 
> The content doesn't just play correctly at the whim of some streaming company or ISP and the quality is usually better.
> 
> That's my advice.


I have thousands of discs and they are still coming in on a regular basis. My 4k streams from Disney+ are absolutely spectacular looking, regardless of Atmos... and The Mandalorian is not available on any disc format.

But thanks for the advice.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> bobbyhollywood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirosamsung said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone had any luck correctly playing and receiving atmos through the Disney plus app through an Apple TV 4K??
> 
> 
> 
> Like you, I am also in *Canada*, which appears to be relevant to this discussion. I had Disney+ from launch day, and it played Atmos content correctly for a couple of months. I have not been able to get any Atmos signals from any Disney+ title for several months now. Disney has a FAQ section that suggest they may be reducing bandwidth at governmental requests since the corona outbreak shot internet use into the stratosphere and there were concerns capacity would be plugged during critical times.
> 
> They are still sending out 4K signals, as I still get the Dolby Vision or HDR tags on my tv when those streams play, but everything sound-wise only comes through as 5.1 PCM. My understanding is that the Atmos signals are buried within those core 5.1 tracks so I don't understand how they would add any extra bandwidth to the signal as received.
> 
> I use a Marantz SR8012 receiver. I can still get Atmos on my ATV 4K Netflix account, so it is not an issue with how the ATV or receiver processes the Atmos signal.
> 
> Disney+ still displays Atmos as an available format when you select a given title and go to the start page, which adds to the confusion.
> 
> This seems to be a Disney+ Canada issue as I've seen little about it on these forums which are heavily U.S. focused.
> 
> Would love for some other Canadians to chime in with their results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again... your best bet is to buy Blu-ray and 4k Blu-ray titles (or rent them as there are services available even for 4k discs) as often as you can.
> 
> The content doesn't just play correctly at the whim of some streaming company or ISP and the quality is usually better.
> 
> That's my advice.
Click to expand...

Trust me-I have enough 4k blu-rays. But at the same time, it is nice to have a monthly library of HUNDREDS of 4k movies on a service like Netflix and/or Disney for less then the price of a single 4k blu Ray...even if the atmos on them is slightly inferior...


----------



## chi_guy50

Chirosamsung said:


> Trust me-I have enough 4k blu-rays. But at the same time, it is nice to have a monthly library of HUNDREDS of 4k movies on a service like Netflix and/or Disney for less then the price of a single 4k blu Ray...even if the atmos on them is slightly inferior...



Fortunately, it's not an either/or proposition. For a relatively modest sum (compared to the cost of purchasing discs or making frequent trips to the movie theater), you can maintain both a variety of 4K streaming sources AND rent a couple of UHD Blu-rays per month.


----------



## Disto

bobbyhollywood said:


> ...
> Disney+ still displays Atmos as an available format when you select a given title and go to the start page, which adds to the confusion.
> 
> This seems to be a Disney+ Canada issue as I've seen little about it on these forums which are heavily U.S. focused.
> 
> Would love for some other Canadians to chime in with their results.



Yup! Exactly the same in Montreal.


----------



## PeterTHX

xavierlehnsherr said:


> But that's not really the case.It is true (atleast in my case) that I could hear a lot from the tops, but no, it doesn't route the dialogues and other sounds which are supposed to come from the LCR. That would definitely make me annoying too. One example of what DTS:X does is it tries to play the sounds which are supposed to come from the rear location (like vehicle moment which usually happens behind the view) into the tops and surrounds combined, and the transition will be smooth that you'd never notice that the sound is coming only from above. I could give other examples too after watching first 2 harry potter movies (they are simply amazing in DTS:X), but again, to each their own I guess


Atmos is more than capable of the same effects though, it depends on the mixer.

You'll also notice Warner has not used DTS:X again for any remixes, Atmos only now.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> You'll also notice Warner has not used DTS:X again for any remixes, Atmos only now.


Yup, last time was the Harry Potter remixes. Same with Well Go USA, the only studio that was using objects on their DTS:X tracks, switched to Atmos at the end of 2018.


----------



## tommarra

Folks question on the Top Middle speaker. 

Should these be firing straight down, or tilted so that the tweeter is more or less in line with the MLP?

I am going to fix two more speakers (to 7.1.4 —> 7.1.6 this weekend - and wanted to get the recommended way to do it.

Personally I am leaning towards pointing the speakers towards the MLP to get better imaging - but would appreciate any guidance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> You'll also notice Warner has not used DTS:X again for any remixes, Atmos only now.


You'll notice Sony has switched TO DTS:X for many new releases FROM Atmos (and even Auro-3D for about 7 titles in Europe) too. So what?


----------



## MagnumX

tommarra said:


> Folks question on the Top Middle speaker.
> 
> Should these be firing straight down, or tilted so that the tweeter is more or less in line with the MLP?
> 
> I am going to fix two more speakers (to 7.1.4 â€”> 7.1.6 this weekend - and wanted to get the recommended way to do it.
> 
> Personally I am leaning towards pointing the speakers towards the MLP to get better imaging - but would appreciate any guidance


It depends on the relative angle to the MLP compared to the particular speaker's on-axis response whether it's worth bothering. Some ceiling speakers have wide dispersion so it matters little for those. If you have more than one row of seats, you might be pointing the tweeters away from those rows even as you point towards the MLP, but that might not matter much to you if those seats get little use.

Either way, imaging isn't affected, just frequency response.


----------



## tommarra

I should have been more clear - I am not using ceiling speakers - I am using couple of B&W 685 speakers and mounting - does that change the answer anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

Pretty much all "normal" speakers sound best on-axis. Speakers above you are no different -- if possible, aim them at the listening area for best performance.


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> You'll notice Sony has switched TO DTS:X for many new releases FROM Atmos (and even Auro-3D for about 7 titles in Europe) too. So what?


Only because of that "IMAX Enhanced" scam. Even then, the streaming versions on Apple & Vudu are Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos.

You'll note their catalog 4K remasters are still Atmos.

Lionsgate, Paramount and Fox have also dabbled and dropped DTS:X

The only consistent studio now is Universal - who has an ownership stake in the company.

(and this is the Dolby Atmos thread)


----------



## tommarra

batpig said:


> Pretty much all "normal" speakers sound best on-axis. Speakers above you are no different -- if possible, aim them at the listening area for best performance.



Thank you - very helpful 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> Only because of that "IMAX Enhanced" scam. Even then, the streaming versions on Apple & Vudu are Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos.
> 
> You'll note their catalog 4K remasters are still Atmos.
> 
> Lionsgate, Paramount and Fox have also dabbled and dropped DTS:X
> 
> The only consistent studio now is Universal - who has an ownership stake in the company.


I'm still not sure what your point is as it seems to at least hint at a dislike or even possibly hatred of DTS:X for some reason. You could argue Dolby Atmos was superior to DTS:X until DTS:X Pro came out and technically speaking, DTS:X can carry _more_ objects than home Atmos and licensing costs are lower. It can also use your choice of Atmos or Auro-3D speaker locations. For most people, there is no technical difference whatsoever (7.1.4 systems). Frankly, I'm happy to have either one on a soundtrack over just 5.1 or 7.1. Harry Potter was excellent in DTS:X and Overlord was excellent in Dolby Atmos. I really cannot comprehend why some people feel the need to love or hate either one. Given Red Tails and Death Machine are only available in Auro-3D beyond 5.1, I gladly bought both of them (and several music albums) in Auro-3D too. I'll take anything I can get above 5.1/7.1 and even then DTS:X's Neural X does a bang up job upmixing them to higher speaker counts (11.2 in regular DTS:X and up to 32.2 in DTS:X Pro). DSU is definitely inferior to Neural X, in my experience so I'm glad to have DTS around, technologically speaking even if most movies are in Dolby Atmos. All three formats work perfectly fine in my home theater. 

I only wish more music albums were available in Auro-3D as it's dual-quad miked albums are vastly superior to ANY pan/pot live concert (Atmos) and despite all the hype about Atmos music albums, the reality hardly ANY work on real AVR/AVP based Atmos systems (rather than sound bar only junk). As for who does/drops what, it seems to change regularly over time, so I wouldn't count on any given studio "only" doing something forever either. Now that Fandango has purchased Vudu, all streaming bets in the long run are off, IMO, especially as more systems come online with DTS:X Pro. As for IMAX Enhance, most of it is nonsense, of course in terms of video (and DTS:X is still DTS:X), but if they can get me a full IMAX only version of Blade Runner 2049 (well preferably the 3D IMAX version, but I doubt that one will ever appear), I'd be glad to buy it no matter how much certain people "hate" them or want to call it a "scam".



> (and this is the Dolby Atmos thread)


And yet *YOU* were just talking about DTS:X and yet that seems to imply NO ONE ELSE should with that comment, even if it's a direct comparison to Atmos.


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> and technically speaking, DTS:X can carry _more_ objects than home Atmos


Not accurate.


> and licensing costs are lower


Irrelevant when it comes to usability and performance. 


> It can also use your choice of Atmos or Auro-3D speaker locations


Because nobody would set up for just DTS:X


> DSU is definitely inferior to Neural X


Not when it routes centered dialogue to the surrounds or other odd artifacts. It's louder I'll give you that.

And all DTS:X "Pro" is an upmixer. Still taking the same mapped 7.1.4 output and sending it to additional speakers, unlike the majority of Atmos soundtracks which can be sent to any speaker in a *true* 24.1.10 setup. 

FandangoNow is pretty much considered by everyone to be bottom tier - the worst interface by far. They need Vudu's infrastructure to survive.

Meanwhile Atmos is being offered on everything from Trinninov to cell phones.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> DTS:X can carry _more_ objects than home Atmos...:



Not true. 

And it also isn’t an apples to apples comparisons. 

DTS:X can have a total of 16 streams of audio... the mixing tools allow for the almost unlimited use of objects... so either you can limit your self to mixing with a total of 16 channels (impossible for almost all content, be films, broadcast or even music...) or render out the rest of the mix and use any remaining streams to use for discrete objects (for example 7.1.4 + 5 objects....). And managing which discrete five pieces of audio to encode as objects at a given time is a foolish workflow. I think the content that has been released so far backs this up. 

Atmos limits the amount of objects to be used during mixing to 118... it will then combine the entire soundtrack (beds and objects) upon encoding. DTS has no similar technology. 




MagnumX said:


> ..... licensing costs are lower:


False. 

There is no licensing lost to produce content in Atmos outside of theatrical exhibition venues. 

As an extrapolation of the cost argument, I would propose that it is actually more expensive to produce content (broadcast and disc) in DTS:X because you will also have to author and QC the same content in a Dolby format if you plan to stream or broadcast it... while some studios have certainly embraced the use of X on catalog titles (and a handful of current releases) it is by no means cheaper to do so if you factor in the cost of creating the eventual Dolby streams that are needed for delivery down the line.


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> The trouble with everything being produced for the small screen is that more and more audio mixes will be designed for the lowest common denominator, mainly soundbars and TV speakers. The bulk of the mixes will no longer be monitored in large auditoriums with powerful audio systems and multi speaker arrays in order to shave production costs.




Why do you think that is the case ? 

I’ve ceros my seen none of that behavior. As a matter of fact the coming I now work for has built 5 “broadcast” centric Atmos rooms in the last two years and all of them are a bit bigger than most similar rooms around. That’s in addition to the other 6+ rooms and facilities I’ve seen come online. 

I would argue the way consumers listen to broadcast/tv/OTT content, and the quality of tv speakers, sound bars and headphones used to hear them, has lead to a better experience for a vast majority of consumers. No one I know mixes any differently now than they did for the last long while... 

And since I made the transition to doing mainly broadcast content, about 3-4 years ago, I have almost no clients ask to hear it on “small” or TV speakers.... we have a new generation of creatives and show runners in this world and the are generally, and genuinely, focused on making the best soundtracks available without concern for the “lowest common denominator...” 

I would argue things are going the other way.. we can see the shrinking of the need for large scale auditorium sized mixing stages due to the changes in the film business as a whole and the types and quantity of theatrical only “large scale” films., while broadcast mixing stages are getting better


Just my .02

Ps.. regarding your earlier comment about Dolby enabling 7.1.4 printouts... the ability for their software to do that only came out in the latest release of their software, released only a few months back. As I’ve mentioned in the last took a bit of work to make that happen in the past...


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> Not true.
> 
> And it also isn’t an apples to apples comparisons.
> 
> DTS:X can have a total of 16 streams of audio... the mixing tools allow for the almost unlimited use of objects... so either you can limit your self to mixing with a total of 16 channels (impossible for almost all content, be films, broadcast or even music...) or render out the rest of the mix and use any remaining streams to use for discrete objects (for example 7.1.4 + 5 objects....). And managing which discrete five pieces of audio to encode as objects at a given time is a foolish workflow. I think the content that has been released so far backs this up.
> 
> Atmos limits the amount of objects to be used during mixing to 118... it will then combine the entire soundtrack (beds and objects) upon encoding.


THIS (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1880.html#post58762310) is what I've read before on here time and again about the Home version of Dolby Atmos. 16 total objects (anything beyond that is "clustered" together with other objects to shrink them down to fit). The 16 objects supposedly encapsulates the bed channels as well as any extra speakers (not counting LFE). So a 7.1.4 always active bed would have 5 audio objects available beyond that, clustered or not. If this isn't correct, then I spent a lot of time reading false information on these forums. 

As far as I know DTS:X also can contain "16" waveforms. The difference I originally alluded to is that many Atmos Blu-Rays only seem to use 12 waveforms for some reason (to save space on a disc?).(https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#post58729910). 



> DTS has no similar technology.


Another post in the DTS:X thread (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#post58738490) says that DTS:X's "spatial coding" is called either "Spatial Rendering" or "Spatial Re-mapping" (again same linked post). 

Besides, what is clustering in home Atmos if not pre-rendered streams to use over a single object/waveform? Dolby likes to say it can produce 128 simultaneous objects in home Atmos lately, but it doesn't seem to me that it's any more technically correct than DTS:X claiming infinite objects that can be pre-rendered out to a given layout or pre-rendered object (which would be identical to a clustered object in function) and played back over all 32.2 speakers with DTS:X Pro. The semantics seem to fit whatever marketing they wish to use from either brand from my POV.



> False.
> 
> There is no licensing lost to produce content in Atmos outside of theatrical exhibition venues.


The "falseness" of licensing costs would seem to depend on one's point of view. You're telling me that theaters don't matter? Are there no licensing costs for AVR manufacturers? Is the software to mix Atmos is free?



> As an extrapolation of the cost argument, I would propose that it is actually more expensive to produce content (broadcast and disc) in DTS:X because you will also have to author and QC the same content in a Dolby format if you plan to stream or broadcast it... while some studios have certainly embraced the use of X on catalog titles (and a handful of current releases) it is by no means cheaper to do so if you factor in the cost of creating the eventual Dolby streams that are needed for delivery down the line.



You _can_ argue that, but DTS:X is at least fully _capable_ of being streamed (using DTS HQ compressed streams similar to using DD+ with Atmos). Given the ever increasing amounts of bandwidth (I have >150Mbps here and that's the bottom tier; it maxes out at 1.5Gbps from my ISP if I'm willing to pay for it), full uncompressed streams aren't an impossibility either. I certainly stream it locally that way. Fandango Now streams DTS and was reportedly set to stream IMAX Enhanced titles with DTS:X the last I heard (I do not use Fandango Now at the moment as my projector is currently 2K and it wants 4K streams to pass Atmos or DTS, which I think is short-sighted, but I have no control over it). While Atmos is clearly well ahead of DTS:X at this point in time, DTS:X isn't a dead format (one could argue Auro-3D probably is dead). Market penetration is still quite low and 8K streaming or some format with it is yet to come as well. I personally wouldn't want to predict the future only to find out I was wrong ten years later.

But as I said, I'll take whatever format I can get. The few titles I have in both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos (usually DTS:X on disc and Atmos in iTunes streaming), they sound virtually identical in every test I've done thus far here. Maybe there'd be a difference on a 32+ channel Trinnov based home theater. I cannot say as I don't have one.

I do know in general, competition is usually good for the future and having Dolby be the last sound format standing doesn't appeal to me even if they are superior in some respects. What drive would there have been to even get Atmos out there if Auro-3D hadn't threatened to overtake them by arriving first? I've read it suggested the threat of Auro-3D is what got Dolby pushing forward much sooner than they might have otherwise. We didn't even get much 7.1 content until Atmos came out. 5.1 on Blu-Ray seemed to be the overwhelming normal even when cinematic 7.1 soundtracks were available for the same movies. If nothing else, Atmos/X has lead to a lot more 7.1 soundtracks for those using older 6.1/7.1 systems even if they never upgrade to Atmos/X.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> THIS (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...d-home-theater-version-1880.html#post58762310) is what I've read before on here time and again about the Home version of Dolby Atmos. 16 total objects (anything beyond that is "clustered" together with other objects to shrink them down to fit). The 16 objects supposedly encapsulates the bed channels as well as any extra speakers (not counting LFE). So a 7.1.4 always active bed would have 5 audio objects available beyond that, clustered or not. If this isn't correct, then I spent a lot of time reading false information on these forums.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know DTS:X also can contain "16" waveforms. The difference I originally alluded to is that many Atmos Blu-Rays only seem to use 12 waveforms for some reason (to save space on a disc?).(https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#post58729910).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another post in the DTS:X thread (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2309010-dts-x-139.html#post58738490) says that DTS:X's "spatial coding" is called either "Spatial Rendering" or "Spatial Re-mapping" (again same linked post).
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, what is clustering in home Atmos if not pre-rendered streams to use over a single object/waveform? Dolby likes to say it can produce 128 simultaneous objects in home Atmos lately, but it doesn't seem to me that it's any more technically correct than DTS:X claiming infinite objects that can be pre-rendered out to a given layout or pre-rendered object (which would be identical to a clustered object in function) and played back over all 32.2 speakers with DTS:X Pro. The semantics seem to fit whatever marketing they wish to use from either brand from my POV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "falseness" of licensing costs would seem to depend on one's point of view. You're telling me that theaters don't matter? Are there no licensing costs for AVR manufacturers? Is the software to mix Atmos is free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You _can_ argue that, but DTS:X is at least fully _capable_ of being streamed (using DTS HQ compressed streams similar to using DD+ with Atmos). Given the ever increasing amounts of bandwidth (I have >150Mbps here and that's the bottom tier; it maxes out at 1.5Gbps from my ISP if I'm willing to pay for it), full uncompressed streams aren't an impossibility either. I certainly stream it locally that way. Fandango Now streams DTS and was reportedly set to stream IMAX Enhanced titles with DTS:X the last I heard (I do not use Fandango Now at the moment as my projector is currently 2K and it wants 4K streams to pass Atmos or DTS, which I think is short-sighted, but I have no control over it). While Atmos is clearly well ahead of DTS:X at this point in time, DTS:X isn't a dead format (one could argue Auro-3D probably is dead). Market penetration is still quite low and 8K streaming or some format with it is yet to come as well. I personally wouldn't want to predict the future only to find out I was wrong ten years later.
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said, I'll take whatever format I can get. The few titles I have in both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos (usually DTS:X on disc and Atmos in iTunes streaming), they sound virtually identical in every test I've done thus far here. Maybe there'd be a difference on a 32+ channel Trinnov based home theater. I cannot say as I don't have one.
> 
> 
> 
> I do know in general, competition is usually good for the future and having Dolby be the last sound format standing doesn't appeal to me even if they are superior in some respects. What drive would there have been to even get Atmos out there if Auro-3D hadn't threatened to overtake them by arriving first? I've read it suggested the threat of Auro-3D is what got Dolby pushing forward much sooner than they might have otherwise. We didn't even get much 7.1 content until Atmos came out. 5.1 on Blu-Ray seemed to be the overwhelming normal even when cinematic 7.1 soundtracks were available for the same movies. If nothing else, Atmos/X has lead to a lot more 7.1 soundtracks for those using older 6.1/7.1 systems even if they never upgrade to Atmos/X.




I don’t want to argue every point you now bring up. 

You now claim you were talking about one thing when you clearly weee not... for example brining up theatrical licensing costs in a hone Atmos thread (and for your information the same parameters apply to cinema licensing fees and the required mix stage time to produce a cinema DTS:X mix..). Or AVR codec fees or software, etc... there is simply no case you can make where home Atmos is more expansive than using DTS:X... and I’ve given you one simple example when the inverse is almost always true. 

You stated two things as facts and on those two specific things you are incorrect .... now you are trying to restate your position by referencing things you don’t understand (i.e. (“spatial remapping,” the difference between production and authoring workflows and methodologies and interchanging then at will, or the fact that the way both codecs deal with audio beds, and both and dynamic objects are completely different and fundamentally change the way you mix and produce soundtracks in the codecs)..

I’ve been on these boards a long long time ...

There are a ton of much much more educated experts (about acoustics, electronics, etc) here than me who have challenged and educated me over the last 21 years..... @markus737 , @batpig and @sdurani come to mind immediately. 

When I’ve been wrong, I’ve admitted it (most of the time)... and yet sometimes in the past I’ve tried to argue my way out of a situation when I was clearly out of my depth. 

As I’ve grown older (and hopefully more mature) I’ve learned that being louder (both by using CAPS and long worded, meandering, and subject changing replies) doesn’t mean the poster is more educated, or correct, on the subject they are speaking about. 

A lot of time is implies they don’t have the ability to step back and absorb the information being presented to them by others and are simply, most of the time, just concerned with always being right rather than providing coherent, factual and/or gained knowledge... they are almost exclusive immovable and quite entrenched in their positions. 

I just realized I might be writing one the same kind of posts my reply is speaking about.... I’ll leave it at that. 

PS.. ... it is almost impossible to stream (meaning in real time over the “internet”) VBR video AND VBR lossless audio unless you can guarantee max bandwidth at all times, which is very hard to do unless you can control it (like on an optical disc or a closed network...).


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> I don’t want to argue every point you now bring up.



As for DTS:X, I'd love to hear your theories of why any studio would bother with DTS:X (other than Universal) in the first place. If it's always more expensive and inferior technology, what possible motivation could any of those studios have to use DTS:X on a single title? I've pointed out at least one studio that has a serious flaw (Disney) in their Atmos playback on high-end systems that DTS:X Pro never has and you dismiss it as just one studio. So I shouldn't get to play Disney Atmos titles? It'd be nice if Dolby had a remedy to that situation like DTS:X Pro does for 7.1.4 soundtracks on higher channel systems. I fail to see what's not valid about that viewpoint. 

To me, that's an unacceptable flaw (I have a lot of Marvel and Disney titles) and it's why I went with Pro Logic steering extraction of Top Middle here rather than getting something like a Denon 8500 as I'd like *all* the movies to have direct overhead sound in my large room). Whatever panning spatial resolution advantage Atmos might have by rendering rather than just using more speakers to play what's already there (Neural X), I can't hear any issue in my 24' long room. The Atmos helicopter moves smoothly all around the room. Without Top Middle, the helicopter all but disappears in terms of a hard 'image' as it gets closer to the middle of the room and reappears as it moves towards the back. With top middle extracted, it smoothly moves around the room. I don't know how it could move any smoother being rendered, perhaps in a larger room still? Dolby's upmixer doesn't impress me either. It fails to put overhead objects (helicopters, jets, etc.) overhead most/all of the time and has no front/back panning either overhead (arrayed L/R only). If DTS were out of business, Neural X might disappear in future products and that would be a real shame given what it can do compared to DSU. I also like how it supports Auro-3D speaker locations that I think Atmos misses out on like Center Height and Top Surround (both lock panning into place for off-axis seats). I would have preferred all three companies to have agreed on a common layout for all speaker locations, but we don't always get what we want.

All I know with absolute certainty is I'm happy to have Harry Potter in immersive sound with great overhead effects. I'd be happy if it was in Atmos too, but if DTS:X is what it has, that's fine. They both have put out some nice home soundtracks and both have had some relative stinkers and the ones that have both sound identical here so what's to complain about from a consumer standpoint other than the issue with Top Middle not typically being used by Disney on 7.1.6 systems?



> PS.. ... it is almost impossible to stream (meaning in real time over the “internet”) VBR video AND VBR lossless audio unless you can guarantee max bandwidth at all times, which is very hard to do unless you can control it (like on an optical disc or a closed network...).


It's hard to respond to what you wrote without taking note of the disclaimer bit about "in real time" when online movies don't need to be streamed in real time. iTunes, for example, loads into the Apple TV's buffer as fast as it can get the entire movie or TV show. If the bandwidth drops momentarily, it's usually not an issue because as long as your overall bandwidth being served is above what's needed, it will fill up ahead of time. Lossless compressed audio is roughly the same amount of space as a default Handbrake compression video setting (i.e. streaming type size). That means to stream it over a network, you would need roughly 2x the bandwidth as the lossy version of the movie. Apple recommends 25Mbps or higher for 4K movies on iTunes. A lossless audio version would probably stream at 60Mbps or higher, certainly. As long as the buffer (average rate) stays ahead of the real time rate, it shouldn't have any issues. I'd hardly call that _impossible_. That doesn't mean anyone will offer lossless any time soon. But the notion that DTS can't be streamed and Atmos can is just plain wrong. Fandango Now already has DTS streaming titles available. DTS:X supports more than just lossless tracks.


----------



## DrDon

Let's stop the bickering NOW, please. 

Discuss the topic and NOT EACH OTHER.

Questions or comments? PM me. Don't post those here.


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> As a matter of fact the coming I now work for has built 5 “broadcast” centric Atmos rooms in the last two years and all of them are a bit bigger than most similar rooms around. That’s in addition to the other 6+ rooms and facilities I’ve seen come online.


Are the newer Atmos rooms focused on broadcast/streaming content mostly 7.1.4, or are they starting to move to 9.1.6 or even more channels?


----------



## FilmMixer

dschulz said:


> Are the newer Atmos rooms focused on broadcast/streaming content mostly 7.1.4, or are they starting to move to 9.1.6 or even more channels?


Most rooms that are brand new (built in the last 2 years), that I have seen, are 9.1.6 or more.... a majority of the retrofit projects have been 7.1.4..


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> Why do you think that is the case ?
> 
> I’ve ceros my seen none of that behavior. As a matter of fact the company I now work for has built 5 “broadcast” centric Atmos rooms in the last two years and all of them are a bit bigger than most similar rooms around. That’s in addition to the other 6+ rooms and facilities I’ve seen come online.
> 
> I would argue the way consumers listen to broadcast/tv/OTT content, and the quality of tv speakers, sound bars and headphones used to hear them, has lead to a better experience for a vast majority of consumers. No one I know mixes any differently now than they did for the last long while...
> 
> And since I made the transition to doing mainly broadcast content, about 3-4 years ago, I have almost no clients ask to hear it on “small” or TV speakers.... we have a new generation of creatives and show runners in this world and the are generally, and genuinely, focused on making the best soundtracks available without concern for the “lowest common denominator...”
> 
> I would argue things are going the other way.. we can see the shrinking of the need for large scale auditorium sized mixing stages due to the changes in the film business as a whole and the types and quantity of theatrical only “large scale” films., while broadcast mixing stages are getting better
> 
> 
> Just my .02
> 
> Ps.. regarding your earlier comment about Dolby enabling 7.1.4 printouts... the ability for their software to do that only came out in the latest release of their software, released only a few months back. As I’ve mentioned in the last took a bit of work to make that happen in the past...



I am discussing the possibility of trending quality downward as an unfortunate side result of the tenuous circumstances surrounding traditional theatrical distribution on the BIG screen due to this pandemic. 



AMC and other cinema companies are hanging on by their fingertips and if we have continuous spikes of outbreaks (despite the fudging of the numbers happening in some states - like Colorado and Florida as but two examples - to make it appear things are winding down, so they can "open back up") because of mismanagement of the crisis, then I can only see theatrical distribution as an endangered species. Why would people risk their lives and dwindling funds on going to a communal place like a theater? I'm glad you still have a job, but many people no longer do. Some might risk it, but not enough to keep things afloat. 



If this worse case scenario plays out, then the majority of sound systems playing back these soundtracks will be in the home. We've already noticed on this and other HT boards the damage to dynamics, volume, surround activity, diminished Atmos tracks (fixed print-outs, the minimal use of the immersive formats' full capabilities for various reasons), severely filtered bass tracks (not to fix clipping and distortion that may have occurred in a previous mixes due to lack of QC, but to add a severe low frequency roll-off at about 30 Hz). Maybe you as a seasoned audio engineer don't subscribe to these mixing "foibles" (thank you for that), but it is too often occurring to be one-off events. The latest victims appear to be _Top Gun _and _The War of the Worlds_ on 4k disc at least as far as bass is concerned. 



Then take this to the next step... studios continue to lose revenue causing a shifting from big screen oriented releases to smaller home screen releases. Since more people are listening with, dare I say it, less than adequate sound systems, and with a lack of dual soundtracks on disc or streaming (an A Grade primary track designed for high end home theaters that normally contain subs and speakers that can handle the dynamics and low bass a heck of a lot better, and a B Grade track optimized for sound bars and the like that cannot handle a full-throated audio track), why mix for the best home systems that may have Trinnovs or other high speaker count processors (that can do 9.1.6 or possibly larger immersive layouts - prices have fallen and that as spurred a trend toward somewhat more reasonable *>*7.1.4 receivers and pre-amp interest on these boards as we want to take advantage of Atmos' 3D object capabilities to improve surround immersion and precision) and other top flight equipment, which are costlier to set up in mixing studios? Your employer may have installed some state-of-the-art dubbing and mixing rooms (that's great!), but can it sustain itself with this economic change in the weather? Will other audio post houses be so bold in the future? 



===


You also have brought up a point that we don't fully understand how home Atmos works. Given that some literature has come to light (at least starting a few pages back) on consumer Dolby Atmos, its use of spatial compression, etc., can you help explain what it is talking about in layman's terms... or debunk it if it is incorrect information? Some software that looks at disc metadata seems to indicate that the Meridian Lossless Stream (aka Dolby TrueHD) on the Dolby Atmos tracks is carved up into a maximum of 16 "channels" with many tracks only using 11. Is this inaccurate? 



Your assistance and expertise would be most helpful in clearing up any questions or misconceptions or speculation that have been floating around for some time. 



Thank you for your time and continued patronage.


----------



## Tex_Thai

Hi guys, 
Can I ask for a little help troubleshooting here please? I have a 7.2.4 system set up with ATMOS in mind, dedicated home theater.
Been enjoying it for years as surround sound, but added a 4K Pioneer LX500 player around 6 months ago, 4 ceiling speakers and a new Marantz AV7705 to get some ATMOS. 
All well and good, loving it, not perfect, but wow for movies. Dolby Surround nice for music too. Then roughly 2 weeks ago, I played an ATMOS disc (I am disc only here in Thailand, keeping Amazon alive and wealthy) and my shipping company too, started to get some strange popping, ticks, digital loud noises, ATMOS flashing on my Marantz back and forth to something else, then GONE. My Marantz will no longer recognize Dolby TrueHD Multi any more, and now no sound comes through unless I change to another language on the disc, change to Thai 5.1 and all is fine, IF I understood Thai. DTS HD MA discs are the same, except there is still major cracks and pops, sounds like morse code and is no longer recognized by the Marantz. There was a FW upgrade around that time for the Marantz, but no one else is calling them out on this problem. Checked everything I can think of, the disc player on bitstream, my HDMI cables are 2.0b or 2.1 compatible, certified, and have not changed an inch since they were working great. HD codecs cannot be read. 4K Hacksaw Ridge, Deepwater Horizon, Ghost in the Shell (BD), 4K Battleship DTS:X all gone.
Any ideas? Done all the resets, one guy said to reset it 10 times in a row, and I did. Still the same.
I think the Marantz has crapped itself.
But I would love a simple, keep it in place and only have to do a FW upgrade to fix it. Did a factory reset and that took it back to an original FW but that too was the same.
Open to suggestions, 
God Bless,
Wayne


----------



## PeterTHX

Tex, you may want to try changing out your cabling just in case. It is possible there has been some degradation or oxidation in the cable itself over time.

I've seen this happen on both "cheap" and expensive cables.


----------



## Matt L

One of the other audio sites had an article about Dolby removing some aspects of Atmos from 2020 receivers and beyond. DSU Dolby Surround Upmixer. Can't say I'm familiar with this option, anyone using it? Or is it called something different for each manufacturer?


----------



## dfa973

Matt L said:


> One of the other audio sites had an article about Dolby removing some aspects of Atmos from 2020 receivers and beyond. DSU Dolby Surround Upmixer. Can't say I'm familiar with this option, anyone using it? Or is it called something different for each manufacturer?


Yeah, the removing of Center Spread feature from the Dolby Surround upmixer. Old news... It happened in 2019 (based on a 2018 issued Dolby mandate)..., not this year..., for the 2019 generation and beyond.

Center Spread is VERY useful when listening to Stereo music.


----------



## Apgood

Matt L said:


> One of the other audio sites had an article about Dolby removing some aspects of Atmos from 2020 receivers and beyond. DSU Dolby Surround Upmixer. Can't say I'm familiar with this option, anyone using it? Or is it called something different for each manufacturer?


You have a link?


----------



## Tex_Thai

PeterTHX said:


> Tex, you may want to try changing out your cabling just in case. It is possible there has been some degradation or oxidation in the cable itself over time.
> 
> I've seen this happen on both "cheap" and expensive cables.


Thanks very much PeterTHX, that was a great suggestion in fact, one I realized immediately that I should have done, even though I had not touched the cables from when the Marantz was playing ATMOS and DTS:X. 
And I did change out the cable, unfortunately nothing changed at all.
DEAD
GONE
Any other suggestions would be very welcome.
Thanks, God Bless,
Wayne


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Apgood said:


> You have a link?



https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-music


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-music


I never understood the big deal of the spread feature to begin with. The entire point of the center channel speaker is to lock dialog/vocals in the center. Stereo spread defeats that purpose, acting more or less like an arrayed center channel speaker at best. Changing the "spread value" on older DPLII receivers just seems to direct less to the center channel and more to the mains, making it closer to stereo. With DSU that supports it, it's just on/off so you could just defeat your center channel while listening to music to achieve a very similar effect (i.e. let the mains do the work). Yes, 'some' still goes to the center, but it's greatly reduced and has little effect on the precedence effect for off axis listeners so why even bother? You then have to turn it back OFF again if you're using with movies to get the full center effect (just as much bother as shutting off the center speaker, IMO). In other words why even use the center channel at all with music if it doesn't sound as good to you as your mains? 

Meanwhile, with three identical speakers here, the only real difference I hear when I switch Center Spread on/off is that if I'm sitting off-axis, it pulls to the nearest speaker (like stereo). Sitting at the MLP, the effect with it on or off sounds IDENTICAL here. PLII, that DSU is based off of, doesn't pull hard to the center to begin with like PLI so it's already better for music. I think the center spread mode had non-identical center channel speakers in mind that are just plain inferior to the mains. These days with wall mounted sets or projectors, many people can now use three identical speakers and the mode has no purpose at that point, IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if Dolby thought the setting was just plain confusing to many people as its benefits are dubious at best and non-existent (as far as my ears can hear, at least) with three identical mains. 

To be certain (as I was going by memory), I just went downstairs and tried some very familiar Tori Amos songs (from Scarlett's Walk) and compared Stereo and DSU with Center Spread On/Off on my system that has three identical PSB T-45s in front. From the MLP, I couldn't hear any difference at all with it on/off. Off-axis, it wasn't centered any longer and stereo had the same front stage, but of course there were no longer sounds coming from the surrounds speakers. I just leave it OFF for that reason and off-axis seats at least get vocals centered with DSU music. Truth be told, I prefer stereo mode for 2-channel music most of the time anyway. Those songs weren't designed to put out-of-phase material behind you or to the sides. They were mixed with only 2 speakers in mind.


----------



## b_scott

what are some of the best pieces of media to play to show off Atmos? Once I'm set up I'll want some movies/etc to test it.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

b_scott said:


> what are some of the best pieces of media to play to show off Atmos? Once I'm set up I'll want some movies/etc to test it.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/301-...-sounding-dolby-atmos-movies-uhd-blu-ray.html


----------



## Ricoflashback

b_scott said:


> what are some of the best pieces of media to play to show off Atmos? Once I'm set up I'll want some movies/etc to test it.


***So a couple movies not on that list - Unbroken (incredible bombing run scene in the beginning. If that doesn't knock your socks off with Dolby Atmos, nothing will.) 2. Sully - when the plane starts having mechanical problems, this Dolby Atmos audio will have you reaching for the "Call Button" just above your airplane seat. 3. Fury - especially if you have a good subwoofer. Not a movie that you want to play late at night as it will sound like the tanks are moving through your house. 

For streaming and if you have Netflix - - the movie Extraction. Best DD+ Atmos via ARC that I've heard to date. Enjoy!


----------



## b_scott

Thanks!


----------



## tigerhonaker

*The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)*


Up-Date,

Atmos will be installed in a few weeks from now !!!

*Both the "Install" dates and the "Audio/Video" Custom Calibration Dates are ... Set !

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-21.html#post59708996

Things guys are finally coming together nicely.

Terry*


----------



## dfa973

I have recently watched the War of the Worlds 4K Blu-ray - with Atmos - I also have the 2005 DVD with 5.1 DTS and the 2010 Bluray with DTS-HD 7.1.
Watching, again and again, the scene at 20-21 minutes when the tripod emerges from the ground - the older DTS soundtrack practically starts to shake my floor and the couch during that scene. 
But the new 2020 Atmos and the 2010 DTS-HD soundtracks probably are based on the same (2010) master - and sound different than the 2005 5.1 DTS, with weak LFE, my floor, and couch do not vibrate when the earth is cracking... I need to add 7-10dB to the LFE so it can get near the DTS track, but the rumblings are not the same at all, everything is subdued... The fun is gone...


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> I have recently watched the War of the Worlds 4K Blu-ray - with Atmos - I also have the 2005 DVD with 5.1 DTS and the 2010 Bluray with DTS-HD 7.1.
> Watching, again and again, the scene at 20-21 minutes when the tripod emerges from the ground - the older DTS soundtrack practically starts to shake my floor and the couch during that scene.
> But the new 2020 Atmos and the 2010 DTS-HD soundtracks probably are based on the same (2010) master - and sound different than the 2005 5.1 DTS, with weak LFE, my floor, and couch do not vibrate when the earth is cracking... I need to add 7-10dB to the LFE so it can get near the DTS track, but the rumblings are not the same at all, everything is subdued... The fun is gone... /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif


And yet someone in the mixing industry claimed recently they do not mix for sound bars and the like. I call bologna. There's an entire thread on here dedicated to measuring LFE levels on Atmos/X mixes compared to prior 5.1-7.1 mixes and it's shocking how many titles are reduced in bass levels (in truth sound effects are also often reduced relative to dialog levels as well to improve dialog intelligibility at lower volume levels. (e.g. The Matrix in both Atmos and the earlier Dolby Digital version are up to 9dB lower in sound effects when dialog matched to the cinema DTS version and that's considered a great Atmos title by most people, but is nowhere near as explosive sounding in some scenes compared to the original cinema version). 

It's not every title, obviously. I directly compared my DTS laserdisc of Jurassic Park to the new DTS:X soundtrack on the 4K UHD Bluray and surprisingly it was within 2dB at all times at the MLP for bass output, sometimes slightly lower or higher but extremely close. Some say it was too loud on laserdisc so they're probably unhappy the DTS:X track is true to the original, but it's nowhere near Blade Runner 2049, which is insane in terms of bass levels and almost everyone I've seen praises that soundtrack as being awesome (it is).

Another example is Hellboy II. The 7.1 Bluray has much more bass than the DTS:X disc, especially as it approaches and well into the subsonic frequency range. It's sad, but it seems home cinema is getting tamer even as Atmos was designed to be an improvement at the theater. Disney has been even worse than average for years now.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

dfa973 said:


> I have recently watched the War of the Worlds 4K Blu-ray - with Atmos - I also have the 2005 DVD with 5.1 DTS and the 2010 Bluray with DTS-HD 7.1.
> Watching, again and again, the scene at 20-21 minutes when the tripod emerges from the ground - the older DTS soundtrack practically starts to shake my floor and the couch during that scene.
> But the new 2020 Atmos and the 2010 DTS-HD soundtracks probably are based on the same (2010) master - and sound different than the 2005 5.1 DTS, with weak LFE, my floor, and couch do not vibrate when the earth is cracking... I need to add 7-10dB to the LFE so it can get near the DTS track, but the rumblings are not the same at all, everything is subdued... The fun is gone...



Sad indeed. It has been covered pretty well on the ultimate list of bass movies with graphs thread. Iirc, 30hz is where the filter is at. I hate the lowest common denominator soundbar mix.


----------



## sdrucker

Newflash (I think):
Tidal is supporting Dolby Atmos for a broad set of devices. See here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...iRC-7drv4kogzExcNwgYvNV_Yj1vC11E#77501f366cce

This is major news if it's true. And being able to play back on an Apple TV 4K or newer Nvidia shields will be a dealmaker. I've got a Trinnov with two pairs of side surrounds and left/right center, so maybe we'll be able tell if this is true Dolby Atmos with object passthrough..

But not Roku? It has Tidal but I don’t see it listed.

EDIT:
I just installed on my Apple TV. Once you log in or set up the trial if you don't have an account, you'll be told that your system supports Dolby Atmos and you will start seeing Dolby Atmos content on the list of clips when you open Tidal (it might take a little scrolling). 

I listened to the first clip from “Atmos for Androids”, which seems like 7.1.4. Putting on REM’s ”Automatic for the People”. I’m seeing all my speakers lighting up on Everybody Hurts, and I’m getting Dolby Atmos on the inputs. Yay!

Also played All I Want to Do by Sheryl Crow and I'm getting what sounds like discrete content out of my wides on the chorus - acoustic guitar distinct from what you're hearing in the mains or front heights, as well as almost all my speakers lighting up (i.e. front and rear heights, then the top middles playing some vocals at a subdued level on the chorus, but not the left/right centers except on one REM cut). Double Yay! This is what we've been waiting for, some of us....something that's not just marketing speak for an upmixer or virtualizer for headphones...

One thing I am curious about, which might fall into "a difference that is no difference is no difference": since I have the BluRay for REM's album in Atmos, I wonder if it's the same Atmos mix as on the BD or one done specifically for "Atmos Music". Don't have the time now but I might A/B it to see.


----------



## galonzo

Just curious @MagnumX , but do you use any of the immersive upmixers when you are comparing those old LD DTS tracks (or even the 7.1 DTS-HD MA tracks) to the updated Atmos or DTS:X mixes (or maybe not to compare, but when you're just enjoying them), and if so, which upmixer do you tend to prefer?


----------



## usc1995

sdrucker said:


> Newflash (I think):
> Tidal is supporting Dolby Atmos for a broad set of devices. See here:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...iRC-7drv4kogzExcNwgYvNV_Yj1vC11E#77501f366cce
> 
> This is major news if it's true. And being able to play back on an Apple TV 4K or newer Nvidia shields will be a dealmaker. I've got a Trinnov with two pairs of side surrounds and left/right center, so maybe we'll be able tell if this is true Dolby Atmos with object passthrough..
> 
> But not Roku? It has Tidal but I don’t see it listed.
> 
> EDIT:
> I just installed on my Apple TV. Once you log in or set up the trial if you don't have an account, you'll be told that your system supports Dolby Atmos and you will start seeing Dolby Atmos content on the list of clips when you open Tidal (it might take a little scrolling).
> 
> I listened to the first clip from “Atmos for Androids”, which seems like 7.1.4. Putting on REM’s ”Automatic for the People”. I’m seeing all my speakers lighting up on Everybody Hurts, and I’m getting Dolby Atmos on the inputs. Yay!
> 
> Also played All I Want to Do by Sheryl Crow and I'm getting what sounds like discrete content out of my wides on the chorus - acoustic guitar distinct from what you're hearing in the mains or front heights, as well as almost all my speakers lighting up (i.e. front and rear heights, then the top middles playing some vocals at a subdued level on the chorus, but not the left/right centers except on one REM cut). Double Yay! This is what we've been waiting for, some of us....something that's not just marketing speak for an upmixer or virtualizer for headphones...
> 
> One thing I am curious about, which might fall into "a difference that is no difference is no difference": since I have the BluRay for REM's album in Atmos, I wonder if it's the same Atmos mix as on the BD or one done specifically for "Atmos Music". Don't have the time now but I might A/B it to see.


This is great news! I wonder about the number of available tracks as it seems there aren't a whole lot of Atmos music albums that get released that we hear about. I know that Universal was supposed to be working on Atmos remixes for lots of their artists but I don't feel like we have seen a lot of it for sale yet. Maybe they were saving them for streaming? Would you be able to check some recent high profile releases to see if they are available? Specifically, the new Pearl Jam album, Abbey Road by The Beatles, Kick by INXS and anything by U2? I am a Spotify subscriber currently but would consider Tidal if they have a decent library of Atmos tracks to consider.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***So what's the difference between a multi-channel SACD & and a streaming, Dolby Atmos music offering?


----------



## MagnumX

galonzo said:


> Just curious @MagnumX , but do you use any of the immersive upmixers when you are comparing those old LD DTS tracks (or even the 7.1 DTS-HD MA tracks) to the updated Atmos or DTS:X mixes (or maybe not to compare, but when you're just enjoying them), and if so, which upmixer do you tend to prefer?


I tried the Jurassic Park DTS laserdisc track with and without upmixers (I took the measurements without them). But I also compared some scenes with Neural X decoding, which I prefer most of the time over DSU (once in awhile, usually for 2-channel soundtracks I like DSU better as sometimes the dialog ends up "low" in my "dialog lift" system with Neural X when it's using 2.0 channel soundtracks and DSU puts them right in the middle of my screen. But typically, Neural X does a much better job of putting overhead type sounds (e.g. thunder, airplanes, helicopters, etc.) overhead whereas DSU often has them at or closer to ear level. 

In the case of Jurassic Park, right at the beginning when the Raptor is trying to get out of that cage, there's a sound in the DTS:X version that passes right behind my MLP chair (halfway point of the room). That's something the 5.1 soundtrack literally _cannot_ do if expanded into the rear speakers (7.1 bed level with any mode that uses the rear surrounds) as they would move in the back of the room instead of the side/middle of the room. But the DTS:X soundtrack has no such limitations. It can move things across the room at any point from front to back clearly. In the DTS laserdisc version, the sound does indeed move across the back of the room instead unless I limit it to 5.1 bed-level speakers only, but then I miss the rear surround effects that the DTS:X version ALSO has. So the DTS:X version still wins for "immersion" even compared to the Neural X upmixer, which does a pretty good job of expanding it, but it's a bit more nebulous and some sounds are flat out in different places. Sometimes, Neural X comes very close with TrueHD 7.1 bed level soundtracks to the Atmos rendering, but other times some sounds end up in different places (not always in Atmos' favor with some soundtracks, oddly enough, but this is subjective, of course).

I was more interested, however in seeing if the DTS:X version of Jurassic Park nullified the bass levels like so many other soundtracks do. But seeing as my subwoofer only plays down to 20Hz, I can't be certain that it still doesn't cut subsonic frequencies compared to the laserdisc version (I leave that for that bass thread where people have the tools to test it, etc.), but in terms of average levels, at least, the bass is just as loud in the DTS:X version as the laserdisc version. I've had people vehemently tell me that DTS was too darn loud in the bass department in the 1990s (Dolby Digital versions were usually 3-5 dB lower for the same title), but the fact is that soundtracks like Blade Runner 2049 in Dolby Atmos (Auro-3D version as well; I have both here) have WAY more bass than Jurassic Park (it's not even funny; Blade Runner 2049 made me jump out of my chair the first time I played it accidentally at reference level!) right at the very beginning (arguably the loudest bass notes in the entire movie). So if Jurassic Park had too much bass, WTF do titles like Blade Runner 2049 have? *MEGA* BASS? Whatever it is, I like it! 

Put on _Labyrinth_ in Dolby Atmos and it's wimpy wimpy wimpy with almost no effects the original 2-channel (Pro Logic) version didn't have (a few key action moments have something added). My feeling is if you're going to redo a track in Dolby Atmos, go FULL TILT or go home. They can always include the original 2-channel or 5.1 channel version as well (some do like The Matrix, although that's the original Dolby Digital home track, not the Cinema DTS one which is up to 9dB louder for sound effects compared to dialog).



Ricoflashback said:


> ***So what's the difference between a multi-channel SACD & and a streaming, Dolby Atmos music offering?



5.1 versus up to 34.1 including up to 10 overhead speakers.


----------



## dschulz

sdrucker said:


> Newflash (I think):
> Tidal is supporting Dolby Atmos for a broad set of devices. See here:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...iRC-7drv4kogzExcNwgYvNV_Yj1vC11E#77501f366cce
> 
> This is major news if it's true. And being able to play back on an Apple TV 4K or newer Nvidia shields will be a dealmaker. I've got a Trinnov with two pairs of side surrounds and left/right center, so maybe we'll be able tell if this is true Dolby Atmos with object passthrough..
> 
> But not Roku? It has Tidal but I don’t see it listed.


This is *great* news, what I've been hoping for all along since the first announcements of the Atmos Music initiative. Now if only Apple Music would get onboard...




> One thing I am curious about, which might fall into "a difference that is no difference is no difference": since I have the BluRay for REM's album in Atmos, I wonder if it's the same Atmos mix as on the BD or one done specifically for "Atmos Music". Don't have the time now but I might A/B it to see.


I would hope that they're the same mix, just (presumably) losslessly compressed with TrueHD on the BluRay and with lossy compression on the stream - but it would be great to know for sure.


----------



## tanwn1

MagnumX said:


> I tried the Jurassic Park DTS laserdisc track with and without upmixers (I took the measurements without them). But I also compared some scenes with Neural X decoding, which I prefer most of the time over DSU (once in awhile, usually for 2-channel soundtracks I like DSU better as sometimes the dialog ends up "low" in my "dialog lift" system with Neural X when it's using 2.0 channel soundtracks and DSU puts them right in the middle of my screen. But typically, Neural X does a much better job of putting overhead type sounds (e.g. thunder, airplanes, helicopters, etc.) overhead whereas DSU often has them at or closer to ear level.
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of Jurassic Park, right at the beginning when the Raptor is trying to get out of that cage, there's a sound in the DTS:X version that passes right behind my MLP chair (halfway point of the room). That's something the 5.1 soundtrack literally _cannot_ do if expanded into the rear speakers (7.1 bed level with any mode that uses the rear surrounds) as they would move in the back of the room instead of the side/middle of the room. But the DTS:X soundtrack has no such limitations. It can move things across the room at any point from front to back clearly. In the DTS laserdisc version, the sound does indeed move across the back of the room instead unless I limit it to 5.1 bed-level speakers only, but then I miss the rear surround effects that the DTS:X version ALSO has. So the DTS:X version still wins for "immersion" even compared to the Neural X upmixer, which does a pretty good job of expanding it, but it's a bit more nebulous and some sounds are flat out in different places. Sometimes, Neural X comes very close with TrueHD 7.1 bed level soundtracks to the Atmos rendering, but other times some sounds end up in different places (not always in Atmos' favor with some soundtracks, oddly enough, but this is subjective, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> I was more interested, however in seeing if the DTS:X version of Jurassic Park nullified the bass levels like so many other soundtracks do. But seeing as my subwoofer only plays down to 20Hz, I can't be certain that it still doesn't cut subsonic frequencies compared to the laserdisc version (I leave that for that bass thread where people have the tools to test it, etc.), but in terms of average levels, at least, the bass is just as loud in the DTS:X version as the laserdisc version. I've had people vehemently tell me that DTS was too darn loud in the bass department in the 1990s (Dolby Digital versions were usually 3-5 dB lower for the same title), but the fact is that soundtracks like Blade Runner 2049 in Dolby Atmos (Auro-3D version as well; I have both here) have WAY more bass than Jurassic Park (it's not even funny; Blade Runner 2049 made me jump out of my chair the first time I played it accidentally at reference level!) right at the very beginning (arguably the loudest bass notes in the entire movie). So if Jurassic Park had too much bass, WTF do titles like Blade Runner 2049 have? *MEGA* BASS? Whatever it is, I like it!
> 
> 
> 
> Put on _Labyrinth_ in Dolby Atmos and it's wimpy wimpy wimpy with almost no effects the original 2-channel (Pro Logic) version didn't have (a few key action moments have something added). My feeling is if you're going to redo a track in Dolby Atmos, go FULL TILT or go home. They can always include the original 2-channel or 5.1 channel version as well (some do like The Matrix, although that's the original Dolby Digital home track, not the Cinema DTS one which is up to 9dB louder for sound effects compared to dialog).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1 versus up to 34.1 including up to 10 overhead speakers.


When they say too much bass usually it means the bass 40hz and above overwhelms and muddies the midrange and affects overall clarity. Some movie track has MEGA bass but it is well balanced and the bass doesnt affect the overall clarity and they usually contain below 30hz.


Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ricoflashback

***RE: “5.1 versus up to 34.1 including up to 10 overhead speakers.” Let me re-phrase the question. I’ve enjoyed many multi-channel SACD’s. I’m not sure how well music in Dolby Atmos will work. That many speakers? How is it mixed? To me, it’s different than a movie soundtrack that has a multitude of sounds. How does a trio group sound with overhead speakers? I’m not against it. I’m just not sure of the practicality in mixing music in Dolby Atmos versus SACD or any other existing format.


----------



## MagnumX

tanwn1 said:


> When they say too much bass usually it means the bass 40hz and above overwhelms and muddies the midrange and affects overall clarity. Some movie track has MEGA bass but it is well balanced and the bass doesnt affect the overall clarity and they usually contain below 30hz.


The complaint, as I remember it back in the day was that the DTS soundtrack has LFE levels somewhere between 3-5dB higher than the Dolby Digital version and that seemed to be common among DVDs that had both versions available, not any specific range of frequencies (I mean Jurassic Park won some major sound awards so obviously _someone_ liked it). The real question, however is how the DTS versions stacked up against the original Cinema DTS version. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that title, so I cannot say with any certainty. However, given the DTS:X version has quite similar levels of LFE content to the laserdisc DTS version, I'd say the odds are good that it's considered the correct levels. The early DTS DVD version had lower levels and people complained and it was re-released at the laserdisc level so I assume the people that complained preferred the DTS laserdisc LFE levels. It was certainly one of the more impressive 5.1 soundtracks I had in the 1990s for certain. The T-Rex scenes with the early bass kick with the glass of water that built and followed by the attack were amazing sounding. Other soundtracks I had like Goldeneye were very nice, but not pee in your pants time by any means.


Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]



Ricoflashback said:


> ***RE: “5.1 versus up to 34.1 including up to 10 overhead speakers.” Let me re-phrase the question. I’ve enjoyed many multi-channel SACD’s. I’m not sure how well music in Dolby Atmos will work. That many speakers? How is it mixed? To me, it’s different than a movie soundtrack that has a multitude of sounds. How does a trio group sound with overhead speakers? I’m not against it. I’m just not sure of the practicality in mixing music in Dolby Atmos versus SACD or any other existing format.


Atmos is a tool. They can do anything they want in terms of mixing. There's definitely a question of whether music is suited to the surround format (i.e. guitars flying overhead into the back of the room is kind of absurd, for example), but given the Auro-3D albums I've purchased thus far plus two demo samplers, I'd say the capability is definitely substantial. Mando Daio's Aelita is great in Auro-3D (Black Saturday is on the Auro-3D Vol.2 demo disc) as are the numerous recordings that map out to the various channels (dual quad miking) that make it sound like you're in the actual concert halls, etc. Now what Atmos will do with music remains to be seen to some extent, but the sky is the limit. It could be awesome or it could be horrible. It depends on what they do with it.


----------



## tanwn1

The jurassic park LD dts i stil have it, the LFE(not crossover by the way only .1 channel) has constant bass recorded whereby the bluray at times do not have any bass in the LFE channel. If u do bass management n send the LCR bass from say 60 to 80hz, the dts LD wil stil have overall more bass which i would say abit bloated, whereby the bluray dtsma or dtsx has more tight n accurate nuance but stil powerfulbass which i prefer. But for purist, the original LD dts back surround sounded untouched n just true to the original track. The bluray dtsma u know the surround has been manipulated n effects added. Those who like star wars die hard wil strive for the original. 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

sdrucker said:


> Tidal is supporting Dolby Atmos for a broad set of devices.


Can you see the type of codec that Tidal uses to deliver Dolby Atmos Music on your receiver?


----------



## vn800art

Struggling here, best I can have is DD+ 2channels 48Khz. Sometimes I have (depending on different songs) PCM 2 channels 88.2Khz. Nothing like Atmos. Sr7011 and yes, I have the full Tidal subscription (20 € / month). 
Moreover, my 4K Fire stick every shown song with Atmos label is telling me "playing in stereo, your device is not capable of Dolby Atmos playback", which is nothing different than before these unsatisfactory supposedly good news! Sigh! I am in Europe, Italy, btw (geo something related restrictions or limitations atm?).
Somebody on this side of the pond, who could check?
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## dfa973

vn800art said:


> Moreover, my 4K Fire stick every shown song with Atmos label is telling me "playing in stereo, your device is not capable of Dolby Atmos playback", which is nothing different than before these unsatisfactory supposedly good news! Sigh! I am in Europe, Italy, btw (geo something related restrictions or limitations atm?)


From Tidal Support pages,


> What version of Fire OS is needed to support Dolby Atmos Music?
> 
> Your Fire TV device should be running Fire OS version 6 or later to enable support for Dolby Atmos Music. We always recommend updating your device to the latest release version available.


Fire TV Stick 4K is connected directly to the SR7011 or to the TV?

Tidal does not mention anything about some geographic limitations, only technical ones (app/OS versions and hardware compatibility).


----------



## vn800art

Had an update pending on the Fire 4k, done ( Fire Os was yet on the 6. something, but I continued to load the update), restart, choose Best supported audio, restart, same situation. Reloaded settings, choose always show Dolby Digital Plus, restart, same situation. 
And, yes, Fire TV is connected to the AVR, ..... using Amazon short extension Hdmi cable. Should I connect it directly without the Oem extension cable?
I have another Fire tv not 4K but the OS is showing no update and Fire OS Sw nr. is 5.2.7.3. 
I am at a loss here (not a big trouble, I can apply whatsoever upmixer on the system, up to 9.3.8 channels, and I understand nowadays we have more annoying problems !), and knowing I could hear better signals is kind of frustrating, without reading the correct ATMOS envelope!
Thanks for your interest!
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> ....
> There's definitely a question of whether music is suited to the surround format (i.e. guitars flying overhead into the back of the room is kind of absurd, for example), ....
> ....
> Now what Atmos will do with music remains to be seen to some extent, but the sky is the limit. It could be awesome or it could be horrible. It depends on what they do with it.


Guitars flying overhead into the back, as well as other instruments flying, can be either absurd or fantastic, depending on the artistic work and the listener musical tastes.

I think that we, in general, are much more permissive for sounds flying when there is electronic music than for chamber orchestra music. Symphonic Rock, perhaps in the middle.

As an analogy, some abstract pictorial art can be worst that absurd for someone and an artwork for other.

I really enjoy with moving sounds all around the room, perhaps influenced by the need to amortize the investment in the whole equipment: "for me it has been worthy for music listening"

I like Aelita, also, but now listening for the recent Atmos releases from Max Cooper and Schiller, looking for more "aggressive" Atmos sound movement.


----------



## dfa973

vn800art said:


> And, yes, Fire TV is connected to the AVR,


I do not know, maybe there are some updates that will come these days...



vn800art said:


> ..... using Amazon short extension Hdmi cable. Should I connect it directly without the Oem extension cable?


Most probably the lack of cable will not make any difference, but you can try, of course.



vn800art said:


> ..... and knowing I could hear better signals is kind of frustrating, without reading the correct ATMOS envelope!


I know the feeling.
I do not have any Fire device, today I will test Dolby Atmos Music via HEOS-Tidal integration (also in Europe), to see how it works, and report back.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> That many speakers? How is it mixed?


Some part of it is mixed the traditional way by placing audio into specific channels. Other parts place sounds at specific locations in 3D space using audio objects. You can decide whether to play back the surround information using 2 surround speakers or 15 surround speakers. You can decide whether to play back height information using 2 height speakers or 10 height speakers.


> How does a trio group sound with overhead speakers?


Depends on how it was mixed. IF the sound mixed into the surrounds and heights was room ambience/reflections, then it will sound quite natural and realistic. If the mix was more gimmicky, then it will sound gimmicky. The format doesn't determine that, the mixer does. 2-channel recordings can sound ping-pong-y (like early "stereo") or create a completely natural soundstage. The mixer decides which.


----------



## AYanguas

vn800art said:


> Struggling here, best I can have is DD+ 2channels 48Khz. Sometimes I have (depending on different songs) PCM 2 channels 88.2Khz. Nothing like Atmos. Sr7011 and yes, I have the full Tidal subscription (20 € / month).
> Moreover, my 4K Fire stick every shown song with Atmos label is telling me "playing in stereo, your device is not capable of Dolby Atmos playback", which is nothing different than before these unsatisfactory supposedly good news! Sigh! I am in Europe, Italy, btw (geo something related restrictions or limitations atm?).
> Somebody on this side of the pond, who could check?
> Regards
> Alessandro


My Firestick 4K also NOT working for TIDAL Dolby Atmos. I'm in Spain, but it does not seem to matter, I Hope.

See my description here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/112-surround-music-formats/3101050-dolby-atmos-music-arrives-amazon-music-hd-2.html#post59726586


----------



## dfa973

Tested today and I am unable to stream Dolby Atmos Music from a Tidal Hi-Fi subscription via HEOS on an Denon AVR-X3600H receiver - the HEOS app throws an error - attached.

I contacted Denon Europe and I wait for them to respond, but the HEOS module does not seem to be accepted by Tidal as a valid Dolby Atmos Music streaming device - it appears that the stream is valid strictly for the list of sources mentioned on the Tidal/Dolby website - but as mentioned above, even those sources do not work everywhere/Europe...


----------



## sdrucker

dfa973 said:


> Can you see the type of codec that Tidal uses to deliver Dolby Atmos Music on your receiver?


Not anything other than "Dolby Atmos/True HD". Nothing more specific than that (i.e. nothing to reveal the fixed bed layout + number of objects).


----------



## vn800art

Thanks to @AYanguas for posting the link to the interesting thread on the specific subject!
And ... Congrats for the System You have setup, Sir!
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> Not anything other than "Dolby Atmos/True HD". Nothing more specific than that (i.e. nothing to reveal the fixed bed layout + number of objects).



At least the Tidal streams seem to be lossless. Thank heaven for that. Now, if we could only get these Atmos albums on Blu-ray Audio without having to purchase ultra expensive boxed sets.


----------



## Jon AA

Got it working on my apple 4K. Had to uninstall/reinstall the Tidal app. Unfortunately for those without height speakers, it doesn't appear possible to get the 5.1 downmix. It seems to be Atmos or Stereo, no in-between.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> At least the Tidal streams seem to be lossless. Thank heaven for that. Now, if we could only get these Atmos albums on Blu-ray Audio without having to purchase ultra expensive boxed sets.


For what it's worth, the Altitude shows the playback of the Atmos tracks as Atmos/Dolby TrueHD, 48 kHz, and 12.8 Mbps on all the Tidal tracks. Any thoughts about what to make of that?


----------



## Jon AA

It's nice if it's TrueHD. I can't tell on my Marantz.


Are you noticing the playback level is quite low on those tracks? I'm not noticing any larger dynamic range, just that the volume needs to be about 10 db higher than listening to stereo tracks.


----------



## sdrucker

Jon AA said:


> It's nice if it's TrueHD. I can't tell on my Marantz.
> 
> Are you noticing the playback level is quite low on those tracks? I'm not noticing any larger dynamic range, just that the volume needs to be about 10 db higher than listening to stereo tracks.


I think that's because there's more speakers playing and an adjustment to the gain structure in the encoding. You're also up against less standards for "reference" for music than what is established for movies. But I will say that I put on one of the Prince live clips on the artist's playlist and it nearly blew me out of my sofa seat at the same set volume I'd had the REM and other Atmos clips.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdrucker said:


> For what it's worth, the Altitude shows the playback of the Atmos tracks as Atmos/Dolby TrueHD, 48 kHz, and 12.8 Mbps on all the Tidal tracks. Any thoughts about what to make of that?



Huh. Perhaps they thought a variable bitrate lossless encode streamed in real time wouldn't work and instead found a target average bitrate to have enough "headroom" for a variety of music needs and then instead made them fixed TrueHD bitrate encodes? 



On a separate subject, from the home Dolby Atmos tech white papers that floated around during its debut, I believe the highest sampling rate available for consumer Atmos was 96 kHz at a bit depth of 16 or 24, so I'm not sure why the music tracks are all 48 kHz.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdrucker said:


> For what it's worth, the Altitude shows the playback of the Atmos tracks as Atmos/Dolby TrueHD, 48 kHz, and 12.8 Mbps on all the Tidal tracks. Any thoughts about what to make of that?




Tidal Atmos is DD+... the Apple TV is decoding to PCM which is why you see a bitrate of 12.9... TrueHD is a VBR codec, hence you wouldn’t see a single number like that. 

I think there is a Trinnov bug that shows TrueHD when receiving PCM MAT...


----------



## FilmMixer

Dan Hitchman said:


> Huh. Perhaps they thought a variable bitrate lossless encode streamed in real time wouldn't work and instead found a target average bitrate to have enough "headroom" for a variety of music needs and then instead made them fixed TrueHD bitrate encodes?



See my above post. 

It is DD+... you can’t target a bitrate with a lossless codec... it “is what it is.”

One of the reasons it is difficult to stream a lossless codec like TrueHD or HD-MA is that you need to be 
able to guarantee that the connection will provide the theoretical max bandwidth the codec supports.. for TrueHD it is around 24.5mbps... hard to guarantee over the internet. 

In reality tracks very rarely peak about 6-7mbps... but you don’t have a way to control the size of the encode (except to “reject” titles that surpass what your service can reliably provide at all times..) 

When you combine that with VBR video it becomes clear that streamed content really can’t reliably be streamed with lossless audio... at least with the current state of broadband in the US...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

FilmMixer said:


> See my above post.
> 
> It is DD+... you can’t target a bitrate with a lossless codec... it “is what it is.”
> 
> One of the reasons it is difficult to stream a lossless codec like TrueHD or HD-MA is that you need to be
> able to guarantee that the connection will provide the theoretical max bandwidth the codec supports.. for TrueHD it is around 24.5mbps... hard to guarantee over the internet.
> 
> In reality tracks very rarely peak about 6-7mbps... but you don’t have a way to control the size of the encode (except to “reject” titles that surpass what your service can reliably provide at all times..)
> 
> When you combine that with VBR video it becomes clear that streamed content really can’t reliably be streamed with lossless audio... at least with the current state of broadband in the US...



A font of knowledge. Thanks again for the insights.


It's really disappointing that at this stage of the internet ISP's cannot even guarantee a sustained transfer rate of 25 Mbps. That's why I still support HD and 4k discs (and encourage others to do so), among other reasons (like untethered ownership, usually better A/V quality, etc.).


----------



## tigerhonaker

Dan Hitchman said:


> A font of knowledge. Thanks again for the insights.
> 
> 
> It's really disappointing that at this stage of the internet ISP's cannot even guarantee a sustained transfer rate of 25 Mbps. That's why I still support HD and 4k discs (and encourage others to do so), among other reasons (like untethered ownership, usually better A/V quality, etc.).


I do a lot of Streaming from Amazon Prime, Dish, Netflix, CBS All Access, Acorn, You-tube, Turner Classic Movies etc.

Some of those have HDR and 4K content.
And some have in some cases excellent Audio.
And of course in some cases excellent Video.

*My opinion is not one is "Equal to or Exceeds" Hard-Disc !!!*

Terry


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> A font of knowledge. Thanks again for the insights.
> 
> 
> It's really disappointing that at this stage of the internet ISP's cannot even guarantee a sustained transfer rate of 25 Mbps. That's why I still support HD and 4k discs (and encourage others to do so), among other reasons (like untethered ownership, usually better A/V quality, etc.).





tigerhonaker said:


> I do a lot of Streaming from Amazon Prime, Dish, Netflix, CBS All Access, Acorn, You-tube, Turner Classic Movies etc.
> 
> Some of those have HDR and 4K content.
> And some have in some cases excellent Audio.
> And of course in some cases excellent Video.
> 
> *My opinion is not one is "Equal to or Exceeds" Hard-Disc !!!*
> 
> Terry


Well said Gents


----------



## Jon AA

sdrucker said:


> But I will say that I put on one of the Prince live clips on the artist's playlist and it nearly blew me out of my sofa seat at the same set volume I'd had the REM and other Atmos clips.


Yeah, there seems to be quite a bit of variability as well. For the first few Rock/Pop Atmos tracks I tried I needed to crank them nearly to reference volume before they even started to sound loud. The Beethoven Symphonies on the other hand, use all that dynamic range as one may expect, being just as quiet in some passages but getting really, really loud in others at the same volume. They seemed to be the best sounding Atmos I've found on Tidal so far. I'll try and do a more careful comparison with my Karajan Blu-rays at some point in the future, but at first blush they sounded very similar.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> On a separate subject, from the home Dolby Atmos tech white papers that floated around during its debut, I believe the highest sampling rate available for consumer Atmos was 96 kHz at a bit depth of 16 or 24, so I'm not sure why the music tracks are all 48 kHz.


96kHz would use extra bandwidth to transmit or store and provides literally _zero_ audible benefit (we can't hear above 20kHz even with perfect hearing) so why would anyone use it unless they were using it as marketing propaganda to those that don't know any better?




FilmMixer said:


> In reality tracks very rarely peak about 6-7mbps... but you don’t have a way to control the size of the encode (except to “reject” titles that surpass what your service can reliably provide at all times..)
> 
> When you combine that with VBR video it becomes clear that streamed content really can’t reliably be streamed with lossless audio... at least with the current state of broadband in the US...


If you pre-load the song (or movie) onto the hard/SS drive as fast as the overall connection will go, this is not much of an issue since it rarely stalls enough after a movie pre-buffer fill when your average speed is considerably higher than the amount needed as it's constantly loading the rest of the movie (or song) as fast as you connection will allow. AppleTV has done this since 2007 with both movies and music (even locally with lossless audio coding). With KODI _locally_ streaming in "real time" it can hiccup here while I've almost never had any model AppleTV "hiccup" with music since 2007, Internet or local. 

It's nearly bullet proof (short of your Internet or local network dumping for some reason). I suppose it might waste some bandwidth if you abandon the song early (loading it all when you don't use it all), but it solves a world of problems with "real time" streaming. And that was with a mere 15Mbps back then here (5Mbps with the first rental movies; they pre-loaded to the point it considered them safe to start and in 720p with 5Mbps for movies that typically took about 2 minutes. I've now got 166 Mbps for the same price. Everything starts instantly and an entire 4K movie can be loaded onto the drive in 20 minutes (5 minutes for 2K and songs almost instantly). You can't have an Internet hiccup if it's already loaded far ahead of that point onto your local drive.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> If you pre-load the song (or movie) onto the hard/SS drive as fast as the overall connection will go, this is not much of an issue since it rarely stalls enough after a movie pre-buffer fill when your average speed is considerably higher than the amount needed as it's constantly loading the rest of the movie (or song) as fast as you connection will allow. AppleTV has done this since 2007 with both movies and music (even locally with lossless audio coding). With KODI _locally_ streaming in "real time" it can hiccup here while I've almost never had any model AppleTV "hiccup" with music since 2007, Internet or local.
> 
> 
> 
> It's nearly bullet proof (short of your Internet or local network dumping for some reason). I suppose it might waste some bandwidth if you abandon the song early (loading it all when you don't use it all), but it solves a world of problems with "real time" streaming. And that was with a mere 15Mbps back then here (5Mbps with the first rental movies; they pre-loaded to the point it considered them safe to start and in 720p with 5Mbps for movies that typically took about 2 minutes. I've now got 166 Mbps for the same price. Everything starts instantly and an entire 4K movie can be loaded onto the drive in 20 minutes (5 minutes for 2K and songs almost instantly). You can't have an Internet hiccup if it's already loaded far ahead of that point onto your local drive.



Which all works fine when the video is lossy.

You can cap data rates all you want with video while still maintaining perfectly synchronized picture and sound. 

You cannot do that with lossless audio.


----------



## freeman4

According to audioholics, Dolby is eliminating the center spread feature from their 2020-and-beyond licensing agreements.

I haven't upgraded to Dolby Atmos yet, but I was looking forward to listening to 2-channel music upmixed via DSU, and this feature seems to be very instrumental in making that a more enjoyable experience.

Has anyone else heard this and what are your thoughts about it?


----------



## tommarra

I finally added Middle Top Height speakers you go to 7.3.6 setup and I must say the effect is fantastic 1 the heights sound a lot more acitive and immersion especially in Atmos trailers is amazing. 

I am so happy that I added the middle heights speakers they a really made a difference.

Posting this because when I had asked for opinions some had said that there is marginal benefit to 7.3.4 - I can categorically say that in my 18x18 room the difference is significant and not marginal by any stretch. If you have the room and equipment I highly recommend going with 6 overheads 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

freeman4 said:


> According to audioholics, Dolby is eliminating the center spread feature from their 2020-and-beyond licensing agreements.
> 
> I haven't upgraded to Dolby Atmos yet, but I was looking forward to listening to 2-channel music upmixed via DSU, and this feature seems to be very instrumental in making that a more enjoyable experience.
> 
> Has anyone else heard this and what are your thoughts about it?


I've got three identical front speakers (PSB T-45) and there is no audible difference here with center spread turned on from the MLP. The feature essentially moves much of the center material back into the mains like stereo. This probably improves things with "center channel speakers" that are typically inferior to the mains, but it also removes the purpose of the center speaker, which is to lock the imaging in the center for off-axis listeners. 

With PLII variants, the amount moved was adjustable to taste. Here it's just on or off. IMO, you could achieve much of the same effect by just disabling your center channel speaker while listening to music with DSU. A partial center is a largely pointless center as it acts at best like an array and if your center is inferior for music, why would you want any of it playing?

With three identical front speakers, however, I hear zero difference on or off unless I sit off center in which case the music is anchored with spread off and pulls more to the nearest speaker with it on. I leave it off as it has no benefit whatsoever in my system. It only makes things worse off-axis. With flat wall hanging screens and projectors making it easier to have three identical front speakers, I can kind of see Dolby's thinking in getting rid of it as it would be confusing at best for many people. 

I would just disable the center if you don't like how it sounds in DSU mode on newer AVRs. The PLII processing DSU is based on doesn't hard steer like PLI to begin with so music doesn't automatically lose width in my experience. But a non-identical center could do that. 

My identical center speaker did not change the front stage imaging with it on or off or when compared to stereo (beyond the surround changes). That did require precise alignment and distance settings. If it's even slightly off you might notice imaging differences. It's also possible other systems/setups might behave a bit differently. I only have the one to try here.


----------



## esumsea

This may be a stupid question but I am searching and can't find an answer. Does anyone have any ideas on how to get a Dolby TrueHD Ätmos 11.4 from a computer? No graphics cards have HDMI 2.1 connectors, and I can't find sound cards with HDMI connectors, so is it possible? I would rather do it digitally, because using analog outputs at the back of a PC always invites noise in my experience, but I can't even find a sound card that will give you 11.4 analog. I assume there is a way with everyone attaching their PCs to the TVs, but it is eluding me.


----------



## isabuschina

esumsea said:


> This may be a stupid question but I am searching and can't find an answer. Does anyone have any ideas on how to get a Dolby TrueHD Ätmos 11.4 from a computer? No graphics cards have HDMI 2.1 connectors, and I can't find sound cards with HDMI connectors, so is it possible? I would rather do it digitally, because using analog outputs at the back of a PC always invites noise in my experience, but I can't even find a sound card that will give you 11.4 analog. I assume there is a way with everyone attaching their PCs to the TVs, but it is eluding me.


You don't need HDMI 2.1 or even 2.0 to get Atmos output. I use MPC BE with bitstreaming several old computers and can output Atmos without and issue over HDMI and even display port (the display port connector is marked dp++)

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk


----------



## PeterTHX

> Following an update that will start rolling out today, the Tidal Dolby Atmos Music service will be available through a wide range of streaming devices. These include Apple TV 4K; Fire TV Stick 4K; Fire TV Cube; Fire TV Stick (2nd gen); Fire TV (3rd gen); the Nvidia Shield TV or Nvidia Shield TV Pro (2019 or newer models); and Dolby Atmos-enabled Android TVs from Sony and Philips.


Well I installed the Tidal app on my 2019 Shield TV Pro and Sony Android TV and get the message "playing in stereo this device does not support Dolby Atmos".  

Grrr.


----------



## anothermib

sdrucker said:


> Newflash (I think):
> Tidal is supporting Dolby Atmos for a broad set of devices. See here:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...iRC-7drv4kogzExcNwgYvNV_Yj1vC11E#77501f366cce
> 
> This is major news if it's true. And being able to play back on an Apple TV 4K or newer Nvidia shields will be a dealmaker. I've got a Trinnov with two pairs of side surrounds and left/right center, so maybe we'll be able tell if this is true Dolby Atmos with object passthrough..
> ..



That is really great news. Thanks for sharing. I guess many of us have been eagerly awaiting something like this to be released.
And what makes it even better: I just checked and it works outside the US as well .
Lets hope Denon gets the support for HEOS working relatively soon.


----------



## Craig Mecak

anothermib said:


> That is really great news. Thanks for sharing. I guess many of us have been eagerly awaiting something like this to be released.
> And what makes it even better: I just checked and it works outside the US as well .
> Lets hope Denon gets the support for HEOS working relatively soon.



Dolby Atmos from TIDAL is working for me in Australia. From an Apple TV 4K.


Sends Atmos to my AV receiver as Dolby MAT 2.0 (PCM with Atmos).


Does anyone know if TIDAL are using DD+ or Dolby TrueHD as the codec?


If DD+, at what bitrate?


Either way, it sounds pretty great. Some of the remixes of catalog titles into Atmos are very good.


PS, for those that are interested, you have to sign up for the Hi-Fi package to get Atmos. The Premium package only gets you stereo. I'm on the free trial.


----------



## anothermib

MagnumX said:


> ...
> With three identical front speakers, however, I hear zero difference on or off unless I sit off center in which case the music is anchored with spread off and pulls more to the nearest speaker with it on. I leave it off as it has no benefit whatsoever in my system.
> 
> ...
> 
> My identical center speaker did not change the front stage imaging with it on or off or when compared to stereo (beyond the surround changes). That did require precise alignment and distance settings. If it's even slightly off you might notice imaging differences. It's also possible other systems/setups might behave a bit differently. I only have the one to try here.


I agree, the effect is pretty subtle in a good setup and it may vanish entirely when everything is close to perfect. So these are quite valid arguments for not prioritizing the development of such a feature in the first place. HST, though my center speaker is not really inferior as such, I ended up turning center spread on. The center just has to be positioned way below ear level when combined with an acoustically intransparent screen. I find the subtle change caused by center spread in such a (probably pretty common) scenario quite pleasant. 
So while withdrawing this feature is not the end of the world at all, one has to wonder about the rationale for this. Actively removing it from the code of all licensees products seems to be way more work than just keeping it in there for now. Lets hope it is to prepare the ground for something much better.


----------



## GeorgeHolland

I am hearing mounting ceiling speakers is the best Atmos option. If I use the speakers I have on hand, I can mount them on the wall as heights using the wall mounts or I can mount them on the ceiling using the same wall mounts but securing the mount so the speaker wouldn't slip off. I can run speaker wire to the point I used to mount my projector and from there to the 4 speakers. It is a dedicated room so I'm not too worried about looks. I do have access to the jousts from my crawl space but they run the wrong way so wiring true ceiling speakers would be a challenge.

Would these speakers work well if mounted on the ceiling?

https://www.crutchfield.com/S-ctCym...inity-Cascade-Model-Three-V-Silver-gloss.html

Thanks.



GeorgeHolland said:


> I’m just starting to research this now that it seems my Onkyo PR-SC5508 had another HDMI board failure and I have a Marantz AV7705 arriving Thursday.
> 
> I will scan the thread and try some search terms but can’t see reading all 1952 pages.
> 
> If anyone wants to make quick recommendations for my initial setup while I’m getting up to speed, I would appreciate it.
> 
> I currently have FL, center (with bass bin), FR, RS, RR, LR, LS, 18” Subwoofer, 2 ea. 15” subwoofers calibrated as one sub. Speakers include an Infinity Compositions Prelude FL/C/FR and surrounds and two Infinity Cascade Model Three V's. I have 3 additional Infinity Cascade Model Three V’s available if they would work. I have a better set of 5 speakers in another room I can move to replace the Preludes but I want to try these first. I use the other room for my music listening.
> 
> My room is a sealed dedicated Theater in my Basement. Approximately 12’ 6” Wide, 18’ Long and a 7’ 10’ high ceiling. Main Listening position has my eyes just over 9 feet away from the screen.
> 
> Edit: I just set up my AV7705 and noticed I can configure a single speaker for Surround Back. I'm not opposed to new speakers but configuring a single rear back would give me 4 ea, Infinity Cascade Model Three V’s I could use for Heights. I'll need to find 3 amp channels somewhere. They do have wall mount brackets.
> 
> https://www.crutchfield.com/S-ctCym...inity-Cascade-Model-Three-V-Silver-gloss.html
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## fookoo_2010

GeorgeHolland said:


> I am hearing mounting ceiling speakers is the best Atmos option. If I use the speakers I have on hand, I can mount them on the wall as heights using the wall mounts or I can mount them on the ceiling using the same wall mounts but securing the mount so the speaker wouldn't slip off. I can run speaker wire to the point I used to mount my projector and from there to the 4 speakers. It is a dedicated room so I'm not too worried about looks. I do have access to the jousts from my crawl space but they run the wrong way so wiring true ceiling speakers would be a challenge.
> 
> Would these speakers work well if mounted on the ceiling?
> 
> https://www.crutchfield.com/S-ctCym...inity-Cascade-Model-Three-V-Silver-gloss.html
> 
> Thanks.


The short answer is yes, but I would think suspending Infinity Cascade 3C's from the ceiling might be overly challenging because of their size, not that it can't be done. If you have them, then use them. If not, then there are simpler solutions to height ceiling speakers.


----------



## freeman4

Thanks for the replies MagnumX and anothermib. It's nice to have a different perspective on the loss of this feature. I'll be careful about my center speaker choice when the time comes, and try to have it match my L/R fronts as close as possible.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Craig Mecak said:


> Dolby Atmos from TIDAL is working for me in Australia. From an Apple TV 4K.
> 
> 
> Sends Atmos to my AV receiver as Dolby MAT 2.0 (PCM with Atmos).
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if TIDAL are using DD+ or Dolby TrueHD as the codec?
> 
> 
> If DD+, at what bitrate?
> 
> 
> Either way, it sounds pretty great. Some of the remixes of catalog titles into Atmos are very good.
> 
> 
> PS, for those that are interested, you have to sign up for the Hi-Fi package to get Atmos. The Premium package only gets you stereo. I'm on the free trial.



TIDAL is using Dolby Digital Plus lossy.


----------



## MagnumX

freeman4 said:


> Thanks for the replies MagnumX and anothermib. It's nice to have a different perspective on the loss of this feature. I'll be careful about my center speaker choice when the time comes, and try to have it match my L/R fronts as close as possible.


A lot of people like Auro-3D (and Auro-2D without the heights) for music (technically it's upmixer is really called "Auromatic" but most D&M AVRs just label the modes Auro-3D and Auro-2D (with heights and without heights). For non-discrete channels, it uses something closer to Yamaha's DSP modes (reverb and delay) to make this room seem more reflective in a positive controlled way while using whatever channels are discrete normally (i.e. 5.1 music recordings would use 5 speakers normally and reverb in the rest). It doesn't move instruments into "new" locations as such so it's more faithful to the original recordings in that regard while livening up the room (and for multiple rows, making it much more active as the front sounds pretty far away from the 3rd row here by comparison to the front row). I kind of prefer DSU if I want a bit of surround remapping (Neural X doesn't work as well, IMO as it has a tendency to move a lot of instruments overhead and sometimes voices downward despite my "dialog lift" feature, which is kind of odd, really. I switch back to DSU and vocals are dead center on the screen again. Neural X seems more behaved with movies for whatever reason, putting things upward that make sense, but with music, it's a mixed bag. DSU is the closest to PLIIx I had before, but still not the same. But even there, I only cared for the effect for synth/pop type stuff where there was a lot of out-of-phase stuff to begin with. More traditional stereo mixes (70-80% of the music out there, IMO) still sound best to me in stereo (MLP) or perhaps Auro's Auromatic (If I'm sitting anywhere else in the room).


----------



## Josh Z

tommarra said:


> I finally added Middle Top Height speakers you go to 7.3.6 setup and I must say the effect is fantastic 1 the heights sound a lot more acitive and immersion especially in Atmos trailers is amazing.
> 
> I am so happy that I added the middle heights speakers they a really made a difference.
> 
> Posting this because when I had asked for opinions some had said that there is marginal benefit to 7.3.4 - I can categorically say that in my 18x18 room the difference is significant and not marginal by any stretch. If you have the room and equipment I highly recommend going with 6 overheads


I suspect you'll find that your experience with the Atmos trailers will not be reflected with much real viewing content. In my experience, the Top Middle speakers were dead silent most of the time with a x.x.6 configuration. Most Atmos soundtracks are either hard-coded for 7.1.4 or fewer speakers (literally everything from Disney and all its subsidiaries, which is half of Hollywood today) or simply skip over Top Middles for some reason even if not.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> I suspect you'll find that your experience with the Atmos trailers will not be reflected with much real viewing content. In my experience, the Top Middle speakers were dead silent most of the time with a x.x.6 configuration.


That's a pity.



> *Most *Atmos soundtracks are either hard-coded for 7.1.4 or fewer speakers (literally everything from Disney and all its subsidiaries, which is half of Hollywood today)


I'd certainly take issue with "most". It seems to be common, sure. Either way, a subjective guess on the numbers.



> or simply skip over Top Middles for some reason even if not.


If it's not a "print out", then there's simply no mechanism for the track to tell the decoder "skip over the top middles". For any reason. They will either be used, or not, based on what's in the content.


----------



## Josh Z

mrtickleuk said:


> If it's not a "print out", then there's simply no mechanism for the track to tell the decoder "skip over the top middles". For any reason. They will either be used, or not, based on what's in the content.


My point is that the content isn't using those speakers. The mixers are placing sound objects to stand near specific speakers without moving through others. I don't know why they would do this, but it happens all the time.

Case in point, watch the big helicopter climax of Mission: Impossible - Fallout with a x.x.6 config and unplug all of your ground speakers so you only hear the heights. The sounds of the helicopter rotors come almost exclusively from the Top Front and Top Rear with next to nothing from Top Middle. If you place your ear directly next to a TM speaker, you might hear the occasional sound effect very quickly zip through for a brief second, which proves that sound objects _can_ go through the TM location, but the speakers then go silent again afterwards. Those brief effects are also typically not discernible from the seating position. It basically sounds like the helicopters are jumping from the front of the room to the back without touching the middle.

Most Atmos tracks don't use Front Wide speakers either. Home Atmos is effectively optimized for a 7.1.4 configuration, and attempts to expand beyond that become extremely frustrating.


----------



## dfa973

dfa973 said:


> I contacted Denon Europe and I wait for them to respond, but the HEOS module does not seem to be accepted by Tidal as a valid Dolby Atmos Music streaming device...


Denon UK has responded to me about the HEOS-Tidal-Atmos integration: 


> Please note that this feature is currently not possible through the HEOS app. You can only play MQA TIdal through the Tidal app.


Then I asked them if there are at least plans for Atmos Music via HEOS-Tidal integration? 

Marantz Europe has responded:


> There are currently no plans in place for this third party feature to be added.


Me: maybe in the future???? 

Marantz Europe:


> As previously advised there are currently no plans in place, but in future this may possibly change.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dfa973 said:


> Denon UK has responded to me about the HEOS-Tidal-Atmos integration:
> 
> 
> Then I asked them if there are at least plans for Atmos Music via HEOS-Tidal integration?
> 
> Marantz Europe has responded:
> 
> Me: maybe in the future????
> 
> Marantz Europe:



Translation: You will have to buy a 2020 or 2021 model because we want you to keep upgrading even though we probably could send out firmware updates to some older compatible models. Just like D+M flagships and DTS: X Pro. Want Pro? Wait for the next flagship models.


----------



## dfa973

Dan Hitchman said:


> Wait for the next flagship models.




6-7 months have passed between the Echo-Atmos integration to the Tidal-Atmos integration. Maybe in the fall, HEOS will get Tidal-Atmos integration. And maybe not only for the 2020 models...


----------



## Josh Z

Dan Hitchman said:


> Just like D+M flagships and DTS: X Pro. Want Pro? Wait for the next flagship models.


Is this confirmed or speculation?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Is this confirmed or speculation?



I'm speculating based on prior D+M practices.


----------



## anothermib

dfa973 said:


> Denon UK has responded to me about the HEOS-Tidal-Atmos integration:
> 
> 
> Then I asked them if there are at least plans for Atmos Music via HEOS-Tidal integration?
> 
> Marantz Europe has responded:
> 
> Me: maybe in the future????
> 
> Marantz Europe:



I am not sure about these responses. Isn‘t MQA something entirely different and completely independent from Atmos? My understanding was that MQA is usually referring to their Master Quality, which is 96khz/24bit, which may be harder to implement without hardware changes. I am wondering if we didn’t get the standard response to a different question people may have been asking over the past years.


----------



## tjwm338

Hi. Am a relative newbie in relation to home theatre. Can I ask what are the options I have in order to play Dolby Atmos sound (movies and music) with a soundbar and projector application? I intend to just keep things simple with regards to the sound system due to the lack of space.

What are the equipment one needs to have in order to make this work? Will I have to acquire an AV receiver that supports Dolby Atmos in order for Dolby Atmos to be supported on the soundbar?

Here is the list of my equipment - currently and considering purchases:
Source: Apple TV 4K
Soundbar: tbc (am considering either the Sonos Arc or B&O stage - or any other recommendations are more than welcome)
Projector: Epson EH-LS100 UST (likely to upgrade soon - which 4K UST projector would work well)

Is it right to assume that the projector may not have any role to play in the sound as such, I would just need to connect the Apple TV 4K directly to the Soundbar via HDMI (so as to receive the Dolby Atmos signal from the AT4K?), and from the soundbar via HDMI out (I am aware that the a Sonos Arc does not have an HDMI out) to the projector? Is this connection sequence even possible so that I can avoid the use of an AVR - which Dolby Atmos soundbar is capable of this?

Is an AVR absolutely necessary?

Appreciate everyone’s invaluable advice.

Thanks very much!

tj


----------



## gene4ht

tjwm338 said:


> Hi. Am a relative newbie in relation to home theatre. Can I ask what are the options I have in order to play Dolby Atmos sound (movies and music) with a soundbar and projector application? I intend to just keep things simple with regards to the sound system due to the lack of space.
> 
> tj


The true Atmos enthusiasts will suggest/recommend an AVR to maximize the Atmos experience. However, it is also recognized that some may have a compromised environment to employ a full Atmos installation. The sound bar with Atmos capability fulfills this scenario. To this end, the following information/link may be of value to you. It is a start to the Atmos experience and could possibly expand to an AVR based Atmos system for you down the line when interest and space grow.

https://www.cnet.com/news/best-dolby-atmos-soundbar-of-2020/


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> My point is that the content isn't using those speakers. The mixers are placing sound objects to stand near specific speakers without moving through others. I don't know why they would do this, but it happens all the time.


That would seem to contradict what FilmMixer has said to me quite recently. Supposedly, _only_ Disney limits Atmos. Everything else that properly uses Atmos is fully automatic to render properly, isn't it? I can't tell you what a "true" Top Middle renderer does on a given soundtrack, but with my "bastard hybrid" system, I _can_ tell you that *most* Atmos tracks that do anything overhead whatsoever make _full use_ of Top Middle in terms of phantom imaging or my Top Middle speakers (which extract the content using Dolby Pro Logic center channel extraction) wouldn't be so active all the time and they are probably as active or more active than the front/rear speakers in terms of things imaging in that vicinity. I doubt they are avoiding moving objects through Top Middle or I wouldn't get sounds there so much. I can't be certain their renderer behaves correctly, though as I have no true renderer to test here. Suffice to say, I'm glad I didn't buy a larger speaker count AVR/AVP if they work so poorly. I'll wait until I get a good review and a unit that has full use of DTS:X Pro that doesn't cost the price of a brand new car. My "Scatmos" system will more than suffice until then and the speakers are already placed and ready if that day comes.

I seriously doubt Disney is actually "half" of all Atmos soundtracks either. They're one (admittedly large these days) studio and much of their content is animated (cartoons). They also _only_ make Atmos available on 4K content, which means very little of their content is even available in Atmos compared to other studios that put a lot more in Atmos, 2K or 4K and they also came late to the Atmos game compared to most other studios. Warner Brothers, Paramount, Sony, Lionsgate, all prior 20th Century Fox (and so far continuing even with their ownership) and even Universal have content in Dolby Atmos (some do both DTS:X _and_ Atmos at times like Sony and Universal). Oddly, their Disney+ streaming soundtracks do seem to use objects, at least occasionally according to SDrucker on here. Maybe they just don't like using them on actual discs? Since the one man that claims to know their reasoning won't tell us, I guess we can keep speculating until someone else does decide to tell us.



> Case in point, watch the big helicopter climax of Mission: Impossible - Fallout with a x.x.6 config and unplug all of your ground speakers so you only hear the heights. The sounds of the helicopter rotors come almost exclusively from the Top Front and Top Rear with next to nothing from Top Middle. If you place your ear directly next to a TM speaker, you might hear the occasional sound effect very quickly zip through for a brief second, which proves that sound objects _can_ go through the TM location, but the speakers then go silent again afterwards. Those brief effects are also typically not discernible from the seating position. It basically sounds like the helicopters are jumping from the front of the room to the back without touching the middle.


How can something directly overhead not be discernible from the seating position if you're sitting underneath or just in front of or behind that location? In a large room (where Top Middle is needed), that area will be almost silent without Top Middle speakers (I know this from my own setup). If you can hear sounds directly overhead, they're either coming from Top Middle or you don't actually need Top Middle to begin with, at least for the MLP (it'd still be useful for anchoring sounds off-axis). 



> Most Atmos tracks don't use Front Wide speakers either. Home Atmos is effectively optimized for a 7.1.4 configuration, and attempts to expand beyond that become extremely frustrating.


They all use them here, even Auro-3D. Perhaps "real" rendering isn't all it's cracked up to be, after all. I'm glad I didn't wait and/or spend the extra money, apparently. I'm very happy with my audio system. I'm not happy with _all_ soundtracks (many don't use much overhead at all or even the side and rear surrounds that much; they're 3-channel 90% of the time), but that's the guys mixing it that are responsible. In fact, I'd say one way or another, they're responsible for ALL of it (Disney included). Choose to do something half-arsed and you get half-arsed results every single time.



dfa973 said:


> Denon UK has responded to me about the HEOS-Tidal-Atmos integration:
> 
> Then I asked them if there are at least plans for Atmos Music via HEOS-Tidal integration?
> 
> Marantz Europe has responded:
> 
> Me: maybe in the future????
> 
> Marantz Europe:


Some of us know that it works just fine on AppleTV 4K units regardless of what D&M does. Anyone that bought D&M should have known they do not update new features on old products unless it was promised ahead of time. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for DTS:X Pro to appear for the Denon 8500 either given they didn't promise it ahead of time. Fortunately, if you own an appropriate 3rd party device (Apple, Amazon, etc.) Tidal works in Atmos already. If you have a 4K TV or Projector, FireStick 4K units aren't very expensive, especially when on sale. I bought the latter on sale just to get its remote (on sale it was cheaper than the remote all by itself) to use with my NVidia Shield (works great as a bluetooth remote although the microphone sometimes glitches). The rechargeable remote it came with needs charged far too often by comparison.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> That would seem to contradict what FilmMixer has said to me quite recently. Supposedly, _only_ Disney limits Atmos. Everything else that properly uses Atmos is fully automatic to render properly, isn't it?


I'm not talking about rendering. I'm talking about the sound mix itself. I never said anything was wrong with the renderer, rather that the sound mixers are choosing not to place their sound objects near certain speaker locations. 



> How can something directly overhead not be discernible from the seating position if you're sitting underneath or just in front of or behind that location?


Because it's a very brief incidental sound that lasts about 0.5 seconds and is 1/10 the volume of the other speakers, only audible if you stand with your ear right up against the speaker.



> In a large room (where Top Middle is needed), that area will be almost silent without Top Middle speakers


Yes, precisely. That is what I'm saying. The top middle of the room is silent when the M:I Fallout soundtrack is played in x.x.6 configuration. And this is not an isolated incident. Many other Atmos soundtracks are mixed this way, even aside from Disney's known 7.1.4 print-outs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would seem to contradict what FilmMixer has said to me quite recently. Supposedly, _only_ Disney limits Atmos. Everything else that properly uses Atmos is fully automatic to render properly, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about rendering. I'm talking about the sound mix itself. I never said anything was wrong with the renderer, rather that the sound mixers are choosing not to place their sound objects near certain speaker locations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can something directly overhead not be discernible from the seating position if you're sitting underneath or just in front of or behind that location?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a very brief incidental sound that lasts about 0.5 seconds and is 1/10 the volume of the other speakers, only audible if you stand with your ear right up against the speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a large room (where Top Middle is needed), that area will be almost silent without Top Middle speakers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, precisely. That is what I'm saying. The top middle of the room is silent when the M:I Fallout soundtrack is played in x.x.6 configuration. And this is not an isolated incident. Many other Atmos soundtracks are mixed this way, even aside from Disney's known 7.1.4 print-outs.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if some near-field mixers are under the mistaken impression that home Atmos is only capable of 7.1.4 and so they set up their Pro Tools sessions to make the objects behave incorrectly (as in not pan and locate objects through the complete 34.1 table).

Many Atmos encodes only use 11 of the 16 max object "slots" (according to the last documented info that FilmMixer has yet to debunk, bed channels are spatially compressed as part of counted object clusters as well). I wonder if that limitation of usable objects affects the rendering behavior of a particular Atmos track aside from locked printouts.

Perhaps if they used the 16 max setting in the Atmos session rather than 11 or 13 objects (as has shown up), you might get a better result with rendering engines designed for larger speaker systems.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> I'm not talking about rendering. I'm talking about the sound mix itself. I never said anything was wrong with the renderer, rather that the sound mixers are choosing not to place their sound objects near certain speaker locations.


But that implies sounds never pan front to back in movies as they cannot skip over the "middle" without literally skipping it. Perhaps we've been watching entirely different movies? In any case, I've heard plenty of sounds directly overhead and panning front to back over the past few years (even if it's closer to the sides than the middle at times). Perhaps not every movie has many sounds directly overhead and I've certainly criticized the ones that do not use overheads well, but as I indicated, my "Scatmos" Top Middle speakers overall are very active, which flies 180 degrees to your statement that very few Atmos movies use those speakers. Hence, either there's a setting of some kind that's keeping the renderer from using Top Middle effectively (similar to what Disney does in effect, but perhaps not the same in how they do it?) or we've been watching different movies. If it pans either directly overhead in 7.1.4 or even to the sides "through" the middle area, it should also pan overhead in 7.1.6 (Disney notwithstanding) making use of those speakers as it goes through that area of the room. However, seeing as I don't have the software that mixes these soundtracks, I have no idea what other settings might be involved that could change the end result.

I do seem to recall at one point someone saying that Atmos mixes had to actually select the speakers to be included in the mix. In fact, I think it might have been SDrucker that indicated as such when he was asked about some of the speakers he's using above 7.1.4 on his Trinnov. I think he said very few mixes used some of extra front speakers (e.g. center left, center right, etc. or whichever ones he's using himself; I cannot recall exactly offhand). It would be very hard indeed for an Atmos mix to _not_ use those speakers if they were indeed fully automatic as objects move anywhere around the front mix. Of course, it's possible that very objects are being used in the front, but they're being used as locked bed channels instead? But it almost sounded like a given mix had to have the speakers it used selected ahead of time as being part of the mix. In other words, if you mixed for Atmos with 7.1.4 plus Front Wides and Surround#2 enabled, it would use up to 11.1.4 speakers, but would do little or nothing with Top Middle or Surround#1. At the time, I dismissed that as my misunderstanding of what I was reading once I read how much supposed bother was put into Disney soundtracks to actually _avoid_ using the extra speakers and stick to only 7.1.4. But it's certainly something that could be cleared up by FilmMixer or someone that's used the tools involved. So few processors support beyond 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 (until recently the 8500 was the only one that did 7.1.6 that I know of other than Trinnov) so there hasn't been a lot of commentary I've read by the average person about Top Middle in specific films, although certainly I've read many complaints about it being underutilized after the 8500 came out, but I assumed those were mostly with Disney soundtracks, not in general. 



> Because it's a very brief incidental sound that lasts about 0.5 seconds and is 1/10 the volume of the other speakers, only audible if you stand with your ear right up against the speaker.


What about the moment in _Overlord_ where the child drops the ball on the ceiling and it rolls from about the Front "Tops" location to about the Top Middle location directly overhead in the center of the room? Do you get sound panning in those locations there or is it limited only to the front of the room or pans only between the front and rear overheads, skipping Top Middle entirely? What about in _Flatliners_ (Atmos version I think is streaming only) where right at 1 minute 30 seconds, the voices start commenting overhead about their near death experiences and they move all over the entire ceiling, passing through top middle over and over and over again along the way? What about the ships panning overhead front-to-back in _Star Trek Beyond_ or the helicopters in _Kong Skull Island_? What about the flying Car in the 4K Atmos version of original _Blade Runner_ flying directly overhead and front-to-back? _Blade Runner 2049_'s flying car? How about the submarine explosions and the shark hitting the hull of the submarine at the early part of _The Meg_? Those sounds would have a giant "hole" in the middle if Top Middle isn't used in a large room. What about the "new life starting" sound in _Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle_ (and again in the sequel) that "pings" directly overhead? Does it use Top Middle? All those use Top Middle here so if they're not using them on a real renderer, I'd say there's something odd going on indeed.



> Yes, precisely. That is what I'm saying. The top middle of the room is silent when the M:I Fallout soundtrack is played in x.x.6 configuration. And this is not an isolated incident. Many other Atmos soundtracks are mixed this way, even aside from Disney's known 7.1.4 print-outs.


So I guess we need to figure out if those soundtracks are panning things overhead in 7.1.4 and just not using the extra speaker (as if it weren't included in the mix) or if there's actually a hole in the panning even with 7.1.4 configurations. I'd have to go specifically try Mission Impossible Fallout to hear exactly what/where the rotors are in the chase scene (I just remember it sounding great overhead; I don't recall how they panned it specifically), but I do know the movies I mentioned above use my Top Middle speakers here.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> Josh Z said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about rendering. I'm talking about the sound mix itself. I never said anything was wrong with the renderer, rather that the sound mixers are choosing not to place their sound objects near certain speaker locations.
> 
> 
> 
> But that implies sounds never pan front to back in movies as they cannot skip over the "middle" without literally skipping it. Perhaps we've been watching entirely different movies? In any case, I've heard plenty of sounds directly overhead and panning front to back over the past few years (even if it's closer to the sides than the middle at times). Perhaps not every movie has many sounds directly overhead and I've certainly criticized the ones that do not use overheads well, but as I indicated, my "Scatmos" Top Middle speakers overall are very active, which flies 180 degrees to your statement that very few Atmos movies use those speakers. Hence, either there's a setting of some kind that's keeping the renderer from using Top Middle effectively (similar to what Disney does in effect, but perhaps not the same in how they do it?) or we've been watching different movies. If it pans either directly overhead in 7.1.4 or even to the sides "through" the middle area, it should also pan overhead in 7.1.6 (Disney notwithstanding) making use of those speakers as it goes through that area of the room. However, seeing as I don't have the software that mixes these soundtracks, I have no idea what other settings might be involved that could change the end result.
> 
> I do seem to recall at one point someone saying that Atmos mixes had to actually select the speakers to be included in the mix. In fact, I think it might have been SDrucker that indicated as such when he was asked about some of the speakers he's using above 7.1.4 on his Trinnov. I think he said very few mixes used some of extra front speakers (e.g. center left, center right, etc. or whichever ones he's using himself; I cannot recall exactly offhand). It would be very hard indeed for an Atmos mix to _not_ use those speakers if they were indeed fully automatic as objects move anywhere around the front mix. Of course, it's possible that very objects are being used in the front, but they're being used as locked bed channels instead? But it almost sounded like a given mix had to have the speakers it used selected ahead of time as being part of the mix. In other words, if you mixed for Atmos with 7.1.4 plus Front Wides and Surround#2 enabled, it would use up to 11.1.4 speakers, but would do little or nothing with Top Middle or Surround#1. At the time, I dismissed that as my misunderstanding of what I was reading once I read how much supposed bother was put into Disney soundtracks to actually _avoid_ using the extra speakers and stick to only 7.1.4. But it's certainly something that could be cleared up by FilmMixer or someone that's used the tools involved. So few processors support beyond 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 (until recently the 8500 was the only one that did 7.1.6 that I know of other than Trinnov) so there hasn't been a lot of commentary I've read by the average person about Top Middle in specific films, although certainly I've read many complaints about it being underutilized after the 8500 came out, but I assumed those were mostly with Disney soundtracks, not in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a very brief incidental sound that lasts about 0.5 seconds and is 1/10 the volume of the other speakers, only audible if you stand with your ear right up against the speaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the moment in _Overlord_ where the child drops the ball on the ceiling and it rolls from about the Front "Tops" location to about the Top Middle location directly overhead in the center of the room? Do you get sound panning in those locations there or is it limited only to the front of the room or pans only between the front and rear overheads, skipping Top Middle entirely? What about in _Flatliners_ (Atmos version I think is streaming only) where right at 1 minute 30 seconds, the voices start commenting overhead about their near death experiences and they move all over the entire ceiling, passing through top middle over and over and over again along the way? What about the ships panning overhead front-to-back in _Star Trek Beyond_ or the helicopters in _Kong Skull Island_? What about the flying Car in the 4K Atmos version of original _Blade Runner_ flying directly overhead and front-to-back? _Blade Runner 2049_'s flying car? How about the submarine explosions and the shark hitting the hull of the submarine at the early part of _The Meg_? Those sounds would have a giant "hole" in the middle if Top Middle isn't used in a large room. What about the "new life starting" sound in _Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle_ (and again in the sequel) that "pings" directly overhead? Does it use Top Middle? All those use Top Middle here so if they're not using them on a real renderer, I'd say there's something odd going on indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, precisely. That is what I'm saying. The top middle of the room is silent when the M:I Fallout soundtrack is played in x.x.6 configuration. And this is not an isolated incident. Many other Atmos soundtracks are mixed this way, even aside from Disney's known 7.1.4 print-outs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess we need to figure out if those soundtracks are panning things overhead in 7.1.4 and just not using the extra speaker (as if it weren't included in the mix) or if there's actually a hole in the panning even with 7.1.4 configurations. I'd have to go specifically try Mission Impossible Fallout to hear exactly what/where the rotors are in the chase scene (I just remember it sounding great overhead; I don't recall how they panned it specifically), but I do know the movies I mentioned above use my Top Middle speakers here.
Click to expand...

You have the wrong kind of setup to be judging or speculating what should or shouldn't be in a particular set of speakers given your Scatmos "kludge," sorry to say.

It gives you a false sense of panning movement since matrix extraction behaves differently than discrete Atmos rendering processors used in the latest >7.1.4 units. You're forcing something to be in a particular location that may or may not be there in actuality if listening via a more advanced Atmos theater.


----------



## howard68

Hi All
Can someone with a 7.2.6 set up give some feedback on the use of TM speakers on films
I know Disney fix their films for 7.2.4 so 
Other films and examples of when TM are used 
Regards 
H


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> You have the wrong kind of setup to be judging or speculating what should or shouldn't be in a particular set of speakers given your Scatmos "kludge," sorry to say.


There is also _NO_ fundamental difference between phantom imaging and hard imaging in terms of locations or how they sound within the limits of angles between speaker pairs that produce a solid phantom image for the MLP. Dolby Atmos's "extra" speakers only provide hard discrete sources for phantom imaging locations as they are all situated within the same exact rectangular plane. Thus, there are no other "new locations" for these speakers to image. They either phantom image in those locations or they hard image in those locations. Both sound the same to the MLP so long as the phantom imaging is solid. In larger rooms, this makes all the difference in the world as phantom images start to fall apart when the stereo pair combinations are too far from each other. In angular terms, that is about 120 degrees maximum, but it gets weaker closer to 90 degrees with larger rooms. For off-axis seating, having more hard sources produces more accurate imaging than phantom imaging due to the precedence effect. Discrete works better in this regard, but steered logic is very close to discrete while matrixing is still better than phantom imaging alone. 

You keep saying I have matrixing for Top Middle, when this is absolutely false. I have steered logic that is very close to discrete (minimal leakage). There is very little difference between discrete rendering and Pro Logic Steering logic, which is most certainly NOT "matrixing" (which is the summation of two signals that rejects decorrelated material and combines correlated material up to a +3dB difference to a new channel created in-between). The steering logic mechanism sounds very close to discrete as anyone who has ever used Pro Logic modes (or even DSU or Neural X as the both "steer" dialog and other correlated sounds to the center speaker from a 2-channel mix). Matrixed channels only remove 50% of the precedence effect (due to arrayed information still coming out of the source channels), but are still an improvement for off-axis seats over phantom imaging which suffer the full effect of the precedent effect. Thus, having matrixed front wides is still more accurate than having no front wides for off-axis seats. For the MLP, however, there is literally no difference whatsoever between the two unless the angular distance is too large for phantom imaging at which point having matrixed speakers also improves imaging with a more solid pan. There is nothing "less accurate" in either method over plain vanilla 7.1.4 limited imaging. There are no new imaging locations so there is no possible "false panning" or other such blatant abject nonsense that you are suggesting. It's clear to me you know very little of the subject, but that hasn't stopped you from trying to talk down to me anyway.



> It gives you a false sense of panning movement since matrix extraction behaves differently than discrete Atmos rendering processors used in the latest >7.1.4 units. You're forcing something to be in a particular location that may or may not be there in actuality if listening via a more advanced Atmos theater.


How can I possibly get a "false sense of movement" ??? Movement requires a change in levels and/or phase (signal correlation). It cannot move magically on its own. Do you not get dialog out of the center of your two speakers without or without an actual center channel speaker as long as you sit in the MLP??? How is that a false sense of panning movement in a Pro Logic system if something pans left to right through the center speaker? The center speaker is not there for the MLP's benefit. Phantom centers work fine for just one person. The center speaker is there to lock the center dialog (and any effects) for anyone else in the room. For the MLP with three identical speakers, it sounds exactly the same with or without the center speaker. This is exactly what I was talking about in terms of the DSU "center spread" effect, which has no effect at all for the MLP with three identically matched speakers that are time aligned. It only changes the imaging for non-matching speakers (either model and/or time alignment). This is easy to hear if you actually set it up correctly. So if Pro Logic type steering works perfectly the same when things are correctly aligned, how can it possibly generate a "false sense of movement?" I'd love to hear your explanation because it's not possible.

Meanwhile, your use of the word "kludge" serves not other purpose but to insult my system and others that have a solution that apparently works far better and far more reliably than Dolby's actual "kludge" which is "print-through" soundtracks, which defeat the entire point of having an object based renderer system in the first place! "Scatmos" (steered logic to channels between two discrete ones) is not a kludge anymore than Dolby Pro Logic is a kludge to get near discrete center dialog. You insult Dolby's original surround technology when you talk about it that way and I doubt they would appreciate it either, particularly when it's clear you don't even understand what it does or you wouldn't keep calling steered logic "matrixing" which is something else entirely (again the summation of two audio signals that eliminate uncorrelated material and create up to a +3dB extra channel between two existing channels for correlated material whereas steered logic removes nearly all correlated material from the two channels the signal is created from and puts them in a new channel, creating something very close to discrete as the end result). 

The very notion that you imply with that "false sense of movement" is that things can _somehow_ pan from the front of the room to the back of the room _without_ passing through the Top Middle speaker part of the room. How does it avoid that middle zone of the room when panning? It can either not use the speaker and pan through just front/rear heights/tops or it can pan through the top middle speakers themselves. It should do the latter and that is the crutch of the situation with Disney soundtracks not using them. However, Disney soundtracks do pan front to rear without that speaker and if you use Pro Logic steering to extract a center channel in the same manner as a front center channel speaker, it does the same exact thing. It takes the imaging that pans through the middle and sends it to a hard speaker instead of phantom imaging. What is supposed to be "false" about that? What difference does it make if you render to that speaker or extract it to that speaker? It sounds exactly the same. Anything else can only be attributed to you not having heard it and thus think it does something other than what it actually does. Yet when it's pointed out to you how it works you not only ignore it, you openly mock it.


----------



## fatherom

Sigh.


----------



## Chirosamsung

b_scott said:


> what are some of the best pieces of media to play to show off Atmos? Once I'm set up I'll want some movies/etc to test it.


Spider-Man-into the spiderverse is my go to showing off atmos and also very vibrant HDR as well. One of the best demo discs out there


----------



## tommarra

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> Can someone with a 7.2.6 set up give some feedback on the use of TM speakers on films
> I know Disney fix their films for 7.2.4 so
> Other films and examples of when TM are used
> Regards
> H



I really like it. I watched Bladerunner 2049 and MMFR and it sounded fantastic.

If you can go 6 overhead by all means go for it. Even if Disney messes it up, for streaming content using DSU the TMs are nicely used


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tommarra

Chirosamsung said:


> Spider-Man-into the spiderverse is my go to showing off atmos and also very vibrant HDR as well. One of the best demo discs out there



Bladerunner 2049 and MMFR for me are the absolute best movie content. Dolby Amaze trailer also makes my visitors say wow’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm speculating based on prior D+M practices.


D+M have been nothing short of fantastic over the last 4yrs for me, updated fully functional stable pre/pro's plus a few extra's I never asked for. Concerning DTS Pro it was discussed a few months back it's coming to the 8805


----------



## mrtickleuk

tommarra said:


> Bladerunner 2049 and MMFR for me are the absolute best movie content. Dolby Amaze trailer also makes my visitors say wow’


I'm guessing you mean *Mad Max: Fury Road*...?


----------



## dfa973

mrtickleuk said:


> I'm guessing you mean *Mad Max: Fury Road*...?


Bingo! You guessed right!  

(when first encountered I also wondered what the f*** MMFR means...)


----------



## tommarra

mrtickleuk said:


> I'm guessing you mean *Mad Max: Fury Road*...?



 yeah does read looks a four letter word 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rec head

What specific scenes in MMFR and Spiderverse are the best "show off" scenes?

Thanks


----------



## Dan Hitchman

audiofan1 said:


> D+M have been nothing short of fantastic over the last 4yrs for me, updated fully functional stable pre/pro's plus a few extra's I never asked for. Concerning DTS Pro it was discussed a few months back it's coming to the 8805



Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## tommarra

rec head said:


> What specific scenes in MMFR and Spiderverse are the best "show off" scenes?
> 
> Thanks


The very first scene in MMFR, when the Voices in MAx's head transition to a car driving over the hill from behind to fill the frame. 

BTW another GREAT movie to showcase Atmos is Gravity and more recently (although it might be DTSX), 1917, especially the scene in the village on fire)


----------



## Josh Z

tommarra said:


> If you can go 6 overhead by all means go for it. Even if Disney messes it up, for streaming content using DSU the TMs are nicely used


DSU only has two channels for height activity, one on the left and one on the right, which are spread across however many speakers you have on each side. Regardless of whether you put two speakers or four speakers above you, DSU works the same.

If you were able to install two Top Front speakers and two Top Rear speakers at Dolby's recommended best angles, they should image above the seating position and sound indistinguishable from six speakers with DSU. There will never be any front-to-back panning movements with DSU.

Of course, real world concerns often prevent people from installing speakers at the best recommended angles. If speakers are at Front Height and Rear Height locations further away from each other, sounds may not image well above the seating position. That's where adding Top Middle speakers between them can be useful.

Speaking as someone who actually has and uses extra speakers on my ceiling due to room limitations, I would never advise other people to do the same as a blanket recommendation without knowing the specifics of their room conditions. Just because you can squeeze extra speakers up there doesn't mean you need to. For most users, four height speakers will provide all the coverage they need. As we've been discussing, adding an extra pair of heights becomes very problematic with Atmos soundtracks that will not use those speakers. (And contrary to what MagnumX seems to believe, there are a great *many* Atmos tracks that will not use Top Middle speakers in an x.x.6 configuration.)


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> There is also _NO_ fundamental difference between phantom imaging and hard imaging in terms of locations or how they sound within the limits of angles between speaker pairs that produce a solid phantom image for the MLP.


You're talking theory. We're talking actual application. What may happen with Scatmos extraction has no relevance to the discussion about how Atmos tracks behave when natively decoded for x.x.6 channels.


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> Spider-Man-into the spiderverse is my go to showing off atmos and also very vibrant HDR as well. One of the best demo discs out there


Into the Spider-Verse is a very aggressive track for height activity, but it's also one of those Atmos mixes that does not use Front Wide speakers at all. FW users will find those speakers completely silent. This flies in the face of MagnumX's insistence that Atmos objects cannot "skip over" certain speakers. They can and they do, very frequently.


----------



## mrtickleuk

dfa973 said:


> Bingo! You guessed right!
> 
> (when first encountered I also wondered what the f*** MMFR means...)


Yes, so _please _stop doing it! You wondered, but yet then continued the pain for someone else, and so the confusion goes on.  Two wrongs don't make a right... there are enough real technical abbreviations, without people using abbreviations made up out of movie titles . To me, it doesn't matter if "most people" know what movie it's talking about, it's confusing for any casual reader and can't be looked up in the same way that real acronyms like DTS and DD can.

Just my little plea.


----------



## vn800art

One of the first times I can say "I can hear really what I read on the forums, from someone who has settings similar to mine" @MagnumX ! Regarding center spread and DSU taking it off the choice in the last generation AVRs. 
And I believe I made some substantial other changes lately:
1) Toed out and afterwards a little bit inward my fronts
2) Finally made an Audyssey App new cal with only 10/15 cm. distance from Mlp in each 7 directions. As of now, been always doing some 20/25 cm. each, always had some strange level mismatch, left/right channels. Now with 10/15 these are really minor and I feel the volumes/spl are more consistent and ... armony and nirvana!
On a side note! Tidal Atmos is HERE, too (Fire4K)!
Flattish Seiji Ozawa Beethoven 9th ever heard! No way this can come out as clear, enveloping as from Auro3D (in a some different mixer edition!,, or even only from a two channel one).
Pop music ( R.E.M. !), as has been said, really interesting and colourful.
Happy camper here, and Republic Day also!
Regards
Alessandro
Edit: Daniel Barenboim's 9th sounds better! Best in Auro 3D
Edit2 Vivaldi 4 Seasons: third dimension comes out only in Auro3D - my FW are more active - in front of me I have the whole orchestra playing.
So, I understand surely the art of mixing 3D sound is hard to be found . 
Would like to hear more experienced user's opinions!


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> You're talking theory. We're talking actual application. What may happen with Scatmos extraction has no relevance to the discussion about how Atmos tracks behave when natively decoded for x.x.6 channels.


No relevance? Theory? Do you think I only _theoretically_ implemented it? Do you think I cannot turn off the extra speakers and even limit my system to half-room 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 when I've previously stated I can to compare how it pans? I can and it scales down. What exactly do you think is different with native decoding in the middle of the room? Does it zig-zag right in the dead center whereas it goes in a straight line without Top Middle such that using steered logic gets an entirely different result? I've never heard a discrete center do any such thing compared to Pro Logic. The system is designed to scale up/down and present it as close as it can with or without the hard speaker in that location. In other words, an Atmos presentation should sound similar in 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 from the MLP. The most improvements would be for off-axis listeners in a properly set up system or when the room is too large to phantom pan properly across the distance. There are no "new" behaviors or rendering locations (i.e. It doesn't render under your feet or directly behind your head). 

Steered logic simply cuts out the middle part of the smaller room phantom imaging and puts in a hard speaker. If there's a loss in resolution, it's still not a fundamental change. It's replacing phantom imaging with hard sources. If you are getting sounds directly overhead in a smaller room with 7.1.4, you should certainly be getting sounds directly overhead with 7.1.6. The imaging should be more concrete, not less. If it's _not_ using those speakers (and I've not suggested that they are working correctly; it's entirely possible more titles than just Disney have issues) then there's something fundamentally wrong with the titles in question. They are somehow bypassing normal object behavior, similar in effect to what Disney is doing. If anything, those are reasons to use a "kludge" method instead as apparently the "kludge" works _better_ than the natively decoded channels. 

I've suggested some titles and scenes with obvious overhead panning that should use Top Middle to test on a natively rendered system. But instead of responding to that, some would rather attack my system as if I'm hearing something totally different with the Dolby Atmos demos and movies than everyone else. I believe that's called making a straw man argument. Don't deal with the actual issues and arguments presented. Instead, come up with a new reason to not deal with it (i.e. Rather than deal with the titles in question and try to get to the bottom of it, let's attack my system instead).


----------



## Polyrythm1k

tommarra said:


> Bladerunner 2049 and MMFR for me are the absolute best movie content. Dolby Amaze trailer also makes my visitors say wow’
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Just watched MMFR(mad max fury road) again yesterday. It’s one of my favorites as well. 
Love the amaze demo too. That rolling thunder after the Clap just goes through everything in my house!


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> No relevance? Theory? Do you think I only _theoretically_ implemented it? Do you think I cannot turn off the extra speakers and even limit my system to half-room 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 when I've previously stated I can to compare how it pans? I can and it scales down.


Assuming it's up to date, the equipment list in your signature shows that you do not have an AVR capable of x.x.6 decoding. You have not tried and *do not know* how these tracks decode natively.

Again, we are not talking about Scatmos here. I am not criticizing your decision to implement Scatmos. It simply is not relevant to the discussion we're having. 



> What exactly do you think is different with native decoding in the middle of the room? Does it zig-zag right in the dead center whereas it goes in a straight line without Top Middle such that using steered logic gets an entirely different result?


As I already explained, watching M:I Fallout with x.x.6 decoding, the Top Middle speakers are silent 99% of the time. When helicopters fly from the front to the back of the room, they skip right over the Top Middles most of the time.

Scatmos may actually be superior for this movie with the way it pulls common information to the center speaker, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the way the track behaves when natively decoded to x.x.6. In that sound mix and many others, the Top Middle speakers are not used. Similarly, many Atmos sound mixes do not use Front Wide speakers even when sounds should logically pass through them.

I have used Scatmos in my own home theater. I know what it does. I currently use extra AVRs to extract Front Wides, because that method uses those speakers much more consistently than my Denon X8500's native decoding for FW.

Scatmos behaves differently than Atmos native decoding. Sometimes Scatmos is better (like these Atmos tracks that skip over certain speakers) and sometimes it's worse (like the way all height activity with DSU upmixing gets collapsed to the TM speakers). 

Maybe you don't think that's supposed to happen, but as someone who has actually tried it both ways, I'm telling you it does. Your continued insistence otherwise is not constructive to this conversation.


----------



## bryantc

Dolby needs to give some training to audio mixers and/or enforce tighter restrictions in their software. There is no consistency at all in the way Atmos is encoded. It really makes the format look bad. But I guess the number of people with systems beyond 7.1.4 is so tiny that they don't care.


----------



## Chirosamsung

rec head said:


> What specific scenes in MMFR and Spiderverse are the best "show off" scenes?
> 
> Thanks


Into the spiderverse-literally the whole movie-it is probably the best combined Dolby atmos and hdr demo disk out there


----------



## Matt L

Well I opted to kill 1/2 of my free 90 day Tidal sub from T Mobile tonight and upgraded to HiFi then spent a few hours listening to the various Atmos samplers. I guess I'd say I have mixed feelings. For some reason the tops are way too hot, my trusty RS SPL meter died when I accidentally put the battery in upside down so outside of the Audyessey settings being rerun I opted for a SPL meter app on my phone, works quite well. Anyway checked the levels of all 13 speakers and tweaked a couple slightly.

There is quite a mix of stuff in the samplers, from what I can tell all remixes, but some are much better than others. Came away really disliking all the Pop and modern stuff, all sounds the same to me, Demi, Arianna etc are all interchangeable. All the effects seemed to lift the listening stage too high at least on my system if that makes any sense. For me the best tracks were the Jazz selections, not over done and decent spacial feeling. Another that struck me as sounding good- believe it or not - was Bing Crosby with the London Symphony Orchestra doing Christmas music. Honestly there is not enough there for me to keep a Tidal sub at $20/mo but for free it's worth sampling. I would really like to hear some newly recorded stuff mixed specifically for Atmos, At this point I'm divided as to it's worth long term sorry to say.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Assuming it's up to date, the equipment list in your signature shows that you do not have an AVR capable of x.x.6 decoding. You have not tried and *do not know* how these tracks decode natively.


You're right. I don't _know_ with certainty what a given title does natively decoded, but that's my whole point and the reason I asked for more feedback given other titles that do have direct overhead sounds of which I'm aware.. It _should_ do basically the same thing (with some extra resolution and a hard source) what 7.1.4 does with a phantom image in-between. If it's NOT doing that (e.g. Disney soundtracks), then there's something wrong, either with the mix, encoding settings or some other factor. 

With Disney, we know why sounds don't come out of Top Middle (it uses fixed audio objects with pre-rendered panning that skips over the extra speakers entirely). But you claim other non-Disney soundtracks (like Mission Impossible Fallout, which is by Paramount) aren't using that location (much) with 6 overheads. The question is why that is. Is it simply the mix doesn't use those locations or is there some other reason why the speaker isn't being engaged (pre-set to not use certain speakers somehow?). It's also why I listed several other titles where I do get sounds from there. I was hoping to get some comparisons as to where those sounds render in a native system to see if there's any notable difference. But I got derisive, yet unproven comments about my system instead.


*Mission Impossible: Fallout Atmos Observations:*

So I went back and watched the entire helicopter sequence of Mission Impossible Fallout with only extracted Top Middle to see how it compared to what you described from the native rendering and it _was_ a bit surprising to hear how little Top Middle was used overall in that sequence. In other words, I heard no real evidence that the movie did anything hear but what you described, although exact moments might need clarification.

There was a bit of rotor action somewhere near 1:53:20 for a few seconds directly overhead (right where Cruise falls down to the payload) with a direct front-to-back overhead fly-by right after that which definitely passed through my top middle speakers as it panned across the entire ceiling (that brief moment was actually demo worthy, IMO as it was quite a loud/strong image overhead and panned quite well). Beyond that, there was only a few very brief snippet bits here and there that appeared briefly in Top Middle. Most of the rotor action overall was in the front height speakers. 

In other words, I seemed to be hearing mostly if not completely _exactly_ what you described for the native rendered version and thus I kind of doubt _Fallout_ _isn't_ using Top Middle properly. They simply put most of the rotor sounds in the front height (or tops) region closest to the screen where the helicopter is most of the time (mostly closeups and distant shots; only a few flybys towards the screen that would imply a front to back type pan or similar). But when a flyover did occur near 1:53:40 give or take 10 seconds or so, it most certainly flew directly overhead front to back here discretely with 7.1.6 or phantom imaging using 7.1.4. It would be strange indeed if the native rendering "hopped" from front to rear without using the middle area in-between. Or did it pan using front/rear heights/tops instead of engaging Top Middle as it passed through that region? That would be akin to Disney rendering it front/back without using the Top Middle speakers at all and defeat the point of them, IMO.

This is why I mentioned other titles where I remember sounds being directly or partially directly overhead as those would be more movies to compare to see if there is indeed a difference. I can think of no reason that 'steered logic' (like Pro Logic I and II) would behave fundamentally differently from direct rendered because there are no new locations for sounds to come from short of an option like "snap to" that overrides the normal rendering. 50% is still 50% and 25% is still 25%. Far from irrelevant, in Science the only way to know if something is different is to have a control group to compare it to! 7.1.6 "Scatmos" is just hard sourced 7.1.4. It gives a fixed location for the 50% point. Otherwise, it renders the same if you're sitting at the halfway point. It's clear titles like Disney are doing something different as the native rendered version ignores Top Middle entirely. But it's not clear with other studios and hence the need for more comparisons and information if one is to claim these studios don't use Top Middle much. Is it just the mixes or something else yet to be identified? Without any frame of reference (7.1.4 phantom or 7.1.6 extracted), how would you even know? You can't compare something without at least two things.

After testing it, I'm betting _Mission Impossible: Fallout_ used Top Middle correctly, however briefly (probably less than one second in that flyover, but without it, it would "hop" here) on the native system too. In other words, I think the lack of Top Middle use in the helicopter scene overall is artistic choice in regards to what is seen on-screen, not a failure of the speakers to function.



> Maybe you don't think that's supposed to happen, but as someone who has actually tried it both ways, I'm telling you it does. Your continued insistence otherwise is not constructive to this conversation.


To which _conversation_ are you referring? One person talking to themself in an echo chamber or two people posting derisive comments about my system isn't a conversation. It's a lecture. I'm sure the Church that told Galileo he was a heretic for suggesting the Earth wasn't the center of the Solar System (and the Universe for that matter) thought they were correct too, but without proof, it's just so much talking. Telling me my system doesn't image correctly requires proof, not conjecture. I have yet to see any evidence that it images incorrectly. That's a bit like saying 7.1.4 images incorrectly since it's derived from it. If anything, it sounds like sometimes 7.1.6 images incorrectly (with some titles) due to reasons that are only partially explained (Disney print-through). I was attempting to determine if any more titles are doing something strange. But _MI: Fallout_ appears to be the mix itself, not some technical shortcoming.

Now that does _not_ mean at least _some_ other soundtracks aren't rendering differently and/or not using extra speakers. Dolby's "Snap To" feature, for example is a rendering based option that vastly changes the native rendering behavior (rendering effects directly at the nearest available speaker, rather than phantom imaging between points). That can easily put a sound at front wides that would be at the mains or side surrounds on systems without front wides, but that is only true when that option is used (It doesn't seem to be used much in the real world from what I've read). Are there other rendering settings with similar changes to rendering locations? Possibly. I haven't heard of them, but that doesn't mean they don't necessarily exist. I don't own the software. But normal panning is a straight forward, predictable business. Atmos automatically pans more speakers with object movement, giving it more precision, but it doesn't change the basic course of the object between 4 speakers overhead, 6, 8 or 10 for that matter. The course can be made more precise, but an object doesn't suddenly zig-zag where it went in a straight line or curve before. The curve may be more accurate, but it's still a curve with 4 channels overhead.

P.S.

As for the previously mentioned behavior that systems with x.x.6 overheads only use Top Middle when there's only 2-channels overhead being used (implying 4 overheads with top front/rear phantom imaging would be preferable), well that's the difference between the accurate location (top middle) and the precedence effect (images closer to the nearest speaker if you don't sit in the center). That's a subjective evaluation. In terms of accuracy, the 6-overhead system wins every time. Scatmos does the same thing normally. It puts anything imaging with correlated information in Top Middle also. 

However, with "Scatmos" you can actually have it use all 6 speakers (to a greater or lesser degree) if desired by modifying the distance setting for the speaker pairs. They need to be set the same to get a truly discrete output, but varying them a bit adds more "leakage" back to the front/rear heights/tops and the more you add the closer you get to an array instead of a near discrete output. It's actually quite flexible in that regard to taste as that will give you the precedence effect back if you prefer it. Flexible doesn't mean wrong.


----------



## batpig

Some interesting news about to drop tomorrow relevant to these high channel count discussions  

Unfortunately, it won't be Disney announcing that they will stop locking their Atmos tracks... but it will be fun to discuss tomorrow especially in the context of the current 7.1.6 discussion.

/TEASER


----------



## esumsea

isabuschina said:


> You don't need HDMI 2.1 or even 2.0 to get Atmos output. I use MPC BE with bitstreaming several old computers and can output Atmos without and issue over HDMI and even display port (the display port connector is marked dp++)
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk


 Thank you isbuschina. I guess I have to read up on bitstreaming. Glad to know it is possible!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> Some interesting news about to drop tomorrow relevant to these high channel count discussions /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Unfortunately, it won't be Disney announcing that they will stop locking their Atmos tracks... but it will be fun to discuss tomorrow especially in the context of the current 7.1.6 discussion.
> 
> /TEASER /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


Ooh, you're a naughty one, aren't you? 😄


----------



## vn800art

Here's MINE!
Dolby Atmos in TIDAL working on my Shield 2015! 
There is a note on info page/audio in Setup General of my Marantz : Offset info which I found is always changing (between -13 and -15dB), on a per track base! Never found. On the FireTv Stick 4K this info is not present.
Quality perceived is identical.


----------



## anothermib

Matt L said:


> Well I opted to kill 1/2 of my free 90 day Tidal sub from T Mobile tonight and upgraded to HiFi then spent a few hours listening to the various Atmos samplers. I guess I'd say I have mixed feelings. For some reason the tops are way too hot, my trusty RS SPL meter died when I accidentally put the battery in upside down so outside of the Audyessey settings being rerun I opted for a SPL meter app on my phone, works quite well. Anyway checked the levels of all 13 speakers and tweaked a couple slightly.
> 
> There is quite a mix of stuff in the samplers, from what I can tell all remixes, but some are much better than others. Came away really disliking all the Pop and modern stuff, all sounds the same to me, Demi, Arianna etc are all interchangeable. All the effects seemed to lift the listening stage too high at least on my system if that makes any sense. For me the best tracks were the Jazz selections, not over done and decent spacial feeling. Another that struck me as sounding good- believe it or not - was Bing Crosby with the London Symphony Orchestra doing Christmas music. Honestly there is not enough there for me to keep a Tidal sub at $20/mo but for free it's worth sampling. I would really like to hear some newly recorded stuff mixed specifically for Atmos, At this point I'm divided as to it's worth long term sorry to say.



As much I was looking forward to see this finally released, I must say that I share the sentiment. 

It really is a mixed bag. Some passages, sometimes entire tracks, sound really awesome. However, there are quite a few things that just sound off. For example often individual instruments seem to be put in a specific laser sharp spot and are playing there in isolation. Beyond that, in many cases, there is a complete lack of "ambiance" that you usually have in atmos movie soundtracks or have as "uncorrelated" sounds that DSU puts on the surround channels. The result often draws much more attention to individual things than letting you immerse in the music (as you would hope for in an "immersive" format).

I am not entirely sure what is causing this. It may take some time for the mixers to gain experience and develop best practices that actually work. Or perhaps we are too much accustomed to the sound of a stereo stage that we need to get used to a different sound. It may as well be the case that atmos music is way more unforgiving to imperfections in our setup that are not that apparent when watching movies.


----------



## UKenGB

Josh Z said:


> Into the Spider-Verse is a very aggressive track for height activity, but it's also one of those Atmos mixes that does not use Front Wide speakers at all. FW users will find those speakers completely silent. This flies in the face of MagnumX's insistence that Atmos objects cannot "skip over" certain speakers. They can and they do, very frequently.


This puzzles me. Unless it has been 'printed', which I understand to mean all the Atmos information is simply hard coded to each speaker channel and no actual objects left to render (correct me if I'm wrong), how can Atmos audio 'skip' some speakers?

I'm not doubting it happens, just wondering how it can happen. The Atmos renderer surely just sends any audio object to the appropriate and available speakers. Assuming the AVR has 6 heights connected AND knows and understands that, how could it skip the Top Middles? Can Atmos include some control data that can force it to skip some speaker positions?

Or does this mean that at least some of the Atmos audio has indeed been 'printed'?


----------



## UKenGB

MagnumX said:


> ... Disney ... also _only_ make Atmos available on 4K content ...


Has this been firmly established? I have never seen Atmos from Disney+, but was that just due to the coronavirus restrictions, or will I never see it without 4K (like Amazon)?


----------



## Lesmor

batpig said:


> Some interesting news about to drop tomorrow relevant to these high channel count discussions
> 
> Unfortunately, it won't be Disney announcing that they will stop locking their Atmos tracks... but it will be fun to discuss tomorrow especially in the context of the current 7.1.6 discussion.
> 
> /TEASER


I thought it might be in relation to the new 8K Denon models AVR-X2700H, AVR-X3700H, AVR-4700H and the AVR-X6700H due for release later this year but unfortunately the channel count is the same 
although some will have DTS:X Pro


----------



## Josh Z

UKenGB said:


> This puzzles me. Unless it has been 'printed', which I understand to mean all the Atmos information is simply hard coded to each speaker channel and no actual objects left to render (correct me if I'm wrong), how can Atmos audio 'skip' some speakers?
> 
> I'm not doubting it happens, just wondering how it can happen. The Atmos renderer surely just sends any audio object to the appropriate and available speakers. Assuming the AVR has 6 heights connected AND knows and understands that, how could it skip the Top Middles? Can Atmos include some control data that can force it to skip some speaker positions?
> 
> Or does this mean that at least some of the Atmos audio has indeed been 'printed'?


I do not know the reason why it happens, but it's quite common.

Regarding M:I Fallout, that Atmos track does not seem to be x.x.4 print-out because, as I said earlier, some very brief incidental sounds can be heard quickly moving through the TM speakers if you put your ear up to one. Yet they're silent 90-95% of the time.


----------



## bryantc

batpig said:


> Some interesting news about to drop tomorrow relevant to these high channel count discussions
> 
> Unfortunately, it won't be Disney announcing that they will stop locking their Atmos tracks... but it will be fun to discuss tomorrow especially in the context of the current 7.1.6 discussion.
> 
> /TEASER


So what exactly were you referring to?


----------



## batpig

Ha! Now I can speak about it 

I was referring to the announcement of the new D+M models with DTS:X Pro FINALLY coming to the non-Trinnov price point.

- new model Denon X6700H will have 11 amps, 13ch processing, and DTS:X Pro supporting 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 layouts (including Atmos 7.1.6 with 3 pairs of overheads or Auro 7.1.6 with CH + TS)
- official word that DTS:X Pro is coming to the AVR-X8500H receiver and AV8805 processor

Although not explicitly Atmos, we end up discussing all immersive audio in this thread and I thought it was apropos given the discussion about 7.1.6 layouts. This announcement means that those with 7.1.6 and 9.1.4 layouts can finally have all those speakers make noise with DTS:X / Neural:X no longer limited to 11 channels. And, I also got confirmation that the silly quirk which prevents wides from making noise with a 9.1.2 layout with DTS:X native content should be resolved, so 9.1.4 layouts get an upgrade in addition to 7.1.6.

It also improves IMAX Enhanced, as the discrete CH object (channel 12) can now be produced by the CH speaker, vs phantom imaging between the center + front heights.

This means that we should see DTS:X Pro continue to trickle down to more models, which is exciting for those of us with higher channel count layouts but without Trinnov budgets.

ALSO - a new feature coming with these D+M models is *dual memory presets*, which means that those who want to optimize Atmos vs DTS:X/Auro layouts can now have separate configs with "Tops" vs "Heights" that can be recalled immediately.

The X6700H (which I should have my hands on soon) is going to be a VERY attractive model for moderate budget enthusiasts. Not only does it have 13ch processing, DTS:X Pro, and dual-memory presets, but it has the full "pre-amp mode" which disconnects the amp section making it significantly cleaner as a pre/pro. $2,499msrp for a 13ch pre-amp with 9.1.4/7.1.6 support, Auro3D, DTS:X Pro and IMAX is going to raise some eyebrows.


----------



## batpig

Lesmor said:


> I thought it might be in relation to the new 8K Denon models AVR-X2700H, AVR-X3700H, AVR-4700H and the AVR-X6700H due for release later this year but unfortunately the channel count is the same
> although some will have DTS:X Pro


Not true -- see above -- the X6700H is getting an upgrade to 13ch processing.

Also note the "pre-amp mode" is trickling down to the X3700H and X4700H, which means the X3700H will be much more interesting for those seeking to step into separates.

Those who read/watch Audioholics know that Gene DellaSala has measured increased distortion on the RCA pre-outs of many AVR's due to feedback from the still-connected amp section. Units like the prior X3600H with assignable amps would show much cleaner pre-outs for the FR/FL channels when those amps were re-mapped to the rear heights. Now, that is available for all channels since "pre-amp mode" fully disconnects the amp section, making the X3700H a really amazing value for $1,199 as a dedicated, high quality 11ch immersive processor able to supply plenty of clean voltage to nearly any external amp you want to use.


----------



## rec head

@batpig - I don't see a thread for the 6700. Can you post a link if one is started? I've been planning on the HTP-1 but will consider the 6700.


----------



## chi_guy50

rec head said:


> @*batpig* - I don't see a thread for the 6700. Can you post a link if one is started? I've been planning on the HTP-1 but will consider the 6700.



Here ya go:

* "OFFICIAL" 2020 Denon AVR Owner's Thread*


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> ALSO - a new feature coming with these D+M models is *dual memory presets*, which means that those who want to optimize Atmos vs DTS:X/Auro layouts can now have separate configs with "Tops" vs "Heights" that can be recalled immediately.


Only took them *4 years*! Finally! This is great news.


----------



## usc1995

In my room I am currently running a 7.2.4 system with one row of seats. The next obvious location to expand my height speakers would be in the Front Height location on my front wall just above my screen. I just confirmed in the 2020 Denon thread that a recognized speaker assignment in the new X6700 is FH, TM and RH. Would Atmos use these designations or would I need to label the TF, TM, TR? Would that be a problem considering the TF would be in the FH location? Curious how that would be labeled for Atmos.


----------



## batpig

usc1995 said:


> In my room I am currently running a 7.2.4 system with one row of seats. The next obvious location to expand my height speakers would be in the Front Height location on my front wall just above my screen. I just confirmed in the 2020 Denon thread that a recognized speaker assignment in the new X6700 is FH, TM and RH. Would Atmos use these designations or would I need to label the TF, TM, TR? Would that be a problem considering the TF would be in the FH location? Curious how that would be labeled for Atmos.


Yes, Atmos works fine in a FH + TM + RH configuration.

The only height locations Atmos doesn't use are the Auro3D specific ones -- Surround Height, Center Height, and Top Surround (aka "Voice of God").

DTS:X Pro is location agnostic so it will now use all the height speakers regardless of designation (although, as is well documented, having FH + RH is ideal as a starting point due to the 7.1.4 fixed mixes on DTS:X discs).


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> Yes, Atmos works fine in a FH + TM + RH configuration.
> 
> The only height locations Atmos doesn't use are the Auro3D specific ones -- Surround Height, Center Height, and Top Surround (aka "Voice of God").
> 
> DTS:X Pro is location agnostic so it will now use all the height speakers regardless of designation (although, as is well documented, having FH + RH is ideal as a starting point due to the 7.1.4 fixed mixes on DTS:X discs).



Great, thanks for the confirmation! Do you know anything about the dynamic tone mapping mentioned in the Denon specs and if it would work for projectors? I know it’s off topic but since you are the resident Denon guru...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

usc1995 said:


> Great, thanks for the confirmation! Do you know anything about the dynamic tone mapping mentioned in the Denon specs and if it would work for projectors? I know it’s off topic but since you are the resident Denon guru...


I believe you are seeing the HDMI 2.1 feature support for Dynamic HDR formats. This is not a feature of the receiver in the sense that it does the dynamic tone mapping internally (like the Panny UB820 does), rather it's just support for the feature in the content (e.g. like supporting Dolby Vision vs. static HDR-10).


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> I believe you are seeing the HDMI 2.1 feature support for Dynamic HDR formats. This is not a feature of the receiver in the sense that it does the dynamic tone mapping internally (like the Panny UB820 does), rather it's just support for the feature in the content (e.g. like supporting Dolby Vision vs. static HDR-10).



Got it thanks. Now I am a tad bit less excited but will still be interested to see how the new AVR’s are received.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

So a little follow-up to the news yesterday, which was initially about DTS:X Pro coming to the 13ch D+M models.

We just found out a tidbit of info that is more directly Atmos related, and will be a very welcome piece of news since people have been complaining about this for years: when the DTS:X Pro firmware update comes, *it will ALSO include some updates to the Dolby Surround Upmixer bringing support (finally!) for upmixing to Front Wide speakers AND the single Surround Back speaker.* Previously, DSU did not upmix to wides or to a single Surround Back (in a 6.1 base layout).

In theory, these DSU updates should also roll out at some point to other higher channel count units, giving end users with FW speakers another option besides Neural:X for upmixing to wides. The usefulness of >11ch layouts is getting a couple of VERY helpful enhancements!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> So a little follow-up to the news yesterday, which was initially about DTS:X Pro coming to the 13ch D+M models.
> 
> We just found out a tidbit of info that is more directly Atmos related, and will be a very welcome piece of news since people have been complaining about this for years: when the DTS:X Pro firmware update comes, *it will ALSO include some updates to the Dolby Surround Upmixer bringing support (finally!) for upmixing to Front Wide speakers AND the single Surround Back speaker.* Previously, DSU did not upmix to wides or to a single Surround Back (in a 6.1 base layout).
> 
> In theory, these DSU updates should also roll out at some point to other higher channel count units, giving end users with FW speakers another option besides Neural:X for upmixing to wides. The usefulness of >11ch layouts is getting a couple of VERY helpful enhancements!



A little healthy competition between Dolby and Xperi is a good thing. I always wondered what Dolby Labs was thinking by eliminating Front Wides from their upmixer. Now, if only they fixed Dolby Surround to have more than two height extraction "channels" spread across the ceiling.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> I always wondered what Dolby Labs was thinking by eliminating Front Wides from their upmixer.


I don't know if you meant "exclude" rather than "eliminate", but to be clear Dolby upmixers have NEVER included Front Wide support. Back in the pre-Atmos days, Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X could upmix to front wides, but Dolby PLII never supported them (nor did DSU from the start). So this isn't a decision they are reversing.

The explanation provided was always something about not wanting to "tamper" with the integrity of the front soundstage by messing with the FR/FL mains. Who knows if that was sincere, but it looks like they are dropping their resistance and acceding to market pressure on this 




Dan Hitchman said:


> Now, if only they fixed Dolby Surround to have more than two height extraction "channels" spread across the ceiling.


TBH this is not something I've every worried about too much, DSU is so "ambient" with what it puts on the ceiling, it's not extracting discrete sounds like Neural:X, so you're not really getting much directional sense above you anyway (and your brain is going to be tricked by the directional cues in the ear level layer anyway). If all it's throwing up on the ceiling speakers is diffuse, decorrelated sounds, it doesn't feel like there's much need for more precise directionality.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

batpig said:


> I don't know if you meant "exclude" rather than "eliminate", but to be clear Dolby upmixers have NEVER included Front Wide support. Back in the pre-Atmos days, Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X could upmix to front wides, but Dolby PLII never supported them (nor did DSU from the start). So this isn't a decision they are reversing.
> 
> The explanation provided was always something about not wanting to "tamper" with the integrity of the front soundstage by messing with the FR/FL mains. Who knows if that was sincere, but it looks like they are dropping their resistance and acceding to market pressure on this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH this is not something I've every worried about too much, DSU is so "ambient" with what it puts on the ceiling, it's not extracting discrete sounds like Neural:X, so you're not really getting much directional sense above you anyway (and your brain is going to be tricked by the directional cues in the ear level layer anyway). If all it's throwing up on the ceiling speakers is diffuse, decorrelated sounds, it doesn't feel like there's much need for more precise directionality.



Yes, I should have said _exclude_. Better choice of words.


----------



## MagnumX

I've read at Audioholics that the reason the DSU center spread option was removed is that it cannot function at the same time as Dolby Height Virtualization and all units that feature Dolby Height Virtualization or firmware updates adding it will have the center spread option removed. Units that don't support Height Virtualization (older AVRs) will leave it intact. Why it cannot be used so long as Height Virtualization is turned off/not used is unclear.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Long time no see all, How's the old gang doing? 

Anyone's else's brain melted by the DTS X Pro layout? Haha

The last time I was on this thread I had verified with someone on here that a lot of Atmos movies (like Disney) do the 7.1.4 bed that doesn't make use of front wides. 

I'm still using the 7.1.4 setup with the DENON X5200W but am considering expanding to front wides if there is a compelling reason to do so by getting either the Denon X8500 or the new 13 channel. 

I'm aware the DSU doesn't utilize the front wides in upmixing but the DTS upmixer does.

In any case, does anyone know if there is a list maintained somewhere of blurays that use the front wides? I did hear on Spare Change that Disney might stop doing the channel limitation because there has been pressure put on the industry. 

I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel? I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above). 

I think it would be cool if we had an Atmos 2.0 that would allow for the use of that center channel and maybe expand it so that you could use the in ceilings and wall mounted heights like DTS X pro at the same time... get the best of both worlds. Sounds coming from above *and* up high from the sides. That would require a lot of speakers and amplifiers though!


----------



## Aras_Volodka

I just read the comment above, I take it Dolby might be allowing for front wides with the upmixer? 

I wasn't sure what's going on with that because in Audioholics coverage of the new Denon nothing was mentioned about front wides.


----------



## PeterTHX

Aras_Volodka said:


> I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel? I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).


DTS:X Pro is just an upmixer though. It's not a format, and DTS:X discs will still be the 7.1.4 layouts we have now. If Atmos mixers wanted a front/above sound they'd mix an object to hover in space between the 2 fronts and the center. With proper imaging you technically wouldn't need a speaker there.


----------



## anothermib

MagnumX said:


> I've read at Audioholics that the reason the DSU center spread option was removed is that it cannot function at the same time as Dolby Height Virtualization and all units that feature Dolby Height Virtualization or firmware updates adding it will have the center spread option removed. Units that don't support Height Virtualization (older AVRs) will leave it intact. Why it cannot be used so long as Height Virtualization is turned off/not used is unclear.



That sounds like a rational explanation at least. Thanks for sharing. I think they are doing themselves a disfavor by not communicating openly and proactively about things like that. It easily comes across as evil machinations, which can’t be in their interest. 
At least this information seems to mean that center spread will not suddenly vanish as part of an update, which is good news for people that are using it.


----------



## oniiz

MagnumX said:


> I've read at Audioholics that the reason the DSU center spread option was removed is that it cannot function at the same time as Dolby Height Virtualization and all units that feature Dolby Height Virtualization or firmware updates adding it will have the center spread option removed. Units that don't support Height Virtualization (older AVRs) will leave it intact. *Why it cannot be used so long as Height Virtualization is turned off/not used is unclear*.


Yes that is what I heard too, seems illogical & a very poor oversight on Dolby's end, surely they could've retained that Surround Parameter setting if they really wanted to, I suppose the name of the game is to give the consumer less flexibility with each passing year.


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> Aras_Volodka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel? I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X Pro is just an upmixer though. It's not a format, and DTS:X discs will still be the 7.1.4 layouts we have now.
Click to expand...

It's still a massive improvement for larger home theaters and it cannot be defeated like Dolby "print-through" 7.1.4 soundtracks.



> If Atmos mixers wanted a front/above sound they'd mix an object to hover in space between the 2 fronts and the center. With proper imaging you technically wouldn't need a speaker there.


That only works for centered seats like a typical MLP. If you're off-center (e.g. Left couch seat), the sound will pull to the nearest speaker (e.g. Left front height) due to the precedence effect. It's the reason we have a center channel speaker in the first place (a centered MLP doesn't need that speaker either to phantom image correctly). 

I think it's a big oversight on Dolby's part to not support center height and top surround for that reason. They have 34 speakers available to improve immersion accuracy for multiple rows and larger rooms and yet direct overhead sounds only image truly correctly for the center seats. Even the cinema version has the same issue. 

Maybe it's less noticeable than dialog due to the sheer quantity of dialog used in most films, but that doesn't mean those locations are any less important than say ss#1 or rsl#1), IMO, perhaps even more so since most home theaters are likely to have more than one seat in a single row than more rows of seating (what the latter example locations are typically needed for).


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Anyone's else's brain melted by the DTS X Pro layout? Haha


Fewer speakers than Atmos, so no brain melting. Besides, that layout was published when DTS:X was originally released, so we've had several years to get used it.


> In any case, does anyone know if there is a list maintained somewhere of blurays that use the front wides?


IF you do a search, you'll find a couple of threads on titles that made good use of Wides.


> I'm also curious what you guys think of the DTS new height front center channel?


Not new (been there since the format was introduced), but useful (improves imaging stability by replacing a phantom image with a hard source). It's in the height layer, so it's nowhere near as critical as the Centre speaker in the base layer. Still, mo speakers = mo better.


> I think that's very cool, as that's one of the blind spots for Atmos (sound coming from in front / above).


Atmos has a pair of speakers high up on the front wall for _"sound coming from in front / above"_.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

sdurani said:


> Fewer speakers than Atmos, so no brain melting. Besides, that layout was published when DTS:X was originally released, so we've had several years to get used it. IF you do a search, you'll find a couple of threads on titles that made good use of Wides. Not new (been there since the format was introduced), but useful (improves imaging stability by replacing a phantom image with a hard source). It's in the height layer, so it's nowhere near as critical as the Centre speaker in the base layer. Still, mo speakers = mo better. Atmos has a pair of speakers high up on the front wall for _"sound coming from in front / above"_.


Thank you, I hadn't been aware because when I saw the first speaker placement diagrams when DTS X was first introduced it seemed ambiguous, for example some seemed to indicate an Atmos layout would suffice while others had an Auro 3D layout. 

We haven't had much in the way of DTS X releases though right? I'm assuming it will be some time before we see a DTS X Pro release and when we do it will probably be few and far between. 

One of the things I found interesting was that Phil Jones mentioned that the two systems are seamless, that if it works on the DTS X Pro layout then the mix is preserved in an Atmos layout due to object rendering, but I don't know if I buy that... it seems the image would be distorted. 

Understood regarding the Atmos high pair in front, but isn't that a little different from a discrete sound as opposed to a sound that's meant to be coming from an in ceiling speaker? (I always thought of that as a trade off, you either have to pick the downfiring vs. projecting) but in this case, with a 13 channel, you can do both? (vs. an 11 channel receiver)


----------



## Aras_Volodka

If you guys got something like the Denon X6700, would you go with front wides or would you put in the high center channel / VOG speaker in ceiling (or the front on wall heights?) 

I'm thinking about making the upgrade this winter or winter 2021


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Aras_Volodka said:


> If you guys got something like the Denon X6700, would you go with front wides or would you put in the high center channel / VOG speaker in ceiling (or the front on wall heights?)
> 
> I'm thinking about making the upgrade this winter or winter 2021



Front Wides given that soon both Neural: X (via DTS: X Pro) and Dolby Surround upmixers will have Front Wide extraction without an 11.1 restriction. Between DTS: X basically being 7.1.4 fixed and Dolby Atmos not having a VOG speaker, I would stick with Front Wides. DTS: X Pro will extract FW's and Dolby Atmos tracks sometimes use them too via objects.


Auro3D is pretty much dead except for their upmixer.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I hadn't been aware because when I saw the first speaker placement diagrams when DTS X was first introduced it seemed ambiguous, for example some seemed to indicate an Atmos layout would suffice while others had an Auro 3D layout.


The main 7.1 speaker locations in the base layer are the same for all 3 formats. It's primarily in the height layer where some of the speaker locations differ. Unlike Auro and Atmos, DTS:X does not have speakers high up on the walls. Their lowest height layer is at 45 degrees elevation. That makes the placement closer to Atmos Top Front and Top Rear. 












> We haven't had much in the way of DTS X releases though right?


DTS:X releases in the US: 52 on BD + 105 on UHD = 133 titles (24 overlap)


> I'm assuming it will be some time before we see a DTS X Pro release and when we do it will probably be few and far between.


No such thing. When you see the term DTS:X Pro on any device, it simply means that the device supports more than 11.1 channels of DTS:X/Neural:X playback. It's not a different format but simply an indicator of hardware that supports more than 11.1 playback.


> Understood regarding the Atmos high pair in front, but isn't that a little different from a discrete sound as opposed to a sound that's meant to be coming from an in ceiling speaker?


I'm not understanding the question. In-ceiling speakers cannot produce discrete sound? The difference between 2 front height speakers vs 3 front height speakers should be the same whether those speakers are mounted in the ceiling or on the ceiling or high up on the front wall. We're talking about replacing a phantom image between 2 speakers with a hard source (3rd speaker).


> (I always thought of that as a trade off, you either have to pick the downfiring vs. projecting) but in this case, with a 13 channel, you can do both? (vs. an 11 channel receiver)


Again, not sure what you're asking. If you want to do 4 height speakers, you can make 2 of them downfiring from the ceiling and 2 of them projecting up using upfiring modules. The ability to do that combination has been around since home Atmos was introduced.


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> We just found out a tidbit of info that is more directly Atmos related, and will be a very welcome piece of news since people have been complaining about this for years: when the DTS:X Pro firmware update comes, *it will ALSO include some updates to the Dolby Surround Upmixer bringing support (finally!) for upmixing to Front Wide speakers AND the single Surround Back speaker.* Previously, DSU did not upmix to wides or to a single Surround Back (in a 6.1 base layout).


Just to give some idea of how long these things take to implement. Licensees were informed about DSU supporting Wides back in June of 2018 and confirmed a few months later at CEDIA in September 2018. And here we are 2 years later (and the upgrade is still 6 months away). 

Likewise, DTS:X Pro (i.e., the ability to support more than 11 speaker locations) was shown during the first public (CES) demo of DTS:X that used a 22.2-speaker layout (pics were posted at AVS). And here we are 5 YEARS later when implementations are finally happening.


----------



## usc1995

Aras_Volodka said:


> If you guys got something like the Denon X6700, would you go with front wides or would you put in the high center channel / VOG speaker in ceiling (or the front on wall heights?)
> 
> I'm thinking about making the upgrade this winter or winter 2021



I think it really depends on your room. My room is not very large at 15.5ft X 10.5ft and so I already have my L and R as wide as possible up front. Front wides for me would not expand the soundstage at all. I am considering the X6700 so I can add a third pair of height speakers giving me a FH, TM, RH setup that would hopefully provide more height separation and increasing the front to back panning in the height layer. The nice thing about this new AVR is that it gives us lots of options! I will probably wait until I see how well the planned December firmware update is received before spending any money as I am pretty happy with my current 7.2.4 system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> Ha! Now I can speak about it /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> I was referring to the announcement of the new D+M models with DTS:X Pro FINALLY coming to the non-Trinnov price point.
> 
> - new model Denon X6700H will have 11 amps, 13ch processing, and DTS:X Pro supporting 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 layouts (including Atmos 7.1.6 with 3 pairs of overheads or Auro 7.1.6 with CH + TS)
> - official word that DTS:X Pro is coming to the AVR-X8500H receiver and AV8805 processor
> 
> Although not explicitly Atmos, we end up discussing all immersive audio in this thread and I thought it was apropos given the discussion about 7.1.6 layouts. This announcement means that those with 7.1.6 and 9.1.4 layouts can finally have all those speakers make noise with DTS:X / Neural:X no longer limited to 11 channels. And, I also got confirmation that the silly quirk which prevents wides from making noise with a 9.1.2 layout with DTS:X native content should be resolved, so 9.1.4 layouts get an upgrade in addition to 7.1.6.
> 
> It also improves IMAX Enhanced, as the discrete CH object (channel 12) can now be produced by the CH speaker, vs phantom imaging between the center + front heights.
> 
> This means that we should see DTS:X Pro continue to trickle down to more models, which is exciting for those of us with higher channel count layouts but without Trinnov budgets.
> 
> ALSO - a new feature coming with these D+M models is *dual memory presets*, which means that those who want to optimize Atmos vs DTS:X/Auro layouts can now have separate configs with "Tops" vs "Heights" that can be recalled immediately.
> 
> The X6700H (which I should have my hands on soon) is going to be a VERY attractive model for moderate budget enthusiasts. Not only does it have 13ch processing, DTS:X Pro, and dual-memory presets, but it has the full "pre-amp mode" which disconnects the amp section making it significantly cleaner as a pre/pro. $2,499msrp for a 13ch pre-amp with 9.1.4/7.1.6 support, Auro3D, DTS:X Pro and IMAX is going to raise some eyebrows.


Do you work for D and M?? Lol

Unfortunately it still has Auddysey-would’ve been interesting if they moved to DIRAC


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> It also improves IMAX Enhanced, as the discrete CH object (channel 12) can now be produced by the CH speaker, vs phantom imaging between the center + front heights.


The DTS:X CH speaker is at 45 degrees elevation while the IMAX Enhanced CH object (channel 12) is encoded at 25 degrees elevation, so it will still have to be reproduced as a phantom image floating between the CH and C speakers (but that's better than using FH and C speakers).


----------



## Aras_Volodka

Dan Hitchman said:


> Front Wides given that soon both Neural: X (via DTS: X Pro) and Dolby Surround upmixers will have Front Wide extraction without an 11.1 restriction. Between DTS: X basically being 7.1.4 fixed and Dolby Atmos not having a VOG speaker, I would stick with Front Wides. DTS: X Pro will extract FW's and Dolby Atmos tracks sometimes use them too via objects.
> 
> 
> Auro3D is pretty much dead except for their upmixer.


Thanks, I think that makes the most sense too! 



sdurani said:


> The main 7.1 speaker locations in the base layer are the same for all 3 formats. It's primarily in the height layer where some of the speaker locations differ. Unlike Auro and Atmos, DTS:X does not have speakers high up on the walls. Their lowest height layer is at 45 degrees elevation. That makes the placement closer to Atmos Top Front and Top Rear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X releases in the US: 52 on BD + 105 on UHD = 133 titles (24 overlap) No such thing. When you see the term DTS:X Pro on any device, it simply means that the device supports more than 11.1 channels of DTS:X/Neural:X playback. It's not a different format but simply an indicator of hardware that supports more than 11.1 playback. I'm not understanding the question. In-ceiling speakers cannot produce discrete sound? The difference between 2 front height speakers vs 3 front height speakers should be the same whether those speakers are mounted in the ceiling or on the ceiling or high up on the front wall. We're talking about replacing a phantom image between 2 speakers with a hard source (3rd speaker). Again, not sure what you're asking. If you want to do 4 height speakers, you can make 2 of them downfiring from the ceiling and 2 of them projecting up using upfiring modules. The ability to do that combination has been around since home Atmos was introduced.


Sorry about the confusion, I think the center height I'm referring to is the setting for IMAX enchanced. 

Thanks for the info regarding DTS X, so basically the DTS X discs are automatically rendered to fit a system that has up to 32 speakers it seems kind of like *real* atmos BD's it seems? 



usc1995 said:


> I think it really depends on your room. My room is not very large at 15.5ft X 10.5ft and so I already have my L and R as wide as possible up front. Front wides for me would not expand the soundstage at all. I am considering the X6700 so I can add a third pair of height speakers giving me a FH, TM, RH setup that would hopefully provide more height separation and increasing the front to back panning in the height layer. The nice thing about this new AVR is that it gives us lots of options! I will probably wait until I see how well the planned December firmware update is received before spending any money as I am pretty happy with my current 7.2.4 system.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thanks for the input, I'm still looking for a home but I anticipate that the dimensions would be similar to yours, but I generally place my front L/R right about a foot or two away from the screen, so there's still space for front wides IMO, I kinda overkill everything though haha.


----------



## PeterTHX

Aras_Volodka said:


> Thanks for the info regarding DTS X, so basically the DTS X discs are automatically rendered to fit a system that has up to 32 speakers it seems kind of like *real* atmos BD's it seems?


No, that's just theoretical if DTS:X actually used objects instead of the 7.1.4 channel mapping it actually uses. They introduced DTS:X Pro to get around the limitation of the source tracks by allowing logic steering to the other locations. It's simulated though, the decoder is guessing where the sounds should go. 

The majority of Dolby Atmos releases are all true 24.1.10 capable.


----------



## MagnumX

DTS has made it clear their diagrams were _never_ supposed to represent absolutes in rendering as the DTS marketing has always been that DTS is meant to be layout agnostic. Given offscreen effects no longer have a visual point of reference, I see no logic fallacy with that position. It makes absolutely _no difference_ in imaging beyond the starting location of the overhead image (which should be placed relative to the screen as off-screen events are still tied to the action on the screen, not some magic number). Anyone who has actually listened to DTS:X movies like the Harry Potter series using Dolby placed "height speakers" knows the action coming off the screen into the room works fine either way. If anything, a broom flying out of the screen past the camera should move smoothly from the screen overhead into the room, not 1/4 the way into the room (which is where 45 degrees typically starts the overheads and that applies to Atmos with Top Fronts as well and the reason "Heights" exist in Atmos in the first place). 

I find it amazing that people can largely _dismiss_ the Center Height speaker from the DTS:X layout as not being all that important compared to the regular center channel while simultaneously harping on and on about how DTS:X "height" speakers should be at exactly 45 degrees or else it's apparently no good. People go out of their way to change the speaker assignments when Atmos actually renders exactly the same in a system that doesn't support both heights and tops (i.e. non-Trinnov) as Dolby always folds overheads into the nearest overheads regardless of their assigned position. As such, _only_ DTS behaves differently for all other processors and it should be set to "heights" if you don't want Neural X activating bed speakers (and it's also needed to use Auro-3D on processors that support it so it's the obvious choice for a triple layout regardless of the physical speaker location (Tops and Height overlap at 45 degrees in Dolby's own guidelines even so clearly they're not that worried about whether your heights are on the front wall above the screen or 1/4 the way out into the room on the ceiling (typical room based layout for 45 degree positioning with 90 in the center of the room) and Dolby is supposedly the more accurate rendering system. If they don't care enough to separate them in the guidelines, how much more so for DTS that claims to be layout agnostic? People are taking too much out of a diagram, IMO.

Personally, I think people should be designing their speaker layouts around their screen and seating positions and the dimensions of the room (30-ish typically being above the screen, 45 @ 1/4, 90 @ 1/2, 135 @ 3/4 and 150-ish @ rear wall), not unchangeable fixed starting angles for overhead speakers, which is precisely why Dolby provided a range of numbers in their guidelines, not absolutes. Most of their layouts are based around a single row of seats and the overheads moved relative to the couch, rather than the room, but once you go beyond one row, it almost has to be room based, not MLP based to make it work correctly every time. After all, real movie theaters have seats continuously throughout the theater, not just one seating location (MLP). Any home theater emulating a smaller version of a real theater should do the same in scale. Angle placement of the various speaker locations should be relative to each other as well, but a little offset only moves the image slightly in any given direction (precedence). It's small, but predictable result.

Meanwhile, Xperi made it clear DTS has no absolutes for playback, just a reference diagram for the studio layout. You're free to match it closely or loosely as you will. Given most people's screen and room size won't match their recording studio layout, it won't sound identical regardless. But having a center height speaker will lock the location for off-axis listeners relative to a given room regardless of its starting position. That is far more important, IMO than the speaker's absolute mounted elevation angle. Of course, if you just have to have it match the diagram precisely for peace of mind that you're hearing as close as you can to the studio mix, you're free to do so. But there's always the real possibility, it was mixed in an Atmos layout recording environment and simply more or less 'rendered' out to DTS:X (fine tuned or not), not separately mixed with an actual DTS:X speaker layout. How would you know? They don't mark it on the box. The few soundtracks I've heard with both Atmos and DTS:X formats available have sounded identical to me in image placment.

As to whether the IMAX Enhanced tracks would put the center height imaging at some phantom location, that's purely a mixing decision. Neural X will render it relative to the speaker locations either way (i.e. if it pans between the two front heights, it will go in a straight line to the center height speaker. If it's mixed lower, it will phantom image with the bed speakers regardless of whether the center height speaker is placed at the same angle or not. Only the internal panning matters. Neural X simply steers it through the hard speaker fully or partially either way.


There is no "guessing" with steered logic in DTS:X Pro either. Steered locations are ALWAYS at 50% intervals (centered). That means sitting at the MLP, the phantom imaging and hard imaging will be identical to each other. Whether it's DTS:X Pro or "Scatmos" or a true rendered Atmos soundtrack, the general location of the sound objects will always be in the same relative locations with the same master mix from the MLP. The only thing that changes is the precision if the imaging (picture a straighter line to its destination versus a more precise curve _if_ the object is moving in an arc; if it's a straight line, there will likely be no real difference at all). In most cases, the difference would be negligible to the human ear, which is why the Atmos Vs. DTS:X Pro arguments are overblown (not to mention with no visual reference, it's hard to say exactly where the sound should be in the room to begin with just by ear). 

On most consumer systems (7.1.4 or less) using an Atmos speaker layout and the height setting in the processor, there is literally no difference I can hear between Atmos and DTS:X renderings of the same soundtrack (easily tested with overlapped titles like Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom and Angry Birds 2 that have both Atmos and DTS:X versions available). How they compare with a Trinnov system using more or even all available speakers (Atmos vs DTS:X versions of the same title) is something on which a Trinnov owner would need to comment. Somehow, I doubt it's worth writing home about the differences ("different" doesn't mean better or worse all by itself).


----------



## batpig

sdurani said:


> The DTS:X CH speaker is at 45 degrees elevation while the IMAX Enhanced CH object (channel 12) is encoded at 25 degrees elevation, so it will still have to be reproduced as a phantom image floating between the CH and C speakers (but that's
> better than using FH and C speakers).


Thanks, I was basing that on the slide Sound United showed in the presentation a few days ago. Although, I suppose, taking a loose "marketing guy" view this is not necessarily contradictory with what you stated since it doesn't say "Ch object signal is output from ONLY the Ch speaker". And what the slide is really trying to communicate is that the Neural:X parameter will "spread" the sound to all speakers.










Although I do find it sort of disappointing that they show a (needlessly) horizontal center speaker for CH, perpetuating the idea that "centers are supposed to be horizontal". 




> Just to give some idea of how long these things take to implement. Licensees were informed about DSU supporting Wides back in June of 2018 and confirmed a few months later at CEDIA in September 2018. And here we are 2 years later (and the upgrade is still 6 months away).


Crazy!


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> I think the center height I'm referring to is the setting for IMAX enchanced.


The IMAX immersive audio format is 12 channels (no .1 / LFE channel) played back over 12 speakers. 7 base layer speakers, 4 overhead speakers, and one Upper Centre speaker right inside the top of the screen (directly above the Centre speaker). 










IMAX encodes their 12-channel soundtracks using the DTS:X format for release on home video as part of the IMAX Enhanced program. The 7 base layer channels and 4 overhead channels are encoded like a typical DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtrack. The Upper Centre channel is encoded as an audio object, because it is not at any of the DTS:X speaker locations. The Upper Centre object is encoded at 25 degrees elevation while the DTS:X Centre Height speaker is at 45 degrees elevation. So the Upper Centre object is reproduced as a phantom image floating above your Centre speaker (hopefully near the top of your screen, like in an IMAX theatre).


> Thanks for the info regarding DTS X, so basically the DTS X discs are automatically rendered to fit a system that has up to 32 speakers it seems kind of like *real* atmos BD's it seems?


The home DTS:X format was designed to natively scale to all 30 speaker locations, using a combination of discrete channels, matrix upmixing and object rendering. Channels are scaled up using a standard 2-in, 3-out (centre extraction) matrix. You can tell that DTS:X was intended to work this way because almost every speaker in their layout is exactly in between adjacent speakers, so you can keep extracting centre outputs from every pair of channels until all speakers are making noise.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

PeterTHX said:


> No, that's just theoretical if DTS:X actually used objects instead of the 7.1.4 channel mapping it actually uses. They introduced DTS:X Pro to get around the limitation of the source tracks by allowing logic steering to the other locations. It's simulated though, the decoder is guessing where the sounds should go.
> 
> The majority of Dolby Atmos releases are all true 24.1.10 capable.


Hmmm was Phil Jones being upfront about this then? He seemed to indicate that DTS X was object based like Atmos (I think this was on Audioholics or Spare Change). But I do remember when DTS X was first introduced if I recall it was marketed as being channel based. Is it possible for DTS X to go object based going forwards>


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Thanks, I was basing that on the slide Sound United showed in the presentation a few days ago. Although, I suppose, taking a loose "marketing guy" view this is not necessarily contradictory with what you stated since it doesn't say "Ch object signal is output from ONLY the Ch speaker". And what the slide is really trying to communicate is that the Neural:X parameter will "spread" the sound to all speakers.
> 
> Although I do find it sort of disappointing that they show a (needlessly) horizontal center speaker for CH, perpetuating the idea that "centers are supposed to be horizontal".
> 
> Crazy!





sdurani said:


> The IMAX immersive audio format is 12 channels (no .1 / LFE channel) played back over 12 speakers. 7 base layer speakers, 4 overhead speakers, and one Upper Centre speaker right inside the top of the screen (directly above the Centre speaker).
> 
> 
> IMAX encodes their 12-channel soundtracks using the DTS:X format for release on home video as part of the IMAX Enhanced program. The 7 base layer channels and 4 overhead channels are encoded like a typical DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtrack. The Upper Centre channel is encoded as an audio object, because it is not at any of the DTS:X speaker locations. The Upper Centre object is encoded at 25 degrees elevation while the DTS:X Centre Height speaker is at 45 degrees elevation. So the Upper Centre object is reproduced as a phantom image floating above your Centre speaker (hopefully near the top of your screen, like in an IMAX theatre). The home DTS:X format was designed to natively scale to all 30 speaker locations, using a combination of discrete channels, matrix upmixing and object rendering. Channels are scaled up using a standard 2-in, 3-out (centre extraction) matrix. You can tell that DTS:X was intended to work this way because almost every speaker in their layout is exactly in between adjacent speakers, so you can keep extracting centre outputs from every pair of channels until all speakers are making noise.


Thank you, that was exactly what I was referring in regards to that center height above the center channel.

So do you guys think it might be worth while to look into installing an extra center channel above the screen if I end up going with the X8500? My plan I think would be to upgrade from 7.1.4 to 9.1.4 on the Denon 6700, but it seems like the X8500 will allow for multiple layouts. If I recall it has 15 inputs, so maybe I could have both front wides for Atmos, then switch to the extra center + VOG for IMAX enhanced.

Though IMAX enchanced looks light on content for the time being, perhaps I might hold off on that until the next upgrade, and maybe save a few pennies by going X6700 for the time being.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> Is it possible for DTS X to go object based going forwards>


Been doing that since the beginning. There are 18 DTS:X titles on Blu-ray, albeit from one studio (Well Go USA), that contain objects. Old Yamaha receivers used to be able to display the exact number of objects.


----------



## sdurani

Aras_Volodka said:


> So do you guys think it might be worth while to look into installing an extra center channel above the screen if I end up going with the X8500?


It will be at the wrong location for DTS:X and IMAX Enhanced but will be in the right location for Auro3D.


----------



## usc1995

sdurani said:


> The IMAX immersive audio format is 12 channels (no .1 / LFE channel) played back over 12 speakers. 7 base layer speakers, 4 overhead speakers, and one Upper Centre speaker right inside the top of the screen (directly above the Centre speaker).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAX encodes their 12-channel soundtracks using the DTS:X format for release on home video as part of the IMAX Enhanced program. The 7 base layer channels and 4 overhead channels are encoded like a typical DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtrack. The Upper Centre channel is encoded as an audio object, because it is not at any of the DTS:X speaker locations. The Upper Centre object is encoded at 25 degrees elevation while the DTS:X Centre Height speaker is at 45 degrees elevation. So the Upper Centre object is reproduced as a phantom image floating above your Centre speaker (hopefully near the top of your screen, like in an IMAX theatre). The home DTS:X format was designed to natively scale to all 30 speaker locations, using a combination of discrete channels, matrix upmixing and object rendering. Channels are scaled up using a standard 2-in, 3-out (centre extraction) matrix. You can tell that DTS:X was intended to work this way because almost every speaker in their layout is exactly in between adjacent speakers, so you can keep extracting centre outputs from every pair of channels until all speakers are making noise.


Hi Sanjay - Do you know which speakers in a 7.2.6 setup with FH, TM, RH height channels are used to render this Upper Centre object? Do you know which speakers in a 7.2.4 setup with TF and TR height channels would do it? Since this location is rendered as an object I guess it is safe to say that we will now see more use of objects in IMAX Enhanced mixes than we have seen so far in regular DTSX mixes. I wonder if that is already the case with the few IMAX Enhanced mixes we already have.


----------



## sdurani

usc1995 said:


> Do you know which speakers in a 7.2.6 setup with FH, TM, RH height channels are used to render this Upper Centre object? Do you know which speakers in a 7.2.4 setup with TF and TR height channels would do it?


The object is encoded to image roughly mid way between the Centre speaker and the DTS:X Front Heights (which are the same as Atmos Top Fronts). If your set-up includes a Centre Height speaker, then the object will image roughly mid way between the Centre speaker and Centre Height speaker.


> Since this location is rendered as an object I guess it is safe to say that we will now see more use of objects in IMAX Enhanced mixes than we have seen so far in regular DTSX mixes.


IMAX immersive soundtracks are 12 channels. Since DTS:X soundtracks are already 11 channels (plus LFE), only one object is needed to encoded the 12th IMAX channel. No need for any more channels or objects for IMAX Enhanced soundtracks.


----------



## PeterTHX

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hmmm was Phil Jones being upfront about this then? He seemed to indicate that DTS X was object based like Atmos (I think this was on Audioholics or Spare Change). But I do remember when DTS X was first introduced if I recall it was marketed as being channel based. Is it possible for DTS X to go object based going forwards>


As Sanjay pointed out, it is indeed channel & object based - but only a handful of titles use it.

DTS themselves, at least in the past, have recommended keeping it locked to 7.1.4 - possibly with DTS:X Pro they'll be more aggressive with it.
But I haven't seen any Universal or Sony titles with objects.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

PeterTHX said:


> As Sanjay pointed out, it is indeed channel & object based - but only a handful of titles use it.
> 
> DTS themselves, at least in the past, have recommended keeping it locked to 7.1.4 - possibly with DTS:X Pro they'll be more aggressive with it.
> But I haven't seen any Universal or Sony titles with objects.



Even if DTS/Xperi starts adding up to 5 objects again to go along with the 7.1.4 base configuration, FilmMixer has at least said in the past that due to limitations with the DTS: X consumer format, it is much easier and faster for an engineer to work with a soundtrack using multiple objects in the Dolby Atmos format. 



Now, if DTS: X stuck to channel-based tracks (up to 16 if the objects are all fixed in position), then it wouldn't be scalable (except with matrix steering logic) like a properly encoded and rendered Dolby Atmos track, but it would probably be easier to work with within these limited parameters.


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Hmmm was Phil Jones being upfront about this then? He seemed to indicate that DTS X was object based like Atmos (I think this was on Audioholics or Spare Change).


Phil was not TECHNICALLY wrong since DTS:X can use objects, as others have noted. However, it was a little bit of his trademark enthusiasm with a little bit of hand waving on the technical side. It's well established that nearly all DTS:X tracks are encoded as 7.1.4 channels, with zero objects used. So Phil's statements about how "you don't have to upgrade the content because objects!" is quite, well, optimistic.




Aras_Volodka said:


> But I do remember when DTS X was first introduced if I recall it was marketed as being channel based.


You need to pass me some of that good stuff my friend because DTS:X was ALWAYS marketed as objects! objects! objects! so many objects! 

The fact that actual content was being encoded as 7.1.4 channels was something tech savvy consumers sniffed out for themselves on forums like this. 

DTS also slow-played the 11 channel limit; they not only bragged about all the objects, they also waxed poetic about how they could scale to any speaker layout. Then it was discovered that the system was capped at 11 channels of output, and it took them FIVE years to release "Pro" which (as Sanjay has noted) is literally just unlocking the full potential they bragged about in 2015.

And, to reiterate, this doesn't imply anything about the way CONTENT is encoded. The 7.1.4 mixes will likely continue and DTS:X will output to any speaker in your layout using Neural:X upmixing.


Just to remind you, I dug up this 2015 DTS press release, here's a choice quote to make my point about how they were selling it in 2015:



> Until recently, sound in movie theaters and in our homes has been dictated by a standardized speaker layout. *Through the use of object-based audio, DTS:X is able to scale immersive soundtrack presentations across a wide range of playback systems*, from efficient to extravagant, while staying true to the content creator's vision. This approach delivers the most authentic three-dimensional audio experience ever, making the audience feel as if they are in the center of the action."
> 
> With flexible speaker layouts and remapping technology, DTS:X allows the placement of home theater speakers virtually anywhere. *The freedom of object-based audio enables optimized playback on a multitude of speaker layouts, with any number of speakers.* The DTS speaker remapping engine supports any speaker configuration within a hemispherical layout based around the listening position in the room.


----------



## sdurani

> the most authentic three-dimensional audio experience ever


I'll admit it: I love marketing hyperbole!


----------



## PeterTHX

Dan Hitchman said:


> FilmMixer has at least said in the past that due to limitations with the DTS: X consumer format, it is much *easier and faster* for an engineer to work with a soundtrack using multiple objects in the Dolby Atmos format.


And easier & faster = cheaper.
The reason DTS-MA dominated Blu-ray over Dolby TrueHD. Initially much easier and faster to encode, even though technically TrueHD is a more efficient codec (even the Atmos tracks often take less bandwidth and disc space than their 5.1 DTS-MA versions seen on WB discs) and takes much less DSP horsepower to decode.


----------



## usc1995

sdurani said:


> The object is encoded to image roughly mid way between the Centre speaker and the DTS:X Front Heights (which are the same as Atmos Top Fronts). If your set-up includes a Centre Height speaker, then the object will image roughly mid way between the Centre speaker and Centre Height speaker. IMAX immersive soundtracks are 12 channels. Since DTS:X soundtracks are already 11 channels (plus LFE), only one object is needed to encoded the 12th IMAX channel. No need for any more channels or objects for IMAX Enhanced soundtracks.


So the best layout for IMAX Enhanced performance would be with the common 7.1.4 layout + a Centre Height speaker? Given the lack of content we have seen I don't see myself doing that. While it is awesome that the new Denon's included 2 separate speaker presets, it seems that they should have included 4 for the best layouts for Atmos, DTSX, IMAX and Auro.


----------



## sdurani

usc1995 said:


> So the best layout for IMAX Enhanced performance would be with the common 7.1.4 layout + a Centre Height speaker? Given the lack of content we have seen I don't see myself doing that.


Not worth it solely for IMAX Enhanced, but DTS:X and Auro3D can both use a Centre Height speaker.


----------



## Jon AA

batpig said:


> Phil was not TECHNICALLY wrong since DTS:X can use objects, as others have noted. However, it was a little bit of his trademark enthusiasm with a little bit of hand waving on the technical side. It's well established that nearly all DTS:X tracks are encoded as 7.1.4 channels, with zero objects used. So Phil's statements about how "you don't have to upgrade the content because objects!" is quite, well, optimistic.


Will they not be more "expandable" than some of the locked Atmos tracks though? With the way the Neural:X upmixer works, extracting every sound--out of channels, even if there are no objects--for an "in-between" location and putting it in a speaker when one is available, I would tend to think the end result should still be quite good regardless of a track being "pre-rendered" into 7.1.4. 



It has been well documented how many 7.1.4 Atmos "prints" will leave the middle heights (when one has a .6 top layout) and wides mostly silent. I don't see this happening with DTS:X Pro. So while Phil may have been technically wrong about how it's happening (with a "pre-rendered" 7.1.4 track), he might be right about the end result.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Jon AA said:


> Will they not be more "expandable" than some of the locked Atmos tracks though? With the way the Neural:X upmixer works, extracting every sound--out of channels, even if there are no objects--for an "in-between" location and putting it in a speaker when one is available, I would tend to think the end result should still be quite good regardless of a track being "pre-rendered" into 7.1.4.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been well documented how many 7.1.4 Atmos "prints" will leave the middle heights (when one has a .6 top layout) and wides mostly silent. I don't see this happening with DTS:X Pro. So while Phil may have been technically wrong about how it's happening (with a "pre-rendered" 7.1.4 track), he might be right about the end result.



Having heard a DTS: X Pro presentation at the Trinnov/Triad booth at CEDIA, I will say that, to me, the 3D sound scape is "fuzzier" and less distinct than a really good Dolby Atmos track. Easier to compare too because the same movie clips have been making the rounds at trade shows in Dolby Atmos as well.



Matrix steering is just not as good as discrete audio. 



One can only hope that Dolby Labs has a sit down with the post houses on proper practices for mixing and encoding Atmos tracks, so we get fewer and fewer "screwy" Atmos encodes.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Matrix steering is just not as good as discrete audio.


It's better than no audio. In the real world, DTS:X playback on high speaker count systems is a choice between matrix derived audio and no audio (silent speakers). It's not a choice between matrix steering and discrete audio. Centre extraction is rock solid at this point, certainly compared to the hesitation and pumping of old matrix surround processing. With 11 or more speakers producing sound, listeners won't be able to tell matrix from discrete.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> It's better than no audio. In the real world, DTS:X playback on high speaker count systems is a choice between matrix derived audio and no audio (silent speakers). It's not a choice between matrix steering and discrete audio. Centre extraction is rock solid at this point, certainly compared to the hesitation and pumping of old matrix surround processing. With 11 or more speakers producing sound, listeners won't be able to tell matrix from discrete.



Some listeners won't be able to tell, but as I mentioned above, the DTS: X tracks presented by DTS using DTS: X Pro via the Trinnov did not have placement as solid as the Dolby Atmos versions of those same movies. I've heard them before at other booths and other venues. If anything the DTS: X Pro versions seemed less distinct and "mushier" in their immersive sound placement. Steve Colburn, formally of Triad, chatted with me outside the booth and seemed to agree with my general assessment of the situation, and he's been involved with Dolby on their home Atmos project for a lot longer than any of us.


----------



## batpig

Jon AA said:


> Will they not be more "expandable" than some of the locked Atmos tracks though? With the way the Neural:X upmixer works, extracting every sound--out of channels, even if there are no objects--for an "in-between" location and putting it in a speaker when one is available, I would tend to think the end result should still be quite good regardless of a track being "pre-rendered" into 7.1.4.
> 
> It has been well documented how many 7.1.4 Atmos "prints" will leave the middle heights (when one has a .6 top layout) and wides mostly silent. I don't see this happening with DTS:X Pro. So while Phil may have been technically wrong about how it's happening (with a "pre-rendered" 7.1.4 track), he might be right about the end result.


Yes, you are basically correct. If the goal is to have all the speakers make noise all the time, then the DTS method of starting with a 7.1.4 channel track is more "expandable"... certainly when compared to a 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 "locked" Atmos track since the Atmos decoder has no upmixing capability, so what you get is what you get. Whereas Atmos just plays the 11-15 audio elements as provided, so the extra speakers will only make noise if a dynamic object moves through that point in space, DTS:X has the ability to apply Neural:X upmixing to the channel portion of the mix and "spread" it to the extra speakers.

In theory, Atmos is infinitely expandable, and when you get a good Atmos mix it is superior to matrix extraction "spreading" the sound around (cleaner, more precise).

But, Sanjay really hit upon the crux of the issue. Good Atmos vs. upmixing 7.1.4 is a false choice. As a consumer, it's really "a choice between matrix derived audio and no audio (silent speakers)". I know for sure that in my case, I prefer the extra speakers to make noise. If I went to the trouble of installing a 9.1.4 setup, and a spaceship flies off screen from the FL speaker to the SL speaker, I want it to pass through the FWL speaker dangit!!


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS: X tracks presented by DTS using DTS: X Pro via the Trinnov did not have placement as solid as the Dolby Atmos versions of those same movies.


That choice doesn't exist, at least for us consumers. We don't get to choose Atmos or DTS:X when buying/renting/streaming a particular movie title. The ONLY choice with DTS:X tracks is whether you want all your speakers to produce sound or just 11 of them (with the rest silent).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> That choice doesn't exist, at least for us consumers. We don't get to choose Atmos or DTS:X when buying/renting/streaming a particular movie title. The ONLY choice with DTS:X tracks is whether you want all your speakers to produce sound or just 11 of them (with the rest silent).



Too bad we have to choose between silent speakers and a less than ideal presentation of the artists' intentions with all the speakers spitting out audio even if the placement is wrong. 



It seems as though both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X for the home were not thought out well enough by their respective companies.


----------



## batpig

usc1995 said:


> So the best layout for IMAX Enhanced performance would be with the common 7.1.4 layout + a Centre Height speaker? Given the lack of content we have seen I don't see myself doing that. While it is awesome that the new Denon's included 2 separate speaker presets, it seems that they should have included 4 for the best layouts for Atmos, DTSX, IMAX and Auro.


You don't really need 4, since 12ch IMAX adheres very closely to the 13.1ch Auro3D layout, and DTS:X is (in theory) fine with either layout. Also, of course, IMAX is DTS:X, they aren't fundamentally different formats.

The only meaningful variable in this context is whether the front/rear overheads are labeled "Top" or "Height". 

If they are labeled "Height", then Auro3D and DTS:X (and IMAX) are happy. If they are labeled "Top", then arguably Atmos is happier.

And since the X6700H has 13 speaker outputs, you can't flip between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 in any case.

Let's say you have the 7.1.6 layout depicted below, basically a 7.1.4 Atmos layout with the addition of Center Height and Top Surround. 
- For Atmos, you switch to the "Top Front/Rear" mode and it plays in 7.1.4. Atmos is happy.
- For Auro3D, you switch to "Front/Rear Height" mode and it plays in 13.1ch Auro3D
- In "Height mode", a DTS:X track will play as 7.1.4 with Neural:X off, and 7.1.6 with Neural:X on to upmix the audio
- An IMAX 12ch track will play as 12ch with Neural:X off (left image below) and if you turn Neural:X on then the TS gets upmixed audio (right image below)











If you happen to have an AV8805/X8500H, now there's 15 speakers outputs with 13ch processing. So you can add Front Wide to the above speaker layout, so Atmos (and DTS:X if you use that layout) will play as 9.1.4. 

Unfortunately, since the dual memory presets aren't coming to those models, you would have to use the Audyssey App (or USB saved profile) if you want to swap between "Height" vs "Top" labels. To me, it's not worth the effort since Atmos behaves just fine with FH+RH designation, so if I were really concerned about maximizing performance of non-Atmos formats on a model without the dual-memory slots I would just call them "Front Height + Rear Height" and move on.


----------



## batpig

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad we have to choose between silent speakers and a less than ideal presentation of the artists' intentions with all the speakers spitting out audio even if the placement is wrong.


Why would the placement be wrong? If a sound is supposed to come from the FWL position, and it's downmixed to FL + SL in the 7.1.4 version, a matrix extract of that sound should "recover" the placement pretty effectively. You're just converting a phantom image into a physical speaker.

Matrix encode/decode has been effectively for decades, and is fairly robust in terms of placing sounds. So I don't think that's a fair criticism. I think it's more the "precision" is not going to be as pin-point perfect, vs the "placement" being wrong. But IMO a matrix derived sound to a hard speaker location is superior to a phantom image, especially for off-axis listeners.




Dan Hitchman said:


> It seems as though both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X for the home were not thought out well enough by their respective companies.


Dan, that's only true from the very narrowly framed perspective of the high channel count enthusiasts frustrated with mixers not using the tools effectively. What percentage of consumers / end-users are even AWARE of these "problems", let alone impacted by them?

From a broader perspective, especially with Atmos, I would say these technologies were pretty well though out and effectively deliver a toolkit which balances the goal of translating immersive audio to the home theater environment with the constraints of reduced bandwidth of the content delivery systems + reduced spatial resolution of reduced speaker counts. I can't really blame Dolby for mixers not using the tools effectively, no more than it's the 5.1 format's fault if mixers don't utilize the surrounds as much as I'd like.

Think about how effectively Dolby Atmos has penetrated the consumer AV market, from soundbars and headphones to basic 5.1.2 setups and high-end 20+ speaker theaters; from 4K discs to streaming services and soon broadcast, with mixers able to efficiently create their deliverables for these various formats and have the intent translate fairly faithfully. That's a pretty big win, and I think Dolby execs would chuckle if they heard the assertion that home Atmos wasn't "thought out well enough".


----------



## howard68

Hi 
So if I understand it 
If you set up for Auro 3d sound and use side hight speakers DTS X will be able to use them as well on that preset? 

Regards 
H


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> Hi
> So if I understand it
> If you set up for Auro 3d sound and use side hight speakers DTS X will be able to use them as well on that preset?
> 
> Regards
> H


Yes, DTS:X is location agnostic and can "remap" to any speaker layout in theory.

That said, unless you REALLY want to prioritize Auro3D performance, I would recommend a Front Height + Rear Height designation / placement since DTS:X mixes are optimized for this placement, and it doesn't really hurt Auro3D (the Surr Height info just gets relocated to Rear Height speakers, there's not "remapping" or matrix upmixing with Auro3D).


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> Yes, DTS:X is location agnostic and can "remap" to any speaker layout in theory.
> 
> That said, unless you REALLY want to prioritize Auro3D performance, I would recommend a Front Height + Rear Height designation / placement since DTS:X mixes are optimized for this placement, and it doesn't really hurt Auro3D (the Surr Height info just gets relocated to Rear Height speakers, there's not "remapping" or matrix upmixing with Auro3D).


Do you happen to know where the Surround Height speakers in Auro are supposed to be located? Are they just above the left and right surrounds (typically at 90 degrees) or are they more forward? I have been going through the mental exercise of deploying speakers in all of the recommended locations and using a mix of rca y cables, external amplifiers and the new speaker presets the new X6700 will have to cover every possible playback scenario that will fit in my room. I might be able to do it using my current receiver with multizone capabilities, my external 2 channel amp currently powering my rear surrounds and six new speakers for center height, top surround and surround height positions. I may have found my upgrade path for the next 5 years! Until DTSX Ultimate and Dolby Atmos SPX get announced requiring all new gear /s.


----------



## sdurani

usc1995 said:


> Do you happen to know where the Surround Height speakers in Auro are supposed to be located?


Directly above the Surrounds. 










Except for the VOG speaker(s), Auro3D height layer speakers get placed directly above their base layer speakers.


----------



## farsider3000

sdurani said:


> Directly above the Surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the VOG speaker(s), Auro3D height layer speakers get placed directly above their base layer speakers.




Lol in looking at the example room with no acoustic treatment there would be very little ability to localize sounds due to all the reflection and echo 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## usc1995

sdurani said:


> Directly above the Surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the VOG speaker(s), Auro3D height layer speakers get placed directly above their base layer speakers.


Thanks!


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> Let's say you have the 7.1.6 layout depicted below, basically a 7.1.4 Atmos layout with the addition of Center Height and Top Surround.
> - For Atmos, you switch to the "Top Front/Rear" mode and it plays in 7.1.4. Atmos is happy.
> - For Auro3D, you switch to "Front/Rear Height" mode and it plays in 13.1ch Auro3D
> - In "Height mode", a DTS:X track will play as 7.1.4 with Neural:X off, and 7.1.6 with Neural:X on to upmix the audio
> -* An IMAX 12ch track will play as 12ch with Neural:X off (left image below) and if you turn Neural:X on then the TS gets upmixed audio (right image below)*


I did not see a speaker connection option in the manual for the X6700h that will allow for 4H + TS + CH. Is that an option only or the 8500?


----------



## batpig

usc1995 said:


> I did not see a speaker connection option in the manual for the X6700h that will allow for 4H + TS + CH. Is that an option only or the 8500?


See pg 69, although it shows Surr Height instead of Rear Height there's a footnote on the bottom right about using Rear Height instead of Surr Height to increase Atmos compatibility. 

Auro3D sends the same signal to Rear Height as Surr Height so no penalty from the Auro3D side.











The CH/TS hook up to the "Height 3 / Front Wide" outputs. 

Be aware however that the X6700H only has 13 speaker connections, vs the 15 connections on the X8500H/AV8805 (which have a separate Front Wide / Height 4 output and 3 dedicated Height 1/2/3 outputs).

So you CANNOT hook up a 9.1.6 speaker setup to the X6700H and switch between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 by changing profiles, at least not without using an external speaker switch of some type downstream. Because the Height3 and Front Wide speakers share the same physical outputs.

The X8500H also has the advantage of being able to turn on/off internal amps and remap internal outputs basically at will using the "Custom" amp assign mode. So if you wanted to get really freaky and had some external amps to power the main 5-7 channels, you could in theory hook up more than 15 speakers and swap profiles from the Audyssey App for different layouts.


----------



## usc1995

batpig said:


> So you CANNOT hook up a 9.1.6 speaker setup to the X6700H and switch between 9.1.4 and 7.1.6 by changing profiles, at least not without using an external speaker switch of some type downstream. Because the Height3 and Front Wide speakers share the same physical outputs.
> 
> The X8500H also has the advantage of being able to turn on/off internal amps and remap internal outputs basically at will using the "Custom" amp assign mode. So if you wanted to get really freaky and had some external amps to power the main 5-7 channels, you could in theory hook up more than 15 speakers and swap profiles from the Audyssey App for different layouts.


I have some ideas about using some RCA Y connectors and external amps and just muting certain zones at different times for playback of the different upmixers. I will take this discussion to the Denon thread if I decide to purchase the 6700 since this is off topic here. Thanks for the help!


----------



## airlung

I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby atoms speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference Dolby atoms enhance And a normal speaker anyways? Can I use them as normal speakers?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

airlung said:


> I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby Atmos speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference between a Dolby Atmos "enhanced" and a normal speaker anyway? Can I use them as normal speakers?



Yes, these KEF models are just like SVS Prime Elevation speakers with key hole mounts. They can be used as on-wall speakers (just not on-ceiling like the Elevations as they don't have the correct mounting blocks). Just make sure they are set as Height speakers in the receiver if being used in the manner you are describing, rather than "enabled" Atmos speakers. 



Some Atmos modules are not designed for use as normal wall mount speakers due to their unique designs. You don't have to worry with the q50a model.


----------



## tommarra

Genuine question folks - is it even worth caring a bit about DTSX format given that Atmos has won the immersive format war? All streaming services and most Blu-ray Discs have Atmos tracks and only very few houses present in DTSX.

Why should I as a consumer care about it? Thoughts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

tommarra said:


> Genuine question folks - is it even worth caring a bit about DTSX format given that Atmos has won the immersive format war? All streaming services and most Blu-ray Discs have Atmos tracks and only very few houses present in DTSX.
> 
> Why should I as a consumer care about it? Thoughts
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



There are still a good number of DTSX releases already available and many planned. I believe Sony is expected to release a number of IMAX Enhanced titles which is based on DTSX technology. Even if you never purchase a DTSX disc and stream everything you watch you may prefer to upmix your audio via DTS’s up mixer Neural X as it tends to be more aggressive in its use of height channels over DSU’s focus on ambiance. Until everything is available with an Atmos track DTSX and Neural X will still be a welcome choice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> Phil was not TECHNICALLY wrong since DTS:X can use objects, as others have noted. However, it was a little bit of his trademark enthusiasm with a little bit of hand waving on the technical side. It's well established that nearly all DTS:X tracks are encoded as 7.1.4 channels, with zero objects used. So Phil's statements about how "you don't have to upgrade the content because objects!" is quite, well, optimistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pass me some of that good stuff my friend because DTS:X was ALWAYS marketed as objects! objects! objects! so many objects!
> 
> The fact that actual content was being encoded as 7.1.4 channels was something tech savvy consumers sniffed out for themselves on forums like this.
> 
> DTS also slow-played the 11 channel limit; they not only bragged about all the objects, they also waxed poetic about how they could scale to any speaker layout. Then it was discovered that the system was capped at 11 channels of output, and it took them FIVE years to release "Pro" which (as Sanjay has noted) is literally just unlocking the full potential they bragged about in 2015.
> 
> And, to reiterate, this doesn't imply anything about the way CONTENT is encoded. The 7.1.4 mixes will likely continue and DTS:X will output to any speaker in your layout using Neural:X upmixing.
> 
> 
> Just to remind you, I dug up this 2015 DTS press release, here's a choice quote to make my point about how they were selling it in 2015:


Please forgive me as I've been out of this game for a while. Back in 2014/2015 I was on here daily but then got hit hard economically so I just lived with my setup and didn't worry about upgrades until recently. Thank goodness that the Atmos catalogue built up because that first year was rough! 

I've been on the forums sporadically over the last 5 years, but I did get to meet Sanjay once and hung out with Stewart a few times. 

But yeah, this is all I need to know. I will probably stick with my Atmos layout for the time being. I think next year we will buy a house and I will prewire the room for whatever potential layouts there might be in the future, but it seems if I do upgrade the best route will be to go from 7.1.4 to 9.1.4 with the X6700 so that I can experience front wides. I'd likely live with that setup until 2030 or so unless if we enter a great depression or if the film studio industry implodes. 

I don't own much DTS X stuff anyway... just the Harry Potter UHD's and Crimson peak.


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> Why would the placement be wrong? If a sound is supposed to come from the FWL position, and it's downmixed to FL + SL in the 7.1.4 version, a matrix extract of that sound should "recover" the placement pretty effectively. You're just converting a phantom image into a physical speaker.


That is exactly what I was saying in regards to the top middle speaker discussion earlier and so-called _Scatmos_ (using steered pro logic to create a mid-point set of speakers like Top Middle). A 50% center point is the same whether it's rendered or steered as are all panning percentage points along the way. I also don't believe there's any "sharpness" difference between a phantom image and a steered center if identical speakers are used and placed precisely (tested with the center channel spread mode of DSU; it sounds identical on or off here from the MLP). But off-axis there's a real difference. 

Even if one prefers Atmos, DTS:X Pro is still a step up from regular DTS:X and hard speakers are almost always preferable to phantom images, especially for off-axis seats as it helps to defeat the precedence effect (which actually DOES put images in the wrong place as it pulls to the nearest speaker when you sit off-center).




> Matrix encode/decode has been effectively for decades, and is fairly robust in terms of placing sounds. So I don't think that's a fair criticism. I think it's more the "precision" is not going to be as pin-point perfect, vs the "placement" being wrong. But IMO a matrix derived sound to a hard speaker location is superior to a phantom image, especially for off-axis listeners.


Exactly. As long as the speakers are the same quality and placed correctly, a hard source is almost always preferable to a phantom one for that very reason (off-axis listeners).



sdurani said:


> That choice doesn't exist, at least for us consumers. We don't get to choose Atmos or DTS:X when buying/renting/streaming a particular movie title. The ONLY choice with DTS:X tracks is whether you want all your speakers to produce sound or just 11 of them (with the rest silent).


That's largely, but not entirely true these days. _Some_ titles lately are now available in both DTS:X and Dolby Atmos. The choice is usually streaming versus Blu-Ray, however. (and there's also some overlap with Auro-3D and Atmos as well; in fact I know of only two Auro-3D titles that are exclusive at the moment (_Death Machine_ and _Red Tails_), although a couple of them have different master mixes such as Johnny Mnemonic)

A few examples of titles with Atmos and DTS:X mixes available in some form or the other on home video:

*Top Gun* (Dolby Atmos on BD and UHD BD and iTunes streaming; An Imax Enhanced version with DTS:X is available for streaming on Fandango Now)
*Angry Birds II* (DTS:X with Imax Enhanced is available on UHD BD; Dolby Atmos is available on streaming such as iTunes)
*Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom* (DTS:X is available on UHD BD and regular BD; Dolby Atmos is available on streaming such as iTunes)

I'm sure as Imax Enhanced titles start appearing in quantity (a couple hundred UHD BDs are scheduled to become available over the next year or so according to Sony; Paramount and I think at least one other studio are releasing titles on Fandango Now), you'll see a lot more dual Atmos/X options available. For 7.1.4 systems, I don't see any major difference in how they sound. But with extra speakers in play (e.g. Center Height and Top Surround with DTS:X) there could be a substantial difference in some home theaters, especially for off-axis listeners. Ideally, it would be nice if Neural X in the future could be used to upmix Atmos itself for those speakers when they're available for the same reason. Now that Dolby has rescinded its upmixing restrictions (which included Atmos in the letter I read), it could at least theoretically be done in the future. I would have preferred Dolby and DTS/Auro work together to support the same basic layouts, but that clearly didn't happen.


----------



## leefarber

I currently have a 5.1 system. Now that I've upgraded from the Marantz 8801 to the 8805, I am installing four in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.

My mains are 10' away from the couch (which is the main listening position), and the couch is against the back wall of the room. My surrounds are on floor stands at opposite ends of the couch. It seems that ideally, two of the ceiling speakers would be a bit in front of the couch and two would would be a bit behind. Can someone please advise what I should do given that my MLP is against the back wall fo the room?

BTW, the ceiling speakers are Klipsch 5650 II's, so they can be aimed slightly.

Here's one pic from the MLP (the couch) and another of the reverse angle. As you can see, it's a small townhouse, and the couch is against the staircase. I was planning on putting one set of two ceiling speakers about a third of the way from the mains to the MLP, and the second set as far back as I can (which is pretty much directly above the MLP). Is that correct?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## airlung

Dan Hitchman said:


> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby Atmos speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference between a Dolby Atmos "enhanced" and a normal speaker anyway? Can I use them as normal speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, these KEF models are just like SVS Prime Elevation speakers with key hole mounts. They can be used as on-wall speakers (just not on-ceiling like the Elevations as they don't have the correct mounting blocks). Just make sure they are set as Height speakers in the receiver if being used in the manner you are describing, rather than "enabled" Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Atmos modules are not designed for use as normal wall mount speakers due to their unique designs. You don't have to worry with the q50a model.
Click to expand...


But are they supposed to be designed to upward Firing? That should be a different design from normal speakers


----------



## Dan Hitchman

airlung said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby Atmos speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference between a Dolby Atmos "enhanced" and a normal speaker anyway? Can I use them as normal speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, these KEF models are just like SVS Prime Elevation speakers with key hole mounts. They can be used as on-wall speakers (just not on-ceiling like the Elevations as they don't have the correct mounting blocks). Just make sure they are set as Height speakers in the receiver if being used in the manner you are describing, rather than "enabled" Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Atmos modules are not designed for use as normal wall mount speakers due to their unique designs. You don't have to worry with the q50a model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But are they supposed to be designed to upward Firing? That should be a different design from normal speakers
Click to expand...

These particular KEF speaker models are more like wall mount speakers than upfiring "bounce" speakers. They are basically standard small bookshelf speakers with a built-in angled front baffle.


----------



## airlung

Dan Hitchman said:


> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby Atmos speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference between a Dolby Atmos "enhanced" and a normal speaker anyway? Can I use them as normal speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx so much for your advise. I find the mounting the q50a on wall as front height have better atom effective than having them up firing. Just like to know if they are “qualified” as a normal height speaker
> 
> Yes, these KEF models are just like SVS Prime Elevation speakers with key hole mounts. They can be used as on-wall speakers (just not on-ceiling like the Elevations as they don't have the correct mounting blocks). Just make sure they are set as Height speakers in the receiver if being used in the manner you are describing, rather than "enabled" Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Atmos modules are not designed for use as normal wall mount speakers due to their unique designs. You don't have to worry with the q50a model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But are they supposed to be designed to upward Firing? That should be a different design from normal speakers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These particular KEF speaker models are more like wall mount speakers than upfiring "bounce" speakers. They are basically standard small bookshelf speakers with a built-in angled front baffle.
Click to expand...


Thx so much for your advise. I find the mounting the q50a on wall as front height have better atom effective than having them up firing. Just like to know if they are “qualified” as a normal height speaker


----------



## airlung

airlung said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby Atmos speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference between a Dolby Atmos "enhanced" and a normal speaker anyway? Can I use them as normal speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx so much for your advise. I find the mounting the q50a on wall as front height have better atom effective than having them up firing. Just like to know if they are “qualified” as a normal height speaker
> 
> Yes, these KEF models are just like SVS Prime Elevation speakers with key hole mounts. They can be used as on-wall speakers (just not on-ceiling like the Elevations as they don't have the correct mounting blocks). Just make sure they are set as Height speakers in the receiver if being used in the manner you are describing, rather than "enabled" Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Atmos modules are not designed for use as normal wall mount speakers due to their unique designs. You don't have to worry with the q50a model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But are they supposed to be designed to upward Firing? That should be a different design from normal speakers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These particular KEF speaker models are more like wall mount speakers than upfiring "bounce" speakers. They are basically standard small bookshelf speakers with a built-in angled front baffle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thx so much for your advise. I find the mounting the q50a on wall as front height have better atom effective than having them up firing. Just like to know if they are “qualified” as a normal height speaker
Click to expand...

And I check that the q50a have frequency response of 105Hz-18.5kHz (±3dB), while other book shelf have much lower frequency respond.... am I missing out on something?


----------



## AYanguas

leefarber said:


> I currently have a 5.1 system. Now that I've upgraded from the Marantz 8801 to the 8805, I am installing four in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.
> 
> My mains are 10' away from the couch (which is the main listening position), and the couch is against the back wall of the room. My surrounds are on floor stands at opposite ends of the couch. It seems that ideally, two of the ceiling speakers would be a bit in front of the couch and two would would be a bit behind. Can someone please advise what I should do given that my MLP is against the back wall fo the room?
> 
> BTW, the ceiling speakers are Klipsch 5650 II's, so they can be aimed slightly.
> 
> Here's one pic from the MLP (the couch) and another of the reverse angle. As you can see, it's a small townhouse, and the couch is against the staircase. I was planning on putting one set of two ceiling speakers about a third of the way from the mains to the MLP, and the second set as far back as I can (which is pretty much directly above the MLP). Is that correct?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


That's not an ideal position for 4 Top Speakers. Perhaps some others would answer about if it is worth only 2 Top Middle speakers, located just a little bit advanced over the MLP, instead of the 4 Tops speakers that you propose.

As an alternative, looking into your pictures, It seems to me that it would be better to change the front TV/mains position to the Mirror wall, and use the other couch as the MLP. This way you would have more ceiling space to locate properly the 4 Top Atmos speakers. But I cannot evaluate how difficult that would be. Just in case you didn't thought about that.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Ideally, it would be nice if Neural X in the future could be used to upmix Atmos itself for those speakers when they're available for the same reason. Now that Dolby has rescinded its upmixing restrictions (which included Atmos in the letter I read), it could at least theoretically be done in the future.


Neural:X can be applied to DTS:X soundtracks because the majority of those tracks are encoded as 7.1.4 channels and currently make no use of extra speakers beyond that. Because Atmos soundtracks use (or are supposed to use) objects to move through locations in space and theoretically should pan through any speakers in that space, there is nothing to "upmix." 

How would the receiver distinguish between _good_ Atmos soundtracks that properly use those objects and _bad_ ones (like Disney) that are 7.1.4 print-outs? Is there something in the metadata to tell the processor about this? How would it know what to do with Atmos tracks like M:I Fallout that are simply mixed strangely to ignore Top Middle speakers even when sounds logically ought to come from them?


----------



## leefarber

AYanguas said:


> That's not an ideal position for 4 Top Speakers. Perhaps some others would answer about if it is worth only 2 Top Middle speakers, located just a little bit advanced over the MLP, instead of the 4 Tops speakers that you propose.
> 
> As an alternative, looking into your pictures, It seems to me that it would be better to change the front TV/mains position to the Mirror wall, and use the other couch as the MLP. This way you would have more ceiling space to locate properly the 4 Top Atmos speakers. But I cannot evaluate how difficult that would be. Just in case you didn't thought about that.


Thanks so much for responding. Unfortunately I can’t reconfigure everything against that mirrored wall for a number of reasons. Given that the mains are 10’ from the MLP, could I have one pair of in-ceiling speakers 5 ‘ from the mains, and one pair directly above the MLP, but angled slightly so they fire behind?


----------



## Jonas2

leefarber said:


> My mains are 10' away from the couch (which is the main listening position), and the couch is against the back wall of the room. My surrounds are on floor stands at opposite ends of the couch. It seems that ideally, two of the ceiling speakers would be a bit in front of the couch and two would would be a bit behind. Can someone please advise what I should do given that my MLP is against the back wall fo the room?
> 
> Here's one pic from the MLP (the couch) and another of the reverse angle. As you can see, it's a small townhouse, and the couch is against the staircase. I was planning on putting one set of two ceiling speakers about a third of the way from the mains to the MLP, and the second set as far back as I can (which is pretty much directly above the MLP). Is that correct?


You might want to check out the speakers setup guides for Atmos at Dolby's website. Yes, ideally if you are using 4 speakers, you'd place two forward and two rearward of the MLP by a fair measure, as top front and top rear. But in your case due to seating, you could do top front, and top middle. Now, I've not tried that directly, but I'm gonna guess that this is slightly better than just top middle, but not nearly as good as top front/top rear designations. I'll let somebody that has actually done so speak more to that. You could always just go with top middle and only 2 speakers. 



leefarber said:


> Thanks so much for responding. Unfortunately I can’t reconfigure everything against that mirrored wall for a number of reasons. Given that the mains are 10’ from the MLP, could I have one pair of in-ceiling speakers 5 ‘ from the mains, and one pair directly above the MLP, but angled slightly so they fire behind?


Not configured as top rear, if that's what you mean. Even if they were aimed into space behind the MLP, the sound is still not coming form behind, and I don't think you'd be able to achieve a convincing bounce. Just my opinion though...


----------



## sdurani

tommarra said:


> Why should I as a consumer care about it? Thoughts


You shouldn't care about either format. Whether you're doing 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, the speaker locations for Atmos and DTS:X are close enough that one layout can satisfy both formats. Whether you're playing an Atmos title or DTS:X title, it will be automatically detected and properly decoded in even the cheapest of modern AVRs. As a consumer, all you should care about is the movie, not the format (that part is designed to be invisible to consumers).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

airlung said:


> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airlung said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a pair of KEF q50a Dolby Atmos speakers and I am just wondering if I can use them as wall mount front height speakers? What is the difference between a Dolby Atmos "enhanced" and a normal speaker anyway? Can I use them as normal speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx so much for your advise. I find the mounting the q50a on wall as front height have better atom effective than having them up firing. Just like to know if they are “qualified” as a normal height speaker
> 
> Yes, these KEF models are just like SVS Prime Elevation speakers with key hole mounts. They can be used as on-wall speakers (just not on-ceiling like the Elevations as they don't have the correct mounting blocks). Just make sure they are set as Height speakers in the receiver if being used in the manner you are describing, rather than "enabled" Atmos speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Some Atmos modules are not designed for use as normal wall mount speakers due to their unique designs. You don't have to worry with the q50a model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But are they supposed to be designed to upward Firing? That should be a different design from normal speakers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These particular KEF speaker models are more like wall mount speakers than upfiring "bounce" speakers. They are basically standard small bookshelf speakers with a built-in angled front baffle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thx so much for your advise. I find the mounting the q50a on wall as front height have better atom effective than having them up firing. Just like to know if they are “qualified” as a normal height speaker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I check that the q50a have frequency response of 105Hz-18.5kHz (±3dB), while other book shelf have much lower frequency respond.... am I missing out on something?
Click to expand...

They are small bookshelf type speakers, so they won't go as low as a larger speaker. That's just physics. 
You can raise the crossover setting in your receiver to send more of the bass to the subwoofers. 

All I can say is try them and see if they work for you. Maybe later on you can get on-ceiling KEF speakers with somewhat lower bass response if you cannot do in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## StevenC56

leefarber said:


> I currently have a 5.1 system. Now that I've upgraded from the Marantz 8801 to the 8805, I am installing four in-ceiling speakers for Atmos.
> 
> My mains are 10' away from the couch (which is the main listening position), and the couch is against the back wall of the room. My surrounds are on floor stands at opposite ends of the couch. It seems that ideally, two of the ceiling speakers would be a bit in front of the couch and two would would be a bit behind. Can someone please advise what I should do given that my MLP is against the back wall fo the room?
> 
> BTW, the ceiling speakers are Klipsch 5650 II's, so they can be aimed slightly.
> 
> Here's one pic from the MLP (the couch) and another of the reverse angle. As you can see, it's a small townhouse, and the couch is against the staircase. I was planning on putting one set of two ceiling speakers about a third of the way from the mains to the MLP, and the second set as far back as I can (which is pretty much directly above the MLP). Is that correct?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Although our HT is a dedicated room, our MLP is too very close to the back wall. The screen and main speakers are right at 12.5' from our MLP. I recently installed 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos. Because of the ceiling joist locations, I was restricted to placing the L&R rear in-ceiling speakers less than a foot behind my MLP. The front in-ceiling pair is right at 6' forward of the rear pair. Both front and rear in-ceiling pairs are also fairly close to the left and right walls. It works great-The Atmos bubble is quite effective.


----------



## leefarber

Jonas2 said:


> You might want to check out the speakers setup guides for Atmos at Dolby's website. Yes, ideally if you are using 4 speakers, you'd place two forward and two rearward of the MLP by a fair measure, as top front and top rear. But in your case due to seating, you could do top front, and top middle. Now, I've not tried that directly, but I'm gonna guess that this is slightly better than just top middle, but not nearly as good as top front/top rear designations. I'll let somebody that has actually done so speak more to that. You could always just go with top middle and only 2 speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not configured as top rear, if that's what you mean. Even if they were aimed into space behind the MLP, the sound is still not coming form behind, and I don't think you'd be able to achieve a convincing bounce. Just my opinion though...


I've been looking at the setup guides on the Dolby site. Not sure if you can tell by the pic, but there is some molding on the ceiling above the couch which is SLIGHTLY behind the MLP. I wonder if the back two speakers would fit in there. It may not be quite the angle specified in the setup guide, but it's the best I could do.

I guess this begs the question: would a 5.1.4 setup with two overheads halfway back and the other two directly over MLP be better or worse than a 5.1.2 at the perfect Dolby-recommended overhead placement?


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Neural:X can be applied to DTS:X soundtracks because the majority of those tracks are encoded as 7.1.4 channels and currently make no use of extra speakers beyond that. Because Atmos soundtracks use (or are supposed to use) objects to move through locations in space and theoretically should pan through any speakers in that space, there is nothing to "upmix."


_Upmixing_ in this case would refer to systems that are using Auro-3D/DTS speakers like Center Height and Top Surround that are not part of the Atmos speaker system OR 7.1.4 print-through soundtracks that don't use any speakers beyond the 11.1 included. I'd hardly call that "nothing" available to upmix. 



> How would the receiver distinguish between _good_ Atmos soundtracks that properly use those objects and _bad_ ones (like Disney) that are 7.1.4 print-outs? Is there something in the metadata to tell the processor about this? How would it know what to do with Atmos tracks like M:I Fallout that are simply mixed strangely to ignore Top Middle speakers even when sounds logically ought to come from them?


I'm not sure if there's applicable meta data that could tell the AVR/AVP if certain channels aren't being used in the case of locked 7.1.4 soundtracks. The unit could potentially monitor the outputs and if they're silent, apply the upmixing or more likely it would use a manual override surround setting (apply Neural X) and limit the actual output to 7.1.4 + upmixing. You could call it "Atmos + Neural X" in the surround options just like there's "Dolby + Neural X" on D&M units now. That would avoid any question of having to monitor anything. You probably wouldn't use it except for soundtracks like Disney (or if you wanted CH/TS active). You could then apply it to Disney soundtracks as an option like any other. As for the extra speakers like center height and top surround, they could be added at any time since Atmos doesn't use them so there's nothing to listen to or look for. You would simply extract the signals from the nearest speakers as inputs (as DTS:X + Neural X already does) and extract a center signal (FHL + FHR = Center Height; TML + TMR = TS). 

Dolby has cleared the way in their retraction letter:

*Dolby's Letter:*

*"Effective immediately, Dolby is withdrawing all limitations (including limitations contained in Dolby licenses) on the use of OEM (first-party) and third-party post-processing technologies (including upmixers and virtualisers) on audio decoded from Dolby formats (including Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and Dolby Atmos) on AVRs, sound bars and TVs."*

Notice Atmos is included so hypothetically, at least it could be done. That doesn't mean it will, of course, but it would be a good idea, IMO as more higher-count processors become available. Why not be able to use all your speakers all the time? If I had those speakers available, I'd certainly want to use them, for off-axis seats if nothing else.

As for _Mission Impossible: Fallout_, as I already indicated before in a previous post, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with the soundtrack in Atmos. That is to say I believe it's using Top Middle correctly _when_ it uses it. It just doesn't seem to use it very much. There were short bits (3 seconds of rotor at 1:52:20-something and one excellent but brief flyover that had it active for maybe 1 second or so as it flew overhead and a couple of fractional second bits and that was it during the helicopter scene. That doesn't strike me on my "Scatmos" powered overhead system as being much different from what you described. I think they simply didn't move objects directly overhead very much, but kept the rotors in the front near the screen as it was strong in front height most of the sequence).


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> _Upmixing_ in this case would refer to systems that are using Auro-3D/DTS speakers like Center Height and Top Surround that are not part of the Atmos speaker system OR 7.1.4 print-through soundtracks that don't use any speakers beyond the 11.1 included. I'd hardly call that "nothing" available to upmix.
> 
> I'm not sure if there's applicable meta data that could tell the AVR/AVP if certain channels aren't being used in the case of locked 7.1.4 soundtracks. The unit could potentially monitor the outputs and if they're silent, apply the upmixing or more likely it would use a manual override surround setting (apply Neural X) and limit the actual output to 7.1.4 + upmixing. You could call it "Atmos + Neural X" in the surround options just like there's "Dolby + Neural X" on D&M units now. That would avoid any question of having to monitor anything. You probably wouldn't use it except for soundtracks like Disney (or if you wanted CH/TS active). You could then apply it to Disney soundtracks as an option like any other. As for the extra speakers like center height and top surround, they could be added at any time since Atmos doesn't use them so there's nothing to listen to or look for. You would simply extract the signals from the nearest speakers as inputs (as DTS:X + Neural X already does) and extract a center signal (FHL + FHR = Center Height; TML + TMR = TS).
> 
> Dolby has cleared the way in their retraction letter:
> 
> *Dolby's Letter:*
> 
> *"Effective immediately, Dolby is withdrawing all limitations (including limitations contained in Dolby licenses) on the use of OEM (first-party) and third-party post-processing technologies (including upmixers and virtualisers) on audio decoded from Dolby formats (including Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and Dolby Atmos) on AVRs, sound bars and TVs."*
> 
> Notice Atmos is included so hypothetically, at least it could be done.
> That doesn't mean it will, of course, but it would be a good idea, IMO as more higher-count processors become available.
> 
> *Why not be able to use all your speakers all the time?
> If I had those speakers available, I'd certainly want to use them, for off-axis seats if nothing else.*


MagnumX

*I totally agree if I have the speakers including in my case 6 in-ceiling Atmos speakers I would prefer they get used*.

Terry


----------



## MagnumX

*Top Gun with Dolby Atmos*

I just watched *Top Gun with Dolby Atmos* for the first time. I compared it back and forth several times for the first 15 minutes or so (opening encounter with the Migs) with the DTS 6.1 soundtrack from the regular BD and then watched the rest of the movie in Atmos. I did use an AppleTV 4K for the Atmos version so the two Blu-Rays (BD and UHD BD) that have been just released probably have higher output levels as the AppleTV 4K is known to be 5-7dB lower than the Blu-Rays on average for many of the soundtracks (mostly newer ones; some older movies don't seem to have that issue here).

Overall, it was disappointing to say the least. I heard almost no differences in imaging relative to the DTS 6.1 soundtrack once Neural X was engaged. What went high in Atmos went high with Neural X as well. There are many points in the movie where overhead flybys could have been used, but they are strangely silent as the jets approach in that direction in several cases (both versions). I assume this was because Atmos didn't exist back then and direct overhead flybys were not available in 1985 and I don't believe the Atmos soundtrack "adds" anything new to the soundtrack; it just rearranges the existing soundtrack so whatever was in the master is what was utilized. The best they could do in 1985 was high-mounted surround effects. The 5.1 and 6.1 soundtracks that came later add discrete left/right surround effects, which with Neural X do place the jets overhead similar to how they would be with traditional high-mounted surrounds before the Atmos retrofits. The Atmos soundtrack puts the jets in the same basic areas as Neural X, IMO. Overall, the soundtrack imaged very similar to the Neural X enhanced 6.1 soundtrack, in my opinion. I didn't listen to the entire 6.1 soundtrack to see if there were any strong rear effects. I certainly didn't notice strong rear effects in the Atmos version. There were large portions where most of the sound was upfront as was traditional mixing back then. The surrounds are far more active during action sequences.

By far, the worst aspect was the levels and I don't mean the overall volume drop because of AppleTV (which I accounted for when switching back and forth as I had the BD at -6dB and the ATV version at +1dB (7dB difference which I matched by using dialog by ear). It might have needed a couple more dB based on the sound effects often seeming a bit lower, but this was offset by the fact the LFE channels were turned way down as well. Even with dialog sounding similar and many of the sound effects at least not terribly far apart, the difference in bass was large. I turned on my LFE bass boost setting (+3dB) and that helped, but it still wasn't close. I estimate the drop in LFE (which may be even more below certain frequencies as seems to be common based on the thread on this site about such differences) to be roughly 6-8dB lower than the DTS 6.1 soundtrack. While some say DTS always inflates their bass 3-4dB, this was definitely far more than that, even so. The only thing that comes to mind is that many Atmos soundtracks seem to be adjusted for the "home viewing environment" these days and that basically means "sound bar mixes" (I personally think they don't want to overtax those wimpy miniature subwoofers they come with). I'm sure the guys that do the bass comparisons will have more to say in those threads about it.

For 2K viewing, the choice is clear to me. I prefer the DTS-HD 6.1 soundtrack with Neural X activated. It's quite an excellent soundtrack for its day and the jet action sequences definitely kick butt, especially at theater reference levels (6dB higher than what I was viewing it at as I couldn't possibly raise the AppleTV 4K unit that high without turning off room correction). Top Gun is a Paramount soundtrack so certainly the 6.1 version used are not near-field as they didn't use near-field back then or in the Blu-Ray mixes to my knowledge. I'm less sure about the soundtracks being output today by Paramount. Most of the differences seemed to be in the LFE department. Cranking the LFE upward definitely helped, but there were other aspects that seemed "different" too ("crispiness" of sound effects and dialog, but those could have been due to slightly different level differences; I'd need to see a spectrum analysis to get an idea what I was really hearing). 

The new Atmos track isn't terrible. It does what Neural X already did for the most part and there might be a few improved bits (there were two scenes that did partial overhead sounds, but not as strong as Mission Impossible: Fallout for its own brief helicopter flyover, which while brief was very loud overhead and flew clearly into the back of the room as well at one point).


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> I just watched *Top Gun with Dolby Atmos* for the first time. I compared it back and forth several times for the first 15 minutes or so (opening encounter with the Migs) with the DTS 6.1 soundtrack from the regular BD and then watched the rest of the movie in Atmos. I did use an AppleTV 4K for the Atmos version so the two Blu-Rays (BD and UHD BD) that have been just released probably have higher output levels as the AppleTV 4K is known to be 5-7dB lower than the Blu-Rays on average for many of the soundtracks (mostly newer ones; some older movies don't seem to have that issue here).
> 
> Overall, it was disappointing to say the least. I heard almost no differences in imaging relative to the DTS 6.1 soundtrack once Neural X was engaged. What went high in Atmos went high with Neural X as well. There are many points in the movie where overhead flybys could have been used, but they are strangely silent as the jets approach in that direction in several cases (both versions). I assume this was because Atmos didn't exist back then and direct overhead flybys were not available in 1985 and I don't believe the Atmos soundtrack "adds" anything new to the soundtrack; it just rearranges the existing soundtrack so whatever was in the master is what was utilized. The best they could do in 1985 was high-mounted surround effects. The 5.1 and 6.1 soundtracks that came later add discrete left/right surround effects, which with Neural X do place the jets overhead similar to how they would be with traditional high-mounted surrounds before the Atmos retrofits. The Atmos soundtrack puts the jets in the same basic areas as Neural X, IMO. Overall, the soundtrack imaged very similar to the Neural X enhanced 6.1 soundtrack, in my opinion. I didn't listen to the entire 6.1 soundtrack to see if there were any strong rear effects. I certainly didn't notice strong rear effects in the Atmos version. There were large portions where most of the sound was upfront as was traditional mixing back then. The surrounds are far more active during action sequences.
> 
> By far, the worst aspect was the levels and I don't mean the overall volume drop because of AppleTV (which I accounted for when switching back and forth as I had the BD at -6dB and the ATV version at +1dB (7dB difference which I matched by using dialog by ear). It might have needed a couple more dB based on the sound effects often seeming a bit lower, but this was offset by the fact the LFE channels were turned way down as well. Even with dialog sounding similar and many of the sound effects at least not terribly far apart, the difference in bass was large. I turned on my LFE bass boost setting (+3dB) and that helped, but it still wasn't close. I estimate the drop in LFE (which may be even more below certain frequencies as seems to be common based on the thread on this site about such differences) to be roughly 6-8dB lower than the DTS 6.1 soundtrack. While some say DTS always inflates their bass 3-4dB, this was definitely far more than that, even so. The only thing that comes to mind is that many Atmos soundtracks seem to be adjusted for the "home viewing environment" these days and that basically means "sound bar mixes" (I personally think they don't want to overtax those wimpy miniature subwoofers they come with). I'm sure the guys that do the bass comparisons will have more to say in those threads about it.
> 
> For 2K viewing, the choice is clear to me. I prefer the DTS-HD 6.1 soundtrack with Neural X activated. It's quite an excellent soundtrack for its day and the jet action sequences definitely kick butt, especially at theater reference levels (6dB higher than what I was viewing it at as I couldn't possibly raise the AppleTV 4K unit that high without turning off room correction). Top Gun is a Paramount soundtrack so certainly the 6.1 version used are not near-field as they didn't use near-field back then or in the Blu-Ray mixes to my knowledge. I'm less sure about the soundtracks being output today by Paramount. Most of the differences seemed to be in the LFE department. Cranking the LFE upward definitely helped, but there were other aspects that seemed "different" too ("crispiness" of sound effects and dialog, but those could have been due to slightly different level differences; I'd need to see a spectrum analysis to get an idea what I was really hearing).
> 
> The new Atmos track isn't terrible. It does what Neural X already did for the most part and there might be a few improved bits (there were two scenes that did partial overhead sounds, but not as strong as Mission Impossible: Fallout for its own brief helicopter flyover, which while brief was very loud overhead and flew clearly into the back of the room as well at one point).


Interesting. I just took delivery of the 4K disc combo set yesterday, although I haven't watched it yet. Prior to ordering the set I read several reviews, and all were quite positive about the Atmos mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

StevenC56 said:


> Interesting. I just took delivery of the 4K disc combo set yesterday, although I haven't watched it yet. Prior to ordering the set I read several reviews, and all were quite positive about the Atmos mix.



Any comparisons between soundtracks should be handled with the lossless disc versions. Technically speaking, Dolby Atmos via lossy encoding is not as good as the lossless version based on how objects and core+extension data are combined. 



Almost like Dolby Vision via streaming (dynamic metadata only layer and 10 bit video) vs. the potential 12 bit FEL (dynamic metadata plus video enhancement file to recreate the 12 bit video data) version on disc.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Any comparisons between soundtracks should be handled with the lossless disc versions. Technically speaking, Dolby Atmos via lossy encoding is not as good as the lossless version based on how objects and core+extension data are combined.


Nobody said _anything_ about sound quality beyond the bass level drop which is not lossless related seeing as the DTS 6.1 track I used to compare it to was _also_ lossy (KODI makes it easy to select the lossy or lossless soundtrack at the push of a button) and it had the higher bass levels. Comparing lossless to lossy soundtracks, I've never encountered a single situation where the lossy version had more or less bass or imaged any differently whatsoever and that includes Dolby Atmos soundtracks (nearly every UHD disc I have has a lossy version on AppleTV and other sites these days so it's easy to compare them. Matching volume levels is essential, however as AppleTV 4K is typically 6dB below a typical disc level for some reason. That volume change has nothing to do with how it sounds once matched, however.

If you prefer to always use discs and/or lossless soundtracks, that's your option (we are transitioning to a streaming world, however so it may not be forever), but choosing to use lossless doesn't actually prove you can hear a difference between the two and it also matters what site is streaming it. Until recently Netflix, for example had very low streaming rates. Apple, however has had much higher rates for Atmos all along. I have not heard a difference between any Atmos track on disc and iTunes once level matched thus far so excuse me if I believe the two are very well comparable. I would, however be interested in hearing other opinions of comparisons between the Atmos version (disc based is fine) versus the Blu-Ray 6.1 disc.


----------



## JoelxD

Sorry for the total newbie questions, but just want to be clear - Subject 1: The AV receiver one would need to suffice Dolby Atmos set ups.

Question 1:

Its as simple as count the speakers you want and that's the channels you need on your AVR ? Or is Atmos different and I can get away with less ?

For instance, lets say I want a 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos set up. Is there a 5.1 Receiver I buy that also has the .4 Atmos jacks added to plug into and I need to look for that particular Atmos enabled receiver ? Or do you consider the Atmos speakers independent "channels", and I buy any 9.1 AV Receiver period ? "Atmos enabled" in the receiver not needed as they are just "channels" ?

Subject 2: What digital protocol spits out Dolby Atmos coded signal ?

Can I go out my PC sound card optical and into the AVR optical and that will carry correct Atmos ? Or is it a HDMI thing only ?

Thanks in advance guys !


----------



## batpig

Aras_Volodka said:


> Please forgive me as I've been out of this game for a while. Back in 2014/2015 I was on here daily but then got hit hard economically so I just lived with my setup and didn't worry about upgrades until recently. Thank goodness that the Atmos catalogue built up because that first year was rough!
> 
> I've been on the forums sporadically over the last 5 years, but I did get to meet Sanjay once and hung out with Stewart a few times.


No worries my man, just busting your chops a bit  

Since I'm refreshing your memory, I will also remind you that one of those times you hung out with Stu, I was there too  we saw "In the Heart of the Sea" together in theatrical Atmos.


----------



## GeorgeHolland

fookoo_2010 said:


> The short answer is yes, but I would think suspending Infinity Cascade 3C's from the ceiling might be overly challenging because of their size, not that it can't be done. If you have them, then use them. If not, then there are simpler solutions to height ceiling speakers.


I built a couple wall mount supports with a bit of an angle for the front Heights. 4 each Infinity Cascade Model Three V’s for heights and a pair of NCM DIY Okara II's for back surrounds. (7.1.4 with 3 subs). 

Edit: Went ahead and wall mounted the Right Rear Height Speaker and added some RS's.


----------



## fookoo_2010

GeorgeHolland said:


> I built a couple wall mount supports with a bit of an angle for the front Heights. With 5 each Infinity Cascade Model Three V’s I only have enough speakers for a single back surround (6.1.4). Debating if I want to bother with wall mounting the right rear heights. Thanks.


If you have it, why not use it? Height speakers aren't exactly overtaxed in terms of volume, but they can make a big difference in creating a sound stage out of your room via Dolby Surround or Dolby Atmos or other audio matrixing.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

batpig said:


> No worries my man, just busting your chops a bit
> 
> Since I'm refreshing your memory, I will also remind you that one of those times you hung out with Stu, I was there too  we saw "In the Heart of the Sea" together in theatrical Atmos.


I'm so sorry, I do remember you, but I don't recollect your name. If I recall you bought me a beer which I really appreciate! It was very nice to meet you!


----------



## leefarber

StevenC56 said:


> Although our HT is a dedicated room, our MLP is too very close to the back wall. The screen and main speakers are right at 12.5' from our MLP. I recently installed 4 in-ceiling speakers for Atmos. Because of the ceiling joist locations, I was restricted to placing the L&R rear in-ceiling speakers less than a foot behind my MLP. The front in-ceiling pair is right at 6' forward of the rear pair. Both front and rear in-ceiling pairs are also fairly close to the left and right walls. It works great-The Atmos bubble is quite effective.


Thanks Steven! That seems fairly similar to my situation. Good to know that one in-ceiling pair halfway between the mains and the MLP and another directly over the MLP will still result in a satisfactory Atmos experience. I had asked earlier if a 5.1.4 setup with two overheads halfway back and the other two directly over MLP is better or worse than a 5.1.2 at the perfect Dolby-recommended overhead placement. It seems to me the 5.1.4 option is still preferable.


----------



## rekbones

JoelxD said:


> Sorry for the total newbie questions, but just want to be clear - Subject 1: The AV receiver one would need to suffice Dolby Atmos set ups.
> 
> Question 1:
> 
> Its as simple as count the speakers you want and that's the channels you need on your AVR ? Or is Atmos different and I can get away with less ?
> 
> For instance, lets say I want a 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos set up. Is there a 5.1 Receiver I buy that also has the .4 Atmos jacks added to plug into and I need to look for that particular Atmos enabled receiver ? Or do you consider the Atmos speakers independent "channels", and I buy any 9.1 AV Receiver period ? "Atmos enabled" in the receiver not needed as they are just "channels" ?
> 
> Subject 2: What digital protocol spits out Dolby Atmos coded signal ?
> 
> Can I go out my PC sound card optical and into the AVR optical and that will carry correct Atmos ? Or is it a HDMI thing only ?
> 
> Thanks in advance guys !


The the top speakers are included in the channel count so to do 5.1.4 you need a 9 channel AVR, 5.1.2 a 7 channel etc. Most of your higher end 9 channel AVR's w/preouts can process 11 channels and do 7.1.4 with an added stereo amp. HDMI is required to carry the audio correctly.


----------



## JoelxD

rekbones said:


> The the top speakers are included in the channel count so to do 5.1.4 you need a 9 channel AVR, 5.1.2 a 7 channel etc. Most of your higher end 9 channel AVR's w/preouts can process 11 channels and do 7.1.4 with an added stereo amp. HDMI is required to carry the audio correctly.


Thanks so much for them answers rekbones. Clears up quite a bit for me. Helps a lot (as I now know, I am now on the lookout for a 9.1 AVR).
------------
Hey guys, I got one more rookie question on this subject.

To correctly hear Dolby Atmos, does the source audio material have needed to be mixed down/formatted in Dolby Atmos ? So in other words, this leads to the importance of the question - once I get my Atmos set up all going, do I need to look for movies and material specifically formatted for Dolby Atmos ?

If not (hopefully), then what format caters to Atmos "conversion" the best ? Normal Dolby x.x, DTS, Dolby Logic, etc..
Or do they all convert over equally and its just a great magical format of awesomeness ?


----------



## Josh Z

JoelxD said:


> To correctly hear Dolby Atmos, does the source audio material have needed to be mixed down/formatted in Dolby Atmos ? So in other words, this leads to the importance of the question - once I get my Atmos set up all going, do I need to look for movies and material specifically formatted for Dolby Atmos ?


Movie soundtracks will essentially break into two categories:

1) Soundtracks natively mixed in immersive audio formats: Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, or (rarely) Auro-3D. These should take advantage of speakers on the ground as well as those above.

2) Soundtracks mixed with lower channel counts, from mono to 7.1. If played without upmixing, sound will only come from the ground speakers. If upmixed using Dolby Surround Upmixer, DTS Neural:X, or Auromatic, some sounds will be extracted from the ground level and moved to the height speakers (similar to the way Dolby ProLogic II can expand a stereo source to fill surround speakers). The three upmixers have different properties and ways of choosing which sounds to extract, so you should try them all and decide which you like best.



> If not (hopefully), then what format caters to Atmos "conversion" the best ? Normal Dolby x.x, DTS, Dolby Logic, etc..
> Or do they all convert over equally and its just a great magical format of awesomeness ?


Dolby Digital, Dolby TrueHD, DTS, DTS-HD Master Audio, etc. are just compression codecs. It makes no difference which compression codec the soundtrack was encoded with.


----------



## Jonas2

leefarber said:


> I've been looking at the setup guides on the Dolby site. Not sure if you can tell by the pic, but there is some molding on the ceiling above the couch which is SLIGHTLY behind the MLP. I wonder if the back two speakers would fit in there. It may not be quite the angle specified in the setup guide, but it's the best I could do.
> 
> I guess this begs the question: would a 5.1.4 setup with two overheads halfway back and the other two directly over MLP be better or worse than a 5.1.2 at the perfect Dolby-recommended overhead placement?


How high is that ceiling? If you wouldn't find it too visually intrusive, and the ceiling is at least 8', rather than in-ceilings, you could mount small bookshelves/satellites to that molding. The one concern being that mounted vs. installed does bring the speaker a bit closer to you, increases the possibility of localization of the speaker. But it's an option. You can do that with the other pair too, of course. 

Would a kinda right 5.1.4 be better than a "perfect" 5.1.2? Don't know! One other advantage to on-ceiling mounted speakers - you haven't made a big hole - and if it doesn't work, adjusting is easier, and you're patch9ing smaller holes.  I prefer in-ceilings aesthetically, but that's a personal thing. ME? I'd be inclined to try the 5.1.4 - you can set as top front, and top rear - just see if it's convincing! There's some good demo material out there that you can use as a test. If that doesn't do the job for you, try top front/top middle configuration. Worst case, drop it down to the 5.1.2.


----------



## JoelxD

Josh Z said:


> Movie soundtracks will essentially break into two categories:
> 
> 1) Soundtracks natively mixed in immersive audio formats: Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, or (rarely) Auro-3D. These should take advantage of speakers on the ground as well as those above.


I imagine this also applies to Video games ? So ultimately to properly hear Atmos, as Atmos intended, it is indeed best for the source to have been mixed down in "Atmos".



Josh Z said:


> 2) Soundtracks mixed with lower channel counts, from mono to 7.1. If played without upmixing, sound will only come from the ground speakers. If upmixed using Dolby Surround Upmixer, DTS Neural:X, or Auromatic, some sounds will be extracted from the ground level and moved to the height speakers (similar to the way Dolby ProLogic II can expand a stereo source to fill surround speakers). The three upmixers have different properties and ways of choosing which sounds to extract, so you should try them all and decide which you like best.


 Ahhh, ok, so now I am learning even more. Interesting. So Atmos is able to be "up-mixed" out of any audio mix format. Intriguing. But I am sure its kind of a "pseudo" version, not as good as a Atmos intended mix.

Ok, so biggest question of all then... Where do I get these up-mixers and how do I apply them ?




Josh Z said:


> Dolby Digital, Dolby TrueHD, DTS, DTS-HD Master Audio, etc. are just compression codecs. It makes no difference which compression codec the soundtrack was encoded with.


 Got it, thanks !

------------------
Side question applicable to part of #2 's answer - I notice you said "up to 7.1" - so does that mean any source above 7.1 is automatically "Atmos" anyway ? Or does that mean 9.1 and above just can't be up-mixed to Atmos ?

(I'm trying to learn all this because you know how certain sources have choices on what to play back the audio as, along with your receiver, and if I buy a Atmos set up, I'd like to have the knowledge to always choose the best choice when listening)

Thanks for all the info !


----------



## Josh Z

JoelxD said:


> I imagine this also applies to Video games ? So ultimately to properly hear Atmos, as Atmos intended, it is indeed best for the source to have been mixed down in "Atmos".


Yes.



> Ahhh, ok, so now I am learning even more. Interesting. So Atmos is able to be "up-mixed" out of any audio mix format.


Note that "Atmos" refers specifically to soundtracks mixed and encoded in the Dolby Atmos format. An upmixed 5.1 soundtrack may take advantage of all of your speakers, but it's technically not Atmos. They are separate things.



> Intriguing. But I am sure its kind of a "pseudo" version, not as good as a Atmos intended mix.


Generally, yes. However, there are an unfortunate number of Atmos sound mixes that fail to make much use of the overhead speakers and leave them silent most of the time. In those cases, an upmixed version of the movie's 5.1 soundtrack may be more pleasing.



> Ok, so biggest question of all then... Where do I get these up-mixers and how do I apply them ?


Any A/V receiver that can decode Dolby Atmos will also come with the Dolby Surround Upmixer. It's the new default setting that replaces Pro Logic II. If the receiver can also do DTS:X, it will come with the Neural:X upmixer as well. Auro-3D is rarer and you basically only see that on select Denon/Marantz models and some boutique brands.

You turn on the upmixer the same way you would have turned on Pro Logic II previously. There should be a button on the remote that brings up a sound options menu.



> I notice you said "up to 7.1" - so does that mean any source above 7.1 is automatically "Atmos" anyway ? Or does that mean 9.1 and above just can't be up-mixed to Atmos ?


The original Dolby Digital and DTS audio formats (the versions found on DVD) were limited a maximum of 6.1 channels. The Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD High Resolution, and DTS-HD Master Audio formats on Blu-ray go to 7.1. To get more channels than that requires Atmos, DTS:X, or Auro-3D. (Again, Auro-3D is very rare. I don't think any discs encoded with it have been released in the United States.)



> (I'm trying to learn all this because you know how certain sources have choices on what to play back the audio as, along with your receiver, and if I buy a Atmos set up, I'd like to have the knowledge to always choose the best choice when listening)


Understandable. This stuff can be confusing for a new user.

Most A/V receivers should allow you to play Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks in their native formats, while also applying an upmixer of your choice to legacy sound formats.

The choice of one upmixer over another is largely personal preference. DSU tends to be more subtle and mostly only pulls ambient sounds to the height channels. Neural:X is more aggressive with pulling sound effects to the heights, and does so at a louder volume, but the effect can be a little gimmicky at times when sounds that are supposed to be at ground level wind up coming from above your head.

The Auromatic upmixer simply duplicates everything from the ground level speakers into the height speakers with a little reverb added. Auro fans like this for music, but it may not be as effective for movies or games.


----------



## AYanguas

JoelxD said:


> Ahhh, ok, so now I am learning even more. Interesting. So Atmos is able to be "up-mixed" out of any audio mix format. Intriguing. But I am sure its kind of a "pseudo" version, not as good as a Atmos intended mix.


Atmos is NOT able to be up-mixed. An Atmos mix has been done by "the artist" that have put some sounds in particular channels or room locations and/or move some sounds around the room. The Atmos decoder will decode that mix and will send the needed signals to each speaker to recreate the mix. 

The Up-mixers just extract some sounds from the source signal (stereo or 5.1 the more usual), based on phase correlation, and will send that signals to the additional speakers the AVR has configured over the 2 or 5 from the original stereo or 5.1 signal. The result is sometimes convincing, i.e for stereo sophisticated mixes and perhaps better for surround 5.1 , but for other mixes you might like it less than the original sound without Upmixing. In any case, these upmixers cannot reproduce what a particular "artist" could have done by moving a particular sound through particular locations of the room.

In general, people (and I) are delighted with Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) or Neural:X, for films, and Auromatic for Music (either stereo or surround 5.1) 

For example, It is amazing how these upmixers send the music from a Film or the "chorus voices" from a song to the surround speakers and/or the Height speakers, while keeping the main vocals and other "frontal" sounds in the front speakers. But all this depend on how the original "stereo" source was mixed.




JoelxD said:


> Ok, so biggest question of all then... Where do I get these up-mixers and how do I apply them ?


The upmixers come with the AVR. You just select them (as audio mode settings), the same way you select other DSP sound settings such as "Game", "Cinema", "Sports", "Concert Hall", or whatever sounds modes that are implemented in the AVR.


----------



## JoelxD

Josh Z said:


> Note that "Atmos" refers specifically to soundtracks mixed and encoded in the Dolby Atmos format. An upmixed 5.1 soundtrack may take advantage of all of your speakers, but it's technically not Atmos. They are separate things.


Ahhh, got it 100% now. Makes total sense. Thanks for clarifying that specifically.



Josh Z said:


> Generally, yes. However, there are an unfortunate number of Atmos sound mixes that fail to make much use of the overhead speakers and leave them silent most of the time. In those cases, an upmixed version of the movie's 5.1 soundtrack may be more pleasing.


 Interesting, but that makes sense to me. Lots of things are like that. Sometimes the audio engineer just doesn't do what they could or should.




Josh Z said:


> Any A/V receiver that can decode Dolby Atmos will also come with the Dolby Surround Upmixer. It's the new default setting that replaces Pro Logic II. If the receiver can also do DTS:X, it will come with the Neural:X upmixer as well. Auro-3D is rarer and you basically only see that on select Denon/Marantz models and some boutique brands.





Josh Z said:


> Most A/V receivers should allow you to play Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks in their native formats, while also applying an upmixer of your choice to legacy sound formats.





AYanguas said:


> The upmixers come with the AVR. You just select them (as audio mode settings), the same way you select other DSP sound settings such as "Game", "Cinema", "Sports", "Concert Hall", or whatever sounds modes that are implemented in the AVR.


Wow ! Thanks guys - this is awesome news and a total first ! lol The expected thing to hear in this field/industry/consumer market is the upmixer is a $1,500 separate unit you have to buy or your just totally lame ! haha.. Man, this is a breath of fresh air here.




Josh Z said:


> The original Dolby Digital and DTS audio formats (the versions found on DVD) were limited a maximum of 6.1 channels. The Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD High Resolution, and DTS-HD Master Audio formats on Blu-ray go to 7.1. To get more channels than that requires Atmos, DTS:X, or Auro-3D. (Again, Auro-3D is very rare. I don't think any discs encoded with it have been released in the United States.)


 I swore I remember 9.1, 11.1,etc.. coming out before I heard of Atmos. Or I just heard of Atmos late. Like before they thought to put speakers on the ceiling, they were just totally surrounding you (sometimes 12 speakers +).


AYanguas said:


> Atmos is NOT able to be up-mixed.
> 
> The Up-mixers just extract some sounds from the source signal (stereo or 5.1 the more usual), based on phase correlation, and will send that signals to the additional speakers the AVR has configured over the 2 or 5 from the original stereo or 5.1 signal.


 Yea totally get that now (see above quotes/answers). Thanks for the detailed explanation.


AYanguas said:


> It is amazing how these upmixers send the music from a Film or the "chorus voices" from a song to the surround speakers and/or the Height speakers, while keeping the main vocals and other "frontal" sounds in the front speakers. But all this depend on how the original "stereo" source was mixed.


 Cool to know man. Can't wait to try this out.

I ask this about the upmixer so much because I know at first I will be using my 5.1.4 system like that via video games that don't come originally as "Atmos" format. So I'm curious if the upmixer will do a good job via helicopters or dragons or bullets/bombs/parachutes flying over head, etc..

So I really appreciate all these answers and info guys. It helped me a lot. I now know what I need, what to get and that I want it and most of all, what to expect. Thanks again !


----------



## Josh Z

JoelxD said:


> Interesting, but that makes sense to me. Lots of things are like that. Sometimes the audio engineer just doesn't do what they could or should.


A notorious example of this is the first live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. That was an early Atmos soundtrack, and the mixers basically only use the height channels when they have a specific sound effect they want to come from overhead. For instance, there's a fight scene that takes place in a subway station, and one of the Turtles throws a bad guy up to the ceiling. The sound of the bad guy smashing into a light fixture comes from the height speakers, which is pretty cool. But those speakers then go silent for the rest of the scene and the majority of the movie. A better Atmos mix would keep those speakers active with atmospheric and ambient noises, reflected sounds, and other effects to create a consistent bubble of sound around the listener.



> I swore I remember 9.1, 11.1,etc.. coming out before I heard of Atmos. Or I just heard of Atmos late. Like before they thought to put speakers on the ceiling, they were just totally surrounding you (sometimes 12 speakers +).


There were other upmixers prior to DSU and Neural:X that could expand a 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack to additional speakers. DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX could derive Front Wide channels between the front mains and surrounds. Neo:X and Dolby Pro Logic IIz could also create two Front Height channels above the front mains. That's probably what you're thinking of.



> I ask this about the upmixer so much because I know at first I will be using my 5.1.4 system like that via video games that don't come originally as "Atmos" format. So I'm curious if the upmixer will do a good job via helicopters or dragons or bullets/bombs/parachutes flying over head, etc..


Keep in mind that these upmixers do not know what's going on in the video content of the movie/game or know what specific sound effects are supposed to be. They derive extra speaker locations using phase correlation. The majority of audio that gets pushed to the height speakers are ambient sounds and reflections. If a specific sound effect was mixed in the ground channels, it's most likely to stay there. However, as I mentioned earlier, Neural:X is more aggressive with pushing some sound effects to the heights than DSU is.


----------



## galonzo

MagnumX said:


> Dan Hitchman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any comparisons between soundtracks should be handled with the lossless disc versions. Technically speaking, Dolby Atmos via lossy encoding is not as good as the lossless version based on how objects and core+extension data are combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost like Dolby Vision via streaming (dynamic metadata only layer and 10 bit video) vs. the potential 12 bit FEL (dynamic metadata plus video enhancement file to recreate the 12 bit video data) version on disc.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said _anything_ about sound quality beyond the bass level drop which is not lossless related seeing as the DTS 6.1 track I used to compare it to was _also_ lossy (KODI makes it easy to select the lossy or lossless soundtrack at the push of a button) and it had the higher bass levels. Comparing lossless to lossy soundtracks, I've never encountered a single situation where the lossy version had more or less bass or imaged any differently whatsoever and that includes Dolby Atmos soundtracks (nearly every UHD disc I have has a lossy version on AppleTV and other sites these days so it's easy to compare them. Matching volume levels is essential, however as AppleTV 4K is typically 6dB below a typical disc level for some reason. That volume change has nothing to do with how it sounds once matched, however.
> 
> If you prefer to always use discs and/or lossless soundtracks, that's your option (we are transitioning to a streaming world, however so it may not be forever), but choosing to use lossless doesn't actually prove you can hear a difference between the two and it also matters what site is streaming it. Until recently Netflix, for example had very low streaming rates. Apple, however has had much higher rates for Atmos all along. I have not heard a difference between any Atmos track on disc and iTunes once level matched thus far so excuse me if I believe the two are very well comparable. I would, however be interested in hearing other opinions of comparisons between the Atmos version (disc based is fine) versus the Blu-Ray 6.1 disc.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the main point @Dan Hitchman was referring to about why comparing the lossy, streamed Atmos mix to the up-mixed 6.1 track is less-than-ideal, is due to the bed-level "remnants" of the extracted objects found in the lossy, streamed version, versus the completely extracted objects in the lossless Atmos track from the disk?


----------



## leefarber

Jonas2 said:


> How high is that ceiling? If you wouldn't find it too visually intrusive, and the ceiling is at least 8', rather than in-ceilings, you could mount small bookshelves/satellites to that molding. The one concern being that mounted vs. installed does bring the speaker a bit closer to you, increases the possibility of localization of the speaker. But it's an option. You can do that with the other pair too, of course.
> 
> Would a kinda right 5.1.4 be better than a "perfect" 5.1.2? Don't know! One other advantage to on-ceiling mounted speakers - you haven't made a big hole - and if it doesn't work, adjusting is easier, and you're patch9ing smaller holes.  I prefer in-ceilings aesthetically, but that's a personal thing. ME? I'd be inclined to try the 5.1.4 - you can set as top front, and top rear - just see if it's convincing! There's some good demo material out there that you can use as a test. If that doesn't do the job for you, try top front/top middle configuration. Worst case, drop it down to the 5.1.2.


Thanks Jonas. My ceilings are 9'. Unfortunately mounted speakers won't cut it with the wife, so it's gotta be in-ceilings. I'll do four total, one pair halfway back, and the other pair as far back as possible, which will end up being more or less directly overhead, maybe a TINY bit behind the MLP. I'm wondering if a tiny bit of angling back on that rear pair would help (even though I do understand it's more about where the sound originates from than where it's angled towards).

Once they're installed, will Audyssey decide if that rear pair is "Top Middle" vs. "Top Rear", or is that a manual setting I would have to make on the Marantz 8805?

Thanks again! If anyone else has thoughts on having the rear-most pair directly overhead (as opposed to behind ) the MLP, I'd love to hear them.


----------



## dfa973

leefarber said:


> Once they're installed, will Audyssey decide if that rear pair is "Top Middle" vs. "Top Rear", or is that a manual setting I would have to make on the Marantz 8805?


You will select manually the speaker position, before calibration. You should select Top Front + Top Rear, but you can also test other combinations, YMMV.



leefarber said:


> Thanks again! If anyone else has thoughts on having the rear-most pair directly overhead (as opposed to behind ) the MLP, I'd love to hear them.


Lots of those setups on this forum, including me. It's not ideal but works very well - our ears/brain system is not that sensitive to sounds coming from top+rear and we are not watching a holographic image with sounds that must match visual objects - so you are fine.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

galonzo said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the main point @*Dan Hitchman* was referring to about why comparing the lossy, streamed Atmos mix to the up-mixed 6.1 track is less-than-ideal, is due to the bed-level "remnants" of the extracted objects found in the lossy, streamed version, versus the completely extracted objects in the lossless Atmos track from the disk?



That is correct.


----------



## MagnumX

galonzo said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the main point @Dan Hitchman was referring to about why comparing the lossy, streamed Atmos mix to the up-mixed 6.1 track is less-than-ideal, is due to the bed-level "remnants" of the extracted objects found in the lossy, streamed version, versus the completely extracted objects in the lossless Atmos track from the disk?


If there's any 'remnant' at all, it's simply not going to be audible under normal circumstances with a good streaming bitrate (you'd literally have to unplug your overhead speakers and even then, short of demo material, how would you pick out what was a "remnant" and what was a partial mix to overhead instead of 100%?). As for direct comparisons, I've never heard a whit of a difference directly comparing iTunes based Atmos streaming versions to UHD discs head-to-head played in a normal fashion once levels were matched. It's not impossible there could be a difference, but I've been pleasantly surprised how good the iTunes Atmos titles have sounded. It's certainly not going to make mountains out of mole hills regardless of what you think of lossy (i.e. Things will still image the same places and at the same basic levels once the overall levels are matched).

It seems to me the person in question dislikes everything streaming and lossy in particular because it's called "lossy" (regardless of how many bits are thrown at it and whether there's an actual human audible difference or not). I've never seen or heard anything with my ears that would lead me to agree with what he's said about lossy soundtracks (or steered logic or Neural X for that matter). While my PSB speakers may not be the most expensive out there, they're pretty darn accurate for the price (I think you'll find @sdrucker back that much up at least and he has a Trinnov system so I'm sure he could have gone with any number of high-end brands if he had wanted to. Several of his speakers are higher end models, but I think you get more high end finished wooden cabinet bang for the buck than the slight sound refinements they provide. Some also offer lower bass extension, but when a subwoofer is going to do most of the lifting, I don't know how low you really _need_ to go on the mains).

As for _Top Gun_, the Atmos version still sounds mostly like a Neural X version of the 6.1 mix to my ears, only with considerably less bass (I assume that was done to not blow up sound bar 'woofer boxes', but that seems to be a growing problem with all releases in general in recent years with Disney probably being the worst offender, but many studios doing noticeably less bass, particularly bass below 30Hz on many rereleases. I think the sound effects to dialog ratio may also be a bit lower, but that's minor compared to the sheer drop in bass impact. Beyond that, I was hoping for more impressive overhead moments with more separation than Neural X provides, but it sounded almost the same. In a way, it's good if you liked the original and previous 6.1 soundtrack and think Top Gun should sound more like 1985 than 2020, but if you're hoping for a Blade Runner Atmos "wow" remix, that's not it, IMO. OTOH, if you had been using DSU or a straight decode before, it will at least get the jets back up toward the ceiling instead of at ear level (the original soundtrack and 6.1 mix was meant to have surrounds higher on the walls than the current ear level speakers so playing them with DSU or straight on an Atmos-based system will put the jets at ear level instead of overhead. Neural X, however placed them near the ceiling with the previous mixes.


----------



## galonzo

@MagnumX , I plan to view the UHD Blu with BEQ applied, so I might as well apply the separate, DTS-HD MA BEQ to the 6.1 track as well, and do a little comparison myself (this should bring the bass about equal between the two, as only applying the BEQ to the Atmos track still surpasses the original 6.1 track's bass levels). I have the means to A/B both the disks as well as the BEQ configurations, and when I use BEQ, I *don't* use DEQ (which would affect the surround levels).

As you can see at the post at the link, there is definitely less bass in the Atmos track (dotted lines are original tracks), but it's easier to see on the "heatmap" comparisons (the DTS-HD graphs are in the spoiler tag, original tracks are on the right).


----------



## JoelxD

Josh Z said:


> The sound of the bad guy smashing into a light fixture comes from the height speakers, which is pretty cool. But those speakers then go silent for the rest of the scene and the majority of the movie. A better Atmos mix would keep those speakers active with atmospheric and ambient noises, reflected sounds, and other effects to create a consistent bubble of sound around the listener.


 Totally agree




Josh Z said:


> There were other upmixers prior to DSU and Neural:X that could expand a 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack to additional speakers. DTS Neo:X and Audyssey DSX could derive Front Wide channels between the front mains and surrounds. Neo:X and Dolby Pro Logic IIz could also create two Front Height channels above the front mains. That's probably what you're thinking of.


 Ahhhh, yes, most likely you are right. Thanks for clearing that up for me.




Josh Z said:


> Keep in mind that these upmixers do not know what's going on in the video content of the movie/game or know what specific sound effects are supposed to be. They derive extra speaker locations using phase correlation. The majority of audio that gets pushed to the height speakers are ambient sounds and reflections. If a specific sound effect was mixed in the ground channels, it's most likely to stay there. However, as I mentioned earlier, Neural:X is more aggressive with pushing some sound effects to the heights than DSU is.


 Dang.. :-(

They should be trying to invent "Smart Upmixers" that even though wouldn't work for all scenarios/scenes it could at least have trigger sounds (for instance a helicopter and airplanes, birds, etc.. makes extremely unique sounds) and when it hears that it knows it needs to push that to the ceiling. As helicopters/planes are never on the ground, and even when they are, they would fill the sky with their sound too. Something like that.

Apply that to other possible sounds too. Issue is, is somethings like a light bulb smashing is not always in a unique sound/position so, the adaptive AI couldn't ever fix that I guess. But at least its a start. And eventually get to Smart Upmixers with adaptive AI that indeed try to literally "watch" your movie and figure out what needs to go where.


----------



## Jonas2

leefarber said:


> Thanks Jonas. My ceilings are 9'. Unfortunately mounted speakers won't cut it with the wife, so it's gotta be in-ceilings. I'll do four total, one pair halfway back, and the other pair as far back as possible, which will end up being more or less directly overhead, maybe a TINY bit behind the MLP. I'm wondering if a tiny bit of angling back on that rear pair would help (even though I do understand it's more about where the sound originates from than where it's angled towards).
> 
> Once they're installed, will Audyssey decide if that rear pair is "Top Middle" vs. "Top Rear", or is that a manual setting I would have to make on the Marantz 8805?
> 
> Thanks again! If anyone else has thoughts on having the rear-most pair directly overhead (as opposed to behind ) the MLP, I'd love to hear them.


Yeah, like dfa973 already said, you'll manually indicate to the receiver what they are, and try them both. Not really a betting man, but if I was, I'd bet that top front/top middle will edge out top front/top rear, given the speaker placement. Atmos is somewhat tolerant, but that pair is definitely way out of tolerance as rears. I mean, Dolby specs. it the way they do for a reason, right? If it didn't matter, they wouldn't spec it as such. So, I don't know about every receiver/processor, but given the fact that at least some that process 4 Atmos, allow pairing as top front/top middle or top middle/to rear, or top front/rear, tells me the processor will account for this in ways specific to those configs, while making placement assumptions about the other speakers in the configuration, end result being the most accurate placement of the sound in space. If it didn't matter, I don't know why they'd bother accommodating it.  Ain't no Atmos expert, just my opinion on the matter. 

But that's the beauty of experimentation, you can prove it to yourself, and settle for what sounds best to you!


----------



## mtyson84

Hello all,

I currently have a couple of Bose single array cubes (only 2 for 7.1.2) as my 2 Atmos or DTS:X Speakers. They are mounted on the ceiling at a 45 degree angle towards the listening position, about a foot in front of my main L and R channel.

Question is: Shall i set these at Front Height? Top Front, or Top middle?

I know someone might say to test and whatever suits me, but id rather have an answer from experience what you all would do.











(PS I know one cube is black and one silver  I bought a single Silver Cube in 2006 to serve as my center channel with my new SXRD Sony TV, and couldn't find a good condition silver on ebay to match last month....just got black  )


----------



## usc1995

mtyson84 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I currently have a couple of Bose single array cubes (only 2 for 7.1.2) as my 2 Atmos or DTS:X Speakers. They are mounted on the ceiling at a 45 degree angle towards the listening position, about a foot in front of my main L and R channel.
> 
> Question is: Shall i set these at Front Height? Top Front, or Top middle?
> 
> I know someone might say to test and whatever suits me, but id rather have an answer from experience what you all would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PS I know one cube is black and one silver  I bought a single Silver Cube in 2006 to serve as my center channel with my new SXRD Sony TV, and couldn't find a good condition silver on ebay to match last month....just got black  )



If you only have one pair oh height speakers I would set them as Top Middle. If you ever get around to adding a pair behind you I would rename them as Top Front and name the behind speakers Top Rear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mtyson84 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I currently have a couple of Bose single array cubes (only 2 for 7.1.2) as my 2 Atmos or DTS:X Speakers. They are mounted on the ceiling at a 45 degree angle towards the listening position, about a foot in front of my main L and R channel.
> 
> Question is: Shall i set these at Front Height? Top Front, or Top middle?
> 
> I know someone might say to test and whatever suits me, but id rather have an answer from experience what you all would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PS I know one cube is black and one silver  I bought a single Silver Cube in 2006 to serve as my center channel with my new SXRD Sony TV, and couldn't find a good condition silver on ebay to match last month....just got black  )



I would set them as front heights. But afaik, with .2 height/tops they all get the same signal anyway.


----------



## vn800art

Going on in checking Atmos releases from Tidal. Here's a really good one: Deutsche Grammophon LISA BATIASHVILI City Lights. It's a compilation of various violin adapted tracks. Cheched Dvorák Simphony n.9 (Atmos) and compared it to (Master stream) upmixed in Auro 3D. I prefer Auro but the difference this time is so so much subtle (I haven't listened to this adapted version before, so ...) that I couldn't tell what the difference is between one version and the other (at least my non experienced ears couldn't) ! 
But cleanliness, dynamics are in both versions! Good work, Grammophon!
Some other opinions out there?
Regards
Alessandro
Edit: checked track nr. 11(Koncz) and I have mixed opinions. Don't know which is better.


----------



## robusto400

*Kinda basic placement question?*

Ok, I have a Yamaha RX-V683 AVR set up with front soundstage (L-C-F), sub and 4 surround speakers mounted at ceiling level (2 on the back wall directly above MLP and 2 mounted on sides about 2 ft. in front of MLP and 10 ft from the fronts). All surrounds are mounted about 11 ft high. This was the configuration I installed years ago to support my Denon 7.1 layout. Now that I have the Yamaha AVR with Atmos 2 channel support for 5.1.2 I designated the 2 side surrounds as my Front Presence Speakers (FPL is what Yamaha calls their height or Atmos speakers). However, the Yamaha set-up indicates the 2 FPL speakers need to be part of the front soundstage and mounted on or in-ceiling above the front L and R speakers. So, my question is does it really matter with only 2 height (Atmos) speakers where they are mounted in relation to the front soundstage? I can hear them firing when playing Atmos encoded tracks or when upmixed with DSU but would they sound better front-mounted which would be about 12 ft away and mounted about 11 ft high? 
I have attached a couple of pics. One shows where the surrounds are now and the other is where they would need to be moved to support Yamaha's guide (above front soundstage). Thanks for any recommendations or comments.


----------



## usc1995

robusto400 said:


> Ok, I have a Yamaha RX-V683 AVR set up with front soundstage (L-C-F), sub and 4 surround speakers mounted at ceiling level (2 on the back wall directly above MLP and 2 mounted on sides about 2 ft. in front of MLP and 10 ft from the fronts). All surrounds are mounted about 11 ft high. This was the configuration I installed years ago to support my Denon 7.1 layout. Now that I have the Yamaha AVR with Atmos 2 channel support for 5.1.2 I designated the 2 side surrounds as my Front Presence Speakers (FPL is what Yamaha calls their height or Atmos speakers). However, the Yamaha set-up indicates the 2 FPL speakers need to be part of the front soundstage and mounted on or in-ceiling above the front L and R speakers. So, my question is does it really matter with only 2 height (Atmos) speakers where they are mounted in relation to the front soundstage? I can hear them firing when playing Atmos encoded tracks or when upmixed with DSU but would they sound better front-mounted which would be about 12 ft away and mounted about 11 ft high?
> I have attached a couple of pics. One shows where the surrounds are now and the other is where they would need to be moved to support Yamaha's guide (above front soundstage). Thanks for any recommendations or comments.


You do not need to place the height speakers up front. See the attached from Yamaha's website here: https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/av_receivers_amps/rx-v683_u/index.html Note the overhead speaker locations available. Where you have proposed placing them should work nicely. Please note however for best placement of speakers in an Atmos system you will want your base layer speakers (5.1) at ear height or just above and only your height speakers on the ceiling or high up on the wall near the ceiling like you are proposing. The reason being is to create separation from the base layer and the height layer to create the 3D sound bubble we are striving for with Atmos and DTSX. It will be very difficult to create that distinction if all of the speakers are located in the height plain. You have a lovely room there and I can see why that might not be desirable from an aesthetic perspective but if you want to hear Atmos the way it was intended you will want to find a way to bring down those base layer speakers.


----------



## dj7675

Looking for a little help on atmos speaker placement. I have had a 7.1.6 system but I am in amidst of adjusting my seating location and changing top speakers. 
What I have:
Denon X8500 upporting 7.1.6 or 9.1.4
Room: 23 x 14 x 8
First row at 12 feet from screen
There is a second row but not the primary concern place at about 17 ft from the screen.

I am considering going to 9.1.4 and do wide speakers instead of 6 height speakers. If I do this would performance suffer? It looks like the angles would be around 36 deg or so if my math is right which appears to be within the spec. Or if I went with 9.1.4 would it be better to run the top speakers at about 45 degress. Speakers will be smaller aimable bookshelf speakers rather than ceiling speakers (if that matters). So it either case I can aim them towards the listening position. I am wanting the layout to be good for Atmos/DTS Pro (coming in december to the Denon X8500). Any thoughts on layout suggestions would be helpful. 
I guess it gets down to is a FH/RH (place on the front and back wall) layout a good idea with my room dimensions.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Hello guys,

For those that are interested Chad B completed his Custom Calibrating yesterday.
He just now completed a post on my dedicated thread.

*audio calibration summary*

*Left Click,

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?p=59820044#post59820044*


Terry


----------



## davcole

Curious opinions of Mask Of Zorro's Atmos mix? I find it awfully bright!

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## bryantc

My room is 13' x 16' x 10'. I'm only concerned with MLP which is currently 7' from the back wall but can be moved back if necessary. I'm going for 7.2.4 with in-ceiling Top Speakers.

1. Should my surrounds be monopole or bipole?

2. Should my in-ceiling Tops be monopole or bipole?


----------



## fookoo_2010

bryantc said:


> My room is 13' x 16' x 10'. I'm only concerned with MLP which is currently 7' from the back wall but can be moved back if necessary. I'm going for 7.2.4 with in-ceiling Top Speakers.
> 
> 1. Should my surrounds be monopole or bipole?
> 
> 2. Should my in-ceiling Tops be monopole or bipole?


You don't indicate what your current speakers are. Are you going to replace them all?


----------



## bryantc

fookoo_2010 said:


> You don't indicate what your current speakers are. Are you going to replace them all?


Yes


----------



## MagnumX

bryantc said:


> My room is 13' x 16' x 10'. I'm only concerned with MLP which is currently 7' from the back wall but can be moved back if necessary. I'm going for 7.2.4 with in-ceiling Top Speakers.
> 
> 1. Should my surrounds be monopole or bipole?
> 
> 2. Should my in-ceiling Tops be monopole or bipole?


I would go with monopoles all around for that setup. 

If you're going in-ceiling, you might want to find out the ones with the best aimed response and that also have matching bed level speakers. Personally, I find it more important to having matching drivers wherever possible across the line. All my drivers, for example are the same size and make, although the rear four speakers are a newer model (necessary to mount them on the ceiling and fit the slimmer towers in the space provided; fortunately they have the same timbre. The drivers are updated versions of the same size ones, however). With 17 speakers, the sound matches seamlessly despite 5 different models from PSB (14 speakers of which have identical drivers). I also would go with 3 matching front speakers, if possible instead of a "center channel speaker" which even with the same drivers, never seem to match the dispersion pattern leading to people wishing they had things like "Center Spread" in DSU when it doesn't matter with identical speakers.

In other words, even if you're going to use tower speakers only for the front, try to find a bookshelf pair with the same midrange/tweeters and hopefully the same for the ceiling, but that may be more difficult to match up given the size of most in-ceiling speakers. I went with on-ceiling speakers in the back (it's a PSB Image B speaker inside an enclosure that can be aimed and mounted on a ceiling or wall called the PSB CS500). My "surround heights" (also doing "top middle" duty) are bipoles, but they're aimed to the front/back rows, not being used to create a null of any sort. I basically reused them from my 6.1 setup and it fits the Auro-3D setup perfectly and with my not-so-wide room suffices for top middle as well. I put actual bookshelf speakers on the top row of my bookshelf in the front aimed downward, only because it would have looked terrible to mount speakers on the ceiling just in front of the bookshelf and I wanted "heights" so to use the full ceiling length plus work with Auro-3D. I have top middle to bridge them so it's perfectly even, but then I have three rows of seating. 

But for only the MLP and using "tops" in-ceiling, monopoles are the way to go for sure for the sharpest possible imaging.


----------



## fookoo_2010

bryantc said:


> Yes


Given your 88" OLED, your budget, in comparison, can be whatever you are willing to spend. Given that, I would suggest your base layer of speakers, including the wides, should all be the same drivers. For the height speakers, you can go the same way or somewhat depart from the base layer. There isn't a lot of stress put on the height speakers, compared to the all important center speaker. Monopole or dipole? I would see no reason in a home theater to choose dipoles. Your media room has about the same width dimensions as my home theater room and I went with 9.2.6, not that the third pair of middle height speakers makes much of a difference because of virtual imaging between the front and rear height speakers. The same rationale could be applied to wides in that there could be a virtual image between the front speakers and the two surround speakers. I went with the 9.2.6 because I could, given the redoing of my own home theater room in which placements of speakers were somewhat hampered by what is in the room.


----------



## MagnumX

fookoo_2010 said:


> Given your 88" OLED, your budget, in comparison, can be whatever you are willing to spend. Given that, I would suggest your base layer of speakers, including the wides


Including the wides? He said 7.2.4, not 9.2.4.



> Monopole or dipole? I would see no reason in a home theater to choose dipoles.


He said monopole or *bi*pole, not dipole.


----------



## bryantc

Actually I just realized I don't HAVE to do in-ceiling. I could just as easily mount them if that provides better options. But I definitely want them in the *Top* positions rather than Height.


----------



## MagnumX

bryantc said:


> Actually I just realized I don't HAVE to do in-ceiling. I could just as easily mount them if that provides better options. But I definitely want them in the *Top* positions rather than Height.


I recommend PSB while you can still get the current lineup. PSB X1T or X2T towers and/or Image B bookshelves plus either CS500 or CS1000 for on-ceiling mounts (latter has deeper bass on each case) and your choice of sub and you'll be all set. 

There are other good brands out there, of course, but few are rated +/- 1dB across most of the range for the price.


----------



## StevenC56

bryantc said:


> Actually I just realized I don't HAVE to do in-ceiling. I could just as easily mount them if that provides better options. But I definitely want them in the *Top* positions rather than Height.


I would do in-ceiling's if you can. They work really well to make the Atmos bubble seamless, and aesthetically you can't beat the look.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> I would do in-ceiling's if you can. They work really well to make the Atmos bubble seamless, and aesthetically you can't beat the look.


They do look better, but I take issue with the implied notion that on-ceiling speakers wouldn't be seamless. It's much easier to find matching driver sets with bed-level and get deeper bass with on-ceiling.


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> They do look better, but I take issue with the implied notion that on-ceiling speakers wouldn't be seamless. It's much easier to find matching driver sets with bed-level and get deeper bass with on-ceiling.


I was lucky enough to buy some closeout DT in-ceiling speakers that use the same tweeters as the other DT's in my system. Plus, with 9" woofers they have pretty good bass extension. I see your point however if someone can't get a decent match for in-ceiling speakers, but can get on-ceiling models that do.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> I was lucky enough to buy some closeout DT in-ceiling speakers that use the same tweeters as the other DT's in my system. Plus, with 9" woofers they have pretty good bass extension. I see your point however if someone can't get a decent match for in-ceiling speakers, but can get on-ceiling models that do.


On-ceiling (or on wall for that matter if one does the Auro layout) are also considerably easier to install yourself. My home theater is below another room above so there's no attic access, etc. so it would be very difficult to fish wires through the ceiling. You can move on-ceiling around to try different locations as well if you don't finalize the wiring. Sound wise, there should be no difference in terms of imaging. Real Atmos theaters are on-ceiling/hanging as well. A clean look is the best thing about in-ceiling, I think.


----------



## eaayoung

I inquired in this thread about my Def Tech system and which Atmos speakers would be best. I can’t recall who recommended the DT DI 8R, but they were spot on. They sound great with my SM55 and two DI 6.5S surround speakers. I did end up replacing my center channel speaker with a DT CS9040 as it became apparent my PC2000 was the weak point in my 5.1.4 system. 

I love watching movies in Atmos. Four Atmos speakers is the way to go if you can swing it. The sound is really immersive. Paying $600+ to run speaker wires up into my attic and down a couple of walls plus installing the two in-wall surrounds and four in-ceiling Atmos speakers was worth every penny. Love the look too.


----------



## batpig

bryantc said:


> My room is 13' x 16' x 10'. I'm only concerned with MLP which is currently 7' from the back wall but can be moved back if necessary. I'm going for 7.2.4 with in-ceiling Top Speakers.
> 
> 1. Should my surrounds be monopole or bipole?
> 
> 2. Should my in-ceiling Tops be monopole or bipole?


In a perfect world, all speakers would be monopole in an Atmos setup.

With your 10' ceilings, there is zero concern with "hot spotting" from excessively close overheads, so 100% go with monopoles up top. Same with being 7' from the back wall for back surrounds.

The only dimension of "concern" is the 13' width for monopole side surrounds, especially for off-axis listeners who would only be a few feet from the speakers. But since you only care about MLP, then I would keep it simple and do matching monopoles everwhere.

If you have the budget, Triad in-walls + in-ceilings would be an excellent fit. The in-ceiling satellites have 45 degree angled baffles which makes them perfect for Atmos use. And using in-walls will give you extra "breathing room" preserving space vs freestanding bookshelf speakers in the room (especially for the side surrounds). 

The Bronze Sat models (5.25" woofer) run about $400/each and the Silver Sat (6.5" woofer) are $450/each. I would use the same model for all 8 speakers which will give you seamless tonal blend in the surround field. Around $5K total cost for 3 x Bronze LCR + 8 x Bronze Sat and that should sound fantastic in a room that size


----------



## scarabaeus

*Happy Birthday Atmos!*


It's been 6 exciting years already, since Dolby announced it for AVRs. Congratulations to everyone here, from the enthusiastic pioneers to the recent newcomers!


----------



## tigerhonaker

scarabaeus said:


> *Happy Birthday Atmos!*
> 
> 
> It's been 6 exciting years already, since Dolby announced it for AVRs. Congratulations to everyone here, from the enthusiastic pioneers to the recent newcomers!


scarabaeus,




Atmos is totally "AWESOME" ...





Terry


----------



## audiofan1

Yup! Atmos rocks! And it just keeps getting better with age as all things do! well, except bread and a few other things


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Yes indeed. Love my Atmos. 

Btw, anybody know why all the Atmos white paper links go to Dolby’s useless generic page?


----------



## scarabaeus

Polyrythm1k said:


> Btw, anybody know why all the Atmos white paper links go to Dolby’s useless generic page?



I do not know, but it looks like some designers have gotten hold of their website...


If you switch to the professional section on dolby.com, and search for Atmos, there's a lot of info. I found a sort-of "home page" for all things Home Atmos:



https://professional.dolby.com/tv/home/dolby-atmos/



Among the docs:


Installation manual: https://professional.dolby.com/site...atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


Upfiring speakers: https://professional.dolby.com/site...os/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf


Soundbars: https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos_sound-bar-setup-guide.pdf


And, last but not least, the Whitepaper you mentioned: https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-home-theater.pdf


Cheers!


----------



## StevenC56

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yes indeed. Love my Atmos.
> 
> Btw, anybody know why all the Atmos white paper links go to Dolby’s useless generic page?


Well-There's a toilet paper shortage, so maybe the folks at Dolby Labs were forced to use whatever they had.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

scarabaeus said:


> I do not know, but it looks like some designers have gotten hold of their website...
> 
> 
> If you switch to the professional section on dolby.com, and search for Atmos, there's a lot of info. I found a sort-of "home page" for all things Home Atmos:
> 
> 
> 
> https://professional.dolby.com/tv/home/dolby-atmos/
> 
> 
> 
> Among the docs:
> 
> 
> Installation manual: https://professional.dolby.com/site...atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf
> 
> 
> Upfiring speakers: https://professional.dolby.com/site...os/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf
> 
> 
> Soundbars: https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos_sound-bar-setup-guide.pdf
> 
> 
> And, last but not least, the Whitepaper you mentioned: https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-home-theater.pdf
> 
> 
> Cheers!



Thank you! I guess I didn’t do enough deep diving.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

StevenC56 said:


> Well-There's a toilet paper shortage, so maybe the folks at Dolby Labs were forced to use whatever they had.



Good point!


----------



## Ricoflashback

scarabaeus said:


> *Happy Birthday Atmos!*
> 
> It's been 6 exciting years already, since Dolby announced it for AVRs. Congratulations to everyone here, from the enthusiastic pioneers to the recent newcomers!



***While not the greatest of movies or even a Dolby Atmos mix, “A Hole In The Ground” on Amazon Prime in 5.1 and upmixed via DSU on my Denon 6700H sounded fantastic. Lots of side to side, back and front plus height action. Worth a look just for the audio track. 



P.S. - Just seeing if this thread has a database problem as I couldn't post regularly.


----------



## Nima

Hi everyone, I have a 5.1.4 setup with huge tower speakers from Klipsch. Now I found another pair and I am thinking of a 7.1.4 setup. Would it make sense to move the surround to the sides 80 y90 degrees and have the other pair as back rear speakers angeled towards the couch? I dont want to place the rears in the middle of the room.

TIA 
N.


----------



## sdurani

Nima said:


> Would it make sense to move the surround to the sides 80 y90 degrees and have the other pair as back rear speakers angeled towards the couch?


No need to move anything. Just place the new pair of speakers against the side walls, slightly forward of the listeners (around ±80° from centre). I would aim ALL speakers towards the listener at the opposite end of the couch to compensate for distance.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Nima said:


> Hi everyone, I have a 5.1.4 setup with huge tower speakers from Klipsch. Now I found another pair and I am thinking of a 7.1.4 setup. Would it make sense to move the surround to the sides 80 y90 degrees and have the other pair as back rear speakers angeled towards the couch? I dont want to place the rears in the middle of the room.
> 
> TIA
> N.


I was wondering this as well-I have a 5.1.4 also and, as such, have my surrounds at the recommended 5.1 angle (kind of back corners of room). It would be impossible for me to move them directly behind and would be too close in the recommended 7.1.4 setup but want to explore 7.1.4 with “rear” surrounds left in corners and new side surrounds at 75-80 degrees in front of MLP


----------



## Nima

sdurani said:


> No need to move anything. Just place the new pair of speakers against the side walls, slightly forward of the listeners (around ±80° from centre). I would aim ALL speakers towards the listener at the opposite end of the couch to compensate for distance.


What exactly do you mean with opposite of the couch? I am sitting in the middle of the couch which is my MLP. No one else on the couch. Do you mean to point the right front speaker to the left of the MLP?

Driving 7-8 hours to pick up those new monsters tomorrow. I hope it is worth it going from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 

TIA


----------



## chi_guy50

Nima said:


> What exactly do you mean with opposite of the couch? I am sitting in the middle of the couch which is my MLP. No one else on the couch. Do you mean to point the right front speaker to the left of the MLP?


He explains it (time/energy trading) here.


----------



## sdurani

Nima said:


> I am sitting in the middle of the couch which is my MLP. No one else on the couch.


IF you're going to be the only listener, then ignore my previous suggestion about time/energy trading, since it was for evening out the response across the entire couch.


----------



## Nima

sdurani said:


> No need to move anything. Just place the new pair of speakers against the side walls, slightly forward of the listeners (around ±80° from centre). I would aim ALL speakers towards the listener at the opposite end of the couch to compensate for distance.


Ok I might experiment with it since I now will have 6 one inch CD horns pointed at me. ;-)


----------



## Nima

Quick question, what would I gain if ai bring the rears more closer together? How much is the ideal separation from the 80 degrees sides and the rears?

TIA


----------



## sdurani

Nima said:


> Quick question, what would I gain if ai bring the rears more closer together? How much is the ideal separation from the 80 degrees sides and the rears?


As you bring the Rear speakers closer together it becomes harder to hear stereo separation behind you. Typical recommended spread for the Rears is between 60° and 90° separation (30° to 45° from the centre line).


----------



## crodexter

*Dolby Atmos and channels*

Hello,

I hope my question fits this thread.
I bought Denon AVR-X1600H as upgrade to Dolby Atmos.
I have LG C8 which of course can't handle and pass loseless audio but it should be able to pass Netflix Dolby Atmos in Dolby Digital +.
I don't have yet additional speaker for height but I've been playing with signal just to see what I get as input on receiver.

On Denon AVR Remote app as audio input I see 7.1 but in configuration 5.1 + SBL and SBR channel (both back channels).
Receiver gets that format from TV and from FireTV Stick 4K when I play Dolby Atmos demo materials and Netflix too.

What I don't understand how Dolby Atmos works regarding channels and speaker location.
Do you have to play 9.1 channel audio material to have 5.1.4 Dolby atmos?
Does Netflix provide Dolby Atmos 9.1 or 7.1 and what speaker configuration is supported.

Most video materials are 7.1 and Dolby Atmos supports much more speakers.
Does this configuation "5.1 + SBL and SBR" means I am not having channels for height or I will have height sound since Dolby Atmos has metadata.
Does it even matter what I see as AVR audio input signal.

I googled but all pages are explaining speakers. Not files and channels.

Thank you in advance


----------



## dschulz

crodexter said:


> Hello,
> 
> What I don't understand how Dolby Atmos works regarding channels and speaker location.
> Do you have to play 9.1 channel audio material to have 5.1.4 Dolby atmos?
> Does Netflix provide Dolby Atmos 9.1 or 7.1 and what speaker configuration is supported.


In general Atmos tracks will use as many speakers as you have, from 5.1.2 to 24.1.10 (there are exceptions with some movies that are hard printed to 7.1.4, and of course how much the mixers utilize the full power of panning sound all around the room is a creative decision). 

The receiver you purchased has only 7 processing channels, though, so you can do either Atmos 5.1.2 or non-Atmos 7.1 (using the Surround Back channels in addition to the usual 5.1). If you want to use all 7.1 base channels plus 2 or (better yet) 4 height speakers you need to step up a model or two in the Denon range.


----------



## batpig

Nima said:


> Quick question, what would I gain if ai bring the rears more closer together? How much is the ideal separation from the 80 degrees sides and the rears?


To add to Sanjay's response, you also want to think about it in context of the side surround location. For example, if your side surrounds are slightly behind the seating, then spacing the back surrounds wider will reduce separation between the rears and sides (and you likely won't hear much benefit from the rears being there at all). But if your side surrounds are slightly forward, then there's more "breathing room" for the back surrounds to provide distinct rear imaging.

Your hearing is fairly poor for sounds behind you, so without clear separation between side surrounds vs back surrounds, it can honestly be difficult to hear the difference between 5.1 and 7.1.


----------



## batpig

crodexter said:


> What I don't understand how Dolby Atmos works regarding channels and speaker location.
> Do you have to play 9.1 channel audio material to have 5.1.4 Dolby atmos?
> Does Netflix provide Dolby Atmos 9.1 or 7.1 and what speaker configuration is supported.


The easiest way to think about it is that Atmos scales automagically to your speaker layout. You don't have to worry about it, the Dolby decoder will know the best way to deploy the audio to your speaker layout.

There's two basic options for what happens: 

- if your speaker layout is "standard" (e.g. 5.1) then the Atmos metadata is ignored, and it decodes like a standard 5.1 or 7.1 track
- if your speaker layout has "extra" speakers (usually heights) then the Atmos decoder kicks in, and the standard channel mix and is effectively "broken apart" into its individual object components, which are then rendered on the fly based on your speaker layout

Once the Atmos renderer is doing its thing, each object has metadata which defines its position in space. The "channels" basically become "fixed objects" with specific coordinates (e.g. side surround = an object 90 degrees directly to the side at ear level) and the Atmos renderer is smart enough to use the available speakers to reproduce the objects as precisely as possible. 

So an Atmos track is never encoded for 9.1 or 7.1, it's just an Atmos track and the renderer will scale it to whatever speaker layout you have. If that's 5.1.2, then sounds over your head have to come out of 2 speakers. If your layout is 5.1.4, that means there's 4 speakers above to position overhead sounds, so you have more spatial precision (e.g. a sound can move side to side and/or front to back). Same with surrounds, you start with one pair of "side surrounds" and then you can add rear surrounds and with some processors "front surrounds" (wides) so sounds at ear level can also be positioned more precisely.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched DOCTOR SLEEP (Director's Cut) in Dolby Atmos last night. It generally used Atmos to pretty good effect including some rotating sound effects (when the character was leaving in an "astral body" or something like that and the picture rotated on-screen, the sound rotated with it onto the ceiling, etc.) It had a lot of bed level effects that rotated around the 5.1 part of the 7.1 layout as well that were pretty neat. Generally speaking, it had a pretty good Atmos soundtrack.


(Anyone else getting database errors using the quick reply and/or "advanced" mode? I had to quote a post and then delete it to reply without the database error in this thread. It didn't happen in any other thread).


----------



## Nima

batpig said:


> To add to Sanjay's response, you also want to think about it in context of the side surround location. For example, if your side surrounds are slightly behind the seating, then spacing the back surrounds wider will reduce separation between the rears and sides (and you likely won't hear much benefit from the rears being there at all). But if your side surrounds are slightly forward, then there's more "breathing room" for the back surrounds to provide distinct rear imaging.
> 
> Your hearing is fairly poor for sounds behind you, so without clear separation between side surrounds vs back surrounds, it can honestly be difficult to hear the difference between 5.1 and 7.1.


Thank you Sanjay and Bat. I have my new side surround towers at 80 degrees and put the rears towards 40 degrees from the center line behind the couch. Will post pics this week.


----------



## Nima

One more follow up question. I have Tannoy Dci6 Atmos speakers. I reckon this should be pointed straight to the MLP?


----------



## sdurani

Nima said:


> I reckon this should be pointed straight to the MLP?


Treat the speakers in the height layer the same as the speakers in the base layer. If your floor speakers are all pointed straight at the MLP, then your height speakers should be pointed straight at the MLP. Even though they're above you, they're still speakers.


----------



## Ricoflashback

MagnumX said:


> I just watched DOCTOR SLEEP (Director's Cut) in Dolby Atmos last night. It generally used Atmos to pretty good effect including some rotating sound effects (when the character was leaving in an "astral body" or something like that and the picture rotated on-screen, the sound rotated with it onto the ceiling, etc.) It had a lot of bed level effects that rotated around the 5.1 part of the 7.1 layout as well that were pretty neat. Generally speaking, it had a pretty good Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> (Anyone else getting database errors using the quick reply and/or "advanced" mode? I had to quote a post and then delete it to reply without the database error in this thread. It didn't happen in any other thread).


***Yes - tried to post the following. Let's see if it works as a response to your post:

***I watched the play "Hamilton" last night on Disney+ with Dolby Atmos audio. Interesting mix. You definitely feel like part of the audience with the sound all around you. I had to use my Roku Ultra as my internal Android app (Sony 900F) provides Dolby Vision but not the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. (AVR - Denon 6700H) The Roku Ultra provided 4K/HDR and Dolby Atmos audio - - no Dolby Vision. All in all - -an incredible play. Cheaper than buying a theater ticket! 

I'll probably subscribe to Disney+ for a month or so to go through their vintage movies like the Star Wars series which also has Dolby Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## avsngaiouser

*ATV 4K, Atmos, Dolby MAT and a TrueHD Decoder*

Hi All - this could go into many different threads, but I'll start here. It's a bit of a story, but please bear with me.



In my system, I have an ATV4k that connects to my Sony A9F tv and my old Denon AVR-890 via an HDFury Vertex (sends the video direct to the TV in full DV and the bitstream audio to the receiver via the second HDMI output on the vertex). This worked a treat and I was getting Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio on the receiver from Atmos content on both Netflix and Disney+. Knowing that ATV4k uses Dolby MAT, I assumed the AVR890 was coping OK with it as the blue TrueHD icon lit up and I got full 7.1 output.



My Sony X700 bluray is also connected to the vertex and I get the same result when I play Atmos content from a UHD bluray - TrueHD when I play an Atmos film.


In May, Sony released a firmware update for the A9F that, among other things, enabled "Atmos" processing for the internal speakers (which I don't use). I'm suspecting this is the cause of my current issue, but I can't be 100% sure as I can't downgrade the firmware.


I now have an issue only with the ATV4k where when there is Atmos in Netflix or Disney+, the blue TrueHD light comes up on the receiver, but there's no audio output. The vertex reports bitstream audio, but the receiver is silent. 



So I go into the ATV4k and disable Atmos, ending up with only a 5.1 output.

UHD Blurays from the X700 still play the 7.1 bed from Atmos as TrueHD fine. 



Does anyone have any suggestions for an approach that might help me get the TrueHD working again from the Atmos content on the ATV4k?


----------



## batpig

Something isn't adding up. The ATV4K (nor any streaming content) does NOT use Dolby TrueHD, it uses the lossy compressed Dolby Digital Plus. You can’t get a TrueHD signal from a source that doesn’t provide TrueHD. 

Moreover, the ATV does NOT bitstream Dolby Digital Plus and/or Atmos, it sends it out as 5.1 PCM (+ Dolby MAT for Atmos metadata) so the processor would not even know it was a Dolby codec. On an older Denon like your AVR-890 it should show as MULTICH IN with 5.1 input channels lit up. 

So the fact that the TrueHD light is erroneously coming on indicates to me that the Vertex is the core issue, something about the way it's configured and manipulating the EDID is causing the flag to light on the AVR incorrectly.

The Blu-ray signal is different because it IS outputting bitstreamed Dolby TrueHD, which is fully backwards compatibly. Your non-Atmos AVR just recognizes it as TrueHD and decodes as 7.1, bada bing bada boom. But something very weird is happening with the ATV 4K.


----------



## avsngaiouser

batpig said:


> So the fact that the TrueHD light is erroneously coming on indicates to me that the Vertex is the core issue, something about the way it's configured and manipulating the EDID is causing the flag to light on the AVR incorrectly.


Thanks Batpig - that's kind of what I thought was happening. The only thing that changed was the firmware upgrade on the A9F, so I suspect there's something new in the EDID reporting Atmos support that has changed the behaviour of the vertex. Not sure I can spare the brain cells to try and make it work when when it's just 5.1 + MAT (I thought it was 7.1 + MAT). Will leave it with Atmos disabled and use 5.1 PCM until I get a proper Atmos receiver.


----------



## MagnumX

@avsngaiouser

The HDFury Vertex2 converts any audio signal to one usable by your AVR according to their web site so that could explain the apparent TrueHD signal. The firmware update may have altered something slightly. I'd check the Vertex manual to see if there's a pass through mode.


----------



## Matt L

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Yes - tried to post the following. Let's see if it works as a response to your post:
> 
> ***I watched the play "Hamilton" last night on Disney+ with Dolby Atmos audio. Interesting mix. You definitely feel like part of the audience with the sound all around you. I had to use my Roku Ultra as my internal Android app (Sony 900F) provides Dolby Vision but not the Dolby Atmos soundtrack. (AVR - Denon 6700H) The Roku Ultra provided 4K/HDR and Dolby Atmos audio - - no Dolby Vision. All in all - -an incredible play. Cheaper than buying a theater ticket!
> 
> I'll probably subscribe to Disney+ for a month or so to go through their vintage movies like the Star Wars series which also has Dolby Atmos soundtracks.


Yes, Hamilton in DV and Atmos is stunning. If you have a spare 3 hours watch and enjoy it. The audience reaction fills the room as it should, not all up front like some productions. Can't fault Disney on this one.


----------



## FilmMixer

batpig said:


> Something isn't adding up. The ATV4K (nor any streaming content) does NOT use Dolby TrueHD, it uses the lossy compressed Dolby Digital Plus. You can’t get a TrueHD signal from a source that doesn’t provide TrueHD.
> 
> Moreover, the ATV does NOT bitstream Dolby Digital Plus and/or Atmos, it sends it out as 5.1 PCM (+ Dolby MAT for Atmos metadata) so the processor would not even know it was a Dolby codec. On an older Denon like your AVR-890 it should show as MULTICH IN with 5.1 input channels lit up.
> 
> So the fact that the TrueHD light is erroneously coming on indicates to me that the Vertex is the core issue, something about the way it's configured and manipulating the EDID is causing the flag to light on the AVR incorrectly.
> 
> The Blu-ray signal is different because it IS outputting bitstreamed Dolby TrueHD, which is fully backwards compatibly. Your non-Atmos AVR just recognizes it as TrueHD and decodes as 7.1, bada bing bada boom. But something very weird is happening with the ATV 4K.



As a side note... 

The Trinnov reports MAT as TrueHD, and Trinnov said it was by design. 

When I originally got my HTP-1 to beta test it was doing the same thing. I reported it to my engineering contact and he also said it was working as intended. He did however change it so it now reports MAT... 

When we discussed the issue I was informed that a MAT payload is handled by the TrueHD code... so it appears that the engineers need to do some extra work to have it display MAT/PCM (my old Yamaha used to repeat Atmos/PCM...).


----------



## markus767

FilmMixer said:


> As a side note...
> 
> The Trinnov reports MAT as TrueHD, and Trinnov said it was by design.
> 
> When I originally got my HTP-1 to beta test it was doing the same thing. I reported it to my engineering contact and he also said it was working as intended. He did however change it so it now reports MAT...
> 
> When we discussed the issue I was informed that a MAT payload is handled by the TrueHD code... so it appears that the engineers need to do some extra work to have it display MAT/PCM (my old Yamaha used to repeat Atmos/PCM...).


Yes, in MAT 2.x the audio format can be TrueHD or PCM. This is what Dolby says about MAT 2.0:

"Dolby Atmos in Dolby MAT

In the past, the Dolby Metadata-Enhanced Audio Transmission (MAT) encoder resided in a Blu-ray player to pack the variable bit-rate Dolby TrueHD bitstreams for transmission over the fixed bit-rate HDMI. A MAT decoder was subsequently used in an AVR to unpack the Dolby TrueHD bitstreams. With the introduction of Dolby Atmos, we have expanded this technology to support encoding of Dolby Atmos content as lossless pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio.

A key benefit of Dolby MAT 2.0 is that Dolby Atmos object audio can be live encoded and transmitted from a source device with limited latency and processing complexity. Among the possible sources are broadcast set-top boxes and game consoles. The Dolby MAT 2.0 decoder in an AVR outputs the object-based audio and its metadata for further processing. The Dolby MAT 2.0 container is scalable and leverages the full potential of the HDMI audio pipeline."

Source: "Dolby Atmos® for the Home Theater", April 2015, PDF


----------



## Josh Z

Matt L said:


> Yes, Hamilton in DV and Atmos is stunning. If you have a spare 3 hours watch and enjoy it. The audience reaction fills the room as it should, not all up front like some productions. Can't fault Disney on this one.


I was disappointed in the Hamilton audio mix. Vocal intelligibility of the lyrics wasn't great, especially in the first act. I had a lot of trouble telling what some characters were saying. And the audience cheering in the surrounds was distractingly way louder than any of the singing up front.

I get, intellectually, that if you were actually in the audience, the sounds of people screaming right next to your ear would be much louder than the actors on stage. However, as an experience of watching a filmed recording of the production, I found it annoying.


----------



## gwsat

Josh Z said:


> I was disappointed in the Hamilton audio mix. Vocal intelligibility of the lyrics wasn't great, especially in the first act. I had a lot of trouble telling what some characters were saying. And the audience cheering in the surrounds was distractingly way louder than any of the singing up front.
> 
> I get, intellectually, that if you were actually in the audience, the sounds of people screaming right next to your ear would be much louder than the actors on stage. However, as an experience of watching a filmed recording of the production, I found it annoying.


I have a somewhat different take about the effectiveness of the _Hamilton_ films Atmos audio track, more because of my point of view than because of any disagreement with your analysis. 

I am a lifelong musical theater fan and saw many Broadways productions back in the day, as well as a large number of national touring company productions that came to my area. I have bought the DVDs and later the BDs of virtually all of the filmed performances of live performances I could lay my hands on. In the early years, disks of stage productions lacked subtitles and I hated it. Subtitles add significantly to my enjoyment of and appreciation for all forms of music drama. 

Finally to my point: I used subtitles when I watched the _Hamilton_ film, so the inclusion of ambient “live” theatre sounds added to rather detracted from my enjoyment of the film. To your point, though. There is a price to be paid for using subtitles but because they let me understand every word of every song, it was a small price to pay. Bottom line on the film: _Hamilton_ is already one of my all time favorite musicals and I deeply appreciate that this wonderful film has an Atmos audio track that was perfect for me. 10 Stars out of 10!


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> @avsngaiouser
> 
> The HDFury Vertex2* converts any audio signal* to one usable by your AVR according to their web site so that could explain the apparent TrueHD signal. The firmware update may have altered something slightly. I'd check the Vertex manual to see if there's a pass through mode.


This is not exactly true.

Vertex2 can be configured to present different EDID to the *sources*, than the sinks have. This enable the *source *to "think" it has "other" equipment connected and do any video/audio conversion to match the presented sink EDID. Vertex2 can also "extract" the audio from a HDMI signal, coming from source or coming back from an ARC/eARC sink connection.

But Vertex2 does Not convert any audio format never. It passes it always as it is.


----------



## MagnumX

AYanguas said:


> This is not exactly true.
> 
> Vertex2 can be configured to present different EDID to the *sources*, than the sinks have. This enable the *source *to "think" it has "other" equipment connected and do any video/audio conversion to match the presented sink EDID. Vertex2 can also "extract" the audio from a HDMI signal, coming from source or coming back from an ARC/eARC sink connection.
> 
> But Vertex2 does Not convert any audio format never. It passes it always as it is.


I guess I misunderstood what they were talking about.


----------



## avsngaiouser

AYanguas said:


> This is not exactly true.
> 
> Vertex2 can be configured to present different EDID to the *sources*, than the sinks have. This enable the *source *to "think" it has "other" equipment connected and do any video/audio conversion to match the presented sink EDID. Vertex2 can also "extract" the audio from a HDMI signal, coming from source or coming back from an ARC/eARC sink connection.
> 
> But Vertex2 does Not convert any audio format never. It passes it always as it is.


 I have the Vertex1 not the 2. I'm assuming the functionality is the same across both? It looks like I need to make my ATV4k think the audio sink is the AVR890 given the A9F now reports full Atmos while leaving the video sink as the A9F. Time to post on the Vertex thread.


----------



## Rich428

*Help with Atmos*

I'm hoping someone can help me with a perplexing Atmos situation.

Here's what I have at the moment:

AppleTV 4K>HDMI>AVPro Current Matrix>HDMI>AVPro Splitter>>2 HDMI's to DenonX8500 CD HDMI input/AVPro Tx Balun>Cat6A>AVPro Rx Balun>Samsung Q900R

Playing an Atmos Track - No Atmos

When I matrixed all same through the Denon, I got Atmos.

I'm pulling my hair out.


----------



## Matt L

Rich428 said:


> I'm hoping someone can help me with a perplexing Atmos situation.
> 
> Here's what I have at the moment:
> 
> AppleTV 4K>HDMI>AVPro Current Matrix>HDMI>AVPro Splitter>>2 HDMI's to DenonX8500 CD HDMI input/AVPro Tx Balun>Cat6A>AVPro Rx Balun>Samsung Q900R
> 
> Playing an Atmos Track - No Atmos
> 
> When I matrixed all same through the Denon, I got Atmos.
> 
> I'm pulling my hair out.


Do you get Atmos is the ATV is connected directly to the Denon? When trouble shooting start with the most basic setup and work back.

Odds are you will not get much help at the moment in this thread as there is a massive database error going on and this normally very active thread is dead. About the only way to post is to quote some other post.


----------



## Krobar

FilmMixer said:


> As a side note...
> 
> The Trinnov reports MAT as TrueHD, and Trinnov said it was by design.
> 
> When I originally got my HTP-1 to beta test it was doing the same thing. I reported it to my engineering contact and he also said it was working as intended. He did however change it so it now reports MAT...
> 
> When we discussed the issue I was informed that a MAT payload is handled by the TrueHD code... so it appears that the engineers need to do some extra work to have it display MAT/PCM (my old Yamaha used to repeat Atmos/PCM...).


I did find that although Dolby MAT is handled by the same decoder there are compatibility differences. For example the 256SPF 1.5Mbit DD+ used by Universal HDDVDs does not work over MAT with most brands of receiver (Denon/Marantz and Yamaha are about the only ones that work) but compatibility is good using normal bitstream.


----------



## [email protected]

If that is an AVPro 1x2 splitter, you will want to copy the EDID from both outputs to merge the EDIDs together and the. Copy that EDID into the switch.


----------



## [email protected]

Also, give AVPro a call, tech support is always ready to help


----------



## Erod

Nima said:


> Quick question, what would I gain if ai bring the rears more closer together? How much is the ideal separation from the 80 degrees sides and the rears?
> 
> TIA


Ideally, you should have 60 degrees separation between each of your bed channels (except the center channel).


----------



## S_K_I

Rich428 said:


> I'm hoping someone can help me with a perplexing Atmos situation.
> 
> Here's what I have at the moment:
> 
> AppleTV 4K>HDMI>AVPro Current Matrix>HDMI>AVPro Splitter>>2 HDMI's to DenonX8500 CD HDMI input/AVPro Tx Balun>Cat6A>AVPro Rx Balun>Samsung Q900R
> 
> Playing an Atmos Track - No Atmos
> 
> When I matrixed all same through the Denon, I got Atmos.
> 
> I'm pulling my hair out.


I'm curious to know this as well.


----------



## appelz

[email protected] said:


> If that is an AVPro 1x2 splitter, you will want to copy the EDID from both outputs to merge the EDIDs together and the. Copy that EDID into the switch.


Same with the HDMI Extenders. There are settings that should be made to make sure that the correct EDID info is being sent. 

And as Caleb said, they have excellent technical support. Call them.


----------



## howard68

If you have the Denon connected to 2 outputs the HDMI goes to the lower resolution
You need UHD to get access to Dolby Atmos 
I have an HD Fury as I am still using an old Plazma 1080 p Kuro


----------



## tigerhonaker

Guys,

I just now completed what I think many would call an extensive post on the following.

Atmos W/Triad 6-Spkrs, SVS 4-PB16 ULTRA Subs, Stewart 130 G4, W/119 Pictures 3-Videos

*If your interested just click on the link below.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...g-up-dated-august-2018-a-23.html#post59957364
*

Terry


----------



## beyondm3

Chirosamsung said:


> ESPECIALLY IF NO ATMOS ON THE BLU RAY PLAYER ON IT 😞


I thought this could be circumvented by using the bitstream audio settings....


----------



## MagnumX

From what I read about the PS5, it should eventually have an option to output to Atmos systems (compatible rendering output mode). But I'd take that with a grain of salt. I think only headphones will be supported at launch. 

Sony made a big deal about supporting 64 speakers instead of "just" 32 and yet they're only supporting headphones at launch? I don't know who they think wants yet ANOTHER surround format. Lets all buy new receivers just for PS5 games! I think the real reason is Sony didn't want to pay Dolby a penny in royalties.


----------



## Mike Lang

I've merged these threads back together (Part 1 & 2) to see if it's stable now. Someone give me a shout if you see issues please.

Thanks


----------



## batpig

wait there was a part 2? I literally had no idea!


----------



## bluesky636

batpig said:


> wait there was a part 2? I literally had no idea!


There was, but it appears to have been combined with the original thread with the new upgrade.


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> wait there was a part 2? I literally had no idea!


I had no idea either. Wouldn't have found it (no time to browse the threads, I'm flat-out trying to keep up with the limited number of threads I subscribe to as it is).
Many thanks to @Mike Lang for merging them!


----------



## farsider3000

Is anyone having issues streaming Dolby Atmos from Amazon Prime 4K UHD video tonight?

I get Dolby Atmos just fine through my Apple TV for all apps (Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+) except Amazon prime.

My buddy also has a Dolby Atmos setup and is using the Amazon fire stick and he is not seeing the Atmos logo for Amazon prime 4K shows.

I thought it might actually be sending Atmos even though it says 5.1 so I checked using my Marantz Processor info button but no, it’s 5.1.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## regster

farsider3000 said:


> Is anyone having issues streaming Dolby Atmos from Amazon Prime 4K UHD video tonight?
> 
> I get Dolby Atmos just fine through my Apple TV for all apps (Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+) except Amazon prime.
> 
> My buddy also has a Dolby Atmos setup and is using the Amazon fire stick and he is not seeing the Atmos logo for Amazon prime 4K shows.
> 
> I thought it might actually be sending Atmos even though it says 5.1 so I checked using my Marantz Processor info button but no, it’s 5.1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I just got a Fire TV 4K stick to get DoVi and Atmos for Disney+. I don’t get Atmos on Amazon Prime on my internal Android TV apps, so I tried checking on the FTV stick and No Atmos. Audio format is not even shown on content details.


----------



## markus767

While updating links in post 1 I've noticed that Dolby no longer provides the noise test tone trailers at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html.

If I remember correctly there were some issues with certain trailers? @Roger Dressler

Is there anybody here that could author new ones? @FilmMixer?


----------



## usc1995

markus767 said:


> While updating links in post 1 I've noticed that Dolby no longer provides the noise test tone trailers at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html.
> 
> If I remember correctly there were some issues with certain trailers? @Roger Dressler
> 
> Is there anybody here that could author new ones? @FilmMixer?


Looks like an AVSer already made one for 5.1.4 setups...https://www.avsforum.com/threads/useful-dolby-atmos-test-file-i-created-5-1-4.3098220/


----------



## Josh Z

farsider3000 said:


> Is anyone having issues streaming Dolby Atmos from Amazon Prime 4K UHD video tonight?
> 
> I get Dolby Atmos just fine through my Apple TV for all apps (Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+) except Amazon prime.
> 
> My buddy also has a Dolby Atmos setup and is using the Amazon fire stick and he is not seeing the Atmos logo for Amazon prime 4K shows.


This seems be an Amazon problem. Even shows like Jack Ryan that used to have Atmos only play in 5.1 now. Tried on two devices.


----------



## markus767

usc1995 said:


> Looks like an AVSer already made one for 5.1.4 setups...https://www.avsforum.com/threads/useful-dolby-atmos-test-file-i-created-5-1-4.3098220/


Looks like this is one of the test files that were online at Dolby. For legal reasons I'm reluctant to link them here.


----------



## howard68

Hi all 
Is their a difference between input voltage on RCA and XLR 
I have got rca to XLR adapters for my Denon to my Emotiva amps and find I have to turn up the volume a lot louder than before ?


----------



## Roger Dressler

howard68 said:


> Is their a difference between input voltage on RCA and XLR
> I have got rca to XLR adapters for my Denon to my Emotiva amps and find I have to turn up the volume a lot louder than before ?


Your adapter is just routing the signal pin of the RCA connector to pin 2 of the XLR input, and pin 3 is grounded. Normally the XLR is intended to receive both positive and negative polarity signals of equal level. So you are 6 dB lower than that. 

All normal.


----------



## howard68

Thanks for your reply 
I won't undo my cable s 

Regards 
H


----------



## mrvideo

howard68 said:


> Hi all
> Is their a difference between input voltage on RCA and XLR
> I have got rca to XLR adapters for my Denon to my Emotiva amps and find I have to turn up the volume a lot louder than before ?


As further explanation, RCA connectors are single hot + ground (unbalanced). XLR are two hot, out-of phase, + ground (balanced). Having a balanced connection reduces interference and potential hum (depending on where it is introduced).

There are RCA to XLR active converters. Depending on how far you run the RCA cables, you might want to look into these active boxes. That way you can keep the RCA cable short, with the XLR cables longer.


----------



## Roger Dressler

howard68 said:


> Thanks for your reply
> I won't undo my cables


Just curious, what was the prior connection arrangement? Different connections? Different amps?


----------



## MagnumX

Has anyone else noticed that some movies on iTunes that used to be in Atmos or should be in Atmos aren't anymore? I was pretty sure my Ghostbusters 2 4K was in Atmos before and now it says "Atmos, Dolby 5.1" down at the bottom of the listing but not at the top and when you play it, it's in 5.1. Angels and Demons (part of the Da Vinci Code series) has the same issue (bottom sound part says, "Dolby Atmos, Dolby 5.1" but it plays in 5.1 and the Atmos symbol is missing at the top (except that one never showed up with Atmos at the top or an with it before here). It's almost like someone mis-classified a setting somewhere and forgot to enable it (i.e. all three of the UHD discs are in Atmos and 1st and 3rd movies on iTunes are in Atmos). I'm wondering if there's even more titles like that which should be Atmos titles but they screwed it up somehow.

...

On another note, I finally watched *1917* in Atmos last night. Sadly, the Atmos was utterly underwhelming. Other than a biplane scene that went well overhead, it seemed like most of the time there was very little surround sound and/or it was drowned out by the music in the front channels overwhelming pretty much any subtle surround effects. The plot played out like watching someone else play a video game from a 3rd party view in real time. Compared to a WWI classic like The Blue Max (which frankly had better surround overall with Neural X even from stereo), I can't recommend it at all. I watched Hacksaw Ridge in Atmos the other day and it was vastly better sounding and a vastly better movie as well (but WWII not WWI).


----------



## Matt L

In case anyone is interested NF Atmos is now live on the TiVo Stream 4K!!! Watched quite a bit last night and all that should be in Atmos was. Now I don't feel so bad wasting $50, thought the color space is still off.


----------



## dfa973

markus767 said:


> While updating links in post 1 I've noticed that Dolby no longer provides the noise test tone trailers at https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html.


Lots of samples of different origins (including Dolby) are in the Kodi Wiki - Samples - Official Kodi Wiki


----------



## nocrapman

Hi folks, 
I reconfiguring things in the HT to ATMOS. Anyone have recommendations for surround on wall speakers - side and back and top in ceiling 4-6 atmos speakers?
My fronts are Magnepan. 
Pre-pro is Monoprice HTP-1 and 200wpc amps feeding all channels, from Bryston and monoprice monolith. 
Please and thank you!


----------



## MagnumX

iTunes fixed _Ghostbusters II_'s Atmos (working again), but _Angels & Demons_ still Nada. 

Meanwhile, I watched _John Wick III_ and overall the Atmos was pretty decent in the action scenes, but less so during moments where I expected some ambience (like during a rainstorm I found the storm effects rather front-heavy; later on there's another rain scene with action going on and suddenly rain is better dispersed. I wish they would keep the Atmos effects in all the scenes instead of just cranking them up during action ones). I watched _Deadpool_ in Atmos afterwards and I think it did better overall.


----------



## nakenergy

avsngaiouser said:


> I have the Vertex1 not the 2. I'm assuming the functionality is the same across both? It looks like I need to make my ATV4k think the audio sink is the AVR890 given the A9F now reports full Atmos while leaving the video sink as the A9F. Time to post on the Vertex thread.


Did you get this fixed or are you still outputting 5.1 from ATV4K?

Same issue with Vertex 2, Sony A9G and pioneer elite sc 07 receiver. No audio if I select Atmos in ATV; have to force DD.


----------



## avsngaiouser

nakenergy said:


> Did you get this fixed or are you still outputting 5.1 from ATV4K?
> 
> Same issue with Vertex 2, Sony A9G and pioneer elite sc 07 receiver. No audio if I select Atmos in ATV; have to force DD.


No - I just decided to change the audio on the ATV to ignore Atmos and just use 5.1 
I started doing some testing with the Vertex, but ran out of time before making any real progress.


----------



## MagnumX

I have to say Neural X did a heck of a job with _Striking Distance_ (1993 with Bruce Willis) given it only has a 2-channel soundtrack. Not only were surround effects easily discerned in stereo, but when the scene during the Policeman's Ball by the river in Pittsburgh had fireworks, they were strong and loud almost directly overhead about 40% out into the room. That was pretty impressive from a 2-channel source, IMO. Underwater scenes weren't quite as all surrounding as modern Atmos movie like The Meg or even ones derived from 5.1 or 7.1, but compared to the old days of Pro Logic or even PLIIx, it's definitely an improvement. 

Frankly, I'm constantly amazed how good 5.1/7.1 soundtracks upmix with Neural X as many sound better than some (too many, IMO) of the actual Dolby Atmos or DTS:X movies that seem to do very little with what's available compared to what could be done. OTOH, some movies like the Harry Potter UHD DTS:X ones offer enhanced effects that aren't even present in the original 5.1 soundtrack (or rather probably aren't emphasized at volumes to be discerned) like some of the flying car effects in The Chamber of Secrets (upmixing with Neural X puts the car overhead when appropriate, but the DTS:X soundtrack adds more panning car effect sounds that weren't even present in the 5.1 version at all. (i.e. I compared the first 30 minutes or so scene for scene where overhead sounds were present in DTS:X).


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> I have to say Neural X did a heck of a job with _Striking Distance_ (1993 with Bruce Willis) given it only has a 2-channel soundtrack. Not only were surround effects easily discerned in stereo, but when the scene during the Policeman's Ball by the river in Pittsburgh had fireworks, they were strong and loud almost directly overhead about 40% out into the room. That was pretty impressive from a 2-channel source, IMO. Underwater scenes weren't quite as all surrounding as modern Atmos movie like The Meg or even ones derived from 5.1 or 7.1, but compared to the old days of Pro Logic or even PLIIx, it's definitely an improvement.
> 
> Frankly, I'm constantly amazed how good 5.1/7.1 soundtracks upmix with Neural X as many sound better than some (too many, IMO) of the actual Dolby Atmos or DTS:X movies that seem to do very little with what's available compared to what could be done. OTOH, some movies like the Harry Potter UHD DTS:X ones offer enhanced effects that aren't even present in the original 5.1 soundtrack (or rather probably aren't emphasized at volumes to be discerned) like some of the flying car effects in The Chamber of Secrets (upmixing with Neural X puts the car overhead when appropriate, but the DTS:X soundtrack adds more panning car effect sounds that weren't even present in the 5.1 version at all. (i.e. I compared the first 30 minutes or so scene for scene where overhead sounds were present in DTS:X).


I 100% totally agree with what you have said and covered in your Post ^^^

Terry


----------



## raypjuarez

How does everyone feel about Boston Acoustic XS speakers for Atmos heights? Figured I’d ask in the official thread. Fronts are ML Motion 20, so I’m hoping it’s not a huge difference in sound.


----------



## eaayoung

MagnumX said:


> On another note, I finally watched *1917* in Atmos last night. Sadly, the Atmos was utterly underwhelming. Other than a biplane scene that went well overhead, it seemed like most of the time there was very little surround sound and/or it was drowned out by the music in the front channels overwhelming pretty much any subtle surround effects. The plot played out like watching someone else play a video game from a 3rd party view in real time. Compared to a WWI classic like The Blue Max (which frankly had better surround overall with Neural X even from stereo), I can't recommend it at all. I watched Hacksaw Ridge in Atmos the other day and it was vastly better sounding and a vastly better movie as well (but WWII not WWI).


I really enjoyed 1917 on my Atmos system. I thought the sound was comparable to what I heard when I saw the film in the theatre. Loved that it was based on a true story and the Director's Grandfather's experience during WWI. It's very different from a movie like Hacksaw Ridge, which is more action compared to 1917. But 1917 is the movie that pushed me to upgrade my home theatre to Atmos after seeing it in the theatre.

I've only had my Atmos system since this past spring so don't have much experience with it. I've only watch 1917, Midway and John Wick Chapter 4 in Atmos. I thought all sounded great. I still need to watch Hacksaw Ridge, Gravity, Star Trek and some other movies that I have boxed up in my garage after a move a couple of years ago. So, based on what you saying, I'm in for a treat.


----------



## tigerhonaker

eaayoung said:


> I really enjoyed 1917 on my Atmos system. I thought the sound was comparable to what I heard when I saw the film in the theatre. Loved that it was based on a true story and the Director's Grandfather's experience during WWI. It's very different from a movie like Hacksaw Ridge, which is more stop action compared to 1917. But 1917 is the movie that pushed me to upgrade my home theatre to Atmos after I saw it in the theatre.
> 
> I've only had my Atmos system since these past spring so don't have much experience with it. I've only watch 1917, Midway and John Wick Chapter 4 in Atmos. I thought all sounded great. I still need to watch Hacksaw Ridge, Gravity, Star Trek and some other movies that I still have boxed up in my garage after a couple of years ago. So, based on what you saying, I'm in for a treat.


eaayoung,

I just had my Atmos system installed maybe a few months ago now.
I love it and would do it again for a fact !!!

Atmos kicks Serious-Butt ................

Terry


----------



## gwsat

I post now only Because I don’t know any other way to resubscribe to the thread using the new UI. There are a bunch of other things I hate about the new UI Too but those are stories for another day. Anyway, I still enjoy Atmos and am grateful the thread still exists.


----------



## Mike Lang

gwsat said:


> I don’t know any other way to resubscribe to the thread


The "Follow" button top right of thread.


----------



## nakenergy

avsngaiouser said:


> No - I just decided to change the audio on the ATV to ignore Atmos and just use 5.1
> I started doing some testing with the Vertex, but ran out of time before making any real progress.


I set change format = off and disabled Atmos; this changed the audio output to Auto and I can see PCM on my receiver which is much better to "my ears" than selecting DD 5.1


----------



## eaayoung

tigerhonaker said:


> eaayoung,
> 
> I just had my Atmos system installed maybe a few months ago now.
> I love it and would do it again for a fact !!!
> 
> Atmos kicks Serious-Butt ................
> 
> Terry


I've seen photos of your Atmos system. Mine is very modest with a Denon 4500, Def Tech SM55, 9040 center, 6000 sub and Def Tech in ceiling and in-walls surrounds. I love the Atmos sound! Huge improvement over a 5.1 or 7.1 system IMO.


----------



## MagnumX

eaayoung said:


> I really enjoyed 1917 on my Atmos system. I thought the sound was comparable to what I heard when I saw the film in the theatre. Loved that it was based on a true story and the Director's Grandfather's experience during WWI.


Is your system set for equal sound levels all around or do you crank the surround speakers and/or overhead speakers up a bit? I know some people that crank the overheads up 4-6dB over flat so they can hear the overhead sounds better. I normally have it set for flat sound all around here, but sometimes forget to change the level settings back (as I did at first when I was watching John Wick III) if I'm using the 2nd and/or 3rd rows as the front speakers drop about 2dB by the 2nd row and closer to 4dB by the 3rd row so I typically turn down the rear speakers 2dB to even out the difference (fixes 2nd row near perfect and front row is slightly quieter for rear row effects and back slightly louder for them, but if I'm watching alone in the MLP and/or only have 1 or 2 other guests sitting in the front row, I move it back for perfect sound in the front row only. 

I'm also getting the impression some Atmos films that turn down the surround during non-action scenes would benefit from ramped up surround settings. I'm thinking about setting a hot/smart setting button to do just that for some films. I'm also guessing that at theater level volumes, many of these films would have more noticeable surround ambient effects during quiet moments as they would be probably be 3-10dB louder than what most people tend to play in their home theaters, making quieter surround effects much louder when no major other sounds are playing. At home you might get blasted during a loud part, though. 

I'm also starting to wonder if manually checking my levels with various home theater "pink noise" demos for channels is giving me slightly different results as the radio shack SPL meter is more sensitive to some frequencies than others (e.g. I usually turn off my subwoofer as it seems to overwhelm the rest of the frequencies as I keep it 4dB above flat for extra "oomph" (with a +3dB booster available at the push of a couple of buttons for the occasional soundtrack that seems bass lite for some reason), but that screws up the readings, even between different speakers as the rolloff (even with a crossover) varies between tower and bookshelf speakers as well and they interact a bit with the pink noise too depending on its band emphasis (they're not all equal levels by the sounds of them; the DTS channel checks sound different than the Dolby Atmos ones) and you can't really use the AVR's manual level check once you've done room correction as it will be all out of whack (as it operates with room correction turned off). I'm talking about like 1-2dB, but I can be pretty darn picky especially with tests demos that are supposed to reveal panning weaknesses, etc. (imagine making tiny toe-in corrections for hours for the front speakers alone, let alone running room correction with each one to see what happens).


----------



## Chirosamsung

I was wondering-when people talk about Saving Private Ryan being locked at 7.1.2.....what does that mean or do if I am listening to that in a 7.1.4? 
what happens to the 4 overheard man? Does it not pan the same way?

is it generally recommended as an atmos buy or a pass? Obviously I already have seen the movie before but wondering if it is a good or not good atmos upgrade?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I was wondering-when people talk about Saving Private Ryan being locked at 7.1.2.....what does that mean or do if I am listening to that in a 7.1.4?
> what happens to the 4 overheard man? Does it not pan the same way?
> 
> is it generally recommended as an atmos buy or a pass? Obviously I already have seen the movie before but wondering if it is a good or not good atmos upgrade?


In a 7.1.4 system, the overhead effects from a 7.1.2 type movie will phantom image in-between the front height/tops speakers and the rear height/tops speakers (typically directly overhead if you sit in the middle or it might pull a bit towards the closest overhead speaker if you more in one direction the other (multiple seats or a different couch location) due to the precedence effect. In a 7.1.6 system, it should image out of the "Top Middle" speakers instead (again typically placed in the middle of the room).

Saving Private Ryan is a good movie. It's not the best Atmos movie, but it's certainly not terrible. I'd buy it if you like the movie (or maybe if you haven't seen it), but if you just want an Atmos demo, there are better examples out there (e.g. I recommend "Overlord" instead for that purpose).

The irony is Disney is supposedly the only studio that does "print through" limited soundtracks, but Saving Private Ryan proves it's really not, although I imagine they simply placed a fixed object in that position for overhead effects rather than going to the lengths Disney goes to.


----------



## eaayoung

MagnumX said:


> Is your system set for equal sound levels all around or do you crank the surround speakers and/or overhead speakers up a bit? I know some people that crank the overheads up 4-6dB over flat so they can hear the overhead sounds better.


I was going to mention that point. I haven't run Audyssey since I added my four Atmos speakers. So I have my speakers set to what sounds good and they are cranked up. I've been waiting for a quiet time to run Audyssey. But with three barking dogs, spouse working from home plus a daughter home from college, never found a time to run it. I'm planning on run Audyssey next week.


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> Is your system set for equal sound levels all around or do you crank the surround speakers and/or overhead speakers up a bit? I know some people that crank the overheads up 4-6dB over flat so they can hear the overhead sounds better. I normally have it set for flat sound all around here, but sometimes forget to change the level settings back (as I did at first when I was watching John Wick III) if I'm using the 2nd and/or 3rd rows as the front speakers drop about 2dB by the 2nd row and closer to 4dB by the 3rd row so I typically turn down the rear speakers 2dB to even out the difference (fixes 2nd row near perfect and front row is slightly quieter for rear row effects and back slightly louder for them, but if I'm watching alone in the MLP and/or only have 1 or 2 other guests sitting in the front row, I move it back for perfect sound in the front row only.
> 
> I'm also getting the impression some Atmos films that turn down the surround during non-action scenes would benefit from ramped up surround settings. I'm thinking about setting a hot/smart setting button to do just that for some films. I'm also guessing that at theater level volumes, many of these films would have more noticeable surround ambient effects during quiet moments as they would be probably be 3-10dB louder than what most people tend to play in their home theaters, making quieter surround effects much louder when no major other sounds are playing. At home you might get blasted during a loud part, though.
> 
> I'm also starting to wonder if manually checking my levels with various home theater "pink noise" demos for channels is giving me slightly different results as the radio shack SPL meter is more sensitive to some frequencies than others (e.g. I usually turn off my subwoofer as it seems to overwhelm the rest of the frequencies as I keep it 4dB above flat for extra "oomph" (with a +3dB booster available at the push of a couple of buttons for the occasional soundtrack that seems bass lite for some reason), but that screws up the readings, even between different speakers as the rolloff (even with a crossover) varies between tower and bookshelf speakers as well and they interact a bit with the pink noise too depending on its band emphasis (they're not all equal levels by the sounds of them; the DTS channel checks sound different than the Dolby Atmos ones) and you can't really use the AVR's manual level check once you've done room correction as it will be all out of whack (as it operates with room correction turned off). I'm talking about like 1-2dB, but I can be pretty darn picky especially with tests demos that are supposed to reveal panning weaknesses, etc. (imagine making tiny toe-in corrections for hours for the front speakers alone, let alone running room correction with each one to see what happens).


MagnumX,

Below is the link to when Chad B. did my Custom Calibrating to the Audio including Atmos.



> Chad B.
> #634 • 2 mo ago
> *audio calibration summary*
> 
> Terry invited me to share my unfiltered impressions on the audio calibration.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerhonaker's Home Theater phase # 1of being...
> 
> 
> It's expensive to try and acquire " perfection " in home theater and wine collecting. And a whole lot of other things ( bicycles too ). Terry - you must be on pins and needles waiting for this install! Mr. C. Peer, Your 100% correct and as you might have seen & read the post I did yesterday...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


*


Terry*


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> I was wondering-when people talk about Saving Private Ryan being locked at 7.1.2.....what does that mean or do if I am listening to that in a 7.1.4?
> what happens to the 4 overheard man? Does it not pan the same way?
> 
> is it generally recommended as an atmos buy or a pass? Obviously I already have seen the movie before but wondering if it is a good or not good atmos upgrade?


In a 7.1.4 setup, the stereo overhead bed is split equally between the front/rear pair (it's the same as a "phantom center" except front to back instead of side to side).

Definitely still recommended as an Atmos buy, the 5.1 track was already legendary just for the demo-worthy opening scene, and the Atmos track preserves all the awesomeness and adds more spatial detail. Nobody will ever notice the overheads are "mono" on each side with no front to back panning, there's so much activity.


----------



## MagnumX

There's very little overhead activity in _Saving Private Ryan_ compared to something like _Overlord _and _that_ is very noticeable. However, the movie "cheats" with plane overhead effects in that it uses the bed level speakers to pan front to rear and rear to front while the overheads just play mono. This can fool the ears into thinking the planes are flying overhead front to back, but it's an odd cheat since they could have just panned them overhead instead. I have no idea why they didn't do it properly. 

The _best_ war movie for demonstrating Dolby Atmos I've seen and heard so far, though is *FURY* with Brad Pitt. It's hands down best Atmos sound for a war movie I've heard (even better than Overlord overall, although Overlord has a few great moments, but Overlord is 100x more Science Fiction than a war film, like watching a movie about the game Wolfenstein or something).


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> There's very little overhead activity in _Saving Private Ryan_ compared to something like _Overlord _and _that_ is very noticeable. However, the movie "cheats" with plane overhead effects in that it uses the bed level speakers to pan front to rear and rear to front while the overheads just play mono. This can fool the ears into thinking the planes are flying overhead front to back, but it's an odd cheat since they could have just panned them overhead instead. I have no idea why they didn't do it properly.
> 
> The _best_ war movie for demonstrating Dolby Atmos I've seen and heard so far, though is *FURY* with Brad Pitt. It's hands down best Atmos sound for a war movie I've heard (even better than Overlord overall, although Overlord has a few great moments, but Overlord is 100x more Science Fiction than a war film, like watching a movie about the game Wolfenstein or something).


thanks for all thefeedback about saving private ryan. I did order it and I have seen it before. I’m sure the overall mix will be good in a 7.1.4 but disappointed to learn about the lack of overheads in this movie. Will let you know once I get it


----------



## audiofan1

raypjuarez said:


> How does everyone feel about Boston Acoustic XS speakers for Atmos heights? Figured I’d ask in the official thread. Fronts are ML Motion 20, so I’m hoping it’s not a huge difference in sound.


They will work superbly in this application, I started out with the larger version and even after changing to in-ceiling, I still feel the did a superb job for Atmos.


----------



## helvetica bold

MagnumX said:


> There's very little overhead activity in _Saving Private Ryan_ compared to something like _Overlord _and _that_ is very noticeable. However, the movie "cheats" with plane overhead effects in that it uses the bed level speakers to pan front to rear and rear to front while the overheads just play mono. This can fool the ears into thinking the planes are flying overhead front to back, but it's an odd cheat since they could have just panned them overhead instead. I have no idea why they didn't do it properly.
> 
> The _best_ war movie for demonstrating Dolby Atmos I've seen and heard so far, though is *FURY* with Brad Pitt. It's hands down best Atmos sound for a war movie I've heard (even better than Overlord overall, although Overlord has a few great moments, but Overlord is 100x more Science Fiction than a war film, like watching a movie about the game Wolfenstein or something).


I know Midway isn’t a very good movie but I’ve heard nothing but good things about the Atmos mix. Fury is a good film tho. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

helvetica bold said:


> I know Midway isn’t a very good movie but I’ve heard nothing but good things about the Atmos mix. Fury is a good film tho.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, it's tanks versus dive bombers, I suppose, but yes, it did have a good Atmos soundtrack too. The bits where they were banging on the tank on top from the view inside the tank sounded amazing, though plus the artillery shells, etc. really expressed well overhead.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***You have to remember that when Saving Private Ryan was released in 5.1 back in 1998, it was the definitive 5.1 release of its time. I wonder how many new TV's and sound systems that movie helped sell. So - any remix is tough to compare to the original and technology of its day, IMHO.

If you really want to knock your socks off with Dolby Atmos, try Unbroken and the early bombing scene. Fantastic! And, the movie Sully. You'll swear you're in the airplane when the engine blows with all the mechanical sounds and droning. I dang near reached for my "flight attendant button" when watching that movie. Eery.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Ricoflashback said:


> ***You have to remember that when Saving Private Ryan was released in 5.1 back in 1998, it was the definitive 5.1 release of its time. I wonder how many new TV's and sound systems that movie helped sell. So - any remix is tough to compare to the original and technology of its day, IMHO.
> 
> If you really want to knock your socks off with Dolby Atmos, try Unbroken and the early bombing scene. Fantastic! And, the movie Sully. You'll swear you're in the airplane when the engine blows with all the mechanical sounds and droning. I dang near reached for my "flight attendant button" when watching that movie. Eery.


Unbroken actually showed the Real-World and what not only Can-Happen but what "Did-Happen".

Terry


----------



## Aras_Volodka

So I'm finally upgrading to a 9.1.6 system, this will be the first time I get to use Front Wides. Any advice on Atmos titles that make use of Front wides? 

From my understanding DSU doesn't send anything to front wides but Neural X does?


----------



## MagnumX

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I'm finally upgrading to a 9.1.6 system, this will be the first time I get to use Front Wides. Any advice on Atmos titles that make use of Front wides?
> 
> From my understanding DSU doesn't send anything to front wides but Neural X does?


The new version of DSU coming out soon will support wides, supposedly. Neural X does as long as you're within the maximum number of available channels (DTS:X Pro eliminates that limit, of course). I couldn't tell you what uses wides, specifically as mine are matrixed and everything works with them, even Auro-3D.


----------



## sdrucker

Aras_Volodka said:


> So I'm finally upgrading to a 9.1.6 system, this will be the first time I get to use Front Wides. Any advice on Atmos titles that make use of Front wides?
> 
> From my understanding DSU doesn't send anything to front wides but Neural X does?


DSU doesn't send anything to wides. Neural:X won't for an AVR with an 11 channel limit unless you're running something like 9.1.2 (I think). However, DTS:X Pro, as is currently in the Trinnov Altitude and I believe coming to the X6700H at the end of 2020 via a firmware update, will support wides for Neural:X upmix.


----------



## eaayoung

Tried to watch Hamilton last night with my wife. We stopped it because the sound was bad. Tried it in Atmos and 5.1. Didn’t like either soundtrack. Maybe it will sound better on my Sonos sound bar. Any suggestions?


----------



## niterida

I watched this last week and as a lot of people have already noted in other threads/forums the vocals are not very clear. 
I found the sound was superb but occasionally it was hard to understand there singing - I think that may be deliberate as they were trying to recreate it exactly as it would have been if you were watching a live performance ?? I have never been to a live play/musical so I am not sure how the vocals are supposed to sound. 
I thoroughly enjoyed it and I hate musicals......................


----------



## fredxr2d2

eaayoung said:


> Tried to watch Hamilton last night with my wife. We stopped it because the sound was bad. Tried it in Atmos and 5.1. Didn’t like either soundtrack. Maybe it will sound better on my Sonos sound bar. Any suggestions?


My impression was that it was mixed poorly - a little too hot on the surrounds and not enough on the vocals. I had a better time turning it down a little bit and I also noticed that the mix sounded better after the intermission.


----------



## avsngaiouser

eaayoung said:


> Tried to watch Hamilton last night with my wife. We stopped it because the sound was bad. Tried it in Atmos and 5.1. Didn’t like either soundtrack. Maybe it will sound better on my Sonos sound bar. Any suggestions?


I've watched it on both a soundbar based 5.1 system (very hard to hear the vocals and very disappointing) and with a non-ATMOS receiver based 7.1 system. I used both music mode and cinema mode on the 7.1 system and found the cinema mode made a big difference to the clarity of the vocals - very counter-intuitive.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

I've seen many live musicals and prefer the ones in which indivdual characters sing solo rather than groups or choruses. (Hated Les Miserables, loved Book of Mormon.) It's usually very hard to make out unfamiliar lyrics when large groups are singing, even live. In the case of Hamilton, I watched it first with the closed captions turned on, suggested by a fan who regularly watches live musicals that have been shot for tv. Downside is that your eyes are inevitably drawn to the captions, but since many of the lyrics are not full sentences in the traditional sense, it helped me follow the story better. Looking at segments for the second time, I found I don't need the captions the same way.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bobbyhollywood said:


> In the case of Hamilton, I watched it first with the closed captions turned on, suggested by a fan who regularly watches live musicals that have been shot for tv. Downside is that your eyes are inevitably drawn to the captions, but since many of the lyrics are not full sentences in the traditional sense, it helped me follow the story better. Looking at segments for the second time, I found I don't need the captions the same way.


I normally watch with subtitles even if the movie is in English: it's much better for catching missed dialogue. If you think your eyes are "drawn" - it just means you need more practice! 
"Once you overcome the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles, you'll be introduced to so many more amazing films" - Bong Joon-Ho, Director, "Parasite", Oscar Winner: Best Motion Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best International Feature Film.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

mrtickleuk said:


> I normally watch with subtitles even if the movie is in English: it's much better for catching missed dialogue. If you think your eyes are "drawn" - it just means you need more practice!
> "Once you overcome the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles, you'll be introduced to so many more amazing films" - Bong Joon-Ho, Director, "Parasite", Oscar Winner: Best Motion Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best International Feature Film.


I have no issues watching subtitled movies and certainly don't need more practice.🤣


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> DSU doesn't send anything to wides. Neural:X won't for an AVR with an 11 channel limit unless you're running something like 9.1.2 (I think). However, DTS:X Pro, as is currently in the Trinnov Altitude and I believe coming to the X6700H at the end of 2020 via a firmware update, will support wides for Neural:X upmix.


Stu (and all) - just a heads up, but surprisingly the X6700H shipping with the newer version of DSU installed out of the box. So the current X6700H can already upmix to wides with DSU, which I believe currently makes it the only product in the world that can do this! I don't even think Trinnov has this update yet right?

Come December, it will also come to the AVR-X8500H / AV8805 along with the DTS:X Pro upgrade.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have a question-I am considering getting a amp for my second set of atmos speakers (Monitor Audio CT 280-IDC) that are about 7.5 feet away from MLP. The amp is needed to go from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4

anyways, my dilemma is that I could get an audiosource amp in Canada that is rated 55 wpc and it is 475-500 Canadian dollars OR I could get a 100 wpc same brand for about 750. Leaving aside other options on brands and companies-is 100 wpc worth the money and noticeable on the height speakers or will 55 wpc be similar enough and not be noticed for height effects?
If it will matter I will pay more for the 100 wpc
Also, will it matter if this pair of heights are only 55 if I go that way and my other parts of my system are 65-170 wpc? If this will affect things even after Dirac calibration that one set is weaker I will go with the 100 wpc

any help is very appreciated on this thanks


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a question-I am considering getting a amp for my second set of atmos speakers (Monitor Audio CT 280-IDC) that are about 7.5 feet away from MLP. The amp is needed to go from 5.1.4 to 7.1.4
> 
> anyways, my dilemma is that I could get an audiosource amp in Canada that is rated 55 wpc and it is 475-500 Canadian dollars OR I could get a 100 wpc same brand for about 750. Leaving aside other options on brands and companies-is 100 wpc worth the money and noticeable on the height speakers or will 55 wpc be similar enough and not be noticed for height effects?
> If it will matter I will pay more for the 100 wpc
> Also, will it matter if this pair of heights are only 55 if I go that way and my other parts of my system are 65-170 wpc? If this will affect things even after Dirac calibration that one set is weaker I will go with the 100 wpc
> 
> any help is very appreciated on this thanks


What AVR are you using ? I doubt it will be much, if any, more than 55wpc driving 9 channels. 
Also you need to work out the sensitivity and distance of each speaker to find out how many watts it takes to drive them to required SPL - if the heights are just 3db less sensitive than base speakers then they will need twice as many watts to reach same SPL (assuming they are same distance from MLP). 
People generally use an external amp to drive the L&R and Centre speakers as they are the power hungry ones.
Also going from 55w to 100w will only give you an extra 3db


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> What AVR are you using ? I doubt it will be much, if any, more than 55wpc driving 9 channels.
> Also you need to work out the sensitivity and distance of each speaker to find out how many watts it takes to drive them to required SPL - if the heights are just 3db less sensitive than base speakers then they will need twice as many watts to reach same SPL (assuming they are same distance from MLP).
> People generally use an external amp to drive the L&R and Centre speakers as they are the power hungry ones.
> Also going from 55w to 100w will only give you an extra 3db


To put into context:
I have an external amp that will drive my fronts (LCR) and 1 pair of surrounds. That is 170 wpc. 
my AVR is NAD 758 and will drive the other surround and one pair of heights at 60-65 wpc.
My speakers are monitor audio gold 4th Gen 200, 350 and 50. Ceiling speakers are Monitor audio CT 280-IDC and are 7.5 feet away from MLP

will it matter in this case if I only buy a 55 wpc 2 channel amp for the other pair of atmosin ceiling speakers or should I pay more for the 100 wpc?

many opinions given this?


----------



## niterida

Difference in peak SPL between 55w and 65w = 0.8db.
the NAD will drive 7 channels @ 60w so why not just use that ?


----------



## Chirosamsung

It has to do with as you expand beyond 5.1.2 with the Nad and having to have external amp to drive at least one pair of atmos speakers. With the way the nad assigns rear surrounds and the second set of height speakers, if I want my anthem 170 wpc to drive my front LCR I have to have one more amp for 7.1.4. Also the nad can’t assign side AND rear surrounds AND a pair of heights at the same time-this the need

so...55 or is 100 needed to drive my other atmos pair of heights?


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> It has to do with as you expand beyond 5.1.2 with the Nad and having to have external amp to drive at least one pair of atmos speakers. With the way the nad assigns rear surrounds and the second set of height speakers, if I want my anthem 170 wpc to drive my front LCR I have to have one more amp for 7.1.4. Also the nad can’t assign side AND rear surrounds AND a pair of heights at the same time-this the need
> 
> so...55 or is 100 needed to drive my other atmos pair of heights?


If you are powering one set of heights with 65w then you can get away with the other at 55w - at full power there will be a barely noticeable 0.8db difference.
According to calculators I only need 60w to get 115db from my 5.x.4 setup with 96db sensitivity speakers.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> If you are powering one set of heights with 65w then you can get away with the other at 55w - at full power there will be a barely noticeable 0.8db difference.
> According to calculators I only need 60w to get 115db from my 5.x.4 setup with 96db sensitivity speakers.


The problem is my height ceiling speakers are MA CT 280-IDC and they only have a sensitivity of 90dB

will that be better served with 100 wpc or will 50-55 be ok since they are ONLY effect speakers?


----------



## niterida

Since they are 2-4db more sensitive than your ear level speakers then you need approx 1/2 the power to drive them to the same SPL, assuming they are the same distance.
If you only give them 55w then they will be about 1db quieter. use this to work out how much power you need : Peak SPL Calculator


----------



## showmak

Where can I find a reliable source of all movies and tv shows in Atmos format?


----------



## avsngaiouser

showmak said:


> Where can I find a reliable source of all movies and tv shows in Atmos format?


Movies in Atmos can be found at Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Movies | Next Generation Home Theater


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> Since they are 2-4db more sensitive than your ear level speakers then you need approx 1/2 the power to drive them to the same SPL, assuming they are the same distance.
> If you only give them 55w then they will be about 1db quieter. use this to work out how much power you need : Peak SPL Calculator


Is it a big deal if the atmos speakers are 1-3 dB quieter then the main ear level speakers? Will they not go as loud or go as loud and just distort?
Also, will my Dirac calibration lower the levels of all my ear level speakers because a ceiling/height is lesser power and can’t go as loud and therefore wasting my amp for the front 3 amp?
Lastly, how do you know that the atmos speakers are 2-4 dB less sensitive then my mains? I thought all mine were around 90-91 efficient all around?


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> Is it a big deal if the atmos speakers are 1-3 dB quieter then the main ear level speakers? Will they not go as loud or go as loud and just distort?
> Also, will my Dirac calibration lower the levels of all my ear level speakers because a ceiling/height is lesser power and can’t go as loud and therefore wasting my amp for the front 3 amp?
> Lastly, how do you know that the atmos speakers are 2-4 dB less sensitive then my mains? I thought all mine were around 90-91 efficient all around?


I checked on the website and the Gold floor standers are rated at 86, and the surrounds at 88 - I may not have got that right as I wasn't certain I got the exact model. You will have to confirm that.
The less sensitive speakers will go as loud but will take more power to do so.
Dirac will set the levels according to the speaker sensitivity, distance from MLP and room gain. Nothing to do with amp power. So assuming the same distance and room gain but speakers which are say 3db less sensitive, then Dirac will set their levels 3db higher to compensate. This means the amp will have to supply twice as much power to drive them. But that doesn't mean you need an amp with twice as much power - it depends on how loud you listen. If you only listen at 85db the more sensitive speakers will likely only need 1w so the less sensitive will need 2w. But if you listen at 106db you will need 128w and 256w. You have to work out how many watts you need. 
When you run Dirac what levels does it set the speakers to ? That will tell the difference in sensitivity, room gain and SPL loss due to distance. If the heights are set 3db higher then they will need more amp but again that depends on the listening volumes. According to the calculator I linked earlier, and assuming all your 11 speakers are 90db sensitive, 12' from MLP and near a wall , you only need 20w to get to 105db. Unless you are listening above that, then 55w will give you enough and have headroom for any extra 3db or so.


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> According to the calculator I linked earlier, and assuming all your 11 speakers are 90db sensitive, 12' from MLP and near a wall , you only need 20w to get to 105db.


This may be true for all 11 speakers playing the same content (I haven't done the math myself) but the recommendation (THX, Dolby, SMPTE, CEDIA) is that _each_ speaker be capable of reaching 105dB peak at the listening position, and 115dB for the subwoofers. I think Dolby has relaxed that a bit for surrounds in commercial cinemas (102dB ?), but I can't find that document right now.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> I checked on the website and the Gold floor standers are rated at 86, and the surrounds at 88 - I may not have got that right as I wasn't certain I got the exact model. You will have to confirm that.
> The less sensitive speakers will go as loud but will take more power to do so.
> Dirac will set the levels according to the speaker sensitivity, distance from MLP and room gain. Nothing to do with amp power. So assuming the same distance and room gain but speakers which are say 3db less sensitive, then Dirac will set their levels 3db higher to compensate. This means the amp will have to supply twice as much power to drive them. But that doesn't mean you need an amp with twice as much power - it depends on how loud you listen. If you only listen at 85db the more sensitive speakers will likely only need 1w so the less sensitive will need 2w. But if you listen at 106db you will need 128w and 256w. You have to work out how many watts you need.
> When you run Dirac what levels does it set the speakers to ? That will tell the difference in sensitivity, room gain and SPL loss due to distance. If the heights are set 3db higher then they will need more amp but again that depends on the listening volumes. According to the calculator I linked earlier, and assuming all your 11 speakers are 90db sensitive, 12' from MLP and near a wall , you only need 20w to get to 105db. Unless you are listening above that, then 55w will give you enough and have headroom for any extra 3db or so.


Sorry, I should have said the 200s and 350 centre are 4th Gen. 89 and 90 dB sensitivity respectively

but I see your point and perhaps the 50-55 amp for those atmos pair will be ok after all...just didn’t want whole system to sufferfrom weak link


----------



## batpig

appelz said:


> This may be true for all 11 speakers playing the same content (I haven't done the math myself) but the recommendation (THX, Dolby, SMPTE, CEDIA) is that _each_ speaker be capable of reaching 105dB peak at the listening position, and 115dB for the subwoofers. I think Dolby has relaxed that a bit for surrounds in commercial cinemas (102dB ?), but I can't find that document right now.


That's only true though if you actually listen AT reference level 

Maybe that happens in the theaters you get paid to calibrate  ... but most people don't come anywhere close to reference level. And, if they do, and are truly designing a system capable of clean reference level output, the questions discussed above shouldn't be happening because you shouldn't be cutting the margins so close.

Also (not responding to you, just general comment on the above) the surrounds + overheads are nearly always much closer to the listening position than the LCR speakers. So even if all speakers are equal sensitivity, it's likely the surrounds/overheads only need 1/2 the power at most.

In any "normal" home theater environment, I'd bet a lot of money that 50wpc is more than sufficient for the overhead speakers.


----------



## Roger Dressler

appelz said:


> This may be true for all 11 speakers playing the same content (I haven't done the math myself) but the recommendation (THX, Dolby, SMPTE, CEDIA) is that _each_ speaker be capable of reaching 105dB peak at the listening position, and 115dB for the subwoofers. I think Dolby has relaxed that a bit for surrounds in commercial cinemas (102dB ?), but I can't find that document right now.


It's mentioned in the Dolby Atmos Specifications document: 105 dB for screen speakers; 105 dB for the overall surround array; 99 dB for each surround speaker. Doesn't really let us off the hook when we use single speakers for the surround "arrays".

The SPL for LFE is nominally 10 dB higher than the mains, but when considering bass management, a subwoofer needs to reproduce LFE plus redirected bass. In real-world movies that can add another 5 dB of signal heading to the subs -- 120 dB. 

However, reference level in a small room (a home) does not require the same SPL as a cinema to provide the same subjective effect. Being that this is a subjective matter, it's hard to pin down a number with precision, but we can apply from -3 to -6 dB to our "reference" SPL target. 6 dB being 1/4 the power, that's a big deal for the amps and speakers.


----------



## appelz

batpig said:


> That's only true though if you actually listen AT reference level
> 
> Maybe that happens in the theaters you get paid to calibrate  ... but most people don't come anywhere close to reference level. And, if they do, and are truly designing a system capable of clean reference level output, the questions discussed above shouldn't be happening because you shouldn't be cutting the margins so close.
> 
> Also (not responding to you, just general comment on the above) the surrounds + overheads are nearly always much closer to the listening position than the LCR speakers. So even if all speakers are equal sensitivity, it's likely the surrounds/overheads only need 1/2 the power at most.
> 
> In any "normal" home theater environment, I'd bet a lot of money that 50wpc is more than sufficient for the overhead speakers.


I'd agree with some of that. I'm definitely presenting a "best practices" approach, and even some of the rooms I work in won't truly play at _reference_. I was really just pointing out that 20 watts isn't gonna cut it, and that I disagree with the methodology used to calculate that number.


----------



## appelz

Roger Dressler said:


> It's mentioned in the Dolby Atmos Specifications document: 105 dB for screen speakers; 105 dB for the overall surround array; 99 dB for each surround speaker. Doesn't really let us off the hook when we use single speakers for the surround "arrays".
> 
> The SPL for LFE is nominally 10 dB higher than the mains, but when considering bass management, a subwoofer needs to reproduce LFE plus redirected bass. In real-world movies that can add another 5 dB of signal heading to the subs -- 120 dB.
> 
> However, reference level in a small room (a home) does not require the same SPL as a cinema to provide the same subjective effect. Being that this is a subjective matter, it's hard to pin down a number with precision, but we can apply from -3 to -6 dB to our "reference" SPL target. 6 dB being 1/4 the power, that's a big deal for the amps and speakers.


Thanks Roger, I think I missed the 105dB for the array part. So yup, when we have multiple discrete surrounds in a high channel count Atmos room, we aren't off the hook. 

And I do agree that in small rooms, the SPL level doesn't need to be as high subjectively. But as I said above, 20w certainly won't meet the grade!


----------



## showmak

avsngaiouser said:


> Movies in Atmos can be found at Dolby Atmos Blu-ray Movies | Next Generation Home Theater


Thanks


----------



## batpig

appelz said:


> I'd agree with some of that. I'm definitely presenting a "best practices" approach, and even some of the rooms I work in won't truly play at _reference_. I was really just pointing out that 20 watts isn't gonna cut it, and that I disagree with the methodology used to calculate that number.


Totally agree, and wasn't trying to "correct" you but just pointing it out for general reference. Many people have these target numbers in their head (105dB per speaker etc) and, certainly, if you're designing a high end pro dedicated room it's a good idea to adhere to the "best practices approach". But the actual requirements in the vast majority of "home theaters" is much easier to achieve because the real world listening volume is much lower; as Roger pointed out even subtracting 3dB (which is still very loud) cuts all the power requirements in half.

I certainly wouldn't quibble with anyone taking the approach "shoot for 105, even if I don't listen that loud at least I know I have plenty of clean headroom". But based on the many thousands of posts I've seen on forums like this even that is an aggressive target that could cause someone to spend more than they need to. HT is a lot cheaper if you pretend "reference level" is 100dB peak per speaker instead of 105dB


----------



## Trumpen

Don't know if this is the right forum, but i've been discussing "real" and "fake" atmos on a discord. My techinal knowledge is very limited, so bear with and please explain in baby steps.

My side of the argument is, that several Atmos movies are release with so-called "fake" atmos. Minimal use of objects and basically and they basiccely mixxed om to 7.x.2/7.x4, with sound snapping to the closest avaiable.. This system use a snap tech that will detach the prober channels to what ever avaiable with any given setup. SPR, WotW and some Disney release (TlJ being the word).

The oppsode here is the real Atmos tracks, with very lively and active objects. One of the the ways i use to confirm this is by checking if my Front Heights are active. Be it an enhancement of the score or straight of opening of the frontstage, with effects of the like of. BR49 (Score and atmosphere, Zero Dark Thirty (basically a psyfosofy
of playing you in the middle of the scene, of movies using every speaker i have, for different things mind you,

Am i completely in the wrong here? And could someone un laymans terms explain why?


----------



## niterida

Trumpen said:


> Don't know if this is the right forum, but i've been discussing "real" and "fake" atmos on a discord. My techinal knowledge is very limited, so bear with and please explain in baby steps.
> 
> My side of the argument is, that several Atmos movies are release with so-called "fake" atmos. Minimal use of objects and basically and they basiccely mixxed om to 7.x.2/7.x4, with sound snapping to the closest avaiable.. This system use a snap tech that will detach the prober channels to what ever avaiable with any given setup. SPR, WotW and some Disney release (TlJ being the word).
> 
> The oppsode here is the real Atmos tracks, with very lively and active objects. One of the the ways i use to confirm this is by checking if my Front Heights are active. Be it an enhancement of the score or straight of opening of the frontstage, with effects of the like of. BR49 (Score and atmosphere, Zero Dark Thirty (basically a psysolophy of playing you in the middle of the scene, of movies using every speaker i have, for different things mind you,
> 
> Am i completely in the wrong here? And could someone un laymans terms explain why?


AFAIK both of those are real Atmos - it is up to the mixer to decide how much sound is sent to each Atmos speaker - some send lots and some don't send much. 
I believe the Snap-To that you mention is just a different way of telling the setup which speaker to use but it is still Atmos.


----------



## sdurani

Trumpen said:


> Am i completely in the wrong here? And could someone un laymans terms explain why?


The home Atmos format can use dynamic objects and have up to 9.1 channels (7.1 plus 2 height channels that are delivered as static objects). Just because the format has those options doesn't mean the mixer is required to use all of them. If all the options are not used, that doesn't mean it is no longer and Atmos track.


----------



## Trumpen

niterida said:


> AFAIK both of those are real Atmos - it is up to the mixer to decide how much sound is sent to each Atmos speaker - some send lots and some don't send much.
> I believe the Snap-To that you mention is just a different way of telling the setup which speaker to use but it is still Atmos.


Using the team "real" Atmos may be been wrong. But as oneone who has 2 front heights It becomes with very obious when actual objects are in use or they just fall back to a bed mix.

It's real in the sense it uses the Atmos containter and metadata, just not to the fullest, imo.

It's just not using the Format to its fullest and frankly comes of as lazy, escpially on new titles. Just my 2 cent.

7.x.2 is the highest bed Atmos can containt without using objects`?

Guess im of the school that would still call 5.1 using one channel, a mono track, not matter the tech used (higher bitrate dynamics no-one withstanding)


----------



## batpig

Trumpen said:


> 7.x.2 is the highest bed Atmos can containt without using objects`?


It's best to separate "Home Atmos" from the full cinematic mix because it's delivered a bit differently. The "bed" concept is a little looser, and is really best thought of as "static objects" within the total object payload.

As Sanjay noted above, cinematic Atmos has a 9.1ch bed (the standard 7.1 plus a stereo pair of "overhead surround" channels) which are the first 10 elements or "tracks" in the mix. Then, the mixer can include up to 118 objects as separate elements.

This fundamental structure is preserved when encoded for home release, but technically EVERYTHING (except the LFE) is converted into objects when the full cinematic mix is run through the "spatial coding" process to fit into the 11, 13, or 15 total element limit available for home.

So any "bed" or "channel" in the original mix becomes a "static object" with fixed coordinates. That is true for the 9 bed channels in the cinematic mix, so in a sense the answer is "yes, 7.1.2 is the highest bed count without using objects" -- if the mixer literally used only the first 10 tracks for the 9.1ch bed, and then left the other 118 tracks empty, it would spit out a home mix with 9 static objects + LFE.

BUT.... in another sense, given that the "beds" are delivered as static objects with fixed coordinates, in theory they could make a "bed like" mix for home that is >7.1.2 channels. And, in fact, that's what we see with "fixed print-out" 7.1.4 mixes, which for all purposes behave as an 11.1 channel-based mix since they don't scale. So is that a "bed without using objects"? Because it's behaving like one.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Don't know if this is the right forum, but i've been discussing "real" and "fake" atmos on a discord. My techinal knowledge is very limited, so bear with and please explain in baby steps.

My side of the argument is, that several Atmos movies are release with so-called "fake" atmos. Minimal use of objects and basically and they basiccely mixxed om to 7.x.2/7.x4, with sound snapping to the closest avaiable.. This system use a snap tech that will detach the prober channels to what ever avaiable with any given setup. SPR, WotW and some Disney release (TlJ being the word).

The oppsode here is the real Atmos tracks, with very lively and active objects. One of the the ways i use to confirm this is by checking if my Front Heights are active. Be it an enhancement of the score or straight of opening of the frontstage, with effects of the like of. BR49 (Score and atmosphere, Zero Dark Thirty (basically a psyfosofy of playing you in the middle of the scene, of movies using every speaker i have, for different things mind you. Am i completely in the wrong here? And could someone un laymans terms explain why?"

***Well, Fakemos could just be a poorly mixed Dolby Atmos soundtrack. And, lack of use of the height channels is what most people complain about when they have invested in speakers for a Dolby Atmos layout. As far as I'm concerned, YMMV - with any soundtrack. Some DSU or DTS Neural: X upmixes can sound fantastic. (I'm really looking forward to DTS X: Pro on my Denon 6700H AVR with a firmware update, scheduled for this December, 2020.)

I've heard two channel upmixes that sound great and use channel heights effectively. So - in summation, it's not a Fakemos question, but more of how well the soundtrack is mixed in the first place and how it translates to your home theater. And, if it's not a native Dolby Atmos mix, how is it handled by upmixers.


----------



## MagnumX

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: "Don't know if this is the right forum, but i've been discussing "real" and "fake" atmos on a discord. My techinal knowledge is very limited, so bear with and please explain in baby steps.
> 
> My side of the argument is, that several Atmos movies are release with so-called "fake" atmos. Minimal use of objects and basically and they basiccely mixxed om to 7.x.2/7.x4, with sound snapping to the closest avaiable.. This system use a snap tech that will detach the prober channels to what ever avaiable with any given setup. SPR, WotW and some Disney release (TlJ being the word).


I'm not sure if it's the "snap to" feature or just the "fold down" feature when certain channels aren't available. Even the Dolby Atmos demos will move thunder from the rear heights/tops to the front heights/tops if those speakers aren't available. It appears to favor overheads, even on the wrong end of the room to putting things into the bed channels when they're fully overhead (not sure what it does at various part-way overhead in those circumstances). From what I've read "snap to" sounds like it will not "pan" between speakers at all. It puts a given object sound precisely at the nearest known physical speaker location. One example is the "front wides" on the Blu-Ray demo discs for the Atmos channel tests. They end up in the L/R main channels if you don't have proper front wides installed (a bane for anyone using "Scatmos" or even "Matrixed" techniques to add more channels than the AVR supports). The MP4 version Dolby released, however has it turned off and they phantom image part-way in-between the mains and sides if you don't have them installed. The feature literally cannot pan sounds between any speakers because it always "snaps to" the nearest known speaker to the object. So, if the object is moving from the right main to the right side speaker, it would "jump/snap" to the front wide after it's >50% the way there and then "jump/snap" to the right side surround after it's >50% between there, but if no front wide is there, it would jump after being >50% between the main and side. Even if you had all 34 speakers, it would just jump more often instead of smoothly panning there and that would sound WEIRD for a moving object. I get the impression it's only useful for stationary objects. But what sound effect would sound better at fixed ratio intervals as it moves around the room? It would be a jarring effect. I've never understood the point of it, really unless the mixing guy _really_ hates phantom imaging of all kinds. 

The movie _Gravity_ has some dialog effects where the sounds of their voices "snap" from speaker to speaker when it's in the front rather than pan and it seems to be related to the movie refusing to use panned dialog when their voices are on the screen (e.g. Right when they're coming back to the shuttle after it's been hit and George Clooney moves around behind you in a circle) it will snap from center to right speaker as they are moving right on the screen, but then pan smoothly after it's off-screen, making it particularly odd sounding, IMO. A full panned dialog would have sounded far more natural, but Hollywood seems to despise panned dialog outside animated movies for some reason. Yet the movie got awarded for its sound anyway despite the bizarre sounding jumps in those scenes. It's like being awarded for having a creature on-screen that has very choppy clay animation as it moves 30% of the way across the screen and then suddenly switches over to smooth modern CGI instead. It's just jarring and reminds you that you're just watching a movie, even in the 3D version (Yes, I realize there shouldn't be any sounds in space, let alone a voice on a radio panning either way).



> ***Well, Fakemos could just be a poorly mixed Dolby Atmos soundtrack. And, lack of use of the height channels is what most people complain about when they have invested in speakers for a Dolby Atmos layout. As far as I'm concerned, YMMV - with any soundtrack. Some DSU or DTS Neural: X upmixes can sound fantastic. (I'm really looking forward to DTS X: Pro on my Denon 6700H AVR with a firmware update, scheduled for this December, 2020.)
> 
> I've heard two channel upmixes that sound great and use channel heights effectively. So - in summation, it's not a Fakemos question, but more of how well the soundtrack is mixed in the first place and how it translates to your home theater. And, if it's not a native Dolby Atmos mix, how is it handled by upmixers.


The rule seems to be if it sounds great in 5.1 or 7.1, it probably will sound pretty good upmixed with Neural X too. Neural X can't pull rabbits out of a hat. Old movies that claim "5.1" but sound suspiciously like stereo most of the time are the "fakemos" equivalent of a bad Atmos mix. Just because the display says it's using discrete 5.1 doesn't mean it's using it to good effect. There are great mixes and good mixes and bad mixes and downright awful mixes out there in 5.1 and 7.1 and I've found that the availability of Dolby Atmos and DTS:X doesn't change that one bit anymore than higher resolution cameras and formats with a sharper picture makes a movie have more interesting camera pans or angles, let alone a better story or acting, etc. It's just a tool and one that can be used to great effect or a very disappointing effect. 

A lot of 3D Blu-Rays don't have Atmos on them, even if there is an Atmos soundtrack out there, but Neural X does a GREAT job reconstructing many/most of the effects from the clues left by it folding down and often times (e.g. The Meg) I can't hardly tell the difference between the Atmos soundtrack (after I added it to the 3D version using remuxing) and the 5.1 version with Neural X. Other movies in both 2D and 3D never had more than 5.1 ever, but they still put a lot of effort into a lot of immersion with 5.1 and Neural X can make it sound like it was in Atmos from the start (e.g. I just watched James Cameron produced _Sanctum_ in 3D with Neural X (only 5.1 anywhere) and it sounded better than many Atmos tracks upmixed because they put a lot of effort into immersion with 5.1.

Other movies like the DTS:X version of _The Fast and the Furious _seem to do a great job with extending the 5.1 soundtrack to 7.1 and it has a fantastic soundtrack, but there's very little overhead in the movie. But then it's a movie about car racing and those are normally on the ground (later movies do crazy things with cars parachuting out of planes, etc.) I couldn't really see a scene where it made a lot of sense to have something overhead in that movie. _The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift_ movie had a subway train in one scene nearby and it was overhead like it should be, but most of that movie had very little overhead as well, but otherwise sounded great in DTS:X. 

So should movies purposely have birds and thunderstorms just to have "something" noticeable (beyond reverb/reflections indoors, etc.) overhead even if it's outdoors most of the time and there's nothing going on up there? That's kind of delving into gimmicky as it's having overhead effects just for Atmos sake so the speakers aren't just sitting there doing very little most of the time. Do we want realistic immersion or ping-pong effects? OTOH, it definitely IS disappointing to watch a movie and those overhead speakers aren't doing squat most of the time since that was the big investment for most Atmos systems.


----------



## Glorioso

MagnumX said:


> From what I read about the PS5, it should eventually have an option to output to Atmos systems (compatible rendering output mode). But I'd take that with a grain of salt. I think only headphones will be supported at launch.
> 
> Sony made a big deal about supporting 64 speakers instead of "just" 32 and yet they're only supporting headphones at launch? I don't know who they think wants yet ANOTHER surround format. Lets all buy new receivers just for PS5 games! I think the real reason is Sony didn't want to pay Dolby a penny in royalties.


After listening to the boring presentation by Cerny I understood that PS5 will not support Atmos in gaming, only in Movies. The PS4 didn't support it in games and in Movies or stream content. 

Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

Glorioso said:


> After listening to the boring presentation by Cerny I understood that PS5 will not support Atmos in gaming, only in Movies. The PS4 didn't support it in games and in Movies or stream content.
> 
> Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


Then how is anyone going to get multi-channel sound support for gaming? Wait for AVRs from 2021 or 2022 to support Sony's custom format? It'll be an abject failure and Microsoft will have the more popular system for high-end use as it does support both Atmos and DTS:X for gaming. I thought I read someone said in a comments section in a news article (CNET? Somewhere...) that it would eventually be able to convert the output to an Atmos compatible signal. I'd certainly pay for a plugin to get that functionality. Otherwise, I'm switching to XBox. I don't really want to buy another AVR any time soon.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Glorioso said:


> After listening to the boring presentation by Cerny I understood that PS5 will not support Atmos in gaming, only in Movies. The PS4 didn't support it in games and in Movies or stream content.
> 
> Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


BIG FAIL-I’m sure I’m with a lot of atmos supporters that will only consider X Box Series X if no atmos of PS5


----------



## tidwelr1

Chirosamsung said:


> BIG FAIL-I’m sure I’m with a lot of atmos supporters that will only consider X Box Series X if no atmos of PS5


Wouldn’t the Dolby surround upmixer utilize the atmos speakers? Having an atmos signal as the source is certainly better but by how much compared to using the upmixer? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Worf

Sony has bought Wwise a year ago. Wwise is audio middleware for games that handles basically everything audio related. It has their own 3d system and since Sony owns it, they will be heavily pushing it for PS5. It may even be an initial license requirement to use it. It likely will be rendered down to PCM. Ultichanbel.

Microsoft likely doesn't care, so if you want to make a game with Atmos (likely PCM in a mat container) you have full control. And likely it will work on the Xbox One as is. Since the Xbox One and Series are Windows 10 internally, they likely will support DTS:X as well, given I think they have support via the app and worked with both Dolby and DTS.









Sony just acquired the gaming industry’s biggest audio toolset


Creators of "Wwise" will remain "independent" after acquisition closes, SIE insists.




arstechnica.com


----------



## Glorioso

MagnumX said:


> Then how is anyone going to get multi-channel sound support for gaming? Wait for AVRs from 2021 or 2022 to support Sony's custom format? It'll be an abject failure and Microsoft will have the more popular system for high-end use as it does support both Atmos and DTS:X for gaming. I thought I read someone said in a comments section in a news article (CNET? Somewhere...) that it would eventually be able to convert the output to an Atmos compatible signal. I'd certainly pay for a plugin to get that functionality. Otherwise, I'm switching to XBox. I don't really want to buy another AVR any time soon.


I think they'll use 5.1 for games. The custom format he mencioned for stereo sistemas, especially headphones. 

Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Such a big fuzz about their new 3D audio engine, and then only support it for headphones. 

Maybe it's possible to send fixed PCM height channels over HDMI without Atmos or DTS:X? I mean HDMI does support more than 8 audio channels does it not?


----------



## Glorioso

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Such a big fuzz about their new 3D audio engine, and then only support it for headphones.
> 
> Maybe it's possible to send fixed PCM height channels over HDMI without Atmos or DTS:X? I mean HDMI does support more than 8 audio channels does it not?


When we talk about Sony we have to wait and see. The PS2 had DD but only in Movies, games where in stereo. 

Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

The article I read said one of the reason they didn't go with Atmos was that 32-channel sound simply isn't enough. Sony wanted 64-channel sound because you know, most home theater people have 64 speakers in their rooms! 

I think the article was confusing speakers with objects as Dolby actually had a followup article saying that Atmos could support more than 32 objects for gaming. Plus there's the fact that the other article said the PS5 initially would only support that new format over headphones. Well, the last time I checked, most headphones only have 2 speakers in them, so "objects" makes more sense. The bottom line is audio on the PS5 is going to suck. OTOH, does anyone seriously believe there's suddenly going to be a large surge in Dolby Atmos or DTS:X sound support in gaming even if support is available? XBox and Windows has supported it for some time. I don't think many games have. 

Thus, Sony is probably more concerned with headphone gaming as that's what most gamers use just like most people watching movies use their TV's built-in speakers. A sound bar is considered high-end sound by most of the planet and the industry is pushing the same notions while even low-end AVR + real speaker systems are painted as "dinosaurs" even though most/all sound bars aren't in the same realm for audio quality and sound placement. It comes down to perception versus marketing and let's face it, marketing and fake news rules the world while reality is just an archaic notion that was buried with such quaint notions like "the truth" awhile back. You soon won't be able to tell faked videos from reality either and what's real and what's marketing and what's outright deception will be blurred even further as you won't be able to trust video evidence anymore in the age of having cell phone videos for everything. Welcome to The Matrix.


----------



## Glorioso

MagnumX said:


> The article I read said one of the reason they didn't go with Atmos was that 32-channel sound simply isn't enough. Sony wanted 64-channel sound because you know, most home theater people have 64 speakers in their rooms!
> 
> I think the article was confusing speakers with objects as Dolby actually had a followup article saying that Atmos could support more than 32 objects for gaming. Plus there's the fact that the other article said the PS5 initially would only support that new format over headphones. Well, the last time I checked, most headphones only have 2 speakers in them, so "objects" makes more sense. The bottom line is audio on the PS5 is going to suck. OTOH, does anyone seriously believe there's suddenly going to be a large surge in Dolby Atmos or DTS:X sound support in gaming even if support is available? XBox and Windows has supported it for some time. I don't think many games have.
> 
> Thus, Sony is probably more concerned with headphone gaming as that's what most gamers use just like most people watching movies use their TV's built-in speakers. A sound bar is considered high-end sound by most of the planet and the industry is pushing the same notions while even low-end AVR + real speaker systems are painted as "dinosaurs" even though most/all sound bars aren't in the same realm for audio quality and sound placement. It comes down to perception versus marketing and let's face it, marketing and fake news rules the world while reality is just an archaic notion that was buried with such quaint notions like "the truth" awhile back. You soon won't be able to tell faked videos from reality either and what's real and what's marketing and what's outright deception will be blurred even further as you won't be able to trust video evidence anymore in the age of having cell phone videos for everything. Welcome to The Matrix.


Same reaction here from the Cerny, long a boring, presentation. What's the point to have a sound system, and that was more the a quarter of the presentation, with multiple objects if vou don't have codec support to send it to the hardware decoding, AVR, TV or Sound Bar?

PS: last night I was revisiting Breaking Bad on Netflix, mixed in 5.1, but because my AVR is in the "hospital" I was using my LG B9 speakers and the sound emulation was surprisingly good.


----------



## Glorioso

tidwelr1 said:


> Wouldn’t the Dolby surround upmixer utilize the atmos speakers? Having an atmos signal as the source is certainly better but by how much compared to using the upmixer?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The upmix is different from uncompressed Atmos os DTS:X, I use upmix in some sources 5.1 and 2.0, it's good but not the same. 

Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


----------



## AYanguas

People like us, that invest in good sound systems, *are few*. We mostly are, I think, people that like this hobby, have life solved, retirement, own house, reform the house and the like. Oh! I think I'm really privileged!

The big majority of the rest of people (headphones and TV speakers only) never entered the immersive sound. They didn’t know what it is and they didn’t need it. Until now (?). The new Atmos, Sony 360, amazon echo studio, try to target all those people.

Again, I hope that thanks to that, the popularity of Immersive sound increases and, with respect to music, new services and releases like TIDAL Atmos streaming and Steven Wilson re-mixing in Dolby Atmos will evolve to reach the few of us with “good” sound rig.


----------



## Deezul

AYanguas said:


> People like us, that invest in good sound systems, *are few*. We mostly are, I think, people that like this hobby, have life solved, retirement, own house, reform the house and the like. Oh! I think I'm really privileged!


I had a Dolby Surround system in my dorm room at college in 1995 connected to my 27" Mitsubishi tube TV and matching VCR. I didn't spring for S-Video at the time, and didn't think LaserDisc was worth it when I learned of DVD's release in 1996. I went to Dolby Digital in 2004 to pair with my 42" rear projection TV and new DVD player and Xbox. I don't think it's older folks who are interested. It just depends on priorities. It's just for people now who are used to gaming on their computer and are just fine with a pair of headphones. I never used headphones when I gamed on my computer, and still prefer not to on my console. Have my AV purchases been very high end? No, but they also haven't been HTiB either. All separate components, usually mid range. And I spend the time setting them up the best I can, not just tossed on a TV shelf or on a bookshelf.


----------



## MagnumX

Glorioso said:


> The upmix is different from uncompressed Atmos os DTS:X, I use upmix in some sources 5.1 and 2.0, it's good but not the same.
> 
> Enviado do meu Mi 9T através do Tapatalk


Yeah, sometimes it's actually better with Neural X with a good 5.1 soundtrack given how perhaps half the Atmos discs out there are mediocre (as in noticeably worse than many good 5.1 only releases) or only heavily use the surround speakers during major action sequences. The rest of the time they could be standing in a forest and bird sounds only come from the main front speakers (e.g. Annihilation in the forest scenes). 



Deezul said:


> I had a Dolby Surround system in my dorm room at college in 1995 connected to my 27" Mitsubishi tube TV and matching VCR. I didn't spring for S-Video at the time, and didn't think LaserDisc was worth it when I learned of DVD's release in 1996. I went to Dolby Digital in 2004 to pair with my 42" rear projection TV and new DVD player and Xbox. I don't think it's older folks who are interested. It just depends on priorities. It's just for people now who are used to gaming on their computer and are just fine with a pair of headphones. I never used headphones when I gamed on my computer, and still prefer not to on my console. Have my AV purchases been very high end? No, but they also haven't been HTiB either. All separate components, usually mid range. And I spend the time setting them up the best I can, not just tossed on a TV shelf or on a bookshelf.


I got a laserdisc player around 1990 (Pink Floyd's The Wall movie from 1982 was my first disc). It seemed so much sharper than a 240 line VHS it was ridiculous, with digital 2.0 channel sound (and later DTS 5.1 with no modifications needed. In fact, I happen to be watching my Jurassic Park DTS laserdisc right now (paused right at the T-Rex compound) as I got a new laserdisc today (Raquel Welch's Yoga "Total Beauty and Fitness" from the early '80s off eBay) and I've been testing some new projector settings that have cleaned up the signal completely and wanted to see how Jurassic Park fared. It looks quite good from the 3rd row, but obviously isn't going to compare to the 2K BD, let alone the 4K one if I had a 4K projector installed). The DTS soundtrack on it is still quite good, though. I've actually got over 100 laserdiscs still, although most have been replaced with Blu-Rays or at least DVDs. Some things are impossible or near impossible to find on either, though (e.g. I picked up Jessica Hahn's Playboy laserdisc, which had a brief low quality DVD release, but it's near impossible to find while the laserdisc was selling for like $10. I was only around 18 when that first came out, but I always thought she was hot and I have a reason or two now to use my laserdisc player again). I had the Raquel Welch yoga video on VHS and transferred to digital, but it looks like a blurry mess compared to the laserdisc. I had a 5.1 system by 1997 and Jurassic Park on laserdisc was the primary showcase piece I used until some decent DVDs starting come out.

In many respects DVDs were a big disappointment when they came out (HD Video appeared within a year in terms of the early TV sets as I had a 57" one by 1998 that did 1080i/720p/480i/480p) from Panasonic. What I wanted was HD content by that point and that took YEARS more with cable getting there far before Blu-Ray! I think we would have all been better off if they had skipped DVD and gone straight to Blu-Ray and let the players down-convert to SD levels (In Japan they actually came out with HD-Laserdiscs in 1994 as they already had HD sets by then! We got SD DVDs in 1997 instead....). DVDs were only slightly higher resolution than laserdisc (the saving grace being anamorphic support), but less noisy (digital video). Audio format support really wasn't any better either (DTS laserdiscs having the highest quality audio until Blu-Rays came out). But they were smaller and cheaper. Of course laserdiscs would have been cheaper if they had been better adopted. Blu-Rays were the true breakthrough for home theater, IMO, which is a bit ironic since DVDs seemed to sell better (you can always count on the consumer to go for lowest/cheapest common denominator). Of course even moderate bit-rate streaming in HD looks vastly better than DVDs at this point.


----------



## geoffrsc

I'm getting some mixed signals from an Atmos demo disc.

I have a 5.1.2 system. Running a Panasonic DP UB820 blu ray player and an AppleTV into a Marantz SR8012. Got the 2016 Atmos demo disc yesterday and ran the test tones for a 5.1.2 layout. Everything was good until I got to the surrounds. The tones which should have been isolated to the surrounds were also coming from the matching front speaker. That is, when I should have been getting sound only from the left surround, I was also getting sound in a roughly equal volume from the left front speaker. Same with the right surround and right front. Other speakers were fine including the fronts when their tones played. 



When I run the 5.1.2 Marantz Audussey test tones in the receiver setup menu all tones play as they should. Also when I play the “Helicopter” audio track on the disc the audio only comes through the overheads and the surrounds. No audio through the fronts, which, I believe, is the way it should be. 



Anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## batpig

Out of curiosity, have you tried the 5.1.4 tones on the disc? 

There have been some oddities reported with the Atmos demo disc tones, for example if you don't have wides, the "Front Wide" signal (if you play the 9.1.x tones) comes from just the front speaker (you would anticipate it would be mixed in front+surround to image at the "Wide" position). This is presumed to be due to a "snap to nearest speaker" flag that can be set when authoring the content, which forces an object to a single hard speaker vs using multiple speakers to create a phantom image.

What could be happening with your situation is the opposite, where the side surround signal is NOT set to "snap" so it tries to phantom image at 90 degrees (whereas in a 5ch ear level later, it's assumed the surrounds are behind you vs. directly to the side, so a phantom image is used to make the sound come from directly to the side). 

Others have observed inconsistent behavior even on the same disc with different sets of tones, so I'm curious if this is just a snafu with the 5.1.2 tones and the 5.1.4 tones will be fine :/


----------



## MagnumX

geoffrsc said:


> I'm getting some mixed signals from an Atmos demo disc.
> 
> I have a 5.1.2 system. Running a Panasonic DP UB820 blu ray player and an AppleTV into a Marantz SR8012. Got the 2016 Atmos demo disc yesterday and ran the test tones for a 5.1.2 layout. Everything was good until I got to the surrounds. The tones which should have been isolated to the surrounds were also coming from the matching front speaker. That is, when I should have been getting sound only from the left surround, I was also getting sound in a roughly equal volume from the left front speaker. Same with the right surround and right front. Other speakers were fine including the fronts when their tones played.


Instead of guessing, I just tested my Marantz 7012-based system in 5.1.2 mode and I was surprised to find mostly what you found.

If I set my 7012-based system to 5.1.2 that's exactly what it does in the 9.1.6 test for the _side surround_ signal/test as it figures that you only have "surrounds" which it interprets as "rear surrounds" so in the test it plays the surround speakers by themselves for the rear speakers and the surrounds + mains for the side surrounds to help put the phantom image off to your side as your surrounds are normally behind you in a 5.1 based system. If you ran the 7.1.4 test you'd see that was the case. In the 5.1.2 only test it doesn't appear to differentiate and plays the side surround signal instead of rear surround.



> When I run the 5.1.2 Marantz Audussey test tones in the receiver setup menu all tones play as they should. Also when I play the “Helicopter” audio track on the disc the audio only comes through the overheads and the surrounds. No audio through the fronts, which, I believe, is the way it should be.


With my system set to 5.1.2, the helicopter only plays through the two enabled overhead speakers left/right/right/left...repeat. It doesn't play through any of the bed/ear level speakers whatsoever.


----------



## madhuski

would it be better to keep going with front wides, or make the front wides surrounds and set up the current surrounds as rear surrounds?

have a 7.1.4 and don't have space to move the speakers appreciabley more than the current spots (L/C/R, front wides, surrounds)


----------



## niterida

madhuski said:


> would it be better to keep going with front wides, or make the front wides surrounds and set up the current surrounds as rear surrounds?
> 
> have a 7.1.4 and don't have space to move the speakers appreciabley more than the current spots (L/C/R, front wides, surrounds)


Depends how far in front of you the wides are. Anything less than 75deg they would probably be better as wides. I ran my surrounds at 75-80deg in a 7.1.4 config and found that was better than the recommended 90-110deg. So it would be worthwhile trying it and see how you like it.


----------



## geoffrsc

batpig said:


> Out of curiosity, have you tried the 5.1.4 tones on the disc?


Yes, I get the same result with the 5.1.4 tones.Then the additional tones for the Atmos rears (which I do not have) play out of the Atmos fronts


----------



## geoffrsc

MagnumX said:


> If you ran the 7.1.4 test you'd see that was the case. In the 5.1.2 only test it doesn't appear to differentiate and plays the side surround signal instead of rear surround.


Yes, when I tried the 7.1.4 tones that's how they played. Your explanation makes some sense. 



MagnumX said:


> With my system set to 5.1.2, the helicopter only plays through the two enabled overhead speakers left/right/right/left...repeat. It doesn't play through any of the bed/ear level speakers whatsoever.


You are right about this. I thought I was getting some sound out of the surrounds but when I got up on a ladder (my ceiling is 14ft) it was apparent the sound was only in the fronts.

Thanks


----------



## MagnumX

geoffrsc said:


> Yes, when I tried the 7.1.4 tones that's how they played. Your explanation makes some sense.


The two problems I see with D&M's thinking is:

1> They are assuming the positions of your surround speakers (i.e. It only makes sense to use the fronts to phantom image a "side" image if you aren't using the surrounds near or at the side location, but have them significantly behind you (which as most know doesn't always work in all rooms like where the couch is near the rear wall and they have to be mounted to the sides of the couch anyway).

2> I'm not sure offhand (didn't think to test it) if DSU assumes the same things or not, but if it did, you'd have 5.1 soundtrack playback whereby it's playing the surround/main combo which would result in less separation in soundtracks that aren't using the rear surrounds. Even in Atmos soundtracks, you have to figure that the rear surrounds are still used far less often than the side surrounds (partly due to mixer folk not using those locations as much due possibly to being used to doing mostly 5.1 soundtracks). 

I think I'd personally like the option to turn that mixing effect off if I were using a 5.1 bed layout, but then there's something similar with 5.1+FW layouts where it puts side surround content into the front wides as well (instead of the mains) and they're thinking the same thing (move sides forward a bit so the rear surround effect is moved to a slightly different location in terms of imaging). Some people dislike the effect in Neural X as well (whereby with "Tops" instead of "Heights" Neural X uses the bed mains to try and "lower" the phantom position of the overhead effects to where it thinks the heights would image. The problem is that isn't necessarily true and if the two speakers don't blend seamlessly in terms of a phantom image, you just end up with two different images (one at the beds and one at the tops) and in both cases, there doesn't appear to be any way to shut the effect off if you don't like it short of changing the layout settings and/or adding more speakers. 

Fortunately for me, using 7.1 + heights avoids all those effects entirely, although my matrixed front wides and surround#1 phantom image in a similar fashion (in both cases, it's creating a matrixed combination for a phantom image instead of a discrete location). But matrixed front wides and surround #1 are better than no front wides and surround #1, IMO, especially for off-axis seating. But then I have the option to turn them off if I want to, which Marantz is not giving the user the choice here to do.


----------



## MagnumX

geoffrsc said:


> Yes, when I tried the 7.1.4 tones that's how they played. Your explanation makes some sense.


I went back and did more testing set up as 5.1.2. The good news is that 5.1/7.1 regular sources, whether used with DSU or Neural X don't put any surround information into the mains in those modes. Only the side surrounds played here (set up as the only surrounds in the amp assign). The only time "surround" of any kind was "leaked" into the mains was in the Dolby Atmos & DTS:X channel demos. 

The other thing I noted is that if I ran the Dolby Atmos speaker "5.1.2" test, the "surrounds" did NOT play in the mains. They only played in the mains if I was running a 7.1.x demo test and only for the side surround location. I'm not sure of the significance of this, precisely since real world Dolby Atmos material is set up more like the 9.1.6 channel test (i.e. it's all there and render to the nearest speakers). I also noted that the DTS:X channel callout demo ALSO played the side surround location in the surround + mains and rear surrounds played in the surround only (just like Atmos in the 7.1.x channel demos). 

Thus, I'd recommend any manual level checks be done either using the 5.1.2 specific demo or assuming the rears are the correct levels in the 7.1.x demos. Bed level speakers can be checked with any appropriate 5.1/7.1 demo (rears there will play in surround location and none should be in the mains).

I also personally noted that if I configured 5.1.2, the 5.1.2 test played the overhead speakers in the front, but the same demo with all four enabled played them in my "Scatmos" "Top Middle" speakers (right where the diagram shows the two speakers being directly overhead). This would be the same as 4 overheads phantom imaging directly in the middle on the 5.1.2 test. Thus, clearly it thinks 5.1.2's default location would be directly overhead, but that would change my any AVR settings (front or rear only).


----------



## geoffrsc

MagnumX said:


> I think I'd personally like the option to turn that mixing effect off


Yes, that would be a useful feature.

As it is, I appreciate you verifying what I was getting. At least I know I have it set up properly and can tweak it from there. 

BTW, I clicked on your theater link- Nice setup.


----------



## bigdad56

Hi everyone, I'm in the middle of building my first home theater, yay me, but am having a bit of trial and error at the moment. I've bought the projector and now I am on to the audio portion of setting it up. I have initially thought that I would buy the new Vizio top end soundbar setup and call it a day. The room sets up nicely for sound being reflected off of the ceiling, but in order to do this I'd have to run around 40 ft of HDMI cables, and I have heard mixed stuff about running HDMI this far and that it can cause several issues. The caveat to this is that I have a little covey hole with shelves already built in that looks like the previous owners used for AV equipment and this would only require about 15-20 ft of HDMI cables. I'm going to have my Xbox and PS5 when it comes out running my media. So long story short, I can either run around 40 ft of HDMI and have a soundbar setup or can have shorter HDMI and have an AV receiver. My budget is less than $2k which is another reason why I thought the soundbar would be nice other than the convenience factor it's relatively inexpensive in comparison. I'd like to have 5.1.4

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Matt L

A sound bar cannot compare to a true 5.1.2(-4) or 7.1.4 - + system. With some judicious shopping you should be able to design a good basic system in your budget.


----------



## AYanguas

bigdad56 said:


> Hi everyone, I'm in the middle of building my first home theater, yay me, but am having a bit of trial and error at the moment. I've bought the projector and now I am on to the audio portion of setting it up. I have initially thought that I would buy the new Vizio top end soundbar setup and call it a day. The room sets up nicely for sound being reflected off of the ceiling, but in order to do this I'd have to run around 40 ft of HDMI cables, and I have heard mixed stuff about running HDMI this far and that it can cause several issues. The caveat to this is that I have a little covey hole with shelves already built in that looks like the previous owners used for AV equipment and this would only require about 15-20 ft of HDMI cables. I'm going to have my Xbox and PS5 when it comes out running my media. So long story short, I can either run around 40 ft of HDMI and have a soundbar setup or can have shorter HDMI and have an AV receiver. My budget is less than $2k which is another reason why I thought the soundbar would be nice other than the convenience factor it's relatively inexpensive in comparison. I'd like to have 5.1.4
> 
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


The recommendation for HDMI copper cables is up to something like 20 ft length. For greater lengths fiber active HDMI cables are recommended and work well for much greater distances. Obviously they are more expensive. I have ATZEBE Fiber Optic HDMI Cable 60ft and works well playing max bit rate 4K 60p full chroma at 600MHz, and it is no too expensive.

I also vote for the AVR and discrete speakers as a better solution for sound, But, of course you have to balance your priorities and possibilities.


----------



## AndreNewman

bigdad56 said:


> Hi everyone, I'm in the middle of building my first home theater, yay me, but am having a bit of trial and error at the moment. I've bought the projector and now I am on to the audio portion of setting it up. I have initially thought that I would buy the new Vizio top end soundbar setup and call it a day. The room sets up nicely for sound being reflected off of the ceiling, but in order to do this I'd have to run around 40 ft of HDMI cables, and I have heard mixed stuff about running HDMI this far and that it can cause several issues. The caveat to this is that I have a little covey hole with shelves already built in that looks like the previous owners used for AV equipment and this would only require about 15-20 ft of HDMI cables. I'm going to have my Xbox and PS5 when it comes out running my media. So long story short, I can either run around 40 ft of HDMI and have a soundbar setup or can have shorter HDMI and have an AV receiver. My budget is less than $2k which is another reason why I thought the soundbar would be nice other than the convenience factor it's relatively inexpensive in comparison. I'd like to have 5.1.4
> 
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


Long hdmi cables is going to haunt you forever, that problem is only going to get worse. Save yourself a huge headache and put all the av gear near the projector, keep all the hdmi cables between 2m and 3m and you will have an easy life, with your av gear anyway.

You don’t want all those twinkling lights at the front of the room anyway, they will ruin your black level and contrast. I can’t believe how much better my living room home cinema is now I moved all the av gear upstairs, not a single led twinkling in the room. I’m lucky that my office is directly above my projector. All cables under 3m, easy life.

Even a cheap or second hand avr and basic speakers will be seriously better than any soundbar and much easier to upgrade some time in the future.


----------



## CorbyDave

MagnumX said:


> With my system set to 5.1.2, the helicopter only plays through the two enabled overhead speakers left/right/right/left...repeat. It doesn't play through any of the bed/ear level speakers whatsoever.


I'm (sort of) pleased to read this, as I was puzzled as to why my system was doing this.

Dave


----------



## bigdad56

AndreNewman said:


> Long hdmi cables is going to haunt you forever, that problem is only going to get worse. Save yourself a huge headache and put all the av gear near the projector, keep all the hdmi cables between 2m and 3m and you will have an easy life, with your av gear anyway.
> 
> You don’t want all those twinkling lights at the front of the room anyway, they will ruin your black level and contrast. I can’t believe how much better my living room home cinema is now I moved all the av gear upstairs, not a single led twinkling in the room. I’m lucky that my office is directly above my projector. All cables under 3m, easy life.
> 
> Even a cheap or second hand avr and basic speakers will be seriously better than any soundbar and much easier to upgrade some time in the future.


Great advice thank you. Yea I made the decision last night to do it right and do an actual AV setup. Does anyone have suggestions for Entry level Atmos capable receivers? I assume I should start with the receiver and then work my way to speakers and bass? I'm sure there has to be like a tutorial on AVS somewhere of where to start?


----------



## MagnumX

AndreNewman said:


> Long hdmi cables is going to haunt you forever, that problem is only going to get worse. Save yourself a huge headache and put all the av gear near the projector, keep all the hdmi cables between 2m and 3m and you will have an easy life, with your av gear anyway.


I haven't had any trouble with a 25' HDMI cable to my projector. The key is a quality cable. There are repeaters if you need to go longer.




> You don’t want all those twinkling lights at the front of the room anyway, they will ruin your black level and contrast.


Please. They can possibly be distracting, but tiny LED lights aren't going to destroy anyone's black levels. Furthermore, nearly all equipment has the option to turn the displays dim or off altogether if it bothers you and there are neutral density filters that are dirt cheap you can stick on them if they don't to knock them down to nearly invisible or electrical tape to none whatsoever. 

Personally, I like having my Blu-ray player (which has no front display), PS4 and old school laserdisc player right there for easy access and being able to see my AVR mode without bringing up the vastly more annoying on-screen display that everyone whines about if I bring one up while watching a movie not to mention no remote control issues (repeaters galore needed for infrared remotes).



> I can’t believe how much better my living room home cinema is now I moved all the av gear upstairs, not a single led twinkling in the room. I’m lucky that my office is directly above my projector. All cables under 3m, easy life.


To each their own, but I'd hardly call it universal advice. I found very attractive stands that fit under the screen just fine and limit the primary speaker cable runs to the most important speakers to very short indeed. All my displays can be set to turn off or go ultra dim except my Scatmos Dolby processors and dark neutral density filters knock them down to just readable in the dark.



> Even a cheap or second hand avr and basic speakers will be seriously better than any soundbar and much easier to upgrade some time in the future.


Most people who buy sound bars don't do upgrades or if they do, it's probably for another sound bar. They're mostly for aesthetics. Women tend to love them


----------



## Krobar

Does anyone have any solid information on the DSU V2 which is starting to appear?

Arcam/JBL have started implementation and I hear the new Denon/Marantz units should have / get it too. Differences I have noticed so far:
No Center spread setting
Upmix modes of Movie, Music and Night
Night seems to be a replacement for Dolby Volume as far as I can tell
Rumoured to support upmixing to wides in future


----------



## AndreNewman

MagnumX said:


> Please. They can possibly be distracting, but tiny LED lights aren't going to destroy anyone's black levels. Furthermore, nearly all equipment has the option to turn the displays dim or off altogether if it bothers you and there are neutral density filters that are dirt cheap you can stick on them if they don't to knock them down to nearly invisible or electrical tape to none whatsoever.
> 
> Personally, I like having my Blu-ray player (which has no front display), PS4 and old school laserdisc player right there for easy access and being able to see my AVR mode without bringing up the vastly more annoying on-screen display that everyone whines about if I bring one up while watching a movie not to mention no remote control issues (repeaters galore needed for infrared remotes).
> 
> 
> 
> To each their own, but I'd hardly call it universal advice. I found very attractive stands that fit under the screen just fine and limit the primary speaker cable runs to the most important speakers to very short indeed. All my displays can be set to turn off or go ultra dim except my Scatmos Dolby processors and dark neutral density filters knock them down to just readable


Strongly disagree.

We went from AVR, streamers, disk player, htpc, extra amp, network switch etc all at the back of the room but still lighting up the room during dark scenes to one led on a led strip dimmer that couldn’t be turned off. It’s a huge improvement, dark scenes are so much more detailed, much more impact.

I moaned at the dimmer manufacturers and now the led can be turned off, with the rest of the lights gone just one led flickering was extremely obvious and irritating.

You should try it, it’s a cheap upgrade if you have an oled tv or a projector with decent on off contrast. If you have an lcd tv or other light coming in to the room it’s less important but I’ve never liked the distraction of equipment displays in my eye line, should be watching the movie not the avr or the disk player.

You are clearly not alone, you can find many pictures of peoples systems where everything is shelved up front right below the tv or screen.


----------



## MagnumX

AndreNewman said:


> Strongly disagree.


Um, OK. Like I said, to each their own. But as I already indicated, I can turn off, dim or mask the indicators/displays in my room, if/when desired without having to resort to moving equipment into another room or whatever (There's no room I could move it to here just for starters and other parts of the room are in use or have no ventilation like the cabinets under the bookshelves). It's neither convenient or necessary to do so anyway. 

As I indicated, static attached neutral density filters and/or plain electrical tape can block or greatly reduce light from things with no option to dim or turn off without blocking remote functions or having to walk to another room or floor just to load a Blu-ray into the player.



> We went from AVR, streamers, disk player, htpc, extra amp, network switch etc all at the back of the room but still lighting up the room during dark scenes to one led on a led strip dimmer that couldn’t be turned off. It’s a huge improvement, dark scenes are so much more detailed, much more impact.


You must have had mighty bright displays. Like I said, my Pro Logic processors for 'Scatmos' were the only really bright displays that were annoying. Neutral density filters lowered them to barely visible. Tape would make them pitch black. No need to move them far far away just because of that.


----------



## AYanguas

AndreNewman said:


> Strongly disagree.
> 
> We went from AVR, streamers, disk player, htpc, extra amp, network switch etc all at the back of the room but still lighting up the room during dark scenes to one led on a led strip dimmer that couldn’t be turned off. It’s a huge improvement, dark scenes are so much more detailed, much more impact.


This could be a starting point when you design a Home Cinema Room from the beginning. But in many cases, in my opinion, it's difficult to get it and/or has a secondary relevance compared with other main aspects like room conditioning for sound, speakers positions, choice of the display technology (TV Projector), etc.

I personally, when going to a theather to watch a movie (very few times since my home cinema built), can not stand the security lights on the hallway floor between the rows of seats, if I'm sitting near them. They dazzle me a lot. Compared to that, I watch my laser projector at home, totally dark, with all rack equipment in front, but in a corner, and I don't get dazzled, nor distracted by the few led ligts, and the AVR display showing "Dolby Atmos" text or whatever.

For me, It would not be even any improvement to move the equipment rack out of my eyes. Maybe I'm not a huge fan of "pure black" and dark scenes and like more the bright and the colourful ones.


----------



## MagnumX

AYanguas said:


> For me, It would not be even any improvement to move the equipment rack out of my eyes. Maybe I'm not a huge fan of "pure black" and dark scenes and like more the bright and the colourful ones.


Most projectors don't come close to pure black anyway, although I'm sure your laser projector is an exception. But even in real theaters bright scenes can show you the seats in front of you, the walls, surround speakers, etc. In other words, I'm used to putting up with "ignorable distractions".


----------



## sdrucker

Krobar said:


> Does anyone have any solid information on the DSU V2 which is starting to appear?
> 
> Arcam/JBL have started implementation and I hear the new Denon/Marantz units should have / get it too. Differences I have noticed so far:
> No Center spread setting
> Upmix modes of Movie, Music and Night
> Night seems to be a replacement for Dolby Volume as far as I can tell
> Rumoured to support upmixing to wides in future


That upmix to wides has been a rumor for awhile in a later DSU update. Haven't heard anything about Movie, Music or Night mode though in DSU. Those modes aren't in the current software from Trinnov either. 

Just did a search on AVS and didn't come up with anything either except references to the old PLII versions. If someone knows I'm all ears .


----------



## sdurani

sdrucker said:


> That upmix to wides has been a rumor for awhile in a later DSU update.


It's gone from rumor to reality.


batpig said:


> Stu (and all) - just a heads up, but surprisingly the X6700H shipping with the newer version of DSU installed out of the box. So the current *X6700H can already upmix to wides with DSU*, which I believe currently makes it the only product in the world that can do this! I don't even think Trinnov has this update yet right?
> 
> Come December, it will also come to the AVR-X8500H / AV8805 along with the DTS:X Pro upgrade.


----------



## Krobar

sdrucker said:


> That upmix to wides has been a rumor for awhile in a later DSU update. Haven't heard anything about Movie, Music or Night mode though in DSU. Those modes aren't in the current software from Trinnov either.
> 
> Just did a search on AVS and didn't come up with anything either except references to the old PLII versions. If someone knows I'm all ears .


Well the Harman/Arcam/JBL recieviers/processors have been offering these options for the last couple firmware updates. I don't use wides but some users report DSU seems to upmix to them with newer firmwares. The Music and Night modes dont yet work but then have to keep expectations reasonable 

Does the X6700h offer Movie/Music/Night for DSU?


----------



## am2model3

DSU v2 with upmix to wides? how widespread is this available? for denon x4300h? I turned my updates off when Dolby threatened to take away the option to upmix Dolby w/DTS and DTS w/Dolby; even though Dolby backtracked; i wasn't taking any chances.


----------



## batpig

am2model3 said:


> DSU v2 with upmix to wides? how widespread is this available? for denon x4300h?


Well, your X4300H doesn't support wides AT ALL, so seems like it's not likely to get an update to upmix to wides  

As I already wrote in the quoted post above, it's currently only available on the Denon X6700H (and presumably its forthcoming twin the Marantz SR8015) and shortly will be available for the X8500H and the Marantz AV8805. Apparently it's snuck into some of the JBL/Arcam type clones as well according to a recent post.


----------



## MagnumX

With DTS:X Pro's unlimited Neural X upmixing to every speaker supported by your processor, DSU seems...well utterly irrelevant. Wides support won't change that. Overheads will still suck with only two arrayed channels. Personally, I think Dolby should just concede that their upmixer is terrible for movies (works better for music) and bring back PLIIx Music instead (worked even better for music).


----------



## sdurani

batpig said:


> Apparently it's snuck into some of the JBL/Arcam type clones as well according to a recent post.


I wonder if these are DSU upmixed Wides or the Front+Side copied Wides that you see on 9.1.6 processors from Lyngdorf, Monoloth, etc.


----------



## sdrucker

Batpig,
My Denonese is pretty rusty, but I'm looking at the AVR-X6700H manual and I don't see anything about supporting Movie, Music or Night mode with Dolby Surround Upmixing yet.






AVR-X6700H







manuals.denon.com





I see the bit about Dolby Atmos Virtualization tech, however, along with the description of IMAX Enhanced features. Glad they have a way to set low pass and high pass for IMAX in manual mode.

Edit: see that JDSmoothie mentioned the DSU support for wides in Post #1 of the "Official 2020 Denon AVR Thread + FAQ".

My confusion was that way back in 2014, at CEDIA, Dolby showed off a beta of a DSU optimized for music (as opposed to one focused primarily on movies) to several of us at an AVS get-together. I thought maybe they were taking away Center Spread and replacing it with these different DSU modes? Interestingly, that separate "DSU for music" dropped off the radar after the show.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> With DTS:X Pro's unlimited Neural X upmixing to every speaker supported by your processor, DSU seems...well utterly irrelevant.


Unless you prefer the sound of DSU over Neural X. Some content sounds better with one upmixer or the other. It's always nice to have multiple choices available and having support for wides would only be a benefit.



MagnumX said:


> Wides support won't change that.


What the DSU won't fix is the lame Atmos mixes we keep getting. Unless you want to apply DSU to the core 7.1 track from them.



MagnumX said:


> Overheads will still suck with only two arrayed channels. Personally, I think Dolby should just concede that their upmixer is terrible for movies (works better for music) and bring back PLIIx Music instead (worked even better for music).


I agree that they should update their upmixer. It should support all four overhead speakers better with some actual front to back imaging. At least an option. I don't get why they don't give us options like they used to. I also think there should be dedicated movie and music modes like they used to.

I'm go glad I still have PL2x when I want to use it.

Anyway, all the updates to DSU seem to be good things.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> With DTS:X Pro's unlimited Neural X upmixing to every speaker supported by your processor, DSU seems...well utterly irrelevant. Wides support won't change that. Overheads will still suck with only two arrayed channels. Personally, I think Dolby should just concede that their upmixer is terrible for movies (works better for music) and bring back PLIIx Music instead (worked even better for music).


So it will be better to use that for all upscaling?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> So it will be better to use that for all upscaling?


It's a matter of personal preference, but personally, I think Neural X works best for movies. I like DSU for music better (stereo works best for me most of the time, though and Auro-3D screws less with front stage placement, but tends to crank bass up for some reason), but PLIIx was better yet for music (I never heard PLIIz so I can't comment on it).


----------



## MaxTemp

MagnumX said:


> It's a matter of personal preference, but personally, I think Neural X works best for movies. I like DSU for music better (stereo works best for me most of the time, though and Auro-3D screws less with front stage placement, but tends to crank bass up for some reason), but PLIIx was better yet for music (I never heard PLIIz so I can't comment on it).


From my experience (and what Sanjay has said) when using the Auro upmixer, since its duplicating channels, the volume is higher which also increases bass. Using DSU the volume/bass isnt affected, but the overhead is subtle and all pairs play the same signal no matter how many speakers you have. Unfortunately using Neural X kills the bass (comparatively), volume is slightly lower, but bass is easily 7-10db down.


----------



## MagnumX

MaxTemp said:


> From my experience (and what Sanjay has said) when using the Auro upmixer, since its duplicating channels, the volume is higher which also increases bass. Using DSU the volume/bass isnt affected, but the overhead is subtle and all pairs play the same signal no matter how many speakers you have. Unfortunately using Neural X kills the bass (comparatively), volume is slightly lower, but bass is easily 7-10db down.


What AVR do you have that bass is 7-10dB down with Neural X? I know Emotiva has had issues with DTS volume levels, for example. There's something wrong with your system. My bass is not down at all here with it.

As for Auro, it's a poor system that doesn't account for its changes to to bass. Whatever amount is increased, it should adjust for it. Having bass go u 10dB is not acceptable anymore than having it go down would be. I adjusted my Marantz settings for two channel so the overall levels would be equal when switching to surround processing and Auro-3D is the only mode that changes the overall levels to a significant level.


----------



## MaxTemp

MagnumX said:


> What AVR do you have that bass is 7-10dB down with Neural X? I know Emotiva has had issues with DTS volume levels, for example. There's something wrong with your system. My bass is not down at all here with it.
> 
> As for Auro, it's a poor system that doesn't account for its changes to to bass. Whatever amount is increased, it should adjust for it. Having bass go u 10dB is not acceptable anymore than having it go down would be. I adjusted my Marantz settings for two channel so the overall levels would be equal when switching to surround processing and Auro-3D is the only mode that changes the overall levels to a significant level.


Im using Denon x8500h, it was the same with Marantz as well. Play a scene/song with bass that you are familiar with. Go back and forth between Neural and DSU and see if you are able to tell a difference in bass levels. I did a number of tests and it was way lower for me.


----------



## MagnumX

MaxTemp said:


> Im using Denon x8500h, it was the same with Marantz as well. Play a scene/song with bass that you are familiar with. Go back and forth between Neural and DSU and see if you are able to tell a difference in bass levels. I did a number of tests and it was way lower for me.


 That's what I've been talking about. Auro-3D is 6-8dB louder sounding. Stereo, DSU and Neural X all sound more or less the same relative to bass. If anything, older 2-channel and 5.1 Dolby soundtracks sound weak in bass output regardless of the surround mode used. I use the 7012's subwoofer setting (that was removed in the 7013 for reasons I utterly disagree with) to quickly boost bass 3dB on such soundtracks without having to adjust the base level in settings that take longer to access (including the slow responding options menu).


----------



## batpig

Scott Simonian said:


> Anyway, all the updates to DSU seem to be good things.


Holy crap, I just did a double take when I saw the username! What up Scott!


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> Holy crap, I just did a double take when I saw the username! What up Scott!


----------



## batpig

sdrucker said:


> I'm looking at the AVR-X6700H manual and I don't see anything about supporting Movie, Music or Night mode with Dolby Surround Upmixing yet.


It feels like two different things are getting muddled/conflated.

Just to be clear, I'm ONLY talking about the DSU update which is adding support for upmixing to Front Wide locations.

I have heard nothing about "Movie", "Music", or "Night" modes for DSU. Was this mentioned somewhere and I missed it?


----------



## mrtickleuk

batpig said:


> It feels like two different things are getting muddled/conflated.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm ONLY talking about the DSU update which is adding support for upmixing to Front Wide locations.
> 
> I have heard nothing about "Movie", "Music", or "Night" modes for DSU. Was this mentioned somewhere and I missed it?


@Krobar mentioned it in >this post< out of the blue saying he'd "heard" about it.


----------



## Rich 63

Needing help. Going from a 5.4.2 to a 5.4.4. My current heights are slightly forward of mlp. About 82 forward mlp
My right side has a 4 foot opening to hallway. I'm not clear on Dolby ever changing guide for placement. The 4ft opening forces my surrounds into the 120 degree range hence I'm not sure we're to place heights back of me. The speakers are small bookshelf on mounts. Do I just place them over the surrounds? 
Mike


----------



## batpig

Rich 63 said:


> Needing help. Going from a 5.4.2 to a 5.4.4. My current heights are slightly forward of mlp. About 82 forward mlp
> My right side has a 4 foot opening to hallway. I'm not clear on Dolby ever changing guide for placement. The 4ft opening forces my surrounds into the 120 degree range hence I'm not sure we're to place heights back of me. The speakers are small bookshelf on mounts. Do I just place them over the surrounds?
> Mike


Mike - not sure what you mean by "ever changing guide for placement". The placement recommendations have been consistent for a very long time.

First, the ear level speaker placement is largely independent of the overhead speaker placement. So your concern about the surrounds being around ~120deg azimuth doesn't change anything with respect to going from 2 to 4 overheads. While perhaps a bit farther back than ideal, that's still a typical placement for surrounds in a 5ch ear level layer.

Overhead placement of 4 speakers is pretty straightforward, people way overcomplicate this topic. Two in front, two behind. Far enough forward/rearward to create front vs back separation. Spaced out wide enough to create left vs right separation. Imagine a box on the ceiling, with the "listening zone" inside of the box. The corners of the box are the overhead speakers, and they define how far forward, rearward, left and/or right the overhead sound can travel. That's all there is to it. If you've got height speakers front left, front right, rear left, rear right you'll hear sound above you with clear directional cues from the proper "zone" of the 3D bubble.


----------



## tbaucom

batpig said:


> It feels like two different things are getting muddled/conflated.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm ONLY talking about the DSU update which is adding support for upmixing to Front Wide locations.
> 
> I have heard nothing about "Movie", "Music", or "Night" modes for DSU. Was this mentioned somewhere and I missed it?


I have an Arcam AV40. Those modes were added to the newer 16 channel Arcam:JBL/AudioControl processors with the last firmware update. I don’t know if they are related to DSU or possibly Dolby Volume, I can’t find anything about them in the web and Arcam hasn’t really said what they do. The center spread option for DSU was removed in the same update.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

tbaucom said:


> I have an Arcam AV40. Those modes were added to the newer 16 channel Arcam:JBL/AudioControl processors with the last firmware update. I don’t know if they are related to DSU or possibly Dolby Volume, I can’t find anything about them in the web and Arcam hasn’t really said what they do.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting - I was about to guess that they were Denon equivalents of presets to select an upmix mode for Movies and Music, leaving whatever Night mode is aside. Can you tell if Movie and Music are fancy ways of saying with and without center spread?


----------



## tbaucom

sdrucker said:


> Interesting - I was about to guess that they were Denon equivalents of presets to select an upmix mode for Movies and Music, leaving whatever Night mode is aside. Can you tell if Movie and Music are fancy ways of saying with and without center spread?


Movie has center spread off but it sounds like there might be some dynamic compression added. Music and Night both have center spread. With the Dolby mode set to off, center spread is on by default. Defaulting to on could be an Arcam bug.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MaxTemp

MagnumX said:


> That's what I've been talking about. Auro-3D is 6-8dB louder sounding. Stereo, DSU and Neural X all sound more or less the same relative to bass. If anything, older 2-channel and 5.1 Dolby soundtracks sound weak in bass output regardless of the surround mode used. I use the 7012's subwoofer setting (that was removed in the 7013 for reasons I utterly disagree with) to quickly boost bass 3dB on such soundtracks without having to adjust the base level in settings that take longer to access (including the slow responding options menu).


No doubt about Auro upmixer. Its easy to tell since everything is is clearly louder. Neural X is for sure lower bass as well in my experience. Ive seen a little discussion by others and some said they dont hear a difference. Maybe its based on certain frequencies. One test is the intro in Marvels Iront Fist show. Just test in episode 1 and soon after the one minute mark theres good bass slam. Its clearly better with DSU. Tron Legacy was the same. I will ask in the bass threads for other experiences.


----------



## MagnumX

MaxTemp said:


> No doubt about Auro upmixer. Its easy to tell since everything is is clearly louder.


I don't know what you mean by "everything" is louder. The bass is a LOT louder. The rest of the spectrum is the same within reason.



> Neural X is for sure lower bass as well in my experience. Ive seen a little discussion by others and some said they dont hear a difference.


Outside Emotiva, you are the first person I've ever read suggest there's a problem with bass in Neural X. A search on Google turns up literally nothing. If there was a 10dB drop in bass with just Neural X, it would be mentioned a lot, IMO.



> Maybe its based on certain frequencies. One test is the intro in Marvels Iront Fist show. Just test in episode 1 and soon after the one minute mark theres good bass slam. Its clearly better with DSU. Tron Legacy was the same. I will ask in the bass threads for other experiences.


I don't have Iron Fist, but I do have Tron Legacy. I can try a bit of it again. Any scene in particular strike you as really noticeable?


----------



## MaxTemp

MagnumX said:


> I don't know what you mean by "everything" is louder. The bass is a LOT louder. The rest of the spectrum is the same within reason.


In my setup, volume is higher, not just bass with Auro upmixer.



MagnumX said:


> Outside Emotiva, you are the first person I've ever read suggest there's a problem with bass in Neural X. A search on Google turns up literally nothing. If there was a 10dB drop in bass with just Neural X, it would be mentioned a lot, IMO.


I can see most people not noticing if you dont test it back to back. It was brought up in the BASS EQ thread. I will bring it up there and get opinions. It could be frequency based which would make even less people notice. I will need to do more testing to confirm because I stopped using it after noticing.



MagnumX said:


> I don't have Iron Fist, but I do have Tron Legacy. I can try a bit of it again. Any scene in particular strike you as really noticeable?


Lightcycle battle/race scene.


----------



## Krobar

mrtickleuk said:


> @Krobar mentioned it in >this post< out of the blue saying he'd "heard" about it.


Yep, some users in the JBL SDP-55 thread.


----------



## Krobar

sdrucker said:


> Interesting - I was about to guess that they were Denon equivalents of presets to select an upmix mode for Movies and Music, leaving whatever Night mode is aside. Can you tell if Movie and Music are fancy ways of saying with and without center spread?


Music and Night don't currently work (No different to none), given the state of Arcam firmware that doesn't surprise me. After a few mins comparison I think None has center spread and Movie does not.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> I wonder if these are DSU upmixed Wides or the Front+Side copied Wides that you see on 9.1.6 processors from Lyngdorf, Monoloth, etc.


You mean functionality supplied by the receiver mfgr, not Dolby (so not a DSU update at all)?


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> You mean functionality supplied by the receiver mfgr, not Dolby (so not a DSU update at all)?


Yes, Sanjay is speculating that these specific processors may be doing something proprietary to extract the wides (vs being part of DSU itself). It is also possible it's DSU and they implemented a firmware update with newer code.

However, to be clear, it is ALSO a fact that DSU will support upmixing to wides natively on the newest version. This version is already in the wild on the Denon X6700H and Marantz SR8015, and soon will be added to the X8500H and AV8805A (and whatever replaced the AV7705).


----------



## MagnumX

Are there any reviews of the new D&M units that actually discuss (rather than just mention the features) the DSU upgrades and/or DTS:X Pro features? The few reviews I've read so far looked more like advertisements than actual reviews.


----------



## rec head

batpig said:


> Overhead placement of 4 speakers is pretty straightforward, people way over complicate this topic. Two in front, two behind. Far enough forward/rearward to create front vs back separation. Spaced out wide enough to create left vs right separation.


Now we can delete 2000 posts from this thread.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> You mean functionality supplied by the receiver mfgr, not Dolby (so not a DSU update at all)?


Yes. No one that has it has described what's coming out of the Wides.


----------



## tbaucom

sdurani said:


> Yes. No one that has it has described what's coming out of the Wides.


I don’t have wides so I don’t know if anything is coming out of the wides with this new music/movie/night setting. I haven’t heard that it was. I don’t think this new setting is proprietary. It is specifically called “Dolby Audio Processing Mode”. I doubt Dolby would like Arcam using that name for a proprietary setting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

I'm continually more and more impressed with Neural X upgrading older 5.1/7.1 soundtracks to near-Atmos quality or to be honest, even better than many Atmos soundtracks in terms of overhead use (and it seems "correct" >90% of the time, IMO which is just amazing for old movies that never had overhead speakers in mind). For example, I just watched the movie "Money Talks" with Chris Tucker and Charlie Sheen and it was just spot-on for overhead effects (helicopters, gun shots, explosions, etc. where you could tell the object was heading overhead visually) and it had noticeable rear surround channel use as well for a 5.1 soundtrack. I've been watching a lot of 5.1 movies lately with it and there is often considerably more noticeable overhead speaker use than many actual Atmos movies. 

Overall, I'm enjoying my home theater's sound system in a general sense now far more than I thought I would (most movies are vastly improved with Neural X, IMO) while ironically, Atmos has been hit and miss by comparison with many soundtracks sounding like they weren't aiming for much more than 2-channel sound half the movie with Atmos only kicking in for certain actions sequences. Some like Labyrinth had me almost completely baffled as it sounds like 2-channel or Pro Logic for perhaps 95% of the movie or more. Why even bother? Just use the original soundtrack. The "Atmos" name implies immersive to me and it's disappointing to find out it's NOT immersive. The Atmos demos have you almost expecting it to be that way in every movie and it's just not most of the time. If it's "distracting" then I say don't bother with it. Go with stereo or even mono so you're paying attention to the screen 100% of the time.... I mean it's just weird finding the Superman 5.1 upmixed soundtrack more involving than the new Atmos version that harkens back to the original. Just use the original if that's what you're aiming to "honor". Better yet, they could easily make BOTH available on the disc.


----------



## eaayoung

Finally got around to watching Sicario. It was listed as having one of the best Atmos sound tracks. It didn’t disappoint. The best Atmos soundtracks I've heard so far. Plus one of the better movies I’ve seen this year. Wife bailed after seeing the bodies hanging from the bridges. Just ordered Sicario Day of Soldado.


----------



## Jacob305

I like the second more then the first. actually..

Jacob


----------



## Rich 63

I know the question of height placement gets beat to death since I've seen it asked often but room restrictions play a major role so no 2 solutions are the same. Trying to wrap my brain around height position as it relates to my room and the guidelines. I'm getting a 4300 for my theatre. I currently run 5.4.2 with my 9heights up against a duct chase that runs perpendicular to the room so across my head and speakers slightly forward . This chase is almost 3 feet wide. In order to get my new forward heights in place I'll have to put them next to that chase but on the forward side. This moves them 6ft forward of mlp. I assume my back heights now need to go 6ft back of mlp but this puts them behind my surrounds. This seems wrong. I have no choice with the forward heights position. Im concerned with that large gap and a lose of effect. Plus the fact that my surrounds are going to be forward by about a foot in relation to my rear heights. I should mention that the heights are small bookshelf, bracket mounted so directionally flexible. Is it smarter to move my rears closer to the mlp and let audessey do its thing. Advice please.
Rich


----------



## batpig

I have no idea why having the rear heights behind the surrounds feels "wrong" to you, but it's not. 

It's also not mandatory for things to be perfectly symmetrical, front to rear. If the front heights are 6' forward and the rear heights are 4' behind, I promise you the ceiling will not fall on your head and no babies or cute animals will be harmed.

Don't overthink it -- two heights in front, two behind, spread out wide enough to create clear left vs right stereo separation for the seated listeners. That creates a box around which overhead sound can travel. Enjoy.


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> I know the question of height placement gets beat to death since I've seen it asked often but room restrictions play a major role so no 2 solutions are the same. Trying to wrap my brain around height position as it relates to my room and the guidelines. I'm getting a 4300 for my theatre. I currently run 5.4.2 with my 9heights up against a duct chase that runs perpendicular to the room so across my head and speakers slightly forward . This chase is almost 3 feet wide. In order to get my new forward heights in place I'll have to put them next to that chase but on the forward side. This moves them 6ft forward of mlp. I assume my back heights now need to go 6ft back of mlp but this puts them behind my surrounds. This seems wrong. I have no choice with the forward heights position. Im concerned with that large gap and a lose of effect. Plus the fact that my surrounds are going to be forward by about a foot in relation to my rear heights. I should mention that the heights are small bookshelf, bracket mounted so directionally flexible. Is it smarter to move my rears closer to the mlp and let audessey do its thing. Advice please.
> Rich


It's harder to gauge distances behind you. A foot isn't going to be a big deal.


----------



## sdurani

Rich 63 said:


> I assume my back heights now need to go 6ft back of mlp but this puts them behind my surrounds. This seems wrong.


Not according to Dolby.


----------



## theone26

Stupid me literally just found this DA thread after all these time lol, asked about this in a different thread but this is definitely the right place to inquire I believe. 
So, for anyone using eARC TV connected with eARC soundbars/receivers, do you hear a decent jump in audio quality compared to using only ARC? Or is the lossless Dolby Atmos TruHD and DTS:X MA much better than the compressed DD+ when listened in person?


----------



## blake

MagnumX said:


> I'm continually more and more impressed with Neural X upgrading older 5.1/7.1 soundtracks to near-Atmos quality or to be honest, even better than many Atmos soundtracks in terms of overhead use (and it seems "correct" >90% of the time, IMO which is just amazing for old movies that never had overhead speakers in mind). For example, I just watched the movie "Money Talks" with Chris Tucker and Charlie Sheen and it was just spot-on for overhead effects (helicopters, gun shots, explosions, etc. where you could tell the object was heading overhead visually) and it had noticeable rear surround channel use as well for a 5.1 soundtrack. I've been watching a lot of 5.1 movies lately with it and there is often considerably more noticeable overhead speaker use than many actual Atmos movies.
> 
> Overall, I'm enjoying my home theater's sound system in a general sense now far more than I thought I would (most movies are vastly improved with Neural X, IMO) while ironically, Atmos has been hit and miss by comparison with many soundtracks sounding like they weren't aiming for much more than 2-channel sound half the movie with Atmos only kicking in for certain actions sequences. Some like Labyrinth had me almost completely baffled as it sounds like 2-channel or Pro Logic for perhaps 95% of the movie or more. Why even bother? Just use the original soundtrack. The "Atmos" name implies immersive to me and it's disappointing to find out it's NOT immersive. The Atmos demos have you almost expecting it to be that way in every movie and it's just not most of the time. If it's "distracting" then I say don't bother with it. Go with stereo or even mono so you're paying attention to the screen 100% of the time.... I mean it's just weird finding the Superman 5.1 upmixed soundtrack more involving than the new Atmos version that harkens back to the original. Just use the original if that's what you're aiming to "honor". Better yet, they could easily make BOTH available on the disc.


How does Neural X decide which 5.1 objects to render to the overhead speakers ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Not according to Dolby.
> 
> View attachment 3034770


You of all people should know that Dolby's diagrams don't show "distance" just relative angular setups and example room diagrams. It's for illustrative purposes only and the couches and speaker distances aren't meant to be indicative of a particular room setup (i.e. a speaker can sit anywhere along a particular angular vector line and still match the given angles). If they put the rear surrounds in the 120 degree position in the diagram, it'd be overlapping the rear tops and thus they drew them off to the sides. Ideally, objects should image in the same X,Y coordinates in the room at different height levels. Otherwise, part of the image could be several feet in front of the image portion above it when it's imaged in-between layers, leading to a diagonal skewed image or image blur (as overlapping sound locations "array" in-between so a helicopter halfway between the lower and overhead layers could be in two different positions in terms of the overhead and lower content if the speakers are significantly far apart from one another). 

Most rooms are not ideal, however and as most of us know, Dolby is happy to to sell their stuff regardless of anything "ideal" or not or they wouldn't sell 'bouncy' speakers (Dolby "Enabled") in the first place. I doubt Dolby cares whether one's system is precise or not so long as they impress with sounds above and below in the demos. Only Auro-3D has made it clear that overhead and ear level speakers need to be directly above/below each other for the best holographic sound results (layers aligned precisely with each other). They are also the only ones that actually record dual-quad miked performances that I'm aware of, which tends to produce very precise imaging when aligned correctly.



blake said:


> How does Neural X decide which 5.1 objects to render to the overhead speakers ?


I don't know the specifics of it or if there's an article out there on it (I haven't seen one yet as I'm curious too what they do precisely), but I would assume they know the frequency and phase patterns of sounds that tend to come from above and look for them in the signal. They also know how the sounds are folded "down" into the lower channel mixes and can reverse the process. So it makes sense to me they could make a fair guess at soundtracks designed with overhead sound placement in the original mix by the latter. However, Neural X seems to be very good indeed at placing things like helicopters and thunderstorms overhead even in older soundtracks made long before Atmos or X ever existed as such.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> You of all people should know...















MagnumX said:


> Ideally, objects should image in the same X,Y coordinates in the room at different height levels. Otherwise, part of the image could be several feet in front of the image portion above it when it's imaged in-between layers, leading to a diagonal skewed image or image blur (as overlapping sound locations "array" in-between so a helicopter halfway between the lower and overhead layers could be in two different positions in terms of the overhead and lower content if the speakers are significantly far apart from one another).
> 
> Most rooms are not ideal....
> 
> 
> I don't know the specifics of it...















batpig said:


> I have no idea why having the rear heights behind the surrounds feels "wrong" to you, but it's not.
> 
> It's also not mandatory for things to be perfectly symmetrical, front to rear. If the front heights are 6' forward and the rear heights are 4' behind, I promise you the ceiling will not fall on your head and no babies or cute animals will be harmed.
> 
> *Don't overthink it -- two heights in front, two behind, spread out wide enough to create clear left vs right stereo separation for the seated listeners. That creates a box around which overhead sound can travel. Enjoy.*


----------



## Rich 63

Thanks all for the feedback. As mentioned before. Dolby has more then one diagram showing placement. I have a pdf download from them, page 29 clearly shows the rear tops forward of the surrounds. Regardless. As batpig has said to me. Twice. The top is independent of the bed. I have a good sense of what I'm going to do now. Will update in a week or so once I'm up and running with the new layout. Rich


----------



## LNEWoLF

MagnumX said:


> I'm continually more and more impressed with Neural X upgrading older 5.1/7.1 soundtracks to near-Atmos quality or to be honest, even better than many Atmos soundtracks in terms of overhead use (and it seems "correct" >90% of the time, IMO which is just amazing for old movies that never had overhead speakers in mind).
> 
> Overall, I'm enjoying my home theater's sound system in a general sense now far more than I thought I would (most movies are vastly improved with Neural X, IMO)


----------



## MagnumX

*Knives Out* (2019) is another example of a relatively good movie with Dolby Atmos that wastes most of its sonic potential. It oddly keeps most of its energy in the front of the room, with very little surround effects, especially ambient ones. There's a rain scene and it's only raining on-screen and some thunder in the front heights. Admittedly, the camera view was pointing out from the house, but thunder doesn't come from just in front of you in the distance because you're in a screened-in porch. There were several good overhead uses when things were falling in the room above, but most of the movie felt like it was in stereo. It did have surround pans in driving scenes, etc., but ambience was not strong.

Next, I watched *The Talented Mr. Ripley* (1999) in basic 5.1 sound with Neural X and almost immediately you were surrounded by sounds of the city and a short bit later sounds of the sea shore, etc. I was less struck by whether things were being placed overhead by Neural X, however than just the general 5.1 ambience being far superior to the utter lack of ambience *Knives Out* had as a full fledged Dolby Atmos movie. Sadly, it's not alone in that regard. For a format that's pushed as being about total immersion, the worst thing has been a large number of the movies using it in ways that aren't very immersive at all. 

It took over a decade before I felt 5.1 sound was commonly being used relatively well to where things you expected to hear in surround were there. Early 5.1 discrete use had a lot of movies that seemed more like Pro Logic than discrete and reserved significant surround usage mostly use for key moments in the film. Now, it almost feels like we're heading backwards once again where some films make it seem like Atmos surround effects should only be used for key moments and the rest of the time, stereo or just dialog in the center channel. It's raining right now for real as I write this and I can hear rain coming from at least 3 different directions (roof above and the two nearest walls to the outside and thunder appearing anywhere it happens to be coming from. Shouldn't we expect the same kind of realism in movies with Atmos? Using it for only a few key moments gives it less an immersive feel and more of a gimmicky one and it might even be having the opposite effect intended (i.e. to concentrate on the story). I'm sitting there waiting for them to do something with Atmos and noticing they're not rather than concentrating on the movie.


----------



## sdurani

blake said:


> How does Neural X decide which 5.1 objects to render to the overhead speakers ?


Sounds mixed to the Fronts & Sides get extracted to the Wides. Sounds mixed to the Fronts & Rears get extracted to the overhead speakers. When those sounds are more in the Front than Rear, they are sent to the height speakers forward of you. If those sounds are more in the Rear than Front, they're sent to the height speakers rearward of you. It's basic matrix extraction, similar to how old Pro Logic used to look for common sounds in the Left & Right channels to extract a Centre.


----------



## MagnumX

Dolby used "matrix" type extraction methods for all forms of Pro Logic and presumably DSU is based upon that foundation as well (PLIIz closely approximating the height methods in DSU). I don't believe DTS uses the same methods for height extraction. 

A search of the DTS Patents provide some description of the methods used for both extracting more channels and the positional data within:





__





Patent Public Search | USPTO







patft.uspto.gov





This one appears to pertain to creating more channels out of the existing ones.



> An audio spatial environment engine for converting from an N channel audio system to an M channel audio system, where N is an integer greater than M, is provided. The audio spatial environment engine includes one or more correlators receiving two of the N channels of audio data and eliminating delays between the channels that are irrelevant to an average human listener. One or more Hilbert transform systems each perform a Hilbert transform on one or more of the correlated channels of audio data. One or more summers receive at least one of the correlated channels of audio data and at least one of the Hilbert transformed correlated channels of audio data and generate one of the M channels of audio data.







__





Patent Public Search | USPTO







patft.uspto.gov





This patent appears to pertain to overhead and other spatial information extraction and a basic description of the method used:



> An audio spatial environment engine for flexible and scalable up-mixing from an M channel audio system to an N channel audio system, where M and N are integers and N is greater than M, is provided. The input M channel audio is provided to an analysis filter bank which converts the time domain signals into frequency domain signals. Relevant inter-channel spatial cues are extracted from the frequency domain signals on a sub-band basis and are used as parameters to generate adaptive N channel filters which control the spatial placement of a frequency band element in the up-mixed sound field. The N channel filters are smoothed across both time and frequency to limit filter variability which could cause annoying fluctuation effects. The smoothed N channel filters are then applied to adaptive combinations of the frequency domain input signals and are provided to a synthesis filter bank which generates the N channel time domain output signals.


That's a mere abstract description, but it sounds pretty clear to me that limited frequency band analysis of signals converted from the time domain to determine the height and location of signals goes beyond mere front/back front/side type matrix extraction.


----------



## MagnumX

@Scott Simonian - I'm not entirely certain of the meaning of your pictorial response, but I feel perhaps I should clarify what I was trying to say a bit. There's always going to be a difference between what's _ideal_, what's _practical_ and what's _acceptable_ to a given person for optimal performance of a home theater speaker system. A single Dolby diagram for a single row of seating for a generic "room" is simply not indicative of the perceived performance differences between placing speakers at varying distances along the angular vector lines provided. The further away a speaker is from its matching upper "layer" speaker, the more blurred the imaging effect will become. _The Precedence Effect_ means that sitting closer to a given speaker in a given speaker pairing will pull the sound to the closer speaker. While speaker delays can remove much of the effect for one seating location, it will not work in a home theater with more than one row of seating nor work as well for off-axis seats. That is why Auro-3D suggests placing lower/upper layers in line with one another and why they offer "center height" and "top surround [vog]" speakers to further anchor imaging locations for more seating locations. 

Dolby chose to make some things simpler for the masses in various layout diagrams (you will note that the more speakers added in their diagrams the more symmetrical they begin to show them, let alone for a commercial movie theater layout). Dolby enabled speakers showed me they are willing to compromise the "ideal" layout and setup in order to increase sales. You can note below the Atmos layouts are very symmetrical the larger the layouts and more seats being used become. This is not readily displayed in the example diagrams based around ONE SEAT (MLP). I'm not trying to say that less than ideal layouts won't produce satisfactory results, only that one diagram out of context from Dolby hardly means there is no difference whatsoever between where you put a given set of speakers along a given vector line. I personally think room symmetry is warranted beyond one row of seating, for instance.

Dolby's own home layout looks more and more symmetrical the larger the layout and more speakers used it becomes. This diagram shows 3 rows of seats and is much more symmetrical in appearance to their single 5.1.4 diagram. There's another thread on here where the person had a professional install and they don't like the limited front-to-back overhead speaker coverage of the "tops" system (whereas a "heights" layout plus "top middle" if needed for smooth phantom panning directly overhead provides a much larger front-to-back path for objects to appear overhead than tops alone (i.e. front heights would be above the screen or on the ceiling just in front of it in most rooms and yet the diagram below shows them out by front wides in the room, but where exactly they are form that viewpoint is entirely dependent on how high the ceiling is as the 30-45 degree angle varies with the ceiling height of the room. It's also possible to have a speaker pair at various points along that vector line, not just where the ceiling or wall is located (hanging speakers, etc.)










Movie theaters with many rows of seats are very symmetrical in their layouts (e.g. like this) to give every row/seat as good an experience as possible):


----------



## noah katz

Doesn't it also use phase to detect what are ambient sounds?

Otherwise it seems that there would be way too many sounds originally from the fronts where they don't belong.




sdurani said:


> Sounds mixed to the Fronts & Sides get extracted to the Wides. Sounds mixed to the Fronts & Rears get extracted to the overhead speakers. When those sounds are more in the Front than Rear, they are sent to the height speakers forward of you. If those sounds are more in the Rear than Front, they're sent to the height speakers rearward of you. It's basic matrix extraction, similar to how old Pro Logic used to look for common sounds in the Left & Right channels to extract a Centre.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> @Scott Simonian - I'm not entirely certain of the meaning of your pictorial response, but


Mostly attempting to liven up this thread with something fun.

But more importantly...



batpig said:


> *Don't overthink it -- two heights in front, two behind, spread out wide enough to create clear left vs right stereo separation for the seated listeners. That creates a box around which overhead sound can travel. Enjoy.*







MagnumX said:


> I feel perhaps I should clarify what I was trying to say a bit.


You really do not but I appreciate you responding anyway. I do know a little bit about Atmos and other immersive audio technology, thank you very much.


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> You really do not but I appreciate you responding anyway. I do know a little bit about Atmos and other immersive audio technology, thank you very much.


I had a look at your home theater build. Very impressive, especially for bass.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> I had a look at your home theater build. Very impressive, especially for bass.


Hey thanks!

Yeah, it's alright.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Doesn't it also use phase to detect what are ambient sounds?


Matrix upmixing uses phase and level to determine steering. DSU steers decorrelated content to the heights while Neural:X sends more correlated sounds up there.


> Otherwise it seems that there would be way too many sounds originally from the fronts where they don't belong.


Try Neural:X on a soundtrack with panned dialogue and listen for those voices leaking to the heights whenever they're in the L/R channels.


----------



## noah katz

sdurani said:


> Try Neural:X on a soundtrack with panned dialogue and listen for those voices leaking to the heights whenever they're in the L/R channels.



Interesting, I've only noticed what seemed like inappropriate steering a time or two, and don't even remember if it was voices.


----------



## gakbw

Hello all,

what is the avg distance between front height in-ceiling dolby atmos speakers vs Rear height in-ceiling Dolby atmos speakers? And rear in-ceiling dolby atmos speakers to be install front of the back surround speakers or back side rear surround speakers?


----------



## Josh Z

I'm no longer getting Atmos from Amazon Prime shows that previously had it, such as Jack Ryan and Carnival Row. Tried on both Roku and NVIDIA Shield. Is this a global Amazon problem? Is anyone else still getting Atmos from Amazon streaming content?


----------



## sdurani

gakbw said:


> what is the avg distance between front height in-ceiling dolby atmos speakers vs Rear height in-ceiling Dolby atmos speakers?


There is no average distance. Front Height speakers go above your Front speakers. Rear Height speakers go above your Rear (Surround-Back) speakers. IF that is too far apart for you, then you can place them at the Top Front and Top Rear locations. See diagram below. Placement of overhead speakers is very flexible with Atmos (hard to get it wrong).


----------



## by96

sdurani said:


> There is no average distance. Front Height speakers go above your Front speakers. Rear Height speakers go above your Rear (Surround-Back) speakers. IF that is too far apart for you, then you can place them at the Top Front and Top Rear locations. See diagram below. Placement of overhead speakers is very flexible with Atmos (hard to get it wrong).


I couldn't agree more. I know I obsessed when installing my in-ceiling Atmos speakers to the point I got made fun of on another threat. In the end, they sound great, and a few inches this way or that way, wouldn't make a bit of perceivable difference.


----------



## batpig

Rich 63 said:


> Thanks all for the feedback. As mentioned before. Dolby has more then one diagram showing placement. I have a pdf download from them, page 29 clearly shows the rear tops forward of the surrounds. Regardless. As batpig has said to me. Twice. The top is independent of the bed. I have a good sense of what I'm going to do now. Will update in a week or so once I'm up and running with the new layout. Rich


I assume you're talking about visual discrepancies like in the images below? Those overhead graphics are NOT precise and are not to be taken 100% literally with the inferences you appear to be making, i.e. "it looks like the rear overheads are in front of the surrounds in the fake overhead drawing so mine need to be too". 

THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS

Do these drawings also imply that you need a 2 seat couch and a subwoofer to the left of the TV console or else Atmos won't work? If that sounds silly to you, why are you taking the relative overhead placement so literally?

The placement is all about ANGLES. Depending on the geometry of your room (ceiling height, room length, seating placement, etc) a 45 degree rear elevation could put the speakers on the wall, on the ceiling, in front of the side surrounds or behind the side surrounds.


----------



## Rich 63

Interesting responses.. I guess. Thanks to all for the info. Some of you are all so polite and helpful.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Rich 63 said:


> Interesting responses.. I guess. Thanks to all for the info. Some of you are all so polite and helpful.


Bear in mind that it's got to be better to stop someone in their tracks by whatever means necessary, when they've misunderstood something, than to tip-toe around it and not drive the message home then _have to deal with the fallout later when the holes in the ceiling were cut in the wrong place_.


----------



## chrislee

batpig said:


> I assume you're talking about visual discrepancies like in the images below? Those overhead graphics are NOT precise and are not to be taken 100% literally with the inferences you appear to be making, i.e. "it looks like the rear overheads are in front of the surrounds in the fake overhead drawing so mine need to be too".
> 
> THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS
> 
> Do these drawings also imply that you need a 2 seat couch and a subwoofer to the left of the TV console or else Atmos won't work? If that sounds silly to you, why are you taking the relative overhead placement so literally?
> 
> The placement is all about ANGLES. Depending on the geometry of your room (ceiling height, room length, seating placement, etc) a 45 degree rear elevation could put the speakers on the wall, on the ceiling, in front of the side surrounds or behind the side surrounds.


It's always confused me as to why the sides are in fact, not on the sides, more like rear sides. Anyone know why Dolby set things this way?


----------



## sdurani

chrislee said:


> It's always confused me as to why the sides are in fact, not on the sides, more like rear sides. Anyone know why Dolby set things this way?


For a 7.1 layout, there are Sides and Rears. For a 5.1 set-up, there is a single pair of Surrounds, placed somewhere between the Side and Rear locations (i.e., along your sides but slightly rearward of you). IF you call them Surrounds instead of Sides, the name will no longer seem at odds with the side/rear placement.


----------



## am2model3

yes, it is sad that the studio movie mixers can't seem to get great DolbyAtmos movie tracks out there; sometimes you wonder if the sound engineer is mixing for Atmos or just asleep at the wheel; that being said there are some good Atmos movie mixes out there. But yeah, when the movie mixer/true atmos mix fails; the upmixers DSU and NeuralX save the day!! 

I have found even on xbox atmos games; there are some that are just unimpressive to me. SuperLucky Tale, Rise of TombRaider, and ForzaHorizon4 supposedly all have Atmos game sound; but they sound lackluster to me. They all sound way better to me with the upmixer applied instead. 

Yes, DSU and NeuralX are incredible for movies and games taking 5.1 or 7.1 sound sources and getting a cool upgraded experience from them!


----------



## MagnumX

chrislee said:


> It's always confused me as to why the sides are in fact, not on the sides, more like rear sides. Anyone know why Dolby set things this way?


They offer a range for the placement of side surrounds because it's not easy getting perfect side + rear coverage with 5.1 setups as the room gets larger because the further back you place the surround speakers the less well it will fill in-between and vice versa, which is probably why they came up with 7.1 in the first place for larger rooms. But if you have to go 5.1, you'll have to decide which position sounds best to you in your given room and listening position (typically between 90-110 degrees relative to the main listening chair), but you can also have them in front of the main chair with rear speakers along side or just behind the seating location (i.e. You can also manage a more "room based" setup and move the seating instead, which corresponds basically to have more than one row of seats and just moving which row you choose to sit in, but the basic Dolby diagrams are not meant for multi-row home theaters, although the largest diagrams they offer do typically show 3 rows). In other words, some people actually like having the sides in front of them even if there's only one row of seats. Utilizing rears (7.1.4 or greater), you can still have full surround coverage (similar to sitting in row #2 even if it's the only row). That offers a slightly different perspective.


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


> yes, it is sad that the studio movie mixers can't seem to get great DolbyAtmos movie tracks out there; sometimes you wonder if the sound engineer is mixing for Atmos or just asleep at the wheel; that being said there are some good Atmos movie mixes out there. But yeah, when the movie mixer/true atmos mix fails; the upmixers DSU and NeuralX save the day!!
> 
> I have found even on xbox atmos games; there are some that are just unimpressive to me. SuperLucky Tale, Rise of TombRaider, and ForzaHorizon4 supposedly all have Atmos game sound; but they sound lackluster to me. They all sound way better to me with the upmixer applied instead.
> 
> Yes, DSU and NeuralX are incredible for movies and games taking 5.1 or 7.1 sound sources and getting a cool upgraded experience from them!


The problem is you can't really "fix" a poor Atmos mix with DSU or Neural X because it only has to work with what they mixed with already in the bed/ear level layer. A good 5.1 mix will upmix well to an Atmos/X setup, but a bad Atmos mix (bad as in they don't even utilize the ear level speakers well) wil probably sound terrible in DSU or Neural X too. If it's just the overhead sounds they screwed up, maybe it will sound better in Neural X, but even Neural X uses frequency and phase clues that are more prevalent in the Atmos/X downmixes so it might image as bad or worse too. It seems there is just far too conservative use for surround mixes lately. I feel like I'm back in the 1990s where some mixes were great, but others were boring (rarely used surround to keep focus on the dialog). I've been enjoying a lot more 2000-2010 type movie mixes in Neural X than anything else (that seemed to be the sweet spot for most mixes using 5.1/7.1 very well and if it's a great 5.1 or 7.1 mix, it will probably be a great Neural X mix too! 

The ironic thing is that "Atmos" is short for Atmospheric and implies AMBIENCE (i.e. immersion) as being important, but when mixing folk save the surround and/or overhead use for only certain action scenes, it's not very "immersive" at all. I'd like some near-realism (accounting for dialog intelligibility and not blowing my ears up, of course). Birds should be all around in a forest, not just in the front speakers because it's not an action scene (e.g. Annihilation did this a lot, sounding great in certain scenes, but 2-speaker only in others where there SHOULD have been birds, etc. all around).


----------



## Rich 63

As I mentioned batpigs commented, twice that the bed layer and the heights are more or less independent. That has been taken to mind. I'm not a wallflower and have no problem with being schooled on how to do things. It's why I ask questions Quite frankly I just don't want to do the install twice.
Many of my questions are more directed to confirming what I think know. It's called spit balling. As with the world there are those seeking to learn by asking questions, those that never ask questions at all, followed by those willing to help, those that think they know, and those that drive a big truck.
.

I've gone ahead and done this the way I think it should be done based on what I've read to date, what what I learned from my 5.4.2 setup and will go from there. I'm excited to get to the nirvana I've been saving for. Just didn't get much helpful info from my post.


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> As I mentioned batpigs commented, twice that the bed layer and the heights are more or less independent. That has been taken to mind. I'm not a wallflower and have no problem with being schooled on how to do things. It's why I ask questions Quite frankly I just don't want to do the install twice.
> Many of my questions are more directed to confirming what I think know. It's called spit balling. As with the world there are those seeking to learn by asking questions, those that never ask questions at all, followed by those willing to help, those that think they know, and those that drive a big truck.
> .
> 
> I've gone ahead and done this the way I think it should be done based on what I've read to date, what what I learned from my 5.4.2 setup and will go from there. I'm excited to get to the nirvana I've been saving for. Just didn't get much helpful info from my post.


How do you place objects in-between the ceiling and ear level with precision if the layers really are truly _independent_? Objects can be rendered anywhere at or between the ear level and ceiling level speakers in Atmos and that means objects somewhere in-between are being played out of two different layers (high/low). Having any kind of an offset essentially creates an an "arrayed phantom" image in-between the two sets of speakers. At reasonable distances, this might not even be noticeable (e.g. my front heights are 13.7 inches in front of my mains (even with the screen) and thus the arrayed "dialog lift" effect puts the arrayed combined image about 7 inches in front of the screen which is not really noticeable, but is less than it would be with only the floor standing center speaker handling it (as the PSB speakers are about 13.5' long). In other words, a phantom voice rendered 40% upward between the mains and front heights would be around 7 inches from the screen. But as the distances become greater, is clarity or imaging affected? That's harder to say for sure for a given setup, but I do know the "tractor" demo and "City Center" demos in Auro-3D render differently with my system if I use the rear heights that are 8 feet away from the side heights instead of "surround height" right above them. The traffic at a 90 degree intersection moves more diagonally instead and the tractor passes in a rather odd pattern (instead of jus going around) if the rear heights + side surrounds are used instead. So it does appear that over larger distances with channel-based rendering, it can cause alignment issues eventually. Auro-3D doesn't recommend using "rear heights" (above rear surrounds) instead of "surround height" (above the side surrounds) for "best imaging" and I assume this is the reason. Whether you notice with a typical movie that has off-screen objects moving to unknown locations (no visual reference to see where they 'should' be) is another matter (i.e. it might not be at all important to you), but it's perhaps not "ideal", but then few things in life are.

The other issue in question is the renderer itself in Dolby Atmos. If you set it to use "tops" instead of "heights" it should theoretically largely account for the imaging positional difference and align the tops location with the mains if they are within Dolby specs along with the speaker delay settings so the arriving wavefronts align. The problem is that unless you're using a Trinnov type decoder (that can render heights AND tops separately) Atmos won't just not use or throw out object positions that aren't present for the renderer overhead. Instead, it will send them to whatever speakers you have anyway (i.e. sounds that should be at the far ends of the room will simply start at the tops locations anyway so it doesn't throw out the sounds; DTS:X actually tries to phantom them where they should be, but Dolby does not, leaving the rendered object in positional error for "tops" speakers at least (heights can image tops locations by panning varying amounts across, so theoretically this would be better except if the room is too large you can get a "hole" directly above you with heights unless you add "top middle" to fill the distance in. Sadly, some Disney movies won't support top middle, though and unless you have DTS:X Pro, you might not have enough speaker support for that location. I cheat by extracting the location with Pro Logic decoders (similar to what DTS:X Pro does) and thus I get a nice edge-to-edge rendered overhead image across a 24' long room.

This rendering compensation will not work for channel based systems rendering like Auro-3D or most of the DTS:X movies that don't use objects. Whether you will even notice or care is another matter as I mentioned above. Only Auro-3D pushes for tighter alignments due to their layering approach for dual-quad music microphones. One could argue better alignment there equals a sharper more holographic image of the space it's trying to recreate and the tractor/city place demos indicate me there is some placement issues with significantly separated layers, but you may or not may not ever notice them.

Now to address your original post:



Rich 63 said:


> I know the question of height placement gets beat to death since I've seen it asked often but room restrictions play a major role so no 2 solutions are the same. Trying to wrap my brain around height position as it relates to my room and the guidelines. I'm getting a 4300 for my theatre. I currently run 5.4.2 with my 9heights up against a duct chase that runs perpendicular to the room so across my head and speakers slightly forward . This chase is almost 3 feet wide. In order to get my new forward heights in place I'll have to put them next to that chase but on the forward side. This moves them 6ft forward of mlp. I assume my back heights now need to go 6ft back of mlp but this puts them behind my surrounds. This seems wrong. I have no choice with the forward heights position. Im concerned with that large gap and a lose of effect. Plus the fact that my surrounds are going to be forward by about a foot in relation to my rear heights. I should mention that the heights are small bookshelf, bracket mounted so directionally flexible. Is it smarter to move my rears closer to the mlp and let audessey do its thing. Advice please.
> Rich


Ideally, you would want both sets of "heights" directly above the mains and rear surrounds. But any deficiency this might cause would certainly be on a sliding scale and at closer distances, it would almost certainly "array" somewhere in-between the two with in-between objects. If it's only a couple of feet, you probably wouldn't even notice. Heck, you might not notice for several feet as it's much harder to pin-point objects behind you than in front of you. In other words, no it wouldn't hurt to put the rear heights behind the rear surrounds. It also wouldn't likely hurt to put them above the rear surrounds either.

Ultimately, the bigger issue with most setups using heights is the total angle difference between the front height and rear height speakers will determine how strong an image directly overhead is (this can be an issue using "heights" instead of "tops" due to the larger angles between the two sets of speakers (it essentially asks the speakers to image across the entire distance, which for "tops" is typically 1/2 the total distance as "heights" use making stronger direct overhead sounds with "tops" but less front/back movement. In other words, it might actually be "better" to have the rear heights closer to you (say above the rear surrounds rather than behind them) not because symmetry is bad, but because if the distance is too far, you might not get strong imaging directly overhead. I solved that in my setup by adding top middle speakers (6 overheads) and that gives smooth edge-to-edge overhead imaging across a 24' long room for all rows of seating, but it was extra work to add the Pro Logic processors to extract that extra set of speakers (newer receivers support more than 11 speakers, but again many Disney soundtracks don't support top middle so for me it was better to just extract it so it works with everything). If your room isn't that long, you may not need that at al to get strong overhead imaging even with heights (e.g. a 12-15' long would have done fine with 4 heights. I can cut my room in half and at 12' it images fine with front heights plus the top middle speakers assigned as rear heights).

But with heights, once it passes about 120 degrees total (e.g. 30 degrees in front with 150 degrees in back relative to the main listening position), it will start to quickly fall apart overhead and even 120 might not be really solid overhead. Mine are about 130 degrees apart (30 front, 160 back relative to the front row) and it's like sitting under a gazebo that blocks much of the direct overhead sound. The trick there is to insert a top middle set of speakers that bridges the two sets (thus it's only 70 degrees from the front heights to top middle and 60 degrees to the rear height speakers from top middle (relative to the MLP; in actuality the speakers are at ~0%, 50% and ~100% into the room with the MLP at ~37% point where the least room modes are in a 24" long room with 8.5' ceilings). This gives perfectly smooth front-to-rear imaging edge-to-edge for all rows of seats. Thus, the Atmos speaker alignment is actually "room based" rather than MLP based and it almost has to be since the room is too big for full coverage across 3 rows of seats without the extra overheads. I put even more precise alignment at the ear level speakers with 11 speakers in that layer (keeping the average distance between speaker pairs to be between 30 and 50 degrees per set (20 degrees at the screen where it's most critical using 3 speakers).

Succinctly, put the rear heights closer to you rather than further away unless the room is very small to maintain overhead image integrity rather than absolute symmetry. If the room isn't very large, you can probably get away with more symmetry.


----------



## gakbw

Thank you Sdurani! This helps certainly.



sdurani said:


> There is no average distance. Front Height speakers go above your Front speakers. Rear Height speakers go above your Rear (Surround-Back) speakers. IF that is too far apart for you, then you can place them at the Top Front and Top Rear locations. See diagram below. Placement of overhead speakers is very flexible with Atmos (hard to get it wrong).
> 
> View attachment 3035272


----------



## Rich 63

Thanks for the information. It is helpful. As mentioned in my original post I have a duct chase that runs across my couch right above my head. My mlp is on one side, then 6ft of chase, then 6ft to front soundstage. I've elected to put overheads just past the chase, so 6.6ft in front. My rears 4ft behind due to a hallway. Not sure what to designate each pair as. On my 5.4.2 setup the speaker are 5 degrees forward of mlp but it doesn't appear to matter weather they are designated top middle, back middle, or heights. The sound was the same whatever designation is choosen Not thinking it's the same with 4 tops/heights. Correct?


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> Thanks for the information. It is helpful. As mentioned in my original post I have a duct chase that runs across my couch right above my head. My mlp is on one side, then 6ft of chase, then 6ft to front soundstage. I've elected to put overheads just past the chase, so 6.6ft in front. My rears 4ft behind due to a hallway. Not sure what to designate each pair as. On my 5.4.2 setup the speaker are 5 degrees forward of mlp but it doesn't appear to matter weather they are designated top middle, back middle, or heights. The sound was the same whatever designation is choosen Not thinking it's the same with 4 tops/heights. Correct?


The only demo I could hear a difference with the height versus tops setting (for Atmos or X) was the Atmos helicopter demo. With my somewhat off-axis side height "top middle" speakers ~10" lower than fron/rear heights due to the steel beam box above it), I could detect the slight height drop with the tops setting, but not the heights setting. All the other demos sounded the same. Since Atmos doesn't discard height data in tops mode, the notion that it renders differently kind of goes out the window to some extent, but there must be a tiny difference with some material, possibly depending on the object location. But then Dolby lists heights as 30-45 degrees so even they expect possible overlap.


----------



## Rich 63

Thanks magnum. Useful info. I'm bouncing off walls waiting for the avr to arrive. Going from bronze audessey to platinum x32 with 4 instaed of 2 overheads and 2/3 more power will likely be an eye opener. A bonus will be if the wife unit notices. It will negate the rolled eyes I got for the purchase. 
Regards Rich


----------



## b_scott

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304200660783517696

In case anyone cares, the new Xboxes will have DV/DA support, PS5 will not.


----------



## Josh Z

b_scott said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304200660783517696
> 
> In case anyone cares, the new Xboxes will have DV/DA support, PS5 will not.


PS5 will not have both Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, or will not have either one?


----------



## b_scott

Josh Z said:


> PS5 will not have both Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, or will not have either one?


They definitely don't have DA - they are trying to push their own "3D audio" system. I'm not sure on DV. I feel like Aaron Greenburg wouldn't have posted about DV if the PS5 is going to have it.


----------



## MagnumX

The PS4 will play 2K Atmos discs. From what I read, the PS5 will play UHD Atmos discs. It will not support Atmos audio in games (They're using their own currently headphone only system, which may require AVR support in the future for speakers or maybe they'll just use 2nd rate virtualized garbage). I don't recall reading about DV, but I doubt it. Sony likes to push its own crap to make more money instead of supporting existing standards.


----------



## am2model3

Yup, PS5 will not have DolbyAtmos for games. Xbox Series X|S; YES! = )


----------



## Rich 63

Got my new toy yesterday. Spend the evening moving my atmos. 2 speakers to there new location and getting all up and running. I use multi editor app for calibration. I'm surprised at how much longer the measurements take compared to the old vanilla multi eq. I know more positions and 2 more speakers but it was the loooong delay between position that surprised me. I'm assuming that xt32 spends more time measuring the noise floor plus all the addition filters might be why as well . But nearly 2 minutes from the time you hit next until the test tones is long. Also took me probably a dozen times downloading the data before it took. I tried resetting everything but only got it to download at 230 in the morning. Not time to evaluate properly. Wife unit and I will be rewatching "Fury Road" tonight. Observations on movie sound tomorrow. As for music. Wow. My intention was to external amp the front l/r with my old Nikko amp and hooking all music sources to that so I would run it for music. Not sure now. The dacs on this avr are so much better then the AVRS720W I was running. Will update tomorrow


----------



## Scott Simonian

MaxTemp said:


> From my experience (and what Sanjay has said) when using the Auro upmixer, since its duplicating channels, the volume is higher which also increases bass. Using DSU the volume/bass isnt affected, but the overhead is subtle and all pairs play the same signal no matter how many speakers you have. Unfortunately using Neural X kills the bass (comparatively), volume is slightly lower, but bass is easily 7-10db down.





MaxTemp said:


> Im using Denon x8500h, it was the same with Marantz as well. Play a scene/song with bass that you are familiar with. Go back and forth between Neural and DSU and see if you are able to tell a difference in bass levels. I did a number of tests and it was way lower for me.





MaxTemp said:


> No doubt about Auro upmixer. Its easy to tell since everything is is clearly louder. Neural X is for sure lower bass as well in my experience. Ive seen a little discussion by others and some said they dont hear a difference. Maybe its based on certain frequencies. One test is the intro in Marvels Iront Fist show. Just test in episode 1 and soon after the one minute mark theres good bass slam. Its clearly better with DSU. Tron Legacy was the same. I will ask in the bass threads for other experiences.





MaxTemp said:


> In my setup, volume is higher, not just bass with Auro upmixer.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see most people not noticing if you dont test it back to back. It was brought up in the BASS EQ thread. I will bring it up there and get opinions. It could be frequency based which would make even less people notice. I will need to do more testing to confirm because I stopped using it after noticing.
> 
> 
> 
> Lightcycle battle/race scene.



Hey. So I decided to take some measurements of straight 5.1, DSU, and Neural:X with discrete LFE channel output using my Omnmic system.

Ignore the absolute SPL levels on the side, my snapshots of the average were at a higher level and OM placed them lower for some reason.

They were identical. I have two screenshots here. One with them at level and another with each offset by +/- .5dB for illustrative purposes. As you can see. They are identical. No change in level or frequency response between them.


















I suggest you look at your settings for your Denon. You may have different levels set for each surround decoding or there is an issue with Denon/Marantz.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Here is another measurement for re-directed bass of the left and center channel using 5.1, DSU, and Neural:X.



richardsim7 said:


> How about re-directed bass?


Here is the left channel and center channel measured.

No difference in levels or frequency response.

These measurements are produced by the 5.1 test tone disk for the Omnimic system, reproduced through a Yamaha CX-A5100.

*Ignore response above 100hz. The graph tends to hop around while grabbing the screenshot.

Center*









*Left*


----------



## Augerhandle

Science


----------



## MagnumX

@Scott Simonian

No offense, but the quote you showed said Auro-3D's upmixer was louder than everything else and then you proceed to compare DSU, Neural X and discrete channel outputs. MaxTemp claimed Neural X sounded bass neutered compared to DSU and others, but I refuted that on my Marantz 7012, at least so I wouldn't expect to see any differences between them. I would expect a room difference in bass for Auro-3D's upmixer, however, but you apparently didn't show that result (may not even be available on your receiver).

Only Auro's upmixer (not even discrete Auro which is normal) is louder and here at least I only hear louder bass. I'm at work or I'd take a measurement, but it's a blatant/obvious difference you can immediately hear. There is no audible difference between the ones you showed at all here on my Marantz 7012.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Scott Simonian said:


> Here is another measurement for re-directed bass of the left and center channel using 5.1, DSU, and Neural:X.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the left channel and center channel measured.
> 
> No difference in levels or frequency response.
> 
> These measurements are produced by the 5.1 test tone disk for the Omnimic system, reproduced through a Yamaha CX-A5100.
> 
> *Ignore response above 100hz. The graph tends to hop around while grabbing the screenshot.
> 
> Center*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Left*


So does this affectively prove that dtsnx does not neuter bass compared to DSU? I have seen reports(in the bass with graphs thread I think) saying that dtsnx was somehow doing that. Could never make sense of it.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> Hey. So I decided to take some measurements of straight 5.1, DSU, and Neural:X with discrete LFE channel output using my Omnmic system.
> 
> Ignore the absolute SPL levels on the side, my snapshots of the average were at a higher level and OM placed them lower for some reason.
> 
> They were identical. I have two screenshots here. One with them at level and another with each offset by +/- .5dB for illustrative purposes. As you can see. They are identical. No change in level or frequency response between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look at your settings for your Denon. You may have different levels set for each surround decoding or there is an issue with Denon/Marantz.


Sure looks identical within the limits of accuracy of the Omnimic's calibrated USB mic (+/- 1 db I want to say).


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> @Scott Simonian
> 
> No offense,












Here we go...



MagnumX said:


> ....but the quote you showed said Auro-3D's upmixer was louder than everything else and then you proceed to compare DSU, Neural X and discrete channel outputs.





Scott Simonian said:


> These measurements are produced by the 5.1 test tone disk for the Omnimic system, *reproduced through a Yamaha CX-A5100.*





MagnumX said:


> MaxTemp claimed Neural X sounded bass neutered compared to DSU and others, but I refuted that on my Marantz 7012, at least so I wouldn't expect to see any differences between them. I would expect a room difference in bass for Auro-3D's upmixer, however,* but you apparently didn't show that result (may not even be available on your receiver).*





Scott Simonian said:


> These measurements are produced by the 5.1 test tone disk for the Omnimic system, *reproduced through a Yamaha CX-A5100.*






MagnumX said:


> Only Auro's upmixer (not even discrete Auro which is normal) is louder and here at least I only hear louder bass. I'm at work or I'd take a measurement, but it's a blatant/obvious difference you can immediately hear. There is no audible difference between the ones you showed at all here on my Marantz 7012.




Sooo... I was replying to @MaxTemp and he was saying that Neural:X had neutered bass, "easily 7-10dB down." he said.




MaxTemp said:


> From my experience (and what Sanjay has said) when using the Auro upmixer, since its duplicating channels, the volume is higher which also increases bass. Using DSU the volume/bass isnt affected, but the overhead is subtle and all pairs play the same signal no matter how many speakers you have. *Unfortunately using Neural X kills the bass (comparatively), volume is slightly lower, but bass is easily 7-10db down.*





MaxTemp said:


> Im using Denon x8500h, it was the same with Marantz as well. Play a scene/song with bass that you are familiar with. *Go back and forth between Neural and DSU and see if you are able to tell a difference in bass levels. I did a number of tests and it was way lower for me.*





MaxTemp said:


> No doubt about Auro upmixer. Its easy to tell since everything is is clearly louder. *Neural X is for sure lower bass as well in my experience. Ive seen a little discussion by others and some said they dont hear a difference. Maybe its based on certain frequencies. One test is the intro in Marvels Iront Fist show. Just test in episode 1 and soon after the one minute mark theres good bass slam. Its clearly better with DSU. *Tron Legacy was the same. I will ask in the bass threads for other experiences.





MaxTemp said:


> In my setup, volume is higher, not just bass with Auro upmixer.
> 
> 
> 
> *I can see most people not noticing if you dont test it back to back. It was brought up in the BASS EQ thread.* I will bring it up there and get opinions. It could be frequency based which would make even less people notice. I will need to do more testing to confirm because I stopped using it after noticing.
> 
> 
> 
> Lightcycle battle/race scene.


@MagnumX
Do go on about ..... Auro3D?


----------



## Scott Simonian

Polyrythm1k said:


> So does this affectively prove that dtsnx does not neuter bass compared to DSU? I have seen reports(in the bass with graphs thread I think) saying that dtsnx was somehow doing that. Could never make sense of it.


As far a I was able to reproduce on my system, yes. As it should be. Surround upmixers should not be affecting the frequency response or levels of bass. At least, not to the magnitude that @MaxTemp mentioned.

I would guess it is either user error (isolated settings per surround processor) or an actual issue with that particular Denon or many Denon/Marantz products.





sdrucker said:


> Sure looks identical within the limits of accuracy of the Omnimic's calibrated USB mic (+/- 1 db I want to say).


Yes, Stuart. While taking the measurements, I knew I'd have to throw in another picture with them offset because even with .5dB divisions there was 100% overlap.


----------



## niterida

I have been following this thread but not sure if the issue of how much signal is being sent to heights has been covered or not ?
In another thread myself and @craig john measured full range signals being sent to height channels in a number of differing sources (Overlord and Amaze demo)
If this is correct then the generally accepted wisdom of "don't worry about your heights there isn't much sent to them" may need to be rethought ?
Its probably not a big issue since there may not be a lot of movies that do send full range signals to heights and then it may only be for a brief time, and most people just set their crossover to 80hz anyway.
But for those that can and want to, it is nice to know if they do install capable speakers and power amps then it won't all be wasted.
It is also beneficial knowledge for those of us that run all speakers set to large, to allow the subs to play only LFE, that heights will be getting full range signals.


----------



## Scott Simonian

niterida said:


> I have been following this thread but not sure if the issue of how much signal is being sent to heights has been covered or not ?


Many times.



niterida said:


> In another thread myself and @craig john measured full range signals being sent to height channels in a number of differing sources (Overlord and Amaze demo)
> If this is correct then the generally accepted wisdom of "don't worry about your heights there isn't much sent to them" may need to be rethought ?


Most people have to justify why they can't or won't put larger or identical speakers on their ceiling.



niterida said:


> Its probably not a big issue since there may not be a lot of movies that do send full range signals to heights and then it may only be for a brief time, and most people just set their crossover to 80hz anyway.
> But for those that can and want to, it is nice to know if they do install capable speakers and power amps then it won't all be wasted.
> It is also beneficial knowledge for those of us that run all speakers set to large, to allow the subs to play only LFE, that heights will be getting full range signals.


Yes. The ceiling speakers (front, back, height or top) are treated exactly the same as the rest of the speakers that are part of a modern, digital sound delivery format. They are all full range capable and will have the same level of dynamic capabilities as well. It is just up to the sound mixer to utilize these limits.

Whenever possible, use the same speakers that you would for your surrounds or your main LCR's.


----------



## noah katz

niterida said:


> In another thread myself and @craig john measured full range signals being sent to height channels in a number of differing sources (Overlord and Amaze demo)


If that's the case, bass management was either not used, or malfunctioning.

The XO freq selected while setting up bass management will determine how much of the bass range is sent to the heights.


----------



## MaxTemp

Scott Simonian said:


> Here is another measurement for re-directed bass of the left and center channel using 5.1, DSU, and Neural:X.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the left channel and center channel measured.
> 
> No difference in levels or frequency response.
> 
> These measurements are produced by the 5.1 test tone disk for the Omnimic system, reproduced through a Yamaha CX-A5100.
> 
> *Ignore response above 100hz. The graph tends to hop around while grabbing the screenshot.
> 
> Center*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Left*


Thanks Scott for your tests. I will try to do another test with a reset of calibration and see what happens. At least one other person replied in the BEQ thread with lower bass, so it could be a Denon/Marantz issue but MagnumX doesnt have it, so dont know whats going on.


----------



## niterida

noah katz said:


> If that's the case, bass management was either not used, or malfunctioning.
> 
> The XO freq selected while setting up bass management will determine how much of the bass range is sent to the heights.


Thats right - no Bass Management - we were testing to see what actual signal is sent to height channels.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MaxTemp said:


> Thanks Scott for your tests. I will try to do another test with a reset of calibration and see what happens. At least one other person replied in the BEQ thread with lower bass, so it could be a Denon/Marantz issue but MagnumX doesnt have it, so dont know whats going on.


No problem! I was interested to know too! Although I never found it an issue with my system, ever. DSU and Neural:X have their differences but they are spatial and never frequency response related.

I kinda hope it is something that maybe you did (on purpose or inadvertently) because then you can fix the issue. If it is inherent with your model (or all Denon/Marantz), that would really suck and require a fix from them.


----------



## MaxTemp

Scott Simonian said:


> No problem! I was interested to know too! Although I never found it an issue with my system, ever. DSU and Neural:X have their differences but they are spatial and never frequency response related.
> 
> I kinda hope it is something that maybe you did (on purpose or inadvertently) because then you can fix the issue. If it is inherent with your model (or all Denon/Marantz), that would really suck and require a fix from them.


Hey Scott, I did a different style of test as Neural X could be filtering out lower frequencies. I used the Iront Fist series intro as mentioned before as its a quick bass note early on. I downloaded vibrometer on android and put the phone on left arm rest of seat and also tested on the right arm rest. played the intro using DSU and Neural X. In all cases the max number was higher using DSU. 5.5 to 4.5 left side and 4.5 to 3.9 on the right side.
Its not just numbers, but you can actually feel the difference.
See if you are able to run a test like that using any scene with deep bass.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MaxTemp said:


> Hey Scott, I did a different style of test as Neural X could be filtering out lower frequencies. I used the Iront Fist series intro as mentioned before as its a quick bass note early on. I downloaded vibrometer on android and put the phone on left arm rest of seat and also tested on the right arm rest. played the intro using DSU and Neural X. In all cases the max number was higher using DSU. 5.5 to 4.5 left side and 4.5 to 3.9 on the right side.
> Its not just numbers, but you can actually feel the difference.
> See if you are able to run a test like that using any scene with deep bass.


Right. We have already established that there is a difference *on your system*.



MaxTemp said:


> In all cases the max number was higher using DSU. 5.5 to 4.5 left side and 4.5 to 3.9 on the right side.
> Its not just numbers, but you can actually feel the difference.


It is just the numbers. The frequency response and levels are exactly the same. Your test using vibrometer only enforces that there is an issue with your system, which we know already from your impressions.

A test like that would not net any difference on my system because I just measured it for you and posted the frequency response of direct, DSU and Neural:X.









If at all possible, you must take frequency response measurements to prove that there really is an issue on your system.


----------



## MaxTemp

Scott Simonian said:


> Right. We have already established that there is a difference *on your system*.
> 
> 
> 
> It is just the numbers. The frequency response and levels are exactly the same. Your test using vibrometer only enforces that there is an issue with your system, which we know already from your impressions.
> 
> A test like that would not net any difference on my system because I just measured it for you and posted the frequency response of direct, DSU and Neural:X.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If at all possible, you must take frequency response measurements to prove that there really is an issue on your system.


Ive had the same result with Marantz and Denon but never paid attention when I had the Anthem MRX 1120 here. Hopefully other people test it as well and see what they get.


----------



## noah katz

niterida said:


> Thats right - no Bass Management - we were testing to see what actual signal is sent to height channels.


OK



niterida said:


> If this is correct then the generally accepted wisdom of "don't worry about your heights there isn't much sent to them" may need to be rethought ?


The generally accepted wisdom still applies when BM is used.

Now it's clear that you were speaking to the hardcore who want to use full-range speakers wherever possible.


----------



## niterida

noah katz said:


> Now it's clear that you were speaking to the hardcore who want to use full-range speakers wherever possible.


Sort of. 
I was looking into this more with the question of "is it a waste to install really good speakers and extra power amps".
So even though I won't be running full range speakers I will be running more capable speakers and giving them more power 
Although I am also toying with the idea of putting 4 subs in the ceiling and feeding them the Atmos pre-out signal..................


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> Here we go...


There _you_ go alright. Would you like me to start posting some animated GIFs too? I'm sure you'll enjoy them to liven up the thread. 



> Sooo... I was replying to @MaxTemp and he was saying that Neural:X had neutered bass, "easily 7-10dB down." he said.


That's not the *only* thing he said. The very first thing you quoted (all of which were addressed to me, originally, not you), each taken from the very top of each of the three quotes were:



> MaxTemp said:
> From my experience (and what Sanjay has said) when using the *Auro upmixer*, since its duplicating channels, the volume is higher which also increases bass.





> MaxTemp said:
> No doubt about *Auro upmixer*. Its easy to tell since everything is is clearly louder. Neural X is for sure lower bass as well in my experience.





> MaxTemp said:
> In my setup, volume is higher, not just bass with *Auro upmixer*.


Perhaps if you had no interest in the Auro upmixer comments, you could have left them out entirely because the very first thing I read in _each_ of the quotes from MaxTemp is about the Auro upmixer followed by your graphs of everything _but_ the Auro upmixer. I guess it's my fault I didn't expand all the quotes by MaxTemp rather than read the beginning of each separately posted quote that talks about Auro-3D, not Neural X, but your own text makes no mention of the exact parts you're referring to and the new board software only quotes the starting part of each quoted post, which oddly talks about Auro-3D upmixers. In fact, the first time I read it on my phone, I missed the quoted bits about Neural X _entirely_ because of that. I then went back and edited to take it into account, but I didn't see a single person on here other than MaxTemp claim Neural X has lower bass levels. Not one. I didn't even know it was in general question. I mean he actually said 10dB lower which is massive and well within the range one could just listen and not have to wonder what the meter says.



> Do go on about ..... Auro3D?


I just think it's a bit odd that you seem totally surprised when you quoted about the Auro-3D upmixer *three times* and then appear to have _no idea_ why I mentioned that it's odd that there's no tests regarding it and its bass and/or overall levels whatsoever. There are _three_ upmixers out there, after all, not just two and the one that screws with the levels is Auro-3D, not Neural X.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure my utter confusion on my phone's browser as to the point of your tests in regards to what you quoted is totally and unequivocally solely _my_ fault for not realizing you just block quoted and had _no _actual interest in some of the very first things you were quoting. Your tests do at least confirm my ears aren't just imagining that Neural X doesn't _lower_ the bass. As I said somewhere up above to MaxTemp, all tests indicate the same average levels here for all modes except the Auro-3D upmixer (although _stereo_ levels can be independently set of surround levels on the 7012 and higher models as well as newer models in the same series).


----------



## Scott Simonian

@MagnumX 

*I DO NOT HAVE AURO 3D SO I CAN NOT TEST IT*

I have a Yamaha. No Auro.

Yeesh. No good deed goes unpunished around here.


----------



## am2model3

great experiement! Yes, i was going to say; at least on my denon; the speaker sound settings DB adjustments are specific for the input. so Cable is one, Bluray another, DVD another, so on. They can all have individual sound DB adjustment settings.


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> *I DO NOT HAVE AURO 3D SO I CAN NOT TEST IT*
> 
> I have a Yamaha. No Auro.
> 
> Yeesh. No good deed goes unpunished around here.


Yeesh is right. Calm down dude. I was simply explaining my post as you seemed upset about it when it was more of a question as I was genuinely puzzled at the time.

I can and just did test it and all the other modes on my system while I was at it using a calibrated UMIK + REW on my Macbook Pro with a ProSonus output box for reliable output. The Marantz 7012 has separate settings for stereo so it does look like something is slightly amiss in terms of its response relative to the surround modes in the subwoofer region only (it's set a bit higher for bass than flat anyway as I can't stand flat and have an even higher curve available at the push of a button; I probably have a setting off somewhere in the separate stereo controls, possibly using more bass out of the mains or something that's interacting with the sub. Seeing how it wipes out a room mode around 50Hz, I don't really want to change it. I may in fact look for the same setting for surround next. EDIT: Yes, it was set to "Large" for the front speakers in 2-channel stereo mode for some reason. I must hav been playing with it at some point and forgot to turn it back; I guess it created a helpful interaction in that region). 

In any case, once out of the bass spectrum (shifted upward), the room response is mostly +/- 3dB (bass extending upward up to another 3dB in the sub region and being +/- 5dB overall at this setting even with the bass raised, but with Auro-3D at Strength +16, it's up to 11dB louder at one point on the graph, which to most people sounds just over twice as loud). High frequency response is rolled off ("Reference" setting used plus I think Cinema EQ might have been on as well) so it's rolled off over 10kHz in all of them.

The REW graph is posted below. There is a point in the subwoofer curve in Stereo there where it's +4dB above Neural X, which is the lowest of the surround outputs in the subwoofer region, but only a mere 1dB less than the highest of the surround modes (not counting Auro-3D above +4 setting), which was DSU. In other words, DSU here was about 1dB louder than Neural X, but it wasn't just in the bass region. It was consistently 1dB louder across the entire spectrum for some reason. 1dB is barely noticeable, however. Once above the subwoofer spectrum, they were all in tight relationship with each other, with not much more than a 1dB variance between them (save Auro-3D modes).

*AURO-3D Measurements*

In regards to the surround modes, it's clear there are some relatively _huge_ differences (as I expected by ear) in both the bass level and overall level as the "Strength" setting is turned up in Auro-3D, becoming massive (an average of around 10dB louder in the subwoofer region at Strength 16 and ~6dB louder overall in the rest of the spectrum. Even at a mere +10dB Strength setting (+1 is OFF for reference), it's still +4dB. Down around the +4 Strength setting, it appears in the middle of the surround modes. So if one wants Auro-3D upmixing to be at similar volume levels to the other surround modes, somewhere in the +2 to +6 setting is probably about as far as one can go without starting to notice the bass becoming considerably louder. At higher levels, the overall room volume _also_ becomes noticeably louder (corresponding with observations MaxTemp made).


----------



## MaxTemp

Thanks for your tests as well MagnumX. I tried auro2d and its also quite a bit louder. But I was expecting that to be the case since its duplicating channels.
I still need to test with REW and see whats going on with Neural X as when I tested with Vibrometer app, Neural X clearly has less bass, especially in the lower region where its shaking the couch. It wasnt just the numbers, you can feel it.


----------



## MagnumX

I just received *Lichtmond 4 - The Journey* (2016) in 3D video + Dolby Atmos sound (also includes 2D video). It's a music album with 3D visuals from Germany (there are German and English language soundtracks on it, but Atmos is in English only). The disc does mislabel the English soundtracks with German tags, though (I corrected it on my Zidoo MKV hard drive dumps). 



















I have to say it's probably THE most impressive _Dolby Atmos_ music album I've heard thus far. If you want a demo that uses pretty much every free inch of space in your listening room, this is it. Voices not only move around the ceiling, but in circles around the room like the Dolby Atmos helicopter, but at different height levels and then other spaces near and far and in-between. I mean voices aren't just at the front stage, but floating in front of you, behind you, in the back of the room, the ceiling corners and all around you at every possible level. Even if you don't care for the music (which is in my opinion a cross of Engima (story telling aspects), Delirium (similar style and some of the female vocals) and Pink Floyd (guitar style and synthesizer bits)), it's an amazing demo for Atmos surround speaker use as it uses pretty much every square inch of the room. In fact, it's the most distinct heavy "rear" speaker use I think I've ever heard in Atmos. In my room, using height speakers with top middle and 11 ear level speakers, the sounds moved 12x24' in every direction, wall to wall, ceiling edge to ceiling edge. It makes nearly ALL the movies I've watched so far seem _sad_ by comparison. MIND BLOWING is not a strong enough superlative for the sheer use of sound objects. I felt like I was sitting in the middle of an audio hologram. 

The 3D visuals (if you have a 3D screen of some type that's large enough to appreciate it) is also mind blowing! It has the deepest 3D effect I've seen of any program BAR NONE. The galaxies in the space scene looked like they were projected 100+ feet into the distance and yet things came out of the screen right up to my glasses. The sheer range of the 3D effects (all at once) was staggering. You had to choose what to focus on a good part of the time because the picture was so huge between inches in front of your face at some points to looking like the screen was across the street somewhere.

I can honestly think the only reasons this album hasn't rated higher is that viewing some clip on a computer does it justice the same way a live concert would sound if played on a 1940s AM radio and without the 3D visuals, some of the incredible immersive effect is lost. I felt like I was a kid at Epcot Center in Disney World in 1984 watching _Magic Journeys_ for the first time! It was amazing. 

I've got Lichtmond 3 in Auro-3D and I thought it was an impressive visual experience, but the 3D graphics and visual effects have been upgraded significantly, IMO since then and Dolby Atmos definitely outdoes the Auro-3D soundtrack, partly because of how it's used and partly because having full rear surround speaker support extends the rear sound stage to the full length of the room behind me (some 14 feet behind the MLP top and bottom as front/rear heights plus top middle is ceiling edge to ceiling edge just like the ear level speakers are wall to wall).


----------



## pasender91

Wow Magnum, your last post on lichtmond kind of "dried" the thread 😜
So this uselesss post to revive it ...

Ok let's not make this useless then.
It's only for the ultra high end users, but Trinnov just released a "killer" feature for their processors, with Dolby approval.
While decoding an Atmos source, it can now display a 3D view of live speaker levels AND WITH THE ATMOS OBJECTS DISPLAYED IN THEIR 3D POSITIONS.
This is great, it allows to see and check where the objects are in real-time 😎
More details and demo of this feature here : Dolby Atmos™ Object Viewer to Altitude Processors - Trinnov Audio

For those that don't know that product, it was already something exceptional, with features like a superb 3D microphone, 16 to 32 channels, 3D remapping, flexible bass management. The only drawback is the cost, around 15 K$ as entrry point 😱


----------



## Mashie Saldana

pasender91 said:


> While decoding an Atmos source, it can now display a 3D view of live speaker levels AND WITH THE ATMOS OBJECTS DISPLAYED IN THEIR 3D POSITIONS.
> This is great, it allows to see and check where the objects are in real-time 😎


And now it will be even easier to find all the printed Atmos tracks to name and shame.

It almost makes you wonder if that was the main reason for this feature to even be implemented so Trinnov easily could prove the media is rubbish when most of their users 34 speakers remain silent.


----------



## bartonnen

pasender91 said:


> While decoding an Atmos source, it can now display a 3D view of live speaker levels AND WITH THE ATMOS OBJECTS DISPLAYED IN THEIR 3D POSITIONS.


SpareChange does a demo of this new feature with clips from a few movies (like Midway, Godzilla King of the Monsters and the poorly performing Mulan) - here: Dolby Atmos Object Viewer | Trinnov Audio


----------



## howard68

Has anyone made a list of films that supports FW and or TM 
Speakers?


----------



## sdrucker

pasender91 said:


> Wow Magnum, your last post on lichtmond kind of "dried" the thread 😜
> So this uselesss post to revive it ...
> 
> Ok let's not make this useless then.
> It's only for the ultra high end users, but Trinnov just released a "killer" feature for their processors, with Dolby approval.
> While decoding an Atmos source, it can now display a 3D view of live speaker levels AND WITH THE ATMOS OBJECTS DISPLAYED IN THEIR 3D POSITIONS.
> This is great, it allows to see and check where the objects are in real-time 😎
> More details and demo of this feature here : Dolby Atmos™ Object Viewer to Altitude Processors - Trinnov Audio
> 
> For those that don't know that product, it was already something exceptional, with features like a superb 3D microphone, 16 to 32 channels, 3D remapping, flexible bass management. The only drawback is the cost, around 15 K$ as entrry point 😱


I put the 4.2.16 software up yesterday. I commented a bit more on the Altitude thread, but relating to just the Object Viewer, I'm excerpting below. The "yellow balls" refer to so-called dynamic objects. Speakers lighting up are in green. 

Glad to see this made its way into a more general audience - I saw a prototype last year and I thought it was going to be addictive for end user types like us as well as dealers picking demos.

I think you have to use this with some thought, not just watch yellow balls move or not. Meaning that if your goal is to rule an Atmos mix a success because there's balls moving more or less frequently, you'll find some. Case in point: Midway, Gravity, Godzilla King of the Monsters, and some of the electronica. I like the Yello mix on Tidal of their new album, Point, particularly "The Vanishing of Peter Strong". And there's going to be plenty of "failures" that are just fixed 7.1.2.

On the other hand, since I believe objects can have different sizes in space in the consumer Atmos protocol, not all objects (fixed or dynamic) are created equal. Meaning you might also want to watch which speakers are lighting up when the objects are located somewhere in the viewer. I'm thinking of something like a 9.1.6 mix where the wides are always on, but it's not clear (at least at first glance) that the wides are playing their own dynamic object or simply playing an object that's sized so that it may be playing the same content as, say, a side surround.

Or you could have an object sized or located so that it's playing from both the left speaker and a front height? Along with whatever "bed" content that left speaker might have, or fixed overhead object for the height, that is. Good thing we can't just play back individual objects per se, are you'll REALLY get some obsessive behavior  .

One thing I thought was a cool key learning was during Midway, where the Input Meters showed what looked like a 7.1.4 use of the channels (front and rear heights). But when a plane flew overhead, you got several dynamic objects moving from the rear of the room to the front or splayed toward the sides. I saw the same thing on Prince's "When Doves Cry" on TIdal.

It might also take some finesse with the dimensions of the room to see everything, depending on your layout. And depending on your tastes, this could even be a factor to decide which speaker configuration to use.

I only got to spend about 15 or 20 minutes with the Viewer after the update. Hoping to do more today, and maybe check out Carnival Row or some really crazy mixes like "The House with a Clock on Its Walls" or "Overlord", as well as a few Disney clips to confirm that we're getting 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 not just on the meters, but with only fixed objects in place.

I thought the fixed objects and fixed channel playback was the same thing, but after watching Midway or listening to the Prince clip, now I'm not so sure.


----------



## MagnumX

bartonnen said:


> SpareChange does a demo of this new feature with clips from a few movies (like Midway, Godzilla King of the Monsters and the poorly performing Mulan) - here: Dolby Atmos Object Viewer | Trinnov Audio


What I find slightly annoying about that demo is that it's only 7.1.4 so any indication of how well top middle speakers might be used is lost. You can, however see how much "heights" speakers would likely be used if they were present and probably just get rendered to the "tops" locations despite the objects being at the far edges of the room. I can limit my own system to 5.1.4 using a switch-box plus assignment changes and sounds do not make it into the back of my room using mere de-correlation, but with actual heights and top middle they play ceiling edge to ceiling edge. I imagine that adding "heights" to a Trinnov powered setup could clearly use both and pan perfectly between them in those cases as well. 

It'd be interesting to hear from any Trinnov owners that have both heights and tops as to how well that works correlated to a moving object, say perhaps in a demo where it could be isolated for direct correlation as clearly here there's too much going on in terms of using single colors for objects and speaker output. If they had use a different color for each object and an outline in that color of the speaker for any levels it's producing that change in brightness, it would be MUCH EASIER to tell what object is having what effect on which speakers. The bar graph view does show the levels, but it doesn't appear you can view them at the same time and there's still no object correlation data. The objects also seem to be more or less the same size, which unlike Dolby diagrams that demonstrate how it theoretically works, do not show how much influence a given object is having on the speakers. With a bunch of things active, it just becomes a jumbled mess (not unlike playback "spectrum analyzers" that look pretty to watch for music, but tell very little outside of a single instrument playing. Perhaps if he had demonstrated a well known Dolby Demo file where the separation is obvious (without all kinds of explosions, etc. going on at once), the demo would be a little more effective for showing some correlation. For a viewer at home, the display seems a bit spurious in its usefulness at a first glance and the analyzer view only shows overall levels in the channels. 

It's interesting that Mulan had little overhead use EXCEPT when they fired arrows or something like that. The reviewer acts like that's 'bad' becuase Mulan cost $200 MILLION to make and it's almost like he thinks you should get more overhead use as a result. But they are in an open field with nothing but sky overhead. Until something like an arrow is fired, what's supposed to be coming from the tops direct overhead speakers? Music? Maybe. But that's just using them to use them. Personally, I kind of preferred music in the bed channels or at least all around. I think having music only in the overheads as many movies and Neural X tends to do is a bit odd sounding somehow.

Based on some comments, I also get the feeling that some people are still a little confused as to what Atmos is _supposed_ to do. I see the mention of "7.1.2" soundtracks again and again as if that were a common thing rather than a common perception. I admit I've heard far more height information in many soundtracks seem to come from the front heights (more than top middle alone), but then it seems like many soundtracks don't use the surround speakers except during action sequences so perhaps that's just another result of the mixing guy trying to keep focus at or near the screen instead of paying attention to things flying around your head? If they are really 7.1.2, it seems like they would only use "top middle" and I rarely hear sounds only coming from there save perhaps from some of the Disney Atmos tracks I've watched on Disney+, but then Disney is the "problem child" of Atmos in almost all cases anyway. Back to the _Mulan_ example, until there's something in the scene happening overhead (or if you're in a building where you would expect reverb echoes), why would the overheads be active in an open space outdoors with nothing happening overhead?

In other words, at what point in did any company _other_ than Disney do locked print-out soundtracks? I've seen Saving Private Ryan mentioned as a 7.1.2 soundtrack, but how many others are there out there not from Disney? I thought it was mentioned before on here that Disney had to go out of their way to create a way to bypass Atmos' most basic core function, which is to automatically use any speakers within the path/range of the objects used in the soundtrack. In other words, if you're not hearing much coming out of your "top middle" speakers, does that mean Top Middle is "turned off" or does that mean they aren't moving objects within range of the top middle speaker? Do you hear sounds coming from directly overhead with or without the top middle speakers? If the answer is "no" then it doesn't mean it's a 7.1.4 limited soundtrack. It can simply mean they didn't pan objects across the ceiling. In reality, it would stand to reason that all the speakers would likely play reverberant sound in a room (something Auro-3D's upmixer attempts to do for say stereo sound in a deadened home theater room) so you would think many objects, even if placed at a single location with not a terribly large size would at least have an echo out of the other speakers, even if at greatly reduced level. I get the feeling Atmos doesn't work that way, but is more likely controlled sheerly by object size and position. But without any way to test it, I'm just guessing, really.

Star Wars is a good example on Disney+ (I haven't read how the UHD discs correlate, if at all, but one would assume they're the same soundtrack normally). It has been said approximately along the lines of it being 'mostly 7.1.2 with a few brief panning moments thrown in' or something along those lines (e.g. the elevator in Revenge of the Sith did seem to be coming from overhead where I might have thought it would come more from above the screen, but other than Disney it seems like it more often is coming from above the screen than the middle of the room unless something correlated on screen should be out where the audience is but not seen on-screen (e.g. the large clock in Harry Potter in DTS:X bongs directly overhead, but then it's implied it _is_ directly overhead in the footage). I've listened to Star Wars on Disney+ in Atmos. When the Star Destroyer pans across the ceiling, the sound pans with it. Is that a few seconds? Yes. Does that correlate precisely with what's seen on the screen? Again, YES. How is Disney using Atmos incorrectly, then? That's clearly not a "7.1.2 print-through" soundtrack or there wouldn't be ANYTHING moving across the ceiling. So now Disney is combining print-through with a few objects smattered here and there? How does that make sense? Why would they bother/do that? 

I've only ever seen one person on here claim to know the reason Disney does/did print-through soundtracks in the first place and he's playing Mr. Mysterio and refuses to tell anyone as if it's the secret cure to cancer or something. As customers, I think we have a right to know WTF Disney is utterly misusing Dolby's soundtrack technology and are they STILL doing it and if only partially doing it, for god's sake WHY!!?!?! Perhaps someone with a Trinnov (@sdrucker - I'm thinking based on previous posts you might be interested) could take a look at those Star Wars scenes and see if you can tell exactly what Disney is doing. Are they really using fixed objects or does it only seem that way due to object placement? Are those "2 second" panning sounds using objects or are they just somehow using more speakers do to improvements in whatever methods they're using? Piecing together what they do might be the only answer we ever get to why they do it.



sdrucker said:


> Meaning that if your goal is to rule an Atmos mix a success because there's balls moving more or less frequently, you'll find some. Case in point: Midway, Gravity, Godzilla King of the Monsters, and some of the electronica. I like the Yello mix on Tidal of their new album, Point, particularly "The Vanishing of Peter Strong". And there's going to be plenty of "failures" that are just fixed 7.1.2.


So have you seen soundtracks other than those by Disney that are using only 7 bed level speakers and the top middle overhead location (or a combination of two heights/tops)? Do you think they're using special software to limit it like Disney supposedly did or do you think it's lazy Atmos mixing where they only create objects at channels and play whatever sounds they want through them, thus limiting sounds to mostly those speaker locations (i.e. Dolby's "Snap To Speaker" option where sounds are only played at specific speaker locations with no panning) or fixed locations (object that doesn't move). I think most of us were under the impression that other than perhaps Saving Private Ryan, it was mostly Disney that was somehow bypassing the automatic Atmos rules that use all available speakers at all times governed only by the object size and location. 

What I _have_ heard, however are a _lot_ of Atmos soundtracks that don't do much of _anything_ most of the time. In other words, they are mostly front channel only soundtracks that occasionally pan into the surround and/or height channels during a major action sequence, but have little to no surround (e.g. Ambient effects like in _Annihilation_ where the forest is strangely silent except in the front channels in most scenes until something important starts to happen at which point weird synth sounds fly all around the room, but WTF aren't birds singing in the middle of a forest from all directions instead of just the front most of the time?)



> On the other hand, since I believe objects can have different sizes in space in the consumer Atmos protocol, not all objects (fixed or dynamic) are created equal. Meaning you might also want to watch which speakers are lighting up when the objects are located somewhere in the viewer. I'm thinking of something like a 9.1.6 mix where the wides are always on, but it's not clear (at least at first glance) that the wides are playing their own dynamic object or simply playing an object that's sized so that it may be playing the same content as, say, a side surround.


From a speaker use type view, it doesn't really matter whether the speakers are correlated or not. Phantom imaging is always an "array" of more than one sound so unless "snap to speaker" is enabled, the sounds will always play out of more than one speaker if they are not centered on one with a certain size. To be a larger object, they have to play somewhat out of nearby speakers to increase the size of the object. Any panning and they will play out of 2 or more speaker as the object moves around the room. That is not a sign that Atmos isn't being used correctly, just the opposite in fact. 

The problem I see with that display is that the speakers and objects are single colors and sizes and thus you cannot deduce a whole lot about which object is doing what. A color coding system and at least limited object size changes would be helpful, IMO. What would really be awesome is if you could actually "mute" all objects but one to hear what that object is doing in the room. That would be awesome and it's a standard tool in something like Apple's Logic Pro (the only thing I've personally used that's comparable in mixing terms as I made my own music albums with it). Being able to isolate sounds is very important and I'm certain Dolby's actual mixing software has that as a primary feature. This display reminds me more of the "jumping bar" type spectrum analyzer displays that look cool to watch on stereos, but tell far less than they would appear to when more than one instrument is playing at once.



> Or you could have an object sized or located so that it's playing from both the left speaker and a front height? Along with whatever "bed" content that left speaker might have, or fixed overhead object for the height, that is. Good thing we can't just play back individual objects per se, are you'll REALLY get some obsessive behavior  .


Perhaps you would for a time, but for reviewers it would really help to analyze the soundtracks. I'm sure the mixing guys would hate that as they probalby already dislike most reviewers commenting on their work, but there are certainly times when it can be confusing as to what you're actually hearing (e.g. the planes in _Saving Private Ryan_ pan in the bed channels, but only get louder/softer in the overhead channels, one of those "7.1.2" examples), but to the human ear this can be confusing depending on how well the speakers in the room integrate as the "line" where one set of speakers ends/begins can and probably should be blurred a bit or you'd have two distinct and totally separate layers of sound, which is not immersion or a bubble, but an inverse disc where there's a hole in the middle of two planes of sound.



> One thing I thought was a cool key learning was during Midway, where the Input Meters showed what looked like a 7.1.4 use of the channels (front and rear heights). But when a plane flew overhead, you got several dynamic objects moving from the rear of the room to the front or splayed toward the sides. I saw the same thing on Prince's "When Doves Cry" on TIdal.


In the demo, he only has a 7.1.4 setup (with "Tops" not "Heights", so any indication of whether speakers in-between get any use is lost in terms of the speaker response, but one would assume outside of print-through soundtracks, that any speakers added into the path of the objects (like top middle) would/should light up. You could certainly test this on your own system, which I believe has 6 overheads using PSB CS1000 speakers, correct?



> I thought the fixed objects and fixed channel playback was the same thing, but after watching Midway or listening to the Prince clip, now I'm not so sure.


A fixed object could still be large enough in size to use multiple speakers, even if positioned directly at a single speaker. It's a shame the display doesn't give any real indication of object "size".


----------



## am2model3

the trinnov feature to show visually what DolbyAtmos objects are doing is so cool! It will expose the movie studios who are not properly mixing with Atmos and that way us consumers can officially see if they are mixing Atmos weak, medium, or great.


----------



## MagnumX

If anyone wants a fairly cheap device to fool various streaming devices into thinking you have 4K so it will give you Atmos (e.g. Vudu, Prime), someone on another forum pointed me to this device (Amazon.com: HDMI Splitter 1x2 4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDR Vision Atmos 18Gbps- HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,Firmware Upgrade HDMI2.0 Splitter 1 in 2 out HDCP2.2, EDID Scaler Panel Switch,USB Power,Windows IOS,Mini Case SP12H2: Industrial & Scientific) and I received mine today and connected it (set to EID 4K and Scaler to 2K) and it works perfect! (i.e. beats having to buy an HDFury just for the EID and scaler functions). I just leave the devices in 4K with SDR and it all looks the same or better (4K streams seem a bit better in terms of artifacts, but I haven't seen that much yet) and suddenly Vudu and Prime now give me Atmos where they wouldn't before, even on the Apple TV 4K (which does do Atmos for iTunes and Disney+ and used to do Netflix as well, but it's giving me stereo for some odd reason despite advertising Atmos (it worked before in 2K with Atmos), but it might be something on their end (I haven't watched Netflix for awhile). There's also a software upgrade I'm doing now that might affect something. But I'm thinking maybe this will let me hold off on a new projector so I can get more use out of this one, maybe even until 8K projectors are more common (I don't want to upgrade just to find 4K is obsolete in a couple of years).


----------



## avsngaiouser

bartonnen said:


> SpareChange does a demo of this new feature with clips from a few movies (like Midway, Godzilla King of the Monsters and the poorly performing Mulan) - here: Dolby Atmos Object Viewer | Trinnov Audio


The most interesting thing about the Mulan example is that the objects weren't moving - there were shots of horses racing along at high speed and the objects were static, not growing or shrinking. Compare that with the others and the difference is stark.


----------



## MagnumX

avsngaiouser said:


> The most interesting thing about the Mulan example is that the objects weren't moving - there were shots of horses racing along at high speed and the objects were static, not growing or shrinking. Compare that with the others and the difference is stark.


The display doesn't really show the objects "grow" or "shrink" (one of my complaints is that they don't change in size). But were the horses moving relative to the camera? I saw moving objects when the arrows fired and shortly thereafter as it showed the horses angling away, but most of the other shots seemed mostly static (i.e. the horses were moving but way out the distance nowhere near the camera in one shot and off to the side in another shot as they show a close-up of the opposing side, etc.). Clearly, they have something in mind with 17 objects in the mix. There is more than one way to skin a cat, after all. But even so, all the scenes of horses shown were relatively static relative to the camera. What movement would you need other than the various parts of the hoof beats on the ground if the horses aren't moving across the screen or front to back past the camera? 

Maybe the soundtrack does suck (many Disney ones do, a few are fairly decent like Infinity War), but seeing I don't own this movie, I can't say. I just know not having overhead sounds in a scene with open sky and no birds or other things above (until the arrows fly) isn't proof on its own that there's something wrong with the overhead usage. Being lit "green" could mean some generic wind noise or even ultrasonic noise, technically speaking (like KODI generates to keep the AVR alive/awake). It doesn't tell you _what_ is playing in the speaker, only that there's a signal present. That's why it would be nice to have a way to isolate an object so it's the only thing playing to hear exactly what it's playing. That's probably asking a bit much for a playback device, however.


----------



## avsngaiouser

MagnumX said:


> The display doesn't really show the objects "grow" or "shrink" (one of my complaints is that they don't change in size). But were the horses moving relative to the camera? I saw moving objects when the arrows fired and shortly thereafter as it showed the horses angling away, but most of the other shots seemed mostly static (i.e. the horses were moving but way out the distance nowhere near the camera in one shot and off to the side in another shot as they show a close-up of the opposing side, etc.). Clearly, they have something in mind with 17 objects in the mix. There is more than one way to skin a cat, after all. But even so, all the scenes of horses shown were relatively static relative to the camera. What movement would you need other than the various parts of the hoof beats on the ground if the horses aren't moving across the screen or front to back past the camera?
> 
> Maybe the soundtrack does suck (many Disney ones do, a few are fairly decent like Infinity War), but seeing I don't own this movie, I can't say. I just know not having overhead sounds in a scene with open sky and no birds or other things above (until the arrows fly) isn't proof on its own that there's something wrong with the overhead usage. Being lit "green" could mean some generic wind noise or even ultrasonic noise, technically speaking (like KODI generates to keep the AVR alive/awake). It doesn't tell you _what_ is playing in the speaker, only that there's a signal present. That's why it would be nice to have a way to isolate an object so it's the only thing playing to hear exactly what it's playing. That's probably asking a bit much for a playback device, however.


Fair enough - going back and looking at it again in the more dynamic examples, the objects don't change in size in the graphics so much as they grow and shrink as they move front to back because of the perspective view. 

If we can get past "Atmos is about driving the heights and wides" what's obvious with Mulan is that as the shots change from side on, to from behind to in front, almost nothing changes in the object placement, most of the objects in the other movies are more dynamic. Why might that be?

If we observe that other than the arrows, the objects mostly seem to stay down around the bed layer and anchor to a particular point in space - behind the rears, below the side surrounds, in the front corners and centre (so LCR anchor??) or floating in the center at the back, perhaps that's a clue. As Magnumx said, we don't know what each object is. Maybe that's just how Disney have chosen to mix their music and ambient background. So instead of mixing them in the "bed" which tops out at 7.1, create them as objects and if there's many speakers in the customer's system then the decoder can distribute the information across the appropriate channels. Almost doing a matrix function on steroids. A different philosophy in how to exploit Atmos capabilities, but still using them nonetheless. As most of us don't have > 7 speakers in the bed layer, we're not in a position to comment on this. It's just conjecture unless we actually hear from the people who do the work or those who do have the high speaker counts. 

It's a possible reason people don't perceive much activity from Disney Atmos mixes if they all take the same approach (and I know we can't say that they all do based on just this one example). If the objects don't move, the image doesn't pan and people don't "hear" what they expect. So Disney "seems" to be utilising Atmos differently to other studios from our sample size of one. I note a couple of the others also had some objects that seemed to anchor in one place, but not as many (11 objects total in Midway vs 17 in Mulan as observed by SpareChange at particular points). But the key is that when they choose to use the objects dynamically for the arrows, they do in fact move through the 3D space and so should be decoded and distributed through all available speakers that are relevant. 

Now the Mulan mix seemed to be less than satisfying from what SpareChange said, so the approach isn't providing what we _want_ from Atmos, but it certainly does use the object capability.

I'd love to see how it looks on a 7.x.6 Trinnov when one of the "7.1.4" mixes such as the Marvel movies is played. 

As an aside, I just checked the covers on some of the newer Disney releases (Star Wars movies on 4k) and they now just say Atmos 7.1, so maybe they've responded to the criticism by changing the marketing. I looked at a few other movies that aren't from Disney, and they generally just say Atmos.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MaxTemp said:


> Neural X clearly has less bass, especially in the lower region where its shaking the couch. It wasnt just the numbers, you can feel it.


Right. If there is a huge change in level and/or frequency response, it will change how you feel it.


----------



## anothermib

pasender91 said:


> Trinnov just released a "killer" feature for their processors, with Dolby approval.
> While decoding an Atmos source, it can now display a 3D view of live speaker levels AND WITH THE ATMOS OBJECTS DISPLAYED IN THEIR 3D POSITIONS.
> ...
> For those that don't know that product, it was already something exceptional, with features like a superb 3D microphone, 16 to 32 channels, 3D remapping, flexible bass management. The only drawback is the cost, around 15 K$ as entrry point


I always find it a bit surprising how few of such software based features make it to the mass market processors. Admittedly it requires some development, but I don’t think it is super secret rocket science either. The added cost per box sold should be well below the noise level for those devices. 
It almost feels like the major AVR manufactures are mostly focusing on licensing features and are not heavily investing in software development at all. Perhaps that ist what is causing some of the 20th century flavor of some of the user interfaces.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

anothermib said:


> I always find it a bit surprising how few of such software based features make it to the mass market processors. Admittedly it requires some development, but I don’t think it is super secret rocket science either. The added cost per box sold should be well below the noise level for those devices.
> It almost feels like the major AVR manufactures are mostly focusing on licensing features and are not heavily investing in software development at all. Perhaps that ist what is causing some of the 20th century flavor of some of the user interfaces.


Not really, the Trinnov is a shiny Linux PC with an Intel CPU while mass market processors have the most basic DSP's they can get away with. The difference from a development point of view is enormous and depending on how the DSP code provided by Dolby is implemented there may not even be any object location data to even display if they tried.


----------



## GLBright

MagnumX said:


> If anyone wants a fairly cheap device to fool various streaming devices into thinking you have 4K so it will give you Atmos (e.g. Vudu, Prime), someone on another forum pointed me to this device...


Odd. That "someone on another forum" seems to have the same avatar (Number Six and Rover) as I do. Just wondering if he and I are one and the same.


----------



## am2model3

part of the Atmos movie mix issue is: the sound engineer mixing; are they properly moving the sounds as they should be? I heard somewhere that the lazy Atmos mixes are the ones where the engineer is like asleep at the dials; or worse yet, some engineers might be treating the height channels as extra channels only; and that could be static sounds that are not moving as seen on the trinnov feature. Someone said that the movie sound mixers can't treat Atmos like 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 means you have 2 or 4 more single channels; the sound has to be mixed properly with the Atmos software so that sound is 3D and atmospherical; not channel based with 2 or 4 height channels over your head. If that makes sense.


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


> part of the Atmos movie mix issue is: the sound engineer mixing; are they properly moving the sounds as they should be? I heard somewhere that the lazy Atmos mixes are the ones where the engineer is like asleep at the dials; or worse yet, some engineers might be treating the height channels as extra channels only; and that could be static sounds that are not moving as seen on the trinnov feature. Someone said that the movie sound mixers can't treat Atmos like 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 means you have 2 or 4 more single channels; the sound has to be mixed properly with the Atmos software so that sound is 3D and atmospherical; not channel based with 2 or 4 height channels over your head. If that makes sense.


I know little about the Atmos software, but I do know a really good old fashioned 5.1 or 7.1 mix "upmixes" very well with Neural X and can sound better than many actual "Atmos" recordings. It seems like regardless of the tools used, a competently made mix will always sound good and an incompetent mix will sound like crud regardless. What bothers me is that it seems like after 25+ years of 5.1 mixing, the 5.1 and 7.1 mixes were starting to get _very_ good (listen to Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, one of the best 7.1 only mixes I've ever heard) and then suddenly Atmos comes out and maybe 40-60% of the mixes (give or take) are back to 1980s "surround is off most of the time" type mixes. I'd rather have a great 5.1 mix and upmix with Neural X than get a lousy Atmos mix that isn't the slightest bit "atmospherical" at all.

Why is it the guy who remixed _Groundhog Day_ in Atmos made me feel like I was right there following Phil around (even if overheads weren't heavy, the soundtrack was a _massive_ improvement over the 2-channel and 5.1 mixes) while _Knives Out_ only seemed to stand out here and there, missing huge opportunities in a creaky old house to put sounds all around while they were moving around the house? It was like the surrounds were silent most of the movie. A heavy object hitting the floor/ceiling landed a nice solid image overhead on my own ceiling, but that was like the only sonic event I remember from the movie, Atmos or otherwise.

I'm getting tired of feeling disappointed by Atmos mixes, particularly the lack of rear channel use at any noticeable levels. I know it can work great back there because the Dolby demos do well and _Lichtmond 4 - The Journey_ was AMAZING back there (and everywhere, stunning really). I get the feeling most of the mixing guys don't really know what to do with rear surrounds for some reason or fade them out to the point where you can only hear them if you're sitting in the back (i.e. I've noticed if I sit in the middle of the room (15 feet) or the back (20 feet) I can hear things back there that are probably too quiet to hear well from 8 feet into the room or they duplicate similar sounds in that area and sound like an array of one object somewhere in-between. I've watched at least a few movies where there's a few loud things in the back and you really notice it as standing out. I'd rather hear things a bit more often. Things don't disappear in the real world as they pass by your side. In many home theaters, surround rears are often not far behind the side surrounds (mine are 10.5 feet behind the side surrounds with surround#1 in-between). But when spaced out, they can be _very_ impressive sounding (as well as the rear heights right above them).

I watched part of _Star Wars - The Rise of Skywalker _(testing my new cheat box that makes Vudu & others think I have a 4K projector so I get the Atmos option) and it felt 90+% up front the first 10 minutes of the movie despite all kinds of lightsaber fights and hyperdrive events going on. I only noticed a few weak side surround items, let alone rear or overhead events. I do recall the last time I watched the full movie in 3D there were a few big moments (like Rey hearing the voices of all those Jedi in her head near the end being all over the room including the ceiling), but Atmos shouldn't just be about special events, IMO.

OTOH, instead of searching for Atmos movies, going back and watching movies I just want to see (many for the first time), I've been very pleasantly surprised and how "Atmos-like" many 5.1 movies sound with Neural X. Thunderstorms, planes and helicopters are almost always overhead in these movies, but I remember seeing an episode of the new Magnum P.I. show (that is not usually very strong surround in 5.1 even) and Magnum hits a golf ball on top of the house and there it is 25% of the way into my room on the ceiling with Higgins looking up at the ceiling when another one hits. These are pleasant discovery moments instead of disappointment that a brand new purchase in Atmos wasn't very exciting.

For example, the new _Top Gun_ 4K release in Atmos sounds almost identical to the 6.1 DTS-ES version I have upmixed with Neural X. It does better than DSU with the 6.1 mix, of course, but nothing stood out past what was already there that I noticed offhand (I watched them back to back). I mean it was already a great soundtrack, but other than placing the planes higher than ear level (something Neural X was already doing and the old Pro Logic and 5.1 systems would have done anyway with surrounds placed higher on the walls with the old standards), nothing new stood out to me at all.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> The display doesn't really show the objects "grow" or "shrink" (one of my complaints is that they don't change in size).


The Atmos object tracker in the Altitude actually will change the size of the object sphere, it is just that the majority of objects are encoded with size=1 (1-100 ).

I attribute some of that to the learning process for what is essentially a new format for many. There are only about 500 movies in Atmos so far, and a few dozen of streaming shows. The second possible reason could be work flow. For an object that travels 360° around the room, size=1 may be the easiest (and likely default) size and it ensures it won't bleed into other speakers ahead of its "time", or even possibly leak into overheads if the size is too large. Just conjecture.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> The Atmos object tracker in the Altitude actually will change the size of the object sphere, it is just that the majority of objects are encoded with size=1 (1-100 ).
> 
> I attribute some of that to the learning process for what is essentially a new format for many. There are only about 500 movies in Atmos so far, and a few dozen of streaming shows. The second possible reason could be work flow. For an object that travels 360° around the room, size=1 may be the easiest (and likely default) size and it ensures it won't bleed into other speakers ahead of its "time", or even possibly leak into overheads if the size is too large. Just conjecture.


That's interesting. So I guess when we see few objects but lots of bed level speakers lighting up, it must be channel use (as opposed to large objects affecting multiple speakers)? I thought someone said that Atmos used stationary objects (but I guess that could be internal usage, not "assigned") for the bed channels too. Looking at one little demo makes it hard to tell what's happening, really, especially when you cannot really hear the sounds playing (just that guy talking over it all).


----------



## sdurani

appelz said:


> ...the majority of objects are encoded with size=1 (1-100 ).


Quick FYI for those unfamiliar with how the Atmos ecosystem defines object size. It's not a physical size but an abstraction: i.e., smallest object size means that those sounds play back from only one speaker while largest object size means those sounds come from all the speakers in the theatre.


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> Quick FYI for those unfamiliar with how the Atmos ecosystem defines object size. It's not a physical size but an abstraction: i.e., smallest object size means that those sounds play back from only one speaker while largest object size means those sounds come from all the speakers in the theatre.


Right, what Sanjay said.


----------



## batpig

It's also worth pointing out that the mix as printed ON THE DISC may not necessarily reflect what the mixer was doing in the studio, especially with Disney where they have specific policies about how they output the tracks for consumer release.

I think people should be careful about conflating that with the mixer being lazy or "asleep at the wheel" which pretty disrespectful vs. professionals. 

The mixer could have a full blown Atmos mix with 75 objects flying around, but the track on the disc behaves like a "fixed print" so the balls just sit next to the speakers on the fancy Trinnov-o-meter. Even in an active mix, if they chose the lowest possible element limit (11+LFE) a lot of stuff could be staying still (especially if the heights are used for fixed effects like ambiance and/or music. So it's not the mixer's "fault" necessarily that the Trinnov graphic looks like nothing is moving around.

For example, I pulled this screenshot from the SpareChange video. This is Midway, which many consider to be an awesome Atmos mix.

First, notice the object count is 11 with 1 bed (LFE), which means they selected the 12 element limit on output. 

Now, note that the 11 objects are basically a 7.1.4 layout -- there's two in the front corners (FR + FL), a pair mid-way on the side wall (SR + SL), a pair in the rear corners (SBR + SBL), then a pair at the top of the front wall and a pair at the top of the rear wall (FH + RH).

Every speakers is "lit up", there's noise coming from all over, it's a great Atmos mix! If you watch the part where he zooms in on this view (from ~4:00 to ~4:20 or so) notice the 7 ear level objects almost never move (there's only one "blip" that I saw). The only movement is the height effects. So, as far as the consumer is concerned, this is behaving as "7.1 + 4 objects above you".











I would bet Ready Player One looks the same, as do many mixes that some people think of as "great Atmos mixes!" because they hear a bunch of stuff above their head + lots of bass. However, these mixes as output to disc will NOT scale well to a higher channel count layout. Run that on a 9.1.4 speaker layout, and I bet the wides sit there twiddling their (nonexistent) thumbs 99% of the time.

Stuart - I'm super interested to see more of this stuff with some of the movies we've had discussions about (e.g. Saving Private Ryan 4K being a 7.1.2 mix). I'm betting a lot of the "fixed print" mixes look like that screenshot above, with 11 "dynamic" objects sitting motionless as a fixed 7ch bed and the 4 height objects fixed in the front/rear ceiling corners. If they are set to size = 1 so they only play from one speaker, any "in between" speakers like Front Wide or Top Middle will be left with nothing to do.


----------



## MagnumX

All the more reason to still do Scatmos even with 15-channel AVRs available.... (And pray DTS makes Neural X work with Atmos output directly in the future as a crappy home mix upmixer on DTS:X Pro systems).

Atmos mixes that don't scale might as well be Auro-3D 13.1 mixes (actually that would be 2-channels better).


----------



## howard68

Anyone having problems streaming Atmos on Apple tv with Netflix? 
Apple films and Vudu is playing ok 
No 5.1 or Atmos on Netflix


----------



## Craig Mecak

howard68 said:


> Anyone having problems streaming Atmos on Apple tv with Netflix?
> Apple films and Vudu is playing ok
> No 5.1 or Atmos on Netflix


Netflix app update the other day v 2.1.16 broke 5.1 & Dolby Atmos output.

Enough of us users complained to Netflix, and now they've rushed out v 2.1.17 and it fixes it. 5.1 audio & Dolby Atmos have returned to Apple TV.


----------



## vn800art

Noticed that! Info about the film showed 5.1 (and I didn't find any Atmos) but I had only 2 channels LPCM as audio input on my Marantz Avr! We are in the same field of dis-illusion! Sigh.
Most informative thread, thanks to the many respectful contributors.
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Now, note that the 11 objects are basically a 7.1.4 layout -- there's two in the front corners (FR + FL), a pair mid-way on the side wall (SR + SL), a pair in the rear corners (SBR + SBL), then a pair at the top of the front wall and a pair at the top of the rear wall (FH + RH).
> 
> Every speakers is "lit up", there's noise coming from all over, it's a great Atmos mix! If you watch the part where he zooms in on this view (from ~4:00 to ~4:20 or so) notice the 7 ear level objects almost never move (there's only one "blip" that I saw). The only movement is the height effects. So, as far as the consumer is concerned, this is behaving as "7.1 + 4 objects above you".


When I looked at it on Monday, I found a couple of Midway scenes where the only speakers playing were 7.1.4, as you note, except that you do get some fleeting objects moving around that space. One example was for planes flying overhead a carrier - you get a couple of objects moving from the rear and splaying out to the sides toward the front of the room, all apparently at the height level within that 7.1.4. I'll see if I can screenshot it and a time stamp. But yes, it seems there's a lot more use of "move things above you for effect" than movement on the ear level. At least on that mix.



> I would bet Ready Player One looks the same, as do many mixes that some people think of as "great Atmos mixes!" because they hear a bunch of stuff above their head + lots of bass. However, these mixes as output to disc will NOT scale well to a higher channel count layout. Run that on a 9.1.4 speaker layout, and I bet the wides sit there twiddling their (nonexistent) thumbs 99% of the time.
> 
> Stuart - I'm super interested to see more of this stuff with some of the movies we've had discussions about (e.g. Saving Private Ryan 4K being a 7.1.2 mix). I'm betting a lot of the "fixed print" mixes look like that screenshot above, with 11 "dynamic" objects sitting motionless as a fixed 7ch bed and the 4 height objects fixed in the front/rear ceiling corners. If they are set to size = 1 so they only play from one speaker, any "in between" speakers like Front Wide or Top Middle will be left with nothing to do.


I have both of these, so I can test them, and compare to something like Gravity or A House with a Clock on its Walls that should have much more use of the non 7.x.4 or 7.x.6 speakers. Hope to have some time over the weekend. One thing I do notice with the viewer (for those that want the nitty gritty details): it seems kind of hard to get good visualization of the wides and object size at times unless you finesse the view and zoom in, but that might just be looking at the app on my iPad with VNC. Might be worth using my 22" monitor and a PC running VNC instead over the network.

Anecdotally, I see much more object movement going on in the Tidal albums that are mixed in Atmos, or something like the Yello Point album, for what it's worth.


----------



## maikeldepotter

MagnumX said:


> All the more reason to still do Scatmos even with 15-channel AVRs available.... (And pray DTS makes Neural X work with Atmos output directly in the future as a crappy home mix upmixer on DTS:X Pro systems).
> 
> Atmos mixes that don't scale might as well be Auro-3D 13.1 mixes (actually that would be 2-channels better).


Overview of available (discrete) audio streams for home mixes (bed channels including one LFE channel + remaining streams for dynamic objects/clusters) :

1. DTS:X: *17 streams* (not including 1 additional LFE stream)
2. Atmos with max encoder settings: *16 streams*
3. Auro3D 13.1: *14 streams *(no dynamic objects)
4. Atmos with default encoder settings: *12 streams*


----------



## esprague

Hey, Guys;

Stupid question here. Is the core of Dolby Atmos tracks louder or clearer than, say, a DTS 7.1 or 5.1 Master Audio? I'm aware as a whole it creates a more immersive surround sound experience, but I'm just curious if the core sound track itself is louder. In other words, on disks that have both dolby atmos and the 7.1 DTS Master Audio or Dolby True HD track would the loudness of the core tracks be the same?

As a practical example, I was blown away the other day by the 7.1 DTS Master Audio tracks of Doctor Sleep, the Matrix, and Invisbible man. If I were to play the dolby atmos track would it be any louder?

Thanks for your help, guys, and I apologize in advance for the ignorant questions.

Erik


----------



## sdurani

esprague said:


> In other words, on disks that have both dolby atmos and the 7.1 DTS Master Audio or Dolby True HD track would the loudness of the core tracks be the same?


Probably not, since Dolby tracks usually have DialNorm applied and DTS tracks typically don't, so the Dolby tracks would play back 4dB quieter than DTS tracks.


----------



## esprague

Interesting. Would it be clearer? Would anything about the core track itself be different in terms of loudness and clarity?


----------



## sdurani

Louder sounds clearer. But one they're level matched, probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two tracks (unless they're two different mixes).


----------



## tigerhonaker

esprague said:


> Interesting. Would it be clearer? Would anything about the core track itself be different in terms of loudness and clarity?


What Atmos does and according to how many speakers you have for it ???
I have 6 in-ceiling Triad Gold Custom Atmos speakers.
You get a much more sense of a Larger Sounding Envelope but not necessarily Louder as far as the actual Atmos speakers.

Terry


----------



## esprague

Totally agree Terry. So the core track is pretty much the core track, no differences in loudness or clarity? Thanks.


----------



## tigerhonaker

esprague said:


> Totally agree Terry. So the core track is pretty much the core track, no differences in loudness or clarity? Thanks.


I suppose according to what one was listening to it could be LOUDER from the Atmos speakers if a lot more audio was being directed to those.
In general though the Core/Base 7.4 (4-Subs) will be what's more than likely the LOUDER speakers with the Atmos adding the additional audio and therefore it greatly adds to the overall content.
My Marantz AV8805 is set to engage the Maximum number of speakers with whatever I'm viewing.
So, my (Opinion) is Atmos simply gives you more and in some cases a lot more of the overall movie experience with the audio.
Atmos has added another Layer of overall Enjoyment to my HT !!!
Well worth the added expense which in my case was substantial. 

Terry


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Funky center channel question for Dolby Atmos. I know I could post this in another thread but I thought I'd ask here since there are many knowledgeable AVS Forum members. I have a very good center channel right now (Paradigm CC-690) but I'm looking at setting up a 100" UST projector and my Paradigm CC-690 is an absolute beast that is very large and cumbersome and I'll be unable to use the top of the cabinet to place the center speaker. This new center channel will be a wall mount and right at ear level sitting/reclining position. Quite frankly, I've never understood the emphasis on woofers for a center speaker. It's set to small to begin with and when I've set my center channel to large - - the low end sounds obscure the dialogue. To me, a center channel is best equipped with multiple tweeters and solid mid range speakers, but I digress. On to my question.

I looked at some Martin Logan center channels and they even have a large soundbar (SLM X3) with three tweeters and six low frequency paper cone speakers. Is it possible to split the two channel center speaker (RCA jacks) with a stereo audio distribution amplifier like the RDL EZ-ADA4 where my center channel output from my AVR is connected with the distribution amplifier's RCA input (L/R) and then three outputs from the distribution amplifier (L/R) to the soundbar?

OK - maybe weird but my ears are getting older and I'm tired of lousy center channel output relative the the L/R main speakers. I want the center channel to sound like they are in the room with me. Thoughts?

P.S. - I started a new thread for center channel/speaker options. Center Channel Options & Using A Soundbar As A... Net/net - - there has to be a way to get better performance out of a center speaker. Thx - Rico.


----------



## LNEWoLF

I would think this would be a GREAT movie to evaluate the Atmos object tracker in the Altitude. As we know the individual (Filmmixer) who mixed the Atmos audio for this film. If Marc is able to answers questions regarding the audio mix.

He could validate and offer insight as to what were seeing with AOT (Atmos Object Tracker.)


----------



## howard68

Thank 


Craig Mecak said:


> Netflix app updates the other day v 2.1.16 broke 5.1 & Dolby Atmos output.
> 
> Enough of us users complained to Netflix, and now they've rushed out v 2.1.17 and it fixes it. 5.1 audio & Dolby Atmos have returned to Apple TV.
> 
> Thanks for the reply
> At least I know and won't go changing anything
> Hope the update is soon


----------



## bartonnen

LNEWoLF said:


> would think this would be a GREAT movie to evaluate the Atmos object tracker in the Altitude.


SpareChange loves that movie and has recommended it for it's Atmos mix. I wonder if he'd run it through the tracker if someone reached out to him.


----------



## joeblow

Good evening audiophile superheroes...

So I've pretty much upgraded most of my 7-10 year-old home theater components over the last month to prepare for next gen goodness with the PS5. The 60" 1080P screen is now Sony's 85" X900H, and the HDMI 1.4 receiver is now a Denon S960H... both can process a 2.1 HDMI signal, so I'm in business with connecting the sources (2.1 HDMI for the PS5 / 2.0 for cable TV and 2.0 for my computer). The display is up and running, so I am now ready to assemble the audio gadgets... plugging in the speakers, and attaching the PS4 (for now), the cable box and the TV into the receiver.

One upgrade for my old 5.1 audio setup in particular is adding a pair of Sony SSCSE Dolby Atmos modules. Are there any general tips towards optimizing the sound quality two units? They will sit on the front speakers between 5-6 feet from the ceiling. I'll use Audessey to calibrate of course, and if things are just that simple, I suppose all is well.

At minimum though, I'd also like to know a few Blu-rays that show off the overhead effect nicely, or at least some online clips. 4K suggestions are great too, but the PS5 launches in November for me to try them out. Thanks in advance.

Heh, I just read every other page of the last 60 pages of this thread. There were plenty of recommendations Atmos (i.e. Mad Max, Sicario, Fury), and there were also some props for 5.1 Neural X upmixes, so I guess those suggestions will be fine for a height audio newbie like myself.


----------



## tigerhonaker

joeblow said:


> Good evening audiophile superheroes...
> 
> So I've pretty much upgraded most of my 7-10 year-old home theater components over the last month to prepare for next gen goodness with the PS5. The 60" 1080P screen is now Sony's 85" X900H, and the HDMI 1.4 receiver is now a Denon S960H... both can process a 2.1 HDMI signal, so I'm in business with connecting the sources (2.1 HDMI for the PS5 / 2.0 for cable TV and 2.0 for my computer). The display is up and running, so I am now ready to assemble the audio gadgets... plugging in the speakers, and attaching the PS4 (for now), the cable box and the TV into the receiver.
> 
> One upgrade for my old 5.1 audio setup in particular is adding a pair of Sony SSCSE Dolby Atmos modules. Are there any general tips towards optimizing the sound quality two units? They will sit on the front speakers between 5-6 feet from the ceiling. I'll use Audessey to calibrate of course, and if things are just that simple, I suppose all is well.
> 
> At minimum though, I'd also like to know a few Blu-rays that show off the overhead effect nicely, or at least some online clips. 4K suggestions are great too, but the PS5 launches in November for me to try them out. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Heh, I just read every other page of the last 60 pages of this thread. There were plenty of recommendations Atmos (i.e. Mad Max, Sicario, Fury), and there were also some props for 5.1 Neural X upmixes, so I guess those suggestions will be fine for a height audio newbie like myself.


Try these for Atmos enjoyment ............




Terry


----------



## howard68

Hi All
So is it true that to fix the Non-Atmos sound issue on Netflix on Apple tv you need to uninstall the Netflix app and reinstall it?


----------



## usc1995

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So is it true that to fix the Non-Atmos sound issue on Netflix on Apple tv you need to uninstall the Netflix app and reinstall it?


All I did was update it. Go to the AppStore and find Netflix. It should give you the option to open it or update it. Click it and it will update and your Atmos should be back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

"Pet Semetary" had some very solid ambience surround use.
"Us" too.
Recommended if you like having the daylights scared out of you...


----------



## MagnumX

"IT" parts 1 & 2 (2017 & 2019) both have excellent Atmos soundtracks. You can actually hear the clown climb a wall (rare upward sounding movement) and move across the ceiling at one point in the first movie near the end.


----------



## am2model3

joeblow; enjoy your new setup! atmos and DTS:X are a fun time; as well as DSU and NeuralX upmixing from 2, 5.1 and 7.1 sources! Does your setup or budget allow for 4 height channels instead of 2? I would humbly recommend you do all .4 versus .2; but either will sound great! I am a 5.1.4 dolby atmos enabled setup and it sounds amazing for movies & games = )


----------



## am2model3

Yeah, Xbox series X|S having DolbyVision/DolbyAtmos is really cool and a great differentiator from PS5. I am amazed sony picked their weird 3D audio headphone tech and ignored DolbyAtmos/DTS:X. Dolby said Xbox is the first console for now; not sure what they meant if there were future ones going to have it; but with Sony's stance on PS5; it sounds like Dolby made a fake illusion that another future console would have DV/DA. The switch 2 most likely won't; so only Xbox embraces Dolby!


----------



## MagnumX

*Back To The Future - Dolby Atmos Remix Review*

I just watched the new 4K Dolby Atmos version of *Back to the Future*. I'm sad to say like many retrofits as of late, the Atmos conversion on it is largely a joke with little effort put into increasing immersion from the 2-channel Dolby Surround mix, let alone the 5.1 DTS-HD mix. I hadn't watched the movie in a long time, so it was fun to see it again as it's a great movie, but the surround effects were always on the piddly side and it's only slightly improved towards the end. Throughout much of the movie the surround speakers are pretty much all silent (I got up a few times to walk into the back of the room and listen at the various 17 speakers installed here and they were dead silent when I did check so I don't think it was just a matter of not enough volume for those channels, but more like they weren't being utilized for large stretches of time and of the few moments where they are used (save the very end), it's more or less exactly the same as the DTS-HD 5.1 version except there's a lot less bass in the LFE track (noticeably less). One example is when the flame trails at the mall make a sound flying into the back of the room. Technically speaking, it's an improvement in that the sound moves through the sides speakers in the rear speakers now whereas in 5.1 it just used the surround (side) speakers, but with DSU or Neural X engaged, they went into the back of the room too with very little audible difference to my ears. I remember hearing that effect in the surround speakers even on my Pro Logic decoded laserdisc version, so it's not a big change. At the start of the movie with the clocks all going off, they didn't create much of a surround effect either (The quad and 5.1 mixes of Pink Floyd's "Time" on Dark Side of the Moon were far more impressive for clocks going off all around). I thought the ticking bits would at least move as the camera panned down the line, but they just seems to stop a bit beyond the left speaker, even as the camera changed views.

Some music finds its way into the front height speakers here, but Neural X kind of does the same thing once again. By far and large, MOST of the sound comes from the 3 front speakers just like the original 2-channel Dolby Surround mix from the 1985 laserdisc. You can call that accurate/faithful to the original if you like, but I don't see the point in even "going Atmos" if you're not going to change hardly anything at all. The only real exception is clear at the end during the lightning storm. There the overhead channels are finally noticeable around the room, although I've heard better storm effects by far on other movies, but this is the one section of the movie the surrounds finally seem to at least be used continuously for that section. The helicopter right after Marty returns to 1985 also uses the overhead speakers and then it's right back to mostly front speakers even through the end credit music. 

What really makes it noticeable is when a scene changes the camera angles and the effects remain in the same (front) speakers. For example, when Marty enters the diner in 1955, the Ballad of Davy Crocket is playing on the jukebox. The camera shows Marty coming into the diner from a view behind the counter. The jukebox is off to the camera's left and behind, but the song is coming from the front speakers right near the middle. The camera changes to show Lou behind the counter and the jukebox is now off to the front right, but the song just keeps playing from the center channel.... There is no change in the sound effects as the camera views change and the surrounds are almost never used for ANYTHING in most of the movie. Outdoors with George bird watching? Front channels only. High school dance music playing? Front channels only. I'd swear the movie was in 2-channel Pro Logic surround for 95% of the movie. Worse yet, the nice bass track of the DTS 5.1 Blu-Ray is pretty much eliminated. I cranked up the subwoofer 4dB and it still wasn't enough to match the Blu-Ray. Given my projector is getting a 2K downmix for video, I can't gauge the 4K Dolby Vision, but the 2K output in SDR is slightly less colorful than the Blu-Ray was in 1080p, but otherwise looked fine. I'm guessing that's the fault of the tone mapping, but until I can try it on a 4K set, I can't be certain. 

For me, the deal breaker was the lack of any real kind of upgrade to the soundtrack. When I see Atmos, I get hopeful, maybe even a little excited it will be a real improvement like _Blade Runner_ or even _Groundhog Day_ where you can tell they made a concerted effort to make the soundtrack more immersive, even in moments that weren't overhead (Groundhog Day went from flat to feeling like I really was outdoors in Punxsutawney . Here, it felt like they did little more than slap the Atmos logo on my AVR and turn down the bass (I mean even the few effects that did use the overheads were pretty much there with Neural X anyway). In my opinion, they might as well have just kept the original soundtrack (2-channel) and called it a day as the Atmos soundtrack is a complete and utter let down, IMO. I've still got the 2nd and 3rd movies to watch in Atmos and with the flying car, I have a little more hope the overheads will get used more, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## joeblow

am2model3 said:


> joeblow; enjoy your new setup! atmos and DTS:X are a fun time; as well as DSU and NeuralX upmixing from 2, 5.1 and 7.1 sources! Does your setup or budget allow for 4 height channels instead of 2? I would humbly recommend you do all .4 versus .2; but either will sound great! I am a 5.1.4 dolby atmos enabled setup and it sounds amazing for movies & games = )


That's a no-go for me since my Denon S960H AVR maxes out at 7.1 or 5.1.2, but thanks anyway.


----------



## Rich 63

Has anybody out there upgraded there height channels from small satillite to bigger driver speakers. I built a system with used speakers. Monitor 7 V2 fronts cc370 centre, mini monitors for surrounds and currently cinema 70 for heights. I just found a set of 4 atom v2 for a good price. Would I notice any difference. All being powered by avr4300h.
Rich


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> Has anybody out there upgraded there height channels from small satillite to bigger driver speakers. I built a system with used speakers. Monitor 7 V2 fronts cc370 centre, mini monitors for surrounds and currently cinema 70 for heights. I just found a set of 4 atom v2 for a good price. Would I notice any difference. All being powered by avr4300h.
> Rich


It depends on how small you're talking about. As long as they can play solid down to 80Hz and cross well to a subwoofer, a larger speaker may not improve things. A better speaker in general or better timbre matched to your other speakers might, however. Crossed above 80Hz, you _might_ notice the sub playing for tones from the heights.


----------



## Rich 63

Thinking of just getting them and trying as I'm certain I could sell them for what I'll pay. A call to paridigm says that all thier speakers are timbre matched. The cinema 70 have a 3.5 inch driver to the atoms 5.5. Current 70 are being crossed over at 100hz as per xt32 recommendation. Just wondering if it's worth the effort. There have been many discussions I've read on the need for more capable height speakers. Some saying the info being sent to heights is served fine by a small unit while other say the opposite. Given the larger driver I would assume lower crossover would be the result. So really I've convinced myself to go for it I think. Kijiji message sent.


----------



## tigerhonaker

Rich 63 said:


> Has anybody out there upgraded there height channels from small satillite to bigger driver speakers. I built a system with used speakers. Monitor 7 V2 fronts cc370 centre, mini monitors for surrounds and currently cinema 70 for heights. I just found a set of 4 atom v2 for a good price. Would I notice any difference. All being powered by avr4300h.
> Rich


Rich,

If your interested I have what many consider a High-End Atmos system.
You can see just the Components/Gear in my signature below.
Or if your really-really interested click on my *New* *Build *and you can see Full-In-Depth Coverage of that install with tons of pictures.

Terry


----------



## MagnumX

I tried


Rich 63 said:


> Thinking of just getting them and trying as I'm certain I could sell them for what I'll pay. A call to paridigm says that all thier speakers are timbre matched. The cinema 70 have a 3.5 inch driver to the atoms 5.5. Current 70 are being crossed over at 100hz as per xt32 recommendation. Just wondering if it's worth the effort. There have been many discussions I've read on the need for more capable height speakers. Some saying the info being sent to heights is served fine by a small unit while other say the opposite. Given the larger driver I would assume lower crossover would be the result. So really I've convinced myself to go for it I think. Kijiji message sent.


I wouldn't call my PSB B15s and CS500 that large, but they are capable to below 80Hz. I tried crossing them at higher frequencies to hear the effect and I could hear sounds coming from the subwoofer if I crossed above 80Hz, especially closer to 120Hz, but that may be program and/or test tone specific, but I'd prefer heights that can play well down to at least 80Hz.


----------



## batpig

Bottom line, there are two competing factors:
1) All channels are "full range", and there are definitely some movies that have powerful effects in the heights, and when that happens you will notice the difference
2) On the flip side, it doesn't really happen that often, and it's also the area where our hearing is least sensitive so you can "get away" with more compromises above you

So if you're happy with the current setup, and you don't want bigger speakers hanging off the ceiling, just enjoy what you have. BUT, if you're willing to have bigger speakers, and you're itching to upgrade those and have the heights be more well-matched in capability to the surrounds, it will be an upgrade.... not a HUGE upgrade, but there will be times where you will appreciate the additional impact and dynamics above you.

Whether it's worth going to the trouble for an upgrade that will only be noticeable ~10% of the time.... that's up to you


----------



## sdrucker

batpig said:


> Bottom line, there are two competing factors:
> 1) All channels are "full range", and there are definitely some movies that have powerful effects in the heights, and when that happens you will notice the difference
> 2) On the flip side, it doesn't really happen that often, and it's also the area where our hearing is least sensitive so you can "get away" with more compromises above you


Some of the outdoor speakers have decent bass, enough that you can cross them at 80 or 100 Hz after measurements (depending on your tolerance for localization for those frequencies). Something like the PSB CS500 or CS1000. Or maybe something like a the JBL 705i?



> Whether it's worth going to the trouble for an upgrade that will only be noticeable ~10% of the time.... that's up to you


There's another solution but AFAIK it can only be done on the Altitude. That's intermediate bass management, where you could cross, say, the front heights to the subs up to 80 Hz, then cross them to the mains underneath from 80 Hz to some higher frequency like 120 or 150 Hz, and then let them handle the bass above that. This gets around some of the localization effect if the bass is reproduced by speakers that are otherwise placed under the heights. Jon Herron touched on this in a couple of the webinars they did over the past several months.

I tested this on my system with my front heights, top middles, and rear heights, crossing in the 80 to 120 Hz range to mains, side and rear surrounds respectively, and to the subs below 80 Hz of course). The effect is subtle at best...maybe it would be more noticeable if I was listening in a bigger room at 100 db...


----------



## Scott Simonian

Rich 63 said:


> Has anybody out there upgraded there height channels from small satillite to bigger driver speakers. I built a system with used speakers. Monitor 7 V2 fronts cc370 centre, mini monitors for surrounds and currently cinema 70 for heights. I just found a set of 4 atom v2 for a good price. Would I notice any difference. All being powered by avr4300h.
> Rich


I am not familiar with those speakers but upgrading to more capable overhead/heights is always welcome when applicable.

When possible, try to match them with your surrounds (or whole system).



batpig said:


> Bottom line, there are two competing factors:
> 1) All channels are "full range", and there are definitely some movies that have powerful effects in the heights, and when that happens you will notice the difference
> 2) On the flip side, it doesn't really happen that often, and it's also the area where our hearing is least sensitive so you can "get away" with more compromises above you
> 
> So if you're happy with the current setup, and you don't want bigger speakers hanging off the ceiling, just enjoy what you have. BUT, if you're willing to have bigger speakers, and you're itching to upgrade those and have the heights be more well-matched in capability to the surrounds, it will be an upgrade.... not a HUGE upgrade, but there will be times where you will appreciate the additional impact and dynamics above you.
> 
> Whether it's worth going to the trouble for an upgrade that will only be noticeable ~10% of the time.... that's up to you


Good perspective.



sdrucker said:


> There's another solution but AFAIK it can only be done on the Altitude.


I've got a chalkboard up somewhere that tracks: Stuarts posts without Trinnov Altitude mention

I have yet to write a 1 on that board.


----------



## triciens

To those who are successfully running .4 TF/TR with in-ceiling speakers and a couch against the wall, did you go with the Dolby recommended 30 - 55 degree placement for the top fronts?

Or a larger or smaller angle, given that the top rears are basically straight above or very slightly behind, so we're not exactly doing this by the book anymore? Or did you determine the angle based on the speaker's off-axis dispersion?

I have my top rears in place - that was the easy part, as an immovable couch and wall determined their position. I'm just struggling to decide on the optimal angles for the top fronts.

Opinions from people without couch/wall restrictions also welcome.


----------



## sdrucker

Scott Simonian said:


> I've got a chalkboard up somewhere that tracks: Stuarts posts without Trinnov Altitude mention
> 
> I have yet to write a 1 on that board.


Wrong! Check out a certain Home Theater Group you're familiar with where I'm a virtual member. LOL.

And only 21 days ago here  :








The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Here is another measurement for re-directed bass of the left and center channel using 5.1, DSU, and Neural:X. How about re-directed bass? Here is the left channel and center channel measured. No difference in levels or frequency response. These measurements are produced by the 5.1 test...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## farsider3000

triciens said:


> To those who are successfully running .4 TF/TR with in-ceiling speakers and a couch against the wall, did you go with the Dolby recommended 30 - 55 degree placement for the top fronts?
> 
> Or a larger or smaller angle, given that the top rears are basically straight above or very slightly behind, so we're not exactly doing this by the book anymore? Or did you determine the angle based on the speaker's off-axis dispersion?
> 
> I have my top rears in place - that was the easy part, as an immovable couch and wall determined their position. I'm just struggling to decide on the optimal angles for the top fronts.
> 
> Opinions from people without couch/wall restrictions also welcome.


I would keep them as close to the MLP as possible or the sound will seem to come from the LCR.

If you have your main listening position against a wall I do not feel that four overhead speakers add any value. I have six overhead speakers and two rows of seating. If I were to do it over I would likely only have one row of overhead (top) atmos speakers directly over the front row. For your case I would mount one row of overheads about 18” in front of your ear position (ceiling mounted). Too many rows makes it indistinguishable from the LCR as sound moves from rear to front or vice versa.

It’s also critical to have “enough” acoustic panels so that reflections and echo are very well controlled or your ceiling speakers can bounce off walls and the sound will be too diffuse and blend with surrounds. For this reason I mounted my top speakers about four feet from the walls and I still have some issue with sound from top speakers bleeding into surrounds.(I plan to add more acoustic panels).... see photo below:


















































Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## howard68

John Williams in Vienna blu ray


----------



## am2model3

5.1.2 is still great for Atmos/DTS:X and DSU&NeuralX. Enjoy your setup!! 

yeah, so BTTF 4K Dolby Atmos; the Atmos is a big letdown. Once again; the movie sound engineer for this disc release fails us again! it just baffles the mind. Its as if Dolby needs to quality check these sound mixes before they get released, if the movie studios would let them. We know the sound mix can be done for creative reasons; IE not wanting to change anything; but not taking advantage of the technology is a big miss entirely.


----------



## MagnumX

Has anyone heard the Atmos mix for Beetlejuice? I was thinking of getting it, but after the disappointment that is Back to the Future I'd hate to find out it's no better than my old bluray.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched *Back To The Future Part II* in Dolby Atmos. I'd say this soundtrack was a little better than the first movie in Atmos, probably because there was a lot of flying car sounds that used the overhead speakers, but even so, it could have been a lot more immersive overall. Even with the thunder at the end, it was mostly in the front height overheads. It only occasionally used the top middle or rear locations (it seemed to use them more during the 2015 storm when the DeLorean landed). 

But what's sad is I just watched a movie from 2005 called "*Skeleton Key*" and it had only 5.1 sound, but upmixed with Neural X, it used the overheads MUCH more than either Back To The Future movie in actual Atmos, especially for storms which were really spread out overhead across the whole room. In fact, with a bit of an almost haunted theme, it had a lot of surround effects used well throughout and upmixed very well. I'm more convinced than ever that a very competent soundtrack in 5.1 upmixed with Neural X beats a poor Atmos soundtrack any day of the week.


----------



## zeonstar

How are you able to watch the Back to the Future 4k releases? I thought they weren’t out till the 20th. Thanks for the review on them though.


----------



## MagnumX

zeonstar said:


> How are you able to watch the Back to the Future 4k releases? I thought they weren’t out till the 20th. Thanks for the review on them though.


iTunes has them now so my digital copies from the previous boxset got upgraded to 4K + Atmos and they are available now. Streaming seems to get releases before Blu-Rays these days.

I'm sure there's at least a couple of people (from previous cases) that think the iTunes versions sound completely different from the TrueHD based UHD discs, but that's simply not the case anymore than an AAC music track "sounds different" from a CD version (any differences are nearly inaudible or the lossy codecs aren't doing their job). They are more or less identical sounding to the ear every time I've compared them so I think they are still a fair indication of how the UHD discs will sound and certainly will not change the fact they hardly use the surrounds and overheads compared to other Atmos movies like Overlord (which is quite active on both the disc and iTunes versions).


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> If you have your main listening position against a wall I do not feel that four overhead speakers add any value. I have six overhead speakers and two rows of seating. If I were to do it over I would likely only have one row of overhead (top) atmos speakers directly over the front row. For your case I would mount one row of overheads about 18” in front of your ear position (ceiling mounted). Too many rows makes it indistinguishable from the LCR as sound moves from rear to front or vice versa.


Your setup looks very nice so I can't really understand why you recommend only 2 overhead speakers unless it's because you seem to prefer overhead sounds to be directly overhead and moving forward/backward lowers their effective angle and they sound closer to the front/rear walls (based on the rest of your post where you seem to hate them blending into the side surrounds and front mains). 

The person you're talking to, however, should be aware that with only 2, one won't get any front to back overhead panning (e.g. The Dolby Atmos helicopter demo would have the helicopter just moving left to right and right to left rather than in a circle overhead). Personally, I don't care if the guy's couch is against the rear wall. He'll still get better overhead sound with 4 overheads than 2. I can shrink my setup down to 5.1.4 with my speaker switchbox and settings (using top middle as rear height or top rear) and it still sounds excellent (to my ears) that way and the top middle speakers are only a little behind the first row, but it sounds good from the 2nd row even with all four in front of the seats as you can still hear the helicopter traveling in a circle instead of just a line.



> It’s also critical to have “enough” acoustic panels so that reflections and echo are very well controlled or your ceiling speakers can bounce off walls and the sound will be too diffuse and blend with surrounds. For this reason I mounted my top speakers about four feet from the walls and I still have some issue with sound from top speakers bleeding into surrounds.(I plan to add more acoustic panels).... see photo below:


If your ceiling speakers don't "blend" with the surrounds then instead of a bubble, you'll have more of a hemisphere with a dead zone between the two. I think sounds should be able to pan upwards into the ceiling from the surrounds without skipping over a spot in-between. In other words, there should be a continuous sound field, not two completely separate ones as you seem to imply. I believe your remaining "issue" is how it's actually _supposed_ to work with the speakers "disappearing" and sounds simply coming from wherever they are meant to come from in the room. Still, life is subjective and if you prefer more overhead isolation, that's what you prefer. 

You could bring them even closer together (in all directions) overhead and it would both limit their travel (more directly overhead) while having some movement and isolate them further from your lower speakers. That is not how it's designed to work, but I think people should be happy with their systems and it's become clear to me over the past couple of years that some people prefer most of the overhead sounds directly overhead rather than towards the walls, be they side walls or even front walls so as to emphasize the overhead effect to a place they never heard sounds anywhere near with 5.1 or 7.1 only or at least that's been my impression and probably the reason why many prefer "tops" speakers over "height" speakers as they eliminate half the ceiling travel in the front/rear direction in total (being typically 25% into the room in either direction front/back to get the 45 degree angle) as opposed to height speakers which typically start directly above the screen or closer to it and tend to cover the same distances as the lower ear level speakers (and in my case needed top middle to get strong imaging overhead when something is supposed to be halfway in-between them). 

If I'm misreading your post, please feel free to clarify.


----------



## MagnumX

Another recent Apple development. It seems Apple has come to some kind of an arrangement with Disney as previously, their movies were unavailable in 4K and/or Atmos (as Apple did not want to allow Disney to charge more than $20 for a film, which caused a riff between them), is now no longer the case. All my Disney movies on iTunes that Disney has in 4K and/or Atmos on Disney+ are now upgraded as well in the iTunes store, including all the Star Wars and Marvel films. I've noticed the new Mulan is for sale at $29.99, but given it didn't go through the traditional movie theater showing first, I don't know if that will only apply to new releases or whether they will no allow Disney to charge >$20 at all times if they so desire.


----------



## blake

MagnumX said:


> iTunes has them now so my digital copies from the previous boxset got upgraded to 4K + Atmos and they are available now. Streaming seems to get releases before Blu-Rays these days.
> 
> I'm sure there's at least a couple of people (from previous cases) that think the iTunes versions sound completely different from the TrueHD based UHD discs, but that's simply not the case anymore than an AAC music track "sounds different" from a CD version (any differences are nearly inaudible or the lossy codecs aren't doing their job). They are more or less identical sounding to the ear every time I've compared them so I think they are still a fair indication of how the UHD discs will sound and certainly will not change the fact they hardly use the surrounds and overheads compared to other Atmos movies like Overlord (which is quite active on both the disc and iTunes versions).


Is it not true that most steaming providers , including iTunes , “compress” the digital audio (Atmos) stream? I recall seeing comments this processing worsened the dynamic range especially in the 
bass frequencies. 

If this is the case , I am surprised as you would think the Audio track would just be a fraction of the total file size ie compared to video - why compress it at all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> Is it not true that most steaming providers , including iTunes , “compress” the digital audio (Atmos) stream? I recall seeing comments this processing worsened the dynamic range especially in the
> bass frequencies.
> 
> If this is the case , I am surprised as you would think the Audio track would just be a fraction of the total file size ie compared to video - why compress it at all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I've read all manner of "audiophile-like" claims against Dolby Digital Plus that are based on hearing claims rather than any kind of actual proof. Limited dynamic range through compression would normally result in more (louder) bass like in the so-called "loudness wars" on CD not less bass. AppleTV does seem to output lower average levels than Bluray players for unknown reasons as are the mp4s that Dolby themselves released, but that is not the same thing. 

Even if it were true, the placement of objects and amount of surround effects would be unaffected. The Atmos demos from Dolby in MP4 with DD+ sound the same once level matched (although some changed a thing or two like front wides not using "snap to" in the channel tests that were used on the demo discs).

As for file size type compression, lossless compression of audio actually takes up a lot of space (around 6GB on a typical movie). Video is also compressed on both formats, but typically 2-3x more for streaming. It has also been claimed on here that TrueHD is not viable for streaming at current average Internet speeds and ping times, but I've seen little more than posturing (I.e. Take my word for it) as proof of this. Streamers can prebuffer as much as needed before starting playback based on average transfer rates. They do not need to be sent in real time for movie playback. Size is money, however regardless and lossless music only files are still not the norm in 2020 that we had clear back in 1983 with Compact Discs. Unlimited streaming has made this less likely in many cases, but competition may improve things as some services are upping quality to differentiate themselves from one another.


----------



## markus767

blake said:


> Is it not true that most steaming providers , including iTunes , “compress” the digital audio (Atmos) stream? I recall seeing comments this processing worsened the dynamic range especially in the
> bass frequencies.
> 
> If this is the case , I am surprised as you would think the Audio track would just be a fraction of the total file size ie compared to video - why compress it at all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Maybe you're confusing audio compression (Dynamic range compression - Wikipedia) and data compression (Data compression - Wikipedia)? They are two completely different things. Data compression doesn't result in dynamic range compression and vice versa.


----------



## am2model3

once again, when movie sound engineer mixers fail us mixing Atmos or DTSX for these 4k releases, the upmixers DSU and NeuralX save the day!


----------



## am2model3

as if having a lackluster dolby atmos soundtrack on the BTTF 4k trilogy disc release was bad enough, who @ universal designed the horrible new artwork on all the packaging? it is atrocious, its as if someone designed it has no idea what these films mean, why they are important, etc. what a joke!


----------



## MagnumX

I guess no one has heard the Beetlejuice Atmos track. The "Pro" reviews can't be trusted either as they routinely just praise everything, in my experience, making them utterly worthless as sources of information.


----------



## MagnumX

I guess no one has heard the Beetlejuice Atmos track. The "Pro" reviews can't be trusted either as they routinely just praise everything, in my experience, making them utterly worthless as sources of information.


----------



## EyeWasAbducted

I moved a little over a month ago. My new place was pre-wired in-ceiling for 5.1. I’m using the in-ceiling surrounds as my surrounds. I don’t have the space for ear level speakers. I also put in 2 ceiling speakers where the front left and front right are. I’m using these as Atmos speakers. They are directly above my tower speakers. Should I designate them as “top front” or “front height” on my Denon?


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched _*Charlie's Angels*_ (2000 original movie with Cameron Diaz, Lucy Lieu and Drew Barrymore) in *Dolby Atmos *with its 4K/Atmos retrofit. Charlie's Angels had pretty decent Atmos sound with a lot of overhead effects (including a great helicopter set near the end putting things all around above and flying across the ceiling at different points depending on the camera angle) and plenty of ear level surround use as well including the rear surrounds. It's not the best Atmos track I've ever heard, but it's at least very competent, IMO. I wasn't disappointed like I was with the Back to the Future trilogy (i.e. I just watched half of Part III and it was poor surround in general like the 1st movie let alone overhead effects which were nearly non-existent up until that point save the clock tower recount at the start). Charlie's Angels is pure cheese (or should I say cheesecake given how great the ladies look?), but it's still fun to watch 20 years later and Atmos brings the sound up-to-date on this one. I haven't seen any signs of an updated 4K/Atmos retrofit of the sequel that added Demi Moore to the mix, but I hope it gets an update also soon as well.


----------



## LNEWoLF

CES 2021 DOLBY SUMMIT







events.dolby.com


----------



## Chirosamsung

can anyone comment on whether the matrix 2 is also a good atmos mix? I know the first one is...
Just considering purchasing on iTunes vs renting.


----------



## batpig

I don't know about the Atmos mix, but everyone would be better off pretending Matrix 2 and 3 do not exist, and just watching the original three times in a row instead.


----------



## MagnumX

I thought The Matrix Reloaded was fine. The freeway scene was one of the most intense movie scenes ever filmed. It's the 3rd movie (Revolutions) where it went off the rails (boring mostly IMO with nothing new to offer story-wise).

Personally, I think they should have spent more time on the raid to get to the architect that was rushed/glossed over near the end and saved that for the last movie) and had a lot less time on that squidee Zion attack, if any. The 3rd movie was barely in the Matrix. They should have also explained Neo's powers over the squidees by making Zion another part of The Matrix (I.e. They never actually left The Matrix; they were all still inside of and only thought the machines let them leave it). That would have made a huge difference I think as the last movie had no real narrative or plot surprises and the ending was more depressing than exciting.

In any case, the soundtracks are fine on all three. None are major overhead effects demos, though, IMO (better off with Blade Runner 2049 or Fury for that, IMO).

I guess some of you won't be going to see the 4th movie if you hated the sequels. It's already finished filming and could come out next year if the virus dissipates sooner rather than later. I'm certainly going to hope for the best rather than prejudge it.


----------



## kokishin

I have a Denon 6200 in a 5.1.4 configuration with FD+SD upfiring speakers.

Playing the recently released "John Lennon Gimme Some Truth" BD in Atmos from my Oppo 203, I get audio from the 5.1 and SD speakers but no sound from the FD speakers. There are a few others that have D&M avrs/prepros also experiencing this issue.

I changed the the 6200 from FD+SD to TF+TR (or FH+RH) and I get audio from all speakers. I found other Atmos speaker configuration anomalies which I documented here:
John Lennon - Gimme Some Truth. The Ultimate Mixes in...

To my best knowledge, I've never had any issues with Atmos music or videos prior to the "Gimme Some Truth" BD..

Questions:
1) What could cause this? Such as the way the Atmos was authored on the BD?
2) Any downside to permanently running my FD+SD upfiring speakers as TF+TR?

Thoughts?


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I thought The Matrix Reloaded was fine. The freeway scene was one of the most intense movie scenes ever filmed. It's the 3rd movie (Revolutions) where it went off the rails (boring mostly IMO with nothing new to offer story-wise).
> 
> Personally, I think they should have spent more time on the raid to get to the architect that was rushed/glossed over near the end and saved that for the last movie) and had a lot less time on that squidee Zion attack, if any. The 3rd movie was barely in the Matrix. They should have also explained Neo's powers over the squidees by making Zion another part of The Matrix (I.e. They never actually left The Matrix; they were all still inside of and only thought the machines let them leave it). That would have made a huge difference I think as the last movie had no real narrative or plot surprises and the ending was more depressing than exciting.
> 
> In any case, the soundtracks are fine on all three. None are major overhead effects demos, though, IMO (better off with Blade Runner 2049 or Fury for that, IMO).
> 
> I guess some of you won't be going to see the 4th movie if you hated the sequels. It's already finished filming and could come out next year if the virus dissipates sooner rather than later. I'm certainly going to hope for the best rather than prejudge it.


thanks for the spoilers for the third move


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> thanks for the spoilers for the third move


I said that's what they should have done. It's not what they actually did. Frankly, if you haven't seen it by now (it came out in 2003), you didn't miss much anyway.


----------



## am2model3

Matrix 1 & Reloaded on 4K UHD disc and Atmos and HDR, its all fantastic video & audio quality! amazing! shows what can be done when someone doing the audio/video takes advantage of the technology properly, unlike some movie studios.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

District 9 on UHD has a very good Atmos track giving the front wides a workout.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> I don't know about the Atmos mix, but everyone would be better off pretending Matrix 2 and 3 do not exist, and just watching the original three times in a row instead.


Pfft.

Dude. The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are alright. I mean, they have two of the best things in the world...















...and those would be these awesome moments.


----------



## audiofan1

Wow no love for the last two Matrix films? The get the nod in my book


----------



## Legairre

I have to admit those are two great "scenes" from the movies.


----------



## hanser

I am contemplating to upgrade my 5.1 surround system to Atmos. But the only way I could achieve it, would be to add 2 reflective Atmos speakers high on shelves at the back of the room, above and on the side of the seating area which is close to the back wall. There is no way to add ceiling speakers or Atmos speakers at the front of the room. Would this work? Has anybody tried it? Any help is appreciated.


----------



## am2model3

yes, you can! 5.1.2; your atmos 2 speakers can be anywhere. 

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/hometheater/comments/945b7y

you can do reflective, or just place the speakers up as high as you are saying.  I am 5.1.4 DAES and love my atmos/dtsX.


----------



## johnnyboy632

audiofan1 said:


> Wow no love for the last two Matrix films? The get the nod in my book


Yeah the first was awesome, reloaded was still pretty good but I remember seeing the third at the cinemas and almost fell asleep. they rushed the production of the third as I recall it came out straight after reloaded did, was a bit of a shame. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnyboy632

hanser said:


> I am contemplating to upgrade my 5.1 surround system to Atmos. But the only way I could achieve it, would be to add 2 reflective Atmos speakers high on shelves at the back of the room, above and on the side of the seating area which is close to the back wall. There is no way to add ceiling speakers or Atmos speakers at the front of the room. Would this work? Has anybody tried it? Any help is appreciated.


Why not just install 4 height speakers high up on the walls. Atmos modules just don’t do a good enough job in my opinion. What brand speakers do you have now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

johnnyboy632 said:


> Yeah the first was awesome, reloaded was still pretty good but I remember seeing the third at the cinemas and almost fell asleep. they rushed the production of the third as I recall it came out straight after reloaded did, was a bit of a shame.


Reloaded and Revolutions were filmed simultaneously, in the same manner as the Lord of the Rings movies, as I recall. Revolutions wasn't "rushed," per se. It just wasn't very good.


----------



## hanser

johnnyboy632 said:


> Why not just install 4 height speakers high up on the walls. Atmos modules just don’t do a good enough job in my opinion. What brand speakers do you have now?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I could install only 2 speakers since can only install them at the back wall. 4 Speakers there would not make sense,right? 
I have Ohm Walsh 2000 mains and Ohm Microwalsh for center and surround. I can´t put Atmos speakers on the top of this type of speaker, and Ohm does not offer Atmos or height speakers. Also an Ohm set would come quite costly and there is not enough Atmos material available to be worth it. I just want to play with it a bit.


----------



## johnnyboy632

hanser said:


> I could install only 2 speakers since can only install them at the back wall. 4 Speakers there would not make sense,right?
> I have Ohm Walsh 2000 mains and Ohm Microwalsh for center and surround. I can´t put Atmos speakers on the top of this type of speaker, and Ohm does not offer Atmos or height speakers. Also an Ohm set would come quite costly and there is not enough Atmos material available to be worth it. I just want to play with it a bit.


I’m not understanding the reason why you can’t add more height channels, is your avr only 5.1.2? If so I would definitely set them up as top middle speakers and use any bookshelf speakers high up on the wall with brackets and aim them down to the listening position. Having behind you won’t give you much benefit in my opinion, others may have a different view


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hanser

The reason is interior decorating  It is our living room which contains lots of stuff, also from my wife. Also, there are openings up to the ceiling at the left and right side, so no place to mount middle height speakers. Trust me, the only place to add speakers without frictions is as I said at the back wall.

Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


----------



## jazzrock

hanser said:


> The reason is interior decorating  It is our living room which contains lots of stuff, also from my wife. Also, there are openings up to the ceiling at the left and right side, so no place to mount middle height speakers. Trust me, the only place to add speakers without frictions is as I said at the back wall.
> 
> Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


If you have no other option than two top speakers going above at the back wall I personally wouldn’t bother. Many say it doesn’t mater where you place it. Not true. Yes, fluctuations are sometimes a necessary compromise due to situations like yours. An example...with two channel stereo, if you are not in the center between the two speakers you do not perceive stereo separation nor a virtual center speaker. The more off center you are the less effective the stereo perception will be. Of course, this is not a scientific explanation but an analogy none the less.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

hanser said:


> The reason is interior decorating  It is our living room which contains lots of stuff, also from my wife. Also, there are openings up to the ceiling at the left and right side, so no place to mount middle height speakers. Trust me, the only place to add speakers without frictions is as I said at the back wall.
> 
> Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


Well we all have our battles to pick right?! Lol. I sometimes have to remind my wife that I pay the mortgage too. We try to be fair. 
As far as the Reddit link, I think there’s some misinformation there. For one, the guys who says the automated setup routine will fix 90% of the problem is just wrong. Audyssey will set levels, distance and EQ but it can’t overcome a physical speaker location. Atmos speakers behind...well I’ll give my opinion. Atmos is not designed to work that way. It uses XYZ coordinates to render sounds in 3D space, most of which will be in front of you. Kinda like jazzrock said about stereo imaging, the speakers have to at least be close to the required locations. Atmos IS very forgiving. But not magic...
Also, imagine a plane flying from front to back overhead. Ime it would sound very distracting to hear it above and behind while still being tied to the screen/LCR. I agree with those that say any Atmos I’d better than no Atmos. But this might be a case of maybe not... If it really matters to you, it might be a good time for a heart to heart with the wife.


----------



## johnnyboy632

hanser said:


> The reason is interior decorating  It is our living room which contains lots of stuff, also from my wife. Also, there are openings up to the ceiling at the left and right side, so no place to mount middle height speakers. Trust me, the only place to add speakers without frictions is as I said at the back wall.
> 
> Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


I’d personally raise the side surrounds and back surround a bit above ear level and wouldn’t bother either with the 2 height channels. Let’s see a quick screenshot of your room and you will get some helpful advice with some other options you haven’t thought of


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Manu9

johnnyboy632 said:


> I’m not understanding the reason why you can’t add more height channels, is your avr only 5.1.2? If so I would definitely set them up as top middle speakers and use any bookshelf speakers high up on the wall with brackets and aim them down to the listening position. Having behind you won’t give you much benefit in my opinion, others may have a different view
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is exactly what I'm doing atm as a temporary solution... It's not the best, but it works in the interim.


----------



## usc1995

hanser said:


> The reason is interior decorating  It is our living room which contains lots of stuff, also from my wife. Also, there are openings up to the ceiling at the left and right side, so no place to mount middle height speakers. Trust me, the only place to add speakers without frictions is as I said at the back wall.
> 
> Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


It can be pretty challenging getting the bouncy speakers to wor effectively. In addition to placing them at an angle that will place the sound in your seating position you need to have a smooth normal height ceiling. With that said, some people have had very good results with them (like @phatfreeza aka The Legendary Brown Note from YouTube). I personally think Atmos is the best thing since discreet 5.1 so I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying to make it work especially if you are upgrading your AVR anyway. Since your seating is near the back wall you might be able to make it work if you get the angles right and your ceiling complies. This why most recommend in ceiling or speakers mounted up high over the bouncy speakers.

Off topic - How do you like the Ohm Walsh speakers? I have found omnidirectional tweeters intriguing ever since I heard the $big dollar MBL speakers at an audio show. I have never heard the Ohm Walsh speakers but they seem to be the closest thing to the MBLs that are relatively affordable. I really wish they had a west coast showroom so I could satisfy my curiosity...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich 63

hanser said:


> I could install only 2 speakers since can only install them at the back wall. 4 Speakers there would not make sense,right?
> I have Ohm Walsh 2000 mains and Ohm Microwalsh for center and surround. I can´t put Atmos speakers on the top of this type of speaker, and Ohm does not offer Atmos or height speakers. Also an Ohm set would come quite costly and there is not enough Atmos material available to be worth it. I just want to play with it a bit.


Nice speakers. I think what's being asked is why can they only go on the back wall as opposed to the recommended positions? Is your avr 5.x.2 or greater?
I've tried bounce atmos. Didn't work in my room. Tried front heights. Better but not enough . Now top middle. That was the sweet spot for 5.x.2. This was what I had for 3 years. I just went 5.x.4. Wow. Not just left to right overheads sounds, but front to back.
Regards Rich


----------



## Rich 63

To follow up the use of a phish line works very well to get wire were you need it.


----------



## howard68

Can someone confirm that Roger Walters us and them blue ray in Usa has a Dolby Amos track


----------



## hanser

usc1995 said:


> It can be pretty challenging getting the bouncy speakers to wor effectively. In addition to placing them at an angle that will place the sound in your seating position you need to have a smooth normal height ceiling. With that said, some people have had very good results with them (like @phatfreeza aka The Legendary Brown Note from YouTube). I personally think Atmos is the best thing since discreet 5.1 so I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying to make it work especially if you are upgrading your AVR anyway. Since your seating is near the back wall you might be able to make it work if you get the angles right and your ceiling complies. This why most recommend in ceiling or speakers mounted up high over the bouncy speakers.
> 
> Off topic - How do you like the Ohm Walsh speakers? I have found omnidirectional tweeters intriguing ever since I heard the $big dollar MBL speakers at an audio show. I have never heard the Ohm Walsh speakers but they seem to be the closest thing to the MBLs that are relatively affordable. I really wish they had a west coast showroom so I could satisfy my curiosity...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thank you for your comments, all of you. Taken together it is doubtful that it would work nicely. So, once I have a Atmos capable system I will just try it with a small bookshelf speaker at those positions that are possible to get an impression for myself if it is worth it to invest money. Obviously the best solution is to buy 4 Ohm small Omni surround speakers and mount them near the upper corners, but as I said this is for the moment difficult. I will think about options. 

About the Off topic question: Those speakers are truly great. I had B&W CDM7NT based system before, and this is a whole different league in realistic music reproduction. As far as I know they offer a very long at home testing which I would recommend since the room is important here. And also, those speakers have a really long break-in period which makes a profound difference in sound. I can only recommend those speakers to all who want excellent sound reproduction for music and movie.


----------



## hanser

Rich 63 said:


> Nice speakers. I think what's being asked is why can they only go on the back wall as opposed to the recommended positions? Is your avr 5.x.2 or greater?
> I've tried bounce atmos. Didn't work in my room. Tried front heights. Better but not enough . Now top middle. That was the sweet spot for 5.x.2. This was what I had for 3 years. I just went 5.x.4. Wow. Not just left to right overheads sounds, but front to back.
> Regards Rich


Then with 4 Atmos speakers the front 2 get a different signal than the back 2? or is this a result from the mixing with the sound from other speakers?


----------



## JohnRichmond

howard68 said:


> Can someone confirm that Roger Walters us and them blue ray in Usa has a Dolby Amos track


It doesn't appear to have Atmos. At least, it's not listed on the outside of the case.


----------



## usc1995

howard68 said:


> Can someone confirm that Roger Walters us and them blue ray in Usa has a Dolby Amos track


While there doesnt Seem to be any information about the codec used on the outside packaging, Blu-ray.com indicates that this is an Atmos release Roger Waters: Us + Them Blu-ray Release Date October 2, 2020


----------



## chikoo

batpig said:


> I don't know about the Atmos mix, but everyone would be better off pretending Matrix 2 and 3 do not exist, and just watching the original three times in a row instead.


Truth!


----------



## JohnRichmond

JohnRichmond said:


> It doesn't appear to have Atmos. At least, it's not listed on the outside of the case.


Turns out I was wrong. It does have a 7.1 TruHD Atmos track.


----------



## niterida

hanser said:


> Then with 4 Atmos speakers the front 2 get a different signal than the back 2? or is this a result from the mixing with the sound from other speakers?


Yes - Every speaker will recieve its own discrete signal. That is how Atmos can put sound effects anywhere in the 3d bubble around you.


----------



## Ricoflashback

hanser said:


> The reason is interior decorating  It is our living room which contains lots of stuff, also from my wife. Also, there are openings up to the ceiling at the left and right side, so no place to mount middle height speakers. Trust me, the only place to add speakers without frictions is as I said at the back wall.
> 
> Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


***Picture of your room? That would help everyone visualize what you’re up against, WAF considerations acknowledged.


----------



## Rich 63

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Picture of your room? That would help everyone visualize what you’re up against, WAF considerations acknowledged.


 Agreed. Sometime others see something that we don't. And many of us deal with the wife too. Although I've found a nice gift usually works to alleviate resistance.


----------



## chikoo

hanser said:


> Then with 4 Atmos speakers the front 2 get a different signal than the back 2? or is this a result from the mixing with the sound from other speakers?


You tell the AVR where the speakers are located + thru the calibration process.
The AVR will then use these speakers interactively to direct and transition sound. In other words, it will be doing what a sound/mixing engineer would do in a studio. The AVR does it dynamically.


----------



## am2model3

if you can add 2 rear speakers for atmos, i say go for it! 2 is better than none! Else new receivers have DTS:VirtualX and VirtualDolbyAtmos for 2ch or 5ch setups; but those won't sound as good.


----------



## batpig

hanser said:


> Why do you think, Atmos speakers behind me do not offer much benefit? The reddit link given above indicates otherwise.


First, Reddit is NOT a place to get quality, accurate info about home theater. The Reddit HT group is full of loudmouths who think they know more than they do, and there's tons of misinformation (and very little curation).

I would say it depends how far behind you they are. And how high they are. It's all about angles. 

If you are 2 feet from the rear wall, and they are mounted 6 above ear level, then you'll still hear it as "overhead" because they are >70 degrees elevated relative to your ears.

If it's 6 feet back and you can only mount them 4 feet above ear level, that's really a "Top Rear" position and the elevation angle isn't high enough for your brain to really hear it as "above you". At that point I would likely just run a 7.1 setup and call them back surrounds.


----------



## NightToDay

So having moved across country into a very old home (was renovated, but still) where the basement ceiling is only like 6'8 or 9" inches, I'm assuming dolby atmos wouldn't work too well in the ceiling? I'm running speaker wire and ethernet wire in the basement and have to fix a light or two, so was thinking of putting it in, but not sure if its even worth it due to that size. I don't know if angled speakers would work or be worth it to compensate for the height (or if it even matters) with the angles. My old house would, but alas 

I currently have a 5.1 set up and the room is about 12ft by 28ft long (space used will be closer to 12x15ish as the other space will be office, game table etc). TV will be and seating direction will be the 12 ft (so about 9ish ft away from the tv will be the seating spot). I know a lot of people might say go for a 5.2 setup (which I might later), but since I'm already up in the ceiling anyways was seeing if it would even be worth it for a 5.1.4 set up.

Figured I'd ask people with some experience.

Thanks all.


----------



## chi_guy50

NightToDay said:


> So having moved across country into a very old home (was renovated, but still) where the basement ceiling is only like 6'8 or 9" inches, I'm assuming dolby atmos wouldn't work too well in the ceiling? I'm running speaker wire and ethernet wire in the basement and have to fix a light or two, so was thinking of putting it in, but not sure if its even worth it due to that size. I don't know if angled speakers would work or be worth it to compensate for the height (or if it even matters) with the angles. My old house would, but alas
> 
> I currently have a 5.1 set up and the room is about 12ft by 28ft long (space used will be closer to 12x15ish as the other space will be office, game table etc). TV will be and seating direction will be the 12 ft (so about 9ish ft away from the tv will be the seating spot). I know a lot of people might say go for a 5.2 setup (which I might later), but since I'm already up in the ceiling anyways was seeing if it would even be worth it for a 5.1.4 set up.
> 
> Figured I'd ask people with some experience.
> 
> Thanks all.


That's a VERY low ceiling. 

Obviously, you would want to use in-ceiling speakers, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't go for it. The first step is to work out the best positions for your five ear-level speakers, which is the most important aspect in the surround-sound setup. Next, diagram the positioning of one or (better) two pairs of overheads relative to the MLP. If you can achieve proper overhead positioning (i.e., one pair above or slightly in front of the MLP or two pair fore and aft) while maintaining enough separation from the ear-level speakers so that they do not blend together, it should result in a satisfying three-dimensional output.


----------



## am2model3

go for it! dolby atmos is worth it!


----------



## NightToDay

chi_guy50 said:


> That's a VERY low ceiling.
> 
> Obviously, you would want to use in-ceiling speakers, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't go for it. The first step is to work out the best positions for your five ear-level speakers, which is the most important aspect in the surround-sound setup. Next, diagram the positioning of one or (better) two pairs of overheads relative to the MLP. If you can achieve proper overhead positioning (i.e., one pair above or slightly in front of the MLP or two pair fore and aft) while maintaining enough separation from the ear-level speakers so that they do not blend together, it should result in a satisfying three-dimensional output.


oh yes I know its quite a low ceiling lol. Damn 1950's homes and such. If the house wasn't completely redone and looks amazing 2 years ago I'd attempt to fix it but for one minor issue in the end where I don't have ideal dolby atmos height? Naw lol

The main 5 speakers I'll be able to properly set up as I'll have the space running long ways with the room and some speaker stands. So I'll be able to achieve that with the surrounds playing with it some.

For the atmos speakers, I'm thinking the angled speakers would be especially better due to the small ceiling, giving me more flexibility to aim it since I won't have as much dispersion?

So from what I understand when setting them up, do I need to measure my seating position head level to the ceiling, and then run it that far away from the couch in both directions? so if its 3 ft from my head to the ceiling for example, do I run it 3 ft in front (following the front speakers path) and 3 ft back? Then angle the speakers it to the opposite side of the couch? 

For the rear atmos the room is not a perfect square, I have a little cubby kind of area in the back. So one rear speaker will be plenty away from the wall, while one speaker will be basically up against the wall. How far should it be off the wall and how much impact does an angled speaker counteract that if any? Just wondering as it would potentially bounce off the wall.


----------



## NightToDay

am2model3 said:


> go for it! dolby atmos is worth it!


Ha thanks, I'm hoping it will actually make a difference since the ceiling is so freaking low (damn super old homes). Can't find anybody that has tried it sub 7 ft so that makes me even more nervous lol.


----------



## niterida

NightToDay said:


> For the atmos speakers, I'm thinking the angled speakers would be especially better due to the small ceiling, giving me more flexibility to aim it since I won't have as much dispersion?
> 
> So from what I understand when setting them up, do I need to measure my seating position head level to the ceiling, and then run it that far away from the couch in both directions? so if its 3 ft from my head to the ceiling for example, do I run it 3 ft in front (following the front speakers path) and 3 ft back? Then angle the speakers it to the opposite side of the couch?
> 
> For the rear atmos the room is not a perfect square, I have a little cubby kind of area in the back. So one rear speaker will be plenty away from the wall, while one speaker will be basically up against the wall. How far should it be off the wall and how much impact does an angled speaker counteract that if any? Just wondering as it would potentially bounce off the wall.


Yes

Yes

Mount it where the angles tell you it should go - don't worry about how far from walls, especially with angled baffle.

Sit back and Enjoy


----------



## sdurani

NightToDay said:


> I'm hoping it will actually make a difference since the ceiling is so freaking low (damn super old homes).


Can you tell the difference between a sound at ear level vs a sound 3.5 feet above you? If so, doing an Atmos set-up will make for a noticeable difference, since you'll be able to separate sounds around you (base layer) from sound above you (height layer). Your current 2D ring of sound will become a 3D bubble of sound. Even with your freaking low ceiling.


----------



## batpig

The biggest challenge with low ceilings is that the overhead speakers are so close to you, which means that coverage / dispersion will be a challenge, as will "hot spotting".

Very few speakers have the kind of dispersion to cover a wide seating area when the speaker is only a few feet away, those are such steep angles.

I would want to use a very wide dispersion speaker, with an angled baffle to allow to aim them. Something like the RSL C34e would work, since they are round you can also rotate them to aim properly. I would probably "over-toe" the speakers so they are aimed a little bit past the center point, placing you (in the middle) slightly off axis to reduce the hot-spotting.

You can also (although this is sinful in Atmos world) use bipole or even dipole ceiling speakers to decrease the direct sound and increase the off-axis energy (again to increase coverage + reduce hot-spotting).


----------



## Rich 63

Have a 7.2ft ceiling with small bookshelf speakers. Atoms in fact. Have them 3.4 ft from bed speakers at tweeter. Right on the edge of Dolby recommendations. Originally had 5.4.2 but upgraded recently to 5.4.4. Sounds fantastic. Had to get angles right but when the wife comments on the sound unprovoked you know your golden. Absolutely go for it. And yes I imagine having them higher would be better still but you work with what you have.


----------



## NightToDay

Alright well you all convinced me, I'll go for it. I'll just have to toy with the angles quite a bit and mess with the AV level volumes if it over powers too much. We shall see how it goes, hopefully the effect will be good enough for me to be satisfied


----------



## niterida

NightToDay said:


> Alright well you all convinced me, I'll go for it. I'll just have to toy with the angles quite a bit and mess with the AV level volumes if it over powers too much. We shall see how it goes, hopefully the effect will be good enough for me to be satisfied


As already stated by others - just make sure you get in-ceiling speakers with angled baffles. The higher the angle the better, but unfortunately the higher the angle the more expensive. You can get 15, 30 and 45 deg angled baffles - get the best / most angled you can comfortably afford.


----------



## Terence Parrish

Polyrythm1k said:


> Well we all have our battles to pick right?! Lol. I sometimes have to remind my wife that I pay the mortgage too. We try to be fair.
> As far as the Reddit link, I think there’s some misinformation there. For one, the guys who says the automated setup routine will fix 90% of the problem is just wrong. Audyssey will set levels, distance and EQ but it can’t overcome a physical speaker location. Atmos speakers behind...well I’ll give my opinion. Atmos is not designed to work that way. It uses XYZ coordinates to render sounds in 3D space, most of which will be in front of you. Kinda like jazzrock said about stereo imaging, the speakers have to at least be close to the required locations. Atmos IS very forgiving. But not magic...
> Also, imagine a plane flying from front to back overhead. Ime it would sound very distracting to hear it above and behind while still being tied to the screen/LCR. I agree with those that say any Atmos I’d better than no Atmos. But this might be a case of maybe not... If it really matters to you, it might be a good time for a heart to heart with the wife.


Also, imagine a plane flying from front to back overhead. Ime it would sound very distracting to hear it above and behind while still being tied to the screen/LCR.
Well, if that is what you see, and hear I'd say that the sound mixer definitely got it wrong! As the plane goes from the front to the rear, at some point the plane will not be visible on the screen, and the sound from the rear heights will be heard correctly.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Terence Parrish said:


> Also, imagine a plane flying from front to back overhead. Ime it would sound very distracting to hear it above and behind while still being tied to the screen/LCR.
> Well, if that is what you see, and hear I'd say that the sound mixer definitely got it wrong! As the plane goes from the front to the rear, at some point the plane will not be visible on the screen, and the sound from the rear heights will be heard correctly.


But my point was trying to illustrate that it would not track correctly. It would teleport from the screen to behind you. Kinda like if your mains are too far to the sides and say a car pans off screen. The sound should follow the vehicle moving off screen. 
So the mixer wouldn’t have gotten it wrong. The installation would be wrong. I’m imagining the Dolby helicopter demo. I think it would be pretty messed up with heights/tops behind the MLP. It’s not designed to work that way, or Dolby would have a supported rear height/top only.


----------



## Terence Parrish

Polyrythm1k said:


> But my point was trying to illustrate that it would not track correctly. It would teleport from the screen to behind you. Kinda like if your mains are too far to the sides and say a car pans off screen. The sound should follow the vehicle moving off screen.
> So the mixer wouldn’t have gotten it wrong. The installation would be wrong. I’m imagining the Dolby helicopter demo. I think it would be pretty messed up with heights/tops behind the MLP. It’s not designed to work that way, or Dolby would have a supported rear height/top only.



I guess it's what works for us individually, I'm running front, and rear heights with a 5.1.4. The Dolby helicopter does a great circle above in my room, but my room is a little less than 14' square


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Terence Parrish said:


> I guess it's what works for us individually, I'm running front, and rear heights with a 5.1.4. The Dolby helicopter does a great circle above in my room, but my room is a little less than 14' square


But you don’t have all four heights behind you correct?


----------



## Terence Parrish

Polyrythm1k said:


> But you don’t have all four heights behind you correct?


Hey, if that's how he is setup, I APOLOGIZE VEHEMENTLY. I tried to understand his configuration, I must have missed that very interesting, and important factor. I recant my statement


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Terence Parrish said:


> Hey, if that's how he is setup, I APOLOGIZE VEHEMENTLY. I tried to understand his configuration, I must have missed that very interesting, and important factor. I recant my statement


Rofl! I had a feeling we weren’t talking about the same thing lol. I don’t think he’s set up that way yet, but it seemed he was considering going there. I hope @hanser can make a case to the war dept for better placement. Of course I kid when I say that, but a shared space is that. Shared...
If nothing else our chat has been interesting! 
I also agree with your earlier point. I have 7.3.4(I know, I’ll get flamed. It’s 7.1.4 lol) and it’s awesome. I also have a direct mount BOSS and just ordered more JBL’s to make it complete. Despite the crazy world were in, it’s a great time to enjoy HT!!!


----------



## hanser

Thanks for all your help and input. I am still in preliminary deliberations about Atmos since I do not have an Atmos enabled receiver yet. I was just playing around, what if I got one. I realized that my idea to start with only back height speakers is not a good one. Additionally, the spacious sound production by my Ohm speakers already give me some height illusion in the soundfield, so if I want to improve on that, I should do it right. For the moment, it put the project on ice, since I do not own many movies with Atmos soundtrack and am quite happy with my system as it is. Once I upgrade my receiver (this will become necessary when I upgrade my projector to 4k), I will return to the problem and start thinking about possible larger modifications in the room. It is not that my wife would not be understanding, it is rather, that we are very happy with our hybrid living room/home cinema for the moment, and I do not want to shift the balance to much to the home cinema aspect of it. Also I do not want to invest too much money in Atmos which would be only seldom in use. But I will see about that when it is time. Again, thanks for the important informations!


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> First, Reddit is NOT a place to get quality, accurate info about home theater. The Reddit HT group is full of loudmouths who think they know more than they do


Yeah, we _never _get that here. 



> I would say it depends how far behind you they are. And how high they are. It's all about angles.


What I think many people overlook, particularly in larger home theaters is that the Dolby diagrams are typically based around one couch. They only show 3 rows when they get to 11.1.6. They also change the height speaker ranges as they go to 6 overheads (down from 30 degrees minimum to 20 degrees) precisely because it's not the actual height that matters in terms of the absolute angle, but the relative distance between speaker pairs. As you add more overhead speakers, the angles will decrease between speaker pairs for better phantom imaging cohesiveness and thus lower angles can be used without ill effect on direct overhead imaging, for example. 

In a large enough room with 10 overhead speakers and multiple rows of seating, the front and rear extremes may be out of bounds to the minimums (It will likely happen in an actual movie theater too unless the ceilings are very tall indeed), but that doesn't really matter because those relative angles are still on the same plane. A real object moving along the ceiling will also decrease in its relative angle as it moves along. Yes, it becomes more difficult to tell the overheads from the ear level speakers, but that's true of real objects as well the further away they go at the same height level, even airplanes which may sound as though they are dropping in altitude as they pass overhead very quickly, but in fact are slowly going upward. Their relative angle is simply lower. Thus, the larger your home theater, the more likely the precise angles become meaningless as you have to accommodate many rows of seating, not just the MLP. 

For example, if you were going to go with an 11.1.10 setup, with even interval spacing, you'd be putting mains and front heights at 0%, front wides and Top front at 25%, Side Surround and Top Middle at 50%, Side-surround#1 and Top Rear at 75% and Rear heights at 100% distance into the room. If the room was extra wide and had 6+ seats across, you'd probably want to add center-left and center-right speakers to keep imaging across the front soundstage relatively even for all seats. Otherwise, the precedence effect would start pulling to the nearest speaker as you get off-center. As long as the intervals line up above and below (as in that example), it also generally meets the Auro-3D layout criteria in the y-axis plane (of having overheads above their ear-level counterparts). 

Frankly, I think Auro should have allowed Top Middle to function as Surround Height and Atmos to allow Surround Height to function as Top Middle as in most home cinema rooms, the distance is often very small between these locations on the x-axis and it sounds perfectly fine with the speaker off-axis only a small amount (the panning array will halve the apparent distance in-between leading to a shallower diagonal line of movement and with a matrixed set, it will be half nearly the entire distance).


----------



## Harkon

Need to finalise locations for Atmos speakers, now all the joists are in. I've marked what I think.. Brown shows the joist locations and the steel running across the room. Ceilings are 7.5ft (I'm inthe UK) and the room is only 12ft by 13ft. 

I've labelled *MLP*, *Atmos* locations and *pelmet*. TopFronts will be inceiling, TopRears in the pelmet - both approx 45 deg. 

*LCR* (Red) shown for context. 

Due to the pelmet and joist spacing they will be just inside the Left and Right speaker locations. That works out at about 45deg for both = fronts are 3.5ft in front and rears are 2.5ft behind. (Measured parallel to the walls not line of sight from MLP)

I wondered about bringing the fronts, the other side of the steel and bringing them closer so the distance was the same.


----------



## bass addict

Next logical upgrade path for Atmos? I am currently running 7.1.4 but currently have speakers installed and wired for front heights, and wired for either front wides or top middle.

I have a very narrow room (after treatments a little over 10' 6" wide) and the current issue is it feels like there is a slight gap between the mains and surround due to the front speaker width. I upgraded to Volt 10's and love how much better these are at surround duty than my Axiom QS8's, but they also seem to exaggerate the hole between mains and surrounds.

I'm worried that FW's won't get mixed with most of my titles however as Atmos discs are a small percentage of overall library. TM's require the most destruction however as I have to hack into a 2 tiered rope lighting sofit; whereas FW's could be more easily integrated.

Thoughts?


----------



## Harkon

DTS upmixer will utilise front sides though and rumours were that Dolby upmixer will do the same.


----------



## Josh Z

Harkon said:


> DTS upmixer will utilise front sides though and rumours were that Dolby upmixer will do the same.


Yes, but that won't solve the problem of Atmos tracks that are authored as 7.1.4 channels (such as most from Disney) or others that disable/skip the Front Wide speakers (like Into the Spider-Verse).


----------



## Harkon

I agree. I can’t decide at the moment about using front wides or just moving surrounds to 80deg to fill the gap. (Running back surrounds as well)


----------



## bass addict

And that's the conundrum. Upgrading to either the 8500 or 8808 and adding yet another amp (currently running Outlaw 7) is a huge expenditure if you're FW's are sitting idle 75% of the time.


----------



## Josh Z

bass addict said:


> And that's the conundrum. Upgrading to either the 8500 or 8808 and adding yet another amp (currently running Outlaw 7) is a huge expenditure if you're FW's are sitting idle 75% of the time.


Is more than 75% of the content you watch authored in Atmos? And of that content authored in Atmos, are you sure that none of it uses the Front Wides? The 7.1.4 channels issue is primarily a Disney problem.

After the firmware update, both Neural:X and DSU will upmix to the Front Wide channels, so those speakers will be active with anything upmixed from 2.0 to 7.1.


----------



## bass addict

Josh Z said:


> Is more than 75% of the content you watch authored in Atmos? And of that content authored in Atmos, are you sure that none of it uses the Front Wides? The 7.1.4 channels issue is primarily a Disney problem.
> 
> After the firmware update, both Neural:X and DSU will upmix to the Front Wide channels, so those speakers will be active with anything upmixed from 2.0 to 7.1.


I'd say a good majority of the titles going forward will be Atmos. I just upgraded to NX7 and have been replacing all my current titles (worth replacing) with 4k/Atmos versions. 

I heard a little bit about an update but apparently need to do some more research. If Atmos includes FW as discreet channels and everything else will upmix to them regardless of encoding; then it makes sense to implement I feel. If not; then TM makes more sense. 

Next question now is; how much do you need to angle the FW's would you think? I generally try to aim at center but as you know; angling a 10" driver causes it to stick into the room quite a bit. With a narrow room I'm trying to keep it as close to a wall hugger as possible.


----------



## sdurani

Harkon said:


> I can’t decide at the moment about using front sides or just moving surrounds to 80deg to fill the gap.


By "front sides" do you mean Wides? Also, what receiver are you planning on using?


----------



## tommarra

Folks a quick question about Wides in 9.1.6 setup


I have an 16 channel receiver which I am running as 7.1.6. I have two unused channels in my processor, as well as a spare Peachtree Nova 150 amp and a pair of B&W DM601 speakers. I was planning to test a 9.1.6 setup but wanted to know how important is it to match the surrounds and rears to the wide channels (or the LCR and Wides). 

My surrounds and rears are B&W 684, the DM601 are obviously smaller bookshelf with similar but not the same sound signature. Would you think it would be okay to mix match different series B&W speakers for Wides and Surrounds.

Also how often are Wides realistically used and how important are they as compared to the other 7 bed channels?

Thanks in advance


----------



## rec head

tommarra said:


> Folks a quick question about Wides in 9.1.6 setup
> 
> 
> I have an 16 channel receiver which I am running as 7.1.6. I have two unused channels in my processor, as well as a spare Peachtree Nova 150 amp and a pair of B&W DM601 speakers. I was planning to test a 9.1.6 setup but wanted to know how important is it to match the surrounds and rears to the wide channels (or the LCR and Wides).
> 
> My surrounds and rears are B&W 684, the DM601 are obviously smaller bookshelf with similar but not the same sound signature. Would you think it would be okay to mix match different series B&W speakers for Wides and Surrounds.
> 
> Also how often are Wides realistically used and how important are they as compared to the other 7 bed channels?
> 
> Thanks in advance


For testing I would move the rear speakers to the wide location and put the DM601 in the rear. That should take away the guess work of wondering if they are similar enough.


----------



## rec head

bass addict said:


> I'd say a good majority of the titles going forward will be Atmos. I just upgraded to NX7 and have been replacing all my current titles (worth replacing) with 4k/Atmos versions.


I was doing this but with madVR upscaling video and DTS:X upmixng 7.1 I think I have wasted some money on new discs. Of course some rereleases are better than others but for a lot of content I get more audio from the upmix than I do from native Atmos. With previous gen upmixers I had some problems but I have never heard something that sounded out of place with DTS:X


----------



## bass addict

Interesting.


----------



## Scott Simonian

bass addict said:


> Next logical upgrade path for Atmos? I am currently running 7.1.4 but currently have speakers installed and wired for front heights, and wired for either front wides or top middle.
> 
> I have a very narrow room (after treatments a little over 10' 6" wide) and the current issue is it feels like there is a slight gap between the mains and surround due to the front speaker width. I upgraded to Volt 10's and love how much better these are at surround duty than my Axiom QS8's, but they also seem to exaggerate the hole between mains and surrounds.
> 
> I'm worried that FW's won't get mixed with most of my titles however as Atmos discs are a small percentage of overall library. TM's require the most destruction however as I have to hack into a 2 tiered rope lighting sofit; whereas FW's could be more easily integrated.
> 
> *Thoughts?*




Are you upgrading just for wides (or more channels)? Are you simply trying to scratch an itch to get something new and "better"?

Move your surrounds a bit forward for free. See if that helps.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Are you upgrading just for wides (or more channels)? Are you simply trying to scratch an itch to get something new and "better"?
> 
> Move your surrounds a bit forward for free. See if that helps.


Ummm, they're stuck lol.


----------



## tommarra

rec head said:


> For testing I would move the rear speakers to the wide location and put the DM601 in the rear. That should take away the guess work of wondering if they are similar enough.


Since the rear surrounds are part of named Channels for which audio information could be hard coded in the mix I want to make sure that the Surrounds and Rears are the same.

I am trying to figure out if the wides should be identical to rest of the surrounds or if I should just go and try to get some used 684s for the wide. It all depends on how much of the track comes from the wides. If it’s only minor atmospherics then I would save some $$$ and go with DM601.

I know I could just put the DM601 in the wide position and try it out (but I want to reduce the time required to run a Dirac calibration ...if there is consensus that Wides are very important to match to rest of surrounds)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

Harkon said:


> Need to finalise locations for Atmos speakers, now all the joists are in. I've marked what I think.. Brown shows the joist locations and the steel running across the room. Ceilings are 7.5ft (I'm inthe UK) and the room is only 12ft by 13ft.
> 
> I've labelled *MLP*, *Atmos* locations and *pelmet*. TopFronts will be inceiling, TopRears in the pelmet - both approx 45 deg.
> 
> *LCR* (Red) shown for context.
> 
> Due to the pelmet and joist spacing they will be just inside the Left and Right speaker locations. That works out at about 45deg for both = fronts are 3.5ft in front and rears are 2.5ft behind. (Measured parallel to the walls not line of sight from MLP)
> 
> I wondered about bringing the fronts, the other side of the steel and bringing them closer so the distance was the same.
> 
> View attachment 3052496


Assuming it is 3.5ft from your ears to the ceiling, I would leave the fronts where they are, unless the beam is obstructing them from the MLP ?


----------



## Harkon

No the beam is hidden in the ceiling and the speakers will be in ceiling (flush mounted) to give as much distance to ears as possible.


----------



## bass addict

Scott Simonian said:


> Are you upgrading just for wides (or more channels)? Are you simply trying to scratch an itch to get something new and "better"?
> 
> Move your surrounds a bit forward for free. See if that helps.


And yes, I'm scratching an itch. I ordered the 8500h to replace my yammy 3050 which I bought when I anticipated originally finishing the theater overhaul. Fast forward 5 years lol. Hooking up the yammy I'm just not loving it as much as my old denons. But if I can improve the experience why not. I think wides could help the transition from mains to surround. And maybe not lol.


----------



## rec head

tommarra said:


> Since the rear surrounds are part of named Channels for which audio information could be hard coded in the mix I want to make sure that the Surrounds and Rears are the same.
> 
> I am trying to figure out if the wides should be identical to rest of the surrounds or if I should just go and try to get some used 684s for the wide. It all depends on how much of the track comes from the wides. If it’s only minor atmospherics then I would save some $$$ and go with DM601.
> 
> I know I could just put the DM601 in the wide position and try it out (but I want to reduce the time required to run a Dirac calibration ...if there is consensus that Wides are very important to match to rest of surrounds)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you're worried about rears being same as the surrounds even though your hearing is much less attuned to hearing things behind you then you should get matching speakers. You won't be happy with anything else.

If you just want to try wides, I am suggesting taking the rears and using them in the wide position just to see if you like wides. The wide position is in front of you so if there is a difference between speakers it will be more noticeable in front of you than behind.


----------



## bassballboy

Are there any budget receiver options that will do 3.1.4? I'm building out my basement setup, and I plan to do 5.1.4 via a Denon x3700 but I'm considering buying a cheaper receiver for now until the HDMI 2.1 issue is resolved in a future generation. 

I was looking at possibly the s750 or Yamaha RX-V585 but am not beholden to any particular receiver


----------



## Rich 63

Neither one of those can do any more then 3.1.2 though. Not sure what your wanting to do. Make your dream system now and enjoy it. As far as I'm concerned hdmi 2.1 is irelivent. There will be no content avaliable for many years that needs the 2.1 designation unless you game. Atmos will stay streamed in lossy dd plus from all providers for years as well. Less then probably 10 percent of content is being made above 1080p for God's sake. Everybody obsessing about 2.1 issues needs to understand that it is not that big a deal to 99.9 percent of the population so it won't be to electronics manufacturers either.. 
So as mentioned get what you want now. There is no such thing as future proofing in electronics unless it's speakers.


----------



## batpig

bassballboy said:


> Are there any budget receiver options that will do 3.1.4? I'm building out my basement setup, and I plan to do 5.1.4 via a Denon x3700 but I'm considering buying a cheaper receiver for now until the HDMI 2.1 issue is resolved in a future generation.
> 
> I was looking at possibly the s750 or Yamaha RX-V585 but am not beholden to any particular receiver


I'm pretty sure nothing supports 3.1.4 as it's not a "legal" Atmos layout.


----------



## bassballboy

Rich 63 said:


> Neither one of those can do any more then 3.1.2 though. Not sure what your wanting to do. Make your dream system now and enjoy it. As far as I'm concerned hdmi 2.1 is irelivent. There will be no content avaliable for many years that needs the 2.1 designation unless you game. Atmos will stay streamed in lossy dd plus from all providers for years as well. Less then probably 10 percent of content is being made above 1080p for God's sake. Everybody obsessing about 2.1 issues needs to understand that it is not that big a deal to 99.9 percent of the population so it won't be to electronics manufacturers either..
> So as mentioned get what you want now. There is no such thing as future proofing in electronics unless it's speakers.


I game, have the new Xbox coming on Tuesday.... $1200 is a lot to me, I may end up just getting it but it bothers me doing that kind of $ when the tech isn't quite right yet


----------



## Rich 63

bassballboy said:


> I game, have the new Xbox coming on Tuesday.... $1200 is a lot to me, I may end up just getting it but it bothers me doing that kind of $ when the tech isn't quite right yet


So your gaming experience is key? I game all the time with a ps4. Never had an issue. Plus gaming only accounts for 20% of my entertainment enjoyment. It is very small incrimental improvements in tech that your concerned with. You could also look for an older higher end avr on clearance instead. I just picked up a 4300h for with a good warrenty for about the same as you will pay for both the units you mentioned.
Rich


----------



## Harkon

sdurani said:


> By "front sides" do you mean Wides? Also, what receiver are you planning on using?


Front Wides, yes sorry - have now corrected my typo. 

Denon 4400 with additional amplification to run 7.2.4 

If I ever do 9.1.4 then receiver/processer would also need upgrading.


----------



## tommarra

rec head said:


> If you're worried about rears being same as the surrounds even though your hearing is much less attuned to hearing things behind you then you should get matching speakers. You won't be happy with anything else.
> 
> If you just want to try wides, I am suggesting taking the rears and using them in the wide position just to see if you like wides. The wide position is in front of you so if there is a difference between speakers it will be more noticeable in front of you than behind.


Actually that is fair. Can I get one more piece of advice - do you think its better to have full range speakers as widess vs. the bookshelf.

Only reason I ask that lugging the rears to the wides is a difficult task for my old back 

Or can I get by with having just bookshelf as wides


----------



## rec head

In my room none of my speakers can be considered full range due to placement. The front 3 are nice speakers but placement doesn't give them much bass. My subs however do. The rest of my speakers are bookshelf types. So all my speakers are crossed over to a sub I don't have anything full range. 

To try wides just put some speakers there and see if you like them or notice an improvement. You are voicing concerns about speaker matching. My real advice is just try anything. My better advice is to try something and try to enjoy it. Don't over think it.


----------



## tommarra

rec head said:


> In my room none of my speakers can be considered full range due to placement. The front 3 are nice speakers but placement doesn't give them much bass. My subs however do. The rest of my speakers are bookshelf types. So all my speakers are crossed over to a sub I don't have anything full range.
> 
> To try wides just put some speakers there and see if you like them or notice an improvement. You are voicing concerns about speaker matching. My real advice is just try anything. My better advice is to try something and try to enjoy it. Don't over think it.


True words - its like what I tell my 4 yo - I wouldnt know if I liked something if I didnt try


----------



## sdurani

Harkon said:


> Denon 4400 with additional amplification to run 7.2.4


In that case, move the Side speakers slightly forward of the main listening position to better fill the gap.


----------



## bryantc

Disney's Mulan is a true object-based Atmos track...


----------



## am2model3

just re-watched & listened to Star Wars Episode V: Empire Strikes Back on 4K UHD Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 last night with my kids! wow, the soundtrack sounded really good for an old soundtrack in Atmos! I could hear lots of great effects all around me, panning, and height effects as well!


----------



## MagnumX

On Front Wide speakers....

Just as a center channel is meant for people sitting off-center (to the left or right of the main listening position that's typically in the center), front wides are mostly for people sitting off-center (on either axis) relative to the Front Mains and Side Surround. If you're sitting in the MLP that's more or less centered in a given room, it is unlikely you will notice much of a difference with or without the front wides (assuming they're placed correctly with matching speakers and you're not significantly off-axis). However, if you sit in the back of the room, far from the mains (thinking of the rooms I see with couches at or near the back wall), then front wides might very well make a big difference as there's a greater distance between the mains and sides than you and the sides and rears probably aren't needed. If you're in a very large room, you might need both to give all seats a nice circular bubble image, but even there the MLP might not need either one for a full circle. There's been some commentary even in the Trinnov thread about 7.1.4 being ideal for most small to medium sized rooms if you really only use the MLP (several there were unable to hear any audible difference with a blind test between using 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 or greater as long as they were sitting in the MLP. One guest reportedly got it wrong every time).

I often get the feeling that people think adding front wides will give them some new location (like overheads or rears compared to 5.1), but they're meant to be a "fill" speaker (hard speaker location halfway between the mains and [side] surrounds), meant for either off-axis seats or larger rooms where phantom imaging is poor between speaker sets. They should sit in the same location the phantom image appears without them in the Dolby channel demos (MP4 version that doesn't use the "Snap To" function). If you care about your guest listeners or enjoy sitting off-center or have a very large room, yes they're a great upgrade. I think one of the reasons they were dumped in most 11.1 AVRs was that they just aren't needed in most rooms for just 1 or 2 listeners (and let's face it, some people couldn't care less about the imaging, a common complaint about many significant others who'd rather have no speakers in the room). 

Now if you are putting front wides in some odd location (off an imaginary "circle" between speaker sets, for example), yes, they're going to sound different (e.g. wider), but they're should actually be placed on that circle where the phantom images normally form without them from the MLP. That will give a more similar imaging experience to ALL seats, not just the MLP. If you're the only listener (most of the time), you _might_ just be wasting your time and/or money. Of course, this will vary somewhat depending on matching speakers, room interactions and accuracy of placement. There _could_ still be more subtle audible changes regardless in many rooms even at the MLP. 

If front wides were used for spatial purposes (room simulation) like Auro-3D does for unused channels (sadly, it doesn't support wides), it could be used for other effects. I think this is what the Audyssey Wide mode used to do to some extent and why it sounded different with them on, but that is not how Atmos or X uses them (and Auro doesn't use them at all).


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> Just as a center channel is meant for people sitting off-center (to the left or right of the main listening position that's typically in the center), front wides are mostly for people sitting off-center (on either axis) relative to the Front Mains and Side Surround.


Not my experience.

The benefit of wides for me is a more expansive and convincing front soundfield.


----------



## Rich 63

noah katz said:


> Not my experience.
> 
> The benefit of wides for me is a more expansive and convincing front soundfield.


 Isn't that what magnum implied. Fills in but does not bring anything new.


----------



## MagnumX

noah katz said:


> Not my experience.
> 
> The benefit of wides for me is a more expansive and convincing front soundfield.


Atmos Wides go halfway between the fronts and side surrounds. Your mains and sides should already phantom in that location from the MLP with the Atmos 9.1.6 MP4 speaker demo. If they don't, I would suspect your speakers aren't set up ideally or your room is too large to phantom image without them. The 7.1.4 layout covers all the outer framework points of the Atmos bubble/circle. Everything else is located at points halfway in-between. In fact, with the full 24-bed level speaker setup, all speakers are ideally at 15 degrees apart from each other creating a circle around the listener with perfectly even panning points and it should sound almost identical for every seat in the home theater, regardless of where they are due to the relatively small angle differences (whose real purpose is to defeat the Precedence Effect). 

Likewise, the "Left-Center" speaker is between the center and left main speaker. It's not a new location. The MLP will get a nice phantom image across the entire front soundstage. But in larger theaters for off-axis seats (sitting left or right of center), it stabilizes pans across the front soundstage that would otherwise "pull" to the closer speaker that you are sitting near (e.g. If you sit 25% to the right of the main left speakers, pans will go unevenly between the left and center speakers, but with a speaker halfway between, they image much smoother from that seat. They phantom image fine from the center seat without them. But if you used different speakers, you might hear a difference in timbre or whatever as it passes by). 

Similarly, SS#1 goes halfway between the front wide and side surround speakers. SS#2 goes halfway between the side surround rear surround speakers. The angles change somewhat if you keep adding speakers because the halfway point shrinks even further with more speakers. The Dolby Atmos speaker setup guide covers all of this. I'm not just making it up off the top of my head. Remove any pair of the below speakers and it should phantom image just fine from the MLP. But as you sit forward or backward or left or right, you get uneven angles and sit closer to a given pair than another pair and the Precedence effect "pulls" it towards the closer speaker longer as it pans (same as sitting left of center without a center channel speaker does in stereo). It doesn't matter where the speakers are towards the screen or wall. The angles line up where they take them (front or side wall) and with more speakers, the angles change according to the guidelines to accommodate an even spacing between pairs. (e.g. Mains are typically at 30 degrees with 7.1.4, but with 24.1.10 they're at 45 degrees! and the Front Wides are at 60 degrees!)

I've labeled the Dolby 34.1.10 Diagram to show their angular display. With that width screen in the diagram, you wouldn't think the Left/Right Mains would be along the side walls, but that's where they ended up in that drawing. The wider they go, the more towards the screen it can go. 

Angles for Diagram with 24.1.10 (in degrees) Repeat for Left Side:

Center = 0 
RSC = 15
RC = 30 
Right Main = 45
RFW = 60
R SS#1 = 75
SSR = 90
R SS#2 = 105
Rrs1 = 120
Rear Right = 135
RRS2 = 150
RCS = 165
Rear Center = 180











Front Height = 20-30 
Top Front = 45-55 
Top Middle = 90 
Top Rear = 125-135
Rear Height = 150-160


----------



## petetherock

In reality, how far from the front pair do the wides have to go?


----------



## MagnumX

petetherock said:


> In reality, how far from the front pair do the wides have to go?


They should go at the recommended angle for that number of speakers (for 9.1.6, 50-70 degrees with 60 the ideal center point). If that leads to the front line of speakers, they go in line with them. If it leads to the side wall, it goes in line with the side wall speakers or even at a circular toe-in between the side wall and mains (if that works better). Measure the distance with a tape measure or let Audyssey do it.


----------



## noah katz

Rich 63 said:


> Isn't that what magnum implied. Fills in but does not bring anything new.


Not to me.

Phantom imaging implies discrete localization, which I can't say I experienc, perhaps due to issues that he highlighted.

In any case that's very different than the ambient spaciousness that I described.




petetherock said:


> In reality, how far from the front pair do the wides have to go?


At about 60 deg from straight ahead.


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> They should go at the recommended angle for that number of speakers (for 9.1.6, 50-70 degrees with 60 the ideal center point). If that leads to the front line of speakers, they go in line with them. If it leads to the side wall, it goes in line with the side wall speakers or even at a circular toe-in between the side wall and mains (if that works better). Measure the distance with a tape measure or let Audyssey do it.



I don't get what you mean by in line with, but again, I don't think it's relevant because angles are what matters; automatically set delays will handle distances.


----------



## MagnumX

noah katz said:


> I don't get what you mean by in line with, but again, I don't think it's relevant because angles are what matters; automatically set delays will handle distances.


 I mean you generally put speakers in a straight line relative to each other (across the front or along the side wall). That angle extends from the MLP to any point in space until it hits a wall, but you don't put speakers two feet from you along the angle line. You follow the line and put the speaker either in front of the screen or along the wall (wherever the "ray' drawn meets). For example, you put the speakers where the circles are in the diagram, not where I have the "X" even though it's at the same angle relative to the MLP. Otherwise, it would phantom image to other speakers at the halfway points across the room in pairs and your image would be way in front of the screen and other oddities. It's not just the angles. Speakers tend to sit in the same plane relative to each other.


----------



## sdurani

petetherock said:


> In reality, how far from the front pair do the wides have to go?


If you look at the 24 possible speaker locations in the Atmos base layer, you'll see that there are two speaker locations between the Fronts and Sides. Those locations are the Wides and Side Surround 1, with consistent separation between all speakers. So that means the Atmos renderer thinks that the Wides are 1/3 of the way from Fronts to Sides. 

When I tried placing the Wides based on Atmos rendering assumptions (speaker locations), there wasn't enough separation between the Wides and the Fronts. Moving the Wides to the midpoint between Fronts and Sides sounded much better to me. YMMV.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> If you look at the 24 possible speaker locations in the Atmos base layer, you'll see that there are two speaker locations between the Fronts and Sides. Those locations are the Wides and Side Surround 1, with consistent separation between all speakers. So that means the Atmos renderer thinks that the Wides are 1/3 of the way from Fronts to Sides.
> 
> When I tried placing the Wides based on Atmos rendering assumptions (speaker locations), there wasn't enough separation between the Wides and the Fronts. Moving the Wides to the midpoint between Fronts and Sides sounded much better to me. YMMV.


The renderer only assumes 1/3 if you have surround#1 in your system. Dolby's own setup PDF makes the angle changes quite clear in the extra speakers section. Left center is in a different location without left screen as are the main speakers if you have both (where wides would normally go in a 9.1.x config or 60 degrees) as each pair is only 15 degrees apart with all 24 base layer speakers present.

Or one could just look at the 9.1.x diagrams that plainly show the front wides are ideally at 60 degrees in that configuration which is halfway between the mains and side ideal locations, not 1/3 the way.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Put them where they sound the best. Easy.


----------



## ceenhad

If anyone is interested in a quick way to generate a layout you can use this tool for all the standard Dolby Atmos layouts. Improvement suggestions always gladly received. 



https://slc.cinema-tools.com/#!/


----------



## Harkon

That’s very cool.


----------



## niterida

ceenhad said:


> If anyone is interested in a quick way to generate a layout you can use this tool for all the standard Dolby Atmos layouts. Improvement suggestions always gladly received.
> 
> 
> 
> https://slc.cinema-tools.com/#!/


Needs to be a sticky or an automatic link that pops up whenever anyone posts any question with the word Atmos in it


----------



## mrtickleuk

ceenhad said:


> If anyone is interested in a quick way to generate a layout you can use this tool for all the standard Dolby Atmos layouts. Improvement suggestions always gladly received.
> 
> 
> 
> https://slc.cinema-tools.com/#!/


First reaction, is that it is a beautiful tool, and many thanks for sharing it and creating it!

I do have a few suggestions if that's ok. Please do not ever "round up" distances, either in the PDF or in the calculations. Certainly not to whole metres, anyway!  I'm hoping it's only for display purposes that you do it 

eg for my room, all dimensions in metres:
length=3.54
width=4.62
height=2.34

Primary listening position
Distance from wall=2.54
Distance from floor=1.10

layout = Dolby, 5.1.4 Overhead Speakers

The PDF says "Room Length (L) 4 m Room Width (W) 5 m Room Height (H) 2 m ". Those dimensions in percentage terms are all _massively _different from all the values that I entered and makes me worried 

My second suggestion is to show the "ranges" for a speaker as little "wedges", eg


----------



## Lesmor

ceenhad said:


> If anyone is interested in a quick way to generate a layout you can use this tool for all the standard Dolby Atmos layouts. Improvement suggestions always gladly received.
> 
> 
> 
> https://slc.cinema-tools.com/#!/


Thanks for posting a really handy tool 
for Atmos I have 7.1.6 using Front heights,Top Middle and Rear heights unless I am missing something I don't see that layout ?


----------



## ceenhad

mrtickleuk said:


> First reaction, is that it is a beautiful tool, and many thanks for sharing it and creating it!
> 
> I do have a few suggestions if that's ok. Please do not ever "round up" distances, either in the PDF or in the calculations. Certainly not to whole metres, anyway!  I'm hoping it's only for display purposes that you do it


Ah good that is a bug in the output display. Everything is calculated internally in millimetres but as I tend to use that unit exclusively I hadn’t noticed the rounding. Ill get that fixed. it will no doubt impact the other calculators on the site.



mrtickleuk said:


> My second suggestion is to show the "ranges" for a speaker as little "wedges", eg
> View attachment 3056170


You will notice that I have tried to distill the presentation into the most clear way possible so that the drawings render well on mobile etc. When you move to the bigger layouts you find that you end up with lots and lots of lines even on the simple drawings so I made the choice to show the angle range but draw the line to the nominal angle stated by the Dolby spec.

One last quick note - the images don’t render if you view them in an Adobe PDF reader. every other PDF reader or browser I have tried works perfect and I don’t know what the issue is in Adobe.


----------



## ceenhad

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for posting a really handy tool
> for Atmos I have 7.1.6 using Front heights,Top Middle and Rear heights unless I am missing something I don't see that layout ?


There are currently three flavours of 7.1.6 are in there. If I interpret you properly then yours would be 7.1.6 Mounted / Overhead speakers.

I wanted to get all the “standard” layouts working well before moving on to the more extended options hence the final jump from 9.1.6 to 11.1.8


----------



## mrtickleuk

ceenhad said:


> Ah good that is a bug in the output display. Everything is calculated internally in millimetres but as I tend to use that unit exclusively I hadn’t noticed the rounding. Ill get that fixed. it will no doubt impact the other calculators on the site.


Great, thanks 



ceenhad said:


> You will notice that I have tried to distill the presentation into the most clear way possible so that the drawings render well on mobile etc. When you move to the bigger layouts you find that you end up with lots and lots of lines even on the simple drawings so I made the choice to show the angle range but draw the line to the nominal angle stated by the Dolby spec.


Right, fair enough that makes sense. I've only tried viewing the PDF in Chrome on my PC, so didn't have any display issues.


----------



## srw1000

ceenhad said:


> If anyone is interested in a quick way to generate a layout you can use this tool for all the standard Dolby Atmos layouts. Improvement suggestions always gladly received.
> 
> 
> 
> https://slc.cinema-tools.com/#!/


What a great tool! Thanks for sharing.

EDIT: I'm a dope, and entered the listening height in inches, and not feet. Please ignore the error below.

I did have a couple of problems with it, though. I selected four top speakers, but only two top positions are showing up, with the other two outside of the screen; it looks more like a 7.1.2 arrangement:










The other problem is that the side view was completely blank.

But congratulations on a great idea that will certainly be improved over time.

Scott


----------



## ceenhad

srw1000 said:


> What a great tool! Thanks for sharing.
> 
> I did have a couple of problems with it, though. I selected four top speakers, but only two top positions are showing up, with the other two outside of the screen; it looks more like a 7.1.2 arrangement:
> 
> View attachment 3056583
> 
> 
> The other problem is that the side view was completely blank.
> 
> But congratulations on a great idea that will certainly be improved over time.
> 
> Scott











Hi Scott
Can you confirm the browser you are using and the exact data you entered. I have punched it into iOS and it rendered fine as above. Side view also fine.
Thanks for taking the time to give it a try!


----------



## MagnumX

Maybe this company (Noveto) can make an Atmos enabled speaker that actually works for everyone by beaming the sound to the ceiling with ultrasonic waves first, that truly do beam before it spreads and comes back down at the listeners. They designed it for headphone-like playback without the headphones and disturbing other listeners, but I'm betting it could be adapted for other uses like beaming Atmos speakers









Noveto


Noveto is an Israeli privately held company that has developed a new audio technology called SoundBeaming™




noveto.com


----------



## sdrucker

FYI there's for speaker layout recommendations there's also The CEDIA Designer, which can use as much available information as you have about seats, where MLP is and whatever treatment you have, along with what you know about # of subs and speaker manufacturer to some degree (if that manufacturer is in their database).

It can be used for fixed Dolby Atmos layouts well as high channel count. But it's not free. Cheaper to use if you're a CEDIA member but you can sign up for it either one time or for a subscription.




__





The CEDIA Designer (TCD) Home


The world's first home cinema and media room design software. Built by home cinema designers, for home cinema designers



cedia.net


----------



## srw1000

ceenhad said:


> View attachment 3056589
> 
> Hi Scott
> Can you confirm the browser you are using and the exact data you entered. I have punched it into iOS and it rendered fine as above. Side view also fine.
> Thanks for taking the time to give it a try!


Oops, my mistake. Thanks for asking for the information again, since it turns out I entered the listening height in inches instead of the selected unit of feet!

After correcting the error, it worked as designed.

Again, thanks for creating this. I'm sure many will find it useful.

Scott


----------



## ceenhad

sdrucker said:


> FYI there's for speaker layout recommendations there's also The CEDIA Designer, which can use as much available information as you have about seats, where MLP is and whatever treatment you have, along with what you know about # of subs and speaker manufacturer to some degree (if that manufacturer is in their database).


TCD is also a great tool but not free to use. You will find that most of the relevant data can be just as easily calculated with the other calculators on Cinema Tools (www.cinema-tools.com).

I’m on the CEB22 CEDIA committee also so I try to make sure these calculators are accurate, easy to use and relevant. It is great to finally have some options to make designing easier.


----------



## Terence Parrish

gbaby said:


> It may be I am a little older than the average poster on this thread. I have been through 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, pro logic, pro logic II, IIx, Dolby Digital, True DolbyHD, DTS, DTS-MA, you name it. Over the years, I have found the design of the processors power supply, analog section and D/A converter, does more for my sonic satisfaction than the spaciousness of a new codec like Atmos. It's there, but I don't care. Quality over quantity.


So, why do you KEEP COMING BACK!!!!


----------



## Terence Parrish

Charles R said:


> I searched several times before I upgraded to Atmos and the answers were virtually identical (for those who tested). They couldn't hear much (any?) difference between the Height and Top settings. I have tried several times and haven't heard a noticeable difference (which isn't surprising since there are many steps involved in switching such as running Audyssey). I agree it makes total sense... I just don't understand why the related details are never linked.
> 
> How exactly did you test it?.. what material, etc.


With my 5.1.4 front height and rear heights I hear flyovers go from the back to the front, and vice versa. When I used a top configuration sounds were fantastic, but instead of using the entire length of the ceiling, the sound was pretty much confined to locations of my top speaker locations! YMMV


----------



## MagnumX

Terence Parrish said:


> With my 5.1.4 front height and rear heights I hear flyovers go from the back to the front, and vice versa. When I used a top configuration sounds were fantastic, but instead of using the entire length of the ceiling, the sound was pretty much confined to locations of my top speaker locations! YMMV


I think he meant the "setting" for heights versus tops not necessarily the speaker locations. I can't hear any real difference at all between the two settings using height speakers plus top middle. I think this is because outside a Trinnov that can support both sets of speakers at the same time, Dolby Atmos folds the other locations in the renderer into the nearest speakers (at similar heights). Thus, "tops" located sounds get played through heights and "heights" located sounds get played through "tops". You'd think that objects located at the "tops location" would start part-way into the room (in terms of panning) with heights speakers (as the speaker itself would be considered the starting location for heights and it would need to pan part way for objects further into the room) and similarly, using speakers at the "tops location" (typically 1/4 the way into the room), it would behave the same way set to the "heights setting" so sounds would tend to move further towards the top middle location with the "heights" setting whereas the "tops setting" would have to play heights located objects immediately since it cannot place them any closer to the room boundaries and tops sounds too so you'd get some overlap there, which would seem undesirable to me and thus I'd conclude heights would be more accurate for placing the objects near their true positions. But in reality, I hear no difference here at all with the Atmos demos using either setting with Heights + TM speakers so I have to wonder if the renderer does anything different at all on non-Trinnov equipment.


----------



## vn800art

@ceenhad 
Tried a Auro 13.1 and two Dolby, 7.1.4 and 9.1.6. Had some issues: Auro output lacks the overhead (and top) placements. Dolby 9.1.6 layout didn't came back. Dolby 7.1.4 ( the second one requested) came out fine!
Thanks for your work!
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## Electric_Haggis

Just chiming in here.
I'm soon moving from 7.1 to 7.1.4.
After doing a LOT of research (including chats with professional sound-mixers), I just gave up on Front Wides.

Nice idea.. but they're just not widely supported in the sound-mixing community.

So I decided that you're much better off doing the following...

* Have your front main trio forward into the room in an arc formation, "hi-fi style".
This sounds more immersive in surround or stereo, and keeps the speakers away from the wall behind.

* Fill the hole between front and rear by being creative with the Side Surrounds.
Play around. Consider placing them to either side of the MLP, slightly behind, slightly in front of you...
Angle to bounce them off the walls... Really consider using Bipoles, Omnipoles or Quadpoles.
You can get away with a lot if your Rears are front-firing and anchor the surround soundstage!

* Have a proper 7.1 setup first and foremost, upmixing all 5.1 mixes, etc to 7.1

* THEN - add whatever Height channels you can accomodate.
Don't take Atmos too seriously vs 7.1. 
Pro soundmixers might love Atmos - but it isn't so much because of the height channels as the object-based audio.

So, just treat the Heights as a bonus for the odd soundmix that actually really uses them (not as many as we would like!)

Oh, yeah... and ideally run 2 good-value subs. (I love the Presonus Temblor T10. Fantastic bang-for-buck, and it's pro-level


----------



## schwock5

srw1000 said:


> What a great tool! Thanks for sharing.
> 
> EDIT: I'm a dope, and entered the listening height in inches, and not feet. Please ignore the error below.
> 
> I did have a couple of problems with it, though. I selected four top speakers, but only two top positions are showing up, with the other two outside of the screen; it looks more like a 7.1.2 arrangement:
> 
> View attachment 3056583
> 
> 
> The other problem is that the side view was completely blank.
> 
> But congratulations on a great idea that will certainly be improved over time.
> 
> Scott



agreed, nifty tool, but showing the ranges in a window as well as the measurements of where that would be on the wall/ceiling to actually locate in the room would really help!


----------



## MagnumX

Electric_Haggis said:


> Just chiming in here.
> I'm soon moving from 7.1 to 7.1.4.
> After doing a LOT of research (including chats with professional sound-mixers), I just gave up on Front Wides.


You're saying you haven't actually heard them in use, just research? Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Newer Disney soundtracks are starting to use objects and they were the only real ones that didn't use them in the first place. All other soundtracks (including DTS:X using the Pro version with Neural X) will use the speakers when something moves through or to that location. I do think "most" people would probably agree 7.1.4 is probably going to give more bang for the buck (and a more complete sound field since it allows overhead sounds to pan) than 9.1.2, though if that's the question at hand you're really considering.

There's always the matrixed or "Scatmos" options to create front wides even if your AVR/AVP doesn't support them. The former is similar to what Lyngdorf does and the latter similar to what Neural X already does in DTS:X Pro in particular. It requires extra equipment and more rack space, but they can help fill in 'holes' (as you say) without giving up anything else in the process and generally at a fraction of the price. I think matrixed wides sound very nice in 'stereo' mode as well as they give a bit more precision and depth to the sound with the extra sound arrivals, particularly in a more deadened home theater room. 

I do sometimes wonder if at least some of of the people that think 'wides' are for wider soundstages and/or ambience are used to the notion from the old *Audyssey DSX* modes that used them precisely for that purpose complete with extra ambient reverb. Atmos uses them more as a 'fill' location between other sets of speakers (that varies depending on how many speakers you are using, typically between mains and sides in 9.1.x setups, but really between mains and surround#1 in the larger scheme of things and the angles used eventually changes with more speakers as well. I mean you can put the wides anywhere you want and for some things, it might sound awesome, but the 'ideal' location is where the phantom image naturally occurs between the existing speakers you had before adding wides (Atmos 9.1.6 MP4 version demo will pin-point this location). That's the point where the image already appears 'halfway' for the MLP, at least. Ideally, it's halfway in-between, but it depends on the room layout as well as some rooms are wider and front wides might end up on the front wall while less wide rooms might end up with them near the corner or on the side wall (mine are on the side wall as it's a 12'x24' room).



> Nice idea.. but they're just not widely supported in the sound-mixing community.
> 
> So I decided that you're much better off doing the following...
> 
> * Have your front main trio forward into the room in an arc formation, "hi-fi style".
> This sounds more immersive in surround or stereo, and keeps the speakers away from the wall behind.


That could help, but it might give the impression of the sound stage floating in the room in front of the screen a bit. The ideal location for dialog is at/behind the screen coming roughly from the middle of the screen (that can be done without transparent screens by using a mixer and an overhead speaker(s) to phantom image between them vertically. YOu can even set how high for more separation from front heights/tops. 



> * Fill the hole between front and rear by being creative with the Side Surrounds.


You can do that in many rooms, but if you have a larger room, you will want your rear speakers further back into the room and you will create a 'hole' between sides and back instead. This is precisely why the extra speakers exist in the first place. If you can get a nice solid 'circle' with the helicopter Atmos demo (which can play at ear level with overheads turned off) then you've achieved your goal regardless, at least for the MLP. Now other off-axis seats might not fare so well without the extra speakers....



> * Have a proper 7.1 setup first and foremost, upmixing all 5.1 mixes, etc to 7.1
> 
> * THEN - add whatever Height channels you can accomodate.


I think many on here, particularly with small to medium rooms love 5.1.4 and would disagree about 7.1 behind more important to them. Before Atmos, most home soundtracks didn't even bother to include 7.1 support (some obvious exceptions; I think I had around 24 Blu-Rays with 7.1 before Atmos showed up out of over 800 at the time. Most were 5.1 or even 2-channel Dolby and of course many with mono for older movies as I love a lot of '30s & '40s movies. I have 72 Humphrey Bogart movies alone now, several rare ones transferred from VHS.



> Don't take Atmos too seriously vs 7.1.


Personally, I think Atmos often wipes the floor with 7.1 for many well down Atmos movie soundtracks with a lot of overhead activity and even with the overheads turned off, having 11 speakers play at ear level gives a much more solid and cohesive soundstage for all three rows of seats here (i.e. real theaters with Dolby or DTS generally always had more than 7 speakers even if they were just arrayed). Besides, even 5.1 and 7.1 movies can simulate Atmos/X immersion using DSU or better yet, IMO, Neural X. I'm continually shocked how awesome older soundtracks sound with Neural X compared to 'True 6.1' or 'True 7.1'.

If I was the only one watching movies, I'd rather rather shrink my room setup to use half the distance and do 5.1.4 (I can actually do that electrically in my room with a speaker switch box and reassigning a couple of things so I already know exactly how it sounds, basically a "shrunk" length version of the same thing with many sides and rear effects in the same vicinity). I had 6.1 and then 7.1 for years in the same room. In my 24' long room, 7 floor speakers neither created a truly 'hard' circle all the way around nor gave overhead effects comparable to Atmos even with the side surrounds mounted high on the walls. That's how I ended up with 11 on the floor and 6 overhead, which gives a solid helicopter circle at both layers and they line up for Auro-3D as well. Now even older 5.1 soundtracks upmixed with Neural X generally sound MUCH better than the ever did with only 6.1 or 7.1, let alone 5.1. It's actually amazing how much overhead activity is extracted from older soundtracks. People talk about Neural X getting it "wrong", but I find that rarely to be the case here, but then I'm screen aligned so even the front soundstage is 40% up the height of the screen and tends to image just over ear level. I've never heard a car on the ceiling yet with Neural X, though. 



> Pro soundmixers might love Atmos - but it isn't so much because of the height channels as the object-based audio.


How do you know why they 'love' Atmos? Some 7.1 soundtracks like Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol were awesome. I imagine learning new tools might leave some preferring what they're used to. I can't speak as to how much they "love" putting sounds on the ceiling, though as all people have subjective tastes.



> So, just treat the Heights as a bonus for the odd soundmix that actually really uses them (not as many as we would like!)


The odd sound mix? I think _most_ older soundtracks use overheads well with Neural X, at least for music if nothing else. For example, I watched The Skeleton Key in 5.1 with Neural X, thunder was overhead from all corners of the room moving around along with wind and other creaky sound effects in the house. In fact, it did a MUCH better job than an actual Atmos movie (Knives Out from 2019) did, which barely touched the overheads and surround speakers by comparison (a very front forward movie which had one killer overhead moment and minimal elsewhere). Some people rave about the new Top Gun Atmos soundtrack, but Neural X put most of it overhead correctly with the 6.1 soundtrack and for some reaosn they reduced the LFE bass level by >4dB. I wasn't that impressed with the changes. Yes, compared to straight 6.1 it was miles better, but Neural X is kind of amazing, IMO.



> Oh, yeah... and ideally run 2 good-value subs. (I love the Presonus Temblor T10. Fantastic bang-for-buck, and it's pro-level


I get +/- 2dB at the MLP with one 15" sub, 20Hz-120Hz. Yes, I can improve the rest of the room with more than one sub, but given most of the time it's just one or two people using the home theater (and the other person loves the ramped bass in one seat in particular), I haven't been in a huge hurry to add it. I'll get to it, though. Some people like 4 or even 8 subs in their home theaters and some like seat shakers as well. If that's what rocks your boat, have at it. If you like 7.1 better than Atmos for whatever reason, have at it. A home theater should bring you some happiness regardless or it's probably not worth doing.


----------



## noah katz

Electric_Haggis said:


> I just gave up on Front Wides.
> 
> Nice idea.. but they're just not widely supported in the sound-mixing community.



IMO that's not that relevant because of the relative scarcity of native Atmos and DTS X; I find that 90+% of what I watch is upmixed 5.1.

Currently many processors can get wides from DTS X, though subject to its 11 ch limitation.

DTS X Pro will remove that limitation, and I believe DSU will offer wides as well.

There are also a few processors (Monoprice HTP-1 and Lyngdorf MP-50) that will generate matrix wides.


----------



## Josh Z

noah katz said:


> DTS X Pro will remove that limitation, and I believe DSU will offer wides as well.


You can change that "will" to "does." The DTS:X Pro/DSU update was issued last week.


----------



## mtbdudex

Josh Z said:


> You can change that "will" to "does." The DTS:X Pro/DSU update was issued last week.


Yep, I was early adopter of front heights / wides back in 2012 with my Denon 4520 at 11.2, 7.2 plus FH and FW, then February 2018 had my room 7.2.6 / 9.2.4 with Denon 8500H. Without much atmos using FW and no DSU support I just used 7.2.6, now I have another choice / decision ...


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## batpig

petetherock said:


> In reality, how far from the front pair do the wides have to go?


Trinnov recommends placing them half-way between the fronts and the side surrounds -- half meaning DISTANCE not angle.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Electric_Haggis said:


> Just chiming in here.
> .... I just gave up on Front Wides.
> 
> Nice idea..


An unpopular opinion around here..... This is okay!


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> Trinnov recommends placing them half-way between the fronts and the side surrounds -- half meaning DISTANCE not angle.


All bed/ear level speaker pair/sets should _ideally_ be equidistant in an Atmos system (center isn't a pair, but it's still halfway between L/R). 30/60/90 are all recommended 9.1.x angles from Dolby and also exactly half the distance. 24 ear level speakers should be 15 degrees apart according to Dolby and that makes every pair in-between half the distance (and half the angle as well). In other words, there's no real difference. Dolby gives leeway since they know real rooms aren't perfect and phantom imaging is fairly lenient in nature.


----------



## noah katz

Josh Z said:


> You can change that "will" to "does." The DTS:X Pro/DSU update was issued last week.


Oh right, forgot about that.

Anyone else besides D+M?

I couldn't find a listing on the DTS site.




batpig said:


> Trinnov recommends placing them half-way between the fronts and the side surrounds -- half meaning DISTANCE not angle.


Do they give a rationale?


----------



## Josh Z

noah katz said:


> Oh right, forgot about that.
> 
> Anyone else besides D+M?
> 
> I couldn't find a listing on the DTS site.


Not sure. I got the software on my Denon X8500H.


----------



## noah katz

I'm going to backpedal from what I said earlier in reference to placement of wides, that what is important is angle, not distance.

As I said, the benefit I get from wides, which in my 12' wide listening area are on my side walls, is filling in the gap between the fronts and side surrounds, giving more depth and spaciousness to the front soundfield.

However, I suspect that if I had a wide enough room to place wides on the front wall at the same 60 deg, that the result would likely be a wider front stage, not a deeper one.


----------



## batpig

noah katz said:


> Do they give a rationale?


Of course 

It mostly has to do with the geometry of typical rooms being longer than they are wide. In a typical room, if you place the wide speaker at ~60 degrees (bisecting the angle between fronts at 30 and side surrounds at 90) it will be physically much closer to the side surround (and farther from the screen) than the front L/R mains. 

In their experience Trinnov has found that the wide "fills the gap" better by "cheating" it more to the physical middle (distance not angle) for a smoother transition with panning, because the wide speaker ends up sliding forward (closer to the screen) along the side wall the sounds panning off screen don't have to "jump" as large of a physical gap.

This video is a good watch, they run through Trinnov's "unified immersive audio layout" deck and discuss the principals, including the placement of the wides. Long, but lots of info and literally nobody knows more about how Atmos works in a home theater context than Trinnov.

The discussion on wide placement starts at 29:30 in this video


----------



## Electric_Haggis

MagnumX said:


> You're saying you haven't actually heard them in use, just research? Personally, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Newer Disney soundtracks are starting to use objects and they were the only real ones that didn't use them in the first place. All other soundtracks (including DTS:X using the Pro version with Neural X) will use the speakers when something moves through or to that location. I do think "most" people would probably agree 7.1.4 is probably going to give more bang for the buck (and a more complete sound field since it allows overhead sounds to pan) than 9.1.2, though if that's the question at hand you're really considering.
> 
> There's always the matrixed or "Scatmos" options to create front wides even if your AVR/AVP doesn't support them. The former is similar to what Lyngdorf does and the latter similar to what Neural X already does in DTS:X Pro in particular. It requires extra equipment and more rack space, but they can help fill in 'holes' (as you say) without giving up anything else in the process and generally at a fraction of the price. I think matrixed wides sound very nice in 'stereo' mode as well as they give a bit more precision and depth to the sound with the extra sound arrivals, particularly in a more deadened home theater room.
> 
> I do sometimes wonder if at least some of of the people that think 'wides' are for wider soundstages and/or ambience are used to the notion from the old *Audyssey DSX* modes that used them precisely for that purpose complete with extra ambient reverb. Atmos uses them more as a 'fill' location between other sets of speakers (that varies depending on how many speakers you are using, typically between mains and sides in 9.1.x setups, but really between mains and surround#1 in the larger scheme of things and the angles used eventually changes with more speakers as well. I mean you can put the wides anywhere you want and for some things, it might sound awesome, but the 'ideal' location is where the phantom image naturally occurs between the existing speakers you had before adding wides (Atmos 9.1.6 MP4 version demo will pin-point this location). That's the point where the image already appears 'halfway' for the MLP, at least. Ideally, it's halfway in-between, but it depends on the room layout as well as some rooms are wider and front wides might end up on the front wall while less wide rooms might end up with them near the corner or on the side wall (mine are on the side wall as it's a 12'x24' room).
> 
> 
> 
> That could help, but it might give the impression of the sound stage floating in the room in front of the screen a bit. The ideal location for dialog is at/behind the screen coming roughly from the middle of the screen (that can be done without transparent screens by using a mixer and an overhead speaker(s) to phantom image between them vertically. YOu can even set how high for more separation from front heights/tops.
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that in many rooms, but if you have a larger room, you will want your rear speakers further back into the room and you will create a 'hole' between sides and back instead. This is precisely why the extra speakers exist in the first place. If you can get a nice solid 'circle' with the helicopter Atmos demo (which can play at ear level with overheads turned off) then you've achieved your goal regardless, at least for the MLP. Now other off-axis seats might not fare so well without the extra speakers....
> 
> 
> 
> I think many on here, particularly with small to medium rooms love 5.1.4 and would disagree about 7.1 behind more important to them. Before Atmos, most home soundtracks didn't even bother to include 7.1 support (some obvious exceptions; I think I had around 24 Blu-Rays with 7.1 before Atmos showed up out of over 800 at the time. Most were 5.1 or even 2-channel Dolby and of course many with mono for older movies as I love a lot of '30s & '40s movies. I have 72 Humphrey Bogart movies alone now, several rare ones transferred from VHS.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think Atmos often wipes the floor with 7.1 for many well down Atmos movie soundtracks with a lot of overhead activity and even with the overheads turned off, having 11 speakers play at ear level gives a much more solid and cohesive soundstage for all three rows of seats here (i.e. real theaters with Dolby or DTS generally always had more than 7 speakers even if they were just arrayed). Besides, even 5.1 and 7.1 movies can simulate Atmos/X immersion using DSU or better yet, IMO, Neural X. I'm continually shocked how awesome older soundtracks sound with Neural X compared to 'True 6.1' or 'True 7.1'.
> 
> If I was the only one watching movies, I'd rather rather shrink my room setup to use half the distance and do 5.1.4 (I can actually do that electrically in my room with a speaker switch box and reassigning a couple of things so I already know exactly how it sounds, basically a "shrunk" length version of the same thing with many sides and rear effects in the same vicinity). I had 6.1 and then 7.1 for years in the same room. In my 24' long room, 7 floor speakers neither created a truly 'hard' circle all the way around nor gave overhead effects comparable to Atmos even with the side surrounds mounted high on the walls. That's how I ended up with 11 on the floor and 6 overhead, which gives a solid helicopter circle at both layers and they line up for Auro-3D as well. Now even older 5.1 soundtracks upmixed with Neural X generally sound MUCH better than the ever did with only 6.1 or 7.1, let alone 5.1. It's actually amazing how much overhead activity is extracted from older soundtracks. People talk about Neural X getting it "wrong", but I find that rarely to be the case here, but then I'm screen aligned so even the front soundstage is 40% up the height of the screen and tends to image just over ear level. I've never heard a car on the ceiling yet with Neural X, though.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know why they 'love' Atmos? Some 7.1 soundtracks like Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol were awesome. I imagine learning new tools might leave some preferring what they're used to. I can't speak as to how much they "love" putting sounds on the ceiling, though as all people have subjective tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> The odd sound mix? I think _most_ older soundtracks use overheads well with Neural X, at least for music if nothing else. For example, I watched The Skeleton Key in 5.1 with Neural X, thunder was overhead from all corners of the room moving around along with wind and other creaky sound effects in the house. In fact, it did a MUCH better job than an actual Atmos movie (Knives Out from 2019) did, which barely touched the overheads and surround speakers by comparison (a very front forward movie which had one killer overhead moment and minimal elsewhere). Some people rave about the new Top Gun Atmos soundtrack, but Neural X put most of it overhead correctly with the 6.1 soundtrack and for some reaosn they reduced the LFE bass level by >4dB. I wasn't that impressed with the changes. Yes, compared to straight 6.1 it was miles better, but Neural X is kind of amazing, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I get +/- 2dB at the MLP with one 15" sub, 20Hz-120Hz. Yes, I can improve the rest of the room with more than one sub, but given most of the time it's just one or two people using the home theater (and the other person loves the ramped bass in one seat in particular), I haven't been in a huge hurry to add it. I'll get to it, though. Some people like 4 or even 8 subs in their home theaters and some like seat shakers as well. If that's what rocks your boat, have at it. If you like 7.1 better than Atmos for whatever reason, have at it. A home theater should bring you some happiness regardless or it's probably not worth doing.



Thanks MagnumX.
Some interesting food for thought, there.
Will consider...


----------



## circumstances

Hi.

I have a 5.1 system, no Atmos speakers.

My Denon x3700h has a virtualizer to simulate Atmos that I'd like to try.

My streaming device is a Fire TV Cube 4K (gen 2).

When I go to shows that are listed as UHD (Jack Ryan season 2 for example), the only options under audio settings are Stereo and Dolby Digital+.

The connections are via HDMI, Fire TV Cube > x3700h > 1080p displays.

Can anyone help?

Thanks.


----------



## vn800art

I'm no expert, but I believe Atmos tracks cannot be streamed unless there is a complete chain in UHD, and as you said you have a 1080p display, so ... . 
Moreover we have seen recently lots of streaming services losing some encoded Atmos tracks even with full UHD decoding chains.
Have you tried with a BD containing the embedded Atmos?
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## amdar

Hi,

I apologize if it is not a right forum to ask this question. 

I have 5.2.4 setup and my atmos(ceiling speakers) configuration is front top and rear top. 
When i play non Atmos movies my receiver is up mixing to DTS Neural:X. 
Is there way to configure my Denon 4300h Receiver not to up mix and use the Atmos rear top speakers as SBL and SBR for 7.1 movies?


----------



## bryantc

amdar said:


> Hi,
> 
> I apologize if it is not a right forum to ask this question.
> 
> I have 5.2.4 setup and my atmos(ceiling speakers) configuration is front top and rear top.
> When i play non Atmos movies my receiver is up mixing to DTS Neural:X.
> Is there way to configure my Denon 4300h Receiver not to up mix and use the Atmos rear top speakers as SBL and SBR for 7.1 movies?


No. You would have to plug your heights into your surround back connectors for that to work.


----------



## MagnumX

vn800art said:


> I'm no expert, but I believe Atmos tracks cannot be streamed unless there is a complete chain in UHD, and as you said you have a 1080p display, so ... .
> Moreover we have seen recently lots of streaming services losing some encoded Atmos tracks even with full UHD decoding chains.
> Have you tried with a BD containing the embedded Atmos?
> Regards
> Alessandro


He can always order a cheater (scaler) device like this one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07VP37KMB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For <$30, you too can have ALL 4K Atmos streaming sources available on your 2K based home theater (works perfect here). 

Meanwhile, for those who enjoy incredible Atmos mixed music like Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self _(probably the most impressive Atmos demo worthy material I've yet heard), I've just ordered 3 more Atmos albums to try out from Amazon UK (Kraftwerk 3D, Schiller's _Morgenstund_ and Booka Shade's _Galvany Street_ Atmos edition). I've heard good things about them and look forward to hearing and reporting back on them in the not too distant future.


----------



## amdar

Thanks for the quick reply. So my only option is pre out from receiver to external amplifier and connect to SBL & SBR speakers.



bryantc said:


> No. You would have to plug your heights into your surround back connectors for that to work.


----------



## bryantc

amdar said:


> Thanks for the quick reply. So my only option is pre out from receiver to external amplifier and connect to SBL & SBR speakers.


I believe your AVR can process 11 channels so yes that will work if you actually have SB speakers.

But your original question was about reconfiguring your heights to work as surrounds. I know that some Denon let you custom assign each output. But you would have to manually switch configs each time and this would be quite a hassle.

5.1.4 is a great setup and according to most people you are not missing much by not having SB. I would just leave things the way they are.

If you really do want to add 2 more speakers then you need an amp.


----------



## rec head

amdar said:


> Hi,
> 
> I apologize if it is not a right forum to ask this question.
> 
> I have 5.2.4 setup and my atmos(ceiling speakers) configuration is front top and rear top.
> When i play non Atmos movies my receiver is up mixing to DTS Neural:X.
> Is there way to configure my Denon 4300h Receiver not to up mix and use the Atmos rear top speakers as SBL and SBR for 7.1 movies?


In general I would take upmixed 5.1.4 over a true 7.1.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

I'm currently in the process of remoddelling my new house and planning the speaker locations for my Atmos setup. I intended to use in-ceiling top speakers, but the speaker placement calculation tool places the top rear speakers against the back wall.

What is the best solution for this situation? Should I place the top rear speakers all the way against the back wall? Should I keep a certain distance from them? Or do I better use wall mounted speakers?


----------



## batpig

I would probably just cheat the Top Rear speakers a bit forward to give them a bit of breathing room (get them away from the corner / boundary). Your directional sensitivity for sounds above and behind you is very poor, you won't notice any practical difference between having them be 30 degrees behind you vs 45.


----------



## niterida

G4n0nD0rf said:


> I'm currently in the process of remoddelling my new house and planning the speaker locations for my Atmos setup. I intended to use in-ceiling top speakers, but the speaker placement calculation tool places the top rear speakers against the back wall.
> 
> What is the best solution for this situation? Should I place the top rear speakers all the way against the back wall? Should I keep a certain distance from them? Or do I better use wall mounted speakers?
> 
> View attachment 3059288


Assuming the drawing is accurate you could move the couch forward to 1/3 room length and move all the heights forward the same amount. Putting the seating at 1/3 is better for smoother bass.


----------



## markus767

batpig said:


> Of course
> 
> It mostly has to do with the geometry of typical rooms being longer than they are wide. In a typical room, if you place the wide speaker at ~60 degrees (bisecting the angle between fronts at 30 and side surrounds at 90) it will be physically much closer to the side surround (and farther from the screen) than the front L/R mains.
> 
> In their experience Trinnov has found that the wide "fills the gap" better by "cheating" it more to the physical middle (distance not angle) for a smoother transition with panning, because the wide speaker ends up sliding forward (closer to the screen) along the side wall the sounds panning off screen don't have to "jump" as large of a physical gap.
> 
> This video is a good watch, they run through Trinnov's "unified immersive audio layout" deck and discuss the principals, including the placement of the wides. Long, but lots of info and literally nobody knows more about how Atmos works in a home theater context than Trinnov.
> 
> The discussion on wide placement starts at 29:30 in this video


"Why?" – "Because it works better". What does that even mean?


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

batpig said:


> I would probably just cheat the Top Rear speakers a bit forward to give them a bit of breathing room (get them away from the corner / boundary). Your directional sensitivity for sounds above and behind you is very poor, you won't notice any practical difference between having them be 30 degrees behind you vs 45.


How far should I stay from the wall?


----------



## blubolt

batpig said:


> I would probably just cheat the Top Rear speakers a bit forward to give them a bit of breathing room (get them away from the corner / boundary). Your directional sensitivity for sounds above and behind you is very poor, you won't notice any practical difference between having them be 30 degrees behind you vs 45.


I will just tell you that I had a similar situation where my top rear right speaker is in a corner all my other speakers measure similar from all 3 of the seats on my couch but suprisingly the seat on the same side as the top rear in corner measusres 72 3 decibels less from seat closest to it and measures the same 75 at the other 2 seats that are further. so that corner is doing something that really isn't fixable with trim adjustment.


----------



## batpig

blubolt said:


> I will just tell you that I had a similar situation where my top rear right speaker is in a corner all my other speakers measure similar from all 3 of the seats on my couch but suprisingly the seat on the same side as the top rear in corner measusres 72 3 decibels less from seat closest to it and measures the same 75 at the other 2 seats that are further. so that corner is doing something that really isn't fixable with trim adjustment.


So you're saying the closest seat measures a lower volume than the farther seats? What's likely happening is there's a deep cancellation / null caused by boundary interference that's causing a big suck-out in the frequency response at that seat, but not at the other seats. The SPL meter can only tell you so much, as it's just an average level across a wide band of frequencies; if you could measure the full frequency response it would likely explain why that's happening.


----------



## Erod

batpig said:


> I would probably just cheat the Top Rear speakers a bit forward to give them a bit of breathing room (get them away from the corner / boundary). Your directional sensitivity for sounds above and behind you is very poor, you won't notice any practical difference between having them be 30 degrees behind you vs 45.


I've got a similar situation. Because I have 12-foot ceilings, the distance to achieve 45 degrees would be 96 inches (8 feet) forward and back. The problem is, the room only allows me to go 6'-8" back.

I have 6 Atmos channels.

So you're saying, don't worry about being symmetrical. Go ahead and put the top front speakers at 8 feet forward, and let the rears be at 6'-8" back? 

Sounds logical, but my back row is a foot higher in elevation, so those seats might not have a very clear path to the top fronts, although I do have aimable tweeters to 15 degrees.


----------



## sdurani

^^^^ Our human hearing isn't symmetrical front-to-back, so height speaker placement doesn't have to be symmetrical front-to-back. Having said that, there are a couple of solutions to consider if you want symmetry:

Mount the rear pair of height speakers on the ceiling as close to the back wall as possible and place small (2'x2') absorber panels right next to them high up on the back wall.
Measure from the main listening position to the back wall; same distance (8') up the back wall is 45° elevation. There's no requirement to mount those speakers on the ceiling, especially if the desired angle happens to be high up on the wall.


----------



## Erod

sdurani said:


> ^^^^ Our human hearing isn't symmetrical front-to-back, so height speaker placement doesn't have to be symmetrical front-to-back. Having said that, there are a couple of solutions to consider if you want symmetry:
> 
> Mount the rear pair of height speakers on the ceiling as close to the back wall as possible and place small (2'x2') absorber panels right next to them high up on the back wall.
> Measure from the main listening position to the back wall; same distance (8') up the back wall is 45° elevation. There's no requirement to mount those speakers on the ceiling, especially if the desired angle happens to be high up on the wall.


Your first suggestion is what I have, but my (Def Tech) tweeters are aimable, so I don't to use the absorbers on the walls. 

The problem with the second option you listed is that they'd fire over the heads of the back row. Even with the risers, there's a 10'-6" ceiling there, so they're up a bit. 

My back atmos speakers are at about a 53-degree angle to the MLP. I can get my front atmos speakers to about 48 degrees without running into a joist. The top middles will be perfectly above the side surrounds. That seems to be my best option.


----------



## sdurani

Erod said:


> Your first suggestion is what I have, but my (Def Tech) tweeters are aimable, so I don't to use the absorbers on the walls.


Higher frequencies beam like a flashlight, so the absorber suggestion was more for the midrange frequencies, which can radiate like a lantern (depending on driver size).


> The problem with the second option you listed is that they'd fire over the heads of the back row.


That was the idea, to be less distracting than speakers directly overhead.


----------



## C J

Search function came up blank.

Question? 
living room with 6 in-ceiling 3 way speakers, all lined up front to back in a straight line. Two will be used for rear surrounds behind the listening position, two will be front Atmos speakers.

The last two are positioned where they can be assigned as rear side surrounds (7.2.2 channel) or assigned as Atmos (5.2.4). Is it better to use these two as a surround channel or an additional atmos pair?


----------



## MagnumX

C J said:


> Search function came up blank.
> 
> Question?
> living room with 6 in-ceiling 3 way speakers, all lined up front to back in a straight line. Two will be used for rear surrounds behind the listening position, two will be front Atmos speakers.
> 
> The last two are positioned where they can be assigned as rear side surrounds (7.2.2 channel) or assigned as Atmos (5.2.4). Is it better to use these two as a surround channel or an additional atmos pair?


It's "better" to use them ALL as overhead Atmos speakers (i.e. Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear). No in-ceiling speaker should ever be used as an ear level (e.g. 'rear surround') speaker in an Atmos based system as they are in the wrong "plane" entirely. 

What you have is an ideal setup to just add ear level speakers and you can go straight to 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 even or just not use the top middle pair for now and do 5.1.4. But you need to add speakers to floor/ear level to the room.


----------



## Josh Z

Agreed with Magnum.^ Atmos is designed to operate on two planes, ear-level and height-level. You shouldn't mix the two up, or object directionality will be a mess. Keep all those ceiling speakers for the height plane and add new speakers on stands below them.


----------



## rec head

I agree with the above posts but understand that sometimes you have to play the hand that was dealt. I would take a normal 5.2.4 over having the normal rear speakers on the ceiling. Even if it meant not using all the speakers.


----------



## Chirosamsung

rec head said:


> I agree with the above posts but understand that sometimes you have to play the hand that was dealt. I would take a normal 5.2.4 over having the normal rear speakers on the ceiling. Even if it meant not using all the speakers.


I agree with above as well. MORE isn’t BETTER if it isn’t ACCURATE


----------



## MortenS

Hi, my room is about 14m2 and ceiling height is about 8'

Would 4x SVS Prime Elevation speakers placed as below be a good options for a 7.1.4 solution in my room? (or other similar speakers with placement front/back wall).
I guess it must be much better than upward/ceiling firing speakers.

This would be the easiest to install.


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> Hi, my room is about 14m2 and ceiling height is about 8'
> 
> Would 4x SVS Prime Elevation speakers placed as below be a good options for a 7.1.4 solution in my room? (or other similar speakers with placement front/back wall).
> I guess it must be much better than upward/ceiling firing speakers.
> 
> This would be the easiest to install.
> 
> View attachment 3063133


Yes that would work.
5.x.4 may be the best setup in that size room too - save you a bucket load of money on extra amp and speakers.
And depending on the length x width of the room and assuming there are 4 walls you may be better putting the Primes on the side walls rather than front and back.


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> Yes that would work.
> 5.x.4 may be the best setup in that size room too - save you a bucket load of money on extra amp and speakers.
> And depending on the length x width of the room and assuming there are 4 walls you may be better putting the Primes on the side walls rather than front and back.


Would the Klipsch R-41SA work as alternative to the SVS Prime (no one sells in norway atm)
Alredy have XPA-5, no extra cost choosing 7.x.4 over 5.x.4.

I think room is 4,2x3,2m or close to that, so quite narrow.


----------



## sdurani

MortenS said:


> Would the Klipsch R-41SA work as alternative to the SVS Prime


You can use any speakers you want. Atmos didn't change the physics of sound reproduction. Height speakers are still speakers, just placed above ear level.


----------



## Robbie Racer

Opinions please. Would I get much of a front height sound benefit from Atmos content by moving my Klipsch RP-500 "Dolby Atmos Speakers" (that are currently sitting on top of my RP-280F Floor standing speakers) up to the top of my front wall above the front left and right speakers? My ceiling height is 12 feet.


----------



## MagnumX

Robbie Racer said:


> Opinions please. Would I get much of a front height sound benefit from Atmos content by moving my Klipsch RP-500 "Dolby Atmos Speakers" (that are currently sitting on top of my RP-280F Floor standing speakers) up to the top of my front wall above the front left and right speakers? My ceiling height is 12 feet.


Generally yes, it should sound better there. Make sure you change the setting to height instead of Atmos enabled for those speakers.


----------



## IAH

*How should I deal with: high head rest on the couch blocking line of sight for ear-level surrounds?*

I just added two ATOMS speakers on the ceiling (9ft ceiling, but speakers aren't flush-mounted. So, face of speakers are about 8'4" from ground) to create a 5.1.2 setup.

I tried lowering my surrounds down to ear level (which were previously ceiling-height) to gain the "double-plane" effect for proper ATMOS experience, but they ended up being well below the head rests of the couch.

I feel like I could hear a fairly significant loss of detail coming from the surrounds now, if I hear anything at all.

So, I raised them back up about halfway between ear level and ceiling level. So, now the tweeter of the surrounds is just shy of 6ft from the ground.

Is this enough space between the heights and surrounds (about 2.5ft) to achieve a decent ATMOS experience?

Or do I need to buy a new couch?


----------



## niterida

Your surrounds should be no higher than 1.25 times the height of your Front speakers and your height should be 2 to 3 times the height of your fronts. So with the surrounds at 5'10" that would mean your fronts have to be 4'8" high and your heights should be 9'4" so at 8'4" they are not high enough. 
But I seriously doubt your fronts would be that high - more typically they would be closer to 3 or 4'. With your heights at 8'4" your fronts could be between 2'9" and 4'2" and this would mean your surrounds should be between 2'9" and 5'2". 
So depending on how high your front speakers are you need to lower your surrounds by 8" or more.









But these are only guidelines and you can only do what you can in your room.

I solved my issue by ditching my "theatre" seats with high back/headrests (which as you have discovered really makes them useless as theatre seats) and replaced them with a low back couch.


----------



## MagnumX

Ideally, surrounds should be just above "seat level" to avoid playing into headrests, but you can't completely avoid the issue and have super comfortable seats as well as it's not just the chair, but your ears blocked by the chair in some positions (reclining may change its effect as well). 

Real sounds have the same issues with such seats so it's not necessarily _unrealistic_ in that sense to be slightly muffled in some frequencies. You can correct for it to some extent with Audyssey by putting the microphone where your ears will be as it will try to balance the sound with the obstruction in place.


----------



## IAH

niterida said:


> Your surrounds should be no higher than 1.25 times the height of your Front speakers and your height should be 2 to 3 times the height of your fronts. So with the surrounds at 5'10" that would mean your fronts have to be 4'8" high and your heights should be 9'4" so at 8'4" they are not high enough.
> But I seriously doubt your fronts would be that high - more typically they would be closer to 3 or 4'. With your heights at 8'4" your fronts could be between 2'9" and 4'2" and this would mean your surrounds should be between 2'9" and 5'2".
> So depending on how high your front speakers are you need to lower your surrounds by 8" or more.
> 
> View attachment 3064123
> 
> But these are only guidelines and you can only do what you can in your room.
> 
> I solved my issue by ditching my "theatre" seats with high back/headrests (which as you have discovered really makes them useless as theatre seats) and replaced them with a low back couch.





MagnumX said:


> Ideally, surrounds should be just above "seat level" to avoid playing into headrests, but you can't completely avoid the issue and have super comfortable seats as well as it's not just the chair, but your ears blocked by the chair in some positions (reclining may change its effect as well).
> 
> Real sounds have the same issues with such seats so it's not necessarily _unrealistic_ in that sense to be slightly muffled in some frequencies. You can correct for it to some extent with Audyssey by putting the microphone where your ears will be as it will try to balance the sound with the obstruction in place.


Thank you for the replies.
Guess new couch is the answer!


----------



## philly_03

Hi, 

my room is 9.8 feet wide x 23 feet long x 6.8 feet high and I have two rows of seating at 9 feet and 16 feet and I am looking to do atmos.
I purchased the SVS prime elevation but i am not sure if I should put them on the side wall (all the way at the top) because of the low ceiling or stick to mounting them on the ceiling. 
If I mount them on the ceiling they will be pretty close to the side walls also because of the narrow room.

I have tried searching but can't find some definitive answers. Was woundering if there is other people with low ceilings???

Thanks in advance!

Phil.


----------



## MagnumX

philly_03 said:


> Hi,
> 
> my room is 9.8 feet wide x 23 feet long x 6.8 feet high and I have two rows of seating at 9 feet and 16 feet and I am looking to do atmos.
> I purchased the SVS prime elevation but i am not sure if I should put them on the side wall (all the way at the top) because of the low ceiling or stick to mounting them on the ceiling.
> If I mount them on the ceiling they will be pretty close to the side walls also because of the narrow room.
> 
> I have tried searching but can't find some definitive answers. Was woundering if there is other people with low ceilings???
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Phil.


With that width, either would be acceptable, IMO. The side walls would make them less likely to hit your head on them. I've got my "top middle/surround height" speakers on the side walls above my side speakers with my front and rear heights aligned with the mains on the ceiling and it doesn't stick out as it passes overhead (sounds straight to my ears) and my room is 12'x24' with a 8.5' ceiling. 

The lower ceiling might reduce your separation somewhat, but it'd still be better than no Atmos, IMO. 

The two rows is a bit more concerning since ideally you don't want to block your ear level speakers with chairs or people in front of you, but with a low ceiling mounting them higher would reduce separation even further. I used a raised dialog effect to center the dialog on the screen by using a mixer to send some front and center information to the front height speakers. This gives clear dialog to the back rows even if a chair or head blocks some of the direct signal. The angle is decreased back there anyway for the front while the top middle and rear heights pick up the slack for overhead seperation for the back two rows and the front has more seperation and dialog comes from the screen instead of under it while letting me use identical speakers across the front and center, unlike many installations giving perfect center "spread" without needing to use the setting for music, making off-axis seats sound better. It's a slight compromise, but works well overall.


----------



## harrisu

niterida said:


> Your surrounds should be no higher than 1.25 times the height of your Front speakers and your height should be 2 to 3 times the height of your fronts. So with the surrounds at 5'10" that would mean your fronts have to be 4'8" high and your heights should be 9'4" so at 8'4" they are not high enough.
> But I seriously doubt your fronts would be that high - more typically they would be closer to 3 or 4'. With your heights at 8'4" your fronts could be between 2'9" and 4'2" and this would mean your surrounds should be between 2'9" and 5'2".
> So depending on how high your front speakers are you need to lower your surrounds by 8" or more.
> 
> View attachment 3064123
> 
> But these are only guidelines and you can only do what you can in your room.
> 
> I solved my issue by ditching my "theatre" seats with high back/headrests (which as you have discovered really makes them useless as theatre seats) and replaced them with a low back couch.


Can you please share some pics and make model of your new low back seats? I have been looking to do the same. I had to mount my surrounds higher because the back of my seat is high.


----------



## niterida

harrisu said:


> Can you please share some pics and make model of your new low back seats? I have been looking to do the same. I had to mount my surrounds higher because the back of my seat is high.


Sorry I bought it 2nd hand and I am in Australia so wouldn't be much help anyway.


----------



## harrisu

niterida said:


> Sorry I bought it 2nd hand and I am in Australia so wouldn't be much help anyway.


Is it a power recliner?


----------



## philly_03

MagnumX said:


> With that width, either would be acceptable, IMO. The side walls would make them less likely to hit your head on them. I've got my "top middle/surround height" speakers on the side walls above my side speakers with my front and rear heights aligned with the mains on the ceiling and it doesn't stick out as it passes overhead (sounds straight to my ears) and my room is 12'x24' with a 8.5' ceiling.
> 
> The lower ceiling might reduce your separation somewhat, but it'd still be better than no Atmos, IMO.
> 
> The two rows is a bit more concerning since ideally you don't want to block your ear level speakers with chairs or people in front of you, but with a low ceiling mounting them higher would reduce separation even further. I used a raised dialog effect to center the dialog on the screen by using a mixer to send some front and center information to the front height speakers. This gives clear dialog to the back rows even if a chair or head blocks some of the direct signal. The angle is decreased back there anyway for the front while the top middle and rear heights pick up the slack for overhead seperation for the back two rows and the front has more seperation and dialog comes from the screen instead of under it while letting me use identical speakers across the front and center, unlike many installations giving perfect center "spread" without needing to use the setting for music, making off-axis seats sound better. It's a slight compromise, but works well overall.


Thanks for the input!
With what you said I think I will try them on the side walls first as high as possible albeit a bit forward then the side surrounds. 

I hear you about the high back seats. I have Palliser's in the back row, a couch in the front and it works well except for the surround back that are mostly muffled except for the occasional bullets that get through. I just moved those seats to the front row and the couch to the back row as a test and it is better sonically for the surround back but my view is partially blocked (low couch which could be solved though), I lose the comfy chairs and if i switch the setup to the front row, I lose the nearfield sub.

To give more information, the second row is on a riser which have a 6 feet x 4 feet sub on it behind the seats. I have a ~140 inch acoustically transparent screen with LCR, FH and two 18 inch subs behind it. I already lowered the ADP 390 at ear height to accommodate for atmos. 

Also the reason for all the questions is that the AVM 70 has been delayed and I have the speakers already and want to install them. I have no means of testing Atmos right now since I have an SC-65. One thing I will do is try front wides with one pair while I wait......I know my room is to narrow but i always wanted to try it and now have the speakers here.

as always thanks for the help!

Phil.


----------



## MagnumX

philly_03 said:


> Thanks for the input!
> With what you said I think I will try them on the side walls first as high as possible albeit a bit forward then the side surrounds.
> 
> I hear you about the high back seats. I have Palliser's in the back row, a couch in the front and it works well except for the surround back that are mostly muffled except for the occasional bullets that get through. I just moved those seats to the front row and the couch to the back row as a test and it is better sonically for the surround back but my view is partially blocked (low couch which could be solved though), I lose the comfy chairs and if i switch the setup to the front row, I lose the nearfield sub.
> 
> To give more information, the second row is on a riser which have a 6 feet x 4 feet sub on it behind the seats. I have a ~140 inch acoustically transparent screen with LCR, FH and two 18 inch subs behind it. I already lowered the ADP 390 at ear height to accommodate for atmos.
> 
> Also the reason for all the questions is that the AVM 70 has been delayed and I have the speakers already and want to install them. I have no means of testing Atmos right now since I have an SC-65. One thing I will do is try front wides with one pair while I wait......I know my room is to narrow but i always wanted to try it and now have the speakers here.
> 
> as always thanks for the help!
> 
> Phil.



What I did to test Atmos before I even decided it would work or not in my room (without having to buy an AVR to test it) was connect my overhead speakers to the existing 7.1 receiver and run things like stereo albums in "all channel stereo" with thunderstorms and what not through it to see if they sounded real overhead or not. They did, actually and so I knew the overhead speakers would work. You can test any given set of speakers by running regular stereo signals through them and see how they sound (clarity, imaging, etc.) including how it affects the couch backs and what not (better yet if there's a room correction system to see if it can accommodate any blockage of sound). I watch almost all movies reclined so the seat backs have little effect in that position compared to straight up and down plus I set the mics to measure with them upright and the mic in the same position. The rear speakers sound fine with the seat backs in the front. 

The biggest issue I had with the front tower speakers sitting just below the screen (coming from the ceiling) is with center dialog from the front in the back two rows since it's partially blocked by the MLP chair (The main L/R aren't blocked as they align through the space between the seats). The raised dialog effect moving sound center to the front heights solved that (it just seems to come from higher on the screen than the front where it comes from the middle, but at that distance and the lower angle as a result, it's fine as it still comes from the screen (better than below it the way it was before, IMO).


----------



## philly_03

MagnumX said:


> What I did to test Atmos before I even decided it would work or not in my room (without having to buy an AVR to test it) was connect my overhead speakers to the existing 7.1 receiver and run things like stereo albums in "all channel stereo" with thunderstorms and what not through it to see if they sounded real overhead or not. They did, actually and so I knew the overhead speakers would work. You can test any given set of speakers by running regular stereo signals through them and see how they sound (clarity, imaging, etc.) including how it affects the couch backs and what not (better yet if there's a room correction system to see if it can accommodate any blockage of sound). I watch almost all movies reclined so the seat backs have little effect in that position compared to straight up and down plus I set the mics to measure with them upright and the mic in the same position. The rear speakers sound fine with the seat backs in the front.
> 
> The biggest issue I had with the front tower speakers sitting just below the screen (coming from the ceiling) is with center dialog from the front in the back two rows since it's partially blocked by the MLP chair (The main L/R aren't blocked as they align through the space between the seats). The raised dialog effect moving sound center to the front heights solved that (it just seems to come from higher on the screen than the front where it comes from the middle, but at that distance and the lower angle as a result, it's fine as it still comes from the screen (better than below it the way it was before, IMO).


I have a riser in front also, my front speakers are already elevated.
Thanks for the idea, I will verify if there is a significant difference between side wall and ceiling. I just finished installing the wides now. i will have a listen to see if it makes a difference in my room.

Phil.


----------



## Tygeezy

MagnumX said:


> I've heard no discernible difference whatsoever. I tend to think that the "subdued" difference people talk about is at least possibly due to the fact the Apple TV (for whatever reason) plays the movies typically at a volume level 4-8dB lower than the disc version on average (i.e. yes, if I play the Atmos BD of say, _Blade Runner 2049_ and then the streaming Atmos off iTunes without touching the volume control between them, the iTunes one sounds very wimpy by comparison). Thus, if you don't turn up the volume enough to compensate in comparison, it will sound _subdued_ indeed as softer volumes always sound "wimpy" next to louder ones. In fact, things like "bass is weaker" or "not as punchy" and similar comments are almost invariably level mismatches as actual compression artifacts sound more like "swirlies" in the highs or harsh voices, etc. not bass or dynamic differences (i.e. lossy doesn't change volume levels of bass or loud parts, but different devices and streaming services can. Cable "music channels" often compress or reduce volume levels giving them a bad impression compared to the real CD discs. That is not the fault of lossy compression. They've changed those purposely. A low rate MP3, for example will sound harsh and swirly, but it's not any less loud nor does it have less bass. So why would Dolby streaming formats?)
> 
> Level differences is something Sony supposedly took advantage of with SACD with doubled sided albums as the SACD side was always about 4dB louder than the CD side (DTS releases were often louder in bass for similar reasons; to make them sound DIFFERENT. If compression alone were enough with DTS's higher bit-rate you'd think that would be enough, but clearly it was not in most cases). Once level matched to compare, the Sony SACD and CD sides of the same _remastered_ album (keep in mind remastering also changes the sound of the albums) they typically sounded IDENTICAL as higher bit-rates and word lengths literally do *NOTHING* to improve _sound quality_ on a typical album, but by god they sure would like you to believe it does (so you keep buying the same crap over and over again; but now they've gone to a RENTAL model and that will soon likely kill music forever as there's no money to be made in pennies on the dollar by artists and most music is completely formulaic as well (computers even come up with much of the songs with a random generator following rules, from what I read, which would explain why it all sounds more or less like the same song) and half the artists can't sing at all and use constant pitch correct, but I digress).
> 
> But lossy versus lossless compression? As long as the bit-rate is high enough, there should be NO audible difference. Netflix used to be bad, but even they have gone to 640kbps Dolby Digital Plus which is higher than the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-Rays even (as Plus is about 2x as efficient). You never used to see people complain about DTS 1500kbps tracks either as they are extremely high quality...until Master-HD came along and everyone bought the marketing hype that they MUST sound better as uncompressed is always better than lossy...except when you can't tell the difference, which is normally true most of the time even at 640kbps regular Dolby Digital. It was largely marketing hype. It's somewhat ironic since now the industry has somewhat shot itself in the foot as at least some people complain streaming isn't good enough, even when it is. I mean if you have to ask comparing the two, I'd say they're close enough.
> 
> But perhaps that will keep discs alive longer and that's a good thing as you OWN the disc, unlike the streaming versions that they can delete at any time (like Ultraviolet that just went POOF!) Well, that is if you've ripped them and/or they don't issue recall/kill codes to your player for a disc at which point it won't play. That option was supposedly done for piracy reasons, but there's nothing on earth to stop them from using those codes to kill Blu-Ray discs off entirely if they want to so long as the law allows it and frankly laws change (or their interpretations by those it suits, at least). The outcry would be loud so it's unlikely it will ever happen (they will just let it die off slowly like laserdiscs, et al), but it's technically possible (if your BD player isn't connected to the Net it can't get the recall codes, but then it can't get the newest codes for newer movies either. DVDs have no such codes, though so low definition discs will always be around regardless, at least until they oxidize some day).
> 
> Of course, I'm sure someone will say that's nonsense. Blade Runner 2049 still sounds wimpy even adjusted for volume! My system must suck! Yeah, OK. I can't change the perceived reality for some people. Shakti Stones will always be magical for some people no matter what. And if there is any real perceptual difference with the streaming version level matched, it must be mighty small that my audible memory doesn't notice anything. Do people connect these with quick switch DBX boxes (that somehow don't cause HDMI to re-sync and cut the output as the source is switched) that they can compare them that closely or is it more likely the levels are off? I've got a sound meter here. I can match them precisely using a snippet on both.


I've been thinking about this more. The reason true hd is at such a higher bitrate is probably primarily due to being 24 bit depth and 192 khz sample rate compared to I believe 16 bit depth 48 khz sample rate for dolby digital plus. The max the apple tv can output is 16 bit 48 khz from what I gather. I've seen a ton of discussions on this and nobody seems to be able to prove people can hear the difference between cd quality (16 bit 44.1 - 48 khz) and a lot of the newer HD audio (24 bit and up to 192 khz). It certainly takes up a lot more space (bit rate). So to me that would realistically apply to Dolby Digital Plus Atmos vs Dolby True HD Atmos as well.


----------



## bryantc

Tygeezy said:


> The reason true hd is at such a higher bitrate is probably primarily due to being 24 bit depth and 192 khz sample rate compared to I believe 16 bit depth 48 khz sample rate for dolby digital plus.


Other than some concerts almost all video content comes with 48khz audio. The amount of movies released with a higher sampling rate can literally be counted on one hand.

On Blu-ray most TrueHD tracks were found to be 16-20bit. I don't know if that's changed with 4K Blu-ray and Atmos.

Most DTS tracks are 24bit.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Other than movie quality (which is good)-how would you guys rate the ATMOS track on Wonder Women?
Just trying to think if it is worth shelling out for the 4K Blu ray-which I’ll do if it has decent atmos...otherwise I’ll stream.


----------



## Tygeezy

bryantc said:


> Other than some concerts almost all video content comes with 48khz audio. The amount of movies released with a higher sampling rate can literally be counted on one hand.
> 
> On Blu-ray most TrueHD tracks were found to be 16-20bit. I don't know if that's changed with 4K Blu-ray and Atmos.
> 
> Most DTS tracks are 24bit.


So i'm just clicked on random 4k UHD's on blu ray.com and every atmos track I see is 24 bit 48 khz. So yeah, I just looked at the spec sheet and was assuming they were using 192 khz when in fact they are not. So we are talking 16 bit 48 khz 800 or so kbit vs 24 bit 48 khz and 1.5-3.5 mbit?

We have an amazon music subscription and they have UHD vs HD audio:

"HD tracks are 16-bit audio, with a minimum sample rate of 44.1 kHz (16/44.1 is also referred to as CD-quality), and an average bitrate of 850 kbps. Ultra HD tracks have a bit depth of 24 bits, with sample rates ranging from 44.1 kHz up to 192 kHz, and an average bitrate of 3730 kbps. "

I played some uhd music on my apple tv 4k which only supports 16 bit 48 khz output and compared it to my pc setup for 24 bit 192 khz and played a couple tracks with those specs(Welcome to The Jungle by Guns N' Roses) and couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## sdurani

Tygeezy said:


> The reason true hd is at such a higher bitrate is probably primarily due to being 24 bit depth and 192 khz sample rate compared to I believe 16 bit depth 48 khz sample rate for dolby digital plus.


The reason TrueHD has a higher bitrate than Dolby Digital Plus is because TrueHD is lossless and DD+ is lossy. Same reason why FLAC has a higher bitrate than MP3.


----------



## Tygeezy

sdurani said:


> The reason TrueHD has a higher bitrate than Dolby Digital Plus is because TrueHD is lossless and DD+ is lossy. Same reason why FLAC has a higher bitrate than MP3.


Yes, i'm just skeptical that people can actually hear the difference. I don't see any scientific methods to determine whether people can or can't and it certainly isn't in the interest of Dolby to do so. Also Dolby Digital plus is using a 16 bit depth vs 24 bit at least with atmos, the lower bit depth will save space.


----------



## niterida

harrisu said:


> Is it a power recliner?


Its a fixed back couch - so no internal armrests or reclining seats.
It does have adjustable head rests and the seat base slides forward so you can still get super comfortable and 2 (hopefully intimate) people can sleep on it. 
For me it is the ultimate theatre seating and makes the theatre a spare bedroom. 
I am working away so can't post pics.


----------



## sdurani

Tygeezy said:


> I don't see any scientific methods to determine whether people can or can't and it certainly isn't in the interest of Dolby to do so.


Dolby licenses lossy and lossless codecs. They have a vested interesting in demonstrating that lossless sounds better than lossy, otherwise they wouldn't have a reason to sell their lossless codecs.


----------



## Tygeezy

sdurani said:


> Dolby licenses lossy and lossless codecs. They have a vested interesting in demonstrating that lossless sounds better than lossy, otherwise they wouldn't have a reason to sell their lossless codecs.


I disagree, there are a lot of people that want the best no matter what even if they can't perceive a difference. If there is this significant difference then surely there is some proof backed up by scientific studies.


----------



## farsider3000

MortenS said:


> Hi, my room is about 14m2 and ceiling height is about 8'
> 
> Would 4x SVS Prime Elevation speakers placed as below be a good options for a 7.1.4 solution in my room? (or other similar speakers with placement front/back wall).
> I guess it must be much better than upward/ceiling firing speakers.
> 
> This would be the easiest to install.
> 
> View attachment 3063133


It might work but it will not sound as good as properly placed ceiling (top) speakers.

The rear top will sound like rears and the front top will sound like LCR. There is too much reflection from the front a d rear walls.

I have three rows of atmos (two rows of seating) and I can’t stress enough that a single row overhead or two rows just in front of and just behind the main listening position sounds best. If Turn off the front and rear rows and just keep the middle row on (directly above my head) the surround bubble sounds the best. Even though my front row of atmos is about 8 ft from my projection screen and LCR it can still be hard to tell that sound is coming from overhead.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## niterida

Tygeezy said:


> I disagree, there are a lot of people that want the best no matter what even if they can't perceive a difference. If there is this significant difference than surely there is some proof backed up by scientific studies.


there is insignificant difference that surely is backed up by scientific studies.


----------



## niterida

farsider3000 said:


> It might work but it will not sound as good as properly placed ceiling (top) speakers.
> 
> The rear top will sound like rears and the front top will sound like LCR. There is too much reflection from the front a d rear walls.
> 
> I have three rows of atmos (two rows of seating) and I can’t stress enough that a single row overhead or two rows just in front of and just behind the main listening position sounds best. If Turn off the front and rear rows and just keep the middle row on (directly above my head) the surround bubble sounds the best. Even though my front row of atmos is about 8 ft from my projection screen and LCR it can still be hard to tell that sound is coming from overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You are the only member here who I have read that has this observation.
When I tested .2 vs .4 vs .6 in my single row room the .4 was by far the superior option.


----------



## howard68

Hi All
So is anyone getting Jack Ryan in Atmos on Prime now?

I have read Amazon have stopped supporting Atmos 
Thx 
H


----------



## Tygeezy

niterida said:


> there is insignificant difference that surely is backed up by scientific studies.


That I don’t doubt. I would really like to see if humans could perceive these differences though.


----------



## niterida

Tygeezy said:


> That I don’t doubt. I would really like to see if humans could perceive these differences though.


Sorry I should have elaborated - the tests have shown that humans can't tell the difference. Although those tests have mainly been of the double blind tests and some people will say they are flawed and some people will swear that they can hear a significant difference.
In my own blind test I couldn't tell even a tiny bit of difference.


----------



## Tygeezy

I finally got the okay from my wife to put up atmos speakers. However, my wife is all about aesthetics first and foremost so I marked with red arrows where I’m allowed to put the speakers. Ideally I could put the top right speakers over the front right speaker, but that’s not happening. Would 2 speakers in these corners give me a good atmos experience? My reciever only supports 5.1.2, so 5.1.4 won’t work and there is no way my wife would agree to putting 2 rear heights in a suitable location.

Would it be worth it giving these restrictions to even out them in? If so are there any speaker recommendations?

My receiver manual describes at most speakers as either top middle or front Dolby speakers... Obviously top middle is out. Would front Dolby speakers be considered the up firing speakers which I obviously can’t do with the extreme angle of my ceiling.


----------



## JohnRichmond

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So is anyone getting Jack Ryan in Atmos on Prime now?
> 
> I have read Amazon have stopped supporting Atmos
> Thx
> H


I'm still getting Atmos on season 2 and not season 1 using my firestick 4k.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anyone comment on the Wonder Woman 4K blu ray atmos track? Is it good enough to spend money on in your opinion?


----------



## niterida

Tygeezy said:


> I finally got the okay from my wife to put up atmos speakers. However, my wife is all about aesthetics first and foremost so I marked with red arrows where I’m allowed to put the speakers. Ideally I could put the top right speakers over the front right speaker, but that’s not happening. Would 2 speakers in these corners give me a good atmos experience? My reciever only supports 5.1.2, so 5.1.4 won’t work and there is no way my wife would agree to putting 2 rear heights in a suitable location.
> 
> Would it be worth it giving these restrictions to even out them in? If so are there any speaker recommendations?
> 
> My receiver manual describes at most speakers as either top middle or front Dolby speakers... Obviously top middle is out. Would front Dolby speakers be considered the up firing speakers which I obviously can’t do with the extreme angle of my ceiling.


That positioning will work but isn't ideal. 
I would suggest you buy a pair of RSL C34e in-ceiling speakers (They have a 15deg angle) and place them on the vaulted ceiling as high as possible so that they are aimed directly at the main seats. See drawing with the thin lined inset drawing showing how to place the 15deg angled speaker.


----------



## Tygeezy

niterida said:


> That positioning will work but isn't ideal.
> I would suggest you buy a pair of RSL C34e in-ceiling speakers (They have a 15deg angle) and place them on the vaulted ceiling as high as possible so that they are aimed directly at the main seats. See drawing with the thin lined inset drawing showing how to place the 15deg angled speaker.
> View attachment 3064712


My wife seemed to be resistant to in ceiling speakers. I might convince her if I can show how subtle it looks. The logistics of installing it would be a pain as well. I don’t have an attic, I have a crawl space it’s really difficult to navigate. I’m not even sure I can access that part of the ceiling through the crawl space. So installing those speakers and running the wire through the ceiling down through the wall will also be a pain. I don’t trust me doing that, but I know I can install speakers in the top corners.


----------



## farsider3000

niterida said:


> You are the only member here who I have read that has this observation.
> When I tested .2 vs .4 vs .6 in my single row room the .4 was by far the superior option.


How did you test all these variations? 

I have three rows of atmos installed and can shut off any row I want an position myself to hear different variations in seating position / angles.

My guess is that most people are talking about how much better .4 or . 6 is vs .2 are not able to actually test this.

If you hear different number of rows in different rooms that is not good data.

It also depends on the room. My room is not huge 14ft x 24ft x 9.5ft. Size of the room and number of acoustic panels can affect everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So is anyone getting Jack Ryan in Atmos on Prime now?
> 
> I have read Amazon have stopped supporting Atmos
> Thx
> H


I just checked and I can’t find any movie or tv show that is more than 5.1 surround on Amazon through Apple TV 4K and nvidia shield. That is ridiculous.

So disappointed in Amazon. But HBO Max came out and does not offer 4K. I refuse to watch in streaming HD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## niterida

farsider3000 said:


> How did you test all these variations?
> 
> I have three rows of atmos installed and can shut off any row I want an position myself to hear different variations in seating position / angles.
> 
> My guess is that most people are talking about how much better .4 or . 6 is vs .2 are not able to actually test this.
> 
> If you hear different number of rows in different rooms that is not good data.
> 
> It also depends on the room. My room is not huge 14ft x 24ft x 9.5ft. Size of the room and number of acoustic panels can affect everything.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Like I said in my quote - I tested in my room, 20x14x9 with 6 speakers and swapped between .2, .4 and .6 - just like you.
.2 was terrible - when all the sound comes from directly overhead and there is no panning from front to back it sounded weird.

Which only proves that you can't prove anything when it comes to Audio. 
Every set up, no matter how similar will still be slightly different, and every pair of ears, no matter how similar will still still be slightly different. So in the end it all comes down to personal taste and preference, budget and room limitations.


----------



## farsider3000

Tygeezy said:


> My wife seemed to be resistant to in ceiling speakers. I might convince her if I can show how subtle it looks. The logistics of installing it would be a pain as well. I don’t have an attic, I have a crawl space it’s really difficult to navigate. I’m not even sure I can access that part of the ceiling through the crawl space. So installing those speakers and running the wire through the ceiling down through the wall will also be a pain. I don’t trust me doing that, but I know I can install speakers in the top corners.


You can also cut your wall and ceiling Sheetrock to run the wires. Sheetrock is simple for a contractor to repair and blend into your ceiling especially if the ceiling is textured. 

Flush / invisible ceiling speakers would look much better than the SVS speakers stuck on the ceiling wall interface. To me the SVS would not look very nice in a living room (assume it is a living room and not a man cave if your wife is worried about the ceiling).

Just be careful with ceiling speakers that do not have a built in back box. If sounds like you have attic/ crawl space above but they can produce a lot of sound that can be heard in other rooms of the back box is not built in.

If you go through some pain now it will look amazing and theoretically sound much better.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## farsider3000

niterida said:


> Like I said in my quote - I tested in my room, 20x14x9 with 6 speakers and swapped between .2, .4 and .6 - just like you.
> .2 was terrible - when all the sound comes from directly overhead and there is no panning from front to back it sounded weird.
> 
> Which only proves that you can't prove anything when it comes to Audio.
> Every set up, no matter how similar will still be slightly different, and every pair of ears, no matter how similar will still still be slightly different. So in the end it all comes down to personal taste and preference, budget and room limitations.


True. Do you have rear speakers? The overhead pan should in general start in the rear, move to the ceiling and the to the front or vice versa depending on direction. I can see going with four overheads spaced closer than Dolby recommends.

I currently do have all six Atmos active but most movies / tv don’t utilize all six unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tygeezy

farsider3000 said:


> You can also cut your wall and ceiling Sheetrock to run the wires. Sheetrock is simple for a contractor to repair and blend into your ceiling especially if the ceiling is textured.
> 
> Flush / invisible ceiling speakers would look much better than the SVS speakers stuck on the ceiling wall interface. To me the SVS would not look very nice in a living room (assume it is a living room and not a man cave if your wife is worried about the ceiling).
> 
> Just be careful with ceiling speakers that do not have a built in back box. If sounds like you have attic/ crawl space above but they can produce a lot of sound that can be heard in other rooms of the back box is not built in.
> 
> If you go through some pain now it will look amazing and theoretically sound much better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have a crawl space unfortunately that you can access from the master bedroom closet. I’ve peaked in there but haven’t actually crawled in there. It didn’t look like you could access that part of the ceiling to me that vaults down.


----------



## niterida

Tygeezy said:


> I have a crawl space unfortunately that you can access from the master bedroom closet. I’ve peaked in there but haven’t actually crawled in there. It didn’t look like you could access that part of the ceiling to me that vaults down.


You shouldn't need to access behind the ceiling. Cut hole for the speaker and feed a "snake" with speaker wires attached down the through the ceiling cavity and into the wall cavity and out through the junction box hole. It might be a bit fiddly but with patience is easily doable.


----------



## MortenS

farsider3000 said:


> It might work but it will not sound as good as properly placed ceiling (top) speakers.
> 
> The rear top will sound like rears and the front top will sound like LCR. There is too much reflection from the front a d rear walls.
> 
> I have three rows of atmos (two rows of seating) and I can’t stress enough that a single row overhead or two rows just in front of and just behind the main listening position sounds best. If Turn off the front and rear rows and just keep the middle row on (directly above my head) the surround bubble sounds the best. Even though my front row of atmos is about 8 ft from my projection screen and LCR it can still be hard to tell that sound is coming from overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks for sharing the experience.
So going for x.x.2 and making sure they are placed close to directly above is probably going to sound allot better then x.x.4 with front height and back height.

Do you also have any input and experience on regular vs "dolby atmos" speakers?.


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> Thanks for sharing the experience.
> So going for x.x.2 and making sure they are placed close to directly above is probably going to sound allot better then x.x.4 with front height and back height.
> 
> Do you also have any input and experience on regular vs "dolby atmos" speakers?.


IME .4, even as front and rear heights (which is what I have) is far superior to .2
I compare the fronts, top middles and rears to your LCR - having L, C & R (or 6 Atmos) is the ultimate, but having L&R (4 Atmos) with phantom centre image is just as good for the middle seat (and in Atmos terms the whole row would be in the middle) and you would never listen to just the C (2 Atmos) on its own would you ?

If by "Dolby Atmos" speakers you mean the upfiring modules placed on top of your ear level speakers, then most people stay to steer well clear of them. They can work, but you need everything to be perfect - flat, totally reflective ceiling and perfect positioning to get the angles of bounce exactly right, and they still won't sound as good.


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> IME .4, even as front and rear heights (which is what I have) is far superior to .2
> I compare the fronts, top middles and rears to your LCR - having L, C & R (or 6 Atmos) is the ultimate, but having L&R (4 Atmos) with phantom centre image is just as good for the middle seat (and in Atmos terms the whole row would be in the middle) and you would never listen to just the C (2 Atmos) on its own would you ?
> 
> If by "Dolby Atmos" speakers you mean the upfiring modules placed on top of your ear level speakers, then most people stay to steer well clear of them. They can work, but you need everything to be perfect - flat, totally reflective ceiling and perfect positioning to get the angles of bounce exactly right, and they still won't sound as good.


s.
No i mean regular speakers vs the new "dolby atmos" speakers with different crossover setting like svs prime elevation.

IME?, not sure what that means. but you think x.x.4 heights on front and back wall will be better?


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> s.
> No i mean regular speakers vs the new "dolby atmos" speakers with different crossover setting like svs prime elevation.
> 
> IME?, not sure what that means. but you think x.x.4 heights on front and back wall will be better?


Dolby Atmos speakers with crossover settings are just regular speakers, unless you use them as up-firing on top of your earlevel speakers and then you engage the Atmos crossover setting. So any regular speaker will work just as well as the SVS Prime Elevation when placed in the height positions.

IME = In My Experience


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> Dolby Atmos speakers with crossover settings are just regular speakers, unless you use them as up-firing on top of your earlevel speakers and then you engage the Atmos crossover setting. So any regular speaker will work just as well as any other speaker when placed in the height positions.
> 
> IME = In My Experience


Ah, been reading allot about Atmos, but not understood that the Atmos crossover was just used for upfiring. Thank you!.


----------



## anothermib

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So is anyone getting Jack Ryan in Atmos on Prime now?
> 
> I have read Amazon have stopped supporting Atmos
> Thx
> H


I watched S2E1 last night and it was in Atmos. I never started watching the 2nd season as Amazon felt it’s not worth offering it in Atmos outside the US, which annoyed me quite a bit. However, apparently they changed that policy in the recent months.


----------



## Robbie Racer

I checked both season 1 and season 2 of Jack Ryan (don't remember the episodes) and my AVR was showing Atmos when streaming through my Roku Ultra. For some reason the last time I checked several months ago, I could get Atmos on one season but not the other. I may have been streaming it with another device though that time but I can't remember for sure.


----------



## eaayoung

Tygeezy said:


> I have a crawl space unfortunately that you can access from the master bedroom closet. I’ve peaked in there but haven’t actually crawled in there. It didn’t look like you could access that part of the ceiling to me that vaults down.


Have some installers come out and look at your home and give you a price to run the speaker wires and install in-ceiling speakers. They’re usually skilled in running speaker wire through walls and ceiling without damaging the drywall in the home. And in-ceiling speakers work great for Atmos speakers since they aren’t very noticeable plus you can paint the grills to match the color of your ceiling.

In my home which has a partial vaulted ceiling, they ran the wires to the outside wall (from the connections inside the home) then back up and into attic and to the speakers in the ceiling. I paid $500 for my install, which included providing the speaker wire and running to four in-ceiling Atmos speakers (installed as well), two in-wall surround speakers (also installed by them) and two exterior speakers on a porch. I installed the speakers wire to the connection plate on the inside wall and hooked all speaker wires to my to my receiver. I’m cheap when it comes to home projects and usually do the work myself. But decided hire someone due to the vaulted ceiling in my home. Very satisfied with finished work to. Also, if you can go with four Atmos speakers instead of two, the experience is much better. Maybe consider having the wiring run now for a future upgrade. It’s worth the extra expense.

Here’s a photo of my two front Atmos speakers...


----------



## Tygeezy

eaayoung said:


> Have some installers come out and look at your home and give you a price to run the speaker wires and install in-ceiling speakers. They’re usually skilled in running speaker wire through walls and ceiling without damaging the drywall in the home. And in-ceiling speakers work great for Atmos speakers since they aren’t very noticeable plus you can paint the grills to match the color of your ceiling.
> 
> In my home which has a partial vaulted ceiling, they ran the wires to the outside wall (from the connections inside the home) then back up and into attic and to the speakers in the ceiling. I paid $500 for my install, which included providing the speaker wire and running to four in-ceiling Atmos speakers (installed as well), two in-wall surround speakers (also installed by them) and two exterior speakers on a porch. I installed the speakers wire to the connection plate on the inside wall and hooked all speaker wires to my to my receiver. I’m cheap when it comes to home projects and usually do the work myself. But decided hire someone due to the vaulted ceiling in my home. Very satisfied with finished work to. Also, if you can go with four Atmos speakers instead of two, the experience is much better. Maybe consider having the wiring run now for a future upgrade. It’s worth the extra expense.
> 
> Here’s a photo of my two front Atmos speakers...
> View attachment 3064895


Awesome, thanks for this info. You know, id love to have 4 atmos speakers, but have you seen how extreme the angle of the slop is on my ceiling? It's at about 28 degree slope. Also, my receiver is only 5.1.2, but if I could reasonably install 5.1.4 i could always move that receiver to another room.


----------



## batpig

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anyone comment on the Wonder Woman 4K blu ray atmos track? Is it good enough to spend money on in your opinion?


It's a very good track in the sense of dynamics and plenty of action, BUT it has fairly limited height activity and leaves out the wide speakers. So it would be considered one of those "7.1 fixed ear level + occasional overhead effects" type of Atmos mixes.


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> So it would be considered one of those "7.1 fixed ear level + occasional overhead effects" type of Atmos mixes.


Soo.... pretty much like all of them.  

Between limited use/exploiting of the format and bass-neutered catalog releases, I'm losing my boner for Atmos releases of movies I enjoy.


----------



## Augerhandle

Scott Simonian said:


> Soo.... pretty much like all of them.
> 
> Between limited use/exploiting of the format and bass-neutered catalog releases, I'm losing my boner for Atmos releases of movies I enjoy.


Yeah, me too. I kinda quit trying after about 30 or so purchases.


----------



## eaayoung

Tygeezy said:


> Awesome, thanks for this info. You know, id love to have 4 atmos speakers, but have you seen how extreme the angle of the slop is on my ceiling? It's at about 28 degree slope. Also, my receiver is only 5.1.2, but if I could reasonably install 5.1.4 i could always move that receiver to another room.


. 

It shouldn’t be a problem. Many in-ceiling speakers have tweeters that can be aimed.


----------



## niterida

Tygeezy said:


> Awesome, thanks for this info. You know, id love to have 4 atmos speakers, but have you seen how extreme the angle of the slop is on my ceiling? It's at about 28 degree slope. Also, my receiver is only 5.1.2, but if I could reasonably install 5.1.4 i could always move that receiver to another room.


You want your front and rear speakers roughly in the positions I have circled. You can use elevation speakers (Like SVS Prime) or in-ceilings (RSL C34e) or a combination of both. What you need to do is have the speakers pointing directly at listeners as much as possible and for them to be at 45deg elevation front and rear from the listeners ears. You mayhave to use some geometry maths to figure out the best spot and the best speaker.








But you are up for a fair bit extra - new AVR, second set of speakers and extra wiring. .4 Atmos is usually far superior to .2 Atmos. But I will leave you with the wise words of someone else :

Some Atmos is better than No Atmos


----------



## Tygeezy

niterida said:


> You want your front and rear speakers roughly in the positions I have circled. You can use elevation speakers (Like SVS Prime) or in-ceilings (RSL C34e) or a combination of both. What you need to do is have the speakers pointing directly at listeners as much as possible and for them to be at 45deg elevation front and rear from the listeners ears. You mayhave to use some geometry maths to figure out the best spot and the best speaker.
> View attachment 3065110
> 
> But you are up for a fair bit extra - new AVR, second set of speakers and extra wiring. .4 Atmos is usually far superior to .2 Atmos. But I will leave you with the wise words of someone else :
> 
> Some Atmos is better than No Atmos


Yep, that certainly isn’t happening. I really appreciate your help though. I think those are wise words indeed. .2 will just have to do with what I’m working with.


----------



## Tygeezy

I know this is the home theatre thread for atmos, but I’ve tried atmos for headphones for windows 10 in games and also audio demos. It’s pretty fantastic and I’ve wanted atmos headphone ability outside of windows 10 because windows is a pain to get proper framerate matching for films without repeating or dropping frames to sync audio and video clock.

Well, Apple just announced AirPod pro Max headphones that has spacial audio with gyroscope to note head position and has support for atmos as well as 5.1 and 7.1 movies. Now, headphones with fake surround are pretty garbage, but special audio is outstanding with even mediocre headphones. I’m assuming as long as you pair to an Apple TV 4K, iTunes 4k movies, Netflix, Disney plus with atmos and 5.1 should be terrific.

I have a few atmos movies on iTunes and multiple Apple TV 4ks. Another issue I’ve had with headphones is you could never have multiple wireless headphones hooked up; at least without a special device.

My wife and I will use a splitter and 3.5 mm Jack and run a very long cable from my c9 in our bedroom if we want to watch something while our 6 month old is sleeping near by. With these headphones we could pair both wirelessly and have headphones with atmos.


----------



## TheLamonster

I have front height speakers currently installed, and Atmos sounds pretty good but it's obviously not the full experience.

I am planning to upgrade my receiver and add two overhead ceiling speakers. This would be a 7.2.4 hybrid Atmos setup. Would it be better to install the ceiling speakers as rear ceiling behind me (directly above the surround back speakers), or as middle ceiling (directly above the MLP)?


----------



## niterida

TheLamonster said:


> I have front height speakers currently installed, and Atmos sounds pretty good but it's obviously not the full experience.
> 
> I am planning to upgrade my receiver and add two overhead ceiling speakers. This would be a 7.2.4 hybrid Atmos setup. Would it be better to install the ceiling speakers as rear ceiling behind me (directly above the surround back speakers), or as middle ceiling (directly above the MLP)?


Behind you - if you put them above you they are still sent the rear atmos signal in a .4 setup. In other words you can't specify Top Middle and Top Fronts in your settings.


----------



## awblackmon

Tygeezy said:


> I know this is the home theatre thread for atmos, but I’ve tried atmos for headphones for windows 10 in games and also audio demos. It’s pretty fantastic and I’ve wanted atmos headphone ability outside of windows 10 because windows is a pain to get proper framerate matching for films without repeating or dropping frames to sync audio and video clock.
> 
> Well, Apple just announced AirPod pro Max headphones that has spacial audio with gyroscope to note head position and has support for atmos as well as 5.1 and 7.1 movies. Now, headphones with fake surround are pretty garbage, but special audio is outstanding with even mediocre headphones. I’m assuming as long as you pair to an Apple TV 4K, iTunes 4k movies, Netflix, Disney plus with atmos and 5.1 should be terrific.
> 
> I have a few atmos movies on iTunes and multiple Apple TV 4ks. Another issue I’ve had with headphones is you could never have multiple wireless headphones hooked up; at least without a special device.
> 
> My wife and I will use a splitter and 3.5 mm Jack and run a very long cable from my c9 in our bedroom if we want to watch something while our 6 month old is sleeping near by. With these headphones we could pair both wirelessly and have headphones with atmos.


I may need to look into these. I like to watch movies or stream after the wife goes to bed. She says sometimes it gets a bit loud. This could help a lot.


----------



## Tygeezy

awblackmon said:


> I may need to look into these. I like to watch movies or stream after the wife goes to bed. She says sometimes it gets a bit loud. This could help a lot.


I looked more into this and people are complaining it doesn't currently work on apple tv 4k and love it on their iphone and ipad. They are hoping either a software update or a new apple tv will bring spacial audio to apple tv 4k. I'll be all over it if they do, but im not spending over 1 grand on headphones (two of them) until that feature is added.









Does AirPods Max Spatial Audio Work on Apple TV 4K? • iPhone in Canada Blog


AirPods Max and 3D spatial audio isn't available on Apple TV 4K sadly--but why?




www.iphoneincanada.ca






__
https://www.reddit.com/r/appletv/comments/isv29w


----------



## awblackmon

Tygeezy said:


> I looked more into this and people are complaining it doesn't currently work on apple tv 4k and love it on their iphone and ipad. They are hoping either a software update or a new apple tv will bring spacial audio to apple tv 4k. I'll be all over it if they do, but im not spending over 1 grand on headphones (two of them) until that feature is added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does AirPods Max Spatial Audio Work on Apple TV 4K? • iPhone in Canada Blog
> 
> 
> AirPods Max and 3D spatial audio isn't available on Apple TV 4K sadly--but why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.iphoneincanada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/appletv/comments/isv29w


Well if these are $500 or so apiece I won't be buying them. I do have Apple TV 4K for my streaming in the theater room.


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> It might work but it will not sound as good as properly placed ceiling (top) speakers.
> 
> The rear top will sound like rears and the front top will sound like LCR. There is too much reflection from the front a d rear walls.
> 
> I have three rows of atmos (two rows of seating) and I can’t stress enough that a single row overhead or two rows just in front of and just behind the main listening position sounds best. If Turn off the front and rear rows and just keep the middle row on (directly above my head) the surround bubble sounds the best. Even though my front row of atmos is about 8 ft from my projection screen and LCR it can still be hard to tell that sound is coming from overhead.


I can't stress enough my disagreement. Front/Rear Height do NOT sound like LCR and Rear surround for god's sake!!! I get sound across my entire 24' ceiling with front/rear height plus top middle that's mounted on the side walls 2 feet off from where top middle ceiling would be. All overhead sounds work perfectly at ceiling height across the entire length. Ear level speakers image at, below or just above my head. Objects can image anywhere in-between in combination. Your setup won't let overhead objects move hardly anywhere whereas here something like a plane can fly across the entire 24' ceiling length of the room. I personally think it would suck to have it only image a few feet directly overhead.



niterida said:


> there is insignificant difference that surely is backed up by scientific studies.


DD+, AAC, etc. were created by "scientific studies". At a high enough bitrate they are pretty much acoustically TRANSPARENT. I have to agree @Tygeezy that most people cannot hear a difference if the bit-rate is high enough. Netflix was using way too low of rates previous to this year. But 640kbps Dolby Digital is considered in testing to be mostly transparent and there are threads on this site elsewhere from over ten years ago when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray first came out that discuss that. But the consumer likes to "know" that it's "lossless" and thus the "audiophile-like" snob driven notion that it's always best to get TrueHD/DTS-HD MA over lossy. That's fine on a disc to reassure yourself, but it's more important with streaming kept in mind. I find iTunes DD+/Atmos signal to compare just fine to the Blu-Rays _once level matched_ (that is very important as Apple TV 4K outputs lower levels than Blu-Ray players for some reason to the tune of 6-7dB on average, although some Blu-Rays lately seem to be coming out at lower levels too, especially from Disney while I have run into some higher output level movies on Apple as well. In any case, the levels must be matched for a proper comparison and the tests be done double blind (e.g. ABX) to be "scientifically" valid.



howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So is anyone getting Jack Ryan in Atmos on Prime now?
> 
> I have read Amazon have stopped supporting Atmos
> Thx
> H


The last time I checked (a few weeks ago), I was definitely getting Dolby Atmos on Jack Ryan (with a 4K scaler fooling it for my 2K projector) with BOTH my AppleTV 4K and my 2017 NVidia Shield with the Amazon app. It's one of the few things on there that seemed to be in Atmos (most 4K movies are NOT for some reason). Vudu and Apple both have FAR more movies in Dolby Atmos than Amazon. But Jack Ryan is a unique show to them and only on Atmos there, AFAIK.


----------



## farsider3000

MagnumX said:


> I can't stress enough my disagreement. Front/Rear Height do NOT sound like LCR and Rear surround for god's sake!!! I get sound across my entire 24' ceiling with front/rear height plus top middle that's mounted on the side walls 2 feet off from where top middle ceiling would be. All overhead sounds work perfectly at ceiling height across the entire length. Ear level speakers image at, below or just above my head. Objects can image anywhere in-between in combination. Your setup won't let overhead objects move hardly anywhere whereas here something like a plane can fly across the entire 24' ceiling length of the room. I personally think it would suck to have it only image a few feet directly overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> DD+, AAC, etc. were created by "scientific studies". At a high enough bitrate they are pretty much acoustically TRANSPARENT. I have to agree @Tygeezy that most people cannot hear a difference if the bit-rate is high enough. Netflix was using way too low of rates previous to this year. But 640kbps Dolby Digital is considered in testing to be mostly transparent and there are threads on this site elsewhere from over ten years ago when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray first came out that discuss that. But the consumer likes to "know" that it's "lossless" and thus the "audiophile-like" snob driven notion that it's always best to get TrueHD/DTS-HD MA over lossy. That's fine on a disc to reassure yourself, but it's more important with streaming kept in mind. I find iTunes DD+/Atmos signal to compare just fine to the Blu-Rays _once level matched_ (that is very important as Apple TV 4K outputs lower levels than Blu-Ray players for some reason to the tune of 6-7dB on average, although some Blu-Rays lately seem to be coming out at lower levels too, especially from Disney while I have run into some higher output level movies on Apple as well. In any case, the levels must be matched for a proper comparison and the tests be done double blind (e.g. ABX) to be "scientifically" valid.
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked (a few weeks ago), I was definitely getting Dolby Atmos on Jack Ryan (with a 4K scaler fooling it for my 2K projector) with BOTH my AppleTV 4K and my 2017 NVidia Shield with the Amazon app. It's one of the few things on there that seemed to be in Atmos (most 4K movies are NOT for some reason). Vudu and Apple both have FAR more movies in Dolby Atmos than Amazon. But Jack Ryan is a unique show to them and only on Atmos there, AFAIK.


Just telling you my experience with my six top speakers in a purpose built theater about the same length as yours (23.5ft) with acoustic panels.

When a sound starts from the rear speakers and then goes to the rear top I find it hard to believe anyone can actually hear that transition when the speakers are 8-12 ft behind them.

All I am trying to get across is that side and front / rear reflections can and will affect top speakers.









You can see my right side top speakers in the image. 

Most people have smaller rooms than ours and putting two rows of top speakers in a 12ft long room is a waste in my opinion.

I have tested this many times and in my room I could easily get away with two rows with zero audible difference. If my room was longer and I could get my rears further back it may be a different story but I doubt it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MagnumX

farsider3000 said:


> Just telling you my experience with my six top speakers in a purpose built theater about the same length as yours (23.5ft) with acoustic panels.
> 
> When a sound starts from the rear speakers and then goes to the rear top I find it hard to believe anyone can actually hear that transition when the speakers are 8-12 ft behind them.


I'm hard pressed to think of something specific that moves "upward" from rears to rear heights or top rears offhand to test (I do recall an effect like that in the newer "IT" (part 1) movie when the clown climbed a wall onto the ceiling, but I don't recall which pair it was. Certainly, I can easily tell the difference in height on the DTS:X "speaker callout" demo and the Atmos 9.1.6 channel demo. There's also the Dolby Atmos Conductor demo that has alternating effects in the rear at different heights. Certainly, the difference in apparent height at the very back of the room is smaller from the front row (approaching a -22 degree angle or thereabouts), but certainly not overlapping by any means. I've got two more rows of seats, though, one of which is right in front of the rear surround and rear height speakers and the 2nd row just past the middle of the room so there's certainly much larger angles overhead from those seats. That's just the very back anyway. Those speakers are used in combination with Top Middle to pan across the back half of the room's ceiling (likewise between front height and top middle) so the apparent angle of the phantom image as it moves towards the center of the room increases to 110 degrees for the front row. The phantom imaging occurs in the same plane as the speakers. My point is that in terms of phantom imaging, the entire 24' length of the ceiling is in play for all three rows. How high they are to start at any given location is relative to the seating position. 



> All I am trying to get across is that side and front / rear reflections can and will affect top speakers.


Phantom imaging location is determined by the direct sound, not a reflection which would be delayed slightly and be more like reverb so I'm not sure what a reflection has to do with it. My room is extremely dead sounding so there are few reflections compared to a livelier room.



> You can see my right side top speakers in the image.


I can see they don't appear to be very far apart from one another and thus I don't see a pressing need for top middle in that size a room. If you had front height and rear height speakers in combination with the top middle ones, you'd have a much larger overhead sound stage.



> Most people have smaller rooms than ours and putting two rows of top speakers in a 12ft long room is a waste in my opinion.


I can split my room in two (speaker switch moving rear height to the top middle speakers that I use to do "true" Auro 9.1. By turning off the rear surrounds, I end up with 5.1.4 as I have the side surrounds and top middle speakers at 110 degrees relative to the front row (normally phantom image tuned with the matrixed front wide speakers to seem closer to 90 degrees, probably around 95-100 at the moment for 11.1.6 use. That has overheads at around 33 degrees and 110 degrees (33/-70), which is not ideal for 5.1.4, but images quite solid across that length of ceiling (I can move the chair forward a bit to get about 45/-58 for testing purposes). The Atmos helicopter moves around half the room just fine. Saying all I need is top middle (which I can do by setting it to .2 and swapping outputs or leave it for front height only) means the helicopter just goes side-to-side instead. What fun is that?



> I have tested this many times and in my room I could easily get away with two rows with zero audible difference.


That's because your overhead speakers are so close together you don't _need_ "top middle" to bridge the two, especially for the front row that appears to be almost halfway in-between for near perfectly even phantom imaging. I need "top middle" because my front/rear height speakers are almost at the front/rear extremes of the room (22 feet apart!) so the middle of the room gets weak phantom imaging without top middle added. With it added, it images solid across the entire ceiling. I use "Scatmos" so that it works with literally everything so I don't lose overhead imaging with Disney 7.1.4 locked soundtracks, for instance.



> If my room was longer and I could get my rears further back it may be a different story but I doubt it.


If anything, rear heights placed further back would lower their apparent angle and bring them closer to the rear surrounds. If I keep my rear surrounds on and switch to just the front height and top middle speakers (7.1.4), the separation between rear surround and top middle is huge, but the helicopter can only fly halfway back into the room on the ceiling. With 7.1.6 and rear heights above the rear surrounds, the helicopter can fly the entire perimeter of the room. If you turn off the overheads (7.1), the helicopter will fly at ear level around the room, which is a good test to see how even/smooth the phantom imaging is around the room at both height levels.

I made this drawing before of the apparent flight path of the Atmos Helicopter demo when using "Heights + Top Middle" versus three rows of "Tops" if they were used in the same (my) room, placed at the appropriate relative angles. The dotted lines in purple show the helicopter "tops" path and the gold lines show the "heights" path. It also shows the effects of having my "top middle" speakers on the side walls instead of directly in line with the front/rear mains/heights, which IMO makes a more natural path to use almost the entire room (It's also the location for Auro 3-D "surround heights", which I switch it to with a speaker select switch). If I had a Trinnov with all 10 overhead speakers used (all circles except the side heights), it would simply pass through all the purple locations from the gold ones and increase the length, but not width of travel.


----------



## Tygeezy

MagnumX said:


> I can't stress enough my disagreement. Front/Rear Height do NOT sound like LCR and Rear surround for god's sake!!! I get sound across my entire 24' ceiling with front/rear height plus top middle that's mounted on the side walls 2 feet off from where top middle ceiling would be. All overhead sounds work perfectly at ceiling height across the entire length. Ear level speakers image at, below or just above my head. Objects can image anywhere in-between in combination. Your setup won't let overhead objects move hardly anywhere whereas here something like a plane can fly across the entire 24' ceiling length of the room. I personally think it would suck to have it only image a few feet directly overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> DD+, AAC, etc. were created by "scientific studies". At a high enough bitrate they are pretty much acoustically TRANSPARENT. I have to agree @Tygeezy that most people cannot hear a difference if the bit-rate is high enough. Netflix was using way too low of rates previous to this year. But 640kbps Dolby Digital is considered in testing to be mostly transparent and there are threads on this site elsewhere from over ten years ago when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray first came out that discuss that. But the consumer likes to "know" that it's "lossless" and thus the "audiophile-like" snob driven notion that it's always best to get TrueHD/DTS-HD MA over lossy. That's fine on a disc to reassure yourself, but it's more important with streaming kept in mind. I find iTunes DD+/Atmos signal to compare just fine to the Blu-Rays _once level matched_ (that is very important as Apple TV 4K outputs lower levels than Blu-Ray players for some reason to the tune of 6-7dB on average, although some Blu-Rays lately seem to be coming out at lower levels too, especially from Disney while I have run into some higher output level movies on Apple as well. In any case, the levels must be matched for a proper comparison and the tests be done double blind (e.g. ABX) to be "scientifically" valid.
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked (a few weeks ago), I was definitely getting Dolby Atmos on Jack Ryan (with a 4K scaler fooling it for my 2K projector) with BOTH my AppleTV 4K and my 2017 NVidia Shield with the Amazon app. It's one of the few things on there that seemed to be in Atmos (most 4K movies are NOT for some reason). Vudu and Apple both have FAR more movies in Dolby Atmos than Amazon. But Jack Ryan is a unique show to them and only on Atmos there, AFAIK.


According to this guys spreadsheet. All iTunes atmos movies are 768 kb/s while the dolby digital plus 5.1 streams are predominantly 384kbps. Now dd+ is suppose to be twice as efficient so perhaps 384 kbps dd+ is 5.1 is equal to dd 5.1 at 640 kbps? I'm not sure what netflix was using prior to their update but it might have been 192 kbps dd+ 5.1 which would be pretty dang low.









Streaming Bit Rates


Streaming - Bit Rates (iTunes / MA / D+) Captured using Apple TV 4K Developer HUD. Video bit rates are indicative. Allow room for minor errors +- 0.5~1 Mbps. MA is better for many Universal and some Warner films. MA - No DV / DA on Sony and Fox movies (ones released before Disney takeover) 256/3...




docs.google.com










Streaming: Bit Rates Master Thread - Blu-ray Forum


Streaming: Bit Rates Master Thread Streaming Movies




forum.blu-ray.com





Edit: And indeed the old 5.1 bitrate was 192 kbps:
"A Netflix engineer played a simple, 20-second track of studio applause and toggled between the near-perfect studio master track, a track encoded at *the old bit rate of 192 Kbps*, and a track encoded at the new optimal bit rate of 640 Kbps.

*When the audio was streamed at 192 Kbps, the insect was muffled, almost muted*. On the higher-quality streams, it was much more obvious. And sure, the highly controlled demo I got was done on an optimal audio setup, but that bug sounded like it was buzzing right by my ear."

This makes sense. In audio compression it seems like the highs are clipped









Netflix Boosts the Audio Quality of Its Streams


The entertainment behemoth applies its adaptive streaming algorithms to sound.




www.wired.com


----------



## MagnumX

Tygeezy said:


> According to this guys spreadsheet. All iTunes atmos movies are 768 kb/s while the dolby digital plus 5.1 streams are predominantly 384kbps. Now dd+ is suppose to be twice as efficient so perhaps 384 kbps dd+ is 5.1 is equal to dd 5.1 at 640 kbps? I'm not sure what netflix was using prior to their update but it might have been 192 kbps dd+ 5.1 which would be pretty dang low.


From what I've read, DD+ is twice as efficient at lower bit-rates. At higher bit-rates, it's more or less identical in efficiency to regular Dolby Digital. I'm not sure of the exact rates this applies to, but 768kbps is a pretty good rate. 384 sounds not much higher than the original 320kbps rate used in theaters when it first came out. 640kbps is considered transparent for the most part.



> *When the audio was streamed at 192 Kbps, the insect was muffled, almost muted*.


192 is very low for 5.1 channels so it's very likely you'd be able to hear a real quality drop at that rate.



> On the higher-quality streams, it was much more obvious. And sure, the highly controlled demo I got was done on an optimal audio setup, but that bug sounded like it was buzzing right by my ear."
> 
> This makes sense. In audio compression it seems like the highs are clipped
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netflix Boosts the Audio Quality of Its Streams
> 
> 
> The entertainment behemoth applies its adaptive streaming algorithms to sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wired.com


There's also another issue that can come into play regardless of the bitrate and that is the mix itself. There's a "Cinema EQ" setting on most AVRs. If the movie is a cinema soundtrack (almost everything not remastered before 2000), it will have excessive highs and Cinema EQ should be turned ON to tame them. If the movie has a "near field mix" or "home mix", then they've already turned down the highs to match having speakers closer to the listening positions in a home environment and the sound may be muffled sounding unless you turn Cinema EQ to OFF. I've noticed this many times with various soundtracks. It's too bad they didn't use a flag on DVD/Blu-Rays as a standard way of marking near-field/home soundtracks that could tell the AVR to automatically turn it ON/OFF if desired.


----------



## hermitcrab1

Robbie Racer said:


> Opinions please. Would I get much of a front height sound benefit from Atmos content by moving my Klipsch RP-500 "Dolby Atmos Speakers" (that are currently sitting on top of my RP-280F Floor standing speakers) up to the top of my front wall above the front left and right speakers? My ceiling height is 12 feet.


Hi, I have 12' ceiling as well and had same speakers. I exchanged the klipsch atmos with a white prime elevation set. Mounted at 11' is visually pleasing but moving down 1' lower might work better for our room ceiling height. Sound benefit is realised.


----------



## Robbie Racer

Thank you for the feedback. You are probably right about the mounted height being better at 10' rather than up higher. I will have to ponder that some more.


----------



## hermitcrab1

hermitcrab1 said:


> Hi, I have 12' ceiling as well and had same speakers. I exchanged the klipsch atmos with a white prime elevation set. Mounted at 11' is visually pleasing but moving down 1' lower might work better for our room ceiling height. Sound benefit is realised.


----------



## hermitcrab1

hermitcrab1 said:


> Hi, I have 12' ceiling as well and had same speakers. I exchanged the klipsch atmos with a white prime elevation set. Mounted at 11' is visually pleasing but moving down 1' lower might work better for our room ceiling height. Sound benefit is realised.


----------



## Robbie Racer

Thanks for the pic. That doesn't look bad at all to my eyes. Did you notice much of a sound improvement with Atmos content when you moved the speakers from the top of the front mains to where you have them mounted now?


----------



## hermitcrab1

Yes, calibrated the speaker levels and boosted them+2. Did the trick.


----------



## acmcool

I am currently redoing my theater.I had 4 atmos height channels.Now trying to decide if should go with 6 height channels.
I know in past most Blu-ray’s were pinned to 7.1.4 and middle height channels were only used on upscaled movies.There was minimal original atmos content.is this still the case?


----------



## MagnumX

I don't think "most" movies were ever _pinned_ to 7.1.4. It's mostly Disney that did that and they seem to be using objects more often the past year or so with movies like Star Wars. 

Having said that, many Atmos movies have been disappointing, even some new ones like Knives Out (2019). It's not a question of _pinned; _it's more like surround usage is low/poor on it in general save one nice overhead effect when a board game is dropped upstairs. Many opportunities for ambience were simply wasted or ignored. 

I fear some sound engineers to this day still think of surround as a distraction and avoid using it as much as possible as the front sound stage is rarely ignored like the surround speakers so often are. I've found some Atmos movies will use front heights, but rarely top middle or rear heights. The focus is clearly on the front with some mixes. I personally find that not very "atmospheric".

Oddly, I find many older 5.1 movies upmixed with Neural X more impressive sounding. It seems like Hollywood knows how to use 5.1 infinitely better than Atmos, despite supposedly better tools and controls developed for Atmos. Perhaps Dolby should have offered more traditional mixing control options for proverbial old dogs that can't learn new tricks? OTOH, _some_ Atmos mixes have been great or at least good. It seems like some mixing engineers are better at it than others.


----------



## howard68

I do think that the sound mixing has got worse over the last few years 
Where is the saving private Ryan style type mixes today? 
Greg P. Russell did some excellent mixes on some of the early transformers especially the Dark Side of the moon in 7.1 
I want the studios to let sound mixers to be able to  take the gloves off the mixers and fully use all speakers
The studios also make the sound mixers do the final mixes in such a short time now 
Sound is half of a film according to George Lucas we need someone to take the baton and push for more time and push the envelope


----------



## Worf

I suspect it depends. With the rise of streaming video, the vast majority of viewers only have a stereo setup, and bitrates are falling. To have a full surround mix for home would mean compromising the audio on the main audio channels (left/right, to a lesser extent center) meaning you get nice surrounds but not great mains. Meanwhile if most of the viewers will be watching with headphones, tv speakers or a soundbar, a 2 channel mix would be something to concentrate on over a surround home mix. So if you're the sound engineer, you'd be concentrating on the 2 channel mix as that's where all the money is going, and the surround mix gets the short shift as it has to be done on a shoestring budget. For a lot of streaming services, the stereo audio can be of higher quality than the surround mix as the stereo is compressed less than the surround.

This is likely to continue post pandemic - if Warner is going to do simultaneous streaming releases sound mixers will concentrate on stereo and front mains to the detriment of surrounds.


----------



## fijiman1

Hello,

I'm looking for some advice. I have a 25x15 room and am looking for advice for 7.2.4 Atmos. I have finalized on Denon 6700h receiver but need help deciding speakers and sub. Budget for speakers and sub is <3000 if possible. Someone mentioned Polk speakers and SVS subs. Thoughts?


----------



## Sorny

IMHO, the budget is insufficient to get 2 proper subs and 11 speakers...


----------



## AYanguas

Worf said:


> I suspect it depends. With the rise of streaming video, the vast majority of viewers only have a stereo setup, and bitrates are falling. To have a full surround mix for home would mean compromising the audio on the main audio channels (left/right, to a lesser extent center) meaning you get nice surrounds but not great mains. Meanwhile if most of the viewers will be watching with headphones, tv speakers or a soundbar, a 2 channel mix would be something to concentrate on over a surround home mix. So if you're the sound engineer, you'd be concentrating on the 2 channel mix as that's where all the money is going, and the surround mix gets the short shift as it has to be done on a shoestring budget. For a lot of streaming services, the stereo audio can be of higher quality than the surround mix as the stereo is compressed less than the surround.
> 
> This is likely to continue post pandemic - if Warner is going to do simultaneous streaming releases sound mixers will concentrate on stereo and front mains to the detriment of surrounds.


Luckily at least, we have upmixers modes on our AVRs


----------



## MagnumX

Worf said:


> I suspect it depends. With the rise of streaming video, the vast majority of viewers only have a stereo setup, and bitrates are falling. To have a full surround mix for home would mean compromising the audio on the main audio channels (left/right, to a lesser extent center) meaning you get nice surrounds but not great mains. Meanwhile if most of the viewers will be watching with headphones, tv speakers or a soundbar, a 2 channel mix would be something to concentrate on over a surround home mix. So if you're the sound engineer, you'd be concentrating on the 2 channel mix as that's where all the money is going, and the surround mix gets the short shift as it has to be done on a shoestring budget. For a lot of streaming services, the stereo audio can be of higher quality than the surround mix as the stereo is compressed less than the surround.
> 
> This is likely to continue post pandemic - if Warner is going to do simultaneous streaming releases sound mixers will concentrate on stereo and front mains to the detriment of surrounds.


Sorry, I don't buy it.  Contrary to what you said, bitrates have been RISING. Netflix used to have terribly low rates, but was raised now to 640kbps DD+ (rated fully transparent for 5.1). iTunes is 768kbps DD+ which is fully adequate for most Atmos titles. I don't think sound mixing engineers outside Disney mix for streaming and the problem has been around for a lot longer than streaming. Most Blu-Rays come with 2-channel separate mixes so there's no need to "concentrate" on just that.

I just watched Michael Douglas' THE GAME (1997) in Auro-3D 13.1 (France Blu-Ray Collector's Edition) and the original movie was front-forward and the 13.1 mix is STILL front forward (there was some overhead and surround effects, but 13.1 should have meant it would be impressive and scenes at the airport totally ignored planes flying overhead as they were only in the front height speakers). It was mixed at Skywalker Sound originally, pre-streaming _everything _and the Auro 13.1 mix is ONLY for the collector's edition Blu-Ray in France (no streaming entailed) so there's no reason they couldn't have gone nuts with it if they wanted to, but if the original sound guys and/or director wanted it to be minimal surround, that's what they get even today. 

I personally think ever since Dolby Digital and DTS came out, there's been some director's and/or sound engineers that simply find surround sound "distracting" (well known in the 1990s as it was talked about often) and so they do forward-biased mixes so you keep you attention on the screen (as if we're going to turn our heads around like monkeys trying to figure out where the heck the surround sounds are coming from and if there's REALLY a car driving around the theater or something equally ABSURD). This mindset is ancient. Sadly, a lot of people working in the industry are "respected" (i.e. OLD) and so I think the mindset persists to this day. It's almost as if Atmos cheesed them off that much more (There's now even more surround speakers! Arggghh!) and so they're going the other way on purpose.



AYanguas said:


> Luckily at least, we have upmixers modes on our AVRs


You can't upmix when there's nothing there to begin with. If it's front only emphasized, you get front height effects at best. There has to be side/rear information to upmix or for 2-channel, out-of-phase information to extract or it doesn't work.


----------



## petetherock

fijiman1 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking for some advice. I have a 25x15 room and am looking for advice for 7.2.4 Atmos. I have finalized on Denon 6700h receiver but need help deciding speakers and sub. Budget for speakers and sub is <3000 if possible. Someone mentioned Polk speakers and SVS subs. Thoughts?


If you're willing to go 2nd hand, it will be easier..
Otherwise you might need to go for more basic satellites and run out models.
Focus more of your money on the subs and the centre.
Is the Usher 520 series available in your area? Good value. 
Otherwise the SVS satellites / subs are ok too. Try adding 1-2k to the budget, you won't regret it.


----------



## usc1995

fijiman1 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking for some advice. I have a 25x15 room and am looking for advice for 7.2.4 Atmos. I have finalized on Denon 6700h receiver but need help deciding speakers and sub. Budget for speakers and sub is <3000 if possible. Someone mentioned Polk speakers and SVS subs. Thoughts?


I think you can get a nice system for that money. You can get the Hsu Research HB-1 speaker package and two VTF-3 MK5 subs for $2667 and the get 4 Polk MC80 ceiling speakers for $360. So a bit higher than your budget but close enough. I would stick to bookshelf speakers and hefty subs like you get from Hsu and SVS.


----------



## McStyvie

Quick question. I am upgrading to an Atmos 7.2.2 at Xmas from a 5.2 system. New avr is the denon x4700h and Xbox one x for media, not the new one. 
The 4k projector is coming end of Jan. Question is, can I get atmos sound if I play a 4k Blu on the Xbox if the current projector is only full HD? 
Thanks!


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> You can't upmix when there's nothing there to begin with. If it's front only emphasized, you get front height effects at best. There has to be side/rear information to upmix or for 2-channel, out-of-phase information to extract or it doesn't work.


Yes, I know.

Listening to many TV programs that come in stereo, I find some upmix to work a little decent, like the dialog and main noise coming from the fronts, but ambiental scene music coming from surrounds. If the stereo mix is done in that way, the upmixers work best, of course.

It's true that some stereo music upmixed make some instruments to go almost only to the surrounds, But other type of mixes sound as only stereo with little 'sound ambient' leaked to the surround.

That makes me wonder wether the stereo mixer engineer or artitst, mix in stereo thinking in upmixers and generates good out-of phase content. Or it is just a good 'stereo' mix, nothing to do with potential upmixing, but later the upmixer takes profit of that out-of-phase content?


----------



## bartonnen

MagnumX said:


> You can't upmix when there's nothing there to begin with.


I've been watching the six part series "Departure" which has a 2 channel very low bit rate AAC audio track, using Neural X it sounds surprisingly good with sound coming from all directions especially during the flight scenes.


----------



## MagnumX

AYanguas said:


> That makes me wonder wether the stereo mixer engineer or artitst, mix in stereo thinking in upmixers and generates good out-of phase content. Or it is just a good 'stereo' mix, nothing to do with potential upmixing, but later the upmixer takes profit of that out-of-phase content?


Most stereo music albums put at least some stuff out-of-phase as in stereo that puts sounds "outside" the speakers so you can typically have a soundstage that is larger than just the distance between the two speakers. In a really nice stereo setup, you can get out of phase effects to actually go to about 90-100 degrees relative to the listener (i.e. not just outside, the speakers, but in a circle just like with Pro Logic II with surround speakers). I get nearly 100 degrees using my 6-channel matrix "stereo" mode here despite no speakers being more than 50 degrees from the center line (i.e. front wides). Many albums I'd swear DSU is on and it's not . I used a lot of out-of-phase on my own album and it upmixes quite well to PLIIx (and now DSU) as well. 



bartonnen said:


> I've been watching the six part series "Departure" which has a 2 channel very low bit rate AAC audio track, using Neural X it sounds surprisingly good with sound coming from all directions especially during the flight scenes.


As long as 2-channel has out-of-phase information in it, DSU and Neural X (and Pro Logic II and variants for that matter) will have plenty of surround information. I've got Biggles: Adventures in Time on Blu-Ray and it's only 2-channel, but with Neural X on the helicopter and plane scenes have their sounds overhead and there are many front/rear pans. It does quite well for 2-channel Pro Logic type surround. What I meant is that movies that don't USE either out-of-phase sounds or the surround speakers in 5.1 much to begin with aren't going to improve just by switching to DSU or Neural X. There has to be out-of-phase or surround information present to begin with in the signal to move it to the surround or overhead speakers. If the movie is heavily front-biased (mostly dialog and in-phase left/right channel information), the upmixer doesn't have anything to work with at those points.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> What I meant is that movies that don't USE either out-of-phase sounds or the surround speakers in 5.1 much to begin with aren't going to improve just by switching to DSU or Neural X. There has to be out-of-phase or surround information present to begin with in the signal to move it to the surround or overhead speakers. If the movie is heavily front-biased (mostly dialog and in-phase left/right channel information), the upmixer doesn't have anything to work with at those points.


Case in point: I watched the 1987 animated G.I. Joe: The Movie with my son this weekend. Despite the fact that earlier DVD editions had a 5.1 remix, the Blu-ray has only a 2.0 stereo track with no out-of-phase or surround information. Even with Neural:X applied, it's plain stereo. My surround and height speakers were silent the entire movie.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Josh Z said:


> Case in point: I watched the 1987 animated G.I. Joe: The Movie with my son this weekend. Despite the fact that earlier DVD editions had a 5.1 remix, the Blu-ray has only a 2.0 stereo track with no out-of-phase or surround information. Even with Neural:X applied, it's plain stereo. My surround and height speakers were silent the entire movie.


Then it sounds like the 2.0 on your blu-ray is actually Dual Mono, not even stereo, sorry to say.


----------



## Josh Z

Craig Mecak said:


> Then it sounds like the 2.0 on your blu-ray is actually Dual Mono, not even stereo, sorry to say.


If it were dual mono, everything would collapse to the center with a matrix upmixer. I just put on the opening scene and it's definitely stereo. Checking closely, it turns out there actually is a little bit of bleed to the surround speakers. However, it's so faint that I can't hear it without putting my ear up to the speaker.


----------



## MagnumX

Craig Mecak said:


> Then it sounds like the 2.0 on your blu-ray is actually Dual Mono, not even stereo, sorry to say.


You can have stereo without out-of-phase information in it. It pans only between the speakers.


----------



## Noman74656

Might be more of a question for the design forums, but does anyone use these tiles in a drop ceiling with in-ceiling atmos speakers?





__





Soundproof Ceiling and Wall Panel sound control wall panels


dBA Panels - Wall and Ceiling Tile



www.asistorefront.com





I’m redoing my ceiling, and am really tempted to try these.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Terence Parrish

Just wanted to reach out to Magnum X, once again you're SPOT ON, out-of phase effects are truly necessary for good upmixing with DSU!!!


----------



## thomasphoenix

Does anyone know if the LotR & Hobbit trilogy is dynamic Atmos? ( compared to static Atmos of Disney Studio)


----------



## batpig

thomasphoenix said:


> Does anyone know if the LotR & Hobbit trilogy is dynamic Atmos? ( compared to static Atmos of Disney Studio)


First, to be clear, it's not as simple as "static" vs "dynamic" Atmos. Even Disney has some tracks that behave normally (e.g. Captain America: Civil War, which I was surprised to discover has tons of wide content), some that behave as 7.1.2, some that are more like 7.1 + heights info, etc. So I know what you're trying to ask, but there's a lot of gray area with how specific tracks behave, and many "static" tracks can still behave dynamically in some ways.

Anyway, that said, I haven't gotten the new 4K LotR discs, but given that they are Warner Bros products I would bet that these will be good Atmos tracks and NOT fixed/static. Warner has put out many great Atmos tracks between the Blade Runner remaster + BR 2049, Fantastic Beasts, DCEU films (Aquaman, Justice League, etc), Mad Max Fury Road, the Matrix 4K remaster, and so on. Given that it's mostly tied to the studio's policies / practices, and how Peter Jackson would have supervised the content, it seems very likely these are going to be solid, dynamic Atmos tracks.


----------



## MagnumX

thomasphoenix said:


> Does anyone know if the LotR & Hobbit trilogy is dynamic Atmos? ( compared to static Atmos of Disney Studio)


It's the REAL DEAL, even on streaming.


----------



## thomasphoenix

batpig said:


> First, to be clear, it's not as simple as "static" vs "dynamic" Atmos. Even Disney has some tracks that behave normally (e.g. Captain America: Civil War, which I was surprised to discover has tons of wide content), some that behave as 7.1.2, some that are more like 7.1 + heights info, etc. So I know what you're trying to ask, but there's a lot of gray area with how specific tracks behave, and many "static" tracks can still behave dynamically in some ways.
> 
> Anyway, that said, I haven't gotten the new 4K LotR discs, but given that they are Warner Bros products I would bet that these will be good Atmos tracks and NOT fixed/static. Warner has put out many great Atmos tracks between the Blade Runner remaster + BR 2049, Fantastic Beasts, DCEU films (Aquaman, Justice League, etc), Mad Max Fury Road, the Matrix 4K remaster, and so on. Given that it's mostly tied to the studio's policies / practices, and how Peter Jackson would have supervised the content, it seems very likely these are going to be solid, dynamic Atmos tracks.



Thank you for your response. I came across as a pleeb for asking the question in layman terms. I pre ordered the set and wanted to know how it'll scale to a 15.1.8 listening room.


----------



## thomasphoenix

MagnumX said:


> It's the REAL DEAL, even on streaming.


Thanks for your response. I can rest easy with my pre-order now.


----------



## MagnumX

It's safe to say that the *John Williams - Live in Vienna - Dolby Atmos* 2-disc (1 CD + 1 Blu-Ray) set sounds pretty great. The Blu-Ray includes Dolby Atmos (with subset TrueHD 7.1), DTS-HD MA 2.0 (Stereo) and DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 mixes on it. I found the presentation almost seemed to vary by seating location in the hall in Vienna depending on the mix and settings I used. For instance, using Neural X with the 2.0 mix sounded like I was right up front near the pit. Atmos sounded mid-back with very noticeable ambience and the room sounded much larger than my mere 12'x24' room should. Engaging Neural X with the TrueHD 7.1 base layer resulted in oddly similar to Atmos imaging. Using Neural X with the DTS-HD MA 5.1 track resulted in a massive image that kind of sounded like the roof jumped by 50 feet or more higher in the air. 

Dolby Atmos probably sounded a bit more natural, but I couldn't help but be impressed by that Neural X image off the 5.1 track. It wasn't quite so big with Neural X off the TrueHD 7.1 base track, IMO so I'm not sure if they miked the 5.1 mix separately from the Atmos/7.1 mix or what, but they seemed somewhat different in size/image/space. I concentrated the mode changes on one track (Star Wars *Imperial March* off the AUDIO ONLY section). All three mixes had plenty of bass and high quality recording, although my ear/sinuses have been a bit wonky the past week or thereabouts (with a recurring 56Hz vibration in my right ear on/off at times almost like that "world hum" thing I've seen described, but I think it's most likely wax against the ear drum or something) so I wouldn't entirely trust my absolute sense of sound quality right now, but it still sounded pretty darn good. I gotta love Star Wars and Indiana Jones themes played live.

The Blu-Ray contains both a full live concert with video footage and 6 more tracks than the CD or Audio Only section of the Blu-Ray (19 songs versus 13). The audio only tracks don't have any applause/audience in them and are in a different order so I wonder if they were possibly recorded separately from the main show? I'm not sure I agree with all the specific tracks they chose from some of the movies (I mean Jaws without the main shark attack theme?), but still it's a great set.


----------



## junh1024

I've made a "Home Theater Audio Formats Myths" document.

https://github.com/junh1024/junh102...heater 3D Audio Formats Myths.md#introduction
### THD Atmos may use a fixed 7.1.4 print
### Atmos remixers are lazy and don't care about height

In the "For Consumers" section may be relevant to recent discussions. Info from various sources, but prolly still needs checking.

I've have samples from 504>706 padded to 916 . Even though it's fixed channels, some may have dynamic panning inside. They sound good.


----------



## kevinzzz

so, help me understand. Atmos prescribes the location for each speaker. So why do they even need dynamic objects? Couldn't they just mix them based on the highest number of speakers and let the decoder mix them down to whatever speakers are defined on a particular playback system? What's the point?


----------



## junh1024

The "highest number of speakers " might be 20-30 for Home, and if you mixed for that would need an absurd amount of upscaling & bitrate. The point of object is that it's closer to what mixers have, it saves bitrate, it scales to whatever setup you have (within limits).

Also, if you mixed for "highest number of speakers", you would have incorrect pan law, modulation artefacts, and wrong volumes any time a sound is not exactly on a speaker (this still applies to 7.1>5.1 downmix, it's just that the # speakers is small so we don't hear it so much).


----------



## MagnumX

kevinzzz said:


> so, help me understand. Atmos prescribes the location for each speaker. So why do they even need dynamic objects? Couldn't they just mix them based on the highest number of speakers and let the decoder mix them down to whatever speakers are defined on a particular playback system? What's the point?


DTS:X might mix on the master with any number of objects, but then it can render out to 7.1.4 and with DTS:X Pro at home, Neural X handles panning to any "in-between" speakers found in a larger than 11-channel speaker setup (up to 30.2 speakers). So it's almost the reverse of that idea and seems to work fine.


----------



## MagnumX

Oh yeah.....OHHHHHHHH YEAAAAAHH!! Beautiful! MORE Beautiful!

I just listened to *Yello's POINT* album in *Dolby Atmos* like 3 times and used the track _Way Down_ to try out Dolby Digital EX 6.1 + Surround Modes and PCM 24-bit 2.0 stereo from 2.0 to 17.1 with the surround modes.










A few technical points, first. This album, unlike most previous "immersion" albums I've tried has more bass in the Dolby Atmos (and DD EX) tracks than the PCM stereo tracks. Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_ album, for example had far more kick drum in the stereo mix so I was a bit surprised to find that the stereo mix almost sounded like they forgot to move the LFE track to the 2.0 mix or something. Having said that, Wow! The mere 2.0 stereo mix when expanded to Neural X had more surround effects in it than many newer (admittedly worse examples of) Atmos movies. The stereo track has a lot of width and some surround phase notes, but nowhere near as much as some Q-Sound and similar stereo albums I have, but turn on Neural X and you'd be forgiven for thinking it was in Atmos mode (at least until you hear the actual Atmos track). As usual DSU is somewhere in-between. 

Next, I kicked in the Dolby Digital 6.1 EX track (I don't know about on a BD player if it can even select the DD EX track as it's a fallback "core" seeing I don't usually use an actual BD player here; I ripped to MKV and use KODI to select the audio tracks and it's happy to let me play the core EX 6.1 track, which isn't 6.1 discrete, but has steering logic to use the rear speakers as one big mono channel). Wow! Once again, it kicks it a step up. All that Neural X goodness from 2.0 becomes discrete sounds all over the place and now, if you didn't think you were in Atmos, you'd certainly think so blindfolded. But it's not Atmos...not yet. Admittedly, the switch to Atmos from 6.1 Neural X isn't as shocking as from plain Stereo to Atmos, but now everything is discrete and you know it's placed exactly where it's meant to be (Neural X usually guesses well, though, a credit to DTS's upmixer for sure). 

So how's the Atmos? In a word? AWESOME! I think I enjoyed this album MORE than Booka Shade's two albums I have in Atmos (_Galvany Street_ and _Dear Future Self_), probably because the music is closer to what I actually like to listen to when not trying to find anything, just anything music-wise in Dolby Atmos. Yello is hard to describe because they're all over the place. Some tracks are very techno-orientated and others are more bluesy (_Big Boys Blues_) or pop-rock sounding (_Way Down_) while others (Hello _Waba Duba_!) are just bizarre. The album is about 50 minutes long so it didn't take as long to get through it, leaving me going back to try some songs in other seats/rows in the room (with all my home theater's bizarre lighting tricks going from my movie prop displays and other mood lights). 

It usually takes me a few listens to like an album, but I was grooving right along to Basic Avenue (bring back the BASS!) and Out of Sight. In fact, I think the first half of the album was really great. A few of the latter songs (Hot Pan, Siren Singing and even the short, but odd Zephyr Calling) weren't quite as interesting musically, but the great thing about Atmos is, even when the songs aren't drawing you in, the music moving around the room keeps your brain occupied and this album moves sounds around the room like a snowflake in a blizzard! It's every bit as interesting surround-wise, IMO as Dear Future Self. There's sounds behind you constantly, floating around you and across the ceiling. It was quite as well balanced for the back rows, however, as it uses more fill and other effects at times than having "copies" of the stuff going on up front, which is to say in a 24' long room, Dear Future Self probably sounded better mixed for the back row (as the front isn't as loud back there and the back is louder), but from the front and even the middle, it's excellent. 

_Waba Duba_ is supposedly the first single track from the album with a wacky music video out there to go with it, but it's really not that great a song, IMO. _The Vanishing of Peter Strong_ has a great background fill, but oddly it's more of a narrative story-telling track (I did something similar on my own album from 2012 so I can't complain). _Way Down_ is where the fun really begins and it's a nice relatively short 3:19 track so that's where I concentrated on the different tracks and surround modes. I think Auro-3D (well it's upmixer _Auromatic_ presented itself as an outlier mode in that I was surprised to find that there was surround beyond just a "hall effect" in the surround speakers even with the 2.0 mix, but it was more subdued than DSU and Neural X, but far more ambient than plain stereo. Overall, I'd stick with Atmos on an Atmos system.

So how was Atmos? I read comments by at least one person that the album is "anemic" sounding. I didn't get that impression at all. I did have to raise the volume level to -4.5 compared to -8 for Dear Future Self to get a similar volume level, but that's still 4.5dB below Dolby reference. Big Boy's Blues seemed to be at a lower overall level compared to the other tracks except for the vocals, but I think it was meant to be that way, which lead me to crank it to -4.5 at which point I realized the whole album sounded much better at that setting so I can imagine if Tidal's DialNorm setting is 14dB down in volume (I think that's what someone said), it might be an issue getting some systems up to the proper volume. But I can tell you there's nothing "missing" from the signal. It's not as constantly bass heavy as Dear Future Self, for instance, but it's not a "house mix" type album. It has room shaking bass in several places, but has more pop/rock level bass on average rather than trance or hip-hop. I didn't find it the least bit "anemic" sounding in the slightest. Dieter Meier's voice is VERY low in the bass register (as far as human voices go) and I thought he sounded great. I don't know if I'd call that singing in the traditional sense (kind of a deeper version of what you might expect from say the Pet Shop Boys in "singing" terms), but it works. 

Overall, I thought the sound quality was excellent. The use of Atmos was fantastic and brought my 12'x24' room to life front-to-back in a way most Atmos movies fail to do in the rear of the room (for some odd reason, most (not all) movies don't use rear surround speakers anywhere near as much as the side surrounds and overheads). I could plainly hear sounds in the back of the room nearly 14 feet behind me. The room just feels larger with music that uses the rear surrounds discretely almost as much as the mains. If anything, I think some of these Atmos music albums tend to use the rear speakers more than the side surround speakers (as a single location anyway; when mixed sounds move along the entire length of the room on the side walls or in-between). A few tracks had sounds that circled the room to give you a sense of size and how even the sound's timbre is. 

Anyway, it's hard to describe the actual music. Either you like Yello or you don't, I suppose. I ended up liking it a lot more than I expected. I may have to go buy some more Yello albums I missed over the years to check out. But those of you on the fence about buying this album, all I can say is get off the fence and go for it.


----------



## galonzo

MagnumX said:


> I made this drawing before of the apparent flight path of the Atmos Helicopter demo when using "Heights + Top Middle" versus three rows of "Tops" if they were used in the same (my) room, placed at the appropriate relative angles. The dotted lines in purple show the helicopter "tops" path and the gold lines show the "heights" path. It also shows the effects of having my "top middle" speakers on the side walls instead of directly in line with the front/rear mains/heights, which IMO makes a more natural path to use almost the entire room (It's also the location for Auro 3-D "surround heights", which I switch it to with a speaker select switch). If I had a Trinnov with all 10 overhead speakers used (all circles except the side heights), it would simply pass through all the purple locations from the gold ones and increase the length, but not width of travel.


I have a smaller room I'm converting (11' x 17.5' x 8' high), and so I'm curious what you would recommend as far as a 5.1.4 configuration; simply follow Dolby guidelines (see attached, thanks to @*ceenhad *for work on his useful tool), or maximize the ceiling space in this smaller room by putting my angled (15°) ceiling speakers in the extreme corners? As you can see, my mains would end up in the corners below the heights, if so.

Note my mains are these, surrounds not installed yet (but most likely on stands), and I _could_ add rears if I add another amp (11ch AVR only powers 9ch, but supports 11 w/ additional amp).

Another dilemma I'm working with is the roofline cutting into the room along the left wall, but only about 1' of a 45° angle, which I believe there's still enough clearance to the roof to place the speakers in there. Also, the attic access is cut into the ceiling from the right wall out about 3' x 2', starting around the area recommended for TFR.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Mike Gann

That is exactly the speaker configuration I have and it sounds great. I have a sub in the far right front corner and one below the left front speaker. My room in the basement is very open though. The front wall is long and open to left side. 

Mike Gann


----------



## MagnumX

galonzo said:


> I have a smaller room I'm converting (11' x 17.5' x 8' high), and so I'm curious what you would recommend as far as a 5.1.4 configuration; simply follow Dolby guidelines (see attached, thanks to @*ceenhad *for work on his useful tool), or maximize the ceiling space in this smaller room by putting my angled (15°) ceiling speakers in the extreme corners? As you can see, my mains would end up in the corners below the heights, if so.
> 
> Note my mains are these, surrounds not installed yet (but most likely on stands), and I _could_ add rears if I add another amp (11ch AVR only powers 9ch, but supports 11 w/ additional amp).
> 
> Another dilemma I'm working with is the roofline cutting into the room along the left wall, but only about 1' of a 45° angle, which I believe there's still enough clearance to the roof to place the speakers in there. Also, the attic access is cut into the ceiling from the right wall out about 3' x 2', starting around the area recommended for TFR.
> 
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!


You could do either one. Obviously, the Dolby recommended method is basically those diagrams in the PDF. My only concern in the corners is early reflections off the walls there so bringing them out a couple of feet might not be a bad idea. There's sometimes bass issues in the corners with mains, but with a subwoofer handling it, far less so. You could even make a little corner baffle to mostly eliminate any corner issues. I'm not an expert on corner loading, though. Going wider just expands the soundstage such that it's more like you're sitting between the speakers in a larger room (same for putting overheads on the side walls instead of inward on the ceiling). It definitely changes the perspective, but whether it's better or worse is really subjective. Clearly, Auro Technologies prefers it and Dolby apparently likes a narrower image. In practice in a smaller room, it's just putting them where they'd be in a larger room other than the question of the boundary reflections (absorptive material in key places can minimize that).


----------



## galonzo

Thanks @MagnumX , I really appreciate your input. I hadn't thought about corner-loading, so I'm going to do a compromise and come in about a foot from the front wall (and mains), and I've yet to find out whether I have clearance along the roofline on the left (fingers crossed, as the recommended location would be close to the seam).

Here's a pic showing the attic access, along with the angled roofline (it comes in about 3.5" more than I thought), the black ellipsis would be the recommended placement, and the red are about where I plan to install the TFs. Again, they are angled 15°, so the TFR will be angled towards the MLP, and I suppose I counter-angle the roofline as much as possible, so that the speaker is more level with the ceiling? Also, since it's lower, I suppose it should be further?


----------



## eaayoung

I would think the best spot for the TFL speaker would be where the can light on the left is located. That’s assuming the TV is being installed where the mount is currently located. You could move the can light to a new location and install an in-ceiling speaker is the hole where the light is currently. Not sure what the black mark is. But I wouldn’t install a speaker in an attic access panel. You’ll likely end up with broken speaker wires.


----------



## galonzo

@*eaayoung , *the mount is where the kid's TV was, along with a bookshelf to the right, so it's being replaced with a TV that will be centered in the room (and will fill the wall quite a bit, as it is an 85"). I hadn't thought about re-locating the can, so thanks for that; it may come in handy depending how this shakes out.

No, I wouldn't install a speaker on the access panel, the black mark is the optimal Dolby recommended position; I'm proposing adding the speakers to the red spots for the widest height "soundstage," as the can light would make it even more narrow than the Dolby recommendation (which is in line with the mains, which will be about 8" in from the side walls).

Lots to think about, especially finding out if I even have clearance to the actual roof in there for my ~5.5" deep ceiling speakers...


----------



## Golfa005

guys, level with me - is 4 ceiling atmos really worth it over 2?

I have ultimate flexibility in my detached garage with open ceiling, but struggling to pick a receiver. I know I want 5.1.2 at least, but is it worth it to buy a 9.2 channel just for 2 extra ceiling atmos?! The cost of 9.2 receivers is so much more than 7.2...struggling here. I do not have unlimited budget! will 2 atmos be adequate for me?


----------



## sdurani

Golfa005 said:


> ...is 4 ceiling atmos really worth it over 2?


2 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right movement overhead. 4 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement overhead. Big difference, easily heard.


----------



## eaayoung

Four height speakers for Atmos is worth the extra expense.


----------



## ctsv510

Definitely 4 unless you can’t physically fit them.


----------



## Golfa005

eaayoung said:


> Four height speakers for Atmos is worth the extra expense.





ctsv510 said:


> Definitely 4 unless you can’t physically fit them.


damn you guys! haha. OK I will keep looking for a 9.2 receiver


----------



## ctsv510

Golfa005 said:


> damn you guys! haha. OK I will keep looking for a 9.2 receiver


What-if’s are the worst in this game. Think of it this way: You’re saving money doing it now rather than having to upgrade later!


----------



## Golfa005

agreed but I doubt the wife will ever see the value in 4 ceiling speakers....the tough sell has me thinking I may just opt for 5.1.2. It'd be one thing if 7.2s and 9.2s were closer in price...I can't even find an old like Denon 3500 for a deal


----------



## ctsv510

Well 2 is better than none, so you have that! Just be warned that your wife may think it’s really cool (like mine) once you have it so push for 4 and then give her an I told you so down the line.


----------



## Golfa005

ctsv510 said:


> What-if’s are the worst in this game. Think of it this way: You’re saving money doing it now rather than having to upgrade later!





ctsv510 said:


> Well 2 is better than none, so you have that! Just be warned that your wife may think it’s really cool (like mine) once you have it so push for 4 and then give her an I told you so down the line.


yeah i think that is what I am trying to convince myself that 2 is better than none! and I appreciate that warning haha


----------



## niterida

Golfa005 said:


> yeah i think that is what I am trying to convince myself that 2 is better than none! and I appreciate that warning haha


Remember if you decide to upgrade to 4 later on then your existing 2 speakers will be in the wrong place so you will have added expense of moving them and patching holes in the ceiling.I will add my vote to defintiely going for 4 straight away - it really is a huge improvement. Buy a 2nd hand receiver to keep costs down.


----------



## junh1024

Golfa005 said:


> yeah i think that is what I am trying to convince myself that 2 is better than none! and I appreciate that warning haha





niterida said:


> Remember if you decide to upgrade to 4 later on then your existing 2 speakers will be in the wrong place so you will have added expense of moving them and patching holes in the ceiling


Good point. So, if you do decide to go 512 and xx4 later, you could put the height speakers somewhere in front, so that you have space for rear height later. It may also sound less distracting as they're not directly overhead (subjective). For rear height later, (or front height too), you can try upfiring/reflecting speakers. I have heard a demo in-store & it sounded OK, but other peeps can comment on this.


----------



## rec head

Golfa005 said:


> yeah i think that is what I am trying to convince myself that 2 is better than none! and I appreciate that warning haha


Slow down and save up. It's easy to get caught up in needing something now. I think there are corona related shortages so it might be hard to get good deals right now. You are in a great position if you have the ability to put speakers in the right spot. Many of us have less than ideal spaces. At the very least wire for 4 top speakers.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

niterida said:


> Remember if you decide to upgrade to 4 later on then your existing 2 speakers will be in the wrong place so you will have added expense of moving them and patching holes in the ceiling.I will add my vote to defintiely going for 4 straight away - it really is a huge improvement. Buy a 2nd hand receiver to keep costs down.


Or simply go from 2 to 6 height speakers later, no need to patch any holes, just saying.


----------



## blubolt

Golfa005 said:


> agreed but I doubt the wife will ever see the value in 4 ceiling speakers....the tough sell has me thinking I may just opt for 5.1.2. It'd be one thing if 7.2s and 9.2s were closer in price...I can't even find an old like Denon 3500 for a deal


You can still find the Onkyo tx nr 797 for around 800 I have the tx nr 787 an older model running a 5.1.4 system and it has been fantastic. Onkyo does not have any new models I currently see which is unfortunate because they were pushing affordable 9 channel av recievers. There is no question idf i neede a 9 channel reciever I would have zero hesitation buying the 797 vs higher priced marantz denon etc. It has worked flawlessly for me.


----------



## Selden Ball

blubolt said:


> Onkyo does not have any new models I currently see which is unfortunate because they were pushing affordable 9 channel av recievers.


New 2021 Onkyo and Pioneer models were announced at this year’s CES. See the thread at New AVR from Pioneer and Onkyo
and the CNET article it references at 








Onkyo and Pioneer's 2021 receivers back in black with 8K video, from $499


Onkyo and Pioneer have announced pricing and availability for their 2021 receivers which include Dolby Atmos and two-way Bluetooth.




www.cnet.com


----------



## blubolt

Selden Ball said:


> New 2021 Onkyo and Pioneer models were announced at this year’s CES. See the thread at New AVR from Pioneer and Onkyo
> and the CNET article it references at
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onkyo and Pioneer's 2021 receivers back in black with 8K video, from $499
> 
> 
> Onkyo and Pioneer have announced pricing and availability for their 2021 receivers which include Dolby Atmos and two-way Bluetooth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnet.com


AWESOME category needs price competition


----------



## TheLamonster

I have 2 front height speakers that my receiver uses for Atmos. They are Polk S10s keyhole mounted to the wall. The height effect is barely noticeable, and I'm wondering if somehow tilting them to face downward would make a difference. Right now they are facing straight forward. And should I set the crossover to something higher than 80? Just feeling like I am not getting a lot out of these and should have gotten something different like Polk OWM3 and hung them directly to the ceiling. What do you guys think?


----------



## sdurani

TheLamonster said:


> I have 2 front height speakers that my receiver uses for Atmos. They are Polk S10s keyhole mounted to the wall. The height effect is barely noticeable, and I'm wondering if somehow tilting them to face downward would make a difference. Right now they are facing straight forward.


Speakers high up on the front wall will result in a taller soundstage but not the overhead effect that speakers more directly above you can deliver. Most speakers sound better and louder on-axis (aimed at the listener), so facing them downward will help. You can also raise the volume level of these speakers till you hear the height effect.


----------



## Golfa005

saw this video yesterday saying lots of movies that you'd expect to have cool atmos effects do not. Does this have any merit?


----------



## Nick V

Is anybody currently using a 2.x.2 Atmos system?

My DAC/Preamp just crapped out in my desktop system. I was going to replace it with an updated DAC/Preamp with Dirac Live and Roon (NAD C658), but then I started thinking what if I replaced it with an Atmos capable receiver with Dirac and Roon instead?

This room is never going to be a full surround Atmos system, but I'm just wondering how well the height effect works when downmixing full Atmos surround soundtracks to 2.x.2?

I have a 43" Samsung "The Frame" 4K HDR TV as my desktop monitor and I have a Zappiti 4K HDR media player in there which is connected to my Zappiti 4K NAS with LOTS of 4K Blu-Rays with Atmos and DTS:X tracks.

Right now I have a pair of Dynaudio BM6a mkII active monitors in there, but I'm switching over to a Legacy Audio system (Silhouette on-walls flanking the screen, and if I go Atmos I would also install a pair of Stratos 8 in-ceiling speakers above and just slightly in front of the MLP as per the Dolby guideline ). I use Roon and Tidal so I would probably go with a NAD T758v3i as it also has Dirac Live and is Roon Ready. I was originally going to go with a NAD C658 Dirac Live DAC/Preamp but I wonder if I'd be better off going with the 758v3 instead? I would just add a Fire Stick or whatever the cheapest device is that does Tidal in full Atmos.

Does that sound ridiculous? Am I better off just going 2 channel in there as originally planned? I keep hearing that 2 channel "immersive" music is going to be a big thing, and I'm interested in checking out what's currently available on Tidal.


----------



## Josh Z

Golfa005 said:


> saw this video yesterday saying lots of movies that you'd expect to have cool atmos effects do not. Does this have any merit?


Yes, there are many missed opportunities with Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Nick V said:


> Is anybody currently using a 2.x.2 Atmos system?
> 
> Does that sound ridiculous? Am I better off just going 2 channel in there as originally planned? I keep hearing that 2 channel "immersive" music is going to be a big thing, and I'm interested in checking out what's currently available on Tidal.


I'm pretty sure Mark Henninger tested either a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 system here on AVS a few years ago and was surprised by the result.

Also you don't need Atmos content to enjoy the height speakers, any of the upmixers will direct some of the sound from legacy soundtracks there as well for great effect.


----------



## Magiclakez

I apologize in advance if this has been covered earlier, but are bipole surrounds counterproductive in a Dolby atmos environment? I was planning to add (Bipoles) as side/surrounds but I’m not sure if that’s going “against the grain” so as to speak. I intend to place them on stands at ear level.


----------



## Sorny

Magiclakez said:


> I apologize in advance if this has been covered earlier, but are bipole surrounds counterproductive in a Dolby atmos environment? I was planning to add (Bipoles) as side/surrounds but I’m not sure if that’s going “against the grain” so as to speak. I intend to place them on stands at ear level.


I run 4 bipoles for my surrounds and surround back speakers. Works just fine.


----------



## Magiclakez

Sorny said:


> I run 4 bipoles for my surrounds and surround back speakers. Works just fine.


Thank you. Do you run them high or are they at ear level? Also is it necessary to mount them on the wall? I don’t have wall support on the right side, so I would have to place them on stands.


----------



## Sorny

Magiclakez said:


> Thank you. Do you run them high or are they at ear level? Also is it necessary to mount them on the wall? I don’t have wall support on the right side, so I would have to place them on stands.


Mine are on the walls, and they're slightly above ear level so I have "line of sight" from the tweeters to my ears in my theater seats. Should have no issues with speakers on stands.


----------



## antable

Why is the Dolby recommended setup for 4.1.4 different than 5.1.4 in terms of surround placement? I currently have my 4.1.4 system set up in a 5.1.4 manner (similar but not exact). Is the center channel supposed to have that big of an effect?

Do I really have to get a center channel if I wish to keep my current placement for optimal results? It's mostly just a one man theater.


----------



## niterida

Magiclakez said:


> I apologize in advance if this has been covered earlier, but are bipole surrounds counterproductive in a Dolby atmos environment? I was planning to add (Bipoles) as side/surrounds but I’m not sure if that’s going “against the grain” so as to speak. I intend to place them on stands at ear level.


Dolby do not recommend bipoles and after testing them, neither do I.
I set up a pair as side surrounds and it killed the surround sound effect - when a sound travelled from front to back it would be very louad and pronounced coming from the rear and then it would 'jump' to the front instead of seamlessly travelling the whole length of the room. Surround sound (and especially Atmos) works on the premise that sound is directed at a point in space - if a speaker is outputting the exact same sound but in 2 different directions then it just won't sound right.

Sure you can use them and it will possibly still sound ok (as others seem to have done) but it will not sound as good as using direct firing speakers, assuming you don't have any weird room, furniture or speaker placement constraints.


----------



## niterida

antable said:


> Why is the Dolby recommended setup for 4.1.4 different than 5.1.4 in terms of overhead placement? I currently have my 4.1.4 system set up in a 5.1.4 manner (similar but not exact). Is the center channel supposed to have that big of an effect?
> 
> Do I really have to get a center channel if I wish to keep my current placement for optimal results? It's mostly just a one man theater.


I don't know where you read that but the only difference between 5.1.4 and 4.1.4 is the missing centre channel and the surrounds are moved back a bit further - overheads are exactly the same.


----------



## antable

niterida said:


> I don't know where you read that but the only difference between 5.1.4 and 4.1.4 is the missing centre channel and the surrounds are moved back a bit further - overheads are exactly the same.


Yes, surround placement. My question still stands


----------



## niterida

antable said:


> Yes, surround placement. My question still stands


oops sorry I thought you meant the heights - this is an Atmos thread so I assumed you were talking about Atmos speakers - my bad.
I wouldn't worry too much about the surrounds - if you can't move them just leave them.


----------



## chi_guy50

Magiclakez said:


> I apologize in advance if this has been covered earlier, but are bipole surrounds counterproductive in a Dolby atmos environment? I was planning to add (Bipoles) as side/surrounds but I’m not sure if that’s going “against the grain” so as to speak. I intend to place them on stands at ear level.





niterida said:


> Dolby do not recommend bipoles and after testing them, neither do I.


I do not have an opinion one way or the other on this subject, but I am unaware of any Dolby guidance against using bipole speakers in this context. Do you have a source?

For the record, here is the published Dolby guidance:

_Most existing speakers within current home theaters will work for Dolby Atmos playback.
Floor-standing, stand-mounted, on-wall, and in-wall speakers that currently produce audio at
the listener level can be complemented with overhead speakers and/or Dolby Atmos enabled
speakers to generate the height plane of overhead sounds. You can also add more speakers
at listener level or above, if the AVR or preprocessor supports them, to add greater precision
to object audio placement and movement. With the exception of the center and center
surround speakers, all speakers in a Dolby Atmos playback system must be added in pairs.
Note: Dipole surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback._

Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> I do not have an opinion one way or the other on this subject, but I am unaware of any Dolby guidance against using *bipole *speakers in this context. Do you have a source?
> 
> For the record, here is the published Dolby guidance:
> [...]
> _Note: *Dipole *surround speakers are not recommended for use for Dolby Atmos playback._
> 
> Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines


I predict there will not be a source forthcoming and it's the same mistake many people have made, thinking that bipoles and dipoles are both recommended against when nothing could be further from the truth. Bipoles are absolutely fine. It is, and only ever has been, dipoles that Dolby recommends against.


----------



## crutzulee

blubolt said:


> You can still find the Onkyo tx nr 797 for around 800 I have the tx nr 787 an older model running a 5.1.4 system and it has been fantastic. Onkyo does not have any new models I currently see which is unfortunate because they were pushing affordable 9 channel av recievers. There is no question idf i neede a 9 channel reciever I would have zero hesitation buying the 797 vs higher priced marantz denon etc. It has worked flawlessly for me.


A little over a year ago, the 787 was available at a price that forced me to buy it even though I had no plans to upgrade my existing 7.1 system and was convinced that ATMOS/DTS X was a gimmick. After sourcing out matching speakers for the height channels and using ONKYO's improved setup procedure, I fell deeply in love with 3D audio.

It's a dual edged sword. Like GOLFA (garage), I had limitless placement possibilities in my basement setup. I opted for a 7.2.2 setup with middle heights. I sought out as much ATMOS content as I could find and went back into my catalogue and tried upsampling many titles with the amp's built in DSU. IT WAS AWESOME!!! ...and of course led to questions like -If two height channels are good, would 4 channels be better? If ADVANCED EQ is this good, can AUDESSEY be better?

In December, a DENON X4500h came up on Amazon warehouse at a price that once again forced me to buy it. With external amplification, I can now support 4 overhead channels and have fallen down the AUDESSY rabbit hole. I've answered my questions definitively.

My advice to GOLFA, would be to go the same route. Pickup up a low priced ONKYO for now, save up for the increased channels later. As long as he has the flexibility in speaker placement, he can enjoy 3D audio now and improve upon it later.


----------



## noah katz

Magiclakez said:


> are bipole surrounds counterproductive in a Dolby atmos environment?


On the contrary, IMO.

My experience is that the closer to omnidirectional (leaving aside dipoles and their out-of-phase drivers) a surround speaker is, the better; otherwise they're prone to drawing attention to themselves as sound sources.




niterida said:


> I set up a pair as side surrounds and it killed the surround sound effect - when a sound travelled from front to back it would be very louad and pronounced coming from the rear and then it would 'jump' to the front instead of seamlessly travelling the whole length of the room.


Sounds like they needed more level.




niterida said:


> Surround sound (and especially Atmos) works on the premise that sound is directed at a point in space - if a speaker is outputting the exact same sound but in 2 different directions then it just won't sound right.


Every speaker puts out the same sound in many directions; what we hear is the sum.

That's also counter to the many successful omnidirectional speaker designs.


----------



## batpig

Golfa005 said:


> I have ultimate flexibility in my detached garage....


That was clearly a lie... 



Golfa005 said:


> agreed but I doubt the wife will ever see the value in 4 ceiling speakers....the tough sell has me thinking I may just opt for 5.1.2.


----------



## VisionMan

I have a question for all the Atmos Experts here: If one is limited to one pair of height (ceiling) speakers, about 3 feet in front of the MLP, 8 foot ceiling, but well in front to the LCR, should those speakers be designated top front or top middle?

Thanks for everybody's thoughts on this.


----------



## Magiclakez

VisionMan said:


> I have a question for all the Atmos Experts here: If one is limited to one pair of height (ceiling) speakers, about 3 feet in front of the MLP, 8 foot ceiling, but well in front to the LCR, should those speakers be designated top front or top middle?
> 
> Thanks for everybody's thoughts on this.


Full disclosure: I’m definitely not an expert. Lol.

I would assign them as front heights since it’s in front of the MLP, irrespective of the distance. And when you decide to add 2 additional channels in the future, I would place them directly above or just behind the MLP.

Secondly top middles are not recognized by Auro-3D, in case you decide to utilize that format at a later stage. So you get a more Universal layout with front heights. Ideally you should have top middles, when you have 6 Dolby atmos channels.


----------



## SlaughterX

What are some of the best floorstanding Atmos speakers? Preferably ones that don't cost a fortune or are at least on sale.


----------



## Ricoflashback

niterida said:


> Dolby do not recommend bipoles and after testing them, neither do I.
> I set up a pair as side surrounds and it killed the surround sound effect - when a sound travelled from front to back it would be very louad and pronounced coming from the rear and then it would 'jump' to the front instead of seamlessly travelling the whole length of the room. Surround sound (and especially Atmos) works on the premise that sound is directed at a point in space - if a speaker is outputting the exact same sound but in 2 different directions then it just won't sound right.
> 
> Sure you can use them and it will possibly still sound ok (as others seem to have done) but it will not sound as good as using direct firing speakers, assuming you don't have any weird room, furniture or speaker placement constraints.


***No. Way too general of a statement. It’s totally room dependent. In my smaller man cave (9.1.4 with Front Wides) and 7’ 6” ceiling, bipole side surrounds went off like firecrackers. It sounded like a gun going off every time they engaged. It totally destroyed my Atmos setup. I switched to Paradigm Dipoles and problem solved.

OK - follow Dolby’s advice for bipoles IF your layout permits. Most larger rooms shouldn’t have any problem. But if your layout is like mine, don’t be afraid to go with Dipoles for side surrounds.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

VisionMan said:


> I have a question for all the Atmos Experts here: If one is limited to one pair of height (ceiling) speakers, about 3 feet in front of the MLP, 8 foot ceiling, but well in front to the LCR, should those speakers be designated top front or top middle?
> 
> Thanks for everybody's thoughts on this.


I’d assign them as top fronts since that’s closer the the actual top front location. It won’t matter though. If only using 2, they get the same content anyway.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Magiclakez said:


> I apologize in advance if this has been covered earlier, but are bipole surrounds counterproductive in a Dolby atmos environment? I was planning to add (Bipoles) as side/surrounds but I’m not sure if that’s going “against the grain” so as to speak. I intend to place them on stands at ear level.


Question is, how did you decide on bipoles? In a narrow room, they seem to work ok but just wondering how you got there. Ime, monopoles work better in creating more precise placement and clearer soundfield. They might hotspot a little though if they’re too close.


----------



## CorbyDave

1


Polyrythm1k said:


> I’d assign them as top fronts since that’s closer the the actual top front location. It won’t matter though. If only using 2, they get the same content anyway.


I’m not sure this is correct. If I play the Atmos helicopter demo there is a quite noticeable difference between TF and TM. Is it possible that different receivers process Atmos differently?


----------



## CorbyDave

CorbyDave said:


> 1
> 
> I’m not sure this is correct. If I play the Atmos helicopter demo there is a quite noticeable difference between TF and TM. Is it possible that different receivers process Atmos differently?


Oops! Ignore this. I was comparing FH with TM


----------



## Magiclakez

I had posted this on the denon forums as well.


Just finished watching the SpareChange live stream on YouTube featuring the famous German Youtuber Patrick from Grobi tv.

Very interesting exchange on the Dolby atmos implementation for 6 height channels. Patrick was alluding to the fact that on most of the Dolby atmos supported movies (Kong Skull island/ Ready player one etc.), only the top middles were active and the rest (front and rear height channels) were essentially silent/inactive.

This is the video (1:03:00 onwards):


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CorbyDave said:


> 1
> 
> I’m not sure this is correct. If I play the Atmos helicopter demo there is a quite noticeable difference between TF and TM. Is it possible that different receivers process Atmos differently?


Hi Dave. I’m curious what it is that you found to be different. The receivers should process Atmos the same since what’s on the track is on the track, and the decoders are the same(afaik). Differences you might hear between differences AVR’s would likely be attributed to a “sound mode” like Yamaha uses, or maybe differences in EQ between ypao or audyssey, or Dirac etc. Playback differences in top/height designations I can’t say. I have .4 tops and only select between DTS-NX or DSU. I have two versions of the helicopter demo. One atmos, and one not. When I upmix via DTSnx the helicopter is definitely “lower” in my room while DSU puts it more between the height and bed layer(iirc). The Atmos version is all above. Not sure that has anything to do with the conversation lol.


----------



## blake

Re Front WIDES

In an Atmos 11.1.4 system , if your front wides are wall mounted speakers , is it best to angle them towards the MLP ?

I know many experts now state they should be placed at the median angle between left and side surrounds... rather than the 50-70’ bisecting angle Dolby lists.. but just curious about how much the front wides should be angle towards MLP (assuming you tweeters have reasonable horizontal dispersion )


----------



## kevinzzz

blake said:


> many experts


curious about this, can you point me to these folks and discussion?


----------



## kevinzzz

Question for the he(a)rd - I'm about to upgrade from 5.0 to (anything up to 17 channels), and stuck as to how to allocate my available channels.

It boils down to:
*Would you rather have 4 tops with front wides (9.x.4)- OR - front &rear heights AND 2 tops BUT no wides (7.x.6)?*
_
How prevalent is content in the wides vs front/rear heights for general movies?_

Long rec room in basement (13'x38') semi-dedicated. (pic below) Upgrading from 5.0. Planned processor is ANTHEM AVM70 which has three sets of height outputs plus one set of wide outputs. Possible 2nd row of seats in the future. (my full 'build' thread is here Resurrecting a 'vintage' Synthesis 3)

Mostly movies, a little music. Primarily streaming (I know...) Despite the doors on one side, I can get the wides, sides, and backs in about the right spot per Dolby guide.

Layouts (dolby recommendations in background, mine in red) 

It would be nice to encompass the future 2nd row but not a big priority.


















Four tops I think would give better overhead pans, but the 2nd row would not really get the benefit. Wides seem nice to have though. 










Thanks for any advice.


----------



## blake

kevinzzz said:


> curious about this, can you point me to these folks and discussion?











Loudspeaker Positions Guide - Trinnov Audio


For two years now we have been giving to all our partners a Guide Book recommending...




www.trinnov.com






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sorny

9.1.6 would be where I'd be looking (and using 4 subs instead of 1). Not using front/rear heights, but rather all 6 height speakers in the ceiling (top mids directly over 1st row, top rear just behind 2nd row, top fronts about same distace forward of mids as the rears are from the mids... I'd also go bipole on the surround speakers.

I'd push the front heights to 30 degrees and rear heights to 150 degrees from main listening position in 1st row to get as even of a coverage area as possible.


----------



## kevinzzz

Thank you for the input.


Sorny said:


> 9.1.6


unfortunately I'm committed to a number of amp channels and this is one more than I have. So...either wides or 6 tops instead of 4?


Sorny said:


> push the front heights to 30 degrees and rear heights to 150 degrees


I think you just said no heights (tops only) so do you mean the base layer?


Sorny said:


> using 4 subs instead of 1


My plan is 3, using DSP to even them out


----------



## Sorny

kevinzzz said:


> Thank you for the input.
> 
> unfortunately I'm committed to a number of amp channels and this is one more than I have. So...either wides or 6 tops instead of 4?
> 
> I think you just said no heights (tops only) so do you mean the base layer?
> 
> My plan is 3, using DSP to even them out


I've got a 7.1.4 setup (with 4 subs), so you'll have to ask someone who has a 9.1.6 setup which way they'd downgrade... fewer tops or lose the wides... I suspect it'll be most favoring the wides over the extra tops... My snide remark would be to get another amp channel so you don't have to worry about it and go 9.1.6 since the processor supports it. 

If running 6 tops: Front top speaker closer to 30 degrees from MLP, mids over MLP, top rears closer to 150degrees behind MLP (and hopefully just behind potential 2nd row); basically run at the high end of the recommendations to try getting better coverage for the potential 2nd row. This assumes pretty wide dispersion from the tops, or toe as appropriate. The recommended specs are pretty lenient in my experience, and are forgiving of "real world" interfering with ideal setup.
If you go 4 tops, then I'd try to go at the normal 45 & 135 from MLP and tell the potential 2nd row to deal with it. My tops are at 45/135 (pretty close), and the effect is pretty awesome (but I'm single row). I suspect if I ever get around to adding the bar/barstools behind my theater seats, then anyone back there might not get the full impact of the Atmos, but what do I care... I sit in the money seat 

4 subs is better than 3. Ask my how I know. Started with 2, ran 2 for 18 years. Added a 3rd for more consistency, then #4 was about a month later... 2 was good, 3 was better, 4 was more better (much improved seat-to-seat, got 10-12dB of gain over 1 sub as expected after dialing in with REW & MiniDSP), and lots of headroom.

I also stand by my earlier recommendation for bipoles for the surrounds on the bed layer (side surrounds, surround backs can be normal monopoles. Only because most bipoles have angled drivers, so it'll work better for 2 rows of seating, IMHO. I used 4 bipoles for my surrounds and surround backs, but mostly because I merely had to lower then and scoot the surrounds forward to switch form 7.1 to 7.1.4, and I already had them. It's a bonus that the location would be perfect to have them fire at a 2nd row if I ever add it..

To repeat myself a 3rd time, atmos layouts are pretty forgiving. I wouldn't sweat it too much. As long as you're in the ballpark of Dolby's guidelines, it'll sound anywhere from pretty good to awesome in my experience.


----------



## Scott Simonian

kevinzzz said:


> Question for the he(a)rd - I'm about to upgrade from 5.0 to (anything up to 17 channels), and stuck as to how to allocate my available channels.
> 
> It boils down to:
> *Would you rather have 4 tops with front wides (9.x.4)- OR - front &rear heights AND 2 tops BUT no wides (7.x.6)?*


Personally, I'd go with 9.1.4 layout and with your layout, it seems like a good fit too.

My experience with six channel overhead systems (matrixed or discrete) is often a lot of content "collapses" into the middle overhead and it does not sound great when that happens.

How often are those seats in the 2nd row going to occupied and how critical of listeners will they be? Having separate front and middle overheads will not make any difference to the folks in the back row. The 9.1.4 makes the most sense, imo.


----------



## CorbyDave

11


Polyrythm1k said:


> Hi Dave. I’m curious what it is that you found to be different. The receivers should process Atmos the same since what’s on the track is on the track, and the decoders are the same(afaik). Differences you might hear between differences AVR’s would likely be attributed to a “sound mode” like Yamaha uses, or maybe differences in EQ between ypao or audyssey, or Dirac etc. Playback differences in top/height designations I can’t say. I have .4 tops and only select between DTS-NX or DSU. I have two versions of the helicopter demo. One atmos, and one not. When I upmix via DTSnx the helicopter is definitely “lower” in my room while DSU puts it more between the height and bed layer(iirc). The Atmos version is all above. Not sure that has anything to do with the conversation lol.


Hi. I was actually comparing FH to TM .With TM the sound appeared to travel from just below one speaker across the ceiling to just below the speaker on the opposite side. No perceptible front to back movement. My speakers are placed at the junction between wall and ceiling approximately 90 degrees left and right. With FH engaged the sound starts and ends inward of the speakers with a a very slight forwards and backwards movement. The only reason I experimented with FH with speakers in the “wrong” position is because my Sony receiver only allows DTS:x in FH (my observations are with Atmos engaged in both instances). Hope this makes sense!


----------



## anjunadeep

Scott Simonian said:


> My experience with six channel overhead systems (matrixed or discrete) is often a lot of content "collapses" into the middle overhead and it does not sound great when that happens.


If wides were not possible in a room, would you prefer a 7.1.4 setup to a 7.1.6 setup for that reason?

I have 7.1.4 now and sometimes think about expanding to 7.1.6 just because I have the speakers mounted anyways (I mean when I was running the in-ceiling speakers I figured I might as well run 6 even if I only started by using 4). Now sometimes I think to myself "should I upgrade my receiver so I can support the extra two height channels?". Maybe not specifically for that, but, the next upgrade potentially one thing I was thinking about making sure was that it supported 13 channels rather than 11 (which more receivers do now). But maybe that would actually be a downgrade?

I really like front heights. To me those make the biggest difference. They make the room sound very big.


----------



## AYanguas

*Testing Wides (7.1.4 to 9.1.4)*

I have a 7.1.4 Atmos and, after the recent Denon Upgrade that enable the use of Wides with DSU and Neural:X 9.1.4, I am tempted to try Wides using two additional old shelf speakers I had.

The Front Wide Right Speaker HAS TO BE placed on top of the lunch table of our Living Room-Home Cinema. Yes, that is the exact location. Of course, I must remove that speaker when we have guests to have lunch/dinner and the Table has to be used. My Wife permits That! 

The Wides work good with the two Upmixers, but the Dolby Atmos results are, of course, dependent on the mixes:

I tested first with the ‘reference’ Yello-Point Atmos mix. I get more progressive panning from fronts to the sides listening this Yello-Point Atmos. I liked really. It is an improvement with the Wides with respect to the previous 7.1.4 experience.

BUT then I tested the last King Crimson Steven Wilson Atmos mix (1969 box). I was first disappointed. The Wides were completely silent. No sound at all putting my ear close to the Wides. I thought this KC Steven Wilson mix was a fixed 7.1.4, Disney style. Listening more time, I have occasionally listened some sound at the Wides in very briefly moments at very low volume. So, it seems it is NOT a fixed 7.1.4 print. It looks Steven Wilson has mixed most of the time with object sounds located at the main 7.1.4 speaker positions. At least, comparing with the fully aggressive Yello-Point Atmos that renders to an almost continuous use of the Wides.

Still pending tests with film sequences like cars running out the side of the screen to check if the ‘movement’ of the sound to the Side Surrounds is more progressive and not just jumps to there.


----------



## JohnRichmond

anjunadeep said:


> If wides were not possible in a room, would you prefer a 7.1.4 setup to a 7.1.6 setup for that reason?
> 
> I have 7.1.4 now and sometimes think about expanding to 7.1.6 just because I have the speakers mounted anyways (I mean when I was running the in-ceiling speakers I figured I might as well run 6 even if I only started by using 4). Now sometimes I think to myself "should I upgrade my receiver so I can support the extra two height channels?". Maybe not specifically for that, but, the next upgrade potentially one thing I was thinking about making sure was that it supported 13 channels rather than 11 (which more receivers do now). But maybe that would actually be a downgrade?
> 
> I really like front heights. To me those make the biggest difference. They make the room sound very big.


Isn't the jump from a 7.1.4 receiver to a 7.1.6 a pretty big one money-wise?


----------



## anjunadeep

JohnRichmond said:


> Isn't the jump from a 7.1.4 receiver to a 7.1.6 a pretty big one money-wise?


It was, but now it's coming down a lot. The Denon 6700H, for example, can do 13 channels provided you run two channels an an external amp (which I have anyways). Right now I have a 6400H. Not sure I would run out and buy one just for that (I'd rather see how the HDMI2.1 stuff plays out a bit), but when I'm in the market for a new receiver I'm curious if having 13 channels would be a benefit for me.


----------



## JohnRichmond

anjunadeep said:


> It was, but now it's coming down a lot. The Denon 6700H, for example, can do 13 channels provided you run two channels an an external amp (which I have anyways). Right now I have a 6400H. Not sure I would run out and buy one just for that (I'd rather see how the HDMI2.1 stuff plays out a bit), but when I'm in the market for a new receiver I'm curious if having 13 channels would be a benefit for me.


I got my X3600H for $799. From there to $2500, to me, is a really big jump.


----------



## anjunadeep

JohnRichmond said:


> I got my X3600H for $799. From there to $2500, to me, is a really big jump.


For sure, but those things go on sale and closeout. I mean I got my 6400H for like $1300 when it originally retailed for $2300 or something. I wouldn't be surprised if electronics have some price hikes in coming years, but I imagine the 6700H will end up massively discounted at some point. I'm not in a huge rush, especially with the 2.1 unknowns, but was mostly just curious if I'd get a benefit from going to 6x overheads rather than 4x. If it's actually a negative, then maybe I'm better off not even going down that road.

This is a hobby with quickly diminishing returns, so if on a budget generally the best choice is to not upgrade lol.


----------



## LastButNotLeast

If on a budget, generally the best choice is to *STAY AWAY FROM HERE!*
Michael


----------



## noah katz

blake said:


> In an Atmos 11.1.4 system , if your front wides are wall mounted speakers , is it best to angle them towards the MLP ?



If you mean as opposed to firing at the opposite wall, definitely.

Further, you can improve coverage for multiple listeners by toeing them in to point at the far-side listeners.


----------



## anjunadeep

LastButNotLeast said:


> If on a budget, generally the best choice is to *STAY AWAY FROM HERE!*
> Michael


ahaha yeah! Generally the happiest I am with my system is when I'm not browsing AVSForum haha. Sorta, anyways, because there are certainly people here who are down to earth and more realistic that I lean on. Where I get into trouble here is hanging out in speaker or subwoofer threads, all the sudden you feel you need a pair of 200 pound subwoofers to reach 8Hz at 130dB or because of EQ headroom you need a 105db/watt speaker at 10ft away with 2000wpc. When, in reality, most of us don't need that and can save the girlfriend forgiveness points for something else.

at my best I just read @Ralph Potts film reviews and lurk in the room setup, REW, Audyssey type threads. I've gotten way more bang for my buck reading those than any equipment thread because they tend to force you to look at what you realistically can really improve (or need to improve versus don't) rather than just upgrading to upgrade. Perfect example here, where I felt like maybe I should do 7.1.6, but reading a few posts here about how having a height right over you might make the stage collapse now I'm not so sure. A cheap visit!


----------



## Josh Z

anjunadeep said:


> mostly just curious if I'd get a benefit from going to 6x overheads rather than 4x. If it's actually a negative, then maybe I'm better off not even going down that road.


That mostly depends on your room size and speaker placement. If you have a moderate sized room and your Top Front/Top Rear speakers are positioned at close to recommended angles (45 degrees before and behind your seats), the need for Top Middle speakers between them is minimized. Those speakers will probably do a fine job of imaging sounds between them right above your head.

But if you have a very large room and/or your height speakers are in compromised locations (e.g. Front Heights and Rear Heights far away from each other), you may not get much imaging. That's when an extra pair of Top Middle speakers between them is most helpful.


----------



## kevinzzz

Scott Simonian said:


> Personally, I'd go with 9.1.4 layout and with your layout, it seems like a good fit too.
> 
> My experience with six channel overhead systems (matrixed or discrete) is often a lot of content "collapses" into the middle overhead and it does not sound great when that happens.
> 
> How often are those seats in the 2nd row going to occupied and how critical of listeners will they be? Having separate front and middle overheads will not make any difference to the folks in the back row. The 9.1.4 makes the most sense, imo.


Thanks for the input. I think I agree. The 2nd row is a big maybe, so if that day comes I might look into a third pair of tops. For now I like the idea of expanding the soundstage, especially since my front spread is on the narrow side until I can relocate the door on the screen wall (and go 2.3.5 CIH AT with speakers behind the screen  ). And now I'm aware I shouldn't get my hopes up for them being used all that often. 9.3.4 it is.


----------



## Magiclakez

Josh Z said:


> That mostly depends on your room size and speaker placement. If you have a moderate sized room and your Top Front/Top Rear speakers are positioned at close to recommended angles (45 degrees before and behind your seats), the need for Top Middle speakers between them is minimized. Those speakers will probably do a fine job of imaging sounds between them right above your head.
> 
> But if you have a very large room and/or your height speakers are in compromised locations (e.g. Front Heights and Rear Heights far away from each other), you may not get much imaging. That's when an extra pair of Top Middle speakers between them is most helpful.


That’s a great breakdown. 

But is it an accurate observation, that in a 6 (Dolby atmos) height speaker setup, most of the activity is concentrated in the middles? I’m really getting some mixed feedback. Hope you could shed some light on this. Thanks for being such an awesome resource on this board. Cheers!!


----------



## howard68

just got this 
sounds really good so far!!!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Magiclakez said:


> That’s a great breakdown.
> 
> But is it an accurate observation, that in a 6 (Dolby atmos) height speaker setup, most of the activity is concentrated in the middles? I’m really getting some mixed feedback. Hope you could shed some light on this. Thanks for being such an awesome resource on this board. Cheers!!


It all depends on the audio mix. They are all nicely used in the better mixes and not at all used in the really bad ones.


----------



## kevinzzz

howard68 said:


> View attachment 3078333
> 
> just got this
> sounds really good so far!!!



is it worth $68?


----------



## Josh Z

Magiclakez said:


> But is it an accurate observation, that in a 6 (Dolby atmos) height speaker setup, most of the activity is concentrated in the middles? I’m really getting some mixed feedback. Hope you could shed some light on this.


I don't think it's correct to say "most" of the activity. As Mashie says, it depends on the mix, which may depend on the studio. Soundtracks that use 3D sound objects the way they're intended should utilize all your height speakers. 

Unfortunately, some studios (primarily Disney, which owns half of Hollywood) typically force their Atmos tracks into either a 7.1.4 or sometimes just 7.1.2 channel printout for some reason. That means no Front Wide activity and only specific height speakers get used. If a 7.1.4 track, Top Middles are inactive. If a 7.1.2 track, only Top Middles are used and no Top Front/Top Rear if you have six speakers. (If you have four height speakers, those x.x.2 channels get split between them.) 

This isn't exclusively a Disney problem, but they are the biggest offender. Notably, Saving Private Ryan (Paramount) is also a 7.1.2 Atmos mix.


----------



## Scott Simonian

anjunadeep said:


> If wides were not possible in a room, would you prefer a 7.1.4 setup to a 7.1.6 setup for that reason?


Yes. I had a 7.1.6 layout for about a year (matrixed) and ended up going back to 7.1.4 as I found it offered the same precision but offered better envelopment, stability and no chance of things falling into the middle pair. It is unfortunate that since 2016, when I removed the six channel overhead system, there have been many poor uses of Atmos on premium titles and that has been more of a trend than an exception it seems.

Even if I had a large room and unlimited budget, I would still be okay with 7.1.4 layout. But that's me.


----------



## iron4044

Q: Yamaha RX-A2080 Dolby 7.2.4?

Ok, I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm told the 2080 will not handle 7.2.4, but it looks like there are 11 channels, with two speaker connections marked "Extra SP1"' and "Extra SP2". Can't I connect 6 and 7 to these posts? Am I missing something?

And I know this picture is of the 3080 but the back of my 2080 has similar channel layout.


----------



## sdurani

iron4044 said:


> I'm told the 2080 will not handle 7.2.4, but it looks like there are 11 channels, with two speaker connections marked "Extra SP1"' and "Extra SP2".


9 channels but 11 speaker connections. Of the 11 speakers, only 9 can be used at any given time (5.1.4 or 7.1.2 configuration).


----------



## iron4044

Thanks. So the other speaker channels are reserved for Zones only?


----------



## sdurani

You can connect 11 speakers in the main zone, but only use 9 of them at any given time. The 2080 has 9 processing channels and 9 amp channels. The next model up (3080) has 11 processing channels and 9 amp channels, allowing it to do 7.1.4 with an external 2-channel amp.


----------



## iron4044

10-4 Captain. Thanks!


----------



## AYanguas

kevinzzz said:


> is it worth $68?


It depends on what you look for.

If you look for the music itself, obviously you have to be a fan of Yello.

If you have an Atmos room with at least 7.1.4, This is one of the best Reference Demo of Dolby Atmos music with many discrete sounds coming and panning from everywhere in the room.

I recently added Front Wides speakers for testing 9.1.4 and this Yello-Point has improved in some parts, over my current 7.1.4


----------



## Magiclakez

Josh Z said:


> I don't think it's correct to say "most" of the activity. As Mashie says, it depends on the mix, which may depend on the studio. Soundtracks that use 3D sound objects the way they're intended should utilize all your height speakers.
> 
> Unfortunately, some studios (primarily Disney, which owns half of Hollywood) typically force their Atmos tracks into either a 7.1.4 or sometimes just 7.1.2 channel printout for some reason. That means no Front Wide activity and only specific height speakers get used. If a 7.1.4 track, Top Middles are inactive. If a 7.1.2 track, only Top Middles are used and no Top Front/Top Rear if you have six speakers. (If you have four height speakers, those x.x.2 channels get split between them.)
> 
> This isn't exclusively a Disney problem, but they are the biggest offender. Notably, Saving Private Ryan (Paramount) is also a 7.1.2 Atmos mix.


Yes I was listening to the YouTube live stream of SpareChange featuring Patrick /Grobi tv Germany. They were both alluding to the allocation of funds (or lack thereof) for the poor implementation. I wish studios would replicate what Gravity did to set a benchmark/ reference standard.

For me personally, out of the 3 immersive audio formats (Dolby atmos/Auro-3D/Dts-X); I find Auro-3D to have a more captivating effect compared to the rest. The imaging is more precise and in your face and nothing left to the imagination or discreet etc. I also like the way they tell you how the track has been implemented e.g. 9.1/ 11.1/ 13.1. Unfortunately this never gained any traction here in the US and you have to go through some serious hoops, in order to source the limited titles from Europe. Lol.


----------



## Pirotto

Josh Z said:


> I don't think it's correct to say "most" of the activity. As Mashie says, it depends on the mix, which may depend on the studio. Soundtracks that use 3D sound objects the way they're intended should utilize all your height speakers.
> 
> Unfortunately, some studios (primarily Disney, which owns half of Hollywood) typically force their Atmos tracks into either a 7.1.4 or sometimes just 7.1.2 channel printout for some reason. That means no Front Wide activity and only specific height speakers get used. If a 7.1.4 track, Top Middles are inactive. If a 7.1.2 track, only Top Middles are used and no Top Front/Top Rear if you have six speakers. (If you have four height speakers, those x.x.2 channels get split between them.)
> 
> This isn't exclusively a Disney problem, but they are the biggest offender. Notably, Saving Private Ryan (Paramount) is also a 7.1.2 Atmos mix.


Are you sure about Saving Private Ryan? I just watched it on my 9.1.4 system (in pure Atmos, no upmixer involved) and there's a lot of front wides activity.


----------



## kevinzzz

AYanguas said:


> I recently added Front Wides speakers for testing 9.1.4 and this Yello-Point has improved in some parts, over my current 7.1.4


well great now I can spend $68 to justify the $500 i just spent on wides


----------



## Josh Z

Pirotto said:


> Are you sure about Saving Private Ryan? I just watched it on my 9.1.4 system (in pure Atmos, no upmixer involved) and there's a lot of front wides activity.


It may be 9.1.2, but I'm pretty sure about the height channels.


----------



## niterida

iron4044 said:


> 10-4 Captain. Thanks!


So go 5.1.4 - far better than 7.1.2 IMO


----------



## iron4044

niterida said:


> So go 5.1.4 - far better than 7.1.2 IMO


I now have 7.2.4, already had 5.2.4


----------



## niterida

iron4044 said:


> I now have 7.2.4, already had 5.2.4


How did you manage that with your 9 channel AVR ?


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> Oh yeah.....OHHHHHHHH YEAAAAAHH!! Beautiful! MORE Beautiful!
> 
> I just listened to *Yello's POINT* album in *Dolby Atmos* like 3 times and used the track _Way Down_ to try out Dolby Digital EX 6.1 + Surround Modes and PCM 24-bit 2.0 stereo from 2.0 to 17.1 with the surround modes.
> .......


To complement this @MagnumX Yello-Point Atmos extensive review I attach a video showing the great use of speakers with the “Way Down” track. Using my recently finished DIY 13-channel VUmeter (see THIS POST if you are curious).

I have added some old spare Front Wide Speakers to get a 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos system. With this Yello-Point Atmos mix I get much use of the Wides that really enhance the listening over 7.1.4

The VUmeter legend stands for Heights, but in this video Atmos Tops are sounding. Also, at the right most VUmeter, Wides are sounding, not VOG CH (for Auro use).

The VUmeters are more or less ‘calibrated’ to show same bar amount using the ‘Speaker level’ test of the AVR.

Look at the right most VUmeter how much the Wides are used.

This test has convinced me to buy two more good Speakers for Wides, as I was testing with old spare speakers.

In the video below, please click and enable the sound on the imgur page. You should see and listen the complete 1 minute video.



http://imgur.com/a/KfniRyB


----------



## Scott Simonian

That VU meter is sick.


----------



## MagnumX

I think Yello's album Point in Atmos is the most exciting album I've heard in years. Booka Shade's album Dear Future Self is an Atmos extravaganza as well (I've been told the same team/company also mixed Yello's album), BUT I just don't find the songs as engaging on the Booka Shade album, overall (Perfect Way was probably my favorite of the bunch). Yello's album is very listenable in two channel to begin with in the sense that I don't feel the overwhelming urge to skip tracks that I sadly do with most full length albums. Oddly, the first single (Waba Duba) may be my least favorite track of the bunch, save perhaps one of the bonus tracks (Zephyr Calling) and it still does some very interesting things in Atmos. (Big Boys' Blues is my favorite track, BTW.)

Honestly, I don't think there's a single movie out there that even comes within the same galaxy so-to-speak as these two sets of Atmos music albums (meaning both Booka Shade albums and Yello's Point). They should be THE demo material used to sell this format because what they do with 17.1 speakers here is nothing short of AMAZING!

Unlike movies that rarely touch the rear or overhead speakers, these three albums have discrete sounds coming from everywhere you can imagine in the room (including Auro locations Atmos can only phantom image like top center and the VOG). Rear speaker use is often as much as the front. I felt like the rear half of my room was missing in most Atmos movies and that is not, contrary to popular opinion that they're not used at all, but because they often carry duplicate information as the sides, which then images halfway in-between if you sit in the middle, but image more or less at your side location or just behind it from a front orientated row due to both array combination plus the precedence effect. Discrete rear effects at standout volumes are rare in movies (but not non-existent).

Here with these well mixed Atmos music albums, almost everything is discrete and my 24' long room sounds absolutely MASSIVE. People who think rear surrounds are a waste of time might change their minds after hearing these albums on a larger system as 5.1.4 just doesn't cut it for the full experience, IMO. Overheads are used with almost total abandon and sheer delightful recklessness as well (actually it's quite well organized thanks to Stefan Bock and David Merkl's meticulous efforts).

People, Yello's new album Point _IS_ Dolby Atmos! Don't ignore the best sound experience of your life just because it's not a movie! Buy POINT today! (Ok, Boris Blank, you guys owe me one now )


----------



## kevinzzz

Oh baby I'm going to build one of those. It will be on a screen though.. will be an easy add to my DSP when I get it done.


----------



## iron4044

niterida said:


> How did you manage that with your 9 channel AVR ?


I used my Denon 4400H in place of the rx-a2080


----------



## batpig

Pirotto said:


> Are you sure about Saving Private Ryan? I just watched it on my 9.1.4 system (in pure Atmos, no upmixer involved) and there's a lot of front wides activity.


Are you SURE that there was a lot of front wide activity? I've been fooled many times by phantom imaging only to find out I was wrong when I actually isolated the speaker (or put my ear up close to it). I've found that frequently I hear things as "height" effects only to find they are really all/mostly coming from the surrounds.

I haven't pulled out SPR 4K recently but I tested this pretty thoroughly on my Denon X8500H back when it first came out and it was 7.1.2. I believe Stuart also confirmed this on his Trinnov.


----------



## batpig

blake said:


> Re Front WIDES
> 
> In an Atmos 11.1.4 system , if your front wides are wall mounted speakers , is it best to angle them towards the MLP ?


In general, when possible, angle the speakers towards you. Doesn't matter whether it's doing duty as a front, side, top, wide, back, whatever. Speakers are designed to sound best ON AXIS. So as much as possible, aim them towards the sweet spot.

Ironically, it's even MORE important to angle them in the situation you described -- wall-mounted front wides will be well in front of the seating area, so if they are NOT angled then you will be WAAAY off axis, which will cause all sorts of issues.


----------



## Pirotto

batpig said:


> Are you SURE that there was a lot of front wide activity? I've been fooled many times by phantom imaging only to find out I was wrong when I actually isolated the speaker (or put my ear up close to it). I've found that frequently I hear things as "height" effects only to find they are really all/mostly coming from the surrounds.
> 
> I haven't pulled out SPR 4K recently but I tested this pretty thoroughly on my Denon X8500H back when it first came out and it was 7.1.2. I believe Stuart also confirmed this on his Trinnov.


I'm positive. I used a Denon A110, got up many times to stick my ear close to the wides to make sure. But it was even obvious from the MLP, wides are pretty animated. I'm talking about the british 4K edition, but I doubt it uses a specific mix ...


----------



## Magiclakez

batpig said:


> Are you SURE that there was a lot of front wide activity? I've been fooled many times by phantom imaging only to find out I was wrong when I actually isolated the speaker (or put my ear up close to it). I've found that frequently I hear things as "height" effects only to find they are really all/mostly coming from the surrounds.
> 
> I haven't pulled out SPR 4K recently but I tested this pretty thoroughly on my Denon X8500H back when it first came out and it was 7.1.2. I believe Stuart also confirmed this on his Trinnov.


John Wick titles (4k Blu-ray) really pound on the wides. I use identical towers for my wides and the activity is almost evenly distributed with the L/R each time i watch JW. Interstellar is right up there as well along with tenet and Ford vs Ferrari.

John Wick 2: Club scene in Italy (with the ensuing shootout) is demo material to showcase the wides. Imho of course...ymmv.


----------



## batpig

Magiclakez said:


> John Wick titles (4k Blu-ray) really pound on the wides. I use identical towers for my wides and the activity is almost evenly distributed with the L/R each time i watch JW. Interstellar is right up there as well along with tenet and Ford vs Ferrari.
> 
> John Wick 2: Club scene in Italy (with the ensuing shootout) is demo material to showcase the wides. Imho of course...ymmv.


FYI - Tenet and Interstellar are 5.1, as are all Christopher Nolan films. But I believe that they pound, as do (almost) all Christopher Nolan films  

Totally agree that John Wick flicks are among the best Atmos mixes. And Ford vs Ferrari is also spectacular. 

Interestingly a lot of Netflix original Atmos content is very active. I think I remember some time ago there was an article posted about how Netflix requires content mixers to monitor on 9.1.6 minimum setups. 



Pirotto said:


> I'm positive. I used a Denon A110, got up many times to stick my ear close to the wides to make sure. But it was even obvious from the MLP, wides are pretty animated. I'm talking about the british 4K edition, but I doubt it uses a specific mix ...


Huh, I am also pretty positive. It is actually possible the region difference is a factor, there are many examples of the same movie having different mixes in different countries/regions.

I need to confirm this now, but won't be able to until tonight... unless someone else does it first!


----------



## Magiclakez

batpig said:


> FYI - Tenet and Interstellar are 5.1, as are all Christopher Nolan films. But I believe that they pound, as do (almost) all Christopher Nolan films
> 
> Totally agree that John Wick flicks are among the best Atmos mixes. And Ford vs Ferrari is also spectacular.
> 
> Interestingly a lot of Netflix original Atmos content is very active. I think I remember some time ago there was an article posted about how Netflix requires content mixers to monitor on 9.1.6 minimum setups.


Yes they are Indeed 5.1 (dts-Hd) but this where DSU/ Neural-x comes in handy.

Yes I agree, some of the newer Netflix content is quite high quality; both visually and audio wise.


----------



## batpig

Magiclakez said:


> Yes they are Indeed 5.1 (dts-Hd) but this where DSU/ Neural-x comes in handy.


I understand how upmixing works, no need to take pictures of your TV  

I just wanted that to be clear since the context of the discussion was NATIVE Atmos mixes


----------



## Magiclakez

batpig said:


> I understand how upmixing works, no need to take pictures of your TV
> 
> I just wanted that to be clear since the context of the discussion was NATIVE Atmos mixes


Yup and I also understand all Nolan tracks are 5.1 

Sorry for taking those pics. I will be more judicious while interacting with you in the future. Cheers!

Edit: took those pics down.


----------



## LastButNotLeast




----------



## galonzo

Okay @*MagnumX* , you convinced me; I ordered Point (Atmos Version) from Germany for $36.41 total (it said in stock, so we'll see how this goes), for anyone else interested.

On another note, I do have plenty of clearance to put Atmos speakers in the angled part of my ceiling (that follows the roofline along my left wall, pic here, where black/dark grey is Dolby recommend and red was original proposed placement), so I decided it would be best to place the TFs as close as possible to the Dolby recommended, so just shy of the attic opening (bringing them slightly closer rather than further forward), but then place the TRs just inside the rear corners, to allow for an additional row of "overflow" seating later. Dolby recommend diagram here for my 17.5' x 11' x 8' room. New pics to come, once installed...


----------



## AYanguas

galonzo said:


> Okay @*MagnumX* , you convinced me; I ordered Point (Atmos Version) from Germany for $36.41 total (it said in stock, so we'll see how this goes), for anyone else interested.
> ....


Thats good  

Lets increase the demand for good Dolby Atmos Music mixes. Hoping the supply will increase also.


----------



## Starlordtheoutlaw

Question about upwards firing speakers, does it cause more noise in the room above (than the home theater would cause otherwise)?


----------



## batpig

Starlordtheoutlaw said:


> Question about upwards firing speakers, does it cause more noise in the room above (than the home theater would cause otherwise)?


No


----------



## Phytonic13

Maybe you guys can help me here. I have 4 svs elevation speakers ready to be put up. First though I'd be installing on the ceiling but after going into the attic, I see the ac unit is directly in my way to hide the wires. This is going to be an absolute last resort. Now I'm thinking rear heights and front heights. Not sure how this will integrate with atmos. Also thought I could do that setup and add side heights. I've setup plenty of home theaters over the last 20 years but this atmos/dtsx/auro is very confusing with so many opinions on setup. Any help mainly with these specific speakers would be great. Thank you.


----------



## Magiclakez

Phytonic13 said:


> Maybe you guys can help me here. I have 4 svs elevation speakers ready to be put up. First though I'd be installing on the ceiling but after going into the attic, I see the ac unit is directly in my way to hide the wires. This is going to be an absolute last resort. Now I'm thinking rear heights and front heights. Not sure how this will integrate with atmos. Also thought I could do that setup and add side heights. I've setup plenty of home theaters over the last 20 years but this atmos/dtsx/auro is very confusing with so many opinions on setup. Any help mainly with these specific speakers would be great. Thank you.


Rear/ front heights will give you universal support for all 3 immersive formats.


----------



## AYanguas

Phytonic13 said:


> Maybe you guys can help me here. I have 4 svs elevation speakers ready to be put up. First though I'd be installing on the ceiling but after going into the attic, I see the ac unit is directly in my way to hide the wires. This is going to be an absolute last resort. Now I'm thinking rear heights and front heights. Not sure how this will integrate with atmos. Also thought I could do that setup and add side heights. I've setup plenty of home theaters over the last 20 years but this atmos/dtsx/auro is very confusing with so many opinions on setup. Any help mainly with these specific speakers would be great. Thank you.


I think the best is to follow the recommendations as close as possible depending on your room possibilities.

For Dolby Atmos the recommendation is to put the speakers in the ceiling at 45º in front of and behind the MLP. Try to figure out where that will be and look for the closest place you can put them.
It is usual to have in-ceiling speakers with some aimed orientation to the MLP, full or just a moving tweeter. But I think full box shelf speakers, if properly hanged from ceiling and oriented to the MLP will work the best. 

If you can hang your speakers from the ceiling and even twist them a bit to fully point the speakers to your MLP, I think that would be the best for Atmos. And configure them as Tops. That would be for a single MLP. If you have to deal with several positions or even several sitting rows, the position/orientation could be optimised in other ways.

The optimum positions for DTS:X or worst for Auro are not those and are different. But you could change later the config from Tops to Heights if you want to play with your AVR possibilities for the different formats.

Think about you will probably find much more Dolby Atmos content than DTS:X or Auro-3D. So having compromises, it would be better to optimise as much as possible for Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Phytonic13 said:


> Maybe you guys can help me here. I have 4 svs elevation speakers ready to be put up. First though I'd be installing on the ceiling but after going into the attic, I see the ac unit is directly in my way to hide the wires. This is going to be an absolute last resort. Now I'm thinking rear heights and front heights. Not sure how this will integrate with atmos. Also thought I could do that setup and add side heights. I've setup plenty of home theaters over the last 20 years but this atmos/dtsx/auro is very confusing with so many opinions on setup. Any help mainly with these specific speakers would be great. Thank you.











Here’s another good option.


----------



## howard68

Has anybody started a list of films that use FW or TM?


----------



## Phytonic13

Polyrythm1k said:


> Here’s another good option.


Think that's where I'm headed.


----------



## JosephTonyStark

Polyrythm1k said:


> Here’s another good option.


This layout has always fascinated me. From what I can tell though, it's used more rarely than the other layouts. Would love to find more commentary about it.


----------



## Electric_Haggis

mrtickleuk said:


> I predict there will not be a source forthcoming and it's the same mistake many people have made, thinking that bipoles and dipoles are both recommended against when nothing could be further from the truth. Bipoles are absolutely fine. It is, and only ever has been, dipoles that Dolby recommends against.


Totally agree. Yet again, people are getting Dipoles and Bipoles mixed up.

Obviously, Bipoles can help with getting a wider spread of sound over more seats and avoiding the distraction of localising when one is forced to sit to close - Especially useful for the Side Surrounds in a narrower room like mine.


----------



## AndreNewman

JosephTonyStark said:


> This layout has always fascinated me. From what I can tell though, it's used more rarely than the other layouts. Would love to find more commentary about it.


It's pretty similar to what I have and the results are good, I tried a bunch of different layouts in my flat so I heard the difference between heights and tops there. We moved to a bigger house recently and sides were really the only option, at least until we refurbish upstairs and I can get access for ceiling mounted speakers. When we (used to) have a bunch of visitors for a movie they will have to be wide across the room and having the speakers at the sides means everyone is inside the speakers rather than some being under or even the wrong side.

I found it's important to ensure the side locations are not too far forward or far back or they start to sound like heights, I moved the fronts back 2 feet and they sound much better. I'll be moving the rears forward a foot this week to make space for rear corner bass traps so will see if that makes an effect.

This pic probably shows the atmos speakers layout best, they were further forward but that didn't give enough separation to L&R.









Edit: daytime pic shows the speaker locations better:


----------



## BotellaBodega

Goal: Sound--Dolby Atmos; Video--4K 120 frames per second (fps) ... How to achieve this? 

Our setup:
4K Blu Ray Player: Samsung UBD K8500
A/V Receiver: Denon AVR-X4300H
TV: Sony XBR85X90CH

Goal:
Sound: Dolby Atmos
Video: 4K 120 frames per second (fps)

The 4K Blu Ray player has 2 HDMI Outs (1 is "audio/video" and 1 is "audio only"). The receiver is only 60 fps, whereas the TV and the 4K Blu Ray Player are 120 fps.

First, we tried to use the "audio only" HDMI Out on the 4K Blu Ray player to connect to our A/V receiver, and connect the "audio/video" HDMI Out on the 4K Blu Ray player to our TV. However, with this setup, the A/V Receiver does not say, "Dolby Atmos."

Next, we tried to connect the 4K Blu Ray Player "Audio/Video" HDMI Out to the A/V Receiver. Then, connect the A/V Receiver to the TV with HDMI. With this setup, the A/V Receiver does say, "Dolby Atmos." However, with this setup, we are only getting 60 fps (because that is the limit that the receiver has).

What is the least expensive way to achieve our goal of getting Dolby Atmos sound and 4K 120 fps video?

Can we buy a newer 4K Blu Ray Player that carries the "Dolby Atmos" signal on the "audio only" HDMI Out? Or do we need to buy a newer A/V Receiver that has 120 fps?

Please include suggestions of what make and model of 4K Blu Ray Player and/or A/V Receiver would meet our needs.


----------



## dschulz

BotellaBodega said:


> Goal: Sound--Dolby Atmos; Video--4K 120 frames per second (fps) ... How to achieve this?
> 
> 
> 
> What is the least expensive way to achieve our goal of getting Dolby Atmos sound and 4K 120 fps video?
> 
> Can we buy a newer 4K Blu Ray Player that carries the "Dolby Atmos" signal on the "audio only" HDMI Out? Or do we need to buy a newer A/V Receiver that has 120 fps?
> 
> Please include suggestions of what make and model of 4K Blu Ray Player and/or A/V Receiver would meet our needs.


The UHD Blu Ray format only supports up to 60fps, so unless you're trying to play back some kind of streaming content that is mastered at 120fps with Atmos, your existing setup is about as good as you're going to get.


----------



## Scott Simonian

dschulz said:


> The UHD Blu Ray format only support up to 60fps, so unless you're trying to play back some kind of streaming content that is mastered at 120fps with Atmos, your existing setup is about as good as you're going to get.


Might be a gamer with desire for >60fps display for their games.

I hope he has a nice PC and isn't falling for the new consoles promise of 120fps. lol


----------



## GPBURNS

2012 4K Atmos - if want 2+ hrs of demo material - be sure to pick up


----------



## rec head

My 4 heights are already mounted on the ceiling but I'd like to try different placements for my height speakers. Are there any recommendations for trying multiple placements without drilling my ceiling? I'm not interested in what angles are recommended. I've seen and used the diagrams but like many I don't have the perfect room. I'd like to see if I could get things just a little better without making too much mess.

Thanks


----------



## darthray

rec head said:


> My 4 heights are already mounted on the ceiling but I'd like to try different placements for my height speakers. Are there any recommendations for trying multiple placements without drilling my ceiling? I'm not interested in what angles are recommended. I've seen and used the diagrams but like many I don't have the perfect room. I'd like to see if I could get things just a little better without making too much mess.
> 
> Thanks


Just have them close, to the Atmos recommendation Guideline. And your calibration system, should take care of the improper distances. Since none of us, have the perfect joist placements. And do not see any way to try different locations, without doing a mess.

Darth


----------



## Blade 77

Hello i have a 5.1.4 setup (Denon 3700,Polk Signature Series S60,S30,S15 +4 Quadral A5 Dolby Enabled Speakers), which can be shown in the attached pictures below. In Tuesday i will finish my system with a LG OledCX 65'', so i will be able to finalize my viewing distance, which i hope that will be the same as now, at around 3m. In general terms i am pleased with the 3d effect that i get, however my problem is that i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above. I am thinking of getting these Quadral in ceiling. If so, where exactly i should place the Quadrals? 2x 30 degree forward and 2x backward MLP, in lined with main speakers? Or do you think that they will look awfull, so maybe i should try using them as heights instead? What do you suggest i could do? Thanks


----------



## Blade 77

Blade 77 said:


> Hello i have a 5.1.4 setup (Denon 3700,Polk Signature Series S60,S30,S15 +4 Quadral A5 Dolby Enabled Speakers), which can be shown in the attached pictures below. In Tuesday i will finish my system with a LG OledCX 65'', so i will be able to finalize my viewing distance, which i hope that will be the same as now, at around 3m. In general terms i am pleased with the 3d effect that i get, however my problem is that i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above. I am thinking of getting these Quadral in ceiling. If so, where exactly i should place the Quadrals? 2x 30 degree forward and 2x backward MLP, in lined with main speakers? Or do you think that they will look awfull, so maybe i should try using them as heights instead? What do you suggest i could do? Thanks


any help?


----------



## niterida

Blade 77 said:


> any help?


If you are mounting them on-ceiling then 45deg front and back and in line with Front L&R. This will give you the best Atmos effect.
But if room is an issue then you can bring them closer (30deg) and still get good Atmos.
Just measure the distance from your seated ears to the ceiling and then place speakers that same distance in front/behind for 45deg.

If the Quadrals have a switch then make sure it is not set to "Atmos Enabled" if you mount them on ceiling.


----------



## galonzo

Yes @*Blade 77 , *given the odd shape of your room, my first choice would be on or in ceiling.


----------



## Blade 77

niterida said:


> If you are mounting them on-ceiling then 45deg front and back and in line with Front L&R. This will give you the best Atmos effect.
> But if room is an issue then you can bring them closer (30deg) and still get good Atmos.
> Just measure the distance from your seated ears to the ceiling and then place speakers that same distance in front/behind for 45deg.
> 
> If the Quadrals have a switch then make sure it is not set to "Atmos Enabled" if you mount them on ceiling.


there is no switch. This is the instruction manual. I can use them as heights, i dont know if i can use them as in-celing. Furthermore i dont have a back wall for back heights.


----------



## Blade 77

galonzo said:


> Yes @*Blade 77 , *given the odd shape of your room, my first choice would be on or in ceiling.


The problem is that i can not try first, drill a hole later. However i have a feeling, that even though it isnt indicated in Quadral's manual, in-ceiling option is going to work, if installed properly. For Heights i don have a back wall.


----------



## niterida

Blade 77 said:


> there is no switch. This is the instruction manual. I can use them as heights, i dont know if i can use them as in-celing. Furthermore i dont have a back wall for back heights.


Mount them on ceiling - not in ceiling - they will work fine. There is no difference between in-ceiling and any other type of speakers except for where/how they are mounted.


----------



## shs1234

The in-ceiling have an advantage over on-ceiling for ceilings less than 8' high in that they give greater vertical separation from the ear level speakers. I have a high ceiling and like my on or near-ceiling mount as I was able to try various locations with minimal damage before finalizing the placement.


----------



## Blade 77

niterida said:


> Mount them on ceiling - not in ceiling - they will work fine. There is no difference between in-ceiling and any other type of speakers except for where/how they are mounted.


I can only use mount on ceiling because my ceiling is concrete, so in-ceiling is not an option.


----------



## Blade 77

shs1234 said:


> The in-ceiling have an advantage over on-ceiling for ceilings less than 8' high in that they give greater vertical separation from the ear level speakers. I have a high ceiling and like my on or near-ceiling mount as I was able to try various locations with minimal damage before finalizing the placement.


my ceiling is about 2,70cm.(10,6'').


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Blade 77 said:


> I can only use mount on ceiling because my ceiling is concrete, so in-ceiling is not an option.


Around here, people have done crazier things.
Michael


----------



## sdrucker

GPBURNS said:


> 2012 4K Atmos - if want 2+ hrs of demo material - be sure to pick up


I'll second that. The movie was always over the top, but Atmos just gives it that extra edge. Bought it on ATV+ and watched last night.


----------



## galonzo

galonzo said:


> Okay @*@MagnumX* , you convinced me; I ordered Point (Atmos Version) from Germany for $36.41 total _USD_ (it said in stock, so we'll see how this goes), for anyone else interested.


Huh, not bad! In my mailbox 11 days later; I see you'll still pay $68.79 + $3.99 shipping here in the states from A***zon, and it's still in stock at the link, for anyone interested.


----------



## sdrucker

galonzo said:


> Huh, not bad! In my mailbox 11 days later; I see you'll still pay $68.79 + $3.99 shipping here in the states from A***zon, and it's still in stock at the link, for anyone interested.


It's on Tidal in Atmos format. You'll need a Tidal HD subscription but if you can do that, the album is there. Not on all streaming platforms but it is on PC as well as Apple TV 4K.


----------



## rec head

I signed up for Tidal HD to try the Atmos content. Every Atmos song sounded like garbage. I like Atmos music and often use an upmixer on my own collection but those tracks were bad. Using Tidal playing the stereo version upmixed sounded much better than the same track in Atmos. 

I hope they have fixed it but they really let me down.


----------



## niterida

sdrucker said:


> It's on Tidal in Atmos format. You'll need a Tidal HD subscription but if you can do that, the album is there. Not on all streaming platforms but it is on PC as well as Apple TV 4K.


I only just discovered Tidal had Atmos - why didn't someone tell me earlier before I bought Kraftwerk and Booka Shade albums.
I have subscribed and had a quick listen to a few Atmos songs - Superb is all I can say


----------



## niterida

rec head said:


> I signed up for Tidal HD to try the Atmos content. Every Atmos song sounded like garbage. I like Atmos music and often use an upmixer on my own collection but those tracks were bad. Using Tidal playing the stereo version upmixed sounded much better than the same track in Atmos.
> 
> I hope they have fixed it but they really let me down.


All the songs I just listened to were awesome Atmos tracks - even the ones like Nora Jones where there are no real Atmos "effects" still sounded so immersive. 
I am in Oz though so maybe our streaming is better then yours ??


----------



## sdrucker

rec head said:


> I signed up for Tidal HD to try the Atmos content. Every Atmos song sounded like garbage. I like Atmos music and often use an upmixer on my own collection but those tracks were bad. Using Tidal playing the stereo version upmixed sounded much better than the same track in Atmos.
> 
> I hope they have fixed it but they really let me down.


They also have the volume about 15 db down on Tidal Atmos. It's a known issue and has been discussed on the Tidal thread on the Surround Music Formats subforum.

The upmixed stuff to Atmos on the older tracks is hit or miss. The original Atmos album mixes, such as Yello, Booka Shade, Kraftwerk, John Williams and the REM album are great.


----------



## Craig Mecak

sdrucker said:


> They also have the volume about 15 db down on Tidal Atmos. It's a known issue and has been discussed on the Tidal thread on the Surround Music Formats subforum.
> 
> The upmixed stuff to Atmos on the older tracks is hit or miss. The original Atmos album mixes, such as Yello, Booka Shade, Kraftwerk, John Williams and the REM album are great.


The volume being down is probably a good thing, in order to allow greater dynamic range. So much pop music is soooo overcompressed dynamically these days, and pushed up LOUD to compete with everything else. It's called the Loudness Wars.

Having the ATMOS tracks lower level on average means higher available headroom for better dynamics. I'm all for it.


----------



## AYanguas

Craig Mecak said:


> The volume being down is probably a good thing, in order to allow greater dynamic range. So much pop music is soooo overcompressed dynamically these days, and pushed up LOUD to compete with everything else. It's called the Loudness Wars.
> 
> Having the ATMOS tracks lower level on average means higher available headroom for better dynamics. I'm all for it.


No,

It is a Bad thing for many of us. 

When you are listening Tidal Atmos at your "usual" volume level, You have to be aware of when the album or the song finish, to immediately lower the Master Volume level.

As other Problem that TIDAL has is that you cannot configure to NOT play any additional song after what you selected. TIDAL decides to continue with music, and probably with a non-Atmos song and you may have a big scare, at least, with the much bigger volume level. If you have bad luck and you were already at a high volume, you could even damage some speaker.


----------



## sdrucker

AYanguas said:


> No,
> 
> It is a Bad thing for many of us.
> 
> When you are listening Tidal Atmos at your "usual" volume level, You have to be aware of when the album or the song finish, to immediately lower the Master Volume level.
> 
> As other Problem that TIDAL has is that you cannot configure to NOT play any additional song after what you selected. TIDAL decides to continue with music, and probably with a non-Atmos song and you may have a big scare, at least, with the much bigger volume level. If you have bad luck and you were already at a high volume, you could even damage some speaker.


Depends on what you're doing. If you're just playing an album in Atmos, it just goes on to the next Atmos track. Likewise within an Atmos playlist (e.g. "Classic Rock"). So as long as you're just playing Atmos in Tidal, it's not a big deal.

But it IS annoying that if you don't lower the master volume before playing your next non-Atmos content on Tidal or otherwise, or have a custom playlist set up with Atmos and non-Atmos tracks, you'll get blasted out of your MLP.


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Some would consider that a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Hazefrog

Hello everyone. 
How do Audyssey-measured speaker distances and the "dolby setup" "distances to ceiling" for Atmos Enabled speakers interact with each other? Coming from a Denon X4700H where I have both Audyssey-derived distance settings and Dolby Setup "distance-to-ceiling" that appear to be independent settings. 

Thanks for your time.


----------



## AYanguas

LastButNotLeast said:


> Some would consider that a feature, not a bug.


Yes, when "you'll get blasted out of your MLP", it is a variant of an alarm clock: to warn you: "Hey, ... your Atmos song has finished..."


----------



## cathodeRay

Hazefrog said:


> Hello everyone.
> How do Audyssey-measured speaker distances and the "dolby setup" "distances to ceiling" for Atmos Enabled speakers interact with each other? Coming from a Denon X4700H where I have both Audyssey-derived distance settings and Dolby Setup "distance-to-ceiling" that appear to be independent settings.
> 
> Thanks for your time.


If you have Atmos speakers in the ceiling or mounted in the traditional "height" positions (and named "height during setup) then Audyssey will measure the distance. If you have up firing Atmos speakers (on top of other speakers) then the microphone can only detect the physical distance from the mic to the speaker, which would be much less than speaker-to-ceiling-to-MLP, and in this setup the speakers should be designated "Atmos" in the setup and then it will ask you for the height to the ceiling.
After running Audyessey it is possible to modify distances and level under 'manual setup'.


----------



## blake

Is there a repository somewhere or Atmos demo tracks (even from Dolby)? 

I have the Dolby UHD Demo BluRay but nothing works as I have don’t have a Dolby Vision display. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## usc1995

blake said:


> Is there a repository somewhere or Atmos demo tracks (even from Dolby)?
> 
> I have the Dolby UHD Demo BluRay but nothing works as I have don’t have a Dolby Vision display.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are a bunch here...https://www.avsforum.com/threads/reelwood-2019-demo-clips-collection-4k-atmos-dtsx-and-more.3054458/#post-57695664


----------



## Scott Simonian

blake said:


> Is there a repository somewhere or *Atmos demo tracks* (even from Dolby)?
> 
> I have the Dolby UHD Demo BluRay *but nothing works as I have don’t have a Dolby Vision display.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wat?


----------



## blake

Scott Simonian said:


> Wat?


The disc does not allow you to play any content if you don’t have a Dolby Vision display! It defaults to an alternate audio track and video track saying incompatible ! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnRichmond

blake said:


> Is there a repository somewhere or Atmos demo tracks (even from Dolby)?
> 
> I have the Dolby UHD Demo BluRay but nothing works as I have don’t have a Dolby Vision display.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Demo Trailers for Testing Home Theater Surround Systems - Demolandia


----------



## Mashie Saldana

blake said:


> The disc does not allow you to play any content if you don’t have a Dolby Vision display! It defaults to an alternate audio track and video track saying incompatible !
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Which Atmos demo disk is that as I never heard anyone with that issue before?


----------



## distoga

I have a few questions around how processors decode Atmos but I've been unable to find information on some specific areas. I'd like to understand how the available channels/speakers effect how the processor maps objects to them. I'm also curious if how Atmos objects are processed is brand/processor specific or if Dolby has a specific algorithm all processors use. 

The background for why I'm interested is I have a Denon X8500H in my theater with a 7.1.6 configuration. I spent quite a bit of time testing Atmos layouts of FH/TM/FR vs TF/TM/TR in the room before I settled on TF/TM/TR. In my experience, FH/TM/RH did not reproduce some effects as loud in Height speakers or at all with some clips when TF/TM/TR did and imaged better as well. Since the November X8500H firmware upgrade it's seemed to have changed. Am I crazy or do manufacturers have the ability to change this without breaking Atmos licensing? 

Also I'm wondering if anyone knows if it's expected or varies by brand if the sound from FH/TM/RH should be identical to TF/TM/TR? Or in other words, is there anything different in how a .6 would be processed if it's a FH/TM/RH vs TF/TM/TR or is that a placebo effect I'm having personally? I would think TF's, for example, to sound different depending on the configuration. Now, unlike last year, when I swap my layout between FH/TM/RH and TF/TM/TR it currently (on this firmware) sounds the same now. I've tried several Atmos demo clips and can't tell a difference anymore. And depending on that answer, does anyone know how a .6 TF/TM/TR would have different FH channel/speaker use/db per channel vs a FH channel/speaker of a .10 of FH/TF/TM/TR/RH or are both FH's identical for use/db?


----------



## satyab

Mashie Saldana said:


> Which Atmos demo disk is that as I never heard anyone with that issue before?


Probably talking about March 2018 DV/DA disc. It won't play demo scenes if its not DV capable display.


----------



## Phytonic13

I have the available channels to do 7.2.6. Is there any downside to doing this based on the room size over a 7.2.4? I'll get about 4ft of separation between each side channel.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anyone offer their opinions or feedback on the Hobbit Trilogy and Lord of the Rings Trilogy on how the atmos mixes are and if they would recommend shelling out (not cheap) for them because of the upgraded formats?


----------



## deano86

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anyone offer their opinions or feedback on the Hobbit Trilogy and Lord of the Rings Trilogy on how the atmos mixes are and if they would recommend shelling out (not cheap) for them because of the upgraded formats?


I do not own them yet, but from everything that I have been reading, everyone is raving about the 4K visuals making it worthwhile and the Atmos mixes are like the cherry on top! So, both combined make it a worthy double-dip. If you do not yet have a 4K display, then most likely you can hold off if doing it just for the Atmos mixes... and that is only because the original soundtracks were so damn good anyway...


----------



## LNEWoLF

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anyone offer their opinions or feedback on the Hobbit Trilogy and Lord of the Rings Trilogy on how the atmos mixes are and if they would recommend shelling out (not cheap) for them because of the upgraded formats?











The Hobbit: The Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD Blu-ray...


The Hobbit: Motion Picture Trilogy’s long-awaited release on Ultra HD Blu-ray with remastered video and Dolby Atmos sound, from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is over. Check out Ralph Potts’ Ultra HD Blu-ray review to get the details. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film: Extras...




www.avsforum.com













The Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD...


The Lord of the Rings Trilogy’s long-awaited release on Ultra HD Blu-ray with remastered video and Dolby Atmos sound, from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is over. Check out Ralph Potts’ Ultra HD Blu-ray review to get the details. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film: Extras...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## shs1234

I bought the streaming versions on iTunes and the LOTR remaster is wonderful. We have seen LOTR many times, but this version is both visually and audibly the best we have seen. Much better than the Blue-ray. Based on that experience, we bought the Hobbit Trilogy on iTunes. While we enjoyed the book, the first movie of the Hobbit trilogy was so poor that we will likely never watch the other two. No problem with the audio or video, just a very silly plot, not in keeping with the book.


----------



## Krobar

distoga said:


> I have a few questions around how processors decode Atmos but I've been unable to find information on some specific areas. I'd like to understand how the available channels/speakers effect how the processor maps objects to them. I'm also curious if how Atmos objects are processed is brand/processor specific or if Dolby has a specific algorithm all processors use.
> 
> The background for why I'm interested is I have a Denon X8500H in my theater with a 7.1.6 configuration. I spent quite a bit of time testing Atmos layouts of FH/TM/FR vs TF/TM/TR in the room before I settled on TF/TM/TR. In my experience, FH/TM/RH did not reproduce some effects as loud in Height speakers or at all with some clips when TF/TM/TR did and imaged better as well. Since the November X8500H firmware upgrade it's seemed to have changed. Am I crazy or do manufacturers have the ability to change this without breaking Atmos licensing?
> 
> Also I'm wondering if anyone knows if it's expected or varies by brand if the sound from FH/TM/RH should be identical to TF/TM/TR? Or in other words, is there anything different in how a .6 would be processed if it's a FH/TM/RH vs TF/TM/TR or is that a placebo effect I'm having personally? I would think TF's, for example, to sound different depending on the configuration. Now, unlike last year, when I swap my layout between FH/TM/RH and TF/TM/TR it currently (on this firmware) sounds the same now. I've tried several Atmos demo clips and can't tell a difference anymore. And depending on that answer, does anyone know how a .6 TF/TM/TR would have different FH channel/speaker use/db per channel vs a FH channel/speaker of a .10 of FH/TF/TM/TR/RH or are both FH's identical for use/db?


I will try to answer you question but some industry insiders may be able to do better.

There is one common software used for all things Dolby. This software is compiled for the various DSPs (eg. Analog Devices or Texas Instruments) which offer Dolby Atmos support. Since Atmos was released the DSU software handles decoding of all Dolby formats and up mixing. This software is available in 3 different versions currently:
1.3 - The original version
1.6 - Added upmixing to wides, changed how centre spread and Dolby volume work and causes a weird centre bleed issue in some cases (Due to be fixed)
1.7 - ? Not sure if it is production use yet
Of course there can be individual manufacturer quirks and bugs in implementing this software.

The November X8500H upgrade upgraded the core DSU version so it does not surprise me that you experienced a change in behaviour. Maybe some one with more insider knowledge could confirm if it was V1.6 or V1.7 that was integrated in the new Denon firmware and answer your last question.


----------



## Chirosamsung

LNEWoLF said:


> The Hobbit: The Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD Blu-ray...
> 
> 
> The Hobbit: Motion Picture Trilogy’s long-awaited release on Ultra HD Blu-ray with remastered video and Dolby Atmos sound, from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is over. Check out Ralph Potts’ Ultra HD Blu-ray review to get the details. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film: Extras...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD...
> 
> 
> The Lord of the Rings Trilogy’s long-awaited release on Ultra HD Blu-ray with remastered video and Dolby Atmos sound, from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is over. Check out Ralph Potts’ Ultra HD Blu-ray review to get the details. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film: Extras...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


thanks


----------



## LNEWoLF

Chirosamsung said:


> thanks


Your welcome, enjoy......


----------



## Chirosamsung

LNEWoLF said:


> The Hobbit: The Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD Blu-ray...
> 
> 
> The Hobbit: Motion Picture Trilogy’s long-awaited release on Ultra HD Blu-ray with remastered video and Dolby Atmos sound, from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is over. Check out Ralph Potts’ Ultra HD Blu-ray review to get the details. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film: Extras...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD...
> 
> 
> The Lord of the Rings Trilogy’s long-awaited release on Ultra HD Blu-ray with remastered video and Dolby Atmos sound, from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is over. Check out Ralph Potts’ Ultra HD Blu-ray review to get the details. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film: Extras...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Unfortunately there are only about three comments from people who actually own and have viewed TLOTR trilogy with atmos. The rest of the comments are before it was availible

does anyone here have comments on the lord of the rings atmos mix from experience?


----------



## MagnumX

Craig Mecak said:


> The volume being down is probably a good thing, in order to allow greater dynamic range. So much pop music is soooo overcompressed dynamically these days, and pushed up LOUD to compete with everything else. It's called the Loudness Wars.
> 
> Having the ATMOS tracks lower level on average means higher available headroom for better dynamics. I'm all for it.


_Dialnorm_ is just an automatic volume setting. It has literally nothing to do with dynamic range, which is a function of the original recording, not a Tidal setting (although Tidal could make it WORSE with a compressor). I've read comments on AVForums (are we allowed to mention other forums on here?) that claimed the Blu-Ray of Yello's Point album sounded much better than the Tidal version, that they heard things in the BD mix that weren't on Tidal. Whether they just couldn't get the volume level high enough from Tidal or something to that effect, I do not know. 

I personally am not a fan "renting" music. You pay and you keep on paying even if you listen to the same titles over and over and with over 4 decades on Earth, some of us have massive music collections and don't need Tidal to listen to the Beatles or Bee Gees or even Booka Shade, for that matter. Atmos is the only reason I'd even consider Tidal, but other than the REM album (not a fan), I think I have most of the originals in Atmos already on Blu-Ray.


On an _unrelated note_, anyone know why the "alerts" on here since the last software upgrade don't tell you about new posts in followed threads half the time? It seems if you haven't posted in a thread for a week or so, it just doesn't bother with the alerts most of the time, but when I check followed threads, I see a bunch of newer updates including this one that I had no idea had new posts for at least the past 5 days.


----------



## MagnumX

Electric_Haggis said:


> Totally agree. Yet again, people are getting Dipoles and Bipoles mixed up.
> 
> Obviously, Bipoles can help with getting a wider spread of sound over more seats and avoiding the distraction of localising when one is forced to sit to close - Especially useful for the Side Surrounds in a narrower room like mine.


I use side-mounted bipoles for my top middle surrounds (one side faces the front row and one side faces the back two rows). They work fine. It's a bit like having two monopoles in that configuration. They're also not at 180 degrees from each other (closer to 45 degrees outward each so I put them between the first and 2nd row of seats right at the center point of the room. At ear level, there's front wide and surround#2 speakers for each of the three rows so monopoles work fine there. Obviously, it's more of a pain to mount multiple rows of overhead speakers, especially when most AVRs only support 2 or 3 pairs of overheads to begin with. That doesn't mean you don't want on-axis frequency response for all rows.

There's also a difference between bipoles and dipoles being used for ambience and being used for "null" or dispersion type effects in home theater. For instance, my Carver Amazing ribbons speakers upstairs (mains) are natural dipoles and they work fine with home theater usage as long as they're kept 3+ feet away from the nearest wall (Martin Logan electrostatics are another example and they're often used as part of home theaters, even Atmos ones). Mirage and Def Tech have bipoles meant for ambience as well (similar to dipole effect but only need to be about 8-12 inches from a wall). These are all fine for home theater. It's only dipoles used with the null side facing the listening position that are an issue (it keeps you from pin-pointing the sound, which was good for Pro Logic monopole surround and somewhat acceptable for a single pair of 5.1 type speakers (gives a similar effect for 1 row of seats like you have an entire array of surround speakers instead of just two), but even then frequency response could be an issue with no drivers facing the listeners.


----------



## blake

Mashie Saldana said:


> Which Atmos demo disk is that as I never heard anyone with that issue before?


Dolby Atmos UHD Demo Disc - March 2018.


----------



## blake

satyab said:


> Probably talking about March 2018 DV/DA disc. It won't play demo scenes if its not DV capable display.


Can you somehow extract/remux these so it will play with non-DV display ? What the easiest way to do that ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AYanguas

blake said:


> Dolby Atmos UHD Demo Disc - March 2018.


It is called "Dolby UHD Blu-Ray Demo Disc / March 2018"

So, it is a "Dolby" not "Dolby Atmos". Mainly demoing Dolby Vision. That's why it checks if Dolby Vision display is available. And of course tracks are in Dolby Atmos.


----------



## keenly

rec head said:


> My 4 heights are already mounted on the ceiling but I'd like to try different placements for my height speakers. Are there any recommendations for trying multiple placements without drilling my ceiling? I'm not interested in what angles are recommended. I've seen and used the diagrams but like many I don't have the perfect room. I'd like to see if I could get things just a little better without making too much mess.
> 
> Thanks


I have SVS elevation facing me downwards, screwed into a piece of wood on ike shelf. Improvisation is the key.


----------



## howard68

Anyone got a list of films that use Fw and or TM 
Thanks


----------



## Magiclakez

howard68 said:


> Anyone got a list of films that use Fw and or TM
> Thanks


John Wick trilogy for Fw. Most of the other Dolby atmos titles i have tested barely use Fw. 

I would like to see the list as well.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

howard68 said:


> Anyone got a list of films that use Fw and or TM
> Thanks


Ford Vs Ferrari, Underworld and Alita Battle Angel are a few. The opening sequence of Unbroken use wides a lot which is why it ended up on one of the Dolby demo disks.


----------



## howard68

Thanks for the FW recommendations 
Hope we can get a list going 
H


----------



## usc1995

howard68 said:


> Thanks for the FW recommendations
> Hope we can get a list going
> H


There was a thread discussing wide uses any back in the early days of Atmos Wides. There should be some older movies recommended in there. What you really need is a Trinnov user to check the object visualizer to recommend movies that have lots of wide use. Maybe @sdrucker can help?


----------



## AYanguas

howard68 said:


> Anyone got a list of films that use Fw and or TM
> Thanks


I am now testing spare speakers as additional *Wides *to get 9.1.4 and evaluating if it is worth to make the installation permanent with two new Speakers and hiding the wiring.

What I have notice so far, after the recent Denon FW upgrade:


Very little use with Atmos in films
More use with some Atmos Music
*Much more* use from 2.0 or 5.1 upmixed with DSU
*Much Much more* use from 2.0 or 5.1 upmixed with Neural:X

With the recent Denon upgrade, I feel *DSU *upmixes a little bit more and now to the Wides that are supported.
*Neural:X* upmixer was more aggressive sending content to the heights. And now with more than 11 channels it also sends enough content to the Wides.

It is dependent on the source mix. But in general, it seems to me that you have to use upmixers (like it or not) to get a substantial content to the Wides. Of course, upmixers cannot be used when source is Atmos, Neural:X does not support HD sound over 48 kHz.

After the Denon upgrade it seems to me that I like these Two Upmixers more than before.

Still preferring Auromatic for most of the music, but AURO-3D does not support Wides. If I want to mess around, in the future I will look for implement extracted channels to the Wides to be used also for AURO-3D.


----------



## MagnumX

@AYanguas - Auro-3D works with matrixed or "Scatmos" wides just fine (any pan between front mains and side surrounds pass through them in ALL formats).

I don't really understand why most Atmos movies don't use rendered wides. Supposedly, only Disney uses "print through" (aka fixed) layouts so any movie that pans front to side surround should theoretically use wides as the sound moves between them (They certainly do with "Scatmos" [extracted center point] wides) and I think such pans are reasonably common. I would expect all such pans to do so with DTS:X Pro as it functionally operates the same as "Scatmos".

It rather sounds like many studios are in fact using fixed objects with pre-panned information in them and thus bypassing front wides (and perhaps all other extra Dolby speakers beyond 7.1.4). I've said it before, but Dolby really should have made more of an effort to discourage that kind of mixing behavior as it utterly defeats the entire purpose of Atmos objects and the extra speakers, IMO. It's looking more and more like DTS:X Pro is the better system since you literally cannot bypass those speakers in that manner. And a working system that "might" be (slightly) inferior (although "X" can use objects too; most studios just aren't using them on that platform) is better than a better system that is broken in many cases, IMO.

Maybe Dolby needs its own version of Neural X to squash the bad practices (i.e. If overlap between channels is found with fixed objects, extract a center point to create the otherwise unused channel like Neural X does. Dolby already owns the tech to do it as it's called Pro Logic Center Channel extraction and those of us already using it with "Scatmos" know it's effective.


----------



## AYanguas

MagnumX said:


> @AYanguas - Auro-3D works with matrixed or "Scatmos" wides just fine (any pan between front mains and side surrounds pass through them in ALL formats).
> ...


I know. I will think about it once I install properly the Wides, with new Speakers, good stands, and hide the wiring to keep the wife happy


----------



## Magiclakez

AYanguas said:


> I am now testing spare speakers as additional *Wides *to get 9.1.4 and evaluating if it is worth to make the installation permanent with two new Speakers and hiding the wiring.
> 
> What I have notice so far, after the recent Denon FW upgrade:
> 
> 
> Very little use with Atmos in films
> More use with some Atmos Music
> *Much more* use from 2.0 or 5.1 upmixed with DSU
> *Much Much more* use from 2.0 or 5.1 upmixed with Neural:X
> 
> With the recent Denon upgrade, I feel *DSU *upmixes a little bit more and now to the Wides that are supported.
> *Neural:X* upmixer was more aggressive sending content to the heights. And now with more than 11 channels it also sends enough content to the Wides.
> 
> It is dependent on the source mix. But in general, it seems to me that you have to use upmixers (like it or not) to get a substantial content to the Wides. Of course, upmixers cannot be used when source is Atmos, Neural:X does not support HD sound over 48 kHz.
> 
> After the Denon upgrade it seems to me that I like these Two Upmixers more than before.
> 
> Still preferring Auromatic for most of the music, but AURO-3D does not support Wides. If I want to mess around, in the future I will look for implement extracted channels to the Wides to be used also for AURO-3D.


i have been going back and forth switching between towers/bookshelves as wides. Dolby atmos supported films barely do any justice(natively) to the wides except for a handful of titles like the John Wick trilogy. When you do get some activity on the wides, I found towers to be the perfect complement...Ymmv.

I have actually directed my attention towards dts-X supported titles. They will accommodate everything you throw it’s way since it’s more channel based compared to the object based Dolby atmos. Titles like Battleship (badass dts-X example), Jurassic world (fallen kingdom), Jumanji: next level (imax/dts-X) and the Incredible Hulk to name a few, will have your wides engaged during the entire duration of the film.


----------



## sdrucker

usc1995 said:


> There was a thread discussing wide uses any back in the early days of Atmos Wides. There should be some older movies recommended in there. What you really need is a Trinnov user to check the object visualizer to recommend movies that have lots of wide use. Maybe @sdrucker can help?


Hi, I haven't checked the visualizer that much on recent movies. These days I've actually been watching a lot of non-3D movies in Netflix (sometimes using the DTS:X Pro/Neural:X upmixer to get content extracted to wides) or listening to Atmos music on Tidal like Yello or Booka Shade than watching a lot of Atmos movies.

I'll see if I can go through a few that have been released over the past six months or so to add to the old wides list. 2012 seems pretty busy but I don't know how much it's using wides, for example.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Hi, I haven't checked the visualizer that much on recent movies. These days I've actually been watching a lot of non-3D movies in Netflix (sometimes using the DTS:X Pro/Neural:X upmixer to get content extracted to wides) or listening to Atmos music on Tidal like Yello or Booka Shade than watching a lot of Atmos movies.
> 
> I'll see if I can go through a few that have been released over the past six months or so to add to the old wides list. 2012 seems pretty busy but I don't know how much it's using wides, for example.


I know the feeling. I haven't watched an Atmos movie in weeks. I've been listening to Atmos music like crazy. Yello's album Point in particular is just awesome, but in addition to both Booka Shade albums, I've got INXS Kick, Steven Wilson's The Future Bites, Kraftwerk's 3-D (Full "Catalogue" version with all albums and 3D video is on the way), Lichtmond's The Journey, John Williams Live and Hans Zimmer Live. They're all on Blu-ray, though (although I typically dump to server hard drive). I don't do Tidal plus I want the highest quality sound.

There's some good stuff in Auro-3D as well out there.

What do you think of Yello on your Trinnov system?


----------



## Magiclakez

Watched Godzilla: King of Monsters to test out my new setup. Besides the impressive atmos implementation, the wides were in full effect. This is right up there with John Wick.


----------



## Erod

MagnumX said:


> @AYanguas - Auro-3D works with matrixed or "Scatmos" wides just fine (any pan between front mains and side surrounds pass through them in ALL formats).
> 
> I don't really understand why most Atmos movies don't use rendered wides. Supposedly, only Disney uses "print through" (aka fixed) layouts so any movie that pans front to side surround should theoretically use wides as the sound moves between them (They certainly do with "Scatmos" [extracted center point] wides) and I think such pans are reasonably common. I would expect all such pans to do so with DTS:X Pro as it functionally operates the same as "Scatmos".
> 
> It rather sounds like many studios are in fact using fixed objects with pre-panned information in them and thus bypassing front wides (and perhaps all other extra Dolby speakers beyond 7.1.4). I've said it before, but Dolby really should have made more of an effort to discourage that kind of mixing behavior as it utterly defeats the entire purpose of Atmos objects and the extra speakers, IMO. It's looking more and more like DTS:X Pro is the better system since you literally cannot bypass those speakers in that manner. And a working system that "might" be (slightly) inferior (although "X" can use objects too; most studios just aren't using them on that platform) is better than a better system that is broken in many cases, IMO.
> 
> Maybe Dolby needs its own version of Neural X to squash the bad practices (i.e. If overlap between channels is found with fixed objects, extract a center point to create the otherwise unused channel like Neural X does. Dolby already owns the tech to do it as it's called Pro Logic Center Channel extraction and those of us already using it with "Scatmos" know it's effective.


DTS whooped Dolby in the 7.1 game.

And now Dolby might just be lazy enough to allow DTS to do it to them again.


----------



## batpig

that's pretty funny considering that Dolby is absolutely crushing DTS in the immersive audio world, they have almost complete market domination!

you think some enthusiasts on AVS whining about neutered bass or silent wides is going to matter at all here? we are a niche of a niche


----------



## Scott Simonian

batpig said:


> that's pretty funny considering that Dolby is absolutely crushing DTS in the immersive audio world, they have almost complete market domination!
> 
> you think some enthusiasts on AVS whining about neutered bass or silent wides is going to matter at all here? we are a niche of a niche


My reaction is to stop buying UHD's, unfortunately. 

The BD versions of all my favorites didn't have wides either but at least 99.9% of them don't have their bass neutered. And they are free!


----------



## MagnumX

Hater


batpig said:


> that's pretty funny considering that Dolby is absolutely crushing DTS in the immersive audio world, they have almost complete market domination!
> 
> you think some enthusiasts on AVS whining about neutered bass or silent wides is going to matter at all here? we are a niche of a niche


Haters gonna hate.


----------



## Technology3456

Can you guys please help me out with these questions?



Technology3456 said:


> Alright thanks I will ask.
> 
> I remember seeing a comment where someone tried two atmos speakers in the ceiling, and they felt it made no impact. Someone replied "you have to keep adding" for it to have an impact.
> 
> Do you agree with that? Is it worth just getting two? Is it even worth getting four, or, like other comment or article I read, do they get drown out by the much bigger front speakers, center channel, and back surrounds, anyway? My back surrounds actually arent that big but that's the basic question. _Is atmos worth it?_ And an addendum, if my receiver can only do _either _7.1, or 5.1.2, is it even worth doing atmos 5.1.2 compared to normal 7.1?
> 
> And if it's only worth doing atmos if you can have 4, not 2, or if you're doing it on top of 7 speaker surround, not compromising 7 so you can do 5.1.2, then what are my receiver options for 7.1.4 (or better, 7.2.4) and is that a $700 proposition or a $1200 proposition because that's a big consideration. "Luckily" my TSR-700 is still in the box unopened so I wouldn't have to eat that cost on top of it all, but as soon as I figure out the speaker cables I do want to use the speakers, things are finally progressing to that point sort of. At least, my shelf is up, projector up on it, and a portable screen is arriving in two days to test with, so as soon as I get the cables, I could watch movies from the projector in surround sound within a week, and would need to open the receiver, but I'm not sure if it's a keeper or not depending if atmos is worth it, how much the receiver upgrade would cost, etc etc etc.
> 
> It's so complicated lol. My new projector actually came with a processor that seems to have a loose screw or somethign floating in it, so I cant use it until I open up the processor and see what the problem is. So I need the right screwdriver, and was told philips head. I search for philips head, there are 15 different sizes, and some say "magnetic tip" some don't, which I dont know if you want to magnetize your electronic circuits and stuff (probably not). Point is, even something this basic, five new obstacles come up that I don't know #%@! about and it's a huge pain. So yeah I come here and ask because even after I figured out the last 50 things with your guys help, now I have 50 new things, and it just goes on and on. Not endlessly but, for now, it's still going on a bit like that. This is not my area of expertise even a little bit. I just enjoy the movies and audio, but I don't know how any of it works. The more this happens, of course the more I wish I did. It would be super useful. But I still don't.


----------



## Thalguy

Technology3456 said:


> Can you guys please help me out with these questions?


I am a complete novice, and so I cannot give any great technical advice, but IMO Atmos is worth it. 

I built my theater about two and a half years ago. I started out with 5.1.4. My height speakers are in ceiling 8 inch Micca. Roughly a year after my build I added two rears to go to 7.1.4. 

I feel like the height speakers are used way more often than my rear speakers. They didn't work the way a lot of descriptions implied they would. I read an article where an author watched one of the new TMNT movies and when Shredder threw something toward the camera his height channels made him feel like the object was just passing right by his head. I have never experienced anything like that. Most of the time the height channels are subtle. If I go and stand by my front channels they will be playing music or some very minor ambient noise. I am actually okay with that. When they are used well they kick ass, even with upmixed 5.1 tracks. For example, in the first Fantastic Beasts movie there is a scene where some giant snake/eagle creature is expanding to the size of a huge room and the ceiling is breaking apart. That scene really utilizes the height channels and sounds amazing. Scenes with rain or storms sound great too. It really sounds like you are in a storm.

As I said before I am a newbie and I don't have a perfect room. Mt ceiling is only 90 inches tall which is close to the bare minimum. I did set my other speakers at ear level and I have six feet of space behind my MLP and my rear speakers. I have my Atmos speakers tweeters pivoted toward my MLP and I tried to space them correctly. So I did the best I could given my budget and knowledge.

If I were you, I would spend the money to get an Atmos capable receiver even if it means not getting your rear or surround speakers now. 

Get the best older receiver you can get for 1200. Something like the Denon 4500h which you can get on Amazon for 1200 right now.


----------



## rec head

Personally I find 5.1.2 better than 7.1. Next I would do 5.1.4 before 7.1.2. This is all room and budget dependent. Placement of the speakers can make a big difference.


----------



## mogrub

Technology3456 said:


> Can you guys please help me out with these questions? I remember seeing a comment where someone tried two atmos speakers in the ceiling, and they felt it made no impact. Do you agree with that?


No, I do not agree that carefully adding two overhead speakers will have "no impact." But like everything else, the devil is in the details -- including what the speakers are, where they are placed, and how the audio is calibrated after installation. Everything has to work together to get to the promised land. If you haven't already, you need to read the Dolby Installation Guidelines a couple of times and think about everything that's in there, and apply that information to your unique room. But when it's done right, whether you have two overhead speakers or four, a helicopter flying overhead (for example) will never sound quite the same again. It will literally fly overhead.



Technology3456 said:


> Is it worth just getting two? Is it even worth getting four? _Is atmos worth it?_


A well done Atmos installation is a game changer. For us, it was probably the single biggest leap forward we've ever experienced in our theater room. YMMV.

Yes, most folks that have done this project would much rather have 4 overhead speakers instead of just 2. Four speakers overhead enhances the three dimensional "sound bubble" you are trying to create, and allows the helicopter (for example) to not just fly overhead, but also to fly from front to back, and/or left to right and/or up and down -- anything the director and sound designers want to do with it. The sound you hear is intended to be object based.



Technology3456 said:


> ... what are my receiver options for 7.1.4 (or better, 7.2.4)


Ha! That's what Google's for. The Yamaha receiver identified in my signature below will get you to 7.2.4 but so will a whole bunch of others. Shopping for the right equipment should be one of the fun parts of your project. It's also important. Take your time and do your research. Nobody can do it for you. One size does not fit all. You're the only person who can determine what you want and what you want to spend.



Technology3456 said:


> My new projector actually came with a processor that seems to have a loose screw or something floating in it, so I can't use it until I open up the processor and see what the problem is.


If you bought a brand new projector that has loose screws, maybe return it and get a new one? If I started trying to do surgery on a brand new projector that was delivered with loose screws, my wife would _instantly_ tell me that the projector wasn't the only thing with a loose screw. 🤪

Read the Installation Guide. The planning before you buy anything or pick up the first tool is where you will make or break your project.


----------



## Golfa005

howard68 said:


> Anyone got a list of films that use Fw and or TM
> Thanks





Magiclakez said:


> John Wick trilogy for Fw. Most of the other Dolby atmos titles i have tested barely use Fw.
> 
> I would like to see the list as well.


What are FW and TM?


----------



## Pirotto

Golfa005 said:


> What are FW and TM?


Front wide and top middle speakers


----------



## Golfa005

quick question, for a .2 ceiling setup with total flexibility on placement and angles, what is the best location for the speaker in feet relative to MLP? I have seen Dolby's recommendation, but it doesn't fully help me decide where exactly to mount. the whole 65 deg, 80 deg and 100 deg thing makes no sense to a novice like myself. So should the speakers be over the couch and slightly in front of where my head would be and angled at my head? or should it be like 2 or 3 feet in front of couch? My setup is below, should they go in between the studs just behind the projector in front of where the lamp is? Or further forward? Thank you


----------



## petetherock

Technology3456 said:


> Can you guys please help me out with these questions?


To paraphrase Orwell:
Two speakers good, four speakers better 
But even two will work ok.
I have a 4m long room and I've found space for four - you can see my setup in my signature. IMO, if you can swing it, you'll not regret it, cheers.


----------



## Technology3456

mogrub said:


> No, I do not agree that carefully adding two overhead speakers will have "no impact." But like everything else, the devil is in the details -- including what the speakers are, where they are placed, and how the audio is calibrated after installation. Everything has to work together to get to the promised land. If you haven't already, you need to read the Dolby Installation Guidelines a couple of times and think about everything that's in there, and apply that information to your unique room. But when it's done right, whether you have two overhead speakers or four, a helicopter flying overhead (for example) will never sound quite the same again. It will literally fly overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> A well done Atmos installation is a game changer. For us, it was probably the single biggest leap forward we've ever experienced in our theater room. YMMV.
> 
> Yes, most folks that have done this project would much rather have 4 overhead speakers instead of just 2. Four speakers overhead enhances the three dimensional "sound bubble" you are trying to create, and allows the helicopter (for example) to not just fly overhead, but also to fly from front to back, and/or left to right and/or up and down -- anything the director and sound designers want to do with it. The sound you hear is intended to be object based.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! That's what Google's for. The Yamaha receiver identified in my signature below will get you to 7.2.4 but so will a whole bunch of others. Shopping for the right equipment should be one of the fun parts of your project. It's also important. Take your time and do your research. Nobody can do it for you. One size does not fit all. You're the only person who can determine what you want and what you want to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> If you bought a brand new projector that has loose screws, maybe return it and get a new one? If I started trying to do surgery on a brand new projector that was delivered with loose screws, my wife would _instantly_ tell me that the projector wasn't the only thing with a loose screw. 🤪
> 
> Read the Installation Guide. The planning before you buy anything or pick up the first tool is where you will make or break your project.


Tyvm. Question, from my seating to the screen is like 15 feet, and on the ceiling smack dab in the middle is a big divider that hangs down like 8 inches and is like 3 inches thick. Is this a problem or could I just put two atmos speakers in front of it, and two behind? Definitely if I want the ones in the front section of the room (nearer the screen) to still be pointed at my chair, it might be a problem because the divider would block the line of sight so to speak unless the speakers were closer to the screen than to me. But even if I have them facing the floor, is it a problem?

#2 potential problem, I am going to have velvet curtains on the ceiling. However, whaley's devore is said to be acoustically transparent (more or less), and I still havent bought the material, so would it work to use that for ceiling curtains that cover the atmos speakers, and still have good sound from the atmos speakers? Or is the moment you use any type of ceiling curtain the same moment that the "should I use actual atmos speakers in the ceiling, or just use the EQ from my Yamaha speakers to create the illusion of height?" question gets a clear tiebreaking answer? Or even with devore on the ceiling covering the atmos speakers, you're still better off with atmos speakers than that type of EQ feature?

#3 Width of the speakers, at least compared to my speakers on the ground, is no issue. All my speakers can go up to like 10 feet wide apart, and same with atmos on the ceiling. No limitations there. However, as far as distance from the screen, except for along the very edges of the room (full 10 feet apart), the atmos speakers would not be able to be very close to the screen. If my viewing distance is 15 feet from screen, the first pair of atmos speakers would have to be at least 7-8 feet out from the screen (unless they were at the far edges, then they could go anywhere), and the second pair could then be anywhere past that (after the divider) over my seating, or a few feet in front or behind.

Does any of that work, or am I supposed to have the first two like 3 feet in front of the screen, and only halfway between the center of the scren and each wall as far as width? Basically I can either have them near the screen but wide, or further from the screen and more centered, but not near the screen and centered. That's the only limitation except for the divider.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Tyvm. Question, from my seating to the screen is like 15 feet, and on the ceiling smack dab in the middle is a big divider that hangs down like 8 inches and is like 3 inches thick. Is this a problem or could I just put two atmos speakers in front of it, and two behind? Definitely if I want the ones in the front section of the room (nearer the screen) to still be pointed at my chair, it might be a problem because the divider would block the line of sight so to speak unless the speakers were closer to the screen than to me. But even if I have them facing the floor, is it a problem?
> 
> #2 potential problem, I am going to have velvet curtains on the ceiling. However, whaley's devore is said to be acoustically transparent (more or less), and I still havent bought the material, so would it work to use that for ceiling curtains that cover the atmos speakers, and still have good sound from the atmos speakers? Or is the moment you use any type of ceiling curtain the same moment that the "should I use actual atmos speakers in the ceiling, or just use the EQ from my Yamaha speakers to create the illusion of height?" question gets a clear tiebreaking answer? Or even with devore on the ceiling covering the atmos speakers, you're still better off with atmos speakers than that type of EQ feature?
> 
> #3 Width of the speakers, at least compared to my speakers on the ground, is no issue. All my speakers can go up to like 10 feet wide apart, and same with atmos on the ceiling. No limitations there. However, as far as distance from the screen, except for along the very edges of the room (full 10 feet apart), the atmos speakers would not be able to be very close to the screen. If my viewing distance is 15 feet from screen, the first pair of atmos speakers would have to be at least 7-8 feet out from the screen (unless they were at the far edges, then they could go anywhere), and the second pair could then be anywhere past that (after the divider) over my seating, or a few feet in front or behind.
> 
> Does any of that work, or am I supposed to have the first two like 3 feet in front of the screen, and only halfway between the center of the scren and each wall as far as width? Basically I can either have them near the screen but wide, or further from the screen and more centered, but not near the screen and centered. That's the only limitation except for the divider.





http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf



The good stuff starts around page 14.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> The good stuff starts around page 14.
> 
> -T


Ok great that will work perfectly in terms of height width. Only issue is the back overhead speakers would have to be like 12 inches closer to the ground than than the middle ones. Back there the ceiling is only 83 inches. Where the "front overhead" would be it is 95. Is that a dealbreaker? As well as outstanding questions if anyone knows:

What about the devore curtains over the speakers?

How does the real thing compare to the Yamaha EQ version period, and how does the real thing going through devore compare to the Yamaha EQ version?

Is it crucial to have a receiver that does two different EQs for two different subs, or is 1 fine?


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/Dolby-Atmos-HT-Installation-Guide_9-9-14.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> The good stuff starts around page 14.
> 
> -T


Also why does picture bottom right on page 22, with the side view, make it look like the front and back overhead speakers are equal distance from back wall and front wall/screen, while the top down picture makes it look like the front overhead speakers are still closer to the back wall than the screen, and the back overhead speakers are almost all the way back? Which view is correct, the two seem completely contradictory. The overhead view would work perfectly in my space except for the low ceiling at the back. The side view would probably not work period because my seating is not dead center between screen and back wall like the sideview makes it look, its much closer to the backwall like the overhead view says is correct.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Also why does picture bottom right on page 22, with the side view, make it look like the front and back overhead speakers are equal distance from back wall and front wall/screen, while the top down picture makes it look like the front overhead speakers are still closer to the back wall than the screen, and the back overhead speakers are almost all the way back? Which view is correct, the two seem completely contradictory. The overhead view would work perfectly in my space except for the low ceiling at the back. The side view would probably not work period because my seating is not dead center between screen and back wall like the sideview makes it look, its much closer to the backwall like the overhead view says is correct.


The images are mainly for illustration only. Except for the angles.

They have to draw a room. So it makes sense that they make everything equidistant from the listening position... As opposed to drawing an l-shaped room, or a very long narrow room, etc.

The key here is angles of separation. if your ceiling has different distances it doesn't matter. Your receiver compensates that so all of the sound hits the listening position at the right time.

the guidelines in that illustration. Get as close as you can. But if you can't, compromise

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> The images are mainly for illustration only. Except for the angles.
> 
> They have to draw a room. So it makes sense that they make everything equidistant from the listening position... As opposed to drawing an l-shaped room, or a very long narrow room, etc.
> 
> The key here is angles of separation. if your ceiling has different distances it doesn't matter. Your receiver compensates that so all of the sound hits the listening position at the right time.
> 
> the guidelines in that illustration. Get as close as you can. But if you can't, compromise
> 
> -T


Is Devore covering the ceiling speakers an issue, or is that hard to know? 

Do you have any knowledge of how well the Yamaha EQ works to make the floor speakers sound like the overhead stuff is above me?


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Is Devore covering the ceiling speakers an issue, or is that hard to know?
> 
> Do you have any knowledge of how well the Yamaha EQ works to make the floor speakers sound like the overhead stuff is above me?


If devore is acoustically transparent, then no issues. If it's not acoustically transparent, I wouldn't do it. I have no knowledge of the material.

It's been 10 years since I owned a Yamaha receiver... So I have no knowledge on it's room correction software involving Atmos.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> If devore is acoustically transparent, then no issues. If it's not acoustically transparent, I wouldn't do it. I have no knowledge of the material.
> 
> It's been 10 years since I owned a Yamaha receiver... So I have no knowledge on it's room correction software involving Atmos.
> 
> -T


It's recommended in the black velvet thread as like the most acoustically transparent of the materials. But is it perforated special made acoustic material, no. So idk. Hopefully someone will know for sure who posts. Thank you for explaining so much.


----------



## miris

In 2014 Onkyo was one the two companies [also pioneer] introducing Dolby Atmos in home receivers. While many of us enjoy this format, Onkyo faces now a very complicated situation. Here's a link to an [extensive] article about their risky status.


----------



## T-Bone

miris said:


> In 2013 Onkyo was one the two companies [also pioneer] introducing Dolby Atmos in home receivers. While many of us enjoy this format, Onkyo faces now a very complicated situation. Here's a link to an [extensive] article about their risky status.


Prolly because AVS forum users poo poo Onkyo while praising denon, marantz, and Yamaha 

-T


----------



## miris

T-Bone said:


> Prolly because AVS forum users poo poo Onkyo while praising denon, marantz, and Yamaha
> 
> -T


Really  ?


----------



## sdurani

miris said:


> In 2013 Onkyo was one the two companies [also pioneer] introducing Dolby Atmos in home receivers.


Onkyo and Pioneer announced Atmos support in late June of 2014, on the same day that every other big Japanese manufacturer announced Atmos support (the date that Dolby lifted the NDA), which can be confirmed by searching old AVS posts from that day.


----------



## miris

sdurani said:


> Onkyo and Pioneer announced Atmos support in late June of 2014, on the same day that every other big Japanese manufacturer announced Atmos support (the date that Dolby lifted the NDA), which can be confirmed by searching old AVS posts from that day.


Indeed, as written in the article.


----------



## sdurani

miris said:


> Indeed, as written in the article.


But not in the post that I quoted (and you edited after the fact).


----------



## MagnumX

T-Bone said:


> Prolly because AVS forum users poo poo Onkyo while praising denon, marantz, and Yamaha
> 
> -T


Hey, am I the only one thinking Reddit + GameStop = Saved Company? 

Hey Reddit guys.... Onkyo! Onkyo! 

Yamaha, though? Let me know when they have 13+ channel support on any models or Auro-3D as the lack of the latter made them a non-starter for me despite my previous 7.1 AVR being a Yamaha. I doubt they're in any danger, though given Yamaha's broad reach into other industries, etc.


----------



## miris

sdurani said:


> But not in the post that I quoted (and you edited after the fact).


You are right. I learn every day


----------



## bokap

I have an Atmos system with 3 fronts, 2 rear surround and 4 ceiling speakers. My receiver is Anthem 1120. Would it make sense to add 2 additional ceiling speakers to make it a total of 6. My home theater installer said it would not be worth it but I am still thinking about it. I'm guessing with 2 more speakers I would need to get a separate amp as I don't think my receiver can handle two more. thanks


----------



## Technology3456

Edit: I have Infinity RC263 CC, R263 towers, RS152 surrounds, and if I can use them in a 7 setup as fronts and move the RS152s to sides and R263s to rears, Vandersteen towers.

For 50 pops a pop budget, what are my best options during current weekend sale for on-ceiling speakers for atmos to use with these speakers? Can go up to 75 a pop if the quality is a big jump to that tier. Need 4 total.


----------



## AYanguas

Technology3456 said:


> Can anyone tell me, do they make atmos speakers that sort of "stamp on" to the wall, or you might call them "on" ceiling speakers instead of "in" ceiling speakers?
> 
> Like if you have a ceiling with tons of plumbing tube and all sorts of problems why you cant cut it open, but (hopefully) you can still screw something in half an inch deep or something before hitting the pipes, are there speakers that will work for that? Or just double sided tape them on or something?
> 
> Double sided tape is my ideal answer for every HT problem, but I never actually use it because it's double sided tape and it seems unprofessional. But man it would be so much easier to just do that with everything.


I think its not the type of speakers but the installer or builder ability. It is the same if you want to put a big lamp on the ceiling.

The following pictures show what I designed and asked to my installers for the Front Height and Surround Height speakers.

Some Iron speaker cages to hang them from the ceiling without having to drill into the expensive speakers. Actually more sophisticated than double sided tape


----------



## Technology3456

AYanguas said:


> I think its not the type of speakers but the installer or builder ability. It is the same if you want to put a big lamp on the ceiling.
> 
> The following pictures show what I designed and asked to my installers for the Front Height and Surround Height speakers.
> 
> Some Iron speaker cages to hang them from the ceiling without having to drill into the expensive speakers. Actually more sophisticated than double sided tape
> 
> View attachment 3091241
> 
> 
> View attachment 3091243
> 
> 
> View attachment 3091244
> 
> 
> View attachment 3091245


Very nice. I just want something flat to screw to the ceiling easily, no big construction project. But apparently none of those go above 80hz to crossover with the subs well.


----------



## AYanguas

Technology3456 said:


> Very nice. I just want something flat to screw to the ceiling easily, no big construction project. But apparently none of those go above 80hz to crossover with the subs well.


Well, it looks like traditional Speaker/Woofer construction needs a big enough "breath volume cage" to generate substantial low frequencies below 100+Hz.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Edit: I have Infinity RC263 CC, R263 towers, RS152 surrounds, and if I can use them in a 7 setup as fronts and move the RS152s to sides and R263s to rears, Vandersteen towers.
> 
> For 50 pops a pop budget, what are my best options during current weekend sale for on-ceiling speakers for atmos to use with these speakers? Can go up to 75 a pop if the quality is a big jump to that tier. Need 4 total.


There's only five pages worth. It may not have what you're looking for... Especially in your price range.

The biggest issue is that they may not go low enough infrequency for the price that you're looking for. Polk OMW3 are spec'd at 80 or 100 Hertz low end by polk. I just saw a real world frequency response mounted on ceiling and it looks like 100 is close to the low end. 75 bucks each. I don't think they are worth 75. I certainly would not spend $75 on each of these speakers. it's a niche market. If you cannot go in ceiling, then you go in-ceiling mounted inside of a backer box and then Mount the backer box on the ceiling. If you are so DIY inclined. Or use a hanging bracket as another poster indicated.









On-ceiling speakers for Atmos/DTS:X


There is an exclusive thread for in-ceiling speakers for Atmos. But not everyone can do in-ceiling. The next best thing is on-ceiling. Lot of people ask in various threads and hence thought an exclusive thread may be useful for people looking for help. Here's is some known/possible list as of...




www.avsforum.com





As for mixing and matching with Vandersteen, I see complexities you are introducing. If it were me, I would just stick with your infinity's in your bed layer for a total of 7 speakers even if you have to buy two more to make seven. And forget the Vandersteen.

Then go the backer box route with some nice in-ceiling speakers that have frequency spot responses down to about 65 Hertz... That you can purchase for anywhere from 30 to 50 dollars each. You'll have blackout material on your ceiling so no one's going to see The speaker wire.

Do a search in the dedicated in-ceiling speaker for Atmos thread to see the brands that we have installed and raved about. Do a search on backer box if you want to go DIY or you can just purchase them.

-T


----------



## Blade 77

I have a 5.1.4 HT (Denon 3700, Polk s60, s30, s15+ 4x Quadral A5 Dolby enabled speakers). I calculated the exact positions (45 degree angle towards MLP), ordered mounts and I intend of hanging these Quadrals into the ceiling and use them as in-ceiling speakers. Has anybody else used Dolby enabled speakers as in-ceilings? So far, I have found one guy who has done the same with Quadrals and he says it will be better this way. What do you think?


----------



## ppasteur

Hello folks,
I have a question for the experts here. I have a 7.1 system using a Denon X6400H. I have read that the receiver will not engage the Atmos decoder without 7 channels of speakers connected and in use. I have that and indeed, with material containing Atmos metadata the display shows ATMOS. I can disable Atmos and listen to the TrueHD "track". I notice that there is a very noticeable difference when enabling Atmos. My question is, does the decoder actually decode the base layer sound information differently for Atmos content versus the TrueHD 5.1/7.1 content (in the absence of height speakers). In other words, what is responsible for the difference in sound that I definitely hear. Can there be any use of "objects" in a system only using the base layer speakers?

BTW, I have researched this question a bunch on the Internet in general and even in these forums. The question is not addressed specifically very often. When it is there seems to be many different strong opinions, but no hard data on how a given decoder (in my case the Denon) handles Atmos in a 7.2 system such as mine. 
Input greatly appreciated.

THX


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> Hello folks,
> I have a question for the experts here. I have a 7.1 system using a Denon X6400H. I have read that the receiver will not engage the Atmos decoder without 7 channels of speakers connected and in use. I have that and indeed, with material containing Atmos metadata the display shows ATMOS. I can disable Atmos and listen to the TrueHD "track". I notice that there is a very noticeable difference when enabling Atmos. My question is, does the decoder actually decode the base layer sound information differently for Atmos content versus the TrueHD 5.1/7.1 content (in the absence of height speakers). In other words, what is responsible for the difference in sound that I definitely hear. Can there be any use of "objects" in a system only using the base layer speakers?
> 
> BTW, I have researched this question a bunch on the Internet in general and even in these forums. The question is not addressed specifically very often. When it is there seems to be many different strong opinions, but no hard data on how a given decoder (in my case the Denon) handles Atmos in a 7.2 system such as mine.
> Input greatly appreciated.
> 
> THX


The Atmos soundtrack is baked into the 7.1 Dolby TrueHD, with metadata on what to do if you have additional speakers for rendering objects into the 3D space that is available if you add height or top speakers. In the absence of those speakers, there is no difference between an Atmos track and a 7.1 track: the decoder doesn't decode the base layer differently based on 7.1 vs Atmos playback. I can't imagine why you're hearing any difference at all much less a dramatic difference - can you describe what you're hearing?


----------



## ppasteur

It could very well be some aspect of the Denon decoder that is responsible, but it seems like Dolby has pretty tight controls on what the decoders do under their licensing agreement. 
I am an engineer not a poet, so it is hard for me to give highly descriptive audio descriptions. First, I thought some of the difference could be volume related. Of course with program material it is hard to measure, but I do have a peak hold SPL meter. Any differences in SPL look like they are under 0.5 db...and not reliably measured one way or the other. I have calibrated the system with REW in the past, but did not go to the effort of rerunning that. I think the best I can do is to say that it sounds more spacious. There seems... I say "seems" to be slightly more output from the surrounds. I also "seem" to not have as precise definition of specific sound location. Though I have a hard time defining the differences, they are clear when switching the Denon from TrueHD 7.1 to Atmos. I do acknowledge that there might be some sort of expectation bias going on. But, I have even blindfolded myself and had another person switch back and forth. I was above 90% hearing which was which.
It is also interesting that the Denon will not even engage the Atmos decoder until there are 7 channels available. At least for my model. I would guess that they must be doing something that requires this number of channels to be available. Denon, nor the expert folks here on AVS, don't know or won't say anything on this one way or another.
This, and the sound field differences is why I am so curious to understand what exactly is happening.
Some out there have stated that somehow the Atmos metadata is being folded or mixed into the base layer in this case. Though I have not seen anything in any of the Dolby white papers or promotions that say anything about this.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> It is also interesting that the Denon will not even engage the Atmos decoder until there are 7 channels available. At least for my model. I would guess that they must be doing something that requires this number of channels to be available. Denon, nor the expert folks here on AVS, don't know or won't say anything on this one way or another.


I think that makes sense when you consider how rare an Atmos setup with fewer than 5 speakers in the base layout would be. I mean, you could theoretically have a 2.1.2 Atmos system, but how effective would that be? Really a minimal Atmos setup would require 5.1.2 - that is, a 5.1 layout plus two height or overheard speakers. So a 7 channel minimum before engaging the Atmos decoder makes sense IMO.


----------



## niterida

Do you have the Atmos speakers enabled in the Denon ? That would explain a difference - all the sound being sent to the 7.1 in TrueHD, and then some of it being sent to non-existent height speakers in Atmos ??


----------



## Technology3456

Do any 11.1 or 11.2 receivers allow two separate amps to get it from 11.2 to 15.2?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Do any 11.1 or 11.2 receivers allow two separate amps to get it from 11.2 to 15.2?


I don't think there are any AVRs with 16 processing channels (yet), but we are finally starting to see some pre-pros with 16 channels - the Emotiva XMC-2, Monoprice Monolith HTP-1 and of course (at a much higher process) the 16 channel Trinnov. Hopefully the next generation of flagship AVRs will follow their lead and have 16 processing channels.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Do any 11.1 or 11.2 receivers allow two separate amps to get it from 11.2 to 15.2?


Don't you Google anything? So you're saying you are interested in receiver that has 11 amplifiers, but processes 15 channels since you want to drive four of the channels with external amplifiers.

Easily googleable, and easily discoverable.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Don't you Google anything? So you're saying you are interested in receiver that has 11 amplifiers, but processes 15 channels since you want to drive four of the channels with external amplifiers.
> 
> Easily googleable, and easily discoverable.
> 
> -T


I searched 10 different ways. You even google one model, the other models show up as the top result. It seems everything is very easy for you so you never have to ask anything and don't appreciate when people do, but for us mere mortals with IQs that are half of yours, we have to ask


----------



## ppasteur

niterida said:


> Do you have the Atmos speakers enabled in the Denon ? That would explain a difference - all the sound being sent to the 7.1 in TrueHD, and then some of it being sent to non-existent height speakers in Atmos ??


No I do not. The speaker config in the X6400 is 7.2 (two subs).


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> I searched 10 different ways. You even google one model, the other models show up as the top result. It seems everything is very easy for you so you never have to ask anything and don't appreciate when people do, but for us mere mortals with IQs that are half of yours, we have to ask


Step 1: use Google

Step 2 if step one doesn't work:. Go directly to the home pages of the different receivers that are discussed here on AVS forum.

You could have gotten the answer yourself. Plus, I don't even know why you're asking. You're not going to build the system with 15 speakers plus subwoofer. . I guess you just curious.

-T


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> I think that makes sense when you consider how rare an Atmos setup with fewer than 5 speakers in the base layout would be. I mean, you could theoretically have a 2.1.2 Atmos system, but how effective would that be? Really a minimal Atmos setup would require 5.1.2 - that is, a 5.1 layout plus two height or overheard speakers. So a 7 channel minimum before engaging the Atmos decoder makes sense IMO.


It kind of make sense. But the AVR know the speaker configuration, so it "knows" whether there are any height speakers configured. I am sure the coding would allow enabling the decoder only if there are heights, rather than just by the number of speakers connected. I don't know exactly what they are doing or why. I was just speculating.

I am really just trying to figure out what is going on with my system that significantly changes the sound when the Atmos decoder is engaged with my 7.2 system. i,e. What is it doing when engaged?


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Step 1: use Google
> 
> Step 2 if step one doesn't work:. Go directly to the home pages of the different receivers that are discussed here on AVS forum.
> 
> You could have gotten the answer yourself. Plus, I don't even know why you're asking. You're not going to build the system with 15 speakers plus subwoofer. . I guess you just curious.
> 
> -T


At prices I got before, it is only $260 difference for me to have 15 speakers instead of 11 speakers. So if it made a much better soundstage in my space, I would love to do it for that price, the big problem is the receiver cost. But I cant find a great deal on a 9.2 anyway, so I'm just trying to get the lay of the land so I can make the right decision. For the next 10-15 years, I dont want to buy another receiver. With a $350 7.1 receiver on sale, it's not the end of the world to double dip, but now that I am in the $1,000 territory, I just want to go for gusto and get something that if I ever want to add more speakers, I don't need to also get a new receiver because I bought one just 2 channels short of what I need.

I would definitely never go above 15 channels for 7 on the floor, 4 on the walls for a square, and 4 on the ceiling for a square. But maybe 13, in a configuration of just 5 surround speakers, 4 wall, and 4 ceiling, would still be better than 7 surround on the floor, 0 wall, and 4 ceiling?

I really dont know, but this is a big purchase for me that I want to last 10-15 years, so Im trying to get the lay of the land.


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> At prices I got before, it is only $260 difference for me to have 15 speakers instead of 11 speakers. So if it made a much better soundstage in my space, I would love to do it for that price, the big problem is the receiver cost. But I cant find a great deal on a 9.2 anyway, so I'm just trying to get the lay of the land so I can make the right decision. For the next 10-15 years, I dont want to buy another receiver. With a $350 7.1 receiver on sale, it's not the end of the world to double dip, but now that I am in the $1,000 territory, I just want to go for gusto and get something that if I ever want to add more speakers, I don't need to also get a new receiver because I bought one just 2 channels short of what I need.
> 
> I would definitely never go above 15 channels for 7 on the floor, 4 on the walls for a square, and 4 on the ceiling for a square. But maybe 13, in a configuration of just 5 surround speakers, 4 wall, and 4 ceiling, would still be better than 7 surround on the floor, 0 wall, and 4 ceiling?
> 
> I really dont know, but this is a big purchase for me that I want to last 10-15 years, so Im trying to get the lay of the land.


There is no such thing as floor or wall when discussing speaker layouts. Floor or wall are types of speakers, not locations/layouts.
So a 7.1.4 has 7 ear or listener level speakers and 4 heights, 9.1.6 has 9 listener and 6 height speakers.
The listener level speakers can be further split by Fronts (or LCR for Left Centre Right) and Surrounds (Surrounds for the 2 rearward speakers in 5.1 and for the 2 middle speakers in 7.1, and Rear Surrounds for the 2 rearward speakers in 7.1)
Height speakers are Top Middle (directly above you) Top Front or Front Height and Top Rear or Rear Height for the ones in front and behind you.
15 channels are currently expensive no matter which option you take so I think you will have no option but to buy now and buy again later.


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> There is no such thing as floor or wall when discussing speaker layouts. Floor or wall are types of speakers, not locations/layouts.
> So a 7.1.4 has 7 ear or listener level speakers and 4 heights, 9.1.6 has 9 listener and 6 height speakers.
> The listener level speakers can be further split by Fronts (or LCR for Left Centre Right) and Surrounds (Surrounds for the 2 rearward speakers in 5.1 and for the 2 middle speakers in 7.1, and Rear Surrounds for the 2 rearward speakers in 7.1)
> Height speakers are Top Middle (directly above you) Top Front or Front Height and Top Rear or Rear Height for the ones in front and behind you.
> 15 channels are currently expensive no matter which option you take so I think you will have no option but to buy now and buy again later.


Can you just answer how is 15 channel done? What is the process to do it? If there are no 15 channel receivers, and if you cannot add preamps or amps to receivers that have 11 channels or more, then how does anyone get to 15? 

As for 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, I was thinking about 3d-auro where they talk about having three heights of speakers, not two. So the 7 floor standing speakers, then 4 above the ears on the wall, then they had 1 on the ceiling, but I dont want to give up the 4 on the ceiling to get 4 above the ears. So I was looking into are there any ways to do 5, 4, and 4, at three different levels, or 7, 4, and 4. Still do atmos, but with an added layer in between if there is a way to get that, maybe combine 3d-auro with atmos I have no idea.

I really dont know, that's why Im asking. The most basic, square one answer I need is, how is 15 channels achieved? What would I need to do that if you cant add preamps/amps to receivers with 11 or 13 channels? Once I know what it would take, I can look up the pricing and compare to other options. But it sounds like maybe no one responding is sure how to do it either.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Can you just answer how is 15 channel done? What is the process to do it? If there are no 15 channel receivers, and if you cannot add preamps or amps to receivers that have 11 channels or more, then how does anyone get to 15?


Until very recently, there was literally only one way to get more than 13 processing channels of Atmos, and that was with the Trinnov Altitude 32. There are now a couple of other options: the Trinnov Altitude 16, and the pre-pros I mentioned upthread from Monoprice and Emotiva. But now that there are DSP chipsets that support 16 channel processing, I expect 16 channel AVRs to show up within a couple of years.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> I am really just trying to figure out what is going on with my system that significantly changes the sound when the Atmos decoder is engaged with my 7.2 system. i,e. What is it doing when engaged?


This is an interesting mystery. One way to look at is this: there is no reason for the Atmos decoder rendering on the fly to a 7.1 layout to do so any differently than the guys on the recording stage did when they mixed it originally and layed it back to the 7.1 channel delivery. There are only three real options here: 1) Some other setting we're not thinking of is being engaged 2) Expectation bias is leading to you hearing a difference when there is none 3) there is something broken in the Denon implementation here


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> Can you just answer how is 15 channel done? What is the process to do it? If there are no 15 channel receivers, and if you cannot add preamps or amps to receivers that have 11 channels or more, then how does anyone get to 15?
> 
> As for 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, I was thinking about 3d-auro where they talk about having three heights of speakers, not two. So the 7 floor standing speakers, then 4 above the ears on the wall, then they had 1 on the ceiling, but I dont want to give up the 4 on the ceiling to get 4 above the ears. So I was looking into are there any ways to do 5, 4, and 4, at three different levels, or 7, 4, and 4. Still do atmos, but with an added layer in between if there is a way to get that, maybe combine 3d-auro with atmos I have no idea.
> 
> I really dont know, that's why Im asking. The most basic, square one answer I need is, how is 15 channels achieved? What would I need to do that if you cant add preamps/amps to receivers with 11 or 13 channels? Once I know what it would take, I can look up the pricing and compare to other options. But it sounds like maybe no one responding is sure how to do it either.


Auro 3D diagrams may show 3 levels but the highest one (Voice Of God) is simply a central ceiling speaker. The other heights can still be mounted in-ceiling as per Atmos, or at the corner of the wall and ceiling as per Auro and they are interchangeable between both formats. In otherwords pick wall or ceiling and use them for both.

There are 16 channel processors (don't forget the .1 LFE channel) - Emotiva, Monoprice etc but they aren't cheap. I don't think there are any 16 channel receivers yet but they won't be cheap either if they are available.


----------



## AYanguas

ppasteur said:


> It kind of make sense. But the AVR know the speaker configuration, so it "knows" whether there are any height speakers configured. I am sure the coding would allow enabling the decoder only if there are heights, rather than just by the number of speakers connected. I don't know exactly what they are doing or why. I was just speculating.
> 
> I am really just trying to figure out what is going on with my system that significantly changes the sound when the Atmos decoder is engaged with my 7.2 system. i,e. What is it doing when engaged?


I'm thinking about one explanation for this.

As far as I have read somewhere, there is an embedded layer of 7.1/5.1 mix inside the Atmos track. It contains all sound.

If the Atmos decoder is engaged, the sound for each object is first “subtracted” from the base 7.1 layer and then added to the appropriate speakers according to the decoded coordinates/metadata and speaker configuration.

If no height speakers are present, and Atmos decoder is engaged, the result of subtraction from the 7.1 layer and addition of the rendered object in a 7.1 floor plane could yield to a different result than if there were no such operations. In some particular cases, an object could be rendered to several floor speakers, acc.to the “calculated” location, that would not be the same than the original sound on 7.1 base channels.

Has this any sense?


----------



## Lesmor

Technology3456 said:


> Can you just answer how is 15 channel done? What is the process to do it? If there are no 15 channel receivers, and if you cannot add preamps or amps to receivers that have 11 channels or more, then how does anyone get to 15?
> 
> As for 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, I was thinking about 3d-auro where they talk about having three heights of speakers, not two. So the 7 floor standing speakers, then 4 above the ears on the wall, then they had 1 on the ceiling, but I dont want to give up the 4 on the ceiling to get 4 above the ears. So I was looking into are there any ways to do 5, 4, and 4, at three different levels, or 7, 4, and 4. Still do atmos, but with an added layer in between if there is a way to get that, maybe combine 3d-auro with atmos I have no idea.
> 
> I really dont know, that's why Im asking. The most basic, square one answer I need is, how is 15 channels achieved? What would I need to do that if you cant add preamps/amps to receivers with 11 or 13 channels? Once I know what it would take, I can look up the pricing and compare to other options. But it sounds like maybe no one responding is sure how to do it either.


reading back a few posts perhaps you maybe need to consider change your user name
any way
a Anthem 1140 is perhaps the droid you are looking for (15 channel processing)








Anthem MRX Home Theater Receivers Review


Read our overview of the new 2021 Anthem A/V Home Theater Receivers - MRX540, MRX740, MRX1140 with ARC Genesis & up to 15.2 channels.




www.audioadvice.com


----------



## Technology3456

Lesmor said:


> reading back a few posts perhaps you maybe need to consider change your user name
> any way
> a Anthem 1140 is perhaps the droid you are looking for (15 channel processing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthem MRX Home Theater Receivers Review
> 
> 
> Read our overview of the new 2021 Anthem A/V Home Theater Receivers - MRX540, MRX740, MRX1140 with ARC Genesis & up to 15.2 channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audioadvice.com


I like technology I didn't say I knew a lot about it  It's my first audio system and first surround receiver. Did you know the difference between receivers and processors before you knew the difference between receivers and processors? Everyone learns everything for the first time once, it just happens at different times for different people.

Thanks for the rec. I will probably still go for 7.x.4 given the prices of things. The latest thing I discovered was MagnumX's thread from a google search, might have even been the one on UK Avs, saying that four atmos speakers was not enough in his 24 foot long room, so there were gaps or something when the helicopter was flying around the room, maybe he called it hurricane spots or some sort of term.

My room is not 24 feet long, but it is over 75% that length, almost 19 feet. Following the atmos 7.1.4 diagram for what angles to put the four ceiling speakers, I would have the screen, the center channel, and the front towers at one end of the room, then no atmos speakers until 9 feet (half the room's length) away from the screen, then another 4 feet away the seating, then another 3.5 feet away the back atmos ceiling speakers. So in a 18.5 foot room with a 14 foot distance between seating and the screen and front surround speakers, the forward atmos speakers would not start until 9 feet away, or 64% of the viewing distance, and then the rear atmos speakers would be about 30% behind the viewing on slightly lower ceilings which would create the same angle inverted from the forward atmos speakers.

In other words the 7 surround speakers would surround about 18.5 foot length of space, but the four atmos speakers would only surround (or be in a square around) about 7.5 foot length of space, less than 50% as much length as the 7 surround speakers are covering. But, that's sort of how it looked in the atmos diagram too, so I dont know if it's a problem or not? That's one of the new biggest concerns about whether 11 channels would be enough for me. MagnumX didn't think 4 was enough for a 24 foot long space. I don't know if the 5.5 feet that my space is shorter is enough to change that, or not?


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> I like technology I didn't say I knew a lot about it  It's my first audio system and first surround receiver. Did you know the difference between receivers and processors before you knew the difference between receivers and processors? Everyone learns everything for the first time once, it just happens at different times for different people.
> 
> Thanks for the rec. I will probably still go for 7.x.4 given the prices of things. The latest thing I discovered was MagnumX's thread from a google search, might have even been the one on UK Avs, saying that four atmos speakers was not enough in his 24 foot long room, so there were gaps or something when the helicopter was flying around the room, maybe he called it hurricane spots or some sort of term.
> 
> My room is not 24 feet long, but it is over 75% that length, almost 19 feet. Following the atmos 7.1.4 diagram for what angles to put the four ceiling speakers, I would have the screen, the center channel, and the front towers at one end of the room, then no atmos speakers until 9 feet (half the room's length) away from the screen, then another 4 feet away the seating, then another 3.5 feet away the back atmos ceiling speakers. So in a 18.5 foot room with a 14 foot distance between seating and the screen and front surround speakers, the forward atmos speakers would not start until 9 feet away, or 64% of the viewing distance, and then the rear atmos speakers would be about 30% behind the viewing on slightly lower ceilings which would create the same angle inverted from the forward atmos speakers.
> 
> In other words the 7 surround speakers would surround about 18.5 foot length of space, but the four atmos speakers would only surround (or be in a square around) about 7.5 foot length of space, less than 50% as much length as the 7 surround speakers are covering. But, that's sort of how it looked in the atmos diagram too, so I dont know if it's a problem or not? That's one of the new biggest concerns about whether 11 channels would be enough for me. MagnumX didn't think 4 was enough for a 24 foot long space. I don't know if the 5.5 feet that my space is shorter is enough to change that, or not?


To set up your room for the best acoustic repsonse and therefore your best experience, you should put your seated ears at 12' 3" from the front wall. Not knowing how high your seated ears are from the floor or your ceiling height it is impossible to tell where your heights should be. But assuming 40" ear height and 96" ceiling height your height speakers should be 56" (96-40) in front and 56" behind - this measurement has nothing to do with room length. 
Your surrounds will be about 12"(or thereabouts depending on how wide your room is) behind (or in front, even though this is not recommended by Dolby a few of us on here prefer this) of your seated ears. and your Rear Surrounds whoulc be somewhere in near the back corners. 
The layout of all your speakers in terms of distances in the room etc is irrelevant - it is the angles from your seated ears that matter and the ear level speakers (the 7 in 7.1.4) should all be roughly at ear level or 1.25 times that height at most.


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> To set up your room for the best acoustic repsonse and therefore your best experience, you should put your seated ears at 12' 3" from the front wall. Not knowing how high your seated ears are from the floor or your ceiling height it is impossible to tell where your heights should be. But assuming 40" ear height and 96" ceiling height your height speakers should be 56" (96-40) in front and 56" behind - this measurement has nothing to do with room length.
> Your surrounds will be about 12"(or thereabouts depending on how wide your room is) behind (or in front, even though this is not recommended by Dolby a few of us on here prefer this) of your seated ears. and your Rear Surrounds whoulc be somewhere in near the back corners.
> The layout of all your speakers in terms of distances in the room etc is irrelevant - it is the angles from your seated ears that matter and the ear level speakers (the 7 in 7.1.4) should all be roughly at ear level or 1.25 times that height at most.


I have a divider in my ceiling about 56 inches in front of seating, so the speakers will either have to be about a foot in front of where you recommend, or 3-4 feet behind in order to clear the divider when they're angled at the seating, otherwise the divider will block their line of sight to the seating.

Did you say the surrounds should be 12 inches behind the viewers? Do you mean to the sides? Or do you mean the ceiling speakers? You said surrounds 12" behind, and rear surrounds in the back corners. That would put the surrounds right in between the rear surrounds and the seating, unless one of those you meant as the ceiling speaker. 

And placement aside, is 4 ceiling speakers enough for an 18.5 foot long room? Would I be much better off with 6, 2 above the front towers at the front, 2 a little past the middle of the room about 3.5 feet in front of the viewers, and two in the back of the room 3.5 feet behind the viewers? Or would that be even worse and more unbalanced to have four in front of the viewers but only 2 behind?

I am just worried about there being such a gap between the front surrounds, and the front atmos speakers. What happens if there is an object, like godzilla or something, who is making noise with his feet on the ground in one place, and with his mouth screaming in the air 100 feet in the ground? Even though his whole body is equal distance away, his feet coming from the front surround speakers will sound like they're far away, but his scream from his mouth coming from the front atmos speakers will sound only 3 feet away. Or is this not how it works? The ceiling speakers 3 feet in front of me and on the ceiling will still give the impression of being as far away as the front speakers, that is how atmos works or something?


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> I have a divider in my ceiling about 56 inches in front of seating, so the speakers will either have to be about a foot in front of where you recommend, or 3-4 feet behind in order to clear the divider when they're angled at the seating, otherwise the divider will block their line of sight to the seating.
> 
> Did you say the surrounds should be 12 inches behind the viewers? Do you mean to the sides? Or do you mean the ceiling speakers? You said surrounds 12" behind, and rear surrounds in the back corners. That would put the surrounds right in between the rear surrounds and the seating, unless one of those you meant as the ceiling speaker.
> 
> And placement aside, is 4 ceiling speakers enough for an 18.5 foot long room? Would I be much better off with 6, 2 above the front towers at the front, 2 a little past the middle of the room about 3.5 feet in front of the viewers, and two in the back of the room 3.5 feet behind the viewers? Or would that be even worse and more unbalanced to have four in front of the viewers but only 2 behind?
> 
> I am just worried about there being such a gap between the front surrounds, and the front atmos speakers. What happens if there is an object, like godzilla or something, who is making noise with his feet on the ground in one place, and with his mouth screaming in the air 100 feet in the ground? Even though his whole body is equal distance away, his feet coming from the front surround speakers will sound like they're far away, but his scream from his mouth coming from the front atmos speakers will sound only 3 feet away. Or is this not how it works? The ceiling speakers 3 feet in front of me and on the ceiling will still give the impression of being as far away as the front speakers, that is how atmos works or something?


You don't have to put speakers EXACTLY where Dolby says - there is a fair bit of leeway either side.
So your Front heights can go either side of the divider. Best to put them as close to ideal as you can.
Your surrounds go against the wall to the side of you and then either 12" back or forward from there. You canplay with that to find what sounds best to you in your room.
4 heights is enough - if you go by Dolby specs, if you add 2 more they go directly above you and the existing 4 would stay where they are. 6 is usually use if you have more than one row of seating.
Do not worry about physical distances/gaps between speakers - it is ALL about the angles. 
You are thinking too much about this - just put them where the Dolby specs say and you will be 100% OK. If you post 2 drawings (a plan and an elevation) of your room with dimensions, seating location, doors, screen etc I can draw exactly where you should put everything.


----------



## T-Bone

I gave @Technology3456 the White paper from dolby. Which showed everything that he have to do in terms of angles. he had a question about distances that his room didn't look anything like the room in the images Dolby provided. I reiterated that the distances are irrelevant in those images. Because the rooms are basically notional. It's the angles that are important.

that was a couple of days ago and yet here we are he's still talking about distances. And a couple of you have just told him that it's the angles that are important. and if you give him a little bit of information, he does not seem to absorb it and then he runs with it. Like Magnum X's room... Sure he's got a lot of speakers, but Magnum x has four rows of seating. At @Technology3456 is going to have one row.

I cannot explain why he refuses to listen to the advice people give him. I have my suspicions but I'm not going to mention it out in the open forum.

And that Godzilla example he provided. Something's just not right.

-T


----------



## niterida

Yeah I hear ya - but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt - I know when I started out I knew nothing and it can be very confusing. 
Hopefully he will post drawings and I can sort him out once and for all


----------



## Technology3456

Thanks again for all your help, I really appreciate it. A few days ago I learned a lot about what I needed to know for Dolby atmos 7.x.4 setup, especially the angles, but MagnumX's post about 4 ceiling speakers not being enough in his 24 foot long room introduced a new variable of overall room size that I wanted to make sure to learn about before making (another) mistake like I already did ordering the Denon x6500h. And if it did turn out to be true, then I was starting to think "do I need six atmos speakers," which would change a lot of other things, which is why I was asking.

It's really, really easy, if you want to spin a situation like a politician to try to smear someone's reputation, to summarize a situation mostly accurately, but just leave out or change a few key pieces of context. However, no matter how anyone wants to slant things and mischaracterize me and speak for me, I absolutely appreciate your help and everyone else who has helped me learn this stuff as a complete newb, and no, I do not have a mental disability or whatever _extremely offensive _insinuations were just made, and I absolutely am listening to your guys advice. There has been a poster seemingly stalking my posts for weeks, who has responded to my posts at, just estimating, 3-4 times the rate of any other poster, and a majority of the responses were not on the topic of the threads, but were instead smearing my reputation to other forum members, suggesting my questions are stupid, suggesting there is no such thing as what I was asking, and everything in between.

Only three days ago I posted in the 3D forum asking what is the better type of linear polarization alignment, 135/35 or the other type the numbers of which I had forgotten, and this poster, who does not even watch or like 3D, in fact he went on a mini-rant about it over PM, responded saying what am I talking about, it's a stupid question, there's only one type, etc etc, only for me to finally find one of the articles that specifies the other type, which is 0/90.

Most people would have shoved it in his face after the weeks of trolling from this poster, but I replied respectfully and shared the info with him. Not only did he bolt the thread without acknowledging it, but the very next day he was back stalking my posts and suggesting my questions were stupid, as if he had not gained any perspective from his mistake the day before doing the exact same thing, none at all. But still I did not roast him publicly, I PM'd him to try one more time to make friends and explain why I posted certain questions he had a problem with, or that maybe he was pretending to have a problem with as an excuse to harass me, and to nicely ask him to stop harassing me. I spent over an hour on PM respectfully answering each and every one of his charges against me, only for him to completely ignore the responses and come up with some new reason why I was a bad actor and he was justified in his behavior towards me.

So I answered the next charges, and the next, as best I could. After I explained away all of his negative, misdrawn conclusions about various _posts _I made, and he had no more posts to take aim at, he decided to take aim at _my entire home theater project_ instead. He said I am wasting all my time focusing on projectors for doublestacked 3D, that "3D is dead" but I'm focused on 1080p projectors "period that's old technology, 4K HDR wide color gamut is what's in." And he said "pick your head out of your butt and stick with new technology."

Then right after posting that, I guess he couldn't think of any more bs to hurl at me, so he said "that's it I'm putting you on ignore," which was the best thing to happen to me on avs in weeks, not that it's what I wanted because I don't think I've put anyone on ignore the whole time I've been here, but if you're just going to harass me why would I want to read your posts anyway? And those bold bits he sent me are textbook trolling. "3D is dead. 4K is _what's in_" uhhh. "Get your head out of your butt." But he couldn't even keep the promise to leave me alone, now he's back following my posts all over avsforum, acting like the hero come to save the day from the scourge of my atmos questions in the atmos thread.

He has been spinning this negative story about me on avs for at least a couple weeks pretty regularly in one thread after the next. I kept quiet about it until now, but at some point you have to set the record straight. Now, I would just like to get back to what we were actually talking about, home theater, what all came here to talk about before someone decided to talk about me some more instead. Specifically, atmos placement and number of speakers in my room.



niterida said:


> You don't have to put speakers EXACTLY where Dolby says - there is a fair bit of leeway either side.


That's what I heard, but mine could be like 25% off the sweet spot so I was just checking.



> Your surrounds go against the wall to the side of you and then either 12" back or forward from there. You canplay with that to find what sounds best to you in your room.


Ah OK that makes perfect sense. When you said 12" in back but didnt say a width, I thought you meant literally just 12" right behind the seat, which is not something I've seen before. This makes perfect sense, as wide as the wall and 12 inch back. Got it.



> 4 heights is enough - if you go by Dolby specs, if you add 2 more they go directly above you and the existing 4 would stay where they are. 6 is usually use if you have more than one row of seating.
> Do not worry about physical distances/gaps between speakers - it is ALL about the angles.


When I studied the Dolby manual, I was very happy to see that their overhead view looked very similar to the layout of my room, and I was also told that angles are what matter, so I was pleased with that. It was only after reading MagnumX's posts where he mentioned the distance of his room, 24 foot, that that seemed to contradict, and became very aware of the potential problem that my front surrounds would be 9 feet from my front dolby atmos ceiling speakers. If the angle is _all _that matters, then I wondered why four atmos ceiling speakers were not enough for him, or why he brought up the size of his room at all.



> You are thinking too much about this - just put them where the Dolby specs say and you will be 100% OK. If you post 2 drawings (a plan and an elevation) of your room with dimensions, seating location, doors, screen etc I can draw exactly where you should put everything.


Wow thank you I really appreciate that. I will get you a drawing. I've never done a pro drawing before so I dont know the difference between plan and elevation, usually I just do either a top view or a side view using sketchpad, but PM me exactly what you want and I'll try my best. But for now bottom line, given what MagnumX said about length being a factor at least once you go above a certain length with only four speakers to span the entire thing, is there any reason I would need 6 ceiling speakers for an 18.5 long room, or will 4 be good? Except for the divider in my ceiling pushing me a bit off the sweet spot, I'm not worried about the angles of the 4 ceiling speakers, what I am worried about is the front three surround speakers being half the room away from the front ceiling atmos speakers.

As I explained in my Godzilla example, which _for the record _is 1. as good an example as anyone would think of in the moment, and is 2. irrelevant how good an example it is as long as it explains the question, I am worried about sounds on the ground seeming further away than equally far off sounds in the air, in front of the viewer. As long as you still think the distance is 100% irrelevant even up to that much of a gap between "front" speakers on one level and "front" speakers on another, then 7.x.4 should work great for me.

If that is not an issue, then I think I can make 7.x.4 work great in my space. Just wanted to make sure since MagnumX knows way more than I do about it, and he believed it or something similar was an issue in his space, and my space is not much smaller than his is. I think that's reasonable and I think _almost _everyone in the topic agrees and has no issue with it, and totally understands it.


----------



## Lesmor

@Technology3456 

IMO ceiling speakers at the front of a 20 foot room,and a12' MLP is too far away for 6 Dolby atmos but works for DTS X
a good rule of thumb for 4 Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers is to sit at the MLP measure from your ears to the ceiling make a mark then use that same distance to the front and back job done


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> the difference between plan and elevation, usually I just do either a top view or a side view


Plan = Top
Elevation = Side


----------



## Technology3456

Lesmor said:


> @Technology3456
> 
> IMO ceiling speakers at the front of a 20 foot room,and a12' MLP is too far away for 6 Dolby atmos but works for DTS X
> a good rule of thumb for 4 Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers is to sit at the MLP measure from your ears to the ceiling make a mark then use that same distance to the front and back job done


Sorry if I wasn't clear. The center channel, left tower, and right tower will be at the front of an 18.5 foot room. The "forward ceiling atmos speakers" would not be until 9 feet away from the screen. That was my whole question, is it OK, like the dolby manual shows, to have the "front" atmos speakers on the ceiling so far disconnected from the "front" center channel and tower speakers? Like this. For the record, this is not my drawing that I said I would do, this is just a quick sketch I did my best to show someone else the potential issue a few days ago.

The sketch shows a a 7.1 setup where the 7 different rectangles with circles in them are the "7" floor standing/surround speakers, the "7" in "7.x.4," and the four black paintbrush boxes are the atmos ceiling speakers, and the X's going down the center of the room is the divider in the middle of the room, and the other X's on the left side of the picture near the screen are other areas where no speakers can go on the ceiling because I want to use a flip-onto-ceiling screen as my 2nd screen. The X's behind the seating, far right of the picture, just ignore those they no longer apply, I was mistaken that speakers cannot go there but now it's 99% that they can.

Here is the picture. I know it's not professional, to say the least...  









Flip-screen-atmos-layout


Image Flip-screen-atmos-layout hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co





So basically, the screen, center channel, and front tower speakers are all near the end of the room, but the "front" atmos speakers are about the center of the room. There is a huge gap in distance between the "front" floorstanding speakers, and the "front" ceiling speakers. But if distance doesnt matter, only angles, then I think it will work. The atmos manual looks just like that for 7.x.4 overhead view so... idk...


----------



## Lesmor

don't overthink it
I stand by my Atmos position recommendation ^


----------



## ctsv510

ppasteur said:


> Hello folks,
> I have a question for the experts here. I have a 7.1 system using a Denon X6400H. I have read that the receiver will not engage the Atmos decoder without 7 channels of speakers connected and in use. I have that and indeed, with material containing Atmos metadata the display shows ATMOS. I can disable Atmos and listen to the TrueHD "track". I notice that there is a very noticeable difference when enabling Atmos. My question is, does the decoder actually decode the base layer sound information differently for Atmos content versus the TrueHD 5.1/7.1 content (in the absence of height speakers). In other words, what is responsible for the difference in sound that I definitely hear. Can there be any use of "objects" in a system only using the base layer speakers?
> 
> BTW, I have researched this question a bunch on the Internet in general and even in these forums. The question is not addressed specifically very often. When it is there seems to be many different strong opinions, but no hard data on how a given decoder (in my case the Denon) handles Atmos in a 7.2 system such as mine.
> Input greatly appreciated.
> 
> THX


Have you checked the surround parameters for each of the sound modes? Is it possible you have loudness management or something engaged for Atmos or vice versa? These settings are saved specific to each sound mode.


----------



## Technology3456

Lesmor said:


> don't overthink it
> I stand by my Atmos position recommendation ^


...

Is it OK for the front surround speakers to be that far from the "front" atmos speakers, or not? If it is, then I stand by your recommendation also! If it isn't, that might be important to know before investing a lot of money. If you don't know the answer, that is totally understandable. You still know 1000x more than me about it. But asking this question is definitely not "overthinking it," it is crucial information to know before determining how many speakers I will need and buying a receiver that will fit that number.


----------



## Lesmor

Technology3456 said:


> ...
> 
> Is it OK for the front surround speakers to be that far from the "front" atmos speakers, or not? If it is, then I stand by your recommendation also! If it isn't, that might be important to know before investing a lot of money. If you don't know the answer, that is totally understandable. You still know 1000x more than me about it. But asking this question is definitely not "overthinking it," it is crucial information to know before determining how many speakers I will need and buying a receiver that will fit that number.


what is front surround speakers?


----------



## liverpool_for_life

I'm having 2 pairs of Atmos speakers installed on the ceiling tomorrow (Top Front and Top Rear). I get the 45 degree elevation from the MLP. 

Dolby recommends each pair in-line with the mains, but I've seen other suggestions for narrower spacing. How should I think about the separation in width between the left and right speakers in each pair?


----------



## Technology3456

Lesmor said:


> what is front surround speakers?


The center channel, the front left tower, and the front right tower.

In 7.x.4, I am calling the "7" the surround speakers, and the "4" the atmos speakers. If there is an official term I should be using instead, I apologize I don't know it, and I apologize if that has been causing any confusion. What should I be calling them?

Whatever you want to call them, the center channel and front towers are close to the screen at one side of the 18.5 ft long room, and the first two atmos ceiling speakers do not start until halfway through the room 9 feet later. I need to know is this a problem? The picture I posted also shows the layout. It's rough but it shows it. Thanks for the help!


----------



## squared80

I just joined here a few days ago, and I've learned a ton from reading all the posts. The 'Search' feature led me to most of my answers, as did Google and YouTube. I'll still have plenty of questions, but man... 

Technology3456... you are tiring. They've answered your questions. Move on already.


----------



## 1st Cav

Technology3456 said:


> The center channel, the front left tower, and the front right tower.
> 
> In 7.x.4, I am calling the "7" the surround speakers, and the "4" the atmos speakers. If there is an official term I should be using instead, I apologize I don't know it, and I apologize if that has been causing any confusion. What should I be calling them?
> 
> Whatever you want to call them, the center channel and front towers are close to the screen at one side of the 18.5 ft long room, and the first two atmos ceiling speakers do not start until halfway through the room 9 feet later. I need to know is this a problem? The picture I posted also shows the layout. It's rough but it shows it. Thanks for the help!


Simply put, no it isn't an issue. Your seating location is what matters with regard to placement of your atmos speakers.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Bone

liverpool_for_life said:


> I'm having 2 pairs of Atmos speakers installed on the ceiling tomorrow (Top Front and Top Rear). I get the 45 degree elevation from the MLP.
> 
> Dolby recommends each pair in-line with the mains, but I've seen other suggestions for narrower spacing. How should I think about the separation in width between the left and right speakers in each pair?


Do you have the Dolby white paper that details all of the angles etc?

In any event, yes they do recommend that the speakers be in line with the front left and right. My friends are about 11 to 12 ft apart from each other? I can't recall exactly. But my ceiling atmis speakers I had to pull inward about six inches on each side just to make sure I did not interfere with any electrical can lighting or duct work in my attic.

They still sound great. So it is a recommendation. but everyone's situation is different. How far apart are your left and right fronts? And are you able to align the ceiling speakers to be that same with? Do you have some concerns about the width?

-T

Edit:. I used almost exclusively Google speech to text so I said the word period to indicate punctuation but it showed up as the word period... Which changed the tone of my post.

No offense if you read it before I edited it.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> In other words the 7 surround speakers would surround about 18.5 foot length of space, but the four atmos speakers would only surround (or be in a square around) about 7.5 foot length of space, less than 50% as much length as the 7 surround speakers are covering. But, that's sort of how it looked in the atmos diagram too, so I dont know if it's a problem or not?


Four speakers at the corners of a 7.5' square overhead is enough separation to clearly hear left-vs-right and front-vs-back movement above you. For a single row of seating, what else do you want from height speakers?


----------



## liverpool_for_life

T-Bone said:


> How far apart are your left and right fronts?


11 ft 2 in.



> And are you able to align the ceiling speakers to be that same with?


Yes.




> Do you have some concerns about the width?


Just some recommendations (including one from Anthony Grimani, IIRC) about having these narrower than the mains. I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind going against Dolby's recommendations.

If it makes a difference, I have one row of seating, roughly 12 ft wide.


----------



## AndreNewman

T-Bone said:


> If devore is acoustically transparent, then no issues. If it's not acoustically transparent, I wouldn't do it. I have no knowledge of the material.
> 
> It's been 10 years since I owned a Yamaha receiver... So I have no knowledge on it's room correction software involving Atmos.
> 
> -T


If it's Whaleys Devore then I measured it.


----------



## eaayoung

squared80 said:


> I just joined here a few days ago, and I've learned a ton from reading all the posts. The 'Search' feature led me to most of my answers, as did Google and YouTube. I'll still have plenty of questions, but man...
> 
> Technology3456... you are tiring. They've answered your questions. Move on already.


For some, too much information is not good. I would suggest Tech3456 find a good AV company, have them visit his home to see his room's layout, provide advice about receivers, speakers and placement of the speakers. Then follow their advice after given it serious consideration. Unfortunately, that's likely not going to happen.

I have a modest 5.1.4 Atmos system that I put together last year. It's comprised of a Denon 4500 receiver, Def Tech SM 55 fronts, 9040 center, 6000, sub, two 6.5S in-wall surrounds and four 8R in-ceiling speakers. The surrounds and four Atmos speakers have tweeters that can be aimed toward the MLP. Much of my choices in speakers and layout came from advice I got from this forum. Because of layout of my room where my theater is location, it's not perfect. But I'm blown away when listening to a movie or shows in Atmos like 1917, Midway, Day of Solidad, Tehran, and The Mandalorian. I will never go back to a 7.1 and 9.1 system. To my ears, it sounds as good if not better than any Atmos theater I've been in.

When it comes to Atmos, you don't have to have expensive components or have the perfect room to get good Atmos sound.


----------



## ppasteur

AYanguas said:


> I'm thinking about one explanation for this.
> 
> As far as I have read somewhere, there is an embedded layer of 7.1/5.1 mix inside the Atmos track. It contains all sound.
> 
> If the Atmos decoder is engaged, the sound for each object is first “subtracted” from the base 7.1 layer and then added to the appropriate speakers according to the decoded coordinates/metadata and speaker configuration.
> 
> If no height speakers are present, and Atmos decoder is engaged, the result of subtraction from the 7.1 layer and addition of the rendered object in a 7.1 floor plane could yield to a different result than if there were no such operations. In some particular cases, an object could be rendered to several floor speakers, acc.to the “calculated” location, that would not be the same than the original sound on 7.1 base channels.
> 
> Has this any sense?


It makes a bunch of sense to me. In fact this is what I believe is happening. Of course, I have no hard data to base this on. Which is what I am looking for. 
My question was to find out whether anyone had any idea of the specifics of the manipulation are. Maybe it is simply that the positional information for objects is somehow mixed into the base layer (as @AYanguas describes perhaps). Possibly along the lines of DTS Virtual X. Or maybe the Dolby virtual height processing. (just examples as I am sure it is not the same).
This is the scenario that makes the most sense to me. Of course the effects are incomplete because all of the ability to use the height dimension is not there. But the process would definitely alter the sound. 
I was hoping someone could tell me something definitive, or maybe point me to some documentation on the subject.


----------



## ppasteur

ctsv510 said:


> Have you checked the surround parameters for each of the sound modes? Is it possible you have loudness management or something engaged for Atmos or vice versa? These settings are saved specific to each sound mode.


Yes I have checked. I don't see any changes taking place. It is a good suggestion and I thought about the same thing myself. Thanks.


----------



## dschulz

AYanguas said:


> I'm thinking about one explanation for this.
> 
> As far as I have read somewhere, there is an embedded layer of 7.1/5.1 mix inside the Atmos track. It contains all sound.
> 
> If the Atmos decoder is engaged, the sound for each object is first “subtracted” from the base 7.1 layer and then added to the appropriate speakers according to the decoded coordinates/metadata and speaker configuration.
> 
> If no height speakers are present, and Atmos decoder is engaged, the result of subtraction from the 7.1 layer and addition of the rendered object in a 7.1 floor plane could yield to a different result than if there were no such operations. In some particular cases, an object could be rendered to several floor speakers, acc.to the “calculated” location, that would not be the same than the original sound on 7.1 base channels.
> 
> Has this any sense?





ppasteur said:


> It makes a bunch of sense to me. In fact this is what I believe is happening. Of course, I have no hard data to base this on. Which is what I am looking for...
> I was hoping someone could tell me something definitive, or maybe point me to some documentation on the subject.


This makes sense, until you recall that the print down to 7.1 includes all of the objects in the place they are meant to be in a 7.1 playback environment. If an object is meant to be rendered somewhere other than where it already is (in a 7.1 environment), it would have been placed there in the first place. 

I'll try to find some official documentation on this.


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> This makes sense, until you recall that the print down to 7.1 includes all of the objects in the place they are meant to be in a 7.1 playback environment. If an object is meant to be rendered somewhere other than where it already is (in a 7.1 environment), it would have been placed there in the first place.
> 
> I'll try to find some official documentation on this.


I appreciate it. Something definitely changes when listening to a TrueHD track (which should be all of the objects intended to be there for 7.1. Agreed!) and then turning on the Atmos decoder. So it is doing something.
Thanks for anything that you might come up with. I have spent a bunch of time looking, but have only come up with promotional or "how to" materials that do not address this question.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> This makes sense, until you recall that the print down to 7.1 includes all of the objects in the place they are meant to be in a 7.1 playback environment. If an object is meant to be rendered somewhere other than where it already is (in a 7.1 environment), it would have been placed there in the first place.


Yup, for Atmos playback, objects have x,y,z coordinates. For 7.1 playback, those sounds still maintain their x,y coordinates in the 7.1 mix (same location minus height).


----------



## noah katz

ppasteur said:


> It is also interesting that the Denon will not even engage the Atmos decoder until there are 7 channels available.





dschulz said:


> I think that makes sense when you consider how rare an Atmos setup with fewer than 5 speakers in the base layout would be.



He said 7, not 5.


----------



## T-Bone

liverpool_for_life said:


> 11 ft 2 in.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just some recommendations (including one from Anthony Grimani, IIRC) about having these narrower than the mains. I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind going against Dolby's recommendations.
> 
> If it makes a difference, I have one row of seating, roughly 12 ft wide.


most of the things I read about people pulling them in closer or like my situation, when there was something in the ceiling or attic that prevented them from following the exact width.

I'm thinking that since you have a seating area that's 12 ft wide and your overheads are going to be 11 ft wide, when someone is sitting on the far ends of your seating area, you might be thinking that they are outside the cone, so to speak, of the atmos effect. At least according to the diagrams.

Well, not everyone can have the best seat in the house 

So basically you're atmis speaker is going to be six inches closer to the center of the room then per the recommendations. that doesn't seem like it's a bad thing. I think it will still work fine.

but you should do some more research since tomorrow's the day. And you want to make sure you get it right. see if there's anything that talks about people being outside the width of the atmos speakers.

But like I said, not everyone can have the best seat in the house. Sorry I could not be of greater assistance.

-T

Edit:
Later on tonight I can turn on my system and stand against the wall, that's about 3 ft outside the width of my Atmos speakers, and I can play the helicopter demo to see if it's still sounds like it's overhead when playing out of all four speakers.

I've never done that test before. I won't be able to get to it till around 9:00 p.m. tonight.

Or maybe someone here could run that test before I run mine? This way you'll have a sanity check. Of a real world experience. Before you start cutting holes.


----------



## dschulz

noah katz said:


> He said 7, not 5.


Yes - 5 in the base layer, plus two (either heights or tops). There's no Atmos setup with fewer than 7 speakers (discounting weird stuff like soundbars supporting 2.1.2 or 3.1.2).


----------



## noah katz

Ah, I thought he meant 7 in the base layer.


----------



## ppasteur

Take a look at this


https://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/content-creation/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-renderer-guide.pdf



Page 160. It shows that in mixing Dolby allows the selection of objects to be included in the base layer ( they call the channels "stems" if I read it right) for 7.1 playback. The mixing engineer can apparently determine what objects or other data to be included. So the "y" component would not be involved. But it could explain why when engaging the Atmos chip for decoding and therefor using its renderer sound could be different. Or did I read this incorrectly?


----------



## ppasteur

noah katz said:


> Ah, I thought he meant 7 in the base layer.


I did mean 7 in the base layer. 7.2 in my case.


----------



## sdurani

liverpool_for_life said:


> Just some recommendations (including one from Anthony Grimani, IIRC) about having these narrower than the mains. I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind going against Dolby's recommendations.


Those are Dolby recommendations, but for Atmos installations in commercial cinemas, not the home version of Atmos. The Atmos decoder (cinema AND home) assumes that the two height speaker arrays are exactly between the L/C/R speakers.








The Dolby install guide for home theatres says to spread them wider apart (width of your front L/R speakers), likely to make it easier to hear left-vs-right separation above you. IF you have a really wide room, I would move the height arrays inward (a la Grimani) to make them sound more overhead than high up on the side walls. If you have a narrow room, I would spread the height arrays the width of the L/R speakers.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> I did mean 7 in the base layer. 7.2 in my case.


Yeah, that's the part that doesn't make sense to me and I'm not sure why Denon is implementing it this way. 5.1.2 is a valid Atmos layout - seven channels total, but with Atmos decoding necessary to move objects into 3D space. A 7.1 layout with no heights or tops shouldn't trigger the Atmos decoder, and the Atmos decoder shouldn't do anything anyway. 

I suppose you could have an Atmos layout with no heights - 7.1 but configured as 5.1 + Wides. Be interesting to run a soundtrack through a Trinnov with that configuration just to see how interesting it is.


----------



## T-Bone

T-Bone said:


> most of the things I read about people pulling them in closer or like my situation, when there was something in the ceiling or attic that prevented them from following the exact width.
> 
> I'm thinking that since you have a seating area that's 12 ft wide and your overheads are going to be 11 ft wide, when someone is sitting on the far ends of your seating area, you might be thinking that they are outside the cone, so to speak, of the atmos effect. At least according to the diagrams.
> 
> Well, not everyone can have the best seat in the house
> 
> So basically you're atmis speaker is going to be six inches closer to the center of the room then per the recommendations. that doesn't seem like it's a bad thing. I think it will still work fine.
> 
> but you should do some more research since tomorrow's the day. And you want to make sure you get it right. see if there's anything that talks about people being outside the width of the atmos speakers.
> 
> But like I said, not everyone can have the best seat in the house. Sorry I could not be of greater assistance.
> 
> -T
> 
> Edit:
> Later on tonight I can turn on my system and stand against the wall, that's about 3 ft outside the width of my Atmos speakers, and I can play the helicopter demo to see if it's still sounds like it's overhead when playing out of all four speakers.
> 
> I've never done that test before. I won't be able to get to it till around 9:00 p.m. tonight.
> 
> Or maybe someone here could run that test before I run mine? This way you'll have a sanity check. Of a real world experience. Before you start cutting holes.


@liverpool_for_life I just ran an experiment. I put myself 6 inches outside the imaginary rectangular box that I have in my ceiling, the box that is made with one Atmos speaker in each corner.
I played the Dolby Atmos helicopter demo. naturally I can hear panning from top front right to top front left, top front left to top rear left, top rear left to top rear right, top rear right to top front right.

I was standing on the right side of my theater. Well, it's really a game room. I wouldn't call it a theater with the company that frequentd AVS forum 

Most of the time the helicopter sounded like it was above me but somewhere to the left. When the speakers panned from top rear right to top front right, it sounded like the helicopter with passing directly over me.

so it still was a pleasant experience. It's not like I'm sitting in the prime seating area and it's always somewhere to my left right front or rear. So I think you'll be okay. just know that the people on the outside seats are going to still hear the helicopter pass over them and that is what Atmos is supposed to do so you're good.

-T


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I suppose you could have an Atmos layout with no heights - 7.1 but configured as 5.1 + Wides. Be interesting to run a soundtrack through a Trinnov with that configuration just to see how interesting it is.


5.1+Wides can be configured on upper end D&M gear and Datasat processors (configuration labelled 7.1*W*). Last I checked, Trinnov did not allow that configuration, but that was over a year ago and things might have changed since then. Since Wides are not fed by channels, configuring them would activate the Atmos decoder (to decode object info), even with 7 speakers in the base layer.

5.1+Wides sounds really good and is very useful for narrow rooms. You have a pair of Wides around ±60° and a pair of Surrounds at roughly ±120°. You're in the middle of a big X, with speakers 30° forward & rearward of you. Object audio is sent to the Wide speakers in front of you. Rear channel info comes from the Surround speakers (behind you, as intended). Side channel info is split evenly between the Wides and Surround, so those channels phantom image directly to your sides (as intended). I was surprised how stable the phantom imaging was. Listeners at either end of the couch, even if they're just a couple feet from the side walls, hear the Side channels at their sides without having a speaker near them shouting down their ear canal. Like I said, really useful in narrow rooms.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> 5.1+Wides can be configured on upper end D&M gear and Datasat processors (configuration labelled 7.1*W*). Last I checked, Trinnov did not allow that configuration, but that was over a year ago and things might have changed since then. Since Wides are not fed by channels, configuring them would activate the Atmos decoder (to decode object info), even with 7 speakers in the base layer.


Nifty! I didn't know the D&M gear supported this mode.


----------



## noah katz

ppasteur said:


> I did mean 7 in the base layer. 7.2 in my case.





dschulz said:


> Yeah, that's the part that doesn't make sense to me and I'm not sure why Denon is implementing it this way.



Sure doesn't.

I'd take 5.1.2 (as well as 5.1.W) over 7.1 any time.


----------



## ppasteur

noah katz said:


> Sure doesn't.
> 
> I'd take 5.1.2 (as well as 5.1.W) over 7.1 any time.


So would I. In the best of worlds, I would do it. Very unfortunately, at this point I simply can't make 7.2.4, that I would love to have, happen. <SIGH>.
Yeah, jealousy.


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> ...
> 
> Is it OK for the front surround speakers to be that far from the "front" atmos speakers, or not? If it is, then I stand by your recommendation also! If it isn't, that might be important to know before investing a lot of money. If you don't know the answer, that is totally understandable. You still know 1000x more than me about it. But asking this question is definitely not "overthinking it," it is crucial information to know before determining how many speakers I will need and buying a receiver that will fit that number.


OK my patience (and everyone elses it seems) has worn out. We have answered your questions and explained in detail yet you keep asking the same questions over and over and keep using the wrong terminology over and over. Please refrain from wasting anymore of our time. 
I am out.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Technology3456 said:


> The center channel, the front left tower, and the front right tower.
> 
> In 7.x.4, I am calling the "7" the surround speakers, and the "4" the atmos speakers. If there is an official term I should be using instead, I apologize I don't know it, and I apologize if that has been causing any confusion. What should I be calling them?
> 
> Whatever you want to call them, the center channel and front towers are close to the screen at one side of the 18.5 ft long room, and the first two atmos ceiling speakers do not start until halfway through the room 9 feet later. I need to know is this a problem? The picture I posted also shows the layout. It's rough but it shows it. Thanks for the help!


FWIW, my room is also 24’ long and I only use 4 tops. As everyone had said, it’s about the angles from your ears. Not from speaker to speaker(which isn’t totally irrelevant either). It doesn’t matter if the top fronts don’t start until 9’ into the room. It’s about this...








You’ve mentioned magnums room a few times. The thing is, his room is different than almost everyone else’s. He has three rows of seats, and heights, not tops. His front heights are also on the front wall iirc, and his rear heights are a ways back too. Imo that is definitely too far apart so I agree with him there. However if you’re using tops, follow the angles and you’ll be good.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

liverpool_for_life said:


> I'm having 2 pairs of Atmos speakers installed on the ceiling tomorrow (Top Front and Top Rear). I get the 45 degree elevation from the MLP.
> 
> Dolby recommends each pair in-line with the mains, but I've seen other suggestions for narrower spacing. How should I think about the separation in width between the left and right speakers in each pair?


On top of the other good advice you’ve received, I’ll add that ceiling height(as well as room width that was mentioned) imo, would be a consideration. If it’s low, you wouldn’t want the tops 12’ apart, and conversely, if it were higher(like 10-12’) you could definitely go that far apart so long as the room width is enough.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

Polyrythm1k said:


> On top of the other good advice you’ve received [..]


And I appreciate all of it. Special thanks to T-Bone for his experiment.



> if it were higher(like 10-12’) you could definitely go that far apart so long as the room width is enough.


Ceiling height is 9 ft 4 in. Room width is 16 ft.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

sdurani said:


> The Atmos decoder (cinema AND home) assumes that the two height speaker arrays are exactly between the L/C/R speakers.


Ah, didn't know that. Thanks!




> IF you have a really wide room, I would move the height arrays inward (a la Grimani) to make them sound more overhead than high up on the side walls. If you have a narrow room, I would spread the height arrays the width of the L/R speakers.


Room is 16 ft wide. So, if I spread the heights the width of the L/R, I'll have about 2 ft 4 in to the side walls from either of the ceiling speakers. Is that enough of a distance from the side walls or do I need to move the heights inwards? If so, how much more inwards would you recommend? Appreciate the help.


----------



## sdurani

liverpool_for_life said:


> Room is 16 ft wide. So, if I spread the heights the width of the L/R, I'll have about 2 ft 4 in to the side walls from either of the ceiling speakers.


That should be fine. With your ceiling around 6 ft above ear level, your overhead speakers should be about 6 ft forward & rearward of your main listening position. That means spreading them the width of your L/R speakers will give you a roughly 12 ft x 12 ft square overhead. Should result in clear left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation overhead.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

sdurani said:


> That should be fine.


Cool, thanks. One final question: I presume I should measure the distance from my ears to the ceiling with my seat fully reclined (the way I have it when watching movies)?


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> OK my patience (and everyone elses it seems) has worn out. We have answered your questions and explained in detail yet you keep asking the same questions over and over and keep using the wrong terminology over and over. Please refrain from wasting anymore of our time.
> I am out.


I appreciate yours and everyone's help, and I learned many crucial bits of info about where to even begin with choosing receivers, speakers, and so on. Without you guys, I would be at square one, so I really appreciate how much you have helped already. However, there are a few outstanding bits of equally crucial info that I still could not find in your answers or through google, and there were even contradicting statements which is why I still had more questions.

I don't know if you yourself do not know the answers to the last bits? If so, that is totally understandable, no one knows everything. But if that is what's going on, then, this post is just my opinion but it seems like you are trying to project blame onto me, instead of realizing that no one is to blame because no one knows everything. In my many attempts to clarify the outstanding questions, because you and others kept responding without actually answering it, I first referred to the front speakers as the "front floor standing speakers" or something like that. Then to be even more clear, I referred to them as the "center channel, front left tower, and front right tower," and since respondents still were unable to answer, I tried "the front surrounds." Then I finally even gave an exact definition, that of the "7" in 7.x.4," I was referring to the front three, the center channel, the front left tower, and the front right tower.

And in case explaining it in detail four separate times was not enough, with four separate terminologies, at least one of which is 100% the "correct terminology" and the other three are very clear laymen descriptions also, I even posted a picture.

So truly, I cannot emphasize enough how much you guys have helped me figure out like 90% of the info I need to know, and how much I appreciate it, but please stop even trying to act like you already answered the last bits of crucial info I have had to ask about repeatedly to try to tease out, or that I am asking the same question rather than trying to understand outstanding details of questions that have not been answered yet, and please do not try to glaze over that distinction using the built-in ambiguity of the umbrella term "question" compared to the many multiple components and interchanging parts that a single "question" can have.

And please, do not try to deflect blame onto my use of terminology for why the question was not answered yet, as if laymen asking questions are required and expected to know the full professional terminology for everything. Not to mention, you contradicted yourself when you said that. Which is it, is my terminology a problem, or am I asking the same question over and over? If you already fully understood, and fully answered, what you wrongly claim is the "same question over and over," then I guess my terminology was not a problem! You claim you understood it and answered it already, so why are you even bringing it up? Not to mention _I even gave you a picture. _So if you want to talk about patience running out, pot meet kettle. Lastly:



> OK my patience (and everyone elses it seems) has worn out.


Please don't try to speak for other people. Based on the contradiction in your post, you have not been able to give a reliable explanation for why, you say, _your _patience has run out, or why the five different ways I explained my question to you were not sufficient for you to answer it, so it might not be smart for me to listen to your appraisal of other people's views when your own supposed view does not add up. But you did help me a lot up to this point and *I really appreciate that! *

Honestly, I do. But your last post was condescending, contradictory, and it negatively mischaracterized our entire exchange as me posting the same stupid, already-answered question over and over, with incorrect terminology, wasting everyone else's time and trying everyone else's patience, when in my opinion, the opposite is true. I had to waste _my _time rephrasing an _unanswered _question four _different _ways because you either did not understand four different explanations and one simple picture, so five total, or more likely you did but did not know the answer to it, and, for some reason, didn't feel comfortable admitting that, so instead you thought throwing me under the bus was a better way to go.

So if you're going to condescend and spin our exchange to try to make me look bad, please don't blame me for giving my side of the story, and holding a mirror up to the, IMO, inaccurate and condescending way you mischaracterized our conversation, as well as you trying to speak for everyone else to act like your view must be correct because "everyone else it seems" agrees with it also. I know for a fact some definitely do not, they just do not want to get involved in a conversation between two other people, unlike some others who love nothing more than doing that.


----------



## Technology3456

*The question is pretty simple if anyone else knows the answer.* In a 7.x.4 setup in an 18.5 foot long room, is it a problem if the center channel, front left tower, and front right tower are 9 feet away from the "front" two atmos ceiling speakers on the ceiling.

Edit: Here we go. (Edited example number two out to make it shorter since now it's not needed anyway).



Polyrythm1k said:


> FWIW, my room is also 24’ long and I only use 4 tops. As everyone had said, it’s about the angles from your ears. Not from speaker to speaker(which isn’t totally irrelevant either). It doesn’t matter if the top fronts don’t start until 9’ into the room. It’s about this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve mentioned magnums room a few times. The thing is, his room is different than almost everyone else’s. He has three rows of seats, and heights, not tops. His front heights are also on the front wall iirc, and his rear heights are a ways back too. Imo that is definitely too far apart so I agree with him there. However if you’re using tops, follow the angles and you’ll be good.


That's the answer! Thank you. Guess I'm lucky your "patience" didn't run out before actually providing the answer like with others.


----------



## T-Bone

Deleted.

-T


----------



## sdurani

liverpool_for_life said:


> I presume I should measure the distance from my ears to the ceiling with my seat fully reclined (the way I have it when watching movies)?


Sure.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> *The question is pretty simple if anyone else knows the answer.* In a 7.x.4 setup in an 18.5 foot long room, is it a problem if the center channel, front left tower, and front right tower are 9 feet away from the "front" two atmos ceiling speakers on the ceiling.
> 
> Edit: Here we go. (Edited example number two out to make it shorter since now it's not needed anyway).
> 
> 
> 
> That's the answer! Thank you. Guess I'm lucky your "patience" didn't run out before actually providing the answer like with others.


Then you have to give me props too  Because I supplied information in the white paper, page 22. So you had to answer for at least several days.

But in any event, I'm glad you got the answers you were looking for.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Then you have to give me props too  Because I supplied information in the white paper, page 22. So you had to answer for at least several days.
> 
> But in any event, I'm glad you got the answers you were looking for.
> 
> -T


Yes that's true, that manual was one of the most helpful things. I will be just as honest about some of the extremely helpful posts you made as I was about the wave of negative posts that came mostly afterward. You even gave me the page number to start with which saved me a lot of time and got me close to the overhead picture that showed the 7.x.4 setup, which I was happy to see looked a lot like my room. But then other things I read, and other posts, muddied the waters of whether at some point, overall distance would become a factor not just angles, or if not overall distance of the room, at least the distance between the front three speakers (cent channel, left tower, and right tower) and the front ceiling atmos speakers. It wasn't until recently that someone clarified for sure that it's not a problem and it will work at that distance.

So I have everything cleared up as far as those questions go. The only thing I'm still left wondering about is, what in the heck was supposedly wrong with my Godzilla example????


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> A few days ago I learned a lot about what I needed to know for Dolby atmos 7.x.4 setup, especially the angles, but MagnumX's post about 4 ceiling speakers not being enough in his 24 foot long room introduced a new variable of overall room size that I wanted to make sure to learn about before making (another) mistake like I already did ordering the Denon x6500h. And if it did turn out to be true, then I was starting to think "do I need six atmos speakers," which would change a lot of other things, which is why I was asking.


I'm late to the party, but since I just installed 4 overheads in my 23 foot long room a few weeks ago, here's my advice: Don't overthink it. Get the angles as close as you can. Everything else will be sorted by the distance/delay and levels.

A few thoughts, having read back the last few pages:
1. Having your mains that far forward will only cause an issue with sounds meant to image between them and your side surrounds. But if your room is wide enough for you to hit the recommended angles per Dolby's specs, that doesn't matter. Your AVR's distance/delay will make sure the front sounds arrive at your seat in time with the other speakers, and level matching will make sure you're hearing them all at equal levels.
2. My room is 23' x 12' x 8'. Nice and long, but not incredibly wide or tall. I have 4 SVS Prime Elevations mounted about 2 feet from the side walls on the ceiling. Because of where my AC registers are in the room, I couldn't put them at exactly the 45 degree angles prescribed by Dolby. They're basically a little too far forward and back, putting them at about a 37 degree angle, which is still generally within spec. And they sound perfectly fine that way. As long as you're somewhere within the spec'd range, don't stress.
3. If your top rears are going to be as close to the rear wall as your drawing shows, IMHO ignore the 45 degree suggestion and bring them forward a bit, still staying within the angular range prescribed by Dolby. You'll get better placement between the rears and top rears that way.
4. It isn't that a long room makes 6 ceiling speakers necessary. You can still get excellent imaging between a 4 speaker overhead array. However, I will say that you may have to tweak distance/delay of those speakers versus what any auto-cal assigns. I found that playing Dolby's Audiosphere clip lets me tweak the front-to-back overhead distances until the sounds in that clip image directly above me. You can also use the Helicopter clip to tweak delays until you get a smooth pan between the speakers. Sounds crazy, but sometimes a 0.1 foot change in a single speaker's detected distance can make everything snap into place.
5. Every room is a compromise. Your seating is perhaps too far back based on your drawing and what you've posted. Mine, while letting me get almost ideal placement angles for all bed-level channels, is too narrow and where my seat has to be falls right into a lovely 52Hz room mode with a corresponding 104Hz suckout that I can't seem to tweak around. My main seats are pretty much at my room's half-way point, which is quite possibly the worst place they could be. And yet, it still sounds amazing. Don't get hung up on the minutiae. Most things can be worked around after the fact.


----------



## i007spectre

Quick question. I am looking at two different speakers for on ceiling atmos. One has a low frequency response on 75Hz the second 60Hz. Which would be better? Or would there be much of a difference with atmos use?


----------



## Danno99

Hey all, very new to Atmos so bear with me.
I have a Denon 3600 AVR with 5.1 system but just installed Atmos(?) speakers in my ceiling yesterday. I'm a bit confused as to whether these are actually Atmos speakers, or 'height' speakers, or if they are one and the same?
Now that they are installed, I need to find audio/video to experience this? I have Tidal, and I believe that they have some Atmos options?? Are their movies that also use Atmos? Where should I go from here to test this? Thanks!


----------



## T-Bone

Danno99 said:


> Hey all, very new to Atmos so bear with me.
> I have a Denon 3600 AVR with 5.1 system but just installed Atmos(?) speakers in my ceiling yesterday. I'm a bit confused as to whether these are actually Atmos speakers, or 'height' speakers, or if they are one and the same?
> Now that they are installed, I need to find audio/video to experience this? I have Tidal, and I believe that they have some Atmos options?? Are their movies that also use Atmos? Where should I go from here to test this? Thanks!


Try this link. You'll have download and copy to USB stick, or play on a PC if you one connected to your AVR.









Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com





Or try a streaming service like Netflix. A lot of Atmos content to choose from.

-T


----------



## Hawks07

sdurani said:


> That should be fine. With your ceiling around 6 ft above ear level, your overhead speakers should be about 6 ft forward & rearward of your main listening position. That means spreading them the width of your L/R speakers will give you a roughly 12 ft x 12 ft square overhead. Should result in clear left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation overhead.


I agree that it will sound nice since it is pretty much the same distances I have in my room.
I have an 18’ wide 9’ tall room. The overheads are 12’ apart and they are 6’ forward and rear of the listeners.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Danno99 said:


> Hey all, very new to Atmos so bear with me.
> I have a Denon 3600 AVR with 5.1 system but just installed Atmos(?) speakers in my ceiling yesterday. I'm a bit confused as to whether these are actually Atmos speakers, or 'height' speakers, or if they are one and the same?
> Now that they are installed, I need to find audio/video to experience this? I have Tidal, and I believe that they have some Atmos options?? Are their movies that also use Atmos? Where should I go from here to test this? Thanks!


Iirc, Denon calls ceiling speakers tops. Heights would be ON wall, and Dolby speakers are upfiring modules. 

T-bones link is a good start. Lots of BD and UHD titles out there. We have a couple pawn shops here that have tons of movies. Take a spin through one if you have one. Should be able to find something to test. Some streaming services have Atmos, but you sometimes need a 4K display to use the Atmos track. Dumb.....
Hopefully this link is still good. 





__





Statistics Page - Blu-rayStats.com






www.blu-raystats.com


----------



## dschulz

i007spectre said:


> Quick question. I am looking at two different speakers for on ceiling atmos. One has a low frequency response on 75Hz the second 60Hz. Which would be better? Or would there be much of a difference with atmos use?


Although the crossover will be set above either point (80Hz is the common favorite, but for smaller ceiling speakers I think there're a lot of people crossing over at 100Hz or even higher), remember those crossover filters have some slope to them, they're not brick wall filters. So your ceiling speakers will still be seeing content that dips below the crossover point. Probably the smaller speakers will be fine, but in the main larger speakers that can dig deeper are always a good idea, budget and practicalities permitting.


----------



## eaayoung

Danno99 said:


> Hey all, very new to Atmos so bear with me.
> I have a Denon 3600 AVR with 5.1 system but just installed Atmos(?) speakers in my ceiling yesterday. I'm a bit confused as to whether these are actually Atmos speakers, or 'height' speakers, or if they are one and the same?
> Now that they are installed, I need to find audio/video to experience this? I have Tidal, and I believe that they have some Atmos options?? Are their movies that also use Atmos? Where should I go from here to test this? Thanks!


For a Denon receiver, the Atmos speakers will connect to height connections on the receiver. After you connect your speakers, you'll also need to go in the receivers menu to setup your Atmos speakers. Go to the Denon's Speaker/Amp menu for setup. You'll have a choice to setup your Atmos speakers based on your speaker placement. Pay attention to the image in the menu which will show the location of speakers based on what is selected as you cycle through the various settings. After you select your layout, setup speaker size under the Speaker menu. Then setup the Crossover for your speakers in the Crossover menu. For contents, movies 1917, Midway and Solidad have good Atmos content. For streaming, the series Tehran and The Mandalorian have good content to test you system for Atmos.

I used this You Tube video link below as a guide when setting up my Denon 4500 receiver for my four new in-ceiling Atmos speakers. I followed his suggestions and like what I'm hearing out of my 5.1.4 system. I would suggest you test you system for Atmos before running Audyssey setup that's suggested in the video below. If you are also using a separate amp to power some of your speakers, he's got a video for that type of system as well.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> 5.1+Wides can be configured on upper end D&M gear and Datasat processors (configuration labelled 7.1*W*). Last I checked, Trinnov did not allow that configuration, but that was over a year ago and things might have changed since then. Since Wides are not fed by channels, configuring them would activate the Atmos decoder (to decode object info), even with 7 speakers in the base layer.


The Altitude has been able to do 5.1 plus Wides since 2014, with or without upper speakers. It is not one of the predefined starting points like 7.1.4 or 11.1.8 because it isn't used very often. But all you have to do is pick 5.1 as a starting point and then add the Wides… pretty straightforward.


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> The Altitude has been able to do 5.1 plus Wides since 2014, with or without upper speakers.


I'll take your word for it. When I spoke to Jon Herron in 2019, he told me that the Altitude couldn't do that configuration because 4 surrounds was a Dolby prerequisite for adding Wides. I pointed him to D&M gear.


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> 5.1+Wides can be configured on upper end D&M gear and Datasat processors (configuration labelled 7.1*W*). Last I checked, Trinnov did not allow that configuration, but that was over a year ago and things might have changed since then. Since Wides are not fed by channels, configuring them would activate the Atmos decoder (to decode object info), even with 7 speakers in the base layer.
> 
> 5.1+Wides sounds really good and is very useful for narrow rooms. You have a pair of Wides around ±60° and a pair of Surrounds at roughly ±120°. You're in the middle of a big X, with speakers 30° forward & rearward of you. Object audio is sent to the Wide speakers in front of you. Rear channel info comes from the Surround speakers (behind you, as intended). Side channel info is split evenly between the Wides and Surround, so those channels phantom image directly to your sides (as intended). I was surprised how stable the phantom imaging was. Listeners at either end of the couch, even if they're just a couple feet from the side walls, hear the Side channels at their sides without having a speaker near them shouting down their ear canal. Like I said, really useful in narrow rooms.





dschulz said:


> Nifty! I didn't know the D&M gear supported this mode.





noah katz said:


> Sure doesn't.
> 
> I'd take 5.1.2 (as well as 5.1.W) over 7.1 any time.





audioguy said:


> The Altitude has been able to do 5.1 plus Wides since 2014, with or without upper speakers. It is not one of the predefined starting points like 7.1.4 or 11.1.8 because it isn't used very often. But all you have to do is pick 5.1 as a starting point and then add the Wides… pretty straightforward.





sdurani said:


> I'll take your word for it. When I spoke to Jon Herron in 2019, he told me that the Altitude couldn't do that configuration because 4 surrounds was a Dolby prerequisite for adding Wides. I pointed him to D&M gear.


I have been running a 5(+Ws).1.4 for the past 3 years and in my room it's a much more enjoyable experience than the regular 7.1.4.

Since my room isn't very large (14'x17'), I would have to put my side speakers very close at 90 degrees as per Dolby specs in order to have enough separation between them and the rear surrounds. The problem is that having a tweeter firing in straight into my ear wasn't enjoyable at all and even painful.

At the time I remembered that my Marantz SR7010 had Front Wides pre-out so I gave it a shot and loved it instantly. Now I use the same layout with my AVM70 and it's even better. You really feel like you are in a sound bubble!

EDIT: On 5.1 material, the wides aren't having any information sent to them, only on 7.1 where they will create a phantom image with the surrounds as sides, and the surrounds will act as rears.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> I have been running a 5(+Ws).1.4 for the past 3 years and in my room it's a much more enjoyable experience than the regular 7.1.4.


I remember the thread were several of us encouraged you to try it. Glad it worked out.


> On 5.1 material, the wides aren't having any information sent to them, only on 7.1 where they will create a phantom image with the surrounds as sides, and the surrounds will act as rears.


Yup, that's why I was careful to say Side channels, not Surround channels, in my description.


----------



## ace_xp2

Just making sure I understand this, you're running 5.1 with the wides enabled, so that it now processes a channel that is left+surround left on that front left side. Whereas conventional 5.1 upmixed surround would lead to that side channel being surround left and then the processed channel would be the rears, be it ex/IIx/l7 what have you.


----------



## jsgrise

ace_xp2 said:


> Just making sure I understand this, you're running 5.1 with the wides enabled, so that it now processes a channel that is left+surround left on that front left side. Whereas conventional 5.1 upmixed surround would lead to that side channel being surround left and then the processed channel would be the rears, be it ex/IIx/l7 what have you.


Hard for me to say for sure what goes where when upmixed with DSU or DTS:X, but the upmixers really work wonders matrixing and positioning sound objects in 3D space.


----------



## Dkmorchr

Hi Forum

Please help I have been running a 9.4.6 with the new Anthem AVM 70, however the frustration is rising am I doing something wrong?


Most of my ATMOS 4K UHD titles does not use the wide speakers?
Some of them does not use the middle heights
Some of them does not use the back heights

- When I stream in ATMOS an use the DSU I the back speakers does not play? Anthem bug?

- Is there any way when watching DTS movies that they can support the Dolby Atmos 9.4.6 speaker layout?

- When watching A STAR IS BORN 4K UHD the wide speakers are playing fantastic

- When watching Avengers Endgame the wide speakers are almost not in use:-(?

- A STAR IS BORN and Avengers Endgame are the best examples of the system using the wide speakers and when streaming by using the DSU

Why spending som much money on a system it is very unsatisfying that it does not support the whole 9.4.6 speaker layout? 

I am using the Anthem AVM 70 am I doing something wrong here guys? I have been running a fine ARC and all the speakers in my layout had the green light and tested fine.

Sorry for all the questions....


----------



## audioguy

Dkmorchr said:


> Hi Forum
> 
> Please help I have been running a 9.4.6 with the new Anthem AVM 70, however the frustration is rising am I doing something wrong?
> 
> 
> Most of my ATMOS 4K UHD titles does not use the wide speakers?
> Some of them does not use the middle heights
> Some of them does not use the back heights
> 
> - When I stream in ATMOS an use the DSU I the back speakers does not play? Anthem bug?
> 
> - Is there any way when watching DTS movies that they can support the Dolby Atmos 9.4.6 speaker layout?
> 
> - When watching A STAR IS BORN 4K UHD the wide speakers are playing fantastic
> 
> - When watching Avengers Endgame the wide speakers are almost not in use:-(?
> 
> - A STAR IS BORN and Avengers Endgame are the best examples of the system using the wide speakers and when streaming by using the DSU
> 
> Why spending som much money on a system it is very unsatisfying that it does not support the whole 9.4.6 speaker layout?
> 
> I am using the Anthem AVM 70 am I doing something wrong here guys? I have been running a fine ARC and all the speakers in my layout had the green light and tested fine.
> 
> Sorry for all the questions....


(1) The vast majority Atmos mixes do not use Wides nor Center Heights. Blame the studios, and not your hardware. 

(2) DSU does not work on native Atmos mixes 

(3) DTS will not work on Atmos mixes (unless you convert them to LPCM)


----------



## muad'dib

Dkmorchr said:


> Hi Forum
> 
> Please help I have been running a 9.4.6 with the new Anthem AVM 70, however the frustration is rising am I doing something wrong?
> 
> 
> Most of my ATMOS 4K UHD titles does not use the wide speakers?
> Some of them does not use the middle heights
> Some of them does not use the back heights
> 
> - When I stream in ATMOS an use the DSU I the back speakers does not play? Anthem bug?
> 
> - Is there any way when watching DTS movies that they can support the Dolby Atmos 9.4.6 speaker layout?
> 
> - When watching A STAR IS BORN 4K UHD the wide speakers are playing fantastic
> 
> - When watching Avengers Endgame the wide speakers are almost not in use:-(?
> 
> - A STAR IS BORN and Avengers Endgame are the best examples of the system using the wide speakers and when streaming by using the DSU
> 
> Why spending som much money on a system it is very unsatisfying that it does not support the whole 9.4.6 speaker layout?
> 
> I am using the Anthem AVM 70 am I doing something wrong here guys? I have been running a fine ARC and all the speakers in my layout had the green light and tested fine.
> 
> Sorry for all the questions....


I'm waiting for my anthem avm70.. And asked questions I think you just answered but want to make sure..

I will be doing a 5.2.6 setup..
Using front high wall, top middle, and rear top ceiling..

If you send a Atmos input signal, let's say it's 7.1.4 atmos..

Will anthem matrix the sounds to use all speakers to get a more accurate atmos object locations?

or since input is 7.1.4, only those channels are used and other channels are silent (Ike if you wides or top middle). 

I love to to use Dolby surround mode for non atmos material, will anthem use all channels also?

If not, that sucks.. I want most of what atmos can offer or use for object accuracy..


----------



## audioguy

muad'dib said:


> I'm waiting for my anthem avm70.. And asked questions I think you just answered but want to make sure..
> 
> I will be doing a 5.2.6 setup..
> Using front high wall, top middle, and rear top ceiling..
> 
> If you send a Atmos input signal, let's say it's 7.1.4 atmos..
> 
> Will anthem matrix the sounds to use all speakers to get a more accurate atmos object locations?


No processor will "automatically" matrix to more speakers. Some of the higher end processors (Trinnov, Datasat, Storm, etc) will allow the user to copy/matrix audio from one speaker to another. 



> or since input is 7.1.4, only those channels are used and other channels are silent (Ike if you wides or top middle).


Correct



> I love to to use Dolby surround mode for non atmos material, will anthem use all channels also?


The current Dolby Up-mixer (DSU) can use additional speakers, but not as many as DTS:X Pro

If not, that sucks.. I want most of what atmos can offer or use for object accuracy..
[/QUOTE]


----------



## muad'dib

[QUOTE="The current Dolby Up-mixer (DSU) can use additional speakers, but not as many as DTS:X Pro" 


So if using my Config of 5.2.6 setup, will DSU use all speakers? and not if using a 9.2.4?

Juat want to make sure... 

Thanks..


----------



## rec head

I have the Monolith HTP-1. It matrixes wides and does a great job. I can't copy text from the PDF but here's a link to the product page. Search the manual for "wide synth". It should be page 71 or 72. I only use it for wides but it applies to TM as well.


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> The current Dolby Up-mixer (DSU) can use additional speakers, but not as many as DTS:X Pro


Of the 34 possible speaker locations for home Atmos, the only 4 that DSU doesn't upmix to are the ones between the L/C/R speakers, meaning it upmixes to 30 speakers. How does that compare with DTS:X Pro?


----------



## Apgood

sdurani said:


> Of the 34 possible speaker locations for home Atmos, the only 4 that DSU doesn't upmix to are the ones between the L/C/R speakers, meaning it upmixes to 30 speakers. How does that compare with DTS:X Pro?


But you can't use DSU on top of Atmos like you can Neural X on top of DTS-X to increase speaker utilisation.

I know Atmos is supposed to scale to use all the available speakers where appropriate but the reality is not like that due to how many of the soundtracks have been created.

Where or not it maintains the directors intent is a different story, but many people just want all those speakers used or find it more immersive for whatever reason.


----------



## sdurani

Apgood said:


> But you can't use DSU on top of Atmos like you can Neural X on top of DTS-X to increase speaker utilisation.


True, but that's comparing the two formats, not their upmixers (the post I was replying to).


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> 5.1+Wides can be configured on upper end D&M gear and Datasat processors (configuration labelled 7.1*W*). Last I checked, Trinnov did not allow that configuration, but that was over a year ago and things might have changed since then. Since Wides are not fed by channels, configuring them would activate the Atmos decoder (to decode object info), even with 7 speakers in the base layer.


As far as I recall, 5.1+Wides has always been an optional configuration with Trinnov. I just tested on a project in Park City a few minutes ago, and it definitely is possible now.

There are some other limitations that are imposed by Dolby, such as not being able to define Ls1/Rs1 without having already added sides and rears, but those make sense.

Edit : Oops, I see audioguy already mentioned this. Not piling on Sanjay !


----------



## Apgood

sdurani said:


> True, but that's comparing the two formats, not their upmixers (the post I was replying to).


Agree that original comment was about the upmixers not the formats, but for DTS the upmixer can be used with the corresponding immersive format which extends its utility especially since that is where a lot of people are feeling there is a short coming for Atmos content. Lol... It would allay people that feel that they weren't getting their money's worth our of the speakers in Atmos content.

Personally I don't care which speaker the sound comes out of so long as I have a convincing sound field. Even with 5.1 that can be done if well mixed.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> Of the 34 possible speaker locations for home Atmos, the only 4 that DSU doesn't upmix to are the ones between the L/C/R speakers, meaning it upmixes to 30 speakers. How does that compare with DTS:X Pro?


----------



## sdurani

^^^^Thanx. So both upmixers feed the same number of speakers: 30.


----------



## audioguy

sdurani said:


> ^^^^Thanx. So both upmixers feed the same number of speakers: 30.


Actually Dolby has access to more (but as we all know, the vast majority of mixers use 11): 
*(From the Dolby Website)

34 speakers. *An Atmos system can be configured to run as many as 24 standard speakers, and 10 more height speakers, for a total of 34 speakers for very large *home* theaters!


----------



## sdurani

audioguy said:


> The current Dolby Up-mixer (DSU) can use additional speakers, but not as many as DTS:X Pro





sdurani said:


> Of the *34 possible speaker locations* for *home* Atmos, the only 4 that DSU doesn't upmix to are the ones between the L/C/R speakers, meaning it upmixes to 30 speakers.





audioguy said:


> Actually Dolby has access to more (but as we all know, the vast majority of mixers use 11):
> *(From the Dolby Website)
> 
> 34 speakers. *An Atmos system can be configured to run as many as 24 standard speakers, and 10 more height speakers, for a total of 34 speakers for very large *home* theaters!


The home Atmos format can use up to 34 speakers, but DSU upmixes to only 30 of those locations, just like Neural:X on a DTS:X Pro device.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm late to the party, but since I just installed 4 overheads in my 23 foot long room a few weeks ago, here's my advice: Don't overthink it. Get the angles as close as you can. Everything else will be sorted by the distance/delay and levels.
> 
> A few thoughts, having read back the last few pages:
> 1. Having your mains that far forward will only cause an issue with sounds meant to image between them and your side surrounds. But if your room is wide enough for you to hit the recommended angles per Dolby's specs, that doesn't matter. Your AVR's distance/delay will make sure the front sounds arrive at your seat in time with the other speakers, and level matching will make sure you're hearing them all at equal levels.
> 2. My room is 23' x 12' x 8'. Nice and long, but not incredibly wide or tall. I have 4 SVS Prime Elevations mounted about 2 feet from the side walls on the ceiling. Because of where my AC registers are in the room, I couldn't put them at exactly the 45 degree angles prescribed by Dolby. They're basically a little too far forward and back, putting them at about a 37 degree angle, which is still generally within spec. And they sound perfectly fine that way. As long as you're somewhere within the spec'd range, don't stress.
> 3. If your top rears are going to be as close to the rear wall as your drawing shows, IMHO ignore the 45 degree suggestion and bring them forward a bit, still staying within the angular range prescribed by Dolby. You'll get better placement between the rears and top rears that way.
> 4. It isn't that a long room makes 6 ceiling speakers necessary. You can still get excellent imaging between a 4 speaker overhead array. However, I will say that you may have to tweak distance/delay of those speakers versus what any auto-cal assigns. I found that playing Dolby's Audiosphere clip lets me tweak the front-to-back overhead distances until the sounds in that clip image directly above me. You can also use the Helicopter clip to tweak delays until you get a smooth pan between the speakers. Sounds crazy, but sometimes a 0.1 foot change in a single speaker's detected distance can make everything snap into place.
> 5. Every room is a compromise. Your seating is perhaps too far back based on your drawing and what you've posted. Mine, while letting me get almost ideal placement angles for all bed-level channels, is too narrow and where my seat has to be falls right into a lovely 52Hz room mode with a corresponding 104Hz suckout that I can't seem to tweak around. My main seats are pretty much at my room's half-way point, which is quite possibly the worst place they could be. And yet, it still sounds amazing. Don't get hung up on the minutiae. Most things can be worked around after the fact.


Thanks this is extremely helpful. I dont know that the rears need to be up against the back wall, I just wanted to get them far enough back from the sides but the drawing is not 100% perfect in that way so I think I have space to follow your advice about that.

The room is 10.5 feet wide however the front half of the room, there is a little 6 inch deep indent on the right wall, and then the back half of the room, the entire left is open. So I was wondering if I could play around at all with that but then you would lose the perfect rectangle. The front right speaker would be wider than the left, and the rear left speakers would be wider than the right. Otherwise, to keep a perfect rectangle, it's 10.5 feet wide max, or, I could keep everything symmetrical except the backs (meaning sides and rears on each side). I could put one side a few inches further wide than the other. But seems like not a lot to gain there at the cost of making things uneven.

For my setup, on ceiling speakers will be easier than in ceiling speakers, but unless there are very flat on ceiling speakers that can crossover below 80hz, that means Im probably going with fairly big on ceiling speakers.

So unless you have an idea for a way to do it with smaller speakers, that is the size I need to look at, and I wanted to ask you, which would you recommend? My baseline, so to speak, of what I hope to be able to get at some point again during another sale, is RS152 speakers for $75 per speaker. Basically, I am looking for recommendations that can beat that option.

Not only beat that option outright, but also, with the consideration that all but two of my seven floor speakers will be Infinity R series also. And unless the experiment of adding higher quality, but different, 1980s Vandersteens as the front towers, maybe the back speakers since I was told the fronts need to match (?), works well, then long term, it will probably be all 7 floor speakers as Infinities.

So maybe the RS152's for ceiling speakers would be best just because they're from the same line. But, someone said that ceiling speakers dont need to match, so maybe that doesn't change the calculus at all. So if you know of something better around that price range, that's what I'd like to learn. If you know of something equal, then maybe this would be the tiebreaker _unless _you think mixing it up, and adding some different flavor, would be helpful?

Like apparently, the Infinity R series has very clear mids and highs, and is quite accurate, but doesn't have a ton of flavor. So one train of thought is I should try to keep everything a perfect match, and get RS152s on the ceiling. But another train of thought is, I should use this opportunity to add something with flavor but that will not take away the accuracy and cleanness.

I have no idea which line of thought is correct, or if it even works that way. But your advice already helped a lot, so it would help me to learn from you about this also.

Edit: also, there are the Infinity R152s, and 162s, bookshelf speakers that I could use instead of the RS152s. And there are the JBL 130 bookshelf speakers which were something I was considering when I bought the Infinity's but opted for the Infinity's. And there are a lot of speakers I dont know about, pretty much all of them except these ones lol. So I have no idea.


----------



## Lasalle

sdurani said:


> The home Atmos format can use up to 34 speakers, but DSU upmixes to only 30 of those locations, just like Neural:X on a DTS:X Pro device.


Many Trinnov users with high speaker counts are hoping that DSU will add the capability of Neural:X (with the DTS:X Pro upgrade) to Upmix its native 3D sound tracks to the full speaker count defined. For me, having the DTS:X 7.4 mixes expanded to 11.10 was breathtaking, as was the additional speakers on a DTS-HD MA mix. Unfortunately some of the Atmos mixes on top moves are severely underutilized (ie Avengers Endgame) using only 2 height objects/channels. To make matters worse if you have top centers defined, instead of spreading them between TF and TB it only activates TC. This has caused some Trinnov users to create a separate configuration option that deletes TC. Hopefully Dolby will provide this capability.


----------



## sdurani

Lasalle said:


> Many Trinnov users with high speaker counts are hoping that DSU will add the capability of Neural:X (with the DTS:X Pro upgrade) to Upmix its native 3D sound tracks to the full speaker count defined.


Unfortunately, that is a limitation of the Atmos format, not DSU. Do you remember early 5.1 broadcasts where some TV stations would transmit 2-channels of audio in a 5.1 carrier? Your receiver would see it as 5.1 signal, but the Centre and Surround channels were silent. If you had a 5.1 speaker layout, you couldn't use PLII to upmix the 2 channels to all your speakers because the signal was already 5.1. The decoder didn't know that 3 of the channels were silent. Likewise with Atmos: the decoder thinks that it is natively rendering to all your speakers, it doesn't know that some of those speakers are silent. Since it is already scaling to your speaker layout, there is nothing to upmix.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

My 4 ceiling speakers are now mounted. Thanks to folks that helped with my placement questions!

The final piece in this 5.4.4 setup is going to be the side surrounds (same as the on-ceiling speakers). I only have 2 ft from the side walls from either side of my seating. I understand that Dolby recommends ear-level positioning for side surrounds, but that would put the ~4 in deep speakers at 29 inches from the floor for me (a no-no with kids running around in the house). 

The speakers mounted on the ceiling are 8 ft 6 in from the floor. How far up my side walls can I mount the surrounds so that I can still have separation from the heights?


----------



## T-Bone

liverpool_for_life said:


> My 4 ceiling speakers are now mounted. Thanks to folks that helped with my placement questions!
> 
> The final piece in this 5.4.4 setup is going to be the side surrounds (same as the on-ceiling speakers). I only have 2 ft from the side walls from either side of my seating. I understand that Dolby recommends ear-level positioning for side surrounds, but that would put the ~4 in deep speakers at 29 inches from the floor for me (a no-no with kids running around in the house).
> 
> The speakers mounted on the ceiling are 8 ft 6 in from the floor. How far up my side walls can I mount the surrounds so that I can still have separation from the heights?


I recommend you do some experimentation. With those sides to see how they'll sound if you put them high up to avoid the kids not get into them. My sides, at least the bottom of the speaker, is six feet off. I did that because there's a walkway to get to the seating... And I didn't want people bumping into the speakers.

So the center of my speaker is six and a half feet off the floor but I've got 10 ft ceilings so my speaker center sides are 3 1/2 ft below my Atmos ceiling speakers. I get pretty good separation between sides and heights as it is, but I'm not doing what Dolby recommends.

Sounds like if you mount them at the Dolby recommendation someone's going to have a speaker blasting in their ear. 

-T


----------



## Technology3456

liverpool_for_life said:


> My 4 ceiling speakers are now mounted. Thanks to folks that helped with my placement questions!
> 
> The final piece in this 5.4.4 setup is going to be the side surrounds (same as the on-ceiling speakers). I only have 2 ft from the side walls from either side of my seating. I understand that Dolby recommends ear-level positioning for side surrounds, but that would put the ~4 in deep speakers at 29 inches from the floor for me (a no-no with kids running around in the house).
> 
> *The speakers mounted on the ceiling are 8 ft 6 in from the floor. How far up my side walls can I mount the surrounds so that I can still have separation from the heights?*


I apologize I am not knowledgeable enough to help you, but ty for articulating your question well bc it taught me I need to consider this too.

The question is, would I want to avoid using towers for my sides and rears now that I am adding ceiling speakers on low ceilings? There would only be like 2.5 feet separation between the bottom of the ceiling speaker, and the top of the R263 tower, at the back. But of course, much more separation between the bottom of the tower speaker, and the bottom of the ceiling speaker. 

As long as it will work, I was thinking of putting the RS152s I bought for side speakers on the ceiling instead, and putting four R263 towers as my side and rear surrounds instead to possibly match R263 towers up front, or at least to match the fact I will have towers up front even if they are different.


----------



## Mshahidz

Hoping this is the right place to ask my question. I posted in the ML owners thread but it’s not very active.

I am trying to build out a home theatre using Martin Logan components but looking for some feedback.

Martin Logan 9.2 Atmos Package:

Denon3700 x1  
ESL x 2 (Tower left/right) 
ESL C x 1 (center) 
EM FX2 x 4 (surround) 
IC8 x 2 (in ceiling atmos)

does this seem like the right idea? I’m also reading about needing a pre amp of some sort to power the ML’s due to their demands - is this true? Will the Denon 3700H suffice? Another option I was looking at was the Marantz 6015. I’m fairly new to all of this, I tried to research the forums before posting as much as I could.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

T-Bone said:


> So the center of my speaker is six and a half feet off the floor but I've got 10 ft ceilings so my speaker center sides are 3 1/2 ft below my Atmos ceiling speakers. I get pretty good separation between sides and heights as it is, but I'm not doing what Dolby recommends.


Not doing what Dolby recommends is fine. Most of us have to make some compromises. I was worried about just getting enough separation between the heights and surrounds, is all. 

Don't think I'll be able to get 3 1/2 ft from the centre of my surrounds and my on-ceilings. At least not without my eldest (as things stand today) running the risk of bumping up against the speakers while walking past the seating (access to a balcony on one side and a couple of bedrooms on the other).

Any one else have the surrounds and heights closer than T-Bone's 3 1/2 ft and have it work for you? Any reason to not consider putting the surrounds around 6 ft high, but tilted downwards?


----------



## Hawks07

liverpool_for_life said:


> Not doing what Dolby recommends is fine. Most of us have to make some compromises. I was worried about just getting enough separation between the heights and surrounds, is all.
> 
> Don't think I'll be able to get 3 1/2 ft from the centre of my surrounds and my on-ceilings. At least not without my eldest (as things stand today) running the risk of bumping up against the speakers while walking past the seating (access to a balcony on one side and a couple of bedrooms on the other).
> 
> Any one else have the surrounds and heights closer than T-Bone's 3 1/2 ft and have it work for you? Any reason to not consider putting the surrounds around 6 ft high, but tilted downwards?


When I first built my theater I had to do the same with my side surrounds because my kids were still young and didn’t want them bumping into them. At that time there was about two feet of separation because I only have 9’ ceilings and it sounded just fine. 
Now that my kids are older I decided last year to lower the sides and currently have about 50” of separation. Yes there is better separation and it sounds better but the way it was before worked just fine.


----------



## niterida

liverpool_for_life said:


> My 4 ceiling speakers are now mounted. Thanks to folks that helped with my placement questions!
> 
> The final piece in this 5.4.4 setup is going to be the side surrounds (same as the on-ceiling speakers). I only have 2 ft from the side walls from either side of my seating. I understand that Dolby recommends ear-level positioning for side surrounds, but that would put the ~4 in deep speakers at 29 inches from the floor for me (a no-no with kids running around in the house).
> 
> The speakers mounted on the ceiling are 8 ft 6 in from the floor. How far up my side walls can I mount the surrounds so that I can still have separation from the heights?


Dolby recommend 1.25 times ear height as max - so 29 x 1.25 = 36 and a bit inches.



liverpool_for_life said:


> Not doing what Dolby recommends is fine. Most of us have to make some compromises. I was worried about just getting enough separation between the heights and surrounds, is all.
> 
> Don't think I'll be able to get 3 1/2 ft from the centre of my surrounds and my on-ceilings. At least not without my eldest (as things stand today) running the risk of bumping up against the speakers while walking past the seating (access to a balcony on one side and a couple of bedrooms on the other).
> 
> Any one else have the surrounds and heights closer than T-Bone's 3 1/2 ft and have it work for you? Any reason to not consider putting the surrounds around 6 ft high, but tilted downwards?


Yes you can ignore Dolby and put them wherever you want - it might even sound OK. But it won't sound as good as it could. The closer to spec you can get them the better it will sound. 
I personally think that the height of the ear level vs the height of the height level speakers is one of the more important specs to follow if you want the full 3d sound effect.
Not sure of your exact setup but for 5.x.x you actually want the surrounds to be 20-30deg behind you not directly to the side if that helps with you height issue ?


----------



## sdurani

Mshahidz said:


> I’m also reading about needing a pre amp of some sort to power the ML’s due to their demands - is this true?


A receiver, like the 3700 and 6015 you're considering, is basically 3 components in one chassis: radio tuner + pre-amp/processor + power amplifier(s). The amplifiers, not the pre-amp, is the part that will power your speakers. 

You can also buy those components separately. Will likely cost more but a dedicated amplifier is probably going to be more powerful than the amps built into a receiver. Unfortunately, electrostatic speakers, like the ones you listed are a difficult load to drive.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

niterida said:


> Dolby recommend 1.25 times ear height as max - so 29 x 1.25 = 36 and a bit inches.


I'm aware of Dolby's recommendation.




> Yes you can ignore Dolby and put them wherever you want - it might even sound OK. But it won't sound as good as it could. The closer to spec you can get them the better it will sound.


None of which I disagree with. For those of us without dedicated rooms though, compromises are inevitable.



> I personally think that the height of the ear level vs the height of the height level speakers is one of the more important specs to follow if you want the full 3d sound effect.


Again, fair enough. I'm not looking for perfection, just something that won't mess with the overheads.



> Not sure of your exact setup but for 5.x.x you actually want the surrounds to be 20-30deg behind you not directly to the side if that helps with you height issue ?


It does help, to the right of where I sit. Unfortunately, there's a sliding door on the left (beginning just behind my seating) that divides this room from the "other" living room.


----------



## Blade 77

Hello! I have 4 Quadrals A5 Dolby enabled speakers in a 5.1.4 HT. Tomorrow i intend to hang them from the ceiling(in the exact positions recommended by Dolby) and use them as in-ceiling in order to get the sense of height. The thing that worries me is that im afraid that they might sound a bit harsh, as they are one-way speakers(no tweeter). However i hope that i might get a slighty better experience as the one i have now. I cant install normal in-ceiling, because my ceiling is concrete. Wish me luck! Bellow are the same speakers installed this way by a friend. What do you think? Will it be a better Atmos experience from the one i get now as using them as dolby enabled speakers? When i can spend more money, i will be able to upgrade them with normal speakers, since the mount positions will be the same.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Hello! I have 4 Quadrals A5 Dolby enabled speakers in a 5.1.4 HT. Tomorrow i intend to hang them from the ceiling(in the exact positions recommended by Dolby) and use them as in-ceiling in order to get the sense of height. The thing that worries me is that im afraid that they might sound a bit harsh, as they are one-way speakers(no tweeter). However i hope that i might get a slighty better experience as the one i have now. I cant install normal in-ceiling, because my ceiling is concrete. Wish me luck! Bellow are the same speakers installed this way by a friend. What do you think? Will it be a better Atmos experience from the one i get now as using them as dolby enabled speakers? When i can spend more money, i will be able to upgrade them with normal speakers, since the mount positions will be the same.


Well, how do fee the overall presentation is now? And how do like your friends performance?
The thing is be worried about is the notch built into the FR of AE speakers. This is part of what allows you to “hear” sounds from overhead. According to the literature I saw, they can be used both ways, so probably not a big deal. 
But n any case, I would say you’re very likely to get better performance by mounting on the ceiling.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Well, how do fee the overall presentation is now? And how do like your friends performance?
> The thing is be worried about is the notch built into the FR of AE speakers. This is part of what allows you to “hear” sounds from overhead. According to the literature I saw, they can be used both ways, so probably not a big deal.
> But n any case, I would say you’re very likely to get better performance by mounting on the ceiling.


Hi! My friend says he got a better experience than Dolby enabled speakers, however he is the only one i know, that has tried that. The FR of Quadrals are 80-20KHz. I think the receiver will hand the rest. However the company clearly suggests in the manual the usage of dolby enabled and height speakers. But using as heights its the same thing as mounted in ceiling(Direct firing)..


----------



## liverpool_for_life

The Matrix is the only disc I have with an Atmos soundtrack (shame, I know). Any recommendations for a scene (timestamp please) that really shows off Atmos?


----------



## eaayoung

All of these movies have good Atmos tracks: Sacario, Sacrio Day of the Soldado, 1917, Midway, John Wick Chapters 2 and 3, Gravity, Hacksaw Ridge, Unbroken, and Star Trek Into the Darkness.


----------



## ctsv510

liverpool_for_life said:


> The Matrix is the only disc I have with an Atmos soundtrack (shame, I know). Any recommendations for a scene (timestamp please) that really shows off Atmos?


I don’t have any time stamp recommendations for The Matrix, but there are a lot of demos you can download and put on a usb drive and plug into your blu ray player: 









Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com













Dolby Demo Trailers HD and SD


l➤ ⭐ Dolby demo Trailers HD, TrueHD, Surround y Atmos for download ➨➨ presented in vob, mkv and m2ts. 【 List of all Downloads 】




www.demolandia.net


----------



## T-Bone

liverpool_for_life said:


> The Matrix is the only disc I have with an Atmos soundtrack (shame, I know). Any recommendations for a scene (timestamp please) that really shows off Atmos?


Try this too... Search for helicopter on that page. Definitely wanna try that sample.






Samples - Official Kodi Wiki







kodi.wiki





-T


----------



## howard68

hi all
I have a Denon 6700
I have 2 presets 7.2.6 AND 9 .2 .4
I have an itch to go full 9.2.6
However, the fact some films don't use FW 
And some films done to use all hight speakers is a problem 
Can we try to get people to start a list of full Atmos films (not Atmos lite )
So I can get a feel if my upgrade is worth it 

Many thanks 
H


----------



## T-Bone

howard68 said:


> hi all
> I have a Denon 6700
> I have 2 presets 7.2.6 AND 9 .2 .4
> I have an itch to go full 9.2.6
> However, the fact some films don't use FW
> And some films done to use all hight speakers is a problem
> Can we try to get people to start a list of full Atmos films (not Atmos lite )
> So I can get a feel if my upgrade is worth it
> 
> Many thanks
> H


I think that is an excellent idea. One guy created a separate thread for Netflix Blu-ray discs that contain atmos. so he got it started, and then the users here on AVS forum contributed with titles to add to the list.

You might want to do something similar to that. Get it started and then the community will post with additional titles. I think the only thing you'd be tasked with is the initial creation of the thread, and then updating the first post as new titles as they come in.

-T


----------



## howard68

I know John Wick 3 uses FW 
Most of the Disney films has been set to 7.1.4 only! No TM or FW !
And Saving Privat Ryan is set at 7.1. 2 
can someone set up a database


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks this is extremely helpful. I dont know that the rears need to be up against the back wall, I just wanted to get them far enough back from the sides but the drawing is not 100% perfect in that way so I think I have space to follow your advice about that.
> 
> The room is 10.5 feet wide however the front half of the room, there is a little 6 inch deep indent on the right wall, and then the back half of the room, the entire left is open. So I was wondering if I could play around at all with that but then you would lose the perfect rectangle. The front right speaker would be wider than the left, and the rear left speakers would be wider than the right. Otherwise, to keep a perfect rectangle, it's 10.5 feet wide max, or, I could keep everything symmetrical except the backs (meaning sides and rears on each side). I could put one side a few inches further wide than the other. But seems like not a lot to gain there at the cost of making things uneven.
> 
> For my setup, on ceiling speakers will be easier than in ceiling speakers, but unless there are very flat on ceiling speakers that can crossover below 80hz, that means Im probably going with fairly big on ceiling speakers.
> 
> So unless you have an idea for a way to do it with smaller speakers, that is the size I need to look at, and I wanted to ask you, which would you recommend? My baseline, so to speak, of what I hope to be able to get at some point again during another sale, is RS152 speakers for $75 per speaker. Basically, I am looking for recommendations that can beat that option.
> 
> Not only beat that option outright, but also, with the consideration that all but two of my seven floor speakers will be Infinity R series also. And unless the experiment of adding higher quality, but different, 1980s Vandersteens as the front towers, maybe the back speakers since I was told the fronts need to match (?), works well, then long term, it will probably be all 7 floor speakers as Infinities.
> 
> So maybe the RS152's for ceiling speakers would be best just because they're from the same line. But, someone said that ceiling speakers dont need to match, so maybe that doesn't change the calculus at all. So if you know of something better around that price range, that's what I'd like to learn. If you know of something equal, then maybe this would be the tiebreaker _unless _you think mixing it up, and adding some different flavor, would be helpful?
> 
> Like apparently, the Infinity R series has very clear mids and highs, and is quite accurate, but doesn't have a ton of flavor. So one train of thought is I should try to keep everything a perfect match, and get RS152s on the ceiling. But another train of thought is, I should use this opportunity to add something with flavor but that will not take away the accuracy and cleanness.
> 
> I have no idea which line of thought is correct, or if it even works that way. But your advice already helped a lot, so it would help me to learn from you about this also.
> 
> Edit: also, there are the Infinity R152s, and 162s, bookshelf speakers that I could use instead of the RS152s. And there are the JBL 130 bookshelf speakers which were something I was considering when I bought the Infinity's but opted for the Infinity's. And there are a lot of speakers I dont know about, pretty much all of them except these ones lol. So I have no idea.


Again, don't get too hung up on "perfection". A lot of stuff like some speakers being further away than ideal will be balanced out by level matching and distance/delay.

As far as your ceiling speakers go, my only advice is to keep them voice-matched to your other speakers if at all possible. My first Atmos room was all Polk speakers in 7.1.2 but with the heights from a different line that used a different tweeter. It never quite meshed. My next setup used the same matched Polk speakers at the bed level but with 4 in-ceiling Polks that used a tweeter closer to the bed layer speakers but still not perfectly matched. And again, while it sounded great, there was a change in tone even after equalization and it still seemed less than perfect. After that, I moved to a place that didn't allow any heights, so I used 4 of the Pioneer upfirers... and again, while that sounded decent considering, you could hear that tonal mismatch. Now that my entire setup has been replaced by all SVS Prime speakers in my new permanent home, the consistency in tone as sound moves around the room is DEFINITELY noticeable.

So keep your heights as similar to your bed level as you can. And stop overthinking it!


----------



## Blade 77

In Dynamic Contrast menu is the high setting in reality the most soft, or is it my imagination? I think its High,Low, Medium in the right order..


----------



## Chirosamsung

Forgive me for asking but which one is the eye/ear candy demo:

pacific Rim or
Pacific Rim UpRising?


----------



## Magiclakez

howard68 said:


> hi all
> I have a Denon 6700
> I have 2 presets 7.2.6 AND 9 .2 .4
> I have an itch to go full 9.2.6
> However, the fact some films don't use FW
> And some films done to use all hight speakers is a problem
> Can we try to get people to start a list of full Atmos films (not Atmos lite )
> So I can get a feel if my upgrade is worth it
> 
> Many thanks
> H


Check out Godzilla: King of monsters, Elysium and District 9 (all 4k Blu-ray) and you might get the sense that the wides are as active as the front L/R. District 9 in particular, has the most badass audio track which utilizes all the bed level/ height channels. Superb LFE. The newer Dolby atmos releases are not quite bad imho. 2012 is another example which comes to mind.

I have come to the conclusion that relying solely on subpar native audio mixes (looking at you Disney) for utilizing all the channels, is an exercise in futility. I have had better, more impactful results using the upmix function for certain films. It further broadens your scope for some other more celebrated films as well, with decent 5.1/ 7.1 tracks. You are not limiting yourself to Dolby atmos or dts-x supported films, although I must say the latter has every channel engaged in your setup.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

T-Bone said:


> Try this too... Search for helicopter on that page.


Thank you. Will do.



ctsv510 said:


> I don’t have any time stamp recommendations for The Matrix, but there are a lot of demos you can download and put on a usb drive and plug into your blu ray player:


I downloaded a few demos from there, thanks. However, when I play it from the USB via the blu-ray player (Sony X800M2), my processor doesn't receive the bitstream for the Atmos, only decoded PCM. I do get a Dolby Digital passthrough signal for the DD5.1 trailers. I do get an Atmos bitstream with the Matrix disc. I thought that the bitstream options were universal on the player, but my experience suggests not.


----------



## howard68

Magiclakez said:


> Check out Godzilla: King of monsters, Elysium, and District 9 (all 4k Blu-ray), and you might get the sense that the wides are as active as the front L/R. District 9 in particular, has the most badass audio track which utilizes all the bed level/ height channels. Superb LFE. The newer Dolby atmos releases are not quite bad IMHO. 2012 is another example that comes to mind.
> 
> I have concluded that relying solely on subpar native audio mixes (looking at you Disney) for utilizing all the channels, is an exercise in futility. I have had better, more impactful results using the upmix function for certain films. It further broadens your scope for some other more celebrated films as well, with decent 5.1/ 7.1 tracks. You are not limiting yourself to Dolby atmos or dts-x supported films, although I must say the latter has every channel engaged in your setup.


Thanks 
I am trying to build a list before I decide to upgrade to 9.2.6 so I can make the jump to the next level


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, don't get too hung up on "perfection". A lot of stuff like some speakers being further away than ideal will be balanced out by level matching and distance/delay.
> 
> As far as your ceiling speakers go, my only advice is to keep them voice-matched to your other speakers if at all possible. My first Atmos room was all Polk speakers in 7.1.2 but with the heights from a different line that used a different tweeter. It never quite meshed. My next setup used the same matched Polk speakers at the bed level but with 4 in-ceiling Polks that used a tweeter closer to the bed layer speakers but still not perfectly matched. And again, while it sounded great, there was a change in tone even after equalization and it still seemed less than perfect. After that, I moved to a place that didn't allow any heights, so I used 4 of the Pioneer upfirers... and again, while that sounded decent considering, you could hear that tonal mismatch. Now that my entire setup has been replaced by all SVS Prime speakers in my new permanent home, the consistency in tone as sound moves around the room is DEFINITELY noticeable.
> 
> So keep your heights as similar to your bed level as you can. And stop overthinking it!


Alright so if most my setup is Infinity R series, I should put Infinity R series on the ceiling too if I can. That's my takeaway.

RS152 "surrounds" on the ceiling or R152 or R162 bookshelves?

Lastly, if the EQ wont make things match no matter what, is that an official stake in the heart to my hope to use 1980s Vandersteens as either front towers, or rear or side speakers, in an otherwise 100% Infinity setup?

In case you missed the explanation earlier, it's as simple as, I already had them before I got the Infinities, and they're the best speakers I have by a mile I just only have two and it would have been too expensive to do a full system with them. Plus I got advised on Black Friday weekend when I bought the Infinities that the Vandersteens dont work for home theater surround either, which may have been total bs, it sort of seems that way. What do you think?


----------



## Kain

Quick question:

If I have front wides in a 9.1.0 setup and play the 7.1 track on an Atmos disc, will the front wides be used? I am assuming "no" because the front wides are not part of the bed channels, as far as I know, and are only used for objects and there are no objects on the base 7.1 track on an Atmos disc.


----------



## Goname31

howard68 said:


> hi all
> I have a Denon 6700
> I have 2 presets 7.2.6 AND 9 .2 .4
> I have an itch to go full 9.2.6
> However, the fact some films don't use FW
> And some films done to use all hight speakers is a problem
> Can we try to get people to start a list of full Atmos films (not Atmos lite )
> So I can get a feel if my upgrade is worth it
> 
> Many thanks
> H



I'm on the fence to go from 7.2.4 to 7.2.6 via Denon X6700h or SR8015. Did you really notice a qualitative gap doing so?


----------



## ctsv510

liverpool_for_life said:


> I downloaded a few demos from there, thanks. However, when I play it from the USB via the blu-ray player (Sony X800M2), my processor doesn't receive the bitstream for the Atmos, only decoded PCM. I do get a Dolby Digital passthrough signal for the DD5.1 trailers. I do get an Atmos bitstream with the Matrix disc. I thought that the bitstream options were universal on the player, but my experience suggests not.


Do you have BD Secondary Audio set to off in the x800m2?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kain said:


> Quick question:
> 
> If I have front wides in a 9.1.0 setup and play the 7.1 track on an Atmos disc, will the front wides be used? I am assuming "no" because the front wides are not part of the bed channels, as far as I know, and are only used for objects and there are no objects on the base 7.1 track on an Atmos disc.


I have not tested but that should work. The meta data for all objects are in the 7.1 track so as long as the Atmos decoder knows an "Atmos" speaker location is in use in the setup you should get objects rendered there just as you would in a 9.1.2+ setup.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Alright so if most my setup is Infinity R series, I should put Infinity R series on the ceiling too if I can. That's my takeaway.
> 
> RS152 "surrounds" on the ceiling or R152 or R162 bookshelves?
> 
> Lastly, if the EQ wont make things match no matter what, is that an official stake in the heart to my hope to use 1980s Vandersteens as either front towers, or rear or side speakers, in an otherwise 100% Infinity setup?
> 
> In case you missed the explanation earlier, it's as simple as, I already had them before I got the Infinities, and they're the best speakers I have by a mile I just only have two and it would have been too expensive to do a full system with them. Plus I got advised on Black Friday weekend when I bought the Infinities that the Vandersteens dont work for home theater surround either, which may have been total bs, it sort of seems that way. What do you think?


Yes, if most of your setup is Infinity R series, stick with that. Much of Atmos depends on cross-channel steering, often between more than just 2 speakers in your array at any given time depending on an object's placement. The more your speakers are voice-matched, the better the cross-channel imaging will be. Typically, different types of speakers from the same product line will use the same tweeter, which is where you really want the closest match.

And no, assuming they're direct radiating and not a dipole design, that doesn't rule out using the Vandersteens. EQ can still get you most of the way there and they may match up okay. It depends on if they're at least sonically similar in character to the other speakers. Worst case, you just won't get as cohesive a placement of sounds between the speakers adjacent to your mains (i.e. the center channel, side surrounds and top fronts). That's what I ran into with my original setup, because my old bed-level speakers used silk dome tweeters and my heights used composite tweeters with a little sharper sound to them. Could I hear the difference as sounds panned through the array? Yes. Was it still impressive as hell to anyone listening? Yup. And EQ helped a LITTLE to mitigate the differences, but... you could still hear the difference if you were listening for it. Did anyone else who watched a movie at my house notice? Nope. Did I notice an improvement once my entire setup was voice matched? ABSOLUTELY. But that doesn't mean that I should never have enjoyed those other 3 setups I had before this one.

Stop overthinking it. Put it all together and start tweaking. If the Vandys don't mesh well, you can always swap 'em out later.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

ctsv510 said:


> Do you have BD Secondary Audio set to off in the x800m2?


Yes. As I said, I can get an Atmos bitstream from the Matrix disc. Decidedly odd.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

liverpool_for_life said:


> Yes. As I said, I can get an Atmos bitstream from the Matrix disc. Decidedly odd.


I’m speaking a little bit outta turn here because I just can’t remember off hand. However, some of the downloads I’ve gotten don’t play nice with my x700. Can’t remember, but Mt2s and mkv and maybe mp4??? Some contain the DA track. And some are DD pcm iirc. One of them does not work. 
Since I have a couple versions it’s fun to check the upmixers against the native track. Sorry if this is useless...it’s been at least a year since I went through my demo stuff. Mostly just watching films anymore.


----------



## deano86

liverpool_for_life said:


> Yes. As I said, I can get an Atmos bitstream from the Matrix disc. Decidedly odd.


No, this isn't odd... using bluray players to play media off of USB or streaming off of your LAN, is always hit or miss... as their supported formats and containers are very limited. Being a Sony, and comparing to past models tells us that True HD or Atmos audio files are not typically supported with the MKV file container. But if your demo files also contain the Dolby digital plus Atmos streams, those may work for you.. .simply hit the Audio button on your remote when you try to play them to see if you can switch to that stream. M2TS files may work for True HD Atmos USB or streaming playback with the Sony, but I don't typically use those and can't say for certain.


----------



## Blade 77

Hello, i am trying to set up a 5.1.4 HT. I have 4 Quadrals dolby atmos enabled speakers. I intend to use one pair as front heights and another pair above my surrounds, as i dont have a back wall to use them as back heights. In the receiver's menu, what should i choose? Front Height & Top Middle ?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> Forgive me for asking but which one is the eye/ear candy demo:
> 
> pacific Rim or
> Pacific Rim UpRising?


Bump


----------



## Scott Simonian

Kain said:


> Quick question:
> 
> If I have front wides in a 9.1.0 setup and play the 7.1 track on an Atmos disc, will the front wides be used? I am assuming "no" because the front wides are not part of the bed channels, as far as I know, and are only used for objects and there are no objects on the base 7.1 track on an Atmos disc.


I think you have to have at least one pair of overhead speakers designated for Atmos decoding to work, but this may depend on what processor you are using. 

In theory, it should work, where you get object data sent to the wides and any overhead information would play back as on any legacy system. If you choose to use post-process playback such as DSU (now with wides on some devices) or Neural:X then you won't be decoding Atmos. They are mutually exclusive.


----------



## petetherock

Chirosamsung said:


> Bump


I have both and both discs are pretty decent.. can't say the same about the plot though...


----------



## T-Bone

Chirosamsung said:


> Bump


Somebody else already answered. My advice is if you're asking about these movies, do not buy them. They both basically suck. But that's my opinion.

-T


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Chirosamsung said:


> Forgive me for asking but which one is the eye/ear candy demo:


If you just want demos without having to put up with lousy movies, look here:








Demos to test your home cinema equipment !


Demos to test your equipement (4K HDR, Dolby, DTS, Atmos, ...) ! As of February 1, 2022 New version, again a big thank you to Flips for his help (and his time), which brings together no less than 700 demos in the form of torrent files ! So we have 4: 4K UHD 2K FHD Technical Video games 4K...




www.avsforum.com




This way you get five minutes of LOTS of lousy movies.  
Michael


----------



## satyab

Chirosamsung said:


> Bump


pacific Rim purely for A/V. These two are one of those discs I never played after first viewing.


----------



## MCF34

I am totally new to Atmos...right now have 5.1 system with Klipsch RB-25's, RC-25 ,and in ceiling Klipsch for surrounds. Time to upgrade. Looking at getting two new subs and a receiver. Considering the Denon X3700H. I would eventually like to upgrade the the fronts to Klipsch R-625FA (have atmos integrated into tower) and probably a better front channel. The fronts are positioned per Dolby (about 25 degrees off axis) at ear height. Due to room constraints, etc. etc. the most I would be able to get away with is a 5.2.2 with two front channels and surrounds in ceiling as they are currently. Thoughts? Receiver sufficient? Is going to a 5.2.2 with only Atmos on the front channels worth it? Thanks!!!!


----------



## eaayoung

The 3700 receiver would be fine for an Atmos setup. But when it comes to Atmos, a 5.x.4 system is much better than 5.x.2. And having the speakers in the ceiling is way to go. I use a Denon 4500 for my 5.1.4 system with four in-ceiling Atmos speakers. Very satisfied with the sound from my system.


----------



## sdurani

MCF34 said:


> Is going to a 5.2.2 with only Atmos on the front channels worth it?


Not worth it with the set-up you're considering. The main point of Atmos is to separate sounds around you from sounds above you. That's not going to happen with in-ceiling Surrounds. Those sounds are intended to come from around you, not above you. Also, if you're going to get floorstanding towers with upfiring height speakers built-un, then you won't be able to aim the upfiring speakers to optimize the virtual height effect. For both those reasons, it's not worth it.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

deano86 said:


> Being a Sony, and comparing to past models tells us that True HD or Atmos audio files are not typically supported with the MKV file container.


Ah, didn't know this. That explains what I'm seeing.



> M2TS files may work for True HD Atmos USB or streaming playback with the Sony, but I don't typically use those and can't say for certain.


I can confirm that it does. Thanks!


----------



## Kain

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have not tested but that should work. The meta data for all objects are in the 7.1 track so as long as the Atmos decoder knows an "Atmos" speaker location is in use in the setup you should get objects rendered there just as you would in a 9.1.2+ setup.


I thought you need at least a pair of overhead speakers in a minimum of 5.1.2 to get the objects "working" on an Atmos track. I was under the impression that if you don't have overhead speakers, you need to play the "standard" or base 7.1 track which folds everything down in the bed/legacy channels with no objects being "played".


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> I thought you need at least a pair of overhead speakers in a minimum of 5.1.2 to get the objects "working" on an Atmos track. I was under the impression that if you don't have overhead speakers, you need to play the "standard" or base 7.1 track which folds everything down in the bed/legacy channels with no objects being "played".


I used to think that, too, but the latest Denon+Marantz units and the Datasat units consider 5.1+W or 7.1+W to be valid Atmos configurations (possibly Trinnov as well, but there seems to be some dispute on this point), and will render objects properly if they pass through or are pinned to the wides.


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> I used to think that, too, but the latest Denon+Marantz units and the Datasat units consider 5.1+W or 7.1+W to be valid Atmos configurations (possibly Trinnov as well, but there seems to be some dispute on this point), and will render objects properly if they pass through or are pinned to the wides.


As I understand Atmos' atmospheric sound, is that it adds the 3rd dimension - the height plane. Even if the Atmos renderer is willing to take only listener-level setup as a valid configuration, it will not add anything to pre-atmos rendering setups, because sounds will not elevate from your bed-layer. So the gist of 3D-rendering is gone.


----------



## petetherock

satyab said:


> pacific Rim purely for A/V. These two are one of those discs I never played after first viewing.


+1haha, I've been trying to give it to my mates, but somehow, they always return the disc... hmm....


----------



## MCF34

Okay...so I MAY have figured out a way to do 5.2.4......see pics and let me know thoughts. The two ceiling speakers are slightly behind the couch - they would serve as 2 of the 4 atmos speakers. 2 more would be installed in line with them in front of them. I need to figure out a way to make the speaker wires for the surrounds 'disappear' from the speaker to the floor.....this is not a dedicated theatre room. The fronts are 25 degrees off axis. Going to put two PB-1000 Pro inside each front channel. This is the absolute best speaker placement the room permits. If the wife doesn't let me leave the surrounds where they are I will have to go back to using the 2 in ceiling speakers for surrounds and forgo any atmos setup. Thoughts?????


----------



## Blade 77

MCF34 said:


> Okay...so I MAY have figured out a way to do 5.2.4......see pics and let me know thoughts. The two ceiling speakers are slightly behind the couch - they would serve as 2 of the 4 atmos speakers. 2 more would be installed in line with them in front of them. I need to figure out a way to make the speaker wires for the surrounds 'disappear' from the speaker to the floor.....this is not a dedicated theatre room. The fronts are 25 degrees off axis. Going to put two PB-1000 Pro inside each front channel. This is the absolute best speaker placement the room permits. If the wife doesn't let me leave the surrounds where they are I will have to go back to using the 2 in ceiling speakers for surrounds and forgo any atmos setup. Thoughts?????
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096433
> View attachment 3096434
> View attachment 3096435
> View attachment 3096436
> View attachment 3096437
> View attachment 3096438
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096433
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096434
> View attachment 3096438


i believe that your fronts should be 20-30 degrees inwards listening position.


----------



## T-Bone

MCF34 said:


> Okay...so I MAY have figured out a way to do 5.2.4......see pics and let me know thoughts. The two ceiling speakers are slightly behind the couch - they would serve as 2 of the 4 atmos speakers. 2 more would be installed in line with them in front of them. I need to figure out a way to make the speaker wires for the surrounds 'disappear' from the speaker to the floor.....this is not a dedicated theatre room. The fronts are 25 degrees off axis. Going to put two PB-1000 Pro inside each front channel. This is the absolute best speaker placement the room permits. If the wife doesn't let me leave the surrounds where they are I will have to go back to using the 2 in ceiling speakers for surrounds and forgo any atmos setup. Thoughts?????
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096433
> View attachment 3096434
> View attachment 3096435
> View attachment 3096436
> View attachment 3096437
> View attachment 3096438
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096433
> View attachment 3096432
> View attachment 3096434
> View attachment 3096438


1. Tell your wife it's 2021. Husbands can make decisions on their own, without their wives wife-splaining how to "really" setup the room.

2. I would NOT want to sit on either sofa end with that surround (in that proposed location) blasting in my ear. If you listen at 75 (I think you stated in a different post) at the MLP, with peaks if 95, someone is gonna get hearing damage.

3. Hard to say on the ceiling acting as atmos... "A little behind sofa" does not mean much to me. More curious on the angle? Also, is it possible to push sofa closer to display to improve angle of the ceiling speakers?

-T


----------



## AYanguas

MCF34 said:


> Okay...so I MAY have figured out a way to do 5.2.4......see pics and let me know thoughts. The two ceiling speakers are slightly behind the couch - they would serve as 2 of the 4 atmos speakers. 2 more would be installed in line with them in front of them. I need to figure out a way to make the speaker wires for the surrounds 'disappear' from the speaker to the floor.....this is not a dedicated theatre room. The fronts are 25 degrees off axis. Going to put two PB-1000 Pro inside each front channel. This is the absolute best speaker placement the room permits. If the wife doesn't let me leave the surrounds where they are I will have to go back to using the 2 in ceiling speakers for surrounds and forgo any atmos setup. Thoughts?????


First Thought: 
I don't know how you put your pictures in the post. I see each picture repeated three times. I though you were proposing us to look for the differences "game". 

Second Thought:
Now, seriously. Please, take apart your side surrounds from the coach. Put them against the wall, Put the small table together the sofa.
Just seeing that pictures I could "feel" my ear blasted thinking I were sitting at one of the sides.

Third Thought:
I cannot see the ceiling well to think about were to put any Height Speaker. Please, try to take a more full ceiling picture.

Fourth Thought:
How to hide the cables should be a minor problem. Just confirm her that the cables will be, of course, hidden. And progress with the project. At the end there are many solutions to hide the cabling.

Fifth Thought:
Look for "Stereo Imaging" for the fronts. Try to make the equilateral triangle between your MLP and the two fronts, either putting the fronts away from wall, separating the fronts horizontally or moving the coach to the front. Also, moving the couch to the front would enable better angles (ideally 45º) to the Atmos Tops in-ceiling speakers, front and rear tops.).


----------



## MCF34

Thanks guys....I agree with what you said, but the surrounds CANNOT be pushed out....if I push the left out it blocks a bedroom door. If I push the right out it blocks the only way around the couch. So it looks like that idea is dead and will go back to using in ceiling speakers as surrounds and forget about atmos.


----------



## AYanguas

MCF34 said:


> Thanks guys....I agree with what you said, but the surrounds CANNOT be pushed out....if I push the left out it blocks a bedroom door. If I push the right out it blocks the only way around the couch. So it looks like that idea is dead and will go back to using in ceiling speakers as surrounds and forget about atmos.


----------



## rec head

Before you give up on that speaker placement have you set the levels on them? How do they sound? They are definitely not optimal but probably better than the ones in the ceiling.


----------



## rec head

priitv8 said:


> As I understand Atmos' atmospheric sound, is that it adds the 3rd dimension - the height plane. Even if the Atmos renderer is willing to take only listener-level setup as a valid configuration, it will not add anything to pre-atmos rendering setups, because sounds will not elevate from your bed-layer. So the gist of 3D-rendering is gone.


I can't say whether or not 5.1+Wides is a valid speaker layout for Atmos because I have never looked into it. But Atmos is an object rendering format that allows placement of sound "objects" in the best spot given the speaker layout. This doesn't mean height only. Otherwise having wides in a 9.1.4 wouldn't add anything. So having wides instead heights makes sense if that is all your room can allow.


----------



## dschulz

priitv8 said:


> As I understand Atmos' atmospheric sound, is that it adds the 3rd dimension - the height plane. Even if the Atmos renderer is willing to take only listener-level setup as a valid configuration, it will not add anything to pre-atmos rendering setups, because sounds will not elevate from your bed-layer. So the gist of 3D-rendering is gone.


The height effects are the most obvious and dramatic addition to what we had before, but it's not the case the the renderer won't add _anything_ - if there are objects that are pinned to the Wides, or that pass through the Wides (as with an object panning from the Left Channel to the Left Surround), then the renderer will light up the Wides, which would of course remain silent if you were playing back in just 7.1. 

I'm not saying you _should_ add Wides but not height, obviously height is more important, just clarifying that there is hardware that will use the Wides in an Atmos mix even if you don't have any heights configured.


----------



## MCF34

rec head said:


> Before you give up on that speaker placement have you set the levels on them? How do they sound. They are definitely not optimal but probably better than the ones in the ceiling.


Thanks. I have not hooked them up yet. Another option I may have is to hang them from the lower portion of the ceiling (8' tall). That would put them out another 4-5' out each and they would be pointing directly in and down pointing at MLP. Thoughts of this positioning vs. the two in ceiling or having that directly outside of couch?


----------



## T-Bone

MCF34 said:


> Thanks. I have not hooked them up yet. Another option I may have is to hang them from the lower portion of the ceiling (8' tall). That would put them out another 4-5' out each and they would be pointing directly in and down pointing at MLP. Thoughts of this positioning vs. the two in ceiling or having that directly outside of couch?


hanging in the surrounds on the ceiling and pointing them towards the listening position still has them overhead. So that's a no-go if you want to do Atmos. 

-T


----------



## noah katz

dschulz said:


> I'm not saying you _should_ add Wides but not height, obviously height is more important, just clarifying that there is hardware that will use the Wides in an Atmos mix even if you don't have any heights configured.



Perhaps it gows w/o saying, but more important IMO is that the wides _will_ be used in all upmixed material.


----------



## rec head

MCF34 said:


> Thanks. I have not hooked them up yet. Another option I may have is to hang them from the lower portion of the ceiling (8' tall). That would put them out another 4-5' out each and they would be pointing directly in and down pointing at MLP. Thoughts of this positioning vs. the two in ceiling or having that directly outside of couch?


Do you mean hanging from the ceiling at ear level and pointed inwards?


----------



## Blade 77

Hello. I have a 5.14 HT with 4 Quadrals A5 Dolby enabled speakers. However i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above, thats why i intend to hang them from the ceiling and use them as in-ceiling speakers( if i ever manage to calculate the recommennded positions by Dolby) in order to get the sense of height. Below are shown the same speakers installed this way by somebody else. What do you think? Will it be a better Atmos experience from the one i get now as using them as dolby enabled speakers or should i try using them as height (..eventhough i dont have a back wall)? 
Thanks


----------



## LNEWoLF

MCF34 Rotate entire layout 90 deg.

1st position TV and stand center on wall between doorway and corner of wall. Position TV and stand against wall and at recommended distance from MLP (your couch) based on screen size. Adjust as necessary to accommodate second couch.

2nd place front speakers at your speaker manufacturers recomended distance from each other and the MLP per their recomended listening distance and an equilateral distance from MLP.

3rd place surround speakers in accrdance to Dolby’s Atmos recommendation for a 5.2.2 (5.2.4 even better) speaker system setup.

An improved audio and visual immersion experience overall.

This should allow for an improved unrestricted pathway to both doorways. Should allow for improved speaker locations. May also help with speaker wire placement. Not sure where the existing overhead speakers ended up being positioned (No photo.) May just need to adjust couch position.

Good luck.


----------



## Rich 63

MCF34 said:


> Thanks guys....I agree with what you said, but the surrounds CANNOT be pushed out....if I push the left out it blocks a bedroom door. If I push the right out it blocks the only way around the couch. So it looks like that idea is dead and will go back to using in ceiling speakers as surrounds and forget about atmos.


Hard to tell from the pics but 2 posts mentioned something. Equalateral triangle from mlp to front l/r speakers and pushing the couch forward. 
If it were my space I would push the couch forward and put the surround speakers on the corners of the rug pointing to opposite ends of the couch. This should help with the equilateral triangle to fronts and improve surround placement. The the existing surround speakers can be used as top rears and install new top fronts. Done.
Rich


----------



## LNEWoLF

Blade 77 said:


> Hello. I have a 5.14 HT with 4 Quadrals A5 Dolby enabled speakers. However i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above, thats why i intend to hang them from the ceiling and use them as in-ceiling speakers( if i ever manage to calculate the recommennded positions by Dolby) in order to get the sense of height. Below are shown the same speakers installed this way by somebody else. What do you think? Will it be a better Atmos experience from the one i get now as using them as dolby enabled speakers or should i try using them as height (..eventhough i dont have a back wall)?
> Thanks


As long as you followed Dolby Atmos Enabled Speaker (DAES) installation recommendations for DAES placement higher than seated ear height and no higher than 1/2 the ceiling height. Example for an 8’ ceiling DAES placed between 42” - 48”. 

The DAES modules have the recommended engineered angle for placement built into the specification for them. The DAES need to be placed per Dolby 3‘-6’ from the MLP (your couch.) As you increase the distance that the DAES are placed further than 6’ from the MLP the intended effect is lessoned.

I‘m been using 4 Klipsch R41SA DAES in a 7.2.4 speaker system setup for several years now. My MLP is centered on a 85’ screen with the speakers surrounding the MLP. They perform VERY well as Dolby stated the DAES would. 

I fully experience Dolby Atmos and DTS X as well as Dolby Surround and DTS Neural X nightly while enjoying a movie, concert or music in 7.2.4 I do not hear speakers or their physical locations. I experience sounds that track with the action on the screen. The can be anywhere from my head to anywhere in the room. 

Good luck.


----------



## deano86

petetherock said:


> +1haha, I've been trying to give it to my mates, but somehow, they always return the disc... hmm....


I don't know man... IMO, Pacific Rim is a 3D visual feast with a great Atmos track and thunderous bass! I find it a fun ride

Pacific Rim Uprising, on the other hand... is...... just not good


----------



## Blade 77

LNEWoLF said:


> As long as you followed Dolby Atmos Enabled Speaker (DAES) installation recommendations for DAES placement higher than seated ear height and no higher than 1/2 the ceiling height. Example for an 8’ ceiling DAES placed between 42” - 48”.
> 
> The DAES modules have the recommended engineered angle for placement built into the specification for them. The DAES need to be placed per Dolby 3‘-6’ from the MLP (your couch.) As you increase the distance that the DAES are placed further than 6’ from the MLP the intended effect is lessoned.
> 
> I‘m been using 4 Klipsch R41SA DAES in a 7.2.4 speaker system setup for several years now. My MLP is centered on a 85’ screen with the speakers surrounding the MLP. They perform VERY well as Dolby stated the DAES would.
> 
> I fully experience Dolby Atmos and DTS X as well as Dolby Surround and DTS Neural X nightly while enjoying a movie, concert or music in 7.2.4 I do not hear speakers or their physical locations. I experience sounds that track with the action on the screen. The can be anywhere from my head to anywhere in the room.
> 
> Good luck.


Hi, i believe i have followed these instructions. The distance between listening position and front DAE is about 2.50m and 1.50m from the back DAE. My ceiling is around 2.70m and all DAE are at aound 1.20 (1.50 from the ceiling). However i dont get the feeling that a sound is coming from above. Thats why i think of hanging them into the ceiling.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Chirosamsung said:


> Forgive me for asking but which one is the eye/ear candy demo:
> 
> pacific Rim or
> Pacific Rim UpRising?


I own both Pacific Rim movies in 4K UHD and enjoyed them. They both contained GREAT video and audio mixes.


----------



## MCF34

LNEWoLF said:


> MCF34 Rotate entire layout 90 deg.
> 
> 1st position TV and stand center on wall between doorway and corner of wall. Position TV and stand against wall and at recommended distance from MLP (your couch) based on screen size. Adjust as necessary to accommodate second couch.
> 
> 2nd place front speakers at your speaker manufacturers recomended distance from each other and the MLP per their recomended listening distance and an equilateral distance from MLP.
> 
> 3rd place surround speakers in accrdance to Dolby’s Atmos recommendation for a 5.2.2 (5.2.4 even better) speaker system setup.
> 
> An improved audio and visual immersion experience overall.
> 
> This should allow for an improved unrestricted pathway to both doorways. Should allow for improved speaker locations. May also help with speaker wire placement. Not sure where the existing overhead speakers ended up being positioned (No photo.) May just need to adjust couch position.
> 
> Good luck.


Thanks. Can't rotate 90 degrees. I already thought of that.....not enough room from my son's bedroom door to the wall where tv and front are currently located. The couch would also have to be pushed against what is now the front wall negating any space for the right surround speaker. 

The seating position to each front channel is ~120". The distance between the front speakers is ~115" so that's pretty damn close. I can move speakers apart another 1" or so and move couch up another couple inches but I don't think having a perfect triangle is going to make much difference. 

Placing speakers per manufacturer's recommendation and per dolby is great, IF you have an ideal setup, which I do not.


----------



## MCF34

Rich 63 said:


> Hard to tell from the pics but 2 posts mentioned something. Equalateral triangle from mlp to front l/r speakers and pushing the couch forward.
> If it were my space I would push the couch forward and put the surround speakers on the corners of the rug pointing to opposite ends of the couch. This should help with the equilateral triangle to fronts and improve surround placement. The the existing surround speakers can be used as top rears and install new top fronts. Done.
> Rich


That is a good idea, but when I put the surrounds behind couch pointing in they will be obstructed by the height of the couch pillows. I guess I could get taller stands. What do you mean by pointing opposite ends of the couch? You mean pointing at each other or pointing across MLP to opposite front corner of couch? Thanks!


----------



## Rich 63

To mcf34. Yes about pointing to opposite ends of couch. You still want to try various angles. By doing what I suggested it will allow for people at the opposite ends to get more of the information from the opposite speaker. As far as height of the surrounds. It's the tweeter that is most critical to raise above cushions. Plus with sufficient distance the dispersion can be maximized.
Rich.
As a side note. Getting closer to the panel will give a more immersive visual. And you could put a runner table behind couch if need be for WAF.


----------



## MCF34

Rich 63 said:


> To mcf34. Yes about pointing to opposite ends of couch. You still want to try various angles. By doing what I suggested it will allow for people at the opposite ends to get more of the information from the opposite speaker. As far as height of the surrounds. It's the tweeter that is most critical to raise above cushions. Plus with sufficient distance the dispersion can be maximized.
> Rich.
> As a side note. Getting closer to the panel will give a more immersive visual. And you could put a runner table behind couch if need be for WAF.


Thanks. I have gone back to the room. Unfortunately the right surround cannot be moved out any further than edge of couch. From edge of couch to wall is a little over 4'. Putting speaker there brings it down to a little over 3'. Any narrower than that and its uncomfortable. I might as well go for a 3.2.4. Hehehe..


----------



## Magiclakez

LNEWoLF said:


> I own both Pacific Rim movies in 4K UHD and enjoyed them. They both contained GREAT video and audio mixes.


Yeah I own both as well and really appreciate the great a/v quality on both. Pacific Rim in particular, is a must have in any collection imho. Wouldn’t part with either of them.


----------



## MCF34

MCF34 said:


> Thanks. I have gone back to the room. Unfortunately the right surround cannot be moved out any further than edge of couch. From edge of couch to wall is a little over 4'. Putting speaker there brings it down to a little over 3'. Any narrower than that and its uncomfortable. I might as well go for a 3.2.4. Hehehe..


I will not give up!!! HAHAHA Went back to room and moved couch up some....now I can put the surround speakers slightly behind and at ends of couch. I can rotate them all I want where they are located, but cannot move them further out. Can move them back a little. Issue now is when on the couch the entire speaker is obstructed by the pillows. So if I get taller stands is this an acceptable setup for the surrounds?? I can easily run the wire down the stand and use black cable management sleeve hide, use felt to cover unslightly parts of back of speakers and then run under rug to front of room...thoughts?? Thanks for all input.


----------



## niterida

MCF34 said:


> Thanks guys....I agree with what you said, but the surrounds CANNOT be pushed out....if I push the left out it blocks a bedroom door. If I push the right out it blocks the only way around the couch. So it looks like that idea is dead and will go back to using in ceiling speakers as surrounds and forget about atmos.


Keep them where they are but turn them around 180 deg - this will bounce the sound off the walls and remove the hotspotting and make the sound spread out a bit and give a really god surround effect.
Actually I would move them back a foot or so to bring them back to the rear corner of the couch.

Obvioulsy I posted the above before Isaw your latest post. So just turn the speakers around where they are to point at the outside of the room instead of at you.


----------



## niterida

Blade 77 said:


> Hello. I have a 5.14 HT with 4 Quadrals A5 Dolby enabled speakers. However i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above, thats why i intend to hang them from the ceiling and use them as in-ceiling speakers( if i ever manage to calculate the recommennded positions by Dolby) in order to get the sense of height. Below are shown the same speakers installed this way by somebody else. What do you think? Will it be a better Atmos experience from the one i get now as using them as dolby enabled speakers or should i try using them as height (..eventhough i dont have a back wall)?
> Thanks


Forgive me for asking the obvious but you do have an atmos receiver capable of 5.1.4 and have hooked the DAES up properly ?
And to answer your question - moving them to the ceiling will give a result at least a million* times better. The only thing to consider is the DAES speakers may have a built in EQ that makes them better for bouncing sounds but not as good for direct sound once they are on the ceiling. They may also have a switch in the back to swap between the two modes.




*I have been known to exxagerate


----------



## liverpool_for_life

sdurani said:


> [...]That means spreading them the width of your L/R speakers will give you a roughly 12 ft x 12 ft square overhead. Should result in clear left-vs-right and front-vs-back separation overhead.


Any particular trailers/movie demo scenes from the Dolby Atmos demo disc (August 2018) that I can use to test this? While there is clearly more envelopment with Atmos, I'm not hearing this.


----------



## MCF34

niterida said:


> Keep them where they are but turn them around 180 deg - this will bounce the sound off the walls and remove the hotspotting and make the sound spread out a bit and give a really god surround effect.
> Actually I would move them back a foot or so to bring them back to the rear corner of the couch.
> 
> Obvioulsy I posted the above before Isaw your latest post. So just turn the speakers around where they are to point at the outside of the room instead of at you.


I can't tell if you are seriuos about turning them around or not, but there is nothing for the sound to bounce off of it I turn them around....and if the actually do 'bounce' the sound would travel right down the open start railing to the first floor.


----------



## MCF34

MCF34 said:


> I will not give up!!! HAHAHA Went back to room and moved couch up some....now I can put the surround speakers slightly behind and at ends of couch. I can rotate them all I want where they are located, but cannot move them further out. Can move them back a little. Issue now is when on the couch the entire speaker is obstructed by the pillows. So if I get taller stands is this an acceptable setup for the surrounds?? I can easily run the wire down the stand and use black cable management sleeve hide, use felt to cover unslightly parts of back of speakers and then run under rug to front of room...thoughts?? Thanks for all input.
> View attachment 3096640
> View attachment 3096641
> View attachment 3096642
> View attachment 3096643


Now if this new positioning does open some opportunites, I don't mind changing to a different speaker type. These are obviously very directional.


----------



## niterida

MCF34 said:


> I can't tell if you are seriuos about turning them around or not, but there is nothing for the sound to bounce off of it I turn them around....and if the actually do 'bounce' the sound would travel right down the open start railing to the first floor.


Yes I am serious. It is a very effective way of doing it. I tried this in my dedicated home theatre where I had speakers setup exactly as per Dolby but bouncing the surrounds actually sounded better.
Turn them to face directly out to the left and right - they will bounce off the door and the wall.


----------



## sdurani

liverpool_for_life said:


> Any particular trailers/movie demo scenes from the Dolby Atmos demo disc (August 2018) that I can use to test this?


Does the demo disc you have include the helicopter demo? IF so, does it circle the room?


----------



## petetherock

deano86 said:


> I don't know man... IMO, Pacific Rim is a 3D visual feast with a great Atmos track and thunderous bass! I find it a fun ride
> 
> Pacific Rim Uprising, on the other hand... is...... just not good


How did you get Atmos And 3D?
I agree they have solid soundtracks.. but I rather watch an old mono episode of Gundam and sit through the subtitles... haha


----------



## Blade 77

Hello i would like to install 4 height speakers, however i dont have a back wall for back heights , as you can see in the pictures below. Where should i put the back heights in this occation? In the left wall -right blue collumn above my side surrounds? Should i turn them inwards targeting listening position just like my surrounds?


----------



## niterida

Blade 77 said:


> Hello i would like to install 4 height speakers, however i dont have a back wall for back heights , as you can see in the pictures below. Where should i put the back heights in this occation? In the left wall -right blue collumn above my side surrounds? Should i turn them inwards targeting listening position just like my surrounds?


can't really tell from the pics but what you suggest would be your best option I think. Can you take a pic from the front so we can see the layout better ?


----------



## rec head

petetherock said:


> How did you get Atmos And 3D?
> I agree they have solid soundtracks.. but I rather watch an old mono episode of Gundam and sit through the subtitles... haha


I don't know about this movie but with Gravity I was able to remux the 3D version with the Atmos soundtrack from that version. It isn't difficult but you'll have to google it because I don't remember the steps.


----------



## MCF34

MCF34 said:


> I will not give up!!! HAHAHA Went back to room and moved couch up some....now I can put the surround speakers slightly behind and at ends of couch. I can rotate them all I want where they are located, but cannot move them further out. Can move them back a little. Issue now is when on the couch the entire speaker is obstructed by the pillows. So if I get taller stands is this an acceptable setup for the surrounds?? I can easily run the wire down the stand and use black cable management sleeve hide, use felt to cover unslightly parts of back of speakers and then run under rug to front of room...thoughts?? Thanks for all input.
> View attachment 3096640
> View attachment 3096641
> View attachment 3096642
> View attachment 3096643


Any thoughts on this configuration - at corners of couch pointing towards center of room. About same width as fronts. Would obviously need taller stands (same as fronts - 32" tall) for tweeters to clear couch cushions). Thanks.


----------



## ctsv510

MCF34 said:


> Any thoughts on this configuration - at corners of couch pointing towards center of room. About same width as fronts. Would obviously need taller stands (same as fronts - 32" tall) for tweeters to clear couch cushions). Thanks.


Looks fine. We all have to make compromises. I’d rather put the surrounds there to add Atmos ceiling speakers than put the surrounds in the ceiling and not have Atmos.


----------



## squared80

I posted this in another forum and maybe I should have done it here instead, so here goes...

Looking for more opinions on my Dolby Atmos setup... it has changed numerous times over the last couple of weeks.

Initially, I was going with Klipsh RP-502S Surrounds (bipole) for front wides, sides, and rear. Then after learning more about Atmos here, I decided on monopole for the front wides and rear with either the RP-600M's or the RP-5000F's, but still using the bipole RP-502S for the sides due to how close the MLP is to them (30" from speaker to person).

I would build the RP-5000F's or the RP-600M's into the walls (and be able to raise the RP-5000F's off the floor so as not to block their sound).

Well, I've gone round and round here. *Keeping in mind that I can get 2 RP-600M's, 2 RP-502S's, or 2 RP-5000F's for about the same price, what should I do here? What would sound best, especially given my room dimensions?*

Receiver: Denon AVR-X8500H
Front C: (1) Klipsch RC-64 III
Front L/R: (2) Klipsch RP-8000F
*Front Wides:
Side Surrounds:
Rear Surrounds:*
In-Ceiling: (6) Klipsch CDT-5800-C II
Subwoofers: (2) HSU VTF-3 MK5 HP

*Room Size:* 24'L x 9'W x 8'H (see attached)


----------



## T-Bone

MCF34 said:


> Any thoughts on this configuration - at corners of couch pointing towards center of room. About same width as fronts. Would obviously need taller stands (same as fronts - 32" tall) for tweeters to clear couch cushions). Thanks.


How many inches will the Tweeters and woofers be from the person's ear that's sitting on the ends of the sofa? That really is the concern if you want to keep them next to the sofa.

-T


----------



## Blade 77

niterida said:


> can't really tell from the pics but what you suggest would be your best option I think. Can you take a pic from the front so we can see the layout better ?


These are the pics from front to the back. As you can see, the back wall is way too far. So probably, i will have to put pack heights above surrounds, inclined towards listening position, just like the surrounds bellow. Do you think it will be better than dolby enabled speakers? Because right now i can get no sense of height, or when a sound is coming from above.


----------



## LastButNotLeast

liverpool_for_life said:


> Any particular trailers/movie demo scenes from the Dolby Atmos demo disc (August 2018) that I can use to test this? While there is clearly more envelopment with Atmos, I'm not hearing this.


This sound check file is helpful:








File on MEGA







mega.nz




Michael


----------



## eaayoung

MCF34 said:


> Any thoughts on this configuration - at corners of couch pointing towards center of room. About same width as fronts. Would obviously need taller stands (same as fronts - 32" tall) for tweeters to clear couch cushions). Thanks.


I went with two 6.5” in-wall surrounds. Both are installed on walls around 9 ft from the MLP. Like the four in-ceiling speakers, they have tweeters that can be aimed toward the MLP. Due to my room’s layout, the left surround had to be positioned around 2 ft. forward of the where the right surround is located. Both are about 4.5 ft. up off the floor. Nice clean look and they work great. Even with the surrounds not in a perfectly aligned position, I love the Atmos sound with my current HT system (5.1.4) compared to the 7.1 system I had in a dedicated HT room in my last house. Depending on the speakers you use, the layout doesn’t need to perfect for great Atmos sound. Being able to aim the tweeters on the surrounds and Atmos height speakers can make a big difference.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

niterida said:


> Forgive me for asking the obvious but you do have an atmos receiver capable of 5.1.4 and have hooked the DAES up properly ?
> And to answer your question - moving them to the ceiling will give a result at least a million* times better. The only thing to consider is the DAES speakers may have a built in EQ that makes them better for bouncing sounds but not as good for direct sound once they are on the ceiling. They may also have a switch in the back to swap between the two modes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have been known to exxagerate


I mentioned the EQ notch earlier, and then went to their site. It seems like they recommend them for AE, or surround type installation. I didn’t see a mention of a switch to bypass the EQ so who knows... maybe @Blade 77 could read through his literature and find that answer.


----------



## MCF34

T-Bone said:


> How many inches will the Tweeters and woofers be from the person's ear that's sitting on the ends of the sofa? That really is the concern if you want to keep them next to the sofa.
> 
> -T


Nobody really sits on the ends. Typically me and my son sit in the middle and my wife and other son sit on the small loveseat.


----------



## MCF34

eaayoung said:


> I went with two 6.5” in-wall surrounds. Both are installed on walls around 9 ft from the MLP. Like the four in-ceiling speakers, they have tweeters that can be aimed toward the MLP. Due to my room’s layout, the left surround had to be positioned around 2 ft. forward of the where the right surround is located. Both are about 4.5 ft. up off the floor. Nice clean look and they work great. Even with the surrounds not in a perfectly aligned position, I love the Atmos sound with my current HT system (5.1.4) compared to the 7.1 system I had in a dedicated HT room in my last house. Depending on the speakers you use, the layout doesn’t need to perfect for great Atmos sound. Being able to aim the tweeters on the surrounds and Atmos height speakers can make a big difference.


Thanks. I could actually do left and right in wall surrounds to left and right...the right one would be at 90 degrees and the left one would be at about 75-80 degrees - 2 feet in front of right one. About 7-8' from MLP. Issue will be getting the wires to them..


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> I mentioned the EQ notch earlier, and then went to their site. It seems like they recommend them for AE, or surround type installation. I didn’t see a mention of a switch to bypass the EQ so who knows... maybe @Blade 77 could read through his literature and find that answer.


Mine DAES have no switch. What literature?


----------



## deano86

petetherock said:


> How did you get Atmos And 3D?
> I agree they have solid soundtracks.. but I rather watch an old mono episode of Gundam and sit through the subtitles... haha


Atmos audio track from the 4K version remuxed with the Pacific Rim 3D video... simple process with MakeMKV and MKVToolNix ..... but I will gladly pass on your alternate viewing recommendation


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Mine DAES have no switch. What literature?


The manual and papers from the manufacturer. I think it’s odd that there wouldn’t be a switch to bypass the XO as that’s one of the main reasons AE speakers work. At least afaik.


----------



## Blade 77

How do you think i should use these based my space? As heights or like in-ceiling?


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> The manual and papers from the manufacturer. I think it’s odd that there wouldn’t be a switch to bypass the XO as that’s one of the main reasons AE speakers work. At least afaik.


Yes i know. Maybe there is a switch in thr most expensive brands like svs or klipsch. Doesnt the receiver determine the XO during calibration? I think there is different XO when using the same speaker for inceiling or height and a different one wnen using as DES.


----------



## blake

rec head said:


> I don't know about this movie but with Gravity I was able to remux the 3D version with the Atmos soundtrack from that version. It isn't difficult but you'll have to google it because I don't remember the steps.


What software do you use to remux? It’s surprising such a great movie (7 Academy awards including visual effects ) is not released in 3D-1080p with Atmos (or even 4K atmos ?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

Blade 77 said:


> Yes i know. Maybe there is a switch in thr most expensive brands like svs or klipsch. Doesnt the receiver determine the XO during calibration? I think there is different XO when using the same speaker for inceiling or height and a different one wnen using as DES.


Its not a crossover we are talking about - its EQ. There is a built in dip in the frequency response that makes the sound bounce better - these sorts of speakers are not recommended for direct listening. Doesn't look like yours have this since the instructions show them as OK to use as direct firing.
I personally would mount them on-ceiling in the correct spot according to Dolby, but on-wall will work also. Either will be better than bouncing them off the ceiling.
But I am curious as to why you are not hearing any sounds from above you - the current setup should be providing you with reasonable height effects.
You definitely have a 5.1.4 receiver and have it all set up correctly ? Have you checked you actually have sound coming from the AE speakers ? Have you tried raising the levels on these speakers to increase their sound output ?


----------



## Blade 77

niterida said:


> Its not a crossover we are talking about - its EQ. There is a built in dip in the frequency response that makes the sound bounce better - these sorts of speakers are not recommended for direct listening. Doesn't look like yours have this since the instructions show them as OK to use as direct firing.
> I personally would mount them on-ceiling in the correct spot according to Dolby, but on-wall will work also. Either will be better than bouncing them off the ceiling.
> But I am curious as to why you are not hearing any sounds from above you - the current setup should be providing you with reasonable height effects.
> You definitely have a 5.1.4 receiver and have it all set up correctly ? Have you checked you actually have sound coming from the AE speakers ? Have you tried raising the levels on these speakers to increase their sound output ?


Hi! My receiver is a Denon 3700 and everything is seted up properly. I get a 3d effect, which is nice, but i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above. It seems to me that every sound is coming from mains or surrounds (ground stage), which is not true why i can clearly hear the modules playing when i get close to them. Yes, i have tried to raise the level and it seems that the sound is more diffused with much more reverb in it(my living room is huge, around 80m2)


----------



## Selden Ball

Blade 77 said:


> Hi! My receiver is a Denon 3700 and everything is seted up properly. I get a 3d effect, which is nice, but i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above. It seems to me that every sound is coming from mains or surrounds (ground stage), which is not true why i can clearly hear the modules playing when i get close to them. Yes, i have tried to raise the level and it seems that the sound is more diffused with much more reverb in it(my living room is huge, around 80m2)


I’m confused.
By definition, 3D audio = sound seems to come from above. Which is it?

How high is your ceiling? If it’s too high or if it’s vaulted, then Dolby reflecting Atmos speakers usually are not appropriate. Think of the ceiling as a mirror, but for sound. If the sound coming from the upfiring speakers isn’t reflected back down toward the audience, then it won’t be heard as coming from above.


----------



## niterida

Selden Ball said:


> I’m confused.
> By definition, 3D audio = sound seems to come from above. Which is it?
> 
> How high is your ceiling? If it’s too high or if it’s vaulted, then Dolby reflecting Atmos speakers usually are not appropriate. Think of the ceiling as a mirror, but for sound. If the sound coming from the upfiring speakers isn’t reflected back down toward the audience, then it won’t be heard as coming from above.


He has flat ceilings and the Atmos speakers seem to be roughly in the right position - I am not sure why he isn't experiencing sound coming from above.
Maybe he is just expecting too much and that is why he says he is getting "a 3d effect but not getting sounds from above" ??


----------



## Blade 77

Selden Ball said:


> I’m confused.
> By definition, 3D audio = sound seems to come from above. Which is it?
> 
> How high is your ceiling? If it’s too high or if it’s vaulted, then Dolby reflecting Atmos speakers usually are not appropriate. Think of the ceiling as a mirror, but for sound. If the sound coming from the upfiring speakers isn’t reflected back down toward the audience, then it won’t be heard as coming from above.


yes i dont know how exactly to describe it. Its like adding reverb in the sound, maybe it has to do that my living space is very big. Novaulted ceiling.


----------



## Blade 77

niterida said:


> He has flat ceilings and the Atmos speakers seem to be roughly in the right position - I am not sure why he isn't experiencing sound coming from above.
> Maybe he is just expecting too much and that is why he says he is getting "a 3d effect but not getting sounds from above" ??


Maybe you are right. I thought when i see hear a helicopter or rain etc, if the mix is appropriate, i should hear those effects from the ceiling. Well i dont. It sounds like all those effects are coming from ground level speakers.


----------



## niterida

Blade 77 said:


> Maybe you are right. I thought when i see hear a helicopter or rain etc, if the mix is appropriate, i should hear those effects from the ceiling. Well i dont. It sounds like all those effects are coming from ground level speakers.


Yes you should definitely hear them from above - I still think you have something wrong in your setup but not sure what it would be.


----------



## T-Bone

Blade 77 said:


> yes i dont know how exactly to describe it. Its like adding reverb in the sound, maybe it has to do that my living space is very big. Novaulted ceiling.


Well, there's a big difference between what you should hear and what you're going to hear. The dirty little secret is these Atmos enable speakers don't really work like ceiling speakers. I personally believe it was a way for Dolby to increase market penetration with a new technology... let the masses embrace the technology and help get it going, and they don't have to cut holes in their ceiling for ceiling speakers.

I've read a lot of complaints of folks talking about sound bleeding off the speaker and hitting the main listening position and not even reflecting off the ceiling. So that's just a byproduct of the design. They don't focus and bounce like a laser.

You might just be expecting too much from those speakers.

-T


----------



## Selden Ball

Blade 77 said:


> yes i dont know how exactly to describe it. Its like adding reverb in the sound, maybe it has to do that my living space is very big. Novaulted ceiling.


As an experiment, I suggest raising the Dolby speakers up about a foot or so. They need to be well above seated ear height in order to minimize the sound that they send directly to your ears. You should not be able to see their speaker cones, for example. Maybe stack some books under them.


----------



## T-Bone

Selden Ball said:


> As an experiment, I suggest raising the Dolby speakers up about a foot or so. They need to be well above seated ear height in order to minimize the sound that they send directly to your ears. You should not be able to see their speaker cones, for example. Maybe stack some books under them.


Well, if we can believe the Dolby atmos installation guide, they recommend placing the Dolby enable speakers at or slightly above that ear height when seated. Unless... We cannot believe all of their recommendations 

-T


----------



## Blade 77

Selden Ball said:


> As an experiment, I suggest raising the Dolby speakers up about a foot or so. They need to be well above seated ear height in order to minimize the sound that they send directly to your ears. You should not be able to see their speaker cones, for example. Maybe stack some books under them.


they are already around 5 inches taller than my head.


----------



## Blade 77

niterida said:


> Yes you should definitely hear them from above - I still think you have something wrong in your setup but not sure what it would be.


No i have setted the amp assign at 9 channels with 4 des. I then run calibration and choosed the exact distance of des from ceiling(1.50m). One strange thing however, is that i hear des almost all the time playing sounds, even though i expected to play at specific parts of the film, depending of the mix.
The funny thing is that im a sound engineer and i cant setup my own system.


----------



## T-Bone

Blade 77 said:


> they are already around 5 inches taller than my head.


and if you want to do a faster experiment, lie down on the floor with your head about 6 in to a foot off the floor. If that doesn't help, no repositioning of the speakers is ever going to help.

-T


----------



## LNEWoLF

Blade 77 said:


> Hi! My receiver is a Denon 3700 and everything is seted up properly. I get a 3d effect, which is nice, but i cant get the feeling that a sound is coming from above. It seems to me that every sound is coming from mains or surrounds (ground stage), which is not true why i can clearly hear the modules playing when i get close to them. Yes, i have tried to raise the level and it seems that the sound is more diffused with much more reverb in it(my living room is huge, around 80m2)











PHASE A5 - quadral


In most living rooms or home cinema set-ups it is not very easy to install a rear speaker properly. In order to achieve a suitable sound feeling without being able to locate the position of the rear channel you normally use a diffusing acoustic source, like our PHASE 16. By using the switcher at...




www.quadral.com





[email protected]@king at the manufacturers website. Those Phase A5 speakers do not seem to be certified Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers.


----------



## Blade 77

LNEWoLF said:


> PHASE A5 - quadral
> 
> 
> In most living rooms or home cinema set-ups it is not very easy to install a rear speaker properly. In order to achieve a suitable sound feeling without being able to locate the position of the rear channel you normally use a diffusing acoustic source, like our PHASE 16. By using the switcher at...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.quadral.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected]@king at the manufacturers website. Those Phase A5 speakers do not seem to be certified Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers.


Do you think i made such a terrible mistake? However if you check on Amazon a lot of people use them and they are pretty happy with them. Maybe to be considered certified you have to pay a special licence. And judging by their look they are dolby atmos enabled.

Quadral Phase A5 Lautsprecher für Dolby Atmos schwarz: Amazon.de: Elektronik


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Do you think i made such a terrible mistake? However if you check on Amazon a lot of people use them and they are pretty happy with them. Maybe to be considered certified you have to pay a special licence. And judging by their look they are dolby atmos enabled.
> 
> Quadral Phase A5 Lautsprecher für Dolby Atmos schwarz: Amazon.de: Elektronik











Seems to me from their website, the a-15 would be the correct speaker for what you want.


----------



## ppasteur

Blade 77 said:


> yes i dont know how exactly to describe it. Its like adding reverb in the sound, maybe it has to do that my living space is very big. Novaulted ceiling.


What content are you testing with? Not all movies with Atmos use the height channels (objects) extensively.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> they are already around 5 inches taller than my head.


Another experiment could be to lean forward, or get behind the couch etc. wondering if you noticed any difference there, then maybe propping the back or front of the a5 to get a better angle to your seat. Honestly I think wall or ceiling mounting these particular speakers is what you’ll need do.


----------



## Blade 77

ppasteur said:


> What content are you testing with? Not all movies with Atmos use the height channels (objects) extensively.


I have tried a couple of movies. Everest, Mission Impossible: Fallout , Ready player one, San Adreas, American Made and Altered Carbon.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Another experiment could be to lean forward, or get behind the couch etc. wondering if you noticed any difference there, then maybe propping the back or front of the a5 to get a better angle to your seat. Honestly I think wall or ceiling mounting these particular speakers is what you’ll need do.


A couple of days im trying to find the exact positions, so i can be at around 30 degrees angle as requested by Dolby. I have found the distance that my head has from the ceiling(1.80cm) minus the depth of mounting brackets+A5 depth(18cm)=1.62. Then i used this to make a circle around the central point above my head, to calculate the exact 4 positions in the ceiling, which must be in-lined with my front speakers. Piece of cake huh?


----------



## ppasteur

Blade 77 said:


> I have tried a couple of movies. Everest, Mission Impossible: Fallout , Ready player one, San Adreas, American Made and Altered Carbon.


Unfortunately I don't know how much those use the overhead effects. Maybe others can comment.
You might try some others.








Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com




Is one place to get trailers that are often good. You can try a few.
There is a thread here on AVS as well.








Demos to test your home cinema equipment !


Demos to test your equipement (4K HDR, Dolby, DTS, Atmos, ...) ! As of February 1, 2022 New version, again a big thank you to Flips for his help (and his time), which brings together no less than 700 demos in the form of torrent files ! So we have 4: 4K UHD 2K FHD Technical Video games 4K...




www.avsforum.com




Or, again, maybe someone else here can recommend something that makes good use of the height information.
People talk a lot here about the helicopter Atmos demo... not sure where to get it, but it sounds like a good one to test with if you can find it.

EDIT:
FOund it:





Google Drive: Sign-in


Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).



drive.google.com




You just have to figure out how to play it on your system.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Seems to me from their website, the a-15 would be the correct speaker for what you want.


Why is that? I think they have almost the same characteristics, except A10 is louder. I dont think it is Dolby Certificated either.. After all in the manual, it clearly states its usage as des..


----------



## LastButNotLeast

I recommended this channel test file yesterday:


liverpool_for_life said:


> Any particular trailers/movie demo scenes from the Dolby Atmos demo disc (August 2018) that I can use to test this? While there is clearly more envelopment with Atmos, I'm not hearing this.


This sound check file is helpful:








File on MEGA







mega.nz




Michael


----------



## Blade 77

ppasteur said:


> Unfortunately I don't know how much those use the overhead effects. Maybe others can comment.
> You might try some others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater
> 
> 
> This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thedigitaltheater.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is one place to get trailers that are often good. You can try a few.
> There is a thread here on AVS as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demos to test your home cinema equipment !
> 
> 
> Demos to test your equipement (4K HDR, Dolby, DTS, Atmos, ...) ! As of February 1, 2022 New version, again a big thank you to Flips for his help (and his time), which brings together no less than 700 demos in the form of torrent files ! So we have 4: 4K UHD 2K FHD Technical Video games 4K...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, again, maybe someone else here can recommend something that makes good use of the height information.
> People talk a lot here about the helicopter Atmos demo... not sure where to get it, but it sounds like a good one to test with if you can find it.


Thanks a lot for all the info. I have an LG CX which doesnt passthrough True HD into my receiver. The only format i can use is Lossy Atmos from Dolby Atmos App or Dolby True HD from my ps4, but i dont have a dolby atmos demo disc. I have these demos as rips into my pc, but i need nvidia shield to passthrough atmos true hd signal into my receiver. Do you know if these Demos use True HD or Lossy Atmos?


----------



## Blade 77

LastButNotLeast said:


> I recommended this channel test file yesterday:
> 
> This sound check file is helpful:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> File on MEGA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mega.nz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael


thanks a lot for all the support, i downloaded it yesterday.


----------



## Blade 77

I will order Shield today.


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> And judging by their look they are dolby atmos enabled.


You cannot tell by the looks. What makes upfiring speakers "Atmos Enabled" is a frequency response squiggle built into the crossover of the speaker.








Sounds that have those peaks & notch added to their frequency response will trick our human hearing into sounding like they are coming from above ear height.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Why is that? I think they have almost the same characteristics, except A10 is louder. I dont think it is Dolby Certificated either.. After all in the manual, it clearly states its usage as des..


Well, imo reading the description of each of those speakers makes it seem to ME that the A15 is actually designed as AE. It even talks about that in the description. The A5 otoh, does not. 
Also, while I could certainly be misinterpreting it, the picture you posted from the owners manual looks to me like the reflected sound is in reference to a diffusive type of playback for ambiance more than a direct type of sound. It also indicates that as such by the reference of “rear” speaker. It does NOT imo, clearly state it’s intention for AE playback. 
In any case, you would necessarily need strictly Atmos material if you used the upmixers. At least you could keep testing.


----------



## ppasteur

Blade 77 said:


> Thanks a lot for all the info. I have an LG CX which doesnt passthrough True HD into my receiver. The only format i can use is Lossy Atmos from Dolby Atmos App or Dolby True HD from my ps4, but i dont have a dolby atmos demo disc. I have these demos as rips into my pc, but i need nvidia shield to passthrough atmos true hd signal into my receiver. Do you know if these Demos use True HD or Lossy Atmos?


Some of the clips in one of the links are DD+ ATMOS


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> You cannot tell by the looks. What makes upfiring speakers "Atmos Enabled" is a frequency response squiggle built into the crossover of the speaker.
> View attachment 3097234
> 
> Sounds that have those peaks & notch added to their frequency response will trick our human hearing into sounding like they are coming from above ear height.


jesus christ! I didnt knew that. Maybe i should buy denon app and try make these changes in the eq of dae.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Well, imo reading the description of each of those speakers makes it seem to ME that the A15 is actually designed as AE. It even talks about that in the description. The A5 otoh, does not.
> Also, while I could certainly be misinterpreting it, the picture you posted from the owners manual looks to me like the reflected sound is in reference to a diffusive type of playback for ambiance more than a direct type of sound. It also indicates that as such by the reference of “rear” speaker. It does NOT imo, clearly state it’s intention for AE playback.
> In any case, you would necessarily need strictly Atmos material if you used the upmixers. At least you could keep testing.


Thanks. You are right that it doesnt been cleared inthe manual, however in amazon they are sold as dolby atmos speakers. I think i will buy Shield amd then try to play all these demo files.


----------



## Blade 77

ppasteur said:


> Some of the clips in one of the links are DD+ ATMOS


in the previous linked file there is only one AVCHD video file.


----------



## noah katz

LastButNotLeast said:


> I recommended this channel test file yesterday:
> 
> This sound check file is helpful:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> File on MEGA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mega.nz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael


Thank for the link.

It's rather cryptic though; how many channels and what type of file does it unzip to?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Thanks. You are right that it doesnt been cleared inthe manual, however in amazon they are sold as dolby atmos speakers. I think i will buy Shield amd then try to play all these demo files.


Unfortunately I think Amazon should relabel or recategorize them or something, as I really don’t believe they’re made to be AE. 
I did read some of the English reviews in the link. Nobody seemed like hey were doing backflips, but nobody hated them either. I think the shield is a good choice. 
Also, the notch that Sanjay posted is why I was trying to point out verbally. Should’ve tried an image! Lol


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> Maybe i should buy denon app and try make these changes in the eq of dae.


What do you have your upfiring speakers labeled as: Top Front & Top Rear or Dolby Front & Dolby Back?


----------



## LastButNotLeast

noah katz said:


> It's rather cryptic though; how many channels and what type of file does it unzip to?


It's from the Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray Demo Disc (Sep 2015), so it's, well, Dolby Atmos. 
It has 9.1.6 channels.
Michael


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Unfortunately I think Amazon should relabel or recategorize them or something, as I really don’t believe they’re made to be AE.
> I did read some of the English reviews in the link. Nobody seemed like hey were doing backflips, but nobody hated them either. I think the shield is a good choice.
> Also, the notch that Sanjay posted is why I was trying to point out verbally. Should’ve tried an image! Lol


Do you believe i will have better results if i hang them from the ceiling? Because it really seems like this is my only choice.


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> What do you have your upfiring speakers labeled as: Top Front & Top Rear or Dolby Front & Dolby Back?


Dolby front, dolby back. I have set the distance from the ceiling as well.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Do you believe i will have better results if i hang them from the ceiling? Because it really seems like this is my only choice.


Yes. It’s my opinion that you will get much better results by doing that. You could go high and to the sides as well, like below. 

Or, if those aren’t options then I’d recommend new speakers.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yes. It’s my opinion that you will get much better results by doing that. You could go high and to the sides as well, like below.
> 
> Or, if those aren’t options then I’d recommend new speakers.


Is this yours setup? Why dont you use the fronts as front heights? To keep the same width at your soundstage? And what do you choose in the av receiver? When i said like in ceiling i meant something like this.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

No. That’s not mine but I think it is an AVS’r. If you look closely you’ll see the fronts you mentioned are front heights and not the mains. It’s 5.x.4. 
I do think the ceiling would be slightly better. But I just wanted to illustrate another option if your ceiling wasn’t available.


----------



## T-Bone

Blade 77 said:


> thanks a lot for all the support, i downloaded it yesterday.



Try this page. Look for number six helicopter demo it's an m2ts file. But it is lossy Dolby digital plus, 7.1, Atmos.






Samples - Official Kodi Wiki







kodi.wiki





-T


----------



## ppasteur

Blade 77 said:


> Thanks a lot for all the info. I have an LG CX which doesnt passthrough True HD into my receiver. The only format i can use is Lossy Atmos from Dolby Atmos App or Dolby True HD from my ps4, but i dont have a dolby atmos demo disc. I have these demos as rips into my pc, but i need nvidia shield to passthrough atmos true hd signal into my receiver. Do you know if these Demos use True HD or Lossy Atmos?











How to Play Local Video and Music Files on Your PlayStation 4


Like the Roku and Chromecast, Sony’s PlayStation 4 can play video and music files from a USB drive or another computer on your network. Your PS4 can even play local music files in the background while you play a game.




www.howtogeek.com


----------



## ppasteur

T-Bone said:


> Try this page. Look for number six helicopter demo it's an m2ts file. But it is lossy Dolby digital plus, 7.1, Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samples - Official Kodi Wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kodi.wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T


Link allows me to play it in Chrome, but no download.


----------



## fatherom

ppasteur said:


> Link allows me to play it in Chrome, but no download.


It says at the top of the section to hover over a link to download. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Bone

ppasteur said:


> Link allows me to play it in Chrome, but no download.



I just tried it on my phone. Using chrome. I had a choice to use Chrome or drive and I said Chrome

in order to physically download the file, you have to press the download button that's directly to the left of the three dot menu option. See attached.

-T


----------



## Golfa005

Hey guys, I wanted to share couple pics from the atmos setup I just installed in my dedicated HT which is an exterior standalone "garage" that is like half finished as you can see. I was excited that the ceiling was left attic style to give me flexibility with projector, wiriing and now atmos install and placement flexibility. I took the easiest approach here by getting some MDF custom cut and simply screwing it in to the ceiling joists. They are just in front of MLP by like 8-12" and 16" from the side walls. My front L&R are 12" from side walls...I intentionally wanted them slightly closer to me than dolby recommends as I thought it may enhance the overhead effects. As you can see they're already at an angle helping them be directed at MLP and I aimed tweeters at MLP also. 

NOTE: I am by no means an expert with home theater nor a handyman, haha. I did the best I could with the least work possible. Also, I got my neighbor who is a carpenter to hook me up with the custom cut MDF for free, so that was a score.

I did the audyssey setup on my denon avr-x3400h (which i scored a month ago used locally for $300!). First impressions: they're cool for sure, but almost sound like they're complimentary to the rear surrounds to create a more enveloping surround. Only a few scenes of movies so far can I really hear them independently. So far aquaman is incredible and the best I've heard, interestingly it's neural X and not atmos. John Wick funeral scene with rain was cool for sure, but I think my expectations were too high. The Bath House scene also had some cool moments and compared to just 5.1 was certainly put me more in the action. I did the Dolby demo called "core universe" and it was surprisingly "meh." I am going to try the Amaze one in the next day or so.

So far I am glad I did not spend $$$$ on a 9 chan receiver to get 5.1.4, I am not really sure how much that would have added. That being said it's still early and there are lots more movies I need to watch to get a true opinion.

Speakers are Polk RC60i that I bought locally on FB Marketplace BNIB for $50! This was hard to pass up. My center is polk cs10, rears are FXiA6 and LR are PSB imagine XB bookshelves. Any feedback is welcome and I'll chime in later with more additional impressions.




















without the speaker but shows position relative to rear surround:


----------



## ppasteur

fatherom said:


> It says at the top of the section to hover over a link to download.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So it does... but Chrome does not give me the option. 
NVM. I figured it out. Damn browser.. or dumb me... ??


----------



## ppasteur

T-Bone said:


> I just tried it on my phone. Using chrome. I had a choice to use Chrome or drive and I said Chrome
> 
> in order to physically download the file, you have to press the download button that's directly to the left of the three dot menu option. See attached.
> 
> -T


Got it...finally. THX


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> Dolby front, dolby back. I have set the distance from the ceiling as well.


In that case, try turning up their level, 3-6 dB, to see if you can hear more of the height effect without attracting attention to the upfiring speakers themselves.


----------



## Blade 77

and if i apply this setup, what settin


T-Bone said:


> Try this page. Look for number six helicopter demo it's an m2ts file. But it is lossy Dolby digital plus, 7.1, Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samples - Official Kodi Wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kodi.wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T


i will try it out, thanks a lot!


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> In that case, try turning up their level, 3-6 dB, to see if you can hear more of the height effect without attracting attention to the upfiring speakers themselves.


I have tried that and it increases the reverb. Honnestly, im starting to believing that these speakers arent des and amazon wrongly promotioned them.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> No. That’s not mine but I think it is an AVS’r. If you look closely you’ll see the fronts you mentioned are front heights and not the mains. It’s 5.x.4.
> I do think the ceiling would be slightly better. But I just wanted to illustrate another option if your ceiling wasn’t available.


yes, but why are the fronts in the sides? I know that these should be above mains.


----------



## ovidiuogrean

I don't understand Atmos 😊 (thought i did a little bit). My setup - Denon AVR x2400h with a 5.1.2 (top front) configuration. Playing dolby atmos (over truehd) helicopter demo. Sound comes out ONLY from .2 top speakers, all the other 5.1 are silent, and it moves just left-right, not front-back. If I disable the 2 on ceiling speakers, it plays as dolby truehd - as it should - nicely surround across all 5.1, but obviously without the hight component. Can someone explain, or am i doing something wrong? 🤔


----------



## Blade 77

Based in my living room design and to these ****ty speakers characteristics, how do you believe i should use them? As like in ceilings(hanging them froom the ceiling) or as heights(2 above mains and 2 to the side collumns)? 
I am very unhappy with Amazon. It lists them as Dolby Enabled and in reality they are not!


----------



## priitv8

ovidiuogrean said:


> I don't understand Atmos 😊 (thought i did a little bit). My setup - Denon AVR x2400h with a 5.1.2 (top front) configuration. Playing dolby atmos (over truehd) helicopter demo. Sound comes out ONLY from .2 top speakers, all the other 5.1 are silent, and it moves just left-right, not front-back. If I disable the 2 on ceiling speakers, it plays as dolby truehd - as it should - nicely surround across all 5.1, but obviously without the hight component. Can someone explain, or am i doing something wrong? 🤔


That's how Dolby Atmos renders it! In absence of rear high speakers, it will not lower the sound to bed layer. So with x.x.2 setup left-right movement is all you get in this demo.
DTS:X for example behaves differently - it will route rear high objects to rear surrounds. Dolby doesn't. Apparently they want to keep clear separation between bed and height layers.


----------



## ovidiuogrean

priitv8 said:


> That's how Dolby Atmos renders it!
> Wow, thank you. I mistakenly thought it will use all speakers available to produce the so called "object" sound on top of bed layer. So, again, thanks for the answer.


----------



## priitv8

ovidiuogrean said:


> Wow, thank you. I mistakenly thought it will use all speakers available to produce the so called "object" sound on top of bed layer. So, again, thanks for the answer.


Believe it or not, but that helicopter demo was the eye-opener for me to want to upgrade to x.x.4 setup. Now it sounds proper.
Then again - most height effects (mostly either rain/wind/storm or water in underwater scenes) sound about the same also with only 2 height speakers, especially if they are placed as dolby recommends - just almost above your head.


----------



## AYanguas

Blade 77 said:


> Based in my living room design and to these ****ty speakers characteristics, how do you believe i should use them? As like in ceilings(hanging them froom the ceiling) or as heights(2 above mains and 2 to the side collumns)?
> I am very unhappy with Amazon. It lists them as Dolby Enabled and in reality they are not!


If you have a single sofa row, even a single MLP critical listening, I think the optimum is to follow the Dolby Recommendations up to what is possible under your room constraints.

That would be In-Ceiling at 45º elevation. I.e. Same horizontal distance to the front and to the rear from your head, being the same distance from your head to the ceiling. Aimed pointing to your head. Aligned with the Fronts and also positioning the Fronts for the good stereo image: equilateral triangle from fronts and MLP.

Front and Rear Heights against the front and rear wall, would give more pan forward and rear, when more people are listening from more rows of seats, But I think would not enhance anything for the single MLP position.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

sdurani said:


> Does the demo disc you have include the helicopter demo?


No, but I was able to download a copy.



> IF so, does it circle the room?


I currently have a 3.4.4 setup (no surrounds while mounts are being made) and what I hear is the helicopter circling above, around the 4 overheads, repetitively. Sound about right for this?


----------



## sdurani

liverpool_for_life said:


> Sound about right for this?


Sounds exactly right for that demo track. Your height speakers are working as intended. You're getting left-vs-right AND front-vs-back separation above you.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Based in my living room design and to these ****ty speakers characteristics, how do you believe i should use them? As like in ceilings(hanging them froom the ceiling) or as heights(2 above mains and 2 to the side collumns)?
> I am very unhappy with Amazon. It lists them as Dolby Enabled and in reality they are not!


I’d hang them from the ceiling at 45° fore and aft in line with the mains.


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> I have tried that and it increases the reverb.


OK, that was my last suggestion for using them as upfiring modules (figured you already have them, might as well exhaust every suggestion to see if they can work effectively as upfiring modules).


Blade 77 said:


> Based in my living room design and to these ****ty speakers characteristics, how do you believe i should use them?


First choice would be on the ceiling, at 45 degrees elevation in front of you and behind you. Second choice would be as high up as possible on the front & back walls. Either way, with those speakers physically above you, there is no reason you shouldn't hear their sounds above you.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> yes, but why are the fronts in the sides? I know that these should be above mains.


If I understand the question...
The speakers that are attached to the walls, are placed there to replicate a TOP front/rear installation in lui of going INTO the ceiling as top front/rear. It’s kind of a bridge between tops and heights. 

For a front/rear HEIGHT application they would be on the front and rear walls. It’s kinda hard to see, but the mains(tiny)are flanking the tv.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’d hang them from the ceiling at 45° fore and aft in line with the mains.


thats exactly what im trying the last 4 days to do. I havent managed to create a equilateral triangle from fronts and MLP yet.


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> OK, that was my last suggestion for using them as upfiring modules (figured you already have them, might as well exhaust every suggestion to see if they can work effectively as upfiring modules). First choice would be on the ceiling, at 45 degrees elevation in front of you and behind you. Second choice would be as high up as possible on the front & back walls. Either way, with those speakers physically above you, there is no reason you shouldn't hear their sounds above you.


the problem about the second choice is that there is no back wall. Only side collumns.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> If I understand the question...
> The speakers that are attached to the walls, are placed there to replicate a TOP front/rear installation in lui of going INTO the ceiling as top front/rear. It’s kind of a bridge between tops and heights.
> 
> For a front/rear HEIGHT application they would be on the front and rear walls. It’s kinda hard to see, but the mains(tiny)are flanking the tv.


ahh ok i thought they were heights.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> thats exactly what im trying the last 4 days to do. I havent managed to create a equilateral triangle from fronts and MLP yet.


Well imo, the equilateral triangle is not a be all end all. It depends on the room and speaker type. Imo this is what matters in regards to too speaker placement


----------



## Blade 77

AYanguas said:


> If you have a single sofa row, even a single MLP critical listening, I think the optimum is to follow the Dolby Recommendations up to what is possible under your room constraints.
> 
> That would be In-Ceiling at 45º elevation. I.e. Same horizontal distance to the front and to the rear from your head, being the same distance from your head to the ceiling. Aimed pointing to your head. Aligned with the Fronts and also positioning the Fronts for the good stereo image: equilateral triangle from fronts and MLP.
> 
> Front and Rear Heights against the front and rear wall, would give more pan forward and rear, when more people are listening from more rows of seats, But I think would not enhance anything for the single MLP position.


Im trying the last 4-5 days to create a perfect square between the 4 points in the ceiling, which will be perfectly alligned with the fronts and MLP. Unfortunately with no success so far. Im starting to believe that the wall behind the tv isnt in straight line, which probably makes my measurements wrong.


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Well imo, the equilateral triangle is not a be all end all. It depends on the room and speaker type. Imo this is what matters in regards to too speaker placement


Im sorry, my bad, i meant i cant create the perfect square of the picture.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Im sorry, my bad, i meant i cant create the perfect square of the picture.


Well how close can you get? I think if you’re anywhere near the guidelines you’ll have a much better experience.


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> Im trying the last 4-5 days to create a *perfect* square between the 4 points in the ceiling, which will be *perfectly* alligned with the fronts and MLP.


Get close enough. Don't worry about perfection (your ears will never notice the difference). Also, no requirement for square placement on the ceiling. Left-vs-right symmetry is more important than front-vs-back symmetry (because our hearing is not the same in front of us vs behind us).


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Well how close can you get? I think if you’re anywhere near the guidelines you’ll have a much better experience.


The square is the tv. distances are in cm. I am breaking my head to understand whats wrong.


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> Get close enough. Don't worry about perfection (your ears will never notice the difference). Also, no requirement for square placement on the ceiling. Left-vs-right symmetry is more important than front-vs-back symmetry (because our hearing is not the same in front of us vs behind us).


I will keep that in mind. This means 236 between backs to become around 232cm like fronts .The square is the tv. Distances are in cm. I am breaking my head to understand whats wrong.


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> This means 236 between backs to become around 232cm like fronts .


That's fine. You will never notice a 4cm difference between speaker pairs so far away from you.


> I am breaking my head to understand whats wrong.


Re-measure room dimensions (maybe the room is not exactly rectangular).


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> That's fine. You will never notice a 4cm difference between speaker pairs so far away from you. Re-measure room dimensions (maybe the room is not exactly rectangular).


Or maybe the wall behind the tv isnt straight. The biggest difference is between fronts- backs(8cm). I will give it another shot tomorrow.


----------



## sdurani

For us Americans reading along: 4cm is around 1.5 inches, 8cm is around 3 inches. These are inaudible differences for speakers that have over 7 feet of separation.


----------



## AYanguas

Blade 77 said:


> I will keep that in mind. This means 236 between backs to become around 232cm like fronts .The square is the tv. Distances are in cm. I am breaking my head to understand whats wrong.


4 cms is a very very low error. Congrats to you for your perfect measurments.

Think about you will have a greater error for the speaker position (if we can call that "error") when you make holes in the ceiling and install the speakers in your best aprox. location.

Think about the horizontal symmetry (left-vs right), that is more important to get. If you move a little in your seated MLP position, you will have more of a 4 cms deviation.


----------



## noah katz

Blade 77 said:


> I am very unhappy with Amazon. It lists them as Dolby Enabled and in reality they are not!



If you're within the return period you should be able to send them back w/paid return shipping for the product not being as described.


----------



## T-Bone

Golfa005 said:


> Hey guys, I wanted to share couple pics from the atmos setup I just installed in my dedicated HT which is an exterior standalone "garage" that is like half finished as you can see. I was excited that the ceiling was left attic style to give me flexibility with projector, wiriing and now atmos install and placement flexibility. I took the easiest approach here by getting some MDF custom cut and simply screwing it in to the ceiling joists. They are just in front of MLP by like 8-12" and 16" from the side walls. My front L&R are 12" from side walls...I intentionally wanted them slightly closer to me than dolby recommends as I thought it may enhance the overhead effects. As you can see they're already at an angle helping them be directed at MLP and I aimed tweeters at MLP also.
> 
> NOTE: I am by no means an expert with home theater nor a handyman, haha. I did the best I could with the least work possible. Also, I got my neighbor who is a carpenter to hook me up with the custom cut MDF for free, so that was a score.
> 
> I did the audyssey setup on my denon avr-x3400h (which i scored a month ago used locally for $300!). First impressions: they're cool for sure, but almost sound like they're complimentary to the rear surrounds to create a more enveloping surround. Only a few scenes of movies so far can I really hear them independently. So far aquaman is incredible and the best I've heard, interestingly it's neural X and not atmos. John Wick funeral scene with rain was cool for sure, but I think my expectations were too high. The Bath House scene also had some cool moments and compared to just 5.1 was certainly put me more in the action. I did the Dolby demo called "core universe" and it was surprisingly "meh." I am going to try the Amaze one in the next day or so.
> 
> So far I am glad I did not spend $$$$ on a 9 chan receiver to get 5.1.4, I am not really sure how much that would have added. That being said it's still early and there are lots more movies I need to watch to get a true opinion.
> 
> Speakers are Polk RC60i that I bought locally on FB Marketplace BNIB for $50! This was hard to pass up. My center is polk cs10, rears are FXiA6 and LR are PSB imagine XB bookshelves. Any feedback is welcome and I'll chime in later with more additional impressions.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3097288
> 
> 
> View attachment 3097349
> 
> 
> without the speaker but shows position relative to rear surround:
> 
> View attachment 3097350


Just based on looking at everything, and with the measurements that you posted, it seems like everything looks right. I mean you have plenty of separation between the height speakers and the surrounds. You place the overheads at the right location. 12 in in front of the seating position seems reasonable.

My suggestion would be to focus on some of the demos. Like the helicopter demo. Cuz that really tells you if you're going to hear anything overhead. But you are right to try some of the other samples that you mentioned. the helicopter demo was nice because there's not much going on other than the helicopter.

The thing with Atmos is most of the time it's very subtle. The last planet of the apes movie, I forget which one it was, there's an avalanche scene and you hear all sorts of effects coming out of the ceiling speakers such as snow wind twigs cracking... But that's not an Atmos movie and so that's using the Dolby surround or neural except mixer of your choice.

The mad Max movie with Charlize theron. I don't know if you have that. There's a shotgun blast inside of a cave that hits the ceiling. You hear all sorts of stuff coming out of your ceiling speakers I crumbling Rock. That's an Atmos movie.

It 2017, there's a kitchen scene with pennywise. Absolutely chilling with the atmos effects.

In the movie The meg, atmod movie is a scene with Jason stratham in a submersible that's being bit by a shark and you hear all sorts of glass cracking coming out of your ceiling speakers as if you're in the glass bubble with him.


Blade 77 said:


> I will keep that in mind. This means 236 between backs to become around 232cm like fronts .The square is the tv. Distances are in cm. I am breaking my head to understand whats wrong.


4 cm off??? Maybe you are not cutout for Atmos. J/K. That's pretty close. I was off by no more than 1 cm in my room. Not bragging. Just sharing 

-T


----------



## mrvideo

priitv8 said:


> Believe it or not, but that helicopter demo was the eye-opener for me to want to upgrade to x.x.4 setup. Now it sounds proper.


I'll be starting from scratch and putting in a 7.1.6 system, using the 8500H_*A*_ AVR.


----------



## mrvideo

liverpool_for_life said:


> No, but I was able to download a copy.


So, where is this ATMOS demo available?


----------



## LastButNotLeast

mrvideo said:


> So, where is this ATMOS demo available?


Here:





Google Drive: Sign-in


Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).



drive.google.com




Michael


----------



## Blade 77

noah katz said:


> If you're within the return period you should be able to send them back w/paid return shipping for the product not being as described.


I dont believe i can proove that. These speakers look exactly like des and we maybe have to go to a lab to proove they dont have the requested peaks and notches in their frequency response.


----------



## Blade 77

AYanguas said:


> 4 cms is a very very low error. Congrats to you for your perfect measurments.
> 
> Think about you will have a greater error for the speaker position (if we can call that "error") when you make holes in the ceiling and install the speakers in your best aprox. location.
> 
> Think about the horizontal symmetry (left-vs right), that is more important to get. If you move a little in your seated MLP position, you will have more of a 4 cms deviation.


The center of speaker will be at the exact location facing MLP. I dont believe there will be an error there. The difficult part is to find the exact symmetrical locations. Horizontal symmetry i have between the 2 fronts not in the back.


----------



## Blade 77

T-Bone said:


> Just based on looking at everything, and with the measurements that you posted, it seems like everything looks right. I mean you have plenty of separation between the height speakers and the surrounds. You place the overheads at the right location. 12 in in front of the seating position seems reasonable.
> 
> My suggestion would be to focus on some of the demos. Like the helicopter demo. Cuz that really tells you if you're going to hear anything overhead. But you are right to try some of the other samples that you mentioned. the helicopter demo was nice because there's not much going on other than the helicopter.
> 
> The thing with Atmos is most of the time it's very subtle. The last planet of the apes movie, I forget which one it was, there's an avalanche scene and you hear all sorts of effects coming out of the ceiling speakers such as snow wind twigs cracking... But that's not an Atmos movie and so that's using the Dolby surround or neural except mixer of your choice.
> 
> The mad Max movie with Charlize theron. I don't know if you have that. There's a shotgun blast inside of a cave that hits the ceiling. You hear all sorts of stuff coming out of your ceiling speakers I crumbling Rock. That's an Atmos movie.
> 
> It 2017, there's a kitchen scene with pennywise. Absolutely chilling with the atmos effects.
> 
> In the movie The meg, atmod movie is a scene with Jason stratham in a submersible that's being bit by a shark and you hear all sorts of glass cracking coming out of your ceiling speakers as if you're in the glass bubble with him.
> 
> 4 cm off??? Maybe you are not cutout for Atmos. J/K. That's pretty close. I was off by no more than 1 cm in my room. Not bragging. Just sharing
> 
> -T


I wish i was at 1cm, im soooo jealeous...


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> For us Americans reading along: 4cm is around 1.5 inches, 8cm is around 3 inches. These are inaudible differences for speakers that have over 7 feet of separation.


Sorry i didnt had the courage after all those measurements to calculate the differences from cm to inches. Thank you for making it easier to other people to understand


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Blade 77 said:


> I have tried that and it increases the reverb. Honnestly, im starting to believing that these speakers arent des and amazon wrongly promotioned them.


A few thoughts, having set up upfirers and being initially unimpressed (but ultimately getting them to work nicely):
1. Put them back so they are level-matched with the other speakers first. They need to be for everything I say after this.
2. The only thing that makes a speaker "Atmos enabled" is a notch filter in the speaker itself. If you're using Audyssey on your Denon, it includes a target curve for any speaker set up as "Dolby Enabled" in order to keep its EQ corrections from undoing the Dolby-prescribed notch filter in the speaker. Fortunately, this essentially has the side effect of applying that curve to your speaker regardless, basically meaning your AVR is giving that speaker the characteristics of a Dolby Enabled speaker even if it doesn't have a notch filter in hardware. If you're using the Audyssey app to do your EQ'ing, you can see this target curve for any speakers set to Dolby Enabled. (You can also turn off Midrange Compensation with the app, which can help the bounced sound a little from my experience, even if you leave MC on for the other channels.)
3. While it's fine to toe your mains in toward your listening position that much, DO NOT toe the upfirers in that much. You want the point where they bounce off the ceiling to be comfortably to the left and right of your main listening position rather than firing right at it. Because they're more generalized, toeing them in too much can ruin the effect by making the general sound hit both your ears. In fact, if your mains have a nice wide dispersion, I would say based on your pics that you have them toed in a bit too much to center anyway, so angle them out a bit and you'll solve both problems.
4. No matter what Audyssey detects your upfirers at, set the crossover for those speakers to 150-200Hz. You don't want sound below that coming from the upfirers, since sound much lower than that isn't going to make that "bounce" off the ceiling anyway.
5. The arrival time of upfirers makes a big difference, and Audyssey never gets it dead on. The ceiling height setting Denon provides is a good coarse adjustment to get the actual distance of the bounce, since the Audyssey mic tends to just measure the first impulse from the speaker rather than the full distance of travel (and will do so no matter how much higher above your ear level you place it). I mention this because in my experience, where most need to tweak upfirers to get the overhead effect is by adjusting the distance/delay. I recommend playing the LEAF or Helicopter demo clips from Dolby on a loop, then going into the detected distances for your upfirers and changing them slightly, listening for the effect it has on the sound. Typically, you will find that adding small amounts of distance to them will make them snap into place above you. The helicopter demo has just enough cross-channel placement of its sound that if your distances aren't spot on, you will always hear the bed-level speakers arrive first, giving them precedence. Adjusting the distances of the upfirers so there is slightly less delay applied to them will get the sound from them to arrive earlier to your MLP. I actually prefer the Leaf demo for this, since when you get the distances right for the upfirers, you will hear the sound change from individual channels to a "dome of sound" around you if it's working as it should. In the absence of those demo clips, throw on the race scene from the beginning of Ready Player One. I guarantee you'll know when you're getting your distances closer to where they need to be. You can also use the Ceiling Height setting to coarsely adjust the front/rear upfirers as pairs.
6. After you have the distances tweaked so you start to hear things image overhead, ONLY THEN should you consider raising the level of the upfiring speakers if you want more overhead sound. Even then, I would avoid getting too happy with it, since you can shift the overall image of any sound placed between the bed and height levels upward more than it should be. When I was running 4 Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers, I typically only had to run them about 0.5dB hot once I got the distances nailed. Additionally, if you have a SPL meter, I recommend playing Dolby's test tone clips for 5.1.4/7.1.4 and seeing if the end result of the upfired sound matches up to what your AVR set them to post-Audyssey. You may find that once you have them properly crossed over, the level matching isn't quite right for the upfirers.


----------



## noah katz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In fact, if your mains have a nice wide dispersion, I would say based on your pics that you have them toed in a bit too much to center anyway, so angle them out a bit and you'll solve both problems.



What does toe-in of the mains have to do with the heights?

Toeing in the mains has the benefits of widening the sweet spot by time/intensity trading, and minimizing first reflections off of the side walls.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

noah katz said:


> What does toe-in of the mains have to do with the heights?
> 
> Toeing in the mains has the benefits of widening the sweet spot by time/intensity trading, and minimizing first reflections off of the side walls.


Because he has the upfirers sitting on top of the mains and aimed in-line with them, meaning any toe-in applied to the mains also affects where the upfirers' sound is bouncing off the ceiling. Based on the pic from earlier in the thread, the generalized bounce point of the upfirers would be too close to the center of the MLP (which could be why he is not hearing any overhead effect as there is no left/right separation of the bounced sound). Also, if you look at his pic, it looks like he's toeing in those mains A LOT and neither of his side walls are particularly close enough to merit it. All I was saying was he should either 1) turn the front upfirers so they're angled out more than the mains (which looks weird but may sound better), or 2) toe the mains in a little less than they are now, which would solve the problem with the aiming of the upfirers and still leave them toed in enough to get the benefits you stated.


----------



## Blade 77

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Because he has the upfirers sitting on top of the mains and aimed in-line with them, meaning any toe-in applied to the mains also affects where the upfirers' sound is bouncing off the ceiling. Based on the pic from earlier in the thread, the generalized bounce point of the upfirers would be too close to the center of the MLP (which could be why he is not hearing any overhead effect as there is no left/right separation of the bounced sound). Also, if you look at his pic, it looks like he's toeing in those mains A LOT and neither of his side walls are particularly close enough to merit it. All I was saying was he should either 1) turn the front upfirers so they're angled out more than the mains (which looks weird but may sound better), or 2) toe the mains in a little less than they are now, which would solve the problem with the aiming of the upfirers and still leave them toed in enough to get the benefits you stated.


Hi! First of all thank you for the time you spend to write all these things. If i unterstood correctly, youre saying that des reflection points maybe are the same with first reflection points of my mains and the latest do cover the des? I can move the dae backwards on the polks, but i cant toe them left-right because they will fall.


----------



## squared80

mrvideo said:


> I'll be starting from scratch and putting in a 7.1.6 system, using the 8500H_*A*_ AVR.


Let me know when you find that.


----------



## Blade 77

Jeremy Anderson said:


> A few thoughts, having set up upfirers and being initially unimpressed (but ultimately getting them to work nicely):
> 1. Put them back so they are level-matched with the other speakers first. They need to be for everything I say after this.
> 2. The only thing that makes a speaker "Atmos enabled" is a notch filter in the speaker itself. If you're using Audyssey on your Denon, it includes a target curve for any speaker set up as "Dolby Enabled" in order to keep its EQ corrections from undoing the Dolby-prescribed notch filter in the speaker. Fortunately, this essentially has the side effect of applying that curve to your speaker regardless, basically meaning your AVR is giving that speaker the characteristics of a Dolby Enabled speaker even if it doesn't have a notch filter in hardware. If you're using the Audyssey app to do your EQ'ing, you can see this target curve for any speakers set to Dolby Enabled. (You can also turn off Midrange Compensation with the app, which can help the bounced sound a little from my experience, even if you leave MC on for the other channels.)
> 3. While it's fine to toe your mains in toward your listening position that much, DO NOT toe the upfirers in that much. You want the point where they bounce off the ceiling to be comfortably to the left and right of your main listening position rather than firing right at it. Because they're more generalized, toeing them in too much can ruin the effect by making the general sound hit both your ears. In fact, if your mains have a nice wide dispersion, I would say based on your pics that you have them toed in a bit too much to center anyway, so angle them out a bit and you'll solve both problems.
> 4. No matter what Audyssey detects your upfirers at, set the crossover for those speakers to 150-200Hz. You don't want sound below that coming from the upfirers, since sound much lower than that isn't going to make that "bounce" off the ceiling anyway.
> 5. The arrival time of upfirers makes a big difference, and Audyssey never gets it dead on. The ceiling height setting Denon provides is a good coarse adjustment to get the actual distance of the bounce, since the Audyssey mic tends to just measure the first impulse from the speaker rather than the full distance of travel (and will do so no matter how much higher above your ear level you place it). I mention this because in my experience, where most need to tweak upfirers to get the overhead effect is by adjusting the distance/delay. I recommend playing the LEAF or Helicopter demo clips from Dolby on a loop, then going into the detected distances for your upfirers and changing them slightly, listening for the effect it has on the sound. Typically, you will find that adding small amounts of distance to them will make them snap into place above you. The helicopter demo has just enough cross-channel placement of its sound that if your distances aren't spot on, you will always hear the bed-level speakers arrive first, giving them precedence. Adjusting the distances of the upfirers so there is slightly less delay applied to them will get the sound from them to arrive earlier to your MLP. I actually prefer the Leaf demo for this, since when you get the distances right for the upfirers, you will hear the sound change from individual channels to a "dome of sound" around you if it's working as it should. In the absence of those demo clips, throw on the race scene from the beginning of Ready Player One. I guarantee you'll know when you're getting your distances closer to where they need to be. You can also use the Ceiling Height setting to coarsely adjust the front/rear upfirers as pairs.
> 6. After you have the distances tweaked so you start to hear things image overhead, ONLY THEN should you consider raising the level of the upfiring speakers if you want more overhead sound. Even then, I would avoid getting too happy with it, since you can shift the overall image of any sound placed between the bed and height levels upward more than it should be. When I was running 4 Pioneer SP-T22A-LR upfirers, I typically only had to run them about 0.5dB hot once I got the distances nailed. Additionally, if you have a SPL meter, I recommend playing Dolby's test tone clips for 5.1.4/7.1.4 and seeing if the end result of the upfired sound matches up to what your AVR set them to post-Audyssey. You may find that once you have them properly crossed over, the level matching isn't quite right for the upfirers.


1. I havent changed their level so far. One time i tried that. it increased the reverb.
2.I am very glad i heared that. I havent bought Audusee app yet.
3.This is something i would like to ask a long time. Dolby says Fronts angle should be set at around 22-30 degrees. Does this means they should look towards at me, or they should hitting left and right next to me?
4.My crossover are setted from Audysee at 100 (fronts) and 110 (for the back). I hope they will not broke if i change the crossover.
5.Unfortunately, i dont have a Shield yet, so i cant play True HD. I have to hang on my LG CX, which only plays lossy Atmos from Dolby Access App. I have managed to passthrough some Netflix series with Atmos, but for the moment i cant passthrough Atmos Demo files.
6. I dont believe i ever reach at 6 because im trying to figure out the exact hang locations and use them as inceiling.


----------



## mrvideo

LastButNotLeast said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Drive: Sign-in
> 
> 
> Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Thanks.Got it.


----------



## mrvideo

squared80 said:


> Let me know when you find that.


I'll find the "HA" model when it shows up. I'm in no hurry. I have lots of ground work to do first.


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Wait for the upgrade: the HAHA model.
Michael


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Blade 77 said:


> 3.This is something i would like to ask a long time. Dolby says Fronts angle should be set at around 22-30 degrees. Does this means they should look towards at me, or they should hitting left and right next to me?
> 4.My crossover are setted from Audysee at 100 (fronts) and 110 (for the back). I hope they will not broke if i change the crossover.
> 5.Unfortunately, i dont have a Shield yet, so i cant play True HD. I have to hang on my LG CX, which only plays lossy Atmos from Dolby Access App. I have managed to passthrough some Netflix series with Atmos, but for the moment i cant passthrough Atmos Demo files.
> 6. I dont believe i ever reach at 6 because im trying to figure out the exact hang locations and use them as inceiling.


3. If you're talking about the main speakers, that is their placement angle from the center channel. That doesn't mean that they should be aimed straight at your main listening position from those locations, especially if you're going to have other people in the room watching with you. You'll notice on Dolby's setup guides that the left main is actually aimed at the left seat on the couch in their drawing, and the right main toward the right seat on that couch, NOT aimed directly at the middle of the couch. That's so you get about the same off-axis response across all three of those seating positions, roughly. That's why I said I think you have them toed in a little too much in your room. And in your case, doing so makes the upfirers hit the ceiling at narrower points in the room than they should as well, so there's no separation between them. Split the difference between straight ahead and aimed right at the middle and you should get a good result.
4. With Audyssey, you can always adjust the detected crossovers UP, never down. So it won't hurt anything for you to bump those upfirers up to 150Hz (which is my recommendation). If you ever put them on the ceiling, then it's fine to run them wherever Audyssey detects them.
5. Even without the demo clips, watch something in Atmos (lossy or not, doesn't matter - though the Leaf demo should be on the Dolby Access app) and tweak the height channel distances up slightly to see if it makes them sound like you have speakers overhead. AFTER you toe your mains out a little and re-run Audyssey, of course. 
6. If you're going to ceiling mount them anyway, placement is easy. Measure from your ears up to the ceiling, then measure that same distance from that point on the ceiling forward. That's the line where your top front should go. Same for the top rears. That will put them 45 degrees in both directions. As far as how far apart to put them, no more than 0.7x the width of your room and NOT wider apart than your mains are. Easy peasy. Bear in mind that there's a 30-55 degree range, so don't get hung up if you can't place them EXACTLY where they should be. Just get them close.


----------



## noah katz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As far as how far apart to put them, no more than 0.7x the width of your room and NOT wider apart than your mains are.



I've never quite understood the placement guidelines being referenced to how far apart the mains are on an absolute basis, since the resulting azimuth angle depends on the distance from the fronts to the listening area.

Seems to me they should specify the heights' azimuth angles referenced to the listening area.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

noah katz said:


> I've never quite understood the placement guidelines being referenced to how far apart the mains are on an absolute basis, since the resulting azimuth angle depends on the distance from the fronts to the listening area.
> 
> Seems to me they should specify the heights' azimuth angles referenced to the listening area.


I'm not really following what you mean by this. Care to explain?


----------



## AYanguas

noah katz said:


> I've never quite understood the placement guidelines being referenced to how far apart the mains are on an absolute basis, since the resulting azimuth angle depends on the distance from the fronts to the listening area.
> 
> Seems to me they should specify the heights' azimuth angles referenced to the listening area.


"...how far apart..." the heights, not the mains. And regarding the width, not the length.

All the recommendations are in these three figures. What is not clear for you?


----------



## noah katz

AYanguas said:


> All the recommendations are in these three figures. What is not clear for you?



They're actually not all there; no figure shows the heights' azimuth angles when looking down the length of the room.

Referring to the lower left figure, what if the room were much wider and longer, causing the L/R to be much wider apart.

If the heights are moved to the same width, their lateral elevation angle will decrease, and there may be a "hole in the middle" effect similar to stereo speakers that are too far apart.

Admittedly this is likely a rare circumstance.


----------



## AYanguas

noah katz said:


> They're actually not all there; no figure shows the heights' azimuth angles when looking down the length of the room.


I think the labelled Figure 4 shows that.



noah katz said:


> Referring to the lower left figure, what if the room were much wider and longer, causing the L/R to be much wider apart.


Then, perhaps you would need more speakers than 7.1.4, if you have seats all over the room.



noah katz said:


> If the heights are moved to the same width, their lateral elevation angle will decrease, and there may be a "hole in the middle" effect similar to stereo speakers that are too far apart.


Therefor the recommendation are *ranges *of H3 = 2 to 3 x H1 (on Figure 2) and 0,5 to 0,7 x W (on Figures 3 and 4).

I think that will be appropriate for the majority of Home rooms. If the room is bigger but the 'Theater' size with seats is smaller, with not all room space with seats, then that would still apply.

For really more bigger rooms, perhaps we are not talking about "Home" Theater, but a specialised Theater.



noah katz said:


> Admittedly this is likely a rare circumstance.


For that rare circumstance, more professional Theater building design would be needed.

The "Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines" still give recommendations for Additional Speaker Placement, like for example, the additional Front Height speakers in the following figure with the azimuth angles:










When much more Speakers are Needed, in the "Guidelines" you find just a reference Picture, but without angles, because for special cases a special analysis and design is required:


----------



## Blade 77

Jeremy Anderson said:


> 3. If you're talking about the main speakers, that is their placement angle from the center channel. That doesn't mean that they should be aimed straight at your main listening position from those locations, especially if you're going to have other people in the room watching with you. You'll notice on Dolby's setup guides that the left main is actually aimed at the left seat on the couch in their drawing, and the right main toward the right seat on that couch, NOT aimed directly at the middle of the couch. That's so you get about the same off-axis response across all three of those seating positions, roughly. That's why I said I think you have them toed in a little too much in your room. And in your case, doing so makes the upfirers hit the ceiling at narrower points in the room than they should as well, so there's no separation between them. Split the difference between straight ahead and aimed right at the middle and you should get a good result.
> 4. With Audyssey, you can always adjust the detected crossovers UP, never down. So it won't hurt anything for you to bump those upfirers up to 150Hz (which is my recommendation). If you ever put them on the ceiling, then it's fine to run them wherever Audyssey detects them.
> 5. Even without the demo clips, watch something in Atmos (lossy or not, doesn't matter - though the Leaf demo should be on the Dolby Access app) and tweak the height channel distances up slightly to see if it makes them sound like you have speakers overhead. AFTER you toe your mains out a little and re-run Audyssey, of course.
> 6. If you're going to ceiling mount them anyway, placement is easy. Measure from your ears up to the ceiling, then measure that same distance from that point on the ceiling forward. That's the line where your top front should go. Same for the top rears. That will put them 45 degrees in both directions. As far as how far apart to put them, no more than 0.7x the width of your room and NOT wider apart than your mains are. Easy peasy. Bear in mind that there's a 30-55 degree range, so don't get hung up if you can't place them EXACTLY where they should be. Just get them close.


Hi!
3. Yes i know that the center speaker is the one which defines the angle and i have noticed in Dolby guides that the mains hit at the left and right seatings in a 3place couch. My couch has 2 seats so i have recalculated the angles to hit accordingly left and right besides me. I do include a photo bellow, so please be my guest and check it out. Please note that im single(even though im a good-looking guy), so most of the time i watch tv alone..
5. Unfortunately the leaf demo isnt available in Dolby Access App, at least not in UK. Maybe i should try US Dolby access app or does the app has the same content worldwide? However im glad that i can test my HT equally well using lossy Atmos.
6.I agree totally, but firstly you have to find the cental point in the ceiling (using a plump), right above your head. Then you have to create a circle and using the plump again, you have to find the 4 spots, where the the circle in the ceiling meets the straight line of front mains(which have to be in a strict parallel line (that was my mistake so far ).
Yes i know that there is a 30-55 degree angle, thats why i targetting around 45, so i have an allowance of error, or moving a little forwards-backwards from MLP.

I think im close in figuring that out. Yes i will probably mount them in the ceiling (if my calculations are correct this time), because i spent a lot of time trying to figure it out. And it wasnt easy, at least not for me. Even though i knew what it had to be done, in praxis always there would be an error and my calculations were wrong. Maybe the lenth of my living room didnt help nor the back wall behind the tv, which isnt in straight line. Do you believe that if i place them in ceiling (always in the correct locations) i will better than using dae? Im sending you a photo to check what i have done so far. Front and Right mains are hitting right next to me. If i open them more they will be at 90 degree from center. If i close them more, they will hitting directly into my ears. Their angle should be 22-30, but this depends also from the viewing distance.


----------



## Blade 77

AYanguas said:


> "...how far apart..." the heights, not the mains. And regarding the width, not the length.
> 
> All the recommendations are in these three figures. What is not clear for you?
> 
> View attachment 3098259


I think the heights should be at the same distance as your mains are.


----------



## noah katz

AYanguas said:


> I think the labelled Figure 4 shows that.


No; I'm referring to the view that would be looking at the front wall.




AYanguas said:


> Therefor the recommendation are *ranges *of H3 = 2 to 3 x H1 (on Figure 2) and 0,5 to 0,7 x W (on Figures 3 and 4).


Again, wrong view.


----------



## Rich 63

Note to blade 77. If you are using the couch for measurements. Don't. Get a boom mic stand. Your measurements will not be accurate and will affect what audessey does. 
Regards Rich


----------



## Krobar

muad'dib said:


> [QUOTE="The current Dolby Up-mixer (DSU) can use additional speakers, but not as many as DTS:X Pro"
> 
> 
> So if using my Config of 5.2.6 setup, will DSU use all speakers? and not if using a 9.2.4?
> 
> Juat want to make sure...
> 
> Thanks..


Anthem uses the newer DSU version so it should upmix to all speakers in either of those configs. 

When using Atmos content though you are at the mercy of whoever mixed it, many mixes are limited to 7.1.4.


----------



## muad'dib

Krobar said:


> Anthem uses the newer DSU version so it should upmix to all speakers in either of those configs.
> 
> When using Atmos content though you are at the mercy of whoever mixed it, many mixes are limited to 7.1.4.


Awesome.. 
Thanks for info..
Now to actually get my ordered avm70 to try...


----------



## Blade 77

Rich 63 said:


> Note to blade 77. If you are using the couch for measurements. Don't. Get a boom mic stand. Your measurements will not be accurate and will affect what audessey does.
> Regards Rich


No im not using the couch. I have the Denon's setup mic positioned there, because i want to know where is exactly the spot from the ceiling above my head and behind the couch. Then i will measure this spot(Denon mic) from left-right parallel lines, to evaluate if its exactly in the middle. I hope you unterstand.. 
.


----------



## AYanguas

Blade 77 said:


> I think the heights should be at the same distance as your mains are.


Why?


----------



## AYanguas

noah katz said:


> No; I'm referring to the view that would be looking at the front wall.


What is this for? I'm not sure if we understand the same for "azimuth angle". The Heights azimuth angles are clearly represented in that figure, at least acc. to my understanding.



noah katz said:


> Again, wrong view.


Why is that a wrong view? If room size increases, you have a range that could be applied until the size is too large. Then other criteria will apply. What is wrong with that view?


----------



## Blade 77

AYanguas said:


> Why?


because left-right height are aligned with left-right mains.


----------



## mogrub

Blade 77 said:


> My receiver is a Denon 3700 and ... I get a 3d effect, which is nice, but I can't get the feeling that sound is coming from above. It seems to me that every sound is coming from mains or surrounds ...


You've had a lot of helpful advice already.

There is one more very simple thing you can do. Use your 3700's test tone generator. This is very fast and very easy to do. From your MLP, listen to each channel playing the test tone in order, several times through. Missing or too low channels will be immediately revealed. If you have a sound pressure meter, use that as you listen. Pay extra attention to your perceived-to-be missing or underperforming channels. This fast test will give you a ton of insight if you haven't already done it. Equipment issues aside, you may be able to improve your sound bubble by boosting the gain on any underperforming channels. Alternatively, this test can also quickly expose problems in your currently selected 3700 settings. And if you're just getting started, reading the test tones for level can be simpler than trying to read dynamic content for that same purpose. IMHO YMMV. ✌

If you do this, post back what you hear.


----------



## noah katz

AYanguas said:


> Why is that a wrong view? If room size increases, you have a range that could be applied until the size is too large. Then other criteria will apply. What is wrong with that view?



Because I defined the right view as the one not shown in the figure.

OK here's the missing view and the azimuth angle I'm talking about, which is independent of the heights' fore/aft positions:


----------



## Blade 77

mogrub said:


> You've had a lot of helpful advice already.
> 
> There is one more very simple thing you can do. Use your 3700's test tone generator. This is very fast and very easy to do. From your MLP, listen to each channel playing the test tone in order, several times through. Missing or too low channels will be immediately revealed. If you have a sound pressure meter, use that as you listen. Pay extra attention to your perceived-to-be missing or underperforming channels. This fast test will give you a ton of insight if you haven't already done it. Equipment issues aside, you may be able to improve your sound bubble by boosting the gain on any underperforming channels. Alternatively, this test can also quickly expose problems in your currently selected 3700 settings. And if you're just getting started, reading the test tones for level can be simpler than trying to read dynamic content for that same purpose. IMHO YMMV. ✌
> 
> If you do this, post back what you hear.


Yes, i hade got a lot of advice and im trully gratefull for that. I had already done that test using Denon's tone generator. During that procedure, everything seems fine, there is not a low signal or an underperfoming channel. I have an spl meter, im a sound engineer. My main problem isnt about quality of the signal, but the perceived direction of sound in height channels.


----------



## Rich 63

Blade 77 said:


> No im not using the couch. I have the Denon's setup mic positioned there, because i want to know where is exactly the spot from the ceiling above my head and behind the couch. Then i will measure this spot(Denon mic) from left-right parallel lines, to evaluate if its exactly in the middle. I hope you unterstand..
> .


Understand 👌.


----------



## AYanguas

Blade 77 said:


> because left-right height are aligned with left-right mains.


Even if that is the case, the distance from MLP to mains and heights can be different, depending on the position on the ceiling.

Also the alignment of heights with mains is a recommendation, but depending on the actual room constraints they could be not aligned and still have good Atmos effect.


----------



## AYanguas

noah katz said:


> Because I defined the right view as the one not shown in the figure.
> 
> OK here's the missing view and the azimuth angle I'm talking about, which is independent of the heights' fore/aft positions:
> 
> View attachment 3106912


I assume this missing view is a frontal view. is it? Not enough clear because I only see the head and not the body. Because if it is a top view then it is the same as the Picture I provided.

Looking to this picture, I am not sure what do you understand by azimuth angle.

The Dolby recommendations say about "Elevation angle" and "Alignment with Fronts max 0,7 W". With those two conditions, and the given height of the ceiling, the Azimuth angle is then exactly determined. So the azimuth angle can be ignored if we position with the other two data. Does this have any sense?

If the resulting azimuth angle is too high (too much horizontal separation between the heights), then the shape of the room may be too wide, like a corridor. I think these recommendations work well for square to moderated rectangular rooms.


----------



## CorbyDave

noah katz said:


> Because I defined the right view as the one not shown in the figure.
> 
> OK here's the missing view and the azimuth angle I'm talking about, which is independent of the heights' fore/aft positions:
> 
> View attachment 3106912


I’m pretty sure that if your setup meets all the requirements of the three diagrams then the angle you are referring to will automatically be constrained to what Dolby considers optimal. Dave

ps I see AYanguas has pretty much said this above


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Blade 77 said:


> because left-right height are aligned with left-right mains.


It's not as important that left/right height are aligned with the mains. It's more important that the placement of your mains gives you fairly equivalent separation between the bed layer speakers (i.e. center to left main is generally the same angular span as left main to left surround, left surround to left rear surround, etc.). This is, of course, barring the use of Wides which help fill in the gap between the mains and surrounds. 

So you're usually better off placing the mains wider and letting the room's width determine the placement of the heights, since much of Atmos depends on cross-channel placement of sounds between multiple speakers in the array. The bed level positioning needs to be more precise since much of that is still channel based, whereas object placement relies on the simultaneous use of multiple speakers as determined by the object decoder. That's not to say that you shouldn't strive for perfect placement... but you should focus more on the bed-level angles than the bed-to-height angles if you have to compromise somewhere. Placing the heights too wide can also give you sidewall reflections that mess with the sound, so it's not unusual at all for heights to be placed narrower than mains. In my room, my mains are pretty much as far out to the side walls as I can get them and angled inward some because of my seating distance... but my room is only 12 feet wide, so my heights are at least 2 feet from the side walls.


----------



## noah katz

AYanguas said:


> I assume this missing view is a frontal view. is it?


Yes, as indicated by "front wall."




AYanguas said:


> I am not sure what do you understand by azimuth angle.


I meant the elevation angle created by the lateral (azimuth) angle; admittedly that wasn't very clear.




CorbyDave said:


> I’m pretty sure that if your setup meets all the requirements of the three diagrams then the angle you are referring to will automatically be constrained to what Dolby considers optimal.


Agreed, though not always.

I had to move my tops inward from being in line with the L/R to get a satisfying overhead effect; the upper soundfield was too "sidesy" before that.

The change was from 12' apart to 9' apart.


----------



## CorbyDave

noah katz said:


> Yes, as indicated by "front wall."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the elevation angle created by the lateral (azimuth) angle; admittedly that wasn't very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, though not always.
> 
> I had to move my tops inward from being in line with the L/R to get a satisfying overhead effect; the upper soundfield was too "sidesy" before that.
> 
> The change was from 12' apart to 9' apart.





noah katz said:


> Yes, as indicated by "front wall."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the elevation angle created by the lateral (azimuth) angle; admittedly that wasn't very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, though not always.
> 
> I had to move my tops inward from being in line with the L/R to get a satisfying overhead effect; the upper soundfield was too "sidesy" before that.
> 
> The change was from 12' apart to 9' apart.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

noah katz said:


> I had to move my tops inward from being in line with the L/R to get a satisfying overhead effect; the upper soundfield was too "sidesy" before that.
> 
> The change was from 12' apart to 9' apart.


In what width room?


----------



## Blade 77

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's not as important that left/right height are aligned with the mains. It's more important that the placement of your mains gives you fairly equivalent separation between the bed layer speakers (i.e. center to left main is generally the same angular span as left main to left surround, left surround to left rear surround, etc.). This is, of course, barring the use of Wides which help fill in the gap between the mains and surrounds.
> 
> So you're usually better off placing the mains wider and letting the room's width determine the placement of the heights, since much of Atmos depends on cross-channel placement of sounds between multiple speakers in the array. The bed level positioning needs to be more precise since much of that is still channel based, whereas object placement relies on the simultaneous use of multiple speakers as determined by the object decoder. That's not to say that you shouldn't strive for perfect placement... but you should focus more on the bed-level angles than the bed-to-height angles if you have to compromise somewhere. Placing the heights too wide can also give you sidewall reflections that mess with the sound, so it's not unusual at all for heights to be placed narrower than mains. In my room, my mains are pretty much as far out to the side walls as I can get them and angled inward some because of my seating distance... but my room is only 12 feet wide, so my heights are at least 2 feet from the side walls.


Then why Dolby installation guide shows them allignened?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Blade 77 said:


> Then why Dolby installation guide shows them allignened?


Because in many rooms, they naturally will be, and these one-sheet guides are tailored more toward the average user than the enthusiast. But the installation guide also gives other guidelines for their placement, as we've spoken about earlier in the thread. Like all the other placements, there is an accepted range - in this case, 0.5-0.7x the width of the room.


----------



## noah katz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In what width room?


13 ft.




Blade 77 said:


> Then why Dolby installation guide shows them allignened?





Jeremy Anderson said:


> Because in many rooms, they naturally will be...


Per my original point, this idea seems to have crystallized into an actual guideline; I've seen many recommendations that the tops be the same width apart as L/R.


----------



## CorbyDave

Q


----------



## CorbyDave

Hi all. I’m struggling to understand the ‘wide room’ problem. Surely if you have your fronts at the correct angle and you align your overheads with them then it doesn’t matter how wide you room is. Maybe my geometry skills have deserted me!


----------



## T-Bone

CorbyDave said:


> Hi all. I’m struggling to understand the ‘wide room’ problem. Surely if you have your fronts at the correct angle and you align your overheads with them then it doesn’t matter how wide you room is. Maybe my geometry skills have deserted me!


I've always looked at that guideline to be beneficial for "narrow" room setup. After all, if you build an outdoor Atmos system, then there are no walls. So the guideline fails 

-T


----------



## CorbyDave

T-Bone said:


> I've always looked at that guideline to be beneficial for "narrow" room setup. After all, if you build an outdoor Atmos system, then there are no walls. So the guideline fails
> 
> -T


The diagrams don't have any walls - only angles and relative dimensions. If you had a massively wide room you wouldn't put the front speakers against the sidewalls, therefore the height speakers, if aligned with the fronts, would be at the correct angle.


----------



## T-Bone

CorbyDave said:


> The diagrams don't have any walls - only angles and relative dimensions. If you had a massively wide room you wouldn't put the front speakers against the sidewalls, therefore the height speakers, if aligned with the fronts, would be at the correct angle.


Technically there are no walks. The reality is the W in the diagram that represents width, for most people, is going to be their side walls width and they may interpret as such. Since my surrounds are mounted directly on my side walls, that's how I interpreted it at the time. Then I based all of my measurements/angles and everything came out within guidelines. For all 11 speakers..

-T


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

T-Bone said:


> I've always looked at that guideline to be beneficial for "narrow" room setup. After all, if you build an outdoor Atmos system, then there are no walls. So the guideline fails
> 
> -T


I mounted my heights so they're about 0.63x the width of the room apart... which was roughly in line with my mains at the time. But because I only have a 12' wide room, I think I should have gone with 0.5x the width to get better angular separation from the bed layer speakers (and I may still reposition them). So you're right that this tends to be more useful in narrow rooms. For most rooms, I've kinda' figured you split the difference in the prescribed ranges and that's the "ideal" placement... but I think some of it still comes down to using a little logic and common sense (which I should have used more of when installing my heights on the ceiling).


----------



## sdurani

If you do a search for Atmos renderer, you'll find various images showing the rendering assumptions for the height speaker arrays (where the Atmos encoder and decoder assume the height speakers are). They ALL show the heights lined up between the L/C/R speakers, not in line with the L/R speakers. File that away as a data point, because it doesn't mean that height speakers have to be placed at the rendering assumptions. IF spreading the height speakers wider apart makes it easier for you to hear left-vs-right separation overhead, then it's worth doing. When it comes to height speaker placement, I would aim for a satisfying experience rather than some sort of slavish devotion to the rendering assumptions. YMMV.


----------



## Blade 77

sdurani said:


> If you do a search for Atmos renderer, you'll find various images showing the rendering assumptions for the height speaker arrays (where the Atmos encoder and decoder assume the height speakers are). They ALL show the heights lined up between the L/C/R speakers, not in line with the L/R speakers. File that away as a data point, because it doesn't mean that height speakers have to be placed at the rendering assumptions. IF spreading the height speakers wider apart makes it easier for you to hear left-vs-right separation overhead, then it's worth doing. When it comes to height speaker placement, I would aim for a satisfying experience rather than some sort of slavish devotion to the rendering assumptions. YMMV.
> View attachment 3107554
> 
> View attachment 3107558
> 
> View attachment 3107560


The latest image is from Avid's ProTools. This is used so the mixing engineer can place the sounds accordinadelly into space. I have used it many times(for 5.1, not the Atmos one, as there are not many studios with Atmos in Athens yet). It is a specific program tool which cant be taken seriously for placing atmos speakers correctly.


----------



## sdurani

Blade 77 said:


> It is a specific program tool which cant be taken seriously for placing atmos speakers correctly.


Exactly, which is why I said:


sdurani said:


> ...it doesn't mean that height speakers have to be placed at the rendering assumptions.


----------



## mrvideo

sdurani said:


> If you do a search for Atmos renderer, you'll find various images showing the rendering assumptions for the height speaker arrays (where the Atmos encoder and decoder assume the height speakers are).


So many placement diagrams with only 4 Atmos speakers. I'll be putting in 6 Atmos speakers. They'll be ceiling mounted, not in ceiling.


----------



## squared80

I've watched educational videos that talk specifically about the outdated setup placed on Dolby's website, and that they're surprised that Dolby has not updated it to show the overheads to be between the L/C and R/C, where they should be based on science measurements. 

Just goes to show that they are a guide, and not the end all be all for every setup.


----------



## T-Bone

squared80 said:


> I've watched educational videos that talk specifically about the outdated setup placed on Dolby's website, and that they're surprised that Dolby has not updated it to show the overheads to be between the L/C and R/C, where they should be based on science measurements.
> 
> Just goes to show that they are a guide, and not the end all be all for every setup.


But even if they did have a specification update that stated to place the overheads between the left and the center, and the center and the right, (like the way they have them in a movie theater) there are people with home theater setups with their left and right are six feet apart next to a flat panel. And they have a seating area that's 7 ft wide (sofa). In that case, putting them between the left and center, and the center and right, I don't think would be very good.

I can see it getting messy real fast in terms of having a coherent set of guidelines for all situations. 

-T


----------



## Terence Parrish

T-Bone said:


> But even if they did have a specification update that stated to place the overheads between the left and the center, and the center and the right, (like the way they have them in a movie theater) there are people with home theater setups with their left and right are six feet apart next to a flat panel. And they have a seating area that's 7 ft wide (sofa). In that case, putting them between the left and center, and the center and right, I don't think would be very good.
> 
> I can see it getting messy real fast in terms of having a coherent set of guidelines for all situations.
> 
> -T


Hopefully you will get the setup you are looking for, remember YMMV from what others think is the BEST OPTION! Sdurani, and Jimmy Anderson's idea sound the best to me. Watch out for too many hands in the pot. Please return to let us know your results.


----------



## Terence Parrish

This was for blade 77


----------



## Terence Parrish

Terence Parrish said:


> This was for blade 77


And my son is also Jeremy, how did I say Jimmy


----------



## squared80

T-Bone said:


> But even if they did have a specification update that stated to place the overheads between the left and the center, and the center and the right, (like the way they have them in a movie theater) there are people with home theater setups with their left and right are six feet apart next to a flat panel. And they have a seating area that's 7 ft wide (sofa). In that case, putting them between the left and center, and the center and right, I don't think would be very good.
> 
> I can see it getting messy real fast in terms of having a coherent set of guidelines for all situations.
> 
> -T


As I said, 'just goes to show that they are a guide, and not the end all be all for every setup.'


----------



## mrvideo

I downloaded the Dolby Atmos user guidlines PDF. The 7.1.6 overhead placement includes an in-ceiling speaker. My overhead middle speakers will be ceiling mounted. All 6 will be pointing down. The above suggestion that the front height speakers should be between LC and RC is kinda impossible. That would place them in front of the screen and will block the screen. My footprint will be damn close to the Dolby diagram. Yep, YMMV.


----------



## DHelmet

T-Bone said:


> Technically there are no walks. The reality is the W in the diagram that represents width, for most people, is going to be their side walls width and they may interpret as such. Since my surrounds are mounted directly on my side walls, that's how I interpreted it at the time. Then I based all of my measurements/angles and everything came out within guidelines. For all 11 speakers..
> 
> -T
> 
> View attachment 3107510


I am trying to figure out where to place my ATMOS speakers as well but I do think it is pretty straight forward according to Dolby's guidlines (7.1.6 Overhead Speaker Setup). Everything is defined from the seating position.

I haven't seen this particular diagram before. Is it from Dolby? Anyway "W" here is _not_ the width of the room but rather the diameter of the circle on which all of you non-overhead speakers should be placed. This diagram is recommending that your L&R speakers (and your overhead speakers) are separated at a distance of 0.5 to 0.7 of the diameter of this circle. This defines the placement of all of your speakers and does not change due to the size of the room...no matter how wide it may be and you are constrained by the shortest dimension in the room. Once you know the distance you are sitting from your screen then the placement of your speakers is no longer in question. If you are sitting 10 feet from your screen then, according to this diagram, the distance between the L & R speaker need to be between 10 x TAN(22) x 2=8.1 feet and 10 x TAN(40) x 2 = 16.8 feet. If you choose to have your speakers 16.8 feet apart then the diameter of your speaker circle is between 16.8 / 0.5 = 33.6 feet and 16.8 / 0.7 = 24.0 feet. You can choose to do something different with your speaker placement, but the soundtracks are mastered in a way that assumes the speakers are in the positions they recommend otherwise you probably will not get the full surround experience that was intended.

The DOLBY document referenced in the link above does not care about the speaker distance from the primary position where the one referenced by T-Bone does. It may be because someone recognized that it is impractical in most homes to fit speakers on a circle. If this _is_ from DOLBY, I would venture to guess that they dumbed down the placement spec for home theaters due to their relatively small size when compared to a commercial theater. I am not an expert but I would guess that the placement/angle of the speakers in relation to the Optimal viewing position is more critical than the time delay observed from moving the speakers away from the optimal circle since minor time delays can be overcome in the processor.

Just my 2 cents.....


----------



## Lyndon11

Hi

My question relates to Atmos and HDMI. I currently have my ceiling down as well as the dry wall sheet off one wall.
I have run all the cables, good quality HDMI, they are rated to 18Gbps. (this project has been going for a while). It's coming close to putting the house back together but I'm thinking that the cables could be an issue in the future. Really do not want to have to go through all the work again. I have draw strings but roof is a real pain to access.
Our set up. A 5.1 with a second Zones with 2 speakers. Don't game and never will. Don't have disks or a player and never will. 
Stream music and clips from Youtube, spotify and from my own collection on a HD via my network. May end up with some sort of HD video subscription one day. Currently have 2 x 4K TV's
I guess these will change to 8k one day, but as currently I don't run any video through the receiver, will I ever need better cables? The cable is just taking the audio from the TV to the AVR.
It is possible I may set up a NAS or similar one day that may in turn be plugged directly into the HDMI on the AVR.
I have run in cables for 4 Atmos speakers, will I ever install theses? I don't know.
So my question is, will my HDMI cables support eARC? Is it just a bandwidth requirement, a standards issue or....?
I can get these cables for around $200 each, i would need a 15 and 30 foot cable.
appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks
Lyndon


----------



## squared80

You've already run all the cables, as you've said, so those are fine. I would've run 48Gbps cables personally.


----------



## Blade 77

DHelmet said:


> I am trying to figure out where to place my ATMOS speakers as well but I do think it is pretty straight forward according to Dolby's guidlines (7.1.6 Overhead Speaker Setup). Everything is defined from the seating position.
> 
> I haven't seen this particular diagram before. Is it from Dolby? Anyway "W" here is _not_ the width of the room but rather the diameter of the circle on which all of you non-overhead speakers should be placed. This diagram is recommending that your L&R speakers (and your overhead speakers) are separated at a distance of 0.5 to 0.7 of the diameter of this circle. This defines the placement of all of your speakers and does not change due to the size of the room...no matter how wide it may be and you are constrained by the shortest dimension in the room. Once you know the distance you are sitting from your screen then the placement of your speakers is no longer in question. If you are sitting 10 feet from your screen then, according to this diagram, the distance between the L & R speaker need to be between 10 x TAN(22) x 2=8.1 feet and 10 x TAN(40) x 2 = 16.8 feet. If you choose to have your speakers 16.8 feet apart then the diameter of your speaker circle is between 16.8 / 0.5 = 33.6 feet and 16.8 / 0.7 = 24.0 feet. You can choose to do something different with your speaker placement, but the soundtracks are mastered in a way that assumes the speakers are in the positions they recommend otherwise you probably will not get the full surround experience that was intended.
> 
> The DOLBY document referenced in the link above does not care about the speaker distance from the primary position where the one referenced by T-Bone does. It may be because someone recognized that it is impractical in most homes to fit speakers on a circle. If this _is_ from DOLBY, I would venture to guess that they dumbed down the placement spec for home theaters due to their relatively small size when compared to a commercial theater. I am not an expert but I would guess that the placement/angle of the speakers in relation to the Optimal viewing position is more critical than the time delay observed from moving the speakers away from the optimal circle since minor time delays can be overcome in the processor.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.....


I believe that the distance you are sitting from your screen has nothing to do with that partikular diagram. The only thing it shows you is how far away your main L+R(and so yours front-back height L+R) speakers, should be placed accordinadelly with your L+R surround. For example in amy occasion the distance between L+R is around 235m. So i have to place my surrounds(width) at around 3.3m ( 0.7x 3,3 = 2,31cm). You are right that the diagramm defines the placement of all of your speakers, not the width of your room.


----------



## DHelmet

Blade 77 said:


> I believe that the distance you are sitting from your screen has nothing to do with that partikular diagram. The only thing it shows you is how far away your main L+R(and so yours front-back height L+R) speakers, should be placed accordinadelly with your L+R surround. For example in amy occasion the distance between L+R is around 235m. So i have to place my surrounds(width) at around 3.3m ( 0.7x 3,3 = 2,31cm). You are right that the diagramm defines the placement of all of your speakers, not the width of your room.


Actually I think it has everything to do with where you are sitting from the screen. But if your speaker separation is your starting point, then you can work backwards. In your example, if your speakers are separated by 235cm then your seating position must be (if you are following this particualr document) between 314cm (using 22 degree) and 184cm (using 40 degrees) away from the center channel or screen. Also since you chose 235cm as the distance between you front speakers (again, if you are following this document) the height speakers need to be sperated by 235cm side to side. The separation front to back is determinined by your the height from you ears to your ceiling and the angle (35-55 degrees according to this document). If you are using 0.7 as your basline then you surround speakers are located directly next to you. If you set them back at a bit, then the distance between them will get smaller because, according to this document, your speakers should all be on a circle.

My opinion is that you should choose your seating position first to match your screen size and degree of comfort. Once that is chosen everything easily falls into place. Is it actually achievable in a particular space?? That is the real question. But you can tweak the angles and positons from there. The thing that I think is a little misleading on this diagram is that the seating position in in the dead center. It makes for easier calculations, but out of all of the builds I have seen on this and other forums, I don't think that is usually the case.


----------



## mogrub

Lyndon11 said:


> ... I have run all the cables, good quality HDMI, they are rated to 18Gbps. (this project has been going for a while) ... close to putting the house back together but I'm thinking the cables could be an issue in the future ... I can get these cables for around $200 each, i would need a 15 and 30 foot cable.


Sounds like you're already leaning. I'd do the upgrade now, while the walls are still open. I'd also test any cables while the walls are still open too. The biggest reason to upgrade now is that even with pull cords left behind (props for that) you can never be 100% sure how the pull will go until you have to do it. New cables now is also a pretty small incremental cost increase. For me the extra future proofing would be worth that small cost increase. Plus reopening perfectly finished walls always hurts. I'm not familiar with the Matchmaster cables but I'm familiar with former AVS sponsor Monoprice's 48G HDMI cables. They are significantly less expensive than the cables quoted in your post. Yes Monoprice specifically supports eARC. I haven't installed these 48G cables yet so I can't vouch based on personal experience, but this vendor has been a reliable one for years. If anyone on this thread has used these specific 48G cables maybe they'd share their experience. Whatever you do, good luck and congrats on approaching the finish line. 👍


----------



## Technology3456

I see the 7.x.4 Dolby layout from the manual has the back ceiling speakers not right on top of the rears or the sides, but vertically between them. I remember someone saying in the thread that Dolby can't admit their mistake about that or something, in other words that I should still mount mine right over the rears.

What is the consensus? I need to plan accordingly.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> I see the 7.x.4 Dolby layout from the manual has the back ceiling speakers not right on top of the rears or the sides, but vertically between them.


Top Middle speaker location is in line with the Sides. 
Top Rear speaker location is *between the Sides and Rears*. 
Rear Height speaker location is in line with the Rears. 

ALL are valid speaker locations for Atmos. Whichever one you choose, just label them appropriately during initial set-up.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> I see the 7.x.4 Dolby layout from the manual has the back ceiling speakers not right on top of the rears or the sides, but vertically between them. I remember someone saying in the thread that Dolby can't admit their mistake about that or something, in other words that I should still mount mine right over the rears.
> 
> What is the consensus? I need to plan accordingly.


Why would you mount yours right over the rears?









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


In what width room? 13 ft. Then why Dolby installation guide shows them allignened? Because in many rooms, they naturally will be... Per my original point, this idea seems to have crystallized into an actual guideline; I've seen many recommendations that the tops be the same width...




www.avsforum.com





Look at the image in that post I linked. Now look at the back surrounds. Notice how everything is based on angles. What if the person in that diagram had a wide room and the back surrounds were not actually where they were pictured in the diagram. But they were 10ft back away from the sofa, yet the angle remained the same as pictured in the diagram. So why would you or anyone else post the overhead speakers over the back surrounds?

Your best bet is to follow the angles laid out by Dolby.

-T


----------



## Blueasta

Hello my atmosers, please tell me If I am crazy. Here is my question.

I had a 65 900e. I sat about 7 feet away. I then got a LG CX 77, 12 inches bigger so I went 1 foot more away around 8.5 feet away.

I have 4 Canton 880 In ceiling speakers for atmos. Previously the rear speakers were _just_ behind me but now moving back a foot or so they are basically right above my head.

So my question is: shall I move the couch back just maybe 6 inches to a foot and put in 2 more speakers for rear atmos and make these rear ones the middle atmos?

I would definitely not want to go the inceiling route, not because the Cantons are bad but because I hated running the wires in the walls with the flames of one thousand godzilla monsters.

Right now I have PSA 210 and 110's all around on the bed level. Was thinking of grabbing some PSA 110-SR's and hanging them from the ceiling, angled down?

What do you think? "Will it blend?"


----------



## DHelmet

Lyndon11 said:


> Hi
> 
> My question relates to Atmos and HDMI. I currently have my ceiling down as well as the dry wall sheet off one wall.
> I have run all the cables, good quality HDMI, they are rated to 18Gbps. (this project has been going for a while). It's coming close to putting the house back together but I'm thinking that the cables could be an issue in the future. Really do not want to have to go through all the work again. I have draw strings but roof is a real pain to access.
> Our set up. A 5.1 with a second Zones with 2 speakers. Don't game and never will. Don't have disks or a player and never will.
> Stream music and clips from Youtube, spotify and from my own collection on a HD via my network. May end up with some sort of HD video subscription one day. Currently have 2 x 4K TV's
> I guess these will change to 8k one day, but as currently I don't run any video through the receiver, will I ever need better cables? The cable is just taking the audio from the TV to the AVR.
> It is possible I may set up a NAS or similar one day that may in turn be plugged directly into the HDMI on the AVR.
> I have run in cables for 4 Atmos speakers, will I ever install theses? I don't know.
> So my question is, will my HDMI cables support eARC? Is it just a bandwidth requirement, a standards issue or....?
> I can get these cables for around $200 each, i would need a 15 and 30 foot cable.
> appreciate your thoughts.
> Thanks
> Lyndon


Can you install conduit to pull the wires through? You wouldn't even have to decide on cables now and it should be furture proofed. I am planning to do this for my build for my HDMI runs using 1 1/4"-1 1/2" pipe like this CARLON SCJ4X1C-50 2IN 50FT CONDUIT | Gordon Electric Supply, Inc. 

I am also thinking about using water pipe or even sump hose that you can find much cheaper. https://www.menards.com/main/plumbi...arge-hose/fp0012-6u-p2-01/p-1444430536208.htm Make sure you clamp it down ever few feet since it is hard to pull wire though conduit that is flexing; especially if you use the less rigid stuff like the sump hose.


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Blueasta said:


> I had a 65 900e. I sat about 7 feet away. I then got a LG CX 77, 12 inches bigger *so I went 1 foot more away* around 8.5 feet away.


Which, I would think, defeats the whole purpose of the bigger screen. 
Michael


----------



## DHelmet

LastButNotLeast said:


> Which, I would think, defeats the whole purpose of the bigger screen.
> Michael


I'm trying to DOUBLE -LIKE this post but I can't find a way to do that!!


----------



## Blueasta

LastButNotLeast said:


> Which, I would think, defeats the whole purpose of the bigger screen.
> Michael





DHelmet said:


> I'm trying to DOUBLE -LIKE this post but I can't find a way to do that!!


Omg, they didn't have a bigger OLED! lol

But trust me, it's really not sitting that much farther away, and I don't like sitting that close anyhow. And before you get started Pam, I have really good eyes and trust me I can still see the 4k!

Any answers to my quessie? Lol


----------



## Spiderm0n

I need some Atmos help! I’m considering going from 7.2 to 5.2.4 when I upgrade to a 4k projector. There are some challenges, however, since this is an open floor plan, and the current basement was basically built around my 7.2 plan. The surrounds are in-wall, and the rear surrounds are in the duct framing, so they are at ceiling height (pointed straight to the front wall). Since I can’t move my surrounds, I am trying to figure out if installing 2 new in-ceiling speakers, and repurposing my rear surrounds is a viable plan for a move to 5.2.4
A couple questions:

Is 5.2.4 with Atmos a superior experience overall to 7.2?
Do my room specific challenges make this worthwhile/feasible? I realize optimally for Atmos my surrounds would be lower and slightly behind my listening position, and that my rear Atmos speakers would probably be closer and aimed to the floor.
Hopefully the attached picture provides the necessary details. Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

Spiderm0n said:


> Is 5.2.4 with Atmos a superior experience overall to 7.2?


7.2 is currently giving you side-vs-rear separation AND wrap-around envelopment in the surround field that you won't get from a single pair of Surrounds. You give that up to have a height layer, which will turn a 2D ring of sound into a 3D bubble of sound. One is not objectively superior to the other, so pick your preference.


> Do my room specific challenges make this worthwhile/feasible?


Worthwhile. Just add a pair of height speakers between the Surrounds and Fronts. You'll end up with left-vs-right AND front-vs-back separation in the height layer. Can you move your seating slightly forward, so that the Surrounds aren't directly at your sides?


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> Just add a pair of height speakers between the Surrounds and Fronts. You'll end up with left-vs-right AND front-vs-back separation in the height layer.


How will that work? Especially with Dolby Atmos?


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> How will that work? Especially with Dolby Atmos?


His 7.1 set-up already has a pair of Rear speakers that are mounted right next to the ceiling. When changing the 7.1 set-up to a 5.1.4 set-up, those high-mounted Rear speakers will become the Top Rear speakers and he just needs to add the Top Front speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Blueasta said:


> What do you think? "Will it blend?"


No, but you probably won't notice. IF you were to do a simple stereo set-up with one Canton in-ceiling speaker and one PSA bookshelf speaker in front of you, then you would notice. But overhead, where our human hearing is not so hot, AND with 5 or 7 other speakers making sound at the same time, you won't notice the dissimilarity between the height pairs.


----------



## Spiderm0n

sdurani said:


> 7.2 is currently giving you side-vs-rear separation AND wrap-around envelopment in the surround field that you won't get from a single pair of Surrounds. You give that up to have a height layer, which will turn a 2D ring of sound into a 3D bubble of sound. One is not objectively superior to the other, so pick your preference. Worthwhile. Just add a pair of height speakers between the Surrounds and Fronts. You'll end up with left-vs-right AND front-vs-back separation in the height layer. Can you move your seating slightly forward, so that the Surrounds aren't directly at your sides?


Thanks. I can only move the seating forward 3" unfortunately. I think I will give it a shot, with 7.2.2 as the fall back.


----------



## davcole

Atmos is now working on Disney+, on the Chromecast with Google TV! Still only HDR10 video.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk


----------



## tparm

Hey all, I am moving into my new home early July, just pre-wired; the room is 14.8w x31(with full bar in the back of the room so not really 31) x9 and sealed to the rest of the house. Care has been taken in design (flish mounted AV rack on the side wall, proper insulation, wiring, no plumbing in the ceiling, etc). Currently I run a 5.2.4 Atmos system but ran additional cabling to accommodate front wides, side surrounds, rear surrounds and a center top speaker (over MLP). Current plan is to have floor level surrounds (LSiM 703s on stands) on the sides slightly behind the MLP and the tweeter is about 8" above seated ear level. Rear surrounds are tough as a high traffic area exist between the back of my sofa and a high top bar table. 

My questions are; for those of you using front wide channels, are they effective? Would you install them again? With what content are they most effective?

Same question for top center or voice of god? In the past I have enjoyed up mixing stereo music to Auro3D on occasion and may experiment with movies too where that channel makes logical sense. 

While my room is long(ish) effectively my MLP is about 14' from the front wall and 11.5' from the LCR channels (speculative positioning but I think it'll be close). With the room being narrow I am not sure the front wide channels would do much. Also I would need to buy additional speakers (likely LSiM 702 F/X) which isn't a big deal but no need to spend the money if I don't need to. 

The top center seems to make sense for everything except Atmos (DTS:X and Auro3D). I don't want Atmos to misread my layout and in some cases matrix all the height effects to one speaker (thinking its a .6 system and using only the _two _middle heights).

I am rambling, sorry. I am buying an AVR-X8500 so I have the capability to add channels, I'm not sure there is value in doing so and your input would be appreciated. 

Thanks.


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> When changing the 7.1 set-up to a 5.1.4 set-up, those high-mounted Rear speakers will become the Top Rear speakers and he just needs to add the Top Front speakers.


Ah, ok. Now I got it!


----------



## filmgeek47

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the "standard" in-ceiling speaker like the RSL C34E to a non-angled baffle with a more revealing tweeter (I'm thinking the Emotiva vaulta, or the conceptually similar Martin Logan offerings?) I ask because in my setup, I ran ML motion fronts with their "folded motion" tweeter for years with some basic polk surrounds. When I upgraded to matching surround channels for the ear-height speakers, I found that it actually made my fronts appear more resolving, as music was now being played across the same tweeter tech throughout. Debating if switching from the RSL's in the ceiling to something with a folded tweeter would be an upgrade or not, as I've found some Atmos mixes do mix music into the overheads.


----------



## niterida

filmgeek47 said:


> Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the "standard" in-ceiling speaker like the RSL C34E to a non-angled baffle with a more revealing tweeter (I'm thinking the Emotiva vaulta, or the conceptually similar Martin Logan offerings?) I ask because in my setup, I ran ML motion fronts with their "folded motion" tweeter for years with some basic polk surrounds. When I upgraded to matching surround channels for the ear-height speakers, I found that it actually made my fronts appear more resolving, as music was now being played across the same tweeter tech throughout. Debating if switching from the RSL's in the ceiling to something with a folded tweeter would be an upgrade or not, as I've found some Atmos mixes do mix music into the overheads.


The closer you can get to having all identical speakers, the better it will sound, especially if you can aim them directly at listeners. (as per Dolby guidelines).
Can you mount matching ML surrounds on-ceiling ? That will give you the ultimate setup.


----------



## filmgeek47

niterida said:


> The closer you can get to having all identical speakers, the better it will sound, especially if you can aim them directly at listeners. (as per Dolby guidelines).
> Can you mount matching ML surrounds on-ceiling ? That will give you the ultimate setup.


I’m loath to leave in-ceiling for the height channels, as it’s just a different thing aesthetically (happy wife happy life and all that). What I’m trying to figure out is this: how important is it really to have the mids cone aim at your MLP? that—and price—were the reasons I went with the RSL speakers). The Emotivas or Martin Logan’s both have aimable tweeters, but the other driver(s) just point straight down.


----------



## squared80

filmgeek47 said:


> I’m loath to leave in-ceiling for the height channels, as it’s just a different thing aesthetically (happy wife happy life and all that). What I’m trying to figure out is this: how important is it really to have the mids cone aim at your MLP? that—and price—were the reasons I went with the RSL speakers). The Emotivas or Martin Logan’s both have aimable tweeters, but the other driver(s) just point straight down.


If it's just one row of seating, downfiring is fine. Aim off the MLP at 45* towards the ceiling for front and back and you're good.

I have 3 rows, so I'm looking at these for my in-ceiling Atmos setup...
Klipsch PRO-180RPC LCR: PRO-180RPC LCR | Klipsch


----------



## niterida

filmgeek47 said:


> I’m loath to leave in-ceiling for the height channels, as it’s just a different thing aesthetically (happy wife happy life and all that). What I’m trying to figure out is this: how important is it really to have the mids cone aim at your MLP? that—and price—were the reasons I went with the RSL speakers). The Emotivas or Martin Logan’s both have aimable tweeters, but the other driver(s) just point straight down.


Aimed at listening position is the Dolby recommendation. 
Would you aim your main speakers 45deg away from you - which is what you are doing with down-firing speakers.
I have tested this in my room and aimed at listeners is a significant improvement.


----------



## filmgeek47

niterida said:


> Aimed at listening position is the Dolby recommendation.
> Would you aim your main speakers 45deg away from you - which is what you are doing with down-firing speakers.
> I have tested this in my room and aimed at listeners is a significant improvement.


Right, but the advice I'm getting is essentially to match my other speakers, but also aim the full driver complement at my MLP. That isn't possible, as no one makes an in-ceiling speaker with a folded/ribbon style tweeter that has an angled mid-range driver. So is the consensus that it's better to forgo matching the tweeters and keep the fully amiable RSL speakers I have?


----------



## niterida

filmgeek47 said:


> Right, but the advice I'm getting is essentially to match my other speakers, but also aim the full driver complement at my MLP. That isn't possible, as no one makes an in-ceiling speaker with a folded/ribbon style tweeter that has an angled mid-range driver. So is the consensus that it's better to forgo matching the tweeters and keep the fully amiable RSL speakers I have?


Thats a compromise only you can decide which to go with.
If you stick with RSL they will likely sound different.
If you go with matching down firing then you will be listening 45deg off-axis so they may sound different as well.
The only way to be certain is to mount mtaching surrounds on-ceiling.
Or change all your listener level speakers to match the RSL


----------



## Polyrythm1k

filmgeek47 said:


> Right, but the advice I'm getting is essentially to match my other speakers, but also aim the full driver complement at my MLP. That isn't possible, as no one makes an in-ceiling speaker with a folded/ribbon style tweeter that has an angled mid-range driver. So is the consensus that it's better to forgo matching the tweeters and keep the fully amiable RSL speakers I have?


One other thing that’s important is that RSL c34e’s have very wide dispersion, and that’s one of the attributes that makes a successful IC Atmos speaker. It doesn’t necessarily have to be on axis to provide good coverage, and imaging. They even publish the measurements on their site. Which if you’ve shopped for IW/IC speakers you’ll know almost NONE of them have reliable specs. Also, IME I haven’t found aimable tweeters alone to be valuable, and I think they can create more issues that they solve. 
I might have missed, but is there something you feel is lacking? Or is this purely academic? My rsl’s don’t match my other speakers either, and I haven’t found any real disparities.


----------



## chi_guy50

Polyrythm1k said:


> One other thing that’s important is that RSL c34e’s have very wide dispersion, and that’s one of the attributes that makes a successful IC Atmos speaker. It doesn’t necessarily have to be on axis to provide good coverage, and imaging. They even publish the measurements on their site. Which if you’ve shopped for IW/IC speakers you’ll know almost NONE of them have reliable specs. Also, IME I haven’t found *amiable tweeters* alone to be valuable, and I think they can create more issues that they solve.
> I might have missed, but is there something you feel is lacking? Or is this purely academic? My rsl’s don’t match my other speakers either, and I haven’t found any real disparities.


Maybe it's just me, but I think it is highly desirable in this age of divisiveness and social media animosity to encourage the development of "amiable tweeters." 😁


----------



## Polyrythm1k

chi_guy50 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I think it is highly desirable in this age of divisiveness and social media animosity to encourage the development of "amiable tweeters."


This is a great idea. I think Klipsch may have started this with the RP line. Lol. 
Love me some good autocorrect...


----------



## Goname31

Hi all, has anyone made the journey from 7.1.4 with height speakers, to 7.1.6 with top middles? Trying to figure out my next move.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

When I mounted my ceiling speakers, I foolishly went too far forward and back (admittedly due to poor planning), putting them at about 36 degrees from the front/rear speakers, respectively. While that is still within the placement guideline range, it isn't ideal and is also generally in the angular range of front/rear height placement. I will probably relocate them later to correct this, but... In the meantime, would it make sense to try them as front/rear height instead of top front/rear? Or would there be much of a difference based on the assignment? Seems like I'm getting okay side-to-side movement of sounds, but front to back doesn't quite sound perfect to me.

Or should I just not monkey with it until I can relocate the speakers?


----------



## usc1995

Jeremy Anderson said:


> When I mounted my ceiling speakers, I foolishly went too far forward and back (admittedly due to poor planning), putting them at about 36 degrees from the front/rear speakers, respectively. While that is still within the placement guideline range, it isn't ideal and is also generally in the angular range of front/rear height placement. I will probably relocate them later to correct this, but... In the meantime, would it make sense to try them as front/rear height instead of top front/rear? Or would there be much of a difference based on the assignment? Seems like I'm getting okay side-to-side movement of sounds, but front to back doesn't quite sound perfect to me.
> 
> Or should I just not monkey with it until I can relocate the speakers?


It cost nothing but time and effort to see if they sound better as FH/RH than TF/TR. Monkeying around is half the fun with this hobby...


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Or should I just not monkey with it until I can relocate the speakers?


No penalty for monkeying with it. Change their label to Height, re-cal with Audyssey, and see if they sound better than labeling them as Tops. You can always go back to the old labels.


----------



## usc1995

Goname31 said:


> Hi all, has anyone made the journey from 7.1.4 with height speakers, to 7.1.6 with top middles? Trying to figure out my next move.


I have not made that journey yet but I do intend to upgrade to 7.2.6 from my current 7.2.4. I will likely mount additional speakers to the top of the front wall, rename my TF to TM, rename my TR to RH and go with a FH/TM/RH designation. I am looking at the Denon 6700 as I know it supports this setup. What are considering doing?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Goname31 said:


> Hi all, has anyone made the journey from 7.1.4 with height speakers, to 7.1.6 with top middles? Trying to figure out my next move.


Go for front wides if your room permits, much better use of the extra speakers.


----------



## squared80

Generally speaking, Front Wides + 4 Heights > No Wides + 6 Heights


----------



## howard68

I have the 6700 with an RCA switch 
And have preset 1 as 7.2.6
And preset 2 as 9.2.4
I am leaning towards 9.2.4 
However, some films Don't use FW


----------



## bryantc

howard68 said:


> However, some films Don't use FW


Almost always those films won't use TM either. Disney for example.


----------



## noah katz

howard68 said:


> However, some films Don't use FW


Most films don't have Atmos or DTS X soundtracks.

That leaves the upmixers, which use wides all of the time, and likely more than native soundtracks do.


----------



## Goname31

usc1995 said:


> I have not made that journey yet but I do intend to upgrade to 7.2.6 from my current 7.2.4. I will likely mount additional speakers to the top of the front wall, rename my TF to TM, rename my TR to RH and go with a FH/TM/RH designation. I am looking at the Denon 6700 as I know it supports this setup. What are considering doing?


For those asking, my room does not allow me to use front wides for now, this move will have to wait for a dedicated home theater room. I'm under the impression that the wides are more popular than FH TM RH, but i rarely see that config on forums. I have seen a lot of X.X.6 configs, but with in ceilings, so my feeling is that this would not be beneficial for a single row of seatings. FH TM RH seems to be perfect for a single row though, with wall of sound effect in front and behind you and sound directly above.

I'm considering the 6700 or the SR8015, as I feel that's the only option for an hybrid dtsxpro/atmos setup. I would add side heights, make two profiles with audyssey, one declaring them as side heights for dts x pro and Auro3D (this one purely for upmixing purpose), one with SH declared as TM.

Is there any other option in this price range for me? Trinnov and StormAudio would remap the SH as TM automatically, but it's an entirely different category.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Goname31 said:


> For those asking, my room does not allow me to use front wides for now, this move will have to wait for a dedicated home theater room. I'm under the impression that the wides are more popular than FH TM RH, but i rarely see that config on forums. I have seen a lot of X.X.6 configs, but with in ceilings, so my feeling is that this would not be beneficial for a single row of seatings. FH TM RH seems to be perfect for a single row though, with wall of sound effect in front and behind you and sound directly above.
> 
> I'm considering the 6700 or the SR8015, as I feel that's the only option for an hybrid dtsxpro/atmos setup. I would add side heights, make two profiles with audyssey, one declaring them as side heights for dts x pro and Auro3D (this one purely for upmixing purpose), one with SH declared as TM.
> 
> Is there any other option in this price range for me? Trinnov and StormAudio would remap the SH as TM automatically, but it's an entirely different category.


Personally I wouldn't bother going from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6, just stay with your current setup until you can get a dedicated room.


----------



## Goname31

Mashie Saldana said:


> Personally I wouldn't bother going from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6, just stay with your current setup until you can get a dedicated room.


Oh your config is pretty much what I'd like to do. So the route from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 wasn't worth it? Why?


----------



## blake

noah katz said:


> Most films don't have Atmos or DTS X soundtracks.
> 
> That leaves the upmixers, which use wides all of the time, and likely more than native soundtracks do.


Dolby Surround Upmixer does not use front wides. (At least not the current version) 

Neural x does. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Goname31 said:


> Oh your config is pretty much what I'd like to do. So the route from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6 wasn't worth it? Why?


I went from 7.1 to 9.1.6. The top middles are the speakers adding the least to the immersive experience so if I had to downgrade those would be first to be disconnected.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

blake said:


> Dolby Surround Upmixer does not use front wides. (At least not the current version)
> 
> Neural x does.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


DSUv2 found in the D&M products do indeed use the front wides.


----------



## Goname31

Mashie Saldana said:


> I went from 7.1 to 9.1.6. The top middles are the speakers adding the least to the immersive experience so if I had to downgrade those would be first to be disconnected.


I understand. But your room, while it is a killer install I'd die for, is relatively small, so the height speakers are pretty close. In my living room, side heights would have more room to express themself; as my room lenght is almost 20 feet. I suppose it could change things a bit. Or not, guess I'll have to try.

The voice of Reason tells me to wait for the X8500H replacement. But then again that upgrade itch...


----------



## usc1995

Mashie Saldana said:


> Personally I wouldn't bother going from 7.1.4 to 7.1.6, just stay with your current setup until you can get a dedicated room.


My room is only 10ft x 15.5 ft. Would you go wides or top middle in this situation? I would be interested in wides but they would only be about 4 ft from my L and R.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

usc1995 said:


> My room is only 10ft x 15.5 ft. Would you go wides or top middle in this situation? I would be interested in wides but they would only be about 4 ft from my L and R.


Wides. If you place them at 60 degrees assuming your L/R are at 30 degrees it will work just fine, those are the angles I use. And distance wise they should be further away than any of your surround speakers.

As Noah said further up, not all immersive content will use them, however everything legacy that you are using upmixers for will. Good 5.1 tracks are spectacular once you upmix them using wides.


----------



## Blade 77

Do you think i Should i try Height and if yes at which height should i place my dolby enabled speakers? As i only have a front wall, can i place the 2 back height speakers left and right above collumns? My receiver is Denon 3700 what mode should i choose then ? Front and Rear Heights or Front Height & Top Middle ?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Do you think i Should i try Height and if yes at which height should i place my dolby enabled speakers? As i only have a front wall, can i place the 2 back height speakers left and right above collumns? My receiver is Denon 3700 what mode should i choose then ? Front and Rear Heights or Front Height & Top Middle ?


Yes you can. But iirc, you don’t have AE enabled speakers....


----------



## Blade 77

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yes you can. But iirc, you don’t have AE enabled speakers....


I dont have a back wall to hang back heights. Can i mount them at the left-right collumn instead? Then what mode should i choose on my receiver?


----------



## mrvideo

Blade 77 said:


> I dont have a back wall to hang back heights.


Then build/buy a mount to hang them from your ceiling. I'll have the same situation with the right-center height. No wall, but there is the ceiling.


----------



## Blade 77

mrvideo said:


> Then build/buy a mount to hang them from your ceiling. I'll have the same situation with the right-center height. No wall, but there is the ceiling.


Ηι, i have already done that. Unfortunately, i cant figure the exact hanging from ceiling positions, according with Dolby. Moreover i think it will look ugly, because it will look assymetrical with the light in the roof.


----------



## Golfa005

Throwing this one over the wall....

After a month of 5.1.2 with Denon 3400 receiver...DTS movies with the neural X is better than Atmos. DTS is louder and activates all 7 channels more actively. I have to crannnnkk volume on Atmos to get close to dts levels

Anyone else have similar feelings compared to Atmos?


----------



## mrvideo

Blade 77 said:


> Ηι, i have already done that. Unfortunately, i cant figure the exact hanging from ceiling positions, according with Dolby. Moreover i think it will look ugly, because it will look assymetrical with the light in the roof.


Sorry can't help you there. I personally do not care about ugly. I care about functionality.


----------



## mrvideo

Nevermind - issue resolved.


----------



## PeterTHX

Golfa005 said:


> Throwing this one over the wall....
> 
> After a month of 5.1.2 with Denon 3400 receiver...DTS movies with the neural X is better than Atmos. DTS is louder and activates all 7 channels more actively. I have to crannnnkk volume on Atmos to get close to dts levels
> 
> Anyone else have similar feelings compared to Atmos?


Yes, but the opposite.

Neural:X is like playing everything video wise on "VIVID" mode because it's brighter and more colorful!
Neural:X is NOT more natural sounding. I don't need things like dialog from the front bleeding into the surrounds or all 11 speakers advertising their presence at all times Louder is not better.


----------



## b0rnarian

PeterTHX said:


> Yes, but the opposite.
> 
> Neural:X is like playing everything video wise on "VIVID" mode because it's brighter and more colorful!
> Neural:X is NOT more natural sounding. I don't need things like dialog from the front bleeding into the surrounds or all 11 speakers advertising their presence at all times Louder is not better.


Couldn't have used a better analogy than Vivid picture mode. We pay so much more for more accurate and precise sound and picture and then ppl just juice it up six ways to Sunday regardless defeating the whole purpose of all that better equipment and money spent - I don't get it honestly but to each their own.


----------



## sdrucker

I guess this is good news...not expecting miracles, but hopefully not a Disneyesque pre-print:








Indiana Jones 4-Movie Collection officially comes to 4K in June


Amazon Commissions Earned The “Indiana Jones 4-Movie Collection” is officially coming to 4K UHD Blu-ray on June 8th via Paramount Home Entertainment. The set (collection) includes the f…




highdefdiscnews.com


----------



## T-Bone

Golfa005 said:


> Throwing this one over the wall....
> 
> After a month of 5.1.2 with Denon 3400 receiver...DTS movies with the neural X is better than Atmos. DTS is louder and activates all 7 channels more actively. I have to crannnnkk volume on Atmos to get close to dts levels
> 
> Anyone else have similar feelings compared to Atmos?


Similar experience. Plus, I read a review that stated Neural:X did bump the sounds a few dB once they are moved to the heights. I like the effect of bumping the heights dB.

I Also noticed that applying Neural X to 2-channel music, heights sound better than DSU upmixer. More clear (and the clearness was not a result of a dB boost). It was just an experiment. I actually prefer 2-channel to play on two towers.

-T


----------



## AYanguas

Golfa005 said:


> Throwing this one over the wall....
> 
> After a month of 5.1.2 with Denon 3400 receiver...DTS movies with the neural X is better than Atmos. DTS is louder and activates all 7 channels more actively. I have to crannnnkk volume on Atmos to get close to dts levels
> 
> Anyone else have similar feelings compared to Atmos?


For Atmos, the amount of effects, amount of sound that goes to the heights and amount of the bubble sound perception is always dependent on how the mix was done by the artist / sound engineer.
It is not Atmos, it is the mixer that did the mix. When the mix is done accordingly, Atmos will deliver whatever amount of sound to whatever channel.

It happens the same for stereo or 5.1 mixes when the upmixers are applied. Different upmixers give different results. But it is also dependent on how the original stereo (or 5.1) was done.
The amount of "encoded" effects, out-of-phase, delays, etc. will be processed in a different manner by different upmixers.

With Neural:X you get more Heights volume content, and perhaps, more clear than with DSU. But, depending on how the original mix was done, the sense of bubble sound, the "feeling of reality" of the sound will be also different in each case.

For certain stereo music albums, and for certain films or series I like more DSU upmixer, but for others I prefer NEURAL:X. Normally I always like Auro-3D upmixer (Auromatic) for music.

But in some cases, like recently in some rock concerts I've watched, it sounds "weak" or "more diffuse" and I prefer the original Stereo that comes with the disc.

A Dolby Atmos native mix can be done good, aggressive or with many effects, or subtle with lack of effects. It would depend on creativity skills, and available production budget. Someone said that the industry and the mixers/artist community are still learning to mix in Atmos.


----------



## Golfa005

PeterTHX said:


> Yes, but the opposite.
> 
> Neural:X is like playing everything video wise on "VIVID" mode because it's brighter and more colorful!
> Neural:X is NOT more natural sounding. I don't need things like dialog from the front bleeding into the surrounds or all 11 speakers advertising their presence at all times Louder is not better.


I knew I'd be lobbing the grenade over the wall!  I like your comparison, and now that you made that analogy I can totally see your point. Ready player one is cranked up with the DTSX mix, but as a new 5.1.2 listener it is freaking awesome. I don't think I have watched enough movies yet with my new setup to make a fair comparison, still early days for me being 1 month into atmos and only 5-7 decent 4k bluray titles to test. I will keep my "ears out" for better mixed atmos movies where I don't feel strained to hear anything and that have more natural sounds.



AYanguas said:


> For Atmos, the amount of effects, amount of sound that goes to the heights and amount of the bubble sound perception is always dependent on how the mix was done by the artist / sound engineer.
> It is not Atmos, it is the mixer that did the mix. When the mix is done accordingly, Atmos will deliver whatever amount of sound to whatever channel.
> 
> It happens the same for stereo or 5.1 mixes when the upmixers are applied. Different upmixers give different results. But it is also dependent on how the original stereo (or 5.1) was done.
> The amount of "encoded" effects, out-of-phase, delays, etc. will be processed in a different manner by different upmixers.
> 
> With Neural:X you get more Heights volume content, and perhaps, more clear than with DSU. But, depending on how the original mix was done, the sense of bubble sound, the "feeling of reality" of the sound will be also different in each case.
> 
> For certain stereo music albums, and for certain films or series I like more DSU upmixer, but for others I prefer NEURAL:X. Normally I always like Auro-3D upmixer (Auromatic) for music.
> 
> But in some cases, like recently in some rock concerts I've watched, it sounds "weak" or "more diffuse" and I prefer the original Stereo that comes with the disc.
> 
> A Dolby Atmos native mix can be done good, aggressive or with many effects, or subtle with lack of effects. It would depend on creativity skills, and available production budget. Someone said that the industry and the mixers/artist community are still learning to mix in Atmos.


good info and I appreciate the reply and insights! thanks guys


----------



## eaayoung

Golfa005 said:


> I don't think I have watched enough movies yet with my new setup to make a fair comparison, still early days for me being 1 month into atmos and only 5-7 decent 4k bluray titles to test. I will keep my "ears out" for better mixed atmos movies where I don't feel strained to hear anything and that have more natural sounds. good info and I appreciate the reply and insights! thanks guys


. 

What movies in Atmos have you watched?


----------



## PeterTHX

Golfa005 said:


> I knew I'd be lobbing the grenade over the wall!  I like your comparison, and now that you made that analogy I can totally see your point. Ready player one is cranked up with the DTSX mix, but as a new 5.1.2 listener it is freaking awesome. I don't think I have watched enough movies yet with my new setup to make a fair comparison, still early days for me being 1 month into atmos and only 5-7 decent 4k bluray titles to test. I will keep my "ears out" for better mixed atmos movies where I don't feel strained to hear anything and that have more natural sounds.


I've found one of the best ways to "test" an Atmos immersive mix is how well the speakers disappear.
I always get the best reaction from guests when sounds will appear to be coming from somewhere in the room where there are no speakers nearby.
_Blade Runner 2049_ is a very aggressive mix but one of my friends was in awe in the scene where K takes Joi to the roof - the gentle rainfall and distant voices coming from everywhere. Very subtle.


----------



## sdurani

PeterTHX said:


> Neural:X is NOT more natural sounding. I don't need things like dialog from the front bleeding into the surrounds or all 11 speakers advertising their presence at all times Louder is not better.


The dialogue bleed can be annoying, but it doesn't happen if the dialogue is limited to the Centre channel (discrete Centre channel content is not touched by any of the immersive upmixers).


----------



## Scott Simonian

sdurani said:


> The dialogue bleed can be annoying, but it doesn't happen if the dialogue is limited to the Centre channel (discrete Centre channel content is not touched by any of the immersive upmixers).


Yeah. I found that odd dialog-panning was pretty rare occurrence with Neural:X processing.

It just so that it puts other sounds that can be distracting to hear from the ceiling that are a thing. But that is not happening all the time either. Often, Neural:X can make a legacy surround track sound pretty darn close to an immersive one.

Not all upmixes are winners, of course.


----------



## fatherom

I find I use the Dolby upmixer for Dolby soundtracks and the dts one for dts soundtracks. 

Anyone else do this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## howard68

sdrucker said:


> I guess this is good news...not expecting miracles, but hopefully not a Disneyesque pre-print:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indiana Jones 4-Movie Collection officially comes to 4K in June
> 
> 
> Amazon Commissions Earned The “Indiana Jones 4-Movie Collection” is officially coming to 4K UHD Blu-ray on June 8th via Paramount Home Entertainment. The set (collection) includes the f…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> highdefdiscnews.com


Yes I hope that it gets a good Mix
I Will not order until I hear a review of the sound!
Let's hope
H


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> I find I use the Dolby upmixer for Dolby soundtracks and the dts one for dts soundtracks.
> 
> Anyone else do this?


Dolby Digital/TrueHD and DTS/DTS-HD MA are just compression codecs. They don't change the properties of the original mix beyond data compression. There is no reason one upmixer would work better with either compression codec than the other.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> Dolby Digital/TrueHD and DTS/DTS-HD MA are just compression codecs. They don't change the properties of the original mix beyond data compression. There is no reason one upmixer would work better with either compression codec than the other.


Fair enough...do you prefer one upmixer over the other, for movie content?


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> Fair enough...do you prefer one upmixer over the other, for movie content?


This is very subjective. I generally prefer DSU because it sounds more naturalistic. I find Neural:X a little distractingly aggressive and gimmicky. On the other hand, I recognize how that can be appealing on some movies.

That said, the last firmware update to my Denon receiver broke DSU upmixing of 2-channel content, which now bleeds dialogue into the surround channels where it didn't before. Upmixing 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks still works fine, but I have to use Neural:X for 2.0 tracks.


----------



## dschulz

Josh Z said:


> That said, the last firmware update to my Denon receiver broke DSU upmixing of 2-channel content, which now bleeds dialogue into the surround channels where it didn't before. Upmixing 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks still works fine, but I have to use Neural:X for 2.0 tracks.


Weird. Has this been reported in to Denon & Dolby?


----------



## Josh Z

dschulz said:


> Weird. Has this been reported in to Denon & Dolby?


Yes, it's been a problem with the DSU APK in newer receiver models across all brands for the past couple years. My Denon X8500 pre-dated the issue and used to work fine, but the recent firmware update to add Front Wide support for DSU brought this problem along with it.

Allegedly, Dolby didn't have the resources to deal with the issue last year but are looking into it now.


----------



## MagnumX

Mashie Saldana said:


> I went from 7.1 to 9.1.6. The top middles are the speakers adding the least to the immersive experience so if I had to downgrade those would be first to be disconnected.


Without top middles, I'd have a "hole" overhead in the middle of the room. It almost sounds like a gazebo blocking the sound. With top middle speakers added, I get a near perfect pan across the ceiling and the Dolby helicopter circles the entire 12'x24' ceiling smoothly. 

With shorter rooms or using tops speakers instead of heights (that only utilize half the ceiling by comparison) they may not matter as much.

With a 12' width, the fronts can pan reasonably well to the side surrounds without front wides, but they help with off-axis seats a great deal.

If I had to choose, I'd gave little choice but to go with Top Middles as they are far more critical to my room size with heights utilized.



PeterTHX said:


> Yes, but the opposite.
> 
> Neural:X is like playing everything video wise on "VIVID" mode because it's brighter and more colorful!
> Neural:X is NOT more natural sounding. I don't need things like dialog from the front bleeding into the surrounds or all 11 speakers advertising their presence at all times Louder is not better.


I honestly don't know what Neural X setup you listened to, but I have NEVER heard dialog come from the ceiling. I suppose this might happen when set to "Tops" only or something, though since Neural X is known to bleed sound into other speakers to where it thinks they should be in Tops mode. It does not do that in heights mode, however.

I use heights mode and I've never heard channel bleed nor do the movies sound "louder" to me than DSU. That "vivid" comparison is not my experience. If you think it's "unnatural" to have thunder or airplanes overhead, I have to question what you think is natural because DSU usually puts them at ear level. THAT is unnatural, IMO. I'm amazed how accurate Neural X is.

I've yet to hear a single instance of a car flying overhead that wasn't doing so in the movie. I've asked for examples in the past and got no real takers (no movie I have and I own over a thousand).

Sanjay keeps implying Neural X puts any dialogue (maybe anything in general) overhead that moves out of the center channel. I only have to play the DTS-ES 6.1 version of any of the Toy Story movies (which all use panned dialogue) to know this is false! They do not move overhead as their voices pan past center! That would imply Neural X can't play anything at ear level that's not in the center speaker.

If you look at the actual patents for Neural X it plainly says it uses time & frequency domain analysis compared to known patterns to place sounds overhead. This perhaps implies something closer to HRTF comparisons of a given sound when played below versus above rather than a simple matrix effect like Dolby uses. 

Perhaps it doesn't work as well with music because that is the only time I hear obvious weird behaviors (A tendency to put music overhead), but then so many Atmos and X soundtracks do that on purpose, it's hard to tell if it was designed to do that or not. 

I do know Neural X put the helicopter in Biggles on the ceiling, but not the other sounds and its a 2-channel Dolby track. It also put the jets overhead in tbe 6.1 DTS version of Top Gun long before the Atmos version came out (That one has anemic LFE bass by comparison at the same overall levels). IMO, Neural X is vastly superior to DSU.

The great thing is people have both available(and Auro's upmixer as well in many systems) to try and decide for themselves. I shudder to think what upmixer we'd have if there had been no competition between Dolby and DTS. 

Many think Auro's upmixer is best for music because it doesn't alter the basic soundstage. It sounds more like a hall DSP to me, which I like for some albums, but not others. 

I've also read great things about Lexicon's Logic 7 and more recently Involve Audio's Surround Master (that also decodes two types of Quad LPs). I plan on checking that out since I don't find any upmixer I've heard so far great for altering the soundstage to something more three dimensional like Atmos music or Auro's dual-quad recordings have done. 

Carver's old Sonic Holography is probably the best I've heard for 2-channel and I use it with my ribbon speakers upstairs. I've also read goid things about Ambisonics along those lines (interaural crosstalk canceling), but haven't had the pleasure if gearing it yet. The new JBK Synthesis AVP is promising a LOGIC 16 mode I'm waiting to hear about as well. Dolby and DTS upmixing aren't so great they can't be improved, IMO, but then sometimes plain stereo simply sounds the best.


----------



## Scott Simonian

It is so nice to have the option to pick what you want to listen to in your own home theater system. I get to choose what sounds best and when.



DSU tonight?....

Or maybe Neural:X?


Maybe tonight is an Auro night....


----------



## marter5

Currently have a 5.1 system and considering hanging 4 NHT Super Zeros on ceiling Omnimounts for Atmos. I realize I'd be breaking a guideline if I don't have the MLP centered (front to back) between the front and rear height speakers but I can stay within target elevation angle guidelines. Question is would Audyssey set the delays (distance) so it would compensate for that?


----------



## sdurani

marter5 said:


> Question is would Audyssey set the delays (distance) so it would compensate for that?


Audyssey can compensate for distance (set delays & levels to that all speakers appear the same distance away) but it cannot compensate for angle (change the direction of the sound).


----------



## marter5

sdurani said:


> Audyssey can compensate for distance (set delays & levels to that all speakers appear the same distance away) but it cannot compensate for angle (change the direction of the sound).


I'll be using Omnimounts and can aim the speakers at the MLP. Is that what you mean?


----------



## sdurani

marter5 said:


> I'll be using Omnimounts and can aim the speakers at the MLP. Is that what you mean?


No, not toe-in (aiming the speaker). I meant angle, as in elevation angle. Audyssey can't change that.


----------



## marter5

sdurani said:


> No, not toe-in (aiming the speaker). I meant angle, as in elevation angle. Audyssey can't change that.


Got it. So the guidelines recommend 45deg with a range of 30 to 55. So even though I can stay within that range, it they're different I'd notice it?


----------



## sdurani

marter5 said:


> So even though I can stay within that range, it they're different I'd notice it?


Depends on how different. 30 vs 55 degrees? That's noticeable. But I wouldn't worry about it. Will height sounds come from above you? Yes. Will you hear left-vs-right separation? Yes. Will you hear front-vs-back separation? Yes. Will it be symmetrical front to back? No, but neither is our human hearing. Your set-up will sound fine.


----------



## howard68

Any reviews of the new Godzilla 4k disc with the new Atmos Sound 
I hope that it a good mix


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> I honestly don't know what Neural X setup you listened to, but I have NEVER heard dialog come from the ceiling. I suppose this might happen when set to "Tops" only or something, though since Neural X is known to bleed sound into other speakers to where it thinks they should be in Tops mode. It does not do that in heights mode, however.


Note I said "surrounds" - not the overheads.


----------



## priitv8

PeterTHX said:


> I always get the best reaction from guests when sounds will appear to be coming from somewhere in the room where there are no speakers nearby.
> _Blade Runner 2049_ is a very aggressive mix but one of my friends was in awe in the scene where K takes Joi to the roof - the gentle rainfall and distant voices coming from everywhere. Very subtle.


I watched that scene today specifically. 
It is strange, that almost nothing is emitted from the height speakers! Just a minute dripping of water. 
Similar good scene is at chapter 15 and there the blue-haired avatar speaks from front height speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> Note I said "surrounds" - not the overheads.


True, it was Sanjay that claimed panned dialog in Neural X goes to the overheads (it does not). I have read an update to DSU on AVRs like the Denon 8500 leak dialog to the surround speakers, but I don't recall ever reading that about Neural X before. 

Neural X does leak to speakers on purpose in some configurations to try and fill gaps, though, particularly in Tops mode. Beyond that, if you could provide an example movie and scene where Neural X bleeds dialog into the surround channels, I'd love to check it out.


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> It is so nice to have the option to pick what you want to listen to in your own home theater system. I get to choose what sounds best and when.
> 
> 
> 
> DSU tonight?....
> 
> Or maybe Neural:X?
> 
> 
> Maybe tonight is an Auro night....


With your animated pic, I get the feeling you're being sarcastic, but I can't imagine why unless you only watch everything in Pure Direct mode. 

One should keep in mind that when Dolby changed their recommendations for where the surround speakers should be located (moving them downward from ~2/3 the height if the wall to ear level or just above it), they also changed how older movies are perceived on the newer layouts. Without an upmixer, movies like Top Gun would now have planes at ear level that previously were higher overhead with the old surround configuration.

Thus, any notion that upmixing isn't what was originally intended to be heard are already muddied by the somewhat incompatible changes to the home format (While many movie theaters may have left the surrounds where they always were or close to it several feet above ear level and just added the ceiling speakers, at home that's too small a difference in height. 

Many have had completely redo custom in wall setups, etc as a result to get Atmos only to find non-Atmos movies no longer sound the same in direct (non-upmixed) modes. 

Unfortunately for purists, no upmix mode simply shifts the surround image higher to simulate the old configuration. Some of us have found solace in that Neural X and even DSU to some extent (planes excepted) actually does it better most of the time.

I certainly wouldn't be against them adding a simple "shift surrounds higher" mode to simulate the old 5.1/7.1 surround locations, though. Auro kind of does that, but adds reverb that can't be disabled.


----------



## Scott Simonian

MagnumX said:


> With your animated pic, I get the feeling you're being sarcastic


You would be wrong.


----------



## PeterTHX

priitv8 said:


> I watched that scene today specifically.
> It is strange, that almost nothing is emitted from the height speakers! Just a minute dripping of water.
> Similar good scene is at chapter 15 and there the blue-haired avatar speaks from front height speakers.


It more of a "speakers disappear" moment and you actually feel like you're outdoors in the environment.

Note that you can't hear rain "above" you - only when it strikes something around you unless you're under something. There is nothing directly above K & Joi but sky.


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> It more of a "speakers disappear" moment and you actually feel like you're outdoors in the environment.
> 
> Note that you can't hear rain "above" you - only when it strikes something around you unless you're under something. There is nothing directly above K & Joi but sky.


So you don't hear something above you when it hits the top of your head? I guess we're different that way. 

Raindrops keep falling on my head....


----------



## b0rnarian

Is there a list of good atmos demos or movies that folks recommended?


----------



## MagnumX

Scott Simonian said:


> You would be wrong.


Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## petetherock

b0rnarian said:


> Is there a list of good atmos demos or movies that folks recommended?


There are many such lists, eg:








20 of the best film scenes to test surround sound


Looking for the best film scenes to show off your surround sound system's potency? We have just what you need...




www.whathifi.com


----------



## eaayoung

I would add Sicario, Fury, Greyhound and 1917 to that list.


----------



## Scott Simonian

Gravity is still the killer-app for Atmos.

UHD version was announced. I hope they re-issue the BD or include the Diamond Deluxe copy with the 4K version.


----------



## Craig Mecak

Interesting use of Dolby Atmos audio objects on the new Apple TV+ show 'Calls'. The entire show is just audio from phone conversations plus on-screen graphics, but is an ingenious use of Atmos objects & panning.


----------



## Blade 77

Hello, i just finished installing my 4 Heights, as it has proven very difficult in praxis, to install them in-ceiling. My first impressions: The height effects are noticable louder and more present, however i dont know if it will be a "day and night difference". I dont know, maybe i had get used of the narrower soundstage and now that it has expanded it seems a little strange to me. However i must find a proper True HD Audio movie or a Atmos Demo disc(when finally i will buy a Nvidia Shield) to check it out better.


----------



## T-Bone

Blade 77 said:


> Hello, i just finished installing my 4 Heights, as it has proven very difficult in praxis, to install them in-ceiling. My first impressions: The height effects are noticable louder and more present, however i dont know if it will be a "day and night difference". I dont know, maybe i had get used of the narrower soundstage and now that it has expanded it seems a little strange to me. However i must find a proper True HD Audio movie or a Atmos Demo disc(when finally i will buy a Nvidia Shield) to check it out better.


For starters, try this site. Search the page for helicopter... it is Dolby digital Plus Atmos. it's a good demo because the helicopter should definitely sound like it is above you and all around you, circling.






Samples - Official Kodi Wiki







kodi.wiki





-T


----------



## Blade 77

T-Bone said:


> For starters, try this site. Search the page for helicopter... it is Dolby digital Plus Atmos. it's a good demo because the helicopter should definitely sound like it is above you and all around you, circling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samples - Official Kodi Wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kodi.wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -T


Hi i have already downloaded the helicopter demo file, however i wasnt able to play it using LG browser(AVSCHD video file). Should i use an external media player? And how the helicopter should sound like it is above me, since i dont have in ceiling speakers installed? Sorry if asking to many questions, im just trying to sort this out!


----------



## MagnumX

Blade 77 said:


> Hi i have already downloaded the helicopter demo file, however i wasnt able to play it using LG browser(AVSCHD video file). Should i use an external media player? And how the helicopter should sound like it is above me, since i dont have in ceiling speakers installed? Sorry if asking to many questions, im just trying to sort this out!


I use KODI on an NVidia Shield for file/network playback. Some disc players "might" work, but the few I tried wouldn't pass Atmos from MKV or MP4 files.

The helicopter will fly at the same height as your speakers. I can't tell mine from the ceiling as it's hard to gauge height overhead with extreme precision. Sounds at 100% overhead glide around the ceiling. It's a myth you need in-ceiling speakers to come from the ceiling. On-ceiling or very close to the ceiling sounds like ceiling. 

However, "Tops" speakers are further into the room than "heights" so more sounds come from higher angles or closer to directly overhead than heights which can image across the entire ceiling. Some prefer sounds higher overhead all the time, but I figure I might as well have just gone 7.1.2 and saved money if I just wanted everything directly overhead. Flyovers, etc are much more impressive sounding to me flying 24' than just 12' tops would go, etc


----------



## b0rnarian

Thank you guys for recommending BR2049 and Greyhound for their Atmos tracks... the sound is so engulfing on both you can just watch them for sound alone! And that's exactly what I did yest. when I started up Greyhound and ended up finishing the whole thing. Then started up 2049 and got lost in the futuristic city and crazy bass.


----------



## Calypte

Current setup:
5.2
5 ea Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2 and 2 ea Power Sound Audio TV1512 subs
Marantz SR6013 receiver
Emotiva XPA-5 amp for the five channels.

I'm considering going to a Dolby Atmos system with 4 ea height speakers. I may go to a 7-channel setup for the fronts and surrounds.. 

I have heard only two demos of Dolby Atmos, one at a hi-end audio show in 2017, and one on Mar 18, 2021 at a hi-end audio store in L.A. Both demos used 7.2.4 systems with identical speakers all around (but different speakers in each demo). The demos have left me unimpressed with Dolby Atmos. I'm taking it on faith that once I have my own setup, then the wonders of Dolby Atmos will be fully revealed.

I'm looking at height speakers that will have to be mounted on the walls or ceiling (10 ft flat ceiling). I'd like to get speakers that don't clash too much sonically with the Hsu Research speakers. I have some interest in height speakers that allow some adjustment of their firing angles, so I can fiddle with the angles for best result. I'm stepping into unknown waters, and I don't know what arrangement will yield the best result within the constraints of the room and my resources.

Among the height speakers I've looked at from online dealers:

SVS Elevation
SVS Prime Satellite
Polk S15
Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000
PSB Alpha P3.

I'm soliciting comments about these choices and advice about any others that I should consider.


----------



## MagnumX

Calypte said:


> I have heard only two demos of Dolby Atmos, one at a hi-end audio show in 2017, and one on Mar 18, 2021 at a hi-end audio store in L.A. Both demos used 7.2.4 systems with identical speakers all around (but different speakers in each demo). The demos have left me unimpressed with Dolby Atmos. I'm taking it on faith that once I have my own setup, then the wonders of Dolby Atmos will be fully revealed.


It's very software specific (i.e. Many Atmos movies are NOT impressive, but some are _very_ impressive indeed. Many others are somewhere in-between). 

I've probably been 10x more impressed with some Atmos music than movies, however. Yello's 2020 album _Point_, in particular is _ridiculously_ good in Atmos with pretty good dynamic range to boot (you have to crank it to really hear the full effect) with massive deep bass as well.


----------



## Calypte

MagnumX said:


> It's very software specific (i.e. Many Atmos movies are NOT impressive, but some are _very_ impressive indeed. Many others are somewhere in-between).
> 
> I've probably been 10x more impressed with some Atmos music than movies, however. Yello's 2020 album _Point_, in particular is _ridiculously_ good in Atmos with pretty good dynamic range to boot (you have to crank it to really hear the full effect) with massive deep bass as well.


At this past Thursday's demo, I specifically asked for something with aircraft flying overhead. The shop's owner played parts of _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. Meh!


----------



## MagnumX

Calypte said:


> At this past Thursday's demo, I specifically asked for something with aircraft flying overhead. The shop's owner played parts of _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. Meh!


Ironically, there's a great jet flyover at the end of the song "Rush For Joe" on Yello's album _Point_ in Atmos. It flies a rather odd diagonal pattern, though from above the left wide speaker here to just behind the center of the room and somewhere out the right side between the side surround and rear surround speaker, but on the ceiling, of course (lower speakers for reference points). 

I just watched the old (rather cheesy) movie King Solomon's Mines (early Sharon Stone, though) off Amazon Prime and it only had a 2-channel sound and yet the scene with the biplane flew straight across the ceiling front-to-back at one point using the Neural X upmixer that some on here have been maligning for some odd reason (it rocks!).

Come to think of it, I'm hard pressed to think of truly awesome straight flyovers in Atmos movies. Red Tails had some pretty good ones in Auro-3D as well as the Auro-3D demo that has a jetliner takeoff front-to-back and helicopters that go back-to-front. Movies like Mission Impossible Fallout have great helicopter sounds overhead, etc., but if you just want a nice (fairly slow) flyover on the ceiling, that seems to be a bit more rare. Blade Runner 2049 had "bits" of a flyover but not a straight full ceiling one your brain has time to process, IMO. It does seem like I heard a couple of other ones (other than upmixed ones) not too long ago, though.

Believe it or not, the newer version of Flatliners in either Dolby Atmos (iTunes streaming version only that's in 4K) or Auro-3D (2K Blu-Ray from Australia) has voices talking about near death experiences right near the very beginning during the title sequences and they just move around all over the ceiling, popping up and/or panning across the ceiling. It's 2 minutes of AWESOME for testing overhead speakers (the actual movie falls a bit more flat, overall, but I love showing that off as a demo because it really uses just the ceiling with these voices and it's all over the ceiling, not just in the front top or right above your head like many movie effects), particularly with heights. 

_Fury_ with Brad Pitt has some awesome moments with Germans banging on the top of the tank from a view inside the tank (they're hitting the ceiling) plus all kinds of shells and what not flying overhead. _Overlord_ has crap exploding and shells going off all around and above at the start plus this awesome bit where a kid drops a baseball in the attic above and it rolls across your ceiling (sounded REAL here). The original Jumanji with Robin Williams has an awesome Atmos soundtrack on the 4K version. Those giant mosquitoes are flying above your head and animals stampede across the room from multiple directions, etc. (way more impressive than the soundtracks on the newer ones, IMO, although those are way funnier). The Harry Potter movies have a lot of great overhead moments in DTS:X (flying car overhead too). In other words, there are some really good soundtracks out there to demo overhead speakers, but there are a lot of stinkers too.


----------



## Calypte

I wanted to start off with something crude and blatant, just as somebody in 1958 might have insisted on ping-pong stereo effects, just to prove that it makes difference. I accept that I'll eventually find much more subtle effects to make it all worthwhile. 

In the meantime, I've somewhat committed myself to installing Atmos. I'm interested in thoughts on height speakers, particularly suggestions of any models that aren't on my list that I should consider. And, are there some I should eliminate from consideration.


----------



## eaayoung

Consider the Def Tech DI 8R in-ceiling speakers over the 1000 for better form factor. I have four with my Def Tech system and really like them. They have tweeters that can be aimed toward the MLP. But the 1000 would also work.


----------



## Calypte

eaayoung said:


> Consider the Def Tech DI 8R in-ceiling speakers over the 1000 for better form factor. I have four with my Def Tech system and really like them. They have tweeters that can be aimed toward the MLP. But the 1000 would also work.


In-ceiling speakers are out. This is a manufactured home, large for its type (4000 cu ft great room), but there's no significant space in the roof for in-ceiling speakers or stringing wires.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> Among the height speakers I've looked at from online dealers:
> 
> SVS Elevation
> SVS Prime Satellite
> Polk S15
> Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000
> PSB Alpha P3.
> 
> I'm soliciting comments about these choices and advice about any others that I should consider.


If you can mount the Prime Elevations in a position that complements their 20 degree angled face, they might work well for you. In my room, I've found that this means you really need to place them more in the 45-55 degree angular range (which I now need to reposition because I initially went too far forward and back). They have a pretty wide dispersion, so it isn't that crucial... but for your MLP, you're really going to want them firing right at the seats. The Prime Sats would work with a good hanging mount and let you aim them... but in my experience running them as surrounds, they're a little thin at the low end. You can certainly integrate them with a little work, but you're likely gonna end up with a 100Hz crossover point that I don't think would complement your other speakers. 

The tweeter on the Polks wouldn't be a good match for the horns on your HSUs IMHO. The DefTechs might, but I'm not sure what character their tweeters tend to have. The PSB Alpha P3 has the waveguide tweets, so those might mesh well with the HSUs but I think you'd have the same problem with these as you would with the Prime Sats at the low end. Of these three, I'd probably give the DefTechs a shot. They look like they would let you cross them over similarly to the HSUs, which would minimize tonal shifts as sound moves through them, and they're similar in sensitivity.



Calypte said:


> At this past Thursday's demo, I specifically asked for something with aircraft flying overhead. The shop's owner played parts of _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. Meh!


Get them to play any of the major battle scenes from Midway or the race scene in Ready Player One. If neither of those impress you, you likely won't be happy with Atmos. If those don't do it for you, I'd say spend the money elsewhere.


----------



## niterida

Calypte said:


> In-ceiling speakers are out. This is a manufactured home, large for its type (4000 cu ft great room), but there's no significant space in the roof for in-ceiling speakers or stringing wires.


Get book shelf speakers to match your ear level and mount them aimed directly at your Main Listening Position. This is Dolby recommendation.
Also see the Dolby guidelines for where to position them.


----------



## Calypte

niterida said:


> Get book shelf speakers to match your ear level and mount them aimed directly at your Main Listening Position. This is Dolby recommendation.
> Also see the Dolby guidelines for where to position them.


The question is -- which speakers? That's what I'm trying to decide and what I need some input about.


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If you can mount the Prime Elevations in a position that complements their 20 degree angled face, they might work well for you. In my room, I've found that this means you really need to place them more in the 45-55 degree angular range (which I now need to reposition because I initially went too far forward and back). They have a pretty wide dispersion, so it isn't that crucial... but for your MLP, you're really going to want them firing right at the seats. The Prime Sats would work with a good hanging mount and let you aim them... but in my experience running them as surrounds, they're a little thin at the low end. You can certainly integrate them with a little work, but you're likely gonna end up with a 100Hz crossover point that I don't think would complement your other speakers.
> 
> The tweeter on the Polks wouldn't be a good match for the horns on your HSUs IMHO. The DefTechs might, but I'm not sure what character their tweeters tend to have. The PSB Alpha P3 has the waveguide tweets, so those might mesh well with the HSUs but I think you'd have the same problem with these as you would with the Prime Sats at the low end. Of these three, I'd probably give the DefTechs a shot. They look like they would let you cross them over similarly to the HSUs, which would minimize tonal shifts as sound moves through them, and they're similar in sensitivity.
> 
> 
> Get them to play any of the major battle scenes from Midway or the race scene in Ready Player One. If neither of those impress you, you likely won't be happy with Atmos. If those don't do it for you, I'd say spend the money elsewhere.


Thank you. This is the sort of info I'm looking for.


----------



## niterida

Calypte said:


> The question is -- which speakers? That's what I'm trying to decide and what I need some input about.


Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2


----------



## Calypte

niterida said:


> Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2


Thank you for the suggestion. I believe in the principle of identical speakers all around. But the Hsu are too heavy for what I need.


----------



## Calypte

At the core of my query (what speakers for heights?) is the question: how closely do the heights need to match the surrounds? Is there enough material up there for the difference to be noticeable? That's where I need the advice of people experienced with Dolby Atmos, such as yourselves.


----------



## niterida

Calypte said:


> At the core of my query (what speakers for heights?) is the question: how closely do the heights need to match the surrounds? Is there enough material up there for the difference to be noticeable? That's where I need the advice of people experienced with Dolby Atmos, such as yourselves.


IMO 100% matching (or very close) for multi channle or upmixed music.
Not as necessary for HT - if you can't afford/install matching speakers just get the closest you can - it will still sound good (unless they are completely different type of speakers)


----------



## Goname31

Calypte said:


> At the core of my query (what speakers for heights?) is the question: how closely do the heights need to match the surrounds? Is there enough material up there for the difference to be noticeable? That's where I need the advice of people experienced with Dolby Atmos, such as yourselves.


Idealy, I'd have the same speaker type all around. I had Old Sony Tower as back speakers, I noticed the change to Focal 906's to match with my side surrounds. I have 4 Prime Elevation as height speakers, my goal is to have them replaced with 906s as soon as i move. It will be a pain to get them up there, but I think i won't regret it. More cohesion in the sound buble can't hurt right?


----------



## b0rnarian

Goname31 said:


> Idealy, I'd have the same speaker type all around. I had Old Sony Tower as back speakers, I noticed the change to Focal 906's to match with my side surrounds.* I have 4 Prime Elevation as height speakers, my goal is to have them replaced with 906s as soon as i move.* It will be a pain to get them up there, but I think i won't regret it. More cohesion in the sound buble can't hurt right?


Huh? You want to replace Height speakers with bookshelves speakers for heights? I'd recommend against that...


----------



## Goname31

b0rnarian said:


> Huh? You want to replace Height speakers with bookshelves speakers for heights? I'd recommend against that...


Why? Every time I watch movie mixing studios, it is what they do. Prime elevations are OK, but to get the best out of them in my room, I have to put them on a wall mount to be able to angle them toward mlp. At that rate, I figured I'd better do it with bookshelves complementing my base layer.


----------



## b0rnarian

Goname31 said:


> Why? Every time I watch movie mixing studios, it is what they do. Prime elevations are OK, but to get the best out of them in my room, I have to put them on a wall mount to be able to angle them toward mlp. At that rate, I figured I'd better do it with bookshelves complementing my base layer.


 Yes, that's how the primes are meant to be used. So you are planning to angle the 906s similarly, got it, that may work but I think the Prime are so great and agile they'll complement any setup without much fuss and really like how their response rate goes down to 80Hz smooth without much strain on the receiver. I am fan if you can't tell  and use 6 of them in my 7.1.6 setup with base layer of all DefTech speakers.


----------



## Goname31

b0rnarian said:


> Yes, that's how the primes are meant to be used. So you are planning to angle the 906s similarly, got it, that may work but I think the Prime are so great and agile they'll complement any setup without much fuss and really like how their response rate goes down to 80Hz smooth without much strain on the receiver. I am fan if you can't tell  and use 6 of them in my 7.1.6 setup with base layer of all DefTech speakers.


See, the prime are supposed to be mounted flushed on the wall, angled downward, but for me, they are best angled down, and toed in toward mlp. So if I have to add an external mounting solution, why not use a regular speaker?

Don't get me wrong, I love them too, such a versatile speaker. But you know, alway that search for more, better... Anyway it will be for a dedicated room, I'm not there yet.

Your configuration interests me, my only next move in my current room will be go from 4 to 6 height speakers. How are disposed your 6 primes?On ceiling, on wall? What movie really natively use them properly, I've heard that some atmos movies badly mixed (in 7.2.2) tends to be less impressive with X.X.6 config.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Goname31 said:


> For those asking, my room does not allow me to use front wides for now, this move will have to wait for a dedicated home theater room. I'm under the impression that the wides are more popular than FH TM RH, but i rarely see that config on forums. I have seen a lot of X.X.6 configs, but with in ceilings, so my feeling is that this would not be beneficial for a single row of seatings. FH TM RH seems to be perfect for a single row though, with wall of sound effect in front and behind you and sound directly above.
> 
> I'm considering the 6700 or the SR8015, as I feel that's the only option for an hybrid dtsxpro/atmos setup. I would add side heights, make two profiles with audyssey, one declaring them as side heights for dts x pro and Auro3D (this one purely for upmixing purpose), one with SH declared as TM.
> 
> Is there any other option in this price range for me? Trinnov and StormAudio would remap the SH as TM automatically, but it's an entirely different category.


The Anthem MRX 1140 ($3700) can do up to 9.2.6, but it doesn't have Auro3D.
Other than that and the D&M offerings, I think the next option (if you'll consider separates) is The Monolith HTP-1 ($4k) which will do Auro and actually has an option to split the mono VOG/TS signal to both the TMs.
I'm not to sure about satisfying your desire to remap SH as TM because I wasn't studying that, but your comment about using the two profiles in the 6700 seems to be correct to me.
FWIW I've been doing a lot of research on this (upgrading from 7.2.4 to 7.2.6) and for my situation will probably end up with the Denon 6700.


----------



## Goname31

PoshFrosh said:


> The Anthem MRX 1140 ($3700) can do up to 9.2.6, but it doesn't have Auro3D.
> Other than that and the D&M offerings, I think the next option (if you'll consider separates) is The Monolith HTP-1 ($4k) which will do Auro and actually has an option to split the mono VOG/TS signal to both the TMs.
> I'm not to sure about satisfying your desire to remap SH as TM because I wasn't studying that, but your comment about using the two profiles in the 6700 seems to be correct to me.
> FWIW I've been doing a lot of research on this (upgrading from 7.2.4 to 7.2.6) and for my situation will probably end up with the Denon 6700.


The Monoprice is not available in France, otherwise it would definitely be on my list! I think I'll just use a bit of patience for once, I'll wait for the next high end offering from D&M and make my decision there. 

That's my train of thoughts... Until I find a good price for a 6700 😉


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> At the core of my query (what speakers for heights?) is the question: how closely do the heights need to match the surrounds? Is there enough material up there for the difference to be noticeable? That's where I need the advice of people experienced with Dolby Atmos, such as yourselves.


You're gonna' get two answers here - the ideal and what you can get away with.

1. Ideally, you want matching speakers for heights for the same reason you want a matching left main and right main. Sounds are meant to image between the speakers in your array. A lot of people think of the heights as just additional channels as if it's going to be an either/or situation... but the placement of Atmos objects is often BETWEEN the ear and height levels, not necessarily one or the other. In other words, if you use height channels that are too dissimilar from your other speakers and an object is placed so that the decoder plays it back from (for example) the left main, left surround and left front height in the required levels to place the sound where it should be in 3-D space, any mismatch can present itself as being off tonally, shifting toward one speaker or the other (depending on each speaker's response), etc. So IDEALLY, you want voice-matched speakers. That isn't even to say identical speakers as much as speakers in the same family that are similarly voiced on the mid and high end.

2. Often, it isn't practical (or possible) for you to get matching speakers for the heights. So what you're looking for is the closest match in sound possible. EQ can mitigate some of the differences, but you still want the starting point to be as close as possible. That's why I was making some of the recommendations I was previously. If your ear-level speakers have horn tweeters, that's going to have a vastly different sound on the high end to something like a silk dome tweeter... so you should look for speakers that at least have a SIMILAR character to them. In my experience, aluminum dome tweeters work fairly well paired with horn tweets despite one being more directional than the other. But for heights, you actually want them to have a wider dispersion anyway.

As for whether there's "enough material up there" to notice a difference, that isn't the point. Ultimately, it's no different than wanting matched speakers for your L/R main... or center... or surrounds... because sounds steered between them need to image between them in your room. On a lot of Atmos tracks, rather than locking sound for use in the individual height channels, the mixers assign audio objects up high and hard to the sides of the room... meaning the decoder in your home will be playing a lot of height info predominantly in the corresponding height channel but also in the adjacent surround channel as well (at a reduced level) so that it's more generally placed in your room. And in addition to that, they can still use steerable objects to move individual sounds through the room. 

That's all a long way of saying match them exactly if you can, as close as possible if you can't, and EQ will help minimize the differences enough to likely give you a similar effect. But I also want to make clear that there's more to Atmos than just the expectation of sound "up there", which is channel-based thinking. Atmos is about sound anywhere in the room, between every speaker in your array if the mixer calls for it. And not every movie will... but the ones that do? WORTH IT.


----------



## b0rnarian

Goname31 said:


> See, the prime are supposed to be mounted flushed on the wall, angled downward, but for me, they are best angled down, and toed in toward mlp. So if I have to add an external mounting solution, why not use a regular speaker?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love them too, such a versatile speaker. But you know, alway that search for more, better... Anyway it will be for a dedicated room, I'm not there yet.
> 
> Your configuration interests me, my only next move in my current room will be go from 4 to 6 height speakers. How are disposed your 6 primes?On ceiling, on wall? What movie really natively use them properly, I've heard that some atmos movies badly mixed (in 7.2.2) tends to be less impressive with X.X.6 config.


 As you say they are very versatile so really you can't go wrong either way you are using them. I just have them high up on the wall angled down and think they are great like that - it beats putting holes up in the ceiling for me at least and that's why I went with them and not in-ceiling speakers. 

I'd say its not a huge difference but since my denon 8500 can now do 7.1.6 DTSX its more pronounced up top compared 7.1.4 setup... didnt' feel that big of a difference with atmos tracks. Beyond that, it really comes down to how the tracks was mixed by the mixer ( garbage in garbage out). Also having a good setup helps, which is when the speakers in the room completely disappear creating a seamless bubble of environment around you. 

As finishing thoughts, anybody enjoying crazy amount of overhead sound in their setup is not doing it right (still to each their own). Atmos/DTSX is all about having more subtle sounds in your room whether its above you, around you, behind you and not just overhead sounds.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

b0rnarian said:


> Huh? You want to replace Height speakers with bookshelves speakers for heights? I'd recommend against that...


I use 6 bookshelf speakers mounted on ceiling, works absolutely fine.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Goname31 said:


> The Monoprice is not available in France, otherwise it would definitely be on my list! I think I'll just use a bit of patience for once, I'll wait for the next high end offering from D&M and make my decision there.
> 
> That's my train of thoughts... Until I find a good price for a 6700 😉


The HTP-1 is easy to import to Europe and a lot of people have done it already.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Since we are talking about Top Middles, I'd like to ask a few things:

I currently have 7.2.4 with Top Fronts and Top Rears mounted high up on the walls and pointed towards the MLP.

1. On wall top middles?
I want to add Top Middles but I'm not cutting any holes in the ceiling. Also, I want to match the speakers as closely as possible as discussed above.
So, basically, I want to add on-wall top middles and was thinking the closest way to emulate in-ceiling speakers would be to point them directly at the ground (i.e. not at the MLP like the other four). 
*Does it make sense to point on-wall TMs at the ground?*
It sounds like some are pointing their Top Middles towards the MLP (resulting in more of a "Middle Height" configuration).
*Would pointing on-wall TMs at the MLP be preferable to pointing them at the ground?*
I'm a little concerned about this, because I have tried switching my existing Heights to Tops in my receiver settings and they definitely sound better when properly set as "Heights". So I'm concerned that channels configured as "Tops" in the receiver but situated as "Heights" in the actual speaker layout may hurt my overhead setup.

2. Non-coaxial Top Middles?
Additionally, I'd be using conventional 2-way speakers (i.e. not coaxial) so hopefully the dispersion pattern will be okay. Six years ago in this thread, it was suggested to me to use coaxial speakers for Tops. But as I mentioned, that will not be possible for me.
*Do you think it will be okay to use a conventional 2-way speaker for TMs?*

3. Content in TM
It was my understanding that many mixes (e.g. Disney) are in 7.2.4 and some are even in 7.2.2 such that no sound would come out of any installed TMs for those mixes.
*Has the TM mixing situation improved with this over the last couple years with Atmos?* (I already understand that DTS:X Pro and Neural and DSU will use the TMs).


----------



## Mashie Saldana

PoshFrosh said:


> Since we are talking about Top Middles, I'd like to ask a few things:
> 
> I currently have 7.2.4 with Top Fronts and Top Rears mounted high up on the walls and pointed towards the MLP.
> 
> 1. On wall top middles?
> I want to add Top Middles but I'm not cutting any holes in the ceiling. Also, I want to match the speakers as closely as possible as discussed above.
> So, basically, I want to add on-wall top middles and was thinking the closest way to emulate in-ceiling speakers would be to point them directly at the ground (i.e. not at the MLP like the other four).
> *Does it make sense to point on-wall TMs at the ground?*
> It sounds like some are pointing their Top Middles towards the MLP (resulting in more of a "Middle Height" configuration).
> *Would pointing on-wall TMs at the MLP be preferable to pointing them at the ground?*
> I'm a little concerned about this, because I have tried switching my existing Heights to Tops in my receiver settings and they definitely sound better when properly set as "Heights". So I'm concerned that channels configured as "Tops" in the receiver but situated as "Heights" in the actual speaker layout may hurt my overhead setup.
> 
> 2. Non-coaxial Top Middles?
> Additionally, I'd be using conventional 2-way speakers (i.e. not coaxial) so hopefully the dispersion pattern will be okay. Six years ago in this thread, it was suggested to me to use coaxial speakers for Tops. But as I mentioned, that will not be possible for me.
> *Do you think it will be okay to use a conventional 2-way speaker for TMs?*


1. Do you point any other speakers towards MLP? If so why would the height speakers be done differently?

2. No problem at all.


----------



## PoshFrosh

Mashie Saldana said:


> 1. Do you point any other speakers towards MLP? If so why would the height speakers be done differently?


I point all my speakers at the MLP. But I'm asking about "Tops" not "Heights"
For instance, in this dolby diagram, the speakers labelled TML and TMR are pointed at the floor, not the MLP (in opposition to, for instance, FHL and FHR which are pointed at the MLP).
My question is if I'm using on-wall/on-ceiling speakers for TM, should I try to approximate this diagram by aiming them at the ground?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

PoshFrosh said:


> I point all my speakers at the MLP. But I'm asking about "Tops" not "Heights"
> For instance, in this dolby diagram, the speakers labelled TML and TMR are pointed at the floor, not the MLP (in opposition to, for instance, FHL and FHR which are pointed at the MLP).
> My question is if I'm using on-wall/on-ceiling speakers for TM, should I try to approximate this diagram by aiming them at the ground?


Ignore the Dolby diagrams, those in ceiling speaker pictures have ruined a lot of well intended HT's where the sound will hit random spots on the floor and not listeners ears.

Have a look at my HT where I have TF/TM/TR as on ceiling speakers:









Tower Cinema (9.1.6 in 12x12 room)


Tower Cinema (9.1.6 in 12x12 room) The original first post for this project is moved to post 2. Current status: Current hardware: Audio processing: Monolith HTP-1 configured for 9.1.6h. Amplification: 8ch KJF Audio MA-01 using 4x NC252MP modules 7ch KJF...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## PoshFrosh

Mashie Saldana said:


> Ignore the Dolby diagrams, those in ceiling speaker pictures have ruined a lot of well intended HT's where the sound will hit random spots on the floor and not listeners ears.
> 
> Have a look at my HT where I have TF/TM/TR as on ceiling speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tower Cinema (9.1.6 in 12x12 room)
> 
> 
> Tower Cinema (9.1.6 in 12x12 room) The original first post for this project is moved to post 2. Current status: Current hardware: Audio processing: Monolith HTP-1 configured for 9.1.6h. Amplification: 8ch KJF Audio MA-01 using 4x NC252MP modules 7ch KJF...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Oh, I've seen your setup.  It's close to what I'm going for except that I don't think I can fit wides.
It sounds like the consensus on this has changed over the years and many others have settled on a configuration similar to yours (for instance, the president of SVS has a similar setup for the height/top layer).
When the time comes, I guess I will try simply setting up the TMs the same way I did my FHs and RHs (high on the wall, pointed at MLP) and see how it sounds. Thanks.


----------



## niterida

deleted


----------



## T-Bone

Mashie Saldana said:


> *Ignore the Dolby diagrams*, those in ceiling speaker pictures have ruined a lot of well intended HT's where the sound will hit random spots on the floor and not listeners ears.
> 
> Have a look at my HT where I have TF/TM/TR as on ceiling speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tower Cinema (9.1.6 in 12x12 room)
> 
> 
> Tower Cinema (9.1.6 in 12x12 room) The original first post for this project is moved to post 2. Current status: Current hardware: Audio processing: Monolith HTP-1 configured for 9.1.6h. Amplification: 8ch KJF Audio MA-01 using 4x NC252MP modules 7ch KJF...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


I'm not sure ignoring the guidance is good advice. Sounds like bad advice?

A lot ollowed their guidance... and the sound is hitting my ears. I have an SPL meter that proves it. I guess we can argue whether or not the off access sounds hitting our ears are as good as the on axis sounds if the speakers were aimed directly at the MLP. based on what I know, on access is always better than all access if the speaker is designed for on access.

I like your room. But a lot of folks don't want stuff hanging off their ceilings and walls like that.

-T


----------



## sdurani

PoshFrosh said:


> I point all my speakers at the MLP. But I'm asking about "Tops" not "Heights"


Think of Heights and Tops as locations. The speakers that you put at those locations still follow the same rules of physics that all your other speakers do. Whatever benefits you get by aiming all your base layer speakers at the MLP will also apply to all the speakers in the height layer. Personally, I would aim each speaker at the listener farthest away, to compensate for distance.


----------



## Goname31

T-Bone said:


> I'm not sure ignoring the guidance is good advice. Sounds like bad advice?
> 
> A lot ollowed their guidance... and the sound is hitting my ears. I have an SPL meter that proves it. I guess we can argue whether or not the off access sounds hitting our ears are as good as the on axis sounds if the speakers were aimed directly at the MLP. based on what I know, on access is always better than all access if the speaker is designed for on access.
> 
> I like your room. But a lot of folks don't want stuff hanging off their ceilings and walls like that.
> 
> -T


It's not about spl. You have volume, not quality. Off axis is not as good as on axis.


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You're gonna' get two answers here - the ideal and what you can get away with....etc.


Thank you for this detailed response. I'm using identical HB-1 Mk2 speakers all around (5-channels). My center is an HB-1 Mk2 on its side. I rotated the tweeter -- after checking with Hsu Research that this wouldn't affect the warranty. That was several years ago. I'm fully on-board with matching speakers all around, heights included. 

But it's impractical for me to use Hsu HB-1 Mk 2 speakers as heights in this room. The small Klipsch models would seem superficially to be legitimate alternatives as heights. They have horn tweeters like the HB-1 Mk 2. However, the HB-1 Mk2 actually have a rather retiring sonic signature. Klipsch speakers, at least the models smaller than Klipschorns, Fortes, Cornwalls, etc., have a reputation of being aggressive sounding. Despite the similar technology, I'm not sure that Klipsch would be a good match. But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise by those with experience with either or both of these brands (Hsu and Klipsch). I've never heard any of the small Klipsch models.


----------



## T-Bone

Goname31 said:


> It's not about spl. You have volume, not quality. Off axis is not as good as on axis.


Agree on that ... on-sxis is better compared to off-axis if that's how the speaker is designed.

How much better is the real question. Hard to measure in practical terms other than standing under the speaker and then sitting in the seat to see if it still sounds the same in quality. 

If I'm listening to a channel check when the voices are traveling through all the speakers to say top left, top right, left surround etc, a voice sounds the same to me. The levels are already matched from my receiver. 

But it is about trade-offs I suppose.

-T


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> Why? Every time I watch movie mixing studios, it is what they do. Prime elevations are OK, but to get the best out of them in my room, I have to put them on a wall mount to be able to angle them toward mlp. At that rate, I figured I'd better do it with bookshelves complementing my base layer.


I use bookshelf speakers for front heights. They work fine as long as you can mount them (and my rear heights are bookshelf speakers in an outdoor container, that are made to mount on walls or the ceiling. PSB makes them that way already). I use side height mounted PSB bipolars for top middle/surround height (front faces MLP and back faces row 2 & 3). You could use towers up there if you had a way to mount them. Overheads can be full range (It's been proven that without bass management turned on, they can carry full range signals). The trick is to get the on-axis sound pointed towards the listening location as much as possible unless they are a design that is very flat off-axis too. Most speakers include the basic specs. Audyssey and other room correction can help even them out somewhat at the primary listening position, though.

Atmos music is starting to appear and it's good to have a tweeter match if nothing else. A song on Yello's new album Point called "Way Down" actually pans "way down" from the ceiling to the ear level speakers. You don't hear many blatant height changes like that repeated over and over. I can't count on one hand how many times I've heard a vertical pan an noticed it discretely from movies. Basically, though, you just want the sound to move around without changing in character (timbre). Movies generally do less important top/bottom panning, but it's still possible.

*Example Photos of different PSB speakers with matched drivers:*

Pictures show front wide locations (one on a stand and the other on the coffee table on left right and front heights above and just outside the mains)

Front Heights above and just outward from the mains (screen willing). PSB T-45 and B15 have the same midrange and tweeter drivers, although I found an after market tweeter made as a replacement that seems to have even better off-axis response (front heights sound virtually identical after swapping them out even though I could aim them downward a few degrees with a stand under them on the shelf). Front wides are also B15s. Some of the speaker colors vary due to availability (I bought many off eBay during my upgrade long after they stopped making that generation to get them to match)






















Side Height / Top Middle is a PSB S50 (same drivers as T-45 and B15, but bipolar mounted at angles for surround use so one set is for the front row and the other set for the back two rows). Each ear level gets two surround speakers (three if you count the front wides as sides which they are, really), side surround and side surround #2, placed between rows instead of alongside to fit more seats. This part of the layout matches Auro-3D so it's really an Auro-3D / Atmos Hybrid system (X doesn't care either way). Since the side walls are only 2.5' away from the spot they would go on the ceiling, you can barely tell they're not where they're supposed to be at least with the front-to-back overhead material I've played.















Rear View showing PSB CS500 mounted on ceiling (X1T tower on floor in rear). 









Total speaker count 17.1 (11.1.6) in a 12'x24' room. Overhead sound is wall to wall across the ceiling unlike "tops" configurations that only use 50% of the room due to tops typically being mounted 1/4 the way into the room from either direction. The sound is absolutely seamless from the center row seats and not bad for the 3 off-axis seats, IMO. Usually only 1-3 are in use at any given time. The rear row is more for super bowl parties and overflow, although it's an interesting surround mix back there (like having a tornado in front of you with some of the Atmos demos moving so many layers of sound in front of you).


----------



## Goname31

MagnumX said:


> I use bookshelf speakers for front heights. They work fine as long as you can mount them (and my rear heights are bookshelf speakers in an outdoor container, that are made to mount on walls or the ceiling. PSB makes them that way already). I use side height mounted PSB bipolars for top middle/surround height (front faces MLP and back faces row 2 & 3). You could use towers up there if you had a way to mount them. Overheads can be full range (It's been proven that without bass management turned on, they can carry full range signals). The trick is to get the on-axis sound pointed towards the listening location as much as possible unless they are a design that is very flat off-axis too. Most speakers include the basic specs. Audyssey and other room correction can help even them out somewhat at the primary listening position, though.
> 
> Atmos music is starting to appear and it's good to have a tweeter match if nothing else. A song on Yello's new album Point called "Way Down" actually pans "way down" from the ceiling to the ear level speakers. You don't hear many blatant height changes like that repeated over and over. I can't count on one hand how many times I've heard a vertical pan an noticed it discretely from movies. Basically, though, you just want the sound to move around without changing in character (timbre). Movies generally do less important top/bottom panning, but it's still possible.
> 
> *Example Photos of different PSB speakers with matched drivers:*
> 
> Pictures show front wide locations (one on a stand and the other on the coffee table on left right and front heights above and just outside the mains)
> 
> Front Heights above and just outward from the mains (screen willing). PSB T-45 and B15 have the same midrange and tweeter drivers, although I found an after market tweeter made as a replacement that seems to have even better off-axis response (front heights sound virtually identical after swapping them out even though I could aim them downward a few degrees with a stand under them on the shelf). Front wides are also B15s. Some of the speaker colors vary due to availability (I bought many off eBay during my upgrade long after they stopped making that generation to get them to match)
> 
> 
> View attachment 3114698
> View attachment 3114695
> View attachment 3114697
> 
> 
> Side Height / Top Middle is a PSB S50 (same drivers as T-45 and B15, but bipolar mounted at angles for surround use so one set is for the front row and the other set for the back two rows). Each ear level gets two surround speakers (three if you count the front wides as sides which they are, really), side surround and side surround #2, placed between rows instead of alongside to fit more seats. This part of the layout matches Auro-3D so it's really an Auro-3D / Atmos Hybrid system (X doesn't care either way). Since the side walls are only 2.5' away from the spot they would go on the ceiling, you can barely tell they're not where they're supposed to be at least with the front-to-back overhead material I've played.
> 
> View attachment 3114699
> View attachment 3114696
> 
> 
> Rear View showing PSB CS500 mounted on ceiling (X1T tower on floor in rear).
> 
> View attachment 3114694
> 
> 
> Total speaker count 17.1 (11.1.6) in a 12'x24' room. Overhead sound is wall to wall across the ceiling unlike "tops" configurations that only use 50% of the room due to tops typically being mounted 1/4 the way into the room from either direction. The sound is absolutely seamless from the center row seats and not bad for the 3 off-axis seats, IMO. Usually only 1-3 are in use at any given time. The rear row is more for super bowl parties and overflow, although it's an interesting surround mix back there (like having a tornado in front of you with some of the Atmos demos moving so many layers of sound in front of you).


I have to say that the use of bipole as side height is a bit problematic for me, but hey, if it sounds good right?


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> I have to say that the use of bipole as side height is a bit problematic for me, but hey, if it sounds good right?


The trick is to not sit in the null. I put it between the rows so the one side faces the front and the other side faces the back.


----------



## marter5

Question on trim levels for heights, hopefully not too far off topic.

I mounted my 4 NHT Super Zeros on Omni-mounts (tweeters at 84" aimed directly at MLP) as close to Dolby guidelines as feasible and set them up as Top Fronts and Top Rears in the X3600H. I ran Audyssey XT32 but it seems like the sound levels on the heights are a little low, although I haven't listened to alot of Atmos stuff yet. I don't use Audyssey for correction above 300-400Hz anyway but would like to set the trims on the heights correctly. I also ran REW but I can't figure out how to get the height channels to run in REW; tried setting laptop sound settings to "Atmos" but can't see the extra speakers in the Output source in REW.

So I'm thinking about using the pink noise generator in my Denon and the SPL meter in REW to set the trim levels. Should I set the heights at the same SPL as my mains and surrounds? Will the Atmos channels be too loud if I do this?


----------



## b0rnarian

marter5 said:


> Question on trim levels for heights, hopefully not too far off topic.
> 
> I mounted my 4 NHT Super Zeros on Omni-mounts (tweeters at 84" aimed directly at MLP) as close to Dolby guidelines as feasible and set them up as Top Fronts and Top Rears in the X3600H. I ran Audyssey XT32 but it seems like the sound levels on the heights are a little low, although I haven't listened to alot of Atmos stuff yet. I don't use Audyssey for correction above 300-400Hz anyway but would like to set the trims on the heights correctly. I also ran REW but I can't figure out how to get the height channels to run in REW; tried setting laptop sound settings to "Atmos" but can't see the extra speakers in the Output source in REW.
> 
> So I'm thinking about using the pink noise generator in my Denon and the SPL meter in REW to set the trim levels. Should I set the heights at the same SPL as my mains and surrounds? Will the Atmos channels be too loud if I do this?


Audessey already set them correctly so I'd leave them there to be accurate - anything else you do beyond that is not correct and if that's the route you are going, you can just up them by ear by however much you deem necessary.


----------



## sdurani

marter5 said:


> Should I set the heights at the same SPL as my mains and surrounds?


Audyssey already did that. You can run your receiver's test tones to set the levels subjectively, so that the heights sound like they are the same level as the other speakers.


> Will the Atmos channels be too loud if I do this?


What if they are? You can always turn them down so that they are no longer "too loud". But you won't know without trying.


----------



## marter5

So Audyssey sets the speakers at the same SPL and it's Atmos mixing that decides how loud that channel is? Makes sense now that I think about it.

Thanks


----------



## sdurani

Exactly. There are Atmos mixes that have very little height content. Disappointing, but it's not the fault of the format or receiver. Some movie mixes don't call for much sound overhead.

Also keep in mind that two ears & a brain perceive things differently than an omni-directional mic & Audyssey. After calibration, there is no harm in adjusting height speaker levels to your taste. You won't hurt anything and can always revert back to calibrated levels.


----------



## marter5

sdurani said:


> Exactly. There are Atmos mixes that have very little height content. Disappointing, but it's not the fault of the format or receiver. Some movie mixes don't call for much sound overhead.
> 
> Also keep in mind that two ears & a brain perceive things differently than an omni-directional mic & Audyssey. After calibration, there is no harm in adjusting height speaker levels to your taste. You won't hurt anything and can always revert back to calibrated levels.


You're right, the mix is pretty subtle but it's definitely there. Audyssey set the trims on the tops at -2.5 to -4.5 and I just tried boosting them to 0.0dB, played a couple Atmos demos on Youtube and it's pretty cool.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Audyssey already did that. You can run your receiver's test tones to set the levels subjectively, so that the heights sound like they are the same level as the other speakers. What if they are? You can always turn them down so that they are no longer "too loud". But you won't know without trying.


Once Audyssey is set, you cannot use most receivers' internal test tones to reliably manually set or verify the output levels because Audyssey may greatly change individual speaker levels with its equalization changes (e.g. my side speakers aren't even close to the internal level tones with Audyssey turned on). You have to use something like Dolby's speaker test tone demos. I use their 9.1.6 demo, for example.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

marter5 said:


> You're right, the mix is pretty subtle but it's definitely there. Audyssey set the trims on the tops at -2.5 to -4.5 and I just tried boosting them to 0.0dB, played a couple Atmos demos on Youtube and it's pretty cool.


I thought YouTube was 2.0. Did they change that finally?


----------



## marter5

Polyrythm1k said:


> I thought YouTube was 2.0. Did they change that finally?


Well now I'm not so sure what I was hearing. I think you're correct, It may have been the Denon upmixing.


----------



## marter5

MagnumX said:


> Once Audyssey is set, you cannot use most receivers' internal test tones to reliably manually set or verify the output levels because Audyssey may greatly change individual speaker levels with its equalization changes (e.g. my side speakers aren't even close to the internal level tones with Audyssey turned on). You have to use something like Dolby's speaker test tone demos. I use their 9.1.6 demo, for example.


Interesting. Still learning here. I have a DTS demo disk with tones. I'll try that and see.

Edit: On second thought, that DTS disk won't help much on Atmos speakers will it?


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You're gonna' get two answers here - the ideal and what you can get away with...etc.


I'm not done with this topic: which speakers for heights? The fundamental problem that I have is that I won't know what I "can get away with" until the speakers are actually mounted, with their attendant holes in the drywall and surface-mounted wires. I may exclaim, "Now _that_ rocks!" or "OMG, what have I done?"

Regarding the SVS Prime Elevation speakers, I've spent some time looking at the gallery of installations shown on the SVS website. Most of the pictured installations (not all) show the front height speakers mounted at the top of the front wall, behind and above the L-R main speakers. This arrangement is contrary to Dolby's recommendations. Nowhere do I see comments where people say that it works or that they'd never do it that way again. For me, I'm not certain that the drywall in my ceiling will support the weight of the speakers. Putting them on the wall looks like the better bet, simply from the standpoint of what is physically practical. The same considerations apply, of course, to the Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000, which (at this moment) is my other leading contender. Does anybody here have experience with the SVS Prime Elevations where they can comment about placement? What can I get away with?


----------



## Goname31

Calypte said:


> I'm not done with this topic: which speakers for heights? The fundamental problem that I have is that I won't know what I "can get away with" until the speakers are actually mounted, with their attendant holes in the drywall and surface-mounted wires. I may exclaim, "Now _that_ rocks!" or "OMG, what have I done?"
> 
> Regarding the SVS Prime Elevation speakers, I've spent some time looking at the gallery of installations shown on the SVS website. Most of the pictured installations (not all) show the front height speakers mounted at the top of the front wall, behind and above the L-R main speakers. This arrangement is contrary to Dolby's recommendations. Nowhere do I see comments where people say that it works or that they'd never do it that way again. For me, I'm not certain that the drywall in my ceiling will support the weight of the speakers. Putting them on the wall looks like the better bet, simply from the standpoint of what is physically practical. The same considerations apply, of course, to the Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000, which (at this moment) is my other leading contender. Does anybody here have experience with the SVS Prime Elevations where they can comment about placement? What can I get away with?


Front height and rear height ARE in Dolby's white paper.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> I'm not done with this topic: which speakers for heights? The fundamental problem that I have is that I won't know what I "can get away with" until the speakers are actually mounted, with their attendant holes in the drywall and surface-mounted wires. I may exclaim, "Now _that_ rocks!" or "OMG, what have I done?"
> 
> Regarding the SVS Prime Elevation speakers, I've spent some time looking at the gallery of installations shown on the SVS website. Most of the pictured installations (not all) show the front height speakers mounted at the top of the front wall, behind and above the L-R main speakers. This arrangement is contrary to Dolby's recommendations. Nowhere do I see comments where people say that it works or that they'd never do it that way again. For me, I'm not certain that the drywall in my ceiling will support the weight of the speakers. Putting them on the wall looks like the better bet, simply from the standpoint of what is physically practical. The same considerations apply, of course, to the Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000, which (at this moment) is my other leading contender. Does anybody here have experience with the SVS Prime Elevations where they can comment about placement? What can I get away with?


Front/rear height is in Dolby's guidelines and carries a particular angular requirement. In my experience, however, top front/rear is the better sounding option if you can swing it in your room. In fact, given the design of the Elevations, if your room isn't too wide, I would go with side-wall placement of the Elevations with them in the top front/rear setting over a front/rear height placement. But ideally, on-ceiling will sound best.

Ideally, for on-ceiling mounting of the Elevations, you end up with two screws into a ceiling joist and two with drywall anchors. The speakers themselves weigh all of about 8 pounds... so once up and locked in with the magnetic block, there's no real danger of them coming down. Even if you went with 4 screws into just drywall with decent anchors, I don't know that an 8 pound speaker would be an issue assuming the typical span between joists. That said, if your ceiling is like most people's, just get a stud finder and see where the joists are, and that will tell you whether you can mount them at a good angle from your MLP. Depending on which way the joists run in your room, it doesn't matter which two screws you get into one for the bracket. If you're a stickler for where you want to place them on the ceiling, cut pieces of wood to secure between the joists for you to screw into for the Elevation brackets. But more than likely, you'll find a joist that's generally in the right place for mounting them within Dolby's angular recommendations.

In my case, I was trying to avoid where I thought my air ducts ran in the attic and went one joist too far forward and back... so in the future, I'll be moving them to the closer joists (and putting them closer together width-wise) and patching a few holes. Not that it sounds bad now (and most of my guests think I'm being overly OCD), but moving them will give me better separation from the surrounds and get me more on-axis to the MLP than I am now. I just bought the house 7 months ago though, and I'm perfectly willing to fiddle with positioning before I lock everything down and start painting. YMMV.


----------



## Calypte

Thank you for your comments. They are very helpful.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Front/rear height is in Dolby's guidelines and carries a particular angular requirement.


Right.



> In my experience, however, top front/rear is the better sounding option if you can swing it in your room.


Do you mean at the top of the front and rear walls?



> I would go with side-wall placement of the Elevations with them in the top front/rear setting over a front/rear height placement.


This is a manufactured home. But it's large for its type (2,600 sq ft, 4,000 cu ft "great room"). We're in the mountains of Riverside Co., Calif., at 4,000 ft elevation. We have 2.72 acres, so I can play my stuff as loud as I like without worrying about the neighbors. There's no wall to the left-rear of my MLP. Placement of heights on the sides is a problem. Even so, this is the best room for audio/video of any home I've ever owned. 10 ft ceilings and three good corners to support sub-20 Hz bass. 



> But ideally, on-ceiling will sound best.


Under consideration, but I would have to work around a ceiling fan.



> so once up and locked in with the magnetic block


??? 



> If you're a stickler for where you want to place them on the ceiling, cut pieces of wood to secure between the joists for you to screw into for the Elevation brackets.


Good suggestion.



> In my case, I was trying to avoid where I thought my air ducts ran in the attic


Unlike my previous homes, which were built on slabs, this one has a crawl space underneath. The ducts are down below, and the louvered registers are in the floor.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Front/rear height is in Dolby's guidelines and carries a particular angular requirement. In my experience, however, top front/rear is the better sounding option if you can swing it in your room. In fact, given the design of the Elevations, if your room isn't too wide, I would go with side-wall placement of the Elevations with them in the top front/rear setting over a front/rear height placement. But ideally, on-ceiling will sound best.


Why do you think Tops sound better? You're giving up half the ceiling for image travel. It's a bit like going from 9.1 on the ear/bed level to 5.1 in a way, shrinking the available usable speaker area. 

The only reason I can imagine is that more height objects end up more directly overhead since they have to start at 45-55 degrees instead of 30-45 (20-45 with Top Middles used according to Dolby specs), but that is not necessarily where the objects "should" be as Dolby's renderer moves overhead objects to the closest available overhead speakers, preferring front heights for objects set to a rear height location over ear/bed level speakers at all costs as an extreme example even if rear surrounds are 20 feet closer to where the object is actually mapped compared to front heights.

The thing is, heights can produce direct overhead sounds in-between the speakers (so long as the distance isn't too great at which point Top Middle is needed to fill them out), thus being able to reproduce all tops located objects, but Tops can't reproduce heights location objects as sounds overhead are more or less limited to the physical location of the speakers. 

Thus, I conclude the use of Tops only is going to be less accurate reproduction than Heights only or Heights plus Top Middle, however subjectively preferred they may be to some people. 

Personally, I like having sound objects to be capable of moving the same distances above as below. Yello's album _Point_ in Atmos, for example is mind blowing with the entire ceiling utilized, IMO (unlike most movies that use overhead speakers only occasionally, many Atmos music albums use them (as well as rear surrounds for that matter) almost constantly.

I'm not trying to demean others' preferences, just offering an alternative viewpoint on the subject for people to consider that are trying to decide which way to go. Heights also offer Auro-3D compatibility as well (although some with Tops just change their setting and claim to still get reasonably good results).


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> I use their 9.1.6 demo, for example.


And where did you get this demo file?


----------



## MagnumX

mrvideo said:


> And where did you get this demo file?


From Dolby's web site (Mac user).


----------



## Blade 77

Hello. Can somebody give me a piece of advise regarding sound treatment or im in the wrong thread?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> Do you mean at the top of the front and rear walls?


No, top means on-ceiling at 30-55 degrees from your front soundstage for the top front (if I recall the angles correctly) and 125-150 for the top rear. Front/rear height would be at the top of the front/rear walls.


Calypte said:


> ???


The Prime Elevations have a rubber block with magnets in it that you slide into the bracket to lock them in so they can't come off the mounting bracket when mounted on the ceiling.


----------



## b0rnarian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> No, top means on-ceiling at 30-55 degrees from your front soundstage for the top front (if I recall the angles correctly) and 125-150 for the top rear. Front/rear height would be at the top of the front/rear walls.
> 
> The Prime Elevations have a rubber block with magnets in it that you slide into the bracket to lock them in so they can't come off the mounting bracket when mounted on the ceiling.


 So that's what those rubber magnets are for! 🤯


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> Why do you think Tops sound better? You're giving up half the ceiling for image travel. It's a bit like going from 9.1 on the ear/bed level to 5.1 in a way, shrinking the available usable speaker area.
> 
> The only reason I can imagine is that more height objects end up more directly overhead since they have to start at 45-55 degrees instead of 30-45 (20-45 with Top Middles used according to Dolby specs), but that is not necessarily where the objects "should" be as Dolby's renderer moves overhead objects to the closest available overhead speakers, preferring front heights for objects set to a rear height location over ear/bed level speakers at all costs as an extreme example even if rear surrounds are 20 feet closer to where the object is actually mapped compared to front heights.
> 
> The thing is, heights can produce direct overhead sounds in-between the speakers (so long as the distance isn't too great at which point Top Middle is needed to fill them out), thus being able to reproduce all tops located objects, but Tops can't reproduce heights location objects as sounds overhead are more or less limited to the physical location of the speakers.
> 
> Thus, I conclude the use of Tops only is going to be less accurate reproduction than Heights only or Heights plus Top Middle, however subjectively preferred they may be to some people.
> 
> Personally, I like having sound objects to be capable of moving the same distances above as below. Yello's album _Point_ in Atmos, for example is mind blowing with the entire ceiling utilized, IMO (unlike most movies that use overhead speakers only occasionally, many Atmos music albums use them (as well as rear surrounds for that matter) almost constantly.
> 
> I'm not trying to demean others' preferences, just offering an alternative viewpoint on the subject for people to consider that are trying to decide which way to go. Heights also offer Auro-3D compatibility as well (although some with Tops just change their setting and claim to still get reasonably good results).


I think tops sound better because in most rooms, you're far more likely to hit a pretty consistent angle of separation between every speaker in the array at your MLP. In other words, top placement with 7.1.4 is pretty easy to get a 30-45 degree angular separation speaker-to-speaker barring the gap at the bed-level wide position (which you can mitigate somewhat by placing your mains a bit wide, if you want). You lose nothing overall because anything meant to image at the "front height" location is simply placed by the renderer between the front soundstage and the top front speakers as needed. In most room sizes, you're not going to get a precise stereo overhead image with front/rear height placement like you would with top front/rear.

I base this on having experience with pretty much every combo of placement you could have. I started with DPL-IIz front heights when I moved on to Atmos and have been through every possible config involving 4 height channels - front/rear height, front height + top mid, front/side Atmos upfirers, front/rear upfirers, etc. Throughout every config I've been through, the two that had the most coherent cross-channel placement were 7.1.4 with in-ceilings at my old house and 7.1.4 with on-ceilings at the home I just bought 7 months ago. The problem I was describing with my current setup is that my top front/rear got pushed closer to the angles of front/rear height placement than I'd like. Right now, my top front are at about 36 degrees from the front soundstage and the rears at 144. Now that I hear the gap overhead as objects move through the room, I'm going to reposition them to a more ideal angle (and get the width of the overhead array closer to Dolby's 0.5x the width of the room - right now, they're at about 0.63x, which has them blending with the surrounds too much for my tastes).

That's not to say that front/rear height can't work well, mind you. But if you play the Helicopter or Audiosphere demo clips, you will invariably get a better sense of precise overhead sound with the top front/rear setup. The other placements rely on speakers with a greater angular separation, so you have a much larger area of ceiling that it's trying to phantom image between. Consider that if you placed front/rear heights at their most ideal angles, you end up with 90 degrees of front/back separation between them (technically 105 degrees if you consider the middle of the range the ideal).

Where I disagree with you is on the height objects "end[ing] up more directly overhead since they have to start at 45-55 degrees instead of 30-45". If the decoder knows you have top front/rear, a height object steered at the top front of the virtual room doesn't START at 45-55 degrees. It starts in the front soundstage with just enough of the sound in top front to make the sound image where it should. The Encounter clip is a good example of how this works better with top front/rear than front/rear height, as the sound moves from left main to left top front through to right top front with some in the rear, down to right surround... then arcs directly over the room with the sound imaged squarely between the top front and rear speakers as it moves to the left surround. Likewise, the final move of the sound to the front high left of the room, which you might argue would sound better with front/rear heights, actually gets placed more accurately with top fronts working with the LCR.

Now, I think I would agree with you if we were talking about the Auro speaker setup, which would fill in the overhead gap with the VOG channel... but with Atmos and DTS:X, there's no question that in most rectangular rooms, top front/rear for 7.1.4 will give you the smoothest cross-channel panning by virtue of the angles between every speaker in the array being more consistent. I could see an argument for 7.1.6 with front/rear height and top mid placements mitigating this... but not for 7.1.4.


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I base this on having experience with pretty much every combo of placement you could have.


Thank you. This kind of experience was what I was hoping to tap into when I started this topic (i.e., "What height speakers?"). What speakers are you using all around? You seem to have a good opinion of the SVS Prime Elevations (I saw a review that slammed them) -- is this what you have? Are your bottom layer speakers also SVS or something else?

Regarding the SVS Prime Elevations: I carry no candle for SVS. When I bought subwoofers recently, I bought Power Sound Audio, not SVS. I saw a recent comment somewhere in AVS to the effect that the SVS Prime Elevations were overpriced for having mere 4-inch woofers. Maybe. I created a spreadsheet to total up what I would need to go from my current 5.2 to 7.2.4, including cables, stands, and additional speakers. The expense of the entire project doesn't differ greatly between the height models that I've considered. If I conclude that SVS Prime Elevations are worth a shot, then the expense vs other speaker options is something I'm willing to bear. Now, if I were to replace my Hsu HB-1 Mk2 speakers with models that match the brand of whatever I choose for the heights, then the cost goes up greatly. I have a fortunate situation. I'm retired, and I can draw freely from my retirement accounts to pay for this. I know most of you aren't in that situation. OTOH, once the money is spent, then that's money I'll never see again. I can't count on future career advancement to pay for this.


----------



## MagnumX

Blade 77 said:


> Hello. Can somebody give me a piece of advise regarding sound treatment or im in the wrong thread?


Without destroying the look of the room with bass traps and the like, the most glaring thing are the windows, IMO. Heavy drapes work wonders. I've got them behind my screen, the doorway on the left side and covering the sliding door in the back. They also darken the room during the day and help hold the heat in during the winter from going up the nearby staircase. 

I was gifted some tapestries with Thomas Kincaid paintings on them (they can even light up the scenes with a hidden battery control box) and they look great and totally wiped out my early reflections causing slap echo.

I've got brick fireplace mantle on one side and loads if books and props in the bookshelves. The room is thus varied for absorption and reflection and pretty dead sounding compared to how it was. Having six plush chairs n the room and carpeting probably helps as well. I get +/- 2.5dB in the room at the MLP with Audyssey enabled and bass is +/- 2.0dB at the MLP (measured with REW).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> Thank you. This kind of experience was what I was hoping to tap into when I started this topic (i.e., "What height speakers?"). What speakers are you using all around? You seem to have a good opinion of the SVS Prime Elevations (I saw a review that slammed them) -- is this what you have? Are your bottom layer speakers also SVS or something else?
> 
> Regarding the SVS Prime Elevations: I carry no candle for SVS. When I bought subwoofers recently, I bought Power Sound Audio, not SVS. I saw a recent comment somewhere in AVS to the effect that the SVS Prime Elevations were overpriced for having mere 4-inch woofers. Maybe. I created a spreadsheet to total up what I would need to go from my current 5.2 to 7.2.4, including cables, stands, and additional speakers. The expense of the entire project doesn't differ greatly between the height models that I've considered. If I conclude that SVS Prime Elevations are worth a shot, then the expense vs other speaker options is something I'm willing to bear. Now, if I were to replace my Hsu HB-1 Mk2 speakers with models that match the brand of whatever I choose for the heights, then the cost goes up greatly. I have a fortunate situation. I'm retired, and I can draw freely from my retirement accounts to pay for this. I know most of you aren't in that situation. OTOH, once the money is spent, then that's money I'll never see again. I can't count on future career advancement to pay for this.


I'm running Prime Towers, Center, 4 Satellite surrounds and 4 Elevations on the ceiling. And I just added a PB2000 Pro to my old 20-39CS Plus last week, which I'm eventually going to replace with a second PB2000 Pro. As far as having a good opinion of the Elevations, I'm not going to pretend that they're perfect. I think for on-ceiling use, it would be more ideal if the angle on the baffle was a little more than the 20 degrees you get, but that's why I said previously in the thread that you're really going to want to place them in the 45-55 degree range to get the best sound out of them (as I found out myself). With them too far off-axis like they are in my room now, you get a (predictable) dip in response where the tweeter crosses over to the mid (that Audyssey mitigates a little)... and Audyssey tends to detect their lower limit around 90-100Hz at those angular extremes. That's part of why I am going to reposition mine. But even with them where they are, they sound pretty impressive once integrated. I just think I can eke out better sound by moving them before I lock down placement and start dressing the room up more. I'm not unhappy with their performance - I just didn't fully think my placement through before putting them on the ceiling (which I should have, because my previous room a few years back with in-ceiling Polks had everything dead-on at perfect angles and sounded great).

I went all SVS because I was previously using a matched Polk setup (RTi70, CSi40, RTi28 surrounds - with FXi50s, OWM5s, and some Pioneer upfirers in the mix along my journey) and wanted a little more clarity on the high end (and a 3-way center). I got a good deal on the Prime Towers and Center in SVS' outlet sale and loved the sound, so I gradually phased out all my old Polks in favor of SVS. Also, I had previously had a pair of RTi38s self-destruct from age and figured it was time for a change before the rest of my similarly-aged speakers went the same route. If I'm being honest, I think I could have gone with 4 Sats for the ceiling on brackets and had a little more leeway to aim them... but if you're able to properly place the Elevations flush on the ceiling at good angles, I think they look a lot better up there than speakers hanging from articulating brackets would. If that matters to you. I just bought this house and don't have a wife to contend with, so there has been nothing keeping me from repositioning speakers repeatedly until I found the ideal placements. And accordingly, I'm gonna have a few screw-holes to fill before I paint the room. Well, a few more... The previous owner had a ton of pictures hung in this room, apparently, so I was going to have to repaint anyway.

Are the Elevations overpriced? Eh... compared to using bookshelves and articulating brackets, maybe. I quite like the look of them on the ceiling and wanted a completely matching voice throughout my room, so it was worth the money for me. I can certainly see the argument that they should be closer in price to the Satellites than they are. But then, I also think the Satellites should have been a hair larger so they could dig a little deeper. And the Prime Bookshelves should have been designed with dual keyhole mounts.

P.S. - The good news with the Elevations is: 45 day audition period. Get them, try them in your room and see how they match up to your other speakers, and return them if you don't think they'll work. All you'd be out is a little time and speaker cable, most likely. Or they'll mesh perfectly with the HSUs and you'll be super happy with them.


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> From Dolby's web site (Mac user).


Sorry, but that doesn't really help. There is no download section. There just seems to be a bunch of pages to stream various demos.


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I just bought this house and don't have a wife to contend with


I'm married, but WAF has never been a problem. She's resigned to speakers on the ceiling someday.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> I'm married, but WAF has never been a problem. She's resigned to speakers on the ceiling someday.


Well, if it helps, they're pretty unobtrusive up there.


----------



## b0rnarian

Jeremy Anderson said:


> With them too far off-axis like they are in my room now, you get a (predictable) dip in response where the tweeter crosses over to the mid (that Audyssey mitigates a little)... and Audyssey tends to detect their lower limit around 90-100Hz at those angular extremes.


 You may have hit on something really valuable here - are you saying if the Primes aren't angled properly, Audyssey will set them to lower frequency IE: 90-100Hz? If so, it would make perfect sense by the two primes I have to the sides always set to 90Hz compared to the 4 others I have on front and back wall because its a rectangle room and the side walls are too close in to get that 45 degree angle. If that is the case, I may try to tilt then down ever further to the MLP and have better overhead sound...!


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, if it helps, they're pretty unobtrusive up there.


How rugged are the SVS speakers? Will the dome tweeters withstand high playback levels? 

Here's the background of my question. For a few years I used Boston Acoustics A40 Series II speakers for HT. When I decided to go with a 5.1 setup, I went with the Bostons because I already had two of them that I used for a library system, they were cheap, they were plentiful on Ebay, and parts were easy to find. I got pretty good at replacing woofer surrounds, and I bought a few replacement tweeters. But the A40s were not up to the demands of prolonged use for HT or multi-channel SACDs. They were relics of the LP era, when demands on speakers were modest. In contrast, the Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2 have survived everything I've thrown at them. They were designed for HT.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

b0rnarian said:


> You may have hit on something really valuable here - are you saying if the Primes aren't angled properly, Audyssey will set them to lower frequency IE: 90-100Hz? If so, it would make perfect sense by the two primes I have to the sides always set to 90Hz compared to the 4 others I have on front and back wall because its a rectangle room and the side walls are too close in to get that 45 degree angle. If that is the case, I may try to tilt then down ever further to the MLP and have better overhead sound...!


I'm saying that mine are too far off axis, so the response isn't unexpected. If you're pretty reasonably within the direct cone of sound from the speaker, it's likely room interaction causing any discrepancy. For instance, my Satellite side surrounds detect at 80Hz and are pretty fairly on-axis with the MLP. My rear Sats are not quite aimed at the MLP and tend to detect at 90-100Hz. In the case of the Elevations, I can audibly hear the change in response as I move closer to them. That's not to say that they don't have a nice wide dispersion... Just that it only extends so far and I screwed up putting them too far forward and back of my MLP. Totally on me.

But I would certainly recommend tweaking angles to see if it gets you better response.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I think tops sound better because in most rooms, you're far more likely to hit a pretty consistent angle of separation between every speaker in the array at your MLP. In other words, top placement with 7.1.4 is pretty easy to get a 30-45 degree angular separation speaker-to-speaker barring the gap at the bed-level wide position (which you can mitigate somewhat by placing your mains a bit wide, if you want).


Easy <> better. You're giving up half the room to get that "easy" IMO. If the angular separation between the speakers is too large you can add Top Middle to fix the problem. Admittedly, Dolby screwed up by allowing companies like Disney to bypass the proper use of objects, defeating every speaker in the system beyond 7.1.4 (DTS gets around this same issue with Neural X in DTS:X Pro systems). But that doesn't negate the disadvantages of having an overhead layer half the length of the bed layer, IMO.



> You lose nothing overall because anything meant to image at the "front height" location is simply placed by the renderer between the front soundstage and the top front speakers as needed.


I do not believe that is true with Atmos. DTS attempts to do that with Neural X, but Atmos won't put 100% ceiling sounds in the bed layer so long as a single pair of overheads is available. This is easily tested with Dolby's own helicopter demo. The renderer never uses the front mains to simulate points in front of Top Front. The mains aren't used period unless no overhead speakers are available. 

You thus get a much narrower movement that is much more directly overhead with Tops. Some people prefer that as 30 degrees can seen more "in front if you" than "over my head" even if it is 6 feet higher than the mains, but you lose travel distance. A helicopter can't move as far front to back, which may or may not seem odd depending on the movie.



> In most room sizes, you're not going to get a precise stereo overhead image with front/rear height placement like you would with top front/rear.


You're back to improper usage again. This is why Top Middle exists. If the room is larger, you need Top Middle to make heights work properly. You almost never need Top Middle with Tops because the angles are always 45 degrees apart (although with multiple rows of seats it can lock images down better). 

Thus Top Middle is really meant to do a full ceiling in combination with Heights. There are plenty of processors that offer Top Middle these days or one can do "Scatmos" and avoid the Disney problem entirely as well. With a switch, they can function as VOG for Auro as well.

Notice I'm talking about whether using Heights can sound better or more accurate, not which is easier or cheaper to properly implement (although in-ceiling mounts can be rough compared to on-ceiling or on-wall).

A top of the line Trinnov can do all ten Atmos overhead speakers overhead for the ultimate in precision and accuracy of sound object placement. Everything else is technically a compromise.



> I base this on having experience with pretty much every combo of placement you could have. I started with DPL-IIz front heights when I moved on to Atmos and have been through every possible config involving 4 height channels - front/rear height, front height + top mid, front/side Atmos upfirers, front/rear upfirers, etc.


Who said Heights usage had to be limited to just four overheads? You can do Heights plus Top Middle or Tops plus Top Middle. I'm saying Heights plus Top Middle is going to be more accurate overall than Tops. Whether it sounds "better" is more subjective, of course. With a small room (12' or less in length used), you shouldn't need top middle either way, at least not for angular separation.

I have an 11.2 channel AVR. I still do Top Middle with Scatmos ($350 + two extra speakers to implement using two used Onkyo Pro Logic surround units with built in 65W power each). This gives me a perfectly smooth Dolby helicopter circling in a 24' arc around my room and it works for three rows (which won't work properly for all three rows with just Tops due to the precedence effect).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Calypte said:


> How rugged are the SVS speakers? Will the dome tweeters withstand high playback levels?
> 
> Here's the background of my question. For a few years I used Boston Acoustics A40 Series II speakers for HT. When I decided to go with a 5.1 setup, I went with the Bostons because I already had two of them that I used for a library system, they were cheap, they were plentiful on Ebay, and parts were easy to find. I got pretty good at replacing woofer surrounds, and I bought a few replacement tweeters. But the A40s were not up to the demands of prolonged use for HT or multi-channel SACDs. They were relics of the LP era, when demands on speakers were modest. In contrast, the Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2 have survived everything I've thrown at them. They were designed for HT.


I can't speak as to long-term reliability, as I've picked up all these SVS speakers within the last 5 months. But I typically listen at around -10dB from reference in my room (23' x 12' x 8') and in my experience, the Primes in general tend to sound better the more I crank them. I have yet to find a time when they sounded like they were breaking up at all, and I have a weird tendency to crank end credits up to reference level to listen to the score if the movie has some good orchestral music. I've been pretty impressed with the sound even their smallest speakers are able to put out thus far. Part of why I decided to stick with the Primes going forward was how nice they sounded with SACDs played at pretty decent levels.


----------



## MagnumX

mrvideo said:


> Sorry, but that doesn't really help. There is no download section. There just seems to be a bunch of pages to stream various demos.


It appears they removed all of them (nice of them, eh?)

They used to be at Dolby Atmos

I guess Dolby doesn't want people to properly set up their home theaters anymore or be able to test them. No wonder some people hate Dolby. 

They have a page that says they can't distribute their demo discs due to license restrictions by the content makers...WTF? One would think Dolby is the content maker for their own demos and the license holder for Atmos. 

You might try:









Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> Easy <> better. You're giving up half the room to get that "easy" IMO. If the angular separation between the speakers is too large you can add Top Middle to fix the problem. Admittedly, Dolby screwed up by allowing companies like Disney to bypass the proper use of objects, defeating every speaker in the system beyond 7.1.4 (DTS gets around this same issue with Neural X in DTS:X Pro systems). But that doesn't negate the disadvantages of having an overhead layer half the length of the bed layer, IMO.


I'm not giving up any of the room, placement wise. I get discrete object placement where expected with all the demo clips, based on my experience with all the various possible 7.1.4 speaker placements I mentioned previously. I will agree with you on Disney tracks though. But if your solution to what the best 7.1.4 setup option is is to make it 7.1.6 instead, I think you're looking for a different conversation than Calypte and I were having. 


MagnumX said:


> I do not believe that is true with Atmos. DTS attempts to do that with Neural X, but Atmos won't put 100% ceiling sounds in the bed layer so long as a single pair of overheads is available. This is easily tested with Dolby's own helicopter demo. The renderer never uses the front mains to simulate points in front of Top Front. The mains aren't used period unless no overhead speakers are available.


The Helicopter demo uses the object metadata to lock it to the height layer by design, so would not be what you want to use to judge any interaction between the beds and heights. In practice, movie audio doesn't tend to use that option (except where home mixes use 4 locked objects as virtual "channels", which is a cheat). Try Encounter. You should easily hear the final move to the front left upper corner of the room extend beyond the top front left speaker. It does so by using a bit of the front soundstage. So long as the object in question doesn't have the "lock to nearest" option, the renderer uses any combination of speakers in the array that it needs to based on expected XYZ placement and the size of the object.


MagnumX said:


> You're back to improper usage again. This is why Top Middle exists. If the room is larger, you need Top Middle to make heights work properly. You almost never need Top Middle with Tops because the angles are always 45 degrees apart (although with multiple rows of seats it can lock images down better).
> 
> Thus Top Middle is really meant to do a full ceiling in combination with Heights. There are plenty of processors that offer Top Middle these days or one can do "Scatmos" and avoid the Disney problem entirely as well. With a switch, they can function as VOG for Auro as well.


Again, if you note my post, I said 7.1.4 specifically. I'm not referring at all to 7.1.6 setups, which naturally fills in the gap (as would Auro VOG placement)... because there are speakers there. On that, we agree. I think I pointed that out. I even said in my response to you: "I could see an argument for 7.1.6 with front/rear height and top mid placements mitigating this... but not for 7.1.4."


MagnumX said:


> Notice I'm talking about whether using Heights can sound better or more accurate, not which is easier or cheaper to properly implement (although in-ceiling mounts can be rough compared to on-ceiling or on-wall).


I'm also talking about accuracy, not which is easier or cheaper. Though I was speaking within the constraints of a strictly 7.1.4 setup as Calypte and I were discussing, not some pie-in-the-sky system beyond that. Sure, 7.1.6 would be better and in that context, perhaps front/rear height + top mid is the way to go, though that's beyond the scope of what we were talking about. 


MagnumX said:


> A top of the line Trinnov can do all ten Atmos overhead speakers overhead for the ultimate in precision and accuracy of sound object placement. Everything else is technically a compromise.


And a Lamborghini can get me to work faster, but I'm still gonna do my best to get there on time with my Kia Sorento.  


MagnumX said:


> Who said Heights usage had to be limited to just four overheads? You can do Heights plus Top Middle or Tops plus Top Middle. I'm saying Heights plus Top Middle is going to be more accurate overall than Tops. Whether it sounds "better" is more subjective, of course. With a small room (12' or less in length used), you shouldn't need top middle either way, at least not for angular separation.


No one said it had to be limited, obviously. But the more typical 7.1.4 setup was the discussion we were having, and what you then asked me to weigh in on. And I gave you my experience with every variation of 7.1.4 that I have tried, and my opinion that of those, top front/rear gives the most accurate placement of sound. I stand by that. In a 7.1.4 config, top front/rear will work better than front/rear heights for the reasons previously stated.


MagnumX said:


> I have an 11.2 channel AVR. I still do Top Middle with Scatmos ($350 + two extra speakers to implement using two used Onkyo Pro Logic surround units with built in 65W power each). This gives me a perfectly smooth Dolby helicopter circling in a 24' arc around my room and it works for three rows (which won't work properly for all three rows with just Tops due to the precedence effect).


I'm sure that sounds fantastic! But it's not really germane to the answer I was giving Calypte, nor does it make me feel like my own setup is lacking in precision such that I need to spend more to go 7.1.6. I don't have three rows to contend with.


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> It appears they removed all of them (nice of them, eh?)


Ya, really nice.


> They used to be at Dolby Atmos


That is where I looked.


> They have a page that says they can't distribute their demo discs due to license restrictions by the content makers...WTF? One would think Dolby is the content maker for their own demos and the license holder for Atmos.


The problem is that if any of the content is from movies, then the content doesn't belong to Dolby. That includes any audio.


> You might try:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater
> 
> 
> This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thedigitaltheater.com


I haven't been to that site in ages. It doesn't contain the file in question. Oh well.


----------



## MagnumX

@mrvideo - The demos Dolby had on that link weren't from movies, though and the channel checks weren't even animated. 

I can maybe understand the discs (well not really as you'd think Hollywood would enjoy free publicity plus Auro-3D distributes demo discs with movie clips so I don't know how honest that statement is versus ulterior motive unknown).

There used to be several demo sites out there. It's harder to look for them on my outdated phone, though. If I find one with it, I'll pass it along.


----------



## Calypte

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm sure that sounds fantastic! But it's not really germane to the answer I was giving Calypte, nor does it make me feel like my own setup is lacking in precision such that I need to spend more to go 7.1.6. I don't have three rows to contend with.


Correct. I'm delighted that MagnumX has a wonderful system. Maybe my lingering skepticism about the value of Dolby Atmos would be assuaged if I heard his system. 

But four heights are where I'm aiming right now. I've been thinking about clever ways to mount the speakers so I can experiment with their best placement.

As for SVS, I've often read that their voicing is bright. My current Hsu speakers are actually rather retiring. The contrast might be a shock. I don't know. In 2014 I heard the HB-1 Mk 2s on two occasions in Hsu Research's audition room in Anaheim. I didn't like them. I thought they were somewhat rolled off. But my wife liked 'em. One of Hsu's then-frequent sales came along and I decided to order a pair anyway, figuring I could use them elsewhere if I still didn't like them. As it happened, I thought they sounded better in my home than they did at Hsu. So I ordered three more to complete a 5-channel set of identical speakers. 

If I decide to go to a 7.2.4 system, then -- at the moment -- I'm thinking of two more HB-1 Mk2s. The thing that keeps me from going to 7.2.0 right now is that I'm very interested in sub-20 Hz bass. There isn't much of it in movies, but there is sub-20 Hz in some of the music I like (not pop/rock). I know from the 16 Hz warble on the Hsu demo disc that there's a null in the room about where the best location of the MLP would be. I'd have to decide how I want to work with the null. Putting the MLP back a couple of feet would probably be the solution.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

@mrvideo - If the 7.1.4 test tone file would help, check your DMs. I only have the 9.1.6 version on the demo disc. You should also still be able to snag demo clips from Demolandia.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The Helicopter demo uses the object metadata to lock it to the height layer by design


I was unaware Dolby could lock entire layers. I thought "snap to" only functioned for a specific channel (e.g. front wides and if not available move to nearest speaker). The helicopter pans between channels so I don't see how "snap to" could be turned on. Is there some other function they can use?



> , so would not be what you want to use to judge any interaction between the beds and heights. In practice, movie audio doesn't tend to use that option (except where home mixes use 4 locked objects as virtual "channels", which is a cheat). Try Encounter. You should easily hear the final move to the front left upper corner of the room extend beyond the top front left


I'd love to try _The_ _Encounter_. I don't see it at the demo sites, just on YouTube which the last time I checked was 2-channel only. Is that off a newer test disc or is there a site that hosts it?



> I'm sure that sounds fantastic! But it's not really germane to the answer I was giving Calypte, nor does it make me feel like my own setup is lacking in precision such that I need to spend more to go 7.1.6. I don't have three rows to contend with.


I'm not sure what he's using, but whether heights with only 4 overheads will work for him or not depends on how long his room is. I need top middle regardless of having 3 rows as the angle is too long, as you previously mentioned, but with 6 overhead, it's lovely. If I cut my room in half (12' effective length) as I can do between a speaker switch and turning off rear beds, I have effectively have 5.1.4 (plus mixed front wides, which can also be disabled). In that configuration, the top middle speakers act as rear heights and it still images overhead just fine. It's only when I ask it to image overhead at a 24' length that it sounds weak overhead without the extra speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

@mrvideo 

This 1st post at Quadraphonic Quad forums has a link to the speaker test files:





__





Dolby Atmos® FAQ


What Is Dolby Atmos? Dolby Atmos is an Object Based audio surround system (similar to competing DTS:X and Auro 3D systems). Object based systems are a combination of raw audio channels and metadata that describes the spatial position (in 3D space) and other properties of audio objects. Atmos...




www.quadraphonicquad.com


----------



## Calypte

MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure what he's using


Nothing.


----------



## MagnumX

Ok, I found The Encounter demo. I'll try it out tomorrow.


----------



## Goname31

Really the overhead/height speakers discussion is all about placement and room. I really like my Front/Rear height prime elevation speaker layout, but it really came to life when i used external mounting solutions to toe the in and make them face mlp. I think depending on the room dimentions and the execution, one layout will surpass the other. For me, the buble is there and the two wall of sounds gets me immerse. But this layout makes me hungry for more, i really want to try top middles.

As for the helicopter demo, i dont think it is a good atoms demo track. The sound is just cyrcling around the room, whilte never really travelling overhead, I would have prefer more stereo front/rear panning or some diagonal mouvement.

The encounter is far superior at regarding this.


----------



## Selden Ball

@mrvideo @MagnumX 

Dolby’s Atmos test tone files are still where they’ve always been. It’s just that Dolby has hidden or removed the pages which link to them. Again. This is not the first time they’ve pulled this stunt. Below is a copy of my post about the situation back in 2018. A quick test just now displayed the first and last test videos. I didn’t verify the others.



Selden Ball said:


> Very strange.
> 
> That used to be the right page (note its name: test-tones), but it looks like they've deleted the Atmos speaker test videos that used to be there.
> 
> [pause while I do some searching]
> 
> Fortunately, the Internet Archive managed to get a shapshot of the previous version of Dolby's page, which includes links to the speaker test mp4s. It's available at
> Dolby Labs Website
> 
> IA didn't actually preserve copies of the videos themselves, but it does have their URLs, at least some of which still work today. I dunno how much longer that'll be true, though.
> 
> 
> https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_5_1_2.mp4
> https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_5_1_4.mp4
> https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_7_1_2.mp4
> https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_7_1_4.mp4
> https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_9_1_6.mp4
> 
> ETA:
> I was briefly able to view the first url in Firefox (which played it silently, which isn't particularly useful), but subsequent attempts seem to be getting a DNS failure. I'm not sure why.
> 
> ETA2:
> Apparently the DNS service provided by Spectrum/RoadRunner is being absurdly slow today. I switched my computer's primary DNS server to be Google's 8.8.8.8 and I was able to open the first URL again. While playing the video using Firefox 60.0.2, Firefox's Right-Mouse-Button menu includes the option to download the video, which I did. I then used Kodi to play it and it worked fine.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I was unaware Dolby could lock entire layers. I thought "snap to" only functioned for a specific channel (e.g. front wides and if not available move to nearest speaker). The helicopter pans between channels so I don't see how "snap to" could be turned on. Is there some other function they can use?


In Atmos, sounds intended for the heights always stay in the height layer, whether you have 2, 4, 6, or 30 speakers there. In a 7.1.2 system, the helicopter demo audio will only come from the ".2" speakers with no panning; it will not bleed into the ground layer. However, if you have no height speakers at all, the entire height layer is then blended into the ground layer and the helicopter should pan around the room again (albeit at lower altitude).


----------



## am2model3

I just finished screening Zach Snyder's Cut of Justice League over HBO Max on XSX w/Dolby Atmos! wow, the Dolby Atmos sounded superb, the movie itself is a triumph, and the 4:3 presentation gives you a full frame IMAX video; which on your tv or projector you can zoom in a bit to get as much or as little widescreen effect; wow, it was so good. highly recommended


----------



## bryantc

I'm pretty sure the Helicopter Demo was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of upfiring speakers. It has limited use for testing physical heights.


----------



## T-Bone

bryantc said:


> I'm pretty sure the Helicopter Demo was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of upfiring speakers. It has limited use for testing physical heights.


I don't know how that can be. Atmos is Atmos. Whether you have up firing speakers, or height speakers, the end result is supposed to sound the same, ideally.

One company below seems to thinks the main purpose is overhead pans regardless of the speaker type.









Get Your Copy of Dolby’s Latest Atmos Demo Disc


At this past CEDIA show, Dolby created a new Atmos demo Blu-ray disc for exhibitors to use. While the disc wasn’t initially available for attendees, it is now available for integrators, and it’s a must have for your showroom! Here’s a breakdown of the tracks found on the new disc and how you can...



www.residentialsystems.com





"*Helicopter Demo (0:58)*
This is a near minute of a helicopter hovering overhead and circling through the four different channels. If you want to see how the system handles overhead pans, this is a great track."

-T


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> In Atmos, sounds intended for the heights always stay in the height layer, whether you have 2, 4, 6, or 30 speakers there. In a 7.1.2 system, the helicopter demo audio will only come from the ".2" speakers with no panning; it will not bleed into the ground layer. However, if you have no height speakers at all, the entire height layer is then blended into the ground layer and the helicopter should pan around the room again (albeit at lower altitude).


That was my experience, yes. I use the Helicopter demo to test the integrity of any bed level changes as well by simply disabling the overhead speakers from the Amp Assign. It should move smoothly around the room with no significant pauses or acceleration beyond the room dimensions making the longer length go proportionally faster (ideally a perfect square I suppose or rather a circle). This helped in tweaking the surround#2 speaker levels relative to the seat locations in the 2nd and 3rd rows since there is no demo speaker test for them and they're matrixed in. It also told me if any tweaks I made to the Scatmos top middles were better or worse (e.g. with the distance setting relative to Audyssey and what not) as you could easily hear changes in the helicopter velocity. When dialed in, it moves pretty much perfectly even.



bryantc said:


> I'm pretty sure the Helicopter Demo was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of upfiring speakers. It has limited use for testing physical heights.


I think it's great for testing heights and tops speakers alike at their panning integrity and how well they sound overhead from various seating locations since it's only in the overhead channels. I wish it would detour through the middle of the room straight front to back on one of the passes, though.


----------



## Calypte

Selden Ball said:


> @mrvideo @MagnumX
> 
> Dolby’s Atmos test tone files are still where they’ve always been. It’s just that Dolby has hidden or removed the pages which link to them. Again. This is not the first time they’ve pulled this stunt. Below is a copy of my post about the situation back in 2018. A quick test just now displayed the first and last test videos. I didn’t verify the others.


Are you the Selden Ball who created an animation of the 200-inch Hale Telescope?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I was unaware Dolby could lock entire layers. I thought "snap to" only functioned for a specific channel (e.g. front wides and if not available move to nearest speaker). The helicopter pans between channels so I don't see how "snap to" could be turned on. Is there some other function they can use?


It isn't necessarily that it can "lock entire layers" so much as the object being min size and intentionally limited to the known coordinates for the height array so there's no potential for spill. That Helicopter demo is purpose-designed for illustrating cross-channel panning in the height channels. The object doesn't move to any extreme that would begin to spill into other channels in the renderer. But, for example, if I took that same object and moved it to the hard left of the room in direct line with the expected left surround position - even with max Z - the renderer will start to play part of that object back in the left surround so that it can image between the left height channels and the left surround. It will still predominantly be in the left height channel(s), but have enough of the sound in the left surround to draw the image toward the left side of the room beyond the physical placement of the heights. In the case of a 7.1.6 setup, the expected channels in the array would be left top mid and left surround, assuming the object size is at minimum. In the case of a 7.1.4 setup, the object would be rendered using both the left front/rear (equally between them) and the left surround, in varying levels, depending on the coordinates in the virtual room that the renderer is trying to reproduce in your actual room given the known speaker placements. In the case of a 7.1.2 setup with top mids, the object would be rendered using the left top mid and left surround. As noted earlier, in this particular config, if the object isn't moved beyond the scope of the defined height channel placement (roughly the middle third of the virtual room side-to-side), then it would only be rendered by the top mids (not because it is "height-locked" per se - just because the object doesn't venture outside of the area of the virtual room such that it needs coverage from the other channels to place it). But if that object moves beyond that range - again, even with max Z so it is placed at the top of the virtual room - the renderer will begin to use the other adjacent channels to reproduce that sound so that it images beyond the physical limit of the height channels. You can actually see this behavior in action if you look at some of the videos showing off Trinnov's object viewer. As an object moves around the room, even at max height, you can see it light up bed-level channels to a lesser degree as the object moves beyond the range where only the heights would be needed to reproduce it at the known position. 

It's worth noting that you can just as easily steer an object through the virtual room at 50% of the Z-axis that would move THROUGH the MLP but still slightly above the listener. It isn't an either/or proposition between the bed and height layers or even limited to pans across a virtual dome. The level in each speaker in the array would be determined by the object placement and size.


MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure what he's using, but whether heights with only 4 overheads will work for him or not depends on how long his room is. I need top middle regardless of having 3 rows as the angle is too long, as you previously mentioned, but with 6 overhead, it's lovely. If I cut my room in half (12' effective length) as I can do between a speaker switch and turning off rear beds, I have effectively have 5.1.4 (plus mixed front wides, which can also be disabled). In that configuration, the top middle speakers act as rear heights and it still images overhead just fine. It's only when I ask it to image overhead at a 24' length that it sounds weak overhead without the extra speakers.


I'm sure your room sounds lovely, and I can definitely understand needing top middle if you're using front/rear heights at that room length because of the resulting angle between the channel pairs. Mine is 23' long and top front/rear works great for me. The angles between the individual height channels and the other adjacent channels are such that I am easily at less than 45 degrees between any given pair in the array, so there's no problem imaging sounds at any point in between them that the renderer needs to place a sound.


----------



## bryantc

T-Bone said:


> I don't know how that can be. Atmos is Atmos. Whether you have up firing speakers, or height speakers, the end result is supposed to sound the same, ideally.


That sounds like some great Dolby marketing. "Ideally" being the key word.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Josh Z said:


> In Atmos, sounds intended for the heights always stay in the height layer, whether you have 2, 4, 6, or 30 speakers there. In a 7.1.2 system, the helicopter demo audio will only come from the ".2" speakers with no panning; it will not bleed into the ground layer. However, if you have no height speakers at all, the entire height layer is then blended into the ground layer and the helicopter should pan around the room again (albeit at lower altitude).


That's actually not quite how it works. The entire sound of the mix is in the base layer of the bitstream. If you don't have heights, your system just plays the base layer of the stream. It doesn't have to blend anything, and this lets it maintain backwards compatibility with non-Atmos systems. If you DO have heights, then the renderer analyzes the object data encoded into the metadata of the stream using joint object coding, then extracts the sounds of each object based on its individual metadata (position and size) as needed from the base layer of the stream. That new modified base layer would then be reproduced in your bed layer of speakers, and the objects steered through the other available channels in the array as needed based on the XYZ coordinates of each object and its given size. During this process, the sound of an object can actually be extracted from the base channel-based layer of the bitstream but then mixed back into the bed layer of speakers as needed by the object renderer.

There can be 2 channels encoded as discrete "height" that would be reproduced by all height channels on the left and right equally, but I don't know that this is used often for home mixes. I have seen some home mixes cheat by placing 4 static objects as virtual heights, then just coarsely steering pre-panned sound or ambience between them... with some individual objects steered through in support. That may just be a way to keep the object count down below the maximum for the home format though. I'm not really sure why they lean on that.


----------



## T-Bone

bryantc said:


> That sounds like some great Dolby marketing. "Ideally" being the key word.


. Yes, *ideally* because I'm sure the people at Dolby would say the same thing. 

Everyone here knows the dirty little secret about up firing speakers though.

-T


----------



## Calypte

T-Bone said:


> I don't know how that can be. Atmos is Atmos. Whether you have up firing speakers, or height speakers, the end result is supposed to sound the same, ideally.


If it did, then there'd be no market for speakers on ceilings. We wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## MagnumX

@Jeremy Anderson

I asked this question in the Trinnov thread because of its object viewer and ability to render heights plus tops, but no one ever answered. Does the helicopter actually travel around all ten height locations or does it move around the tops locations in terms of the actual object placement? Because the renderer uses the nearest speakers available, it's near impossible to tell what the true "accurate" path is. Setting the AVR to Tops here just changes the speed of the helicopter as if it's expecting to have to not move as far so moves faster around the room in fewer steps or something.

None of the other demos I've tried demonstrate the slightest difference between using a heights or tops setting.

The problem from a user standpoint of what it could or should do seems to limited because the demos aren't demonstrating different pans and mixing choices, just doing whatever they want and then people wonder what the point is. I've tried movies with extremely noticeable overhead effects and still Tops and Heights sound the same.

Until I got Yello's Point album in Atmos, I had only ever once noticed a discrete layer height pan (In the movie IT part 1 in Atmos when the clown crawls up the wall onto the ceiling near the end you could briefly hear it move upward on the wall. But movies don't often do things like have a helicopter take off without the itch to change the camera view (and thus the sound) every other second.

But in Yello's song "Way Down" it regularly says it overhead on "Way" and then pans downward to the ear level speakers on "Down". It's impressive simply because after watching over 100 Atmos and X movies it's the most noticeable example. Even the planes taking off in Auro-3D in Red Tails are more subtle/spread out and mostly in the front when it happens (sane for their jet demo). With the Yello album, it does it even on the sides and rear speakers.

I think there's some demos I missed on the 2014-16 Dolby test discs (I ripped them with MakeMKV's default minimum length and I think that's why I missed Encounter and their Jet takeoff. I'll try them tonight.


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> @mrvideo - The demos Dolby had on that link weren't from movies, though and the channel checks weren't even animated.


Then it really sounds dumb that they were pulled.


----------



## mrvideo

Jeremy Anderson said:


> @mrvideo - If the 7.1.4 test tone file would help, check your DMs. I only have the 9.1.6 version on the demo disc. You should also still be able to snag demo clips from Demolandia.


Thanks got your DM. Also found the Dolby Atmos 2014/2015/2016 discs and the 2018 Dolby UHD disc.


----------



## mrvideo

Selden Ball said:


> @mrvideo @MagnumX
> Dolby’s Atmos test tone files are still where they’ve always been. It’s just that Dolby has hidden or removed the pages which link to them. Again. This is not the first time they’ve pulled this stunt. Below is a copy of my post about the situation back in 2018. A quick test just now displayed the first and last test videos. I didn’t verify the others.


Thanks, JD2 is downloading them now. Reallysucks that they removed the links/hidden them.


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> @mrvideo
> 
> This 1st post at Quadraphonic Quad forums has a link to the speaker test files:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos® FAQ
> 
> 
> What Is Dolby Atmos? Dolby Atmos is an Object Based audio surround system (similar to competing DTS:X and Auro 3D systems). Object based systems are a combination of raw audio channels and metadata that describes the spatial position (in 3D space) and other properties of audio objects. Atmos...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.quadraphonicquad.com


Thanks. As indicated above, I've found four Dolby demo discs. Won't be able to do much with them until I get the room set up. I've a ways to go.


----------



## JohnRichmond

mrvideo said:


> Sorry, but that doesn't really help. There is no download section. There just seems to be a bunch of pages to stream various demos.


https://download.dolby.com/us/en/test-tones/dolby-test-tones_9_1_6.mp4


----------



## Selden Ball

Calypte said:


> Are you the Selden Ball who created an animation of the 200-inch Hale Telescope?


Yes,

It seriously needs updating, which I started to do several times, but I haven’t been able to maintain the necessary amount of interest.


----------



## Calypte

Selden Ball said:


> Yes,
> 
> It seriously needs updating, which I started to do several times, but I haven’t been able to maintain the necessary amount of interest.


I first saw the animation in 2009. During non-Covid times I work as a docent at Palomar Observatory. But this is OT here.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It isn't necessarily that it can "lock entire layers" so much as the object being min size and intentionally limited to the known coordinates for the height array so there's no potential for spill. That Helicopter demo is purpose-designed for illustrating cross-channel panning in the height channels. The object doesn't move to any extreme that would begin to spill into other channels in the renderer. But, for example, if I took that same object and moved it to the hard left of the room in direct line with the expected left surround position - even with max Z - the renderer will start to play part of that object back in the left surround so that it can image between the left height channels and the left surround.


I first tried the Dolby Atmos 747 demo I hadn't heard before. It's fine, but I prefer the Auro-3D demo one, which sounds far more realistic. There's something artificial about the Dolby version (assigned panning?) whereas the Auro-3D one is a dual-quad recording taken in one place as the plane actually passes overhead. It goes way behind you even without rear surrounds (probably due to the HRTF data being more or less passed along by the microphones giving unique data). 

Next, I tried The Encounter demo. It's interesting as it actually does pan upward and diagonal across the room. It sounded especially good from the 2nd row where the movement seemed so much larger (always more difficult to gauge distances behind you than when they're in front of you, whether eye level or above). So yes, of course something that is playing in the front speaker and moves upward will be shared between the two. 

But I standby my point that with 100% ceiling sounds, you're going to be starting further out into the room (45-55 degrees instead of 20-45 degrees). I don't see how that demo proves an object starting in front of the tops layer will start in the lower speakers. The height layer is in front of the tops layer and setting my AVR to "Tops" doesn't use my front speakers for the helicopter demo (unless of course that demo doesn't actually have objects that extend into the heights space and it's just using them anyway as the nearest overhead speakers, but I still have yet to get verification on exactly where the helicopter objects are in the grid). 

As an object drops below 100% ceiling height, I can see it starting to use the front speakers if it's in the front heights or front tops, but it's still going to be a blend and that means it acts like an array for the phantom images in-between. That will put it on a diagonal trajectory from the 45 degree position relative to what is essentially 0 degrees height whereas if 30 degrees is at the ceiling near the front wall like in my setup (relative to MLP), it will essentially drop straight down as they are in the same relative plane (actually do to the length of the towers, the heights are actually slightly behind to the main towers both in the front and back of the room. So that will definitely give a different position of the object with that speaker layout. Atmos does the best it can to place objects in a given layout, but ultimately for example, 5.1.4 does not sound like 7.1.4 as z-axis sounds from rear surrounds at moved to the side surround location and there is no longer any separation between the two. That is not necessarily true of > 7.1.4 because all the remaining locations are in-between the "skeleton frame" created by the far boundaries of 7.1.4 (rectangle). 

Tops without Heights is an exception because its location is typically somewhere closer to the front wide speaker location (room depending) than outer boundary that the mains and front heights more typically represents. Now depending on the height of the room, "heights" could be on the front wall or the ceiling plus Dolby gives leeway in its guidelines, but ultimately they are closer to the front mains and rear surround locations than the Tops speakers. Heights can pan through Tops as long as the room isn't too long, but Tops cannot pan through heights EVER. Even if they blend with the fronts, the combined phantom image is going to be lower than the heights position in the same plane.

Thus, I maintain if someone wants the full range of Atmos object placement sounds, they need 7.1.4 at a minimum using Heights. If the room is too big, they will need 7.1.6 to pull it off (and eventually 10 overheads if they keep going to a really large home cinema). Likewise, at ear/bed level, if you make the room larger and larger and keep the speakers at the boundaries, you're going to need more and more speakers to keep the phantom images strong just like overhead. With more rows, you will probably want more side surround speakers at the very least. 

The theaters make allowances for making all the side speakers (or groups of them) into arrays while maintaining discrete output for moving objects as well. At home, you could fake this with a mixer, but for some reason Dolby didn't build it into the home spec. I believe a Trinnov will do it for you as well from what I've read. But traditionally, even with only 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 channels, movie theaters use arrays to keep the relative distances between speakers reasonable and make "side" seem to come from the side of your particular row, not some row in front of or behind you. Atmos objects, on the other hand, can image in a single speaker moving along the line of them and movie theaters have considerably more speakers than the home environment.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> I first tried the Dolby Atmos 747 demo I hadn't heard before. It's fine, but I prefer the Auro-3D demo one, which sounds far more realistic. There's something artificial about the Dolby version (assigned panning?) whereas the Auro-3D one is a dual-quad recording taken in one place as the plane actually passes overhead. It goes way behind you even without rear surrounds (probably due to the HRTF data being more or less passed along by the microphones giving unique data).
> 
> Next, I tried The Encounter demo. It's interesting as it actually does pan upward and diagonal across the room. It sounded especially good from the 2nd row where the movement seemed so much larger (always more difficult to gauge distances behind you than when they're in front of you, whether eye level or above). So yes, of course something that is playing in the front speaker and moves upward will be shared between the two.
> 
> But I standby my point that with 100% ceiling sounds, you're going to be starting further out into the room (45-55 degrees instead of 20-45 degrees). I don't see how that demo proves an object starting in front of the tops layer will start in the lower speakers. The height layer is in front of the tops layer and setting my AVR to "Tops" doesn't use my front speakers for the helicopter demo (unless of course that demo doesn't actually have objects that extend into the heights space and it's just using them anyway as the nearest overhead speakers, but I still have yet to get verification on exactly where the helicopter objects are in the grid).
> 
> As an object drops below 100% ceiling height, I can see it starting to use the front speakers if it's in the front heights or front tops, but it's still going to be a blend and that means it acts like an array for the phantom images in-between. That will put it on a diagonal trajectory from the 45 degree position relative to what is essentially 0 degrees height whereas if 30 degrees is at the ceiling near the front wall like in my setup (relative to MLP), it will essentially drop straight down as they are in the same relative plane (actually do to the length of the towers, the heights are actually slightly behind to the main towers both in the front and back of the room. So that will definitely give a different position of the object with that speaker layout. Atmos does the best it can to place objects in a given layout, but ultimately for example, 5.1.4 does not sound like 7.1.4 as z-axis sounds from rear surrounds at moved to the side surround location and there is no longer any separation between the two. That is not necessarily true of > 7.1.4 because all the remaining locations are in-between the "skeleton frame" created by the far boundaries of 7.1.4 (rectangle).
> 
> Tops without Heights is an exception because its location is typically somewhere closer to the front wide speaker location (room depending) than outer boundary that the mains and front heights more typically represents. Now depending on the height of the room, "heights" could be on the front wall or the ceiling plus Dolby gives leeway in its guidelines, but ultimately they are closer to the front mains and rear surround locations than the Tops speakers. Heights can pan through Tops as long as the room isn't too long, but Tops cannot pan through heights EVER. Even if they blend with the fronts, the combined phantom image is going to be lower than the heights position in the same plane.
> 
> Thus, I maintain if someone wants the full range of Atmos object placement sounds, they need 7.1.4 at a minimum using Heights. If the room is too big, they will need 7.1.6 to pull it off (and eventually 10 overheads if they keep going to a really large home cinema). Likewise, at ear/bed level, if you make the room larger and larger and keep the speakers at the boundaries, you're going to need more and more speakers to keep the phantom images strong just like overhead. With more rows, you will probably want more side surround speakers at the very least.
> 
> The theaters make allowances for making all the side speakers (or groups of them) into arrays while maintaining discrete output for moving objects as well. At home, you could fake this with a mixer, but for some reason Dolby didn't build it into the home spec. I believe a Trinnov will do it for you as well from what I've read. But traditionally, even with only 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 channels, movie theaters use arrays to keep the relative distances between speakers reasonable and make "side" seem to come from the side of your particular row, not some row in front of or behind you. Atmos objects, on the other hand, can image in a single speaker moving along the line of them and movie theaters have considerably more speakers than the home environment.


I’d like to ask a question if you don’t mind. What I’m wondering is how much experience you have with actual tops since I don’t recall you mentioning that. Maybe you did, but I don’t remember. Just curious...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> As an object drops below 100% ceiling height, I can see it starting to use the front speakers if it's in the front heights or front tops, but it's still going to be a blend and that means it acts like an array for the phantom images in-between. That will put it on a diagonal trajectory from the 45 degree position relative to what is essentially 0 degrees height whereas if 30 degrees is at the ceiling near the front wall like in my setup (relative to MLP), it will essentially drop straight down as they are in the same relative plane (actually do to the length of the towers, the heights are actually slightly behind to the main towers both in the front and back of the room. So that will definitely give a different position of the object with that speaker layout. Atmos does the best it can to place objects in a given layout, but ultimately for example, 5.1.4 does not sound like 7.1.4 as z-axis sounds from rear surrounds at moved to the side surround location and there is no longer any separation between the two. That is not necessarily true of > 7.1.4 because all the remaining locations are in-between the "skeleton frame" created by the far boundaries of 7.1.4 (rectangle).


It's the angles, not the distance, and a longer room simply has different requirements for optimal cross-channel angular placement. Perhaps that's the disconnect we're having here. An object can be at 100% ceiling height in the virtual room, steered to the front of the room directly above the mains... And if you're running front/rear heights, the renderer knows there's a speaker near that location, so easy peasy, it places the sound there. If you're running top front/rear, the renderer knows that to place a sound at that azimuth from the MLP (beyond the expected angle for top front), it has to image it between the top front and the front soundstage. That doesn't mean that the object itself isn't still at 100% Z-axis objectively. It just means that the renderer takes that data and the known speaker positions and knows how to place that sound in that part of the room with what speakers it has. And so long as you have good cross-channel imaging, the listener should hear that sound in the same location in the room regardless of which layout you use. That's kinda' the point of object-based sound. The Z-axis of the object doesn't prevent sounds from being reproduced by the bed-layer channels if need be to image the sound at the needed angle. The coordinates simply tell the renderer what the expected azimuth from the listener should be and then it figures out how many speakers in the array at known positions are needed to reproduce it at that location.


MagnumX said:


> Tops without Heights is an exception because its location is typically somewhere closer to the front wide speaker location (room depending) than outer boundary that the mains and front heights more typically represents.


Again, you don't have to have a speaker at the room's boundary to place a sound there. You just have to have a pair or more of speakers you can use to image the sound in that location. As a general example, if I place a sound 75% height and 25% bed level, it images at an angle between them but still more toward the heights just as if I placed a sound 75% in the right main and 25% in the left main, which would image more toward the right but not hard right. It's applying concepts of stereo imaging between every known speaker in the array to place object audio.


MagnumX said:


> Now depending on the height of the room, "heights" could be on the front wall or the ceiling plus Dolby gives leeway in its guidelines, but ultimately they are closer to the front mains and rear surround locations than the Tops speakers.


Again, closer or further is irrelevant except to distance/delay. It's the expected angle to the MLP that matters to the renderer. 30 degrees to a speaker on the front wall or 30 degrees to a speaker on the ceiling doesn't matter... because it's still 30 degrees. All the renderer cares about is the angles so it knows how to image sounds between those angles.


MagnumX said:


> Heights can pan through Tops as long as the room isn't too long, but Tops cannot pan through heights EVER. Even if they blend with the fronts, the combined phantom image is going to be lower than the heights position in the same plane.


No, it won't be lower. It will emanate from the expected azimuth from the listener. If a sound is emanating 30 degrees above me, it doesn't matter if that point source is closer or further away... I will still hear it at 30 degrees. Likewise, if I don't have a single point source at 30 degrees but instead have two speakers - one at 0 and one at 45 degrees - I can image a sound at 30 degrees by placing the sound in both speakers at the needed levels (in this example, roughly 33% in one and 66% in the other).


MagnumX said:


> Thus, I maintain if someone wants the full range of Atmos object placement sounds, they need 7.1.4 at a minimum using Heights.


And I still maintain that using front/rear heights as your base when limited to only 4 speakers is not as optimal as using top front/rear... because you're leaving too large an angular separation between the front and back heights for any overhead imaging to work well, thereby losing coverage of objects directly above the listener. Whereas with top front/rear, you don't lose any coverage because when placed at the expected angles, the angular separation between every speaker pair in your bed/height array will be within the 45-60 degree ideal for accurate cross-channel imaging. And Dolby seems to be in agreement on this as front/rear heights is their fallback, not their primary recommendation.

But we can agree to disagree.


----------



## MagnumX

@Jeremy Anderson

This got edited wrong on my stupid phone so I had to edit:




> Again, you don't have to have a speaker at the room's boundary to place a sound there. You just have to have a pair or more of speakers you can use to image the sound in that location.
> 
> As a general example, if I place a sound 75% height and 25% bed level, it images at an angle between them but still more toward the heights just as if I placed a sound 75% in the right main and 25% in the left main, which would image more toward the right but not hard right. It's applying concepts of stereo imaging between every known speaker in the array to place object audio.


Stereo imaging says phantom imaging is an array situation with the shared sounds. When sitting equidistant, half and half images halfway between. That affects the z-axis when mixing different height layers. It will move downward as it moves forward. If that's good enough for you, that's fine, but my point is it's less accurate to the object placement. 

In actuality, though Atmos is always going to be somewhat variable due to how it is guided to be based on relative listener angles that can vary widely by room geometry, ceiling height in particular that change the relative y-axis as it relates to the listener. 

For example, a room like mine (12'x24'x8.5') with a 20-foot ceiling would have the "Tops" on the ceiling instead to get that 45 degree angle relative to the MLP at 9' away. Now suddenly I'd need Top Middle to fill the gap with "Tops" and there's no way the objects image at the same x,y coordinates.

Auro-3D is speaker aligned instead so the height layers are always theoretically aligned with each other and thus their dual-quad mic method can give almost holographic results since microphone alignment is 100% relative to speaker placement. It's like binaural for outside your head. 

You could try to do this with Atmos, but with objects, it won't work at all. You'd have to use fixed objects, but even then the overhead speaker alignment is variable with layout (Top middle is as close as you get to side surround alignment, buy not the same) and tops and heights y-axis location varies with ceiling height! It's unworkable for precision layer alignment. 

Of course it's Dolby saying that its listener-centric and thus Dolby creating all these inaccurate rooms. The actual renderer is not, of course. It's just a rectangle with equidistant points in it. In other words, it's not listener-centric at all. It's room-centric. The best speaker alignment you can do is a room based one as it most closely matches the renderer and scales accordingly. The listener angles vary by setting, just like in a real theater.

Thus, you put mains at the front wall, rears at the rear wall (real or virtual wall; it's a spatial relationship). Sides should go not to your side, but at the 1/2 room point. Heights are the same and Top Middle is at 1/2 as well (oddly this closely aligns with Auro now as Auro based their layout on 5.1 for Auro 11.1 and 7.1 for Auro 13.1. It's Dolby that keeps claiming they're incompatible for dubious reasons, IMO). 

Tops are 1/4 from either end and bingo, you have evenly spaced overheads and surrounds regardless of room size and seating locations. Adding more speakers generally puts them halfway between as well. The renderer sees the same basic layout as well and that is as "accurate" as you're going to get from Atmos.



> No, it won't be lower. It will emanate from the expected azimuth from the listener. If a sound is emanating 30 degrees above me, it doesn't matter if that point source is closer or further away... I will still hear it at 30 degrees.


Yes, it will be lower. Look up arrays. You cannot mix sounds without the phantom image moving. If it couldn't move downward, you couldn't pan between the height layer and bed layer. The Encounter demo and better yet Yello's song Way Down prove you can image in-between layers. Left/Right, up/down; it's still phantom imaging between arrayed pairs (the correlated sounds being the array part or phantom image). 
Speaker delays can help with one direction of distance, but not with an angle change on another axis. In other words, mixing different heights at different y-axis distances can't be fully corrected. 




> Likewise, if I don't have a single point source at 30 degrees but instead have two speakers - one at 0 and one at 45 degrees - I can image a sound at 30 degrees by placing the sound in both speakers at the needed levels (in this example, roughly 33% in one and 66% in the other).


You seem to be under the impression that you can mix sounds on two or even three different axis and it will only change on the one you want it to. That phantom image will move like you say on that axis, but it's going to move on not just the Z-axis, but the Y-axis as well. It's diagonal travel between Tops 1/4 the way into the room and fronts. If you had a 20 foot ceiling, you might get a 45 degree axis right above your mains and it would phantom image correctly compared to heights, but that's something that should be considered when building the home theater. 
The bottom line is you can't remove the room geometry and physical placement from the equation just because it's inconvenient or undesirable. 



> And I still maintain that using front/rear heights as your base when limited to only 4 speakers is not as optimal as using top front/rear... because you're leaving too large an angular separation between the front and back heights for any overhead imaging to work well, thereby losing coverage of objects directly above the listener. Whereas with top front/rear, you don't lose any coverage because when placed at the expected angles, the angular separation between every speaker pair in your bed/height array will be within the 45-60 degree ideal for accurate cross-channel imaging. And Dolby seems to be in agreement on this as front/rear heights is their fallback, not their primary recommendation.
> But we can agree to disagree.


As I've said before, that's 100% room dependent. If I cut my room in half (speaker switch and saved level changes along with removing rear surrounds), it images overhead just fine with four heights. That makes the room effectively 12'x12' instead of 12'x24'. 

It also creates a perfect Auro-3D 9.1 setup, which is why I set up the switch. But it's handy for doing various comparisons (With the Scatmos setup, I can alternately stretch Auro-3D into a full room 9.1.6 arrangement).


----------



## AYanguas

*Atmos Tops are located as per Dolby recommendations. 

But Helicopter demo sound strange.*

With respect to how to locate the Upper Speakers for Atmos, I like to share a singular effect that I notice with the Dolby Helicopter demo.

My Atmos layout is 7.1.4 with Tops in-ceiling, more or less at the 45º elevation angle. They are B&W CCM 683, with orientable tweeter. So, they point downwards, and I turned the tweeters 45º to point directly to the MLP.

The “problem” I notice with the Dolby Helicopter demo is that, when the helicopter is in front of me, the two Top Front Left and Top Front Right speakers* image so good the sound*, in a stereo triangular way, that I hear the helicopter sound more “inside my head” in a kind of binaural way. And I perceived the helicopter more near to me. As a result, the navigation pattern of the helicopter that I listen is something like the drawing below, instead of a “perfect circle”. I do not notice any similar effect from the rear path, perhaps because of the different human perception from the rear, or perhaps because different room acoustics, that is not perfect symmetrical.










If I do not aim the tweeters to the MLP and have the Top Front speakers full pointing downwards or even I point the tweeters outside the square, I do not get so much ‘stereo image’ from the two Top fronts, and the Helicopter pattern resembles more to a ‘perfect circle’ but still with a ‘little near’ in front.

That is only applicable to the Helicopter demo, that is only a partial test of Dolby Atmos.

Then, I wonder what should be the best configuration with respect to aim or not to aim the tweeters to the MLP.

I assume that it would be better to aim tweeters to MLP, because I will then hear better top sound for a bigger frequency range, and special ‘image’ situations in Top Fronts would not be very frequent in films or music. Or perhaps yes?

*Other Test*

I also have Front Height speakers, over the Front towers to be used for Auro-3D or alternatively to do dialog lift also with the Front speakers.

If I configure those speakers for Atmos 7.1.6, in addition to my four Top speakers, as in the drawing below, I do not perceive that problematic effect because the Front Heights are more far away, and the Top Middles do not image because the helicopter is only at one side at a time.










With this 7.1.6 configuration, the MLP is not aligned with the Top Middles. The helicopter demo *runs better in a long circle way*, but the sound is *more strange as it pans* because I notice the different kind of sound from the In-ceiling Tops speakers and the Bookshelf hanging Front Heights that have better sound. I neither run Audyssey for this, as it was only a test.

I have not experimented more with this 7.1.6 config, because I then lose the connection possibility for wides for 9.1.4. that I like. Additional setups ‘scatmos’ style for 9.1.6 could be a possibility, but I do not consider them for an immediate future. For now, time to rest and enjoy films and music content.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> Stereo imaging says phantom imaging is an array situation with the shared sounds. When sitting equidistant, half and half images halfway between. That affects the z-axis when mixing different height layers. It will move downward as it moves forward. If that's good enough for you, that's fine, but my point is it's less accurate to the object placement.


I'm aware that 50% in each speaker gives you an image half-way between. But the height channels do this same thing with the stereo pair flipped on its side. And again, the RENDERER knows how much to put in each speaker in the pair to achieve the intended angle of the sound based on the predefined angular range of each position. Your way, using front/rear heights in the expected range, leaves a larger angular range between the front and rear heights than you could reasonably image between well. If you split the difference to find the "ideal" angle in that range and put them at 37.5 degrees off ear level, the angular range the renderer would have to image between for placing sounds in the top mid region of your ceiling would be 105 degrees. Hence why you were previously saying you would need top mid to fill in that gap. Weirdly, you're agreeing with me on that and still saying I'm somehow not right, which is confusing. Logically, if I instead go top front/rear, my angle from front to top front and rear to top rear respectively would be within 55 degrees (so still easy to image between)... but I would have decreased the angular range between the heights to 70-80 degrees rather than 105. Therefore, less of a need to fill in the gap between the two sets of speakers. All front/rear height would gain you would be an almost imperceptible improvement in vertical resolution (bed to height) in the front only, at the cost of resolution above the listener. Additionally, top front/rear brings the angles between the height channels and the side surrounds closer to an ideal angle for imaging between them (which the renderer does if the object moves beyond the middle third or so of the virtual room). I don't need to guess on this... I've run both configurations and heard it for myself with the same demo material I've used to asses the sound in multiple configurations and rooms. So I again maintain that if you're running 7.1.4, I think top front/rear is the better option for the reasons I've explained. You disagree... and that's fine.


MagnumX said:


> Yes, it will be lower. Look up arrays. You cannot mix sounds without the phantom image moving. If it couldn't move downward, you couldn't pan between the height layer and bed layer. The Encounter demo and better yet Yello's song Way Down prove you can image in-between layers. Left/Right, up/down; it's still phantom imaging between arrayed pairs (the correlated sounds being the array part or phantom image).
> Speaker delays can help with one direction of distance, but not with an angle change on another axis. In other words, mixing different heights at different y-axis distances can't be fully corrected.


Again, the renderer knows how much level to apply to attempt to pull the image forward beyond the point source at the correct angle, not some point source that you think would somehow change depending on how far a speaker is away from you. Of course the phantom image moves. That's the whole point. But it doesn't move significantly downward because the top fronts will still take precedence by virtue of being significantly higher in level per the renderer. That's why the renderer needs to know the speaker position angles in the first place - so it knows what level variations are required between each speaker in the array.


MagnumX said:


> You seem to be under the impression that you can mix sounds on two or even three different axis and it will only change on the one you want it to. That phantom image will move like you say on that axis, but it's going to move on not just the Z-axis, but the Y-axis as well. It's diagonal travel between Tops 1/4 the way into the room and fronts. If you had a 20 foot ceiling, you might get a 45 degree axis right above your mains and it would phantom image correctly compared to heights, but that's something that should be considered when building the home theater.
> The bottom line is you can't remove the room geometry and physical placement from the equation just because it's inconvenient or undesirable.


And you seem to be under the impression that in this dome of sound Atmos is meant to create, it somehow requires you to have a physical speaker at a room boundary to reproduce a sound from that angle to the listener, which it clearly doesn't. It doesn't matter if there's a point source at the intersection of the front wall and the ceiling. What matters is that the renderer knows the general location of each speaker in the array so that it can image object sounds at that same angle regardless of whether there's a speaker there. If the renderer needs a sound to emanate from 30 degrees above ear level and it knows it has a top front speaker at 45 degrees, it generally knows what small amount it needs to put in the front soundstage to pull the sound to a 30 degree image between the speaker locations. You're treating the height layer as if it were some planar layer of sound, when it's actually reproduction of sounds from particular azimuths above the bed layer, with the renderer using XYZ coordinates in a virtual space to calculate the angle to the expected MLP and reproduce that sound using multiple speakers in the array. The renderer does the math on what the level in each speaker has to be to try to achieve it. That's the entire point of object-based audio. I don't have to mix the sound manually in a channel-based manner at the production stage. I just have to place the audio object where in a virtual room it should be and the renderer will decide how best to reproduce it with the speakers it has available in any given space based on pre-defined speaker locations and angles. Distance to the speaker is irrelevant except in that delay must be applied so the sound from that speaker arrives at the MLP at the same time as it does from the other speakers.

At this point, I'm just going to state my continued disagreement with you, having read all the white papers and having actually run many different speaker placements myself. This is my experience with it, and you may feel free to have a different experience. If you need to go on about it, okay... but I think at this point, we've beaten this dead horse into a runny paste. And you're actually agreeing with me more than I think you realize.


----------



## petetherock

AYanguas said:


> *Atmos Tops are located as per Dolby recommendations.
> 
> But Helicopter demo sound strange.*
> 
> With respect to how to locate the Upper Speakers for Atmos, I like to share a singular effect that I notice with the Dolby Helicopter demo.
> 
> My Atmos layout is 7.1.4 with Tops in-ceiling, more or less at the 45º elevation angle. They are B&W CCM 683, with orientable tweeter. So, they point downwards, and I turned the tweeters 45º to point directly to the MLP.
> 
> The “problem” I notice with the Dolby Helicopter demo is that, when the helicopter is in front of me, the two Top Front Left and Top Front Right speakers* image so good the sound*, in a stereo triangular way, that I hear the helicopter sound more “inside my head” in a kind of binaural way. And I perceived the helicopter more near to me. As a result, the navigation pattern of the helicopter that I listen is something like the drawing below, instead of a “perfect circle”. I do not notice any similar effect from the rear path, perhaps because of the different human perception from the rear, or perhaps because different room acoustics, that is not perfect symmetrical.
> 
> View attachment 3116143
> 
> 
> If I do not aim the tweeters to the MLP and have the Top Front speakers full pointing downwards or even I point the tweeters outside the square, I do not get so much ‘stereo image’ from the two Top fronts, and the Helicopter pattern resembles more to a ‘perfect circle’ but still with a ‘little near’ in front.
> 
> That is only applicable to the Helicopter demo, that is only a partial test of Dolby Atmos.
> 
> Then, I wonder what should be the best configuration with respect to aim or not to aim the tweeters to the MLP.
> 
> I assume that it would be better to aim tweeters to MLP, because I will then hear better top sound for a bigger frequency range, and special ‘image’ situations in Top Fronts would not be very frequent in films or music. Or perhaps yes?
> 
> *Other Test*
> 
> I also have Front Height speakers, over the Front towers to be used for Auro-3D or alternatively to do dialog lift also with the Front speakers.
> 
> If I configure those speakers for Atmos 7.1.6, in addition to my four Top speakers, as in the drawing below, I do not perceive that problematic effect because the Front Heights are more far away, and the Top Middles do not image because the helicopter is only at one side at a time.
> 
> View attachment 3116144
> 
> 
> With this 7.1.6 configuration, the MLP is not aligned with the Top Middles. The helicopter demo *runs better in a long circle way*, but the sound is *more strange as it pans* because I notice the different kind of sound from the In-ceiling Tops speakers and the Bookshelf hanging Front Heights that have better sound. I neither run Audyssey for this, as it was only a test.
> 
> I have not experimented more with this 7.1.6 config, because I then lose the connection possibility for wides for 9.1.4. that I like. Additional setups ‘scatmos’ style for 9.1.6 could be a possibility, but I do not consider them for an immediate future. For now, time to rest and enjoy films and music content.


Very nice pics
I just wanted to share my perspective:
You may not want to base your setup on a single demo scene unless you feel each scene is going to should the same..
I considered a more directional approach initially - now I point my top speakers down and slightly towards my MLP so they don't bounce off the front and back walls, but I don't think I will want to ask too much out of the top speakers as they are meant to give a certain ambience and heighten the feel, pun intended.. 
Using the Dolby guidelines is a great place to start, I tried to keep the the recommended angles of speakers pointing at my MLP, same distance apart as the front pair, but I'm not too fussed about the perfect circle. It works well in my small room because the transition of sound from one top to another top speaker is not bad, probably because the space and distances are small.


----------



## deano86

petetherock said:


> Using the Dolby guidelines is a great place to start, I tried to keep the the recommended angles of speakers pointing at my MLP, same distance apart as the front pair, but I'm not too fussed about the perfect circle. It works well in my small room because the transition of sound from one top to another top speaker is not bad, probably because the space and distances are small.


And just a reminder to those testing out their Atmos height effects that happen to use Audyssey and their Dynamic EQ feature. Unless it has changed with more recent implementation in newer receivers and pre/pros (as I am still using a Denon 5200), when using Dynamic EQ, the top rears and rear heights will receive a loudness boost along with your normal surrounds and subwoofer channels, but your top fronts and front heights will not. Something to keep in mind as you test with demo files and such. In my room, it created a huge imbalance in my height effects with the rears being boosted and the fronts still at their normal calibrated levels. And because the Dynamic EQ boost changes depending on how far away from reference your listening level is, I simply decided to just disable Dynamic EQ....


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm aware that 50% in each speaker gives you an image half-way between. But the height channels do this same thing with the stereo pair flipped on its side. And again, the RENDERER knows how much to put in each speaker in the pair to achieve the intended angle of the sound based on the predefined angular range of each position.


The renderer is not magic. It doesn't have a clue where you actually put your speakers. It assumes a rectangle and applies panning between the speakers as an object moves by on its predefined grid. Whether your front tops are on the front wall in a room with a 20 foot ceiling and pan straight down to the fronts or start 1/4 out into the room with a 9 foot ceiling and pan diagonally towards the front (due to physics in both cases when panning sounds to another speaker in one or more axis), it doesn't know or care which. All it does is pan the sound at the fixed ratios Atmos assumes. Your end result will depend on where you actually put the speakers.

Even if it did know your speakers were 1/4 out into the room, it is NOT POSSIBLE to pan to a point directly above the front mains because using the fronts at ANY ratio will pull the phantom combined sound towards the speaker it's mixing with. 

Think about it. A center phantom is left + right. A phantom between front height and front main is halfway between, typically a vertical drop to a point on the wall in the middle (how some of us create a "dialog lift" using a mixer) with >50% or <50% moving up or downward, respectively. 

But the halfway point between a speaker halfway across the room (e.g. Top Middle) mixed with the fronts will be at 1/4 across the front of the room and halfway down to the fronts. Here that would be about the same as an image floating 50% above my front wide speakers. If Tops at 1/4 are used, 50% would be halfway between my front wides and mains 50% above the mains and 50% below the ceiling. With front heights, it would be 50% between mains and ceiling (same), but directly above the mains. With rear heights, it would be the same theoretical result as an image halfway between the side surrounds I have halfway across the room and Top Middle, but at any point between it would move to the back of the room and upward towards rear height or downward towards the front mains (diagonal line).

With smaller differences, there is smaller error, but it's still error. You're telling me there is zero difference between heights and tops in terms of where things can image in the room and the laws of physics won't allow it.

You're right that there is no point arguing about it. People who think the earth is flat cannot be convinced otherwise short of dragging them into space and even then, they might conclude it was all an acid-induced dream. You seem convinced because a UFO sound moved from the front mains to top front that it can image at front height, but it never images there in the demo. The only way it can image there with tops is using uncorrelated (out of phase) sounds between front and rear tops (same as outside of left and right speaker pairs), but the renderer won't do that for it and the same effect could image even further with heights (2x as far).

The disadvantage to heights is the gap overhead in large (>12-15' long) rooms that requires another set of speakers to fill. That's a significant (and perhaps expensive) issue to solve.

While Tops can't image correlated material as far forward/backward as heights (less appropriate altogether for multiple rows as well since overhead sounds would be in front of my third row instead of behind it), they do put more sound more directly overhead (narrower range) which many seem to prefer. The helicopter only hovers above the central portion of the room more directly overhead.

I prefer a perfectly seamless soundstage top to bottom and the helicopter hovers all the way around the room edge to edge front-to-back.


----------



## niterida

AYanguas said:


> *Helicopter demo sound strange.*
> 
> B&W CCM 683, with orientable tweeter. So, they point downwards, and I turned the tweeters 45º to point directly to the MLP.


I am certainly no expert but I think this may be contributing to your issue. Woofers pointing down and tweeters pointing at you - tweeters are stereo imaging and being on-axis are probably louder and overpowering the woofers in the localisable frequency range.


----------



## Technology3456

My front towers may have to be slightly wider than max 30% recommended by Atmos manual for 7.x.4 setup. This same diagram says that when they _are_ in proper position, you want your ceiling atmos speakers on the same line as the front towers.

But if I have to have my front towers a little wider than recommended, should I extend that imperfection to the atmos speakers also, or should I at least move the atmos speakers in a bit? 

What is worse, having both the front towers, and the atmos speakers, wider than ideal, or having just the front towers wider, and the atmos speakers correct, but now have the towers and the atmos speakers not on the same line?


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> (and get the width of the overhead array closer to Dolby's 0.5x the width of the room


That measurement in the Dolby guidelines is not the width of the room. If you look closer at the Dolby drawing you will see it is the width (or diameter) of the circle formed by your listener level speakers. 
But since very few of us have a room that can accommodate that our surrounds (and sometimes rears) are closer than the L&R
But that still means that the W is twice the distance from the MLP to the front L&R speakers


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> My front towers may have to be slightly wider than max 30% recommended by Atmos manual for 7.x.4 setup. This same diagram says that when they _are_ in proper position, you want your ceiling atmos speakers on the same line as the front towers.
> 
> But if I have to have my front towers a little wider than recommended, should I extend that imperfection to the atmos speakers also, or should I at least move the atmos speakers in a bit?
> 
> What is worse, having both the front towers, and the atmos speakers, wider than ideal, or having just the front towers wider, and the atmos speakers correct, but now have the towers and the atmos speakers not on the same line?


Posting a diagram might help. But based on my opinion, sometimes we have to settle for one parameter to be out of spec. In this case the 30° angle formed by a front speaker. Compounding the issue by then positioning the height speakers based on this out of spec front speaker angle might not be the best approach.

But there is a lot of wiggle room in the guidelines.

But now an example of why even 30° might not be great... when I first set up my room in 2004 I had a 110" 16x9 screen and I put my front speakers so that they formed a 30° angle to the main listening position. Seemed reasonable because that was the guideline. The problem for me, which I since corrected, was that the front speakers were too far away from the screen. So sounds that were supposed to appear just off screen where appearing too far away. So it did not seem believable. I corrected many years ago after experimenting... and I felt a 22° angle was best for me and my room. Been that way ever since.

So in your case, you're going to go beyond 30°, but you might have another issue like I had. And it depends on your screen size. The screen size, seating distance, bed angles, etc. are interrelated. 

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Posting a diagram might help. But based on my opinion, sometimes we have to settle for one parameter to be out of spec. In this case the 30° angle formed by a front speaker. Compounding the issue by then positioning the height speakers based on this out of spec front speaker angle might not be the best approach.
> 
> But there is a lot of wiggle room in the guidelines.
> 
> But now an example of why even 30° might not be great... when I first set up my room in 2004 I had a 110" 16x9 screen and I put my front speakers so that they formed a 30° angle to the main listening position. Seemed reasonable because that was the guideline. The problem for me, which I since corrected, was that the front speakers were too far away from the screen. So sounds that were supposed to appear just off screen where appearing too far away. So it did not seem believable. I corrected many years ago after experimenting... and I felt a 22° angle was best for me and my room. Been that way ever since.
> 
> So in your case, you're going to go beyond 30°, but you might have another issue like I had. And it depends on your screen size. The screen size, seating distance, bed angles, etc. are interrelated.
> 
> -T


Sorry T-Bone I messed up not being clear about the angles. The actual placement of my front and left speakers, Im not sure of the angle. The screen would be 10 feet wide, and the viewing distance was planned to be 14 feet, but maybe 13 feet now. So each speaker is on a line 13-14 feet away, and then say 5.5 feet to the side, of the center viewer.

Im not sure how to calculate that, but I came up with 18.33 using 13.5 viewing distance and 5.5 feet to each side.

So now that I calculate that, if it's correct, my question is stupid. I only need to toe in the speakers 18.33 degrees, and that's what I was meaning to ask about, whether I can toe in the speakers more than 30 degrees. Just eyeballing it, I thought they would be more than 30 degrees, so I thought I would have to toe them in more than 30 degrees, and that the toe in would be the problem. I wasnt thinking of placement because there's only one way they can go. Only responding to you now I realize there may not be an issue.

Sorry about that. I think I will just put the atmos speakers on the line.

Well I guess that's still worth asking. Maybe it's too narrow actually not too wide?

There are two obvious places to put 2 and 2 atmos ceiling speakers. And that is, there is a 7 foot, 3 inch distance along the ceiling, going from back of the room, over the seating, towards the screen. And the speakers are maybe 6 inches deep (edit: see edit at end of post), so we have about 6 feet to work with. The seating will be close to right in the middle, but a little closer to the front atmos ceiling speakers, like 2.5 feet vs 3.5 feet let's say, and to slightly, but not fully, compensate for this, I am able to mount the front atmos speakers about 3 inches lower to the ground than the back, in order to create slightly more of an angle that they're coming from further forward.

So the back two atmos speakers, vertically, will be about 3.5 feet back, and the front two will be, when you take into account the effect of the angle trick, maybe 2.75 feet. And then I'd hope my receiver would make up for the remaining difference and make it work.

However what Im worried about is that if I keep them parallel with the front towers, they will be only 2.75 - 3.5 feet front and back of the viewer, *but 5.5 feet wide of the viewer. *And actual distance, diagonal, guessing 6.5 feet.

So basically I wont have an atmos square on the ceiling. I will have a rectangle.The atmos speakers will be in a 7 feet long, but 11 feet wide, rectangle. Is that a problem?

Edit: my ceiling speakers are 9 inches deep. Six foot window for the speakers in the short end of the rectangle is actually 5 feet 8 inches or so.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Sorry T-Bone I messed up not being clear about the angles. The actual placement of my front and left speakers, Im not sure of the angle. The screen would be 10 feet wide, and the viewing distance was planned to be 14 feet, but maybe 13 feet now. So each speaker is on a line 13-14 feet away, and then say 5.5 feet to the side, of the center viewer.
> 
> Im not sure how to calculate that, but I came up with 18.33 using 13.5 viewing distance and 5.5 feet to each side.
> 
> So now that I calculate that, if it's correct, my question is stupid. I only need to toe in the speakers 18.33 degrees, and that's what I was meaning to ask about, whether I can toe in the speakers more than 30 degrees. Just eyeballing it, I thought they would be more than 30 degrees, so I thought I would have to toe them in more than 30 degrees, and that the toe in would be the problem. I wasnt thinking of placement because there's only one way they can go. Only responding to you now I realize there may not be an issue.
> 
> Sorry about that. I think I will just put the atmos speakers on the line.
> 
> Well I guess that's still worth asking. Maybe it's too narrow actually not too wide?
> 
> There are two obvious places to put 2 and 2 atmos ceiling speakers. And that is, there is a 7 foot, 3 inch distance along the ceiling, going from back of the room, over the seating, towards the screen. And the speakers are maybe 6 inches deep (edit: see edit at end of post), so we have about 6 feet to work with. The seating will be close to right in the middle, but a little closer to the front atmos ceiling speakers, like 2.5 feet vs 3.5 feet let's say, and to slightly, but not fully, compensate for this, I am able to mount the front atmos speakers about 3 inches lower to the ground than the back, in order to create slightly more of an angle that they're coming from further forward.
> 
> So the back two atmos speakers, vertically, will be about 3.5 feet back, and the front two will be, when you take into account the effect of the angle trick, maybe 2.75 feet. And then I'd hope my receiver would make up for the remaining difference and make it work.
> 
> However what Im worried about is that if I keep them parallel with the front towers, they will be only 2.75 - 3.5 feet front and back of the viewer, *but 5.5 feet wide of the viewer. *And actual distance, diagonal, guessing 6.5 feet.
> 
> So basically I wont have an atmos square on the ceiling. I will have a rectangle.The atmos speakers will be in a 7 feet long, but 11 feet wide, rectangle. Is that a problem?
> 
> Edit: my ceiling speakers are 9 inches deep. Six foot window for the speakers in the short end of the rectangle is actually 5 feet 8 inches or so.


Ok, no worries. I am in a bit of a rush so I'll address just the angles of the front speakers. Even though that was not your original question.

You calculated an incorrect angle. On a scientific calculator, the simplest way to calculate the angle is using arctangent function. It's the inverse of the tangent function.

arctan (5.5/13) is 23 degrees.
arctan (5.5/13.5) is 22.2 gefrees.
arctan (5.5/14) is 21.4 degrees.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Ok, no worries. I am in a bit of a rush so I'll address just the angles of the front speakers. Even though that was not your original question.
> 
> You calculated an incorrect angle. On a scientific calculator, the simplest way to calculate the angle is using arctangent function. It's the inverse of the tangent function.
> 
> arctan (5.5/13) is 23 degrees.
> arctan (5.5/13.5) is 22.2 gefrees.
> arctan (5.5/14) is 21.4 degrees.
> 
> -T


Thanks.


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Ok, no worries. I am in a bit of a rush so I'll address just the angles of the front speakers. Even though that was not your original question.
> 
> 😄 😄     🤦‍♂️You calculated an incorrect angle. On a scientific calculator, the simplest way to calculate the angle is using arctangent function. It's the inverse of the tangent function.
> 
> arctan (5.5/13) is 23 degrees.
> arctan (5.5/13.5) is 22.2 gefrees.
> arctan (5.5/14) is 21.4 degrees.
> 
> -T


This is the potential issue, top down view:


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> That measurement in the Dolby guidelines is not the width of the room. If you look closer at the Dolby drawing you will see it is the width (or diameter) of the circle formed by your listener level speakers.
> But since very few of us have a room that can accommodate that our surrounds (and sometimes rears) are closer than the L&R
> But that still means that the W is twice the distance from the MLP to the front L&R speakers


You're right - I shouldn't have said room. It is 0.5-0.7 the layout width, meaning the baffle-to-baffle width from your side surrounds, to keep angular separation between the side surrounds and each row of heights. My side surrounds are wall mounted and small, so it isn't far off the room width anyway which is why I was saying that. In my particular case, I've had them at 0.5x in a past room and it worked great, but in my current room I placed them too far apart (about 0.63x the width of the layout, which is already narrow because my room is only 12' wide) and they tend to blend into the surrounds a little more than I would like. So that's why I'm moving them closer to the 0.5x range. I think it will help given my room's dimensions.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> The renderer is not magic. It doesn't have a clue where you actually put your speakers. It assumes a rectangle and applies panning between the speakers as an object moves by on its predefined grid. Whether your front tops are on the front wall in a room with a 20 foot ceiling and pan straight down to the fronts or start 1/4 out into the room with a 9 foot ceiling and pan diagonally towards the front (due to physics in both cases when panning sounds to another speaker in one or more axis), it doesn't know or care which. All it does is pan the sound at the fixed ratios Atmos assumes. Your end result will depend on where you actually put the speakers.


It calculates the pans based on the angles, not the location. That's literally why we put speakers within the pre-defined speaker locations (and their corresponding angles) and tell the renderer what designation speakers we have - so it knows the general angles for steering purposes.


MagnumX said:


> Even if it did know your speakers were 1/4 out into the room, it is NOT POSSIBLE to pan to a point directly above the front mains because using the fronts at ANY ratio will pull the phantom combined sound towards the speaker it's mixing with.


It doesn't know your room dimensions in the home renderer, nor does it need to. It knows the angular placement and can steer accordingly. Again, this is literally why you designate what speakers you have.


MagnumX said:


> Think about it. A center phantom is left + right. A phantom between front height and front main is halfway between, typically a vertical drop to a point on the wall in the middle (how some of us create a "dialog lift" using a mixer) with >50% or <50% moving up or downward, respectively.


Yes, a phantom image between two speakers is halfway between IF it is 50% in each speaker. I can also phantom image a sound more toward either of the two speakers by changing that percentage that is in each speaker. Now move those two speakers closer to you but at the same angles to the MLP and level-match them accordingly. Does the phantom image magically move away from the front wall on a Y axis in some perceptible way... or does it still emanate from the center line in front of you? Your ears hear the ANGLE the sound is coming from. You hear THROUGH the placement, because all that matters to your ears is the direction the sound is coming from. In the same vein, if I move a center channel closer and then change the level to account for the difference, I don't necessarily perceive it as closer. I hear the direction the sound emanates from, with distance being predominantly a function of level. 


MagnumX said:


> But the halfway point between a speaker halfway across the room (e.g. Top Middle) mixed with the fronts will be at 1/4 across the front of the room and halfway down to the fronts. Here that would be about the same as an image floating 50% above my front wide speakers. If Tops at 1/4 are used, 50% would be halfway between my front wides and mains 50% above the mains and 50% below the ceiling. With front heights, it would be 50% between mains and ceiling (same), but directly above the mains. With rear heights, it would be the same theoretical result as an image halfway between the side surrounds I have halfway across the room and Top Middle, but at any point between it would move to the back of the room and upward towards rear height or downward towards the front mains (diagonal line).


YES. Now you're getting it (I hope). If top fronts are used, the same 50% between mains and top front WOULD place the same sound at the wrong perceived angle compared to 50% between the mains and front height. That's why you tell the renderer what defined angle your speakers are at and it changes the math based on that to image the sound correctly for that given location. It varies the percentage placed in each speaker in the array so it can place the sound similarly. Hence my previous example of the difference between having a front height at 30 degrees versus a top front at 45 degrees. The sound reproduced doesn't START at 45 degrees in the latter case. It starts with a blend of sound between that speaker and the front soundstage so that the actual starting point is at that same 30 degree angle that front heights would be located. The renderer calculates what percentage of the sound goes to each speaker to phantom image it at the right general angle. That has been my point all along! 


MagnumX said:


> With smaller differences, there is smaller error, but it's still error. You're telling me there is zero difference between heights and tops in terms of where things can image in the room and the laws of physics won't allow it.


No, I'm not telling you there's zero difference. I'm telling you that a physical speaker placed at 30 degrees elevation and two speakers imaging a sound at 30 degrees elevation has the same net result, as your brain only hears the direction. The distance is irrelevant as your processor applies delay to the channels so in both instances, that sound is arriving to your MLP at the same time. You don't need a speaker at your room's front wall-to-ceiling boundary to image a sound at that angle. 


MagnumX said:


> You're right that there is no point arguing about it. People who think the earth is flat cannot be convinced otherwise short of dragging them into space and even then, they might conclude it was all an acid-induced dream.


I'm perfectly fine if Dolby agrees with me and you don't, and I'm not discounting that your way works for you in your room. But there's reference and then there's preference, and we weren't talking about the latter of the two.


MagnumX said:


> The disadvantage to heights is the gap overhead in large (>12-15' long) rooms that requires another set of speakers to fill. That's a significant (and perhaps expensive) issue to solve.


There you go agreeing with me again. Though I disagree that the room length is the issue - it's the angular span between the two speaker locations, irrespective of room length (assuming your front/rear heights are at the correct angles per Dolby's placement guidelines). The gap between 30 and 150 degrees will always be 120 degrees. Likewise, the gap between 45 and 135 will always be 90 degrees... which is why my opinion (and Dolby's) is that top front/rear placement of 4 height channels is a better option than front/rear height with 4 height channels if you can swing it. 


MagnumX said:


> While Tops can't image correlated material as far forward/backward as heights (less appropriate altogether for multiple rows as well since overhead sounds would be in front of my third row instead of behind it), they do put more sound more directly overhead (narrower range) which many seem to prefer. The helicopter only hovers above the central portion of the room more directly overhead.


Again, you have a weird notion that sound can image forward/backward rather than from a particular angle. That's the main disconnect we've had in this discussion, and that's not how it works. The Atmos renderer can't magically create a point source in your room where an object is placed in its virtual room. It can, however, calculate the angle of that object and pan it angularly between speakers in an array consisting of speakers at pre-defined angles to the listener... and spread the sound of that object through more speakers in the array in varying levels based on the object's defined size, as needed.


MagnumX said:


> I prefer a perfectly seamless soundstage top to bottom and the helicopter hovers all the way around the room edge to edge front-to-back.


Except your preference quite literally counter to the dome of sound that Dolby Atmos is designed to achieve (and more specifically, the placement of the object in that particular demo). And if that's what you prefer, GREAT! My advice to Calypte stands. I'll be ignoring you now so this dead horse doesn't start to mesh with the flooring.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> I only need to toe in the speakers 18.33 degrees, and that's what I was meaning to ask about, whether I can toe in the speakers more than 30 degrees.


Consider toe-ing in the L/R speakers so that they are pointing at the listener at the opposite end of the couch (to compensate for distance) rather than a specific number of degrees.


> Maybe it's too narrow actually not too wide?


When it comes to height speaker placement, it is unlikely for them to end up "too wide" apart. After all, Auro3D has their height speakers all the way out to the room boundaries and still delivers an effective sense of height. Any placement inward of that will simply increase the sense of sound overhead.


----------



## Technology3456

sdurani said:


> Consider toe-ing in the L/R speakers so that they are pointing at the listener at the opposite end of the couch (to compensate for distance) rather than a specific number of degrees. When it comes to height speaker placement, it is unlikely for them to end up "too wide" apart. After all, Auro3D has their height speakers all the way out to the room boundaries and still delivers an effective sense of height. Any placement inward of that will simply increase the sense of sound overhead.


Thanks for the help! Would you mind looking at my drawing and telling me the exact ideal place to put the height speakers within those confinements? I am worried about the two "front" overhead atmos speakers being only 2.5 feet in front of the viewers, while the backs are 3.5 feet. I compensated a few inches of this by making the closer ones 3 inches lower to the ground, but it's still like a 25% or 30% difference in the angle between the back ones and the front ones to the viewer. 

It's not even. And it's not the recommended 4 (horizontal) feet away or whatever either like I think is ideal. The front ones are closer to half that distance than what it's supposed to be. What do you think? Can it work? Only 2 and a half feet horizontal in front of the viewer? The helicopter instead of sounding like it is going in a circle above me, it might sound like it is going in a circle close to me in front, and then far away in back. I am worried the object based audio will be very skewed.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> I am worried about the two "front" overhead atmos speakers being only 2.5 feet in front of the viewers, while the backs are 3.5 feet.


Typical recommendation is to have the height speakers at 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the listeners. Easy way to figure that out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward & rearward of you is 45 degrees elevation. Is there something preventing you from placing your height speakers at those locations and/or mounting the speakers on the ceiling?


----------



## Technology3456

sdurani said:


> Typical recommendation is to have the height speakers at 45 degrees elevation forward & rearward of the listeners. Easy way to figure that out is to measure from your ears to the ceiling, that same distance forward & rearward of you is 45 degrees elevation. Is there something preventing you from placing your height speakers at those locations and/or mounting the speakers on the ceiling?


45 degrees evelation makes sense, but how do you measure the diagonal angle to the corners?

Yes there are wedges in the ceiling that if I mounted them any further away, there would be part of the ceiling blocking the speakers.

Maybe I can still return the R152 bookshelves. Can you guys recommend any other on wall bookshelves that will crossover at 80hz, and go with Infinity R263s and R263s, but that are 3-5 inches deep instead of 9?

That is, if the R263s will work either! I just got them set up, and contrary to estimates, toeing them in even 20 degrees is turning them from about 8 inch wide speakers into 12.5 - 13 inch wide speakers. Which even all the way against the walls, are too wide to fit the screen size I want.

It's a huge pain, but hopefully I can trim the outer back edge/corner, and inner front edge/corner, of the towers, without affecting speaker performance, to halfway get them where I need. But it looks like no matter what, I cannot toe my towers all the way towards the main center seat. I can maybe toe them halfway towards the seat. 

Will this still perform 99% as well with the proper EQ from the receiver, or is this going to ruin the setup and I need different towers now too? 

I just hope, on the positive side, that when this cluster#[email protected]! of a project is over, I will appreciate it extra because of all this crap. But it's not even funny anymore lol. Every step of the way something like this happens. I planned for them knowing they were less than 8 inches wide, so they're fit even with a little toe in. Never expected the toe in create this much extra width.


----------



## ppasteur

mrvideo said:


> Thanks. As indicated above, I've found four Dolby demo discs. Won't be able to do much with them until I get the room set up. I've a ways to go.


May I ask you where you found them, the Atmos disks that is?


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> Yes there are wedges in the ceiling that if I mounted them any further away, there would be part of the ceiling blocking the speakers.


In that case, use the locations in your diagram. The speakers will be high enough up to hear those sounds as clearly coming from above you and far enough apart to hear left vs right AND front vs back separation. The placement won't be symmetrical front to back but neither is our human hearing. It will sound great.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> 45 degrees evelation makes sense, but how do you measure the diagonal angle to the corners?
> 
> Yes there are wedges in the ceiling that if I mounted them any further away, there would be part of the ceiling blocking the speakers.
> 
> Maybe I can still return the R152 bookshelves. Can you guys recommend any other on wall bookshelves that will crossover at 80hz, and go with Infinity R263s and R263s, but that are 3-5 inches deep instead of 9?
> 
> That is, if the R263s will work either! I just got them set up, and contrary to estimates, toeing them in even 20 degrees is turning them from about 8 inch wide speakers into 12.5 - 13 inch wide speakers. Which even all the way against the walls, are too wide to fit the screen size I want.
> 
> It's a huge pain, but hopefully I can trim the outer back edge/corner, and inner front edge/corner, of the towers, without affecting speaker performance, to halfway get them where I need. But it looks like no matter what, I cannot toe my towers all the way towards the main center seat. I can maybe toe them halfway towards the seat.
> 
> Will this still perform 99% as well with the proper EQ from the receiver, or is this going to ruin the setup and I need different towers now too?
> 
> I just hope, on the positive side, that when this cluster#[email protected]! of a project is over, I will appreciate it extra because of all this crap. But it's not even funny anymore lol. Every step of the way something like this happens. I planned for them knowing they were less than 8 inches wide, so they're fit even with a little toe in. Never expected the toe in create this much extra width.


Well, I think you're going to have some other issues in the bed layer that you might want to resolve in the audio theory area of the forum... Relates to your towers and the placement being so close to the front and side walls. It looks like they're buried in the corner.

Anyway, you might want to go investigate that Get some opinions. Post the distance from the rear of the speaker from the front wall. Post the distance from the side of the speaker to the sidewall, etc. In that other thread. Not sure if you even planned on acoustic treatments at your first reflection points. But again, investigate that in the other thread and you should be good.

-T

Edit:. I am just suggesting a separate thread. You're free to resolve that in any thread that you see fit


----------



## Technology3456

sdurani said:


> In that case, use the locations in your diagram. The speakers will be high enough up to hear those sounds as clearly coming from above you and far enough apart to hear left vs right AND front vs back separation. The placement won't be symmetrical front to back but neither is our human hearing. It will sound great.


I have a toe in problem with my front towers that they will block the sides of the screen if I toe them in all 20 - 25 degrees to the center viewer. The max I can do is probably halfway, but maybe even less, like 10 degrees towards the viewer. I am worried this will really degrade the sound quality, but I have no experience. I already made a topic to ask about that, but why I mention it is to ask you about atmos placement for the front and back height speakers.

Whether my front towers are toed in 10 degrees, or 20-25 degrees, the end result is, the front of my tower speakers are in a different position than the back of my tower speakers. The back is wider, while the front is toed in.

The atmos diagram only says to put the atmos height speakers on the same line as the front tower speakers. However I do not think it says whether to put them on the line with the back of the tower speakers when they are toed in, or on the line with the front of the tower speakers, or on a line with averaged middle of the front tower speakers?

Also when I toe in the the front atmos speakers, do I only toe them in horizontally like the towers, or do I also tilt the atmos speakers almost sideways to a degree to the listener? 

If I can only toe in my front towers 10 degrees, even though the listening position is 20 - 25 degrees, should I also toe in my atmos speakers less than recommended in order to keep consistency within the system, or should I still point the atmos height speakers all the way at the viewer even if the front towers are not? Or would this skew the volume or intensity of the soundtracks of the films and make the height speakers more loud or intense than they're supposed to be relative to the front towers, because their tweeters are facing directly at the viewer but the front towers tweeters are not?


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Well, I think you're going to have some other issues in the bed layer that you might want to resolve in the audio theory area of the forum... Relates to your towers and the placement being so close to the front and side walls. It looks like they're buried in the corner.
> 
> Anyway, you might want to go investigate that Get some opinions. Post the distance from the rear of the speaker from the front wall. Post the distance from the side of the speaker to the sidewall, etc. In that other thread. Not sure if you even planned on acoustic treatments at your first reflection points. But again, investigate that in the other thread and you should be good.
> 
> -T


They have to be in a corner no matter what unless I get an acoustically transparent screen, and then Id definitely need new towers because they're 14 inches deep which means Id have to move the screen 14 inches forward and then the screen starts to get too close to the seating... 

I figured you can just put some cheap acoustic treatment on the wall in the corner to fix the corner issue, I hope? It has to be in the corner so...

What about not being able to toe them in? is that a problem or not? The depth of the Infinities also means that the front of the towers is going to be like 7 inches in front of the side of the screen, maybe 9 or 10 inches. It shouldnt be a problem to also have the center channel out front as well if necessary, or wherever it should be in relationship to the towers, but Im just saying, the front of the towers will not be directly parallel to the front of the screen. At 13-14 foot viewing distance though, hopefully 10 inches of depth, that does not really affect the actual angle much, won't be an issue.

Is it an issue if I can only toe in the towers like 40% towards the viewer instead of 100%, though? That is the question. And then whether there are any options for atmos on wall speakers that do the 80hz crossover and sound good, like the R152 bookshelves, but with half their depth maybe?

And do I keep them parallel with the back of the tower speakers, or the front, or the middle/average? Do I just average it out, or do I want to make sure the insides are what are matched so that the closest sound to the viewer is always coming from the same distance even if the furthest is not as a result?

And if it's OK to only toe in the towers 10%, so I do that because it's my only option short of getting different speakers or doing surgery on the speakers, then do I also limit my atmos speakers to 10% toe in, or is it OK to toe them in completely but not the towers even though then you are creating balance issues of some tweeteers aimed fully at the viewer's ears but not others?


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> I have a toe in problem with my front towers that they will block the sides of the screen if I toe them in all 20 - 25 degrees to the center viewer. The max I can do is probably halfway, but maybe even less, like 10 degrees towards the viewer. I am worried this will really degrade the sound quality, but I have no experience.


Given the choice of less than optimal sound quality vs blocking the sides of the screen, there's no contest which I would choose (don't block the screen).


> Also when I toe in the the front atmos speakers, do I only toe them in horizontally like the towers, or do I also tilt the atmos speakers almost sideways to a degree to the listener?


Most speakers tend to sound best on-axis. If that means your speakers need to be toed in horizontally AND vertically, then try to do as much as you can to aim them towards the listeners. Some improvement is better than no improvement.


> Or would this skew the volume or intensity of the soundtracks of the films and make the height speakers more loud or intense than they're supposed to be relative to the front towers, because their tweeters are facing directly at the viewer but the front towers tweeters are not?


Volume intensity will be automatically taken care of during initial calibration. Each of your speakers will delayed AND level matched so that they all sound like they are the same distance away from you.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> They have to be in a corner no matter what unless I get an acoustically transparent screen, and then Id definitely need new towers because they're 14 inches deep which means Id have to move the screen 14 inches forward and then the screen starts to get too close to the seating...


IF you get an acoustically transparent screen, pick a size based on your new distance from the screen, so that you don't end up "too close".


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> They have to be in a corner no matter what unless I get an acoustically transparent screen, and then Id definitely need new towers because they're 14 inches deep which means Id have to move the screen 14 inches forward and then the screen starts to get too close to the seating...
> 
> I figured you can just put some cheap acoustic treatment on the wall in the corner to fix the corner issue, I hope? It has to be in the corner so...
> 
> What about not being able to toe them in? is that a problem or not? The depth of the Infinities also means that the front of the towers is going to be like 7 inches in front of the side of the screen, maybe 9 or 10 inches. It shouldnt be a problem to also have the center channel out front as well if necessary, or wherever it should be in relationship to the towers, but Im just saying, the front of the towers will not be directly parallel to the front of the screen. At 13-14 foot viewing distance though, hopefully 10 inches of depth, that does not really affect the actual angle much, won't be an issue.
> 
> Is it an issue if I can only toe in the towers like 40% towards the viewer instead of 100%, though? That is the question. And then whether there are any options for atmos on wall speakers that do the 80hz crossover and sound good, like the R152 bookshelves, but with half their depth maybe?
> 
> And do I keep them parallel with the back of the tower speakers, or the front, or the middle/average? Do I just average it out, or do I want to make sure the insides are what are matched so that the closest sound to the viewer is always coming from the same distance even if the furthest is not as a result?
> 
> And if it's OK to only toe in the towers 10%, so I do that because it's my only option short of getting different speakers or doing surgery on the speakers, then do I also limit my atmos speakers to 10% toe in, or is it OK to toe them in completely but not the towers even though then you are creating balance issues of some tweeteers aimed fully at the viewer's ears but not others?


I concur with @sdurani . tow them in as much as you can without blocking the screen. Go with the acoustic treatments on your side walls to tame reflections. As I recall you going to have black velvet lining your walls so it's not like the acoustic treatments are going to be an eyesore. I think you're on the right track.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> I concur with @sdurani . tow them in as much as you can without blocking the screen. Go with the acoustic treatments on your side walls to tame reflections. As I recall you going to have black velvet lining your walls so it's not like the acoustic treatments are going to be an eyesore. I think you're on the right track.
> 
> -T


Definitely not blocking the screen, and having less good audio, is > blocking the screen, but getting better audio. I am asking, is definitely not blocking the screen, and having less good audio, still a better option than buying smaller speakers to replace the Infinity's, ones that can be toed to the seating.

How big a difference does toeing make? Can calibration make up for it? Or is this going to be a really big hit to sound quality and impactful front surround effects from the tweeters and so on to not have them aimed at you?


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> I concur with @sdurani . tow them in as much as you can without blocking the screen. Go with the acoustic treatments on your side walls to tame reflections. As I recall you going to have black velvet lining your walls so it's not like the acoustic treatments are going to be an eyesore. I think you're on the right track.
> 
> -T


Is there something I can put right to the outside of each tower so that the tower is pointed forward, not toed at all, but this thing I put there will deflect the tower's audio right at seating, but without causing the soundwaves to cross or condense or get messed up, like deflecting the outer soundwaves back into the middle ones because the outer ones hit this deflector first?

Any ideas like that I guess?


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Definitely not blocking the screen, and having less good audio, is > blocking the screen, but getting better audio. I am asking, is definitely not blocking the screen, and having less good audio, still a better option than buying smaller speakers to replace the Infinity's, ones that can be toed to the seating.
> 
> How big a difference does toeing make? Can calibration make up for it? Or is this going to be a really big hit to sound quality and impactful front surround effects from the tweeters and so on to not have them aimed at you?


Of Paramount concern is not to block the screen. How you get there is up to you.

you have a couple of options if you are considering not using the towers up front.

1. purchase something in the same family that is narrow that would allow you to tow them in and use them in place of your front towers.

2. Purchase two more center channel speakers so that you have three centers on the front wall. I've seen that before. The logic there is if one center channel is great at dialog mids and highs, then it should be suitable for a left and right speaker also. 

3. I've seen people do #2 (ha, that sounds funny, I see people do number two) with bookshelf speakers by putting the bookshelf on its side, but I recall they also had to rotate the Tweeter 90° because of the dispersion pattern of the Tweeter.

Regarding tow-in, I did a lot of experimentation when I set up my room in 2004. Recall earlier that I had them at 30° and eventually settled on 22°. I experimented at both of those degrees by towing in and not towing in.

With no tow in at all, and either 22° or 30°, for movies it was just "okay." And definitely not very good at 2 channel music listening. By towing in, vastly improved both movies and 2 channel music.

in terms of towing, I've got four seats in my seating area. Imagine the leftmost seat closest to the left surround is seat number one. The seat closest to the right surround is seat number four. I have my left Tower aimed at the left ear of the person sitting in seat number two. I have the right tower aimed at the right ear of the person sitting in seat number three.

I use Google speech to text and I'm not going to correct all of the grammar issues with toe in being misspelled.



Technology3456 said:


> Is there something I can put right to the outside of each tower so that the tower is pointed forward, not toed at all, but this thing I put there will deflect the tower's audio right at seating, but without causing the soundwaves to cross or condense or get messed up, like deflecting the outer soundwaves back into the middle ones because the outer ones hit this deflector first?
> 
> Any ideas like that I guess?


Not that I am aware.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> Of Paramount concern is not to block the screen. How you get there is up to you.
> 
> you have a couple of options if you are considering not using the towers up front.
> 
> 1. purchase something in the same family that is narrow that would allow you to tow them in and use them in place of your front towers.
> 
> 2. Purchase two more center channel speakers so that you have three centers on the front wall. I've seen that before. The logic there is if one center channel is great at dialog mids and highs, then it should be suitable for a left and right speaker also.
> 
> 3. I've seen people do #2 (ha, that sounds funny, I see people do number two) with bookshelf speakers by putting the bookshelf on its side, but I recall they also had to rotate the Tweeter 90° because of the dispersion pattern of the Tweeter.
> 
> Regarding tow-in, I did a lot of experimentation when I set up my room in 2004. Recall earlier that I had them at 30° and eventually settled on 22°. I experimented at both of those degrees by towing in and not towing in.
> 
> With no tow in at all, and either 22° or 30°, for movies it was just "okay." And definitely not very good at 2 channel music listening. By towing in, vastly improved both movies and 2 channel music.
> 
> in terms of towing, I've got four seats in my seating area. Imagine the leftmost seat closest to the left surround is seat number one. The seat closest to the right surround is seat number four. I have my left Tower aimed at the left ear of the person sitting in seat number two. I have the right tower aimed at the right ear of the person sitting in seat number three.
> 
> I use Google speech to text and I'm not going to correct all of the grammar issues with toe in being misspelled.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I am aware.
> 
> -T


So you didnt have to toe them in right between the middle seats, or even dead center of seats two and three, but the outside ear of the two middle seats? 

I can definitely toe in, just it wont be all the way. Do you remember how good it was when you toed in maybe halfway, or 40%? Your toe in now is like 90% let's say, 95%, of toeing all the way to the center of the listener's head. What if you only did 40% or 45%? Would you lose a lot or is that close enough that the cone of sound is still catch the central listeners at near full impact or something?

That three center channel idea is actually brilliant. But then I have all three front speakers like 2-3 feet off the ground. At least then they'd be consistent though. 

I will probably toe in as much as I can to not block the screen, not know what Im missing, hopefully be happy with it, and keep my eyes open for sales on good tower speakers that dont have so much depth.


----------



## Calypte

T-Bone said:


> 3. I've seen people do #2 (ha, that sounds funny, I see people do number two) with bookshelf speakers by putting the bookshelf on its side, but I recall they also had to rotate the Tweeter 90° because of the dispersion pattern of the Tweeter.


That's what I have. I have five each Hsu HB-1 Mk2 in a 5.2 system. I rotated the center's horn tweeter. I verified with Hsu Research that it wouldn't affect the warranty. I'd think it wouldn't be necessary with a dome tweeter.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> So you didnt have to toe them in right between the middle seats, or even dead center of seats two and three, but the outside ear of the two middle seats?
> 
> I can definitely toe in, just it wont be all the way. Do you remember how good it was when you toed in maybe halfway, or 40%? Your toe in now is like 90% let's say, 95%, of toeing all the way to the center of the listener's head. What if you only did 40% or 45%? Would you lose a lot or is that close enough that the cone of sound is still catch the central listeners at near full impact or something?
> 
> That three center channel idea is actually brilliant. But then I have all three front speakers like 2-3 feet off the ground. At least then they'd be consistent though.
> 
> I will probably toe in as much as I can to not block the screen, not know what Im missing, hopefully be happy with it, and keep my eyes open for sales on good tower speakers that dont have so much depth.


I did toe them in to point exactly dead center between seats two and three at one point. That would be the center of the room. But for me, I felt that the best sound across seats two and three (most of the time it's just the two inner seats being used) was when I towed the left speaker pointing at the left ear of the person in seat two, and the right speaker pointing at the right ear of the person in seat 3.




Calypte said:


> That's what I have. I have five each Hsu HB-1 Mk2 in a 5.2 system. I rotated the center's horn tweeter. I verified with Hsu Research that it wouldn't affect the warranty. I'd think it wouldn't be necessary with a dome tweeter.


I even considered that approach myself before I went with the towers. Plus, I think the three speakers under the screen look kick ass 

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> I did toe them in to point exactly dead center between seats two and three at one point. That would be the center of the room. But for me, I felt that the best sound across seats two and three (most of the time it's just the two inner seats being used) was when I towed the left speaker pointing at the left ear of the person in seat two, and the right speaker pointing at the right ear of the person in seat 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I even considered that approach myself before I went with the towers. Plus, I think the three speakers under the screen look kick ass
> 
> -T


Is it not a problem for sound quality to have all three front speakers that low to the ground? Or is it an improvement to have them all the same height as opposed to one center chan and two towers?


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Is it not a problem for sound quality to have all three front speakers that low to the ground? Or is it an improvement to have them all the same height as opposed to one center chan and two towers?


My last reply. I kind of wish you would create a separate thread we'll go to the audio theory area. if it's okay for the center to be that low, it's okay for the left and right to be that low.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

T-Bone said:


> My last reply. I kind of wish you would create a separate thread we'll go to the audio theory area. if it's okay for the center to be that low, it's okay for the left and right to be that low.
> 
> -T


Well some people say it's not good for the center to be that low and that's one argument I've seen for acoustically transparent screens. 

I'm trying to learn.


----------



## noah katz

Technology3456 said:


> I have a toe in problem with my front towers that they will block the sides of the screen if I toe them in all 20 - 25 degrees to the center viewer.


Note that if the listening/viewing area is not as wide as the screen, some of the L/R speakers can be in front of the screen w/o blocking the light from the projector because of the ray angle.

In fact, the distance between the inner edges of my L/R's is a few in. less than my screen width, though it helps that they're suspended out from the wall a few feet.

You could also consider pulling yours away from the wall to help with that.




T-Bone said:


> ... if it's okay for the center to be that low, it's okay for the left and right to be that low.


That's a questionable if.

Just because that's a compromise that must often be accepted doesn't make it ok.

OTOH low fronts could be helped a lot if there are front heights.


----------



## Technology3456

noah katz said:


> Note that if the listening/viewing area is not as wide as the screen, some of the L/R speakers can be in front of the screen w/o blocking the light from the projector because of the ray angle.
> 
> In fact, the distance between the inner edges of my L/R's is a few in. less than my screen width, though it helps that they're suspended out from the wall a few feet.
> 
> You could also consider pulling yours away from the wall to help with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a questionable if.
> 
> Just because that's a compromise that must often be accepted doesn't make it ok.
> 
> OTOH low fronts could be helped a lot if there are front heights.


I thought of maybe putting the towers in front of the screen enough that they could block the screen but not the projector or the viewer. But do you think it would be distracting for them to be hugging the border of the screen in that way? Its going to happen either way for me so... and luckily the R263s are already pretty dark, plus I can add black velvet if need be, and everything else will be a batcave, so maybe they iwll disappear either way.

Is there a concern of them casting a shadow onto the screen though if they are out in front a bit? How far out in front can they go before the sound feels like it's not coming from the screen anymore? At 14 inch depth, they are already 10 inches or so out in front of where the screen will likely roll down by default. Is it wise to keep going and make it more than 10?


----------



## noah katz

How distracting depends on the person.

My speakers aren't even that dark and I never notice them.

With as far as your seating is from the screen and speakers, I doubt there'd be a sound issue from pulling them forward a few feet.


----------



## mrvideo

ppasteur said:


> May I ask you where you found them, the Atmos disks that is?


Conversation started.


----------



## Magic815

Hey all - I had a question on optimal placement for 5.1.2 in my living room. Here is a mockup of my current 5.1 setup. And here is a top-down view of some different ideas I had for 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. (I've since settled on 5.1.2, but I can't decide where to place them.) The couch is only an inch or two off the back wall, and cannot be moved forward. The yellow circles are existing recessed lights, so I'll have to work around them. And the ceiling joists run left-to-right in that top-down image, so I don't think it would be a good idea to place a speaker in-line with one of the "rows" of lights (due to interference between the speaker wire and power line).

The forward-most red +'s are 34 degrees off horizontal, the blues are 47 degrees, the greens are 70 degrees, and the back-reds are 90 degrees. I know the 5.1.2 Dolby guide recommends 65-100 degrees, but I've had others tell me that when there is a couch along the back wall (like in my case), it's better to put the two ceiling speakers further forward. I'm also worried that the green and back-red locations are getting really close to my surrounds, which are currently sitting 1.5 ft above seated ear level. So where would you recommend I place them?


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Well some people say it's not good for the center to be that low and that's one argument I've seen for acoustically transparent screens.
> 
> I'm trying to learn.


I started the conversation with you... So you and I can take it there.

-T


----------



## niterida

Magic815 said:


> Hey all - I had a question on optimal placement for 5.1.2 in my living room. Here is a mockup of my current 5.1 setup. And here is a top-down view of some different ideas I had for 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. (I've since settled on 5.1.2, but I can't decide where to place them.) The couch is only an inch or two off the back wall, and cannot be moved forward. The yellow circles are existing recessed lights, so I'll have to work around them. And the ceiling joists run left-to-right in that top-down image, so I don't think it would be a good idea to place a speaker in-line with one of the "rows" of lights (due to interference between the speaker wire and power line).
> 
> The forward-most red +'s are 34 degrees off horizontal, the blues are 47 degrees, the greens are 70 degrees, and the back-reds are 90 degrees. I know the 5.1.2 Dolby guide recommends 65-100 degrees, but I've had others tell me that when there is a couch along the back wall (like in my case), it's better to put the two ceiling speakers further forward. I'm also worried that the green and back-red locations are getting really close to my surrounds, which are currently sitting 1.5 ft above seated ear level. So where would you recommend I place them?


I know you said you can't move the couch forward but curious as to why ? There doesn't seem to be a physical reasonin those drawings and it will solve all of your issues. Not only will you be able to place your speakers more ideally (and go to 4 Atmos, which is a huge improvement over just 2) but you will also get better bass response with reduced "boomy" bass.

But if you can't move the couch and you can't lower the surrounds then I would go with the Blue option to get the heights further away from the surrounds. However I have limited experience with .2 Atmos and that is only an educated guess.


----------



## chi_guy50

Magic815 said:


> Hey all - I had a question on optimal placement for 5.1.2 in my living room. Here is a mockup of my current 5.1 setup. And here is a top-down view of some different ideas I had for 5.1.2 and 5.1.4. (I've since settled on 5.1.2, but I can't decide where to place them.) The couch is only an inch or two off the back wall, and cannot be moved forward. The yellow circles are existing recessed lights, so I'll have to work around them. And the ceiling joists run left-to-right in that top-down image, so I don't think it would be a good idea to place a speaker in-line with one of the "rows" of lights (due to interference between the speaker wire and power line).
> 
> The forward-most red +'s are 34 degrees off horizontal, the blues are 47 degrees, the greens are 70 degrees, and the back-reds are 90 degrees. I know the 5.1.2 Dolby guide recommends 65-100 degrees, but I've had others tell me that when there is a couch along the back wall (like in my case), it's better to put the two ceiling speakers further forward. I'm also worried that the green and back-red locations are getting really close to my surrounds, which are currently sitting 1.5 ft above seated ear level. So where would you recommend I place them?


With only a single overhead speaker pair, I believe that the consensus opinion here is for a placement just forward of the MLP at ca. 80 degrees elevation. I am right now in the process of upgrading my bedroom system to 5.1.2 and have set myself an operational range of no less than 65 and no greater than 75 degrees for the overheads.

However, my surrounds are at ear level. If you can not lower those raised surrounds of yours, then I think it is advisable to situate your overheads further forward to achieve better separation as @niterida points out. Thus, I concur with his vote for something in the range of your blue marker. It would also better allow for the potential future option of moving your seating area forward, lowering the surrounds, and adding a second overhead pair in the rear.


----------



## Magic815

niterida said:


> I know you said you can't move the couch forward but curious as to why ? There doesn't seem to be a physical reasonin those drawings and it will solve all of your issues.
> 
> But if you can't move the couch and you can't lower the surrounds then I would go with the Blue option to get the heights further away from the surrounds. However I have limited experience with .2 Atmos and that is only an educated guess.


It's due to WAF. The center of the living room is also used as a play area for our little one, so moving the couch forward cuts that generally floor area down too much.

There isn't anything physically limiting the surrounds going down to ear level. They were placed 1.5ft above, due to that being what I believe the Dolby recommendation was in a 5.1 setup. I guess that changes when going 5.1.x? My main fear is that those surrounds have a downward angled face (they are the new Chane A4.5's) so if I brought them to ear level, they'd be pointed at our mid torso.



chi_guy50 said:


> With only a single overhead speaker pair, I believe that the consensus opinion here is for a placement just forward of the MLP at ca. 80 degrees elevation. I am right now in the process of upgrading my bedroom system to 5.1.2 and have set myself an operational range of no less than 65 and no greater than 75 degrees for the overheads.
> 
> However, my surrounds are at ear level. If you can not lower those raised surrounds of yours, then I think it is advisable to situate your overheads further forward to achieve better separation as @niterida points out. Thus, I concur with his vote for something in the range of your blue marker. It would also better allows for the potential future option of moving your seating area forward, lowering the surrounds, and adding a second overhead pair in the rear.


Dang, the green location being 70 degrees is like that perfect spot then, haha. The only reason I have the surrounds raised 1.5ft is because I thought that was the Dolby guideline for 5.1. I could lowered them more, but they have angled faces - so if I brought them centered to ear level, they'd be pointed at our mid torso area. Is there a certain physical distance I should strive for in terms of between the ceiling .2 and the surrounds? I.e. if I was to draw a string directly between the two, how long would I want it to at least be?


----------



## chi_guy50

Magic815 said:


> It's due to WAF. The center of the living room is also used as a play area for our little one, so moving the couch forward cuts that generally floor area down too much.
> 
> There isn't anything physically limiting the surrounds going down to ear level. They were placed 1.5ft above, due to that being what I believe the Dolby recommendation was in a 5.1 setup. I guess that changes when going 5.1.x? My main fear is that those surrounds have a downward angled face (they are the new Chane A4.5's) so if I brought them to ear level, they'd be pointed at our mid torso.
> 
> 
> Dang, the green location being 70 degrees is like that perfect spot then, haha. The only reason I have the surrounds raised 1.5ft is because I thought that was the Dolby guideline for 5.1. I could lowered them more, but they have angled faces - so if I brought them centered to ear level, they'd be pointed at our mid torso area. Is there a certain physical distance I should strive for in terms of between the ceiling .2 and the surrounds? I.e. if I was to draw a string directly between the two, how long would I want it to at least be?


The Dolby guideline for the height of the surrounds is no more than 1.25 times the height of the mains. I am not familiar with the model of speakers that you are using (and I don't recall whether you mentioned the height of your ceiling), but if you can lower them accordingly (or close to it) then you can permit yourself more leeway with the positioning of the overhead pair. Whichever way you go, I think that you will be pleased with the results; unless you are a highly discerning audiophile, IMHO these adjustments only represent small improvements to the overall soundstage.

For a bit of historical perspective, in the early days on this thread many of us (myself included) were obsessed with the minutiae of HT immersive audio setup. As time went on, the consensus opinion (influenced by practicality) developed that it was hard to get a bad result as long as one observed the basic principles. If you are dealing with an existing multi-purpose room you will almost always have to make compromises, but those considerations need not prevent you from realizing your objective.


----------



## Magic815

chi_guy50 said:


> The Dolby guideline for the height of the surrounds is no more than 1.25 times the height of the mains. I am not familiar with the model of speakers that you are using (and I don't recall whether you mentioned the height of your ceiling), but if you can lower them accordingly (or close to it) then you can permit yourself more leeway with the positioning of the overhead pair. Whichever way you go, I think that you will be pleased with the results; unless you are a highly discerning audiophile, IMHO these adjustments only represent small improvements to the overall soundstage.
> 
> For a bit of historical perspective, in the early days on this thread many of us (myself included) were obsessed with the minutiae of HT immersive audio setup. As time went on, the consensus opinion (influenced by practicality) developed that it was hard to get a bad result as long as one observed the basic principles. If you are dealing with an existing multi-purpose room you will almost always have to make compromises, but those considerations need not prevent you from realizing your objective.


Interesting, I could have sworn I always heard "surrounds in a 5.1 setup should be 1-2 ft above seated ear level," but I guess it wasn't a Dolby thing and I must have picked that up somewhere else. In terms of my living room, the ceiling is only 7.5 ft tall (so 6" less than standard). In their current positions, my surrounds have their center 53 inches off the ground (and thus 37 inches below the ceiling). My front speakers have their centers 25 inches off the ground, so my surrounds are currently 2.12x the height of my fronts. Certainly above that 1.25x guideline - but as you mentioned - a multipurpose room comes with compromises.

Back to my top-down view, it seems like I'm now waffling between two choices. Either having the two ceiling speakers 16" in front of the rear lights (blue +'s) or 16" behind the rear lights (green +'s). (I'm assuming my joists, which run left-to-right in my ceiling, are in 16" increments).

The blues would be 47 degrees off horizontal (*missing *the 65-100 degree guideline), but would give me *5.75 ft* of point-to-point separation (with 37 inches height separation) from the surrounds - as seen here. I'm not sure how other aim-able in-ceiling speakers compare, but I checked on the HTD HDX-R65 speakers, and their tweeter can only be angled up to 15 degrees. Meaning if I pointed them as far back as they would go from the blue positions, they'd be pointing at the listener's shins. (I'm not sure if this is an issue - as I realize speakers are not a laser beam, but figured I'd mention it).
The greens would be 72 degrees off horizontal (*meeting *the 65-100 degree guideline), but would only have *4 ft* of point-to-point separation (with the same 37 inches of height separation) from the surrounds - as seen here.
I realize I'm being extremely nit-picky at this point, but is your recommendation still the blues seeing that math? I'm sure I'll be happy with either, but I figure I should (somewhat unhealthily, I suppose) think through this before committing to cutting holes in my ceiling. 

Appreciate your continued insight into this!


----------



## Calypte

Magic815 said:


> Interesting, I could have sworn I always heard "surrounds in a 5.1 setup should be 1-2 ft above seated ear level,"


I think that was a holdover from Dolby Pro-Logic days, when you wouldn't have much but ambience back there, and you were trying to diffuse the sound.


----------



## chi_guy50

Magic815 said:


> Interesting, I could have sworn I always heard "surrounds in a 5.1 setup should be 1-2 ft above seated ear level," but I guess it wasn't a Dolby thing and I must have picked that up somewhere else. In terms of my living room, the ceiling is only 7.5 ft tall (so 6" less than standard). In their current positions, my surrounds have their center 53 inches off the ground (and thus 37 inches below the ceiling). My front speakers have their centers 25 inches off the ground, so my surrounds are currently 2.12x the height of my fronts. Certainly above that 1.25x guideline - but as you mentioned - a multipurpose room comes with compromises.
> 
> Back to my top-down view, it seems like I'm now waffling between two choices. Either having the two ceiling speakers 16" in front of the rear lights (blue +'s) or 16" behind the rear lights (green +'s). (I'm assuming my joists, which run left-to-right in my ceiling, are in 16" increments).
> 
> The blues would be 47 degrees off horizontal (*missing *the 65-100 degree guideline), but would give me *5.75 ft* of point-to-point separation (with 37 inches height separation) from the surrounds - as seen here. I'm not sure how other aim-able in-ceiling speakers compare, but I checked on the HTD HDX-R65 speakers, and their tweeter can only be angled up to 15 degrees. Meaning if I pointed them as far back as they would go from the blue positions, they'd be pointing at the listener's shins. (I'm not sure if this is an issue - as I realize speakers are not a laser beam, but figured I'd mention it).
> The greens would be 72 degrees off horizontal (*meeting *the 65-100 degree guideline), but would only have *4 ft* of point-to-point separation (with the same 37 inches of height separation) from the surrounds - as seen here.
> I realize I'm being extremely nit-picky at this point, but is your recommendation still the blues seeing that math? I'm sure I'll be happy with either, but I figure I should (somewhat unhealthily, I suppose) think through this before committing to cutting holes in my ceiling.
> 
> Appreciate your continued insight into this!


TL/DR: Yes, I would lean toward the blue but would also urge that you consider whether those surrounds could be lowered.

The main issue for placement of overhead speakers for Dolby Atmos playback is the elevation angle, but with ceilings of less than eight feet you are running into the additional problem of establishing planar separation with the listener-level speakers. The fact that you have raised surrounds exacerbates this problem. You need to "convince" your ears that the sounds are emanating from a hemispheric environment, but in your case that environment is flattened and the back floor level is raised. You will still be enveloped but the effect will not be as impactful so that anything you can do to mitigate against these compromising factors should work in your favor.

I'm pretty sure you will be pleased with the result whatever you choose to do.


----------



## Magic815

chi_guy50 said:


> TL/DR: Yes, I would lean toward the blue but would also urge that you consider whether those surrounds could be lowered.


So one thought I had is to rotate the Chane A4.5s 90 degrees while lowering them, so that the angle is pointing towards the front of the room, instead of pointing further down. It seems like this is about as low as I can get them: left surround, and right surround. (The current locations are in black, the proposed locations are in grey). Any lower and the right surround will start interfering with the couch, so it's pretty much as far as I can take them. Top view of how they would look.

That would make the surround have their centers 42 inches above the floor (thus 48 inches below the ceiling). Which would make them 1.68x the height of the front speakers. One concern, however, is that my wife tends to sit right here, and so it would just keep inching closer to her right ear, haha.

If I end up moving them to those grey positions, does that make you lean towards green? Or would you still just say eff it, and go blue? Here is an additional view, to give you an idea of those options.


For anyone else reading, feel free to give your opinions as well! I'm definitely looking for insight anywhere I can get it.


----------



## chi_guy50

Magic815 said:


> If I end up moving them to those grey positions, does that make you lean towards green? Or would you still just say eff it, and go blue? Here is an additional view, to give you an idea of those options.


I would still lean towards green (with apologies to Dr. Seuss  ), but it's hard to know which compromise will work best for you. Perhaps someone who is familiar with the properties of your chosen speakers can give a more informed opinion.

It might help you to arrive at a decision if you could experiment by temporarily placing the speakers at the different locations. Otherwise, I think you have done your due diligence; just go with your gut (and don't forget to allow for the WAF).


----------



## Magic815

chi_guy50 said:


> I would still lean towards green (with apologies to Dr. Seuss  ), but it's hard to know which compromise will work best for you.


Just to triple check, did you mean to say you still lean towards the speakers in front of the lights (i.e. further forward into the room from the listener position, and marked with the *blue *markers)? Top view is here - just wanted to check.


----------



## T-Bone

Magic815 said:


> Just to triple check, did you mean to say you still lean towards the speakers in front of the lights (i.e. further forward into the room from the listener position, and marked with the *blue *markers)? Top view is here - just wanted to check.


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

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

Just trying to help.

-T


----------



## Magic815

T-Bone said:


> Side topic. Those can lights are wired in series (daisey chained). So the wire enters one of the cans, and then routes thru the other 3 Basically, that 4 sided box with a can in each corner has 3 sides connected by wire. Dunno such 3 sides. So speaker wire should run perpendicular to the electrical I would think.
> 
> Not sure if the close proximity of a speaker (blue +) near the can will cause issues/hum.
> 
> Just trying to help.
> 
> -T


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


----------



## T-Bone

Magic815 said:


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


That separation should be fine. when I had my house built as long as they had electrical wires running vertically in the wall on one side of a 2x4 stud, it was okay to put other wiring on the other side of the stud 16 inches away.

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

-T


----------



## chi_guy50

Magic815 said:


> Just to triple check, did you mean to say you still lean towards the speakers in front of the lights (i.e. further forward into the room from the listener position, and marked with the *blue *markers)? Top view is here - just wanted to check.


Sorry, yes, I meant what you are designating as blue--the middle of the three options you listed.


----------



## am2model3

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

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


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


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


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



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


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

...

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


----------



## Goname31

MagnumX said:


> It's on the Trinnov Altitude line. At that price point, very few have access to it. It'd be nice if Dolby had a PC app/viewer. Even if some of us couldn't listen to it at the same time in Atmos, I'd still like to know where certain objects are physically placed in some of their demos and it'd be pretty easy to figure out on them knowing where they image. Better yet, if they could mute or better yet solo objects while displaying them, it would tell you where any sound was placed on the internal grid without any guesswork.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that would be awesome to have as you could test placement of phantom images sound anywhere in the room, especially in areas you might thing are problem spots or whatever. I'm definitely thinking of moving to XBox from PS4 now that it's obvious Sony refuses to support Atmos or X on their Playstation hardware in favor of some homemade format that's only thus far optimized for headphone usage. They should have that IN ADDITION to Atmos and X not "instead of" when it's not supported by ANY AVR/AVP software for speaker use.
> 
> ...
> 
> Meanwhile, in other news, I just ordered "The Gordian Knot" (Gordon Goodwin) on Pure Audio Blu-Ray (also includes a CD copy). It has Auro 11.1 and Dolby Atmos versions of the album on the Blu-Ray. It's supposedly '30s/'40s style Big Band music. I'll likely post a review after I get it. It's coming from Germany so it might be awhile (still waiting on my Kraftwerk 3-D Box Set from the UK almost 2 months later).


I don't really like the DTSX viewer, it changes the volume depending on the layer displayed in a way that is not natural to me. But good on you to go Xbox this time around. Dolby atmos, DTSX and soon Dolby Vision, the Xbox is the console for HT enthousiasts!


----------



## am2model3

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


----------



## Goname31

am2model3 said:


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


Halo Infinite too will have a huge focus on sound, Atmos was annonces early in the project. What a time to be into HT and gaming.


----------



## distoga

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

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

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


----------



## sdurani

distoga said:


> With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.


Good idea on the narrow dispersion speakers to limit bleed to the other row. Splitting the signal to two speakers might result in a bit of comb filtering (flangy sound), but that's typically not noticeable when sitting still. If you move, like lean forward or recline, you'll hear the change in sound. What professional installers do is apply a different delay to the back row. 

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


----------



## MagnumX

distoga said:


> What are the less obvious pro's/con's for using a single monopole, two monopoles in series, or bi-poles for side surrounds with Atmos? Ideally two dedicated S1, S2 channels for monopoles would be great but I'll be using my 8500H and 9.x.4 configuration for a few more years still. 8500's can't do S1, S2 so I dream of a Trinnov one day like many people with two rows...
> 
> More info, I'm debating on continuing to use my bi-poles surrounds (my only two bi-poles in my current config) from pre-atmos days, buying a two monopoles, or buying four monopoles and running two of them in series for each side. Currently I've noticed the side surround channels are hard to distinguish from rear and overhead .4 channels at times and I think it might be because they're bi-pole and phasing, but before I go buy speakers I wanted to get some thoughts. The imaging is a little odd at times and if I disable the FH/RH speakers the side surrounds still image like overhead or rears and not sides - perhaps it's phasing issues or it's the shape of my ears.  With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.
> 
> 16x23x9 room, two rows of seating, with L,C,R,FW,S,RS and FH,RH.


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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## niterida

distoga said:


> What are the less obvious pro's/con's for using a single monopole, two monopoles in series, or bi-poles for side surrounds with Atmos? Ideally two dedicated S1, S2 channels for monopoles would be great but I'll be using my 8500H and 9.x.4 configuration for a few more years still. 8500's can't do S1, S2 so I dream of a Trinnov one day like many people with two rows...
> 
> More info, I'm debating on continuing to use my bi-poles surrounds (my only two bi-poles in my current config) from pre-atmos days, buying a two monopoles, or buying four monopoles and running two of them in series for each side. Currently I've noticed the side surround channels are hard to distinguish from rear and overhead .4 channels at times and I think it might be because they're bi-pole and phasing, but before I go buy speakers I wanted to get some thoughts. The imaging is a little odd at times and if I disable the FH/RH speakers the side surrounds still image like overhead or rears and not sides - perhaps it's phasing issues or it's the shape of my ears.  With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.
> 
> 16x23x9 room, two rows of seating, with L,C,R,FW,S,RS and FH,RH.


Place your bipoles between the rows so that one driver is point at front row and the other is pointing at rear row.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

niterida said:


> I personally think that the height of the ear level vs the height of the height level speakers is one of the more important specs to follow if you want the full 3d sound effect.


niterida,
Thanks for the extra push to find a more optimal position for the side surrounds. 

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



> Not sure of your exact setup but for 5.x.x you actually want the surrounds to be 20-30deg behind you not directly to the side if that helps with you height issue ?


With the side surrounds going in-wall, I'm giving some serious thought to repurposing my earlier powered side surrounds as rear surrounds sitting on stands for a 7.4.4 setup. This way, I don't have to mess with the diffusers on the rear wall and still keep those speakers.


----------



## Quickbeams

Hi Guys,

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

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

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


----------



## MagnumX

Quickbeams said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I'd like your opinion on a system we are trying to build. We currently have on order all the equipment we need for a 5.2.2 system. We thought about going with a 7.2.2 set up but for right now this is up in the air.
> 
> However, my question relates to the placement of our surrounds in the 5.2.2 system. I would like your opinion as to how much we would lose by placing our surrounds in a 5.2.2 set up about 7 feet behind us? So what I'm envisioning is a set up where the surrounds are not within 110 to 120 degrees of the listening position, but more like 170 degrees. Not quite directly behind us, but not too far off. All the other speakers in the system would line up fairly close to the Dolby guidelines.
> 
> Would we be losing much by doing this? Thank you.


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

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


----------



## Quickbeams

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

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

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


----------



## sdurani

Quickbeams said:


> So what I'm envisioning is a set up where the surrounds are not within 110 to 120 degrees of the listening position, but more like *170 degrees*. Not quite directly behind us, but not too far off.
> 
> Would we be losing much by doing this?


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

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


----------



## Quickbeams

sdurani said:


> With your Surround speakers placed almost directly behind you, spread only 20 degrees apart, you will lose wrap-around envelopment AND left-vs-right separation in the surround field. That's really poor placement for a single pair of Surrounds in a 5.1 layout.
> 
> Even as part of a 7.1 layout, the Rear speakers should be at least 60 degrees apart, so that you can hear stereo separation behind you (where our human hearing is not so hot). Please reconsider.


Thanks sdurani. I appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to reply. Thanks again.


----------



## MagnumX

Quickbeams said:


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


 I'm sorry. I misread what you were asking. 

The angles are kind of far apart so normally I'd say no to putting 5.1 surrounds that far back, but I just listened to a Quad music album (Billy Joel's Streetlife Serenade) that makes me think it might work better than overhead speakers do at such distances. Namely, dumped to ISO (PS3 can extract them), the new version of KODI (V19 Matrix) with the new SACD plugin allows it to play back SACDs directly now and with a quad album, KODI can use either side surrounds (set to 5.1 output fixed config in KODI) or alternately the rear surrounds (set to 7.1 fixed output) for the surround speaker output from that album. 

I tried it both ways and I was surprised to find I still had many sounds appearing off to my sides when using fronts + rears for quad output (side speakers were silent so images were phantoms between my rear speakers and mains even though the rears were about 12.5 feet behind me and the fronts are 7.5 feet in front of me). I get weak overhead imaging trying to phantom image that distance without Top Middle so I was surprised how sharp the side phantom imaging was with ear level speakers that far apart. 

It's possible the human brain does better combining ear level sources than overhead ones at greater distances. In any case, that experience makes me think it's worth at least trying (i.e. I'd try it with cable across the floor even just to hear what it does before committing to a location either way unless You're stuck in terms of usable locations in the room. Speakers and rooms can vary a bit.

Quad was actually designed for equidistant speaker placement at the center of the square/rectangle so movies might not image as well further apart, but I'd be curious to know how well it works if you try it. I'd have to rewire to try it it out with movies that way here.


----------



## chi_guy50

Quickbeams said:


> Thanks sdurani. I appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to reply. Thanks again.


Regarding your in-ceiling speakers: I have a 9.1.4 system in my main setup, but today I just finished upgrading my bedroom to 5.1.2. I don't anticipating ever adding a second overhead pair here (although never say never) and so gave a lot of thought regarding the placement of the single overhead pair. I settled on an elevation angle of 70 degrees and slightly outboard of the mains but inboard of the surrounds on the azimuth (my mains are perforce a bit narrower than I would like). After installation and having rerun room calibration (YPAO), I tested a range of immersive audio clips; the most telling result was from the Dolby Atmos Audiosphere clip, which displays the sound objects visually on the screen. I perceived the sounds coming almost precisely from the spots on the x/y/z-axis as shown in the video.

My recommendation is that you prioritize a placement just slightly in front of the MLP at between 80 and 65 degrees elevation.


----------



## Quickbeams

Thanks so much everyone for all your help. To MagnumX, I will definitely try both locations. The trouble with putting the surrounds where they should be, is that one of them is right in the way of our view and my wife is really not keen on it and I really do see her point. So I am going to see which is worse. The speaker blocking part of our view and being where it should be placed, or having our view unimpeded with maybe some loss of sound quality. I really won't be sure until I try, but thought I'd run it by all of you.


----------



## b0rnarian

Quickbeams said:


> Thanks so much everyone for all your help. To MagnumX, I will definitely try both locations. The trouble with putting the surrounds where they should be, is that one of them is right in the way of our view and my wife is really not keen on it and I really do see her point. So I am going to see which is worse. The speaker blocking part of our view and being where it should be placed, or having our view unimpeded with maybe some loss of sound quality. I really won't be sure until I try, but thought I'd run it by all of you.


 If you have em on stands instead of the wall, its easy to experiment and move as needed.


----------



## Quickbeams

b0rnarian said:


> If you have em on stands instead of the wall, its easy to experiment and move as needed.


Thanks bOrnarian. All my speakers, except for my ceiling speakers, are on stands. So I will be trying the surrounds in different locations. Thanks again.


----------



## am2model3

HBO Max had DolbyAtmos for Zach Snyder Justice League and Godzilla VS Kong; both sounded really good! WW84 4K UHD Atmos also sounded very good as well.


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


> HBO Max had DolbyAtmos for Zach Snyder Justice League and Godzilla VS Kong; both sounded really good! WW84 4K UHD Atmos also sounded very good as well.


That's good to hear. I just got WW 1984 3D in and remuxed the Atmos track to it for playback on my Zidoo X9S in 3D with Atmos, but haven't watched it yet.

I dunno if I could sit through that Zack Snyder cut of Justice League, though at 4 hours (in 4:3 no less). I've got the theatrical version in 3D and haven't gotten around to watching it yet (want to watch Superman Man of Steel first, which I realized I should have watched before Batman vs Superman DOJ, but most DC movies are rough to watch and Marvel's non-stop onslaught has me sick of superhero movies (I loved the first movie of the last Avengers (Infinity Wars), but absolutely hated part II). They should have just let it end with Infinity War's ending, IMO. That would have been ballsy.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> They should have just let it end with Infinity War's ending, IMO. That would have been ballsy.


FTW


----------



## rec head

I'll chime in on some media:

I'll leave my opinions of the Snyder cut out of this but say that it is divided into parts. I forget how many (5 or 6???) and we watched one part per night to keep it manageable. I would say that there is no need to watch any of the other films first.

I'm currently making my way through the Perfect Planet UHD disks. The video is the normal high standard that is expected from these documentaries and the Atmos track is good too. 

Having used the Blade Runner 2049 UHD disk for a lot of demo'ing and testing I tried the HBO+ version. It definitely did not sound as dynamic. This was confirmed by a second set of ears. It was different enough that it was noticeable immediately and I didn't bother with comparing any further past the opening scene.


----------



## bartonnen

MagnumX said:


> I dunno if I could sit through that Zack Snyder cut of Justice League, though at 4 hours (in 4:3 no less)


I was annoyed that it was 4:3 at first - but you soon forget about that. The movie is split into 6 parts (with title cards before each part), so we watched 3 parts on one night and the other 3 on another night. So, basically like two 2 hour movies, much shorter than Lord of the Rings at around 9 hours.


----------



## b0rnarian

bartonnen said:


> I was annoyed that it was 4:3 at first - but you soon forget about that. The movie is split into 6 parts (with title cards before each part), so we watched 3 parts on one night and the other 3 on another night. So, basically like two 2 hour movies, *much shorter than *Lord of the Rings at around 9 hours.


 But not quite as entertaining


----------



## fatherom

bartonnen said:


> I was annoyed that it was 4:3 at first - but you soon forget about that. The movie is split into 6 parts (with title cards before each part), so we watched 3 parts on one night and the other 3 on another night. So, basically like two 2 hour movies, much shorter than Lord of the Rings at around 9 hours.


Last time I watched Lord of the Rings, it was around 12 hours.


----------



## bartonnen

fatherom said:


> Last time I watched Lord of the Rings, it was around 12 hours.


Extended vs Theatrical run times.


----------



## fatherom

bartonnen said:


> Extended vs Theatrical run times.


Yeah I never watch the theatrical versions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Goname31

Thanks to @MagnumX i guess, i took a free trial on Tidal to check out again Dolby Atmos music. I tried it like 6 month ago and was not impressed, but since then, my setup has changed a bit, or maybe the mixes are way better now.

Anyway, I've cancelled my Qobuz subscription. I can see the added value now, my favourite album from the passed year (Fantastic Negrito's Have you lost your Mind Yet) have an atmos mix, and it is purely magical. Even some old tunes like Elton john's Rocketman are realy impressive. Electronical music really benefits from this (Damn I need Daft punk in atmos) but jazz, rock, pop, classical, in every music type I've found really enjoyable stuff.

Too bad the signal is not in TrueHD, it makes me wanna try pure audio stuffs, but the catalogue is real thin for now.

Really, I suggest to give it a try.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

bartonnen said:


> I was annoyed that it was 4:3 at first - but you soon forget about that.


The entire feature can still be watched in the 1:85 aspect ratio it was original protected for in the theatrical version. Your TV likely offers a selection of aspect ratios to choose from ( on my LG OLED I use the *all-direction zoom* option ) which will zoom in and lop off the very top and bottom of the picture which changes the image aspect ratio to the 1:85 ratio compositions it was originally shown in during the theatrical run. You will see that even the credits are protected within the 1:85-safe area.

(OK, your tv is actually a 1:78 ratio but it's so close to the theatrical 1:85 it's immaterial.)

I watched the entire feature this way and was totally satisfied that the compositions were not being bastardized ( especially since I knew that's the way we saw them in theatres ).

It costs you nothing to try - and when you do you'll instantly see how the 1:85 ratio fits the compositions just as it did theatrically.


----------



## am2model3

even though zach snyder justice league is presented in 4:3, you are getting the full IMAX image, so there is that. You can use your projector or tv to do some zoom of the image though to crop it to your liking. I cropped my projector to zoom in just enough to leave some black bars on the L & R sides, it was great!


----------



## Josh Z

am2model3 said:


> even though zach snyder justice league is presented in 4:3, you are getting the full IMAX image, so there is that.


The thing is, no portion of Justice League was actually shot with IMAX cameras or composed for the super-tall IMAX 1.43:1 ratio. Snyder's decision to reframe the movie as 4:3 (which is not even an IMAX ratio at all) was made after-the-fact.


----------



## Josh Z

The new Netflix series Shadow and Bone (premiering 4/23) has some nice Atmos effects with monsters flying overhead, especially in the first and last episodes.


----------



## dschulz

Josh Z said:


> The thing is, no portion of Justice League was actually shot with IMAX cameras or composed for the super-tall IMAX 1.43:1 ratio. Snyder's decision to reframe the movie as 4:3 (which is not even an IMAX ratio at all) was made after-the-fact.


It was shot Super 35, and Snyder now claims he composed it with IMAX 1.43 in mind. I'm not sure I believe him though.


----------



## Josh Z

dschulz said:


> It was shot Super 35, and Snyder now claims he composed it with IMAX 1.43 in mind. I'm not sure I believe him though.


He can claim whatever he wants, but there's no way that's true.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> The thing is, no portion of Justice League was actually shot with IMAX cameras or composed for the super-tall IMAX 1.43:1 ratio. Snyder's decision to reframe the movie as 4:3 (which is not even an IMAX ratio at all) was made after-the-fact.


Movies used to be shot in 4:3 (aka 1.33:1 whereas IMAX is 1.43:1) during the Golden Age of Hollywood. Movie theaters were upset when TVs came out that people might be able to watch those movies at home instead so widescreen ratios were employed to make movie theaters "different" from at home and not fit the TV sets properly. Their "solution" worked, but frustrated movie watchers at home ever after until HDTV came out (which with its middling ratio pleased no one as most movies are not 1.85:1 to fit best on a 1.78:1 set, but rather most movies are ~2.35 and most TV shows were 4:3 so the new screens fit hardly anything. 

Now >20 years later, newer TV shows all fit, of course and it does seem like more movies are in 1.85 than we used to see, but I'm afraid Snyder is on to something terrible. Hollywood could go back to making 4:3 movies so they don't fit on newer TVs. It wouldn't be as extreme as 4:3 from 2.35, but it would be annoying especially since human vision is pretty much made for wider viewing. They'd come up with some excuse like this one of fitting IMAX screens better (although don't they offer 1.90:1 screens now too on top of 1.43:1?)

Really, with OLED and total blackness of the bars, it's nowhere near as annoying as "glowing dark grey" bars, but let's face it, people don't like their 65" screen being turned into 48" or whatever it comes out to in a black bar situation. I personally don't buy the "creative" arguments about screen ratios for movies. Sure, they look a bit different (4:3 being more extreme), but it also depends on the movie theater and screen size you're watching them on. I think I would have preferred one ratio for everything. Blade Runner 2049 looks just as good in 16:9 as it does in 2.35:1 (framed for both) and which one you prefer probably has more to do with the screen you're using and your room layout (that would make more sense for one versus the other) than any particular huge differences in what fits on the screen in any given scene. Without a frame of reference, you'd never "miss" anything and it would be shot with that ratio in mind at all times. I think 4:3 sucks period. Human eyes aren't made for 4:3 viewing. You have to darken everything in the room to keep your attention on what is _almost_ a square box.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> It was shot Super 35, and Snyder now claims he composed it with IMAX 1.43 in mind. I'm not sure I believe him though.


I don't believe him. But, the initial version hasn't been pulled off shelves and melted. It's there for anyone who prefers it. The new version of Justice League, including the aspect ratio that goes with it, was a decision made by the original artist (Snyder) with the approval of the content owner (Warners). Don't know why anyone outside those two parties feels entitled to be part of that decision.


----------



## b0rnarian

dschulz said:


> It was shot Super 35, and Snyder now claims he composed it with IMAX 1.43 in mind. I'm not sure I believe him though.


 Call him out on it hehe


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> I don't believe him. But, the initial version hasn't been pulled off shelves and melted. It's there for anyone who prefers it. The new version of Justice League, including the aspect ratio that goes with it, was a decision made by the original artist (Snyder) with the approval of the content owner (Warners). Don't know why anyone outside those two parties feels _entitled_ to be part of that decision.


Part of the decision making process?? Of course not. Free to comment on whether the presentation is enjoyable for a person? Absolutely. 
Give the artist all the freedom that they need. But, if it sucks in my opinion, I will say that. This 4:3 stuff sucks in my opinion, on my gear, to my eyes. It was their decision and that is fine, I can't argue with it, but it was a bad one in my personal opinion. So, while I don't feel in any way "entitled to be part of that decision" making process, I am entitled to comment on how it affects me.


----------



## b0rnarian

ppasteur said:


> Part of the decision making process?? Of course not. Free to comment on whether the presentation is enjoyable for a person? Absolutely.
> Give the artist all the freedom that they need. But, if it sucks in my opinion, I will say that. This 4:3 stuff sucks in my opinion, on my gear, to my eyes. It was their decision and that is fine, I can't argue with it, but it was a bad one in my personal opinion. So, while I don't feel in any way "entitled to be part of that decision" making process, I am entitled to comment on how it affects me.


 I too think the 4:3 sucks balls, no matter what excuse anyone makes... period. Kinda like saying, the atmos tracks on a movie sucks - sure it is what the studio/mixer "intended" but if its not enjoyable or could've been much better by tweaks etc, then yes I will push for it. Just like fans pushed for the Zack Synder JL cut and they eventually got it. 
Another good example, an old DTS track has great bass but new Atmos track bass is completely neutered. Sure its whats intended and the older version is still on shelf but I will still complain about the atmos track as im sure most of us do - except the few who are always happy with decisions the makers make.


----------



## MagnumX

I think too much is made about the Director's "intent" in general on things that are subjective and not really story-orientated. Why do I own 5 different versions of Blade Runner and God knows how many "tweaked" versions of Star Wars (when the version _I_ want to see isn't available)? 

At what point is a movie no longer the director's "vision" and belongs to the audience to either love, hate or be indifferent? If I like the theatrical version of Blade Runner best does that mean I have no respect for Ridley Scott as a filmmaker? 

Why do we live in a world of black and white absolutes where real actual opinions on things are great and varied, but what we share is limited and even lied about to protect ourselves from being attacked by the mob mentality? 

IMO, we've become less "diverse" than ever as a society where you either tow the "accepted" views (on anything) or you risk becoming canceled or attacked by others. 

Just by saying I don't really care about the director's "vision" but rather only about what _I_ actually enjoy watching, I've opened myself up to attack by the purists where no opinion but one is acceptable. 

For years, anyone who said they liked Pan & Scan better because it fit their 4:3 screen were routinely attacked, lectured or frowned upon by the purist mentality that clearly a director's vision is more important than your own pleasure of watching a movie on your own inadequately sized TV even if ruins your enjoyment. You simply _must_ be made to understand how very _wrong_ it was of you to watch movies that way even as Hollywood itself silently encouraged what sells best by providing most movies in P&S to pay channels and even DVDs..... The irony was not lost on some of us even that preferred widescreen. 

Perhaps people should decide for themselves what the like or don't like rather than be told they are _cretins_ to enjoy $9 or even $6 wines when clearly $500 bottles are superior even if their taste buds must be trained for years to even notice the difference.... (let alone afford it). Oh but how I hated dry dry Moet and loved sweet sweet Asti and I was forever branded a cretin anyway! (It seems the only _acceptable_ sweet wine is Ice Wine at $80+ a bottle).


----------



## T-Bone

It is kind of funny though. About this whole aspect ratio. I'll talk about Atmos in a minute, but first I digress.

The timeline is I remember it:
1. Pan and scan on a 4:3 aspect ratio TV and the masses cried foul. The directors intent *does* matter.
2. Scope movies being cropped to fit a 16x9 screen and the masses cried foul. The directors intent *does* matter.
3. Making a 4:3 aspect ratio movie in an era of the ubiquitous widescreen display. And the masses cried foul. The directors intent *does not* matter.

As for Atmos...

When Atmos is good, it's really good. I just find myself liking the up mixers... neural X and even Dolby surround cuz I've been monkeying around with that one too. Flip-flopping back and forth re-listening to scenes... just kind of fun.

Maybe it's because I don't have a lot of Atmos content still. Even though I've got several streaming services and 300 plus Blu-ray rips (maybe about 10% have Atmos)...

Maybe one of the criteria folks should evaluate is do they want to go object-based audio simply because of the up mixers alone. Because that's the gravy, and benefits all content. Whereas the native Atmos content, well, maybe most probably won't be mastered well anyway.

Just a thought.

-T


----------



## MagnumX

What the masses were really crying about with 4:3 P&S was their 27" and 32" TVs were virtually unwatchable with widescreen letterboxing, particularly with low resolution VHS. I doubt they minded at the movie theater.

In other words, it really had nothing to do with the director's "intent" (I doubt most _intended_ their movies be watched on 27" 4:3 CRT sets on a 330 line interlaced VHS tape in the first place, but that's what the masses had at home). Good intentions pave the road to hell as they say and 27" SD was hell for proper movie watching, even at 4:3 ratios, but somehow it seemed like people never realized that and happily enjoyed themselves watching HBO anyway back then. Some might even say today's kids are spoiled.


----------



## Quickbeams

Hi Guys. I'm not sure if I am posting in the correct place, so if this belongs somewhere else please let me know. We are just in the process of setting up a new surround system and I'm kind of fumbling my way through this, so please also excuse me if this is an uneducated question. 

We will have a 7.2.2 system, with our two Atmos speakers in the ceiling. I'm wondering however, if we ever wanted to expand to a 7.2.4 system in the future, could we use the Dolby Atmos Enabled (upward firing) speakers together with in ceiling speakers? With the configuration of our room and our ceiling there is no way to install more speakers in the ceiling, so I'm wondering if I can combine some Dolby Atmos Enabled (upward firing) speakers with our already existing ceiling speakers. Note that our current ceiling speakers will be our forward or front Atmos speakers.

We are currently looking at two different A/V Receivers, only one of which will allow us to go to a 7.2.4 system, so that's why I'm asking. 

Thanks for any help you can provide.


----------



## Jonas2

Quickbeams said:


> Hi Guys. I'm not sure if I am posting in the correct place, so if this belongs somewhere else please let me know. We are just in the process of setting up a new surround system and I'm kind of fumbling my way through this, so please also excuse me if this is an uneducated question.
> 
> We will have a 7.2.2 system, with our two Atmos speakers in the ceiling. I'm wondering however, if we ever wanted to expand to a 7.2.4 system in the future, could we use the Dolby Atmos Enabled (upward firing) speakers together with in ceiling speakers? With the configuration of our room and our ceiling there is no way to install more speakers in the ceiling, so I'm wondering if I can combine some Dolby Atmos Enabled (upward firing) speakers with our already existing ceiling speakers. Note that our current ceiling speakers will be our forward or front Atmos speakers.
> 
> We are currently looking at two different A/V Receivers, only one of which will allow us to go to a 7.2.4 system, so that's why I'm asking.
> 
> Thanks for any help you can provide.


Yes, you can! In fact, Dolby shows hybrid systems like this in their speaker set up guide. HOWEVER - the speakers really need to be in the right place, especially the upfiring ones - you need the right ceiling type/material, and the "bounce" angle needs to be correct. I have never seen commentary on hybrids like this, though surely it is here and we have members doing it. The upfiring (Atmos-enabled) speaker setups get mixed reviews from pretty good to not very good, but perhaps better than zero. Much more consistent positive results with in-ceiling and on-ceiling installs.

But, yo have what you have - I'm a fan of experimentation.


----------



## T-Bone

Quickbeams said:


> Hi Guys. I'm not sure if I am posting in the correct place, so if this belongs somewhere else please let me know. We are just in the process of setting up a new surround system and I'm kind of fumbling my way through this, so please also excuse me if this is an uneducated question.
> 
> We will have a 7.2.2 system, with our two Atmos speakers in the ceiling. I'm wondering however, if we ever wanted to expand to a 7.2.4 system in the future, could we use the Dolby Atmos Enabled (upward firing) speakers together with in ceiling speakers? With the configuration of our room and our ceiling there is no way to install more speakers in the ceiling, so I'm wondering if I can combine some Dolby Atmos Enabled (upward firing) speakers with our already existing ceiling speakers. Note that our current ceiling speakers will be our forward or front Atmos speakers.
> 
> We are currently looking at two different A/V Receivers, only one of which will allow us to go to a 7.2.4 system, so that's why I'm asking.
> 
> Thanks for any help you can provide.


I wonder if one of the options is to put two speakers high up on the front wall near the ceiling. Those become your fronts. And the speakers over the seating area become your rears.

I didn't see anything explicitly called out like that in the atmos worksheet... So others will have to chime in if my idea is crazy.

-T


----------



## Quickbeams

Jonas2 said:


> Yes, you can! In fact, Dolby shows hybrid systems like this in their speaker set up guide. HOWEVER - the speakers really need to be in the right place, especially the upfiring ones - you need the right ceiling type/material, and the "bounce" angle needs to be correct. I have never seen commentary on hybrids like this, though surely it is here and we have members doing it. The upfiring (Atmos-enabled) speaker setups get mixed reviews from pretty good to not very good, but perhaps better than zero. Much more consistent positive results with in-ceiling and on-ceiling installs.
> 
> But, yo have what you have - I'm a fan of experimentation.


Thanks Jonas. You know my journey through this better than most and have helped me a lot. And I also have to admit that I told a bit of a fib in my original post as I'm still not sure whether or not we will in fact have a 7.2.2 system. Two of our tower speakers have arrived at the dealers and I am going to pick them up tomorrow. We should know by tomorrow evening whether or not we can place our side surrounds in the location they would need to be for a 7.2.2 system. If not, then we will have a 5.2.2. So tomorrow is kind of decision day. I've got my fingers crossed but to be honest I'm just not sure. 

All that said, if the location does work for our surrounds, then it is really nice to know that we can expand from 7.2.2 (with ceiling speakers) to 7.2.4 (with a hybrid system). This helps me to decide which A/V Receiver to get. I've got two currently on hold, these being the Yamaha RX-A3080 and the Yamaha RX-A2080. The RX-A3080 is a demo, but with a power amp I can expand it to 11 channels. The RX-A2080 is brand new, still in the box, but it is 9 channels and can't be expanded. 

So with this information, if our side surrounds work and we can in fact have a 7.2.2 system, then I think I'll get the demo Yamaha RX-A3080 as I can use it as an 11 channel receiver. 

Thanks again for everything!


----------



## Quickbeams

T-Bone said:


> I wonder if one of the options is to put two speakers high up on the front wall near the ceiling. Those become your fronts. And the speakers over the seating area become your rears.
> 
> I didn't see anything explicitly called out like that in the atmos worksheet... So others will have to chime in if my idea is crazy.
> 
> -T


I'm not sure this would work for us given our room layout, but I'll definitely take a look, if we get there. Thanks for your suggestion.


----------



## niterida

Quickbeams said:


> I'm not sure this would work for us given our room layout, but I'll definitely take a look, if we get there. Thanks for your suggestion.


Create a separate thread with photos and dimensioned drawings of your room and you will likely get some decent ideas thrown at you (in the nicest way of course  )


----------



## Jonas2

Quickbeams said:


> Thanks Jonas. You know my journey through this better than most and have helped me a lot. And I also have to admit that I told a bit of a fib in my original post as I'm still not sure whether or not we will in fact have a 7.2.2 system. Two of our tower speakers have arrived at the dealers and I am going to pick them up tomorrow. We should know by tomorrow evening whether or not we can place our side surrounds in the location they would need to be for a 7.2.2 system. If not, then we will have a 5.2.2. So tomorrow is kind of decision day. I've got my fingers crossed but to be honest I'm just not sure.
> 
> All that said, if the location does work for our surrounds, then it is really nice to know that we can expand from 7.2.2 (with ceiling speakers) to 7.2.4 (with a hybrid system). This helps me to decide which A/V Receiver to get. I've got two currently on hold, these being the Yamaha RX-A3080 and the Yamaha RX-A2080. The RX-A3080 is a demo, but with a power amp I can expand it to 11 channels. The RX-A2080 is brand new, still in the box, but it is 9 channels and can't be expanded.
> 
> So with this information, if our side surrounds work and we can in fact have a 7.2.2 system, then I think I'll get the demo Yamaha RX-A3080 as I can use it as an 11 channel receiver.
> 
> Thanks again for everything!


The one issue you might have is that the upfiring modules tend to sit on the tops of the front or surround speakers. Not an absolute of course, but if that's what you were thinking about doing, you'll need to make sure the tops of the speakers can accommodate the modules, or you'll need some kind of alternative to place them. 

Another thing - I know the Yamahas have virtualization modes for surround/Atmos that trade off with one another depending on the mode and receiver. Not intimately familiar, maybe somebody else can comment on this - but you want (in my opinion) a receiver that can independently process 11 channels - no DSP voodoo - for the best experience. Yamaha is a solid brand, but at least some of the receivers do this and I don't like that. Others may disagree!


----------



## bweissman

Quickbeams said:


> We will have a 7.2.2 system, with our two Atmos speakers in the ceiling.
> 
> Note that our current ceiling speakers will be our forward or front Atmos speakers.


In a 7.x.2 system, Dolby recommends the ceiling speakers should be Top Middle.






7.1.2 Overhead Speaker Setup


Learn how to set up your 7.1.2 overhead speakers to optimize the sound in your home theater.




www.dolby.com


----------



## chi_guy50

bweissman said:


> In a 7.x.2 system, Dolby recommends the ceiling speakers should be Top Middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.1.2 Overhead Speaker Setup
> 
> 
> Learn how to set up your 7.1.2 overhead speakers to optimize the sound in your home theater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dolby.com


The Dolby recommendation is based on elevation angles; Top Middle would equate to a range of ca. 65 to 100 degrees (see illustration below). But it's not clear where OP's current in-ceiling speakers are located in relation to the MLP.










In Yamaha parlance, with only one overhead pair the user must connect them as "Front Presence" speakers. They can then be designated as either "Front Height" (on-wall) or "Overhead" (on ceiling). In OP's case, he would choose the latter; but, again, the critical aspect going to be the resulting elevation angle.


----------



## Quickbeams

Hi Guys. I'm back once again looking for some advice on a particular set of Atmos speakers. It looks like we may be on our way to building a 7.2.4 system with our front height Atmos speakers being in ceiling, and our rear Atmos speakers being the up firing type speakers, which would sit on top of our rear surrounds. So we would in effect be building a hybrid Atmos system.

I'd appreciate it if anyone had any opinions on these (https://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-R-41SA-Powerful-Detailed-Speaker/dp/B07FKCP7PY) speakers. 

My rear surrounds are Totem Skylight bookshelf speakers which are 9" long x 6 3/8" wide. 

It's hard to find the dimensions of the Kilpsch. I saw one listing saying they were 5.7" wide by 13" long and another said they were 5 3/4" wide by 11 3/4" long. But in either case, given the width seems consistent, I think they would fit on top of my Totem rear surrounds. The Kilpsch would be a little bit longer, but I think it should still work.

I suppose another question I have is how important is it to have the Atmos speakers match up with all the rest of the speakers. All the speakers in my system will be Totems, but Totem doesn't make an up firing Atmos speaker. So how choosy do I need to be in terms of the rear Atmos speakers meshing with the rest of my system?

And finally, any thoughts at all on the Klipsch-R-41SA's as Atmos add ons? Would this be a good speaker to use?

Thanks for any help you can provide.


----------



## niterida

Quickbeams said:


> Hi Guys. I'm back once again looking for some advice on a particular set of Atmos speakers. It looks like we may be on our way to building a 7.2.4 system with our front height Atmos speakers being in ceiling, and our rear Atmos speakers being the up firing type speakers, which would sit on top of our rear surrounds. So we would in effect be building a hybrid Atmos system.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if anyone had any opinions on these (Amazon.com: Klipsch R-41SA Powerful Detailed Home Speaker Set of 2 Black: Home Audio & Theater) speakers.
> 
> My rear surrounds are Totem Skylight bookshelf speakers which are 9" long x 6 3/8" wide.
> 
> It's hard to find the dimensions of the Kilpsch. I saw one listing saying they were 5.7" wide by 13" long and another said they were 5 3/4" wide by 11 3/4" long. But in either case, given the width seems consistent, I think they would fit on top of my Totem rear surrounds. The Kilpsch would be a little bit longer, but I think it should still work.
> 
> I suppose another question I have is how important is it to have the Atmos speakers match up with all the rest of the speakers. All the speakers in my system will be Totems, but Totem doesn't make an up firing Atmos speaker. So how choosy do I need to be in terms of the rear Atmos speakers meshing with the rest of my system?
> 
> And finally, any thoughts at all on the Klipsch-R-41SA's as Atmos add ons? Would this be a good speaker to use?
> 
> Thanks for any help you can provide.


Dolby recommend that all of your speakers are identical. The closer you can get to this ideal, the better it should sound. That doesn't mean mismatched speakers won't work, they just won't sound as good as it could. So just get the closest you can.

You still haven't given us drawings or dimensions of your room - we will be able to help a lot better if we had those. 
Also what are the constraints stoppping you putting in all height speakers ?


----------



## Quickbeams

I'm sorry as I wasn't trying to ignore your suggestion of a drawing. But to be completely honest I'm reluctant to attach one because I really don't think it will help. For a number of different reasons, including furniture placement, picture windows, stairs, etc., etc., where we currently have our speakers placed is where they need to stay. So I'm really not looking for advice on speaker placement or room layout, but rather on the particular speakers I mentioned. 

I appreciate you letting me know that Dolby recommends all speakers be the same as I didn't know that. Unfortunately however, that will be impossible in our case as all our speakers are already on order, and some have now arrived. And as I mentioned, all our speakers will be Totem and Totem don't make an Atmos speaker.

And I suppose it would probably be helpful if I mentioned what we will have in speakers. Our two main speakers will be Totem Tribe Towers. Our center channel will be a Totem Tribe III. Our surrounds will be a second pair of Totem Tribe Towers. Our rear surrounds will be Totem Skylights (bookshelf speakers) and our two Atmos ceiling speakers are Totem IC62's. Our subs are Totem Kin Sub 10's.

So given what we will have for our speakers, does anyone have any thoughts on whether or not the Klipsch R-41SA's (Amazon.com: Klipsch R-41SA Powerful Detailed Home Speaker Set of 2 Black: Home Audio & Theater) will work as rear Atmos speakers for us given the speakers we already have? Or does anyone have any opinions on these speakers in general?

Once again, thanks for any thoughts you might have.


----------



## niterida

Quickbeams said:


> I'm sorry as I wasn't trying to ignore your suggestion of a drawing. But to be completely honest I'm reluctant to attach one because I really don't think it will help. For a number of different reasons, including furniture placement, picture windows, stairs, etc., etc., where we currently have our speakers placed is where they need to stay. So I'm really not looking for advice on speaker placement or room layout, but rather on the particular speakers I mentioned.
> 
> I appreciate you letting me know that Dolby recommends all speakers be the same as I didn't know that. Unfortunately however, that will be impossible in our case as all our speakers are already on order, and some have now arrived. And as I mentioned, all our speakers will be Totem and Totem don't make an Atmos speaker.
> 
> And I suppose it would probably be helpful if I mentioned what we will have in speakers. Our two main speakers will be Totem Tribe Towers. Our center channel will be a Totem Tribe III. Our surrounds will be a second pair of Totem Tribe Towers. Our rear surrounds will be Totem Skylights (bookshelf speakers) and our two Atmos ceiling speakers are Totem IC62's. Our subs are Totem Kin Sub 10's.
> 
> So given what we will have for our speakers, does anyone have any thoughts on whether or not the Klipsch R-41SA's (Amazon.com: Klipsch R-41SA Powerful Detailed Home Speaker Set of 2 Black: Home Audio & Theater) will work as rear Atmos speakers for us given the speakers we already have? Or does anyone have any opinions on these speakers in general?
> 
> Once again, thanks for any thoughts you might have.


Up-firing Atmos speakers are not recommended - but if we could see the layout of the room we could tell you where they need to go and if they will work. 
We also needed to see if x.x.2 or x.x.4 was going to be best for your layout as well. How far off the back wall are your seats, how high are your ceilings etc etc.

I have absolutely no experience with Totems or Klipsch but I will go out on a limb and say it won't sound anywhere near as good as it could. 
Stick with .2 would be my new suggestion.


----------



## Jonas2

Quickbeams said:


> I appreciate you letting me know that Dolby recommends all speakers be the same as I didn't know that. Unfortunately however, that will be impossible in our case as all our speakers are already on order, and some have now arrived. And as I mentioned, all our speakers will be Totem and Totem don't make an Atmos speaker.
> 
> So given what we will have for our speakers, does anyone have any thoughts on whether or not the Klipsch R-41SA's (Amazon.com: Klipsch R-41SA Powerful Detailed Home Speaker Set of 2 Black: Home Audio & Theater) will work as rear Atmos speakers for us given the speakers we already have? Or does anyone have any opinions on these speakers in general?


It is often impractical or impossible to have a completely matched system, but you are very close. I'm not that familair with the various upfiring modules that are out there, but look for something with similar performance characteristics and tweeter design to the KIN IC62s. You might not find a perfect match. 

I would not sweat it too much. Sure, it might not be perfect, but I've got a mixed system of my own, with Totem softdomed surrounds and mains and Atmos with metal domes - and while you can hear the differences, it's not at all bad. Still sounds great, but of course I know it could sound better - but to achieve that - is impossible in my particular set of circumstances as it will be in yours (for now). 

Of course there is still the matter of hybrid system - which I'd imagine most here have not tried (??) - will it be better than just sticking with the x.x.2? It's hard to say. You do need to get that positioning right, and even then, it probably won't be a good as a x.x.4 in or on-ceiling. But it is what it is! It's a bit of an experiment. Me? I'd do it, but that's just me. YMMV!


----------



## dschulz

niterida said:


> Up-firing Atmos speakers are not recommended


I think saying Atmos-enabled speakers are not recommended is too strong. Ideally you'd use in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers, but not everyone can, and far from being not recommended the up-firing speakers were designed and engineered specifically to bring Atmos to people who can't install physical speakers at the ceiling. I've heard very good systems that used up-firing speakers!


----------



## Quickbeams

dschulz said:


> I think saying Atmos-enabled speakers are not recommended is too strong. Ideally you'd use in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers, but not everyone can, and far from being not recommended the up-firing speakers were designed and engineered specifically to bring Atmos to people who can't install physical speakers at the ceiling. I've heard very good systems that used up-firing speakers!


Thank you dshulz. Your comments make sense and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thanks again.


----------



## Quickbeams

Jonas2 said:


> It is often impractical or impossible to have a completely matched system, but you are very close. I'm not that familair with the various upfiring modules that are out there, but look for something with similar performance characteristics and tweeter design to the KIN IC62s. You might not find a perfect match.
> 
> I would not sweat it too much. Sure, it might not be perfect, but I've got a mixed system of my own, with Totem softdomed surrounds and mains and Atmos with metal domes - and while you can hear the differences, it's not at all bad. Still sounds great, but of course I know it could sound better - but to achieve that - is impossible in my particular set of circumstances as it will be in yours (for now).
> 
> Of course there is still the matter of hybrid system - which I'd imagine most here have not tried (??) - will it be better than just sticking with the x.x.2? It's hard to say. You do need to get that positioning right, and even then, it probably won't be a good as a x.x.4 in or on-ceiling. But it is what it is! It's a bit of an experiment. Me? I'd do it, but that's just me. YMMV!


Thanks Jonas. As always your comments are very much appreciated. And I am going to give this a shot. For what we have invested already, a pair of Atmos speakers is not a lot more. The way I look at it, there is more to gain than lose. 

From the little bit of research I've done, I'm probably looking at two different Atmos speakers. I think I'll take this over to the Totem forum where people there are more knowledgeable on the Totem speakers and maybe yourself and others can give me an idea of which ones would be better for my system. Thanks again Jonas.


----------



## niterida

dschulz said:


> I think saying Atmos-enabled speakers are not recommended is too strong. Ideally you'd use in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers, but not everyone can, and far from being not recommended the up-firing speakers were designed and engineered specifically to bring Atmos to people who can't install physical speakers at the ceiling. I've heard very good systems that used up-firing speakers!


You mis-quoted me since I said "Up-firing Atmos speakers are not recommended - but if we could see the layout of the room we could tell you where they need to go and if they will work"
Which is pretty much what you said, just in a different way.

And @Quickbeams still hasn't given us any indication of his room layout for us to really make any educated suggestions on his best options. If he is close to the back will up-firing just won't work, especially if they are as mismatched to his Totems as I suspect those Klipsch will be. 

This is an enthusiasts forum and he is obviously looking to get the best possible outcome - I stand by my previous statements that what he is proposing is not the best.


----------



## MCF34

Added my 4 in-ceiling speakers today and hooked them up to my X3700H. Avr is connected to Samsung q80r via hdmi arc. I Have read and tried and on the Samsung I can pick PCM or Dolby Digital. There is an option for Dolby Digital Plus that allows Dolby atmos but it is grayed put snd I can’t pick it . Even when playing a movie that has Dolby atmos on HBOMax (Samsung app) or Apple TV (Samsung App). How do I get atmos to work? Do I need to physically connect a 4K Apple TV to avr via hdmi and bypass sound from Samsung to avr? Thanks.


----------



## Technology3456

For the 4 atmos speakers, what is the exact upward-diagonal angle each speaker is supposed to be? I think someone mentioned 45 degrees as far as forward and backward, but what about diagonal? The complete angle so to speak.

And if you are mounting bookshelf speakers, do you calculate that to the center of the bookshelf, or to the top tweeter, or how exactly?


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> For the 4 atmos speakers, what is the exact upward-diagonal angle each speaker is supposed to be? I think someone mentioned 45 degrees as far as forward and backward, but what about diagonal? The complete angle so to speak.
> 
> And if you are mounting bookshelf speakers, do you calculate that to the center of the bookshelf, or to the top tweeter, or how exactly?


Ignore diagonal angles. In other words work out where 45deg from MLP hits the ceiling and then draw a line directly across the ceiling and put Atmos speakers on that line and in line with L & R speakers.
For bookshelf ceiling mounted speakers you should technically calculate 45 deg from acoustic centre (halfway between tweeter and mid) and put that on the 45deg line, 
But we are talking a couple of inches here and there in both of the above, so I don't think it will make much (if any) difference.


----------



## T-Bone

MCF34 said:


> Added my 4 in-ceiling speakers today and hooked them up to my X3700H. Avr is connected to Samsung q80r via hdmi arc. I Have read and tried and on the Samsung I can pick PCM or Dolby Digital. There is an option for Dolby Digital Plus that allows Dolby atmos but it is grayed put snd I can’t pick it . Even when playing a movie that has Dolby atmos on HBOMax (Samsung app) or Apple TV (Samsung App). How do I get atmos to work? Do I need to physically connect a 4K Apple TV to avr via hdmi and bypass sound from Samsung to avr? Thanks.


If you don't mind me saying 

For the Dolby digital plus option, you should ask that in the appropriate thread for either the Samsung TV or denon. You'll get much more help that way.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> Ignore diagonal angles. In other words work out where 45deg from MLP hits the ceiling and then draw a line directly across the ceiling and put Atmos speakers on that line and in line with L & R speakers.
> For bookshelf ceiling mounted speakers you should technically calculate 45 deg from acoustic centre (halfway between tweeter and mid) and put that on the 45deg line,
> But we are talking a couple of inches here and there in both of the above, so I don't think it will make much (if any) difference.


Thanks this is very helpful. Hopefully it wont make a difference a few inches because mine has to be a little off because of my space, but just trying to get it as close to perfect as possible.

The only other info I need to know on placement is, you said to go on that line and in line with the L & R speakers, but how do you determine that line if your fronts and atmos speakers are toed in different amounts? My L and R front speakers will only be toed in a little bit, because of space issues and the fact they are wide dispersion and perform nearly the same without toe in. However I dont know if this is the case with the bookshelves on the celing at all, plus they are at a much harsher angle (both diagonally because they're closer to seating than the front speakers, and vertically because they're on the ceiling), and there is no space issue with them, so I figure why not toe them in all the way towards to the center?

Basically unless Im not supposed to do it, my atmos speakers will be way more toed in than my L & R fronts. So when aligning them on the same line, how do I do that? If I align the back of each speaker on the same line, then the fronts of my bookshelves will be further in than the fronts of my towers. Same if I align by the center. The only way the fronts of the speakers will be on the same line is if I mount the brackets or whatever for the bookshelves slightly wider than the towers, to compensate for the extra toe in.

But I dont even know where the sound actually comes from, the front of the speaker or somewhere in the middle, so doing it that way might also be off. It seems like maybe I should try to determine where the sound comes from in the speaker, how far deep into it, and then have that be the part that is aligned as best I can? What do you think, or how should I try to do it to get it as exact as possible within my space limitations?


----------



## crutzulee

Watched the craptacular movie THUNDER FORCE last night. Although the DD+ soundtrack was noticeably compressed, there were some very interesting uses of the ceiling channels.
I generally prefer ATMOS tracks that create a bubble of sound rather than distinct sounds placed overhead but, if you prefer the latter, then this movie will scratch that itch.


----------



## T-Bone

crutzulee said:


> Watched the craptacular movie THUNDER FORCE last night. Although the DD+ soundtrack was noticeably compressed, there were some very interesting uses of the ceiling channels.
> I generally prefer ATMOS tracks that create a bubble of sound rather than distinct sounds placed overhead but, if you prefer the latter, then this movie will scratch that itch.


Craptacular indeed. The funniest part of the movie? Was the trailer. Had to stop watching about 30 minutes in. Unimpressed with the atmos.

I wish my receiver, Onkyo RZ920, would let me override the atmos and use an up mixer, but it won't. I'm not sure if that's something mandated by Dolby, but I think I read something to that effect. Dolby will not allow it. I think using DTS neural X would have made for a better sound experience.

-T


----------



## crutzulee

I have to say, I find it kind of interesting how many of you seem to be agonizing over what I gather to be a few inches or a few degrees in speaker placement. I'm wondering if you guys all have a singular chair in your setups that does not recline and forces you into one distinct posture and head alignment without impediment to sound.
I'm fortunate to have a dedicated room where, for the most part, I'm able to place my speakers within the dolby diagramed specs from a distinct position aligned dead center 10.5 feet from my center and mains. However, my head is only ever in that precise spot when I'm sitting in my center seat (in a row of 3) and am leaning on my right arm rest. In this instance, my head is usually tilted quite a bit to the right.
When using AUDESSY, I will usually use up 6 of the 8 mic positions around the center chair and then take two measurements dead center of the left and right chairs in my front row. ATMOS tracks sound awesome from all 3 seats even though ear heights will vary in each position from the 11 different tweeters in my room.


----------



## dschulz

crutzulee said:


> Watched the craptacular movie THUNDER FORCE last night. Although the DD+ soundtrack was noticeably compressed, there were some very interesting uses of the ceiling channels.
> I generally prefer ATMOS tracks that create a bubble of sound rather than distinct sounds placed overhead but, if you prefer the latter, then this movie will scratch that itch.


When you say noticeably compressed, do you mean it had limited dynamic range, or that you heard compression artifacts from the DD+ encoding?


----------



## Jonas2

niterida said:


> And @Quickbeams still hasn't given us any indication of his room layout for us to really make any educated suggestions on his best options. If he is close to the back will up-firing just won't work, especially if they are as mismatched to his Totems as I suspect those Klipsch will be.
> 
> This is an enthusiasts forum and he is obviously looking to get the best possible outcome - I stand by my previous statements that what he is proposing is not the best.


It might not be the best, but I do not believe another pair of in/on-ceiling is in the cards for Quickbeams. So, this will be somewhat of an experiment. It's got potential though. I for one am quite interested to see (hear) how this hybrid setup works! Worst case, it simply ends up being a 7.2.2 system, and that's certainly not the end of the world. Better than zero if the placement can be handles within reason, which I think it can be.


----------



## crutzulee

T-Bone said:


> Craptacular indeed. The funniest part of the movie? Was the trailer. Had to stop watching about 30 minutes in. Unimpressed with the atmos.
> 
> I wish my receiver, Onkyo RZ920, would let me override the atmos and use an up mixer, but it won't. I'm not sure if that's something mandated by Dolby, but I think I read something to that effect. Dolby will not allow it. I think using DTS neural X would have made for a better sound experience.
> 
> -T


My previous amp was an ONKYO TX-NR787 (loved that amp, alas no upgrade path to 7.4.4), I'm pretty sure that I was able to apply any up mixer to any signal.


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> I wish my receiver, Onkyo RZ920, would let me override the atmos and use an up mixer, but it won't. I'm not sure if that's something mandated by Dolby, but I think I read something to that effect. Dolby will not allow it. I think using DTS neural X would have made for a better sound experience.


There is no restriction on upmixing the 7.1 core of an Atmos track (Yamaha receivers, for example, have that as a feature). What you might be remembering is the Dolby mandate that didn't allow 3rd party upmixers (Neural:X or Auro-Matic) to be applied to soundtracks encoded with *any* Dolby technology (DD, DD+, TrueHD). Mandated in May of 2018 but rescinded by August of 2019, so it hasn't been a restriction for some time. Unfortunately, some of the receivers released during that time are stuck with that limitation and were never updated to allow cross-codec upmixing again.


----------



## crutzulee

dschulz said:


> When you say noticeably compressed, do you mean it had limited dynamic range, or that you heard compression artifacts from the DD+ encoding?


Definitely, limited dynamic range. Like T-Bone was saying, right off the bat, the sound is very underwhelming. It is immediately noticeable, and if you are the kind of person that gives up on a movie because of technical short comings then you would be out early on this one.
In this case, the movie was my daughter's choice so I was locked in. Luckily, I had been meaning to polish off the back half of a box of wine, thus making the presentation salvageable. Once the whiz bangery started, there was some fun use of the ceiling channels.


----------



## T-Bone

sdurani said:


> There is no restriction on upmixing the 7.1 core of an Atmos track (Yamaha receivers, for example, have that as a feature). What you might be remembering is the Dolby mandate that didn't allow 3rd party upmixers (Neural:X or Auro-Matic) to be applied to soundtracks encoded with *any* Dolby technology (DD, DD+, TrueHD). Mandated in May of 2018 but rescinded by August of 2019, so it hasn't been a restriction for some time. Unfortunately, some of the receivers released during that time are stuck with that limitation and were never updated to allow cross-codec upmixing again.


Yes, I think that's what I was remembering. That mandate that you stated. Thanks for jogging my memory.

Maybe my issue is Onkyo based. Unless I have a false memory, I believe when I get an Atmos track, I can cycle through the sound modes but DTS neural X is never an option for me. I can apply the DTS neural X and the Dolby surround up mixes to any incoming signal. As long as that incoming signal is not a true object based signal.

Anyway, I got a monkey around on my system today 

-T


----------



## MCF34

With 4 in ceiling Klipsch speakers with aimable tweeters and woofers, assume they should be prointed to MLP??


----------



## T-Bone

MCF34 said:


> With 4 in ceiling Klipsch speakers with aimable tweeters and woofers, assume they should be prointed to MLP??


The short answer is yes. The longer answer goes something like this. At least in my case. 

I have four seats in my seating area. Seats numbered 1 2 3 and 4. Seat number one is close to the left surround and seat number four is close to the right surround. The dead center width of my room is between seats two and three.

My front left speaker and left back surround speaker are aimed at the left ear of the person sitting in seat number two.

My front right speaker and right back surround are aimed at the right ear of the person in seat number 3.

I've got a 7.1.4 system. 

So when it came to my Atmos speakers, that only have an amable tweeter, I aimed the two left Atmos speakers at the left ear of the person in seat number two just like I did for the bed layer. And I aimed the right Atmos speakers towards the right ear of the person in seat number 3 just like I did for the bed later.

I guess I'm being long-winded.

-T


----------



## davcole

Curious the best Atmos you've heard via streaming? What streaming service and streaming service?

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


----------



## b0rnarian

davcole said:


> Curious the best Atmos you've heard via streaming? What streaming service and streaming *DEVICE*?
> 
> Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


 Greyhound on Apple TV - one of the best atmos tracks.


----------



## b0rnarian

^^ Which brings me to something really stupid and mind-boggling and hopefully I haven't been doing streaming incorrectly all this time.

I was recently comparing the Wonder Woman UHD for picture quality and found out, the audio track is almost identical (especially bass) played on Vudu via ROKU Premiere+. But same movie played via C9 Oled's stream App Vudu and bass is cut in half... what gives!? I am afraid to do more testing only to find out somehow the TV's apps all have crappy audio for some reason and should've been using my Roku for everything all this time?


----------



## chi_guy50

b0rnarian said:


> ^^ Which brings me to something really stupid and mind-boggling and hopefully I haven't been doing streaming incorrectly all this time.
> 
> I was recently comparing the Wonder Woman UHD for picture quality and found out, the audio track is almost identical (especially bass) played on Vudu via ROKU Premiere+. But same movie played via C9 Oled's stream App Vudu and bass is cut in half... what gives!? I am afraid to do more testing only to find out somehow the TV's apps all have crappy audio for some reason and should've been using my Roku for everything all this time?


I can't shed any light on your particular issue, but why bother with the TV's apps when you have a dedicated media streamer? The only time I would resort to my display for media streaming would be if it had an app that none of my streaming devices had or if the same app on the external devices were degraded in some way (i.e., crippled audio).

According to my consultant in the department of redundancy department, "A video display is for displaying video and a media streaming device is for streaming media." 😁


----------



## b0rnarian

chi_guy50 said:


> I can't shed any light on your particular issue, but why bother with the TV's apps when you have a dedicated media streamer? The only time I would resort to my display for media streaming would be if it had an app that none of my streaming devices had or if the same app on the external devices were degraded in some way (i.e., crippled audio).
> 
> According to my consultant in the department of redundancy department, "A video display is for displaying video and a media streaming device is for streaming media." 😁


 for the simple fact that its a few years old and does not support DV while the tv app does. Guess I should buy a new one... but really I was expecting the audio/video to be identical on all devices.


----------



## MagnumX

chi_guy50 said:


> I can't shed any light on your particular issue, but why bother with the TV's apps when you have a dedicated media streamer?


Why bother with a newfangled electric stove with a convection oven and induction burners when you can use that old wood stove from the 19th Century?



> The only time I would resort to my display for media streaming would be if it had an app that none of my streaming devices had or if the same app on the external devices were degraded in some way (i.e., crippled audio).


It all comes down to which device is more advanced. In his case, the TV app has Dolby Vision support and his "dedicated streamer" does not. But don't let logic get in the way of making a poor decision.



> According to my consultant in the department of redundancy department, "A video display is for displaying video and a media streaming device is for streaming media." 😁


Your consultant is about 20 years out of date and doesn't seem to know that buying two devices is what is _actually_ redundant when you _already_ own one that does _both_ functions. We've now got phones that are web browsers, heart monitors and game players. I'm sure you can _still_ buy a separate flip-phone, Nintendo, tower computer and blood pressure monitor, though if you really want to, though....


----------



## eaayoung

davcole said:


> Curious the best Atmos you've heard via streaming? What streaming service and streaming service?
> 
> Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


I’d add Mandolorian to that list through a Apple TV.


----------



## chi_guy50

MagnumX said:


> Why bother with a newfangled electric stove with a convection oven and induction burners when you can use that old wood stove from the 19th Century?


?



MagnumX said:


> It all comes down to which device is more advanced. In his case, the TV app has Dolby Vision support and his "dedicated streamer" does not. But don't let logic get in the way of making a poor decision.


If the TV is the more advanced streamer, then it would make no sense to purchase a separate device in the first place. But it is always easier and much more economical to replace a Roku or similar device than it would be to update the display. And that display will not remain up to date for many years so that relying on it as your sole streaming source is a short-term proposition.



MagnumX said:


> Your consultant is about 20 years out of date and doesn't seem to know that buying two devices is what is _actually_ redundant when you _already_ own one that does _both_ functions. We've now got phones that are web browsers, heart monitors and game players. I'm sure you can _still_ buy a separate flip-phone, Nintendo, tower computer and blood pressure monitor, though if you really want to, though....


As we all are painfully aware, today's video distribution landscape mandates that selfsame redundancy if the user wants the best A/V for a multitude of apps.


----------



## MagnumX

chi_guy50 said:


> If the TV is the more advanced streamer, then it would make no sense to purchase a separate device in the first place.


Did it _ever_ occur to you they may have purchased the separate device _before_ their current television? Not all streamers are equal in terms of support from every streaming service or their software for said service thereof either. I bought an Nvidia Shield Pro in 2018. It won't do Atmos in Netflix. The newer Shield will. I'm not going to buy the newer Shield when I already have an Apple TV 4K that will do the same thing. Why pay for an update when something you already have does the trick just fine? Your original point seemed to be that separates are always better, but that's not necessarily the case, especially in _time_.



> But it is always easier and much more economical to replace a Roku or similar device than it would be to update the display. And that display will not remain up to date for many years so that relying on it as your sole streaming source is a short-term proposition.


Did they say they updated the display to get better streaming software? Perhaps they simply updated to a 4K OLED because they wanted a better TV and they bought it _after_ they bought the streamer in question and/or it got a better software update. Should they buy a newer separates device when the software in the TV is doing the job just fine? If they wait until they have an actual need for a newer software or hardware device, a newer version may be out by then that is better than what they could buy now. In other words, if their TV came with it anyway and it's better than their old device, why not use it? 

I've been buying stand alone streaming hardware in the form of Apple TV Generation 1 clear back to 2007! I've gone through two projectors and three TVs since then. Sometimes, the hardware becomes out of date in both stand alone streamer and Smart TVs purchases, not to mention there are a LOT of different streaming platforms and not all of them get the best software updates for a particular platform. My point is to use the BETTER of what's available. Your point _seems_ to be to use separate hardware _no matter what_.



> As we all are painfully aware, today's video distribution landscape mandates that selfsame redundancy if the user wants the best A/V for a multitude of apps.


There's always Trinnov, both a separates platform and the best there is for Atmos. They update for "free" for a VERY long time. Of course, you pay for it one way or another with that utterly _massive_ initial cost.


----------



## Goname31

davcole said:


> Curious the best Atmos you've heard via streaming? What streaming service and streaming service?
> 
> Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


It would be Blame! on Nextflix.


----------



## chi_guy50

MagnumX said:


> Your point _seems_ to be to use separate hardware _no matter what_.


No, my general point is that when one wishes to stream media, one is typically better served by a device that is made for that express purpose.


----------



## b0rnarian

chi_guy50 said:


> No, my general point is that when one wishes to stream media, one is typically better served by a device that is made for that express purpose.


 To add, my thinking is when one wishes to stream, the A/V quality should be consistent no matter the device and there really should be *zero excuse* (but ppl always have some) why that wouldn't be the case. But surprisingly, C9 app bass is much dimmer compared to Roku - which I would be using for everything but is outdated for DV - and Im not made of money to keep buying the latest and greatest). Still, just because there are better devices doing something, doesnt mean I can't expect the $9,999 77 inch oled to do the same, right? If it isn't meant to be used, why put it on there?


----------



## Expidia

4 Klipsch RP 500 SA arriving tomorrow. I'm concerned that the 2 pairs of Jumbl speaker mounts with their 8 lb capacity and the RP 500s weighing around 8 lbs are not going to work out for me.

Any other recommendations for a similar mount before I have to change brackets again and put extra holes in the walls? I rent.

From what I read on the negative Amazon reviews is that the ball holding system is not going to hold these speakers secure enough when angled without slipping.

The other negative they touted on the Amazon reviews was there was no hardware included. I mean come on now. Buyers could not come up with two screws or lag bolts on their own for each bracket to screw into a stud.
They do appear to be the exact same mount as the Definitive Tech mounts but those are double the price.

Anyone have a pic of the back of the Klipsch RP 500 SA? I know they are keyhole mount so that was the other complaints was that there was no other hardware for the wall mount and the keyhole. I would think 1/4 20 nut and a small washer fitting into the larger hole in the middle of the keyhole and then sliding the rod up into the key slot is how this works?

Is there a threaded rod hole in the back of these speakers? Why does Klipsh have to be so secretive on what the rear of the speakers look like? I googled around and Klipsch's website does not show the back either.

My plan is to use all 4 500's as Atmos height speakers mounted on these ball clamp brackets up on the walls near the ceiling two in front above the towers and the other two as rear heights around 4 feet back and 8 feet high on the side walls from the MLP.

I do like the "close to the wall look" of these brackets as I plane to angle them down and towards the MLP. The 500's are an odd look in the first place as a speaker . . . as they look to be originally designed as up firing sit on top of your towers design and Klipsch came up with a secondary use for the same speaker IMO.

On the right side, I plan to mount close to those pictured pipes and zip tie the speaker wire down the back of the cold water pipe (do you think the metal pipe will cause issues with interference?)

On the left side, I plan to mount at around 8 feet high, just above where that wooden frame work intersects at the top of the double doorway. I'll move it more towards the front of the room until it aligns with the speaker near the pipes on the right side. This would angle the speakers 7.5 feet from the mid seat MLP. The rears are also 7.5 feet from the MLP.
The fronts are also 7.5 feet. The surrounds are at 6 feet, but for aesthetics for now, I prefer to keep that left side surround mounted on the door frame.

The Sony SSCE Atmos up firing modules in pic on top of the rears will be removed.
The Klipsch R26FA Atmos towers have built in Atmos up firing connections which will be disconnected.


----------



## chi_guy50

b0rnarian said:


> To add, my thinking is when one wishes to stream, the A/V quality should be consistent no matter the device and there really should be *zero excuse* (but ppl always have some) why that wouldn't be the case. But surprisingly, C9 app bass is much dimmer compared to Roku - which I would be using for everything but is outdated for DV - and Im not made of money to keep buying the latest and greatest). Still, just because there are better devices doing something, doesnt mean I can't expect the $9,999 77 inch oled to do the same, right? If it isn't meant to be used, why put it on there?


I agree that it seems reasonable to expect every aspect of such an expensive TV to be top-notch, but that's not the nature of the beast. If it were, you and I (and virtually everyone on this forum) would not be consumed with our AVR/AVPs and speaker arrays since the TV already features built-in speakers, which many manufacturers even highlight in their promotional materials.

My main TV is Sony's model year 2016 LCD flagship XBR-65Z9D (original MSRP $7,000), but I have never wanted or considered using its speakers or streaming apps. I just wanted the best consumer display on the market. But aside from its series of professional monitors, Sony forces us to accept (and pay for) the added features that have no bearing on video reproduction.

And, maddeningly, the media streaming landscape is such that there is no one ideal solution for all apps at present--and maybe for the foreseeable future. This may not be of much concern for the average user for whom high-minded A/V concepts like dynamic HDR or immersive audio are just so much gobbledygook, but for us it creates something of a dilemma that calls for a redundancy of source devices.

Fortunately, there are any number of very reasonably priced media streaming devices that fulfill at least some, if not most, of the functions and which one can expect to be reliably kept up to date by the manufacturers and app providers for years. For my own purposes, the new Chromecast with Google TV (CCGTV) at $50.00 hits almost all the marks; and if you are (or wish to become) a Netflix subscriber, the CCGTV with Netflix bundle will only set you back a mere $6.05 (plus sales tax) after applying the Netflix credits. I still rely on other streamers for some limited purposes, but the CCGTV has swiftly become my go-to device.


----------



## T-Bone

b0rnarian said:


> To add, my thinking is when one wishes to stream, the A/V quality should be consistent no matter the device and there really should be *zero excuse* (but ppl always have some) why that wouldn't be the case. But surprisingly, C9 app bass is much dimmer compared to Roku - which I would be using for everything but is outdated for DV - and Im not made of money to keep buying the latest and greatest). Still, just because there are better devices doing something, doesnt mean I can't expect the $9,999 77 inch oled to do the same, right? If it isn't meant to be used, why put it on there?


This is Atmos related? Nope 

Sounds like you have a bone to pick with group that wrote the Vudu app for your LG. Create a trouble ticket. Would not be the first time an app worked properly on one platform, but had a serious deftect on a different platform. They probably do not know the defect exists. So inform them.

Could it be an LG issue? Dunno. Start with the app since that is the first thing you used when encountering the issue.

-T


----------



## b0rnarian

T-Bone said:


> This is Atmos related? Nope
> Sounds like you have a bone to pick with group that wrote the Vudu app for your LG. Create a trouble ticket. Would not be the first time an app worked properly on one platform, but had a serious deftect on a different platform. They probably do not know the defect exists. So inform them.
> Could it be an LG issue? Dunno. Start with the app since that is the first thing you used when encountering the issue.
> -T


I actually mentioned it on several different threads and didnt want to leave out this one as its an audio thread as well - I was hoping to find out if others have encountered similar things and who knows it may be effecting Atmos in the same fashion as bass so wanted to cover all my bases.
I need to test Prime Video next and see if it has the same behavior to rule out the Apps and move forward accordingly so thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Technology3456

In a 7.x.4 setup, if you have to sit closer to the your front two atmos speakers than your back atmos speakers, should you move your front two atmos speakers in, make them less wide, so that the sound is coming at you from the same angle as your back atmos speakers, even though this would mean losing alignment of the front towers and the front atmos speakers, or, should you keep that alignment intact but sacrifice identical angles for the four atmos speakers? 

Meaning if I sit closer to the front atmos speakers than the back ones, but my front towers and all 4 atmos speakers are all aligned, that would mean the front atmos speakers are coming from a wider angle than the back ones. I could correct that by moving them in a little, but then they wouldn't be the same width as the front towers.


----------



## T-Bone

Deleted. Wrong post quoted.

-T


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> In a 7.x.4 setup, if you have to sit closer to the your front two atmos speakers than your back atmos speakers, should you move your front two atmos speakers in, make them less wide, so that the sound is coming at you from the same angle as your back atmos speakers, even though this would mean losing alignment of the front towers and the front atmos speakers, or, should you keep that alignment intact but sacrifice identical angles for the four atmos speakers?
> 
> Meaning if I sit closer to the front atmos speakers than the back ones, but my front towers and all 4 atmos speakers are all aligned, that would mean the front atmos speakers are coming from a wider angle than the back ones. I could correct that by moving them in a little, but then they wouldn't be the same width as the front towers.


What does the width of your Atmos speakers have to do with anything? The angles talked about for overhead speakers are vertical angles above ear level, not the width between your overhead speakers.

In an ideal world, you'd probably want to sit halfway between the front and rear overhead speakers so panning is perfectly even between them (precedence effect) but a small difference probably won't ruin it, particularly with the distance settings set correctly (so the sounds arrive at the same time at the listening location).

Overhead speakers in Atmos are typically set above Lc/Rc in a theater or large home theater or more typically at home above the left and right mains in the front and rear mains in the back in terms of horizontal alignment. The earth won't end if you need to move them inward or outward a bit. Some people put them on the side walls and still get a good experience. It just widens or shortens left/right travel overhead.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> What does the width of your Atmos speakers have to do with anything?


The complete angle that the sound comes from. Ideally as you said the atmos height speaker rectangle/square would be a perfect one. The easiest way to achieve this is for the seating to be right in the middle, equal distance from all 4 atmos height speakers. But since I cant do that, I am wondering if I should move the front atmos height speakers in a little bit to keep the angle the same as the back atmos height speakers, but now the front atmos height speakers are offline with the front towers, or if I should prioritize keeping the front towers and front atmos height speakers aligned, but sacrifice the angles of a perfect rectangle (or square)?


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> The complete angle that the sound comes from. Ideally as you said the atmos height speaker rectangle/square would be a perfect one. The easiest way to achieve this is for the seating to be right in the middle, equal distance from all 4 atmos height speakers. But since I cant do that, I am wondering if I should move the front atmos height speakers in a little bit to keep the angle the same as the back atmos height speakers, but now the front atmos height speakers are offline with the front towers, or if I should prioritize keeping the front towers and front atmos height speakers aligned, but sacrifice the angles of a perfect rectangle (or square)?


The delay setting should be able to compensate for a small front-to-back difference. I'd keep the mains and heights symmetrically aligned relative to the front and back widths as much as practical. You're not likely going to notice a very small difference, however.


----------



## batpig

davcole said:


> Curious the best Atmos you've heard via streaming? What streaming service and streaming service?
> 
> Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


There is some excellent Atmos content available from streaming; the best stuff specifically seems to be high profile "original content", since the service is invested in its success.

Many years ago someone (FilmMixer?) shared some of the standards that Netflix set for mixing Atmos content for the platform; I seem to remember it required monitoring on at least a 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 speaker setup, so they respect the format as more than just a 7.1.4 upper limit. And, I assume to some degree as a consequence, as a general rule I've observed that original content mixed in Atmos tends to make much better use of all the speakers (especially the wides, which are criminally underutilized in many Blu-ray movies).

A few that come to mind as having great Atmos:

Netflix Marvel shows, especially Punisher and the later seasons of Daredevil. Although it should be noted that while season 1 of Daredevil was too early to get on the Atmos train, it was mixed by our favorite resident FilmMixer and it has excellent audio (and the 360 degree voice pan in S1 E5, about 12-13 minutes in, is one of the best timbre matching torture tests of all time!)
Another Netflix original, Altered Carbon. 
Also mixed by FilmMixer, the Amazon Prime show Carnival Row 
I would bet that any random action blockbuster type Netflix original like "Extraction" or "6 Underground" will have a bombastic Atmos track, if you just want lots of explosions and bullets whizzing by
If you like artsy movies, Alfonso Cuarón's award-winning movie "Roma" has an amazing Atmos track (in the exact opposite way as the above bullet point)
Some recent production nature documentaries like "Our Planet" on Netflix have fantastic immersive Atmos tracks to accompany the eye candy 4K nature cinematography


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> The delay setting should be able to compensate for a small front-to-back difference. I'd keep the mains and heights symmetrically aligned relative to the front and back widths as much as practical. You're not likely going to notice a very small difference, however.


The ideal placement is not possible in my space, so I have to choose between "Option A" or "Option B" shown in diagram. Option A maintains the same angle/axis as the "ideal," as shown by its presence on X-shape dashed lines, but it loses alignment with the front towers. Vice versa for Option B. Neither can achieve both.









Note the difference is more subtle in my space than in the diagram, due to needing space in the diagram for text. It _seems _like Option A to keep the angle correct, plus using a delay to simulate the correct distance and width, would be best, but I know nothing about how it actually works.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> The ideal placement is not possible in my space, so I have to choose between "Option A" or "Option B" shown in diagram. Option A maintains the same angle/axis as the "ideal," as shown by its presence on X-shape dashed lines, but it loses alignment with the front towers. Vice versa for Option B. Neither can achieve both.
> View attachment 3125377
> 
> 
> Note the difference is more subtle in my space than in the diagram, due to needing space in the diagram for text. It _seems _like Option A to keep the angle correct, plus using a delay to simulate the correct distance and width, would be best, but I know nothing about how it actually works.


Option B is what I'd use between the two. You don't want to narrow the overhead sound in the front height compared to the back. The delay settings will take care of the distance apart from the MLP.

However, by the drawing I still fail to see why you think you need to change the horizontal angle of the front heights/tops as the overhead speakers go in a straight line across the entire room if you use all the Atmos overhead locations. (Dolby's guidelines for overhead angles specify vertical alignment, not horizontal). Horizontal alignment is for the bed speaker locations, not the overheads, which as I indicated in my first reply typically align with the front and rear mains in a straight line across the room or alternately Lc/Rc which go between the mains and center speakers when used. 

If your mains are clear to the room boundaries as your drawing suggests, you could consider moving the overheads inward, but you would move both pairs, not just the front heights/tops.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Option B is what I'd use between the two. You don't want to narrow the overhead sound in the front height compared to the back. The delay settings will take care of the distance apart from the MLP.
> 
> However, by the drawing I still fail to see why you think you need to change the horizontal angle of the front heights/tops as the overhead speakers go in a straight line across the entire room if you use all the Atmos overhead locations. (Dolby's guidelines for overhead angles specify vertical alignment, not horizontal). Horizontal alignment is for the bed speaker locations, not the overheads, which as I indicated in my first reply typically align with the front and rear mains in a straight line across the room or alternately Lc/Rc which go between the mains and center speakers when used.
> 
> If your mains are clear to the room boundaries as your drawing suggests, you could consider moving the overheads inward, but you would move both pairs, not just the front heights/tops.


Thanks for explaining. It is very confusing. I thought that a speaker 3 feet away, at a 45 degree angle, was the same as a speaker 9 feet away at a 45 degree angle, so long as a delay is set to make it seem like the sound is taking as long as it would take for it to ravel 9 feet instead of 3 feet. In the past people told me distance didn't matter, just angle.

So I thought by keeping the front atmos speakers at the same angle as the back atmos speakers, even if that meant making them less wide, that the delay would provide both the length and width back that I took away. I thought the length and width could be replaced by the delay, but that nothing could replace the angle. So I thought prioritizing the angle might be the way to go, but I didn't know either way so I was asking.

If I keep the front atmos as wide as the back atmos and front towers, but sit closer to the front atmos, what is going to correct for them being at a different angle than the back atmos? Will that create a problem of, instead of a helicopter sounding like it's flying in an exact square above me (well, circle, but square is easier to ask the question), from 45 degrees in one corner to 45 degrees in the next and the next, is it going to sound like it's flying 45 degrees, 45 degrees, but then 55 degrees, 55 degrees, and sound like it's going around in a _trapezoid _instead of a square? That would be what I was looking to solve.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Option B is what I'd use between the two. You don't want to narrow the overhead sound in the front height compared to the back. The delay settings will take care of the distance apart from the MLP.
> 
> However, by the drawing I still fail to see why you think you need to change the horizontal angle of the front heights/tops as the overhead speakers go in a straight line across the entire room if you use all the Atmos overhead locations. (Dolby's guidelines for overhead angles specify vertical alignment, not horizontal). Horizontal alignment is for the bed speaker locations, not the overheads, which as I indicated in my first reply typically align with the front and rear mains in a straight line across the room or alternately Lc/Rc which go between the mains and center speakers when used.
> 
> If your mains are clear to the room boundaries as your drawing suggests, you could consider moving the overheads inward, but you would move both pairs, not just the front heights/tops.


Sorry if I am missing something basic by the way. Maybe the simplest way to put what I still don't understand is, why do vertical and front/back directions impact where the sound sounds like it is coming from, but not horizontal? If a speaker is 5 feet above and 45 degrees to the right of me, won't it sound like it's coming from 5 feet/45 degrees up/right, whereas if it is 5 feet above and 70 degrees to the right of me, won't it sound like it's coming from 5 feet/70 degrees up/right?

And then if the movie soundtrack is mixed for normal atmos speaker placement and there is an object that's supposed to be 45 degrees, but I have my speakers located at 70 degrees instead of 45, will my atmos effect sound like it's coming from 25 degrees the wrong direction? That was my logic, however incorrect, of why I was trying to correct for the angle with the speaker placement, and simulate the distance with a delay, but this is my first time planning atmos so I'm not claiming to know anything. Just looking for help to help me think through it and do it right for my space.


----------



## Quickbeams

davcole said:


> Curious the best Atmos you've heard via streaming? What streaming service and streaming service?
> 
> Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


I don’t have any answers for you as I am just in the process of setting up an Atmos system. But I am interested in the different suggestions as I suspect most if not all the Atmos material we watch will be streamed through Apple TV.
I do have a related question. I am curious to know if anyone has streamed “Gravity” on Apple TV? I keep reading it is one the best Atmos movies to see on BlueRay (with the correct DVD disc) so am wondering how it holds up when streaming?


----------



## davcole

batpig said:


> There is some excellent Atmos content available from streaming; the best stuff specifically seems to be high profile "original content", since the service is invested in its success.
> 
> Many years ago someone (FilmMixer?) shared some of the standards that Netflix set for mixing Atmos content for the platform; I seem to remember it required monitoring on at least a 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 speaker setup, so they respect the format as more than just a 7.1.4 upper limit. And, I assume to some degree as a consequence, as a general rule I've observed that original content mixed in Atmos tends to make much better use of all the speakers (especially the wides, which are criminally underutilized in many Blu-ray movies).
> 
> A few that come to mind as having great Atmos:
> 
> Netflix Marvel shows, especially Punisher and the later seasons of Daredevil. Although it should be noted that while season 1 of Daredevil was too early to get on the Atmos train, it was mixed by our favorite resident FilmMixer and it has excellent audio (and the 360 degree voice pan in S1 E5, about 12-13 minutes in, is one of the best timbre matching torture tests of all time!)
> Another Netflix original, Altered Carbon.
> Also mixed by FilmMixer, the Amazon Prime show Carnival Row
> I would bet that any random action blockbuster type Netflix original like "Extraction" or "6 Underground" will have a bombastic Atmos track, if you just want lots of explosions and bullets whizzing by
> If you like artsy movies, Alfonso Cuarón's award-winning movie "Roma" has an amazing Atmos track (in the exact opposite way as the above bullet point)
> Some recent production nature documentaries like "Our Planet" on Netflix have fantastic immersive Atmos tracks to accompany the eye candy 4K nature cinematography


Thank you so much!

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


----------



## AYanguas

Technology3456 said:


> ...
> 
> So I thought by keeping the front atmos speakers at the same angle as the back atmos speakers, even if that meant making them less wide, that the delay would provide both the length and width back that I took away. I thought the length and width could be replaced by the delay, but that nothing could replace the angle. So I thought prioritizing the angle might be the way to go, but I didn't know either way so I was asking.
> .......


Sometimes is confusing, and I do not know if you got it already. I will try to explain my best:

The Atmos Tops recommendation at 45º is an _‘Elevation Angle_’. Or ‘Vertical Angle’ as @MagnumX explains.

In your drawing with the dotted-cross lines you are representing ‘Horizontal angles’ as @MagnumX says, which is what is called _‘Azimuth angle’_. This angle *is NOT what Dolby Atmos recommends*. Depending on the distance between your MLP Head to the ceiling, your Top positions may be at 45º or at another different angle.

According to the Atmos recommendation ‘Elevation Angle’, both of your options ‘A’ and ‘B’ are at the same elevation angle. As they are closer to MLP the elevation angle will be higher than the elevation angle of the Top Rears, but the same angle for both options ‘A’ and ‘B’

Then, it is better to look for symmetry, i.e. Option B, as @MagnumX says.

It is Not so important that the Helicopter Demo flies in a perfect circle or ellipse or other irregular form. In real life, i.e., a film/music Dolby Atmos track, you will hear sounds from above that most of the time you cannot say whether they are correctly located or not, because you do not ‘see’ the object producing the sound that is outside the screen.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for explaining. It is very confusing. I thought that a speaker 3 feet away, at a 45 degree angle, was the same as a speaker 9 feet away at a 45 degree angle, so long as a delay is set to make it seem like the sound is taking as long as it would take for it to ravel 9 feet instead of 3 feet. In the past people told me distance didn't matter, just angle.


All the delay does is ensure that the sound from a given speaker arrives at the same time to your ears as another speaker. It cannot distinguish between left/right (-x,x) and front/back (-y,y) axis directions. It's the sum of the two (i.e. a straight line from the combination of speakers with even correlated material). This only affects the stereo image formed, however. If you play a single sound source by itself and delay it, it just plays that much time later. Its point in space isn't changed. Your ears time the difference between the sound arriving from one ear to the other ear from the single point in space. 

But if you add a second source playing a correlated sound, your ears are now timing two sets of sources with two arrivals each and your brain combines them together to form a phantom image. If you're sitting halfway between the speakers, the phantom image is also halfway between the two speakers. Move to the left a bit and the image moves with you...a LOT. That is called the _precedence effect_ (stereo phantom images pull towards the closest speaker). However, you can correct that for a single listening location by changing the delay setting so the sound arrives at the same time from both speakers once again. 

In your OPTION B scenario, the fact you're sitting closer to the front overhead speakers than the rear will not matter in terms of smooth panning with the correct delays input because they will arrive at the same time to your ears as if you were sitting in the center between them. This fixes the problem of you moving forward instead of having to move the speaker itself to compensate. But that does not change the absolute points of the speakers in space such as when a single player plays a sound by itself (i.e. if you put two speakers next to each other in the front overhead and far apart in the back, they will move close to far apart in diagonal lines across the room regardless of the delays presented because the absolute locations do not change. That will always appear to come from the actual speaker location. Phantom "arrays" of information formed by two speakers playing correlated material are what you get when it pans between the various speakers. Your ears hear 4 arrivals of sound from two speakers. Your brain sums them into a single phantom image and places them accordingly.



> So I thought by keeping the front atmos speakers at the same angle as the back atmos speakers, even if that meant making them less wide, that the delay would provide both the length and width back that I took away. I thought the length and width could be replaced by the delay, but that nothing could replace the angle. So I thought prioritizing the angle might be the way to go, but I didn't know either way so I was asking.


Nothing can replace the absolute positions of the speakers because when only one speaker is playing your brain will know where it's at in the room. Delay only affects the phantom images created between the pairs. Your brain hears them as an arrayed phantom image because each ear hears each speaker. So your left ear hears the left speaker and your right ear hears the left speaker also (that's two arrivals from one speaker). Add in the right speaker and you now have 4 arrivals. Make that 4 speakers and you have 8 arrivals. 

Carver's _Sonic Holography_ processing (around since the 1980s) actually attempts to eliminate the extra arrival from a single pair of stereo speakers so your brain only hears left speaker to left ear and right speaker to right ear. In practice, it lowers the "crosstalk" and doesn't fully eliminate it, but this expands the stereo image to much wider than you'd otherwise hear it.



> If I keep the front atmos as wide as the back atmos and front towers, but sit closer to the front atmos, what is going to correct for them being at a different angle than the back atmos?


There's no angle to "correct." I'll say one last time that Dolby does not specify a _horizontal_ (azimuth) angle for overhead speakers, only a vertical (elevation) one. Thus, there is no angle to correct! The "correct" angle is a straight line between the front mains and the rear mains (or Lc/Rc in larger setups). If you use all 10 overhead speakers, you have speakers in the front of the room, 25% into the room, 50% into the room, 75% in to the room and 100% (rear wall/ceiling). You can sit in chairs anywhere in the room under them. This idea that there's only one correct set of angles (50%) defies the idea of having a movie theater with a bunch of seats in it! The reason for adding more speakers is so that people not sitting at the perfect center of the rectangle hear as close to that experience as possible. Home systems tend to align around a single seating location (MLP) and delays and room correction are based around that. But larger home theaters have to account for multiple rows of seats just like a real cinema. I've got three rows of seats in my home theater, for example. While it's optimized for front row center, I still have to account for the other seats and make sure the response isn't terrible in those locations. That leaves room treatments and/or EQ, level or speaker or seat positioning changes as the few options available if there's an issue. I've got three different "smart" settings for audio levels (one for front row optimal, one for 2nd row optimal and one that is halfway between the two for using both rows. Sadly, the 3rd row has to make do. Fortunately, there's only one seat in that row). 

What you seem to be thinking with your 2nd post above is that there's some fixed grid position for surround sounds (like pixels on a TV) that have to be in perfect alignment to place a sound "correctly". But Atmos doesn't even really attempt this as a system (internally it views the layout as a rectangle). It shifts the angles for even bed row speakers as you add more speakers to the 34.1 total it can support (this is covered in their white paper). Furthermore, the overhead and bed layers do NOT align with each other in any precise fashion. Most home systems will use either heights or tops and not both and Dolby has a "range" of acceptable angles as well. Plus Dolby has side surround speakers off to the sides, but overheads are limited between the mains or Left/Right Center (Lc,Rc) locations, which leaves no absolute location for overhead objects to image directly above the side surrounds, for example (they'd have to be out-of-phase to image there). 

Auro-3D, on the other hand, makes overhead and bed alignment priority #1. You are supposed to put the overhead speakers directly above their bed layer counterparts. That means the left front height should be directly above the left main, etc. all the way around. Auro Technologies uses a "dual-quad" microphone to record live musical events. The microphones are aligned in a relative position the same as the playback layout. Thus, with layers aligned, you get an almost holographic (binaural-like) imaging experience in your room. It's like being there (assuming your playback room is relatively dead so it doesn't adds its own qualities). You can try to do that with Atmos, but there's no precise alignment used between overheads and bed layer speakers assumed and the mains in a 34 speaker Atmos system sit where the front wides sit in 9.1.6 home system. The angles aren't even absolute, let alone the layout alignment. Atmos is shooting for an even spread for objects to move, not a precise fixed location in space. Notice that movies don't even bother with dialog panning, let alone precise locations of sound effects relative to screen items, never mind off-screen sounds.



> Will that create a problem of, instead of a helicopter sounding like it's flying in an exact square above me (well, circle, but square is easier to ask the question), from 45 degrees in one corner to 45 degrees in the next and the next, is it going to sound like it's flying 45 degrees, 45 degrees, but then 55 degrees, 55 degrees, and sound like it's going around in a _trapezoid _instead of a square? That would be what I was looking to solve.


It will sound like that if you go with Option A because that is the shape you will have created in the room with the speakers themselves.


----------



## b0rnarian

Technology3456 said:


> In a 7.x.4 setup, if you have to sit closer to the your front two atmos speakers than your back atmos speakers, should you move your front two atmos speakers in, make them less wide, so that the sound is coming at you from the same angle as your back atmos speakers, even though this would mean losing alignment of the front towers and the front atmos speakers, or, should you keep that alignment intact but sacrifice identical angles for the four atmos speakers?
> 
> Meaning if I sit closer to the front atmos speakers than the back ones, but my front towers and all 4 atmos speakers are all aligned, that would mean the front atmos speakers are coming from a wider angle than the back ones. I could correct that by moving them in a little, but then they wouldn't be the same width as the front towers.


 I too wonder about this all the time but most setups ive seen are always towed in a bit for front towers and that's how i use mine. I dont angle them directly to the MLP as that'd be too narrow though. Guess you gotta play with it and maybe try some demos that pan from front to side. I can't think of any that would make good examples.


----------



## T-Bone

Regarding azimuth angles, see this post that has several angles in it. Which was part of dolby's work.









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Just based on looking at everything, and with the measurements that you posted, it seems like everything looks right. I mean you have plenty of separation between the height speakers and the surrounds. You place the overheads at the right location. 12 in in front of the seating position seems...




www.avsforum.com





It shows elevation angles in the top left image. The Right image shows what I think many agreed to be a azimuth angles since it is a top down view for the ceiling.

So the thinking goes the user satisfies all of the angles as laid out in the diagrams, then all will be well. But there's many diagrams to consider.

-T


----------



## niterida

b0rnarian said:


> I too wonder about this all the time but most setups ive seen are always towed in a bit for front towers and that's how i use mine. I dont angle them directly to the MLP as that'd be too narrow though. Guess you gotta play with it and maybe try some demos that pan from front to side. I can't think of any that would make good examples.


See above post :


batpig said:


> Netflix Marvel shows, especially Punisher and the later seasons of Daredevil. Although it should be noted that while season 1 of Daredevil was too early to get on the Atmos train, it was mixed by our favorite resident FilmMixer and it has excellent audio (and the 360 degree voice pan in S1 E5, about 12-13 minutes in, is one of the best timbre matching torture tests of all time!)


----------



## b0rnarian

T-Bone said:


> Regarding azimuth angles, see this post that has several angles in it. Which was part of dolby's work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...
> 
> 
> Just based on looking at everything, and with the measurements that you posted, it seems like everything looks right. I mean you have plenty of separation between the height speakers and the surrounds. You place the overheads at the right location. 12 in in front of the seating position seems...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows elevation angles in the top left image. The Right image shows what I think many agreed to be a azimuth angles since it is a top down view for the ceiling.
> So the thinking goes the user satisfies all of the angles as laid out in the diagrams, then all will be well. But there's many diagrams to consider.
> -T





niterida said:


> See above post :


Thank you - the post above shows the towers are in fact pointing directly at MLP though they are fairly close to each other and not as wide apart so the angle is not all that drastic. I will have to give this a shot!


----------



## niterida

b0rnarian said:


> Thank you - the post above shows the towers are in fact pointing directly at MLP though they are fairly close to each other and not as wide apart so the angle is not all that drastic. I will have to give this a shot!


I was referring to the one I quoted about the 360 deg voice panning to test your surrounds/wides


----------



## T-Bone

b0rnarian said:


> Thank you - the post above shows the towers are in fact pointing directly at MLP though they are fairly close to each other and not as wide apart so the angle is not all that drastic. I will have to give this a shot!


I was actually just talking about the diagrams I mentioned. Top left and right. Related only to the Atmos speakers since it was discussion about elevation versus azimuth.

I should have quoted the original post. I was not actually responding to you directly.

-T


----------



## b0rnarian

niterida said:


> I was referring to the one I quoted about the 360 deg voice panning to test your surrounds/wides


Oh yes, I duly noted and put it on my list to check out for sure. I just didnt mention cuz i dont have netflix atm to check it out. Always trying to find someone to share subscription with lol


----------



## b0rnarian

T-Bone said:


> I was actually just talking about the diagrams I mentioned. Top left and right. Related only to the Atmos speakers since it was discussion about elevation versus athletes.
> 
> I should have quoted the original post. I was not actually responding to you directly.
> -T


Yeah sorry, I misread the OP about atmos" speakers and took it for front towers but still that diagram helped with my question hehe


----------



## sdurani

For those interested in speaker placement by the numbers: 

https://www.proaudio.de/de/document...tainment-studio-certification-guide/file.html


----------



## bases1616

Please delete my post


----------



## Expidia

7.2.4 setup with a 5 channel amp powering the LCR and the side surrounds.
Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong here? Last night I removed my 4 Dolby Atmos up firing speakers in favor of adding the 4 Klipsch 500SA Atmos height speakers front and back 8 inches down on my 9 foot ceilings.
Yet, when I try and run Audyssey now that some of my speaker positions have changed I don't see how to indicate my new set up in my Denon AVR?

I'm still tweaking the angles of the rears before I hide the wires.


----------



## b0rnarian

Expidia said:


> 7.2.4 setup with a 5 channel amp powering the LCR and the side surrounds.
> Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong here? Last night I removed my 4 Dolby Atmos up firing speakers in favor of adding the 4 Klipsch 500SA Atmos height speakers front and back 8 inches down on my 9 foot ceilings.
> Yet, when I try and run Audyssey now that some of my speaker positions have changed I don't see how to indicate my new set up in my Denon AVR?
> 
> I'm still tweaking the angles of the rears before I hide the wires.
> View attachment 3125570
> View attachment 3125571
> View attachment 3125572
> 
> 
> View attachment 3125570
> View attachment 3125571
> View attachment 3125572


I believe since they are not upfiring, you need to set them as Height/Tops and not Dolby Sp.


----------



## Expidia

Ya, thx. I tried that. Program is still very confusing trying to change the choices. I have a call into Denon and they are calling me back. I'll let them sort it out. This is why I'm not a fan and never have been of Audyssey. It's more accurate to just measure the distances and set each speakers volume using the test tone. Audyssey is supposed to set the specs for my particular room acoustics yet it NEVER gets it right.

I'm a sucker for punishment, so I figured I'd give it another shot 🙄


----------



## Technology3456

@Art


AYanguas said:


> Sometimes is confusing, and I do not know if you got it already. I will try to explain my best:
> 
> The Atmos Tops recommendation at 45º is an _‘Elevation Angle_’. Or ‘Vertical Angle’ as @MagnumX explains.
> 
> In your drawing with the dotted-cross lines you are representing ‘Horizontal angles’ as @MagnumX says, which is what is called _‘Azimuth angle’_. This angle *is NOT what Dolby Atmos recommends*. Depending on the distance between your MLP Head to the ceiling, your Top positions may be at 45º or at another different angle.
> 
> According to the Atmos recommendation ‘Elevation Angle’, both of your options ‘A’ and ‘B’ are at the same elevation angle. As they are closer to MLP the elevation angle will be higher than the elevation angle of the Top Rears, but the same angle for both options ‘A’ and ‘B’
> 
> Then, it is better to look for symmetry, i.e. Option B, as @MagnumX says.
> 
> It is Not so important that the Helicopter Demo flies in a perfect circle or ellipse or other irregular form. In real life, i.e., a film/music Dolby Atmos track, you will hear sounds from above that most of the time you cannot say whether they are correctly located or not, because you do not ‘see’ the object producing the sound that is outside the screen.
> 
> View attachment 3125443


Thanks for this. I apologize I did not understand it. I understand the "elevation angle" should be 45 degrees. I will get it as close to 45 degrees front and back no matter what. I am trying to determine in _addition _to the elevation angle, why is it not relevant if the horizontal angle is, let's use a different number, 50 degrees compared to, 80 degrees?

The vertical angle thing, I understand that completely. I am aiming for as close to 45 degrees as I can get with all four speakers. That is what the dashed "X" shape is supposed to represent on my diagram with "option A." By bringing the front atmos height speakers not just "inward" horizontally, but also, equally, "down" and towards the seating, I am maintaining the 45 degree vertical as well as upward-diagonal-horizontal angle, but now I'm also maintaining the same upward-diagonal-horizontal angle as the back atmos heights, just they are a little further away at the same trajectory, but the trajectory is 100% the same.

Option B provides 45 degree vertical angle, but a different horizontal angle than the rear atmos heights.

Option A provides 45 degree vertical angle, but the same horizontal angle as the rear atmos heights. I was trying to keep the same complete upward diagonal trajectory to the fronts and backs. Of course maintain the vertical angle as much as possible, but also maintain the others. Maybe they're not as important, but I still figured they make some sort of difference, otherwise why not put the front height speakers at a 45 vertical angle and 5 feet horizontal, and the back height speakers at a 45 degree vertical angle but 15 feet horizontal?


MagnumX said:


> All the delay does is ensure that the sound from a given speaker arrives at the same time to your ears as another speaker. It cannot distinguish between left/right (-x,x) and front/back (-y,y) axis directions. It's the sum of the two (i.e. a straight line from the combination of speakers with even correlated material). This only affects the stereo image formed, however. If you play a single sound source by itself and delay it, it just plays that much time later. Its point in space isn't changed. Your ears time the difference between the sound arriving from one ear to the other ear from the single point in space.
> 
> But if you add a second source playing a correlated sound, your ears are now timing two sets of sources with two arrivals each and your brain combines them together to form a phantom image. If you're sitting halfway between the speakers, the phantom image is also halfway between the two speakers. Move to the left a bit and the image moves with you...a LOT. That is called the _precedence effect_ (stereo phantom images pull towards the closest speaker). However, you can correct that for a single listening location by changing the delay setting so the sound arrives at the same time from both speakers once again.
> 
> In your OPTION B scenario, the fact you're sitting closer to the front overhead speakers than the rear will not matter in terms of smooth panning with the correct delays input because they will arrive at the same time to your ears as if you were sitting in the center between them. This fixes the problem of you moving forward instead of having to move the speaker itself to compensate. But that does not change the absolute points of the speakers in space such as when a single player plays a sound by itself (i.e. if you put two speakers next to each other in the front overhead and far apart in the back, they will move close to far apart in diagonal lines across the room regardless of the delays presented because the absolute locations do not change. That will always appear to come from the actual speaker location. Phantom "arrays" of information formed by two speakers playing correlated material are what you get when it pans between the various speakers. Your ears hear 4 arrivals of sound from two speakers. Your brain sums them into a single phantom image and places them accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing can replace the absolute positions of the speakers because when only one speaker is playing your brain will know where it's at in the room. Delay only affects the phantom images created between the pairs. Your brain hears them as an arrayed phantom image because each ear hears each speaker. So your left ear hears the left speaker and your right ear hears the left speaker also (that's two arrivals from one speaker). Add in the right speaker and you now have 4 arrivals. Make that 4 speakers and you have 8 arrivals.
> 
> Carver's _Sonic Holography_ processing (around since the 1980s) actually attempts to eliminate the extra arrival from a single pair of stereo speakers so your brain only hears left speaker to left ear and right speaker to right ear. In practice, it lowers the "crosstalk" and doesn't fully eliminate it, but this expands the stereo image to much wider than you'd otherwise hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no angle to "correct." I'll say one last time that Dolby does not specify a _horizontal_ (azimuth) angle for overhead speakers, only a vertical (elevation) one. Thus, there is no angle to correct! The "correct" angle is a straight line between the front mains and the rear mains (or Lc/Rc in larger setups). If you use all 10 overhead speakers, you have speakers in the front of the room, 25% into the room, 50% into the room, 75% in to the room and 100% (rear wall/ceiling). You can sit in chairs anywhere in the room under them. This idea that there's only one correct set of angles (50%) defies the idea of having a movie theater with a bunch of seats in it! The reason for adding more speakers is so that people not sitting at the perfect center of the rectangle hear as close to that experience as possible. Home systems tend to align around a single seating location (MLP) and delays and room correction are based around that. But larger home theaters have to account for multiple rows of seats just like a real cinema. I've got three rows of seats in my home theater, for example. While it's optimized for front row center, I still have to account for the other seats and make sure the response isn't terrible in those locations. That leaves room treatments and/or EQ, level or speaker or seat positioning changes as the few options available if there's an issue. I've got three different "smart" settings for audio levels (one for front row optimal, one for 2nd row optimal and one that is halfway between the two for using both rows. Sadly, the 3rd row has to make do. Fortunately, there's only one seat in that row).
> 
> What you seem to be thinking with your 2nd post above is that there's some fixed grid position for surround sounds (like pixels on a TV) that have to be in perfect alignment to place a sound "correctly". But Atmos doesn't even really attempt this as a system (internally it views the layout as a rectangle). It shifts the angles for even bed row speakers as you add more speakers to the 34.1 total it can support (this is covered in their white paper). Furthermore, the overhead and bed layers do NOT align with each other in any precise fashion. Most home systems will use either heights or tops and not both and Dolby has a "range" of acceptable angles as well. Plus Dolby has side surround speakers off to the sides, but overheads are limited between the mains or Left/Right Center (Lc,Rc) locations, which leaves no absolute location for overhead objects to image directly above the side surrounds, for example (they'd have to be out-of-phase to image there).
> 
> Auro-3D, on the other hand, makes overhead and bed alignment priority #1. You are supposed to put the overhead speakers directly above their bed layer counterparts. That means the left front height should be directly above the left main, etc. all the way around. Auro Technologies uses a "dual-quad" microphone to record live musical events. The microphones are aligned in a relative position the same as the playback layout. Thus, with layers aligned, you get an almost holographic (binaural-like) imaging experience in your room. It's like being there (assuming your playback room is relatively dead so it doesn't adds its own qualities). You can try to do that with Atmos, but there's no precise alignment used between overheads and bed layer speakers assumed and the mains in a 34 speaker Atmos system sit where the front wides sit in 9.1.6 home system. The angles aren't even absolute, let alone the layout alignment. Atmos is shooting for an even spread for objects to move, not a precise fixed location in space. Notice that movies don't even bother with dialog panning, let alone precise locations of sound effects relative to screen items, never mind off-screen sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> It will sound like that if you go with Option A because that is the shape you will have created in the room with the speakers themselves.


Thanks so much. The cinema example confuses me because that has a bunch of seats without the ideal listening position. So they are getting a worse audio experience. And for multiple seats in a HT, that is true also, but you still want to set it up best you can for the ideal listening position. In other words if you take just the center seat in a movie theater, wouldn't the front and back height speakers all be at the same angles to the center listener? There would be a lot more of them, but same concept applies or no? Front height speaker #8 will be at the one point in the front, and rear height speaker #8 will be at the exact opposite point in the back, or no? Even pro movie theaters have spacial limitations but in an ideal setup, wouldn't every angle be perfect, not just the vertical angle?

You even mentioned in the post, there is no way to correct for incorrect speaker placement because when only one speaker is firing, your ears can hear where it's coming from. So whenever a movie is outputting sound from just that one speaker, I will hear it coming from the wrong horizontal angle with Option B? I heard loud and clear that atmos doesn't specify horizontal angles, but just because they don't specify it, that means you can't hear the difference between a 45 degree vertical angle speaker 50 degrees to your right, and a 45 degree vertical angle 75 degrees to your right?

If the horizontal angle doesn't matter, just the 45 degree vertical angle, then do I need to put the front and back atmos speakers in the upper right, left, and back-right and back-left, corners, in the first place, or can I just offset them by 1 foot directly in front and back of me at a 45 degree vertical angle? The 45 degree vertical angle would be maintained, and each speaker would be 5 degrees or 10 degrees horizontally offset, instead of also 45 degree horizontally offset. Where you put the speakers horizontally doesn't matter, only vertically, so either this would work just as well, or I am still missing the boat. If I'm still missing it I apologize, but it doesn't make sense to me that those horizontal changes wouldn't be noticeable.


----------



## sdurani

https://www.proaudio.de/de/documents/3d-audio-forum-2019/9-dolby-atmos-home-entertainment-studio-certification-guide/file.html


----------



## Technology3456

sdurani said:


> https://www.proaudio.de/de/documents/3d-audio-forum-2019/9-dolby-atmos-home-entertainment-studio-certification-guide/file.html
> 
> 
> View attachment 3125642


Those are horizontal angles which the responses said do no matter, thus the confusion. Thanks for the diagram, now we have two posts that didn't fully make sense to me, and a third post contradicting them, so it's going to be hard for me to know the correct answer.

But the right front atmos speaker in your diagram being on an exact 45 diagonal-horizontal angle (in addition to, I assume, a 45 degree elevation angle) is exactly what my "option A" idea was trying to achieve. To have the fronts be at 45 diagonal, and the backs at 135 diagonal (aka, 45 degrees backwards-diagonal), instead of the fronts be at 55, and the backs at 135.

That was the thinking behind Option A. To maintain as close to the ideal numbers in that diagram as possible, but at the tradeoff of moving the front atmos speakers inward. I was trying to understand which tradeoff is better or worse. But the responses before your diagram said there is no tradeoff because those horizontal/diagonal numbers don't matter. So the answer is still not clear. If I am reading the tea leaves though, maybe the answer is that horizontal angles don't make much difference within a certain range, because speakers don't have perfectly straight/narrow dispersion anyway, and my speakers are within that range either way, so prioritize alignment even though, yes, horizontal angle does matter, just as long as I stay within the "allowed range," it will be pretty subtle?

Is that the correct interpretation?


----------



## T-Bone

sdurani said:


> https://www.proaudio.de/de/documents/3d-audio-forum-2019/9-dolby-atmos-home-entertainment-studio-certification-guide/file.html
> 
> 
> View attachment 3125642


Excellent diagram. I used a slightly different version when I did my install (I linked to it a few posts up).

Just a few notes since there seemed to some differing opinions on azimuth angle. Some ignore horizontal (aka azimuth) angle. We need to follow elevation AND azimuth as best we can.

Example: on the diagram linked by @sdurani, that could be a high ceiling, and meet the 45 degree for both elevation and azimuth. So lining up atmos with mains would blow the one of the angles.

-T

Edit:. I realize the diagram was notional to convey angle information. My example was to reinforce a scanario where those atmos locations were actual based on high ceiling.


----------



## MagnumX

The problem with all the Dolby guideline drawings is they are essentially based around one seat. The drawings always show front speakers right under the TV/screen, but overheads are shown in a square or rectangle centered on the couch instead of aligned with the screen like the front mains are.

Whether the front heights are mounted above the screen or halfway out into the room depends on where your MLP is located in order to get the desired elevation angle. 30 degrees relative to sitting 20 feet away will not put the speakers in the same place as sitting 10 feet away. Heaven forbid you move the seats at some point for some reason with a room that has in-ceiling speakers! 

By aligning the overheads with one seat instead of the room itself, there's no fixed spatial relationship between the base layer and the height layer. Some of those diagrams show massive distances between the front mains and side surrounds while having rear surrounds right behind the couch where you'd have a hard time telling them from the side surrounds. In reality, the speakers can be placed anywhere along the angle line from the listener and maintain the suggested angles. But how well will the sounds align with what's happening on the screen if the front mains are 12 feet out into the room? 

Yet if they're next to the screen, but front heights are 12 feet into the room, what will happen to an object moving left to right, but increasing in height as it blends with the front mains? Will it not be moving out into the room as it moves to just the height layer even though internally it's not?

What Dolby uses in actual cinemas is a room based alignment. There are too many rows of seats to base a single speaker location on one seat. You can also do this at home, especially if you have multiple rows of seats as no single seat will align to the rear heights at 250 degrees elevation in a long enough room. It won't need to as other overheads will fill in the information along the way. The elevation angles to each overhead pair change as you move row to row.

Room based alignments are as simple as the the way the renderer itself sees the objects moving in a rectangle. Front heights go above the screen (0% into the room). Front tops go 25% into the room. Top middle is at 50%. Rear tops is at 75% and rear heights go at 100% (rear back ceiling pointed towards the listeners). Now it doesn't matter where you sit in the room. You'll get full overhead panning and it will align as close as it can to the actual renderer grid which sees pairs at fixed relationships to each other, not changing angles. The ranges are for your convenience. Only one is accurate. 

But that still doesn't account for aligning speakers for panned dialog, etc. You have to consider things like that yourself for your particular room and whether you even care about panned dialog ir screen aligned sound effects considering how little they are used.

This is also why the Dolby guidelines change the minimum angle for front heights to 20 if you use Top Middle overheads. The angle isn't as critical to achieve full overhead pans if there's fill in the middle. 

Notice also how they have no guideline diagrams for greater than 9.1.6. You have to read the overall guidelines and they expect people doing 34 speaker layouts to understand what they're doing better than an average household (i.e. Professional installation). How many Trinnov owners do their own installs, for example?


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for the diagram, now we have two posts that didn't fully make sense to me, and a third post contradicting them, so it's going to be hard for me to know the correct answer.


There is no correct answer. If you want to follow studio guidelines, use the Dolby doc linked above. If you want to follow consumer installation guidelines, Dolby has a separate doc for that. The home Atmos decoder has its own rendering assumptions (speaker locations) that don't involve any angles (elevation or azimuth). All three of those are different, even though they all come from Dolby. Alternatively, you could find the ceiling placement that gives you best results: high enough up to give a sense of sound overhead but wide enough apart to hear clear front/back & left/right separation. The last one ends up working for all 3 immersive audio formats.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> The problem with all the Dolby guideline drawings is they are essentially based around one seat. The drawings always show front speakers right under the TV/screen, but overheads are shown in a square or rectangle centered on the couch instead of aligned with the screen like the front mains are.
> 
> Whether the front heights are mounted above the screen or halfway out into the room depends on where your MLP is located in order to get the desired elevation angle. 30 degrees relative to sitting 20 feet away will not put the speakers in the same place as sitting 10 feet away. Heaven forbid you move the seats at some point for some reason with a room that has in-ceiling speakers!
> 
> By aligning the overheads with one seat instead of the room itself, there's no fixed spatial relationship between the base layer and the height layer. Some of those diagrams show massive distances between the front mains and side surrounds while having rear surrounds right behind the couch where you'd have a hard time telling them from the side surrounds. In reality, the speakers can be placed anywhere along the angle line from the listener and maintain the suggested angles. But how well will the sounds align with what's happening on the screen if the front mains are 12 feet out into the room?
> 
> Yet if they're next to the screen, but front heights are 12 feet into the room, what will happen to an object moving left to right, but increasing in height as it blends with the front mains? Will it not be moving out into the room as it moves to just the height layer even though internally it's not?
> 
> What Dolby uses in actual cinemas is a room based alignment. There are too many rows of seats to base a single speaker location on one seat. You can also do this at home, especially if you have multiple rows of seats as no single seat will align to the rear heights at 250 degrees elevation in a long enough room. It won't need to as other overheads will fill in the information along the way. The elevation angles to each overhead pair change as you move row to row.
> 
> Room based alignments are as simple as the the way the renderer itself sees the objects moving in a rectangle. Front heights go above the screen (0% into the room). Front tops go 25% into the room. Top middle is at 50%. Rear tops is at 75% and rear heights go at 100% (rear back ceiling pointed towards the listeners). Now it doesn't matter where you sit in the room. You'll get full overhead panning and it will align as close as it can to the actual renderer grid which sees pairs at fixed relationships to each other, not changing angles. The ranges are for your convenience. Only one is accurate.
> 
> But that still doesn't account for aligning speakers for panned dialog, etc. You have to consider things like that yourself for your particular room and whether you even care about panned dialog ir screen aligned sound effects considering how little they are used.
> 
> This is also why the Dolby guidelines change the minimum angle for front heights to 20 if you use Top Middle overheads. The angle isn't as critical to achieve full overhead pans if there's fill in the middle.
> 
> Notice also how they have no guideline diagrams for greater than 9.1.6. You have to read the overall guidelines and they expect people doing 34 speaker layouts to understand what they're doing better than an average household (i.e. Professional installation). How many Trinnov owners do their own installs, for example?


That's a great point. Barely any I'm sure. And I hope I didn't mislabel something or confuse things. I think I said dolby height speakers, maybe those are different than dolby ceiling? Basically I will only have 4 dolby height/ceiling speakers, 7.x.4 setup, but even the "fronts" won't start until halfway through the room. If you did this picture as 7.x.4 instead of 5.x.4, it would be a good representation of my room, except move the couch closer to the front atmos than the backs.


__ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/782430135248576965/
. 

Or, my room is just like the actual 7.x.4 diagram, https://westcoastavgallery.ca/img/uploads/7.1.4-overhead.png, except in that diagram, the front Dolby Atmos heights are like 33% away from the screen. Move them to 50% away, 1/2 into the room instead of 1/3, and you have my room, except my rears are also closer in compared to the back of the room (and the rear surrounds, although I can move them forward to keep them right under the rear atmos if necessary). My whole atmos rectangle is more compressed towards the middle-back of my room than ideal.

The front atmos speakers not starting until 50% into my room, instead of 30%, is another reason I wondered if moving them inward a little would maybe simulate that the sound is coming from further forward in the room (in terms of angle) where they are supposed to be, instead of my "fronts" not starting until the border between the front and _back _of my space.


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> I realize the diagram was notional to convey angle information.


It came from a document with instructions on how to set up an Atmos mixing studio to get Dolby certification, but I don't know how strict Dolby is about placement in mix rooms. There is a similar diagram (below) in the Atmos home install guide, even though Dolby says to line up the overhead speaker pairs with the Front L/R pair. 








You already know from past discussions that the Atmos decoder doesn't use any angles, but instead Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates that are NOT keyed off any listener location. I mention all this inconsistency because us hobbyists could end up on a fool's errand trying to do what's "right" by Dolby instead of doing what works in our particular situation.


----------



## T-Bone

sdurani said:


> It came from a document with instructions on how to set up an Atmos mixing studio to get Dolby certification, but I don't know how strict Dolby is about placement in mix rooms. There is a similar diagram (below) in the Atmos home install guide, even though Dolby says to line up the overhead speaker pairs with the Front L/R pair.
> View attachment 3125662
> 
> You already know from past discussions that the Atmos decoder doesn't use any angles, but instead Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates that are NOT keyed off any listener location. I mention all this inconsistency because us hobbyists could end up on a fool's errand trying to do what's "right" by Dolby instead of doing what works in our particular situation.


But I also can be anal retentive. And followed the azimuth angles anyway . 

It turns out by placing my Atmos speakers in line with my mains, actually 6 in inward on each side, and at the 45° elevation angle, it worked out that I had 45 degree as azimuth angle anyway. Even if it wasn't needed.

So there was a subtlety that actually went by me. I truly was thinking we needed to follow the azimuth angle too. Apparently I'm not as smart about this as some of the folks in this thread 

-T


----------



## Expidia

Expidia said:


> 7.2.4 setup with a 5 channel amp powering the LCR and the side surrounds.
> Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong here? Last night I removed my 4 Dolby Atmos up firing speakers in favor of adding the 4 Klipsch 500SA Atmos height speakers front and back 8 inches down on my 9 foot ceilings.
> Yet, when I try and run Audyssey now that some of my speaker positions have changed I don't see how to indicate my new set up in my Denon AVR?
> 
> I'm still tweaking the angles of the rears before I hide the wires.
> View attachment 3125570
> View attachment 3125571
> View attachment 3125572
> 
> 
> View attachment 3125570
> View attachment 3125571
> View attachment 3125572


Update: Denon c/s called back and were very helpful. She had me change top to 9.1 (I was on 11.2 from a suggestion from a poster here last month) channels and change the Dolby SP setting to none. The the greyed out height chanel choice lit up and I was able to change it to: 4 ch

Ran the Audyssey and the onyly setting that was way off and had to be changed was the Sub #2 which was reading 35.5 feet when it is actually only 5,5 feet. Before and after pics:


----------



## MagnumX

5.1 and 7.1 had left and right surround seem to be left and right if wherever you sit. It is listener orientated. The arrays used with the precedence effect pulling the image to the nearest speaker ensured that's how it works. 

Atmos is supposed to get rid of that limitation and objects are supposed to appear to come from the same place in the room for all listeners. The problem with many of Dolby's simplified home diagrams is they actually defeat that room based layout and make it listener based (e.g. Centering the overheads above the listener rather than the room and screen based action). If course, you don't have to align your room that way, but the way many people hold the guidelines and simplified diagrams sacred, I feel they missed the point of Atmos being a room based system and Dolby is to blame for this misconception.

What happens if you sit somewhere else in the room? Instead of top middle being the center if the room relative to the screen, it's now a tiny area above the MLP, which more often than not is the front row.

Honestly, the "perfect" angle line of reasoning doesn't make sense in an absolute sense because Dolby's own recommendations change with larger speaker layouts and that's because more coverage means you can shorten the angles between pairs to give even more solid panning for more seating locations.

Front mains are at the same angle front wides are at with a 34 speaker layout! That is not a small difference and is completely overlooked when people imply the angles are sacred. Physics haven't changed just because Dolby made an adaptable surround system.

The diagrams are simply basic guidelines. They aren't the last word for screen aligned or room aligned setups nor should they be mistaken as such. Why would overhead sounds be centered around the listener, for example rather than the movie on the screen? Yet that's exactly what Dolby shows in diagrams centering overhead speakers above the MLP that are far from the screen. They've made one listener the center of the universe rather than the film itself. That is not what you get at the theater and in some respects it defeats the entire point of object based audio.

But what Dolby wants at home is the "wow" factor and by placing your speakers around your primary seat instead of considering the screen and the rest of the room, they ensure even panning and sounds high above your head. The don't ensure it matches up with your screen, but then the lack if panned dialog in movies makes it clear Hollywood doesn't actually care about accuracy, only shock and awe.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> The problem with all the Dolby guideline drawings is they are essentially based around one seat. The drawings always show front speakers right under the TV/screen, but overheads are shown in a square or rectangle centered on the couch instead of aligned with the screen like the front mains are.
> 
> Whether the front heights are mounted above the screen or halfway out into the room depends on where your MLP is located in order to get the desired elevation angle. 30 degrees relative to sitting 20 feet away will not put the speakers in the same place as sitting 10 feet away. Heaven forbid you move the seats at some point for some reason with a room that has in-ceiling speakers!
> 
> By aligning the overheads with one seat instead of the room itself, there's no fixed spatial relationship between the base layer and the height layer. Some of those diagrams show massive distances between the front mains and side surrounds while having rear surrounds right behind the couch where you'd have a hard time telling them from the side surrounds. In reality, the speakers can be placed anywhere along the angle line from the listener and maintain the suggested angles. But how well will the sounds align with what's happening on the screen if the front mains are 12 feet out into the room?
> 
> Yet if they're next to the screen, but front heights are 12 feet into the room, what will happen to an object moving left to right, but increasing in height as it blends with the front mains? Will it not be moving out into the room as it moves to just the height layer even though internally it's not?
> 
> What Dolby uses in actual cinemas is a room based alignment. There are too many rows of seats to base a single speaker location on one seat. You can also do this at home, especially if you have multiple rows of seats as no single seat will align to the rear heights at 250 degrees elevation in a long enough room. It won't need to as other overheads will fill in the information along the way. The elevation angles to each overhead pair change as you move row to row.
> 
> Room based alignments are as simple as the the way the renderer itself sees the objects moving in a rectangle. Front heights go above the screen (0% into the room). Front tops go 25% into the room. Top middle is at 50%. Rear tops is at 75% and rear heights go at 100% (rear back ceiling pointed towards the listeners). Now it doesn't matter where you sit in the room. You'll get full overhead panning and it will align as close as it can to the actual renderer grid which sees pairs at fixed relationships to each other, not changing angles. The ranges are for your convenience. Only one is accurate.
> 
> But that still doesn't account for aligning speakers for panned dialog, etc. You have to consider things like that yourself for your particular room and whether you even care about panned dialog ir screen aligned sound effects considering how little they are used.
> 
> This is also why the Dolby guidelines change the minimum angle for front heights to 20 if you use Top Middle overheads. The angle isn't as critical to achieve full overhead pans if there's fill in the middle.
> 
> Notice also how they have no guideline diagrams for greater than 9.1.6. You have to read the overall guidelines and they expect people doing 34 speaker layouts to understand what they're doing better than an average household (i.e. Professional installation). How many Trinnov owners do their own installs, for example?


Alright here we go. This will my room to scale in a pretty accurate way. Atmos speakers will be 7 feet off the ground angled towards center seating, but maybe a little offset to the right and left sides respectively.








Instead of the front atmos speaker locations being where they have "7's," mine have to be either where I wrote 7A's or 7B's. And instead of the rear atmos speakers where they put "8's," where I put "8's." Then the rear surrounds, I can put where I wrote "6?'s" but they're more out of the way to put them about 3 feet behind the rear atmos speakers.


----------



## niterida

T-Bone said:


> But I also can be anal retentive. And followed the azimuth angles anyway .
> 
> It turns out by placing my Atmos speakers in line with my mains, actually 6 in inward on each side, and at the 45° elevation angle, it worked out that I had 45 degree as azimuth angle anyway. Even if it wasn't needed.
> 
> So there was a subtlety that actually went by me. I truly was thinking we needed to follow the azimuth angle too. Apparently I'm not as smart about this as some of the folks in this thread
> 
> -T


I worked out that if you put the fronts at 30deg azimuth and the heights at 45deg elevation and in line with the fronts all the rest of Dolby recommended angles and dimensions (0.5W etc) will then be correct. Doesn't matter how high the ceiling the ceiling is - that just moves the heights forward and backward but doesn't change anything else.
It has been mentioned before that the Dolby diagrams are not visually accurate for some strange reason. The angle and dimension figures are accurate, but where they draw the speakers are not always correct. 
But at the end of the day (when you are finished and sitting down with the beverage of your choice to watch your first movie) they are only guidelines and you can only do what your room and budget allows and sometimes you must apply a bit of common (AVS) sense.


----------



## niterida

Expidia said:


> the Sub #2 which was reading 35.5 feet when it is actually only 5,5 feet.


Good work, but you do realise that the "35.5 feet" actually has (almost) nothing to do with how far away a speaker is ?? Its a badly quantified measurement and should be time, not distance, but given that sound travles a set distance in a set time, for the most part it is acceptable and generaly makes it easier for the novice.
What Audyssey has measured is that Sub #2 is outputting sound a lot earlier than other subs and speakers so it delays it by the amount of time sound takes to travel 35.5' so that it arrives at the same time as all other speakers outputs. Just changing this to the actual distance (for a sub anyway) is not the correct thing to do. Subs are usually delayed internally by the extra processing of their internal amps etc and this usually means the other speakers are delayed to allow the subs to 'catch up', plus the rooms interaction with bass frequencies also plays a part I believe.
To get the correct "distance" (delay) setting for your sub will actually take some measurement and listening to get right. If your bass sdoesn't sound right I would head over to the Subwoofer section for more help.


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> I worked out that if you put the fronts at 30deg azimuth and the heights at 45deg elevation and in line with the fronts all the rest of Dolby recommended angles and dimensions (0.5W etc) will then be correct. Doesn't matter how high the ceiling the ceiling is - that just moves the heights forward and backward but doesn't change anything else.
> It has been mentioned before that the Dolby diagrams are not visually accurate for some strange reason. The angle and dimension figures are accurate, but where they draw the speakers are not always correct.
> But at the end of the day (when you are finished and sitting down with the beverage of your choice to watch your first movie) they are only guidelines and you can only do what your room and budget allows and sometimes you must apply a bit of common (AVS) sense.


Normally if you can only put atmos speakers in certain places, then you plan your seating around that. Or if you can only put your seating in certain places, you plan your atmos placement around that. In my space both of those things are out of my control. There is only one place the atmos speakers can go on the ceiling, and only one place the seating can go. I can move it up, which would just make the problem worse, but not backwards.

So the only control I have over any of it is how much do I lower the atmos speakers off the ceiling, and how wide they are. You mentioned ceiling height doesn't matter just the angle, but since the placement of the speakers and seating is set, the only way I can manipulate the angle is actually the height. Since the rear atmos are further away than the fronts, in order to keep a more equal elevation angle, I plan to mount the fronts about 2.5 inches (max it will let me do) lower than the backs.

I think I got sign off on this from the thread weeks ago. So my horizontal idea was the same idea, just horizontal, but sounds like that will create a problem whereas lowering the fronts 2.5 inches more than the rears will improve the angle and not create a problem. Otherwise if I dont do that, the fronts might be at a 60 degree elevation angle, and the backs 45. At least this way it will be... 55 vs 45, or something. Still not ideal, but closer. Getting exactly 45-45 is not possible in my space.


----------



## Expidia

niterida said:


> Good work, but you do realise that the "35.5 feet" actually has (almost) nothing to do with how far away a speaker is ?? Its a badly quantified measurement and should be time, not distance, but given that sound travles a set distance in a set time, for the most part it is acceptable and generaly makes it easier for the novice.
> What Audyssey has measured is that Sub #2 is outputting sound a lot earlier than other subs and speakers so it delays it by the amount of time sound takes to travel 35.5' so that it arrives at the same time as all other speakers outputs. Just changing this to the actual distance (for a sub anyway) is not the correct thing to do. Subs are usually delayed internally by the extra processing of their internal amps etc and this usually means the other speakers are delayed to allow the subs to 'catch up', plus the rooms interaction with bass frequencies also plays a part I believe.
> To get the correct "distance" (delay) setting for your sub will actually take some measurement and listening to get right. If your bass sdoesn't sound right I would head over to the Subwoofer section for more help.


One would think the program would give some explanation as you did.
I can change it back to 35.5
It probably is because it's tucked 6 feet back behind 3 Home theater chairs. I did put all 3 into almost full recline before I ran the program. This is the postion we watch most movies.

Those 4 new height speakers made an amazing difference over the previous 4 up firing modules I had over past 6 months.

I put in the MI Fallout Atmos UHD Blu-ray to audition the height speakers and . . . Wowza!

*You are the first poster thats ever pointed out to me that it's measuring time, not feet in all my years in AVS 🙄. It is confusing since under manual speaker set up it is titled "distance".


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Normally if you can only put atmos speakers in certain places, then you plan your seating around that. Or if you can only put your seating in certain places, you plan your atmos placement around that. In my space both of those things are out of my control. There is only one place the atmos speakers can go on the ceiling, and only one place the seating can go. I can move it up, which would just make the problem worse, but not backwards.
> 
> So the only control I have over any of it is how much do I lower the atmos speakers off the ceiling, and how wide they are. You mentioned ceiling height doesn't matter just the angle, but since the placement of the speakers and seating is set, the only way I can manipulate the angle is actually the height. Since the rear atmos are further away than the fronts, in order to keep a more equal elevation angle, I plan to mount the fronts about 2.5 inches (max it will let me do) lower than the backs.
> 
> I think I got sign off on this from the thread weeks ago. So my horizontal idea was the same idea, just horizontal, but sounds like that will create a problem whereas lowering the fronts 2.5 inches more than the rears will improve the angle and not create a problem. Otherwise if I dont do that, the fronts might be at a 60 degree elevation angle, and the backs 45. At least this way it will be... 55 vs 45, or something. Still not ideal, but closer. Getting exactly 45-45 is not possible in my space.


You're worrying too much. 60 + 45 can be set in most AVR setups as Top Middle + Rear Height (Most won't let you combine Top Middle + Top Rear, but -45 is right on the border. Actually, 60 is so close to 55 for Top Front, it probably won't make much of a difference, particularly since Atmos moves sounds to the nearest overhead speakers anyway (i.e. Most Dolby demos sound identical regardless of say front height or top front for that reason so it may not sound much different either way). So Top Front + Top Rear will also work. Sounds would just start a bit closer to you.

Personally, I wouldn't change the height of the speaker to get a lower angle. Remember, you can hear the location of the speakers when they play by themselves and lower generally isn't better when it comes to overhead sounds. 

Thunderstorms in Atmos often sound unnatural IMO because thunder should not seem to come from 7-9 feet off the ground, but unless they recorded some HRTF data with it (like binaural) it usually does sound like 7-9 feet off the floor. Seven usually sounds worse than nine for such things. I'm at 7.5 feet and I'd prefer 12+ feet overhead for the speakers, but it'd never compare to 50 feet plus for some large cinemas. I think most of us use the screen height as a model universe and pretend that sounds are smaller and more compressed in that regard as the screen represents the limits of that world. 

But properly recorded overhead sounds like with Auro-3D's dual quad microphones sound more believable, IMO. I played back a binaural recorded thunderstorm over the system as multi-channel stereo and it sounded more real than Atmos thunderstorms (like totally believable) because the real human HRTF height information is encoded in binaural.


----------



## niterida

Expidia said:


> One would think the program would give some explanation as you did.
> I can change it back to 35.5
> It probably is because it's tucked behind 3 Home theater chairs. I did put all 3 into almost full recline before I ran the program. This is the postion we watch most movies.
> 
> Those 4 new height speakers made an amazing difference over the previous 4 up firing modules I had over past 6 months.
> 
> I put in the MI Fallout Atmos UHD Blu-ray to audition the height speakers and . . . Wowza!
> 
> *You are the first poster thats ever pointed out to me that it's measuring time, not feet in all my years in AVS 🙄


Even after everything I said, 35.5' doesn't seem right though. I would check for more help on the Subwoofer section - there is a LOT of things to consider when setting up subs.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> You're worrying too much. 60 + 45 can be set in most AVR setups as Top Middle + Rear Height (Most won't let you combine Top Middle + Top Rear, but -45 is right on the border. Actually, 60 is so close to 55 for Top Front, it probably won't make much of a difference, particularly since Atmos moves sounds to the nearest overhead speakers anyway (i.e. Most Dolby demos sound identical regardless of say front height or top front for that reason so it may not sound much different either way). So Top Front + Top Rear will also work. Sounds would just start a bit closer to you.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't change the height of the speaker to get a lower angle. Remember, you can hear the location of the speakers when they play by themselves and lower generally isn't better when it comes to overhead sounds.
> 
> Thunderstorms in Atmos often sound unnatural IMO because thunder should not seem to come from 7-9 feet off the ground, but unless they recorded some HRTF data with it (like binaural) it usually does sound like 7-9 feet off the floor. Seven usually sounds worse than nine for such things. I'm at 7.5 feet and I'd prefer 12+ feet overhead for the speakers, but it'd never compare to 50 feet plus for some large cinemas. I think most of us use the screen height as a model universe and pretend that sounds are smaller and more compressed in that regard as the screen represents the limits of that world.
> 
> But properly recorded overhead sounds like with Auro-3D's dual quad microphones sound more believable, IMO. I played back a binaural recorded thunderstorm over the system as multi-channel stereo and it sounded more real than Atmos thunderstorms (like totally believable) because the real human HRTF height information is encoded in binaural.


Thanks for the warning before doing it. I'll just keep them at the same height then. In the past people were telling me distance is irrelevant, only angle, so I thought these ideas to make the angle better would be an improvement. 

Is it also not true that you should angle the overhead speakers down and in towards the listeners? I have beams in my ceiling where I can mount bookshelf speakers into the "wall" of the beam, and then angle them downward like angled in-ceiling speakers, except they're bookshelves. Do I want to angle them down and in, or just down? 

My towers have wide dispersion, so Ive been told by others with the same towers that toeing them in doesnt change anything very much. So I will only toe them in a little in order to maximize my screen space, but since the atmos ceiling bookshelves are much closer to seating and require a much bigger toe even than recommended tower toe in in order to point them at seating, I am worried about any sort of clash between non-toed in towers and significantly-toed-in ceiling speakers. 

And since keeping them aligned is important, Im wondering do I align the fronts of the speakers with the fronts, or the backs with the backs. Because toeing in speakers will now change the horizontal alignment of the front of the speakers, making it further in. So if I toe in the front of my ceiling speakers 4 inches, does that mean I have to mount the back 4 inches wider than the towers in order to keep alignment?


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for the warning before doing it. I'll just keep them at the same height then. In the past people were telling me distance is irrelevant, only angle, so I thought these ideas to make the angle better would be an improvement.
> 
> Is it also not true that you should angle the overhead speakers down and in towards the listeners? I have beams in my ceiling where I can mount bookshelf speakers into the "wall" of the beam, and then angle them downward like angled in-ceiling speakers, except they're bookshelves. Do I want to angle them down and in, or just down?
> 
> My towers have wide dispersion, so Ive been told by others with the same towers that toeing them in doesnt change anything very much. So I will only toe them in a little in order to maximize my screen space, but since the atmos ceiling bookshelves are much closer to seating and require a much bigger toe even than recommended tower toe in in order to point them at seating, I am worried about any sort of clash between non-toed in towers and significantly-toed-in ceiling speakers.
> 
> And since keeping them aligned is important, Im wondering do I align the fronts of the speakers with the fronts, or the backs with the backs. Because toeing in speakers will now change the horizontal alignment of the front of the speakers, making it further in. So if I toe in the front of my ceiling speakers 4 inches, does that mean I have to mount the back 4 inches wider than the towers in order to keep alignment?


Toe-in and any other "aiming" of speakers has only to do with one thing and that's on-axis vs off-axis response. Typically, speakers have published test results in that regard. The larger the on-axis angle, the less you should "worry" about toe-in. 

In a perfect world, off-axis response would be as good as on-axis and you wouldn't even consider aiming them. As long as you are in the on-axis rated angle, I wouldn't worry about it. 

And you won't likely notice any toe-in angle change. The tweeters are centered on the speaker and don't really move much except with extreme toe-in. A few inches isn't going to make much of an audible difference. Hell, I have a hard time hearing delay changes in the several foot range sometimes, particularly with subwoofers unless they are cancelling out with another one.

I had to deal with side speakers needing to aim at two different rows. The bottom line is you cannot short of arraying two speaker driver sets (like a bipolar pair pointed at each row like my side heights) or a 2nd side surround for the next row (but then where "side" is located is different for each row) unless you balance them. If on-axis is good to 45 degrees you can point them between the two rows and/or let Audyssey measurements compensate in the treble region (something rarely discussed as I think EQ is still kind of taboo from the land of audiophiles and "Room EQ" is treated as if it doesn't EQ the speaker, but the room (as if there's any difference at the listening location between the two).


----------



## X4100

I just realized that I posted in the wrong thread SORRY!!


----------



## bartonnen

X4100 said:


> Please try this YouTube video to see if the sound in your room matches the activity on your screen.


That video appears to be specifically for headphones. And I thought YouTube videos were limited to stereo audio anyway.


----------



## X4100

You're 100 percent correct, I was just speaking of the amazing audio from DSU


----------



## X4100

Give it a listen, and hear it for yourself. Don't use headphones, play it back in 2 channel mode and let your avr upmixer play to all your speakers


----------



## mrvideo

sdurani said:


> For those interested in speaker placement by the numbers:
> 
> https://www.proaudio.de/de/document...tainment-studio-certification-guide/file.html


Is there a document for 7.1.6?


----------



## niterida

mrvideo said:


> Is there a document for 7.1.6?


Same as 7.1.4 but with 2 top middles as per x.x.2
Depending on why you are doing 7.1.6 ? If it is to cover 2 or more rows of seating then you would possibly be best by putting them to suit your seating.
Or if it is just for a long room you can then push the front and rear heights out further (front-to-back) if you need/want to.


----------



## MagnumX

*Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band* - *The Gordian Knot*.... Pure Audio Blu-Ray has arrived here. 

Check out all these versions of the album included:

5.1 DTS-HD MA 24/48
2.0 PCM Stereo 24/96
11.1 *Auro-3D* (7.1+4) 24/48
*Dolby Atmos*
mShuttle 3D *Binaural* FLAC
plus Bonus Videos and CD Album included....

I'm sorting it all out now. Apparently, I've got more than a few versions to listen to and compare. 

Edit:

Interestingly, the FLAC and Binaural files (they are separate entities; the FLAC files are the hires 2.0 stereo audio and Binaural is for headphone listening) are stored on the disc in a data folder that you can simply copy through the regular filesystem on a computer (Apparently, they're meant to be accessed with the address of a Network connected Blu-Ray player from a Web Browser, but you can just copy them as files from a computer BD drive without having to Rip/Dump like the primary Atmos/Auro/DTS content.


----------



## Fj40jason

Mortal Kombat has some great Atmos scenes.
The creature crawling around the container was good. Enjoyed the movie 🍿


----------



## Expidia

niterida said:


> Even after everything I said, 35.5' doesn't seem right though. I would check for more help on the Subwoofer section - there is a LOT of things to consider when setting up subs.


I did ask this over at a sub thread as you suggested. In explaining my situation I also mentioned that this 2nd sub being only 6.5 feet from the MLP and it's the wireless 12 inch Klipsch R-12Wi.

So several felt that it's the "wireless delay" that is causing that 33.5 number with Audyessy and to leave it as is.


----------



## LawCPA

MagnumX said:


> *Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band* - *The Gordian Knot*.... Pure Audio Blu-Ray has arrived here.


Was showing $95 on Amazon


----------



## MagnumX

LawCPA said:


> Was showing $95 on Amazon


I ordered it from JPC.de for about $35 USD delivered to Ohio from Germany. Regionless.


----------



## mrvideo

niterida said:


> Same as 7.1.4 but with 2 top middles as per x.x.2
> Depending on why you are doing 7.1.6 ? If it is to cover 2 or more rows of seating then you would possibly be best by putting them to suit your seating.
> Or if it is just for a long room you can then push the front and rear heights out further (front-to-back) if you need/want to.


I'm doing 6, because I can. Not a large room. I have the six speakers (Klipsch Reference Dolby Atmos Elevation/Surround Speakers R-41SA) and will be mounting them up front and against the rear, with the middles being to the side of the MLP. I will be pretty much be the only viewer/listener.


----------



## MagnumX

I did comparisons on two tracks from *Gordon Goodwin's The Gordian Knot*, namely T.O.P Adjacent and Kneel Before Zod between Stereo, 5.1, Auro-3D and Atmos including some upmixers.










The album is 7.1+4 in Auro-3D which my Auro decoder doesn't support with rear surrounds except in Auro-2D mode, which I tried as well to verify what the rear surrounds were doing.

The bottom line is this. The only thing noticeably different at the MLP between Atmos and Auro was the lack of rears in Auro (which 2D mode verified is there for those with V2.0 Auro decoders and/or Auro 13.1).

I'm sure some Atmos systems would get even better support with more speakers than 7.4.1 compared to Auro, but overall hey sounded otherwise pretty similar. I'm sure they use the same master and convert. Surround 5.1 and 7.1 sounded slightly less airy (upmixers helped but Neural X put much of the band parts on the ceiling...too much. Sometimes Neural X is awesome with 5.1 surround music and sometimes there's too much up high). But it appears to be mostly reverb/room cues up high, at least on those two tracks (No crazy Yello synths up there). Frankly, 5.1 with DSU sounded almost as good as Atmos or Auro.

Even what is discrete in the rear surrounds is limited and a judgment call whether it sounded better closer by with a true 5.1 bed (e.g. My Auro presentation) as the room almost seemed too big (mine is 24' long) to have instruments back there and still pretend to be a live circle (The surround versions present like you're standing in the middle of the group arranged more or less as a circular pattern by the sounds of it).

Overall, the sound quality is fantastic and from what I've previewed thus far, I like the music selections more than straight jazz. It has more of a somewhat modernized 1930s style big band (some strings, synth and bass guitar thrown in that gives more of a modern take, but still has a big band sound more than a jazz ensemble, but then I'm hardly an expert on that style of music, but I do watch a lot of movies from the 1920s, '30s and '40s, which often feature big bands.


----------



## stradovinski

Great info in this thread. As I'm mapping out my Atmos setup I have a question. 

So I believe it's been determined to concentrate on the 45 degrees front to back for ceiling speakers, and line up with l/r as best you can, and not worry so much about angling out to the side.

My room is about 24' front to back, MLP near the middle and going for 5.1.4. I can hit the 45 degrees for both front and back. My question is whether there is a limit on how close the front ceiling speakers can be to the l/c/r?

They will be out a few feet, but will be closer to the front of those speaker than to the MLP. Just wanted to ask before I start cutting holes. I figure it's fine, but have a vaulted ceiling (front to back) that's a popcorn finish and really would rather not have to do any patching 😜


----------



## sdurani

stradovinski said:


> My question is whether there is a limit on how close the front ceiling speakers can be to the l/c/r?


They can be directly above the L/R speakers if you want. Just designate them as Front Heights. IF you place them between the L/R speakers and the main listening position, designate them as Top Fronts.


----------



## stradovinski

Perfect, makes sense and thank you! Never saw that diagram before either.


----------



## LNEWoLF

stradovinski said:


> Never saw that diagram before either.


ME neither, lol, that sdurani guy is always pulling wabbits out of his hat. 😋


----------



## sdurani

LNEWoLF said:


> ME neither, lol, that sdurani guy is always pulling wabbits out of his hat. 😋


Thanx. In this case, I pulled the diagram from a Denon manual, because it is simpler & clearer than similar Dolby diagrams.


----------



## niterida

stradovinski said:


> Great info in this thread. As I'm mapping out my Atmos setup I have a question.
> 
> So I believe it's been determined to concentrate on the 45 degrees front to back for ceiling speakers, and line up with l/r as best you can, and not worry so much about angling out to the side.
> 
> My room is about 24' front to back, MLP near the middle and going for 5.1.4. I can hit the 45 degrees for both front and back. My question is whether there is a limit on how close the front ceiling speakers can be to the l/c/r?
> 
> They will be out a few feet, but will be closer to the front of those speaker than to the MLP. Just wanted to ask before I start cutting holes. I figure it's fine, but have a vaulted ceiling (front to back) that's a popcorn finish and really would rather not have to do any patching 😜


You answered your own question :
_concentrate on the 45 degrees front to back for ceiling speakers, and line up with l/r as best you can, and not worry so much about angling out to the side_
Do that and they will be in the right spot - how close they are to the front speakers doesn't matter.
But in a 24' long room with seating near the middle you must have 15' ceilings to have your front atmos anywhere near your front speakers, unless your fronts are pulled out into the room by several feet. Assuming seated ears are at 3' and the ceiling is 9' then the front atmos should only be 6' (9' minus 3') in front of you.
Also middle of the room is not a good spot to put your seating as you will have boomy or non-existent bass unless you have multiple subs ??


----------



## dazz87

Going to setup Front Height for the first time on my Denon 3500h. Just wondering how high above the L/R do i need to mount them? Ceiling is pretty high about 22‘. My L/R is about 30” from the floor (ear level). Thanks


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> They can be directly above the L/R speakers if you want. Just designate them as Front Heights. IF you place them between the L/R speakers and the main listening position, designate them as Top Fronts.
> View attachment 3127002





dazz87 said:


> Going to setup Front Height for the first time on my Denon 3500h. Just wondering how high above the L/R do i need to mount them? Ceiling is pretty high about 22‘. My L/R is about 30” from the floor (ear level). Thanks


Its not about height - its about degrees - see picture above posted 5 posts before your question.


----------



## Technology3456

My thought holding this up was, "I seriously doubt this is going to work," but, maybe? If anyone can tell me how to mount them like this, but possibly a little higher up than I could reach, and with more of a tilt downward (if recommended) with the bottom of the speaker tilting more underneath the beam than shown here, please let me know.
















Here's what the back of the speaker looks like.









It says they are 12.8lbs. Maybe it's just because there was not a great place to grab them and I was trying to tilt them, but they felt more like a 20 lbs dumbbell to me. Height = 13.5 inches. Width = 6 and 7/8 inches. Depth = 9 and 3/16 inches. These are big boys.

If they won't work in that position, I need recs please for bookshelves that will, and that will be timber matched or complementary with Infinity R263 towers and RC263 center, and that can crossover 80hz.


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> My thought holding this up was, "I seriously doubt this is going to work," but, maybe? If anyone can tell me how to mount them like this, but possibly a little higher up than I could reach, and with more of a tilt downward (if recommended) with the bottom of the speaker tilting more underneath the beam than shown here, please let me know.


I am sure there are plenty of mounts commercially available for that - but I used galzanised plumbing pipe and made my own.


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> I am sure there are plenty of mounts commercially available for that - but I used galzanised plumbing pipe and made my own.


Please PM me if you would be willing to make me four of them at a competitive cost. Otherwise, no one has told me about any commercial mounts that would work yet. One person said I might have to drill a hole high up in the back of the speakers. No one has recommended anything so far that would work for these, and I have zero knowledge of speaker mounts. I have never mounted any speaker in my life, not even on the wall.


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> Please PM me if you would be willing to make me four of them at a competitive cost. Otherwise, no one has told me about any commercial mounts that would work yet. One person said I might have to drill a hole high up in the back of the speakers. No one has recommended anything so far that would work for these, and I have zero knowledge of speaker mounts. I have never mounted any speaker in my life, not even on the wall.


I didn't "make" anything - I just bought the bits and screwed them together. See pic.
I also bought T Nuts -drilled a couple of holes through the speaker and inserted them from inside and then the bolts pull them tight into the wood cabinet.
But pretty sure a quick internet search should pull up some suitable mounts. Some of them just strap in so you don't even need to damage your cabinets.


----------



## T-Bone

niterida said:


> I didn't "make" anything - I just bought the bits and screwed them together. See pic.
> I also bought T Nuts -drilled a couple of holes through the speaker and inserted them from inside and then the bolts pull them tight into the wood cabinet.
> But pretty sure a quick internet search should pull up some suitable mounts. Some of them just strap in so you don't even need to damage your cabinets.
> View attachment 3127679


Very cool setup. I use lead pipe and flange, with some textured black spray paint, to make my 18" downrod to connect my projector to the ceiling. Got it at Home Depot years ago. Looks like the same material that you're using for your speaker mount 

You missed your opportunity. He said "competitive cost." You could have built four for 30 bucks each made enough profit to buy some 4K blu-rays.

-T


----------



## niterida

T-Bone said:


> Very cool setup. I use lead pipe and flange, with some textured black spray paint, to make my 18" downrod to connect my projector to the ceiling. Got it at Home Depot years ago. Looks like the same material that you're using for your speaker mount
> 
> You missed your opportunity. He said "competitive cost." You could have built four for 30 bucks each made enough profit to buy some 4K blu-rays.
> 
> -T


Yep pretty much the same I think. I am planning on doing my PJ mount exactly the same as yours 
I could have made some but postage from Australia would be a killer


----------



## crutzulee

niterida said:


> I didn't "make" anything - I just bought the bits and screwed them together. See pic.
> I also bought T Nuts -drilled a couple of holes through the speaker and inserted them from inside and then the bolts pull them tight into the wood cabinet.
> But pretty sure a quick internet search should pull up some suitable mounts. Some of them just strap in so you don't even need to damage your cabinets.
> View attachment 3127679


You are my new hero!! 

I used a similar setup years ago for a projector mount in a previous setup. My brain would not have come up with the idea to use the T's to hold the speaker plus the use of the elbow to swivel the angle towards the MSP!

My mini monitors weigh about 20 pounds and I'm currently using simple L brackets between the joists with acoustically transparent fabric in a drop ceiling. This works pretty well with them firing directly down. ATMOS tracks sound awesome but the tinkerer in me has always wondered about toeing in my heights towards the MLP. This gives me an inexpensive way to try out!...Now I just have to work up the courage to drill into my PARADIGMs...


----------



## Rich 63

You using mini monitors as atmos speakers?🤔 
Rich


----------



## niterida

crutzulee said:


> You are my new hero!!
> 
> I used a similar setup years ago for a projector mount in a previous setup. My brain would not have come up with the idea to use the T's to hold the speaker plus the use of the elbow to swivel the angle towards the MSP!
> 
> My mini monitors weigh about 20 pounds and I'm currently using simple L brackets between the joists with acoustically transparent fabric in a drop ceiling. This works pretty well with them firing directly down. ATMOS tracks sound awesome but the tinkerer in me has always wondered about toeing in my heights towards the MLP. This gives me an inexpensive way to try out!...Now I just have to work up the courage to drill into my PARADIGMs...


Aww shucks 
Just make sure you don't make the same mistake I did - I made them symmetrical left to right (so mirrored instead of identical) which means 2 of my 4 have the weight of the speaker turning the elbow piece anti-clockwise which is trying to loosen it. The other 2 are correct as the weight is trying to tighten it. They are tight enough to hold my speakers though as they are only small.


----------



## niterida

Rich 63 said:


> You using mini monitors as atmos speakers?🤔
> Rich


Bookshelf (or any cabinet type speaker) make the best Atmos - I have 8" Wharfedale Pro PA Speakers waiting to replace my little bookshelf ones - and some others are running 12 and 15" PA speakers as Atmos !!


----------



## crutzulee

Rich 63 said:


> You using mini monitors as atmos speakers?🤔
> Rich


As I've stated earlier in this thread, of all the things that one can debate in the world of audio as snake oil, I have always firmly believed in timbre matching of all tweeters in any multichannel setup. 
In the past, it was impossible to get smooth panning between channels without identical tweeters. With ATMOS, it is impossible to achieve the desired "bubble of sound" without them.
The mini monitors may be overkill (AUDDYSEY picks them up as full range), but they are the smallest form factor that matches the monitor 3s that I use as my 4 surround channels, the monitor 7s I use as my L/R pair and my CC350 center. They are all Canadian made and can be purchased cheaper than dirt whenever you need to add channels (I'm up to 11 now..lol)


----------



## Rich 63

crutzulee said:


> As I've stated earlier in this thread, of all the things that one can debate in the world of audio as snake oil, I have always firmly believed in timbre matching of all tweeters in any multichannel setup.
> In the past, it was impossible to get smooth panning between channels without identical tweeters. With ATMOS, it is impossible to achieve the desired "bubble of sound" without them.
> The mini monitors may be overkill (AUDDYSEY picks them up as full range), but they are the smallest form factor that matches the monitor 3s that I use as my 4 surround channels, the monitor 7s I use as my L/R pair and my CC350 center. They are all Canadian made and can be purchased cheaper than dirt whenever you need to add channels (I'm up to 11 now..lol)


I'm not critiquing and fully agree about timbe matching as I've experienced it first hand. I built my system through the used market buying placeholders then replacing/selling as i found what i wanted. 
I run monitor 7's l/r, cc370, and minis as surrounds. I use atoms as my atmos. The atoms recently replaced some old nuance sealed speakers that i picked up garage sailing. Huge difference. 
My comment was to size as my atmos are mounted at the ceiling/wall intersection. I couldn't image minis in place of my atoms. Almost twice the size.
Regards Rich


----------



## Josh Z

crutzulee said:


> As I've stated earlier in this thread, of all the things that one can debate in the world of audio as snake oil, I have always firmly believed in timbre matching of all tweeters in any multichannel setup.
> In the past, it was impossible to get smooth panning between channels without identical tweeters. With ATMOS, it is impossible to achieve the desired "bubble of sound" without them.


Unfortunately, even if you use identical speakers all around the room, timbre will still differ based on each speaker's location and proximity to other surfaces in the room.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, even if you use identical speakers all around the room, timbre will still differ based on each speaker's location and proximity to other surfaces in the room.


Which is where a room correction system that can properly undo the room's unwanted contributions can be helpful. Once you have identical speakers, the only inconsistency comes from room location. Undo that (to whatever extent possible) and the advantages of identical speakers comes through.


----------



## Rich 63

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, even if you use identical speakers all around the room, timbre will still differ based on each speaker's location and proximity to other surfaces in the room.


So maybe timbre is the wrong word but im sure having different size drivers/tweeters on various speakers within a system results in greater differences in sound.
Initially my surrounds were older paridigm 3se i had from back in the day. Installing the mini monitors that use the identical drivers to those in the front soundstage speakers made a noticable difference in overall cohesiveness. Same brand. Different speaker line.
Regards


----------



## howard68

Raiders of the lost ark is now available on Apple tv in Dolby Atmos


----------



## crutzulee

Rich 63 said:


> I'm not critiquing and fully agree about timbe matching as I've experienced it first hand. I built my system through the used market buying placeholders then replacing/selling as i found what i wanted.
> I run monitor 7's l/r, cc370, and minis as surrounds. I use atoms as my atmos. The atoms recently replaced some old nuance sealed speakers that i picked up garage sailing. Huge difference.
> My comment was to size as my atmos are mounted at the ceiling/wall intersection. I couldn't image minis in place of my atoms. Almost twice the size.
> Regards Rich


Sounds like your path has been very similar to mine. I went from 2 minis as surrounds in a 5.1 system to 4 in a 7.1 system. These became my heights when I went to 7.4.4 after sourcing out 4 monitor 3's for my bed layer.
I've bought atoms and the 3se models with matching center along the way but those quickly got shuffled off to my less critical in-laws when building them a more modest living room setup.
We're so lucky up here in the great white north where these can be found so easily and cheaply on the secondary market. In the GTA, a KIJIJI search for PARADIGM turns up pages and pages of them for next to nothing.
Actually, I made money when sourcing out my last pair of monitor 3's as the guy would not break up his 5.1 set. I kept these and a PDR10 sub while selling off a pair of his TITANS and a CC370 center for $200 more than I paid for the set.


----------



## noah katz

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, even if you use identical speakers all around the room, timbre will still differ based on each speaker's location and proximity to other surfaces in the room.


As others have said, that's necessary (arguably, depending on how well your RC corrects inherent speaker response) but not sufficient.

To appreciate how big the room's effect is, just listen to the different timbre of pink noise from each speaker when fed the same uncorrected signal.

I'd like to see that used as a standard test for evaluating RC systems.


----------



## Technology3456

crutzulee said:


> Sounds like your path has been very similar to mine. I went from 2 minis as surrounds in a 5.1 system to 4 in a 7.1 system. These became my heights when I went to 7.4.4 after sourcing out 4 monitor 3's for my bed layer.
> I've bought atoms and the 3se models with matching center along the way but those quickly got shuffled off to my less critical in-laws when building them a more modest living room setup.
> We're so lucky up here in the great white north where these can be found so easily and cheaply on the secondary market. In the GTA, a KIJIJI search for PARADIGM turns up pages and pages of them for next to nothing.
> Actually, I made money when sourcing out my last pair of monitor 3's as the guy would not break up his 5.1 set. I kept these and a PDR10 sub while selling off a pair of his TITANS and a CC370 center for $200 more than I paid for the set.


If I can't get the R152 Infinity bookshelf speakers to work for atmos in my space because of how big they are, do you think the "atoms" and other models you guys are talking about are smaller and would work well with Infinity R263 towers and RC263?

From the way you guys are talking, it sounds like you guys found great solutions, but every model you guys bring up is like reading in a different language to me. I have zero frame of reference what any of these are. I spent weeks researching just the Infinity line, and making tons of topics asking questions that annoyed a lot of people. I don't want to repeat such a process just for atmos bookshelves so Im hoping someone in this thread is already familiar with all the best atmos bookshelf options, as well as the Infinity line, and can give me the overview. 

If there is a way though, I would like to look up the "timer" of the Infinity line myself. Then I can post it and some might know bookshelves from other brands that have the same timber.


----------



## Rich 63

crutzulee said:


> Sounds like your path has been very similar to mine. I went from 2 minis as surrounds in a 5.1 system to 4 in a 7.1 system. These became my heights when I went to 7.4.4 after sourcing out 4 monitor 3's for my bed layer.
> I've bought atoms and the 3se models with matching center along the way but those quickly got shuffled off to my less critical in-laws when building them a more modest living room setup.
> We're so lucky up here in the great white north where these can be found so easily and cheaply on the secondary market. In the GTA, a KIJIJI search for PARADIGM turns up pages and pages of them for next to nothing.
> Actually, I made money when sourcing out my last pair of monitor 3's as the guy would not break up his 5.1 set. I kept these and a PDR10 sub while selling off a pair of his TITANS and a CC370 center for $200 more than I paid for the set.


I did the same exactly. Started buying cheap used packages regularly , fixing whats needed and selling for profit at prices slightly lower then market to move them faster. In the end im running 5.4.4 with a mini dsp for my velo subs. So far the whole setup including 4300h/ps4/4k blue ray cost me nothing. I've only paid for my tv panel. Its taken 2 years but been fun. I've learned how to refoam speakers and recap as a bonus. Just can't beat free. 
Regards Rich


----------



## Rich 63

Technology3456 said:


> If I can't get the R152 Infinity bookshelf speakers to work for atmos in my space because of how big they are, do you think the "atoms" and other models you guys are talking about are smaller and would work well with Infinity R263 towers and RC263?
> 
> From the way you guys are talking, it sounds like you guys found great solutions, but every model you guys bring up is like reading in a different language to me. I have zero frame of reference what any of these are. I spent weeks researching just the Infinity line, and making tons of topics asking questions that annoyed a lot of people. I don't want to repeat such a process just for atmos bookshelves so Im hoping someone in this thread is already familiar with all the best atmos bookshelf options, as well as the Infinity line, and can give me the overview.
> 
> If there is a way though, I would like to look up the "timer" of the Infinity line myself. Then I can post it and some might know bookshelves from other brands that have the same timber.


 If you have the infinities use them and figure out a way to hang them. Trust your said reseach. I have no issues drilling into a speaker. Its the back and if removed you simply fill the holes and touch up with paint. There are many strong brackets avaliable. I googled and for what was needed as needed and used them.


----------



## Rich 63

i only used 2 of these because the paneling it attaches too was flexing due to the nature that panelling is installed Each bracket is rated 50lbs. 50 bucks


----------



## ppasteur

Technology3456 said:


> If I can't get the R152 Infinity bookshelf speakers to work for atmos in my space because of how big they are, do you think the "atoms" and other models you guys are talking about are smaller and would work well with Infinity R263 towers and RC263?


If you can drill holes for screws into the speakers, these look like they would work:








Amazon.com: Speaker Wall Ceiling Mount Stand - Black Speaker Mounting Bracket w/ Adjustable Swivel Tilt, Retractable Telescopic Arm - Home Surround Sound System Bookshelf Satellite Speakers - Pyle PSTNDC31 (Pair) : Electronics


Buy Speaker Wall Ceiling Mount Stand - Black Speaker Mounting Bracket w/ Adjustable Swivel Tilt, Retractable Telescopic Arm - Home Surround Sound System Bookshelf Satellite Speakers - Pyle PSTNDC31 (Pair): Speaker Mounts - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com





Relatively cheap, very adjustable, 75 lbs. capacity. You just need to make sure the attachment to the ceiling is strong enough.
All of three minutes of searching to find...


----------



## Technology3456

Rich 63 said:


> If you have the infinities use them and figure out a way to hang them. Trust your said reseach. I have no issues drilling into a speaker. Its the back and if removed you simply fill the holes and touch up with paint. There are many strong brackets avaliable. I googled and for what was needed as needed and used them.


So you make a screw hole into the back of the speaker, and then a screw is all that holds it up on the ceiling/wall? The back of the speaker is like pretty soft wood, not sure that would hold it because its heavy. But I clearly dont understand how brackets work. I thought brackets would go around the speaker and hold make a box around it to hold it without screws? 

If there is a way to mount them without screws in a way that can also be tilted up/down and left/right, that would be the best. But if it doesnt exist...


----------



## Technology3456

ppasteur said:


> If you can drill holes for screws into the speakers, these look like they would work:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: Speaker Wall Ceiling Mount Stand - Black Speaker Mounting Bracket w/ Adjustable Swivel Tilt, Retractable Telescopic Arm - Home Surround Sound System Bookshelf Satellite Speakers - Pyle PSTNDC31 (Pair) : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy Speaker Wall Ceiling Mount Stand - Black Speaker Mounting Bracket w/ Adjustable Swivel Tilt, Retractable Telescopic Arm - Home Surround Sound System Bookshelf Satellite Speakers - Pyle PSTNDC31 (Pair): Speaker Mounts - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relatively cheap, very adjustable, 75 lbs. capacity. You just need to make sure the attachment to the ceiling is strong enough.
> All of three minutes of searching to find...


Thank you. I am looking for something that doesnt protrude like that. My atmos rectangle is already small front to back. Then the speakers are 9 inches deep making it smaller, but should still work if I can mount them right along the wall with just a little 1-2 inch long thing that tilts them up/down/left/right. These would add it looks like another 6 inches minimum making the speakers protrude well over a foot.

Edit: Do you recommend toeing in atmos bookshelves or only vertical tilt but not toed in also?


----------



## T-Bone

Standby... We're going to have a few pages of posts related to toe in and tilting. I hope I'm wrong.

-T


----------



## Rich 63

Technology3456 said:


> So you make a screw hole into the back of the speaker, and then a screw is all that holds it up on the ceiling/wall? The back of the speaker is like pretty soft wood, not sure that would hold it because its heavy. But I clearly dont understand how brackets work. I thought brackets would go around the speaker and hold make a box around it to hold it without screws?
> 
> If there is a way to mount them without screws in a way that can also be tilted up/down and left/right, that would be the best. But if it doesnt exist...


Google those then a quick search will net you a few.


----------



## ppasteur

Technology3456 said:


> Thank you. I am looking for something that doesnt protrude like that. My atmos rectangle is already small front to back. Then the speakers are 9 inches deep making it smaller, but should still work if I can mount them right along the wall with just a little 1-2 inch long thing that tilts them up/down/left/right. These would add it looks like another 6 inches minimum making the speakers protrude well over a foot.
> 
> Edit: Do you recommend toeing in atmos bookshelves or only vertical tilt but not toed in also?


It was just an example. There are a huge number of options. Google searches can be your friend.


----------



## Rich 63

T-Bone said:


> Standby... We're going to have a few pages of posts related to toe in and tilting. I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> -T


 Yes i realized that the thread was hijacked. My apologies. 
Rich


----------



## T-Bone

Rich 63 said:


> Yes i realized that the thread was hijacked. My apologies.
> Rich


No apologies needed. Plus I'm not the thread police 

I just know the history of this one user and I can see where things are going to be going.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

ppasteur said:


> It was just an example. There are a huge number of options. Google searches can be your friend.


I don't know how they work because I've never used one. I think it's easy for people with lots of experience to forget what google search results would look like if they'd never used mounts before. It's not easy to just look at them and know what will work.

I don't even know, what are the mounts called that offer vertical and horizontal tilt? Is there a name for this specific category of mount? Is it even advised to tilt in the atmos speakers horizontally?

I feel like I've read conflicting things about that. With many of these things, I have nothing to go off to start looking. But I can try a different topic if this isn't the best place to discuss mounting the atmos speakers. A lot of these topics have loosely defined parameters. At least, until a poster someone dislikes posts in them. Then they bring out their rulebook of technicalities right away.


----------



## niterida

T-Bone said:


> No apologies needed. Plus I'm not the thread police
> 
> I just know the history of this one user and I can see where things are going to be going.
> 
> -T


I don't see what you are talking about - if you know what I mean


----------



## fatherom

A user should have full visibility into how many people are ignoring them, and when...so that they may actually look into the mirror and say "oh wow, it's NOT everyone else...it must be me". Sadly, in this particular case, I don't think even THAT information would change anything.


----------



## ppasteur

Technology3456 said:


> *Is this only a thread for discussing Dolby Atmos processing, but not speakers, placement, mounting, tilt, etc?* Because I googled before posting and this is the one big atmos thread on avs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how they work because I've never used one. I think it's easy for people with lots of experience to forget what google search results would look like if they'd never used mounts before. It's not easy to just look at them and know what will work.
> 
> I don't even know, what are the mounts called that offer vertical and horizontal tilt? Is there a name for this specific category of mount? Is it even advised to tilt in the atmos speakers horizontally?
> 
> I feel like I've read conflicting things about that. With many of these things, I have nothing to go off to start looking. But I can try a different topic if this isn't the best place to discuss mounting the atmos speakers. A lot of these topics have loosely defined parameters. At least, until a poster someone dislikes posts in them. Then they bring out their rulebook of technicalities right away.


There are many ways to learn things other than to expect others to do the work for you. Search "speaker mounting ideas".


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> My thought holding this up was, "I seriously doubt this is going to work," but, maybe? If anyone can tell me how to mount them like this, but possibly a little higher up than I could reach, and with more of a tilt downward (if recommended) with the bottom of the speaker tilting more underneath the beam than shown here, please let me know.
> View attachment 3127661
> View attachment 3127659
> 
> 
> Here's what the back of the speaker looks like.
> View attachment 3127658
> 
> 
> It says they are 12.8lbs. Maybe it's just because there was not a great place to grab them and I was trying to tilt them, but they felt more like a 20 lbs dumbbell to me. Height = 13.5 inches. Width = 6 and 7/8 inches. Depth = 9 and 3/16 inches. These are big boys.
> 
> If they won't work in that position, I need recs please for bookshelves that will, and that will be timber matched or complementary with Infinity R263 towers and RC263 center, and that can crossover 80hz.


That is why I bought speakers already made to be hung from the wall or ceiling (PSB CS500) that comes with its own bracket that can be easily aimed towards the listener (the speaker is already mounted in a box; no drilling into speakers required as this was originally made to put their Imagine B speakers outside). PSB speakers are extremely neutral (Most rated +/- 1dB over most of the range, unlike most speakers rated +/- 3dB). They come in two colors (black or white) as well. A Trinnov owner on here uses the CS1000 speakers for his overheads (larger version) so it's not some el cheapo made speaker. I got mine from a Canadian dealer on eBay for a substantial discount below retail brand new three years ago. All I had to do was drill a screw into a ceiling beam and it came with the all the mounting screws. I used these in the back of the room (speaker drivers match the X1T rear surround towers).

I put my front my heights on an actual bookshelf with a studio mount you sit the speaker on that tilts it downward a bit, but it's only a few degrees. I installed a set of upgraded replacement tweeters (fabric tweeters) that have better off-axis response. They sound fine at 30 degrees here. I used them for the top middle speakers mounted in the Auro-3D side wall position as well that can't aim downward specifically. I have no timbre complaints.










You probably don't want to return the speakers you bought, though so I guess that leaves you with making or buying a mount and drilling into the speakers as the alternative.



ppasteur said:


> There are many ways to learn things other than to expect others to do the work for you. Search "speaker mounting ideas".


That sounded kind of harsh dude. Not everyone is a master carpenter and drilling into potentially expensive speakers (which voids any warranty) can be intimidating. Atmos' onerous ceiling speaker requirement (compared to Auro-3D) made it even more of a PITA than it needed to be. The Atmos renderer could have supported high wall mounted surrounds and accounted for the placement difference, but Dolby didn't want to do Auro Technologies (or the consumer) any favors.


----------



## MagnumX

Thought you had your Atmos install sussed? Get ready for Sony's new ATMOS KILLER called "Reality Audio 360" currently supported by the PS5 early with binaural headphones. Well, the "speaker" version is a doozy. Yes indeedy, Sony chose to go with a mostly INCOMPATIBLE speaker layout just to give Dolby the middle finger (well kind of the same way Dolby gave Auro Technologies the middle finger while Independent DTS tried to support everyone!)

It's a 13 speaker layout system based on 5.1 (Auro tried that and look where it got them). The main difference between it and Auro-3D is that in addition to Center Height and heights above the surround speakers and mains, it also adds a LOWER layer (20 degrees below ear height) below the L/C/R speakers (for that boiling lava standing on a platform above a volcano sound action!) but oddly doesn't seem to have lower speakers for the surround locations (so much for a mouse scurrying across the floor front to back). Of course, unless your receiver supports MPEG-H 3D (European D&M models purportedly do), you'll need yet another AVR upgrade to get support for the format (and presumably the lower speakers aren't supported on the D&M models that do already have basic support). 

Sony appears to be planning to leverage the PS5 and their massive catalog of music and movies (Columbia) to PUSH this format on the general public. Don't be totally surprised if/when Sony UHD releases suddenly stop supporting Atmos, X or Auro in favor of MPEG-H 3D as I wouldn't put it past them. 

Of course, those that went with an Auro-3D layout would only need to add three "lower" speakers as the rest matches their basic Auro 10.1 layout and I'm sure you will have a phantom option for the center, so you might only need two extra speakers. In fact, I tried speakers in just such locations with DTS titles as officially DTS:X supports main lower speakers as well, but oddly they contain the same content as the mains and let HRTF do its thing when it happens to be in the signal (kind of like playing binaural over speakers; many of the sounds will appear lower/higher from the info stored in the music signal itself; the lower speaker placement just helps it out a bit).


----------



## Blade 77

MagnumX said:


> Thought you had your Atmos install sussed? Get ready for Sony's new ATMOS KILLER called "Reality Audio 360" currently supported by the PS5 early with binaural headphones. Well, the "speaker" version is a doozy. Yes indeedy, Sony chose to go with a mostly INCOMPATIBLE speaker layout just to give Dolby the middle finger (well kind of the same way Dolby gave Auro Technologies the middle finger while Independent DTS tried to support everyone!)
> 
> It's a 13 speaker layout system based on 5.1 (Auro tried that and look where it got them). The main difference between it and Auro-3D is that in addition to Center Height and heights above the surround speakers and mains, it also adds a LOWER layer (20 degrees below ear height) below the L/C/R speakers (for that boiling lava standing on a platform above a volcano sound action!) but oddly doesn't seem to have lower speakers for the surround locations (so much for a mouse scurrying across the floor front to back). Of course, unless your receiver supports MPEG-H 3D (European D&M models purportedly do), you'll need yet another AVR upgrade to get support for the format (and presumably the lower speakers aren't supported on the D&M models that do already have basic support).
> 
> Sony appears to be planning to leverage the PS5 and their massive catalog of music and movies (Columbia) to PUSH this format on the general public. Don't be totally surprised if/when Sony UHD releases suddenly stop supporting Atmos, X or Auro in favor of MPEG-H 3D as I wouldn't put it past them.
> 
> Of course, those that went with an Auro-3D layout would only need to add three "lower" speakers as the rest matches their basic Auro 10.1 layout and I'm sure you will have a phantom option for the center, so you might only need two extra speakers. In fact, I tried speakers in just such locations with DTS titles as officially DTS:X supports main lower speakers as well, but oddly they contain the same content as the mains and let HRTF do its thing when it happens to be in the signal (kind of like playing binaural over speakers; many of the sounds will appear lower/higher from the info stored in the music signal itself; the lower speaker placement just helps it out a bit).
> 
> View attachment 3128067


Hi Magnum, i would like to add that with that decision Sony gave the middle finger not only to Dolby, but to all of us who have a dedicated home theater system. The problem is that since Sony has better exclusives, is a better choice for gamers. I guess upmixers will have to do the trick. Furhermore until recently, X-box one series X was prone to HDMI 2.1 bug, which was also a deciding factor going up against Microsoft's console.


----------



## MagnumX

Blade 77 said:


> Hi Magnum, i would like to add that with that decision Sony gave the middle finger not only to Dolby, but to all of us who have a dedicated home theater system. The problem is that since Sony has better exclusives, is a better choice for gamers. I guess upmixers will have to do the trick.


I'm hoping that for music and/or movies (if they use it for that), there's at least the option of buying a decoder license to output to Atmos or X. Someone on another forum has seen the decoder and it can apparently output to even just wav files (verifying that there is indeed the capability for straight 7.1.4 content and some albums on Tidal apparently show they use the 1970s quad material as the source with the front heights just using a lower volume upmix). Since Tidal is on other platforms (e.g. AppleTV), maybe there will be some rendering options at some point, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Sony seems to like creating new formats and then more or less abandoning them at some point. They've already got SACD for 5.1, Blu-Ray for 5.1 to Atmos and now this. SACD gets little attention these days as it never really caught on except among some pretty dedicated surround music fans.

The fact Sony seems to be going full steam converting their music libraries (possibly future movies as well?) makes me wonder. XBox, meanwhile is fully supporting both Dolby Atmos and DTS:X for gaming and any other output use someone may care to employ (movies, music, etc.). Personally, I'm tired of these format wars. They're never good for the consumers. Oddly, D&M added MPEG-H 3D to European and possibly other 220V AVRs, but not 120V (North America) models. So, it seems PS5 will have an immediate advantage in Europe if you have a D&M AVR. I've got a US Marantz 7012, but no update for it. No update for Auro-3D V2.0 (that adds 7.1 + 4 mode that a recent music album I bought, The Gordian Knot uses). D&M likes you to buy a newer model for a couple thousand just to get minor software driver updates.... Unreal. There's Trinnov with loads of "free" codec updates, but at their prices, you're paying for those updates one way or another!

OTOH, I always did like the idea of "floor level" speakers. But even if there's support for that as the diagram shows at some point, there's the issue of multiple rows getting in the way of any speakers below the seat height of the row in front of it (which can create problems for ear level speakers, let alone "floor level" ones) and without lower level speakers for the surround rows, I don't see the point. I'd LOVE to hear a mouse scurry across the room front-to-back, but it's not going to happen without lower level speakers at the surround points too. 

I always thought the "lower" placement issue could be 'solved' by including HRTF information in the sounds played back at ear level (kind of a poor man's in-the-room binaural, which I know works pretty well by playing binaural through "all speaker surround" here). DTS has known about this for some time even as the Trinnov includes "lower" speaker options for the DTS layout, but it apparently just gets copies of the front mains (letting any HRTF type info "appear" lower to the listener. I sometimes hear this effect with some music albums even with just ear level speakers; the sounds seem lower than the tweeter area of the speaker, coming close to the floor once in awhile).


----------



## Technology3456

What is the audio theory behind this statement? How much better is it and in what ways? 






> But yeah definitely going separates is the way to go guys. Home Theater, if you want to do it right, you got to go separates, that's key.
> 
> _Do it..._


Then the next question they bring up claims separates provides better clarity and specifically, better "atmos accuracy."


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> What is the audio theory behind this statement? How much better is it and in what ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the next question they bring up claims separates provides better clarity and specifically, better "atmos accuracy."


It's not better in general. There are a couple of reasons to get separates, though:

1) There are some state-of-the-art pre-pros that have desirable features and stellar sound quality: the Datasat RS20i and LS10, the Trinnov Altitude, the Storm Audio processors, probably several others I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. Pairing one of these pre-pros with separate amplifiers will probably give better results than an AVR.

2) If you need more power than an AVR can provide. This may be the case depending on room size, speaker choice and number of speakers, and desired listening levels.

But if we're comparing a good AVR to a separates setup using a pre-pro with similar features (same room correction etc), in a modestly sized room, there's no reason for the separates to provide better clarity or "atmos accuracy" whatever that is.

A trick that I like is to use an AVR as your processor, and then get a separate 3 channel amp for the front 3 speakers, which do the heavy lifting in home theatre, using the AVR's internal amps for all of the surround and height speakers.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> It's not better in general. There are a couple of reasons to get separates, though:
> 
> 1) There are some state-of-the-art pre-pros that have desirable features and stellar sound quality: the Datasat RS20i and LS10, the Trinnov Altitude, the Storm Audio processors, probably several others I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. Pairing one of these pre-pros with separate amplifiers will probably give better results than an AVR.
> 
> 2) If you need more power than an AVR can provide. This may be the case depending on room size, speaker choice and number of speakers, and desired listening levels.
> 
> But if we're comparing a good AVR to a separates setup using a pre-pro with similar features (same room correction etc), in a modestly sized room, there's no reason for the separates to provide better clarity or "atmos accuracy" whatever that is.
> 
> A trick that I like is to use an AVR as your processor, and then get a separate 3 channel amp for the front 3 speakers, which do the heavy lifting in home theatre, using the AVR's internal amps for all of the surround and height speakers.


Thanks, that all makes sense. For a 11.x.x setup with fairly low power speakers, at what budget point do you think it makes sense to go separates instead of an 9.x.x AVR (plus external 2 channel amp to power the last two channels).

This same youtuber, who I think has a lot of atmos speakers, maybe a 15.x.x setup, or 20.x.x, or who knows, but he has a lot so maybe that factors in, he made another comment in another video that before he got the Trinnov, it was like the planes were flying in the general areas they were supposed to when he was watching a movie like Midway. He said only after he got the Trinnov could he place each plane exactly, that it was no longer just hearing an object in general upper back right area sound, moving to general upper front right, but now he could actually hear the plane sounds tracking smoothly across their trajectories.

He made it sound like without the Trinnov, atmos will just be kind of general, vague, "there's something above you to the right, generally," stuff like that, but not actually tracking each object like it's supposed to. I was aware Trinnovs and other high end processors will make the tone and the sound better, but I thought the actual atmos algorithm came from Dolby and was the same no matter what. I was surprised he was saying it was actually improving the accuracy of the object-based sound, making the directions more specific, instead of just improving the sound itself. I mean I can see how there would be some carry over between those things... the cleaner the sound, the more you can identify the direction. But he made it sound like the Trinnov was actually affecting the object tracking at the root level, and that specifically the atmos directional sounds were much worse without it.


----------



## eaayoung

Technology3456 said:


> This same youtuber, who I think has a lot of atmos speakers, maybe a 15.x.x setup, or 20.x.x, or who knows, but he has a lot so maybe that factors in, he made another comment in another video that before he got the Trinnov, it was like the planes were flying in the general areas they were supposed to when he was watching a movie like Midway. He said only after he got the Trinnov could he place each plane exactly, that it was no longer just hearing an object in general upper back right area sound, moving to general upper front right, but now he could actually hear the plane sounds tracking smoothly across their trajectories.
> 
> He made it sound like without the Trinnov, atmos will just be kind of general, vague, "there's something above you to the right, generally," stuff like that, but not actually tracking each object like it's supposed to.



Not accurate with my modest Atmos system. I can clearly hear sounds from my one of my four Atmos speaker and the sound overhead matches tracks to what I seeing on the screen.That’s not for every Atmos movie track. But certainly applies to movies with good Atmos tracks.


----------



## MagnumX

The YouTube guy is full of it. Trinnov makes a great high end product that can support all 32+ speakers with Atmos, but they don't have a special Atmos decoder that magically sharpens sounds.


----------



## T-Bone

eaayoung said:


> Not accurate with my modest Atmos system. I can clearly hear sounds from my one of my four Atmos speaker and the sound overhead matches tracks to what I seeing on the screen.That’s not for every Atmos movie track. But certainly applies to movies with good Atmos tracks.


Plus I was always under the impression that the software embedded in a receiver or a pre-pro for decoding Atmos came from dolby. Well, I thought it was embedded in a chip but I don't know for sure and I did not Google it.

So I would have thought that as long as the speakers did not change, then the algorithm that directs The sounds to some point in space would be exactly the same across every pre pro and receiver if it has that same version of Dolby Atmos, hence it would sound exactly the same with that particular set of speakers

-T


----------



## T-Bone

MagnumX said:


> The YouTube guy is full of it. Trinnov makes a great high end product that can support all 32+ speakers with Atmos, but they don't have a special Atmos decoder that magically sharpens sounds.


I posted the same time as you. I thought that was the case in terms of the decoder.

-T


----------



## blake

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks, that all makes sense. For a 11.x.x setup with fairly low power speakers, at what budget point do you think it makes sense to go separates instead of an 9.x.x AVR (plus external 2 channel amp to power the last two channels).
> 
> This same youtuber, who I think has a lot of atmos speakers, maybe a 15.x.x setup, or 20.x.x, or who knows, but he has a lot so maybe that factors in, he made another comment in another video that before he got the Trinnov, it was like the planes were flying in the general areas they were supposed to when he was watching a movie like Midway. He said only after he got the Trinnov could he place each plane exactly, that it was no longer just hearing an object in general upper back right area sound, moving to general upper front right, but now he could actually hear the plane sounds tracking smoothly across their trajectories.
> 
> He made it sound like without the Trinnov, atmos will just be kind of general, vague, "there's something above you to the right, generally," stuff like that, but not actually tracking each object like it's supposed to. I was aware Trinnovs and other high end processors will make the tone and the sound better, but I thought the actual atmos algorithm came from Dolby and was the same no matter what. I was surprised he was saying it was actually improving the accuracy of the object-based sound, making the directions more specific, instead of just improving the sound itself. I mean I can see how there would be some carry over between those things... the cleaner the sound, the more you can identify the direction. But he made it sound like the Trinnov was actually affecting the object tracking at the root level, and that specifically the atmos directional sounds were much worse without it.


There is truth to this. Trinnov uses a 4 capsule 3D calibration microphone and calculates the exact location of your speaker in 3D space down to an inch. Therefore it makes sense atmos objects can be placed more accurately since the processor knows exactly where your speakers are. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> There is truth to this. Trinnov uses a 4 capsule 3D calibration microphone and calculates the exact location of your speaker in 3D space down to an inch. Therefore it makes sense atmos objects can be placed more accurately since the processor knows exactly where your speakers are.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can measure my own speakers down to a fraction of an inch and manually put it into my AVR's setup too. There goes that theory...


----------



## otismojo

MagnumX said:


> I can measure my own speakers down to a fraction of an inch and manually put it into my AVR's setup too. There goes that theory...


The focus of the sound is what a Trinnov improves upon. The Dolby data is all the same, but the implementation of that sound is not the same. I would not have believed it either, but after just upgrading from a Marantz 8805 to a SDP-75 (same as the Trinnov 32) the Atmos sound field is remarkably more accurate.

I’ve been playing the Atmos demo discs and can’t really describe how an object is space can sound so differently between 2 processors. The 8805 was good and I have 6 ceiling speakers (Revel c763Ls), but the Trinnov sound is spectacular. The focus of a ball flying across the room is tight and accurate. I get a good sense of how large the object is moving across the sound field. With the 8805 the sound moved across the room, but my eyes had to know it was a ball and the sound then matched the object. With the Trinnov the sound matches the size of the object even when my eyes are closed.

Not sure if this makes sense, but that’s how I hear it.


----------



## dschulz

blake said:


> There is truth to this. Trinnov uses a 4 capsule 3D calibration microphone and calculates the exact location of your speaker in 3D space down to an inch. Therefore it makes sense atmos objects can be placed more accurately since the processor knows exactly where your speakers are.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is accurate, but to be perfectly clear, the Atmos decoding is the same from processor to processor, and the Atmos renderer itself does not process anything differently based on a speaker being in a different location - the Atmos renderer is using assumptions that are baked in for the Atmos-approved speaker locations. 

Trinnov does add a bit of special sauce in a couple of ways; very accurate locations as you say for calculating level and delays, and also (if you choose to use it) the speaker remapping function in which Trinnov uses processing to virtually move your speakers to where they ought to be. 

I think if your budget can sustain Trinnov it's a very, very good choice for these reasons, but that's a separate decision from the initial choice of simply AVR vs separates.


----------



## MagnumX

otismojo said:


> The focus of the sound is what a Trinnov improves upon. The Dolby data is all the same, but the implementation of that sound is not the same. I would not have believed it either, but after just upgrading from a Marantz 8805 to a SDP-75 (same as the Trinnov 32) the Atmos sound field is remarkably more accurate.
> 
> I’ve been playing the Atmos demo discs and can’t really describe how an object is space can sound so differently between 2 processors. The 8805 was good and I have 6 ceiling speakers (Revel c763Ls), but the Trinnov sound is spectacular. The focus of a *ball flying across the room* is tight and accurate. I get a good sense of how large the object is moving across the sound field. With the 8805 the sound moved across the room, but *my eyes had to know it was a ball and the sound then matched the object*. With the Trinnov *the sound matches the size of the object even when my eyes are closed*.
> 
> Not sure if this makes sense, but that’s how I hear it.


And what pray tell does a "flying ball" sound like? Is there a new Atmos version of _Phantasm_ or something?  

I didn't know one could tell a sound was a flying ball, much less the size of the ball. If I throw a ball through the air, it's quite *silent* unless it zips just past my ear (air current).

Sorry, but that sounds more like a load of flying malarky to my ears, a distant cousin to the Shakti stones the Audiophools praise so much, perhaps?


----------



## Goname31

MagnumX said:


> Thought you had your Atmos install sussed? Get ready for Sony's new ATMOS KILLER called "Reality Audio 360" currently supported by the PS5 early with binaural headphones. Well, the "speaker" version is a doozy. Yes indeedy, Sony chose to go with a mostly INCOMPATIBLE speaker layout just to give Dolby the middle finger (well kind of the same way Dolby gave Auro Technologies the middle finger while Independent DTS tried to support everyone!)
> 
> It's a 13 speaker layout system based on 5.1 (Auro tried that and look where it got them). The main difference between it and Auro-3D is that in addition to Center Height and heights above the surround speakers and mains, it also adds a LOWER layer (20 degrees below ear height) below the L/C/R speakers (for that boiling lava standing on a platform above a volcano sound action!) but oddly doesn't seem to have lower speakers for the surround locations (so much for a mouse scurrying across the floor front to back). Of course, unless your receiver supports MPEG-H 3D (European D&M models purportedly do), you'll need yet another AVR upgrade to get support for the format (and presumably the lower speakers aren't supported on the D&M models that do already have basic support).
> 
> Sony appears to be planning to leverage the PS5 and their massive catalog of music and movies (Columbia) to PUSH this format on the general public. Don't be totally surprised if/when Sony UHD releases suddenly stop supporting Atmos, X or Auro in favor of MPEG-H 3D as I wouldn't put it past them.
> 
> Of course, those that went with an Auro-3D layout would only need to add three "lower" speakers as the rest matches their basic Auro 10.1 layout and I'm sure you will have a phantom option for the center, so you might only need two extra speakers. In fact, I tried speakers in just such locations with DTS titles as officially DTS:X supports main lower speakers as well, but oddly they contain the same content as the mains and let HRTF do its thing when it happens to be in the signal (kind of like playing binaural over speakers; many of the sounds will appear lower/higher from the info stored in the music signal itself; the lower speaker placement just helps it out a bit).
> 
> View attachment 3128067


Is there a press release for this?


----------



## YankeeFan159

I've got a question for owners of the SVS Prime Elevation speakers, specifically those who have them mounted at the top of the front wall against the ceiling.

How far back should your MLP be from the front wall to get the best height effect? I am currently working on setting up a room where the ceilings are 8 feet high and the MLP will be between 10 and 10 1/2 feet from the front wall. Would my MLP be too far back to mount them on the front wall? Would mounting them on the side walls closer to the MLP make more sense (as suggested by SVS's literature)? Thanks.


----------



## Rich 63

Would mounting them on the side walls closer to the MLP make more sense (as suggested by SVS's literature)? Thank.
Thats what many have done, myself included. I can't speak to the benifits of one over the other with 4 heights. However my choice of side height was based on trying front height, side height when i did 2 atmos speaker before getting an avr that did 4.
Regards Rich


----------



## otismojo

MagnumX said:


> And what pray tell does a "flying ball" sound like? Is there a new Atmos version of _Phantasm_ or something?
> 
> I didn't know one could tell a sound was a flying ball, much less the size of the ball. If I throw a ball through the air, it's quite *silent* unless it zips just past my ear (air current).
> 
> Sorry, but that sounds more like a load of flying malarky to my ears, a distant cousin to the Shakti stones the Audiophools praise so much, perhaps?


Until you hear it for yourself you just won’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> I can measure my own speakers down to a fraction of an inch and manually put it into my AVR's setup too. There goes that theory...


You can only input distances, not positions as Trinnov can calculate from elevation and azimuth angles.


----------



## YankeeFan159

Rich 63 said:


> Would mounting them on the side walls closer to the MLP make more sense (as suggested by SVS's literature)? Thank.
> Thats what many have done, myself included. I can't speak to the benifits of one over the other with 4 heights. However my choice of side height was based on trying front height, side height when i did 2 atmos speaker before getting an avr that did 4.


Do you now have the 4 side mounted or front/back?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> This is accurate, but to be perfectly clear, the Atmos decoding is the same from processor to processor, and the Atmos renderer itself does not process anything differently based on a speaker being in a different location - the Atmos renderer is using assumptions that are baked in for the Atmos-approved speaker locations.


Yamaha also identifies real speaker locations, using multiple passes with a single microphone (instead of a multi-capsule mic). But it doesn't matter how accurately you measure elevation and azimuth angles of your speakers, none of that information is used for consumer Atmos & DTS:X decoding. As you said, the renderer has a look-up table of speaker locations (rendering assumptions) that is uses based on the speaker labels entered by the user.


> Trinnov does add a bit of special sauce in a couple of ways; very accurate locations as you say for calculating level and delays, and also (if you choose to use it) the speaker remapping function in which Trinnov uses processing to virtually move your speakers to where they ought to be.


Yes, helpful for their proprietary remapping feature. Physical location data is not needed for accurate level & delay measurements.


----------



## Rich 63

YankeeFan159 said:


> Do you now have the 4 side mounted or front/back?


4 side mounted but inline with were the top front, top back would be. It puts them about 1.5ft outside being inline with the ffronts. Hope that makes sense
Rich


----------



## YankeeFan159

Rich 63 said:


> 4 side mounted but inline with were the top front, top back would be. It puts them about 1.5ft outside being inline with the ffronts. Hope that makes sense



Absolutely makes sense. Thanks. One final question, if you don't mind. Are they pointed straight out or are you "aiming" them towards the MLP?


----------



## Rich 63

YankeeFan159 said:


> Absolutely makes sense. Thanks. One final question, if you don't mind. Are they pointed straight out or are you "aiming" them towards the MLP?


Aiming to mlp more or less . Tried variations such as across the height level, offset to the other heights, offset to mlp. Its only me and wifey so mlp is best.


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> Is there a press release for this?


There's a Sony Page (360 Reality Audio for Creators - Create Immersive Music Without Limits)

I read about it on another forum.


----------



## MagnumX

otismojo said:


> Until you hear it for yourself you just won’t know.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That's what the audiophile told me about Shakti stones too. 

That doesn't _prove_ a thing. I asked him to show me some double blind test results that prove he can tell a difference with Shakti stones. No more responses from him.


----------



## otismojo

MagnumX said:


> That's what the audiophile told me about Shakti stones too.
> 
> That doesn't _prove_ a thing. I asked him to show me some double blind test results that prove he can tell a difference with Shakti stones. No more responses from him.


Go find one. Listen to it or even better demo it. Then tell us what you hear. I’m curious how you would describe the difference. It’s there.


----------



## Technology3456

Reading you guys discuss the differences is very educational for me. I appreciate everyone weighing in with their knowledge and understanding about what looks like a complex AV product comparison that there is not full agreement about, and I appreciate everyone staying on topic. These discussions are what really further knowledge of AV equipment, and help us make informed choices what products are right for our setups.

These comments seem like they might cut to the core of the question, and I am wondering if anyone can clear this up. Does this (in bold)) still matter...



noah katz said:


> You can only input distances, not positions as* Trinnov can calculate from elevation and azimuth angles.*


...if this (in bold) is true...?



sdurani said:


> * But it doesn't matter how accurately you measure elevation and azimuth angles of your speakers, none of that information is used for consumer Atmos & DTS:X decoding.* As you said, the renderer has a look-up table of speaker locations (rendering assumptions) that is uses based on the speaker labels entered by the user. Yes, helpful for their proprietary remapping feature. Physical location data is not needed for accurate level & delay measurements.


Or does the Trinnov have its own separate "Atmos & DTS:X decoding" as well, and that is why it matters? I may be lacking understanding of a difference between the atmos _code _or atmos algorithm that is the same for every receiver or processor, and atmos "_de_coding." Maybe the "decoding" is different in each AVR or processor? Or if not, then why does the Trinnov measuring elevation and azimuth angles matter if none of that info is used for Atmos and DTS:X decoding?


----------



## MagnumX

otismojo said:


> Go find one.


Is that kind of like, "Go fetch?" 🐶

Will I _find_ one in the woods? Or should I randomly knock on some rich guys' houses? 🏦

Perhaps Trinnov would be so kind as to bring one to my house so I can directly compare between the two on the same system? 

I mean you're not suggesting I can tell an imaging sharpness/clarity difference compared to my own system from just _any_ Trinnov system are you? You know, with a different room and totally different speakers and therefore it would have a totally different sound altogether regardless? You're not suggesting _that_ are you? 🔉 🔊

You see the really odd thing is that "objects" are still just stereo images between speaker locations. You've basically told me that you cannot tell a "flying ball" size/sound between your L/R main stereo speakers connected the old fashioned way with 2-channel imaging, but you CAN suddenly with the same two speakers so long as a Trinnov Altitude is connected and it sends the stereo image of a ball moving between the L/R mains instead and it's because their darn near magic microphone tells it where your speakers are located in the room so it can "render" a stereo image so much sharper that you can tell with your eyes shut the exact size of a flying ball moving between them. 

That's a *BOLD* claim and IMO requires *BOLD* PROOF rather than asking me to go "find" a Trinnov and I'll instantly know you are correct the moment I hear it.... 

I mean why use any testing methodology or scientific principles to make sure I'm not imagining things? I'll just know. 😎 

And what's this flying ball demo you're referring to anyway? How can I possibly try this out if I don't know what this Atmos ball demo is that you're referring to? 🔴 🔵 ⚪ ⚫



> Listen to it or even better *demo* it.


I'm curious. What precisely makes you think I haven't already? I never said I never listened to a Trinnov system before. 



> Then tell us what you hear. I’m curious how you would describe the difference. It’s there.


I did share. You 'd it. 

Audiophiles shared with me how Krell amplifiers "opened up" the sound on their system and how drawing a green line around the edge of CDs with a magic marker made them sound so much less harsh sounding by wiping out jitter somehow (here's a 7+ page discussion on the green marker treatment alone at the Steve Hoffman forums HERE.) 

They also told me a mat on their CD transport evened out the sound (instead of loading down the motor to a mass it wasn't designed to move). They swore that what really improved the clarity of sound in their system was Audioquest's Dragon Zero Speaker cable at a mere $21k for 6' of it! He said it was simply jaw dropping cable! 😱

You certainly shared _your_ implication that I can't hear things precisely placed or sized on _my_ system because it's _not_ a Trinnov by inference of your own anecdotal claim about your own system. Here, I thought my system imaged pretty darn well. Just knowing that it could be laser like in precision for STEREO IMAGING between speakers if only I'd just drop another $30k makes me feel sad. 😢


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Is that kind of like, "Go fetch?" 🐶
> 
> Will I _find_ one in the woods? Or should I randomly knock on some rich guys' houses? 🏦
> 
> Perhaps Trinnov would be so kind as to bring one to my house so I can directly compare between the two on the same system?
> 
> I mean you're not suggesting I can tell an imaging sharpness/clarity difference compared to my own system from just _any_ Trinnov system are you? You know, with a different room and totally different speakers and therefore it would have a totally different sound altogether regardless? You're not suggesting _that_ are you? 🔉 🔊
> 
> You see the really odd thing is that "objects" are still just stereo images between speaker locations. You've basically told me that you cannot tell a "flying ball" size/sound between your L/R main stereo speakers connected the old fashioned way with 2-channel imaging, but you CAN suddenly with the same two speakers so long as a Trinnov Altitude is connected and it sends the stereo image of a ball moving between the L/R mains instead and it's because their darn near magic microphone tells it where your speakers are located in the room so it can "render" a stereo image so much sharper that you can tell with your eyes shut the exact size of a flying ball moving between them.
> 
> That's a *BOLD* claim and IMO requires *BOLD* PROOF rather than asking me to go "find" a Trinnov and I'll instantly know you are correct the moment I hear it....
> 
> I mean why use any testing methodology or scientific principles to make sure I'm not imagining things? I'll just know. 😎
> 
> And what's this flying ball demo you're referring to anyway? How can I possibly try this out if I don't know what this Atmos ball demo is that you're referring to? 🔴 🔵 ⚪ ⚫
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious. What precisely makes you think I haven't already? I never said I never listened to a Trinnov system before.
> 
> 
> 
> I did share. You 'd it.
> 
> Audiophiles shared with me how Krell amplifiers "opened up" the sound on their system and how drawing a green line around the edge of CDs with a magic marker made them sound so much less harsh sounding by wiping out jitter somehow (here's a 7+ page discussion on the green marker treatment alone at the Steve Hoffman forums HERE.)
> 
> They also told me a mat on their CD transport evened out the sound (instead of loading down the motor to a mass it wasn't designed to move). They swore that what really improved the clarity of sound in their system was Audioquest's Dragon Zero Speaker cable at a mere $21k for 6' of it! He said it was simply jaw dropping cable! 😱
> 
> You certainly shared _your_ implication that I can't hear things precisely placed or sized on _my_ system because it's _not_ a Trinnov by inference of your own anecdotal claim about your own system. Here, I thought my system imaged pretty darn well. Just knowing that it could be laser like in precision for STEREO IMAGING between speakers if only I'd just drop another $30k makes me feel sad. 😢


I think I remember reading about your sort of custom system and it sounds great, but most people aren't knowledgeable enough to make a system like that. I'm definitely not. He probably just meant his own system sounds better with the Trinnov than without, and I'm sure it does but the question is why, and in what specific ways, and is more exact "imagining" one of those ways?

That's why I agree with your comment that especially at that price, separating the marketing from what the Trinnov can actually do is something helpful to know before considering buying one, and just telling people to go demo one and see is not a sufficient answer when it's hard to get something like that to demo in your space, and when demos out in the wild can be manipulated... I mean I heard stories of dealers turning up the volume before demoing the speakers they wanted the customer to buy, without telling the customer... telling you to just believe it's true, or go fetch a demo, does not answer what it can do, only explaining what it does can answer that.

It's a hard question to answer though. Maybe only the Trinnov engineers know for sure. But, I think we were getting close to an answer with the discussion in the topic about azimuth angles and so on.


----------



## otismojo

I have to say that after being trolled for making a comment or offering my opinion it’s pretty difficult to offer much more information. The point of posting here is to share thoughts and opinions. However, who would openly invite being criticized or nit-picked about what they have to say? Being scrutinized about my thoughts or opinions on a product is not openly inviting my opinion. I neither have the time or the desire to argue my points. They are simply my opinion based on my experience. I would love to explore why the Trinnov is a great product and why I believe it sounds better than what I’ve previously owned. The trolls and bullies should be ashamed for jumping to harsh conclusions or mean spirited comments. Who wants to openly expose themselves to this kind of behavior? I’m out. I will enjoy my system and keep my information to myself. I’m not here selling anything or telling anyone why my stuff is better than theirs. It’s not always a contest and this aggressive posting behavior is unwarranted. Done and unsubscribed.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> Or does the Trinnov have its own separate "Atmos & DTS:X decoding" as well, and that is why it matters?


You mean does Dolby have a secret special version of Atmos reserved for one manufacturer that no other manufacturer is allowed to license? Doubt it.


> Or if not, then why does the Trinnov measuring elevation and azimuth angles matter if none of that info is used for Atmos and DTS:X decoding?


For their proprietary speaker remapping feature, which (virtually) moves improperly placed speakers to optimal locations. Same reason Yamaha measures elevation and azimuth angles: for their proprietary Cinema DSP modes that do room simulation (based on impulse responses from actual venues).


----------



## Technology3456

sdurani said:


> You mean does Dolby have a secret special version of Atmos reserved for one manufacturer that no other manufacturer is allowed to license? Doubt it. For their proprietary speaker remapping feature, which (virtually) moves improperly placed speakers to optimal locations. Same reason Yamaha measures elevation and azimuth angles: for their proprietary Cinema DSP modes that do room simulation (based on impulse responses from actual venues).


Could the latter influence Atmos imaging in the way otismojo described, even with correctly placed speakers? I am trying to determine whether or not the Trinnov measuring the azimuth angles would affect Atmos imaging even with correctly placed speakers, if it would make it possible to hear hear the size and shape and location of the "moving ball" more accurately, or not?

Because I think the azimuth angles were brought up as a possible reason the Trinnov could have better imaging. While others don't believe it can do that period. I am wondering about a more definitive conclusion whether it can do that, or not, or if only the Trinnov engineers know for sure.


----------



## sdurani

Technology3456 said:


> I am trying to determine whether or not the Trinnov measuring the azimuth angles would affect Atmos imaging even with correctly placed speakers, if it would make it possible to hear hear the size and shape and location of the "moving ball" more accurately, or not?


With correctly placed speakers, there would be nothing for the remapping feature to do. Like asking whether upmixing will help when playing back 5.1 channel material on a 5.1 speaker layout. With the same number of channels as speakers, there is nothing to upmix to.


----------



## Technology3456

sdurani said:


> With correctly placed speakers, there would be nothing for the remapping feature to do. Like asking whether upmixing will help when playing back 5.1 channel material on a 5.1 speaker layout. With the same number of channels as speakers, there is nothing to upmix to.


Right. I was thinking along the lines of what if the algorithm is so powerful it could have multiple applications. Maybe its original application was to phantom realign misplaced speakers, but since it's so good at "imaging" speakers to be in places they're not, maybe it can also use a variation of the same algorithm to improve imaging even when the speakers are already in the right place, since that is also related to manipulating where the sound sounds like it is coming from.

I'm not saying it can. I have no idea. But that was the kind of scenario I wondered about. Until someone says, "No, the Trinnov cannot improve Atmos imaging, and here is why those claims are incorrect," it will still seem like a twosided debate. One Trinnov owner posted it can. Another user up azimuth angles and elevation. But I think you're saying it cannot do it, full stop. I just like to understand conclusions completely and not have grey area. If I was considering buying one tomorrow based on this question, I still wouldn't be sure whether it can do it or not based on the exchanges on this page of the thread.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Right. I was thinking along the lines of what if the algorithm is so powerful it could have multiple applications. Maybe its original application was to phantom realign misplaced speakers, but since it's so good at "imaging" speakers to be in places they're not, maybe it can also use a variation of the same algorithm to improve imaging even when the speakers are already in the right place, since that is also related to manipulating where the sound sounds like it is coming from.
> 
> I'm not saying it can. I have no idea. But that was the kind of scenario I wondered about. Until someone says, "No, the Trinnov cannot improve Atmos imaging, and here is why the reasons people claim it can are incorrect, here is what they are missing," it will still seem like people are debating it on both sides and there's still grey area. One poster said they own it and it can. Another brought up azimuth angles and elevation measurements in the conversation. But I think you're saying it cannot do it, full stop. I just like to understand conclusions completely and not have grey area. If I was considering buying one tomorrow based on this question, I still wouldn't be sure whether it can do it or not.


There is no grey area. Trinnov has a very, very good room correction system, superior to most, and also the remapping feature. For these reasons, it can yield superior results when playing back any sound format, including Atmos and DTS:X. But the Atmos renderer itself is not behaving any differently than the Atmos renderer in any other product, assuming the same speaker layouts. Any improvement in Atmos imaging is due to processing the Trinnov is applying downstream of the Atmos decoding.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> There is no grey area. Trinnov has a very, very good room correction system, superior to most, and also the remapping feature. For these reasons, it can yield superior results when playing back any sound format, including Atmos and DTS:X. But the Atmos renderer itself is not behaving any differently than the Atmos renderer in any other product, assuming the same speaker layouts. *Any improvement in Atmos imaging* is due to processing the Trinnov is applying downstream of the Atmos decoding.


But there _is _an improvement in Atmos imaging for already well placed speakers, or not?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> But there _is _an improvement in Atmos imaging for already well placed speakers, or not?


Depends on what we're comparing it to, and also remember personal taste comes into play. But yes, a Trinnov using the Trinnov optimizer will sound better and have better imaging than an AVR using Audyssey. Again, not because it's decoding Atmos any differently, but because it has great room correction and, assuming a good calibration, is getting all the time and phase alignment just right. Will it sound better than a well-calibrated system using Dirac Live? Harder to say.

For the record, if I were building a home theatre and could afford one, I'd probably go with the Trinnov. But if I were living with a more modest budget I could be very, very happy with a top-shelf Denon AVR.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> Depends on what we're comparing it to, and also remember personal taste comes into play. But yes, a Trinnov using the Trinnov optimizer will sound better and have better imaging than an AVR using Audyssey. Again, not because it's decoding Atmos any differently, but because it has great room correction and, assuming a good calibration, is getting all the time and phase alignment just right. Will it sound better than a well-calibrated system using Dirac Live? Harder to say.
> 
> For the record, if I were building a home theatre and could afford one, I'd probably go with the Trinnov. But if I were living with a more modest budget I could be very, very happy with a top-shelf Denon AVR.


Thanks man. I'm same as you, would love to get a Trinnov but it's not happening any time soon eh, but, I think I'll be happy with Denon as well. I was just curious if the Trinnov improved atmos imaging like the youtuber said or not, and didn't know it would become a complex question. What I meant by grey area was that you mentioned the Trinnov was adding two special sauces, the remapping feature and the location data, but sdurani said the location data is not needed for accurate level and delay measurements. If true that would leave the remapping feature, which would not be used if the speakers are correctly placed.

So for correctly placed speakers, that would leave neither, which is why the answer was still not clear if the Trinnov can improve imaging or not, and how. But now you brought up a third feature, superior room correction, and it sounds like it might be the biggest feature of all. Better EQ could probably provide the perception of better imaging all by itself. Maybe subtle but still. Maybe this is the answer that explains what otismojo was hearing.


----------



## eaayoung

I would love to listen to a Trinnov system with a really good Atmos track. But then again, that might spoil the whole Atmos thing for me and it will never be the same.


----------



## 4republic

Hoping to get some input on 11.2 Atmos speaker layout for home I'm building... better to post here or start a thread?


----------



## T-Bone

4republic said:


> Hoping to get some input on Atmos speaker layout for home I'm building... better to post here or start a thread?


 post away 

-T


----------



## 4republic

^ Cool thanks!

Here's the layout



http://imgur.com/kg56xvw


Wide open on speaker recommendations and placement... open to in ceiling, in wall, or surface mounted... don't want to spend more than $4K for new speakers if possible? Have a couple excellent NHT towers w side firing subs I'd like to re-use for front L/R? 

I'll be driving this with an Onkyo 3030


----------



## T-Bone

4republic said:


> ^ Cool thanks!
> 
> Here's the layout
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/kg56xvw
> 
> 
> Wide open on speaker recommendations and placement... open to in ceiling, in wall, or surface mounted... don't want to spend more than $4K for new speakers if possible? Have a couple excellent NHT towers w side firing subs I'd like to re-use for front L/R?
> 
> I'll be driving this with an Onkyo 3030


Hmmmm. First of all, I'm not the thread police  so you're free to keep you post here.

But I thought you just had some questions on Dolby Atmos layout and then we could have helped you along on that. You actually need a lot more help than just the atmos. In this case, and it's up to you, you might want to start your own thread cuz you're going to need questions answered on where you're going to put your Left Right center side surrounds rear surrounds if you're going 5.1.x versus 7.1.x, where X is either two Atmos speakers or four Atmos speakers.

Do I have that right?

-T


----------



## MagnumX

otismojo said:


> I have to say that after being trolled for making a comment or offering my opinion it’s pretty difficult to offer much more information. The point of posting here is to share thoughts and opinions. However, who would openly invite being criticized or nit-picked about what they have to say?


The problem here is _that_ is exactly how you treated my opinion and then you expect me to roll over and just accept that a $30k processor does magic tricks with _any_ substantiation, proof or anything else. If that's your _opinion_, then that's fine, but you kept insisting it's the truth and I'll hear it if I just listen to a $30k processor they don't give out for loaners and that's a whole different story. I didn't make even one of those things I mentioned. Audiophiles have insisted things like markers and magic stones make a HUGE difference in the sound of their systems. This is a well known audiophile fact of life. I'm not trolling or making those things up. I'm making a point here, that you can't trust your ears when it's been shown even a 1dB difference in level will be _perceived_ as _better_ sounding by most people. 

Pepsi used a similar psychology method in their famous Pepsi vs Coke challenge in the 1990s. Pepsi has more sugar than Coca-Cola and it's well known that people tend to taste something as "bad" or "wrong" when they drink a less sweet drink right after a sweeter one. Thus, Pepsi would always give the person the Pepsi in the "challenge" first every single time without exception. That's called a single-blind test. The person giving the test _knows_ what the product is the other is tasting and worse yet, they're using that to manipulate the the results. This is why in audio testing, single blind isn't really enough to prove a product makes a difference to the sound. Double blind testing is needed (where neither knows which is which). This is why the ABX test box was invented and over the years it has proven there's an awful lot of snake oil products out there in audio land. 

Even Sony made it so their SACD players would play the SACD side of a dual-format disc like 3dB louder (might have only been 1dB) than when the same player played a CD. This ensured that the SACD side (even if made with an identical 2-channel mastering) sounded louder and therefore "better" to the consumer. There is simply no other valid reason they would have done that other than to manipulate the consumer. Why? Because the human ear can't hear a difference between 16/44.1 and say 24/192 (SACD isn't really either one, but the same difference relatively speaking) on the playback end. But people are lead to believe they can so the companies can sell you a product! I can't tell you how many people I know that honestly believe 24/192 is vastly superior to 16/44.1 with no proof to back it up, but they insist they can _hear_ it quite easily. Most SACDs are REMASTERED, however so there usually _is_ a real difference between it and the old CD version (even on the new CD version). But it has zip to do with the "hires" playback mode. When you even have people like Neil Young touting how much better "hires" audio is, what's the consumer going to think? I think old Neil's hearing is probably shot so it would be hard to take his word for it on a good day, but that's not how people think.



> Being scrutinized about my thoughts or opinions on a product is not openly inviting my opinion.


So simply state your opinion and stop telling me what I'm going to hear too if you don't want my input. If I say I don't buy what you're saying, ignore me and I won't reply. Arguing with me invites further discussion.



> I neither have the time or the desire to argue my points. They are simply my opinion based on my experience. I would love to explore why the Trinnov is a great product and why I believe it sounds better than what I’ve previously owned. The trolls and bullies should be ashamed for jumping to harsh conclusions or mean spirited comments. Who wants to openly expose themselves to this kind of behavior?


And yet you (and others here over the years) have no problem doing it to me and others that don't share your opinions. You just don't see it when you're the one trying to push an opinion as a fact. Bold claims require bold proof.



> I’m out. I will enjoy my system and keep my information to myself. I’m not here selling anything *or telling anyone why my stuff is better than theirs*. It’s not always a contest and this aggressive posting behavior is unwarranted. Done and unsubscribed.


Gee, here I thought that was EXACTLY what you were doing with your Trinnov claims. You claimed it was so much better that you can tell the size and shape of a ball flying by with your eyes closed. You never once said which demo or movie has these balls flying by so I could try it myself. NOT ONCE, despite me asking specifically for it. Yet you say I should go "find" a Trinnov system to hear it for myself how much better it sounds. That sure _sounds like_ telling me why your stuff is better than what I'm listening to.


----------



## 4republic

^^ exactly. I'll start a new thread. thx again.

UPDATE: posted here Open to any/all input, building new house and bonus room...


----------



## eaayoung

4republic said:


> ^^ exactly. I'll start a new thread. thx again.
> UPDATE: posted here Open to any/all input, building new house and bonus room...


Regarding Atmos, a 5.x.4 system would work well in that space. In-ceiling speakers would be a good choice for the four Atmos speakers depending on ceiling height. How high is your ceiling? You could go to 7.x.4 with that receiver as well. But a 5.x.4 Atmos gets you the best bang for your buck. I went 5.x4 on mine and used the extra two channels on my receiver to power a second zone on my back patio.


----------



## 4republic

eaayoung said:


> Regarding Atmos, a 5.x.4 system would work well in that space. In-ceiling speakers would be a good choice for the four Atmos speakers depending on ceiling height. How high is your ceiling? You could go to 7.x.4 with that receiver as well. But a 5.x.4 Atmos gets you the best bang for your buck. I went 5.x4 on mine and used the extra two channels on my receiver to power a second zone on my back patio.


Thanks for response! Ceiling is 9ft. 5.1.4 sounds good actually... any speaker recommendations for this space?


----------



## eaayoung

4republic said:


> Thanks for response! Ceiling is 9ft. 5.1.4 sounds good actually... any speaker recommendations for this space?


You can use just about any in-ceiling speaker. But since I have Def Tech speakers, I went with four DI 8R in-ceiling speakers for my system after a recommendation on this forum. They’ve worked well for me.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Audiophiles have insisted things like markers and magic stones make a HUGE difference in the sound of their systems. This is a well known audiophile fact of life.


What Trinnov is doing is in no way comparable to tweaks like markers or magic stones. Room correction is a well-understood science, with multiple competitors all making improvement to sound using similar techniques. It's definitely frustrating that it's hard for consumers to audition some of this hardware, but I don't think it's fair at all to lump it in with the audiophile woo that unfortunately pervades the industry.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> What Trinnov is doing is in no way comparable to tweaks like markers or magic stones. Room correction is a well-understood science, with multiple competitors all making improvement to sound using similar techniques. It's definitely frustrating that it's hard for consumers to audition some of this hardware, but I don't think it's fair at all to lump it in with the audiophile woo that unfortunately pervades the industry.


I'm not lumping what the Trinnov actually does into that category, but only questionable sounding claims that a system using the same speakers will suddenly image so much better to the point where it sounded "blurry" before and now sounds sharp as a tack or whatever analogy. A properly set up system with Atmos will not sound "blurry" regardless of what capabilities the Trinnov has. Now if the user had a certain room problem or the like that its Room EQ could fix, that might help explain some of the comments, but that it no way means everyone has those room problems or that an expensive room processor is going to suddenly transform your speakers and room no matter what their quality might already be. Those echo marketing claims, not provable reality. 

Ultimately, Atmos still images objects between speakers and if those objects happen to be between the front mains, how different is that from a regular stereo signal in that moment? What could make speakers image "sharper" in a stereo system? It's all superior room correction and EQ? What makes KRELL amplifiers get audiophile claims of transforming their stereo experience into pure bliss? It's an amplifier. It's not a magic flute. _That doesn't mean Krell amplifiers aren't quality equipment_. It means the _claims_ being made about them are dubious and not related to amplifier qualities and we all know from the "Audiophile Phenomena" that people are easily duped by marketing, snake oil and even their own imaginations when it only takes a signal to be 1dB louder to sound "clearer" to them when it's not actually clearer, it's just 1dB louder. Now if what I'm saying makes any sense at all to you, then you should see what I'm getting at. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time. This isn't about Trinnov. It's about unsubstantiated claims that it magically makes the cake batter taste so much better because it's expensive! Krells are expensive too. They're great amps, but they don't make a bad CD sound like a great one.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Ultimately, Atmos still images objects between speakers and if those objects happen to be between the front mains, how different is that from a regular stereo signal in that moment? What could make speakers image "sharper" in a stereo system? It's all superior room correction and EQ?


Mostly superior room correction and EQ, IMO. If you correct to get a perfectly flat frequency response from each speaker, get the delays perfect, sort out any phase issues, integrate the subs perfectly with the mains, tighten up the impulse response - all of that will improve stereo imaging in a way that I think could be subjectively described as "sharper."

Re: amplifiers, we are on the same page.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

If you want to give your front wides a workout, watch the 4k UHD version of Dirty Dancing.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Mostly superior room correction and EQ, IMO. If you correct to get a perfectly flat frequency response from each speaker, get the delays perfect, sort out any phase issues, integrate the subs perfectly with the mains, tighten up the impulse response - all of that will improve stereo imaging in a way that I think could be subjectively described as "sharper."
> 
> Re: amplifiers, we are on the same page.


That's still just the "what about" game. It doesn't actually _prove_ anything, let alone his claims that don't just imply it corrected something wrong on his setup, but asks me to believe it will make anyone's setup image much better. 

If you're already getting +/- 2.5dB room response (better than most speaker ratings in an anechoic chamber), what's it going to do for you? There's no purported explanation in the claim, just magical sounding claims of blur into precise sized balls whizzing by without so much as the name of this magic ball demo provided to check out (probably because he likely made the example up).

It's pure conjecture at best and subjective jumping to conclusions at worst. There's also a very high psychological need to justify a purchase of that magnitude, IMO and so it is rare the Krell buyer that admits he could have gotten the same audible result for $10k less. No, the systems invariably sound not just a little better, but "much" better.

You're right that Trinnov has some very nice high end features, not the least of which is 32 speaker support for Atmos, which undoubtedly could be used to create a much more resolute system, especially for off-axis listeners, but one cannot simply assume the results on a same speaker count system will be invariably _better_ as better is a subjective term. 

But here it's not just better, but being able to precisely size up a ball's exact shape and size is extraordinary! Heck, I don't think I could remotely do that with a real ball flying by as they don't make that kind of sound, which is what I was getting at. You can't tell the size of a car by its car horn alone. I doubt the existence of such a demo on that basis, let alone the claim and seeing he's conveniently left, we'll never find out the name of that flying ball demo....

Dolby did make a flying ball demo for TrueHD (balls shoot from a cannon from the back of the room into the front and make a fake "bouncing noise" off the front "wall" and then it swirls and a woman whispers, "All around you." 

I've never heard of an Atmos version of that demo and the size of the balls varies both visually and audibly by the size of your screen and the size and placement (and type of driver) of your speaker system. 

For example, Martin Logan electrostatics produce a larger, less pin-point image than a small tweeter based speaker likely would, but that doesn't mean they're bad speakers (due to the width of the planar surface) and I don't think even Trinnov, as nice as their product is, can change the rules of physics in that regard.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> It's a 13 speaker layout system based on 5.1 (Auro tried that and look where it got them).... it also adds a LOWER layer (20 degrees below ear height) below the L/C/R speakers (for that boiling lava standing on a platform above a volcano sound action!) but oddly doesn't seem to have lower speakers for the surround locations (so much for a mouse scurrying across the floor front to back). Of course, unless your receiver supports MPEG-H 3D (European D&M models purportedly do),
> ...
> But even if there's support for that as the diagram shows at some point, there's the issue of multiple rows getting in the way of any speakers below the seat height of the row in front of it (which can create problems for ear level speakers, let alone "floor level" ones) and without lower level speakers for the surround rows,


Think of it as a subset of NHK 22.2 Also, MPH should also render to 714, etc.

The issue of bottom layer use is that it could be low & it might require lots of changes from people & tools, Atmos current-gen doesn't support this, there is no HQ SFX being sold with a HQ bottom layer (max is 8.0 2D hemicube atm, 2oA is not HQ). There is a bit of use for 360RA music as shown my Sony's pictures.

You can apply HRTF for bottom use, but for -ve elevations I find it's less effective than +ve elevations.

For listeners, if there are seats in the way of bottom speakers, you can still hear some sound via diffusion. Or you can set speakers a bit wider.



MagnumX said:


> In fact, I tried speakers in just such locations with DTS titles as officially DTS:X supports main lower speakers as well


Do you have a link for such titles?



dschulz said:


> Any improvement in Atmos imaging is due to processing the Trinnov is applying downstream of the Atmos decoding.


There was a ITU listening test that said 714 is barely better than 713. So more height speakers with good content should help. Recall that many Atmos titles use 12o or a fixed 714 render so it will sound bad on 916 systems. but I watched a Tinnitov YT video and they claim "own 916 implementation". So I think it's possible to have improved imaging by rendering Atmos to 714, then upscaling to 916, for soundtracks of the type I just described. Sorta like DTSX pro on 714 soundtracks.


----------



## Goname31

junh1024 said:


> There was a ITU listening test that said 714 is barely better than 713. So more height speakers with good content should help. Recall that many Atmos titles use 12o or a fixed 714 render so it will sound bad on 916 systems. but I watched a Tinnitov YT video and they claim "own 916 implementation". So I think it's possible to have improved imaging by rendering Atmos to 714, then upscaling to 916, for soundtracks of the type I just described. Sorta like DTSX pro on 714 soundtracks.


Yes Dolby should really allow DSU to take care of the upmixing of badly mixed 7.1.4 content, like DTS do with Neural X. Maybe the next update.


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> Do you have a link for such titles?


They're not official titles. Someone noticed a long time ago that if you had speaker outputs at all height levels that DTS music titles would naturally image below ear height and above it. I believe the Trinnov's "bottom speakers" for DTS are just copies of the main channels for that reason. The album I noticed it on the other day was Alan Parson's album _A Valid Path_ from a DTS Music CD.



> There was a ITU listening test that said 714 is barely better than 713. So more height speakers with good content should help. Recall that many Atmos titles use 12o or a fixed 714 render so it will sound bad on 916 systems. but I watched a Tinnitov YT video and they claim "own 916 implementation". So I think it's possible to have improved imaging by rendering Atmos to 714, then upscaling to 916, for soundtracks of the type I just described. Sorta like DTSX pro on 714 soundtracks.


I'm using "Scatmos" to do the Top Middle speakers in my room and it's night and day better (using front/rear heights) than 7.1.4, but then I have a 24' long room with heights at the edges, so it cannot give a solid direct overhead image without it. Some have said the official Top Middles don't work well because many movies don't support rendering to them or don't do so properly part of the time. I could see where that would be a huge problem. I still blame Dolby for not trying harder to enforce proper usage of objects, although there's some question of how much they could actually do. At least DTS:X Pro gets "around" the situation by filling in the extra speakers regardless of whether someone uses objects or not via Neural X. That has to be an advantage over Atmos for higher speaker count systems. Trinnov using room remapping must help in that regard too as they can at least fill in larger imaging gaps or whatever using the extra speakers.


----------



## batpig

junh1024 said:


> .... but I watched a Tinnitov YT video and they claim "own 916 implementation". So I think it's possible to have improved imaging by rendering Atmos to 714, then upscaling to 916, for soundtracks of the type I just described. Sorta like DTSX pro on 714 soundtracks.


It's ONLY possible on Trinnov because (1) they write their own source code for Atmos decoding, whereas everyone else uses off-the-shelf DSP decoding chips, and (2) they have their proprietary "remapping" technology. Trinnov doesn't decode Atmos any differently, the magic is all the proprietary stuff Trinnov can do AFTER the decoding.



Goname31 said:


> Yes Dolby should really allow DSU to take care of the upmixing of badly mixed 7.1.4 content, like DTS do with Neural X. Maybe the next update.


Don't hold your breath, it's not going to happen. The technology is different, as home Atmos is fully object based whereas DTS:X is a mix, with most of the content being encoded as channels.

The Neural:X upmix does NOT upmix objects at all, it only upmixes the channel-based portion of the mix and "spreads" the sound across all the available speakers by extracting "in between" sounds to speakers positioned between channels. The same way that, say, PLIIx would spread the 2 surround channels across 4 surround speakers to upmix 5.1 tracks to 7.1 output. It's easy for the upmixer to "know" what to upmix, because there's a standard channel-based component.

With Atmos, once the renderer kicks in the mix is "broken up" into its object components (11, 13, or 15 objects depending on the way it's encoded) with the only "channel" being the LFE. The theatrical "bed" channels are converted to static objects as part of the spatial coding process. So how would an upmixer "know" which part to upmix? The decoder doesn't "know" that the studio decided to prevent sound from going into the FW or TM speakers. There is no flag in the content that indicates it's a "fixed mix", it looks exactly the same to the decoder.


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> It's ONLY possible on Trinnov because (1) they write their own source code for Atmos decoding, whereas everyone else uses off-the-shelf DSP decoding chips, and (2) they have their proprietary "remapping" technology.


Their remapping has nothing to do with their Atmos decoder. It does have to do with having the processing power to modify the output. A DSP chip could be designed to do something similar. DTS:X Pro already does this for the 11-channel output of standard X soundtracks. 



> Trinnov doesn't decode Atmos any differently, the magic is all the proprietary stuff Trinnov can do AFTER the decoding.


And that is exactly why their Intel based decoder has nothing to do with it. Remapping occurs after decoding objects into channels.



> Don't hold your breath, it's not going to happen. The technology is different, as home Atmos is fully object based whereas DTS:X is a mix, with most of the content being encoded as channels.


Once objects are decoded into channel output, the "objects" no longer matter. Whether it is rendered to channels or stored in channels, the ability to apply DSP to the output should be the same. 

I don't know what makes you think Neural X cannot modify X object output once it's rendered into a channel, but it shouldn't have to since objects can already render to other channel locations. X can use both objects and channels and Neural X moving sounds into channels beyond 7.1.4 should not be impeded by the use of objects one way or another. It's basic mixing at that point to combine the two.



> The Neural:X upmix does NOT upmix objects at all, it only upmixes the channel-based portion of the mix


There's no need to upmix the object portion. It can already render to any channel location.



> and "spreads" the sound across all the available speakers by extracting "in between" sounds to speakers positioned between channels. The same way that, say, PLIIx would spread the 2 surround channels across 4 surround speakers to upmix 5.1 tracks to 7.1 output.


Sorry, but this a false analogy. Neural X does _not_ act like PLIIx at all in the 7.1 rear channel sense. That is matrix based decoding and has nothing to do with it. The correct analogy is Pro Logic's _center_ Steering Logic (that existed long before PLII existed in any form). That is also the basis if so-called "Scatmos". Any Pro Logic decoder will work, not just PLII as some have implied on these forums before as the matrix rear channel decoding is not used at all.



> It's easy for the upmixer to "know" what to upmix, because there's a standard channel-based component.


Once the Atmos renderer creates a channel based output, it too is no longer object based and therefore it CAN be manipulated after the fact. Otherwise, Trinnov's channel remapping wouldn't work. Since Dolby relinquished their no manipulation of Dolby signals (which specifically included Atmos in the memo), AVR makers are now free to create their own DSP mods which _could_ technically include a Neural X-like component. 

Comparing neighboring channels for correlated material and creating a steered output in-between is 1980s tech (1982).



> With Atmos, once the renderer kicks in the mix is "broken up" into its object components (11, 13, or 15 objects depending on the way it's encoded) with the only "channel" being the LFE. The theatrical "bed" channels are converted to static objects as part of the spatial coding process. So how would an upmixer "know" which part to upmix?


You have that exactly backwards. The soundtrack is stored as objects. The renderer decodes the mix for available channels and outputs AS channels. How would something like Neural X _know_? The Atmos renderer just did that for it by converting to channel output.




> The decoder doesn't "know" that the studio decided to prevent sound from going into the FW or TM speakers. There is no flag in the content that indicates it's a "fixed mix", it looks exactly the same to the decoder.


It doesn't have to! It only has to compare adjacent channels for correlated material and steer it to the channel(s) in-between. 

The only thing that somewhat complicates it is there can possibly be multiple channels extracted in-between on a 32-channel system. But Neural X for DTS:X Pro has already managed that for the up to 30 channels DTS:X Pro supports. Lesser AVRs would only have to handle as many channels as they support.


----------



## Goname31

Atmos was marketed with the idea that your layout does not count, the object should spread to whatever the number of speakers you have. Is it a mix (the studios) or a technology problem? The way I see it, the mixer should decides where he/she want the sound to be heard or where it should span, and the decoder should send the sound in the correspondant positions. Hearing about 7.1.2 mix should be a non sens.


----------



## priitv8

Goname31 said:


> Atmos was marketed with the idea that your layout does not count, the object should spread to whatever the number of speakers you have. Is it a mix (the studios) or a technology problem?


One shall take any marketing pitch with a grain of salt.
How can the Atmos processor make sound appear (esp. in the height layer) if there are no speakers there?
It can be tested easily - try the helicopter demo with a x.x.2 setup and you will hear, that the above rotation can not be created from 2 speakers only. You will only hear left-right panning and not the circling, like the object trajectory has been created.


----------



## Goname31

priitv8 said:


> One shall take any marketing pitch with a grain of salt.


Of course.



priitv8 said:


> How can the Atmos processor make sound appear (esp. in the height layer) if there are no speakers there?
> It can be tested easily - try the helicopter demo with a x.x.2 setup and you will hear, that the above rotation can not be created from 2 speakers only. You will only hear left-right panning and not the circling, like the object trajectory has been created.


What you mention is the down sampling right? Like you said, it already works. With X.X.2, you will have a lesser experience. What i was refering to is the way some atmos materials are badly mixed. It should not be possible to badly mix the objects. Mixers should be able to say ok, this helicopter should follow that trajectory overhead, and at decoding time, the sound should spread on available speakers.


----------



## junh1024

Goname31 said:


> Atmos was marketed with the idea that your layout does not count, the object should spread to whatever the number of speakers you have. Is it a mix (the studios) or a technology problem?


It's a combination of mixing & technology.



Goname31 said:


> Hearing about 7.1.2 mix should be a non sens.


712 is the maximum Atmos bed track width in Pro Tools, the maximum CBA render for older renderer versions, and the default bed config.



priitv8 said:


> It can be tested easily - try the helicopter demo with a x.x.2 setup and you will hear, that the above rotation can not be created from 2 speakers only. You will only hear left-right panning and not the circling, like the object trajectory has been created.


I haven't tried this demo, but circular pans at 100% height will get flattened on xx2 systems. I've heard this is compliant to some standard.


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> Atmos was marketed with the idea that your layout does not count, the object should spread to whatever the number of speakers you have. *Is it a mix (the studios) or a technology problem*? The way I see it, the mixer should decides where he/she want the sound to be heard or where it should span, and the decoder should send the sound in the correspondant positions. Hearing about 7.1.2 mix should be a non sens.


The studios (particularly Disney) don't always use Atmos the way it was designed to be used. Some set fixed objects in the channels they want to use and then just use a channel mix already premixed for 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 or whatever to get around using objects properly. Dolby doesn't seem to care what anyone does as long as they're getting paid. This crap makes true 9.1.6 setups pretty much useless for many titles. If your room "needs" top middle to function like mine, it wouldn't work for many Disney titles. I'd get almost nothing directly overhead. That's one of the reasons I don't bother going to a higher count AVR right now as it wouldn't work on so many titles anyway. I use "Scatmos" (It uses Pro Logic Center Extraction to create a Top Middle channel that _everything_ uses as they are unaware of its existence. It basically acts just like Neural X does and creates a channel in-between existing channels. 

Personally, I'd rather see DTS:X Pro succeed instead for that reason (probably too late as Atmos is everywhere). It at least makes it nearly impossible for the studios to pull that crap regardless of whether they use objects or channels as Neural X will use all available speakers for set soundtrack like that (most DTS:X soundtracks are channel-based 7.1.4 and Neural X on DTS:X Pro expands it up to 30.2 channels. But it can use objects as well if the studios were interested in using them; some foreign titles do as well as DTS demos). Either way it doesn't have the issue any longer. Disney has started using objects more on their Disney+ streaming service so the issue may not exist forever. One can always use Neural X with the base 7.1 layer instead. It's pretty good at figuring out what goes overhead, particularly with soundtracks derived from Atmos, X and Auro-3D.


----------



## Goname31

StormAudio annonced today two upgrades to their ISP MKII line. 

- StomrXT: a new in house upmixer able to use their full 16-24 or 32 channels. No words if it can be used on Atmos content yet

-A Remapping function a la Trinnov.

French processor manufacturer are on fire.

This one is out of my budget too though.


----------



## sdurani

Goname31 said:


> Is it a mix (the studios) or a technology problem?


IF it was a limitation of technology, how could there be mixes that take advantage of all the speakers?


----------



## ace_xp2

MagnumX said:


> Sorry, but this a false analogy. Neural X does _not_ act like PLIIx at all in the 7.1 rear channel sense. That is matrix based decoding and has nothing to do with it. The correct analogy is Pro Logic's _center_ Steering Logic (that existed long before PLII existed in any form). That is also the basis if so-called "Scatmos". Any Pro Logic decoder will work, not just PLII as some have implied on these forums before as the matrix rear channel decoding is not used at all.


Interesting note, PLIIx applied to 5.1 is more like steering logic then it is matrix extraction. As Roger Dressler has mentioned (IIRC in the scatmos thread), the way they set up the 5.1 version was to feed the two back channels through the classic plII decoder with one channel _180 degrees out of phase_. Thus it behaves as though both signals represent matrixed sound entirely, and bases where to put sound on the volume differential between the two tracks. There's no matrix extraction really involved.


----------



## MagnumX

ace_xp2 said:


> Interesting note, PLIIx applied to 5.1 is more like steering logic then it is matrix extraction. As Roger Dressler has mentioned (IIRC in the scatmos thread), the way they set up the 5.1 version was to feed the two back channels through the classic plII decoder with one channel _180 degrees out of phase_. Thus it behaves as though both signals represent matrixed sound entirely, and bases where to put sound on the volume differential between the two tracks. There's no matrix extraction really involved.


I take your point, but the analogy of Neural X extracting to a single center speaker for each new in-between position is still closer than to a pair of speakers (rear surrounds). SS#2 is halfway between side surrounds and rear surrounds, for example. While there is a SS#2 left and SS#2 right, you cannot create them with a single DPLIIx decoder as it only takes two inputs, not four (SSL + RSL = SS#2L & SSR + RSR = SS#2R; you cannot get SS#2L and SS#2R from the PLIIx rear output. You could perhaps get two speakers between side and rear surround instead of just one, however (more seating rows?) but you'd still need two processors to get Left & Right signals).


----------



## X4100

This has been some awesome reading, I'm really excited about what is a new perspective, or way of explaining the use of channel vs object for Dolby Atmos.( at least for myself).Please continue to post your comments as I am looking at the possibility of changing from my 5.1.4 to a 7.1.4!!

QUOTE="Ricoflashback, post: 39055922, member: 8397841"]
narrow
[/QUOTE]


----------



## AYanguas

X4100 said:


> .......
> Please continue to post your comments as I am looking at the possibility of changing from my 5.1.4 to a 7.1.4!!
> 
> QUOTE="Ricoflashback, post: 39055922, member: 8397841"]
> narrow


[/QUOTE]

My considerations about 5.1.4 to 7.1.4

Worth if you have enough space on the rear of the couch for the Surround Backs. Couch against wall would not be possible or convenient.
Surrounds from 7.1 at 90º azimuth give a great binaural images for some mixes. Sometimes the effect seems that the sound comes from above, with Top speakers being silent.
Good and smooth pan on the 4 rear speakers when surround or Atmos mixes pan sound over than zone.
Better distribution of Atmos objects when they are located at the rear of the room. Some Atmos music mix that way and it sound much better than from only 2 Surrounds (5.1)
As I have many Quad music (4.0), I find much better to reconfigure the Surround speakers to output to the Surround Back speakers, in order to get the Quad Rears in a more Square position as the 70's mix was intended. (Only 4.0 without upmix).
At the end, It all depends on the mix you play. For me, much more useful for Surround (Atmos) music than for films.


----------



## Goname31

AYanguas said:


> At the end, It all depends on the mix you play. For me, much more useful for Surround (Atmos) music than for films.


I would had games too, back surround in game can be great. Everything depend on the mix and the execution but I really does not regret going 5.1.4 to 7.1.4.


----------



## MagnumX

AYanguas said:


> My considerations about 5.1.4 to 7.1.4
> 
> Worth if you have enough space on the rear of the couch for the Surround Backs. Couch against wall would not be possible or convenient


If one has space in front of them, they *could* always put the side surrounds forward of the couch and put the rear surrounds where they would normally put the side surrounds. (This is similar to sitting in the 3rd row of my home theater). It gives quite an interesting variation on imaging with a lot of detail in front of you and yet still wrapping to the sides in the back like a normal side surround would do. Most films have a lot of duplicate (arrayed) side/rear information anyway so many sounds end up to the sides here regardless of whether I sit in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rows (Back To The Future in Atmos is a prime example. Most of the surround effects were coming from the front wides or sides in the front (almost nothing seemed to come from the rears from that seating position) and if I moved to the 2nd row, the images moved back with me and were still to the sides or just in front of me and again to the 3rd row. 

This is how most non-Atmos mixes behave as well. Rears are uncommonly used for discrete sounds in 7.1 soundtracks, which is why people often complain about them not getting much use, but that also means you can easily stretch the layout out or add another row of seats without adding more side surrounds since the rears often contain much of the same information duplicated. But when discrete sounds are used for the rear speakers (some movies like Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol in 7.1 have heavy rear channel usage and are quite stunning for pre-Atmos and of course most Atmos music uses them as much or more than the side surrounds, some almost as much as the mains), you get a very intersting imaging experience with them to the sides and the side surrounds in front of the seating location.

Example Layout for 7.1 with the Couch against the rear wall (sub not shown). This also goes back to earlier posts where I've said home theater layouts and Atmos in particular can and perhaps even should be room-centric rather than listener-centric as this same layout will work pretty well no matter where you put the couch in the room. It's just an extension of how actual theaters are laid out, except they would have multiple arrays of speakers for each listening row on the sides and multiple speakers across the back, but then you can have rows of seats throughout the theater. Some seats might be more optimal for the level mix (sounds do still drop in level over distance) and of course centered seats always have the best forward stereo mix due toe the precedence effect, but the idea is that you don't have to go 5.1 just because you have your couch along the back wall. The sides will image almost holographic in the middle of the room with Atmos material that images between the speakers at the sides (like many Atmos music albums will do). 

My 3rd row images similar to this and it's definitely interesting in terms of surround with layers of objects moving in front of me. Doing 5.1 with the same layout (just remove sides in drawing) is how most would handle that room and it works, but you get far less object detail without the side location as objects are spread throughout a 7.1 layout and 5.1 puts all the rear objects in the sides (now positioned in the back of the room) so it just "stretches" the image to the back of the room instead of layering them throughout. Personally, I'd find 7.1 laid out like this much more interesting sounding than 5.1 without the middle speakers (moved to the back instead).


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> But when discrete sounds are used for the rear speakers (some movies like Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol in 7.1 have heavy rear channel usage and are quite stunning for pre-Atmos...), you get a very intersting imaging experience with them to the sides and the side surrounds in front of the seating location.



Do you have any comments on movies which are 71+, but have ambience/sfx almost exclusively in front/back, rather than side?


----------



## avguyav

Hi, I tried the demo files with my Samsung Atmos soundbar. They are great!








Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com





However, when I used my Apple AirPodsMax or Sony XM4 on my Windows PC, I could not hear any sound. What is the reason?


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> Do you have any comments on movies which are 71+, but have ambience/sfx almost exclusively in front/back, rather than side?


I'm not sure I know of any movies that are _mostly_ front/back in 7.1, but a few Atmos music albums could be described as heavily front/back, although they do use the sides (and top middle) as well (e.g. Yello's Point, both Booka Shade Atmos albums, Lichtmond - The Journey and Kraftwerk's Catalogue. all come to mind).


----------



## AYanguas

junh1024 said:


> Do you have any comments on movies which are 71+, but have ambience/sfx almost exclusively in front/back, rather than side?





MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure I know of any movies that are _mostly_ front/back in 7.1, but a few Atmos music albums could be described as heavily front/back, although they do use the sides (and top middle) as well (e.g. Yello's Point, both Booka Shade Atmos albums, Lichtmond - The Journey and Kraftwerk's Catalogue. all come to mind).


It is not exactly what you are talking about, an Atmos mix with objects at the rear, but when you upmix (DSU for example) a 5.1 mix, some amount of sound is moved or copied from side surrounds to the surround backs, thus making the listening more immersive (surrounded) and less 'side'. Of course it's dependent on the mix, and it works good for some mixes and not so good for others.


----------



## Kain

What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.

Purple = TV
Green = Floor speakers
Black = Overhead speakers
Red = Subwoofers


----------



## AYanguas

Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.
> 
> Purple = TV
> Green = Floor speakers
> Black = Overhead speakers
> Red = Subwoofers


Surely they seem more than it would be needed. I think they will work fine, without entering in any technical aspect. Processor configuration, calibration tasks, good mixed content, specialy Dolby Atmos Music to take advantage of the installation.

If you can afford it, go for it. You will never complain for not having put some more.


----------



## chi_guy50

As the ancient Chinese philosopher said: "Mo' speakers, mo' better."


----------



## MagnumX

Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.
> 
> Purple = TV
> Green = Floor speakers
> Black = Overhead speakers
> Red = Subwoofers


There's no such thing as too many speakers. 

Do you "need" that many in that size room? Probably not. But if you want them, go for it.


----------



## T-Bone

Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.
> 
> Purple = TV
> Green = Floor speakers
> Black = Overhead speakers
> Red = Subwoofers


Sure, you can do what you want. Tell everyone you have a 9.4.6 

Those front wides are approx. 30" forward of the side surrounds. Seems too close?

Top Rear are at 112 degrees. Dolby recommends at least 125 degrees.

It's your room. You asked. 

-T

Edit:
Hopefully I didn't come across the wrong way. I guess the point that was trying to make was that once the room gets to a certain size, as it gets smaller and smaller, it would seem to me that we would need less because you get to the point of diminishing return.

For instance, if the front wide was one foot in front of the listening position, and the fronts are 2 ft away from the listening position, does it make sense to have front wide? Prolly not.

I don't know at what size speakers become less relevant. But looks like the six overhead speakers is kind of Overkill especially when it puts you in a different price category. And for that size room, are you going to notice a difference over four overhead speakers?


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the replies. 

That is not a 100% accurate drawing and does not represent the angles perfectly. But it does give an idea of where the speakers will be placed in the room. The angles should be close to what Dolby recommends for 9.1.6.


----------



## junh1024

Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6.


It'll work, but I'll suggest 514 or 714 since many soundtracks don't make use of 916, and prices of AVRs ramp up significantly beyond >12ch. For subs, I don't suggest >2 subs since you'll lose directionality. Maybe try getting fullrange surrounds instead?


----------



## dschulz

Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.


Looks good to me. My only note would be you can save some money on the processor if you limit yourself to 9.1.4 rather than 9.1.6, with little loss of performance. If, however, you have already selected a processor for other reasons that is 9.1.6 capable I'd say go for it.


----------



## AYanguas

Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.
> 
> Purple = TV
> Green = Floor speakers
> Black = Overhead speakers
> Red = Subwoofers


Acc. to my knowledge (experience + some reading):

One single SUB could be enough if you have a single listening row, even a single critical MLP. With the help of AVR tools or other room compensation you can EQ the bass at the MLP to avoid the stationary waves generating bass frequencies peaks and valleys. Sound room conditioning, like bass traps, could reduce but outside the MLP you will find some points with bass peaks or valleys.

Two SUBs can avoid part of that and be able to EQ the bass for a larger area than a single MLP. I never did that, as I have only a single SUB, optimized for "me", single MLP.

More than two SUBs could not be needed. And I do not know how difficult will be to EQ the Bass with so many SUBs

If you install all that full range speakers for all, it will give you enough musical quality in all frequencies, not needing SUB. But with the recommended Bass Management I think only One or Two SUBs would be more than enough to get Fulll surround quality with so many speakers.


----------



## batpig

A few problems, mostly having to do with room size. You are stuffing too large of speakers into too small of a space, which is going to limit your placement flexibility and create issues.

First, why do you need 708i for the surrounds and overheads? Your room is only 10' wide, and the JBL 708i is a foot deep! The surrounds are going to be right on top of you, and it will be a disaster having them directly at 90 degrees since they will be only 1m or less away from the ears of the listener on that side of the couch. 

The much smaller 705i (see image below for how much smaller it is) will be more than sufficient for surrounds and overheads, and will give you a lot more placement flexibility.










Either way, do NOT put the surrounds directly at 90 degrees. You will have major hot-spotting / surround balance issues given the room size and speaker distance. In order to mitigate that you end up having to raise them up higher, when then creates other issues (less separation from the overheads). 

Trinnov specifically recommends against placing surround speakers directly in line with the listeners heads:










Also, as others have pointed out, the limitations of many Atmos tracks with respect to the use of the Front Wide channels, as well as all the overheads (vs only having 2 or 4 in play) limits the usefulness of a 9.1.6 layout. I think this will be exacerbated by being in such a small room, because you will be so close to the speakers that it will be much easier to hear if one is "missing".

I would consider doing a 7.1.4 layout instead, which saves a lot of money on processor cost. At most I would do a 9.1.4 layout, as two pairs of overheads is sufficient for a single row of listeners and then you don't have to worry about the overheads being "left out". 



Kain said:


> What do you guys think of the following layout? Too many speakers for this small room or will it work just fine? Room is 12 ft long x 10.2 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Setup is 9.4.6. Drawing is not 100% to scale. Speakers will be the JBL 708i all around with 4 subwoofers.
> 
> Purple = TV
> Green = Floor speakers
> Black = Overhead speakers
> Red = Subwoofers


----------



## batpig

AYanguas said:


> One single SUB could be enough if you have a single listening row, even a single critical MLP.


No. Just no. A single subwoofer cannot create even bass across a single row, only one seat at best. In a room this small the modes will be tightly packed, and shifted high up into very audible frequencies. 

At a minimum 2 subs is essential to reduce the standing wave energy laterally (side to side) so the single row has somewhat even bass across the seats. This cannot be done with passive bass traps, especially not in a room that small (the bass traps would take up most of the room in order to impact this problem!).

Also, pay attention to context. This person is talking about using a 9.1.6 capable processor and expensive speakers all around, clearly there's no need to skimp on the subwoofers (for cost OR performance reasons).



> If you install all that full range speakers for all, it will give you enough musical quality in all frequencies, not needing SUB.


Again, nooooooo. Full range speakers in a tiny room with no sub(s) will result in horrible bass response. This is basic small room acoustics, and the reason bass management exists for home theater.


----------



## Blade 77

Now that i see you are talking about subs, can i please have a proposal for my living room? This is my space (70-80m2), i think of buying SVS pb1000 pro, add a second one whenever i can. What do you think?


----------



## galonzo

Yeah, I'm in a very similar spot, trying to decide whether to go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 in a similarly small space (mostly over the concern of having the surrounds at 90° in such a tight space, mine is 17.5' x 11' x 8'), and it's sounding like I'll be best off with 5.1.4, with the MLP in the dead-center of the room (I did the REW room sim, and it had the smoothest response for this MLP with the sub directly behind on the back wall; just a peak at 64Hz and a dip at 87Hz, see attached if interested).

Being so narrow, I also have a problem with an HVAC closet in a rear corner that would necessitate bringing the rears in too close together; such is life, I suppose


----------



## Kain

batpig said:


> A few problems, mostly having to do with room size. You are stuffing too large of speakers into too small of a space, which is going to limit your placement flexibility and create issues.
> 
> First, why do you need 708i for the surrounds and overheads? Your room is only 10' wide, and the JBL 708i is a foot deep! The surrounds are going to be right on top of you, and it will be a disaster having them directly at 90 degrees since they will be only 1m or less away from the ears of the listener on that side of the couch.
> 
> The much smaller 705i (see image below for how much smaller it is) will be more than sufficient for surrounds and overheads, and will give you a lot more placement flexibility.
> 
> View attachment 3133731
> 
> 
> Either way, do NOT put the surrounds directly at 90 degrees. You will have major hot-spotting / surround balance issues given the room size and speaker distance. In order to mitigate that you end up having to raise them up higher, when then creates other issues (less separation from the overheads).
> 
> Trinnov specifically recommends against placing surround speakers directly in line with the listeners heads:
> 
> View attachment 3133737
> 
> 
> Also, as others have pointed out, the limitations of many Atmos tracks with respect to the use of the Front Wide channels, as well as all the overheads (vs only having 2 or 4 in play) limits the usefulness of a 9.1.6 layout. I think this will be exacerbated by being in such a small room, because you will be so close to the speakers that it will be much easier to hear if one is "missing".
> 
> I would consider doing a 7.1.4 layout instead, which saves a lot of money on processor cost. At most I would do a 9.1.4 layout, as two pairs of overheads is sufficient for a single row of listeners and then you don't have to worry about the overheads being "left out".


Thanks.

I could do 708i for LCR and 705i for everywhere else. Would save me quite a lot of money too while making more sense space wise.

I should be able to move the side surrounds from 90 degrees to somewhere a bit behind the seating position.

The 705i should be able to keep up with the 708i during "spirited" listening sessions?


----------



## Rich 63

galonzo said:


> Yeah, I'm in a very similar spot, trying to decide whether to go with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 in a similarly small space (mostly over the concern of having the surrounds at 90° in such a tight space, mine is 17.5' x 11' x 8'), and it's sounding like I'll be best off with 5.1.4, with the MLP in the dead-center of the room (I did the REW room sim, and it had the smoothest response for this MLP with the sub directly behind on the back wall; just a peak at 64Hz and a dip at 87Hz, see attached if interested).
> 
> Being so narrow, I also have a problem with an HVAC closet in a rear corner that would necessitate bringing the rears in too close together; such is life, I suppose


Are you sure rew indicated dead centre of room?My understanding is never. 
Rich


----------



## AYanguas

batpig said:


> No. Just no. A single subwoofer cannot create even bass across a single row, only one seat at best. In a room this small the modes will be tightly packed, and shifted high up into very audible frequencies.
> 
> At a minimum 2 subs is essential to reduce the standing wave energy laterally (side to side) so the single row has somewhat even bass across the seats. This cannot be done with passive bass traps, especially not in a room that small (the bass traps would take up most of the room in order to impact this problem!).
> 
> Also, pay attention to context. This person is talking about using a 9.1.6 capable processor and expensive speakers all around, clearly there's no need to skimp on the subwoofers (for cost OR performance reasons).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nooooooo. Full range speakers in a tiny room with no sub(s) will result in horrible bass response. This is basic small room acoustics, and the reason bass management exists for home theater.


Thank you for your corrections. I learn much with all of you!


----------



## DVD Freaky

I have a new JBL 2.1 Deep Bass Soundbar connected to an Epson HC2100 projector. I know the soundbar is not Atmos capable. Have tried both a Fire Stick and PS4 via HDMI and notice that when I play Atmos movies/shows on HBO MAX and other streaming apps like Netflix that the volume is extremely low, especially the dialogue. The Fire Stick performs better than the PS4 in this regard. I find that selecting PCM in the Fire Stick audio settings and LPCM in the PS4 settings helps somewhat. Selecting Dolby Digital (or Bitstream Dolby on the PS4) makes it very hard to hear clearly without turning the soundbar all the way up, and that’s just to get it to minimum volume levels.

Does all this sound normal for my situation or might my soundbar be having issues? On an Atmos show like “Love, Death and Robots” on Netflix, I have to crank the volume up to near maximum levels in order to hear any dialogue.


----------



## batpig

Kain said:


> I could do 708i for LCR and 705i for everywhere else. Would save me quite a lot of money too while making more sense space wise.
> 
> I should be able to move the side surrounds from 90 degrees to somewhere a bit behind the seating position.


Smart move  

Small spaces make speaker positioning a challenge, so using smaller speakers makes life easier!

And another benefit of the smaller speakers is that because the woofer/tweeter drivers are physically closer together, you don't have to be as far away from the speaker for the sound to be phase coherent. This is a factor a lot of people overlook when placing large speakers as surrounds very close to the seating area.




> The 705i should be able to keep up with the 708i during "spirited" listening sessions?


Absolutely, the 705i is a very capable speaker. The surrounds/overheads also do not need as much dynamic headroom / SPL capability as the front 3 screen channels.

First, the surrounds/overheads are much closer to you than the screen channels, which could yield a 3-6dB SPL gain just from proximity. A 3dB gain requires double the power, so simply having the speakers closer effectively halves (or even quarters) the SPL requirements vs the LCR speakers. 

Second, while all channels are technically "full range", the truth is that there is rarely full scale peaks in the surround/overhead channels. So in "real world use" it's likely that the surrounds/overheads can be >6dB down from the LCR speakers in dynamic SPL capability and still be just fine.

JBL specs the 708 as having 7dB more SPL capability than the 705, so that's right in the ballpark. And these are professional focused speakers so JBL's specs will be accurate. They also spec the 705 with 107dB peak SPL capability at 1m distance.... you won't be much more than 1m from the surrounds/overheads, and you'll get some boundary gain from having them mounted on/against the walls in this small room, so there should be plenty of headroom unless you want to listen above reference levels (and "perceptual reference level" in a room that small is arguably 5-10dB down from the cinematic SPL requirements).

Long story short, the 705's will be just dandy as surrounds/overheads in a room that size, and these are speakers that professional sound engineers and custom theater builders will use so you can be confident they perform as described.


----------



## galonzo

Rich 63 said:


> Are you sure rew indicated dead centre of room?My understanding is never.
> Rich


Same, but when I move stuff around in the room sim, everything smooths out in the selected positions, so it appears the room length mode at 32Hz would normally be a peak at the front and back of the room, but since the MLP is dead center (where the null would be), it evens out. Of course, I'll take actual measurements once placed and see if this "theory" of the room sim proves true...


----------



## batpig

Rich 63 said:


> Are you sure rew indicated dead centre of room?My understanding is never.
> Rich


Note that he indicated the sub placement "directly behind on the back wall" and is only looking at the MLP response.

If you place a sub at the midpoint of a wall, it's going to be in the null of all the odd order resonances (1st order, 3rd order, etc) and thus drive it equally on both sides of the pressure gradient that creates the standing wave. The 4th order mode is usually above the subwoofer range (especially in a smaller room), so the only resonance that's left in that dimension is the 2nd order mode.










In fact, his room is so narrow (only 11ft wide) that the 2nd order width mode is just above 100Hz, so placing that sub dead center on the front/rear wall will knock out the primary width mode at ~52Hz (that's the first vertical green line on his graph). 

That's why when you look at the research on multi-sub placement, the 4 subs at 4 mid-wall locations typically yields the lowest seat to seat variation. 

The downside of this approach is lost headroom in the deep bass -- you get a LOT of gain from putting the sub in the corner (around 6dB, which again is 4x the power). That's why most people put their subs in corners, it's loud! But with only one sub, you get terrible frequency response because you're energizing all the modes. So by putting a pair of subs in different corners can yield smoother response AND more deep bass headroom, effectively creating a "virtual sub" at the midpoint of the wall vs the physical sub, but with more headroom and deep bass output


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> Smart move
> 
> Second, while all channels are technically "full range", the truth is that there is rarely full scale peaks in the surround/overhead channels. So in "real world use" it's likely that the surrounds/overheads can be >6dB down from the LCR speakers in dynamic SPL capability and still be just fine.


That _might_ be true for most movies today (that could change as mixing engineers start actually using Atmos as intended as a full 360 degree immersive format rather than a forward heavy remux of 1970s style Dolby Surround that the just can't seem to let go of), but it's certainly _not_ true of many Atmos music albums (See Yello and Booka Shade that use rears and even overheads almost as much as the mains) and Atmos music is just getting started. 

Lately, I've been listening to far more surround music than movie watching in Atmos precisely because music is doing far more interesting things with Atmos and Auro-3D (not sure what happened to DTS music) than movies, many of which aren't using it properly to begin with (See Disney channel locked soundtracks that often have poor dynamic range and anemic bass as well).

It's kind of sad Dolby dropped the ball in convincing Hollywood to both use Atmos fully and properly. Half the Atmos titles I've heard are no better (sometimes far worse) than upmixed 5.1 soundtracks and review sites do us no favors giving them consistently high ratings regardless. 

My favorite new example is Back To The Future. It has mostly copied (i.e. Arrayed) surround effects. You probably won't notice this, however if you only have one row of seats, particularly if your couch is past the 50% line of the room. With three rows of seats, it's easy to hear most side surround effects "follow" you into the back of the room (a sure sign of arrayed as opposed to discrete sounds). 

Some sounds in BTTF are indeed discrete, but whether it was laziness or a lack of access to the individual sounds (or god forbid _intentional_), most of the surround sounds are arrayed, making it sound more like an enhanced Dolby 5.1 format than true Atmos to my ears, but then I noticed most people couldn't tell the difference and that's due to having a fixed single row layout (same reason most don't notice top middle isn't doing anything in a Disney movie unless their room is really large (sound disappears overhead without it) or they stick their ear against it or some other method to purposely find out. 

Most rooms simply don't need and/or make use of much beyond 7.1.4 layouts and most soundtracks do very little discretely beyond 5.1.4. (And yet Auro-3D failed despite doing 5.1 based enhanced sound better than Atmos (speakers are at angles more easily discerned with precision and CH is almost as useful as center bed for locking stereo imaging across the screen in place for more than one chair even if Dolby won't admit it).

That is also one of the prime reasons so many people make note how little the rear surrounds are seemingly used. In fact, they are used a lot (easy to hear by moving to my back row of seats), but it's usually either arrayed or otherwise highly correlated sounds that mesh with the sides and don't tend to image in the back if the room unless you are sitting back there (arrays image between speaker sets, but only if you're sitting right between them; otherwise they "pull" towards the closer pair).

Now take a fully discrete Atmos example like Yello's album _Point_ or Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self _and like most Dolby Atmos demos, the sounds are fixed in the room no matter where you sit! That is what Atmos intended by design, but their refusal to make even the most basic demands of their clients in terms of proper usage has hurt not their earnings, but the consumer's expectations of movies sounding more like Dolby's own far more atmospheric demos!


----------



## niterida

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I could do 708i for LCR and 705i for everywhere else. Would save me quite a lot of money too while making more sense space wise.
> 
> I should be able to move the side surrounds from 90 degrees to somewhere a bit behind the seating position.
> 
> The 705i should be able to keep up with the 708i during "spirited" listening sessions?


Save yourself some money and effort - do 5.1.4 and use 9 x 705's - having all speakers identical is Dolby recommendation and in my room was a huge improvement, even when I had matching but not identical speakers (towers in front, stand mounts for surrounds and bookshelf for Atmos - all from the same series).
In that size room you won't be missing out on anything much. My room is 20x14x9 and the difference between 5 and 7 is so small it wan't worth the extra cost or installation hassle for me. 7 provided more ambience and a slightly more complete soundfield - I would say 5% better - but the discrete sound effects were identical.
If you must go with more, then 7.1.4 will be enough but put the surrounds slightly in front of the seating. If you put them behind you may as well just run 5.1.4.


----------



## batpig

An alternate option, if your processor supports it, is to do 7.1.4 but with FW instead of SB speakers. Then the side surrounds shift backwards, and the wide speakers will get constant use since Atmos tracks will use them to reproduce surround content (split with the actual surrounds to image at 90 degrees). It will reduce localization vs having the side surrounds more directly to the sides since side surround content will effectively be arrayed, so the 90-deg sounds will be a phantom image not a hard speaker.


----------



## Kain

niterida said:


> Save yourself some money and effort - do 5.1.4 and use 9 x 705's - having all speakers identical is Dolby recommendation and in my room was a huge improvement, even when I had matching but not identical speakers (towers in front, stand mounts for surrounds and bookshelf for Atmos - all from the same series).
> In that size room you won't be missing out on anything much. My room is 20x14x9 and the difference between 5 and 7 is so small it wan't worth the extra cost or installation hassle for me. 7 provided more ambience and a slightly more complete soundfield - I would say 5% better - but the discrete sound effects were identical.
> If you must go with more, then 7.1.4 will be enough but put the surrounds slightly in front of the seating. If you put them behind you may as well just run 5.1.4.


I doubt the 705i as LCR will be able to keep up with my SPL "habits." I like to listen quite loud so I am not sure how they'd handle that. Having the 708i all around was for the same reason as you stated: identical speakers everywhere. The differences between the 708i and 705i are smaller than most tower/center/surround combos.


----------



## niterida

Kain said:


> I doubt the 705i as LCR will be able to keep up with my SPL "habits." I like to listen quite loud so I am not sure how they'd handle that. Having the 708i all around was for the same reason as you stated: identical speakers everywhere. The differences between the 708i and 705i are smaller than most tower/center/surround combos.


If you can afford and install them then 8s will always be better than 5s 
I have 9 Wharfedale Pro Titan 8s and they are perfect combination of physical size, cost sound quality and SPL.


----------



## MagnumX

Go BIG or go home! 

It's easy to do 7.1 or even 9.1 even without a ton of space behind you. The sides can be moved forward. Who says the sides have to image directly to your sides or even behind you? All you really want with Atmos is a smooth continuously panning soundfield. It shouldn't matter where you sit in that sense. The discrete objects are supposed to image in fixed positions around the room regardless of where you sit (hence the improvement in cinemas where it matters less where you sit front-to-back and somewhat less side-to-side due to all the additional speakers that can output discrete sound.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I could do 708i for LCR and 705i for everywhere else. Would save me quite a lot of money too while making more sense space wise.
> 
> I should be able to move the side surrounds from 90 degrees to somewhere a bit behind the seating position.
> 
> The 705i should be able to keep up with the 708i during "spirited" listening sessions?


I have my surrounds at 100 degrees which is fine.

9.1.6 is great, go for it.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

Mashie Saldana said:


> 9.1.6 is great, go for it.


The poster in question has been going for an Atmos system since 2015/2016(IIRC) when he first asked questions about one. I'm amazed he still gets responses, TBH.

If he does end up with an Atmos setup, it would have to be one of the longest planned (if not the longest) ever.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

liverpool_for_life said:


> The poster in question has been going for an Atmos system since 2015/2016(IIRC) when he first asked questions about one. I'm amazed he still gets responses, TBH.
> 
> If he does end up with an Atmos setup, it would have to be one of the longest planned (if not the longest) ever.


Kain has been pretty active in my build thread over the years so I don't mind.

I did some serious research myself for 18 months before I got going and for the past 4 years I have enjoyed 9.1.6 and what later became branded DTS:X Pro when I broke the DTS:X 11ch limit by accident.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

Mashie Saldana said:


> Kain has been pretty active in my build thread over the years so I don't mind.


That's fair, although I must clarify my post wasn't directed solely at your response to him. It was a general observation, which happened to be a reply to your post.




> I did some serious research myself for 18 months before I got going and for the past 4 years I have enjoyed 9.1.6 and what later became branded DTS:X Pro when I broke the DTS:X 11ch limit by accident.


What you've managed to do in your space is pretty incredible. Enjoy the well-deserved fruits of your labour!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

liverpool_for_life said:


> That's fair, although I must clarify my post wasn't directed solely at your response to him. It was a general observation, which happened to be a reply to your post.


No problem, no offense taken.



> What you've managed to do in your space is pretty incredible. Enjoy the well-deserved fruits of your labour!


Thanks, we use it pretty much every night.


----------



## howard68

Hi All 
So I got apple tv to play raiders of the lost ark in Dolby Atmos last week 
This week it will not play in Atmos! 
All other films play in Atmos
Anyone else has happened? 

Regards 
H


----------



## VisionMan

Hi Folks!

I am a long-time AVS forum fan, mostly as a lurker, and have learned a lot here over the years. Being of a certain age, my home theater interest goes back to LaserDisc, Beta, and the Kloss Novabeam. Recently, I upgraded my pre/pro to the Marantz 8805 and am now upgrading the sound system, which is at the moment a 9.2 setup. Next week I will be installing the first pair of ceiling speakers, front tops, which will be SVS Prime Elevations. I will be able to locate them at the recommended 45 degree elevation, and place them in line with the front left and rights. 

Here is the question that I would like this esteemed group to advise me on:

Should the SVS Prime Elevations be angled towards the MLP, as the Front Left, Right and Wides are, or should they be parallel to one another? I have read that THX recommends that they be parallel, but I have not independently verified this. My electrician is coming next Friday to assist me in mounting the speakers on their ceiling and running the wiring, so I will need to make a decision on this before then.

Thanks for everybody’s thoughts on this. Once the speakers are mounted, I’ll submit some pix of my setup, which reflects decades of interest in this hobby.


----------



## niterida

VisionMan said:


> Hi Folks!
> 
> I am a long-time AVS forum fan, mostly as a lurker, and have learned a lot here over the years. Being of a certain age, my home theater interest goes back to LaserDisc, Beta, and the Kloss Novabeam. Recently, I upgraded my pre/pro to the Marantz 8805 and am now upgrading the sound system, which is at the moment a 9.2 setup. Next week I will be installing the first pair of ceiling speakers, front tops, which will be SVS Prime Elevations. I will be able to locate them at the recommended 45 degree elevation, and place them in line with the front left and rights.
> 
> Here is the question that I would like this esteemed group to advise me on:
> 
> Should the SVS Prime Elevations be angled towards the MLP, as the Front Left, Right and Wides are, or should they be parallel to one another? I have read that THX recommends that they be parallel, but I have not independently verified this. My electrician is coming next Friday to assist me in mounting the speakers on their ceiling and running the wiring, so I will need to make a decision on this before then.
> 
> Thanks for everybody’s thoughts on this. Once the speakers are mounted, I’ll submit some pix of my setup, which reflects decades of interest in this hobby.


Aim them at MLP - why would you want to sit off-axis to a speaker ?
I tested all the options for height speakers - down-firing, aimed parallel to ceiling, and parallel to walls, aimed parallel to ceiling but toed in, angled down but parallel to walls and angled down and toed in (aimed directly at MLP in other words) and, unsurprisingly, aimed at MLP is by far the best.


----------



## howard68

Hi 
So anyone else having trouble with Atmos and Raiders of the Lost Ark on Apple Tv ?


----------



## Kain

Mashie Saldana said:


> Thanks, we use it pretty much every night.


Does your home theater double as your TV room as well or do you have a separate place for casual TV viewing?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Kain said:


> Does your home theater double as your TV room as well or do you have a separate place for casual TV viewing?


We have a 50" LCD and a soundbar in the lounge for watching news. Series, movies and YouTube music videos are watched in the HT room due to better sound and picture.


----------



## bryantc

howard68 said:


> Hi
> So anyone else having trouble with Atmos and Raiders of the Lost Ark on Apple Tv ?


That movie doesn't have Atmos.


----------



## howard68

bryantc said:


> That movie doesn't have Atmos.


It says on the screen Atmos 
And last week it came up with Atmos on my Denon


----------



## howard68




----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> Aim them at MLP - why would you want to sit off-axis to a speaker ?
> I tested all the options for height speakers - down-firing, aimed parallel to ceiling, and parallel to walls, aimed parallel to ceiling but toed in, angled down but parallel to walls and angled down and toed in (aimed directly at MLP in other words) and, unsurprisingly, aimed at MLP is by far the best.


What about aiming the front and back right atmos speakers a little bit towards the right ear of the person sitting in the MLP, or a few finches offset to the right, and the front and back left atmos speakers just ever so slightly towards the left side of the MLP? Would this in any way improve the left/right directionality of the overheard speakers? Now the.. "sound field"... from the right is... existing... a little more to the right of the listener, and vice versa for the left. It probably doesn't work like this but that would be the idea if it did. What do you think?


----------



## bryantc

howard68 said:


> It says on the screen Atmos
> And last week it came up with Atmos on my Denon


Which app are you watching on. The iTunes and Amazon versions are 5.1. I don't have Paramount+ but I very much doubt it has Atmos either.


----------



## MagnumX

bryantc said:


> That movie doesn't have Atmos.


It was upgraded to 4K and Atmos a few weeks ago ahead of the new UHD BDs coming out on June 8th. I haven't watched it yet, but all my digital copies registered on iTunes from the old BD box set were upgraded to 4K/Atmos for free already.


----------



## bryantc

MagnumX said:


> It was upgraded to 4K and Atmos a few weeks ago ahead of the new UHD BDs coming out on June 8th. I haven't watched it yet, but all my digital copies registered on iTunes from the old BD box set were upgraded to 4K/Atmos for free already.


I don't own the movie but it shows as HD 5.1 on my Apple TV and HD Atmos on my iPad. There is probably a configuration issue on their end.


----------



## howard68

Apple Tv it played in Atmos last week


----------



## howard68

Hi all 
So can anybody confirm that they can get Atmos sound on Raiders, of the lost Ark!
On apple tv


----------



## MagnumX

howard68 said:


> Hi all
> So can anybody confirm that they can get Atmos sound on Raiders, of the lost Ark!
> On apple tv


I just looked. They have reverted back to 2K 5.1 for some reason. They were 4K Atmos before.


----------



## Technology3456

For 7.x.4 setup, atmos recommends 45° elevation angle for the 4 ceiling speakers. Unless I raise up my seating off the ground, I'm not very close.

If I use on-ceiling speakers, I estimate I can keep the angle as low as 60°, but the speakers will only be 7ft 9 inches off the ground.

If I use in-ceiling, the angle will probably be 65-70°, but they will be about 8ft 6 inches off the ground. For reference, they would be about 52 inches above ear level, but only 32 inches front and back of the listener.

Will either of these work well? Is one preferable to the other?


----------



## Technology3456

This discussion made me wonder if wide dispersion speakers are better for placement, but actually worse for precise Atmos imaging? Like instead of the sound coming from one specific place, in a straight line, right at you, it is dispersing all over the room.

To have the cleanest imaging, would very narrow dispersion speakers be better? That way maybe the sound waves from each speaker mix less with the other speakers, and retain better clarity? Or does it work like that?


----------



## T-Bone

Not sure where to put this but this seems reasonable. It's related to mainly DSU.

A lot of what I read about DSU was that it moved to the overheads ambiance sounds. And that it was subtle. For the most part that's pretty true based on what I've experienced.

There is always an exception to the rule : the movie streaming on HBO Max for the next month is "those who wish me dead."

The opening scene had a lot of soundtrack information coming out of the overheads. I checked also with DTS neural X and it had a comparable amount of soundtrack in the overheads. I was surprised with DSU because I did not expect it.

For my testing, I turned off my external amplifier so the overhead speakers were the only speakers on in the system that was driven by my receiver.

-T


----------



## davcole

Interesting to discover the Amazon Prime Underground Railroad Series is in Atmos!







Watch The Underground Railroad | Prime Video


From Academy Award® winner Barry Jenkins and based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Colson Whitehead,



watch.amazon.com





Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Technology3456 said:


> This discussion made me wonder if wide dispersion speakers are better for placement, but actually worse for precise Atmos imaging? Like instead of the sound coming from one specific place, in a straight line, right at you, it is dispersing all over the room.
> 
> To have the cleanest imaging, would very narrow dispersion speakers be better? That way maybe the sound waves from each speaker mix less with the other speakers, and retain better clarity? Or does it work like that?


Dolby recommends fairly wide dispersion for their overhead speaker "channels." However, that can be a bit hard to come by. KEF THX in-ceilings fit the bill, but are quite expensive. JBL makes their own coaxial cinema grade surrounds that can be mounted overhead, but then their compression tweeters don't match well with typical dome tweeters in most consumer products.


----------



## T-Bone

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby recommends fairly wide dispersion for their overhead speaker "channels." However, that can be a bit hard to come by. KEF THX in-ceilings fit the bill, but are quite expensive. JBL makes their own coaxial cinema grade surrounds that can be mounted overhead, but then their compression tweeters don't match well with typical dome tweeters in most consumer products.


Speaking of dispersion, if anyone wants it to check the dispersion would it be as simple as using the receiver test tones and measuring the SPL on access and off axis? They could do this before mounting the speakers.

-T


----------



## Technology3456

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby recommends fairly wide dispersion for their overhead speaker "channels." However, that can be a bit hard to come by. KEF THX in-ceilings fit the bill, but are quite expensive. JBL makes their own coaxial cinema grade surrounds that can be mounted overhead, but then their compression tweeters don't match well with typical dome tweeters in most consumer products.


What about for floor speakers? All my Infinity floor speakers (and bookshelf surrounds etc) have wide dispersion, so I am wondering even if I point them directly at the MLP at perfect angles, will the dispersion of each of them spray into each other, so to speak, and combine the soundwaves, and ruin some of the clarity or directionality?

I heard someone say that one of the downsides of atmos ceiling speakers is that you cant always really hear them because of the floor speakers. It sounded like he meant that all the soundwaves are mixing together from 11 different speakers in a 7.x.4 setup, so you lose some of directionality and imaging. 

Maybe 11 speakers with extremely narrow dispersion would actually improve this? Each speaker's soundwaves could reach the MLP on a fine line, without bleeding over into any other speaker's line. Or does it not work that way?


----------



## jazzrock

Waaaayy over thinking it. Stick with advice already given….
Wide dispersion speakers. Pointed at or approximate to MLP is best.


----------



## Technology3456

jazzrock said:


> Waaaayy over thinking it. Stick with advice already given….
> Wide dispersion speakers. Pointed at or approximate to MLP is best.


Im definitely sticking with the Infinities and following the advice about how to angle them. I'm just interested in the theory. If you have 11 speakers in a 20x10x8 room, would they mix and distort less, and have clearer directionality to the MLP, if the soundwaves they put out were more direct, and less dispersed?

Obviously it would be worse for multiple wide rows of seating if the dispersion only funnels to one seat, but would it actually be better for the MLP? I think it's an interesting question.


----------



## T-Bone

Technology3456 said:


> Im definitely sticking with the Infinities and following the advice about how to angle them. I'm just interested in the theory. If you have 11 speakers in a 20x10x8 room, would they mix and distort less, and have clearer directionality to the MLP, if the soundwaves they put out were more direct, and less dispersed?
> 
> Obviously it would be worse for multiple wide rows of seating if the dispersion only funnels to one seat, but would it actually be better for the MLP? I think it's an interesting question.


Since you are interested in the theory of dispersion and audio characteristics, see this:









Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat


Have questions on audio and/or the setup of an audio system? This then just may be the place to seek some help.




www.avsforum.com





-T


----------



## goke313

Wonder if it'll work with HEOS?


----------



## Goname31

goke313 said:


> View attachment 3135470
> 
> 
> Wonder if it'll work with HEOS?


Pretty sure it won't be atmos by then.

On another note, I went Qobuz to Tidal cause i fell in love with Dolby Atmos music, but the MQA stuff felt way worse than High Res for me. Tried Amazon HD on my phone with the price drop (9 euros now!). Felt the Ultra HD stuff where Qobuz quality, was so happy, tried, the atmos tracks on my Nvidia Shield and... man they drop the ball, still only compatible with their crap amazon echo stuff only, no atmos for home theater.

Come onnnn!


----------



## AYanguas

Goname31 said:


> Pretty sure it won't be atmos by then.
> 
> On another note, I went Qobuz to Tidal cause i fell in love with Dolby Atmos music, but the MQA stuff felt way worse than High Res for me. Tried Amazon HD on my phone with the price drop (9 euros now!). Felt the Ultra HD stuff where Qobuz quality, was so happy,* tried, the atmos tracks on my Nvidia Shield and... man they drop the ball, still only compatible with their crap amazon echo stuff only, no atmos for home theater.*
> 
> Come onnnn!


As I understand, the amazon offer of Dolby Atmos is not the same Dolby Atmos multichannel/objects via Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus that we play on the home theater AVR, from Blu-rays or from DD+ streaming services.

It is a different sound virtualized codec, that they call also "Dolby Atmos" for marketing purposes. The decoder currently beeing only in the Echo Studio.

It is what we call "fake Atmos".

Only TIDAL stream "real Atmos" and expecting what Apple will do as they say his streaming service could be played also on "compatible receivers", in addition to the 'stereo gadgets'.


----------



## Goname31

AYanguas said:


> As I understand, the amazon offer of Dolby Atmos is not the same Dolby Atmos multichannel/objects via Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Digital Plus that we play on the home theater AVR, from Blu-rays or from DD+ streaming services.
> 
> It is a different sound virtualized codec, that they call also "Dolby Atmos" for marketing purposes. The decoder currently beeing only in the Echo Studio.
> 
> It is what we call "fake Atmos".
> 
> Only TIDAL stream "real Atmos" and expecting what Apple will do as they say his streaming service could be played also on "compatible receivers", in addition to the 'stereo gadgets'.


Well Dolby should really stop those marketing deals, it only add confusion about the atmos brand. Like, I have atmos on my phone for instance, how can they justify that? Atmos should be only for real 3D stuff, they should comme up with another name for the rest.


----------



## T-Bone

Goname31 said:


> Like, I have atmos on my phone for instance, how can they justify that?


Hold your phone over your head. Really makes those height effects shine 

-T


----------



## goblue1

I have a 5.3 setup. Can any small speaker be put on top of my 2 front towers to achieve Atmos? Do they need to fire up towards the ceiling?


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> Well Dolby should really stop those marketing deals, it only add confusion about the atmos brand. Like, I have atmos on my phone for instance, how can they justify that? Atmos should be only for real 3D stuff, they should comme up with another name for the rest.


Atmos can fold down to 2-channels and newer headphones can spatially use more so it doesn't necessarily have to mean it's not actually Atmos even if someone is just using headphones. Besides, I figure anything that keeps Atmos alive can't be all bad. In other words, go sound bars and Atmos headphones if that means more albums like Yello's Point come out in actual Atmos! I don't care how "they" listen to Atmos so long as the real deal works here.


----------



## Rich 63

goblue1 said:


> I have a 5.3 setup. Can any small speaker be put on top of my 2 front towers to achieve Atmos? Do they need to fire up towards the ceiling?


Bouncy atmos is not good. In order to use atmos properly the speakers need to be seperayed from the bed layer. Can you do that? 
Rich


----------



## Polyrythm1k

goblue1 said:


> I have a 5.3 setup. Can any small speaker be put on top of my 2 front towers to achieve Atmos? Do they need to fire up towards the ceiling?


Sorry to say, but no. You can’t just place any ol speakers on your mains and have Atmos. 
You can use upfiring speakers, but they can take a lot of time and fuss to get right. IMO, any Atmos is better than none. So if you can at least try Atmos enabled upfiring speakers, it could definitely be worth it.


----------



## mrvideo

goblue1 said:


> I have a 5.3 setup.


You have three subwoofers?


----------



## mrvideo

Rich 63 said:


> In order to use atmos properly the speakers need to be seperayed from the bed layer.


seperayed?


----------



## Technology3456

Got recommended a video on youtube that ended up being pretty worrying since I'm putting together an atmos setup. I am going to go through with it regardless but wanted to get people's opinions.






If you're short on time I recommend 1.5 speed. He reviewed four of the supposedly better atmos mixes available, John Wick 2, one of the Godzilla movies, Alita, and Mad Max Fury Road, and said only John Wick 2 was above average, where there was all three of soundtrack, ambient noises, and height affects in the overheads, but he says even they skimped on the budget so that in some scenes, ricocheting bullets had overhead sounds, but in others, they didn't, and that it was inconsistent (which could maybe take you out of a movie).

He said first scene of Mad Max Fury Road was cool with the voices in Max's head, but otherwise, it was completely obvious to him the atmos engineers for that film were only given the dialogue effects to play with, and "some" of the score, but not the sound effects. He said the overheads were quiet most of the movie.

With Alita he said there were some cool overhead object effects in the atmos track, but no soundtrack or ambiance. For Godzilla, he showed scenes where they were fighting high up in the sky, jets flying overhead, and there were zero overhead effects. He said there is some ambiance, but no spacial cues or overhead effects, and even the ambiance is spare like there's a budget limitation.

He made it sound like there are maybe a handful of movies total, if any, with fully done atmos mixes, but most of them just have bits and pieces of the audio mapped to the atmos speakers, but most of it is left out in very inconsistent ways. He said it is definitely not worth getting atmos for this reason and that it's just marketing.

Please don't jump on me, I'm just relaying what he said. I have zero opinion myself because I have not tried it either way yet. Then you have other youtube reviews like Sparechange, who appears to use something similar to the IGN game review scale and gives most atmos mixes 8/10 to nearly 10/10 scores. He gave Mad Max Fury Road's audio track a 9.9/10 score, which is _extremely _confusing if the engineers didn't even have any of the effects, or even the full score, to work with on the atmos track he reviewed.


----------



## Rich 63

mrvideo said:


> seperayed?


Sorry. These old fingers dont always work. Separated. 😂


----------



## noah katz

Technology3456 said:


> Got recommended a video on youtube that ended up being pretty worrying since I'm putting together an atmos setup.



Not to worry.

IMO 95% of the benefit comes from upmixing; some even say that you sometimes get a better experience from upmixing than from native Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

@Technology3456

Yeah, I'd say perhaps half the Atmos soundtracks out there absolutely suck for overhead use. Neural X often does better with good 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks.

I never understood why Mad Max got high marks. I heard very little discrete overhead. Many times sounds that seem to be overhead are actually in the bed channels when you check. It has one effect at the start where a vehicle starts overhead but goes downward as it jumps into the room/screen. In a small Atmos setup this can be effective. In my 24' room, it's already on the ground behind the first row so it's not very noticeable unless I sit in the 2nd or better yet 3rd row.

There are some great soundtracks out there, though for overhead use (e.g. Fury, The Meg, Overlord, Harry Potter series [DTS:X], original Jumanji, Blade Runner [both movies], etc., but Atmos setups also potentially improve 5.1 and even 7.1 panning by using more speakers (e.g. 9.1+ setups) and Neural X can be quite convincing with many 5.1 soundtracks (e.g. The Skeleton Key upmixed from 5.1 had more overhead effects than Knives Out did in Atmos by a factor of about 20).

There's also Atmos music, which for some albums like Yello's _Point_ or Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self _are more impressive than ANY Atmos soundtrack out there, IMO.


----------



## Technology3456

noah katz said:


> Not to worry.
> 
> IMO 95% of the benefit comes from upmixing; some even say that you sometimes get a better experience from upmixing than from native Atmos.





MagnumX said:


> @Technology3456
> 
> Yeah, I'd say perhaps half the Atmos soundtracks out there absolutely suck for overhead use. Neural X often does better with good 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks.
> 
> I never understood why Mad Max got high marks. I heard very little discrete overhead. Many times sounds that seem to be overhead are actually in the bed channels when you check. It has one effect at the start where a vehicle starts overhead but goes downward as it jumps into the room/screen. In a small Atmos setup this can be effective. In my 24' room, it's already on the ground behind the first row so it's not very noticeable unless I sit in the 2nd or better yet 3rd row.
> 
> There are some great soundtracks out there, though for overhead use (e.g. Fury, The Meg, Overlord, Harry Potter series [DTS:X], original Jumanji, Blade Runner [both movies], etc., but Atmos setups also potentially improve 5.1 and even 7.1 panning by using more speakers (e.g. 9.1+ setups) and Neural X can be quite convincing with many 5.1 soundtracks (e.g. The Skeleton Key upmixed from 5.1 had more overhead effects than Knives Out did in Atmos by a factor of about 20).
> 
> There's also Atmos music, which for some albums like Yello's _Point_ or Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self _are more impressive than ANY Atmos soundtrack out there, IMO.


Thanks for informative responses without criticizing, appreciate it. Would you say the number of movies with full, consistent atmos mixes, where all the bullets that richocet overhead are mixed, not just some, for example (etc), are in the single digits? Maybe 15 total or something? Or are there hundreds?

I am interested in 3D video for example, and a lot of people advised me against getting into 3D because there are only 200 or 300 3D movies worth watching. Sounds like there are way fewer good atmos movies than that but you don't see nearly as many comments saying the same thing about atmos. Hopefully they will start improving the atmos mixes pronto but sounds like we shouldnt count on it. The upmixing is a good point though. Are you saying a 7.x.4 atmos system will make a 7.1 surround track (non-atmos) into sort of an 11.1 surround track? Or how does it work if the 7.1 surround track is only mixed for floor speakers, but the 4 atmos speakers are on the ceiling?

I was sort of aware there weren't a ton of top atmos mixes, but what was so surprising is that Stop the Fomo was saying this about titles that other channels claimed were in the atmos hall of the fame. Spare Change raves about Godzilla King of the Monsters specifically because of the atmos. And gave Mad Max a 9.9/10. So if the truth is even the ones claimed to be the best are not well done, then that is what stopped me in my tracks. But you have mentioned others that actually are well done, so... it's just a bit strange he scored these ones so high, then.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Polyrythm1k said:


> Sorry to say, but no. You can’t just place any ol speakers on your mains and have Atmos.
> You can use upfiring speakers, but they can take a lot of time and fuss to get right. IMO, any Atmos is better than none. So if you can at least try Atmos enabled upfiring speakers, it could definitely be worth it.


You also need a flat reflective ceiling for it to work... which I learned the hard way with my popcorn ceiling.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bobbyhollywood said:


> You also need a flat reflective ceiling for it to work... which I learned the hard way with my popcorn ceiling.


Yeah that helps too!


----------



## ppasteur

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yeah that helps too!


I think it is imperative ... popcorn or acoustic tile ceilings kill the desired effect. At least in my setup and a couple of others that I have listened to .


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for informative responses without criticizing, appreciate it. Would you say the number of movies with full, consistent atmos mixes, where all the bullets that richocet overhead are mixed, not just some, for example (etc), are in the single digits? Maybe 15 total or something? Or are there hundreds?
> 
> I am interested in 3D video for example, and a lot of people advised me against getting into 3D because there are only 200 or 300 3D movies worth watching. Sounds like there are way fewer good atmos movies than that but you don't see nearly as many comments saying the same thing about atmos. Hopefully they will start improving the atmos mixes pronto but sounds like we shouldnt count on it. The upmixing is a good point though. Are you saying a 7.x.4 atmos system will make a 7.1 surround track (non-atmos) into sort of an 11.1 surround track? Or how does it work if the 7.1 surround track is only mixed for floor speakers, but the 4 atmos speakers are on the ceiling?
> 
> I was sort of aware there weren't a ton of top atmos mixes, but what was so surprising is that Stop the Fomo was saying this about titles that other channels claimed were in the atmos hall of the fame. Spare Change raves about Godzilla King of the Monsters specifically because of the atmos. And gave Mad Max a 9.9/10. So if the truth is even the ones claimed to be the best are not well done, then that is what stopped me in my tracks. But you have mentioned others that actually are well done, so... it's just a bit strange he scored these ones so high, then.


It's not that Mad Max has a "bad" soundtrack. It's an excellent soundtrack. It's just not my first choice to demonstrate _overhead_ effects.


----------



## Goname31

MagnumX said:


> Atmos can fold down to 2-channels and newer headphones can spatially use more so it doesn't necessarily have to mean it's not actually Atmos even if someone is just using headphones. Besides, I figure anything that keeps Atmos alive can't be all bad. In other words, go sound bars and Atmos headphones if that means more albums like Yello's Point come out in actual Atmos! I don't care how "they" listen to Atmos so long as the real deal works here.


I'm ok for atmos soundbars if the try at least to reflect the sound, ok for headphones, but crappy blutooth speakers and laptop speakers, no. It muddy up the message Imo. Speaking of Atmos Music, so much of good content lately, and I'm so eager to ear what Fineas does with atmos on the next Billie Eilish album...



Polyrythm1k said:


> I have a 5.3 setup. Can any small speaker be put on top of my 2 front towers to achieve Atmos? Do they need to fire up towards the ceiling?


Go for it, I started atmos with bad surround speakers on stands on the side, algled toward the ceiling. It is far from ideal, but it's still something, still a start. Later do it properly.



Technology3456 said:


> Got recommended a video on youtube that ended up being pretty worrying since I'm putting together an atmos setup. I am going to go through with it regardless but wanted to get people's opinion


Don't worry about that. There is a looooot of good atmos content nowadays (Films, Netlfix, Apple TV, Music and Games). And more content drops every week.


----------



## Technology3456

Goname31 said:


> Don't worry about that. There is a looooot of good atmos content nowadays (Films, Netlfix, Apple TV, Music and Games). And more content drops every week.


Do you think atmos has caught on? Its not going to fade away and be replaced by something new in two years? It's mainstream and popular now and there is a big enough user base that it will be the standard for awhile? Or is it still a very niche rare thing that hasnt caught on as much as we think from spending time on an enthusiast forum?


----------



## Goname31

Technology3456 said:


> Do you think atmos has caught on? Its not going to fade away and be replaced by something new in two years? It's mainstream and popular now and there is a big enough user base that it will be the standard for awhile? Or is it still a very niche rare thing that hasnt caught on as much as we think from spending time on an enthusiast forum?


Yes I think that atmos is here to stay. Every single new action movie is mixed on atmos. Netflix pushes for their shows to be mixed in 9.1.6 if possible, atmos music seems to be really well received on the creators and artists side and now Apple will push on their side too. For gaming, the Sony effort for 3D audio will have a good effect in the industry and for the awareness of good sound in video games. The biggest franchises in video games are on atmos (Gears, Halo, Forza, Cyberpunk 2077, Call of duty...), and Microsoft is pushing this to (to counter Sony and their Tempest).


----------



## Technology3456

Goname31 said:


> Yes I think that atmos is here to stay. Every single new action movie is mixed on atmos. Netflix pushes for their shows to be mixed in 9.1.6 if possible, atmos music seems to be really well received on the creators and artists side and now Apple will push on their side too. For gaming, the Sony effort for 3D audio will have a good effect in the industry and for the awareness of good sound in video games. The biggest franchises in video games are on atmos (Gears, Halo, Forza, Cyberpunk 2077, Call of duty...), and Microsoft is pushing this to (to counter Sony and their Tempest).


I am really excited for it (just got worried about content available after that video). But even if the heights arent used much, I am going straight from built in speakers on $700 LCD TV from around 2008 to a 7.x.4 setup.

_I think I should notice a bit of difference,_ what do you think?


----------



## Goname31

Technology3456 said:


> I am really excited for it (just got worried about content available after that video). But even if the heights arent used much, I am going straight from built in speakers on $700 LCD TV from around 2008 to a 7.x.4 setup.
> 
> _I think I should notice a bit of difference,_ what do you think?


You will experience a world of difference.


----------



## Goname31

Dolby Atmos Streaming: Is this the FUTURE for Music? - YouTube 

Audioholics think the same as me, Atmos is caching on everywhere and the fact that major music streamers are using the format is really a good sign for it to go mainstream.


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> Dolby Atmos Streaming: Is this the FUTURE for Music? - YouTube
> 
> Audioholics think the same as me, Atmos is caching on everywhere and the fact that major music streamers are using the format is really a good sign for it to go mainstream.


Audioholics (the staff not the people in the forums) was preaching Atmos was junk and doomed just a couple of years ago. They want to pretend they predicted Atmos now? I didn't trust their opinion on it as far as I could spit, then and find their waffling position now disturbing. What changed? The futileness of their position?


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Audioholics (the staff not the people in the forums) was preaching Atmos was junk and doomed just a couple of years ago. They want to pretend they predicted Atmos now? I didn't trust their opinion on it as far as I could spit, then and find their waffling position now disturbing. What changed? The futileness of their position?


You're confusing this with what they said about Atmos enabled speakers?


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> You're confusing this with what they said about Atmos enabled speakers?


I don't think so. They were extremely down on Atmos in general for years (another industry fad) and there was a poll/question there where the users set the staff straight, IMO. A lot of people on Quadraphonic Quad were also skeptical of Atmos (some still are) since 5.1 never really got major music support. But listen to _Dear Future Self_ or _Point_ in Atmos and it's hard to go back to 5.1, let alone stereo, IMO.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I don't think so. They were extremely down on Atmos in general for years (another industry fad) and there was a poll/question there where the users set the staff straight, IMO. A lot of people on Quadraphonic Quad were also skeptical of Atmos (some still are) since 5.1 never really got major music support. But listen to _Dear Future Self_ or _Point_ in Atmos and it's hard to go back to 5.1, let alone stereo, IMO.


Even listen to any music upmixed to Atmos and you can't go back to stereo IMO


----------



## T-Bone

MagnumX said:


> Audioholics (the staff not the people in the forums) was preaching Atmos was junk and doomed just a couple of years ago. They want to pretend they predicted Atmos now? I didn't trust their opinion on it as far as I could spit, then and find their waffling position now disturbing. What changed? The futileness of their position?


I do know that they were negative on the bouncy speakers. And rightfully so. I mean, look at it today is 2021 and they really don't work that well regardless of what anybody tells us.

What about all the people that predicted 3D was not going to be a fad. And look at that today? It's a dead technology.

Sometimes tech survives and sometimes it doesn't.

Even if the staff were against Atmos at the time, and then changed their opinions, that's normal. Atmos certainly seems to be ubiquitous today. Even my phone has it  

-T


----------



## T-Bone

niterida said:


> Even listen to any music upmixed to Atmos and you can't go back to stereo IMO


I wish the forum had a dislike button because I would have given that a dislike 

I guess it's all preference. I don't like two channel up mixed to multi-channel.

-T


----------



## Goname31

MagnumX said:


> Audioholics (the staff not the people in the forums) was preaching Atmos was junk and doomed just a couple of years ago. They want to pretend they predicted Atmos now? I didn't trust their opinion on it as far as I could spit, then and find their waffling position now disturbing. What changed? The futileness of their position?


 That's kind of unfair. They where really against bouncy speakers, always arguing that "if you want sound there, then put a speaker there". True, they were a bit wary of Atmos at the beginning of the format, with reason, with no content, that format was making people make a lot of changes on their setup without garanty of a good pay off.

For atmos music, they did not like it via headphone, and once they finally use it on Tidal on Home Theater, they really like it.



T-Bone said:


> I wish the forum had a dislike button because I would have given that a dislike
> 
> I guess it's all preference. I don't like two channel up mixed to multi-channel.
> 
> -T


Yeah for me its Atmos > 2 channel > Upmixed music.


----------



## goblue1

mrvideo said:


> You have three subwoofers?


I do. 2 of the same unit up front and one older one in the back. Love it.


----------



## goblue1

Polyrythm1k said:


> Sorry to say, but no. You can’t just place any ol speakers on your mains and have Atmos.
> You can use upfiring speakers, but they can take a lot of time and fuss to get right. IMO, any Atmos is better than none. So if you can at least try Atmos enabled upfiring speakers, it could definitely be worth it.


My front towers are old Infinity Primus P362's. I'm on a budget to get the Atmos going so deciding betwee the 4 below (Elac, Sony, Klipsch, Polk). Maindifference seems to be that the Sony has no tweeter. Any opinons?









Amazon.com: Sony SSCSE Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers, Black, Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (Pair) : Electronics


Amazon.com: Sony SSCSE Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers, Black, Dolby Atmos Enabled Speakers (Pair) : Electronics



www.amazon.com













Amazon.com: Klipsch R-41SA Powerful Detailed Home Speaker Set of 2 Black : Electronics


Amazon.com: Klipsch R-41SA Powerful Detailed Home Speaker Set of 2 Black : Electronics



www.amazon.com













Amazon.com: ELAC Debut 2.0 A4.2 Dolby Atmos Modules, Black : Everything Else


Amazon.com: ELAC Debut 2.0 A4.2 Dolby Atmos Modules, Black : Everything Else



www.amazon.com













Amazon.com: Polk Audio OWM3 Wall and Bookshelf Speakers | The Most High-Performance Versatile Loudspeaker | Paintable Grilles (Pair, Black) : Electronics


Buy Polk Audio OWM3 Wall and Bookshelf Speakers | The Most High-Performance Versatile Loudspeaker | Paintable Grilles (Pair, Black): Speakers - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## AYanguas

T-Bone said:


> *I guess it's all preference. *I don't like two channel up mixed to multi-channel.
> 
> -T


I think it's also how the stereo mix is done with respect to the 'parameters' that use the upmixers. There are some that upmix very well and others not. I much prefer the multichanel and do abuse of upmixers. But I recognize that there are some stereo albums that I like more in the original stereo and then I switch to stereo with them.

It is other but related thing: consider the matrixed coded stereo CDs for the 'old' "Dolby Surround CD", it sounds good with an AVR upmixer, because that is intended.

A recent listened example, for me, of stereo mix perhaps intended to sound good with upmixers is the Bonus CD 3 (Extended Remix & Additional Songs) of Steven Wilson The Future Bites, Deluxe Edition.


----------



## Goname31

AYanguas said:


> A recent listened example, for me, of stereo mix perhaps intended to sound good with upmixers is the Bonus CD 3 (Extended Remix & Additional Songs) of Steven Wilson The Future Bites, Deluxe Edition.


Well I think it's totaly intentionnal, I was listening to te atmos version of the Future Bites on Tidal, great showcase.


----------



## sdurani

Every room is an upmixer, adding reflections and spaciousness that don't exist in the original recording. Short of listening in an anechoic chamber or outdoors, there is no avoiding upmixing; just a choice of whether it is to be done acoustically and/or electronically. 

For those that prefer it done acoustically, you can see examples of elaborate room treatment schemes deployed to sculpt the sound in some dedicated 2-channel listening rooms. With the electronic approach, matrix upmixers can extract ambient information (studio created or naturally recorded) and steer it to the speakers around you. Same ambient info, just a matter of which direction you want it coming from: 2 speakers in front of you or the speakers surrounding you.


----------



## MagnumX

Goname31 said:


> That's kind of unfair. They where really against bouncy speakers, always arguing that "if you want sound there, then put a speaker there". True, they were a bit wary of Atmos at the beginning of the format, with reason, with no content, that format was making people make a lot of changes on their setup without garanty of a good pay off.
> 
> For atmos music, they did not like it via headphone, and once they finally use it on Tidal on Home Theater, they really like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah for me its Atmos > 2 channel > Upmixed music.


This is the Audioholics article I was originally referring to:

Five Reasons Dolby Atmos May Be Dead On Arrival

Another Negative Article:

The Dolby Atmos Home Theater Paradox

This is one of the threads I'm talking about (dated 2020 so not "many" years ago) and it refers to many YouTube videos Gene put out against Atmos. I don't see where I've been unfair saying that site has been negative about Atmos from the start. You can, of course interpret it any way you want to see it, but other than a counter-article about five reasons Atmos will succeed, I didn't see a lot to make me think they're were very excited about the technology. Many people just don't want to bother with more than 5.1 speakers (many think that's 5 too many and just use their TV speakers; they'll spend $5k on a TV and then use TV speakers! That shows you how much an average person cares about sound versus picture).

ATMOS UNDERWHELMING

There was a post on the Blu-ray Forums by someone questioning why anyone in their right mind would order a new Turbine release of either Dragonheart or Daylight with Atmos and Auro-3D sound (two entirely different mixes; not a conversion from one to the other) when a 4K version may be coming out later in the year (possibly with 5.1 sound or DTS:X since Turbine had the Atmos/Auro conversions done and the studios seem to pick and choose what they're going to do). One poster said they wanted an Atmos version instead of DTS:X and that's what drew the criticism about what are we doing now, choosing sound over a 4K picture? And people were laughing. That should tell you what the average person thinks of sound once again. It's an afterthought. It's not a reason to get a new Blu-Ray to them.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> This is the Audioholics article I was originally referring to:
> 
> Five Reasons Dolby Atmos May Be Dead On Arrival
> 
> Another Negative Article:
> 
> The Dolby Atmos Home Theater Paradox
> 
> This is one of the threads I'm talking about (dated 2020 so not "many" years ago) and it refers to many YouTube videos Gene put out against Atmos. I don't see where I've been unfair:
> 
> ATMOS UNDERWHELMING


Well, it's true there's Atmos mixes that are underwhelming, especially in the beginning. Switch off your floor speakers and listen just to the tops. Anyhow, "underwhelming" is not the same as saying "Atmos is junk and doomed" in my book. Gene was sceptical. Why not? Too much snake oil has been sold to us.

Audioholics did poke fun at Atmos enabled speakers though. After having done extensive testing I tend to agree that it is a legitimate reaction.


----------



## T-Bone

MagnumX said:


> This is the Audioholics article I was originally referring to:
> 
> Five Reasons Dolby Atmos May Be Dead On Arrival
> 
> Another Negative Article:
> 
> The Dolby Atmos Home Theater Paradox
> 
> This is one of the threads I'm talking about (dated 2020 so not "many" years ago) and it refers to many YouTube videos Gene put out against Atmos. I don't see where I've been unfair:
> 
> ATMOS UNDERWHELMING


Reference to the first link:
Point number 5, cost too much... They estimated $3,000 back then in 2014, and point number 1, no WoW.

We're still talking about the lack of WoW today with poorly mastered content. So they were on to something.

The price today is less of course. Most people, if they've already upgraded I receive it for some of the reason, have x.x.2 Atmos in the receiver anyway. If they want x.x.4, then they're spending more money on a receiver.

There was the point, I forget the number, about speakers being stupid. Bouncy speakers were stupid then and are stupid today 

-T


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Well, it's true there's Atmos mixes that are underwhelming, especially in the beginning. Switch off your floor speakers and listen just to the tops. Anyhow, "underwhelming" is not the same as saying "Atmos is junk and doomed" in my book.
> Audiopholics did poke fun at Atmos enabled speakers though. After having done extensive testing I tend to agree that it is a legitimate reaction.


Many still are underwhelming, but others are great. Not all 5.1 mixes were great early on. Many were barely different from Pro Logic mixes because of the "surround sound shouldn't be distracting mantra" that still seems to guide some sound engineers today (see Knives Out Atmos mix; one big overhead sound of a game table dropping on the floor above and hardly any side surround effects even when a party was going on all around in the house. Mostly up front. WTF is the point of that mix?)

But that doesn't mean the tech sucks or we should forget about it because a few mixing guys don't know WTF they're doing. I've heard Atmos music discs that were underwhelming as well (many are just reverb effects, but then that's what you get from a fixed point in a hall). One guy on Audioholics hated Dear Future Self because it was "boring" music. Some people don't listen to music outside their car or earbuds. You can't please everyone. Some prefer stereo (particularly if it means spending more on two-channel than they could afford on >2 channel).


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Many still are underwhelming, but others are great. Not all 5.1 mixes were great early on. Many were barely different from Pro Logic mixes because of the "surround sound shouldn't be distracting mantra" that still seems to guide some sound engineers today (see Knives Out Atmos mix; one big overhead sound of a game table dropping on the floor above and hardly any side surround effects even when a party was going on all around in the house. Mostly up front. WTF is the point of that mix?)
> 
> But that doesn't mean the tech sucks or we should forget about it because a few mixing guys don't know WTF they're doing. I've heard Atmos music discs that were underwhelming as well (many are just reverb effects, but then that's what you get from a fixed point in a hall). One guy on Audioholics hated Dear Future Self because it was "boring" music. Some people don't listen to music outside their car or earbuds. You can't please everyone. Some prefer stereo (particularly if it means spending more on two-channel than they could afford on >2 channel).


Sounds more reasonable then your initial post


----------



## Technology3456

I heard some of the atmos "in-ceiling" speakers have "backs." Maybe I could make those work depending on 1. Do any of them have flat backs, but angled fronts? 2. Could the flat backs be screwed right onto the ceiling, instead of into the ceiling, without ruining the sound quality?

Edit: reading this also gave me another idea. Best Dolby Atmos Speakers. Scroll down to "modules" and they appear somewhat the shape that would work. These are designed to be put on top of the towers and reflected up off the ceiling, but would they perform well ceiling mounted as true atmos speakers?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> I heard some of the atmos "in-ceiling" speakers have "backs." Maybe I could make those work depending on 1. Do any of them have flat backs, but angled fronts? 2. Could the flat backs be screwed right onto the ceiling, instead of into the ceiling, without ruining the sound quality?
> 
> Edit: reading this also gave me another idea. Best Dolby Atmos Speakers. Scroll down to "modules" and they appear somewhat the shape that would work. These are designed to be put on top of the towers and reflected up off the ceiling, but would they perform well ceiling mounted as true atmos speakers?



The Atmos-enabled speakers (the modules you reference) are not suited for ceiling installation: they have a notch filter built into their frequency response curve to assist with the illusion of their sound coming from overheard, as well as directivity characteristics meant to maximize their performance in bouncing sound off the ceiling.


----------



## bartonnen

Technology3456 said:


> Do any of them have flat backs, but angled fronts?


Have a look at SVS Prime Elevation speakers - they might do the trick for you.


----------



## Calypte

> from the Audioholics article from 2014..."Atmos simply doesn't have enough Wow!"


This has been my experience. A couple of months ago I asked a hi-end audio dealer in L.A. to demonstrate Dolby Atmos. Use whatever material you think will give the most impressive demo. This was a $22K system with identical speakers on all sides (Steinway Lyngdorf). They played scenes from _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. The guy made hyperbolic statements about the sound being "more immersive." Meh! Maybe a direct comparison with ordinary 5.1 would've made the point. OTOH, the image from the projector was to die for.


----------



## T-Bone

Calypte said:


> This has been my experience. A couple of months ago I asked a hi-end audio dealer in L.A. to demonstrate Dolby Atmos. Use whatever material you think will give the most impressive demo. This was a $22K system with identical speakers on all sides (Steinway Lyngdorf). They played scenes from _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. The guy made hyperbolic statements about the sound being "more immersive." Meh! Maybe a direct comparison with ordinary 5.1 would've made the point. OTOH, the image from the projector was to die for.


Try mortal Kombat streaming on HBO Max right now. There's not much Atmos in it, but what is there is very good.

I'll just say the fight scene where there's a fighter who can fly. I'm telling you it's like she was flying above me. And it sounded great on my four speakers that cost 50 bucks each. She's flying all around and the sounds are coming from all over the place. From my sides from my tops from my fronts and rears. That one scene was one of the better Atmos scenes IMO.



Spoiler



Same fight scene. The metal hat is spinning in the ground. The female fighter that has wings and can fly, her head hits that spinning hat and you hear a splat which is coming from the overheads.

It was gory and unbelievably sounding.



-T

Edit:. I will agree in the sense that there's a lot of Atmos mastered content which I think is Atmos in name only. And there's not a lot happening in the overheads. Sort of like a subwoofer while watching a romantic comedy . It does not get a lot of use, but when it's in action, you can appreciate it.


----------



## Lesmor

Calypte said:


> This has been my experience. A couple of months ago I asked a hi-end audio dealer in L.A. to demonstrate Dolby Atmos. Use whatever material you think will give the most impressive demo. This was a $22K system with identical speakers on all sides (Steinway Lyngdorf). They played scenes from _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. The guy made hyperbolic statements about the sound being "more immersive." Meh! Maybe a direct comparison with ordinary 5.1 would've made the point. OTOH, the image from the projector was to die for.


the best disc I have heard so far is Disney's "Soul" that for me demonstrates how to do a Atmos mix


----------



## Calypte

T-Bone said:


> Try mortal Kombat streaming on HBO Max right now. There's not much Atmos in it, but what is there is very good.


But I personally have to have an Atmos setup to experience it. I haven't seen/heard a demo of Dolby Atmos that creates an, "Oh -- I gotta have this!" reaction. This will never go beyond a niche technology unless the consumer electronics industry realizes that people need to experience a "gotta have it" demo. The hi-end audio store that I mentioned is 120 miles and a lot of traffic away. I don't get there very often. BB is an unmitigated failure at demonstrating anything connected with audio/video.


----------



## Technology3456

bartonnen said:


> Have a look at SVS Prime Elevation speakers - they might do the trick for you.


Seem to be the leading candidate but they are angled 25 degrees I think. I am looking to aim the atmos speakers right at the MLP or front row as many suggested, and that is at least 45 degrees, probably more like 55 in my setup. So that is the goal in general, but to add even more to the concern with this particular model, another poster who has this model said that this exact issue forced him to change atmos placement with these speakers, away from Dolby guidelines, in order to get the angle right given they are only tilted 20 or 25 degrees not 45. I want to avoid getting something where I have to create a new problem to solve another problem.


----------



## T-Bone

Calypte said:


> But I personally have to have an Atmos setup to experience it. I haven't seen/heard a demo of Dolby Atmos that creates an, "Oh -- I gotta have this!" reaction. This will never go beyond a niche technology unless the consumer electronics industry realizes that people need to experience a "gotta have it" demo. The hi-end audio store that I mentioned is 120 miles and a lot of traffic away. I don't get there very often. BB is an unmitigated failure at demonstrating anything connected with audio/video.


Okay, I understand, for some reason when I replied I thought you already had Atmos. My bad.

Hearing an Atmos demo is kind of hard. I was able to hear atmos at a buddy's house. So I was sold on it because it was that good in his room. That's when I decided to go atmos.

-T


----------



## MagnumX

Look up


Technology3456 said:


> Seem to be the leading candidate but they are angled 25 degrees I think. I am looking to aim the atmos speakers right at the MLP or front row as many suggested, and that is at least 45 degrees, probably more like 55 in my setup. So that is the goal in general, but to add even more to the concern with this particular model, another poster who has this model said that this exact issue forced him to change atmos placement with these speakers, away from Dolby guidelines, in order to get the angle right given they are only tilted 20 or 25 degrees not 45. I want to avoid getting something where I have to create a new problem to solve another problem.


Look up PSB CS500 and/or PSB CS1000. It's the PSB Imagine B in an enclosure made for outdoor use. I think I sent you a picture of mine before. You can mount them on any wall or ceiling and aim them at the listening position as they're designed to swivel (loosen side handle screw, aim and tighten once mounted. You can mount them as side surrounds on a wall vertically and point them forward or backward. 

They have the same drivers as the Imagine series so they match perfectly with the PSB X1T and very close to the X2T towers. Very easy to install. Just locate the joist and put the screws in for the holder and insert the speaker, aim and tighten. Piece of cake. They come in black and white to match walls/ceilings. They don't look as good as in-ceiling (to women at least), but it's a LOT less work to mount.


----------



## MagnumX

Calypte said:


> But I personally have to have an Atmos setup to experience it. I haven't seen/heard a demo of Dolby Atmos that creates an, "Oh -- I gotta have this!" reaction. This will never go beyond a niche technology unless the consumer electronics industry realizes that people need to experience a "gotta have it" demo. The hi-end audio store that I mentioned is 120 miles and a lot of traffic away. I don't get there very often. BB is an unmitigated failure at demonstrating anything connected with audio/video.


The original Jumanji movie in Atmos when the giant mosquitos come out and buzz overhead ought to do it. I almost started swatting at them!

Or get Yello's Point album in Atmos and take it there to listen. OMG!


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> , but it's usually either arrayed or otherwise highly correlated sounds that mesh with the sides and don't tend to image in the back if the room unless you are sitting back there (


I dislike arrayed surrounds too, on the basis of discreteness.

Rephrasing my earlier question, Would you prefer movies which are 71+, but have ambience almost exclusively in front/back, and have sides reserved for spot SFX & music?



MagnumX said:


> One guy on Audioholics hated Dear Future Self because it was "boring" music. Some people don't listen to music outside their car or earbuds.


It's a valid opinion. I like only about half of the songs of your aforementioned albums WRT musical content. Some of the tracks are boring & reptitive.



Calypte said:


> . They played scenes from _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. The guy made hyperbolic statements about the sound being "more immersive."





T-Bone said:


> I will agree in the sense that there's a lot of Atmos mastered content which I think is Atmos in name only. And there's not a lot happening in the overheads. Sort of like a subwoofer while watching a romantic comedy . It does not get a lot of use, but when it's in action, you can appreciate it.


I had a short listen to Blade Runner 2049 somewhere, and it might be too immersive as the music is also at height, so when the SFX comes in it's less contrasting.

OTOH, movies of the type T-Bone described might be better, any examples of that ? (only SFX, or only SFX+ambience at height) 

ED: Jumanji as MagnumX said maybe


----------



## Killroy

Calypte said:


> This has been my experience. A couple of months ago I asked a hi-end audio dealer in L.A. to demonstrate Dolby Atmos. Use whatever material you think will give the most impressive demo. This was a $22K system with identical speakers on all sides (Steinway Lyngdorf). They played scenes from _Apocalypse Now_ and _Blade Runner 2049_. The guy made hyperbolic statements about the sound being "more immersive." Meh! Maybe a direct comparison with ordinary 5.1 would've made the point. OTOH, the image from the projector was to die for.


Midway (2019) UHD Chapter 13 & 15 at close as you can to reference. In my system I can get to -5db before my head and ears start hurting. The Atmos is by far the best so far from any other title. Vertigo inducing.


----------



## MagnumX

@junh1024 - I don't think in either direction, particularly, which is to say a sound should pass through the room (sides included whether at the wall or between them in the room) on their way to the back. If a sound is off to the side, that's where it should come from. In other words, the movie content should decide. Halfway to the rear (ss#2) could be the location in Atmos. 

I don't think the mixing guy should be aiming for only side or rear effects. It should be natural sounding. The problem has been the mixing engineers tend to forget about the sounds after they pass through the sides (5.1). Cars being passed in a chase should continue into the rears and then fade out, not fade out at the sides, but that's usually what I hear. 

Too many 7.1 tracks are little more than arrayed side effects. Even 5.1 upmixed doesn't go back well since the sounds have to correlate to end up in the back and car sounds aren't usually heading towards the middle as they go by in a sound mix.


----------



## sdurani

Calypte said:


> This will never go beyond a niche technology unless...


Too late, it's already gone beyond niche. Most receivers and processors have it (even 5.1 AVRs have height virtualization). Showing up on an increasing number of sound bars. Gaining traction in movies and shows (streaming, cable, etc). At this point it's mainstream in the consumer electronics AND content creation industries.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Look up
> 
> 
> Look up PSB CS500 and/or PSB CS1000. It's the PSB Imagine B in an enclosure made for outdoor use. I think I sent you a picture of mine before. You can mount them on any wall or ceiling and aim them at the listening position as they're designed to swivel (loosen side handle screw, aim and tighten once mounted. You can mount them as side surrounds on a wall vertically and point them forward or backward.
> 
> They have the same drivers as the Imagine series so they match perfectly with the PSB X1T and very close to the X2T towers. Very easy to install. Just locate the joist and put the screws in for the holder and insert the speaker, aim and tighten. Piece of cake. They come in black and white to match walls/ceilings. They don't look as good as in-ceiling (to women at least), but it's a LOT less work to mount.


Thanks these look promising, but 8 inches deep with the bracket before you even tilt, so 11-12 inches deep when tilted 45 degrees. But maybe I wont find better without loss of sound quality? I dont know anything about that which is why it's hard for me to know what to do just getting recs of this 10 inch deep option, this 8 inch deep option, etc. I dont have the info to know, "this is the best I can expect," or, "keep looking you can find a 5 inch deep option with good sound quality." Also, will the grill stay on with the speaker ceiling mounted? I'd need to cover the yellow for batcave purposes.

Not familiar with X2T towers etc. Will these go well with Infinities?

Would in-ceiling speakers with backs work screwing the back onto the ceiling instead of in the ceiling?


----------



## Goname31

sdurani said:


> Too late, it's already gone beyond niche. Most receivers and processors have it (even 5.1 AVRs have height virtualization). Showing up on an increasing number of sound bars. Gaining traction in movies and shows (streaming, cable, etc). At this point it's mainstream in the consumer electronics AND content creation industries.


It even is featureds in clubs now. If some ever reopens.


----------



## Technology3456

Goname31 said:


> It even is featureds in clubs now. If some ever reopens.


How long do you guys estimate until every 4K UHD release has an atmos track, and the atmos sound engineers for every one are given the full dialogue, sound effects, _and _score to work with, and the atmos track is complete for each one down to every last bullet ricochet and overheard movement in the film?


----------



## Goname31

Technology3456 said:


> How long do you guys estimate until every 4K UHD release has an atmos track, and the atmos sound engineers for every one are given the full dialogue, sound effects, _and _score to work with, and the atmos track is complete for each one down to every last bullet ricochet and overheard movement in the film?


Every single newrelease is atmos or dts X nowadays. Only the occasional Nolan movie and some older one that release without a 3D mix. It's rather common now. Every big Netflix or Apple show or movie has atmos. Everybody should check Shadow and Bone, excellent show and man, what en great mix (Netflix).

Every day on Tidal I see between 1 and three new atmos album. It growing.


----------



## Technology3456

Goname31 said:


> Every single newrelease is atmos or dts X nowadays. Only the occasional Nolan movie and some older one that release without a 3D mix. It's rather common now. Every big Netflix or Apple show or movie has atmos. Everybody should check Shadow and Bone, excellent show and man, what en great mix (Netflix).
> 
> Every day on Tidal I see between 1 and three new atmos album. It growing.


That's true. I meant how for example Mad Max Fury Road has an atmos track, but the engineers only had some things to work with. Or John Wick 2 having bullet ricochet sounds in some scenes but not others. When will most the releases not just have atmos tracks, but fully done ones without, I guess you could put it, "missing overhead sounds" in many scenes? Godzilla has an atmos track but no overheard sounds sometimes when the monsters are in the air making noise. Stuff like that. When will that be the exception for atmos tracks and not frequent?


----------



## Goname31

Technology3456 said:


> That's true. I meant how for example Mad Max Fury Road has an atmos track, but the engineers only had some things to work with. Or John Wick 2 having bullet ricochet sounds in some scenes but not others. When will most the releases not just have atmos tracks, but fully done ones without, I guess you could put it, "missing overhead sounds" in many scenes? Godzilla has an atmos track but no overheard sounds sometimes when the monsters are in the air making noise. Stuff like that. When will that be the exception for atmos tracks and not frequent?


🤷‍♂️


----------



## Technology3456

Goname31 said:


> 🤷‍♂️


Yeah it's hard to know, just wondering if anyone has any idea how the winds are blowing with that. We can only hope the improved popularity of atmos will lead studios to do that with all their big films the second half of 2021 and going forward.


----------



## Technology3456

Found on-ceiling atmos speakers that might work for me, but they're tall. This means when tilted forward, the top will be near the ceiling, but the bottom will be say a foot lower. 

Or what if I turned it sideways, and then tilted it. Except then, the sound is coming from 1 foot further left/right. This is unavoidable with any speaker to some degree, just much less with an in-ceiling speaker or smaller speaker. My question is if I choose this model, which is better, having a left-right difference, or top/bottom? And if it's top/bottom, then do I want the woofer at the top, and tweeter at the bottom, or vice versa? If I have it sideways, do I want the woofer on the inside closer to the MLP/horizontal axis, or on the outside further from the MLP and horizontal axis?


----------



## Rich 63

Technology3456 said:


> That's true. I meant how for example Mad Max Fury Road has an atmos track, but the engineers only had some things to work with. Or John Wick 2 having bullet ricochet sounds in some scenes but not others. When will most the releases not just have atmos tracks, but fully done ones without, I guess you could put it, "missing overhead sounds" in many scenes? Godzilla has an atmos track but no overheard sounds sometimes when the monsters are in the air making noise. Stuff like that. When will that be the exception for atmos tracks and not frequent?


I don't know. When do you think it will happen?


----------



## Goname31

Another thing with atmos, is our expectation of it. For a lot of folks, atmos == overhead. A good atmos mix could not use overheads at all no? Like really well using the bet layer (support 9.X.X of 11.X.X), and if nothing in the movie should be heard overhead, then there is nothing. Does that mean that it is not a good atmos mix? Not sure, objets can be use everywhere.

Same goes with music. I expect a lot of stuff happening all over me, with me at the sweet spot. For hearing a lot from mixers and creators on dolby's podcasts, some have this approach with Dolby Music, but some are aiming for a mix that is good and interesting wherevere you are in the listening area.


----------



## Technology3456

Rich 63 said:


> I don't know. When do you think it will happen?


No idea. Im not plugged into the industry, & I dont have data how popular things like this needed to become in the past before Hollywood got behind it 100%. I completely see why u might think it's a dumb question, but let me share my perspective & I hope u will think the question is worthwhile after. I asked b/c ppl were talking about popularity of atmos, but popularity is a means to end here. None of us are worried whether atmos is popular enough to get voted prom queen, heh, we care about atmos popularity's influence on support & content. So I brought it up directly.

And if u read my post thinking, "he expects we can predict the future perfectly, and that's ridiculous," again u are 100% right that would be ridiculous to expect. I hope u won't think badly of me if I could have been more clear. Brevity vs specificity is a constant tradeoff. I def dont expect anyone to know the future, but maybe someone has read "insider" articles that talk about Hollywood's plans for atmos the next 6-12 months. Maybe some users are plugged into the industry. Maybe some users have such great XP, they have seen it all before & can gauge, 75% accurately, how things are going to go based on popularity, data, etc. U never know what someone might know but if u don't ask, u can't find out.


----------



## T-Bone

Goname31 said:


> Another thing with atmos, is our expectation of it. For a lot of folks, atmos == overhead. A good atmos mix could not use overheads at all no? Like really well using the bet layer (support 9.X.X of 11.X.X), and if nothing in the movie should be heard overhead, then there is nothing. Does that mean that it is not a good atmos mix? Not sure, objets can be use everywhere.


I'm always looking to learn more. But I think the whole point of atmos is you have to have sounds coming from above you. It's in the Atmos literature and specs.

-T


----------



## Goname31

T-Bone said:


> I'm always looking to learn more. But I think the whole point of atmos is you have to have sounds coming from above you. It's in the Atmos literature and specs.
> 
> -T


I'd say it's one of the point, not the whole point. Before even overhead, the point was, to my understanding, being able to break free from the channels. Use objects instead. There is an enlightning video from Dolby that I can't seem to find right now where they explain where atmos came from, on the cinema side. 

5.1 and 7.1 in cinemas had arrays of speakers for the side, arrays for the rears. But it was laking mouvement. 

If something was reaching the border of the screen, every side speakers were firing up, then every rear speakers on the same side. Atmos was then introduce, to be able to have mouvement from every single speaker on the side, one after the other, not all at the same time, without having to create another channel for it.

The use of objects was the main point of atmos, a new way to mix a movie, with an increase of solutions for the future. From that point, did they think, ok this object thing would be cool to try overhead, maybe. But the starting point was not overhead.

Once again, it is my understanding from this video and an article about the story of the Dolby upmixers, I could be all wrong, but it seems pretty logical to me.

So I ask again the quesiton, if nothing in your movie should be heard overhead, but you do a fantastic job with objects even on a 24.X.X setup, is it a bad atmos mix?


----------



## sdurani

Goname31 said:


> For a lot of folks, atmos == overhead. A good atmos mix could not use overheads at all no?


Yes to both. The two main things Atmos introduced to consumer audio were objects (which allowed soundtracks to natively scale to various speaker layouts) and a height layer (which turned the 2-D ring of sound into a 3-D bubble of sound). The object-based nature of Atmos isn't really advantageous until higher speaker counts. So the aspect that most consumers will hear with Atmos is the height effect. An Atmos soundtrack without height effects feels like surround sound, not immersive audio.


----------



## Goname31

sdurani said:


> Yes to both. The two main things Atmos introduced to consumer audio were objects (which allowed soundtracks to natively scale to various speaker layouts) and a height layer (which turned the 2-D ring of sound into a 3-D bubble of sound). The object-based nature of Atmos isn't really advantageous until higher speaker counts. So the aspect that most consumers will hear with Atmos is the height effect. An Atmos soundtrack without height effects feels like surround sound, not immersive audio.


Yeah I just read the wikipedia for Dolby atmos and that was my feeling. The point of the technology was objects, not overheads. But objects pan better with a lot of speakers, so they had to have something else for Home theater, hence the accent on overheads.

So to answer my own question, a good mix on bed layer only will only get noticed on 9.X.X setups and above.


----------



## sdurani

Goname31 said:


> The point of the technology was objects, not overheads.


It was definitely both. Immersive audio without overheads is surround sound. And Dolby and DTS were not going to come out with new formats that were essentially higher channel count 2-D audio. The goal was 3-D audio, with or without objects (like Auro3D).


> So to answer my own question, a good mix on bed layer will only get noticed on 9.X.X setups and above.


Exactly. Most consumers that do a surround set-up will have a max of 5 to 7 speakers in the base layer, so their set-up won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos. For them, Atmos = overhead. That's the main difference they hear.


----------



## PC Beach WE

I just purchased a new Sony 77" A80J, I need a new Dolby Atmos receiver , here's my choices Onkyo TX-NR797 or Yamaha V6A ?
No gaming support needed 
Onkyo 9.2 // Yamaha 7.2
Which one pricing is close 

Thanks


----------



## dschulz

Here's the reason I encourage Atmos setups for home theatre, budget and space permitting: it is fast becoming the de facto standard for mixing and delivering movies and episodics (whether on disc, broadcast, streaming or download). Are there a lot of ho-hum mixes that don't really utilize the full capabilities of Atmos, such as dramatically moving objects around the listener (rather than pinning them to the channel beds), or moving sound overhead and through 3D space? Well, sure. But that was true in the 5.1 era as well - plenty of movies were delivered in 5.1 that would have worked just as well as 2 channel or even mono mixes. Some directors are just more focused on their picture and treat sound as an afterthought. And in some cases, the directors think a great deal about the soundtrack, but they think getting too aggressive with surrounds (or overheads) will distract the viewer.

The point here is for 25 years or so the basic deliverable standard for home theatre was 5.1 (maybe 7.1 in the final years), and any reasonably-specced system would be set up for 5.1 playback, even if lots of material really translates just fine to a good stereo setup. The deliverable standard now is Atmos, so if you want to hear movies (and an increasing amount of music) in a way the most closely matches the creative intent, I'd recommend an Atmos setup, of at least 5.1.4 and go from from there, budget and space permitting.


----------



## halcyon_888

I'm upgrading my system to Atmos in a couple of weeks, and the discussion about Atmos and height usage is of special interest to me. I have been around home theater for a while since Dolby Pro Logic delivered on VHS. With 5.1 mixes there was a progression of including more and more of the musical score in the surrounds, today it is standard practice by sound engineers, blending elements of it with the other channels. I don't see why Atmos wouldn't at least do the same for height channels to create a more immersive experience. But from what I'm reading, often the heights are left silent and that comes off to me as bad Atmos sound engineering if there was musical score to pull from and make the track more immersive. It still isn't stopping me from completing my Atmos upgrade, I'd guess there will be an evolution of sound engineering with Atmos as standard practices emerge and more sound engineers become trained develop more skill in using the Atmos engineering tools.


----------



## Rich 63

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm upgrading my system to Atmos in a couple of weeks, and the discussion about Atmos and height usage is of special interest to me. I have been around home theater for a while since Dolby Pro Logic delivered on VHS. With 5.1 mixes there was a progression of including more and more of the musical score in the surrounds, today it is standard practice by sound engineers, blending elements of it with the other channels. I don't see why Atmos wouldn't at least do the same for height channels to create a more immersive experience. But from what I'm reading, often the heights are left silent and that comes off to me as bad Atmos sound engineering if there was musical score to pull from and make the track more immersive. It still isn't stopping me from completing my Atmos upgrade, I'd guess there will be an evolution of sound engineering with Atmos as standard practices emerge and more sound engineers become trained develop more skill in using the Atmos engineering tools.


From my point of view, the upmixers, particularly dtsx upmixer are a major step up from only bed layer speakers a la 5.1. Dtsx renders 5.1 into a much more emmersive experience. Like any technology early adaptation is hit and miss. Once sound engineers learn the proper use benifits, atmos will improve. So to me worrying about quality/quantity of atmos mixes and weather or not its a worthwhile uograde based on those parameters is moot. I'll enjoy the good ones and the bad and upmix the 5.1 content and enjoy the more immersive sound i get over the old 5.1/7.1 i used to run. 
Rich


----------



## noah katz

Technology3456 said:


> How long do you guys estimate until every 4K UHD release has an atmos track, and the atmos sound engineers for every one are given the full dialogue, sound effects, _and _score to work with, and the atmos track is complete for each one down to every last bullet ricochet and overheard movement in the film?



It sounds like you're asking when every soundtrack will be reference quality.

[rant follows]

I'd say never.

IMO the elephant in the room in audio is the average soundtrack quality vs. what's possible with the format.

I haven't heard any Atmos soundtrack that approaches the quality of (at least some of) the Dolby demo's, and I'm not even talking about object placement, but the sense of being in the space (jungle, for the track I'm thinking of, forget the name).

There are well done DVD soundtracks that sound better than a lot of Atmos; one that comes to mind is the extras track on Standing in the Shadow of Motown, where it feels like you're in the studio with the musicians.


----------



## Josh Z

halcyon_888 said:


> With 5.1 mixes there was a progression of including more and more of the musical score in the surrounds, today it is standard practice by sound engineers, blending elements of it with the other channels. I don't see why Atmos wouldn't at least do the same for height channels to create a more immersive experience. But from what I'm reading, often the heights are left silent and that comes off to me as bad Atmos sound engineering if there was musical score to pull from and make the track more immersive.


Most Atmos sound mixes do spread music to the height layer, and all of the upmixers will do the same. When people talk about "no height effects" with Atmos, they're typically complaining about a lack of discrete, attention-grabbing sound effects (e.g. helicopter and plane flyovers). 

Some early Atmos mixes - notably Transformers: Age of Extinction and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - were in fact mostly silent in the height speakers aside from a handful of sound effects. But as the format has progressed, that isn't often the case anymore. There's usually _something_ going on up top. The problem is, what you mostly get up there are ambient effects and music bleed, which may not call attention to themselves. Hence the perception that the Atmos track isn't using the height layer enough.


----------



## crutzulee

PC Beach WE said:


> I just purchased a new Sony 77" A80J, I need a new Dolby Atmos receiver , here's my choices Onkyo TX-NR797 or Yamaha V6A ?
> No gaming support needed
> Onkyo 9.2 // Yamaha 7.2
> Which one pricing is close
> 
> Thanks


The ONKYO 787 (identical to the 797) was my first foray into the world of ATMOS/DTS X. As a person who completely thought of ceiling channels as a gimmick, I had absolutely no intention of upgrading my 7.1 system that had never ceased to put a smile on my face. Before the world went to hell, the 787 could be had at a price point where they were practically giving them away and because up here in Canada, PARADIGM speakers that match my system literally grow on trees, I was practically forced to upgrade. 
At the risk of being hyperbolic, 3D sound is a complete game changer , and height info is maybe only about a 3rd of the story.
I think people measuring ATMOS soundtracks by the amount of height info are similar to those impressed by hearing dialogue come out of the surround channels when pro logic was first introduced. 

With timberally matched speakers, placed as close to the DOLBY specs as possible, the auditioning of object based soundtracks will have anyone convinced. You will crave the bubble. 
As an aside, that ONKYO had me revisiting my entire library with the DSU (I often found the DTS equivalent to be too gimcky). While never achieving object based goodness, the ambient effect of height channels was particularly good with horror movies. 
As others have mentioned, with 3D sound, more channels are better so the ONKYO would be my recommendation between the two you mentioned with one major caveat. The 797 offers no upgrade path to 7.2.4. First, the 2 LFE outputs are nothing more than a glorified splitter and second, the chipset doesn't decode more channels to be externally amplified. 
I would have been happy with my ONKYO had a DENON x4500 not fallen into my lap with the aforementioned ability to pick two more mini monitors and subwoofers off of the PARADIGM tree in my back yard.


----------



## halcyon_888

Josh Z said:


> Most Atmos sound mixes do spread music to the height layer, and all of the upmixers will do the same. When people talk about "no height effects" with Atmos, they're typically complaining about a lack of discrete, attention-grabbing sound effects (e.g. helicopter and plane flyovers).
> 
> Some early Atmos mixes - notably Transformers: Age of Extinction and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - were in fact mostly silent in the height speakers aside from a handful of sound effects. But as the format has progressed, that isn't often the case anymore. There's usually _something_ going on up top. The problem is, what you mostly get up there are ambient effects and music bleed, which may not call attention to themselves. Hence the perception that the Atmos track isn't using the height layer enough.


Thanks, I haven't heard Atmos yet at all so I'm stuck with reading people's accounts for now. I would appreciate the engineers putting ambient effects and music bleed in the heights, at least something is coming out of the height channels and would make the effort of the upgrade worth something. In fact with 5.1 surround, some of my favorite movie soundtracks don't necessarily have a ton of discrete sounds in the surrounds rather the sound engineer using the surrounds for orchestral support.


----------



## PC Beach WE

crutzulee said:


> The ONKYO 787 (identical to the 797) was my first foray into the world of ATMOS/DTS X. As a person who completely thought of ceiling channels as a gimmick, I had absolutely no intention of upgrading my 7.1 system that had never ceased to put a smile on my face. Before the world went to hell, the 787 could be had at a price point where they were practically giving them away and because up here in Canada, PARADIGM speakers that match my system literally grow on trees, I was practically forced to upgrade.
> At the risk of being hyperbolic, 3D sound is a complete game changer , and height info is maybe only about a 3rd of the story.
> I think people measuring ATMOS soundtracks by the amount of height info are similar to those impressed by hearing dialogue come out of the surround channels when pro logic was first introduced.
> 
> With timberally matched speakers, placed as close to the DOLBY specs as possible, the auditioning of object based soundtracks will have anyone convinced. You will crave the bubble.
> As an aside, that ONKYO had me revisiting my entire library with the DSU (I often found the DTS equivalent to be too gimcky). While never achieving object based goodness, the ambient effect of height channels was particularly good with horror movies.
> As others have mentioned, with 3D sound, more channels are better so the ONKYO would be my recommendation between the two you mentioned with one major caveat. The 797 offers no upgrade path to 7.2.4. First, the 2 LFE outputs are nothing more than a glorified splitter and second, the chipset doesn't decode more channels to be externally amplified.
> I would have been happy with my ONKYO had a DENON x4500 not fallen into my lap with the aforementioned ability to pick two more mini monitors and subwoofers off of the PARADIGM tree in my back yard.


Really appreciate your input ! I think the two subwoofers would be all I need with an upstairs bonus room converted into a man cave theater , I just don't want to shake the downstairs too much LOL


----------



## Rich 63

, I just don't want to shake the downstairs too much LOL. 
A common expressed sentiment. More subs is not more bass its cleaner more articulate bass with better seat to seat intergration. 
Rich


----------



## bweissman

Regarding the "height bubble" and number of Atmos speakers... I recently upgraded from 7.2 to 7.2.2. My ceiling is an odd shape (it's a loft above the garage) and has a big whole-house fan intake taking up space where a speaker could otherwise go. So 2 ceiling speakers was all I could practically fit. They are Top Middle in Atmos parlance.

The good news is that the bubble is there, even with only 2 tops. The tops don't scream at me, but they do fill the space with sound. It was not a huge expense, so I consider it worthwhile.

I sometimes wonder how much of my modest top-speaker improvement is simply due to the fact that direct, rather than reflected, sound is now coming from the ceiling.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

It is now 1500 days since we got our 9.1.6 setup operational and we have enjoyed it a lot.


----------



## howard68

Mashie Saldana said:


> It is now 1500 days since we got our 9.1.6 setup operational and we have enjoyed it a lot.


Can you list films that use Atmos in 9.1.6?
That use FW and TM 

Thx 
H


----------



## junh1024

Technology3456 said:


> I meant how for example Mad Max Fury Road has an atmos track, but the engineers only had some things to work with. Or John Wick 2 having bullet ricochet sounds in some scenes but not others. When will most the releases not just have atmos tracks, but fully done ones without, I guess you could put it, "missing overhead sounds" in many scenes? Godzilla has an atmos track but no overheard sounds sometimes when the monsters are in the air making noise. Stuff like that. When will that be the exception for atmos tracks and not frequent?


On a related issue, some mixers forget to assign stems to objects (rather than the 712 base), so you get a 712-sounding mix. You can (only) hear this defect on a >= 916 system.



halcyon_888 said:


> I would appreciate the engineers putting ambient effects and music bleed in the heights, at least something is coming out of the height channels and would make the effort of the upgrade worth something





Josh Z said:


> Most Atmos sound mixes do spread music to the height layer, and all of the upmixers will do the same. When people talk about "no height effects" with Atmos, they're typically complaining about a lack of discrete, attention-grabbing sound effects (e.g. helicopter and plane flyovers).
> 
> Some early Atmos mixes - notably Transformers: Age of Extinction and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - were in fact mostly silent in the height speakers aside from a handful of sound effects. But as the format has progressed, that isn't often the case anymore. There's usually _something_ going on up top. The problem is, what you mostly get up there are ambient effects and music bleed, which may not call attention to themselves. Hence the perception that the Atmos track isn't using the height layer enough.


Yeah so if you want ambience & music at the top, you can use upscalers on 2D or 3D stuff.

I think ambience & SFX (ED: bleed/at) the top (for most scenes) is fine.

If you start putting music too at the top too, then there's reduced contrast, and reduces the point of Atmos.


----------



## Technology3456

junh1024 said:


> On a related issue, some mixers forget to assign stems to objects (rather than the 712 base), so you get a 712-sounding mix. You can (only) hear this defect on a >= 916 system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so if you want ambience & music at the top, you can use upscalers on 2D or 3D stuff.
> 
> I think ambience & SFX only at the top (for most scenes) is fine.
> 
> If you start putting music too at the top too, then there's reduced contrast, and reduces the point of Atmos.


I know you didnt imply this or anything, but just to clarify in case it's easy to misinterpret, I definitely am not suggesting more is better, that they should put everything in the atmos speakers all the time. I just meant, mixes where whatever should be there is there, and whatever shouldn't be is not. It sounds like there are a lot of mixes where even a large percentage of should be there is not there. And your point is well taken about what should be there and what shouldn't.


----------



## Killroy

Technology3456 said:


> I just meant, mixes where *whatever should be there is there*, and whatever *shouldn't be is not*. It sounds like there are a lot of mixes where even a large percentage of *should be there is not there. *


I have no idea why I am asking this since I already know the answer but...

How do you know what is supposed to be in the mix and not supposed to be in the mix. Where you present when the original mix was created? There is absolutely no blueprint on what needs to be present on any particular mix. Even theatrical mixes are nowhere the same as home mixes.


----------



## Technology3456

Would the Sony SSCSE's work well for atmos ceiling speakers? It says "atmos enabled," not sure if that means they're meant for upfiring or not. Someone is using them on the ceiling but no idea if that's recommended.


----------



## priitv8

Technology3456 said:


> Would the Sony SSCSE's work well for atmos ceiling speakers? It says "atmos enabled," not sure if that means they're meant for upfiring or not.


That is exactly right!


----------



## T-Bone

Killroy said:


> I have no idea why I am asking this since I already know the answer but...
> 
> How do you know what is supposed to be in the mix and not supposed to be in the mix. Where you present when the original mix was created? There is absolutely no blueprint on what needs to be present on any particular mix. Even theatrical mixes are nowhere the same as home mixes.


Now, that's all just crazy talk 

-T


----------



## Mashie Saldana

howard68 said:


> Can you list films that use Atmos in 9.1.6?
> That use FW and TM
> 
> Thx
> H


Ford vs Ferrari, Underworld, Unbroken, Dirty Dancing, Final Countdown, Alita and so on just to name a few.


----------



## Goname31

junh1024 said:


> If you start putting music too at the top too, then there's reduced contrast, and reduces the point of Atmos.


Music overheard is good for sound engineers, they like having more space to work with, not having to cram everything on the front 3 channels. Maybe we can expect better clarity for effects and dialogues for that kind of situation.

Overhead effect just for the sake of overhead effect, is just like everytime something was jumping at you in 3D movies, it becomes a gimmck.

The Earthquake Bird on netflix uses overheads for music in a really good way, it acts like a way to put some pressure on the audience, just like the kind of pressure the characters of the movie are undergoing.

Same goes with the movie Shadow. After all, it is technology at the service of art, we are at the beginning, some directors are growing artistically with those new possibilities.



Mashie Saldana said:


> Ford vs Ferrari, Underworld, Unbroken, Dirty Dancing, Final Countdown, Alita and so on just to name a few.


We need more of this, is there a topic where to find the kind of mix of every movie (we have the digital intermediate for 4K lovers, this info should be more broadly available.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Goname31 said:


> We need more of this, is there a topic where to find the kind of mix of every movie (we have the digital intermediate for 4K lovers, this info should be more broadly available.


There used to some threads about this a few years ago. It has also been talked about a lot in the past 60750 posts in this thread. Good luck finding it though.


----------



## Goname31

Mashie Saldana said:


> Good luck finding it though.


Yeah, that was my point ^^. Did you watch Star Wars the Force Awaken? Is it a good mix in 7.2.4, with pretty impressive and accurate overheads (one time BB8 threw some kind of cable off-screen and I swear i heard it stick itself in my ceiling), curious if it translates well in a 9.X.6 context.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

sdurani said:


> The object-based nature of Atmos isn't really advantageous until higher speaker counts.


Damn, now you tell me. Mere months after I made the technological leap to 5.4.4. 

I'm already plotting for (at least) 2 more speakers (that I can't possibly accommodate given my room layout) and a 16 channel processor at a minimum. Plotting that is almost certainly likely to get me killed by the missus, because I've begun reading the Trinnov Altitude thread. And I know how that sort of thread-reading usually ends for my wallet.


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> Most consumers that do a surround set-up will have a max of 5 to 7 speakers in the base layer, so their set-up won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos.


Would you want to elaborate on that statement?


----------



## markus767

priitv8 said:


> Would you want to elaborate on that statement?


Not Sanjay but as long as your speaker count doesn't exceed the number of max. Atmos bed channels (9), there's no difference whether audio objects are rendered in real-time during playback or if they would have been baked into the fixed channel layout during mastering.

Once you have more speakers the Atmos renderer will utilize those speaker locations for audio objects. Pans become smoother and object location more distinct and accurate (whatever that means as there's no visual counterpart for precise audio image location to be of any importance).


----------



## priitv8

markus767 said:


> Not Sanjay but as long as your speaker count doesn't exceed the number of bed channels (9), there's no difference whether audio objects are rendered in realtime during playback or if they have been baked into the fixed channel layout during mastering.


My question/confusion was driven by the thought, that having only 5 or 7 bed-layer speakers, the rendering of the objects will not be as good/precise/smooth/... as with 9 speakers. And I would like to understand, why would that be?


----------



## markus767

priitv8 said:


> My question/confusion was driven by the thought, that having only 5 or 7 bed-layer speakers, the rendering of the objects will not be as good/precise/smooth/... as with 9 speakers. And I would like to understand, why would that be?


See edited post above.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> Would you want to elaborate on that statement?


Consumer Atmos soundtracks are made up of a series of substreams such that inside the Atmos mix is a discrete 7.1 mix, inside the 7.1 mix is a discrete 5.1 mix, inside the 5.1 mix is a discrete 2-channel mix. At each step, you're listening to the entire contents of the soundtrack (no sounds are discarded). So if you have a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, then only the 5.1 or 7.1 channel version is decoded. The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count, at which point objects need to be rendered to feed Wides and Heights.


----------



## Goname31

sdurani said:


> Consumer Atmos soundtracks are made up of a series of substreams such that inside the Atmos mix is a discrete 7.1 mix, inside the 7.1 mix is a discrete 5.1 mix, inside the 5.1 mix is a discrete 2-channel mix. At each step, you're listening to the entire contents of the soundtrack (no sounds are discarded). So if you have a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, then only the 5.1 or 7.1 channel version is decoded. The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count, at which point objects need to be rendered to feed Wides and Heights.


Does that mean that channel fixed bad atmos Disney mixes are not real atmos (not using the objects but stiking them as channels)? Therefore that's why they don't pan well on higher speaker count setup (being fix in 7.1.2)?


----------



## markus767

Goname31 said:


> Does that mean that channel fixed bad atmos Disney mixes are not real atmos (not using the objects but stiking them as channels)? Therefore that's why they don't pan well on higher speaker count setup (being fix in 7.1.2)?


Anything transported within an Atmos bitstream is "real Atmos".

Not sure why these Disney mixes are deemed to be "bad" per se. At most they are bad (Atmos mixing) practice. While those "bad" mixes use static audio objects, sounds still can go smoothly from speaker to speaker. Depends on the mix.
On speaker layouts =< 7.x.4 these mixes will sound exactly the same as "good" Atmos mixes.


----------



## priitv8

markus767 said:


> Once you have more speakers the Atmos renderer will utilize those speaker locations for audio objects. Pans become smoother and object location more distinct and accurate (whatever that means as there's no visual counterpart for precise audio image location to be of any importance).


Ok, I can relate to that. And I agree - any physical speaker is better than a virtual. That is why I am no big fan of those "virtual surround" and "Dolby Atmos" soundbars. Or immersive headphone audio, for that matter.


sdurani said:


> Consumer Atmos soundtracks are made up of a series of substreams such that inside the Atmos mix is a discrete 7.1 mix, inside the 7.1 mix is a discrete 5.1 mix, inside the 5.1 mix is a discrete 2-channel mix. At each step, you're listening to the entire contents of the soundtrack (no sounds are discarded). So if you have a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, then only the 5.1 or 7.1 channel version is decoded. The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count, at which point objects need to be rendered to feed Wides and Heights.


I understand, that this is how TrueHD works. But it is not how Dolby Digital Plus Atmos works. In that case the rendering of objects shall be different between the two?
It looks like the spatial coding could be the main contributor to the phenomenon.
But why does the object-based nature of the soundtrack not come into play until one goes to a higher speaker count, that I still do not understand?
Doesn't Atmos renderer still need to render all of the discrete objects, irrespective of the number and layout of physical speakers?
Depending on the latter, it just needs to find the most suitable mapping between set object placement in the room and speaker placement?


----------



## Josh Z

Goname31 said:


> Yeah, that was my point ^^. Did you watch Star Wars the Force Awaken? Is it a good mix in 7.2.4, with pretty impressive and accurate overheads (one time BB8 threw some kind of cable off-screen and I swear i heard it stick itself in my ceiling), curious if it translates well in a 9.X.6 context.


I'm pretty sure The Force Awakens is one of Disney's fixed 7.1.4 channel encodings, and won't scale up to additional speaker counts.


----------



## markus767

priitv8 said:


> [...] I am no big fan of [...] immersive headphone audio, for that matter.


I am as it let's you experience a full-blown Atmos setup in perfect acoustics without the need of investing into expensive and clunky gear and a gazillion of speakers. We're not fully there yet but check out Super X-Fi or Apple's Spatial Audio.



priitv8 said:


> But why does the object-based nature of the soundtrack not come into play until one goes to a higher speaker count, that I still do not understand?


Because objects can only move to speakers that actually exist. As speakers in a 7.x.2 setup are already addressable with a conventional channel-based mix, objects can't add anything to it.


----------



## sdurani

Goname31 said:


> Does that mean that channel fixed bad atmos Disney mixes are not real atmos (not using the objects but stiking them as channels)? Therefore that's why they don't pan well on higher speaker count setup (being fix in 7.1.2)?


Atmos soundtrack don't stop being Atmos because some of the speakers in your layout are silent. The more speakers that an Atmos track can render to, the more stable the imaging (because you're relying less on phantom imaging). But that doesn't mean that a pre-rendered 7.1.4 track cannot have good panning. I'm sure you've listened to a 2-speaker set-up where sounds panned across the soundstage, often floating between the speaker locations. There's no reason you can't have similar panning and imaging between any 2 speakers in an Atmos layout.


----------



## dschulz

Going to try to clarify something by answering multiple questions, please bear with me.



howard68 said:


> Can you list films that use Atmos in 9.1.6?
> That use FW and TM
> Thx
> H


Literally all of them _except_ for the ones that have a fixed printout to 7.1.4 or some other fixed layout. There are not specific Atmos mixes for 5.1.2 or 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 or, at the extreme end, 24.1.10. There is just...an Atmos mix. The renderer will use all of the available speakers to position and move objects around the room with the best possible spatial resolution. More speakers = higher spatial resolution for object placement.

Now, a mixer may choose to not have many objects at all, but a quiet, not very active mix that does have an object pan through the room will use the wides and top middles as the object pans through. It therefore doesn't make sense to talk about mixes that use Atmos 9.1.6 specifically, although it does make sense to talk about movies that make active use of objects. 



Goname31 said:


> We need more of this, is there a topic where to find the kind of mix of every movie (we have the digital intermediate for 4K lovers, this info should be more broadly available.


See above. It's not like in the past, where we could delineate between Blu Rays that have Dolby Stereo 2.0 vs 5.1 vs 7.1 and track things in a database. Apart from the fixed printout tracks, any Atmos mix will use all available speakers. Any proposed listing of movie mixes would be extremely subjective - does a movie use the overheads actively, does it have lots of objects, is the soundtrack deemed immersive. 



Goname31 said:


> Yeah, that was my point ^^. Did you watch Star Wars the Force Awaken? Is it a good mix in 7.2.4, with pretty impressive and accurate overheads (one time BB8 threw some kind of cable off-screen and I swear i heard it stick itself in my ceiling), curious if it translates well in a 9.X.6 context.


If The Force Awakens is a fixed printout at 7.1.4 a 9.1.6 theatre will sound identical to a 7.1.4 theatre, just the latter will have silent wides and top middles. If FWA is a full (not-fixed) Atmos mix, then they'll sound similar, but the 9.1.6 theatre will have somewhat better spatial resolution for objects as they move around the room.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> In that case the rendering of objects shall be different between the two?


How will it be different?


> Doesn't Atmos renderer still need to render all of the discrete objects, irrespective of the number and layout of physical speakers?


Only if you are using speakers (e.g., Wides) for which there are no channels. If you have a traditional 7.1 speaker layout, then the 7.1 channel version is decoded and each channel is sent to its respective speaker. However, if you do a different 7.1 speaker layout, like 5.1 + Wides, then the Atmos decoder will be activated because there are no Wide channels to feed the Wide speakers.


----------



## Goname31

Josh Z said:


> I'm pretty sure The Force Awakens is one of Disney's fixed 7.1.4 channel encodings, and won't scale up to additional speaker counts.


Really?



sdurani said:


> Atmos soundtrack don't stop being Atmos because some of the speakers in your layout are silent. The more speakers that an Atmos track can render to, the more stable the imaging (because you're relying less on phantom imaging). But that doesn't mean that a pre-rendered 7.1.4 track cannot have good panning. I'm sure you've listened to a 2-speaker set-up where sounds panned across the soundstage, often floating between the speaker locations. There's no reason you can't have similar panning and imaging between any 2 speakers in an Atmos layout.


Of course it is still Atmos, and thank you I've ever heard of stereo imaging. I was talking about the fixed printout tracks movies. If i go X.X.6 and a plane pans over my head, my expetaction is that I hear it first in FH then TM then RH right? It seems on some movies it goes FH to RH on X.X.4 setups, but only TM on X.X.6 ones. 



dschulz said:


> See above. It's not like in the past, where we could delineate between Blu Rays that have Dolby Stereo 2.0 vs 5.1 vs 7.1 and track things in a database. Apart from the fixed printout tracks, any Atmos mix will use all available speakers. Any proposed listing of movie mixes would be extremely subjective - does a movie use the overheads actively, does it have lots of objects, is the soundtrack deemed immersive.


Ok you say everything is atmos, except fixed printout tracks. What I'd like is just a list of those "fixed printout tracks" movies.


----------



## sdurani

Goname31 said:


> Of course it is still Atmos


You asked whether pre-rendered Atmos tracks are "not real Atmos". I was just answering your question.


> I was talking about the fixed printout tracks movies. If i go X.X.6 and a plane pans over my head, my expetaction is that I hear it first in FH then TM then RH right? It seems on some movies it goes FH to RH on X.X.4 setups, but only TM on X.X.6 ones.


IF you have 6 overhead speakers and you only hear sounds in the TM pair, then the soundtrack is not pre-rendered to 7.1.4 but instead 7.1.2.


----------



## howard68

Dolby needs to put a stop to pre rendered Atmos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It bulls$-t


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks these look promising, but 8 inches deep with the bracket before you even tilt, so 11-12 inches deep when tilted 45 degrees. But maybe I wont find better without loss of sound quality? I dont know anything about that which is why it's hard for me to know what to do just getting recs of this 10 inch deep option, this 8 inch deep option, etc. I dont have the info to know, "this is the best I can expect," or, "keep looking you can find a 5 inch deep option with good sound quality." Also, will the grill stay on with the speaker ceiling mounted? I'd need to cover the yellow for batcave purposes.
> 
> Not familiar with X2T towers etc. Will these go well with Infinities?
> 
> Would in-ceiling speakers with backs work screwing the back onto the ceiling instead of in the ceiling?


I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of deep. These mount directly on a stud. They are not in-ceiling, but on-ceiling. They mount sideways so the actual center of the drivers are halfway up. The grills are always on.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Atmos soundtrack don't stop being Atmos because some of the speakers in your layout are silent. The more speakers that an Atmos track can render to, the more stable the imaging (because you're relying less on phantom imaging). But that doesn't mean that a pre-rendered 7.1.4 track cannot have good panning. I'm sure you've listened to a 2-speaker set-up where sounds panned across the soundstage, often floating between the speaker locations. There's no reason you can't have similar panning and imaging between any 2 speakers in an Atmos layout.


There's a very real reason you cannot have smooth panning with some >7.1.4 setups with fixed layout soundtracks and that is the angles between speaker pairs in large rooms are too great for smooth panning between pairs. It's the real reason for supporting up to 32-speakers.

While Neural X can use those speakers on DTS:X Pro systems, Dolby cannot. This means even in a room as small as mine (12'x24') with front/rear heights used, I will get a "hole" directly above the MLP without top middle speakers engaged. If I used a true top middle decoding, Disney soundtracks using fixed layouts (Thankfully, since Disney+ came online, many Disney soundtracks like the original Star Wars now use moving objects when appropriate (e.g. When the Star Destroyer passes overhead), buy older fixed soundtracks will not. I'd call that poor panning between speaker pairs.

This is why some of us still use "Scatmos" even with reasonable priced 9.1.6 AVRs now available. It essentially uses Neural X-like creation of channels in-between existing discrete channels (via Pro Logic center extraction) which then work with all formats, even Auro-3D. 

I have no issues playing Disney fixed soundtracks over 17.1 speakers (11.1.6) for that reason. True decoding would leave silent speakers sitting there and therefore holes in the coverage in a large room. This can even happen in smaller rooms for off-axis listeners as the extra speakers also anchor locations in the room to help counteract the _precedence_ effect.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of deep. These mount directly on a stud. They are not in-ceiling, but on-ceiling. They mount sideways so the actual center of the drivers are halfway up. The grills are always on.


Deep as in when mounted on the stud, the face of the speaker will be minimum 8 inches below the ceiling, and then another 50% when tilted toward the MLP. Im starting out with sub-8ft ceilings so if the speakers mounted on ceiling are deep, the sound coming from my height channels might be barely more than six feet off the ground, harming the separation with the side surrounds 4 ft off the ground. I worry two and a half feet height separation between side surrounds and atmos height speakers might harm the effect. So I've been looking for small on-ceiling options especially depth, and also height because the greater the height, the more that tilting up/down will affect the depth.


----------



## Technology3456

Goname31 said:


> Yeah I just read the wikipedia for Dolby atmos and that was my feeling. The point of the technology was objects, not overheads. But objects pan better with a lot of speakers, so they had to have something else for Home theater, hence the accent on overheads.
> 
> So to answer my own question, a good mix on bed layer only will only get noticed on 9.X.X setups and above.


What is the minimum speaker setup to get object-based atmos imaging for both layers? I understand why 9 vs 7 would affect the bed-layer imaging, but would 9.x.4 also have height-layer imaging than 7.x.4, even though both have the same number of height speakers? Are 4 heights is enough for object-based height imaging? I ask because if not, and if 7 bed layer speakers is not enough for object-based bed layer imaging, then to have object-based imaging for both layers, maybe you would need minimum 9.x.6 or 9.x.8?

This discussion has me second guessing going with 7.x.4. I thought I was getting a 7.x.4 "object-based" immersive audio setup, but it's sounding like that is not the case on at least one layer until at least 9.x.4, maybe 9.x.6+, if not both layers?


----------



## howard68

I read somewhere that Netflix is now mixing in 9.1.6


----------



## MagnumX

The bed layer has nothing to do with the height layer, except where the mix together, where it might help.

You can have object based decoding even with 5.1 to 7.1. Dolby has 5.1 DD+ demos that place sounds in the rear surrounds identical to the M2TS 7.1 base versions of the demos from their Bluray demo discs. The rear surround is an object in the 5.1 version.

Meta objects essentially cancel out the same sound n the base soundtrack (reverse phase) and then render it somewhere else and that can be other bed speakers too like ss#2 on higher speaker count systems.


----------



## batpig

Technology3456 said:


> What is the minimum speaker setup to get object-based atmos imaging for both layers?


I think you're misunderstanding. Atmos is still object based, even if it's a "fixed mix". The point is that if you only have a 7.1.4 speaker setup, you couldn't tell the difference between a "pre rendered" version or a dynamically rendered version.

Even if you have a 5.1.2 speaker layout, you're getting "object-based Atmos".

In general, it appears you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overthinking this and turning yourself around in knots.


----------



## batpig

howard68 said:


> I read somewhere that Netflix is now mixing in 9.1.6


No, you're probably thinking of a comment years ago where someone (I believe FilmMixer) shared the audio mixing standards for Netflix that clearly stated the mixer should be monitoring their mix on AT LEAST a 9.1.6 speaker setup.

They're not "mixing in 9.1.6", they are mixing in Atmos. The monitoring layout requirement is, I'm assuming, to ensure that the Netflix Atmos mixes still sound good on >7.1.4 speaker layouts (pure speculation, but I assume to some degree they are aware of the blowback on "fixed mix" Atmos and consumer disappointment, and wanted to avoid that).


----------



## Rich 63

Technology3456 said:


> Deep as in when mounted on the stud, the face of the speaker will be minimum 8 inches below the ceiling, and then another 50% when tilted toward the MLP. Im starting out with sub-8ft ceilings so if the speakers mounted on ceiling are deep, the sound coming from my height channels might be barely more than six feet off the ground, harming the separation with the side surrounds 4 ft off the ground. I worry two and a half feet height separation between side surrounds and atmos height speakers might harm the effect. So I've been looking for small on-ceiling options especially depth, and also height because the greater the height, the more that tilting up/down will affect the depth.


Have you determined were the optimal placement is for your speakers?


----------



## Technology3456

batpig said:


> I think you're misunderstanding. Atmos is still object based, even if it's a "fixed mix". The point is that if you only have a 7.1.4 speaker setup, you couldn't tell the difference between a "pre rendered" version or a dynamically rendered version.
> 
> Even if you have a 5.1.2 speaker layout, you're getting "object-based Atmos".
> 
> In general, it appears you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overthinking this and turning yourself around in knots.





MagnumX said:


> The bed layer has nothing to do with the height layer, except where the mix together, where it might help.
> 
> You can have object based decoding even with 5.1 to 7.1. Dolby has 5.1 DD+ demos that place sounds in the rear surrounds identical to the M2TS 7.1 base versions of the demos from their Bluray demo discs. The rear surround is an object in the 5.1 version.
> 
> Meta objects essentially cancel out the same sound n the base soundtrack (reverse phase) and then render it somewhere else and that can be other bed speakers too like ss#2 on higher speaker count systems.


You lost me there. I was referring to the discussion on the last page. I didnt want to quote the whole discussion, but these are some examples.

"...The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count..."

"*The object-based nature of Atmos isn't really advantageous until higher speaker counts. So the aspect that most consumers will hear with Atmos is the height effect.* An Atmos soundtrack without height effects feels like surround sound, not immersive audio."

"Most consumers that do a surround set-up will have a max of 5 to 7 speakers in the base layer, *so their set-up won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos."*

Comments saying you get the height effect, but not the object-based effect, unless you have enough bed layer and height speakers. Trying to learn more what they mean, and what that magic number would be?


----------



## batpig

I understand the context, that's what I'm saying you're misunderstanding. Those comments you quoted are NOT saying that it's not object-based, just that it's not TAKING ADVANTAGE of the objects vs what you could do with a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix instead.

And what I'm also saying is you are wasting time worrying about it. There is no "magic number".


----------



## dschulz

batpig said:


> No, you're probably thinking of a comment years ago where someone (I believe FilmMixer) shared the audio mixing standards for Netflix that clearly stated the mixer should be monitoring their mix on AT LEAST a 9.1.6 speaker setup.
> 
> They're not "mixing in 9.1.6", they are mixing in Atmos. The monitoring layout requirement is, I'm assuming, to ensure that the Netflix Atmos mixes still sound good on >7.1.4 speaker layouts (pure speculation, but I assume to some degree they are aware of the blowback on "fixed mix" Atmos and consumer disappointment, and wanted to avoid that).



This is correct. A _lot_ of content is being mixed in Atmos and monitored in 7.1.4 rooms. Netflix mandates 7.1.4 as a minimum and strongly recommends 9.1.6 monitoring, especially for A titles.

As an aside, something I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to is whether or how often stages bother to check those mixes in >9.1.6 (they routinely check all of the down mixes, from 7.1 to 5.1 to stereo to mono). Do they ever take an Atmos mix to an 11.1.8 or 24.1.10 room, for example, and play it back just to see if all is still behaving properly?


----------



## Technology3456

batpig said:


> I understand the context, that's what I'm saying you're misunderstanding. Those comments you quoted are NOT saying that it's not object-based, just that it's not TAKING ADVANTAGE of the objects vs what you could do with a standard 5.1 or 7.1 mix instead.
> 
> And what I'm also saying is you are wasting time worrying about it. There is no "magic number".


It's always possible I'm misunderstanding, but maybe they can explain what they meant. "Most consumers that do a surround set-up will have a max of 5 to 7 speakers in the base layer, so their set-up won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos." It says setups with a max of 7 bed layer speakers won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos. And it's not just one comment. "...The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count...". It doesn't say it doesn't come into play as well as it does with a higher speaker count, it says it doesn't come into play period _until _you go to a higher speaker count. So that's why I asked, how much higher?

You're probably right I'm misunderstanding! Just looking for an explanation. You're telling me I'm overthinking and misunderstanding but not explaining how what I read does not mean what it appears to say, which makes it hard for me to understand what I'm misunderstanding, and correct it. I believe you but Im still trying to understand.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> It's always possible I'm misunderstanding, but maybe they can explain what they meant. "Most consumers that do a surround set-up will have a max of 5 to 7 speakers in the base layer, so their set-up won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos." It says setups with a max of 7 bed layer speakers won't take advantage of the object-based nature of Atmos. And it's not just one comment. "...The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count...". It doesn't say it doesn't come into play as well as it does with a higher speaker count, it says it doesn't come into play period _until _you go to a higher speaker count. So that's why I asked, how much higher?
> 
> You're probably right I'm misunderstanding! Just looking for an explanation. You're telling me I'm overthinking and misunderstanding but not explaining how what I read does not mean what it appears to say, which makes it hard for me to understand what I'm misunderstanding, and correct it. I believe you but Im still trying to understand.


Non-Atmos movies are either 5.1 or 7.1, so if you have only 5 or 7 base level speakers, an Atmos mix isn't doing anything differently than a non-Atmos mix in the base layer (they are of course adding the immersiveness of having sound overhead). An Atmos mix that moves objects around you in the 2D ring of the base layer will use extra speakers if you have them (such as the Front Wides), but in the absence of those is behaving just like a regular 5.1 or 7.1 mix. 

Which is fine! No one ever complained about the lack of 2D immersiveness with 7.1.

My stance remains - do 7.1.4 if at all possible, that is the sweet spot and also how most Atmos mixes are monitored on the stage anyway. 5.1.4 is also great if your seating is too close to the back wall to have back surrounds. If you have the space and budget to go further, add Wides (so 9.1.4) and if even further (this gets expensive because now you're bumping processor class) add the Top Middles for 9.1.6. Beyond that is in the truly exotic realm of people with large rooms and real money to spend on a Trinnov.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> Non-Atmos movies are either 5.1 or 7.1, so if you have only 5 or 7 base level speakers, an Atmos mix isn't doing anything differently than a non-Atmos mix in the base layer (they are of course adding the immersiveness of having sound overhead). An Atmos mix that moves objects around you in the 2D ring of the base layer will use extra speakers if you have them (such as the Front Wides), but in the absence of those is behaving just like a regular 5.1 or 7.1 mix.
> 
> Which is fine! No one ever complained about the lack of 2D immersiveness with 7.1.
> 
> My stance remains - do 7.1.4 if at all possible, that is the sweet spot and also how most Atmos mixes are monitored on the stage anyway. 5.1.4 is also great if your seating is too close to the back wall to have back surrounds. If you have the space and budget to go further, add Wides (so 9.1.4) and if even further (this gets expensive because now you're bumping processor class) add the Top Middles for 9.1.6. Beyond that is in the truly exotic realm of people with large rooms and real money to spend on a Trinnov.


Thanks for the explanation. This is the last piece of this I hope to clear up my understanding of. Are you saying 7.x.4 _does _provide object-based atmos, just not as precisely as 9.x.6? Or is there something to the quotes mentioned that appeared to suggest the actual object-based element of atmos does not work unless you have 9.x.x? 



> Which is fine! No one ever complained about the lack of 2D immersiveness with 7.1.


So 7.1 is 2D, but 7.x.4 will give you 3D audio, just... no(?)... object-based audio? Or _less_ object-based audio (than 9.x.x), but it's still there?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks for the explanation. This is the last piece of this I hope to clear up my understanding of. Are you saying 7.x.4 _does _provide object-based atmos, just not as precisely as 9.x.6? Or is there something to the quotes mentioned that appeared to suggest the actual object-based element of atmos does not work unless you have 9.x.x?
> 
> 
> 
> So 7.1 is 2D, but 7.x.4 will give you 3D audio, just... no(?)... object-based audio? Or _less_ object-based audio (than 9.x.x), but it's still there?


Yes, 7.x.4 _does_ properly render object-based Atmos, just not as precisely as 9.x.6. 7.1 is 2D. 7.x.4 is 3D audio, delivered by rendering an object-based audio bitstream (DTS:X or Dolby Atmos) to your 7.1.4 layout.


----------



## Killroy

dschulz said:


> If you have the space and budget to go further, add Wides (so 9.1.4) and if even further (this gets expensive because now you're bumping processor class) add the Top Middles for 9.1.6. Beyond that is in the truly exotic realm of people with large rooms and real money to spend on a Trinnov.


I think Dolby needs to mandate to studios that they need to add the number of objects in their metadata in order for people to realize how many possible objects can be achieved with Atmos. I think less than 5% of discs have the # of objects listed in their metadata. I know that it even if they are not listed they are still there....

But what would you rather see...

This (this is the Saw UHD)


Code:


"Dolby TrueHD/Atmos Audio        English         4599 kbps       7.1+15 objects"

or this:


Code:


"Dolby TrueHD/Atmos Audio        English         4599 kbps       7.1"

Or maybe the studios don't want to show their actual object # since it will show they are half-a**ing their mixes.


----------



## Killroy

BTW, here's a few discs that also list their Atmos objects metadata...

These have 7.1+11 objects
Big Fish UHD
Batman v Superman Remastered UHD
Godzilla (2014) UHD

These two have 7.1+15 objects
Saw UHD
Dirty Dancing UHD

I remember seeing some discs that only have 7 or 9 objects.

I only looked at the latest 75 discs so that shows that most don't even have any extended metadata.


----------



## thrak76

Goname31 said:


> Same goes with music. I expect a lot of stuff happening all over me, with me at the sweet spot. For hearing a lot from mixers and creators on dolby's podcasts, some have this approach with Dolby Music, but some are aiming for a mix that is good and interesting wherevere you are in the listening area.


Thanks for mentioning this podcast. Sounds very interesting, and I'm looking forward to listening.


----------



## junh1024

sdurani said:


> Consumer Atmos soundtracks are made up of a series of substreams such that inside the Atmos mix is a discrete 7.1 mix, inside the 7.1 mix is a discrete 5.1 mix, inside the 5.1 mix is a discrete 2-channel mix. At each step, you're listening to the entire contents of the soundtrack (no sounds are discarded). So if you have a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, then only the 5.1 or 7.1 channel version is decoded. The object-based nature of the soundtrack doesn't come into play until you go to a higher speaker count, at which point objects need to be rendered to feed Wides and Heights.


Apart from the AC3 legacy stream & certain situations with EC3, NO downmixes are stored as substreams.

Atmos THD is 7.1+Atmos. The additional 51 & 20 mixes are automatic downmixes done via metadata & the AVR. The (stereo) downmix mode & coefficients are specified when encoding using Dolby software. Not even a substreams 20 is inside 51 AC3

Also, it would not cater for people with 4.0 & 3.0 systems, as they would need to downmix anyway.

EDITED: substreams, not separate streams 

See the mediainfo below for example streams:



Code:


Audio #1
Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_TRUEHD
Bit rate : 5 024 kb/s
Maximum bit rate : 8 466 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
Stream size : 3.79 GiB (9%)
Number of dynamic objects : 13
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE

Audio #10
Format : AC-3
Commercial name : Dolby Digital
Bit rate : 448 kb/s
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs




Killroy said:


> I think Dolby needs to mandate to studios that they need to add the number of objects in their metadata in order for people to realize how many possible objects can be achieved with Atmos. I think less than 5% of discs have the # of objects listed in their metadata.


Object info is available using the latest Mediainfo software for most releases as you can see above. If they mixed in OBA, they can choose the # objects to downmix into for BD release.


----------



## Killroy

junh1024 said:


> Object info is available using the latest Mediainfo software for most releases as you can see above. If they mixed in OBA, they can choose the # objects to downmix into for BD release.


I just checked A TON of Atmos disc and they showed no additional metadata. They have to have the info (metadata) added by the mixer. Some will show it in BDInfo and some will not while MediaInfo may show more but I found lots that had none.

I keep a DB of my UHDs with my Media Management app. It's an OCD issue I have....lol


----------



## howard68

batpig said:


> No, you're probably thinking of a comment years ago where someone (I believe FilmMixer) shared the audio mixing standards for Netflix that clearly stated the mixer should be monitoring their mix on AT LEAST a 9.1.6 speaker setup.
> 
> They're not "mixing in 9.1.6", they are mixing in Atmos. The monitoring layout requirement is, I'm assuming, to ensure that the Netflix Atmos mixes still sound good on >7.1.4 speaker layouts (pure speculation, but I assume to some degree they are aware of the blowback on "fixed mix" Atmos and consumer disappointment, and wanted to avoid that).


As long as they don't do a pre-rendered 7.1.4 mix like Disney full-fat Atmos only, please


----------



## Killroy

junh1024 said:


> Object info is available using the latest Mediainfo software for most releases as you can see above. If they mixed in OBA, they can choose the # objects to downmix into for BD release.


Well POOP!!!! I had to double check and I did NOT have the latest MediaInfo. New one does show every single disc....you were right! My bad!!!! 

BDInfo 7.5.9 does not show all of them though.


----------



## MagnumX

As I said, even a mere 5.1 based M4V DD+ file can still be Atmos and technically carry objects that only render in the bed layer. The notion you need >7.1 is technically erroneous as a 5.1 base track has no rear surrounds in the bed layer, but it CAN have them in the object meta layer and render to full 7.1 on an Atmos receiver even though playing the base track on a non-Atmos AVR will only give you 5.1. 

Furthermore, that same 5.1 based Atmos track can have objects render to all 22 bed/ear level speakers with no use of overhead speakers whatsoever. Atmos objects are not limited to overhead tracks. They don't have to use them at all and only require a 5.1 base track, not 7.1. So again, the idea objects don't matter until you're above 7.1 isn't technically true. 

You could set up a Trinnov with 22 bed tracks and no overhead speakers (22.1.0) and Atmos would very much make a huge difference on such a system despite no overhead sounds.


----------



## noah katz

junh1024 said:


> If there were truly separate & discrete Atmos+71+51+20 streams...


What are the 71/51/20 numbers referring to?


----------



## Technology3456

1. Are dipoles not rec'd for side surrounds w/ atmos? Was told RS152's would make ideal sides, but that was probably b4 I decided to add heights (my fault). This comment I just came across about RS152's makes me wonder if that changes the equation.


Zorba922 said:


> If you plan to add Atmos you don't want dipoles for surrounds nor do you want to mount them high up near the ceiling. So the R152 would be a better choice


2. Also heard Dolby recs wide dispersion ceiling speakers for atmos b/c it gives the feel of high ceilings like cinema. RS152's are wide dispersion, and some think they'd make great atmos speakers, others say dipoles = bad for atmos. Hoping to figure that out....If they even are dipoles? They only say "patented hemispherical technology."

3. With "2*6*3's" LCR speakers with 6.5' woofers, I'm wondering if I made a mistake getting R1*5*2's for rears, which have 5.25' woofers, instead of R1*6*2's with 6.5'. R152's looked better to me individually, b/c a review said the R162's 6.5' woofer so close to tweeter created some issue, but maybe matching the woofers is more important?

Man it's complicated. So many combos. No idea how most ppl figure out their ideal combo w/out a mil. questions. (https://visualparadox.com/images/no_linking_allowed_/640/teedup640.jpg ). But it's true. Between figuring out bed+height speaker combos, plus placement, there are 100's of details to sort, and 5 diff opinions for each.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> There's a very real reason you cannot have smooth panning with some >7.1.4 setups with fixed layout soundtracks and that is the angles between speaker pairs in large rooms are too great for smooth panning between pairs. It's the real reason for supporting up to 32-speakers.


The angle is always the same, regardless of room size.

The smaller the room, the closer the speakers, the greater the delay and level error can become when moving away from the main listening position. The error is smaller in larger rooms where speakers are further away.

So as a rule of thumb I'd say the smaller the room and/or the larger the seating area, the more speakers/channels are beneficial. On the other hand, in a large room with just one or two seats you can get away with a very low speaker/channel count.


----------



## Josh Z

batpig said:


> In general, it appears you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overthinking this and turning yourself around in knots.


That's his m.o. Technology3456 has invaded a hundred different threads on a hundred different subjects on this site and inundates them with an endless stream of deep-dive nit-picky questions about things he has no direct experience using. I'm not sure if he actually even has so much as a TV or stereo in his home.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> That's his m.o. Technology3456 has invaded a hundred different threads on a hundred different subjects on this site and inundates them with an endless stream of deep-dive nit-picky questions about things he has no direct experience using. I'm not sure if he actually even has so much as a TV or stereo in his home.


Prepare yourself for a novella about how we don't understand how complex his questions are, and defending himself ad nauseum, and how people give half answers so the only choice he has is to dig deeper...etc etc etc.

Life is not absolute. There are no definitive answers. Home theater is subjective, to a certain degree.

But instead of HEARING the many people telling him "you're overthinking, stop worrying, stop spamming, etc"....WE are all the problem. If you have a room full of people telling you your behavior is not appropriate, it's actually quite hilarious to watch that person say "no, all of YOU are the problem". Sigh. It will NEVER end.


----------



## T-Bone

I do not want my post deleted... So...

I and others provided the Dolby Atmos docs and diagrams. It addresses questions on dispersion and dipoles and angles, ceiling height, etc. Plus, we provided data in these threads. I hope folks read it all. Some may not. I did.

Dolby Atmos is not hard to setup. Mine is already setup... I read a lot, and understood the excellent guidance on this thread. 

My in-ceiling x 4 are different than bed layer brand/model. My 4 surrounds are technically too high on the wall. I have adaptive diploes for side surrounds. I Iove my Atmos setup and *it has compromises. *

It could have been better if I followed all the guidelines to a T. But at least I have one in place that I can enjoy today and tweak later if I am so inclined.

-T


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> The angle is always the same, regardless of room size.
> 
> The smaller the room, the closer the speakers, the greater the delay and level error can become when moving away from the main listening position. The error is smaller in larger rooms where speakers are further away.
> 
> So as a rule of thumb I'd say the smaller the room and/or the larger the seating area, the more speakers/channels are beneficial. On the other hand, in a large room with just one or two seats you can get away with a very low speaker/channel count.


Angle isn't everything. Distance matters or I wouldn't get a hole overhead in larger rooms despite using Dolby's numbers. More importantly, you cannot maintain those angles and mount then in the same plane as the room gets larger. There is no way the cinema equivalent of heights are at 30/-30 for the equivalent of a MLP. This is why there are more than 4 overhead speakers in a cinema and up to 10 for a home.

Atmos doesn't actually see angles. It sees coordinates. What matters is strong phantom imaging between pairs. Dolby's 9.1.6 layout recognizes this as it lowers the angles to 20/-20 for heights in a system with Top Middle present.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Deep as in when mounted on the stud, the face of the speaker will be minimum 8 inches below the ceiling, and then another 50% when tilted toward the MLP. Im starting out with sub-8ft ceilings so if the speakers mounted on ceiling are deep, the sound coming from my height channels might be barely more than six feet off the ground, harming the separation with the side surrounds 4 ft off the ground. I worry two and a half feet height separation between side surrounds and atmos height speakers might harm the effect. So I've been looking for small on-ceiling options especially depth, and also height because the greater the height, the more that tilting up/down will affect the depth.


The height of the speakers above ear level isn't as important as the angular relation between them. The differences in distance are mitigated by your AVR's delay. What that DOES mean, however, is that your height placement will likely end up narrower together in the room. Take the angle above ear level to your side surrounds, divide it by 2, then add 45 degrees. That will tell you where to optimally place the heights from the side walls.



Technology3456 said:


> 1. Are dipoles not rec'd for side surrounds w/ atmos? Was told RS152's would make ideal sides, but that was probably b4 I decided to add heights (my fault). This comment I just came across about RS152's makes me wonder if that changes the equation.
> 
> 2. Also heard Dolby recs wide dispersion ceiling speakers for atmos b/c it gives the feel of high ceilings like cinema. RS152's are wide dispersion, and some think they'd make great atmos speakers, others say dipoles = bad for atmos. Hoping to figure that out....If they even are dipoles? They only say "patented hemispherical technology."
> 
> 3. With "2*6*3's" LCR speakers with 6.5' woofers, I'm wondering if I made a mistake getting R1*5*2's for rears, which have 5.25' woofers, instead of R1*6*2's with 6.5'. R152's looked better to me individually, b/c a review said the R162's 6.5' woofer so close to tweeter created some issue, but maybe matching the woofers is more important?
> 
> Man it's complicated. So many combos. No idea how most ppl figure out their ideal combo w/out a mil. questions. (https://visualparadox.com/images/no_linking_allowed_/640/teedup640.jpg ). But it's true. Between figuring out bed+height speaker combos, plus placement, there are 100's of details to sort, and 5 diff opinions for each.


NO DIPOLES! Been there, done that, got the purple heart. They work great in a 5.1/7.1 setup, but not so much with Atmos. That doesn't mean you CAN'T use them (because many still do). It just isn't recommended. I used to have Polk FXi50s and tried dipole and bipole modes once I moved to Atmos, and then compared them to RTi28 bookshelves... and even with multiple rows, the bookshelves won every time. The whole point is an array of direct point sources that the decoder can image between. Any more generalized point source in your setup will make that less precise.

Matching woofers isn't relevant. You're gonna be crossing them over to your subs anyway, so as long as they're good down to 80Hz, roll with it.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Angle isn't everything. Distance matters or I wouldn't get a hole overhead in larger rooms despite using Dolby's numbers. More importantly, you cannot maintain those angles and mount then in the same plane as the room gets larger. There is no way the cinema equivalent of heights are at 30/-30 for the equivalent of a MLP. This is why there are more than 4 overhead speakers in a cinema and up to 10 for a home.
> 
> Atmos doesn't actually see angles. It sees coordinates. What matters is strong phantom imaging between pairs. Dolby's 9.1.6 layout recognizes this as it lowers the angles to 20/-20 for heights in a system with Top Middle present.


Yes but how does that relate to the content of my post?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> Yes but how does that relate to the content of my post?


It helps if you quote whoever you're talking to, as this is not your thread.


----------



## Rich 63

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It helps if you quote whoever you're talking to, as this is not your thread.


I see a quote from magnumx.


----------



## markus767

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It helps if you quote whoever you're talking to, as this is not your thread.


Huh? I did quote MagnumX and somehow this is "my thread" as I started it 7(!) years ago


----------



## T-Bone

Rich 63 said:


> I see a quote from magnumx.


As do I. Maybe @Jeremy Anderson has someone on ignore? I think that's the only way not to see the quote.

-T


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> Huh? I did quote MagnumX and somehow this is "my thread" as I started it 7(!) years ago


Disregard. I have him on ignore. Pardon my confusion.

And good lord, what are the odds that this was actually your thread?


----------



## Killroy

Any time I see a bunch of frustrated posts that seemed to be talking/responding to themselves I know who they are talking to.


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Yes but how does that relate to the content of my post?


Did you read the part about in my previous post about getting a hole above my head with Dolby angles and heights? How can I need _fewer_ speakers with a hole over my head when an extra set (top middle) fixes the problem? Large theaters with few speakers have wide dispersion and what I'd describe as "wall like" imaging. More speakers with smaller angles and distances between speakers have pin-point imaging. I've never seen a small home theater with 32 speakers. I have seen large ones with speakers approaching those numbers, let alone Atmos cinemas with 64+ speakers. I'd love to hear a small home theater with all 32.x speakers in use, though. Sadly, I don't know anyone with such a system nearby.



> Disregard. I have him on ignore. Pardon my confusion.


As for the numerous seemingly immature people on here who apparently cannot converse with others without getting upset and putting them on ignore, there's not much to say. If you can't let others discuss something too, there's no point joining a discussion group. You might as well get a mirror and talk to yourself.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> Did you read the part about in my previous post about getting a hole above my head with Dolby angles and heights? How can I need _fewer_ speakers with a hole over my head when an extra set (top middle) fixes the problem? Large theaters with few speakers have wide dispersion and what I'd describe as "wall like" imaging. More speakers with smaller angles and distances between speakers have pin-point imaging. I've never seen a small home theater with 32 speakers. I have seen large ones with speakers approaching those numbers, let alone Atmos cinemas with 64+ speakers. I'd love to hear a small home theater with all 32.x speakers in use, though. Sadly, I don't know anyone with such a system nearby.


🤷‍♂️


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> That's his m.o. Technology3456 has invaded a hundred different threads on a hundred different subjects on this site and inundates them with an endless stream of deep-dive nit-picky questions about things he has no direct experience using. I'm not sure if he actually even has so much as a TV or stereo in his home.


So your posts = posts, but mine = "invading." Your questions = questions, mine = "nitpicking" . Listen to yourself. If you can't find one post of mine to say something positive about maybe that reflects on you.

If someone wants object-based effects, and spent good $ on a 7.x.x setup to achieve that, it's not "nitpicky" to respond to claims you won't hear them from a 7 bed-layer-setup to ask "Is that true?" One good question only needs one good answer, which derails nothing. Contradicting claims presented as fact require _many _questions to sort out. If no one had said 7.x.x won't do it, I wouldn't have asked about it. But once they did, and I asked, had the answer stayed consistent, i.e. "Yes you need more than 7.x.x. I recommend 9.x.6," then _that _would have been the end of it. What caused it to draw out was the shifting answers which create more questions. You just need to think about it for 2 secs and you will understand that is what creates the drawn out exchanges that annoy you.

And since atmos is supposed to be object-based, someone with a 7.x.x setup asking about it is not "nitpicking," it's a central question. Just like if someone claimed the JVC NX5 can only do 4K resolution on 150" screen or larger, but is only 1080p on screen sizes below 150", it would not be nitpicking for a JVC NX5 owner with a 100" screen to ask _as many questions as necessary_ to clear up whether that claim is true. It would be of central importance to their setup, and many people's.


----------



## fatherom

I am just going to pre-emptively say I will use the number of likes on posts #60.798 and #60,799 as the metric for who's "correct" in this situation. I don't read novellas.


----------



## batpig

Killroy said:


> BTW, here's a few discs that also list their Atmos objects metadata...
> 
> These have 7.1+11 objects
> Big Fish UHD
> Batman v Superman Remastered UHD
> Godzilla (2014) UHD
> 
> These two have 7.1+15 objects
> Saw UHD
> Dirty Dancing UHD


To clear up some confusion, it's not 7.1+11/13/15 objects (which implies 19/21/23 total "audio streams" or "elements").

When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects. The only remaining "channel" is the LFE, everything else in the mix is converted by the "spatial coding" algorithm into 11/13/15 objects (depending on the setting chosen) INCLUDING the 7 "bed" channels.

So it's not a 7.1 bed plus 11/13/15 objects, it's a 7.1 mix OR 11/13/15 objects (depending on whether or not the Atmos renderer kicks in).

See below from the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide (for mixers/engineers):


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> I am just going to pre-emptively say I will use the number of likes on post #60,799 as the metric for who's "correct" in this situation. I don't read novellas.


You _would _use "likes," half of them (more?) from your longtime friends on the forum (in other words, biased "data"), as a meaningful metric, wouldn't you? Doesn't surprise me even a little bit. Fits like a glove.


Killroy said:


> Any time I see a bunch of frustrated posts that seemed to be talking/responding to themselves I know who they are talking to.


But do you?  Or do we have another case of the usual... Let's see:


markus767 said:


> Huh? I did quote MagnumX and somehow this is "my thread" as I started it 7(!) years ago





Jeremy Anderson said:


> Disregard. I have him on ignore. Pardon my confusion.


Seeing as how he messaged me an hour ago, pretty sure Jeremy doesn't have me on ignore. 🤦‍♂️ Those are the posts, in english. But as usual what is written is one thing, what you read is another. For the record I don't know the history, but I think MagnumX is a great poster, and Jeremy and him both know a ton, both have taught me a lot, so I hope you guys can give each other another chance and overcome any past disagreements. That stuff usually happens because of dumb misunderstandings anyway.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> If someone wants object-based effects, and spent good $ on a 7.x.x setup to achieve that, it's not "nitpicky" to respond to claims you won't hear them from a 7 bed-layer-setup to ask "Is that true?" One good question only needs one good answer, which derails nothing. Contradicting claims presented as fact require _many _questions to sort out. If no one had said 7.x.x won't do it, I wouldn't have asked about it. But once they did, and I asked, had the answer stayed consistent, i.e. "Yes you need more than 7.x.x. I recommend 9.x.6," then _that _would have been the end of it. What caused it to draw out was the shifting answers which create more questions. You just need to think about it for 2 secs and you will understand that is what creates the drawn out exchanges that annoy you.
> 
> And since atmos is supposed to be object-based, someone with a 7.x.x setup asking about it is not "nitpicking," it's a central question.


Objects move through whatever speakers your decoder has available. The decoder knowing what speakers you have lets it adjust the levels it places those objects in each available speaker to make it image where the object is placed in the virtual room the mixer used to create the mix. You don't need 9.x.6 for this. Don't overthink it. As batpig said, it all gets cooked down to whatever layout you have anyway.


----------



## Rich 63

Whike reading through some of the amusing posts of the last few days one thing that tweaked my interest was bat pigs infor matio


batpig said:


> To clear up some confusion, it's not 7.1+11/13/15 objects (which implies 19/21/23 total "audio streams" or "elements").
> 
> When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects. The only remaining "channel" is the LFE, everything else in the mix is converted by the "spatial coding" algorithm into 11/13/15 objects (depending on the setting chosen) INCLUDING the 7 "bed" channels.
> 
> So it's not a 7.1 bed plus 11/13/15 objects, it's a 7.1 mix OR 11/13/15 objects (depending on whether or not the Atmos renderer kicks in).
> 
> See below from the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide (for mixers/engineers):
> 
> View attachment 3138380
> 
> 
> View attachment 3138383


This post had me hit the google machine this afternoon. Ive read a few articles that have given me sufficient understanding. I think. Batpig could you link that paper and would it have more then you posted? 
Regards Rich


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rich 63 said:


> Whike reading through some of the amusing posts of the last few days one thing that tweaked my interest was bat pigs infor matio
> 
> This post had me hit the google machine this afternoon. Ive read a few articles that have given me sufficient understanding. I think. Batpig could you link that paper and would it have more then you posted?
> Regards Rich


Likewise, I was glad batpig posted that! I've read every other guide except that one for the Renderer. It's 270 pages long! I just found it here.


----------



## Rich 63

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Likewise, I was glad batpig posted that! I've read every other guide except that one for the Renderer. It's 270 pages long! I just found it here.


Thank you for that. Just a brain stretch exercise. In the grand scheme of things it matters not to me how it's done. My system is set up and works flawlessly. Some of the atmos speakers are on the edge of dolby recs due to ceiling restrictions but its still impressive compared to 7.1.
Most should keep in mind that this technology, even though sold to many knowledgeable users is still all designed to be as user friendly as possible. Dolbys placement perameters are variable for a reason. And i would say that 80% or more atmos setups are less then ideal anyway.
Understanding how atmos is delivered and rendeered is certainly not needed to get to atmos nirvana. The advice to not over think things is valid imo.
Regards Rich


----------



## Killroy

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Likewise, I was glad batpig posted that! I've read every other guide except that one for the Renderer. It's 270 pages long! I just found it here.


I read that guide when it first came out, and many times thereafter, and I now understand the meaning of the old saying..."Put me to sleep faster than reading electronic instructions".


----------



## Rich 63

Killroy said:


> I read that guide when it first came out, and many times thereafter, and I now understand the meaning of the old saying..."Put me to sleep faster than reading electronic instructions".


Yup just read the table of contents.


----------



## batpig

That link works but the doc version is slightly older (v3.0), the version of the doc I have is v3.2, but it's basically the same info for the purposes of this discussion.

I found it by googling around a couple years ago after someone else referenced it in this thread and made me aware, and now I have a PDF saved for my own uses 

As you both note, much of it is boring and not relevant to the nit picky enthusiast discussions we have here, but there are some critical nuggets of info which help illuminate the exact behavior of home Atmos and how the theatrical mix with the full 128 element payload is translated.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> . I've never seen a small home theater with 32 speakers. I have seen large ones with speakers approaching those numbers, let alone Atmos cinemas with 64+ speakers. I'd love to hear a small home theater with all 32.x speakers in use, though. Sadly, I don't know anyone with such a system nearby.


My Lab, located outside of Nashville, will have 28 of the 34 Dolby Atmos locations, plus the 2 for DTS/Auro3D, in addition to a handful of Dolby Enabled speaker locations. Everything will be on trolleys and linear actuators, so each speaker can be positioned for testing different configurations. There will also be a myriad of 10", 18", and 32" subs to test different bass management schemes. The acoustical treatments will also be moveable.

I don't know where you are, but you are welcome to visit, once completed.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rich 63 said:


> Thank you for that. Just a brain stretch exercise. In the grand scheme of things it matters not to me how it's done. My system is set up and works flawlessly. Some of the atmos speakers are on the edge of dolby recs due to ceiling restrictions but its still impressive compared to 7.1.
> Most should keep in mind that this technology, even though sold to many knowledgeable users is still all designed to be as user friendly as possible. Dolbys placement perameters are variable for a reason. And i would say that 80% or more atmos setups are less then ideal anyway.
> Understanding how atmos is delivered and rendeered is certainly not needed to get to atmos nirvana. The he advice to not overthink things is valid imo.
> Regards Rich


My bed layer is pretty dead on the perfect angles after some tweaking. I'm not gonna say I don't overthink things sometimes though, as the many nail and anchor holes in my walls illustrate. In fact, I'm spending part of my weekend moving my top front/rear on-ceilings so they're in more optimal positions than what I foolishly first did. But then, it's my house and I'm not married, so... I can beat on it until it's up to my own personal standards. This weekend, my room will be set up per the angles listed in the mix room setup guide. After that, I move on to more room treatment.

I do find the tech interesting though, so not gonna lie... I will probably read the relevant portions of that renderer guide. I'm a dork for this stuff!


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> As I said, even a mere 5.1 based M4V DD+ file can still be Atmos and technically carry objects that only render in the bed layer. The notion you need >7.1 is technically erroneous as a 5.1 base track has no rear surrounds in the bed layer, but it CAN have them in the object meta layer and render to full 7.1 on an Atmos receiver even though playing the base track on a non-Atmos AVR will only give you 5.1.
> 
> Furthermore, that same 5.1 based Atmos track can have objects render to all 22 bed/ear level speakers with no use of overhead speakers whatsoever. Atmos objects are not limited to overhead tracks. They don't have to use them at all and only require a 5.1 base track, not 7.1. So again, the idea objects don't matter until you're above 7.1 isn't technically true.
> 
> You could set up a Trinnov with 22 bed tracks and no overhead speakers (22.1.0) and Atmos would very much make a huge difference on such a system despite no overhead sounds.


I am quite happy to see your note on objects in the bed layer. I have a Denon receiver and a 7.1 system. With Atmos content the Denon indicates that the Atmos engine is enabled on the display. It certainly does sound different than when I manually disable Atmos. I have asked before about what the difference could be. Mostly I was told that nothing could be going on in the bed layer to account for this. I feel a bit better about not just experiencing confirmation bias due to seeing the "ATMOS" label lit up on the receiver.

THX.


----------



## LNEWoLF

appelz said:


> My Lab, located outside of Nashville, will have 28 of the 34 Dolby Atmos locations, plus the 2 for DTS/Auro3D, in addition to a handful of Dolby Enabled speaker locations. Everything will be on trolleys and linear actuators, so each speaker can be positioned for testing different configurations. There will also be a myriad of 10", 18", and 32" subs to test different bass management schemes. The acoustical treatments will also be moveable.
> 
> I don't know where you are, but you are welcome to visit, once completed.


Wow, That sounds amazing. Do you have a build thread on AVS.. Can’t wait to see pictures of your lab.


----------



## junh1024

Killroy said:


> These two have 7.1+15 objects
> Saw UHD
> Dirty Dancing UHD





batpig said:


> So it's not a 7.1 bed plus 11/13/15 objects, it's a 7.1 mix OR 11/13/15 objects (depending on whether or not the Atmos renderer kicks in).


Yeah, object visualizer videos on YT demonstrate max 16 objects, this one is 12.

BTW Killroy, It would be appreciated if you (or someone) compiled a list of 16-object releases. From a web search, John Wick series, Hello World, Fantastic Beasts 2 have 16o.


----------



## Killroy

junh1024 said:


> BTW Killroy, It would be appreciated if you (or someone) compiled a list of 16-object releases. From a web search, John Wick series, Hello World, Fantastic Beasts 2 have 16o.


I can start going through my DB and start creating a list. I won't get much time till early next week due to the holiday weekend but I can probably get through it pretty quick now that I figured out that MediaInfo is up to date.

BD & UHD or just UHDs?


----------



## VisionMan

Killroy said:


> I can start going through my DB and start creating a list. I won't get much time till early next week due to the holiday weekend but I can probably get through it pretty quick now that I figured out that MediaInfo is up to date.
> 
> BD & UHD or just UHDs?


----------



## VisionMan

Please include BDs. Thanks.


----------



## appelz

LNEWoLF said:


> Wow, That sounds amazing. Do you have a build thread on AVS.. Can’t wait to see pictures of your lab.


I'm waiting on some of the drawings to be completed, and then I plan on starting a thread.


----------



## LNEWoLF

appelz said:


> I'm waiting on some of the drawings to be completed, and then I plan on starting a thread.


AWESOME, your going to make the kiddies that play within “Dolby’s Sandbox” envious. 😃

[email protected]@k forward to your AVS build thread.


----------



## turk0

Wanted to know if anyone is having any issues playing Dolby Atmos content on the new Apple TV 4K? It seems the box is not recognizing Dolby Atmos as I am only getting Dolby Digital Surround on my Marantz SR 7015 receiver. When I go into Settings > Video and Audio > Audio Format in the Apple TV I am not getting the "Immersive Audio Dolby Atmos" display I am supposed to be getting. I have tried upgrading both firmwares and toggling several options on and off with the same results.


----------



## MagnumX

turk0 said:


> Wanted to know if anyone is having any issues playing Dolby Atmos content on the new Apple TV 4K? It seems the box is not recognizing Dolby Atmos as I am only getting Dolby Digital Surround on my Marantz SR 7015 receiver. When I go into Settings > Video and Audio > Audio Format in the Apple TV I am not getting the "Immersive Audio Dolby Atmos" display I am supposed to be getting. I have tried upgrading both firmwares and toggling several options on and off with the same results.


I had to have the Apple TV "check/test" an HDR mode first before it would work (even on a 2K projector) for some bizarre reason and I know from a past discussion I wasn't the only one. I would have thought they'd resolved that by now, but Apple is also sometimes known for letting various bugs go on and on.


----------



## turk0

MagnumX said:


> I had to have the Apple TV "check/test" an HDR mode first before it would work (even on a 2K projector) for some bizarre reason and I know from a past discussion I wasn't the only one. I would have thought they'd resolved that by now, but Apple is also sometimes known for letting various bugs go on and on.


How do you do this test? Just enable HDR?


----------



## MagnumX

turk0 said:


> How do you do this test? Just enable HDR?


There's a screen resolution test for the various modes in the setup to verify they work. Just run one for an HDR mode. That got Atmos working here. It said 1080p HDR passed on a 2K projector that doesn't support HDR (colors show up wrong, but it comes on; actually I found dynamic color setting that matches the HDR color profile pretty well, but I can't say it's better/worse than HDR off and you have to enable it if it's on or it looks washed out). But once I did the test, it didn't care if I used 1080p SDR or not. Atmos still worked. I don't know why it was tied to that test. I now use a 4K scaler I bought on Amazon to fool the various 4K streaming services that require 4K signals to watch the Atmos sound versions (e.g. Vudu) at least until I eventually get a 4K projector, but given 4K projectors have poor HDR and 4K itself only looks so much sharper even on a 92" screen, I haven't been in a big hurry.


----------



## Killroy

junh1024 said:


> BTW Killroy, It would be appreciated if you (or someone) compiled a list of 16-object releases. From a web search, John Wick series, Hello World, Fantastic Beasts 2 have 16o.





Killroy said:


> I can start going through my DB and start creating a list. I won't get much time till early next week due to the holiday weekend but I can probably get through it pretty quick now that I figured out that MediaInfo is up to date.


I was a bit over confident.... with over 1,000 titles to re-scan, this may take awhile. So I am doing 1 or 2 letters per day. Adding them to a Google Sheet to keep it up-to-date. These are just the ones I have so there may be a lot others. BTW... the streaming titles may be wrong.

I will do a quick reply when I update it.









Atmos 15 Objects


Sheet1 6 Underground (2019) 4k (Streaming) A Star Is Born (2018) 4k UHD Airlift (2016) BD Allegiant (2016) 4k UHD American Assassin (2017) 4k UHD American Psycho (2000) 4k UHD Anna (2019) 4k UHD Annabelle Comes Home (2019) BD Antebellum (2020) 4k UHD Aquaman (2018) 4k UHD Army of the Dead (2021)...




docs.google.com


----------



## junh1024

Killroy said:


> BTW... the streaming titles may be wrong.


Thanks for the sheet. Atmos on Streaming should almost always be 16 objects, so I think you can skip those.


----------



## Killroy

junh1024 said:


> Thanks for the sheet. Atmos on Streaming should almost always be 16 objects, so I think you can skip those.


Cool!!! I will skip the streaming titles then.


----------



## X4100

Technology3456 said:


> The complete angle that the sound comes from. Ideally as you said the atmos height speaker rectangle/square would be a perfect one. The easiest way to achieve this is for the seating to be right in the middle, equal distance from all 4 atmos height speakers. But since I cant do that, I am wondering if I should move the front atmos height speakers in a little bit to keep the angle the same as the back atmos height speakers, but now the front atmos height speakers are offline with the front towers, or if I should prioritize keeping the front towers and front atmos height speakers aligned, but sacrifice the angles of a perfect rectangle (or square)?


Man, just put a Dolby Atmos movie into your player and hit the START BUTTON!!!!!!


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> Man, just put a Dolby Atmos movie into your player and hit the START BUTTON!!!!!!


I don't think this would be a 3000 page topic if it was that simple, but I'd rather not get into a discussion about a post of mine from 5+ weeks ago. I don't think others here would appreciate that, so I will not comment on it further.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Any current releases (last 3 months) that you guys can recommend? Wife needs me to buy a few atmos 4K blu rays for my Father's Day present


----------



## satyab

If you meant new 4K release then check out Super 8 4K.


----------



## fatherom

satyab said:


> If you meant new 4K release then check out Super 8 4K.


The Super 8 4K does not have Atmos.


----------



## satyab

fatherom said:


> Super 8


Right. Sorry It doesn't. I meant as 4K upgrade its a good one.


----------



## X4100

T-Bone said:


> No apologies needed. Plus I'm not the thread police
> 
> I just know the history of this one user and I can see where things are going to be going.
> 
> -T


It's Go Going and GONE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Killroy

Chirosamsung said:


> Any current releases (last 3 months) that you guys can recommend? Wife needs me to buy a few atmos 4K blu rays for my Father's Day present


2012 is pretty new and has some unreal Atmos usage in two chapters (a few others are good but nothing like the limo escape scene and the caldera explosion). And a bit older would be Midway (2019) if you want to skip the mediocre movie go straight to Chapter 13 & 15.

Those two alone are the "current" benchmarks for great 4k UHD Atmos tracks. On the BD side, you need to have Gravity (Diamond edition) and Hans Zimmer Live in Prague in your collection.


----------



## Apgood

dschulz said:


> There is no grey area. Trinnov has a very, very good room correction system, superior to most, and also the remapping feature. For these reasons, it can yield superior results when playing back any sound format, including Atmos and DTS:X. But the Atmos renderer itself is not behaving any differently than the Atmos renderer in any other product, assuming the same speaker layouts. Any improvement in Atmos imaging is due to processing the Trinnov is applying downstream of the Atmos decoding.


Only processor the might handle Atmos a bit differently is the Dolby CP850-C which is a commercial Dolby Cinema processor converted / licensed for home use (think it has the ability to pass objects through array of surround speakers or some such thing).

Of course it doesn't support DTS-X and Auro as far as I'm aware. Not clear if you can just buy it buy it on its own or needs to part of an integrator's package.


----------



## howard68

fatherom said:


> The Super 8 4K does not have Atmos.


That is such a missed opportunity


----------



## MagnumX

Turbine's new *Dragonheart* remaster (still 2K though) has both Atmos & Auro-3D 13.1 discs included in both English and German (Turbine is located in Germany; I ordered them right from the store there). They are separate mixes; my full review is in the Auro-3D thread (HERE) as is Krobar's review as well on a previous page. It had pretty good dragon flyover effects and a thunderstorm in it. There's a rumor a 4K release will come before the end of the year in the US, though. Whether it will have Atmos or not is unknown since Turbine does their own mixes.

The UHD Indiana Jones box set with Atmos comes out on June 8th. I have no idea if the mixes are any good yet or not, though.


----------



## dschulz

Apgood said:


> Only processor the might handle Atmos a bit differently is the Dolby CP850-C which is a commercial Dolby Cinema processor converted / licensed for home use (think it has the ability to pass objects through array of surround speakers or some such thing).
> 
> Of course it doesn't support DTS-X and Auro as far as I'm aware. Not clear if you can just buy it buy it on its own or needs to part of an integrator's package.


As I understand it, the big thing the CP850-C gives you is arrayed surrounds, even when playing a consumer Atmos track. Which is a pretty big gain, but as you said, at the loss of other codecs. I believe it's available only through a limited number of integrators. Cortex VIP Cinemas is one (I know one of the execs at Cortex), not sure who else.


----------



## Apgood

dschulz said:


> As I understand it, the big thing the CP850-C gives you is arrayed surrounds, even when playing a consumer Atmos track. Which is a pretty big gain, but as you said, at the loss of other codecs. I believe it's available only through a limited number of integrators. Cortex VIP Cinemas is one (I know one of the execs at Cortex), not sure who else.


Yeah. Based on their website they have some sort of exclusivity but not sure what it is. They also mention a distributor in the UK.


----------



## petetherock

MagnumX said:


> Turbine's new *Dragonheart* remaster (still 2K though) has both Atmos & Auro-3D 13.1 discs included in both English and German (Turbine is located in Germany; I ordered them right from the store there). They are separate mixes; my full review is in the Auro-3D thread (HERE) as is Krobar's review as well on a previous page. It had pretty good dragon flyover effects and a thunderstorm in it. There's a rumor a 4K release will come before the end of the year in the US, though. Whether it will have Atmos or not is unknown since Turbine does their own mixes.
> 
> The *UHD Indiana Jones box set *with Atmos comes out on June 8th. I have no idea if the mixes are any good yet or not, though.


I'm interested in this, but since I have the BR discs, I'll wait til the new movie is out then buy the box set


----------



## crutzulee

I sat down to watch the new CONJURING movie with my daughter last night when we realized that she had not seen the second installment. In rectifying this tragedy, I was actually surprised to find that the Blu had an ATMOS track ( I had screened it before I made the hardware upgrade).

While I prefer more object based "sound bubble" mixes, I would highly recommend this to those of you looking for more overt discrete sound effects coming from your ceiling and surround channels.

We'll have to wait and see what the 3rd installment brings...


----------



## petetherock

Has anyone seen Wonder Woman 1984?
Blu Ray.com gave it a sterling review, but not only was the movie bleah, but the Atmos was equally disappointing..


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> Has anyone seen Wonder Woman 1984?
> Blu Ray.com gave it a sterling review, but not only was the movie bleah, but the Atmos was equally disappointing..


We thought it a complete waste of time and resources. IOW, a typically inane comic book movie.


----------



## dschulz

petetherock said:


> Has anyone seen Wonder Woman 1984?
> Blu Ray.com gave it a sterling review, but not only was the movie bleah, but the Atmos was equally disappointing..


WW84 is a great example of a movie that plays better on the big screen. I saw it in theatres (which were closed here in California, my wife and I made a Boxing Day road trip to Vegas to see it), and we both loved it. A quick survey of reviews seems to break down roughly along the same lines - those who saw it in the theatre liked it overall, those who watched at home on HBO Max thought it fell flat. 

Of course many AVSForum posters have home theatres epic enough to negate my observation.


----------



## T-Bone

Deleted.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Killroy said:


> 2012 is pretty new and has some unreal Atmos usage in two chapters (a few others are good but nothing like the limo escape scene and the caldera explosion). And a bit older would be Midway (2019) if you want to skip the mediocre movie go straight to Chapter 13 & 15.
> 
> Those two alone are the "current" benchmarks for great 4k UHD Atmos tracks. On the BD side, you need to have Gravity (Diamond edition) and Hans Zimmer Live in Prague in your collection.


uhhh, why do good demo disks have to be so bad to tolerate?? 2012 has 39% on rotten tomatoes?!?! 39!!


----------



## Josh Z

petetherock said:


> Has anyone seen Wonder Woman 1984?
> Blu Ray.com gave it a sterling review, but not only was the movie bleah, but the Atmos was equally disappointing..


I watched it when it premiered on HBO Max, and thought both the HDR video quality and Atmos audio were disappointing. I have not watched the disc version and have no intention of doing so, as the movie itself was very lame.


----------



## Killroy

Chirosamsung said:


> uhhh, why do good demo disks have to be so bad to tolerate?? 2012 has 39% on rotten tomatoes?!?! 39!!


LOL!!! That's why I mentioned the scenes to check out so you can skip the rest.


----------



## MagnumX

Good Atmos demo movies where the movie doesn't (totally) suck:

Fury
Overlord
The Meg
Jumanji
Blade Runner 2049 (Original is also decent)
Kong Skull Island
Midway
Mission Impossible Fallout

Harry Potter UHD Collection (DTS:X)


----------



## petetherock

Chirosamsung said:


> uhhh, why do good demo disks have to be so bad to tolerate?? 2012 has 39% on rotten tomatoes?!?! 39!!


Actually I enjoyed the movie and when the 4k version was launched, I double dipped.
There are quite a few movies which rated poorly on Rotten Tomatoes, but I had loads of fun with them.
Legion, Shoot Them Up etc, but WW84 isn't one of them.
I really really enjoyed the first WW, almost teared up when she single handed took on the Germans, running bravely out of the trenches... and I was 'merely' watching it on a 4" screen but I almost leapt out of my seat and clapped ...
No such feeling for WW84. In fact there were a few cringeworthy scenes that had me reaching for the forward button... sigh.. a pity...


----------



## chmorgan

MagnumX said:


> Good Atmos demo movies where the movie doesn't (totally) suck:
> 
> Fury
> Overlord
> The Meg
> Jumanji
> Blade Runner 2049 (Original is also decent)
> Kong Skull Island
> Midway
> Mission Impossible Fallout
> 
> Harry Potter UHD Collection (DTS:X)


The original Jumanji or the remake? I haven't seen the remake but was thoroughly surprised and impressed with the atmos effects on the original.


----------



## Goname31

I would add:

Lord of the ring trilogy
Hacksaw Ridge
The Invisible man (great discrete mix)
The Matrix Trilogy

Fantstic Beasts 1 (DTSX I think)


----------



## eaayoung

I would add 1917, Gravity, both Sicario movies and some of the John Wick movies to the list.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> I sat down to watch the new CONJURING movie with my daughter last night when we realized that she had not seen the second installment. In rectifying this tragedy, I was actually surprised to find that the Blu had an ATMOS track ( I had screened it before I made the hardware upgrade).
> 
> While I prefer more object based "sound bubble" mixes, I would highly recommend this to those of you looking for more overt discrete sound effects coming from your ceiling and surround channels.
> 
> We'll have to wait and see what the 3rd installment brings...


Conjuring 2 does have some really good use of the heights with Atmos. I was stoked to watch Conjuring 3 in Atmos, but for some reason the HBO Max app on my FireStick 4K wouldn't play it in Atmos or Dolby Vision. Super annoying, because WW84 and Mortal Kombat both worked. I watched it and enjoyed it, but I was disappointed that Atmos/Vision wasn't working.

If you want a movie in the genre that has outstanding immersive sound like a bubble AND discrete overhead effects when called for, Doctor Sleep is a demo-worthy disc. Absolutely fantastic mix beginning to end. They even do some subtle things like windchime sounds that move around through the heights. I wish more mixes were that consistently solid.


----------



## crutzulee

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Conjuring 2 does have some really good use of the heights with Atmos. I was stoked to watch Conjuring 3 in Atmos, but for some reason the HBO Max app on my FireStick 4K wouldn't play it in Atmos or Dolby Vision. Super annoying, because WW84 and Mortal Kombat both worked. I watched it and enjoyed it, but I was disappointed that Atmos/Vision wasn't working.
> 
> If you want a movie in the genre that has outstanding immersive sound like a bubble AND discrete overhead effects when called for, Doctor Sleep is a demo-worthy disc. Absolutely fantastic mix beginning to end. They even do some subtle things like windchime sounds that move around through the heights. I wish more mixes were that consistently solid.


Absolutely loved DOCTOR SLEEP the movie after not finishing the book for reasons I can't remember. Unfortunately, the only way to watch the superior director's cut with ATMOS is in 1080P.


----------



## MagnumX

chmorgan said:


> The original Jumanji or the remake? I haven't seen the remake but was thoroughly surprised and impressed with the atmos effects on the original.


The original is the one I was referring to. It is far more impressive in terms of the soundtrack. I liked the sequels better as movies (far funnier), but overhead usage is minimal by comparison (new life sound was the only thing really noticeable her directly overhead).

The new versions (both movies) of Stephen Kings' IT also have excellent overhead sound (forgot to mention them). I think Doctor Sleep had some great moments tooo.

On my setup, I didn't find the John Wick movies or The Matrix Trilogy particularly great for overhead use (difference between a great soundtrack and great overhead use) and they reduced the dynamic range in The Matrix by 7dB compared to the Cinema DTS version from 1999 (Apt X conversion). Frankly, I find the cinema soundtrack + Neural X more effective. 

Of course, some Atmos movies might sound better with a Tops setup since sounds in the 20-45 degree range will start at 45 degrees instead, making them more noticeable directly overhead than above the screen or whatever.


----------



## petetherock

Yeah... the John Wick 1 was often quoted as the go to Atmos movie... and you had folks huddling under an Atmos ceiling speaker just for the sound of the rain... 
But it was an early innovator and deserves it's place in the sun or rain... and it was a really kinetic movie and one of my favorite for a no brains, all chill night ...
Might pop the disc in again for yet another run...


----------



## unclejam

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Conjuring 2 does have some really good use of the heights with Atmos. I was stoked to watch Conjuring 3 in Atmos, but for some reason the HBO Max app on my FireStick 4K wouldn't play it in Atmos or Dolby Vision. Super annoying, because WW84 and Mortal Kombat both worked. I watched it and enjoyed it, but I was disappointed that Atmos/Vision wasn't working.
> 
> If you want a movie in the genre that has outstanding immersive sound like a bubble AND discrete overhead effects when called for, Doctor Sleep is a demo-worthy disc. Absolutely fantastic mix beginning to end. They even do some subtle things like windchime sounds that move around through the heights. I wish more mixes were that consistently solid.


Goosebumps has good Atmos.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> On my setup, I didn't find the John Wick movies or The Matrix Trilogy particularly great for overhead use (difference between a great soundtrack and great overhead use)





petetherock said:


> Yeah... the John Wick 1 was often quoted as the go to Atmos movie... and you had folks huddling under an Atmos ceiling speaker just for the sound of the rain...
> But it was an early innovator and deserves it's place in the sun or rain... and it was a really kinetic movie and one of my favorite for a no brains, all chill night ...


After I first upgraded to Atmos, I did tests where I unwired all my ground level speakers and only allowed audio from the heights to play. Whereas some Atmos movies at that time were mostly silent in the heights aside from the rare discrete sound effect (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a big offender for that), John Wick 1 has almost constant activity in the heights all through the movie. A lot of that may be music and ambience, which perhaps don't call attention to themselves, but it is certainly not a "dead" Atmos mix like TMNT or Transformers: Age of Extinction.


----------



## goke313

Atmos not working.
When playing Netflix or Blu-rays if sound mode is on pure direct all channels are enabled


----------



## squared80

Hey dude. Just embed those things.


----------



## MagnumX

The Indiana Jones films are now upgraded to 4K + Atmos on iTunes as well as the 4K UHD BDs being officially available (with Atmos also).

*Edit*: Sadly, half-way through Raiders and there have been no real significant overhead sounds (maybe a few brief bits in the front heights, but without shutting off speakers it's hard to be certain). It might as well be the old 5.1 mix thus far, possibly with less bass/dynamic range (have to directly compare to be sure). Disappointing like most retrofits.


----------



## petetherock

I just finished watching Awake from Netflix… rather minimal Atmos activity… you see atmos light up but some of their productions definitely do not have the wow factor..


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched some reviews of *Indiana Jones in 4K* on YouTube by a Trinnov owner and they said pretty much the same thing about the Atmos soundtracks. They're not very good. Low dynamic range and bass (probably less than previous Blu-Rays) so that louder vocals prevail and fixed/static objects used throughout with very few noticeable overhead effects. How/why one of the best movie series of all time, originally made with Lucasfilm's involvement when they were the best around ends up having inferior sound is almost unbelievable except for the fact that Disney is involved. Paramount, however was known for releasing cinematic soundtracks with full dynamic range most of the time, but then there was that Top Gun Atmos release that was little better than Neural X applied to the previous 6.1 release only with far less bass/LFE in it.

Video? Yes, it's improved, but don't expect modern HDR usage. I may end up moving the old soundtrack over to the new video if my suspicions about loss of dynamic range turn out to be true (need to compare directly with matched dialog levels).

I really haven't heard a "new" good Atmos soundtrack (outside of music releases) for awhile now. I'm still waiting on my 3D copy of Godzilla Vs. Kong (will move Atmos soundtrack over), though.


----------



## howard68

If ROTLA 
Has no objects it is an up-mix and then converted to Atmos such a letdown !
Should not be able to be called atmos 

Such a shame that It was not done properly


----------



## MagnumX

howard68 said:


> If ROTLA
> Has no objects it is an up-mix and then converted to Atmos such a letdown !
> Should not be able to be called atmos
> 
> Such a shame that It was not done properly


I just compared them head to head with dialog matched in volume for Raiders of the Lost Ark. There’s some sound effects reduced a bit here and there in terms of dynamic range relative to the dialog, but mostly the bass/LFE levels are completely off. Even with my LFE increased 9dB on the Atmos track, it didn’t have as much bass as the previous Blu-ray in DTS-HD MA 5.1! This was especially noticeable with the thunder when digging up the ark.

Neural X did a better job placing sounds than their Atmos track in some cases with the thunder. Overall, it’s a downgrade IMO in terms of the surround track. There might be a few rear surround bits that are better placed, but Neural X takes care of most of it as well or better, IMO.


----------



## Goname31

howard68 said:


> If ROTLA
> Has no objects it is an up-mix and then converted to Atmos such a letdown !
> Should not be able to be called atmos
> 
> Such a shame that It was not done properly


No object on neither of the 4 movies (see SpareChange vids on the subject).


----------



## Goname31

petetherock said:


> I just finished watching Awake from Netflix… rather minimal Atmos activity… you see atmos light up but some of their productions definitely do not have the wow factor..


Best Netflix mixes for me so far (not necessarily object mixes, just a lot of stuff happening up there):


Shadow and Bone
Warrior Nun
Curseed
Blame!
Love, Death, Robot
Haunting of Hill House
Dark (Season one only)
Our Planet
Jingle Jangle (a meh movie but damn, best HDR on the platform)


----------



## petetherock

Goname31 said:


> Best Netflix mixes for me so far (not necessarily object mixes, just a lot of stuff happening up there):
> 
> 
> Shadow and Bone
> Warrior Nun
> Curseed
> Blame!
> Love, Death, Robot
> Haunting of Hill House
> Dark (Season one only)
> Our Planet
> Jingle Jangle (a meh movie but damn, best HDR on the platform)


Thanks, I liked Underground 6 and Extraction too..


----------



## vn800art

I'm back after adding Klipsch RC62-II in the middle of my Cornwalls! I'm listening to Moby - Reprise on Tidal , good one at least as a little rest from many annoyances, in the last weeks!
Will go on giving a spin to Yello, to check the new setup!
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## Chirosamsung

John Wick [Blu-ray]: Amazon.ca: Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, Ruby Rose, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Asia Kate Dillon, Keanue Reeves: Movies & TV Shows


Amazon.ca - Buy John Wick at a low price; free shipping on qualified orders. See reviews & details on a wide selection of Blu-ray & DVDs, both new & used.



www.amazon.ca




Anyone know if this Jon Wick 4K trilogy on Amazon is legit? Seems shady as it's all three 4K for only $43 Canadian?!?

not sure how that's possible??


----------



## rec head

Goname31 said:


> Best Netflix mixes for me so far (not necessarily object mixes, just a lot of stuff happening up there):
> 
> 
> Shadow and Bone
> Warrior Nun
> Curseed
> Blame!
> Love, Death, Robot
> Haunting of Hill House
> Dark (Season one only)
> Our Planet
> Jingle Jangle (a meh movie but damn, best HDR on the platform)


Shadow and Bone had some pretty aggressive overhead.


----------



## sdrucker

howard68 said:


> If ROTLA
> Has no objects it is an up-mix and then converted to Atmos such a letdown !
> Should not be able to be called atmos
> 
> Such a shame that It was not done properly


Yep, it’s 7.1.2 with static objects only, and just the top middles activated in a .6 setup. Also, the side and rears seem to be mostly carrying things like music swells and occasional ambience, like bullet richocets. Not particularly aggressive.

So a front heavy mix, but the surrounds emphasize some of that content at times. The overhead effects are mostly subtle enhancement IMO.

I would like to think the mixer was going for a classic theatre feel than a modern action movie...I still like the Atmos more than the 5.1 mix on its own, though.

BTW the 4 movie collection is availabe on UHD/Atmos, including some of the extras, in iTunes Movies on ATV4K. Also considerably cheaper than shiny disc.


----------



## smokinjoe

Need some help on ATMOS.
Situation: Just installed Sony 55" A90J, Denon x4700H, new Audioquest HDMI cables. Also using TIVO as existing source to stream Netflix. I have the Polk Audio R900 Atmos speakers on top of my front speakers. I have them set as FRONT DOLBY in the Denon AMP ASSIGN. They level properly using Audyssey, but when I am playing ATMOS material, NOTHING is coming out of the Polk's. The Denon info screen states the input signal is ATMOS and the Netflix audio is set to "ENGLISH original ATMOS". I can play several different ATMOS shows on Netflix, and nothing EVER comes out of the front Dolby height speakers. If I switch Netflix to 5.1, THEN sound comes out of the Polks, but it is not ATMOS I am assuming. I rechecked the speaker connection to the Denon, and it is correct.

Can anybody shed any light on this?
Appreciated.
Joe


----------



## ggsantafe

Is your Tivo atmos capable? What happens if you use the Sony Netflix app?


----------



## ppasteur

sdrucker said:


> BTW the 4 movie collection is available on UHD/Atmos, including some of the extras, in iTunes Movies on ATV4K. Also considerably cheaper than shiny disc.


It is cheaper, but at significantly less quality...


----------



## smokinjoe

ggsantafe said:


> Is your Tivo atmos capable? What happens if you use the Sony Netflix app?


Yes, the TIVO is ATMOS compatible. It is the new EDGE for cable. I also used the Netflix App in the Sony, and the same...nothing out of the ATMOS speakers. I just tried all the different Denon AMP ASSIGN settings that had ATMOS in the description, and again, no sound from the ATMOS speakers. I am really stumped on this. If I change the NETFLIX audio settings to 5.1, (instead of ATMOS) sound DOES come out of the ATMOS speakers, but assuming it is not really ATMOS.

UPDATE: I streamed through the Netflix app on the Sony and DID get sound through the ATMOS speakers. I thought I tried that, but I had actually tried AMAZON which does not seem to pass ATMOS. I need to find out why the TIVO EDGE does not pass ATMOS.
Thanks for your help.


----------



## T-Bone

smokinjoe said:


> Yes, the TIVO is ATMOS compatible. It is the new EDGE for cable. I also used the Netflix App in the Sony, and the same...nothing out of the ATMOS speakers. I just tried all the different Denon AMP ASSIGN settings that had ATMOS in the description, and again, no sound from the ATMOS speakers. I am really stumped on this. If I change the NETFLIX audio settings to 5.1, (instead of ATMOS) sound DOES come out of the ATMOS speakers, but assuming it is not really ATMOS.
> 
> UPDATE: I streamed through the Netflix app on the Sony and DID get sound through the ATMOS speakers. I thought I tried that, but I had actually tried AMAZON which does not seem to pass ATMOS. I need to find out why the TIVO EDGE does not pass ATMOS.
> Thanks for your help.


I know you still troubleshooting the issue. But the one thing you need to look at is your Denon information on the incoming signal to see what it's receiving. And to see what processing mode is engaged on the denon. It'll give you some indication of what's going on.

-T


----------



## sdrucker

ppasteur said:


> It is cheaper, but at significantly less quality...


On the audio side, the difference between Dolby Atmos in a MAT 2.0 container vs. Dolby TrueHD on UHD might not be audible (MAT 2.0 is supposedly lossless multichannel PCM with metadata, after converting variable bit content to fixed bit to send over HDMI).

From pp. 7-8 of this guide from Dolby:
Dolby MAT A Dolby MAT encoder resides in a Blu-ray player to pack the variable bit-rate Dolby TrueHD bitstreams for transmission over the fixed bit-rate HDMI. A Dolby MAT decoder is concurrently employed in the Dolby TrueHD decoder in the receiver/processor to unpack the Dolby TrueHD bitstreams.

With the introduction of Dolby Atmos, we have expanded the Dolby MAT technology to support encoding and decoding of Dolby Atmos metadata incorporated in lossless pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio.

A key benefit of Dolby MAT 2.0 is that Dolby Atmos object-based audio can be dynamically encoded in real time and transmitted from a source device with limited latency and processing complexity.

Likely sources that will employ Dolby MAT encoding include broadcast set-top boxes and game consoles. The Dolby MAT 2.0 decoder outputs the object-based audio and its metadata for further processing inside the device. The Dolby MAT 2.0 container is scalable and leverages the full potential of the HDMI audio pipeline.



https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-compact-entertainment-systems.pdf



As per the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer on my Altitude, it's definitely Atmos getting decoded, since I see the yellow object balls indicative of Atmos metadata. But the mix is 7.1.2, with only static objects (vs. dynamic), and the objects fixed at the 7 bed channel locations and also the top middle position. Based on other content I've looked it, that's not going to change regardless of whether it's UHD/TrueHD or MAT 2.0.

On the video side, possibly, given video compression for streaming, but not enough that I'm personally going to notice. I have a JVC RS600 that doesn't support Dolby Vision as such, and it's an e-shift 4K PJ with a 100" AT screen at home anyway. If I had a 160" screen rather than a 100" one, and a JVC DLA-NX9 I might feel differently, of course.


----------



## ppasteur

People can accept the lower quality for conveniences sake, but it is there. Mat 2.0 has nothing to do with it. It is a container. If you start with low bitrate DD+ (best streaming quality), you cant' match the quality of TrueHD which is lossless. (BTW, TrueHD uses MAT as a container, but this is separate from MAT 2.0 DD+ for Atmos) Whether any individual can hear the difference, or cares, is not the point. The difference is there and on my system I can definitely hear it, and see it on my 65" OLED.
Objects notwithstanding, they are rendered by the engine with lesser quality from compressed streaming form. You simply don't get something for nothing. I think streaming audio maxes out at 770 kbps. BD with TrueHD/Atmos is up to 10 Mbps. 
Bit rate for the BD versions of Jon Wick are right at 60 Mbps. Streaming maxes out at around 30. Where are those lost bits going? Less data means less quality. 
BTW, I stream lots of stuff due to convenience. But I don't fool myself, if I want the maximum quality I still buy physical media. 
Sure streaming is just fine for most people. It is even fine for me to a great extent, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it is close to the best possible experience that technology can provide.
Good enough may be, good enough, but it (in this case) is not the best available. I would think that for people like those in this thread that spend megabucks on their systems, they would chose to feed them the highest available quality.
Back to JW being cheaper via streaming, it is, but this is another situation where you get what you pay for. For me and at ~$25 for the three BD set with DV and TrueHD Atmos is worth the few extra bucks over buying it for streaming.
It is interesting, there used to be this kind of discussion about MP3 audio. It took a while, but now everyone wants and insists on lossless "HI Def" audio. I think we will miss physical media when it is gone...


----------



## smokinjoe

T-Bone said:


> I know you still troubleshooting the issue. But the one thing you need to look at is your Denon information on the incoming signal to see what it's receiving. And to see what processing mode is engaged on the denon. It'll give you some indication of what's going on.
> 
> -T


I have been doing that, and was thrown off by the TIVO upsampling the signal. Now that I have that set to just pass the native signal, the Denon info and the Sony signal info has been helpful.

But, when I stream from the Sony, the Denon info does obviously does not show on the TV. The only indicator is the Denon display. I don't think there is a way around that.

Also, when playing thorugh the TIVO, and not getting any ATMOS sound, the Denon info does say that the SIGNAL is DD+ and ATMOS and the SOUND say ATMOS...but no sound from the speakers. Can't see that info when streaming from the tv.


----------



## junh1024

sdrucker said:


> Yep, it’s 7.1.2 with static objects only, and just the top middles activated in a .6 setup.
> ...
> I would like to think the mixer was going for a classic theatre feel than a modern action movie...I still like the Atmos more than the 5.1 mix on its own, though.


712 is the maximum (Atmos bed) width , there are upscalers that can conveniently upscale to 712, and it's additional hassle to use objects (might also be sourcing issues w/ stems).



MagnumX said:


> Good Atmos demo movies where the movie doesn't (totally) suck:
> ...
> Midway
> Mission Impossible Fallout
> Harry Potter UHD Collection (DTS:X)


Is the Fast & Furious series in DTSX any good? Also, any drama movies with good use of height (like, for ambience)?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> John Wick [Blu-ray]: Amazon.ca: Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, Ruby Rose, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Asia Kate Dillon, Keanue Reeves: Movies & TV Shows
> 
> 
> Amazon.ca - Buy John Wick at a low price; free shipping on qualified orders. See reviews & details on a wide selection of Blu-ray & DVDs, both new & used.
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know if this Jon Wick 4K trilogy on Amazon is legit? Seems shady as it's all three 4K for only $43 Canadian?!?
> 
> not sure how that's possible??


bump-is there anyone that can comment on this post with the link above? Would like opinions before I pull the trigger please and thank you. Seems could be shady even on Amazon


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> bump-is there anyone that can comment on this post with the link above? Would like opinions before I pull the trigger please and thank you. Seems could be shady even on Amazon


The set is on Amazon US for ~ $24.








Amazon.com: John Wick: Chapters 1-3 [4K UHD] : Keanu Reeves, Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, Michael Nyqvist, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Common, Anjelica Huston, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, John Leguizamo, Willem Dafoe, Mark Dacascos, Ruby Rose, Riccardo Scamarcio, Chad Stahelski: Movies & TV


Amazon.com: John Wick: Chapters 1-3 [4K UHD] : Keanu Reeves, Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, Michael Nyqvist, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Common, Anjelica Huston, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, John Leguizamo, Willem Dafoe, Mark Dacascos, Ruby Rose, Riccardo...



www.amazon.com




It appears to be the same set and the set as listed on BluRay.com looks fine as per the specs (DV/ATMOS/ ~60 Mbps) and reviews for the individual movies in DV/Atmos are acceptable. It is sold by Amazon and is returnable. SO, What is your concern?


----------



## MagnumX

@ppasteur - No offense, but it's obvious to me you don't understand lossy audio. The losses at a reasonable bitrate do not refer to _audible_ losses. Double blind testing has shown Dolby Digital approaching reference quality most of the time at 640kbps and AAC at about 256kbps. I'm not talking about video compression, just audio. 

I know many "audiophiles" don't believe that at all, but consistently fail to prove their claims with double blind testing. Corporate marketing claims when it suits them are meaningless.


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> @ppasteur - No offense, but it's obvious to me you don't understand lossy audio. The losses at a reasonable bitrate do not refer to _audible_ losses. _Double blind testing has_ shown Dolby Digital approaching reference quality most of the time at 640kbps and AAC at about 256kbps. I'm not talking about video compression, just audio.
> 
> I know many "audiophiles" don't believe that at all, but consistently fail to prove their claims with double blind testing. Corporate marketing claims when it suits them are meaningless.


I do well understand lossy audio, and have been playing in the field of audio for lots of years. I have used and tested probably every CODEC available to the consumer. So, because I don't agree with something that you believe does not in any way mean that I am ignorant on the subject. Please don't judge me on that basis. So I do take a bit of offense to the unfounded statement.

Of course this is something that has been discussed for as many years as digital audio has been around, with subjectivists on one side and objectivists on the other always arguing the definition of "transparent" and "audible". This goes all the way back to the arguments about about 256K MP3 being indistinguishable from FLAC. (You may notice that today everyone just has to have uncompressed music. Interesting , huh?)
Well there are measurable differences between compressed and uncompressed audio, that is a fact. Sure we can discuss whether they are audible for any given person in any given system. Even more discussion can be had about how many people care. But I don't believe that we can argue that uncompressed audio is closer to the original material than compressed audio. The Digital Cinema Sound Standard specifies 24 bit uncompressed audio. I wonder why they would do that if there is no advantage over compressed audio?
I can also, but only with my ears in my system, say that it is easy for me to hear the difference between streamed DD+ Atmos and TrueHD Atmos from a disk. From a practical standpoint I can't do ABX testing. I have, (in the interest of saving money and storage space on the purchase of disks) done level matched comparisons of sound from streamed versus disk based Atmos. Again, to my ears, it is easily determined that the disk based audio is superior in every aspect. Now this could be for a number of reasons. The mastering may be different for one, but I have checked several soundtracks.
It could be confirmation bias, but without double blind ABX , I can't eliminate this. But that is ok, if it makes me happy, so be it. This part is not arguable.
So one can argue that compressed audio from streamed content is "good enough", but it is not really arguable that uncompressed audio is technically superior. So, if good enough is ok with an individual that is just fine. But when I want to get the last bit of performance in my system, I will take a disk every time and feel good with the decision. If others prefer streaming for their own reasons, fine with me. But please don't get defensive when it it pointed out that it is "good enough", but definitely not the best available.

BTW, would you have any links to these double blind tests that you mention? I am interested in reading about the testing, the test subjects, and statistical results. I try to keep an open mind.


----------



## hurls15

I am in the process of redesigning a basement media room for a 7.2.6 setup. Not a complete redesign- using some of what I already have, some new, and a few things yet to purchase. I have read through this thread from mid 2018 onwards and have benefited from the discussion and advice given. However, sometimes a little knowledge can be dangerous. I have a few lingering questions that the experienced viewers of this thread can answer. I have attached a drawing to assist.

1. I currently have top front and top rears in a 7.2.4 setup. I get close to a 45 degree angle from the top fronts to my MLP, and a little less so on the top rears due to in ceiling ductwork that had to be worked around. I am going to install two additional speakers- either top fronts or front heights- to take advantage of the x6700's 13 channel capabilities. Need help deciding on top fronts or front heights. The top fronts would be put in at the yellow x marks on the attached drawings. Am I correct in understanding that DTS X pro requires/performs better with heights? I am leaning toward front heights as a result.

2. Moving to the 7.2.6 is going to impact my atmos experience, with some soundtracks playing at 7.2.2 through the middle tops and others at 7.2.4 playing through the rear tops and new front heights/tops. How much of an issue is it for my MLP to be not directly underneath the top middles? It will be slightly behind the top middles. I do have aimable tweeters. Moving the MLP/home theater seating up to be directly underneath the top middles isn't something that will have spousal support.

3. If I end up going with the front heights, I will attach them to the bulkhead running above my LCR. Because of the bulkhead, they would be around a foot further out in front of my L and R speakers. Any issue with that for front heights? Also, I haven't been able to understand the angles for front heights. What angle should the front heights hit the MLP?

4. Lastly, I am currently using an old pair of HTIB speakers as rear surrounds. I know I need to upgrade those, but my question is if I only purchase one new pair of speakers now (likely Polk S10s to match the other Polk speakers), should they be mounted as front heights, or should I swap out the old HTIB rear surrounds and use those as the front heights and the new S10's as rear surrounds? In other words, which speakers (front heights or rear surrounds) typically get more action?

Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

I haven't stored links, but I used to converse with one of the developers of AAC clear back in the early consumer days of the Net on Usenet rec.audio.high-end (I believe he went by JJ something) and he went into detail about how much double blind testing effort went into the AAC codec to make it as transparent as possible, even at lower rates compared to MP3 (which might be transparent closer to 320kbps). 

There are discussions on here about Dolby Digital dating back 12-13 years ago on the topic. Oddly, DD+ isn't anymore transparent than the original at higher bitrates, only lower ones, both being equivalent at 640kbps. I imagine Atmos would likely need a bit more (I think iTunes is at least 720kbps now for Atmos). Then again, sadly, most Atmos movies don't do squat with the overheads compared to the demos. 

Still, having directly compared many DD+ demos to the TrueHD versions, the DD+ versions sure sound similar to my ears (not the video, sadly, which is what I'd be mire concerned about).

It is clear that it's very easy to convince the unwashed that such differences exist (they just take the word if the masses on sites like the Blu-ray Forums where they HATE streaming with a blind passion. 

I wish the discs were better for audio because many discs suck for audio (See new Indiana Jones 4K discs. The video is improved. The sound has bass reduced at least 11dB compared to the prior BDs with DTS and they use no moving objects or any real overhead sounds (Raiders sounded better overhead for thunder using Neural X on the old soundtracks).

What I am saying is that digital audio has far bigger problems than lossy compression like actual loudness/dynamics compression (loudness wars) and horribly non-immersive "Atmos" soundtracks that the studios should be embarrassed to release like the Indy soundtracks in Atmos. Absolute garbage, disc or streaming.


----------



## ppasteur

What should I take this to mean?



MagnumX said:


> It is clear that it's very easy to convince the _unwashed_ that such differences exist (they just take the word if the masses on sites like the Blu-ray Forums where they HATE streaming with a blind passion.


Unwashed? Dirty? Somehow inferior to you? Come on give others with different opinions some credit. Chances are there are those in that so called _unwashed_ group that have way more knowledge, better ears, better systems (and likely fewer biases) then we do. BTW I personally shower daily...  

As to Digital Audio having problems in mixing and mastering for Atmos disks and _streaming_. No arguments from me on that. But that is not what started this discussion. Bottom line, apples to apples, uncompressed audio has the potential (and usually is) to be closer to the original master (whoever made the decisions on what that master is, is not germane) than compressed audio.
So, please continue to stream and enjoy it. Just do me the courtesy of acknowledging that my thoughts have as much validity as yours.


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> (You may notice that today everyone just has to have uncompressed music. Interesting , huh?)


1- Consumers think it's better
2- If you don't have it, it's a competitive disadvantage



ppasteur said:


> The Digital Cinema Sound Standard specifies 24 bit uncompressed audio. I wonder why they would do that if there is no advantage over compressed audio?


My take:

1- DC can be 24b PCM, so no companies can charge extra fees due to the PCM codec (unlike nowdays with Atmos, DTSX, A3D)
2- there is no standard for cinema soundtrack loudness, so 24 offers a bit of headroom & the "just in case" factor.



ppasteur said:


> I can also, but only with my ears in my system, say that it is easy for me to hear the difference between streamed DD+ Atmos and TrueHD Atmos from a disk. From a practical standpoint I can't do ABX testing.
> ...
> It could be confirmation bias, but without double blind ABX , I can't eliminate this. But that is ok, if it makes me happy, so be it. This part is not arguable.


In the past, streaming was 448kps EC3 Atmos. Nowdays, it can go up to 768kps. Have you tested on a 768kps track? Should be (much better)



ppasteur said:


> BTW, would you have any links to these double blind tests that you mention? I am interested in reading about the testing, the test subjects, and statistical results. I try to keep an open mind.


EBU tests , see p21 for graph, show that DTS 1510 & DDP 448 are (near) transparent for 5.1/5.0 . via HA thread.



ppasteur said:


> uncompressed audio has the potential (and usually is) to be closer to the original master (whoever made the decisions on what that master is, is not germane)


Lossy audio:

1- may not have a bitdepth (in the traditional sense)
2- may allow audio to exceed 0dB

so may be closer to the "original" whatever original means.

Atmos & DTSX may be reduced to 21-16b on disk, and they can get away with it, cuz it sounds fine. Objects on disc might be reduced to 12, but streaming Atmos is almost always 16, so may sound better in certain situations.


----------



## niterida

ppasteur said:


> What should I take this to mean?
> 
> Unwashed? Dirty? Somehow inferior to you? Come on give others with different opinions some credit. Chances are there are those in that so called _unwashed_ group that have way more knowledge, better ears, better systems (and likely fewer biases) then we do. BTW I personally shower daily...


I took it to mean he was referring to the general consumer population that advertising/marketing fluff is aimed at - not you personally


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> What should I take this to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Unwashed? Dirty? Somehow inferior to you? Come on give others with different opinions some credit. Chances are there are those in that so called _unwashed_ group that have way more knowledge, better ears, better systems (and likely fewer biases) then we do. BTW I personally shower daily...


I'm under the impression you've never even heard that term before. It means the mass market out there don't even have good quality audio playback systems, let alone any idea of the details of how these things work. Sure there are "some" out there that do. They are not part of the "masses". How many people have advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering? Not many. They are not part of the "average" knowledge level of the subject. It also means those people are easier to fool than the actual experts. When it comes to audio, I simply get sick of this false notion that there's something inherently bad about lossy audio as if there aren't different bit-rates used. That's like saying there is no difference between a JPEG saved at a "10" setting versus a "7" setting. But even Blu-Ray video (regular or UHD) isn't "uncompressed". It's ALL lossy. Streaming has a lower bitrate, however and there it really is a more apples to apples comparison. Audio is a lot easier to compress to streaming levels without losing audible quality. 

But because people will believe those telling them it IS audible, I'm sure Apple hopes to scoop up a lot more subscribers to Apple Music once they do go fully lossless as some people simply won't accept anything less regardless because they believe there is a difference (faith) regardless. Some _believe_ the LP sounds better than the CD (not individual discs, but the full format itself). Some people believe digital audio has "stair-steps" too (not true). The analogy (from the 1980s and/or 1990s) persists, however.


----------



## dschulz

Re: lossless vs lossy - Eddy Cue, head of Apple's content services (Apple Music and Apple TV+) mentioned in an interview recently that he was much more excited about Apple Music's rollout of Dolby Atmos music than their implementation of lossless music, because he accurately estimates that for most people, most of the time, the difference between the lossless and lossy streams is inaudible. It's just that Apple has been accumulating the masters all this time, and now that bandwidth is cheap making a lossless stream available is a low-cost marketing win. 

On the motion picture side - the lossy Dolby streams now available on streaming are utilizing a better codec, at a higher bitrate, than Dolby Digital on 35mm film, but I don't remember many cinephiles leaving a good cinema between 1992 and 2005 or so complaining about the sound quality or compression artifacts.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Re: lossless vs lossy - Eddy Cue, head of Apple's content services (Apple Music and Apple TV+) mentioned in an interview recently that he was much more excited about Apple Music's rollout of Dolby Atmos music than their implementation of lossless music, because he accurately estimates that for most people, most of the time, the difference between the lossless and lossy streams is inaudible. It's just that Apple has been accumulating the masters all this time, and now that bandwidth is cheap making a lossless stream available is a low-cost marketing win.
> 
> On the motion picture side - the lossy Dolby streams now available on streaming are utilizing a better codec, at a higher bitrate, than Dolby Digital on 35mm film, but I don't remember many cinephiles leaving a good cinema between 1992 and 2005 or so complaining about the sound quality or compression artifacts.


I agree with most of what you're saying. From what I read, the DD+ codec differences in efficiency don't really matter at higher bitrates (certainly not the rates Apple uses), but DD can't carry 7.1 channels or Atmos so it's still needed. A lot of people thought DTS was superior to Dolby Digital in those days, but Dolby Digital is a much more efficient codec than DTS, let alone Cinematic DTS (which is really AptX). I personally enjoyed movies in DTS in the 1990s in Ohio and moves like The Matrix sounded fantastic here in it. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about music in lossy than movies, but with a Blu-Ray, it's pretty much, why NOT include lossless? 

Even so, I wish they would include BETTER mixes for higher quality home theaters in ADDITION to whatever mass market mix they want to include (ala Disney 's more recent sad efforts). One only need compare TRON: Legacy in DTS-HD MA 7.1 to newer Disney releases to hear there's something wrong with most of them (e.g. The new Indiana Jones "Atmos" mixes are both poor in terms of overhead use and have the bass turned down a whopping 11dB (plus possibly some filtration on top of that for the deepest bass. It's AWFUL compared to the old 5.1 mix, which was actually pretty good considering how old the film is it was based on and upmixed pretty well with Neural X. The new mix sounds like DSU upmixing of the 5.1 mix with the bass neutered out of it). We shouldn't have to pick between higher quality video and better audio. I'm equipped here where I can rip the 4K video and remux it with the old soundtrack, but most people are not.

As for Apple and Atmos, I can only hope that encourages more quality Atmos mixes. There are some spectacular mixes out there (e.g. Yello's _Point_ and Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_), but there exists the same potential for "dumbed down" mixes with music as there is with movie soundtracks. Adding a bit of reverb and calling it "Atmos" doesn't interest me. I want "immersive" mixes and I'm continually disappointed with movies that don't typically come CLOSE to the demos Dolby released themselves! It seems like Hollywood doesn't want "immersive". They want to stress VIDEO (i.e. Watch the actors; don't get distracted by sound effects coming from behind you as if people are going to turn around and "look" behind them and miss something on-screen or something). I've probably listened to surround music the past 4 months at a rate about 5-to-1 compared to movies just because good surround music (even 5.1 with a bit of upmixing) is far more engrossing in sound than most of the soundtracks out there. Sadly, I've run out of surround material I'm interested in, so I'm back to movie releases again, but that also means more disappointment in so many of the mixes.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> On the motion picture side - the lossy Dolby streams now available on streaming are utilizing a better codec, at a higher bitrate, than Dolby Digital on 35mm film, but I don't remember many cinephiles leaving a good cinema between 1992 and 2005 or so complaining about the sound quality or compression artifacts.


Exactly. I don't see the point in refusing to watch an ATV4K or Netflix movie (or that matter, enjoy Tidal HD) in Atmos because it's on a MAT 2.0 stream or DD+, and pay more and give up the convenience to wait for the shiny disc.

Not to say that you can't do both if you have a top of the line projector and a huge AT screen with a Lumagen, to get the best possible picture, but IMO this shouldn't be an either/or due to audio.


----------



## dschulz

sdrucker said:


> Exactly. I don't see the point in refusing to watch an ATV4K or Netflix movie (or that matter, enjoy Tidal HD) in Atmos because it's on a MAT 2.0 stream or DD+, and pay more and give up the convenience to wait for the shiny disc.
> 
> Not to say that you can't do both if you have a top of the line projector and a huge AT screen with a Lumagen, to get the best possible picture, but IMO this shouldn't be an either/or due to audio.


Where I have always landed on this is I am happy to stream lossy material (whether from a streaming service or as a VOD rental), but if I am paying full price to add a movie to my collection I want the lossless soundtrack, all the bonus features and best possible picture, which means shiny discs (unless I could afford a Kaleidoscape).


----------



## dschulz

junh1024 said:


> 2- there is no standard for cinema soundtrack loudness, so 24 offers a bit of headroom & the "just in case" factor.


There's no standard for the dialogue level or average level of a movie, but there are definitely standards around loudness. With the fader set at 7.0 on the cinema processor, the standardized reference test tone should play back at 85dB, and the system is required to have 20dB of headroom above that level, so peak SPL in a cinema is 105dB (115dB for the LFE channel). 

The extra headroom is really needed only in recording/mixing/mastering. 16 bits is good for 90dB of dynamic range, which means with cinema peaks at 105dB you'd get all the way down to a noise floor of only 15dB, quieter than even recording studios. It's just that with the size of the video files involved in digital cinema, there was no point in adding a mastering step to convert from the 24-bit master to a 16-bit delivery.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> Where I have always landed on this is I am happy to stream lossy material (whether from a streaming service or as a VOD rental), but if I am paying full price to add a movie to my collection I want the lossless soundtrack, all the bonus features and best possible picture, which means shiny discs (unless I could afford a Kaleidoscape).


You have a point, but there's also the convenience aspect for a movie I know I'm only going to watch once or twice. Before COVID, I would have went to Best Buy or ordered some UHD that had Atmos as an impulse buy from Amazon for, say, 1917 or Ad Astra as my default. These days, it has to be something special to buy the shiny disc, where I want the extras and the definitive version, such as Apocalypse Now in UHD, or V for Vendetta, or one of the Blade Runner films. DTS:X is of course UHD shiny disc, since there's no other option. But no, I'm not springing for "Howard the Duck" next month. LOL.

As for Indiana Jones, I already had the BluRay set with all the special features, and they didn't change AFAIK, so I'm fine with ATV4K since my interest is more towards audio anyway, especially with all the streamed Atmos music on Tidal and to a lesser extent Apple Music. Maybe I'd have felt different if it weren't $90 for the collection, and I had to buy two movies (Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull) I didn't really care much about.


----------



## ppasteur

Yeah, I never "refuse" to stream anything due to concerns over audio quality. I have maybe 300 movies that I "own" (until they decide that I don't) online. I have watched lot's of content on Disney+ , Netflix, Amazon, etc.
For the most part, I enjoy it quite a bit. If there is something that I really want to have the best available version of, I buy a disk. If I demo my system, I use BD content with TrueHD/Atmos. In particular some of the Dolby BD Demo disks. I think that they are as good as it gets from an audio perspective.
I am not a disk snob, I am just cognizant that it is still the best format from an overall quality perspective.
In a utopian world where everyone (including, or especially me) has gigabit connectivity, and streaming is not constrained by the current compression limitations, I will be delighted to stop buying disks.
Until then, and for select content, I go with best of breed.

BTW, I too will pass on Howard the Duck... in any format.


----------



## Worf

dschulz said:


> Where I have always landed on this is I am happy to stream lossy material (whether from a streaming service or as a VOD rental), but if I am paying full price to add a movie to my collection I want the lossless soundtrack, all the bonus features and best possible picture, which means shiny discs (unless I could afford a Kaleidoscape).


If I'm paying full price, I want to own the movie. Not a rental. Digital purchases are rentals at best, vulnerable to being removed at the whim of a studio, the shut down of a company, or cancellation of an account. You can lose your entire movie collection overnight. And there's nothing obligating the companies from ensuring your hard earned collection stays. I've lost enough of them when Ultraviolet shut down.

Of course, the fact you can only view movies at the studio's blessing is the huge reason why studios love it when people stream or buy digital purchases. Imagine purchasing a digital download, but the studio is promoting a different movie franchise with the upcoming theatrical release, pushing your newly bought film after all the promotional offers to buy the other movies in the promoted franchise first. They got your money, after all.


----------



## umenon

I have a ATV 4K, FTV 4K, Roku 4K, LG OLED 4K ... in my setup. What is the best way to play downloaded Atmos content? I am told Plex Client will play them as PCM 7.1. Any suggestions? Thanks.


----------



## usc1995

umenon said:


> I have a ATV 4K, FTV 4K, Roku 4K, LG OLED 4K ... in my setup. What is the best way to play downloaded Atmos content? I am told Plex Client will play them as PCM 7.1. Any suggestions? Thanks.


The Roku and the ATV will not play downloaded Atmos content currently. You may be able to side load Kodi and use that on the FireTV but I am not sure. You should ask on that thread if it can bitstream your content to let your AVR decode the Atmos. Your best bet is a different device like the Shield TV or the Zidoo devices.


----------



## ppasteur

umenon said:


> I have a ATV 4K, FTV 4K, Roku 4K, LG OLED 4K ... in my setup. What is the best way to play downloaded Atmos content? I am told Plex Client will play them as PCM 7.1. Any suggestions? Thanks.


I suggest the Shield. It can playback local files in 4K HDR/DV and TrueHD/Atmos (bitstreamed)


----------



## bartonnen

usc1995 said:


> ...the ATV will not play downloaded Atmos content currently.


Unless it's DD+ Atmos.


----------



## usc1995

bartonnen said:


> Unless it's DD+ Atmos.


I thought only streaming services used DD+ Atmos? What media is available to download in DD+ Atmos? I have only seen TrueHD Atmos out in the “wild”.


----------



## ppasteur

bartonnen said:


> Unless it's DD+ Atmos.


Will it do that. I thought it would play back as X.1 PCM and no Atmos. But as above, most downloaded content or backup of owned media will have TrueHD/Atmos. So even if the ATV4K can play Atmos from DD+, it is not helpful for those that want to playback the best quality local content. Including fully legal demo clips from many sources, BTW. And none of them are in DD+. So what is the point??


----------



## bartonnen

usc1995 said:


> What media is available to download in DD+ Atmos? I have only seen TrueHD Atmos out in the “wild”.


Rips of streams (like HBO max movies and Disney+ series).


----------



## mrvideo

ppasteur said:


> If there is something that I really want to have the best available version of, I buy a disk.


Minor educational note: The shiny DVD/BD/UHD media are dis*C*s, i.e., removable media. Hard drives are dis*K*s, i.e., non-removable media. Before you say that SATA HDDs are removable, the actual recorded media within the HDD is not.

I have no idea how that designation differentiation ever came about.


----------



## niterida

Disc = Disk
Can use either as there is no difference.
There may be a preference but it is not a rule.


----------



## ppasteur

mrvideo said:


> Minor educational note: The shiny DVD/BD/UHD media are dis*C*s, i.e., removable media. Hard drives are dis*K*s, i.e., non-removable media. Before you say that SATA HDDs are removable, the actual recorded media within the HDD is not.
> 
> I have no idea how that designation differentiation ever came about.


If we must be pedantic, I suppose that if splitting hairs, you _may_ have a point. Disk is the American spelling and disc the British spelling. In the past I have seen disc used for the spelling on "audio" disks. I never saw DVD or BD disks labeled as such. In any case, I am sure everyone reading knew what I was referring to. 
Damn, we must have too much time on our hands.


From Grammarly:

*Most of what you need to remember about “disk” and “disc” is the following: “disk” is the preferred spelling in American English, and it’s also the spelling used for computer-related objects, such as a hard disk. “Disc” is the preferred spelling in British English, and it’s also the spelling used for devices carrying sound.*


----------



## Craig Mecak

ppasteur said:


> If we must be pedantic, I suppose that if splitting hairs, you _may_ have a point. Disk is the American spelling and disc the British spelling. In the past I have seen disc used for the spelling on "audio" disks. I never saw DVD or BD disks labeled as such. In any case, I am sure everyone reading knew what I was referring to.
> Damn, we must have too much time on our hands.
> 
> 
> From Grammarly:
> 
> *Most of what you need to remember about “disk” and “disc” is the following: “disk” is the preferred spelling in American English, and it’s also the spelling used for computer-related objects, such as a hard disk. “Disc” is the preferred spelling in British English, and it’s also the spelling used for devices carrying sound.*


----------



## markus767

usc1995 said:


> I thought only streaming services used DD+ Atmos? What media is available to download in DD+ Atmos? I have only seen TrueHD Atmos out in the “wild”.


Probably just the proverbial exception from the rule but Blu-ray "Kong: Skull Island" had a DD+ Atmos track (maybe just the German release).


----------



## AYanguas

usc1995 said:


> I thought only streaming services used DD+ Atmos? What media is available to download in DD+ Atmos? I have only seen TrueHD Atmos out in the “wild”.


This, for example:









Immersive Audio Album


The ultimate hub for immersive audio, surround sound album reviews, gear recommendations, and downloadable hi-res multichannel music.




immersiveaudioalbum.com





My last purchase here was downloaded files of "A Bad Think - Lifelike" in MP4 (DD+ Atmos)

I can play them in Atmos from my DUNE's or from the Oppo 203


----------



## usc1995

Interesting, I had no idea DD+ was being used this much. There is so much content out there it is hard to keep up. Are there any widely available tools to convert TrueHD Atmos to DD+ Atmos? If not then I for one would still be looking for a different device than the ATV4K to use for playing back downloaded content. I love my ATV4K but it is needlessly hamstrung in this use case.


----------



## chi_guy50

With a recent firmware update, Yamaha has deployed their new "Dolby Speaker Virtualization" DSP mode in their new AVR's. It is designed to emulate the height effect when playing back a Dolby Atmos track without any type of overhead (or DAE) speakers (dubbed "Presence" speakers in Yamaha-ese). Interestingly, in this mode the AVR will still display the Atmos badge although AFAIUI the Atmos decoder requires height speakers in order to render an Atmos playback.

Here's how Yamaha's marketing folks describe DSV: _"For those without in-ceiling or upward firing speakers in their system, Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization technology can simulate the Atmos experience. Configure up to five speakers to replicate the effect of two in-ceiling speakers, or utilize all seven channels to simulate the powerful effect of four overhead speakers."_

At least one user with a 5.1 setup has claimed that with DSV he can perceive sound coming "clearly . . . from directly over my head" and "very localized." In my own trials, I am much less sanguine about the effect in comparison to actual overhead speakers, but I am willing to concede that others might have a different take.

At any rate, my curiosity has been sufficiently piqued that I would love to know what sort of DSP engineering Yamaha has employed here and how they have arranged for Dolby's blessing to label the results as Atmos. Is it possible that they are employing height-cue filters derived from the Atmos object metadata or perhaps from the Atmos height bed channels?

Does anyone here have any insight or an opinion on the matter? Sanjay?


----------



## markus767

chi_guy50 said:


> With a recent firmware update, Yamaha has deployed their new "Dolby Speaker Virtualization" DSP mode in their new AVR's. It is designed to emulate the height effect when playing back a Dolby Atmos track without any type of overhead (or DAE) speakers (dubbed "Presence" speakers in Yamaha-ese). Interestingly, in this mode the AVR will still display the Atmos badge although AFAIUI the Atmos decoder requires height speakers in order to render an Atmos playback.
> 
> Here's how Yamaha's marketing folks describe DSV: _"For those without in-ceiling or upward firing speakers in their system, Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization technology can simulate the Atmos experience. Configure up to five speakers to replicate the effect of two in-ceiling speakers, or utilize all seven channels to simulate the powerful effect of four overhead speakers."_
> 
> At least one user with a 5.1 setup has claimed that with DSV he can perceive sound coming "clearly . . . from directly over my head" and "very localized." In my own trials, I am much less sanguine about the effect in comparison to actual overhead speakers, but I am willing to concede that others might have a different take.
> 
> At any rate, my curiosity has been sufficiently piqued that I would love to know what sort of DSP engineering Yamaha has employed here and how they have arranged for Dolby's blessing to label the results as Atmos. Is it possible that they are employing height-cue filters derived from the Atmos object metadata or perhaps from the Atmos height bed channels?
> 
> Does anyone here have any insight or an opinion on the matter? Sanjay?


Dolby virtual speaker has been around for a while. Looks like it has escaped soundbar-only environments


----------



## halcyon_888

chi_guy50 said:


> With a recent firmware update, Yamaha has deployed their new "Dolby Speaker Virtualization" DSP mode in their new AVR's. It is designed to emulate the height effect when playing back a Dolby Atmos track without any type of overhead (or DAE) speakers (dubbed "Presence" speakers in Yamaha-ese). Interestingly, in this mode the AVR will still display the Atmos badge although AFAIUI the Atmos decoder requires height speakers in order to render an Atmos playback.
> 
> Here's how Yamaha's marketing folks describe DSV: _"For those without in-ceiling or upward firing speakers in their system, Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization technology can simulate the Atmos experience. Configure up to five speakers to replicate the effect of two in-ceiling speakers, or utilize all seven channels to simulate the powerful effect of four overhead speakers."_
> 
> At least one user with a 5.1 setup has claimed that with DSV he can perceive sound coming "clearly . . . from directly over my head" and "very localized." In my own trials, I am much less sanguine about the effect in comparison to actual overhead speakers, but I am willing to concede that others might have a different take.
> 
> At any rate, my curiosity has been sufficiently piqued that I would love to know what sort of DSP engineering Yamaha has employed here and how they have arranged for Dolby's blessing to label the results as Atmos. Is it possible that they are employing height-cue filters derived from the Atmos object metadata or perhaps from the Atmos height bed channels?
> 
> Does anyone here have any insight or an opinion on the matter? Sanjay?


Denon receivers have Dolby Height Virtualization as well, though I don't know much about it. From my own observations of non-Atmos encoded 5.1/7.1 content the sound engineers sometimes try to "fake" a height effect, there are a few effects like this in Avatar from memory. Now that I have two height channels I know the DSU and NeuralX upmixers will throw that content in the height channels. But with Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization it seems like they are trying to defy the laws of physics of sound. There isn't going to be a replacement for actually having height speakers producing height content. It seems more like a marketing technology to sell receivers to be honest.


----------



## chi_guy50

markus767 said:


> Dolby virtual speaker has been around for a while. Looks like it has escaped soundbar-only environments


Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I see now that Yamaha's Dolby Speaker Virtualization appears to be a Dolby creation and not specific to Yamaha. That makes more sense given Dolby's notorious proprietary guardianship of its products.


----------



## ppasteur

halcyon_888 said:


> Denon receivers have Dolby Height Virtualization as well, though I don't know much about it. From my own observations of non-Atmos encoded 5.1/7.1 content the sound engineers sometimes try to "fake" a height effect, there are a few effects like this in Avatar from memory. Now that I have two height channels I know the DSU and NeuralX upmixers will throw that content in the height channels. But with Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization it seems like they are trying to defy the laws of physics of sound. There isn't going to be a replacement for actually having height speakers producing height content. It seems more like a marketing technology to sell receivers to be honest.


I totally agree that there is not substitute for having speakers as the origin of the components for 3D sound. But you do see people now going bonkers over Apple's spatial sound. Some really like it, even going as far as saying that they can reliably locate objects in space. This with headphones. I also think that the DTS Virtual X and Dolby height virtualization can give an enhanced sense of a sound bubble. They are getting better at this stuff with more understanding of psychoacoustics and maybe more importantly the processing power to manipulate sound from fewer than optimal number of speakers (or even headphones) to fool the brain into perceiving at least some semblance of 3D sound.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> Interestingly, in this mode the AVR will still display the Atmos badge although AFAIUI the Atmos decoder requires height speakers in order to render an Atmos playback.


Height virtualization (Dolby or DTS) requires full decoding to separate sounds intended for the base layer from sounds intended to appear above the base layer (doesn't have to be strictly in the height layer, just anywhere above the base layer). That allows the height sounds to be processed via a virtualizer without affecting base layer sounds, since both sets of sound are going to end up in the same speakers.

BTW, the Atmos decoder is activated whenever you configure speakers for which there are no channels. So if you configure a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, no Atmos decoding. The moment you add Wides to either of those layouts, the Atmos decoder activates (Wides are fed solely by objects). Same with adding any height speakers, as you mentioned.


> I am much less sanguine about the effect in comparison to actual overhead speakers, but I am willing to concede that others might have a different take.


Height virtualization cannot compete with actual overhead speakers any more than video upscaling can compete with actual hi-def content. In fairness to height virtualization technologies, they're intended to be used for the worst case scenario, when you can't even deploy upfiring modules. In my experience, they do as decent a job as those old surround virtualizers that attempted to wrap sound around you using only 2 speakers.


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> But with Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization it seems like they are trying to defy the laws of physics of sound.


The idea behind virtualization is pretty straightforward. If you had your eyes closed and someone raised a speaker in front of you, you'd hear the sound move upwards. How did you hear that difference, considering the sound from the speaker didn't change? Turns out that sounds coming from above you reflect off your shoulders and outer ears, creating specific cancellations when combined with the direct sound, which our human hearing has learned to recognize as sounds coming from above. If you apply those same cancellations to sound coming from a speaker at ear level, then our human hearing can be tricked into perceiving those sounds as coming from above. Doesn't defy physics, just takes advantage of psychoacoustics.


> It seems more like a marketing technology to sell receivers to be honest.


Are manufacturers going to get consumers to buy cheaper 5.1 and 7.1 receivers instead of their more expensive 9.1 and 11.1 models by marketing a technology that convinces them not to add height speakers?


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> BTW, the Atmos decoder is activated whenever you configure speakers for which there are no channels. So if you configure a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, no Atmos decoding.
> 
> Height virtualization cannot compete with actual overhead speakers...


Not true, and there are numerous posts here and elsewhere that disprove this. Denon AVRs will allow the Atmos engine/decoder to engage when there are any 7(.1) channels configured.
Some here have written that this allows some sort of object data to be included in the base layer. How effective this is, I am not sure. But I can unequivocally say that in a 7.1 configuration the sound singes noticeably when ATMOS is engaged.

As to the synthetic methods being able to compete.. Well if it is the best you can do, there is no competition. But if it enhances the experience, that is good. "The pursuit of perfect is the enemy of good (enough)"


----------



## halcyon_888

sdurani said:


> Doesn't defy physics, just takes advantage of psychoacoustics.


I never implied or said the technology defies physics. I said and meant that there isn't a replacement for actually having height speakers producing height content. You have said this too, so we agree.



sdurani said:


> Are manufacturers going to get consumers to buy cheaper 5.1 and 7.1 receivers instead of their more expensive 9.1 and 11.1 models by marketing a technology that convinces them not to add height speakers?


I never said virtualization technology doesn't work at all, I'm sure it has some degree of efficacy.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Some here have written that this allows some sort of object data to be included in the base layer.


What do you mean by _"allows some sort of object data to be included in the base layer"_? Doesn't downmixing normally discard object data?


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> What do you mean by _"allows some sort of object data to be included in the base layer"_? Doesn't downmixing normally discard object data?


You know, I would have to search the thread, or you can. But I asked this question a while back and got the sort of answers saying it was not possible. Fairly recently a person that had credentials posted that indeed when the engine is in play it would place objects data in the base layer. This matched what I can make of the Dolby tech data. Sounded good to me, and explains my experience.

EDIT BatPig: The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> I said and meant that there isn't a replacement for actually having height speakers producing height content.


Who claimed otherwise?


> I never said virtualization technology doesn't work at all, I'm sure it has some degree of efficacy.


If the technology works, why do you consider it "marketing"?


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Fairly recently a person that had credentials posted that indeed when the engine is in play it would place objects data in the base layer.


IF by "object data" you mean the locations for those sounds, then that is a normal part of downmixing. I doubt there is a version of downmixing that discards location info.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> IF by "object data" you mean the locations for those sounds, then that is a normal part of downmixing. I doubt there is a version of downmixing that discards location info.


Object data meaning location in 3d space. Meaning that data is mixed into the bed layer when the Atmos engine is engaged. Denon/Marantz AVRs do this with anything over 5.1 systems.
It is not the process of "normal: downmixing, because it does not occur if the Atmos engine is not in play.

Again








The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


The angle is always the same, regardless of room size. The smaller the room, the closer the speakers, the greater the delay and level error can become when moving away from the main listening position. The error is smaller in larger rooms where speakers are further away. So as a rule of thumb...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> It is not the process of "normal: downmixing, because it does not occur if the Atmos engine is not in play.


Is there more than one type of downmixing: one that preserves location data and another that doesn't?


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> The Indiana Jones films are now upgraded to 4K + Atmos on iTunes as well as the 4K UHD BDs being officially available (with Atmos also).
> 
> *Edit*: Sadly, half-way through Raiders and there have been no real significant overhead sounds (maybe a few brief bits in the front heights, but without shutting off speakers it's hard to be certain). It might as well be the old 5.1 mix thus far, possibly with less bass/dynamic range (have to directly compare to be sure). Disappointing like most retrofits.


Bad Atmos in genera, another reason: If you mix in a cinema mixing room, every speaker is above you, including ELL speakers, so the flaw of under-using the height speakers is much less pronounced

Reduced bass: the Atmos renderer IIRC includes bass management for correct bass preview so bass level may differ from traditional mixes.



usc1995 said:


> Are there any widely available tools to convert TrueHD Atmos to DD+ Atmos?


There might be a facility in your TV which converts THD to DDP Atmos for eARC reasons, but apart from that , not really. If you wanted a DDP track, streaming services have those.



sdurani said:


> BTW, the Atmos decoder is activated whenever you configure speakers for which there are no channels. So if you configure a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, no Atmos decoding.


The situation is a bit different for streaming, even if you have a 51 system with a new AVR. For DDP Atmos (with a legacy core of 51) , I have heard report(s) that the side speakers is imaged about 2/3 back on a Atmos AVR (on a 916 test), but I know that side speakers is imaged all the way back on legacy decoding.

This implies Atmos decoding is engaged even on a 51 system, on a Atmos AVR.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Is there more than one type of downmixing: one that preserves location data and another that doesn't?


You tell me. I just know that the sound field changes significantly using 7.1 with Atmos engaged versus when it is manually disabled.
I would sincerely like to know the specifics, but after hours of research, I have no explanation. The Bat Pig post tells me as much as anything that I have read.


----------



## ppasteur

junh1024 said:


> The situation is a bit different for streaming, even if you have a 51 system with a new AVR. For DDP Atmos (with a legacy core of 51) , I have heard report(s) that the side speakers is imaged about 2/3 back on a Atmos AVR (on a 916 test), but I know that side speakers is imaged all the way back on legacy decoding.
> 
> This implies Atmos decoding is engaged even on a 51 system, on a Atmos AVR.


I think it is simple, regardless of whether we are streaming with DD+ 5.1 or TrueHD 7.1. Either the Atmos decoder is in play, or it is not. If not you get 5.1 or 7.1. Obviously there are differences in the mixing. But I don't see the Atmos engine, _when not engaged_, is responsible for the differences in perceived sound. If the decoder is not turned on, it "should" be out of the audio chain, Yes?


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> You tell me.


I'm not aware of any abnormal downmixing that throws away location info of objects. Preserving location data is normal when downmixing.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> I think it is simple, regardless of whether we are streaming with DD+ 5.1 or TrueHD 7.1. Either the Atmos decoder is in play, or it is not. If not you get 5.1 or 7.1. Obviously there are differences in the mixing. But I don't see the Atmos engine, _when not engaged_, is responsible for the differences in perceived sound. If the decoder is not turned on, it "should" be out of the audio chain, Yes?


I don't have an explanation for why it should sound any different, but I stand by my assertion that it _shouldn't_. Look at it this this way - why would an Atmos mix rendered to 7.1 be any different than a mix that was created for 7.1 in the first place? If you have a standard 7.1 layout, and playback with the Atmos renderer engaged vs not engaged is somehow different, I think that is an issue with the manufacturer's implementation of Atmos. 

The only exception I can think of is if you have a disc with an Atmos mix with only a 5.1 base layer, which I understand is theoretically possible, and so you're hearing the difference between a 5.1 playback (with the side surrounds copied to the rears) and Atmos playback that uses object rendering to utilize the rear surrounds.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> I totally agree that there is not substitute for having speakers as the origin of the components for 3D sound. But you do see people now going bonkers over Apple's spatial sound. Some really like it, even going as far as saying that they can reliably locate objects in space. This with headphones.


You're able to appreciate the 3D sound of Atmos, with its multiple speakers all around you, using only two ears, so it makes sense to me that spatial audio using binaural rendering could absolutely be effective. If the renderer is able to perfectly simulate what your two ears would be hearing if they were in a room with multiple speakers, there will be no difference. And indeed, this is what you experience with good binaural recordings. Apple's Spatial Audio is not quite that good (nor is it as good as other technologies that actually measure your ears), but it's pretty damn good. 

I would expect headphone-based spatial audio to work even better than height virtualization, but I don't relish the idea of watching an entire movie wearing headphones, so I'll continue to rely on some combination of real speakers, bouncy speakers and, where unavailable, virtualization.


----------



## thomasphoenix

Smyth Realiser A16 perfectly simulates a 15.1.8 Atmos room with 24 speakers. I can vouch for that. Sound direction is pin point accurate. This is with a general dummy based HTRF and headphones eq customized for my ears . With personalized prir I have a stereo pair done. It’s difficult to say when the speakers are on VS the headphones.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> *Height virtualization (Dolby or DTS) requires full decoding* to separate sounds intended for the base layer from sounds intended to appear above the base layer (doesn't have to be strictly in the height layer, just anywhere above the base layer). That allows the height sounds to be processed via a virtualizer without affecting base layer sounds, since both sets of sound are going to end up in the same speakers.
> 
> BTW, the Atmos decoder is activated whenever you configure speakers for which there are no channels. So *if you configure a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, no Atmos decoding.* The moment you add Wides to either of those layouts, the Atmos decoder activates (Wides are fed solely by objects). Same with adding any height speakers, as you mentioned. Height virtualization cannot compete with actual overhead speakers any more than video upscaling can compete with actual hi-def content. In fairness to height virtualization technologies, they're intended to be used for the worst case scenario, when you can't even deploy upfiring modules. In my experience, they do as decent a job as those old surround virtualizers that attempted to wrap sound around you using only 2 speakers.


I appreciate all the great feedback and discussion here on height virtualization as I obviously have not been paying attention to any of the relevant technology.

Sanjay, one aspect of your explanation that I do not understand is the apparent contradiction in the above two highlighted statements. Given that employing Dolby Speaker (Height) Virtualization on a Yamaha AVR with a 5.1 layout results in the Atmos badge displaying with an Atmos signal, does this not mean that Atmos decoding is in play?


----------



## dschulz

chi_guy50 said:


> I appreciate all the great feedback and discussion here on height virtualization as I obviously have not been paying attention to any of the relevant technology.
> 
> Sanjay, one aspect of your explanation that I do not understand is the apparent contradiction in the above two highlighted statements. Given that employing Dolby Speaker (Height) Virtualization on a Yamaha AVR with a 5.1 layout results in the Atmos badge displaying with an Atmos signal, does this not mean that Atmos decoding is in play?


If you have a 5.1 setup + height virtualization, you now have a 5.1.2 setup, it's just that the 2 height channels are virtual. So now the Atmos decoder has something to do (render to the [virtual] height channels).


----------



## dschulz

junh1024 said:


> The situation is a bit different for streaming, even if you have a 51 system with a new AVR. For DDP Atmos (with a legacy core of 51) , I have heard report(s) that the side speakers is imaged about 2/3 back on a Atmos AVR (on a 916 test), but I know that side speakers is imaged all the way back on legacy decoding.
> 
> This implies Atmos decoding is engaged even on a 51 system, on a Atmos AVR.


Oh, that _is_ interesting, and I wonder if this is the source of my awarenesss that there is such a thing as an Atmos track with a 5.1 base. Are all DDP Atmos streams 5.1 bases, or is this left to the discretion of the mixers or mastering engineers? And is it possible to have an Atmos stream with a 5.1 base in TrueHD, or is the 7.1 base mandatory?


----------



## JonFo

dschulz said:


> I would expect headphone-based spatial audio to work even better than height virtualization, but I don't relish the idea of watching an entire movie wearing headphones


Actually, you'd be surprised how 'natural' it is to hear a movie over headphones, I even forgot I was wearing them and startled myself when trying to scratch my head and ran into the A16 head tracker attached to my cans.



thomasphoenix said:


> Smyth Realiser A16 perfectly simulates a 15.1.8 Atmos room with 24 speakers. I can vouch for that. Sound direction is pin point accurate. This is with a general dummy based HTRF and headphones eq customized for my ears . With personalized prir I have a stereo pair done. It’s difficult to say when the speakers are on VS the headphones


With a personalized PRIR, the A16 is truly amazing, as noted above, I forget I'm wearing headphones after 10 or so minutes of watching a movie.
When I compare the A16 to the Apple AirPods Max, the benefits of having my own HRTF (plus the 'sound' of my own HT) are quite noticeable. But still, the APM is a marvel for what it can do.

My preference though is to listen to music and movies on the 5.4.4 Home Theater system, as it just has such cool dynamics; 78 square feet of radiating surfaces, including an Infinite Baffle sub, is kind of hard to replicate over headphones.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> I'm not aware of any abnormal downmixing that throws away location info of objects. Preserving location data is normal when downmixing.


If the Dolby decoder is not turned on, there is no possibility of any object information to be "downmixed". It surely seems to me that this is a different situations versus 7 to 5, or 2 channel downmixing where no object based components are present or are involved. Well, at least this is what makes sense to me when considering this. 

In other words, normal downmixing just presents the information that would go to additional speakers at a reduced level to the speakers that are present. So the sounds are there, but positional information is lost due to there not being the intended point sources for that information. 
But the object info is metadata, (instructions for steering the sound among the available speakers) not actual sound that is present in the original signal. If the Atmos decoder is not active, the system cannot use this metadata. So there is nothing to "downmix" (in the classical sense). If it is engaged, object related sound can be presented in the available (Base layer with a minimum of 7 speakers in the case of the Denon) speakers. I think this (in my case at least) definitely impacts the sound field that is presented. Of course the height info is missing due to no height speakers being present. But object positional information that can be presented in the base layer, is there.

So I know what I hear, but when I asked about this a couple of months ago, the majority of those that replied said it was not possible. I was pleased to read what Bat Pig posted including captures of Dolby documentation that showed that it not only is possible, but it is the way the system works, by design. It is always good to know that my ears and brain are not just fooling me due to seeing ATMOS on the display of my AVR.


----------



## noah katz

I wonder if virtualization would be useful even if we have real speakers.

I have an Insignia TV with some kind of processing that makes PBS's nature shows have a very convincing outdoors sound, in some respects moreso than my 9.1.4 system.

Perhaps it would make soundtracks sound more like Dolby's Atmos demo material.


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> I don't have an explanation for why it should sound any different, but I stand by my assertion that it _shouldn't_. Look at it this this way - why would an Atmos mix rendered to 7.1 be any different than a mix that was created for 7.1 in the first place? If you have a standard 7.1 layout, and playback with the Atmos renderer engaged vs not engaged is somehow different, I think that is an issue with the manufacturer's implementation of Atmos.
> 
> The only exception I can think of is if you have a disc with an Atmos mix with only a 5.1 base layer, which I understand is theoretically possible, and so you're hearing the difference between a 5.1 playback (with the side surrounds copied to the rears) and Atmos playback that uses object rendering to utilize the rear surrounds.


Please read this from the link I posted above:

"To clear up some confusion, it's not 7.1+11/13/15 objects (which implies 19/21/23 total "audio streams" or "elements").

When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects. The only remaining "channel" is the LFE, everything else in the mix is converted by the "spatial coding" algorithm into 11/13/15 objects (depending on the setting chosen) INCLUDING the 7 "bed" channels.

So it's not a 7.1 bed plus 11/13/15 objects, it's a 7.1 mix *OR* 11/13/15 objects (_depending on whether or not the Atmos renderer kicks in_).

See below from the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide (for mixers/engineers): " You can see the info in his post #

He reproduces the relevant sections of the Guide in the post. if this is true, and I believe that it is (read the documentation that he copied to his post) the sound reproduced by the bed layer speaker IS different when the ATMOS renderer is in use because the original 7.1 mix is not being used at all anymore. No height information, but not what the standard 7.1 channel mix contained either.


----------



## thomasphoenix

JonFo said:


> Actually, you'd be surprised how 'natural' it is to hear a movie over headphones, I even forgot I was wearing them and startled myself when trying to scratch my head and ran into the A16 head tracker attached to my cans.
> 
> 
> 
> With a personalized PRIR, the A16 is truly amazing, as noted above, I forget I'm wearing headphones after 10 or so minutes of watching a movie.
> When I compare the A16 to the Apple AirPods Max, the benefits of having my own HRTF (plus the 'sound' of my own HT) are quite noticeable. But still, the APM is a marvel for what it can do.
> 
> My preference though is to listen to music and movies on the 5.4.4 Home Theater system, as it just has such cool dynamics; 78 square feet of radiating surfaces, including an Infinite Baffle sub, is kind of hard to replicate over headphones.


I have a 7.2.4 system with 7 towers, Twin Subs and 4 Atmos speakers. Yes the physical bass and the actual space is a definite factor that gives an edge to a good system, Not to mention paired to a 65 Oled. Unfortunately since our daughter was born, and her bedroom being right next to the theater area, my HT is only used very very rarely . Smyth Realiser A16 sort of makes me miss it less.


----------



## ppasteur

thomasphoenix said:


> I have a 7.2.4 system with 7 towers, Twin Subs and 4 Atmos speakers. Yes the physical bass and the actual space is a definite factor that gives an edge to a good system, Not to mention paired to a 65 Oled. Unfortunately since our daughter was born, and her bedroom being right next to the theater area, my HT is only used very very rarely . Smyth Realiser A16 sort of makes me miss it less.


I would love to try the A16 sometime. I have tried most other headphone virtualizer applications (not the Apple version yet) and they all fall short of listening to my systems speakers. Nothing I have tried comes close to the enveloping sound field produced by the speakers. BTW, I even have speaker taps set for zone 2 on my Denon so I can listen to anything I play on the system. I love my headphones (I literally have 15 sets around here) for stereo listening, But I generally can't just forget I have them on my head. Even the best ones end up making my ears hot and eventually cause pressure discomfort. About an hour or two is the most that I can tolerate them. Not long enough for a full movie in most cases.
I agree though, if using my main system was limited, I would certainly learn to tolerate the headphones. If I ever get to this stage, I will have to dig deeper into the A16.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> Sanjay, one aspect of your explanation that I do not understand is the apparent contradiction in the above two highlighted statements.


I should have clarified between 5.1 playback vs 5.1 playback *+* virtualization. Full decoding is needed for virtualization to separate base layer info from height info, since only the latter gets height processing. This applies even if you are playing back using only 2 speakers. Another application that needs full decoding is headphone virtualization, for the same reason mentioned, even though the final output is 2 channels.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> If the Dolby decoder is not turned on, there is no possibility of any object information to be "downmixed". It surely seems to me that this is a different situations versus 7 to 5, or 2 channel downmixing where no object based components are present or are involved.


When downmixing 7 to 5, location information is maintained: i.e., Side channel and Rear channel info is kept in the surround field, not re-located to speakers up front. The re-location is unavoidable when downmixing to 2 speakers, but even Atmos can't avoid that. Maintaining the location of sounds, to whatever extent possible, has been part of downmixing prior to Atmos and object-based audio.


> I was pleased to read what Bat Pig posted including captures of Dolby documentation that showed that it not only is possible, but it is the way the system works, by design.


The post you linked to was talking more about "spatial coding", which is Dolby's tricky label for clustering of objects (and channels).


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Please read this from the link I posted above:
> 
> *"*When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects.*"*


So there is a 7.1 mix in Atmos soundtracks. Are you saying that this imbedded 7.1 mix sounds different from fully decoding the Atmos track and downmixing it to 7.1?


----------



## Kain

As far as I know, games are nearly fully object-based regardless of whether or not they support Atmos as everything depends on your position to things in the game world. As a result, if a game supports Atmos, will it use as many channels as you can throw at it?


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> When downmixing 7 to 5, location information is maintained: i.e., Side channel and Rear channel info is kept in the surround field, not re-located to speakers up front. The re-location is unavoidable when downmixing to 2 speakers, but even Atmos can't avoid that. Maintaining the location of sounds, to whatever extent possible, has been part of downmixing prior to Atmos and object-based audio. The post you linked to was talking more about "spatial coding", which is Dolby's tricky label for clustering of objects (and channels).


Location information is not there because the speaker is not there. The audio is mixed into the existing speakers, yes, but the location information is no longer there. If a sound was intended to be coming from the surround back left and there is no speaker there it can be mixed into the surround left, but the intended location information is lost. So maybe it is semantics, but though the _audio_ information is maintained (mixed and lowered in level according to the algorithm), the _positiona_l information is lost. Does this make sense?

Bat Pig was responding to what seems to be a mistaken idea that the base layer and objects are disconnected. He shows how Dolby handles this and how they refer to it. Spatial coding is what Atmos does, Objects are how they do it. The point(and what he states clearly) is that when the Atmos renderer is in play, there is no distinction between base layer and height speakers. They act as a system. Take away the heights, and the 7 channels still use objects to steer sound when the engine is in play. This even though the vertical or height data component cannot be represented.


----------



## Blade 77

Hello, i would like to ask you something. When playing a movie which is in True HD format, shouldnt i had to get some overhead effects? I ask this because i had to enable Atmos to get my heights working. The same goes for DTS MA?


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> So there is a 7.1 mix in Atmos soundtracks. Are you saying that this imbedded 7.1 mix sounds different from fully decoding the Atmos track and downmixing it to 7.1?


Yes there is a marked difference in the sound when manually enabling or Disabling the Atmos renderer. This is because, from what I have learned, there is no "downmixing" in the classical sense.
The TrueHD 7.1 track is there and when the engine is disabled, this is what I get. No downmixing. When the Atmos renderer is in place, again it is not the classical downmixing at all. Objects are used (remember the objects used in the spatial audio discussion?) but limited to the available number of speakers. But the processing is not the same. (as you know TrueHD 7.1 uses 7 discrete channels, nothing to downmix in a 7 channel system) The object metadata is not "downmixed" per se. It is processed and represented by steering objects within the number of speakers in available. Of course, minus what would be in the height speakers. So, if this is true, and I believe it is, then the actual signals going to the speakers is different when Atmos processing is in play versus when using TrueHd (or DD+) 7.1. 
BTW, as mentioned, With anything less than 7 channels configured, the Atmos renderer will not engage...


----------



## Blade 77

Does DTS MA / Core contain information for height channels?


----------



## dschulz

Blade 77 said:


> Hello, i would like to ask you something. When playing a movie which is in True HD format, shouldnt i had to get some overhead effects? I ask this because i had to enable Atmos to get my heights working. The same goes for DTS MA?





Blade 77 said:


> Does DTS MA / Core contain information for height channels?


No, basic TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both 7.1 formats with no height channels. It's Dolby Atmos and DTS:X that include height information.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> Yes there is a marked difference in the sound when manually enabling or Disabling the Atmos renderer. This is because, from what I have learned, there is no "downmixing" in the classical sense.
> The TrueHD 7.1 track is there and when the engine is disabled, this is what I get. No downmixing. When the Atmos renderer is in place, again it is not the classical downmixing at all. Objects are used (remember the objects used in the spatial audio discussion?) but limited to the available number of speakers. But the processing is not the same. (as you know TrueHD 7.1 uses 7 discrete channels, nothing to downmix in a 7 channel system) The object metadata is not "downmixed" per se. It is processed and represented by steering objects within the number of speakers in available. Of course, minus what would be in the height speakers. So, if this is true, and I believe it is, then the actual signals going to the speakers is different when Atmos processing is in play versus when using TrueHd (or DD+) 7.1.
> BTW, as mentioned, With anything less than 7 channels configured, the Atmos renderer will not engage...


I meant to ask earlier (and I'm sure you've mentioned this upthread somewhere), but what is your speaker configuration? 7.1 without Wides, 5.1+Wides etc.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> So maybe it is semantics, but though the _audio_ information is maintained (mixed and lowered in level according to the algorithm), the _positiona_l information is lost.


Maybe it will make more sense if I give an example. Dolby's instructions for downmixing 7 to 5 is to mix each Surround-Back channel 2/3 into the adjacent Surround speaker and 1/3 into the opposite Surround speaker. When playing back 7 channels over 5 speakers, each Surround channel will image along the sides while the Surround-Back channels will phantom image behind you (between the Surround speakers), thereby maintaining the intended locations of those sounds. Maybe you don't think of that as maintaining positional information? In any case, this attempt to maintain intended location isn't something new that was introduced with object-based audio.


> Spatial coding is what Atmos does, Objects are how they do it.


Spatial coding is clustering of nearby sounds (objects and channels) to save bandwidth. Once those sounds are combined, there is no un-combining them (there is no spatial *de*coding).


> Take away the heights, and the 7 channels still use objects to steer sound when the engine is in play.


Then why include a 7.1 mix?


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> I meant to ask earlier (and I'm sure you've mentioned this upthread somewhere), but what is your speaker configuration? 7.1 without Wides, 5.1+Wides etc.


Yes 7.2. Though I have played with up firing speakers on loan. They don't work well with my old popcorn ceiling. But for the purposes of this discussion it is 7 matched speakers at ear level (all from the same manufacturer) and dual subs. No wides. (though not like the ceilings, that I can't do, I have thought about trying, at least as an experiment).


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> Yes 7.2. Though I have played with up firing speakers on loan. They don't work well with my old popcorn ceiling. But for the purposes of this discussion it is 7 matched speakers at ear level (all from the same manufacturer) and dual subs. No wides. (though not like the ceilings, that I can't do, I have thought about trying, at least as an experiment).


And what AVR are you using, that allows you to enable Atmos decoding with just the 7 base level speakers?


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Maybe it will make more sense if I give an example. Dolby's instructions for downmixing 7 to 5 is to mix each Surround-Back channel 2/3 into the adjacent Surround speaker and 1/3 into the opposite Surround speaker. When playing back 7 channels over 5 speakers, each Surround channel will image along the sides while the Surround-Back channels will phantom image behind you (between the Surround speakers), thereby maintaining the intended locations of those sounds. Maybe you don't think of that as maintaining positional information? In any case, this attempt to maintain intended location isn't something new that was introduced with object-based audio. Spatial coding is clustering of nearby sounds (objects and channels) to save bandwidth. Once those sounds are combined, there is no un-combining them (there is no spatial *de*coding). Then why include a 7.1 mix?


Yes they combine the objects from the master into groups to save bandwidth at the expense of precision. But the renderer uses encoded objects to represent the resulting up to 16 elements. Yes?
So I have no illusions about recovering the original up to 128 channels of data. But I don't think I ever said that I thought that a possibility. You seem to digress a bit.
The discussion, or so I thought, was whether 7 channels are treated differently when the Atmos renderer is engaged versus when it is not.

Why the original 7.1 track without dependence on any metadata? Well not everyone has an Atmos capable processor for playback. Why do most sources include a base layer of 5.1? 
Sometimes we forget that the people that post here are in a small minority that have the capability, or even care about Atmos. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the marketers.


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> And what AVR are you using, that allows you to enable Atmos decoding with just the 7 base level speakers?


It is a Denon X6400H. But from everything I have read, this is a common feature for any Denon/Marantz receiver with Atmos decoders built in.
My Denon X3400H in a bedroom system does the same thing.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Maybe it will make more sense if I give an example. Dolby's instructions for downmixing 7 to 5 is to mix each Surround-Back channel 2/3 into the adjacent Surround speaker and 1/3 into the opposite Surround speaker. When playing back 7 channels over 5 speakers, each Surround channel will image along the sides while the Surround-Back channels will phantom image behind you (between the Surround speakers), thereby (_insert:trying to_) maintaining the intended locations of those sounds. Maybe you don't think of that as _maintaining positional information? _In any case, _this attempt _to maintain intended location isn't something new that was introduced with object-based audio.


The positional information is not preserved or maintained , it is synthesized...meaning approximated. So sure it is an_ attempt, using an algorithm to reconstruct something that is no longer really there._
With varying success... Why was DD 5.1 with discrete channels hailed as such an improvement over matrixed surround ? The latter being done in a similar fashion as the down converting you mention.
BTW, I consider this a cordial give and take discussion. I hope that you do too. It does me good to think about these things and write them down.


----------



## junh1024

Blade 77 said:


> Hello, i would like to ask you something. When playing a movie which is in True HD format, shouldnt i had to get some overhead effects? I ask this because i had to enable Atmos to get my heights working. The same goes for DTS MA?


Are you referring to DSU upmix?



dschulz said:


> No, basic TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both 7.1 formats with no height channels. It's Dolby Atmos and DTS:X that include height information.


No. Encoding 512 is possible , but I haven't seen it on commercial titles.


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> Why the original 7.1 track without dependence on any metadata? Well not everyone has an Atmos capable processor for playback. Why do most sources include a base layer of 5.1?


The AC3 track (on BD) is For legacy compatibility & spec compliance reasons.



dschulz said:


> I don't have an explanation for why it should sound any different, but I stand by my assertion that it _shouldn't_. Look at it this this way - why would an Atmos mix rendered to 7.1 be any different than a mix that was created for 7.1 in the first place?





ppasteur said:


> You tell me. I just know that the sound field changes significantly using 7.1 with Atmos engaged versus when it is manually disabled


Yeah it shouldn't sound too different. There could be a bunch of reasons like decoding the AC3 track, virtualization, AVR DSP, pan law, etc. But

But , Are you hearing differences* on streaming?*



dschulz said:


> If you have a 5.1 setup + height virtualization, you now have a 5.1.2 setup, it's just that the 2 height channels are virtual. So now the Atmos decoder has something to do (render to the [virtual] height channels).


Could it be virtualizing to 514?



dschulz said:


> . Are all DDP Atmos streams 5.1 bases, or is this left to the discretion of the mixers or mastering engineers? And is it possible to have an Atmos stream with a 5.1 base in TrueHD, or is the 7.1 base mandatory?


DDP Atmos is (almost ) always a 51 legacy core for streaming. It's possible to have a 71 legacy core, you can find examples on the 2016 demo disc. Not sure about THD, but I'm guessing it's 71 core only, unless you also bind a separate 51 mix, which no-one does (AC3 core aside).



sdurani said:


> Maybe it will make more sense if I give an example. Dolby's instructions for downmixing 7 to 5 is to mix each Surround-Back channel 2/3 into the adjacent Surround speaker and 1/3 into the opposite Surround speaker.


That might be the behavior for 7>5 on a Atmos AVR, what's the behavior for older AVRs?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Blade 77 said:


> Does DTS MA / Core contain information for height channels?


No.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

dschulz said:


> And what AVR are you using, that allows you to enable Atmos decoding with just the 7 base level speakers?


I’ve been wondering that too…


----------



## dschulz

junh1024 said:


> Could it be virtualizing to 514?


Good point, it could be, since the surround speakers could be outputting virtual rear heights. Now I'm curious as to whether it is doing that.


----------



## dschulz

ppasteur said:


> BTW, I consider this a cordial give and take discussion. I hope that you do too. It does me good to think about these things and write them down.


Same. I find myself wishing I could get together IRL with @Sanjay and @batpig to sort this out.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> The discussion, or so I thought, was whether 7 channels are treated differently when the Atmos renderer is engaged versus when it is not.


Wouldn't that depend on whether the embedded 7.1 track was a downmix from the Atmos mix or a separate 7.1 mix?


ppasteur said:


> I consider this a cordial give and take discussion. I hope that you do too.


Yes, no one participating in this discussion has been anything less than cordial (and I'm updating my knowledge along the way).


----------



## sdurani

junh1024 said:


> That might be the behavior for 7>5 on a Atmos AVR, what's the behavior for older AVRs?


Varies by manufacturer. For example: Dolby can recommend their bass management scheme but manufacturers (like Lexicon) used their proprietary approach. With downmixing, some manufacturers simply combined each Surround-Back channel with its adjacent Surround channel while other manufacturers followed Dolby's recommendation (which started with DD+, prior to Atmos).


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I find myself wishing I could get together IRL with @Sanjay and @batpig to sort this out.


Invite him to our next (virtual) SoCal home theatre meet. He's nearby in San Diego.


----------



## Bai Shen

I just added upfiring atmos speakers to my 5.1 setup. How do I tell what content will use them? Do I look for 7.1? 5.1 Atmos?

Is there a good scene to test them with? I noticed Loki shows Atmos on my Denon but I don't know if that means it's using the speakers or not as from what I can tell Disney+ is 5.1 only.

Thanks.


----------



## chi_guy50

dschulz said:


> Good point, it could be, since the surround speakers could be outputting virtual rear heights. Now I'm curious as to whether it is doing that.


That is what Yamaha claims their upcoming RX-A8A/6A models will allow via the surround back speakers:











N.B. While the Yamaha marketing materials refer to "Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization," the user manuals do not use this term. Instead, the setting is dubbed Dolby Speaker Virtualization.


----------



## Blade 77

dschulz said:


> No, basic TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both 7.1 formats with no height channels. It's Dolby Atmos and DTS:X that include height information.


Thanks a lot.


----------



## ppasteur

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’ve been wondering that too…


See above. Denon X6400H and X3400H. But this is common to All recent Atmos capable Denon/Marantz receivers.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ppasteur said:


> See above. Denon X6400H and X3400H. But this is common to All recent Atmos capable Denon/Marantz receivers.


I’ve been following this for awhile. I have a Marantz 6012. Configuration is 7.x.4. My confusion was/is how the AVR would use the Atmos decoder without an appropriate speaker configuration. As in, if their aren’t speakers available to send height, or XYZ info to, the sounds just stay in the bed layer as regular channel information, since the AVR knows there’s nowhere to send the decoded metadata to. I fully admit that this conversation could be way over my head, but I always thought(maybe mistakenly so) that everything from source to speaker had to support Atmos for it to work at all. Including appropriate speaker setup. Maybe not?
In any case happy Father’s Day to all the dads in here.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> ...get together IRL with @Sanjay...


Was wondering why I didn't get alerted to this post and just now noticed that you tagged my first name instead of my AVS user name. Somewhere in New Delhi is an AVS member who last logged in 5 months ago and is wondering why he got a 'mention' alert for this discussion.


----------



## MagnumX

AFAIK, Atmos does not include the original bed soundtrack that isn't being MOVED. That is why the Meta layer takes up somewhat _less_ space than the base layer. The sounds that are to be removed/moved from the base layer are phase-canceled from that layer and then repositioned using the renderer. Things that are not being moved stay in the base layer. Whether the renderer considers those channels "objects" or not is moot for functionality. There is no point in putting left/right main sounds in the meta layer if they are to remain in the left/right main speakers. There would be no point in including the base layer if the meta layer contained "everything". You might as well just include "Atmos" as a separate soundtrack layer that older receivers cannot see if that were the case and include a 2nd TrueHD or DD+ soundtrack for older equipment. But they save space by only carrying "Atmos positioned" in the meta layer.

AFAIK, i there is a sound in the front/left main layer that is meant for front height, it is phase-canceled (removed) from that layer and placed into the height layer using whatever available speakers you might have (which may not accurately represent the spatial data contained in the meta data for the objects in question. The renderer has to make certain choices based on its programming including whether to put an object in the front height instead of rear height despite the fact the rear surrounds are closer (which is EXACTLY what it does). It prioritizes overhead information to that layer rather than just anywhere even if it's closer. You can easily verify this with any number of Dolby Atmos demos by turning off various overhead speakers. 

If the Atmos decoder is not activated, then it uses the base layer TrueHD or DD+ layer in an identical way to prior decoders before Atmos. That would mean DD+ 5.1 based Atmos tracks would _not_ use the rear surround speakers that they would use in Atmos mode. It would be 5.1 only. I can't speak to every decoder, but my Marantz 7012 most certainly DOES activate "Atmos" for 7.1 only configurations. Many Dolby 5.1 DD+ demos have rear surround effects identical to the TrueHD 7.1 base version and with the Atmos decoder on, they image in the exact same locations in an audible sense. This is also easily verified here.


----------



## deano86

ppasteur said:


> It is a Denon X6400H. But from everything I have read, this is a common feature for any Denon/Marantz receiver with Atmos decoders built in.
> My Denon X3400H in a bedroom system does the same thing.


I am sorry, but I am still confused by how you are decoding the Atmos soundtrack without having height speakers enabled? Without any height or Atmos enabled speakers enabled, the receiver will only decode the base 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack is the only thing that I am aware of. What feature are you exactly using on your receiver to accomplish this? Would love to see a screen shot of your Denon Info screen during this...


----------



## ppasteur

deano86 said:


> I am sorry, but I am still confused by how you are decoding the Atmos soundtrack without having height speakers enabled? Without any height or Atmos enabled speakers enabled, the receiver will only decode the base 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack is the only thing that I am aware of. What feature are you exactly using on your receiver to accomplish this? Would love to see a screen shot of your Denon Info screen during this...


Please refer to the previous ten or so posts. The Denon WILL allow the Atmos decoder to engage when 7 or more speakers are connected and delineated during setup.
From there, the ATMOS engine does what it does using the available speakers.


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> AFAIK, Atmos does not include the original bed soundtrack that isn't being MOVED. That is why the Meta layer takes up somewhat _less_ space than the base layer. The sounds that are to be removed/moved from the base layer are phase-canceled from that layer and then repositioned using the renderer. Things that are not being moved stay in the base layer. Whether the renderer considers those channels "objects" or not is moot for functionality. There is no point in putting left/right main sounds in the meta layer if they are to remain in the left/right main speakers. There would be no point in including the base layer if the meta layer contained "everything". You might as well just include "Atmos" as a separate soundtrack layer that older receivers cannot see if that were the case and include a 2nd TrueHD or DD+ soundtrack for older equipment. But they save space by only carrying "Atmos positioned" in the meta layer.
> 
> AFAIK, i there is a sound in the front/left main layer that is meant for front height, it is phase-canceled (removed) from that layer and placed into the height layer using whatever available speakers you might have (which may not accurately represent the spatial data contained in the meta data for the objects in question. The renderer has to make certain choices based on its programming including whether to put an object in the front height instead of rear height despite the fact the rear surrounds are closer (which is EXACTLY what it does). It prioritizes overhead information to that layer rather than just anywhere even if it's closer. You can easily verify this with any number of Dolby Atmos demos by turning off various overhead speakers.
> 
> If the Atmos decoder is not activated, then it uses the base layer TrueHD or DD+ layer in an identical way to prior decoders before Atmos. That would mean DD+ 5.1 based Atmos tracks would _not_ use the rear surround speakers that they would use in Atmos mode. It would be 5.1 only. I can't speak to every decoder, but my Marantz 7012 most certainly DOES activate "Atmos" for 7.1 only configurations. Many Dolby 5.1 DD+ demos have rear surround effects identical to the TrueHD 7.1 base version and with the Atmos decoder on, they image in the exact same locations in an audible sense. This is also easily verified here.


AFAIK is the operative here. I don't think that you do know. Can you provide any documentation that supports any of this conjecture. Or is it somehow just intuition and guessing? I see no mention anywhere of phase cancellation in the description of how the Atmos engine functions, under any circumstance.
Information posted above from the Dolby Developers site does not support any of these guesses. Just sayin...
So many profess to know that the renderer does, but few actually do. After all it is a proprietary system. My hypothesis is that the engine represents objects with the available speakers. Which, regardless of the specifics what the engine is doing, is clearly different than how TrueHD 7.1 is handled by the same 7 speakers without the decoder engaged.. So if I am wrong, please show me precisely where I am wrong and why. Not opinions, OR AFAIK statements, but verifiable facts about how the system actually functions under the described conditions. As I have said, I keep an open mind, but cannot be convinced by opinions not based in facts that I can verify through available documentation.


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> AFAIK is the operative here. I don't think that you do know. Can you provide any documentation that supports any of this conjecture. Or is it somehow just intuition and guessing? I see no mention anywhere of phase cancellation in the description of how the Atmos engine functions, *under any circumstance*.
> 
> *Information posted above from the Dolby Developers site does not support any of these guesses*. Just sayin...


While Dolby does not use the phrase "phase cancellation" I cannot interpret any other meaning by what they did say. I've discussed this in the past with someone and that was my interpretation then as well. If someone has a better explanation, I'd like to hear it. The size of the files does not support the notion that the metadata layer alone is the entire Dolby Atmos soundtrack with all objects included (base channels as well) nor would that make sense form an efficiency standpoint. 

As an example, I just remuxed the soundtrack for *Godzilla Vs. Kong* on the 3D Blu-Ray to have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack (It comes with the DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack instead). The Dolby Atmos soundtrack is approximately 400MB larger than the DTS-HD MA 7.1 only soundtrack (2.99GB versus 2.63GB) with the 5.1 Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 backwards compatible cores removed. Thus, the Atmos soundtrack is only 12% larger than the DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack. If it included a copy of the entire bed soundtrack, how on Earth could the entire soundtrack with the TrueHD 7.1 backwards compatible bitstream only be 12% larger? If it only contained objects that are not present in the base layer locations (Atmos objects), then it could easily be a small fraction of the total. But that means it _must_ derive the rest of the soundtrack from the base layer bitstream channels.

I'll quote the parts I _believe_ (why I said AFAIK) belong to this idea. It says metadata is included to reverse (phase cancel/extract) and _recreate_ the original spatial objects. It does not say it renders the Atmos mix solely from the Atmos included spatial objects. It must *recreate* them first using the metadata instructions and then render the output according to your home layout. 

I quote from the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide (page 265):

_As a result of the clustering process, spatial coding never discards any of the original objects. Instead, it compresses the original spatial information of the original Dolby Atmos mix to create a set of signals that can be encoded with existing Core Audio codecs for consumer delivery. The mixing is a pure linear wide-band combination that preserves the energy of all of the original inputs, *without any form of waveform*. 

Dolby TrueHD: In this case, the spatially coded objects are losslessly delivered to consumer playback devices. Typically, the Dolby TrueHD encoder creates a *bitstream* *containing the spatially coded objects*, a *7.1-channel render of the objects, and 5.1-channel and 2-channel downmixes*. The 7.1-, 5.1-, and 2-channel presentations are backward-compatible with legacy Dolby TrueHD decoders. *A Dolby Atmos-capable Dolby TrueHD decoder losslessly reverses the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects*. Dolby TrueHD also supports independent 7.1-, 5.1-, and 2-channel presentations of 7.1.

Dolby Digital Plus: In this case, the spatially coded objects are rendered to a backwards compatible 5.1 or 7.1 core mix and side *metadata is generated to extract the individual objects from the mix*. The core mix is encoded with Dolby Digital Plus in a backward compatible manner and can be played back directly by older Dolby Digital Plus decoders. This is a lossy process due to the downmixing process, as well as the subsequent lossy coding of the base mix._


*Attached Links:*

Here's Dolby's Atmos Rendering Engine Guide in PDF: HERE (This will also answer things like what choices a mixing engineer has for rendering channel-only based mixes such a 7.1 mix for a 3D Blu-Ray that could be different from the Atmos 7.1 bed track. It's a LONG read.)

-If anyone wants to read how downmixing metadata is determined with Dolby Digital signals (and also applies to 5.1 downmixes from 7.1 and 2.1 downmixes and binaural) and the like here's a guide straight from Dolby HERE



> So many profess to know that the renderer does, but few actually do. After all it is a proprietary system. *My hypothesis* is that the engine represents objects with the available speakers. Which, regardless of the specifics what the engine is doing, is clearly different than how TrueHD 7.1 is handled by the same 7 speakers without the decoder engaged.. So if I am wrong, please show me precisely where I am wrong and why. *Not opinions, OR AFAIK statements, but verifiable facts* about how the system actually functions under the described conditions. As I have said, I keep an open mind, but cannot be convinced by opinions not based in facts that I can verify through available documentation.


Your _hypothesis_? So who's actually _guessing_ now? The bold text is what I find hypocritical. You apparently believe you are allowed to guess (hypothesis), but you apparently demand anyone else's posts provide absolute proof? 

While I do not claim my interpretation of the above Dolby provided information is _absolute_ as the wording chosen does not describe "how" it reverses the information or extract the objects from the Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, but it seems clear to me the only way you can remove samples from an existing waveform is through targeted cancellation knowing the waveform needed (object stream) and then removing it to recreate the bed layer without it, which Atmos then converts to an object before the final render. This is consistent with the relatively small size increase of the Atmos soundtracks compared to the non-Atmos renders (i.e. Again in the case of Godzilla Vs. Kong, it is only 12% larger).

If there's a better explanation of what those words mean, I'm open to hearing it. If it actually contained the entire Atmos soundtrack, as I interpret your claims to indicate, should the Atmos metadata not be LARGER than the base layer rather than smaller?


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> the sound field changes significantly using 7.1 with Atmos engaged versus when it is manually disabled.


_Is this for streaming Atmos?_



MagnumX said:


> While Dolby does not use the phrase "phase cancellation" I cannot interpret any other meaning by what they did say.


I think subtract would be a better word.



MagnumX said:


> If it included a copy of the entire bed soundtrack, how on Earth could the entire soundtrack with the TrueHD 7.1 backwards compatible bitstream only be 12% larger?


THD Atmos is usually has bitreduction so it's about 25% smaller than expected. Height activity is usually less than ELL activity and i'd expect it to take about 1/3 of the total size.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

umenon said:


> I have a ATV 4K, FTV 4K, Roku 4K, LG OLED 4K ... in my setup. What is the best way to play downloaded Atmos content? I am told Plex Client will play them as PCM 7.1. Any suggestions? Thanks.


Just install MrMC from the Apple store on the ATV. It is a version of Kodi that can't run pirate plugins and as such permitted by Apple.


----------



## AYanguas

I think the interpretation of how the Atmos encoding/decoding works can be summarized in these following few words, based on what I have read from ‘posts’ and from ‘official’ documents:

A Dolby Atmos encoded track contains several things (or layers, or whatever you may call them):
A 7.1 multichannel track
A 5.1 multichannel track
A 2.0 stereo track
Sound Objects with Metadata (locations)

When Atmos decoder is not engaged, by AVR configuration or because it is not available, the AVR just plays the supported ‘track’, either 7.1, 5,1 or 2.0
When Atmos decoder is engaged, the decoder ‘subtracts’ each ‘Sound Object’ from the ‘core’ 7.1 track, and then renders it according to the location metadata to the available configured speakers, the best it can to ‘locate’ that sound object.
Think about ‘Sound objects’ and its location. The location can be everywhere in the room, even at the floor level. Do not think that the Atmos Objects goes only to height ceiling.

Of course, this is a simple explanation. Different processes could exist depending on use of TrueHD or DD+, or the configuration and settings of the tools used to encode the Atmos track.

When a production release contains an Atmos track but also a different 7.1 track, the stand-alone 7.1 track may be there because it could be a different ‘artistic’ mix than the one ‘core’ embedded in the Atmos track.

That’s all. I think this is very understandable and is consistent with the track file sizes, and other listening evidence that we observe.


----------



## sdurani

AYanguas said:


> Think about ‘Sound objects’ and its location. The location can be everywhere in the room, even at the floor level. Do not think that the Atmos Objects goes only to height ceiling.


Objects cannot be located below the base layer, which is typically around ear height.


----------



## AYanguas

sdurani said:


> Objects cannot be located below the base layer, which is typically around ear height.


Yes. By 'floor level' I wanted to say 'floor speakers level'.
If I understand well this means that the object location cannot be below the floor speakers (i.e. the 7.1). But they can still be located at the same level of the base 7.1 speakers. Is that right?

Only Sony 360 Reality Audio, with discrete speakers installation (Is that already commercially released?), would be able to locate sounds below ear level, with some speakers at the floor directly below the Frontals. Without any special psicoacustics processing, or floor reflections, Sound below ear requires speaker below ear.


----------



## dschulz

AYanguas said:


> A Dolby Atmos encoded track contains several things (or layers, or whatever you may call them):
> A 7.1 multichannel track
> A 5.1 multichannel track
> A 2.0 stereo track
> Sound Objects with Metadata (locations)
> 
> When Atmos decoder is not engaged, by AVR configuration or because it is not available, the AVR just plays the supported ‘track’, either 7.1, 5,1 or 2.0
> When Atmos decoder is engaged, the decoder ‘subtracts’ each ‘Sound Object’ from the ‘core’ 7.1 track, and then renders it according to the location metadata to the available configured speakers, the best it can to ‘locate’ that sound object.


This is succinct and, I believe, accurate. I think the narrow point of contention we've been discussing is this:

If you have a standard 7.1 layout, and the Atmos renderer subtracts the objects and renders them, does it:

a) Render them back to exactly where they were in the first place
b) Render them someplace slightly differently, based on the positional metadata and the way the renderer treats the channels as objects and uses spatial encoding to cluster the objects and channels together

If we can get clarity on this I think the mystery will be solved.


----------



## sdurani

AYanguas said:


> Yes. By 'floor level' I wanted to say 'floor speakers level'.
> If I understand well this means that the object location cannot be below the floor speakers (i.e. the 7.1). But they can still be located at the same level of the base 7.1 speakers. Is that right?


Yes, that is correct. Allow me to be tragically technical for a moment to separate "floor" from "base layer". The Atmos format is 3 layers: floor, base (listener), height. 









The ONLY reason the floor layer exists is to signify that it is not the base layer. Dolby wanted to make it clear that sounds cannot be placed below the base layer and that the base layer is away from the floor. Despite that, every time I've spoken to Dolby reps, they've used the terms "floor speakers" and "height speakers". So you're in good company when you say floor speakers.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> If you have a standard 7.1 layout, and the Atmos renderer subtracts the objects and renders them, does it:
> 
> a) Render them back to exactly where they were in the first place
> b) Render them someplace slightly differently, based on the positional metadata and the way the renderer treats the channels as objects and uses spatial encoding to cluster the objects and channels together


Seems a waste of DSP to unpack the objects and render them back to exactly where they were in the 7.1 mix. Why not just decode the 7.1 mix? Rendering them someplace slightly different would indicate that the 7.1 mix is not a downmix of the Atmos track.


----------



## ppasteur

junh1024 said:


> _Is this for streaming Atmos?_
> 
> I think subtract would be a better word.
> 
> THD Atmos is usually has bitreduction so it's about 25% smaller than expected. Height activity is usually less than ELL activity and i'd expect it to take about 1/3 of the total size.


It is for anything that contains Atmos and that I have been able to compare by disabling and reenabling Atmos.


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> This is succinct and, I believe, accurate. I think the narrow point of contention we've been discussing is this:
> 
> If you have a standard 7.1 layout, and the Atmos renderer subtracts the objects and renders them, does it:
> 
> a) Render them back to exactly where they were in the first place
> b) Render them someplace slightly differently, based on the positional metadata and the way the renderer treats the channels as objects and uses spatial encoding to cluster the objects and channels together
> 
> If we can get clarity on this I think the mystery will be solved.


This is a quite good analysis of the question.
Though according to Bat Pig (and other info I have been able to find) once the Atmos engine is engaged, it does not use "channels" in the classic sense.
This:

When Atmos decoder is engaged, the decoder ‘subtracts’ each ‘Sound Object’ from the ‘core’ 7.1 track, and then renders it according to the location metadata to the *available configured* *speakers*, the best it can to ‘locate’ that sound object.
Is interesting. As I read it the renderer will use the available speakers (in my case 7) to best represent the location of the sound object. It sure does not specify that height speakers must be present. Also, if this is accurate, it would most certainly explain why the sound field would change when I engage the Atmos engine.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Seems a waste of DSP to unpack the objects and render them back to exactly where they were in the 7.1 mix. Why not just decode the 7.1 mix? Rendering them someplace slightly different would indicate that the 7.1 mix is not a downmix of the Atmos track.


I am relatively certain that the TrueHD/DD+ mix is not a downmix in the way we normally think of downmixing. It is a standalone track/mix and fully independent of Atmos. Only when the renderer is in play and it detects the Atmos metadata, is the track modified by the engine applying the additional positional information (using the available speakers).


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> While Dolby does not use the phrase "phase cancellation" I cannot interpret any other meaning by what they did say. I've discussed this in the past with someone and that was my interpretation then as well. If someone has a better explanation, I'd like to hear it. The size of the files does not support the notion that the metadata layer alone is the entire Dolby Atmos soundtrack with all objects included (base channels as well) nor would that make sense form an efficiency standpoint.
> 
> As an example, I just remuxed the soundtrack for *Godzilla Vs. Kong* on the 3D Blu-Ray to have the Dolby Atmos soundtrack (It comes with the DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack instead). The Dolby Atmos soundtrack is approximately 400MB larger than the DTS-HD MA 7.1 only soundtrack (2.99GB versus 2.63GB) with the 5.1 Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 backwards compatible cores removed. Thus, the Atmos soundtrack is only 12% larger than the DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack. If it included a copy of the entire bed soundtrack, how on Earth could the entire soundtrack with the TrueHD 7.1 backwards compatible bitstream only be 12% larger? If it only contained objects that are not present in the base layer locations (Atmos objects), then it could easily be a small fraction of the total. But that means it _must_ derive the rest of the soundtrack from the base layer bitstream channels.
> 
> I'll quote the parts I _believe_ (why I said AFAIK) belong to this idea. It says metadata is included to reverse (phase cancel/extract) and _recreate_ the original spatial objects. It does not say it renders the Atmos mix solely from the Atmos included spatial objects. It must *recreate* them first using the metadata instructions and then render the output according to your home layout.
> 
> I quote from the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide (page 265):
> 
> _As a result of the clustering process, spatial coding never discards any of the original objects. Instead, it compresses the original spatial information of the original Dolby Atmos mix to create a set of signals that can be encoded with existing Core Audio codecs for consumer delivery. The mixing is a pure linear wide-band combination that preserves the energy of all of the original inputs, *without any form of waveform*.
> 
> Dolby TrueHD: In this case, the spatially coded objects are losslessly delivered to consumer playback devices. Typically, the Dolby TrueHD encoder creates a *bitstream* *containing the spatially coded objects*, a *7.1-channel render of the objects, and 5.1-channel and 2-channel downmixes*. The 7.1-, 5.1-, and 2-channel presentations are backward-compatible with legacy Dolby TrueHD decoders. *A Dolby Atmos-capable Dolby TrueHD decoder losslessly reverses the downmixes and render to recreate the original spatially coded objects*. Dolby TrueHD also supports independent 7.1-, 5.1-, and 2-channel presentations of 7.1.
> 
> Dolby Digital Plus: In this case, the spatially coded objects are rendered to a backwards compatible 5.1 or 7.1 core mix and side *metadata is generated to extract the individual objects from the mix*. The core mix is encoded with Dolby Digital Plus in a backward compatible manner and can be played back directly by older Dolby Digital Plus decoders. This is a lossy process due to the downmixing process, as well as the subsequent lossy coding of the base mix._
> 
> 
> *Attached Links:*
> 
> Here's Dolby's Atmos Rendering Engine Guide in PDF: HERE (This will also answer things like what choices a mixing engineer has for rendering channel-only based mixes such a 7.1 mix for a 3D Blu-Ray that could be different from the Atmos 7.1 bed track. It's a LONG read.)
> 
> -If anyone wants to read how downmixing metadata is determined with Dolby Digital signals (and also applies to 5.1 downmixes from 7.1 and 2.1 downmixes and binaural) and the like here's a guide straight from Dolby HERE
> 
> 
> 
> Your _hypothesis_? So who's actually _guessing_ now? The bold text is what I find hypocritical. You apparently believe you are allowed to guess (hypothesis), but you apparently demand anyone else's posts provide absolute proof?
> 
> While I do not claim my interpretation of the above Dolby provided information is _absolute_ as the wording chosen does not describe "how" it reverses the information or extract the objects from the Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, but it seems clear to me the only way you can remove samples from an existing waveform is through targeted cancellation knowing the waveform needed (object stream) and then removing it to recreate the bed layer without it, which Atmos then converts to an object before the final render. This is consistent with the relatively small size increase of the Atmos soundtracks compared to the non-Atmos renders (i.e. Again in the case of Godzilla Vs. Kong, it is only 12% larger).
> 
> If there's a better explanation of what those words mean, I'm open to hearing it. If it actually contained the entire Atmos soundtrack, as I interpret your claims to indicate, should the Atmos metadata not be LARGER than the base layer rather than smaller?


Plenty of words, but none addressing the question at hand. I use hypothesis because I don't feel that my listening experience provides absolute proof of anything. I am asking a question here and getting other people's input. I am not sure that words like hypocritical have any place in a civil discussion. They really bring nothing to the discussion. In any case there is no hypocrisy, in accurately describing what I experience. Yes, if the hypothesis is to be disproved, I want facts not opinions. Facts that you still have not provided. You are arguing based on things like file sizes and speculation on what they mean, which are just not germane.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> I am relatively certain that the TrueHD/DD+ mix is not a downmix in the way we normally think of downmixing. It is a standalone track/mix and fully independent of Atmos. Only when the renderer is in play and it detects the Atmos metadata, is the track modified by the engine applying the additional positional information (using the available speakers).


IF the 7.1 mix is fully independent of the Atmos mix, then it cannot be taken apart to recover the original Atmos track because it didn't come from the Atmos track. I can understand the 7.1 track being a separate "artistic" mix, but then wouldn't there be 2 soundtracks rather than the 7.1 mix imbedded in the Atmos mix?


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> Plenty of words, but none addressing the question at hand. I use hypothesis because I don't feel that my listening experience provides absolute proof of anything. I am asking a question here and getting other people's input. I am not sure that words like hypocritical have any place in a civil discussion. They really bring nothing to the discussion. In any case there is no hypocrisy, in accurately describing what I experience. Yes, if the hypothesis is to be disproved, I want facts not opinions. *Facts that you still have not provided*. You are arguing based on things like file sizes and speculation on what they mean, which are just not germane.


I'm not sure demanding proof when you have none yourself belongs in a civil discussion. What you want is irrelevant when you refuse to do any work yourself. Even so, I took the time to look up and provide the _exact_ Dolby documents that address the issue and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind as an engineer. If you refuse to read or listen, it's on YOU. You've utterly wasted my time. I won't make the same mistake with you again.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> IF the 7.1 mix is fully independent of the Atmos mix, then it cannot be taken apart to recover the original Atmos track because it didn't come from the Atmos track. I can understand the 7.1 track being a separate "artistic" mix, but then wouldn't there be 2 soundtracks rather than the 7.1 mix imbedded in the Atmos mix?


I am pretty sure that it is not taken apart. In the Atmos renderer it does not exist. The sound field is fully constructed from the information contained in the metadata. So we don't get 7.1 (or 7.1.4) PLUS Atmos, we simply get ATMOS. If I am seeing this correctly, that is. This can be the case if the statements from Bat Pig are accepted, in that the 7.1 "channels" no longer logically exist with the Atmos engine doing the processing. So the hard part of me wrapping my head around this was to ditch the channel concept completely. Atmos tries to place specific sounds in space using the available speakers, but no longer using the "channel" model. Speakers and their placement become tools to position sound in space, not discrete channels. I think this is the hardest thing for people to understand as our thoughts on sound reproduction have been based on channels for ever. Conversely, when we use TrueHD 7.1, that is what we get. 7.1 "Channels" and sound that was mixed for discrete channels...


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> I won't make the same mistake with you again.


I sure hope that you do not think that this hurts my feelings!
However, this:


MagnumX said:


> If it actually contained the entire Atmos soundtrack, as I interpret your claims to indicate, should the Atmos metadata not be LARGER than the base layer rather than smaller?


Shows that you were not answering anything that I said or asked. I have never said the metadata was the entire sound track. What I said was that the audio processed by the engine is no longer the 7.1 mix. That renderer guide that you linked, and which I had previously read, says that when describing the system. They talk about a "BED " being all audio producers in the system (they use an example of 7.1.2). The bed audio as being a STEM, for building on for audio audio routing. (This is the full 7.1 soundtrack). They proceed to discuss routing in terms of "Speaker Zones", not channels. Routing is accomplished using the metadata applied to the bed audio which in turn contains the bulk of the audio data. So of course the metadata is smaller than the base audio track. But then I would never say anything else.
(as an aside, it sure would have been nice if they found a word other than BED to describe so many different things involved in processing)

So the bottom line is, again, you were responding to something I did not say, Or possibly something I said that you misinterpreted. There was this voluminous post with all kinds of great links, that had nothing to do with the current thread. Maybe impressively worded, but why?
Regardless, how does any of what you wrote help in understanding what the ATMOS engine does when it only has 7 speakers to deal with. Which is the point of this entire discussion.


----------



## AYanguas

Not related to the discussion about how Atmos decoder renders to 7 speakers, but it is a curiosity about the Atmos decoder engage/disengage/engage:

When listening to TIDAL Atmos from Fire TV 4K, when I press the remote button to navigate to other songs, without stopping the Atmos playing, I listen the typical loud ‘click’ sound as the remote arrow keys are pressed.

The Fire TV has to ‘mix’ the click sound with the Atmos playing, and during a short moment (one-two seconds) the ‘mix’ of Atmos+Click disengages the Atmos decoder. A sudden disappearance of the immersive bubble is heard, and you hear a kind of expanded stereo. Or perhaps it is the base core 7.1 as in the discussion? When the Atmos decoder engages after the click, suddenly the immersive bubble reappears again. Its is a very noticeable effect.

Just a curiosity.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> This is succinct and, I believe, accurate. I think the narrow point of contention we've been discussing is this:
> 
> If you have a standard 7.1 layout, and the Atmos renderer subtracts the objects and renders them, does it:
> 
> a) Render them back to exactly where they were in the first place
> b) Render them someplace slightly differently, based on the positional metadata and the way the renderer treats the channels as objects and uses spatial encoding to cluster the objects and channels together
> 
> If we can get clarity on this I think the mystery will be solved.


My understanding, based on being way too interested in how this all works and reading everything I can get my hands on:
1. The bed-layer channels get converted out to (mostly) static objects at the expected "ideal" speaker positions, with the exception of the L/R channels which get placed in the far left/right corners of the virtual room in case the renderer sees that you have Wides available in your array.
2. The objects in the metadata are extracted from adjacent channels (now objects) as needed using the same math used in the Dolby Surround upmixer, which you can find in their whitepaper, based on their XYZ coordinates. All of this is what maintains backwards compatibility using the same base 7.1 audio in the bitstream, without losing any of the intended audio from the mix.
3. Due to object grouping, if a dynamic object moving through the array necessitates it, the decoder can pull a bed-layer "static" object away from its expected position as needed to help steer the sound better within the array. You can see this happen on occasion in Trinnov's object viewer.
4. On basic AVRs where the actual speaker positions are generalized, this is all rendered based on the "ideal" positions of channels you have assigned. On more advanced systems where the system actually measures the angular relationships between the speakers, the renderer can use that data to more precisely steer the sound where it needs to be to match the virtual room of the mix. So for instance, if your rear surrounds are closer together than the ideal position, that rear surround channel data would actually be spilled into the side surrounds based on those angles so that the system is trying to image the sound for those channels (now objects) where they SHOULD be rather than where they actually physically are.

I hope the way I explained it was clear enough. But ultimately, the channel data is steered to where it should be in the room rather than necessarily "where it was in the first place".


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> It is for anything that contains Atmos and that I have been able to compare by disabling and reenabling Atmos.


Streaming Atmos has a DDP 51 core so would explain the imaging differences when you engage Atmos decoding.



ppasteur said:


> I am pretty sure that it is not taken apart. In the Atmos renderer it does not exist. The sound field is fully constructed from the information contained in the metadata. So we don't get 7.1 (or 7.1.4) PLUS Atmos, we simply get ATMOS. If I am seeing this correctly, that is. This can be the case if the statements from Bat Pig are accepted, in that the 7.1 "channels" no longer logically exist with the Atmos engine doing the processing


Only Atmos OBA exists AFTER the AVR has reconstructed the Atmos mix by combining the 71 core + Atmos extension. I'm not using the term metadata since metadata implies no audio, but the Atmos extension may have Audio.



ppasteur said:


> That renderer guide that you linked, and which I had previously read, says that the system. They talk about a "BED " being all audio producers in the system (they use an example of 7.1.2). The bed audio as being a STEM, for building on for audio audio routing. (This is the full 7.1 soundtrack). They proceed to discuss routing in terms of "Speaker Zones", not channels. Routing is accomplished using the metadata applied to the bed audio which in turn contains the bulk of the audio data. So of course the metadata is smaller than the base audio track.


Beds, stems, and zones (only) exist when you're mixing Atmos in the studio with up to 128 elements, and the bitrate is about 100mps for cinema. The content is sent as audio, and the position is sent as metadata to the renderer. There is no way 128 elements can be losslessly compressed to 16 elements @ 5-10mps for home delivery. This is why everything is downmixed to 16 elements/objects for home, and now only 16 objects + metadata exist for home (after Atmos decoding).

See pages 264-266 of the guide.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> I am pretty sure that it is not taken apart. In the Atmos renderer it does not exist.


Your info source batpig stated it as follows: _"When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects."_ The 7.1 mix cannot exist in the Atmos renderer to be "broken up" and at the same time not exist in the Atmos renderer. The Atmos renderer is either using the 7.1 mix or not using it, but not both simultaneously.


> So the hard part of me wrapping my head around this was to ditch the channel concept completely.


No need to ditch the channel concept completely. Dynamic objects can move around and be assigned any location in 3D space. But a static object that does not move AND is also assigned to a speaker location is essentially a channel (by any other name). Seems there are at least 7 of those (assigned to pre-defined canonical locations) in an Atmos mix. That's why early descriptions of home Atmos referred to it as 7.1 channel plus objects.


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> No need to ditch the channel concept completely. Dynamic objects can move around and be assigned any location in 3D space. But a static object that does not move AND is also assigned to a speaker location is essentially a channel (by any other name). Seems there are at least 7 of those (assigned to pre-defined canonical locations) in an Atmos mix. That's why early descriptions of home Atmos referred to it as 7.1 channel plus objects.


I have been wondering, how to interpret the layout MediaInfo reports about THD Atmos. It says a 16-channel presentation, but there is only 1 bed channel (LFE). Does it mean then, that the remaining 15 channels carry Atmos objects and 7 of them will be anchored to fixed coordinates, giving us the L, R, C, Ls, Rs, Lb and Rb "channels" + 11 dynamic objects?


----------



## ppasteur

junh1024 said:


> Streaming Atmos has a DDP 51 core so would explain the imaging differences when you engage Atmos decoding.


I don't follow this, can you explain what you mean? I see that the AVR is doing upconverting from 5.1 to 7.1, so that is a difference. But this is the same with or without Atmos.
So how would it explain the imaging difference based on the DPP 5.1 core. It still uses that core (though modified in the Atmos conversion process).



> Only Atmos OBA exists AFTER the AVR has reconstructed the Atmos mix by combining the 71 core + Atmos extension. I'm not using the term metadata since metadata implies no audio, but the Atmos extension may have Audio.


I don't know what OBA means, please let me know. But it does sound like it may be close to something I was trying to say. After Atmos processing the standalone 7 channel audio does not really exist in its original form. Is this correct?

BTW, thanks for the help in interpreting the guide info. But is the concepts are in use during encoding (maybe that is the wrong word, perhaps mastering is better). Are not the same _concepts_ in play during what you called "reconstruction"? Of course, within the constraints that you mention as to number of objects and available bandwidth.
Just trying to learn here...


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> On more advanced systems where the system actually measures the angular relationships between the speakers, the *renderer can use that data* to more precisely steer the sound where it needs to be to match the virtual room of the mix. So for instance, if your rear surrounds are closer together than the ideal position, that rear surround channel data would actually be spilled into the side surrounds based on those angles so that the system is trying to image the sound for those channels (now objects) where they SHOULD be rather than where they actually physically are.


That perfectly describes the Trinnov Re-mapping feature, but not Atmos. The renderer in the home version of Atmos has a look-up table of 34 pre-defined speaker locations: 24 in the base layer, 10 in the height layer. You're already familiar with them. These pre-defined speaker locations (rendering assumptions) cannot be replaced in the look-up table with angular measurements of the true locations of your speakers. There is no mechanism in Atmos to do that. As you said, Atmos works with x,y,z coordinates, so the system wouldn't know what to do with location information based on angular relationships between the speakers.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> Does it mean then, that the remaining 15 channels carry Atmos objects and 7 of them will be anchored to fixed coordinates, giving us the L, R, C, Ls, Rs, Lb and Rb "channels" + 11 dynamic objects?


If there are 11 dynamic objects, then that leaves only 4 static objects (channels) to add up to a total of 15. If there are 8 channels (LFE + 7 static objects) and 11 dynamic objects, that adds up to a total of 19.1. If it is 7.1 channels OR 11 objects + LFE (7.1.4), then it's strange that it says 16-channel presentation. So I don't quite know how to interpret that report.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Your info source batpig stated it as follows: _"When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects."_ The 7.1 mix cannot exist in the Atmos renderer to be "broken up" and at the same time not exist in the Atmos renderer. The Atmos renderer is either using the 7.1 mix or not using it, but not both simultaneously.


I read it differently. The 7.1 channel mix is no longer integral to the output. Therefor, even though it it used to build the output of the renderer it no longer exists as an individual part of the output (except perhaps as intended to locate specific sounds in space).
Maybe a crappy analogy, but if I am mixing cement, there is sand and gravel and cement powder that is mixed in the mixer with water. Once mixed and dried, none of those components are there as individual entities. It is just cement. ( as corrected, concrete)



> No need to ditch the channel concept completely. Dynamic objects can move around and be assigned any location in 3D space. But a static object that does not move AND is also assigned to a speaker location is essentially a channel (by any other name). _Seems there are at least 7 of those (assigned to pre-defined canonical locations) in an Atmos mix_. That's why early descriptions of home Atmos referred to it as 7.1 channel plus objects.


It does seem that when people are stuck on using a channel model when talking about Atmos, it is harder to understand the process. Atmos uses channels, but not so much as discrete channels in the standard sense. It uses them as sources to "paint" the location of sounds in space. So channels may describe the number of speakers, but channels is not the same as when audio was only produced using seven specific tracks of data.
As to the italicized text in your quote above, I agree, what I don't think is that the information for the 7 channels after decoding is the same as the corresponding_ "channel"_ information in the non-Atmos mix.

Again, this is just the way I am thinking about it today. Though the more I learn, the more it seems to hold together. I am not enough of an expert to say that anything I am writing is indisputable fact. Sort of throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> That perfectly describes the Trinnov Re-mapping feature, but not Atmos. The renderer in the home version of Atmos has a look-up table of 34 pre-defined speaker locations: 24 in the base layer, 10 in the height layer. You're already familiar with them. These pre-defined speaker locations (rendering assumptions) cannot be replaced in the look-up table with angular measurements of the true locations of your speakers. There is no mechanism in Atmos to do that. As you said, Atmos works with x,y,z coordinates, so the system wouldn't know what to do with location information based on angular relationships between the speakers.


But you left out an important part of what @Jeremy Anderson wrote:
"4. On basic AVRs where the actual speaker positions are _generalized_, this is all rendered based on the _"ideal"_ positions of channels you have assigned. "
So for Home Theater Atmos, a lot of generalization takes place. I suppose this ties into the discussions here about the importance of speaker placement. The closer the speakers are to the ideal positions, the closer the the algorithm comes to reconstructing the sound field correctly.

But I find something else Jeremy says to be interesting.
"1. The bed-layer channels get converted out to (mostly) static objects at the expected "ideal" speaker position"

I think the idea that the bed layer "_channels" "get converted out" to static objects_ to be supportive of the idea that those original "channels" no longer exist in their original form *after* Atmos processing.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Maybe a crappy analogy, but if I am mixing cement, there is sand and gravel and cement powder that is mixed in the mixer with water. Once mixed and dried, none of those components are there as individual entities. It is just cement.


If you think in terms of input and output, sand/gravel/water/cement powder were all input into the mixing drum at some point, even though the output is cement. Likewise, you could input the 7.1 mix into the decoder, subtract the dynamic objects, leaving you with the bed channels. As batpig described, the 7.1 track is "broken up", recovering the original beds + objects.


> ...what I don't think is that the information for the 7 channels after decoding is the same as the corresponding_ "channel"_ information in the non-Atmos mix.


Of course, the incoming 7.1 channels are made up of bed info AND object info, while the outgoing channels (static objects) are only the bed info only (object info has been removed).


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> So for Home Theater Atmos, a lot of generalization takes place. I suppose this ties into the discussions here about the importance of speaker placement. The closer the speakers are to the ideal positions, the closer the the algorithm comes to reconstructing the sound field correctly.


In the Atmos decoder, there are no generalized speaker locations. Atmos uses allocentric rendering, so objects and speaker locations (rendering assumptions) are relative to each other, not an absolute location (like the MLP). For example: the Atmos renderer has the Centre speaker exactly mid-way between the L/R speakers. It doesn't know absolute locations, just where the Centre is relative to the L/R.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> If you think in terms of input and output, sand/gravel/water/cement powder were all input into the mixing drum at some point, even though the output is cement. Likewise, you could input the 7.1 mix into the decoder, subtract the dynamic objects, leaving you with the bed channels. As batpig described, the 7.1 track is "broken up", recovering the original beds + objects. Of course, the incoming 7.1 channels are made up of bed info AND object info, while the outgoing channels (static objects) are only the bed info only (object info has been removed).


Think of the drum as the Dolby engine. All of that stuff goes in. Think of your driveway as the output. You would be hard pressed to find any individual traces of those items in it (well unless you tore it out).
So 7.1 goes in, it identity is completely lost in the process, what comes out no longer contains the same specific information _in its original form_ (7 discrete channels), and it cannot be separated (or uniquely identified) from the overall output.

What I don't agree with is that with any number of speakers that allow the Dolby renderer to engage that the any object data is stripped. This would kill compatibility. I believe that the object data is maintained and the renderer uses the number of speakers configured to reproduce it as best that it can. At very least the object audio must be mixed in the available channels, or a great deal of the sound would be lost.
Otherwise how do you explain people using 5 ear level (I am going to stop using bed as Dolby has many different uses of the term) with wides (an accepted Atmos configuration) being able to engage the engine and hear marked Atmos effects?
So yes the 7.1 is broken up such that the specific channel based info no longer exists. or more accurately, no longer directly exists in the output. I wish we could get @batpig to comment.

You know, this is why they have court systems. People can read the same exact text that has been written by the author to be perfectly clear, and come away with completely different interpretations. A judge must decide... I think, what he said, in the context that he said it, is perfectly clear. Yet you are coming out with a seriously different interpretation. Only he can settle it. But if you read some of the recent posts with thoughts about what is happening in the decoder I think it becomes more clear what he actually meant (and what is really happening).


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> Otherwise how do you explain people using 5 ear level (I am going to stop using bed as Dolby has many different uses of the term) with wides (an accepted Atmos configuration) being able to engage the engine and hear marked Atmos effects?


_Do you have a 71 front wide speaker layout?_



ppasteur said:


> I don't follow this, can you explain what you mean? I see that the AVR is doing upconverting from 5.1 to 7.1, so that is a difference.


Streaming Atmos is DDP 51 core+ Atmos extension. (this is how I think it should work)
Atmos off = core 51 presentation, you must upscale to get 71 presentation (DSU may skip some speakers in some cases)
Atmos on = full Atmos presentation, you can get a discrete 71 presentation



ppasteur said:


> BTW, thanks for the help in interpreting the guide info. But is the concepts are in use during encoding (maybe that is the wrong word, perhaps mastering is better). Are not the same _concepts_ in play during what you called "reconstruction"? Of course, within the constraints that you mention as to number of objects and available bandwidth.


Spatial coding is STUDIO ONLY and reduces up to 128 elements to 12-16 elements/objects for home.

Reconstruction is HOME ONLY and reconstructs up to 16 objects from THD 71 core + Atmos extension.



priitv8 said:


> Does it mean then, that the remaining 15 channels carry Atmos objects and 7 of them will be anchored to fixed coordinates, giving us the L, R, C, Ls, Rs, Lb and Rb "channels" + 11 dynamic objects?





sdurani said:


> then it's strange that it says 16-channel presentation. So I don't quite know how to interpret that report.


Just ignore the MLP16 part (might refer to the max obj) . Check below for the true # of objects in the stream which is 11+1=12. As said in the last few pages, The 71 core is for backwards compatibility & disappears with Atmos decoding, you now have 12 objects for that example.


----------



## ppasteur

junh1024 said:


> _Do you have a 71 front wide speaker layout?_


No I am using a standard (traditional ?) 7.2 setup LCR Surround left and right, Surround Back left and right. the .2 in this case being a notation for dual subs (even though I am aware there is still only a single LFE track). That quote was taken from a reply to @sdurani who said that he thought that with a configuration such as mine, that the object data was discarded in the reconstruction process.



> The 71 core is for backwards compatibility & _disappears with Atmos decoding_


This is interesting as it helps me explain to him something else being discussed. In that the original channel based mix is discarded upon processing by the Atmos renderer for reproduction by the available speakers.
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply.


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> This is interesting as it helps me explain to him something else being discussed. In that the original channel based mix is discarded upon processing by the Atmos renderer for reproduction by the available speakers.
> Again, thanks for taking the time to reply.


"The 71 core is for backwards compatibility & _disappears with Atmos decoding."_

This is true, but when the 71 core disappears, it's likely replaced by objects at the 71 locations (for much of the time) , which are derived from the 71 core from the Atmos reconstruction process, and hence Atmos decoding should sound very similar to THD core decoding. The 71 is a render of the objects (p265).

See this video example for where objects are placed. The difference in object vs speaker position for some speakers is prolly due to where speakers are drawn.

I'm not sure if anything additional is going on in your case like AC3 decoding, virtualization, DSP, etc.


----------



## noah katz

ppasteur said:


> Once mixed and dried, none of those components are there as individual entities. It is just cement.


Actually it's called concrete after curing


----------



## ppasteur

noah katz said:


> Actually it's called concrete after curing


Thank you so much! I may have actually know that at one point...
Is it worth correcting my post? Nah, we will just let everyone think I am illiterate...


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Seems a waste of DSP to unpack the objects and render them back to exactly where they were in the 7.1 mix. Why not just decode the 7.1 mix? Rendering them someplace slightly different would indicate that the 7.1 mix is not a downmix of the Atmos track.


Precisely. This is why I find this whole discussion so interesting, because the logical way to do things would be for the Atmos render to 7.1 to be identical to the 7.1, and you wouldn't bother engaging the renderer at all.



sdurani said:


> Your info source batpig stated it as follows: _"When the Atmos decoder kicks in, the 7.1 mix disappears and it is "broken up" into objects."_ The 7.1 mix cannot exist in the Atmos renderer to be "broken up" and at the same time not exist in the Atmos renderer. The Atmos renderer is either using the 7.1 mix or not using it, but not both simultaneously. No need to ditch the channel concept completely. Dynamic objects can move around and be assigned any location in 3D space. But a static object that does not move AND is also assigned to a speaker location is essentially a channel (by any other name). Seems there are at least 7 of those (assigned to pre-defined canonical locations) in an Atmos mix. That's why early descriptions of home Atmos referred to it as 7.1 channel plus objects.


This is a really key point for people to bear in mind in this discussion. A channel is, for all intents and purposes, just a static object. Especially in home theatre (and the home version of Atmos), which don't use arrayed surrounds. 



sdurani said:


> That perfectly describes the Trinnov Re-mapping feature, but not Atmos. The renderer in the home version of Atmos has a look-up table of 34 pre-defined speaker locations: 24 in the base layer, 10 in the height layer. You're already familiar with them. These pre-defined speaker locations (rendering assumptions) cannot be replaced in the look-up table with angular measurements of the true locations of your speakers. There is no mechanism in Atmos to do that. As you said, Atmos works with x,y,z coordinates, so the system wouldn't know what to do with location information based on angular relationships between the speakers.


Exactly. Not even cinema Atmos has full positional rendering, it still uses a look-up table of idealized positions (64 in the case of cinema Atmos).


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> So 7.1 goes in, it identity is completely lost in the process, what comes out no longer contains the same specific information _in its original form_ (7 discrete channels), and it cannot be separated (or uniquely identified) from the overall output.


Don't know what you mean by "completely lost", but it's not that absolute. The original bed channel sounds remain at those 7.1 locations. Object sounds are extracted and sent to the appropriate speakers.


> I believe that the object data is maintained and the renderer uses the number of speakers configured to reproduce it as best that it can. At very least the object audio must be mixed in the available channels, or a great deal of the sound would be lost.


No one is denying that object sounds and channel sounds are being combined to feed the speakers. Some of the original object location info is lost during spatial coding. When nearby sounds are combined to reduce the number of objects, they cannot later be uncombined (can't unscramble an egg). Spatial coding is a lossy process (lossy as in losing some of the precise location information). It's not spatial *en*coding (which would imply a possible *de*coding step later).


> Otherwise how do you explain people using 5 ear level (I am going to stop using bed as Dolby has many different uses of the term) *with wides* (an accepted Atmos configuration) being able to engage the engine and hear marked Atmos effects?





sdurani said:


> BTW, the Atmos decoder is activated whenever you configure speakers for which there are no channels. So if you configure a traditional 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout, no Atmos decoding. The moment you *add Wides* to either of those layouts, the Atmos decoder activates (Wides are fed solely by objects).


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Don't know what you mean by "completely lost", but it's not that absolute. The original bed channel sounds remain at those 7.1 locations. Object sounds are extracted and sent to the appropriate speakers. No one is denying that object sounds and channel sounds are being combined to feed the speakers. Some of the original object location info is lost during spatial coding. When nearby sounds are combined to reduce the number of objects, they cannot later be uncombined (can't unscramble an egg). Spatial coding is a lossy process (lossy as in losing some of the precise location information). It's not spatial *en*coding (which would imply a possible *de*coding step later).


A good deal of the specific audio technology relating to this discussion goes right over my head, but your explanations are so concise and cogent that I am mostly able to follow the line of reasoning.

Much appreciated!


----------



## dschulz

I thought of a slight terminology shift that may help illuminate this discussion. Don't think of the 7.1 core as a downmix, think of it instead as a _render_ to 7.1 of the Atmos mix. The track also contains metadata to more precisely render the object placement, should the target theatre contain more than 7 speakers.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Don't think of the 7.1 core as a downmix, think of it instead as a _render_ to 7.1 of the Atmos mix.


Thinking of it that way makes it all the more strange that an embedded 7.1 render would sound different from a live (real time) 7.1 render of the Atmos mix. 

BTW, looking through the Denon manual, I can't find where in the menu it allows switching between the 7.1 mix and the Atmos mix *when configured for a traditional 7.1 layout*. Anyone know where that toggle is located?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> That perfectly describes the Trinnov Re-mapping feature, but not Atmos. The renderer in the home version of Atmos has a look-up table of 34 pre-defined speaker locations: 24 in the base layer, 10 in the height layer. You're already familiar with them. These pre-defined speaker locations (rendering assumptions) cannot be replaced in the look-up table with angular measurements of the true locations of your speakers. There is no mechanism in Atmos to do that. As you said, Atmos works with x,y,z coordinates, so the system wouldn't know what to do with location information based on angular relationships between the speakers.


You're correct. I was referring to remapping being able to create a more precise reproduction of the intended output when speakers can't be at the "ideal" pre-defined locations. But for the vast majority of us who don't have that Trinnov money, the goal is to get as close as possible to the ideal positions. In my room, every speaker is located per Dolby's mix room standards except my rear surrounds which I had to place at narrower angles due to a doorway in the back of the room. It's a compromise that works though, given the lesser perceived resolution of sounds behind us.


sdurani said:


> BTW, looking through the Denon manual, I can't find where in the menu it allows switching between the 7.1 mix and the Atmos mix *when configured for a traditional 7.1 layout*. Anyone know where that toggle is located?


I think it depends on what you have amp assign set to. If you have it set to straight 7.1, my recollection is that it disables engaging Atmos. If you set amp assign to anything that supports Atmos channels, even if you only have a base 7.1 connected and configured with heights set to none, it leaves the option available (maybe for processing for the pre-outs?). Again, that's just going from memory, so don't hold me to it. I'm not at home to check.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Thinking of it that way makes it all the more strange that an embedded 7.1 render would sound different from a live (real time) 7.1 render of the Atmos mix.
> 
> BTW, looking through the Denon manual, I can't find where in the menu it allows switching between the 7.1 mix and the Atmos mix *when configured for a traditional 7.1 layout*. Anyone know where that toggle is located?


If you click one of the "sound" buttons, (the movie/green sound mode button) at least when playing TrueHD/Atmos content there are options for TrueHD or TrueHD/Atmos. Don't hold me to specifics on the exact notation, as I am not currently looking at it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Don't know what you mean by "completely lost", but it's not that absolute. The original bed channel sounds remain at those 7.1 locations. Object sounds are extracted and sent to the appropriate speakers. No one is denying that object sounds and channel sounds are being combined to feed the speakers. Some of the original object location info is lost during spatial coding. When nearby sounds are combined to reduce the number of objects, they cannot later be uncombined (can't unscramble an egg). Spatial coding is a lossy process (lossy as in losing some of the precise location information). It's not spatial *en*coding (which would imply a possible *de*coding step later).


So we're specific... "they cannot later be uncombined" is technically true, but they don't necessarily have to with the way they're handling object grouping. They can hand off individual objects from the theatrical mix from one home object to another by pre-rendering it to a nearby object. So, for instance: Say in the theatrical mix, you have a plane sound as an individual object that pans from front to back height on the left side of the room. In the home version of that mix, that sound may start in one object, grouped with other sounds near that location... then actually get panned by the encoder to an adjacent object grouped with other sounds in that new location. It can even be steered more accurately temporarily by moving one of the bed-layer objects to support it. That's all handled by the conversion to the home version and the effect in your home space is roughly the same as it would be in the theatrical space as a result. I don't know that you would notice the loss of precision given the differences in room size and propagation.


----------



## ppasteur

Jeremy Anderson said:


> So we're specific... "they cannot later be uncombined" is technically true, but they don't necessarily have to with the way they're handling object grouping. They can hand off individual objects from the theatrical mix from one home object to another by pre-rendering it to a nearby object. So, for instance: Say in the theatrical mix, you have a plane sound as an individual object that pans from front to back height on the left side of the room. In the home version of that mix, that sound may start in one object, grouped with other sounds near that location... then actually get panned by the encoder to an adjacent object grouped with other sounds in that new location. It can even be steered more accurately temporarily by moving one of the bed-layer objects to support it. That's all handled by the conversion to the home version and the effect in your home space is roughly the same as it would be in the theatrical space as a result. I don't know that you would notice the loss of precision given the differences in room size and propagation.


Yes, so regardless of going back and forth about the 7 channels track being gone or disappearing, (which I think boils down to semantics) the only thing that is germane (in answering my question about first hand listening differences) is whether the decoded audio when using a 7.1 system is identical before and after Dolby processing (information sent to each speaker a one to one relationship of the sound presented in each of the original tracks). I think there can be logical arguments posed for either case based on some level of knowledge. Without some documentation that definitely shows what is going on, or specific objective testing that shows what is going on we simply do not know. Unfortunately while the documentation for the studio side is extensive, the info out there for the home side of things (processing/reproduction) is mostly marketing fluff.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> So we're specific... "they cannot later be uncombined" is technically true, but they don't necessarily have to with the way they're handling object grouping.


Yes, the clusters are constantly changing, with sounds moving in and out of them. To that end, they're like channels (but can move around).


> I don't know that you would notice the loss of precision given the differences in room size and propagation.


Agreed, the difference in precise location would likely not be noticed, especially when the listener has nothing to compare it to. But that goes for many of the lossy technologies these days.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> If you click one of the "sound" buttons, (the movie/green sound mode button) at least when playing TrueHD/Atmos content there are options for TrueHD or TrueHD/Atmos.


Even for a traditional 7.1 layout?


Jeremy Anderson said:


> I think it depends on what you have amp assign set to. If you have it set to straight 7.1, my recollection is that it disables engaging Atmos. If you set amp assign to anything that supports Atmos channels, even if you only have a base 7.1 connected and configured with heights set to none, it leaves the option available (maybe for processing for the pre-outs?).


OK, so non-Atmos 7.1 configuration but with Atmos amp assign setting allows for Atmos decoding. Wonder if that works with a 5.1 configuration (heights and rears set to none).


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> I thought of a slight terminology shift that may help illuminate this discussion. Don't think of the 7.1 core as a downmix, think of it instead as a _render_ to 7.1 of the Atmos mix. The track also contains metadata to more precisely render the object placement, should the target theatre contain more than 7 speakers.


How does it so happen, that this very track still plays back in an old-school, Atmos-incapable, TrueHD decoder just as regular 7.1 channel-mix?
So the pre-Atmos-era decoder can still use the 7.1 core (if I'm now using the right term) as standard TrueHD 7.1 channel-mix?


sdurani said:


> Even for a traditional 7.1 layout? OK, so non-Atmos 7.1 configuration but with Atmos amp assign setting allows for Atmos decoding. Wonder if that works with a 5.1 configuration (heights and rears set to none).


I think that both my Sonys have reported themselves as non-Atmos sinks on HDMI, when height speakers are not configured. This can be easily tested in the Audio settings of the appleTV 4K.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Even for a traditional 7.1 layout? OK, so non-Atmos 7.1 configuration but with Atmos amp assign setting allows for Atmos decoding. Wonder if that works with a 5.1 configuration (heights and rears set to none).


In my case, I only noticed the ATMOS display on the receiver after adding the two surround back speakers. According to what I have read, the Atmos decoder will not engage with fewer than 7 speakers configured during setup.


----------



## ppasteur

priitv8 said:


> How does it so happen, that this very track still plays back in an old-school, Atmos-incapable, TrueHD decoder just as regular 7.1 channel-mix?
> So the pre-Atmos-era decoder can still use the 7.1 core (if I'm now using the right term) as standard TrueHD 7.1 channel-mix?


Yes the base 7.1 TrueHD track can be played on any device that is able to play TrueHD. This is exactly as it has been going back to well before ATMOS was even available.
So nothing has changed in this regard with the advent of ATMOS.


----------



## priitv8

ppasteur said:


> Yes the base 7.1 TrueHD track can be played on any device that is able to play TrueHD. This is exactly as it has been going back to well before ATMOS was even available.


Yes, but how does Dolby maintain this backward compatibility in the stream?


----------



## ppasteur

All of this discussion made me think of something else. Maybe more in line with what we typically discuss here. A while back I changed up my bedroom system. I had a sort of bastardized 5.1 system. LCR (and the room configuration does not allow the LR to be mounted symmetrically with the TV/center channel. Then I put some small speakers high up on the side walls in the back top corners aimed down at 45 degrees. Then as I had the speakers anyway, I setup actual side surrounds and configured the system as 7.2. (2 subs) (yes...ATMOS display on AVR!!) . So I watch laying down, the top corner speakers are a bit behind my head about 6 feet above ear level. The side surrounds are close to 90 degrees from my ears and their main axis maybe 6 inches above ear level.
My question is, and please I know that this room cannot really be configured to do ATMOS properly (so let's neglect discussion of perfection).
Would there be any advantage to setting those side speakers near the ceiling as maybe top middle and going to a sort of 5.1.2.
Again I have no hope of getting a perfect 3D sound field, rather wondering if people think it could be an improvement it what I have with the 7 channels setup that I have.
Also, I really have no facility to do a drawing. Just looking for thought before I go the process of moving wires around and recalibrating the system. As really, I can live with what I got now. But would be willing to mess with it if I might see some noticeable benefit.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

priitv8 said:


> Yes, but how does Dolby maintain this backward compatibility in the stream?


Because all of the intended audio is contained within that 7.1 track. The objects in the metadata are subtracted from that info as needed for the Atmos render.

Think of it this way: If you take a 5.1 track and apply Dolby Surround processing to bring it to 7.1, it compares the side surround info and steers to the rear surrounds based on the level/phase relationship. So basically, if the same sound is 25% in the left and 75% in the right, it would steer that to the right rear surround. The other part of that equation is that it removes that sound from what it sends to the side surrounds based on adjacent channels. So in this example, it would likely remove ALL of that sound from the left side surround but leave some of it in the right side surround so that it images between the right side and right rear surrounds. Alternately, if the sound was 50% in the left and right side surrounds, that sound would get removed from both side surrounds and imaged between the two rear surrounds. A similar method was used in Dolby EX, where the single rear channel's sound was stored in the metadata of a 5.1 stream, then used to extract that sound from the side surrounds as needed.

Take that concept forward to Atmos, except the comparison being made is now objects to adjacent bed channels. Based on the positional data, the renderer knows how much to remove from the original 7.1 track so that the end result images where it should within the array. So all of the sound is in the original 7.1 track.


----------



## ppasteur

priitv8 said:


> Yes, but how does Dolby maintain this backward compatibility in the stream?


@Jeremy Anderson does a good job explaining it, but it is complex. Basically the original 7.1 track does not change at all unless the Dolby renderer processes it. This adds positional information. But the TrueHD sound track never changes if not decoded. So it is not only compatible, it is the same 7.1 base that occurs on a non-Atmos source.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ppasteur said:


> All of this discussion made me think of something else. Maybe more in line with what we typically discuss here. A while back I changed up my bedroom system. I had a sort of bastardized 5.1 system. LCR (and the room configuration does not allow the LR to be mounted symmetrically with the TV/center channel. Then I put some small speakers high up on the side walls in the back top corners aimed down at 45 degrees. Then as I had the speakers anyway, I setup actual side surrounds and configured the system as 7.2. (2 subs) (yes...ATMOS display on AVR!!) . So I watch laying down, the top corner speakers are a bit behind my head about 6 feet above ear level. The side surrounds are close to 90 degrees from my ears and their main axis maybe 6 inches above ear level.
> My question is, and please I know that this room cannot really be configured to do ATMOS properly (so let's neglect discussion of perfection).
> Would there be any advantage to setting those side speakers near the ceiling as maybe top middle and going to a sort of 5.1.2.
> Again I have no hope of getting a perfect 3D sound field, rather wondering if people think it could be an improvement it what I have with the 7 channels setup that I have.
> Also, I really have no facility to do a drawing. Just looking for thought before I go the process of moving wires around and recalibrating the system. As really, I can live with what I got now. But would be willing to mess with it if I might see some noticeable benefit.


There are no rear surrounds in 5.1 so your side surrounds are where they're supposed to be already for a 5.1.x setup. If your current rear surrounds are high up behind you anyway, change it from a 7.2 setup to a 5.2.2 by designating the rears as rear heights or top rear (depending on their angles). Note: Because Atmos converts the discrete rear surround info out to objects, that sound will still get conveyed by the speakers once designated as rear heights, but with some use of the side surrounds to anchor them downward some. Then any objects moving through the height plane will get some involvement from what you have as rear heights. 

No rewiring required to try it. Just reassign your rear speakers as rear heights if closer to 30 degrees elevation or top rear if closer to 45 degrees elevation, then recalibrate. If you do it and don't feel that you're getting much sensation of height, don't move the side surrounds... Move the rears forward to a top mid placement.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> Yes, but how does Dolby maintain this backward compatibility in the stream?


The TrueHD bitstream is made up of substreams, so inside the Atmos mix is the entire soundtrack as a 7.1 mix for backwards compatibility.


----------



## ppasteur

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There are no rear surrounds in 5.1 so your side surrounds are where they're supposed to be already for a 5.1.x setup. If your current rear surrounds are high up behind you anyway, change it from a 7.2 setup to a 5.2.2 by designating the rears as rear heights or top rear (depending on their angles). Note: Because Atmos converts the discrete rear surround info out to objects, that sound will still get conveyed by the speakers once designated as rear heights, but with some use of the side surrounds to anchor them downward some. Then any objects moving through the height plane will get some involvement from what you have as rear heights.
> 
> No rewiring required to try it. Just reassign your rear speakers as rear heights if closer to 30 degrees elevation or top rear if closer to 45 degrees elevation, then recalibrate. If you do it and don't feel that you're getting much sensation of height, don't move the side surrounds... Move the rears forward to a top mid placement.


Thanks. No moving those high corner speakers. They are where they have to stay. But was just wondering if people think there would be any significant improvement in the experience... based on the fact that the whole setup is pretty far from what Dolby recommends as ideal. I don't have any expectations for accurate sound placement. Maybe just an improvement in involvement.
I can give it a try. It should only take a half hour or so to reconfigure and rerun the XT32 calibration. I will have to tweak it, as with the previous calibration I had to do some serious manual adjustments to get things balanced at my MLP.
Again, Thanks for the input.


----------



## machavez00

chi_guy50 said:


> That is what Yamaha claims their upcoming RX-A8A/6A models will allow via the surround back speakers:
> 
> View attachment 3146306
> 
> 
> 
> N.B. While the Yamaha marketing materials refer to "Dolby Atmos Height Virtualization," the user manuals do not use this term. Instead, the setting is dubbed Dolby Speaker Virtualization.


sorry if this has been asked and answered, I haven’t read through all the previous pages, or the next three yet. 
I have rear surrounds (7.1). Do I leave virtual back surround on or turn off, and what about virtual presence?


----------



## chi_guy50

machavez00 said:


> sorry if this has been asked and answered, I haven’t read through all the previous pages, or the next three yet.
> I have rear surrounds (7.1). Do I leave virtual back surround on or turn off, and what about virtual presence?


I answered these questions just yesterday in the dedicated TSR-700 thread (see link below).









2020 Yamaha TSR-700, RX-V6A, and RX-V4A Owner’s Thread


Hello everyone, I'm currently considering upgrading to this AVR and was wondering if the color banding issue with HDR is still an issue? I'm well aware of the [email protected] issue that is apparent in all HDMI 2.1 from panasonic. No issue for me, and I recently purchased, I’d offer a date code but I...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> So the bottom line is, again, you were responding to something I did not say, Or possibly something I said that you misinterpreted. There was this voluminous post with all kinds of great links, that had nothing to do with the current thread. Maybe impressively worded, but why?
> Regardless, how does any of what you wrote help in understanding what the ATMOS engine does when it only has 7 speakers to deal with. Which is the point of this entire discussion.


The _same_ document explicitly says what it does under those conditions on the _same_ two pages. 

*IF* the Atmos decoder is engaged, it "recreates" the consumer version of the spatially encoded soundtrack by removing ("reversing" or in other words using a reversed waveform to cancel out the waveform of that object) from the base/bed bitstream rendered channels and then turns the remaining information in the bed channels into "bed objects" as objects are what the renderer uses. The renderer is then free to render out any version of the soundtrack with any number of speakers it can use (Up to 22.1.10). 

The whole process of removing object waveforms from a pre-rendered waveform "bed" mix is purely for backwards compatibility and efficiency reasons. It would not be needed otherwise. They could just include all objects as-is and be done with it. The reason Atmos often takes up 50% or less of the space of the pre-rendered mix is precisely because they don't need to pack the same waveforms _twice_. They _only_ have to include the waveforms for ones that are going to ultimately move around outside the bed locations/speakers. But these _must_ be removed from the bed channels first or they would be duplicated on playback.

*IF* the Atmos decoder is NOT engaged, it uses the pre-rendered 5.1 (DD+) or 7.1 (TrueHD) soundtrack included and follows the older metadata rules (which are still included for full backward compatibility) for downmixing from there (2nd document I linked before). 

My AVR does appear to use the Atmos decoder/renderer for 7.1 setups for some reason, despite the documentation implying the 7.1 pre-render should be used if available. It clearly shows TrueHD for 5.1 or less, however. This is a decision the AVR/AVP (or the Dolby decoder itself) must be making as there is no technical reason the Atmos decoder could not render 2 channels or 5.1 channels, etc. and thus the preference must be for precision reasons of the original cinematic master compared to the combined object consumer system, not because it _cannot_ render to fewer channels.



dschulz said:


> Precisely. This is why I find this whole discussion so interesting, because the logical way to do things would be for the Atmos render to 7.1 to be identical to the 7.1, and you wouldn't bother engaging the renderer at all.


The Dolby document on rendering makes it very clear that they are not always identical. I believe this variation exists between a pre-render and the live consumer render because the 5.1/7.1 pre-rendered mixes are done from the Cinematic version (for the most accurate precision possible into the base tracks), while the consumer version has to make do with the "spatially encoded" version of the objects once it recreates them, which may vary slightly where the sounds are rendered compared to the Atmos master. 

The Dolby document on the Renderer gives instructions for cases where adjustments might have to be made to the consumer mix if the automatic setting places them too far off the intended mark in a consumer system after combining objects. It suggests the mixing engineer compare the output and adjust if they don't like the end result and tells how to do this. Furthermore, DD+ mixes also have a lossy component to the stored waveforms so inverse-waveform cancelling will not be 100% effective, leaving possible waveform remnants in the resulting new bed objects.

Thus, it seems the pre-rendered mixes are "preferred" to be used when a 5.1/7.1 setup is used because they are more accurate renditions of the original Atmos master spatial locations than the consumer recreated version can provide.



> This is a really key point for people to bear in mind in this discussion. A channel is, for all intents and purposes, just a static object. Especially in home theatre (and the home version of Atmos), which don't use arrayed surrounds.


I would say a static object _can_ be made to behave like a channel rather than a channel is like a static object as a static object can encompass multiple channels in Atmos and thus objects are still technically more flexible than a true channel regardless. 



> Exactly. Not even cinema Atmos has full positional rendering, it still uses a look-up table of idealized positions (64 in the case of cinema Atmos).


In the sense, you'd need near infinite speakers to do a "true positional" version, yes. Atmos still expects actual speakers to be used in the rendering stage. The consumer version gets into trouble because it uses (and probably needs) less speakers and more importantly, the home decoder isn't powerful enough to decode a full 128 objects. 

Could they make a version in the future that could handle that as CPU power becomes ever more powerful, etc. that is affordable? Sure, why not. The only thing limiting it now is price. 

Whether the existing consumer renders would be benefit is another matter. It is not clear to me whether the "compressed" data can be uncompressed back into the original signal or not. The document says no positional data is lost, but that may refer to the apparent position of a rendered object in the room, not the actual Atmos master object mix itself.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> The TrueHD bitstream is made up of substreams, so inside the Atmos mix is the entire soundtrack as a 7.1 mix for backwards compatibility.


Sanjay, I think this over complicates it. There is a TrueHD mix that is always there. There is nothing different than any other TrueHD mix that has existed historically since the advent of TrueHD as far as the TrueHD decoder knows, that is. It is only changed to Atmos when the renderer processes it with the Atmos metadata/extensions to produce well, Atmos (including identifying and employing any Atmos specific substreams) . Substreams are constructs used in any and all TrueHD audio streams. Though there are included Atmos substreams they are ignored outside of the Atmos decoding process. The standard TrueHD decoder simply discards (ignores) these as it does not know anything about them. To the standard TrueHD decoder, TrueHD or TrueHD for Atmos are identical. So it is not really there for backwards compatibility (like base DD 5.1 layers) it is the required base layer for either TrueHD or Atmos.
Maybe you were just over simplifying for the sake of brevity?


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> *IF* the Atmos decoder is NOT engaged, it uses the pre-rendered 5.1 (DD+) or 7.1 (TrueHD) soundtrack included and follows the older metadata rules (which are still included for full backward compatibility) for downmixing from there (2nd document I linked before).
> 
> My AVR does appear to use the Atmos decoder/renderer for 7.1 setups for some reason, despite the documentation implying the 7.1 pre-render should be used if available. It clearly shows TrueHD for 5.1 or less, however. This is a decision the AVR/AVP (or the Dolby decoder itself) must be making as there is no technical reason the Atmos decoder could not render 2 channels or 5.1 channels, etc. and thus the preference must be for precision reasons of the original cinematic master compared to the combined object consumer system, not because it _cannot_ render to fewer channels.


Ok, so it sound like we can agree that there is at least the potential, if not the likelihood, that 7 channel sound produced when using the Atmos decoder (obviously with material that incorporates Atmos extensions) sounds different than the same track reproduced as "straight" 7 channel audio from the TrueHD decoder without the Atmos decoder being involved? (boy that was a long winded run on sentence, hopefully you followed it)
So do you think it is a fact that the difference between this case (7 channels) and one having more speakers to employ (including especially heights) is the precision with which audio elements can be located?



> I would say a static object _can_ be made to behave like a channel rather than a channel is like a static object as a static object can encompass multiple channels in Atmos and thus objects are still technically more flexible than a true channel regardless.


Again we agree. Once Atmos is in play, channels do not exist for playback. An audio element (object) may or may not correspond to a speaker (channel) location. In mastering the channel notion is used for routing purposes, because a combination of them need to be used to position audio objects in space.


> In the sense, you'd need near infinite speakers to do a "true positional" version, yes. Atmos still expects actual speakers to be used in the rendering stage. The consumer version gets into trouble because it uses (and probably needs) less speakers and more importantly, the home decoder isn't powerful enough to decode a full 128 objects.


Well we mostly agree. Except that the "rendering stage" is in the digital domain, So I think it better to use "reproduction stage".
Also, not only is the home decoder not powerful enough to decode the 128 objects, no home system today has the bandwidth required so transmit this amount of data.
IIRC it is100Mbps for cinema compared to the 10 Mega bits or so usually allotted for Atmos in home audio.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Sanjay, I think this over complicates it.
> Maybe you were just over simplifying for the sake of brevity?


My one line reply over complicated AND over simplified simultaneously?


> There is a TrueHD mix that is always there. There is nothing different than any other TrueHD mix that has existed historically since the advent of TrueHD as far as the TrueHD decoder knows, that is. It is only changed to Atmos when the renderer processes it with the Atmos metadata/extensions to produce well, Atmos (including identifying and employing any Atmos specific substreams) .


Is the TrueHD mix you describe used during Atmos decoding or is the Atmos soundtrack a separate bitstream? If the former, then the 7.1 mix is built into the Atmos track, which would make it a substream of the full bitstream. It's a part of the full package. Describing the backwards compatibility aspect of Atmos doesn't require a complicated explanation.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Ok, so it sound like we can agree that there is at least the potential, if not the likelihood, that 7 channel sound produced when using the Atmos decoder (obviously with material that incorporates Atmos extensions) sounds different than the same track reproduced as "straight" 7 channel audio from the TrueHD decoder without the Atmos decoder being involved?


The capability is there to include an independent 7.1 mix.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> My one line reply over complicated AND over simplified simultaneously? Is the TrueHD mix you describe used during Atmos decoding or is the Atmos soundtrack a separate bitstream? If the former, then the 7.1 mix is built into the Atmos track, which would make it a substream of the full bitstream. It's a part of the full package. Describing the backwards compatibility aspect of Atmos doesn't require a complicated explanation.


Yes because it is complicated, (incorrectly referencing substreams) yet leaves out info at the same time.
We are coming at things, once again from different directions. The TrueHD track is complete in and unto itself. It _contains_ a substream used in rendering Atmos. Atmos is built on top of Truehd, it does not contain it. The TrueHD track is not a substream of Atmos. If you want I can send you the link that describes from a technical perspective what a substream is in TrueHD. Apparently it is not what you seem to think it is.
TrueHD can be made _compatible_ with Atmos by _adding_ a substream. But the base TrueHD is always the same as TrueHD/Atmos, _from the perspective of_ the TrueHD decoder. Therefor no compatibility issues exist with TrueHD.
So Atmos is a part of the TrueHD package. But then we could go back and forth about the chicken and the egg too...  
I wish we were talking face to face with a whiteboard...


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> The capability is there to include an independent 7.1 mix.
> View attachment 3147043


Hey, I directed t what you quoted to @MagnumX , based on his post. I was hoping that he would answer as to whether he agrees. If you were trying to answer in his place, well you can not.

But please explain how the above blurb on TrueHD has any bearing on what the Atmos decoder is doing with 7 channel reproduction.
And yes, I certainly agree that TrueHD does support independent, presentation for lower channels counts.
And the point is? Sorry, I am just not following...


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Atmos is built on top of Truehd, it does not contain it. The TrueHD track is not a substream of Atmos.


TrueHD is a lossless packing algorithm, like zipping a file. Think of an Atmos track as being made up of two basic parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). The audio can be delivered using lossless packing or lossy compression. So I don't know what you mean by Atmos being _"built on top of"_ TrueHD. If the Atmos soundtrack is lossless, then ALL the audio (channel info AND object info) is TrueHD. 

TrueHD is not a format like 7.1 or Atmos. It's a lossless packing codec. Just like DD+ is a lossy compression codec. The structure of TrueHD is a series of substreams. This cannot be avoided when delivering audio via TrueHD; i.e., you can't have TrueHD without the TrueHD structure. Atmos isn't exempt from this. That's why the render guide mentions the substreams (7.1, 5.1 and 2-channel downmixes built in).


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> And yes, I certainly agree that TrueHD does support independent, presentation for lower channels counts.


Explains why the 7.1 mix could sound different from the Atmos downmix to 7.1.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> TrueHD is a lossless packing algorithm, like zipping a file. Think of an Atmos track as being made up of two basic parts: data (audio) and metadata (instructions on what to do with the audio). The audio can be delivered using lossless packing or lossy compression. So I don't know what you mean by Atmos being _"built on top of"_ TrueHD. If the Atmos soundtrack is lossless, then ALL the audio (channel info AND object info) is TrueHD.
> 
> TrueHD is not a format like 7.1 or Atmos. It's a lossless packing codec. Just like DD+ is a lossy compression codec. The structure of TrueHD is a series of substreams. This cannot be avoided when delivering audio via TrueHD; i.e., you can't have TrueHD without the TrueHD structure. Atmos isn't exempt from this. That's why the render guide mentions the substreams (7.1, 5.1 and 2-channel downmixes built in).


Does this sound familiar?
"
The second substream contains the audio (data) and instructions (metadata) that, when combined with the first substream, results in a discrete 5.1-channel track. The third substream contains the audio and instructions, when combined with the first two substreams, to recreate a 7.1-channel track. The fourth substream for 9.1-channel soundtracks, and so on, with additional substreams allowing for reconstituting mixes with more discrete channels. However, in an Atmos soundtrack,_ Dolby chose to use the fourth substream for the audio objects (data) and the information about them (metadata). (when Atmos is used)_

If your AVR has an older TrueHD decoder, then it won't recognize the information in the fourth substream of an Atmos track. It will simply decode the first three substreams, recovering the original 7.1 mix of the soundtrack "  (Meaning no "compatibility efforts are required)









The one thing I do not understand about Dolby Atmos @ home


Hi everyone, as a tech-geek there is one thing I don't quite understand about Dolby Atmos at home. I'm opening a seperate thread about this because so far I wasn't able to find an answer to this anywhere and am afraid that within another Atmos thread this question would simply get lost. So...




www.avsforum.com





It should, you wrote it. As I read it the 4th substream is part of the _package_ that is TrueHD. Meaning that Atmos requires data INSIDE of the package we call TrueHD to function, Meaning that Atmos has a basis in that package. Meaning that Atmos uses this as part of it foundation and adds further processing to function.. meaning it is "built on on top of" . Maybe top of is confusing. Lets say it depends on the presence of TrueHD and a substream within it. Truehd can exist without Atmos, but Atmos needs TrueHD (or its DD+ counterpart with like information). Is this more clear?

Damn you make this hard...


----------



## ppasteur

skip for the moment


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> The Dolby document on rendering makes it very clear that they are not always identical. I believe this variation exists between a pre-render and the live consumer render because the 5.1/7.1 pre-rendered mixes are done from the Cinematic version (for the most accurate precision possible into the base tracks), while the consumer version has to make do with the "spatially encoded" version of the objects once it recreates them, which may vary slightly where the sounds are rendered compared to the Atmos master.


Because home rendering is different to cinema rendering, spatial coding for home pre-applies some changes to the home deliverable to minimize those changes, and the render is implicitly after spatial coding is done, cuz it appears in the spatial coding section.



sdurani said:


> The capability is there to include an independent 7.1 mix.


Yes, but it is unlikely as it would effectively double the size. MagnumX posted an example, where the THD Atmos track was only slightly larger than a only-71 track. If it really did include a completely separate & independent 71 mix, the size would be 2x larger.



MagnumX said:


> _*The Dolby Atmos soundtrack is approximately 400MB larger than the DTS-HD MA 7.1 only soundtrack (2.99GB versus 2.63GB) with the ... (legacy) ... cores removed.*_





ppasteur said:


> It should, you wrote it. As I read it the 4th substream is part of the _package_ that is TrueHD


I have doubts that there's 4 substreams as sdurani said. 

ED: (20+51+71+91/Atmos) , for 51 & below, you need to decode 71 & downmix.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Explains why the 7.1 mix could sound different from the Atmos downmix to 7.1.


OK I think I am seeing it (maybe but it leads to more questions):

_supports_ independent _7.1_-, 5.1-, and 2-channel presentations of _7.1._
(Though independent 7.1. presentation of 7.1 is a bit confusing to me.)
But support means is capable of. Usually when directed in software or firmware. Meaning It is _capable of, not does so automatically (right). _Are you saying that the Denon Atmos decoder has code that directs it to use some kind of "different" presentation with Atmos engaged with 7 channels such that it is actually producing different sound than the TrueHD track with no Atmos? 
What do you think it is doing to get this "independent 7.1 presentation" I have not found this specified anywhere...so far)? Where does it come from?


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> Are you saying that the Denon Atmos decoder has code that directs it to use some kind of "different" presentation with Atmos engaged with 7 channels such that it is actually producing different sound than the TrueHD track with no Atmos?
> What do you think it is doing to get this "independent 7.1 presentation" I have not found this specified anywhere...so far)? Where does it come from?


The "independent 7.1 presentation" would need to be separately made by the studio, not automatically .


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Maybe top of is confusing. Lets say it depends on the presence of TrueHD and a substream within it. Truehd can exist without Atmos, but Atmos needs TrueHD (or its DD+ counterpart with like information).


Atmos is a set of instructions for what to do with the audio. The audio itself can be delivered as lossless TrueHD or lossy DD+ or uncompressed PCM (Dolby MAT). The Atmos format is not built on any of those codecs any more than the 7.1 format is built on a particular compression codec. In movie theatres, Atmos is delivered using DLP (Dolby Lossless Packing, which is different from TrueHD and doesn't need the substream structure for backwards compatibility). If storage space wasn't a concern, theatrical Atmos soundtracks could be delivered as .wav files, like all other soundtracks. It's just instructions. The substream aspect is how that particular lossless codec happens to be structured; has been that way when that codec was called Meridian Lossless Packing and remains that way when the same codec is now called Dolby TrueHD. Has nothing to do with Atmos.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Atmos is a set of instructions for what to do with the audio. The audio itself can be delivered as lossless TrueHD or lossy DD+ or uncompressed PCM (Dolby MAT). The Atmos format is not built on any of those codecs any more than the 7.1 format is built on a particular compression codec. In movie theatres, Atmos is delivered using DLP (Dolby Lossless Packing, which is different from TrueHD and doesn't need the substream structure for backwards compatibility). If storage space wasn't a concern, theatrical Atmos soundtracks could be delivered as .wav files, like all other soundtracks. It's just instructions. The substream aspect is how that particular lossless codec happens to be structured; has been that way when that codec was called Meridian Lossless Packing and remains that way when the same codec is now called Dolby TrueHD. Has nothing to do with Atmos.


I totally agree...about the delivery and what Atmos is. But we were started this recent thread talking specifically about TrueHD "compatibility" So maybe we should stay focused on that. I think you digress. And it really makes it hard to have a discussion when the answers keep shifting focus.
So you are stating that Atmos for home theater can produce object based sound when there is no TrueHD (OK call it MLP which it is with modifications or the subset (maybe superset?) DLP) information whatsoever available (or equivalent data from DD+ or PCM?? Likely N/A for this discussion, but maybe you refer to MAT 2.0 LPCM) ? So this 4th substream that is integral (so you previously wrote) to TrueHD/MLP (or whatever you chose to call it this time) is not at all required for Atmos to function (in a home theater environment)? If not, where did I misread you?
Or are we back to a semantics discussion?


----------



## sdurani

junh1024 said:


> The "independent 7.1 presentation" would need to be separately made by the studio, not automatically


On DVD-A, which used MLP/TrueHD, the 2-channel substream could be an independent mix rather than an automated downmix of the 5.1 mix. But that independent-ness was typically level changes and other minor tweaks for the downmixed channels, which could easily be undone when combining substreams to recover the 5.1 mix. It's not like the independent mix had alternate content. It was just hand-tuning the downmix, so it did sound different that an automated downmix.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> So you are stating that Atmos for home theater can produce object based sound when there is no TrueHD...?


You're aware of Dolby MAT?


----------



## machavez00

More stuff making my 🤯








The Ultimate Dolby Atmos Guide | Nakamichi USA | True Surround Soundbar with Dolby Atmos & DTS:X


The Ultimate Dolby Atmos Guide. The essential information about Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby MAT. Also, a complete list of streaming devices and apps that offer Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision.




www.nakamichi-usa.com




sorry if already posted, >3000 pages!


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> You're aware of Dolby MAT?


Absolutely, but that is a separate issue and scheme (packaging) to TrueHD, which is what we were talking about...right? and it is not pertinent to the case of substreams contained in TrueHD for Atmos such as BD, and backwards compatibility. Looks like maybe you are avoiding a direct answer on the specific subject at hand??

So Dolby MAT is used in TrueHD to package it for HDMI. Mat 2.0 is packaging (a container really) that is used to send LPCM along with metadata to be decoded by a downstream, processor. Not related to what, at least "I", thought that we were discussing: TrueHD/Atmos


----------



## ppasteur

machavez00 said:


> More stuff making my 🤯
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ultimate Dolby Atmos Guide | Nakamichi USA | True Surround Soundbar with Dolby Atmos & DTS:X
> 
> 
> The Ultimate Dolby Atmos Guide. The essential information about Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby MAT. Also, a complete list of streaming devices and apps that offer Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nakamichi-usa.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if already posted, >3000 pages!


Thanks. I found this a few days ago and it is excellent, though a bit high level for the depths that this discussion has been dragged to...
HAHAHAHA !
But is is fun for me and I am learning lots. Hopefully others are not bored to tears...


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Absolutely, but that is a separate issue and scheme (packaging) to TrueHD, which is what we were talking about...right?


No. You asked whether _"Atmos for home theater can produce object based sound when there is no TrueHD"_ and I replied with a specific example of doing exactly that. You're tying a format to a specific compression codec when that's not what Atmos is built on. It's like saying 5.1 was built on Dolby Digital. The original discussion had to do with you hearing a difference between the imbedded 7.1 mix vs downmixing the decoded Atmos track to 7.1. The snip from the render guide explains how that could be possible (i.e., supports your original claim).


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> The Dolby document on rendering makes it very clear that they are not always identical. I believe this variation exists between a pre-render and the live consumer render because the 5.1/7.1 pre-rendered mixes are done from the Cinematic version (for the most accurate precision possible into the base tracks), while the consumer version has to make do with the "spatially encoded" version of the objects once it recreates them, which may vary slightly where the sounds are rendered compared to the Atmos master.
> 
> The Dolby document on the Renderer gives instructions for cases where adjustments might have to be made to the consumer mix if the automatic setting places them too far off the intended mark in a consumer system after combining objects. It suggests the mixing engineer compare the output and adjust if they don't like the end result and tells how to do this. Furthermore, DD+ mixes also have a lossy component to the stored waveforms so inverse-waveform cancelling will not be 100% effective, leaving possible waveform remnants in the resulting new bed objects.


This would be an interesting workflow, and including a pre-render + a separate home Atmos mix is theoretically possible, but no one is working this way. The theatrical print masters are not used for home video, a separate near-field mix is done. The theatrical Atmos mix is ported over into home Atmos using spatial coding, and a home theatre trim pass done at that point, monitored in either 7.1.4 or 9.1.6. The resulting home Atmos mix is then checked in 7.1 / 5.1 / 2.0 versions to make sure they scale down appropriately, and if not adjustments are made to the home Atmos mix. 

If there was something about the 7.1 version that made the mixers unhappy, they wouldn't adjust the 7.1 and do a dual delivery (Atmos and a 7.1 pre-render), they would adjust the Atmos mix until they they were happy with the 7.1. 



sdurani said:


> The capability is there to include an independent 7.1 mix.
> View attachment 3147043


I'd be shocked if this was ever done on disc with newer content, for the reasons outlined above. Although separate deliveries are sometimes done for broadcast (5.1) and airlines (2.0).


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> No. You asked whether _"Atmos for home theater can produce object based sound when there is no TrueHD"_ and I replied with a specific example of doing exactly that. You're tying a format to a specific compression codec when that's not what Atmos is built on. It's like saying 5.1 was built on Dolby Digital. The original discussion had to do with you hearing a difference between the imbedded 7.1 mix vs downmixing the decoded Atmos track to 7.1. The snip from the render guide explains how that could be possible (i.e., supports your original claim).


You continue to completely ignore context . This discussion has wondered around in a somewhat dizzying manner. The latest branch has to do with TrueHD compatibility and substreams. 
I need to try to remember to qualify tightly everything when we talk. But my brain doesn't work that way.
I am tired and will soon give up for the day, but lets see if I can pin this down. A hypthetical (and don't say it can't be done, indulge me for the purposes of this discussion) In a system that is Using TrueHD with Atmos (BD Playback) , were it possible to fully remove the entire TrueHD content data set (including substreams), would Atmos still function? If in the same situation we could remove all of the Atmos metadata/extensions, could TrueHD still function. In other words, if we remove "your so well described" substream 4 from play in this specific situation, could ATMOS function as designed? I am tying to make this as narrow as I can.
I guess this does not really matter to most anyone, but I would really love to see you concede one point, or at least answer one question on topic directly. Or even say, I get what you are saying...
<SIGH>


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> In a system that is Using TrueHD with Atmos (BD Playback) , were it possible to fully remove the entire TrueHD content data set (including substreams), would Atmos still function?


That makes no sense. Like saying if you have a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and fully removed the Dolby Digital content, would you still have 5.1? With all the content gone, you have no soundtrack, 5.1 or otherwise. 

Without TrueHD, you can still get the home Atmos format to function properly by transmitting it using uncompressed PCM with enhanced metadata. It's lossless audio, not encoded using any compression codec, but with Atmos placement instructions. The instructions make it Atmos.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> On DVD-A, which used MLP/TrueHD, the 2-channel substream could be an independent mix rather than an automated downmix of the 5.1 mix. But that independent-ness was typically level changes and other minor tweaks for the downmixed channels, which could easily be undone when combining substreams to recover the 5.1 mix. It's not like the independent mix had alternate content. It was just hand-tuning the downmix, so it did sound different that an automated downmix.


If I recall correctly, I think I know what you're talking about with the substreams. With straight 7.1, they would use substreams that contained instructions for the downmixer rather than duplicative audio tracks. So if they authored a 7.1 track and then monitored it on a 5.1 or stereo system and didn't like the result of the downmix, they could tweak how the downmix was done at the endpoint without having to modify the original audio stream. 

But with DVD-A, it was often two distinct mixes, at differing bitrates. So you could have a 96k MLP 5.1 mix and a 192k 2 channel mix... or you could have just the 5.1 with a substream containing instructions to downmix to stereo at the same bitrate. Am I following you? We've danced around a lot, but I think I see where you were headed here.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> This would be an interesting workflow, and including a pre-render + a separate home Atmos mix is theoretically possible, but no one is working this way. The theatrical print masters are not used for home video, a separate near-field mix is done. The theatrical Atmos mix is ported over into home Atmos using spatial coding, and a home theatre trim pass done at that point, monitored in either 7.1.4 or 9.1.6. The resulting home Atmos mix is then checked in 7.1 / 5.1 / 2.0 versions to make sure they scale down appropriately, and if not adjustments are made to the home Atmos mix.
> 
> If there was something about the 7.1 version that made the mixers unhappy, they wouldn't adjust the 7.1 and do a dual delivery (Atmos and a 7.1 pre-render), they would adjust the Atmos mix until they they were happy with the 7.1.


The way the Dolby Renderer document presents it, it sounds like it's simply an "adjusted" mix for the home version and traditionally, not all studios used "near field" mixes (e.g. Paramount used to use the Cinematic mix on Blu-Ray for 5.1 and 7.1 and most did before about 1999 or so. It's the whole reason "Cinema EQ" and THX "Re-EQ" exist (to get rid of the extra high frequency energy a cinematic mix contains that a near-field mix does not). Perhaps with Atmos this has changed and all Atmos cinema mixes have to be at least converted into Spatially Coded mixes for consumer use and the software indeed allows you to send it out to monitor and adjust the mix for the consumer level (even without changing the master file mix), but that does not make it an entirely separate home mix, but an "adjusted" cinema mix. See page 265 of the Render PDF file or this relevant quote highlighted here:



> At the *first stage* (monitoring and mastering), spatial coding occurs as a real-time emulation process running on the Dolby Atmos Renderer during monitoring of the mix. *Here, the mixer can listen to the effect of spatial coding while making adjustments to the mix for near-field presentation*. The Dolby Atmos Renderer software generates a Dolby Atmos master file set (*including the top-level .atmos file), which still carries the full set of up to 128 signals*, *and therefore contains the mixing decisions for home theater or VR, but has not yet been processed by spatial coding*.
> 
> At the *second stage* (encoding), *spatial coding is finally applied* to the original beds and objects as part of the encoding process by a software tool (such as Dolby Media Encoder). This tool reads the .atmos (or .damf) file, applies spatial coding to create the same clustered objects heard during the first stage of Dolby Atmos authoring, and then encodes the clustered objects into the delivery codec format (in the Dolby Media Encoder, the delivery codec format is specified in the job setup). *The Encoder generates a coded bitstream that consists of objects and one or more bed channels. The encoded bitstream can then be delivered to consumer playback devices *


You seem to be saying the consumer mix is the result of Stage 2, but not considered in Stage 1 while it sounds as if one could do one right after the other in Stage 1 with real time monitoring and then encode it to the 2nd stage when they're happy with the results. Since Cinema-EQ works with Atmos, I would assume it's at least technically possible to do a straight Cinema Conversion to the consumer format without adjusting for "near field" (home) considerations like EQ to correct for the extra treble. Without doing a separate mix, the spatial encoding stage should do its best to recreate the theatrical mix at home without EQ and level changes.

The thing is we already had Cinema EQ/Re-EQ on processors to correct for the high frequency anomalies in theatrical mixes by reducing the extra treble such mixes contain (as high frequencies dissipate faster over distance than other ranges in a large theater and thus they're too bright sounding played back in a home environment without some correction applied). Since these movies don't indicate (with a flag or something) which type of mix it's using (pre-1999 mixes were typically all cinema mixes from what I've read and thus the Cinema EQ curves were badly needed in good playback systems to reduce that treble energy. So why do they do separate "near field" mixes now? Because they can? 

The problem is that where THX standards tried to deliver the cinema experience at home, from what I've read by a group on a professional forum, there are no standards for what constitutes a "near field mix" in that regard thus they adjust by ear to what they "like" using near-field monitors and at least some mixing engineers may be overzealous compared to others and you end up with "Disney-like" soundtracks with little dynamic range and perhaps deep bass filtered out, etc. Without cinema standards, a home version may or may not be very good. I've found far too many mixes (many by Disney, but not all) to be very tame with little dynamic range compared to soundtracks released just a half decade ago and those were also "near field" mixes (e.g. TRON: Legacy). Without any standard to ensure high quality home theater versions, the Atmos capability means little or nothing in overall soundtrack quality, IMO. The new Indiana Jones mixes are little more than slightly enhanced (similar to DSU quality, IMO) upmixing with greatly reduced bass levels compared to the previous THX rated Blu-Ray release. Some think that mix was overcooked, but I thought it sounded much better, personally. Disney seems to be hit/miss on which titles are good/just ok/worse these days and I have yet to read a good explanation for it.

I'd prefer a straight cinema conversion to a near-field mix if it meant I got better dynamic range and bass as a result, but this is highly dependent on who is doing the mix. I've read on that same forum that it's often the case in upgrading the older soundtracks on smaller projects, a team takes care of it rather than getting the original sound engineer to do it or at least approve it (or in some cases for much older films they may be retired or even dead). 

But regardless, if the pre-renders aren't pre-stage 2 and are indeed made from the home (spatial encoded) mix, then it's less clear to me why there would/might be rendering differences between the included pre-rendered 5.1/7.1 mix and the Atmos decoder "rendered" version done live (e.g. My AVR does 7.1 mixes with Atmos decoding, but 5.1 or less with the TrueHD or DD+ mixes without the Atmos metadata being used at all). Yet the document implies such differences can/do occur.

On page 266 under "Spatial Coding Limitations and Fine Tuning", the Dolby Renderer document gives examples and it uses a comparison of the *Cinema Render* to explain the limitations of the home render and thus why I thought the pre-renders for home 5.1/7.1 were done before spatial encoding rather than after it, but it does seem they would have to be done after or they would not be able to extract the objects from the bitstream correctly. Thus, I see no reason why a home AVR/AVP would ever actually _need_ to choose a pre-render over an Atmos render. Yes, it's less work for the decoding chip, but that should be irrelevant except maybe from a power consumption standpoint.


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> Ok, so it sound like we can agree that there is at least the potential, if not the likelihood, that 7 channel sound produced when using the Atmos decoder (obviously with material that incorporates Atmos extensions) sounds different than the same track reproduced as "straight" 7 channel audio from the TrueHD decoder without the Atmos decoder being involved? (boy that was a long winded run on sentence, hopefully you followed it)


The Dolby Renderer certainly implies the spatially encoded (home) version can sound different from the cinema render in regards to placement and other things (see page 266), but as DShultz pointed out, the pre-renders are actually from the home version (which they would almost certainly have to be for it to "reverse" the object render process precisely to recreate the original objects and the bed mixes without them placed in it), so it seems less likely to have "significant" differences in the render unless perhaps some small changes were made over time to the decoder that alters the output somehow slightly. 

It _seems_ like there shouldn't really be a difference between a "pre-render" and a "render". I use Logic Pro and unless I'm running low on CPU power or the hard drive can't read it fast enough (not normally an issue on a SSD, but it was on some older hard drives), the output pretty much sounds to the same to me in the previews as it does the final render and the previews are doing all the processing/effects and edit cuts in REAL TIME whereas the final render is typically a WAV file or ALAC or AAC or whatever (for 2-channel). But there might be some other aspects of the home Atmos renderer I'm unaware of. 



> So do you think it is a fact that the difference between this case (7 channels) and one having more speakers to employ (including especially heights) is the precision with which audio elements can be located?


No, I was referring to the cinema 5.1 or 7.1 render differences described on page 266. Since that shouldn't apply to the home version, it shouldn't actually be relevant. Some AVRs certainly do some different mixing things when something like front wides are present, but not rear surrounds. I don't think that's an Atmos render decision, however. It simply places channel information from 7.1 rears into the sides plus the sides and front wides get the sides only. That's an arrayed effect that should mix smoother into the sides, but it seems like they could have just put the sides in the wides and the rears in the sides and called it a day (You can, however do that by simply re-assigning the wides as sides and sides as rears and do 7.1) But that would not be ideal for a mix that actually used front wides so I'm sure it's a tradeoff to some extent as you then would have front wides and sides in the same speakers as well but the array effect should place the side phantom images somewhere in-between (halfway if you're sitting halfway between them).



> Again we agree. Once Atmos is in play, channels do not exist for playback. An audio element (object) may or may not correspond to a speaker (channel) location. In mastering the channel notion is used for routing purposes, because a combination of them need to be used to position audio objects in space.


Once it's "rendered" the channels do exist once again at the pre-out and speaker terminals. The objects only really exist in the internal mixes. To output them to the real world, you have to render to a channel layout. If Atmos is used, the original pre-renders are more like ignored (it's not like they don't exist on the Blu-Ray or server file) in favor of the recreated object versions that are then rendered to channels. 



> Also, not only is the home decoder not powerful enough to decode the 128 objects, no home system today has the bandwidth required so transmit this amount of data.
> IIRC it is100Mbps for cinema compared to the 10 Mega bits or so usually allotted for Atmos in home audio.


That's an issue to be sure, but as Internet bandwidth increases, a system could download a cinema mix and play it back, even if it had to download it entirely first (not sure how syncing is affected as I've read there are issues to streaming TrueHD/Lossless over the Internet, but those would be mitigated if it were downloaded to an internal drive first and then played back. Would that be hard to do 10-20 years from now when common bandwidth might be 1000mbps or even 10000mbps? But I assume Atmos would probably be updated to a newer version or maybe even something else by then (hard to say given how many speakers are already supported when 5.1 lasted over 20 years).


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> If there are 11 dynamic objects, then that leaves only 4 static objects (channels) to add up to a total of 15. If there are 8 channels (LFE + 7 static objects) and 11 dynamic objects, that adds up to a total of 19.1. If it is 7.1 channels OR 11 objects + LFE (7.1.4), then it's strange that it says 16-channel presentation. So I don't quite know how to interpret that report.


How they interpret TrueHD stream and pick out the stream-describing-metadata, can easily be seen in their source code:








MediaInfoLib/File_Ac3.cpp at master · MediaArea/MediaInfoLib


Convenient unified display of the most relevant technical and tag data for video and audio files. - MediaInfoLib/File_Ac3.cpp at master · MediaArea/MediaInfoLib




github.com







ppasteur said:


> @Jeremy Anderson does a good job explaining it, but it is complex. Basically the original 7.1 track does not change at all unless the Dolby renderer processes it. This adds positional information. But the TrueHD sound track never changes if not decoded. So it is not only compatible, it is the same 7.1 base that occurs on a non-Atmos source.


How Jeremy describes it, leaves me with an impression that only 5.1 channels are provided as discrete, per-channel stream. And the remaining 2 surround channels are computational, as if matrix-encoded. I had always thought THD and DD+ carry 7+1 full&discrete channel's worth of information.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

priitv8 said:


> How Jeremy describes it, leaves me with an impression that only 5.1 channels are provided as discrete, per-channel stream. And the remaining 2 surround channels are computational, as if matrix-encoded. I had always thought THD and DD+ carry 7+1 full&discrete channel's worth of information.


TrueHD does. I'm not sure what DD+ does for rear surrounds, but it wouldn't shock me if their rear surrounds are less discrete and more computational. Definitely a compromise I could see them make to maintain a transmittable bandwidth for streaming formats, and would make sense from a compatibility standpoint.


----------



## JonFo

Seems to me that part of the challenge in this discussion is the conflation of various elements whose definition likely needs to be clarified.

Having followed the evolution of various containerized formats over the past 20 or more years, it is common in threads like this to skip being really clear about a couple of key concepts, which to me are:

*Transport*
These are the standards used to relay content that is in a certain format and with a given coding between two or more devices in a playback chain.
Example of this are: SPDIF, AES-EBU, HDMI, Dolby-MAT 2.0 over HDMI

Dolby MAT is an interesting one, as, at its core, it is about transporting audio content across the high-capacity lanes provided by the 8 * 16bit * 192Khz ‘audio’ carrier lanes in HDMI 1.3 and higher standards.
It aggregates the bandwidth of multiple lanes to provide an agnostic data transport layer. Yet it also has elements of a ‘format’ as it negotiates the type of data to be relayed between sender/receiver based on mutual capabilities.

Streaming uses proprietary or open standards to deliver audio streams to the streaming device, which are then unpacked into the indicated format, typically DD+, which is then delivered to the playback device using MAT.

*Formats*
This is the definition of the structure used to convey the audio information as defined by the standard it applies to. It organizes the elements that will be used to unpack and then render the audio.
These can be quite complex and varied, with multiple layers to handle optional format features (such as pre-rendered 2-ch downmixes).
Examples of this are: 2ch LPCM, AC3, DTS, Doby Digital+, DTS-HD-MA, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Atmos

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that formats are often highly intertwined with their respective codecs. Modern formats support a variety of codecs (lossy vs lossless) using the same format, which further adds confusion.
Formats specify what meta-data is required or optional to describe the associated audio streams.

I have evidence from my Smyth A16 that an ATV4K sends audio over to the processor (using a MAT transport) in a TrueHD format (but with lossy streams).

*Coding*
These are the actual codec (coder/decoder) types used to compress (lossy or losslessly), encode and decode actual audio streams.
Examples of this are: FLAC, Meridian Lossless Packing or MLP, AKA TrueHD Lossless, DTS lossy and lossless codecs.

*Rendering*
This is the step a processor will take once it has unpacked the payloads in the format, decoded them per specs to actually start the process of rendering to the selected output channels.
For 2ch, it’s easy, decode to two LPCM streams of appropriate bit-depth, volume trim and apply any DSP (like room correction) and pass to the DACs.

As this discussion has surfaced, rendering an immersive audio stream can be complex, with several variations of how to deal with bed channels and positional streams.

My point here is that it would be helpful if we used terms such as the above to clarify if we are talking about elements of a format, coding of streams within the format, or the process of rendering the supplied streams and then outputting them to a given speaker configuration.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> How Jeremy describes it, leaves me with an impression that only 5.1 channels are provided as discrete, per-channel stream. And the remaining 2 surround channels are computational, as if matrix-encoded. I had always thought THD and DD+ carry 7+1 full&discrete channel's worth of information.


TrueHD is lossless packing, so by definition it has to bit for bit identical to the studio master used for encoding. If the studio master has 4 discrete surround channels, then the TrueHD track cannot have matrix derived surround channels. That would no longer qualify as lossless.

The 5.1 track contains 2 Surround channels, each of which contain combined Side channel and Rear channel content. The next substream just has to contain discrete Rear channel content. When this data is subtracted from the Surround channels, anything left over is the discrete Side channel content. Remember, this is a lossless process. So the discrete Surround channels are split into discrete Side and Rear channels that are bit for bit identical to the studio master.


----------



## markus767

JonFo said:


> I have evidence from my Smyth A16 that an ATV4K sends audio over to the processor (using a MAT transport) in a *TrueHD* format (but with lossy streams).


Should be MAT PCM. The Realiser might try to show the original coding format information that can travel along as metadata or it's just a bug


----------



## JonFo

markus767 said:


> Should be MAT PCM. The Realiser might try to show the original coding format information that can travel along as metadata or it's just a bug


Not discounting it could be a bug, the A16 has had its share. But my take is that the ATV normalizes incoming bed channels to LPCM so it can add UI feedback, then re-packs additional audio in some format.
It even uses MAT to pass 2ch LPCM when playing Apple Music stereo tracks, so as to minimize transport type changes (better stability).

So to my points above, MAT is used as the transport, and if we believe the Realiser, the format containing the audio data is a .thd (TrueHD format, not compression), containing LPCM streams for the bed (perfectly legit in TrueHD format to use no compression) channels, and the Atmos extension streams pulled from the DD+ unpacking, now placed into a TrueHD format (IIRC, DD+ is a subset of TrueHD format, so elements can just be copied over).

Again normalizing to my terminology above, what the Realiser calls 'Image' I call Transport type. It displays 'Atmos' when MAT 2.0 is in use, even when it is conveying 8 channels of LPCM (only 2 of which have the L/R LPCM when playing 2ch Apple music). See examples in the QQQ thread.

I posted some more info and A16 screenshots over on this post at QQQ:  #357 

Here is the one indicating the incoming 'stream' format as being .thd










PS - the A16 is interesting in that it decodes to 'render' a 9.1.6 configuration, then further renders down into a virtual 'listen' room layout of 7.1.4 virtual speakers which are then processed into the binaural 2ch headphone output. So multiple layers of rendering in this box. A Trinnov does similar to support their virtual speaker remapping.


----------



## ppasteur

JonFo said:


> Seems to me that part of the challenge in this discussion is the conflation of various elements whose definition likely needs to be clarified ....


I so very much agree. I admit that I have gotten lost in the various terms that are used differently in many different places. When I wrote technical documentation, and I think for any technical discussion a definition of terms is imperative. Otherwise, as I have seen in the current discussion, things break down.
I have saved this and printed it for future reference. Thanks for taking the time to write it.


----------



## X4100

Quite a bit to digest, I'm not trying to minimize this discussion, I just want to see if I understand what is happening with home delivery of Dolby Atmos! The consensus appears to be:
1. There are separate 7.1 streams 
2. One 7.1 stream is an atmos stream if amp assign is in my case 9
Channel, but no height speakers ( I have 5.1.4)
3. The other 7.1 stream is true HD, without atmos metadata 
4. With #2 above 7.1 stream there is a difference between #3 stream. 

My reason for wanting this clarified, is on some forums I have heard some people say they definitely hear a difference between the 7.1 streams. I have found all of this information very interesting to say the least. What, or how will this affect our understanding of Dolby Atmos going forward?


----------



## dschulz

X4100 said:


> Quite a bit to digest, I'm not trying to minimize this discussion, I just want to see if I understand what is happening with home delivery of Dolby Atmos! The consensus appears to be:
> 1. There are separate 7.1 streams
> 2. One 7.1 stream is an atmos stream if amp assign is in my case 9
> Channel, but no height speakers ( I have 5.1.4)
> 3. The other 7.1 stream is true HD, without atmos metadata
> 4. With #2 above 7.1 stream there is a difference between #3 stream.
> 
> My reason for wanting this clarified, is on some forums I have heard some people say they definitely hear a difference between the 7.1 streams. I have found all of this information very interesting to say the least. What, or how will this affect our understanding of Dolby Atmos going forward?


There _can_ be separate 7.1 streams, but in general there are not. The standard packaging on UHD Blu Ray is a single 7.1 TrueHD stream that contains Atmos metadata for object placement. Likewise, the standard packaging for streaming (Netflix, Amazon etc) is a 5.1 Dolby Digital+ bitstream with Atmos metadata.


----------



## ppasteur

X4100 said:


> My reason for wanting this clarified, is on some forums I have heard some people say they definitely hear a difference between the 7.1 streams. I have found all of this information very interesting to say the least. What, or how will this affect our understanding of Dolby Atmos going forward?


How are they selecting the streams that they hear as being different? Is it by Enabling or Disabling Atmos via the AVR, or some other method?

A bunch of the last numerous posts have been aimed at answering the question of differences in sound, and for me understanding why it occurs.
If you have the patience go back through the last ... maybe 50 or posts and read them. It is interesting. Also read #61,082 (about 6 above). 
Save yourself some aggravation... and maybe add clarity to your question.
As to your last question, It may lead to better clarity on what is going on under the hood. It may just confuse and frustrate you.


----------



## Roger Dressler

ppasteur said:


> You tell me. I just know that the sound field changes significantly using 7.1 with Atmos engaged versus when it is manually disabled.
> I would sincerely like to know the specifics, but after hours of research, I have no explanation. The Bat Pig post tells me as much as anything that I have read.


I'm late to this party, but as I understand it, sometimes there are audible differences reported when playing an Atmos track on a "flat earth" 7.1 speaker system depending on whether Atmos decoding is active or not. 

There may be a good reason for this. 

When the Dolby Media Encoder creates a TrueHD bitstream for BD, it has to create 2, 5.1 and 7.1 downmixes for the different playback systems. All of these downmixes reflect every sound in the original Atmos track, just folded down to different degrees. 

Looking specifically at the 7.1 case, in order to recreate the entire Atmos mix in Atmos-capable decoders, it must be possible to remove the downmixed object elements to reveal the clean 7.1 bed channels. This means that the encoder's Atmos to 7.1 fold-down process must be invertible. That usually means the downmix of objects into the 7.1 bed (or the downmix of more channels into fewer channels e.g. 7.1-->5.1, etc) uses a simple linear mixing operation, as that is invertible by simple subtraction. That's the process used to produce the 7.1 mix we hear on non-Atmos decoders.

OTOH, when an Atmos decoder is activated, it starts with the fully unpacked elements (12 to 16) carried in the bitstream and then applies the Atmos renderer in the AVR to distribute these elements to the speakers at hand. The Atmos renderer has no concern for "invertibility" at all, so it is not constrained in how it does its work. 

The renderer may embody operational differences from the downmixing process used in the Media Encoder. One example would be how it maps object positional coordinates to the given speakers. For some further insights about this, see "Spatial coding limitations and fine tuning" in the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide. 

Based on the above, I would not be surprised to hear differences in the 7.1 speaker presentations with Atmos decoding on vs. off.


----------



## dschulz

And there you have it, thanks Roger! Turns out I was wrong all along (probably not for the first time).


----------



## markus767

JonFo said:


> Not discounting it could be a bug, the A16 has had its share. But my take is that the ATV normalizes incoming bed channels to LPCM so it can add UI feedback, then re-packs additional audio in some format.
> It even uses MAT to pass 2ch LPCM when playing Apple Music stereo tracks, so as to minimize transport type changes (better stability).
> 
> So to my points above, MAT is used as the transport, and if we believe the Realiser, the format containing the audio data is a .thd (TrueHD format, not compression), containing LPCM streams for the bed (perfectly legit in TrueHD format to use no compression) channels, and the Atmos extension streams pulled from the DD+ unpacking, now placed into a TrueHD format (IIRC, DD+ is a subset of TrueHD format, so elements can just be copied over).
> 
> Again normalizing to my terminology above, what the Realiser calls 'Image' I call Transport type. It displays 'Atmos' when MAT 2.0 is in use, even when it is conveying 8 channels of LPCM (only 2 of which have the L/R LPCM when playing 2ch Apple music). See examples in the QQQ thread.
> 
> I posted some more info and A16 screenshots over on this post at QQQ:  #357
> 
> Here is the one indicating the incoming 'stream' format as being .thd
> 
> View attachment 3147297
> 
> 
> PS - the A16 is interesting in that it decodes to 'render' a 9.1.6 configuration, then further renders down into a virtual 'listen' room layout of 7.1.4 virtual speakers which are then processed into the binaural 2ch headphone output. So multiple layers of rendering in this box. A Trinnov does similar to support their virtual speaker remapping.


See The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) and following. MAT can carry either TrueHD or PCM. In the case of an ATV it's PCM.

When it comes to which indicator lights up on a SSP manufacturers can be quite "creative" at times although it should be pretty straight forward:

Input signal should show just one of these:

Dolby Digital
Dolby Digital Plus
Dolby TrueHD
Multichannel PCM
Depending on whether the signal contains Atmos or is upmixed it _additionally_ should show:

Dolby Atmos
Dolby Surround


----------



## MagnumX

Roger Dressler said:


> Looking specifically at the 7.1 case, in order to recreate the entire Atmos mix in Atmos-capable decoders, it must be possible to remove the downmixed object elements to reveal the clean 7.1 bed channels.


Yes. That's essentially what I've been trying to get across for several pages now. The Atmos metadata contains all objects that will not necessarily remain in the bed channels (i.e. they can be rendered beyond 7.1). The decoder inverts the samples using the metadata channel information to remove them from the TrueHD (or DD+) bitstream tracks (subtract). It then takes the object-free tracks and converts them into "bed objects" themselves and you now have the spatial encoded objects that existed before they rendered the 7.1 (or 5.1) bitstream in the first place. The process is entirely reversible for TrueHD, but the document warns that due to DD+ being lossy, it's not a bit-perfect process for that version and implies some waveform remnants or such may still exist in the bed objects, but these are highly unlikely to be audible in normal playback. The Renderer then can render any channel configuration possible in the system (with Trinnov up to 22.1.10). 

As complicated as Atmos sounds (and IMO these past several pages tends to overcomplicate with misdirection and red herrings), it really is a just a method of including panning/positional/size data (that any 2+ channel DAW like Logic Pro includes for tracks) and brings it into a system whereby the playback speaker setup is variable instead of fixed. The Renderer does its best to map out the positional data to what's available rather than an absolute. The only thing that makes it seem more complicated than a DAW "track" setup is that to be efficient, it needed to be backwards compatible and that means creating a rendered bitstream for 5.1/7.1 that can store the bed channel data and yet also include the object sounds for older systems that don't have the Atmos decoder. The decoder must remove those objects from the bitstream mix to place them elsewhere and it does this by waveform inversion (aka cancellation or subtraction). This saves a LOT of space as opposed to including a pre-rendered mix plus a complete object set that could ignore the pre-rendered mix. It combines them to save space. I'm not sure where the confusion lies with certain people.



> This means that the encoder's Atmos to 7.1 fold-down process must be invertible.


Exactly.



> That usually means the downmix of objects into the 7.1 bed (or the downmix of more channels into fewer channels e.g. 7.1-->5.1, etc) uses a simple linear mixing operation, as that is invertible by simple subtraction. That's the process used to produce the 7.1 mix we hear on non-Atmos decoders.


Yes.



> OTOH, when an Atmos decoder is activated, it starts with the fully unpacked elements (12 to 16) carried in the bitstream


It starts by reversing the object placement in that fixed 7.1 mix and then converting them to objects afterwards. If you want to call that "unpacking", OK, but I'd call it _reconstructing_ the Spatially Encoded Mix using the included metadata.



> and then applies the Atmos renderer in the AVR to distribute these elements to the speakers at hand. The Atmos renderer has no concern for "invertibility" at all, so it is not constrained in how it does its work.


I would say invertibility is more like "irrelevant" at this point, but that doesn't mean the process is any different at all. The pre-render and render are one and the same thing as far as I can tell and for a flat 7.1 playback system, I see no reason at this point they shouldn't sound identical. When I render to WAV in Logic Pro, it "should" sound identical to the "live preview" (that has to do all the calculations in real time). The main difference is a render doesn't need all that cpu power. You can just play it back over a channel system. Once the renderer in an Atmos system outputs the information for a given speaker setup, it's now a channel-based output and is now no different from Auro-3D in that regard except for the number of channels used. If you could record a mix of 11.1.6 to a format that supported that number of channels, it would play back the same mix now and forever from that format. But the advantage of the object system is that it can render instead for 14.1.8 instead or 22.1.10 or even 2.1.2 if the AVR/AVP will allow it.

I think if there are differences in the TrueHD 7.1 decode and Atmos decode to 7.1, there's something else at work. What you say next is what I thought a couple of pages ago, but I misread the Dolby document in question.



> The renderer may embody operational differences from the downmixing process used in the Media Encoder. One example would be how it maps object positional coordinates to the given speakers. For some further insights about this, see "Spatial coding limitations and fine tuning" in the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide.
> 
> Based on the above, I would not be surprised to hear differences in the 7.1 speaker presentations with Atmos decoding on vs. off.


The problem is the "Spatial coding limitations and fine tuning" section is referring to the Cinema Atmos mix, NOT the consumer one. I thought perhaps the pre-render TrueHD 7.1 mix was from the cinema mix and therefore should have more accurate placement (without those limitations in that guide) for a bed only 7.1 render. The problem with that is the consumer output comes from the spatial encoded (consumer) output not the cinema one (as DShultz pointed out) and that makes sense because you could not "reverse" (subtract) the objects from the pre-render track if they were placed in a different location than the consumer mix (e.g. you might invert a car horn sound to the main right channel when it's stored in the right surround channel in the consumer mix due to one of those issues or whatever and that wouldn't work). The pre-render has to be from the spatial encoded version (consumer version) to match up exactly with 100% accuracy. But that eliminates the possibility of an error as those only exist in conversion of the Cinema Atmos mix and the Consumer one. Once converted, nothing should change in a straight 7.1 render beyond the limits of a lossy codec carrier like Dolby Digital Plus.

Thus, I think if there is an audible difference between the TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack and the Atmos decoded 7.1 soundtrack, it must be due to something else like an AVR/AVP behavior (e.g. When using 5.1 + Front Wides for a 7.1 soundtrack instead of a straight 7.1 layout whereby the rear surround ends up in the sides and the sides are in the front wides and the sides) but front wides get any front wide object placement. But that's a case of a non-standard 7.1 speaker setup and Atmos using an Atmos specified speaker (front wides) differently than the straight 7.1 mix which doesn't use front wides, but the AVR uses them just the same (for side output and sides for side + rear output).


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> The Atmos metadata contains all objects that will not necessarily remain in the bed channels


Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your comment but metadata doesn't "contain" objects. For the end user "object audio" simply means there's channels containing audio and there's information (metadata) which describes where in 3D space these channels should play from at a given time.
A renderer in the SSP knows where speakers are placed and routes the audio of each channel to a speaker (or multiple speakers) based on the positional information in the accompanying metadata.


----------



## JonFo

markus767 said:


> MAT can carry either TrueHD or PCM. In the case of an ATV it's PCM.


MAT can indeed carry a variety of formats, including a plain PCM variant, as seen in this capture of the A16 receiving the ATV output while playing an Apple Music 2ch track. It is using an 8ch PCM container MAT format (image=Atmos, which in A16-speak means MAT 2.0) with only 2 active channels.










However, for Atmos content, it is NOT using a PCM container, as PCM can not directly encode the Atmos object streams, those must be placed in either a DD+ or TrueHD format container. And since DD+ spec limits all streams to lossy compression, no way to propagate the raw bed LPCM channels, so it must use a TrueHD format container to propagate the eight channels of LPCM it decoded plus the Atmos object substreams from the DD+ input stream.
The base 8 channels are not compressed with the TrueHD core audio, they remain in whatever resolution the ATV decodes them to, which from what I've read is the typical 24/48.

Further confirmation of this is directly from Dolby:

"To get the best sound quality out of a television or home theater system, it's best if they receive a Dolby bitstream over HDMI. Additionally, *there is NO way of sending Dolby Atmos over PCM over HDMI, so you have to send Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD to get the Dolby Atmos experience*. " And bitstream=MAT.
Source: Dolby Audio over HDMI part 2: Signaling and Carriage | Dolby Developer

So back to the terminology matrix, I believe the following is true for an ATV playing back Atmos:

Input stream DD+ with Atmos
ATV decodes DD+ base channels to LPCM, mixes in any UI feedback

Transport: MAT 2,0 flagging content as a TrueHD stream
Format: Dolby TrueHD
Codecs: Base channels are raw 24/48 PCM, Atmos substreams are lossy compressed from the original DD+

So yes, unmolested PCM is being sent, but it is in a TrueHD format container propagated via MAT.


----------



## bartonnen

markus767 said:


> ...(metadata) which describes where in 3D space these channels should play from at a given time


I don't think that's correct - I thought the metadata was describing where in 3D space _specific sounds within one or more channels_ should play from at a given time. It wouldn't make any sense to move the entire channel to a point in space.


----------



## markus767

JonFo said:


> MAT can indeed carry a variety of formats, including a plain PCM variant, as seen in this capture of the A16 receiving the ATV output while playing an Apple Music 2ch track. It is using an 8ch PCM container MAT format (image=Atmos, which in A16-speak means MAT 2.0) with only 2 active channels.
> 
> View attachment 3147536
> 
> 
> However, for Atmos content, it is NOT using a PCM container, as PCM can not directly encode the Atmos object streams, those must be placed in either a DD+ or TrueHD format container. And since DD+ spec limits all streams to lossy compression, no way to propagate the raw bed LPCM channels, so it must use a TrueHD format container to propagate the eight channels of LPCM it decoded plus the Atmos object substreams from the DD+ input stream.
> The base 8 channels are not compressed with the TrueHD core audio, they remain in whatever resolution the ATV decodes them to, which from what I've read is the typical 24/48.
> 
> Further confirmation of this is directly from Dolby:
> 
> "To get the best sound quality out of a television or home theater system, it's best if they receive a Dolby bitstream over HDMI. Additionally, *there is NO way of sending Dolby Atmos over PCM over HDMI, so you have to send Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD to get the Dolby Atmos experience*. " And bitstream=MAT.
> Source: Dolby Audio over HDMI part 2: Signaling and Carriage | Dolby Developer
> 
> So back to the terminology matrix, I believe the following is true for an ATV playing back Atmos:
> 
> Input stream DD+ with Atmos
> ATV decodes DD+ base channels to LPCM, mixes in any UI feedback
> 
> Transport: MAT 2,0 flagging content as a TrueHD stream
> Format: Dolby TrueHD
> Codecs: Base channels are raw 24/48 PCM, Atmos substreams are lossy compressed from the original DD+
> 
> So yes, unmolested PCM is being sent, but it is in a TrueHD format container propagated via MAT.


The final output after Dolby decoding is _always_ PCM. There might be additional Atmos metadata. That's what makes it "Atmos".
MAT can carry PCM or TrueHD both with or without Atmos metadata. After MAT decoding PCM can be directly used by the renderer while TrueHD needs an additional decoding step to PCM.

In the linked blog post they seem to talk about HDMI ARC exclusively.


----------



## markus767

bartonnen said:


> I don't think that's correct - I thought the metadata was describing where in 3D space _specific sounds within one or more channels_ should play from at a given time. It wouldn't make any sense to move the entire channel to a point in space.


Audio can only exist within an audio channel regardless whether there's a single sound or multiple (in case of spatial coding).
You have to distinguish between input channels that get rendered and the actual speaker channels which are the output of the renderer. The renderer can output to multiple speaker channels.


----------



## dschulz

markus767 said:


> The final output after Dolby decoding is _always_ PCM. There might be additional Atmos metadata. That's what makes it "Atmos".
> MAT can carry PCM or TrueHD both with or without Atmos metadata. After MAT decoding PCM can be directly used by the renderer while TrueHD needs an additional decoding step to PCM.
> 
> In the linked blog post they seem to talk about HDMI ARC exclusively.


This is correct. Apple TV devices, for example, do not output a Dolby bitstream, they always do the decoding in the box and output PCM over HDMI. They do support Atmos, however, by using MAT.


----------



## priitv8

Hi Jonathan,


JonFo said:


> Seems to me that part of the challenge in this discussion is the conflation of various elements whose definition likely needs to be clarified.
> 
> Having followed the evolution of various containerized formats over the past 20 or more years, it is common in threads like this to skip being really clear about a couple of key concepts, which to me are:


You are right, the systematic approach to describing those concepts is a good start.
However, I am not sure, I can follow your description fully. For example, how does Format differ from Coding in your structure?
For example, in my head, I can not put LPCM and TrueHD into same sentence, as for me, they embody different encodings (digital representations) of the same information (audio signal). For me, they both represent Codec or Format. Hence they are mutually exclusive - you can transport digital audio either in its raw format (PCM) or in its space-optimized compressed format (MLP/TrueHD) but not in the same elementary stream.
Then there is something we call Transport Container. This is the "envelope", that encapsulates and carries the "letter" (one or more elementary streams, which are encoded in their respective Formats) over the Transport (physical channel). The containers everyone has heard about are WAV, MP4, MKV or ISO Transport Stream (TS). Essentially file formats, if one decides to store them on digital media.

Fortunately, to get at least partial understanding about Object-based audio, Metadata and inner workings of Dolby Digital Plus (E-AC-3) and associated Atmos encoding/decoding, the streaming version of Atmos (DD+) is standardised and in public domain, together with algorithm explanations. They can easily be studied and are definitely worth taking a look:
ETSI TS 103 420 Backwards-compatible object audio carriage using Enhanced AC-3
ETSI TS 102 366 Digital Audio Compression (AC-3, Enhanced AC-3) Standard

Exact specifications of Dolby MAT, TrueHD (with or without Atmos) and Dolby Vision seem only to be accessible to Dolby licensees and protected with NDA.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> For example, in my head, I can not put LPCM and TrueHD into same sentence, as for me, they embody different encodings (digital representations) of the same information (audio signal). For me, they both represent Codec or Format.


Easy way to think of them is that one is simply a packed version of the other. TrueHD is a codec (*co*der/*dec*oder) but PCM is not (nothing to decode). I tend to think of Atmos, 7.1, 2.0 as formats. YMMV.


----------



## sdurani

Roger Dressler said:


> When the Dolby Media Encoder creates a TrueHD bitstream for BD, it has to create 2, 5.1 and 7.1 downmixes for the different playback systems. All of these downmixes reflect every sound in the original Atmos track, just folded down to different degrees.


Just to confirm: a TrueHD 7.1 bitstream is made up of 3 substreams? Is this always the case on consumer media or can this substream structure not be used?


> Looking specifically at the 7.1 case, in order to recreate the entire Atmos mix in Atmos-capable decoders, it must be possible to remove the downmixed object elements to reveal the clean 7.1 bed channels. This means that the encoder's Atmos to 7.1 fold-down process must be invertible. That usually means the downmix of objects into the 7.1 bed (or the downmix of more channels into fewer channels e.g. 7.1-->5.1, etc) uses a simple linear mixing operation, as that is invertible by simple subtraction.


The objects used for the subtraction step to recover the clean 7.1 bed channels, where are they stored? A 4th substream?


----------



## ppasteur

markus767 said:


> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your comment but metadata doesn't "contain" objects. For the end user "object audio" simply means there's channels containing audio and there's information (metadata) which describes where in 3D space these channels should play from at a given time.
> A renderer in the SSP knows where speakers are placed and routes the audio of each channel to a speaker (or multiple speakers) based on the positional information in the accompanying metadata.


Would you have found it acceptable had he @MagnumX , had said 
"_The Atmos metadata contains (the data that defines) all objects that will not necessarily remain in the bed channels_" 
Though I think it was clear as to what he meant, were I writing technical documentation I may have included the additional words.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Just to confirm: a TrueHD 7.1 bitstream is made up of 3 substreams? Is this always the case on consumer media or can this substream structure not be used? The objects used for the subtraction step to recover the clean 7.1 bed channels, where are they stored? A 4th substream?


Good questions. As much as I can really get my mind around @Roger Dressler description and like it, I wonder if it all has to be put into the context of the Atmos decoder. As a TrueHD decoder that is not Atmos capable is said to simply ignore Atmos objects ( maybe not ignore, but simply does not recognize them). So this already results in a "Clean" 7.1 bed with no manipulation required? 

But it looks like you are also looking for a confirmation of what you mentioned previously about the use of this 4th substream.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> As a TrueHD decoder that is not Atmos capable is said to simply ignore Atmos objects ( maybe not ignore, but simply does not recognize them). So this already results in a "Clean" 7.1 bed with no manipulation required?


Atmos soundtracks are a combination of bed channels and audio objects. The 7.1 mix contains ALL the info in the soundtrack: beds + objects combined. That's what comes out of a TrueHD decoder that is not Atmos capable. If you subtract the objects from the 7.1 mix, whatever is left over is the clean 7.1 bed. But you need an Atmos capable decoder to do that.


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your comment but metadata doesn't "contain" objects. For the end user "object audio" simply means there's channels containing audio and there's information (metadata) which describes where in 3D space these channels should play from at a given time.
> A renderer in the SSP knows where speakers are placed and routes the audio of each channel to a speaker (or multiple speakers) based on the positional information in the accompanying metadata.


I was just being generic to the added Atmos streams. It's in an extra channel (sub-stream?) (if that's the word; in a hurry don't have time to look it up) not used by the older decoder. The actual "metadata" (as the word implies) contains the instructions. Technically, TrueHD has a metadata set as well on how to downmix to 5.1, 2.1, etc.


----------



## Roger Dressler

MagnumX said:


> The problem is the "Spatial coding limitations and fine tuning" section is referring to the Cinema Atmos mix, NOT the consumer one.


 Ahh, I see what you mean. The mixer is comparing the consumer result to the original theatrical mix, and tweaking to improve the match to it. 

I have to dig further into how the "7.1 render," which we call the complete downmix, is created. Thus far I do not see any definitive language from Dolby that describes it, so cannot assume how it may differ from the "render to 7.1" created by a consumer decoder. Once thing to consider, though, is that whatever process the encoder renderer uses to make the 7.1 downmix, has to be performed identically in the consumer Atmos processor in parallel to the full renderer feeding the speakers. Complexity has to be consideration.


----------



## Roger Dressler

sdurani said:


> Just to confirm: a TrueHD 7.1 bitstream is made up of 3 substreams? Is this always the case on consumer media or can this substream structure not be used?


The substreams are always used. That is necessary because certain playback hardware can only see the first substream (e.g., a stereo DVD-A or BD player). They are incapable of accepting the additional substreams and creating a downmix.



> The objects used for the subtraction step to recover the clean 7.1 bed channels, where are they stored? A 4th substream?


Yes.


----------



## ppasteur

I guess this


Roger Dressler said:


> The substreams are always used. That is necessary because certain playback hardware can only see the first substream (e.g., a stereo DVD-A or BD player). They are incapable of accepting the additional substreams and creating a downmix.
> 
> Yes.


So in this specific case, if there is no 4th substream there can be no Atmos Processing, is this correct? Or is there something else that flags the Atmos processing to be used?
Of course in the absence of the content of the 4th substream, I am not sure what the processor would do...
I am just trying to get it all settled in my head.


----------



## junh1024

Roger Dressler said:


> I have to dig further into how the "7.1 render," which we call the complete downmix, is created. Thus far I do not see any definitive language from Dolby that describes it, so cannot assume how it may differ from the "render to 7.1" created by a consumer decoder. Once thing to consider, though, is that whatever process the encoder renderer uses to make the 7.1 downmix, has to be performed identically in the consumer Atmos processor in parallel to the full renderer feeding the speakers. Complexity has to be consideration.


I would assume the 71 render would be applied after spatial coding (due to the structure of the guide) , since the same audio is being passed around the 71 downmix & Atmos reconstruction. Any (large) differences would need to be coded & may increase size, and so the difference btw the 71 downmix & Atmos decoding to 71 should be small.



JonFo said:


> now placed into a TrueHD format (IIRC, DD+ is a subset of TrueHD format, so elements can just be copied over).


DDP is a superset of DD, but i'm not sure DDP & THD are related.



ppasteur said:


> If you click one of the "sound" buttons, (the movie/green sound mode button) at least when playing TrueHD/Atmos content there are options for TrueHD or TrueHD/Atmos. Don't hold me to specifics on the exact notation, as I am not currently looking at it.


I'm looking at the Denon page , and there's not much that should change, unless you also use THD+NX processing



ppasteur said:


> So in this specific case, if there is no 4th substream there can be no Atmos Processing, is this correct?


Well it turns out I was wrong & 4 streams really exist in THD, if it is Atmos. So if there is no SS4, it should be just a regular 71 mix. (ED: usually?)

Thing is, not many sources, and not many tools will tell you about these SS, and it's easy to confuse yourself if you get into these low-level details so I prefer to think of it as 71 core/downmix (combined output of SS 1-3) + Atmos extension.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> The problem is that where THX standards tried to deliver the cinema experience at home, from what I've read by a group on a professional forum, there are no standards for what constitutes a "near field mix" in that regard thus they adjust by ear to what they "like" using near-field monitors and at least some mixing engineers may be overzealous compared to others and you end up with "Disney-like" soundtracks with little dynamic range and perhaps deep bass filtered out, etc. Without cinema standards, a home version may or may not be very good. I've found far too many mixes (many by Disney, but not all) to be very tame with little dynamic range compared to soundtracks released just a half decade ago and those were also "near field" mixes (e.g. TRON: Legacy). Without any standard to ensure high quality home theater versions, the Atmos capability means little or nothing in overall soundtrack quality, IMO. The new Indiana Jones mixes are little more than slightly enhanced (similar to DSU quality, IMO) upmixing with greatly reduced bass levels compared to the previous THX rated Blu-Ray release. Some think that mix was overcooked, but I thought it sounded much better, personally. Disney seems to be hit/miss on which titles are good/just ok/worse these days and I have yet to read a good explanation for it.


The atmos renderer includes "bass management" (search that up in the guide) . That may account for differences in general bass levels as I suspect many traditional 51 mixes in the past would not have BMS when mixed.

Cinema EQ might have something to do with the X-curve . 
(ED: link say it's bad)

It's hard to compress an object master to make it louder so Atmos soundtracks might be quieter than traditional mixes, unless it were just 712, which brings me to my next point.



ppasteur said:


> Also, not only is the home decoder not powerful enough to decode the 128 objects, no home system today has the bandwidth required so transmit this amount of data.


Going from 12>16>128 elements might sound a little better for >=916 users ( AVR processing power aside) , but I think the biggest thing affecting mix quality is the decisions made by a mixer.

Some mixes may sound very 712ish, since it's very easy to manipulate channels rather than objects, and you can easily upscale into 712. I can easily see this being a potential problem for 10-50% of releases.

Heavily using the 712 bed is bad, since 712 occupies only half the Available area in Atmos, a prism volume instead of a cube volume, so you can't even have something statically placed @ top-front.

A Atmos bed is limited to a max of 712, and if you send a track there, you can't separate it again since It's not object, It's mixed into the bed of the Atmos master. The only way you can get it out again is if you had the original project.

It's potentially hard to hear the flaw of using the 712 bed rather than object, since you can barely hear it on 714, and on a cinema setup , every speaker is above you, and the 712 bed should be arrayed. Thus, you can (only easily) hear it on a >=716 setup.

The solution is to use objects more, and any time audio is at height, to avoid the 712 syndrome. And A well -done & genuine 714 mix (not upscaled from 712, and potentially doine outside of Atmos/PT) would be better than a 712ish mix in that case.


----------



## markus767

ppasteur said:


> I guess this
> 
> So in this specific case, if there is no 4th substream there can be no Atmos Processing, is this correct? Or is there something else that flags the Atmos processing to be used?
> Of course in the absence of the content of the 4th substream, I am not sure what the processor would do...
> I am just trying to get it all settled in my head.


No 4th substream, no Atmos. Applies only to TrueHD. DD+ works differently.


----------



## blake

Does anyone here work for Dolby / engineering ?


----------



## niterida

blake said:


> Does anyone here work for Dolby / engineering ?


No but my friends brother in law is on the board of directors. Not sure that would help us much though.


----------



## chi_guy50

blake said:


> Does anyone here work for Dolby / engineering ?


A handful of the posters in this discussion are extremely knowledgeable audio industry professionals. If you have a question, ask away.


----------



## ppasteur

markus767 said:


> No 4th substream, no Atmos. _Applies only to TrueHD_. DD+ works differently.


Actually your answer would be , _Yes_, as the question applied directly to TrueHD. DD+ was not mentioned.. I specifically limited the question by saying "in this specific case" in response to a post that referred to _TRUEHD_.
No reference to DD+. So what is your point? Just to say that DD+ works differently? Can you describe that process for me?


----------



## Roger Dressler

ppasteur said:


> So in this specific case, if there is no 4th substream there can be no Atmos Processing, is this correct?


That's correct, the 4th TrueHD substream is where Atmos information is carried.


----------



## ppasteur

Roger Dressler said:


> That's correct, the 4th TrueHD substream is where Atmos information is carried.


Thank you Roger.


----------



## priitv8

ppasteur said:


> Just to say that DD+ works differently? Can you describe that process for me?


DD+ Uses JOC encoding and I believe it is unique to DD+ and not being used in TrueHD.
Decoding process is described in Chapters 4.3 and 6.6 of ETSI TS 103 420 standard.


----------



## ppasteur

Thanks. I was thinking that @markus767 would reply. Based on his answer to me above, I inferred that he would have that info readily available. 
I will check out the referenced document. But, I was just reading the ATSC Audio Compression A52-201212-17 spec (AC3 eAC3/DD+). I haven't done any coding in a while, so I admit that plodding through this kind of document is tedious (but I will get through the first 127 pages not the Karaoke part  ). I tend to like higher level docs, or just plain English descriptions of flow.


----------



## blake

chi_guy50 said:


> A handful of the posters in this discussion are extremely knowledgeable audio industry professionals. If you have a question, ask away.


I was just wondering if actual Dolby employees were here, so as to help determine the “truth” in regards to the ins and outs of how various codecs and Atmos overlay is handled. 

The ongoing technical discussion is interesting but it’s hard to sort out what is accurate as some comments seem speculative. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## priitv8

ppasteur said:


> I haven't done any coding in a while, so I admit that plodding through this kind of document is tedious (but I will get through the first 127 pages not the Karaoke part  ). I tend to like higher level docs, or just plain English descriptions of flow.


I am with you in this. I also want to get close to roots explanations to understand how they have really made it at Dolby Labs. Pure guessing will take too much time.
Alas, with these recent developments (Atmos and Dolby Vision) there is quite little of technical information available or it is rather vague and more marketing than technical speak.
Luckily ETSI has adopted AC-3/E-AC-3 and Atmos JO-Coding as standard, so these variations can be investigated to bare bones.
My best understanding from the pseudocode in said docs is, that the object essences (WAV-snippets of audio acting as objects) are encoded into existing channels in frequency domain coding, so could be totally inaudible without decoding. I would love if someone more knowledgeable about quadrature mirror filter bank transformation could chime in and enlighten us more.


----------



## ppasteur

priitv8 said:


> DD+ Uses JOC encoding and I believe it is unique to DD+ and not being used in TrueHD.
> Decoding process is described in Chapters 4.3 and 6.6 of ETSI TS 103 420 standard.


I did find this from various sources:

"Joint Object Coding describes the process by which Dolby Digital Plus with Atmos decoders, receiving a legacy 5.1 mix and _sideband metadata_, are able to reconstruct the original Atmos mix."
And:
"When a consumer playback device enabled with Dolby Atmos receives a Dolby Digital Plus JOC bitstream, the 5.1 is decoded, a JOC decoder recreates the elements, and the OAR (Object Audio Renderer) uses the OAMD (Object Audio Meta Data) from each element to render audio to the device."

And:
"The JOC and OAMD metadata is packaged as an Extended Metadata Format (EMF) and inserted into “_skip frames_” between audio blocks in the Dolby Digital Plus bitstream. Since the EMF occupies what was _empty space_, devices that are not enabled with Dolby Atmos ignore it. "

So, if I interpret this correctly, the data in the "_skip frames_" serves a similar/equivalent function to the "4th" substream in TrueHD for the purposes of Atmos.

OK, this is very high level. It does not contain all of the technical nuances of the process, but I hope it might help anyone that is interested in understanding the process.


----------



## MagnumX

priitv8 said:


> I am with you in this. I also want to get close to roots explanations to understand how they have really made it at Dolby Labs. Pure guessing will take too much time.


The basics are presented in Dolby's documents. I doubt Dolby would like you to know more or they would be open source like the object system used in DTS:X (aka MDA). Speaking of which, one could learn a lot about object based audio examining open sourced MDA, which is used in both X and Auromax if I recall correctly. 

Dolby has already had DD and DD+ reverse engineered and some early free encoders of TrueHD are starting to appear as well. Having 3rd parties give Atmos away for free probably isn't in their best interests.



> Luckily ETSI has adopted AC-3/E-AC-3 and Atmos JO-Coding as standard, so these variations can be investigated to bare bones.
> My best understanding from the pseudocode in said docs is, that the object essences (WAV-snippets of audio acting as objects) are encoded into existing channels in frequency domain coding, so could be totally inaudible without decoding.


How they could migrate full bandwidth waveforms into hypersonic frequencies in real time without increasing the sampling rate to at least double the 48kHz rate sounds like a real physics puzzler to me.

Furthermore, if the same bitstreams contained the object waveforms, why are Atmos soundtracks sometimes 50% larger than the TrueHD version alone? Metadata alone would not account for the size increase alone. 

Dolby's documentation makes it clear it's stored in an additional substream that older decoders simply ignore. This was mentioned several pages ago, but the same items just seem to keep repeating themselves in a thread I feel would probably be better served to have its own thread as nearly any other subject is being buried page after page.



> I would love if someone more knowledgeable about quadrature mirror filter bank transformation could chime in and enlighten us more.


Why? It would likely just be relegated to conjecture and unverifiable guessing unless said person revealed they work at Dolby and could prove it with quadruple certifications, a notary republic and perhaps some patents in their name.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

sdurani said:


> Sounds exactly right for that demo track. Your height speakers are working as intended. You're getting left-vs-right AND front-vs-back separation above you.


Thanks for this. My height speakers are seemingly working as intended in isolation.

However, my impression when viewing Atmos content (unless there's discrete overhead effects) is that the soundstage is concentrated towards the front. So, the effect of height is there, but it does feel like it's right above the mains or thereabouts. Any demo track(s) that I can use to test the imaging between the mains and overheads?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

liverpool_for_life said:


> Thanks for this. My height speakers are seemingly working as intended in isolation.
> 
> However, my impression when viewing Atmos content (unless there's discrete overhead effects) is that the soundstage is concentrated towards the front. So, the effect of height is there, but it does feel like it's right above the mains or thereabouts. Any demo track(s) that I can use to test the imaging between the mains and overheads?


If I recall from your earlier posts, did you end up going front heights instead of top front? If your speakers are in the angular range of front height, then what you're hearing is the compromise of placing the speakers in that position. It's not above you enough to give you as much of a sense of "overhead" sound, but can give you a sense of elevated sound in the front soundstage similar to what DPL-IIz used to provide. That placement, while supported, isn't ideal as it gives you too little angular separation from the LCR and too much angular separation from top rear/rear height to adequately image above you.

If you can find the ENCOUNTER demo clip, it has a sound that moves from the left main region up through the heights across to the right surround, then in arc overhead to the left surround and back before moving overhead from there to the left again. That ought to help you assess movement through your mains.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If I recall from your earlier posts, did you end up going front heights instead of top front?


No. 45 degrees from MLP, on ceiling.



> If you can find the ENCOUNTER demo clip, it has a sound that moves from the left main region up through the heights across to the right surround, then in arc overhead to the left surround and back before moving overhead from there to the left again. That ought to help you assess movement through your mains.


I don't have that particular clip downloaded, but will look for it.


----------



## niterida

liverpool_for_life said:


> However, my impression when viewing Atmos content (unless there's discrete overhead effects) is that the soundstage is concentrated towards the front.


Unfortunately a lot of Atmos soundtracks don't take full advantage of height speakers.
Also a lot of them added the intended ATMOSpheric effects which are subtle and not always that noticeable UNTIL you turn the height speakers off and wonder where all the sound went.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

niterida said:


> Unfortunately a lot of Atmos soundtracks don't take full advantage of height speakers.
> Also a lot of them added the intended ATMOSpheric effects which are subtle and not always that noticeable UNTIL you turn the height speakers off and wonder where all the sound went.


Don't disagree with any of that. However, my problem is specific to when there are height effects but they're seemingly concentrated to the front of the room. As Jeremy said, it is almost what I would expect to hear if I had only front heights installed. 

When the heights effects are discrete overhead effects, things work fine i.e. a plane/jet panning across from right to left overhead. As far as I can tell, this is a problem with imaging between my mains and overheads.


----------



## MagnumX

liverpool_for_life said:


> Don't disagree with any of that. However, my problem is specific to when there are height effects but they're seemingly concentrated to the front of the room. As Jeremy said, it is almost what I would expect to hear if I had only front heights installed.
> 
> When the heights effects are discrete overhead effects, things work fine i.e. a plane/jet panning across from right to left overhead. As far as I can tell, this is a problem with imaging between my mains and overheads.


Is your listening chair (MLP) directly mid-way between the front and rear heights or are you sitting closer to the front heights? 

If the answer is closer to the front, then it's probably the dreaded "Precedence Effect" which unfortunately applies to ALL stereo panning between pairs of speakers, whether left/right in front of you (i.e. you sit closer to the left speaker than the right and a center singing voice in stereo pulls heavily towards the left speaker and panning isn't perfectly even when it's going hard left to right, etc.) or whether it's front to back panning like front/rear height where sitting closer to the front will pull more of the overhead effects towards the front height speakers. 

Ideally, you always want to be right in the middle of all the speakers to avoid this problem entirely. In reality, that rarely works and even if it does, it's just for one chair. Everyone else is either off-axis left/right (x-axis) or front/back (y-axis) or both. Adding more speakers in-between (e.g. the center speaker for in front or top middle for overhead) reduces the effect considerably. It's the primary reason why center located speakers exist in the first place. There's also considerations in room planning whereby the exact center might not be the best location for a chair in terms of room response (e.g. standing waves).


----------



## liverpool_for_life

MagnumX said:


> Is your listening chair (MLP) directly mid-way between the front and rear heights or are you sitting closer to the front heights?


As mentioned before, I have Top Front and Top Rear overheads installed on my ceiling. And my MLP is smack dab in the middle of that square, with the speakers at the four corners.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

liverpool_for_life said:


> No. 45 degrees from MLP, on ceiling.


Are they angled toward the MLP or straight down? I've found that while 45 degrees is the center of Dolby's recommended range, you have to take into account the off-axis response of the speaker in question. You don't want the speaker physically at 45 degrees but with the bulk of its energy aimed at your knees instead of your ears.


liverpool_for_life said:


> As mentioned before, I have Top Front and Top Rear overheads installed on my ceiling. And my MLP is smack dab in the middle of that square, with the speakers at the four corners.


If you have the LEAF or ENCOUNTER demos, try tweaking the distances for your height channels up a notch and listening to see if that helps. Then try down a notch. Auto-cal methods tend to get it close, but... I've found that even minor tweaks to the distances can make things "snap" into place. 9 times out of 10, if the speaker placement is right but things seem off, it's a distance setting in need of critical tweaking.

I would also recommend playing the Helicopter clip and seeing if minor changes to the distance of your top rears better aligns the transitions between the top rear and top front with that clip. When the distances are right here, you should hear the sound move smoothly between each speaker as it moves around. The Audiosphere demo clip is also decent for this, as the overhead chimes should image more between the top front/rear than from just the top front. Assuming all your levels are matched, a small bump up or down to distance can shift where the sound images between each position.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> try tweaking the distances for your height channels up a notch and listening to see if that helps. Then try down a notch. Auto-cal methods tend to get it close, but... I've found that even minor tweaks to the distances can make things "snap" into place. 9 times out of 10, if the speaker placement is right but things seem off, it's a distance setting in need of critical tweaking.


Do you think this works even if your distance settings in the AVR are set by physically measuring the distance ?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Do you think this works even if your distance settings in the AVR are set by physically measuring the distance ?


Yes. Physical distance doesn't necessarily get you the optimal setting because different speakers may have slightly different crossover-induced phase differences to account for as well. Auto-cal methods take that into account, but even then a very small tweak can better align the phase between the adjacent channels so that they image better between them. It's worth some critical adjustment to get it lined up right at the MLP, and the closer it is at the MLP, the better it will be for all the seats. Ideally, we would have a series of in-phase noise tones centered between each speaker to tweak this, but the demo clips I mentioned give enough cross-channel movement that you should hear when those objects image coherently between channels as they should. When you get it right, the "bubble of sound" people talk about just snaps into place. You'll know it when you hear it.


----------



## sdurani

liverpool_for_life said:


> However, my impression when viewing Atmos content (unless there's discrete overhead effects) is that the soundstage is concentrated towards the front. So, the effect of height is there, but it does feel like it's right above the mains or thereabouts.


Turn up the level of the Top Rear speakers momentarily to see if that reduces the front-heavy effect you're hearing.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yes. Physical distance doesn't necessarily get you the optimal setting because different speakers may have slightly different crossover-induced phase differences to account for as well. Auto-cal methods take that into account, but even then a very small tweak can better align the phase between the adjacent channels so that they image better between them. It's worth some critical adjustment to get it lined up right at the MLP, and the closer it is at the MLP, the better it will be for all the seats. Ideally, we would have a series of in-phase noise tones centered between each speaker to tweak this, but the demo clips I mentioned give enough cross-channel movement that you should hear when those objects image coherently between channels as they should. When you get it right, the "bubble of sound" people talk about just snaps into place. You'll know it when you hear it.


That's what we need - give me an app that lets me drag a point around the room and listen to the sound move through the speakers.

Without that, where can we get a hold of these demos?


----------



## bartonnen

Soulburner said:


> Without that, where can we get a hold of these demos?


This is one source: Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


----------



## ppasteur

Check this thread here at AVS. He has uploaded a bunch of demo material to his Google Drive.








Demos to test your home cinema equipment !


Demos to test your equipement (4K HDR, Dolby, DTS, Atmos, ...) ! As of February 1, 2022 New version, again a big thank you to Flips for his help (and his time), which brings together no less than 700 demos in the form of torrent files ! So we have 4: 4K UHD 2K FHD Technical Video games 4K...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## MagnumX

liverpool_for_life said:


> As mentioned before, I have Top Front and Top Rear overheads installed on my ceiling. And my MLP is smack dab in the middle of that square, with the speakers at the four corners.


Then unless it's a level issue (check roughly by ear with a sound level demo test or better yet use an SPL meter), I'd imagine it's the actual content. Have you tried Dolby Atmos demos like someone suggested like the leaf one has stuff moving all over above and below or the helicopter that moves evenly around the ceiling. If they're moving correctly, then there's nothing wrong with your system and it must simply be the content. A lot of Atmos movie material is disappointing for overhead effects.

I also know several movies that sounded like there was stuff only going on in the front height region, but when I turned off the front height speakers, it was still there (actually coming from the front mains so some kind of HRTF/phase information like Q-Sound that images well above the speaker itself. There are also some movies that use front heavy effects and now that includes above the screen as well. It's also easier to hear in front of you and above more precisely than behind you and above so if it's not terribly discrete or purposely arrayed, it might tend to image more often slightly forward than backward or directly above, but probably not way in front of you.


----------



## Soulburner

bartonnen said:


> This is one source: Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


Nice. Thinking about putting these on the PS4 and bitstreaming them to the AVR. I'll see how much space I have...do you see any issues with that?


----------



## Soulburner

Soulburner said:


> Nice. Thinking about putting these on the PS4 and bitstreaming them to the AVR. I'll see how much space I have...do you see any issues with that?


Well I answered my question. Sony doesn't want you having m2ts files


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> That's what we need - give me an app that lets me drag a point around the room and listen to the sound move through the speakers.
> 
> Without that, where can we get a hold of these demos?


Just a note, the bass on some of these demos are recorded hot so if you have a house curve on your subs it might be a good idea to use caution depending on how your system is setup. I have a house curve but tons of headroom so it wasn't an issue for me, but it surprised me how hot some of these demos were.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Jeremy Anderson said:


> When you get it right, the "bubble of sound" people talk about just snaps into place. You'll know it when you hear it.


***Probably the best, brief statement I’ve heard on Dolby Atmos in a while. Think of it as a referee in a boxing match. When he or she has done their job right - you don’t notice them. When your Atmos setup is optimized for your room, the Dolby Atmos soundtrack envelopes you in sound with that immersive feeling that draws you into the movie. To me, it’s seamless and somewhat transparent. You know when you hear it and especially with a properly mixed soundtrack.

Now - that can be subjective in defining “What is a properly mixed Dolby Atmos soundtrack?” I think we can all agree that some soundtracks are better than others. When I first started following this thread and setting up my Atmos speaker system (currently 9.1.4 with two speakers being Front Wides) I went through some trial and error. I had to replace two, direct firing side surrounds with Dipole speakers because of my smaller man cave. And, because of their close proximity to the major listening position (M’wa only) - they sounded like firecrackers or gun shots and didn’t blend in at all. Kinda like “I’m here - listen to me!” But once you get it right then you really start to enjoy DA soundtracks and you focus more on the content and what you’re watching.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Are they angled toward the MLP or straight down? I've found that while 45 degrees is the center of Dolby's recommended range, you have to take into account the off-axis response of the speaker in question. You don't want the speaker physically at 45 degrees but with the bulk of its energy aimed at your knees instead of your ears.
> 
> If you have the LEAF or ENCOUNTER demos, try tweaking the distances for your height channels up a notch and listening to see if that helps. Then try down a notch. Auto-cal methods tend to get it close, but... I've found that even minor tweaks to the distances can make things "snap" into place. 9 times out of 10, if the speaker placement is right but things seem off, it's a distance setting in need of critical tweaking.
> 
> I would also recommend playing the Helicopter clip and seeing if minor changes to the distance of your top rears better aligns the transitions between the top rear and top front with that clip. When the distances are right here, you should hear the sound move smoothly between each speaker as it moves around. The Audiosphere demo clip is also decent for this, as the overhead chimes should image more between the top front/rear than from just the top front. Assuming all your levels are matched, a small bump up or down to distance can shift where the sound images between each position.


Do you know the filename of the helicopter clip? I have several of these demos and there is a helicopter effect in Nature's Fury and also Universe, but I'm not sure if this is the demo people are talking about when they mention the helicopter clip.


----------



## dschulz

blake said:


> Does anyone here work for Dolby / engineering ?


To the best of my knowledge we don't have any current Dolby staff posting in this thread, but I am ex-DTS and although not an engineer pretty tuned into the Hollywood workflows for theatrical and home ent post. @Roger Dressler is ex-Dolby and I consider him to be an authoritative source of information.

I am reaching out to Dolby to see if we can get an absolutely definitive answer to the specific question of whether a render to 7.1 could or should be slightly different from the un-processed playback of the TrueHD 7.1 track itself.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> Just a note, the bass on some of these demos are recorded hot so if you have a house curve on your subs it might be a good idea to use caution depending on how your system is setup. I have a house curve but tons of headroom so it wasn't an issue for me, but it surprised me how hot some of these demos were.


I freed up some space on the laptop and downloaded and tested the Leaf demo using Windows Media Player. Sounded pretty good. Not much overhead but the effects behind me were nice. It didn't seem to use the fronts much. Will test the others later.

EDIT: I realized I downloaded the AC3 version of Leaf. Oops! Downloaded the Atmos version and the channel separation is better. Nice effects as the sound pans around.

I do run a little hot and have lots of headroom. I measured up to 127 dB peak at 30 Hz during the opening scene of Blade Runner 2049. That wasn't running full tilt but it is probably close to my max. Of course the higher bass frequencies have less headroom as room gain fades away and the subs being 16 feet apart lose the 6 dB direct acoustic coupling.


----------



## Soulburner

Ricoflashback said:


> When I first started following this thread and setting up my Atmos speaker system (currently 9.1.4 with two speakers being Front Wides) I went through some trial and error. I had to replace two, direct firing side surrounds with Dipole speakers because of my smaller man cave. And, because of their close proximity to the major listening position (M’wa only) - they sounded like firecrackers or gun shots and didn’t blend in at all.


I have the same issue. They easily call attention to themselves, so I have their levels turned down. I take it that wasn't enough for you?


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> I freed up some space on the laptop and downloaded and tested the Leaf demo using Windows Media Player. Sounded pretty good. Not much overhead but the effects behind me were nice. It didn't seem to use the fronts much. Will test the others later.
> 
> The AVR said DD + DSur so that may not be what I want though. Thoughts?
> 
> I do run a little hot and have lots of headroom. I measured up to 127 dB peak at 30 Hz during the opening scene of Blade Runner 2049. That wasn't running full tilt but it is probably close to my max. Of course the higher bass frequencies have less headroom as room gain fades away and the subs being 16 feet apart lose the 6 dB direct acoustic coupling.


The Nature's Fury demo is my favorite of the ones I have downloaded, but I admit it's largely due to the bass in the demo yet it has good Atmos also. Your subwoofer setup sounds nice and can make that demo fun. I'm taking notes on the Atmos calibration conversation and will try to tweak my system at some point, it's a 5.1.2 and I haven't ran Audyssey yet or tried to tweak it beyond doing manual level setting and distance parameters. Sometimes the height channels sound too direct so maybe there is some tweaking that can be done.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Soulburner said:


> I have the same issue. They easily call attention to themselves, so I have their levels turned down. I take it that wasn't enough for you?


***Nope - I couldn’t deal with it. Now folks will tell you that Dipoles are not to be used in a Dolby Atmos setup. But I think every room is different. They were so loud and obnoxious that you either had to turn them way down or off. Even turning them down didn’t work for me. Every audio sound from them was like a gun shot or firecracker. Maybe not a textbook, optimal Dolby Atmos configuration. But the Dipoles work for me. Fills out the sound nicely without exploding all the time.


----------



## MagnumX

I think the Atmos Dolby _Amaze_ demo has more bass kick than Nature's Fury (save perhaps that last bit at the end) and has that nice bird fly around the room that's downright holographic sounding (flies 13 feet behind me and the finally about two feet in front of my face on its last turn). It also has a thunderstorm with rain effect. 

Nature's Fury is great for testing even imaging, though as the light moving on screen should closely match the sound position you hear right around the entire room around and behind you and move right up the wall exactly as it does on the screen (assuming you have a large screen; I'm using a 92" one here). 

It also has some arrayed effects and some fully discrete effects (noticeable only if you have multiple rows as some sounds follow you around the room (the one kid's voice is about two feet behind me in the first or second row regardless where I sit (arrayed) while the kid splashing in the pool and the door slam always come from the back right corner in matter where I sit (discrete). The helicopter is discrete, but I can hear it exit the room better from the back two rows since so much is going on.

The _Conductor_ demo is great for checking top middle imaging as the bird flies almost directly overhead and the vine swinging effect is a nice wrap around effect plus the tiger sound is rear height while the sound just before it going across the room sideways is rear surround. Lots of crickets all around.

_Unfold_ has a great zip/tile you inside a box effect with layers moving around and pounding down from above.

_Horizons_ is another great one. The spaceship flying in above from behind should move smoothly overhead into the front of the room while the smaller ships zoom right past your body a bit lower closer to head or shoulder height while the final set go the other way closer to the ceiling on either side of the room (maybe 1/3 in). Great waterfall sound with the kayak and the car pans from behind to shoot out in front all the sudden and then pans off to the left side surround as it comes back the other way. Lots of bug/cricket effects too.

There's also a sound only demo of a rain storm (that sounds more like a torrential downpour as it gets going where it sounds lje rain us coming from every direction all around (probably a bit unrealistic as rain typically only makes a sound where it hits).

There's a 747 takeoff sound only one and an alien ship landing one that's impressive in addition to the helicopter sound only one that flies in circles around the ceiling.

DTS:X has an object simulator demo that is excellent where the ball moves around the virtual room on screen and you hear it in the same places in your actual room.


----------



## Soulburner

I made it through testing all the applicable Atmos trailers on The Digital Theater. My laptop (i5 5500 with on-chip video, no dedicated GPU) can't play the m2ts files without lag so I stuck to the MKV's:

Dolby_Amaze_Lossless-ATMOS
Dolby_Leaf_Lossless_ATMOS
Dolby_Conductor_Lossless_ATMOS
Dolby_Atmos_Natures_Fury_1920x1080_ATMOS_71
Dolby_Silent_Lossless_ATMOS
Dolby_Unfold_Lossless_ATMOS
DOLBY_ATMOS_UNFOLD_2_FEEL_EVERY_DIMENSION_LOSSLESS

Of the trailers above, "Silent" sounded the most impressive to me in terms of the sheer production of all the effects. There is a lot to analyze here, especially if you disconnect your front speakers to focus on what they are doing in the surround vs height channels. I also very much liked Amaze with the thunderous LFE and rainfall. The least impressive was "Nature's Fury" in my opinion.

I have gained a better understanding of how the channels are used. Examples:

Thunder and rain: height/top speakers with bed layer complementing
Audience applause: bed layer with height/top speakers adding ambience
Helicopter seed moving around you: mostly bed layer, but moves to height/top for effect
Nature sounds, insects, etc: could be anywhere based on creator's intent
Planes: could move through height/top speakers with bed layer for support, or vise versa

Due to the content variability, I would test all the material you can find before concluding something is wrong with your setup and make decisions about what to change or leave alone. A change based on one demo could be bad for another.

I think the left to right imaging is fine, but I can't say I'm amazed by the front to back. I think there may be a "hole" where I would benefit from top middle speakers, but that option is not available to me. But, I need more material to test that.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> _Horizons_ is another great one.


I didn't see this one on the list so I did some searching and found it on Demolandia. This one didn't lag like the other m2ts files, probably because it isn't trying to be 2160p _plus _Dolby Atmos_ plus _Dolby Vision.

The front-to-back sound from the large spaceship flying over is subtle and I had to play the clip a few times to hear it, probably because it was lower in frequency. It was easier to figure out what was going on when I sat up and turned my head to the right, so that the sound moved from right ear to left ear. The human hearing system works much better this way. I do think I'd benefit from a top middle here. The two smaller ships that pass through have a very smooth surround-to-front speaker transition, however. The best I've heard. They sound like they fly almost right through or just over my seats, rather than way overhead. Creator's intent here. I unplugged my fronts again and confirmed the heights aren't used much for those (the two smaller spaceships go quiet).

This was a pretty good one, overall.

I'm again left feeling the front heights aren't that noticeable compared to what's going on behind me. I'm hesitant to tweak that because channel levels sound equal to me with white noise. I also don't want to disrupt music upmixing balance.


----------



## Soulburner

Just obtained:

dolby-shattered-lossless

Now THIS one put shattered glass directly over my head. As I suspected, the higher frequency sounds image a lot better. The glass moving front to back overhead was convincing here.

Finally:

dolby-audiosphere-lossless

This put a lot of sound overhead, with a slight bias to the rear. Good demo though.


----------



## MagnumX

@Soulburner - How far apart are your overheads? Sorry if you've posted this before.

The big ship in Horizons should move across from just behind you (with the astronaut voice way behind you) to at least 50% of the distance from directly overhead to the front overheads. I would think it wouldn't move too far with many "Tops" setups as they are not usually very far apart. My room is 24 feet long with top middles and heights almost edge to edge so perhaps it's a bit easier for me to hear large scale smaller movement as it simply has more space to move.

The helicopter in Nature's Fury while perhaps a bit harder to pick out with other sounds going on flies from somewhere near the center height location directly above my screen diagonally across the ceiling to past the right wall somewhere between my top middle and rear height speakers.

There's a jet on the album Point by Yello in Atmos on the track "Rush For Joe" at the end that flies above left front wide across the room to some point back between top middle and rear height right.

I actually thought the "Silent" demo was kind of over-blended for many of the effects with the parts during the movie hard to tell overhead versus bed without unplugging things, but the applause at the end moving back to front right through the middle of the room is nice. 

However, the first part outside the theater is great. Right at the start that cart-like squeaking movement sound travels straight down the middle of the room from the back to in front of me passing right through me like I'm (or it is) a ghost (very holographic!).

There's a point on Yello's album in the song "Big Boy's Blues" where this mechanical sound travels from the front center speaker to just above my head right through the center of the room into the back in a similar holographic like fashion (that bird in Amaze does something similar but around you and then back across in front of you). These sounds that pass right through ear level in the middle of the room are so rare (movies tend to put thongs to the sides around you or maybe above you now, but hardly ever pass sounds right through the audience, but it's freaky when it does happen).

Also check out _Audiosphere_ in Atmos if you can find it. It's quite nice. (Edit: I see you already found it. Yes, Shattered is a good demo also, especially where it turns the room with the stuff hanging overhead and shards flying everywhere).


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> How far apart are your overheads?


About 8 feet from my seat to each one:










I can hear the big ship move overhead, it's just not super obvious for a couple of reasons. First, it's lower in frequency itself, and our ears can't localize low frequency sounds with as much accuracy. Second, there's a lot of LFE happening and boy do I have plenty of that, which could be providing some masking of the upper bass range. It's above the detection threshold, but I just wanted to point out there's a very obvious difference between it and the effects in the other demos such as Shatter.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I think the Atmos Dolby _Amaze_ demo has more bass kick than Nature's Fury (save perhaps that last bit at the end) and has that nice bird fly around the room that's downright holographic sounding (flies 13 feet behind me and the finally about two feet in front of my face on its last turn). It also has a thunderstorm with rain effect.
> 
> Nature's Fury is great for testing even imaging, though as the light moving on screen should closely match the sound position you hear right around the entire room around and behind you and move right up the wall exactly as it does on the screen (assuming you have a large screen; I'm using a 92" one here).
> 
> It also has some arrayed effects and some fully discrete effects (noticeable only if you have multiple rows as some sounds follow you around the room (the one kid's voice is about two feet behind me in the first or second row regardless where I sit (arrayed) while the kid splashing in the pool and the door slam always come from the back right corner in matter where I sit (discrete). The helicopter is discrete, but I can hear it exit the room better from the back two rows since so much is going on.


Nature's Fury has a lot going for it imo, the light sphere tracking the sound, the kid's voice comes through with panning effects even with my 5.1.2. When the music begins playing, the heights are used to expand the soundstage so it demos that benefit of having Atmos for music as well. Then the music builds and ends with a huge bass crescendo which had me laughing with glee the first few times I played the demo. I have dual ported 15" subwoofers with a box tune of 15.5Hz and also a HoverBOSS TR device picking up the rest of the frequencies down to 5hz and the bass at the end of Nature's Fury is visceral. The bass in the Amaze demo is impressive as well, some of the Atmos in Amaze seems to have more gain in the height channels than Nature's Fury and the thunderstorm rain effect also seems to be more differentiated in Amaze than in Nature's Fury.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> About 8 feet from my seat to each one:
> 
> View attachment 3148425
> 
> 
> I can hear the big ship move overhead, it's just not super obvious for a couple of reasons. First, it's lower in frequency itself, and our ears can't localize low frequency sounds with as much accuracy. Second, there's a lot of LFE happening and boy do I have plenty of that, which could be providing some masking of the upper bass range. It's above the detection threshold, but I just wanted to point out there's a very obvious difference between it and the effects in the other demos such as Shatter.


Do you have a back wall in that room and is the right surround in a symmetrical position to the left surround ? If so (and if possible) I would try feeding the fornt of the bipole the surround sugnal and the rear of the bipole the Rear Surround signal. The RS signal will then bounce off the rear wall as a discrete sound rather than have a duplicate surround bouncing off the rear with a huge delay compared to the sound from the surround driver pointing straight at you. 
I tried a bipole surround (directly to the side of me though) in my room and it was noticeably different (ie: it was crap).


----------



## eaayoung

I’ve had my Atmos system (5.1.4) for around one year. I never watched Gravity via Blu-ray on my system since it was misplaced after a move back in 2018. Watched it tonight. Gotta say, one of the best movies for testing an Atmos system. The sounds of the voices in the opening scene come from the individual speakers all around you.


----------



## MagnumX

Gravity made me dizzy (I combined the 3D BD with the Diamond Atmos BD). It's a bit much in the scene after the debris hits and Sandra's character goes flying around and around. The rest of the movie is kind of glum.


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> "Joint Object Coding describes the process by which Dolby Digital Plus with Atmos decoders, receiving a legacy 5.1 mix and _sideband metadata_, are able to reconstruct the original Atmos mix."
> And:
> "When a consumer playback device enabled with Dolby Atmos receives a Dolby Digital Plus JOC bitstream, the 5.1 is decoded, a JOC decoder recreates the elements, and the OAR (Object Audio Renderer) uses the OAMD (Object Audio Meta Data) from each element to render audio to the device."
> 
> And:
> "The JOC and OAMD metadata is packaged as an Extended Metadata Format (EMF) and inserted into “_skip frames_” between audio blocks in the Dolby Digital Plus bitstream. Since the EMF occupies what was _empty space_, devices that are not enabled with Dolby Atmos ignore it. "





priitv8 said:


> My best understanding from the pseudocode in said docs is, that the object essences (WAV-snippets of audio acting as objects) are encoded into existing channels in frequency domain coding, so could be totally inaudible without decoding. I would love if someone more knowledgeable about quadrature mirror filter bank transformation could chime in and enlighten us more.


I would say the description found by ppasteur is mid-level, and it would be hard to best that. I prefer to think of (most streaming) DDP Atmos as DDP 51 core + Atmos extension, and so you will only have discrete 71 sound after you engage Atmos.

There are a few flaws with priitv8's explanation as MagnumX pointed out, and when you dive into true technical documents, it's easy to misunderstand things.

the ETSI doc, section 4.3 has another explanation.


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> Do you have a back wall in that room


Yes. It is about 6 feet back from the seats.


niterida said:


> is the right surround in a symmetrical position to the left surround ?


Yep. I measure from the back wall when placing speakers so they are within a few human hairs 


niterida said:


> If so (and if possible) I would try feeding the fornt of the bipole the surround sugnal and the rear of the bipole the Rear Surround signal. The RS signal will then bounce off the rear wall as a discrete sound rather than have a duplicate surround bouncing off the rear with a huge delay compared to the sound from the surround driver pointing straight at you.
> I tried a bipole surround (directly to the side of me though) in my room and it was noticeably different (ie: it was crap).


Turns out, the Polk LSiM 702's are barely considered a bipolar design. The bass driver fires straight outward, with the midrange and tweeter on an angle, firing towards the seats. There is only one midrange and tweeter, so it's basically a monopole speaker for most intents and purposes.


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> The basics are presented in Dolby's documents. I doubt Dolby would like you to know more or they would be open source like the object system used in DTS:X (aka MDA). Speaking of which, one could learn a lot about object based audio examining open sourced MDA, which is used in both X and Auromax if I recall correctly.
> 
> Dolby has already had DD and DD+ reverse engineered and some early free encoders of TrueHD are starting to appear as well. Having 3rd parties give Atmos away for free probably isn't in their best interests.


Now they are public domain and hence we can research the authentic documentation, not try any reverse engineering or guessing. Heck, a good coder could now even write the object visualizer, sadly for the lossy DD+ version of Atmos only. Unless the metadata in TrueHD is actually formatted in same way as in DD+.
BTW if the latter were the case, we should also be able to create a TrueHD-to-DD+ Atmos converter, to the great joy of appleTV users (like me).


MagnumX said:


> Why? It would likely just be relegated to conjecture and unverifiable guessing unless said person revealed they work at Dolby and could prove it with quadruple certifications, a notary republic and perhaps some patents in their name.


How on earth were the mere mortals able to reverse engineer the Apple AirTunes or DVD/BD/UHD crypto then? I think the collective brain of a community can do incredible things and also exceeds the corporate brain in pure processing power and creativity.
FFMPEG, X264 and Matroska are good examples of what people are able to create together in the software space. I think any audio codec is no different.


junh1024 said:


> I would say the description found by ppasteur is mid-level, and it would be hard to best that. I prefer to think of (most streaming) DDP Atmos as DDP 51 core + Atmos extension, and so you will only have discrete 71 sound after you engage Atmos.
> 
> There are a few flaws with priitv8's explanation as MagnumX pointed out, and when you dive into true technical documents, it's easy to misunderstand things.
> 
> the ETSI doc, section 4.3 has another explanation.


You can also get DD+ 7.1 discrete audio without Atmos being present. One example can be found in this file : Dolby Digital Plus 7.1 -Channel Check-
How can one come to misunderstandings from a published document, more than from a plain guesswork?
I think the more technically versed people analyze the documentation, the more will we understand how it has been constructed and what makes it tick.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

Jeremy, Sanjay and MagnumX,

Thanks for the suggestions. However (and I probably should've made that clear earlier), Mark Seaton had already made some recommendations for things to try to help with my issues. One was to turn up overhead levels by .5 or 1 dB and other was to tweak distance settings, but not by more than 3 feet.

Given the widely discussed issues with the authoring of Atmos content (and as I asked when I first posted about this issue), I really wanted a demo clip that I could use to test these changes. I don't want to have something that subjectively works for me for some content and then have those settings make others worse.

I have gotten a few suggestions of Atmos demo clips from Dolby here and I'll try to use those.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Are they angled toward the MLP or straight down?


Straight down.



> I've found that while 45 degrees is the center of Dolby's recommended range, you have to take into account the off-axis response of the speaker in question. You don't want the speaker physically at 45 degrees but with the bulk of its energy aimed at your knees instead of your ears.


Fair points, but I use Mark's Ember 400s as my overheads and his advice for my situation was to have them pointing straight down. Uniformity of off-axis response and wide enough dispersion are likely not the source of the issues I'm running into. 



> If you have the LEAF or ENCOUNTER demos, try tweaking the distances for your height channels up a notch and listening to see if that helps. Then try down a notch.


Can't seem to find the latter. I'll check again, but for the LEAF demo, it does sound to me like the leaf goes around the room, but it stays at ear level. There are some ambient overhead effects, but the leaf itself seems to image entirely at listener level.




> Auto-cal methods tend to get it close, but... I've found that even minor tweaks to the distances can make things "snap" into place.


Fair enough.



> I would also recommend playing the Helicopter clip and seeing if minor changes to the distance of your top rears better aligns the transitions between the top rear and top front with that clip. When the distances are right here, you should hear the sound move smoothly between each speaker as it moves around.


Unfortunately, my processor (AVM 60) only allows distance changes in 1 ft increments. And I thought this sounded alright first time up. I'll still give it a go though to see if any changes make it better.



> The Audiosphere demo clip is also decent for this, as the overhead chimes should image more between the top front/rear than from just the top front. *Assuming all your levels are matched*, a small bump up or down to distance can shift where the sound images between each position.


 (emphasis mine)

Assuming that levels were matched after an ARC calibration was incorrect. Running the test tones on the Atmos demo disc indicated that my center, rear overheads and surrounds needed bumping up by a dB.



sdurani said:


> Turn up the level of the Top Rear speakers momentarily to see if that reduces the front-heavy effect you're hearing.


Will give that a shot as well.




MagnumX said:


> I also know several movies that sounded like there was stuff only going on in the front height region, but when I turned off the front height speakers, it was still there (actually coming from the front mains so some kind of HRTF/phase information like Q-Sound that images well above the speaker itself.


The 747 takeoff demo is a prime example of this. My son was looking overhead for this one, even as the receiver powering the overheads wasn't on at the time.

I get that the issue could well be the content, but I want to be sure that it is. The only way to ensure that seems to be to check whether things are imaging right between the mains and the overheads, surrounds and overheads and between the overhead pair themselves. I wish there was one demo that checked all of these boxes.

Thanks for all the assistance from folks trying to help. I truly appreciate it!


----------



## Soulburner

liverpool_for_life said:


> for the LEAF demo, it does sound to me like the leaf goes around the room, but it stays at ear level.


I unplugged my front channels just to test this and indeed it is a ground level panning - however it does move up into the front heights at a lower level just at the very end before it touches the water.


----------



## Soulburner

liverpool_for_life said:


> Assuming that levels were matched after an ARC calibration was incorrect. Running the test tones on the Atmos demo disc indicated that my center, rear overheads and surrounds needed bumping up by a dB.


I am unsure about Anthem, but if it's like Denon/Marantz, the built-in level check bypasses room EQ. Therefore we need to use an external means of checking levels with room EQ engaged, such as REW.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Gravity made me dizzy (I combined the 3D BD with the Diamond Atmos BD). It's a bit much in the scene after the debris hits and Sandra's character goes flying around and around. The rest of the movie is kind of glum.


Do you think it was the 3D that made you dizzy, or the atmos? Or either would be fine by itself, just not in combination?

What hz is the 3D on your projector? This could be a movie where the type of 3D display makes a big difference. Lots of crazy movement combined with lower hz 3D (with more flicker) could be the issue. For people with great 4K 2D projectors that have lower hz 3D, it might worth finding a cheap used higher hz 1080p 3D projector to use only for 3D, since 3D discs are only 1080p anyway, or to use for some 3D discs that have a lot of movement, like Gravity.


----------



## Soulburner

It's probably the rotation. My Mother wouldn't be able to watch it, either.


----------



## liverpool_for_life

Soulburner said:


> I am unsure about Anthem, but if it's like Denon/Marantz, the built-in level check bypasses room EQ.


Will have to check that.



> Therefore we need to use an external means of checking levels with room EQ engaged, such as REW.


Or, by using the test tones on the Atmos demo disc (like I did).


----------



## MagnumX

priitv8 said:


> Now they are public domain


What is public domain? Not Atmos, certainly. Even if something is open source that doesn't mean it's public domain (e.g. GNU license for Linux). DTS:X may be open source because they didn't develop MDA (SRS Labs did AFAIK and they want it to be a standard), but that doesn't make it public domain either. 



> and hence we can research the authentic documentation, not try any reverse engineering or guessing.


Where have you found driver level Atmos documentation?



> Heck, a good coder could now even write the object visualizer, sadly for the lossy DD+ version of Atmos only. Unless the metadata in TrueHD is actually formatted in same way as in DD+.
> BTW if the latter were the case, we should also be able to create a TrueHD-to-DD+ Atmos converter, to the great joy of appleTV users (like me).
> How on earth were the mere mortals able to reverse engineer the Apple AirTunes or DVD/BD/UHD crypto then? I think the collective brain of a community can do incredible things and also exceeds the corporate brain in pure processing power and creativity.


Nobody ever on here said they couldn't reverse engineer. I said the exact opposite, in fact. What I did say is that level of topic is beyond the scope of this thread (driver level discussion of Atmos) and this single discussion has been getting out of control in this thread and BADLY NEEDS ITS OWN THREAD rather than wading through 10 pages a day on the topic that most consumers probably have zero interest in. 



> How can one come to misunderstandings from a published document, more than from a plain guesswork?


It's not written in sufficient detail to answer the questions posed here to some people's liking. That much should be clear. The notion their documentation on the Renderer is enough to write a proper software driver is absurd, however.



> I think the more technically versed people analyze the documentation, the more will we understand how it has been constructed and what makes it tick.


I like the color purple.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Do you think it was the 3D that made you dizzy, or the atmos? Or either would be fine by itself, just not in combination?


I think more variables come into play like what I had for lunch or if it's a bad sinus day. The first time I watched it, it wasn't as bad, for example. But it's the 3D spinning for sure. Sometimes, I start to feel motion sick playing Dragon Age Inquisition on my PS4 after a bit and other times I'm fine for 4-6 hours or more. Whether the Atmos sound made it worse, I can't say, but the 2D version doesn't bother me with Atmos sound as I played that one scene over and over before to test some Atmos bits.



> What hz is the 3D on your projector? This could be a movie where the type of 3D display makes a big difference.


I think it's officially 120Hz, but I could be wrong (I'd have to look it up). The only mode I use motion compensation in is 3D and it's hard to imagine it something it out to that extent with only 60Hz. 3D looks damn near real with motion compensation, IMO. 2D looks kind of fake in that mode and the motion errors seem much more obvious in 2D.


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> BADLY NEEDS ITS OWN THREAD.
> (opinion)
> _ absurd_, (opinion) however.
> topic is beyond the scope of this thread (opinion)
> It's not written in sufficient detail to answer the questions posed here ( finally we agree on that)


So glad we all have opinions and can express them here. Good to keep in mind that this is all that they are though.
This is a popular discussion/thread and has good exposure, a good place to have basic information related. No telling who may benefit by having it available and searchable in the forum.
Scrolling is OK. We are all used to it, I am sure. I am happy to have this place to discuss the topic. 
Open source/public domain... once again a semantics point. Not really relevant in hoping that someone with the proper knowledge could help us understand what it going on.
Without the constraint of having multiple certs and exemption from NDAs. I can make that judgement call on whether to take their posts to heart. As I am sure that most here can also.
I guess can only speak for myself in saying that I have absolutely no thoughts or hope that I can or will reverse engineer anything from the posts here.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I think more variables come into play like what I had for lunch or if it's a bad sinus day. The first time I watched it, it wasn't as bad, for example. But it's the 3D spinning for sure. Sometimes, I start to feel motion sick playing Dragon Age Inquisition on my PS4 after a bit and other times I'm fine for 4-6 hours or more. Whether the Atmos sound made it worse, I can't say, but the 2D version doesn't bother me with Atmos sound as I played that one scene over and over before to test some Atmos bits.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's officially 120Hz, but I could be wrong (I'd have to look it up). The only mode I use motion compensation in is 3D and it's hard to imagine it something it out to that extent with only 60Hz. 3D looks damn near real with motion compensation, IMO. 2D looks kind of fake in that mode and the motion errors seem much more obvious in 2D.


If we need to move this to another thread or PM, someone just say the word, I am just responding about 3D here because it was mentioned here. Sort of a grey area where it can be difficult because it's not like I have any ability to transfer the original post to another thread when I respond. But as for motion compensation in 3D, it could be 23/24fps interpolated to ~48, and then flashing the eyes at 96, so 96hz instead of 120hz. Do you have a JVC NX projector? I assumed they were 120hz active 3D but someone told me it's 96hz, I dont know if that's accurate. 96hz seems like it could be flickery but who knows. At least it is an even multiple of 24, whereas 120hz is uneven, so I don't know how much of a tradeoff that is. But flicker could be an issue if it's 96hz. It might be worth trying 120hz 3D if the JVC doesn't have it. I cant recommend the best option but I was definitely intrigued reading about the unique 3D features on this Panasonic projector, and it might be available at a good used price now. Panasonic AE8000U Home Theater Projector Review



> *Key Improvements*
> 
> *3D Depth Control.* Some 3D movies have entirely too much depth. By "too much depth," I mean the filmmakers intentionally or unintentionally abuse 3D technology to create exaggerated depth and pop in their films. What this ends up doing is causing eyestrain. To fix this, the AE8000 has a depth control for 3D in the form of its 3D waveform monitor. This tool allows the user to adjust overall picture depth to fit within a "safe" range, thereby protecting viewers from sore eyes and headaches.
> 
> The control has two modes. One of them is more involved, and shows 3D depth across the image in real-time. The other is more of a summary of this information and instead shows maximum depth of the image in each direction at any given time. Both allow for the adjustment of depth, so which one you prefer is a matter of taste.
> 
> *3D Motion Remaster.* The big 3D problems that everyone knows about are brightness and crosstalk, but they are not the only issues out there. For example: when an object is in motion, your left eye and right eye are shown the same frame at slightly different times, but your brain expects to see the second image advance slightly in the direction of motion during the time interval between left eye and right eye viewing. This creates an odd bulging or bowing effect as your eye interprets the images' positions, also known as a parallax error.
> 
> The AE8000 includes a new 3D Motion Remaster feature designed to eliminate this parallax problem. Essentially, it is a highly-specialized offshoot of frame interpolation that detects 3D objects in motion and advances them slightly so your brain correctly interprets their motion. This is a hard effect to describe, but suffice it to say that 3D Motion Remaster makes 3D motion appear more natural. As with other frame interpolation systems, the user retains the option to disable it from the projector's menu.
> 
> *Detail Clarity Processor.* The AE7000's Detail Clarity system was designed to bring out superfine detail in HD content. The AE8000's Detail Clarity Processor accomplishes the same task, but it has received an upgrade that makes it appreciably better at its job. Tiny details, such as foliage on far-away trees or the texture in fabric, is now easier to see than before. There is still no sign of artifacts related to this control, provided you use it at a reasonable level -- cranking it all the way up will cause some artifacts. The default for this control is 2; we set our test unit to 3 for most viewing.
> 
> *Lens Memory now works in 3D.* A number of features that only worked in 2D on the AE7000 now work in 3D as well. Among these are the powered zoom, powered focus, and Lens Memory system. If you prefer a brighter 3D image and want to shrink down the picture when watching a 3D movie, you can set up a Lens Memory position in advance and save yourself some time.
> 
> *Frame Interpolation now works in 2D to 3D.* Previously, the Frame Creation system was unavailable in 2D to 3D conversion, but it now has its full functionality available.
> 
> *Glasses have 3D to 2D function.* Panasonic's third-generation 3D glasses are light and comfortable, but they also have a neat feature for those who don't enjoy 3D. By sliding the power switch all the way to the right, the glasses will show both eyes the same image, thereby turning 3D into 2D. Plenty of folks out there have family members or friends who just don't enjoy 3D, and this feature means you can all watch a movie together, some seeing it in 3D and some seeing in 2D, so you can make everyone happy. The glasses are not included with the projector and cost $99 per pair. *Edit: Panasonic now reports that they will offer two free pairs of third-generation glasses with the purchase of an AE8000.*


----------



## T-Bone

liverpool_for_life said:


> Will have to check that.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, by using the test tones on the Atmos demo disc (like I did).





liverpool_for_life said:


> Will have to check that.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, by using the test tones on the Atmos demo disc (like I did).


Onkyo is the same: test tones bypass EQ. I use The tones from this post early in the thread:









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...




www.avsforum.com





-T


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> So glad we all have opinions and can express them here. Good to keep in mind that this is all that they are though.
> This is a popular discussion/thread and has good exposure, a good place to have basic information related. No telling who may benefit by having it available and searchable in the forum.
> Scrolling is OK. We are all used to it, I am sure. I am happy to have this place to discuss the topic.
> Open source/public domain... once again a semantics point. Not really relevant in hoping that someone with the proper knowledge could help us understand what it going on.
> Without the constraint of having multiple certs and exemption from NDAs. I can make that judgement call on whether to take their posts to heart. As I am sure that most here can also.
> I guess can only speak for myself in saying that I have absolutely no thoughts or hope that I can or will reverse engineer anything from the posts here.


It's hardly a shock you feel that way given you are the one that instigated the past 25+ page circular discussion that has no meaning or effect on actually actually setting up, listening to or using said format as a consumer. While I think there is some value in understanding how Atmos works, presenting it is one thing, while creating a panel to try and guess at every detail week after week is another. I like following this thread for new developments, but it's turning into a one topic deal lately.

Yes, it's my OPINION that a _technical_ discussion of that length and to the degree you seem to want to understand how it works at a near driver level that is in search of information purposely not provided by Dolby (who wishes to protect their intellectual property) probably belongs in It's own thread where it can get the undistracted focus it clearly needs as this one is already over 3000 pages, much of it repetitious due to a lack of any basic FAQ pages. You might even attract people who don't read this thread for that very reason (time consuming) that may know the answers. 

For example, I ran into a guy in management at Dolby (Stuart Bowling, Director of Content and Creative Relations) in a movie prop forum of all places (he was checking out my home theater and props page there and sent me a complement on my somewhat unique theater sound system setup that combines an Auro layout with a Dolby one and adds six additional speakers, layout switching capability and dialog lift. Plus he's into movie props, obviously).

I'll leave it at that as I've got better ways to spend my time like actually listening to Atmos instead of wondering which substream the car horn is stored in and whether I can rip it out as a singular object with some reverse engineered tools for my own personal use as it would go great in my new song, _Get Atmos out of my house and into my car_. Now if only I can get Billy Ocean to sing on it....


----------



## Soulburner

T-Bone said:


> Onkyo is the same: test tones bypass EQ. I use The tones from this post early in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...
> 
> 
> Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com












Thank you for posting that link. This led to a discovery – that playback levels were wildly different than the AVR menu's tones. I expected a few dB, but not this.

The reason? Audyssey's Dynamic EQ boosts the rear heights by 7-10 dB! The boost is greater than the front heights. This has to be a bug (right?) and should be fixed.

Here is the RHR speaker at -30 MV for testing purposes, with Dynamic EQ off, then on.

















If I do this test with the front heights, the DEQ boost is about 5 dB. Clearly the rears are overboosted. This must be what I was hearing in the demos.

Now, the problem. At higher playback levels, the amount of boost reduces. And, the channel boost tables seem to be different between the front and rear heights, and surrounds. I don't know if this is intentional, but it is going to create a variable front/back balance for Dynamic EQ users based on the MV level. As the MV is increased, the front/back balance will move toward the front.

Using the Atmos test tones I adjusted my channel levels to get them much closer to each other and then measured them all to show how the relative differences change with volume level. Here is the data I collected using the 5.1.4 Atmos test tone video:


-30FL62.5​FR62.5​Sub72​SL63​SR63​FHL63​FHR63​RHL64​RHR64​


-20FL68.5​FR68.5​Sub78​SL68.5​SR68.5​FHL69.5​FHR69.5​RHL69.5​RHR69.5​


-15FL72​FR72​Sub80.5​SL71.5​SR71.5​FHL73​FHR73​RHL73​RHR73​

You can see the differences between the channels change. The boost is reduced at different rates depending on the channel. The surround channels seem to drop the quickest, followed by the rear heights. This can slightly shift the bias toward the front. At my -30 measurement level, you can see the bias is slightly toward the rear.

The effect is subtle, but I can hear it in the Audiosphere demo. At my -30 MV level the sounds are just right over my head, while at -15 MV they shift a few inches forward. You can get better precision if you turn your head 90°. It's probably not a deal-breaker for most people, but it annoys me in this demo and it would be interesting to know if anyone else can reproduce this.

My suggestion is going to be to run these test tones after Audyssey setup, as it is clearly needed to make sure your system is balanced. And, run them at your typical movie listening volume – if you tend to use a range of say -10 to -20, do this test and balance your channels at -15 so it's close either way. If you have a very large usable range, for example you have a very quiet, night listening volume level, you could create a Quick Select with different level adjustments for that input with the Option key. You might throw Dynamic Volume in there as well.

After making the above adjustments, I will run through the trailers again and listen for improvements in balance.


----------



## Soulburner

With adjustments made to bring down the rear height levels by -5, plus a little reduction on the surrounds, I am getting better overhead imaging overall, shifting the balance forward to over my seats rather than being so rear-heavy as before.

Now, my impressions of the demos closely align with @MagnumX 's descriptions, and everything better matches what's on-screen. But, there are some exceptions. One is I don't hear the effect he mentions at the beginning of Silent. I hear only front sound. Second, it is hard to discern the car coming from behind in Horizons as-seated. If I sit up and turn my head 90 degrees, I can hear it go back to front. Third, I don't hear the astronaut as being behind me in Horizons. Fourth, the tiger roar in Conductor is now directly overhead and is more effective at startling you than before where it was a very loud rear height source before the adjustment. I am unsure of the intent here. If it is supposed to be rear-biased, I will add a dB to the rears. I may do that anyway because I get the sense my recliners are interfering to some degree, or the room is too small to get the best surround effects.

It's interesting that eliminating the strong rear height bias has allowed better directionality to the sound. For example, the plane that flies through in Nature's Fury. The strong rear bias sort of prevented me from hearing it up front. Now, I can hear it travel from front to back and fade away in the rear right speaker.

So far I will say the addition of these speakers has made a huge improvement, at least with the demo material.


----------



## JonFo

Soulburner said:


> The reason? Audyssey's Dynamic EQ boosts the rear heights by 7-10 dB! The boost is greater than the front heights. This has to be a bug (right?) and should be fixed.


Serendipity must be at work, as I purposefully came to this thread today to post this:

If your receiver or processor has Audyssey, please make sure that Audyssey Dynamic EQ is *OFF *!
DynEQ completely destroys the 3D localization of Atmos with changes to volume (it raises it for rears, including tops), and also the EQ skews the phasing relationships, collapsing the 3D imaging.
DynEQ is fine on 2ch or 5.1, but should not be used with Dolby Surround Upmixer, or when playing Atmos.

I have two Atmos systems, one is a media room with a 5.4.2 (Elac Elevation speakers) and the other a custom HT with 4 JBL SCS8 Cinema overhead speakers in a 5.4.4 setup, and turning off DynEQ made a huge difference in the 5.4.4 HT, I mean enormous! I used to think my 3D imaging was being impacted by the fact that all 5 bed channels are 6' tall Electrostats and that their height in relation to the tops reduced precision. But no, it's the level and phase skews from DynEQ that were collapsing the bubble. and on the 5.4.2 setup, the louder rears were masking object placement in a major way, and without DynEQ, the 3D bubble was much clearer. I'm actually impressed with how good a soundstage can be achieved with just elevation speakers. Not the same as 4 coaxial 8" Cinema overheads, but still.

Bottom line: Turn OFF DynEQ for Atmos or for any content where DSU is enabled.


----------



## Soulburner

JonFo said:


> Bottom line: Turn OFF DynEQ for Atmos or for any content where DSU is enabled.


I disagree. I achieved channel balance by using the Atmos test tones. Not giving up DEQ.


----------



## fatherom

Soulburner said:


> I disagree. I achieved channel balance by using the Atmos test tones. Not giving up DEQ.


Right, but it's VERY well known and documented that engaging Dynamic EQ boosts surrounds and sub levels (by design) to compensate for lower listening levels and how we perceive bass and surround speakers at lower listening levels. Many people avoid DEQ for this very reason; or if they use it, they reduce the surround levels because the boost that DEQ adds can be a bit much.


----------



## T-Bone

fatherom said:


> Right, but it's VERY well known and documented that engaging Dynamic EQ boosts surrounds and sub levels (by design) to compensate for lower listening levels and how we perceive bass and surround speakers at lower listening levels. Many people avoid DEQ for this very reason; or if they use it, they reduce the surround levels because the boost that DEQ adds can be a bit much.


Dynamic equalization. Isn't that the same as night mode that other receivers use? 

Basically increases the volume of the speakers and reduces the Dynamics between the individual channels. Which is ideal for late night low volume listening.

Rule of thumb I always heard was turn off night mode. So I guess that means turn off dynamic utilization.

-T


----------



## Soulburner

T-Bone said:


> Dynamic equalization. Isn't that the same as night mode that other receivers use?
> 
> Basically increases the volume of the speakers and reduces the Dynamics between the individual channels. Which is ideal for late night low volume listening.
> 
> Rule of thumb I always heard was turn off night mode. So I guess that means turn off dynamic utilization.


It is NOT night mode or compression.


----------



## Soulburner

fatherom said:


> Right, but it's VERY well known and documented that engaging Dynamic EQ boosts surrounds and sub levels (by design) to compensate for lower listening levels and how we perceive bass and surround speakers at lower listening levels. Many people avoid DEQ for this very reason; or if they use it, they reduce the surround levels because the boost that DEQ adds can be a bit much.


Don't throw the baby out with the bath water when there is a solution


----------



## dschulz

T-Bone said:


> Dynamic equalization. Isn't that the same as night mode that other receivers use?
> 
> Basically increases the volume of the speakers and reduces the Dynamics between the individual channels. Which is ideal for late night low volume listening.
> 
> Rule of thumb I always heard was turn off night mode. So I guess that means turn off dynamic utilization.
> 
> -T


No, Audyssey has two (related) modes along these lines. What you're talking about, dynamic range compression, Audyssey refers to as Dynamic Volume. Dynamic EQ doesn't compress the dynamic range, but, as discussed upthread, raises the relative bass and surround levels as the master volume decreases.


----------



## fatherom

T-Bone said:


> Dynamic equalization. Isn't that the same as night mode that other receivers use?
> 
> Basically increases the volume of the speakers and reduces the Dynamics between the individual channels. Which is ideal for late night low volume listening.
> 
> Rule of thumb I always heard was turn off night mode. So I guess that means turn off dynamic utilization.
> 
> -T


Dynamic EQ is different than Dynamic Volume (which is the night mode you're referring to)


----------



## Soulburner

The whole point of DEQ is the perceptual equal loudness vs volume level and it is very much worth achieving.

I am not convinced we need the overall surround channel levels boosted with decreasing volume level. Or at least, not nearly to the extent it is currently doing. I thought I recall Audyssey admitting years ago that it was probably a mistake. I hope they are working on a fix.


----------



## sdurani

fatherom said:


> Right, but it's VERY well known and documented that engaging Dynamic EQ boosts surrounds and sub levels (by design) to compensate for lower listening levels and how we perceive bass and surround speakers at lower listening levels.


The bass boost (and milder treble boost) are based on decades of research into equal loudness curves. However, the surround boost is based on the mistaken premise that sounds around us decay at a faster rate than sounds in front of us as overall level decreases. There is no research supporting that, excepting some tests that Audyssey did themselves and drew the wrong conclusion from. Hence the overboosted surrounds.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> The whole point of DEQ is the perceptual equal loudness vs volume level and it is very much worth achieving.
> 
> I am not convinced we need the overall surround channel levels boosted with decreasing volume level. Or at least, not nearly to the extent it is currently doing. I thought I recall Audyssey admitting years ago that it was probably a mistake. I hope they are working on a fix.


Unfortunately, there is no way to decouple the surround boost from the bass boost. And while you can certainly recalibrate all your levels to get them more even at your normal listening level, that means the levels will be off if you set the master volume to anything other than that same level. So if you pop a Disney flick in that needs master volume to come up some and you turn it up to compensate, your surround levels will be off. DEQ bases the change on how far down from reference you are. The better option, if you typically listen at lower levels and want more bass presence is just to turn DEQ off and give your subwoofer a little bump upward. That way, Atmos cross-channel imaging is consistent at all master volume levels.


sdurani said:


> The bass boost (and milder treble boost) are based on decades of research into equal loudness curves. However, the surround boost is based on the mistaken premise that sounds around us decay at a faster rate than sounds in front of us as overall level decreases. There is no research supporting that, excepting some tests that Audyssey did themselves and drew the wrong conclusion from. Hence the overboosted surrounds.


They basically had a bunch of mixers re-balance their mixes at lower than reference to see what changes they were making and saw that most of them were boosting surrounds slightly as they got further down from reference, and making some minor changes to keep dialogue clarity. But this was all done pre-immersive audio and they never redid this testing to see what mixers might do given the additional height channels... so using DEQ at all throws off cross-channel imaging for immersive formats without question and should not be used. Maybe one day they will split the loudness part of DEQ from the channel manipulation, but Audyssey doesn't seem too interested in working on this anymore.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

liverpool_for_life said:


> Can't seem to find the latter. I'll check again, but for the LEAF demo, it does sound to me like the leaf goes around the room, but it stays at ear level. There are some ambient overhead effects, but the leaf itself seems to image entirely at listener level.


I wasn't talking about the part when the leaf spins around the room. That's mostly a bed-level pan. There are several whooshes of air that arc overhead that are good for assessing that movement. Again, when you get the distances right, the difference will be obvious.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Unfortunately, there is no way to decouple the surround boost from the bass boost. And while you can certainly recalibrate all your levels to get them more even at your normal listening level, that means the levels will be off if you set the master volume to anything other than that same level. So if you pop a Disney flick in that needs master volume to come up some and you turn it up to compensate, your surround levels will be off. DEQ bases the change on how far down from reference you are. The better option, if you typically listen at lower levels and want more bass presence is just to turn DEQ off and give your subwoofer a little bump upward. That way, Atmos cross-channel imaging is consistent at all master volume levels.


I noted this in my above post: The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)

The effect is subtle, but noticeable if you have the right content and are listening for it. It's about a 1-2 dB shift towards the front as you move from -30 MV to -15 MV. It's certainly not worth disabling DEQ and losing equal loudness, though.

By the way, DEQ is much more than a subwoofer channel boost.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> About 8 feet from my seat to each one:
> 
> View attachment 3148425
> 
> 
> I can hear the big ship move overhead, it's just not super obvious for a couple of reasons. First, it's lower in frequency itself, and our ears can't localize low frequency sounds with as much accuracy. Second, there's a lot of LFE happening and boy do I have plenty of that, which could be providing some masking of the upper bass range. It's above the detection threshold, but I just wanted to point out there's a very obvious difference between it and the effects in the other demos such as Shatter.


Okay, having seen that picture and stating in advance that every room has its compromises and this is not a criticism... Your height channels are too close to the side wall for you to get some height effects as designed. The heights are meant to be 0.5-0.7x the layout width apart, or roughly 45-50 degrees of angular separation from the side surrounds. If that's where you have to have them, so be it, but with them placed that close to the side walls, some of the height effects meant to be at the periphery of the room (including where static objects are often placed for heights in some Atmos mixes) will tend to image more between the heights and side surrounds than their intended location. So if this is the speaker locations you're stuck with, you're not going to hear things quite where they should be... but should still get the general effect.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> I noted this in my above post: The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)
> 
> The effect is subtle, but noticeable if you have the right content and are listening for it. It's about a 1-2 dB shift towards the front as you move from -30 MV to -15 MV. It's certainly not worth disabling DEQ and losing equal loudness, though.
> 
> By the way, DEQ is much more than a subwoofer channel boost.


I'm well aware of DEQ's two component behaviors. And that's exactly why I disable it, for the aforementioned reasons. It makes changes to frequency response and levels such that Atmos imaging is inconsistent as master volume changes. It isn't worth having the loudness curve component of it at the expense of proper cross-channel imaging... especially when you can implement your own loudness curve for your usual listening level without needing DEQ's offset-based adjustment.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> They basically had a bunch of mixers re-balance their mixes at lower than reference to see what changes they were making and saw that most of them were boosting surrounds slightly as they got further down from reference, and making some minor changes to keep dialogue clarity.


The surrounds were indeed getting quieter faster than the front channels, but not due to direction (as Audyssey thought) but instead due to the fact that quieter sounds disappear before louder sounds as overall level is reduced (I don't think anyone disputes that). And surround channels tend to be quieter in general than front channels. This phenomenon can be demonstrated even on a mono recording. If you have a vocalist singing in a large venue, the subtle room ambience will disappear at some point leaving only the vocalist. This is a problem, because it changes the context: singer goes from concert hall to dry studio just by lowering the volume level. That's messed up.

So there's no question that some sort of compensation for this problem would be helpful. One solution was what Dolby did with Dolby Volume. It looked at each channel individually rather than front vs surround. As the overall level went down, quiet sounds that were on the verge of disappearing were boosted back into the audible range. It didn't matter if it was one of the front channels or surround channels. The only downside was the same as with all these technologies: their dynamic nature made the adjustment audible on occasion (like sometimes noticing a dynamic iris in action on a projector).


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Okay, having seen that picture and stating in advance that every room has its compromises and this is not a criticism... Your height channels are too close to the side wall for you to get some height effects as designed. The heights are meant to be 0.5-0.7x the layout width apart, or roughly 45-50 degrees of angular separation from the side surrounds. If that's where you have to have them, so be it, but with them placed that close to the side walls, some of the height effects meant to be at the periphery of the room (including where static objects are often placed for heights in some Atmos mixes) will tend to image more between the heights and side surrounds than their intended location. So if this is the speaker locations you're stuck with, you're not going to hear things quite where they should be... but should still get the general effect.


Thanks for the feedback. I understand the room is small but the fronts are in line with the main speakers, as recommended by Dolby.

The rears are in the only place they could work here. Both pairs are about 40-45 degrees from MLP.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm well aware of DEQ's two component behaviors. And that's exactly why I disable it, for the aforementioned reasons. It makes changes to frequency response and levels such that Atmos imaging is inconsistent as master volume changes. It isn't worth having the loudness curve component of it at the expense of proper cross-channel imaging... especially when you can implement your own loudness curve for your usual listening level without needing DEQ's offset-based adjustment.












I don't see a problem with dialing things in at your usual listening levels using the Atmos test tones. As long as you do that, things should remain in balance if you're +/- 5 or so on the MV. Right? What else do I need to know?


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> The only downside was the same as with all these technologies: their dynamic nature made the adjustment audible on occasion (like sometimes noticing a dynamic iris in action on a projector).


I noticed this with music and DSU. The frenetic nature of the algorithm's effect on voices can jar your attention, in my experience.


----------



## JonFo

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm well aware of DEQ's two component behaviors. And that's exactly why I disable it, for the aforementioned reasons. It makes changes to frequency response and levels such that Atmos imaging is inconsistent as master volume changes.


Exactly, it is a 'Dynamic' thing, so unless one sticks to a single MV setting, it will drift from the ideal.
Furthermore, I sense there is a localization skew due to EQ phasing changes being dynamically introduced by the added EQ.
I manually lowered the levels of the sub, tops, and surrounds to be more balanced, and yet there is a significant improvement in the localization of objects with DynEQ off.

It is a real shame one can't store / recall three or so Audyssey target curves. Yes, one can use the App to push alternate calibrations to contemporary units (like my media-room Denon X3600H), but my HT has an 8802A preamp, and while I have the Audyssey Pro intaller Kit, it takes 5 minutes (on a good day) to swap calibrations.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I understand the room is small but the fronts are in line with the main speakers, as recommended by Dolby.
> 
> The rears are in the only place they could work here. Both pairs are about 40-45 degrees from MLP.


Except Dolby _doesn't_ recommend that. Their awful generalized diagrams show it that way, but the written recommendation for those same diagrams is 0.5-0.7x the layout width (the distance between your side surrounds, not room width). And the more specific mix room recommendation gives the actual math, which is a _minimum_ of 45 degrees plus half the elevation of the side surrounds. You look to be well outside of both of those standards. The heights are not in line with the mains in either the theater or the standardized mix room for home cinema mixes.

But again, if that's where you have to have them, that's fine - every room has its compromises and you'll still get the general effect. It just won't quite translate the object placement as precisely as a more strict by-the-book layout would, so some of what you're hearing in the demo clips won't transition across channels as smoothly as it should. No biggie... I just thought it bore mentioning, in case you ever want to get your room closer to reference.


Soulburner said:


> I don't see a problem with dialing things in at your usual listening levels using the Atmos test tones. As long as you do that, things should remain in balance if you're +/- 5 or so on the MV. Right? What else do I need to know?


Well, for one, the problem with using DEQ is illustrated by the fact that the level of your mains only changed by 6dB with a 10dB master volume change, and only 9.5dB with a 15dB master volume change. That should tell you everything you need to know about why you shouldn't use it. And since the test tones on the Atmos disc aren't necessarily band-limited, if you're using DEQ while playing those tones, the elevated bass and frequency shaping are inserting so much chaos into the intended output that the level results will be skewed. Nevermind the high-frequency rolloff of Audyssey's reference curve... or midrange compensation being in the region where the offset of DEQ occurs (which can also slightly affect the measured level). If it sounds good to you, then by all means do it. Your system, your rules. But the entire methodology you're outlining has so many variables that one could hardly call it "level matching" so much as "a crapshoot".

Again, you can eliminate literally all of these chaotic variables by running Audyssey, turning off DEQ, spot-checking level matching with the Atmos test tones before boosting your sub level, then giving your sub level a subjective bump after that based on your preferences at your normal listening level. You get the same effect as loudness compensation that way without all the other issues that Audyssey didn't account for because they designed DEQ before immersive audio existed.

But again, it's your system. I only offer the info in case you want to get closer to reference than preference. You can certainly ignore it.


----------



## yesnomaybe

I am having a problem with my Denon AVR 750SH and atmos. My Denon is connected to a Vizio P65 quantum X . My speakers are a 5x1 setup. I am connected via the ARC. When I connect using my firestick I get Dolby vision and 5.1 audio. No atmos any help would be appreciated. I can get into and make changes. Should I Abe able to get atmos or do I need 2 more speakers.

Thank you 
don


----------



## Soulburner

JonFo said:


> Furthermore, I sense there is a localization skew due to EQ phasing changes being dynamically introduced by the added EQ.
> I manually lowered the levels of the sub, tops, and surrounds to be more balanced, and yet there is a significant improvement in the localization of objects with DynEQ off.


This is a hypothesis.

When you lowered the levels of the subs and reduced the bass from your speakers, how can you be sure the reduction in bass isn't responsible for "clearing up" your localization ability of other sounds? I don't think you can be certain. Bass frequencies effects on our perception of higher frequencies are well known.


----------



## Apgood

Jeremy Anderson said:


> ... And the more specific mix room recommendation gives the actual math, which is a _minimum_ of 45 degrees plus half the elevation of the side surrounds. You look to be well outside of both of those standards. The heights are not in line with the mains in either the theater or the standardized mix room for home cinema mixes.


Do you have a link to their mixing room layout recommendations?

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, for one, the problem with using DEQ is illustrated by the fact that the level of your mains only changed by 6dB with a 10dB master volume change, and only 9.5dB with a 15dB master volume change. That should tell you everything you need to know about why you shouldn't use it.


But it doesn't. White noise tells you little to nothing about what DEQ is doing on a frequency-specific basis, so by its nature cannot give you justification for turning it off.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nevermind the high-frequency rolloff of Audyssey's reference curve... or midrange compensation


I only use Audyssey EQ up to 400 Hz on all of my speakers, so neither of these are in effect.


Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, you can eliminate literally all of these chaotic variables by running Audyssey, turning off DEQ, spot-checking level matching with the Atmos test tones before boosting your sub level, then giving your sub level a subjective bump after that based on your preferences at your normal listening level. You get the same effect as loudness compensation that way without all the other issues that Audyssey didn't account for because they designed DEQ before immersive audio existed.


I agree that if you want your white noise levels to be perfectly the same, you can take control of that. However, it is not true that you get the same effect of loudness compensation. Earlier I posted the compensation curves used and mentioned that DEQ it's not just a flat subwoofer level boost, nor is it limited to the subwoofer only. How could it? Equal loudness curves don't end at 80 Hz.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Apgood said:


> Do you have a link to their mixing room layout recommendations?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


Here you go.


----------



## Apgood

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Here you go.


Thanks. Pity it only covers 7.1.4 in detail and that it states this is the preferred layout. 

You'd hope that when Dolby made a format that is designed to scale to higher speaker counts that they won't discourage mixers from using those higher speaker counts.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> But it doesn't. White noise tells you little to nothing about what DEQ is doing on a frequency-specific basis, so by its nature cannot give you justification for turning it off.


But it DOES affect the levels you're reading (and trying to level match to), which was the entire point of your original post on this.


Soulburner said:


> I only use Audyssey EQ up to 400 Hz on all of my speakers, so neither of these are in effect.


That's even more reason you shouldn't use it. DEQ is then applying shaping to the uncorrected range from 400Hz to about 8kHz, as shown in the diagram you posted previously. The only way you could mitigate that would be with the DEQ offset to bring the 0 point down from reference closer to your typical listening level... but that also affects the loudness part of DEQ. 


Soulburner said:


> I agree that if you want your white noise levels to be the same, you can take control of that. However, it is not true that you get the same effect of loudness compensation. Earlier I posted the compensation curves used and mentioned that DEQ it's not just a flat subwoofer level boost, nor is it limited to the subwoofer only. How could it? Equal loudness curves don't end at 80 Hz.


Do with the knowledge what you will - consider it or ignore it. I wrote part of the original Audyssey setup guide here, but I could certainly be wrong. But I think you'll find that most people here are using a boost to sub level (and often, tailored house curves with MiniDSP) rather than deal with the chaotic nature of DEQ with an Atmos setup. And I think you would find that very few people would say that level matching with DEQ engaged at anything below reference (or without an offset applied) is a good idea for the reasons I outlined previously.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Apgood said:


> Thanks. Pity it only covers 7.1.4 in detail and that it states this is the preferred layout.
> 
> You'd hope that when Dolby made a format that is designed to scale to higher speaker counts that they won't discourage mixers from using those higher speaker counts.


Well, that's the preferred layout for authoring/checking home Atmos mixes. That's not to say that they don't also scale to higher speaker counts (though some mixes don't because of the practice of using static objects for height data to minimize object count, which doesn't play well with x.x.6 layouts or greater)... but in the defined size of mix room they're talking about for home mix certification (which is closer to most homes than a full mix stage would be), that would be the optimal layout. My point was that the expected angular relation from side surround to heights in the room they're mixing in differs greatly from the generalized standard they released for the average consumer. But if you're here, you're hardly the average consumer.  

The point remains that "in line with the mains" isn't the full story. Dolby has been a little contradictory on this point, and it seems like most pro installers are opting for a narrower layout even if they aren't following this standard. Having tried it both ways myself, the narrower placement works SO MUCH better. And it isn't even close. But there are angular ranges for a reason - not every room can be "ideal".


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Except Dolby _doesn't_ recommend that. Their awful generalized diagrams show it that way, but the written recommendation for those same diagrams is 0.5-0.7x the layout width (the distance between your side surrounds, not room width). And the more specific mix room recommendation gives the actual math, which is a _minimum_ of 45 degrees plus half the elevation of the side surrounds. You look to be well outside of both of those standards. The heights are not in line with the mains in either the theater or the standardized mix room for home cinema mixes.


My understanding of the Dolby guidelines is that the width (W) is actually the distance from MLP to L or R speakers. Which in an ideal setup is also the distance to the Centre and surrounds since the ideal setup is a circle. So the W has no relation to either the width of the room or the distance to the surrounds since surrounds are usually a lot closer than the fronts.
So if I am correct that means Dolby do recommend heights in line with fronts since 0.5 x W for the heights puts them in line with the L&R when the fronts are at the recommended 30deg.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> My understanding of the Dolby guidelines is that the width (W) is actually the distance from MLP to L or R speakers. Which in an ideal setup is also the distance to the Centre and surrounds since the ideal setup is a circle. So the W has no relation to either the width of the room or the distance to the surrounds since surrounds are usually a lot closer than the fronts.
> So if I am correct that means Dolby do recommend heights in line with fronts since 0.5 x W for the heights puts them in line with the L&R when the fronts are at the recommended 30deg.


Layout width is the distance between the furthest speakers laterally in the room, which would almost always be the side surrounds. See attached. You could have your L/R speakers at 30 degrees and the side surrounds still be further apart. Now, if your mains just happen to end up at 1/4 distance from each side wall to hit 30 degrees, it may well be that the height rows would be roughly in line with them in that specific situation... but that wouldn't be the case in most room sizes. So even in the home guideline, the placement of the heights doesn't take the location of the mains into consideration. It's the angular relationships that matter. In most rooms, 0.5x layout width usually puts the height rows somewhere in between the mains and center laterally... just as they are in the theater where the heights typically fall in line with the additional screen channels.

I'm also attaching Dolby's mix room layout overhead diagram for the heights showing that they are not necessarily in line with the mains.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, that's the preferred layout for authoring/checking home Atmos mixes. That's not to say that they don't also scale to higher speaker counts (though some mixes don't because of the practice of using static objects for height data to minimize object count, which doesn't play well with x.x.6 layouts or greater)... but in the defined size of mix room they're talking about for home mix certification (which is closer to most homes than a full mix stage would be), that would be the optimal layout. My point was that the expected angular relation from side surround to heights in the room they're mixing in differs greatly from the generalized standard they released for the average consumer. But if you're here, you're hardly the average consumer.
> 
> The point remains that "in line with the mains" isn't the full story. Dolby has been a little contradictory on this point, and it seems like most pro installers are opting for a narrower layout even if they aren't following this standard. Having tried it both ways myself, the narrower placement works SO MUCH better. And it isn't even close. But there are angular ranges for a reason - not every room can be "ideal".


Based on the document you linked, looks like my setup is closely adhering to guidelines, with the following exceptions:

Imagine you shrunk the room to 17 ft in length, so that a 45° angle to your top front speakers puts them just in front of your FL and FR
Imagine that you shrunk the room to 11 ft in width, so that there is less space to the sides.
The one concession on placement that I had to make was for the rears. I wasn't able to place them where I wanted, so they had to move out to the walls.


























Hopefully in the future when I get a bigger room I have more space to work with. In that case everything on the bed layer would move further out and the top rears would be mounted ideally on the ceiling. For now, this is it.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That's even more reason you shouldn't use it. DEQ is then applying shaping to the uncorrected range from 400Hz to about 8kHz, as shown in the diagram you posted previously. The only way you could mitigate that would be with the DEQ offset to bring the 0 point down from reference closer to your typical listening level... but that also affects the loudness part of DEQ.


I'm not so sure why this is a problem. Those measurements show there is almost nothing done to the response at my listening levels between 500-8000 Hz. Fact is I bought very neutral speakers which work exceptionally well with DEQ and sound great with it engaged, so it compliments them nicely. There is a gradual boost from about 500 Hz on down to blend with the subwoofers. I sometimes don't recommend DEQ to people who bought smiley face bass and treble speakers since the curve is already baked in (unless they can EQ it out - good luck with that).


Jeremy Anderson said:


> But I think you'll find that most people here are using a boost to sub level (and often, tailored house curves with MiniDSP) rather than deal with the chaotic nature of DEQ with an Atmos setup. And I think you would find that very few people would say that level matching with DEQ engaged at anything below reference (or without an offset applied) is a good idea for the reasons I outlined previously.


You're advocating for creating house curves for speakers and subs with a room EQ curve editor or MiniDSP, so you must not object to the bass boosts to the speakers. That is assuming one has neutral speakers that accept such an adjustment without complaining (I do). Of course there is nothing wrong with that approach. So it sounds like most of your objection with DEQ is that it changes with volume level - but is that not the point? Yes it's true that some mistakes were made in adding huge boosts to the surround and height channels, but that can be mitigated, without losing the benefits.

The complaints you leveled at it regarding changes with volume level (including to the front left and right speakers) are simply the system working exactly as designed. Of course you won't get exactly 5 dB of change in a speaker with a channel adjustment of 5 unless power to the whole frequency range of that speaker were reduced evenly - but then it wouldn't sound the same in terms of balance. Your speakers start to sound duller. Then, because your speakers sound dull at lower levels, you feel like you _*have to*_ listen loud to get the system sounding good. That is the point of the adjusting curve. I'm sure you know this.

Anyway, in my earlier post I recommended that people who have extreme volume level swings use different presets with fine-tuned channel levels. But I think as long as you're +/- 5 on the MV, or even a little more, the differences I described are very small. I could tell there was a difference between -15 and -30 using test material and listening specifically for things that I knew would be there. If I were watching one movie at -15, and another at -20 (maybe they are mixed at different levels or I just was in a different mood that day) I seriously doubt I would even notice that a surround speaker was 0.5 higher or lower than it should be.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Layout width is the distance between the furthest speakers laterally in the room, which would almost always be the side surrounds. See attached. You could have your L/R speakers at 30 degrees and the side surrounds still be further apart. Now, if your mains just happen to end up at 1/4 distance from each side wall to hit 30 degrees, it may well be that the height rows would be roughly in line with them in that specific situation... but that wouldn't be the case in most room sizes. So even in the home guideline, the placement of the heights doesn't take the location of the mains into consideration. It's the angular relationships that matter. In most rooms, 0.5x layout width usually puts the height rows somewhere in between the mains and center laterally... just as they are in the theater where the heights typically fall in line with the additional screen channels.
> 
> I'm also attaching Dolby's mix room layout overhead diagram for the heights showing that they are not necessarily in line with the mains.


This quote taken from the Dolby installation guideline says otherwise.

_The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds _

As does the corresponding diagram that goes with it.










The above diagram is the ideal and the surrounds and mains are equidistant. If the surrounds are moved then they are delayed (generally they are moved closer) to match the distance of the mains, thus maintaining the perception of the surrounds being the same distance as the mains. So the Width (W) will always be the distance to the mains, and then the heights will always be in line with the mains. At least that is my understanding of it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> The above diagram is the ideal and the surrounds and mains are equidistant. If the surrounds are moved then they are delayed (generally they are moved closer) to match the distance of the mains, thus maintaining the perception of the surrounds being the same distance as the mains. So the Width (W) will always be the distance to the mains, and then the heights will always be in line with the mains. At least that is my understanding of it.


I used the equidistant layout to illustrate that W = the layout width. The diagram you just posted shows that very thing as well - not anything about distance of the mains. And as I said, in many cases, the 0.5x the layout width standard will generally give you the right lateral angle from the side surrounds to maintain proper separation, which is why it is provided as a generalized placement for most consumers. But most rooms don't allow for the equidistant placement... so in orthogonal rooms, the side surrounds are closer, meaning the layout width is less, meaning logically that the ideal width of the height rows would be closer together to maintain the angular separation from the sides per the mix room standard. Whether this puts the heights in line with the mains or not is entirely dependent on room size and distance of the MLP from the LCR. See Dolby 3.png previously posted. See also attached example of theatrical placement, in which the height rows use the same math for lateral angular separation and end up generally in line with the additional screen channels in between the center and mains - NOT in line with the mains.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> So it sounds like most of your objection with DEQ is that it changes with volume level - but is that not the point? Yes it's true that some mistakes were made in adding huge boosts to the surround and height channels, but that can be mitigated, without losing the benefits.


My objection is that it makes changes to the surround levels based on their initial research, which was the analysis of how mixers made changes to levels as they were asked to redo a 7.1 mix for listening below reference level. That research was done before immersive audio, and does not take into account what those same mixers would do to adjust the height channels. And since much of Atmos' recreation of objects in your room depends on all of the channels being level matched so that the decoder can attempt to image sounds in between the channels as needed based on each object's coordinates, DEQ's alteration of the levels and even its frequency shaping can throw off the accuracy of that placement. That's the part I take issue with. Most people boost bass to preference, and as I said previously, I wish Audyssey would separate the two parts of DEQ so you could just have the loudness aspect without the presence aspect. And it's far easier to recreate the loudness aspect at your normal listening levels by just bumping up the sub, meaning you no longer have to worry about changes to channel levels if you change the master volume away from whatever number you tend to listen to.

But again, if you dig it, do it! I was just saying there's a much easier way to get to the same destination, which is the path that most people take since DEQ was not designed with Atmos/DTS:X in mind.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Based on the document you linked, looks like my setup is closely adhering to guidelines, with the following exceptions:
> 
> Imagine you shrunk the room to 17 ft in length, so that a 45° angle to your top front speakers puts them just in front of your FL and FR
> Imagine that you shrunk the room to 11 ft in width, so that there is less space to the sides.
> The one concession on placement that I had to make was for the rears. I wasn't able to place them where I wanted, so they had to move out to the walls.


Number 2 is where the problem is. When you shrink the width of the room, the layout width shrinks as well, meaning 0.5x the layout width inherently pushes the rows of heights closer together. And even if you go by the mix room angular standard, this would be true as the 45 + (side surround elevation / 2) rule would necessitate the rows of heights being further away from the side walls to compensate.



Soulburner said:


> Hopefully in the future when I get a bigger room I have more space to work with. In that case everything on the bed layer would move further out and the top rears would be mounted ideally on the ceiling. For now, this is it.


Well, consider it if you can ever mount them more ideally on the ceiling. I really wasn't trying to criticize your setup, as we all have to make concessions to cram all this stuff in our respective rooms. I was just pointing out that with them where they are in your picture, you're likely not getting some of the perceived effect some people are talking about with those demo clips as you don't have enough lateral angular separation for those transitions to happen smoothly during the object pans.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I used the equidistant layout to illustrate that W = the layout width. The diagram you just posted shows that very thing as well - not anything about distance of the mains.


Width is actually the diameter of the circle with all speakers at the same "width". How do you determine that it isn't anything to do with the distance of the mains (which is W) and which speakers it is related to ? 
I will post this again as it clearly states that heights should be the same width apart as the fronts and that this will then put it at 0.5W of the OVERALL layout, not the width of the room or the surrounds :

_The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers_ 

That is pretty black and white to me.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Number 2 is where the problem is. When you shrink the width of the room, the layout width shrinks as well, meaning 0.5x the layout width inherently pushes the rows of heights closer together. And even if you go by the mix room angular standard, this would be true as the 45 + (side surround elevation / 2) rule would necessitate the rows of heights being further away from the side walls to compensate.


I see what you're saying. I think it's all compromises and I chose to maintain some width over putting them inside the main FL and FR. Maybe that's the wrong choice, I don't know, but I think left to right imaging would suffer if I moved them closer together. Also consider if you're in another seat...there would be no outside height speaker. Say you're in the left seat, there would be one directly in front of you and one to the right. I think that would be less immersive. I don't know.

I think the fronts are solid, and it's the rears that I worry about. I am getting good overhead imaging and I don't perceive the RHR and RHL where they actually are when they image, but they do sound wide when something loud enough is directed to only one of them. Maybe it will help the room feel bigger. That's what I'll tell myself.

Finally, because I didn't want to go with little dinky speakers for various reasons, I can only mount them where I have a ceiling joist to drill into for support, which means I can't be too picky. I got lucky up front. There are also doors in the rear that would swing open and hit the speakers if I had mounted them exactly like the fronts. A goal for the future, larger room will be to have a higher ceiling as well.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I wish Audyssey would separate the two parts of DEQ so you could just have the loudness aspect without the presence aspect.


This I agree with and have thought to myself before. If someone has B&W or GoldenEar speakers, they probably don't like Dynamic EQ. They are going to want to turn off the boost to the 8 kHz + range. DEQ really demands neutral speakers to work properly.


Jeremy Anderson said:


> And it's far easier to recreate the loudness aspect at your normal listening levels by just bumping up the sub


I run the subs hot but it's not a replacement for a smooth boost that extends into the upper bass of the speaker. For that you need a house curve, which is only good at one volume level +/- about 2. This was one of two big problems I had with Dirac Live and why I went back to Audyssey. I didn't want to set up 3 different house curves (I only was allowed 3), guessing at the right amount of slope for each one. Way too much tweaking, even for me. Audyssey had already done the research and their sub boost tables for each frequency and MV are in my experience right on the money. If anyone has extracted or reverse engineered that I would be interested in seeing them.


----------



## MagnumX

What a bunch of nothing to do about anything, IMO.

The ONLY thing that happens moving overheads outward does is move some sounds a bit outward as well. Anyone that thinks that is a big deal might just be an obsessive compulsive, IMO. Changing where you sit in a Dolby cinema has similar effects to most of the things the anal retentive worry about on here. Anyone who has listened to Atmos on an Auro layout knows it still sounds great. Certain people worry more about surround effects off-screen than aligning their speakers to match the ones that ARE on-screen (e.g. Panned dialog). I find that rather disconcerting.

As for DEQ, more exaggerations. If anything, surround levels are already too low in most soundtracks and DEQ isn't going to remotely help that, let alone overwhelm anything. Its purpose is bass adjustment to account for human hearing at lower levels and has little to no effect at louder/reference levels. Check/adjust after Audyssey manually using the Atmos level demo. Everything will be fine. I've never had any issues with or without DEQ, but then I listen close to reference and DEQ is for low levels, not reference.

I think perhaps some people should go watch a movie instead of telling other people what settings they can or cannot use in their system or how far apart their speakers should be. We'll all get along better.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> What a bunch of nothing to do about anything, IMO.
> 
> The ONLY thing that happens moving overheads outward does is move some sounds a bit outward as well. Anyone that thinks that is a big deal might just be an obsessive compulsive, IMO. Changing where you sit in a Dolby cinema has similar effects to most of the things the anal retentive worry about on here. Anyone who has listened to Atmos on an Auro layout knows it still sounds great. Certain people worry more about surround effects off-screen than aligning their speakers to match the ones that ARE on-screen (e.g. Panned dialog). I find that rather disconcerting.
> 
> As for DEQ, more exaggerations. If anything, surround levels are already too low in most soundtracks and DEQ isn't going to remotely help that, let alone overwhelm anything. Its purpose is bass adjustment to account for human hearing at lower levels and has little to no effect at louder/reference levels. Check/adjust after Audyssey manually using the Atmos level demo. Everything will be fine. I've never had any issues with or without DEQ, but then I listen close to reference and DEQ is for low levels, not reference.
> 
> I think perhaps some people should go watch a movie instead of telling other people what settings they can or cannot use in their system or how far apart their speakers should be. We'll all get along better.


Yes that brings to mind my oft repeated saying from a wise old man "Any Atmos is better then No Atmos"


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Width is actually the diameter of the circle with all speakers at the same "width". How do you determine that it isn't anything to do with the distance of the mains (which is W) and which speakers it is related to ?
> I will post this again as it clearly states that heights should be the same width apart as the fronts and that this will then put it at 0.5W of the OVERALL layout, not the width of the room or the surrounds :
> 
> _The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers_
> 
> That is pretty black and white to me.


Width is not the diameter of the circle because the side surrounds are not at 180 degrees from each other on an equidistant layout. The distance of the mains is variable because the lateral distance between them depends on 60 degrees of separation, which means the distance between them shrinks as the MLP moves further forward and further apart as the MLP moves further back. So it makes zero logical sense to base it on the distance of the mains and the diagrams that have been posted, including the one you posted, don't show that. What you're saying makes no sense, especially considering the MLP in an orthogonal layout (as most of our rooms are) wouldn't be at half the layout length per Dolby's recommendations. Not to mention that half the layout length would be one of the worst places to put the MLP for room modes.

I can't believe we've actually had this much discussion over what "layout width" means... but from Dolby:
"Minimum Layout Width: 3.0 meters (= distance between your side-surround speakers). "

I get that the general home guideline states what you posted, but that's my point entirely: It's meant as a severely generalized rule of thumb for the average consumer that sorta' works most of the time. Enthusiasts here aren't in that category. Dolby is basing that generalized guideline on average expected room size to "dumb it down" for the Best Buy crowd. Critical placement to recreate what the mixer heard and what is represented in the theater requires that you follow the angular layout requirements defined by Dolby, to wit:
"The maximum width between top surround loudspeakers should then be determined by elevation angles as follows: Let E be the elevation angle of the nearest side surround loudspeaker measured from the RLP (defined on page 1). The elevation angle of the corresponding top surround array should be greater than or equal to 45 degrees plus half of angle E. For example, if E is 20 degrees, then the elevation angle of the top surround array should be greater than or equal to 55 degrees."

Again, it's everyone's system and they can do what they want with theirs. I'm just saying that there are audible advantages to adhering to those angles rather than the generalized placement, having done various combinations of layouts myself and hearing which have the smoothest transitions with moving objects. Is it nit-picky? Yup. As you said, any Atmos is better than no Atmos... but that doesn't mean we can't strive for the most accurate representation of it as enthusiasts.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> See also attached example of theatrical placement, in which the height rows use the same math for lateral angular separation and end up generally in line with the additional screen channels in between the center and mains - NOT in line with the mains.


The decoder in the home version of Atmos has the same rendering assumptions, with the height arrays exactly between the L/C/R speakers, spaced evenly from front to back.


----------



## halcyon_888

niterida said:


> Yes that brings to mind my oft repeated saying from a wise old man "Any Atmos is better then No Atmos"


There is something I call "Flatmos," which is a movie or TV show that should have good Atmos but the sound engineers dropped the ball making it sound flat.


----------



## JohnRichmond

Soulburner said:


> View attachment 3148812
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting that link. This led to a discovery – that playback levels were wildly different than the AVR menu's tones. I expected a few dB, but not this.
> 
> The reason? Audyssey's Dynamic EQ boosts the rear heights by 7-10 dB! The boost is greater than the front heights. This has to be a bug (right?) and should be fixed.
> 
> Here is the RHR speaker at -30 MV for testing purposes, with Dynamic EQ off, then on.
> 
> View attachment 3148815
> View attachment 3148816
> 
> 
> If I do this test with the front heights, the DEQ boost is about 5 dB. Clearly the rears are overboosted. This must be what I was hearing in the demos.
> 
> Now, the problem. At higher playback levels, the amount of boost reduces. And, the channel boost tables seem to be different between the front and rear heights, and surrounds. I don't know if this is intentional, but it is going to create a variable front/back balance for Dynamic EQ users based on the MV level. As the MV is increased, the front/back balance will move toward the front.
> 
> Using the Atmos test tones I adjusted my channel levels to get them much closer to each other and then measured them all to show how the relative differences change with volume level. Here is the data I collected using the 5.1.4 Atmos test tone video:
> 
> 
> -30FL62.5​FR62.5​Sub72​SL63​SR63​FHL63​FHR63​RHL64​RHR64​
> 
> 
> -20FL68.5​FR68.5​Sub78​SL68.5​SR68.5​FHL69.5​FHR69.5​RHL69.5​RHR69.5​
> 
> 
> -15FL72​FR72​Sub80.5​SL71.5​SR71.5​FHL73​FHR73​RHL73​RHR73​
> 
> You can see the differences between the channels change. The boost is reduced at different rates depending on the channel. The surround channels seem to drop the quickest, followed by the rear heights. This can slightly shift the bias toward the front. At my -30 measurement level, you can see the bias is slightly toward the rear.
> 
> The effect is subtle, but I can hear it in the Audiosphere demo. At my -30 MV level the sounds are just right over my head, while at -15 MV they shift a few inches forward. You can get better precision if you turn your head 90°. It's probably not a deal-breaker for most people, but it annoys me in this demo and it would be interesting to know if anyone else can reproduce this.
> 
> My suggestion is going to be to run these test tones after Audyssey setup, as it is clearly needed to make sure your system is balanced. And, run them at your typical movie listening volume – if you tend to use a range of say -10 to -20, do this test and balance your channels at -15 so it's close either way. If you have a very large usable range, for example you have a very quiet, night listening volume level, you could create a Quick Select with different level adjustments for that input with the Option key. You might throw Dynamic Volume in there as well.
> 
> After making the above adjustments, I will run through the trailers again and listen for improvements in balance.


I may have missed it, but regarding your 10db difference between DEQ on and off, have you tried measuring with the subs turned off or the meter set to A Weighting? Most of the (measured) difference in my system is due to the subs. This also explains the different readings between the Denon test tones and the Dolby test tones. The Dolby tones have much more bass frequencies.


----------



## Soulburner

JohnRichmond said:


> I may have missed it, but regarding your 10db difference between DEQ on and off, have you tried measuring with the subs turned off or the meter set to A Weighting? Most of the (measured) difference in my system is due to the subs. This also explains the different readings between the Denon test tones and the Dolby test tones. The Dolby tones have much more bass frequencies.


Well, I'm pretty sure I didn't hear sub activity, but I could test again just to be sure.


----------



## Soulburner

Okay, I feel dumb. I don't know why I didn't consider bass management. I blame lack of sleep.

The sub is definitely affecting the levels as you would expect, however I have uncovered some other ****ery. Here is what happens to my levels using the Atmos 5.1.4 test tone video when I turn off the subs via their power switches, but keep everything else the same. That is, the AVR still operates the speakers with a crossover so I can measure their actual output:

REW SPL Meter, UMIK-1, C-weighted


-30-30 no subsFL62.5​FL56.5​FR62.5​FR56.5​Sub72​SubSL63​SL59.5​SR63​SR59.5​FHL63​FHL58​FHR63​FHR58​RHL64​RHL61​RHR64​RHR61​

_The disappearance of the subs affects the channels differently_? What? I don't have an explanation for this. Crossover is 60 for the fronts, and 80 for all other speakers, including all four identical height speakers. The front heights were noticeably quieter with white noise compared to the rear heights, so I know it wasn't a fluke.

Anyway, with the subs gone, we can more clearly see the level adjustments made by Dynamic EQ. I have not changed levels since the last test, and I level matched at -15 MV since I tend to put it there for most movies.

We start out as before at low levels with over-boosted surrounds and rear heights:


-30 no subsFL56.5​FR56.5​SubSL59.5​SR59.5​FHL58​FHR58​RHL61​RHR61​

By the time we reach -20, things start to even out:


-20 no subsFL64.5​FR64.5​SubSL64​SR64​FHL64.5​FHR64.5​RHL65.5​RHR65.5​

And at my movie volume, the surrounds drop further and the heights get in line:


-15 no subsFL68.5​FR68.5​SubSL67.5​SR67.5​FHL69​FHR69​RHL69​RHR69​

I am fine with this as a slight reduction to the surrounds might help listeners to the left and right from getting blasted due to close proximity.

Anyway, the conclusion doesn't change, but good insights. If using Audyssey's Dynamic EQ, set levels at the level you use your system. If they vary enough to cause an issue, consider a Quick Select for low volume listening with slightly adjusted channel levels.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Anyway, the conclusion doesn't change, but good insights. If using Audyssey's Dynamic EQ, set levels at the level you use your system. If they vary enough to cause an issue, consider a Quick Select for low volume listening with slightly adjusted channel levels.


You're basically finding exactly what I was trying to explain you would. DEQ is a mess for cross-channel placement of objects with Atmos. Since your normal listening level is -15dB, have you considered just setting the Audyssey DEQ offset to -15dB so that the levels match at that point automatically based on your auto-cal? Then all you would have to do is turn the sub up to taste, and you would still get the frequency shaping and surround boosts as you move master volume below -15dB. Seems like a much faster path to get where you're trying to go.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You're basically finding exactly what I was trying to explain you would. DEQ is a mess for cross-channel placement of objects with Atmos. Since your normal listening level is -15dB, have you considered just setting the Audyssey DEQ offset to -15dB so that the levels match at that point automatically based on your auto-cal? Then all you would have to do is turn the sub up to taste, and you would still get the frequency shaping and surround boosts as you move master volume below -15dB. Seems like a much faster path to get where you're trying to go.


I discovered this several pages ago, but re-tested at the suggestion that the subwoofer could be affecting the results.

I still think your proposed solution does not cover all of the bases, so while I appreciate the feedback, I'll be keeping it the way it is for now.

In order for me to consider turning off DEQ, I would need the response adjustment values. Then, I would need a way of implementing them to all speakers and subs. That would take much longer and come at some expense. All to save myself from slightly shifting balance per volume level.

The system sounds really good so I think I'm done playing with it. Everything is balanced and my response for all speakers and subs follows equal loudness curve research, automatically. If I ever notice a difference in actual use when my levels drop low, such as -30 or lower, I'll just make a preset for low volume listening where the surrounds are reduced a little. That doesn't happen too often though. You know what they say: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> This I agree with and have thought to myself before. If someone has B&W or GoldenEar speakers, they probably don't like Dynamic EQ. They are going to want to turn off the boost to the 8 kHz + range. DEQ really demands neutral speakers to work properly.
> 
> I run the subs hot but it's not a replacement for a smooth boost that extends into the upper bass of the speaker. For that you need a house curve, which is only good at one volume level +/- about 2. This was one of two big problems I had with Dirac Live and why I went back to Audyssey. I didn't want to set up 3 different house curves (I only was allowed 3), guessing at the right amount of slope for each one. Way too much tweaking, even for me. Audyssey had already done the research and their sub boost tables for each frequency and MV are in my experience right on the money. If anyone has extracted or reverse engineered that I would be interested in seeing them.


I am also a fan of Dynamic EQ, and for this reason I wish we could get one further revision to Audyssey beyond XT32. The state of the art for room correction has clearly moved beyond XT32, with what Dirac Live and the Trinnov Optimizer can do, but the full Audyssey suite brings these ancillary things like DEQ to the table. A further enhancement to Audyssey that improves the impulse response, has even more refined frequency response correction and includes these other items, would really be killer.


----------



## Ricoflashback

halcyon_888 said:


> There is something I call "Flatmos," which is a movie or TV show that should have good Atmos but the sound engineers dropped the ball making it sound flat.


***I think of it as “Natmos,“ - no Dolby Atmos. It‘s amazing the number of supposed Atmos soundtracks that are flat or appear to have no overhead or panning activity when the action and scene clearly call for it. There needs to be a certification process for a Dolby Atmos movie. You know - you can’t say this movie is in Dolby Atmos because it sounds so crappy. Wait a minute - then you’ll get the tried and tested hypothesis that “that’s the way the Director intended the movie to sound.”


----------



## AndreNewman

Ricoflashback said:


> ***I think of it as “Natmos,“ - no Dolby Atmos. It‘s amazing the number of supposed Atmos soundtracks that are flat or appear to have no overhead or panning activity when the action and scene clearly call for it. There needs to be a certification process for a Dolby Atmos movie. You know - you can’t say this movie is in Dolby Atmos because it sounds so crappy. Wait a minute - then you’ll get the tried and tested hypothesis that “that’s the way the Director intended the movie to sound.”


On top of that if the movie had been plain 7.1 or 5.1 then an upmixer would put more into the overhead than the “real” atmos!


----------



## T-Bone

AndreNewman said:


> On top of that if the movie had been plain 7.1 or 5.1 then an upmixer would put more into the overhead than the “real” atmos!


To add on to that, I've been doing some experimenting with my shield Pro. Basically trying to turn off atmos processing and use nothing but the up mixers

Unfortunately that doesn't always work because depending on the configuration of the streaming device, the service might give me two channel PCM.

But I tried. 

-T


----------



## priitv8

Ricoflashback said:


> ***I think of it as “Natmos,“ - no Dolby Atmos. It‘s amazing the number of supposed Atmos soundtracks that are flat or appear to have no overhead or panning activity when the action and scene clearly call for it. There needs to be a certification process for a Dolby Atmos movie. You know - you can’t say this movie is in Dolby Atmos because it sounds so crappy. Wait a minute - then you’ll get the tried and tested hypothesis that “that’s the way the Director intended the movie to sound.”


I think we see exactly same situation with a lot of Dolby Vision movies as well. In my opinion, some of them seem to have a static metadata, no different from HDR10.


----------



## Ricoflashback

AndreNewman said:


> On top of that if the movie had been plain 7.1 or 5.1 then an upmixer would put more into the overhead than the “real” atmos!


***Never truer words have been spoken. I amazed at DTS:X and the upmixer that engages my entire 9.1.2 setup with Front Wides. I prefer a Dolby Atmos soundtrack when it's properly recorded. I know I can change an Atmos soundtrack to DTS:X with my Denon x6700H, but I'm not sure how different that would be compared to a base 5.1 or 7.1 mix with upmixing.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Ricoflashback said:


> ***I think of it as “Natmos,“ - no Dolby Atmos. It‘s amazing the number of supposed Atmos soundtracks that are flat or appear to have no overhead or panning activity when the action and scene clearly call for it. There needs to be a certification process for a Dolby Atmos movie. You know - you can’t say this movie is in Dolby Atmos because it sounds so crappy. Wait a minute - then you’ll get the tried and tested hypothesis that “that’s the way the Director intended the movie to sound.”


I know everyone wants their speakers to all light up constantly. We saw the same thing happen with the move from 5.1 to 7.1 and people arguing that more movies should use the rears all the time. Then the mixers who were great at using them (Gary Rydstrom, for example) became known to us enthusiasts because we would seek out those mixes that used the format really well.

But I think this mentality of "when the action and scene clearly call for it" doesn't necessarily take the full art of mixing into account. Sometimes, things that we might think should be in the overheads can't be because they're in the on-set production audio, not a separate stem. For instance, there's a plane sound in part of Ford V. Ferrari that was in the production audio on the day and the director asked if they could move it through the Atmos array, but the mixers couldn't do it. They kept it as-is because the rest of the production audio was solid, and they didn't want to rebuild the rest from the ground up and loop the dialogue just to get that single effect. In that same movie, during the Le Mans race when there's a lot of rain, the initial mix had a ton of rain and thunder sounds through all the channels. They ended up cutting the immersive aspect of that sound down so that it didn't crowd out the engine sounds and a collision that happens in that scene. (And then actually reduced the amount of rain in that scene to match it.) They talk about this in one of Dolby's podcasts. There's a lot more to the storytelling aspect of movie mixes than most people appreciate.

So while I get it when people want to hear every available speaker used, I still err toward preferring to hear the actual mix that was crafted by the audio team, including the decisions they made to suit the story. I may not agree with them sometimes, but ultimately they are the artists having to craft all that together, often from imperfect source material... and upmixing the base 7.1 track tosses out a lot of those intentional decisions in favor of just putting more sound above the listener whether it should be there from a storytelling standpoint or not.

I do think there's a problem with some home versions of theatrical mixes opting to use two static objects for the heights with pre-baked pans rather than dynamically moving objects, because it causes issues for people with more than 4 height channels and potentially for people using front/rear height layouts. But it's a quick and dirty way for them to convert theatrical Atmos over for the home for most users, and it keeps the QC time down, so we see that practice more often than I care for. I would rather see more accurate translations of the theatrical mix down to the home mix than them take the easy way out. That said, a lot of those Atmos mixes that use this method still manage to sound pretty great in spite of it.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I know everyone wants their speakers to all light up constantly. We saw the same thing happen with the move from 5.1 to 7.1 and people arguing that more movies should use the rears all the time. Then the mixers who were great at using them (Gary Rydstrom, for example) became known to us enthusiasts because we would seek out those mixes that used the format really well.


***That's not my view or desired result in terms of "having my speakers all light up constantly." I'm speaking directly to Dolby Atmos mixes where you can plainly see (or should I say hear) - - in the action, and where the sounds SHOULD be coming from (overheads/panning/front/rear/side to side) - - and they're not there.

The "Get Out Of Jail Card" for these excuses for inferior Dolby Atmos mixes & Dolby Vision is "that's the way the director or sound engineer INTENDED you to hear or see the movie." Check, please. Now, I've never changed a Dolby Atmos track to DTS:X (even though I could with my Denon X6700H AVR) but everything else is automatically upscaled to DTS:X. Smoke em if you got em.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Ricoflashback said:


> ***That's not my view or desired result in terms of "having my speakers all light up constantly." I'm speaking directly to Dolby Atmos mixes where you can plainly see (or should I say hear) - - in the action, and where the sounds SHOULD be coming from (overheads/panning/front/rear/side to side) - - and they're not there.
> 
> The "Get Out Of Jail Card" for these excuses for inferior Dolby Atmos mixes & Dolby Vision is "that's the way the director or sound engineer INTENDED you to hear or see the movie." Check, please. Now, I've never changed a Dolby Atmos track to DTS:X (even though I could with my Denon X6700H AVR) but everything else is automatically upscaled to DTS:X. Smoke em if you got em.


And that's the disconnect I'm speaking of - the idea that because something on the screen moved a certain way, it necessarily means it should move that way in your speaker system. That's not even a remote priority for a mixer. Every decision is made to serve the story the director is trying to tell... and sometimes, as a necessity based on what sound they have available to them when doing the mix. Making a flashy mix isn't on their priority list, and in fact they often have to dial that sort of thing back to keep the focus on the screen (which IS on their priority list).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't call out bad mixes for what they are. Just that not every mixer uses the format that way, not every director agrees with the mixer on certain decisions, not every decision can be made based on screen position, etc. There's way more to the art of mixing movies than that. While I've certainly encountered a few movies that don't stand with some of the best on the format, I haven't heard any Atmos mixes that didn't at least sound fuller than a base 7.1 mix, even in the absence of showy pans through the array.

And CAN YOU apply DTS:X to an Atmos mix? They use different object formats and logic, so I feel like all that would be doing would be tossing out the object data and applying DTS' upmixing to the base 7.1 track. Or is that what you were talking about?


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> I've never changed a Dolby Atmos track to DTS:X (even though I could with my Denon X6700H AVR) but everything else is automatically upscaled to DTS:X.


That would require a DTS:X *en*coder and there isn't one built into your Denon receiver. Do you mean Neural:X upmixing?


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> That would require a DTS:X *en*coder and there isn't one built into your Denon receiver. Do you mean Neural:X upmixing?


***I rewired my X6700H and added my own, proprietary DTS:X encoder with lots of whizz/bang in the overheads (sorry for being so technical.) My bad - Neural:X. Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And that's the disconnect I'm speaking of - the idea that because something on the screen moved a certain way, it necessarily means it should move that way in your speaker system. That's not even a remote priority for a mixer. Every decision is made to serve the story the director is trying to tell... and sometimes, as a necessity based on what sound they have available to them when doing the mix. Making a flashy mix isn't on their priority list, and in fact they often have to dial that sort of thing back to keep the focus on the screen (which IS on their priority list).


And yet you're worried that some people have their overhead speakers out too far. If there's little or even _no correlation_ to what's on-screen, how can it possibly matter whether a bird moves 2 feet over to the left or right because the person put their speakers on the side wall instead? In a larger home theater, it might very well be over that far anyway for the MLP and thus simply sound as if the room is a bit wider than it is. That's why some of positions are largely irrelevant and why Auro-3D layouts sound perfectly find with Atmos. It just sounds like a slightly larger room.

A better question is why the people mixing sounds don't care about the position of things on the screen relative to the soundtrack. They invented panned dialog many many years ago where they did try to match up the sound placement along the screen to where the person was on the screen. Some movies still do it (notably Pixar movies). 

Having the dialog come out of the mouth that's speaking seems so much more realistic when it's done and yet we've all become used to dialog only coming from the center channel. With Atmos, they could even adjust the dialog vertically to match where the person's mouth is on the screen in a large theater (e.g. low view with head above the screen, the dialog should come from above the screen or right at the top if that's where their mouth is. 

Maintaining the same proportions relative to speaker placement and the screen at home would result in a scaled down but still matching effect. No, not every room and home theater could do it (too small a screen or the room doesn't support speaker placement in the right locations, etc.), but that's also something Atmos or even Audyssey could be designed to adjust in terms of panning width, etc. Atmos is supposed to be "immersive" and what's _immersive_ about someone's mouth on the left side of the screen near the top moving while their voice comes from the dead center of the screen?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> And yet you're worried that some people have their overhead speakers out too far. If there's little or even _no correlation_ to what's on-screen, how can it possibly matter whether a bird moves 2 feet over to the left or right because the person put their speakers on the side wall instead? In a larger home theater, it might very well be over that far anyway for the MLP and thus simply sound as if the room is a bit wider than it is.


No, I was never worried that they have their overhead speakers "out too far". I pointed out that the distance isn't as important as the angular relation between channels, since that is what determines the accurate placement of objects within any given space based on the coordinate system Atmos uses for placement. The correlation to what's on-screen isn't relevant for that purpose... The correlation to the reference system used by the mixer who did the mix is, in order to recreate the intended mix in your home, which is the entire point of going by a known layout reference. If your channels are located with the correct angular relations between channels, this removes room size as a factor. But if you place the height speakers solely relative to room size (which is what Dolby's generalized standards do for ease of translation to the average consumer given the average room), you inherently change the angular relation between channels compared to the mix room and theatrical standards, and therefore change the smoothness of pans across that part of the array because the decoder's logic doesn't change between the home and theatrical versions.


MagnumX said:


> That's why some of positions are largely irrelevant and why Auro-3D layouts sound perfectly find with Atmos. It just sounds like a slightly larger room.


Auro-3D layouts sound "perfectly fine" with Atmos by virtue of Dolby allowing front/rear height placements with the alternate 30 degree longitudinal elevations, even if that doesn't necessarily comply strictly with the known reference for Atmos. It's an accommodation they made for the home version of Atmos, as all it requires is assigning those speaker locations in the decoder so it knows how to steer the sounds using those alternate positions in the array. That's hardly irrelevant, as the decoder knowing those angular relations between channels is what helps it place sounds in your room in a way that matches the placement in the virtual room the mixer used to place them. In theory, they could support any of the speaker positions defined by ITU-R BS.2051-2 and the decoder could work around it.


MagnumX said:


> A better question is why the people mixing sounds don't care about the position of things on the screen relative to the soundtrack.


Because the POV of the viewer is rarely consistently the same as the POV of the characters in a movie, and if the placement of sounds shifted to match the on-screen action from scene to scene (and cut to cut), it would be incredibly jarring. It isn't that they don't care about placing things in that way if they choose to... but depending on their individual style or the desires of the director, they may not choose to. If the scene shifts POV angles regularly, they will tend to go with a generalized soundfield to convey the story rather than trying to constantly match with the screen. Sometimes, to convey the experience of the character in a movie and what they are hearing, the sound will be mixed as if it's from their POV, which wouldn't align with the camera POV if they're on-screen but can help tell the story. There's a lot more being considered by the sound designer.


MagnumX said:


> They invented panned dialog many many years ago where they did try to match up the sound placement along the screen to where the person was on the screen. Some movies still do it (notably Pixar movies).


And that practice was largely done by the aforementioned Gary Rydstrom (who left Skywalker Sound to join Pixar for a time), which is part of why his mixes were held in such high regard. Did you like the mix in Ready Player One? That's Gary Rydstrom's work too, and he was a huge proponent of Atmos when Dolby was developing it. In fact, he did the first movie ever mixed for Atmos, Pixar's Brave. But the overwhelming majority of sound designers don't tend to steer dialogue that way unless there's a particular off-screen action they're trying to convey. One might wonder if Rydstrom had a hand in Dolby implementing the additional screen channels in Atmos, so he could steer dialogue better in the screen space without having to go to the far edges. That wouldn't shock me.


MagnumX said:


> Having the dialog come out of the mouth that's speaking seems so much more realistic when it's done and yet we've all become used to dialog only coming from the center channel. With Atmos, they could even adjust the dialog vertically to match where the person's mouth is on the screen in a large theater (e.g. low view with head above the screen, the dialog should come from above the screen or right at the top if that's where their mouth is.


It would be interesting to hear a mix that plays with that, I agree. But generally, centered dialogue on the screen works best theatrically and the elevation of the screen channels in a theatrical space gives them good coverage without trying to match the elevation angle of people speaking on the screen. The closest thing I've heard to that is how the mixers for the recent Star Wars films put a touch of Snoke's dialogue into the heights to give it a larger feel. Again, I would be okay if sound designers start to play a bit more with dialogue placement. We do have some movies (like Gravity) that have experimented with it, but I don't know that we'll ever see that as standard practice because of the time it would involve.


MagnumX said:


> Maintaining the same proportions relative to speaker placement and the screen at home would result in a scaled down but still matching effect. No, not every room and home theater could do it (too small a screen or the room doesn't support speaker placement in the right locations, etc.), but that's also something Atmos or even Audyssey could be designed to adjust in terms of panning width, etc. Atmos is supposed to be "immersive" and what's _immersive_ about someone's mouth on the left side of the screen near the top moving while their voice comes from the dead center of the screen?


Again, if a mix is done for the larger theatrical space, that discrepancy of the dialogue coming from a disparate physical location than the character on-screen would stand out more in the home space, so I agree that it would be cool to have in the home. I doubt we're going to see them make those kinds of adjustments for the home mixes though, especially since many of the studios are just using the coarse downconversion for the home version of the format using static objects for heights.

Scaling down to the home would work fine so long as the home space has the same angular separation as the theatrical/mix room space, so the effect would translate if they did it theatrically. If and only if home users followed those guidelines rather than the generalized home guidelines. But I doubt any sound designer sees the need for that kind of granular dialogue steering when doing the theatrical mix, as it eats into their time budget for other more important priorities in the mix.

As for Audyssey, I would love to see them actually care about the industry again, but they have moved on to voice recognition and mobile audio. Ideally, I would like to see them split the loudness and presence elements of DEQ so you could use them independently, do new research on how DEQ should behave in the context of immersive layouts, and I would kill to see them change to a multi-capsule mic that can detect the angular relation of speakers during calibration (like the higher end Yamahas and more advanced pre-pros) with a modicum of remapping to adjust for less-than-optimal speaker placements. Without Audyssey doing the research and putting it out as a possible product for AVR manufacturers, I doubt we're going to see much advancement there outside of the high-end. And that's a shame. A lot of the stuff we've gone back and forth over could be solved by a scaled down in-AVR remapping, making the in-home reproduction more closely match the theatrical presentation with less work on the end user's part.


----------



## Phytonic13

This is my living room setup. I added atmos to my theater room and love it. I'm wondering if it'll be worth it to add two front height speakers here on the wall above the side speakers. It would be a pair of SVS elevation speakers. Not interested in adding rears as it won't work. Worth it or waste? This room is mainly used for gaming and tv shows.


----------



## squared80

Phytonic13 said:


> This is my living room setup. I added atmos to my theater room and love it. I'm wondering if it'll be worth it to add two front height speakers here on the wall above the side speakers. It would be a pair of SVS elevation speakers. Not interested in adding rears as it won't work. Worth it or waste? This room is mainly used for gaming and tv shows.



Doesn't look like there would be near enough separation between your bed layer and your heights for them to really matter.


----------



## ppasteur

squared80 said:


> Doesn't look like there would be near enough separation between your bed layer and your heights for them to really matter.


OOPS, lightened it up and I can see where the front LCR are ... but no idea what Atmos speakers he has from the picture.
Also realized he is talking about two different setups.... DUH
Yeah, having heights above his left and right mains in that config may not add much.


----------



## AVS-1

In 5.1.4 setup, if I place my front height speakers further to the front (closer to screen than my front speakers - optimized placement for stereo soundstage) and my rear height speakers about 5ft above the rear speaker (convenient) , will any of the Atmos sound processor like SR8015 or AV7706 compensate for the distances ? OR the 5.1.4 setup must follow the dolby 51.4.placement guideline which shows height speakers closers to listener.


----------



## MagnumX

@Jeremy Anderson - 

The Atmos renderer does not "see" the speaker layout relationships as angles. It sees them as a rectangular grid with coordinates and Dolby allows a certain amount of "slop" in the placement. Most of their speakers gave a range of angles for thus reason. 

Those angles change dramatically in some cases as the number of speakers increase including the vertical limits of the height speakers when top middle (or Tops in general for Trinnov) are added, lowering them by a further ten degrees. Drawings show the overheads in line with the mains, but in reality the are aligned with the left center and right center speakers. This alignment hardly matters in absolute terms, however because unlike Auro-3D, Atmos has no fixed height layer positioning of speakers to other speakers.

Auro-3D does have such a relationship (overheads go directly above the matching bed speakers). Thus, a helicopter taking off vertically to your side in Atmos may end up moving diagonal instead of a straight line upwards as there us no fixed relationship between the side heights and say top middle (if you even have it). Most Dolby consumer recommendations have alignment to the MLP while the cinema and larger home theaters should really have alignment relative to the room itself so all seats image well, not just the MLP (e.g. Many Dolby diagrams show huge distances between the mains and sides due to arranging the surrounds around the MLP instead of even placement around the room. The Atmos renderer sees no such thing and the rules of physics for phantom imaging don't change for Atmos layouts).

Thus, while Auro-3D excels with dual-quad microphone recordings, sounding almost binaural holographic in placement, Atmos is a bit more unpredictable as it's assigned objects pans, not 1:1 speaker recording from similarly mounted microphones. Atmos could be set up to do something similar, but the layering will not likely align perfectly.

The notion that you are somehow going to hear exactly what the mixing engineer heard us therefore erroneous. You have no way of knowing if he had heights or tops or both, even.

As for panned dialog, if your main speakers match up in terms of imaging with the edges if your screen and the center is at the sane height, panned dialog should always match the original as the screen orientations are fixed ratios and therefore will scale with size just fine. The only problem in consumer systems is many people cannot place the speakers where they need to be in their rooms to make it work properly, but then how is that any less accurate than having dialog always come from the center? 

The beauty of an immersive coordinate based format is that we can now accurately place sounds both horizontally and vertically correct and precisely image anywhere in the room as the Atmos demo called "Nature's Fury" implies. What's a shame is Dolby demonstrates it can be done in a demo and the industry largely ignores it. Having overhead speakers on the side walls instead of directly above the mains is miniscule placement error by comparison. 

Worse yet, Dolby doesn't even offer a speaker above the side speakers, leaving relative dead zones at height by comparison. Why are they important below, but not above? This is one thing Auro got right, IMO. 

The truth is Dolby could have easily accommodated those speaker locations/options (DTS does not object to either, for example), but purposely chose not to so as to discourage Auro-3D layouts, even though they are easier to implement and use more room real estate than Dolby. 

Ironically, the Dolby Atmos cinema version places sides at height levels already (There is no such thing at the cinema as "ear level") so they integrate better to the tops ceiling locations well there, but at home they image lower rather than higher due to lower ceilings. 

Auromax, OTOH has both ear and side height speakers in addition to top level ceiling speakers. Sadly, Auro seems to have lost the market there despite Auromax being a technically superior format, IMO precisely because of the extra side level speakers. Sadly, the home version of Auro offers no object based version. Technically, DTS:X can offer the extra TS/CH speakers as well as surround height. Unfortunately, DTS:X is a very small portion of the available titles.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> The truth is Dolby could have easily accommodated those speaker locations/options (DTS does not object to either, for example), but purposely chose not to so as to discourage Auro-3D layouts


Could it have been a patent issue? I saw that mentioned before as the reason Dolby used =/>45 degree placement for heights, not 30 degrees, but don't know if that is accurate, or applies here. It was someone who worked for Auro 3D that said it.


----------



## Soulburner

This discussion reminds me: since I became familiar with the Atmos demos with speakers set to Heights, I should switch them to Tops and run them again.


----------



## JonFo

Jeremy Anderson said:


> A lot of the stuff we've gone back and forth over could be solved by a scaled down in-AVR remapping, making the in-home reproduction more closely match the theatrical presentation with less work on the end user's part.


Absolutely, and I wish Trinnov would license some of their tech to others, their speaker re-mapping algorithms along with their 3D mic is great stuff and would greatly benefit average deployments. But it will likely not happen unless some major player goes to a software-based (vs DSP chips) platform. So it will still be expensive.


----------



## Technology3456

JonFo said:


> Absolutely, and I wish Trinnov would license some of their tech to others, their speaker re-mapping algorithms along with their 3D mic is great stuff and would greatly benefit average deployments. But it will likely not happen unless some major player goes to a software-based (vs DSP chips) platform. So it will still be expensive.


That would be great. But it sounds like even without a Trinnov, the Dolby demo discs do an amazing job, and yet there are few movies that utilize atmos nearly as well as the demo discs do. I hope that improvement happens though, and if it makes any difference to advocate for features, then it's great you are advocating for it. All I can add is that I think if people are going to advocate for improvements, then the the #1 improvement all Atmos users should be calling up their local Atmos representatives about, so to speak lol, is that more time and $ and talent get allotted to making the atmos mixes themselves. The Atmos technology is not perfect, and the Denon or Marantz AVR processing is not as close to perfect as the Trinnov, but all of it is very good already... It just sounds like it's not being _utilized _to its potential most of the time.

It's like the average AVR is a race car that can go 200 MPH, and the Trinnov is a race car that can go 300 MPH, but the driver responsible for both cars refuses to drive the first one more than 20MPH, and the second one more than 30 MPH. As nice as it would be if we put the technology from the second car into the first car also, and made both of them 300 MPH cars, it's a secondary issue so long as the driver won't drive _either _car close to its capabilities.

I'm not sure industries care what people want, but if advocating for any improvement will make any difference at all, I think the improvement that everyone should be advocating for in a unified voice is better atmos mixes. Your idea is great too though. There is no rule that we can't advocate for more than one idea at once. My point is only that getting better atmos mixes is what will improve the experience the most, both for Trinnov owners, and non-Trinnov owners. For everyone.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> The Atmos renderer does not "see" the speaker layout relationships as angles. It sees them as a rectangular grid with coordinates and Dolby allows a certain amount of "slop" in the placement. Most of their speakers gave a range of angles for thus reason.


No, the Atmos renderer translates the coordinates based on the known angular speaker positions defined by ITU-R BS.2051-2, which quite literally names the positions by azimuth and elevation. The renderer's logic depends on these known defined positions to calculate the steering based on the coordinate system, which is why the angular relations are so important. The "slop" in the placement is just the generalized home guideline to make it easier for the average consumer, but there is still sufficient spatial resolution for precise placement to make a difference. Whether that matters to you is up to you.



MagnumX said:


> Those angles change dramatically in some cases as the number of speakers increase including the vertical limits of the height speakers when top middle (or Tops in general for Trinnov) are added, lowering them by a further ten degrees. Drawings show the overheads in line with the mains, but in reality the are aligned with the left center and right center speakers. This alignment hardly matters in absolute terms, however because unlike Auro-3D, Atmos has no fixed height layer positioning of speakers to other speakers.


In reality, they are NOT aligned relative to any of the front soundstage speakers because their angles are dependent upon room size as discussed previously. Their lateral placement is 45 degrees plus half the elevation of the side surround speakers to keep the proper angular separation. Their longitudinal placement is then given to the renderer per the ITU spec so it knows the angular relation of each speaker in the array from the MLP (or RLP in the theatrical guide). That they tend to align with the left center/right center in the theater is happenstance, but generally true in most defined auditorium sizes. From Dolby's theatrical guideline:
"The maximum width between top surround loudspeakers should then be determined by elevation angles as follows: Let E be the elevation angle of the nearest side surround loudspeaker measured from the RLP (defined on page 1). The elevation angle of the corresponding top surround array should be greater than or equal to 45 degrees plus half of angle E. For example, if E is 20 degrees, then the elevation angle of the top surround array should be greater than or equal to 55 degrees."



MagnumX said:


> Auro-3D does have such a relationship (overheads go directly above the matching bed speakers). Thus, a helicopter taking off vertically to your side in Atmos may end up moving diagonal instead of a straight line upwards as there us no fixed relationship between the side heights and say top middle (if you even have it). Most Dolby consumer recommendations have alignment to the MLP while the cinema and larger home theaters should really have alignment relative to the room itself so all seats image well, not just the MLP (e.g. Many Dolby diagrams show huge distances between the mains and sides due to arranging the surrounds around the MLP instead of even placement around the room. The Atmos renderer sees no such thing and the rules of physics for phantom imaging don't change for Atmos layouts).


Actually, the angular placement from the side wall with Atmos is what lets it phantom image between the side surround and height row in any increment based on level, just as with any other stereo imaging. A helicopter taking off vertically to your side in Atmos wouldn't move diagonally because it would image beyond the plane between the two rows of speakers. Your ears only hear the direction. But for that to work, you have to have the speakers at the correct angular relation that the renderer is expecting (as Sanjay provided an illustration for earlier), which is why I have argued that some should consider pulling their heights away from the side walls to get that defined angular separation. If you have top front/rear with no top mid, the renderer simply images the sound in that same location using 3 speakers in the array instead of just 2. 



MagnumX said:


> The notion that you are somehow going to hear exactly what the mixing engineer heard us therefore erroneous. You have no way of knowing if he had heights or tops or both, even.


You do, actually. Because the minimum supported layout for home mixes is 7.1.4 with top front/rear. They don't need to account for layouts above and beyond top front/rear because there is adequate imaging in that size room for it to be unnecessary. Front/rear height is not supported for Dolby mix room certification, so you don't have to worry about any mixer using front/rear height. But the renderer can still work around it if the end user has that layout because it's the angular relation that matters.



MagnumX said:


> Worse yet, Dolby doesn't even offer a speaker above the side speakers, leaving relative dead zones at height by comparison. Why are they important below, but not above? This is one thing Auro got right, IMO.


Again, you don't need speakers in those physical locations so long as you have adjacent speakers with adequate angular separation to image between those speakers in the array. So there is no need to have a physical speaker above the side speakers. The theatrical and home versions can image a sound at the upper side periphery of the room just by steering between side surround and the adjacent height row with the proper levels... just as one could steer a sound between any stereo pair by panning L/R. This steering based on angles is exactly why the top mid solution you run in your theater works. Because the renderer is assigning levels to the front/rear height based on their angular spread (120 degrees from front to rear height based on the 30 degree elevation standards), you using matrix decoding to steer to a top middle position can provide a smooth front-to-back transition. Ideally, I would like to see AVR companies provide content-agnostic steering to deal with that... i.e. using Auro's central VOG position to help steer Atmos objects better in the Auro layout, or the inverse - steering content meant for Auro's VOG between all 4 overhead speakers in a top front/rear layout so you could have general Auro support in a more Dolby-oriented layout. Probably not doable with the related patents though.



MagnumX said:


> Ironically, the Dolby Atmos cinema version places sides at height levels already (There is no such thing at the cinema as "ear level") so they integrate better to the tops ceiling locations well there, but at home they image lower rather than higher due to lower ceilings.


They aren't at "height levels" per se. They can be elevated in the larger space because the sound has more room to propagate and they have more seats to provide coverage for. But that's exactly why the height row placements are dependent upon the elevation angle of the side surrounds as I've explained ad nauseum. The "ear level" guideline only exists in the generalized home standards, which again is why I'm arguing that enthusiasts should look more to the mix room guideline instead, as it gives better side/rear surround elevation instructions. The renderer doesn't comply with those generalized home guidelines... so why would an enthusiast follow them rather than the known math and angular relationships defined in both Dolby's theatrical and mix room whitepapers?


----------



## dschulz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Actually, the angular placement from the side wall with Atmos is what lets it phantom image between the side surround and height row in any increment based on level, just as with any other stereo imaging. A helicopter taking off vertically to your side in Atmos wouldn't move diagonally because it would image beyond the plane between the two rows of speakers. Your ears only hear the direction. But for that to work, you have to have the speakers at the correct angular relation that the renderer is expecting (as Sanjay provided an illustration for earlier), which is why I have argued that some should consider pulling their heights away from the side walls to get that defined angular separation. If you have top front/rear with no top mid, the renderer simply images the sound in that same location using 3 speakers in the array instead of just 2.


The long post I am quoting from is great, thanks for sharing - it clarifies a lot. I did want to note on the excerpt I'm quoting here, that one thing Auro did get right is that the vertical imaging on those side walls works better with surround + surround height than with surround + ceiling. Yes, you can phantom image using ceiling speakers, but (as Wilfried is fond of saying in his demos) because we lack ears on top of our heads that vertical stereo imaging leaves something to be desired, and can be improved by instead using height surrounds on the side walls.

I think a lot becomes clear when you remember the origins of the formats. Auro-3D was designed first as a music recording/playback system, later adapted to cinemas and then home theatre. Dolby Atmos was designed first as a theatrical format, and architectural constraints in cinemas meant surround heights made little sense (stadium theatres with a steep rake, where the back half of the cinema has little separate from the floor to the ceiling), later extended to home theatre and now (intriguingly) music.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> No, the Atmos renderer translates the coordinates based on the known angular speaker positions defined by ITU-R BS.2051-2, which quite literally names the positions by azimuth and elevation. The renderer's logic depends on these known defined positions to calculate the steering based on the coordinate system, which is why the angular relations are so important.


Angles relative to what? Atmos is allocentric rendering, where rendering assumptions (speaker locations) are relative to each other, not the listener. What you're describing is the way DTS:X works, with egocentric rendering referenced off a single listener location. Atmos uses Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates relative to the room, whereas DTS:X uses polar coordinates (elevation & azimuth angles), closer to your description.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> The long post I am quoting from is great, thanks for sharing - it clarifies a lot. I did want to note on the excerpt I'm quoting here, that one thing Auro did get right is that the vertical imaging on those side walls works better with surround + surround height than with surround + ceiling. Yes, you can phantom image using ceiling speakers, but (as Wilfried is fond of saying in his demos) because we lack ears on top of our heads that vertical stereo imaging leaves something to be desired, and can be improved by instead using height surrounds on the side walls.
> 
> I think a lot becomes clear when you remember the origins of the formats. Auro-3D was designed first as a music recording/playback system, later adapted to cinemas and then home theatre. Dolby Atmos was designed first as a theatrical format, and architectural constraints in cinemas meant surround heights made little sense (stadium theatres with a steep rake, where the back half of the cinema has little separate from the floor to the ceiling), later extended to home theatre and now (intriguingly) music.


I would agree that in home spaces with lower ceilings, there may be merit in having some fill in that area with a speaker. But if you keep to the angular standards, imaging between a speaker to your left and above and to your left works fairly well. If it's too far overhead, it won't... but even with side surrounds elevated to the extreme of Dolby's mix room standard, the height rows would have enough width between them so imaging between those regions is doable. That's why I keep stressing that the angular separation is what matters between side surround and the height rows, not their alignment with the mains.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Angles relative to what? Atmos is allocentric rendering, where rendering assumptions (speaker locations) are relative to each other, not the listener. What you're describing is the way DTS:X works, with egocentric rendering referenced off a single listener location. Atmos uses Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates relative to the room, whereas DTS:X uses polar coordinates (elevation & azimuth angles), closer to your description.


Angles relative to the reference listening position (RLP) in the theater (or MLP in the mix room, which is similarly 2/3 room length) are used by Dolby's panner. The Atmos mixing interface uses XYZ coordinates in a virtual room that represents the auditorium space, but the steering logic in the renderer determines what to put in each channel based on angle/azimuth defined by ITU-R BS.2051-2, which is relative to RLP/MLP. Then the renderer knows how to translate the object locations based on the known angular location of each speaker in the space.

When you do a theatrical installation, the Dolby Designer software lets you input the room dimensions, number of speakers in each zone and their start/end distances in the auditorium, and any X/Y offset of individual speakers if they aren't symmetrically placed within each zone, then that software translates this info out to angular locations for the panner in Dolby's processor so it can tell which speakers to use to pan to a particular object coordinate. Basically, the software keeps them from having to do the math for each speaker during setup, which is then saved out to the processor. This is why it's agnostic to room size and why just using the coarse angular relationships translates to the home version. All that matters is that the angular relationships are the same.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Angles relative to the reference listening position (RLP) in the theater (or MLP in the mix room, which is similarly 2/3 room length) are used by Dolby's panner.


There are no angles nor main listening position in the Atmos ecosystem.


> The Atmos mixing interface uses XYZ coordinates in a virtual room that represents the auditorium space, but the steering logic in the renderer determines what to put in each channel based on angle/azimuth defined by ITU-R BS.2051-2, which is relative to RLP/MLP.


Is this conversion from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates documented anywhere?


> This is why it's agnostic to room size and why just using the coarse angular relationships translates to the home version. All that matters is that the angular relationships are the same.


Atmos theatrical soundtracks don't need angular relationships to translate to home playback. If an object takes 10 seconds to pan from the Left speaker to the Right speaker in the theatrical mix, the pan will take the exact same amount of time in the home version. Angular spread never comes into consideration (the speakers could be far apart or right next to each other).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> There are no angles nor main listening position in the Atmos ecosystem.


The theatrical installation guideline documents the location of the RLP in the theater and the angular relations of each zone of speaker from that point for Atmos. The screen channel speakers are actually aimed to that point per the guideline, which is where the microphones are placed for calibration.


sdurani said:


> Is this conversion from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates documented anywhere?


Look into the Dolby Panner plugin for ProTools that's part of the Atmos installation package. Essentially, the XYZ coordinates are used to translate out to hemispherical panning with some enhancements, from my understanding. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly take the correction. But this all tracks with what I'm seeing in the installation manual for their cinema processor too.


sdurani said:


> Atmos theatrical soundtracks don't need angular relationships to translate to home playback. If an object takes 10 seconds to pan from the Left speaker to the Right speaker in the theatrical mix, the pan will take the exact same amount of time in the home version. Angular spread never comes into consideration (the speakers could be far apart or right next to each other).


Sure they do, because home playback doesn't let you define room size and each speaker's location within that room. Hence why speaker locations are instead predefined by their angular relation to the MLP, within a certain workable range.

What you just said about the pan speed gets down to the heart of what I was talking about with height rows if they're too close to the side walls. Take a pan from the left side to right side in an arc across the height channels (like you hear in the Encounter demo clip). Yes, the pan takes the same total amount of time beginning to end... but the transition at each point in between in the array depends on the known angular relation for it to happen smoothly. The renderer assumes that the heights are a certain angle away from the side, so its panning logic is based on that angular relationship. Basically the same as if you physically shifted the center channel off toward the left main so that the angles between each step weren't as expected, and you had a pan between the left/right mains across the front soundstage.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The theatrical installation guideline documents the location of the RLP in the theater and the angular relations of each zone of speaker from that point for Atmos. The screen channel speakers are actually aimed to that point per the guideline, which is where the microphones are placed for calibration.


All of that was established pre-Atmos. The renderer doesn't take listener location into account (doesn't need to).


> Look into the Dolby Panner plugin for ProTools that's part of the Atmos installation package.


There have been screenshots of Atmos mixing tools in this thread, and none have indicated a listener location: 
















I heard that they might be adding a listener location indicator specifically for Atmos music mixing, but that would have been very recently (compared to the near-decade that Atmos mixing tools have been around).


> The renderer assumes that the heights are a certain angle away from the side, so its panning logic is based on that angular relationship.


The separation between speakers is not based on distance or angles, just x,y,z coordinates relative to each other. Atmos rendering is a lot less complicated than most people assume.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> All of that was established pre-Atmos. The renderer doesn't take listener location into account (doesn't need to). There have been screenshots of Atmos mixing tools in this thread, and none have indicated a listener location:


RLP (not "listener location") is specifically defined in the cinema installation guide for Atmos. The mixing tools don't have to show this point because the theatrical and mix room guidelines define it, just as Trinnov's object viewer wouldn't have to show where the MLP is... but does show where the speakers are expected to be in relation to it in a virtual representation of a standard room. You have the RLP (reference listening position) which is in the center of the central listening area (defined as "those seats more than one-quarter room-width from the nearest wall"). So yes, everything is angularly referenced to a point 2/3rds of the room length per all of Dolby's documentation. There's no need for them to put a square to show the RLP in the panner plugin because that position is already standardized and consistent between the theater and the mix room. It's where the mixer is sitting when doing the mix. In the home, your MLP may not be at 2/3rds of the room length... but the speaker placement is still done relative to angles from the MLP (hence the angular ranges for each home speaker position).



sdurani said:


> The separation between speakers is not based on distance or angles, just x,y,z coordinates relative to each other. Atmos rendering is a lot less complicated than most people assume.


The intended angular separation between zones and speakers is quite literally outlined in the guidelines in detail, as well as how to offset for asymmetrical placements of individual speakers in each zone in the cinema processor. It is absolutely based on angles.

Moreover, almost every guideline for speaker installation in Atmos theaters is based on angles. The spacing of each side surround in the array is "30 degrees or less, referenced from the midpoint between two loudspeakers at the edge of the central listening area." On the lateral position of the height arrays, see the attached angular rules and diagram. Even the renderer install for mixing has you check which pre-defined angular locations of speaker you have in your console (and the mix room/theatrical guidelines specify where those should be in reference to one another and ear level at the RLP/MLP - see attached). On a related note, Trinnov's remapping feature measures elevation and azimuth of the speakers in your room so that it can remap object placement relative to the defined elevation/azimuth of Dolby's standardized placements.

I think perhaps the disconnect you and I are having here is in the panner interface versus the renderer. The interface is meant to simplify steering for the sound designer, which can then be adapted to any space based on the renderer and what speakers it has at what particular angles in the hemisphere around the room. But ultimately, it is still steering sound around you in a hemisphere around the room.


----------



## MagnumX

@Jeremy Anderson -

I'll just let Sanjay argue with you after this because it's clear it's a waste of my time arguing about something with someone's fingers in their ears. His assertions and diagrams are correct. 

Atmos is actually room centric internally (That's how the cinemas are laid out) and thus the angles change with the addition of more speakers. In a 24.1.10 setup the L/R mains sit at the angle location of the front wides in a 9.1.6 setup. That is not a small fudge factor as you seem to assert. More speakers allow smaller angles between pairs and change the rendering locations and angles.


----------



## AYanguas

It would be very interesting to have a free tool that could generate an Atmos Object Sound in a particular location (x,y,z) and render it in real time to listen in our Home Theater to which speakers the output goes and how well we detect that location from our MLP.

Perhaps that would answer many questions about how the Atmos render engine works and how the different Speaker installations in our homes are able to image correctly (or not) in the specified location (x,y,z).

I imagine myself with two joysticks, one for the (x,y) and the other for (z), moving in real time the sound object around the room, while listening how good (or bad) are the smooth pan and the speakers levels.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I'll just let Sanjay argue with you after this because it's clear it's a waste of my time arguing about something with someone's fingers in their ears. His assertions and diagrams are correct.
> 
> Atmos is actually room centric internally (That's how the cinemas are laid out) and thus the angles change with the addition of more speakers. In a 24.1.10 setup the L/R mains sit at the angle location of the front wides in a 9.1.6 setup. That is not a small fudge factor as you seem to assert. More speakers allow smaller angles between pairs and change the rendering locations and angles.


The difference is that Sanjay and I aren't arguing. We're having a discussion, and I'm open to what he's saying but not seeing where the documentation I'm reading supports it. I've repeatedly attached excerpts from the technical documentation showing this in the hopes that we end up understanding one another.

And there's also nothing in the documentation that supports what you just said about the angular location of the mains. The L/R speakers "should be positioned midway between the 1.85:1 (flat) and 2.39:1 (scope) images, as illustrated in Figure 1." (See attached.) They're then aimed at the RLP, centered at 2/3rds the length of the room. Nothing about their angular relation changing with higher channel counts, and they don't move outward if you add the additional screen channels. If you have some other documentation specific to 24.1.10 layouts, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, feel free to ignore me.

And of course the angles of each speaker in each zone change with the addition of more speakers. That's exactly what I'm saying. The Dolby Designer software calculates those angles by you putting in the beginning and end point of each zone's row within the defined auditorium size, with offsets for speakers that aren't symmetrically placed in that row due to installation constraints, then maps out the corresponding elevation angle of each speaker in that row for when you save out to the Cinema Processor. It even has a dropdown for what speaker brand/model you're putting there so it knows the physical size as part of that calculation. So it knows which speaker in the array is at a 45 degree elevation... and in the home version, you're assigning the type of speaker (front height, top front, top mid, etc.) based on its angular relation to the MLP so the renderer can put an object in the angular position in your room that it would in the cinema.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

AYanguas said:


> It would be very interesting to have a free tool that could generate an Atmos Object Sound in a particular location (x,y,z) and render it in real time to listen in our Home Theater to which speakers the output goes and how well we detect that location from our MLP.
> 
> Perhaps that would answer many questions about how the Atmos render engine works and how the different Speaker installations in our homes are able to image correctly (or not) in the specified location (x,y,z).
> 
> I imagine myself with two joysticks, one for the (x,y) and the other for (z), moving in real time the sound object around the room, while listening how good (or bad) are the smooth pan and the speakers levels.


I seem to recall someone saying there was something like this for DTS:X. Maybe on the Xbox? I haven't looked into it. I can tell you that on the Xbox platform, the positional hooks from software are all based on Microsoft Spatial Sound (their own abstraction layer for immersive audio) which assumes an equidistant layout... which gets repositioned for the orthogonal layout of Atmos if you choose that as the output. Atmos for Headphones uses those same angular assumptions based on a rectangular listening space (and positions it accordingly using HRTF), but Windows Sonic and DTS:X Headphone assume an equidistant layout so their steering is a little different (as is their HRTF model).


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The difference is that Sanjay and I aren't arguing. We're having a discussion, and I'm open to what he's saying but not seeing where the documentation I'm reading supports it. I've repeatedly attached excerpts from the technical documentation showing this in the hopes that we end up understanding one another.
> 
> And *there's also nothing in the documentation that supports what you just said about the angular location of the mains.* The L/R speakers "should be positioned midway between the 1.85:1 (flat) and 2.39:1 (scope) images, as illustrated in Figure 1." (See attached.) They're then aimed at the RLP, centered at 2/3rds the length of the room. Nothing about their angular relation changing with higher channel counts, and they don't move outward if you add the additional screen channels. If you have some other documentation specific to 24.1.10 layouts, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, feel free to ignore me.


I'd like to ignore you, but you're making that difficult if you're going to insist I'm making it up.

See "Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines". I trust you can manage Google.

See "Additional speaker guidelines". Look at the angles and notice the obvious overlap if you use them all (versus the angles for previously shown example setup diagrams that show the mains at 22-30 degrees). You can't really have the mains at 22-30 when center right is 15-30.... 

The text talks about some changes when more speakers are used, but it could be made much clearer, IMO. The problem is they clearly don't expect many to actually use all 24.1.10 and those that do will likely have it professionally installed. Thus, the extra speaker section seems almost like an after thought as they don't talk about how the primary 9.1.6 speakers are affected, but it's obvious they are affected as indicated above as the are not going to sit right next to another pair at almost the same angles. They're going to be pretty evenly distributed.

A simple 360 degrees divided by 24 bed level speakers gives an optimum angular separation of 15 degrees between every speaker. All the extended positional angles in Dolby's document are within that very simple evenly spaced grid. That places L/R mains at an optimal 45 degrees, just 5 degrees off the front wides minimum of 50 degrees and 15 degrees further out than all other diagrams. Front wides are then 60 degrees, ss#1 are 75 degrees, ss at 90, ss#2 at 105, rs#1 at 120, rs at 135, rs#2 at 150, cs at 165 and rear center at 180 and so on.

The cinema white paper talks about Atmos being room-centric, not listener centric as well like I said and gives all the mounting details for a cinema setup.


----------



## Soulburner

AYanguas said:


> It would be very interesting to have a free tool that could generate an Atmos Object Sound in a particular location (x,y,z) and render it in real time to listen in our Home Theater to which speakers the output goes and how well we detect that location from our MLP.
> 
> Perhaps that would answer many questions about how the Atmos render engine works and how the different Speaker installations in our homes are able to image correctly (or not) in the specified location (x,y,z).
> 
> I imagine myself with two joysticks, one for the (x,y) and the other for (z), moving in real time the sound object around the room, while listening how good (or bad) are the smooth pan and the speakers levels.


Maybe some day we'll have an app in the app store to play with.

And I'm sure a Dolby lawsuit will ensue, and we'll have to find a way to sideload it.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> A simple 360 degrees divided by 24 bed level speakers gives an optimum angular separation of 15 degrees between every speaker.


I might join the fray on some other things, but for now, I would like to correct the use of the term 'bed channels". I see the term used quite often, and almost always incorrectly.

Bed channels refer to the base submix or stem, and are the channel based configurations, such as 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 (7.1.2). Bed channels are not all of the speakers at floor level.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As for Audyssey, I would love to see them actually care about the industry again, but they have moved on to voice recognition and mobile audio. Ideally, I would like to see them split the loudness and presence elements of DEQ so you could use them independently


I agree we need more adjustability.










It's not bothersome with these speakers but it certainly would be on others that are already on the brighter side. I think the idea is Audyssey was always by default a full-range solution, so in theory it would bring down bright speakers, then apply DEQ. However many of us from 2018-onward have limited the correction range if our system is better off that way. Still, I think I'd prefer to have that 8 kHz + boost from DEQ be adjustable, especially if the filter frequency range is limited, and especially because speakers vary so much.

Note this is no EQ above 400 Hz. Also, HF roll-off depends on positioning. I can move my speakers and show a greater roll-off.

Anyway...back to Atmos.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I'd like to ignore you, but you're making that difficult if you're going to insist I'm making it up.
> 
> See "Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines". I trust you can manage Google.
> 
> See "Additional speaker guidelines". Look at the angles and notice the obvious overlap if you use them all (versus the angles for previously shown example setup diagrams that show the mains at 22-30 degrees). You can't really have the mains at 22-30 when center right is 15-30....


Apologies, and thanks for the clarification. I was referring to the cinema guidelines, not the home. You mean the part in the home guideline where it says:
"If the left screen and right screen speakers are included in the speaker layout, we recommend that distances between the left and right, left center and right center, left screen and right screen, and center speakers be subdivided and that the left center and right center speakers be placed at approximately 30 degrees from the center-front reference."

That is definitely clear as mud. Note that it says DISTANCES should be subdivided, not the angles between them... so I wouldn't think they're saying you should move the mains out beyond the screen width. Logically, I would say that if the room was wide enough ratio-wise from the general orthogonal view in their diagrams such that it would accommodate 7 screen channel speakers within the screen width, you could have the L/R at the end of their range at 40 degrees from center and still get wides at the prescribed 50-70 degrees from center-front reference and them be on the side walls. But again, this is why I have been saying that the home guidelines are generalized for average rooms, with too little specificity for enthusiasts who may design their room to be more wide... and that the actual placement of the LCR would be too dependent on room size (width in this example) for the heights to be referenced off of them for alignment in the room.

See also, from the home guideline for placement of the heights:
"The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation *should be* 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, *depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds*. It is best to keep the overhead arrangement centered, front to back, over the listening area, *even if the front speakers and screen are at a greater distance than the surround speakers*." (emphasis added)

In your 24.1.10 example, you're proving what I have been saying about how you shouldn't necessarily align the height rows with the mains. Note the bolded parts in the above paragraph. For that generalized rule to work, your mains at 60 degrees apart would have to necessarily fall within 0.5-0.7x the layout width for you to follow the "in line with the mains" implication in their diagrams. That would depend on the room's dimensions and location of the MLP from the screen. But if your mains are placed at 80 degrees apart with more screen channels, putting your height rows in line with the mains would pretty much put them at the periphery of the room. Correct? Then you should logically agree that the height rows won't always end up in line with the L/R.


MagnumX said:


> The text talks about some changes when more speakers are used, but it could be made much clearer, IMO. The problem is they clearly don't expect many to actually use all 24.1.10 and those that do will likely have it professionally installed. Thus, the extra speaker section seems almost like an after thought as they don't talk about how the primary 9.1.6 speakers are affected, but it's obvious they are affected as indicated above as the are not going to sit right next to another pair at almost the same angles. They're going to be pretty evenly distributed.


I agree that the home guidelines are unclear, which has been my point all along (and which is why I went by the mix room standards in my layout). Not only are they unclear, but they contradict the theatrical and mix room guidelines while using the same steering logic in the renderer. Which you have to admit makes no sense if the idea is that it can scale the same XYZ coordinate placement to differing room sizes.



MagnumX said:


> A simple 360 degrees divided by 24 bed level speakers gives an optimum angular separation of 15 degrees between every speaker. All the extended positional angles in Dolby's document are within that very simple evenly spaced grid. That places L/R mains at an optimal 45 degrees, just 5 degrees off the front wides minimum of 50 degrees and 15 degrees further out than all other diagrams. Front wides are then 60 degrees, ss#1 are 75 degrees, ss at 90, ss#2 at 105, rs#1 at 120, rs at 135, rs#2 at 150, cs at 165 and rear center at 180 and so on.


But you yourself just said that they don't give such a guideline, so you're assuming that angular separation (15 degrees between every speaker) as if it were a strictly equidistant layout. And I suppose if your room is wide enough for 7 screen channels, maybe that's possible... but then the section of the guideline you're referring to says to subdivide the _distance_ between each speaker from the center 3, not to evenly space them angularly. Am I reading that wrong? Because you're right that it isn't very clear. I don't even think the guidelines in the installation manual for the cinema processor tell you how to do 7 screen channels.



MagnumX said:


> The cinema white paper talks about Atmos being room-centric, not listener centric as well like I said and gives all the mounting details for a cinema setup.


And it also outlines those placements using angles from the RLP, which is the page from the cinema guideline that I attached previously. Going WAY back to what started this whole conversation: The 0.5-0.7x the layout width mentioned for the placement of the height rows is a good general guideline, as it changes based on the width of the room (because the side surrounds would move closer in with a narrower room, meaning the height rows would move closer in from the side walls as well). My point has been that this generalized guideline is meant to approximate the angular standard listed in the mix room and theatrical placements (45 degrees + half the elevation of the side surrounds) and that Dolby's home guidelines should NOT show the height rows as necessarily being in line with the mains... because whether they would be or not is a function of room size, and it confuses the issue. 

To illustrate, attached is the home guideline's diagram for an equidistant layout, showing the height rows aligned with the L/R. Now see the similar diagram from the Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Certification Guide, showing this same idea with an orthogonal view instead of equidistant. See my point? The mix room's height placement matches that of the theatrical placement... but by trying to reference the mains for height placement in the home guideline, they're putting the height rows in the wrong place in the layout unless the room's length/width ratio matches their generalized orthogonal view. It might have been simpler for them to just say 0.5x the layout width or 1/4 of the room width from each side wall, which would tend to generally put them in the right location for rooms with 8-10 foot ceilings (though the angular separation method would be more precise).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> It's not bothersome with these speakers but it certainly would be on others that are already on the brighter side. I think the idea is Audyssey was always by default a full-range solution, so in theory it would bring down bright speakers, then apply DEQ. However many of us from 2018-onward have limited the correction range if our system is better off that way. Still, I think I'd prefer to have that 8 kHz + boost from DEQ be adjustable, especially if the filter frequency range is limited, and especially because speakers vary so much.
> 
> Note this is no EQ above 400 Hz. Also, HF roll-off depends on positioning. I can move my speakers and show a greater roll-off.
> 
> Anyway...back to Atmos.


As I mentioned to you before, the big unknown now that we are able to apply a curtain so we're not EQ'ing above stochastic with Audyssey is whether doing so keeps DEQ from applying its shaping to the then uncorrected part of the frequency range. If you're up for an experiment and have REW, I would be curious to see how your response changes as you get further away from reference with DEQ engaged. Not the level, but the actual response curve. If you feel like overlaying graphs at -15, -20 and -30dB from reference, that would answer the question. So we don't veer off on a non-Atmos tangent in this thread (though it does relate distantly to cross-channel imaging), if you agree to try that, direct message me. I would be curious to see how the curves change.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As I mentioned to you before, the big unknown now that we are able to apply a curtain so we're not EQ'ing above stochastic with Audyssey is whether doing so keeps DEQ from applying its shaping to the then uncorrected part of the frequency range.


DEQ still works whether or not you are using EQ filters, and is modulated also by the reference level offset. You can see it in my measurement above (that is what I was trying to show).

This is not a problem however, and is working as intended.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Gee, maybe one day we’ll be able to take any soundtrack and mix it ourselves. How about a configurable method where the base layer is established and somehow there is a way to classify and define sounds and objectify them. All a pipe dream. This conversation gets quite lengthy due to the proliferation of crappy Dolby Atmos soundtracks. That will never change.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> A simple 360 degrees divided by 24 *bed level speakers* gives an optimum angular separation of 15 degrees between every speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> I might join the fray on some other things, but for now, I would like to correct the use of the term 'bed channels". I see the term used quite often, and almost always incorrectly.
> 
> Bed channels refer to the base submix or stem, and are the channel based configurations, such as 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 (7.1.2). Bed channels are not all of the speakers at floor level.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can't read what I actually wrote? I said bed LEVEL _speakers_ (aka "ear level speakers") not "bed channels". I was referring to the total possible number of "ear level" speakers in the consumer version of Atmos. I'm not sure what term you think I should use to refer to them as I don't believe Dolby has such a standard term. Either way, this should be obvious, IMO given the context. And no, the consumer level version of Atmos does NOT have 2 height "bed channels" like the cinema version either.


----------



## halcyon_888

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Gee, maybe one day we’ll be able to take any soundtrack and mix it ourselves. How about a configurable method where the base layer is established and somehow there is a way to classify and define sounds and objectify them. All a pipe dream. This conversation gets quite lengthy due to the proliferation of crappy Dolby Atmos soundtracks. That will never change.


Agreed, there are way too many crappy Atmos soundtracks being made. It's only going to change if people express their displeasure, instead some people support Atmos in its current state and defend that position with TLDRs. Someone said earlier we should contact our local Atmos representative, which of course there isn't one but short of that we can express our displeasure here on AVSForum in hopes that it _might_ reach the right people and create change somehow. But defending crappy Atmos is certainly not the way to bring about change. I have resorted to using the DTS upmixer on crappy Atmos soundtracks several times to get an immersive experience because the default Atmos was so bad. Whether it be time constraints, budget constraints, training, experience, or lack of creativity there is definitely a systemic issue with the quality of Atmos tracks being produced today.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Apologies, and thanks for the clarification. I was referring to the cinema guidelines, not the home.


Given this is the Dolby Atmos "Home Theater Version" thread, that should not be the default assumption.



> You mean the part in the home guideline where it says:
> "If the left screen and right screen speakers are included in the speaker layout, we recommend that distances between the left and right, left center and right center, left screen and right screen, and center speakers be subdivided and that the left center and right center speakers be placed at approximately 30 degrees from the center-front reference."
> 
> That is definitely clear as mud. Note that it says DISTANCES should be subdivided, not the angles between them... so I wouldn't think they're saying you should move the mains out beyond the screen width.


It's even more mud when you consider there's also left center and right center (10-30 degrees) AND left screen and right screen (5-15 degrees). Obviously, using BOTH means you shouldn't put them both at 15 degrees. They're trying to cover "this extra speaker only" and "what if you use even more" at the same time and that makes it messy. They also then don't reference the mains that aren't in the "extra" section again past the previous smaller use example diagrams even though they are definitely affected. 

My original point is that if you use all 24 "ear level" speakers, the L/R mains are going to be almost to the front wide location and well out of the recommended angle range for smaller configurations. Atmos doesn't care about the absolute angle, however. The renderer is told how many speakers you're using and it sub-divides the rendered placements relative to that in more or less equal distances internally. Your room may be 24 feet wide and 10 feet long or 10 feet wide and 24 feet long. If you're trying to align screen speakers with the screen itself, some decisions have to be taken into account and the equal distances are as much or more important than the precise angles (which are affected by room shape in regards to screen speakers whether they're along the front wall or the side wall). Having the L/R mains 1/3 down the side wall in my particular room would seem odd to me, but then perhaps I don't even _need_ 24 "ear level" speakers in a 12'x24' room. Guidelines are guidelines, not fixed immutable laws.

As you indicated yourself, mixing engineers (and I use the term "engineer" the same way I would "sanitary engineer" with a garbage man) don't even TRY to correlate on-screen cues most of the time with any precision (Even the much lauded "Gravity" in Atmos "jumps" between on-screen visual and the next dialog location in a couple of spots, probably due to using the "snap to" function in those instances when a smooth continuous object pan would have been much preferable, IMO). Dolby makes ZERO recommendations in the home version of Atmos based on your SCREEN size and/or alignment and that is precisely because it varies so much per home. Some people are using 52" TVs. You'd have to have a pretty small room to do a screen based alignment there and still put your surrounds a nice distance from the seats and expect any time of even panning. 

The cinema version, however states that it assumes a typical cinema screen goes nearly to the side edges of the front walls. Without a screen based alignment, however, _panned dialog_ doesn't work, which is possibly one of the reasons most movies don't use it as a small screen at home would align dialog better with just the center speaker being used than main speakers that might be 3+ feet to the sides of the small screen (for optimum stereo in a big room, especially if music is more important to the owner than movies). But this is all part of home theater planning. You certainly can do a screen alignment at home with a proper sized screen to the environment. Atmos, meanwhile can align dialog to the "screen speakers" instead of the left/right mains if that is more appropriate in a larger install. Disney soundtracks that won't allow them to be used, however would be out of luck.



> Logically, I would say that if the room was wide enough ratio-wise from the general orthogonal view in their diagrams such that it would accommodate 7 screen channel speakers within the screen width, you could have the L/R at the end of their range at 40 degrees from center and still get wides at the prescribed 50-70 degrees from center-front reference and them be on the side walls.


You could, but in terms of the coordinate based assumptions the renderer makes (that more or less assumes equal distant placement between speakers), it won't pan as smoothly as it would if they were equally distanced apart. The angle ambiguity doesn't help, but Dolby is trying to make it obvious that both "perfect" and "good" are acceptable. Otherwise, who would want to buy a system if they think it could never work in their room? Some early installers would tell people not to bother with Atmos at all, but as most of us have found, "some Atmos" is still better sounding than "no Atmos", even with sub-optimal ceiling heights, etc. To me, smooth and even panning of something like the Dolby Helicopter demo (which you _can_ run at ear height by disabling overheads entirely) is more important than the physical placement of the speakers. If one uses arrayed extra speakers at home with a mixer, you can even change the "phantom position" of the speaker between the arrayed set rather than having it image at the location of a physical speaker. This can fine tune the panning or perhaps fix problems where a room fixture (e.g. fireplace on the side wall) won't allow a placement of a speaker there without screwing up the look of the room. In my case, I could fit more seats horizontally and still keep them away from the speakers by putting the speakers between the seat rows instead of along side them and use arrayed panning to move the phantom image along side the majority of the seats while the extra speakers keep "surround" images moving "around" the outer seats instead of diagonally across them. It's win/win compared to simply not using them at all. But it's not a solution found in the guidelines either.



> But again, this is why I have been saying that the home guidelines are generalized for average rooms, with too little specificity for enthusiasts who may design their room to be more wide... and that the actual placement of the LCR would be too dependent on room size (width in this example) for the heights to be referenced off of them for alignment in the room.


And that's precisely why I've tried to point out in this thread over the past couple of years that a "guideline" is not a "law". You have to take your room into account (and perhaps your spouse as well) and go with what works best for a given room. I looked at around 40 houses before finding one that I could even do a reasonable sized home theater in because most houses have windows and open floor plans and fireplaces and all kinds of problematic structures in most/all of their rooms that make home theater difficult to impossible to do well. No wonder so many are placed in sizes closer to walk-in closets as at least there's not windows and fireplaces along the walls. My room, even so has a half bathroom in the back, a sliding rear door right where you'd want to place a rear speaker and other issues, but at least I could make it dark during the day and I still managed to cram 17.1 speakers into the space. It took some tweaking, but the images move perfectly smooth for the MLP and center row seats (3 of 6 seats in the theater) and reasonably well for the off-axis left/right seats (hard to do perfectly given the precedence effect works on all speaker pairs, not just dialog/center. If you're sitting closer to the left surrounds, they're going to pull images that direction more than if you're sitting centered and Dolby has no mid-floor center speakers to help reduce the effect. This even applies to large cinemas sitting near the sides.



> See also, from the home guideline for placement of the heights:
> "The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation *should be* 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, *depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds*. It is best to keep the overhead arrangement centered, front to back, over the listening area, *even if the front speakers and screen are at a greater distance than the surround speakers*." (emphasis added)


Yes, that's their guideline. But many home theaters where on-ceiling and in-ceiling speakers are either undesirable, not allowed (renter) or difficult to install, many have used solutions like side wall heights and found it sounds great. What's the difference? The overhead sounds image further away from the MLP and combined top/bottom images might skew slightly (but most movies don't place sounds in the middle of the room in the first place). The overall average effect is that the room placement is akin to sitting in the center of a larger room where the overheads would be spaced further apart. Given the utter lack of screen to object correlation in most movies and no visual reference off-screen to verify surround locations of object, the difference is almost trivial. You have been making it out to be something terrible and that is simply not the case in the real world. 

Due to a ceiling beam box, I had to place "top middle/surround height" on the side walls just under the beam. That's an error of 2' width (compared to the front/rear height alignment) and about 8 inches vertically compared to the on-ceiling front/rear heights, but since it's Scatmos, you can introduce "bleed" (partial array) in mixing the two and that actually eliminates some of the error. In fact, in a straight front/back pan I cannot tell it's moving outward at all in the middle. They are there more to fix the "hole" you get overhead in large rooms using "height" speakers. If I some day add "tops" I can set them on a switch to only be used with Auro-3D. For now, it sounds perfectly find from half the seats in the theater and better than nothing from the other half.



> In your 24.1.10 example, you're proving what I have been saying about how you shouldn't necessarily align the height rows with the mains. Note the bolded parts in the above paragraph.


I never said they should be aligned with the mains. They're actually typically aligned with left/right screen. But their alignment is one of the least critical things in actual practice in Atmos audio, IMO as it simply moves overhead imaging outward as if the theater were wider than it is. If you're sitting in the center and have your eyes shut, you would simply think by comparison you're in a larger room. This notion that imaging goes to hell if you move them outward is erroneous, IMO. If anything, having the overheads too close together coupled with using "tops" instead of heights creates a VERY SMALL space overhead for images to move in-phase relative to one another. Someone might point out that speakers can image out-of-phase (outside the speakers), but that won't happen with object rendered audio and out-of-phase phantom imaging is unreliable at best with many speakers (sometimes nebulous rather than precise). In my room, using "tops" only would result in the helicopter moving 1/3 the room to 2/3 the room (8 feet distance) rather than nearly 24 feet (not a small difference, but "some" people like having most overhead sounds more directly overhead). I like having the layers align and use the entire space top-to-bottom equally as real sounds use it.



> But you yourself just said that they don't give such a guideline, so you're assuming that angular separation (15 degrees between every speaker) as if it were a strictly equidistant layout.


That's exactly what the renderer assumes. Equal distant spacing. There are no parameters to tell it your exact speaker locations and angles. It would be nice if there were, but it's just spacing the panning out evenly between pairs for the most part. Otherwise, you could have one speaker in a strange location (because of doorway or fireplace being in the way) and the renderer could map around it as best it could, but Atmos simply isn't that advanced. DTS claimed theirs is early on, but in practice it never delivered on speaker independent installs.



> And I suppose if your room is wide enough for 7 screen channels, maybe that's possible... but then the section of the guideline you're referring to says to subdivide the _distance_ between each speaker from the center 3, not to evenly space them angularly. Am I reading that wrong? Because you're right that it isn't very clear. I don't even think the guidelines in the installation manual for the cinema processor tell you how to do 7 screen channels.


Even spacing in an angular fashion is 15 degrees with 24 speakers (spaced equidistant in a circular fashion). If your room is much larger in one dimension than another, that might place the speakers out into the room to create that "dome" of Atmos, but like I said, they are guidelines, not laws. You do the best you can with your room in the end. If you're going to worry to death about a tenth of an inch, well, you probably won't ever enjoy the system as demos will find some flaw in the room anyway. But the renderer doesn't know whether your speakers are in a circle or a rectangle. It renders them the same (evenly) regardless. If you want perfectly even panning then you want as close to an evenly spaced circle as you can get. However, there is no guarantee the mixing engineer had that setup when he mixed it (unlikely). I've seen DTS mixing rooms that do use circular arrangements, but then most home theaters will encounter both Atmos and DTS (I even have 20 Auro-3D titles as well) so it might not be perfect for all three. You might have to _compromise_. In today's world, that's a dirty word, though.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Agreed, there are way too many crappy Atmos soundtracks being made. It's only going to change if people express their displeasure, instead some people support Atmos in its current state and defend that position with TLDRs. Someone said earlier we should contact our local Atmos representative, which of course there isn't one but short of that we can express our displeasure here on AVSForum in hopes that it _might_ reach the right people and create change somehow. But defending crappy Atmos is certainly not the way to bring about change. I have resorted to using the DTS upmixer on crappy Atmos soundtracks several times to get an immersive experience because the default Atmos was so bad. Whether it be time constraints, budget constraints, training, experience, or lack of creativity there is definitely a systemic issue with the quality of Atmos tracks being produced today.


The problem is most people listening to Atmos aren't doing it on proper equipment. Atmos is as much a marketing buzzword as it is a system. In fact, most early streaming support had little or no support for rendering it on a proper AV system. If most people don't even have the equipment to hear it properly (let alone setup issues, etc.), are they going to complain to Dolby or the movie studios? A LOT of people complained about Disney soundtracks (I saw it come up in many home theater publications), but Disney's response has generally been they'll do whatever they think is best for them and that means your opinion of them means less than nothing. 

Frankly, I've had far more enjoyment out of a handful of Atmos music discs than any movie in terms of actually using the format to its actual capability. Even the best movies pale compared to something like Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_ or Yello's _Point_. But then the music might not be everyone's cup of tea and there's so little of it out there compared to movies. But if the movies don't immerse (if they all sounded like Dolby's demos, I don't think we'd complain), then it seems like the purpose of Atmos is thwarted. I've actually enjoyed many 5.1/7.1 movies upmixed with Neural X more than many Atmos titles. In general, if it uses a lot of discrete panning in 5.1, it's going to sound great in a Neural X upmix as well.


----------



## Soulburner

The problem with that is, you won't know ahead of time what it's going to sound like. So only after you've watched it would you decide "okay, there wasn't much Atmos going on, so maybe Neural X would be better". But by then you probably aren't willing to re-watch it.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Soulburner said:


> The problem with that is, you won't know ahead of time what it's going to sound like. So only after you've watched it would you decide "okay, there wasn't much Atmos going on, so maybe Neural X would be better". But by then you probably aren't willing to re-watch it.


***Well, you could do a test run for the first ten minutes or so. Compare, switch back and forth. A pain, yes, but if you can't tell a difference (or an improvement) with Neural X over the original Atmos then just ride with whatever you think sounds best. 

I understand your point, though. I'm a "set it and forget it guy."


----------



## Soulburner

Is the first 10 minutes representative of the movie? Sometimes. Sometimes not.


----------



## crutzulee

I checked out of this thread a couple of months ago when the discussion started getting above my technical comprehension. 
I'm not an audiophile. I have a very simple 7.2.4 setup in an 18' X 11.5' room where my speaker layout is within the allowable variance prescribed by DOLBY's diagrams. Not looking to debate anyone, but I most assuredly can tell the difference between traditional lossy formats and their tradional lossless counterparts. 
I have however been quite impressed with a number of the DD+ soundtracks I've heard recently and I wanted to pop in here to tell you how AWESOME the new DD+ ATMOS track for A QUIET PLACE II is. It has everything from localized sounds above you, to bubble off sound effects, to bass that had my transducers actually kicking my butt.
HIGHLY RECOMMEND..


----------



## Ricoflashback

Soulburner said:


> Is the first 10 minutes representative of the movie? Sometimes. Sometimes not.


***Yeah - it's a guestimate. But, crappy Atmos mixes tend to be crappy all the way through. If there are obvious glitches - - i.e., panning sounds, overhead sounds that are not present with the Atmos mix, then try Neural X. Not exactly a proven science. Just trying to save time.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> The problem with that is, you won't know ahead of time what it's going to sound like. So only after you've watched it would you decide "okay, there wasn't much Atmos going on, so maybe Neural X would be better". But by then you probably aren't willing to re-watch it.


You're right, it can be difficult to tell. I watched The Man from UNCLE recently and switched to the DTS upmixer halfway through the movie and was glad I did, it was much more immersive and I enjoyed the movie more but regretted I didn't switch to the upmixer sooner. Compare that to the Netflix series Shadow and Bone; it is reported to have good Atmos but sometimes it is actually "flatmos." But I stuck with it and in episode 4 it had some of the best Atmos I've heard having rain effects better than the Atmos demos in my opinion. It literally sounded like I was _there_.

One of my main gripes about "flatmos" is how sound engineers won't use the height channels to at least accent the musical score and expand the soundstage and immersion--they don't have any reservations putting the musical score in the surround channels. Allowing the height channels to accent the musical score would be easy to do with just a default studio upmixer, even if the effect is just reserved for big emotional musical moments. So to state it again you're right that it's difficult to tell whether to hang in there with the default Atmos mix or to go for the DTS upmixer, I tend to listen for the musical score accenting in the height channels along with what @Ricoflashback mentioned. I also try to do a bit of research before watching a movie to see what reviewers have said about the Atmos, but like later today when I watch The Tomorrow War there isn't much information about it out there so that movie might have a mid-movie switch like I did with the Man from UNCLE if it doesn't perform.


----------



## Josh Z

halcyon_888 said:


> One of my main gripes about "flatmos" is how sound engineers won't use the height channels to at least accent the musical score and expand the soundstage and immersion--they don't have any reservations putting the musical score in the surround channels. Allowing the height channels to accent the musical score would be easy to do with just a default studio upmixer, even if the effect is just reserved for big emotional musical moments.


Music is difficult. While some listeners love as much separation as possible with individual instruments isolated to different speakers (the people who enthusiastically collected 5.1 albums on SACD or DVD-Audio), others are staunch stereo purists who want music only in the front channels, as if replicating the experience of sitting in the audience at a concert with all the musicians on stage in front of you.


----------



## junh1024

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Apologies, and thanks for the clarification. I was referring to the cinema guidelines, not the home.


We're prolly past this point but just to confirm, Dolby panners use cubular coordinates, but speaker specs use circular coordinates.




Ricoflashback said:


> ***Gee, maybe one day we’ll be able to take any soundtrack and mix it ourselves. How about a configurable method where the base layer is established and somehow there is a way to classify and define sounds and objectify them. All a pipe dream. This conversation gets quite lengthy due to the proliferation of crappy Dolby Atmos soundtracks. That will never change.


Classification of sounds is possible with studio Atmos masters as they can have up to 128 elements & multiple beds for dialog, music, sfx, etc. but Home is limited to 16 elements so we can't bring that home. NGA codecs like AC4 & MPH have interactivity features so you can control the level/position of dialog, commentary, beds, etc, if they allowed it per soundtrack. (more intended for sports broadcasting)




MagnumX said:


> Without a screen based alignment, however, _panned dialog_ doesn't work, which is possibly one of the reasons most movies don't use it as a small screen at home would align dialog better with just the center speaker being used than main speakers that might be 3+ feet to the sides of the small screen


Problems with directional dialog:
1- Alignment, as you said.
2- It needs effort to setup the pans & infrastructure. Might need 5-100 tracks depending on how you set it up

Would you watch a (boring) drama movie if it had directional dialog in all 3 axes?



MagnumX said:


> (Even the much lauded "Gravity" in Atmos "jumps" between on-screen visual and the next dialog location in a couple of spots, probably due to using the "snap to" function in those instances when a smooth continuous object pan would have been much preferable, IMO)


I don't think they're using snap, it's an additional button to activate, but you can achieve the same effect with sliders/knobs & corners.



JonFo said:


> Absolutely, and I wish Trinnov would license some of their tech to others, their speaker re-mapping algorithms along with their 3D mic is great stuff and would greatly benefit average deployments. But it will likely not happen unless some major player goes to a software-based (vs DSP chips) platform. So it will still be expensive.


Speaker remapping is maybe simple to implement, like a 16^2 =256 element matrix for 16 speakers (you can do that on a PC). Problem is hiding the matrix behind a "easy to use" UI for users, is hard, which is what I assume Trinnov does.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> So yes, everything is angularly referenced to a point 2/3rds of the room length per all of Dolby's documentation.


The 2/3rds room length reference point pre-dates Atmos, so it cannot be used as an indicator of anything specific to that format. Likewise, speaker placement recommendations have historically used angles only because they scale. Typical recommendation for 2-speaker layout is a 60-degree spread (equilateral triangle). The fact that the recommendation is stated as an angle isn't an indicator of how a renderer works because it pre-dates object-based audio. The Auro3D install guide gives placement recommendations for every speaker in angles (azimuth & elevation) but the format doesn't do any rendering (zero objects). Speaker placement guides recommend best practices based on usage (commercial cinema vs mix room vs home theatre). They're not an explanation of the inner workings of a renderer.


> I think perhaps the disconnect you and I are having here is in the panner interface versus the renderer. The interface is meant to simplify steering for the sound designer, which can then be adapted to any space based on the renderer and what speakers it has at what particular angles in the hemisphere around the room.


The panner and renderer are inverses of each other: one encodes object location the other decodes object location. The numbers next to the panner are x,y,z coordinates, not angles. The decoder uses the same coordinates for rendering. Converting those Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates would be a pointless additional step.

BTW, I'm not dismissing what you're saying about angles and reference listening position only because it IS used...by DTS. If you look at the DTS:X mixing tools, you'll see polar coordinates referenced off a MLP and a hemispherical rendering area, just as you describe. My only point is that it is not the coordinate system and render box used by Atmos. There's no reason Atmos mixing tools wouldn't have polar coordinates and a hemisperical render area if that is how the format worked. There is more than one way to render objects (allocentric vs egocentric), so it shouldn't be a surprise that industry competitors ended up using different approaches.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> The problem with that is, you won't know ahead of time what it's going to sound like. So only after you've watched it would you decide "okay, there wasn't much Atmos going on, so maybe Neural X would be better". But by then you probably aren't willing to re-watch it.


I personally wouldn't assume Neural X would necessarily help the base soundtrack to an Atmos movie. I suppose it would come down to whether the problem is they don't use the overheads much, but did a bang-on job with ear level speakers or just has a front heavy poor mix in general. The latter is hopeless, IMO.

_Knives Out _is a mostly front heavy mix with maybe one standout overhead event. I don't know what Neural X could do for it as there's nothing much in the surround channels to upmix. OTOH, the Magnum PI new TV show isn't very surround heavy in DD 5.1, but Neural X still put a golf ball hitting the roof on my front 1/3 ceiling. It may not be far back into the room, but it was definitely on the ceiling.

Neural X seems to pretty good at determining sounds recorded overhead originally such as planes, thunder, etc. and other microphone based clues. It actually does a fair job decoding Auro-3D base tracks where they used dual quad microphones.

Sanjay has said something to the effect it uses matrixing whereby, non-correlated (out of phase) dialog would go to the height speakers, but I tested this assertion with a panned dialog movie (Toy Story) and it is just not true (dialog stayed in the center to mains and headed for the surround sides as You'd expect). DTS's own patent speaks of a time slice frequency analysis aand while I'm not certain the exact meaning, I think it's perhaps looking for something HRTF patterns that indicate overhead sounds. That would certainly explain to me how it manages to do a great job most of the time. Sounds not recorded with overhead placement that are placed overhead in Atmos by an object do not seem to do as well (e.g. Dolby's fake sounding helicopter demo compared to the real dual quad miked one in the Auro-3D demo).

But a poor surround mix in general is probably going to be poor with or without Neural X.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> You have been making it out to be something terrible and that is simply not the case in the real world.


I really wasn't making out like compromised positions are something terrible. Every room has its compromises, mine included. But we were talking about the effects in the demo clips and I was explaining that if you don't have adequate separation between the side surrounds and the height rows, those particular pans (in Encounter and Leaf) do not work as well. Accordingly, any pans across the lateral would not work as well (even if most content isn't as blatant with their pans as demo clips). That isn't to say that they don't work AT ALL, because they do... and we all agree that some Atmos is better than no Atmos.

I think a lot of people overly rely on the home guidelines and end up with inadequate separation in those areas because of Dolby's over-generalization, NOT because of the actual constraints of their room. So I think it's important to mention it here so people can use that cinema and mix room guideline to double check whether they will have adequate separation between those two zones if they're using the generalized home guideline for that particular placement... especially considering many use in-ceilings, which isn't exactly fun to redo. In my case, I'm using on-ceilings, so I was able to reposition them to hear the difference myself, based on my experience with a layout in a previous home where in-ceilings ended up placed that way quite by sheer dumb luck. And in my experience, it does make an appreciable difference. Pans are smoother if you ensure that defined separation, and the soundfield in general is more cohesive overall.


MagnumX said:


> I never said they should be aligned with the mains. They're actually typically aligned with left/right screen. But their alignment is one of the least critical things in actual practice in Atmos audio, IMO as it simply moves overhead imaging outward as if the theater were wider than it is. If you're sitting in the center and have your eyes shut, you would simply think by comparison you're in a larger room. This notion that imaging goes to hell if you move them outward is erroneous, IMO. If anything, having the overheads too close together coupled with using "tops" instead of heights creates a VERY SMALL space overhead for images to move in-phase relative to one another. Someone might point out that speakers can image out-of-phase (outside the speakers), but that won't happen with object rendered audio and out-of-phase phantom imaging is unreliable at best with many speakers (sometimes nebulous rather than precise). In my room, using "tops" only would result in the helicopter moving 1/3 the room to 2/3 the room (8 feet distance) rather than nearly 24 feet (not a small difference, but "some" people like having most overhead sounds more directly overhead). I like having the layers align and use the entire space top-to-bottom equally as real sounds use it.


I never said you were arguing that they should necessarily be aligned with the mains, and I've repeatedly said that they're typically aligned with left/right screen in the theater. But you had a visceral reaction to me trying to advise someone that moving their heights out away from the side wall might fix the problem they were hearing. I never meant anything against you. But you have your experience and I have mine, and I think I've adequately explained why it's worth leaning into the angular separation rules for the height rows if you can swing it in your room. Despite how argumentative our discussion has been, you seem to agree with me that the home guidelines are not exactly clear (and not exactly in line with the cinema and mix room guidelines or the renderer). My argument all along has been that the home guidelines might work fine in most rooms, but in narrower rooms (like mine), you might want to place the heights more by the mix room separation than by Dolby's home guideline. Even my Marine buddy heard the difference in my room, and he's half deaf from driving tanks. So I'm still going to make that recommendation. If someone's gonna drill into their ceiling, it might as well be as close to the ideal as possible. It's not a deal-breaker if that more critical placement can't be done in someone's room though... because as we both agree, every room has compromises.

And we'll leave it at that, man.


----------



## halcyon_888

Josh Z said:


> Music is difficult. While some listeners love as much separation as possible with individual instruments isolated to different speakers (the people who enthusiastically collected 5.1 albums on SACD or DVD-Audio), others are staunch stereo purists who want music only in the front channels, as if replicating the experience of sitting in the audience at a concert with all the musicians on stage in front of you.


I'm going by what the Dolby Upmixer does to 2ch, 5.1 and 7.1 tv/movie tracks; the DSU will place accents of the soundtrack in the height channels to expand the soundstage with a reverb or echo-like effect. DTS Neural X will put more of the musical score in the heights than the DSU. So if the DSU is using the heights to accent the floor channels, it can be inferred that this is intentional and a preferred function. There are also some Atmos tracks that will use the heights to accent the floor channel soundtrack as well. By accent I mean just that, it's putting less information in the heights than is in the surround channels. But I do understand what you mean with SACD or DVD-A. I bought a couple of SACD disks to test it out but I definitely preferred 2 channel.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm going by what the Dolby Upmixer does to 2ch, 5.1 and 7.1 tv/movie tracks; the DSU will place accents of the soundtrack in the height channels to expand the soundstage with a reverb or echo-like effect. DTS Neural X will put more of the musical score in the heights than the DSU. So if the DSU is using the heights to accent the floor channels, it can be inferred that this is intentional and a preferred function. There are also some Atmos tracks that will use the heights to accent the floor channel soundtrack as well. By accent I mean just that, it's putting less information in the heights than is in the surround channels. But I do understand what you mean with SACD or DVD-A. I bought a couple of SACD disks to test it out but I definitely preferred 2 channel.


Have you ever turned on DSU and unplugged your front speakers? No acid needed.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Sanjay has said something to the effect it uses matrixing whereby, non-correlated (out of phase) dialog would go to the height speakers, but I tested this assertion with a panned dialog movie (Toy Story) and it is just not true (dialog stayed in the center to mains and headed for the surround sides as You'd expect). DTS's own patent speaks of a time slice frequency analysis aand while I'm not certain the exact meaning, I think it's perhaps looking for something HRTF patterns that indicate overhead sounds. That would certainly explain to me how it manages to do a great job most of the time. Sounds not recorded with overhead placement that are placed overhead in Atmos by an object do not seem to do as well (e.g. Dolby's fake sounding helicopter demo compared to the real dual quad miked one in the Auro-3D demo).


Not arguing at all, but I did have some dialogue bleed-though in the heights with Neural X on the show Grantchester, but I don't recall which season or episode it was. It wasn't full dialogue but a higher frequency that came in and out quickly while the main character and then again when the secondary character spoke. It was a 2 channel source from Amazon yet the DSU didn't have the bleed-through on the same scene. That's the only time I've had this problem.

And on a side-note, The Tomorrow War streamed in Atmos for me from Amazon and I didn't feel the need to use the Neural X on it at all, it sounded fine to me.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> The 2/3rds room length reference point pre-dates Atmos, so it cannot be used as an indicator of anything specific to that format. Likewise, speaker placement recommendations have historically used angles only because they scale. Typical recommendation for 2-speaker layout is a 60-degree spread (equilateral triangle). The fact that the recommendation is stated as an angle isn't an indicator of how a renderer works because it pre-dates object-based audio.


Not specific to Atmos, but certainly still used as a reference point. Though the "central listening area" defined in the Atmos cinema guidelines for checking angular spacing between each speaker in the side/rear arrays seems to be specific to Atmos installation, as I don't recall seeing it in previous whitepapers on cinema layouts. That's probably necessitated by them being independently addressable though, so it makes sense that they didn't need that kind of specificity before.


sdurani said:


> BTW, I'm not dismissing what you're saying about angles and reference listening position only because it IS used...by DTS. If you look at the DTS:X mixing tools, you'll see polar coordinates referenced off a MLP and a hemispherical rendering area, just as you describe. My only point is that it is not the coordinate system and render box used by Atmos. There's no reason Atmos mixing tools wouldn't have polar coordinates and a hemisperical render area if that is how the format worked. There is more than one way to render objects (allocentric vs egocentric), so it shouldn't be a surprise that industry competitors ended up using different approaches.


I understand what you're saying. But if you look at how the theatrical installation uses the Dolby Designer software to define the speaker layout, it very much seems like it is just an abstraction layer to calculate the angles to the RLP and feed them to the cinema processor so there are no gaps in the panning. I'm willing to concede as far as what you're saying with it using a coordinate system throughout, but if it is, there's fancier math going on in that processor than any of their documentation lets on. I'm also basing some of this on conversations I had with engineers at Dolby and Microsoft about Atmos' implementation for headphones and how that data is passed, which I imagine would be similar. But maybe it isn't.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Have you ever turned on DSU and unplugged your front speakers? No acid needed.


I haven't done that, when I was testing I stood on an ottoman which put my ear under 1 foot from a height speaker so it wasn't necessary to unplug them. I don't get the "no acid needed" reference


----------



## Soulburner

I mean, it's really trippy. And a lot easier than going around and standing on objects (I did that before realizing there was a better way).


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> I mean, it's really trippy. And a lot easier than going around and standing on objects (I did that before realizing there was a better way).


Oh, yea maybe I should have done that because I did grow tired of getting up on the ottoman so much


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm going by what the Dolby Upmixer does to 2ch, 5.1 and 7.1 tv/movie tracks; the DSU will place accents of the soundtrack in the height channels to expand the soundstage with a reverb or echo-like effect. DTS Neural X will put more of the musical score in the heights than the DSU. So if the DSU is using the heights to accent the floor channels, it can be inferred that this is intentional and a preferred function. There are also some Atmos tracks that will use the heights to accent the floor channel soundtrack as well. By accent I mean just that, it's putting less information in the heights than is in the surround channels. But I do understand what you mean with SACD or DVD-A. I bought a couple of SACD disks to test it out but I definitely preferred 2 channel.


I have a few SACD and DVD-A discs where they got overly gimmicky with the 5.1 (particularly moving backup vocals to the surrounds) and the effect is kinda' jarring in straight 5.1. But weirdly, upmixing those with DSU seems to generalize things enough that it makes it feel less gimmicky. Sometimes you just can't beat a good high-res stereo track though, so if I feel like they got too happy with it, I'll just roll with stereo.

And I want to like DTS Neural X, but... every time I engage it, it has this metallic reverb sound to it like I'm listening to it in a shipping container. I'm not sure if that's endemic to their upmixer or if it's specific to Denon's implementation of it, but it has done that with my last two AVRs (and entirely different speakers). Maybe it's just not my cup o' tea.


halcyon_888 said:


> And on a side-note, The Tomorrow War streamed in Atmos for me from Amazon and I didn't feel the need to use the Neural X on it at all, it sounded fine to me.


I watched The Tomorrow War last night and it was some of the better Atmos I've heard via streaming. I was fairly impressed. They actually had some sounds pan laterally through just front or rear heights at times, so I don't think it was one of the cheat mixes with static height objects. Would be interesting to see an object view of it, which I'm hoping SpareChange does on his channel.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> DTS's own patent speaks of a time slice frequency analysis aand while I'm not certain the exact meaning, I think it's perhaps looking for something HRTF patterns that indicate overhead sounds. That would certainly explain to me how it manages to do a great job most of the time. Sounds not recorded with overhead placement that are placed overhead in Atmos by an object do not seem to do as well (e.g. Dolby's fake sounding helicopter demo compared to the real dual quad miked one in the Auro-3D demo).


It's extremely hard to undo HRTF, and soundtracks don't use HRTF to encode height. I beleive it needs sounds panned to absolute center in 51 to push them upward (not edges). See the link where it describes spatial upmixing.

DTS:X vs Dolby Atmos Part II: Dolby Surround vs DTS Neural:X written by yepimonfire here.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> And I want to like DTS Neural X, but... every time I engage it, it has this metallic reverb sound to it like I'm listening to it in a shipping container. I'm not sure if that's endemic to their upmixer or if it's specific to Denon's implementation of it, but it has done that with my last two AVRs (and entirely different speakers). Maybe it's just not my cup o' tea.


If you wanted less artefacts, this may mean less separation.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I have a few SACD and DVD-A discs where they got overly gimmicky with the 5.1 (particularly moving backup vocals to the surrounds) and the effect is kinda' jarring in straight 5.1. But weirdly, upmixing those with DSU seems to generalize things enough that it makes it feel less gimmicky. Sometimes you just can't beat a good high-res stereo track though, so if I feel like they got too happy with it, I'll just roll with stereo.


A lot of music SACD/DVDA from the 51 era also placed drums/bass halfway back, which fills the back speakers, but makes the rhythm have unstable imaging, so I'm not a fan of that.


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> DSU will place accents of the soundtrack in the height channels to expand the soundstage with a reverb or echo-like effect. DTS Neural X will put more of the musical score in the heights than the DSU.


DSU extracts mostly diffuse/decorrelated sounds to feed the heights, which includes reverb or echo-like effects that are already in the recording (DSU doesn't add anything). Neural:X extracts more direct (correlated) sounds to the heights.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And I want to like DTS Neural X, but... every time I engage it, it has this metallic reverb sound to it like I'm listening to it in a shipping container. I'm not sure if that's endemic to their upmixer or if it's specific to Denon's implementation of it, but it has done that with my last two AVRs (and entirely different speakers). Maybe it's just not my cup o' tea.


I tested all the upmixers at my disposal recently, and I found Neural X to not add any reverb on non-vocal tracks, but it pumps quite a bit of sound to the other speakers. It's definitely the most in-your-face. When vocals are detected by the algorithm, they are mixed to the heights and there are some changes to the sound there.

DSU added some strange trippy version of the music, especially logarithmically extracted vocal bits to the heights, along with some slight reverb. Auro adds some reverb but in a unique way. If you listen to only the heights you'll hear your music like you're down the hall from the concert.


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> It's extremely hard to undo HRTF, and soundtracks don't use HRTF to encode height. I beleive it needs sounds panned to absolute center in 51 to push them upward (not edges). See the link where it describes spatial upmixing.


I'm not saying they encode the soundtracks with HRTF. I'm saying the sound effects come from samples and while old school movies used Foley effects, I imagine many modern movies have actual samples taken from real thunderstorms and the like to use and those are probably recorded from ground level with the sounds overhead. I don't mean HRTF as in full binaural, but it sounds as if there may be some still lesser HRTF cues in the waveforms that tend to give away lower from upper type recorded sounds and Neural X capitalizes on this. It's almost uncanny how Neural X "knows" to put certain sounds overhead in many movies. While I've had some effects fail to go overhead, I can't recall many instances of ear level effects being put significantly overhead as some have intimated before. I think it does a rather excellent job compared to DSU in that regard and the effects are panned between overhead channels unlike DSU's single pair L/R overhead ambience.

I looked up the patents and previous post I made. This is a quote from the previous one and links to the patents.



> A search of the DTS Patents provide some description of the methods used for both extracting more channels and the positional data within:
> 
> United States Patent: 7929708
> 
> This one appears to pertain to creating more channels out of the existing ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An audio spatial environment engine for converting from an N channel audio system to an M channel audio system, where N is an integer greater than M, is provided. The audio spatial environment engine includes one or more correlators receiving two of the N channels of audio data and eliminating delays between the channels that are irrelevant to an average human listener. One or more Hilbert transform systems each perform a Hilbert transform on one or more of the correlated channels of audio data. One or more summers receive at least one of the correlated channels of audio data and at least one of the Hilbert transformed correlated channels of audio data and generate one of the M channels of audio data.
> 
> 
> 
> United States Patent: 7853022
> 
> This patent appears to pertain to overhead and other spatial information extraction and a basic description of the method used:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An audio spatial environment engine for flexible and scalable up-mixing from an M channel audio system to an N channel audio system, where M and N are integers and N is greater than M, is provided. The input M channel audio is provided to an analysis filter bank which converts the time domain signals into frequency domain signals. Relevant inter-channel spatial cues are extracted from the frequency domain signals on a sub-band basis and are used as parameters to generate adaptive N channel filters which control the spatial placement of a frequency band element in the up-mixed sound field. The N channel filters are smoothed across both time and frequency to limit filter variability which could cause annoying fluctuation effects. The smoothed N channel filters are then applied to adaptive combinations of the frequency domain input signals and are provided to a synthesis filter bank which generates the N channel time domain output signals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a mere abstract description, but it sounds pretty clear to me that limited frequency band analysis of signals converted from the time domain to determine the height and location of signals goes beyond mere front/back front/side type matrix extraction.
Click to expand...




> DTS:X vs Dolby Atmos Part II: Dolby Surround vs DTS Neural:X written by yepimonfire here.


All that says in regards to Neural X is : "DTS: Neural X is said to be a completely new design, independent from Neo: 6/X. There’s not a whole lot of detail on how it works exactly, but it’s said to be a spatial remapping algorithm, which uses the knowledge of the sound position and the speaker locations to properly route sounds to the correct speakers. How vague and unhelpful."

I think the patents give a little more information. "Analysis filter bank" sounds like its doing some comparisons to known examples of overhead sounds.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm willing to concede as far as what you're saying with it using a coordinate system throughout, but if it is, there's fancier math going on in that processor than any of their documentation lets on.


Can't speak for the math, but the rendering approach is fairly straightforward. Atmos is a hybrid format, combining channels and objects. Atmos added to existing (7.1) movie sound technology of the time, without replacing any of it. The Atmos decoder routes each channel to its respective speaker (as was the case with existing channel-based audio), leaving the Atmos renderer with just one task: calculate how much sound from each object gets routed to which speaker(s).

Imagine an object that is tagged to image at the 25% point from left to right. If you tell the renderer that you have only 2 speakers in front of you, it will send most of the sound from that object to the Left speaker and a little to the Right speaker, so that the sound images at the 25% point. If you tell the renderer that you have 3 speakers in front of you, it will split the sound evenly between the Left and Centre speakers, so that sound images exactly between them at the 25% point. If you tell the renderer that you have 5 speakers in front of you, it will send the sound to the LoC speaker which is at the 25% point.

That's it. Nothing more complicated than that (doesn't need to be). Same result irrespective of the number of speakers. Things not part of the above calculation: angles, phase, listener. The technology is much simpler than people assume.


----------



## sdurani

@junh1024

Dude, I have to ask: do you have something against periods? What's with 51 and 71 instead of 5.1 and 7.1?


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> I think the patents give a little more information. "Analysis filter bank" sounds like its doing some comparisons to known examples of overhead sounds.


If it were comparing against known sounds, I think it would be less discrete &/ more failure-prone, which it isn't. Also, I have doubts the linked patent is completely relevant to NX for height upscaling since the date is 2004, but NX is waay after that. Also, it focuses on 2<>5 cases.



sdurani said:


> Dude, I have to ask: do you have something against periods? What's with 51 and 71 instead of 5.1 and 7.1?


It's shorter to type & won't make filename problems.


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> If it were comparing against known sounds, I think it would be less discrete &/ more failure-prone, which it isn't. Also, I have doubts the linked patent is completely relevant to NX for height upscaling since the date is 2004, but NX is waay after that. Also, it focuses on 2<>5 cases.


As it says here:



> *The input M channel audio is provided to an analysis filter bank which converts the time domain signals into frequency domain signals*. *Relevant inter-channel spatial cues* are *extracted from the frequency domain signals on a sub-band basis and are used as parameters to generate adaptive N channel filters which control the spatial placement of a frequency band element in the up-mixed sound field*.



I don't think they mean actual known sounds (there'd be too many to compare) but some kind of a lookup table of relevant spatial cues found within the signal compared to parts of the input signal (some key aspect to look out for in the signal that pegs that part of the waveform for overhead placement). Obviously, this is a very short description of a much more complex process not fully described in the abstract. It may be part of the basis for Neo X that came out a few years after the patents were filed and whose eventual evolution lead to the more advanced Neural X. 

It certainly doesn't remotely sound like the relatively simple matrix extraction Sanjay makes it out to be, which wouldn't have much relationship to overhead sounds, IMO. Dolby assumes out of phase (uncorrelated) information is more likely to be ambient in nature. Neural X places both ambient and correlated material in the overheads and usually does it correctly. For example, a golf ball sound could just as easily hit the ground or closer to ear level. In that Magnum PI episode it hit the roof with the camera view from inside the house and it appeared to hit the ceiling on playback with Neural X. How could it possibly know to do that if it had no basis for analysis and just used phase correlation? Plenty of sounds are correlated in audio signals. They certainly don't all end up going to the ceiling with Neural X engaged.

I think Dolby knows DSU needs more work compared to Neural X and thus V2.0 adds front wide support among other improvements. I wouldn't be shocked that if/when V3.0 comes out, it adds individual overhead channel support like Neural X already has and/or support for more ear level speakers, especially as >11 channel AVR/AVPs become much more common.


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> @junh1024
> 
> Dude, I have to ask: do you have something against periods? What's with 51 and 71 instead of 5.1 and 7.1?


And THD and DDP instead of TrueHD and DD+ 
Just confuses everybody unnecessarily methinks.


----------



## chi_guy50

niterida said:


> And THD and DDP instead of TrueHD and DD+
> Just confuses everybody unnecessarily methinks.


It only confused me for a nanosecond until I realized what he was doing. But I had assumed that it was just another strange Aussie quirk, so now I AM confused!


----------



## Soulburner

It would have caught me off guard as well had I not recently downloaded those Atmos demos, which use the same conventions for file naming purposes.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I watched The Tomorrow War last night and it was some of the better Atmos I've heard via streaming. I was fairly impressed. They actually had some sounds pan laterally through just front or rear heights at times, so I don't think it was one of the cheat mixes with static height objects. Would be interesting to see an object view of it, which I'm hoping SpareChange does on his channel.


In the opening scene when he gets out of the water the engineers put a sound effect in the heights with a sound like getting out of water. I thought this was creative and I would like sound engineers to be more creative with height effects like this. The rest of the move didn't disappoint, after the opening scene I sat back and watched the movie and enjoyed it. I hope soundtracks like this become more commonplace in the future.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> I don't think they mean actual known sounds (there'd be too many to compare) but some kind of a lookup table of relevant spatial cues found within the signal compared to parts of the input signal (some key aspect to look out for in the signal that pegs that part of the waveform for overhead placement).


I think cues is a red herring or not the best way to explain it.



MagnumX said:


> All that says in regards to Neural X is : "DTS: Neural X is said to be a completely new design,


You might wanna read later & he does some tests, where it says 

"Neural X decodes height information based on the spatial relationship of sounds in a 5.1/7.1 mix. During my testing, I managed to get pink noise to play only from the top middle channels by equally spreading .... "


----------



## sdurani

appelz said:


> I might join the fray on some other things, but for now, I would like to correct the use of the term 'bed channels". I see the term used quite often, and almost always incorrectly.
> 
> Bed channels refer to the base submix or stem, and are the channel based configurations, such as 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 (7.1.2). Bed channels are not all of the speakers at floor level.


Yup, beds are channels. Dolby added the term to describe channels that can have objects lay on top of them. So the 7.1 channels in a 7.1 mix are all "channels", while the 7.1 channels in an Atmos mix are 7 "beds" + LFE channel. As you say, the terms are often used incorrectly, with the base layer being called bed speakers and the height layer referred to as Atmos speakers.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I watched The Tomorrow War last night and it was some of the better Atmos I've heard via streaming. I was fairly impressed. They actually had some sounds pan laterally through just front or rear heights at times, so I don't think it was one of the cheat mixes with static height objects. Would be interesting to see an object view of it, which I'm hoping SpareChange does on his channel.


SpareChange has a video up about it:


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> Perhaps you can't read what I actually wrote? I said bed LEVEL _speakers_ (aka "ear level speakers") not "bed channels". I was referring to the total possible number of "ear level" speakers in the consumer version of Atmos. I'm not sure what term you think I should use to refer to them as I don't believe Dolby has such a standard term. Either way, this should be obvious, IMO given the context. And no, the consumer level version of Atmos does NOT have 2 height "bed channels" like the cinema version either.


Eh, reading your abusive tiresome rants and bullying aren't why I come here. Your opinion about what is 'obvious' doesn't change that the usage is wrong. Putting you on ignore for a bit, so I can enjoy the very interesting. engaging and friendly posts by other forum members.


----------



## ppasteur

appelz said:


> Eh, reading your abusive tiresome rants and bullying aren't why I come here. Your opinion about what is 'obvious' doesn't change that the usage is wrong. Putting you on ignore for a bit, so I can enjoy the very interesting. engaging and friendly posts by other forum members.


It is such a shame. He has lots of knowledge, but the personal attacks and derogatory and belittling snipes that are his style, do reduce the effectiveness of his message. AND, it is so unnecessary.


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> Yup, beds are channels. Dolby added the term to describe channels that can have objects lay on top of them. So the 7.1 channels in a 7.1 mix are all "channels", while the 7.1 channels in an Atmos mix are 7 "beds" + LFE channel. As you say, the terms are often used incorrectly, with the base layer being called bed speakers and the height layer referred to as Atmos speakers.


It seems a large part of our confusion is terminology, and Dolby is partly responsible for some of it. If you spend a day reading through documentation from Dolby starting with the mix process and layout and progress through the final cinema release, and then onto studio requirements and then home guidelines, it wouldn't be hard to convince someone that there are 4 immersive audio formats! 

I've seen some documentation where ceiling channels are "Top Level" and everything else is "Floor Level", and other documents that mention "Screen Channels" and everything else is a "Surround". 

At the mixing level, you start with a 9.1 bed layer, which is 7.1.2 in our scheme, with up to 118 objects, but on playback, we have 1 bed channel (LFE) and everything else is a handful of objects? And a lot of black box magic in between..


----------



## sdurani

appelz said:


> It seems a large part of our confusion is terminology, and Dolby is partly responsible for some of it.


Agree with both. Which is why I try to avoid using technical terms whenever possible. Easier to explain using general concepts rather than specific terminology.


> I've seen some documentation where ceiling channels are "Top Level" and everything else is "Floor Level", and other documents that mention "Screen Channels" and everything else is a "Surround".


Theatrical Atmos refers to everything outside the screen as "surrounds": Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds and Top Surrounds. Which is fine, but I wish they had maintained consistency by using the same terms for home audio instead of Surrounds, Surround-Backs and Tops/Heights. Oh well, first world problems.


----------



## junh1024

I use short terms which do the job. Layer/speakers can be interchanged.

Elevation 0*:
PREFER: Ear-level layer/speakers (Dolby uses this wording in some documents), ELL
AVOID: Bed (this can refer to the bed configuration when mixing, & doesn't really exist @ home), bottom/floor (NHK 22.2 & 360RA/MPH do have a bottom layer , which is separate from ELL)

Elevation 30-90*:
PREFER: Height, top layer (technically there is a difference)
AVOID: Atmos, object layer (these could be at any elevation)


----------



## mrvideo

junh1024 said:


> It's shorter to type & won't make filename problems.


Wow. One whole character. What filename problem?


----------



## mrvideo

niterida said:


> And THD and DDP instead of TrueHD and DD+


I have no issues with THD. I prefer DDP in filenames because DD+ can cause issues.


----------



## niterida

mrvideo said:


> Wow. One whole character. What filename problem?





mrvideo said:


> I have no issues with THD. I prefer DDP in filenames because DD+ can cause issues.


?


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Yup, beds are channels. Dolby added the term to describe channels that can have objects lay on top of them. So the 7.1 channels in a 7.1 mix are all "channels", while the 7.1 channels in an Atmos mix are 7 "beds" + LFE channel. As you say, the terms are often used incorrectly, with the base layer being called bed speakers and* the height layer referred to as Atmos speakers.*


That's one of my pet peeves. It clearly has led to misunderstanding of the nature of immersive audio as well as the function of those speakers and it can easily cause confusion with Dolby Atmos-enabled (DAE) speakers.



junh1024 said:


> I use short terms which do the job. Layer/speakers can be interchanged.
> 
> Elevation 0*:
> PREFER: Ear-level layer/speakers (Dolby uses this wording in some documents), ELL
> AVOID: Bed (this can refer to the bed configuration when mixing, & doesn't really exist @ home), bottom/floor (NHK 22.2 & 360RA/MPH do have a bottom layer , which is separate from ELL)
> 
> Elevation 30-90*:
> PREFER: Height, top layer (technically there is a difference)
> AVOID: Atmos, object layer (these could be at any elevation)


I usually like to use Dolby's generic terms "listener-level" and "overhead" taken from the HT whitepaper. They strike me as the clearest and most unambiguous for most laypersons.


----------



## Drew Neilson

I've been told that in this thread, there are posts about whether a 7.x.0 speaker setup with an Atmos AVR or pre-pro is truly an Atmos setup. I haven't found them yet and would like some guidance.
In posts, I've described my speaker setup as a 7.2.0 setup, and some people have, in their responses to those posts, told me that I don't have a Dolby Atmos setup because I don't have overhead/height/ceiling speakers. Based on the following information, I have a Dolby Atmos setup.
My AVR supports Dolby Atmos and DTS:X decoding. When I play content that has Dolby Atmos, and I press the remote button that makes my AVR display on the TV screen information about the audio and video signals that it is receiving and outputting, my AVR reports that it is receiving a Dolby Atmos signal, *and is outputting "Dolby Atmos 7.1".* Previously, I only had a 5.1 speaker setup, and when I pressed the same remote button, this AVR reported that it was receiving a Dolby Atmos signal *and was outputting "Dolby Surround 5.1".* The difference is that with only a 5.x speaker setup, Atmos decoding--object processing, I assume--was not engaged. With either a 7.x.0 setup or a 5.x.2 setup, however, the AVR will report that it is outputting Dolby Atmos, not Dolby Surround, when it is receiving an Atmos signal, which indicates that Atmos processing is engaged. The instruction manual says that Atmos processing requires at least either a 5.x.2 or 7.x.0 speaker setup.
With that being the case, I say that I have a 7.2.0 setup: seven listener-level speakers, two subwoofers, and no overhead/height/ceiling speakers. One person told me that the correct way to write it is 7.2, not 7.2.0, but the reason that I add .0 to the end is to specify that I don't have elevation speakers. I suppose that I don't _have _to add .0 to the end to specify that I don't have elevation speakers, but doing so makes it _clear _that I don't have elevation speakers.


----------



## dschulz

Drew Neilson said:


> I've been told that in this thread, there are posts about whether a 7.x.0 speaker setup with an Atmos AVR or pre-pro is truly an Atmos setup. I haven't found them yet and would like some guidance.
> In posts, I've described my speaker setup as a 7.2.0 setup, and some people have, in their responses to those posts, told me that I don't have a Dolby Atmos setup because I don't have overhead/height/ceiling speakers. Based on the following information, I have a Dolby Atmos setup.
> My AVR supports Dolby Atmos and DTS:X decoding. When I play content that has Dolby Atmos, and I press the remote button that makes my AVR display on the TV screen information about the audio and video signals that it is receiving and outputting, my AVR reports that it is receiving a Dolby Atmos signal, *and is outputting "Dolby Atmos 7.1".* Previously, I only had a 5.1 speaker setup, and when I pressed the same remote button, this AVR reported that it was receiving a Dolby Atmos signal *and was outputting "Dolby Surround 5.1".* The difference is that with only a 5.x speaker setup, Atmos decoding--object processing, I assume--was not engaged. With either a 7.x.0 setup or a 5.x.2 setup, however, the AVR will report that it is outputting Dolby Atmos, not Dolby Surround, when it is receiving an Atmos signal, which indicates that Atmos processing is engaged. The instruction manual says that Atmos processing requires at least either a 5.x.2 or 7.x.0 speaker setup.
> With that being the case, I say that I have a 7.2.0 setup: seven listener-level speakers, two subwoofers, and no overhead/height/ceiling speakers. One person told me that the correct way to write it is 7.2, not 7.2.0, but the reason that I add .0 to the end is to specify that I don't have elevation speakers. I suppose that I don't _have _to add .0 to the end to specify that I don't have elevation speakers, but doing so makes it _clear _that I don't have elevation speakers.


Is your setup 5.1 + Wides, or 7.1 as it existed before Atmos? If the latter, it makes sense for people to casually refer to that as "just" a 7.1 setup rather than an Atmos setup, as you could have the same speaker layout even if you had an AVR that did not support Atmos.

There have been multiple pages of thread on the question of whether a Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack behaves any differently when played "straight" as a 7.1 soundtrack vs played as Atmos, a question we haven't quite resolved.


----------



## Drew Neilson

dschulz said:


> Is your setup 5.1 + Wides, or 7.1 as it existed before Atmos? If the latter, it makes sense for people to casually refer to that as "just" a 7.1 setup rather than an Atmos setup, as you could have the same speaker layout even if you had an AVR that did not support Atmos.


It's a 7.2 setup with back-surrounds, not wides. The benefit of referring to it as a 7.2.0 setup is that by adding the .0 at the end, I am _implying _that my setup has Dolby Atmos and DTS:X processing, because no one whom writes that their setup is x.x.x (with three xs instead of two) doesn't have either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X processing. However, when I am describing my setup, I still always say that it has Dolby Atmos and DTS:X processing, just to be clear, so I guess that I don't _have _to add .0 to the end.


dschulz said:


> There have been multiple pages of thread on the question of whether a Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack behaves any differently when played "straight" as a 7.1 soundtrack vs played as Atmos, a question we haven't quite resolved.


Then I'll keep referring to my setup as a Dolby Atmos setup, since my AVR's manual says that seven listener-level speakers will enable Atmos processing.


----------



## chi_guy50

Drew Neilson said:


> It's a 7.2 setup with back-surrounds, not wides. The benefit of referring to it as a 7.2.0 setup is that by adding the .0 at the end, I am _implying _that my setup has Dolby Atmos and DTS:X processing, because no one whom writes that their setup is x.x.x (with three xs instead of two) doesn't have either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X processing. However, when I am describing my setup, I still always say that it has Dolby Atmos and DTS:X processing, just to be clear, so I guess that I don't _have _to add .0 to the end.
> 
> Then I'll keep referring to my setup as a Dolby Atmos setup, since my AVR's manual says that seven listener-level speakers will enable Atmos processing.


I like your method of designating your speaker setup in this instance.

To be precise, your AVR Owner's Manual states that " . . . by installing surround back speakers, when the input format is Dolby Atmos, you can select the Dolby Atmos listening mode which realizes the most up-to-date 3D sound." That implies that the AVR is engaging the Atmos decoder without any overhead speakers, but it is not clear how the results will differ from the channel-based Dolby TrueHD or DD+, if at all. At any rate, the manual is misleading in that you can not truly realize "3D sound" when there is no source of sound reproduction beyond the two-dimensional listener-level plane, whether real or virtual.


----------



## ppasteur

dschulz said:


> Is your setup 5.1 + Wides, or 7.1 as it existed before Atmos? If the latter, it makes sense for people to casually refer to that as "just" a 7.1 setup rather than an Atmos setup, as you could have the same speaker layout even if you had an AVR that did not support Atmos.
> 
> There have been multiple pages of thread on the question of whether a Dolby TrueHD 7.1 soundtrack behaves any differently when played "straight" as a 7.1 soundtrack vs played as Atmos, a question we haven't quite resolved.


I came away from the lengthy discussion with a much better understanding of what Dolby Atmos processing does, and a belief that there are good reasons to support what my ears tell me, that there is a clear difference in the audio presentation when the Atmos decoder is engaged.
As to the notation that @Drew Neilson uses, I guess there is nothing wrong with it. I have been corrected in writing 7.2 (as I use two subs) because it is still a single LFE channel, regardless of the number of subs. For the final "0", I think it is not required. The absence of anything in that position will be interpreted by most as the absence of any speakers beyond what is indicated in the first two positions. People like to be picky and argue about things that do not really matter. So I am not surprised that there are some that would call him on it. That being said, adding the 0 is just additional typing that really brings nothing to my understanding of the speaker configuration in use.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> I have been corrected in writing 7.2 (as I use two subs) because it is still a single LFE channel, regardless of the number of subs.


The X.x nomenclature was initially used to describe the number of discrete channels in the source material. It eventually started to get used for describing speaker layouts. Not a problem as long as one is paying attention to context. If you have 7 speakers and 2 subs, there is nothing wrong with referring to it as 7.2 set-up, whether the source being played has only one LFE channel (5.1) or has no LFE channel (2.0). As long as the context is clear that you're describing your speaker layout and not the source material.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> Perhaps you can't read what I actually wrote? I said bed LEVEL _speakers_ (aka "ear level speakers") not "bed channels". I was referring to the total possible number of "ear level" speakers in the *consumer version of Atmos*. I'm not sure what term you think I should use to refer to them as I don't believe Dolby has such a standard term. Either way, this should be obvious, IMO given the context. And no, the consumer level version of Atmos does NOT have 2 height "bed channels" like the cinema version either.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, reading your *abusive tiresome rants and bullying* aren't why I come here.
Click to expand...

Somehow my question regarding your word twisting of what I actually said is an _abusive tiresome rant _(of a bullying nature), but meanwhile your insulting accusations above are _not_? 

My original point was not to explain exactly how Neural X works (I'm not sure any of us know that conclusively and DTS isn't sharing), but rather that there is sufficient evidence that Neural X is _not_ phase or matrix based for height extraction as someone claimed much earlier in this thread and has repeated at least twice, but never sees the correction due to having me on ignore (Blinders are so much fun, apparently).

If anything, that article you linked agrees and concludes it's using what it calls _spatial orientation_ in multichannel mode and specifically says it's _not_ using phase or matrixing (beyond expanding 2 or 5 channels into 7.1 first). But it seems you would rather nitpick about words used than talk about the post's actual meaning and seemed to get angry when I point out it has nothing to do with the point being made (because I'm such a mean guy, after all  )

I'm not here to coddle people and their feelings or to run for most popular poster (and like many, I've had my own personal tragedies to deal with over the past year so sorry if I'm not all giddy and full of laughter). I'm on here to talk about Dolby Atmos and its associated upmixers and competitors. However, I don't care for having my words twisted into something they're not meant to be, however and I doubt you would either.


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> The X.x nomenclature was initially used to describe the number of discrete channels in the source material. It eventually started to get used for describing speaker layouts. Not a problem as long as one is paying attention to context. If you have 7 speakers and 2 subs, there is nothing wrong with referring to it as 7.2 set-up, whether the source being played has only one LFE channel (5.1) or has no LFE channel (2.0). As long as the context is clear that you're describing your speaker layout and not the source material.


I've started using configs like 11.x.6 with most clients, and then adding the number of subs. So my Lab, for example, will be 18.x.12 with 15 subs. Although if we use channel layout instead of discrete channels, it ends up being 18.15.18 as there will also be 6 Dolby Enabled speakers for testing.


----------



## sdrucker

appelz said:


> I've started using configs like 11.x.6 with most clients


I'm going to guess that's with wides, a second pair of rears (or occasionally front side surrounds), and four height level speakers for Atmos + T + Ch?


----------



## appelz

sdrucker said:


> I'm going to guess that's with wides, a second pair of rears (or occasionally front side surrounds), and four height level speakers for Atmos + T + Ch?


I was just using 11.x.6 as an example of how I have been explaining systems to clients, with the X as a stand in for some number of subs.


----------



## niterida

I just watched an Anthony Grimani video and would like to drag the old "where should my heights go" argument back up from the recently departed.
I argued (and I still stand by my interpretation) that Dolby guidelines put them in line with the L&R (for Home Theatre). Now I never said that this was the best position - just that Dolby guidelines put them there. Anyway on to my point :
Anthony Grimani says that they should be placed at an angle of 60deg elevation front and rear and half way between the L/R and C. 
When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to put them at 60deg instead of the Dolby recommended 45, since they will now be 60deg apart (same as recommended L, R , Surround and Back separation or basically equidistant around a circle) rather than the 90deg if you put them at 45deg elevation. So now we have Fronts, Heights (Front and Rear) and Backs also equiangular (is that a word ?) around a front-to-back overhead circle.
So then I thought why wouldn't you do the same left to right. So if you place the L&R Heights at 60deg elevation you would have Heights (Left and Right) and Surrounds now also equiangular around a left-to-right overhead circle. This 60deg will more than likely also bring the heights somewhere between the Front L/R and Centre.
Now we have nearly all our speakers separated by the same angle and our heights are more directly above us to give more of a height effect. Makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## markus767

niterida said:


> I just watched an Anthony Grimani video and would like to drag the old "where should my heights go" argument back up from the recently departed.
> I argued (and I still stand by my interpretation) that Dolby guidelines put them in line with the L&R (for Home Theatre). Now I never said that this was the best position - just that Dolby guidelines put them there. Anyway on to my point :
> Anthony Grimani says that they should be placed at an angle of 60deg elevation front and rear and half way between the L/R and C.
> When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to put them at 60deg instead of the Dolby recommended 45, since they will now be 60deg apart (same as recommended L, R , Surround and Back separation or basically equidistant around a circle) rather than the 90deg if you put them at 45deg elevation. So now we have Fronts, Heights (Front and Rear) and Backs also equiangular (is that a word ?) around a front-to-back overhead circle.
> So then I thought why wouldn't you do the same left to right. So if you place the L&R Heights at 60deg elevation you would have Heights (Left and Right) and Surrounds now also equiangular around a left-to-right overhead circle. This 60deg will more than likely also bring the heights somewhere between the Front L/R and Centre.
> Now we have nearly all our speakers separated by the same angle and our heights are more directly above us to give more of a height effect. Makes a lot of sense to me.


Not sure if equal spacing is more important than more distinct localization.
I recently did some experiments and tried to answer by how much speaker count could be reduced in a 1-2 seat setup while preserving a good Atmos experience. While summing back left and right into a single back center surround gave excellent results, a single top center speaker (VOG) was awful. More often than not the signal appeared to come from the front or back but not from above. Once the VOG speaker was moved 30 degree or more towards the front height localization became unambiguous.


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> I just watched an Anthony Grimani video and would like to drag the old "where should my heights go" argument back up from the recently departed.
> I argued (and I still stand by my interpretation) that Dolby guidelines put them in line with the L&R (for Home Theatre). Now I never said that this was the best position - just that Dolby guidelines put them there. Anyway on to my point :
> Anthony Grimani says that they should be placed at an angle of 60deg elevation front and rear and half way between the L/R and C.
> When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to put them at 60deg instead of the Dolby recommended 45, since they will now be 60deg apart (same as recommended L, R , Surround and Back separation or basically equidistant around a circle) rather than the 90deg if you put them at 45deg elevation. So now we have Fronts, Heights (Front and Rear) and Backs also equiangular (is that a word ?) around a front-to-back overhead circle.
> So then I thought why wouldn't you do the same left to right. So if you place the L&R Heights at 60deg elevation you would have Heights (Left and Right) and Surrounds now also equiangular around a left-to-right overhead circle. This 60deg will more than likely also bring the heights somewhere between the Front L/R and Centre.
> Now we have nearly all our speakers separated by the same angle and our heights are more directly above us to give more of a height effect. Makes a lot of sense to me.


Im not blaming your description, but I am having trouble visualizing it. Would you mind making a picture if it's easy, or trying to describe it a different way?


----------



## markus767

Technology3456 said:


> Im not blaming your description, but I am having trouble visualizing it. Would you mind making a picture if it's easy, or trying to describe it a different way?


See images at Google Translate


----------



## Technology3456

markus767 said:


> See images at Google Translate


Thanks. The 60 degrees for the FL and FR, is that combined or each? Because to put my front left tower at 60 degree angle to the seating, and my front right tower at 60 degrees also, they would have to be very far apart.



markus767 said:


> Not sure if equal spacing is more important than more distinct localization.
> I recently did some experiments and tried to answer by how much speaker count could be reduced in a 1-2 seat setup while preserving a good Atmos experience. While summing back left and right into a single back center surround gave excellent results, a single top center speaker (VOG) was awful. More often than not the signal appeared to come from the front or back but not from above. Once the VOG speaker was moved 30 degree or more to the front localization became unambiguous.


Did you do any tests like this for the ear-level speakers as well? My HT is 11 feet wide, 20 feet long. I'll be sitting 14 feet away from the screen, probably 12 feet away from the fronts if I put them 2 feet ahead of the screen. Side surrounds will be directly to the sides I think. That means when sounds pan from the front towers to the sides, there's a 12 feet gap, whereas from the side surrounds to the rear surrounds, only about 5 feet. Im wondering how much will be lost not having "front wides" in between the front towers and the sides.


----------



## niterida

markus767 said:


> See images at Google Translate


Yep thats it


----------



## markus767

Technology3456 said:


> Did you do any tests like this for the ear-level speakers as well? My HT is 11 feet wide, 20 feet long. I'll be sitting 14 feet away from the screen, probably 12 feet away from the fronts if I put them 2 feet ahead of the screen. Side surrounds will be directly to the sides I think. That means when sounds pan from the front towers to the sides, there's a 12 feet gap, whereas from the side surrounds to the rear surrounds, only about 5 feet. Im wondering how much will be lost not having "front wides" in between the front towers and the sides.


Front wides are psychoacoustically of high importance. It's a shame current formats don't make more use of them than the occasionally panned through object.


----------



## T-Bone

markus767 said:


> See images at Google Translate


I read the entire article. And I can unequivocally state that I completely understand why Dolby Atmos guidelines for home are writfen the way they are. The average consumer we see that article and think Atmos is not worth the hassle. 

-T


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Now we have nearly all our speakers separated by the same angle and our heights are more directly above us to give more of a height effect. Makes a lot of sense to me.


What does Grimani's equi-angular approach buy you? I could understand IF studios that were mixing or remastering for home Atmos adopted Grimani's approach industry wide, so that doing the same placement at home got you closer to hearing the Atmos mix as intended. But the industry hasn't done that. And neither the cinema version nor home version of Atmos does object rendering using those angles (or any angles). So what would be the main advantage to playing back Atmos and DTS:X soundtracks using Grimani's equi-angular placement?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> I just watched an Anthony Grimani video and would like to drag the old "where should my heights go" argument back up from the recently departed.
> I argued (and I still stand by my interpretation) that Dolby guidelines put them in line with the L&R (for Home Theatre). Now I never said that this was the best position - just that Dolby guidelines put them there. Anyway on to my point :
> Anthony Grimani says that they should be placed at an angle of 60deg elevation front and rear and half way between the L/R and C.
> When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to put them at 60deg instead of the Dolby recommended 45, since they will now be 60deg apart (same as recommended L, R , Surround and Back separation or basically equidistant around a circle) rather than the 90deg if you put them at 45deg elevation. So now we have Fronts, Heights (Front and Rear) and Backs also equiangular (is that a word ?) around a front-to-back overhead circle.
> So then I thought why wouldn't you do the same left to right. So if you place the L&R Heights at 60deg elevation you would have Heights (Left and Right) and Surrounds now also equiangular around a left-to-right overhead circle. This 60deg will more than likely also bring the heights somewhere between the Front L/R and Centre.
> Now we have nearly all our speakers separated by the same angle and our heights are more directly above us to give more of a height effect. Makes a lot of sense to me.


Does he say that the goal with the 60deg forward/back was equal angular spacing? Because from my recollection (from both his Audioholics and AVSPro videos), he was saying it more because putting them at those angles worked better from a dispersion standpoint, especially with multiple rows. Been a minute since I watched those vids though, so maybe I'm wrong.

As far as the lateral placement goes, he does tend toward the narrower placement of the height rows based on his experience with doing so many rooms... but he never really gives a hard fast rule for determining that spacing other than _generally_ between the L/R and C. He welcomes questions, so I sent him one about this a week or so ago, but still haven't received a response. I basically asked him if he bases his narrower spacing on the 45 degs + half the side surround elevation rule that Dolby uses for the mix room/theater placement or if he is just guesstimating based on experience. If you actually use the math Dolby outlines for the mix room guidelines, you tend to end up with the height rows closer together than the width between the mains, especially if you're slightly elevating your side surrounds... and your top rears end up more toward 60deg than 45 from the back if you're elevating your rear surrounds. Logically, this makes sense because you want enough angular separation between each for consistent imaging between them... which has been the argument I've made this whole time. Placing them too far to the side walls closes the angle between the side and height zones and opens the angle between the two height zones (where angular separation and imaging isn't as important).

Again, I have actually done it both ways in my current room (using SVS Prime Elevations on-ceiling that I just recently moved from the home placement to the mix room placement), and found that erring toward the mix room/theater placement works much better than placing them with respect to the mains. IMHO Dolby's home guidelines, while generally good for the average consumer, shouldn't be the sole consideration for those of us seeking the optimal placement. And I'm definitely happy I moved my speakers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> What does Grimani's equi-angular approach buy you? I could understand IF studios that were mixing or remastering for home Atmos adopted Grimani's approach industry wide, so that doing the same placement at home got you closer to hearing the Atmos mix as intended. But the industry hasn't done that. And neither the cinema version nor home version of Atmos does object rendering using those angles (or any angles). So what would be the main advantage to playing back Atmos and DTS:X soundtracks using Grimani's equi-angular placement?


Well... the mix room standards are actually closer to what Grimani does in his CEDIA-winning designs than what the home guidelines push, though I don't know that he has pushed equi-angular placement. So you could argue that the industry HAS done that, since it is in the mix room certification guide. The "ideal" placement of the top front/top rear isn't strictly 45 degrees in the mix room... but is 45 + half the elevation of the adjacent speaker to maintain angular separation. So if the LCR in the mix room is elevated above ear level, the top fronts ARE actually moved back toward the MLP to account for it. Same for the top rears from the rear surrounds... and both top front and top rear from the side surrounds. That was the crux of the entire discussion we've had about it. The main advantage is that you end up with consistent angular separation with pans through the array and better imaging between each zone (which you CAN hear in practice, from my experience).


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> I just watched an Anthony Grimani video and would like to drag the old "where should my heights go" argument back up from the recently departed.
> I argued (and I still stand by my interpretation) that Dolby guidelines put them in line with the L&R (for Home Theatre). Now I never said that this was the best position - just that Dolby guidelines put them there.


They do put them there in the diagrams. I would probably think if you have a larger setup you can certainly use left center instead as it may very well end up at the same overall angle anyway. Basic guidelines are still guidelines not set in stone rules.



> Anyway on to my point :
> Anthony Grimani says that they should be placed at an angle of 60deg elevation front and rear and half way between the L/R and C.
> When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to put them at 60deg instead of the Dolby recommended 45, since they will now be 60deg apart (same as recommended L, R , Surround and Back separation or basically equidistant around a circle) rather than the 90deg if you put them at 45deg elevation. So now we have Fronts, Heights (Front and Rear) and Backs also equiangular (is that a word ?) around a front-to-back overhead circle.
> So then I thought why wouldn't you do the same left to right. So if you place the L&R Heights at 60deg elevation you would have Heights (Left and Right) and Surrounds now also equiangular around a left-to-right overhead circle. This 60deg will more than likely also bring the heights somewhere between the Front L/R and Centre.
> Now we have nearly all our speakers separated by the same angle and our heights are more directly above us to give more of a height effect. Makes a lot of sense to me.


I'm not against equal distances or angles, but there are some shortcomings there. First of all, technically speaking 'heights' according to Dolby are (20)30-45 degrees (20 when 6+ overheads are used). "Tops" are 45-55 degrees. I believe DTS has a 60 degree position. As I've argued before, moving these speakers past the limits isn't the end of the world, even if it isn't optimal. If someone likes having their overhead speakers at 60 degrees, more power to them! You will definitely get more "direct" overhead sound in that position, but at the cost of travel/movement of the overhead images. You can argue that lower speakers can be used to image somewhere further up front, but many overhead sounds are 100% overhead and won't use the lower speakers at all. You end up with a helicopter circling a much narrower area overhead in the Dolby helicopter demo, for example. 

If you use 30 degree heights and a 90 degree top middle you get 60 degrees between each set of overheads and have the full ceiling to image across just like the lower layer. To me, that symmetry is more important and that's what I use. With 11 speakers on the floor, I average closer to 30 (more like 36) degrees between pairs. 30 and 60 aren't bad for a home setup, IMO. Going to full 24.1.10, you could get 15 degrees between lower layer pairs and 30 degrees between overheads if you put the overheads at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150. But Dolby wants them at 30, 45, 90, 135 and 150. The renderer expects them at those locations so one could argue it's better to match the renderer than a mathematical ideal. But if you try and find it sounds better to you, go for it.


----------



## markus767

You guys greatly overthink this. Localization acuity above us is so bad, especially in the presence of other sounds and level panning between speakers which doesn't really work well other than in the frontal or rearward horizontal pane. Sure, if you look up and turn your head you can bring (phantom) images into a very narrow "focus" but while watching a movie with the head pointed to the screen and multiple fast moving sounds it becomes nearly moot if a top speaker is located 45 degrees in front or back (!) of a center VOG position.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> You guys greatly overthink this. Localization acuity above us is so bad, especially in the presence of other sounds and level panning between speakers which doesn't really work well other than in the frontal or rearward horizontal pane. Sure, if you look up and turn your head you can bring (phantom) images into a very narrow "focus" but while watching a movie with the head pointed to the screen and multiple fast moving sounds it becomes nearly moot if a top speaker is located 45 degrees in front or back (!) of a center VOG position.


Oh, we're definitely nitpicking... though I would argue that the quest for the ideal sounding room is why enthusiasts come to forums like this and have these discussions. And if someone like Grimani (who created Dolby EX) has heard the issues with the home guidelines versus the others over the hundreds of installs he has done, I think it's at least worth taking it into consideration. He talks about the lateral placement issue briefly here in the AVPro video.

I do agree (as I think we all do) that you shouldn't stress over it if you can't nail the ideal placements, because some Atmos is better than no Atmos. But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't strive for the ideal if they can swing it... if we can even agree on what the "ideal" actually is (or if Dolby can, which seems to be the bigger issue).


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> You guys greatly overthink this. Localization acuity above us is so bad, especially in the presence of other sounds and level panning between speakers which doesn't really work well other than in the frontal or rearward horizontal pane. Sure, if you look up and turn your head you can bring (phantom) images into a very narrow "focus" but while watching a movie with the head pointed to the screen and multiple fast moving sounds it becomes nearly moot if a top speaker is located 45 degrees in front or back (!) of a center VOG position.


 I'm no longer certain this is to the extent I once thought. Many Atmos demos image very localized overhead, but seem better in front to just over top of me than behind. However, Yello's new album Point images extremely well and focused both behind me and overhead behind me, certainly more than I ever expected. For once, my room actually sounds 24 feet long throughout as do many other Atmos music albums. It is probably harder to pinpoint exact distances, but there's certainly more distance to images behind me than most movies and I think there's another reason for that.

I have noticed many Atmos movies have arrayed sounds in the rear channels (whether ear level or overhead) rather than discrete so especially with larger setups, the sounds tend to come from my side surrounds behind my front row (which sits between the front wides and sides) rather than the back of the room for this reason. 

Many people have said rear surrounds get little use, but I think it's more accurate to say they get little discrete use. If I move to the 2nd or 3rd row, it's obvious they're in use as there are many sounds behind me, but they're the same sounds found in the sides so they array and seem to come from either the nearer speaker or some point a bit behind the sides (precedence effect), but nowhere near the back of the room. I do occasionally hear discrete rear sounds in movies, but they are uncommon compared to the newer Atmos music albums I've purchased.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And if someone like Grimani (who created Dolby EX)...


Gary Rydstrom came up with Surround EX for Phantom Menace. He wanted to be able to anchor sounds behind the listeners without them also being at the sides, which wasn't possible with the discrete 5.1 technology of the time. Dolby figured out a way to it with backwards compatibility (matrix the surround-back channel into the L/R surrounds). THX had a one-year exclusive for the home version of the format, after which Dolby and DTS were allowed to license their versions.


----------



## T-Bone

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And if someone like *Grimani (who created Dolby EX) *has heard the issues with the home guidelines versus the others over the hundreds of installs he has done, I think it's at least worth taking it into consideration.


Dolby EX. That was with a single rear surround that failed in practice since the sounds directly behind us appeared to come from in front of us. I tested this in 2004 in my room when I set it up.

Unless he was a proponent of 2 rear speakers to make the rear channel?

If people are wrong on some topics, can we always trust their expertise on other topics?

-T


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> Dolby EX. That was with a single rear surround that failed in practice since the sounds directly behind us appeared to come from in front of us.


Single surround-back channel, meant to be played back over 2 rear speakers (to avoid the reversal effect you describe). Wasn't a problem in theatres, where the surround-back channel was played back across an array of rear speakers spread across the entire back wall.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Gary Rydstrom came up with Surround EX for Phantom Menace. He wanted to be able to anchor sounds behind the listeners without them also being at the sides, which wasn't possible with the discrete 5.1 technology of the time. Dolby figured out a way to it with backwards compatibility (matrix the surround-back channel into the L/R surrounds). THX had a one-year exclusive for the home version of the format, after which Dolby and DTS were allowed to license their versions.


Rydstrom asked Dolby if there was any way to do it, but he didn't come up with it. Grimani was the engineer at Dolby who invented it. Grimani worked at both Dolby and THX. He talks about Rydstrom in a few of the videos I've seen.


sdurani said:


> Single surround-back channel, meant to be played back over 2 rear speakers (to avoid the reversal effect you describe). Wasn't a problem in theatres, where the surround-back channel was played back across an array of rear speakers spread across the entire back wall.


You're right that it wasn't an issue in the theater because you had multiple point sources. The original home version on AVRs did use a single rear channel, which could exhibit reversal (though I never heard it in my room, but I used an old center channel for my rear). Under THX EX, playback with two decorrelated speakers addressed that issue. And shortly thereafter, with DPLIIx, they shifted to two rear surrounds with steering that always kept sound in multiple speakers in the surround array to avoid psychoacoustic reversal. Applying that to EX tracks worked pretty well.

But the point was that the guy has an engineering background with Dolby and has done hundreds of installs thus far, so he isn't the worst person to listen to when it comes to setup.


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> What does Grimani's equi-angular approach buy you? I could understand IF studios that were mixing or remastering for home Atmos adopted Grimani's approach industry wide, so that doing the same placement at home got you closer to hearing the Atmos mix as intended. But the industry hasn't done that. And neither the cinema version nor home version of Atmos does object rendering using those angles (or any angles). So what would be the main advantage to playing back Atmos and DTS:X soundtracks using Grimani's equi-angular placement?


I am not sure Grimani actually espouses equi-angular - it was just my assumption/extrapolation from watching the video where he explains that he puts the heights at 60deg. What I was thinking is that with equi-angular you will get a more complete soundfield with less holes in the imaging ??



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Does he say that the goal with the 60deg forward/back was equal angular spacing? Because from my recollection (from both his Audioholics and AVSPro videos), he was saying it more because putting them at those angles worked better from a dispersion standpoint, especially with multiple rows. Been a minute since I watched those vids though, so maybe I'm wrong.


He was saying it puts the height effects more overhead where they should be. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> As far as the lateral placement goes, he does tend toward the narrower placement of the height rows based on his experience with doing so many rooms... but he never really gives a hard fast rule for determining that spacing other than _generally_ between the L/R and C. He welcomes questions, so I sent him one about this a week or so ago, but still haven't received a response. I basically asked him if he bases his narrower spacing on the 45 degs + half the side surround elevation rule that Dolby uses for the mix room/theater placement or if he is just guesstimating based on experience. If you actually use the math Dolby outlines for the mix room guidelines, you tend to end up with the height rows closer together than the width between the mains, especially if you're slightly elevating your side surrounds... and your top rears end up more toward 60deg than 45 from the back if you're elevating your rear surrounds. Logically, this makes sense because you want enough angular separation between each for consistent imaging between them... which has been the argument I've made this whole time. Placing them too far to the side walls closes the angle between the side and height zones and opens the angle between the two height zones (where angular separation and imaging isn't as important).


Yeah he never said anything about the lateral height angles - I was going by the generalisation that between the L/R & C will put them about 60deg in an average room. I then used 60deg as it fits my equi-angular thesis.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, I have actually done it both ways in my current room (using SVS Prime Elevations on-ceiling that I just recently moved from the home placement to the mix room placement), and found that erring toward the mix room/theater placement works much better than placing them with respect to the mains. IMHO Dolby's home guidelines, while generally good for the average consumer, shouldn't be the sole consideration for those of us seeking the optimal placement. And I'm definitely happy I moved my speakers.


When I was 'arguing' with you I never actually said that inline with L&R was better and I actually had this 60deg thought much earlier but had forgotten about it and never tried it. So it is good to hear that you (and Grimani) like them better in that sort of position. Good enough for me to give it a go in my room  



MagnumX said:


> I'm not against equal distances or angles, but there are some shortcomings there. First of all, technically speaking 'heights' according to Dolby are (20)30-45 degrees (20 when 6+ overheads are used). "Tops" are 45-55 degrees. I believe DTS has a 60 degree position. As I've argued before, moving these speakers past the limits isn't the end of the world, even if it isn't optimal. If someone likes having their overhead speakers at 60 degrees, more power to them! You will definitely get more "direct" overhead sound in that position, but at the cost of travel/movement of the overhead images. You can argue that lower speakers can be used to image somewhere further up front, but many overhead sounds are 100% overhead and won't use the lower speakers at all. You end up with a helicopter circling a much narrower area overhead in the Dolby helicopter demo, for example.
> 
> If you use 30 degree heights and a 90 degree top middle you get 60 degrees between each set of overheads and have the full ceiling to image across just like the lower layer. To me, that symmetry is more important and that's what I use. With 11 speakers on the floor, I average closer to 30 (more like 36) degrees between pairs. 30 and 60 aren't bad for a home setup, IMO. Going to full 24.1.10, you could get 15 degrees between lower layer pairs and 30 degrees between overheads if you put the overheads at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150. But Dolby wants them at 30, 45, 90, 135 and 150. The renderer expects them at those locations so one could argue it's better to match the renderer than a mathematical ideal. But if you try and find it sounds better to you, go for it.


I was working on just 7.x.4 setup - anything else and the 60deg doesn't work. I should have stated that in my post  
And just like Dolby, "my" 60deg rule is just a guideline  And they do close with their 55deg max as you stated.



MagnumX said:


> I'm no longer certain this is to the extent I once thought. Many Atmos demos image very localized overhead, but seem better in front to just over top of me than behind. However, Yello's new album Point images extremely well and focused both behind me and overhead behind me, certainly more than I ever expected. For once, my room actually sounds 24 feet long throughout as do many other Atmos music albums. It is probably harder to pinpoint exact distances, but there's certainly more distance to images behind me than most movies and I think there's another reason for that.
> 
> I have noticed many Atmos movies have arrayed sounds in the rear channels (whether ear level or overhead) rather than discrete so especially with larger setups, the sounds tend to come from my side surrounds behind my front row (which sits between the front wides and sides) rather than the back of the room for this reason.
> 
> Many people have said rear surrounds get little use, but I think it's more accurate to say they get little discrete use. If I move to the 2nd or 3rd row, it's obvious they're in use as there are many sounds behind me, but they're the same sounds found in the sides so they array and seem to come from either the nearer speaker or some point a bit behind the sides (precedence effect), but nowhere near the back of the room. I do occasionally hear discrete rear sounds in movies, but they are uncommon compared to the newer Atmos music albums I've purchased.


This is probably why in my testing of 5.1 vs 7.1 the only difference I noticed was a bigger, more ambient soundfield with 7.1 but the discrete effects still placed moving objects (the things (bullets etc) in the movie, not the processing ones) in exactly the same position in my room to my ears. And is why I am currently only running 5.x.4 (well that and the fact I have to cut holes in my solid brick walls to go to a permanent 7.x.4 !!)


----------



## howard68

Hi all 
Can someone please tell me some films that use TM in a 7.1.6 setup for evaluation to stick between 9.2.4 and 7.2.6
Many thanks 
Regards
H


----------



## X4100

I don't get the top front, rear top speaker configuration. IMHO you're definitely going to have audio overhead, but it's only going as far as your speakers are placed. With front and rear heights, you have the ability to create an immersive soundfield from your front wall ceiling area to the back wall. Am I missing something,,because I prefer the sound to cover my ceiling


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Yeah he never said anything about the lateral height angles - I was going by the generalisation that between the L/R & C will put them about 60deg in an average room. I then used 60deg as it fits my equi-angular thesis.


That's what got me headed down the rabbit hole on some of this. After seeing the Audioholics and AVPro vids with Grimani and the HT Gurus video here where he talks about closing up the gap a bit longitudinally, I dug deep into all the Dolby guidelines and found the actual math for the mix room... which is less about _equal_ angles than it is about maintaining enough angular separation for each zone to be distinct. And that makes sense if you're trying to keep each speaker location in the home array far apart angularly for you to get decent imaging between each adjacent speaker and smooth pans in an arc through the array when needed. So if your rears are elevated above ear level, that pushes your top rears forward a bit. If your sides are elevated, that pushes your height rows inward a bit. If your screen speakers are elevated, that brings top front toward you a bit. All of this to keep separation between the adjacent speakers.


niterida said:


> When I was 'arguing' with you I never actually said that inline with L&R was better and I actually had this 60deg thought much earlier but had forgotten about it and never tried it. So it is good to hear that you (and Grimani) like them better in that sort of position. Good enough for me to give it a go in my room


I like a good spirited discussion when it comes to this stuff, as I can always learn more. My argument has always been that Dolby's generalized guidelines for the home should maybe have just said that the heights should be in line with a point half-way between the center and L/R so that it matched the mix room and theatrical recommendations. I think that generalization would work better in most rooms than the confusing "in line with the mains, but also somewhere between 0.5-0.7x the layout width if your room is the right size and your listening position is far enough back". They could also have just said to put them half the room width apart (so each row at 1/4 room width) and that would have generally gotten people closer to good separation in most cases. In my case, putting the height rows in line with the L/R had them at about 0.63x the layout width... and I found that a lot of the height info bled into the side surrounds that way. I probably wouldn't have noticed had I not had a previous room with in-ceilings that ended up more narrowly placed due to ducting. And I would hazard that most people would have been perfectly happy with it regardless. But having now moved them per the mix room standards, there IS a difference. And it wasn't subtle.


niterida said:


> I was working on just 7.x.4 setup - anything else and the 60deg doesn't work. I should have stated that in my post
> And just like Dolby, "my" 60deg rule is just a guideline  And they do close with their 55deg max as you stated.


I think Dolby's positional recommendation and its general angular range is really just to get us _some_ separation _in most cases_, since as Sanjay explained so well earlier in the thread, angle to the listener isn't necessarily the concern. So perhaps the thinking was more generally like "somewhere in the front third and back third of the listening area" rather than trying to dictate actual positions in the room like they would have to if they had particular speakers in a theatrical height array in mind. Perhaps it's ultimately, and more simplistically, about filling in the gaps where you have any. And that 60 degree theory would fit the bill.


niterida said:


> This is probably why in my testing of 5.1 vs 7.1 the only difference I noticed was a bigger, more ambient soundfield with 7.1 but the discrete effects still placed moving objects (the things (bullets etc) in the movie, not the processing ones) in exactly the same position in my room to my ears. And is why I am currently only running 5.x.4 (well that and the fact I have to cut holes in my solid brick walls to go to a permanent 7.x.4 !!)


On a related note (not to start another offshoot of this discussion), Grimani's recommendation of putting the rear surrounds 60 degrees apart seemed to me like it wouldn't work as well as Dolby's "ideal" of 135 degrees (putting them 90 degrees apart). But in my new room in this house, my choices were putting them at 135 degrees but with one on a bracket in a doorway that would probably get walked into by someone... or putting them at 150 degrees on the back wall so they were out of the way. I tried both and ran tests with circular pans to see which seemed more coherent (as well as the cross-channel 7.1 phase tests on the AIX disc). To my surprise, Grimani's 150 degree placement worked better. It's still within Dolby's angular range recommendation for that speaker position, and gives you 50/60/50 angular separation in an arc from side surround to rear to side. And so far, I haven't heard any detriment to doing it. It also seems to work better from the other seats in my room than the 135 degree placement did, since it seems more generally behind you.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> I don't get the top front, rear top speaker configuration. IMHO you're definitely going to have audio overhead, but it's only going as far as your speakers are placed. With front and rear heights, you have the ability to create an immersive soundfield from your front wall ceiling area to the back wall. Am I missing something,,because I prefer the sound to cover my ceiling


Sound doesn't begin and end at physical speaker locations in an array. Just as you don't necessarily have to have a center channel between your L/R speakers for sound to image in that position, if you have good angular separation and the decoder knows where the speakers generally fall positionally, it can still place sounds in the direction of your room's periphery. So if the renderer needs to put something up at say the top of your screen in the room, it knows how much of the sound to put in the front speakers and the top front speakers to image it at the roughly 30 degree angle that front heights would physically be. And with a top front/rear placement, your angles between each adjacent speaker are more consistent in range. A lot of Atmos mixes move some of the score up to that position so you get a "taller" front soundstage, and there's no problem conveying that with a top front/rear placement. At least that has been my experience.

The tradeoff of going front/rear height is that while you do get physical speakers at the front/rear periphery of the room, you leave a 120 degree angular gap between the front and rear edges of the ceiling if you follow the 30 degree elevation for those placements. So nothing really sounds directly overhead because that angular gap is too large for the speakers to image coherently above you. Contrast that to what MagnumX does in his room, which is to fill in that angular gap with a top mid pair using matrix decoding. The other tradeoff is that a lot of home mixes use static objects at the top mid position to convey the height audio... which can be compromised by a front/rear height placement. Though again, MagnumX's solution would mitigate that problem to an extent as well.

So if you think you need speakers to be physically at the front and rear of the room, perhaps a x.x.6 layout would be ideal for you. Just keep in mind that unless you're running a Scatmos solution like MagnumX is, some Atmos tracks will collapse height info to the top mid position. It would still likely sound okay though. Also keep in mind that mix rooms for home mixes are almost invariably 7.1.4 with top front/rear placements to meet Dolby's certification guidelines... not front/rear height. So Dolby obviously doesn't see an issue.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Sound doesn't begin and end at physical speaker locations in an array.


The problem is Atmos doesn't use lower/upper "arrays" to pull sounds into the front area (DTS:X does try to do this with the "Tops" settings and/or missing speakers, which some people precisely don't like, which I think is odd since it's trying its best to extend the sounds to where you don't have speakers, but most on here that comment on it want it OFF and use "Heights" for their "Tops" speakers to get rid of that "leakage". Most fully overhead sounds in Atmos use only the overhead speakers to the point where it will render them on the opposite side of the room even rather than use the lower speakers (tested here with various Dolby Atmos demos).

Now I agree in _theory_ you could also possibly extend sounds "outward" past the Tops speakers by rendering the sounds out-of-phase with its matching front/back pair (like you would get outside your front L/R speakers in stereo for decorrelated information). However, I've heard no evidence the Dolby Atmos Renderer does any such thing with any demo material I've tried thus far! The Dolby Atmos Helicopter demo is a prime example and will prove my point, I think. 

That helicopter will NOT start at the edge of the room if you have 45-55 degree Tops. It will circle around your overhead "Tops" speakers. Period. This will not change if you switch the setting to "Heights" instead. Likewise, the helicopter in my room starts at the edges of the room and goes all the way around the 12'x24' room. If I switch to "Tops" it does not start at the 45-55 degree area of the ceiling like one might think would happen as the Renderer should know to do this, right? Wrong. It _still_ circles the room edge-to-edge _no matter what_.

By putting overhead speakers at the 45-55 degree position, you are limiting overhead object movement to the area between the speakers (In smaller rooms, 45 degree might be the front wall, though in which case the "height" setting would be still be an appropriate setting for that angle and Dolby overlaps the two in that range). If any sounds render outside that area into the uncorrelated zones, it's likely because the signals are stereo in the objects and contain uncorrelated information in the signals themselves (which is possible to do from what I've read, but less common in practice for most material). From what I've heard playing with the demos, the renderer will not compensate for your choice of speaker location on the ceiling. 

But this is a _*good*_* thing*. Why? Because based on comments on here, I'd say "most" people (at least among those that choose "Tops") _prefer_ to have overhead sounds more directly overhead than at lower angles that "heights" speakers use. Those sounds just don't sound as 'overhead' to these people as sounds directly above their heads do. Some go so far as to prefer only 2 overhead speakers for precisely this reason. They want to hear sounds directly above them, not just above the screen or wherever. 

In my setup, I do get sounds directly overhead, but that's when they're actually positioned between the two speakers precisely, whereas at 45-55 degrees in the room, that would still be over 1/4 the way into my room on the ceiling even at the outermost point and sound decidedly more "over head" than at the top of the screen at closer to 30 degrees. I can certainly understand the appeal of that, but personally prefer sounds to be able to easily image literally _anywhere_ on the ceiling and using 6 overheads achieves that goal here.



> The tradeoff of going front/rear height is that while you do get physical speakers at the front/rear periphery of the room, you leave a 120 degree angular gap between the front and rear edges of the ceiling if you follow the 30 degree elevation for those placements.


That's why in all but very small rooms (where heights would likely be closer to 45 degrees), one should probably use at least 6 overhead speakers if you're going to do "Heights", IMO. As you mentioned, I have 6 here and it's perfectly smooth all the way across the room. Dolby's recommendation drops to a mere 20 degrees minimum if you use 6 or more overhead speakers (they have a 11.1.8 guideline diagram now that has heights + tops and it recommends 20 degrees minimum). 

IMO, _ideally_, you would want coverage from the top of the screen outward to fully immerse any on-screen related sounds that are properly placed/panned. The Dolby Atmos demo "Nature's Fury" is a prime example of _proper_ placement for on-screen sounds. It even lights them up for you where they're going/moving relative to the sound placement and if you align your speakers for panned dialog, they ALL line up perfectly. The helicopter on that one leaves out of the top of the screen and heads to the back right of the ceiling between top middle and rear right here without stopping (nice smooth pan). The "circle" parts of the sounds moving around lines up precisely with the on-screen cues. That's how I think Dolby wanted it to be, but as most of you have noticed, most/all films aren't anywhere _near_ as immersive as the Dolby Atmos demos. Can you imagine a movie that was? It'd be awesome! I have heard Dolby Atmos MUSIC that is that immersive (e.g. Yello's Point and Booka Shade's two Atmos albums come to mind).

I personally think at this point all movies should have panned dialog and on-screen accurate placement of sounds precisely because it's now possible to do that accurately with Atmos. If your room/system can't do it, it's on you to alter it or live with it. Surround mixes should be demanding and make you want to upgrade to hear it even better, not mix for the lowest common denominator sound bar or whatever. 

The days of having center dialog only and "suppressed surround" so that it's "not distracting" should be over now, IMO. They could do a separate "meek" soundtrack from the "immersive" one if that's what they want. The consumer should have some say in this because Atmos was advertised as an atmospheric immersive surround experience. There's nothing "immersive" about having 95% of the sounds come from the L/C/R speakers with only an occasional "action" sequence using the rest. Sadly, movies like "Knives Out" are front heavy with very few surround moments and offhand I can only think of one major "overhead" moment (the game table falling onto the floor in the attic overhead was great).


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> What I was thinking is that with equi-angular you will get a more complete soundfield with less holes in the imaging ??


Agree with the goal but equi-angular placement (height layer or base layer) might not be needed to get there, especially considering our human hearing is not symmetrical front to back.

There are two attributes that the height speaker placement needs to satisfy. The sense of sound above you is helped by bringing the speakers closer together. Spreading them too far apart loses some of that "overhead" effect. Side-vs-rear and front-vs-back separation is helped by spreading the speakers farther apart. Bringing them too close together loses some of that separation.

While that appears to be a conflict, somewhere in there is a happy compromise between the two attributes. In some rooms it might end up being close to equi-angular placement, in other situation maybe not. Equi-angular shouldn't be the goal in and of itself. 

That's one of the reasons why I'm not concerned with specific angles needed to satisfy one particular immersive audio format. If you can place speakers to strike a good balance between separation and the overhead effect, it will sound nice with all the immersive formats (and their upmixers).


----------



## sdurani

X4100 said:


> With front and rear heights, you have the ability to create an immersive soundfield from your front wall ceiling area to the back wall. Am I missing something,,because I prefer the sound to cover my ceiling


The wider apart you spread your speakers, the more difficult it is typically to get stable phantom imaging between them. Otherwise, stereo set-ups would have the 2 speakers spread to the side walls in order to take advantage of the entire width of the room when creating a soundstage. Bringing the 2 speakers closer together might shrink the soundstage (depending on side wall treatments) but in return will stabilize and tighten up the imaging. Same for height speakers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> Most fully overhead sounds in Atmos use only the overhead speakers to the point where it will render them on the opposite side of the room even rather than use the lower speakers (tested here with various Dolby Atmos demos).


And as we've discussed previously, some of those demos are intentionally zone-constrained, not indicative of how most object-based content gets steered. If a bog-standard object is placed at the top of the screen in the front, it gets rendered between the adjacent speakers available in the levels needed. More so if it is set to be diffuse across zones.



MagnumX said:


> The Dolby Atmos Helicopter demo is a prime example and will prove my point, I think.


The Helicopter demo is zone-constrained to the heights by design, hence why that particular demo is limited to whatever heights you have available. But again, most steered objects in content don't have that zone constraint in the metadata. Atmos objects can be limited to zones, diffused across zones, assigned paths with start/end times through the array, etc. Some of the other demos show off those very things in practice... which is the point of the demos.



MagnumX said:


> In my setup, I do get sounds directly overhead, but that's when they're actually positioned between the two speakers precisely, whereas at 45-55 degrees in the room, that would still be over 1/4 the way into my room on the ceiling even at the outermost point and sound decidedly more "over head" than at the top of the screen at closer to 30 degrees. I can certainly understand the appeal of that, but personally prefer sounds to be able to easily image literally _anywhere_ on the ceiling and using 6 overheads achieves that goal here.


And that is why I told him that the way you're doing things fixes the angular gap issue that doesn't exist to that extent in a top front/rear setup. If he wants to do front/rear height, there is a tradeoff and it's one that your setup addresses. But you can't ignore that a strictly front/rear height layout leaves a 120 degree angular gap above the listener that prevents sounds from imaging well there.



MagnumX said:


> The Dolby Atmos demo "Nature's Fury" is a prime example of _proper_ placement for on-screen sounds. It even lights them up for you where they're going/moving relative to the sound placement and if you align your speakers for panned dialog, they ALL line up perfectly. The helicopter on that one leaves out of the top of the screen and heads to the back right of the ceiling between top middle and rear right here without stopping (nice smooth pan). The "circle" parts of the sounds moving around lines up precisely with the on-screen cues.


The Nature's Fury demo illustrates what I'm talking about, because it clearly isn't zone-constrained. So with a top front/rear setup, you do get steering between each zone that can place sounds toward the front of the room beyond the physical location of the height speakers. I get that nice smooth pan perfectly fine with my setup, without needing speakers at the front and back upper periphery. I've heard that clip many times in a full Atmos theater as well and it translates quite nicely to my home layout (albeit with some minor tonal shifts I'm addressing with room treatments as I slowly develop my room between other home projects). The ability to image between any set of adjacent speakers is kinda' the point.



MagnumX said:


> That's how I think Dolby wanted it to be, but as most of you have noticed, most/all films aren't anywhere _near_ as immersive as the Dolby Atmos demos. Can you imagine a movie that was? It'd be awesome! I have heard Dolby Atmos MUSIC that is that immersive (e.g. Yello's Point and Booka Shade's two Atmos albums come to mind).


It would be great to hear more mixers make interesting use of Atmos. But ultimately, Atmos is just part of their toolset and they use it as needed to tell the story. The demos show the potential for it, and we agree on that.



MagnumX said:


> I personally think at this point all movies should have panned dialog and on-screen accurate placement of sounds precisely because it's now possible to do that accurately with Atmos. If your room/system can't do it, it's on you to alter it or live with it. Surround mixes should be demanding and make you want to upgrade to hear it even better, not mix for the lowest common denominator sound bar or whatever.


Again, while I would like to hear more of that, I doubt they're going to prioritize that in their mix budget. It would pretty much require that every voice be ADR, with no production audio used for dialogue. Rydstrom did panned dialogue on Pixar movies because all of the dialogue is looped on those anyway... but on a live action shoot, if a performance was great on the set and they got clean audio of it on the day, they're not going to add unnecessary ADR time to the budget just so they can pan it based on screen location or POV.



MagnumX said:


> The days of having center dialog only and "suppressed surround" so that it's "not distracting" should be over now, IMO. They could do a separate "meek" soundtrack from the "immersive" one if that's what they want. The consumer should have some say in this because Atmos was advertised as an atmospheric immersive surround experience. There's nothing "immersive" about having 95% of the sounds come from the L/C/R speakers with only an occasional "action" sequence using the rest. Sadly, movies like "Knives Out" are front heavy with very few surround moments and offhand I can only think of one major "overhead" moment (the game table falling onto the floor in the attic overhead was great).


The flip side of that argument is that a whodunnit movie like Knives Out simply doesn't need to be surround-heavy. And in that case, only using the overhead speakers for an isolated moment can actually service the story by making that moment stand out in the mix. Similarly, consider something like 10 Cloverfield Lane. It opens with a pretty immersive car wreck, becomes more ambient for much of the story, then has standout moments where things are happening over the heads of the characters because they're in an underground bunker. By not having the mix be constantly immersive, they're able to call attention to the times when they want it to present itself to serve the story. There is room for many styles of mixing with these new tools... but I would agree that some mixers aren't playing with the tools as much as some others have. Still, one of my favorite Atmos mixes is The Age Of Adaline, which isn't bombastic at all outside of the two car wrecks in the story.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And as we've discussed previously, some of those demos are intentionally zone-constrained, not indicative of how most object-based content gets steered. If a bog-standard object is placed at the top of the screen in the front, it gets rendered between the adjacent speakers available in the levels needed. More so if it is set to be diffuse across zones.


What you are describing is rendering error at best and with sounds at ceiling, they will all be "zone constrained" as you put it. Here's an example of a movement starting at the top and going down:

A Helicopter starts above the screen on the ceiling and drops in height to ear level (like it's landing) straight down. In a heights speaker room, it will start above the screen and move straight down into the L/C/R mains. In a Tops room. It will start about 1/4 the way out into the room and move diagonally downward towards the front speakers (like it's moving backwards). In a large room, this movement backwards can be 6-10 feet or more. 

With 6 overhead speakers using heights and top middle, you can render precisely anywhere in the room. With Tops, there's going to be rendering errors no matter what you do, even if you have Top Middle. I'm saying that's an error in the rendering of the object placement. You seem to be arguing it doesn't matter when clearly to some of us it does, especially for those pesky "zone constrained" objects (which seems to be a nice way of saying the objects are at 100% height).



> The Helicopter demo is zone-constrained to the heights by design, hence why that particular demo is limited to whatever heights you have available. But again, most steered objects in content don't have that zone constraint in the metadata. Atmos objects can be limited to zones, diffused across zones, assigned paths with start/end times through the array, etc. Some of the other demos show off those very things in practice... which is the point of the demos.


I take issue with the words "most objects". How do you know how "most" are used? Anything placed far above would likely be at 100% ceiling. A mixed height doesn't sound very high at all when your ceiling is only 8-10' on average to begin and only 4-6' over the listener's head/ears. Once people place their speakers, they might have buyer's remorse. I think they should be aware of the differences rather than just trying to convince people they don't matter. Would people think you don't need L/R if you already have front wides or side surrounds? The fact most AVR/AVPs don't support heights AND tops together (like the Dolby 11.1.8 diagram) doesn't mean they shouldn't. Having Tops _with_ Heights is a lot like having front wides. Are they "needed" to hear the move? No. Can they make a difference? Yes.



> And that is why I told him that the way you're doing things fixes the angular gap issue that doesn't exist to that extent in a top front/rear setup. If he wants to do front/rear height, there is a


The problem is that it doesn't actually "fix" anything as "fix" implies no problem/error. It's still a rendering/placement *error* any way you slice it as the above example illustrates (object is at wrong relative height and/or distance into the room along a diagonal error line). 

I'm simply pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of both setups so people can gauge what's more important to them (more sounds directly overhead versus the accurate placement of the entire room) and it seems to me you're just trying to defend using Tops when you don't need a defense. If you like that position better, use it. You seem to be trying to convince me there's virtually no difference or drawbacks to using Tops. 

The bottom line is that the tradeoff with heights is that in all but the smallest rooms, you pretty much _need_ top middle to get direct overhead sounds (I think you already agreed with that). With Tops, you can get by with only 4 overheads at the cost of placement accuracy near the edges of the room (1/4 each direction). 

I can limit my room to have top middle be rear heights instead with a push of a speaker switch button and render either 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 instead. With most of those Atmos demos, there are significant sounds that render at the mid-point of the room overhead instead of the rear (those pesky "zone constrained" sounds). Now the average consumer won't "know" about where the actual placements of these sounds should be, so they probably won't care and they might notice more sounds overhead and they'll probably like that so I'm not arguing people don't "like" the Tops placement. In fact, I'm arguing most prefer it. However, I'm saying it cannot accurately render all the objects in the room and those pesky "zone constrained" sounds will only use 50% of the room depth instead of 100%. Frankly, I don't know why there's an argument about this. People should be simply aware of the differences that occur when using only one or the other.



> The flip side of that argument is that a whodunnit movie like Knives Out simply doesn't need to be surround-heavy.


That's a bit like arguing we didn't "need" stereo sound when mono would do just fine for certain types of music (and believe me, there were some mono-proponents in the day and still a few around even now). Like I said, a "meek" stereo or 5.1 mix for these people could easily be included on Blu-Rays (and even streaming as an alternate track) and Atmos that is actually really "immersive" could be included for those of us that paid a lot of money to have Atmos only to find that most movies don't use it very well at all.


----------



## X4100

I really enjoyed the post on this entire page  , because it dealt with the pros vs cons of my configuration of my overhead speakers! My room is 12x12x8, maybe that's what makes my setup sound ssssooo good to me. I started with 7.1.2, with a top setting. The overhead was superb, but the sound only went above me to the left, and right.  This clearly wasn't acceptable to me, because the action on screen had a helicopter not circling around, but it came onscreen from the rear, and continued offscreen to the front. There was even offscreen audio until it disappeared, but I was stuck with overhead audio effects that didn't connect with the action onscreen!! @MagnumX was of great assistance to me with his advice to do 5.1.4 with front and rear heights. And I'm loving it!!! I've been trying to get my honey do list completely out of the way. I'm going to LISTEN to King of the Monsters, and Godzilla vs KONG. I'll definitely be back to this thread. Magnumx please keep it up. And I thank everyone who responded to my question. I've learned so much from ALL OF YOU!!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> What you are describing is rendering error at best and with sounds at ceiling, they will all be "zone constrained" as you put it.


But in this case, what I was referring to was the Helicopter demo, which is zone constrained to the heights. Any heights. Whichever you have. That constraint in the metadata keeps it from being steered using other adjacent speakers not in that zone. Not all objects at 100% Z are flagged that way. Helicopter is because that's its purpose.


MagnumX said:


> Here's an example of a movement starting at the top and going down:


I know, I know... you're making the same argument you were long before this that I (and Dolby's patents) vehemently disagree with. And that's fine. I'm not criticizing your system, so you don't need to defend it.


MagnumX said:


> You seem to be arguing it doesn't matter when clearly to some of us it does, especially for those pesky "zone constrained" objects (which seems to be a nice way of saying the objects are at 100% height).


I'm arguing the same thing I was before - that we hear sound directionally and therefore sounds can be imaged between the front and top front, rear and top rear, side and height rows, etc. And no, zone constrained in Dolby's metadata is not the same as 100% height, because 100% height objects can be conveyed using other speakers in other zones if they aren't locked to the height zone the way the Helicopter demo is.


MagnumX said:


> I think they should be aware of the differences rather than just trying to convince people they don't matter.


Which is why I was not only giving my assessment of the differences but also trying to preempt what you're doing now by outlining your approach as well.


MagnumX said:


> Are they "needed" to hear the move? No. Can they make a difference? Yes.


Sure, ideally we would have an array from the front of the room to the back that would cover all the bases... but top front/rear doesn't lose anything in the size rooms we're dealing with. It just doesn't. Because imaging between speakers is a thing that exists and Dolby does all the gain calculations for each speaker in the array to place sounds between those channels as needed.


MagnumX said:


> I'm simply pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of both setups so people can gauge what's more important to them (more sounds directly overhead versus the accurate placement of the entire room) and it seems to me you're just trying to defend using Tops when you don't need a defense. If you like that position better, use it. You seem to be trying to convince me there's virtually no difference or drawbacks to using Tops.


Not everything is about you. I gave the OP the tradeoffs, and am not trying to convince you of anything. I've already heard ad nauseum how you feel about it.


MagnumX said:


> The bottom line is that the tradeoff with heights is that in all but the smallest rooms, you pretty much _need_ top middle to get direct overhead sounds (I think you already agreed with that).


I do agree with that... which is _why I said it_, and explained how you addressed it in your room.


MagnumX said:


> With Tops, you can get by with only 4 overheads at the cost of placement accuracy near the edges of the room (1/4 each direction).


This is the part we don't agree on, as Atmos' steering handles that cross-channel imaging between zones perfectly fine just as any pan between two speakers in calculable gain increments would.


MagnumX said:


> With most of those Atmos demos, there are significant sounds that render at the mid-point of the room overhead instead of the rear (those pesky "zone constrained" sounds).


Because those objects have the constrain to height zone flag on them, which turns off imaging to adjacent speakers in other zones, meaning a front/rear height system moves them there irrespective of their coordinates and your matrix decoding steers them to a top mid position based on the level difference between the speakers. Hence why I dared to invoke your name in the first place.


MagnumX said:


> Now the average consumer won't "know" about where the actual placements of these sounds should be, so they probably won't care and they might notice more sounds overhead and they'll probably like that so I'm not arguing people don't "like" the Tops placement. In fact, I'm arguing most prefer it. However, I'm saying it cannot accurately render all the objects in the room and those pesky "zone constrained" sounds will only use 50% of the room depth instead of 100%. Frankly, I don't know why there's an argument about this. People should be simply aware of the differences that occur when using only one or the other.


I'm not sure why you make an argument of it either. I'm not disputing what you do in your room and was pointing it out to the person who asked. But I'm also explaining that outside of those demos, the zone constraint flag isn't often used, with the exception of the cheat where heights are represented as static objects.


MagnumX said:


> That's a bit like arguing we didn't "need" stereo sound when mono would do just fine for certain types of music (and believe me, there were some mono-proponents in the day and still a few around even now). Like I said, a "meek" stereo or 5.1 mix for these people could easily be included on Blu-Rays (and even streaming as an alternate track) and Atmos that is actually really "immersive" could be included for those of us that paid a lot of money to have Atmos only to find that most movies don't use it very well at all.


It's nothing like arguing that. Dramas are mixed differently than action films, romances, etc., even in 5.1 and 7.1. Different artistic intent. Atmos gives the mixers a bigger toolkit, but there's absolutely no call for some movies to whip objects around the room the way a Transformers flick might. Most of what we're going to hear as great Atmos mixes will likely be the typical genre fare that has always used new formats best.


----------



## X4100

@sdurani also has contributed much advice to me about my configuration, as well as quite a bit of information about Dolby Atmos!!! I'm 68, and I have been chasing surround sound ever since I was 13. I wish the best to ALL OF YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS, PLEASE DON'T STOP


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> My room is 12x12x8, maybe that's what makes my setup sound ssssooo good to me. I started with 7.1.2, with a top setting. The overhead was superb, but the sound only went above me to the left, and right.


I could see how in a room that size, it would probably work better than in most rectangular-shaped rooms. Glad you're enjoying your system! My room is 23' x 12' x 8', so there is no way front/rear height would work out that way here. It's good that you were able to get the info to make it work ideally for you in your space.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But in this case, what I was referring to was the Helicopter demo, which is zone constrained to the heights. Any heights. Whichever you have. That constraint in the metadata keeps it from being steered using other adjacent speakers not in that zone. Not all objects at 100% Z are flagged that way. Helicopter is because that's its purpose.


As far as I can tell from your posts, you keep suggesting something impossible with physics. You CANNOT use two speakers at different heights and distances from each other in combination (array) to image at the _same_ height _and_ distance!

If I weren't on a phone, I'd make a drawing to illustrate. I'll attempt with ascii.

.FH.................TF.................TM..->
.x1...............x2
.x1...........x2
.x1.......x2
.x1...x2
.M................FW....................SS..->

In order to image in front of TF without FH, an array of M+TF can be used. However, by combining speakers at different heights, the possible combinations of loudness using correlated material are represented by a diagonal line between TF and M (represented by x2).

My previous example shows the helicopter object position with x1 and Front Heights + Mains has no trouble imaging in those locations, but Top Front + Mains can only image on that diagonal line. The difference between them is the ERROR I'm talking about as the trade off with Tops only.



> I know, I know... you're making the same argument you were long before this that I (and Dolby's patents) vehemently disagree with. And that's fine. I'm not criticizing your system, so you don't need to defend it.


I'm sorry, but this appears to be incorrect. No patent of Dolby's breaks the laws of physics. Using your logic, why would you need 4 overhead speakers to move objects forward and backward if you can just combine 2 overhead speakers with the lower speakers to get the same results using this "steering" you keep talking about? That is your argument, is it not?

It's because the error in positioning becomes so severe that overhead sounds aren't really overhead anymore except near the middle (even steeper line with larger angular distances to boot). Worse yet, the precedence effect means "steered" array sounds will "pull" towards the closer speaker of any given pair if you're not sitting directly in-between, which means in reality, the line is actually much steeper than I'm indicating (closer to straight up and down for top middle if you're sitting directly under it, buy also steeper for tops combined with mains as well, leading to even more "steered" error.

.FH.................TF.................TM..->
.x1................................x2
.x1.......................x2
.x1...............x2
.x1.......x2
.M................FW....................SS..->

Tops are only different in the steepness of the diagonal line and clearly not the same as having heights that can combine with the rears as well to create any possible vertical or horizontal line combination. Its weakness is in the middle are in larger rooms as the phantom image becomes weaker.

This can be solved by adding top middle, but it costs more (big issue for some). Adding top middle to Tops is not very helpful by comparison as there's already a strong middle image. It could help if there's multiple rows of seats to anchor fixed points in space for being off-axis and increase spatial resolution somewhat (more noticeable in larger rooms), but that's about it.

The above is true regardless of whether a soundtrack limits overhead travel or not. I've never heard of such a flag/setting before in Atmos and have assumed it a default rendering preference since nearly every Atmos demo uses it (Even Nature's Fury starts at the assigned speaker if I use top middle as either top rear or rear height instead of the rear heights speaker; it doesn't magically start in the back of the room!) but it has no effect on what you're talking about either way.

Everything else appears to be posturing and therefore irrelevant.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> What you are describing is rendering error at best and with sounds at ceiling, they will all be "zone constrained"


Zone masking is a specific mixing feature, but I think it's more like Atmos rendering biasing things up to the top. Try the 916 speaker test on a xx2 system, every height speaker will collapse to the top 2.




Jeremy Anderson said:


> One of my favorite Atmos mixes is The Age Of Adaline, which isn't bombastic at all outside of the two car wrecks in the story.


If you were mixing a drama movie, what would you do if there were hardly any action sequences, and any other good examples of Drama movies in Atmos?


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> Zone masking is a specific mixing feature, but I think it's more like Atmos rendering biasing things up to the top. Try the 916 speaker test on a xx2 system, every height speaker will collapse to the top 2.


Unfortunately, it's hard to know what features they have without having or being very familiar with the software used or what was used in a specific demo. I can only run playback tests here, but with my speaker switchbox connected, I can play back 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 and 7.1.4 quite easily to compare the results.



> If you were mixing a drama movie, what would you do if there were hardly any action sequences, and any other good examples of Drama movies in Atmos?


It's comedy, not drama, but if you haven't heard Groundhog Day in Atmos, I highly recommend it, especially to compare to the previous 5.1 and Pro Logic 2-channel mixes. While it's not heavy on discrete overhead use, it's utterly immersive compared to the previous mixes, IMO. 

It sure felt like the mixing engineer tried to make it as immersive as the scenes would allow, almost to the point where you could argue the sounds from the town around you were almost as distracting as in real life whereas the previous mixes were dialog heavy front orientated mixes. It was a true upgrade and much more "immersive" than before.

Was it necessary to enjoy the movie? No. I loved that movie already, but it sure sounded to me like it delivered on the Atmos promise of _immersion_ as I felt much more like I was actually there instead of just watching a movie (short of 3D video). My complements to the sound engineer on that retrofit.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> As far as I can tell from your posts, you keep suggesting something impossible with physics. You CANNOT use two speakers at different heights and distances from each other in combination (array) to image at the _same_ height _and_ distance!
> 
> If I weren't on a phone, I'd make a drawing to illustrate. I'll attempt with ascii.
> 
> .FH.................TF.................TM..->
> .x1...............x2
> .x1...........x2
> .x1.......x2
> .x1...x2
> .M................FW....................SS..->
> 
> In order to image in front of TF without FH, an array of M+TF can be used. However, by combining speakers at different heights, the possible combinations of loudness using correlated material are represented by a diagonal line between TF and M (represented by x2).
> 
> My previous example shows the helicopter object position with x1 and Front Heights + Mains has no trouble imaging in those locations, but Top Front + Mains can only image on that diagonal line. The difference between them is the ERROR I'm talking about as the trade off with Tops only.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this appears to be incorrect. No patent of Dolby's breaks the laws of physics. Using your logic, why would you need 4 overhead speakers to move objects forward and backward if you can just combine 2 overhead speakers with the lower speakers to get the same results using this "steering" you keep talking about? That is your argument, is it not?
> 
> It's because the error in positioning becomes so severe that overhead sounds aren't really overhead anymore except near the middle (even steeper line with larger angular distances to boot). Worse yet, the precedence effect means "steered" array sounds will "pull" towards the closer speaker of any given pair if you're not sitting directly in-between, which means in reality, the line is actually much steeper than I'm indicating (closer to straight up and down for top middle if you're sitting directly under it, buy also steeper for tops combined with mains as well, leading to even more "steered" error.
> 
> .FH.................TF.................TM..->
> .x1................................x2
> .x1.......................x2
> .x1...............x2
> .x1.......x2
> .M................FW....................SS..->
> 
> Tops are only different in the steepness of the diagonal line and clearly not the same as having heights that can combine with the rears as well to create any possible vertical or horizontal line combination. Its weakness is in the middle are in larger rooms as the phantom image becomes weaker.
> 
> This can be solved by adding top middle, but it costs more (big issue for some). Adding top middle to Tops is not very helpful by comparison as there's already a strong middle image. It could help if there's multiple rows of seats to anchor fixed points in space for being off-axis and increase spatial resolution somewhat (more noticeable in larger rooms), but that's about it.
> 
> The above is true regardless of whether a soundtrack limits overhead travel or not. I've never heard of such a flag/setting before in Atmos and have assumed it a default rendering preference since nearly every Atmos demo uses it (Even Nature's Fury starts at the assigned speaker if I use top middle as either top rear or rear height instead of the rear heights speaker; it doesn't magically start in the back of the room!) but it has no effect on what you're talking about either way.
> 
> Everything else appears to be posturing and therefore irrelevant.


I know you have done a great deal of testing in your room, and I am familiar with your system. What I’m curious about, is whether you’ve done any testing with any TOP positions VS height positions.


----------



## ppasteur

Polyrythm1k said:


> I know you have done a great deal of testing in your room, and I am familiar with your system. What I’m curious about, is whether you’ve done any testing with any TOP positions VS height positions.


I don't think that anything he does in his room with his setup translates to what anyone with a less esotric (and non-stndard manually adjusted) system can use in their setup.
I have no doubts that it sounds good to him, but it really does not translate to what most want to know. Which is setting up a x.x. 2 or x.x.4 with top speakers. Or the same with heights.
Dolby has no recommendations for scatmos nor magnumxmos systems.
Even though such a system may be able to be adjusted for personal taste to get "some kind" of nice sound field...Not trying to be derogatory, it just is what it is.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ppasteur said:


> I don't think that anything he does in his room with his setup translates to what anyone with a less esotric (and non-stndard manually adjusted) system can use in their setup.
> I have no doubts that it sounds good to him, but it really does not translate to what most want to know. Which is setting up a x.x. 2 or x.x.4 with top speakers. Or the same with heights.
> Dolby has no recommendations for scatmos nor magnumxmos systems.
> Even though such a system may be able to be adjusted for personal taste to get "some kind" of nice sound field...Not trying to be derogatory, it just is what it is.


And that’s exactly why I asked. I know he’s done a LOT of testing and listening. In his very specific use case room. Since the final installation of his speakers places the heights at what looks like just a few inches above the “ear level” speakers, I wanted to know if he tried any actual TOP positions to verify the claims that seem like he’s sayin tops are inferior to heights. Simply for a point of direct comparison. 
I’m sure I’m poking a bear…


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> I know you have done a great deal of testing in your room, and I am familiar with your system. What I’m curious about, is whether you’ve done any testing with any TOP positions VS height positions.


Believe it or not, I can do straight 5.1.2 (using the first half of the room with my switchbox), 7.1.2, 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 as I've previously indicated ("top middle" gets switched to "rear height" or "Tops Rear" in the AVR (with top middle as the "4" or with front/rear height over a long distance). I made the system flexible. The "extra" channels can easily be removed with a few button pushes. My top middle speakers are really about 110 degrees (-70) behind the MLP, but I can pull the recliner forward for testing, which then puts the front heights at closer to 45 degrees and the "top middle" speaker closer to -45 degrees. I can then pick either "height" or "tops" for the speakers to test them out. 

So yes, I can test "tops" behavior here in terms of the angles and decoding for 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 (although the rears are then pretty far back), but it would be similar to X4100's room at that point (other than rear surrounds, which I can also switch to the SS#2 speakers with a bit of adjustment to place them more or less where they'd be if the room were only about 16 feet long instead of 24 feet (12x16). Otherwise, 5.1.4 would be 12'x12' and very much like his room setup in that mode of operation except my "top middles" are mounted outward on the side walls (all of two feet off from the ceiling location Atmos would ideally have them) due to the ceiling beam box so that probably widens the overhead placement a slightly in 5.1.4 (it's not even noticeable when combined with the rear heights if I add a little bit more leakage, which Audyssey wants to do anyway when engaged and then sounds very smooth for panning). 

But that same location allows me to switch to "true" Auro-3D 10.1 using the preferred "surround height" position if desired or I can use a cinema style 10.1 where surround height and rear heights are BOTH used at the same time (Monoprice switchbox drives them in parallel) OR I can use the "Scatmos" setup with Auro-3D (It then sounds very similar to Atmos for Auro-3D movies where I have both to compare as I've long said the biggest difference between Auro-3D and Atmos within similar speaker count setups is the speaker placement, not the end result if the other's placement is used, at least in a home environment).

Contrary to what ppasteur keeps inferring (and I think I corrected him or someone that implied it was somehow "different" once before), there's nothing "irregular" about the setup in terms of performance. It simply provides more physical sources for the sound using a +3dB mix just like the Lyngdorf (MP-50?) did for extra "FW" channels and the like beyond 7.1.4. The sounds appear in the same place they do with phantom sounds except they're "locked" in place for off-axis listeners. There's not a lot of difference with them for the MLP (save stereo mode where it widens the soundstage a bit as a 4-channel stereo array; 6-channel with dialog lift engaged). 

Arrays are not some alien thing that's anti-Dolby, Atmos or otherwise. The cinema version have all kinds of array options and I _think_ Trinnov can be set up with some arrayed channels as well with a bit of tinkering. It was originally rumored the home processors were going to support arrayed setups for the main channels (i.e. "right surround" could include Front Wide Right and even Rear Surround Right if needed, but also use them separately for discrete sounds, but it didn't really happen.

The "Scatmos" channels (here only Top Middle is "Scatmos" the others are active mixers for a mixed channels are that are only +3dB separation for FW, but otherwise act as mixed arrays as above describes) function almost identically to how DTS:X uses Neural X in >11-channel setups and other than special Atmos modes (e.g. "snap to" or putting 0.2 overheads only into top middle), it doesn't work any different there either, really. Direct overhead sounds are directly overhead as they would be with a real rendered top middle with panning smoothly in-between, but the big _positive_ difference is that "Disney locked" soundtracks still use all 6 overheads as if they weren't locked. Most DTS:X soundtracks are 11.1 channel based and Neural X in DTS:X Pro can split them into "mostly" discrete in-between channels, which is functionally similar to Pro Logic's own center channel steering logic, which is what I'm using (via two decoders) to get "mostly" discrete top middle that for all intensive purposes sounds fully discrete unless I want to walk around the room with pink noise playing to hear a little bit of leakage.



ppasteur said:


> I don't think that anything he does in his room with his setup translates to what anyone with a less esotric (and non-stndard manually adjusted) system can use in their setup.
> I have no doubts that it sounds good to him, *but it really does not translate to what most want to know*. Which is setting up a x.x. 2 or x.x.4 with top speakers. Or the same with heights.
> Dolby has no recommendations for scatmos nor magnumxmos systems.
> Even though such a system may be able to be adjusted for personal taste to get "some kind" of nice sound field...Not trying to be derogatory, it just is what it is.


Actually, I believe it really _does_ translate to that seeing I can do several different setups (including True Auro-3D 10.1) here as described above. That's why I concluded long ago that a smaller room with 7.1.4 sounds extremely similar (nearly identical in terms of _relative_ image placement; obviously a larger room will sound "bigger" in scope) to a larger room using 9.1.6 from the MLP (obviously off-axis seats get real benefits from having more speakers). But where you sit also matters because of the precedence effect (if you are not centered in any system in the middle, it can affect the panning "evenness" around the room between pairs, but the more extra speakers you add, the less that becomes an issue as there are more hard (physical) speaker locations to lock the various points in place for everyone.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

junh1024 said:


> If you were mixing a drama movie, what would you do if there were hardly any action sequences, and any other good examples of Drama movies in Atmos?


Most drama/romance flicks tend to be pretty front-centric with the mix. That's not to say that a good sound designer couldn't find places to work some immersive sound in, but why would that be a priority? Age Of Adaline kinda' skirts the genre because there is a slight fantasy/sci-fi aspect to it that lets them fold a little of that in, and those scenes are pretty solid in Atmos. Some of the ambience when they're in the city works well too.

A similar title, though it's a remix and not a ground-up Atmos mix, is the recent UHD release of Big Fish. They play with Atmos use a little where appropriate, but don't go crazy. They were able to add to the soundstage without going so crazy that they affected the choices made in the original mix. But it isn't one of the better titles for Atmos use.

The only other ground-up Atmos mix I can think of that could fall into the genre is Bad Times At The El Royale, which mostly does some interesting things with the music (which is prevalent in the movie). There's some interesting placement of sounds in that mix, and some nice dynamics during some of the violent scenes.

I imagine they haven't done many Atmos mixes for these genres because they don't tend to be genres that even use the existing surrounds, much less that would benefit from a storytelling standpoint from those extra tools.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> As far as I can tell from your posts, you keep suggesting something impossible with physics. You CANNOT use two speakers at different heights and distances from each other in combination (array) to image at the _same_ height _and_ distance!


Your diagrams seem to imply that somehow we don't hear sounds THROUGH that plane. We primarily hear the direction of sound. The distances are irrelevant for our purposes here because we implement delays to ensure similar arrival times to the MLP (essentially making them de facto equidistant for steering purposes). When you hear a phantom image between your L/R speakers, it doesn't just magically stop at the plane between them. It images beyond them _in that direction,_ which we perceive primarily from interaural time delay and variations in level. The latter is why you can pan a phantom image to emanate between the directions of two speakers through variances in level (which is what Dolby's panner for Atmos does, though it can calculate the needed gains to image a sound between more than just two speakers). The perceived distance from you is determined largely by reverb, level fluctuation and frequency, which is how sound designers have long been able to make sounds appear more distant from the listener, even before immersive audio existed. There's no breach of acoustic science here... You can image between speakers 45 degrees apart vertically the same way you do between any other two speakers with adequate angular separation. In your makeshift diagram, you could basically image a sound in the direction of the front height position by putting about 2/3rds of the sound in the top front and 1/3rd in the front... the same way you could shift a stereo image between your mains using level variances. 


MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but this appears to be incorrect. No patent of Dolby's breaks the laws of physics.


And yet, there's an entire patent just for this object panning behavior that outlines the very thing I've tried to explain to you all along. Nothing about it "breaks the laws of physics". It is all based on basic acoustics of imaging between multiple point sources. And it's how Atmos images sounds laterally in the left/right sides of the theatrical space where there are no speakers for roughly a third of the room's width.


MagnumX said:


> Using your logic, why would you need 4 overhead speakers to move objects forward and backward if you can just combine 2 overhead speakers with the lower speakers to get the same results using this "steering" you keep talking about? That is your argument, is it not?


No, that isn't my argument. 4 overhead speakers is preferable to 2 for the obvious reason that Sanjay stated earlier:


sdurani said:


> The wider apart you spread your speakers, the more difficult it is typically to get stable phantom imaging between them. Otherwise, stereo set-ups would have the 2 speakers spread to the side walls in order to take advantage of the entire width of the room when creating a soundstage. Bringing the 2 speakers closer together might shrink the soundstage (depending on side wall treatments) but in return will stabilize and tighten up the imaging. Same for height speakers.


4 overhead speakers gives you a more consistent angular separation between each speaker in the array such that imaging between adjacent speakers is easier to perceive. Nothing particularly novel about it. Similarly, more speakers in those arrays further improve the spatial resolution (which you seem to be agreeing with me on... but you've made it hard to tell since you tell people they're wrong and then restate exactly what they said).


MagnumX said:


> This can be solved by adding top middle, but it costs more (big issue for some). Adding top middle to Tops is not very helpful by comparison as there's already a strong middle image. It could help if there's multiple rows of seats to anchor fixed points in space for being off-axis and increase spatial resolution somewhat (more noticeable in larger rooms), but that's about it.


The irony here is that you're simultaneously arguing with me that you can't image a sound between two speakers in a prescribed direction... while also arguing that adding top middle can help image a sound between two speakers in a prescribed direction. The problem, as I've said all along, is one of angular separation. For imaging between two point sources to occur, you can't have them too wide apart for there to be stable imaging between them. THAT is the problem you're solving by adding top middle... because front/rear height placement at the prescribed angles leaves 120 degrees between them. Space your mains out 120 degrees and see how coherent a phantom image is between them.


MagnumX said:


> Everything else appears to be posturing and therefore irrelevant.


See, this is what many here have tried to politely communicate to you. While most of us have constructive discussions about home theater, you unerringly make pretentious statements like this as if someone here named you our resident authority. You get defensive and rude with people for no reason. You also weirdly start arguments with people even when they're largely agreeing with you. I've been here for a long time and I've never seen repeated behavior like it go unchecked by the moderators. And while I had taken you off of ignore in hopes of having a constructive conversation, I don't know that it's possible. If people don't agree with the cobbled together arrangement you've devised, they (and Dolby themselves, apparently) are wrong and you're right. So... enjoy doing that. I'm going to put you back on ignore so I can have polite discussions I can actually learn from. Enjoy your system.


----------



## Technology3456

Edit: Something got messed up with the quote and Im having trouble figuring out which post it was that I was quoting, because multiple are discussing the same topics. But it was the discussion with @Jeremy Anderson and @MagnumX so I will just @ you guys and respond.

How big of a difference would you say there is between 9.x.4 and 7.x.4, and same question for 7.x.6 vs 7.x.4? You are not the only ones who have heard of some preferring .2 on the ceiling to .4, because at least the .2 is lined up right over you, however with .2 you dont get the 360 degree soundstage on the ceiling, while with .4, you get the 360 degree soundstage, but not the direct line of speakers right above you, so it's a tradeoff either way.

Based on this, I concluded, in theory, that to have the best of both worlds, you need .6 on the ceiling. In my case, 2 would be 2.75 feet in front of seating, 2 would be right over the seating, and two would be 2.75 feet behind. So three rows of 2 covering a little under 7 feet front to back. But, then I saw comments saying a lot of atmos mixes will turn .6 into .2, only using the middle 2 speakers on the ceiling. Whereas with .4, it would use all 4, so you are better off (unless you prefer .2 to .4, anyway).

But are mixes like that a very rare situation? Or Jeremy how have you gotten around that issue with your .6 setup short of upgrading to .8? I know MagnumX is using scatmos but that would be more complicated for me. How do you get around the issue using regular atmos like you use?

Then for the bedlayer, I have 12-14 feet between front towers and side surrounds, making me wonder if adding front wides would make a huge difference. One person left a comment that front wides are used more in the average atmos mix than all the height speakers combined.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Your diagrams seem to imply that somehow we don't hear sounds THROUGH that plane.


There are _three_ cues that determine where we think a sound is coming from. Interaural time delay (delay between arrival at one ear versus the other), interaural intensity differences (how loud one arrival is versus the other) and monoaural spectral (head related transfer function or HRTF). 

You _cannot_ hear sounds "through" a single point source (i.e. When one speaker only is playing or for z-axis purposes, one ceiling pair alone). When a sound is solely on the ceiling, there is no way to move it towards the front wall as both "Tops" speakers are in the same plane and angular direction (~45 degrees). 

While I agree that a rendered delay could potentially move the apparent sound location when two or more speakers are active with a correlated signal (and thus potentially reduce the overall placement error to some degree at _some_ points along the line), it's also going to be dependent on not only the interaural time delay, but the output level of the other speaker, which according to _Langmuir et al_, the so-called Precedence Effect of interaural time delay dominance completely breaks down at about 15dB in level difference between two sources. 

In other words, as something pans between two or more pairs, as one speaker becomes 15dB louder, it will pull towards that speaker regardless of the interaural time delay. You can hear this if you sit off-axis relative to L/R pairs. The precedence effect will mostly hold a sound towards the speaker you're sitting closer to until the other speaker becomes considerably louder (~15dB) than the one you're sitting closer to at which point it starts pulling very quickly towards the other speaker rather than moving in a nice even pan that you get sitting equidistant between the pairs.

An arrayed/panned sound will have output from the lower (Mains) speakers at much lower volumes as the object pans upward. One it passes 15dB louder, it's going to ignore the interaural time delays (set in the system distances and/or created by the Atmos renderer if it in fact actually does that as I have only your claim as proof) and pull towards the louder source (Top Front speakers). Thus, as the image of a helicopter moves upward from the main speakers, even with a delayed signal, it will eventually start to move outward into the room towards the Top Front speakers and at 100% ceiling, it will _only_ be coming out of the Top Front speakers (which of course are not on the front wall so it cannot be at the "x1" points at those levels. Thus, it still appears to be inevitable there will be _some_ errors in placement. 



> The irony here is that you're simultaneously arguing with me that you can't image a sound between two speakers in a prescribed direction... while also arguing that adding top middle can help image a sound between two speakers in a prescribed direction.


Top middle is in the same plane as the Height speakers and at a point between them. All interaural intensity differences are purely panning changes in that plane starting from the front height to top middle to rear height. It's never asked to move outside the boundaries of the heights location and all panning combinations are between speakers on the same plane. In other words, you're not asking it to render sounds at ear level or beyond the y-axis bounds of any speaker pair combination. 

Top Fronts and the Mains are in two different planes (y & z) from each other. Interaural intensity differences above the 15db threshold will move towards the louder source in a straight line (diagonal line due to two axis instead of just one). You are counting on the Interaural delays to move the image outward, but they no longer are the dominant effect above the ~15dB threshold and thus are no longer able to push the sound outward. It will move towards the louder source in a pure straight line (diagonal direction).



> See, this is what many here have tried to politely communicate to you. While most of us have constructive discussions about home theater, you unerringly make pretentious statements like this as if someone here named you our resident authority.


Trying to be polite? Getting angry are we? Aren't I supposed to be the rude one according to the usual suspects on here? 

What you _actually_ seem to be saying is that you're tired of me not admitting you're right and I'm wrong, but fail to see you appear exactly the same to me from my perspective. You make some good points about delay possibly improving placement error across the part of the vertical area and we agree on heights needing another pair in larger rooms to image well overhead, but I fail to see how using delays alone in arrayed pairs overcomes either interaural level intensity dominance (15dB) or when only the Tops are used (object is fully on ceiling) and their location is then absolute as no lower pair output is even present to move the signal, let alone when your so-called "zone restrictions" limit the sounds. 

You seem to believe there are no down sides _whatsoever_ to using Tops only and I can't agree on that assessment based on what I've heard in my own modified setup (there are still some tradeoffs to be had). A tops only system is also not Auro-3D compatible, at least from a settings standpoint. Even without Auro recorded material, many people find their upmixer superior for music playback. These are all things to consider when deciding on which overhead setup to install.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> How big of a difference would you say there is between 9.x.4 and 7.x.4, and same question for 7.x.6 vs 7.x.4?


The difference again is angular separation. Doing wides with 9.x.4 fills in that wider gap between the mains and side surrounds. In my room, I don't feel like it would benefit me because I actually get fair imaging across that space. It would also be nigh impossible to place wides _well_ in my room because of where a window is, and I think it would sound worse to try to force it. We all have to work with the space we have. But for a larger dedicated home theater, I could see wides making a big difference for sidewall pans and I've seen a lot of installers say that they would go with wides before going with additional heights.

Same deal for x.x.6 vs x.x.4. It depends on your particular room whether you _need_ the additional speakers to get the intended effect. If you have more than one row of seating, it would certainly be of benefit if you can swing it. If you're optimizing for a single row, I don't think it's as crucial. I think most here would agree that the more speakers you can have up there, the better the placement of sounds in the room will be. But ultimately, it comes down to your budget and your room whether you can go that crazy. For my money, if it's well placed, aimed and calibrated, 7.1.4 doesn't make me feel like I'm missing any of the intended effect.



Technology3456 said:


> You are not the only ones who have heard of some preferring .2 on the ceiling to .4, because at least the .2 is lined up right over you, however with .2 you dont get the 360 degree soundstage on the ceiling, while with .4, you get the 360 degree soundstage, but not the direct line of speakers right above you, so it's a tradeoff either way.


This goes back to the crux of the previous discussion (or argument or whatever that was). You don't _need_ that direct line of speakers right above you to image sounds directly above you, so long as your top front/rear have good angular separation to image between them in that location. I get solid cross-channel imaging in that spot where top mids would be because I don't have an overly wide angular gap between the top front and top rear locations.



Technology3456 said:


> Based on this, I concluded, in theory, that to have the best of both worlds, you need .6 on the ceiling. In my case, 2 would be 2.75 feet in front of seating, 2 would be right over the seating, and two would be 2.75 feet behind. So three rows of 2 covering a little under 7 feet front to back. But, then I saw comments saying a lot of atmos mixes will turn .6 into .2, only using the middle 2 speakers on the ceiling. Whereas with .4, it would use all 4, so you are better off (unless you prefer .2 to .4, anyway).
> 
> But are mixes like that a very rare situation?


There seem to be a fair number of mixes that use the 2 static objects for height without any dynamic objects (or with minimal, as we just saw with Black Widow). So yes, that can be an issue if you're running a straight non-scatmos x.x.6 because it may collapse to top mid. But when I say it's an issue, that just means that those mixes won't sound quite as good as a truly dynamic mix. It doesn't mean they won't sound pretty good (and definitely better than non-Atmos). Even with x.x.4, those mixes tend to image those two static height objects between the top front and top rear, giving you a similar effect to top mid. It just sounds a bit more sparse.

As for your particular room... your top rears may be closer than your top fronts if your rear surrounds are elevated (as they should be to clear the seatbacks in most rooms or the second row if you have one), which would close up the angular gap between top front and top rear a bit. Optimally, I would think that you would find the best positions for top front/rear and then put the top mids mid-way between them, which would put them slightly forward of 90 degrees but give you more evenly distributed angular coverage. But the question remains - do you _need_ top mids in that small a space to give you overhead coverage? Eh... not really.



Technology3456 said:


> Or Jeremy how have you gotten around that issue with your .6 setup short of upgrading to .8? I know MagnumX is using scatmos but that would be more complicated for me. How do you get around the issue using regular atmos like you use?


I don't have x.x.6. I don't feel that I need it in my room as much since I used the mix room math to close up the angle between the top front and top rear, and I'm not finding overhead imaging lacking after doing that. Would I go whole ham if I had Trinnov money and could put more speakers up there? You bet I would.  



Technology3456 said:


> Then for the bedlayer, I have 12-14 feet between front towers and side surrounds, making me wonder if adding front wides would make a huge difference. One person left a comment that front wides are used more in the average atmos mix than all the height speakers combined.


Again, it isn't necessarily about the distance between those speakers as it is the angle. With a strict "ideal" placement, there is 70 degrees of separation between those speakers. Wides would fill that gap. I have about that distance between my mains and side surrounds... but at the money seat, I still get good enough imaging between those speakers when the mix calls for it (though I have carefully tweaked my delays to achieve that using the cross-channel phase tests on the AIX disc). The seats to my sides don't get that coherent image between mains and sides as much... but I have a relatively narrow room so I don't prioritize the other seats. Having wides would definitely help fill in that area for people outside the money seat.

And yeah, the way Atmos places the objects for the front soundstage can tend to put more constant content in the wides, plus having them in the array generally improves the accuracy of cross-channel pans, even above ear level. But it all comes down to your budget and your room, right? If we could all afford to do 9.1.6, we probably all would. Or more. It's a question of how much can you do in your room with your budget. In my opinion, I would opt for 7.1.4 over 9.1.2 if I only had 11 channels to work with (which will be the case for most people using an AVR short of the upper tier ones that can do more). I think the benefit you get from covering the angles above the listener outweighs the benefit you get from covering the angles between L/R and side surrounds. But that's just my opinion based on my experience. I'm sure others have different experience that gives them a different opinion.


----------



## howard68

In true Atmos, I find the FW is not used much 
It is very annoying
Can anyone have any recommendations for testing TM


----------



## bluesky636

howard68 said:


> In true Atmos, I find the FW is not used much
> It is very annoying
> Can anyone have any recommendations for testing TM


FW? TM?


----------



## eaayoung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This goes back to the crux of the previous discussion (or argument or whatever that was). You don't _need_ that direct line of speakers right above you to image sounds directly above you, so long as your top front/rear have good angular separation to image between them in that location. I get solid cross-channel imaging in that spot where top mids would be because I don't have an overly wide angular gap between the top front and top rear locations.
> 
> As for your particular room... your top rears may be closer than your top fronts if your rear surrounds are elevated (as they should be to clear the seatbacks in most rooms or the second row if you have one), which would close up the angular gap between top front and top rear a bit. Optimally, I would think that you would find the best positions for top front/rear and then put the top mids mid-way between them, which would put them slightly forward of 90 degrees but give you more evenly distributed angular coverage. But the question remains - do you _need_ top mids in that small a space to give you overhead coverage? Eh... not really.


Exactly why I went 5.x.4. I could stretch it out to 7.x.4 but not sure I’d get much in return for the extra money I’d need to spend. I already like the sound from my HT system better compared to many Atmos systems I’ve heard in public theaters.


----------



## Jerod Keller

bluesky636 said:


> FW? TM?


Just a guess but I think he means FW = Front Wide and TM = Top Middle


----------



## bluesky636

Jerod Keller said:


> Just a guess but I think he means FW = Front Wide and TM = Top Middle


What I thought too but using abbreviations is not always helpful.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The difference again is angular separation. Doing wides with 9.x.4 fills in that wider gap between the mains and side surrounds. In my room, I don't feel like it would benefit me because I actually get fair imaging across that space. It would also be nigh impossible to place wides _well_ in my room because of where a window is, and I think it would sound worse to try to force it. We all have to work with the space we have. But for a larger dedicated home theater, I could see wides making a big difference for sidewall pans and I've seen a lot of installers say that they would go with wides before going with additional heights.
> 
> Same deal for x.x.6 vs x.x.4. It depends on your particular room whether you _need_ the additional speakers to get the intended effect. If you have more than one row of seating, it would certainly be of benefit if you can swing it. If you're optimizing for a single row, I don't think it's as crucial. I think most here would agree that the more speakers you can have up there, the better the placement of sounds in the room will be. But ultimately, it comes down to your budget and your room whether you can go that crazy. For my money, if it's well placed, aimed and calibrated, 7.1.4 doesn't make me feel like I'm missing any of the intended effect.
> 
> 
> This goes back to the crux of the previous discussion (or argument or whatever that was). You don't _need_ that direct line of speakers right above you to image sounds directly above you, so long as your top front/rear have good angular separation to image between them in that location. I get solid cross-channel imaging in that spot where top mids would be because I don't have an overly wide angular gap between the top front and top rear locations.
> 
> 
> There seem to be a fair number of mixes that use the 2 static objects for height without any dynamic objects (or with minimal, as we just saw with Black Widow). So yes, that can be an issue if you're running a straight non-scatmos x.x.6 because it may collapse to top mid. But when I say it's an issue, that just means that those mixes won't sound quite as good as a truly dynamic mix. It doesn't mean they won't sound pretty good (and definitely better than non-Atmos). Even with x.x.4, those mixes tend to image those two static height objects between the top front and top rear, giving you a similar effect to top mid. It just sounds a bit more sparse.
> 
> As for your particular room... your top rears may be closer than your top fronts if your rear surrounds are elevated (as they should be to clear the seatbacks in most rooms or the second row if you have one), which would close up the angular gap between top front and top rear a bit. Optimally, I would think that you would find the best positions for top front/rear and then put the top mids mid-way between them, which would put them slightly forward of 90 degrees but give you more evenly distributed angular coverage. But the question remains - do you _need_ top mids in that small a space to give you overhead coverage? Eh... not really.
> 
> 
> I don't have x.x.6. I don't feel that I need it in my room as much since I used the mix room math to close up the angle between the top front and top rear, and I'm not finding overhead imaging lacking after doing that. Would I go whole ham if I had Trinnov money and could put more speakers up there? You bet I would.
> 
> 
> Again, it isn't necessarily about the distance between those speakers as it is the angle. With a strict "ideal" placement, there is 70 degrees of separation between those speakers. Wides would fill that gap. I have about that distance between my mains and side surrounds... but at the money seat, I still get good enough imaging between those speakers when the mix calls for it (though I have carefully tweaked my delays to achieve that using the cross-channel phase tests on the AIX disc). The seats to my sides don't get that coherent image between mains and sides as much... but I have a relatively narrow room so I don't prioritize the other seats. Having wides would definitely help fill in that area for people outside the money seat.
> 
> And yeah, the way Atmos places the objects for the front soundstage can tend to put more constant content in the wides, plus having them in the array generally improves the accuracy of cross-channel pans, even above ear level. But it all comes down to your budget and your room, right? If we could all afford to do 9.1.6, we probably all would. Or more. It's a question of how much can you do in your room with your budget. In my opinion, I would opt for 7.1.4 over 9.1.2 if I only had 11 channels to work with (which will be the case for most people using an AVR short of the upper tier ones that can do more). I think the benefit you get from covering the angles above the listener outweighs the benefit you get from covering the angles between L/R and side surrounds. But that's just my opinion based on my experience. I'm sure others have different experience that gives them a different opinion.


I think I would like to go .6, budget permitting, except for the simple question of, are most atmos mixes going to turn .6 into .2? Maybe I misunderstood but I thought these atmos mixes were turning off your heights right in front of you, and your heights right behind you, and only using the top middles in between. Whereas with .4, they use all 4 on the ceiling for every mix.

So if .6 becomes .2 half the time, I would rather just have .4 than .2. But if .6 remains .6 for most of the atmos mixes, then I would rather have .6 than .4. It doesnt mean I can swing it right now but it would become a bigger consideration if I knew most atmos mixes, as well as 7.1 and 5.1 mixes upmixed with neural X (or auro 3D), would use all 6 speakers on the ceiling, not just 2 of them.

Edit: advice on this from anyone would be much appreciated. Best two channel amp for Dolby Atmos? Budget $150 - $300. For a used 2 or 3 channel amp to power the final 2 dolby atmos channels, Im looking for the best option used or new for around $200, and wondering if I should look for either of those models or if there is something better to look for. 

My x4500H powers processes 11 channels, but only amps 9. And even if I went to a 13 channel AVR, it would be the same situation. So the amp needs to power, Im guessing, the rear or side surrounds, or 2 of the 4-6 atmos speakers. The AVR should be powerful enough to power the Infinity front stage, far as I know.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The difference again is angular separation. Doing wides with 9.x.4 fills in that wider gap between the mains and side surrounds. In my room, I don't feel like it would benefit me because I actually get fair imaging across that space. It would also be nigh impossible to place wides _well_ in my room because of where a window is, and I think it would sound worse to try to force it. We all have to work with the space we have. But for a larger dedicated home theater, I could see wides making a big difference for sidewall pans and I've seen a lot of installers say that they would go with wides before going with additional heights.
> 
> Same deal for x.x.6 vs x.x.4. It depends on your particular room whether you _need_ the additional speakers to get the intended effect. If you have more than one row of seating, it would certainly be of benefit if you can swing it. If you're optimizing for a single row, I don't think it's as crucial. I think most here would agree that the more speakers you can have up there, the better the placement of sounds in the room will be. But ultimately, it comes down to your budget and your room whether you can go that crazy. For my money, if it's well placed, aimed and calibrated, 7.1.4 doesn't make me feel like I'm missing any of the intended effect.
> 
> 
> This goes back to the crux of the previous discussion (or argument or whatever that was). You don't _need_ that direct line of speakers right above you to image sounds directly above you, so long as your top front/rear have good angular separation to image between them in that location. I get solid cross-channel imaging in that spot where top mids would be because I don't have an overly wide angular gap between the top front and top rear locations.
> 
> 
> There seem to be a fair number of mixes that use the 2 static objects for height without any dynamic objects (or with minimal, as we just saw with Black Widow). So yes, that can be an issue if you're running a straight non-scatmos x.x.6 because it may collapse to top mid. But when I say it's an issue, that just means that those mixes won't sound quite as good as a truly dynamic mix. It doesn't mean they won't sound pretty good (and definitely better than non-Atmos). Even with x.x.4, those mixes tend to image those two static height objects between the top front and top rear, giving you a similar effect to top mid. It just sounds a bit more sparse.
> 
> As for your particular room... your top rears may be closer than your top fronts if your rear surrounds are elevated (as they should be to clear the seatbacks in most rooms or the second row if you have one), which would close up the angular gap between top front and top rear a bit. Optimally, I would think that you would find the best positions for top front/rear and then put the top mids mid-way between them, which would put them slightly forward of 90 degrees but give you more evenly distributed angular coverage. But the question remains - do you _need_ top mids in that small a space to give you overhead coverage? Eh... not really.
> 
> 
> I don't have x.x.6. I don't feel that I need it in my room as much since I used the mix room math to close up the angle between the top front and top rear, and I'm not finding overhead imaging lacking after doing that. Would I go whole ham if I had Trinnov money and could put more speakers up there? You bet I would.
> 
> 
> Again, it isn't necessarily about the distance between those speakers as it is the angle. With a strict "ideal" placement, there is 70 degrees of separation between those speakers. Wides would fill that gap. I have about that distance between my mains and side surrounds... but at the money seat, I still get good enough imaging between those speakers when the mix calls for it (though I have carefully tweaked my delays to achieve that using the cross-channel phase tests on the AIX disc). The seats to my sides don't get that coherent image between mains and sides as much... but I have a relatively narrow room so I don't prioritize the other seats. Having wides would definitely help fill in that area for people outside the money seat.
> 
> And yeah, the way Atmos places the objects for the front soundstage can tend to put more constant content in the wides, plus having them in the array generally improves the accuracy of cross-channel pans, even above ear level. But it all comes down to your budget and your room, right? If we could all afford to do 9.1.6, we probably all would. Or more. It's a question of how much can you do in your room with your budget. In my opinion, I would opt for 7.1.4 over 9.1.2 if I only had 11 channels to work with (which will be the case for most people using an AVR short of the upper tier ones that can do more). I think the benefit you get from covering the angles above the listener outweighs the benefit you get from covering the angles between L/R and side surrounds. But that's just my opinion based on my experience. I'm sure others have different experience that gives them a different opinion.


Seems to me that bipolar speakers would be ideal for Atmos/DTS-X/etc.

Due to room constraints I am limited to a traditional 7.1 channel system. I use four Polk FXi-A4s as side and rear surrounds mounted near the ceiling (again due to room constraints). With a well recorded soundtrack they provide images above, behind, and to the side of the MLP from about shoulder level to the ceiling as well as outside of the room boundaries. Good examples are the airplane flyover by Carrol Shelby in Ford v Ferrari ( my dog looks up at the ceiling each time I watch it) and a slamming door off to the right of the mortuary in Netflix's Haunting of Hill House. I can also hear dogs barking that sounds like it is coming from the lower built in cabinets at my left shoulder.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> I think I would like to go .6, budget permitting, except for the simple question of, are most atmos mixes going to turn .6 into .2? Maybe I misunderstood but I thought these atmos mixes were turning off your heights right in front of you, and your heights right behind you, and only using the top middles in between. Whereas with .4, they use all 4 on the ceiling for every mix.
> 
> So if .6 becomes .2 half the time, I would rather just have .4 than .2. But if .6 remains .6 for most of the atmos mixes, then I would rather have .6 than .4. It doesnt mean I can swing it right now but it would become a bigger consideration if I knew most atmos mixes, as well as 7.1 and 5.1 mixes upmixed with neural X (or auro 3D), would use all 6 speakers on the ceiling, not just 2 of them.


I couldn't tell ya' what percentage of them use the static objects. People haven't been able to visualize the objects themselves until the Trinnov object viewer, and there haven't been a large number of them analyzed thus far. I really wouldn't stress over it. Start with 7.1.4 and upgrade later if you feel there's a need for it.



Technology3456 said:


> Edit: advice on this from anyone would be much appreciated. Best two channel amp for Dolby Atmos? Budget $150 - $300. For a used 2 or 3 channel amp to power the final 2 dolby atmos channels, Im looking for the best option used or new for around $200, and wondering if I should look for either of those models or if there is something better to look for.
> 
> My x4500H powers processes 11 channels, but only amps 9. And even if I went to a 13 channel AVR, it would be the same situation. So the amp needs to power, Im guessing, the rear or side surrounds, or 2 of the 4-6 atmos speakers. The AVR should be powerful enough to power the Infinity front stage, far as I know.


My recommendation: Stretch your budget up to $400ish. Emotiva's Bas-X A300 would be decent enough for powering your mains. Or you could go the bang for your buck route and look at the used market. Either way, get something to power your L/R, not additional heights. You want the quality amplification to be on the speakers that get more use. I run my x4500 with an XPA-3 to power my LCR, but those have just about doubled in price since I bought mine way back when.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> Seems to me that bipolar speakers would be ideal for Atmos/DTS-X/etc.


They recommend against it, because you want to image between direct radiators for the whole array. But people have used them and are happy with them, so it isn't necessarily a no-go. I tried bipoles for my side surrounds to see if it would help cover both my rows of seating, but I didn't care for how indistinct it made it by comparison to just using bookshelf speakers.



bluesky636 said:


> Due to room constraints I am limited to a traditional 7.1 channel system. I use four Polk FXi-A4s as side and rear surrounds mounted near the ceiling (again due to room constraints). With a well recorded soundtrack they provide images above, behind, and to the side of the MLP from about shoulder level to the ceiling as well as outside of the room boundaries. Good examples are the airplane flyover by Carrol Shelby in Ford v Ferrari ( my dog looks up at the ceiling each time I watch it) and a slamming door off to the right of the mortuary in Netflix's Haunting of Hill House. I can also hear dogs barking that sounds like it is coming from the lower built in cabinets at my left shoulder.


You can't work in upfirers in your room? 'Cause if your ceiling's flat and you feel like toying with it, I've got 4 Pioneer SP-T22A-LRs that I could sell ya' cheap. They actually do a fair job if you tweak them a bit from what any auto-cal sets the delays to. You're right that some movies do a pretty convincing job of having some height without Atmos though.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> They recommend against it, because you want to image between direct radiators for the whole array. But people have used them and are happy with them, so it isn't necessarily a no-go. I tried bipoles for my side surrounds to see if it would help cover both my rows of seating, but I didn't care for how indistinct it made it by comparison to just using bookshelf speakers.


I've used bipolar speakers (NOT to be confused with dipoles) as surrounds in a 7.1 configuration for years without any complaints about poor imaging.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> You can't work in upfirers in your room? 'Cause if your ceiling's flat and you feel like toying with it, I've got 4 Pioneer SP-T22A-LRs that I could sell ya' cheap. They actually do a fair job if you tweak them a bit from what any auto-cal sets the delays to. You're right that some movies do a pretty convincing job of having some height without Atmos though.


It's a cathedral ceiling with a large fan at the apex.

Wall to the left is built-in cabinets and shelves, wall behind the couch are floor to ceiling windows with mini-blinds, front wall has 65" LG 4k HDR TV and equipment/speakers, and right side of room opens into a small breakfast area with doors to the screened porch.


----------



## X4100

@sdurani said There are two attributes that the height speaker placement needs to satisfy. The sense of sound above you is helped by bringing the speakers closer together. Are you referring to moving the l/r height speakers closer together, or are you saying the rear and front height need to be closer together?


----------



## howard68

Front wide and


bluesky636 said:


> FW? TM?
> [/QUO ]
> Front Wide and Top Middle


----------



## X4100

My reason for asking is I'm thinking of placing my front and rear heights on my ceiling to see for myself if they will image better as top front and top rear than as heights. I'm open to the possibility that   ! On avforum I ran into quite a bit of dismissiveness about my 5.1.4 front and rear heights configuration as opposed to front and rear top. I don't want to repeat the same situation here, because I have learned a lot from the last few pages. It just seems strange to me because speakers pointing straight to the floor, I think won't image to the front and rear of my ceiling like my setup is now for front and rear heights. There I am proud of myself for putting it on public view. Lol


----------



## X4100

Monday my wife and mother in law are spending the day together. I will be free to have that chirping noise for 8 locations watching " King of the Monsters " and " Godzilla vs Kong." I picked these 2 because I've heard they will do the job


----------



## bluesky636

Atmos sure seems to cause a lot of angst and consternation in people setting up their systems. Anything that causes this much anxiety doesn't seem to be worth it to me.


----------



## T-Bone

bluesky636 said:


> Atmos sure seems to cause a lot of angst and consternation in people setting up their systems. Anything that causes this much anxiety doesn't seem to be worth it to me.


My personal opinion is we have that because the installation is a pain to correct if we get it wrong (DOH).

It's not like we're putting speakers on the floor. We have to cut holes in the ceiling.

-T


----------



## sdrucker

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I couldn't tell ya' what percentage of them use the static objects. People haven't been able to visualize the objects themselves until the Trinnov object viewer, and there haven't been a large number of them analyzed thus far. I really wouldn't stress over it. Start with 7.1.4 and upgrade later if you feel there's a need for it.


Being a Trinnov owner, if I didn't have a .6 setup already, I probably wouldn't do the top middles with one row of seats (or just MLP) unless a) you had a setup where you could support the top middles both playing the T/VOG setup to avoid having the direct overhead sound appear to be in front of you on Auromatic or Neural:X or b) you wanted that extra 1% from having DTS:X extend out to the top middles with DTS:X Pro. Or you liked the occasional mix where the top middles maybe helped to provide more dimensionality from something that might otherwise just be played in side surrounds if an object was positioned there.

Off the top of my head I'm thinking of a few music clips, or one of the Mad Max movies, but I should really confirm this with the Object Viewer.


----------



## bluesky636

T-Bone said:


> My personal opinion is we have that because the installation is a pain to correct if we get it wrong (DOH).
> 
> It's not like we're putting speakers on the floor. We have to cut holes in the ceiling.
> 
> -T


Just seems to me that it really shouldn't be this difficult. Dolby should have built in more flexibility. From what I have read, DTS-X doesn't cause as many issues with speaker placement. Wider dispersion speakers (up to bipolar) Would seem to be the answer.


----------



## sdurani

X4100 said:


> Are you referring to moving the l/r height speakers closer together, or are you saying the rear and front height need to be closer together?


Mostly referring to shrinking the gap between the front and rear speakers above you. The L/R separation should still be the same as your Front speakers or slightly less.


X4100 said:


> It just seems strange to me because speakers pointing straight to the floor, I think won't image to the front and rear of my ceiling like my setup is now for front and rear heights.


Most speakers sound best on-axis (aimed towards the listeners). While it might help the overhead effect to move your speakers from the Heights locations to the Tops locations, it could come at the cost of good imaging IF the speakers are now pointing straight down at an arbitrary spot on the floor rather than aimed towards the listeners. If you are going to mount speakers in/on the ceiling, then it would help to: a) get in-ceiling speakers with tilted baffles that can be aimed towards the listeners, or b) use small bookshelf speakers on mounts that allow them to be pointed towards the listening area (aim each speaker at the listener farthest away).


----------



## T-Bone

bluesky636 said:


> Just seems to me that it really shouldn't be this difficult. Dolby should have built in more flexibility. From what I have read, DTS-X doesn't cause as many issues with speaker placement. Wider dispersion speakers (up to bipolar) Would seem to be the answer.


I followed the 45° rule when I set up my 4 ceiling speakers. I have 10 ft ceilings and a single row four seats wide. I think it sounds great. Especially mortal Kombat on HBO Max during the fight scene where that creature was flying overhead. I heard all of the panning from side to side and front to rear.

But I set up my Atmos in February of 2018. That was before all of the 60° talk that I was aware of just recently.

If I had to do it all over again, I think I would still stick with the 45° rule and call it a day . At least I know now the 45° rule works really well in my room. 

-T


----------



## bluesky636

T-Bone said:


> I followed the 45° rule when I set up my 4 ceiling speakers. I have 10 ft ceilings and a single row four seats wide. I think it sounds great. Especially mortal Kombat on HBO Max during the fight scene where that creature was flying overhead. I heard all of the panning from side to side and front to rear.
> 
> But I set up my Atmos in February of 2018. That was before all of the 60° talk that I was aware of just recently.
> 
> If I had to do it all over again, I think I would still stick with the 45° rule and call it a day . At least I know now the 45° rule works really well in my room.
> 
> -T


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> Atmos sure seems to cause a lot of angst and consternation in people setting up their systems.


Atmos is not causing the angst and consternation, people are. For example: Dolby recommends having the Top Middle speakers anywhere from 65 degrees elevation to 100 degrees elevation. In most homes that translates to a 3-foot placement range overhead. Despite that much flexibility, if you're still stressing a precise location, then that's on you, not Atmos.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> I've used bipolar speakers (NOT to be confused with dipoles) as surrounds in a 7.1 configuration for years without any complaints about poor imaging.


I was talking specifically about for Atmos use, not in a 7.1 setup. Because a lot of Atmos is imaging between adjacent speakers, I found that imaging between the bipoles I had at side surround and any of the other direct radiators wasn't as solid as when I put direct radiators in that position instead. And perhaps that's why Dolby advises against them for use in Atmos systems.


bluesky636 said:


> It's a cathedral ceiling with a large fan at the apex.
> 
> Wall to the left is built-in cabinets and shelves, wall behind the couch are floor to ceiling windows with mini-blinds, front wall has 65" LG 4k HDR TV and equipment/speakers, and right side of room opens into a small breakfast area with doors to the screened porch.


Ah... You weren't kidding. That does not sound Atmos-friendly. But hey, a great sounding 7.1 setup isn't too shabby either!


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> Atmos is not causing the angst and consternation, people are. For example: Dolby recommends having the Top Middle speakers anywhere from 65 degrees elevation to 100 degrees elevation. In most homes that translates to a 3-foot placement range overhead. Despite that much flexibility, if you're still stressing a precise location, then that's on you, not Atmos.


From reading this forum, a lot of people sound stressed.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I was talking specifically about for Atmos use, not in a 7.1 setup. Because a lot of Atmos is imaging between adjacent speakers, I found that imaging between the bipoles I had at side surround and any of the other direct radiators wasn't as solid as when I put direct radiators in that position instead. And perhaps that's why Dolby advises against them for use in Atmos systems.
> 
> Ah... You weren't kidding. That does not sound Atmos-friendly. But hey, a great sounding 7.1 setup isn't too shabby either!


No it isn't.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for sharing that @sdurani, I will watch the 2 movies I mentioned a few posts above, and see what happens


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> Just seems to me that it really shouldn't be this difficult. Dolby should have built in more flexibility. From what I have read, DTS-X doesn't cause as many issues with speaker placement. Wider dispersion speakers (up to bipolar) Would seem to be the answer.


Y'know, it isn't _really_ that difficult. The generalized home guideline would be satisfactory for the overwhelming majority of people doing an Atmos setup. It's only us enthusiasts who sweat the details to eke out that last bit of performance. And then talk about it so others can benefit from our lunacy.


----------



## ppasteur

MagnumX said:


> Actually, I believe it really _does_ translate to that seeing I can do several different setups (including True Auro-3D 10.1) here as described above. That's why I concluded long ago that a smaller room with 7.1.4 sounds extremely similar (nearly identical in terms of _relative_ image placement; obviously a larger room will sound "bigger" in scope) to a larger room using 9.1.6 from the MLP (obviously off-axis seats get real benefits from having more speakers). But where you sit also matters because of the precedence effect (if you are not centered in any system in the middle, it can affect the panning "evenness" around the room between pairs, but the more extra speakers you add, the less that becomes an issue as there are more hard (physical) speaker locations to lock the various points in place for everyone.


Do you have any in or on ceiling speakers in your system?
If not, how does it directly translate to someone wanting to setup a system with x.x.4 with those speaker locations?
I am sure that your system sounds fine, maybe even great. But not many want to go through the process of doing such a complex system. Likely no one could even duplicate it because of all of the manual configuration that you do...as far as I can tell by ear ..and to your preferences. Also, I think those coming to a Dolby Atmos thread are not interested in the fact that your system does Auro-3d.
It might be masterful engineering but not quite applicable to what many people want to know about Atmos speaker placement in a more typical home theater setup.


----------



## ppasteur

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Y'know, it isn't _really_ that difficult. The generalized home guideline would be satisfactory for the overwhelming majority of people doing an Atmos setup. It's only us enthusiasts who sweat the details to eke out that last bit of performance. And then talk about it so others can benefit from our lunacy.


I think that you are so right. I know a few people that have just slapped a couple of speakers on the ceiling and are ecstatic about their systems. WOW, sound from above !!!
I don't know of any of them that want to screw around with measuring angles, moving speakers a few inches in any direction, creating arrays, or having 6 top speakers and front and rear heights! In the pursuit of, what... "perfection" ?? Anyway, As a techno weenie... I love reading this stuff.


----------



## X4100

@Jeremy Andersson said It's only us enthusiasts who sweat the details to eke out that last bit of performance. And then talk about it so others can benefit from our lunacy. That's why I'm still here. Lol. I forgot to mention that after running audyssey, I didn't tweak my distance and delay levels. I've heard many posts saying that adjustments to distance and delay can increase/ improve the panning and immersion of the overhead speakers. Is that true?


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> From reading this forum, a lot of people sound stressed.


Agreed. My only point was that the stress was their doing, not Atmos. In fact, from the time home Atmos was introduced, Dolby reps have been telling anyone willing to listen that Atmos is hard to mess up. Every demo that I've been to has ended with those words. I understand the stress of cutting holes in the ceiling, but hyper precise placement shouldn't contribute to that (the format doesn't require it).


----------



## X4100

I've heard many posts saying that adjustments to distance and delay can increase/ improve the panning and immersion of the overhead speakers. Is that true?
If that's correct, what is the best way to make these adjustments


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> I've heard many posts saying that adjustments to distance and delay can increase/ improve the panning and immersion of the overhead speakers. Is that true?
> If that's correct, what is the best way to make these adjustments


The biggest thing is that each speaker is in phase with its adjacent speaker. I'm going to preface this by saying that Audyssey _tends_ to get the ear-level speakers pretty close, and this is super nitpicky. And it's hard to really tweak around unless you have cross-channel phase tests so you can hear if the phantom image is solid between each set of speakers.

AIX makes an Audio Calibration disc/HD Music Sampler that came with a lot of people's Oppo Blu-ray players. That disc has a 7.1 phase test that alternates in-phase and out-of-phase between each speaker pair going around the room. If things are correctly in phase, you should hear the image between the two speakers for each test. I use that test to double-check the delays, and have found that tweaking them slightly can make the imaging between those speaker pairs snap into place. You know it's right when you hear it. But without that disc with those particular tests? That's a bit more difficult. There are phantom imaging tests on Youtube that you could use with Dolby Surround engaged and Center Spread turned on/off to make minor tweaks to solidify imaging across the LCR. Again... super nitpicky. And I wouldn't particularly recommend buying that AIX disc just to do these tweaks. But if you play something with a circular pan and hear a gap in the imaging between a particular pair of speakers, sometimes all it takes is a minor bump up or down to one speaker to line that up.

Now, tweaking delay can make a big difference with Atmos upfiring speakers. Auto-cal like Audyssey tends to measure the direct path to those speakers. Earlier AVRs with Atmos didn't have an adjustment for the distance of the bounce (i.e. from the speaker to the ceiling), and I found that with those, measuring the actual distance from speaker to ceiling to MLP made the upfirers actually work as intended (whereas leaving them at Audyssey's measured distance was iffy). Some newer AVRs have an adjustment for you to manually enter the distance from the speaker to the ceiling, but even then, minor bumps up and down while listening to the Atmos demo clips can make the bubble of sound you're trying to achieve magically appear.


----------



## X4100

but even then, minor bumps up and down while listening to the Atmos demo clips can make the bubble of sound you're trying to achieve magically appear.

Would this be bumps up or down be with the distance or the delay, or even both one at a time, thanks very much for your help


----------



## X4100

I just came from the adjustments to audyssey after calibration, but too much off topic post


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The biggest thing is that each speaker is in phase with its adjacent speaker. I'm going to preface this by saying that Audyssey _tends_ to get the ear-level speakers pretty close, and this is super nitpicky. And it's hard to really tweak around unless you have cross-channel phase tests so you can hear if the phantom image is solid between each set of speakers.
> 
> AIX makes an Audio Calibration disc/HD Music Sampler that came with a lot of people's Oppo Blu-ray players. That disc has a 7.1 phase test that alternates in-phase and out-of-phase between each speaker pair going around the room. If things are correctly in phase, you should hear the image between the two speakers for each test. I use that test to double-check the delays, and have found that tweaking them slightly can make the imaging between those speaker pairs snap into place. You know it's right when you hear it. But without that disc with those particular tests? That's a bit more difficult. There are phantom imaging tests on Youtube that you could use with Dolby Surround engaged and Center Spread turned on/off to make minor tweaks to solidify imaging across the LCR. Again... super nitpicky. And I wouldn't particularly recommend buying that AIX disc just to do these tweaks. But if you play something with a circular pan and hear a gap in the imaging between a particular pair of speakers, sometimes all it takes is a minor bump up or down to one speaker to line that up.
> 
> Now, tweaking delay can make a big difference with Atmos upfiring speakers. Auto-cal like Audyssey tends to measure the direct path to those speakers. Earlier AVRs with Atmos didn't have an adjustment for the distance of the bounce (i.e. from the speaker to the ceiling), and I found that with those, measuring the actual distance from speaker to ceiling to MLP made the upfirers actually work as intended (whereas leaving them at Audyssey's measured distance was iffy). Some newer AVRs have an adjustment for you to manually enter the distance from the speaker to the ceiling, but even then, minor bumps up and down while listening to the Atmos demo clips can make the bubble of sound you're trying to achieve magically appear.


Here’s another interesting resource with a variety of tests. 









Free Online Audio Tests, Test Tones and Tone Generators


Tests your audio equipment, speakers, room acoustics and hearing. Audio signals and test tones playable online. High resolution sound test files available for free download.




www.audiocheck.net




Can’t remember off hand all of them, but seems like I recall some very useful tools.


----------



## Soulburner

X4100 said:


> Would this be bumps up or down be with the distance or the delay


They are one in the same.


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> Do you have any in or on ceiling speakers in your system?


Yes, I do, actually, but it's absolutely irrelevant _how_ they're mounted, only the angles used should matter (at, near, in or on-ceiling doesn't matter) as Jeremy has just been going on about. A link to my system setup has been in my signature for the past 3 years so it's easy to find answers to most questions about it. 

The front heights are at the ceiling above edge of the screen using the surrounding bookcase (hanging them in front of it wouldn't look very good, IMO) and the rear heights are actually on the ceiling. Both are in line with the Left/Right Mains. Surround Heights (Auro setup that you don't care about) are mounted high on the side walls where they're supposed to be for that format and where they need to be because I have a ceiling beam box that won't allow a ceiling mount (it would block them since it hangs below ceiling height). These can be used as Top Middle (Scatmos) or Surround Height (Direct powered for Auro). They sit about 2 feet off-axis from where Top Middle would go if I could put them on the ceiling. With some Audyssey induced minor array bleed/leakage, I can't hear any deflection for objects moving across the room in Atmos.



> If not, how does it directly translate to someone wanting to setup a system with x.x.4 with those speaker locations?


I already said in a reply above that I can turn the system into 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 and 7.1.4 at the push of a few buttons.

I've got two electronic engineering degrees and a minor in English. I play guitar, piano, saxophone and drums and I write songs with Logic Pro. That includes writing my own full length rock album with a Tori Amos and Pink Floyd influence and IMO similar recording quality. I both recorded and mixed it myself with Logic Pro and then mastered it as well with full cues for matrixed surround sound playback. It's available on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and more. I also collect movie props (massive Indiana Jones prop collection in particular) and collect and repair notable lighters as old as 1924, some from movies and others of collectible note from Dunhill, Ronson, Colibri and others including two from somewhat famous people from World War II.



> I am sure that your system sounds fine, maybe even great. But not many want to go through the process of doing such a complex system. Likely no one could even duplicate it because of all of the manual configuration that you do...as far as I can tell by ear ..and to your preferences. Also, I think those coming to a Dolby Atmos thread are not interested in the fact that your system does Auro-3d.


There's an entire thread devoted to >7.1.4 using various techniques on here and several people have used them to get reasonably priced systems that get around the Disney locks and other things. Should none of _those_ people talk about Atmos here either??? For that matter, what do tweaks to our systems have ANYTHING to do with our knowledge of Atmos or even surround or sound production in general?



> It might be masterful engineering (in a sort of Rube Goldberg sort of way), but not quite applicable to what many people want to know about Atmos speaker placement in a more typical home theater setup.


I started with Pro Logic and then 5.1 in the '90s, followed by 7.1, 7.1.2 and then 7.1.4 and 9.1.2 (Marantz 7010 has switchable front wides or 4 overheads) before adding the rear heights to do 7.1.6 with Scatmos (and moving FW to mixers and adding SS#2 purely because I could), all with switches so I can change the setup to other configurations easily for testing and reviewing purposes.

What drives the extra speakers is irrelevant to how they're used and if they image correctly. If active mixing is good enough for an $11k+ Lyngdorf and Scatmos uses steering extraction extremely similar to DTS:X Pro, just how convoluted do you actually think it is? It may be a bit more work to setup than a high-end AVP that supports more than 11 channels, but it's also a hell of a lot cheaper to implement and until the past year and a half, 13-channels was about as much as you get could get for under 10 grand processing-wise and even then, Disney "locked" soundtracks won't play correctly on "proper" >11-channel systems (kind of a significant drawback to such expensive equipment thanks to Dolby not pressing Disney to do things properly with moving objects in Atmos).


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> That includes writing my own full length rock album with a Tori Amos and Pink Floyd influence and IMO similar recording quality. I both recorded and mixed it myself with Logic Pro and then mastered it as well with full cues for matrixed surround sound playback. It's available on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and more.
> 
> I also collect movie props (massive Indiana Jones prop collection in particular) and collect and repair notable lighters as old as 1924, some from movies and others of collectible note from Dunhill, Ronson, Colibri and others including two from somewhat famous people from World War II.


Where can I find this recording - would love to hear it  

Churchill ??


----------



## DrDon

Enough with the bickering. Discuss the topic and not each other. Continue and risk losing posting privileges in this thread.

Doc


----------



## X4100

Come on Guys, let's all bury the axe ( and not in the other guy's head). I've personally have benefited from several prior posts on this thread, I've even mentioned it in a previous post of mine. sdurani and Magnumx, and Jeremy Anderson have been an immense influence on my experience with the realization of my immersive audio pursuit. In fact I posted several pages back that I felt like those pages were fantastic and just for me! They dealt with things I needed to know, including what may seem like arguments between posters. I try to get past the disagreements and pick out the many gems scattered throughout their posts. I was personally attacked on another forum by someone who felt that top assignment was THE ONLY WAY TO DO REAL ATMOS!!! I left pretty much discouraged, although I visit that site from time to time, I find it hard to navigate the threads there, it's like I have to put the exact words in the search box to get directed to the content I'm looking for. On this site pretty much is all laid out. In experience this is the best site for correct information on immersive audio!!! Sometimes I don't want to leave a " like " on a post so as not to be on a " hit list of sorts. " I just saw a YouTube video of a man who spent decades building his perfect stereo room with a cathedral high ceiling, only to be stricken with ALS, he said he hopes the next person to get his setup after his death will get the enjoyment that he has received. I'm gonna stop my rant, and I really hope we can set aside our differences, and get back to this exciting and excellent thread!!!!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> Would this be bumps up or down be with the distance or the delay, or even both one at a time, thanks very much for your help


Distance and delay are the same thing, as delaying the arrival time so they all reach the MLP simultaneously is what the distance settings in your AVR are for. As far as whether to bump it up or down, you have to try both to hear which improves things. And I want to stress again - this is super nitpicky tweaking.


----------



## X4100

That being said. Lol it's Monday morning, and I will soon have the apartment to me, myself, and immersive audio . First up is the last two Kong movies, yeah I know Godzilla is in the last one but.....I'm just saying. Next up is The MEG. Have fun, because I sure WILL!!!


----------



## X4100

And I want to stress again - this is super nitpicky tweaking.

I have been a super nitpicky tweaker since prior to pro logic, I went behind the TV and spliced the speaker wires to run off my elcheapo stereo. I've nitpicky ever since! Thanks again for your help and advice.


----------



## X4100

My wife just told me that our landlady has pulled off in her car to go to her job, next my wife will be leaving to visit her mother. And then the movie / AUDIO EXTRAVAGANZA of my life starts!!!!!


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Distance and delay are the same thing, as delaying the arrival time so they all reach the MLP simultaneously is what the distance settings in your AVR are for. As far as whether to bump it up or down, you have to try both to hear which improves things. And I want to stress again - this is super nitpicky tweaking.


I have not seen a detailed explanation of how delays are adjusted in this forum. You may want to explain further based on this discussion with Sanjay in the Dolby Surround forum.



sdurani said:


> Increasing the Audyssey measured distance reduces the delay, virtually moving the speaker closer to the listener. It's the opposite of what you're describing.





sdurani said:


> Only you can explain what you're hearing and seeing, since none of us here are experiencing it with you. I was merely pointing out that increasing the distance setting reduces the amount of delay. It works the opposite of what you described.





sdurani said:


> Yes. Delays for time alignment are relative, not absolute. If you tell the system that you have 3 speakers that are all 10 feet away, *no delays are applied*, since they already have the same arrival time to the main listening position. If you tell the system that your Centre speaker is 12 feet away (2 feet farther than the L/R speakers), it will add 2ms delay to the L/R speakers to make them appear also appear 12 feet away, restoring the same arrival time to the main listening position. Time alignment uses delays to maintain the same arrival time for each speaker relative to the main listening position, not to compensate for absolute distance from the main listening position. Unlike previous video & audio connections methods, HDMI carries both video & audio. This capability allowed it to implement an automated lip sync feature that attempted to add up the various latencies of the video signal through multiple devices in the HMDI chain and then delay the audio to match the total video latency, thereby keeping both signals in sync. Manual lip sync is done by eye (play with delays until it doesn't look like a dubbed movie).
> 
> The perception of dialogue coming from the screen, even when the speaker is above or below the screen, is due to a psychoacoustic phenomenon called the Ventriloquist Effect. When it comes to our human hearing, eyes override ears (strange but true). Watch the following video:





sdurani said:


> That's good, considering how much of the discussion was counter-intuitive: Increasing the distance setting reduces delay? Human hearing relies more on eyes than ears? I should have worded that part of my reply more clearly. The distance numbers are displayed for the user, so that speaker latency can be seen in more comfortable terms. Inside the DSP, there is only measured latencies (how many ms it took from launch of the test signal to the sound being picked up the calibration mic). Delay only works one way: i.e., you can't "un-delay" a signal to arrive sooner, you can only delay signals to arrive later. So once the speaker with the longest latency is established, all other speaker signals are delayed to match.
> 
> In our 3-speaker example from the previous post, the L/R speakers were delayed 2ms to match the updated distance setting of the Centre speaker. If you told the system that your Centre speaker is 32 feet away and the L/R speakers are 30 feet away, it would still apply the same 2ms delay to time align them. It's compensating only for the *difference* in arrival time between speakers. There is no compensation for absolute distance, so 10 vs 12 feet or 50 vs 52 feet will result in the same 2ms delay being applied. It's only looking at the difference. So the fact that your TV is 12 feet away won't affect how you hear this delay.


More of this discussion can be found in the last few pages of









The Official Dolby Surround Upmixing Thread


I thought it would be a good idea if we had a dedicated thread for in-depth discussion of the experience obtained relistening to our legacy discs in the new "Dolby Surround" format. What title, what equipment, what specific sounds are redirected or shared, etc. Update: with DTS:X on the way...




www.avsforum.com





along with input from Roger Dressler.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> I have not seen a detailed explanation of how delays are adjusted in this forum. You may want to explain further based on this discussion with Sanjay in the Dolby Surround forum.


Everything Sanjay says in that is correct. The tweaking I'm talking about centers around how a mic measures those distances versus where your ears actually are and what you actually hear in the MLP. So we're not talking about huge changes here... Maybe 0.1-0.3 feet for those with adjustments that granular. That's why I use the phase tests on the AIX disc, because the in-phase portion between each ear-level speaker pair lets you hear if the cross-channel image is centered between them or shifted to one side or the other. At one point, I was going to author my own version of this in DTS with noise tones at equal levels in each adjacent speaker pair, but my home mixing setup died before I could and I never got back into it. 

I stress again - most auto-cal gets the delays pretty close, and this is a very OCD level bit of tweaking. But sometimes, a 0.1 foot change can snap imaging between two speakers into place at your main seat... and the better it is there, the better it tends to be generally for the other seats. Likewise, sometimes even when your heights all image smoothly between each other (which you can use the Helicopter demo to assess), a global adjustment of all of the height channel delays up or down can make imaging between them and the ear-level speakers snap into place, giving you that "bubble of sound" effect people talk about. For that, I would say play the Leaf demo on repeat and tweak the distances of the heights up a bit, then down a bit. When you find the best setting, you will hear the whooshes of wind and leaves pan better.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The tweaking I'm talking about centers around how a mic measures those distances versus where your ears actually are and what you actually hear in the MLP. So we're not talking about huge changes here... Maybe 0.1-0.3 feet for those with adjustments that granular.


After auto-cal, I always fine tune delays & levels by ear to improve phantom imaging between speakers, which helps the speakers themselves disappear.


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> After auto-cal, I always fine tune delays & levels by ear to improve phantom imaging between speakers, which helps the speakers themselves disappear.


By the way, I still prefer "moving" the center speaker "closer" to the tv screen by increasing the Audyssey distance setting (thereby reducing the measured delay). It just seems to lock vocals to the screen better but doesn't seem to affect the left and right front speakers.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> By the way, I still prefer "moving" the center speaker "closer" to the tv screen by increasing the Audyssey distance setting (thereby reducing the measured delay). It just seems to lock vocals to the screen better but doesn't seem to affect the left and right front speakers.


Do you measure the center + subs to see the effect on the crossover?


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> After auto-cal, I always fine tune delays & levels by ear to improve phantom imaging between speakers, which helps the speakers themselves disappear.


What is your source material for doing so? I don't believe REW can output tones to two channels at once (except channel 3). If it can, that would be easy for most of us to do.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> By the way, I still prefer "moving" the center speaker "closer" to the tv screen by increasing the Audyssey distance setting (thereby reducing the measured delay). It just seems to lock vocals to the screen better but doesn't seem to affect the left and right front speakers.


Bear in mind that humans don't really hear distance so much as direction. As Roger put it, "There is no amount of delay that can change the apparent source of origin of the speaker." Our perception of distance largely comes from reverb, level fluctuations and changes in frequency. So by reducing the delay to your center, you aren't really moving the perceived distance of it from you. You are changing its relationship to the other speakers (phase/arrival time) and perhaps inducing/reducing perceived reverb if sounds in the other channels that should arrive simultaneously no longer are. Reducing the delay can give you a sense of precedence in that channel... but that's not necessarily a good thing, because it's doing so by "phasing out" anything placed across the adjacent channels.

If you prefer it that way, then there's nothing wrong with that. Your system, your rules. Just be aware that by changing that setting significantly, you may lose precise imaging of any sounds panned across the front soundstage between the L/R and center. It doesn't "affect the left and right front speakers" themselves... but it does affect anything placed between those speakers and your center. And while you may not hear the effect it has in a lot of content, play something with panned dialogue like a lot of the Pixar movies that Gary Rydstrom mixed (A Bug's Life and Toy Story in particular) and those voices panned off-center won't work as well. Worst case, if reducing the delay to your center puts it significantly out of phase with your L/R, sounds placed between them will become diffuse, as if they're coming from all over the room instead of from between those two speakers as intended... or even cancel out, making pans across the front sound like they're jumping from speaker to speaker instead of moving smoothly across them.

Now, there could be acoustic issues in your room that are affecting how you're hearing the speaker in relation to the other speakers, which could be why you prefer the offset on the center delay. For instance, if your center channel isn't pulled forward to clear your shelf or entertainment center, you could be getting a reflection off of that surface that muddies up the arrival time. Additionally, reflections off of the ceiling and walls can cause issues, which is why people use room treatments to mitigate those effects. I would posit that what you're hearing may indicate a need for room treatment.

Having said all that, I just looked at your past exchange with Sanjay and Roger, and I'm probably beating a long dead horse. But let me know if you want to whip on him some more and I'll call Herbert West to Re-Animate him.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Do you measure the center + subs to see the effect on the crossover?


The change is less than 2 ms. Doubt it is relevant.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Bear in mind that humans don't really hear distance so much as direction. As Roger put it, "There is no amount of delay that can change the apparent source of origin of the speaker." Our perception of distance largely comes from reverb, level fluctuations and changes in frequency. So by reducing the delay to your center, you aren't really moving the perceived distance of it from you. You are changing its relationship to the other speakers (phase/arrival time) and perhaps inducing/reducing perceived reverb if sounds in the other channels that should arrive simultaneously no longer are. Reducing the delay can give you a sense of precedence in that channel... but that's not necessarily a good thing, because it's doing so by "phasing out" anything placed across the adjacent channels.
> 
> If you prefer it that way, then there's nothing wrong with that. Your system, your rules. Just be aware that by changing that setting significantly, you may lose precise imaging of any sounds panned across the front soundstage between the L/R and center. It doesn't "affect the left and right front speakers" themselves... but it does affect anything placed between those speakers and your center. And while you may not hear the effect it has in a lot of content, play something with panned dialogue like a lot of the Pixar movies that Gary Rydstrom mixed (A Bug's Life and Toy Story in particular) and those voices panned off-center won't work as well. Worst case, if reducing the delay to your center puts it significantly out of phase with your L/R, sounds placed between them will become diffuse, as if they're coming from all over the room instead of from between those two speakers as intended... or even cancel out, making pans across the front sound like they're jumping from speaker to speaker instead of moving smoothly across them.
> 
> Now, there could be acoustic issues in your room that are affecting how you're hearing the speaker in relation to the other speakers, which could be why you prefer the offset on the center delay. For instance, if your center channel isn't pulled forward to clear your shelf or entertainment center, you could be getting a reflection off of that surface that muddies up the arrival time. Additionally, reflections off of the ceiling and walls can cause issues, which is why people use room treatments to mitigate those effects. I would posit that what you're hearing may indicate a need for room treatment.
> 
> Having said all that, I just looked at your past exchange with Sanjay and Roger, and I'm probably beating a long dead horse. But let me know if you want to whip on him some more and I'll call Herbert West to Re-Animate him.


Again, the change in delay is less than 2 ms, an insignificant difference in my opinion.


----------



## Technology3456

ppasteur said:


> I think that you are so right. I know a few people that have just slapped a couple of speakers on the ceiling and are ecstatic about their systems. WOW, sound from above !!!
> I don't know of any of them that want to screw around with measuring angles, moving speakers a few inches in any direction, creating arrays, or having 6 top speakers and front and rear heights! In the pursuit of, what... "perfection" ?? Anyway, As a techno weenie... I love reading this stuff.


Because it's a huge pita! Lol! Imagine you buy 4 in-ceiling speakers, but you want to test different locations on the ceiling. So you have to, I dont know, tape them to different spots on the ceiling, without damaging them, and hook them up and listen to them with a bunch of different demos, testing different types of pans. Then untape, tape them somewhere else. This is of course unless you live with someone who is going to stand like a statue holding speakers in the air for hours while their arms are tortured after the first few minutes. No sorry, you would need 4 people to do that with four speakers. 

Even if you had four butlers to do all the work for you, it would still be a pita just to sit there and listen to the same demos 20 different times until you decide "yeah the placement is a little better over here." 

Luckily, some people enjoy that stuff, and they report back here. Even so, if I had installed atmos speakers 3 months ago, they would have gone at the Dolby home recommended spots, or the spots people were saying on the forum at the time, before Jeremy posted the Grimani links and so on. And Im sure the placement would have been very good that way. Like most people, I would like to get the best placement possible, but not so badly to test a bunch of different placements myself. But that's what make threads like this great. We don't all have to figure it out from scratch ourselves, we can find the info online and just follow the best info available at the time. But even that is very difficult if that info is not available, or arguments overtake the discussion. This knowledge that takes people years to learn (ironically, in part for this very same reason) becomes a source of pride for people. Showing you know more than the other guy becomes the most important thing. So simple "I don't know, maybe you don't know either, but let's try to figure it out so everyone can learn this important info together" situations become arguments instead, and the info that would help all our setups, whether now or in the future when placements can be changed, gets lost in the arguments. 

But as long as the discussions are functioning as they should, where info and experiences are being shared, compared, and cross-analyzed to the best of everyone's ability, then that is what is great about forums, you don't have to figure it all out yourself, you can find the info online.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> What is your source material for doing so?


Mono pink noise and 1kHz tone routed to 2 speakers. I used the old Alan Parsons 'Sound Check' CD and swapped speaker connections on my amp.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Because it's a huge pita! Lol! Imagine you buy 4 in-ceiling speakers, but you want to test different locations on the ceiling. So you have to, I dont know, tape them to different spots on the ceiling, without damaging them, and hook them up and listen to them with a bunch of different demos, testing different types of pans. Then untape, tape them somewhere else. This is of course unless you live with someone who is going to stand like a statue holding speakers in the air for hours while their arms are tortured after the first few minutes. No sorry, you would need 4 people to do that with four speakers.
> 
> Even if you had four butlers to do all the work for you, it would still be a pita just to sit there and listen to the same demos 20 different times until you decide "yeah the placement is a little better over here."
> 
> Luckily, some people enjoy that stuff, and they report back here.


"Man, I don't know who you're talking about," he said, before going back to spackling over the holes from moving his speakers over and over again. 

I'm kidding, but... not completely. My room is a mess right now, filled with nail holes from the previous owner, drywall anchors, mounting brackets with nothing on them anymore, etc. I used adjustable stands to find the best locations for my side/rear surrounds before putting them on the walls. Fortunately, my heights are on-ceiling not in-ceiling, so not a huge ordeal to relocate. Having the freedom to really play with things in this house helped me get the speakers as close to ideal as possible. Now, between other projects, I have to cover up all the holes and prep for paint.

So if I offer any advice, just know that it's because I want others to benefit from all my mistakes and how they were ultimately fixed. No pride of authorship. I still learn from others here as much as anyone. But if you're wondering what the difference in sound is between different Atmos layouts, I have pretty much done them all at this point. And my past roommates never want to hear those Atmos demo clips again.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> The change is less than 2 ms. Doubt it is relevant.


Maybe it's different if you change a speaker distance, but if you changed a sub distance by 2 feet it would definitely be enough to change how smooth the crossover to that speaker is.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Maybe it's different if you change a speaker distance, but if you changed a sub distance by 2 feet it would definitely be enough to change how smooth the crossover to that speaker is.


Have no reason to change sub distance. I believe sub delay is more affected by delays in the sub itself than just physical distance.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bluesky636 said:


> Have no reason to change sub distance. I believe sub delay is more affected by delays in the sub itself than just physical distance.


I would say it’s because the wavelengths are so long.


----------



## X4100

WOW WHAT A BLAST!!! I just had. Before making any adjustments I remembered some of the things discussed in this thread. So I put on Godzilla King of the Monsters. First let me explain something, I purchased the x4100 when it first was introduced. I worked during the day, and by the time I got home so did my landlady. When I watched movies I never went above-30, on weekends when she was out of town and when my wife was at work. I hit the restore button to go back to the setup audyssey made when I first used the x4100. This morning I watched, mainly listened at-20. Man I heard the bubble thing Jeremy talked about, I put MV on-10. To make things crystal clear to everybody the audio I heard was incredibly indescribable!!! Jets and those other aircraft were flying in all directions directions in my room, and on the ceiling. When Godzilla started to stomp around the entire system was hitting harder than I ever imagined, and this was without making a single adjustment to my setup. The only thing I did was I was listening at close to reference level in my little room! I'm ssssooo excited about my system this nitpicky tweaker has declared game over. Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts, I will eat lunch and call it a day!!


----------



## niterida

X4100 said:


> this nitpicky tweaker has declared game over


Now that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one


----------



## eaayoung

Gotta love it when engineers get into arguments. I always pull out the popcorn.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> Have no reason to change sub distance. I believe sub delay is more affected by delays in the sub itself than just physical distance.





Polyrythm1k said:


> I would say it’s because the wavelengths are so long.


What I'm getting at is it sounds like a "sub distance tweak" but in reverse, where the speaker delay is changed instead of the subwoofer. I wonder if it has the same effect.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Soulburner said:


> What I'm getting at is it sounds like a "sub distance tweak" but in reverse, where the speaker delay is changed instead of the subwoofer. I wonder if it has the same effect.


Yep. I follow. I was just saying that while it probably can work to some extent, it would probably take larger increments since higher frequencies are less affected by room dimensions/size. Since most bass frequencies tend to be longer than the rooms dimensions, smaller changes will have more affect, and also why the sub tweak is so affective.


----------



## X4100

Now that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one 

What I meant is that I'm totally satisfied, and shall spend my time enjoying my home theater. For my size room I'm done tweaking, due to the fact of diminishing returns. After today's EXTRAVAGANZA I'm no longer a nitpicky tweaker!!!


----------



## aron7awol

It's still 2ms x 80Hz / 1000ms x 360deg = 58deg of phase @ 80Hz, which is certainly significant for a sub/main splice, no matter whether you are shifting the sub or the main the 2ms.


----------



## ppasteur

X4100 said:


> Now that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one
> 
> What I meant is that I'm totally satisfied, and shall spend my time enjoying my home theater. For my size room I'm done tweaking, due to the fact of diminishing returns. After today's EXTRAVAGANZA I'm no longer a nitpicky tweaker!!!


Some tweak to tweak and love it. I have been there. 
Some tweak until they like what they have, and stop. I have finally gotten there.
I think the latter is better. Enjoyment in a relaxed state has become my goal.

OTH, thank god for those in the first category! Things would be very stagnant without them.


----------



## Ricoflashback

***Gee, some of the conversations here harken me back to the good old days of early television and coffin consoles with one speaker. There was no doubt, then, where the sound was coming from. Two adjustments - up or down. No remote.


----------



## junh1024

Jeremy Anderson said:


> A similar title, though it's a remix and not a ground-up Atmos mix, is the recent UHD release of Big Fish. They play with Atmos use a little where appropriate, but don't go crazy. They were able to add to the soundstage without going so crazy that they affected the choices made in the original mix. But it isn't one of the better titles for Atmos use.


Thanks for the rec. I was in cinemas in the 2000s (might be for Harry Potter) & i remember seeing posters of "Big Fish", which looked like a horror movie due to the thin trees. Now I know it's autobio-fiction. I might check it out.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, while I would like to hear more of that, I doubt they're going to prioritize that in their mix budget. It would pretty much require that every voice be ADR, with no production audio used for dialogue. Rydstrom did panned dialogue on Pixar movies because all of the dialogue is looped on those anyway... but on a live action shoot, if a performance was great on the set and they got clean audio of it on the day, they're not going to add unnecessary ADR time to the budget just so they can pan it based on screen location or POV.


Carrie Fisher died before she finished her ADR, but they managed to managed to make the scenes work.
How Carrie Fisher's Death Caused Technical Difficulties On The Set Of Star Wars: The Last Jedi . With current technology, there are more methods for separating out dialog, so you can have directional dialog w/o ADR. its just a bit more editing effort. I also found a link with more scenes/movies for directional dialog



https://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/5454/reference-movies-for-dialog-panning





Technology3456 said:


> But, then I saw comments saying a lot of atmos mixes will turn .6 into .2, only using the middle 2 speakers on the ceiling. Whereas with .4, it would use all 4, so you are better off (unless you prefer .2 to .4, anyway).
> 
> But are mixes like that a very rare situation? Or Jeremy how have you gotten around that issue with your .6 setup short of upgrading to .8


If xx6 turns into xx2, that likely means the soundtrack was 712ish. As others have said, I would suggest you get a 714 system first, since many soundtracks are 712/714ish. The fraction varies depending on whether you favor back catalogue vs new movies, but my guess is 10-50% are 712/714ish.



ppasteur said:


> I think that you are so right. I know a few people that have just slapped a couple of speakers on the ceiling and are ecstatic about their systems. WOW, sound from above !!!
> I don't know of any of them that want to screw around with measuring angles, moving speakers a few inches in any direction, creating arrays, or having 6 top speakers and front and rear heights! In the pursuit of, what... "perfection" ?? Anyway, As a techno weenie... I love reading this stuff.


By chance, that might actually be OK, compared to many systems I've seen. So they SAY theyve got a 712 system, but actually it's 316 (31 front + rest in the ceiling), so there's little contrast between ELL & height = little point to Atmos. This is also a problem with HT mix Studios.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> I have noticed many Atmos movies have arrayed sounds in the rear channels (whether ear level or overhead) rather than discrete so especially with larger setups, the sounds tend to come from my side surrounds behind my front row (which sits between the front wides and sides) rather than the back of the room for this reason.


A small factor is due to music mixed in 51, and availability of SFX.

So, there's tons of ambience SFX in 51, but hardly any in 71. Similarly for 3D, lots in 80/404, and only 1 1h pack in 714. There's some 2oA/ Ambisonics ones, but those are pre-decoded to 712, and you know the problem with that. There's also the problem that with different vendors, they have their own microphone technique (different patterns/layout), so if you mix n match SFX from different vendors, you'll likely get an audible difference in imaging. But surely & slowly, more 3D SFX libraries are coming out.




MagnumX said:


> I've got two electronic engineering degrees and a minor in English. I play guitar, piano, saxophone and drums and I write songs with Logic Pro.


Very good. Logic Pro supports 51/71 natively so you might be able to remix your old projects to surround (unless they already are). My old ones are in Garageband & Sibelius, and now I've switched to PC, so not ideal.



MagnumX said:


> Disney "locked" soundtracks won't play correctly on "proper" >11-channel systems (kind of a significant drawback to such expensive equipment thanks to Dolby not pressing Disney to do things properly with moving objects in Atmos).


There's also the problem with the system itself. Atmos is fully OBA to the home, and you can't upmix objects (unless it's post-rendered), so it really exposes a bad mix. DTSX OTOH, doesn't matter if something is bed or obj (unless the bed is 712), it all gets downmixed to 714 for home. And you can keep on expanding it via the DTSX upmixer.


----------



## chmorgan

Ricoflashback said:


> ***Gee, some of the conversations here harken me back to the good old days of early television and coffin consoles with one speaker. There was no doubt, then, where the sound was coming from. Two adjustments - up or down. No remote.


We, as kids, were the remotes!


----------



## Soulburner

Does anyone know where I can buy Gravity Special Edition Blu-ray? It seems all I can do is put in an in-stock notification at Walmart or pay some joker $300 on eBay.


----------



## fattire

Soulburner said:


> Does anyone know where I can buy Gravity Special Edition Blu-ray? It seems all I can do is put in an in-stock notification at Walmart or pay some joker $300 on eBay.


If you can wait, the 4K UHD release is due Oct 18. That’s what I’m waiting for personally.


----------



## Soulburner

fattire said:


> If you can’t wait, the 4K UHD release is due Oct 18. That’s what I’m waiting for personally.


Ok, noob video question, which I think is acceptable since we're in the audio forum...

Does the player downscale that to 1080p, and will that have a negative impact on image quality on my beloved Plasma?


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Does anyone know where I can buy Gravity Special Edition Blu-ray? It seems all I can do is put in an in-stock notification at Walmart or pay some joker $300 on eBay.


I won one on eBay for $40USD - but it got lost in the post 
Most of them seem to be on eBay UK around $50USD


----------



## mrvideo

Soulburner said:


> Ok, noob video question, which I think is acceptable since we're in the audio forum...


Video question in an audio thread?


> Does the player downscale that to 1080p, and will that have a negative impact on image quality on my beloved Plasma?


Why would you get a 2160p release if your TV can't display 2160p in its native resolution?


----------



## T-Bone

mrvideo said:


> Why would you get a 2160p release if your TV can't display 2160p in its native resolution?


For the 3D audio? 

-T


----------



## fattire

Soulburner said:


> Ok, noob video question, which I think is acceptable since we're in the audio forum...
> 
> Does the player downscale that to 1080p, and will that have a negative impact on image quality on my beloved Plasma?


Wish I could help but I have no clue. My TV is 4K and I don’t own a Blu-ray player for movies.

The one we have is on the computer where I rip my discs for use with Emby (like Plex). Everything is streamed at native resolution for 4K or upscaled by a Shield Pro (which has excellent upscaling). It gives me all the benefits of the discs (highest possible picture and audio quality available at home) without having to ever find one and load it into a player.


----------



## fattire

mrvideo said:


> Why would you get a 2160p release if your TV can't display 2160p in its native resolution?


In this case it was just a suggestion to save money on a particular disc that’s hard to find and expensive when it is.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Does anyone know where I can buy Gravity Special Edition Blu-ray? It seems all I can do is put in an in-stock notification at Walmart or pay some joker $300 on eBay.


When the UHD comes out in October, I'll send you my Diamond Luxe Blu-ray on the cheap.


----------



## Soulburner

mrvideo said:


> Video question in an audio thread?
> 
> Why would you get a 2160p release if your TV can't display 2160p in its native resolution?


Exactly why I asked, since it was suggested. Why would I and what are the downsides if I did?

Otherwise I'm not paying $300 to some eBay clown.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Ok, noob video question, which I think is acceptable since we're in the audio forum...
> 
> Does the player downscale that to 1080p, and will that have a negative impact on image quality on my beloved Plasma?


You might run into HDCP issues trying to play 4k media on 1080p devices. The copy protection is there for piracy, typically you need 4k compatible devices from the source to the display device for everything to jive.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Jeremy Anderson said:


> When the UHD comes out in October, I'll send you my Diamond Luxe Blu-ray on the cheap.


Most 4k releases come with a blu-ray as well, and WB often provides Atmos on both versions, depending on the release. Have the specs been announced for this ?


----------



## ppasteur

bobbyhollywood said:


> Most 4k releases come with a blu-ray as well, and WB often provides Atmos on both versions, depending on the release. Have the specs been announced for this ?











Gravity 4K Blu-ray (4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray)


Gravity 4K Blu-ray. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.




www.blu-ray.com





2 discs (4K and standard BD) and a digital copy.


----------



## LNEWoLF

Soulburner said:


> Ok, noob video question, which I think is acceptable since we're in the audio forum...
> 
> Does the player downscale that to 1080p, and will that have a negative impact on image quality on my beloved Plasma?


There is no reason why you wouldn’t be able to take advantage of a 4K disc with down converting to 1080P and while enjoying the audio contained within the 4K disc. You would need a 4K player and a 4K disc.

I have enjoyed many 4K disc’s throughout the last several years using my Sony 800 4K player to down convert to 1080P video to watch on my Mitz 1080P DLP rear projection TV. Also have enjoyed the Dolby Atmos or DTS X audio contained within the 4K disc with my 7.2.4 speaker setup. I now have a Sony 4K TV and a Sony 800M2 player.

When you down convert a 4K disc to 1080P. You can enjoy the best 1080P physical media source available.


----------



## Soulburner

That would be great, but I think I answered my question. My PS4 does not play 4k Blu-ray discs. 1080p it is! Thanks.


----------



## clipper57

chmorgan said:


> We, as kids, were the remotes!


So true😀


----------



## T-Bone

chmorgan said:


> We, as kids, were the remotes!


Our parents were the precursors to Google Assistant.

"Hey T-Bone, change the channel to CBS."

"Hey T-bone, increase the volume."

Yeah, my name is T-Bone on my birth certificate.

-T


----------



## LNEWoLF

T-Bone said:


> Our parents were the precursors to Google Assistant.
> 
> "Hey T-Bone, change the channel to CBS."
> 
> "Hey T-bone, increase the volume."
> 
> Yeah, my name is T-Bone on my birth certificate.
> 
> -T


Were you named after


http://www.b-l-u-e-s.com/_/rsrc/1424332178908/t-bone-walker/T-Bone%20Walker%208.jpg


----------



## mrvideo

T-Bone said:


> For the 3D audio?


What are you calling 3D audio?


----------



## T-Bone

mrvideo said:


> What are you calling 3D audio?


I was referring to atmos/dtsx. That's what I meant by 3D audio. Assuming he could even get it out of a 4K player connected to a 1080p display. I was not addressing that part.

-T


----------



## mrvideo

T-Bone said:


> I was referring to atmos/dtsx. That's what I meant by 3D audio. Assuming he could even get it out of a 4K player connected to a 1080p display.


The display really has nothing to do with the audio, unless the player is directly connected to the display. For most users, the player is connected to an AVR, which is what extracts the audio. The type of display is unimportant.


----------



## dschulz

mrvideo said:


> The display really has nothing to do with the audio, unless the player is directly connected to the display. For most users, the player is connected to an AVR, which is what extracts the audio. The type of display is unimportant.


Right, but unfortunately many movies reserve the Atmos soundtrack for the UHD Blu Ray, leaving the standard Blu Ray with only 7.1. This is a reason to upgrade to a UHD disc player, even if you only have a 1080p display. I may wind up in this boat, as I am reluctant to give up my Panasonic plasma because the picture quality is just so dang good.


----------



## howard68

dschulz said:


> Right, but unfortunately many movies reserve the Atmos soundtrack for the UHD Blu Ray, leaving the standard Blu Ray with only 7.1. This is a reason to upgrade to a UHD disc player, even if you only have a 1080p display. I may wind up in this boat, as I am reluctant to give up my Panasonic plasma because the picture quality is just so dang good.


Hi 
I am still using my 1080p pioneer Elite plasma tv
I use an HD fury to trick my system to believe I have a 4k tv which then gives me access to Dolby Atmos sound on Streaming like Vudu ,Amazon and Netflix
Regards 
H


----------



## Krobar

mrvideo said:


> The display really has nothing to do with the audio, unless the player is directly connected to the display. For most users, the player is connected to an AVR, which is what extracts the audio. The type of display is unimportant.


Particularly with steaming boxes it is important. Quite a few devices/apps refuse to output Atmos unless connected to a 4K display.


----------



## Soulburner

That is unfortunate. I have the last gen of Samsung plasma and it is wonderful. I don't plan to spend $ on a display for years yet.


----------



## Soulburner

Does anyone know what the difference is, processing-wise, when the AVR is configured for top vs height speakers? Have searched but haven't uncovered what I'm looking for.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Does anyone know what the difference is, processing-wise, when the AVR is configured for top vs height speakers? Have searched but haven't uncovered what I'm looking for.


The expected position in the room changes the math in the renderer to steer sound correctly between each adjacent speaker in the array.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> Does anyone know what the difference is, processing-wise, when the AVR is configured for top vs height speakers?


The difference is the rendering assumptions. The only way that the Atmos and DTS:X renderers know where your speakers are is by the labels you assign them.

The Atmos renderer assumes that Heights are at the very front & back of your speaker layout, in the same vertical plane as your Fronts & Rears (respectively). Tops are assumed to be 25% of the way in from the front & back of your speaker layout. Top Middle is at the front/back midpoint of your layout. The left and right overhead arrays are assumed to be 25% of the way in from the sides of your speaker layout.

The DTS:X renderer uses angles relative to the listener, so it assumes that Heights are at 45 degrees elevation and Tops are at 60 degrees elevation. The assumed azimuth angle for both settings is 45 degrees from centre.

If you were to map these locations on your ceiling, you'd find that Atmos Tops are close enough to DTS:X Heights that a single overhead configuration of 4 or 6 speakers could satisfy both formats. Sorry Auro.


----------



## X4100

So in other words, no actual change in the overall sound. Some say that the top settings give "MORE" or better sound.


----------



## sdurani

X4100 said:


> So in other words, no actual change in the overall sound.


Sounds intended to come from above you will still come from above you, but changing speaker labels will change which speakers those sounds come from. For both formats, the Tops are assumed to be inward of the Heights. The renderer will take that location difference into account when calculating which sounds to send to which speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> So in other words, no actual change in the overall sound. Some say that the top settings give "MORE" or better sound.


Test the Dolby Atmos demos yourself with the setting changed. Other than the helicopter demo which sounds like it moves faster in one direction with Tops, I hear ZERO difference here between ANY of the other demos. I believe that is because the Atmos renderer compensates for not having a given pair by moving it to the nearest pair (you can hear this in many many Atmos demos). It will move a sound to front heights from the rear heights position before it will put it in the lower sound layer, for example. So, if it has to move the sound to the heights position because you don't have Tops or to Tops because you don't have Heights, has it really done anything different? 

According to someone that thinks everything I say on here is wrong, it will render in the Heights position if you have Tops (The rules of physics apparently don't apply) and in the Tops position because it's just a panning change. But *IT DOESN'T*. It renders exactly the same on _most_ of the demo material and only slightly different (not a position change that I can hear) on the helicopter demo. But no one acknowledges this. They just tell me my system is "weird" and doesn't behave right because of the extra speakers (nonsense since I can turn them off). 

It's all good to talk about theory and what one thinks it _should_ do, but the problem is the people telling you these things apparently have never tested any of their theories with actual material or they'd realize it's not behaving the way they claim it is and that's because Atmos doesn't throw out sounds. It moves them to where you have speakers on a limited system. I've asked people with a Trinnov that have Heights & Tops to find out what happens on some of these demos with both present and they just ignore me. Go figure. Why bother to _find_ the truth of the renderer behaviors when you can just _assume_ what it is.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> the helicopter demo


What is the helicopter demo? Didn't see that on the website.


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> The difference is the rendering assumptions. The only way that the Atmos and DTS:X renderers know where your speakers are is by the labels you assign them.
> 
> The Atmos renderer assumes that Heights are at the very front & back of your speaker layout, in the same vertical plane as your Fronts & Rears (respectively). Tops are assumed to be 25% of the way in from the front & back of your speaker layout. Top Middle is at the front/back midpoint of your layout. The left and right overhead arrays are assumed to be 25% of the way in from the sides of your speaker layout.
> 
> The DTS:X renderer uses angles relative to the listener, so it assumes that Heights are at 45 degrees elevation and Tops are at 60 degrees elevation. The assumed azimuth angle for both settings is 45 degrees from centre.
> 
> If you were to map these locations on your ceiling, you'd find that Atmos Tops are close enough to DTS:X Heights that a single overhead configuration of 4 or 6 speakers could satisfy both formats. Sorry Auro.


I set mine up as heights in order to test all 3 upmixing options to see what I thought of them. They are at roughly 45 degrees.

It's a pain switching because a layout change disables Audyssey so it requires a full run and tweaking of levels again.


----------



## T-Bone

Soulburner said:


> What is the helicopter demo? Didn't see that on the website.


See Number 6 under HD test clips. 






Samples - Official Kodi Wiki







kodi.wiki




-T


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I set mine up as heights in order to test all 3 upmixing options to see what I thought of them. They are at roughly 45 degrees.
> 
> It's a pain switching because a layout change disables Audyssey so it requires a full run and tweaking of levels again.


You don't need Audyssey to do simple rendering comparisons. Do your comparisons without it on for either. Just make sure the channel levels are matched and set evenly. You can then switch back and forth pretty quickly. 

I actually saved a Smart Setting on my Marantz AVR with the correct levels set for both with Audyssey turned off so I can compare easily at any point in the future without disturbing my reference settings.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> Test the Dolby Atmos demos yourself with the setting changed. Other than the helicopter demo which sounds like it moves faster in one direction with Tops, I hear ZERO difference here between ANY of the other demos. I believe that is because the Atmos renderer compensates for not having a given pair by moving it to the nearest pair (you can hear this in many many Atmos demos). It will move a sound to front heights from the rear heights position before it will put it in the lower sound layer, for example. So, if it has to move the sound to the heights position because you don't have Tops or to Tops because you don't have Heights, has it really done anything different?
> 
> According to someone that thinks everything I say on here is wrong, it will render in the Heights position if you have Tops (The rules of physics apparently don't apply) and in the Tops position because it's just a panning change. But *IT DOESN'T*. It renders exactly the same on _most_ of the demo material and only slightly different (not a position change that I can hear) on the helicopter demo. But no one acknowledges this. They just tell me my system is "weird" and doesn't behave right because of the extra speakers (nonsense since I can turn them off).
> 
> It's all good to talk about theory and what one thinks it _should_ do, but the problem is the people telling you these things apparently have never tested any of their theories with actual material or they'd realize it's not behaving the way they claim it is and that's because Atmos doesn't throw out sounds. It moves them to where you have speakers on a limited system. I've asked people with a Trinnov that have Heights & Tops to find out what happens on some of these demos with both present and they just ignore me. Go figure. Why bother to _find_ the truth of the renderer behaviors when you can just _assume_ what it is.


But in fairness, you’re also assuming since you don’t have any speakers in TOPS positions, and your heights are barely over your “ear level” speakers. So why is it different for you to say what will do what, with either top/height assignments when you haven’t tested them either? This is a legitimate question. Aren’t you making assumptions as well?


----------



## niterida

If you have Heights configured as heights and then compare to Tops configured as tops it should sound identical. Since the renderer is applying assumptions that your heights are in one position and your tops in another and sends different signals to different speakers in order to make the resulting sound match the original mix.
Now if you have Heights and configure them as tops you should, in theory, hear something different compared to having heights configured as heights. This is because the renderer should be changing the signal to compensate for the different locations. But like @MagnumX , whenever I have changed the AVR setting I can hear absolutely no difference whatsoever. There might be a difference but it is so subtle that it is inaudible in my 5.1.4 setup in my 6.2x4.3x2.7m room. It may be more noticeable in a bigger room with bigger differences between locations etc. 
Who really knows ?? Dolby I guess but they aint telling


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> But in fairness, you’re also assuming since you don’t have any speakers in TOPS positions, and your heights are barely over your “ear level” speakers. So why is it different for you to say what will do what, with either top/height assignments when you haven’t tested them either? This is a legitimate question. Aren’t you making assumptions as well?


_Barely_ over ear level? They're at the ceiling in the front and on the ceiling in the back (same tweeter height off ceiling) on a a nearly 9' ceiling with ~33 degrees above my ear level (I'm 6'2") in the front/MLP row (22 degrees from the MLP in back but that's with six overheads where Dolby has heights at 20 degrees minimum.

Top middle are at about 110 degrees. They do sit about 8" lower at the tweeter due to the steel beam box, but they're still well within a typical 8' ceiling range relative to ear level in a typical rec room and blend with the mains due to purposely bleeding a bit of overlap so it's more like an effective 4" difference in height, which I can't tell much of an audible difference for sounds directly overhead.

How is any of that equate to "barely over ear level" ? It tracks the entire ceiling of the room. I just find it amazing how people like to question my system for some reason. I don't see the same thing with anyone else on here. 

Stuart Bowling, the director of content and creative relations at Dolby themselves saw my theater photos, diagrams and layout description on the RPF forums and publicly approved of my setup there. If it's good enough for Dolby, it ought to be good enough for AVS.

As for Tops/Heights, Niterida described it pretty well. I can compare the Tops setting on the Heights layout. However, I also have a Monoprice 2-in, 2-out speaker switch with volume control and parallel drive capability connected. This means I can send Rear Heights output to Top Middle instead, effectively cutting the room in two. 

With rear surrounds removed from the AVP setup, I essentially have a 5.1.4 system using the first half of the room (equivalent to 12'x12' 5.1.4, but with 33/110 angles). If I move my chair forward a couple of feet, I'm at about 48/125 (aka 45/-55), well within Dolby "Tops" angle range for testing purposes. That's kind of close to the screen for viewing, but we're talking about an audio test here for comparisons. I can then switch that to either Heights or Tops settings.

Thus, as I've said in a previous post, I'm probably in a better position than most to test not only Heights and Tops settings, but configurations from stereo and even quad (SACD ISOs can be rendered with rear or sides for surrounds in KODI) to 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 5.1.6, 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 plus extra speakers FW and SS#2 included or not. 

Plus I'm also setup for Auro-3D 8.0 to 10.0 with Surround Height or Rear Height or Both (or a rendered 'scatmos' in-between), making it a breeze to compare Atmos and Auro movies with any combination (I have 8 movies in both formats to compare).


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> This is because the renderer should be changing the signal to compensate for the different locations.


Let's ignore physical location momentarily. Suppose you have 2 pairs of speakers above you, spread well apart. One pair in front of you and the other pair the same distance behind you. You label them Front Heights and Rear Heights, so the renderer assumes they are at the front edge and back edge of your speaker layout. 

If you play back signals for the Front Heights and Rear Heights, the sound will come from their respective pairs. If you play signals for the Top Middles, the sound will come equally from both pairs to create a phantom image exactly between them. 

What if you play signals for the Top Front and Top Rear speakers: will the renderer attempt to phantom image them at their intended location 25% inward of the Front Heights and Rear Heights OR will the renderer route all the sound to the Front Heights and Rear Heights? 

Turns out both are possible. For a while, there were two 9.1.6 speaker ID tracks that each played back the Wides differently on set-ups that did not have Wides. The test track that could be downloaded from the Dolby site had Wides test tones that phantom imaged between the Fronts and Sides (where the Wides would have been). The test track on the Dolby demo disc had the Wides test tones 'snap to' the Front speakers only. 

You can hear this snap to effect on the Rhianna song at the end titles of Star Trek Beyond. If you have Wides, you'll hear instruments from those locations. Without Wides, those sounds snap to the Front L/R speakers rather than phantom imaging where the Wides would have been.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Turns out both are possible. For a while, there were two 9.1.6 speaker ID tracks that each played back the Wides differently on set-ups that did not have Wides. The test track that could be downloaded from the Dolby site had Wides test tones that phantom imaged between the Fronts and Sides (where the Wides would have been). The test track on the Dolby demo disc had the Wides test tones 'snap to' the Front speakers only.
> 
> You can hear this snap to effect on the Rhianna song at the end titles of Star Trek Beyond. If you have Wides, you'll hear instruments from those locations. Without Wides, those sounds snap to the Front L/R speakers rather than phantom imaging where the Wides would have been.


And to make things more interesting, they have the option to snap to nearest known speaker, snap to an individual speaker position, or snap to/limit to individual zones (i.e. front soundstage, left side, right side, rear, height). There are quite a few assignable parameters for the objects.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And to make things more interesting, they have the option to snap to nearest known speaker, snap to an individual speaker position, or snap to/limit to individual zones (i.e. front soundstage, left side, right side, rear, height). There are quite a few assignable parameters for the objects.


Yeah, seems the main obstacles to good Atmos tracks are still the mixing and encoding. Was frustrating when I couldn't get the Wides signals on the Dolby demo disc to float between the Fronts & Sides. That's how I found out about the alternate version on the Dolby site. I get why the 'snap to' feature is used (e.g., dialogue panned off screen could end up being downmixed to the Sides, which would be distracting to the nearby listener), but I still find it annoying. First world problem.


----------



## howard68

Soulburner said:


> That is unfortunate. I have the last gen of Samsung plasma and it is wonderful. I don't plan to spend $ on a display for years yet.


Hi 
So when I connect to my 1080p tv I do not get Atmos Sound 
However, when I use my HDFury I get Atmos on all streaming platforms


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Yeah, seems the main obstacles to good Atmos tracks are still the mixing and encoding. Was frustrating when I couldn't get the Wides signals on the Dolby demo disc to float between the Fronts & Sides. That's how I found out about the alternate version on the Dolby site. I get why the 'snap to' feature is used (e.g., dialogue panned off screen could end up being downmixed to the Sides, which would be distracting to the nearby listener), but I still find it annoying. First world problem.


I wonder if they default to the objects translated out from the L/R channels in the base 7.1 as snapped to the front zone specifically to keep dialogue from spilling over as you said. That would kinda' make sense as a general practice, since dynamic objects could still be panned through that area of the room regardless.

Now you have me curious to check my demo disc to see what it does. What year demo disc are you using?


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> What year demo disc are you using?


Sept 2016.


----------



## bartonnen

Soulburner said:


> I have the last gen of Samsung plasma and it is wonderful. I don't plan to spend $ on a display for years yet.


I had an 64F8500 and was of the same opinion, but then a really good deal came up for a Panasonic OLED. The plasma was good, but the OLED is great. The blacks are so much better and HDR/Dolby Vision is amazing. A few months later the Plasma died - I'm so glad I picked up the Panasonic when I did (it was the last model available in Australia before Panasonic stopped selling TVs here).
The only thing I miss about the plasma is the 3D capability.


----------



## niterida

Polyrythm1k said:


> Sorry, but I see a LOT of concessions made for your specific layout that’s supposed to be the be all end all according to…..you(or stewart)? Backpatting much? Why is your way the only way? Why are TOPS so bad? Because YOU didn’t do it that way.
> I’m sure the mods will nuke me but that’s fine. It’s never the one who started it who gets in trouble. Just figured I’d ask the playground bully why he can say whatever he wants, while everyone else is just not qualified as vonmagnumXL.


I don't see @MagnumX saying his room setup is the only way - he is just stating what he can and can't do to test things with his dynamic setup and what he does and doesn't hear. 
I don't always agree with everything he says but I think his observations are worth taking into consideration, especially considering the way he can change his configuration so easily.



bluesky636 said:


> Boy. There are really some nasty and insulting people in this forum. I'm actually glad I don't have an Atmos setup in my room since the room configuration would require so many compromises that I would probably be ripped a new one. Heck, even my traditional 7.1 system is full of compromises that people have told me were wrong, but it works and sounds great to me. I seem to remember reading earlier in this forum that Atmos has plenty of room to compromise on speaker placement and that it is hard if not impossible to screw it up. One certainly doesn't get that impression based on some of the over the top nit picking and fighting I read here.
> 
> Grow up people.


We all agree Atmos is brilliant and very forgiving with speaker placement.
What we are debating is how it actually works in theory and in real rooms.


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> If you have Heights configured as heights and then compare to Tops configured as tops it should sound identical. Since the renderer is applying assumptions that your heights are in one position and your tops in another and sends different signals to different speakers in order to make the resulting sound match the original mix.
> Now if you have Heights and configure them as tops you should, in theory, hear something different compared to having heights configured as heights. This is because the renderer should be changing the signal to compensate for the different locations. But like @MagnumX , whenever I have changed the AVR setting I can hear absolutely no difference whatsoever. There might be a difference but it is so subtle that it is inaudible in my 5.1.4 setup in my 6.2x4.3x2.7m room. It may be more noticeable in a bigger room with bigger differences between locations etc.
> Who really knows ?? Dolby I guess but they aint telling


Did you test imaging, particularly objects moving front to back or back to front?


----------



## Soulburner

bartonnen said:


> I had an 64F8500 and was of the same opinion, but then a really good deal came up for a Panasonic OLED. The plasma was good, but the OLED is great. The blacks are so much better and HDR/Dolby Vision is amazing. A few months later the Plasma died - I'm so glad I picked up the Panasonic when I did (it was the last model available in Australia before Panasonic stopped selling TVs here).
> The only thing I miss about the plasma is the 3D capability.


I hear you. I'm sure the OLED is amazing. But this panel isn't that old in terms of hours and I'd like to exhaust some 1080p content before moving on.


----------



## Soulburner

howard68 said:


> Hi
> So when I connect to my 1080p tv I do not get Atmos Sound
> However, when I use my HDFury I get Atmos on all streaming platforms


I'm not familiar with this device but it looks like it strips out HDCP. I'd have to do some research, thanks.


----------



## Krobar

> I hear you. I'm sure the OLED is amazing. But this panel isn't that old in terms of hours and I'd like to exhaust some 1080p content before moving on.


It depends on the device. For my Roku Ultra the major apps with my 1080P display are as follows:
Netflix - Atmos OK
Amazon - No Atmos
Disney Plus - Atmos OK (Changed with recent update)
Apple TV - Atmos OK

You can use a cheap 4K downscaler device (About $50) to make them all of the apps output Atmos but thats not ideal.


----------



## X4100

I have front and rear heights, logically the renderer will send the audio signal to the speakers in those places. If I physically leave my setup as it is, but tell the renderer that I have my speakers in a top front, and rear configuration.... my view is that the sound will be sent to the actual location of my speakers. I say this because the renderer can only go by where I say my speakers are located, it doesn't know that the speakers are not in the top front and rear location. Therefore the sound should be the same, what am I missing


----------



## X4100

It just seems some are saying the renderer knows where my speakers are, even if I choose to say that they are in a different position???? that sounds like we're giving too much ability to the renderer. I know the top fronts are 25% from the height front speakers, as well as the rear tops are the same from the rear heights. My problem with saying the sound is different comes from my feelings that the renderer is not able to apply a configuration differently than I have actually used when I set up things in amp assign.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for sharing your various thoughts on this, I'm just trying to wrap my head around these two different views being expressed. This is the aspect of speaker configuration that I'm interested in, so I'm happy we're back on track with this discussion. @MagnumX statement above about how he by changing his configuration can in effect make his room 12x12 caught my attention. If I keep my speakers in their actual position front and rear height, but in amp assign say my rear heights are top middle, will that change what I'm hearing now?


----------



## X4100

I'm rereading previous post from @niterida, @sdurani, @Jeremy Andersson, @MagnumX, because the 4 of you have been posting about things I've been thinking about. My x4100 denon is one of the first 3 denon atmos avr's released, and I believe I would have to rerun audyssey if I changed my setup from front and rear heights > top front and top rear > I don't know if front height and top middle is even allowed. You guys have peaked my interest once again, I think I'm becoming nitpicky tweaker again! Lol. Please continue to post your thoughts on this subject, because I'm gaining alot of insight from guys with much more understanding and experience than I have


----------



## X4100

Going back I realized @Soulburner got this thread restarted yesterday, very much thankful to you! I've also read posts about this topic, but I still don't quite understand the what, how, and why that I read from the difference in viewpoints


----------



## vn800art

Yesss, he opened again the rabbit  hole  ! 
And to answer someone's doubt, Yes, you have to rerun Audyssey if you change the speakers configuration from Heights to Tops. So you tell Audyssey you have 4 speakers over your head closer to Mlp. And you will hear the height positioned speakers a little closer to you, with the same output in terms of content. 
Done this more than two years ago.
I used to have two Usb thumb sticks, one marked Atmos and the other one marked Auro, to change the settings on my Sr7011 (save/load configuration).
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## X4100

@sdurani: If you play back signals for the Front Heights and Rear Heights, the sound will come from their respective pairs. If you play signals for the Top Middles, the sound will come equally from both pairs to create a phantom image exactly between them.

Is this referring to a x.x.6. This is interesting, I'm going to try to download a track like that! I really enjoyed rereading your previous post. I'm feeling like Neo in the Matrix with all this information!!!!!!!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> I have front and rear heights, logically the renderer will send the audio signal to the speakers in those places. If I physically leave my setup as it is, but tell the renderer that I have my speakers in a top front, and rear configuration.... my view is that the sound will be sent to the actual location of my speakers. I say this because the renderer can only go by where I say my speakers are located, it doesn't know that the speakers are not in the top front and rear location. Therefore the sound should be the same, what am I missing


Pardon my crappy drawing skills, but maybe this will help you wrap your head around what's going on. Bear in mind that this is a generalization and that the actual steering being done can get way more complicated than this but is founded on this basic principle of cross-channel imaging. Let's say I have two different layouts - one with front/rear height and one with top front/rear. And let's say I'm trying to place an object in the room at the location indicated by the red arrow in the attached diagrams, without any snap-to parameter assigned to the object. Let's look at a side view of each room, with the front soundstage on the left side of the diagram.

In example 1, you have the speakers at the front/rear height placement and tell the renderer that. To image a sound in the direction of the arrow's location, you would have to steer it between the front and rear heights... so you would put the same sound in each of them at varying levels. In this case, let's ballpark that the sound would be 75% in the front height and 25% in the rear height.








Now, let's take example 2, which is a top front/rear placement. To image that same object's sound in that location, you're now steering it between the front and top front positions instead. It's only slightly forward of the expected top front position, so let's say this sound is placed 98% in the top front and 2% in the front. (Side note: If the object is snapped to the height zone only, this would be 100% top front and nothing in the front, because that parameter would keep the renderer from using the other zones for steering.)








Now, let's consider what happens if you have a front/rear height layout but tell the renderer that you have top front/rear. In example 3, the renderer thinks it has a speaker at top front because you've told it so. So for that object, it still uses the steering logic it would for that location - 98% in that speaker and 2% in the front. But 98% placed at a front height location images the sound in the direction of the gray line, NOT the direction of the object's location at the red arrow.








So what happens if you have a top front/rear layout but tell the renderer that you have front/rear height? In example 4, the renderer thinks it has a speaker at front/rear height because you've told it so. So for that object, it uses the steering logic from example 1 - 75%/25%. This places the image in the direction of the gray line.








This is what happens when you change the positions. If you listened to that single height speaker, you might think there's not much difference. But the levels placed in each channel are determined by that set expected location. You may be hearing the same sound if you swap between front height and top front... but you won't necessarily hear it at the same level and how it will be placed in adjacent channels may differ.

More interestingly, if you do have a front/rear height layout and change between front height and top front, you may not hear much actual difference in the room... because the angular separation between front/rear height (about 120 degrees) means that imaging between those two locations (as illustrated in example 1) is far more imprecise (barring you having the Auro VOG speaker or a Scatmos top mid arrangement to fill that gap). So what you end up hearing is just kinda' "generally up front and upward" rather than in a specific direction and would sound fairly similar regardless. Contrast that with a top front/rear layout, where you've closed the angles up so you can phantom image between each speaker better.

And finally, consider whether most people would _ever notice the difference_ in practice if they didn't know exactly what they were listening for. Probably not. Most people would just hear some sound elevated above ear level and be perfectly happy, blissfully unaware that what they're hearing doesn't quite jive with what they should be hearing.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for sharing this, I am starting to understand the how and why of this information. It is a lot more complicated than just putting some speakers on the wall or ceiling. Your diagrams are perfect


----------



## sdurani

X4100 said:


> Is this referring to a x.x.6.


No, x.x.4. If the sound was meant for the Top Middle speakers but you don't have Top Middle speakers, where will that sound be played back from? If you don't have a Centre speaker in front of you, where will the Centre channel sound be played back from?


----------



## squared80

X4100 said:


> Going back I realized @Soulburner got this thread restarted yesterday, very much thankful to you! I've also read posts about this topic, but I still don't quite understand the what, how, and why that I read from the difference in viewpoints


1 post instead of 5 in a row is preferred.


----------



## bluesky636

squared80 said:


> 1 post instead of 5 in a row is preferred.


Quoting the post you are responding to is also helpful.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> More interestingly, if you do have a front/rear height layout and change between front height and top front, you may not hear much actual difference in the room... because the angular separation between front/rear height (about 120 degrees) means that imaging between those two locations (as illustrated in example 1) is far more imprecise (barring you having the Auro VOG speaker or a Scatmos top mid arrangement to fill that gap). So what you end up hearing is just kinda' "generally up front and upward" rather than in a specific direction and would sound fairly similar regardless. Contrast that with a top front/rear layout, where you've closed the angles up so you can phantom image between each speaker better.





Jeremy Anderson said:


> So what happens if you have a top front/rear layout but tell the renderer that you have front/rear height? In example 4, the renderer thinks it has a speaker at front/rear height because you've told it so. So for that object, it uses the steering logic from example 1 - 75%/25%. This places the image in the direction of the gray line.


I just played the Helicopter demo about 20 times. I switched between Top and Height and listened to the imaging very carefully, especially between the fronts and rears. I couldn't hear a hill of beans worth of a difference in my setup, so I'll stick with Height so I can continue to try all the upmixers.

Thank you everyone for the discussion.


----------



## Soulburner

*Further height/top speaker level calibration with actual movie content*

Several pages ago I calibrated my ceiling speakers using white noise from the Dolby 5.1.4 test tones video. This brought my speakers in line post-Audyssey, which is needed because of Dynamic EQ's inappropriate side surround and top rear channel boosts. I recommend everyone using Dynamic EQ to download these Dolby test tone videos and do the same using a calibrated microphone.

But the reason I'm following up is the next step, which is to test with real content to get a sense of overall balance and how various movies are using the ceiling speakers. That varies drastically, but least IMO/IME, a little boosting was necessary. I thought they were too quiet and hard to notice in the mix a lot of the time, even when listening for them. I added +2 to all 4 of the speakers and there seems to be a better balance now. I played every video available here for source material. The ones I felt were the best for testing were:

Jupiter Ascending
Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Helicopter chase)
The Invisible Man (the rain in the parking lot)
Transformers 4 [Lockdown Machine]
Unbroken [Bombing]
The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Pt.1 [Fight in the Ruins]

This is likely system and room specific, but has anyone else found a need to add a boost to their ceiling speakers?


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> *Further height/top speaker level calibration with actual movie content*
> 
> Several pages ago I calibrated my ceiling speakers using white noise from the Dolby 5.1.4 test tones video. This brought my speakers in line post-Audyssey, which is needed because of Dynamic EQ's inappropriate side surround and top rear channel boosts. I recommend everyone using Dynamic EQ to download these Dolby test tone videos and do the same using a calibrated microphone.
> 
> But the reason I'm following up is the next step, which is to test with real content to get a sense of overall balance and how various movies are using the ceiling speakers. That varies drastically, but least IMO/IME, a little boosting was necessary. I thought they were too quiet and hard to notice in the mix a lot of the time, even when listening for them. I added +2 to all 4 of the speakers and there seems to be a better balance now. I played every video available here for source material. The ones I felt were the best for testing were:
> 
> Jupiter Ascending
> Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Helicopter chase)
> The Invisible Man (the rain in the parking lot)
> Transformers 4 [Lockdown Machine]
> Unbroken [Bombing]
> The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Pt.1 [Fight in the Ruins]
> 
> This is likely system and room specific, but has anyone else found a need to add a boost to their ceiling speakers?


When I play the Dolby demos or well-done Atmos I don't find a need for it, but with lesser-done Atmos it does make me want to adjust the gain (yet I don't). I'm not using Dynamic EQ, or Audyssey for that matter. Just manual distance and level setting with a SPL meter.


----------



## mschubert

Howdy folks. I've got two questions.
1) Does "Dolby Digital" audio format support Dolby Atmos? According to this it does not, you need "Dolby Digital Plus" or "Dolby TrueHD"...
2) If it's true that Dolby Digital does NOT support Dolby Atmos then is it just me or is this help article on the Samsung website wrong and misleading?

Thank you.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> When I play the Dolby demos or well-done Atmos I don't find a need for it, but with lesser-done Atmos it does make me want to adjust the gain (yet I don't). I'm not using Dynamic EQ, or Audyssey for that matter. Just manual distance and level setting with a SPL meter.


Yeah there is definitely a difference in real-world use. DEQ doesn't factor into this, I just wanted to tie my previous post on level matching to this new calibration with actual content. This would apply to any system that finds top speakers on the quiet side with all speakers level matched.

The +2 adjustment has made the system more enjoyable, at least with all of the clips available in the link.

Also...I find the mixes that put music in the top speakers more enjoyable. I think that's a good choice, especially during dramatic moments. Of course you want good top speakers that can play music well. When they are mostly quiet you don't get that sense of room-filling sound and you don't get the uplifting of the sound stage.

I haven't tested any streaming services.


----------



## Rich 63

To mschubert
1. Is correct. And in dd+, atmos is still a lesser version of itself compared to true hd uncompressed versions. Although im still impressed with the dd+ version.
2. Not sure what your asking about. Seems straight forward.


----------



## mschubert

Rich 63 said:


> 2. Not sure what your asking about. Seems straight forward.


The article says to set your TV to output "Dolby Digital" and doesn't mention DD+ at all, even through it's shown (and oddly greyed out) in the image they provide in the article. People following the article and setting their TV's to output DD instead of DD+ will never be sending Dolby Atmos to their soundbar... Considering how the article is titled "Get unrivaled sound with Dolby Atmos" I would think they should tell people the correct setting to select...


----------



## X4100

Thanks @Jeremy Anderson, and @sdurani. I really enjoyed what you have shared with me, now I'm going to read over the last few pages and digest them


----------



## MagnumX

I only see a quote from Polyrhthmic's post so I assume it was nuked, but I just want to say I never said my system is "better" than everyone else's. It has some compromises in it for the room and Auro support and the extra speakers aren't fully discrete with the current AVR. I've only been defending that it renders pretty correctly from people that keep saying for some strange reason my comments have no relevance to this rendering discussion because I'm using well known expansion techniques to put hard speakers to reduce rendering error due to the precedence effect for off-axis listeners (It's also ready for a fully discrete processor). How does that equate to "better" or bragging?

I've got some flexible options installed (e.g. Speaker switch boxes) because I wanted full Auro support to play with early on. These let me also play with different Atmos layouts like 5.1.4 using half the room. That just means I can test some of these renderer scenarios with more than one configuration to actually HEAR what happens rather than use a theory about what I _think_ it does or should do. That's what I keep reading from certain people on here. This is what it _should_ do.

The problem is and what people like @Soulburner that are actually running demo tests are finding out is that what Atmos _could_ theoretically do for different speaker configurations are NOT what it does in reality, at least with known demos that really utilize overhead speakers.

There's also a very real difference between listening to something with speakers in different physical locations and changing the speaker assignment setting. Real locations sound very different. Settings often do not and that's because as I've said before Atmos doesn't throw out information meant for speakers you don't have. It merely moves them to a different location.

Heights get moved to Tops and Tops get moved to Heights. A simple test of a demo like _Conductor_ will show that the overhead sounds on a .2 overhead system will move to whatever pair you have (be it Front Height, Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear or Rear Height). A sound meant for Rear Height will move to Front Height before it moves to any ear level speaker! The helicopter demo will sooner move left/right stationary overhead than render to ear level speakers. You have to shut off ALL overheads to get it to render at ear level. That is reality and it applies to every Dolby Atmos demo I've ever heard.

Conjecture and theory are great, but if they don't match actual real world behaviors most of the time, what actual use are they?

I just reconfigured for 5.1.4 and tried Conductor, Helicopter and The Encounter demos with Heights, Tops and Front Height + Top Middle settings and moved my seat accordingly for matching angles.

According to the above diagrams, it should be moving inward/outward to match the object locations, but for Conductor and The Encounter, the only observable changes I could hear was the physical change to use Top Middle instead of the Rear Heights. The settings used had no effect whatsoever. Now maybe these demos are not indicative of real world movies, but nearly all Dolby's demos behave this way and without any real world examples to prove otherwise, I'm afraid it's just conjecture.

The helicopter demo did change slightly, but if anything it was the reverse of what was expected (It moved inward towards the center a couple of feet in Tops setting rather than the expected outward). 

Look. I'm an engineer by trade. I'm not here to coddle or hurt feelings or brag, only to get to the bottom line and theories must be tested or beliefs start spreading like facts (not helped if people put others that disagree with them on ignore and only listen to yes men). A few white papers don't necessarily describe the bottom line in real world usage. What "can" or "could" be done isn't necessarily what actually is done.

If someone doesn't believe me or even like me, so what? Test it yourself if you prefer, but assuming you _know_ how something behaves without any real world testing is a recipe for error.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> The helicopter demo did change slightly, but if anything it was the reverse of what was expected (It moved inward towards the center a couple of feet in Tops setting rather than the expected outward).


I thought I heard this, too, but I convinced myself I was mistaken. I don't know.


----------



## Rich 63

Ive been following this thread for quite sometime. Magnum has set his system by his account to be able to test various layouts and codecs. How many other debaters in this discussion have this ability. Talking theory is what talkers do magnum has put it into real world practice in his space. Something that often brings back data one would not expect given the theory.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for chiming in Magnumx, I like your thoroughness as you describe should be vs what you actually heard. Very nicely done.


----------



## ppasteur

Rich 63 said:


> Ive been following this thread for quite sometime. Magnum has set his system by his account to be able to test various layouts and codecs. How many other debaters in this discussion have this ability. Talking theory is what talkers do magnum has put it into real world practice in his space. Something that often brings back data one would not expect given the theory.


Yeah, but no testing with true "TOP" speakers, as there are none in his setup. Also no one can duplicate his settings for verification testing due to all of the manual settings involved. 
So a grain or less of salt is required in accepting his results... 
Always an interesting read though.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> *Further height/top speaker level calibration with actual movie content*
> 
> Several pages ago I calibrated my ceiling speakers using white noise from the Dolby 5.1.4 test tones video. This brought my speakers in line post-Audyssey, which is needed because of Dynamic EQ's inappropriate side surround and top rear channel boosts. I recommend everyone using Dynamic EQ to download these Dolby test tone videos and do the same using a calibrated microphone.
> 
> But the reason I'm following up is the next step, which is to test with real content to get a sense of overall balance and how various movies are using the ceiling speakers. That varies drastically, but least IMO/IME, a little boosting was necessary. I thought they were too quiet and hard to notice in the mix a lot of the time, even when listening for them. I added +2 to all 4 of the speakers and there seems to be a better balance now. I played every video available here for source material. The ones I felt were the best for testing were:
> 
> Jupiter Ascending
> Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Helicopter chase)
> The Invisible Man (the rain in the parking lot)
> Transformers 4 [Lockdown Machine]
> Unbroken [Bombing]
> The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Pt.1 [Fight in the Ruins]
> 
> This is likely system and room specific, but has anyone else found a need to add a boost to their ceiling speakers?


Makes sense to me since a microphone wil pick up sounds from the rear exactly the same as souinds from the front. But our ears are constrained by the pinnae that blocks some of the sound coming from the rear, so therefore we must increase the sound level for it to sound the same as the front.


----------



## bluesky636

niterida said:


> Makes sense to me since a microphone wil pick up sounds from the rear exactly the same as souinds from the front. But our ears are constrained by the pinnae that blocks some of the sound coming from the rear, so therefore we must increase the sound level for it to sound the same as the front.


An omni like an Audyssey mic, yes. A cardioid like mics used by solo singers, no.


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> Makes sense to me since a microphone wil pick up sounds from the rear exactly the same as souinds from the front. But our ears are constrained by the pinnae that blocks some of the sound coming from the rear, so therefore we must increase the sound level for it to sound the same as the front.


I increased all 4 speakers by the same amount.

And I understand the theory, but in my room, the rears shouldn't be run hotter than the fronts or the imaging becomes rear-heavy. That is the problem I solved with level matching.


----------



## X4100

@Soulburner, IIRC you don't use dynamic eq am I correct. Do you think your adjustments made after you ran audyssey made your rear speakers hotter than the front? Just asking.


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> Yeah, but no testing with true "TOP" speakers, as there are none in his setup. Also no one can duplicate his settings for verification testing due to all of the manual settings involved.
> So a grain or less of salt is required in accepting his results...
> Always an interesting read though.


The AVR will blindly render where it says your speakers are (it doesn't actually know where your speakers are), so you can take his testing as (mostly) true. You can also refer to Jeremy's pics.

My theory is: a height speaker is regarded as 50% top. In the helicopter demo, the object is at 50% top, so it will image differently according to speaker choice. But on most movies, objects are either 0% or 100% top, so you won't hear much difference whether you choose H/T. You can check out the object viewer videos on YT.

(50% is chosen as an example, it could be any other fraction/position)


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Yeah there is definitely a difference in real-world use. DEQ doesn't factor into this, I just wanted to tie my previous post on level matching to this new calibration with actual content. This would apply to any system that finds top speakers on the quiet side with all speakers level matched.
> 
> The +2 adjustment has made the system more enjoyable, at least with all of the clips available in the link.
> 
> Also...I find the mixes that put music in the top speakers more enjoyable. I think that's a good choice, especially during dramatic moments. Of course you want good top speakers that can play music well. When they are mostly quiet you don't get that sense of room-filling sound and you don't get the uplifting of the sound stage.
> 
> I haven't tested any streaming services.


I was watching The Expanse a while ago and tried +2 on the heights, the show is using the Dolby Upmixer since it isn't in Atmos and it did create more of a sound "bubble" with the DB increase. I didn't leave it this way for long, it was the final episode of season 3 and I didn't want to distract myself from the story by picking apart the audio so I dialed them back down. I'll have to try this again with some better testing, maybe with the upmixer it would be more enjoyable with a DB increase.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> I just played the Helicopter demo about 20 times. I switched between Top and Height and listened to the imaging very carefully, especially between the fronts and rears. I couldn't hear a hill of beans worth of a difference in my setup, so I'll stick with Height so I can continue to try all the upmixers.
> 
> Thank you everyone for the discussion.


As we've previously discussed, the Helicopter demo seems to either be constrained to the height zone or using the nearest available speaker flag. Changing between the two will likely not be different, because that particular demo is made to cycle between whichever heights you have. It's a height-only demo by design, and yet people keep going back to it when testing this. It isn't a good demo to use to assess the differences between the two. You would have to use something with pans through the whole array (like the Leaf or Nature's Fury demos) to hear the difference. And again, you may not hear a difference if you don't know what to listen for. In my room, it was how smoothly certain pans moved from speaker to speaker. You can hear lateral pans with the Encounter demo, but that's mostly good for assessing whether you have your height rows far enough from the side surrounds.


Rich 63 said:


> Ive been following this thread for quite sometime. Magnum has set his system by his account to be able to test various layouts and codecs. How many other debaters in this discussion have this ability. Talking theory is what talkers do magnum has put it into real world practice in his space. Something that often brings back data one would not expect given the theory.


I've run front/rear height, front height/top mid, front/side upfirers, front/rear upfirers, top front/rear height, and top front/rear. There are a few people here who have experience with the different layouts and what results you get from each, and we've mostly had good discussions about what we've found to be true.


----------



## Soulburner

X4100 said:


> @Soulburner, IIRC you don't use dynamic eq am I correct. Do you think your adjustments made after you ran audyssey made your rear speakers hotter than the front? Just asking.


I do, and DEQ will boost the rears more than the fronts (not me). I chronicled that a few pages back. The fix is to turn off your subs physically (NOT in the AVR) and use white noise to level match the speakers. This reduced the surrounds and rear heights the most. I then added +2 to all heights after testing found them to be not noticeable enough.


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> Yeah, but no testing with true "TOP" speakers, as there are none in his setup. Also no one can duplicate his settings for verification testing due to all of the manual settings involved.
> So a grain or less of salt is required in accepting his results...
> Always an interesting read though.


I've corrected you twice now and yet you continue to say the same things over and over I've already disproven and I'm not sure why this is. 

As I've indicated, I can cut the room in two and move my chair forward such that the front speakers and top middle speakers are at 45/-55 or even 50/-50 which by Dolby's standards of angles then qualify for rendering purposes to be TOPS locations or I can use the same chair location and render as Front Height + Top Middle (33/108 or 30/105 in reclined position) in addition to 7.1.6 using the full length of the room.

What manual settings are you talking about??? I check Audyssey's settings using a SPL meter and I have REW available with a calibrated microphone. These are standard tools any serious home theater enthusiast should have to verify automatic settings and tweak if necessary.

If you're referring to my active mixed speakers, as I've indicated, I can shut them off for testing if need be. They are set to image at the same locations (Front Wide and SS#2) as the phantom images appear at the MLP and are present for off-axis seat image stability and a future discrete processor upgrade. They are not affecting imaging at the MLP other than I believe the image sounds a bit mire defined or sharper. They can be turned off with a button to compare.

As for the Top Middle "Scatmos" speakers, they behave just like DTS:X Pro extra speakers and avoid the Disney issues. For most Atmos material they image the same as a rendered .6 overhead setup would and give strong overhead imaging directly above n a room size where "Heights" would be thin sounding at best directly overhead. 

They don't perform magic tricks, however so I'm not sure what your problem is with them. They can image precisely with the Atmos 9.1.6 speaker test the same as real ones. 

By purposely allowing a bit of bleed through (Which Audyssey will likely do anyway if engaged) compensates most of the difference for the imperfect location by using a partial array effect (not needed if they were placed perfectly and thus irrelevant on a discrete top middle setup perfectly in-line with front/rear Heights or Tops. 

Thus, any adjustments used are steering corrective in nature, not some random result that would make an Atmos demo render differently on any noticeable manner.

I have helped several people setup similar extra speakers in the Beyond 7.1.4 thread as well as in private messaging so this notion no one else cares about such things is also erroneous, IMO. I wasn't the first to use them and I didn't invent them. Lyngdorf used the mixing effect in their $10k plus AVP (I think it was the MP-50). Yamaha gave me the idea to do a dialog lift effect and another user on here came up with so-called "Scatmos" (Using Dolby Pro Logic center channel extraction to create "near discrete" channels between other sets (DTS:X Pro via Neural X does something very similar on a larger scale to get up to 32 speakers from 2.0 to 11-channel soundtracks).

Thus, I have no idea why you continue to insist my setup and more importantly my observations have no merit relative to other peoples systems.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As we've previously discussed, the Helicopter demo seems to either be constrained to the height zone or using the nearest available speaker flag.


And yet it is the ONLY Atmos demo I've heard that audibly demonstrates any rendering difference whatsoever. I've tried every Atmos demo that I could find and they all sound pretty much identical with settings of Heights or Tops. That you find The Encounter to sound good to you on your system doesn't necessarily mean it renders any differently with the Heights/Tops setting.



> And again, you may not hear a difference if you don't know what to listen for. In my room, it was how smoothly certain pans moved from speaker to speaker.


You told us what to listen for, namely rendering inward/outward to place objects where they are supposed to be located by object position using the available speakers. That sounds pretty high tech alright, but unfortunately I have yet to hear a single example where it actually does that (other than the seemingly reversed effect on the helicopter demo mentioned above). 

You yourself just mentioned smoother pans as the primary difference you heard in actual practice. That implies some kind of difference, but unfortunately not the one you predicted, which isn't that hard to listen for (where an object/sound appears in the room with one setting versus the other setting).


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's a height-only demo by design, and yet people keep going back to it when testing this.


I'm only testing height speaker imaging, so it seemed like the best one to do that.

I've run Leaf many times. I don't think it's good demo material for this because it's not primarily height/top speaker material. The leaf mostly circles around the bed speakers until the very end when it appears to go from top right towards top left and then imaging between the top and LCR to match where it lands on the screen. Anyway I tried this both ways and after a half dozen switches I couldn't tell a difference, even with the front speakers disconnected. Either I don't know what to listen for or there's really no difference in my system.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> I'm only testing height speaker imaging, so it seemed like the best one to do that.
> 
> I've run Leaf many times. I don't think it's good demo material for this because it's not primarily height/top speaker material. The leaf mostly circles around the bed speakers until the very end when it appears to go from top right towards top left and then imaging between the top and LCR to match where it lands on the screen. Anyway I tried this both ways and after a half dozen switches I couldn't tell a difference, even with the front speakers disconnected. Either I don't know what to listen for or there's really no difference in my system.


The leaf that circles the room isn't what you're listening for. There are pans of wind and leaves- one in particular that should move from behind left surround up overhead across to the right main. The circular pan is good for assessing delays of the ear level speakers, but it's the bursts of wind moving around that make it useful for cross-channel steering from bed to height, across and back down. Pans through like that are going to be where you would hear the difference, if you do.

But again, if you don't hear it, don't stress over it. There's nothing wrong with rolling with whatever sounds best to you.


----------



## X4100

I've been looking through the thread discussion of using front heights for Dolby Atmos. @Ben Tan says 
"I experimented with having the speakers point straight over the MLP and also pointed towards (not directly) the MLP. Had both setups for a month each. TBH, I feel that this is a little more subjective and room dependent."
"Having the speakers just pointed straight out made a more diffused soundfield, so often times it sounded like the whole ceiling was producing sound. This is great because when it "rains" in a movie (or whatever content), it really sounded like the whole ceiling was raining. It was "eerie" enough that I had to check my windows to see if it's raining outside, _EVERY_ single time. "  

This is what I am experiencing with my front and rear height setup, I like the diffusive experience, which at times has some directional effects as well


----------



## Soulburner

I'm not sure that's the same thing. Top/Height refers to where the speaker is located, not how it is angled.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> I've been looking through the thread discussion of using front heights for Dolby Atmos. @Ben Tan says
> "I experimented with having the speakers point straight over the MLP and also pointed towards (not directly) the MLP. Had both setups for a month each. TBH, I feel that this is a little more subjective and room dependent."
> "Having the speakers just pointed straight out made a more diffused soundfield, so often times it sounded like the whole ceiling was producing sound. This is great because when it "rains" in a movie (or whatever content), it really sounded like the whole ceiling was raining. It was "eerie" enough that I had to check my windows to see if it's raining outside, _EVERY_ single time. "
> 
> This is what I am experiencing with my front and rear height setup, I like the diffusive experience, which at times has some directional effects as well


There's nothing wrong with liking a more diffuse sound, but ideally, any diffusion would be a choice of the original mixer rather than a general overall effect. Some of that diffusion you're talking about would be from reflections off the ceiling, which you could argue that you would want to minimize if you can. But if you dig the sound that way, you dig the sound that way.

Also, on a related mixing note, rain is usually only placed in the heights if the scene is indoors or under an overhang... or if there is something in the scene that rain would hit above the perspective (like in a forest, where raindrops hit leaves above you). Otherwise, the rain hitting the ground would be around the listener and the wind/thunder/etc. what you primarily hear above. It's interesting to hear when a good mix accounts for this. The Age Of Adaline has scenes with rain on city streets, rain hitting a tin roof overhang, and rain in a forest that have nice contrast to them. Each sounds just a little different.


----------



## howard68

Can anyone please give me some films to demo that use TM speakers in a 7.1.6 setup 
I am finding that I don't find it being used?

Thanks 
H


----------



## X4100

With respect to my post above, I thought that @Ben Tan was saying that his front and rear height speakers were high on the wall pointing straight out, and he also tried them pointing slightly straight out. Hmm, I guess I misunderstood what he was talking about, you guys are going to have me trying out top front and rear on the ceiling if this keeps up. Lol. I have some demo clips I'm going to listen to before I rethink my configuration


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> With respect to my post above, I thought that @Ben Tan was as saying that his front and rear height speakers were high on the wall pointing straight out, and he also tried them pointing slightly straight out. Hmm, I guess I misunderstood what he was talking about, you guys are going to have me trying out top front and rear on the ceiling if this keeps up. Lol. I have some demo clips I'm going to listen to before I rethink my configuration


Will you PLEASE start using the quote function so people know what post you are referring to instead of making us scroll around to find it.


----------



## X4100

With respect to my post above, I thought that @Ben Tan was as saying that his front and rear height speakers were high on the wall pointing straight out, and he also tried them pointing slightly straight out. Hmm, I guess I misunderstood what he was talking about, you guys are going to have me trying out top front and rear on the ceiling if this keeps up. Lol. I have some demo clips I'm going to listen to before I rethink my configuration


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> With respect to my post above, I thought that @Ben Tan was as saying that his front and rear height speakers were high on the wall pointing straight out, and he also tried them pointing slightly straight out. Hmm, I guess I misunderstood what he was talking about, you guys are going to have me trying out top front and rear on the ceiling if this keeps up. Lol. I have some demo clips I'm going to listen to before I rethink my configuration


Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Rich 63

I think 4100 is a troll. He's made comments on threads that haven't seen action in months. One kinda rude. 
Think a lot will be putting him on ignore


----------



## Soulburner

I don't think he's a troll. He just needs to learn how to use the forum software.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for your support


----------



## X4100

X4100 said:


> Thanks for your support


I don't think he's a troll. He just needs to learn how to use the forum software.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> I don't think he's a troll. He just needs to learn how to use the forum software.


It's not rocket science.


----------



## Soulburner

X4100 said:


> I don't think he's a troll. He just needs to learn how to use the forum software.


You're killing me/us.


----------



## T-Bone

Rich 63 said:


> I think 4100 is a troll. He's made comments on threads that haven't seen action in months. One kinda rude.
> Think a lot will be putting him on ignore


 I read that same post. He said "Good bye" to a poster that said he was leaving a thread. The guy left it months ago, and 4100 said that to him 2 days ago.

Like Danny glover said in lethal weapon:. "I am getting too old for this $hit.'

-T


----------



## T-Bone

This thread just cleaned up rather nicely. 

-T


----------



## bluesky636

T-Bone said:


> This thread just cleaned up rather nicely.
> 
> -T


Amazing what a little personal housekeeping will accomplish.


----------



## crutzulee

Watched THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW a couple of days ago with the family. I have to say that I find myself becoming more and more impressed with these NETFLIX DD+ ATMOS presentations.
While I prefer more "bubble of sound" mixes, this one was quite impressive with it's distinct sounds coming from various places in the room especially from the height channels, which in my case are PARADIGM mini monitors tucked up in my ceiling behind acoustically transparent fabric.


----------



## mtbdudex

Well that settles it, I’m not putting Atmos in my vehicle!





















Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## X4100

What a shame, that I'm considered a troll because I made some mistakes when posting here! . This is just a reflection of what's wrong with the world today. Someone says something about a person, and others chime right in without trying to assist @Soulburner did come to my aid, which gave me a lift. Thanks for your support my friend!! I have been helped by several people on this forum who have never met me personally, and I thank you all very much for your support, and assistance! About 6 pages were used to help me with various issues that was causing me some confusion between front and rear heights vs top front, and top rear. I have been given quite a bit of time as well as great information, with which I can use going forward! One day hopefully people will change the direction in which they are going, if not there is not much hope nor time left for humanity. Take care for now, I will return to post on the decision I made based upon the fine suggestions I have been given. Much thanks to Magnumx, sdurani, Jeremy Anderson, soul burner, and other great people who have frequently been trying to help me grow in my knowledge of immersive audio. To those few other posters, please reevaluate your thoughts of people, and review your priorities! See you once I'm finished with reconfiguring my setup!


----------



## squared80

Glad that's over.


----------



## junh1024

howard68 said:


> Can anyone please give me some films to demo that use TM speakers in a 7.1.6 setup
> I am finding that I don't find it being used?


It's common for TS & FW speakers to be not used, due to mixing streategy &/ low obj count on BD. Compared to BD, Streaming may have a slightly higher object count than the BD (for the same movie) so it may be slightly better. Look for BDs that say 15+1 objects in mediainfo. Streaming is almost always 15+1. Although this doesnt guarantee that TS is used.

If you have DTSX Pro AVR, You can try Harry Potter, Furious & Fast series in DTSX since your AVR should upscale 714 to 716.

Indiana Jones seemed to be a upscale to 712, so TS is used, at the expense of TF.


----------



## tonydeluce

I have a 5.1 setup ( pics below ) and looking to add five height channels : four Dolby height speakers placed on a flat eight foot ceiling above and just in front of the LR tower fronts and LR tower rears. So far I believe straight forward. Looking for some expert opinions on the value of also adding a top center speaker in the ceiling directly overhead my listening position (specifically for Auro 3D ) for a setup that will support Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D ( and of course this would also support DTS:X ). Eventually when I pull a trigger a few years (when 8K becomes more prevalent ) from now on an 88 inch 8K flagship OLED I would add a Center Height ( same 600c as my center below ). I have a Denon AVR-x6700h receiver.

1. Will the center top add anything in your expert opinion ( particularly for Auro 3D )?
2. Do you recommend the front and rear ceiling speakers fire downwards OR to be at an angle to the listening position?


----------



## bluesky636

tonydeluce said:


> I have a 5.1 setup ( pics below ) and looking to add five height channels : four Dolby height speakers placed on a flat eight foot ceiling above and just in front of the LR tower fronts and LR tower rears. So far I believe straight forward. Looking for some expert opinions on the value of also adding a top center speaker in the ceiling directly overhead my listening position (specifically for Auro 3D ) for a setup that will support Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D ( and of course this would also support DTS:X ). Eventually when I pull a trigger a few years (when 8K becomes more prevalent ) from now on an 88 inch 8K flagship OLED I would add a Center Height ( same 600c as my center below ). I have a Denon AVR-x6700h receiver.
> 
> 1. Will the center top add anything in your expert opinion?
> 2. Do you recommend the front and rear ceiling speakers fire downwards to be at an angle to the listening position?


Don't know about Atmos, but you aught to find a better location for your sub. In the middle of the room like that is probably a giant null.


----------



## tonydeluce

bluesky636 said:


> Don't know about Atmos, but you aught to find a better location for your sub. In the middle of the room like that is probably a giant null.


No worries I have everything currently dialed in - it is not halfway but one third of the way.. It is also 3 feet behind my listening positioning and even at 24 dB below reference level it feels as if my couch is being lifted off the floor at times...

Thank you though..

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

tonydeluce said:


> I have a 5.1 setup ( pics below ) and looking to add five height channels : four Dolby height speakers placed on a flat eight foot ceiling above and just in front of the LR tower fronts and LR tower rears. So far I believe straight forward. Looking for some expert opinions on the value of also adding a top center speaker in the ceiling directly overhead my listening position (specifically for Auro 3D ) for a setup that will support Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D ( and of course this would also support DTS:X ). Eventually when I pull a trigger a few years (when 8K becomes more prevalent ) from now on an 88 inch 8K flagship OLED I would add a Center Height ( same 600c as my center below ). I have a Denon AVR-x6700h receiver.
> 
> 1. Will the center top add anything in your expert opinion ( particularly for Auro 3D )?
> 2. Do you recommend the front and rear ceiling speakers fire downwards OR to be at an angle to the listening position?


Top Surround (or Voice Of God (VOG) speaker will only work for Auro 3D (maybe DTS:X ?). I had one setup in my Atmos system using PLII Dolby Pro Logic Extraction (requires 3 x PLII processors and an amp) and it sounded great to me - fills in the hole directly over your head nicely 
All speakers should be aimed at the listeners.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> Don't know about Atmos, but you aught to find a better location for your sub. In the middle of the room like that is probably a giant null.


Here's what happened when I tried that:


----------



## tonydeluce

Soulburner said:


> Here's what happened when I tried that:
> View attachment 3156516


LOL - my sub is very articulate and outputting more than I need - sorry to hear about your sub placement issues - I am perfectly happy with mine.

Thank you though..

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

No issues here after proper placement and EQ. But the distance to all of your walls is creating chaos. The best response will be found against the walls.

Anyway, I recall @MagnumX saying the VOG speaker doesn't add much, but I'll let him speak for himself in case I'm wrong.


----------



## tonydeluce

Soulburner said:


> No issues here after proper placement and EQ. But the distance to all of your walls is creating chaos. The best response will be found against the walls.
> 
> Anyway, I recall @MagnumX saying the VOG speaker doesn't add much, but I'll let him speak for himself in case I'm wrong.


Thanks again. I have been dialing in 5.1 and a few 7.1 systems for twenty years with and without measurements.

EDIT: What the pictures are not capturing is that the space in front of and behind the sub open to larger non rectangular areas. See attached picture.


Thank you for the feedback on the VoG speaker. For a moment I thought I accidently posted in a subwoofer placement thread 

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> No issues here after proper placement and EQ. But the distance to all of your walls is creating chaos. The best response will be found against the walls.


To be honest, I see potential issues with all the speaker locations (except maybe the center) but decided after the response to my original post they wouldn't be worth pursuing.


----------



## tonydeluce

niterida said:


> Top Surround (or Voice Of God (VOG) speaker will only work for Auro 3D (maybe DTS:X ?). I had one setup in my Atmos system using PLII Dolby Pro Logic Extraction (requires 3 x PLII processors and an amp) and it sounded great to me - fills in the hole directly over your head nicely
> All speakers should be aimed at the listeners.


Thank you for responding to my actual question 

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

tonydeluce said:


> Thank you for responding to my actual question
> 
> Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


You've been here long enough to know that if people see a potential problem in a photo of a room setup, they will point it out and offer suggestions regardless of the original question. I'm willing to bet you have done it yourself.


----------



## tonydeluce

bluesky636 said:


> You've been here long enough to know that if people see a potential problem in a photo of a room setup, they will point it out and offer suggestions regardless of the original question. I'm willing to bet you have done it yourself.


Thank you for this follow up and apologies for my abrupt response.

The speaker placements I have selected are a compromise between convienece and what performs the best. 

What I am not experienced in is height speaker placement particularly in regards to being able to have a config that supports both Dolby Atmos and Auro3D.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

tonydeluce said:


> being able to have a config that supports both Dolby Atmos and Auro3D.


AFAIK there is no such thing. Auro has 4 heights - one pair set in front and one pair to the sides. This would be Top Front / Front Heights and Middles in Atmos speak and AFAIK there are very few AVRs that allow that config. So you have to define the Middles as Top Rear or Rear Heights, which means they expect you to be sitting in the middle of them - not almost in line with the rears, which is what Auro expects. 
But this still works - it is how I have mine setup currently as I planned it for Auro before I found out Auro is non-existent in Australia 
But I personally think that with the lack of Auro source material you would be better off doing Fronts and Rears in a proper Atmos config and have Auro as the compromised one.


----------



## tonydeluce

niterida said:


> AFAIK there is no such thing. Auro has 4 heights - one pair set in front and one pair to the sides. This would be Top Front / Front Heights and Middles in Atmos speak and AFAIK there are very few AVRs that allow that config. So you have to define the Middles as Top Rear or Rear Heights, which means they expect you to be sitting in the middle of them - not almost in line with the rears, which is what Auro expects.
> But this still works - it is how I have mine setup currently as I planned it for Auro before I found out Auro is non-existent in Australia
> But I personally think that with the lack of Auro source material you would be better off doing Fronts and Rears in a proper Atmos config and have Auro as the compromised one.


Thank you - I believe it was a recent audioholics YouTube video that mentioned that due to some arrangement between Auro3D and Dolby Atmos that there may be some kind of universal placement that supports both with both now recommending the same angle between the front heights and the rear heights and the listening position. But I am still attempting to understand this before I drill holes in me ceiling.

I believe my Denon AVR-x6700h supports two separate speaker configs I could switch back and forth between.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

tonydeluce said:


> Thank you - I believe it was a recent audioholics YouTube video that mentioned that due to some arrangement between Auro3D and Dolby Atmos that there may be some kind of universal placement that supports both with both now recommending the same angle between the front heights and the rear heights and the listening position. But I am still attempting to understand this before I drill holes in me ceiling.
> 
> I believe my Denon AVR-x6700h supports two separate speaker configs I could switch back and forth between.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


There are any number of potential solutions but they will all entail some element of compromise if you want to accommodate Atmos, and DTS:X, as well as Auro-3D playback.

The easiest answer, implied by your recognition of the dearth of actual content in Auro-3D, is to relegate that format to an afterthought while still allowing the option of both it and its upmixer companion, Auro-Matic (my personal favorite mode for music listening). If you designate your overhead pairs as Front Height and Rear Height, they will be addressable in all three immersive formats without having to switch configurations. Now it becomes a simple question of where to drill those holes, as you said. On that score, I am in favor of audio industry professional and fellow poster @sdurani's oft-repeated advice here: Measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling and then take that same distance forward and back from the MLP; this will equate to a 45° elevation angle and will typically provide the desired immersive bubble. Lateral placement of the pairs should be in line with or slightly inward from your front pair.

Any room particularities or personal preferences may lead you to alter the above guidance, but I think it is an excellent general rule of thumb to go by. OTOH, if Dolby Atmos is your primary concern and the others are an afterthought, you can aim for optimal placement in that format with Top Front and Top Rear speaker designations and then switch configurations in the AVR when needed.


----------



## tonydeluce

chi_guy50 said:


> There are any number of potential solutions but they will all entail some element of compromise if you want to accommodate Atmos, and DTS:X, as well as Auro-3D playback.
> 
> The easiest answer, implied by your recognition of the dearth of actual content in Auro-3D, is to relegate that format to an afterthought while still allowing the option of both it and its upmixer companion, Auro-Matic (my personal favorite mode for music listening). If you designate your overhead pairs as Front Height and Rear Height, they will be addressable in all three immersive formats without having to switch configurations. Now it becomes a simple question of where to drill those holes, as you said. On that score, I am in favor of audio industry professional and fellow poster @sdurani's oft-repeated advice here: Measure the distance from your ears to the ceiling and then take that same distance forward and back from the MLP; this will equate to a 45° elevation angle and will typically provide the desired immersive bubble. Lateral placement of the pairs should be in line with or slightly inward from your front pair.
> 
> Any room particularities or personal preferences may lead you to alter the above guidance, but I think it is an excellent general rule of thumb to go by. OTOH, if Dolby Atmos is your primary concern and the others are an afterthought, you can aim for optimal placement in that format with Top Front and Top Rear speaker designations and then switch configurations in the AVR when needed.


Thank you.

If I am understanding you correctly, likely the best solution for someone that will use Dolby Atmos and DTS:X the most is to go with a standard Dolby Atmos Height Speaker configuration and skip the single Auro3D top height speaker? I would assume worse case rhe single top speaker for Auro3D would not hurt...

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## sdurani

tonydeluce said:


> If I am understanding you correctly, likely the best solution for someone that will use Dolby Atmos and DTS:X the most is to go with a standard Dolby Atmos Height Speaker configuration and skip the single Auro3D top height speaker?


All 3 immersive audio formats share the same locations for the 7 main speakers in the base layer. Where they primarily differ is in the height layer: Fortunately, Atmos and DTS:X have 4 locations overhead that are close enough that one placement can satisfy both formats. 










> I would assume worse case rhe single top speaker for Auro3D would not hurt...


Better off splitting that channel to two speakers to avoid imaging problems.


----------



## Josh Z

niterida said:


> AFAIK there is no such thing. Auro has 4 heights - one pair set in front and one pair to the sides. This would be Top Front / Front Heights and Middles in Atmos speak and AFAIK there are very few AVRs that allow that config.


Front Height + Top Middle should be an allowable configuration in any Atmos receiver. However, Top Front + Top Middle would not be, unless you have a 13-channel processor that can do TF+TM+TR.

When using 4 heights, the front and middle cannot be adjacent to one another. You need to keep one open position between them.


----------



## chi_guy50

tonydeluce said:


> If I am understanding you correctly, likely the best solution for someone that will use Dolby Atmos and DTS:X the most is to go with a standard Dolby Atmos Height Speaker configuration and skip the single Auro3D top height speaker? I would assume worse case rhe single top speaker for Auro3D would not hurt...


If you wish, you can still add that Center Top Height speaker (or split it as Sanjay recommended) to your setup for Auro-3D playback. If I recall correctly, your AVR-X6700H has 11 built-in amps and accommodates up to three overhead pairs so that you would not necessarily need any additional amplification to power all of your 10.1 speakers in an Auro-3D configuration. At the same time, you will automatically be ready for anything Dolby Atmos or DTS:X throws your way without having to change a thing having the FH and RH pairs in a 5.1.4 configuration (expandable to 7.1.4 with the addition of an external stereo amp). The only remaining question would be placement, and I offered one suggestion for that (45° fore and aft), but you may want to experiment with some slight variations, especially if your room presents logistical or acoustical problems or if your personal preferences push you in a different direction.

I should add that if you do not wish to make allowances for Auro-3D/Auro-Matic, then you should be able to use the Top Front + Top Rear speaker designations (preferable for Atmos) as I believe your AVR will allow that configuration for both DTS:X/Neural:X and Dolby Atmos/Dolby Surround. (In the past, the "Top" positions were not addressable by the DTS decoder.) But FH + RH remain the only overhead option for all three formats.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> If you wish, you can still add that Center Height speaker (or split it as Sanjay recommended) to your setup for Auro-3D playback.


Just to clarify, Centre Height (between the two Front Height speakers) is fine as a single speaker. Top Height (VOG) is better off being played back from two speakers, for the same reason why 2 Rear speakers were recommended for playing back a mono Surround-Back channel.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Just to clarify, Centre Height (between the two Front Height speakers) is fine as a single speaker. Top Height (VOG) is better off being played back from two speakers, for the same reason why 2 Rear speakers were recommended for playing back a mono Surround-Back channel.


Thanks. I meant to write Top Height. Sorry.


----------



## tonydeluce

Thanks everyone! You have been very helpful.

I believe I am going to store two configurations :

1) Standard Dolby Atmos with Front height and Rear height speakers. The Denon AVR-x6700h will permit toggling between Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro3D with a button on the remote with this option. Will use this mode mostly with Dolby Atmos though which is what I use the most.

2) A second configuration with an additional VoG speaker which can be driven from the Height 3 terminal on the 6700 using internal amplification. I will use this config for Auro3D and IMAX Enhanced.

DTS-X is very flexible so both will work but will mostly use option 2..

Ceiling Speaker placement will be Standard Dolby Atmos with VoG directly overhead.

Thanks again!

NOTE: The reason I am going with a single VoG is because I plan to have a large 88 inch display at some point and want to save one channel of internal amplification for Center Height when I do.. My total listening space is relatively small so this should work out well.

Thanks again!

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

howard68 said:


> Can anyone please give me some films to demo that use TM speakers in a 7.1.6 setup
> I am finding that I don't find it being used?
> 
> Thanks
> H


Theoretically, any non-Disney film should work, but in practice many don't use overhead pans much.

A good one to try, however is Jumanji 4K with Atmos (i.e. The original film). The mosquitoes are fantastic overhead in that film, although I'm not sure if they panned front to back.

Overlord certainly has some great overhead material including a baseball that rolls across the ceiling overhead. Fury with Brad Pitt has exceptional overhead moments as well. Those should all be 9.1.6 compatible.


----------



## MagnumX

tonydeluce said:


> Thanks everyone! You have been very helpful.
> 
> I believe I am going to store two configurations :
> 
> 1) Standard Dolby Atmos with Front height and Rear height speakers. The Denon AVR-x6700h will permit toggling between Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro3D with a button on the remote with this option. Will use this mode mostly with Dolby Atmos though which is what I use the most.
> 
> 2) A second configuration with an additional VoG speaker which can be driven from the Height 3 terminal on the 6700 using internal amplification. I will use this config for Auro3D and IMAX Enhanced.
> 
> DTS-X is very flexible so both will work but will mostly use option 2..
> 
> Ceiling Speaker placement will be Standard Dolby Atmos with VoG directly overhead.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> NOTE: The reason I am going with a single VoG is because I plan to have a large 88 inch display at some point and want to save one channel of internal amplification for Center Height when I do.. My total listening space is relatively small so this should work out well.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


They mean running the VOG channel with two parallel driven speakers, not using your CH output (which wouldn't work for that anyway). To parallel drive (speakers should nominally be 8 ohm types), you connect two sets of speakers wires to the same terminals or a second set from the first speaker (red to red, black to black).

There's also a nice switchbox that can handle this and more by Monoprice. It's a 2-in, 2-out model with volume control (shown on my home theater page). It can send two sources to either or both outputs. 

I use it to send rear height to my top middle speakers for pure Auro-3D (surround height). I can either send it there instead or in addition to the rear height speakers (parallel driven with a button press) and similar to you Auro 11.1 theaters that array the "surround heights" all the way around and behind the audience. The other input is my "Scatmos" output for Top Middle. This works well for Auro movies too as it merely creates an in-between channel (same as for Atmos) to allow a larger room without using an array (same as having a smaller 12'x12' Auro room with front/rear heights).

Newer AVPs like the Monoprice HTP-1 can output VOG through Top Middle speakers as a normal option. If you don't have a VOG channel connected, Auro decoders output it through surround height or rear height instead. Both also use front heights regardless so the VOG may be pulled forward slightly through the arrayed effect even if you put the speakers directly overhead. Mine are a bit behind my front row so it pulls it directly over my head instead.


----------



## tonydeluce

MagnumX said:


> They mean running the VOG channel with two parallel driven speakers, not using your CH output (which wouldn't work for that anyway). To parallel drive (speakers should nominally be 8 ohm types), you connect two sets of speakers wires to the same terminals or a second set from the first speaker (red to red, black to black).
> 
> There's also a nice switchbox that can handle this and more by Monoprice. It's a 2-in, 2-out model with volume control (shown on my home theater page). It can send two sources to either or both outputs.
> 
> I use it to send rear height to my top middle speakers for pure Auro-3D (surround height). I can either send it there instead or in addition to the rear height speakers (parallel driven with a button press) and similar to you Auro 11.1 theaters that array the "surround heights" all the way around and behind the audience. The other input is my "Scatmos" output for Top Middle. This works well for Auro movies too as it merely creates an in-between channel (same as for Atmos) to allow a larger room without using an array (same as having a smaller 12'x12' Auro room with front/rear heights).
> 
> Newer AVPs like the Monoprice HTP-1 can output VOG through Top Middle speakers as a normal option. If you don't have a VOG channel connected, Auro decoders output it through surround height or rear height instead. Both also use front heights regardless so the VOG may be pulled forward slightly through the arrayed effect even if you put the speakers directly overhead. Mine are a bit behind my front row so it pulls it directly over my head instead.


Cool. Thank you for the clarification..

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

tonydeluce said:


> I believe I am going to store two configurations :
> 
> 1) Standard Dolby Atmos with Front height and Rear height speakers. The Denon AVR-x6700h will permit *toggling between Dolby Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro3D with a button on the remote with this option*. Will use this mode mostly with Dolby Atmos though which is what I use the most.
> 
> 2) A second configuration with an additional VoG speaker which can be driven from the Height 3 terminal on the 6700 using internal amplification. I will use this config for Auro3D and IMAX Enhanced.
> 
> DTS-X is very flexible so both will work but will mostly use option 2..


It's actually much simpler than that.

As I mentioned, you will not need to interact with the AVR for this switching between formats; and, in fact, that is not a user option anyway. The incoming signal will determine which immersive audio format is rendered. And with this FH/RH speaker configuration, all three (Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3D) will be able to utilize both overhead pairs.

For non-immersive codecs, you can use the remote to toggle between upmixers or use any of the other DSP sound modes provided by your AVR.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> It's actually much simpler than that.


One of the nicer things about this particular format war is that it is largely invisible to consumers. No separate disc player needed for each immersive format. Instead, just insert disc and press play. Formats are automatically recognized, decoded and mapped to your speaker layout.


----------



## blake

Speaking of Format Wars. How is Auro 3D even continuing to exist, financially. Aren’t there less than a few dozen movies mastered with it ? Where do they get financing and royalties to stay afloat ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## T-Bone

blake said:


> Speaking of Format Wars. How is Auro 3D even continuing to exist, financially. Aren’t there less than a few dozen movies mastered with it ? Where do they get financing and royalties to stay afloat ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


First, they picked the wrong name. They put "3D" in it. 3D video is dead. Perhaps auro 3D was doomed from the start. 

With very little original content, I don't know how it will hang on.

-T


----------



## sdurani

T-Bone said:


> First, they picked the wrong name. They put "3D" in it. 3D video is dead. Perhaps auro 3D was doomed from the start.


Other mistakes include introducing a new channel-based format right when the industry was moving to object-based and boasting that they could go from 9.1 to 11.1 to 13.1 when the competition had 30 speakers. The real problem is competing against Dolby. DTS was able to dominate one delivery medium (BD), but all other deliver media (cassette tape, VHS, DVD, broadcast, cable TV, satellite, streaming, games, etc) is either dominated by or exclusively uses Dolby audio.


----------



## MagnumX

T-Bone said:


> First, they picked the wrong name. They put "3D" in it. 3D video is dead. Perhaps auro 3D was doomed from the start.


It's funny, I just received Godzilla Vs. Kong in 3D a few weeks ago. That seems odd for something _dead_ and it shows the consumers that still have 3D truly love it. The problem is the industry decided to kill it off to push 4K harder instead. Most people that don't like 3D either objected to wearing glasses (something hard for me to comprehend since I've had to wear them since 1st grade) or had it on smallish sets (e.g. 48") that really don't look right with 3D (try it on 80"+). 

But then most people couldn't give a flip about Dolby Atmos either. I know someone that bought a 60" high-end 4K TV at work that said they didn't see _any_ point in even springing for a $150 sound bar, let alone a system like Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D. When you have that level of apathy towards sound, it's questionable whether even Atmos itself will _ever_ have any real significance for anything but a tiny fragment of society. One can only hope that its backwards compatible nature means it gets used regardless.

How much have soundtracks improved overall in the past 6 years since Atmos came out for consumers? I'd argue in many respects they've gotten worse. We went from Disney putting out masterpiece soundtracks like TRON: Legacy (in 7.1 that sounds glorious) to inconsistent "channel locked" Atmos soundtracks that barely use overheads and have very poor dynamic range (they seem to be mixed for sound bars and old people that can't hear dialog when sound effects are playing).

Frankly, all Auro-3D would need to survive is for a small niche to adopt it, say music or perhaps China for their television broadcasts (already approved). DTS:X isn't doing much better. They've got more movies released, but only on discs (which are also "dead" as a format) and have no music releases whatsoever (where Auro-3D has dozens of those). One could surmise Atmos has already won the so-called "format war" but when a "format war" is fought among less than 1/100 of 1% of the public, well, it's not much of a war. All three could expand if people actually cared about audio, but most do not.




sdurani said:


> Other mistakes include introducing a new channel-based format right when the industry was moving to object-based and boasting that they could go from 9.1 to 11.1 to 13.1 when the competition had 30 speakers. The real problem is competing against Dolby. DTS was able to dominate one delivery medium (BD), but all other deliver media (cassette tape, VHS, DVD, broadcast, cable TV, satellite, streaming, games, etc) is either dominated by or exclusively uses Dolby audio.


I would argue that "object based" is absolutely *irrelevant* in terms of the home market. How many people have Atmos in general? Less than 0.1%? How many of those people have >11 channels??? 0.0001%? Therefore, what do _objects_ have to do with Auro's failure when it has 13 channels, which is as much or more than 99.999% of the people on the planet have? 

Objects are great for the theater. They have little use at home. Auro-3D has an object based theater format (Auromax), but what's the point of using it in the consumer market when almost no one would ever use its capabilities? Objects sound great for marketing by Dolby, but DTS has them too and how many soundtracks actually use them there? With Disney not using them properly, how many Atmos soundtracks use objects properly? Are they actually "needed" when most soundtracks don't even hardly use front wides (locked or not)? No, objects have nothing to do with Auro's failings.

Auro-3D is a failure because Auro as a business company is/was a small startup in a market where Dolby is a juggernaut. Dolby is well known, even more well connected and a huge business compared to a tiny startup in Europe. Auro was unable to make large movie deals with an industry already tied to Dolby and DTS. The only way Auro could have possibly succeeded is if Dolby just sat on their butts and did literally nothing. The delay gave Auro a headstart in theaters (there used to be a substantial Auro-3D theater network), but it wasn't enough to overcome Dolby's marketing and cachet. Do you bet on a mom/pop startup candy business or do you bet on Nestle or Hershey? In a market that doesn't even like candy, it's hard for more than one format to survive.


----------



## tonydeluce

blake said:


> Speaking of Format Wars. How is Auro 3D even continuing to exist, financially. Aren’t there less than a few dozen movies mastered with it ? Where do they get financing and royalties to stay afloat ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I heard that Auro3D upmixing from mediocre Dolby ATMOS is great - good Dolby ATMOS soundtracks should use ATMOS decoder..

Looking forward to trying it out..

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

tonydeluce said:


> I heard that Auro3D upmixing from mediocre Dolby ATMOS is great - good Dolby ATMOS soundtracks should use ATMOS decoder..
> 
> Looking forward to trying it out..


If you're looking to add a little reverb and steer sounds where they weren't placed by design, then maybe it's "great". Personally, I want accurate reproduction of Atmos tracks in my home, even if not every one uses the format as well as some others, so I would never toss out all of the object data just to upmix the base 7.1. In my opinion, Auro's upmixer is a glorified DSP mode and not something I would prioritize when laying out my system. I don't begrudge anyone who uses it, but I also don't understand the appeal. But then, some people like those Hall DSP modes too... and I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong either. People like what they like.

However, it has been interesting to see the recent push by home theater Youtubers to help Auro cling to life, as if they're just now discovering that it exists. Maybe Auro is dumping money into marketing to try to course correct. Or just trying to get their talking heads out in front of it as they slowly lose relevance.


----------



## tonydeluce

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If you're looking to add a little reverb and steer sounds where they weren't placed by design, then maybe it's "great". Personally, I want accurate reproduction of Atmos tracks in my home, even if not every one uses the format as well as some others, so I would never toss out all of the object data just to upmix the base 7.1. In my opinion, Auro's upmixer is a glorified DSP mode and not something I would prioritize when laying out my system. I don't begrudge anyone who uses it, but I also don't understand the appeal. But then, some people like those Hall DSP modes too... and I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong either. People like what they like.
> 
> However, it has been interesting to see the recent push by home theater Youtubers to help Auro cling to life, as if they're just now discovering that it exists. Maybe Auro is dumping money into marketing to try to course correct. Or just trying to get their talking heads out in front of it as they slowly lose relevance.


Yea, I am with you there and even prefer a good 5.1 over any upmixing. But the youTubers made it sound so great I will likely give if a try on a poor Dolby ATMOS soundtrack just for grins..

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

tonydeluce said:


> I heard that Auro3D upmixing from mediocre Dolby ATMOS is great - good Dolby ATMOS soundtracks should use ATMOS decoder..
> 
> Looking forward to trying it out..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk


I would say upmixing from Atmos using Neural X can sometimes be better than a mediocre Atmos soundtrack (although it using clues from that soundtrack so often they sound similar). 

I've seen some recommend the Auro upmixer for movies, but it seems much more popular for music upmixing. That is not really because of "artificial reverb" but because it doesn't change the fundamental presentation of the mix. It adds lower channels into the upper channels a bit and makes the room sound larger with the reverb so you get a nice "expansion" of the natural soundtrack rather than moving instruments into places they weren't mixed to be as DSU and Neural X do. In other words, Dark Side Of The Moon in stereo sounds the same as it does, only bigger rather than moving instruments to the sides/back/ceiling, etc. Likewise, it does the same for multichannel, leaving the balance of the mixing engineer in place, but expanding it to create a larger feel to the music and room. 

I think it's easy to understand why some prefer that effect to moving sounds around and it's just as easy to understand why some would want a more surround mix from stereo. It all comes down to preference. What I don't understand is the need for some to trash formats they don't use and haven't heard. Auro-3D has some of the best music recordings for symphonic music around. You really feel like you're there. I'd like to see more offerings with dual-quad microphones from them, not less. Blu-Ray has room enough for Atmos and Auro-3D on one disc. I'd like to hear what DTS could do with DTS:X for music as well, seeing how only a few are taking advantage of Atmos music at the moment. The more the merrier. But some just want to see other formats die, even if it's not hurting them a bit (like 3D movies). It makes no sense to me.


----------



## mrvideo

T-Bone said:


> 3D video is dead.


'Fraid not. _Black Widow_ was released in the theaters in 3D. I watched the movie on the local mnIMAX screen (which wasn't released in 3D). But, I will get the BD release and watch it on my home theater (when I get it finished).


----------



## ppasteur

mrvideo said:


> 'Fraid not. _Black Widow_ was released in the theaters in 3D. I watched the movie on the local mnIMAX screen (which wasn't released in 3D). But, I will get the BD release and watch it on my home theater (when I get it finished).


Maybe not dead in general, but you will not find many, if any 3D displays for the home these days. You have to go back to 2016 models for 3D displays. That is pretty dead, at least in the home display segment. I have seen more in the way of projectors with 3D, but as good as they can be, they are a very small segment of the market.
As far as source material, (AFAIK/last I checked) 3D is not even supported in the Ultra HD Blu Ray specifications. So though 3D may not be dead, (other than limited theatrical support) it is on life support. Far from the era of a few years ago when it was being pushed heavily as the next must have feature.
I think @T-Bone was equating the waning popularity and availability to Auro 3d material. I think the comparison is valid.

BTW, I lament this, as, when done right , I liked the 3D effect...


----------



## T-Bone

ppasteur said:


> I think @T-Bone was equating the waning popularity and availability to Auro 3d material. I think the comparison is valid.


Yup.

-T


----------



## MagnumX

3D has come back multiple times in history. 8K is a pointless format for screens under 120" for the most part unless you sit very very close, but it could do 4K 3D passive with no resolution loss. They'll need to sell newer TV somehow so don't be shocked if 3D magically returns in a few years, possibly without the need for glasses.

Likewise, all Auro needs is some more support, even if only for surround music. SACD was never more than a niche format, but it was quite popular among surround music fans. I've got some classical and jazz/big band albums on Pure Blue Blu-ray akbums that have 2.0, 7.1, Atmos and Auro-3D tracks on the same disc (e.g. Gordon Goodwin's The Gordian Knot).

I've also got a handful if Auro-3D movies that are only in >5.1 in Auro-3D. They may be few in number, but I'll take 11.1 or 13.1 soundtracks over 5.1 any day of the week. Examples include Red Tails, The Game, Domino, Salyut-7 (also in 3D), Honest Thief, Death Machine and The Resistance Banker. Boss Level with Mel Gibson was just announced as well.

Auro-3D now has over 100 music releases in Auro-3D. How many does Atmos have for music?

Yamaha just announced two new receivers that support Auro-3D for the first time (RX-A8A and A6A). That's kind of odd for them to do for a dead format. I wouldn't write them off completely just yet.


----------



## blake

MagnumX said:


> 3D has come back multiple times in history. 8K is a pointless format for screens under 120" for the most part unless you sit very very close, but it could do 4K 3D passive with no resolution loss. They'll need to sell newer TV somehow so don't be shocked if 3D magically returns in a few years, possibly without the need for glasses.
> 
> Likewise, all Auro needs is some more support, even if only for surround music. SACD was never more than a niche format, but it was quite popular among surround music fans. I've got some classical and jazz/big band albums on Pure Blue Blu-ray akbums that have 2.0, 7.1, Atmos and Auro-3D tracks on the same disc (e.g. Gordon Goodwin's The Gordian Knot).
> 
> I've also got a handful if Auro-3D movies that are only in >5.1 in Auro-3D. They may be few in number, but I'll take 11.1 or 13.1 soundtracks over 5.1 any day of the week. Examples include Red Tails, The Game, Domino, Salyut-7 (also in 3D), Honest Thief, Death Machine and The Resistance Banker. Boss Level with Mel Gibson was just announced as well.
> 
> Auro-3D now has over 100 music releases in Auro-3D. How many does Atmos have for music?
> 
> Yamaha just announced two new receivers that support Auro-3D for the first time (RX-A8A and A6A). That's kind of odd for them to do for a dead format. I wouldn't write them off completely just yet.


Apple Music now offer lossless Spatial Audio tracks , all encoded with Dolby Atmos. There are literally thousands of songs now available with more added daily. 

Now that the Apple juggernaut has put its weight exclusively behind Atmos (originally for streaming movies and now music) , I suspect all other formats will have an even tougher time surviving.


----------



## MagnumX

blake said:


> Apple Music now offer lossless Spatial Audio tracks , all encoded with Dolby Atmos. There are literally thousands of songs now available with more added daily.


Lots of titles doesn't necessarily mean quality. Lossless doesn't mean it's mastered well, for example. "Mastered for iTunes" has meant increased LOUDNESS (compression) in my experience, not higher quality, although that's hardly a trait limited to just Apple. But seeing Apple is largely centered in the headphone business, support for this so-called "Spatial Audio" is possibly far more important to them (gyroscopic headphone anchoring) than Dolby Atmos in general.

In fact, what really concerns me is how Dolby seems to be pushing hard to become the next THX and I don't mean anything good by that statement. THX went from a well respected theater system with stiff requirements for certification to a joke where the cheapest home computer speakers could bear the THX logo so long as the maker paid the licensing fee. ALL respect for THX was lost in the process. 

I hope the same doesn't happen to Dolby, but look at some of the more recent developments. We got Dolby Atmos for headphones, Dolby Atmos for notebook computers and even Dolby Atmos for cell phones! WTF is Dolby Atmos on a cell phone supposed to do? Nothing meaningful to the theater or home theater format that's for certain. Dolby Atmos for single Amazon speakers came out before any of it worked with a real home system. How do you make Atmos work with ONE speaker? I never did hear a good answer for that. If Dolby keeps heading down these roads for marketing/naming hype, it's going to devolve into a lot more Disney-like mixes with poor dynamic range and few overhead effects with no proper object use and fewer ones like Fury or Overlord that actually deliver the goods.

I think my point is you can push marketing hype all day long, but without the goods being genuine, it's kind of like the Atari 2600 bragging about having SO MANY games made for it to the point it virtually destroyed the consumer console market for nearly a half decade single-handedly. Having a reputation for cheap garbage is not desirable, IMO. Atmos soundtracks and music overall need to do MUCH better because as it stands, I often get a better result from upmixing older 5.1 mixes with Neural X on average than I do a truly demo quality movie soundtrack. Now that Disney owns 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm, I'm afraid the bar is going to simply drop lower and lower over time. You'll get far fewer Blade Runner 2049 type Atmos soundtracks and a lot more like Black Panther and Thor Ragnarok. 

Music remains to be seen (or rather heard), but I'd rather _own_ a few top notch Blu-Ray Atmos albums like Booka Shade and Yello in Atmos of the upmost quality than _rent_ a thousand craptastic albums. The two may not be mutually exclusive and I hope Apple does a better job than they did in the past, but I wouldn't bet on it in the long run either if they push past practices of "Mastered for iTunes" as _lossless_ was the least of their problems, IMO (CDs were lossless and still got squashed into the loudness wars). LOUDNESS <> BETTER nor does optimizing for headphone playback (Spatial Audio) lead me to believe they have high-end home systems in mind. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Lots of titles doesn't necessarily mean quality. Lossless doesn't mean it's mastered well, for example. "Mastered for iTunes" has meant increased LOUDNESS (compression) in my experience, not higher quality, although that's hardly a trait limited to just Apple. But seeing Apple is largely centered in the headphone business, support for this so-called "Spatial Audio" is possibly far more important to them (gyroscopic headphone anchoring) than Dolby Atmos in general.
> 
> In fact, what really concerns me is how Dolby seems to be pushing hard to become the next THX and I don't mean anything good by that statement. THX went from a well respected theater system with stiff requirements for certification to a joke where the cheapest home computer speakers could bear the THX logo so long as the maker paid the licensing fee. ALL respect for THX was lost in the process.
> 
> I hope the same doesn't happen to Dolby, but look at some of the more recent developments. We got Dolby Atmos for headphones, Dolby Atmos for notebook computers and even Dolby Atmos for cell phones! WTF is Dolby Atmos on a cell phone supposed to do? Nothing meaningful to the theater or home theater format that's for certain. Dolby Atmos for single Amazon speakers came out before any of it worked with a real home system. How do you make Atmos work with ONE speaker? I never did hear a good answer for that. If Dolby keeps heading down these roads for marketing/naming hype, it's going to devolve into a lot more Disney-like mixes with poor dynamic range and few overhead effects with no proper object use and fewer ones like Fury or Overlord that actually deliver the goods.
> 
> I think my point is you can push marketing hype all day long, but without the goods being genuine, it's kind of like the Atari 2600 bragging about having SO MANY games made for it to the point it virtually destroyed the consumer console market for nearly a half decade single-handedly. Having a reputation for cheap garbage is not desirable, IMO. Atmos soundtracks and music overall need to do MUCH better because as it stands, I often get a better result from upmixing older 5.1 mixes with Neural X on average than I do a truly demo quality movie soundtrack. Now that Disney owns 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm, I'm afraid the bar is going to simply drop lower and lower over time. You'll get far fewer Blade Runner 2049 type Atmos soundtracks and a lot more like Black Panther and Thor Ragnarok.
> 
> Music remains to be seen (or rather heard), but I'd rather _own_ a few top notch Blu-Ray Atmos albums like Booka Shade and Yello in Atmos of the upmost quality than _rent_ a thousand craptastic albums. The two may not be mutually exclusive and I hope Apple does a better job than they did in the past, but I wouldn't bet on it in the long run either if they push past practices of "Mastered for iTunes" as _lossless_ was the least of their problems, IMO (CDs were lossless and still got squashed into the loudness wars). LOUDNESS <> BETTER nor does optimizing for headphone playback (Spatial Audio) lead me to believe they have high-end home systems in mind. I hope I'm wrong.


My new smartphone has Atmos. When I talk to someone on speakerphone, it sounds like they are flying around the room.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> 3D has come back multiple times in history. 8K is a pointless format for screens under 120" for the most part unless you sit very very close, but it could do 4K 3D passive with no resolution loss. They'll need to sell newer TV somehow so don't be shocked if 3D magically returns in a few years, possibly without the need for glasses.


More often than not, I find myself at odds with many of your conclusions and opinions with respect to audio. With respect to 3D, our thoughts are pretty much aligned. While sleeping, it is most certainly not dead.

It will most assuredly keep coming back over and over again until it eventually morphs with some other tech like VR or holographic imagery. I remember it's resurgence in the 80's with broadcast TV airing 50's SciFi to be used with analglyph glasses you purchased at the corner store. My current projector uses DLPlink tech which is only a small step behind the RF tech of my previous unit. The next iteration will definitely have to eschew the glasses. I was blown away by whatever tech was used in my kids old Nintendo 3DS handhelds and thought that was going to be the future for sure. I'm curious as to why it couldn't be scaled up for something larger.


----------



## mrvideo

ppasteur said:


> Maybe not dead in general, but you will not find many, if any 3D displays for the home these days.


AIUI, 3D displays had issues with lag that affected the quality of the 3D. That might have screwed with the sales. I have a new BenQ DLP 4K (really 2160p) projector. DLP is really needed for 3D. While my HT is not set up yet, I've tested the 3D on this projector and there are zero lag issues.

No idea why 3D was never allowed for 2160p.


----------



## Technology3456

mrvideo said:


> AIUI, 3D displays had issues with lag that affected the quality of the 3D. That might have screwed with the sales. I have a new BenQ DLP 4K (really 2160p) projector. DLP is really needed for 3D. While my HT is not set up yet, I've tested the 3D on this projector and there are zero lag issues.
> 
> No idea why 3D was never allowed for 2160p.


That's a good question why not. Since most displays use active 3D, maybe flashing 4K images that quickly would require processing that would eat into the profit margin, but I doubt faster processing is super expensive these days. But maybe 5-10 years ago when these decisions were being made...? I have no idea, but it's a worthwhile question.



ppasteur said:


> Maybe not dead in general, but you will not find many, if any 3D displays for the home these days.


TV's, no, at least not in the U.S., but displays, yes. The BenQ 9060 was a recent projector with 3D. Sony and JVC 4K projectors offer 3D. At least one of the more popular Home Theater reviewers on youtube reviews the 3D blu-ray releases on his JVC and often prefers the 3D to the 4K release. For people with 4K projectors, it sucks that there are no native 4K 3D films to watch, but blu-ray is still by far the most popular format of physical movies. 4K UHD discs have not been adopted by the blu-ray crowd nearly as much as blu-rays were adopted by the DVD crowd, from what I've read. Now maybe it won't matter if everything goes to streaming anyway, but, it seems like there will always be a market for physical copies, especially with the serious HT crowd, and even if it did get completely replaced by streaming, at that point they might start streaming 3D, and maybe 4K 3D would get introduced then as a format exclusive to streaming.

It just depends, do the power brokers in Hollywood care a lot about money anymore, or do they have all they need and care about other things more now? I know it sounds like a silly question, but the way some in Hollywood dealt willy nilly with certain lucrative properties recently makes it seem like they're secure about having all the money they could ever want. Isn't it claimed that after Disney spent billions to acquire Star Wars, they made the sequel trilogy without any plan for the story one movie to another? It sounds so unbelievable that it seems more likely to just be a cover story for why they did what they did with those movies, but if we take the claim at face value, I mean, who spends billions on something but then just totally half-asses it, or is willing to throw it all away on those movies? Only someone with so much money that making more of it is nowhere near their top priority anymore, and in fact, it wouldn't affect their life one bit if they lost a few hundred million instead of making a profit.

But if they get back to caring about making money, well, Titanic re-release in 3D made a billion or so dollars just in theaters, let alone home release, and they didn't even have to pay to shoot a new movie to make that money. So they will probably put a big push behind 3D again around Avatar 2, and if by then they can develop TVs that actually deliver good, high framerate, comfortable 3D, enough to educate American audiences that a good 3D experience is possible on a TV and it was just bad TVs that were the problem the last time they tried it ten years earlier, then you could see them introduced again.

It will probably happen just a feature that comes with all the popular 4K or 8K TVs people are buying. Then maybe they see the 3D section on netflix or whatever, and hear one of the new releases is great, so they figure, "my TV can play this, it came with these glasses, I should give it a try," and that's when they discover it's twice as good as before, so they start watching it a lot. Then this spreads with word of mouth, and the whole reputation for 3D TVs changes. The previous 3D TVs mostly did a bad job, so people stopped buying them. Why would people embrace a bad experience? But if the new ones do a good job, they will get good word of mouth, and become popular. People like good artistic/entertainment experiences, and it's been shown people will pay good money for them. People dislike bad ones. 3D is not any different. It lives and dies by the same rules as other entertainment/artistic experiences. When it's good in theaters, and people are aware of that, i.e., Avatar, Titanic, the James Cameron 3D brand as a whole, people will fill theaters to watch it in theaters. When it's good at home, and people are aware of that, people will watch it at home. The problem with most the 3D TVs was, it wasn't very good at home. (Other people can explain why, or maybe when I have time later I can relay what I've read).


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> But if they get back to caring about making money, well, Titanic re-release in 3D made a billion or so dollars just in theaters, let alone home release, and they didn't even have to pay to shoot a new movie to make that money. So they will probably put a big push behind 3D again around Avatar 2, and if by then they can develop TVs that actually deliver good, high framerate, comfortable 3D, enough to educate American audiences that a good 3D experience is possible on a TV and it was just bad TVs that were the problem the last time they tried it ten years earlier, then you could see them introduced again.


I was curious so I looked this up: Titanic 3D grossed ~$350M worldwide in 2012, at which point the original 2D released had grossed around $2.6B in 2012 dollars. So while the 3D grosses were certainly nothing to sneeze at, and more than paid for the cost of the 3D conversion, they represent around 12% of the total Titanic take at the Box Office. 

There will definitely be another big 3D push for Avatar 2. I predict it won't have any more staying power than the push around Avatar, although it is worth noting that 3D remains very popular in China and a few other markets.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Other mistakes include introducing a new channel-based format right when the industry was moving to object-based and boasting that they could go from 9.1 to 11.1 to 13.1 when the competition had 30 speakers. The real problem is competing against Dolby. DTS was able to dominate one delivery medium (BD), but all other deliver media (cassette tape, VHS, DVD, broadcast, cable TV, satellite, streaming, games, etc) is either dominated by or exclusively uses Dolby audio.


As you are fond of noting, the studios like having some competition; I think there was a window of opportunity in which Auro could have made some inroads. But they didn't really go for it - Dolby is based in San Francisco (near Pixar, Lucasfilm and the indie scene centered around Zoetrope), with major offices in Burbank near the studios. DTS is based in LA, likewise with proximity to the studios, and in the film days kept offices in Hollywood and in London to be near their clients. Auro is based in Belgium, and took on as their partner to roll it out theatrically a Belgian projector manufacturer with US offices in Sacramento. I don't have an MBA, but it seems to me that a first step in establishing yourself as a major Hollywood player would be to open an office, even a small one, in Hollywood.

EDIT to add a couple of general notes about Auro, that I keep meaning to post but never have the right discussion thread; I'll bring it up here, and then we can go back to discussing Atmos. 

1) I wish the AVR manufacturers would let you assign _all 4_ of your Tops in a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layout to be the VOG. A mono VOG speaker never made sense to me - it works way better as a VOG _channel._ As long as you also have Surround Heights, which don't exist in Atmos. Which leads me to...

2) In order for this to work for Auro, you need proper Surround Heights. I have always been frustrated at the usual Atmos/Auro compromise layouts, where you use Front Height and Rear Height for Auro and pretend that it's effective. IMO the real magic of Auro was in the use of Surround Heights, and I wish that were emphasized more in the layout recommendations. Auro really works best in its original iteration as 5.1 with a height layer added (and top, VOG layer, optional), and attempts to shoehorn that into the more-common 7.1 home theatre layout were never quite satisfactory. I think if they'd thought it through they'd have designed around 7.1 to start with, and so Auro would have been a 15.1 system, instead of 11.1 or the later hack of 13.1.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> I was curious so I looked this up: Titanic 3D grossed ~$350M worldwide in 2012, at which point the original 2D released had grossed around $2.6B in 2012 dollars. So while the 3D grosses were certainly nothing to sneeze at, and more than paid for the cost of the 3D conversion, they represent around 12% of the total Titanic take at the Box Office.


I heard one billion in a youtube review. Then I googled it and it just came up with the total, over two billion total. I thought it was around 1 billion the first release, so 1 billion for the second added up. I'm not doubting your numbers though, because I have no first hand info about it. Maybe the second time also had 2D screenings. I just remember it as "Titanic 3D" re-release. If it's 12% though that's still misleading because it's 12% of a total number generated over two releases, the first one which was not in 3D at all. So it would be more like 24% of Titanic's gross once it was released with a 3D option.



> There will definitely be another big 3D push for Avatar 2. I predict it won't have any more staying power than the push around Avatar, although it is worth noting that 3D remains very popular in China and a few other markets.


It may or may not, but the staying power after Avatar 1 lasted awhile. Maybe 5-7 years? What do you think? How to Train Your Dragon, Clash and Wrath of the Titans, Titanic re-release, Up, probably many others, all exist in 3D because of Avatar 1. Would MMFR, Force Awakens, or Jurassic World have been in 3D without Avatar 1? Those were six years after Avatar 1 came out.

It's hard for me to predict whether it could become more popular after Avatar 2, and with longer staying power, or remain a niche market. It all depends on the technology. If every popular TV comes with 144hz active 3D, if VR becomes mainstream without any motion sickness, if "glasses free" 3D pans out... who knows. But even if it remains a niche market, there is still money to be made there. Home Theater as a whole is a niche market.

Take The Matrix 4, for example. To post-convert that to 3D at a high quality, it might cost $15 million, let's say. Edit: Titanic apparently cost $18 million, and that is the gold standard of post-conversions, so there you go. Now imagine they release it in 3D to theaters, and then on 3D blu-ray. They will make back way more than that, easily. The cost of post-converting films is so relatively low that compared to the popularity of well known films, it should be profitable to convert it to 3D more often than not for big budget films. There is a market all over the world to see a Matrix movie in 3D. Same with James Bond. Same with Dune unless it flops epicly. And that market is a lot more than $15 mil in sales. Converting and releasing in 3D is a guaranteed profit in many cases, but they don't do it. When Hollywood is forgoing guaranteed profit, that raises eyebrows.

Say post-conversion ranges from $10 mil to $25 mil maximum.* Avengers Endgame sold $540 million in 3D movie sales. *Are Matrix 4 and Dune Avengers Endgame, no... hopefully they will be better, heh... but even if they are only 10% as popular, that's still 54 million before we even get to 3D blu-ray sales. It's a no-brainer to convert many movies on that level to 3D, and release the 3D blu-rays, so why aren't they doing it? Financiers of movies don't like to make money? Very strange.


----------



## Worf

MagnumX said:


> I hope the same doesn't happen to Dolby, but look at some of the more recent developments. We got Dolby Atmos for headphones, Dolby Atmos for notebook computers and even Dolby Atmos for cell phones! WTF is Dolby Atmos on a cell phone supposed to do? Nothing meaningful to the theater or home theater format that's for certain. Dolby Atmos for single Amazon speakers came out before any of it worked with a real home system. How do you make Atmos work with ONE speaker? I never did hear a good answer for that. If Dolby keeps heading down these roads for marketing/naming hype, it's going to devolve into a lot more Disney-like mixes with poor dynamic range and few overhead effects with no proper object use and fewer ones like Fury or Overlord that actually deliver the goods.


Dolby is using Atmos as more than spatial audio - it's more enhanced audio.

Atmos for Headphones is a down mixer to get full Surround plus spatial audio in headphones so you get the full experience with headphones.

Atmos for cell phones, tablets and computers is enhanced audio playback - audio from these devices is typically a joke with tinny audio and is otherwise unlistenable. With Atmos processing, you can get enhanced volume levels and better audio quality out of those devices.
Same goes for Atmos used in video conferencing programs - to enhance the audio that might otherwise be picked up by terrible built on laptop microphones and clarify speech so it's less terrible.

It's less about spatial audio, and is now Dolby's banner for a pile of technology they have to improve the audio experience in many situations.

I've seen Atmos on tablets - the demo model was pretty neat in going from the typically lousy audio you expect to something useful (it wasn't a canned demo, it was a demo setup where you could play with the tablet and try stuff on, which included enabling and disabling atmos through it's control panel). More than a few people enjoyed Atmos on headphones since it's available for Windows and Xbox.


----------



## MagnumX

Worf said:


> Dolby is using Atmos as more than spatial audio - it's more enhanced audio.
> 
> Atmos for Headphones is a down mixer to get full Surround plus spatial audio in headphones so you get the full experience with headphones.
> 
> Atmos for cell phones, tablets and computers is enhanced audio playback - audio from these devices is typically a joke with tinny audio and is otherwise unlistenable. With Atmos processing, you can get enhanced volume levels and better audio quality out of those devices.
> Same goes for Atmos used in video conferencing programs - to enhance the audio that might otherwise be picked up by terrible built on laptop microphones and clarify speech so it's less terrible.
> 
> It's less about spatial audio, and is now Dolby's banner for a pile of technology they have to improve the audio experience in many situations.
> 
> I've seen Atmos on tablets - the demo model was pretty neat in going from the typically lousy audio you expect to something useful (it wasn't a canned demo, it was a demo setup where you could play with the tablet and try stuff on, which included enabling and disabling atmos through it's control panel). More than a few people enjoyed Atmos on headphones since it's available for Windows and Xbox.


But are any of those things _truly_ "Atmos" or are they just another way to pad Dolby's new brand name like THX became everything under the sun? Dolby could have given those things a different name (e.g. Dolby Dimension) and no one would have questioned that it's really a separate function to enhance spatial qualities in 2-channel and on small devices. Something like Q-Sound gave more spacious sound on two channel setups including notebooks. It didn't do 22.1.10 speaker playback. THAT is the difference. Atmos should mean object based playback over 5.1.2 (maybe even 3.1.2) -> 22.1.10 setups. Yes, it's backwards compatible with 2-channel, but it doesn't do any of those headphone things without additional technology (i.e. something else they're still calling Atmos). Apple's spatial audio works with Atmos but it's not Atmos at all. Thank god they didn't call it "Apple Most". 



dschulz said:


> 1) I wish the AVR manufacturers would let you assign _all 4_ of your Tops in a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layout to be the VOG. A mono VOG speaker never made sense to me - it works way better as a VOG _channel._ As long as you also have Surround Heights, which don't exist in Atmos. Which leads me to...


If you're using all your Tops speakers for VOG, what's doing front/rear heights? Most AVR/AVPs don't do Heights AND Tops nor do most home theaters have both available anyway. 4 Mono speakers = 4 Arrayed speakers. It'd just pull towards the nearest speaker above your head. You have to have them out of phase with each other to sound like the entire ceiling is making a sound, but that's not its purpose. It doesn't really need to be stereo because the front/rear heights will add that information. Its sole purpose is to fill that gap directly overhead you get in larger rooms with "Heights" speakers. If your room is smaller you won't need it. Auro will output VOG through Surround Height or Rear Heights instead (it also uses front heights regardless; this is straight forward to test with the Auro setup/demo discs). 



> 2) In order for this to work for Auro, you need proper Surround Heights. I have always been frustrated at the usual Atmos/Auro compromise layouts, where you use Front Height and Rear Height for Auro and pretend that it's effective. IMO the real magic of Auro was in the use of Surround Heights, and I wish that were emphasized more in the layout recommendations. Auro really works best in its original iteration as 5.1 with a height layer added (and top, VOG layer, optional), and attempts to shoehorn that into the more-common 7.1 home theatre layout were never quite satisfactory. I think if they'd thought it through they'd have designed around 7.1 to start with, and so Auro would have been a 15.1 system, instead of 11.1 or the later hack of 13.1.


Auro's surround heights have the _same_ exact signal for rear heights and vice versa regardless of the AVR/AVP setting (again easy to test) so there is literally no point to using "Surround Height" in a mixed system unless you are using an AVR like the Denon 8500 that can switch speaker sets automatically in some configurations. More to the point, if you buy a simple speaker switch box, you can easily add "surround height" speakers to a mixed Atmos/Auro setup and push a button to use surround height speakers instead of rear heights if you so desire (that can be on the side wall above the side surrounds and only used for Auro). A 2-in, 2-out Monoprice speaker switch is what I'm using and it lets me do Surround Height or Rear Heights or BOTH at the same time (It drives them in parallel) like an Auro 11.1 movie theater would do (which uses arrays of surround height and rear height speakers all the way around the side to the back of the theater). 

Auro 13.1 is based on the 7.1 layout, but ideally here you would have both surround height and rear height speakers playing at the same time or you can do what my other switchbox setting does (for Atmos, but works for Auro as well) and that is to extract a "top middle" speaker set instead and send it to Top Middle or Surround Height speakers while leaving Rear Heights in place. Set up like that, most Auro movies sound oddly similar to the Atmos versions (and most are probably taken from the Atmos master and converted). 

True, it probably should have been a 15.1 setup, but let's face it, almost nothing supported more than 11.1 channels when all this stuff came out (save Trinnov and eventually some higher-end models, the Denon 8500 with 13.1 channels. Only in the past two years have 15.1 channel models become available. One of those, however (The Monoprice HTP-1) lets you output the VOG channels through "Top Middle", giving larger rooms a perfectly smooth Auro 13.1 setup that's fully Atmos functional. You could still add a switchbox and use surround heights as well and Monoprice even makes the box for it as well. The HTP-1 also has fallback modes for "mixer" based combination output for front wides and top middle for Disney locked soundtracks (so at the very least, you get coverage directly overhead instead of a "heights" nightmare where there's a hole overhead. 

I've been seriously thinking of switching to an HTP-1 and using my existing "Scatmos" modules (Onkyo ES-500 Dolby 3-channel extraction) to do SS#2 (instead of Top Middle) nearly discretely for a "nearly true" 11.1.6 fully discrete setup. I'm not convinced it would actually sound better at the MLP, however and since most of the time there's only 1-2 listeners using the system, it's a big outlay for improvements that are mainly off-axis.


----------



## sdurani

Worf said:


> It's less about spatial audio, and is now Dolby's banner for a pile of technology they have to improve the audio experience in many situations.


It's still all about spatial audio, just trying to overcome playback limitations. Whether using height virtualization or headphone virtualization, the soundtrack has to have a base layer of sounds and a separate height layer of sounds that can be independently processed before being downmixed to 2 channels. The virtualizers aren't trying to enhance the audio as much as trick your hearing into perceiving 2 distinct layers: sounds around you vs sounds above you. To what extent they succeed is up for question. But the goal is spatial audio.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> IMO the real magic of Auro was in the use of Surround Heights, and I wish that were emphasized more in the layout recommendations.


The Auro3D format has 2 Surround Height channels. There's no reason these can't be played back over 4 height speakers by simply splitting each channel. 

The problem is physical placement of the height speakers. Auro wants them high up on the walls, preferably within 30 degrees directly above their respective base layer speakers. Dolby wants them on the ceiling (if limited to 4 speakers, they encourage Tops locations instead of Heights locations). DTS is definitely on the ceiling (their lowest height layer is 45 degrees elevation). 

The preferred overhead locations for Atmos and DTS:X are close enough to each other that a single overhead layout can satisfy both formats. Both those formats would have to be compromised to do justice to Auro3D playback. Is the compromise worth it?


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> The Auro3D format has 2 Surround Height channels. There's no reason these can't be played back over 4 height speakers by simply splitting each channel.


True, I'm just observing that since the home theatre standard is arguably 7.1, not 5.1, it's already a hack to replicate the two Surround Height channels across four speakers, when the base level has four _discrete_ surrounds. 



> The problem is physical placement of the height speakers. Auro wants them high up on the walls, preferably within 30 degrees directly above their respective base layer speakers. Dolby wants them on the ceiling (if limited to 4 speakers, they encourage Tops locations instead of Heights locations). DTS is definitely on the ceiling (their lowest height layer is 45 degrees elevation).


This is true, but Auro didn't pull the surround height locations out of thin air, they were chosen after doing much research into how to recreate a 3D space using a height layer. 



> The preferred overhead locations for Atmos and DTS:X are close enough to each other that a single overhead layout can satisfy both formats. Both those formats would have to be compromised to do justice to Auro3D playback. Is the compromise worth it?


At this point probably not, based on content availability. I'm just sad that more people didn't have a chance to hear Auro-3D played back as intended, because it really was special. And if I did have the budget to do something more than a basic Atmos setup, I'd be pretty tempted to go the Trinnov route and include some additional channels to accommodate both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos. There would be some speakers used only for one layout (Front Wides with Atmos) or the other (Surround Height for Auro-3D), but it would be a pretty groovy setup.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> The Auro3D format has 2 Surround Height channels. There's no reason these can't be played back over 4 height speakers by simply splitting each channel.
> 
> The problem is physical placement of the height speakers. Auro wants them high up on the walls, preferably within 30 degrees directly above their respective base layer speakers. Dolby wants them on the ceiling (if limited to 4 speakers, they encourage Tops locations instead of Heights locations). DTS is definitely on the ceiling (their lowest height layer is 45 degrees elevation).
> 
> The preferred overhead locations for Atmos and DTS:X are close enough to each other that a single overhead layout can satisfy both formats. Both those formats would have to be compromised to do justice to Auro3D playback. Is the compromise worth it?


Neither Auro Technologies nor DTS are anywhere near as picky as you make them out to be. There's a difference between a _recommendation_ and a _reference_ system to compare. 

Auro "recommends" surround heights compared to "rear heights", but what they really want is for your height speakers to be above your lower speakers so they align for more precise imaging (like a cube). With a 7.1 base, rear heights can be above rear surrounds. As you say, they can be split (done here with a Monoprice switch that can do parallel drive) and that matches what Auro does in the Cinema 11.1 systems exactly. They do not have "surround heights" above side heights alone. They have them all the way around and in the back as well. How hard is it for a dedicated home theater setup to throw two extra speakers on the side wall if they want a 'perfect' Auro setup? It's easier than putting an extra set in the ceiling, that's for certain. Meanwhile, Auro Technologies themselves have said their system plays Atmos well, perhaps even better than Dolby's own speaker layout. 

I've long said the difference between the spacing of overhead speakers in Atmos is at least somewhat trivial because spacing them wider merely moves the overhead images outward. The people I've seen on here that went with something like SVS surrounds overhead high on the side walls have reported excellent Atmos reproduction. They're happy with it, but certain sticklers for following the exact language of the law rather than the spirit of the law regularly give lectures on how important is to make your room look exactly like the Dolby diagrams. Even Dolby themselves aren't so anal as I've talked with them about my own hybrid surround height layout and Stuart Bowling endorsed it on the RPF forums.

Meanwhile, DTS "reference" systems and studios have their "heights" at 45 degrees, but DTS themselves make _no such recommendation or requirement_. That recommendation can be found only one place, namely _here, on these forums_ among those that need to try and make their house look like the recording studio photos they've looked at rather than listen to what DTS has to say about it. DTS has long said their system is meant to be fully compatible with both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos and while you acknowledge the Atmos compatibility of layouts, you have never recognized the Auro compatibility despite the fact DTS directly supports both Auro's Center Height and Top Surround (Voice of God) speakers as well as Surround Heights in their own setup (even without objects in the soundtrack and Neural X supports both as well). 

Now _why_ would DTS support extra Auro speakers including Surround Heights if the system isn't _meant_ to work with Auro-3D layouts, which include Front Heights? What happens to a Harry Potter soundtrack if you use 30 degree Heights instead of 45 degree Heights? Dolby has a _RANGE_ of 20-45 degrees for "height speakers" and their system is far more concerned with rendering the sound rather than just channel playback and yet even they aren't so pick as to say 45 or 55 _ONLY_. DTS makes no such claims. The claim they make is that they work fully with both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos layouts and systems. DTS even does conversions of Auro-3D and AuroMax theaters into DTS:X ones using the existing speaker layouts. 

Why am I harping on this? Because people like you continually create placement _melodramas_ that don't actually exist, making people think they can't possibly have all three formats in one room because the angles are off by a whopping 15 degrees in their studio from your own home when in practice it's not a big deal.



dschulz said:


> True, I'm just observing that since the home theatre standard is arguably 7.1, not 5.1, it's already a hack to replicate the two Surround Height channels across four speakers, when the base level has four _discrete_ surrounds.
> 
> This is true, but Auro didn't pull the surround height locations out of thin air, they were chosen after doing much research into how to recreate a 3D space using a height layer.


I don't know how you can call something a "hack" when that is _exactly_ what Auro Technologies does in an Auro-3D 11.1 cinema. You seem to be hung up on "discrete" when even Dolby Atmos uses arrays in the cinema. There is nothing wrong with arrays. Cinemas have used them for years. Atmos is meant to go from listener based to room based surround, but that doesn't mean arrays have all disappeared just because most home theaters are too small and most AVRs are ill equipped to bother with them. Trinnov will let you do it. 

Look at Auro-3D's own 11.1 layout. See anything array-like there? I see four VOG and eight surround height speakers and ten surround speakers in their diagram. It's a _layer_ channel system not a discrete individual speaker system. There's nothing "hack" about adding more surround height speakers or using the rear height locations when Auro themselves make it clear that's where they go. It is the limitations of many home AVRs that keep this layout from being standard at home, but it's not hard to split and do it yourself. I've got _four_ surround height speakers in my setup and _six_ surround speakers (FW + SS + SS#2) that all use arrayed side surround channels information just like the theaters do (using active mixers to split and create the extra speaker channels). You hear the arrays either between the two speakers (sitting equidistant) or closer to the nearest location off-center (precedence). That's how it works in the theaters too.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I'm just observing that since the home theatre standard is arguably 7.1, not 5.1, it's already a hack to replicate the two Surround Height channels across four speakers, when the base level has four _discrete_ surrounds.


You have to work with what you have, and Auro3D only has 2 Surround Height channels. If you don't want to do the 4 speaker hack, then play them back through a single pair of Surround Height speakers placed at an azimuth angle between the Sides & Rears. The mismatch between the number of discrete channels in the height layer vs the base layer isn't a problem. Atmos has 24 discrete locations in the base layer compared to only 10 in the height layer.


> Auro didn't pull the surround height locations out of thin air, they were chosen after doing much research into how to recreate a 3D space using a height layer.


They could end up being the two most optimal height locations in all of immersive audio, I was just pointing out that they were incompatible with Atmos & DTS:X (whose 4 preferred height locations are very compatible).


> I'm just sad that more people didn't have a chance to hear Auro-3D played back as intended, because it really was special.


Completely understand the lament, since I've heard some pretty amazing Auro demos myself (some of them using only 9.1 speakers). However, the careful set-up at the demos and use of specialized recordings had me questioning whether what I heard was mainly due to the format itself.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Neither Auro Technologies nor DTS are anywhere near as picky as you make them out to be. There's a difference between a _recommendation_ and a _reference_ system to compare.
> 
> Auro "recommends" surround heights compared to "rear heights", but what they really want is for your height speakers to be above your lower speakers so they align for more precise imaging (like a cube). With a 7.1 base, rear heights can be above rear surrounds. As you say, they can be split (done here with a Monoprice switch that can do parallel drive) and that matches what Auro does in the Cinema 11.1 systems exactly. They do not have "surround heights" above side heights alone. They have them all the way around and in the back as well. How hard is it for a dedicated home theater setup to throw two extra speakers on the side wall if they want a 'perfect' Auro setup? It's easier than putting an extra set in the ceiling, that's for certain. Meanwhile, Auro Technologies themselves have said their system plays Atmos well, perhaps even better than Dolby's own speaker layout.
> 
> I've long said the difference between the spacing of overhead speakers in Atmos is at least somewhat trivial because spacing them wider merely moves the overhead images outward. The people I've seen on here that went with something like SVS surrounds overhead high on the side walls have reported excellent Atmos reproduction. They're happy with it, but certain sticklers for following the exact language of the law rather than the spirit of the law regularly give lectures on how important is to make your room look exactly like the Dolby diagrams. Even Dolby themselves aren't so anal as I've talked with them about my own hybrid surround height layout and Stuart Bowling endorsed it on the RPF forums.
> 
> Meanwhile, DTS "reference" systems and studios have their "heights" at 45 degrees, but DTS themselves make _no such recommendation or requirement_. That recommendation can be found only one place, namely _here, on these forums_ among those that need to try and make their house look like the recording studio photos they've looked at rather than listen to what DTS has to say about it. DTS has long said their system is meant to be fully compatible with both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos and while you acknowledge the Atmos compatibility of layouts, you have never recognized the Auro compatibility despite the fact DTS directly supports both Auro's Center Height and Top Surround (Voice of God) speakers as well as Surround Heights in their own setup (even without objects in the soundtrack and Neural X supports both as well).
> 
> Now _why_ would DTS support extra Auro speakers including Surround Heights if the system isn't _meant_ to work with Auro-3D layouts, which include Front Heights? What happens to a Harry Potter soundtrack if you use 30 degree Heights instead of 45 degree Heights? Dolby has a _RANGE_ of 20-45 degrees for "height speakers" and their system is far more concerned with rendering the sound rather than just channel playback and yet even they aren't so pick as to say 45 or 55 _ONLY_. DTS makes no such claims. The claim they make is that they work fully with both Auro-3D and Dolby Atmos layouts and systems. DTS even does conversions of Auro-3D and AuroMax theaters into DTS:X ones using the existing speaker layouts.
> 
> Why am I harping on this? Because people like you continually create placement _melodramas_ that don't actually exist, making people think they can't possibly have all three formats in one room because the angles are off by a whopping 15 degrees in their studio from your own home when in practice it's not a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can call something a "hack" when that is _exactly_ what Auro Technologies does in an Auro-3D 11.1 cinema. You seem to be hung up on "discrete" when even Dolby Atmos uses arrays in the cinema. There is nothing wrong with arrays. Cinemas have used them for years. Atmos is meant to go from listener based to room based surround, but that doesn't mean arrays have all disappeared just because most home theaters are too small and most AVRs are ill equipped to bother with them. Trinnov will let you do it.
> 
> Look at Auro-3D's own 11.1 layout. See anything array-like there? I see four VOG and eight surround height speakers and ten surround speakers in their diagram. It's a _layer_ channel system not a discrete individual speaker system. There's nothing "hack" about adding more surround height speakers or using the rear height locations when Auro themselves make it clear that's where they go. It is the limitations of many home AVRs that keep this layout from being standard at home, but it's not hard to split and do it yourself. I've got _four_ surround height speakers in my setup and _six_ surround speakers (FW + SS + SS#2) that all use arrayed side surround channels information just like the theaters do (using active mixers to split and create the extra speaker channels). You hear the arrays either between the two speakers (sitting equidistant) or closer to the nearest location off-center (precedence). That's how it works in the theaters too.
> 
> View attachment 3157798


Well said.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> I don't know how you can call something a "hack" when that is _exactly_ what Auro Technologies does in an Auro-3D 11.1 cinema. You seem to be hung up on "discrete" when even Dolby Atmos uses arrays in the cinema. There is nothing wrong with arrays. Cinemas have used them for years. Atmos is meant to go from listener based to room based surround, but that doesn't mean arrays have all disappeared just because most home theaters are too small and most AVRs are ill equipped to bother with them. Trinnov will let you do it.


The "hack" I am referring to is when Auro realized their 11.1 system, predicated on a 5.1 base layer, didn't work as well when the base layer was instead 7.1. Introducing 13.1 added the needed Rear Surrounds (accepting the reality of 7.1 bases), but without adding Rear Surround Height. It all makes sense given how Auro was developed (as a surround music format based on 5.1).


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> You have to work with what you have, and Auro3D only has 2 Surround Height channels. If you don't want to do the 4 speaker hack, then play them back through a single pair of Surround Height speakers placed at an azimuth angle between the Sides & Rears. The mismatch between the number of discrete channels in the height layer vs the base layer isn't a problem. Atmos has 24 discrete locations in the base layer compared to only 10 in the height layer. They could end up being the two most optimal height locations in all of immersive audio, I was just pointing out that they were incompatible with Atmos & DTS:X (whose 4 preferred height locations are very compatible). Completely understand the lament, since I've heard some pretty amazing Auro demos myself (some of them using only 9.1 speakers). However, the careful set-up at the demos and use of specialized recordings had me questioning whether what I heard was mainly due to the format itself.


Auro works as well as it does because of the vertical stereo field for each layer, so I think I disagree here - the mismatch between the number of discrete channels in the base vs height is a problem, and placing the Surround Heights at some position in between the Surrounds and Rears is really suboptimal for what Auro is trying to do. 

But, as Apple Music is now pushing out music mixed for Atmos, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over not having a proper Auro setup, unless one of those lottery tickets pays off.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Auro works as well as it does because of the vertical stereo field for each layer, so I think I disagree here - the mismatch between the number of discrete channels in the base vs height is a problem, and placing the Surround Heights at some position in between the Surrounds and Rears is really suboptimal for what Auro is trying to do.


Only a problem for Auro. Formats that don't start from that premise have no problem creating vertical phantom imaging between speakers that are not vertically aligned.


----------



## X4100

After completing my listening tests of various Dolby Atmos movie clips and adjustments to my rear heights > top middle, my decision is to keep front and rear heights. The question now is whether I'll put them on opposite side walls a little closer to ( sort of like the same angle as top front and rear) my listening position. I will give the new setup a few weeks, and reevaluate my findings


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Only a problem for Auro. Formats that don't start from that premise have no problem creating vertical phantom imaging between speakers that are not vertically aligned.


By what possible physics reason would that be an _issue_ for Auro? There is zero difference in how phantom imaging works between formats as physics don't change just because of marketing hype. 

The only reason to worry about it at all is for Auro dual-quad miked music recordings so the alignment matches the microphone alignment and even then it'd be hard to tell it's off with most recordings. My testing comparisons to Atmos encoded movies shows it's negligible for panned movie effects beyond the physical locations themselves. 

If anything, Atmos 5.1.4 playback of movies sound almost identical to Auro encoded 11.1 playback of the same movie from the same master. The two formats aren't so different from one another in most home setups. Push Atmos to 24.1.10 And it's a different story in terms of resolution and discrete location panning.

Disney Atmos is nearly identical in function to DTS:X 11.1 without Neural X and not so far from Auro either. Frankly, Atmos would benefit greatly from center height speakers and there is no reason on Earth other than business reasons to not "help" Auro that its renderer couldn't support surround heights directly.

@dschulz - Given how many complaints I've read over the years for how little discrete information rear surrounds get in 7.1 and Atmos to the point where many people are picking front wides over rear surrounds despite complaints they almost never get much use by Atmos either, the notion that Auro is somehow utterly deficient for not offering seperate "rear heights" with "surround heights" in use seems like a minor issue at most, particularly if you place rear heights in the back over rear surrounds and use the VOG (TS) in the middle instead.

That is not much different than rear heights plus top middle in Atmos with not dissimilar imaging errors to using Tops instead of Height in Atmos for things forward of the speakers (reversed here relative to side surrounds). The main difference is Auro isn't meant to be as precise in placement to begin with (11.1 or 13.1 compared to up to 34.1).

Didn't @Jeremy Anderson just post pages of explanations how his "Tops" speakers can image perfectly fine at positions directly in front of those speakers using simple stereo steering (panning) logic? I disagreed on the effectiveness of such a solution, but this notion that using non-rectangular overhead layouts with a range of acceptable angles is somehow fine for Atmos layouts, but is apparently just awful for Auro-3D seems rather duplicitous at best.


----------



## Nima

Sorry I searched for this on the forum but found no concrete answer. What is the latest opinion on Top Middle i.e. 4 vs 6 Atmos speakers?

Still better to go just 4 because most of the times only the middles will play with 6?

TIA


----------



## chi_guy50

Nima said:


> Sorry I searched for this on the forum but found no concrete answer. What is the latest opinion on Top Middle i.e. 4 vs 6 Atmos speakers?
> 
> Still better to go just 4 because most of the times only the middles will play with 6?
> 
> TIA


If your budget and room allow it, I would recommend that you install (or at least wire for) the three overhead pairs. This way, even if you only configure your system to use the front and back pair, you are prepared for expansion when/if the spirit moves you. 

You didn't ask, but I would offer the same advice regarding front wide and surround back speakers; After all, wire is cheap and it is a small extra effort if you are already engaged in running wires to other positions.


----------



## X4100

@ Nima said above: Still better to go just 4 because most of the times only the middles will play with 6? 

IIRC it may also depend upon the size of your room, or your personal preference. I have 5.1.4 ( actually 6.1.4 ) in a 12x12x8, whereas another person on this forum has x.x.6 in his room that is about the same size as mine. What size room are you working with?


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> 1) I wish the AVR manufacturers would let you assign _all 4_ of your Tops in a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layout to be the VOG. A mono VOG speaker never made sense to me - it works way better as a VOG _channel._


That's a brilliant idea. I definitely agree, so few people have that extra speaker which is barely used. Definitely support this kind of "phantom VOG speaker" arrangement.


----------



## Nima

X4100 said:


> @ Nima said above: Still better to go just 4 because most of the times only the middles will play with 6?
> 
> IIRC it may also depend upon the size of your room, or your personal preference. I have 5.1.4 ( actually 6.1.4 ) in a 12x12x8, whereas another person on this forum has x.x.6 in his room that is about the same size as mine. What size room are you working with?


The part of the room which is the HT is roughly 14x14 feet. I have one row and the MLP is the only spot that matters.


----------



## bluesky636

Nima said:


> The part of the room which is the HT is roughly 14x14 feet. I have one row and the MLP is the only spot that matters.


It would be extremely helpful if you quoted the post you are responding to.


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> It would be extremely helpful if you quoted the post you are responding to.


He did. You can't see it.


----------



## regster

Nima said:


> The part of the room which is the HT is roughly 14x14 feet. I have one row and the MLP is the only spot that matters.


Not sure if you mentioned what AVR model you have. Another thing to consider is that only the 13 ch models i.e. 6700H, 8500H… have proper support for 6 top speakers. 

Found this out late and had to model up from 3700H to the 6700H.

<edit> thought I was in the Denon thread, 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> He did. You can't see it.


Then what good is it?


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> Then what good is it?


It keeps you from seeing posters you're ignoring.


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> It keeps you from seeing posters you're ignoring.


Every other forum I am on that uses this same software shows a notice in the quote that you are ignoring the poster and provides a link to see the quote if you choose, while still ignoring the poster otherwise.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bluesky636 said:


> Every other forum I am on that uses this same software shows a notice in the quote that you are ignoring the poster and provides a link to see the quote if you choose, while still ignoring the poster otherwise.


Nevertheless, the way it's implemented here means we don't get that. A post is skipped on the page completely if it's from an ignored person - you'd have to notice the jump in post numbers to realise it was missing. Then, if someone ever quotes an ignored person, the entire quote is removed with no hint there was ever anything there!


----------



## bluesky636

mrtickleuk said:


> Nevertheless, the way it's implemented here means we don't get that. A post is skipped on the page completely if it's from an ignored person - you'd have to notice the jump in post numbers to realise it was missing. Then, if someone ever quotes an ignored person, the entire quote is removed with no hint there was ever anything there!


Not very useful.


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> Nevertheless, the way it's implemented here means we don't get that. A post is skipped on the page completely if it's from an ignored person - you'd have to notice the jump in post numbers to realise it was missing. Then, if someone ever quotes an ignored person, the entire quote is removed with no hint there was ever anything there!


Sounds like my wife's attitude toward anything I say to her after almost 20 years of marriage. 




bluesky636 said:


> Not very useful.


Again . . . (see above).


----------



## X4100

@bluesky636 said: It would be extremely helpful if you quoted the post you are responding to

Well, if you humble yourself just a tad, and respect others maybe, just maybe you can see what is said by other posters who are actually contributing to this topic!


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> That's a brilliant idea. I definitely agree, so few people have that extra speaker which is barely used. Definitely support this kind of "phantom VOG speaker" arrangement.


The Auro-3D decoder _already_ uses front height + surround height (or rear height) to simulate 4-channel VOG overhead. It always has as a simple demo test track from their sampler discs will demonstrate.


----------



## Nima

Any more thoughts on 4 vs 6 Atmos speakers? Processor will be a Trinnov Al16. 

TIA


----------



## MagnumX

Nima said:


> Any more thoughts on 4 vs 6 Atmos speakers? Processor will be a Trinnov Al16.
> 
> TIA


If price isn't an issue, more speakers are _usually_ better than fewer.


----------



## X4100

Nima said:
Any more thoughts on 4 vs 6 Atmos speakers? Processor will be a Trinnov Al16.

WOW, like @MagnumX said don't worry about the speaker limitation that the average poster faces go for it! Please don't forget to come back to fill us in on your experience!


----------



## Soulburner

X4100, is there a reason you are editing the quote box to make it not look like a quote?


----------



## X4100

X4100, is there a reason you are editing the quote box to make it not look like a quote?

I'm just not as capable as the rest of you guys, I've tried it several times without success  . I will have to keep practicing it.


----------



## X4100

I tried but it's a no no, I'll ask my son for help


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> I tried but it's a no no, I'll ask my son for help


You hit "Reply" in the post you are responding to and BINGO! The post is quoted and you add your response.

If you want to quote multiple posts you click "Quote" then in your response you click "+Quotes then add your response:



X4100 said:


> X4100, is there a reason you are editing the quote box to make it not look like a quote?
> 
> I'm just not as capable as the rest of you guys, I've tried it several times without success  . I will have to keep practicing it.


Like that.


----------



## X4100

bluesky636 said:


> You hit "Reply" in the post you are responding to and BINGO! The post is quoted and you add your response.
> 
> If you want to quote multiple posts you click "Quote" then in your response you click "+Quotes then add your response:
> 
> 
> 
> Like that.


Now that is what I call very EASY, thank you for helping me


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> You hit "Reply" in the post you are responding to and BINGO! The post is quoted and you add your response.
> 
> If you want to quote multiple posts you click "Quote" then in your response you click "+Quotes then add your response:
> 
> 
> 
> Like that.


Editing _parts_ of quotes (to look good and not waste space) isn't quite so simple (and a pain on a phone). You have to manually edit the hypertext "quote" tags.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Editing _parts_ of quotes (to look good and not waste space)


You just delete what you don't want. Not that hard.


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> The Auro-3D decoder _already_ uses front height + surround height (or rear height) to simulate 4-channel VOG overhead. It always has as a simple demo test track from their sampler discs will demonstrate.


Ah, cool. I didn't know that, thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> You just delete what you don't want. Not that hard.


You are inferring a single monster quote is sufficient, but it's much harder to follow for longer replies and more likely to simply be ignored.

I'm talking about breaking up long posts into parts to reply to sections so people can see what one is replying to (netiquette), which for readability seems more important with the popularity of phones over PCs. 

In the days of email with " >> " marks, it was a simple highlight cut/paste operation. On forums with markup language, you have to mark the start/end of quote sections to do it.


----------



## fatherom

bluesky636 said:


> You just delete what you don't want. Not that hard.


Your responses are so curt and unpleasant.

It IS difficult erasing swaths of text on my iphone - I invariably delete something by accident that I didn't want to delete.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> You are inferring a single monster quote is sufficient, but it's much harder to follow for longer replies and more likely to simply be ignored.


Oh.



MagnumX said:


> I'm talking about breaking up long posts into parts to reply to sections so people can see what one is replying to (netiquette), which for readability seems more important with the popularity of phones over PCs.


You mean like this.



MagnumX said:


> In the days of email with " >> " marks, it was a simple highlight cut/paste operation. On forums with markup language, you have to mark the start/end of quote sections to do it.


I do it whenever it's necessary. No real problem.


----------



## bluesky636

fatherom said:


> Your responses are so curt and unpleasant.
> 
> It IS difficult erasing swaths of text on my iphone - I invariably delete something by accident that I didn't want to delete.


Sorry you feel that way. I'm not one to waste words.


----------



## noah katz

bluesky636 said:


> You just delete what you don't want. Not that hard.


Or, if you highlight just the part you want to quote, a small window will appear that gives you the option to Quote (adds it to quotes) or Reply (quotes directly into the Post Reply box).


----------



## bluesky636

noah katz said:


> Or, if you highlight just the part you want to quote, a small window will appear that gives you the


How about that. Never noticed it before. Good tip.


----------



## junh1024

sdurani said:


> Other mistakes include introducing a new channel-based format right when the industry was moving to object-based and boasting that they could go from 9.1 to 11.1 to 13.1 when the competition had 30 speakers.





dschulz said:


> I think if they'd thought it through they'd have designed around 7.1 to start with, and so Auro would have been a 15.1 system, instead of 11.1 or the later hack of 13.1.


The Auro journey began in the 2000s when 51 was king. They made their 516/11.1 format somewhen. If they had used 71 as a base when it came out (and more realistic marketing about its advantages & competitors), Auro would be a bit better IMO. Also, a format that doesn't have more height than ELL speakers.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> However, it has been interesting to see the recent push by home theater Youtubers to help Auro cling to life, as if they're just now discovering that it exists. Maybe Auro is dumping money into marketing to try to course correct. Or just trying to get their talking heads out in front of it as they slowly lose relevance.


I think they're "just discovering" that it exists. Must be that YT ad money. I've also read other people "just discover" dead formats like mp3surround and hype it up as if it's the future of music. 



MagnumX said:


> You really feel like you're there. I'd like to see more offerings with dual-quad microphones from them, not less. Blu-Ray has room enough for Atmos and Auro-3D on one disc. I'd like to hear what DTS could do with DTS:X for music as well, seeing how only a few are taking advantage of Atmos music at the moment.


2L does classical BDs with A3 & Atm tracks on them recorded in 514/714, but it's almost redundant. DTS has a few demo discs with DTSX music.



MagnumX said:


> I've also got a handful if Auro-3D movies that are only in >5.1 in Auro-3D. They may be few in number, but I'll take 11.1 or 13.1 soundtracks over 5.1 any day of the week. Examples include Red Tails, The Game, Domino, Salyut-7 (also in 3D), Honest Thief, Death Machine and The Resistance Banker. Boss Level with Mel Gibson was just announced as well.
> 
> Auro-3D now has over 100 music releases in Auro-3D. How many does Atmos have for music?


About 100 too.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> We went from Disney putting out masterpiece soundtracks like TRON: Legacy (in 7.1 that sounds glorious) to inconsistent "channel locked" Atmos soundtracks that barely use overheads and have very poor dynamic range (they seem to be mixed for sound bars and old people that can't hear dialog when sound effects are playing).


Early Atm BDs averaged 12 objects which is not much different to 714 renders in practice. Later BDs tend to have a higher average object count of 14.

This is a separate problem to not using height much, but high objects (16 for streaming).



MagnumX said:


> I hope the same doesn't happen to Dolby, but look at some of the more recent developments. We got Dolby Atmos for headphones, Dolby Atmos for notebook computers and even Dolby Atmos for cell phones! WTF is Dolby Atmos on a cell phone supposed to do? Nothing meaningful to the theater or home theater format that's for certain. Dolby Atmos for single Amazon speakers came out before any of it worked with a real home system. How do you make Atmos work with ONE speaker? I never did hear a good answer for that. If Dolby keeps heading down these roads for marketing/naming hype, it's going to devolve into a lot more Disney-like mixes with poor dynamic range and few overhead effects with no proper object use and fewer ones like Fury or Overlord that actually deliver the goods.


That already happened years ago. BTW, the Amazon smart speaker has at least L R Sub OH.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> You are inferring a single monster quote is sufficient, but it's much harder to follow for longer replies and more likely to simply be ignored.
> 
> I'm talking about breaking up long posts into parts to reply to sections so people can see what one is replying to (netiquette), which for readability seems more important with the popularity of phones over PCs.
> 
> In the days of email with " >> " marks, it was a simple highlight cut/paste operation. On forums with markup language, you have to mark the start/end of quote sections to do it.


On the new forum software, it's easier to select what you want and hit Quote, instead of trying to delete stuff on a phone.


----------



## Gates

Nima said:


> Any more thoughts on 4 vs 6 Atmos speakers? Processor will be a Trinnov Al16.
> 
> TIA


I have 6 and it's wonderful!


----------



## X4100

Gates said:


> I have 6 and it's wonderful!


I'm just wondering how many speakers are you using in total, It has to be GREAT!


----------



## Gates

X4100 said:


> I'm just wondering how many speakers are you using in total, It has to be GREAT!


You can see my setup in my signature. I have a 9.1.6


----------



## vn800art

Me too! Never settle.
Alessandro
Regards


----------



## X4100

Strange thing happened this evening, I downloaded and played a 9.1.6 atmos speaker check. The height speakers played as expected on my 5.1.4 setup. The top middle played out of the front and rear heights at an equal volume. The problem is that the surround speakers came from the front left and right respectively, and I thought that since I didn't have wide speakers that sound would phantom image between front and side but it came from the front??


----------



## Josh Z

X4100 said:


> Strange thing happened this evening, I downloaded and played a 9.1.6 atmos speaker check. The height speakers played as suspected on my 5.1.4 setup. The top middle played out of the front and rear heights at an equal volume. The problem is that the surround speakers came from the front left and right respectively, and I thought that since I didn't have wide speakers that sound would phantom image between front and side but it came from the front??


You're talking about the test tones for Wide speakers? Depending on which Dolby demo you're using, the Wide channel tones may be authored to "snap to" the fronts in the absence of Wide speakers.


----------



## X4100

Josh Z said:


> You're talking about the test tones for Wide speakers? Depending on which Dolby demo you're using, the Wide channel tones may be authored to "snap to" the fronts in the absence of Wide speakers.


Now I understand what has been mentioned as the "snap to results " mentioned here, that would include the side effects as well. On a atmos bluray or 5.1.4 channel check everything is fine. Thanks again for sharing


----------



## Expidia

Can someone look at my question I posted in the 2019 Denon amp thread. So far no answers . . . I've lost my Atmos audio and I don't think the issue is Denon specific.

Please read my post #4941








"OFFICIAL" 2019 Denon "S-Series" /...


Hi, do you guys use the upmix default in Auto Mode? I read that Auto mode process audio as they are but it seems that it applies DSP or Neural X depends on the source. I've actually never used AUTO mode, much preferring to use MOVIE and select the surround mode of choice, which for me is...




www.avsforum.com





Update: already answered in the other thread:


Polyrythm1k said:


> Looks like you’ve selected “multichannel stereo” as a sound mode. Try scrolling with the “movie” button. I think it’s the green one on the bottom of the remote.


Thx Poly
Yep that was it exactly. Was pulling my hair out trying to find what setting I inadvertently changed to lose the Atmos audio. And your response was just in time for the arrival of my guests!


----------



## halcyon_888

Anyone see Fast and Furious 9? The Atmos seemed flat to me, there was one scene with a panning helicopter effect but other than that it seemed lackluster. Anyone else give this one a listen?


----------



## rfbrang

In passing, I have seen that there is a 7.x.4 atmos processing/encoding limit in most scenarios/media. Is there clarification on what that atmos limit is and what technologies will remux the object data to 9.x.6?

I know Trinnov is one, and storm audio might be another. But what are more affordable options like monoprice, ATI, or Arcam, or Anthem? I am ultimately trying to find something <$3-4k.


----------



## junh1024

rfbrang said:


> In passing, I have seen that there is a 7.x.4 atmos processing/encoding limit in most scenarios/media. Is there clarification on what that atmos limit is and what technologies will remux the object data to 9.x.6?
> 
> I know Trinnov is one, and storm audio might be another. But what are more affordable options like monoprice, ATI, or Arcam, or Anthem? I am ultimately trying to find something <$3-4k.


714ism is due to mixing &/ encoding workflow (714 render or 12o). The max object limit is 16 so would typically be limited to sounding good on 916. Since this a studio flaw, you can't modify & enhace the files yourself usually.

You can do this on the playback side by setting up multiple AVRs to process, like 714 into 716, or arraying your speakers, but the simplest/cheapest option would be to subscribe to a streaming platform, since DDP Atmos is almost always 16o=good for 916. But almost nothing can fix a bad mix (like 712ism or not much height use), unless you upmix 2D > 3D, like DSU or NX.


----------



## niterida

junh1024 said:


> 714ism is due to mixing &/ encoding workflow (714 render or 12o). The max object limit is 16 so would typically be limited to sounding good on 916. Since this a studio flaw, you can't modify & enhace the files yourself usually.
> 
> You can do this on the playback side by setting up multiple AVRs to process, like 714 into 716, or arraying your speakers, but the simplest/cheapest option would be to subscribe to a streaming platform, since DDP Atmos is almost always 16o=good for 916. But almost nothing can fix a bad mix (like 712ism or not much height use), unless you upmix 2D > 3D, like DSU or NX.


Please stop using your lazy versions - it is 7.1.4 not 714, DD+ not DDP, Nerual:X not NX etc - you are just confusing everybody and not endearing yourself to the community IMO.


----------



## rfbrang

Was just about to ask what DDP and NX are 

So for folks with a normal budget, start with DD+ and Neural X for formats.

What is it that the boutique brands do to remux the mixes? The same thing as DD+ and Neural X just under their own processing version or do they add more depth to the objects for better object placement? Something else?


----------



## bluesky636

niterida said:


> Please stop using your lazy versions - it is 7.1.4 not 714, DD+ not DDP, Nerual:X not NX etc - you are just confusing everybody and not endearing yourself to the community IMO.


Scratching my head over 12o, 16o, and 2D>3D upmixing.


----------



## MagnumX

The number of objects is not what stops Atmos soundtracks from supporting front wides and top middle. It's using FIXED objects that premix a 7.1.4 mix. You'd need something like Neural X to fix that (or homemade "Scatmos"). 

Too bad Neural X doesn't work with Atmos like it does DTS:X (or Dolby could update DSU to do it). You could use Neural X with the base 7.1 track, however (on most AVRs) and you _might_ get better results on a higher speaker count system overall.


----------



## niterida

bluesky636 said:


> Scratching my head over 12o, 16o, and 2D>3D upmixing.


12 / 16 Objects ? 
2D>3D upmixing everybody else just calls upmixing - Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU) or DTS Neural:X.
I believe the correct term is Immersive Audio - not 3D - so I guess it should be immersive upmixing ??


----------



## X4100

bluesky636 said:


> Scratching my head over 12o, 16o, and 2D>3D upmixing.


Just for fun I did a web search and it took me to this website 
Immersive audio: Objects, mixing, and rendering. Different subject matter though, but still talking about immersive audio by way of splitting up the frequency level of a pure tone  , a bit over my head.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> 12 / 16 Objects ?
> 2D>3D upmixing everybody else just calls upmixing - Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU) or DTS Neural:X.
> I believe the correct term is Immersive Audio - not 3D - so I guess it should be immersive upmixing ??


Auro-3D came first and called it 3D Audio. Dolby were probably were thinking Atmospheric Audio when they made it (hence the "Atmos" name). Atmospheric implies abstract more than discrete to me (like their DSU upmixer) so I can see why they'd prefer the word immersive, although I don't know if that actually originated with them or the press trying to sum them all up.


----------



## bluesky636

niterida said:


> 12 / 16 Objects ?
> 2D>3D upmixing everybody else just calls upmixing - Dolby Surround Upmixing (DSU) or DTS Neural:X.
> I believe the correct term is Immersive Audio - not 3D - so I guess it should be immersive upmixing ??


The point is, junh1024 seems intent on inventing and using his own terminology in place of that used within the industry and virtually everyone in this forum. Totally unnecessary and rather boorish in my opinion.


----------



## sdurani

rfbrang said:


> So for folks with a normal budget, start with DD+ and Neural X for formats.


Those aren't formats, like 2.0 or 7.1 or Atmos or DTS:X. DD+ is a lossy compression codec (like MP3 or AAC), which can be used with any format from mono to Atmos. Neural:X is an upmixer that can be applied to all formats except Atmos. 

The Atmos format is designed to natively scale to your speaker layout, even if that means some mixes end up leaving certain speakers silent. As such, it cannot be upmixed (unless you consider copying a channel to more than one speaker as upmixing).


> What is it that the boutique brands do to remux the mixes?


Don't know what you mean by "remux the mix", but different manufacturers do different things to light up additional speakers. Monolith copies the Front channels and Side channels to the Wide speakers. Trinnov copies channels to additional speakers in order to remap the speakers as phantom images at their "ideal" locations.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> The Atmos format is designed to natively scale to your speaker layout, even if that means some mixes end up leaving certain speakers silent.


A silent speaker is not one that's been "scaled" to in the slightest. It's the exact opposite, in fact. A silent speaker is a useless speaker!



> As such, it cannot be upmixed


*Wrong* again. Neural X does precisely that with channel-based DTS:X soundtracks using Neural X on DTS:X Pro systems (using tech very similar to "Scatmos").

There is no technical reason Neural X couldn't be adapted to do the sane for a decoded internal Atmos signal, especially since Dolby removed the upmixer prohibition for Atmos as per their press release. 

There is also no fundamental reason they couldn't do something similar themselves using a fully digital version of Pro Logic channel steering (That wouldn't have the noise gains of Scatmos analog methods).


----------



## rfbrang

Remap is what I meant by remux the mixes. Years ago I tried to use bluray backup software and I believe remuxwas the term in that realm. I am thinking something along the lines of a time and amplitude mixture that sets where a sound is seemingly coming from will be recalculated as more speakers are added to an area.


----------



## sdurani

rfbrang said:


> Remap is what I meant by remux the mixes. Years ago I tried to use bluray backup software and I believe remuxwas the term in that realm. I am thinking something along the lines of a time and amplitude mixture that sets where a sound is seemingly coming from will be recalculated as more speakers are added to an area.


The _"remap"_ that Trinnov does is to move speakers (virtually) to ideal locations. It doesn't change how any of the formats are decoded. While the process does use additional speakers, it's not really upmixing in any sense that the term is used.

The _"recalculated as more speakers are added"_ you describe is how object-based soundtracks are normally rendered. The object rendering changes based on the speaker layout you configure. If you have 2 speakers in front of you and a sound is supposed to float exactly between them, the renderer will send the sound equally to the L/R speakers. If you switch to 3 speakers in front of you, the renderer will send that same sound to the Centre speaker. It adapts as you add speakers. Sounds still end up at their intended locations.

Having said that, some Atmos tracks are pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, so additional speakers remain silent during playback. There is nothing that can be done about it at the moment because of the unique way that Atmos soundtracks are decoded: everything except the LFE is converted to audio objects, some of which are static objects (stay at fixed locations and/or speaker locations) while others are dynamic objects (move around in 3D space). Objects can't be upmixed, which is why Atmos can't be upmixed (it's all objects, plus one channel - LFE).


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> The number of objects is not what stops Atmos soundtracks from supporting front wides and top middle. It's using FIXED objects that premix a 7.1.4 mix. You'd need something like Neural X to fix that (or homemade "Scatmos").


I would think low object count would contribute somewhat to wides etc getting low usage. Since if all objects were active, and the entire space was used, & it was limited to 12 objects, they would tend to 714 locations & you're limited to what you can do to make activity in the wide speakers.



rfbrang said:


> Remap is what I meant by remux the mixes. Years ago I tried to use bluray backup software and I believe remuxwas the term in that realm. I am thinking something along the lines of a time and amplitude mixture that sets where a sound is seemingly coming from will be recalculated as more speakers are added to an area.


Remux = remultiplex (copy streams to a new file). This usage is specific to the media management context & is N/A for speakers.


----------



## niterida

junh1024 said:


> I would think low object count would contribute somewhat to wides etc getting low usage. Since if all objects were active, and the entire space was used, & it was limited to 12 objects, they would tend to 714 locations & you're limited to what you can do to make activity in the wide speakers.
> 
> 
> Remux = remultiplex (copy streams to a new file). This usage is specific to the media management context & is N/A for speakers.


And you're still doing it - on to my ignore list for you


----------



## bluesky636

niterida said:


> And you're still doing it - on to my ignore list for you


You beat me to it.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Having said that, some Atmos tracks are pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, so additional speakers remain silent during playback. There is nothing that can be done about it at the moment because of the unique way that Atmos soundtracks are decoded: everything except the LFE is converted to audio objects, some of which are static objects (stay at fixed locations and/or speaker locations) while others are dynamic objects (move around in 3D space). Objects can't be upmixed, which is why Atmos can't be upmixed (it's all objects, plus one channel - LFE).


*Nothing* can be done? I would think you would know better.... 

_Anyone_ can solve the problem _after_ the Atmos mix renders the objects into channels. This is how "Scatmos" operates and it's how Neural X manages DTS:X when objects are used as well. ALL object-based systems have to be rendered to channels sooner or later. Once in that format, you can _easily_ extract more channels in-between. All it would take is for DTS to add an Atmos processing mode to Neural X at this point since Dolby rescinded the upmixer block for Atmos. 

It would need to be inserted between the renderer channel outputs before they're sent to the preamp and use it only for correlated signals between adjacent used channels (e.g. Correlated material between Main Left and Side Left with a blank Front Wide Left is "locked" while a supported front wide soundtrack would correlate between Front Left and Front Wide Left, not Side Left as the renderer would already have split it into discrete outputs and thus it would only apply the processing if correlation was between non-adjacent channels like Front Left and Side Left, but not Front Wide Left).



junh1024 said:


> I would think low object count would contribute somewhat to wides etc getting low usage. Since if all objects were active, and the entire space was used, & it was limited to 12 objects, they would tend to 714 locations & you're limited to what you can do to make activity in the wide speakers.


I understand what you're thinking and less objects might lead some mixing engineers to have fewer overall things flying around the room or whatever, but technically speaking, you could use one object beyond the base channel count and have it move in circles around the room and as long as it's not using some pre-mixed locked object to do it, but actually moves the object around the coordinates of the simulated room space, it will pass through any and all speakers within its path. Its size affects how many speakers are affected at once and at what height, etc., but nothing stops a single object from using speakers beyond 7.1.4 except the person doing the mix. 

Every "extra" speaker at ear level (up to 17 of them) are in-between the existing 7 ear-level speakers from the 7.1 base layer and so a circle around the lower half of the room should have the sound pass through all 24 possible speakers at/near ear level. But if someone like Disney instead locks 7 fixed objects at ear level and 2 or 4 more overhead and pre-mixes the soundtrack to pan between those fixed channels, THAT is when you get speakers sitting there doing nothing at all. Otherwise, a single sound that pans between the mains and side surrounds should pass right through (and use) front wides (and SS#1 if available) on the way to the side surrounds precisely because it has to pass by/through those locations on its way there.

Now as I'm indicating above, what DTS:X Pro's Neural X does with a similar "channel based" soundtrack (or even if it's rendered objects, which DTS:X can use; you still end up with a channel output scenario) is use something akin to Dolby's own Pro Logic "steering logic" to steer sounds passing through those speaker sets through them rather than just not using them. You can actually do this yourself with a couple of Pro Logic processors by inputting two signals and extracting a "center" channel (e.g. Main Left + Surround Left input into a Pro Logic processor would output the equivalent of "Front Wide Left" through its "center channel outputs". You do the same with another processor for the Right side and you have Front Wides that are "mostly" discrete (not perfect, but pretty good) and they will work with anything you throw at them including Disney locked soundtracks and even Auro-3D that doesn't use front wides. 

There is no technical reason DTS or even a receiver manufacturer couldn't do something similar AFTER the Atmos decoder point internally and apply it to the channels that are used (used only for correlated signals between channels, it shouldn't really overlap existing discrete outputs as they already remove the correlated bits from channels more than one apart). Done purely in the digital domain, there shouldn't be any real noise increase either (One limitation of "Scatmos" is that if you were to keep dividing further and further along, you'd end up with increased noise levels summing along the way in the analog domain, but for a single extra pair between existing discrete channels, it works quite well. I use it for a "Top Middle" output that works with everything (including Disney and Auro-3D if desired).


----------



## mrvideo

sdurani said:


> DD+ is a lossy compression codec (like MP3 or AAC), which can be used with any format from mono to Atmos.


DD+ is Dolby Digital with added layers to support Atmos, for example. It contains an AC3 core.


----------



## rec head

rfbrang said:


> In passing, I have seen that there is a 7.x.4 atmos processing/encoding limit in most scenarios/media. Is there clarification on what that atmos limit is and what technologies will remux the object data to 9.x.6?
> 
> I know Trinnov is one, and storm audio might be another. But what are more affordable options like monoprice, ATI, or Arcam, or Anthem? I am ultimately trying to find something <$3-4k.


I have the Monoprice HTP-1 and use the Wide Synth feature. It makes use of the wides in a simple matrix fashion. I believe the Wide Synth also matrixes for top middle too. The Wide Synth is a simple imperfect tool but I like it. It is all dependent on your room, setup and preferences.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## mrvideo

bluesky636 said:


> DD+ is much more than that.


True, but not what was described in the post I responded to.


----------



## MagnumX

rec head said:


> I have the Monoprice HTP-1 and use the Wide Synth feature. It makes use of the wides in a simple matrix fashion. I believe the Wide Synth also matrixes for top middle too. The Wide Synth is a simple imperfect tool but I like it. It is all dependent on your room, setup and preferences.


It's certainly a lot better than nothing (silent speakers), especially in a larger room that actually _needs_ those speakers to image properly (most height setups at 20-35 degrees _need_ Top Middle, for example to play fully across the ceiling). 

"Scatmos" is fine, but it takes up a LOT of space to do more than 2 channels of it, which is why I'm using matrixing for front wides and SS#2 right now as it is. The HTP-1 would still do matrixing (really summation mixing) when discrete decoding is not available (e.g. Disney channel locked soundtracks) so I wouldn't really lose anything, while gaining discrete output when available with regular Atmos. I could use my Scatmos" processors to do near discrete SS#2 and that would give me almost perfect true discrete 11.1.6 for a reasonable price. I'd probably have to give up my laserdisc player to make room for another 6-channel amp, though (since the HTP-1 is a processor only). 

Does the HTP-1 have DTS:X Pro added to it, yet? It's kind of a must, really.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## mrvideo

bluesky636 said:


> There is nothing incorrect in sdurani's post.


It was the reference to MP3 and AAC, making it seem to me that DD+ was different than DD (AC3). DD and DD+ are part of the same family.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## halcyon_888

DD+ really isn't in the same family, back when DD/DTS was the standard digital coax and optical cables were used. DD+ increased the bandwidth and required a HDMI connection so it required hardware upgrades to use, making it no longer part of the same family. (ref: What Is a Digital Optical Connection? )


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## halcyon_888

bluesky636 said:


> You are wrong. I suggest you read the material I posted.


What's wrong about it


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## halcyon_888

I certainly don't consider DD+ to be in the same family as DD. DD was limited to 640kb/s per channel, wasn't discrete 7.1, and the move to DD+ required a hardware upgrade and a HDMI connection. If someone wants to consider DD+ to be in the same family as DD by name only I suppose they can, but I certainly do not.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I know there was (and still is) a lot of back and forth over the years about the Dolby Atmos format for the home and in all that time was there ever a *definitive* answer given as to how many discrete fixed objects and how many discrete dynamic 3D objects were allowed in a mix when utilizing home Dolby Atmos mixing and encoding to its max capabilities? I know spatial compression is utilized during encoding for tracks with more objects in a mix than the home format allows.

Thank you.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> I suggest you read the material I posted.


Lazy reply. A chart isn't a cogent argument either.

DD+ contains a newer codec with better compression quality at lower bitrates (like HE-AAC compared to regular AAC). It supports more features, but loses direct compatibility with DD for older equipment. It doesn't work over optical either just as Mrvideo says.

Whether something is in the same "family" is subjective since there is no formal relationship other than company ownership of both. DD+ is incompatible with DD equipment unless the media player converts the codec (Dolby license to Firestick for example allows it to offer DD while Nvidia refused to pay for the software license so the Nvidia Shield requires a DD+ decoder with DD+ content). 

Similarly, Apple also pays for backwards compatibility on older ATV equipment. The Atmos layer is possible due to the extra meta layer DD+ provides. It requires equipment that can recognize it, however. Otherwise, it simply appears to be regular DD+.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Again, if you are not willing to read the material from Dolby that I posted, I'm not interested in discussing this any further.


I did, in fact, read it. I still don't know what your point is since you refuse to state it. All I see to Mrvideo is it's so much more than that. He agreed and you went off on him anyway and now have started this go read something nonsense. Frankly, I'm glad you have no wish to discuss it as it's like pulling teeth to get anything out of you.

DD+ <> DD. It's related to it, but it's not directly compatible with it without codec updates.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know there was (and still is) a lot of back and forth over the years about the Dolby Atmos format for the home and in all that time was there ever a definitive answer given as to how many discrete fixed objects and how many discrete dynamic 3D objects were allowed in a mix when utilizing home Dolby Atmos mixing and encoding to its max capabilities? I know spatial compression is utilized during encoding for tracks with more objects in a mix than the home format allows.
> Thank you.


From what I read, I believe home Atmos has up to 16 total objects (15 usable as LFE is the only fixed bed channel; Atmos "7.1" beds are recreated as objects and so use 8 of the available 15. However, spatial compression means objects from the overall count of 128 can be grouped in those base object locations as well so it's not quite as limited as it may sound) 

l recently read that Atmos for gaming supports 32 active objects at once. Given objects can be stereo in regular home Atmos, I wonder if that means 32 mono objects or 16 stereo since stereo objects are technically using two separate channels at once. Other than music, most games probably place/pan mono sounds. I'd need to read more about it. I would think Atmos gaming works on regular home theater processors, though, so I'm curious. I'll try to find out more.

DTS:X has up to 9 objects, but I believe that's in addition to the fixed base channels, although I'm not clear on whether that means 7.1 or 7.1.4 since typical 7.1.4 soundtracks in X report no objects being used. Thus, for comparison purposes, it would seem DTS:X is somewhere between 17-21 object equivalence. X supposedly supports two LFE channels, however so it could be 16-20 equivalent if that LFE is reserved. I've never heard if it being used in practice, however nor can I fathom a reason to have two LFE channels unless it's alternative use is as a dedicated dialog channel that X also supposedly supports (to solve complaints of dialog levels being too low without affecting sound effects), but rarely if ever gets used.


----------



## rec head

MagnumX said:


> Does the HTP-1 have DTS:X Pro added to it, yet?


Monoprice has said by the end of the year.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> From what I read, I believe home Atmos has up to 16 total objects (15 usable as LFE is the only fixed bed channel; Atmos "7.1" beds are recreated as objects and so use 8 of the available 15. However, spatial compression means objects from the overall count of 128 can be grouped in those base object locations as well so it's not quite as limited as it may sound) l.
> 
> DTS:X has up to 9 objects, but I believe that's in addition to the fixed base channels, although I'm not clear on whether that means 7.1 or 7.1.4 since typical 7.1.4 soundtracks in X report no objects being used. Thus, for comparison purposes, it would seem DTS:X is somewhere between 17-21 object equivalence. X supposedly supports two LFE channels, however so it could be 16-20 equivalent if that LFE is reserved. I've never heard if it being used in practice, however nor can I fathom a reason to have two LFE channels unless it's alternative use is as a dedicated dialog channel that X also supposedly supports (to solve complaints of dialog levels being too low without affecting sound effects), but rarely if ever gets used.


It could very well be that the 3D speaker pattern for home Atmos from which all is derived is indeed 16 max (including the 7.1 bed) with the lossless (and perhaps lossy too) version. What you're saying does correspond with the metadata being read on certain disc info software that the underlying Atmos track is a 16 channel Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) track. I wonder if that means if you locked all the object coordinates for the home in your Atmos production suite, all you are getting is a 9.1.6 channel track or 11.1.4 channel or some derivation of said 16 max channels. Unless the engineer pulls a Disney and only utilizes 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. That's perhaps why some have Front Wides engaged and some don't and some have Top Middles and some don't. I'm just spit balling here.

As for DTS: X, given what their production software suite states and what FilmMixer has mentioned in the past, I think it's a fixed 7.1.4 or 7.1.5 track with DTS: X Pro matrixing the rest. They may have had one to five 3D objects besides a 7.1.4 base in the past as per the Well Go Blu-ray's and the one Fox 4k disc (ID4), but ever since then things must have gotten switched to a fully channel based presentation.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> It could very well be that the 3D speaker pattern for home Atmos from which all is derived is indeed 16 max (including the 7.1 bed) with the lossless (and perhaps lossy too) version. That does correspond with the metadata being read on certain disc info software that the underlying Atmos track is a 16 channel Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) track. I wonder if that means if you locked all the object coordinates for the home in your Atmos production suite, all you are getting is a 9.1.6 channel track or 11.1.4 channel or some derivation of said 16 max channels. Unless the engineer pulls a Disney and only utilizes 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. That's perhaps why some have Front Wides engaged and some don't. I'm just spit balling here.
> 
> As for DTS: X, given what the production software suite states and what FilmMixer has mentioned in the past, I think it's a fixed 7.1.4 or 7.1.5 track with DTS: X Pro matrixing the rest.


I forgot to mention what I just read about Atmos gaming (32 active objects), but edited/added it above. I need more information, but I wonder if they're squeezing more objects in by limiting taming to mono sound objects (stereo counts as two?) Otherwise, I don't know how they claim 32 (first came up in response to Sony claiming they support 32 objects to Atmos' 16 and Dolby replied they already support 32 active objects. 

To be compatible with existing home theater equipment, that might mean they support 32 now there as well (software update?), but if they did, I sure didn't see an announcement. 

But if objects got their figure from stereo based objects rather than mono, that could explain the discrepancy. I would imagine movie mixing would prefer mono sounds, but DAWs like Logic Pro support mono or stereo inputs. I really need more information. 32 would be vastly preferable to 16, IMO (Spatial grouping be damned) as you could have individual output for almost all the possible speakers at once without overlapping/grouping entire channels).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> I forgot to mention what I just read about Atmos gaming (32 active objects), but edited/added it above. I need more information, but I wonder if they're squeezing more objects in by limiting taming to mono sound objects (stereo counts as two?) Otherwise, I don't know how they claim 32 (first came up in response to Sony claiming they support 32 objects to Atmos' 16 and Dolby replied they already support 32 active objects.
> 
> To be compatible with existing home theater equipment, that might mean they support 32 now there as well (software update?), but if they did, I sure didn't see an announcement.
> 
> But if objects got their figure from stereo based objects rather than mono, that could explain the discrepancy. I would imagine movie mixing would prefer mono sounds, but DAWs like Logic Pro support mono or stereo inputs. I really need more information. 32 would be vastly preferable to 16, IMO (Spatial grouping be damned) as you could have individual output for almost all the possible speakers at once without overlapping/grouping entire channels).


I take what these companies claim with a big truck load of salt. For instance, DTS claimed that home DTS: X *currently* can do multiple pannable 3D objects at CEDIA 2019 but it's the Hollywood studios not using the feature on disc (basically blaming them), when their own production suite specs say otherwise. Sure, you can MIX with multiple objects, but when it comes time to encode and export the file, it's 11.1 or 12.1 (standard or IMAX Enhanced).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

rec head said:


> Monoprice has said by the end of the year.


With the pandemic, probably 2022 now.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I take what these companies claim with a big truck load of salt. For instance, DTS claimed that home DTS: X *currently* can do multiple pannable 3D objects at CEDIA 2019 but it's the Hollywood studios not using the feature on disc (basically blaming them), when their own production suite specs say otherwise. Sure, you can MIX with multiple objects, but when it comes time to encode and export the file, it's 11.1 or 12.1 (standard or IMAX Enhanced).


Some foreign company managed to encode objects with X. I haven't seen the software so I don't know what their issues are. DTS:X Oro makes it a bit moot to some extent (You might get better resolution with objects, but at least the speakers are used, unlike Atmos with fixed channels). Maybe the software needs to be easier to use?

I did find a nice Wiki on Atmos that seems to describe things a bit better, but still leaves me wondering a bit on some things. Here's the link:

Hand Wiki Atmos 

It describes it more like there are up to 128 objects and the spatial packing makes new aggregate objects that may spread the original objects across several of them. 

It's more like pre-rendering multiple tracks in Logic Pro to get one combined track that takes up less bandwidth than the separate tracks or the combine layers function in Photoshop except the spatial encoder can adjust them as it encodes to accommodate the changes over time of placement, etc. 

I imagine this sounds fine most of the time, but I am curious about examples of spatial errors that might occur under complex circumstances relative to using more objects. Do the sounds end up panning across channels like fixed objects if it runs out of objects or does the spatial position get moved a but to fit within another objects range or does it create some broader combined object that might have some less discrete sounding panning properties? I've never heard of this being stress tested to find out what the limitations are and I'm guessing Dolby would prefer it stay that way.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> Some foreign company managed to encode objects with X. I haven't seen the software so I don't know what their issues are. DTS:X Oro makes it a bit moot to some extent (You might get better resolution with objects, but at least the speakers are used, unlike Atmos with fixed channels). Maybe the software needs to be easier to use?
> 
> I did find a nice Wiki on Atmos that seems to describe things a bit better, but still leaves me wondering a bit on some things. Here's the link:
> 
> Hand Wiki Atmos
> 
> It describes it more like there are up to 128 objects and the spatial packing makes new aggregate objects that may spread the original objects across several of them.
> 
> It's more like pre-rendering multiple tracks in Logic Pro to get one combined track that takes up less bandwidth than the separate tracks or the combine layers function in Photoshop except the spatial encoder can adjust them as it encodes to accommodate the changes over time of placement, etc.
> 
> I imagine this sounds fine most of the time, but I am curious about examples of spatial errors that might occur under complex circumstances relative to using more objects. Do the sounds end up panning across channels like fixed objects if it runs out of objects or does the spatial position get moved a but to fit within another objects range or does it create some broader combined object that might have some less discrete sounding panning properties? I've never heard of this being stress tested to find out what the limitations are and I'm guessing Dolby would prefer it stay that way.


The foreign company you are referring to is Well Go. Their initial DTS:X tracks were flagged as 7.1.4 +5 objects. Fox's ID4 4k disc was 7.1.4 +1 object (what good 1 spatial object is, I don't know). 

Then after that it was only 7.1.4 (normal) or 7.1.5 (IMAX) fixed and there it has stayed. I wonder if they were having trouble rendering and scaling the objects on the decoder side correctly and so dropped the use of 3D objects altogether. 

I am of the opinion that 3D object spatial compression in home Atmos creates object "zones" (speaker clusters) of the few available objects beyond the 7.1 lossless bed. They don't allow per speaker addressing, so even though Dolby states a 24.1.10 layout, objects in zone clusters come out of multiple speakers. That would theoretically lessen the spatial resolution of the soundtrack in certain instances. 

Again, it's all deducing until someone spills the beans.

I'm still of the opinion that Dolby should have released a 20+ channel format for the home and left it at that. Rejigger MLP to make it a bit more efficient with today's bit-for-bit zipping codec know-how to shrink the file size a bit. This way you wouldn't have all these encoding variables popping up with the use of objects of limited amount and lack of speaker utilization.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> They may have had one to five 3D objects besides a 7.1.4 base in the past as per the Well Go Blu-ray's and the one Fox 4k disc (ID4), but ever since then things must have gotten switched to a fully channel based presentation.


Sad but true. Well Go USA switched to Atmos a couple years back.


Dan Hitchman said:


> Sure, you can MIX with multiple objects, but when it comes time to encode and export the file, it's 11.1 or 12.1 (standard or IMAX Enhanced).


IMAX Enhanced is still 11.1 channels, plus one object (IMAX high centre channel is encoded as a static object). Seems DTS going to play it safe for the foreseeable future and limit the channel count to 11.1.


----------



## mrvideo

DD and DD+ are related. From the Dolby Digital Plus - Wikipedia page:


> Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams are not directly backward compatible with legacy Dolby Digital decoders. However, Dolby Digital Plus is a functional superset of Dolby Digital, and decoders include a mandatory component that directly converts (without decoding and re-encoding) the Dolby Digital Plus bitstream to a Dolby Digital bitstream (operating at 640 kbit/s) for carriage via legacy S/PDIF connections (including S/PDIF over HDMI) to external decoders (e.g. AVRs, etc.). All Dolby Digital Plus decoders can decode Dolby Digital bitstreams.


That is the point I was trying to make.

More info, i.e., DD+ contains a DD AC-3 core:



https://professional.dolby.com/globalassets/dolby-digital-plus/dolby-digital-plus-audio-coding-tech-paper.pdf


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> The foreign company you are referring to is Well Go. Their initial DTS:X tracks were flagged as 7.1.4 +5 objects.


That at least shows objects are possible in X. 7.1.4 + 9 objects _could_ be very usable. It's possible, though there's another issue involved like perhaps X doesn't offer any kind of spatial clustering so it's simpler to do a cinema soundtrack with "unlimited" objects and then just render out to 7.1.4 and let Neural X spread it around the rest of the speakers than manually assign sounds to a limited number of objects when 99.9% of the public doesn't have a system capable of >11.1? 

Like you say, without more information it's really a lot of speculation.



> Fox's ID4 4k disc was 7.1.4 +1 object (what good 1 spatial object is, I don't know).


If it's an Imax title, that's possibly the center height speaker addition to simulate the cinema layout. I think Imax's center height is at a different location than the Auro-3D channel location so an object placed in that location would auto-render to whatever layout you're using at home.




> I wonder if they were having trouble rendering and scaling the objects on the decoder side correctly and so dropped the use of 3D objects altogether.


 I'm pretty sure they had an object based demo at the DTS:X Pro demo shows. But if it's up to the studios and the software somehow makes it less work to do a rendered channel layout, people tend to take the path of least resistance. Thankfully, Neural X mostly makes up for it in DTS:X Pro.



> I am of the opinion that 3D object spatial compression in home Atmos creates object "zones" (speaker clusters) of the few available objects beyond the 7.1 lossless bed. They don't allow per speaker addressing, so even though Dolby states a 24.1.10 layout, objects in zone clusters come out of multiple speakers. That would theoretically lessen the spatial resolution of the soundtrack in certain instances.


I guess the question is how well panning can isolate sounds to one speaker when playing out of more than one. Stereo does a pretty good job of placing sounds in a number of apparent phantom positions without the brain, at least, recognizing they're coming from two speakers rather than one.

For example, compare phantom versus discrete center rendering on a system using identical speakers across the front. I've got that here and it's very difficult to tell from the MLP which is which (obviously easier off-axis due to the precedence effect. 

When you're panning across multiple speakers instead, it should be mostly in certain speakers at various panning points and those are hard speakers, not phantom locations so it would likely be closer to (center) channel steering in practice than phantom imaging. So I don't know how much it matters in practice, especially for the MLP, but I'm guessing less than perfect, but not terrible.



> I'm still of the opinion that Dolby should have released a 20+ channel format for the home and left it at that


.

Auro did 13.1 and few cared. I'd guess 15.1 would probably be the sweet spot for most home theaters, but for multiple rows 17.1 would be a bit more flexible (extra wide surround like I have with three rows). Still, I imagine 24.1.10 would be fun to try. I'd likely do 8 or even possibly 10 overheads if I could afford a processor that supported it. 11.1.11 would be great (As above, so below).


----------



## junh1024

Dan Hitchman said:


> I know there was (and still is) a lot of back and forth over the years about the Dolby Atmos format for the home and in all that time was there ever a *definitive* answer given as to how many discrete fixed objects and how many discrete dynamic 3D objects were allowed in a mix when utilizing home Dolby Atmos mixing and encoding to its max capabilities? I know spatial compression is utilized during encoding for tracks with more objects in a mix than the home format allows.


This is what I think it is:

THD Atm: 12-16 (including LFE)
DDP Atm: usually 16
DTSX: 16 (excl LFE, combination of channels & obj)
DTSX in practice: usually just 714



Dan Hitchman said:


> Unless the engineer pulls a Disney and only utilizes 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. That's perhaps why some have Front Wides engaged and some don't and some have Top Middles and some don't. I'm just spit balling here.


ability to render 714 is a "very new" feature, and hopefully that feature has died down ("easy" to fix, just chain multiple AVRs), it's not as bad as 712ism. 712ism isn't limited to disney, it's potentially a rookie mistake. 712ism is when mixers forget to assign a track as obj rather than bed, deliberate render to 712, or upscaling to 712. Very hard to fix.



MagnumX said:


> perhaps X doesn't offer any kind of spatial clustering so it's simpler to do a cinema soundtrack with "unlimited" objects and then just render out to 7.1.4 and let Neural X spread it around the rest of the speakers than manually assign sounds to a limited number of objects when 99.9% of the public doesn't have a system capable of >11.1?


I think with DTSX (unlike Atmos w/ spatial coding), you must manually choose which objects to channelize and others to keep as objects so What happens in practice is studios just skip this process and channelize everything. AKA you MUST carefully redo your project to maximize use of 714+5o.

Also Tops vs Heights again:
Atmos: either works
Auro: Height
DTSX: Tops (top is mapped to height, are 714 DTSX soundtracks encoded as tops or heights?)

is this right?


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> DTSX: Tops (top is mapped to height, are 714 DTSX soundtracks encoded as tops or heights?)
> 
> is this right?


Tops aren't mapped to heights, but rather many claim DTS calls their speakers mounted at what would be called "tops" speakers for Atmos "heights" while their "tops" are even higher based on their reference setup. However, DTS doesn't actually make those number claims as they prefer to be considered to be layout agnostic, supporting both Atmos and Auro-3D setups (while their reference setup technically doesn't match either precisely). Dolby publishes a range of acceptable angles and it changes when you add more speakers as well (e.g. Heights are normally 30-45 but are 20-45 if you have top middle added). 

In practice, I've heard few differences between the two settings (Heights vs Tops) with Atmos on a 11.1 decoder as Atmos remaps the sounds to the nearest overhead speakers in most of the Dolby demos so in my opinion, the whole situation is overblown. Atmos actually sounds pretty good on an Auro layout as well and vice versa. Mapping the overheads outward a bit doesn't have that big an effect on things (moves the images slightly, but they're off-screen anyway so there's no exact correlation to the screen images anyhow). Atmos would sound different in different size rooms for overhead placement relative to the listener as the whole format is actually ROOM BASED as opposed to listener-centric that 5.1 and 7.1 formats are.

By that, I mean in cinemas with large arrays of speakers mean the "side" speakers are always to YOUR side rather than some specific point in the room (e.g. 50% into the room for "side surround") whereas Atmos speakers are at various fractional percentages of a cinema sized room and thus a bird flying around the theater should be in the same positions relative to the room itself regardless of where you sit. With fewer speakers in most home cinemas, that might not work quite as well for different seating positions (it will with larger speaker setups), but that's the basic difference beyond overhead speakers that object-based audio is trying to accomplish, to nail the sounds down the same for everyone like in real life. People may orient smaller Atmos setups to be placed around the _listener_ rather than the room (since people don't always put their couches/chairs in the same places at home), but that's certainly not how it works in the theater where the speakers are arranged to be evenly distributed around the room and Atmos objects can address individual speakers and movement leading to something like a bird moving around always being at the same point in space regardless where you sit.


----------



## bartonnen

junh1024 said:


> ability to render *7.1.4 *is a "very new" feature, and hopefully that feature has died down ("easy" to fix, just chain multiple AVRs), it's not as bad as *7.1.2*ism. *7.1.2*ism isn't limited to disney, it's potentially a rookie mistake. *7.1.2*ism is when mixers forget to assign a track as obj rather than bed, deliberate render to *7.1.2*, or upscaling to *7.1.2*. Very hard to fix.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## sdurani

junh1024 said:


> ...are 714 DTSX soundtracks encoded as tops or heights?


Heights, which DTS:X has at 45 degrees elevation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> That at least shows objects are possible in X. 7.1.4 + 9 objects _could_ be very usable. It's possible, though there's another issue involved like perhaps X doesn't offer any kind of spatial clustering so it's simpler to do a cinema soundtrack with "unlimited" objects and then just render out to 7.1.4 and let Neural X spread it around the rest of the speakers than manually assign sounds to a limited number of objects when 99.9% of the public doesn't have a system capable of >11.1?
> 
> Like you say, without more information it's really a lot of speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> If it's an Imax title, that's possibly the center height speaker addition to simulate the cinema layout. I think Imax's center height is at a different location than the Auro-3D channel location so an object placed in that location would auto-render to whatever layout you're using at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they had an object based demo at the DTS:X Pro demo shows. But if it's up to the studios and the software somehow makes it less work to do a rendered channel layout, people tend to take the path of least resistance. Thankfully, Neural X mostly makes up for it in DTS:X Pro.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question is how well panning can isolate sounds to one speaker when playing out of more than one. Stereo does a pretty good job of placing sounds in a number of apparent phantom positions without the brain, at least, recognizing they're coming from two speakers rather than one.
> 
> For example, compare phantom versus discrete center rendering on a system using identical speakers across the front. I've got that here and it's very difficult to tell from the MLP which is which (obviously easier off-axis due to the precedence effect.
> 
> When you're panning across multiple speakers instead, it should be mostly in certain speakers at various panning points and those are hard speakers, not phantom locations so it would likely be closer to (center) channel steering in practice than phantom imaging. So I don't know how much it matters in practice, especially for the MLP, but I'm guessing less than perfect, but not terrible.
> 
> .
> 
> Auro did 13.1 and few cared. I'd guess 15.1 would probably be the sweet spot for most home theaters, but for multiple rows 17.1 would be a bit more flexible (extra wide surround like I have with three rows). Still, I imagine 24.1.10 would be fun to try. I'd likely do 8 or even possibly 10 overheads if I could afford a processor that supported it. 11.1.11 would be great (As above, so below).


I was at the CEDIA 2019 demo of DTS: X Pro put on by Trinnov and Triad Speakers. The sound was excellent and punchy... but as for pinpoint immersion rather than a blob of sounds in the room as what I heard, I felt Pro fell short. That's because most of those same films used as clips have also been used in Atmos demos and/or are in Atmos on disc already, so a comparison is possible. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but the lack of overall precision in sound placement lends me to suspect that matrixing was being used to fill in the gaps of a standard 7.1.4 DTS: X track. That's what an insider had already hinted at along with those tells in the software that actually makes DTS: X tracks for the home.

Triad's lead at that demo agreed with me that he thought Atmos was better overall when utilized correctly.

I was at a couple of Dolby Atmos and Trinnov demos put on by the two companies in partnership when Atmos was coming to the consumer market, and the immersion was very good, so it wasn't the speakers making the sound placement mushy.


----------



## howard68

I think this Atmos lite and fixed 7.1.2/4 is Bull&%$# 
If Dolby want people to like Atmos
then they should stop anyone doing this down rendering process most Disney films and I believe that "Saving Ryan " That had an amazing 5.1 mix has a fixed 7.1.2 (What a waste of a good opportunity)
I also want some good mixed that use it to its full potential
If people are going to have speakers up high on walls or in the ceiling then use them!
If not just release a 7.1 mix


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> In practice, I've heard few differences between the two settings (Heights vs Tops) with Atmos on a 11.1 decoder as Atmos remaps the sounds to the nearest overhead speakers in most of the Dolby demos


Yes I know, I was referring to the below,



MagnumX said:


> In any case, you'll need to use a "Height" setting for Auro-3D to function regardless of the angles used.





MagnumX said:


> Auro-3D will not function with Tops.


So, would you need to set Tops for DTSX to function (the best)?



howard68 said:


> I think this Atmos lite and fixed 7.1.2/4 is Bull&%$#
> If Dolby want people to like Atmos
> then they should stop anyone doing this down rendering process most Disney films and I believe that "Saving Ryan " That had an amazing 5.1 mix has a fixed 7.1.2 (What a waste of a good opportunity)
> I also want some good mixed that use it to its full potential
> If people are going to have speakers up high on walls or in the ceiling then use them!
> If not just release a 7.1 mix


As said above, use of only a 712 bed is a tools limitations of the Renderer & Pro tools, since 712 is the maximum channel-based entity. Not even a proper 714 bed is possible (unless via hacks). Creating a true object mix to use ALL of the space is a lot more effort. It's simply a lot more economical for old releases to upscale 51 to 712 (takes hours), instead of a proper object mix (potentially days, but shouldn't they already have a digital project that they can re-infrastructure?)

714, you'd almost need to start off with a true object mix, and it wouldn't actually save much time over true object delivery.

As said above, 714 isn't that bad, you can fix it youself (with some effort), 712 is very very hard to fix.

Disney hasn't been doing fixed 714 recently, I think it's mainly a AVSforum-ism to propogate this dated myth.

Mulan 2020 uses objects on DSNP


----------



## Dan Hitchman

howard68 said:


> I think this Atmos lite and fixed 7.1.2/4 is Bull&%$#
> If Dolby want people to like Atmos
> then they should stop anyone doing this down rendering process most Disney films and I believe that "Saving Ryan " That had an amazing 5.1 mix has a fixed 7.1.2 (What a waste of a good opportunity)
> I also want some good mixed that use it to its full potential
> If people are going to have speakers up high on walls or in the ceiling then use them!
> If not just release a 7.1 mix


I am of the opinion that many or even most sound engineers have no clue how to utilize immersive audio (as they are coming from a very limited 5.1 or 7.1 surround world) or Dolby Atmos in particular and even less about the home version of Atmos as there are settings in the Production Suite that can limit the scope of the tracks and make them a lot less impactful than they could be or maybe even should be give a particular scene.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

junh1024 said:


> Yes I know, I was referring to the below,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you need to set Tops for DTSX to function (the best)?
> 
> 
> 
> As said above, use of only a 712 bed is a tools limitations of the Renderer & Pro tools, since 712 is the maximum channel-based entity. Not even a proper 714 bed is possible (unless via hacks). Creating a true object mix to use ALL of the space is a lot more effort. It's simply a lot more economical for old releases to upscale 51 to 712 (takes hours), instead of a proper object mix (potentially days, but shouldn't they already have a digital project that they can re-infrastructure?)
> 
> 714, you'd almost need to start off with a true object mix, and it wouldn't actually save much time over true object delivery.
> 
> As said above, 714 isn't that bad, you can fix it youself (with some effort), 712 is very very hard to fix.
> 
> Disney hasn't been doing fixed 714 recently, I think it's mainly a AVSforum-ism to propogate this dated myth.
> 
> Mulan 2020 uses objects on DSNP


You used Mulan as an example and yet even that video (besides other reviews) shows a track utilizing very limited to no object usage. It's one of Disney's worst mixes yet and they're often pretty darn bland.


----------



## junh1024

Dan Hitchman said:


> I am of the opinion that many or even most sound engineers have no clue how to utilize immersive audio (as they are coming from a very limited 5.1 or 7.1 surround world) or Dolby Atmos in particular and even less about the home version of Atmos as there are settings in the Production Suite that can limit the scope of the tracks and make them a lot less impactful than they could be or maybe even should be give a particular scene.


Engineer experience is 1 factor (BTW, home vs cinema can use almost the same tools), another one is convincing studios to spend enough time/money to do a good remix.



Dan Hitchman said:


> You used Mulan as an example and yet even that video (besides other reviews) shows a track utilizing very limited to no object usage. It's one of Disney's worst mixes yet and they're often pretty darn bland.


At least they're using some objects when arrows are moving. Since you can some objects moving during arrows, it's not a fixed 714 export.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I was at the CEDIA 2019 demo of DTS: X Pro put on by Trinnov and Triad Speakers. The sound was excellent and punchy... but as for pinpoint immersion rather than a blob of sounds in the room as what I heard, I felt Pro fell short. That's because most of those same films used as clips have also been used in Atmos demos and/or are in Atmos on disc already, so a comparison is possible.


Were they compared at the same time or were you going by memory? I would think even if Atmos has higher spatial resolution (compared to X without objects being used), the size of the room would matter a very great deal, similar to how 4K and 2K tend to look more alike on smaller screens (minus the HDR thing). But the real question is what would you get with Atmos that isn't using objects with the same material? I'll take a bit less focused over fewer speakers (in a large room with few speakers, Atmos' imaging will fall apart as it does in my room with Heights when I don't use Top Middle. It's like it can't image sharp overhead because the angles and distance are too far apart to hold a strong center phantom image, but the addition of Top Middle (using "Scatmos" which is probably very similar to what Neural X is doing in DTS:X Pro without objects), the images become quite sharp overhead once again. Is there some loss of resolution doing that? Maybe, but not that I can tell in a 24' long room. I'd be curious to hear how rendered 10 overheads on a Trinnov would sound to compare, but right now that's not an option for me as I have neither the extra speakers mounted nor do I want to spend $30k just to find out.

In any case, I would rate the Harry Potter movies in DTS:X as highly as many of the better Atmos soundtracks. They did a _great_ job with them. 



> Triad's lead at that demo agreed with me that he thought Atmos was better overall when utilized correctly.


You could also say X might be better if Hollywood utilized X correctly (with objects). In any case, I have a couple of soundtracks in X and Atmos both (streaming as it were for Atmos in those cases) like Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom and Angry Birds 2 and at least in my room on my setup, I can't hear any difference whatsoever. They sound identical here. Even Auro-3D rendered over the same speaker count on the movies I have both in sound pretty similar. So, I'm happy to get movies in any of the three formats, especially if it meant we'd get more back catalog material released faster (e.g. I have several Auro-3D titles that are only in Auro-3D at the moment with no Atmos/X overlap and so I'm happy to have those movies in greater than 5.1 sound. 

That doesn't mean Atmos or X can't release them also (I have several of both in that category), but there's a lot of old movies that could benefit from >5.1 sound. I don't see where they need to fight tooth and nail over content when so much is still just 5.1 or even just Stere/Pro Logic. There's room enough for all three until such time as they're all converted, IMO. OTOH, poor conversions that do little more than the original 5.1 don't interest me much. Red Tails is excellent in Auro-3D while The Game, not so much as it doesn't do much beyond the already poor 5.1 soundtrack. 

Too many sound engineers are too restrained in their use of the speakers, especially when you hear what Atmos (and Auro-3D for that matter) can do with music. I've heard far more impressive use of discrete imaging all over the room, including spaces in front of me and behind me between the speakers in the middle of the room imaging that I almost NEVER hear used in movies.



Dan Hitchman said:


> I am of the opinion that many or even most sound engineers have no clue how to utilize immersive audio (as they are coming from a very limited 5.1 or 7.1 surround world) or Dolby Atmos in particular and even less about the home version of Atmos as there are settings in the Production Suite that can limit the scope of the tracks and make them a lot less impactful than they could be or maybe even should be give a particular scene.


I agree 100% here.



junh1024 said:


> So, would you need to set Tops for DTSX to function (the best)?


Actually, I'd say Heights works best (less/no leakage used to simulate other speaker positions). Given Dolby doesn't care whether Atmos Heights placed at 45 degrees use either setting (they overlap), it's simpler to just use Heights for everything and given no Dolby Heights speaker locations other than 45 degrees would satisfy someone like Sdurani on here, if you have 20-30 degree Heights speakers, are you supposed to just not use DTS:X? That would be absurd. They sound GREAT at 30 degrees here with movies like the Harry Potter series. A sound starting 8 feet in front of the 45 degree position (at the screen) still works great for a flying car coming out of the screen (maybe better in terms of matching the screen itself). 

I think some people care more about numbers and white papers than actually listening to Dolby Atmos or DTS:X sound. In fact, I don't recall someone like Sdurani ever even talk about his home system. I'm not entirely sure he even has one. But then since he has me on ignore, I couldn't even ask him if I wanted to. Frankly, I don't really care one way or another what he listens to, but I do get tired of seeing the constant preaching about 45 degrees with DTS:X when DTS themselves have _never_ pushed or recommended that angle _ever _and instead have emphasized they consider DTS:X layout agnostic and will work fine with either an Atmos or Auro-3D layout_._ He gets it from the reference speaker setup they use (which has all 32 speakers installed). 

Dolby publishes a range of angles to use and that's apparently OK, but if they don't, one _must_ assume a strict 45 degrees is the only one acceptable for DTS:X when DTS themselves have said otherwise? Ugh. It gets old. People should feel confident that an Atmos setup will work fine with DTS:X and it will for every _X_ soundtrack I've listened to (more than 45 of them). All my testing has shown almost no audible differences using a Heights vs. Tops setting on either speaker layout with the Dolby Atmos demos (only the Helicopter one showed a slight difference) so how much difference is a few feet closer/further going to make other than move the starting/end points a bit for overhead sounds? That's about all it will do, in fact.



> Disney hasn't been doing fixed 714 recently, I think it's mainly a AVSforum-ism to propogate this dated myth.


I don't have many newer soundtracks by Disney, but even if I did, I have no way of telling if they use actual objects. I do know some Trinnov owners have verified the Star Wars movies in Atmos do use moving objects occasionally (where it matters, from the examples I've seen given) so it's quite possible they've moved on to utilizing objects now, overall. I still haven't heard any newer soundtracks from them that are as impressive as Tron: Legacy was in 7.1, though, let alone the better Atmos movie examples like Fury, Overlord of even The Meg.


----------



## Soulburner

This might be relevant to the recent discussion:


Soundmixer said:


> Actually, home mixes do not have fewer objects than theatrical mixes. Via Spatial encoding, all of the objects in the theatrical file are divided into clusters depending on the coordinates they represent in the sound field. On disc, you have up to 16 clusters that contain all of the objects in the theatrical mix. With data reduction techniques and spatial encoding, you can get them all on streaming platforms with as few as 12 clusters.


From here.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> This might be relevant to the recent discussion:
> 
> 
> From here.


The problem being that the fewer clusters there are, the less sound element placement detail there is within the home Atmos soundtrack. It can't just be about how many objects can be crammed into the fewest clusters for bandwidth reasons. It's possible that streaming is the catalyst for all these lackadaisical Atmos mixes and besides these modern viewers are only listening with TV speakers or soundbars, so it's not like the engineers have to give two sh-ts about the best possible presentations.


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem being that the fewer clusters there are, the less sound element placement detail there is within the home Atmos soundtrack. It can't just be about how many objects can be crammed into the fewest clusters for bandwidth reasons. It's possible that streaming is the catalyst for all these lackadaisical Atmos mixes and besides these modern viewers are only listening with TV speakers or soundbars, so it's not like the engineers have to give two sh-ts about the best possible presentations.


But don't streaming versions have their own mix?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> But don't streaming versions have their own mix?


Not necessarily. They may do one lowest common denominator mix for time and money considerations and encode it twice, once for TrueHD lossless on disc and once for DD+ lossy for streaming.


----------



## -Henry-

My 2 cents to the above discussion
The original Dolby Atmos mix contains up to 128 waveforms: 9.1 beds and up to 118 objects. Spatial coding reduces all original waveforms (up to 128) in atmos mix to 12, 14 or 16 waveforms. Beds and objects downmixed to 12, 14 or 16 audio elements (merged in clusters) in order to create 11, 13 or 15 objects (audio elements with new metadata) and 1 bed (LFE, not required any metadata)
https://learning.dolby.com/hc/en-us/articles/360052744252-Module-1-2-Beyond-Multichannel-Audio
Next, 12, 14 or 16 waveforms encoded to delievery codecs: Dolby TrueHD with Atmos or DD+JOC

But there are 2 kinds of Atmos: object based immersive (aka OBI) and channel based immersive (CBI). Dolby tools (Dolby Media Encoder and Dolby Encoding Engine) can encode 5.1.4 or 9.1.6 channel based pre-mix to TrueHD of DD+ with static audio elemets (CBI). It means that any Atmos soundtrack can be based on mix, produced by thirds party (non Dolby) tool. In another hand Dolby renderer (in Mastering and Prodiction Suite) allows to export the Atmos mix as channel based static mix from 2.0 to 9.1.6. which can be used by other encoders (DTS:X or Auro etc.)

In according with the avialbale papers DTS:X can contain full channel mix, channels+objects or objects only mix. But it is not clear what does it mean 'object" regarding to DTS.

In theory, as I inderstand, main "core" of DTS technology is: the DTS MDA original mix contans up to 224 waveforms, which downmixed to 32 groups (very similar to Dolby spatial coding to clusters/audio elements). Next, groups are encoded up to 16 phisically waveforms in DTS-HD container. 16 is limited, not 17 waveforms or more. But 32 group are 32 waveforms decoded, some waveforms can have own metatdata ("objects"). It looks like that DTS uses matrix encoding and decoding from 32 to 16 and back to 32 waveforms. It means that DTS:X Pro is not simple upmixer, but it's decoder too. I assume that someone of you remember the 3 Blu-ray (including Dredd 3D) encoded to DTS NEO:X (5.1 + top fronts and front wides). But in our memory DTS NEO X is upmixer only. The same story with DTS:X Pro.

If I remember right, forum member FilmMixer (professional sound engineer Marc Fisher?) posted here that 80% of DTS:X soundtracks based on Atmos mix due to professionals prefer work with Dolby tools. So main problem with DTS:X is:


if mix done with MDA tool, the DTS:X may have up to 32 channels (or channels+objects, or objects) and should be decoded by DTS:X Pro correctly for set up over 12 speakers (up to 30.2);
if sound engineer uses the channel pre-mix by other tool like Dolby Renderer (with export of channel static mix), it will be usually 12 channels and in this case DTS:X Pro decoder will use upmix for set up over 12 speakers.


----------



## -Henry-

mrvideo said:


> DD and DD+ are related. From the Dolby Digital Plus - Wikipedia page:
> 
> That is the point I was trying to make.
> 
> More info, i.e., DD+ contains a DD AC-3 core:
> 
> 
> 
> https://professional.dolby.com/globalassets/dolby-digital-plus/dolby-digital-plus-audio-coding-tech-paper.pdf


Dolby Digital is mandatory format for Blu-ray. Dolby Digital+ on Blu-ray has to be backward compatibility with old Dolby Digital decoders. In accordance with this requirement Dolby Digital+ on Blu-ray always includes 2 substreams - 1) independet substream (core) - it's classic Dolby Digital (.ac3); and 2) dependet substream - extension (.ec3). Old decoders will decode the core only (Dolby Digital). New decoders read both substreams - the core and extension and re-construct 7.1 or Atmos mix. 

Backward compatibility is not required for streaming services, and Dolby Digital+ does not contain the Dolby Digital (.ac3) core.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I'm reading the last 3 pages and is the TLR = most atmos discs aren't actually doing what we thought they were supposed to do and atmos overall isn't as advertised?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm reading the last 3 pages and is the TLR = most atmos discs aren't actually doing what we thought they were supposed to do and atmos overall isn't as advertised?


The sausage making isn't pretty, I'll say that.

However, it's not like it's a "bad" format, it's just that if home Atmos is not mixed and encoded carefully, you can have a lesser immersive presentation. Unfortunately, MANY tracks are not mixed nor encoded very well. They seem to think they have to squeeze the bandwidth (TrueHD or DD+ lossy) as much as possible to save space, rather than utilize the full 16 waveforms or "clusters" available or they hard print the tracks to specific channels (fixed objects), which then does not allow for scalability to higher speaker count systems other than to the 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 (or whatever) printed layout they chose to do.

Home Atmos is definitely not as capable as the cinema version and the more I read, the more I'm glad I don't have the money to plunk down on a Trinnov Altitude 24 or 32 because you won't be using much of their immersive decoding capabilities most of the time. It's wasted money IMHO, as a 24.1.10 soundtrack is the rare exception and not the rule.

The only tracks that have really stood out for me are Gravity (that's been delayed on 4k Blu-ray) and the Atmos demos from their promo discs, and then that's Dolby's demo clips,_ not_ the Hollywood mixed and encoded clips. Music-wise, REM's "Automatic for the People" Pure Audio Blu-ray is the best Atmos music mix.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> The sausage making isn't pretty, I'll say that.
> 
> However, it's not like it's a "bad" format, it's just that if home Atmos is not mixed and encoded carefully, you can have a lesser immersive presentation. Unfortunately, MANY tracks are not mixed nor encoded very well. They seem to think they have to squeeze the bandwidth (TrueHD or DD+ lossy) as much as possible to save space, rather than utilize the full 16 waveforms or "clusters" available or they hard print the tracks to specific channels (fixed objects), which then does not allow for scalability to higher speaker count systems other than to the 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 (or whatever) printed layout they chose to do.
> 
> Home Atmos is definitely not as capable as the cinema version and the more I read, the more I'm glad I don't have the money to plunk down on a Trinnov Altitude 24 or 32 because you won't be using much of their immersive decoding capabilities most of the time. It's wasted money IMHO, as a 24.1.10 soundtrack is the rare exception and not the rule.
> 
> The only tracks that have really stood out for me are Gravity (that's been delayed on 4k Blu-ray) and the Atmos demos from their promo discs, and then that's Dolby's demo clips,_ not_ the Hollywood mixed and encoded clips. Music-wise, REM's "Automatic for the People" Pure Audio Blu-ray is the best Atmos music mix.


I only have a PS5 and I also use BluOS (NAD 758) with tidal and I but then burn Atmos blu rays through makeMkV and PLEX-would automatic for the people work properly as atmos as a demo for any of those if I purchased


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> I only have a PS5 and I also use BluOS (NAD 758) with tidal and I but then burn Atmos blu rays through makeMkV and PLEX-would automatic for the people work properly as atmos as a demo for any of those if I purchased


The process is the same if you can extract the TrueHD audio track and have a basic video layer with it for compatibility. However, you won't get much immersion with that NAD model as it's quite limited in Atmos rendering. You really need at least 5.1.4 decoding or greater.


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> The process is the same if you can extract the TrueHD audio track and have a basic video layer with it for compatibility. However, you won't get much immersion with that NAD model as it's quite limited in Atmos rendering. You really need at least 5.1.4 decoding or greater.


The NAD can do 5.1.4.


----------



## X4100

Dan Hitchman said:


> The sausage making isn't pretty, I'll say that.
> 
> 
> 
> Home Atmos is definitely not as capable as the cinema version and the more I read, the more I'm glad I don't have the money to plunk down on a Trinnov Altitude 24 or 32 because you won't be using much of their immersive decoding capabilities most of the time. It's wasted money IMHO, as a 24.1.10 soundtrack is the rare exception and not the rule.
> 
> For the time being, I'm going to stick with my 5.1.4 ( 6.1.4) extracted single bipolar rear surround setup. This information has been very interesting, it seems it's better to use a "scatmos" setup instead of spending $$$$ on a higher priced processor and 1 or 2 multi channel amplifiers!! I'm not saying that I have given up on Dolby Atmos, but since it hasn't reached it's p o t e n c i a l, I don't see the need for further spending. I honestly enjoy the atmos experience as it definitely uses all my speakers  , but no further spending at this point for me.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> The process is the same if you can extract the TrueHD audio track and have a basic video layer with it for compatibility. However, you won't get much immersion with that NAD model as it's quite limited in Atmos rendering. You really need at least 5.1.4 decoding or greater.


NAD 758 does render 7.1.4...


----------



## Chirosamsung

So, if I was to buy the REM automatic for the people blue ray and rip it and put onto Shield it should give me the demo worthy atmos?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> NAD 758 does render 7.1.4...


I must have been looking at an earlier model.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> So, if I was to buy the REM automatic for the people blue ray and rip it and put onto Shield it should give me the demo worthy atmos?


Very possibly, but for it to work, you need the video stream as well. Even if the feature is the audio mix. If you get it to work, the R.E.M. mix is definitely demo worthy. It even makes use of the Left and Right Extra screen speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Very possibly, but for it to work, you need the video stream as well. Even if the feature is the audio mix. If you get it to work, the R.E.M. mix is definitely demo worthy. It even makes use of the Left and Right Extra screen speakers.


KODI can play Atmos audio (MKA) without the video (not gapless yet, though). Someone over at the Quadraphonic Quad converts to something else (either M4A or ALAC) that can supposedly handle Atmos audio by itself somehow and registers in the regular KODI music database. The conversion software is Windows only, though. MKA can be extracted with MKVToolnix on most platforms.

I'd recommend Yello's Point album for a demo or Dear Future Self or Galvany Street by Booka Shade in Atmos. Compared to movies, they're night and day (sounds everywhere).


----------



## niterida

Dan Hitchman said:


> I must have been looking at an earlier model.


YEs - 758 doen't do Atmos but 758 v3 does


----------



## Chirosamsung

Is there a specific UHD blu ray the is the REM one? I don't mind watching the video too if it's atmos demo worthy


----------



## Chirosamsung

Whooh-never mind! 

$130 for the REM blu ray on Amazon?!?

what???


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Whooh-never mind!
> 
> $130 for the REM blu ray on Amazon?!?
> 
> what???


It's only available as a deluxe set with other discs and extras. I've had to buy other Blu-ray Audio Atmos discs this way too. It absolutely sucks that the labels don't release the Atmos Blu-ray separately.


----------



## fattire

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's only available as a deluxe set with other discs and extras. I've had to buy other Blu-ray Audio Atmos discs this way too. It absolutely sucks that the labels don't release the Atmos Blu-ray separately.


What about the Hans Zimmer Live in Prague Blu-ray ? I don’t have my Atmos kit installed yet but even the 7.1 is incredible. 

How does that sound from an Atmos perspective in comparison to the one you recommended?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fattire said:


> What about the Hans Zimmer Live in Prague Blu-ray ? I don’t have my Atmos kit installed yet but even the 7.1 is incredible.
> 
> How does that sound from an Atmos perspective in comparison to the one you recommended?


It's very good, though I have never seen an analysis off the Trinnov object metering as to whether or not the mixers utilized the format to its fullest potential.


----------



## sdrucker

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's only available as a deluxe set with other discs and extras. I've had to buy other Blu-ray Audio Atmos discs this way too. It absolutely sucks that the labels don't release the Atmos Blu-ray separately.


REM's Automatic for the People is available on Tidal in Atmos if you have their Tidal HD subscription. You have to search for it, though, through all the REM albums, including the hi-res version of this album...try searching for "Automatic for the People Atmos". It's also on Apple Music if you search under REM (Artist) and look for the 25th anniversary release of the album.

I know that streaming Atmos content is frowned upon by some due to the lossy element of DD+ streams, but when I compared a couple of tracks from my BluRay to the Tidal stream, it seemed to be the same mix (meaning the same non-7.1 speakers played where I'd expect them to in my 13.4.6 setup). I do have to look at my Altitude's Dolby Object viewer though one of these days and verify it, but AFAIK there aren't separate "Bluray" and "for streaming" Atmos mixes of the same content.

Edit: I can recommend two tracks that seem to make extensive use of my front side surrounds (SS1), wides (W), and occasionally the screen centers (Lc/Rc, inside L/C/R). Those would be "Nightswimming" and "Find the River", at a minimum, when I go through some of the tracks. The Dolby Object viewer is showing the objects moving around as well when I did a quick check a few minutes ago.


----------



## Soulburner

sdrucker said:


> AFAIK there aren't separate "Bluray" and "for streaming" Atmos mixes of the same content.


I'm not sure if music is different, but regarding Atmos for video content:



Chromatischism said:


> How about streaming services? Do they get their own mix?





Soundmixer said:


> Yes. Streaming presents all kinds of challenges when it comes to audio, so you could not use a mix designed for the disc on that platform.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> I'm not sure if music is different, but regarding Atmos for video content:


I think that's why too many disc mixes are now dumbed down (Atmos, bass response, dynamic range, etc.)... they are streaming and soundbar optimized. Many of the streaming companies dictate all kinds of limitations on their submitted audio tracks that are anti-great sound. Why spend time and money on two mixes when streaming is now a studio's biggest concern?


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think that's why too many disc mixes are now dumbed down (Atmos, bass response, dynamic range, etc.)... they are streaming and soundbar optimized. Many of the streaming companies dictate all kinds of limitations on their submitted audio tracks that are anti-great sound. Why spend time and money on two mixes when streaming is now a studio's biggest concern?


The disc mixes are not streaming optimized; streaming gets its own mix.

And disc mixes are not soundbar optimized per se, but mixers know that there are a lot of soundbars out there and maybe that has some small effect on the final mix.

That thread at ASR has been enlightening on getting down to why some newer mixes have seemingly curtailed LFE tracks – and given rise to BEQ – it's likely being done to combat bass buildup from the redirected bass from today's higher channel count systems. Apparently every new speaker that is added has the potential to add more bass reinforcement due to bass management. It's the intersection of LFE, immersive audio, and bass management, the latter being devised long before these modern formats. The solution may lie in more intelligent bass management schemes.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Hey guys, Im thinking about buying a pair of either monitor audio gold or silver FX to have a better placement of rear surrounds in my 7.1.4 setup (currently they are off to an angle not fully behind MLP). Anyways there is about 13 inches to back of seat from wall and there is about 30 inches from wall to ear. The speaker would protrude about 6 inches from the wall.

I know this is very close but i miss hearting stuff around and behind me without this currently. Also to note the FX speaker is BIPOLE as to avoid htospotting and IMO mitigate the proximity effect. the other benefit is I could put them slightly lower on wall then the current surrounds to perhaps give greater separation between base layer and atmosphere tops since I have a low ceiling. 

is this reasonable??


second question is-if I would like to keep the current side and rear speakers in their current spot and split their signal to run them in parallel sac I could get them both to send the side signal? I have already looked into how to do this and they are both monopole and both 8 Ohm speakers but would using them this way made them like a dipole and too diffuse to be recommended for atoms or could they actually function well in these locations splitting the side surround signal? if that is not recommended Ill simply remove the current rear surround speaker and move the current side surround ever so slightly back (maybe 85 degrees)


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> The disc mixes are not streaming optimized; streaming gets its own mix.


Where did you hear this? Streaming platforms definitely get their own _encode_, but I don't think anyone's doing an entirely different mix. I could imagine a trim pass to tweak some stuff to hit for specific delivery requirements. 



> And disc mixes are not soundbar optimized per se, but mixers know that there are a lot of soundbars out there and maybe that has some small effect on the final mix.


Precisely. A Netflix A-title, for instance, is mixed in Dolby Atmos and monitored in 7.1.4 or 9.1.6. The mixers will then listen to the 7.1, 5.1 and 2.0 fold-downs to make sure nothing goes badly wrong in translation. 



> That thread at ASR has been enlightening on getting down to why some newer mixes have seemingly curtailed LFE tracks – and given rise to BEQ – it's likely being done to combat bass buildup from the redirected bass from today's higher channel count systems. Apparently every new speaker that is added has the potential to add more bass reinforcement due to bass management. It's the intersection of LFE, immersive audio, and bass management, the latter being devised long before these modern formats. The solution may lie in more intelligent bass management schemes.


I hadn't though of this, but it is an intriguing theory, thanks!


----------



## squared80

I would suggest bipoles for the rear speakers in this case.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

squared80 said:


> I would suggest bipoles for the rear speakers in this case.


Yup. Though, it's one of those tough rooms because the TV is set on the wide wall, the sectional is so close to a wall (a no-no), and if they turned everything and set it on the short wall as you should, there is no back wall.


----------



## Chirosamsung

squared80 said:


> I would suggest bipoles for the rear speakers in this case.


the monitor audio gold and silver FX are bipole-would you say this is both ok and an improvement over the current position of sides and rears if this was your room?


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> Where did you hear this? Streaming platforms definitely get their own _encode_, but I don't think anyone's doing an entirely different mix. I could imagine a trim pass to tweak some stuff to hit for specific delivery requirements.


Following up on this...we discussed this topic in the context of DD+ vs. TrueHD a few months ago on the Trinnov thread, and industry pro (and occasional AVSer) FilmMixer answered my question on the subject as follows:








Trinnov Altitude


The last scene after the husband dies and the family retreats to the basement has some nice floor stomping overheads effects with further additional sonic mayhem added.:D




www.avsforum.com





Key quote:
"Content creators either create a DAMF or produce and ADM…. form those they get encoded into DD+ or TrueHD.

There are not multiple DAMFs or ADMs…. there is only one Atmos master. "

So different encodes, obviously, but not different Atmos mixes in particular.

One thing you might see is a different offset for one streaming service vs. another, such as Tidal playing Atmos tracks at a lower volume than Apple Music. I caught that one last night on the REM album we've discussed. Not sure if that also holds true for streaming (in general) on Netflix or an Apple iTunes vs. UHD of the same content.


----------



## Soulburner

sdrucker said:


> Following up on this...we discussed this topic in the context of DD+ vs. TrueHD a few months ago on the Trinnov thread, and industry pro (and occasional AVSer) FilmMixer answered my question on the subject as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnov Altitude
> 
> 
> The last scene after the husband dies and the family retreats to the basement has some nice floor stomping overheads effects with further additional sonic mayhem added.:D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key quote:
> "Content creators either create a DAMF or produce and ADM…. form those they get encoded into DD+ or TrueHD.
> 
> There are not multiple DAMFs or ADMs…. there is only one Atmos master. "
> 
> So different encodes, obviously, but not different Atmos mixes in particular.
> 
> One thing you might see is a different offset for one streaming service vs. another, such as Tidal playing Atmos tracks at a lower volume than Apple Music. I caught that one last night on the REM album we've discussed. Not sure if that also holds true for streaming (in general) on Netflix or an Apple iTunes vs. UHD of the same content.


Well, the quote I cited is from a sound mixer at a major studio who does mixes for home. When asked if streaming gets a different mix, they said yes. I don't know that it was Atmos-specific. That's all I know


----------



## fattire

sdrucker said:


> REM's Automatic for the People is available on Tidal in Atmos if you have their Tidal HD subscription.


I haven't listened to it yet, but it appears that Apple Music also has this in Atmos format at their highest available quality.


----------



## noah katz

Soulburner said:


> ...to combat bass buildup from the redirected bass from today's higher channel count systems. Apparently every new speaker that is added has the potential to add more bass reinforcement due to bass management.


I don't believe that's the case, because the more channels there are the lower the signal (including bass) for each channel.

Otherwise the L/C/R in a 9.x.6 system would be much too quiet relative to a 3.x.2 system.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

noah katz said:


> I don't believe that's the case, because the more channels there are the lower the signal (including bass) for each channel.
> 
> Otherwise the L/C/R in a 9.x.6 system would be much too quiet relative to a 3.x.2 system.


The neutering of bass and the squashing of dynamics (among other ills) seems to boil down to the industry switching to focusing on soundbar and possibly TV speaker optimization rather than high end home theater systems. They're going to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. That streaming companies are dictating the catering to that base of viewers in their audio track requirements is only exacerbating the problem.


----------



## Soulburner

noah katz said:


> I don't believe that's the case, because the more channels there are the lower the signal (including bass) for each channel.
> 
> Otherwise the L/C/R in a 9.x.6 system would be much too quiet relative to a 3.x.2 system.


I don't fully understand it myself, but you can read more here:









Why bass management makes my life tedious


I'd like to talk a bit about one problem (amongst many) I find when mixing films in surround sound: Bass summing. It's not a new problem, but as speaker counts have gone up, it's definitely been exacerbated. While the issue is kinda multidimensional, discrepancies in bass level at the point of...




www.audiosciencereview.com


----------



## MagnumX

Apple Music streaming is now available in lossless and I believe that includes Atmos (haven't personally tried it, though). 

Yello's album _Point_ in Atmos (#1 rated surround album of all time on Qudaraphonic Quad site) needs to be around -4dB relative to the calibrated Dolby reference level to really sound fantastic. Those streaming offsets could cause trouble getting proper levels out of albums like that with some equipment.


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> Apple Music streaming is now available in lossless and I believe that includes Atmos (haven't personally tried it, though).
> 
> Yello's album _Point_ in Atmos (#1 rated surround album of all time on Qudaraphonic Quad site) needs to be around -4dB relative to the calibrated Dolby reference level to really sound fantastic. Those streaming offsets could cause trouble getting proper levels out of albums like that with some equipment.


I could measure them both, if only I knew what should I be looking for.
I can only take measurements from analog output e.g. (pre out to a digital scope or line out to a cassette recorder).
Where could I find a recorded Atmos signal at Dolby reference level?


----------



## MagnumX

priitv8 said:


> I could measure them both, if only I knew what should I be looking for.
> I can only take measurements from analog output e.g. (pre out to a digital scope or line out to a cassette recorder).
> Where could I find a recorded Atmos signal at Dolby reference level?


I believe the Dolby Atmos speaker test demo tones are set at -20dB below reference level.


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> I believe the Dolby Atmos speaker test demo tones are set at -20dB below reference level.


OK, that is a good hint! I will see what I can find out.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> The neutering of bass and the squashing of dynamics (among other ills) seems to boil down to the industry switching to focusing on soundbar and possibly TV speaker optimization rather than high end home theater systems. They're going to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. That streaming companies are dictating the catering to that base of viewers in their audio track requirements is only exacerbating the problem.


I routinely have to turn on my AVRs dynamic range compression when watching Netflix originals (features and episodics) to keep the neighbors from calling the cops; maybe you're just not watching the right streaming content? 

Give the Fear Street Trilogy on Netflix a go - in addition to being fun movies, they are outstanding mixes; inventive, creative, and liberal in their use of both surrounds and dynamic range.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Apple Music streaming is now available in lossless and I believe that includes Atmos (haven't personally tried it, though).
> 
> Yello's album _Point_ in Atmos (#1 rated surround album of all time on Qudaraphonic Quad site) needs to be around -4dB relative to the calibrated Dolby reference level to really sound fantastic. Those streaming offsets could cause trouble getting proper levels out of albums like that with some equipment.


Apple Music's 2-channel material is now available in Lossless, but I think the Atmos material is lossy. One thing I'm not clear on is if the Atmos stuff is being delivered via DD+ or if they've somehow combined Atmos metadata with AAC (or doing something else entirely).


----------



## Chirosamsung

Chirosamsung said:


> Hey guys, Im thinking about buying a pair of either monitor audio gold or silver FX to have a better placement of rear surrounds in my 7.1.4 setup (currently they are off to an angle not fully behind MLP). Anyways there is about 13 inches to back of seat from wall and there is about 30 inches from wall to ear. The speaker would protrude about 6 inches from the wall.
> 
> I know this is very close but i miss hearting stuff around and behind me without this currently. Also to note the FX speaker is BIPOLE as to avoid htospotting and IMO mitigate the proximity effect. the other benefit is I could put them slightly lower on wall then the current surrounds to perhaps give greater separation between base layer and atmosphere tops since I have a low ceiling.
> 
> is this reasonable??
> 
> 
> second question is-if I would like to keep the current side and rear speakers in their current spot and split their signal to run them in parallel sac I could get them both to send the side signal? I have already looked into how to do this and they are both monopole and both 8 Ohm speakers but would using them this way made them like a dipole and too diffuse to be recommended for atoms or could they actually function well in these locations splitting the side surround signal? if that is not recommended Ill simply remove the current rear surround speaker and move the current side surround ever so slightly back (maybe 85 degrees)
> 
> 
> View attachment 3163600
> View attachment 3163601
> View attachment 3163602
> View attachment 3163603
> View attachment 3163604
> View attachment 3163607
> View attachment 3163608


@Dan Hitchman
the monitor audio gold and silver FX are bipole-would you say this is both ok and an improvement over the current position of sides and rears if this was your room?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> @Dan Hitchman
> the monitor audio gold and silver FX are bipole-would you say this is both ok and an improvement over the current position of sides and rears if this was your room?


Get the Monitor bipole wall-mount surrounds that match your front Monitor speakers. It's best to timbre match if you can. I would think it might help a bit, but you need to see if you can move your primary seating off the wall even more. Even though it's a curved sectional, there is still only one or two prime money seats. Design the speaker layout around those.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> I routinely have to turn on my AVRs dynamic range compression when watching Netflix originals (features and episodics) to keep the neighbors from calling the cops; maybe you're just not watching the right streaming content?
> 
> Give the Fear Street Trilogy on Netflix a go - in addition to being fun movies, they are outstanding mixes; inventive, creative, and liberal in their use of both surrounds and dynamic range.


I dropped Netflix a little while ago. It was getting even more expensive (they keep dramatically jacking up the price for the 4k tier) and I wasn't watching it as often. I'm glad if they've started changing their attitude on volume leveling and dynamic range, etc. Hopefully, it continues, though they keep compressing the hell out of their video streams and it's getting worse as they reencode their library to halve their bitrates. They're not using some new magic compression codec nobody else has discovered. They're just hoping most won't notice or won't care about the increase in artifacts.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Get the Monitor bipole wall-mount surrounds that match your front Monitor speakers. It's best to timbre match if you can. I would think it might help a bit, but you need to see if you can move your primary seating off the wall even more. Even though it's a curved sectional, there is still only one or two prime money seats. Design the speaker layout around those.


thanks Dan, DONT think I can move off wall anymore than it already is because of WAF but I'm glad to hear that even if close by the BIpole surrounds would work better at that layout than my current one. The only problem is that the GOLD FX that match my fronts are about $3700 Canadian while the silver FX are only about $1200. I know they wouldn't be timbre matched but hopefully Dirac can bring the sound similar even though they will be closer to me than any other speaker I hope it will be hard to tell it's not timbre matched


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> thanks Dan, DONT think I can move off wall anymore than it already is because of WAF but I'm glad to hear that even if close by the BIpole surrounds would work better at that layout than my current one. The only problem is that the GOLD FX that match my fronts are about $3700 Canadian while the *silver FX* are only about $1200. I know they wouldn't be timbre matched but hopefully Dirac can bring the sound similar even though they will be closer to me than any other speaker I hope it will be hard to tell it's not timbre matched


It's better than nothing. Pricing often is a barrier on my end too. I had three Triad Gold LCR fronts I wanted to add on to in order to complete my Atmos setup with all new and better performing gear, and then the pandemic cut the rug out from under me. So, I made due with surrounds other than matching Triads to save a bunch of money. Wouldn't you know it... different brand altogether but similar designed and voiced tweeters (they were Snell Acoustics clones and the same designers worked on them), so the sound is practically the same timbre as the Golds when sounds pan around. I lucked out... hopefully you have similar good vibes coming your way. 😁


----------



## dschulz

This is a slight tangent, but relevant to the overall discussion here. There is one area where I do notice a massive difference in playback of the same content, depending on the delivery medium: episodics broadcast over-the-air vs the same material through streaming. I first noticed this when I fell behind on the Arrowverse (the Greg Berlanti DC superhero shows: Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow), which are broadcast on the CW, and then show up later on Netflix. These are all mixed in 5.1 and delivered as such for both TV and streaming. I am confident that they are the same mix, but the broadcast TV version is _way_ more compressed dynamically than what Netflix delivers, I think because broadcast TV has its own set of parameters and the mix delivered from the production is further manipulated by both the broadcast network and the local station itself, and broadcast HDTV is pretty conservative about those mix deliveries. Of any content provider they're the ones most worried about the track playing out through tinny, built-in speakers in the TV sets. 

The same program on Netflix runs much hotter in the surrounds and has more dynamic range overall, not because Netflix is goosing anything but because they're playing back the original TV mix as delivered.


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> Apple Music's 2-channel material is now available in Lossless, but I think the Atmos material is lossy. One thing I'm not clear on is if the Atmos stuff is being delivered via DD+ or if they've somehow combined Atmos metadata with AAC (or doing something else entirely).


Somewhere I read, that the delivery method is DD+ on HLS (why would they reinvent the wheel?) and at bitrate of 768kbps.


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> Well, the quote I cited is from a sound mixer at a major studio who does mixes for home. When asked if streaming gets a different mix, they said yes. I don't know that it was Atmos-specific. That's all I know


Just to close the loop on this, I hopped onto the ASR forum to ask Soundmixer to clarify, and he confirmed what Filmixer told us on this board: one mix, multiple encodes. There is _not_ a separate mix done for disc vs streaming.


----------



## Soulburner

dschulz said:


> Just to close the loop on this, I hopped onto the ASR forum to ask Soundmixer to clarify, and he confirmed what Filmixer told us on this board: one mix, multiple encodes. There is _not_ a separate mix done for disc vs streaming.


Yeah, he said mix wasn't the correct word choice.

Still, they are separate projects, so the point is the disc version is not dumbed down due to the prevalence of streaming.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> Yeah, he said mix wasn't the correct word choice.
> 
> Still, they are separate projects, so the point is the disc version is not dumbed down due to the prevalence of streaming.


If it's just one mix for both AND there are requirements foisted upon them by certain streaming sites to "lower the bar" then the main mix gets f--ked. Also, there was a discussion about a similar topic on dumbing down near-field mixes on a Home Theater Geek episode where I believe it was one of the Sony home video guys saying there was certain pressure coming to bear in the industry on optimizing home video tracks for lesser audio systems (soundbars and the like) because they were becoming more popular. Some departments were trying to stick to their guns and others were buckling under said pressure. That was a few years ago.


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> Yeah, he said mix wasn't the correct word choice.
> 
> Still, they are separate projects, so the point is the disc version is not dumbed down due to the prevalence of streaming.


I meant to add, thank you for pointing us all to that thread! The whole discussion was quite illuminating.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's just one mix for both AND there are requirements foisted upon them by certain streaming sites to "lower the bar" then the main mix gets f--ked. Also, there was a discussion about a similar topic on dumbing down near-field mixes on a Home Theater Geek episode where I believe it was one of the Sony home video guys saying there was certain pressure coming to bear in the industry on optimizing home video tracks for lesser audio systems (soundbars and the like) because they were becoming more popular. Some departments were trying to stick to their guns and others were buckling under said pressure. That was a few years ago.


I am not aware of any requirements to lower any bars. Surround mixes have _always_ been checked for 2-channel playback compatibility. Even in the music world, stereo mixes have always been checked for performance over FM broadcast through mediocre speakers. I genuinely don't believe that the rise of soundbars etc has resulted in any quality degradation - if anything, the opposite, as a good soundbar will sound better than TV speakers. 

That's not to say all mixes are great, but I think claims of some kind of trend towards bad surround mixes are greatly exaggerated. If anything I think there is more great material to watch/listen to now than ever before.


----------



## Worf

The thing is that if they are designing for soundbats, they are more likely to let the mix be more front facing and ignore the other channels. Or be much more conservative what audio is sent to the other channels or moving objects back.

Some directors make this easy - like Nolan who pretty much puts all the audio in the center, and the only thing that goes to the surrounds is the soundtrack. 

But it also means if there is a scene where there could be wraparound sound, chances are the mix will concentrate on the LCR speakers and leave little on the surrounds so instead of wrapping you in sound it just disappointingly comes from the front.


----------



## MagnumX

The shame of it all is that there is room on Blu-Rays to have a true high-end mix AND a dumbed down mix if they'd leave off the foreign language dub tracks (Subs are better anyway).

If anything, I'd say soundbars need more extreme mixing. A family member has a Vizio one in their living room (full system in their home theater room) and it's definitely better than TV speakers and it has separate surround speakers that sound best (meaning "noticeable") on more extreme mixes. If anything, I can detect far more benign surround mixing on my 17.1 system than any sound bar. I noticed a huge difference in perception in the same room when I moved from 6.1 to 17.1 even on upmixed 5.1 tracks. The "surround" is MUCH more noticeable than before, even on weaker tracks. An example with music is The Police's Greatest Hits in DTS 5.1. It barely sounded like more than stereo in 6.1 here. It sounds like a virtual wall of sound around me in Neural X 17.1 (11.1.6). That doesn't in any way make it better than surround albums of the same period that were much more discrete (e.g. Alan Parsons' ON AIR for example in DTS 5.1), but it does mean older Pro Logic soundtracks, etc. are more immersive than before, such as they are.

No, what I'm detecting in some newer Atmos movies like Knives Out is a total and utter lack of surround usage _period_. They are not engaging the surround channels except in "action" sequences in many movies when the whole point of "immersion" is that it sounds more like real life. Now take a movie like Groundhog Day that got an Atmos upgrade that stays "immersive" ALL THE TIME. Even if it's not big on discrete overhead material, it certainly keeps the surround channels in usage in every scene with everything going on in the room around you like you would actually expect if you were on a street corner or in a diner (not just dialog and front stage left/right). 

Immersive doesn't have to mean overhead speakers. It means taking every opportunity to present the world happening around you as it really would be. That's not about deep bass (LFE) levels or even dynamic range (the things more likely to get fuxored in a "home mix" these days if sound bars were truly the focus). No, they're doing a lot of old school "surround shouldn't be distracting" type soundtracks. 

I'm sorry Baby Boomers, but I think it's high time to hand surround mixing over to the younger generations. Sorry, but the average Atmos soundtrack sucks. I ask myself WTF was the point of _that_? Then, I listen to Yello's _Point_ or Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_ and I'm BLOWN AWAY! It's just night and day. THAT is what Atmos is supposed to sound like! Even the better movie soundtracks could learn something from them! They don't just place sounds to the sides and in front. They place them in the middle of the room! Right behind and over my head! Every corner of the ceiling! I haven't watched an Atmos movie in a couple of months, truth be told. I've been buying surround albums (I have around 80 now and more on order) courtesy of the Quadraphonic Quad lists of surround music I didn't even know existed. Even 5.1 sounds pretty good upmixed with DSU or Neural X (Neural X doesn't work well for stereo upmixing, but it works wonders on 5.1 and 7.1). 

*Must hear immersive music *(recommended priority):

Yello - _Point_ (Atmos)
Booka Shade - _Galvany Street_ (Atmos)
Booka Shade - _Dear Future Self_ (Atmos)
Kraftwerk - _The Catalog_ (_All_ 8 of their albums are in Atmos on the big box set with 3D video as well; the smaller set has the more popular ones only)
Steven Wilson - _The Future Bites_ (Atmos)
Mando Diao - _Aelita_ (Auro-3D)
Lichtmond III - _Days of Eternity_ (Auro-3D)
Lichtmond IV - _The Journey_ (Atmos)

I've got Loreena Mckennitt's _The Visit_ coming next month in Atmos.


----------



## dschulz

Worf said:


> The thing is that if they are designing for soundbats, they are more likely to let the mix be more front facing and ignore the other channels. Or be much more conservative what audio is sent to the other channels or moving objects back.
> 
> Some directors make this easy - like Nolan who pretty much puts all the audio in the center, and the only thing that goes to the surrounds is the soundtrack.
> 
> But it also means if there is a scene where there could be wraparound sound, chances are the mix will concentrate on the LCR speakers and leave little on the surrounds so instead of wrapping you in sound it just disappointingly comes from the front.


No one is "designing for soundbars." I think this thread has grabbed a couple of data points - Disney print downs to 7.1.4, and some movies having less dynamic range than we'd like (Disney, again), and the Bass EQ project, and extrapolated a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Mainstream content is all mixed in 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos with no more or less restrictions on things like dynamic range or aggressive surround use than any previous period; differences here can be mostly attributed to creative choices.



MagnumX said:


> No, what I'm detecting in some newer Atmos movies like Knives Out is a total and utter lack of surround usage _period_. They are not engaging the surround channels except in "action" sequences in many movies when the whole point of "immersion" is that it sounds more like real life. Now take a movie like Groundhog Day that got an Atmos upgrade that stays "immersive" ALL THE TIME. Even if it's not big on discrete overhead material, it certainly keeps the surround channels in usage in every scene with everything going on in the room around you like you would actually expect if you were on a street corner or in a diner (not just dialog and front stage left/right).


But the Knives Out home video mix isn't radically different than the theatrical mix. You're complaining about the director's usage of sound in his movie, which is a perfectly fine thing to grouse about, but Knives Out isn't a tame mix because of a conspiracy to make tame mixes.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> No one is "designing for soundbars." I think this thread has grabbed a couple of data points - Disney print downs to 7.1.4, and some movies having less dynamic range than we'd like (Disney, again), and the Bass EQ project, and extrapolated a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Mainstream content is all mixed in 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos with no more or less restrictions on things like dynamic range or aggressive surround use than any previous period; differences here can be mostly attributed to creative choices.


You're using the words "creative choices" to explain away bland, boring soundtracks. I've listened to soundtracks from 15 years ago that had more going on in the surround speakers than many of today's movies. Right after I watched _Knives Out_ in "Atmos", I watched _The Skeleton Key_ from 2005. With Neural X on it sounded 10x better than Knives Out for surround use and had sounds all over the place, including Thunder coming from overhead all over the ceiling during the storm scenes. 

Certainly Disney's _Tron: Legacy_ was one of the best soundtracks _ever_ made for 5.1/7.1. Then listen to _Thor: Ragnarok_. It's awful by comparison. You call that _creative_. I call it _inept_. Those aren't professionals making those soundtracks, IMO and if they're not doing that on purpose for sound bars or whatever then they're _deaf_!



> But the Knives Out home video mix isn't radically different than the theatrical mix. You're complaining about the director's usage of sound in his movie, which is a perfectly fine thing to grouse about, but Knives Out isn't a tame mix because of a conspiracy to make tame mixes.


I _never_ said it was radically different from the theatrical mix. I've _never_ heard the theatrical mix so how could I? That's not my premise (It might be others' premise). Mine is that soundtracks in general are getting worse in terms of surround use, not better. 

I _do_ maintain, however, the dynamic range and deep base are being lowered on home mixes, even "good" home mixes (e.g. I measured a 6dB drop in sound effect to dialog level on the Atmos version of The Matrix compared to the original Cinema DTS (AptX) soundtrack. That's not a small difference. With dialog matched, the explosions and hovercraft, etc. are well over 50% louder on the cinema soundtrack. It makes a huge difference for sound effect feel. 

However, I've read some articles that (rightly or wrongly) give the impression there is this belief that smaller spaces and/or home systems can't handle cinema levels or that that would get them in trouble with their neighbors, but that was why compressed night modes were created. Perhaps they need more setting adjustments? 

It's easier to compress sound to be louder than to restore it to previous levels, but in the era of multichannel it may be a simple increase in dialog levels rather than traditional compression. This is where DTS:X's optional dialog only channel (that could possibly be an object, even a moving one?) could have been handy, but it seems no one wants to use it and center channel doesn't mean all dialog there or that dialog can't come from other channels. You'd want it to be even.

Some movies like Ragnarok may have differences in dialog levels more like 10-12dB and based on Pro conversations elsewhere, I believe that IS being done for "home soundtrack" reasons, whether sound bars or just assumptions about home levels. Home soundtracks usually ARE adjusted from the cinema mix for near field frequency changes and what the soun mixing guy thinks sounds best for the home environment. I used to have a link to such a Pro level discussion about near field mixing.

A thread elsewhere on these forums measures and gives correction curves for newer soundtracks rolling off LFE bass, particularly below 20Hz, but often above it as well and this simply didn't happen anywhere near as often even 10 years ago. It's probably less for sound bars and more for flat TV speakers, which is the #1 type of speakers being used by the public at home. They are garbage even compared to big screens from the early 2000s (rear projectors had not the best quality, but very large speakers as they were massive TV sets. Flat screens can't accommodate any kind of decent size speaker for bass). 

What I said was _Knives Out_'s soundtrack sucks in general. It's an example of how newer supposedly more "immersive" Atmos tracks are in fact, more like 1970s surround than surround from the early 2000s. It's an Atmos mix and it barely uses the surround tracks, let alone the overhead speakers (one bit where the table in the attic was overturned and thumped on the ceiling was the sole overhead effect I recall from the entire movie). Scenes indoors with a party going on should have had all kinds of ambient sounds in the background and yet the surround speakers were all but silent. You can call that a _creative_ _choice_ if you'd like. I'd call it _incompetence_.


----------



## aron7awol

dschulz said:


> Just to close the loop on this, I hopped onto the ASR forum to ask Soundmixer to clarify, and he confirmed what Filmixer told us on this board: one mix, multiple encodes. There is _not_ a separate mix done for disc vs streaming.


This is information I've been trying to spread in various threads here on AVS, not because I'm a mixer (but it's great to hear it from them as well), but because I've analyzed literally thousands of tracks for the purposes of BassEQ, including many which have lossless Atmos tracks as well as lossy DD+ Atmos streaming tracks, and they are almost always pretty much identical other than sometimes an overall level difference. One of my pet peeves especially is when people claim that there is a huge difference in bass between the two tracks, which IMO can always be attributed to one's processor applying the DRC metadata, which only exists on the lossy track but not the lossless track. Disable DRC / Loudness Management on the processor, and suddenly everything is up to par.


dschulz said:


> No one is "designing for soundbars." I think this thread has grabbed a couple of data points - Disney print downs to 7.1.4, and some movies having less dynamic range than we'd like (Disney, again), and the Bass EQ project, and extrapolated a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Mainstream content is all mixed in 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos with no more or less restrictions on things like dynamic range or aggressive surround use than any previous period; differences here can be mostly attributed to creative choices.
> 
> But the Knives Out home video mix isn't radically different than the theatrical mix.


I read through that thread on ASR, and I'm not actually sure where the idea came from that BassEQ is intended to restore bass which existed in the theatrical mix but not the home mix. I will only speak for myself, but I started the BassEQ movement here on AVS, and I can absolutely say that it has never been intended to bring back content which was filtered out between the theatrical track and home track. It is about bringing "up" bass content which is lower level in the track. Whether that content was intentionally filtered, why it was filtered, how or when it was filtered, none of that really matters to me. It's just about maximizing my experience on my very capable system. But even reading the wording which Pio (who ended up starting the thread and maintained the list of all of my BEQs until the forum change broke the list) wrote, "Restoring some Bluray/4K UHD movies that have had their lower frequencies severely filtered", there's nothing there suggesting anyone thinks it wasn't filtered in the theatrical release, so I'm not sure where that came from.


MagnumX said:


> I _never_ said it was radically different from the theatrical mix. I've _never_ heard the theatrical mix so how could I? That's not my premise (It might be others' premise).


Exactly, and I don't think it's actually anyone's premise. It was somehow mistakenly deduced from the wording above, I guess.


----------



## mrvideo

MagnumX said:


> The shame of it all is that there is room on Blu-Rays to have a true high-end mix AND a dumbed down mix if they'd leave off the foreign language dub tracks (Subs are better anyway).


There are many who do not like watching content and having to read subtitles. If I can get an English dub, I'll take it over English subtitles.


----------



## HIRES_FAN

Has anyone had surround atmos modules only in a 5.2.2 setup, i.e., no front atmos modules?


----------



## MagnumX

mrvideo said:


> There are many who do not like watching content and having to read subtitles. If I can get an English dub, I'll take it over English subtitles.


I was referring more to native English language movies released in the US market having 2-4 foreign language tracks (Sometimes more on UHD). In other words, if you want a German dub, buy the movie from Germany. Most people in the US will not use those soundtracks, but having the original soundtrack (for older movies) and a Cinema level and separate wimpy home version isn't asking too much IMO. 

Atmos could have been designed to have a wimpy version adjust in the renderer on the fly even (one dialog level for Cinema levels and one for cheaper home speakers or lower levels). The idea of making Atmos soundtracks for the "average" system is ridiculous, IMO. They should be made for the best and adjusted (compression/levels) for lesser systems or night/apartment listening. There is no way to easily undo permanent level changes.


----------



## kevinzzz

dschulz said:


> Just to close the loop on this, I hopped onto the ASR forum to ask Soundmixer to clarify, and he confirmed what Filmixer told us on this board: one mix, multiple encodes. There is _not_ a separate mix done for disc vs streaming.


Well there is definitely a separate HE (home entertainment) mix that is different than the theatrical mix. the whole point of that thread is musing on how to deal with LF build-up that happens on the bass-managed monitoring system when in-phase LF content from multiple channels sums together electronically in the sub channel (not a concern in theatrical mixes) I presume both the Blu-Ray and the streaming encodes are made from this HE mix, but they are definitely not encoding the theatrical mix for streaming or blu-ray.


----------



## niterida

HIRES_FAN said:


> Has anyone had surround atmos modules only in a 5.2.2 setup, i.e., no front atmos modules?


Do you mean Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers to bounce off the ceiling ?
In which case it doesn't matter where you position them as long as they are directed to bounce off the ceiling and then hit the listeners. Probably best positioning them to the sides if you have the room to place them correctly. 
In any physical position they will still be designated Top Middle. Or connected as they would be if they were on top of the front speakers.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> You're using the words "creative choices" to explain away bland, boring soundtracks. I've listened to soundtracks from 15 years ago that had more going on in the surround speakers than many of today's movies. Right after I watched _Knives Out_ in "Atmos", I watched _The Skeleton Key_ from 2005. With Neural X on it sounded 10x better than Knives Out for surround use and had sounds all over the place, including Thunder coming from overhead all over the ceiling during the storm scenes.
> 
> Certainly Disney's _Tron: Legacy_ was one of the best soundtracks _ever_ made for 5.1/7.1. Then listen to _Thor: Ragnarok_. It's awful by comparison. You call that _creative_. I call it _inept_. Those aren't professionals making those soundtracks, IMO and if they're not doing that on purpose for sound bars or whatever then they're _deaf_!
> 
> 
> 
> I _never_ said it was radically different from the theatrical mix. I've _never_ heard the theatrical mix so how could I? That's not my premise (It might be others' premise). Mine is that soundtracks in general are getting worse in terms of surround use, not better.
> 
> I _do_ maintain, however, the dynamic range and deep base are being lowered on home mixes, even "good" home mixes (e.g. I measured a 6dB drop in sound effect to dialog level on the Atmos version of The Matrix compared to the original Cinema DTS (AptX) soundtrack. That's not a small difference. With dialog matched, the explosions and hovercraft, etc. are well over 50% louder on the cinema soundtrack. It makes a huge difference for sound effect feel.
> 
> However, I've read some articles that (rightly or wrongly) give the impression there is this belief that smaller spaces and/or home systems can't handle cinema levels or that that would get them in trouble with their neighbors, but that was why compressed night modes were created. Perhaps they need more setting adjustments?
> 
> It's easier to compress sound to be louder than to restore it to previous levels, but in the era of multichannel it may be a simple increase in dialog levels rather than traditional compression. This is where DTS:X's optional dialog only channel (that could possibly be an object, even a moving one?) could have been handy, but it seems no one wants to use it and center channel doesn't mean all dialog there or that dialog can't come from other channels. You'd want it to be even.
> 
> Some movies like Ragnarok may have differences in dialog levels more like 10-12dB and based on Pro conversations elsewhere, I believe that IS being done for "home soundtrack" reasons, whether sound bars or just assumptions about home levels. Home soundtracks usually ARE adjusted from the cinema mix for near field frequency changes and what the soun mixing guy thinks sounds best for the home environment. I used to have a link to such a Pro level discussion about near field mixing.
> 
> A thread elsewhere on these forums measures and gives correction curves for newer soundtracks rolling off LFE bass, particularly below 20Hz, but often above it as well and this simply didn't happen anywhere near as often even 10 years ago. It's probably less for sound bars and more for flat TV speakers, which is the #1 type of speakers being used by the public at home. They are garbage even compared to big screens from the early 2000s (rear projectors had not the best quality, but very large speakers as they were massive TV sets. Flat screens can't accommodate any kind of decent size speaker for bass).
> 
> What I said was _Knives Out_'s soundtrack sucks in general. It's an example of how newer supposedly more "immersive" Atmos tracks are in fact, more like 1970s surround than surround from the early 2000s. It's an Atmos mix and it barely uses the surround tracks, let alone the overhead speakers (one bit where the table in the attic was overturned and thumped on the ceiling was the sole overhead effect I recall from the entire movie). Scenes indoors with a party going on should have had all kinds of ambient sounds in the background and yet the surround speakers were all but silent. You can call that a _creative_ _choice_ if you'd like. I'd call it _incompetence_.


What I don't understand about the argument that mixes are tame because it's the creator's intent, or they didn't want to distract from the story is, isn't the point of this great technology that it can add to the creator's intent, and add immersion to the story rather than add distraction? Why is the assumption underpinning this argument that using the technology to its fullest potential can only detract from the story and not add to it? Is that argument really much different than, I don't know, defending if Disney decided to film the next Star Wars movie in 480p, instead of 4K, which incidentally sounds like something they would do, by arguing that "they didn't want to distract from the experience by using high resolution?" I don't want to be unfair, so I will say it's not fully an apples-to-apples comparison, but it is in enough ways to make it a legitimate point (in my opinion).

And the argument strikes me as a very... generous... one to make. Like, you are giving all the benefit of the doubt and then a lot more, when you make that argument. Because I think most would agree that from life experience, we already know that 99 times out of 100 that any product is released far below its potential, it's because they skimped on the budget and resources to make it high quality. 99 out of 100 times, it has nothing to do with purposeful choices made for the sake of the product's quality. 99 out of 100 times, it's not done for the sake of quality at all.

Yet it feels like every time this happens with an Atmos mix, this argument is brought up that everything done was done for the sake of the story, so even if you don't like it, it was the creator's intent, etc, and you have no leg to stand on to say it should be better. It is something you would expect a Hollywood producer to say who is responsible for the Atmos budget, or a distributor, but you don't expect to hear it from Atmos users who are buying the discs. You paid for a nice Atmos setup. You paid for the 4K disc. Why wouldn't you want them to use the technology to its fullest? Or even to just use it up to the standards of past quality 5.1 and 7.1 mixes? Why would any buyer of Atmos, as opposed to a seller, defend mixes that are a step back from mixes released 15 or 20 years ago on outdated, cheaper technology? The goal after spending money on Atmos is to have something _better _than before, but shouldn't the minimum standard at least be that it's not _worse_? I don't understand that. Everyone here is either an Atmos user, or is thinking about it. We should all be on the same page, that we want better mixes, not worse ones that come with excuses for their subpar quality as their main "special feature." I'm not saying anyone is wrong if they still enjoy subpar Atmos mixes, but the point is they will enjoy good ones even more.


----------



## dschulz

kevinzzz said:


> Well there is definitely a separate HE (home entertainment) mix that is different than the theatrical mix. the whole point of that thread is musing on how to deal with LF build-up that happens on the bass-managed monitoring system when in-phase LF content from multiple channels sums together electronically in the sub channel (not a concern in theatrical mixes) I presume both the Blu-Ray and the streaming encodes are made from this HE mix, but they are definitely not encoding the theatrical mix for streaming or blu-ray.


Yes, I think the context was lost when I quoted just the one quote. Thanks for clarifying yes, there are typically nowadays two mixes - the original theatrical, and a home entertainment mix. But that same home ent mix then gets used for disc, Kaleisdescape, digital downloads, streaming services and so on. 



Technology3456 said:


> What I don't understand about the argument that mixes are tame because it's the creator's intent, or they didn't want to distract from the story is, isn't the point of this great technology that it can add to the creator's intent, and add immersion to the story rather than add distraction? Why is the assumption underpinning this argument that using the technology to its fullest potential can only detract from the story and not add to it?


I'm not here to defend bad mixes, just to counter a developing prevailing (and erroneous) sense that the bad mixes are because of something that has been done by Dolby, or studio workflows, or misguided delivery specs. My analogy would be this is all sort of like complaining about the performances of the actors in Netflix movies and pointing the finger at Netflix's camera requirements and video delivery specs. 

Here's my truly unpopular opinion: In most cases (not all, but most) most AVSForum members (not all, but most) given the opportunity to listen in a good home theatre to the unadulterated theatrical printmaster and the home entertainment mix back to back would choose the home entertainment mix.


----------



## MagnumX

kevinzzz said:


> Well there is definitely a separate HE (home entertainment) mix that is different than the theatrical mix.


Yes and it's the primary reason home mixes tend to suck compared to years past where we used to get the theatrical mix and let THX Re-EQ or Cinema EQ (most others) deal with the near field frequency differences. Some things might have been tweaked before 1999, but not to the rampant extent many releases are today. That was one of the reasons for THX standards in the first place, to bring the cinema experience home not to mutilate it at home.



> the whole point of that thread is musing on how to deal with LF build-up that happens on the bass-managed monitoring system when in-phase LF content from multiple channels sums together electronically in the sub channel (not a concern in theatrical mixes)


I'm less convinced this is a thing at all. Atmos is object based. There is no such thing as 32 channel bass buildup. It renders the content for the available number of channels, not the other way around. There has to be bass present for it to build up. If it's spreading an object's sound around multiple speakers, it should be panning absolute levels, which should be no more at the LFE than the total with the speakers.

If all else fails, the mixing engineer can make adjustments. Thus, IMO that idea fails to explain why some Atmos movies have craptastic bass while others like Blade Runner 2049 rock.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> Yes, I think the context was lost when I quoted just the one quote. Thanks for clarifying yes, there are typically nowadays two mixes - the original theatrical, and a home entertainment mix. But that same home ent mix then gets used for disc, Kaleisdescape, digital downloads, streaming services and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to defend bad mixes, just to counter a developing prevailing (and erroneous) sense that the bad mixes are because of something that has been done by Dolby, or studio workflows, or misguided delivery specs. My analogy would be this is all sort of like complaining about the performances of the actors in Netflix movies and pointing the finger at Netflix's camera requirements and video delivery specs.
> 
> Here's my truly unpopular opinion: In most cases (not all, but most) most AVSForum members (not all, but most) given the opportunity to listen in a good home theatre to the unadulterated theatrical printmaster and the home entertainment mix back to back would choose the home entertainment mix.


That's a fair point. But if the difference between theater Atmos mixes, and home atmos mixes, is minimal, and the home atmos mix is bad, then that would mean the mix wasn't done well for theater either. I'm advocating for better mixes in general, and to not attribute bad mixes to creator's intent when 99 times out of 100, it is budget and resources, and taking advantage of low standards. If people will not just buy bad mixes, but defend them when people say "this could be better," then they will keep making bad mixes. Just like if Sony could sell 55 inch, 480p OLED TVs for $2,000, instead of 4K ones, and just as many people would buy them, they would do that. The sales would be the same, but the manufacturing cost would be less, so it would result in greater profit for Sony. But everyone expects 4K for that price now, and no one is leaving comments that 480p is good enough so people shouldn't expect more, so they have to deliver 4K ones to meet that demand. If Atmos mixes were held to the same standard, then the standard of Atmos mixes might rise to a higher quality in order to meet that demand. It's definitely less likely to improve if everyone defends it as is.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Here's my truly unpopular opinion: In most cases (not all, but most) most AVSForum members (not all, but most) given the opportunity to listen in a good home theatre to the unadulterated theatrical printmaster and the home entertainment mix back to back would choose the home entertainment mix.


I can't speak for others, but I have the theatrical DTS mix of The Matrix (converted to standard DTS from theatrical DTS (AptX) aligned to compare. It's so much more intense in the action sequences (sound effects are 6dB louder with dialog level matched) to the point where I'd rather listen to it (with Neural X engaged for overheads) than the Atmos track (which is already way better than the old Dolby Digital track). 

At least the Atmos mix fixes some issues I had with surround intensity (e.g. When the gun racks slide into place they now engage the surrounds more like the theatrical mix in a motion into the room rather than the DD version that just sounds like one loud noise everywhere at once).

That was the first thing that really stood out to ne when I got the original DVD as I saw it 17 times at the theater (15 times in DTS 5.1). Sadly, there was no DTS release like some other WB titles.

@Technology3456 - Many professionals in Hollywood (Whether directors or sound guys I don't recall specifics) have stated when 5.1 first came out in response to complaints many soundtracks didn't sound much different than the old Dolby Surround soundtracks (That we call Pro Logic at home) that the reason was they didn't want to distract from what was on the screen by grabbing your attention to sounds around/behind you. Many disagreed with that philosophy so some 5.1 soundtracks were much more immersive than others.

Today, it's clear to me, for whatever reason (film school, mentors or older directors or sound guys still around with that notion) that a big part of the reason so many Atmos tracks do so little compared to the Dolby demos is the same thinking or some variation thereof (Some don't mind going nuts during action sequences, but want you to pay attention to dialog when present, as if everyone was going to turn their heads and go, "Where is that coming from? OMG!?!?" like people tended to do with reaching for 3D objects a Disney World when they never saw 3D come out of the screen before (Heck. I'll still do it sometimes at home).

So some cry that it's Director (or sound guy) INTENT while some of us don't really care what their intent is as we find a lack of surround in scenes that would have it in real life more distracting than too much surround. We want immersive soundtracks! No, less is not more with Atmos, at least not where we're at right now. Even some of the better soundtracks could have gone further with immersion as Atmos music (and those Dolby demos) prove.


----------



## hokeyplyr48

I’ve been combing through threads for the last few hours and can’t really seem to find any information on the major impact of having read surrounds facing straight forward vs angled toward the MLP (both vertically and horizontally). I found a few threads from 2003 and 2004 and they were split 50/50 saying angled towards MLP gives best on axis response or you don’t want them aimed towards MLP as it prevents localizing the sounds and giving a more diffused atmospheric effect. This is strictly for movie watching and not multi channel music.

Reason I’m asking is there’s a lot of work involved if angling them in is that big of a deal. I have Triad in wall speakers I’m installing this weekend and if straight forward is fine, I’m good. If angling is required, I’m going to be doing some drywall work and having to add some angled mounts to get them to point towards the MLP.

On a related note, I am going to have two rows with a riser so I am going to have them a bit higher. 
1) They can be a bit higher than the side surrounds to compensate, correct? The Trinnov speaker placement guide seems to cover each in isolation and calls out rear surrounds being taller but I don’t think I’m seeing whether raising one requires you raising the other. 
2) When you raise the rear surround to get over the second row so the first row can hear it, the Trinnov speaker guide indicates angling it down to be in line with each rows ears. Given the work involved due to these being in wall and not on wall, how big of a deal is this? If I mount them taller to compensate for the second row, but aim them straight forward both horizontally and vertically, is this going to result in a poor experience?


----------



## niterida

aiming is best, especially for Atmos, but I don't think it is anywhere near as critical for rear surrounds, depending on how far off-axis pointing them straight ahead puts you. If it's a lot fo work to aim them, the work may outwiegh the benefit.
A for the height - if they are raised then the surrounds should also be raised - but not to the same height. The surrounds should be raised to be on a straight line drawn from the rear surrounds to the front L and R.


----------



## Worf

MagnumX said:


> I was referring more to native English language movies released in the US market having 2-4 foreign language tracks (Sometimes more on UHD). In other words, if you want a German dub, buy the movie from Germany. Most people in the US will not use those soundtracks, but having the original soundtrack (for older movies) and a Cinema level and separate wimpy home version isn't asking too much IMO.


Most discs for North America only have English, French and Spanish for audio, covering both US and Canada audiences (top 3 languages on the continent). And almost always the French and Spanish tracks are lossy 5.1.

The only time I've seen others are foreign films in which the original language is present, followed by an English dub. Or imported discs. The other languages are subtitles.

Though it's probably irrelevant because there may already be space for the disc anyways - most BD-25 discs are around 20GB used, and BD-50 is around 42GB used. 

But having a full theatrical mix would mean more work and more money spent since some mixes have to be reencoded - DTS in theatres is actually closer to aptX (used on Bluetooth devices in the consumer space) and has no relation to the DTS coherent audio codec used for home systems. Dolby digital is the same though the theatre might use a higher bitrate version (it's the lossy codec) which may not be compatible with home. And Atmos is also identical however the home version is limited in object count to reduce required renderer processor power so objects are coalesced. So it's a lot more work for little benefit.


----------



## MagnumX

Worf said:


> Most discs for North America only have English, French and Spanish for audio, covering both US and Canada audiences (top 3 languages on the continent). And almost always the French and Spanish tracks are lossy 5.1.
> 
> The only time I've seen others are foreign films in which the original language is present, followed by an English dub. Or imported discs. The other languages are subtitles.
> 
> Though it's probably irrelevant because there may already be space for the disc anyways - most BD-25 discs are around 20GB used, and BD-50 is around 42GB used.
> 
> But having a full theatrical mix would mean more work and more money spent since some mixes have to be reencoded - DTS in theatres is actually closer to aptX (used on Bluetooth devices in the consumer space) and has no relation to the DTS coherent audio codec used for home systems. Dolby digital is the same though the theatre might use a higher bitrate version (it's the lossy codec) which may not be compatible with home. And Atmos is also identical however the home version is limited in object count to reduce required renderer processor power so objects are coalesced.


I can convert those myself at home and you're trying to tell me that's a _big_ expense? For mass distribution/sales? Besides, the master version isn't necessarily in either format. Those are encodes sent to cinemas, not the master soundtrack found in the studio vaults. They end up playing with them anyway and a soundtrack "tweaked" for the home environment is going to be more work, not less. But they figure most home theaters aren't going to playback at theatrical levels and one of the biggest complaints they get is the dialog is too hard to understand at lower volume levels. DTS tried to fix this by enabling them to put the dialog on its own separate track that could be adjusted to taste at home, but they didn't like the idea of the consumer playing with their masterpiece or whatever. So their solution was to screw up their masterpiece themselves for everyone?



> So it's a lot more work for little benefit.


A _lot_ more work? It's a _lot_ more work to make a "home" version when the theatrical version already exists and is ready to go (For Atmos, Dolby's own software can do most of the home conversion work automatically; they have to do another version anyway for a "home" release (more work already). It's when they adjust the dynamic range levels or adjust dialog to effects volume that you get these large differences in perceived volume or dynamic range). From the discussion I've seen on another (Pro) forum, there is no "standard" for adjusting the "near field mix" (home version). The mixing guy typically listens over a different set of speakers in the same room placed closer and adjusts it to taste for what he feels will sound good at home. 
The problem is "home" can be anything. Cinemas have standards. People do whatever they want at home and the playback environment, room treatments (or lack thereof) are all over the place. Some people live in apartments and can't play anywhere near cinema levels even if they wanted to, etc. So these guys "guess" what they think will sound "best" for "everyone". It's a joke. We need standards of quality and playback levels and ways to adjust them, if need be.

Theatrical home releases were the norm until around 1999-2001 or so, but even then certain studios like Paramount didn't do "near field" (home) releases. For example, the Raiders of the Lost Ark THX Blu-Ray was the theatrical mix as were most Paramount titles. THX Re-EQ and CinemaEQ (Non-THX) were developed specifically to playback cinema soundtracks directly at home as they compensate for the near-field high frequency issue by filtering the highs out from cinema soundtracks. They didn't even include so much as a flag for home mixes so the EQ could be enabled/disabled automatically. They don't even label which is which on the disc case or menus so it's up to you to "guess" based on listening alone. 

I'd call that a disaster. You can call it whatever you want. But Atmos isn't what the Dolby demos lead us to believe because it's not being used that way most of the time.


----------



## dschulz

Worf said:


> But having a full theatrical mix would mean more work and more money spent since some mixes have to be reencoded - DTS in theatres is actually closer to aptX (used on Bluetooth devices in the consumer space) and has no relation to the DTS coherent audio codec used for home systems. Dolby digital is the same though the theatre might use a higher bitrate version (it's the lossy codec) which may not be compatible with home. And Atmos is also identical however the home version is limited in object count to reduce required renderer processor power so objects are coalesced. So it's a lot more work for little benefit.


Whichever mix is used for the home would probably be encoded, so there's not a ton of extra work involved. The original theatrical mix winds up as 48/24 5.1 or 7.1 uncompressed .WAV files. These are dropped straight into the Digital Cinema Package or, for 35mm film encoded to aptX for DTS or AC-3 for Dolby Digital or ALAC for SDDS. Intriguingly, the Dolby Digital bit rate for 35mm film is actually _lower_ than that used on DVD (and the bit rate on Blu Ray is higher still). But it'd be cheaper to simply encode the theatrical mix (or conform it to the long-play video and put it on the disc as PCM) rather than go to the trouble and expense of creating a home theatre mix.

The Atmos tracks are handled completely differently, there's no way to drop the theatrical Atmos track straight into a consumer format, but the Dolby tools to port the theatrical Atmos mix over are pretty slick.


----------



## X4100

Much thanks to you @MagnumX, and @Technology3456 for pressing the need for sound mixing guys to get their act together, or get out of the way!😎. I'm wondering what the process would entail , just to improve the overall quality of bluray discs/ 4k... or would they do something $$$$$ like a new decoder !!!!


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> ALAC for SDDS.


isn't that ATRAC for SDDS (the same lossy compression Sony uses for MiniDisc)? ALAC is Apple lossless packing.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> isn't that ATRAC for SDDS (the same lossy compression Sony uses for MiniDisc)? ALAC is Apple lossless packing.


Correct, that's an egregious typo on my end. Thanks for the correction.

Although now I'm imaging a wildcat engineering project to adopt ALAC for film prints...


----------



## Soulburner

Worf said:


> And Atmos is also identical however the home version is limited in object count to reduce required renderer processor power so objects are coalesced. So it's a lot more work for little benefit.


This was addressed already:



Soundmixer said:


> Actually, home mixes do not have fewer objects than theatrical mixes. Via Spatial encoding, all of the objects in the theatrical file are divided into clusters depending on the coordinates they represent in the sound field. On disc, you have up to 16 clusters that contain all of the objects in the theatrical mix. With data reduction techniques and spatial encoding, you can get them all on streaming platforms with as few as 12 clusters.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> This was addressed already:


Yeah, it's more like Atmos spatial encoding adapts a playback object layout and pans the overall objects into that context. Most objects should end up pretty close to their theatrical counterparts, especially on lower speaker count systems. 

I don't think it's a major issue or the reason so many Atmos soundtracks "lack" in the surround department. After all, many 5.1 soundtracks are way more immersive than some Atmos ones (e.g. The Skeleton Key in 5.1 versus Knives Out in Atmos). The Dolby demos are fine in both streaming and disc TrueHD versions and the do way more than most Atmos soundtracks do in a shirt period of time. 

I maintain the problem is on the mixing end, but it may not just be differing opinions on how much surround to use or incompetence. I have read one major limiting factor is TIME. 

Some movies take months or even over a year to make and cut/edit, but then they give the mixing guy one weekend to do the soundtrack. It's just not enough time to do a really complex soundtrack properly in Atmos, IMO. I wonder if time may even be the reason 5.1 soundtracks were better ten years ago. Atmos will inevitably take longer to do a comparable job.

These studios need to give the sound guys enough time to do a QUALITY job.


----------



## Soulburner

It's starting to sound a lot like some game studios where the executives demand hard release dates and don't give the team enough time to do their best work. Just look at most games adapted from films where the release date is a hard target to coincide with the movie release, compared to how Rockstar handled Grand Theft Auto 5. The quality difference is obvious. Then there is the Cyperpunk 2077 fiasco.

We don't know if that is what's happening but it I wouldn't doubt it.


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> I can't speak for others, but I have the theatrical DTS mix of The Matrix (converted to standard DTS from theatrical DTS (AptX) aligned to compare. It's so much more intense in the action sequences (sound effects are 6dB louder with dialog level matched) to the point where I'd rather listen to it (with Neural X engaged for overheads) than the Atmos track (which is already way better than the old Dolby Digital track).
> 
> At least the Atmos mix fixes some issues I had with surround intensity (e.g. When the gun racks slide into place they now engage the surrounds more like the theatrical mix in a motion into the room rather than the DD version that just sounds like one loud noise everywhere at once).
> 
> That was the first thing that really stood out to ne when I got the original DVD as I saw it 17 times at the theater (15 times in DTS 5.1). Sadly, there was no DTS release like some other WB titles.
> 
> @Technology3456 - Many professionals in Hollywood (Whether directors or sound guys I don't recall specifics) have stated when 5.1 first came out in response to complaints many soundtracks didn't sound much different than the old Dolby Surround soundtracks (That we call Pro Logic at home) that the reason was they didn't want to distract from what was on the screen by grabbing your attention to sounds around/behind you. Many disagreed with that philosophy so some 5.1 soundtracks were much more immersive than others.
> 
> Today, it's clear to me, for whatever reason (film school, mentors or older directors or sound guys still around with that notion) that a big part of the reason so many Atmos tracks do so little compared to the Dolby demos is the same thinking or some variation thereof (Some don't mind going nuts during action sequences, but want you to pay attention to dialog when present, as if everyone was going to turn their heads and go, "Where is that coming from? OMG!?!?" like people tended to do with reaching for 3D objects a Disney World when they never saw 3D come out of the screen before (Heck. I'll still do it sometimes at home).
> 
> So some cry that it's Director (or sound guy) INTENT while some of us don't really care what their intent is as we find a lack of surround in scenes that would have it in real life more distracting than too much surround. We want immersive soundtracks! No, less is not more with Atmos, at least not where we're at right now. Even some of the better soundtracks could have gone further with immersion as Atmos music (and those Dolby demos) prove.


Loudness doesn't equal quality. The ATMOS track on the Matrix has more resolution than the old DTS one and is a better mix overall. This conversation sounds oddly familiar...


----------



## niterida

We just need to put pressure on AMPAS (Academy Awards guys) to make an BEST IMMERSIVE AUDIO award and give it star billing alongside Best Picture - that'd wake em up


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> Loudness doesn't equal quality. The ATMOS track on the Matrix has more resolution than the old DTS one and is a better mix overall. This conversation sounds oddly familiar...


 I'm not talking about loudness (as in compressed sound), but dialog levels relative to sound effects. One cannot listen at Dolby reference levels if the dialog is so loud you can't stand to turn it louder. Morpheus' voice should not be louder than the helicopter explosion. That is a real loss of dynamic range, not an imaginary one.

As for the resolution bit, I want some actual proof from you. A phobia against lossy DTS isn't proof yet I'd bet that's what you're talking about. 

Dynamic range IS resolution and the Atmos soundtrack is worse, overall due to the elevated dialog levels. But you're free to believe anything you prefer. That doesn't make it true, however


----------



## junh1024

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think that's why too many disc mixes are now dumbed down (Atmos, bass response, dynamic range, etc.)... they are streaming and soundbar optimized. Many of the streaming companies dictate all kinds of limitations on their submitted audio tracks that are anti-great sound. Why spend time and money on two mixes when streaming is now a studio's biggest concern?





Dan Hitchman said:


> The neutering of bass and the squashing of dynamics (among other ills) seems to boil down to the industry switching to focusing on soundbar and possibly TV speaker optimization rather than high end home theater systems. They're going to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. That streaming companies are dictating the catering to that base of viewers in their audio track requirements is only exacerbating the problem.


MagnumX said in The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) that "If anything, I'd say soundbars need more extreme mixing. "

Streaming stuff like Netflix is mixed theatrical-like nowdays. If you see the Netflix Atmos specs , they assume a theatrical-like context for mixing WRT monitoring levels, and the ADM/IMF deliverables are what's used for theatrical workflows. In fact, streaming mixes might be getting "too cinematic" due to low dialog & high dynamics.




Soulburner said:


> That thread at ASR has been enlightening on getting down to why some newer mixes have seemingly curtailed LFE tracks – and given rise to BEQ – it's likely being done to combat bass buildup from the redirected bass from today's higher channel count systems. Apparently every new speaker that is added has the potential to add more bass reinforcement due to bass management. It's the intersection of LFE, immersive audio, and bass management, the latter being devised long before these modern formats. The solution may lie in more intelligent bass management schemes.


You'll see at ASR, that the reson for making a home mix is due to differing acoustics of a home environment. To make it the same, it needs to be different.




Worf said:


> Though it's probably irrelevant because there may already be space for the disc anyways - most BD-25 discs are around 20GB used, and BD-50 is around 42GB used.


This is due to GB (aka salesman's GB) vs GiB. Understanding the difference between GB and GiB


----------



## junh1024

dschulz said:


> - Disney print downs to 7.1.4,





MagnumX said:


> I don't have many newer soundtracks by Disney, but even if I did, I have no way of telling if they use actual objects. I do know some Trinnov owners have verified the Star Wars movies in Atmos do use moving objects occasionally (where it matters, from the examples I've seen given) so it's quite possible they've moved on to utilizing objects now, overall.


I think Disney doesn't really do this anymore , and IIRC it's an additional step on top of object exports. You can use the _latest _Mediainfo software to check the object count, which might be 14 for recent SW movies. But It's not a guarantee that they move. You can set your AVR to 912/714wide (is this a valid config?) modes, and listen to the wide speakers. We assume wides are more likely addressed on a object mix.

On the last Jedi BD, mediainfo shows this:



Code:


Number of dynamic objects : 13
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE

That being said, low objects might sound 714-like (more common on older BDs)

This is Mulan 2020



Code:


Number of dynamic objects : 15
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE

Here is another video I found about Mulan 2020, prolly streaming. Seems that disney (only) uses obj for height activity:









Soulburner said:


> This was addressed already:
> 
> "Actually, home mixes do not have fewer objects than theatrical mixes. Via Spatial encoding, all of the objects in the theatrical file are divided into clusters depending on the coordinates they represent in the sound field.


The point that Soundmixer was intending to make is that the home mix doesn't lose _sound _. I would say the theatrical 128 obj is downmixed to 12-16obj for home (rather than clusters). It's a matter of terminology. Mediainfo also uses the object terminology.




Dan Hitchman said:


> They seem to think they have to squeeze the bandwidth (TrueHD or DD+ lossy) as much as possible to save space, rather than utilize the full 16 waveforms or "clusters" available or they hard print the tracks to specific channels (fixed objects),


For THD Atmos since it's lossless-ish, less objects = less space used. For DDP Atmos, there is no saving, since you can't usually choose # objects (usually 16), and the bitrate is chosen by the streaming service, not studio. And Usually 640-768kps.



Soulburner said:


> Still, they are separate projects, so the point is the disc version is not dumbed down due to the prevalence of streaming.


I'd say the streaming version is slightly better than disc (theoretically) , since disc is usually 12-14o, but streaming is 16o. But more objects , doesn't necessarily mean a good mix.


----------



## Sergiomh

There is a very interesting exercise in David Fincher's *'The game'* Bluray, in the *Criterion edition*. The bluray includes two DTS 5.1 tracks, one with the original cinema mix and one adapted by sound designer Ren Klyce for the home theater.

By the way, does anyone know more blurays that include the original theatrical sound mix as an option?


----------



## markus767

junh1024 said:


> You'll see at ASR, that the reson for making a home mix is due to differing acoustics of a home environment. To make it the same, it needs to be different.


The main reason for home mixes is making money for the mixing/mastering studio 

Anyhow, without a proper reference level standard the whole technical discussion around home mixes becomes moot. If you can monitor a home mix at 85dBSPL(C) or 75dBSPL(C) or any arbitrary number and configuration ("nearfield [...] 79db or 82db") the end result will be very different. In this context bass buildup due to bass management/room acoustics/correction becomes a marginal note. The movie industry used to brag about how much more advanced they are over the music industry where "anything goes", now they are in the very same sad situation.


----------



## Josh Z

niterida said:


> We just need to put pressure on AMPAS (Academy Awards guys) to make an BEST IMMERSIVE AUDIO award and give it star billing alongside Best Picture - that'd wake em up


Extremely unlikely to happen. AMPAS officially consolidated Best Sound Mixing and Best Sound Editing into a single "Best Sound" category last year due to audience confusion over the difference between the prior descriptions. They're not going to break this out again into something even more esoteric to average viewers.


----------



## X4100

Why not just make a good "home mix" and leave it to the consumer to make needed adjustments for his/her 1 1/2 inch "woofers "


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Extremely unlikely to happen. AMPAS officially consolidated Best Sound Mixing and Best Sound Editing into a single "Best Sound" category last year due to audience confusion over the difference between the prior descriptions. They're not going to break this out again into something even more esoteric to average viewers.


All we care about is getting the most immersive Atmos tracks possible, but many of today's Generation Z don't understand that term (Atmos _Confusion_ rules with 180+ different Atmos varieties whereas we old buggers from Gen X and older thought it was only Atmos or not Atmos!) So push the Atmos reform narrative initiative instead and call it the most _diverse_ Atmos sound mix. That's lingo they can understand daddy-o.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Extremely unlikely to happen. AMPAS officially consolidated Best Sound Mixing and Best Sound Editing into a single "Best Sound" category last year due to audience confusion over the difference between the prior descriptions. They're not going to break this out again into something even more esoteric to average viewers.


Make it one of the awards that the winner only gets announced off-TV. The viewers wont know much about it but at least the prize will exist for the people doing the mixing. If this could help then I'm for it.


----------



## appelz

Technology3456 said:


> Make it one of the awards that the winner only gets announced off-TV. The viewers wont know much about it but at least the prize will exist for the people doing the mixing. If this could help then I'm for it.


At least the Grammys have a Best Immersive Audio category. This years award has been postponed of course, but the category exists!

On a similar note <snicker> Immersive Audio Album: Surround Sound Music & Equipment


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> At least the Grammys have a Best Immersive Audio category. This years award has been postponed of course, but the category exists!
> 
> On a similar note <snicker> Immersive Audio Album: Surround Sound Music & Equipment


That sounds good in theory, but their picks aren't terribly encouraging in recent years. Yello's _Point_ album deserves most immersive album of all time bar none, IMO. It's the Atmos "Dark Side of the Moon" (Booka Shade comes close, but the songs are far worse, IMO).


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> That sounds good in theory, but their picks aren't terribly encouraging in recent years. Yello's _Point_ album deserves most immersive album of all time bar none, IMO. It's the Atmos "Dark Side of the Moon" (Booka Shade comes close, but the songs are far worse, IMO).


Unfortunately I can't get those on Deezer.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

On a related note, I binged The Mysterious Benedict Society on Disney Plus over the weekend and that show has some pretty solid use of Atmos. Not just for height-specific sound, but for ambience in general. Pretty immersive mix throughout. It was nice to hear a non-cinema release get that much attention and care on the audio side. The show itself has kind of a Wes Anderson vibe to it, and I ended up really enjoying it.


----------



## HIRES_FAN

niterida said:


> Do you mean Atmos-Enabled upfiring speakers to bounce off the ceiling ?
> In which case it doesn't matter where you position them as long as they are directed to bounce off the ceiling and then hit the listeners. Probably best positioning them to the sides if you have the room to place them correctly.
> In any physical position they will still be designated Top Middle. Or connected as they would be if they were on top of the front speakers.


Yes, i meant atmos enabled upfiring speakers....Here's a quote from Dolby's guide

"We recommend installing four Dolby Atmos enabled speakers whenever possible. The use of four speakers will make the placement of overhead sounds more accurate, and you’ll get more precise, realistic sounds when an object, such as a helicopter, passes overhead. Two of the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers (whether they are integrated speakers or add-on modules) should be placed in the left front and right front speaker locations of your system. The other two should be positioned ideally in the rear surround speaker locations or alternatively in the surround sound speaker locations. If you are using only two Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, place them at the left front and right front speaker locations"

I was asking if anyone has experience just using 2 atmos upfiring speakers in a 5.2.2, but instead of placing them on top of the front speakers (as dolby quotes), placed it on top of the surround speakers to the side/side-back of listener.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

HIRES_FAN said:


> Yes, i meant atmos enabled upfiring speakers....Here's a quote from Dolby's guide
> 
> "We recommend installing four Dolby Atmos enabled speakers whenever possible. The use of four speakers will make the placement of overhead sounds more accurate, and you’ll get more precise, realistic sounds when an object, such as a helicopter, passes overhead. Two of the Dolby Atmos enabled speakers (whether they are integrated speakers or add-on modules) should be placed in the left front and right front speaker locations of your system. The other two should be positioned ideally in the rear surround speaker locations or alternatively in the surround sound speaker locations. If you are using only two Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, place them at the left front and right front speaker locations"
> 
> I was asking if anyone has experience just using 2 atmos upfiring speakers in a 5.2.2, but instead of placing them on top of the front speakers (as dolby quotes), placed it on top of the surround speakers to the side/side-back of listener.


I can't speak to just x.x.2 with them at that position, but I ran the Pioneer upfirers for a bit in a 5.1.4 setup at front and side locations (and they're now collecting dust in my closet). You may have to play with the angle a bit to get them to bounce toward your seats. I used a couple of stick-on rubber feet to better aim mine. It should basically sound like top mid if you calibrate it well.


----------



## X4100

Is there any reason why you can't utilize on wall/ceiling speakers?


----------



## Warbird7

Sorry if this has been covered ...

It is clear when "Atmos" is being decoded and played, as my AVR says "Dolby Atmos" on the display and the "Atmos" speaker set lights up corresponding to my "Atmos" speakers (I have a DENON AVR-X8500HA).

Apparently "Atmos" can be decoded from (at least) two different encodings ( #19,028),
1. lossy formats like DD+ and
2. lossless formats like HD.

How can one tell if the source is sending a lossy "Atmos" format like DD+ or a lossless "Atmos" format like HD? Without looking on the disc box, or guessing what I think ROKU or the PC is sending, etc. The AVR knows the source, it has to decode it. It would be nice to know that the "Atmos" I am listening to was coming from a lossless source.


----------



## MagnumX

Warbird7 said:


> Sorry if this has been covered ...
> 
> It is clear when "Atmos" is being decoded and played, as my AVR says "Dolby Atmos" on the display and the "Atmos" speaker set lights up corresponding to my "Atmos" speakers (I have a DENON AVR-X8500HA).
> 
> Apparently "Atmos" can be decoded from (at least) two different encodings ( #19,028),
> 1. lossy formats like DD+ and
> 2. lossless formats like HD.
> 
> How can one tell if the source is sending a lossy "Atmos" format like DD+ or a lossless "Atmos" format like HD? Without looking on the disc box, or guessing what I think ROKU or the PC is sending, etc. The AVR knows the source, it has to decode it. It would be nice to know that the "Atmos" I am listening to was coming from a lossless source.


Unless you dump Blu-Rays yourself, they are normally the only source of TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. However, on my Marantz AVR, pressing the INFO button shows the source signal (TrueHD or DD+, etc.) on-screen. I imagine the Denon is similar since they have the same parent company.


----------



## X4100

I have the Denon AVR X4100, and I'm able to get the same information by pressing the info button


----------



## Warbird7

MagnumX said:


> Unless you dump Blu-Rays yourself, they are normally the only source of TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. However, on my Marantz AVR, pressing the INFO button shows the source signal (TrueHD or DD+, etc.) on-screen. I imagine the Denon is similar since they have the same parent company.





X4100 said:


> I have the Denon AVR X4100, and I'm able to get the same information by pressing the info button


Thank you both, good to know...I will try the "Info" button on my X8500HA when it comes back from the shop.
One wonders when we will get lossless TrueHD Atmos streaming. Until then, I guess I'll keep my disc player (currently using an Xbox Series X).


----------



## X4100

I'd love to hear more immersive atmos blurays!


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> Unless you dump Blu-Rays yourself, they are normally the only source of TrueHD Atmos soundtracks. However, on my Marantz AVR, pressing the INFO button shows the source signal (TrueHD or DD+, etc.) on-screen. I imagine the Denon is similar since they have the same parent company.


It is, yes, but you can't do that to get the AVR's own "Info" display in a very common scenario (streaming services using TV apps via ARC audio over HDMI).

For that scenario, you have to use the Denon app. Here's an example from my Denon x4200W using the Denon "AVR Remote" app with a Dolby Atmos-in-DD+ source. The front panel display doesn't distinguish between lossy and lossless Atmos, so it's the only way - but it always works.






















Warbird7 said:


> One wonders when we will get lossless TrueHD Atmos streaming


As the soundtrack for a *video *service: not for many years, if ever, is my prediction, sadly


----------



## dschulz

Lossless compression is preferable, of course, but at decent bitrates lossy compression nowadays is close to perceptually transparent. The sound quality being delivered by today's streaming services is better than DVD, better than Dolby Digital on 35mm film, better than OTA HDTV, better than any cable or satellite TV service. Switching over to lossless audio would be pretty low on my priority list were I in charge of streaming service delivery engineering.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Lossless compression is preferable, of course, but at decent bitrates lossy compression nowadays is close to perceptually transparent. The sound quality being delivered by today's streaming services is better than DVD, better than Dolby Digital on 35mm film, better than OTA HDTV, better than any cable or satellite TV service. Switching over to lossless audio would be pretty low on my priority list were I in charge of streaming service delivery engineering.


Don't tell that to the people at the Blu-Ray forums. They'd get out their torches and pitchforks.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Don't tell that to the people at the Blu-Ray forums. They'd get out their torches and pitchforks.


I provoked a similar mob of angry villagers in the Kaleidescape forum. 😎


----------



## mrvideo

Warbird7 said:


> One wonders when we will get lossless TrueHD Atmos streaming. Until then, I guess I'll keep my disc player (currently using an Xbox Series X).


The bitrate is too high for that.


----------



## priitv8

Warbird7 said:


> One wonders when we will get lossless TrueHD Atmos streaming.


I understand that streaming services like fixed-bitrate codecs.
TrueHD is a variable bitrate codec.


----------



## MagnumX

I bought the special edition "Sphere" box set of *PHANTASM* which includes the 1st movie with a brand new Dolby Atmos soundtrack and the 2nd movie is remastered from a 4K scan (in 2K), but otherwise matches the previous box set (save for a imitation prop of one of the spheres included, which is neat). If you've never seen the Phantasm series, it's a special kind of B-Movie Awesome, right up there with the first few Hellraiser movies and starting from a similar near-nothing budget, yet surprisingly high quality (they rented a top-of-the-line Panavision camera for 1.85 widescreen and it paid off as the movie still looks great 41 years later.

The bottom line relative to this forum, however is the Dolby Atmos soundtrack included pretty much sucks. There's not a lot of big surround events to begin with, but there is some thunder right towards the very end of the movie and it's not in the overhead speakers! WTF!??! If I run Neural X on it (or the previous version 5.1 soundtrack), Neural X puts it on the ceiling! Go figure. 

I don't know who these people are that do these Atmos soundtracks, but they are clearly not qualified to do them. The soundtrack pretty much sounds like someone just copied the 5.1 soundtrack over, hit encode and got a big shiny "Atmos" label on the receiver that means NOTHING. They might as well have done that to all the films in the series while they were at it. 

Dolby could probably make a small fortune selling mixing services to Hollywood to do PROPER Atmos soundtracks! I feel like I might just write them and suggest exactly that. A couple of demo example improvements to an existing Dolby WhoCrapsTheMost (Crapmos) soundtrack would do wonders to convince, IMO. As it is, all these fixed object and generally crappy Atmos soundtracks remind me of all the Atari 2600 games that came out in the 1980s, 99% of which were pure garbage, which was one of the biggest contributors of the video game market crashing in 1983. I think DTS could make some high-end headway if they put out much better quality remixes in 'X', but that really hasn't happened either.

The sad thing is much of this movie is outdoors at night in a graveyard, on the road, etc. There are crickets galore...in the front channels. Where are the crickets all around me? When the kid enters the space gate, why is there no blast of wind all around me? Etc. etc. It's a joke. Unless you really want the toy prop or a sharper 2nd movie, don't waste your money if you already have the 1st box set.


My Sphere-O-Fear from the box set (I made the little placard printout for display purposes on the shelf with other props since I didn't have room for a full size poster)


----------



## vn800art

"Dolby WhoCrapsTheMost (Crapmos)"
One of the best neologism, AvsForum style, Kudos @MagnumX !
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## halcyon_888

I spent some coin upgrading to Atmos and it's really disappointing that most tracks are "crapmos" or "flatmos". I think the ball is dropped more than it is ran for a touchdown, so my two height speakers most of the time are hanging from the ceiling waiting for something to come through them but most of the time it doesn't.

It makes me wonder if Dolby has tools for the sound engineers that would upmix regular bed channels in the studio, then the engineers could encode that and move on or continue with the mixing process and make adjustments. Said upmixer could be--or should be--better than our on-the-fly DSU/DTS:NeuralX, so this studio upmixer would be like the 4k studio upscaling that is done for video transfers. Not quite true 4k, but better than not having it done at all. If this is kind of tool is already available to the sound engineers, I'm not researched enough to know about it.


----------



## Warbird7

Can someone please explain how these goofy (technical term) "Atmos" floor speakers work? I mean the ones that attempt to fire up from the ground array and bounce off the ceiling. How could that possibly work? The sound has to travel twice the distance. And if the rest of the system was delayed for correct time alignment, wouldn't that require delaying the video as well, complicating an already challenging lip sync issue? I could see that "might" be possible with enough porocessing. But the idea that a sound bar could have a prayer of doing anything close to Atmos, seems to me like a total joke. What am I missing?


----------



## MagnumX

Warbird7 said:


> Can someone please explain how these goofy (technical term) "Atmos" floor speakers work? I mean the ones that attempt to fire up from the ground array and bounce off the ceiling. How could that possibly work?


I think most would agree it doesn't (not very well, in any case). They are frequency limited and you're right, the time delay causes issues. The best ones I've seen are mounted as high as they could put them behind the TV or something so that direct sound can't go straight to the listening seats. But then if you're going to mount high on the walls, why not just use wall-mount speakers instead, which would likely work much better than trying to bounce sound (It's not lasers we're talking about; sound doesn't reflect like light).



> But the idea that a sound bar could have a prayer of doing anything close to Atmos, seems to me like a total joke. What am I missing?


You're not missing anything other than feelings get hurt sometimes by those that have them. Some claim they get good results, but I have my doubts. Most Atmos soundtracks have poor overhead use as it is. This just makes it even less likely to hear overhead.


----------



## dschulz

Warbird7 said:


> Can someone please explain how these goofy (technical term) "Atmos" floor speakers work? I mean the ones that attempt to fire up from the ground array and bounce off the ceiling. How could that possibly work? The sound has to travel twice the distance. And if the rest of the system was delayed for correct time alignment, wouldn't that require delaying the video as well, complicating an already challenging lip sync issue? I could see that "might" be possible with enough porocessing. But the idea that a sound bar could have a prayer of doing anything close to Atmos, seems to me like a total joke. What am I missing?


I've heard demos using them that were very, very good: and had no issues whatsoever with lip sync; they _can_ work well, with a few caveats. They work best if you have a flat ceiling, with no obstructions (lights or ceiling fans, better with a flat ceiling than a popcorn ceiling). They work using physics and psychoacoustics: the physics is limiting them to upper frequencies with narrow dispersion drivers, so that the sound _beams_, so to speak, and baffles to keep you from hearing the direct sound, only the reflected sound. The psychoacoustics comes into play by applying a notch filter that helps to trick the brain into ignoring the direct sound, and paying attention only to the sound bouncing down off the ceiling.

These are all well understood, well-tested principles, and they work as advertised. But they don't work as well as good in or on-ceiling speakers, and, again, they don't work too well if you have weird shaped ceilings, popcorn ceilings, fans, lights, etc.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> On a related note, I binged The Mysterious Benedict Society on Disney Plus over the weekend and that show has some pretty solid use of Atmos. Not just for height-specific sound, but for ambience in general. Pretty immersive mix throughout. It was nice to hear a non-cinema release get that much attention and care on the audio side. The show itself has kind of a Wes Anderson vibe to it, and I ended up really enjoying it.


Started watching this thanks to your post but haven't got into it yet 
Hopefully gets better as it goes ??


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> I've heard demos using them that were very, very good: and had no issues whatsoever with lip sync; they _can_ work well, with a few caveats. They work best if you have a flat ceiling, with no obstructions (lights or ceiling fans, better with a flat ceiling than a popcorn ceiling). They work using physics and psychoacoustics: the physics is limiting them to upper frequencies with narrow dispersion drivers, so that the sound _beams_, so to speak, and baffles to keep you from hearing the direct sound, only the reflected sound. The psychoacoustics comes into play by applying a notch filter that helps to trick the brain into ignoring the direct sound, and paying attention only to the sound bouncing down off the ceiling.
> 
> *These are all well understood, well-tested principles, and they work as advertised.* But they don't work as well as good in or on-ceiling speakers, and, again, they don't work too well if you have weird shaped ceilings, popcorn ceilings, fans, lights, etc.


They work as advertised? I don't know anyone else that thinks that offhand. You're probably the first person I've seen claim they work as advertised. Some people have said they're better than nothing, but I've seen a lot of people say they're worse than nothing because they can cause destructive interference with the ear level speakers as direct sound typically still comes out of them and mixes with the ear level stuff.

Audio doesn't really "beam" like light at most audible frequencies. Try turning your main speakers sideways or backwards or lie them on their backs facing upward. The sound STILL comes from the speaker, not the ceiling or the back or side walls. You just get worse frequency response (this is called off-axis response). Sound leakage from the direct sound will always reach the ears first (shorter distance means precedence effect which says your brain hears the first sound arrival, which takes precedence over later arrivals and thus you hear it at ear level rather than overhead because that sound arrives AFTER the direct sound as it has a longer path to take up to the ceiling and then back down again compared to the waves coming directly at you). That basic fact alone makes the entire notion of these speakers a hard pill to swallow, IMO.

Now maybe the guy that put his speakers behind a baffle (Furniture shelves that hold the TV) has a system that would work fairly well because it literally blocks most of the direct sound, but a piece of foam that most of these speakers use isn't going to cut it. I've gotten a bounce to work from surround speakers mounted behind my chair pointed sideways to hit the side walls on secondary system because the direct sound is mostly blocked, but having them directly in front of you is another matter. "Bouncy" speakers can also interfere with the sound from the mains at ear level and can cause destructive interference patterns as those sounds were not meant to come from ear level, but they do because a little piece of foam or a driver pointed upwards doesn't make the sound only go in that direction. 

I think Dolby did harm to their company's reputation pushing those things (They even suggested they sound/work better than the ceiling ones when they first released them, which got mentioned in more than a few reviews as ridiculous). They _could_ have supported height speakers on the wall which would work a magnitude better and they could easily compensate for the distance apart in the renderer, but they didn't want to give Auro-3D any breathing room. 

Frankly, their *height virtualizer* would be the better choice at this stage (It wasn't available when home Atmos first came out) as it's at least based on sound physics. I've heard the DTS one and it's reasonably convincing at the MLP with most material it works with.


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> I've heard demos using them that were very, very good: and had no issues whatsoever with lip sync; they _can_ work well, with a few caveats. They work best if you have a flat ceiling, with no obstructions (lights or ceiling fans, better with a flat ceiling than a popcorn ceiling). They work using physics and psychoacoustics: the physics is limiting them to upper frequencies with narrow dispersion drivers, so that the sound _beams_, so to speak, and baffles to keep you from hearing the direct sound, only the reflected sound. The psychoacoustics comes into play by applying a notch filter that helps to trick the brain into ignoring the direct sound, and paying attention only to the sound bouncing down off the ceiling.


I agree with you that given not so high (7ft for me), flat and reflective (drywall) ceiling, they definitely elevate the "sound bubble" to above the ear level, creating a more immersive effect.
I do not believe my Sony AVR performs any psychoacustic manipulation of the signal. The filter network inside my speakers (Sony SS-CSE) can potentially create required bias, but that has not been proven. Reflection from ceiling creates a more diffused sound, obviously.







Otherwise, the height channels, nor the speakers themselves have been limited in frequency (do not see it in my REW measurements). Although raising the cut-off filter to 200Hz in the AVR has improved the "focus" above the head. The most effect I got from creation of the front sound guards that prevent spillage in direct line to the listener: DIY Atmos-Enabled


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I've heard demos using them that were very, very good: and had no issues whatsoever with lip sync; they _can_ work well, with a few caveats.


Likewise, heard very good results with proper set-up. Not just sound overhead but vertical phantom imaging (sounds floating between ear height and the ceiling, like the circling helicopter track on the Atmos demo disc). Rather than make perfect the enemy of good, I'd rather break Atmos into 3 tiers: speakers overhead, upfiring modules, height virtualizer. Nothing beats having speakers physically above you but, when that is not possible, the other two can give some height effect (which is better than no height effect).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Started watching this thanks to your post but haven't got into it yet
> Hopefully gets better as it goes ??


It is a weird little show and takes a minute to get rolling... but the Atmos is pretty well done and I liked the goofiness of it. Definitely geared toward kids though.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I've gotten a bounce to work from surround speakers mounted behind my chair pointed sideways to hit the side walls


And I thought I was the only one who did that 


Jeremy Anderson said:


> It is a weird little show and takes a minute to get rolling... but the Atmos is pretty well done and I liked the goofiness of it. Definitely geared toward kids though.


Yeah I was planning on watching it with my 12yr old - will give it another go


----------



## noah katz

It would be a lot more of a problem if the overhead sound needed to be keyed to on-screen dialogue/action, but hardly important for effects.



Warbird7 said:


> Can someone please explain how these goofy (technical term) "Atmos" floor speakers work? I mean the ones that attempt to fire up from the ground array and bounce off the ceiling. How could that possibly work? The sound has to travel twice the distance. And if the rest of the system was delayed for correct time alignment, wouldn't that require delaying the video as well, complicating an already challenging lip sync issue?


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Likewise, heard very good results with proper set-up. Not just sound overhead but vertical phantom imaging (*sounds floating between ear height and the ceiling, like the circling helicopter track on the Atmos demo disc*). Rather than make perfect the enemy of good, I'd rather break Atmos into 3 tiers: speakers overhead, upfiring modules, height virtualizer. Nothing beats having speakers physically above you but, when that is not possible, the other two can give some height effect (which is better than no height effect).


That sound is _supposed_ to be on the ceiling 100% (overhead speaker ONLY), not "floating between". That you heard it floating somewhere "somewhere between" indicates to me the effect is NOT working properly, perhaps not even at all.



noah katz said:


> It would be a lot more of a problem if the overhead sound needed to be keyed to on-screen dialogue/action, but hardly important for effects.


Why would that be a problem? Sound travels fast enough that any timing difference between the ceiling bounce and its arrival is not going to be delayed _enough_ to notice it as anything more than a slight reverb change. I've certainly got movies and especially music that _do_ place dialog in the height channels (_Gravity_ being one such movie and Yello's album _Point_ being an album example). The real problem is the direct arrival from the speaker getting to your ears first, which is why the ceiling bounce is not very effectual since the Precedence Effect places the sound location from the first arrival, not the second (or more) one.


----------



## Warbird7

noah katz said:


> It would be a lot more of a problem if the overhead sound needed to be keyed to on-screen dialogue/action, but hardly important for effects.


I agree its perhaps not as important as lip sync where one can see lips move, but the blurring effect of time mis-alignment due to the sound having to bounce off the ceiling and travel twice the distance, is significant. I wonder if DSP algorithms like Audyssey use the reflected sounds as the 0ms origin and delay the rest of the system, including the video? Probably not. The temporary buffer storage requirement for 100ms of 8K video and TrueHD audio would be a factor. Not to mention that would require the video to route thru the processor.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Warbird7 said:


> I agree its perhaps not as important as lip sync where one can see lips move, but the blurring effect of time mis-alignment due to the sound having to bounce off the ceiling and travel twice the distance, is significant. I wonder if DSP algorithms like Audyssey use the reflected sounds as the 0ms origin and delay the rest of the system, including the video? Probably not. The temporary buffer storage requirement for 100ms of 8K video and TrueHD audio would be a factor.


Audyssey measures the direct sound from the speaker. Older AVRs had a built-in assumption of 8 foot ceilings to give a general delay for upfirers. Newer AVRs let you input the distance from speaker to ceiling so it can do a little better job at setting the delay for upfirers. Even then, a little tweaking of that distance goes a long way to snapping the effect into place around you. But in most rooms, the distance/delay you're talking about isn't going to be an issue, and certainly not "twice the distance". I've had two rooms with upfirers and noticed no discernable lipsync issues. And almost every room I've experienced with upfirers benefitted from tweaks to the delays to get a coherent Atmos effect.


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> Likewise, heard very good results with proper set-up. Not just sound overhead but vertical phantom imaging (sounds floating between ear height and the ceiling, like the circling helicopter track on the Atmos demo disc). Rather than make perfect the enemy of good, I'd rather break Atmos into 3 tiers: speakers overhead, upfiring modules, height virtualizer. Nothing beats having speakers physically above you but, when that is not possible, the other two can give some height effect (which is better than no height effect).


Agreed. I've worked on a number of very high end private cinemas where putting speakers into the existing exquisitely designed ceiling just wasn't an option. Although this solution does lack some of the spatial accuracy you might get from properly placed ceiling speakers, the effect can be very immersive.


----------



## markus767

appelz said:


> Agreed. I've worked on a number of very high end private cinemas where putting speakers into the existing exquisitely designed ceiling just wasn't an option. Although this solution does lack some of the spatial accuracy you might get from properly placed ceiling speakers, the effect can be very immersive.


Turning your stereo speakers to the ceiling can also be "very immersive"  I've done extensive testing how to make ceiling firing Atmos speakers work, even built reflectors, used heavy absorption, implemented custom bass management but the result is not the same as having a speaker in the ceiling. Not even close.

Furthermore you have to deal with the limitations how Atmos enabled speakers are implemented in SSPs and room corrections software...


----------



## sdrucker

appelz said:


> Agreed. I've worked on a number of very high end private cinemas where putting speakers into the existing exquisitely designed ceiling just wasn't an option. Although this solution does lack some of the spatial accuracy you might get from properly placed ceiling speakers, the effect can be very immersive.


While upfiring speakers aren't appropriate unless you have the right kind of ceiling (e.g. cement in a room with 8' height, or close to it), and you've got the right seating distance to pick up the "bounce" effects, IMO they can offer at least the illusion of the overhead effect intended in the Atmos mix.

I had the PSB Imagine XAs designed by Paul Barton, which IIRC Dolby used in a demo themselves at ISE several years back, with a specific angled design and testing in Canada's NRC. They did a pretty good job in my room of 2016-2017, with an 8.5' ceiling and a seated distance to MLP of about 10 feet when I played the Atmos demos, the opening scenes of Unbroken and Star Trek: Into Darkness, and IIRC Independence Day (DTS:X).This was a 2nd generation upfiring speaker after the early ones that Pioneer had done that were built into towers they'd sold, or the really early Triads.

In my case I had the Imagine XAs on top of my mains and my rear surrounds at about 42" from the floor, so you had about 4' from the speaker to the ceiling.

What I remember was that there was more of a sense of diffusive sound overhead than precision, but sometimes the effect was surprisingly pinpoint on, say, an airplane flyover up front. It did less well for front to back vs. left to right panning though.

For anyone that thinks that Trinnov made the difference here, the only thing that maybe I could do that I couldn't do with another processor with the upfiring speakers was to enhance the "notch" effect on the Dolby Atmos target curve a little on their target curves.

No reason that with proper placement and the proper ceiling that it couldn't work for someone, especially with custom Triad AEs, PSB, the new ones Monitor Audio developed last year, etc., especially with separate midrange/tweeter drivers.

BTW I went to the CEDIA 2014 demos that Pioneer did with their upfirers, and while it sounded different (and agreed, not as precise) then the ones I remembered going to with in-ceiling designs, the overhead effect was noticeable.

It's a long way back, but I believe Keith Barnes went to the original Dolby rollout of Atmos in London where they did a quick A/B of in-ceiling vs. Dolby AE speakers and had the audience vote on which they preferred. If I remember correctly it was a wash.

I found his review from way back in 2014:








Dolby Atmos For The Home: Personal Views & Bluray...


This thread contains reviews I have made of various aspects of Dolby Atmos (for the home), gathered together in one place for convenience. I shall add Bluray reviews of Atmos movies as the titles come my way. The first few articles relate various experiences I had at Dolby Labs London HQ and I...




www.avsforum.com





Not that I'd trade Dolby AE for in-ceilings due to the precision, if you can possibly work that out with ceiling placement or speakers that you can have on mounts and tweak for orienting toward the MLP row.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> Turning your stereo speakers to the ceiling can also be "very immersive"  I've done extensive testing how to make ceiling firing Atmos speakers work, even built reflectors, used heavy absorption, implemented custom bass management but the result is not the same as having a speaker in the ceiling. Not even close.


I don't think anyone here was trying to say that it's the same as having a speaker in the ceiling... Just that it can work fairly well in the absence of being able to put speakers in/on the ceiling, and is definitely better than no Atmos at all. I think everyone who has heard both will certainly attest that speakers in those locations are far superior to upfirers.

In my case, I moved out of a house where I had 4 in-ceilings into a 2-story house where upfirers were the only option if I wanted Atmos in the living room. I wasn't keen on them either, but after picking up a pair of the Pioneer upfirers out of curiosity, I was quite surprised at how well it worked once I did some careful aiming and tweaking. Ended up buying two more to put on my side surrounds and that improved the effect even more and you could easily track object placement where expected when playing the Atmos demo disc. And that was with me having already heard in-ceilings in the house before and a front height/top mid layout in the house before that, and having heard those demo clips countless times. Was it as good as actual in-ceilings? Of course not. Was it better than straight 5.1? Absolutely.

All that having been said, after buying my current house and temporarily using the upfirers in a 7.1.4 setup in my new dedicated room, I stuck 4 SVS Prime Elevations on the ceiling and shoved the Pioneers in the closet. But I would never begrudge anyone using upfirers if that's their only option. And if someone wanted to try upfirers on the cheap because that's their only option, I'd probably drag the Pioneers out and make them a good enough deal on them that even if it didn't work out for them, at least they wouldn't be out much money.


----------



## MagnumX

The Dolby Marketing Kool Aid is _strong_ today....


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> The Dolby Marketing Kool Aid is _strong_ today....


Also people with experience with the Dolby AEs, and comments from an expert calibrator (and teacher of the Home Acoustics Alliance hands-on workshop on room design and calibration, Adam Pelz).

By the way, I replaced the Imagine XAs when I had a contractor install my overheads in the ceiling. They're actually outdoor speakers, but they're on a mount attached to the ceiling so the speakers could be adjusted horizontally and vertically in aiming at the listening area. I wanted more pinpoint imagery, but the XAs didn't suck.


----------



## sdrucker

markus767 said:


> Furthermore you have to deal with the limitations how Atmos enabled speakers are implemented in SSPs and room corrections software...


That is true. If there's no delay adjustment to tune, the crossovers aren't set up right, or they don't have that "notch" adjustment to the speaker target curve to compliment what's built into the speaker design it's less than optimal IMO.

I could see why this might be an issue using Dolby AEs with, say, Dirac unless the user can adjust accordingly.


----------



## appelz

markus767 said:


> Turning your stereo speakers to the ceiling can also be "very immersive"  I've done extensive testing how to make ceiling firing Atmos speakers work, even built reflectors, used heavy absorption, implemented custom bass management but the result is not the same as having a speaker in the ceiling. Not even close.
> 
> Furthermore you have to deal with the limitations how Atmos enabled speakers are implemented in SSPs and room corrections software...


I don't think anyone claimed it was the same thing. It is clearly a compromise, but calibrating 50+ rooms every year, my experience is that I would prefer having Dolby Enabled speakers over none. It is a valid solution when called for.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> Lossless compression is preferable, of course, but at decent bitrates lossy compression nowadays is close to perceptually transparent. The sound quality being delivered by today's streaming services is better than DVD, better than Dolby Digital on 35mm film, better than OTA HDTV, better than any cable or satellite TV service. Switching over to lossless audio would be pretty low on my priority list were I in charge of streaming service delivery engineering.


Exactly, which is why I consider streaming Atmos content in DD+ or MAT to be acceptable at the bitrates that you get from Tidal or Apple Music. At least for me, it's a better value than ordering BDs if they're available streamed. Only problem is if the streaming services drop certain content, and it's smart to bookmark albums or tracks you like in your app library.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> The Dolby Marketing Kool Aid is _strong_ today....


I dunno. You have a couple people who have never heard them say they can’t possibly work, and a half dozen people who have actually heard them, installed them, calibrated them etc. say they work pretty well. One possibility is Dolby marketing magic, another possibility is that they…actually do work.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't think anyone here was trying to say that it's the same as having a speaker in the ceiling...


Like being against video upscaling because it will never be the same as true 4K sources.


----------



## sdurani

appelz said:


> It is a valid solution when called for.


I've never seen a product for which there has been such a sustained straw man argument against: _'it's not the same as speakers physically mounted overhead'_. Who said it was? Upfiring modules are a solution to a problem (can't make holes in the ceiling). Likewise, the Atmos virtualizer is also a solution to a problem (ceiling not conducive to upfiring modules). No one is pretending that they're not a compromise.


----------



## noah katz

On 2nd thought I agree w/MX.



MagnumX said:


> Why would that be a problem? Sound travels fast enough that any timing difference between the ceiling bounce and its arrival is not going to be delayed _enough_ to notice it as anything more than a slight reverb change.





Warbird7 said:


> I agree its perhaps not as important as lip sync where one can see lips move, but the blurring effect of time mis-alignment due to the sound having to bounce off the ceiling and travel twice the distance, is significant.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Also people with experience with the Dolby AEs, and comments from an expert calibrator (and teacher of the Home Acoustics Alliance hands-on workshop on room design and calibration, Adam Pelz).
> 
> By the way, I replaced the Imagine XAs when I had a contractor install my overheads in the ceiling. They're actually outdoor speakers, but they're on a mount attached to the ceiling so the speakers could be adjusted horizontally and vertically in aiming at the listening area. I wanted more pinpoint imagery, but the XAs didn't suck.


It's hard enough lately to find real discrete overhead use in many so-called "Atmos" soundtracks (I use quotes because so many barely use overheads as it is, often used fixed objects instead of moving ones which destroy higher count speaker systems like your own and generally ignore Dolby's own examples of proper Atmos). 

Now try to make it work with a ceiling bounce where physics itself is working against you (Direct leakage from the speaker will arrive at your ear first, making it the sound you hear, not the ceiling bounce, which is closer in analogy to side wall reverb in nature from a main speaker aimed outward). Unless you can block that direct sound (PSB's foam is only going to be partially effective) it's going to interfere and be an uphill battle.

The thing is that are far better alternatives including the Dolby Height Virtualizer that sounds far more convincing to my ears than any ceiling bounce speaker. It wasn't available when Atmos first came out, but now it is and so I see (or rather hear) no compelling reason to use a worse solution that is only partially effective at best. 

There's also side-wall height speakers where the ceiling isn't an option. It's not a perfect match for Dolby's layout, but I fail to see how it's worse than a bounce from the side that they do support.

And of course there's "on-ceiling" as you yourself now use that doesn't involve cutting holes in the ceiling beyond a simple bolt. You have the PSB CS1000. I myself use the slightly smaller PSB CS500. It's a great alternative to in-ceiling and works just as well, IMO.

Bouncy speakers would literally be dead last on my list of ways to implement Atmos sound given the above mentioned alternatives. What's bothering me is the posts that claim it works as advertised (Dolby even once tried to make it sound like it was "better" than ceiling speakers, which might sell more of those speakers, but it was dishonest, IMO). PSB's XA speaker might be better than most bouncy speakers, but it's a poor substitute for the real thing, IMO. 

The height virtualizer has some audible leakage in test tones, but puts fairly convincing perceived sounds on the ceiling and requires no extra speakers at all beyond 5.1 or 7.1.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I want to add... While upfirers can work (to my surprise, honestly), in my experience, I still don't think they are as easy for the end user to get _right_ as they need to be. There's a bit too much generalization there. For instance, each company who makes them seems to have settled on a slightly different angle for the baffle, different ways of trying to solve the direct sound vs. reflected sound, filtering, etc. And what I found with the Pioneers is that you definitely have to do more careful aiming than your average consumer would ever do before writing it off as snake oil. I had the flexibility of being able to move things around, and I ultimately got the best results by shimming the back side of the upfirers a bit so the reflection reached further into the room (and not gonna lie - at one point, I used a flashlight and a mirror so I could visualize where the bounce was ending up). But I also had the benefit of knowing what I was listening for, having had in-ceiling speakers before, so I would put on Dolby demo clips that I knew well and make changes until it snapped into place. Your average Joe is just going to run Audyssey and assume it's as it should be, and that was definitely NOT my experience when using upfirers (whereas it is far more likely with actual speakers in those locations). I would say that anyone using upfirers who just ran auto-cal would almost definitely be disappointed in the end result if they had ever heard the real thing. The other big generalization is that with their dependence upon HRTF to some extent, one person could tweak things so they sound perfectly overhead as they should... and then someone else come into that room and not necessarily get the same effect.

So as much as I think Dolby was aiming for a consumer-friendly way to handle it at the time, I would honestly say that from a calibration standpoint, it takes way less work to get an actual in/on-ceiling speaker setup working as designed than a system with upfirers... and that's a pretty big obstacle for the consumer market. But for an enthusiast who is willing to fiddle with it a bit? I still think they're worth trying if you just can't put a speaker up there any other way.


----------



## markus767

appelz said:


> I don't think anyone claimed it was the same thing. It is clearly a compromise, but calibrating 50+ rooms every year, my experience is that I would prefer having Dolby Enabled speakers over none. It is a valid solution when called for.


I don't think it is a valid solution. It is an entirely different thing than having speakers in the ceiling. Sure you can like the effect but at the same time it can be detrimental to the signal from the floor speakers. Do you align to the ceiling bounce or the direct sound? If you do the former you'll get comb filter effects at lower frequencies, if you do the latter the ceiling bounce becomes just an amplified reflection. Add in the uncertainties of ceiling texture, speaker angle and dispersion...


----------



## markus767

sdurani said:


> I've never seen a product for which there has been such a sustained straw man argument against: _'it's not the same as speakers physically mounted overhead'_. *Who said it was?* Upfiring modules are a solution to a problem (can't make holes in the ceiling). Likewise, the Atmos virtualizer is also a solution to a problem (ceiling not conducive to upfiring modules). No one is pretending that they're not a compromise.


Marketing and sales is clearly sending a very different message, "You can have a 'valid' Atmos experience without cutting holes in your ceiling and putting countless speakers in your room". The sales numbers of Atmos soundbars is a testimony to that. Heck, even something like a Echo Studio can do "Atmos" these days. Read the marketing verbiage. Where does it say "this device is a solution to a problem"? It says that this thing is the best since sliced bread: Echo Studio with Dolby Atmos


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> Do you align to the ceiling bounce or the direct sound? If you do the former you'll get comb filter effects at lower frequencies,


Low frequencies can't be aimed or reflected directionally anyway, so it's no different than a regular speaker.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> Low frequencies can't be aimed or reflected directionally anyway, so it's no different than a regular speaker.


What are you trying to say? I was talking about time alignment.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> What are you trying to say? I was talking about time alignment.


What lower frequencies were you talking about re: time alignment though? Upfirers are crossed over pretty high because, as Noah said, the low frequencies can't be aimed/reflected. I think the Pioneers I have are meant to be crossed over around 180Hz. Just curious what you meant.


----------



## markus767

Jeremy Anderson said:


> What lower frequencies were you talking about re: time alignment though? Upfirers are crossed over pretty high because, as Noah said, the low frequencies can't be aimed/reflected. I think the Pioneers I have are meant to be crossed over around 180Hz. Just curious what you meant.


180Hz is way too low as the upward-firing speaker will only have the required high directivity beginning at a few hundred to a few thousand Hertz.
Even if you would apply a higher crossover point and a corresponding delay you now have created two sound sources where the lower frequencies are coming from the floor speaker the upward-firing driver is sitting on and the higher frequencies are coming from above (ceiling reflection). This is perceptually no longer a single sound even.
Furthermore the lower frequencies of the ceiling speaker channel are delayed (so they match the ceiling reflection) and mixed into the corresponding floor speaker which will create massive comb filter distortion when the signal of these two speaker channels is correlated.
It's not a solution. Been there done that.


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Marketing and sales is clearly sending a very different message, "You can have a 'valid' Atmos experience without cutting holes in your ceiling and putting countless speakers in your room". The sales numbers of Atmos soundbars is a testimony to that. Heck, even something like a Echo Studio can do "Atmos" these days. Read the marketing verbiage. Where does it say "this device is a solution to a problem"? It says that this thing is the best since sliced bread: Echo Studio with Dolby Atmos


Exactly. It's a disaster from a functional high quality standpoint and between sound bars and upfiring speakers and the plethora of "where's the beef" Crapmos soundtracks where there's virtually no difference between the previous 5.1 soundtrack or only during the car chase scene or whatever, it can negatively affect the entire Atmos name and credibility. Many consumers will write it off as a gimmick name just to make more money as they can't hear any difference whatsoever or very little, particularly with few audio shops and showrooms these days (good luck previewing a sound bar or speakers at Best Buy, let alone doing it _properly_). This kind of stuff can give the entire industry a black eye. 

We want more people to enjoy quality audio, not more people thinking it's all snake oil and a waste of money. The only good thing at all about any of it is that it might keep Atmos alive and kicking, like it or not, few good soundtracks or not. The entire home theater industry is looking at a cliff edge from what I've been reading over the past few years. It's ironic since TVs and projectors have never been higher quality than they are now, but the audio, receiver, speakers and physical disc side of things are in peril. Look at that awesome 8K picture with that tiny sound bar! Ugh.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> What are you trying to say? I was talking about time alignment.


I was talking about LF comb filtering of an upfiring vs. regular speaker, saying there's no difference.



markus767 said:


> the upward-firing speaker will only have the required high directivity beginning at a few hundred to a few thousand Hertz.


Even for a 12" woofer it will be ~1kHz.



markus767 said:


> ...you now have created two sound sources where the lower frequencies are coming from the floor speaker the upward-firing driver is sitting on and the higher frequencies are coming from above (ceiling reflection). This is perceptually no longer a single sound even.


I believe it takes on the order of 50ms for an echo to be perceived as two separate sounds.

And that's for substantially the same sound, whereas we're talking about separating the LF from mid/high, which will make it much harder to distinguish.

Even with a tall 10' ceiling and 3' speaker height and sitting right next to it (giving max possible delay), that's just a 14ms difference.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> I was talking about LF comb filtering of an upfiring vs. regular speaker, saying there's no difference.


There is as the frequency range where sound is coming from the same direction is much larger for the upfiring speaker compared to the ceiling speaker.



noah katz said:


> Even for a 12" woofer it will be ~1kHz.


Exactly. In fact it is even worse.



noah katz said:


> I believe it takes on the order of 50ms for an echo to be perceived as two separate sounds.
> 
> And that's for substantially the same sound, whereas we're talking about separating the LF from mid/high, which will make it much harder to distinguish.
> 
> Even with a tall 10' ceiling and 3' speaker height and sitting right next to it (giving max possible delay), that's just a 14ms difference.


Do you seriously want to argue that a sound will be distinctively localized at the ceiling when the tweeters are mounted to the ceiling while woofer and mid drivers are at floor/ear level? Did you even try such a configuration for yourself?


----------



## MagnumX

For those that would like to have (or need due to a hole above them with height speakers) Top Middle speakers, but can't afford a processor with support or are disgusted that many movies won't use them anyway and find that "Scatmos" is too much of a pain to implement, I've been experimenting a bit with my Monoprice 2-in, 2-out speaker switch with volume control and found a setting that works exceptionally well here. The switch is under $100, but for this use, a simple 4-channel mixer would work just as well ($40?).

Normally, I use the switch to change between "Scatmos" outputs to Top Middle and the Rear Height output, which lets me move rear height to top middle (which I have in the Auro-3D position on the side walls instead of the ceiling) so I can listen to Auro-3D with the recommended speaker location (surround height). However, the Monoprice box can also drive them in parallel at the same time (array). This is like what an Auro 11.1 theater does and since I have three rows it works well for that. 

The volume controls can be used to adjust for any volume difference and are detented to fixed values so it's simple to switch to a different setting. For Atmos, this lets me change to 5.1.4 (or 7.1.4) from 7.1.6 (or 11.1.6) as well to compare Atmos differences in placement.

What I did different this time was change the volume mixture for the Auro array (surround height plus rear height). Instead of making them even output (minus two detent volume each relative to "Scatmos") as they add together as an array, I made the surround height one -3 detent and the the rear only -1 detent (same total, different ratio). 

As an array, this pulls the combined rear channel backwards against the precedence effect whereby it normally sounds like the "rear height" is coming from the surround height channels from the front row to a point in-between the rear height channels so it sounds like it's coming from about where top rear would be located or thereabouts, but it maintains the strong overhead image in the middle that is lacking without the top middle/surround height speakers. It also corrects more for my placement of those surround height speakers (less influence means closer sounding to true top middle). It also pulls the image closer to the ceiling above the unfortunate steel beam box they are mounted under as well instead of a 4-inch drop in the middle.

While it's an array in that mode, you can't tell from the MLP. You simply hear the combined image. What it does is give strong imaging across the entire ceiling in a long room without the cost or lack of support of true discrete processing while not needing the complexity of Scatmos for a single row of seats. It actually sounds slightly better, IMO for both Atmos and Auro-3D here due to correcting the height placement a bit more for both. 

If I'm using more than one row, I'd revert to Scatmos as it's nearly discrete and works evenly for all three rows, but I'm convinced a simple active mixer could give a good effect for one row of seats while allowing the use of Heights instead of Tops while still maintaining strong direct overhead imaging. The level controls could move the virtual rear end-point to almost any point in the room between top middle and rear height as well for the MLP.


----------



## noah katz

markus767 said:


> Do you seriously want to argue that a sound will be distinctively localized at the ceiling when the tweeters are mounted to the ceiling while woofer and mid drivers are at floor/ear level?


No, but that has nothing to do with the point we were discussing.


----------



## MagnumX

I believe comb filtering is _likely_ to be worse or at least more noticeable with an upfiring/bounce speaker because you're _purposely_ creating a very strong reflection which will add to the direct wave. A direct speaker in a controlled (damped) room will have tend to have much lower magnitudes to any comb filtering that occurs as the walls are likely damped and you're not point the on-axis response directly at a highly reflective ceiling.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> 180Hz is way too low as the upward-firing speaker will only have the required high directivity beginning at a few hundred to a few thousand Hertz.
> Even if you would apply a higher crossover point and a corresponding delay you now have created two sound sources where the lower frequencies are coming from the floor speaker the upward-firing driver is sitting on and the higher frequencies are coming from above (ceiling reflection). This is perceptually no longer a single sound even.
> Furthermore the lower frequencies of the ceiling speaker channel are delayed (so they match the ceiling reflection) and mixed into the corresponding floor speaker which will create massive comb filter distortion when the signal of these two speaker channels is correlated.
> It's not a solution. Been there done that.


I don't think it gets crossed over to the corresponding floor speaker for the standalone add-ons. Perhaps for the speakers that have them built in (because I think the Pio towers had their own crossover solution built-in for that), but the add-ons just get crossed over to the sub like every other channel (and the intended curve for upfirers maintained by Audyssey). In my case (Denon), 180Hz wasn't an option anyway. Audyssey tried to set them to 120Hz and I manually raised them to 200Hz (because my Denon only had settings for 150 or 200 in that range). It worked fine and wasn't destructive to the sound from the ear-level channels in any way that I could hear.

It's fine if it isn't a solution FOR YOU, but are you trying to say that means it isn't a valid solution for anyone? I guess I'm not understanding why you're so vocally against it, as it has worked for others - including myself, though with the caveats I mentioned earlier. Despite your arguments as to why it shouldn't work, I was able to get distinctively localized sound that appeared to come from the ceiling and could move across the ceiling as needed. It lacked the precision of in/on-ceiling... but was still a worthwhile solution when I couldn't put speakers there. It's a compromise, sure... but if you just didn't bother doing anything that is a compromise in your room, a lot of people would still be running stereo. Every room has its compromises.


----------



## Warbird7

MagnumX said:


> For those that would like to have (or need due to a hole above them with height speakers) Top Middle speakers, but can't afford a processor with support or are disgusted that many movies won't use them anyway and find that "Scatmos" is too much of a pain to implement, I've been experimenting a bit with my Monoprice 2-in, 2-out speaker switch with volume control and found a setting that works exceptionally well here. The switch is under $100, but for this use, a simple 4-channel mixer would work just as well ($40?).
> 
> Normally, I use the switch to change between "Scatmos" outputs to Top Middle and the Rear Height output, which lets me move rear height to top middle (which I have in the Auro-3D position on the side walls instead of the ceiling) so I can listen to Auro-3D with the recommended speaker location (surround height). However, the Monoprice box can also drive them in parallel at the same time (array). This is like what an Auro 11.1 theater does and since I have three rows it works well for that.
> 
> The volume controls can be used to adjust for any volume difference and are detented to fixed values so it's simple to switch to a different setting. For Atmos, this lets me change to 5.1.4 (or 7.1.4) from 7.1.6 (or 11.1.6) as well to compare Atmos differences in placement.
> 
> What I did different this time was change the volume mixture for the Auro array (surround height plus rear height). Instead of making them even output (minus two detent volume each relative to "Scatmos") as they add together as an array, I made the surround height one -3 detent and the the rear only -1 detent (same total, different ratio).
> 
> As an array, this pulls the combined rear channel backwards against the precedence effect whereby it normally sounds like the "rear height" is coming from the surround height channels from the front row to a point in-between the rear height channels so it sounds like it's coming from about where top rear would be located or thereabouts, but it maintains the strong overhead image in the middle that is lacking without the top middle/surround height speakers. It also corrects more for my placement of those surround height speakers (less influence means closer sounding to true top middle). It also pulls the image closer to the ceiling above the unfortunate steel beam box they are mounted under as well instead of a 4-inch drop in the middle.
> 
> While it's an array in that mode, you can't tell from the MLP. You simply hear the combined image. What it does is give strong imaging across the entire ceiling in a long room without the cost or lack of support of true discrete processing while not needing the complexity of Scatmos for a single row of seats. It actually sounds slightly better, IMO for both Atmos and Auro-3D here due to correcting the height placement a bit more for both.
> 
> If I'm using more than one row, I'd revert to Scatmos as it's nearly discrete and works evenly for all three rows, but I'm convinced a simple active mixer could give a good effect for one row of seats while allowing the use of Heights instead of Tops while still maintaining strong direct overhead imaging. The level controls could move the virtual rear end-point to almost any point in the room between top middle and rear height as well for the MLP.


Wow thats a lot great testing...can you summarize please?

Your points:

confirming you think direct ceiling speakers are best !?
but soundtracks "barely use overheads as it is" !?

Couple questions:

For a medium sized room with a one row, three seat MLP, what is the number of speakers that will deliver 95% of the Atmos experience?
Will 5.1.2 get me there?
Or Is 7.1.4 required?
Does 9.1.6 get me to 100%?

I have a 7.2.4 setup, fits my space well, sounds heavenly. But I must say I rarely notice much sound from the rear four (Back and Top L/R).

I am helping another dude plan his Atmos system, on a smaller budget, and wondering what minimum config you recommend?

Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

Warbird7 said:


> Wow thats a lot great testing...can you summarize please?


That was more about using a cheap, but effective arrayed solution for Top Middle with Heights speakers than any kind of recommendation in general. It's a cheap, but very possibly effective (with certain limitations like one row only) way to add Top Middle speakers to an 11.1 AVR that doesn't support Top Middle. The "Beyond 7.1.4" thread talks about other more complex methods (like so-called "Scatmos" that uses two Pro Logic center-out processing units to create in-between "near discrete" channels. That is what I've been using most of the time except when playing certain Auro-3D soundtracks where I was using said Monoprice switch to move Rear Heights output to the Surround Height (which double here as top middle) location. 

With the volume adjustments discussed, it can also be used to give a hard direct overhead speaker in the top middle position with "Heights" speakers that typically have a bit of a gap there at 30/-30 placement in most rooms. The problem with processors that do support discrete Top Middle is that many soundtracks won't use them even if they're available. Both "Scatmos" and this array method get around it. At least one AVP (also oddly enough by Monoprice, the HTP-1) has a built-in array mixer to use with Top Middle on such soundtracks so at least you don't get that gap over your head. The difference is it's 50/50 and that's not adjustable so what you end up with is "phantom" imaging closer to the "Tops" position when it's in use since having Top Middle contain equal parts Front Height and Rear Height will pull the effective location of each halfway towards the Top Middle speaker. 

That is undesirable for Heights IMO as the entire reason to choose Heights over Tops is to use the entire ceiling. This method lets you leave the Front Heights in place fully (at the top of the screen) while moving only the rear heights speaker towards Top Middle (where the ear is less able to image as clearly) and even then because it uses half volume, it doesn't pull it nearly as much (1/4 the distance instead of 1/2), making it sound "almost" as large as full Heights across the entire ceiling without the hole overhead.



> Your points:
> 
> confirming you think direct ceiling speakers are best !?
> but soundtracks "barely use overheads as it is" !?


I personally like "Heights" over "Tops" speakers because it uses the full ceiling for overhead imaging (just like the ear-level "bed" speakers) rather than just half of it. Many others prefer "Tops" because more sounds are more directly overhead (starting at 45 degrees instead of 30) and that lets them "notice" overhead sounds more. It's a personal choice (i.e. subjective). 

Many Atmos soundtracks use overhead sounds, but most don't use it "a lot" IMO. Many conventional 5.1 soundtracks put more sounds on the ceiling when upmixed with Neural X than some of the Atmos soundtracks I've heard (far too many, IMO), but there are some excellent Atmos soundtracks out there. More importantly to me lately, there are some VERY well done Atmos MUSIC albums that use not just overheads a lot, but image sounds in the middle of the room and all points in-between (how strong the image is probably speaker dependent and perhaps even more speakers helps with stronger phantom imaging; more testing would be needed there I think, but overall, albums like Yello's Point and Booka Shade's Dear Future Self place sounds in locations you rarely hear them in during Atmos movies, which often stick to the side walls at ear level, for example rather than pass a sound straight through the audience).



> Couple questions:
> 
> For a medium sized room with a one row, three seat MLP, what is the number of speakers that will deliver 95% of the Atmos experience?
> Will 5.1.2 get me there?
> Or Is 7.1.4 required?
> Does 9.1.6 get me to 100%?


I'd say 5.1.4 is the minimum I'd personally find acceptable for Atmos., but even 3.1.2 sounds better than stereo (I tested that configuration out extensively recently too using L/C/R and Front Heights. Some of the Atmos demos were still compelling in that configuration (like The Encounter where it just sounded like the same ship and sampling arm (or whatever that thing that comes crashing down across the room diagonally normally is) landed in front of me rather than directly over top of me. The arm still came down, but landed near my right front speaker instead of the right side surround and the ship still took off upward, etc. just outward in front of me instead above me and then forward). 



> I have a 7.2.4 setup, fits my space well, sounds heavenly. But I must say I rarely notice much sound from the rear four (Back and Top L/R).
> 
> I am helping another dude plan his Atmos system, on a smaller budget, and wondering what minimum config you recommend?


I agree many movies don't use a lot of DISCRETE rear surround effects (even overhead sounds are often arrayed in both side surround and rear surround and even top middle and rear height/tops. With three rows, it's easy to tell the sounds are actually there, just often arrayed (duplicated). But a few movies do use those locations more often, I think. More importantly, they CAN use them and many Atmos music albums definitely use them. 

If you haven't tried an Atmos music album, I'd seriously recommend giving Yello's Point album a listen (or Dear Future Self by Booka Shade). Both of those albums use both the rear surrounds and rear heights/tops EXTENSIVELY (almost constantly really and nearly as much as L/C/R!) I never heard so many discrete sounds in the back of my room. I thought maybe my head rest was getting in the way of rear sounds or something, but no, I can hear them just fine and clear on those albums back there. It really is Hollywood's lack of use of the rear channels that's the issue, IMO.

But in general, I think 5.1.4 provides a pretty satisfying Atmos experience if one wants to get away with a 9-channel AVR or doesn't have room for rear surrounds (front wides + side surrounds is a nice alternative in some rooms if the AVR supports it). Most receivers actually tweak where the "side" surrounds image with rears in play (testable with the Dolby 9.1.6 speaker tests) so it just spread them out a bit more in front of you than behind you in some cases. In my 24' long room, I felt a bit more claustrophobic with 5.1.4 playing in only the front half of the room with the demos I was used to hearing with 11.1.6 using the full length, but it still sounded great on those demos. I just with most movies were even half as good as some of Dolby's demos (there are a few really good ones like Fury with Brad Pitt, The Meg, Overlord, Blade Runner 2049 as a few good examples).

But even 5.1.2 is better than 5.1 only, IMO. But newer AVRs have Dolby and DTS Height virtualization modes and a nice 7.1 system can simulate 7.1.4 pretty convincingly IMO (I can test it here by turning off the overhead assignments and the DTS virtualization mode then becomes available. It can pan whereas only two overhead cannot so for a MLP only setup, I think I'd prefer virtualization to only two overheads.


----------



## markus767

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't think it gets crossed over to the corresponding floor speaker for the standalone add-ons.


Some SSPs do use an additional stage of bass management for Dolby Atmos enabled speakers, some don't. For example a NAD 758v3 has it, a Monoprice HTP-1 doesn't.
Easy to test, disconnect DAE speakers and send a signal to it. If there's sound coming from the corresponding floor speaker there's an additional stage of bass management implemented.


----------



## markus767

noah katz said:


> No, but that has nothing to do with the point we were discussing.


Then I don't understand what you are trying to discuss. What's your point?


----------



## markus767

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's fine if it isn't a solution FOR YOU, but are you trying to say that means it isn't a valid solution for anyone? I guess I'm not understanding why you're so vocally against it, as it has worked for others - including myself, though with the caveats I mentioned earlier. Despite your arguments as to why it shouldn't work, I was able to get distinctively localized sound that appeared to come from the ceiling and could move across the ceiling as needed. It lacked the precision of in/on-ceiling... but was still a worthwhile solution when I couldn't put speakers there. It's a compromise, sure... but if you just didn't bother doing anything that is a compromise in your room, a lot of people would still be running stereo. Every room has its compromises.


I'd rank Dolby Atmos enabled speakers on the same level as virtualization with speakers (although virtualization with speakers can give better results!), even same level as some soundbars (!). In my mind headphone virtualization (done right) would be best, followed by speakers in the ceiling.
I find it rather silly if someone has a dedicated home theater room and flies in a professional calibrator but he can't get any speakers mounted to the ceiling. Priorities here certainly aren't good sound.


----------



## Technology3456

markus767 said:


> I'd rank Dolby Atmos enabled speakers on the same level as virtualization with speakers (although virtualization with speakers can give better results!), even same level as some soundbars (!). In my mind headphone virtualization (done right) would be best, followed by speakers in the ceiling.
> I find it rather silly if someone has a dedicated home theater room and flies in a professional calibrator but he can't get any speakers mounted to the ceiling. Priorities here certainly aren't good sound.


You think headphones are better than speakers on the ceiling? Where would you rank speakers _in _the ceiling? Always worse than "on" ceiling no matter what, or is there price level where it will eventually overtake even good on-ceiling speakers? Like will $500 in-ceiling speakers outperform $200 on-celing speakers, or will it just rarely be possible at least until you get to really premium prices?


----------



## markus767

Technology3456 said:


> You think headphones are better than speakers on the ceiling? Where would you rank speakers _in _the ceiling? Always worse than "on" ceiling no matter what, or is there price level where it will eventually overtake even good on-ceiling speakers? Like will $500 in-ceiling speakers outperform $200 on-celing speakers, or will it just rarely be possible at least until you get to really premium prices?


I think virtualized Atmos over headphones _can_ be better. Much better. What Apple has been doing with "Spatial Audio" is just the tip of the iceberg.

Speakers _in_ the ceiling require cutouts but it's the least obtrusive mounting option. Often these speakers can't be properly oriented towards the listening area though and often you'll also get diffraction effects that can't be mitigated.
Speakers _on_ the ceiling need absorption around them or you'll see comb filter effects from the sound reflecting back from the boundary behind the speaker.


----------



## Technology3456

markus767 said:


> I think virtualized Atmos over headphones _can_ be better. Much better. What Apple has been doing with "Spatial Audio" is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> Speakers _in_ the ceiling require cutouts but it's the least obtrusive mounting option. Often these speakers can't be properly oriented towards the listening area though and often you'll also get diffraction effects that can't be mitigated.
> Speakers _on_ the ceiling need absorption around them or you'll see comb filter effects from the sound reflecting back from the boundary behind the speaker.


Can the diffraction effects of in-ceiling speakers be eliminated if you use angled in-ceiling speakers that are aimed at the MLP, or is there nothing you can do? 

Do you know if the Denon x4500H AVR supports apple spatial audio for atmos tracks? Or what does one need to get Atmos with headphones?


----------



## MagnumX

For all the low quality Atmos movies I've watched lately, the first 30 minutes alone of _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ (in *DTS:X* on the 4K UHD Blu-Ray discs) absolutely blows them all away. It had more impressive surround and overhead effects in those 30 minutes (especially with the flying car, but even things like the owl flying into the room closer to ear level, it just swooped right through the right-side middle of it! Impressive!) than the last 10 Atmos movies I watched combined over their entire lengths! I don't think that's an exaggeration (although obviously that wouldn't be the case with the better Atmos movies I've seen but it feels like it's been awhile). If a movie put in half the effort they put into the Harry Potter DTS:X tracks, they'd be golden.


----------



## niterida

Warbird7 said:


> Wow thats a lot great testing...can you summarize please?
> 
> Your points:
> 
> confirming you think direct ceiling speakers are best !?
> but soundtracks "barely use overheads as it is" !?
> 
> Couple questions:
> 
> For a medium sized room with a one row, three seat MLP, what is the number of speakers that will deliver 95% of the Atmos experience?
> Will 5.1.2 get me there?
> Or Is 7.1.4 required?
> Does 9.1.6 get me to 100%?
> 
> I have a 7.2.4 setup, fits my space well, sounds heavenly. But I must say I rarely notice much sound from the rear four (Back and Top L/R).
> 
> I am helping another dude plan his Atmos system, on a smaller budget, and wondering what minimum config you recommend?
> 
> Thanks!


5.x.4 
Cheapest option and definitely gives you 95% or more of the 7.x.4
Best to go for 2 or more subs though.
And best bang for buck and best thing I have done to my theatre is the hoverboss for really low Hz : The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> 5.x.4
> Cheapest option and definitely gives you 95% or more of the 7.x.4


95% or more? Um, no. That Harry Potter movie I mentioned above used the heck out of the rear surrounds as do most of the more diligent Atmos music albums. That alone is worth 20%, IMO. But for "most" movies, yeah, probably.


----------



## markus767

Technology3456 said:


> Can the diffraction effects of in-ceiling speakers be eliminated if you use angled in-ceiling speakers that are aimed at the MLP, or is there nothing you can do?


They often can't be angled enough. If the tweeter sits in front of the woofer and flush with the ceiling the high frequency dispersion is usually better but then you have time delay between woofer and tweeter that can only be resolved with an active crossover. Here I'm not so much concerned about the delay itself but what it means in terms of frequency response variations at different angles. Don't know of a good and inexpensive coincidence driver that has a shallow woofer membrane profile to support wider dispersion.
Angled and boxed in in-ceiling speakers are often expensive, hard to install and I haven't seen measurements showing all significant diffraction issues have been resolved.



Technology3456 said:


> Do you know if the Denon x4500H AVR supports apple spatial audio for atmos tracks? Or what does one need to get Atmos with headphones?


iOS device and AirPods or Smyth Realiser.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> 95% or more? Um, no. That Harry Potter movie I mentioned above used the heck out of the rear surrounds as do most of the more diligent Atmos music albums. That alone is worth 20%, IMO. But for "most" movies, yeah, probably.


OK 90% then


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> 95% or more? Um, no. That Harry Potter movie I mentioned above used the heck out of the rear surrounds as do most of the more diligent Atmos music albums. That alone is worth 20%, IMO. But for "most" movies, yeah, probably.


Problem for me is if I added rear surrounds I would need to bring my side surrounds forward and I can't because there's a door on one side and a window on the other. So, it's 5.1.4 for me.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

markus767 said:


> I find it rather silly if someone has a dedicated home theater room and flies in a professional calibrator but he can't get any speakers mounted to the ceiling. Priorities here certainly aren't good sound.


On that part, I will agree with you. There are plenty of ways to mount speakers up there and it makes no sense to me that someone with a dedicated room and the means wouldn't put speakers up there.



markus767 said:


> Speakers _on_ the ceiling need absorption around them or you'll see comb filter effects from the sound reflecting back from the boundary behind the speaker.


Out of curiosity, how would this present itself? Would you see it in frequency response or would it affect Audyssey's detected crossover point? I ask because I am going to be digging into room treatments here in the near future.


----------



## X4100

Now you guys have me thinking about TR 😎, by the way 90% ain't too bad.


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> Now you guys have me thinking about TR 😎


It's worth it imo


----------



## markus767

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Out of curiosity, how would this present itself? Would you see it in frequency response or would it affect Audyssey's detected crossover point? I ask because I am going to be digging into room treatments here in the near future.


It will show up as dips in the magnitude response. You'll find some examples in Toole's book "Sound reproduction".


----------



## niterida

halcyon_888 said:


> It's worth it imo


Its more than worth it IMO 
Its a must-do !!


----------



## MagnumX

I just did a write up on *Daylight* (with Sylvester Stallone) in both *Atmos* and *Auro-3D *versions from _Turbine_ (Germany) in the Auro-3D thread (HERE). The bottom line for the Atmos version is the new soundtrack is awesome. I'd rate it right up there with Fury and Overlord for sheer immersion of surround and overhead effects. The sounds of creaks, water, explosions, etc. inside the tunnel are excellent, not to mention a whole slew of helicopters, car chases (with vehicles riding over the camera and the vehicle sound going overhead and to the sides across the room front to back, etc.) 

Compared to most of the Atmos movies I've heard lately, this is a keeper. I don't recall even caring that much for the movie when I saw it in the theater in 1996. I had the DTS DVD and I don't recall being impressed by that on my old 5.1 system and haven't watched it since. So I was surprised when I found myself actually enjoying this movie and in no small part due to the utterly immersive sound of the new Atmos track.

The down side for some will be that it's not in 4K video.


----------



## Technology3456

Question for the thread. Due to my sensitivity to motion blur, I want to sit as far back from the screen as possible, and I don't want to make the screen itself any smaller than necessary. But if I move seating back, I also have to move the atmos ceiling speakers back.

My question is, how badly will 7.x.4 atmos be affected if I move by rear ceiling speakers all the way to the back of the ceiling, right on top of the rear "ledlayer" speakers? FTR, rear bedlayer speakers tweeters will be maybe 3.5 ft off the ground, and rear ceiling speakers will be 7.8 ft off the ground. 

I can also keep the rear ceiling speakers 1 ft in front of the rear bedlayers, and still get a decent bump in seating distance. But 2 ft in front, and now I'm only getting an extra 1.5 ft in viewing distance. But basically I am just trying to determine the best balance for my motion sensitivity considerations. Getting 3 extra ft of viewing distance, and only making the Atmos 5% worse, is a good trade off for me. Getting 1.5 ft extra viewing distance, but totally ruining the Atmos, is a bad trade off for me. I'm just trying to gauge, based off the knowledge of people with experience with this, how much of one I can reasonably trade for how much off the other.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Question for the thread. Due to my sensitivity to motion blur, I want to sit as far back from the screen as possible, and I don't want to make the screen itself any smaller than necessary. But if I move seating back, I also have to move the atmos ceiling speakers back.
> 
> My question is, how badly will 7.x.4 atmos be affected if I move by rear ceiling speakers all the way to the back of the ceiling, right on top of the rear "ledlayer" speakers? FTR, rear bedlayer speakers tweeters will be maybe 3.5 ft off the ground, and rear ceiling speakers will be 7.8 ft off the ground.
> 
> I can also keep the rear ceiling speakers 1 ft in front of the rear bedlayers, and still get a decent bump in seating distance. But 2 ft in front, and now I'm only getting an extra 1.5 ft in viewing distance. But basically I am just trying to determine the best balance for my motion sensitivity considerations. Getting 3 extra ft of viewing distance, and only making the Atmos 5% worse, is a good trade off for me. Getting 1.5 ft extra viewing distance, but totally ruining the Atmos, is a bad trade off for me. I'm just trying to gauge, based off the knowledge of people with experience with this, how much of one I can reasonably trade for how much off the other.


My rear height speakers are more or less directly above my rear surrounds in the back of the room (following a mixed Atmos/Auro-3D layout). You get a big overhead image, but if you go under 45 degree angles, many medium to larger rooms can have a diffuse overhead image, which is why I have top middle to reinforce the imaging there and then it's a nice solid image all the way across the 24' long room.

I don't know that sitting further away helps with motion blur. Matching the frame rate of 24fps movies (23.98fps) helps a lot compared to 60/59 rates that can give hiccups/stutter. Most TV/projectors have some kind of motion smoothing mode that some prefer of stutter. I find the lowest setting can help with fast panning in 24fps movies without looking too fake, but many hate that type of processing more than natural stutter. The real problem is 24fps simply isn't fast enough for large motion panning to look smooth. 

I personally think we should be filming movies in at least 60fps at this point. I think Lord of the Rings looked "weird" in 48fps only because the CGI motion was too smooth and they did crazy unnatural things like pan around that castle ruins at high speed like in a computer game, which is exactly how it looked when it moved too smoothly. But no plane could pan like that in real life so of course it would look unnatural. I think the non-CGI effect scenes looked fantastic at 48fps. I really think they should have given it more of a chance on more traditional movies before rushing to judgement that people hated it.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I don't know that sitting further away helps with motion blur.


It has partly to do with field of view. The more the screen takes up your field of view, the more bothersome it can be. It can give headaches to some people.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Question for the thread. Due to my sensitivity to motion blur, I want to sit as far back from the screen as possible, and I don't want to make the screen itself any smaller than necessary. But if I move seating back, I also have to move the atmos ceiling speakers back.


Do you have only a single row of seating? If so, the net effect on motion blur between moving further away or using a smaller screen should be the same. In your place I'd go for best of both worlds, use a smaller screen and keep the seating position to best optimize speaker placement.


----------



## Technology3456

Soulburner said:


> It has partly to do with field of view. The more the screen takes up your field of view, the more bothersome it can be. It can give headaches to some people.


Yeah it's just like anything else, the further away an imperfection is, the harder it is to see. Just like if I go up the screen, even when the image is paused, I can see the individual pixels, there might be some noise or grain in the image, but go far enough away, and it looks totally solid. 



dschulz said:


> Do you have only a single row of seating? If so, the net effect on motion blur between moving further away or using a smaller screen should be the same. In your place I'd go for best of both worlds, use a smaller screen and keep the seating position to best optimize speaker placement.


I see what you mean, but don't you still think even when the field of view is the same, a bigger screen is more cinematic and exciting, all else equal? Otherwise why not sit 3 feet away from a big TV and call it the cinema. I sometimes sit close to the back row in movie theaters, and it still feels much bigger than sitting closer to a 120 inch screen. Someone told me maybe it could have something to do with the fact we have two eyes, and the space between our eyes, that we're still getting some greater sense of size and 3-dimensinal-illusion from a bigger screen than a smaller one, even if the viewing angles are the same. But Im not sure. I will just go smaller if it's a big difference to the Atmos, but if it will work well either way then I may as well do it this way.



MagnumX said:


> My rear height speakers are more or less directly above my rear surrounds in the back of the room (following a mixed Atmos/Auro-3D layout). You get a big overhead image, but if you go under 45 degree angles, many medium to larger rooms can have a diffuse overhead image, which is why I have top middle to reinforce the imaging there and then it's a nice solid image all the way across the 24' long room.


I was probably going to aim for 55 instead of 45, so the other direction, after reading Jeremy's posts about that. The higher the angle, the more I can push the seating back, but again, I dont want to ruin the atmos effect just to do that. 

You said you get a big overhead image, but what does it do to the rear surround imaging on the bedlayer, and the separation? And is your hybrid setup's performance going to be applicable in thsi way to a normal Atmos setup? Ultimately, would you give the green light to put the rear atmos speakers all the way back right above the rear surrounds, or what is the furthest back you would recommend moving them without harming the atmos?


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I was probably going to aim for 55 instead of 45, so the other direction, after reading Jeremy's posts about that. The higher the angle, the more I can push the seating back, but again, I dont want to ruin the atmos effect just to do that.


If you think about it, the further back you put the seats, the higher the rear angle is going to be. If I sit in my 3rd row seat, the rear heights are probably at like 105 degrees or something from that chair (with front heights probably at 15 degrees or something and Top Middle at 45 or whatever. When you're in a movie theater and move around to different seats, the angles relative to any given set of speakers changes. The Dolby guidelines are _setup_ guides. That doesn't mean you can't sit somewhere else. That's why I favor a room-based setup rather than a listener based setup. Movie theaters don't measure some pair of overhead speakers at 45 degrees and 135 degrees. They place the overheads equidistant across the theater ceiling.



> You said you get a big overhead image, but what does it do to the rear surround imaging on the bedlayer, and the separation?


Why would the overhead layer do something to the bed layer? The entire reason I favor "Heights" over "Tops" is that Heights (in a room-based setup) are at the front/rear ceiling locations of the room just as the front speakers are at the front and the rear surrounds are in the back. A sound can travel nearly the entire 24' length of my room at ear level so why shouldn't it be able to do the same overhead? 

My front height speakers are above my main speakers (just a hair offset because of the screen) and my rear heights are above my rear surrounds. My surround heights are above my side surrounds. Anywhere a sound can go on the floor, it can go on the ceiling and thus _combined_, it can go anywhere in the entire room. 

To some that doesn't matter. They're happy with a sliding diagonal scale as sounds in-between move down to the ear level speakers, etc. and many like having more overhead sounds more directly above rather than at the edges of the room that may not sound "overhead" as much to them. That's fine. Whatever you like best is the way you should go. If your not certain, maybe temporarily mount some speakers on some step ladders or something to try some things out.



> And is your hybrid setup's performance going to be applicable in thsi way to a normal Atmos setup? Ultimately, would you give the green light to put the rear atmos speakers all the way back right above the rear surrounds, or what is the furthest back you would recommend moving them without harming the atmos?


It depends on where you're putting your front overhead speakers whether it "harms" the imaging or not. If you use lower height angles at both ends like I do, you get this horrible gap in the middle overhead with just 4 speakers. That is why I have 6 speakers (how I get the sound to those two extra speakers is neither here nor there in that sense as they exist to solve the problem) with the ones in the middle filling the gap so there no longer is a gap. 

If you don't mind a bit of a jump/gap in sounds traveling from the front speakers to the side surrounds, you can have your surrounds 2/3 into the room with the couch back there and rears at the very back and the front/rear overheads above the same locations. It'll image fine around you, but some sounds might jump a bit from the mains to the surrounds (some front wides could optionally help fill that in at some point in the future). It's your room and your system and you decide what's important to _you_, not someone else. Or you could put the side surrounds in front of the couch area so that it does image smoothly front to back and put the rear surrounds to the side or just behind the couch instead of the side surrounds (that's more like how my 2nd and 3rd rows sound).


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> If you think about it, the further back you put the seats, the higher the rear angle is going to be.


I havent placed my ceiling speakers yet though, just FYI. So if I move seating back, it will only be with the plan to move the ceiling speakers further back also. To get a 55 degree angle for the ceiling speakers, they just need to be about 2.5 ft behind the 1 row of seating, and up on the ceiling. That means I can move the seating back to within 2.5 ft of the back wall of the room (projector placement notwithstanding) if I put the ceiling speakers in the ceiling right above the rear surround speakers. But then I have less separation from the bedlayer, so I am asking if that will badly harm the Atmos effect. Will object sounds not be as distinct above-and-behind the seating compared to in back in the bedlayer? Will everything just sound behind me, but not within distinct vertical layers?

That's what Im trying to gauge. Remember people were saying you want to move your atmos ceiling speakers in, less wide, in order to create more separation between the side surrounds and the atmos heights. Would the same logic apply here, or is separation between rear surrounds and rear height speakers less important than between side surrounds and the height speakers?



MagnumX said:


> Why would the overhead layer do something to the bed layer? The entire reason I favor "Heights" over "Tops" is that Heights (in a room-based setup) are at the front/rear ceiling locations of the room just as the front speakers are at the front and the rear surrounds are in the back. A sound can travel nearly the entire 24' length of my room at ear level so why shouldn't it be able to do the same overhead?


I have been using heights and tops interchangeably. When I say heights, I mean the x.x.4 atmos ceiling speakers, two at 45-60 degree angle in front and up, and two at 45-60 degree angle behind and up


MagnumX said:


> My front height speakers are above my main speakers (just a hair offset because of the screen) and my rear heights are above my rear surrounds.


I think Auro 3D is designed for this, right? But Atmos is not, so will putting the rear ceiling atmos speakers right above the rear bedlayer surrounds, in an Atmos setup, mess up the Atmos separation of layers?


MagnumX said:


> It's your room and your system and you decide what's important to _you_


If it wont mess up the separation between the rear ceiling speakers, and the rear surrounds, then I would like to put them right on top of each other, or as close to that as possible, in order to have seating further back from the screen. But I remember a comment even recommending moving the rear ceiling speakers forward to create more separation between them and the rear surround bedlayer speakers, which is the opposite of what I want to do, so I'm trying to gauge how big a difference that will make. I think ideally the more separation between the ceiling speakers and the rear and side surrounds, the better, up to a point anyway, so this would be a compromise, but I dont know how big of one. I either have to compromise this, or compromise screen size/seating distance, and I have no idea how big a compromise this would be to the Atmos experience.


----------



## HIRES_FAN

halcyon_888 said:


> I spent some coin upgrading to Atmos and it's really disappointing that most tracks are "crapmos" or "flatmos". I think the ball is dropped more than it is ran for a touchdown, so my two height speakers most of the time are hanging from the ceiling waiting for something to come through them but most of the time it doesn't.
> 
> It makes me wonder if Dolby has tools for the sound engineers that would upmix regular bed channels in the studio, then the engineers could encode that and move on or continue with the mixing process and make adjustments. Said upmixer could be--or should be--better than our on-the-fly DSU/DTS:NeuralX, so this studio upmixer would be like the 4k studio upscaling that is done for video transfers. Not quite true 4k, but better than not having it done at all. If this is kind of tool is already available to the sound engineers, I'm not researched enough to know about it.


On the fly dsu/neural is just fine. Just leave it on for crapmos/flatmos encounters and don't overthink it.


----------



## HIRES_FAN

Warbird7 said:


> Can someone please explain how these goofy (technical term) "Atmos" floor speakers work? I mean the ones that attempt to fire up from the ground array and bounce off the ceiling. How could that possibly work? The sound has to travel twice the distance. And if the rest of the system was delayed for correct time alignment, wouldn't that require delaying the video as well, complicating an already challenging lip sync issue? I could see that "might" be possible with enough porocessing. But the idea that a sound bar could have a prayer of doing anything close to Atmos, seems to me like a total joke. What am I missing?


Who said they were goofy? They sound better to me for atmos music than the other 2 options. Not all atmos modules are created equal however. Get one that's designed well.
Here's an explanation..


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> I see what you mean, but don't you still think even when the field of view is the same, a bigger screen is more cinematic and exciting, all else equal? Otherwise why not sit 3 feet away from a big TV and call it the cinema. I sometimes sit close to the back row in movie theaters, and it still feels much bigger than sitting closer to a 120 inch screen. Someone told me maybe it could have something to do with the fact we have two eyes, and the space between our eyes, that we're still getting some greater sense of size and 3-dimensinal-illusion from a bigger screen than a smaller one, even if the viewing angles are the same. But Im not sure. I will just go smaller if it's a big difference to the Atmos, but if it will work well either way then I may as well do it this way.


A larger screen is more impressive for guests when they first walk into the room, but in terms of actually watching a movie, with the film playing and the lights off, I think the relative size is the only thing that matters. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the choice of screen size is wholly dependent on the viewing distance - in any given room design I'd start with the overall layout, including seating locations, and then choose the screen size.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> A larger screen is more impressive for guests when they first walk into the room, but in terms of actually watching a movie, with the film playing and the lights off, I think the relative size is the only thing that matters. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the choice of screen size is wholly dependent on the viewing distance - in any given room design I'd start with the overall layout, including seating locations, and then choose the screen size.


I've never experienced a true batcave where all you can see is the movie floating in the air, so in that scenario, maybe all your visual cues about the actual size of the image are eliminated, and viewing angle is everything. But in a movie theater, even if you are further away, your eyes probably know the difference between a 100 foot screen, and a 10 foot screen, even if you are 10x further away for the 100 foot screen, and the actors faces and the action towering 50 feet in the air may be more impressive because it's not something you will regularly encounter in the world, people and action that big. It inspires more awe and excitement. There is also the angle that each eye has to focus in on the same points on the screen. It's a bigger issue trying to watch a 20 inch screen from 2 feet away, where both eyes have to angle in for example, than on bigger sizes at longer distances, but maybe it still plays a factor.

I definitely lack the experience to say either way, especially when it comes to batcave experiences. I am just leaving the door open that a bigger screen could be better, at least if there is enough light in the room to have contextual visual cues about the absolute size of the screen, regardless of viewing angle. For example, the screen could be taking up my entire visual field, but if I can see the chair in the front row right in front of it, and I know from experience that that chair is only 4 feet tall, and I see that the screen is only a few feet taller than the chair, then that's different from having a 100 foot tall screen, where even if you are very far away, you can see the chairs in the first row are tiny compared to the action onscreen.

Do I think there is a possibility of there being any advantage to a 10 foot screen at 10 feet away? No. Do I think there is at least the possibility of there being an advantage to a 100 foot screen at 100 feet away? I think it's at least possible it could be better. The audio would be much more difficult and expensive but that's something else. So I will hedge as big as possible with as far a seating distance as possible so long as it won't hurt the Atmos.

The problem is to totally eliminate blur in the movies, I think I would have to cut the screen down to 75 inches diagonal 16:9, and sit 14 feet away. It's not like I am starting big, and so I should just make the screen a little smaller. I've already made it pretty small (like 90-100 inches) sitting 14 feet away, and it's still not enough to get the blur to a place where it's not bothering me sometimes. So at this distance, I either have too much blur, or I have too small a screen. This problem is going to exist for me no matter what, but if I can push the seating back 3 feet, at least maybe I can go to 110 or 120 inches without making the blur worse than it is now at 100 inches.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> But in a movie theater, even if you are further away, your eyes probably know the difference between a 100 foot screen, and a 10 foot screen, even if you are 10x further away for the 100 foot screen, and the actors faces and the action towering 50 feet in the air may be more impressive because it's not something you will regularly encounter in the world, people and action that big.e screen.
> 
> The problem is to totally eliminate blur in the movies, I think I would have to cut the screen down to 75 inches diagonal 16:9, and sit 14 feet away. It's not like I am starting big, and so I should just make the screen a little smaller. I've already made it pretty small (like 90-100 inches) sitting 14 feet away, and it's still not enough to get the blur to a place where it's not bothering me sometimes. So at this distance, I either have too much blur, or I have too small a screen. This problem is going to exist for me no matter what, but if I can push the seating back 3 feet, at least maybe I can go to 110 or 120 inches without making the blur worse than it is now at 100 inches.


I take your point about a really huge screen in a large room being a different experience, even if your viewing distance is such that the angular FOV is the same as a smaller screen viewed from up close. But we’re not talking about comparing a 100 foot screen to a 10 foot screen, an order of magnitude apart, we’re talking about 90” vs 110”. If you make the screen slightly larger but move slightly farther away, the end result is the same size image. I still think the right course of action is to put your seating at the best place for the room, and then size the screen appropriately.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I havent placed my ceiling speakers yet though, just FYI. So if I move seating back, it will only be with the plan to move the ceiling speakers further back also. To get a 55 degree angle for the ceiling speakers, they just need to be about 2.5 ft behind the 1 row of seating, and up on the ceiling. That means I can move the seating back to within 2.5 ft of the back wall of the room (projector placement notwithstanding) if I put the ceiling speakers in the ceiling right above the rear surround speakers.
> 
> But then I have less separation from the bedlayer, so I am asking if that will badly harm the Atmos effect.


55 degrees is a _lot_ of separation from the bed layer. I'm not sure why you think it's not. 20 degrees is much less separation from the bed layer and yet that's within Dolby specs for a 6-speaker overhead system using Heights. The thing is, those systems can image anywhere on the ceiling, so the starting point isn't as important. Using just 4 overhead speakers, the critical thing is the distance between them which images well in-between with 45 degrees separation (Tops), but not so much at 60 degree separation (30/-30 Heights).



> Will object sounds not be as distinct above-and-behind the seating compared to in back in the bedlayer? Will everything just sound behind me, but not within distinct vertical layers?


That would be more likely to happen with angles in the 20-35 degree range, not 55 degrees. And yet here with only about 20 degrees for the rear heights from the front row, I can still plainly tell them from the rear surrounds. From the middle row, they're closer to 33 degrees in the back (and maybe 20 degrees in the front) and well above the rear surrounds for images placed directly there. From the back row, they're probably about 63 degrees (2.5 feet from speaker which is 5 feet above ear level (InvTangent(5/2.5)), which is similar to what top middle is for the first row and oddly for the 2nd row as well (only in front of rather than behind). Images panning across it use the entire ceiling. There is no real directly overhead, just points in the panning arc between. 

In other words, where you sit changes the angle of a sound more than it does the location in the room (the entire point of Atmos localizing in a room rather than around the listener as 5.1/7.1 did. A bird in a theater at SS#1 will be at that point in the room for everyone (give or take phantom imaging errors due to precedence, etc.) whereas in 5.1, the bird would be off to your side no matter where you sit as the entire surround sound speaker setup was a giant array putting out the same exact signal. So "to the side" meant YOUR SIDE. In Atmos, the bird is 20% in to the room when it's 20% into the room for EVERYONE. For people in the front, it's behind them. For people in the back, it's way in front of them, but they'd all point in the same direction as to where the bird is if it stopped and just flapped its wings there. 

That's what a bird would be like in real life and what Atmos hopes to achieve. So, your only worry, IMO should be whether you get smooth even panning across the room, not whether the bird will be at 55 degrees or 75 degrees from where you're sitting.



> That's what Im trying to gauge. Remember people were saying you want to move your atmos ceiling speakers in, less wide, in order to create more separation between the side surrounds and the atmos heights. Would the same logic apply here, or is separation between rear surrounds and rear height speakers less important than between side surrounds and the height speakers?


That's on a different axis (x-axis) and the limits of how far left/right a sound can go on the ceiling, not "separation" from the bed/ear level speakers which is on the z-axis (height). Dolby wants the speakers aligned with the front mains (more or less; it's actually center-left and center-right in a larger setup). Auro wants them aligned with the base/bed/ear level speakers instead. In practice, how much difference is there? It's the same as having the Atmos speakers in larger room for that layer from the listener perspective. It's not a big deal, IMO. Others may disagree.



> I have been using heights and tops interchangeably. When I say heights, I mean the x.x.4 atmos ceiling speakers, two at 45-60 degree angle in front and up, and two at 45-60 degree angle behind and up
> 
> 
> I think Auro 3D is designed for this, right? But Atmos is not, so will putting the rear ceiling atmos speakers right above the rear bedlayer surrounds, in an Atmos setup, mess up the Atmos separation of layers?


Not the vertical layers, which is the separation you should be worried, about for overhead speakers. But where rear surrounds go and where side surrounds go are two different things. In other words, your rear surrounds should be aligned with the front mains. If your front mains are at the side walls, yes, it's just like Auro-3D in every way possible as your surrounds and heights/tops are going to align with the mains/surrounds no matter what. But in most rooms, the mains/rear surrounds are not at the side walls, but part-way across the room on either side of the screen (It really depends on how wide the room and screen are). So if the rear surrounds are aligned with the front mains, the rear heights wouldn't be above the side surrounds (side walls along listening position or somewhat behind it), but above the rear surrounds and both aligned with the front mains. Thus, there is no Auro-like alignment there (which prefers aligning with the side surrounds, not the rear surrounds, although both are acceptable and in Auro theaters, they have an array of speakers aligned with BOTH). 

Really, a little room rendering from top/down on your proposed locations would be helpful to visualize all of this rather than text.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> A larger screen is more impressive for guests when they first walk into the room, but in terms of actually watching a movie, with the film playing and the lights off, I think the relative size is the only thing that matters. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the choice of screen size is wholly dependent on the viewing distance - in any given room design I'd start with the overall layout, including seating locations, and then choose the screen size.


At some point, the question also becomes do I really want to have to turn my head to see what's going on at the left side of the screen or right side of the screen? Yeah, that sounds awesome that a screen can fill that much of your vision (I already have to at least turn my eyes one way or the other to look directly at something with a mere 92" screen at 8.5', but a 2.35:1 screen (same height but wider) just seems almost irresistible when I think about it, even though I'd have to move my front heights over to get them out of the way of the wider screen and that would then mis-align them vertically further, etc. etc. all just to feel more like I'm _in_ the Millennium Falcon rather than just sitting in front of it. 

Really, the problem there is that black vertical bars more than the extra horizontal size, but 2.35:1 would be like 16:9 on steroids (no black bars so like 16:9, but wider on the same movies). But then I'm back to the having to turn my head a bit to see left/right and that's from the center seat. What about the left/right seats? They'd really have to looks over further. Then I think maybe I should just stick with 16:9.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> 55 degrees is a _lot_ of separation from the bed layer.


I meant 55 degrees from the MLP, not 55 degrees from the bed layer.



MagnumX said:


> That's on a different axis (x-axis) and the limits of how far left/right a sound can go on the ceiling, not "separation" from the bed/ear level speakers which is on the z-axis (height).


Rear ceiling speakers 4 above and 1 foot forward from the rear surround speakers will be further away, or more separated, than rear ceiling speakers 4 feet above and 0 feet feet forward from the rear surround speakers. And the angle between them will be different. We're miscommunicating a bit so it's hard to draw hard conclusions, but the overall takeaway from your post is it sounds like I should be able to move the ceiling speakers closer to the rear surrounds without it being an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.



MagnumX said:


> At some point, the question also becomes do I really want to have to turn my head to see what's going on at the left side of the screen or right side of the screen? Yeah, that sounds awesome that a screen can fill that much of your vision (I already have to at least turn my eyes one way or the other to look directly at something with a mere 92" screen at 8.5', but a 2.35:1 screen (same height but wider) just seems almost irresistible when I think about it, even though I'd have to move my front heights over to get them out of the way of the wider screen and that would then mis-align them vertically further, etc. etc. all just to feel more like I'm _in_ the Millennium Falcon rather than just sitting in front of it.
> 
> Really, the problem there is that black vertical bars more than the extra horizontal size, but 2.35:1 would be like 16:9 on steroids (no black bars so like 16:9, but wider on the same movies). But then I'm back to the having to turn my head a bit to see left/right and that's from the center seat. What about the left/right seats? They'd really have to looks over further. Then I think maybe I should just stick with 16:9.


A pro just told me that for your eyes to process everything on screen, you need to be 1.5 the screen width's distance from the screen. Which is more than most here seem to use, and more than the standard set by some organizations. But it does line up with my experience (maybe more than 1.5, even).


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I meant 55 degrees from the MLP, not 55 degrees from the bed layer.


Assuming your bed layer is at 0 degrees relative to your head, there's no difference in terms of vertical separation between the two. The rear surrounds are at 0. Your rear overhead speakers would be at 55 degrees. That's 55 degrees separation between the two relative to you the listener at the MLP. That's a LOT, much more than most people's setup on here and at the very maximum of Dolby's recommended limits for a 4 speaker "Tops" setup. 

Separation in terms of distance from each other in the x,y planes is meaningless in terms of the overhead physical layers. You want objects to align between those two layers and so a speaker directly above a bed layer speaker presents no issues. The soundtrack can already image to only the rear surrounds. If the object needs to move upward, that's what you worry about, not the fact it's directly above the other speaker. The speaker is there for height effects over and above 5.1 or 7.1, not competing for the same distance away from the listener.



> Rear ceiling speakers 4 above and 1 foot forward from the rear surround speakers will be further away, or more separated


Separation in terms of overhead speakers refers ONLY to the Z-Axis (Height) not the X,Y axis. But you can do whatever you want in your room. I told you months ago the best thing to do is TRY some of these locations out rather than just think about it.



> , than rear ceiling speakers 4 feet above and 0 feet feet forward from the rear surround speakers. And the angle between them will be different. We're miscommunicating a bit so it's hard to draw hard conclusions, but the overall takeaway from your post is it sounds like I should be able to move the ceiling speakers closer to the rear surrounds without it being an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I think the real question is whether you're sitting too close to the rear surrounds in general rather than whether it matters if your overheads match it or not. I've read you should never sit closer than 3 feet from a given speaker or it localizes too much to that speaker and so I've tried to keep all my speakers at least that far away from any of the seats in the room. I'd like to have my front wides further towards the side surrounds so it's an equal distance relative to the SS#2 (which I can't move anywhere front/back due to room limitations), but then it would be too close to the left/right chairs in the front row (or rather the ears of the listeners seated thereof). Even then, sounds on one side of the room versus the other are uneven (precedence and volume drop-off mean only the MLP has "perfect" levels and distances since everything is set from there). 

But "not perfect" doesn't mean unacceptable. I still prefer sitting in the center seat in Rows 1 or 2, even if the screen appears smaller in row 2 as imaging is better. The center locks the dialog in the middle, but there are no other "center" speakers in the middle or back of the room. I think it would be helpful if there were, but I'd need more processing to do it (probably Scatmos as NOTHING short of a Storm or Trinnov supports those speakers directly in addition to the regular rear left/right surrounds). The VOG would be nice for the dead center overhead, but even with DTS:X Pro, it only works with DTS and Auro sources, not Dolby (at least on my AVR). There is no such thing as a center of the room floor level speaker (you could make one with Scatmos, but it'd likely be hard to place with most seating configurations and blocked by chairs, etc. as well. So, it'd never be "perfect" for every single chair.



> A pro just told me that for your eyes to process everything on screen, you need to be 1.5 the screen width's distance from the screen. Which is more than most here seem to use, and more than the standard set by some organizations. But it does line up with my experience (maybe more than 1.5, even).


Humans can see a LOT more than that with peripheral vision. How "much" you can see is another matter. I'd rather turn my eyes a bit than be looking at a tiny screen. The screens are huge at one of the local theaters. I do have to turn my head a bit sometimes, but I have to do that in real life too if something off to the side catches my attention. The more of your vision the screen fills, the more you feel like you're there rather than sitting in a theater, particularly if 3D is also involved.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I think the real question is whether you're sitting too close to the rear surrounds in general rather than whether it matters if your overheads match it or not. I've read you should never sit closer than 3 feet from a given speaker or it localizes too much to that speaker


What's the minimum distance you would recommend without biasing that part of the bedlayer over the rest? As long as I clear 3ft, I'm good, or do I need at least 4 to be safe? 5? 6?

I see what you mean about the angle of the bedlayer, and ceiling speaker, to the main listening position. I was thinking of the angle between the bedlayer, and ceiling, speakers themselves. If you move one of them forward or back, it changes the angle between them, and I didn't know if that mattered as well, in terms of the dispersion of the speakers blending together and things like that, or if I only needed to get the angles to the MLP right. Sounds like it's the latter. So, thanks for your help. I am going to move my seating back and not worry about putting the rear ceiling heights over the rear surround heights. It's pretty complicated so thank you to everyone who helped figure it out in the thread.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> What's the minimum distance you would recommend without biasing that part of the bedlayer over the rest? As long as I clear 3ft, I'm good, or do I need at least 4 to be safe? 5? 6?


3 minimum. More is better.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> At some point, the question also becomes do I really want to have to turn my head to see what's going on at the left side of the screen or right side of the screen? Yeah, that sounds awesome that a screen can fill that much of your vision (I already have to at least turn my eyes one way or the other to look directly at something with a mere 92" screen at 8.5', but a 2.35:1 screen (same height but wider) just seems almost irresistible when I think about it, even though I'd have to move my front heights over to get them out of the way of the wider screen and that would then mis-align them vertically further, etc. etc. all just to feel more like I'm _in_ the Millennium Falcon rather than just sitting in front of it.


You may have found this already, but there is a subforum dedicated to Constant Image Height presentation where you design around a 'Scope screen: 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

I think this is the best way to go, because once you find the comfortable optimum viewing distance away from the 16:9 image, you'll find that at that same distance you can make the image wider and it remains just as comfortable.



Technology3456 said:


> A pro just told me that for your eyes to process everything on screen, you need to be 1.5 the screen width's distance from the screen. Which is more than most here seem to use, and more than the standard set by some organizations. But it does line up with my experience (maybe more than 1.5, even).


1.5x the width of a 16:9 screen puts you at about 2.7x screen height, which is squarely in the middle of most recommendations. And as I mention in the paragraph above, you'll find that if you find that comfortable, it will remain so even as you make the image wider for 'Scope.


----------



## X4100

After reading all of the above, I still feel that some of us are making too much of a "FUSS" about exact angles that a specific speaker configuration has to be in order to achieve "perfect sound". In my room which is not perfectly suited for Dolby Atmos, I nevertheless hear the sound in the correct area of my room that the situation on my tv is depicting. In one of the Transformers movies IIRC a rocket/missile shot out of a barn, and I could definitely follow the direction it was traveling according to what I was watching. In Power Rangers, once again the sound I was experiencing had me ready to duck, jump, or run away from what I was SEEING. I take with a very "small grain of salt" some of what I read on any of the audio video sites I visit. I listen objectively, but I KNOW what I'm hearing from my setup. I've taken advantage of the vast differences in viewpoints, combined with MY own experience of the things I'm hearing in my room. I've ACTUALLY have tried various configurations in my room, I enjoy reading what some have said they heard in their home theater with respect to certain sound effects such as: creaking floorboards above them, the immersive environment of someone under water, and definitely the various sound effects in the best recorded Scifi movies. I enjoy watching, yes I will say it, some of the YouTube Shorts recorded in 2 channel, but upmixed with DSU. I have heard what is some of the best atmospheric effects out there. In conclusion, please don't get too caught up in a certain configuration vs what the other guy says is the only way to set up your home theater. There is alot of good stuff out there. Listen to what you hear expressed, but try it out for yourself. The proof is in the pudding. I've just received my active mixer @MagnumX suggested, and I'm going to make some adjustments to my setup. I'm going to listen to some of those movies I have already watched, as well as "The Meg" .I'm going to Enjoy what I have done in my room! Much thanks to all who have encouraged me through sharing of their experiences!!!🤗🤗😉😉.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> You may have found this already, but there is a subforum dedicated to Constant Image Height presentation where you design around a 'Scope screen: 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat
> 
> I think this is the best way to go, because once you find the comfortable optimum viewing distance away from the 16:9 image, you'll find that at that same distance you can make the image wider and it remains just as comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.5x the width of a 16:9 screen puts you at about 2.7x screen height, which is squarely in the middle of most recommendations. And as I mention in the paragraph above, you'll find that if you find that comfortable, it will remain so even as you make the image wider for 'Scope.


I've got the screen already picked out since I can't go any taller vertically due to the bookshelving extending out from where the screen currently drops down on either side. So it would be a 115" 2.35:1 screen (tensioned electric). I'd have to move the front heights over a bit, but I believe I could use the same mounts I currently use attached to the tops of the bookcases as the screen has adjustable mounts (It would be 2x the weight, though compared to my non-electric current screen I leave down all the time anyway (just blackout drapes and a window behind it so nothing to see with the screen up anyway). 

I've also got an electric tensioned 16:9 picked out to replace it as well. It's just a matter of making a decision as it would also affect which 4K projector I'd would upgrade to in the future as I'd need one that could do motorized zoom to match 2.35:1 or I'd be getting up/down a LOT to manually adjust it (Panavision lenses are just too darn expensive to consider, IMO).


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> ...a 2.35:1 screen (same height but wider) just seems almost irresistible when I think about it, even though I'd have to move my front heights over to get them out of the way of the wider screen and that would then mis-align them vertically further, etc. etc. all just to feel more like I'm _in_ the Millennium Falcon rather than just sitting in front of it.


Perceptions differ, but more than 2:1 or so does nothing for me in terms of increasing scale or immersion; a wider image just gives you more of the same size stuff, but a taller image gives you bigger stuff.

I find the term "letterbox" spot on; it's like looking through a letter slot, not a window.


----------



## MagnumX

noah katz said:


> Perceptions differ, but more than 2:1 or so does nothing for me in terms of increasing scale or immersion; a wider image just gives you more of the same size stuff, but a taller image gives you bigger stuff.
> 
> I find the term "letterbox" spot on; it's like looking through a letter slot, not a window.


Even if you don't care about the extra width (You must like 4:3 very much?), a 2.35:1 move on a 16:9 screen has bars on the top/bottom so you get a smaller, not taller image with those movies. But by going to 2.35:1, you get the same height as a 1:85/1.78 movie (regardless of the extra 'stuff' in the width department). The irony of 2.35:1 on 16:19 screens is that what was meant to look larger (bigger scope) at the theater looks smaller because of the boxing. I can't go higher, but I could make 2.35:1 movies go higher than they currently do.


----------



## noah katz

I prefer 16:9 to 2.35, but I split the difference with my 2.05:1 screen, which gives roughly equal image area.

It's also both the max height and width that fits in the available space, freeing me from upgraditis.


----------



## halcyon_888

I watched Ford v Ferrari last night, which won an Oscar for Best Sound Editing and was also nominated for Best Sound Mixing. It was a very nice mix, but when there were discrete height effects it drew my attention to the height speakers. Why? Nothing in the mix itself, it's because OTHER mixes don't make good use of height channels so when they ARE being used in Ford v Ferrari it draws my attention. What a strange moment it was when I realized this when watching the movie, that other mixes are typically bad so when a good one comes along it draws my attention.


----------



## Gloum

Hello,

Is the dispersion of the KEF CI200QR enough to aim them downward ? 

Cheers


----------



## Soulburner

Gloum said:


> Hello,
> 
> Is the dispersion of the KEF CI200QR enough to aim them downward ?


I don't understand the question. Do you mean is the dispersion so narrow that you _need_ to aim them downward?


----------



## Gloum

Soulburner said:


> I don't understand the question. Do you mean is the dispersion so narrow that you _need_ to aim them downward?


No I mean could you aim the downward or do you need to tilt them toward MLP ?


----------



## noah katz

Gloum said:


> No I mean could you aim the downward or do you need to tilt them toward MLP ?


Depends where they are relative to MLP.

If the dispersion angle were a conical beam of light, would it light up your ears?


----------



## niterida

Gloum said:


> Hello,
> 
> Is the dispersion of the KEF CI200QR enough to aim them downward ?
> 
> Cheers


Yes - they are 115deg dispersion - meaning you can sit with them at 57.5deg elevation from you and still be within their dispersion pattern. Obviously the closer you can get them to 45deg the better they should sound.


----------



## Gloum

niterida said:


> Yes - they are 115deg dispersion - meaning you can sit with them at 57.5deg elevation from you and still be within their dispersion pattern. Obviously the closer you can get them to 45deg the better they should sound.


hello ! 

Cheers ! 
Another question : is there any guide somewhere to calculate the elevation degree ?

Cheers


----------



## niterida

Gloum said:


> Another question : is there any guide somewhere to calculate the elevation degree ?


No - just have to use basic trigonometry. Or just measure from your seated ears to the ceiling and then put your fornt and rear heights that same distance in front and behind you for 45deg.


----------



## Soulburner

I see English may not be your native language – that's ok. I think I know what you are asking now.

I've never looked at that speaker before, but I see it is an 8" coaxial in-ceiling speaker. Based on measurements of many coaxials, including other KEFs, their dispersion is usually more narrow than other speakers. I would want speakers that are tilted toward the seats, if possible.

See attached examples.


----------



## chi_guy50

Gloum said:


> Another question : is there any guide somewhere to calculate the elevation degree ?


Here's a handy on-line guide that many of us have used:

*Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> For all the low quality Atmos movies I've watched lately, the first 30 minutes alone of _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ (in *DTS:X* on the 4K UHD Blu-Ray discs) absolutely blows them all away. It had more impressive surround and overhead effects in those 30 minutes (especially with the flying car, but even things like the owl flying into the room closer to ear level, it just swooped right through the right-side middle of it! Impressive!) than the last 10 Atmos movies I watched combined over their entire lengths! I don't think that's an exaggeration (although obviously that wouldn't be the case with the better Atmos movies I've seen but it feels like it's been awhile). If a movie put in half the effort they put into the Harry Potter DTS:X tracks, they'd be golden.


What are these 10 movies, really curious...and on what format?


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> What are these 10 movies, really curious...and on what format?


It was more of a generalized estimate. However, four Indiana Jones movies in UHD, three Back to the Future movies, Phantasm (remastered), Dragonheart and Knives Out come to mind offhand. That's ten. I'm not saying they're all terrible soundtracks. I'm saying the overhead content was minimal by comparison to HP Chamber of Secrets (and just the first 30 minutes at that).

Now I did just watch Daylight in Atmos from Turbine since then and it was truly excellent.


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> It was more of a generalized estimate. However, four Indiana Jones movies in UHD, three Back to the Future movies, Phantasm (remastered), Dragonheart and Knives Out come to mind offhand. That's ten. I'm not saying they're all terrible soundtracks. I'm saying the overhead content was minimal by comparison to HP Chamber of Secrets (and just the first 30 minutes at that).
> 
> Now I did just watch Daylight in Atmos from Turbine since then and it was truly excellent.


I have 3700+ movies on BD and 4k and you couldn't of picked a worse lineup for ATMOS, maybe except the Indy films which weren't that bad, but not excellent. There are a ton of movies that have great ATMOS tracks.


----------



## Gloum

Hello,

Thanks everyone for the answers : )

One last question I guess for the moment : could the rear atmos speakers be behind the rear speakers ? Currently on a 7.2 system, soon to be 7.2.4

Cheers


----------



## fattire

MagnumX said:


> It was more of a generalized estimate. However, four Indiana Jones movies in UHD, three Back to the Future movies, Phantasm (remastered), Dragonheart and Knives Out come to mind offhand. That's ten. I'm not saying they're all terrible soundtracks. I'm saying the overhead content was minimal by comparison to HP Chamber of Secrets (and just the first 30 minutes at that).
> 
> Now I did just watch Daylight in Atmos from Turbine since then and it was truly excellent.





Gates said:


> I have 3700+ movies on BD and 4k and you couldn't of picked a worse lineup for ATMOS, maybe except the Indy films which weren't that bad, but not excellent. There are a ton of movies that have great ATMOS tracks.


It would be nice to have living, AVS-curated list of "good" Atmos/DTS:X movies. There are periodically threads that have recommendations, but nothing where the first post is simple and kept up-to-date as new content and remasters become available.

I think I see the same movies/scenes recommended over and over. Discovering new content is part of the fun.

Of course - this may exist and I just haven't stumbled across it or used the right search kung-fu.


----------



## Soulburner

There are clearly two kinds of movie watchers. One is looking for a good movie, and if the movie setting doesn't call for surround/overhead effects, then so be it. This is probably most of the population, considering how few of us there are in the A/V hobby. The other is looking for a good romp and actively seeks out certain kinds of content to enjoy on their system. On a spectrum between these two extremes I'm probably somewhere in the middle. I want the entertainment factor, but the movie also can't suck.


----------



## sdrucker

Trinnov and Kaleidescape are collaborating on a project to cross-sell the Altitude and the K-Scape Strato and Terra products. As part of this plan, supposedly Trinnov is coming up with a curated set of Atmos/DTS:X movies playable with Kaleidescape for dual buyers of both systems.

Not sure if all of them are also available from UHD/BD or streaming services, but it will be interesting to see what they put into their consideration set, which I'm hoping will be made public at some point. I don't know if there's more than anecdotal lists of "good Atmos" or "good DTS:X" movies, but this will be a nice reference of what an industry leader in immersion might consider worthwhile 3D audio content even if you're an owner of either brand.

Info is here:








Kaleidescape + Trinnov Program


Kaleidescape and Trinnov Audio present movies at full reference, creating an immersive cinematic experience.




www.kaleidescape.com


----------



## sdrucker

Speaking of music, if you have Apple Music, check out Tiesto and Sevenn's single "Boom" mixed in Dolby Atmos. It's absolutely mind blowing on a high channel count system.


----------



## Technology3456

fattire said:


> I think I see the same movies/scenes recommended over and over. Discovering new content is part of the fun.


Which is what suggests there are so few good atmos mixes. When you ask people what good atmos mixes there are, and everyone can only name the same 5 or 10 movies, that suggests there just aren't very many good atmos mixes, only 5 or 10, so that's all people can name. I can't say either way if that's the case, but it's the impression you get when everyone is naming the same handful of movies.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I'm FAR from the only one that finds many Atmos soundtracks being released to be a joke in terms of immersion and other limitations (most Disney come to mind). The Mandalorian Disney+ show is supposedly in Atmos, but you could have fooled me. Like many movies, it barely uses surround (hardly anything in the rear surrounds), let alone overhead sounds.
> 
> When you're struggling to hear Atmos overhead content in movies, many start cranking the overhead levels way above neutral because they keep thinking they're missing something.


Agreed, I watched The Mandalorian with DTS:NeuralX and had a better experience. Also I've recently increased the dB gain on my height speakers +2. This works better for me with both DSU and DTS:NeuralX upmixers, but when a movie has immersive Atmos like Ready Player One I prefer no dB gain in the heights. I keep hoping as Atmos ages that the quantity of good mixes will increase, but on the other hand I can see the Flatmos trend continuing because it might come down to a budgeting issue as the root problem.


----------



## fattire

Soulburner said:


> There are clearly two kinds of movie watchers. One is looking for a good movie, and if the movie setting doesn't call for surround/overhead effects, then so be it. This is probably most of the population, considering how few of us there are in the A/V hobby. The other is looking for a good romp and actively seeks out certain kinds of content to enjoy on their system. On a spectrum between these two extremes I'm probably somewhere in the middle. I want the entertainment factor, but the movie also can't suck.


And a good sound mix can make a so-so, or even bad movie, a lot more enjoyable.


----------



## sdrucker

@MagnumX: you mentioned The Mandalorian on Disney+ as an Atmos mix not using surround much.

I played Season 1, Episode 8 and Season 2, Episode 9 and while it’s clearly a mix with faint ambience use of top middles, the rear surrounds are always active with effects and music, but the sides are silent much to almost all of time. It’s not my setup: my sides work as always on other content (no Trinnov remapping either).

I see the same thing on both Roku and ATV4K, by the way. Anybody else run into this Disney mix of having (almost all) the surround content in the rears?


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> There are clearly two kinds of movie watchers. One is looking for a good movie, and if the movie setting doesn't call for surround/overhead effects, then so be it. This is probably most of the population, considering how few of us there are in the A/V hobby. The other is looking for a good romp and actively seeks out certain kinds of content to enjoy on their system. On a spectrum between these two extremes I'm probably somewhere in the middle. I want the entertainment factor, but the movie also can't suck.


I think sound can often make the difference between a good movie and a mediocre movie, though; it's a big part of the experience. A good script can be ruined by bad cinematography (and of course there are many bad scripts shot beautifully), and I think similar things happen with sound design. 

Tastes definitely diverge about what constitutes great sound, though. I do pay close attention to mixes, but I place much less emphasis on how much sound is coming from overhead than some seem to.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> @MagnumX: you mentioned The Mandalorian on Disney+ as an Atmos mix not using surround much.
> 
> I played Season 1, Episode 8 and Season 2, Episode 9 and while it’s clearly a mix with faint ambience use of top middles, the rear surrounds are always active with effects and music, but the sides are silent much to almost all of time. It’s not my setup: my sides work as always on other content (no Trinnov remapping either).
> 
> I see the same thing on both Roku and ATV4K, by the way. Anybody else run into this Disney mix of having (almost all) the surround content in the rears?


I can try it, but I don't recall ever hearing a surround track like that, but then I couldn't get Atmos on the first season until after I watched them all. I did rewatch some episodes of Season 1 to test it, but I don't know if that was one of them.


----------



## MagnumX

fattire said:


> And a good sound mix can make a so-so, or even bad movie, a lot more enjoyable.


That's exactly what I was thinking watching Daylight with sly Stallone. It's not my favorite movie by a long shot, but with that sweet sweet new Atmos soundtrack by Turbine, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie I didn't even much like before. It really sounded like I was there in that tunnel with them.


----------



## fattire

MagnumX said:


> That's exactly what I was thinking watching Daylight with sly Stallone. It's not my favorite movie by a long shot, but with that sweet sweet new Atmos soundtrack by Turbine, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie I didn't even much like before. It really sounded like I was there in that tunnel with them.


That’s a good example. Just an “okay” movie but one that should be really enjoyable with a good mix. It’s the right setting to take full advantage of it too. 

Didn’t you say it was some German version or something? Or is this generally available in the US?


----------



## MagnumX

fattire said:


> That’s a good example. Just an “okay” movie but one that should be really enjoyable with a good mix. It’s the right setting to take full advantage of it too.
> 
> Didn’t you say it was some German version or something? Or is this generally available in the US?


It's from Turbine in Germany. They normally have the original English soundtrack as well as a German soundtrack. The English one is always as good or better quality than the German one (i.e. Some titles might only be 7.1 in German, but Atmos or Auro-3D in English). You can order it right form their web site. They deliver to the US and they are not region locked. They just released Twister as well in Atmos/Auro-3D back in June (waiting for it to be back in stock) and Dragonheart came out the same time as Daylight (also in dual Atmos/Auro-3D with two different teams doing the soundtrack so they are different mixes as well as different formats unlike most other Auro-3D titles).

For many claiming Auro-3D is a "dead" format, it's funny because by October (when The Shadow remaster with Alec Baldwin) comes out in Auro-3D, I'll have 20 movies in the format plus several music albums (with over 100 releases now for music). That's not Atmos levels, but DTS:X has zero music release (other than demos) I know about and only around 100 movies or so (give or take a dozen or so). Yamaha just added Auro-3D to two of its newest receivers as well (never supported it up until now) so I wouldn't write them or DTS:X off just yet. There's too many movies that could be improved out there. Their biggest issue is a lack of streaming options.


----------



## X4100

@MagnumX said:"Now I did just watch Daylight in Atmos from Turbine since then and it was truly excellent".

Thanks for sharing this, I tried a Google search but was unsuccessful


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> It's from Turbine in Germany. They normally have the original English soundtrack as well as a German soundtrack. The English one is always as good or better quality than the German one (i.e. Some titles might only be 7.1 in German, but Atmos or Auro-3D in English). You can order it right form their web site. They deliver to the US and they are not region locked. They just released Twister as well in Atmos/Auro-3D back in June (waiting for it to be back in stock) and Dragonheart came out the same time as Daylight (also in dual Atmos/Auro-3D with two different teams doing the soundtrack so they are different mixes as well as different formats unlike most other Auro-3D titles).
> 
> For many claiming Auro-3D is a "dead" format, it's funny because by October (when The Shadow remaster with Alec Baldwin) comes out in Auro-3D, I'll have 20 movies in the format plus several music albums (with over 100 releases now for music). That's not Atmos levels, but DTS:X has zero music release (other than demos) I know about and only around 100 movies or so (give or take a dozen or so). Yamaha just added Auro-3D to two of its newest receivers as well (never supported it up until now) so I wouldn't write them or DTS:X off just yet. There's too many movies that could be improved out there. Their biggest issue is a lack of streaming options.


Do you have their website, I've been looking for Twister in Dolby Atmos


----------



## niterida

X4100 said:


> @MagnumX said:"Now I did just watch Daylight in Atmos from Turbine since then and it was truly excellent".
> 
> Thanks for sharing this, I tried a Google search but was unsuccessful


I found it - turns out to be $60AUD by the time they add postage 








Turbine-Shop


Turbine-Shop | Filme und Serien direkt beim Label bestellen ✓ Schnelle Lieferung | ✓ Kostenloser Versand ab 30 € | ✓ Bonussystem mit Kundenkonto | ✓ …




turbine-shop.de


----------



## X4100

niterida said:


> I found it - turns out to be $60AUD by the time they add postage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turbine-Shop
> 
> 
> Turbine-Shop | Filme und Serien direkt beim Label bestellen ✓ Schnelle Lieferung | ✓ Kostenloser Versand ab 30 € | ✓ Bonussystem mit Kundenkonto | ✓ …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turbine-shop.de


Just left the site, I couldn't find Twister, but I have Daylight in my cart


----------



## markus767

Gates said:


> Second, since you want to go there, there's something wrong with your system if you only think 25 out of 200 are good.


Then something is wrong with my system too  Guess it depends on what you expect from an Atmos track. If you expect it to put you in the same auditory space as the camera then you'll be disappointed by most mixes.

Guess the main problem here is that "object" audio isn't really what it's supposed to be. It doesn't strip the audio object from all of its spatial properties.


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> Then something is wrong with my system too  Guess it depends on what you expect from an Atmos track. If you expect it to put you in the same auditory space as the camera then you'll be disappointed by most mixes.


It was nothing personal against you or any other member here. It's just him and his constant "I know better than anyone else" attitude". He does this on another site as well. At the very least did you calibrate your system with an SPL meter after doing your AVR calibration? That's an important step. Also, I've had plenty of AVR's and Pre/Pro's and I found that they don't all separate and send the signal properly to each of their channels. Some do it way better than others unfortunately. As I changed equipment on a constant basis, the sound for ATMOS was very different for each.


----------



## markus767

Gates said:


> It was nothing personal against you or any other member here. It's just him and his constant "I know better than anyone else" attitude". He does this on another site as well. At the very least did you calibrate your system with an SPL meter after doing your AVR calibration?


No, I do not as this is a very inaccurate method which might explain why you get so different results form different SSP's:



Gates said:


> That's an important step. Also, I've had plenty of AVR's and Pre/Pro's and I found that they don't all separate and send the signal properly to each of their channels. Some do it way better than others unfortunately. As I changed equipment on a constant basis, the sound for ATMOS was very different for each.


SSP's are generally buggy as hell unfortunately.


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> No, I do not as this is a very inaccurate method which might explain why you get so different results form different SSP's:
> 
> 
> 
> SSP's are generally buggy as hell unfortunately.


Ever think it's the reason you're not getting good results as you say?


----------



## Gates

markus767 said:


> No, I do not as this is a very inaccurate method which might explain why you get so different results form different SSP's:
> 
> 
> 
> SSP's are generally buggy as hell unfortunately.


...and I never said I didn't get good results, I said they all did different things when it came to ATMOS (ie; separation was different etc)


----------



## markus767

Gates said:


> Ever think it's the reason you're not getting good results as you say?


No


----------



## sdrucker

markus767 said:


> Then something is wrong with my system too  Guess it depends on what you expect from an Atmos track. If you expect it to put you in the same auditory space as the camera then you'll be disappointed by most mixes.
> 
> Guess the main problem here is that "object" audio isn't really what it's supposed to be. It doesn't strip the audio object from all of its spatial properties.


Yes, and even a bona fide mediocre use of non-7.1 speakers like "The Mandalorian" still is more enjoyable than a pure 5.1 mix (even with the oddity of the surround content coming from the rears rather than the sides 90% of the time, which could be an encoding issue onto DD+/MAT for all we know). The height speakers have subtle ambience, which adds the sense of being inside the scene. Are there better mixes? Of course.

But if you want them to just play all the time, you can copy the mains or rear surrounds to the front/rear heights or TF/TR at a lower level if you absolutely must. That would be an artifact (big tall room) but if that's the standard, well, nobody is forcing A/V enthusiasts to only play back native Atmos as the mixer intended.


----------



## markus767

sdrucker said:


> Yes, and even a bona fide mediocre use of non-7.1 speakers like "The Mandalorian" still is more enjoyable than a pure 5.1 mix (even with the oddity of the surround content coming from the rears rather than the sides 90% of the time, which could be an encoding issue onto DD+/MAT for all we know). The height speakers have subtle ambience, which adds the sense of being inside the scene. Are there better mixes? Of course.
> 
> But if you want them to just play all the time, you can copy the mains or rear surrounds to the front/rear heights or TF/TR at a lower level if you absolutely must. That would be an artifact (big tall room) but if that's the standard, well, nobody is forcing A/V enthusiasts to only play back native Atmos as the mixer intended.


Well, I don't see it that black and white. I've heard great artistic 5.1 mixes. Realism isn't (and doesn't have to be) the goal all the time. But when you do want to go there the problem with Atmos is that it needs to be backwards compatible. For example you can't use an ultra realistic reverb effect using all desirable directions without running into problems when the mix is folded down. So the mixes often come out rather gimmicky – and sometimes certainly intentionally so.
Then there's the way how movie sound tracks are recorded and mixed. These workflows follow a decades old pattern and for a good reason. Attention to detail eats massive amounts of production time. Time that no one has or wants to pay for.


----------



## priitv8

markus767 said:


> No, I do not as this is a very inaccurate method which might explain why you get so different results form different SSP's:
> SSP's are generally buggy as hell unfortunately.


Do I assume correctly, that SSP stands for Surround Sound Processor?
But my actual question - does anyone have a clue, whether OEM-s develop their own surround decoding software, or are they getting a ready-made code library from the licensors?
Here is one example of such code library from a DSP vendor, but I wonder whether the actual code was developed by ADI or by DTS, Inc. ??
Personally I would think, that this is something most OEM-s would not want to deal with and they'd just bake in code library from Dolby Labs and DTS.


----------



## markus767

priitv8 said:


> Do I assume correctly, that SSP stands for Surround Sound Processor?
> But my actual question - does anyone have a clue, whether OEM-s develop their own surround decoding software, or are they getting a ready-made code library from the licensors?
> Here is one example of such code library from a DSP vendor, but I wonder whether the actual code was developed by ADI or by DTS, Inc. ??
> Personally I would think, that this is something most OEM-s would not want to deal with and they'd just bake in code library from Dolby Labs and DTS.


Initial code comes from licensor but it goes through many hands before you get to listen to it.


----------



## priitv8

markus767 said:


> Initial code comes from licensor but it goes through many hands before you get to listen to it.


I see. Thank you for making it clearer to me.


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> Then something is wrong with my system too  Guess it depends on what you expect from an Atmos track. If you expect it to put you in the same auditory space as the camera then you'll be disappointed by most mixes.
> 
> Guess the main problem here is that "object" audio isn't really what it's supposed to be. It doesn't strip the audio object from all of its spatial properties.


For the record, I said maybe 25 out of 200 were _great_, not "good". I said maybe 1/3 are _good_ immersion (i.e. Atmos is decent but not mind blowing or what people might call a demo worthy movie for Atmos). That's just am impression, though. I didn't count them. 

I'd probably argue 1/3 for soundtracks in general for even 5.1, though due to the aforementioned philosophy some mixing guys and even directors that surround should not be distracting. It's perhaps simply more noticeable with Atmos because I expected more given the costs/effort to install such a system compared to 5.1 and the demos (and some movies) that demonstrate what it is actually _capable_ of doing. 

It's by that criteria it falls short, not overall soundtrack quality (music, foley effects, etc). Raiders of the Lost Ark is a _great_ soundtrack, but the Atmos version adds very little, IMO. I could have just used Neural X and be done with it. The same is true of Top Gun and others. GREAT soundtracks, overall, but Atmos isn't adding anything Neural X didn't already. 

Compare that to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. It uses sounds placed differently. Some might even be different sounds. Upmixing the 5.1 soundtrack isn't even close to the same result as you can easily compare with the flying car scenes.

The bottom line is that if 5.1 is good enough, why do we even need Atmos, X or Auro?Dolby advertised it as amazing and it can be, but often isn't. Early on, you could blame it being a new format, but it's been around now for seven years already (time flies). If we say "good enough" that may all it will ever be.

Fortunately, Neural X does an exceptional job upmixing even poor Atmos tracks (like the thunder in Phantasm that isn't overhead in Atmos, but is with Neural X). My expectations are lower with upmixing, though so perhaps that's why I find Neural X so impressive. It's amazing how well it works, really.


----------



## Soulburner

markus767 said:


> If you expect it to put you in the same auditory space as the camera then you'll be disappointed by most mixes.


Would be nice if it did. I think whenever the camera changes angles to another actor, the soundscene should rotate along with the camera. They do try to do this at times but it's inconsistent.


----------



## X4100

Soulburner said:


> Would be nice if it did. I think whenever the camera changes angles to another actor, the soundscene should rotate along with the camera. They do try to do this at times but it's inconsistent.


I find that with a lot of the "made for kids " movies, Pixar used this technique quite a bit!!


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> Would be nice if it did. I think whenever the camera changes angles to another actor, the soundscene should rotate along with the camera. They do try to do this at times but it's inconsistent.


I just came across a great example of this, a Netflix original sci-fi feature called "Oxygen." It's a very claustrophobic film with only a couple of actors and one setting, and the sound design does a lot to drive the narrative forward. Lots of use of the soundscene following the camera angle.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I find that with a lot of the "made for kids " movies, Pixar used this technique quite a bit!!


Yes, I used Toy Story 2 for a lot of testing of panned dialog long before Atmos (When Andy goes outside to rescue Wheezy) and rear center effects (they were dts-es rear center steered) like pig's coin dropping in the back of the room and car engine starting outside right after the pretend play with the pig and buzz lightyear in the 2nd one.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Would be nice if it did. I think whenever the camera changes angles to another actor, the soundscene should rotate along with the camera. They do try to do this at times but it's inconsistent.


It's situational. You could probably get away with that in a scene that doesn't have a lot of cuts, but it would be distracting as hell in a scene that changes perspective often (like that awful terrace scene in Bohemian Rhapsody). It also doesn't jive with how audio is captured on-set, as the mics aren't on the camera, so production audio wouldn't inherently be from the POV of the camera. Either way, I don't think the goal is to make the camera a stand-in for the viewer, so I'm not sure that would be the right approach in general.

But as many have discussed in the past here, I do think panned dialogue needs to be more of a thing in movies where it makes sense. It would take them using a multi-mic array for production audio though (which they're probably not gonna do), so we'll probably only hear that in movies where dialogue is all looped (like Pixar flicks).


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's situational. You could probably get away with that in a scene that doesn't have a lot of cuts, but it would be distracting as hell in a scene that changes perspective often (like that awful terrace scene in Bohemian Rhapsody). It also doesn't jive with how audio is captured on-set, as the mics aren't on the camera, so production audio wouldn't inherently be from the POV of the camera. Either way, I don't think the goal is to make the camera a stand-in for the viewer, so I'm not sure that would be the right approach in general.
> 
> But as many have discussed in the past here, I do think panned dialogue needs to be more of a thing in movies where it makes sense. It would take them using a multi-mic array for production audio though (which they're probably not gonna do), so we'll probably only hear that in movies where dialogue is all looped (like Pixar flicks).


I would think that Dolby's audio objects would be perfect for handling panned dialog. They move on-screen and you just move the object containing that person's dialog to match. It shouldn't matter where they placed the microphones during filming or if they dubbed over it (common when it's noisy on-location). That's what sound editing is for. Although, really, it wasn't that hard without Atmos either. They used it over 50 years ago for some films. 

The reason I read it's not used is, once again, the belief that it doesn't enhance a movie, but _DISTRACTS_ from it (see _Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art_, by John Purcell, *page 174*)

_"If you want to lose your audience very quickly, try sending a character's voice from one side of the screen to the other". _

That is the kind of old school reference material that stops Atmos from being Atmos and from soundtracks moving from the 1950s into tho 21st Century. It's absolute bullocks. According to this guy, they lost the audience completely in the Toy Story movies and more recently Gravity because apparently the audience is too stupid to understand what's going on. I just imagine this guy thinking this would happen:

'Where did the actor's voice go!??!!? I'm so confused!!!!'

"It moved to the left side of the screen." 

'OMG! You're right! How did it get there! Amazing!'

And people coming into the industry bought this guy's book? No wonder we don't get panned dialog.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I would think that Dolby's audio objects would be perfect for handling panned audio. They move on-screen and you just move the object containing that person's dialog to match. It shouldn't matter where they placed the microphones during filming or if they dubbed over it (common when it's noisy on-location). That's what sound editing is for.


They would work well for handling panned dialogue, though if you had the dialogue as a separate stem anyway, traditional cross-channel steering across LCR the way Gary Rydstrom did it would achieve the same result and save you an object (and get mixed down into the base channels so it stays positionally the same without object grouping possibly shifting its location when doing the home version of the mix). But dialog recorded on-set isn't always isolated. You could have one area mic capturing multiple people speaking over each other, some background sounds you want to keep that are in that audio that would prevent you from panning it (like the runway scene in Ford V Ferrari), etc. Or, if you're able to do it, individual hidden mics on each person speaking that lets you isolate their dialog as its own stem as they did in the movie 1917. 

Sound editing serves the movie. If the best performance is in the production audio and it's clean enough not to have to loop it, they're not going to redo it just so they can pan it. A lot of this depends on how the sound crew mic'd the location and whether they want to keep the production audio recorded on the day. And if it's an on-location shoot outside, the production dialogue audio may be useless anyway except as a reference for ADR. That's why it makes way more sense in movies where all of the dialogue is either going to be ADR'd or pre-recorded in isolation. Maybe if more movies started doing hidden mics on each person speaking, they could do full panning of dialogue because then it wouldn't matter whether it was cleaned-up production audio or ADR. But that's not standard practice YET.

I would like to see more movies try to use panned dialogue to match the on-screen action when possible. It isn't always possible now with how sound crews capture the production audio... or how editors cut heavy dialogue scenes together from multiple POVs. It would probably work best in movies with long static shots or slow tracking shots, so the movement didn't overwhelm the viewer. It would have to be a stylistic choice made in pre-production by the director so they could implement it during production. But like you, I would like to see more directors choose to do it now that they have immersive audio steering in their toolbox. I think the problem is that most directors are unaware of it and tend to rely on their sound designer to convince them of the benefits after the fact based on what audio they have to work with.


----------



## Soulburner

dschulz said:


> I just came across a great example of this, a Netflix original sci-fi feature called "Oxygen." It's a very claustrophobic film with only a couple of actors and one setting, and the sound design does a lot to drive the narrative forward. Lots of use of the soundscene following the camera angle.


Nice. And I'm not sure if that's a word - I just made it up. Maybe soundstage? Never heard that applied to cinema before, while we do use the term scene extensively in film, so I thought people would relate to it. Visual scene, sound scene.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's situational. You could probably get away with that in a scene that doesn't have a lot of cuts, but it would be distracting as hell in a scene that changes perspective often (like that awful terrace scene in Bohemian Rhapsody). It also doesn't jive with how audio is captured on-set, as the mics aren't on the camera, so production audio wouldn't inherently be from the POV of the camera


You would either have metadata tagging the mic feeds or the mixer would just have to do it manually, likely a combination of the two.


Jeremy Anderson said:


> Either way, I don't think the goal is to make the camera a stand-in for the viewer, so I'm not sure that would be the right approach in general.


I think it has to be for immersive audio to work at all.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> You would either have metadata tagging the mic feeds or the mixer would just have to do it manually, likely a combination of the two.


What I was saying is that the mics themselves aren't directional in any way relative to the camera or its POV. They're placed to attempt to isolate certain elements (ambient noise, wide areas with multiple speakers, individual booms over single speakers, etc.) so the individual stems can be steered by the sound designer. And often, the mics can't be ideally placed, so they have to get a little crafty to hide them in the scene where audio capture is needed. But the sound in movies is almost never relative to the camera's POV like it was meant to be VR. Artistically, a lot of mixes are done to convey to the viewer what the character they're watching is experiencing rather than to strictly be you watching the events unfold as if the camera was your eyes. 


Soulburner said:


> I think it has to be for immersive audio to work at all.


There are plenty of immersive mixes that envelop the listener naturally without the sounds being confined to the camera's POV. And most movies with cuts that change POV often ignore the camera's POV in favor of a generalized soundscape, because shifting audio repeatedly that way can be jarring. That effect works in some genres and scenes... but wouldn't in most, or for the length of most movies. The gimmickry of it, especially if it wasn't a specific stylistic choice made in pre-production that was carefully planned out in advance, would likely detract from the movie itself and no sound designer would want to do that. That's why I said it is situational. Even the movies that already use panned dialogue based on the speaker's screen position don't necessarily place effects or ambience in the mix with that same mindset.

Now, I do think it would be interesting if they used Atmos in that very specific way for movies that are totally presented in first person POV (like that cheesy flick Hardcore Harry, if you remember it). Something like that would be an incredible demo for immersive audio. I just don't know that you could make most movies that way. And for my part, I don't know that I would want them to, though I understand the appeal.


----------



## MagnumX

@Jeremy Anderson - I think Soulburner is trying to say that's what _immersive_ should mean. It's supposed to be like you're actually there. The Dolby demo "Nature's Fury" implies exactly that kind of immersion, lining literally everything up with the screen. We both like that idea. You don't. We'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

You indicated no director on Earth wants that, but the Harry Potter movies try to do exactly that (with DTS:X) minus panned dialog and Gravity does it in Atmos with partial panned dialog (and won a sound award). 

Maybe what we really need are less whiplash camera cuts so it's not an issue. I once tried to watch Jennifer Lopez's "Booty" video, but it changed the camera angle like 3x a second. It was terrible (nice scenery if you paused/step framed it, though). I don't know who thought whiplash camera cuts were a great idea, but IMO it makes the film visuals hard to follow (e.g. Transformers movies) and it's _so_ unnecessary, IMO.


----------



## X4100

I remember a scene in Toy Story 1, at Andy's birthday party, as the kids are running up the stairs to Andy's room, a kid's voice says " let's change the sheets". The voice was very low in volume, but it was definitely there!


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There are plenty of immersive mixes that envelop the listener naturally without the sounds being confined to the camera's POV. And most movies with cuts that change POV often ignore the camera's POV in favor of a generalized soundscape, because shifting audio repeatedly that way can be jarring. That effect works in some genres and scenes... but wouldn't in most, or for the length of most movies. The gimmickry of it, especially if it wasn't a specific stylistic choice made in pre-production that was carefully planned out in advance, would likely detract from the movie itself and no sound designer would want to do that. That's why I said it is situational. Even the movies that already use panned dialogue based on the speaker's screen position don't necessarily place effects or ambience in the mix with that same mindset.
> 
> Now, I do think it would be interesting if they used Atmos in that very specific way for movies that are totally presented in first person POV (like that cheesy flick Hardcore Harry, if you remember it). Something like that would be an incredible demo for immersive audio. I just don't know that you could make most movies that way. And for my part, I don't know that I would want them to, though I understand the appeal.


What I am saying is that the very definition of immersive audio places objects around me relative to my seating position and what is going on on screen. It's not random; it is deliberate. In that sense I am in sync with the camera's view.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> @Jeremy Anderson - I think Soulburner is trying to say that's what _immersive_ should mean. It's supposed to be like you're actually there. The Dolby demo "Nature's Fury" implies exactly that kind of immersion, lining literally everything up with the screen. We both like that idea. You don't. We'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.


It isn't that I don't like that idea. It's just that I don't think that necessarily works for every movie or every genre. I love a good immersive mix as much as the next guy. But there are realities to how movies are recorded and mixed, and how those stories are told, that take priority over that. I also think you can do an immersive mix that puts you in the scene without the sound having to follow the POV of the camera or having sounds strictly track what's on-screen, which was the point. In fact, I think Atmos' real potential is in presenting things that aren't on the screen in a way that is additive to what you're seeing in the movie.



MagnumX said:


> You indicated no director on Earth wants that, but the Harry Potter movies try to do exactly that (with DTS:X) minus panned dialog and Gravity does it in Atmos with partial panned dialog (and won a sound award).


No, I said no sound designer would want to shift sounds based on POV if there are a lot of cuts, such as dialogue exchanges. That's why I said it would work better with static shots or long tracking shots. I agree with you that the Harry Potter movies have fantastic DTS:X tracks but even they don't steer audio based strictly on camera POV, especially in scenes with rapidly shifting POVs (though stylistically, the directors of the HP movies don't do many scenes with fast cuts, thankfully). Gravity does do some fantastic things with panned dialogue, and it made sense in the framework of that movie for them to do that. And again, I do wish that more filmmakers experimented with immersive sound in ways that serve the story the way Gravity did. Not just with the dialogue panning through the array, but the way they put the viewer inside Bullock's helmet during the scenes from her character's POV. 



MagnumX said:


> Maybe what we really need are less whiplash camera cuts so it's not an issue. I once tried to watch Jennifer Lopez's "Booty" video, but it changed the camera angle like 3x a second. It was terrible (nice scenery if you paused/step framed it, though). I don't know who thought whiplash camera cuts were a great idea, but IMO it makes the film visuals hard to follow (e.g. Transformers movies) and it's _so_ unnecessary, IMO.


That's why I pointed out Bohemian Rhapsody earlier. The scene on the patio is all dialogue exchanges... but it is one of the worst cut scenes I have ever seen. Seriously over 30 cuts in only a few minutes, with totally different POVs. Trying to do panned dialogue with a scene like that would be a nightmare and take you out of the movie. And yet, somehow they got a best editing nom (and I think won it). It's awful. And I agree with you on the whiplash pans being overused. A lot of action movie directors lean on that because of Michael Bay. I almost wonder if they use that with motion blur to cover up iffy CGI sometimes. Sometimes a whip pan with blur is a good way to disguise a cut, but you're right that in general, they use it way too much. And mixers have to work around it.



Soulburner said:


> What I am saying is that the very definition of immersive audio places objects around me relative to my seating position and what is going on on screen. It's not random; it is deliberate. In that sense I am in sync with the camera's view.


I get what you're saying. My point is that you can have sounds steered logically around the viewer of the movie without them necessarily having to constantly track the POV of the camera. A good immersive mix can have sounds that put you in the environment of the scene without the need to move sounds around the room every time the camera moves. And they definitely need to learn to do more of that in general.


----------



## priitv8

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In fact, I think Atmos' real potential is in presenting things that aren't on the screen in a way that is additive to what you're seeing in the movie.


I think both movies of Quiet Place demonstrate that in avery good manner. Esp in the basement scene where the creatures move above and around, without being visible on screen.


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> Nice. And I'm not sure if that's a word - I just made it up. Maybe soundstage? Never heard that applied to cinema before, while we do use the term scene extensively in film, so I thought people would relate to it. Visual scene, sound scene.


Petition to have soundscene officially added to the AVS lexicon.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Would be nice if it did. I think whenever the camera changes angles to another actor, the soundscene should rotate along with the camera. They do try to do this at times but it's inconsistent.


PS5 games are good at that however


----------



## squared80

Chirosamsung said:


> PS5 games are good at that however


I'm curious if Sony will finally implement Atmos into it's PS5 dev after 2022 when Microsoft's XBox exclusivity deal expires.


----------



## Worf

squared80 said:


> I'm curious if Sony will finally implement Atmos into it's PS5 dev after 2022 when Microsoft's XBox exclusivity deal expires.


There is no exclusivity deal. Sony has their own 3d audio tech they explicitly acquired in 2019. There were rumours of it but both Microsoft and Dolby has confirmed there is no such thing. 

So chances are, not very likely. Sony will likely make it mandatory to use the tech in games.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Worf said:


> So chances are, not very likely. Sony will likely make it mandatory to use the tech in games.


I hate that. It's stupidly a headphones-only system isn't it? So we'll all have to wait another X years to get AVRs that can use Sony's new 3D audio system.


----------



## Chirosamsung

squared80 said:


> I'm curious if Sony will finally implement Atmos into it's PS5 dev after 2022 when Microsoft's XBox exclusivity deal expires.


the point is, if you play red dead redemption 2 or resident evil 7 or 8 on anything like a XBOX ONE X, PS5 or X Box series X and you turn the camera, the objects go to the speaker they should be as you rotate whether that's ambient sounds, voices or distinct sounds. It is very well done and very immersive and even PS5 does this well WITHOUT formal Dolby atmos


----------



## X4100

squared80 said:


> I'm curious if Sony will finally implement Atmos into it's PS5 dev after 2022 when Microsoft's XBox exclusivity deal expires.


I really don't think that will happen, either!! I'm wondering if the audio will become more immersive/intense as you progress to higher levels of achievement, or is this already happening?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Chirosamsung said:


> the point is, if you play red dead redemption 2 or resident evil 7 or 8 on anything like a XBOX ONE X, PS5 or X Box series X and you turn the camera, the objects go to the speaker they should be as you rotate whether that's ambient sounds, voices or distinct sounds. It is very well done and very immersive and even PS5 does this well WITHOUT formal Dolby atmos


To be fair first person shooter games on PC has done that just fine for the past 20+ years.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> the point is, if you play red dead redemption 2 or resident evil 7 or 8 on anything like a XBOX ONE X, PS5 or X Box series X and you turn the camera, the objects go to the speaker they should be as you rotate whether that's ambient sounds, voices or distinct sounds. It is very well done and very immersive and even PS5 does this well WITHOUT formal Dolby atmos


The PS4 did this too (I've been playing Dragon Age Inquisition lately).


----------



## Gabre

Chirosamsung said:


> the point is, if you play red dead redemption 2 or resident evil 7 or 8 on anything like a XBOX ONE X, PS5 or X Box series X and you turn the camera, the objects go to the speaker they should be as you rotate whether that's ambient sounds, voices or distinct sounds. It is very well done and very immersive and even PS5 does this well WITHOUT formal Dolby atmos


Lol, you don't game lot ha. 

This is normal audio behaviour since FOREVER in any FPS games


----------



## Chirosamsung

Mashie Saldana said:


> To be fair first person shooter games on PC has done that just fine for the past 20+ years.


true, but most people with a true atmos setup now days have a console. The point isn't that only one thing can do it but rather that LOTS of things can do it. Maybe movies can go to school on this...


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> true, but most people with a true atmos setup now days have a console. The point isn't that only one thing can do it but rather that LOTS of things can do it. Maybe movies can go to school on this...


The main difference with Atmos for most rooms is the addition of overhead speakers. While the PS4 rotates sounds very nicely around/behind me, it's less successful (even with Neural X engaged) at putting sounds overhead, even compared to most movies (better than not using Neurla X even so, IMO). What Atmos is needed for is the overhead placement and that's where the PS5 is likely to go wrong without a decoder or translator. It's possible that Neural X might handle Sony 360 very well and get there 80-90% that way (The PS5 is out so someone should know), but it would be better if Sony offered an Atmos extension/conversion, even if the user had to buy the license themselves to use it. Otherwise, one is probably better off (other than wanting certain PS only games) to get an XBox 360 at this point as it fully supports both Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## squared80

Worf said:


> There is no exclusivity deal. Sony has their own 3d audio tech they explicitly acquired in 2019. There were rumours of it but both Microsoft and Dolby has confirmed there is no such thing.
> 
> So chances are, not very likely. Sony will likely make it mandatory to use the tech in games.


Gotcha. I saw a leak that was posted somewhere by accident and then deleted by the company. But yeah, nothing was confirmed official.


----------



## Worf

mrtickleuk said:


> I hate that. It's stupidly a headphones-only system isn't it? So we'll all have to wait another X years to get AVRs that can use Sony's new 3D audio system.


No, it's not headphones only, it works in multichannel systems. It can render to headphones, but it can render to a multichannel 5.1/7.1 system as well. I don't believe it supports overheads. 

It renders down to standard PCM audio, so all AVRs can decode it.

Basically the game developer can play audio out of each channel directly (for music say), but also locate audio objects somewhere in the 3d world and the software figures out how to mix it into the appropriate output channels.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Worf said:


> No, it's not headphones only, it works in multichannel systems. It can render to headphones, but it can render to a multichannel 5.1/7.1 system as well. I don't believe it supports overheads.


So... it IS headphones only then. Because it doesn't support overheads, whereas their headphone solution does. That was his point. The PS5 has immersive audio at a SDK level, but no way to convert it out for output to Atmos/DTS:X - just their HRTF solution for headphones.

The Xbox definitely one-ups them on this, because all game audio is handled through Microsoft's immersive audio hooks for Windows Sonic, which can be easily translated out to either Atmos or DTS:X (or either of their headphone variants, with all the HRTF processing handled by the DSP in the console).


Chirosamsung said:


> true, but most people with a true atmos setup now days have a console. The point isn't that only one thing can do it but rather that LOTS of things can do it. Maybe movies can go to school on this...


Games have had object-based audio for a long time by their very nature. So even before immersive formats to add overheads, they can steer sound based on camera position. But that doesn't apply to movies, as most gameplay isn't going to have sudden changes in POV so much as comparatively slow pans. Movie sound is steered manually by a sound designer. Even in cutscenes for games, developers change the mix to make it more consistent across cuts the way movies do... because repeated changes in POV that try to make the audio match that POV sound jarring.


----------



## Warbird7

Best Atmos streamer...ROKU?

I have been doing some comparisons of streamer support for 4K and Atmos (DD+).
Specifically these apps: HBOMax, Netflix, PrimeVideo, YouTube, YouTubeTV.
On these platforms: LG CX, Xbox Series X, Windows 10 PC, ROKU.

I would make a grid, but it likely would soon be out dated.
It seems that the ROKU is the platform that will more consistently stream Atmos.
Disappointingly, none of the Xbox Series X client apps will play anything better than Stereo (Atmos app is installed).
I cannot get YouTube to stream Atmos anywhere, even on the PC through HDMI (even though the Dolby Atmos app demos work fine).

Curious what other folks use for streaming Atmos?


----------



## MagnumX

Warbird7 said:


> Best Atmos streamer...ROKU?
> 
> I have been doing some comparisons of streamer support for 4K and Atmos (DD+).
> Specifically these apps: HBOMax, Netflix, PrimeVideo, YouTube, YouTubeTV.
> On these platforms: LG CX, Xbox Series X, Windows 10 PC, ROKU.
> 
> I would make a grid, but it likely would soon be out dated.
> It seems that the ROKU is the platform that will more consistently stream Atmos.
> Disappointingly, none of the Xbox Series X client apps will play anything better than Stereo (Atmos app is installed).
> I cannot get YouTube to stream Atmos anywhere, even on the PC through HDMI (even though the Dolby Atmos app demos work fine).
> 
> Curious what other folks use for streaming Atmos?


AppleTV 4K is my primary streamer. It pretty much supports Atmos for any app that wants it plus its own libraries including Apple Music in Atmos (and lossless stereo), but also for Tidal and pretty much everything you listed up there while still having support for Spectrum's cable app (another family member uses it for that while Roku's app is depreciated and no longer available to buy). 

I do have a Roku Ultra, but given the overlap with the Apple TV 4K, I find I just don't use it, especially since I have large Apple movie libraries (from sale purchases to digital redemptions) and Apple has a huge Atmos library compared to many other streaming companies (e.g. Vudu).

I also have an NVidia Shield Pro (2017 model), but it doesn't do Atmos for a couple of them (Disney+ and Netflix come to mind) due to the lack of a driver as far as I can tell. I'm kind of disappointed in Nvidia's support. There's a bug in their firmware that causes a problem for my Asus router (movies randomly stop) whereas my older/slower Netgear router works fine with it. Neither Asus or Nvidia will do anything to acknowledge it, let alone fix it. But it does run KODI well other than that router issue (my primary reason for having it) with full Atmos/X/Auro support. 

I've also got a Zidoo X9S which is great for connecting external hard drives to its USB ports and running 3D movies and 4K movies with full Atmos/X support, but its streaming apps are the mobile ones so it's kind of crappy for that. Its movie player is absolutely flawless with running 24fps movies smoothly as well.

I have a PS4 that can stream some things, but given the lack of any kind of Atmos/X support or 4K, I wouldn't recommend it for it. I primarily use it for gaming.


----------



## howard68




----------



## Technology3456

Are any of the Superbowl halftime shows available in Atmos? Not just mapping the music, but the crowd cheering from the stadium 360 degrees around the stage, all fireworks and stuff. It could be an ideal Atmos opportunity. Auro 3D might be even better for this type of thing but I am setting up for Atmos not Auro 3D primarily so that's why I ask about Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Technology3456 said:


> Are any of the Superbowl halftime shows available in Atmos? Not just mapping the music, but the crowd cheering from the stadium 360 degrees around the stage, all fireworks and stuff. It could be an ideal Atmos opportunity. Auro 3D might be even better for this type of thing but I am setting up for Atmos not Auro 3D primarily so that's why I ask about Atmos.


watch the wimblystadium scene of live aid for Bohemian Rhapsody


----------



## mrvideo

Technology3456 said:


> Are any of the Superbowl halftime shows available in Atmos? Not just mapping the music, but the crowd cheering from the stadium 360 degrees around the stage, all fireworks and stuff. It could be an ideal Atmos opportunity. Auro 3D might be even better for this type of thing but I am setting up for Atmos not Auro 3D primarily so that's why I ask about Atmos.


Not possible as DDPlus is needed, at a minimum, for Atmos and it is not allowed in the broadcast spec. Can't be sent to overseas viewers either, as the satellite audio streams are not capable of doing Atmos, as Dolby Digital is not normally used. Does the ATSC 3.0 spec allow for it, I do not currently know.


----------



## Technology3456

mrvideo said:


> Not possible as DDPlus is needed, at a minimum, for Atmos and it is not allowed in the broadcast spec. Can't be sent to overseas viewers either, as the satellite audio streams are not capable of doing Atmos, as Dolby Digital is not normally used. Does the ATSC 3.0 spec allow for it, I do not currently know.


I thought maybe they would have some sort of "Superbowl halftime shows" blu-ray or 4K release with Atmos, regardless of broadcast specs, but I couldnt find any. It's all good either way. Would be cool but then again, there is a lot of trash, in more than one sense, in those shows, so maybe it's for the best overall.


----------



## dschulz

mrvideo said:


> Does the ATSC 3.0 spec allow for it, I do not currently know.


ATSC 3.0 allows for either MPEG-H (currently used in South Korean broadcast) or Dolby AC-4 (which will be used in North America). AC-4 can carry Atmos.


----------



## thomasphoenix

Anyone checked Spider-Man into the spider verse on a Trinnov? I’m getting only 2 active heights (middle one) in a 12.1.10 Atmos room and 4 active heights( duplicated) on a 15.1.8 room. This is also in the psychedelic final fight seq with Kingpin. Is this a static mix like the disney mixes? 7.2.2? 

My device doesn’t show objects but shows the active channels and signal levels.


----------



## rec head

howard68 said:


> View attachment 3170397


Did you just get that IR repeater... for free perhaps?


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched another Harry Potter film (Goblet of Fire) in 4K + DTS:X (I watched the previous 3 films over the past week as well) and all I can say is that these movies in DTS:X are the closest thing I've heard to the Dolby Atmos demos in a real movie (save it being DTS instead). The amount of surround and especially overhead use is mind blowing (and there's lots of rear channel use too for those naysayers that think 5.1 is good enough on the base layer) and full pans through the front wide speakers quite often as well! I watched them before, but I don't remember them sounding quite this awesome. You want demo material for your Atmos/X system? It doesn't get any better than this.


----------



## xavierlehnsherr

MagnumX said:


> I just watched another Harry Potter film (Goblet of Fire) in 4K + DTS:X (I watched the previous 3 films over the past week as well) and all I can say is that these movies in DTS:X are the closest thing I've heard to the Dolby Atmos demos in a real movie (save it being DTS instead). The amount of surround and especially overhead use is mind blowing (and there's lots of rear channel use too for those naysayers that think 5.1 is good enough on the base layer) and full pans through the front wide speakers quite often as well! I watched them before, but I don't remember them sounding quite this awesome. You want demo material for your Atmos/X system? It doesn't get any better than this.


Fully agreed. This and jason bourne series have the best DTS:X tracks imo.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I just watched another Harry Potter film (Goblet of Fire) in 4K + DTS:X (I watched the previous 3 films over the past week as well) and all I can say is that these movies in DTS:X are the closest thing I've heard to the Dolby Atmos demos in a real movie (save it being DTS instead). The amount of surround and especially overhead use is mind blowing (and there's lots of rear channel use too for those naysayers that think 5.1 is good enough on the base layer) and full pans through the front wide speakers quite often as well! I watched them before, but I don't remember them sounding quite this awesome. You want demo material for your Atmos/X system? It doesn't get any better than this.


Agreed. And the mixes seem to get better the further you get into the series. Harry Potter in DTS:X and The Matrix Trilogy in Atmos are, IMHO, the gold standard for how immersive mixes of older movies should be handled. Very well done.


----------



## MagnumX

xavierlehnsherr said:


> Fully agreed. This and jason bourne series have the best DTS:X tracks imo.


I'll have to check out the Jason Bourne movies in DTS:X. 

Most of the other ones I have (save Crimson Peak which had great overhead creepiness) aren't terribly overhead heavy (e.g. The Fast and the Furious sounded awesome at ear level in X, but had little overhead action, although admittedly not much to work with since it was mostly outdoors without planes, etc. (Haven't watched newer ones yet where they do crazy stuff out of planes etc.)

Some had a few things (Spaceship in E.T.), but it was nothing like Harry Potter in X.


----------



## thomasphoenix

thomasphoenix said:


> Anyone checked Spider-Man into the spider verse on a Trinnov? I’m getting only 2 active heights (middle one) in a 12.1.10 Atmos room and 4 active heights( duplicated) on a 15.1.8 room. This is also in the psychedelic final fight seq with Kingpin. Is this a static mix like the disney mixes? 7.2.2?
> 
> My device doesn’t show objects but shows the active channels and signal levels.


Anyone ??


----------



## Chirosamsung

thomasphoenix said:


> Anyone ??


great movie! Spider verse is one of my go-to atmos demo combined with eye candy demo!


----------



## howard68

thomasphoenix said:


> Anyone ??


Try asking Shane from the Spare Change tube channel to check this


----------



## thomasphoenix

howard68 said:


> Try asking Shane from the Spare Change tube channel to check this


I wrote to him. Thank you


----------



## rennyrb

I have a question for the "Atmos-experts" here:

I'm in the process of upgrading my 5.1 setup to a 5.1.2 system with two Polk OWM3 above me.
I have a Denon AVR-S750H on order, which only has settings for Front Height, Top Front, or Top Middle speaker placement above you. 
However, I'm planning to put the speakers mounted high on the wall, pointed downward aimed at listeners, behind the main listening position; the Dolby guide says 10º behind you is ok for top middle position, but my measurements have my placement more like 120º (30º behind me, or 20º more than spec), which is also roughly where "Top Rear" or "Rear Height" would be.

My question is, how much of an issue will this be? I'm planning to just try it out, but my only concern with setting the speakers to Top Middle in the AVR is that if sounds are supposed to be coming from front to rear it might sound strange. I'm guessing more diffuse ambient sounds won't be as much of a problem.

Plan "B" would be to return and get an Onkyo TX-NR595, which has both Top Rear and Rear Height options in its setup, but I'd prefer to stick with the Denon if this won't be a dealbreaker.


----------



## X4100

@rennyrb said above " I have a Denon AVR-S750H on order, which only has settings for Front Height, Top Front, or Top Middle speaker placement above you". The problem I see is that the three positions you mention, will not give you front to rear audio. 5.1.2 only gives overhead or front oriented left to right sound above you. IIRC 5.1.4 is the least you want to have. IMHO your plan B sounds like the best option, I'm running 5.1.4 and LOVE IT! In fact I'm using a suggestion from @MagnumX to make my rear to front sound more seamless. It's taking a little longer than I expected, but I want to do it right the first time.


----------



## rennyrb

X4100 said:


> @rennyrb said above " I have a Denon AVR-S750H on order, which only has settings for Front Height, Top Front, or Top Middle speaker placement above you". The problem I see is that the three positions you mention, will not give you front to rear audio. 5.1.2 only gives overhead or front oriented left to right sound above you. IIRC 5.1.4 is the least you want to have. IMHO your plan B sounds like the best option, I'm running 5.1.4 and LOVE IT! In fact I'm using a suggestion from @MagnumX to make my rear to front sound more seamless. It's taking a little longer than I expected, but I want to do it right the first time.


I may have been misinterpreted. The Onkyo 595 is a 7 channel receiver, so 5.1.2 max, but I don’t want to place speakers towards the front in my current space, so 5.1.4 is out altogether for now (I have read impressions that it is a big upgrade, but I’ll wait on that for now. 
That said, the Onkyo has more options for where you can put that pair of overhead speakers, compared to the Denon 750. I ended up ordering both from Costco, so I will do an A/B compare between the Denon Top Middle and the Onkyo Rear Height placement settings for a 5.1.2 setup in my living room, with the Polk OWM3 above and behind me pointed at the sofa


----------



## sdurani

rennyrb said:


> The Onkyo 595 is a 7 channel receiver, so 5.1.2 max, but I don’t want to place speakers towards the front in my current space...


Our human hearing is better in front of us than behind us. When doing a single pair of height speakers, better to have them slightly in front of you than behind you.


----------



## rennyrb

sdurani said:


> Our human hearing is better in front of us than behind us. When doing a single pair of height speakers, better to have them slightly in front of you than behind you.


That’s an interesting point - one I hadn’t consciously considered, but it makes sense. Maybe that’s why some receivers don’t offer rear overhead speaker placements lately?

All that said, I’m kinda stuck with doing rears right now, and I envision Atmos as more Atmospheric than pinpoint sounds so I’m willing to try it out behind me.


----------



## niterida

rennyrb said:


> That’s an interesting point - one I hadn’t consciously considered, but it makes sense. Maybe that’s why some receivers don’t offer rear overhead speaker placements lately?
> 
> All that said, I’m kinda stuck with doing rears right now, and I envision Atmos as more Atmospheric than pinpoint sounds so I’m willing to try it out behind me.


If you can only do rear height speakers I wouldn't bother - it will be a disappointing result IMO.
I would recommend doing whatever you can to get a pair in front and do a 5.x.4 setup. Height speakers don't have to be in-ceiling. They can be mounted high on front or side walls but the best option is small(ish) bookshelf speakers mounted on-ceiling and aimed at the listeners - this is actually a better option than down-firing in-ceiling speakers.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> If you can only do rear height speakers I wouldn't bother - it will be a disappointing result IMO.
> I would recommend doing whatever you can to get a pair in front and do a 5.x.4 setup. Height speakers don't have to be in-ceiling. They can be mounted high on front or side walls but the best option is small(ish) bookshelf speakers mounted on-ceiling and aimed at the listeners - this is actually a better option than down-firing in-ceiling speakers.


I would recommend just saving a bit longer and doing it right. There is a big difference between 5.1.2 and 5.1.4


----------



## MagnumX

I just noticed some interesting things about DTS:X that may vary compared to Atmos. I was watching *Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince* in DTS:X and at 37 minutes and 57 seconds in Dumbledore's office Harry knocks on the door that's behind Dumbledore. In 7.1.4 rendering, the knock comes mostly from the right rear surround speaker with a bit in the left rear so here it knocks WAY behind me in the back of the room. If I switch to 6.1.4, it knocks in the left rear speaker only (which I assume is the output for mono rear surround). 

If I switch to 5.1.4, it renders mostly in the right side surround speaker with some in the left. I thought my active mixer based front wides were pulling it forward as the knock seemed to come from right beside me to my right (like from the adjacent chair), but shutting them down didn't move the image at all. It still came from directly to the right of me (my side surrounds are behind me between the first and 2nd rows). 

That's all good and interesting, but fairly normal just the same and I would imagine if there was an Atmos version of the soundtrack, it would behave in a similar manner with object rendering. But here's where it goes out the windows a bit and given the movie is supposedly (no way to check here) NOT object based and so the next configuration is a bit puzzling. If I switch to 3.1.2 rendering (L/C/R + Front Heights and Sub), I thought the knock would come from mostly the front right speaker with a little bit of left mixed in. It does actually do that in 3.1 rendering, but in 3.1.2, the knock comes from between the front heights speakers on the ceiling instead! 

So, I tried the same configuration (3.1.2) with the DTS:X speaker channel check demo and sure enough "rear surrounds" render to the front height channels! Even stranger, the "front height" channel checks render "mostly" to the front height speakers, but also include a little bit in the front main speakers. The rear heights appear _only_ in the front height speakers. The net effect would mean rear surrounds (and rear heights) render slightly higher up than the front height channels themselves in this configuration. I then ran the Dolby Atmos channel test demo (9.1.6 one with phantom wide support) and it was as expected. All overhead sounds were in the height channels alone and all ear level sounds were in the mains alone.

I've heard that DTS:X tries to compensate for various missing speakers and positions by rendering to other channels, but I didn't know that applied to rear surround material rendered to front heights. Now in 5.1.4, those sounds render to the side surrounds instead and side surrounds render in-between the mains and side surrounds (or front wides if rendering to them), pulling the sound stage forward, but still having some spatial separation between rear and sides. 

Thus, I can only imagine the thinking is without any surround speakers, the only way to give some separation between rear and side surround sounds is to put the rear ones in the front height channels. But one would probably think it'd be preferable to put them mixed with front height and mains rather than doing that instead with the actual front height channels which should be higher than the rear surround sounds, but the speaker test shows the opposite with front heights phantom imaging slightly lower than the rear surrounds sounds (and rear heights at the same level). I don't know if that was a mistake in the handling or just some oddity. Either way, it's a bit strange. But then, how many are using 3.1.2 to even notice?


----------



## chi_guy50

rennyrb said:


> That’s an interesting point - one I hadn’t consciously considered, but it makes sense. *Maybe that’s why some receivers don’t offer rear overhead speaker placements lately?*
> 
> All that said, I’m kinda stuck with doing rears right now, and I envision Atmos as more Atmospheric than pinpoint sounds so I’m willing to try it out behind me.


The (Denon/Marantz) AVRs are programmed to require an overhead pair in front before allowing a second pair in back; therefore, the single pair can not be designated in the rear position when the maximum configuration is 5.1.2. The principal in play is similar to that applied to the listener-level speakers: You can not enable surround back speakers without first having surrounds.

However, this does not constrain you from placing the speakers anywhere you choose; it is simply a matter of how the renderer reads that speaker position. But the bigger issue, as others have already pointed out to you, is that the immersive effect will be highly compromised with the single overhead pair behind your listening position. 

My advice would be to rethink your plan and either up your budget to accommodate a nine-channel AVR with a plan for installing four overhead speakers or stick with 5.1 for now.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I just noticed some interesting things about DTS:X that may vary compared to Atmos. I was watching *Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince* in DTS:X and at 37 minutes and 57 seconds in Dumbledore's office Harry knocks on the door that's behind Dumbledore. In 7.1.4 rendering, the knock comes mostly from the right rear surround speaker with a bit in the left rear so here it knocks WAY behind me in the back of the room. If I switch to 6.1.4, it knocks in the left rear speaker only (which I assume is the output for mono rear surround).
> 
> If I switch to 5.1.4, it renders mostly in the right side surround speaker with some in the left. I thought my active mixer based front wides were pulling it forward as the knock seemed to come from right beside me to my right (like from the adjacent chair), but shutting them down didn't move the image at all. It still came from directly to the right of me (my side surrounds are behind me between the first and 2nd rows).
> 
> That's all good and interesting, but fairly normal just the same and I would imagine if there was an Atmos version of the soundtrack, it would behave in a similar manner with object rendering. But here's where it goes out the windows a bit and given the movie is supposedly (no way to check here) NOT object based and so the next configuration is a bit puzzling. If I switch to 3.1.2 rendering (L/C/R + Front Heights and Sub), I thought the knock would come from mostly the front right speaker with a little bit of left mixed in. It does actually do that in 3.1 rendering, but in 3.1.2, the knock comes from between the front heights speakers on the ceiling instead!
> 
> So, I tried the same configuration (3.1.2) with the DTS:X speaker channel check demo and sure enough "rear surrounds" render to the front height channels! Even stranger, the "front height" channel checks render "mostly" to the front height speakers, but also include a little bit in the front main speakers. The rear heights appear _only_ in the front height speakers. The net effect would mean rear surrounds (and rear heights) render slightly higher up than the front height channels themselves in this configuration. I then ran the Dolby Atmos channel test demo (9.1.6 one with phantom wide support) and it was as expected. All overhead sounds were in the height channels alone and all ear level sounds were in the mains alone.
> 
> I've heard that DTS:X tries to compensate for various missing speakers and positions by rendering to other channels, but I didn't know that applied to rear surround material rendered to front heights. Now in 5.1.4, those sounds render to the side surrounds instead and side surrounds render in-between the mains and side surrounds (or front wides if rendering to them), pulling the sound stage forward, but still having some spatial separation between rear and sides.
> 
> Thus, I can only imagine the thinking is without any surround speakers, the only way to give some separation between rear and side surround sounds is to put the rear ones in the front height channels. But one would probably think it'd be preferable to put them mixed with front height and mains rather than doing that instead with the actual front height channels which should be higher than the rear surround sounds, but the speaker test shows the opposite with front heights phantom imaging slightly lower than the rear surrounds sounds (and rear heights at the same level). I don't know if that was a mistake in the handling or just some oddity. Either way, it's a bit strange. But then, how many are using 3.1.2 to even notice?


Interesting. Does this behavior change if you disable NeuralX when playing the DTS:X track? I wonder if this is related to that function of DTS:X playback. I've toggled it on and off (Denons default to it being on during DTS:X playback) and while overhead sounded more precise to me with it off, the overall soundfield seemed better with it on.


----------



## mogrub

sdurani said:


> Our human hearing is better in front of us than behind us. When doing a single pair of height speakers, better to have them slightly in front of you than behind you.


Sanjay, I'm still grateful for your advice nearly three years ago, back when I was doing final speaker placement checks for my 7.2.4 project. (Measure 4271 times, but cut only once.) You suggested I move our side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP, rather than directly across (too "in the ear") or slightly behind the MLP. That single, small, genius tweak made a world of sonic difference. The rear surrounds and rear overheads in our room were already going to provide plenty of "behind the ear" sonic coverage. It would have been a mistake to place our side surrounds at or slightly behind the MLP, even though such placement falls within the sweet spot outlined in the Dolby Atmos Installation Guidelines. Great save Sanjay. Thanks again! 👍🎥🙏


----------



## mogrub

For all of us that built the Atmos bubble, and then covid came, the bubble probably turned out to be one of the things that helped us hang onto a half slice of sanity during a crappy year. Didn't see that coming, obviously, but one more reason to love a HT Bat Cave.


----------



## chi_guy50

mogrub said:


> For all of us that built the Atmos bubble, and then covid came, the bubble probably turned out to be one of the things that helped us hang onto a half slice of sanity during a crappy year. Didn't see that coming, obviously, but one more reason to love a HT Bat Cave.


Amen to that, brother! I had not been to a cinema in years anyway prior to the shutdown and have not missed going out for a movie during the pandemic, either. In addition to getting UHD Blu-ray discs by mail, I simply upped the number of my SVOD services (eight in all presently), many of which are now dishing up 4K video (Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, HBO Max, Hulu) if not DD+/Atmos. In addition, several of my favorite music performance venues have been transmitting their concerts live and/or on demand and my wife and I have appreciated streaming the concert video and listening upmixed in Auro-3D 7.1.4 while sipping a glass of wine. As we used to say in the Army, this is called making chicken salad out of chicken s#!t.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Interesting. Does this behavior change if you disable NeuralX when playing the DTS:X track? I wonder if this is related to that function of DTS:X playback. I've toggled it on and off (Denons default to it being on during DTS:X playback) and while overhead sounded more precise to me with it off, the overall soundfield seemed better with it on.


I'll test it tonight and find out. I don't normally have any extra channels for Neural X to send something to so I hadn't thought about it, but using fewer channels could trigger remapping behavior for all I know.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I made it through testing all the applicable Atmos trailers on The Digital Theater. My laptop (i5 5500 with on-chip video, no dedicated GPU) can't play the m2ts files without lag so I stuck to the MKV's:
> 
> Dolby_Amaze_Lossless-ATMOS
> Dolby_Leaf_Lossless_ATMOS
> Dolby_Conductor_Lossless_ATMOS
> Dolby_Atmos_Natures_Fury_1920x1080_ATMOS_71
> Dolby_Silent_Lossless_ATMOS
> Dolby_Unfold_Lossless_ATMOS
> DOLBY_ATMOS_UNFOLD_2_FEEL_EVERY_DIMENSION_LOSSLESS
> 
> Of the trailers above, "Silent" sounded the most impressive to me in terms of the sheer production of all the effects. There is a lot to analyze here, especially if you disconnect your front speakers to focus on what they are doing in the surround vs height channels. I also very much liked Amaze with the thunderous LFE and rainfall. The least impressive was "Nature's Fury" in my opinion.
> 
> I have gained a better understanding of how the channels are used. Examples:
> 
> Thunder and rain: height/top speakers with bed layer complementing
> Audience applause: bed layer with height/top speakers adding ambience
> Helicopter seed moving around you: mostly bed layer, but moves to height/top for effect
> Nature sounds, insects, etc: could be anywhere based on creator's intent
> Planes: could move through height/top speakers with bed layer for support, or vise versa
> 
> Due to the content variability, I would test all the material you can find before concluding something is wrong with your setup and make decisions about what to change or leave alone. A change based on one demo could be bad for another.
> 
> I think the left to right imaging is fine, but I can't say I'm amazed by the front to back. I think there may be a "hole" where I would benefit from top middle speakers, but that option is not available to me. But, I need more material to test that.


The Top-Middle speakers are incredibly important in my opinion. They are what gives an Atmos soundtrack the ability to drop sound objects into your lap.

I havent heard that from a system with only top-front and top-rear speakers. They have excellent height soundstage, but lack dimensionality that top-middle speakers bring.


----------



## squared80

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The Top-Middle speakers are incredibly important in my opinion. They are what gives an Atmos soundtrack the ability to drop sound objects into your lap.
> 
> I havent heard that from a system with only top-front and top-rear speakers. They have excellent height soundstage, but lack dimensionality that top-middle speakers bring.


Would you say 7.2.6 > than 9.2.4 in terms of how much the top middle is used vs. front wides?


----------



## howard68

squared80 said:


> Would you say 7.2.6 > than 9.2.4 in terms of how much the top middle is used vs. front wides?


I have been campaigning for a list of films that use FW and or TM


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The Top-Middle speakers are incredibly important in my opinion. They are what gives an Atmos soundtrack the ability to drop sound objects into your lap.
> 
> I havent heard that from a system with only top-front and top-rear speakers. They have excellent height soundstage, but lack dimensionality that top-middle speakers bring.


As long as you're sitting equidistant between the Top Front and Top Rear speakers, it should phantom image "Top Middle" sounds perfectly fine overhead. If you don't sit exactly in-between it will tend to pull towards the closer speaker due to the precedence effect, but using the correct delay time for a fixed seating location should largely mitigate that.

I don't recall hearing a soundtrack drop a sound in my lap regardless (implying equi-panned top middle to side surround panning). I'd love to hear something that does that, though. Can you recommend a specific movie/scene to listen to?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> As long as you're sitting equidistant between the Top Front and Top Rear speakers, it should phantom image "Top Middle" sounds perfectly fine overhead. If you don't sit exactly in-between it will tend to pull towards the closer speaker due to the precedence effect, but using the correct delay time for a fixed seating location should largely mitigate that.
> 
> I don't recall hearing a soundtrack drop a sound in my lap regardless (implying equi-panned top middle to side surround panning). I'd love to hear something that does that, though. Can you recommend a specific movie/scene to listen to?


Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings. Its in DTS:X. In this movie several characters use throwing knives or ninja stars and as they zing around the sound field, you can track the position of the sound objects. With Top-Middle speakers, it sounds like some of them come so close they zing right past your ear. It makes my skin prickle when that happens. Didnt quite get the same effect with 4 top speakers. I could track them around the soundfield a bit, but they didny zing past me as they did with the Top-Middles.

Another one is Jupiter Ascending. There is a scene in the movie where the two main characters are being chased through the city streets at night by aliens. The entire scene is quite frankly the best Atmos demo I have ever heard. At one point in the scene, our heroes ship breaks apart and begins to spin wildly out of control. The tail of the fighter swings around and from the perspective of the camera it swings over the audience. When it does this, the sound of the tail whooshing overhead starts from the top-right speakers and ground level right channels and zooms to the left side of the room just over your head. But with the top speakers and the ground speakers working together, it sounds like the tail is only 1 foot above your head just barely missing you. Like you could almost reach up and touch the tail as it swings overhead. Dispite the fact that my Top speakers were 7 feet away, the sound object itself was right above me. With 4 top speakers, the sound was mostly in the Top-Rear speakers, so it wasnt right above me, but behind and slightly above and it didnt have the same effect as if it was physically present.

The difference in the setups is 5.2.2 with top-middles and surround speakers set at 90 degrees vs 5.2.4 with Top-Front and Top-Rear and surround speakers set at 120 degrees. With the top-middle setup, some sound objects are pulled closer to the audience sitting in line with the surrounds and Top-middle speakers. With the other setup, the sounds were all around you and sounded great, but didnt quite come right next to you.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings. Its in DTS:X. In this movie several characters use throwing knives or ninja stars and as they zing around the sound field, you can track the position of the sound objects. With Top-Middle speakers, it sounds like some of them come so close they zing right past your ear. It makes my skin prickle when that happens. Didnt quite get the same effect with 4 top speakers. I could track them around the soundfield a bit, but they didny zing past me as they did with the Top-Middles.


I've never heard of this movie, but that sounds interesting. I'm looking at the reviews. Mandarin Chinese with English Subtitles. Many complaints the movie is incomprehensible and special effect heavy. I'd pick it up anyway, but it's almost $28. Maybe if it goes on sale.



> Another one is Jupiter Ascending. There is a scene in the movie where the two main characters are being chased through the city streets at night by aliens. The entire scene is quite frankly the best Atmos demo I have ever heard. At one point in the scene, our heroes ship breaks apart and begins to spin wildly out of control. The tail of the fighter swings around and from the perspective of the camera it swings over the audience.


I've got this one (in 3D video with Atmos no less), but I haven't watched it since I saw it at the theater. I'll have to bring that scene up and hear what it does, but based on what you're describing below, I think there's a fair chance it won't behave the same here if I'm understanding your setup correctly.



> When it does this, the sound of the tail whooshing overhead starts from the top-right speakers and ground level right channels and zooms to the left side of the room just over your head. But with the top speakers and the ground speakers working together, it sounds like the tail is only 1 foot above your head just barely missing you. Like you could almost reach up and touch the tail as it swings overhead. Dispite the fact that my Top speakers were 7 feet away, the sound object itself was right above me. With 4 top speakers, the sound was mostly in the Top-Rear speakers, so it wasnt right above me, but behind and slightly above and it didnt have the same effect as if it was physically present.
> 
> The difference in the setups is 5.2.2 with top-middles and surround speakers set at 90 degrees vs 5.2.4 with Top-Front and Top-Rear and surround speakers set at 120 degrees. With the top-middle setup, some sound objects are pulled closer to the audience sitting in line with the surrounds and Top-middle speakers. With the other setup, the sounds were all around you and sounded great, but didnt quite come right next to you.


OK, I think I misunderstood what you meant by Top Middle. You mean using Top Middle ONLY (like 5.1.2 or 7.1.2) as opposed to Top Middle PLUS Front/Rear Tops (i.e. 7.1.6). The bit where you say it's mostly in the rear top speakers explains it, I think. If you only have top middle by itself, ALL overhead sounds appear directly overhead (left or right, but overhead) whereas with four or more overhead (whether with Top Middle or not), it can pan front to rear and so the sound may end up in the back rear top speaker instead of directly over top of you. Yes, that would affect where the sound images relative to you head and the position of the Top Middle speaker would be important too (i.e. some have overhead but in front of them, some directly above them and some overhead and a bit behind them) as that could affect how close it images to your head/body.

I can certainly think of a few Atmos/X things that do image right above my head or very close to it. One is that knocking sound in Harry Potter in DTS:X in Order of the Phoenix I mentioned above when in 5.1.4 (really 5.1.6 here with top middle added using "Scatmos"). It images just to the right of me over the little table I have between the main center chair and the recliner next to me on the right. Actually, that's imaging at ear-level, which in my home theater images just over my head. Top Middle images over my head too, but higher up closer to the ceiling, although they're not always easy to tell apart when moving quickly or when they're a combination of the two. 

There's also a point in the song "Big Boys Blues" on the album POINT by Yello where this sound starts at the center speaker and flies directly to the rear of the room between the two rear surround speakers through the middle of the room in a straight line like a rocket. It buzzes right over my head. It's one of the coolest effects I've ever heard in Atmos, although technically speaking, it could be done with just 7.1 sound. It's the proximity of the sound to my head that makes it sound so cool. Sounds higher up by the ceiling are cool, but it's almost holographic to have a sound pass within inches of your head/ears, but I'm sure the placement of the ear-level speakers and speaker type are critical here. The same sound might pass "through" your head if it images a bit lower, for instance. 

There's a sound in the Dolby Atmos demo "Silence" right near the beginning of what sounds like a wagon/cart being dragged on slightly squeaky wheels that starts in my rear surround speakers and passes right through my body into the front center of the room (that one images lower than my head for whatever reason). It's like having a ghost wagon pass through my body. It's totally freaky. I've had others tell me they just don't hear it on their systems, though so I don't know if that means the placement of the surrounds are critical or if having front wides (physical speakers) layered somehow makes it image more solid in the middle of the room or what, but it's something to try out. It works in 5.1 as well, but the wagon starts just behind me instead of the back of the room, but still goes right through me).


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Interesting. Does this behavior change if you disable NeuralX when playing the DTS:X track? I wonder if this is related to that function of DTS:X playback. I've toggled it on and off (Denons default to it being on during DTS:X playback) and while overhead sounded more precise to me with it off, the overall soundfield seemed better with it on.


I tried turning off Neural X. It behaved exactly the same.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

squared80 said:


> Would you say 7.2.6 > than 9.2.4 in terms of how much the top middle is used vs. front wides?


7.2.6 is going to be used far more often than the front wides are.

You will find quite a few movies using just the top-middle speakers instead of all 6 Top channels because they only use the two height bed channel objects. When you have 4 top channels (front and rear) all four of those create a phantom top-middle, so those two height beds use all 4 channels. But when you have 6 including Top-middles, only the top-middles will be active in those cases. But when you have active objects, they'll light up all 6 when they move around.

The Wides are similar in that active objects will light them up, but since there are no bed channels for the wides, they wont be used in a default manner like the top-middle speakers will. Though it seems as if in some mixes the front left and right beds are placed wide enough that they might activate the wides by proxy.

Shane from Spare Change just added Wides to his setup and posted a video with the Trinnov object viewer showing how the Wides are used.


----------



## Technology3456

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 7.2.6 is going to be used far more often than the front wides are.
> 
> You will find quite a few movies using just the top-middle speakers instead of all 6 Top channels because they only use the two height bed channel objects. When you have 4 top channels (front and rear) all four of those create a phantom top-middle, so those two height beds use all 4 channels. But when you have 6 including Top-middles, only the top-middles will be active in those cases. But when you have active objects, they'll light up all 6 when they move around.
> 
> The Wides are similar in that active objects will light them up, but since there are no bed channels for the wides, they wont be used in a default manner like the top-middle speakers will. Though it seems as if in some mixes the front left and right beds are placed wide enough that they might activate the wides by proxy.
> 
> Shane from Spare Change just added Wides to his setup and posted a video with the Trinnov object viewer showing how the Wides are used.


How much better is Atmos with 6 height speakers vs 4? And how much better is the bedlayer with 9 instead of 7 or even 5? What is the "sweet spot"? I mean you could add more speakers infinitely but just curious your opinion. In the past others have said 7.x.4 is the sweet spot. Would you advocate for 9.x.6 or 7.x.6 instead, or do you agree that 7.x.4 will give a similar experience to 7.x.6 or 9.x.6 most of the time?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 7.2.6 is going to be used far more often than the front wides are.
> 
> You will find quite a few movies using just the top-middle speakers instead of all 6 Top channels because they only use the two height bed channel objects. When you have 4 top channels (front and rear) all four of those create a phantom top-middle, so those two height beds use all 4 channels. But when you have 6 including Top-middles, only the top-middles will be active in those cases. But when you have active objects, they'll light up all 6 when they move around.
> 
> The Wides are similar in that active objects will light them up, but since there are no bed channels for the wides, they wont be used in a default manner like the top-middle speakers will. Though it seems as if in some mixes the front left and right beds are placed wide enough that they might activate the wides by proxy.
> 
> Shane from Spare Change just added Wides to his setup and posted a video with the Trinnov object viewer showing how the Wides are used.


But the moment you have DTS:X Pro on your device and you run the Neural:X upmixer, that is when you will find out that the wides will be used a lot in every legacy 5.1 and 7.1 track available. I would never pick TM over Wides and I have had both for nearly 5 years.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Technology3456 said:


> How much better is Atmos with 6 height speakers vs 4? And how much better is the bedlayer with 9 instead of 7 or even 5? What is the "sweet spot"? I mean you could add more speakers infinitely but just curious your opinion. In the past others have said 7.x.4 is the sweet spot. Would you advocate for 9.x.6 or 7.x.6 instead, or do you agree that 7.x.4 will give a similar experience to 7.x.6 or 9.x.6 most of the time?


I wish I knew definitively. Thats what I am trying to figure out as I am planning to buy a home soon and thinking about configurations for dedicated theaters. Thus I am doing as much research as I can for a new theater.

I have personal experience with 2 top channels (Top-middle) and 4 top-channels (Front and rear) and 4 height channels (Front and rear) and 2 height channels (Front height). No one I know mounts 6 height/top channels.

I have heard a small amount of anecdotal evidence from those who do have 6 Top channels. Mostly in the form of complaints that much of the material they watch is anchored into the Top-Middles, but when they only had 4 Top speakers, all four would be active (my assumption is they are creating a phantom Top-Middle. This is backed up by videos of the Trinnov object analyzer showing 4 top channels activating based on 2 height objects set right between them)

Trying to collect as much information as possible from those who have 6 Top channels (or 4 height channels plus Top-Middle) to get a more complete picture. But honestly the Trinnov object analyzer has pretty much blown this wide open.

I dont know that there is a "best" or "optimal" configuration aside from someone investing in the actual full Atmos spec ("full" as in maximum of 24.1.10).

However my own quest is pointing me in the direction that 6 height/Top channels being better than only mounting 2 top-middles or 4 Top-Front/Rear. 6 will give you the best of both worlds. You have the Top-Middles to bring sound objects closer to the audience. If a sound object is intended to swirl around the audience, the Top-Middle speakers will handle that effect best.
However, if the effect is supposed to swirl around the outer edges of the listening area...expanding the soundstage outward, Top-Middles dont do that very well and this is where Top-Front and Top-Rears, or Front Height and Rear Height will excel.

The ability of 4 Top speakers to create a phantom Top-Middle image is going to depend on their placement. Obviously the further apart the are, the less effective the phantom image will be. This is compounded by the fact that stereo hearing on the vertical plane is quite limited compared to the horizontal plane. Thus having a physical speaker in the Top-Middle position above the listener (this applies to the Voice of God as well) is the best case solution.

Now that 13 channel receivers have become available and 16 channel pre-amps have become the norm, I would personally recommend at least 7.1.6 setups. And for those who want to add wide channel support, move up to a 16 channel pre-amp and mount 9.1.6 speakers.

Under these circumstances, the best compromise would be 7.1.6, with Front Height, Top-Middle and Rear-Height. This would allow for use of all three sound formats. 6 height/top channels for Atmos and DTS:X, with 4 height channels and a phantom Voice of God for Auro3D/Auromatic. And with Denon/Marantz 2020 13 channel receivers/processors, you can save two calibration profiles. You can set one as Atmos with Top Front and Top Rear speakers (even though they are mounted at 30 degrees, this is still within the spec for Top-Front/Rear channels) and one as Auro with Front Height and Rear Height and simply switch between the calibration presets depending on the codec on the disc.

And while moving over to a 16 channel pre-amp may be intimidating for some individuals, the Anthem MRX-1140 is an 11 channel receiver with 16 channel processing (15.2 pre-outs) which costs about the same as the Denon X8500 and you only need 4 more amp channels to run a 9.2.6 configuration, so its absolutely doable for a reasonable price (considering the number of channels involved)


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Mashie Saldana said:


> But the moment you have DTS:X Pro on your device and you run the Neural:X upmixer, that is when you will find out that the wides will be used a lot in every legacy 5.1 and 7.1 track available. I would never pick TM over Wides and I have had both for nearly 5 years.


Oh no I get you. If you like wides, you like your wides. Fortunately these days with 16+ channel processing becoming more available as well as affordable, you no longer have to make a choice between the two.

For those in the Denon/Marantz ecosystem limited to 13 channel processing, I would recommend 6 height/top channels to those most interested in the integrity of 3 dimensional sound objects (its really the top/ceiling channels that bring those objects in close to the listener) while those who wish for a robust and expansive front soundstage should go for the wide channel.

But also, with the newer Denon/Marantz offerings, you can save two different calibration profiles. So you dont have to choose between the two configurations, use both!

Set one calibration 7 ground channels and 6 top channels. And set the other calibration preset for 9 ground channels and 4 ceiling channels. Use the 7.1.6 for Atmos soundtracks and the 9.1.4 for DTSX soundtracks and for Neural-X upmixing. The best of both worlds (I applaud Sound United for adding this funtionality to their receivers. You can also do this with the Editor app I do believe)


----------



## petetherock

MagnumX said:


> I've never heard of this movie, but that sounds interesting. I'm looking at the reviews. Mandarin Chinese with English Subtitles. Many complaints the movie is incomprehensible and special effect heavy. I'd pick it up anyway, but it's almost $28. Maybe if it goes on sale.


Mate if you're getting into HKG movies, may I suggest you pick up the trilogy? It makes more sense even if the discs aren't all in 3D audio.
Andy Lau is in the first one, and that's the one with the best plot. Plus it give you context.
Another show to get your eyes / head into is "Bullet Vanishes" or "Vanishing Bullet" depending where you source your disc. It's a Chinese buddy cop / Sherlock-esque plot, with good chemistry and a kinetic plot, which is derivative at best, but very watchable and has some solid bass (you'll be familiar with that scene, which is a direct rip off of the Robert Downey version). 
If you're still game, "Helios" has some of the best Atmos this side of the Pacific and a decent fast paced plot. 

If Atmos isn't so vital, I'll add two more:
"Wuxia" aka "Dragon" on netflix - but please please get the BR disc. The sound is tremendous and Donnie Yen does some amazing kung fu. 
Then move on to "Kungfu Jungle", another Donnie homage to the martial arts genre. Very good fight scenes.
Finally finish up with "14 Blades", a tour de force in surround and fight scenes. 
Enjoy!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

X4100 said:


> I really don't think that will happen, either!! I'm wondering if the audio will become more immersive/intense as you progress to higher levels of achievement, or is this already happening?


I also doubt this will happen.

They do have their Tempest 3D audio in beta format for external tv speakers, so they havent completely forgotten about their roadmap, which is eventually supposed to bring Tempest 3D audio to home theater formats. But thats supposed to be last after soundbars. So I dont expect to see anything on that front until late 2022 or even 2023.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have personal experience with 2 top channels (Top-middle) and 4 top-channels (Front and rear) and 4 height channels (Front and rear) and 2 height channels (Front height). No one I know mounts 6 height/top channels.
> 
> I have heard a small amount of anecdotal evidence from those who do have 6 Top channels. Mostly in the form of complaints that much of the material they watch is anchored into the Top-Middles, but when they only had 4 Top speakers, all four would be active (my assumption is they are creating a phantom Top-Middle. This is backed up by videos of the Trinnov object analyzer showing 4 top channels activating based on 2 height objects set right between them)


I've never quite understood that complaint. If their 4 overheads were generating a phantom Top Middle, it "should" sound the same as a real Top Middle unless their phantom image is more diffuse/weak than the physical speakers in that position. If it is more diffuse, they probably need the actual top middle speakers to get a strong distinct image overhead. This is often the case using 4 "Heights" speakers as they are spread further apart than "Tops" as a rule (well at 30 degrees anyway, you can use either at 45 degrees which shouldn't need a top middle to get a strong overhead image as long as you sit near the mid-point). 

I "need" Top Middle here as such to get a strong overhead image and smooth panning across the entire ceiling (using heights mounted at either end of a 24' room) and thus I'd choose "Top Middle" over wides here if I had to choose. But because of locked soundtracks like Disney, that choice might not be effective regardless, which is one of the reasons I haven't upgraded to an AVR with >11.1 channels. They're more expensive and if the extra channels don't work with a large number of soundtracks then it's a waste. The only AVR/AVP that has caught my eye is the Monoprice HTP-1. It has a "backup" solution with an active mixer style passive output to Top Middle and Front Wides if the soundtrack is locked but contains sounds in that vicinity. I'm already using that for front wides with external mixers so I'd lose nothing and gain discrete front wide output. For Top Middle, I think "Scatmos" is probably preferable as it's close to discrete and works with literally everything (even Auro-3D if desired when using Rear Heights for Auro-3D). 



> I dont know that there is a "best" or "optimal" configuration aside from someone investing in the actual full Atmos spec ("full" as in maximum of 24.1.10).


I think it's going to be at least partially room dependent on which would work best and subjective in terms of whether one chooses to use "Heights" mounted <45 degrees or Tops at 45 or greater. I think there's far less benefit to Top Middle for the latter. Front wides are probably needed more in wider rooms and possibly rooms with multiple rows of seats or the couch area past the 50% mark in the room (even out imaging working its way to the sides from the front speakers). In other words, whenever there's a large angle or distance between adjacent sets of speakers or people sitting off-axis relative to a given set that would create uneven panning in that area.



> Under these circumstances, the best compromise would be 7.1.6, with Front Height, Top-Middle and Rear-Height. This would allow for use of all three sound formats. 6 height/top channels for Atmos and DTS:X, with 4 height channels and a phantom Voice of God for Auro3D/Auromatic.


The Monoprice HTP-1 can actually use the Top Middle speakers as dual mono VOG speakers for Auro-3D. I think that's pretty nifty. They should all offer that, IMO.



> And with Denon/Marantz 2020 13 channel receivers/processors, you can save two calibration profiles. You can set one as Atmos with Top Front and Top Rear speakers (even though they are mounted at 30 degrees, this is still within the spec for Top-Front/Rear channels) and one as Auro with Front Height and Rear Height and simply switch between the calibration presets depending on the codec on the disc.


30 degrees is not within the recommended range of Dolby for "Tops" speakers and IMO there's literally zero reason to ever calibrate a Tops profile if you're using Heights speaker angles. I've heard almost no audible differences in any test material or movie I've ever tried (slight difference with the Dolby Helicopter demo, but nothing major) changing to the "Tops" setting. Storing multiple profiles is just a PITA, IMO. I could see possibly doing it for an actual Tops setup (>=45 degrees overheads) to have an accurate setting for Tops and an available setting to just get Auro-3D working (since it refuses to work with the Tops setting), but I seen no reason to do the other way around as Atmos, X and Auro-3D all work fine in Heights mode.


----------



## howard68

I have been looking at Anthem AVM 70 
That can process 15.2 (9.2.6 ) 
It still does not have DTSX Pro so I am staying with my Denon 6700 and switching between the two 13 speakers set up 
I will start to test differences with FW and TM with some of the films listed above


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

howard68 said:


> I have been looking at Anthem AVM 70
> That can process 15.2 (9.2.6 )
> It still does not have DTSX Pro so I am staying with my Denon 6700 and switching between the two 13 speakers set up
> I will start to test differences with FW and TM with some of the films listed above


Yeah I am keeping my eye on that as well. Any processor or receiver I consider must have DTSX-Pro and probably Auro3D as well (to upmix legacy content. Though at the 13 to 16 channel level, Neural X will probably do a bang up job as well)


----------



## sdurani

mogrub said:


> You suggested I move our side surrounds slightly forward of the MLP, rather than directly across (too "in the ear") or slightly behind the MLP.


For the longest time I had my Side speakers directly to the sides of my couch (mounted high enough to give everyone clear line of sight). When demoing content for guests, I usually stood behind the couch (INSIDE the surround field). Eventually I started to notice that certain things (envelopment, separation) sounded better than from the sweet spot.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I've never quite understood that complaint. If their 4 overheads were generating a phantom Top Middle, it "should" sound the same as a real Top Middle unless their phantom image is more diffuse/weak than the physical speakers in that position. If it is more diffuse, they probably need the actual top middle speakers to get a strong distinct image overhead. This is often the case using 4 "Heights" speakers as they are spread further apart than "Tops" as a rule (well at 30 degrees anyway, you can use either at 45 degrees which shouldn't need a top middle to get a strong overhead image as long as you sit near the mid-point).


I dont think a phantom Top-middle sounds nearly as good as actual Top-middle speakers. Since we lack ears oriented toward the sky, we are far less sensitive to stereo hearing coming from above. So discrete speaker placed in that location would be far more effectice at placing sound objects above you. Unless of course the Top Front and Rear speakers are placed fairly close together at say the 55 degree and 125 degree angles. But then that close together and front to rear panning might be negatively effected. At that point we are playing a game of compromises. Pick the one that is least offensive.




> I "need" Top Middle here as such to get a strong overhead image and smooth panning across the entire ceiling (using heights mounted at either end of a 24' room) and thus I'd choose "Top Middle" over wides here if I had to choose. But because of locked soundtracks like Disney, that choice might not be effective regardless, which is one of the reasons I haven't upgraded to an AVR with >11.1 channels. They're more expensive and if the extra channels don't work with a large number of soundtracks then it's a waste.


I wouldnt make that choice based on compromised Disney Atmouse mixes. These types of mixes are why I suggest the multiple calibration profiles (1 set as Tops, the other as Heights) so that you can at least get the best effect possible, even if the studio putting out the mix doesnt give a damn.



> The only AVR/AVP that has caught my eye is the Monoprice HTP-1. It has a "backup" solution with an active mixer style passive output to Top Middle and Front Wides if the soundtrack is locked but contains sounds in that vicinity. I'm already using that for front wides with external mixers so I'd lose nothing and gain discrete front wide output. For Top Middle, I think "Scatmos" is probably preferable as it's close to discrete and works with literally everything (even Auro-3D if desired when using Rear Heights for Auro-3D).


Ah. That sounds similar to the Trinnove channel remapping feature, which is something that all these processors should be doing in my opinion.




> I think it's going to be at least partially room dependent on which would work best and subjective in terms of whether one chooses to use "Heights" mounted <45 degrees or Tops at 45 or greater. I think there's far less benefit to Top Middle for the latter. Front wides are probably needed more in wider rooms and possibly rooms with multiple rows of seats or the couch area past the 50% mark in the room (even out imaging working its way to the sides from the front speakers). In other words, whenever there's a large angle or distance between adjacent sets of speakers or people sitting off-axis relative to a given set that would create uneven panning in that area.


Yes of course. The room is....well....the elephant in the room. Its got the biggest effect on your sound outside of the speakers themselves. And your setup needs are going to be room dependant. If the room is wider, you may need wides. Or if the room is longer allowing you to put in three or more rows of seating....you will definitely need wides because the already large gap between the front soundstage and where the surrounds begin gets even bigger creating a giant hole in your soundstage.

Famed acoustician Anthony Grimani recommended to set up Wide channels over additional height channels because he believes the Wides filling that gap between the front and side stages was far more important than additional resolution in the height plane. So much so that when 11 channel receivers were the rule of the day, he was suggesting 9.1.2 setups over 7.1.4...but unfortunately back then many receivers didnt even support wides. Fortunately that seems to becoming a thing of the past.



> The Monoprice HTP-1 can actually use the Top Middle speakers as dual mono VOG speakers for Auro-3D. I think that's pretty nifty. They should all offer that, IMO.


Supposedly the Denon X8500 and X6700 are able to create a phantom VOG from the Top-Middle speakers, so maybe that is becoming a common feature, which would be a great thing if thats the case.




> 30 degrees is not within the recommended range of Dolby for "Tops" speakers and IMO there's literally zero reason to ever calibrate a Tops profile if you're using Heights speaker angles. I've heard almost no audible differences in any test material or movie I've ever tried (slight difference with the Dolby Helicopter demo, but nothing major) changing to the "Tops" setting. Storing multiple profiles is just a PITA, IMO. I could see possibly doing it for an actual Tops setup (>=45 degrees overheads) to have an accurate setting for Tops and an available setting to just get Auro-3D working (since it refuses to work with the Tops setting), but I seen no reason to do the other way around as Atmos, X and Auro-3D all work fine in Heights mode.


The dolby spec for Tops do include 30 degrees. It was probably added for those who intended to do hybrid setups.











But at the same time, Auro 3D allows for height channels at up to 40 degree angles, so those more inclined toward Atmos could mount speakers at 40 degrees and those more inclined toward Auro could mount theirs at 30.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I dont think a phantom Top-middle sounds nearly as good as actual Top-middle speakers.


My room isn't the best to make a comparison since I "need" Top Middle to get a sharp image directly overhead, but from playing with center channel versus phantom center channel over the years, I'd say with identical speakers (in my current setup), I can literally hear ZERO difference between the phantom image and the real center image. Now they're not terribly far apart so that could become an issue as they get farther apart, but I would think 45/-45 or 55/-55 shouldn't do too badly for phantom imaging if you're centered. If I cut my room in half and do 5.1.4, it images strong overhead in terms of a phantom image, but then I have no new "top middle" in-between that 1/4 of the front of the room to compare directly.



> Since we lack ears oriented toward the sky, we are far less sensitive to stereo hearing coming from above. So discrete speaker placed in that location would be far more effectice at placing sound objects above you.


I wouldn't think the insensitivity would vary with phantom versus real speaker. Regardless, it simply becomes somewhat harder to pin-point the exacts x/y coordinates when the sound is coming from behind you rather than directly above or in front of you. They don't cease to exist; they simply sound less precise in pin-point placement (somewhere a few feet behind me and above instead of exactly 3.2 feet in front of me from above, that sort of thing). The idea that some seem to have that rear overheads aren't important because we're "less sensitive" to sounds behind us is erroneous, IMO. I can hear the DTS:X channel checks for rear heights just fine. They don't sound nebulous or anything like that. The sound doesn't "blur" because they're behind us; our brains just aren't used to gauging distances behind us as well as in front of us.



> Unless of course the Top Front and Rear speakers are placed fairly close together at say the 55 degree and 125 degree angles. But then that close together and front to rear panning might be negatively effected. At that point we are playing a game of compromises. Pick the one that is least offensive.


I'm simply saying Top Middle is _less_ needed with >=45 degree "Tops" speakers than it is with "Height" speakers at less than 45 degrees (down to 20 degree minimum by latest Dolby guidelines with 6 overheads). I would use real Top Middles with Heights (and do here) before going with Wides in that situation. I get a fairly decent phantom image between the mains and sides without the front wides, but of course a stronger more pin-point one using real speakers. That's good, but I get a virtual "hole" overhead with Top Middle using Heights. With Top Middle in place, there's a strong overhead image all across the 24' ceiling. 

The angle difference of Heights without Top Middle compared to Mains and Side Surrounds without Front wides is like 30/150 versus 20/105. That's a 120 degree arc for Heights compared to only 85 degrees for panning between mains and sides. If I didn't have front wides, I'd have the mains over to 30 degrees instead and the sides closer to 90 degrees so it would only be 60 degrees compared to 120 (only half as much). Obviously, you'll get a _much_ stronger phantom image with only 60 degrees of separation than 120 degrees. Top Middle merely cuts it down to the 60 front mains versus Sides would normally already have. But since I do have front mains, I can move the mains closer together for more precise on-screen imaging correlation and put the side surrounds behind me for better 5.1 compatibility (Meanwhile the rear surrounds are much further back in the room compared to most home theaters (with SS#2 in-between doing the same in the rear half of the room).



> I wouldnt make that choice based on compromised Disney Atmouse mixes. These types of mixes are why I suggest the multiple calibration profiles (1 set as Tops, the other as Heights) so that you can at least get the best effect possible, even if the studio putting out the mix doesnt give a damn.


The calibration profiles won't change _anything_ with Disney mixes. They won't use Top Middle regardless of whether you choose "Tops" in the settings or "Heights". With 45/135 placed Tops you'll at least get a fair phantom image regardless, but with Heights you're SOL unless you use "Scatmos" or the active mixer solution in the Monoprice or something like Trinnov's remapping to get around it. Like I said, I've never heard any significant differences in renderings just selecting Heights or Tops without moving the speakers and that's likely because Atmos tries to compensate for missing speakers by moving them to the closest speaker set in the same layer so the same sounds normally end up in the same places anyway because those are the only overhead speakers. But with a Trinnov where you can have both Heights and Tops, it should render them very differently indeed.



> Famed acoustician Anthony Grimani recommended to set up Wide channels over additional height channels because he believes the Wides filling that gap between the front and side stages was far more important than additional resolution in the height plane. So much so that when 11 channel receivers were the rule of the day, he was suggesting 9.1.2 setups over 7.1.4...but unfortunately back then many receivers didnt even support wides. Fortunately that seems to becoming a thing of the past.


Given the angle gaps I've outlined above if you use Heights at a mere 30 degrees (let alone 20 degrees), I'd say in general he's wrong in terms of the angles themselves. You literally need Top Middle twice as much because the angle gap is 120 degrees (with Heights set at 30 and 150) versus a mere difference of 60 degrees between average mains (30 degrees) and sides (90 degrees). That's twice the angular distance and thus Top Middle should get priority, not to mention you cannot pan front to back without 4 overheads (massive limitation of 9.1.2). But he not completely wrong either; he's just looking at certain room sizes with channel limitations and concluding overhead sounds are a luxury compared to proper panning bed layer sounds (choosing better functioning traditional channels over newer height ones that are typically used much less often). In reality, these rooms go hand-in-hand with expansion. 5.1.4 tends to work with smaller rooms and 7.1.6 with larger rooms and 9.1.6 (or more) is needed if you want multiple rows. 

In other words, you tend to need to expand the height layers WITH the bed layers, not in spite of them. I think 13-channel AVRs are more compromised in a sense that you're forced to choose between two bad (hard choice) setups, namely 9.1.4 versus 7.1.6 when a room that needs either front wides or top middle ideally should be a _minimum_ of 9.1.6. With more rows, you need 11.1.6 and then 13.1.8 and finally perhaps 17.1.10 (the other 7 ear-level speakers are screen-specific or oddities for locking in off-axis sounds like the rear center that doesn't work well by itself anyway due to the psycho-acoustical issues). 



> Supposedly the Denon X8500 and X6700 are able to create a phantom VOG from the Top-Middle speakers, so maybe that is becoming a common feature, which would be a great thing if thats the case.


Technically speaking, if you don't have VOG, the Auro decoder uses either Surround Heights or Rear Heights to create a phantom VOG image overhead already so Top Middle is really just an extensions of that as they are theoretically better placed on the ceiling for VOG than Surround Height would be. I think they should also offer Top Middle to substitute for Surround Height as well (no worse than using Surround Height to simulate VOG, IMO) and allow BOTH to be used for Auro-3D movies since the real Auro 11.1 theaters use arrays of "Surround Height" all the way around (from above the sides to behind), not just one or the other.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anyone comment on the quality of the atmos track on the new inglorious bastards disc? Thinking about ordering it.


----------



## fatherom

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anyone comment on the quality of the atmos track on the new inglorious bastards disc? Thinking about ordering it.


When is that title released?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> Can anyone comment on the quality of the atmos track on the new inglorious bastards disc? Thinking about ordering it.


It isn't being released with an Atmos track. Just DTS-HD MA 5.1.


fatherom said:


> When is that title released?


October 12th.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It isn't being released with an Atmos track. Just DTS-HD MA 5.1.
> 
> October 12th.


no atmos??? Booo!!


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> no atmos??? Booo!!


Get used to it. I think half or more of 4K reissues don't have Atmos (or X). They apparently either don't want to spend the money, bother to issue a directive (It might require a text or phone call or something equally dreadful) or the director/sound guy doesn't like/want Atmos. 

Ask Christopher Nolan how much he likes Atmos. Didn't he once say something like he'd rather be tied to an ant-hill with raspberry jelly applied to his nether region than _ever_ use Dolby Atmos in one of his films?


----------



## Worf

MagnumX said:


> Ask Christopher Nolan how much he likes Atmos. Didn't he once say something like he'd rather be tied to an ant-hill with raspberry jelly applied to his nether region than _ever_ use Dolby Atmos in one of his films?


No, that wasn't for Atmos. That was for 5.1 surround sound. He believes sound should come from the screen.

The best they'd every get was having the soundtrack come out of the surrounds, and I suspect that was because someone else did it, under threat of the studio demanding surround sound. So he put all of the movie audio out the fronts, and probably let the composer mix his soundtrack in 5.1.

Contrast with say, Michael Bay who uses every new movie technology out there, being one of the first to mix his movies in Atmos the moment he could.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> Get used to it. I think half or more of 4K reissues don't have Atmos (or X). They apparently either don't want to spend the money, bother to issue a directive (It might require a text or phone call or something equally dreadful) or the director/sound guy doesn't like/want Atmos.
> 
> Ask Christopher Nolan how much he likes Atmos. Didn't he once say something like he'd rather be tied to an ant-hill with raspberry jelly applied to his nether region than _ever_ use Dolby Atmos in one of his films?


I think Tarantino isn't really into the immersive formats. Most of his movies are dialogue-heavy anyway, so 7.1 is the most we'll probably get. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood didn't have Atmos either. 

And Nolan's insistence on 5.1 annoys me to no end. Can you imagine Inception with an immersive mix? Or Interstellar? So many missed opportunities there. Hopefully one day, his sound designer will show him what's possible with it and he'll change his mind.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I think Tarantino isn't really into the immersive formats. Most of his movies are dialogue-heavy anyway, so 7.1 is the most we'll probably get. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood didn't have Atmos either.
> 
> And Nolan's insistence on 5.1 annoys me to no end. Can you imagine Inception with an immersive mix? Or Interstellar? So many missed opportunities there. Hopefully one day, his sound designer will show him what's possible with it and he'll change his mind.


Maybe he's one of those that have odd hearing issues where he can't hear phantom imaging correctly? I've heard of people that can't hear stereo, even. They prefer mono sound because stereo just sounds like two separate sound sources playing the same thing for correlated information rather than a phantom in-between somewhere. Similarly, I've read bout people who can't see 3D or hear binaural sound because their eye/ear placement is significantly different than average (a few said they could hear binaural with one of the newer systems that calibrates specifically for their head so that's probably not the same thing as not being able to hear stereo, but it might affect _how_ they hear it). In other words, if you couldn't see color, would you want to make movies in it? I'm just thinking outside the box a bit why some don't like surround sound.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> Maybe he's one of those that have odd hearing issues where he can't hear phantom imaging correctly? I've heard of people that can't hear stereo, even. They prefer mono sound because stereo just sounds like two separate sound sources playing the same thing for correlated information rather than a phantom in-between somewhere. Similarly, I've read bout people who can't see 3D or hear binaural sound because their eye/ear placement is significantly different than average (a few said they could hear binaural with one of the newer systems that calibrates specifically for their head so that's probably not the same thing as not being able to hear stereo, but it might affect _how_ they hear it). In other words, if you couldn't see color, would you want to make movies in it? I'm just thinking outside the box a bit why some don't like surround sound.


Well, from what I've read about Nolan, he does mix checks in his own 5.1 home theater... so maybe he's just being willfully consistent. But I imagine that a lot of it may just be a traditionalist point of view. A lot of people who are fans of classic cinema seem to be die-hard proponents of sound remaining heavily screen-centric, and I could totally see both Nolan and Tarantino falling into that category. I think that was Woody Allen's argument for mono for a long time... not that many of his movies would benefit much from surround, but still.

As for people who can't see 3-D, I'm one of them. I had eye surgery in my teens to correct lazy eye caused by an illness, and while my depth perception is fine in real world use, none of the 3-D technologies they've used for movies do anything for me but make the picture look more dim. 

Binaural audio tends to use generalized HRTF modeling, so you're right that not everyone gets the effect off that averaged model. That's why I've recommended that people with an Xbox try Windows Sonic, Atmos Headphone and DTS:X Headphone, because they each use different HRTF models so one may work way better than the others for each person. Accordingly, I could see some people not getting as much out of actual surround, so it's an interesting thought. Maybe they're not able to hear the potential it has at all, so they don't bother using the tech to its fullest.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, from what I've read about Nolan, he does mix checks in his own 5.1 home theater... so maybe he's just being willfully consistent. But I imagine that a lot of it may just be a traditionalist point of view. A lot of people who are fans of classic cinema seem to be die-hard proponents of sound remaining heavily screen-centric, and I could totally see both Nolan and Tarantino falling into that category. I think that was Woody Allen's argument for mono for a long time... not that many of his movies would benefit much from surround, but still.


Since he's doing mix checks in his own 5.1 theater, someone needs to kindly tell him about his center channel 😆 I have a capable center and I had to bump it +8dB for Tenet.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Since he's doing mix checks in his own 5.1 theater, someone needs to kindly tell him about his center channel 😆 I have a capable center and I had to bump it +8dB for Tenet.


Weird. I didn't have to change my levels at all for Tenet. I was just pissed that it wasn't in Atmos/DTS:X.


----------



## ppasteur

I had to use the dialog enhancer on the Denon and bump up the center channel. Still, getting dialog loud enough resulted in the effects being deafening.








Yes, the sound mixing in 'Tenet' is terrible


For much of Christopher Nolan's career, shifting timelines and complex storylines have always played a major role.'The Prestige', 'Inception', and of course, '...




entertainment.ie




.

So @halcyon_888 and I were not alone in this.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ppasteur said:


> I had to use the dialog enhancer on the Denon and bump up the center channel. Still, getting dialog loud enough resulted in the effects being deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the sound mixing in 'Tenet' is terrible
> 
> 
> For much of Christopher Nolan's career, shifting timelines and complex storylines have always played a major role.'The Prestige', 'Inception', and of course, '...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> entertainment.ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> So @halcyon_888 and I were not alone in this.


Oh, I'm not saying the mixes aren't problematic. Just like Interstellar, there were parts where dialogue gets fairly hard to hear (though not impossible) over the other sounds. But I still didn't feel the need to crank my center to account for it, because we already know Nolan likes to use that device for some stupid auteur reason that only he understands. I'll agree with you that it's annoying and I wish he wouldn't do it.


----------



## MagnumX

For all the talk a couple of years ago about not being able to use non-Dolby upmixers with Dolby signals, I just noticed that you can't choose anything with a DTS:X source other than Stereo, Multi-channel stereo or virtual height, at least on my Marantz 7012. 

There is no option for 7.1 or 7.1 + an upmixer. With Atmos sources, I can select the TrueHD base track and Neural X or Auro-3D. Are all AVR/AVPs like that for X sources or is this just a Marantz limitation?


----------



## rec head

I left the D&M world but I believe all the cross mixing issues were year/model/firmware dependent.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> For all the talk a couple of years ago about not being able to use non-Dolby upmixers with Dolby signals, I just noticed that you can't choose anything with a DTS:X source other than Stereo, Multi-channel stereo or virtual height, at least on my Marantz 7012.
> 
> There is no option for 7.1 or 7.1 + an upmixer. With Atmos sources, I can select the TrueHD base track and Neural X or Auro-3D. Are all AVR/AVPs like that for X sources or is this just a Marantz limitation?


I have a Marantz 8802a and tested this just now. When selecting the surround parameter the first time my options were like yours, then exiting out of the surround parameter and selecting it a second time gave me different options. DTS Surround (which is the DTS core), DTS + Dolby Surround, DTS + Neural:X, and the others. On this second selection DTS:X was not available and exiting out would default to DTS MA + Neural:X. To get DTS:X back I had to stop playing the video then play it again. Getting different surround parameter options the second time selecting it seems like a bug, as does having to stop the video and play it again to bring DTS:X back.


----------



## fattire

rec head said:


> I left the D&M world but I believe all the cross mixing issues were year/model/firmware dependent.


I too can’t speak to D&M specifically. However, Dolby changes their terms on upmixing a few times. It’s taken a while for the different manufacturers to implement and then un-implement the upmix limitations.

I own a JBL and they’re just unwinding this. It’s likely to take some time depending on the mfg.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I have a Marantz 8802a and tested this just now. When selecting the surround parameter the first time my options were like yours, then exiting out of the surround parameter and selecting it a second time gave me different options. DTS Surround (which is the DTS core), DTS + Dolby Surround, DTS + Neural:X, and the others. On this second selection DTS:X was not available and exiting out would default to DTS MA + Neural:X. To get DTS:X back I had to stop playing the video then play it again. Getting different surround parameter options the second time selecting it seems like a bug, as does having to stop the video and play it again to bring DTS:X back.


That didn't happen here, but I can try it again to make sure. I only got DTS:X as an option. It should offer 7.1 DTS-HD MA for UHD based DTS:X, though.


----------



## MagnumX

MagnumX said:


> That didn't happen here, but I can try it again to make sure. I only got DTS:X as an option. It should offer 7.1 DTS-HD MA for UHD based DTS:X, though.


I checked again. It only offers DTS:X. 

I’ve also noticed Neural X doesn’t work with DTS-HD MA 96kHz signals (e.g. Alan Parsons’ Eye In The Sky Blu-ray in 5.1), but ironically DSU does. Atmos doesn’t support 96kHz, but Auro-3D does….


----------



## harrisu

Can someone help me determine best location for my 4 ceiling speakers?
MLP to ceiling = 45"
Rows = 1
MLP to Back wall = 80"
MLP to side wall = 71"
MLP is the most important as it is used 90% of the times. Other seat is used by wife but she really doesn't care. Currently, each ceiling speaker is 75" away. I'm moving my seal 10" closer to screen and there would like to know the best placement for these speakers. Speakers have 90 degrees dispersion (JBL SCS-8) and they all are pointing to MLP.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

harrisu said:


> Can someone help me determine best location for my 4 ceiling speakers?
> MLP to ceiling = 45"
> Rows = 1
> MLP to Back wall = 80"
> MLP to side wall = 71"
> MLP is the most important as it is used 90% of the times. Other seat is used by wife but she really doesn't care. Currently, each ceiling speaker is 75" away. I'm moving my seal 10" closer to screen and there would like to know the best placement for these speakers. Speakers have 90 degrees dispersion (JBL SCS-8) and they all are pointing to MLP.


If ear level to ceiling = 45" and you're shooting for "ideal" top front/rear placement per the home guidelines, it's easy... 45" forward, 45" back gets you a 45 degree angle forward and back. Width-wise, half the layout width between the speakers is a fair guideline. So measure the distance between your side surrounds, divide by 2, and that's how far apart you want your speakers. This will typically put them somewhere in between the LC and CR speakers, not in line with the LR as Dolby's diagrams generalize.

If you want to get more granular per the mix room guidelines (which is preferable if your side and rear surrounds are elevated above ear level), measure the elevation angle of your side surrounds, divide it by 2 and add 45 and that will give you the lateral angle from ear level side-to-side. If your rear surrounds are elevated, apply the same logic for the top rears so that you get good angular separation. This also has the benefit of closing up the angular separation between the top front and rear speakers a bit.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> That didn't happen here, but I can try it again to make sure. I only got DTS:X as an option. It should offer 7.1 DTS-HD MA for UHD based DTS:X, though.





MagnumX said:


> I checked again. It only offers DTS:X.
> 
> I’ve also noticed Neural X doesn’t work with DTS-HD MA 96kHz signals (e.g. Alan Parsons’ Eye In The Sky Blu-ray in 5.1), but ironically DSU does. Atmos doesn’t support 96kHz, but Auro-3D does….


I checked it again and I found the problem, there was something wrong with the VLC playback. I was using the DTS:X demos played by VLC on a nVidia Shield TV and even though passthrough audio is enabled, DTS:X would be enabled for about 15 seconds then it would switch to the DTS core. This was happening on all of the DTS:X files I have, thus it is why I was getting upmixer options.

So I installed Kodi and set it up for audio passthrough, and DTS:X stayed fully enabled while playing the files so my options are like yours now: Stereo, DTS:X MSTR, Multi-channel stereo, and Virtual. No upmixer options when playing a DTS:X track.


----------



## harrisu

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If ear level to ceiling = 45" and you're shooting for "ideal" top front/rear placement per the home guidelines, it's easy... 45" forward, 45" back gets you a 45 degree angle forward and back. Width-wise, half the layout width between the speakers is a fair guideline. So measure the distance between your side surrounds, divide by 2, and that's how far apart you want your speakers. This will typically put them somewhere in between the LC and CR speakers, not in line with the LR as Dolby's diagrams generalize.
> 
> If you want to get more granular per the mix room guidelines (which is preferable if your side and rear surrounds are elevated above ear level), measure the elevation angle of your side surrounds, divide it by 2 and add 45 and that will give you the lateral angle from ear level side-to-side. If your rear surrounds are elevated, apply the same logic for the top rears so that you get good angular separation. This also has the benefit of closing up the angular separation between the top front and rear speakers a bit.


Hi Jeremy. Yes the SB and Surr are elevated to clear the seat head rest. Interestingly, all along I though that the more I spread the ceiling speaker, the better. Therefore my current setup has the speakers ~19" from side walls. This aligns them pretty much with my L/R speakers. Now if I divide the distance b/w Surr/MLP, I get
71 - 12 (speaker depth) / 2 = 29.5.from center. This puts them very close to MLP. Is there any pic showing this config?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

harrisu said:


> Hi Jeremy. Yes the SB and Surr are elevated to clear the seat head rest. Interestingly, all along I though that the more I spread the ceiling speaker, the better. Therefore my current setup has the speakers ~19" from side walls. This aligns them pretty much with my L/R speakers. Now if I divide the distance b/w Surr/MLP, I get
> 71 - 12 (speaker depth) / 2 = 29.5.from center. This puts them very close to MLP. Is there any pic showing this config?


Dolby's home guideline gives the suggestion of 0.5-0.7x the layout width, but in my experience, you want to stay closer to 0.5. Layout width = the distance between the widest-spaced speakers in your layout, which should be the side surrounds barring some freakish room. Don't measure from MLP. Measure from side surround to side surround, then divide that by 2. That number is what the center-to-center distance between your heights on the ceiling should be. To find the distance this would be from the side walls, subtract that number from the room width (not layout) and divide by 2 and that should give you the distance of each from the side walls.

There's a school of thought that spreading the ceiling speakers out more is better, and we may well see these arguments arise again because of this conversation. But the renderer in the home has the same expectations as the renderer in the theater, and if you look at theaters, the height rows tend to be placed roughly half-way between the LC and CR where the additional screen channels can be for Atmos. This narrower placement gives you better angular separation from the side surrounds. Placing the heights too wide out toward the side walls can make them blend too much with the side surrounds and diminish your sense of them being "overhead". Theaters use the math I previously provided wherein elevation of the side and rear surrounds changes the "ideal" placement of the heights, but the 0.5x the layout width guideline will get you in the right ballpark without much math... and so long as your surrounds aren't elevated more than about 10 degrees or so, it's not going to make a huge difference. Just depends on how nit-picky you want to be.


----------



## harrisu

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't measure from MLP. Measure from side surround to side surround, then divide that by 2. That number is what the center-to-center distance between your heights on the ceiling should be. To find the distance this would be from the side walls, subtract that number from the room width (not layout) and divide by 2 and that should give you the distance of each from the side walls.


Sorry a bit confused. Let's do the numbers.
Room Width = 142.
MLP is in dead center so 72".
Height from MLP to ceiling is 45"
Side speakers are touching the side walls and are 12" deep. So basically the distance b/w side walls - the depth of speakers is 142-24 = 118".
118/2 = 59". So let's say, we are setting up location for TFR. Here is a quick diagram I drew in Paint. Did I get it right?

Update: I read it again and I think I got it. 59" is the distance B/w TFR and TFL. Which means that we go 29.5" Left and Right after moving 45" forward. This ends up putting the ceiling speakers in the deal middle of MLP and surrounds.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

harrisu said:


> Sorry a bit confused. Let's do the numbers.
> Room Width = 142.
> MLP is in dead center so 72".
> Height from MLP to ceiling is 45"
> Side speakers are touching the side walls and are 12" deep. So basically the distance b/w side walls - the depth of speakers is 142-24 = 118".
> 118/2 = 59". So let's say, we are setting up location for TFR. Here is a quick diagram I drew in Paint. Did I get it right?
> 
> View attachment 3174511


Not quite. Mark the spot directly above where your head would be. 45" forward of that is where your top fronts should be. 45" behind that is where your top rears should be. You have that correct.

The two top front speakers and two top rear speakers should be 59" apart, center-to-center. So 142"-59"=83". 83/2=41.5". So each speaker's center should be 41.5" from the side walls. Here's a poorly drawn overhead view.


----------



## harrisu

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not quite. Mark the spot directly above where your head would be. 45" forward of that is where your top fronts should be. 45" behind that is where your top rears should be. You have that correct.
> 
> The two top front speakers and two top rear speakers should be 59" apart, center-to-center. So 142"-59"=83". 83/2=41.5". So each speaker's center should be 41.5" from the side walls. Here's a poorly drawn overhead view.


Yep that's what I also said in update which I posted after like 5 mins of original post. I"ll post some pics of the room.
Thx.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I’ve also noticed Neural X doesn’t work with DTS-HD MA


I've asked about this in the past but have not been able to find an answer. Why does the Neural:X upmixer disappear on some DTS content? My experience is with Denon AVRs.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There's a school of thought that spreading the ceiling speakers out more is better, and we may well see these arguments arise again because of this conversation.


And here I am to argue with you again  
just kidding - I had a think about this and can see how placing them in line with L&R as per one of Dolby guidelines is a bad idea. The wider the room the closer this puts heights to the surrounds.
So I drew up my room and played with angles and widths. In my room 0.5 width puts them at 56deg elevation and 0.7 is 47deg. So either would be acceptable IMO, but my room is narrow(ish). The wider the room the lower those angles will be. And of course ceiling height affects it too. I have 9' ceilings but lower will again reduce the elevation angle.
Inline with my L&R (which is where they are currently) is only 36deg.
So my conclusion is to throw out the width of the room and the inline with L&R guideline and replace it with angles (as you have rightly pointed out already). But I am guessing Dolby thought more angular guidelines would confuse consumers even more (as can be seen with the confusion just with fore and aft angular layout questions). 
I would guess you could stick to the Dolby fore and aft angles (30-55deg) for side to side as well, with 45 being the ideal ? 
I am about to remodel my room so will be going with 45 or more.

And so to the original query, using 45deg fore and aft and sided to side means your speakers would be 45" in front/behind and 45" to either side of MLP. Which is almost the recommendation from Jeremy

So in the end I concur and retract all my previous ramblings


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I've asked about this in the past but have not been able to find an answer. Why does the Neural:X upmixer disappear on some DTS content? My experience is with Denon AVRs.


It's just what I said before. Neural X doesn't support 96kHz signals even though a lot of DTS music album and concert videos are encoded in 24-bit 96kHz because that's what audiophiles "want" (even though it doesn't make a whit of difference on the playback side as it's ultrasonic and out of our hearing range and things like oversampling eliminated the brick wall filter issues back in the 1980s). Besides, Audyssey room correction dies not work at 96kHz so it gets downsampled anyway, but apparently after upmixer processing or it would work. There's oddly no option to downsample to 48kHz before that point.

Oddly, DSU _does_ work with 96kHz signals (as does both Auro's upmixer and Auro-3D), but Dolby Atmos does not (48kHz only). Again, what is mystifying about it is the signal gets downgraded to 48kHz anyway if Audyssey is used, so why not downmix it before the surround decoders and then Neural X would work?


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> It's just what I said before. Neural X doesn't support 96kHz signals even though a lot of DTS music album and concert videos are encoded in 24-bit 96kHz because that's what audiophiles "want" (even though it doesn't make a whit of difference on the playback side as it's ultrasonic and out of our hearing range and things like oversampling eliminated the brick wall filter issues back in the 1980s). Besides, Audyssey room correction dies not work at 96kHz so it gets downsampled anyway, but apparently after upmixer processing or it would work. There's oddly no option to downsample to 48kHz before that point.


Thanks. Yeah, it does seem strange that the AVR can't downsample to 48 kHz just like it does for Audyssey. This doesn't seem like it should be a limitation on these devices and we lose pretty significant functionality as a result.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> And here I am to argue with you again
> just kidding - I had a think about this and can see how placing them in line with L&R as per one of Dolby guidelines is a bad idea. The wider the room the closer this puts heights to the surrounds.
> So I drew up my room and played with angles and widths. In my room 0.5 width puts them at 56deg elevation and 0.7 is 47deg. So either would be acceptable IMO, but my room is narrow(ish). The wider the room the lower those angles will be. And of course ceiling height affects it too. I have 9' ceilings but lower will again reduce the elevation angle.
> Inline with my L&R (which is where they are currently) is only 36deg.
> So my conclusion is to throw out the width of the room and the inline with L&R guideline and replace it with angles (as you have rightly pointed out already). But I am guessing Dolby thought more angular guidelines would confuse consumers even more (as can be seen with the confusion just with fore and aft angular layout questions).
> I would guess you could stick to the Dolby fore and aft angles (30-55deg) for side to side as well, with 45 being the ideal ?
> I am about to remodel my room so will be going with 45 or more.
> 
> And so to the original query, using 45deg fore and aft and sided to side means your speakers would be 45" in front/behind and 45" to either side of MLP. Which is almost the recommendation from Jeremy
> 
> So in the end I concur and retract all my previous ramblings


Don't get me wrong... If people stuck to 0.5x the layout width, that gets you close enough for jazz _in most rooms_. But if you elevate your surrounds to clear seatbacks or cover multiple rows, the angular standards help you keep the separation consistent to the scale of the room, making for smooth cross-channel movement. And having done it as close as possible in my room (my rear surrounds are more in the THX position due to a doorway on the back wall), it just plain sounds better with the narrower placement. In my case, I have a long narrow room to contend with (23' x 12' x 8'), and putting the heights closer in line with my mains had them so close to the sides that they never sounded distinct from the side surrounds. Did it sound bad? No. And it was definitely better than no Atmos. But once I moved everything per those mix room guidelines, that "bubble" snapped into place. So far, it's pretty rare that I find myself disappointed in an Atmos mix in my room (even if I still acknowledge missed opportunities). 

Dolby's home guideline is a good general rule that will make most consumers happy, and the angular stuff would have been a hard sell for your average Joe. But I think enthusiasts can wring a bit more out of it with a little extra attention to placement. It just depends on how nitpicky you want to be with it. I'm actually locking my surrounds down with in-wall cable runs next week before I get my attic insulated, because I think the placements I've ended up with are as good as I could get in my room. My heights were already run (after being moved once), so I'm having everything foam-sealed before they blow the insulation in. (It's a 1963 home that I bought that has MAYBE 2 inches of some wool-looking insulation, and in the South Alabama heat, that just will not do.)


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I have a long narrow room to contend with (23' x 12' x 8'), and putting the heights closer in line with my mains had them so close to the sides that they never sounded distinct from the side surrounds.


Yeah I think Ihave the same issue in my room. Atmos sounds like high to the side of me instead of above me with my current config. My heights are at the wall/ceiling junction but will defintiely be moving them inboard asap.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Dolby's home guideline is a good general rule that will make most consumers happy


And is still correct in a small room with 3 seats in width 🙂


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> Oddly, DSU _does_ work with 96kHz signals (as does both Auro's upmixer and Auro-3D), but Dolby Atmos does not (48kHz only).


I have understood, that most consumer devices sport DSP-s that are capped with 48kHz and the number of those that can do better is extremely limited (Trinnov?).
Measuring the frequency response of both my Sonys confirms this clearly.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> the angular standards help you keep the separation consistent to the scale of the room


_Any_ standard (e.g. side heights above side surrounds like Auro-3D) would _scale_ with the room size. Ceiling height is far more important than lateral placement for "separation" of the layers between speakers. However, if you can easily tell them apart, I tend to think you've defeated the point of Atmos, which is a seamless transition in every direction, not a hemisphere of _separate_ sounding layers. Speakers placed at the ceiling on the side walls instead of in line with the mains can still easily image at any point between the speakers on the ceiling. Like with height speakers versus tops, the only real effect of putting the speakers inward is to functionally limit their imaging capabilities on a given axis to use only a fraction of the room. Why anyone would want to limit image travel is beyond me. 

Why do we even have side surrounds in the first place if a position directly in line with the mains is preferable? Yes, having a speaker right next to you might be an issue, but right overhead? That's fine. Admittedly, Dolby's system is expecting this limitation, but from what I've read, their insistence of NOT using side heights has everything to do with not using the same system as (and thereby helping) Auro Technologies. In other words, Dolby doesn't really care what works _better_ overall. They only care about dominating the home theater industry and that means not helping the competition in any way, shape or form. Look at that upmixer thing they tried to force upon the industry until the EU courts stepped in. It's the same reason Apple invented Lightning instead of using micro-USB. They claimed it had to do with other reasons, but the truth is selling and licensing custom cables is a very very lucrative market when you control as much of the smart phone market as Apple. DTS is trying to play nice with everyone and convincing no one. It's the "generic" immersion format whereby even DTS doesn't care where you put your speakers, or so at least their marketing claimed....

In a theater, the ceiling might be 50 feet or more above you. Dolby's "side surround" speakers are actually placed in theaters at "side height" levels. Otherwise, they wouldn't image smoothly between the sides and overheads as they would be too far apart with those high ceilings. This is why Auro-3D uses THREE levels, not two in a theater environment. It's not necessary in most home theaters since the ceiling isn't very high up, but in a real theater, it gives true side surrounds just above ear level combined with side heights AND speakers directly overhead on the ceiling. I believe it's much better system for vertical layered placement as it creates a 3-tiered wall of sound from ear to ceiling level compared to a 2-tier dome that starts way above ear level in a Dolby cinema. Auro 11.1 simply lacked enough speakers to discretely image front-to-back, but Auromax (which uses objects like Atmos and X) corrected that issue at the cinema level. 

Sadly, Dolby "wins" with inferior technology for the same reason Microsoft put Commodore and Atari out of business. The IBM name at the time combined with massive dispersal (clones) and Microsoft not playing fair (pricing Windows less if dealers wouldn't carry anything but Microsoft PCs). In the real world, it's tough for David to beat Goliath. Ironically, Dolby uses objects at home, but has this issue whereby many studios don't want to use objects or use them properly (rejecting them nearly altogether with DTS:X and using them improperly or fixed in many Atmos soundtracks). Thus, even though Dolby "could" support up to 34 discrete rendered speakers at home, the reality is it _often_ uses less than both Auro 13.1 or DTS:X Pro's fully utilized 32 speakers (even when derived from a mere 11 channels).



> And having done it as close as possible in my room (my rear surrounds are more in the THX position due to a doorway on the back wall), it just plain sounds better with the narrower placement.


"Sounds better" is _always_ a subjective statement. I think the Auro layout makes far more sense and it's far easier to implement in most home environments. At most, you need one speaker on or in the ceiling (for directional overhead pans). Other than small rooms, Atmos needs 2-10 on or in the ceiling.



> In my case, I have a long narrow room to contend with (23' x 12' x 8'), and putting the heights closer in line with my mains had them so close to the sides that they *never sounded distinct from the side surrounds*.


I find that a bit strange seeing I have an almost identical sized room (12'x24'x8.5') and worse yet, the steel beam box limits the height of the side/surround heights to 8 inches less than the ceiling mounted speakers, yet I have no trouble telling ear level side surrounds from ceiling level surround height speakers. I mean one images just above my head and the other images on the ceiling. You don't want to be able to tell where the separation line is. You want them to blend literally seamlessly so you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. I simply know the side surrounds don't image on the ceiling. When it's somewhere in-between, I don't know nor care whether it's mostly one or the other playing. The point is to cover the entire range of axis positions.

I'm getting the distinct impression from comments like these that many Atmos owners don't have a "bubble" at all, but something closer to a hemisphere (kind of like the Death Star with its trench down the middle or a grapefruit cut in half with the top/bottom drifting apart) where you hear two distinct layers (top/bottom hemisphere) with a weak or empty area in-between so that it's super easy to tell ground level from ceiling speakers. But such a setup would defeat the point of a seamless zone of sound starting at or just below ear level (hell some sounds here come from the floor so I assume HRTF is alive and well in some of their recorded sounds) and continuing seamlessly up and around on all axes. At the very least, it creates a highly curved dome of sound, instead of something closer to a wall of sound (i.e. much smaller on top than at the middle). Real sounds can come from 360 degrees to virtual infinity. They aren't a _dome_. They're an infinite grid. I suppose Auro is more like a wall of sound than a dome, but that's closer to a limitless grid, IMO.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> And here I am to argue with you again
> just kidding - I had a think about this and can see how placing them in line with L&R as per one of Dolby guidelines is a bad idea. The wider the room the closer this puts heights to the surrounds.
> So I drew up my room and played with angles and widths. In my room 0.5 width puts them at 56deg elevation and 0.7 is 47deg. So either would be acceptable IMO, but my room is narrow(ish). The wider the room the lower those angles will be. And of course ceiling height affects it too. I have 9' ceilings but lower will again reduce the elevation angle.
> Inline with my L&R (which is where they are currently) is only 36deg.
> So my conclusion is to throw out the width of the room and the inline with L&R guideline and replace it with angles (as you have rightly pointed out already). But I am guessing Dolby thought more angular guidelines would confuse consumers even more (as can be seen with the confusion just with fore and aft angular layout questions).
> I would guess you could stick to the Dolby fore and aft angles (30-55deg) for side to side as well, with 45 being the ideal ?
> I am about to remodel my room so will be going with 45 or more.
> 
> And so to the original query, using 45deg fore and aft and sided to side means your speakers would be 45" in front/behind and 45" to either side of MLP. Which is almost the recommendation from Jeremy
> 
> So in the end I concur and retract all my previous ramblings


Acoustician Anthony Grimani suggests you bring the height channels IN closer to the audience. Based on my listening tests with various setups (anecdotal at best) I agree with him wholeheartedly.

It seems to me that the Top/ceiling channels are what really brings out the 3D elements in the sound objects. The ceiling channels really anchors the objects in 3D space. 

Top-Middle channels (and the VOG) really exist to bring sound objects in VERY close to the audience. If you spread them out significantly wider than the seating area, then that reduces their ability to place sound objects right next to you. However if you bring the Top/ceiling speakers inward, slightly narrowing them (even if that brings them inside the line of the front main speakers) where Top-Middles would be right over the heads of the left and right audience members (assuming a 3 or 4 seater arrangement) then their ability to bring sound objects close to the audience is maximized.

Top-Front and Top-Rear can produce similar effects without the Top-Middle But their forward/rearward spread would need to be narrowed somewhat in addition to placing them inside the line of the main speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Top-Middle channels (and the VOG) really exist to bring sound objects in VERY close to the audience. If you spread them out significantly wider than the seating area, then that reduces their ability to place sound objects right next to you.


Overhead speakers were never meant to do such a thing. The average ceiling height in real cinema is probably 50+ feet above you. That's not anywhere near in your lap or the like. If you really want to hear sounds in your lap, I suggest spacing a set of front wides, sides and rear surrounds in front of along side and behind your main row of seats. Any sounds that move front to back in-phase will pass either right through you or just above your head.

And any set of speakers can image between each other or any point in-between. In other words, speakers placed at the side walls can still image in the middle of the room the same way a center vocal can image between two pairs of stereo speakers. People like front wides precisely because they make for a larger soundstage. Placing overheads closer together gives a much narrower soundstage.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

This video covers the setup reasoning starting at around 24 minutes in.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Overhead speakers were never meant to do such a thing. The average ceiling height in real cinema is probably 50+ feet above you. That's not anywhere near in your lap or the like. If you really want to hear sounds in your lap, I suggest spacing a set of front wides, sides and rear surrounds in front of along side and behind your main row of seats. Any sounds that move front to back in-phase will pass either right through you or just above your head.
> 
> And any set of speakers can image between each other or any point in-between. In other words, speakers placed at the side walls can still image in the middle of the room the same way a center vocal can image between two pairs of stereo speakers. People like front wides precisely because they make for a larger soundstage. Placing overheads closer together gives a much narrower soundstage.


Indeed they can.

When taking sound active sound objects into consideration, if the sound object is supposed to be wide, they will image between the ceiling channel and the appropriate side surround to pull that object further out.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Indeed they can.
> 
> When taking sound active sound objects into consideration, if the sound object is supposed to be wide, they will image between the ceiling channel and the appropriate side surround to pull that object further out.


The side surround would pull the object _downward_ just as much as outward and thus it would finally end up at ear level instead of overhead, assuming the renderer would even behave that way, which I doubt since it appears to favor limiting movement overhead in ALL the Dolby Atmos demos rather than using lower speakers (that's more DTS's Neural X behavior than Dolby's).


----------



## harrisu

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Dolby's home guideline gives the suggestion of 0.5-0.7x the layout width, but in my experience, you want to stay closer to 0.5. Layout width = the distance between the widest-spaced speakers in your layout, which should be the side surrounds barring some freakish room. Don't measure from MLP. Measure from side surround to side surround, then divide that by 2. That number is what the center-to-center distance between your heights on the ceiling should be. To find the distance this would be from the side walls, subtract that number from the room width (not layout) and divide by 2 and that should give you the distance of each from the side walls.
> 
> There's a school of thought that spreading the ceiling speakers out more is better, and we may well see these arguments arise again because of this conversation. But the renderer in the home has the same expectations as the renderer in the theater, and if you look at theaters, the height rows tend to be placed roughly half-way between the LC and CR where the additional screen channels can be for Atmos. This narrower placement gives you better angular separation from the side surrounds. Placing the heights too wide out toward the side walls can make them blend too much with the side surrounds and diminish your sense of them being "overhead". Theaters use the math I previously provided wherein elevation of the side and rear surrounds changes the "ideal" placement of the heights, but the 0.5x the layout width guideline will get you in the right ballpark without much math... and so long as your surrounds aren't elevated more than about 10 degrees or so, it's not going to make a huge difference. Just depends on how nit-picky you want to be.


It does make sense to place height speakers b/w MLP and surrounds to provide a better separation b/w surrounds and top. Also the the DV theater we have near us have the layout where top speakers are placed b/w center of room and side of walls. Totally makes sense to me. In fact, I have spent a lot of time to make the stand out more using room acoustics. My room is a dedicated HT room and I spent/spend a lot of time with room treatment to get the sound I want + Dirac processing. I have always been looking for a sound bubble that is BIG and makes the walls disappear. You get there with absorbers/diffusers combination and placing them properly. But each time I was able to get the ceiling speakers stand more, the surround almost disappeared. When I could get both stand out, it was just too much absorbtion and was making the room a bit more dead than I wanted. Don't know why it didn't occur to me that I should physically move the ceiling speakers in b/w surrounds and MP to get that nice separation. So thank you for pointing that out . I have lived with the layout of top aligned with surrounds for years now and also a lot of different room treatments. Hopefully I should be able to provide update on how big of a difference it brings to place ceiling speakers b/w surround and MLP vs having them aligned with surrounds. Hopefully it will help others here to decide which way to go based on my feedback here once I set it up that way. My room is specifically for HT so I have full freedom of what ever it is I want to do . Wife gave up intruding haha.

Now, why do we have the rule of moving the ceiling speakers front to back equal to the distance from ear to ceiling? Most of us do have some sort of processing that set the delays anyway so why is it important to place them such?


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> Now, why do we have the rule of moving the ceiling speakers front to back equal to the distance from ear to ceiling? Most of us do have some sort of processing that set the delays anyway so why is it important to place them such?


It places the front/rear overhead speakers at 45 degrees elevation, which is a good starting point for placement. Delays can change perceived distance but not angle.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

harrisu said:


> Now, why do we have the rule of moving the ceiling speakers front to back equal to the distance from ear to ceiling? Most of us do have some sort of processing that set the delays anyway so why is it important to place them such?


Because that will place them at a 45 degree elevation without doing any maths.

My ceiling speakers are at a 60 degree angle from the surrounds so from the MLP I have a 60 degree gap surround to height, height to height and height to surround.


----------



## harrisu

sdurani said:


> It places the front/rear overhead speakers at 45 degrees elevation, which is a good starting point for placement. Delays can change perceived distance but not angle.





Mashie Saldana said:


> Because that will place them at a 45 degree elevation without doing any maths.
> 
> My ceiling speakers are at a 60 degree angle from the surrounds so from the MLP I have a 60 degree gap surround to height, height to height and height to surround.


Makes sense. Thx


----------



## niterida

Mashie Saldana said:


> Because that will place them at a 45 degree elevation without doing any maths.
> 
> My ceiling speakers are at a 60 degree angle from the surrounds so from the MLP I have a 60 degree gap surround to height, height to height and height to surround.


Have you compared this to having them at 45 deg ? I have thought having equi-angles of 60,60,60 rather than 45,90,45 should be better but I have seen arguments for and against and Dolby give 55 as max elevation and recommend 45 so would be keen to know if you have compared and can tell us your thoughts ?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> _Any_ standard (e.g. side heights above side surrounds like Auro-3D) would _scale_ with the room size. Ceiling height is far more important than lateral placement for "separation" of the layers between speakers. However, if you can easily tell them apart, I tend to think you've defeated the point of Atmos, which is a seamless transition in every direction, not a hemisphere of _separate_ sounding layers. Speakers placed at the ceiling on the side walls instead of in line with the mains can still easily image at any point between the speakers on the ceiling. Like with height speakers versus tops, the only real effect of putting the speakers inward is to functionally limit their imaging capabilities on a given axis to use only a fraction of the room. Why anyone would want to limit image travel is beyond me.


The scaling I was talking about is when you elevate the side/rear surrounds, the mix room/theatrical standard of placement shifts the height locations inward based on that so that the angular separation between adjacent speakers remains consistent. And when I'm saying distinct from the side surrounds, the seamless transition is exactly what I'm saying I wasn't getting... because sound never really moved up top so much as high to the sides. Now, it seamlessly transitions fully across. Ceiling height is irrelevant to that (other than the obvious propagation issues) so long as you're hitting the same angular separation that Dolby dictates for theaters. Having them moved inward per those standards doesn't limit their imaging capabilities. It makes them match the theatrical and mix room standard and keeps the angle between them within limits for better cross-channel imaging between adjacent speakers in the array. But you and I have been round and round on this already, with Sanjay confirming that the home renderer has the same expectations as the theater. So I still maintain that for enthusiasts, using the theatrical and mix room standard makes more sense than the generalized (and contradictory) home guidelines _if you are doing top front/rear_. But either way will get you some Atmos, and some Atmos is better than no Atmos. So he can either roll with the home guideline or get a little more granular with it if he chooses.



MagnumX said:


> In a theater, the ceiling might be 50 feet or more above you. Dolby's "side surround" speakers are actually placed in theaters at "side height" levels. Otherwise, they wouldn't image smoothly between the sides and overheads as they would be too far apart with those high ceilings. This is why Auro-3D uses THREE levels, not two in a theater environment. It's not necessary in most home theaters since the ceiling isn't very high up, but in a real theater, it gives true side surrounds just above ear level combined with side heights AND speakers directly overhead on the ceiling. I believe it's much better system for vertical layered placement as it creates a 3-tiered wall of sound from ear to ceiling level compared to a 2-tier dome that starts way above ear level in a Dolby cinema. Auro 11.1 simply lacked enough speakers to discretely image front-to-back, but Auromax (which uses objects like Atmos and X) corrected that issue at the cinema level.


Yay for Auro, I guess? But we were discussing Atmos top front/rear speaker placement, not any benefits of a competing (and content-poor) technology or the virtues of other layouts.



MagnumX said:


> "Sounds better" is _always_ a subjective statement. I think the Auro layout makes far more sense and it's far easier to implement in most home environments. At most, you need one speaker on or in the ceiling (for directional overhead pans). Other than small rooms, Atmos needs 2-10 on or in the ceiling.


Of course it was a subjective statement. But it wasn't a subjective statement referencing Auro or your preferred layout in any way, but the difference between hewing more toward the 0.5x the layout width for heights versus the wider end of the range (0.7x) in Dolby's home guideline for placement, or using the more specific mix room/theatrical standards.



MagnumX said:


> I find that a bit strange seeing I have an almost identical sized room (12'x24'x8.5') and worse yet, the steel beam box limits the height of the side/surround heights to 8 inches less than the ceiling mounted speakers, yet I have no trouble telling ear level side surrounds from ceiling level surround height speakers. I mean one images just above my head and the other images on the ceiling. You don't want to be able to tell where the separation line is. You want them to blend literally seamlessly so you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. I simply know the side surrounds don't image on the ceiling. When it's somewhere in-between, I don't know nor care whether it's mostly one or the other playing. The point is to cover the entire range of axis positions.


Which is exactly what we're doing by having consistent angular separation between the speakers per Dolby's mix room and theatrical guideline. And what I got from using that standard of placement. And what room designers like Anthony Grimani have also found to be true across hundreds of installs. YMMV. But if you're ever near Mobile, Alabama, feel free to swing by and judge for yourself. I'll have a cold beer waiting for ya'.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

niterida said:


> Have you compared this to having them at 45 deg ? I have thought having equi-angles of 60,60,60 rather than 45,90,45 should be better but I have seen arguments for and against and Dolby give 55 as max elevation and recommend 45 so would be keen to know if you have compared and can tell us your thoughts ?


I didn't test any other locations, but it has worked really well so I have not felt the need to move them.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I'm getting the distinct impression from comments like these that many Atmos owners don't have a "bubble" at all, but something closer to a hemisphere (kind of like the Death Star with its trench down the middle or a grapefruit cut in half with the top/bottom drifting apart) where you hear two distinct layers (top/bottom hemisphere) with a weak or empty area in-between so that it's super easy to tell ground level from ceiling speakers. But such a setup would defeat the point of a seamless zone of sound starting at or just below ear level (hell some sounds here come from the floor so I assume HRTF is alive and well in some of their recorded sounds) and continuing seamlessly up and around on all axes. At the very least, it creates a highly curved dome of sound, instead of something closer to a wall of sound (i.e. much smaller on top than at the middle). Real sounds can come from 360 degrees to virtual infinity. They aren't a _dome_. They're an infinite grid. I suppose Auro is more like a wall of sound than a dome, but that's closer to a limitless grid, IMO.


I wonder how many people run room correction software and if they do are they getting good measurements. I've been in home theater for a long time and ran Audyssey for the first time ever a few weeks ago. I had a "bubble" of sound before, but after Audyssey it sounded "holographic". The combination of Audyssey EQing each speaker, in-room time alignment, and trim levels set by the software took things to the next level. I'd wager getting good measurements for room correction software is a piece to the puzzle to getting great immersive sound, even if people are running their room correction software at all.


----------



## IMostlyPreferOLED

halcyon_888 said:


> I wonder how many people run room correction software and if they do are they getting good measurements. I've been in home theater for a long time and ran Audyssey for the first time ever a few weeks ago. I had a "bubble" of sound before, but after Audyssey it sounded "holographic". The combination of Audyssey EQing each speaker, in-room time alignment, and trim levels set by the software took things to the next level.  I'd wager getting good measurements for room correction software is a piece to the puzzle to getting great immersive sound, even if people are running their room correction software at all.


I have never listened to my HT without using Anthem Room Correction (ARC) if I make a change to anything. it’s an interesting point though; perhaps I’ll turn ARC on and off to hear the difference.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I wonder how many people run room correction software and if they do are they getting good measurements. I've been in home theater for a long time and ran Audyssey for the first time ever a few weeks ago. I had a "bubble" of sound before, but after Audyssey it sounded "holographic". The combination of Audyssey EQing each speaker, in-room time alignment, and trim levels set by the software took things to the next level. I'd wager getting good measurements for room correction software is a piece to the puzzle to getting great immersive sound, even if people are running their room correction software at all.


I think too many people think Audyssey and other correction methods can fix every issue, whereas in my experience, it's still garbage in/garbage out. It can do a great job of mitigating issues for your average consumer who isn't going to dig into it much, but you still have to deal with room-induced issues in the room if you're able. In a decently treated room, it can step things up nicely though.

I also wonder how many people re-run room correction when things change in their room. I'm about to have insulation blown into my attic and put behind one of the walls near one of my subwoofers, and you can bet that I will be reassessing the room after that. Some of the changes I'm making should reduce how much correction Audyssey is having to make right now, especially after I dig into room treatments more and better secure and caulk the front window. 

Hell, I ran Audyssey twice this morning after my second PB2000 Pro arrived. (To be fair, I screwed up and had RGC engaged on one of the two subs, so I had to start over. OOPS.)


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The scaling I was talking about is when you elevate the side/rear surrounds, the mix room/theatrical standard of placement shifts the height locations inward based on that so that the angular separation between adjacent speakers remains consistent.


It shifts it inward? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Scaling ratios keeps ratios the same regardless the size of the room.

More to the point, the Dolby renderer has NO IDEA what "angles" you're using. The renderer sees a coordinate grid with approximate even spacing between pairs on each layer (room based layout, not a listener based one). Dolby gives no credence whatsoever to an angle between the sides and overhead speakers . The angle is from listener to the overhead speaker on the vertical z-axis). Angles between speaker pairs in general should be as small as is practical without compromising an angle elsewhere. A full 24.1.10 Atmos system has 15 degrees between speaker pairs at ear level and ~35 degrees between pairs relative to the MLP. Such a system would image exceptionally well and it would not be limited to a mere 1/4 the ceiling in an average room with a 100% signal overhead as Tops only tends to do. You more or less need six overheads minimum to achieve that in all but the smallest rooms (where 45 degrees IS the front/rear wall edges).

If ones uses heights plus top middle, you end up with top middle in line with the side surrounds on the renderer's grid because both are located at 50% into the room. Dolby never even mentions the lateral placement angles of overheads. It merely shows them in line with the mains on the diagrams.

You seem to be talking about strictly the angles between speaker pairs. There, the smaller the better, but more speakers are needed to make a 360 degree circle, which is why Dolby supports up to 24 speakers at ear level in home Atmos. That is basic physics, but smaller distances are better not larger ones even if it means more speakers.




> . because sound never really moved up top so much as high to the sides.


With what material? High and to the side is still the ceiling, especially if the room kept moving outward. The angle merely drops relative to the listener as it moves away from the listener. What you're _actually_ describing is a preference of limiting overhead sound to about 1/4 of the actual ceiling so overhead sounds stay almost directly overhead all the time. This is a common reason for people preferring Tops to Heights in general and it's subjective. In effect you get a dome with a sharp transition to a narrow top rather than a large diameter top. In other words, as I've indicated in the past, sounds must travel downward as they move outward rather than in a straight line across the ceiling.




> Which is exactly what we're doing by having consistent angular separation between the speakers per Dolby's mix room and theatrical guideline.


As I said already, Dolby has no such guideline between speakers in the ear level layer and overheads. Tops are at 45 degrees and generally end up 25% into the room (closer to where front wides and ss#2 reside) whereas Top Middle is at 50% into the room in the renderer coordinate grid and so is side surround). Dolby has them aligned with the front mains or screen speakers, but they are still in line with Top Middle, particularly as the renderer sees them.



> And what I got from using that standard of placement.


No, you chose Tops over Heights and then like to tell us how superior it is to Heights, which is subjective, but you can't even admit there are locations in the coordinate grid it cannot render with that setup (e.g. Directly above the mains) because to move outward from 25% into the room, it _must_ also move downward when combining with the front mains. That is the price of keeping more sounds directly overhead. You limit travel at the highest points in the room.

I have no doubt your system sounds great. I'm simply trying to keep people aware that Dolby supports more than just a Tops based layout. 

Mashie Saldana's system is very similar to mine with 60 degree separation overhead using heights plus Top Middle. I get perfectly smooth panning across all layers and points in the room.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I also wonder how many people re-run room correction when things change in their room.


This is definitely needed. I recently reconfigured my office, which is at the rear of the media room. That necessitated finding a place for my rear sub...which found a new home in the closet. This all hinged on (pun) the door needing to go, as long as the bass response was still good. Needless to say, the bass response isn't quite the same with an open closet, so a new Audyssey run was needed. That also means spending many hours getting the bass just right, setting overhead speaker levels again...the works.


----------



## sdurani

Mashie Saldana said:


> My ceiling speakers are at a 60 degree angle from the surrounds so from the MLP I have a 60 degree gap surround to height, height to height and height to surround.


Just to be clear, you're talking separation left to right, not front to back.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> I wonder how many people run room correction software and if they do are they getting good measurements. I've been in home theater for a long time and ran Audyssey for the first time ever a few weeks ago. I had a "bubble" of sound before, but after Audyssey it sounded "holographic". The combination of Audyssey EQing each speaker, in-room time alignment, and trim levels set by the software took things to the next level. I'd wager getting good measurements for room correction software is a piece to the puzzle to getting great immersive sound, even if people are running their room correction software at all.


Room EQ is part of the equation. But it requires good measurement points. The better the room EQ, the better the holographic soundstage will be.

Other parts of the equation are speaker placement in relation to the seating position (taking advantage of the speakers natural imaging and soundstage)

The final part of the equation is room treatments to control reflections in the room which can interfere with good imaging and soundstage. The goal is to do enough treatment to cut down on the impulse response which can smear the sound. 

When all three are implemented properly, imaging, soundstage and channel separation are dramatically improved and the presentation suitably holographic.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> Just to be clear, you're talking separation left to right, not front to back.


Correct I use 60 degrees between left surround, TML, TMR and right surround.

Front to rear I use:

Top Front 45 degrees elevation
Top Middle 80 degrees elevation
Top Rear 125 degrees elevation


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> It shifts it inward? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Scaling ratios keeps ratios the same regardless the size of the room.


Height rows are placed laterally per the formula 45 degrees + (E/2) where E = the elevation of the side surrounds, in both the mix room and theatrical layout standards. 0.5x the layout width tends to get you in the ballpark though, as previously stated.



MagnumX said:


> More to the point, the Dolby renderer has NO IDEA what "angles" you're using.


And no one said it did. But the renderer for home makes the same assumptions that the theatrical renderer does, which is 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates for each height row. Hence why I said you want to stick to the 0.5x the layout width rather than get into the 0.7x end of Dolby's range for lateral placement. And if you're keeping your home layout in line with the theatrical, then following the theatrical guideline more specifically is good practice.



MagnumX said:


> Dolby gives no credence whatsoever to an angle between the sides and overhead speakers.


And yet, here we are, looking at just that standard for the theater and the mix room. Again. Because you want to argue about it. Again. For some reason.










MagnumX said:


> If ones uses heights plus top middle, you end up with top middle in line with the side surrounds on the renderer's grid because both are located at 50% into the room. Dolby never even mentions the lateral placement angles of overheads. It merely shows them in line with the mains on the diagrams.


Which, again, is the failing of the home guidelines that we've talked about here ad nauseum, as it differs from the theatrical and mix room standard. Which I'll cite here. Again. Best practice in the theater and mix room logically equals best practice in the home, all things considered. But as I said previously, 0.5x the layout width gets most people close enough and you don't have to be that nitpicky if you don't want to. I'm sure you agree.










MagnumX said:


> With what material? High and to the side is still the ceiling, especially if the room kept moving outward. The angle merely drops relative to the listener as it moves away from the listener.


With all material, including the demos I'm intimately familiar with from 8+ different layouts across 4 rooms. It isn't about it still being "the ceiling". It's about the rows being where the renderer expects them to be ON the ceiling and how that interacts with the other speakers.



MagnumX said:


> What you're _actually_ describing is a preference of limiting overhead sound to about 1/4 of the actual ceiling so overhead sounds stay almost directly overhead all the time. This is a common reason for people preferring Tops to Heights in general and it's subjective. In effect you get a dome with a sharp transition to a narrow top rather than a large diameter top. In other words, as I've indicated in the past, sounds must travel downward as they move outward rather than in a straight line across the ceiling.


No. What I'm describing is casting off the generalized home guideline in favor of using the more specific guideline used for mix rooms and theaters if (and only if) you have elevated surrounds... which doesn't limit overhead sound to 1/4 of the actual ceiling at all. In practice, you end up with just under half of the ceiling's span laterally with either the 0.5x the layout width guideline of the home version OR the more specific mix room/theatrical guideline. Which is perfect, because that's where the renderer expects them to be. Anything outside of that can be steered with assistance from the other speakers because we hear direction/azimuth of sounds imaged between speakers.



MagnumX said:


> As I said already, Dolby has no such guideline between speakers in the ear level layer and overheads. Tops are at 45 degrees and generally end up 25% into the room (closer to where front wides and ss#2 reside) whereas Top Middle is at 50% into the room in the renderer coordinate grid and so is side surround). Dolby has them aligned with the front mains or screen speakers, but they are still in line with Top Middle, particularly as the renderer sees them.


And yet, see above from Dolby for lateral placement. As well as this for longitudinal placement if LCR or rear surrounds are elevated above ear level.










MagnumX said:


> No, you chose Tops over Heights and then like to tell us how superior it is to Heights, which is subjective, but you can't even admit there are locations in the coordinate grid it cannot render with that setup (e.g. Directly above the mains) because to move outward from 25% into the room, it _must_ also move downward when combining with the front mains. That is the price of keeping more sounds directly overhead. You limit travel at the highest points in the room.


I'm legitimately not even talking about that. And no one else was either. But you are again, because I guess that bee is stuck in your bonnet. Literally no one in that conversation was talking about heights or how they compare to tops. We were talking about tops being placed too far out to the side walls.



MagnumX said:


> I have no doubt your system sounds great. I'm simply trying to keep people aware that Dolby supports more than just a Tops based layout.


No one said otherwise. Harrisu's question had nothing to do with which layout to use and at no point did anyone other than you raise that issue. The discussion was specifically about whether it's better to place _top front/rear _wider apart based on the home guideline's unfortunately overgeneralized diagram that simultaneously references them off the mains and the contradictory 0.5x the layout width (which would rarely be strictly in line with the mains in practice). Dolby's contradiction is the issue. Feel free to keep preaching the respective merits of other layouts if you want, but please try to leave old business in the past and not interject these old discussions into new and completely unrelated ones.


----------



## X4100

Very interesting information, but it still seems to me that a front and rear heights configuration with or without middle heights would remedy the problem of finding the best inward/outwards placement of the front and rear top configuration. I agree if you're looking for a more pronounced overhead sound, then top front and rear closer to the MLP as opposed to the sides is the way to go. My interest is in having the overhead audio transverse my entire ceiling, as well as giving me that overhead thrill as the onscreen action pans overhead left/right and front to back. I guess it comes down to what you are looking for


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Height rows are placed laterally per the formula 45 degrees + (E/2) where E = the elevation of the side surrounds, in both the mix room and theatrical layout standards. 0.5x the layout width tends to get you in the ballpark though, as previously stated.


That diagram is NOT the home theater guidelines. It has surrounds high on the side walls and placement relative to it.

That diagram shows precisely what I was talking about, however relevant to Auro-3D. It has the surrounds in height locations. There is literally NOTHING anywhere near ear level (where Auro has all three locations covered at the theater).

You say the ceiling height doesn't matter for separation between ear level and overhead speakers, but the ceiling height is precisely why there are no ear level speakers in the cinema standards. The phantom imaging would fall apart between the sides and ceiling speakers without an extra set between them lime Auro has. Thus, Dolby moves them upward. Sadly, this doesn't give much lower level sound impression at the theater. *Everything* ends up above your head!



> And yet, here we are, looking at just that standard for the theater and the mix room. Again. Because you want to argue about it. Again. For some reason.


I don't want to argue about it. But if you're going to make subjective comments as if they are facts, expect pushback. 

The fact is in a larger room the mains will likely be further apart with a larger screen and a larger front wall and therefore so will the overheads with them. The overhead image placement will widen the same way the front stereo image will widen as you move the speakers further apart. 

So what is the _functional_ difference between listening to an overhead image in the larger room with the overheads aligned with the fronts and having the overheads on the side walls in a smaller room at the same distance away on the x-axis? With your eyes shut, they will image overhead in exactly the same place. It's the lower speakers that will image differently with your eyes shut, but how is that different from choosing Tops over Heights which modifies where many sounds start/end in the y-axis? It simply images closer or further away at starting/end points (the middle images in the same place).

My point is it isn't really that big a deal. Those surround sounds are off-screen anyway and thus hard to say whether they're imaging in the "right place" or not. What's far more important, IMO is that panning is smooth and consistent around the room, not whether something sounds slightly closer or further away with one setup vs another.

If you really want the sound layers to align audibly, they need to match up on the Dolby speaker test. Unfortunately, they don't offer a screen speaker signal to test as that is actually where they align, but for typical home systems that don't use them, the mains are sufficient. In KODI, a simple time change of +10 minutes will get you instant switching between front mains and front heights. They should sound like part of the same vertical line. I'd take that alignment over some formula meant for the cinema any day.



> Which, again, is the failing of the home guidelines that we've talked about here ad nauseum, as it differs from the theatrical and mix room standard.


But we're talking about the home standard on these forums. We do not get the theatrical mixes at home! They're always modified for home listening using a near-field speaker setup. As your diagrams show, the regular surrounds are at Auro-3D side height levels in a cinema. Those lateral angles don't pertain to the home environment unless you're doing a cinema layout (again, better have high ceilings because you won't hear much separation between surrounds and overheads if they're close to the same height way above your head).



> Which I'll cite here. Again. Best practice in the theater and mix room logically equals best practice in the home, all things considered.


I simply don't agree cinema standards should be used with home Atmos. They normally use different speakers for near field (home) soundtracks, not the ones shown in the cinema diagrams when modifying the soundtrack to be used at home.



> With all material, including the demos I'm intimately familiar with from 8+ different layouts across 4 rooms. It isn't about it still being "the ceiling". It's about the rows being where the renderer expects them to be ON the ceiling and how that interacts with the other speakers.


And how does it interact? That's what I've been trying to get you to see all along. Some things matter more than others. Absolute placement of off-screen objects is less important than sharp imaging with smooth panning. I didn't choose Heights over Tops because I think Tops stink, but because I wanted things to image behind all three rows of seats, not just one or two rows. No delay or steering method can make a ceiling speaker placed in front of you sound like it's coming from behind you. 

A cinema would never set up a room like that. It would have enough speakers to image all around for all seats. And while delays can change apparent distances under some circumstances, they can't change the angle the sound comes from. Your 45 degree mounted tops can't image at the 30 degree height location as a delay would merely move it upward at 45 degrees not towards the 30 degree location and mains can only move it forward and downward at the same time (i.e. Your "steering" logic is no substitute for the real thing).



> which doesn't limit overhead sound to 1/4 of the actual ceiling at all. In practice, you end up with just under half of the ceiling's span laterally with either the 0.5x the layout width guideline of the home version OR the more specific mix room/theatrical guideline.


I was referring to total surface area, not just the y-axis (front to back). If your overhead speakers are mounted in line with front mains spaced halfway across the total room width on the x-axis (side to side) and use speakers 25% out front to back (y-axis), you have now limited the ceiling to about 1/4 the total area, barring mixing with lower speakers placed further away (i.e. 100% ceiling signal) which would image lower anyway.



> Which is perfect, because that's where the renderer expects them to be. Anything outside of that can be steered with assistance from the other speakers because we hear direction/azimuth of sounds imaged between speakers.


Yes, it can image between the speakers, but not in the way you think or keep indicating. When one speaker is on the ceiling and the other at ear level on the side wall, the image will move towards the lower speaker, but in both axes, not just the one you wish it would as halfway between is just as much down as it is towards the side wall. You get a diagonal line moving downward, not a straight one.

Thus, it's not remotely perfect. It's a very real compromise compared to the full 10 speaker overhead layout. It's one many prefer precisely because more sounds end up closer to directly overhead, but that doesn't mean that's where the objects are supposed to be rendered.

This is simple to demonstrate with nearly every single Dolby Atmos demo out there (e.g. The tiger sound in the Conductor demo comes from rear height on the back wall ceiling. With tops, it comes from the tops speakers 75% into the room, not 100%. With front heights only, it comes from the front heights above the screen not the rear surrounds or rear surrounds combined with the front heights! 



> Literally no one in that conversation was talking about heights or how they compare to tops. We were talking about tops being placed too far out to the side walls.


No, you talk about how moving the speakers affect imaging and it's the same difference on a different axis.

How many Atmos soundtracks use objects correctly all the time to begin with? The renderer can't hope to render at some theoretical position if the objects aren't even moving to begin with and use pre-panned sounds. Even if I believed your steering logic argument was totally valid, we both know some situations render very differently like the helicopter demo and it's at least using a moving object. Disney locked soundtracks and others wouldn't even give the renderer that much to work with. You end up with 1/4 to 1/2 the ceiling to mage on compared to the ear level locations.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

MagnumX said:


> I don't want to argue about it. But if you're going to make subjective comments as if they are facts, expect pushback.


I didn't make any subjective comments as if they are facts. I gave my opinion based on what I have heard from doing it both ways and made a suggestion. No need for pushback from you. If you had another suggestion, you should address it to the person who asked the question rather than once again harassing me. You already know I don't agree with you.



MagnumX said:


> My point is it isn't really that big a deal. Those surround sounds are off-screen anyway and thus hard to say whether they're imaging in the "right place" or not. What's far more important, IMO is that panning is smooth and consistent around the room, not whether something sounds slightly closer or further away with one setup vs another.


Agreed. It's not a big deal. Which is why I've repeatedly said it's not a big deal. And yet, here you are making it a big deal. Again. For some reason. Answering questions that literally no one asked and talking about Auro.



MagnumX said:


> I simply don't agree cinema standards should be used with home Atmos.


Really? I had no idea that you disagreed. You should probably tell me like 20 more times at length. I'll still say that if there is no difference between the renderer's logic between home and cinema, there is value in applying the theatrical and near-field mix room standards to the home space if you are laying your room out more like a theater than a living room. And I'm not alone in this, as CEDIA-winning designers are doing just that.



MagnumX said:


> And how does it interact?


It interacts because ensuring angular separation across the array aids imaging between the speakers in that array. Or in Dolby's words, "The lateral position of the arrays should be chosen to optimize spatial immersion and uniformity across the listening area."



MagnumX said:


> Thus, it's not remotely perfect. It's a very real compromise compared to the full 10 speaker overhead layout. It's one many prefer precisely because more sounds end up closer to directly overhead, but that doesn't mean that's where the objects are supposed to be rendered.


No one thinks it's perfect. Ideally, we'd all have more speakers to maximize spatial resolution. Trinnovs and speakers for everyone! But for the guy who asked where to put his FOUR speakers ON THE CEILING, literally nothing you're saying has anything to do with that question. You just want to keep picking this fight with me. Over and over again. To the point of annoyance. Stop. You disagree with me... and apparently Dolby. Duly noted.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You already know I don't agree with you.


The important bit I know relative to the person that asked is that you told this guy he shouldn't use wider overhead spacing because it's lousy enough sounding that you somehow couldn't tell the side surrounds from the top surrounds, even though they are at totally different heights, which is why I mentioned Auro since it purposely places speakers in those positions and most who have heard it think it works. 

BTW, please feel no need to reply. I'm showing this diagram for anyone else (including the guy that asked) reading this to see what I mean if it wasn't clear by that previous long reply. You've made it clear you disagree with whatever I say so let's leave that part at that.

This is what I meant about larger rooms having the same relative overhead placement as smaller rooms with the speakers high on the side walls instead (of the ceiling in a larger sized room) as I'll illustrate in this sad attempt at a diagram of two different sized rooms (Larger Room "A" and Smaller Room "B" Only the front wall speakers for "A" are shown):











Larger Room "A" with a larger screen has overheads placed as displayed in Pink ("Heights" are shown in the diagram since they're easier to show, but "Tops" would be simply 1/4 into the room on each end instead on the ceiling) and Room/Position "B" is shown with smaller TV and placement. My point is that the "A" overhead speakers sound the same in terms of overhead imaging if placed on _side walls_ of smaller room B. 

Only the lower speakers might sound different as they are now in line with the overheads instead of outside of them, but the delay setting should help correlate the combined images since the sounds will still arrive at the same time as far as teh renderer is concerned. Only uncorrelated sounds (like all on the ceiling) should sound wider, such as the diameter the Dolby Helicopter circles in their demo. Some might prefer the wider arc, even. Others may do it to avoid having to mount speakers on the ceiling and some may want a more Auro-like layout.

THAT is why I say the width of the overhead speakers and/or wall placement isn't really that big of a deal. Some people may even prefer the slightly wider overhead image (and nothing stops an object from imaging in-between in the middle ceiling either way or combining with the lower speakers with the appropriate delay). No other law of man or nature is broken by placing them there.



> Really? I had no idea that you disagreed. You should probably tell me like 20 more times at length.


Ah, but it's OK when you to do it with pages and pages of replies? Pot, the kettle is pleased to meet you. The replies were long because your posts and replies were long.


----------



## X4100

I just finished placement of my middle height speakers, and I was only able to test a few movie clips in Atmos. I love the results, first of all my x4100 has the rear height speakers assigned to an external power source. I connected the middle height L/R to the external amp that formerly powered the front height L/R which are now powered by the x4100. I wanted to run an audio test to verify all the speakers were connected properly, here's the funny part, I ran the helicopter demo. I have pinpoint sound in the 6 overhead speakers, the front height, and middle height are running off the front height via the x4100 and the external amp. As the helicopter leaves the front left height speaker and transfers to the middle height speaker I get a hard panned signal that you no longer hear from the front left height. When the signal reaches the rear left height you no longer hear it in the overhead middle, this continues throughout the entire cycling of the audio in the overhead speakers ( I haven't even placed the active mixer in the system). I'm thinking I have this response due to the nature of the helicopter mix, as it's designed to circle the room overhead. I tried playing other demo clips with distinct overhead sound, and I no longer have a hole in my overhead soundfield. I will have to experiment with this Sunday afternoon, because my landlady is asleep, well it is after 3AM EST, or is it daylight savings time 😎. Either way, I don't want to be evicted. I might be getting this result because the middle height speakers are set at a lower volume level than my front/rear height speakers. All in all I'm going to watch "The MEG, and Godzilla vs Kong" and I'll get back to you guys. Thanks again @MagnumX for your advice and support!


----------



## X4100

@MagnumX said: 
Only uncorrelated sounds (like all on the ceiling) should sound wider, such as the diameter the Dolby Helicopter circles in their demo. Some might prefer the wider arc, even. Others may do it to avoid having to mount speakers on the ceiling and some may want a more Auro-like layout.

THAT is why I say the width of the overhead speakers and/or wall placement isn't really that big of a deal. Some people may even prefer the slightly wider overhead image (and nothing stops an object from imaging in-between in the middle ceiling either way or combining with the lower speakers with the appropriate delay). No other law of man or nature is broken by placing them there.

I agree with the above statement, I wanted sound all over my ceiling when it's portrayed like that by the onscreen action, as well as some discrete overhead sound as when a diver, or a car is submerged in water. But I guess that's just me!


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> I just finished placement of my middle height speakers, and I was only able to test a few movie clips in Atmos. I love the results, first of all my x4100 has the rear height speakers assigned to an external power source. I connected the middle height L/R to the external amp that formerly powered the front height L/R which are now powered by the x4100. I wanted to run an audio test to verify all the speakers were connected properly, here's the funny part, I ran the helicopter demo. I have pinpoint sound in the 6 overhead speakers, the front height, and middle height are running off the front height via the x4100 and the external amp. As the helicopter leaves the front left height speaker and transfers to the middle height speaker I get a hard panned signal that you no longer hear from the front left height. When the signal reaches the rear left height you no longer hear it in the overhead middle, this continues throughout the entire cycling of the audio in the overhead speakers ( I haven't even placed the active mixer in the system). I'm thinking I have this response due to the nature of the helicopter mix, as it's designed to circle the room overhead. I tried playing other demo clips with distinct overhead sound, and I no longer have a whole in my overhead soundfield. I will have to experiment with this Sunday afternoon, because my landlady is asleep, well it is after 3AM EST, or is it daylight savings time 😎. Either way, I don't want to be evicted. I might be getting this result because the middle height speakers are set at a lower volume level than my front/rear height speakers. All in all I'm going to watch "The MEG, and Godzilla vs Kong" and I'll get back to you guys. Thanks again @MagnumX for your advice and support!


@MagnumX @Jeremy Anderson I don't know if I'm the guy in question who asked, but I'm definitely one person who has asked about that in the past. I havent followed the thread as much the last couple weeks though. I did catch the comment about how Dolby theater mixes are different than home mixes, and theaters have much higher ceilings than homes so that changes the equation as well.

But what about the Dolby "mix room" itself? How high are the ceilings in the mix room? Probably closer to the average HT than the average cinema, I'm guessing? So even if we can't extrapolate for HT places judging off of cinema placement, due to the fact cinemas have much higher ceilings, can we make a 1-to-1 correlation between the Dolby mix room standards, and HT rooms, because the ceiling height is similar in both of those?

I understand the Dolby recommended HT placement is different than the cinema recommended placement, but does the Dolby "mixing room" placement correspond to the cinema placement, or the HT placement, or is it a third, separate category?

And Magnum you are using "scatmos" so is that now a 4th category almost, you could say? Or does your "scatmos" setup correspond 1-to-1 to regular HT "atmos" set ups?

At the end of the day, can you "bottom line" this for me? For a 7.x.4 setup, in my room with about 8 ft high ceilings, 10-11 ft wide walls, are you both in agreement that I should follow the "mix room" guidelines and put my 4 atmos speakers "in" compared to the side surrounds and front towers, or Magnum do you disagree and think I should keep them wider? Disagreements about technical minutiae aside, do you see advantages and disadvantages to each option, or is it clear cut?

If you guys disagree about where to place them then that's fine. I think we are all learning a lot by following the debate of two of the posters who know the most about it, so the discussion is actually a good thing, and it only becomes a negative thing when people get off the discussion and take jabs at each other. But it's also natural to get frustrated discussing the same question over and over and not making forward headway, feeling like the other person does not get your point, or is conflating the wrong things and so on. If you guys could really try to identify what specific areas you guys _still _can't agree on, and what sort of discussion, tests or data are needed to settle the issue, that might go a long way. After all this discussion, what is the one area, or what are the areas, that are still the "hang up"? These long discussion posts lend themselves to addressing many different things at once, and then some get dropped, and then picked up again, and then dropped, etc, over months of conversing, and the discussions can drag on without clear conclusions. It would be most educational to really try to identify what is the main unsettled area of debate about this question even after months of discussing it, and just hone in on that until it is resolved.

But as far as my setup and my question about the width of the ceiling speakers, I'm not clear whether you guys even disagree about their placement overall, or if you guys just disagree about the technical minutiae for "why" they should be placed there. If you guys are both in agreement where I should place the speakers, then that's all I need to know. If you guys aren't in agreement about that, then I guess I need to start paying more attention to this topic again and hopefully you guys can keep discussing it until the answer reveals itself more definitively.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Technology3456 said:


> @MagnumX @Jeremy Anderson I don't know if I'm the guy in question who asked, but I'm definitely one person who has asked about that in the past. I havent followed the thread as much the last couple weeks though. I did catch the comment about how Dolby theater mixes are different than home mixes, and theaters have much higher ceilings than homes so that changes the equation as well.


A typical mixing stage is about halfway between a home and a commercial cinema. The ceilings are taller than a typical home but not the size of a cinema obviously.

Usually the speaker setup is much more like a typical commercial cinema. Some mixing stages have two setups...a cinema style setup and a nearfield setup for remixing for the home video release.

Here are some examples of typical dolby atmos dubbing stages


----------



## X4100

What's interesting about this ongoing discussion is I'm listening to and reading information that I never found in all of the sound and vision magazine articles that I read over the years. I was an avid reader of that magazine until their focus turned to home theater equipment way out of my reach, as well as the fact David Ranada was let go. I'm personally receiving a one on one education I've been looking for since 1990, give or take a few years! This current discussion has answered questions that had been lingering in my mind, I now have not only the answers, but I have made adjustments to my setup. As I've mentioned above, I have a little more tweaking to do prior to rerunning audyssey calibration, but I'm more confident with my decision to stay with my new 6.1.6 front, middle, and rear heights SCATMOS 😎


----------



## Chirosamsung

All this talk of how wide the overhead placement has me disappointed that I followed the Dolby specs when this room was designed and the speaker wires ran. It is a wide room and the tops are in line with the Left and Right Fronts as I was told was best. Is there anything I can do now? It seems from hearing everyone that this is less than ideal. Here are some pics. The ones from the ground and seat are from MLP (one chair with arm rests on either side). To not the side surrounds are slightly to the outside of the width. The overheads only pivot 15 degrees (MA gold 280 IDC I think)

the width of the atmos are about 11 feet wide. They are about 6 feet front to back apart. My MLP is 8.3 feet from tv. The angles are around 45 degrees front and behind I think. Side surrounds are about a foot and a half outside the width of the tops.


----------



## X4100

Personally, I don't see a problem with your setup. If you're not quite happy about the overhead sound dispersion can you try to get speakers with a better angular tilt. I'm a heights fan, but I wouldn't tear up your ceiling just to achieve a narrower overhead presentation. I must be missing something you're saying . What was your experience prior to reading the pros / cons of a narrower sound Field vs what you have at the moment. Tradeoffs must be made, but how do you feel? What seems best to the next person does not rock my boat, YMMV!!!!


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> Personally, I don't see a problem with your setup. If you're not quite happy about the overhead sound dispersion can you try to get speakers with a better angular tilt. I'm a heights fan, but I wouldn't tear up your ceiling just to achieve a narrower overhead presentation. I must be missing something you're saying . What was your experience prior to reading the pros / cons of a narrower sound Field vs what you have at the moment. Tradeoffs must be made, but how do feel? What seems best to the next person does not rock my boat, YMMV!!!!


I guess overall I like it and it's good for things like the helicopter or birds flying demo but if it is a scene where it is raining for instance I can hear the sounds coming from overhead vs side surrounds but it doesn't sound like I'm getting rained on me if that makes sense. I almost feel like MLP is better for overall sound but for things like rain the seats to the side might actually sound more rained on...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Chirosamsung said:


> I guess overall I like it and it's good for things like the helicopter or birds flying demo but if it is a scene where it is raining for instance I can hear the sounds coming from overhead vs side surrounds but it doesn't sound like I'm getting rained on me if that makes sense. I almost feel like MLP is better for overall sound but for things like rain the seats to the side might actually sound more rained on...


Well this is the problem with guidelines. They are expecting a typical HT setup where the room is long and narrow, in your case it is short and wide. 

My room is completely square but it turned really well for all speaker placements using some guessing and pure luck.

How far apart would your ceiling speakers be if you place them at a 60 degree sideways elevation from MLP? This is the main problem with in ceiling speakers, if they need moving a lot of work is required.

I see you got the Gold FX in the end, do you like them?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> All this talk of how wide the overhead placement has me disappointed that I followed the Dolby specs when this room was designed and the speaker wires ran. It is a wide room and the tops are in line with the Left and Right Fronts as I was told was best. Is there anything I can do now? It seems from hearing everyone that this is less than ideal. Here are some pics. The ones from the ground and seat are from MLP (one chair with arm rests on either side). To not the side surrounds are slightly to the outside of the width. The overheads only pivot 15 degrees (MA gold 280 IDC I think)
> 
> the width of the atmos are about 11 feet wide. They are about 6 feet front to back apart. My MLP is 8.3 feet from tv. The angles are around 45 degrees front and behind I think. Side surrounds are about a foot and a half outside the width of the tops.


If it sounds good, don't stress. It really isn't that big of a deal. Every room has its compromises and issues anyway. I bet your setup sounds fantastic. That's a nice space you have there! 

The issue is that the Dolby diagrams, in their attempt to be generalized enough for the average user, are a bit contradictory. They reference them off the mains in the diagrams, but say 0.5-0.7x the layout width in the text and that this should generally line up with the mains probably in an average room, but that would be dependent upon your room size and seating position. The rendering assumptions, however, don't have the heights in line with the mains but in between the LC and CR speakers where the additional screen channels would be in a theater. In my room, my mains at 30 degrees from center end up closer to the wall than they might in other rooms, and putting the heights in line with them did not work well for me, which is why I tried moving them based on the logic of the other more specific standards (but I was using ON-ceiling speakers, so I'm only filling tiny holes, not 8" wide cutouts). Dolby likely would have been better off generalizing that they should be at 1/4 and 3/4 of the room width in most cases, since the renderer expects them to be at 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates on that axis (and the difference between layout width and room width is typically minor). As I've said all along, this is all super nitpicky stuff and practically, the mix room/theatrical standard mostly applies if you're elevating the side/rear surrounds significantly (i.e. for multiple rows or to take risers into account). Even then, not that big of a deal and I'm not sure why this all blows up again over the mere mention of it. There should be nothing controversial about using Dolby's own more specific documentation if you're trying to get the best results for an Atmos setup to play Atmos content.



Chirosamsung said:


> I guess overall I like it and it's good for things like the helicopter or birds flying demo but if it is a scene where it is raining for instance I can hear the sounds coming from overhead vs side surrounds but it doesn't sound like I'm getting rained on me if that makes sense. I almost feel like MLP is better for overall sound but for things like rain the seats to the side might actually sound more rained on...


I would say the only issue is that with that wide a spacing with in-ceilings, you might not be getting consistent seat-to-seat coverage across the area, which sounds like what you're describing. So yeah, a narrower placement might have helped with that. But would I start butchering the ceiling over it? Of course not. You might play around a bit with what limited pivot you have to see if you can improve things slightly though. Back when I had in-ceilings in an older room, I had them pivoted toward the MLP initially but found that I actually got more even results by aiming them a bit beyond it. With your spacing, I'd try aiming the left side speakers to the left of your MLP (since you're not going to have enough pivot to reach the opposite side) and the right side to the right of your MLP. That might get you a little better result at and near the MLP, and it's free (and non-destructive to your ceiling) to try it. And if you do, let us know if it helped.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> A typical mixing stage is about halfway between a home and a commercial cinema. The ceilings are taller than a typical home but not the size of a cinema obviously.
> 
> Usually the speaker setup is much more like a typical commercial cinema. Some mixing stages have two setups...a cinema style setup and a nearfield setup for remixing for the home video release.


The mix room standards that I was referencing are more for the smaller rooms for nearfield home mixes (from the Home Entertainment Studio Certification Guide), not the full mix stages. They tend to be more akin in size to what many of our home rooms are. But as the same logic applies between the home mix room and theatrical guideline per Dolby, it works either way. The logic between those two standards is consistent. It's only the home guideline that veers off the path, presumably for the sake of not giving the average consumer more info than they can handle. But the renderer's logic is the same between all of these rooms, so that logic should apply across the board.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Mashie Saldana said:


> Well this is the problem with guidelines. They are expecting a typical HT setup where the room is long and narrow, in your case it is short and wide.
> 
> My room is completely square but it turned really well for all speaker placements using some guessing and pure luck.
> 
> How far apart would your ceiling speakers be if you place them at a 60 degree sideways elevation from MLP? This is the main problem with in ceiling speakers, if they need moving a lot of work is required.
> 
> I see you got the Gold FX in the end, do you like them?


that's a good point that I didn't think of when designing room. That even though they are in line with the mains, the room is wider so that makes it further spread out (but so is the mains because of this).

as for the gold FX, I do like them so far. Because the back wall is close to me the fact that they are bipole allows me to use them in the right spot to the rear which helps immersion and keeps the same tweeter as the rest of the 7.1.4

I will try aiming the ceiling tweeters more but at 15 degrees they are already aimed as much toward the MLP as a 280 IDC allows


----------



## harrisu

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not quite. Mark the spot directly above where your head would be. 45" forward of that is where your top fronts should be. 45" behind that is where your top rears should be. You have that correct.
> 
> The two top front speakers and two top rear speakers should be 59" apart, center-to-center. So 142"-59"=83". 83/2=41.5". So each speaker's center should be 41.5" from the side walls. Here's a poorly drawn overhead view.


After mounting, when I angle the speakers horizontally, should it point towards dead center of MLP or more like towards the shoulders? My speakers have 90 degrees of horizontal dispersion.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

harrisu said:


> After mounting, when I angle the speakers horizontally, should it point towards dead center of MLP or more like towards the shoulders? My speakers have 90 degrees of horizontal dispersion.


I would probably aim more towards the shoulders in general, but take into consideration coverage. Imagine that 90 degree cone of sound coming out of the speaker and aim it so that cone is covering all the seats as tightly as possible. With that wide a dispersion pattern, at the MLP will likely cover all the seats but I wouldn't give you a definite yes, having not seen the room.

If your seats extend out near the sides of the room, it might be worth trying Dolby's theatrical aiming method, which is to aim them at a point half-way between the center line of the room and the row of speakers. If that covers all of the seats fairly equally. With your speakers and size room, I wouldn't worry too much about it so long as you aim each one consistently.


----------



## harrisu

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would probably aim more towards the shoulders in general, but take into consideration coverage. Imagine that 90 degree cone of sound coming out of the speaker and aim it so that cone is covering all the seats as tightly as possible. With that wide a dispersion pattern, at the MLP will likely cover all the seats but I wouldn't give you a definite yes, having not seen the room.
> 
> If your seats extend out near the sides of the room, it might be worth trying Dolby's theatrical aiming method, which is to aim them at a point half-way between the center line of the room and the row of speakers. If that covers all of the seats fairly equally. With your speakers and size room, I wouldn't worry too much about it so long as you aim each one consistently.


Here is how my ceiling speaker is currently mounted. Notice how its b/w SB and Surr (almost). Now, based on our calc, I should place each speaker 45" back and then 29.5" side. When I do it, It's placing my TLB/TRB speakers almost above the SB. Is that still ok?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

harrisu said:


> Here is how my ceiling speaker is currently mounted. Notice how its b/w SB and Surr (almost). Now, based on our calc, I should place each speaker 45" back and then 29.5" side. When I do it, It's placing my TLB/TRB speakers almost above the SB. Is that still ok?
> 
> View attachment 3175113


That will be fine, there is quite a vertical and angular separation.


----------



## MagnumX

@Chirosamsung - I know what you mean with the rain thing as I did a lot of setting adjustments before getting a "perfect" rainfall where I felt it really was raining from every seat. I had top middle to tinker with, however, but the room is much longer so it's probably not that different. 

I think your overheads are fine for that room. I was saying wider isn't necessarily worse/bad, just different, not that alignment with the mains isn't preferable for the MLP, at least for Atmos.

I found the Atmos rain demo thing odd at times as the 2nd and 3rd rows sounded awesome with the rain. It even sounded more believable in the left/right seats. From the MLP, it sounded like it was raining in front of me and behind me, but there was this odd gap just overhead and in front of me that sounded like the lip of a waterfall. 

I noticed if I moved my chair forward a few inches even, the overhead effect improved greatly. It was like some kind of edge anomaly and I figured it had something to do with my Scatmos top middle speakers blending or perhaps over aggressive center steering by the Pro Logic Scatmos extraction, but now I'm not so sure since I found a way to prop up the imaging gap with heights without the Scatmos processing using a biased array. From the MLP, it sounds more or less identical.

So the first easy thing to try is try sitting a bit forward towards the top front speakers. You could move the couch or better yet, just borrow a dining room chair or equivalent and try moving forward a bit with the rain demo and see if you hear a perceptual difference/improvement. 

If so, short of moving the couch you could try altering the distance/delay setting of the front tops a bit in either direction and see if that does the trick. You can also try adjusting the relative output levels of top front vs top rear slightly (a dB or two). 

I also found with my sound meter that bass from my sub (that I bias a bit louder than flat) was giving me a slightly modified reading even on the A scale. My high side wall bipoles used as surround heights/top middle (one faces forward towards row 1) and the other backwards towards rows 2-3) read slightly louder mid-bass than treble since the bass drivers are less directional than the tweeters. This lead me to believe the top middle speakers sounded slightly louder than the actually were by a dB or two, which may have gave the impression the rain wasn't as strong just overhead, but the moving just a few inches changing it suggested more was at work than a level difference. I think altering the distance/delays slightly had more of an effect.

Once I dialed in those changes, I found the rain effect sounds perfectly even now even if I tilt my head upwards. It sounds like it's coming down right on top of me. 

That Atmos rain demo isn't really accurate, mind you. Rain really only tends to make a sound when it hits a surface like the ground or a roof. That demo sounds a bit like there's a roof overhead with holes poked in it everywhere, but it is what it is. My brain says torrential rain anyway.


----------



## opcod

The room is very small for a 4 ceiling setup and the 2 near the wall, at the back are just wrong. Just unplug them and it should sound much better. I did setup couple place with 2 vs 4 vs 6 where i was able to fit and not drill hole in drywall. overall : if room is less than 14feet from tv, more than 2 ceiling don't give any better. The biggest addition is : 1 - back surround: that do envelop you and 2- Front wide big time. They do cover and make that all around feel. But trying to put many top speaker, without sound profing material on wall do just create bounce everywhere. 
As for advance row of atmos.. it depend again. Front heigh give moslty better if the room is more than 9feet.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

[Edit] I was thinking of the wrong room.


----------



## harrisu

Mashie Saldana said:


> That will be fine, there is quite a vertical and angular separation.


So after installing and recalibrating, liking the change it brought by moving my speakers from four corners to in b/w MLP and surround. Every thing good but now got 1 issue. When watching movies, these front top speakers are visible to eyes. I have watched for about 4 hours to see if I can get used of them and they again and again distract me from watching. I have a 130" 2.40 screen and I sit ~10 feet away from it to get immersive experience but now these speakers are getting in the way :-(. I am wondering if I move them 5" further on each side, it might help. Not sure if that will make a big difference in sound but it can make a big difference if they are out of sight. Currently they are 29.5" each side from center and are placed exactly in the middle distance b/w surround and MLP. What do you guys think?


----------



## noah katz

How are they distracting you - reflections?

If so, I'd put black velvet on the offending surfaces.

If it's just their mere presence, maybe give it a week and you'll just stop noticing them.


----------



## X4100

My room wouldn't be featured in anyone's " home theater of the month " either, but once the lights are off, the sound is fantastic! YMMV


----------



## harrisu

noah katz said:


> How are they distracting you - reflections?
> 
> If so, I'd put black velvet on the offending surfaces.
> 
> If it's just their mere presence, maybe give it a week and you'll just stop noticing them.


Not the reflection but physically just being in the view. I don't have any speaker visible when watching for years now and very much used to of hearing the sound without seeing the speakers. These FTL/FTR speakers are within the viewing cone and just physically distract. Put it this way... I have to constantly convince myself not to look at them every time I sit down to watch. Before they were mounted far off the side (20" further away on each side) and were never visible and made the experience that much more immersive. Moving them closer did make the sound more distinct and just enough isolation from surrounds that stand them out. These SCS-8 have 120-120 dispersion so really good for Atmos/Surround applications but them on the top bring visible make me realize that "Oh that sound came from that speaker" . No its not the speaker its just me because my surround and surround back are also mounted at same distance of ~60" and they have never caught my attention. I'm going to move these speakers 3" to Left and Right and then angle them a bit more aggressive to MLP to achieve the same result but hope that they don't come in my viewing of screen. 
The distance from ear to ceiling is 45". These speakers are 12" high but with mounting bracket, it adds extra 3 more inches so they come down even more. I wish I had higher ceiling.


----------



## noah katz

harrisu said:


> Not the reflection but physically just being in the view.


Sounds like they may be too low in elevation; my front tops are at 45 deg and I'd have to consciously move my eyes to far above the elevation angle of the top of my screen to see them.


----------



## MagnumX

Hell, I like looking at my speakers....


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Dolby likely would have been better off generalizing that they should be at 1/4 and 3/4 of the room width in most cases, since the renderer expects them to be at 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates on that axis (and the difference between layout width and room width is typically minor). As I've said all along, this is all super nitpicky stuff and practically, the mix room/theatrical standard mostly applies if you're elevating the side/rear surrounds significantly (i.e. for multiple rows or to take risers into account). Even then, not that big of a deal and I'm not sure why this all blows up again over the mere mention of it.


The only logical reason would be if the Dolby documentation for cinema and mixroom have no applicability to HT. Which there has been tons of long posts about to the point where I'm still confused. It doesn't need to have 100% applicability, it just needs to have more applicability to HT than their HT guidelines do for it to useful to use for HT. Whichever is more applicable to HT, no matter what "name" they give it, is what would be best to use for HT. Simple.

And the only other reason would be that, very understandably, lots of people already followed the Dolby home guidelines to put their in-ceiling speakers in, so it's very, very understandable to not be happy about hearing they would actually be better off somewhere else in the ceiling, and basically Dolby gave bad instructions. Anyone who this happened to has a right to be frustrated with Dolby about that. But if it's truly better to do it another way, then it doesn't help them, or anyone, to pretend it isn't the case in order to feel less frustrated about it. At least knowing the correct info now can inform better placement in the future. It's really unfair to those people that it happened, and now they have to choose between redoing their ceiling or leaving the speakers where they are, but if that's the reality of what happened then what good does it do going forward to pretend otherwise? At least when you know the situation it gives you the ability to know your options going forward, once of which is a potential improvement to your HT which before was not a known possibility. So there is a potential upside in an otherwise frustrating situation.



> It's only the home guideline that veers off the path, presumably for the sake of not giving the average consumer more info than they can handle. But the renderer's logic is the same between all of these rooms, so that logic should apply across the board.


I know nothing about it other than reading the discussions in here, but this seems to all add up to me. Unless someone (Magnum etc) has a clear reason to do it a different way than this, I am going to do it how you've said to.


----------



## MagnumX

I've always advocated for a room based layout (e.g. Tops at 25% / 75% into the room, etc.) as that's what the renderer expects but it removes the listener-centric angles to some degree (i.e. You'd have to place the couch/chair to get 45 degrees instead of the speaker, but the room dimensions could mean the other speaker isn't also 45 degrees (like my rear height speaker relative to the front row), but with six or more overhead speakers that doesn't matter as much either). 

A real theater has you sitting anywhere with some places perhaps sounding better than others, although Atmos was supposed to minimize it to some degree (i.e. objects appear the same place for everyone) but because of a lack of overhead centers, the sides are still worse than the center seats for view and sound.

I'm sure Dolby had in mind the fact an average consumer room varies so much with the idea of making guidelines based around the listener since you can't always put furniture in the ideal location, but most ceilings are wide open by comparison.


----------



## Soulburner

Technology3456 said:


> The only logical reason would be if the Dolby documentation for cinema and mixroom have no applicability to HT. Which there has been tons of long posts about to the point where I'm still confused.





MagnumX said:


> I'm sure Dolby had in mind the fact an average consumer room varies so much with the idea of making guidelines based around the listener since you can't always put furniture in the ideal location, but most ceilings are wide open by comparison.


Indeed. Imagine you have a big sectional and you're off to the side. The more you move those front heights inward, the more they are going to sound like one speaker. Installing them at speaker-width may be a compromise to maintain separation for all seats. Just a guess.

Even with just 3 seats in a small room, speaker-width heights helps to maintain that separation so that one of the speakers isn't essentially a center height from your vantage point.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I've always advocated for a room based layout (e.g. Tops at 25% / 75% into the room, etc.) as that's what the renderer expects but it removes the listener-centric angles to some degree (i.e. You'd have to place the couch/chair to get 45 degrees instead of the speaker, but the room dimensions could mean the other speaker isn't also 45 degrees (like my rear height speaker relative to the front row), but with six or more overhead speakers that doesn't matter as much either).
> 
> A real theater has you sitting anywhere with some places perhaps sounding better than others, although Atmos was supposed to minimize it to some degree (i.e. objects appear the same place for everyone) but because of a lack of overhead centers, the sides are still worse than the center seats for view and sound.
> 
> I'm sure Dolby had in mind the fact an average consumer room varies so much with the idea of making guidelines based around the listener since you can't always put furniture in the ideal location, but most ceilings are wide open by comparison.





Soulburner said:


> Indeed. Imagine you have a big sectional and you're off to the side. The more you move those front heights inward, the more they are going to sound like one speaker. Installing them at speaker-width may be a compromise to maintain separation for all seats. Just a guess.
> 
> Even with just 3 seats in a small room, speaker-width heights helps to maintain that separation so that one of the speakers isn't essentially a center height from your vantage point.


you mean keep them wide like this even though it's far away from MLP but at front speaker width?


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Indeed. Imagine you have a big sectional and you're off to the side. The more you move those front heights inward, the more they are going to sound like one speaker. Installing them at speaker-width may be a compromise to maintain separation for all seats. Just a guess.


Yeah, that's the one thing I always thought was weird with Atmos is putting those ceiling speakers in line with the front speakers. Like you say, in a larger room/sectional (or even seated on the far side of a real movie theater), they're going to sound more like one speaker with no separation whatsoever. Atmos promised to place sounds in the same locations for everyone, but how can you possibly do that on a cinema scale without putting the speakers around the perimeter of the room? Well, the answer there was to put the surround speaker way up on the side walls so they can steer the sounds over that direction if needed, but of course you don't get any ear level sounds at all, which is why I think AuroMax at the theater makes more sense (two sets of speakers on the side walls PLUS overhead speakers on the ceiling).

I figured what they would do is the same as for the ear/bed level layout, namely, you could put front heights/rears in line with the front mains, but put top middle on the ceiling or wall above the side surrounds and it would basically echo the same layer above as below (like Auro-3D tries to do except it doesn't have/offer separate rear heights from the surround heights (side heights). They're the same channel. Yet they had room for center height and top surround? I don't think ANYONE did the best layout save perhaps DTS:X which allows you to mix and match (with the Pro version, at least) and use the best of both setups combined if you like. Neural X even simulates rear surrounds behind my side surrounds with phantom images if I switch down to 5.1 operation instead of 7.1. They sound quite believable from the MLP. Dolby just outputs the same signal through the sides unmodified for position, which is like a crushed 5.1 version instead of simulating 7.1 with 5.1 speakers.



> Even with just 3 seats in a small room, speaker-width heights helps to maintain that separation so that one of the speakers isn't essentially a center height from your vantage point.


Front wides cover the edge wall for continuous image coverage. They should have a "wide height" option for above. I honestly think they didn't include it in the renderer just to spite Auro-3D (i.e. it would be too compatible with their layout at that point and early on Dolby was afraid if they didn't act fast enough Auro-3D might get some real traction like DTS did for Blu-Rays and they don't want ANY competition).



Chirosamsung said:


> you mean keep them wide like this even though it's far away from MLP but at front speaker width?


Yeah, I personally wouldn't move them. They look OK where they're at and it would be miserable to try and move them anyway, I think. I'd certainly try them out first and see what you think before you consider changing their position.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Indeed. Imagine you have a big sectional and you're off to the side. The more you move those front heights inward, the more they are going to sound like one speaker. Installing them at speaker-width may be a compromise to maintain separation for all seats. Just a guess.
> 
> Even with just 3 seats in a small room, speaker-width heights helps to maintain that separation so that one of the speakers isn't essentially a center height from your vantage point.


The 0.5x the layout width standard already accounts for wider seating though, since the side surrounds would inherently be placed further out as well. My point has been that referencing them off the mains doesn't take into account varying room sizes. Spacing your mains out to 30 degrees off center could put them wider or narrower because of the room dimensions or how far back your seats are... whereas 0.5x the layout width for the heights will consistently get you a match to the expected 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates of the renderer regardless of your mains. And it maintains the ability of the heights to image between them when objects pass through that part of the room's span, whereas a wider placement won't image there as well. 

That you may be off to the side on a big sectional isn't important, because the sound will still be coming from where it's expected to _in the room itself_. And as Sanjay has reminded me many times, Atmos is not referenced off the listener but the room itself.

There is a bit of discrepancy in that the home guidelines reference longitudinal placement off of the MLP (which again may be a necessary evil of generalization over specificity for the average consumer), whereas it might make more sense to have placed them at 0.5x the layout length apart, putting them at 0.25 and 0.75 on that axis as well. Which they likely would be if your seating was dead in the middle of the room... but typically, we don't put seats there because of room modes. I would hazard that most here are putting their first row at 0.55-0.65x from the front for that reason.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And as Sanjay has reminded me many times, Atmos is not referenced off the listener but the room itself.


Indeed, Atmos (theatrical AND home) starts from the premise that speakers will be located at room boundaries. Generally true for theatres, mostly true for home (where speakers are occasionally placed away from the walls). To be tragically technical for a moment, Atmos speaker locations are actually referenced off other speaker locations (e.g., the rendering assumption for the Centre speaker is exactly between the L/R speakers, not necessarily between the left & right walls of the room). Still, close enough to think of the Atmos format as "room-centric" (especially when comparing it to listener-centric DTS:X).


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> you mean keep them wide like this even though it's far away from MLP but at front speaker width?
> View attachment 3176342
> View attachment 3176343
> View attachment 3176344


That’s a beautiful room. Well done. Imo you would likely get better playback from moving the tops in. But I think it would be marginal at best considering how much work it would be to do it. From looking at the pics though, I think you might benefit more from trying 5.x.4, as it looks like the rear surrounds are not only much to close to the MLP, providing distraction, but also could be masking the rear tops, while making a wall of sound if you will. Maybe it works great, but IME rear surrounds work better with at least four feet behind the MLP.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The 0.5x the layout width standard already accounts for wider seating though, since the side surrounds would inherently be placed further out as well. My point has been that referencing them off the mains doesn't take into account varying room sizes. Spacing your mains out to 30 degrees off center could put them wider or narrower because of the room dimensions or how far back your seats are... whereas 0.5x the layout width for the heights will consistently get you a match to the expected 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates of the renderer regardless of your mains. And it maintains the ability of the heights to image between them when objects pass through that part of the room's span, whereas a wider placement won't image there as well.
> 
> That you may be off to the side on a big sectional isn't important, because the sound will still be coming from where it's expected to _in the room itself_. And as Sanjay has reminded me many times, Atmos is not referenced off the listener but the room itself.
> 
> There is a bit of discrepancy in that the home guidelines reference longitudinal placement off of the MLP (which again may be a necessary evil of generalization over specificity for the average consumer), whereas it might make more sense to have placed them at 0.5x the layout length apart, putting them at 0.25 and 0.75 on that axis as well. Which they likely would be if your seating was dead in the middle of the room... but typically, we don't put seats there because of room modes. I would hazard that most here are putting their first row at 0.55-0.65x from the front for that reason.


the problem with saying that tops should be moved in for a wider room would also say that the listener should move their towers in closer too. Part of having a wider room (maybe with a sectional) is having the front speakers wider apart than a narrow room. That's why maybe it's not a bad idea to keep the tops wide. Otherwise the fronts Would follow the same
Logic and for me, in a wide room having the fronts close not wider would be less than ideal. Don't see that being different for ceiling logic...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> That’s a beautiful room. Well done. Imo you would likely get better playback from moving the tops in. But I think it would be marginal at best considering how much work it would be to do it. From looking at the pics though, I think you might benefit more from trying 5.x.4, as it looks like the rear surrounds are not only much to close to the MLP, providing distraction, but also could be masking the rear tops, while making a wall of sound if you will. Maybe it works great, but IME rear surrounds work better with at least four feet behind the MLP.


good point about the close proximity of the rears but to offset that I bought monitor audio Gold FX which are BIPOLE whereas the other speakers in my setup are MONOpole


----------



## Chirosamsung

Could anyone guide me to what specific scenes or part of the movie in Gravity Diamond edition is the best for a atmos demo?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> good point about the close proximity of the rears but to offset that I bought monitor audio Gold FX which are BIPOLE whereas the other speakers in my setup are MONOpole


I did notice they’re bipoles and that probably was a good choice considering their proximity. I would still try without them just for science  lol, but it’s definitely hard to get the mind around less speakers being more. Especially when they’re in place, and purchased. If it’s working for you, then it’s working!


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> I did notice they’re bipoles and that probably was a good choice considering their proximity. I would still try without them just for science  lol, but it’s definitely hard to get the mind around less speakers being more. Especially when they’re in place, and purchased. If it’s working for you, then it’s working!


I actually came from 5.1.4 and find that there is more rear sound in movies than rear height sounds so even though I have both I do find that having sound behind me and above (even if behind is heard more closely) is preferable to the 5.1.4 and no action behind me at all. After all MOST sounds from content is on the ground plane NOT the top/ceiling plane. 

If the question was going from 7.1.2 vs 5.1.4 is best I would agree 5.1.4 is best but I would also say that a less than ideal 7.1.4 where you hear the more often played rear sounds vs rear heights is preferred for most vs just 5.1.4


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The 0.5x the layout width standard already accounts for wider seating though, since the side surrounds would inherently be placed further out as well. My point has been that referencing them off the mains doesn't take into account varying room sizes. Spacing your mains out to 30 degrees off center could put them wider or narrower because of the room dimensions or how far back your seats are... whereas 0.5x the layout width for the heights will consistently get you a match to the expected 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates of the renderer regardless of your mains. And it maintains the ability of the heights to image between them when objects pass through that part of the room's span, whereas a wider placement won't image there as well.
> 
> That you may be off to the side on a big sectional isn't important, because the sound will still be coming from where it's expected to _in the room itself_. And as Sanjay has reminded me many times, Atmos is not referenced off the listener but the room itself.
> 
> There is a bit of discrepancy in that the home guidelines reference longitudinal placement off of the MLP (which again may be a necessary evil of generalization over specificity for the average consumer), whereas it might make more sense to have placed them at 0.5x the layout length apart, putting them at 0.25 and 0.75 on that axis as well. Which they likely would be if your seating was dead in the middle of the room... but typically, we don't put seats there because of room modes. I would hazard that most here are putting their first row at 0.55-0.65x from the front for that reason.


Can someone please explain "room modes"?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> the problem with saying that tops should be moved in for a wider room would also say that the listener should move their towers in closer too. Part of having a wider room (maybe with a sectional) is having the front speakers wider apart than a narrow room. That's why maybe it's not a bad idea to keep the tops wide. Otherwise the fronts Would follow the same
> Logic and for me, in a wide room having the fronts close not wider would be less than ideal. Don't see that being different for ceiling logic...


I wasn't saying that the tops should be moved in for a wider room as a rule. I was saying that they would already be placed wider in a wider room if you follow the 0.5x the layout width guideline. Now, in a wider and more shallow room, I can understand why you might place the mains wider apart than the 30 degree standard. But that kind of change is exactly why I think the heights shouldn't be referenced off the mains rather than the room and logical coverage.

The reason it's different for ceiling logic (putting aside the aforementioned argument that they should be at 0.25 and 0.75 in the room irrespective of the mains) is that whereas you can place your mains wider and toe them in, placing _in-ceiling speakers_ wider with your average height ceilings inherently causes coverage issues across the seats that you likely won't have enough tilt to mitigate even with the best in-ceiling speakers. In that case, you're better off from a coverage standpoint placing the height rows at the mid point between your MLP and the furthest seat out.


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> Could anyone guide me to what specific scenes or part of the movie in Gravity Diamond edition is the best for a atmos demo?


Don't know the time stamp, but try the part during her space walk where the debris field starts ripping into the space station.


----------



## noah katz

Technology3456 said:


> Can someone please explain "room modes"?





room modes - Google Search





https://www.harman.com/documents/multsubs_0.pdf


----------



## Hawks07

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If you want to get more granular per the mix room guidelines (which is preferable if your side and rear surrounds are elevated above ear level), measure the elevation angle of your side surrounds, divide it by 2 and add 45 and that will give you the lateral angle from ear level side-to-side. If your rear surrounds are elevated, apply the same logic for the top rears so that you get good angular separation. This also has the benefit of closing up the angular separation between the top front and rear speakers a bit.


I am in the process of moving my current four Atmos speakers in closer and also adding top middles and had a couple of questions.
First, I just wanted to clarify how to calculate based on my side surrounds being higher than ear level.
My surrounds are 17" higher than ear level which I believe comes out to about a 9 degree angle from horizontal. So therefore I divide this by two and add 45 which is about 50 degrees.
So do I then go 50 degrees out from the side wall at ear level to where the height speakers should be placed.
My ear level to ceiling is 72" so I think 50 degrees puts it at 60" from the wall. Is this correct?

Second, I see some people are suggesting moving the height speakers in closer than the 45 degrees front to back, even as close as 30 degrees.
With a middle row of heights added would that make sense or should I leave my front and rear heights at their current 45 degree angle?
I really only have one row of seating I am concerned about.
Thanks for any help.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Hawks07 said:


> I am in the process of moving my current four Atmos speakers in closer and also adding top middles and had a couple of questions.
> First, I just wanted to clarify how to calculate based on my side surrounds being higher than ear level.
> My surrounds are 17" higher than ear level which I believe comes out to about a 9 degree angle from horizontal. So therefore I divide this by two and add 45 which is about 50 degrees.
> So do I then go 50 degrees out from the side wall at ear level to where the height speakers should be placed.
> My ear level to ceiling is 72" so I think 50 degrees puts it at 60" from the wall. Is this correct?
> 
> Second, I see some people are suggesting moving the height speakers in closer than the 45 degrees front to back, even as close as 30 degrees.
> With a middle row of heights added would that make sense or should I leave my front and rear heights at their current 45 degree angle?
> I really only have one row of seating I am concerned about.
> Thanks for any help.


50 degrees would put it 60" over from directly above the MLP, if centered in the room. What are the room dimensions?

When people are saying 30 degrees, they're referring to the angle from the front soundstage (meaning front height position). If your LCR are at ear level, the top fronts are optimally at 45 degrees, barring any adjustment for the speaker's dispersion pattern.

If you already have top front/rear at 45 and 135, then I wouldn't move them in closer longitudinally. Just fill the angular gap with the top mids.


----------



## Hawks07

Jeremy Anderson said:


> 50 degrees would put it 60" over from directly above the MLP, if centered in the room. What are the room dimensions?
> 
> When people are saying 30 degrees, they're referring to the angle from the front soundstage (meaning front height position). If your LCR are at ear level, the top fronts are optimally at 45 degrees, barring any adjustment for the speaker's dispersion pattern.
> 
> If you already have top front/rear at 45 and 135, then I wouldn't move them in closer longitudinally. Just fill the angular gap with the top mids.


Thanks, the room is 18.5' wide and 25' long with 9' ceilings.
Based on distance between the surrounds my heights should be 50" over from directly above the MLP.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Hawks07 said:


> Thanks, the room is 18.5' wide and 25' long with 9' ceilings.


That would put the center line of your height rows 51" from the wall on either side, with 120" between the two rows center-to-center. This would actually put them slightly wider than the 0.5x the layout width home recommendation because of the 9' ceilings, but that makes sense for your space. Honestly, you could just align your rows at 1/4 and 3/4 of the room's width (55.5" from the side walls to the center line of the speakers) and be golden.


----------



## Hawks07

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That would put the center line of your height rows 51" from the wall on either side, with 120" between the two rows center-to-center. This would actually put them slightly wider than the 0.5x the layout width home recommendation because of the 9' ceilings, but that makes sense for your space. Honestly, you could just align your rows at 1/4 and 3/4 of the room's width (55.5" from the side walls to the center line of the speakers) and be golden.


Great, sounds good. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Could anyone guide me to what specific scenes or part of the movie in Gravity Diamond edition is the best for a atmos demo?


If you are looking for Atmos demos, one of the best is the movie Jupiter Ascending from the Wachowskis. The movies action was based around 360 degree flying action and they were one of the earlier films to take full advantage of Atmos and boy did they.

The scene where the heroes are being chased through the city by aliens is the standout and it never fails to drop jaws. But the whole movie is full of excellent use of Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> If you are looking for Atmos demos, one of the best is the movie Jupiter Ascending from the Wachowskis. The movies action was based around 360 degree flying action and they were one of the earlier films to take full advantage of Atmos and boy did they.
> 
> The scene where the heroes are being chased through the city by aliens is the standout and it never fails to drop jaws. But the whole movie is full of excellent use of Atmos.


Will try to order that. I'm guessing that's regular not 4k blu ray...


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> Will try to order that. I'm guessing that's regular not 4k blu ray...


I just looked at it on Amazon, I think it is going for $3.00 right now for the regular bluray


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> I just looked at it on Amazon, I think it is going for $3.00 right now for the regular bluray












Will I get atmos on the regular blue ray? I'm guessing k don't need 4k for this as the movie isn't really supposed to be worth watching anyways?


----------



## audiofan1

^^^Yes


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> Will I get atmos on the regular blue ray? I'm guessing k don't need 4k for this as the movie isn't really supposed to be worth watching anyways?


The regular Blu-ray and 4K UHD both have Atmos. Even the 3D Blu-ray does, IIRC.

The movie is not very good, but it is a big sci-fi spectacle with lots of VFX and action scenes from the same people who did The Matrix. It would probably benefit from 4K, but whether that's worth spending extra on is up to you.

I mean, Channing Tatum plays a dog-man bodyguard from outer space who wears rocket-powered flying rollerblades. So, kind of a judgment call on how much you want to invest in it.


----------



## X4100

Ralph Potts also said the movie is pplllttt, but the audio is of the active variety  . I was about to order it but this is what Amazon says:
Playback Region 1 :This will NOT PLAY on most DVD players sold in the U.S., U.S. Territories, Canada, and Bermuda. See other DVD options under “Other Formats & Versions”. Learn more about DVD region specifications
I used caps on " not play " to emphasize my confusion!


----------



## usc1995

I know many of us have at least an understanding of the basics of Dolby Atmos but I found this video to be a nice summary and explanation of what it is 



 Something to show our non-obsessive friends and family about why it’s so cool…


----------



## Rich 63

usc1995 said:


> I know many of us have at least an understanding of the basics of Dolby Atmos but I found this video to be a nice summary and explanation of what it is
> 
> 
> 
> Something to show our non-obsessive friends and family about why it’s so cool…


Wish id seen that vid when i first dove down the atmos hole. It simplifies what took me a bit of time to grasp.


----------



## Josh Z

X4100 said:


> I was about to order it but this is what Amazon says:
> Playback Region 1 :This will NOT PLAY on most DVD players sold in the U.S., U.S. Territories, Canada, and Bermuda. See other DVD options under “Other Formats & Versions”. Learn more about DVD region specifications


Which listing are you looking at? Was it this Blu-ray starting from $2 from marketplace sellers? 









Amazon.com: Jupiter Ascending (Blu-ray) : Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Bruce Berman, Grant Hill, Roberto Malerba, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski: Movies & TV


Amazon.com: Jupiter Ascending (Blu-ray) : Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Bruce Berman, Grant Hill, Roberto Malerba, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski: Movies & TV



www.amazon.com





Possible that's a foreign import, but the listing doesn't give enough info to tell where it's from or what region it's coded as. Warner Bros. rarely uses region coding on Blu-ray anyway, so you'd probably be OK to risk it.

FWIW, the 4K UHD is currently $14.96, and there's no region coding on Ultra HD at all.









Amazon.com: Jupiter Ascending (4K Ultra HD BD) [Blu-ray] : Bruce Berman, Grant Hill, Roberto Malerba, Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth, Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski: Movies & TV


Amazon.com: Jupiter Ascending (4K Ultra HD BD) [Blu-ray] : Bruce Berman, Grant Hill, Roberto Malerba, Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth, Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski, Lana Wachowski: Movies & TV



www.amazon.com


----------



## MagnumX

Why watch a crummy movie just for Atmos when there are awesome ones available?

Overlord (Castle Wolfenstein the movie almost. Crazy good sound, freakish WWII plot)

Fury (A great Brad Pitt tank movie with awesome sound)

Jumanji (Original in 4K Atmos; the newer films are funnier, but this one has unbelievably great Atmos sound with animals running across your room in every direction and giant mosquitos attacking from above. It was hard not to enjoy it just for the crazy stampedes around the room).

If you've got DTS:X support, it doesn't get any better than the Harry Potter series in 4K. Mind blowing improvement in sound over the old 5.1 soundtrack.


----------



## X4100

Thanks @Josh Z it was very helpful, because I was really confused as to why it might not play, but with all the good stuff I already have "I'm out "


----------



## ppasteur

X4100 said:


> Thanks @Josh Z it was very helpful, because I was really confused as to why it might not play, but with all the good stuff I already have "I'm out "


You did notice that the quote from Amazon was referring specifically to a DVD, didn't you? The copy I have, same as the link above for the 4K UHD version, is not region locked. FWIW.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Josh Z said:


> The regular Blu-ray and 4K UHD both have Atmos. Even the 3D Blu-ray does, IIRC.
> 
> The movie is not very good, but it is a big sci-fi spectacle with lots of VFX and action scenes from the same people who did The Matrix. It would probably benefit from 4K, but whether that's worth spending extra on is up to you.
> 
> I mean, Channing Tatum plays a dog-man bodyguard from outer space who wears rocket-powered flying rollerblades. So, kind of a judgment call on how much you want to invest in it.


for the atmos demo scenes alone I think I'll settle for $11 basic blu ray thanks


----------



## Chirosamsung

ppasteur said:


> You did notice that the quote from Amazon was referring specifically to a DVD, didn't you? The copy I have, same as the link above for the 4K UHD version, is not region locked. FWIW.











Jupiter Ascending [Blu-ray] [2015] [Region Free]: Amazon.ca: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski: Movies & TV Shows


Amazon.ca - Buy Jupiter Ascending at a low price; free shipping on qualified orders. See reviews & details on a wide selection of Blu-ray & DVDs, both new & used.



www.amazon.ca





would the Amazon Canada blu ray of it work on most blu ray players?? Link above


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> Jupiter Ascending [Blu-ray] [2015] [Region Free]: Amazon.ca: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski: Movies & TV Shows
> 
> 
> Amazon.ca - Buy Jupiter Ascending at a low price; free shipping on qualified orders. See reviews & details on a wide selection of Blu-ray & DVDs, both new & used.
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would the Amazon Canada blu ray of it work on most blu ray players?? Link above


it specifically says *(Region Free)* in the description. All else being equal (disc not hosed, your player not broken) it should.


----------



## Chirosamsung

ppasteur said:


> it specifically says *(Region Free)* in the description. All else being equal (disc not hosed, your player not broken) it should.


when you click on it-it says this though...


----------



## mrvideo

Chirosamsung said:


> when you click on it-it says this though...


First off, Canada and the U.S. are in the same DVD/Blu-ray regions. So, anything region coded for Canada, will work in U.S. purchased players.

Secondly, there is no such thing as region 0 for DVDs. The way that regions are coded on DVDs would result on such a DVD not playing anywhere. For a DVD to be region "free," or "all" regions, means that all of the region bits are enabled. Regions are handled totally different for Blu-rays. If the region coding Java program is not included on the Blu-ray, then it is region free. The studio could be stupid and include the region program and turn on all the bits (three of them). But, I don't think anyone does, even though the packaging might have the ABC logo.

Personally, region coding doesn't affect me as my player purchases are of players that are modified to be region free, or in the case of Blu-rays, region selectable.


----------



## Chirosamsung

mrvideo said:


> First off, Canada and the U.S. are in the same DVD/Blu-ray regions. So, anything region coded for Canada, will work in U.S. purchased players.
> 
> Secondly, there is no such thing as region 0 for DVDs. The way that regions are coded on DVDs would result on such a DVD not playing anywhere. For a DVD to be region "free," or "all" regions, means that all of the region bits are enabled. Regions are handled totally different for Blu-rays. If the region coding Java program is not included on the Blu-ray, then it is region free. The studio could be stupid and include the region program and turn on all the bits (three of them). But, I don't think anyone does, even though the packaging might have the ABC logo.
> 
> Personally, region coding doesn't affect me as my player purchases are of players that are modified to be region free, or in the case of Blu-rays, region selectable.


Will not play on most players in Canada and us...


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> Will not play on most players in Canada and us...


Yeah, that's what is confusing me  !! amazon.com


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Because it has the best Atmos I have ever heard. The suggestion is for those who want an Atmos demo to show to their friends or for those who still doubt if Atmos is worth it, there are several scenes in this film that will utterly convince people.
> 
> For someone who is already convinced about Atmos or doesnt care to show it off to their friends, I wouldnt make the recommendation unless they like silly space-opera movies (which I do. I happen to like the movie but its definitely not everyones cup of tea)


I liked it too


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Will try to order that. I'm guessing that's regular not 4k blu ray...


Its on both.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I listened to the scene in question the other day. It had good Atmos sound, but it wasn't even _close_ to the best Atmos scenes I've ever heard. I honestly don't know what you're hearing in it that you think is so much better than other Atmos movies. Perhaps you have the perfect setup for that particular movie to work just right or something?


Well of course I havent heard every Atmos disc so certainly there could be some out there that may be better. Its simply the best one I personally have heard and I find that a lot of people havent heard it because the poor reviews of the film keep people away.

Usually when I suggest it to people, they report back that it was amazing. Many of them claiming that it was the best they heard on their system. The people I have demoed it for always end up having to pick their jaws up off the floor

You are only the second person I have seen who said it was "just okay".


----------



## DrDon

Bickering removed. Discuss the topic and not each other. 

Questions or comments, PM me. Don't post those here.


----------



## X4100

When I purchase bluray movies I am usually on bluray.com, and I simply select purchase now, which takes me to amazon.com. This is the first time trying to make a purchase where I ran into this situation.  It has always been a simple one step deal.


----------



## Josh Z

ppasteur said:


> You did notice that the quote from Amazon was referring specifically to a DVD, didn't you?


Amazon automatically inserts certain disclaimers using boilerplate text when there is any question of a disc's compatibility. They do not actually check each disc individually. The disclaimer may or may not be accurate. The text may or may not even apply to the disc format in question.


----------



## usc1995

Jupiter Ascending is a pretty old film and there are loads of copies on EBay. I saw as low as $4.99 with free shipping. It’s not hard to find…


----------



## ppasteur

Josh Z said:


> Amazon automatically inserts certain disclaimers using boilerplate text when there is any question of a disc's compatibility. They do not actually check each disc individually. The disclaimer may or may not be accurate. The text may or may not even apply to the disc format in question.


Which is pretty much what I was trying to convey. The statement is generic, but if taken at face value it applies to the DVD version and not BD. In any case, most studios today do not enforce regional playback on BD. All I can say for sure is that the copy I have (4K HDR/Atmos) is not locked for region.


----------



## fatherom

ppasteur said:


> In any case, most studios today do not enforce regional playback on BD. All I can say for sure is that the copy I have (4K HDR/Atmos) is not locked for region.


LMAO. 4K discs don't have region locking in the spec, which is why 4K discs are all region free.

Regular 1080p blu-rays are most certainly restricted by region, most of the time. I just bought about 6 1080p discs, and only 1 was region free.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well of course I havent heard every Atmos disc so certainly there could be some out there that may be better. Its simply the best one I personally have heard and I find that a lot of people havent heard it because the poor reviews of the film keep people away.
> 
> Usually when I suggest it to people, they report back that it was amazing. Many of them claiming that it was the best they heard on their system. The people I have demoed it for always end up having to pick their jaws up off the floor
> 
> You are only the second person I have seen who said it was "just okay".


I've got 100 Atmos Blu-Rays and probably 200+ on iTunes. They can't all be the best I've ever heard. I just watched half of Twister last night in Atmos and Auro-3D (only got through half because I kept repeating the segments in the other format to compare) and the tornadoes swirling overhead and all around were ridiculous (meaning awesome), but my draw didn't drop because I've heard so many Atmos/X/Auro soundtracks at this point. I still say the best Atmos demos for sheer number of overhead objects and things flying all over the ceiling and around the room are three Atmos music discs, (Yello's _Point_, Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_ and Booka Shade's _Galvany Street_). Those were jaw droppers. I mean it's like being in Fantasia in that scene with Mickey and the brooms or something with every single object flying around the room just anywhere in space. Anything I've heard since are tame by comparison.

Now I just watched that one scene and that ship flying out into the surround speakers reminds me of the hovercraft in The Matrix flying into that nook into the room when hiding from the squid robots. Yes, it's cool. But I've heard it before. Now if it images solid like you feel the need to duck or something, that would be impressive. Sadly, spatial imaging that feels like hologram is harder to achieve (on both ends of the chain, I think). The one demo that sounds real as heck in that department is the Dolby Amaze demo. That bird flies around the room and flies halfway between me and the front speakers at ear level. I almost feel the need to duck (but I've heard it so many times). Yet, it does that in 7.1 and even 5.1 (7.1 further back) so that tells me Hollywood COULD have done effects like that at ear level before Atmos even, but they didn't and rarely chose to put in-phase sounds over the audience (Pirates of the Caribbean's opening has the wind hitting the flag on the Disney castle ripple right over my head and sounded pretty sweet in just 5.1 even).

I'm sure if I never heard Atmos before, Jupiter Ascending would be jaw dropping. I haven't watched the entire movie since I got Atmos yet (I have the 3D version) so it could be other scenes would impress me more, but I didn't care for the story and Mila's acting was awful so it's hard to want to watch it, even for Atmos when I've got over two dozen movies yet to watch (e.g. 47 Ronen in DTS:X and 3D that I haven't seen period). But either way, you're the first and only person I've seen put that on a top ten list, let alone #1. Maybe it's the movie getting in the way. I don't know. Maybe my sound system isn't quite right like what's his face said. I can't rule it out 100%.



DrDon said:


> Bickering removed. Discuss the topic and not each other.
> 
> Questions or comments, PM me. Don't post those here.


Sorry, I thought we were tongue-in-cheek joking (hence all the smilies).


----------



## vn800art

47 Ronin is full of car chasings and explosions, gun shots and so on. Characters are the best of the past century.
One of the best film IMO.
Will wait your opinions and specifically about audios track(s).
Let us know the purchasing history, too!
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I've got 100 Atmos Blu-Rays and probably 200+ on iTunes. They can't all be the best I've ever heard. I just watched half of Twister last night in Atmos and Auro-3D (only got through half because I kept repeating the segments in the other format to compare) and the tornadoes swirling overhead and all around were ridiculous (meaning awesome), but my draw didn't drop because I've heard so many Atmos/X/Auro soundtracks at this point. I still say the best Atmos demos for sheer number of overhead objects and things flying all over the ceiling and around the room are three Atmos music discs, (Yello's _Point_, Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_ and Booka Shade's _Galvany Street_). Those were jaw droppers. I mean it's like being in Fantasia in that scene with Mickey and the brooms or something with every single object flying around the room just anywhere in space. Anything I've heard since are tame by comparison.


I havent watched Twister. And I havent listened to a lot of Atmos music so I dont have a frame of reference for those.



> Now I just watched that one scene and that ship flying out into the surround speakers reminds me of the hovercraft in The Matrix flying into that nook into the room when hiding from the squid robots. Yes, it's cool. But I've heard it before. Now if it images solid like you feel the need to duck or something, that would be impressive. Sadly, spatial imaging that feels like hologram is harder to achieve (on both ends of the chain, I think). The one demo that sounds real as heck in that department is the Dolby Amaze demo. That bird flies around the room and flies halfway between me and the front speakers at ear level. I almost feel the need to duck (but I've heard it so many times). Yet, it does that in 7.1 and even 5.1 (7.1 further back) so that tells me Hollywood COULD have done effects like that at ear level before Atmos even, but they didn't and rarely chose to put in-phase sounds over the audience (Pirates of the Caribbean's opening has the wind hitting the flag on the Disney castle ripple right over my head and sounded pretty sweet in just 5.1 even).


Ah. In my setup, I have had the holographic effect where the sound objects come in close to the listener enough that it makes my skin prickle sometimes and the scene in Jupiter Ascending where the tail of the ship swings over the audience made me duck the first couple of times I heard it.

The effect was fully holographic, imaging between the side surrounds (which were at 90 and 270 degrees about 1 foot above head height) and my Top-Middle speakers, which by Audyssey's accounting are 7 feet above the listening position, but the surround imaging places the sound object only 2 feet overhead. The sound feels like a physical object is passing overhead. Almost like you could reach up and tap the broken tail as it swings overhead. My wife remarked on how realistic it sounded and she normally doesnt give two ****s about the integrity of an audio track. Just as long as she can understand the dialogue.

Unfortunately I had to move my surround speakers. They are now at about 85 and 275 degrees at ear height. People kept bumping their shoulder into the Left surround as they walked by and I had to bring it down and around a corner to clear the walkway. Just moving them down 1 foot and forward 5 degrees has broken the illusion. The sound object from that particular part of the scene no longer feels like it is right above me. The effect is still nice, but not as solid feeling as it was before. The relation between the surrounds, the height channels and the listening position were paramount for the effect. So I am going to have to experiement with other placement to try and get that effect back.

Fortunately other sound obects still have an excellent 3D presentation, just not quite as holographic as they were before.

The frustrating part is that after moving the surrounds, I recalibrated and acheived one of the best sounding EQs of my room I ever had. The bass is tight and deep. Tonal quality improved (though the top end sounds a little processed. I plan to rerun the calibration with the app and apply a curtain at around 1000hz but my internet was messing up and the app wouldnt connect so I had to do it old skool) what I really want are the results of this calibration on the frequency response along with the holographic presentation of my surround speakers former position.



> I'm sure if I never heard Atmos before, Jupiter Ascending would be jaw dropping. I haven't watched the entire movie since I got Atmos yet (I have the 3D version) so it could be other scenes would impress me more, but I didn't care for the story and Mila's acting was awful so it's hard to want to watch it, even for Atmos when I've got over two dozen movies yet to watch (e.g. 47 Ronen in DTS:X and 3D that I haven't seen period). But either way, you're the first and only person I've seen put that on a top ten list, let alone #1. Maybe it's the movie getting in the way. I don't know. Maybe my sound system isn't quite right like what's his face said. I can't rule it out 100%.


I think which Atmos/DTSX presentation will work best in your setup is going to vary considerably depending on how the sound objects are mixed into the soundfield and your specific setup. We have already confirmed that the speakers positioning in relation to each other AND the listening position has a great effect on how the sound objects are percieved and we also cannot rule out personal preference. There those out there who prefer a more diffused soundfield to the pin-point positional presentation of some Atmos tracks. I dont think there is really a wrong way to do it (within reason of course) as we are still in the Wild West days of Immerssive Audio.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

vn800art said:


> 47 Ronin is full of car chasings and explosions, gun shots and so on. Characters are the best of the past century.
> One of the best film IMO.
> Will wait your opinions and specifically about audios track(s).
> Let us know the purchasing history, too!
> Regards
> Alessandro


I just purchased the 4k version of 47 Ronin. Its a great movie. The DTS:X was decent but not particularly standout from what I remember.


----------



## Soulburner

I hate how they've reserved Atmos for only the "4k" version of some releases.

I have Oblivion in 1080p, and I have an Atmos-capable system. But I don't have "4k" yet.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I havent watched Twister. And I havent listened to a lot of Atmos music so I dont have a frame of reference for those.


If you ever get a chance, check out one of those three albums in Atmos (There are other good ones as well, but those three are crazy good for imaging all over the place). It's hard to go back to regular 2-channel music afterwards.



> Ah. In my setup, I have had the holographic effect where the sound objects come in close to the listener enough that it makes my skin prickle sometimes and the scene in Jupiter Ascending where the tail of the ship swings over the audience made me duck the first couple of times I heard it.
> 
> The effect was fully holographic, imaging between the side surrounds (which were at 90 and 270 degrees about 1 foot above head height) and my Top-Middle speakers, which by Audyssey's accounting are 7 feet above the listening position, but the surround imaging places the sound object only 2 feet overhead. The sound feels like a physical object is passing overhead.


Interesting. I get some things like that (A bit in that Yello album on the song Big Boys Blues sounds like the buzzing synth sound passes just overhead like a missile front-to-back and is one of the coolest Atmos effects I've ever heard (despite not being in the overheads), but others seem like they image too "wide" to sound "solid" and have this transparent quality to them.

But yes, I believe placement can affect how/where more solid sounding imaging can appear and those soundfields can even shift when changing between 7.1 and 5.1 or 5.1 with front wides as the AVR/AVP tries to keep some separation between rear surround effects and side ones (e.g. Sides will go to both mains or front wides and the sides and rear sounds will be sides only, which pulls the side sounds forward relative to rear sounds). That could easily affect where that ship images as much or even more than any speaker angle change.

Sometimes, if the soundtrack is really busy, it's hard for me to tell what's overhead from the sides, especially when it's louder on the side (e.g. Some of the Twister bits were like that, but as the tornado receded upward, you could hear it swirling higher and higher into a smaller diameter circle overhead).

Dolby's Rain Storm demo is the opposite. It sounds like it's raining much harder/louder overhead than at ground level or the side walls when real rain makes a sound when it hits the ground so it seems odd. But the side surrounds, despite being at ear level tend to image just overhead so nothing is technically at ground level.

I always thought Dolby could use some floor level speakers for such effects, but they might be difficult to place, especially for more than one row as chairs/bodies would tend to block them, but for one row it could be awesome for some effects. But it's expensive enough for most to just do 9 or 11 channels. I suppose one could try putting bookshelf speakers lower and let there be more separation between layers, but the movies aren't mixed for that expectation.

I always thought they could possibly include some HRTF data to fake such effects where desired (kind of like height virtualization but to place sounds closer to the floor). I think some sounds do this accidentally/naturally as I've definitely heard some sounds come from near the floor or at least much lower than just above head level before, but it's probably not intentional.



> Almost like you could reach up and tap the broken tail as it swings overhead.


Now you've got me wanting to experiment yo see if I can get a more solid effect. Since I use mixer/summed front wides, I can actually move where the "sides" image in the room by changing the relative mix (arrayed phantom image) rather than having to move the speaker. But then I have to adjust the levels to keep it all even so it's a bit more of a pain to play with than it sounds.

Detents in the pots would help. For example, my Monoprice switch box has those in the passive volume controls so I can actually move where the rear heights image by combining with the top middle and make note if how many clicks each to image in a certain spot with an arrayed combination (e.g. Image at the Tops location instead of rear height).

I've been thinking of doing the same for side #2 vs rears which would also allow me to copy sides to rears for expanded Auro 11.1 or have rears image closer to the front row when no one is sitting in the other two rows for more of a circular sound field than an ellipse in Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I hate how they've reserved Atmos for only the "4k" version of some releases.
> 
> I have Oblivion in 1080p, and I have an Atmos-capable system. But I don't have "4k" yet.


There's a great scaler on Amazon I purchased for only around $40 or so that fools the streaming boxes into believing you have 4K so you can use the Atmos tracks (Apple TV 4K will play Atmos at 2K already for any 4K movie that has it). Many UHD BD players have very good scaling and HDR-to-SDR conversion as well. You can also rip and remux the soundtrack to a 2K disc on a computer with the right hardware.

Oblivion had an excellent Atmos track if I recall correctly. It was an excellent movie too, IMO, especially for the first viewing surprise).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I hate how they've reserved Atmos for only the "4k" version of some releases.
> 
> I have Oblivion in 1080p, and I have an Atmos-capable system. But I don't have "4k" yet.


Start buying the 4k combo discs that include both the 4k and 2k discs.

Some of those have the Atmos on the 1080p disc as well. Aquaman was like that. I started buying 4k combo discs nearly a year before I got my PS5 (which I use as my 4k player) and about half the tittles I bought had Atmos on both.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ah. In my setup, I have had the holographic effect where the sound objects come in close to the listener enough that it makes my skin prickle sometimes and the scene in Jupiter Ascending where the tail of the ship swings over the audience made me duck the first couple of times I heard it.
> 
> The effect was fully holographic, imaging between the side surrounds (which were at 90 and 270 degrees about 1 foot above head height) and my Top-Middle speakers, which by Audyssey's accounting are 7 feet above the listening position, but the surround imaging places the sound object only 2 feet overhead. The sound feels like a physical object is passing overhead. Almost like you could reach up and tap the broken tail as it swings overhead. My wife remarked on how realistic it sounded and she normally doesnt give two ****s about the integrity of an audio track. Just as long as she can understand the dialogue.
> 
> Unfortunately I had to move my surround speakers. They are now at about 85 and 275 degrees at ear height. People kept bumping their shoulder into the Left surround as they walked by and I had to bring it down and around a corner to clear the walkway. Just moving them down 1 foot and forward 5 degrees has broken the illusion. The sound object from that particular part of the scene no longer feels like it is right above me. The effect is still nice, but not as solid feeling as it was before. The relation between the surrounds, the height channels and the listening position were paramount for the effect. So I am going to have to experiement with other placement to try and get that effect back.


Is it possible that, since the spec calls for surrounds to be at no more than half-way up the wall height, and you had them higher than that, you had an added effect that they didn't intend? Sort of a happy accident?


----------



## Josh Z

vn800art said:


> 47 Ronin is full of car chasings and explosions, gun shots and so on. Characters are the best of the past century.
> One of the best film IMO.


I think you mean Ronin, not 47 Ronin. Very different movies. No car chases or guns in 47 Ronin.









Ronin (1998) - IMDb


Ronin (1998) Reference View




www.imdb.com













47 Ronin (2013) - IMDb


47 Ronin (2013) Reference View




www.imdb.com





That said, I'm not aware of an Atmos version of Ronin.


----------



## X4100

Please keep it coming guys, I'm excited as you describe the experience of imaging above you, but not in the ceiling. I remember at the end of Gravity hearing the insects buzzing around. I ran across a thread somewhere, where the posters were describing some of the things they heard in their home.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Start buying the 4k combo discs that include both the 4k and 2k discs.
> 
> Some of those have the Atmos on the 1080p disc as well. Aquaman was like that. I started buying 4k combo discs nearly a year before I got my PS5 (which I use as my 4k player) and about half the tittles I bought had Atmos on both.


I have some good Atmos movies that I've scoured from the Walmart movie bins (just picked up _Ready Player One_ the other day) but it's rare that I end up with a combo disc unless it's a DVD/Blu-ray combo. And of course the DVD is never used.

But, I will keep an eye out. Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The effect was fully holographic, imaging between the side surrounds (which were at 90 and 270 degrees about 1 foot above head height) and my Top-Middle speakers, which by Audyssey's accounting are 7 feet above the listening position, but the surround imaging places the sound object only 2 feet overhead. The sound feels like a physical object is passing overhead. Almost like you could reach up and tap the broken tail as it swings overhead. My wife remarked on how realistic it sounded and she normally doesnt give two ****s about the integrity of an audio track. Just as long as she can understand the dialogue.


I further played with this scene (assuming for certain it's that bit shortly after the collision of the two ships and dog dude jumps out and grabs onto Mila and it swings around towards the screen. I don't believe that sound is in the overheads at all. It appears to be a purely ear/bed level surround effect. In fact, it images below my head at all times (how high off the ground were your surrounds relative to your head?). Short of sitting on the floor, I couldn't get a just above my head effect for that reason. However, I could hear a strong surround image effect of "chub chub" metal sounds swing by, but it was well behind me. 

For reference, my mains sit at 30 degrees with front heights at 35 degrees and otherwise right above the mains (combined phantom image with front wide mixed array appears at about 35 degrees directly below the front height), front wides at 45 degrees, surrounds at 120 degrees, side surrounds #2 at 135 degrees and rear surrounds around 150 degrees with top middles right above the side surrounds and rear heights right above the rear surrounds). Turning off rear surrounds didn't change things much, if at all from the front row.

So I got up and went to row 2 which is between the side surrounds and side surrounds #2. A bit to my surprise, the sound STILL imaged behind me just like it did in row 1. It turns out the sound itself is arrayed if you have both side surrounds and rear surrounds. In other words, it appears in both the side surrounds and rear surrounds (which makes it move with you as you move into the back of the room, making it appear behind me in all three rows). The rear center seat is just in front of the rear surrounds which are almost directly to the sides (perhaps 95 degrees) so it was much closer to the back of my head there like the ship passed right through me with that tail end making that chub chub metallic noise right behind my head (definitely a little bit freaky), but it wasn't really "above" my head so much as directly behind it and slightly below it, but I couldn't really move any further backwards since the chair is already just in front of the rear wall (I'd have to move the chair out of the way and put a smaller folding chair there or something as that one needs room to recline as it's a power recliner). I tried turning off rear surrounds and listened again in row 2 and 3. In row 2, it stubbornly was still behind me, but closer (forgot to turn off side surround #2 which is just behind the 2nd row seat to the sides) so I shut that speaker off too, leaving only the side surrounds in front of me.

Of course, now it finally imaged in front of my head, but it was stronger sounding just off to the sides than in the middle zone (i.e. weakest part of the image was in the dead center position that would be the closest to my head and it was still below ear level. In the back, the center image was stronger just behind my head, but the rear surrounds are closer together than the side surrounds so that may have made it seem more focused. I think it's hard to image right in front of you head from a distance regardless). So I tried using a folding chair to sit in-between, but it still stubbornly imaged behind me even past the 90 degree point and wasn't really in front of me until I was sitting in the 2nd row chair, but it was too weak to sound realistic in the center since it seemed to be in an arc behind the speakers rather than directly in-between them and of course turning on either the side surround #2 or rear surrounds only moved the image behind that chair once again.

I guess my point is that for it to image like it was just above your head, I think you'd have to be sitting just so where the loudest part of the image comes from and just below that point so it's just above your head as you say and either the surround speakers would have to sit higher or perhaps a different brand images a bit different than these PSB B15 speakers. I think the difference between that being an interesting surround effect and a "OMG" moment probably matters exactly where it images and how loud/focused it is when it's there (i.e. It's probably way cooler to image strongly just above your head as you describe than 5 feet behind your head with the chair back between you and the sound where it wants to appear in my room or that fuzzier image a couple of feet in front of my chest sitting well behind only side surrounds). In other words, I'm getting the feeling you had your speakers positioned just so to get a freaky close phantom image effect above your head (similar to the buzzy synth on the Yello album I mentioned that does that here).

Now that buzzy synth sound I mentioned on Yello's _Point_ album goes in a straight line front to back from the center speaker to between the rear surrounds (or side surrounds in a 5.1 bed layer) so it doesn't matter where you sit along that straight line path as it will still pass by directly just over you head (or through you if the speakers are sitting lower). In other words, I think it's less dependent on where you have your surround speakers, although I had to tweak levels of the front wides, mains and surrounds to get a perfectly even image all the way back. Any deviation and it sounds more "transparent" at that point along the line, making it seem less real sounding and more of a stereo image.


----------



## Chirosamsung

What are those albums again and re they blu rays? I use make MKV and put atmos stuff on the Shield


----------



## X4100

I remember watching a movie "The Dog Soldiers " I think, a Native American tribe was living untouched by modernization in Colorado or somewhere. The scene that made me jump was when an arrow went from front center straight through me and hitting very hard in the rear center of my room. I've tried to recreate this experience, but couldn't. I have since left it to the way my speakers were configured at that particular time. That movie is in 5.1, but it seems to me if a movie in Dolby Atmos contains such a sound effect, we should all have the same or at least a very close experience without having to change the position of our speakers. This is why I appreciate sharing your personal experiences with "audio objects " and their movement, or lack of movement throughout the soundfield. I remember hearing some sound effects from 5.1EX (ES) 6.1 that I don't hear now with Dolby atmos . I will never go back to just 5.1 decoding. If the sound is fantastic on an Atmos setup, shouldn't we all get pretty much the same audio experience?


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> What are those albums again and re they blu rays? I use make MKV and put atmos stuff on the Shield


I've been looking for them as well, but in the wrong place. Lol. By the way I ordered Jupiter Ascending, the movie seems blaise, but I enjoy swirling effects! I watched "The Hurricane Heist " , I would love to hear Twister in Dolby Atmos!


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> What are those albums again and re they blu rays? I use make MKV and put atmos stuff on the Shield


_Point_ by Yello
_Dear Future Self_ by Booka Shade
_Galvany Street_ by Booka Shade




X4100 said:


> If the sound is fantastic on an Atmos setup, shouldn't we all get pretty much the same audio experience?


Actually, in some ways I think it's the other way around. Previous surround formats were listener-orientated and surround channels in the theater were purely arrays. This meant "left" was always directly to your left, etc. But with Atmos, it's actually room orientated (but they can also encode array stuff if they so desire and often duplicate side channel information to the rear channels rather than use many discrete sounds back there which may be partly why many complain that 7.1 didn't impress them that much over 5.1). Room orientated means that a sound object in the room should appear in the same place in the room itself for all listeners. 

So where you sit determines how near/far you are from a particular sound source in the room. There are limitations. For example, more speakers equals less differences for the exact location regardless of where you sit, but it also means if an arrow fires to the left 1/3 of the room and you're sitting on the left side, it's going to image closer to your head than someone on the right side or back 1/3 of the room. They'll still hear the arrow land by you, but they're not sitting anywhere near you so the exact experience is different for everyone despite everything theoretically being in the same locations. 

Of course, when they purposely copy objects to the rear channels or use the "bed" channels (which in a theater typically array through all the left side speakers for left surround even though objects can go through them one at a time) you get a mixture, but they're supposed to keep that in mind too. I wonder when remixing old soundtracks if they're also limited by the sounds they can get discrete copies of rather than having them bundled in one track or whatever which might be why so many sounds are arrayed in something like Back to the Future in Atmos, but newer movies tend to be more discrete and are more likely to have discrete/unique information in the rear channels (which would then image in the back of the room for everyone).


----------



## X4100

You're 100% correct , I keep forgetting I'm the only person listening in my room with a single seat that I have optimized for the best possible Atmospheric impact! Bring on " The Meg"


----------



## Josh Z

X4100 said:


> I've been looking for them as well, but in the wrong place. Lol. By the way I ordered Jupiter Ascending, the movie seems blaise, but I enjoy swirling effects! I watched "The Hurricane Heist " , I would love to hear Twister in Dolby Atmos!


Available on Blu-ray in Germany (no UHD, unfortunately):






Twister: Remastered Mediabook Edition - German Import Blu-ray Review | High Def Digest


'The latest news on all things 4k Ultra HD, Blu-ray and Gear'



bluray.highdefdigest.com


----------



## Dan Hitchman

In my basement room with less than 8 foot ceiling I used Anthony G's recommended overhead spacing (for standard height ceilings) of around 5 feet wide (measuring center to center). 

This placed my run of six RSL overheads at approximately between the left and right fronts and center speaker. The stereo imaging of the overheads is very good when I did an initial audio test. Plus the height sound effects appear to eminate above you and not off to the side walls.

That lends credence to using the theatrical Atmos specs, to some degree, and not Dolby's home specs. Commercially, they appear to place the overhead array in line with the Left Extra and Right Extra screen speakers, NOT the left and right speakers. Obviously, that narrows the spread of the overheads in comparison to the home recommendations unless you don't have your left and right speakers very far apart.

Of course, given most homes' average ceiling height, you want to lower the side and rear bed surrounds for better angle separation. I use the rule of mounting surrounds at just above average seated head height to eliminate viewer head blockage and not Dolby's home Atmos specs of ear height.

YMMV if you have 9 foot or higher ceilings.

Since the home Atmos rendering grid is still using the theatrical rendering grid (though with spatial compression the objects do tend to be grouped or zoned and less discrete than the theatrical soundtrack version), I have no explanation as to why Dolby has such goofy home layout recommendations.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Is it possible that, since the spec calls for surrounds to be at no more than half-way up the wall height, and you had them higher than that, you had an added effect that they didn't intend? Sort of a happy accident?


I didnt have them significantly higher up the wall, just a little bit. Maybe just under a foot above head height *when sitting at the listening position*. So about 5.5 feet up a wall in a room with a ceiling height between 9 and 10 feet


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> In my basement room with less than 8 foot ceiling I used Anthony G's recommended overhead spacing (for standard height ceilings) of around 5 feet wide (measuring center to center).





Dan Hitchman said:


> Since the home Atmos rendering grid is still using the theatrical rendering grid (though with spatial compression the objects do tend to be grouped or zoned and less discrete than the theatrical soundtrack version), I have no explanation as to why Dolby has such goofy home layout recommendations.


How wide is your room?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> How wide is your room?


Almost 13 feet.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

X4100 said:


> Please keep it coming guys, I'm excited as you describe the experience of imaging above you, but not in the ceiling. I remember at the end of Gravity hearing the insects buzzing around. I ran across a thread somewhere, where the posters were describing some of the things they heard in their home.


I have heard some interesting anecdotes about the holographic nature of a well designed and calibrated immersive system.

In one account, the person claimed that the coins that spread out after a character gets hit during the race scene in *Ready Player One* sounded as if they were "bouncing off of their lap". They were referencing the increase of fidelity after upgrading to a Lyngdorf Pre-amp using the Room Perfect calibration system.

Bryan Glynn of the Youtube channel CO Guy Stuff upgraded to a JBL SDP-55 Pre-amp which uses DIRAC room correction and he was looking to replicate the description of the coin effect from Ready Player One. The JBL almost did it without running room correction. Almost but not quite. After running room correction, he achieved the effect. He goes on to described the improved fidelity, channel separation and object placement and overall surround imaging he gained by upgrading from a Yamaha receiver to the JBL with DIRAC. He attributes much of the improvement to DIRAC, but I think its a combination of Dirac, better DACs and processing and improvements from switching to seperate pre-amp and amplifiers which generally comes with an increase in fidelity conpared to integrated AVRs. I will post his video below for you to hear his testimony directly.

I myself became interested in this after upgrading to a new set of speakers (going from cheap Sony speakers to Infinity Primus speakers) and managed to acheive an unbelievable front soundstage with just the two speakers. The presentation was so wide, at times 2-channel stereo sounded as if my side surrounds were active. I then began to wonder if such an effect could be achieved across an entire surround setup or even immersive audio. At the time I was heavily reading about immersive audio and from my reading and listening to interviews with Dolby engineers, it seemed as if achieving this effect was the entire point of Atmos, so that is what I am chasing after.

Here is the video in question from CO Guy Stuff. His descriptions should be what we are attempting to acheive.


----------



## Gates

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have heard some interesting anecdotes about the holographic nature of a well designed and calibrated immersive system.
> 
> In one account, the person claimed that the coins that spread out after a character gets hit during the race scene in *Ready Player One* sounded as if they were "bouncing off of their lap". They were referencing the increase of fidelity after upgrading to a Lyngdorf Pre-amp using the Room Perfect calibration system.
> 
> Bryan Glynn of the Youtube channel CO Guy Stuff upgraded to a JBL SDP-55 Pre-amp which uses DIRAC room correction and he was looking to replicate the description of the coin effect from Ready Player One. The JBL almost did it without running room correction. Almost but not quite. After running room correction, he achieved the effect. He goes on to described the improved fidelity, channel separation and object placement and overall surround imaging he gained by upgrading from a Yamaha receiver to the JBL with DIRAC. He attributes much of the improvement to DIRAC, but I think its a combination of Dirac, better DACs and processing and improvements from switching to seperate pre-amp and amplifiers which generally comes with an increase in fidelity conpared to integrated AVRs. I will post his video below for you to hear his testimony directly.
> 
> I myself became interested in this after upgrading to a new set of speakers (going from cheap Sony speakers to Infinity Primus speakers) and managed to acheive an unbelievable front soundstage with just the two speakers. The presentation was so wide, at times 2-channel stereo sounded as if my side surrounds were active. I then began to wonder if such an effect could be achieved across an entire surround setup or even immersive audio. At the time I was heavily reading about immersive audio and from my reading and listening to interviews with Dolby engineers, it seemed as if achieving this effect was the entire point of Atmos, so that is what I am chasing after.
> 
> Here is the video in question from CO Guy Stuff. His descriptions should be what we are attempting to acheive.


I can attest to that Ready Player One effect since I have a Lyngdorf MP-60. I have it set up in a 9.1.6 configuration and it's amazing. If a movie has good ATMOS or DTS:X it really lets you know, but the opposite is also true. It's such a revealing system. Some of the movies that are said to not have great ATMOS in this thread sometimes, is not always my experience. My set up consists of the following; 

JVC DLA-RS1000, Stewart Studiotek 130 G4 135", Lyngdorf MP-60, Anthem MCA 525 x3, Paradigm CI Elite E80-R ceiling speakers x2, Paradigm CI Elite E80-A ceiling speakers x4, Paradigm Prestige 95F, Paradigm Prestige 75F (wides), Paradigm Prestige 85f (side surrounds), Paradigm Prestige 15B x2 (rears), Paradigm Prestige 55C, Funk Audio 24.0 Sub, Panasonic UDP9000 UHD player, OPPO 203 UHD player


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I further played with this scene (assuming for certain it's that bit shortly after the collision of the two ships and dog dude jumps out and grabs onto Mila and it swings around towards the screen. I don't believe that sound is in the overheads at all. It appears to be a purely ear/bed level surround effect. In fact, it images below my head at all times (how high off the ground were your surrounds relative to your head?). Short of sitting on the floor, I couldn't get a just above my head effect for that reason. However, I could hear a strong surround image effect of "chub chub" metal sounds swing by, but it was well behind me.


I believe you are correct here. The sound starts in the front right channel. Continues in the surround right, and then fades out through the left surround. There doesnt seem to be much height effect here. 

My surrounds were mounted about 5 feet from the ground with the tweeters close to 12" above my seated head height. The purpose of that was the typical reason. The surrounds were mounted at 90 and 270 degrees, so I raised them up slightly to make sure the other people in the row could clearly hear the tweeter.

This caused the panning effect of the tail section of the fighter to swing OVER my head. Now with the surrounds at exactly ear height, the tail section swings THROUGH my head, not over it. I much prefer the other position.

The tail section of the ship swinging through the soundfield is obviously an active sound object. At least it acts like one. The fidelity is amazing because I do not have rear surrounds. Just the sides. The pan is seamless. Especially at the elevated position. My assumption was that the heigh channels (Top-Middle in my config) were playing a bit of the sound object to keep the image strong as it panned from right to left, but that the majority of the sound was coming from the side surrounds. The fact that it was able to keep such a solid image as it moves from right to left with the surround speakers about 16 feet apart from each other is kinda boggling my mind (they are about 8 feet from the MLP each)



> For reference, my mains sit at 30 degrees with front heights at 35 degrees and otherwise right above the mains (combined phantom image with front wide mixed array appears at about 35 degrees directly below the front height), front wides at 45 degrees, surrounds at 120 degrees, side surrounds #2 at 135 degrees and rear surrounds around 150 degrees with top middles right above the side surrounds and rear heights right above the rear surrounds). Turning off rear surrounds didn't change things much, if at all from the front row.


My fronts are 30 degrees as well. I had them wider, but furniture consideration made me move them in and compress the front soundstage. Fortunately my front speakers throw a crazy wide soundstage anyway so they still image with the side surrounds pretty well.

I definitely want to put my side surrounds back where they were but they were in the walkway and its not a good place for them.



> So I got up and went to row 2 which is between the side surrounds and side surrounds #2. A bit to my surprise, the sound STILL imaged behind me just like it did in row 1. It turns out the sound itself is arrayed if you have both side surrounds and rear surrounds. In other words, it appears in both the side surrounds and rear surrounds (which makes it move with you as you move into the back of the room, making it appear behind me in all three rows). The rear center seat is just in front of the rear surrounds which are almost directly to the sides (perhaps 95 degrees) so it was much closer to the back of my head there like the ship passed right through me with that tail end making that chub chub metallic noise right behind my head (definitely a little bit freaky), but it wasn't really "above" my head so much as directly behind it and slightly below it, but I couldn't really move any further backwards since the chair is already just in front of the rear wall (I'd have to move the chair out of the way and put a smaller folding chair there or something as that one needs room to recline as it's a power recliner). I tried turning off rear surrounds and listened again in row 2 and 3. In row 2, it stubbornly was still behind me, but closer (forgot to turn off side surround #2 which is just behind the 2nd row seat to the sides) so I shut that speaker off too, leaving only the side surrounds in front of me.


This effect is seemingly position dependant. The interesting thing is that in my previous home, I had my side surrounds at the same position (ear height...maybe just a few inches above) and the effect sounded like it was slightly above me there as well. In this place my surrounds were a few feet further back (maybe 10 feet away from the MLP each) plus the room acoustics were vastly different (a partially vaulted ceiling) so that could have accounted for the effect. Regardless, the image is incredibly strong.



> Of course, now it finally imaged in front of my head, but it was stronger sounding just off to the sides than in the middle zone (i.e. weakest part of the image was in the dead center position that would be the closest to my head and it was still below ear level. In the back, the center image was stronger just behind my head, but the rear surrounds are closer together than the side surrounds so that may have made it seem more focused. I think it's hard to image right in front of you head from a distance regardless). So I tried using a folding chair to sit in-between, but it still stubbornly imaged behind me even past the 90 degree point and wasn't really in front of me until I was sitting in the 2nd row chair, but it was too weak to sound realistic in the center since it seemed to be in an arc behind the speakers rather than directly in-between them and of course turning on either the side surround #2 or rear surrounds only moved the image behind that chair once again.


So I would imagine that if you have 7 ground channels with side surrounds at 90 and 270 degrees and rear surrounds as well, then it would image behind you as it pans around. I think the intent is for it to swing around from the sides to behind you back to the left side. But in my case, only have side surrounds and the sound images through me (or above me in thekr previous position) instead of behind me.



> I guess my point is that for it to image like it was just above your head, I think you'd have to be sitting just so where the loudest part of the image comes from and just below that point so it's just above your head as you say and either the surround speakers would have to sit higher or perhaps a different brand images a bit different than these PSB B15 speakers. I think the difference between that being an interesting surround effect and a "OMG" moment probably matters exactly where it images and how loud/focused it is when it's there (i.e. It's probably way cooler to image strongly just above your head as you describe than 5 feet behind your head with the chair back between you and the sound where it wants to appear in my room or that fuzzier image a couple of feet in front of my chest sitting well behind only side surrounds). In other words, I'm getting the feeling you had your speakers positioned just so to get a freaky close phantom image effect above your head (similar to the buzzy synth on the Yello album I mentioned that does that here).


There may be some difference in how the speakers image. My surrounds are Sony Core SS-CS5s which I chose specifically for their ability to image well (and they are inexpensive).



> Now that buzzy synth sound I mentioned on Yello's _Point_ album goes in a straight line front to back from the center speaker to between the rear surrounds (or side surrounds in a 5.1 bed layer) so it doesn't matter where you sit along that straight line path as it will still pass by directly just over you head (or through you if the speakers are sitting lower). In other words, I think it's less dependent on where you have your surround speakers, although I had to tweak levels of the front wides, mains and surrounds to get a perfectly even image all the way back. Any deviation and it sounds more "transparent" at that point along the line, making it seem less real sounding and more of a stereo image.


I'll have to check that out.

Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings has some pretty holographic sound objects that pass through the soundfield. I will have to listen to it a couple of times to determine how my surrounds new positioning affects those objects.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have heard some interesting anecdotes about the holographic nature of a well designed and calibrated immersive system.
> 
> In one account, the person claimed that the coins that spread out after a character gets hit during the race scene in *Ready Player One* sounded as if they were "bouncing off of their lap". They were referencing the increase of fidelity after upgrading to a Lyngdorf Pre-amp using the Room Perfect calibration system.
> 
> Bryan Glynn of the Youtube channel CO Guy Stuff upgraded to a JBL SDP-55 Pre-amp which uses DIRAC room correction and he was looking to replicate the description of the coin effect from Ready Player One. The JBL almost did it without running room correction. Almost but not quite. After running room correction, he achieved the effect. He goes on to described the improved fidelity, channel separation and object placement and overall surround imaging he gained by upgrading from a Yamaha receiver to the JBL with DIRAC. He attributes much of the improvement to DIRAC, but I think its a combination of Dirac, better DACs and processing and improvements from switching to seperate pre-amp and amplifiers which generally comes with an increase in fidelity conpared to integrated AVRs. I will post his video below for you to hear his testimony directly.
> 
> I myself became interested in this after upgrading to a new set of speakers (going from cheap Sony speakers to Infinity Primus speakers) and managed to acheive an unbelievable front soundstage with just the two speakers. The presentation was so wide, at times 2-channel stereo sounded as if my side surrounds were active. I then began to wonder if such an effect could be achieved across an entire surround setup or even immersive audio. At the time I was heavily reading about immersive audio and from my reading and listening to interviews with Dolby engineers, it seemed as if achieving this effect was the entire point of Atmos, so that is what I am chasing after.
> 
> Here is the video in question from CO Guy Stuff. His descriptions should be what we are attempting to acheive.


The JBL SDP-55 lists for $6,000. I can say that I am definitely not trying to achieve owning one of those. I have DIY 5.1.2 speakers with a Marantz 8802a and outboard amps. 2 channel in sounds like my surround speakers are on, the first time I listened to the 8802a I literally had to double check I was using the correct sound mode. It's that good, but the Marantz 8802a is known for having great 2 channel playback as well as my L/R mains.

I tried Ready Player One with the scene in question. I didn't get the "in my lap" effect but the coins were immersive and full. The top middle heights are getting activated during the coins in my system so it seems some kind of imaging is going on to make it sound less discrete and more full. I ran Audyssey for the first time on my system a few weeks ago and when I demo'd the race scene in Ready Player One and other demo scenes I was describing it as being "holographic" to myself. It's a nice system, I'm not going to chase what some people are describing as a coin effect in Ready Player One though.


----------



## MagnumX

I think there's probably a reason many people have complained they couldn't hear separation of sound imaging in Dolby Atmos theaters (e.g. See reviews when an Atmos theater opened in London several years ago), just "loud".

Contrary to the home recommendations, Dolby Atmos theaters have side surrounds mounted about 2/3 up the side walls, WAY above ear level and then two rows of ceiling speakers mounted in line with the Screen Left/Right speakers (or where they would be, if used) rather than the mains like the home standard. 

If you think about it, the cinema version has terribly limited height differentials as the surrounds are already way above your head (Like Auro's side heights called "surround heights"). I don't think their placement has changed much at all since 5.1/7.1, just how they're now individually addressable. 

By contrast, Auromax has a very similar layout with surround heights and individually addressable "VOG" ceiling speakers (unlike home Auro it's object based), but adds surround speakers lower on the wall, just above ear level, giving THREE layers of sound in a cinema. No wonder those that have heard it think Atmos can sound better in an Auro theater as they can achieve better separation using the lower mounted surrounds instead of the high mounted ones.

So the question becomes what sounds better at home? Narrow overhead speaker arrays with limited ceiling travel in the horizontal plane that sound almost like mono when sitting off center with surround speakers mounted 2/3 up the side wall to compensate with directional horizontal steering, but with a distinct loss of vertical separation. Or maybe wider overheads with lower side surrounds maintaining the same relative angle to the sides so losing nothing for steered pans (possible with the lower ceilings), but with far better relative vertical separation? 

It's far easier for me to tell height distances between ear level or just above it compared to a relatively low ceiling than two height layers both way over my head (Atmos cinema). Delays can add a sense of distance (height for ceiling speakers), but not in a downward direction. Stereo normally doesn't image in front of the speakers without a surround helper, but they can image behind them to some extent with delays combined with level drops, but only in the same angular plane.

In other words, I think Dolby made the right decision for the home format and there's nothing "goofy" about those recomendations. If anything, it hurts almost nothing to have the overheads a bit wider (save if you prefer things to image more often directly overhead) whereas narrow limits overhead travel without sacrificing height on the process (side steering). With the sides higher to do that (Atmos cinema), you lose sounds closer to your head. With sides lower, you lose height near the room boundaries. It's your choice, but without speakers on the side walls, you lose image width at that height. 

That's why I believe AuroMax's layout is superior at the cinema. It loses nothing by adding an extra layer of surround speakers (so there are speakers just above ear level and another set higher on the walls with speakers on the ceiling as well to allow smooth panning at both height layers all the way to the room boundaries. But without Auro specific mixes to take advantage of the extra side wall surrounds, it becomes moot and Dolby won by sheer marketing clout and available budget.

Dolby beats Auro technically in some areas at home (maximum supported speakers since the home Auro is channel-based only), but most home theaters don't use 13.1 speakers as it is, making objects at home largely moot in practice, particularly with them allowing Disney and others to rug a 9 or 11-channel system anyway, making a 34-speaker Atmos home theater into a 9 or 11 speaker theater.

In the end analysis, many of the choices made by Dolby hurt the consumer (if they had supported Auro's speaker positions as options in the renderer, it'd be simpler for many to build a room without ceiling speakers (You can still do it, but many will cry foul that's not where the sound engineer intended the overheads to image, but if the renderer knew about it, it could shrink the stereo separation so the object imaged further inward on the ceiling. DTS:X Pro via Neural X tries to do such things as it supports most of the speakers from both layouts, but Atmos has the most movies out there and the speakers will just sit there unused by it.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> This caused the panning effect of the tail section of the fighter to swing OVER my head. Now with the surrounds at exactly ear height, the tail section swings THROUGH my head, not over it. I much prefer the other position.


It sounds like maybe this effect should have been split and imaged between the surround and rear height speakers. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> The JBL SDP-55 lists for $6,000. I can say that I am definitely not trying to achieve owning one of those. I have DIY 5.1.2 speakers with a Marantz 8802a and outboard amps. 2 channel in sounds like my surround speakers are on, the first time I listened to the 8802a I literally had to double check I was using the correct sound mode. It's that good, but the Marantz 8802a is known for having great 2 channel playback as well as my L/R mains.
> 
> I tried Ready Player One with the scene in question. I didn't get the "in my lap" effect but the coins were immersive and full. The top middle heights are getting activated during the coins in my system so it seems some kind of imaging is going on to make it sound less discrete and more full. I ran Audyssey for the first time on my system a few weeks ago and when I demo'd the race scene in Ready Player One and other demo scenes I was describing it as being "holographic" to myself. It's a nice system, I'm not going to chase what some people are describing as a coin effect in Ready Player One though.


How does the Shattered demo sound? ¦› Dolby Atmos Demo Trailers | Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered, Silent

You should hear the glass where the narrator describes it. Does it go overhead?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> It sounds like maybe this effect should have been split and imaged between the surround and rear height speakers. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.


Maybe it works with more speakers. Sometimes object behavior is different with the addition of speakers in the room and a larger capacity Atmos processor. It would be pretty different with a Scatmos setup anyway llike MagnumX's as it's a synthesized matrix version of more speaker locations and not using fully discrete object panning coordinates from the soundtrack and Atmos renderer.


----------



## mrvideo

Chirosamsung said:


> Will not play on most players in Canada and us...


I went back and looked again. The Blu-ray case that you showed has the U.K. rating symbols, which means that it is Blu-ray region B (if region coded). If you bought it in Canada, it was imported from the U.K. Why would you buy an imported disc if your player can't handle all regions?


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> It sounds like maybe this effect should have been split and imaged between the surround and rear height speakers. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.


Offhand, I'd say it's because the ship is shown in the middle of the screen and that is simply not overhead whatsoever in a cinema, but in line with the surround speakers (usually true at home too unless you have the screen way overhead). Overhead sounds are supposed to be for objects going off-screen above it (although some sound mixers don't always use them that way). 



Dan Hitchman said:


> Maybe it works with more speakers. Sometimes object behavior is different with the addition of speakers in the room and a larger capacity Atmos processor. It would be pretty different with a Scatmos setup anyway llike MagnumX's as it's a synthesized matrix version of more speaker locations and not using fully discrete object panning coordinates from the soundtrack and Atmos renderer.


Given it's not in the height channels whatsoever, it wouldn't be even _slightly_ different in this case. 

Besides, "Scatmos" can be fully discrete (with Audyssey off, I get very nearly 100% cancellation of all signals in the front/rear height channels (virtually inaudible). That should behave _identical_ to a real Top Middle rendered output save that it works with everything. Getting room correction applied is another matter, but it has nothing to do with the actual imaging behavior. Extracting a point halfway in-between and rendering pans halfway in-between are just opposite sides of the same coin. They should produce very nearly the same result. DTS:X Pro does this digitally and it can expand 11.1 DTS:X soundtracks to 32.1. 

Now with Audyssey applied, separation is closer to 10dB, which is still plenty good enough to image in the top middle location for such sounds for all three rows of seats here despite the rear row sitting very close to the rear height speakers, top middle still images at those speakers. In other words, "Scatmos" actually works to produce a real viable Top Middle output even with interference from room correction applied before separation and it works with ALL soundtracks, including misbehaving Disney ones and even Auro-3D that doesn't normally support such a channel. In fact, it sounds exactly like Atmos overhead when used with Auro soundtracks made from the same master.

But as for that bit in _Jupiter Ascending_, as I said before, the same sound effect is actually present in both the side surround and rear surround speakers if you're doing a 7.1 base speaker layout. It will as such array and combine and thus move with you depending on where you sit past the side surrounds (i.e. the effect sounds the same in row 1 as row 2 here and only slightly different in row 3 (rear surrounds are closer so the sound is a bit closer to the back of my head). With only 5.1, there's only one image in play and so it will change relative to where you sit. In this case, he had the surrounds above ear level which is why it imaged over his head. With speakers at ear level, it will image closer to your neck or the middle of your head (depending on your height maybe even chest level) and if you sit behind the side surrounds or along side it, it will be either in front of you or above your head instead.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have heard some interesting anecdotes about the holographic nature of a well designed and calibrated immersive system.
> 
> In one account, the person claimed that the coins that spread out after a character gets hit during the race scene in *Ready Player One* sounded as if they were "bouncing off of their lap". They were referencing the increase of fidelity after upgrading to a Lyngdorf Pre-amp using the Room Perfect calibration system.
> 
> Bryan Glynn of the Youtube channel CO Guy Stuff upgraded to a JBL SDP-55 Pre-amp which uses DIRAC room correction and he was looking to replicate the description of the coin effect from Ready Player One. The JBL almost did it without running room correction. Almost but not quite. After running room correction, he achieved the effect. He goes on to described the improved fidelity, channel separation and object placement and overall surround imaging he gained by upgrading from a Yamaha receiver to the JBL with DIRAC. He attributes much of the improvement to DIRAC, but I think its a combination of Dirac, better DACs and processing and improvements from switching to seperate pre-amp and amplifiers which generally comes with an increase in fidelity conpared to integrated AVRs. I will post his video below for you to hear his testimony directly.
> 
> I myself became interested in this after upgrading to a new set of speakers (going from cheap Sony speakers to Infinity Primus speakers) and managed to acheive an unbelievable front soundstage with just the two speakers. The presentation was so wide, at times 2-channel stereo sounded as if my side surrounds were active. I then began to wonder if such an effect could be achieved across an entire surround setup or even immersive audio. At the time I was heavily reading about immersive audio and from my reading and listening to interviews with Dolby engineers, it seemed as if achieving this effect was the entire point of Atmos, so that is what I am chasing after.
> 
> Here is the video in question from CO Guy Stuff. His descriptions should be what we are attempting to acheive.


nice rear speakers!!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> The JBL SDP-55 lists for $6,000. I can say that I am definitely not trying to achieve owning one of those. I have DIY 5.1.2 speakers with a Marantz 8802a and outboard amps. 2 channel in sounds like my surround speakers are on, the first time I listened to the 8802a I literally had to double check I was using the correct sound mode. It's that good, but the Marantz 8802a is known for having great 2 channel playback as well as my L/R mains.


I would say everyone in this hobby is trying to achieve this to one degree or another. Most of us are trying to replicate a professional cinema in our homes, but that also begs the question: what kind of cinema?
Grindhouse (why would anyone do this?)
IMAX?
Dolby Cinema?

Or specifically:
The old Chinese Theater?
The Arclight?
Alamo Drafthouse?

Also, to improve the efficacy of object based immersive audio, there's a lot of different things you can do. Many people just default to upgrading to the lastest surround processor that does it better, but how many of us can afford a Trinnov, Storm Audio, JBL SDP-75, Lyngdorf or even the JBL SDP-55? Not that many. 

You can always improve your calibration techniques. Especially when using a customizable one like Audyssey XT-32 (with the app), ARC and DIRAC.

You can upgrade to sepearates (though this is likely the most expensive option)

Or you can implement room treatments in your room. And with DIY and some reseach, this is likely the most affordable option compared to a full upgrade.

You will get the best results from implementing all three: move up from an integrated AVR to a Pre-Amp like the HTP-1 or even a Tone Winner (very inexpensive) get used amps to power your channels, build some DIY room treatments and master the calibration software (including REW)

That combination will probably yield incredible results and should be within reach for the average enthusiast.



> I tried Ready Player One with the scene in question. I didn't get the "in my lap" effect but the coins were immersive and full. The top middle heights are getting activated during the coins in my system so it seems some kind of imaging is going on to make it sound less discrete and more full. I ran Audyssey for the first time on my system a few weeks ago and when I demo'd the race scene in Ready Player One and other demo scenes I was describing it as being "holographic" to myself. It's a nice system, I'm not going to chase what some people are describing as a coin effect in Ready Player One though.


Keep playing with Audyssey. Especially using the app. That app is a game changer. I recently had to redo my Audyssey calibration because I moved my surrounds and decided to change up how I measured. I tightened up the measurement positions around the MLP. The final 2 measurements were done very close to the first measurement, but slightly to the left and right, simulating exactly where my ears would be.

The end result was the best calibration I have ever done. Bass was tight and deep. The soundfield is expansive. High frequency tones are smooth. The center channel is more forward sounding than it has ever been.

And I didnt even use the app because I was having internet issues and it wouldnt connect. As soon as I work out those issues (its with my internet, not the app) I will rerun the calibration using the app and apply house curves to every channels with a light Harman curve applied to the sub and a curtain at around 1000hz.

I am eager to hear what this will do for the system. It already sounds fantastic without these tweaks. (And its easy to undo if the tweaks makes things worse)


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would say everyone in this hobby is trying to achieve this to one degree or another. Most of us are trying to replicate a professional cinema in our homes, but that also begs the question: what kind of cinema?
> Grindhouse (why would anyone do this?)
> IMAX?
> Dolby Cinema?
> 
> Or specifically:
> The old Chinese Theater?
> The Arclight?
> Alamo Drafthouse?
> 
> Also, to improve the efficacy of object based immersive audio, there's a lot of different things you can do. Many people just default to upgrading to the lastest surround processor that does it better, but how many of us can afford a Trinnov, Storm Audio, JBL SDP-75, Lyngdorf or even the JBL SDP-55? Not that many.
> 
> You can always improve your calibration techniques. Especially when using a customizable one like Audyssey XT-32 (with the app), ARC and DIRAC.
> 
> You can upgrade to sepearates (though this is likely the most expensive option)
> 
> Or you can implement room treatments in your room. And with DIY and some reseach, this is likely the most affordable option compared to a full upgrade.
> 
> You will get the best results from implementing all three: move up from an integrated AVR to a Pre-Amp like the HTP-1 or even a Tone Winner (very inexpensive) get used amps to power your channels, build some DIY room treatments and master the calibration software (including REW)
> 
> That combination will probably yield incredible results and should be within reach for the average enthusiast.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep playing with Audyssey. Especially using the app. That app is a game changer. I recently had to redo my Audyssey calibration because I moved my surrounds and decided to change up how I measured. I tightened up the measurement positions around the MLP. The final 2 measurements were done very close to the first measurement, but slightly to the left and right, simulating exactly where my ears would be.
> 
> The end result was the best calibration I have ever done. Bass was tight and deep. The soundfield is expansive. High frequency tones are smooth. The center channel is more forward sounding than it has ever been.
> 
> And I didnt even use the app because I was having internet issues and it wouldnt connect. As soon as I work out those issues (its with my internet, not the app) I will rerun the calibration using the app and apply house curves to every channels with a light Harman curve applied to the sub and a curtain at around 1000hz.
> 
> I am eager to hear what this will do for the system. It already sounds fantastic without these tweaks. (And its easy to undo if the tweaks makes things worse)


Thanks, but no I won't be chasing a coin effect in Ready Player One. I have a good calibration with Audyssey, it EQ'd my surrounds like I was hoping it would and they now sound like my front LCR whereas before they were too bright. Audyssey was a significant upgrade in my system and I do get a "holographic" effect now. My Marantz 8802a isn't supported by the Audyssey app, and I consider my system to be "done".

What is the coin effect anyway? Are there only two people that have accounts for what it is supposed to be? Both of them seem to be saying the effect is at knee level, so how is Atmos supposed to place objects there when they likely have their speakers at ear level? I'm skeptical with what the effect is supposed to be in the first place, especially when I got up and listened to each speaker and it the sound effect starts in the center channel and moves up into the heights. If Atmos can place objects at knee level then that's fine, it's just the first time I've heard of it.

Edit: Just to clarify a bit more, if you follow links in my signature to my home theater pictures, you'll see that my center channel is placed below the TV on a shelf and aimed upward toward the listening position. The most I can say about a coin effect that relates to what they were saying is some of the time during the sequence it sounds like the coins are coming from in front of my center channel, not exactly from it like other sounds do. So perhaps I'm getting the effect that is being described already to some extent or another. Though it's still not clear to me exactly what they are talking about.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Thanks, but no I won't be chasing a coin effect in Ready Player One.


Not at halcyon_888 in particular, but rather those that have heard it, _where_ exactly in the movie is this coin sound effect supposed to be? A time frame would be helpful. I don't want to rewatch the movie just to try and find it and if it doesn't image there, I might not even notice it if I did. In other words, if people want to discuss imaging locations, we need at least an approximate point as a reference. 

I've only watched that movie once and honestly wasn't that crazy about it (I enjoyed _Pixels_ way more and I'm not an Adam Sandler fan, which is exactly the opposite of the critics). Speaking of Pixels, it has awesome Atmos or Auro-3D sound (I've got both versions) and the 3D version has things coming out of the screen right at you, which many modern movies don't do. That combined with Peter Dinklage stealing the show in everything he's in (best actor in Game of Thrones, IMO), the movie was a total riot as long as you ignored the utter absurdity of it.



> I have a good calibration with Audyssey, it EQ'd my surrounds like I was hoping it would and they now sound like my front LCR whereas before they were too bright. Audyssey was a significant upgrade in my system and I do get a "holographic" effect now. My Marantz 8802a isn't supported by the Audyssey app, and I consider my system to be "done".


I played with that app and oddly ended up using the automatic setting in the end as it was the best sounding one. I guess I could have gone back to my 7010 and kept HD Radio support and Front Wides in 5.1.4+FW mode, which was probably a better option than that app (It also had Audyssey DSX, but that always sounded like it had too much reverb to me).



> What is the coin effect anyway? Are there only two people that have accounts for what it is supposed to be? Both of them seem to be saying the effect is at knee level, so how is Atmos supposed to place objects there when they likely have their speakers at ear level?


I'm guessing that like the swinging ship in Jupiter Ascending, the placement of the speakers has more to do with the effect than a processor. I don't buy into audiophile sound claims of high-end equipment, but DIRAC, on the other hand could clarify response enough where something might image better than before. But as you say, how is it supposed to put something in your lap unless you have your surround speakers way below ear level? Some sounds do seem to image at different heights in the bed layer including near the floor here sometimes, but I've always assumed those are HRTF clues in the recorded signal that weren't intentional (i.e. like Binaural has clues to image anywhere) and once in awhile they line up in a particular room/speaker setup so that the sounds image way below or above where they normally would with just regular speakers. 

I notice this with stereo music all the time, particularly if I add the dialog lift signal to the height speakers. Things will image anywhere along a 4-6 foot height level without any surround mode engaged. Yamaha's multichannel stereo mode was even stranger. Things would naturally image all around (binaural worked well with it) even though technically speaking, the output levels of all the speakers were the same so I always assumed it was some kind of natural extraction of HRTF going on. Oddly, Marantz's multi-channel stereo mode doesn't sound good at all (way way too loud in the surround speakers without altering the volume levels a lot and even then it's not the same so I assume Yamaha had some delays or reverb or something added that gave better separation or some change that it sounded SO much better).


----------



## Chirosamsung

The coin effect is near the beginning-maybe 15 min in. It's the New York car race and probably one of the BEST atmos demo scenes I have ever heard


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> Thanks, but no I won't be chasing a coin effect in Ready Player One. I have a good calibration with Audyssey, it EQ'd my surrounds like I was hoping it would and they now sound like my front LCR whereas before they were too bright. Audyssey was a significant upgrade in my system and I do get a "holographic" effect now. My Marantz 8802a isn't supported by the Audyssey app, and I consider my system to be "done".


Think about implementing room treatments if you havent already done it. (Assuming your system is not in a general use living room like mine is)



> What is the coin effect anyway? Are there only two people that have accounts for what it is supposed to be? Both of them seem to be saying the effect is at knee level, so how is Atmos supposed to place objects there when they likely have their speakers at ear level? I'm skeptical with what the effect is supposed to be in the first place, especially when I got up and listened to each speaker and it the sound effect starts in the center channel and moves up into the heights. If Atmos can place objects at knee level then that's fine, it's just the first time I've heard of it.


The "coin effect" would be the separation of sound objects is so precise that each sound object in the soundfield is absolutely distinct from every other sound object in the field.

I'm sure you have heard the terms "instrument separation" in regards to audiophile recordings and Hifi equipment. Or "Channel separation" in regards to home theater. The Coin Effect is the same thing as those effects, simply applied to Immersive Audio and its Sound Objects.

The idea is that if the source material is high enough quality (such as Vinyl, Hi-Res audio, Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA) and the playback equipment of sufficient capability, then the resulting soundfield allows the uttmost detail to be discerned. Where in an inferior recording or playback on cheap equipment, the coins bouncing off the street in Ready Player One might sound fine, it is difficult to discern the sound of *individual* coins all bouncing off the street. In a well tuned Dolby Atmos system, you can hear individual coins bouncing off the street and in addition to this, the immersive nature of the effect brings it inside the sound-bubble so it sounds as if it is happening all around you instead of on a flat plane at the perimeter where the speakers are located.

There are a lot of different elements that enable this: the source recording. The quality of the speakers. The electronics (the DAC and the Surround processor). The calibration. And room acoustics.

One of the biggest limiting factors that prevents people's theaters from acheiving this effect is their room acoustics: sounds are generated by the speakers then bounce all around the room, smearing the intended sound effect. We get the direct sound from the speakers, then secondary reflections, then tertiary reflections and many more beyond that. However, after each reflection, the sound waves pressure is weaker and weaker and eventually our brain recognizes it as a reflection and discards the supurfluous information.

Room correction was created to combat this effect as well as the change in frequency response introduced by room acoustics. Some EQ systems are better than others at doing this. Those EQ systems that are the best at affecting the impulse response in the time domain will sound the best when it comes to this "Coin Effect" being discussed. They will have the best separation of individual sound objects.

However this isnt the whole story. Room EQ systems can only do so much in regard to the decay time in a room. To acheive a truly great result, you need to use room treatments, which can significantly cut down on reflections. Utilizing both room EQ and treatments, you can cut out all the harmful reflections, leaving behind mostly just the weaker reflections (using diffusion as well as absorption) which your brain discards and thus you are hearing mainly just the direct sound from the speakers with little to no "smearing" from secondary and tertiary reflections. So you hear every individual sound as pure and distinct from one another.

People claim that adding a separate amplifier to an AVR improves channels separation. Then moving from an AVR to a pre-amp is another step of improvement. Upgrading to a higher priced pre-amp is yet another step. Then better room EQ. Then room treatments.

At some point in that journey, the channel/object separation becomes so good you acheive the "Coin Effect".




> Edit: Just to clarify a bit more, if you follow links in my signature to my home theater pictures, you'll see that my center channel is placed below the TV on a shelf and aimed upward toward the listening position. The most I can say about a coin effect that relates to what they were saying is some of the time during the sequence it sounds like the coins are coming from in front of my center channel, not exactly from it like other sounds do. So perhaps I'm getting the effect that is being described already to some extent or another. Though it's still not clear to me exactly what they are talking about.


It sounds like you are at the beginning stage of it. Kinda where I am. Where you start noticing the holographic effects. If you researched and implemented some room treatments, you could probably significantly improve the effect.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Not at halcyon_888 in particular, but rather those that have heard it, _where_ exactly in the movie is this coin sound effect supposed to be? A time frame would be helpful. I don't want to rewatch the movie just to try and find it and if it doesn't image there, I might not even notice it if I did. In other words, if people want to discuss imaging locations, we need at least an approximate point as a reference.


It's about 14m in with my local copy, it's during the first race scene in the movie. I used the video that was posted to know where to look, there are two times where a player "dies" and then coins are disarrayed onto the road then the character in the Delorean sucks the coins back into his car.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> It's about 14m in with my local copy, it's during the first race scene in the movie. I used the video that was posted to know where to look, there are two times where a player "dies" and then coins are disarrayed onto the road then the character in the Delorean sucks the coins back into his car.


wow-I guessed pretty close at "15 minutes"!


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The "coin effect" would be the separation of sound objects is so precise that each sound object in the soundfield is absolutely distinct from every other sound object in the field.
> 
> I'm sure you have heard the terms "instrument separation" in regards to audiophile recordings and Hifi equipment. Or "Channel separation" in regards to home theater. The Coin Effect is the same thing as those effects, simply applied to Immersive Audio and its Sound Objects.
> 
> The idea is that if the source material is high enough quality (such as Vinyl, Hi-Res audio, Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA) and the playback equipment of sufficient capability, then the resulting soundfield allows the uttmost detail to be discerned. Where in an inferior recording or playback on cheap equipment, the coins bouncing off the street in Ready Player One might sound fine, it is difficult to discern the sound of *individual* coins all bouncing off the street. In a well tuned Dolby Atmos system, you can hear individual coins bouncing off the street and in addition to this, the immersive nature of the effect brings it inside the sound-bubble so it sounds as if it is happening all around you instead of on a flat plane at the perimeter where the speakers are located.


Okay that's a bit more descriptive. I'll say that the first time I heard this scene I thought the coin sequence was cool and they did a good job with the sound design for it; this was before I ran Audyssey. After I ran Audyssey it sounded even better. I should note that I have a prepro (a Marantz 8802a which was their top prepro at the time), amps, and my DIY speakers excel at imaging, detail, and separation--so I'm kind of used to hearing great sound effects and enjoying my system. I'm not bragging, but I feel the need to state it for the conversation, and there are better systems out there and several that I've seen on AVS. That being said, I just demo'd the coin sequence several times again, this time I turned off my subwoofer for better critical listening. Based off what you said in the quote above what I'm hearing is extremely detailed coin sound effects and there is a sound bubble and it does sound like it's happening around me. Note that my first impressions of the coin sequence was described as "immersive and full" back in post #62,204. I also got up several times and listened to each speaker, and there is a lot of activity in the heights during the sequence. On the 2nd coin grab with the character sucking the coins back into his car, I thought some of the sound effect was showing up in the surrounds and when I got up and checked sure enough the surround had some activity as well. There is a definite sound bubble with the sequence.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> It sounds like you are at the beginning stage of it. Kinda where I am. Where you start noticing the holographic effects. If you researched and implemented some room treatments, you could probably significantly improve the effect.


I'm not so sure I'm at the beginning to be honest, I was confused as to what the coin effect was supposed to be in the first place. Describing it as "bouncing off their lap" or like in the video "you can reach out and grab the coins" is use of analogies instead of defining it objectively. And 25m into the video he specifically says "they were here on the table", which is at knee level and I'm still not sure what he's talking about. There is a sound bubble that is immersive and full, but nothing I would describe at being at my knees. Also just out of curiosity, I watched earlier in to the video and he's talking about his front stage being completely seamless with LCR panning and imaging with the JBL SDP-55. My system had great panning and imaging before Audyssey but after it is definitely seamless now. I don't think there's anything wrong with liking the coin sequence in Ready Player One, it did stand out to me as having good sound design the first time I heard it. I've been into home theater for a long, long time and there are going to be demo scenes that people especially like, and other people might think that they aren't as special. Certain things might stand out to people in a certain way, and people listen for certain things to appreciate while others listen and appreciate other things. It might not be about their system at all. Back years ago the pod race scene from the Phantom Menace was popular but I preferred the opening scene to LOTR The Two Towers. It's possible that room treatments would improve my system but it's in a living room and I won't put any up. I think what confused me the most were the references to it "bouncing off their lap" and in the video "they were here on the table", which I am hearing none of that.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> How does the Shattered demo sound? ¦› Dolby Atmos Demo Trailers | Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered, Silent
> 
> You should hear the glass where the narrator describes it. Does it go overhead?


Yeah, I'm getting some overhead effects with that. A really good one is in Ready Player One during the first race scene where the girl on the motorcycle slides under the semi truck and the sound of the truck goes convincingly overhead.


----------



## niterida

It is probably pysho-acoustic but scene 20 (I think - haven't watched it for a while but its definitely 19-21) of 13 Hours where the rifle is firing straight at you and the empty shells are dropping to the floor actually sound like they are hitting the floor between me and the screen in my room. So I guess with the right cues it is possible for the coins to appear to be "in his lap".


----------



## X4100

I'm never amazed when I watch/listen to someone touting the awesomeness, greatness, absolute difference of what a high priced piece of equipment has brought to their never before heard listening experience! The speakers just seem to disappear and you have a wall of sound, where you previously just had a left, right, and center speaker. I'm sorry, but in my opinion I have the same experience with my "outdated, cheap, with only audyssey xt32 avr x4100 ". Listening to the same demo clips he's making reference to I HAVE NO REASON to spend more money chasing a "BETTER AUDIO EXPERIENCE". I'm not saying my setup is matchless, but the things he is saying, are the exact things I experience every time I play a well recorded disc. YMMV, but I'll be revisiting the clips that were referenced in his 36 minutes of..... Many YouTube videos have people playing back audio clips, and swearing they are hearing ssssooo much more than they have ever experienced before. I'm just not putting down anymore $$$$ at this time. I still enjoyed listening to him talk about the demo clips, as this gives me a reference point as I do my own reevaluating of what I HEAR!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

X4100 said:


> I'm never amazed when I watch/listen to someone touting the awesomeness, greatness, absolute difference of what a high priced piece of equipment has brought to their never before heard listening experience! The speakers just seem to disappear and you have a wall of sound, where you previously just had a left, right, and center speaker. I'm sorry, but in my opinion I have the same experience with my "outdated, cheap, with only audyssey xt32 avr x4100 ". Listening to the same demo clips he's making reference to I HAVE NO REASON to spend more money chasing a "BETTER AUDIO EXPERIENCE". I'm not saying my setup is matchless, but the things he is saying, are the exact things I experience every time I play a well recorded disc. YMMV, but I'll be revisiting the clips that were referenced in his 36 minutes of..... Many YouTube videos have people playing back audio clips, and swearing they are hearing ssssooo much more than they have ever experienced before. I'm just not putting down anymore $$$$ at this time. I still enjoyed listening to him talk about the demo clips, as this gives me a reference point as I do my own reevaluating of what I HEAR!


You dont necessarily have to spend more money to hear it. You are simply more likely to hear it as you move up the chain.

Just like with speakers. As you spend more and more money, you get better imaging and soundstage, yet you can also achieve a similar soundstage with a $400 a pair set of Infinity Primus 360s when well-placed in your room. Its just that with the cheaper speaker, you might have to be a little more meticulous about how you place it.

With the Denon vs JBL-SDP-55 its kind of a similar situation. You can get a similar effect with the Denon and perfect speaker placement and room EQ. Its just easier to get the desired effect with the $6000 SDP-55 which has better DACs, better surround processor and better room EQ (assuming the JBLs better processing is able to gain better results from Dirac than the Denon is able to get from XT-32)

In order to achieve the same fidelity one could get from the JBL with the Denon, the Denon user would probably have to go a step further and implement room treatments. Then boom, the channel/object separation is impeccable and sounds similar to the JBL (maybe not in surround processing, but thats another conversation)

I have been reading and looking into how to acheive these kinds of effects with the least expenditure possible because I am a budget shopper myself. Simply playing with good speaker placement and better room EQ techniques has given me the ability to hear "holographic" sound objects in the soundfield. But at my current setup, I have plateaued using only a 7 channel mid-ranged Denon AVR in a living room with no treatments. What I have acheived so far is very good considering how little I have spent but I do want more so I am planning to put together a dedicated room after I purchase a home. It will still be a budget system, but it will be built with expandability in mind (probably going with a Denon X6700 for 13.2 channels and the ability to add external amps and use it in Pre-amp mode) and with it being in a dedicated room, I will be able to implement room treatments.

My goal is to get as close to those anecdotal experiences as I can while still keeping the costs down to earth. (Hoping I can set up a 7.4.6 system for $6000 for Receiver, amps, speakers and subs total)


----------



## X4100

WOW, I truly appreciate, and enjoyed reading your reply! It's very refreshing to write something in a forum and not be made out to be Dr. Frankenstein's "creation" worthy of being chased and burned alive. I wasn't born with a silver spoon, and the avr x4100 was, and will be the avr in my system until it's demise. It's posters like you, humble and empathetic that brings together the group! 😎   I have been pursuing the best experience in my room as well, albeit with reasonableness ( as far as my retirement allows, along with healthcare). I should be receiving Jupiter Ascending on Friday, and I already have Ready Player One. Looking forward to seeing HEARING what falls between the proximity of my front soundstage and my lap.


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> I'm never amazed when I watch/listen to someone touting the awesomeness, greatness, absolute difference of what a high priced piece of equipment has brought to their never before heard listening experience! The speakers just seem to disappear and you have a wall of sound, where you previously just had a left, right, and center speaker. I'm sorry, but in my opinion I have the same experience with my "outdated, cheap, with only audyssey xt32 avr x4100 ". Listening to the same demo clips he's making reference to I HAVE NO REASON to spend more money chasing a "BETTER AUDIO EXPERIENCE". I'm not saying my setup is matchless, but the things he is saying, are the exact things I experience every time I play a well recorded disc. YMMV, but I'll be revisiting the clips that were referenced in his 36 minutes of..... Many YouTube videos have people playing back audio clips, and swearing they are hearing ssssooo much more than they have ever experienced before. I'm just not putting down anymore $$$$ at this time. I still enjoyed listening to him talk about the demo clips, as this gives me a reference point as I do my own reevaluating of what I HEAR!


im sure some people see the same picture from their $500 Walmart LED as my $10,000 (Canadian) Sony A90J lmao

of course they don't know the difference if they only know what they have. But hey, if you are happy with what you got then that's great!


----------



## Gates

Chirosamsung said:


> im sure some people see the same picture from their $500 Walmart LED as my $10,000 (Canadian) Sony A90J lmao
> 
> of course they don't know the difference if they only know what they have. But hey, if you are happy with what you got then that's great!


I will never put down someone for having a soundbar or even TV speakers or whatever. They choose what's in their budgets and what they like, and that's great and I respect that. Not everyone can afford a system like mine or choose to, even if they can. BUT...I'm sorry to say there are huge differences in what you hear when you go into the higher tiers. Some might not want to admit that because what they have is "good enough" and I applaud that. I bought all kinds of AVR's, speakers and whatnot through the years. Last year I went from a Marantz 8802a and I can tell you there's a BIG difference in how things are imaged, panned, sent to each channel, etc. My 8802a did a great job but I didn't know what I was missing until now. I hear things I've never heard. I sold that unit to one of my friends and set it up for him. Even he is blown away with the difference when he comes to my house (I know, the rooms are different but still, I had it in my room before too). The room correction in the Lyngdorf MP-60 accounts for a lot of what I'm hearing as well, which I find lacked with Audyssey. I played a little game of "where's the sound coming from" with my friends a few weeks back and they were amazed that most of the time they couldn't pinpoint what speaker was actually on. The sound just travels everywhere without sounding directly from a particular place at times.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Gates said:


> I will never put down someone for having a soundbar or even TV speakers or whatever. They choose what's in their budgets and what they like, and that's great and I respect that. Not everyone can afford a system like mine or choose to, even if they can. BUT...I'm sorry to say there are huge differences in what you hear when you go into the higher tiers. Some might not want to admit that because what they have is "good enough" and I applaud that. I bought all kinds of AVR's, speakers and whatnot through the years. Last year I went from a Marantz 8802a and I can tell you there's a BIG difference in how things are imaged, panned, sent to each channel, etc. My 8802a did a great job but I didn't know what I was missing until now. I hear things I've never heard. I sold that unit to one of my friends and set it up for him. Even he is blown away with the difference when he comes to my house (I know, the rooms are different but still, I had it in my room before too). The room correction in the Lyngdorf MP-60 accounts for a lot of what I'm hearing as well, which I find lacked with Audyssey. I played a little game of "where's the sound coming from" with my friends a few weeks back and they were amazed that most of the time they couldn't pinpoint what speaker was actually on. The sound just travels everywhere without sounding directly from a particular place at times.


My thoughts on this are that when you move up to a dedicated pre-amp processor, you tend to get better DACs, which would account for the greater dynamic range and channel separation, and much better processing, which accounts for the better surround DSP.

Add on top of that a much, MUCH better room EQ system like Room Perfect and the end result is a far better bubble of sound than you could normally achieve on a lesser system.

The interesting thing is that you can achieve quite a lot with entry level equipment. As long as you adhere to good setup techniques and pay attention to room acoustics (dont sit in a null etc). Then as you go up the chain, things get better and better. Eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns as usual with these hobbies, but that point is pretty far away from the entry level.


----------



## dschulz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> My thoughts on this are that when you move up to a dedicated pre-amp processor, you tend to get better DACs, which would account for the greater dynamic range and channel separation, and much better processing, which accounts for the better surround DSP.
> 
> Add on top of that a much, MUCH better room EQ system like Room Perfect and the end result is a far better bubble of sound than you could normally achieve on a lesser system.
> 
> The interesting thing is that you can achieve quite a lot with entry level equipment. As long as you adhere to good setup techniques and pay attention to room acoustics (dont sit in a null etc). Then as you go up the chain, things get better and better. Eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns as usual with these hobbies, but that point is pretty far away from the entry level.


I'm in partial agreement, inasmuch as I'd reverse the order of importance - I think the differences in surround processing and DACs from the mid-range to the high-end are miniscule to the point of being hard to distiniguish. But room correction and acoustic treatments have a tremendous effect on sound quality, so when you make the jump up to systems using the Trinnov Optimizer, Room Perfect, the proprietary JBL stuff or Dirac Live you're making pretty big leaps forward.

This makes the sweet spot for people on a budget to go for an AVR with good room correction (like the Denons with Audyssey XT32, not as good as those listed above but pretty damn good), or doing something like inserting a MiniDSP into the chain to add Dirac Live.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dschulz said:


> I'm in partial agreement, inasmuch as I'd reverse the order of importance - I think the differences in surround processing and DACs from the mid-range to the high-end are miniscule to the point of being hard to distiniguish. But room correction and acoustic treatments have a tremendous effect on sound quality, so when you make the jump up to systems using the Trinnov Optimizer, Room Perfect, the proprietary JBL stuff or Dirac Live you're making pretty big leaps forward.


Oh I completely agree that (good) room EQ and acoustic treatments have a much greater effect than improved DACs and surround DSP.

People say they cant tell the difference between DACs. But usually the blind tests that are done are between a single DAC vs another single DAC used in a 2-channel configuration.

When it comes to these surround processors, they are using multiple DACs. The Marantz I believe uses a single AK4490 *for each if the front three channels* and then each pair of surround or height channels have another AK4490 dedicated to them.

Higher grade pre-amps like the JBL tend to dedicate a single higher grade DAC for each channel. For the 16 channel JBL, that would be 16 DACs on its motherboard. I would think under those conditions, the increase in fidelity from a dedicated DAC on every channel would be immediately noticeable, which tracks with anecdotal testimonial from those who upgrade from integrated AVRs to more premium grade Pre-amps. They claim an increase in dynamic range and channel separation which would be exactly the result of moving to a unit with a dedicated DAC for each channel.



> This makes the sweet spot for people on a budget to go for an AVR with good room correction (like the Denons with Audyssey XT32, not as good as those listed above but pretty damn good), or doing something like inserting a MiniDSP into the chain to add Dirac Live.


Thats what I intend to do when I set up my dedicated room.

Start with a Denon X6700H or equivalent (maybe one of the newer Pioneers with DIRAC once they go above 11 channel processing) then over time, buy enough amps to run it in pre-amp mode. Then save up for a good 16-channel pre-amp since I already have the external amps to run it. And the years I am using the Denon, I will be spending that time dialing in my room acoustics with treatments.


----------



## batpig

An irony of this recent discussion is that Ready Player One is a FIXED 7.1.4 mix... it benefits zero percent by adding additional speakers with a fancy >11ch processor, and there are no dynamic objects zooming around. It is, effectively, an 11.1 channel-based mix.

So the "coin effect" of hearing each object in its own pristine location in space is, I'm afraid, psychoacoustic. The coins aren't separate objects, and even if they were originally they have been clustered through Spatial Coding and moreover been locked in to 11 very static points in space.

It's about a good mix, good speakers, good placement, good calibration, good room acoustics. Not some magical Atmos nirvana plane of perfect 3D object placement to which one has ascended. Obviously, mo speakers mo better in theory, but in practice....

This is not a knock on anyone specific, just something I found amusingly ironic given the context 

(PS - just in case anyone doubts this well-documented fact, YouTube reviewer SpareChange verifies this with the Trinnov object visualizer about 3 min into this video).


----------



## halcyon_888

batpig said:


> An irony of this recent discussion is that Ready Player One is a FIXED 7.1.4 mix... it benefits zero percent by adding additional speakers with a fancy >11ch processor, and there are no dynamic objects zooming around. It is, effectively, an 11.1 channel-based mix.
> 
> So the "coin effect" of hearing each object in its own pristine location in space is, I'm afraid, psychoacoustic. The coins aren't separate objects, and even if they were originally they have been clustered through Spatial Coding and moreover been locked in to 11 very static points in space.
> 
> It's about a good mix, good speakers, good placement, good calibration, good room acoustics. Not some magical Atmos nirvana plane of perfect 3D object placement to which one has ascended. Obviously, mo speakers mo better in theory, but in practice....
> 
> This is not a knock on anyone specific, just something I found amusingly ironic given the context
> 
> (PS - just in case anyone doubts this well-documented fact, YouTube reviewer SpareChange verifies this with the Trinnov object visualizer about 3 min into this video).
> 
> View attachment 3178236


Thanks for posting this, I thought that Ready Player One was a static mix and went looking for this exact information in the exact video, but I missed it and thought I might have seen it somewhere else. This information explains _alot_.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

batpig said:


> An irony of this recent discussion is that Ready Player One is a FIXED 7.1.4 mix... it benefits zero percent by adding additional speakers with a fancy >11ch processor, and there are no dynamic objects zooming around. It is, effectively, an 11.1 channel-based mix.


Yep. I'm aware. Its actually even worse than you've stated. Its not locked to 4 ceiling channels. It just seems that way if you have 4 Top Front and Top Rear channels. Its actually locked to the two "Height Beds" Dolby egineers talked about in their interview with Scott Wilkinson on Home Theater geeks some 6 or 7 years ago. Those Height Beds actually exist in the "Top-Middle" position. If you have Top Front and Top-Rear speakers, they will image right in the middle of those speakers, but activating all four which makes it seem like an X.1.4 mix. But if you have six ceiling speakers, it only lights those up the Top-Middles, leaving the others silent. So it is effectively a 9.1 channel mix rather than 11 channels.

You can see it very clearly here on Hulk Cinema's channel where the yellow balls representing the Height Beds appear wide in the Top-Middle position. Hulk Cinema has 6 height channels but not Top-Middles. He has Front Height, Top-Front and Top-Rear. Not once during the scene do the Front Heights light up. You see the height beds appear between the front and rear top speakers, lighting them up.








> So the "coin effect" of hearing each object in its own pristine location in space is, I'm afraid, psychoacoustic. The coins aren't separate objects, and even if they were originally they have been clustered through Spatial Coding and moreover been locked in to 11 very static points in space.


Yes, each coin isnt an individual object. They would be kept in clusters and if they were of the active variety, they would be passed from cluster to cluster as they moved across the soundfield.

I put Hulk Cinema's video on and listened to it with my headphones on. I could hear individual coins bouncing, but it didnt sound like hundreds of coins....it sounded more like a dozen or two coins bouncing. I suspect they spread the sound of a few coins bouncing all around to the surround speakers. And also put a small percentage of that sound in the height beds as those lit up as the sound happened (especially when the DeLorien sucks them up). The end result being it sounds like dozens of coins bouncing around you and the slight reverb of the coins bouncing from the height beds kind of pulls the sound inward toward the audience which under the right circumstances gives the effect of the coins scattering all around the listeners. Or its possible the coins are just in the surrounds and the imaging between all the surrounds gives the impression of them bouncing through the sound field.



> It's about a good mix, good speakers, good placement, good calibration, good room acoustics. Not some magical Atmos nirvana plane of perfect 3D object placement to which one has ascended. Obviously, mo speakers mo better in theory, but in practice....


Absolutely. Improved channel separation (which should lead to improved object separation in an active sort of mix) seems to be the biggest contributor in generating immersive effects in equal efficacy to proper placement of the speakers so they can image well with one another. If your speakers are improperly placed, you cannot get the holographic placement of objects or that placement will be warped. If the sounds from each channel are not clear and separate, then the holographic effect is weakened, object positioning is nebulous and object panning is indistinct. And as we discussed a lot in here, that channel separation has a lot of different ways to achieve the effect.



> This is not a knock on anyone specific, just something I found amusingly ironic given the context
> 
> (PS - just in case anyone doubts this well-documented fact, YouTube reviewer SpareChange verifies this with the Trinnov object visualizer about 3 min into this video).
> 
> View attachment 3178236


Check out that Hulk Cinema channel I linked as well. The 300 video is quite enligntening.


----------



## halcyon_888

I have to say something here. Today you are saying this about the "coin effect":



NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes, each coin isnt an individual object. They would be kept in clusters and if they were of the active variety, they would be passed from cluster to cluster as they moved across the soundfield.


But yesterday you said this (bold is mine):



NuSoardGraphite said:


> The "coin effect" would be the *separation of sound objects* is so precise that each sound object in the soundfield is absolutely distinct from every other sound object in the field.
> 
> I'm sure you have heard the terms "instrument separation" in regards to audiophile recordings and Hifi equipment. Or "Channel separation" in regards to home theater. The Coin Effect is the same thing as those effects, simply *applied to Immersive Audio and its Sound Objects*.


I get that when presented with facts someone can change their mind but your context today is like you knew Ready Player One was a static mix all along when yesterday you are saying it is object based. And to think that yesterday you were telling me when I didn't hear a "coin effect" that it sounds like my system isn't quite there yet and prescribed room treatments!



NuSoardGraphite said:


> I put Hulk Cinema's video on and listened to it with my headphones on. I could hear individual coins bouncing, but it didnt sound like hundreds of coins....it sounded more like a dozen or two coins bouncing. I suspect they spread the sound of a few coins bouncing all around to the surround speakers. And also put a small percentage of that sound in the height beds as those lit up as the sound happened (especially when the DeLorien sucks them up). The end result being it sounds like dozens of coins bouncing around you and the slight reverb of the coins bouncing from the height beds kind of pulls the sound inward toward the audience which under the right circumstances gives the effect of the coins scattering all around the listeners. Or its possible the coins are just in the surrounds and the imaging between all the surrounds gives the impression of them bouncing through the sound field.


Am I correct that you've only listened to the sequence in _headphones_? Note there is a problem with some information in the above quote, it's not a "small percentage" of height activity in the sequence, there is a lot of height activity in the sequence like I said yesterday. There is a lot of speculation in the above quote.

Where I'm at with this supposed "coin effect" is that it doesn't exist at all, at least not how it's been conveyed in this thread. It's not object based and there appears to be a lot of speculation of what it's _supposed_ to be. Note that the claimant hasn't heard this with his own ears. Certainly there isn't any "bouncing off someone's lap" or like in the video "on the table." Let's make sure we're dealing with facts when sharing!


----------



## MagnumX

I'm unable to listen to this coin effect at the moment, but I will when I get a chance. However, I do think it's very easy to confuse equipment, different room correction methods and speakers, including placement with this notion of more money automatically buys better sound. 

That's been a perceived notion of audiophile sales for a very long time and lead to statements like these speakers sound better than those costing two, maybe three times as much. Of course, eventually it felt like all the speaker reviews said that, leaving you to wonder what these speakers or amps or whatever were that were the poor suckers that sounded like what they cost. In reality, what they were really selling was advertising.

As for DACs, differences tend to be less than 1/10 a decibel and they $10K DACs of the 1990s are bested by $30 DACs today. A typical speaker has differences averaging +/- 3dB and rooms can affect thing more than that. 

Thus, the notion that one can easily hear a huge or even a marked improvement with this DAC vs that DAC always struck me as snake oil (cables even more so). One is far better off spending money on speakers or room correctional methods than DACs or amps (beyond a need for clean power). The goal of an amplifier is to amplify, not color the sound, after all.

As for channel separation, anything above 30dB has been considered excellent in two channel, let alone modern digital. But the human brain reacts to arrays of sound with short delays by combining the sounds to a point in the middle. This typically doesn't affect the image at small delays, just the location of the image. Theaters have been using this tech for decades so I don't think the road to Nirvana is paved by pure separation. 

I've had speakers "disappear" for ages (anything panned shouldn't image at the speaker), but that is not an indication of high-end sound, IMO, but proper placement. PSB has made speakers for decades rated at +/-1.5dB that don't cost a fortune. Paired with reasonable room treatments (mine are disguised as tapestry art or heavy blackout drapes and carpeting combined with bookshelves and brick as diffraction) that don't have to cost a fortune either plus a room correction system and my "lowly" Marantz managed +/- 3.5dB total combined room response with +/- 2dB bass at the MLP. That's better than many speakers do in a anechoic chamber. 

Now perhaps DIRAC could improve the impulse response, buy I have no idea what that would sound like, but it sure makes for good marketing as I hear it mentioned all the time as to why it's worth every penny over Audyssey, even if it means spending 10x as much to get it. But then who spend 10x as much feel the need to justify their purchases, both to themselves and others, do how much better dies it actually sound? It's hard to say without hearing both.

It'd be interesting to know where certain demo or reference Atmos sounds image on different setups and systems. 

I've asked a basic question about where the "Waba Waba" sound images at the start of Yello's "Waba Duba" song on their Atmos _Point_ album elsewhere (one reply on another forum, none here so far). It changes here depending on how discrete I set my Top Middle speaker vs an array while other sounds do not move regardless. 

With less discrete (changing delays so they don't match leaks more signal to front/rear heights) or using Top Middle as a biased array instead, the sound appears (with a bit of wobbling variation) about 20% into the room (maybe 40-42 degrees overhead) while using top middle more discrete (8dB to near infinity or fully discrete) places them almost directly overhead (Perhaps 80 degrees overhead with top middle speakers at 120 degrees azimuth or somewhat behind me). 

The one reply I got do far has four Tops 4 feet in front and 4 feet behind their MLP and indicated almost directly overhead placement.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> I have to say something here. Today you are saying this about the "coin effect":
> 
> 
> 
> But yesterday you said this (bold is mine):
> 
> 
> 
> I get that when presented with facts someone can change their mind but your context today is like you knew Ready Player One was a static mix all along when yesterday you are saying it is object based. And to think that yesterday you were telling me when I didn't hear a "coin effect" that it sounds like my system isn't quite there yet and prescribed room treatments!


Keep in mind here we are using the term "Coin Effect" as a form of short-hand for describing the holographic and immersive effect of sound objects passing through the sound field.

Also keep in mind that the coins in that scene from Ready Player One are still sound objects. They just arent "active" sound objects. Meaning they dont move around the field. They stay very near one of the "bed objects" that Atmos uses to mimic traditional channels (which is why Atmos is backwards compatible)



> Am I correct that you've only listened to the sequence in _headphones_?


No. I heard the scene in question rendered in Atmos on both my own system and a friends system who has far more expensive speakers than what I have.

I merely took the opportunity to listen to that scene using my headphones the moment I was posting the link because I was curious how clear the coin bounce would sound through youtube compression. It was clearer than I expected. I expected there to be some smearing of the sound but it was still pretty distinct in stereo, and there was pretty decent stereo imaging, but obviously missing three dimensional effect. Had it been recorded binaurally, that 3d effect would have been maintained. In other words, the sound is extremely well-mixed and clear in the soundtrack and any well designed system should render it well. Atmos simply adding the 3 dimensional effect we are trying to achieve.



> Note there is a problem with some information in the above quote, it's not a "small percentage" of height activity in the sequence, there is a lot of height activity in the sequence like I said yesterday. There is a lot of speculation in the above quote.


I was specifically referring to how much of the coin sounds were in the height channels at that exact moment. Had they put a lot of the sound up there, it would sound as if it was coming from above you. But there was something going on at that moment because the height beds lit up.



> Where I'm at with this supposed "coin effect" is that it doesn't exist at all, at least not how it's been conveyed in this thread. It's not object based and there appears to be a lot of speculation of what it's _supposed_ to be. Note that the claimant hasn't heard this with his own ears. Certainly there isn't any "bouncing off someone's lap" or like in the video "on the table." Let's make sure we're dealing with facts when sharing!


I havent heard the coin effect myself. I am trying to get to it.

I *have* heard holographic effects from the sound objects that seemed so real that they fooled my brain into thinking a physical object wizzed past me, making my skin prickle. (I have experienced this with 2 movies. Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings and the Brendan Frasier Mummy film. Both of which are using DTS:X) which makes me think the coin effect is possible. These exercises are myself trying to work out the path to get there.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I was specifically referring to how much of the coin sounds were in the height channels at that exact moment. Had they put a lot of the sound up there, it would sound as if it was coming from above you. But there was something going on at that moment because the height beds lit up.


In the Hulk video you posted the timestamps are 1:54 and 2:16 where the height channels are lighting up green around the moment of impact. How is this not a lot of sound?



NuSoardGraphite said:


> I havent heard the coin effect myself. I am trying to get to it.
> 
> I *have* heard holographic effects from the sound objects that seemed so real that they fooled my brain into thinking a physical object wizzed past me, making my skin prickle. (I have experienced this with 2 movies. Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings and the Brendan Frasier Mummy film. Both of which are using DTS:X) which makes me think the coin effect is possible. These exercises are myself trying to work out the path to get there.


But since you haven't heard the "coin effect" before, why are you convinced that there is something special and extraordinary about the sound effect in Ready Player One? The reason I said the coin effect doesn't exist in my previous post is because it doesn't exist to the degree that you think it does. It's not a sound effect to try to climb a chain of audio bliss ascension, it is a cool effect that is immersive and full and extremely detailed. It's not a sound effect where the sum is greater than its parts, it's a good sound effect among many others. And no, this doesn't mean my system isn't up to snuff. Someone could listen to my system and be impressed and exclaim, "wow the coins sounded like they were bouncing off my lap!" or "it sounded like you could reach out and grab the coins!" But I hear my system frequently so to me I would chalk it up to hearing a good sound effect with good sound design. Like I said before it was a cool sound effect that stood out to me when I first saw the movie, but it's nothing like what you're making it out to be.


----------



## Chirosamsung

batpig said:


> An irony of this recent discussion is that Ready Player One is a FIXED 7.1.4 mix... it benefits zero percent by adding additional speakers with a fancy >11ch processor, and there are no dynamic objects zooming around. It is, effectively, an 11.1 channel-based mix.
> 
> So the "coin effect" of hearing each object in its own pristine location in space is, I'm afraid, psychoacoustic. The coins aren't separate objects, and even if they were originally they have been clustered through Spatial Coding and moreover been locked in to 11 very static points in space.
> 
> It's about a good mix, good speakers, good placement, good calibration, good room acoustics. Not some magical Atmos nirvana plane of perfect 3D object placement to which one has ascended. Obviously, mo speakers mo better in theory, but in practice....
> 
> This is not a knock on anyone specific, just something I found amusingly ironic given the context
> 
> (PS - just in case anyone doubts this well-documented fact, YouTube reviewer SpareChange verifies this with the Trinnov object visualizer about 3 min into this video).
> 
> View attachment 3178236


still probably the best atmos demo scene out there!


----------



## MagnumX

I tried the scene in _Ready Player One_. There are some excellent effects in that sequence, but the coins here sounded more like they were floating out from the screen in mid-air a few feet in front of me (2nd one off the side wall on the left) and when he collected them, it did sound like they were being sucked up from all around in front of me, but I wouldn't call any of the coin sounds being anywhere near my lap as they were too far forward. Even a coffee table bounce woudn't be accurate as it was in mid-air, but I do have that dialog lift effect going on that raises the sound 12-18 inches or so above the front speakers so they sound like they're from behind the screen so that may have placed them a bit higher in front.

The semi-truck passing overhead and steel balls hitting the buildings and what not, on the other hand were very impressive sounding indeed. It did seem as if most of the overhead effects were coming from right above me, though as turning off the front/rear heights but leaving top middles on didn't change the effects much whatsoever. That also turns off the front wides as well so they weren't impacting the imaging of the coins for the MLP in either direction, IMO. So it's hard to say what I might be missing or if it's just different. I could hear plenty of coins, but since they didn't land in my lap they weren't massive stand-outs (kind of like the _Jupiter Ascending_ thing passing behind my head instead of just over it, which would have been more attention grabbing, I think. I did notice that using Audyssey in "Flat" mode (as opposed to "Reference") sounded a bit more distinct for individual coins so there's probably some high frequency energy there.

Meanwhile, _Twister_ (from Turbine) is sounding mighty nice indeed in Atmos....


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> im sure some people see the same picture from their $500 Walmart LED as my $10,000 (Canadian) Sony A90J lmao
> 
> of course they don't know the difference if they only know what they have. But hey, if you are happy with what you got then that's great!


Don't worry, I hear that a much more better, and bigger and $$$$ is about to be released


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I tried the scene in _Ready Player One_. There are some excellent effects in that sequence, but the coins here sounded more like they were floating out from the screen in mid-air a few feet in front of me (2nd one off the side wall on the left) and when he collected them, it did sound like they were being sucked up from all around in front of me, but I wouldn't call any of the coin sounds being anywhere near my lap as they were too far forward. Even a coffee table bounce woudn't be accurate as it was in mid-air, but I do have that dialog lift effect going on that raises the sound 12-18 inches or so above the front speakers so they sound like they're from behind the screen so that may have placed them a bit higher in front.
> 
> The semi-truck passing overhead and steel balls hitting the buildings and what not, on the other hand were very impressive sounding indeed. It did seem as if most of the overhead effects were coming from right above me, though as turning off the front/rear heights but leaving top middles on didn't change the effects much whatsoever. That also turns off the front wides as well so they weren't impacting the imaging of the coins for the MLP in either direction, IMO. So it's hard to say what I might be missing or if it's just different. I could hear plenty of coins, but since they didn't land in my lap they weren't massive stand-outs (kind of like the _Jupiter Ascending_ thing passing behind my head instead of just over it, which would have been more attention grabbing, I think. I did notice that using Audyssey in "Flat" mode (as opposed to "Reference") sounded a bit more distinct for individual coins so there's probably some high frequency energy there.
> 
> Meanwhile, _Twister_ (from Turbine) is sounding mighty nice indeed in Atmos....


whether the coins are "on your lap" (lol who cares if it "on your lap") it is one of the best atmos Demo scenes out there


----------



## Esperagus

Probably a dumb question for you all but would like sobering opinions: putting together a home theater currently. We are going with a 5.1 system. I know most swear by Atmos. My wife really would not like speakers in (or on) our ceilings, so Atmos seems to be out. 

Am I making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos when putting together a new system? To be clear, our receiver can handle Atmos, and budget isn't really an issue. It's more of an aesthetic concern.


----------



## sdurani

Esperagus said:


> Am I making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos when putting together a new system?


First-world problem, not a huge mistake. 5.1 will get you a nice 2D ring of sound. Atmos will turn that into a 3D bubble of sound. Noticeable difference, but not a requirement to enjoy movies and music.


> It's more of an aesthetic concern.


There's got to be in-ceiling speakers out there that are unobtrusive enough that your wife wouldn't notice.


----------



## Esperagus

Thanks Sanjay, helpful to know it's not a huge mistake.

I'm with you on there being unobtrusive ceiling speakers. I think a related issue is that she is worried about the install as well. We are paying a local retailer to do the install overall but she's worried that once we start digging into the ceiling, it may really complicate the install and maybe damage things. The installers have said they will not be patching anything up. This is not an issue with our walls as we have a paint person who can easily patch up walls, but our particular ceilings are tough to patch up so there's less room for error there.

In your experience, is the ceiling speaker install some easy pain-free thing?


----------



## sdurani

Esperagus said:


> In your experience, is the ceiling speaker install some easy pain-free thing?


Never did in-ceiling, instead used ceiling mounts for the same bookshelf speakers I was using for mains & surrounds. IF you've got a good installer, in-ceiling installs should be painless. Try to find in-ceiling speakers that have an angled baffle, so the speakers are pointing (somewhat) towards the listening area.


----------



## MagnumX

@Esperagus - Have you considered on-wall speakers instead like SVS markets as Orime Elevation? No ceiling mount needed. There's also Atmos enabled speakers (aka ceiling bounce), but I'd recommend the former. 









Prime Elevation


Best sounding home audio elevation speaker for Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D. Endless versatility as front, surround, center and/or LCR home theater speaker.




www.svsound.com





I use front/rear heights plus side elevation (PSB). The PSB CS500 mounts on a ceiling joist with one screw and can be aimed to some degree (one tiny screw hole rather than cutting holes in the ceiling).


----------



## Esperagus

I'm afraid those SVS speakers would be even less accepted by my wife since they're bulkier than an in-ceiling speaker would be. I really appreciate the suggestion, though.

I do think she would be open to a "ceiling bounce" speaker (these are the ones that would, for example, sit on top of your left and right towers right?) but, like you, I've read others saying they are far from ideal. Any particular reason why that is? Do they just not give the feeling of height they advertise?


----------



## MagnumX

@Esperagus -

There's something called the precedence effect whereby humans tend to hear a sound as coming from the closer source of sound. The most common example is sitting off-center with basic stereo sound. The image tends to come from the closer speaker until it gets around 70-80% louder than the other speaker at which point it takes off like a rocket. Thus, about 2/3 the way through a left-to-right pan when sitting on the left it will suddenly pan right. Setting correct delay times can fix this, but only for one position in a given plane (i.e. If your seats were all in a row off-center 30% to the left or something).

Since a ceiling bounce speaker has two basic paths of travel of interest (straight from the speaker, including any other shorter distance reflections and the bounce off the ceiling) and the bounce is always going to arrive later due to the longer path of travel, you have a pretty hopeless situation as you're always going to hear the oath straight from the speaker first.

Now they _try_ to address that using baffles over part of the frequency range and possibly more directional drivers (high frequencies are more directional than lower ones) and limiting bandwidth as much as the can get away with (typically 125 Hz; Go much higher and your sub or mains will image parts of the sound).

How effective all that is depends on the speaker, your particular room and ceiling and it may help tremendously if you can further block the direct sound.

One person I saw put the speakers behind his TV so only the upward angled sound made it out of there easily and he claimed this was highly effective in improving the bounce effect. I've tried putting side surrounds behind my recliner on the floor in my living room upstairs pointed at the side walls and it works incredibly well. I hear the reflection rather than the direct sound and it seems like there's speakers on the side walls where an actual speaker would be hideous.

So they can work, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Some designs are better than others too. I read good things about PSB's bounce speaker, for example. It has a large baffle to block direct sound and can be placed on the floor behind medium height objects to achieve a similar effect (putting them on top of the mains may be one of the worst locations).


----------



## Esperagus

That was a very helpful explanation, thank you.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Esperagus said:


> Probably a dumb question for you all but would like sobering opinions: putting together a home theater currently. We are going with a 5.1 system. I know most swear by Atmos. My wife really would not like speakers in (or on) our ceilings, so Atmos seems to be out.
> 
> Am I making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos when putting together a new system? To be clear, our receiver can handle Atmos, and budget isn't really an issue. It's more of an aesthetic concern.


You would be making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos. It is very quickly becoming the standard. With it pretty much monopolizing streaming compared to its competition.


----------



## dschulz

Esperagus said:


> I'm afraid those SVS speakers would be even less accepted by my wife since they're bulkier than an in-ceiling speaker would be. I really appreciate the suggestion, though.
> 
> I do think she would be open to a "ceiling bounce" speaker (these are the ones that would, for example, sit on top of your left and right towers right?) but, like you, I've read others saying they are far from ideal. Any particular reason why that is? Do they just not give the feeling of height they advertise?


Contra some of the opinions upthread, I have heard demos of the bouncy speakers that were very, very effective. If you have a flat ceiling of average height, and no obstructions (ceiling fans etc) they are a good alternative. Not as good as in or on-ceiling speakers, but an improvement over straight 5.1.


----------



## Esperagus

I have 9 foot ceilings, no obstructions. Wondering if this is a worthwhile path for the future. Do you happen to recall which bouncy speakers you heard that were effective?


----------



## niterida

Esperagus said:


> Probably a dumb question for you all but would like sobering opinions: putting together a home theater currently. We are going with a 5.1 system. I know most swear by Atmos. My wife really would not like speakers in (or on) our ceilings, so Atmos seems to be out.
> 
> Am I making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos when putting together a new system? To be clear, our receiver can handle Atmos, and budget isn't really an issue. It's more of an aesthetic concern.


Hearing Atmos in your room is awesome but only if the source material is mixed in Atmos properly. Some Atmos movies/shows don't utilise the Atmos to its fullest. But when you do come across a good one it adds a lot to the immersion and experience. Also the Atmos and DTS:X (and AUro if your AVR supports it) upmixers (DSU and Neural:X) do a really good job of creating the 3D surround bubble. So I am going to suggest that if you can (and want to) then you should 



MagnumX said:


> How effective all that is depends on the speaker, your particular room and ceiling and it may help tremendously if you can further block the direct sound.
> 
> One person I saw put the speakers behind his TV so only the upward angled sound made it out of there easily and he claimed this was highly effective in improving the bounce effect. I've tried putting side surrounds behind my recliner on the floor in my living room upstairs pointed at the side walls and it works incredibly well. I hear the reflection rather than the direct sound and it seems like there's speakers on the side walls where an actual speaker would be hideous.


I also have used the surround speaker bounce off the wall trick and it worked better than having the surround speakers where they "should" have been. So the 2 things I take out of my setup for bouncing sound is the closer you can get the speaker to what you are bouncing it off the better, and the smaller the angle of the bounce the better.

But angled in-ceiling speakers would be far more effective. I suggest you go and have a look at some rooms with in-ceilings and see how quickly you stop noticing them once you are used to them.
In other words, when you are researching them or when they are first installed you are well aware of them and are actively checking them out. Once they are installed and there is no longer any reason to be looking at them you probably won't even notice them.


----------



## dschulz

Esperagus said:


> I have 9 foot ceilings, no obstructions. Wondering if this is a worthwhile path for the future. Do you happen to recall which bouncy speakers you heard that were effective?


Triad, Pioneer and ELAC, although I'm sure the effectiveness had as much to do with careful setup and calibration as with the specific speaker models.


----------



## noah katz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You would be making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos. It is very quickly becoming the standard. With it pretty much monopolizing streaming compared to its competition.


? A tiny % of the movies and shows I stream have Atmos.




niterida said:


> Hearing Atmos in your room is awesome but only if the source material is mixed in Atmos properly. Some Atmos movies/shows don't utilise the Atmos to its fullest.


True, so in that case and for non-Atmos soundtracks, use one of the upmixers.


----------



## chi_guy50

Esperagus said:


> I'm afraid those SVS speakers would be even less accepted by my wife since they're bulkier than an in-ceiling speaker would be. I really appreciate the suggestion, though.
> 
> I do think she would be open to a "ceiling bounce" speaker (these are the ones that would, for example, sit on top of your left and right towers right?) but, like you, I've read others saying they are far from ideal. Any particular reason why that is? Do they just not give the feeling of height they advertise?


I have done three separate in-ceiling speaker installation projects in my condo (living room, bedroom, and master bath) and I agree with Sanjay that it should be a relatively simple project if you choose an experienced and trustworthy installer. An initial inspection visit to assess the scope of the project, determine the location of the cut-outs, and resolve any potential issues should put your mind at ease.

The end product will undoubtedly please your wife in that many in-ceiling speakers are designed to blend in with the ceiling with low-profile, removable grilles that can also be painted.


----------



## petetherock

That is an amazing looking room mate... wow


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> That is an amazing looking room mate... wow


I totally agree.

Unfortunately, I simply pulled that photo from the internet; not my room!


----------



## halcyon_888

noah katz said:


> ? A tiny % of the movies and shows I stream have Atmos.


This. And to add, when a show is mixed in Atmos whether it has a good Atmos mix is another story. I have used the DTS:NeuralX upmixer on Atmos tracks before and got a better result.


----------



## Esperagus

So it sounds to me like you think it's not a huge deal if one didn't go with an Atmos setup.


----------



## halcyon_888

Esperagus said:


> So it sounds to me like you think it's not a huge deal if one didn't go with an Atmos setup.


In my opinion it adds an interesting dimension to the home theater experience but after the good Atmos tracks are sampled, living with most of the mediocre Atmos content out there becomes the day-to-day as well as using the upmixers on non-Atmos content (and the DTS:NeuralX upmixer on some Atmos mixes as well, personally). I'm one of those people who are disappointed with the number of quality Atmos content available, thus I feel my system isn't taken advantage of as much as I'd like it to be. Still, I'm glad that I went with Atmos and I hope that more quality Atmos content will become more of the standard in the future. It seems to me that if you could get through the installation of in-ceiling speakers, they will be there to add some enjoyment to the home theater experience, but I'm someone who wouldn't blame someone for not going with Atmos considering I have discussed here.


----------



## chi_guy50

Esperagus said:


> So it sounds to me like you think it's not a huge deal if one didn't go with an Atmos setup.


No, I believe the previous poster is saying that a given Dolby Atmos mix is sometimes underwhelming and can be improved upon by applying an upmixer to the corresponding DD+ or Dolby TrueHD track.

But that assumes that you have the overhead speakers in your setup for the upmixer (e.g., Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, or Auro-Matic 3D) to utilize. FWIW, I think you will find near-universal agreement among the posters in this thread that we do not regret expanding our setups to provide for three-dimensional audio.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Maybe it's been covered as I haven't been following this thread recently but has anyone watched the Apple TV+ series "See" with a Dolby Atmos soundtrack? It sounds great, especially the opening introduction and credits. I find the Apple Dolby Atmos soundtracks to be excellent on virtually all of their content. I have problems with Android and the app often - it stops working, won't display video, etc. Mostly with my older Android TV's. 

Even with the newer Nvidia Shield Pro - - it can stutter and stop playing. My newest TV, Sony A9S, seems to handle the app better than any other method I access Apple TV+ (native app.) Roku works well but I do not have the Dolby Vision model. At any rate - - some nice Dolby Atmos soundtracks. I can really tell the difference. I wonder if adding a third streamer (Apple TV) would help. Geez, I have enough streamers already!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

noah katz said:


> ? A tiny % of the movies and shows I stream have Atmos.


Most of the new movie releases come out in Atmos. And Netflix has mandated that all Netflix Originals be filmed in Atmos and Dolby Vision in mind.

I wouldnt be surprised if Amazone originals follow suit. I full expect the Lord of the Rings tv series and Wheel of Time series to be in Atmos at the very least.

And both Disney and HBOMax are putting out occasional Atmos/Vision content (new stuff) and HBOMax is actually converting some of its older content over to 4k/HDR with Atmos in some cases. I think The Matrix is available there in 4k with Atmos.


----------



## Gates

chi_guy50 said:


> No, I believe the previous poster is saying that a given Dolby Atmos mix is sometimes underwhelming and can be improved upon by applying an upmixer to the corresponding DD+ or Dolby TrueHD track.
> 
> But that assumes that you have the overhead speakers in your setup for the upmixer (e.g., Dolby Surround, DTS Neural:X, or Auro-Matic 3D) to utilize. FWIW, I think you will find near-universal agreement among the posters in this thread that we do not regret expanding our setups to provide for three-dimensional audio.


Not only do I not regret it, I think it's the best upgrade I ever made. I watch mostly disc, but I haven't had really good experiences with ATMOS on streaming compared to disc.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Gates said:


> Not only do I not regret it, I think it's the best upgrade I ever made. I watch mostly disc, but I haven't had really good experiences with ATMOS on streaming compared to disc.


Try Apple TV+. I find their lossy Atmos tracks very good. Hit and miss with Netflix and Amazon Prime. By far the best sound I've heard is from Apple TV+. There seems to be a lot more separation and better Dolby Atmos mixes. Extensive use of the overhead channels.


----------



## noah katz

Esperagus said:


> So it sounds to me like you think it's not a huge deal if one didn't go with an Atmos setup.


Not sure who you're addressing, but that's a judgement call, but to be clear IMO even w/o native Atmos content it's a very good enhancement.

If I were you I'd try to get a trial of Dolby-enhanced speakers and see how they work in your room.


----------



## Josh Z

I would never tell anyone that they *need* Atmos, especially not if it's going to create friction with a spouse. 5.1 is still a perfectly respectable, very good surround sound format. 7.1 and Atmos are just refinements on top of that. 

For someone installing a home theater in a space for the first time, I'd say that 5.1 is the minimum starting requirement (unless they're some sort of 2-channel purist with a philosophical objection to surround sound, in which case to each their own). You can always start with 5.1 and upgrade to Atmos later if you feel you're missing something and the space would benefit from it.

If that's the plan, my advice would be to put the surround speakers on height-adjustable stands rather than mounting on the wall. With 5.1, it helps to elevate the surrounds a little over seated head level to fill the room. But with Atmos, you want to lower those surrounds to ear level and keep some separation between the base level and the heights.


----------



## chi_guy50

Ricoflashback said:


> Even with the newer Nvidia Shield Pro - - it can stutter and stop playing. My newest TV, Sony A9S, seems to handle the app better than any other method I access Apple TV+ (native app.) *Roku works well but I do not have the Dolby Vision model.*


I recently upgraded both of my Roku Ultra 4660X models to the newest (DV-capable) 4800X. The 4800X is the most versatile media streaming device I have yet to experience in terms of A/V support. It consistently provides both Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos on all of the apps that support those codecs. I sold my Nvidia Shield TV (2017 model) a while ago in favor of the Chromecast with Google TV (CCGTV) but now primarily use the Roku for all of my streaming apps.



Ricoflashback said:


> At any rate - - some nice Dolby Atmos soundtracks. I can really tell the difference.


It isn't Atmos, but the best immersive audio treatment I have experienced recently (and, needless to say, a great cinematic classic worth seeing for the umpteenth time) is the DTS:X sound track on the UHD Blu-ray re-release of _Psycho_. The disc also includes a boatload of interesting bonus features.



Ricoflashback said:


> *Geez, I have enough streamers already!*


Redundancy is, sadly, almost _de rigueur_ if you want to avoid disappointments from time to time. I have a Roku Ultra, CCGTV, and AFTVS4K on each of my two setups in addition to eARC capability. When one streaming source poops out or has a shortfall I can almost always get the eye or ear candy I crave from another.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

chi_guy50 said:


> I recently upgraded both of my Roku Ultra 4660X models to the newest (DV-capable) 4800X. The 4800X is the most versatile media streaming device I have yet to experience in terms of A/V support. It consistently provides both Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos on all of the apps that support those codecs. I sold my Nvidia Shield TV (2017 model) a while ago in favor of the Chromecast with Google TV (CCGTV) but now primarily use the Roku for all of my streaming apps.


Careful. The Shield fan-boys will be in here shortly to educate you on the benefits of a Shield over every other streamer in existence. What you have just stated is tantamount to blasphemy!


----------



## ppasteur

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Careful. The Shield fan-boys will be in here shortly to educate you on the benefits of a Shield over every other streamer in existence. What you have just stated is tantamount to blasphemy!


If the ATV4K sycophants don't beet them to it.... May as well piss everyone off and otherwise antagonize everybody while we are at it...


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Careful. The Shield fan-boys will be in here shortly to educate you on the benefits of a Shield over every other streamer in existence. What you have just stated is tantamount to blasphemy!


Actually, other than KODI support, I'd go with an Apple TV over Roku or the Shield (The Shield hates my Asus router too, randomly stopping playback for unknown reasons whereas my vastly inferior and slower with weaker signal Netgear router works fine with it). Since I need KODI, I actually have a Shield and Xidoo X9S as well (latter for 3D, although I've read some newer player I can't remember the name of can replace both). The Xidoo would work well for both, but it doesn't appear to work with newer versions of KODI for some reason.

...

Apple TV sycophants??? Really? At least it has apps and can run MrMC version of KODI (or the real thing if you have a developer account and can side load it). Roku can't run any form of KODI AFAIK.


----------



## sdrucker

ppasteur said:


> If the ATV4K sycophants don't beet them to it.... May as well piss everyone off and otherwise antagonize everybody while we are at it...


I'll second the call for redundancy being a virtue....ATV4K is superior because it supports Tidal Music in Atmos and has Spatial 3D audio in Apple Music, but there are many apps that you really want a Roku for that just aren't available on the Apple device. Perfect example is Xfinity's streaming app. It saves needing one of their DVR rental boxes.

There's also some specialized channel apps that apparently only are available on Roku, such as one for certain foreign language/foreign TV content.


----------



## halcyon_888

Roku's 100Mb network card was choking on some local 4k file playback, high bitrates were saturating the card. So I had to get a nVidia Shield which has a 1Gb network card to handle 4k and it handles it fine (I already had a wired 1Gb network). But I do prefer the video quality of the Roku on 1080p content so I use it instead of the Shield for streaming. I had an odd problem with the Shield and DTS:X playback with the VLC app, after about 15 seconds it would switch to DTS master audio. At first I didn't know it was doing this because it's so seamless, so I watched all of Bad Boys for Life with DTS master audio with the Neural X upmixer. I only caught the problem when I was testing with DTS:X demos and how the Marantz doesn't allow for DSU upmixing on those tracks (though the Marantz does allow for DTS:NeuralX on Atmos tracks). Using the Kodi app on the Shield allowed DTS:X to playback correctly, so I don't have the 15 second problem using it. Both Kodi and VLC pass Atmos through correctly, however. I can't say I prefer one over the other, they serve different functions in my system.


----------



## MagnumX

Some may want a Roku for that app. I gave up cable years ago and save at least $100 a month, not to mention the aggravation of the DVR hard drives constantly failing due to high heat in the newer cable boxes they started using (much faster menus, etc. than the Motorola boxes they replaced, but they ran way too hot and I must have had four hard drives fail in less than 5 years between two boxes). 

There's too much to watch with streaming and an antenna to pay for cable. I just buy the few shows I watch. Cable channels don't even support 4K for the most part.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Some may want a Roku for that app. I gave up cable years ago and save at least $100 a month, not to mention the aggravation of the DVR hard drives constantly failing due to high heat in the newer cable boxes they started using (much faster menus, etc. than the Motorola boxes they replaced, but they ran way too hot and I must have had four hard drives fail in less than 5 years between two boxes).
> 
> There's too much to watch with streaming and an antenna to pay for cable. I just buy the few shows I watch. Cable channels don't even support 4K for the most part.


Yeah I shifted all the money I was spending on cable tv over to streaming services years ago. Best tv based decision I ever made.


----------



## chi_guy50

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Careful. The Shield fan-boys will be in here shortly to educate you on the benefits of a Shield over every other streamer in existence. What you have just stated is tantamount to blasphemy!


Oh, I'm still a big fan of the Shield; it just was not doing what I needed it to do (provide best possible A/V quality) once the app support started to falter and, conversely, I did not need it for the specialized purposes that make the Shield a stand-out. And I paid about the same for all six of my current devices combined (under $200) as I did for the Shield, so that is also a consideration. 

Note also that I stipulated that my evaluation was based solely on A/V support. Staying germane to this thread, I wanted to address the availability of DD+/Dolby Atmos on streaming apps. (OTOH the Shield can stream Dolby TrueHD Atmos from local sources.)



sdrucker said:


> I'll second the call for redundancy being a virtue....ATV4K is superior because it supports Tidal Music in Atmos and has Spatial 3D audio in Apple Music, but there are many apps that you really want a Roku for that just aren't available on the Apple device. *Perfect example is Xfinity's streaming app.* It saves needing one of their DVR rental boxes.
> 
> There's also some specialized channel apps that apparently only are available on Roku, such as one for certain foreign language/foreign TV content.


FWIW the Xfinity Stream Beta app is also available on the AFTVS4K and has been for quite a while now.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yeah I shifted all the money I was spending on cable tv over to streaming services years ago. Best tv based decision I ever made.


To each his own, but I get great value from my Comcast service (HSI and CATV). I have also negotiated a couple of bulk-service agreements for my HOA and know how to get the lowest pricing and best package of services on both the residential and bulk side of the ledger. I maintain at least half a dozen SVOD services as well and find that recording on the linear cable channels is a nice complement to streaming. But I most typically wind up watching a given program on the streaming app due to the aforementioned preference for the best possible A/V quality. YMMV.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have both the latest versions of Apple TV and the shield. I'd say the shield is more versatile and powerful and best for blu ray rips while the Apple TV looks nicer, has a better interface and is easier to use


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> FWIW the Xfinity Stream Beta app is also available on the AFTVS4K and has been for quite a while now.


Maybe on iPhone and iPad, but not on the ATV4K app store, at least from a search.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> Maybe on iPhone and iPad, but not on the ATV4K app store, at least from a search.


Do a search for the Xfinity Stream Beta app on the AFTV4K device itself. It is there and available for download. Pix below:


----------



## sdrucker

chi_guy50 said:


> Do a search for the Xfinity Stream Beta app on the AFTV4K device itself. It is there and available for download. Pix below:
> 
> View attachment 3179070
> 
> 
> View attachment 3179071
> 
> 
> View attachment 3179066


I see the confusion. I was referring to the Apple TV 4K (ATV4K) and you are referring to the Amazon Fire Stick (AFTV4K). On the Amazon Fire, you are clearly correct based on your screenshots. The Apple TV device itself doesn’t have the XFinity Beta app on its own App Store. At least on my ATV4K (model A1842, bought last fall) and current tvOS.

Anyway, it’s an argument for redundancy either way if you have an Apple TV 4K, whether it’s Roku, Amazon Fire, or the Shield.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdrucker said:


> I see the confusion. I was referring to the Apple TV 4K (ATV4K) and you are referring to the Amazon Fire Stick (AFTV4K).


Damn acronym soup!

And I just now learned a new one that should prove handy: BTDTBTFTS


----------



## knightrdrx

chi_guy50 said:


> I have done three separate in-ceiling speaker installation projects in my condo (living room, bedroom, and master bath) and I agree with Sanjay that it should be a relatively simple project if you choose an experienced and trustworthy installer. An initial inspection visit to assess the scope of the project, determine the location of the cut-outs, and resolve any potential issues should put your mind at ease.
> 
> The end product will undoubtedly please your wife in that many in-ceiling speakers are designed to blend in with the ceiling with low-dimension, removable grilles that can also be painted.
> 
> View attachment 3178775


NICE ROOM! I'm thankful to be able to afford a house on long island.


----------



## Soulburner

Gates said:


> Not only do I not regret it, I think it's the best upgrade I ever made. I watch mostly disc, but I haven't had really good experiences with ATMOS on streaming compared to disc.


Coming from 2.1, my surround experience was always welcome and a nice upgrade – but, I will say that expanding to front and rear heights with an Atmos AVR feels like what surround sound should have always been.


----------



## MagnumX

I was trying out some Atmos music with all the ceiling speakers disabled (still rendered so missing sounds overhead) and it was almost shocking how much of the Booka Shade Atmos albums and Yello's _Point_ were in the overhead speakers with far less 'blend' between layers than I ever imagined on most of the tracks. Some sounds imaged halfway up towards the ceiling instead of on/above it and they were fully in the overheads while a few things that sounded like they were in the overheads (2/3 up the walls) were actually in the ear level channels. 
One example of an interesting sound was in "Plexus 3AM" on Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_. Towards the start, there's thing sound that travels in a perfect circle in front of me (and I think one circle right afterward behind me at the same height) that sounds 2/3 up the ceiling, but not on the ceiling, just floating there and it's fully in the overhead speakers while other sounds appeared on the ceiling or even above it and were also fully in the overheads. 

I'm not sure how they manage to image at different heights like that without using the ear level speakers to blend them down. The song "Torch" on _Dear Future Self_ has this "moving river" of sound at various points that appears right above my head moving right-to-left across the room like I could reach up and touch it (kind of like how someone said that ship breaking up in Jupiter Ascending ship passed just over their head like they could touch it) and I thought for sure that sound was in the side surrounds since it sounded like it was just over my head (where a sound in "Big Boys Blues" in Yello's _Point_ passes overhead and is in the lower channels for certain) and I was shocked to discover that sound was 100% in the top middle overheads, not the side surrounds and yet the same speakers image thunder well above ceiling height despite being 10" below the ceiling due to that steal beam box that goes across the center of the room requiring them to sit just under it.

There were some tracks that did blend, of course for moving height effects (e.g. "Way Down" by Yello on their _Point_ album literally has a point where the voice sings "Way Down" and it starts on the middle of the ceiling above and moves downward and splits into all the ear level channels at once towards the end of the song (at the beginning it's in the front lower layer as you'd expect vocals to be). In the movie _Flatliners_ (Auro-3D), the voices at the beginning talking about near death experiences that float all over the ceiling around the room did have a small part of their sound in the lower channels at various points in their pans, but you'd never notice it as such with all speakers active (maybe it causes them to dip slightly in height?) because they're more glued to the ceiling than most sounds I've heard, literally panning in a plane overhead and maybe coming down a little towards the sides (one my demo clips to demonstrate overhead channels because all the voices are flying all over the ceiling for 1.5 minutes).

Anyway, it was interesting to observe some of the things I thought were going on weren't quite or sometimes not at all what I thought they were. Somehow Atmos manages to image in ways vertically that aren't quite clear "how" it's doing it unless it's some accidental HRTF function in the sounds that just happens to appear to image in those places. In other words, I don't know how much some of the height differences are intentional or accidential.

Along those lines, I've tried an experiment before using some binaural CD recordings I have of sound effects and found that if I played them back in all-channel-stereo mode with even levels, they imaged not only at and above the ceiling, but seemingly WAY (hundreds/thousands of feet) high above the ceiling, far more convincing in a realistic sense than any Atmos thunderstorm I've ever heard and even though all the speakers were playing the exact same things, many sounds on the binaural tracks moved up/down left/right and front/back as if it was in Atmos or something like it as their movement had nothing to do with the speakers beyond left/right channels, but the "field" of sound that essentially acted like a giant pair of headphones around me and the binaural more or less decoded what was on it as if I was a larger than normal head (giant hairdryer blowing around the phantom giant head and scissors cutting giant hair, etc.).


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I was trying out some Atmos music with all the ceiling speakers disabled (still rendered so missing sounds overhead) and it was almost shocking how much of the Booka Shade Atmos albums and Yello's _Point_ were in the overhead speakers with far less 'blend' between layers than I ever imagined on most of the tracks. Some sounds imaged halfway up towards the ceiling instead of on/above it and they were fully in the overheads while a few things that sounded like they were in the overheads (2/3 up the walls) were actually in the ear level channels.
> One example of an interesting sound was in "Plexus 3AM" on Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_. Towards the start, there's thing sound that travels in a perfect circle in front of me (and I think one circle right afterward behind me at the same height) that sounds 2/3 up the ceiling, but not on the ceiling, just floating there and it's fully in the overhead speakers while other sounds appeared on the ceiling or even above it and were also fully in the overheads.
> 
> I'm not sure how they manage to image at different heights like that without using the ear level speakers to blend them down. The song "Torch" on _Dear Future Self_ has this "moving river" of sound at various points that appears right above my head moving right-to-left across the room like I could reach up and touch it (kind of like how someone said that ship breaking up in Jupiter Ascending ship passed just over their head like they could touch it) and I thought for sure that sound was in the side surrounds since it sounded like it was just over my head (where a sound in "Big Boys Blues" in Yello's _Point_ passes overhead and is in the lower channels for certain) and I was shocked to discover that sound was 100% in the top middle overheads, not the side surrounds and yet the same speakers image thunder well above ceiling height despite being 10" below the ceiling due to that steal beam box that goes across the center of the room requiring them to sit just under it.
> 
> There were some tracks that did blend, of course for moving height effects (e.g. "Way Down" by Yello on their _Point_ album literally has a point where the voice sings "Way Down" and it starts on the middle of the ceiling above and moves downward and splits into all the ear level channels at once towards the end of the song (at the beginning it's in the front lower layer as you'd expect vocals to be). In the movie _Flatliners_ (Auro-3D), the voices at the beginning talking about near death experiences that float all over the ceiling around the room did have a small part of their sound in the lower channels at various points in their pans, but you'd never notice it as such with all speakers active (maybe it causes them to dip slightly in height?) because they're more glued to the ceiling than most sounds I've heard, literally panning in a plane overhead and maybe coming down a little towards the sides (one my demo clips to demonstrate overhead channels because all the voices are flying all over the ceiling for 1.5 minutes).
> 
> Anyway, it was interesting to observe some of the things I thought were going on weren't quite or sometimes not at all what I thought they were. Somehow Atmos manages to image in ways vertically that aren't quite clear "how" it's doing it unless it's some accidental HRTF function in the sounds that just happens to appear to image in those places. In other words, I don't know how much some of the height differences are intentional or accidential.
> 
> Along those lines, I've tried an experiment before using some binaural CD recordings I have of sound effects and found that if I played them back in all-channel-stereo mode with even levels, they imaged not only at and above the ceiling, but seemingly WAY (hundreds/thousands of feet) high above the ceiling, far more convincing in a realistic sense than any Atmos thunderstorm I've ever heard and even though all the speakers were playing the exact same things, many sounds on the binaural tracks moved up/down left/right and front/back as if it was in Atmos or something like it as their movement had nothing to do with the speakers beyond left/right channels, but the "field" of sound that essentially acted like a giant pair of headphones around me and the binaural more or less decoded what was on it as if I was a larger than normal head (giant hairdryer blowing around the phantom giant head and scissors cutting giant hair, etc.).


what files are you playing for these albums? FLAC, CD, blu ray disc, tidal?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> what files are you playing for these albums? FLAC, CD, blu ray disc, tidal?


They were MKA dumps from my Blu-Rays.


----------



## LNEWoLF

MagnumX said:


> Along those lines, I've tried an experiment before using some binaural CD recordings I have of sound effects and found that if I played them back in all-channel-stereo mode with even levels, they imaged not only at and above the ceiling, but seemingly WAY (hundreds/thousands of feet) high above the ceiling, far more convincing in a realistic sense than any Atmos thunderstorm I've ever heard and even though all the speakers were playing the exact same things, many sounds on the binaural tracks moved up/down left/right and front/back as if it was in Atmos or something like it as their movement had nothing to do with the speakers beyond left/right channels, but the "field" of sound that essentially acted like a giant pair of headphones around me and the binaural more or less decoded what was on it as if I was a larger than normal head (giant hairdryer blowing around the phantom giant head and scissors cutting giant hair, etc.).


I experience this also daily while enjoying my CD music collection shuffled. Played from FLAC files on my NAS thru the Media Server input on my Pioneer Elite SC97 using the DSP Mode “EXT STEREO 7.2.4”.

Give this album a spin if you have it.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> They were MKA dumps from my Blu-Rays.


Other than that, I take it those of us with services other than Apple or Tidal (the two I'm least interested in) won't be able to try Atmos music.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Other than that, I take it those of us with services other than Apple or Tidal (the two I'm least interested in) won't be able to try Atmos music.


You can always buy one and try it and go from there. _Dear Future Self _has crazier imaging sequences, but the music isn't as good as Yello's _Point_, IMO. Either are worth trying on an Atmos system, IMO. There's probably more extreme imaging on those two albums as a dozen typical Atmos movies combined. They also sound quite good on 4.0, 5.1 and 7.1 as well, _much_ more discrete imaging than most traditional surround music.


----------



## Joe in WI

Esperagus said:


> I have 9 foot ceilings, no obstructions. Wondering if this is a worthwhile path for the future. Do you happen to recall which bouncy speakers you heard that were effective?


Atmos enabled speakers (AES) aka bouncy are GREAT... IF you follow the rules.

Ceiling
Must be flat, reflective (to sound) like drywall. Popcorn, acoustical tiles, etc don't work. (Technically, just the bounce area needs to be reflective.)

Height
Ceiling must be 8 to 10 foot range. The higher the ceiling the higher the level is needed (add +3db to +5db after calibration). Tall, cathedral, and vaulted ceilings don't work.

Range
You must be seated within the zone of the reflected sound. For example, you cannot sit 15 feet from the AES with an 8 foot ceiling. You're sitting way to far away.

Localization
IMO, the add-on modules are flawed designs. I own klipsch rp-280fa so the AES are recessed into the tops of the towers with foam lining. I get ZERO localization and they sound fantastic. If you experience localization, I recommend placing the AES in a foam lined box.

Aiming
Do NOT try and use a clip from a movie. Most action lasts a second at most and you cannot determine proper speaker alignment. I recommend buying a dolby atmos demo disk (ebay) and using the helicopter demo. That has a hovering object and it slowly pans to all four corners of the atmos zone. The goal is to hear the helicopter smoothly fly, in a straight line, from corner to corner. This, imo, is the best way to adjust the speaker position and aim. To much or too little toe-in will result in a curved flight path. 

And, the helicopter demo plays in both the base layer and height layer so you might need to unplug the base layer to ensure you're not hearing those speakers for localization. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Soulburner

Dolby Atmos Demos:









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...




www.avsforum.com













Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com













Dolby Atmos Demo Trailers | Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered and Silent


l➤ ⭐ Dolby Atmos Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered, Silent Demo Trailers for download ➨➨ in m2ts and mkv format.【 List of all downloads 】




www.demolandia.net


----------



## MagnumX

Joe in WI said:


> Aiming
> Do NOT try and use a clip from a movie. Most action lasts a second at most and you cannot determine proper speaker alignment. I recommend buying a dolby atmos demo disk (ebay) and using the helicopter demo. That has a hovering object and it slowly pans to all four corners of the atmos zone. The goal is to hear the helicopter smoothly fly, in a straight line, from corner to corner. This, imo, is the best way to adjust the speaker position and aim. To much or too little toe-in will result in a curved flight path.
> 
> And, the helicopter demo plays in both the base layer and height layer so you might need to unplug the base layer to ensure you're not hearing those speakers for localization.


The helicopter demo does NOT play in the base layer at all (at least with real overhead speakers; I never tried it with enabled speakers). I verified this just yesterday (all overheads unplugged). There was no sound in the base/ear level layer whatsoever.

I believe the helicopter actually flies in a circular path (although it's affected by the speaker layout and may become elliptical with an elongated layout).

The best "clip" to start out with is the Dolby speaker test demo (preferably 9.1.6 as it tests 6 positions across the ceiling that hold steady for a minute so that you can measure with a sound meter to confirm even levels. Then one can go to the helicopter demo or other demos (rain storm, horizon, etc.)


----------



## MagnumX

I just noticed the "graphic equalizer" mode for the first time on my Marantz 7012 (greyed out normally with Audyssey XT32 running). I had created a smart button for turning Audyssey off and re-balancing levels exactly (the EQ changed the side surround levels quite a bit for some reason). With a bit of work with the equalizer, it now sounds pretty good with Audyssey off (If you want to try running 96kHz, for example it has to be off as Audyssey runs at 48kHz). It's also very handy to have to play with the Tops Vs. Heights settings (and any other optional speakers that weren't measured with Audyssey) as you can balance them all out and save them in memory without wondering if Audyssey screwed something up (takes a long time to keep switching multiple profiles back and forth and you never know if it set things differently in other speakers when you do it over again). 

I could almost swear with it off and adjusted I heard some things in some Atmos music albums I either didn't notice before or they imaged slightly differently (somehow it seemed like it was easier to hear vertical panning wtih it off for some unknown reason. "Loneliest Boy" on Booka Shade's Galvany Street actually moves towards top middle and down at you at some points and floats in the middle of the room at other points while sitting more normally towards the center speaker at other points. It just sounded slightly higher with Audyssey on, but pretty flat towards the main speaker plane before. It didn't sound like it was floating in the middle of the room like a Princess Leia hologram. I'm not sure if it's supposed to do that or it's just some chance level/alignment that Audyssey somehow changed just enough to not image like that. It was pretty darn cool, though. Now I feel like I need to try other Atmos songs/albums to see if they do something new too.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> They were MKA dumps from my Blu-Rays.


MKV??


----------



## Joe in WI

MagnumX said:


> The helicopter demo does NOT play in the base layer at all (at least with real overhead speakers; I never tried it with enabled speakers). I verified this just yesterday (all overheads unplugged). There was no sound in the base/ear level layer whatsoever.
> 
> I believe the helicopter actually flies in a circular path (although it's affected by the speaker layout and may become elliptical with an elongated layout).
> 
> The best "clip" to start out with is the Dolby speaker test demo (preferably 9.1.6 as it tests 6 positions across the ceiling that hold steady for a minute so that you can measure with a sound meter to confirm even levels. Then one can go to the helicopter demo or other demos (rain storm, horizon, etc.)


Interesting...
The helicopter plays in both layers on mine. (Yamaha RX-A2060 in 5.2.4.) It's not a copy of the content either. The base speaker gets the lower rumble and engine noise. The height gets the engine, rotors, and the whooshing of the blades. I even set all speakers to full and unplugged my subs to rule out bass management. Initially, I was freaked that my avr wasn't working right. I had hoped it was atmos using, in this case, 2 speakers (base + height) to create the helicopter at each of the 4 corners. If I run test tones, the tone is sent to the correct speaker only.

Yes, I agree, test tones are used first. I stand corrected. I mentioned the helicopter demo because in a lot of posts where people were having problems with AES, they were using movie clips with split second effects and its very difficult to ensure the AES are properly set up.

I have mine setup where the helicopter flies in a straight line from front right to left. If I remember correctly, if I toe-in a bit more, it does arc away from me. (If i toe-out more, it flies towards me.) If a circle is the goal, I'll have to tweak my AES a bit. Thanks.


----------



## eaayoung

Esperagus said:


> Probably a dumb question for you all but would like sobering opinions: putting together a home theater currently. We are going with a 5.1 system. I know most swear by Atmos. My wife really would not like speakers in (or on) our ceilings, so Atmos seems to be out.
> 
> Am I making a huge mistake by not going with Atmos when putting together a new system? To be clear, our receiver can handle Atmos, and budget isn't really an issue. It's more of an aesthetic concern.


My wife loves our 5.1.4 system. Better than the 7.1 system we had at our last house. We have four Def Tech DI 8R speakers in the ceiling plus two DI 6.5S in the walls for the surrounds. They are perfect for the space. Not really that noticeable either. The grills can be painted to match the wall or ceiling.


----------



## halcyon_888

I can confirm the helicopter demo does not use the base layer in the copy I have. I am using a downloaded copy from one of the sites that provides the demo clip downloads.


----------



## Josh Z

Joe in WI said:


> The helicopter plays in both layers on mine. (Yamaha RX-A2060 in 5.2.4.) It's not a copy of the content either. The base speaker gets the lower rumble and engine noise. The height gets the engine, rotors, and the whooshing of the blades. I even set all speakers to full and unplugged my subs to rule out bass management. Initially, I was freaked that my avr wasn't working right. I had hoped it was atmos using, in this case, 2 speakers (base + height) to create the helicopter at each of the 4 corners. If I run test tones, the tone is sent to the correct speaker only.


The helicopter demo should only play in the height speakers. It sounds like your equipment is downgrading the Atmos track to its TrueHD 5.1 core and then applying Dolby Surround Upmixer. What does the front panel of your receiver say?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> MKV??


MKA is an audio only dump from MKV (in KODI you get individual track names like a music disc from one file and they can be labeled in MKVToolnix automatically from chapter names set for the MKV file).


----------



## Joe in WI

Josh Z said:


> The helicopter demo should only play in the height speakers. It sounds like your equipment is downgrading the Atmos track to its TrueHD 5.1 core and then applying Dolby Surround Upmixer. What does the front panel of your receiver say?


I'm using a dolby atmos blu-ray disc from September 2016.

I played the trueHD version, not DD+.

The front of the avr switched to atmos while playing the helicopter. I remember seeing that. I was excited because it was my first real atmos content. (Up to that point, everything else I watched was upmixed by DSU.)

Are you playing it on ceiling/height or AES speakers? Maybe that's the difference. 

I'm in the middle of a move and my equipment is packed away in climate controlled storage. When I get set back up, I'll tell the avr the atmos speakers are ceiling (i.e. not AES) and see if it changes how the helicopter is played back.


----------



## Josh Z

Joe in WI said:


> Are you playing it on ceiling/height or AES speakers? Maybe that's the difference.
> 
> I'm in the middle of a move and my equipment is packed away in climate controlled storage. When I get set back up, I'll tell the avr the atmos speakers are ceiling (i.e. not AES) and see if it changes how the helicopter is played back.


I have ceiling speakers. Never tried the Atmos Enabled setting. Maybe that's it.

Other things to check are that your Blu-ray player is set to output Bitstream (not PCM) and that Secondary Audio is turned off.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> I have ceiling speakers. Never tried the Atmos Enabled setting. Maybe that's it.


You should _never _use the "Atmos Enabled" speakers setting unless you have those "bouncy house" speakers at ear level which bounce sound off the ceiling. For people with real physical speakers up there, the only correct settings in the AVR are "height" or "top". If you tell your AVR you have "bouncy house" speakers when you've got real ones above you, it will badly affect the Atmos sound.


----------



## priitv8

mrtickleuk said:


> If you tell your AVR you have "bouncy house" speakers when you've got real ones above you, it will badly affect the Atmos sound.


Do you know, what bad will it actually do?


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> Do you know, what bad will it actually do?


If you're using Audyssey, it will add the Atmos elevation squiggle to the target curve. Not sure how other room corrections systems do it. 








That squiggle mimics height cues that trick our hearing into perceiving sound as coming from above. Helpful when you have upfiring modules at ear height. But if you're using normal speakers, already placed above you, then it is distorting the speakers' high frequency response for no benefit.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Joe in WI said:


> I'm using a dolby atmos blu-ray disc from September 2016.
> 
> I played the trueHD version, not DD+.
> 
> The front of the avr switched to atmos while playing the helicopter. I remember seeing that. I was excited because it was my first real atmos content. (Up to that point, everything else I watched was upmixed by DSU.)
> 
> Are you playing it on ceiling/height or AES speakers? Maybe that's the difference.
> 
> I'm in the middle of a move and my equipment is packed away in climate controlled storage. When I get set back up, I'll tell the avr the atmos speakers are ceiling (i.e. not AES) and see if it changes how the helicopter is played back.


This is very interesting. I have two versions of the helicopter demo. One in MT2S and one in MKV. One is Atmos and one is DD+(iirc). It’s fun to compare the real Atmos version to both upmixers which do place much of the sound in the ear level speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> This is very interesting. I have two versions of the helicopter demo. One in MT2S and one in MKV. One is Atmos and one is DD+(iirc). It’s fun to compare the real Atmos version to both upmixers which do place much of the sound in the ear level speakers.


You can purposely play the Atmos one fully at ear level by turning off your overhead speakers entirely. It's a nice test of how smoothly pans work with your speaker angle setup.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can I get the MKA file from make MKV or something?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Can I get the MKA file from make MKV or something?


The MKVToolnix app can extract it from the MKV file for you. There's also a chapter editor in the program so you can add the music track names (handy even for MKV with KODI as they show up not only on the overlay screen, but the chapter bookmarks). 

The only downside to MKA is that KODI isn't gapless with it currently so some of these albums (e.g. Kraftwerk) that blend seamlessly into the next chapter would have a little gap. Hopefully, they'll get it gapless in a future version. For Windows machines, there's a program that will convert Atmos to MP4 audio files that are gapless in KODI and can be read into the music library as well, but I haven't tried it (Mac here that has Windows 10 on it, but I haven't bothered as yet as I also have the MKV copies available over the network as well and it's more work to convert them all again).


----------



## priitv8

sdurani said:


> If you're using Audyssey, it will add the Atmos elevation squiggle to the target curve. Not sure how other room corrections systems do it.


OK I see. I should check, if my AVR does that (it does not use Audyssey). One theory says this HRTF curve is added by a filter network inside the Atmos Enabled speaker itself.


----------



## MagnumX

vn800art said:


> 47 Ronin is full of car chasings and explosions, gun shots and so on. Characters are the best of the past century.
> One of the best film IMO.
> Will wait your opinions and specifically about audios track(s).
> Let us know the purchasing history, too!
> Regards
> Alessandro


Yeah, I think you meant Ronin with Robert De Niro as the only gunshots in 47 Ronin (with Keanu Reeves) were flintlocks from English pirates. 

In any case, the 3D was excellent in _47 Ronin_ (a few pop-out moments and good depth), the movie was both good and weird and the DTS:X sound was very good (some overhead moments, loads of atmospheric overhead including thunder, birds, wind, etc. and all around surround and music stretched across the vertical divide putting some instruments below and some above at times), but not out of this world great like Harry Potter films' DTS:X, but I think the material limited the overhead usage somewhat (I mean it's not like there were aircraft or magic flying cars to put overhead, but some running beast effects and a dragon-like creature, etc. were there).

Purchasing history? I can't remember where/when I bought the 3D Blu-Ray as I've had it for awhile, but hadn't gotten around to watching it (still have dozens to watch out of the 253 total Blu-Rays I have in 3D), but I picked up the 4K UHD disc on Amazon recently to get the DTS:X soundtrack to move to the 3D version (combined with MKVToolnix and viewed on a Zidoo X9S player off a connected hard drive, one of three making all 253 3D movies plus a bunch of 4K movies available for viewing without discs needed). All my other 2K Blu-Rays are on the network server (which isn't quite fast enough at that range to trust it to watch 3D or 4K full size MKV dumps on WiFi. If I'd only get around to wiring the house for Ethernet (next router might have a strong enough signal to handle it over WiFi, though.


----------



## vn800art

Yes, I got to the mistake I did, someone also made me note it! I still have to open a BR bundle with several Harry Potter's films. I checked, DTS HD MA on some of them!
I'm still after 2 satellite dishes installing and precise pointing, a real rabbit hole, I knew it when I started this projects!
Thanks again for your reports, Magnum!
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> You can purposely play the Atmos one fully at ear level by turning off your overhead speakers entirely. It's a nice test of how smoothly pans work with your speaker angle setup.


I would assume this would be helpful if one has some teleporting issues between the mains and sides/surrounds when they are past 90° or just too far between.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

priitv8 said:


> OK I see. I should check, if my AVR does that (it does not use Audyssey). One theory says this HRTF curve is added by a filter network inside the Atmos Enabled speaker itself.


I always thought this was true. Iirc some speakers have a switch allowing use as a DAE speaker or a wall/ceiling mounted height speaker. My memory has failed to keep those details so hopefully someone can fill in.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> One theory says this HRTF curve is added by a filter network inside the Atmos Enabled speaker itself.


Atmos Enabled speakers (the kind officially licensed from Dolby) have the HRTF curve built into the crossover network. That's what makes them different from bookshelf speakers with a slanted baffle that can be aimed at the ceiling. 

Problem is, all room correction system are designed to flatten out peaks & dips. So there goes the height effect. Audyssey addresses this problem by inserting the HRTF squiggle into their target curve for any speakers labelled as Atmos Enabled in the speaker set-up menu. Another approach would be to only do room correction at frequencies below the squiggle, but I don't know which room correction systems (if any) use that approach for AE speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> Atmos Enabled speakers (the kind officially licensed from Dolby) have the HRTF curve built into the crossover network. That's what makes them different from bookshelf speakers with a slanted baffle that can be aimed at the ceiling.
> 
> Problem is, all room correction system are designed to flatten out peaks & dips. So there goes the height effect. Audyssey addresses this problem by inserting the HRTF squiggle into their target curve for any speakers labelled as Atmos Enabled in the speaker set-up menu. Another approach would be to only do room correction at frequencies below the squiggle, but I don't know which room correction systems (if any) use that approach for AE speakers.


Been a long time since I looked at this, but Trinnov has the option to define Top front, top middle and top rear speakers as "Atmos Enabled". Supposedly they have the squiggle built into those speaker target curves, or it doesn't EQ the squiggle areas - not sure since I haven't measured or looked at the specifics since about 2017.

One thing you can do with a Dirac or Trinnov curve editor is draw in the squiggle, based on the Dolby curve plot you posted, in how you want to have the target curve defined for those speakers. I used to do that with my old PSB Imagine XAs back when, which could "enhance" the effect subtly, but it was really trial and error from what I remember. And non-trivial for working out how you'd measure to see how well it worked beyond just the predicted performance level.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> I would assume this would be helpful if one has some teleporting issues between the mains and sides/surrounds when they are past 90° or just too far between.


In my case, I have mixer-based front wides and side surround #2 speakers I can move/adjust and/or change the mixer bias to get a smoother pan or change where the phantom image appears for the side surrounds (move it forward or backward by increasing side output from the front wides). The helicopter demo is a nice test to see how smooth the panning moves with the bed/ear level speakers (as well as overheads in normal operation). But yes, you could play with speaker alignment and toe-in, etc. with it even without those controls to see if the panning could be improved.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

sdurani said:


> Atmos Enabled speakers (the kind officially licensed from Dolby) have the HRTF curve built into the crossover network. That's what makes them different from bookshelf speakers with a slanted baffle that can be aimed at the ceiling.
> 
> Problem is, all room correction system are designed to flatten out peaks & dips. So there goes the height effect. Audyssey addresses this problem by inserting the HRTF squiggle into their target curve for any speakers labelled as Atmos Enabled in the speaker set-up menu. Another approach would be to only do room correction at frequencies below the squiggle, but I don't know which room correction systems (if any) use that approach for AE speakers.


So here’s where I go into a tailspin. If a speaker does have the XO squiggle. What happens as RC like Audyssey adds another squiggle?


----------



## sdurani

Polyrythm1k said:


> If a speaker does have the XO squiggle. What happens as RC like Audyssey adds another squiggle?


The sguiggle in the speaker is maintained rather than erased (equalized away). The image I posted is from Dolby's patent. Same squiggle used by speaker manufacturers and room correction designers. So they're all on the same page. No conflicting HRTF curves.

Imagine a loudspeaker with a roll-off at 10kHz. IF the room correction has a flat-ish default target curve, it will boost the high frequencies to flatten out treble response above 10kHz. But if you manually re-shape the target curve to match the speaker's roll-off, then it maintains its original frequency response. Same with HRTF curve in Atmos Enabled speakers.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

sdurani said:


> The sguiggle in the speaker is maintained rather than erased (equalized away). The image I posted is from Dolby's patent. Same squiggle used by speaker manufacturers and room correction designers. So they're all on the same page. No conflicting HRTF curves.
> 
> Imagine a loudspeaker with a roll-off at 10kHz. IF the room correction has a flat-ish default target curve, it will boost the high frequencies to flatten out treble response above 10kHz. But if you manually re-shape the target curve to match the speaker's roll-off, then it maintains its original frequency response. Same with HRTF curve in Atmos Enabled speakers.


Ok so it basically does nothing? I was somehow under the impression that it might go into some kind of cascading XO effect or something odd like that. 
So really, you can use a DAE speaker, or a regular angled baffle speaker since the RC will put the squiggle in? 
Conversely, if someone mounted a DAE speaker in a standard height position, would Audyssey be able to EQ the squiggle out? As long as it was labeled top/height? I don’t know how deep the notch is db wise, but I thought audyssey for example only boosted 9db max.


----------



## MagnumX

I just tried setting my AVR to use "enabled" speakers instead and ran the helicopter demo. There was still no sound from the ear/bed level speakers whatsoever. I heard a little more bass from the subwoofer with overheads off and that was about it so I don't know how "Joe in WI" got sound from the bed layer unless it was in an upmixer mode.


----------



## sdurani

Polyrythm1k said:


> Ok so it basically does nothing?


Only if "does nothing" = preventing the main feature of AE speakers from being erased.


> So really, you can use a DAE speaker, or a regular angled baffle speaker since the RC will put the squiggle in?


Yes.


> Conversely, if someone mounted a DAE speaker in a standard height position, would Audyssey be able to EQ the squiggle out? As long as it was labeled top/height?


It will try.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

sdurani said:


> Only if "does nothing" = preventing the main feature of AE speakers from being erased. Yes. It will try.


Ok got it thanks.


----------



## noah katz

Sanjay, any idea if the squiggle were applied to a too-low Center if it would raise the apparent image?

Though I expect the curves would be different for side surround and front center locations.

Might you know what curve Yamaha (I think) used on some of their receivers that had that function?

A f/w update to my pre/pro added per-speaker EQ so I could apply the curve if I knew what it was.




sdurani said:


> If you're using Audyssey, it will add the Atmos elevation squiggle to the target curve. Not sure how other room corrections systems do it.
> View attachment 3180085
> 
> That squiggle mimics height cues that trick our hearing into perceiving sound as coming from above. Helpful when you have upfiring modules at ear height. But if you're using normal speakers, already placed above you, then it is distorting the speakers' high frequency response for no benefit.


----------



## Soulburner

noah katz said:


> Sanjay, any idea if the squiggle were applied to a too-low Center if it would raise the apparent image?
> 
> Though I expect the curves would be different for side surround and front center locations.
> 
> Might you know what curve Yamaha (I think) used on some of their receivers that had that function?
> 
> A f/w update to my pre/pro added per-speaker EQ so I could apply the curve if I knew what it was.


Without a reflection off of the ceiling, I doubt you would want the same curve on a direct firing speaker. That curve is intended to give that effect to sounds hitting the ear from a heightened angle where the HRTF is different.


----------



## sdurani

noah katz said:


> Sanjay, any idea if the squiggle were applied to a too-low Center if it would raise the apparent image?


It should sound like it's coming from above.


> Might you know what curve Yamaha (I think) used on some of their receivers that had that function?


No idea, since they're trying to move a too-low Centre to ear height rather than make something sound like it's above you (like the Dolby elevation curve).


----------



## noah katz

Soulburner said:


> Without a reflection off of the ceiling, I doubt you would want the same curve on a direct firing speaker.


[slaps head] Of course, silly me


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> The MKVToolnix app can extract it from the MKV file for you. There's also a chapter editor in the program so you can add the music track names (handy even for MKV with KODI as they show up not only on the overlay screen, but the chapter bookmarks).
> 
> The only downside to MKA is that KODI isn't gapless with it currently so some of these albums (e.g. Kraftwerk) that blend seamlessly into the next chapter would have a little gap. Hopefully, they'll get it gapless in a future version. For Windows machines, there's a program that will convert Atmos to MP4 audio files that are gapless in KODI and can be read into the music library as well, but I haven't tried it (Mac here that has Windows 10 on it, but I haven't bothered as yet as I also have the MKV copies available over the network as well and it's more work to convert them all again).


Will this all work on plex with Nvidea shield? That's what I use...


----------



## Chirosamsung

For some reason I could have sworn I read that the Looper 4k version is getting atmos...am I wrong??


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Will this all work on plex with Nvidea shield? That's what I use...


I don't know. I don't use Plex. I use KODI. They work in KODI on the Shield (albeit not gapless yet).



Chirosamsung said:


> For some reason I could have sworn I read that the Looper 4k version is getting atmos...am I wrong??


It's got 5.1 according to the Blu-ray Forum - Blu-ray Community and Forums


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I don't know. I don't use Plex. I use KODI. They work in KODI on the Shield (albeit not gapless yet).
> 
> 
> 
> It's got 5.1 according to the Blu-ray Forum - Blu-ray Community and Forums


that's a big miss...why don't more companies go with atmos?!?


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> that's a big miss...why don't more companies go with atmos?!?


Because they have to remix the entire soundtrack from scratch. It's not an automated upmixer where they just flip an "Atmos" switch and it's ready to go.


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> Because they have to remix the entire soundtrack from scratch. It's not an automated upmixer where they just flip an "Atmos" switch and it's ready to go.


What about something like Penteo? Isn't that essentially automated to create a fixed 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 Atmos mix, which is used fairly often (especially with certain movies and Atmos Music/Spatial Audio)?





__





Atmos | Penteo Surround


Upmix or Downmix any Dolby Atmos format from 2.1.2 to 7.1.2 up to Atmos 9.1.6 to any other format up to 16 channels. All-in-one Penteo 16 Pro AAX/VST3 Audio Plugin upmixes and downmixes all Dolby Atmos formats with specialized meters, vizualizer and downmixes perfectly to original source every...




www.perfectsurround.com


----------



## Josh Z

sdrucker said:


> What about something like Penteo? Isn't that essentially automated to create a fixed 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 Atmos mix, which is used fairly often (especially with certain movies and Atmos Music/Spatial Audio)?


I'm not familiar with that, but I guess it would explain why so many of the Atmos soundtracks we do get are so underwhelming.


----------



## sdrucker

Josh Z said:


> I'm not familiar with that, but I guess it would explain why so many of the Atmos soundtracks we do get are so underwhelming.


Dolby has their own Production & Mastering Suites with what looks like more functionality (e.g. it includes the VR Spherical Panner and VR XYZ Panner plug-ins), but this is a third-party plug-in that can be used with Pro Tools.

And from the little available online with screenshots and reviews it seems like Penteo is simple "drop down and run" for the most part, other than level control of channels and some balance between the side surrounds, rear surrounds, front to back heights, and some dialog lift control, so it's certainly possible.


----------



## dschulz

sdrucker said:


> Dolby has their own Production & Mastering Suites with what looks like more functionality (e.g. it includes the VR Spherical Panner and VR XYZ Panner plug-ins), but this is a third-party plug-in that can be used with Pro Tools.
> 
> And from the little available online with screenshots and reviews it seems like Penteo is simple "drop down and run" for the most part, other than level control of channels and some balance between the side surrounds, rear surrounds, front to back heights, and some dialog lift control, so it's certainly possible.


It would take a lot of legwork, but it'd be interesting to compare the results of a Penteo-generated 7.1.4 mix derived from a 5.1 source, to simply playing back the original 5.1 and applying DSU.


----------



## Augie

Three months ago, there was discussion about Anthony Grimani's top speaker placement recommendations, and a discussion between @Technology3456 and @Jeremy Anderson about the pros and cons of x.x.6 over x.x.4.

If I follow Grimani's recommendation and place my top fronts and top rears 30 degrees in front and behind me in a x.x.4 setup, should they remain there if I add top middles for x.x.6 or should they be farther from the top middles to create a larger soundfield? If I want x.x.6, should I push the top fronts and top rears to 45 degrees to give the top middles more room? In other words, is Grimani's recommendation only relevant for x.x.4?

My measurements are the same as @Technology3456's:


Technology3456 said:


> 2 would be 2.75 feet in front of seating, 2 would be right over the seating, and two would be 2.75 feet behind.


That's a lot of speakers in a small area -- only 5.5 feet front-to-rear. (That support's @Jeremy Anderson's experience that the fronts and rears will image a middle on their own at those angles.) If I push to 45 degrees, those same speakers cover 9' 4" -- a big increase. There are good arguments about how I wouldn't want that much distance if I have x.x.4, but what if I have x.x.6 -- what if I have top middles to fill the gap?

P.S. I have Klipsch CDT-5650-C II in-ceiling speakers. The woofer pivots 15 degrees and the tweeter swivels (to what degree, I do not know). Klipsch claims 100 degrees of dispersion.


----------



## Technology3456

Augie said:


> Three months ago, there was discussion about Anthony Grimani's top speaker placement recommendations, and a discussion between @Technology3456 and @Jeremy Anderson about the pros and cons of x.x.6 over x.x.4.
> 
> If I follow Grimani's recommendation and place my top fronts and top rears 30 degrees in front and behind me in a x.x.4 setup, should they remain there if I add top middles for x.x.6 or should they be farther from the top middles to create a larger soundfield? If I want x.x.6, should I push the top fronts and top rears to 45 degrees to give the top middles more room? In other words, is Grimani's recommendation only relevant for x.x.4?
> 
> My measurements are the same as @Technology3456's:
> 
> That's a lot of speakers in a small area -- only 5.5 feet front-to-rear. (That support's @Jeremy Anderson's experience that the fronts and rears will image a middle on their own at those angles.) If I push to 45 degrees, those same speakers cover 9' 4" -- a big increase. There are good arguments about how I wouldn't want that much distance if I have x.x.4, but what if I have x.x.6 -- what if I have top middles to fill the gap?
> 
> P.S. I have Klipsch CDT-5650-C II in-ceiling speakers. The woofer pivots 15 degrees and the tweeter swivels (to what degree, I do not know). Klipsch claims 100 degrees of dispersion.


I was actually mulling the same question the last week. If I install the .4 now, but someday want to upgrade to .6, so I then have to move the .4's further apart to create the wider soundstage? I.e. do you need the .4 closer because there is no middle row of speakers... in order to allow the .4 to phantom image in between... but once you have the middle row, now they should be further? Or would it be the same?


----------



## MagnumX

Augie said:


> Three months ago, there was discussion about Anthony Grimani's top speaker placement recommendations, and a discussion between @Technology3456 and @Jeremy Anderson about the pros and cons of x.x.6 over x.x.4.
> 
> If I follow Grimani's recommendation and place my top fronts and top rears 30 degrees in front and behind me in a x.x.4 setup, should they remain there if I add top middles for x.x.6 or should they be farther from the top middles to create a larger soundfield? If I want x.x.6, should I push the top fronts and top rears to 45 degrees to give the top middles more room? In other words, is Grimani's recommendation only relevant for x.x.4?


I get the feeling you mean 30 degrees from 90 overhead rather than 30 from 0 in front of you given you stated you'd give the top middle speakers "more" room at 45 than at 30. 

30 normally means 30 above vertical (at ear level or straight in front of you). Thus, 30 degrees is typically high on the front wall or very close to it on the ceiling and 45 degrees is typically about 1/4 into the room on the ceiling (90 being directly overhead or typically 50% into a room). 

Dolby recommends 20-45 degrees for Heights with 6 overheads and 30-45 degrees with 4 overheads. In other words, yes, you "can" give the front/rear heights more "breathing room" so-to-speak if you want since the total angular distance with 20 & 90 is still only 70 degrees (compared to 90 degrees for 45/135 Tops with 4 overhead or 120 degrees with 30/150 heights). 30/90/150 has a nice 60 degrees between speakers, similar to a typical 7.1 floor layout with even distribution (not counting centers). 

The question is whether you WANT more separation (aka larger overhead soundfield). That is subjective. I said, why yes I do want a larger soundfield (30/110/160 relative to the MLP here, but it's based on the room (0% / 50% / 100%) rather than a user-centric layout since I have 3 rows of seats. Objects can move across the entire ceiling edge-to-edge with no drop in height. Using a more Tops based layout limits how far sounds will travel before dropping in height along the z-axis. That tends to put more sounds within a smaller diameter overhead, which some seem to enjoy. I find so many sounds are placed directly overhead, much of the time it doesn't matter (you'd think some of these Atmos tracks were 7.1.2).



> That's a lot of speakers in a small area -- only 5.5 feet front-to-rear. (That support's @Jeremy Anderson's experience that the fronts and rears will image a middle on their own at those angles.) If I push to 45 degrees, those same speakers cover 9' 4" -- a big increase. There are good arguments about how I wouldn't want that much distance if I have x.x.4, but what if I have x.x.6 -- what if I have top middles to fill the gap?


Jeremy believes in what I'd call "Magic Tops" (i.e. He thinks they can image just as well as heights at the edges of the ceiling by "steering" but I say nonsense; that "steering" results in a drop on the z-axis and it's no longer "at" the ceiling. In practice, full 100% ceiling only sounds will start at the speaker location and move inward. 

So the question is whether you want sounds to begin at the top of the screen (edge of ceiling/wall) or more like 1/4 the way out into the room on the ceiling in either direction. Only you can answer that part. But yes, having top middle means the gap is filled, the angles are smaller and you can generally have edge-to-edge ceiling sound. The only sabot in the machine is that "locked" 7.1.4 Atmos soundtracks will ignore Top Middle rendering and the gap will return on those soundtracks. That is why I use so-called "Scatmos" which gives a top middle extracted output that works with everything (even Auro-3D).



> P.S. I have Klipsch CDT-5650-C II in-ceiling speakers. The woofer pivots 15 degrees and the tweeter swivels (to what degree, I do not know). Klipsch claims 100 degrees of dispersion.


Wouldn't that be a lot of work to "move" in-ceiling speakers or do you have some kind of floating ceiling or would you just add heights further out into the room?


----------



## Augie

MagnumX said:


> I get the feeling you mean 30 degrees from 90 overhead rather than 30 from 0 in front of you given you stated you'd give the top middle speakers "more" room at 45 than at 30.


Correct. Sorry. I've been referencing a slide from Grimani's AVPro Edge YouTube videos that says "Front set about 30 degrees forward" and "Back set about 30 degrees back." So yes, 60 degrees and 120 degrees from 0 in front of me.












MagnumX said:


> The question is whether you WANT more separation (aka larger overhead soundfield). That is subjective.





MagnumX said:


> So the question is whether you want sounds to begin at the top of the screen (edge of ceiling/wall) or more like 1/4 the way out into the room on the ceiling in either direction. Only you can answer that part.





MagnumX said:


> Wouldn't that be a lot of work to "move" in-ceiling speakers or do you have some kind of floating ceiling or would you just add heights further out into the room?


I own in-ceiling speakers but haven't installed them yet, and that's the rub. I've never heard Atmos in a home theater so I don't know what I like. And because they are in-ceiling speakers, once I cut the holes and install them, they're not easy to move.


----------



## MagnumX

Augie said:


> Correct. Sorry. I've been referencing a slide from Grimani's AVPro Edge YouTube videos that says "Front set about 30 degrees forward" and "Back set about 30 degrees back." So yes, 60 degrees and 120 degrees from 0 in front of me.


That's pretty extreme, but I can understand the desire to keep a 60 degree angle. With Top Middle added, you're definitely better off with 45/90/135, IMO. 

You can play with those a bit to fit your seating layout if desired (e.g. Some prefer 110 to 90 on the ear/bed level and I like to keep the sides aligned with top middle since that's what the renderer expects and it works here as surround heights for Auro alignment as well (speaker switch here to move rear heights to that location for Auro-3D). 

Others seem to like offsetting them a bit for more separation between nearby speakers, but I prefer the overhead layer to align with the bed layer, personally.



> I own in-ceiling speakers but haven't installed them yet, and that's the rub. I've never heard Atmos in a home theater so I don't know what I like. And because they are in-ceiling speakers, once I cut the holes and install them, they're not easy to move.


You can go further yet if you like with six overheads, down to as low as 20 degrees, but most people seem to prefer sounds higher on the ceiling. I think my Marantz manual says 20-45 for heights, 30-60 for tops and 90-110 for top middle, but Dolby normally says 20-45 for heights, 45-55 for Tops and 90-110 for Top Middle with six overhead.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Augie said:


> Three months ago, there was discussion about Anthony Grimani's top speaker placement recommendations, and a discussion between @Technology3456 and @Jeremy Anderson about the pros and cons of x.x.6 over x.x.4.
> 
> If I follow Grimani's recommendation and place my top fronts and top rears 30 degrees in front and behind me in a x.x.4 setup, should they remain there if I add top middles for x.x.6 or should they be farther from the top middles to create a larger soundfield? If I want x.x.6, should I push the top fronts and top rears to 45 degrees to give the top middles more room? In other words, is Grimani's recommendation only relevant for x.x.4?
> 
> My measurements are the same as @Technology3456's:
> 
> That's a lot of speakers in a small area -- only 5.5 feet front-to-rear. (That support's @Jeremy Anderson's experience that the fronts and rears will image a middle on their own at those angles.) If I push to 45 degrees, those same speakers cover 9' 4" -- a big increase. There are good arguments about how I wouldn't want that much distance if I have x.x.4, but what if I have x.x.6 -- what if I have top middles to fill the gap?
> 
> P.S. I have Klipsch CDT-5650-C II in-ceiling speakers. The woofer pivots 15 degrees and the tweeter swivels (to what degree, I do not know). Klipsch claims 100 degrees of dispersion.


I think Grimani's suggestion to bring them in closer has more to do with the dispersion pattern and off-axis response of most in-ceiling speakers when average room heights are taken into consideration. There has been some discussion here about the merits of a 60/60/60 separation with x.x.4, but I think ideally you still want the speakers where the renderer expects them to be, barring any compensation for dispersion. In other words, if your in-ceilings truly provide that much coverage and aim, I'd probably still stick with 45/135 angles. Then you can add top mid at 90 if need be and not have to move anything. So long as your speakers are aimed to cover the seats, you will still get fair cross-channel imaging above you with that 90 degrees of separation, enough that you may not feel the need to bother with top mid. But if you have more than one row of seating, adding top mid would get you a bit more coherent placement of sounds across all of your seats.

In my room, I have top front at 45 and top rear at a bit closer to 130 to account for the slight elevation of my rear surrounds, and I am perfectly happy with how sound moves between each speaker in the array. And with the Atmos content that unfortunately only uses 2 static objects for height, at least a x.x.4 layout distributes them across all 4, whereas x.x.6 will tend to just stick that sound in top mid. You'll still get some sense of movement forward and back of the speakers since human hearing and imaging are a matter of azimuth/direction. We don't hear based on coordinates. Dolby just uses them to translate out location and level to steer sounds for any given position within the array in the room.

If I may make a suggestion: Don't trust the spec'd dispersion from the manufacturer. If you can, hook one of your in-ceilings up to your AVR and play some music through it and see how much it changes in sound as you get further off-axis. That will tell you for sure whether you're going to need to pull them in closer as per Grimani's suggestion... or whether it might be worth considering aimable ON-ceiling speakers instead so you don't have the dispersion limitation... or even whether it's worth doing in-ceilings at top mid and on-wall speakers at front/rear height if the angles work out well in your room.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Augie said:


> I find so many sounds are placed directly overhead, much of the time it doesn't matter (you'd think some of these Atmos tracks were 7.1.2).


Many of them are 7.1.2. Atmos comes with 9.1 "bed channels" (static objects that mimick the old channel configuration) 7 beds corresponding to the traditional 7 ground channels. And 2 "height beds" (a left and a right). If sound mixers use only the bed layers to mix their sounds, that is in effect a 7.1.2 mix.


----------



## X4100

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Many of them are 7.1.2. Atmos comes with 9.1 "bed channels" (static objects that mimick the old channel configuration) 7 beds corresponding to the traditional 7 ground channels. And 2 "height beds" (a left and a right). If sound mixers use only the bed layers to mix their sounds, that is in effect a 7.1.2 mix.


With my front and rear heights, I don't recall having this effect. The sound seems to originate from the speaker locations, maybe I just haven't run across a 7.1.2 fixed bluray. Or is this a phenomenon of the tops locations, since the speakers are closer to the MLP??


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> With my front and rear heights, I don't recall having this effect. The sound seems to originate from the speaker locations, maybe I just haven't run across a 7.1.2 fixed bluray. Or is this a phenomenon of the tops locations, since the speakers are closer to the MLP??


The locations that the 2 fixed height objects are placed are in between the expected longitudinal position of top front and top rear, so the renderer places them in both top front/rear with the needed level adjustments so they sum and image above you. But since many of those mixes that use the fixed objects are pre-panned, you're still hearing things move through them from the other speakers... Just not with the resolution you would with dynamic objects moving through the array. 

Contrast that to this same mix played with top mids, where the renderer sees that there are speakers at the fixed objects' locations, so it just plays them back full volume from those speakers since there's no need for any cross-channel steering and adjustment. So even if you have top front/rear adjacent, the renderer sees no need to use them at all. That's the down side to them handling it that way. I would almost say that if they're going to do this, maybe they should increase the object size so there's some spillover into the adjacent channels for consistency across the array. But ideally, they would just use dynamic objects instead of static "channels" so these mixes would work better with higher speaker counts.


----------



## X4100

Very well explained, Thanks!!


----------



## dschulz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Many of them are 7.1.2. Atmos comes with 9.1 "bed channels" (static objects that mimick the old channel configuration) 7 beds corresponding to the traditional 7 ground channels. And 2 "height beds" (a left and a right). If sound mixers use only the bed layers to mix their sounds, that is in effect a 7.1.2 mix.


Theatrical Atmos has 9 bed channels, but the home versions has only 7 - height can be invoked only by adding objects. 

Practically there is probably not much difference here, just wanted to clarify.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

T


dschulz said:


> Theatrical Atmos has 9 bed channels, but the home versions has only 7 - height can be invoked only by adding objects.
> 
> Practically there is probably not much difference here, just wanted to clarify.


Thats strange. Why wouldnt the home version incorporate the 2 height beds as well? Its not like a processing issue.

But if thats the case, many of the home versions of these mixes is simply adding two objects in the top-middle position and calling it a day. More than likely translating across how it was mixed for the theater, I would imagine.

You can clearly see it in the Trinnov object analyzer with Ready Player One. All the height effects are anchored to the Top channels. The height objects only appear at the top-middle position and they light up the Top-Front and Top-Rear speakers, never touching the front height speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You can clearly see it in the Trinnov object analyzer with Ready Player One. All the height effects are anchored to the Top channels. The height objects only appear at the top-middle position and they light up the Top-Front and Top-Rear speakers, never touching the front height speakers.


Atmos remaps objects to the nearest overhead speakers so regardless of whether they're placed in the front heights or Top Front speakers they will be moved to the nearest speakers available. If they're truly only .2 overhead in the middle (locked top middle object) they will output at top middle, but otherwise locked four overheads they will output four overhead (nearest available overheads) and phantom image there when appropriate.


----------



## MagnumX

*Observations using speaker arrays with Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D*

I just added another Monoprice impedance matched multi-speaker switch for ss#2 and rear surrounds, which combined with active mixers (to mix +3dB front wides and ss#2) essentially gives me the option of using 8-speaker side surround arrays (4 sets) and two for rears in addition to surround height plus rear height dual overhead arrays or the option of near discrete "Scatmos" Top Middle.

All these can be easily disabled with a button push and return to discrete operation if desired (volume controls with detents on the Monoprice boxes make it easy).

I'm now convinced arrays of surround speakers have gotten a bad rap because of discrete 5.1 and onward as if discrete solves everything including world peace. Yet the Atmos cinemas still array the bed channels just as before, but add the capability for objects to address them independently.
I read Dolby considered adding official array support for the home version and I believe Trinnov will let you do it, but as channel counts increase to 15+ (not counting subs), I think more processors should offer the option as the extra physical sources appear to offer real HRTF advantages for real sound recordings.

For example, I've noticed sounds coming from far behind me on Atmos and Auro music recordings that were limited to much closer behind me using discrete channel output and the entire recording in a church (Himmelrand and Himmelborgan, both which come with Atmos and Auro versions) sounds so much more palatably REAL with eight speakers arrayed as side side surrounds here (four as rear surrounds).

With my eyes shut, I thought it sounded like a different room before. Now I'd swear I was truly in a church. It was so much more believable (I have a very dead room so I believe the extra physical sources really account for the natural reflections present in the recording. Even 2-channel recordings sound so much more spacious in the Auro upmixer now.

The arrays using mixed rears largely solved the volume level differences between optimizing output levels for the front row compared to the other two (basically rear surrounds had to be close to 5dB louder to be at the same level as the mains or sides which sit much closer to the front row. Using a mixed array not only gives an in-between ss#2 channel, but now does the same in the rear (sides image with pink noise between the speakers and rears at the speakers).
That lowers the levels needed as the rears start much closer to the front row, yet always image to the side and behind each row. 

With levels much more equal, full room length pans now work without jumping (pan faster) despite being optimized for the front (I also keep smart memory settings optimizing levels for the second row and halfway between which further smooths it (the latter sounds best for using all rows).

Meanwhile, ambient recordings in Atmos and Auro-3D now image more like you'd expect in a real room like a church moving further back along the aisle.

Essentially, I think any larger home theater could benefit from having the main channels arrayed just like at a real Atmos or Auro-3D cinema. It's now clear why arrays are still used for the main channels despite Atmos. It simply sounds better in a large room.

I realize many believe in the more discrete the better philosophy, but testing has shown me clear audible and practical advantages to using arrays. At these close distances, they do not muddy the sound as they image as one source, yet reinforce phantom locations with physical speakers. They also sound fantastic with older Pro Logic type movies, giving a much more spacious soundfield (I can hear the entire room rather than just nearby and pans in a 360 circle now move smooth as can be around me in PlayStation video games with no weak spots in the phantom imaging.

In fact, this was a widely known problem with Quad when it came out and Wendy Carlos of Tron/Clockwork Orange/The Shining soundtrack fame has a surround section on her web site detailing the issue and how arrays fix the imaging gaps that occur with only 4 or even 5.1 speakers, particularly in larger rooms. Many people use tri-surrounds (three faces with speakers) and don't even realize they're already technically using an array with them (along with bipolar, particularly when it's not 180 degree mounted).


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Why wouldnt the home version incorporate the 2 height beds as well?


The 2 height channels are optional in the cinema version of Atmos. They are incorporated into the home version of Atmos as static objects.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You can clearly see it in the Trinnov object analyzer with Ready Player One. All the height effects are anchored to the Top channels. The height objects only appear at the top-middle position and they light up the Top-Front and Top-Rear speakers, never touching the front height speakers.


Looks like those coins light up the top speakers well. If that's the scene referenced the other day, I didn't see them appear in the side surrounds.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> The 2 height channels are optional in the cinema version of Atmos. They are incorporated into the home version of Atmos as static objects.


But in the cinema version, those channels utilize the entire row of speakers as a zone and can still pan objects through them as well. The home version doing this as static objects instead doesn't allow for x.x.6 or greater layouts. Though if we're being honest, people with x.x.6 or greater is a pretty niche segment of an already niche market.


----------



## dschulz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But in the cinema version, those channels utilize the entire row of speakers as a zone and can still pan objects through them as well. The home version doing this as static objects instead doesn't allow for x.x.6 or greater layouts. Though if we're being honest, people with x.x.6 or greater is a pretty niche segment of an already niche market.


This is true for the side surrounds as well. In cinemas the surround bed channels are arrayed across multiple speakers, plus can have objects pan through them. AFAIK even those processors that could in theory support multiple side surrounds cannot array the surround beds - Left Surround and Right Surround are anchored to those speakers only, leaving the other side surrounds utilized only for objects. 

As you observe, a niche within a niche, but for people who have a home theatre with multiple rows of seating and have been enjoying arrayed surrounds up until now it is a frustrating limitation.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But in the cinema version, those channels utilize the entire row of speakers as a zone and can still pan objects through them as well.


In the cinema version of Atmos, those 2 channels are called Top Surrounds. And like other "surround" channels (Side Surrounds, Rear Surrounds), they array to multiple speakers. In the case of the Top Surround channels, they light up all the height speakers except the pair closest to the screen, which only gets object info. The reason that channels can array is because they remain channels after decoding and are never combined with object info.

The home version of Atmos converts everything (except LFE) to objects. In this case, don't think of each object as an individual sound but instead as a constantly changing cluster of sounds made up of channel info and nearby object info. The cluster at your left Side speaker is a combination of sounds from the left Side channel AND sounds from objects coming from the same general direction.

Once combined, these sounds can't be uncombined (can't completely unscramble an egg). So there is no way separate out the channel info for arraying to multiple speakers. Once the theatrical height channels are part of a cluster in the home version, they can no longer array to multiple speakers because object sounds they're combined with might not be intended to spread to more than one speaker (can't array the cluster).


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Once combined, these sounds can't be uncombined (can't completely unscramble an egg). So there is no way separate out the channel info for arraying to multiple speakers. Once the theatrical height channels are part of a cluster in the home version, they can no longer array to multiple speakers because object sounds they're combined with might not be intended to spread to more than one speaker (can't array the cluster).


That being the case, something I've wondered about - if you were to address a multiple-row home theatre using either bipole speakers for the surrounds, or by using two side surrounds as an array (either by simply wiring them in series or parallel or using a processor that lets you clone a channel), do the benefits of having more surround coverage outweigh the downside of "smearing" the object placement?


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> That being the case, something I've wondered about - if you were to address a multiple-row home theatre using either bipole speakers for the surrounds, or by using two side surrounds as an array (either by simply wiring them in series or parallel or using a processor that lets you clone a channel), do the benefits of having more surround coverage outweigh the downside of "smearing" the object placement?


I literally just talked about using 4 sets of arrayed side surrounds and 2 sets of rear surrounds above (but being on ignore means some don't even see it). It seems like there may be a fundamental lack of understanding of how arrays work with the brain. You don't really have to _unscramble_ anything. Arrays image relative to the listener regardless of whether it's in a theater or a home. MOST Atmos mixes already "array" many of the sounds (i.e. they come from multiple speaker locations regardless of how discrete the system is because they mixed it to do that on purpose). For example, most of the side clock sounds in BTTF move with you if you move into the back of the room in a multi-row home theater even if ALL the speakers are 100% discrete. That's because the same clock sounds are found in every rendered surround channel whether you like it or not. You certainly cannot unscramble _that_ egg. 

The difference when you're doing it yourself is that you control your home theater setup. The precedence effect doesn't go away even with discrete speakers because _every_ pan is technically an arrayed effect. That's how panning works. If you array speakers in a way that makes sense for your layout, it's going to be an improvement. If you have multiple rows and only have one side surround and sit closer to the rear surround, you've got another problem on your hands and that is the rear channels are going to be MUCH louder than the front channels that are going to be much quieter. That doesn't image very well for any kind of panning because the delay settings are not only set for one seat (MLP) and won't help sitting in the back of the home theater, but you're going to be overwhelmed by the volume differences. I've found using arrays for side surrounds pretty much fixes the problem 85%. Everything is quite even other than losing a few dB from the front to back; the rest are now pretty close regardless of where you sit. No, I don't have a Trinnov with a ton of extra discrete channels, but even there you could mix the side channel into all of them and the combined array of the pans from the discrete and whatever passes through the sides are going to combine and give you MOST of the intended effect. It will certainly be far better than the level issues above. If the mixing engineer doesn't mind doing it with your discrete setup, you can certainly try it yourself. A simple mixer can let you add more of a channel to another speaker at any mix ratio you desire.

Even in a real cinema, you don't generally hear the left arrayed side channel from every speaker in your brain if they played a channel tone. You'd hear ONE sound coming from your immediate left because the human brain hears arrayed sounds within a certain delay period as ONE sound. It doesn't spread out by itself either until the sounds are mostly uncorrelated. Then you get a larger effect (and that makes ambience at home sound so much more real too in a dampened room because it will render from all those locations and sound like a larger room).


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> ...do the benefits of having more surround coverage outweigh the downside of "smearing" the object placement?


It's no different than before, when playing back 7.1 soundtracks using a pair of Side speakers for each row. The only difference with home Atmos soundtracks is that the signal going to the left Side output is a combination of channel audio and object audio. That output can be treated exactly as before, being sent to as many left Side speakers as you want. 

While it would be optimal to have smart arrays, where channel audio is copied to each Side speaker and object audio pans through the array, that's not likely to happen with the way home Atmos currently works. So you deal with what you have. Whatever benefits existed for having a pair of Sides for each row haven't disappeared in the Atmos era. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good. 

Only suggestion I would make is to time align each pair of Sides rather than connect those speakers in series or parallel. The point of time alignment is to make sure that sound from the various speakers reaches the listener simultaneously. After doing time alignment, sound from the Centre speaker and from the Side speakers will reach the listener at the middle of the row simultaneously. 

To get that for the second row, measure the distance from the listener in the front row to the listener in the second row and add that delay to the Side speakers of the second row. So if the listener in the second row is 6 feet behind the listener in the first row, add a 5ms delay to the Side speakers of the second row. Now the listener at the middle of the second row will hear the sound from the Centre speaker and that row's Side speakers simultaneously. 

Lather, rinse, repeat for the third row to give each row the same experience. The delays also help reduce comb filtering artifacts that could happen from sending the same signal to more than one speaker. Not much of a problem for the front channels but more of a problem for the surround channels where decorrelated/ambient info is mixed in.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> It's no different than before, when playing back 7.1 soundtracks using a pair of Side speakers for each row. The only difference with home Atmos soundtracks is that the signal going to the left Side output is a combination of channel audio and object audio. That output can be treated exactly as before, being sent to as many left Side speakers as you want.


Well, it's slightly different inasmuch as mixers have always utilized arrays, so the somewhat diffuse nature of surround arrays didn't really detract from creative intent in the previous 5.1/7.1 era. With object rendering, though, there is an expectation on the mixing side of a certain amount of precision in rendering upon playback, which would be compromised by trying to render across arrays (or bipoles) rather than point sources. 



> Only suggestion I would make is to time align each pair of Sides rather than connect those speakers in series or parallel. The point of time alignment is to make sure that sound from the various speakers reaches the listener simultaneously. After doing time alignment, sound from the Centre speaker and from the Side speakers will reach the listener at the middle of the row simultaneously.


Great idea, thanks for this suggestion. I wonder how many processors have this capability - Trinnov, RS20i, Storm Audio? I guess you could explore this with some outboard processing as well.


----------



## batpig

dschulz said:


> Theatrical Atmos has 9 bed channels, but the home versions has only 7 - height can be invoked only by adding objects.





NuSoardGraphite said:


> Thats strange. Why wouldnt the home version incorporate the 2 height beds as well? Its not like a processing issue.


I think there's some confusion. Dan, what you described (cinema has 9 beds but home only has 7) is not totally accurate; I feel like it's an outdated (and confusing) way of describing home Atmos. I'm pretty sure it stems from the old notion that Atmos was 7.1 + objects for home.

It's not, home Atmos is basiclaly 100% objects (other than LFE) as the entire cinematic mix (objects + beds) is translated through spatial coding into 11, 13, or 15 clustered elements. Some of the resultant elements will behave as "channels" (fixed coordinates) but even those will at times include some of the dynamic object sounds that pass through the zone and get clustered with the bed element. The same is true for the overhead "beds" as they are also converted into static objects for the home mix.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Well, it's slightly different inasmuch as mixers have always utilized arrays, so the somewhat diffuse nature of surround arrays didn't really detract from creative intent in the previous 5.1/7.1 era. With object rendering, though, there is an expectation on the mixing side of a certain amount of precision in rendering upon playback, which would be compromised by trying to render across arrays (or bipoles) rather than point sources.


It's obvious you've never tried it with Atmos or you wouldn't say such things. An array or bipole aimed towards the intended listeners are still point sources (It's dipoles that are uncorrelated or out-of-phase that can cause imaging issues). The human brain combines arrays into one direction/location for correlated sounds. You generally do not get a more diffuse sound with more speakers for correlated (in-phase) sounds. You might for uncorrelated, but that is probably more desirable for those.

Delays become a real issue for clarity after about 25 feet (~25ms but changes with altitude/air pressure a bit) so I disagree for most home sized systems the combined overall delay is as important as in larger rooms and hence real theaters.

However, the Haas Effect (aka precedence effect) can cause one to hear a sound source from a different direction if it arrives first until it's around 60-80% louder (on linear scale, meaning 6-8dB louder) than the source arriving first. That's generally why you want add delay if you're sitting closer to an arrayed speaker coming from the "wrong direction" or distance (i.e. If you wanted to repeat the fronts, but sound like they're coming from the screen by having the front waveform arrive first).

You can also use both delay and level to move where the phantom image for the combined appears to the intended listener (e.g. I can have the "side" appear to the side of chairs even with the physical location of the speakers in front of and behind the chairs and be different for each row).

Properly controlled, arrays can solve or at least improve room placement issues and large level differences with multiple rows of seats without harming correlated imaging while improving the decorrelated sounds by making them more diffuse.

It can also improves phantom imaging putting more physical sources into the room for perceptual problems like trying to get 360 degree smooth imaging with only four channels (Quad problem from the '70s). An extra set of physical locations using the same channels reduces the angular distances between any given pair and promotes smooth panning all the way around. I noticed that immediately with PS4 games (in 5.1 sound) rotating the character in a circle, I get much smoother and consistently even imaging in a circle around me with the arrayed "front wides" engaged. It doesn't harm the phantom image at all. To the contrary, it improved the overall panning considerably and thus sounds far more realistic as a result.

Atmos is essentially just more channels once rendered. The rules of arrays applies just as much to 11 or 13 channels as it does to 5 or 7.

You don't need a Trinnov to add delay. You can buy mixers with delay options built into them (used a lot for live event mixing). In other words, not everything has to cost as much as a car just to have a proper home theater.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> With object rendering, though, there is an expectation on the mixing side of a certain amount of precision in rendering upon playback, which would be compromised by trying to render across arrays (or bipoles) rather than point sources.


The home version of Atmos allows for up to 3 pairs of Sides. Objects will render to them independently. So there's that provision IF you're really concerned about object rendering precision. However, only one of those Side pairs will play back the Side channels, so no arraying of channel audio. 

For a single row of listeners, I don't see the harm in configuring additional pairs of Sides that only reproduce object audio. Wides have the same limitation. For multiple rows, I would copy the side clusters to multiple pairs of Side speakers (one pair for each row).


> Great idea, thanks for this suggestion.


I think that time delay technique is pretty standard for professional calibrators.


----------



## dschulz

batpig said:


> I think there's some confusion. Dan, what you described (cinema has 9 beds but home only has 7) is not totally accurate; I feel like it's an outdated (and confusing) way of describing home Atmos. I'm pretty sure it stems from the old notion that Atmos was 7.1 + objects for home.
> 
> It's not, home Atmos is basiclaly 100% objects (other than LFE) as the entire cinematic mix (objects + beds) is translated through spatial coding into 11, 13, or 15 clustered elements. Some of the resultant elements will behave as "channels" (fixed coordinates) but even those will at times include some of the dynamic object sounds that pass through the zone and get clustered with the bed element. The same is true for the overhead "beds" as they are also converted into static objects for the home mix.


Your description is more correct, technically (and thanks for the reminder), but I think as shorthand the idea that home Atmos is a 7.1 bed + objects, as opposed to cinema Atmos being a 9.1 bed + objects is still an accurate description. The mixers aren't thinking about how the renderer bakes together objects and channels (now deployed as static objects), they are mixing in the old 7.1 paradigm and, if a theatrical mix, have the option of adding two additional overhead channels plus salting the mix with individual objects that can be moved at will. The home version likewise is working off the age-old 7.1 paradigm, and also has objects that can be moved about in 3D space.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> I literally just talked about using 4 sets of arrayed side surrounds and 2 sets of rear surrounds above (but being on ignore means some don't even see it). It seems like there may be a fundamental lack of understanding of how arrays work with the brain. You don't really have to _unscramble_ anything. Arrays image relative to the listener regardless of whether it's in a theater or a home.





sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos allows for up to 3 pairs of Sides. Objects will render to them independently. So there's that provision IF you're really concerned about object rendering precision. However, only one of those Side pairs will play back the Side channels, so no arraying of channel audio.
> 
> For a single row of listeners, I don't see the harm in configuring additional pairs of Sides that only reproduce object audio. Wides have the same limitation. For multiple rows, I would copy the side clusters to multiple pairs of Side speakers (one pair for each row). I think that time delay technique is pretty standard for professional calibrators.


I hear what both of you are saying, I'm just noting that the Atmos renderer is placing objects in 3D space by, for example, using the Left Surround and Top Middle speakers to place an object slightly above me and to my left. If instead of a single monopole Left Surround speaker I now have a bipole, or, trickier yet, two monopoles in a surround array, the object placement will be slightly off, because the renderer doesn't know I have a bipole or two speakers there, it's assuming a single Left Surround at the renderer-assumption location. So it's a trade-off - you can have the benefits of a true surround array with somewhat less precise object rendering, or give up having a full surround array but have speakers laid out as close the rendering assumptions as possible. 

The hobby is full of trade-offs, I'm not mad about it, just lamenting the slight backward step is all.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> I hear what both of you are saying, I'm just noting that the Atmos renderer is placing objects in 3D space by, for example, using the Left Surround and Top Middle speakers to place an object slightly above me and to my left. If instead of a single monopole Left Surround speaker I now have a bipole, or, trickier yet, two monopoles in a surround array, the object placement will be slightly off, because the renderer doesn't know I have a bipole or two speakers there, it's assuming a single Left Surround at the renderer-assumption location. So it's a trade-off - you can have the benefits of a true surround array with somewhat less precise object rendering, or give up having a full surround array but have speakers laid out as close the rendering assumptions as possible.
> 
> The hobby is full of trade-offs, I'm not mad about it, just lamenting the slight backward step is all.


If you're going to worry about slight placement issues, I hate to tell you that sitting closer to one speaker than another in any seating location (all off-axis seats including front-to-back, but especially to the sides) will change imaging locations due to the precedence effect save imaging directly at a physical speaker since all panning creates an array (correlated sounds image in both speakers to varying degrees) and unless it's calibrated around one location only, they're going to move a bit. 

You can calibrate an array around a single location for accuracy with delay and level controls, but the primary use for the arrays is for multiple rows of seating and/or imaging reinforcement and used well, they're going to improve things more than they screw them up, IMO.

A bipole arrays no more than the width of the drivers. You wouldn't sit in a null of bipoles (Bipoles don't actually "null" anyway; they just have worse response off-axis), but the type that point in two different directions are great for getting good on-axis response from two rows of seats at the same time when placed between rows. Bipoles used as fronts are known for their spacious sound because of uncorrelated reflections off the room boundaries. The in-phase response combines into one image. 

Dipoles have the drivers out of phase, do one has to keep them at least 3.5' from a wall or they'll actually cancel themselves out at some frequencies! I have dipole ribbons upstairs as mains (Carver AL-III) and the ribbons are over 4.5' from the front wall. They sound fantastic IMO. 

The type of dipoles they used to use to the sides as surrounds by sitting in the null zone to get a more diffuse room effect for Pro Logic (ironically as a substitute for a proper in-phase array fed decorrelated information from the surround decoder) weren't really recommended once discrete 5.1 at home became a reality in the mid 1990s.


----------



## X4100

@MagnumX said: However, the Haas Effect (aka precedence effect) can cause one to hear a sound source from a different direction if it arrives first until it's around 60-80% louder (on linear scale, meaning 6-8dB louder) than the source arriving first

This is definitely correct, as I live on a one way street. As cars first start coming toward my home I hear the sound first on the right side of the room, but as they get closer the sound comes from the left, then the center, and off to the right as it moves through the block. I never really thought about it until now


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> The hobby is full of trade-offs, I'm not mad about it, just lamenting the slight backward step is all.


We discussed two approaches: array the main pair of Side outputs to multiple Side speakers OR add two additional pairs of object-only Side speakers to stabilize imaging. The former is status quo prior to Atmos, the latter is a new option with Atmos. The only way to lament the situation as a _"slight backwards step"_ is to believe we're losing something we currently have. We never had smart arrays.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> We discussed two approaches: array the main pair of Side outputs to multiple Side speakers OR add two additional pairs of object-only Side speakers to stabilize imaging. The former is status quo prior to Atmos, the latter is a new option with Atmos. The only way to lament the situation as a _"slight backwards step"_ is to believe we're losing something we currently have. We never had smart arrays.


Maybe not backwards, but sideways then - in order to get object rendering we gave up arrayed surrounds. 

This all came up for me because I have a friend who is not as conversant as us who currently has arrayed surrounds in his 7.1 system, and was surprised to hear that if he upgrades to Atmos he won't be able to have an arrayed side surround channel (as he is used to experiencing) along with object rendering, even if he buys a zillion dollar Trinnov processor. He's mulling his options That we cannot have the theatrical experience of arrayed surrounds along with objects panning through multiple speakers is understandable, given the delivery limitations for home Atmos, but nonetheless limiting.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> This all came up for me because I have a friend who is not as conversant as us who currently has arrayed surrounds in his 7.1 system, and was surprised to hear that if he upgrades to Atmos he won't be able to have an arrayed side surround channel (as he is used to experiencing) along with object rendering, even if he buys a zillion dollar Trinnov processor.


Why was he surprised: i.e., what made him believe that smart arrays existed for home Atmos?


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Why was he surprised: i.e., what made him believe that smart arrays existed for home Atmos?


He currently has two side surrounds. He knows how theatrical Atmos works. He was excited to see from the Dolby white papers that home Atmos had, in addition to the usual LS/RS of 5.1 and 7.1, additional side surrounds. Was mildly surprised, but understanding, to learn that the AVRs that support 9.1.4 would not support the additional side surrounds, but only Wides. Asked if he should spend the $$ on the Trinnov so could he get arrayed surrounds, and was surprised when I explained to him that yes, that's a good option if he can afford it, but to remember that those additional speakers would be silent when playing Atmos tracks except when objects panned through.


----------



## Apgood

dschulz said:


> He currently has two side surrounds. He knows how theatrical Atmos works. He was excited to see from the Dolby white papers that home Atmos had, in addition to the usual LS/RS of 5.1 and 7.1, additional side surrounds. Was mildly surprised, but understanding, to learn that the AVRs that support 9.1.4 would not support the additional side surrounds, but only Wides. Asked if he should spend the $$ on the Trinnov so could he get arrayed surrounds, and was surprised when I explained to him that yes, that's a good option if he can afford it, but to remember that those additional speakers would be silent when playing Atmos tracks except when objects panned through.


Might be worth checking out StormAudio's new StormXT it will put some ambient sounds in the used speakers even when playing an Atmos track.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> If you're going to worry about slight placement issues, I hate to tell you that sitting closer to one speaker than another in any seating location (all off-axis seats including front-to-back, but especially to the sides) will change imaging locations due to the precedence effect save imaging directly at a physical speaker since all panning creates an array (correlated sounds image in both speakers to varying degrees) and unless it's calibrated around one location only, they're going to move a bit.
> 
> You can calibrate an array around a single location for accuracy with delay and level controls, but the primary use for the arrays is for multiple rows of seating and/or imaging reinforcement and used well, they're going to improve things more than they screw them up, IMO.
> 
> A bipole arrays no more than the width of the drivers. You wouldn't sit in a null of bipoles (Bipoles don't actually "null" anyway; they just have worse response off-axis), but the type that point in two different directions are great for getting good on-axis response from two rows of seats at the same time when placed between rows. Bipoles used as fronts are known for their spacious sound because of uncorrelated reflections off the room boundaries. The in-phase response combines into one image.
> 
> Dipoles have the drivers out of phase, do one has to keep them at least 3.5' from a wall or they'll actually cancel themselves out at some frequencies! I have dipole ribbons upstairs as mains (Carver AL-III) and the ribbons are over 4.5' from the front wall. They sound fantastic IMO.
> 
> The type of dipoles they used to use to the sides as surrounds by sitting in the null zone to get a more diffuse room effect for Pro Logic (ironically as a substitute for a proper in-phase array fed decorrelated information from the surround decoder) weren't really recommended once discrete 5.1 at home became a reality in the mid 1990s.


I find bipole a are great for atmos not just for between rows but also for where the physical speaker is closer than recommended. In my setup I have newly acquired rear surrounds that I bought (Gold FX) that are about 2 feet from where ears would be and because they are bipole they work great!























Side surrounds and tops are monopole-just the rears are bipole. Works really well even close


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> He currently has two side surrounds. He knows how theatrical Atmos works. He was excited to see from the Dolby white papers that home Atmos had, in addition to the usual LS/RS of 5.1 and 7.1, additional side surrounds.


Guess it wasn't unreasonable to assume that home Atmos did smart arrays the way cinema Atmos did. IF he uses the LS/RS outputs with Atmos, his situation with arrayed Sides will remain the same as it currently is. Not a step forward but not a step back either.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> I hear what both of you are saying, I'm just noting that the Atmos renderer is placing objects in 3D space by, for example, using the Left Surround and Top Middle speakers to place an object slightly above me and to my left. If instead of a single monopole Left Surround speaker I now have a bipole, or, trickier yet, two monopoles in a surround array, the object placement will be slightly off, because the renderer doesn't know I have a bipole or two speakers there, it's assuming a single Left Surround at the renderer-assumption location. So it's a trade-off - you can have the benefits of a true surround array with somewhat less precise object rendering, or give up having a full surround array but have speakers laid out as close the rendering assumptions as possible.
> 
> The hobby is full of trade-offs, I'm not mad about it, just lamenting the slight backward step is all.


I think a well-placed bipole can somewhat address it. The renderer doesn't need to know you have a bipole there because it sees that as an expected point source. Placed to address multiple rows, it's still that expected point source, just with each baffle of the bipole aimed toward each row. And for sake of generalization, you could use the old paradigm of elevating that bipole a bit more above ear level... then draw the height rows inward to compensate as per Dolby's mix room/theatrical standards. And so long as you have well-placed rear surrounds, I would think it would still give you solid object placement across multiple rows.

Everything's a trade-off... but logical workarounds can still make this stuff sound pretty close to a theatrical space.


----------



## Technology3456

If you cant find any in-ceiling atmos speakers that will aim at MLP, is something like this a good substitute or not? https://www.nhthifi.com/products/ic4-arc-in-ceiling-speaker-single. "Triple tweeter array." Not sure what it means but the picture gives an idea.


----------



## X4100

Technology3456 said:


> If you cant find any in-ceiling atmos speakers that will aim at MLP, is something like this a good substitute or not? https://www.nhthifi.com/products/ic4-arc-in-ceiling-speaker-single. "Triple tweeter array." Not sure what it means but the picture gives an idea.


Sure it will WORK, but you don't have to spend that much for just 1speaker IMO


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> If you cant find any in-ceiling atmos speakers that will aim at MLP, is something like this a good substitute or not? https://www.nhthifi.com/products/ic4-arc-in-ceiling-speaker-single. "Triple tweeter array." Not sure what it means but the picture gives an idea.


If you can't find in-ceilings that you can aim, you're not looking very hard. There are a ton of them available, and at a much lower price point than those. There are also in-ceilings that have the speaker inside angled. I know ELAC makes in-ceilings with a 30 degree baffle angle that is a bit more reasonable than those NHTs.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeez, if that price is expensive, I guess I got HOSED on 4 of these





__





Monitor Audio CC280IDC C280-IDC Series 200 In-Ceiling Speaker


Monitor Audio C280-IDC Series 200 In-Ceiling Speaker



www.trutone.ca





I thought I was paying more to have really good in ceilings...I'm sure they are way above average at least!


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If you can't find in-ceilings that you can aim, you're not looking very hard. There are a ton of them available, and at a much lower price point than those. There are also in-ceilings that have the speaker inside angled. I know ELAC makes in-ceilings with a 30 degree baffle angle that is a bit more reasonable than those NHTs.


I just wanted to ask about those "triple array tweeters" without getting into the details of my own search, to find out whether they replace any advantages of aimed in-ceiling speakers, because the manufacturer basically told me aimed atmos speakers are not necessary when you have the wide dispersion of their triple array tweeter design.

Now I regret not wording it "if you can't find any angled as much as you want" instead of how I did, since it's true that it's easy to find them with minimal tilt. However, I have been looking very hard for affordable in-ceiling speakers with around _45-degree tilted tweeter and woofer both_, with little success. I called about twenty different speaker companies. I made a thread and bumped it for months. I searched through old threads. I PM'ed the few posters whose posts in old threads demonstrated knowledge of the particular models at that time with tilt.

If you're interested what I found so far, this is the full list: What brand of ANGLED in-ceiling speakers would best.... But I found very minimal (none?) good options below maybe $500 per speaker except for ones that look like they're designed as in-walls, not in-ceilings, that are bigger, have double woofers, and are rectangular making them hard to angle diagonally between ceiling studs towards the MLP. For those I found $70 monoprice's that tilt 46 to 70 degrees, and $300 Klipsch's 45 degrees. For ones with single woofers, the smaller circular kind like I want, I didnt find anything with 45 degrees except I believe Triad models have that at probably over $500 per speaker. The closest+cheapest I found to <$200 per speaker, which is what I hoped to find worst case scenario, were 30 degree tilted Paradigm speakers for $300 each.

Someone responded to my topic that if I haven't found them by now at or closer to <$200 per speaker, they probably don't exist. That definitely seems probable at this point, but is something that is impossible to confirm without knowledge of every speaker brand out there and their lineups. I called every speaker brand I had heard of but I'm sure there are many more I haven't heard of.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I just wanted to ask about those "triple array tweeters" without getting into the details of my own search, to find out whether they replace any advantages of aimed in-ceiling speakers, because the manufacturer basically told me aimed atmos speakers are not necessary when you have the wide dispersion of their triple array tweeter design.


I think the response above seems pretty dismissive without considering what you're getting for your dollar. Since when does cheaper imply better when it comes to speakers? While some things in the audio world are overpriced, speakers fall into the category of making the most difference in sound quality of any single device out there other than perhaps since we moved from shellac 78s to vinyl or AM to FM. $399 a speaker (i.e. $798/pair) isn't what I'd call an outlandish price, but pretty typical for a good middle range speaker (slightly less than the price range of my front main PSB T-45 and rear PSB X1T speakers cost give or take, given inflation on the retail of the T-45. My other surrounds were $400-650 a pair, but they weren't designed for multi-direction in-ceiling use, although the bipolar S50s do aim front/rear row here as surround height speakers). My Carver ribbons were $1000 each in 1995 dollars and worth every penny and then some, IMO (i.e. The next closest speaker I auditioned that I thought were comparable in midrange rendering were $5000 a pair). $798 a pair for really good speakers sounds pretty normal to me, particularly when they're designed to be placed in-ceiling and NOT have to be aimed. The two extra tweeters alone cost money to include compared to one aimable tweeter. Believe me, there are speakers out there that cost WAY more money and people love them. 

You don't necessarily want to cheap out on overhead and surround speakers these days like much of the traditional advice was for surround speakers in the 1990s. "Oh, they're hardly used so get a cheap amp and speakers and you'll be fine...." Yeah, Dolby Digital started to change that trend and now Atmos is specced for full range operation in every speaker used. While some movies don't use them that way, that doesn't mean they cannot. For Atmos Music, the overheads can and do carry just as much signal as the lower speakers on many albums (I was shocked how much was in the overhead speakers when I cut them for Yello and Booka Shade, probably 70% of the audio in many cases and rear surrounds probably got just as much use as the mains or at least something comparable to them (unlike many movies). But even many of the Atmos movie soundtracks have the orchestral scores overhead these days so some crap speaker might not cut it as well as some think.

The problem with aiming in-ceiling speakers is that as you aim them in one direction to improve on-axis frequency response, you're making the response much worse in another direction. Now for a home theater with one row of seating, that may not be an issue at all so long as all the seats are _between_ the overhead pairs. If you have some chairs outside those pairs like in a Dolby cinema, those seats will get crappy frequency response. If you have more than one row of seats, you _might_ have some off-axis issues as well depending on where they are relative to the overhead pairs. But NHT design clearly tries to avoid that issue by having 3 sets of tweeters to provide optimum on-axis frequency response for essentially any given direction relative to the speaker mounting so placed in top middle with seating in front of or behind or off-axis to the left or the right, it's going to get on-axis type response from the tweeters in every direction. No aiming required, needed or wanted that should have relatively even response for everyone. That sounds like it's worth a bit more than some other designs to me including one using the same drivers, but with only 1 tweeter. I haven't heard them, so I couldn't state how they sound one way or another, but it seems like an innovative design at the very least for in-ceiling speaker. NHT isn't known for making garbage speakers. Their Super Zero is almost legendary.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I think the response above seems pretty dismissive without considering what you're getting for your dollar. Since when does cheaper imply better when it comes to speakers? While some things in the audio world are overpriced, speakers fall into the category of making the most difference in sound quality of any single device out there other than perhaps since we moved from shellac 78s to vinyl or AM to FM. $399 a speaker (i.e. $798/pair) isn't what I'd call an outlandish price, but pretty typical for a good middle range speaker (slightly less than the price range of my front main PSB T-45 and rear PSB X1T speakers cost give or take, given inflation on the retail of the T-45. My other surrounds were $400-650 a pair, but they weren't designed for multi-direction in-ceiling use, although the bipolar S50s do aim front/rear row here as surround height speakers). My Carver ribbons were $1000 each in 1995 dollars and worth every penny and then some, IMO (i.e. The next closest speaker I auditioned that I thought were comparable in midrange rendering were $5000 a pair). $798 a pair for really good speakers sounds pretty normal to me, particularly when they're designed to be placed in-ceiling and NOT have to be aimed. The two extra tweeters alone cost money to include compared to one aimable tweeter. Believe me, there are speakers out there that cost WAY more money and people love them.
> 
> You don't necessarily want to cheap out on overhead and surround speakers these days like much of the traditional advice was for surround speakers in the 1990s. "Oh, they're hardly used so get a cheap amp and speakers and you'll be fine...." Yeah, Dolby Digital started to change that trend and now Atmos is specced for full range operation in every speaker used. While some movies don't use them that way, that doesn't mean they cannot. For Atmos Music, the overheads can and do carry just as much signal as the lower speakers on many albums (I was shocked how much was in the overhead speakers when I cut them for Yello and Booka Shade, probably 70% of the audio in many cases and rear surrounds probably got just as much use as the mains or at least something comparable to them (unlike many movies). But even many of the Atmos movie soundtracks have the orchestral scores overhead these days so some crap speaker might not cut it as well as some think.
> 
> The problem with aiming in-ceiling speakers is that as you aim them in one direction to improve on-axis frequency response, you're making the response much worse in another direction. Now for a home theater with one row of seating, that may not be an issue at all so long as all the seats are _between_ the overhead pairs. If you have some chairs outside those pairs like in a Dolby cinema, those seats will get crappy frequency response. If you have more than one row of seats, you _might_ have some off-axis issues as well depending on where they are relative to the overhead pairs. But NHT design clearly tries to avoid that issue by having 3 sets of tweeters to provide optimum on-axis frequency response for essentially any given direction relative to the speaker mounting so placed in top middle with seating in front of or behind or off-axis to the left or the right, it's going to get on-axis type response from the tweeters in every direction. No aiming required, needed or wanted that should have relatively even response for everyone. That sounds like it's worth a bit more than some other designs to me including one using the same drivers, but with only 1 tweeter. I haven't heard them, so I couldn't state how they sound one way or another, but it seems like an innovative design at the very least for in-ceiling speaker. NHT isn't known for making garbage speakers. Their Super Zero is almost legendary.


So that's what the three tweeter array is doing. But each tweeter is tilted at what angle? If they had a three tweeter array with each tweeted aimed 45 degrees towards three different sides, then that would cover everything, including the 45 degrees I need towards the MLP. But if each is only tilted 10 degrees or 15 degrees then Im not sure it would give the desired result. 

Then again, Im still not sure I understand, what is the difference, with a wide dispersion speaker, between aiming the tweeter directly at the MLP's ears, and getting the middle of its dispersion aimed perfectly, and not having it aimed at all, but the wide dispersion being wide enough that it is still reaching the MLP's ears? If the sound is reaching the ears within the dispersion of the speaker either way, why does it matter? 

For instance, I couldnt find 45 degree tilted circular in-ceiling speakers close to my budget, but I found 30 degree ones at least a little closer. What affect will it have on the atmos experience having the tweeter aimed directly at my ears compared to aim 15 degrees short of my ears? @Jeremy Anderson curious your thoughts on this since you experimented with so many different placements.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> So that's what the three tweeter array is doing. But each tweeter is tilted at what angle? If they had a three tweeter array with each tweeted aimed 45 degrees towards three different sides, then that would cover everything, including the 45 degrees I need towards the MLP. But if each is only tilted 10 degrees or 15 degrees then Im not sure it would give the desired result.
> 
> Then again, Im still not sure I understand, what is the difference, with a wide dispersion speaker, between aiming the tweeter directly at the MLP's ears, and getting the middle of its dispersion aimed perfectly, and not having it aimed at all, but the wide dispersion being wide enough that it is still reaching the MLP's ears? If the sound is reaching the ears within the dispersion of the speaker either way, why does it matter?
> 
> For instance, I couldnt find 45 degree tilted circular in-ceiling speakers close to my budget, but I found 30 degree ones at least a little closer. What affect will it have on the atmos experience having the tweeter aimed directly at my ears compared to aim 15 degrees short of my ears? @Jeremy Anderson curious your thoughts on this since you experimented with so many different placements.


Probably not much for a mere 15 degrees since speakers typically have on-axis ranges of at least 30 degrees since a normal stereo floor standing speaker is normally installed at 20-35 degrees (or more) just for normal stereo use. While many review sites recommend using "toe-in" to aim them towards the listening position, it's sometimes too much treble as they're sometimes designed to be the flattest at a bit of an offset seeing that outside a center speaker, they're probably never going to be used 'head on' outside of toe-in. 

Toe-in can also change response for people sitting left/right of the MLP as well. That's why a typical loudspeaker has an on-axis rating that includes the expected angles of use for the on-axis rating. It's probably an average across that range, which is why it's always advisable to listen to any toe-in setting rather than set and forget. I think that would apply to overheads that can aim as well to find your optimum/preferred angle. Room correction will probably help even it out these days to a greater or lesser extent for the MLP regardless (i.e. room correction is relatively recent compared to stereo or basic EQ).


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Probably not much for a mere 15 degrees since speakers typically have on-axis ranges of at least 30 degrees since a normal stereo floor standing speaker is normally installed at 20-35 degrees (or more) just for normal stereo use. While many review sites recommend using "toe-in" to aim them towards the listening position, it's sometimes too much treble as they're sometimes designed to be the flattest at a bit of an offset seeing that outside a center speaker, they're probably never going to be used 'head on' outside of toe-in.
> 
> Toe-in can also change response for people sitting left/right of the MLP as well. That's why a typical loudspeaker has an on-axis rating that includes the expected angles of use for the on-axis rating. It's probably an average across that range, which is why it's always advisable to listen to any toe-in setting rather than set and forget. I think that would apply to overheads that can aim as well to find your optimum/preferred angle. Room correction will probably help even it out these days to a greater or lesser extent for the MLP regardless (i.e. room correction is relatively recent compared to stereo or basic EQ).


I've read comments saying things like, for 7.x.4 atmos, if you have atmos speakers angled at the MLP, then follow the 45 degree rule front and back from MLP. But if you have in-ceiling speakers that point at the floor, then it's better to do 60 degrees or 65 degrees, otherwise the gap between them is too much and you will lose imaging.

But if the non-angled atmos speakers, that face directly down, have more than 45 degrees of _dispersion_, then why does it matter if they are pointed at the MLP or not? I understand it can slightly affect the treble and so on but Im asking why does it matter to the _imaging_ of _where the sound is coming from _or how it is _combining_, rather than just the treble levels?

How come 45-degree-angled atmos speakers, placed 45 degrees front and back of MLP, can image together to make the helicopter sound directly overhead or whatever, but non-tilted tamos speakers, placed 45 degrees front and back of MLP, lose some of that exact imaging unless you place them 60 or 70 degrees overhead front and back instead of 45 degrees?

Do only the non-angled speakers lose some of the imaging if they are narrow dispersion? Or do even wide dispersion ones lose some of it because they're not pointed at the MLP's ears? (unless you place then 60 degrees instead of 45 degrees, that is)?

My plan is still just to find the angled speakers and do it that way, and then I will know, regardless of the answers to these questions, that it should image very well. The problem is, I haven't been able to find them so easily....


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I've read comments saying things like, for 7.x.4 atmos, if you have atmos speakers angled at the MLP, then follow the 45 degree rule front and back from MLP. But if you have in-ceiling speakers that point at the floor, then it's better to do 60 degrees or 65 degrees, otherwise the gap between them is too much and you will lose imaging.


Seeing as I've never heard anyone say that before, I don't think I can answer that. There's a difference between angular distance for phantom imaging and on-axis frequency response for a given angle of dispersion. The imaging angular distances are more of a physics type thing that probably don't change much regardless of speaker design, while on-axis response is a direct function of driver design and some speakers have much better on-axis and even off-axis response than others. So no, I don't see how you lose "imaging" at all. Frequency response would be like getting muffled highs. It shouldn't change where the sound images.

The 60 degree talk I've read about before was regarding a 1962 study by some guy (whose name I forget but it is on here a page or two back I believe) on overhead sound being more detailed in terms of being able to place an image more accurately overhead by using speakers further up and closer together (i.e. ideally 45+60+90+120+135 or something like that so that no angle overhead is greater than 30 degrees apart and the more critical area where you supposedly start having trouble pin-pointing images (45 degrees?) has more real physical speaker coverage as opposed to using lower angles to start where you can already image much better so the then 0-45 jump isn't so bad there or something like that. I would think the IDEAL would be Dolby's full overhead spec range (0/30/60/90/120/150/180) where every speaker is 30 degrees apart and yes, I'd use 60 there to keep the even angles if at all possible. 

I don't know that I'd agree with such a notion if I'm getting the gist of what was being said (I never read the original paper itself) seeing that 32+110+158 here (relative the MLP, the actual speakers are at 0%,50%,100%; it's the front row's position that changes the angles) seems to be able to image well anywhere on the ceiling of in-between, I can't imagine what problem it is he's trying to solve, but without an A/B comparison I can't be sure he's not correct either. Maybe it'd sound sharper or more realistic with a bunch of closer space overheads? Who knows. I'm not going to try and throw a bunch of speakers up there and buy a Trinnov so I can use them all at the same time just to experiment.... 



> But if the non-angled atmos speakers, that face directly down, have more than 45 degrees of _dispersion_, then why does it matter if they are pointed at the MLP or not?


I was thinking more like 30-45 degrees on-axis dispersion, but if a speaker says it's over 45 degrees, that's pretty good. 



> I understand it can slightly affect the treble and so on but Im asking why does it matter to the _imaging_ of _where the sound is coming from _or how it is _combining_, rather than just the treble levels?


I don't think it does. Can you point to someone/somewhere that said that?


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I don't think it does. Can you point to someone/somewhere that said that?


I think it came up in the whole "width of atmos speakers" discussion. Front-back length was also brought up, and Anthony Grimani was referenced, how he recommends 60 degrees not 45 degrees for .4 atmos for front/back length*.* Then maybe Jeremy or someone else said that is because the atmos speakers are facing downward, but if you have angled speakers, then 45 degrees works just as well and might give you more front to back movement without losing the imaging that you would lose if you put non-angled speakers at 45 degrees. Something like that. I dont have the exact posts saved.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I think it came up in the whole "width of atmos speakers" discussion. Anthony Grimani was referenced, how he recommends 60 degrees not 45 degrees for .4 atmos. Then maybe Jeremy or someone else said that is because the atmos speakers are facing downward, but if you have angled speakers, then 45 degrees works just as well and might give you more front to back movement without losing the imaging that you would lose if you put non-angled speakers at 45 degrees. Something like that. I dont have the exact posts saved, I dont think.


At 60 degrees, you're only 30 degrees away from the speaker so the on-axis response doesn't need to go as far (i.e. akin to the floor standing example above where 30 degrees is a fairly standard design criteria) so it makes sense in that you're more likely to get better highs with non-aimable speakers at 60 degrees, but it has nothing to do with imaging versus 45 degrees that this Anthony Grimani is talking about. 60 degrees is part of the DTS:X spec, but about 5 degrees higher than any Dolby recommendation I've seen with just 4 speakers, but it is only 30 degrees to your ears from either speaker sitting between them so you can kind of see how that might image very well overhead (similar to 30 degree standard for regular stereo), but that ignores the 60 degree angular distance from the L/C/R right speakers to the first overhead speakers which is a substantial distance compared to 30 or 45. If you sit at 90 degrees between two 45 sets, it's only 45 degrees from you to the overhead and from the overhead to the mains (and/or rear surrounds). 

At 60/120, that's 30 to each overhead speaker, but a much larger 60 to the mains and rear surrounds. I think the 45 distance makes more sense, personally as it keeps the angles lower overall. You can do 30/90/120 with 6 overheads and sit at 60 degrees and have only 30 degrees between you and the front heights and top middle speakers while reducing the distance in the front from 0-60 to 0-30 and no more than 60 behind where you're less sensitive anyway. And if it's room based, there tends to be undesirable standing waves at 50% into the room (typical 90 degree overhead location unless you're not using the full room) whereas 60 degrees is closer to 36% location into a room where the standing waves tend to be much lower.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Technology3456 said:


> I've read comments saying things like, for 7.x.4 atmos, if you have atmos speakers angled at the MLP, then follow the 45 degree rule front and back from MLP. But if you have in-ceiling speakers that point at the floor, then it's better to do 60 degrees or 65 degrees, otherwise the gap between them is too much and you will lose imaging.
> 
> But if the non-angled atmos speakers, that face directly down, have more than 45 degrees of _dispersion_, then why does it matter if they are pointed at the MLP or not? I understand it can slightly affect the treble and so on but Im asking why does it matter to the _imaging_ of _where the sound is coming from _or how it is _combining_, rather than just the treble levels?
> 
> How come 45-degree-angled atmos speakers, placed 45 degrees front and back of MLP, can image together to make the helicopter sound directly overhead or whatever, but non-tilted tamos speakers, placed 45 degrees front and back of MLP, lose some of that exact imaging unless you place them 60 or 70 degrees overhead front and back instead of 45 degrees?
> 
> Do only the non-angled speakers lose some of the imaging if they are narrow dispersion? Or do even wide dispersion ones lose some of it because they're not pointed at the MLP's ears? (unless you place then 60 degrees instead of 45 degrees, that is)?
> 
> My plan is still just to find the angled speakers and do it that way, and then I will know, regardless of the answers to these questions, that it should image very well. The problem is, I haven't been able to find them so easily....


my fairly expensive monitor audio c280-IDC (monopole I believe) only rotate 15 degrees and they are at roughly a 45 degree front to back and more than a 45 degree angle from a wide/side looking standpoint. So essentially they all rotate TOWARDS the MLP BUT don't actually face AT the MLP because of how wide the angles are but I figure at least it "rounds out" the bubble for atmos in the room in general. The only compromise in that vs directly fired at MLP is I'm guessing more coverage at the edges of the room. In a perfect world my MA in ceilings would rotate MORE than 15 degrees or I'd move them in closer but what's done is done unfortunately.


----------



## Chirosamsung




----------



## Technology3456

Chirosamsung said:


> View attachment 3182378
> View attachment 3182379


You've got more and wider seating than mine so maybe it's good there. I have mostly been focusing on perfecting the MLP. But I will have a row of seating so maybe I am better off with 30 degree tilt to most aim it at MLP, but still leave some room for error for the other seats. I dont have my chairs yet or I would do exact measurements. Too many moving parts. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> @Jeremy Anderson curious your thoughts on this since you experimented with so many different placements.


My thought is that if you have an in-ceiling speaker with a 30 degree baffle angle and average dispersion, it will cover your listening area just fine at 45/135. I found that in-ceilings with only the 15 degrees of aim for the tweeter fell off a bit too much at 45/135, though auto-cal tries to EQ around it and it still works okay. Non-aimable in-ceilings, in my experience, didn't work as well at those angles unless the room had taller than average ceilings. Perhaps that is why Grimani was recommending the closer placement. 

Don't overthink it. Pick your gear and start putting it together, and address any compromises logically as needed. As my grandfather would say, at some point you gotta' s#!t or get off the pot.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> My thought is that if you have an in-ceiling speaker with a 30 degree baffle angle and average dispersion, it will cover your listening area just fine at 45/135. I found that in-ceilings with only the 15 degrees of aim for the tweeter fell off a bit too much at 45/135, though auto-cal tries to EQ around it and it still works okay. Non-aimable in-ceilings, in my experience, didn't work as well at those angles unless the room had taller than average ceilings. Perhaps that is why Grimani was recommending the closer placement.
> 
> Don't overthink it. Pick your gear and start putting it together, and address any compromises logically as needed. As my grandfather would say, at some point you gotta' s#!t or get off the pot.


It's easy to confuse too _little _info with too _much _thinking. At least, that's what I _think_! 😅😅 Are you saying there will be no difference in imaging etc aiming the tweeter and woofer directly at the MLP's ears rather than having it aimed 15 degrees off but still fully covering the ears with wide dispersion? If this is the case it's puzzling that people put emphasis on aiming side surround tweeters right at the ears and so on. I thought you were recommending that for ceiling speakers not only so dispersion would reach the listeners, but for maybe improved imaging between speakers, atmos effect, and some sort of "je ne sais quoi" effect? Definitely not overthinking here, just trying to clarify what _your _recommendation was viz-a-viz tilted speakers placed at 45 degrees vs non-tilted at 45-degrees, and what Anthony Grimani recommended. I'm not sure you ever specified how the dispersion would change, or not change, the recommendation for the tilt of the speakers if you want to place them at 45 degrees on the ceiling. Like if you have down-firing speakers with 60 degrees dispersion, then does that replace the need for any tilt, even when placing them 45 degrees on the ceiling?

Thus the need for clarification. You can bet there are multiple other people reading the thread who either didn't see your previous posts about it, or this detail was never clarified in those posts in the first place, who will appreciate having every detail specified.

Now _if_ all I need to worry about is that the dispersion reaches the MLP, then maybe those triple array tweeter speakers from NHT are just as good as 45 degree angled speakers after all for placement 45 degrees from MLP?


----------



## Rich 63

Jeremy Anderson said:


> My thought is that if you have an in-ceiling speaker with a 30 degree baffle angle and average dispersion, it will cover your listening area just fine at 45/135. I found that in-ceilings with only the 15 degrees of aim for the tweeter fell off a bit too much at 45/135, though auto-cal tries to EQ around it and it still works okay. Non-aimable in-ceilings, in my experience, didn't work as well at those angles unless the room had taller than average ceilings. Perhaps that is why Grimani was recommending the closer placement.
> 
> Don't overthink it. Pick your gear and start putting it together, and address any compromises logically as needed. As my grandfather would say, at some point you gotta' s#!t or get off the pot.


Amen.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Are you saying it was only a dispersion issue all along? That there will be no difference in imaging and atmos and so on aiming the tweeter and woofer directly at the MLP's ears rather than having it aimed 15 degrees off but still fully covering the ears with wide dispersion? If this is the case it's puzzling that people put emphasis on aiming side surround tweeters right at the ears and so on. I thought you were recommending that for ceiling speakers not just for dispersion, but for maybe imaging between speakers, atmos effect, and maybe some sort of "je ne sais quoi" effect?
> 
> If all I need to worry about is that the dispersion reaches the MLP, then maybe those triple array tweeter speakers from NHT are just as good as 45 degree angled speakers after all for placement 45 degrees from MLP?


Imaging and dispersion go hand in hand. Stand in front of one of your speakers with music playing and then move off 45 degrees to either side and listen to how the sound changes. Then consider that you want the sound from the in-ceiling speakers to be able to provide coverage across all your seats. It isn't as specific as you aiming it right at the ears of the person in the MLP. It's providing adequate coverage across the needed seats. 

I'm sure those triple array tweeter speakers provide a very wide dispersion and would work. My point was that you don't necessarily need to spend that much to find a decent in-ceiling speaker that you can have adequately cover your seating. And you also don't necessarily need one internally angled to 45 degrees to get adequate coverage at your seats. You're aiming a wide beam, not a laser, but you want that beam to cover all your seats the best it can.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Imaging and dispersion go hand in hand.


The two are completely unrelated. Having a little less treble in your sound doesn't change _where_ the phantom image is formed. Disconnect the tweeters on your main speakers entirely. Play a song with the vocals in-between. Does the image move to some other part of the room? Of course not. It's just muffled sounding.

Stereo imaging is a generally a function of phase/timing differences in the signal and and inter-aural time delays between the ears (e.g. crosstalk can limit breadth and the precedence effect, which is the timing for which signal reaches the ears first can affect perceived direction between two or more speakers) along with the level differences between the phase correlated signals (i.e. panning) plus any head-related transfer function information stored in the signal on purpose or arbitrarily. None of those are affected by peaks/valleys in the frequency response, which is the only thing changed by aiming a tweeter.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Imaging and dispersion go hand in hand. Stand in front of one of your speakers with music playing and then move off 45 degrees to either side and listen to how the sound changes. Then consider that you want the sound from the in-ceiling speakers to be able to provide coverage across all your seats. It isn't as specific as you aiming it right at the ears of the person in the MLP. It's providing adequate coverage across the needed seats.
> 
> I'm sure those triple array tweeter speakers provide a very wide dispersion and would work. My point was that you don't necessarily need to spend that much to find a decent in-ceiling speaker that you can have adequately cover your seating. And you also don't necessarily need one internally angled to 45 degrees to get adequate coverage at your seats. You're aiming a wide beam, not a laser, but you want that beam to cover all your seats the best it can.


Just to make sure I'm understanding, if you get really wide dispersion ceiling speakers, say 70 degrees dispersion, then with them placed at 45 degrees, there will be no difference in the atmos imaging, or surround experience, for the middle seat, from aiming their tweeters and woofers right at the middle seat's ears, compared to having their tweeters and woofers all aimed at the floor? Because either way, the dispersion is covering the middle seat with room to spare? Yes? Or no, I should still look for speakers that can aim at the MLP, even if I can find other ones with wide enough dispersion to cover the MLP without any tilt?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Just to make sure I'm understanding, if you get really wide dispersion ceiling speakers, say 70 degrees dispersion, then with them placed at 45 degrees, there will be no difference in the atmos imaging, or surround experience, for the middle seat, from aiming their tweeters and woofers right at the middle seat's ears, compared to having their tweeters and woofers all aimed at the floor? Because either way, the dispersion is covering the middle seat with room to spare? Yes? Or no, I should still look for speakers that can aim at the MLP, even if I can find other ones with wide enough dispersion to cover the MLP without any tilt?


A 70 degree dispersion means 35 degrees off axis... which wouldn't be ideal for 45 degree placement if aimed straight down. But with 15 degrees of aim on the tweeter with that same dispersion, you would be within that dispersion pattern. If you had two rows, you might not hit the second row as well.

I would still get speakers that can generally aim at the MLP. The closer to on-axis you can get, the better the end result will logically be.


----------



## batpig

Technology3456 said:


> I've read comments saying things like, for 7.x.4 atmos, if you have atmos speakers angled at the MLP, then follow the 45 degree rule front and back from MLP. But if you have in-ceiling speakers that point at the floor, then it's better to do 60 degrees or 65 degrees, otherwise the gap between them is too much and you will lose imaging.
> 
> But if the non-angled atmos speakers, that face directly down, have more than 45 degrees of _dispersion_, then why does it matter if they are pointed at the MLP or not? I understand it can slightly affect the treble and so on but Im asking why does it matter to the _imaging_ of _where the sound is coming from _or how it is _combining_, rather than just the treble levels?
> 
> How come 45-degree-angled atmos speakers, placed 45 degrees front and back of MLP, can image together to make the helicopter sound directly overhead or whatever, but non-tilted tamos speakers, placed 45 degrees front and back of MLP, lose some of that exact imaging unless you place them 60 or 70 degrees overhead front and back instead of 45 degrees?


The flaw in your thought process is that it's a lot more than "slightly affect the treble". By 45 degrees off axis there will be significant degradation of the frequency response of most speakers, and with a down-aimed typical in-ceiling speakers and normal domestic ceiling height, many seats will be way more than 45 degrees off axis. Here's an example measurement I found with a quick google showing off axis response in 10 degree increments -- and this is a REALLY GOOD speaker from a company that knows (and in many cases leads) the science!










As you can see, once you're in the ~40-50 degree off axis range, a wide range of the audio bandwidth is down 5dB or more. 

I would recommend that you don't get too caught up in fluffy audio terms like "imaging" where the definitions are vague. Yes, if a speaker is above and to the right, and it makes a sound, you will hear sound "image" above and to the right, regardless of what direction the speaker is aiming. But in this case the "imaging" isn't all about frequency response, it's more about timbral and level matching. Speakers are louder on axis, so the phantom image will shift towards the speaker that is louder (more on axis). Plus the closer speaker will sound clearer and the farther / off axis speaker will sound more muffled.

That said, keep it simple and think of it this way: (1) nearly all speakers sound better on axis and are designed to be listened to on axis, (2) pointing the speaker at the middle of the listening area will put more seats in the "good zone" of on axis sound. Better sound at more sounds, with less of a delta between the best and worst seat. Win win.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> A 70 degree dispersion means 35 degrees off axis... which wouldn't be ideal for 45 degree placement if aimed straight down. But with 15 degrees of aim on the tweeter with that same dispersion, you would be within that dispersion pattern. If you had two rows, you might not hit the second row as well.
> 
> *I would still get speakers that can generally aim at the MLP. *The closer to on-axis you can get, the better the end result will logically be.


That's right. I meant 70 degrees both ways, or in each direction, but said the wrong thing. Thanks for clarifying the conclusion in bold. Without that it had suddenly became unclear again, until you and batpig just clarified, whether I should keep looking for tilted ceiling speakers or not. It all just boils down to which type should I look for. Maybe the best option in my budget are the RSL c34e's but they only tilt 15 degrees...



batpig said:


> The flaw in your thought process is that it's a lot more than "slightly affect the treble". By 45 degrees off axis there will be significant degradation of the frequency response of most speakers, and with a down-aimed typical in-ceiling speakers and normal domestic ceiling height, many seats will be way more than 45 degrees off axis. Here's an example measurement I found with a quick google showing off axis response in 10 degree increments -- and this is a REALLY GOOD speaker from a company that knows (and in many cases leads) the science!
> 
> View attachment 3182544
> 
> 
> As you can see, once you're in the ~40-50 degree off axis range, a wide range of the audio bandwidth is down 5dB or more.
> 
> I would recommend that you don't get too caught up in fluffy audio terms like "imaging" where the definitions are vague. Yes, if a speaker is above and to the right, and it makes a sound, you will hear sound "image" above and to the right, regardless of what direction the speaker is aiming.* But in this case the "imaging" isn't all about frequency response, it's more about timbral and level matching. Speakers are louder on axis, so the phantom image will shift towards the speaker that is louder (more on axis). Plus the closer speaker will sound clearer and the farther / off axis speaker will sound more muffled.*
> 
> That said, keep it simple and think of it this way: (1) nearly all speakers sound better on axis and are designed to be listened to on axis, (2) pointing the speaker at the middle of the listening area will put more seats in the "good zone" of on axis sound. Better sound at more sounds, with less of a delta between the best and worst seat. Win win.


Thanks. That is probably what Jeremy meant by it could affect imaging or whatever term he used in the past, but then again, if all 4 ceiling speakers are placed equal distance from MLP, at the same angles and same tilt, then even if their angles, tilt, and dispersion are insufficient to reach the MLP without becoming muffled, they should each become muffled equally, and still keep balanced surround. So he probably wasnt talking about about the phantom image shifting more to one than the other, because how could that happen if all are equally affected? Maybe he was just referencing something like that the overall effect would be less potent because of all four speakers becoming more muffled, albeit equally, or something like that.

If you guys happen to know good in-ceiling speaker recommendations for .4 atmos, placed at 45 or maximum 55 degrees, that take into account everything... tweeter tilt, woofer tilt, dispersion, price... please let me know. Been looking for months and not much headway. Another aspect of that Im unclear on, what about these speakers where the tweeter tilts 33 degrees for example but the woofer only 15 degrees? How important is the woofer tilt, since bass is not really directional but on the other hand the woofer may still be responsible for mid frequencies that _are _directional? And even if wasn't important on its own, is it important to the overall sound quality, in a negative way, if the tweeter and woofer are firing at different angles and sort of crossing their streams or whatnot?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Related question, @Technology3456: For some reason, my recollection was that you are doing this on the first floor of a 2-story house. Am I remembering that right?


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Related question, @Technology3456: For some reason, my recollection was that you are doing this on the first floor of a 2-story house. Am I remembering that right?


Yes correct it's on the ground floor.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Yes correct it's on the ground floor.


Then your first question is whether you can even do in-ceiling speakers, which may make this entire discussion moot. There may not be any access for an installer to wire up in-ceilings. You may be looking at on-ceilings with cable raceways or flat paintable wire... or maybe even front/rear height. In-place ceiling installs in a 2 story house can be a bit of a nightmare unless you're willing to remove the flooring above so they can do the runs.

Remember how we keep saying every room has compromises? This is what I mean.


----------



## MagnumX

batpig said:


> The flaw in your thought process is that it's a lot more than "slightly affect the treble". By 45 degrees off axis there will be significant degradation of the frequency response of most speakers, and with a down-aimed typical in-ceiling speakers and normal domestic ceiling height, many seats will be way more than 45 degrees off axis.


If it's aimed at the MLP in most rooms, one or two seats will be off-axis period and probably not by much. You can't make that assumption against all rooms.



> As you can see, once you're in the ~40-50 degree off axis range, a wide range of the audio bandwidth is down 5dB or more.


With a 20 degree aim, you'd have to almost be sitting against the side wall to be at 50 degrees off-axis. Ironically, aiming left/right will make it far worse for any seats over there because you are now aiming away from those seats. In that situation, the overhead speakers should probably be aimed only up/down, not left/right for that reason, but it depends on the room and seating requirements. 

Room correction can easily correct a mere 3-5dB in response so to correct it for the most seats, you would need the most even spread possible, not a "good area" and a "bad area" but an even area. To do that depends on how many seats there are and how far they are situated across the room (are they 3 in the center or are they a row of 6 with many past the outer points of the overhead speakers?) There's also a certain irony in the fact that side wall height speakers (Auro layout) have an easier time being aimed for more seats since they always point towards the seats and not away from any like placing them 1/3 across the room on the ceiling does if you aim them left/right).



> I would recommend that you don't get too caught up in fluffy audio terms like "imaging" where the definitions are vague. Yes, if a speaker is above and to the right, and it makes a sound, you will hear sound "image" above and to the right, regardless of what direction the speaker is aiming. But in this case the "imaging" isn't all about frequency response, it's more about timbral and level matching. Speakers are louder on axis, so the phantom image will shift towards the speaker that is louder (more on axis). Plus the closer speaker will sound clearer and the farther / off axis speaker will sound more muffled.


Timbre is not a function of mere high-end rolloff, but on what is typically much lower fundamental frequencies. Thus, it might sound muffled on top, but it won't change completely in character due to some high-end rolloff.



> That said, keep it simple and think of it this way: (1) nearly all speakers sound better on axis and are designed to be listened to on axis, (2) pointing the speaker at the middle of the listening area will put more seats in the "good zone" of on axis sound. Better sound at more sounds, with less of a delta between the best and worst seat. Win win.


Pointing the speaker towards the middle of the room also then points it away from any seats at the sides, making it worse for them as I stated above. If you're only 30 degrees off-axis for all seats with them faced down towards the row of seats but not left/right, it may very well be that no one will get worse than a 2-3dB variance on average, which is well below the "Reference" curve used by Audyssey for movies and can be turned up easily by going to "flat", let alone the fact it will automatically try to correct for any imbalance at the MLP. 

The point is it may very well be beneficial in some rooms to aim them up/down towards the seats only rather than left/right. If one has more than one row of seats, that 3-tweeter design would be a much better choice to begin with.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Speaking of in ceiling speaker angles, Does anyone know of any speakers that would be able to fit in roughly the same position or same size as the one I have currently (Monitor Audio CT280-IDC) that I could swap? As mentioned earlier, the speakers I have are quite wide and at the 45/115 I think and ONLY rotate 15 degrees to MLP (which is to the carpet)-I'm hoping that finding one of similar dimensions may allow a better angle to the MLP area






CT280-IDC







www.monitoraudio.com





Any help would be appreciated as I don't want to completely drill new holes elsewhere...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Also, if there is no way to get a similar sized in ceiling that rotates more than 15 degrees, should I boost my ceiling levels ALOT since they are aimed not even close to the MLP and more likely hit the ground in front of the outside seats of the couch or barely hit the feet of the couch as per the pictures in the previous pages?


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> Also, if there is no way to get a similar sized in ceiling that rotates more than 15 degrees, should I boost my ceiling levels ALOT since they are aimed not even close to the MLP and more likely hit the ground in front of the outside seats of the couch or barely hit the feet of the couch as per the pictures in the previous pages?


I wonder is you could make or buy some kind of wedge that would conform to the circumference of the speaker cover and go between it and the ceiling to facilitate aiming.? It wouldn't look as nice as flat covers, but done well and painted to match it may not look as obtrusive as on ceiling speakers. I suppose the same idea could be done with something above the ceiling. Between the top side of the ceiling and the speaker frame. Then you may have to be careful about obstructing the sound through the grill due to the angles though. Just thinking out loud here. But maybe some enterprising soul has though of this and makes something to do it. If so, you could keep the current speakers and not have to cut more holes...


----------



## Chirosamsung

ppasteur said:


> I wonder is you could make or buy some kind of wedge that would conform to the circumference of the speaker cover and go between it and the ceiling to facilitate aiming.? It wouldn't look as nice as flat covers, but done well and painted to match it may not look as obtrusive as on ceiling speakers. I suppose the same idea could be done with something above the ceiling. Between the top side of the ceiling and the speaker frame. Then you may have to be careful about obstructing the sound through the grill due to the angles though. Just thinking out loud here. But maybe some enterprising soul has though of this and makes something to do it. If so, you could keep the current speakers and not have to cut more holes...


I don't think that would fly. I just need some other options if in ceiling with similar dimensions but rotate more than 15 degrees that the 280-iDC do currently


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> I don't think that would fly. I just need some other options if in ceiling with similar dimensions but rotate more than 15 degrees that the 280-iDC do currently


The only thing I could find with a cursory search that would be the same hole size or slightly bigger is the Martin Logan CI MC6-HT, but that would be a pricy move. They're a little bigger, so once you cut out for them, you'd be stuck with 'em. They do have a pretty solid angle to the baffle though. But those Monitor Audios you have are some pretty fine speakers that look to be designed for a pretty wide dispersion. I don't know how much you would gain.

I think I've said it before, but I think you could benefit just as much by playing with different aiming to experiment with coverage... and depending on what their response looks like at the seats, it might be worth tinkering with the HF level switch to help address off-axis response. If you're angling the IDC at the MLP, try aiming them more to the sides of the MLP instead and see how it sounds. I would also try criss-crossing them a bit by aiming them to the opposite side of the MLP and seeing how that sounds. When I had in-ceilings with a 15 degree aim range, it took me trying several ways before I found one that was consistent across the seats. And tweaking those two things while doing some critical listening is free.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Then your first question is whether you can even do in-ceiling speakers, which may make this entire discussion moot. There may not be any access for an installer to wire up in-ceilings. You may be looking at on-ceilings with cable raceways or flat paintable wire... or maybe even front/rear height. In-place ceiling installs in a 2 story house can be a bit of a nightmare unless you're willing to remove the flooring above so they can do the runs.
> 
> Remember how we keep saying every room has compromises? This is what I mean.


I am planning to put wires on the ceiling either way. So the in-ceiling speaker would go in the ceiling, with a little extra hole on the side for the wire to come out, and then run across the ceiling.

My whole space was not planned for HT, and even to run the wires in the walls at this point would probably cost a lot. So I have just been planning to use something like this for everything, wall wiring and ceiling wiring also. 



. Will it work?


----------



## X4100

Technology3456 said:


> I am planning to put wires on the ceiling either way. So the in-ceiling speaker would go in the ceiling, with a little extra hole on the side for the wire to come out, and then run across the ceiling.
> 
> My whole space was not planned for HT, and even to run the wires in the walls at this point would probably cost a lot. So I have just been planning to use something like this for everything, wall wiring and ceiling wiring also.
> 
> 
> 
> . Will it work?


I tried something similar from Home Depot, they began to lose their "sticky power" after a few months. YMMV


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The only thing I could find with a cursory search that would be the same hole size or slightly bigger is the Martin Logan CI MC6-HT, but that would be a pricy move. They're a little bigger, so once you cut out for them, you'd be stuck with 'em. They do have a pretty solid angle to the baffle though. But those Monitor Audios you have are some pretty fine speakers that look to be designed for a pretty wide dispersion. I don't know how much you would gain.
> 
> I think I've said it before, but I think you could benefit just as much by playing with different aiming to experiment with coverage... and depending on what their response looks like at the seats, it might be worth tinkering with the HF level switch to help address off-axis response. If you're angling the IDC at the MLP, try aiming them more to the sides of the MLP instead and see how it sounds. I would also try criss-crossing them a bit by aiming them to the opposite side of the MLP and seeing how that sounds. When I had in-ceilings with a 15 degree aim range, it took me trying several ways before I found one that was consistent across the seats. And tweaking those two things while doing some critical listening is free.


Thanks for the recommendation on the Martin Logan's-I checked them out and they didn't say anything about how much the tweeter/speaker tilts. Also, I'd be giving up a 8 inch for a 6.5 inch woofer. 

as for trying to play around with positioning of aiming the tweeter, they only go 15 degrees so at the angle they are at there is not much difference whether they are aimed close or across from the MLP-it can't tilt that much to make a difference which is why I was hoping to see if a 30-45 degree tweeter speaker was a better fit...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anyone suggest to me what I should do about the HF boundary switches on my in ceiling speakers? I am not sure what I am supposed to do-could you give me suggestions that may give me better results? The options and room pic is below


Adiustment Controls
HE Level Switch
(+3 dB / 0 dB / -3 dB)
Boundary Compensation Switch


----------



## Technology3456

Chirosamsung said:


> Thanks for the recommendation on the Martin Logan's-I checked them out and they didn't say anything about how much the tweeter/speaker tilts. Also, I'd be giving up a 8 inch for a 6.5 inch woofer.
> 
> as for trying to play around with positioning of aiming the tweeter, they only go 15 degrees so at the angle they are at there is not much difference whether they are aimed close or across from the MLP-it can't tilt that much to make a difference which is why I was hoping to see if a 30-45 degree tweeter speaker was a better fit...


If you're looking for in-ceilings with more than 15 degree tilt, the link to my topic that I posted has a lot of them. Towards the more expensive ones I listed, maybe more, there are also Triad models over $500 MSRP per speaker that have 35 or 45 degree tilt, and there is a Revel model, I forget the model, with tilt, I forget how much. Here are the ones I listed in the topic:



Technology3456 said:


> These are what I've found so far, most not 45-degrees or in my budget.
> 
> Paradigm CI Pro P80-A. $499 each on their website https://www.paradigm.com/en/in-ceiling-speakers/ci-pro-p80-a. Tweeter and woofer both angled 30 degrees.
> Paradigm CI Home H65-A. $299 each on their website https://www.paradigm.com/en/in-ceiling-speakers/ci-home-h65-a. 30 degree angled tweeter and woofer.
> The Paradigm CI ELITE E80-A and Signature SIG-1.5R-30 V3 are also 30 degrees, no idea of price though.
> Martin Logan IC6-HT - 60 degree both tweeter and woofer. https://www.martinlogan.com/en/product/ic6-ht. $220 comes up on google.
> Bowers and Wilkins CCM662 or CCM664 - https://www.bowerswilkins.com/sites/default/files/2018-08/ENG_FP29564_CCM662_info_sheet.pdf. Angles and price unknown.
> The Airmotiv Vaulta™ AVL 6.5 No woofer tilt, up to 40 degree tweeter tilt. $299 each on their website. https://emotiva.com/products/airmot...1wcQqn6qZmwx60j3bGA5AyjnwCcSXfehoChg0QAvD_BwE.
> - Klipsch PRO-180RPC LCR. 45 degree tilt both woofer and tweeter. PRO-180RPC LCR | Klipsch. Prices listed on google are around $300. The problem is they are probably too big.
> Goldenear Invisia HTR 7000 - both tweeter and woofer angled 30 degrees. $600 - $650 on sites that come up on google first. https://www.goldenear.com/images/manuals/Invisa_HTR7000_Manual.pdf
> Triad models. Not sure of tilt angle.
> _And then here are ones I did find in my budget, but none have both tweeter and woofer angled at 45 degrees except Monoprice at 46, but it's bigger than I'd like._
> 
> HTD HDX-R65AIM. $199 per pair. Woofer tilts 15 degrees, tweeter 33 degrees, if I read it right. HDX-R65AIM In-Ceiling Speakers.
> Monoprice $70 per speaker, 46 degree tilt, but look too big. Monoprice Alpha Ceiling Speaker Dual 5.25in Carbon Fiber Surround 2-way Vari-Angled (single) - Monoprice.com
> RSL C34e. https://rslspeakers.com/c34e-ceiling-speaker/. $125 each, but tweeter angle is lower than 45 degrees and woofer might not angle at all.


I don't know which have the dimensions you want.


----------



## Technology3456

Would something like this make tilt 100% unnecessary?









Unless told otherwise Im still going to keep looking for something that tilts at least 30 degrees towards MLP. Maybe this model with 33 degree tweeter tilt, and 15 degree woofer tilt, if you guys sign off on it: HDX-R65AIM In-Ceiling Speakers. But if you think it's important for the tweeter and woofer to be tilted equally, or if this is a mediocre quality speaker, then please tell me because I would rather keep looking in that case.


----------



## noah katz

Technology3456 said:


> Would something like this make tilt 100% unnecessary?


I don't think that graph is what they want us to think it is.

It looks like the angles shown are not off-axis from the perpendicular, but circumferential, i.e. just going around in a circle at some unspecified off-axis angle.

It's very uniform because of the coaxial tweeter.

If the numbers on the x-axis are dB, the response is 80 - 15 kHz +/-2 dB, which is quite good but it could be at 10 deg for all we know.


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> I don't think that would fly. I just need some other options if in ceiling with similar dimensions but rotate more than 15 degrees that the 280-iDC do currently


Fly... due to appearance, or functionality? If the wedge was on top of the drywall, it wouldn't look any different than it does now. Anyway, just a thought. And a way to possibly get closer to optimum without additional holes. Of course, my question is, how much will you gain from what you have now with anything available that will use the current spacing?


----------



## Technology3456

noah katz said:


> I don't think that graph is what they want us to think it is.
> 
> It looks like the angles shown are not off-axis from the perpendicular, but circumferential, i.e. just going around in a circle at some unspecified off-axis angle.
> 
> It's very uniform because of the coaxial tweeter.
> 
> 2) If the numbers on the x-axis are dB, the response is 80 - 15 kHz +/-2 dB, which is quite good but it could be at 10 deg for all we know.


Thanks for the input. I have absolutely no idea. 😅 Now that you brought up the possibility, I'm sure others will take a closer look and weigh in also.


----------



## Chirosamsung

ppasteur said:


> Fly... due to appearance, or functionality? If the wedge was on top of the drywall, it wouldn't look any different than it does now. Anyway, just a thought. And a way to possibly get closer to optimum without additional holes. Of course, my question is, how much will you gain from what you have now with anything available that will use the current spacing?


I guess I would prefer another flush mounted speaker because of WAF without any protruding of the assembly itself.
As to the question about why I would like another-again, it goes down to the fact that my speakers, however good they are, are at extreme angles in the room (pics above) due to the width of it and the limitation of just 15 degree tilt does not point anywhere close to the MLP although it's better than straight down.

Do you happen to know what I should do about that HF switch (pics above) for the tops -3,0 and +3...I'm guessing I wouldn't do the same to all them due to placement but any advice would be appreciated...


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> I guess I would prefer another flush mounted speaker because of WAF without any protruding of the assembly itself.
> As to the question about why I would like another-again, it goes down to the fact that my speakers, however good they are, are at extreme angles in the room (pics above) due to the width of it and the limitation of just 15 degree tilt does not point anywhere close to the MLP although it's better than straight down.
> 
> Do you happen to know what I should do about that HF switch (pics above) for the tops -3,0 and +3...I'm guessing I wouldn't do the same to all them due to placement but any advice would be appreciated...


Just off the top of my head I would adjust it higher towards +3 on the 2 front speakers


----------



## jpco

Technology3456 said:


> I am planning to put wires on the ceiling either way. So the in-ceiling speaker would go in the ceiling, with a little extra hole on the side for the wire to come out, and then run across the ceiling.
> 
> My whole space was not planned for HT, and even to run the wires in the walls at this point would probably cost a lot. So I have just been planning to use something like this for everything, wall wiring and ceiling wiring also.
> 
> 
> 
> . Will it work?


I've had this type of wire channels from Home Depot running up the side wall and across the ceiling for a couple of years. They've worked perfectly as long as the look can be tolerated.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> I am planning to put wires on the ceiling either way. So the in-ceiling speaker would go in the ceiling, with a little extra hole on the side for the wire to come out, and then run across the ceiling.
> 
> My whole space was not planned for HT, and even to run the wires in the walls at this point would probably cost a lot. So I have just been planning to use something like this for everything, wall wiring and ceiling wiring also.
> 
> 
> 
> . Will it work?


I used that to hide the wires for my old projector and it works fine. But if you're going to have wire channels running across your ceiling, I recommend that you forget in-ceiling speakers and just mount actual speakers on articulating brackets instead. You'll no longer have to worry about off-axis response since you can aim them wherever you need. And you'll generally get more consistent response because they won't be dependent upon your ceiling as an enclosure (which wouldn't be sealed if you're leaving a hole for wire). If aesthetics are the issue, white speakers and brackets will likely look better to most people than in-ceilings with wire channels running to them.


----------



## Technology3456

jpco said:


> I've had this type of wire channels from Home Depot running up the side wall and across the ceiling for a couple of years. They've worked perfectly as long as the look can be tolerated.


I actually made a topic asking which are the best wire-hiding sticky things, or wire-hiding strategies in general. By some miracle, it did not attract any trolls. 😅 Unfortunately, it did not attract any answers period, either, as far as I remember. 🤣🤣 Somewhat understandably. Not exactly the most riveting discussion imaginable. But still would be good to know. I don't mind if the discussion continues here for a little while, since it came up because of and is relevant to the choice of in-ceiling atmos speakers vs on-ceiling, but since someone usually complains, it's also an option to talk about it in that topic: Best way to manage cables along the walls and ceiling?.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I used that to hide the wires for my old projector and it works fine. But if you're going to have wire channels running across your ceiling, I recommend that you forget in-ceiling speakers and just mount actual speakers on articulating brackets instead. You'll no longer have to worry about off-axis response since you can aim them wherever you need. And you'll generally get more consistent response because they won't be dependent upon your ceiling as an enclosure (which wouldn't be sealed if you're leaving a hole for wire). If aesthetics are the issue, white speakers and brackets will likely look better to most people than in-ceilings with wire channels running to them.


The issues with on-ceiling speakers for me are: 1. I'm using blackout _curtains _on the ceiling for the batcave. With in-ceilings, I can use acoustic transparent whaley's blackout material for the curtains and pull them over the speakers. With on-ceiling speakers, they are in the way of the curtain, so it has to be worked around. But Im sure I could make it work. 2. I couldn't find any with 45 degree tilt or close anyway. I think the most tilt I found was SVS prime elevations with I think 15 degrees tilt. 3. My ceilings are already barely over 7.5 feet tall, so I am worried about losing the atmos "height" effect if I add another 6 inches+ of on-ceiling speakers. In-ceiling would allow me to maximize my ceiling height.

But again, I have no idea how important one thing is versus the other, so if you happened to think it's not that important to maintain 7.75 feet atmos height compared to 7.0 feet atmos height with on-ceiling speakers, then I could cross that reason off the list. If you dont think the lack of tilt more than I think 15 degrees of the on-ceiling options is a big deal, then I can cross that off the list. Whatever you (and the other experts) think.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> The issues with on-ceiling speakers for me are: 1. I'm using blackout _curtains _on the ceiling for the batcave. With in-ceilings, I can use acoustic transparent whaley's blackout material for the curtains and pull them over the speakers. With on-ceiling speakers, they are in the way of the curtain, so it has to be worked around. But Im sure I could make it work. 2. I couldn't find any with 45 degree tilt or close anyway. I think the most tilt I found was SVS prime elevations with I think 15 degrees tilt. 3. My ceilings are already barely over 7.5 feet tall, so I am worried about losing the atmos "height" effect if I add another 6 inches+ of on-ceiling speakers. In-ceiling would allow me to maximize my ceiling height.
> 
> But again, I have no idea how important one thing is versus the other, so if you happened to think it's not that important to maintain 7.75 feet atmos height compared to 7.0 feet atmos height with on-ceiling speakers, then I could cross that reason off the list. If you dont think the lack of tilt more than I think 15 degrees of the on-ceiling options is a big deal, then I can cross that off the list. Whatever you (and the other experts) think.


Have I mentioned that you're overthinking it? Because you're overthinking it. When I say on-ceiling speakers, it can literally be any speaker that has a threaded insert for a mounting bracket. You could get SVS Prime Satellites and with a cheap threaded-ball mount, aim it anywhere you want. Same for any other small satellite or even bookshelf speaker, within reason. For that matter, you could get something like a Polk Atrium series speaker on its outdoor bracket and angle it toward your MLP. 

I have 8 foot ceilings with Prime Elevations at 45/130 and it works just fine with the 20 degree baffle. You're not giving anything up in the small distance between in and on ceiling speakers. Get them at the correct elevation angle and aimed toward the MLP and your AVR sets the delay to account for their distance. 

Also, curtains on the ceiling covering the speakers? Use black speakers with black brackets, paint your cable raceways black (or use ghost wire that sticks onto the walls), then paint the ceiling black. Or if you want to get crazy, build out a cloth-covered floated ceiling with in-ceiling speakers mounted on it with backing boxes and hang the whole shebang to your existing ceiling. Fill the rest of it with Rockwool or OC703 and you can turn the whole thing into a bass trap. There are a lot more elegant solutions than what you seem to be proposing, IMHO, but maybe others have some better ideas. I just want you to actually start doing it. From what you're saying about your room, you could have done a front/rear height setup ages ago with budget speakers and raceways and likely have been ecstatic. Don't obsess yourself into paralysis or you'll still be debating it this time next year.


----------



## Technology3456

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Have I mentioned that you're overthinking it? Because you're overthinking it. When I say on-ceiling speakers, it can literally be any speaker that has a threaded insert for a mounting bracket. You could get SVS Prime Satellites and with a cheap threaded-ball mount, aim it anywhere you want. Same for any other small satellite or even bookshelf speaker, within reason. For that matter, you could get something like a Polk Atrium series speaker on its outdoor bracket and angle it toward your MLP.
> 
> I have 8 foot ceilings with Prime Elevations at 45/130 and it works just fine with the 20 degree baffle. You're not giving anything up in the small distance between in and on ceiling speakers. Get them at the correct elevation angle and aimed toward the MLP and your AVR sets the delay to account for their distance.
> 
> Also, curtains on the ceiling covering the speakers? Use black speakers with black brackets, paint your cable raceways black (or use ghost wire that sticks onto the walls), then paint the ceiling black. Or if you want to get crazy, build out a cloth-covered floated ceiling with in-ceiling speakers mounted on it with backing boxes and hang the whole shebang to your existing ceiling. Fill the rest of it with Rockwool or OC703 and you can turn the whole thing into a bass trap. There are a lot more elegant solutions than what you seem to be proposing, IMHO, but maybe others have some better ideas. I just want you to actually start doing it. From what you're saying about your room, you could have done a front/rear height setup ages ago with budget speakers and raceways and likely have been ecstatic. Don't obsess yourself into paralysis or you'll still be debating it this time next year.


All the curtain rods are already up.  Black paint apparently won't quite have the same effect as Whaley's. The floating ceiling sounds nice but it's a lot more complicated. Would require even more thinking.
😉 For _me, _a _lot _more because I'm bad at DIY.

I dont know if I heard of the SVS satellites, but I spend months looking for on-ceiling speakers before I decided to go with in-ceiling. I heard about the Revels with a similar ball mount, but I think there was some limitation. Maybe it was just ceiling height again. A lot of the speakers are almost a foot deep, then tilting them 45 degrees you add another six inches on one side. Ultimately it would create a situation where my ears are 3.5 feet off the ground when Im sitting watching a movie, maybe 4 feet, and the speakers are only 6.5 feet off the ground. So if they were right overhead, they'd only be 3 feet over my head. Luckily they're not with .4 atmos but I think at the time I got some advice that having them too low could negatively affect the atmos experience, and that was one of the factors I weighed in deciding to go with in-ceilings.

I totally get what you mean though about analysis paralysis instead of having something to enjoy. I wish I had everything set up to enjoy a long time ago believe me. But you don't understand the full situation. It's taken this long to figure out a bunch of things congruently. If I picked out ceiling speakers three months ago, I still wouldnt have really been able to use them yet because the HT is not ready outside of being able to test the projectors sometimes in a less than ideal environment. Once everything is ready to be used, and I still havent picked out ceiling speakers, that's when it would be an issue, but that's not the case yet. I actually still have time before I can use the atmos speakers, so it's time I can use to decide which ones to get if I need to.

But, I would still like to decide right away. Even though I couldnt use a lot of things yet, like 3D stuff etc, I bought it months ago anyway to check it off the list. I am trying to get through it all as fast as possible. The ceiling speakers have just proven very tricky, with one unknown factor after another. But like I said, I still have time. Your posts have been some of the most helpful on the whole forum to steer me through one complicated unknown aspect about atmos after another. Thanks to yours and others help, I know exactly where I want to place them, and how different things work. Unfortunately as much as all your experiments and research has allowed you to help me and others with the proper placement, you have had no way to test every speaker brand on the market to be able to actually recommend which models to get, so that is probably why I haven't already learned that as well. But maybe people who sell them will know just from talking to people or helping lots of clients set up how different models compare and so on.

This is probably the frontrunner right now because it's cheap, and the tweeter can tilt up to 33 degrees it sounds like, so it's versatile. HDX-R65AIM In-Ceiling Speakers. But the woofer cannot tilt as far and I don't know if that's an issue or not for sound quality. Plus the person who recommended it to me said he had no idea about it, just was able to find it and it has tilt. And no one besides him has commented on it at all. So I have nothing to go of off, which is the actual recurring trend whenever I am unable to make decisions. It's not overthinking, it's lack of information to analyze and think about in the first place. Without information, you can't make decisions, only "guesses." Maybe I will have to resort to that if I still cant find much information about what to get by the time my HT is ready to go and in need of ceiling speakers right away, but as long as I still have time before that happens, I want to keep looking for info so I can make a decision not a guess.


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> I guess I would prefer another flush mounted speaker because of WAF without any protruding of the assembly itself.
> As to the question about why I would like another-again, it goes down to the fact that my speakers, however good they are, are at extreme angles in the room (pics above) due to the width of it and the limitation of just 15 degree tilt does not point anywhere close to the MLP although it's better than straight down.
> 
> Do you happen to know what I should do about that HF switch (pics above) for the tops -3,0 and +3...I'm guessing I wouldn't do the same to all them due to placement but any advice would be appreciated...


No idea on the setting... but for the wedge concept. If it is above the ceiling, it would be the same as some of the speakers that just angle the mounting plate above the ceiling. The current grill could remain the same. No big deal... I was just brain storming. Without having to worry about the WAF thing, I would go with on ceiling speakers with a bracket that would allow me to aim them as required. But I was trying to think of a way for you to use the current speakers and grills.

BTW, your room looks very nice. I can see why you may not want to mess with it. For me, form follows function. Do what works the best, and then make it as presentable as possible. But your wife would not like my room at all.  

Looking at it, you don't have many options.
1. Move the speakers.
2. Figure out how to angle them more
3. Replace them with something that has more adjustability or greater tilt.
4. Enjoy what you have. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good enough.

So far, no one has suggested anything that you find acceptable... You have so far found objections to every idea put forward. So I can only just wish you good luck.


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> Just off the top of my head I would adjust it higher towards +3 on the 2 front speakers


thanks for the help! May I ask why or what it does by setting it to +3 (just curious). I will give it a try!

I am curious if Dirac will just change the setting after that or if it does something different?


----------



## eaayoung

Technology3456 said:


> All the curtain rods are already up.  Black paint apparently won't quite have the same effect as Whaley's. The floating ceiling sounds nice but it's a lot more complicated. Would require even more thinking.
> 😉 For _me, _a _lot _more because I'm bad at DIY.
> 
> I totally get what you mean though about analysis paralysis instead of having something to enjoy. I wish I had everything set up to enjoy a long time ago believe me. But you don't understand the full situation. It's taken this long to figure out a bunch of things congruently. If I picked out ceiling speakers three months ago, I still wouldnt have really been able to use them yet because the HT is not ready outside of being able to test the projectors sometimes in a less than ideal environment. Once everything is ready to be used, and I still havent picked out ceiling speakers, that's when it would be an issue, but that's not the case yet. I actually still have time before I can use the atmos speakers, so it's time I can use to decide which ones to get if I need to.
> 
> But, I would still like to decide right away. Even though I couldnt use a lot of things yet, like 3D stuff etc, I bought it months ago anyway to check it off the list. I am trying to get through it all as fast as possible. The ceiling speakers have just proven very tricky, with one unknown factor after another. But like I said, I still have time. Your posts have been some of the most helpful on the whole forum to steer me through one complicated unknown aspect about atmos after another. Thanks to yours and others help, I know exactly where I want to place them, and how different things work. Unfortunately as much as all your experiments and research has allowed you to help me and others with the proper placement, you have had no way to test every speaker brand on the market to be able to actually recommend which models to get, so that is probably why I haven't already learned that as well. But maybe people who sell them will know just from talking to people or helping lots of clients set up how different models compare and so on.


Tech 3456, I feel your pain LOL. Sometimes I over think and struggle to make decisions in this hobby. I think we all do. I hired an installer and trusted they’d knew where my four ceiling should be installed. Of course, this Doubting Thomas did his homework and knew they were right based on my research in this thread. Once the wires were run and the speakers installed, best decision I made since it was done, they sounded great and had no buyers remorse. Of course when I returned home from being out of town for a couple weeks and learned the wife had decided to rearrange the seating positions, that’s another problem for another thread. Everything was perfect. But now, the MLP is no longer where my chair is located. My wife is a very smart woman. But she can’t grasp the concept of the MLP. I keep reminding myself happy wife, happy life. 

BTW, did you buy that amp you needed?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

eaayoung said:


> Tech 3456, I feel your pain LOL. Sometimes I over think and struggle to make decisions in this hobby. I think we all do. I hired an installer and trusted they’d knew where my four ceiling should be installed. Of course, this Doubting Thomas did his homework and knew they were right based on my research in this thread. Once the wires were run and the speakers installed, best decision I made since it was done, they sounded great and had no buyers remorse. Of course when I returned home from being out of town for a couple weeks and learned the wife had decided to rearrange the seating positions, that’s another problem for another thread. Everything was perfect. But now, the MLP is no longer where my chair is located. My wife is a very smart woman. But she can’t grasp the concept of the MLP. I keep reminding myself happy wife, happy life.
> 
> BTW, did you buy that amp you needed?


Happy wife happy life….
Just wrong.


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> thanks for the help! May I ask why or what it does by setting it to +3 (just curious). I will give it a try!
> 
> I am curious if Dirac will just change the setting after that or if it does something different?


Well I don't know about Dirac, but my opinion is based on if you're having a problem hearing the HF output from your MLP, an increase would raise the level of what you are missing  .


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> Well I don't know about Dirac, but my opinion is based on if you're having a problem hearing the HF output from your MLP, an increase would raise the level of what you are missing  .


thank you! I'll give that a try. Maybe I'll try asking in the DIRAC thread whether I should do that before or after calibrations and whether when I do it before it may be lowered through Dirac anyways when it does the level matching...


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> thank you! I'll give that a try. Maybe I'll try asking in the DIRAC thread whether I should do that before or after calibrations and whether when I do it before it may be lowered through Dirac anyways when it does the level matching...


I know Audyssey calibration will lower settings that I bump up, so you'll probably have to bump up the HF level after you do the calibration.


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> I know Audyssey calibration will lower settings that I bump up, so you'll probably have to bump up the HF level after you do the calibration.


that's what I'm thinking...but if that's the case I might as well just bump it up now since it is already calibrated? 6 of one, half dozen of another?


----------



## X4100

Chirosamsung said:


> that's what I'm thinking...but if that's the case I might as well just bump it up now since it is already calibrated? 6 of one, half dozen of another?


Please tell us about the results whether yea or nay.


----------



## Technology3456

eaayoung said:


> Tech 3456, I feel your pain LOL. Sometimes I over think and struggle to make decisions in this hobby. I think we all do. I hired an installer and trusted they’d knew where my four ceiling should be installed. Of course, this Doubting Thomas did his homework and knew they were right based on my research in this thread. Once the wires were run and the speakers installed, best decision I made since it was done, they sounded great and had no buyers remorse. Of course when I returned home from being out of town for a couple weeks and learned the wife had decided to rearrange the seating positions, that’s another problem for another thread. Everything was perfect. But now, the MLP is no longer where my chair is located. My wife is a very smart woman. But she can’t grasp the concept of the MLP. I keep reminding myself happy wife, happy life.
> 
> BTW, did you buy that amp you needed?


Oh no! 😅😅🤦‍♂️You need to get one of those 3D explaining holograms from every modern movie to help explain it. "This gold line is the soundwave from each speaker," etc.









But that's great you got it perfect when the furniture was in place before she moved it. She just doesn't understand the concept of better surround sound when the speakers are all placed evenly (or in their correct spots) relative to the seating, or what? If she doesn't understand why it's important in the first place then there's no reason for her to even consider caring about it more than the aesthetics of the room.


----------



## harrisu

Have you guys seen this. The talk is about how Auro is better than ATMOS and how Auro speaker placement is better and makes more sense than In ceiling. Please guys check it out. Would be great to hear from those who have implemented both to hear the difference.


----------



## MagnumX

harrisu said:


> Have you guys seen this. The talk is about how Auro is better than ATMOS and how Auro speaker placement is better and makes more sense than In ceiling. Please guys check it out. Would be great to hear from those who have implemented both to hear the difference.


 I've got a hybrid setup with switching (Monoprice impedance matching switches with safe parallel drive and volume control) and array capability that can do "true" Auro 9.1, Cinema Auro 9.1 (surrounds are arrayed around the sides and back across four pairs an two pairs of surround height speakers, one being bipolar so the equivalent of three sets really (rear height wraps around to back). This aligns both layers precisely for all three rows of seats.

The same system is also set up for Atmos/X with a 11.1.6 speaker layout. 7.1.6 is essentially discrete (Top Middle is extracted using Pro Logic center steering across two processors with a Marantz 7012 for otherwise 7.1.4 processing. Front Wides and surround#2 speakers are driven from summed speaker channel pairs (main+side and side+rear). They only have 3dB separation, buy still steer sound around off-axis seats and add to the side array effect like cinema Atmos and are ready to go for a discrete 15 or 17-channel processor if I upgrade the AVR.

I can also shrink the room down with array mixing and/or channel redirection to be 2/3 length (true 7.1.4) or 1/2 length including true Atmos 5.1.4, 5.1.2 or even 3.1.2 or hybrid +3dB/array combinations to see how they sound with movies, music and upmixing modes.

So, I can compare and contrast multiple Atmos layouts and both home and cinema style Auro-3D and even a modified "Scatmos" (those extracted top middle channels) version of Auro-3D. The only real Auro limit (other than phantom center height and top surround which phantom well for 1/2 the seats) is the lack of rear surround channel support in full Auro-3D mode (they do work for Auro-2D and Auro-3D without surround heights, meaning front height only). That is a limitation of the 7012 AVR. Newer versions support 7+4 mode directly. I've only got four movies and two music albums with Auro 13.1 or 7+4 on them out of around 28 total and the arrayed sides give far more rear effect than one pair alone does do I don't think it's that big a deal currently (I have Atmos versions of all of those movies/albums anyway, even though some are mixed differently (Dragonheart, Johnny Mnemonic and Twister).

Which is better? For large scale flexibility and larger speaker counts both Atmos and DTS:X Pro have a distinct advantage in terms of discrete channel locations. For most home installs, however 13.1 channels is more than sufficient and I'd wager a good 13.1 mix with a 7.1.6 layout (rear heights plus top surround in the middle of the ceiling and center height) would best an Atmos soundtrack that is using a 7.1.6 layout with top middle simply because top surround and center height lock center-ceiling sounds to the middle of the room for ALL listeners including those sitting off-axis. Top Middle doesn't quite match that and Atmos has no support for a center height channel (which with a mixer added can perform dialog lift feature as well to make speakers below the screen sound as if they're coming from the screen rather than below it without needing an acoustically transparent screen with actual speakers behind it). 

I personally think the lack of support for center height is one of Atmos' biggest weaknesses. There's no reason other than cutthroat tactics to not help the competition that Dolby couldn't have supported it and surround heights in the renderer for the home version. It's much easier for most people to install side heights than in or on-ceiling speakers (at most one with Auro) and some reasonably good psychoacoustical reasons they might blend better with the lower speakers.

DTS:X Pro can use either layout or a hybrid of the two. Sadly, the number of titles available for either Auro-3D or DTS:X pale in comparison to Dolby Atmos. Fortunately, Atmos sounds great over Auro layouts (just call surround height rear height or top middle) as off-screen surround effects are not exactly location critical (i.e. Does it really matter if the bird flies three feet further towards the side walls on the ceiling instead of 1/3 into the room on the ceiling? I think only the most anal retentive would say yes given movies don't even care about aligning on-screen things like dialog coming from the mouths of actors!

Similarly, Auro-3D sounds pretty good at home on Atmos layouts as well (same thing in reverse). In theaters, there's probably more of a difference due to much larger differences in room width and height, but at home most gone theaters don't even need top surround as it can be simulated between speakers sets with a phantom image, at least for those seated near the center of the room.

Now the topic of Auro's upmixer versus Dolby's and DTS's upmixers is another ball of wax. Neural X is the most aggressive and puts movie things that belong on the ceiling there like magic. It might get it wrong once in a while too. DSU is far less aggressive overhead, but still moves things around a lot at ear level (which some hate for music). Auro's copies the lower layer to some extent above and adds some light reverb (nowhere near the level if Yamaha's DSP room stuff, though, IMO). Many like this effect for music as it fills the room without modifying the sound stage.


----------



## wuzzzer

I currently have a 5.2.2 setup powered by a Sony STR-ZA2100ES. It can do 5.2.4 with a separate amplifier for the additional channels.
How much of a difference, audibly, is there between .2 and .4 Atmos? My Atmos speakers are set up overhead.
I ask because I don't want to spend the money on an amplifier and speakers and then end up with something that doesn't add much to the overall sound experience.


----------



## sdurani

wuzzzer said:


> How much of a difference, audibly, is there between .2 and .4 Atmos?


2 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right movement overhead. 4 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement overhead. Audible difference.


----------



## wuzzzer

sdurani said:


> 2 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right movement overhead. 4 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement overhead. Audible difference.


Thanks! I just remembered I have a newer Denon integrated amp that I could use to power the second set of Atmos speakers. Now I just have to wait for a deal like I got on my first pair. 😁


----------



## Josh Z

harrisu said:


> Have you guys seen this. The talk is about how Auro is better than ATMOS and how Auro speaker placement is better and makes more sense than In ceiling. Please guys check it out. Would be great to hear from those who have implemented both to hear the difference.


Pretty irrelevant given that there is next to no Auro-3D content available to purchase for home viewing.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Pretty irrelevant given that there is next to no Auro-3D content available to purchase for home viewing.


There's over 100 music albums and over two dozen movies. I'm not sure I'd call that next to nothing and has nothing to do with whether the layout is better. DTS:X also can use the same layout and that's another 100+ movies and the Neural X upmixer can be used with the layout for anything.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> There's over 100 music albums and over two dozen movies. I'm not sure I'd call that next to nothing and has nothing to do with whether the layout is better. DTS:X also can use the same layout and that's another 100+ movies and the Neural X upmixer can be used with the layout for anything.


A lot of that music is 2L, which is mostly esoteric, classical and church music. Probably not much appeal in the US market compared to Europe or Asia, though. Some is also available in Atmos (7.1.2 or 7.1.4) on those discs or on the streaming services. I’ve seen a few on Tidal, like Magnificat.


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> Have you guys seen this. The talk is about how Auro is better than ATMOS and how Auro speaker placement is better and makes more sense than In ceiling.


Could have told you they were going to say that before the video started. Audioholics has been critical of Atmos since the format was announced (read their early articles on the topic) and their guest is from Germany (home of Auro's largest fan base). Between them you have a perfect storm of anti-Atmos, pro-Auro advocacy. I would take it with a grain of salt.

When it comes to height speaker placement, DTS:X has their speakers on the ceiling (their lowest height layer is 45 degrees elevation). Atmos likewise prefers ceiling placement, as their initial 7.1.4 diagrams showed. In fact, DTS:X Height locations are close enough to Atmos Top locations that a single placement configuration could satisfy both formats. Auro is the odd man out with placement high up on the walls. They don't mention that in the video.

As for why Auro height speaker placement "is better and makes more sense", the video only cited reflections we hear in real life for justification. But when it comes to movies, there is a difference between "real" and "reel". Fist fights in movies don't sound like they do in real life. How actors and sets are lit doesn't mimic real life. Realism is one option, but not the basis for most of what we hear in movie mixes. Neither Dolby nor DTS thought it was a good idea to place speakers high up on walls when it came to designing their immersive audio formats.

Upmixing the 7.1 downmix of an Atmos track is a valid option to deal with height-challenged mixes. But understand what you're getting. Auro-Matic copies and combines whole channels from the base layer into the height layer, adding (user adjustable) reverb that wasn't in the original soundtrack. IF the goal is to get something (anything) coming out of the height speakers, then Auro-Matic will do that for you. Lots of people want all their speakers always making sound. Is it "better"? The video conflates subjective preference with objective superiority.


----------



## MagnumX

I'll say again since Sanjay has me on ignore (I'm currently in the hospital waiting on an ill family member so I'll be short).

DTS supports the Auro layout. DTS has NEVER claimed you must put heights or Tops at those elevations (based on one recording studio layout) and I'm getting pretty tired of some repeating that over and over.

If the company itself makes no such placement claim and in fact says they support the Auro and Dolby height locations and when many of us who have those locations have heard 50+ DTS:X movies and the sound awesome and we KNOW it's not an issue (e.g. Harry Potter's flying car flies right overhead into the screen lined up perfectly), well, it REALLY gets old as it's misleading as HELL.

It reminds me of AV Science where Amir measures everything to death, but never actually listens to anything at all and then recommends against a great AVP like the HTP-1 because of something INAUDIBLE. It's unreal.

Now pardon me while I pray my mother doesn't die.


----------



## halcyon_888

wuzzzer said:


> Thanks! I just remembered I have a newer Denon integrated amp that I could use to power the second set of Atmos speakers. Now I just have to wait for a deal like I got on my first pair. 😁


Two speakers overhead will still have overhead pans from front to back if the effect begins in the front channels, then to heights, then to rears. One example coming to mind is in Ready Player One during the first race scene where the girl on the bike goes underneath the semi truck. If you have direction only in the 4 height channels like the Dolby Atmos Helicopter demo, with two heights the helicopter just goes from left to right instead of in a circle above you. 5.1.2 is still Atmos, it's just that a 5.1.4 tends to add a bit more dimension from what I've read here on the forum but I've only heard 5.1.2 myself.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> *Could have told you they were going to say that before the video started.* Audioholics has been critical of Atmos since the format was announced (read their early articles on the topic) and their guest is from Germany (home of Auro's largest fan base). Between them you have a perfect storm of anti-Atmos, pro-Auro advocacy. I would take it with a grain of salt.


I was going to make the same point regarding Patrick Schappert , but you beat me to the punch.

As a German speaker, I have listened to quite a few of Patrick's interviews on his Grobi.TV channel and he is a big promoter of Auro. I have to admit, though, that his exuberance over even the most mundane of audio-video topics is contagious and he does conduct entertaining interviews. For verification, check out his video chat last year with Auro founder Wilfried van Baelen. [N.B.: The caption on Grobi.TV has Teutonized van Baelen's name, changing the van into von.]


----------



## harrisu

MagnumX said:


> I've got a hybrid setup with switching (Monoprice impedance matching switches with safe parallel drive and volume control) and array capability that can do "true" Auro 9.1, Cinema Auro 9.1 (surrounds are arrayed around the sides and back across four pairs an two pairs of surround height speakers, one being bipolar so the equivalent of three sets really (rear height wraps around to back). This aligns both layers precisely for all three rows of seats.
> 
> The same system is also set up for Atmos/X with a 11.1.6 speaker layout. 7.1.6 is essentially discrete (Top Middle is extracted using Pro Logic center steering across two processors with a Marantz 7012 for otherwise 7.1.4 processing. Front Wides and surround#2 speakers are driven from summed speaker channel pairs (main+side and side+rear). They only have 3dB separation, buy still steer sound around off-axis seats and add to the side array effect like cinema Atmos and are ready to go for a discrete 15 or 17-channel processor if I upgrade the AVR.
> 
> I can also shrink the room down with array mixing and/or channel redirection to be 2/3 length (true 7.1.4) or 1/2 length including true Atmos 5.1.4, 5.1.2 or even 3.1.2 or hybrid +3dB/array combinations to see how they sound with movies, music and upmixing modes.
> 
> So, I can compare and contrast multiple Atmos layouts and both home and cinema style Auro-3D and even a modified "Scatmos" (those extracted top middle channels) version of Auro-3D. The only real Auro limit (other than phantom center height and top surround which phantom well for 1/2 the seats) is the lack of rear surround channel support in full Auro-3D mode (they do work for Auro-2D and Auro-3D without surround heights, meaning front height only). That is a limitation of the 7012 AVR. Newer versions support 7+4 mode directly. I've only got four movies and two music albums with Auro 13.1 or 7+4 on them out of around 28 total and the arrayed sides give far more rear effect than one pair alone does do I don't think it's that big a deal currently (I have Atmos versions of all of those movies/albums anyway, even though some are mixed differently (Dragonheart, Johnny Mnemonic and Twister).
> 
> Which is better? For large scale flexibility and larger speaker counts both Atmos and DTS:X Pro have a distinct advantage in terms of discrete channel locations. For most home installs, however 13.1 channels is more than sufficient and I'd wager a good 13.1 mix with a 7.1.6 layout (rear heights plus top surround in the middle of the ceiling and center height) would best an Atmos soundtrack that is using a 7.1.6 layout with top middle simply because top surround and center height lock center-ceiling sounds to the middle of the room for ALL listeners including those sitting off-axis. Top Middle doesn't quite match that and Atmos has no support for a center height channel (which with a mixer added can perform dialog lift feature as well to make speakers below the screen sound as if they're coming from the screen rather than below it without needing an acoustically transparent screen with actual speakers behind it).
> 
> I personally think the lack of support for center height is one of Atmos' biggest weaknesses. There's no reason other than cutthroat tactics to not help the competition that Dolby couldn't have supported it and surround heights in the renderer for the home version. It's much easier for most people to install side heights than in or on-ceiling speakers (at most one with Auro) and some reasonably good psychoacoustical reasons they might blend better with the lower speakers.
> 
> DTS:X Pro can use either layout or a hybrid of the two. Sadly, the number of titles available for either Auro-3D or DTS:X pale in comparison to Dolby Atmos. Fortunately, Atmos sounds great over Auro layouts (just call surround height rear height or top middle) as off-screen surround effects are not exactly location critical (i.e. Does it really matter if the bird flies three feet further towards the side walls on the ceiling instead of 1/3 into the room on the ceiling? I think only the most anal retentive would say yes given movies don't even care about aligning on-screen things like dialog coming from the mouths of actors!
> 
> Similarly, Auro-3D sounds pretty good at home on Atmos layouts as well (same thing in reverse). In theaters, there's probably more of a difference due to much larger differences in room width and height, but at home most gone theaters don't even need top surround as it can be simulated between speakers sets with a phantom image, at least for those seated near the center of the room.
> 
> Now the topic of Auro's upmixer versus Dolby's and DTS's upmixers is another ball of wax. Neural X is the most aggressive and puts movie things that belong on the ceiling there like magic. It might get it wrong once in a while too. DSU is far less aggressive overhead, but still moves things around a lot at ear level (which some hate for music). Auro's copies the lower layer to some extent above and adds some light reverb (nowhere near the level if Yamaha's DSP room stuff, though, IMO). Many like this effect for music as it fills the room without modifying the sound stage.



Thanks you MagnumX for sharing your knowlekdge/setup. In my case, I have ~ 8 feet high ceiling and I have my seats on a 5" high platform which reduces the height even more. On top of that, my speakers are big and after mounting, they are ~65" from MLP. I used to have them further away by having them placed further wide (align with Surrunds) and angled to MLP. I recently placed them in b/w MLP and Surrounds distance but that brought them much closer to MLP.
Anyway, last night, I played some titles using Apple TV that has ATMOS titles (LOTR) and also some 5.1 and went back and forth b/w ATMOS/Atmos upmixer VS Auro3D and each time I switched to Auro3D, I felt more immersed. I could hear more details. May be Auto3D is a bit louder but surely felt more immersive.
I'm thinking if I should move my ceiling speakers further back. Now further wide but further away in length of room. I think that will give bigger sound stage. I was told to measure the distance from MLP to ceiling which in my case is 43" and then move the speakers forward and backward that distance and then on sides based on the MLP and surround speakers. I think one of the reason to measure distance from MLP to ceiling is to get a proper angle. But in my case, I have a bracket that allows me to angle it how ever I like and therefore I don' necessarily have to have my speakers 43" away back and forth from MLP. Is my understanding correct? I mean If I move them to 55" instead of 43" to get a little bigger sound stage should not cause any harm specially when I have full control over how high/low and sideways they need to be angled.

For reference, here are some pics of my 19x12x8 sealed room. Last photo is showing ceiling treatment. First treatment is aligned right above the head rest and 2nd is covering center 1st reflection.










Side Walls Center first Reflection










Back Corner



















Ceiling


----------



## harrisu

sdurani said:


> Could have told you they were going to say that before the video started. Audioholics has been critical of Atmos since the format was announced (read their early articles on the topic) and their guest is from Germany (home of Auro's largest fan base). Between them you have a perfect storm of anti-Atmos, pro-Auro advocacy. I would take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> When it comes to height speaker placement, DTS:X has their speakers on the ceiling (their lowest height layer is 45 degrees elevation). Atmos likewise prefers ceiling placement, as their initial 7.1.4 diagrams showed. In fact, DTS:X Height locations are close enough to Atmos Top locations that a single placement configuration could satisfy both formats. Auro is the odd man out with placement high up on the walls. They don't mention that in the video.
> 
> As for why Auro height speaker placement "is better and makes more sense", the video only cited reflections we hear in real life for justification. But when it comes to movies, there is a difference between "real" and "reel". Fist fights in movies don't sound like they do in real life. How actors and sets are lit doesn't mimic real life. Realism is one option, but not the basis for most of what we hear in movie mixes. Neither Dolby nor DTS thought it was a good idea to place speakers high up on walls when it came to designing their immersive audio formats.
> 
> Upmixing the 7.1 downmix of an Atmos track is a valid option to deal with height-challenged mixes. But understand what you're getting. Auro-Matic copies and combines whole channels from the base layer into the height layer, adding (user adjustable) reverb that wasn't in the original soundtrack. IF the goal is to get something (anything) coming out of the height speakers, then Auro-Matic will do that for you. Lots of people want all their speakers always making sound. Is it "better"? The video conflates subjective preference with objective superiority.


Great points. I for the first time tried Auro 3D or even DTS-X for that matter and was purely comparing with Atmos to hear the difference and it felt like Auto3D/DTS-X was more enveloping than Atmos. It could be because they are a bit louder than Atmos. It could be because they are moving more sound to ceiling than Atmos. Weather its correct or not is another point. I watched a 5.1 movie and a scene where there are monkeys on trees and all 3 formats rendered monkey voices to ceiling speakers correctly but with AURO/DTS-X I heard a bit more noise coming from ceiling like branch cracking that I didn't with Atmos. Now which one is correct is hard to argue


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> I for the first time tried Auro 3D or even DTS-X for that matter and was purely comparing with Atmos to hear the difference and it felt like Auto3D/DTS-X was more enveloping than Atmos.


Were you comparing the formats or their upmixers?


> Now which one is correct is hard to argue


Hardly worth arguing. IF the purpose of your home theatre is to give you enjoyment, then stick with the results you prefer.


----------



## harrisu

sdurani said:


> Were you comparing the formats or their upmixers?


Both


----------



## rerecmixer

If you'd like to compare how upmixers sound on headphones, here's a 360 spatial audio video recorded with an ambisonics mic: 



 Now that Apple and Tidal are delivering Dolby Atmos music mixes and iOS15 introduced spatial audio with headtracking, it has become a hot subject. For this demo I used a Marantz 7702 MkII.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> There's over 100 music albums and over two dozen movies. I'm not sure I'd call that next to nothing and has nothing to do with whether the layout is better. DTS:X also can use the same layout and that's another 100+ movies and the Neural X upmixer can be used with the layout for anything.


I'd say thE MAJORITY of those niche discs ARE pretty irreverent...


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I'd say thE MAJORITY of those niche discs ARE pretty irreverent...


There's lots of places that sell Twinkies and very few that have gourmet meals, so Twinkies must be better, right? I think you might just be missing out on some of them. But to each their own. 

I still think Auro has a nice layout that works well regardless. Too many on here are fixated with numbers, angles and absolute discrete. I think they're missing out too. Surround Arrays sound fantastic with live recordings and don't hurt discrete ones since in-phase they image the same (image moves; that doesn't make it sound any less precise in how it images, at least not here using monopoles, effectively).


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> It reminds me of AV Science where Amir measures everything to death, but never actually listens to anything at all and then recommends against a great AVP like the HTP-1 because of something INAUDIBLE. It's unreal.


This is AV Science; you mean Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum.

I agree with your sentiments.


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> Both


Difficult to compare formats. The few times I compared the same movie in Atmos and Auro, it became obvious that they were different mixes; i.e., I was comparing two mixes, not two formats (which would require encoding the exact same mix in both formats).

Comparing upmixers is easier because they can be applied to the exact same source material. Of the three upmixers, there's no question that Auro-Matic usually puts the most content in the height layer: the entire base layer (except Centre) ends up there rather than extracted elements. Not my cuppa tea but I can understand why it sounds more enveloping to many listeners ('more' often sounds 'better').


----------



## MaxTemp

sdurani said:


> Difficult to compare formats. The few times I compared the same movie in Atmos and Auro, it became obvious that they were different mixes; i.e., I was comparing two mixes, not two formats (which would require encoding the exact same mix in both formats).
> 
> Comparing upmixers is easier because they can be applied to the exact same source material. Of the three upmixers, there's no question that Auro-Matic usually puts the most content in the height layer: the entire base layer (except Centre) ends up there rather than extracted elements. Not my cuppa tea but I can understand why it sounds more enveloping to many listeners ('more' often sounds 'better').


Another issue is bass with Auromatic upmixer. Because its just duplicating the bed layer to the heights and not extracting, the bass gets magnified. You get 10+db of bass added, changing your calibration and depending on the content making it unbearable.


----------



## petetherock

Chirosamsung said:


> I find bipole a are great for atmos not just for between rows but also for where the physical speaker is closer than recommended. In my setup I have newly acquired rear surrounds that I bought (Gold FX) that are about 2 feet from where ears would be and because they are bipole they work great!
> View attachment 3181794
> View attachment 3181795
> View attachment 3181796
> 
> 
> Side surrounds and tops are monopole-just the rears are bipole. Works really well even close


Lovely home.
I'm using the Silver FX as rear backs in my setup for the same reason.


----------



## sdurani

MaxTemp said:


> Another issue is bass with Auromatic upmixer. Because its just duplicating the bed layer to the heights and not extracting, the bass gets magnified. You get 10+db of bass added, changing your calibration and depending on the content making it unbearable.


Indeed, when I tried to measure the bass boost several years ago, I got around 7dB. Whatever the amount of boost, upmixers should not be doing tone control, just conforming channels to speakers. (Imagine a video scaler adjusting colours for a more pleasing look instead of just conforming the source image to the display.) Rather than sounding unbearable, I found that most people liked the bass boost (not unusual).


----------



## MaxTemp

sdurani said:


> Indeed, when I tried to measure the bass boost several years ago, I got around 7dB. Whatever the amount of boost, upmixers should not be doing tone control, just conforming channels to speakers. (Imagine a video scaler adjusting colours for a more pleasing look instead of just conforming the source image to the display.) Rather than sounding unbearable, I found that most people liked the bass boost (not unusual).


Measuring with REW and upmixing from 2 channel to 5.2.4 it was over 10 db, it should be even more going to 11-13 speakers. If you actually have any sort of house curve or using Harmon curve, it really is unbearable on some content, especially movies. 
For music it can work, but its not just bass that is boosted but overall volume. It is better than Neural X for music though. I find DSU with center spread still superior for music but I can see on certain types of music some people preferring Auromatic.
In my experience and testing, no question for movies Auromatic comes last.


----------



## sdurani

MaxTemp said:


> Measuring with REW and upmixing from 2 channel to 5.2.4 it was over 10 db, it should be even more going to 11-13 speakers.


That explains it: I was upmixing 2-channel to 7.1 (no heights).


----------



## MagnumX

MaxTemp said:


> Another issue is bass with Auromatic upmixer. Because its just duplicating the bed layer to the heights and not extracting, the bass gets magnified. You get 10+db of bass added, changing your calibration and depending on the content making it unbearable.


The bass only gets magnified at higher strength settings. A setting of 4 has no real effect on bass and a setting of 6 or 7 strength is only a couple of decibels. The default of strength 10 is +4dB. The maximum of strength 16 is +10dB. The "size" setting doesn't matter. Bass was +3dB above the rest to start hence the downward curve and you can see the effect of Audyssey "reference" mode rolloff above 10kHz as well. If you use bass management, you could adjust the sub level in the "options" menu of D&M and store all but the highest Auro strength settings with the sub turned down accordingly and store it in a memory spot and haven no real bass issue. I just leave at strength 6 and not worry about it as even at strength 10 it only affects below 200 Hz. It's doing more than adding bass at Strength 16 as the entire level floats 5-7dB higher (leaving bass +3 to +5dB above overall average level over most of the curve). In other words, I don't think it's just a 'straight' copy or the entire level would rise evenly on all settings.

Here's an exact chart of what happens and compares also Neural X and DSU :


----------



## MaxTemp

Is that bass managed with speakers crossing over to the subs? I will do the test again at different strengths and see the difference.


----------



## MagnumX

MaxTemp said:


> Is that bass managed with speakers crossing over to the subs? I will do the test again at different strengths and see the difference.


Yes, I believe it was at 80Hz except the "stereo" one where I forgot to turn the fronts back to "small" after doing some testing (separate setting on D&M receivers for stereo playback), which oddly showed me using the mains with the sub does little to affect the overall curve, but does help bring up a node at 50Hz.


----------



## Rich 63

Technology3456 said:


> I actually made a topic asking which are the best wire-hiding sticky things, or wire-hiding strategies in general. By some miracle, it did not attract any trolls. 😅 Unfortunately, it did not attract any answers period, either, as far as I remember. 🤣🤣 Somewhat understandably. Not exactly the most riveting discussion imaginable. But still would be good to know. I don't mind if the discussion continues here for a little while, since it came up because of and is relevant to the choice of in-ceiling atmos speakers vs on-ceiling, but since someone usually complains, it's also an option to talk about it in that topic: Best way to manage cables along the walls and ceiling?.


Wire hiding strategies=phishing. There is not a senerio where wire cannot be phished. Sometimes easy, sometimes diffucult but always doable.


----------



## Rich 63

Josh Z said:


> Pretty irrelevant given that there is next to no Auro-3D content available to purchase for home viewing.


Not irrelevant at all. The placement configurations of auro speakers is far more forgiving then atmos with little difference. It also more closely mirrors dtsx suggestions. Atmos is far too specific on placement leaving few options for most people.


----------



## ppasteur

Rich 63 said:


> Wire hiding strategies=*phishing*. There is not a senerio where wire cannot be phished. Sometimes easy, sometimes diffucult but always doable.


Do you mean *fishing*... as in fishing wires through walls/ceilings? I thought _phishing_ was a computer based scam. Just making sure I use it correctly in the future.
Anyway, getting wire through walls can be a PIA and very expensive. It also requires punching holes in walls and/or ceilings. Something many don't want to do.
But, yes, if possible, the best option.


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> Not irrelevant at all. The placement configurations of auro speakers is far more forgiving then atmos with little difference. It also more closely mirrors dtsx suggestions. Atmos is far too specific on placement leaving few options for most people.


Atmos is ironically both picky about angles and yet still push those bouncy speakers that are far worse than putting heights/tops on the side walls. At worst, with side heights is no different than widening the overhead image by the difference in feet (here a whopping 2.8 feet wider, which with a bit of purposeful leakage to front/rear heights all but disappears from the center seats). The only song I even noticed it on was "Way Down" by Yello when the synth pans across the ceiling and widens slightly in the middle, but by adding 0.1' to the distance setting for Scatmos, it leaks just enough that it's no longer noticeable. It's not a big deal either way, though. 

I think the alignment with the sides may even improve many Atmos effects as it follows the same contour as the bed speakers (e.g. Helicopter flies a slightly wider path around the side seats instead of off to the opposite side). 

The sad thing is Dolby could have easily accommodated those locations with a slight change in steering on the sides, but they didn't want to "help" a competitor even if it meant harming consumers.


----------



## mrtickleuk

ppasteur said:


> Do you mean *fishing*... as in fishing wires through walls/ceilings? I thought _phishing_ was a computer based scam. Just making sure I use it correctly in the future.


Yes, you are correct. "phishing" with ph is specifically and only the scams.


----------



## Rich 63

ppasteur said:


> Do you mean *fishing*... as in fishing wires through walls/ceilings? I thought _phishing_ was a computer based scam. Just making sure I use it correctly in the future.
> Anyway, getting wire through walls can be a PIA and very expensive. It also requires punching holes in walls and/or ceilings. Something many don't want to do.
> But, yes, if possible, the best option.


Fishing if you wish. Im not sure. Regardless. Fishing a wire requires little more then som holes about an inch square, is easy to patch and looks a heck of a lot better then channel or bare wire. Both of which i see all to often on this site. Is it a little more work. Yes, but looks far better


----------



## MagnumX

I got the deluxe Loreena Mckennitt "Book of Secrets five disc box set which includes a 24/192 stereo hires track, 5.1 DTS HD-MA track and Dolby Atmos track.

The Atmos track sounded more like many front orientated 5.1 tracks for the most part, but did appear to use front heights to greatly increase the front sound stage height (not sure how it would sound with Tops instead offhand). It wrapped to the sides and had drums to the back on one track. 

Overall, I thought the music quality was great, but some vocals seemed just a tad steely at times, though (Reference roll off didn't seem to help). Musically, it's a bit traditional Irish but with more modern instrumentation.


----------



## Josh Z

Rich 63 said:


> Not irrelevant at all. The placement configurations of auro speakers is far more forgiving then atmos with little difference. It also more closely mirrors dtsx suggestions. Atmos is far too specific on placement leaving few options for most people.


The Auro layout leaves a big hole in the soundstage directly overhead, which is detrimental to things like plane and helicopter flyovers.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> The Auro layout leaves a big hole in the soundstage directly overhead, which is detrimental to things like plane and helicopter flyovers.


It most certainly does not! WTF do you think the VOG speaker is for??? Front/Rear heights plus VOG works perfectly, even in larger rooms.

If you use surround heights instead, you don't even need the VOG. With a $40 Monoprice impedance matching switch box with parallel drive, you can have both surround height on the sides and rear heights in the back at the sane time just like an Auro cinema and any size room can be used.

Auro even has home diagrams with arrays of side and surround height speakers for Auro 11.1. I decided to try it out recently since I already had one Monoprice box to select either "Scatmos" extracted top middle (which also works well with Auro movies the same as it does with Atmos and X) or use rear heights in the surround height location or both at the same time. 

I added a second Monoprice box and I can now run side surrounds arrayed through four sets of speakers (front wides, sides, ss#2 and rear surrounds) just like the theaters used. With arrayed surround/rear heights, all three rows get perfectly aligned layer pink noise tests between side surround and surround height signals. Live recordings sound amazing with the extra uncorrelated (out of phase) "wall of sound" while in-phase images precisely for every location (arrays do not affect in-phase imaging as you hear them as one sound). 

You don't even need "Scatmos" with an array of rear surround as they combine as one image in the rear tops location for the MLP here and image perfectly fine directly overhead. You can even change the array bias (turn down surround/height or top middle speakers 2dB (one detent on Monoprice volume control) and up 2dB on rear height control and you get a nearly identical sounding output to Scatmos from the MLP without any expensive rack-hogging boxes needed).

For those that bad mouth the Auro layouts and yet have never used them, all I can say is you don't know what you're talking about. It was easy to array more speakers between Monoprice boxes and even mixer based +3db in-between locations that double as array outputs. If I can manage to do this with 17.1 speakers in a 12x24 foot space that has an outboard fireplace and half bathroom, almost anyone can. 

I don't know I'd even bother with Scatmos if I started over. The arrayed overheads work as well or better in some respects with similar overhead panning as discrete in-phase and more expansive "hall space" out of phase and a couple of $40 switch boxes are far simpler to implement. As it is, I have both available, nearly fully discrete and various array options.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> It most certainly does not! WTF do you think the VOG speaker is for?


As I understand it, the Auro VOG speaker is primarily used for nothing at all and mostly remains silent.


----------



## Rich 63

r theycare off 2 degrees


Josh Z said:


> The Auro layout leaves a big hole in the soundstage directly overhead, which is detrimental to things like plane and helicopter flyovers.


Not what i have noticed. Most of us start out enthusiastically trying always to fit atmos configurations into our systems simply because atmos is most commonly used. However dtsx and auro are far more forgiving in placement. I've seen posts with people agonizing over 2 degrees of atmos placement, as if it matters. It doesnt. My heights are 1.5ftish outside my fronts. In line front to back, just not left to right. In fact my surrounds are outside my fronts by the same amount. This was because my options only allowed wall mounted in order to keep the speakers out of foot traffic. The effects are breathtaking.
So really we have 2 formats that can give us 3 dimensions with latitude for placrment and 1 that is uncompromising . So why is atmos the gold standard?.


----------



## sdurani

Rich 63 said:


> The placement configurations of auro speakers is far more forgiving then atmos with little difference. It also more closely mirrors dtsx suggestions. Atmos is far too specific on placement leaving few options for most people.


If you are a DTS licensee and want to demo DTS:X at a trade show, DTS will send you set up guides for speaker placement that are down to the degree (no ranges). Here are locations for their Heights and Tops:








Doesn't "mirror" Auro placement at all. Auro wants their height layer speakers high up on the walls instead of the ceiling and directly above their respective base layer speakers (same azimuth). DTS:X doesn't recommend either of those things.








Atmos placement is more forgiving, allowing for height layer speakers high up on the front & back walls and/or on the ceiling. For even more flexibility, placement recommendations are in wide ranges (e.g., Top Middle has a 35-degree placement range). On top of that, there are 4 overhead locations close enough to satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X, leaving Auro as the incompatible one.


----------



## Rich 63

sdurani said:


> If you are a DTS licensee and want to demo DTS:X at a trade show, DTS will send you set up guides for speaker placement that are down to the degree (no ranges). Here are locations for their Heights and Tops:
> View attachment 3184098
> 
> Doesn't "mirror" Auro placement at all. Auro wants their height layer speakers high up on the walls instead of the ceiling and directly above their respective base layer speakers (same azimuth). DTS:X doesn't recommend either of those things.
> View attachment 3184100
> 
> Atmos placement is more forgiving, allowing for height layer speakers high up on the front & back walls and/or on the ceiling. For even more flexibility, placement recommendations are in wide ranges (e.g., Top Middle has a 35-degree placement range). On top of that, there are 4 overhead locations close enough to satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X, leaving Auro as the incompatible one.
> View attachment 3184101


So what? It all matters little. We are placing speakers within the close proximity to any of the configurations. At the end of the day we have created a bubble of sound. I dont give a rats butt weather the sound is placed at 1 o'clock or 1:30. With action happening so fast the effect is a split second of audio time.


----------



## sdurani

Rich 63 said:


> So what? It all matters little.


Yeah, "it matters little" now that your claims of Auro placement mirroring DTS:X and being more forgiving than Atmos are shown not to be true.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> As I understand it, the Auro VOG speaker is primarily used for nothing at all and mostly remains silent.


And you understand it because you've tried them out or because you've heard some 2nd hand things on the Internet that are negative to Auro? 

First of all, you have to have something directly overhead to even find out (Blade Runner 2049 and RedTails come to mind and the "tower" on Dark Tower or Draco on Dragonheart or perhaps any of the tunnel effects in Daylight) and I know for a fact RedTails has strong VOG overhead from Nallah on here). Like I said, I have surround height and just rewatched RedTails a few days ago with arrayed overheads and planes most certainly do fly overhead (to about 10 feet behind me with just surround height and to the back of the room using surround height plus rear height OR using an extracted top middle (same as sitting in the middle between 4 overheads in a smaller room or with somewhat higher elevated heights). Hell, the Auro-3D demo disc specifically uses both a 747 Jet plane pass overhead and helicopters from behind overhead as examples! If there was a hole there in the middle, why on Earth would they use those? BTW, the VOG is simulated not enabled by playing through surround heights or rear heights + front heights (it uses front heights too even the VOG is there; I've tested it and that tends to image it just a bit in front of you even if the speaker is directly overhead). 

Now if you have a long room with just front and rear heights and no VOG, yeah flyovers might have a bit of spread out gap there, but so does Atmos with the same configuration! That's what Top Middle is for in Atmos (save all those crappy Disney discs that refuse to use Atmos correctly so you can get a hole there even if you have the right configuration). Yes, you can mount Tops instead, but you sacrifice about half your ceiling in the process for imaging.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> If you are a DTS licensee and want to demo DTS:X at a trade show, DTS will send you set up guides for speaker placement that are down to the degree (no ranges). Here are locations for their Heights and Tops:
> View attachment 3184098
> 
> Doesn't "mirror" Auro placement at all. Auro wants their height layer speakers high up on the walls instead of the ceiling and directly above their respective base layer speakers (same azimuth). DTS:X doesn't recommend either of those things.
> View attachment 3184100
> 
> Atmos placement is more forgiving, allowing for height layer speakers high up on the front & back walls and/or on the ceiling. For even more flexibility, placement recommendations are in wide ranges (e.g., Top Middle has a 35-degree placement range). On top of that, there are 4 overhead locations close enough to satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X, leaving Auro as the incompatible one.
> View attachment 3184101


If he's going to repeat it again then so am I!

DTS makes no such placement claims. They _CLAIM_ to support both Atmos and Auro layouts. 

Why else would they support the Center Height, Top Surround and Surround Height locations in their layouts??? They just put them there for _funzies_, as my transistor logic instructor from Tennessee used to like to say? Why would they say they support those home layouts if they don't?

A trade show is not a home. Homes vary with a thousand different shapes, sizes and furniture/window/light fixture/ceiling fan layouts. It amazes me that when DTS says their own system is meant to be Auro compatible and Dolby Height compatible, this guy doesn't believe them, but proceeds to tell them they're wrong about their own system! 

In other words, if DTS is OK with you using one of three different layouts and want to claim their system sounds just as good on all of them (and go out of their way to support most of the extra speakers of both Auro-3D & Atmos), then why aren't you? DTS actually attempts to correct for using a different speaker location than the original one used (e.g. moves tops to front height location using front mains to image it forward, the "steering" Jeremy Anderson keeps talking about with Atmos for some reason when only DTS actually attempts to actually do it!) It uses VOG when a sound approaches the coorindates of the center of the room. It doesn't matter that it's not an object, only Dolby wants you to believe that something needs to be an "object" in order to be rendered to a different speaker location correctly. A coordinate system can easily be obtained from a percentage of panning between various speaker variables. That is why Neural X can place 7.1.4 channel-based DTS:X soundtracks into 30 speaker locations.

If the sound of the car in Harry Potter _Chamber of Secrets_ "ends" 4 feet in front of the screen as opposed to right at the screen, are you even going to notice 12 feet back? Why shouldn't it go all the way into the screen? At 55 degrees, which is typically over 1/4 the way into the room unless you have a very high ceiling, it sure as heck never will! Isn't the car coming from behind and flying onto the screen when they rescue Harry? Why would it stop short of the screen? In a large room, you'd never notice. In a smaller room, you might. Either way, it doesn't flipping matter unless you can't stand to not have your towels all perfectly aligned with each other on the rack like in _Sleeping With The Enemy_ (with Julia Roberts in her prime ). 



sdurani said:


> Yeah, "it matters little" now that your claims of Auro placement mirroring DTS:X and being more forgiving than Atmos are shown not to be true.


It really _only_ matters to a certain type that relishes in numbers and diagrams (a born Statistician like _Amir_ on Audio Science Review who "listens" with his measurements only?) or else they'd _know_ a few feet to the left or right off-screen is really quite _meaningless_ in actual practice when the vast majority of movies don't even bother to match the dialog to the actors' mouth THAT YOU _CAN_ SEE *on-screen*, so who cares about the exact location *off-screen* where you can't see it at all and so a few feet this way or that way isn't going to make much difference? Ironically, it is in fact DTS that can really be called the "most forgiving format" as they literally don't _care_ which layout you use. They happily support BOTH! (in hopes that you'll demand their format for Blu-Rays, not Atmos). I've watched that Harry Potter movie with 30 degree heights and I can assure you that having the car sound like it's literally flying into the screen is quite awesome indeed (and would be even better if they'd release the visual in 3D).

Thus, I say use the layout you like best because Atmos sounds great on an Auro layout and Auro sounds good on an Atmos layout and DTS:X sound fantastic on both. People worry too darn much about things that aren't important. I'm visiting a hospital every day and I can assure you that life and death is not a matter of which speaker layout you ultimately choose to use!


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> so who cares about the exact location *off-screen* where you can't see it at all and so a few feet this way or that way isn't going to make much difference?


The only thing I can think of is, what if two speakers at certain angles can create a holographic sound between them, but at different angles they cant?

Like you'd assume that with two speakers 4 feet apart, with a ball that is supposed to be 50% in each speaker, that it will make the ball sound halfway in between, or 2 feet in between, but with speakers 8 feet apart, the ball would sound halfway between, or 4 feet in between. But maybe in reality the image totally falls apart when they are 8 feet apart (or at the wrong angles) and now you just hear a ball sound coming from both speakers, but dont hear any ball floating in between actually moving in your room in places where the speakers are not.

I mean, some people say they can hear coins in their lap with Ready Player One, and some say they can't. Going by the highest standard, you could say the people hear it are getting the 3D holographic audio effect, and the people who don't are not getting it, they are getting sort of normal surround sound moving around the speakers in their room, around the seating, but not actually imaging sounds in 3D space and creating "3D object based audio" that atmos markets.

Has any investigation gone into what is causing some people to be able to hear the coins in their lap, and some people not? Clearly there is something going on. Wouldn't everyone with atmos prefer to hear the coins moving throughout the center of the room rather than coming from the speaker locations or the outside of the room? Stuff like that is the whole promise of atmos.



> I've watched that Harry Potter movie with 30 degree heights and I can assure you that having the car sound like it's literally flying into the screen is quite awesome indeed (and would be even better if they'd release the visual in 3D).


It sounds like it matters then, and that it does make a difference to the experience. It was better one way than another. Maybe if it was for off screen sounds, then it would make no difference like you say, or maybe sometimes it still would and sometimes not. You have a lot of experience with it. With the Ready Player One example, it's not as if some people report the coins feeling right in their lap, and some people report the coins also feeling like they are right in the middle of the room, only a few feet differently based on placement. Rather, at least my interpretation was that some people are getting the 3D holographic effect where the coins sound like they are moving through the center of the room, and some people are not getting that holographic imaging at all. It would be good to understand what exactly is necessary to get the holographic sound consistently on top of just the movement of sounds going around you where the speakers are. 

But I think that's what we've been doing with the discussion of where to place the speakers and so on. But I am wondering if it's really that simple that everyone who is not getting the coins in the lamp imaging on Ready Player One simply has their speakers placed in non-ideal locations, or if there are people who have them placed correctly and still aren't getting the holographic effect, and why that would be, and what they could change?


----------



## Josh Z

Rich 63 said:


> Not what i have noticed. Most of us start out enthusiastically trying always to fit atmos configurations into our systems simply because atmos is most commonly used. However dtsx and auro are far more forgiving in placement. I've seen posts with people agonizing over 2 degrees of atmos placement, as if it matters. It doesnt. My heights are 1.5ftish outside my fronts. In line front to back, just not left to right. In fact my surrounds are outside my fronts by the same amount. This was because my options only allowed wall mounted in order to keep the speakers out of foot traffic. The effects are breathtaking.
> So really we have 2 formats that can give us 3 dimensions with latitude for placrment and 1 that is uncompromising . So why is atmos the gold standard?.


Is Atmos actually uncomproming, or do people just assume that it is and sweat inconsequential details? DTS marketing very misleadingly claims, "We're super flexible! It doesn't matter where you put speakers!," which is not true at all in reality. Dolby makes no such promises. Through the power of marketing, a perception is created that DTS:X is much more forgiving of speaker placement than Atmos. In fact, 99 times out of 100, Atmos and DTS:X sound mixes are exactly the same. The movies' sound mixers create in one format first and simply transcode to the other codec afterward without changing anything at all. 

That being the case, how could it be possible that Atmos is so much more limiting than DTS:X? It can't.


----------



## chi_guy50

Rich 63 said:


> So what? It all matters little. We are placing speakers within the close proximity to any of the configurations. At the end of the day we have created a bubble of sound. I dont give a *rats butt weather* the sound is placed at 1 o'clock or 1:30. With action happening so fast the effect is a split second of audio time.





sdurani said:


> Yeah, "it matters little" now that your claims of Auro placement mirroring DTS:X and being more forgiving than Atmos are shown not to be true.


Never mind all this brouhaha over speaker placement. I want to know more about the weather up a rat's butt!


----------



## harrisu

MaxTemp said:


> Another issue is bass with Auromatic upmixer. Because its just duplicating the bed layer to the heights and not extracting, the bass gets magnified. You get 10+db of bass added, changing your calibration and depending on the content making it unbearable.





sdurani said:


> Indeed, when I tried to measure the bass boost several years ago, I got around 7dB. Whatever the amount of boost, upmixers should not be doing tone control, just conforming channels to speakers. (Imagine a video scaler adjusting colours for a more pleasing look instead of just conforming the source image to the display.) Rather than sounding unbearable, I found that most people liked the bass boost (not unusual).


To be clear, its just Auro issue? I'm assuming using upmixer from Atmos/dts-X won't cause this issue? I use REW frequently. I guess I can conduct this exercise in a 7.4.4 setting. Just put my PC settings to 7.1 and then change upmixer to Dolby Atmos and take reading and then DTS-X and then take reading and then Auro and then take reading. Did I get it right?


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> To be clear, its just Auro issue? I'm assuming using upmixer from Atmos/dts-X won't cause this issue?


Yes, that's been my experience.


----------



## chmorgan

I was looking at the Atmos speaker placement diagrams the other day and realized, which I hadn't before, that the top rear speaker placement in a 7.1.4 setup is behind and farther apart than the rear surround speakers. This placement seems counter intuitive for a top speaker setup. I dunno, maybe I looked at the diagram incorrectly.

I'm just curious how many people have their speakers set up in this manner?


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> Never mind all this brouhaha over speaker placement. I want to know more about the weather up a rat's butt!


It's murky and damp, with a high probability of gradient wind.


----------



## Chirosamsung

chmorgan said:


> I was looking at the Atmos speaker placement diagrams the other day and realized, which I hadn't before, that the top rear speaker placement in a 7.1.4 setup is behind and farther apart than the rear surround speakers. This placement seems counter intuitive for a top speaker setup. I dunno, maybe I looked at the diagram incorrectly.
> 
> I'm just curious how many people have their speakers set up in this manner?


mine is. Pics above in previous posts


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Is Atmos actually uncomproming, or do people just assume that it is and sweat inconsequential details? DTS marketing very misleadingly claims, "We're super flexible! It doesn't matter where you put speakers!," which is not true at all in reality. Dolby makes no such promises. Through the power of marketing, a perception is created that DTS:X is much more forgiving of speaker placement than Atmos. In fact, 99 times out of 100, Atmos and DTS:X sound mixes are exactly the same. The movies' sound mixers create in one format first and simply transcode to the other codec afterward without changing anything at all.
> 
> That being the case, how could it be possible that Atmos is so much more limiting than DTS:X? It can't.


That's exactly what I've been trying to get across. A few feet this way or that off-screen makes no difference whether it's Atmos, DTS:X or Auro-3D. What matters is that they can convey imaging in places they couldn't very well before (e.g. overhead). This fixation on exact angles and numbers and alignments in one format versus another and thinking you can't play Auro-3D on Atmos or Atmos on Auro-3D is more "political" in nature (corporate really, but that doesn't get the point across in the same way of comparison) than reality. I've tried multiple configurations and while some seem to sound a little better with one album or movie than another in specific scenes, it's not like it sounded "bad" either way. Having a box fly right over top my head in Ready Player One sounds "scarier" than it flying overhead a few feet behind me or in front of me, but if they mixed it slightly different, it could have gone the other way. The box is rendering either way. Where it sounds preferable to a single seating location in a home theater is hard to predict given the subjective nature of it all. _ 

Relative symmetry _(keeping pairs of speakers aligned with each other is probably more important than whether you use side heights or top heights or front/rear heights. Some rooms and leases, etc. won't allow one or the other. Atmos requiring on/in-ceiling speakers instead of side-wall ones when they could have easily supported them was bad "politics". But fortunately, they still sound good over there. You just lie to the setup and put rear height instead of surround height. The signal is the same. It's absurd to even have a separate setting and Auro is to blame as much as Dolby for the incongruent settings, especially when Auro admits Atmos plays great over their layout. So then why have a setting that stops Atmos from working and vice versa if it sounds great over surround height speakers? Perhaps the Atmos license forbids it with that terminology? So Auro should have just put "Surround/Rear Height" in the manual and used the Rear Height setting for all regardless of where the speakers are placed. In reality, they used arrays in the Auro 11.1 theaters so speakers existed in BOTH locations at the same time (which is easy to do at home with a Monoprice impedance matching switch box with parallel drive).

But whether 55 degrees or 45 degrees or 30 degrees sounds better is an image change of a matter of inches or a few feet on the ceiling. So what? It's off-screen. You could move your listening seat forward or backward and the same change would happen (precedence effect for ALL panning effects in existence). People are making literal mountains out of mole hills on here.


----------



## Rich 63

sdurani said:


> If you are a DTS licensee and want to demo DTS:X at a trade show, DTS will send you set up guides for speaker placement that are down to the degree (no ranges). Here are locations for their Heights and Tops:
> View attachment 3184098
> 
> Doesn't "mirror" Auro placement at all. Auro wants their height layer speakers high up on the walls instead of the ceiling and directly above their respective base layer speakers (same azimuth). DTS:X doesn't recommend either of those things.
> View attachment 3184100
> 
> Atmos placement is more forgiving, allowing for height layer speakers high up on the front & back walls and/or on the ceiling. For even more flexibility, placement recommendations are in wide ranges (e.g., Top Middle has a 35-degree placement range). On top of that, there are 4 overhead locations close enough to satisfy both Atmos and DTS:X, leaving Auro as the incompatible one.
> View attachment 3184101


I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing these pretty pictures to my attention. It's been a long time since i looked at these layout configurations. After viewing them a few times to grasp the concepts of each placement i never gave them a second thought. 
My placement is what my room circumstances dictate while trying to follow atmos recs And as with most of us who set up a 3d configuration it was with some compromises. As far as im concerned im getting an outstanding experience without the need to obsess over WHETHER or not a object renders in the precise location as intended or if a speakers is incorrectly placed by a few inches. On top of that i often run dtsx or its upmixer no matter what codec is available. That format is far more forgiving of placement on my opinion.


----------



## Rich 63

sdurani said:


> Yeah, "it matters little" now that your claims of Auro placement mirroring DTS:X and being more forgiving than Atmos are shown not to be true.


Feel better now? I misspoke. The dtsx renderer is more forgiving of placement and while ive not heard Auro what ive read suggests it too is more forgiving.
Feel free to correct me though.


----------



## MaxTemp

harrisu said:


> To be clear, its just Auro issue? I'm assuming using upmixer from Atmos/dts-X won't cause this issue? I use REW frequently. I guess I can conduct this exercise in a 7.4.4 setting. Just put my PC settings to 7.1 and then change upmixer to Dolby Atmos and take reading and then DTS-X and then take reading and then Auro and then take reading. Did I get it right?


Thats correct, its only an Auro upmixer issue. You dont even need to change your PC settings to 7.1. You can use the stereo signal from REW. Since its duplicating it to all your available channels/speakers and your speakers are bass managed, the sum of all the bass will be picked up by your subwoofer and in my testing it was over 10 db on a 5.2.4 system, should be even more on yours. Its also easily noticeable on content which you can test on the fly.


----------



## sdurani

Rich 63 said:


> Thank you for bringing these pretty pictures to my attention. My placement is what my room circumstances dictate while trying to follow atmos recs And as with most of us who set up a 3d configuration it was with some compromises.


We all have to compromise, so no one was taking issue with you having to do the same. It was more about the claim that Auro speaker placement _"more closely mirrors dtsx"_ when the posted _"pretty pictures"_ show otherwise. 

Of the 3 immersive audio formats, Auro3D does no rendering. It's all channel-based, so each channel is simply routed to its respective speaker(s). Atmos and DTS:X decoders/renderers have a look-up table with the exact coordinates of every single speaker location (rendering assumption): Atmos in Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates and DTS:X in polar (degrees of azimuth & elevation) coordinates. The object renderers aren't forgiving (there are no ranges in the look-up table). But knowing those locations is one way to compare how compatible the height speaker placements are for the various formats. 

Having said that, anyone can place their height speakers anywhere they want. Knowing where the renderers think the speakers are located should not cause consternation. It's just knowledge. People can use it as a guide or not.


----------



## harrisu

Ok guys. I have an interesting question for you. I have a 7.4.4 system and my processor allows 16 channels. 4 subs are treated as 1 so as far as HTP-1 processor is concerned, I currently have 7.1.4 which means I have 4 available channels. I have shared. Wondering what's a good move here???? I have shared my room photos in this post. I can provide more photos if needed. So what's the next big increment in my system? Where should I add 2 more ceiling speakers? HTP-1 allows maximum of 6 speakers on ceiling.


----------



## titan ii

chmorgan said:


> I was looking at the Atmos speaker placement diagrams the other day and realized, which I hadn't before, that the top rear speaker placement in a 7.1.4 setup is behind and farther apart than the rear surround speakers. This placement seems counter intuitive for a top speaker setup. I dunno, maybe I looked at the diagram incorrectly.


The side view in the guide shows them forward of the rear surround.


----------



## titan ii

Then there is this......

The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ± 30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds. It is best to keep the overhead arrangement centered, front to back, over the listening area, even if the front speakers and screen are at a greater distance than the surround speakers.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

titan ii said:


> Then there is this......
> 
> The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ± 30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 of the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds. It is best to keep the overhead arrangement centered, front to back, over the listening area, even if the front speakers and screen are at a greater distance than the surround speakers.












Like this?


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have pics a few page that show it if you want to look at those you can


----------



## titan ii

Polyrythm1k said:


> Like this?


Yes


----------



## usc1995

harrisu said:


> Ok guys. I have an interesting question for you. I have a 7.4.4 system and my processor allows 16 channels. 4 subs are treated as 1 so as far as HTP-1 processor is concerned, I currently have 7.1.4 which means I have 4 available channels. I have shared. Wondering what's a good move here???? I have shared my room photos in this post. I can provide more photos if needed. So what's the next big increment in my system? Where should I add 2 more ceiling speakers? HTP-1 allows maximum of 6 speakers on ceiling.


That is a nice looking room. If it were my room I would be looking to move your top front speakers over your seating in a top middle position and adding a pair of either Front Height or Top Front closer to the screen. Finally, I would add another pair of speakers in the wides position. Some say that adding the top middle speakers will cause some soundtracks to collapse to the middle position from the top front/top rear position resulting in a smaller overhead sound field but I don‘t have six overhead speakers to verify that claim. Wide speakers should be of more use with DTS-X Pro when that is released.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

harrisu said:


> Ok guys. I have an interesting question for you. I have a 7.4.4 system and my processor allows 16 channels. 4 subs are treated as 1 so as far as HTP-1 processor is concerned, I currently have 7.1.4 which means I have 4 available channels. I have shared. Wondering what's a good move here???? I have shared my room photos in this post. I can provide more photos if needed. So what's the next big increment in my system? Where should I add 2 more ceiling speakers? HTP-1 allows maximum of 6 speakers on ceiling.


Go for front wides.


----------



## titan ii

Regarding upper spacing. Check out pages 7-9.



https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


----------



## dschulz

As a young man I was speccing my first PC purchase (to take to college) around the time the world was transitioning from MS-DOS to Windows. I had read a couple of articles about how OS/2 was far superior to MS-DOS and Windows 3.0 - it had true multitasking and multithreading, a GUI, and was an object-oriented OS (I was fuzzy on what that meant, but it sounded cool). It had more-intense hardware requirements than did DOS/Windows, so I overspent on that first PC, but it seemed worth it. Alas, the world didn't see things my way, and most users and software companies embraced the de facto standard of DOS and then Windows, with the vast majority of new software built around those platforms. Even when there were OS/2 versions of software, they were ports of the original and didn't work as well as their Windows-native counterparts.

But, I had found a community of OS/2 users. We were rebels, not sheep, and we understood that Windows was but window dressing on the creaky base of MS-DOS, while OS/2 was The Future. And there were some wins! Galactic Civilizations was a game native to OS/2 that used its multithreading capabilities, and whenever my friends talked up some new Windows PC game I would be like sure, yeah, but have I told you about Galactic Civilizations? Someone eventually released a truly state-of-the-art word processor called DeScribe that could do everything WordPerfect could do (and more)!

Meanwhile, new Windows programs came out every week. 

By the time Windows 95 was launching, OS/2s biggest selling point was that you could run an instance of Windows inside OS/2, using its multitasking/multithreading capabilities, running Windows in a virtual machine, so that in those cases where you _needed_ to run a Windows program you could. Of course you needed a fast computer to be running Windows as a task inside your main OS, and running Windows this way didn't work quite as well as running Windows natively on a PC, but I could at least tell myself I was still fighting the man...


----------



## MagnumX

Yeah, I had an Amiga 500 and 3000 and then briefly a PC, but the I got a Mac when OSX came out. Don't need or miss Windows.


----------



## sdrucker

dschulz said:


> As a young man I was speccing my first PC purchase (to take to college) around the time the world was transitioning from MS-DOS to Windows. I had read a couple of articles about how OS/2 was far superior to MS-DOS and Windows 3.0 - it had true multitasking and multithreading, a GUI, and was an object-oriented OS (I was fuzzy on what that meant, but it sounded cool). It had more-intense hardware requirements than did DOS/Windows, so I overspent on that first PC, but it seemed worth it. Alas, the world didn't see things my way, and most users and software companies embraced the de facto standard of DOS and then Windows, with the vast majority of new software built around those platforms. Even when there were OS/2 versions of software, they were ports of the original and didn't work as well as their Windows-native counterparts.
> 
> But, I had found a community of OS/2 users. We were rebels, not sheep, and we understood that Windows was but window dressing on the creaky base of MS-DOS, while OS/2 was The Future. And there were some wins! Galactic Civilizations was a game native to OS/2 that used its multithreading capabilities, and whenever my friends talked up some new Windows PC game I would be like sure, yeah, but have I told you about Galactic Civilizations? Someone eventually released a truly state-of-the-art word processor called DeScribe that could do everything WordPerfect could do (and more)!
> 
> Meanwhile, new Windows programs came out every week.
> 
> By the time Windows 95 was launching, OS/2s biggest selling point was that you could run an instance of Windows inside OS/2, using its multitasking/multithreading capabilities, running Windows in a virtual machine, so that in those cases where you _needed_ to run a Windows program you could. Of course you needed a fast computer to be running Windows as a task inside your main OS, and running Windows this way didn't work quite as well as running Windows natively on a PC, but I could at least tell myself I was still fighting the man...


That brings back memories...I used to use DR-DOS for multitasking back in the day. If you had a fast enough machine (486 back then) and RAM (I want to say 4MB RAM) you could open up multiple DOS sessions and run things concurrently in various Windows.

Surprisingly it lasted longer than I'd thought...I bailed out to Windows 95 around the time of Novell's version.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I could at least tell myself I was still fighting the man...


Yep, the ol' David & Goliath filter.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Yep, the ol' David & Goliath filter.


Doubly hilarious since OS/2 was a product from that scrappy li'l underdog, IBM...


----------



## X4100




----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> Doubly hilarious since OS/2 was a product from that scrappy li'l underdog, IBM...


But written by Microsoft and eventually they pulled the carpet from under IBM's legs and released the same kernel as Windows NT.


----------



## dschulz

priitv8 said:


> But written by Microsoft and eventually they pulled the carpet from under IBM's legs and released the same kernel as Windows NT.


Yeah, the history of the project is really interesting. Jointly developed by the two, but then they divorced and the development forked with IBM proceeding with OS/2 and Windows developing NT. My favorite bit of trivia was that long after its commercial failure OS/2 lived on, and on, and on as the OS of choice for...ATM machines (it was very stable, making it a good platform for those).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

harrisu said:


> Have you guys seen this. The talk is about how Auro is better than ATMOS and how Auro speaker placement is better and makes more sense than In ceiling. Please guys check it out. Would be great to hear from those who have implemented both to hear the difference.


Just Patrick from Grobi-TV. He is a big proponent of Auro3D.


----------



## harrisu

usc1995 said:


> That is a nice looking room. If it were my room I would be looking to move your top front speakers over your seating in a top middle position and adding a pair of either Front Height or Top Front closer to the screen. Finally, I would add another pair of speakers in the wides position. Some say that adding the top middle speakers will cause some soundtracks to collapse to the middle position from the top front/top rear position resulting in a smaller overhead sound field but I don‘t have six overhead speakers to verify that claim. Wide speakers should be of more use with DTS-X Pro when that is released.


Thx. So the Top Middle part first. With my current setup and room treatments, I get very good effect of VOG when all for get engaged. There is a scene in LOTH part 1 that goes like "Build me an army worth of Mordor". That scene has all four ceiling producing same dialog and the phantom effect is as if it was coming straight from the top of my head. Now If we have TM and there is only one speaker on top then yes that will have a distinct effect. Issue is that I have a soffit that is going across the top right side only which is 10" wide. So if I mount the speakers in TM, it will have to be like 15" off the side walls which means it will be right in the center of Side seats (3 seats all together). This will place TM very close to MLP and most likely the seal its above won't get any effect. Your thoughts?


Mashie Saldana said:


> Go for front wides.


Wides don't get engaged in Dolby Atmos which most of the titles are. Now for non Dolby Atmos tracts, I can use DTS:X upmixer and utilize them but that's for only non Dolby Atmos tracks. Plus here is something very interesting I'd like to get your and usc119 attention. My L/C/R are JBL 4722N. Please check them out on JBL side. This speaker has a 30" wide and 15" high horn on it. Point is that it puts a HUGEEEE sound stage and I have a diffuser/abosorber combo at Center first reflection point which means I get even bigger sound stage. Not an easy speaker to work with when acoustically treating room because you can easily over absorb or easily over diffuse. It needed a lot of work to get where I am and I'm still tinkering . Point though I'm trying to make is that with these speakers as my L/C/R, what benefit would I get with having wides ?


----------



## harrisu

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Just Patrick from Grobi-TV. He is a big proponent of Auro3D.


But is he making valid points or just trying to promote Auro3D. Based on my listening of ATMOS, I don't feel like Atmos produces should that shouldn't be there. Almost all the time, it sounds right to me.


----------



## Rich 63

harrisu said:


> Thx. So the Top Middle part first. With my current setup and room treatments, I get very good effect of VOG when all for get engaged. There is a scene in LOTH part 1 that goes like "Build me an army worth of Mordor". That scene has all four ceiling producing same dialog and the phantom effect is as if it was coming straight from the top of my head. Now If we have TM and there is only one speaker on top then yes that will have a distinct effect. Issue is that I have a soffit that is going across the top right side only which is 10" wide. So if I mount the speakers in TM, it will have to be like 15" off the side walls which means it will be right in the center of Side seats (3 seats all together). This will place TM very close to MLP and most likely the seal its above won't get any effect. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> Wides don't get engaged in Dolby Atmos which most of the titles are. Now for non Dolby Atmos tracts, I can use DTS:X upmixer and utilize them but that's for only non Dolby Atmos tracks. Plus here is something very interesting I'd like to get your and usc119 attention. My L/C/R are JBL 4722N. Please check them out on JBL side. This speaker has a 30" wide and 15" high horn on it. Point is that it puts a HUGEEEE sound stage and I have a diffuser/abosorber combo at Center first reflection point which means I get even bigger sound stage. Not an easy speaker to work with when acoustically treating room because you can easily over absorb or easily over diffuse. It needed a lot of work to get where I am and I'm still tinkering . Point though I'm trying to make is that with these speakers as my L/C/R, what benefit would I get with having wides ?


 Why not use the dtx upmixer all the time? I prefer it over atmos most of the time myself.


----------



## dschulz

harrisu said:


> Wides don't get engaged in Dolby Atmos which most of the titles are.


Wides _do_ get used with Dolby Atmos mixes. They do not get used when using DSU to upmix non-Atmos content (although I gather that is changing). And of course they are used with both DTS:X and DTS Neural:X.


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> But is he making valid points or just trying to promote Auro3D.


He's promoting the Auro-Matic upmixer as a solution to a problem. The problem is Atmos tracks with little to no height information. He was recommending upmixing the 7.1 downmix of Atmos tracks to keep the overhead speakers constantly active.


----------



## MagnumX

Oddly, lots of Auro-3D movie titles this year compared to prior years and Yamaha has added Auro-3D to two of its new AVRs for the first time ever. Personally, I say the more the merrier since there are so many older movies that could use a >5.1 boost regardless of format. For example, the excellent (IMO) recent movie "Boss Level" with Mel Gibson is only in Auro-3D (13.1 I believe) beyond 5.1 and it was fantastic sounding, IMO with a crazy sounding vertical circular effect (imagine a stargate from the movie or tv show buzzing in circles in front of you from ground through the ceiling).

Others this year (*some had alternate Atmos mixes as well from Turbine but unlike some before these were mixed separately by different teams so they sound significantly different even over the same speaker layout. Some had specific scenes I thought were better in one or the other but not necessarily the entire movie. Atmos usually had louder dialog making the effects much more dynamic/striking in the Auro soundtracks like Twister with dialog matched). Other times helicopters were louder and moved differently in Atmos (Daylight) as if the used a whole new helicopter sound (Auro one seemed to be the original soundtrack one but moved overhead).

Dragonheart*
Daylight*
Twister*
Boss Level
The Shadow
Guardians
I See You
Braven
Bandits

2020/19
Honest Thief
The Game
Domino
Death Machine
The Resistance Banker

Not huge numbers (didn't count music releases), but going up not down and most were not prior in anything but 5.1 and/or Dolby Stereo. I've got most of this year's ones already or on the way and all but The Resistance Banker from previous two years (might have missed one there as well as I forget where lines ended). 

All in all, I'll have 22 Auro-3D movies soon plus a dozen music albums. I've got 50 DTS:X titles period. 101 Atmos BDs plus a lot more streaming. But it's not like I'm not getting any use out of Auro-3D. 

Redtails, Boss Level, Salyut-7 and Death Machine all had excellent soundtracks and no Atmos or X alternate. Others were nearly or about as good or even somewhat better than the Atmos alternative. Admittedly, The Game was disappointing, but the original 5.1 soundtrack was even worse. Twister was mind blowing and better than the Atmos version, IMO due to dynamic range on sound effects (scary sounding compared to Atmos at same dialog levels and at least as good surround and overhead effects). Consider the 5.1 soundtrack won an award and it's not even close to this experience. Small wonder Turbine sold out every batch thus far despite being a small German publisher.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Oddly, lots of Auro-3D movie titles this year compared to prior years and Yamaha has added Auro-3D to two of its new AVRs for the first time ever. Personally, I say the more the merrier since there are so many older movies that could use a >5.1 boost regardless of format. For example, the excellent (IMO) recent movie "Boss Level" with Mel Gibson is only in Auro-3D (13.1 I believe) beyond 5.1 and it was fantastic sounding, IMO with a crazy sounding vertical circular effect (imagine a stargate from the movie or tv show buzzing in circles in front of you from ground through the ceiling).
> 
> Others this year (*some had alternate Atmos mixes as well from Turbine but unlike some before these were mixed separately by different teams so they sound significantly different even over the same speaker layout. Some had specific scenes I thought were better in one or the other but not necessarily the entire movie. Atmos usually had louder dialog making the effects much more dynamic/striking in the Auro soundtracks like Twister with dialog matched). Other times helicopters were louder and moved differently in Atmos (Daylight) as if the used a whole new helicopter sound (Auro one seemed to be the original soundtrack one but moved overhead).
> 
> Dragonheart*
> Daylight*
> Twister*
> Boss Level
> The Shadow
> Guardians
> I See You
> Braven
> Bandits
> 
> 2020/19
> Honest Thief
> The Game
> Domino
> Death Machine
> The Resistance Banker
> 
> Not huge numbers (didn't count music releases), but going up not down and most were not prior in anything but 5.1 and/or Dolby Stereo.


I can't speak about the Auro-3D mixes for these because my prepro doesn't have it, but as far as movies go Boss Level was more entertaining than I thought it would be. Honest Thief is currently on Amazon Prime video and I thought it was an okay, passing-grade movie. The Shadow, I'm assuming the 2019 movie, was pretty good as well. So there are some decent titles with Auro-3D out there from your list.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I can't speak about the Auro-3D mixes for these because my prepro doesn't have it, but as far as movies go Boss Level was more entertaining than I thought it would be. Honest Thief is currently on Amazon Prime video and I thought it was an okay, passing-grade movie. The Shadow, I'm assuming the 2019 movie, was pretty good as well. So there are some decent titles with Auro-3D out there from your list.



That's more recent ones. They also had many from previous years (Dark Tower, Inferno, Redtails, Ghostbusters, Johnny Mnemonic, Pixels, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.) 

I think there's plenty of room for all three given how many movies there are that could be retrofitted. Neural X does a fairly decent job with Auro-3D titles, but it does fairly well with Atmos as well. Once in a while (e.g. Phantasm), it does a much BETTER job than real Atmos....


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> He's promoting the Auro-Matic upmixer as a solution to a problem. The problem is Atmos tracks with little to no height information. He was recommending upmixing the 7.1 downmix of Atmos tracks to keep the overhead speakers constantly active.


Some people will enjoy Auro's upmixer because it uses their other speakers more. For my money, it's a glorified DSP mode that adds adjustable reverb to make up for poor steering logic. But then, I don't need or want the overhead speakers to be constantly active (and I don't want my upmixers to be additive). I want them to be used in creative ways when the movie calls for it, and in my experience, the majority of Atmos movies use all of the speakers in the array pretty well. Certainly not every mix... but then, not all 7.1 mixes use the surrounds well either. Or 5.1, etc. Auro is offering a solution to a problem that only exists if you choose preference over reference. IMHO, if a movie has a bad mix, I'd rather hear that mix - warts and all - accurately in my home than toss all object data out in favor of "embiggening" the sound via delayed channel cloning. And I say that as someone who had an Auro layout at one time, tried many other layouts, and ultimately settled on what Dolby's reference home layout is.

It has been interesting to watch so many YouTube channels participate in what seems to me to be the "Auro Redemption Tour". It's impressive from a marketing standpoint that Auro have managed to get such a push for what is a dead format in the U.S., with the justification that you can support their upmixer, for whatever reason... if you're willing to run a layout that compromises the other two dominant native formats. And if that's a thing someone wants to do, there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I'd rather get Atmos and DTS:X 100% right and lose support for the format with zero content in my region than get Atmos and DTS:X maybe 60% right with a giant angular gap in the region immersive formats are designed to fill... but hey, I get access to that reverb-laden German version of my AVR's Concert Hall mode that I never use. I don't lend much credence to Patrick Schappert going on all these channels singing its praises, since he's an Auro Technologies dealer and integrator and it's in his own self-interest to see it succeed. He's basically part of their marketing arm by proxy at this point, as his livelihood depends on it (and he has tripled his own company's net worth in the process). Just him and Wilfried Van Baelen, bouncing between enthusiast channels, desperately doing anything they can to make Auro more relevant after years of it floundering, with no indication of that changing going forward.

But we're beating a long-dead and irrelevant horse here, and this is the Atmos thread - not the Auro3D thread. I'm sure many will disagree with my assessment of it, and that's fine. Ultimately, I decided there was no reason to even factor Auro in with my most recent install, having heard the weaknesses that layout introduces by comparison. I've been pretty happy with that decision thus far.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Some people will enjoy Auro's upmixer because it uses their other speakers more. For my money, it's a glorified DSP mode that adds adjustable reverb to make up for poor steering logic.


Somehow, I don't get the impression you've ever heard Auro-3D by your comments. In fact, you seem utterly confused as to what Auro-3D is in that you keep comparing its UPMIXER (known as Auromatic, BTW) to Dolby Atmos, an immersive format. Dolby has their own upmixers, the most current of which is known as "DSU" (former versions included Pro Logic, Pro Logic II, Pro Logic IIx and Pro Logic IIz). 



> Some people will enjoy Auro's upmixer because it uses their other speakers more. For my money, it's a glorified DSP mode that adds adjustable reverb to make up for poor steering logic.


What does "steering logic" have to do with Auro's upmixer? Auromatic is not a steering based format. In fact, I the only "steering" I'm aware of in this market is Dolby's own Pro Logic center-channel steering which is where the term originates. While both DSU and Neural X move sounds around to other locations (including height channels and even behind the listener), Auromatic merely increases the height of the original mix with a bit of adjustable reverb to increase the apparent size of the room. 

Meanwhile, native Auro is 100% discrete encoded in 8.0->13.1 channels at home. There is no reverb or steering involved _whatsoever _beyond the usual downmixing type when some speakers are not being utilized.



> But then, I don't need or want the overhead speakers to be constantly active (and *I don't want my upmixers to be additive*).


Additive? What do you think it is adding that DSU or Neural X are not doing so as well other than perhaps reverb or the bass issue on higher strength settings?

DSU moves phantom images to side and even rear locations. _Auromatic_ leaves them exactly where the mixing engineer put them. Increasing the sound stage vertically is similar to using planar speakers. It's a larger soundstage, but it's the original soundstage. DSU alters the soundstage to a very large extent in many cases, moving sounds to the side, behind and overhead that were not originally found in those locations when mixed. The only thing Auromatic "adds" is a bit of reverb for space and the settings are adjustable. I don't like how it doesn't account for bass as the strength setting is increased, but overall, seeing as Auromatic, DSU and Neural X all behave in very different ways, I see them more as a nice choice of upmixers for different types of content. 



> I want them to be used in creative ways when the movie calls for it, and in my experience, the majority of Atmos movies use all of the *speakers in the array* pretty well.


Exactly what "array" are you referring to? Arrays have specific meanings in sound playback systems and it seems to me the word you were searching for is more like "repertoire" or as in all the available speakers Atmos supports. An array (short for "line array" BTW), by comparison is a combination of more than one speaker playing the same content in phase. But again, Auro-3D native soundtracks use all their available channels up to 13.1 with absolute precision which is why the upmixer has NOTHING to do with the native format other than being made by the same company. Upmixers are meant for NON-NATIVE content that typically utilizes fewer than the available channels in the format to which the upmixer ascribes to move to.



> Certainly not every mix... but then, not all 7.1 mixes use the surrounds well either. Or 5.1, etc. Auro is offering a solution to a problem that only exists *if you choose preference over reference*.


What _reference_ are you referring to? For example, what "reference" version of the movie RedTails exists in Dolby Atmos? No immersive version of RedTails exists in Dolby Atmos whatsoever! That means the Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack is the _only_ "REFERENCE" in existence! Similarly, movies like Twister that have received revised soundtracks were made by separate mixing teams. Neither version is a "reference" version of the soundtrack. The only time one _might_ possibly compare a "reference" version of a given mix is if the master mix was made in Atmos and a conversion was done to accommodate Auro-3D or DTS:X.



> IMHO, if a movie has a bad mix, I'd rather hear that mix - warts and all - accurately in my home than toss all object data out in favor of "embiggening" the sound via delayed channel cloning.


Embigga-what? 

While most people use Auromatic for music, once again, if you're going to compare apples to apples, then one must compare Auromatic to DSU not Atmos. Atmos should be compared ONLY to native Auro-3D content! I ask you again, in what way does DSU portray _ANY_ upmixed content "accurately" (warts and all) when it MOVES the sounds in the original mix to new locations, whether it was encoded (Pro Logic) to or not (everything else)? 

You appear to object to some simple reverb and size (height) increases that otherwise accurately portray the mix as the mixing engineer otherwise intended, but you have no problem with DSU or Neural X moving objects to new locations above, beside or behind the listener??? I dare say those changes are far more drastic than anything Auromatic does to the sound stage. The only "true" way to listen to native 2.0, 5.1 or 7.1 content "accurately warts and all" is to listen to them in 2.0 (or Pro Logic if encoded as such), 5.1 or 7.1. That means no DSU and no Neural X. That also means to be fair, you should also be bashing the living crap out of them in the same manner, but you clearly are not as you seem to hold this seething position only against Auro Technologies for some unknown reason.



> And I say that as someone who had an Auro layout at one time, tried many other layouts, and ultimately settled on what Dolby's reference home layout is.


Somehow, I have doubts. If you ever did, in fact have such a layout, you lacked the decoder to properly use or render it or you would know the difference between Atmos and Auromatic is one is an immersive format and one is an upmixer. Atmos & Auro-3D are comparable. Auromatic and DSU are comparable. Atmos and Auromatic are NOT comparable (but you keep comparing them anyway).



> It has been interesting to watch so many YouTube channels participate in what seems to me to be the "Auro Redemption Tour".


As opposed to _your_ "Auro Bashing Tour" here?



> It's impressive from a marketing standpoint that Auro have managed to get such a push for what is a dead format in the U.S.


If it's "dead" in the USA, how is it that I have 22 native Auro-3D movies and a dozen native Auro-3D music discs when I live in the USA? Could it be that we live in a global market these days and ordering something from Japan, the UK or Germany is just as easy as ordering it from Wisconsin or California? No, it appears you wish to simply use the term "dead" to emote more bile against Auro Technologies.



> with the justification that you can support their upmixer, for whatever reason... if you're willing to run a layout that compromises the other two dominant native formats.


What in the world are you talking about now? X supports BOTH layouts very well and they do it OFFICIALLY. One could also say Atmos _compromises_ "BOTH" formats too if you want to get right down to it because it's just as true and Auro-3D predates Dolby Atmos by about 7 years (Auro-3D was first demonstrated in 2005 while Dolby Atmos didn't premier until 2012 and was a direct response to the threat that Auro-3D represented. 

In fact, Dolby was introducing its Pro Logic IIz format one year *AFTER* Auro Technologies demonstrated Auro-3D. It took Dolby another 7 years to catch up and demonstrate a viable immersive competitor format. If, in fact Auro Technologies had the clout and money to compete with Dolby to begin with, it would have come fully to market nearly a half decade sooner than Dolby Atmos. It is, in fact, a case of David & Goliath, except that in the real world, David rarely wins the match outside a story in a book. In any case, because Atmos came *after* Auro-3D, it is, in fact, Dolby that compromised the Auro-3D layout, not the other way around.



> And if that's a thing someone wants to do, there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I'd rather get Atmos and DTS:X 100% right and lose support for the format with zero content _in my region_


Regions are a thing of the past. We live in a global market. Most discs don't even enforce regions anymore (no UHD discs have them) and the few that do are easily bypassed or removed. I have been able to play every single Auro-3D movie and music disc I've purchased. In fact, I don't even need the discs to play them after dumping them.



> than get Atmos and DTS:X maybe 60% right with *a giant angular gap in the region immersive formats are designed to fill*.


Surround heights are placed above the surround speakers of the 5.1 format (i.e. 120 degrees in 5.1 or 90-110 in 7.1). How can there be a "hole" with only 60-90 degrees separation between front heights and surround heights? With TOPS in Atmos, there is a 90 degree angular separation between front and rear tops. In other words, if there's a "hole" in true Auro-3D, then there's a "hole" in Atmos with Tops too because the angular gap is IDENTICAL. (120-30 = 90 for Auro-3D with Front and Surround Heights and 135-45 = 90 for Dolby Atmos Tops). 

Even if you used "Rear Heights" instead with Auro-3D (a compromise designed to accommodate Atmos since Dolby would not accommodate the immersive format that came first), you STILL end up with the same "gap" that Atmos has using Heights (150-30 = 120 degrees for BOTH). While Atmos can use Top Middle to fill the gap, Auro can use Top Surround to do the same. Thus, properly set up, there is no such "gap" of which you speak. PERIOD. 



> .. but hey, I get access to that reverb-laden German version of my AVR's Concert Hall mode that I never use.


Auro Technologies is from *Belgium*, not Germany. If you're going to post sarcastic tripe, at least try to get the countries of origin correct. 



> I don't lend much credence to Patrick Schappert going on all these channels singing its praises, since he's an Auro Technologies dealer and integrator


And what credence should I lend you? What's your interest in this matter one way or another?



> But we're beating a long-dead and irrelevant horse here, and this is the Atmos thread - not the Auro3D thread.


I dare say, sir, the only person _beating_ anything around here is YOU with your truly sad attempt to belittle a format for reasons unknown. While you attempt to ascribe financial reasons for their motivations, I do wonder what your own motivations are given this wall of misinformation you are trying to pass off as factual when a simple, "I personally don't care about Auro-3D" would have been more than sufficient to express your opinion. Instead, we are treated to a virtual mountain of misinformation, redirection and sleight of hand.

The ironic thing to me is there are very real reasons that could be listed to substantiate how Dolby Atmos or DTS:X could be conceived as both to be superior to at least the home version of Auro-3D (IMO the upmixers have little in common with each other, particularly Auro's to the other two to consider one superior when they do not function remotely the same), but we see none of those reasons listed here, only incorrect comparisons and bashing of a format for no apparent reason. Personally, I'll take as many immersive soundtracks as I can get and if dividng them up among three codecs instead of one or perhaps two means I get more soundtracks over time than I would otherwise, I'll take it. You are free to ignore them or listen to the 5.1 or 7.1 base tracks instead. No harm is done by Auro's existence whatsoever unless there is some motivation I'm unaware of.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It has been interesting to watch so many YouTube channels participate in what seems to me to be the "Auro Redemption Tour".


Yup, they're _"still fighting the man"_, to quote an earlier post. The sudden and simultaneous timing is interesting though. Maybe Yamaha licensing Auro was the adrenaline shot they needed to relaunch the crusade. There's no downside to having a 3rd immersive audio format in the consumer market.


----------



## harrisu

Rich 63 said:


> Why not use the dtx upmixer all the time? I prefer it over atmos most of the time myself.


I honestly haven't given dtsX a shot yet. Will try it out. But question still remains to be answered. Do wide still help when someone has L/C/R with huge horn and 1st reflection points are being diffused? I mean I'm wondering if wides will disappear as if they arn't there since I already have a big sound stage coming from my L/C/R. Sure in cases where there is a scene where sound is panning, it might help but I am concerned if it will disappear for most of the time.


dschulz said:


> Wides _do_ get used with Dolby Atmos mixes. They do not get used when using DSU to upmix non-Atmos content (although I gather that is changing). And of course they are used with both DTS:X and DTS Neural:X.


Thx for the clarification. I didn't know what.


sdurani said:


> He's promoting the Auro-Matic upmixer as a solution to a problem. The problem is Atmos tracks with little to no height information. He was recommending upmixing the 7.1 downmix of Atmos tracks to keep the overhead speakers constantly active.


Ah ok. What is your opinion about my initial concern about wides. Repeating what I just said above 


> Do wides still help when someone has L/C/R with huge horn and 1st reflection points are being diffused? I mean I'm wondering if wides will disappear as if they arn't there since I already have a big sound stage coming from my L/C/R. Sure in cases where there is a scene where sound is panning, it might help but I am concerned if it will disappear for most of the time.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> What _reference_ are you referring to? For example, what "reference" version of the movie RedTails exists in Dolby Atmos? No immersive version of RedTails exists in Dolby Atmos whatsoever! That means the Auro-3D 11.1 soundtrack is the _only_ "REFERENCE" in existence! Similarly, movies like Twister that have received revised soundtracks were made by separate mixing teams. Neither version is a "reference" version of the soundtrack. The only time one _might_ possibly compare a "reference" version of a given mix is if the master mix was made in Atmos and a conversion was done to accommodate Auro-3D or DTS:X.


Come on. Red Tails is one movie. One. Movie. You can point to a tiny handful of native Auro mixes for movies done for Blu Ray that are not just simpe exports of the Atmos mixes. There are that many new Netflix and Amazon Prime series launching in Atmos every week. I don't mind that Auro exists, or that people ejnjoy it. Competition is good, Auro music recorded natively for Auro is deeply pleasing and Auromatic is a good upmixer for music IMO, less so for movies. But in terms of how movies and TV are mixed the format war is over. If someone is asking for advice on how to build a home theatre today in order to accurately play back movies and television _as they are being mixed today_ the honest answer is to follow Dolby's recommendations if possible.

If that's not possible, or if they've experienced Auro-3D, love it, and want to accomodate that as well, then by all means seek out the wiggle room and commonalities and tinker to your heart's content. The hobby is meant to be fun! But don't attack people for conveying the truth that every single mixing studio in the world that is delivering film and television is lined up according to Dolby specifications, which makes that the logical starting point for any home theatre build.


----------



## sdurani

harrisu said:


> Do wide still help when someone has L/C/R with huge horn and 1st reflection points are being diffused?


Yes, they can help two ways. First, even when side wall first reflections are diffused (not absorbed), Wides can bridge the gap between the Fronts & Sides by replacing the phantom imaging in that gap with a hard source (speakers). Most home theatres have the listeners sitting somewhere in the back half of the room, which means that there will be a big gap between the Fronts & Sides (at least compared to the gap between the Sides & Rears). If you can extract common info between the Fronts & Sides, and feed that signal to the Wides (like Neural:X and the new DSU do), then the Wides will help fill that gap (smoother pans, more stable side wall imaging, etc). 

Some processing modes, like Audyssey DSX, generate ambience rather than extract it. With processing like that, Wides can aid in room simulation. Our human hearing gets its sense of space from lateral (sideways moving) sounds. A delayed version of the Front channels can be fed to the Wides and played back at a level louder than the diffused side wall reflections, giving you the impression of being in a larger space than you actually are. If that type of upmixing is not your cuppa tea, Wides still help as a gap filler.


----------



## BlackCreature

Hi guys. Im
Hoping to add both rear surround and Dolby height speakers. Both in ceiling as i really don’t have the space to have my rears directly behind me as there’s a wall right behind my couch. Will this be ok? The 4 speakers I’m planning to use are the same and the tweeters can be aimed. *Klipsch CDT-3650-C II In-Ceiling Speaker*
Any suggestions will be appreciated as this is my first surround attempt. Thanks.


----------



## X4100

Glad to hear you have decided to start your adventure into immersive audio! You may want to reconsider planning for your rear surround speakers to be installed in your ceiling, as that would interfere with the separation of ceiling and base layer audio. You might want to consider 5.1.4 or even 5.1.2. 😎 Also what size is your room?


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Come on. Red Tails is one movie. One. Movie.


I named SIX movies this year alone. Six. Movies. Red Tails was merely one EXAMPLE of how there is no Dolby Atmos "reference" because it's never been mixed into Dolby Atmos and neither has dozens and dozens of DTS:X movies and over a dozen Auro-3D movies. Would you prefer those movies remain in 5.1 forever?

More to the point, what does that have to do with all that literal mountain of misinformation that guy posted? 

The bottom like is you don't have to like Auro-3D. You don't have to buy a single title. Does that mean people should be crusading to destroy it??! What is wrong with some people on here is beyond me that seem to hate everything they don't like and crusading to destroy it rather than simply leaving it alone and letting others enjoy it. The Shadow with Alec Baldwin (I like the movie enough I have the movie prop of the dagger from it) wouldn't be in Dolby Atmos even if Auro-3D didn't exist. THAT is my point. I'll gladly take The Shadow in 13.1 sound over 5.1 sound while some of you want it wiped from the Earth because it apparently bothers you that it merely exists at all or perhaps because you don't have a decoder to access it.


----------



## BlackCreature

X4100 said:


> Glad to hear you have decided to start your adventure into immersive audio! You may want to reconsider planning for your rear surround speakers to be installed in your ceiling, as that would interfere with the separation of ceiling and base layer audio. You might want to consider 5.1.4 or even 5.1.2. 😎 Also what size is your room?


Thanks for the reply. I’m aiming for 5.1.2. Currently have my front, center and sub plugged into denon s760h. The room is open into the kitchen but small. I’d say 15x15 but no real space to have the rear surround at ear level unfortunately.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> I named SIX movies this year alone. Six. Movies. Red Tails was merely one EXAMPLE of how there is no Dolby Atmos "reference" because it's never been mixed into Dolby Atmos and neither has dozens and dozens of DTS:X movies and over a dozen Auro-3D movies. Would you prefer those movies remain in 5.1 forever?
> 
> More to the point, what does that have to do with all that literal mountain of misinformation that guy posted?
> 
> The bottom like is you don't have to like Auro-3D. You don't have to buy a single title. Does that mean people should be crusading to destroy it??! What is wrong with some people on here is beyond me that seem to hate everything they don't like and crusading to destroy it rather than simply leaving it alone and letting others enjoy it. The Shadow with Alec Baldwin (I like the movie enough I have the movie prop of the dagger from it) wouldn't be in Dolby Atmos even if Auro-3D didn't exist. THAT is my point. I'll gladly take The Shadow in 13.1 sound over 5.1 sound while some of you want it wiped from the Earth because it apparently bothers you that it merely exists at all or perhaps because you don't have a decoder to access it.


I don't think anyone here seriously wants Auro to vanish off the face of the earth (OK, I can think of one poster possibly from the early days of this sub-forum, but he's not particularly active on AVS much these days). Sure there are a few movies like Red Tails and Shadow that are mixed in Auro 3D and not in Atmos, and for all I know possibly more in the South Asian or Asian markets, but IMO the primary value of Auro today is upmixing to Auromatic, and sharing the center height (Ch) and VOG (TS) speakers to possibly be useful with DTS:X Pro / Neural:X or IMAX Enhanced. At least if an Atmos mix for the movies that are also available in Auro is a choice.

As for music...I like Ozark Henry as much as anyone, but at this point native Auro for movies as reference in home theatre releases is a dead letter.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdrucker said:


> I don't think anyone here seriously wants Auro to vanish off the face of the earth (OK, I can think of one poster possibly from the early days of this sub-forum, but he's not particularly active on AVS much these days). Sure there are a few movies like Red Tails and Shadow that are mixed in Auro 3D and not in Atmos, and for all I know possibly more in the South Asian or Asian markets, but IMO the primary value of Auro today is umpiring to Auromatic, and sharing the center height (Ch) and VOG (TS) speakers to possibly be useful with DTS:X Pro / Neural:X or IMAX Enhanced. At least if an Atmos mix for the movies that are aso available in Auro is a choice.
> 
> As for music...I like Ozark Henry as much as anyone, but at this point native Auro for movies as reference in home theatre releases is a dead letter.


I'm assuming this was in response to a poster I can no longer see, but just to clarify, I don't want Auro to vanish off the face of the Earth any more than I want Betamax to disappear as a format. I simply don't think it's worth prioritizing a less-than-ideal layout to support it when its content is a niche within a niche within a niche market at best. It is a non-starter as a native format in the U.S., and that's neither new nor should it be particularly controversial to say (though it always seems to raise some people's hackles when someone says it). As you said, its primary value to those interested seems to be in its upmixer, which has been what their recent marketing campaign has focused on - Auromatic as a "fix" for something not particularly broken when done right. And IMHO, its upmixer doesn't offer enough _for me_ to prioritize that layout over the preferred layout for the two native formats that have an absolute embarrassment of available content. That may not be true for others who enjoy that sorta' thing... and more power to them. But if the question is whether someone should set up their build specifically to support Auro, whether for the miniscule amount of native content available or its upmixer, my answer will always be no. It makes more logical sense to prioritize the overwhelming majority of available content (which should also not be particularly controversial to say here).

Also, on a related note, Red Tails was such a huge disappointment as a movie no matter what audio format it comes in. But I digress.


----------



## Rich 63

Steve Duarte said:


> Hi guys. Im
> Hoping to add both rear surround and Dolby height speakers. Both in ceiling as i really don’t have the space to have my rears directly behind me as there’s a wall right behind my couch. Will this be ok? The 4 speakers I’m planning to use are the same and the tweeters can be aimed. *Klipsch CDT-3650-C II In-Ceiling Speaker*
> Any suggestions will be appreciated as this is my first surround attempt. Thanks.


Unfortunately if you can't seperate the bed speakers from the height speakers as such don't bother


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Steve Duarte said:


> Thanks for the reply. I’m aiming for 5.1.2. Currently have my front, center and sub plugged into denon s760h. The room is open into the kitchen but small. I’d say 15x15 but no real space to have the rear surround at ear level unfortunately.


It's important to stress: There are no REAR surrounds in a 5.1.2 layout. The surrounds should be to your sides and slightly behind your listening position. Is there no room to put speakers to your sides at or just above ear level?


----------



## noah katz

dschulz said:


> Wides _do_ get used with Dolby Atmos mixes.


They _can_ be used, but the question is, how often are they?

By most accounts, not much in most movies.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's important to stress: There are no REAR surrounds in a 5.1.2 layout. The surrounds should be to your sides and slightly behind your listening position.


5.1 layouts have "surround speakers", not "side surround" speakers and they should ideally be at 110-120 degrees, which is definitely behind you, not to your sides. This is because the surrounds are expected to do double duty for side and rear surround effects. If you add front wides, most AVR/AVPs will put side surround content in both the surrounds and front wides (array) and rear surround info only in the surrounds. The array effect will then phantom image between the two for side images.

7.1 layouts have "side surround" and "rear surround" speakers. The side surrounds should be normally be 90-110 degrees according to Dolby, but some may prefer a bit less than 90, particularly if they have two rows of seats (e.g. Surrounds between rows) with rear surrounds between 135-150 degrees behind you according to Dolby.


----------



## harrisu

sdurani said:


> Yes, they can help two ways. First, even when side wall first reflections are diffused (not absorbed), Wides can bridge the gap between the Fronts & Sides by replacing the phantom imaging in that gap with a hard source (speakers). Most home theatres have the listeners sitting somewhere in the back half of the room, which means that there will be a big gap between the Fronts & Sides (at least compared to the gap between the Sides & Rears). If you can extract common info between the Fronts & Sides, and feed that signal to the Wides (like Neural:X and the new DSU do), then the Wides will help fill that gap (smoother pans, more stable side wall imaging, etc).
> 
> Some processing modes, like Audyssey DSX, generate ambience rather than extract it. With processing like that, Wides can aid in room simulation. Our human hearing gets its sense of space from lateral (sideways moving) sounds. A delayed version of the Front channels can be fed to the Wides and played back at a level louder than the diffused side wall reflections, giving you the impression of being in a larger space than you actually are. If that type of upmixing is not your cuppa tea, Wides still help as a gap filler.


Ok so if I do get Wides, I'm still left with 2 channels on my processor . BTW, I purchased 3 amps when I went with HTP-1 so I have an extra amp sitting collecting dust with 4 channels. I can totally buy 4 speakers and install them all in the room  Only catch is that now a days these JBLS SCS-8 are going much more expensive but oh well.
After going with wides, should I install 2 more on ceiling as TM or closer to screen right above making three rows of ceiling speakers with 1 in back and 1 in front and 1 farthest away closest to screen?


----------



## MagnumX

harrisu said:


> Ok so if I do get Wides, I'm still left with 2 channels on my processor . BTW, I purchased 3 amps when I went with HTP-1 so I have an extra amp sitting collecting dust with 4 channels. I can totally buy 4 speakers and install them all in the room  Only catch is that now a days these JBLS SCS-8 are going much more expensive but oh well.
> After going with wides, should I install 2 more on ceiling as TM or closer to screen right above making three rows of ceiling speakers with 1 in back and 1 in front and 1 farthest away closest to screen?


I don't believe the HTP-1 supports Heights and Tops at the same time. You can either do Heights + Top Middle or Tops (front/rear) + Top Middle.


----------



## harrisu

MagnumX said:


> I don't believe the HTP-1 supports Heights and Tops at the same time. You can either do Heights + Top Middle or Tops (front/rear) + Top Middle.


Spot on Sir. So it seems like my only option besides wide is to go with TM. Issue is that I have a 10" soffit going across the room on one side. This means that TM will have to be installed ~15" off the side wall. Now room is only 12 feet wide which means that after I install speaker 15" off side wall and this is going to be SCS-8, I think it will be only 45"-50" away from MLP. I know that Dirac will set the delays/levels properly but wouldn't they become to localized being so close?


----------



## MagnumX

harrisu said:


> Spot on Sir. So it seems like my only option besides wide is to go with TM. Issue is that I have a 10" soffit going across the room on one side. This means that TM will have to be installed ~15" off the side wall. Now room is only 12 feet wide which means that after I install speaker 15" off side wall and this is going to be SCS-8, I think it will be only 45"-50" away from MLP. I know that Dirac will set the delays/levels properly but wouldn't they become to localized being so close?
> View attachment 3185523


Possibly. I read you should aim for at least 3 feet minimum to any given speaker, but even that can be mitigated to some extent by not aiming directly at someone, but that does increase the chances of poorer off-axis response, but I've only run into it for close side speakers to an off-axis chair and I used arrays so there was another source for the side surround in front of that seat (i.e. Ss#2 was behind and inward of swat and pointed away, but regular side was outside and in front of it so it sounded fine. The seat is rarely used anyway.

I've got a steel beam box hanging down in the middle of the room about a foot,which means either hang speakers from it or just under it on the sides to do Top Middle or surround height. I'm doing surround height with a little leakage to front/rear heights (with Scatmos) to counteract the difference in height and width to some extent (12' wide room only has 2.4' difference in width between Top Middle and Surround Height so it doesn't sound night and day different regardless).

However, I had this idea I could probably put top middle speakers on the ceiling in front of and behind the steel beam box (front facing angled towards from row and back side facing middle and rear rows) and array them with a Monoprice impedance matching switchbox (already using two for other purposes like true Auro 1/2 room versus arrayed full room and large Atmos array sides mixed in). It'd give good response for all rows and and sound like the steel beam box didn't exist and wouldn't even need a separate amp. I don't know if you could do something similar with the soffit, but I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## titan ii

The Dolby Atmos installation guide shows two overhead speaker placement variations for 9.1.6. I am planning on moving from 7.1.4 to 9.1.6 and am looking for opinions. suggestions or random thoughts regarding the two placement options. I would think the second would work better? Thanks in advance.


----------



## MagnumX

titan ii said:


> The Dolby Atmos installation guide shows two overhead speaker placement variations for 9.1.6. I am planning on moving from 7.1.4 to 9.1.6 and am looking for opinions. suggestions or random thoughts regarding the two placement options. I would think the second would work better? Thanks in advance.
> 
> View attachment 3185697
> View attachment 3185698


My personal opinion for six overheads is that Heights plus Top Middle is more useful in terms of the extra speakers and gives edge to edge ceiling coverage, but some people prefer sounds higher overhead more often and Tops probably makes mire sense for them with or without Top Middle (still locks sounds overhead for more seats and decreases angular distance). 

The only issue with Heights + Top Middle are soundtracks that use locked speakers (simulating fixed channels) as Disney is known to do. Top Middle either gets unused or is the only one used (Tops has the same issue with this latter one with Top Middle too) depending on whether the soundtrack locks four or only two overhead. 

The HTP-1 is supposed to offer a mode to address that, but the last I checked, it appeared to only work for wides not Top Middle. Hopefully, they'll fix it. With DTS:X Pro, one could always use Neural X on the base tracks and have all speakers working, but it might be a bit less accurate than true Atmos decoding since it's guessing based on the base tracks. Sometimes it's better, however.


----------



## Gates

titan ii said:


> The Dolby Atmos installation guide shows two overhead speaker placement variations for 9.1.6. I am planning on moving from 7.1.4 to 9.1.6 and am looking for opinions. suggestions or random thoughts regarding the two placement options. I would think the second would work better? Thanks in advance.
> 
> View attachment 3185697
> View attachment 3185698


I did the 2nd option and it sounds fantastic.


----------



## Apgood

MagnumX said:


> My personal opinion for six overheads is that Heights plus Top Middle is more useful in terms of the extra speakers and gives edge to edge ceiling coverage, but some people prefer sounds higher overhead more often and Tops probably makes mire sense for them with or without Top Middle (still locks sounds overhead for more seats and decreases angular distance).
> 
> The only issue with Heights + Top Middle are soundtracks that use locked speakers (simulating fixed channels) as Disney is known to do. Top Middle either gets unused or is the only one used (Tops has the same issue with this latter one with Top Middle too) depending on whether the soundtrack locks four or only two overhead.
> 
> The HTP-1 is supposed to offer a mode to address that, but the last I checked, it appeared to only work for wides not Top Middle. Hopefully, they'll fix it. With DTS:X Pro, one could always use Neural X on the base tracks and have all speakers working, but it might be a bit less accurate than true Atmos decoding since it's guessing based on the base tracks. Sometimes it's better, however.


StormAudio just released their StormXT which work on top of Atmos and Auro3D (as well as the non immersive codecs) to fill unutilised speakers with ambient sounds, which I take to mean sound that exists in adjacent speakers.

@Bumper did some checks on his meters to confirm that the silent speakers were working when it was turned on.

It doesn't seem to work with DTS:X but that's probably because the StormAudio already has DTS:X Pro to increase speaker utilisation for DTS:X.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## halcyon_888

Watched Spectre today for the first time, okay movie but the audio is in DTS-MA so I used the DSU with it. During the helicopter sequence at the beginning of the movie there was some cool placement of sounds in the heights. Kind of impressive that the DSU worked so well in this scene.


----------



## X4100

😎 I really enjoyed Spectre as well! Much was said about more of the sound that sounded like it was overhead, is actually in the floor level speakers. YMMV, because I still loved the "day of the dead " celebration. To me the audio was superb especially when the wall collapsed on the building, and the helicopter circling around! IIRC neural x was said to do a much better job upmixing than DSU. My x4100 Denon doesn't have DTS x, so I make do with DSU upmixing as opposed to neural x. It still rocks my world!


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Watched Spectre today for the first time, okay movie but the audio is in DTS-MA so I used the DSU with it. During the helicopter sequence at the beginning of the movie there was some cool placement of sounds in the heights. Kind of impressive that the DSU worked so well in this scene.


Try it with Neural X. It's even more impressive.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> 😎 I really enjoyed Spectre as well! Much was said about more of the sound that sounded like it was overhead, is actually in the floor level speakers. YMMV, because I still loved the "day of the dead " celebration. To me the audio was superb especially when the wall collapsed on the building, and the helicopter circling around! IIRC neural x was said to do a much better job upmixing than DSU. My x4100 Denon doesn't have DTS x, so I make do with DSU upmixing as opposed to neural x. It still rocks my world!


Wow. It's almost mind boggling Denon didn't offer a DTS:X upgrade for that model when they do have an Auro-3D upgrade available for it (albeit paid upgrade).

I don't know if I've ever heard DTS Neo X that it appears to have. I do have Audyssey DSX on my Marantz 7010 (not currently in use), although I didn't care for it.


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> Wow. It's almost mind boggling Denon didn't offer a DTS:X upgrade for that model when they do have an Auro-3D upgrade available for it (albeit paid upgrade).
> 
> I don't know if I've ever heard DTS Neo X that it appears to have. I do have Audyssey DSX on my Marantz 7010 (not currently in use), although I didn't care for it.


I feel the exact same way, why would they offer Auro 3d for $200.00 but not dts:x  ? I use neo:x at times, it depends on what I'm listening to. I'm not a fan of DSX, too much reverb!


----------



## petetherock

sdrucker said:


> I don't think anyone here seriously wants Auro to vanish off the face of the earth (OK, I can think of one poster possibly from the early days of this sub-forum, but he's not particularly active on AVS much these days). Sure there are a few movies like Red Tails and Shadow that are mixed in Auro 3D and not in Atmos, and for all I know possibly more in the South Asian or Asian markets, but IMO the primary value of Auro today is upmixing to Auromatic, and sharing the center height (Ch) and VOG (TS) speakers to possibly be useful with DTS:X Pro / Neural:X or IMAX Enhanced. At least if an Atmos mix for the movies that are also available in Auro is a choice.
> 
> As for music...I like Ozark Henry as much as anyone, but at this point native Auro for movies as reference in home theatre releases is a dead letter.


I like Red Tails and I like Shadow... but I'm not sure how often I wish to replay these titles 
When I moved to my new home, I gave up the VOG channel, and simply opted for a simpler 7.2.4 setup, and spent more time enjoying the movies and less time worrying about the formats... but that's just me..


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I feel the exact same way, why would they offer Auro 3d for $200.00 but not dts:x  ? I use neo:x at times, it depends on what I'm listening to. I'm not a fan of DSX, too much reverb!


As near as I can tell, DTS:X came out the very next year. D&M usually does offer upgrades for some new tech that comes out one year later, but rarely more than that. They could have made it a paid upgrade and it would still have been cheaper at the time than buying a whole new AVR. Auro is a tough choice for some with the lack of native titles and you either like the upmixer or you don't, but IMO DTS:X is a no brainer even if one doesn't care about DTS:X native titles for whatever reason because Neural X is worth the weight of gold in terms of upgrading older soundtracks to "near immersive" (some sound MUCH BETTER than actual Atmos soundtracks!).

Personally, I'm not in awe of the Auro upmixer like some are (probably because it's not terribly audible in the front row for most music; I can hear it much better in rows 2 & 3 but I rarely sit there without company because the screen looks smaller). Even so, despite the claims of a lack of native content, I I'll soon have 22 Auro-3D native movies (and a dozen music albums) when the next 3 arrive soon (almost a dozen of which are Auro-3D only titles unlike the implied "Redtails is just one movie" comment a page back or so and I've watched Redtails probably six times now because the dogfights are awesome to hear/watch). Combined, that's over half the number of DTS:X titles I have (50) and it's not like Atmos doesn't _also_ work which is why I said the more the merrier. It's a shame you don't have DTS:X, though. The Harry Potter UHD set is quite possibly the best overall immersion of any movie I've heard (Gravity in Atmos is impressive for sound, for example, but the movie isn't worth viewing over and over and HP is, IMO). 

As for Audyssey DSX, I agree, the reverb was/is out of control. It actually sounded like "double reverb echoes" here if I enabled wides and heights when I played with it and unlike Auro's upmixer, there was no setting I could find to turn it down whatsoever. Small wonder it's not included on newer AVRs....

Honestly, I'm not totally happy with DSU for music. I liked PLIIx, but somehow DSU just doesn't seem to do as well and there's no option to turn heights off for music (i.e. You don't always want instruments on the ceiling with some music). Neural X sometimes works well for music (particularly upmixing 5.1 surround albums to higher speaker counts), but neither really "scratch the itch" for more immersive mixes from my large stereo music collection. I think there's plenty of room for improvement and/or new surround formats. I've always wondered about Logic 7, for example and the JBL AVP supposedly has a "Logic 16" mode, but the last I checked it wasn't functional yet and having to buy an entire receiver or processor to get one format sucks.

Other than possibly picking up an old Carver _Sonic Holography_ unit to play to try on the PSB home theater system (it works great on my Carver ribbons speakers, giving almost 90 degrees to the side sound on some albums with no surrounds enabled), I'm still curious to try Involve Audio's Surround Master decoder (SQ/QS quad decoders plus the QS works with all stereo music albums and from the reviews I've read, it sounds like it's vastly more powerful than ANY upmixer out there for actually moving sounds in a 360 circle around you from 2-channel only, far beyond Neural X, for example. That almost sounds hard to believe, but I can think of a lot of albums I have that might benefit from better immersive-like sound and even Neural X doesn't go far enough with some of them. It might not either, but I'm curious enough to give a try (even though they're not cheap decoders, but they do also make Quad albums on LP available again, even if you dump the album to digital first. The Marantz AVRs have 7.1 inputs still, so it will work with them, but not with most newer AVRs since it only has analog 5.1 outputs currently).



petetherock said:


> I like Red Tails and I like Shadow... but I'm not sure how often I wish to replay these titles
> When I moved to my new home, I gave up the VOG channel, and simply opted for a simpler 7.2.4 setup, and spent more time enjoying the movies and less time worrying about the formats... but that's just me..


I can see some real value is "locking" the speaker location in place for off-axis seats, but otherwise, a simulated "VOG" using either Surround Heights, Rear Heights or a combination (I have them both arrayed so both are used at the same time) works well at home by creating a phantom image overhead. The Monoprice HTP-1 takes a novel approach and uses its Top Middle Atmos/X outputs as dual mono "VOG" output with Rear Heights in use plus it can use its wide synth mode to offer front wides in Auro-3D and in Atmos soundtracks that don't support them. I've been seriously thinking about upgrading to the HTP-1 as that would give me 15.1 discrete and I could redirect my "Scatmos" processors to do SS#2 "near discrete" instead of Top Middle, giving me almost perfectly discrete 11.1.6 output (not that using arrayed/mixed FW and SS#2 currently sounds 'bad' or anything. From the MLP, you probably couldn't tell the difference.

Plus the HTP-1 has DIRAC and that could seriously improve the sound quality regardless of the format used compared to Audyssey XT32.

Oddly, Amir on _Audios Science Review_ says the HTP-1 *Not Recommended* due to inaudible measurements he made that turns him off completely (He's never once actually listened to it period). People follow this guy's "reviews" and believe every word he says too. Call me strange, but AVPs are made for listening, not just measuring on a scope/meter. I'm an Electronic Engineer myself and ignoring the purpose of the product (audible sound) is a bridge too far for me. I quit reading the site after that review and Amir arguing with me about measurements are far more important than the sound they make (WTF!?). Function is the entire purpose of design. Good engineering is fine, but a quieter than human hearing rocket capsule at 5x the cost is a waste of money if its job is simply to get you to the International Space Station. I'd rather ask someone like Elon Musk. He's made the competition look bad.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Honestly, I'm not totally happy with DSU for music. I liked PLIIx, but somehow DSU just doesn't seem to do as well and there's no option to turn heights off for music (i.e. You don't always want instruments on the ceiling with some music).


100% agreed. Most of the time when I'm upmixing music I do not want the heights engaged. And apart from that, PLIIx is a better upmixer for music than DSU. Very frustrating that with advances in everything else it feels like the state-of-the-art for upmixing music has taken a step back. 

I am told that Logic 7 was fantastic, even better than PLIIx, but I've never heard it myself so cannot confirm or deny. I also heard from somewhere that Logic 16 was terrible, but I don't even recall where I heard that particular rumor, so giant grain of salt.


----------



## BlackCreature

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's important to stress: There are no REAR surrounds in a 5.1.2 layout. The surrounds should be to your sides and slightly behind your listening position. Is there no room to put speakers to your sides at or just above ear level?


There really isn’t room as my couch is back against the wall already. I MAYBE, or might be able to install 4” speakers on the back wall on either side but tills be super tricky. The easiest way for me would be above and slightly behind me in ceiling, with tweeters aimed at me. Not good enough?


----------



## Josh Z

X4100 said:


> 😎 I really enjoyed Spectre as well! Much was said about more of the sound that sounded like it was overhead, is actually in the floor level speakers. YMMV, because I still loved the "day of the dead " celebration. To me the audio was superb especially when the wall collapsed on the building, and the helicopter circling around! IIRC neural x was said to do a much better job upmixing than DSU.


I used that specific scene for comparing the three upmixers. They each handled it differently. Here's what I wrote at the time:

---
The Dolby Surround Upmixer primarily focuses on drawing ambient and atmospheric sounds into the height speakers while leaving most discrete sound effects in the original ground channels. DTS Neural:X does the opposite, pulling sound effects upward while leaving ambient sounds below. It also applies a decided volume boost to the height speakers compared to the other formats. Finally, Auro-3D appears to simply copy the ground channels into the heights, expanding the soundstage vertically with a little reverb added to give the heights some separation. 
---

The way the movie is mixed, the helicopter sounds in that scene image overhead very effectively even in 7.1 with no upmixing.


----------



## halcyon_888

Josh Z said:


> I used that specific scene for comparing the three upmixers. They each handled it differently. Here's what I wrote at the time:
> 
> ---
> The Dolby Surround Upmixer primarily focuses on drawing ambient and atmospheric sounds into the height speakers while leaving most discrete sound effects in the original ground channels. DTS Neural:X does the opposite, pulling sound effects upward while leaving ambient sounds below. It also applies a decided volume boost to the height speakers compared to the other formats. Finally, Auro-3D appears to simply copy the ground channels into the heights, expanding the soundstage vertically with a little reverb added to give the heights some separation.
> ---
> 
> The way the movie is mixed, the helicopter sounds in that scene image overhead very effectively even in 7.1 with no upmixing.


I just went back and compared the base DTS track, the DSU, and DTS Neural:X and basically got the same results you did. I'm surprised how well the base DTS track images overhead, I don't recall hearing anything like this before. My prepro doesn't have Dolby Height Virtualization, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is encoded in the base DTS mix for Spectre it's that convincing. I had to get up and put my ear to my heights to make sure they were still off even after I turned off the upmixers.

DSU added some "whisps" to the blades mostly during the scene, so how you described it as ambient and atmospheric is a good description.

DTS Neural:X was much more discrete and somehow detected the base DTS mix intention and created a 3D soundfield with the helicopter blades. It was as good as an Atmos demo in my opinion. My prepro hasn't been upgraded to Auro-3D so I couldn't test it.

DSU is still my go-to upmixer, with DTS Neural:X I don't like how it can mix the soundtrack and dialogue at the same time and can make the music loud-ish in the heights, affecting the balance between dialogue and music. In the same scene DSU will place the music in the heights but it's not as loud and seems more balanced. So I normally use the DSU when upmixing, but there are some soundtracks like Spectre that sound great with DTS Neural:X; another that comes to mind is Edge of Tomorrow. But again, I normally prefer the DSU for balance.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I just went back and compared the base DTS track, the DSU, and DTS Neural:X and basically got the same results you did. I'm surprised how well the base DTS track images overhead, I don't recall hearing anything like this before. My prepro doesn't have Dolby Height Virtualization, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is encoded in the base DTS mix for Spectrem it's that convincing. I had to get up and put my ear to my heights to make sure they were still off even after I turned off the upmixers.
> 
> DSU added some "whisps" to the blades mostly during the scene, so how you described it as ambient and atmospheric is a good description.
> 
> DTS Neural:X was much more discrete and somehow detected the base DTS mix intention and created a 3D soundfield with the helicopter blades. It was as good as an Atmos demo in my opinion. My prepro hasn't been upgraded to Auro-3D so I couldn't test it.
> 
> DSU is still my go-to upmixer, with DTS Neural:X I don't like how it can mix the soundtrack and dialogue at the same time and can make the music loud-ish in the heights, affecting the balance between dialogue and music. In the same scene DSU will place the music in the heights but it's not as loud and seems more balanced. So I normally use the DSU when upmixing, but there are some soundtracks like Spectre that sound great with DTS Neural:X; another that comes to mind is Edge of Tomorrow. But again, I normally prefer the DSU for balance.


I've actually gotten Atmos-like immersion on occasion with 2.0 old soundtracks (The movie "Biggles: Adventures In Time" comes to mind as it has bi-planes and helicopters in it a lot and Neural X dutifully places them overhead and even pans overhead like it's a 5.1 or 7.1 upmix. That movie and others have no modern "clues" from some DTS:X or Atmos master mix so it's obvious the time/frequency slice analyzing their upmixer patents mention shortly before DTS:X was released don't need specific clues from immersion formats to function. 

I've really been quite amazed how well and accurate Neural X has been for putting movie sound effects at the correct height level or very close to it. For all the talk of errors with cars driving on the ceiling or something to that effect, I've never ONCE heard it do any such thing with sound effects.

I do agree it tends to sometimes put music or parts of it in the front heights for some reason, but given the inconsistency of it along with knowing the extreme bag of tricks music production uses to treat sounds (from guitar pedals to reverb and phase shifting effects, robot vocoders and analog synthesizers and more) it could easily be confused when looking for naturally occurring clues).

I've never noticed the "balance" change per se in levels, but the focus varies a lot and could possibly be interpreted that way by the brain (or for those that purposely have overheads louder than bed levels to make effects more pronounced obviously would get louder music if Neural X placed sounds overhead). The only upmixer I've heard actually change relative levels is Auromatic at higher strength settings.


----------



## Gates

Which version of Red Tails has the Auro track? Import? I want to try the Auro. Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> Which version of Red Tails has the Auro track? Import? I want to try the Auro. Thanks.


It's the German Blu-ray. If there's a picture of the back side, it's on the case. There's sometimes a sticker on the front as well. I think I got mine from Amazon Germany, but their shopping is high lately. Amazon UK sometimes carries it and it may show on eBay as well.


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> It's the German Blu-ray. If there's a picture of the back side, it's on the case. There's sometimes a sticker on the front as well. I think I got mine from Amazon Germany, but their shopping is high lately. Amazon UK sometimes carries it and it may show on eBay as well.


Thank you.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I named SIX movies this year alone. Six. Movies. Red Tails was merely one EXAMPLE of how there is no Dolby Atmos "reference" because it's never been mixed into Dolby Atmos and neither has dozens and dozens of DTS:X movies and over a dozen Auro-3D movies. Would you prefer those movies remain in 5.1 forever?
> 
> More to the point, what does that have to do with all that literal mountain of misinformation that guy posted?
> 
> The bottom like is you don't have to like Auro-3D. You don't have to buy a single title. Does that mean people should be crusading to destroy it??! What is wrong with some people on here is beyond me that seem to hate everything they don't like and crusading to destroy it rather than simply leaving it alone and letting others enjoy it. The Shadow with Alec Baldwin (I like the movie enough I have the movie prop of the dagger from it) wouldn't be in Dolby Atmos even if Auro-3D didn't exist. THAT is my point. I'll gladly take The Shadow in 13.1 sound over 5.1 sound while some of you want it wiped from the Earth because it apparently bothers you that it merely exists at all or perhaps because you don't have a decoder to access it.


I'm pretty sure HD DVD had 6 titles released some years too...and I'm pretty sure some of the fans were just as passionate as why they were good as you


----------



## Josh Z

halcyon_888 said:


> I just went back and compared the base DTS track, the DSU, and DTS Neural:X and basically got the same results you did. I'm surprised how well the base DTS track images overhead, I don't recall hearing anything like this before.


One of the most famous instances of this is in Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. There's a scene that takes place inside the lower decks of a boat, and you can hear the footsteps of people tromping around on the deck above that sound like they're coming from your ceiling even without speakers there.



> My prepro doesn't have Dolby Height Virtualization, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is encoded in the base DTS mix for Spectre it's that convincing. I had to get up and put my ear to my heights to make sure they were still off even after I turned off the upmixers.


Virtual directionalization has been around for a long time. Soundbars have used it to fake surround sound for years and years. The same techniques can be embedded directly into the sound mix itself to fool your ears into hearing sounds where there aren't any.


----------



## sdurani

Josh Z said:


> One of the most famous instances of this is in Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. There's a scene that takes place inside the lower decks of a boat, and you can hear the footsteps of people tromping around on the deck above that sound like they're coming from your ceiling even without speakers there.


I wonder how much of that is expectation bias. Had it been a different sound effect, would we still hear it as coming from above? Or were those specific sound effects pre-processed with some virtualization before being mixed into the soundtrack?


----------



## MagnumX

I never heard the helicopter in Spectre overhead without an upmixer, maybe not quite at ear level, but only Neural X put it fully on the ceiling here.

Older 5.1 and 7.1 setups usually had surrounds overhead 2/3 up the wall so yeah, the helicopter would be overhead like that, maybe not the ceiling, but overhead.

I have played binaural thunderstorms and other sounds over multichannel stereo and as long as it's balanced, it images around the room like its Atmos, left, right, front, back overhead and even foot level. I've always thought they could add floor level sounds to Atmos by simply applying appropriate HRTF data to the object sounds.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Steve Duarte said:


> There really isn’t room as my couch is back against the wall already. I MAYBE, or might be able to install 4” speakers on the back wall on either side but tills be super tricky. The easiest way for me would be above and slightly behind me in ceiling, with tweeters aimed at me. Not good enough?


For 5.1, yes. For 5.1.2, no, because the surrounds should be at ear level or slightly above. As someone said earlier, you have to have separation between the ear-level channels and the heights. No way to put speakers to your sides at all? Even if it's slightly in front of your MLP?


----------



## halcyon_888

Josh Z said:


> One of the most famous instances of this is in Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. There's a scene that takes place inside the lower decks of a boat, and you can hear the footsteps of people tromping around on the deck above that sound like they're coming from your ceiling even without speakers there.


Do you have a timestamp or a scene number/name? I checked and I actually own this movie on DVD, it has a Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 track according to the case. I could give it a whirl if I had a better idea where the scene was.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm pretty sure HD DVD had 6 titles released some years too...and I'm pretty sure some of the fans were just as passionate as why they were good as you


HD-DVD was a competing incompatible disc format, not a surround format that's fully 5.1/7.1 backwards compatible (discs are still good even if you no longer have a AVR/AVP that supports it) and it's filling a niche of upgrading old 2.0 and 5.1 soundtracks to something better. It also went down in numbers over time, not up so your analogy is poor, IMO.

I'm not choosing between Atmos and Auro-3D or even DTS:X. I buy whichever one is on a movie I want. They all are vastly better than 5.1. There are more than enough movies to go around that could use updated soundtracks from mono, stereo and 5.1.

I understand those without an Auro decoder don't give a crap about it, but until they offer Boss Level, The Shadow, The Game, RedTails, I See You, Salyut-7, Guardians and others in Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, sorry, but I'll take 11.1 or 13.1 over 5.1 any day of the week.

You can still listen to 5.1 if you like (even from the same discs or 5.1 only discs).


----------



## MagnumX

Steve Duarte said:


> There really isn’t room as my couch is back against the wall already. I MAYBE, or might be able to install 4” speakers on the back wall on either side but tills be super tricky. The easiest way for me would be above and slightly behind me in ceiling, with tweeters aimed at me. Not good enough?


Perhaps a photo or diagram would be helpful to aid us in making possible suggestions. 

You could put the surround speakers in front of your couch to the sides and put the overhead speakers above it or above the surrounds in front of it. Either will still likely sound better than stereo or 5.1, IMO.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

halcyon_888 said:


> Do you have a timestamp or a scene number/name? I checked and I actually own this movie on DVD, it has a Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 track according to the case. I could give it a whirl if I had a better idea where the scene was.


Iirc, chapter 4 under attack has some overhead stuff. I haven’t watched it since I lowered my surrounds and went Atmos so not sure how it translates. I do know that the BD version has a 30hz filter and the cannons are WEAK!!! The dts track is excellent.


----------



## X4100

I have an old dvd entitled "The Cave ", with DSU it sounds delightful!!


----------



## petetherock

X4100 said:


> I have an old dvd entitled "The Cave ", with DSU it sounds delightful!!


Wonderful show with great ambient effects... hope it comes to 4k and comes with Atmos ...


----------



## Josh Z

halcyon_888 said:


> Do you have a timestamp or a scene number/name? I checked and I actually own this movie on DVD, it has a Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 track according to the case. I could give it a whirl if I had a better idea where the scene was.


Sorry, it's been quite a while since I last watched the movie.


----------



## X4100

@Polyrythm1k said above 3 posts chapter 4 "under attack "


----------



## Polyrythm1k

X4100 said:


> @Polyrythm1k said above 3 posts chapter 4 "under attack "


There could definitely be other scenes, I haven’t watched it in awhile. But yeah, that is a standout.


----------



## halcyon_888

Okay so I played chapter 4 of Master and Commander, the DTS 5.1 track, and there is a sound effect of feet stomping on a wooden deck but I didn't detect any height imaging or psychoacoustic effect in the scene. The sound effect is designed to sound like feet are stomping on a deck above but it just sounds like it's coming from the base layer speakers to my ears.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Okay so I played chapter 4 of Master and Commander, the DTS 5.1 track, and there is a sound effect of feet stomping on a wooden deck but I didn't detect any height imaging or psychoacoustic effect in the scene. The sound effect is designed to sound like feet are stomping on a deck above but it just sounds like it's coming from the base layer speakers to my ears.


Did you try it with Neural X engaged? I bought the movie, but I haven't watched it yet. I might try it out tonight and see what I hear.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Did you try it with Neural X engaged? I bought the movie, but I haven't watched it yet. I might try it out tonight and see what I hear.


Yes I tried it with the DSU and it placed some of the sounds in the heights, then Neural X which placed more in the heights but it still sounded to me like there was alot in the base layer.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Yes I tried it with the DSU and it placed some of the sounds in the heights, then Neural X which placed more in the heights but it still sounded to me like there was alot in the base layer.


If you want to hear proper footsteps overhead, A Quiet Place in Atmos towards the end when they're hiding in the basement comes to mind. Then there's Overlord in Atmos with a baseball landing on the floor above and rolling across it or Fury when the Germans are banging on the tank turret (camera inside tank).


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> If you want to hear proper footsteps overhead, A Quiet Place in Atmos towards the end when they're hiding in the basement comes to mind. Then there's Overlord in Atmos with a baseball landing on the floor above and rolling across it or Fury when the Germans are banging on the tank turret (camera inside tank).


Is fury atmos or 5.1?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Is fury atmos or 5.1?


Atmos


----------



## titan ii

Chirosamsung said:


> Is fury atmos or 5.1?


BR 5.1
4K Atmos

At least according to blu-ray.com


----------



## X4100

The amazing thing about "Master and Commander" for me is without height speakers, I know the sound is coming from my ear level speakers, but it really gives the impression the sound is above me. It's similar to "Twister" when the house is collapsing around "aunt Meg".


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> The amazing thing about "Master and Commander" for me is without height speakers, I know the sound is coming from my ear level speakers, but it really gives the impression the sound is above me. It's similar to "Twister" when the house is collapsing around "aunt Meg".


The new Turbine Atmos/Auro-3D versions of Twister are insane. The whole darn ceiling was swirling overhead at times. They really need to make more copies to sell (keep selling out). That version is demo worthy Atmos and Auro.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

halcyon_888 said:


> Okay so I played chapter 4 of Master and Commander, the DTS 5.1 track, and there is a sound effect of feet stomping on a wooden deck but I didn't detect any height imaging or psychoacoustic effect in the scene. The sound effect is designed to sound like feet are stomping on a deck above but it just sounds like it's coming from the base layer speakers to my ears.


I’ll try and demo this again. When my surrounds were at about 6’ high, I had footsteps imaging above me. Interested in trying again. 

Also, something weird my room. In King Arthur King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) - IMDb
There’s a scene with some fireworks overhead in the middlish part of the film. When I would watch this in 7.1 they sounded like they were overhead. When I watch with the Atmos track, it sounds very diffused throughout most of my bed layer, with little overhead. I intend to look into this more. But it seems odd.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’ll try and demo this again. When my surrounds were at about 6’ high, I had footsteps imaging above me. Interested in trying again.
> 
> Also, something weird my room. In King Arthur King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) - IMDb
> There’s a scene with some fireworks overhead in the middlish part of the film. When I would watch this in 7.1 they sounded like they were overhead. When I watch with the Atmos track, it sounds very diffused throughout most of my bed layer, with little overhead. I intend to look into this more. But it seems odd.


That's probably it. You had your surrounds at 6' with 7.1 so everything in the surrounds would be at least a little overhead. Even with my surrounds at 3.5', some sounds image just over my head in the bed layer for some reason and some sounds image near the floor once in awhile. 

Likewise, I've had Atmos music albums like Booka Shade have sounds image just above my head and they were in the height layer while others are at ceiling height or even seeming above the ceiling. 

It seems any HRTF (head related transfer function) data in the signal can change where a sound images whether accidental or intentional. I remember Q-Sound back in the 1990s did some crazy surround positional stuff with just two channels (Roger Waters' Amused To Death comes to mind; in fact I like the old Q-Sound version better than the new re-release in 5.1, although most of the sound effects image identical here for the MLP even though the surround speakers aren't used or needed ob the Q-Sound stereo version.


----------



## petetherock

halcyon_888 said:


> Okay so I played chapter 4 of Master and Commander, the DTS 5.1 track, and there is a sound effect of feet stomping on a wooden deck but I didn't detect any height imaging or psychoacoustic effect in the scene. The sound effect is designed to sound like feet are stomping on a deck above but it just sounds like it's coming from the base layer speakers to my ears.


It definitely worked for me... that was was amazing.
Also try the movie Riddick, where the monsters were walking on the zinc roof
Then try "The Cave"... cheers


----------



## Josh Z

halcyon_888 said:


> Yes I tried it with the DSU and it placed some of the sounds in the heights, then Neural X which placed more in the heights but it still sounded to me like there was alot in the base layer.


Did you *only* try it with the upmixers on? We're talking about listening in 5.1 with no upmixing. The upmixers may actually interfere with the effect.

The positions of your speakers in relation to your ears may also affect this.


----------



## halcyon_888

Josh Z said:


> Did you *only* try it with the upmixers on? We're talking about listening in 5.1 with no upmixing. The upmixers may actually interfere with the effect.
> 
> The positions of your speakers in relation to your ears may also affect this.


No I tried it with the base DTS 5.1 track first, then after that I used the upmixers to see what they would do. My surround speakers' tweeters are about 1ft above ear height.


----------



## X4100

petetherock said:


> It definitely worked for me... that was was amazing.
> Also try the movie Riddick, where the monsters were walking on the zinc roof
> Then try "The Cave"... cheers


I'll have to try Riddick, it's amazing how audio can be manipulated to sound like it's surround even with a regular 2 channel program on TV. Shows like CSI, Law and Order,and Chicago PD, are ssssooo much better playing back through my 5.1.4 setup 😎 😎


----------



## X4100

halcyon_888 said:


> No I tried it with the base DTS 5.1 track first, then after that I used the upmixers to see what they would do. My surround speakers' tweeters are about 1ft above ear height.


Actually the upmixing with DSU wasn't as good as the 5.1 straight  I know YouTube gets a bad rap, but I enjoy some of the shorts on "Dust ". I find them to be very ATMOSpheric!!


----------



## halcyon_888

Polyrythm1k said:


> I’ll try and demo this again. When my surrounds were at about 6’ high, I had footsteps imaging above me. Interested in trying again.





petetherock said:


> It definitely worked for me... that was was amazing.
> Also try the movie Riddick, where the monsters were walking on the zinc roof
> Then try "The Cave"... cheers


It's curious because with the 5.1 Spectre helicopter scene it definitely sounded like it was imaging above me, I've been in home theater for a long time and I've never heard something like that before.

Maybe with Master and Commander that part of my brain that is supposed to kick in and interpret the sound coming from above me never happened. So that could be why it just sounded like a sound effect coming from my speakers.


----------



## BlackCreature

MagnumX said:


> Perhaps a photo or diagram would be helpful to aid us in making possible suggestions.
> 
> You could put the surround speakers in front of your couch to the sides and put the overhead speakers above it or above the surrounds in front of it. Either will still likely sound better than stereo or 5.1, IMO.





MagnumX said:


> Perhaps a photo or diagram would be helpful to aid us in making possible suggestions.
> 
> You could put the surround speakers in front of your couch to the sides and put the overhead speakers above it or above the surrounds in front of it. Either will still likely sound better than stereo or 5.1, IMO.


I’m gonna try to share a pic sometime today. In the case that i can fit very small speakers/satellites as my surround rear in a 5.1.2 setup, are there any you recommend that are pretty small but decent? I am going to install the 2 height atmos in the ceiling just a foot or two in front of the MLP. The room isn’t terribly big. Thanks again.


----------



## Josh Z

halcyon_888 said:


> No I tried it with the base DTS 5.1 track first, then after that I used the upmixers to see what they would do. My surround speakers' tweeters are about 1ft above ear height.


There are lots of other variables to consider. Are the surround speakers at 90-degrees to your seat, or forward or behind the seat? How tall is your ceiling? Is it flat or sloped? Drywall or paneling? Any of these factors could impact how well the effect works.


----------



## MagnumX

Steve Duarte said:


> I’m gonna try to share a pic sometime today. In the case that i can fit very small speakers/satellites as my surround rear in a 5.1.2 setup, are there any you recommend that are pretty small but decent? I am going to install the 2 height atmos in the ceiling just a foot or two in front of the MLP. The room isn’t terribly big. Thanks again.


It's best to try and match timbre of the other speakers, if possible (i.e. similar tweeter and/or midrange are desirable). Bookshelf is fine for surrounds. I used bookshelf speakers for years with a subwoofer crossed at 80Hz (bookshelf speakers were rated to 55Hz) and it worked fine since the sub handled all the bass. If there isn't a good matching bookshelf or surround model, something that sounds similar perhaps (i.e. some on here might have some ideas). What speakers are you using now (sorry if you mentioned them already)?


----------



## BlackCreature

MagnumX said:


> It's best to try and match timbre of the other speakers, if possible (i.e. similar tweeter and/or midrange are desirable). Bookshelf is fine for surrounds. I used bookshelf speakers for years with a subwoofer crossed at 80Hz (bookshelf speakers were rated to 55Hz) and it worked fine since the sub handled all the bass. If there isn't a good matching bookshelf or surround model, something that sounds similar perhaps (i.e. some on here might have some ideas). What speakers are you using now (sorry if you mentioned them already)?


I’m using Klipsch rp600m for front, 404c for center, and pair cdt3650 II for the in ceiling Dolby. I honestly don’t have much space for rear/side surround so they would have to be very small low profile or mounted in the ceiling just above/behind MLP. Sub is SVS sb 1000 pro


----------



## BlackCreature

MagnumX said:


> It's best to try and match timbre of the other speakers, if possible (i.e. similar tweeter and/or midrange are desirable). Bookshelf is fine for surrounds. I used bookshelf speakers for years with a subwoofer crossed at 80Hz (bookshelf speakers were rated to 55Hz) and it worked fine since the sub handled all the bass. If there isn't a good matching bookshelf or surround model, something that sounds similar perhaps (i.e. some on here might have some ideas). What speakers are you using now (sorry if you mentioned them already)?


I was possibly looking at a pair of Polk T1 satellite for the surrounds as they’re not that big and won’t be in the way. Otherwise if i install other small speakers inside the wall behind, they may be straight firing and not ideal?


----------



## MagnumX

Steve Duarte said:


> I was possibly looking at a pair of Polk T1 satellite for the surrounds as they’re not that big and won’t be in the way. Otherwise if i install other small speakers inside the wall behind, they may be straight firing and not ideal?


I think Klipsch makes some smaller speakers. I have their 2.1 computer speakers and they are quite small and sound amazing for the price (I use them with my Mac and have a set in my bedroom as well). I haven't looked at their current lineup, however. 

I set my mother's house up with a Klipsch 5.1 system and she had this furniture cabinet under the TV she liked that had a nice shaped spot for a center speaker right below the TV and Polk had a speaker that would fit it perfectly (No Klipsch center was going to fit) so I gave it a try and it matches very well so I'd say there's a fair chance Polk surrounds might match up with Klipsch.


----------



## halcyon_888

Josh Z said:


> There are lots of other variables to consider. Are the surround speakers at 90-degrees to your seat, or forward or behind the seat? How tall is your ceiling? Is it flat or sloped? Drywall or paneling? Any of these factors could impact how well the effect works.


I have a 5.1.2 system and the two surrounds are about 45deg behind, I have limited placement for them and this was the best compromise considering other factors as well like seating distance and just basically where to position the couch. The ceiling is a cathedral with the peak right down the middle of the living room at about 12ft, and everything is regular drywall. But there's also a factor if I can just hear the effect, I might not be able to hear those kinds of effects even if the system is setup perfectly because some people just can't. I'm leaning toward this direction because I've never really been able to hear 5.1 height effects like plane flyovers, etc.; my brain just picks up the sound as coming from the base speakers. The only exception so far was the helicopter scene in Spectre, which is why I was so surprised with it.


----------



## titan ii

Steve Duarte said:


> I’m gonna try to share a pic sometime today. In the case that i can fit very small speakers/satellites as my surround rear in a 5.1.2 setup, are there any you recommend that are pretty small but decent? I am going to install the 2 height atmos in the ceiling just a foot or two in front of the MLP. The room isn’t terribly big. Thanks again.


Klipsch R-41M if they are not too big,


----------



## chi_guy50

Steve Duarte said:


> I was possibly looking at a pair of *Polk T1 satellite* for the surrounds as they’re not that big and won’t be in the way. Otherwise if i install other small speakers inside the wall behind, they may be straight firing and not ideal?


I assume that you mean the Polk Audio TL1.

I am using the TL3 speakers as surrounds in my bedroom 5.1.2 system. They are excellent small satellites, but in my case they are also a timbre match for my L/C/R LSiM series with their ring radiator tweeters. IDK how well the silk dome tweeter in the TL1 will match up with your Klipsch speakers, if that is even a consideration.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I have a 5.1.2 system and the two surrounds are about 45deg behind, I have limited placement for them and this was the best compromise considering other factors as well like seating distance and just basically where to position the couch. The ceiling is a cathedral with the peak right down the middle of the living room at about 12ft, and everything is regular drywall. But there's also a factor if I can just hear the effect, I might not be able to hear those kinds of effects even if the system is setup perfectly because some people just can't. I'm leaning toward this direction because I've never really been able to hear 5.1 height effects like plane flyovers, etc.; my brain just picks up the sound as coming from the base speakers. The only exception so far was the helicopter scene in Spectre, which is why I was so surprised with it.


That's also a real possibility. When I played a bunch of overhead demo stuff for my mother, she couldn't hear many of the overhead effects as directly overhead even when imaged directly between the two on the ceiling on the side walls (which image right above my head with many effects). She'd point to weird locations in the room like she was having trouble localizing them period. This only seemed to happen with phantom images not real speakers, but other effects like the Atmos Rain Storm she was in awe of it and kept saying how she'd swear it was really raining in the room (I didn't think it sounded quite that real since too much was overhead, but I suppose if it doesn't sound overhead but everywhere it would be more convincing). Of course, she is in her '70s and her hearing in general isn't that great anymore so who knows what effect that has. 

Phantom imaging between speakers in front of you may be different from the sides or above. There are people who listen to a lot of quad that were insisting that no matter what you do, there's a "hole" between the mains and the surround speakers that you can't get rid of. If you move the speakers to get rid of it in one spot, it'll create a new hole elsewhere. I've got the active mixed front wides (main + sides) added and I get a perfect 360 circle around me with PS4 games when I rotate the game character (the sound rotates around me in a circular fashion). There aren't any "holes" or gaps, although the circle is more of an ellipse since I'm not sitting perfectly equidistant from all speakers. They went so far as to speculate I "learned" to hear panning without a gap or something. I think it's the extra speakers that makes the difference (On the Wendy Carlos site, of soundtrack fame from Tron to A Clockwork Orange, there's similar advice to add extra rear surround arrays playing the same signal to eliminate the gap in various configurations of quad so I don't think what I did is all that unusual and it also works well for Atmos fill, even though it's not discrete (maybe more helpful for 360 5.1 imaging that it's not?).

There are also people that can't see "3D" (Johnny Depp comes to mind; he said he can't see the effect at all) or hear binaural (at least without it being tailored to their specific eyes/ears) as they are simply not aligned to an "average" person. Some binaural stuff works for me better than others (sound effects work better than music, for example), but I'm guessing if the dummy head they used to record it matched my head that everything would sound precise including music.


----------



## MagnumX

I'm in the middle of *Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World* right now (1 hour point; getting a drink of rum to go with the movie). Anyway, the scene in question with the footsteps overhead. I tried it straight 5.1, DSU and Neural X. Only Neural X put the footsteps on the ceiling here (and did a very good job of it, IMO). Otherwise, they were slightly above ear level here (DSU seemed to put wind/sea sounds up higher, but not footsteps). Neural X has been doing very well. The stormy seas, cannos, etc. are all worthy of a very above average Atmos movie, IMO. Once or twice, I questioned whether some water sounds should image quite that high (having been on a number of (mostly cruise) ships on the ocean (I've traversed across the full Atlantic on a 12 story ship before as well as parts of the Pacific and throughout the Caribbean on various cruise ships and for smaller trips, smaller vessels and I've actually been in ~30' seas (give or take a few feet) on two separate occasions in major storms of after-effects of hurricanes, once in the Pacific heading to Alaska and once in the Atlantic (returning from the Caribbean to New York), I can say water does go above deck level quite a bit during storms so I didn't question it _too_ much, but otherwise, I'd say Neural X's rendition is a vast improvement over the same seas in plain 5.1.


----------



## BlackCreature

MagnumX said:


> I think Klipsch makes some smaller speakers. I have their 2.1 computer speakers and they are quite small and sound amazing for the price (I use them with my Mac and have a set in my bedroom as well). I haven't looked at their current lineup, however.
> 
> I set my mother's house up with a Klipsch 5.1 system and she had this furniture cabinet under the TV she liked that had a nice shaped spot for a center speaker right below the TV and Polk had a speaker that would fit it perfectly (No Klipsch center was going to fit) so I gave it a try and it matches very well so I'd say there's a fair chance Polk surrounds might match up with Klipsch.


I’m gonna try the Polk TL1. Thanks a lot. Here goes nothing.


----------



## petetherock




----------



## MagnumX

petetherock said:


> View attachment 3187090


If Atmos were limited to 15.1?


----------



## MagnumX

If anyone is having problems playing Dolby Atmos music or movies that "skip" due to high bit-rates used with KODI (e.g. INXS' album KICK in Atmos skips on a few tracks here), there's an unofficial Android build that has fixes in place (plus Dolby Vision support, etc.) and it runs parallel with the official version (separate name/directories so no worries about it screwing up your player). I tried it out and INXS now plays flawlessly. I know a lot of people had even more trouble with Abbey Road playing from KODI and skipping (even higher bitrate) and some others.

I got it here: https://www.kodinerds.net/index.php/Thread/69428-Maven-s-Kodi-Builds-für-Android/


----------



## titan ii

Anyone aware of a 9.X.6 processor that does not send any signals to the upper middle speakers when using wides?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

titan ii said:


> Anyone aware of a 9.X.6 processor that does not send any signals to the upper middle speakers when using wides?


None of them should do that. My HTP-1 doesn't for example. Have you plugged in your speakers to the correct outputs?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

If anything is looking for a great Atmos object demo that will use all speakers, take a look at this thread over in the Audio Theory section:









Dolby Atmos Object Demo


I've created a small demo video with one Dolby Object panning across the speakers in the room. You can download it here: Dolby Atmos Object Demo by Listen to 360.mp4 You can put the on a media server or a USB stick connected to a Blu-Ray player for example. It can be used to test different Dolby...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## titan ii

Mashie Saldana said:


> None of them should do that. My HTP-1 doesn't for example. Have you plugged in your speakers to the correct outputs?


Thanks for the reply, but I am researching the available processors for a future purchase. This was mentioned in a video regarding installation of Atmos systems, so I am just checking as to the validity of the comment.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

titan ii said:


> Thanks for the reply, but I am researching the available processors for a future purchase. This was mentioned in a video regarding installation of Atmos systems, so I am just checking as to the validity of the comment.


Consider that comment null and void. That isn't how any Atmos capable processor works.


----------



## titan ii

Mashie Saldana said:


> Consider that comment null and void. That isn't how any Atmos capable processor works.


Here is the section with the info I mentioned. It is between 37 and 39 minutes. I see the video is at least 1.5 years old, so things may be different.


----------



## MagnumX

titan ii said:


> Here is the section with the info I mentioned. It is between 37 and 39 minutes. I see the video is at least 1.5 years old, so things may be different.


I think he was saying that a decoder like the Denon 8500 has 15.1 outputs, but you can only use 13.1 at a time (meaning if the front wides are operating, the top middle ones will stop working). I'm not sure which of the two sets of outputs gets "priority" in the 8500 (nor did he mention it by name), but I think that's the gist of what he was referring to. That little bit of connecting something afterward...not sure what he was talking about and don't care enough to listen again to find out. Anyone who says an 18 foot long room wouldn't benefit from 4 overhead speakers is not someone I'd care to listen to or follow their advice for obvious reasons. A 10 foot long room would benefit from 4 overheads (you can't have front-to-back travel without them). I can split my room in half in terms of speaker output (12 feet long) and I still badly want 4 overheads (I needed 6 with a 24-foot room) so the guy strikes me as anything but an "expert" on the subject.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I think he was saying that a decoder like the Denon 8500 has 15.1 outputs, but you can only use 13.1 at a time (meaning if the front wides are operating, the top middle ones will stop working). I'm not sure which of the two sets of outputs gets "priority" in the 8500 (nor did he mention it by name), but I think that's the gist of what he was referring to. That little bit of connecting something afterward...not sure what he was talking about and don't care enough to listen again to find out. Anyone who says an 18 foot long room wouldn't benefit from 4 overhead speakers is not someone I'd care to listen to or follow their advice for obvious reasons. A 10 foot long room would benefit from 4 overheads (you can't have front-to-back travel without them). I can split my room in half in terms of speaker output (12 feet long) and I still badly want 4 overheads (I needed 6 with a 24-foot room) so the guy strikes me as anything but an "expert" on the subject.


Anthony Grimani knows his stuff. He just feels that there is more benefit from Wides over Heights so he used to suggest 9.1.2 setups. However many affordable AVRs with 11 channel counts dont even support Wides so its a moot point.

In some newer material, he says with the prevalence of pre-amps with channel counts above 11, he recommends Wides and 4 heights.


----------



## mrtickleuk

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Anthony Grimani knows his stuff. He just feels that there is more benefit from Wides over Heights so he used to suggest 9.1.2 setups. However many affordable AVRs with 11 channel counts dont even support Wides so its a moot point.
> 
> In some newer material, he says with the prevalence of pre-amps with channel counts above 11, he recommends Wides and 4 heights.


If he knows his stuff, why doesn't he know that there's relatively little Atmos content that uses the Wides? To prioritise 9.1.2 over 7.1.4/5.1.4, and lose the overhead front-rear panning, seems insane to me.

[EDIT: I see you wrote "*used to* suggest". Hope that means he's since come to his senses by thinking about it, and it wasn't just forced upon him because of the lack of AVRs supporting wides.  ]


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> He just feels that there is more benefit from Wides over Heights so he used to suggest 9.1.2 setups.


In an interview on Scott Wilkinson's AVS podcast, Grimani referred to the gap between the Fronts & Sides as a _"sonic black hole"_, which he explained is why Wides were the next most important pair after the initial 7.1 speakers. That's rarely been my experience, since I typically hear lots of phantom imaging floating along the side walls between the Fronts & Sides. I don't know what he did to get rid of that naturally occurring phantom imaging, but Wides seem to be his solution to a problem he created.


----------



## jfeva0049

Looking for advice and input. I have a 5.2.4 atmos system right now and wanted to know if there would be any benefit to adding another set of in ceiling speakers above my fronts (left and right) basically making it a 5.2.6 system. I dont know if that is something that the AVR will recognize or not or if that is even an option for atmos. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## noaudiophool

jfeva0049 said:


> Looking for advice and input. I have a 5.2.4 atmos system right now and wanted to know if there would be any benefit to adding another set of in ceiling speakers above my fronts (left and right) basically making it a 5.2.6 system. I dont know if that is something that the AVR will recognize or not or if that is even an option for atmos.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Not an expert, but I think the more typical upgrade path would be to go 7.1.4 before 5.1.6.

It is also my impression, that your AVR must be a quite high-end model if it should support 3 set of top/height speakers. E.g. the Denon X4700H does 7.1.4 (with external amplification) but would not do 5.1.6 if I read the manual correctly.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> In an interview on Scott Wilkinson's AVS podcast, Grimani referred to the gap between the Fronts & Sides as a _"sonic black hole"_, which he explained is why Wides were the next most important pair after the initial 7.1 speakers. That's rarely been my experience, since I typically hear lots of phantom imaging floating along the side walls between the Fronts & Sides. I don't know what he did to get rid of that naturally occurring phantom imaging, but Wides seem to be his solution to a problem he created.


I would imagine that with his company, he is typically working with wealthy clients who probably have larger rooms than the average middle-class enthusiast. In larger rooms, the greater distance between the fronts and the side surrounds probably necessitates Wides to cover those transitions.

Also remember that interiview on Home Theater Geeks was conducted in the very early days of home Atmos. He was probably basing his opinion on not particularly well designed Atmos mixes. 

He also consults with commercial cinemas as well. And some commercial cinemas use a Wide-channel array. And his opinion is to make the home cinema layout resemble the commercial cinema layout as much as feasibly possible.

My own personal opinion is that I would do 4 height channels or even 6 height channels over Wides. But I understand why he was making the suggestion. And it is just that....a suggestion, not a rule.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> In larger rooms, the greater distance between the fronts and the side surrounds probably necessitates Wides to cover those transitions.


Angular separation should be the same, irrespective of room size, so the gap between the Fronts and Sides should not be a sonic black hole. I can understand wanting to stabilize the existing imaging for off-axis listeners by replacing phantom images with hard sources (speakers). If you set your Centre speaker to None, you'll still have lots of imaging floating between your L/R speakers. Same has been my experience between the Fronts and Sides. I think Wides can be useful. My experience just doesn't agree with Grimani's reason for their importance. If he doesn't hear sounds floating between the Fronts and Sides, what is he feeding the Wides? Sounds that don't normally image at those locations?


----------



## jake51

My new AVR has Dolby Atmos but only seven channels
How good/expensive does an amp for the rear Atmos channels have to be?


----------



## titan ii

Ideally the same watts, or close to, what the others have. You can also use a spare receiver if you have one laying around. Many downplay the rear speakers. I find them important, so an amp of a similar quality to your receiver. In other words, not a cheap pa amp.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jake51 said:


> My new AVR has Dolby Atmos but only seven channels
> How good/expensive does an amp for the rear Atmos channels have to be?


I'd still get an amp that is at least similar in output to what your AVR would provide (or use a spare receiver, as titan ii said). But ideally, I think you're better off in the long run getting a solid amp to run your L/R speakers off (or even a 3-channel to handle your LCR) since that is where the bulk of the sound comes from... then letting your AVR handle the surrounds/heights. I run an Emotiva XPA-3 with my Denon 4500 this way and that extra oomph for the LCR works out great for me.


----------



## halcyon_888

Just finished watching Dune. The heights were active throughout a lot of the movie with the score and well, atmostpherics. There was one obvious scene with some discrete effects. I'm sure this soundtrack will be looked upon as having a good Atmos mix, I liked it. I wish more movies would include the score in the heights like this movie does, that seems like such a basic thing to do but most movies don't take advantage of that. It seems like such an easy way to expand the soundstage and make use of heights that we've all paid money for and want to be used.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Just finished watching Dune. The heights were active throughout a lot of the movie with the score and well, atmostpherics. There was one obvious scene with some discrete effects. I'm sure this soundtrack will be looked up on as having a good Atmos mix, I liked it. I wish more movies would include the score in the heights like this movie does, that seems like such a basic thing to do but most movies don't take advantage of that. It seems like such an easy way to expand the soundstage and make use of heights that we've all payed money for and want to be used.


That is good to hear. I found out last night that the app on my FireStick no longer supports Atmos... and the only fix was to side load the 06/09/21 APK of the app back onto my Fire Stick, which then supports Atmos. Seems pretty shady to me that they've left it disabled on the several revisions since then. HBO's official line is "technical reasons".


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> Just finished watching Dune. The heights were active throughout a lot of the movie with the score and well, atmostpherics. There was one obvious scene with some discrete effects. I'm sure this soundtrack will be looked upon as having a good Atmos mix, I liked it. I wish more movies would include the score in the heights like this movie does, that seems like such a basic thing to do but most movies don't take advantage of that. It seems like such an easy way to expand the soundstage and make use of heights that we've all payed money for and want to be used.


Bladerunner 2049 does this. Same director.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Bladerunner 2049 does this. Same director.


Just finished watching it with 4 friends. Definitely had to crank it up a bit more than some other movies, so I think I ended up around -6dB. Atmos is pretty well done, but the standout for me was those drums in the score. I've been tweaking my setup since I added a second PB2000 Pro sub (and had insulation blown into my attic, which changed my room's sound more than I expected), and all my guests were pretty blown away with the sheer power of the score in this flick. Hans Zimmer nailed it. A nice mix of bombast with some subtle chants. Definitely a day one UHD buy for me. Hell, I would buy an isolated Atmos version of the score. But then, I used to listen to that 5.1 version of the Inception score too, so I'm sure all my friends think I'm a bit nuts. I'm that guy that watches the credits for the music.


----------



## noaudiophool

A german guy compared three different sound versions of Blade Runner 2049.

He covers a couple of scenes - here's the visit to the farmer in the beginning:

Dolby Atmos Kino (Cinema version): 




Dolby Atmos UHD: 




Dolby Atmos UHD with Auro3D Auromatic upmixer: 




He disconnects the bed layer speakers, so one only hears the Atmos speakers.

He concludes that even the Cinema Atmos track have a number of "gaps" and that the Auromatic upmixer (using the Atmos UHD track) creates the best "mood" for the movie.

Have you guys tried the Auro3D upmixer?


----------



## niterida

jake51 said:


> My new AVR has Dolby Atmos but only seven channels
> How good/expensive does an amp for the rear Atmos channels have to be?


What AVR do you have ? 
If it is only a 7 channel capable (ie: Atmos 5.1.2 max) then pretty sure it will have 7 internal amps and you won't need an external amp


----------



## jake51

NAD T758 v3i
I need two extra channels for the rear Dolby Atmos speakers


----------



## noaudiophool

jake51 said:


> NAD T758 v3i
> I need two extra channels for the rear Dolby Atmos speakers


As you probably know, Hifiklubben recommends the NAD CI940. It should take you from 5.1.2 to 7.1.4 according to them, but I find the manual quite lacking. Also, the wattage seems quite low, so I'd only use it for top/height speakers.

Since you're based in Denmark, you could support these guys instead: https://www.earthquakesound.dk/en/produkt/xj-300st/ (the product can be bought slightly cheaper at Earthquake XJ-300ST Effektforstærker - Forstærker (bekent.dk)).

The Earthquake amplifier is a bit of a funny design. Loads of power in a very small package at affordable price. Higher THD (which is worse) than the NAD, but probably not audible.

EDIT: I like the fact, that Earthquake Sound provides schematics for their amplifier: https://www.earthquakesound.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/XJ-300ST_Schematic_2019.pdf - does anybody else remember when sharing such things was common?


----------



## niterida

jake51 said:


> NAD T758 v3i
> I need two extra channels for the rear Dolby Atmos speakers


Ah yes the only 7 channel AVR (that I know of) that can expand to 7.1.4


----------



## ppasteur

jake51 said:


> NAD T758 v3i
> I need two extra channels for the rear Dolby Atmos speakers


Deleted... i looked closer.


----------



## dschulz

noaudiophool said:


> A german guy compared three different sound versions of Blade Runner 2049.
> 
> He covers a couple of scenes - here's the visit to the farmer in the beginning:
> 
> Dolby Atmos Kino (Cinema version):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos UHD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos UHD with Auro3D Auromatic upmixer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He disconnects the bed layer speakers, so one only hears the Atmos speakers.
> 
> He concludes that even the Cinema Atmos track have a number of "gaps" and that the Auromatic upmixer (using the Atmos UHD track) creates the best "mood" for the movie.
> 
> Have you guys tried the Auro3D upmixer?


I wonder how he's playing the cinema version? You need a DCP and a commercial digital cinema server/projector + Dolby processor to play a theatrical Atmos track.

Anyway, I don't understand the point of comparing soundtracks and upmixers by disconnecting most of the speakers in the room. Surely the measure of good sound isn't "how much sound is coming from the heights."

Let's analogize to the previous 5.1 era. You could force your DVD player to output stereo instead of 5.1, and then use your favorite upmixer to play that 2.0 track in 5.1. You might even get more sound out of the surrounds a higher percentage of the time than playing the native 5.1 track. But would anyone seriously claim that the latter is somehow better? 

Anyway, upmixer preference is subjective. FWIW I think Auromatic is very nice for music, not so much for movies, for which I prefer DSU.


----------



## X4100

I agree as stated "upmixer preference is subjective", but remember that knowledge is power! FWIW some of us are still interested in the pros/cons of the available formats. Just my measly. $.02


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> Let's analogize to the previous 5.1 era. You could force your DVD player to output stereo instead of 5.1, and then use your favorite upmixer to play that 2.0 track in 5.1. You might even get more sound out of the surrounds a higher percentage of the time than playing the native 5.1 track. But would anyone seriously claim that the latter is somehow better?
> 
> Anyway, upmixer preference is subjective. FWIW I think Auromatic is very nice for music, not so much for movies, for which I prefer DSU.


That's a great analogy. I hope it's remembered next time someone rocks up and claims that using the Auromatic upmixer is "better" than the real Atmos track.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> Ah yes the only 7 channel AVR (that I know of) that can expand to 7.1.4


The Anthem MRX 740 is 7 channel avr that can expand to 11 channels.


----------



## noaudiophool

dschulz said:


> I wonder how he's playing the cinema version? You need a DCP and a commercial digital cinema server/projector + Dolby processor to play a theatrical Atmos track.


He mentions in the beginning, that there's a time difference in the recordings. The cinema edition was recorded when the movie was shown in the cinemas (he "borrowed" the cinema from a friend), and the UHD editions were recorded when it was released some time later. The transitions is marked with a "flash".



dschulz said:


> Anyway, I don't understand the point of comparing soundtracks and upmixers by disconnecting most of the speakers in the room. Surely the measure of good sound isn't "how much sound is coming from the heights."


Two facts:
1) Blade Runner UHD Atmos track is generally celebrated
2) It is documented, that the UHD Atmos track is often entirely quiet even in scenes where ambience could enhance the experience

I find it obvious to ask the people that celebrate Atmos if they have tried an upmixer that provides more ambience. Why is it so wrong to ask this question?

Anyways, I agree with you that speakers should not be making sounds just for the sake of making sounds. Heck, yesterday on this forum I told a dude NOT to tell his AVR that his height speakers were back speakers, even if a sales guy had told him that they would play more sound that way ((1) "OFFICIAL" 2020 Denon AVR Owner's Thread + FAQ (Posts 1-8) | Page 553 | AVS Forum).



dschulz said:


> Let's analogize to the previous 5.1 era. You could force your DVD player to output stereo instead of 5.1, and then use your favorite upmixer to play that 2.0 track in 5.1. You might even get more sound out of the surrounds a higher percentage of the time than playing the native 5.1 track. But would anyone seriously claim that the latter is somehow better?
> 
> Anyway, upmixer preference is subjective. FWIW I think Auromatic is very nice for music, not so much for movies, for which I prefer DSU.


I'm not sure this analogy works. I could counter-argue using your example: If you bought a movie labelled with a 5.1 soundtrack and then at home found out, that it is actually only outputting sound in 2.0 channels 97% of the time... would you not prefer to use an upmixer doing more immersive 5.1 throughout the movie then, even if it meant going back to the 2.0 track as a basis?


----------



## dschulz

noaudiophool said:


> Two facts:
> 1) Blade Runner UHD Atmos track is generally celebrated
> 2) It is documented, that the UHD Atmos track is often entirely quiet even in scenes where ambience could enhance the experience


I would suggest that if you have to mute the primary 7.1 speakers before you're able to make a determination as to whether the heights are active enough for your taste, you are no longer evaluating the Atmos mix, you're evaluating whether or not the heights are doing...something.



> I find it obvious to ask the people that celebrate Atmos if they have tried an upmixer that provides more ambience. Why is it so wrong to ask this question?


Nothing wrong at all with asking the question, although for what it's worth I don't know any enthusiasts who have _not_ tried multiple upmixers. Auro-3D is not as easy to find hardware with which to evaluate, but certainly everyone I've encountered has kicked the tires on the various DTS, Dolby, Yamaha and Audyssey upmixers.



> I'm not sure this analogy works. I could counter-argue using your example: If you bought a movie labelled with a 5.1 soundtrack and then at home found out, that it is actually only outputting sound in 2.0 channels 97% of the time... would you not prefer to use an upmixer doing more immersive 5.1 throughout the movie then, even if it meant going back to the 2.0 track as a basis?


If the 5.1 mix sounds great, and you don't notice the relative lack of use of the center and surrounds until you mute the L/R channels, then no, I'd probably not prefer to engage the upmixer.

But we're back to subjective territory - I'm a bit of an outlier here, in that even 2.0 music I mostly listen to in stereo rather than upmix. I tend to want to hear music, TV or films as they were mixed (or as close as I can replicate). But upmixers can be very, very good and I'm glad I have the option to use them when desired.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

dschulz said:


> I would suggest that if you have to mute the primary 7.1 speakers before you're able to make a determination as to whether the heights are active enough for your taste, you are no longer evaluating the Atmos mix, you're evaluating whether or not the heights are doing...something.


It’s possible I messed something in the earlier conversation lol. But I agree totally. People sometimes think that an immersive track is only as good as how much the height/top speakers are used. When it’s really about how they’re all used together to present 3d space. Someone a long time ago once told me to watch a movie with my LCR unhooked to see how valuable surrounds were(he was trying to illustrate why you should cheap out on them). I laughed…


----------



## sdrucker

noaudiophool said:


> I'm not sure this analogy works. I could counter-argue using your example: If you bought a movie labelled with a oundtrack and then at home found out, that it is actually only outputting sound in 2.0 channels 97% of the time... would you not prefer to use an upmixer doing more immersive 5.1 throughout the movie then, even if it meant going back to the 2.0 track as a basis?


Carrying your analogy to the fullest extent, if one wants content playing from all speakers at all times, the upmixer of choice should be Neural:X with DTS:X Pro (where the 11 channel limit no longer exists). Then every speaker supported in the layout would get content, since the DTS:X channels are by and large similar to the layout on Atmos and can take advantage of things like a Ch or VOG. Auromatic is limited to 13.1 channels and doesn't up mix to wides.


----------



## noaudiophool

sdrucker said:


> Carrying your analogy to the fullest extent, if one wants content playing from all speakers at all times, the upmixer of choice should be Neural:X with DTS:X Pro (where the 11 channel limit no longer exists). Then every speaker supported in the layout would get content, since the DTS:X channels are by and large similar to the layout on Atmos and can take advantage of things like a Ch or VOG. Auromatic is limited to 13.1 channels and doesn't up mix to wides.


It is an interesting perspective! I have no share in Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D so am only looking for experiences. I have mounted four height speakers, but the speaker cable was missing from the package I got, so I haven't tried anything with height at home yet. The joys of internet shopping 



dschulz said:


> But we're back to subjective territory - I'm a bit of an outlier here, in that even 2.0 music I mostly listen to in stereo rather than upmix. I tend to want to hear music, TV or films as they were mixed (or as close as I can replicate). But upmixers can be very, very good and I'm glad I have the option to use them when desired.


I'm an outlier in the other direction. I'm upmixing broadcast television in stereo to my current 5.1 setup  On my old Yamaha AVR using Dolby ProLogic II(something) and on my current Denon using Auro*2*D, because there's a bug in x4700h where dialogue bleed into surrounds (Dolby Dialog Bleed Through Issue (denon.com)), so the Dolby Surround upmixer is... weird. Perhaps I should try with one of the DTS(something) upmixers 😁 

This is all new territory for me. The x4700h seems to encourage more experimenting than my old Yamaha that was simply set and forget (I never changed upmixers). And I agree: It's all subjective opinions - there's no one upmixer to end all upmixers.


----------



## dschulz

noaudiophool said:


> I'm an outlier in the other direction. I'm upmixing broadcast television in stereo to my current 5.1 setup  On my old Yamaha AVR using Dolby ProLogic II(something) and on my current Denon using Auro*2*D, because there's a bug in x4700h where dialogue bleed into surrounds (Dolby Dialog Bleed Through Issue (denon.com)), so the Dolby Surround upmixer is... weird. Perhaps I should try with one of the DTS(something) upmixers 😁


I do use an upmixer (Dolby ProLogic IIx in my case) for all broadcast and streaming 2.0 film/TV content, since those are all meant to be upmixed by design. I hope Denon/Dolby get the DSU bug fixed for you soon.


----------



## mrvideo

dschulz said:


> I do use an upmixer (Dolby ProLogic IIx in my case) for all broadcast and streaming 2.0 film/TV content


Most broadcasters leave their AC3 encoder in 5.1 mode, even with 2.0 content. Therefore you have no idea that they are sending out 2.0 content. 

Whenever AC3 is switched between 2.0 and 5.1, there is a small glitch. None of the main 5 networks do any kind of switching, as none of them, other than Fox, sends out AC3 to their affiliates. No one, that I know of, includes any kind of metadata that indicates if the content is 2.0, or 5.1. PBS's network sat feed does switch between 2.0 ad 5.1, but I do not believe that any of the affiliates sends out that AC3 stream. Plus, not everyone uses that sat feed for pre-recorded shows.

So, I'm not sure how you are turning on your upmixer for broadcast shows.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

mrvideo said:


> Most broadcasters leave their AC3 encoder in 5.1 mode, even with 2.0 content. Therefore you have no idea that they are sending out 2.0 content.
> 
> Whenever AC3 is switched between 2.0 and 5.1, there is a small glitch. None of the main 5 networks do any kind of switching, as none of them, other than Fox, sends out AC3 to their affiliates. No one, that I know of, includes any kind of metadata that indicates if the content is 2.0, or 5.1. PBS's network sat feed does switch between 2.0 ad 5.1, but I do not believe that any of the affiliates sends out that AC3 stream. Plus, not everyone uses that sat feed for pre-recorded shows.
> 
> So, I'm not sure how you are turning on your upmixer for broadcast shows.


If you have Hulu, YouTube, or Sling (or similar re-transmission streaming company) for TV channels, they tend to send everything as 2.0 stereo even if the broadcast was originally 5.1. Even then, if you have 7.1 or an Atmos setup, upmixers can then spread a stereo or 5.1 track to the remaining speaker locations. YMMV as to how well that works.


----------



## dschulz

mrvideo said:


> Most broadcasters leave their AC3 encoder in 5.1 mode, even with 2.0 content. Therefore you have no idea that they are sending out 2.0 content.
> 
> Whenever AC3 is switched between 2.0 and 5.1, there is a small glitch. None of the main 5 networks do any kind of switching, as none of them, other than Fox, sends out AC3 to their affiliates. No one, that I know of, includes any kind of metadata that indicates if the content is 2.0, or 5.1. PBS's network sat feed does switch between 2.0 ad 5.1, but I do not believe that any of the affiliates sends out that AC3 stream. Plus, not everyone uses that sat feed for pre-recorded shows.
> 
> So, I'm not sure how you are turning on your upmixer for broadcast shows.


Now that you mention it, I think the only broadcasts that come in as 2.0 (for which my DPLII decoder engages) is, in fact PBS as you say. The other broadcasters come in as 5.1 AC3. Most of what I watch is true 5.1, but I have noticed local news casts that are 2.0 that are not being upmixed because, as you say, they are being sent in a 5.1 container. Good that you clarified. 



Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have Hulu, YouTube, or Sling (or similar re-transmission streaming company) for TV channels, they tend to send everything as 2.0 stereo even if the broadcast was originally 5.1. Even then, if you have 7.1 or an Atmos setup, upmixers can then spread a stereo or 5.1 track to the remaining speaker locations. YMMV as to how well that works.


Yes, I get Hulu over my Apple TV as 2.0 and so have to apply DPLII.


----------



## chi_guy50

dschulz said:


> Now that you mention it, I think the only broadcasts that come in as 2.0 (for which my DPLII decoder engages) is, in fact PBS as you say. The other broadcasters come in as 5.1 AC3. Most of what I watch is true 5.1, but I have noticed local news casts that are 2.0 that are not being upmixed because, as you say, they are being sent in a 5.1 container. Good that you clarified.


I do the same but using DSU for 9.1.4 output.




dschulz said:


> Yes, I get Hulu over my Apple TV as 2.0 and so have to apply DPLII.


Using a Roku (model Ultra 4800) gets me DD+ 5.1 on the Hulu app (depending on the content), which I likewise upmix to 9.1.4.


----------



## mrvideo

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have Hulu, YouTube, or Sling (or similar re-transmission streaming company) for TV channels, they tend to send everything as 2.0 stereo even if the broadcast was originally 5.1. Even then, if you have 7.1 or an Atmos setup, upmixers can then spread a stereo or 5.1 track to the remaining speaker locations. YMMV as to how well that works.


Getting a broadcast network via a streaming service is not the same as actually getting it via OTA.


----------



## mrvideo

dschulz said:


> Now that you mention it, I think the only broadcasts that come in as 2.0 (for which my DPLII decoder engages) is, in fact PBS as you say.


Interesting that your local PBS station is broadcasting in 2.0. There are lots of programs that PBS sends to the affiliates that are 5.1. Unfortunately, NOVA is not one of them.


----------



## dschulz

mrvideo said:


> Interesting that your local PBS station is broadcasting in 2.0. There are lots of programs that PBS sends to the affiliates that are 5.1. Unfortunately, NOVA is not one of them.


They broadcast both, depending on the program. As noted upthread, what's different is KOCE (my local PBS affiliate) will actually flag the signal as 5.1 or 2.0 so my AVR knows to engage the upmixer when needed, whereas the other stations leave the signal as 5.1 even if what they're sending out is really only 2.0.


----------



## mrvideo

dschulz said:


> They broadcast both, depending on the program. As noted upthread, what's different is KOCE (my local PBS affiliate) will actually flag the signal as 5.1 or 2.0 so my AVR knows to engage the upmixer when needed


AFAIK. there are no flags in the ATSC signal to indicate 5.1 or 2.0. Certainly not a flag that the AVR will ever see. The 2.0, or 5.1, is in the AC3 stream that is passed to the AVR. When the AVR decodes the Dolby Digital stream, it determines the format of the audio. So, when it detects 2.0, if the AVR is set to do so, ProLogic will be enabled. My Denon will even enable ProLogic when it detects DTS2.0. The ATSC spec only allows for up to 5.1. In theory, 1.0 thru 5.1 can be broadcast. AFAIK, only 2.0 and 5.1 are ever used.

It is a little annoying when stereo audio is sent out over a 5.1 stream. For example, _Jeopardy!_, _Wheel of Fortune_ and _Entertainment Tonight_ are satellite fed to the stations via AAC 5.1, even though those programs are only in stereo. In theory I could pass the recorded TS files thru VideoReDo and convert the AAC 5.1 to DD 2.0, which would allow the AVR to place the dialog into the center channel, but I don't bother.

While your PBS affiliate can get away with switching back and forth between 2.0 and 5.1, commercial stations could not do that. The audio glitching would drive the viewers nuts. It would certainly piss me off.


----------



## Craig Mecak

mrvideo said:


> AFAIK. there are no flags in the ATSC signal to indicate 5.1 or 2.0. Certainly not a flag that the AVR will ever see. The 2.0, or 5.1, is in the AC3 stream that is passed to the AVR. When the AVR decodes the Dolby Digital stream, it determines the format of the audio. So, when it detects 2.0, if the AVR is set to do so, ProLogic will be enabled. My Denon will even enable ProLogic when it detects DTS2.0. The ATSC spec only allows for up to 5.1. In theory, 1.0 thru 5.1 can be broadcast. AFAIK, only 2.0 and 5.1 are ever used.
> 
> It is a little annoying when stereo audio is sent out over a 5.1 stream. For example, _Jeopardy!_, _Wheel of Fortune_ and _Entertainment Tonight_ are satellite fed to the stations via AAC 5.1, even though those programs are only in stereo. In theory I could pass the recorded TS files thru VideoReDo and convert the AAC 5.1 to DD 2.0, which would allow the AVR to place the dialog into the center channel, but I don't bother.
> 
> While your PBS affiliate can get away with switching back and forth between 2.0 and 5.1, commercial stations could not do that. The audio glitching would drive the viewers nuts. It would certainly piss me off.


The solution is for the broadcaster to UpMix any 2.0 audio programs to 5.1 at the station, then send all signals out over the air as 5.1, whether native 5.1 or UpMixed. That's what broadcasters in Australia routinely do. Sending stereo out inside a 5.1 container with most of the channels mute is terrible.


----------



## noaudiophool

In Europe (I'm aware this is mostly an American forum) most countries have terrestial broadcasts made in DVB-T or DVB-T2). In quite a lot of countries, audio is broadcast in HE-AAC/Dolby Pulse, which - from what I understand - can carry up to 7.1 channels. In my country, though, the national broadcaster is broadcasting in 2.0 (they actually began distributing in 5.1, but too many people with poor settings on their devices complained about missing dialogue, and the broadcaster reverted to 2.0 instead of educating the public on how to downmix). My AVR tells me explicitly, that it only receives a 2.0 signal via ARC from the TV.

FTA satellite television is also still quite popular over here. I think about half of German households get their TV from satellite via DVB-S or DVB-S2. On the channels made freely available by German public broadcasters (ARD, ZDF, and all their associated channels) by satellite it is in general possible to switch between a stereo 2.0 or AC-3 5.1 signal. Again: My AVR tells me exactly which channels it receives via ARC from the TV.

Just FYI for people interested in stuff "across the pond"


----------



## mrvideo

Craig Mecak said:


> The solution is for the broadcaster to UpMix any 2.0 audio programs to 5.1 at the station, then send all signals out over the air as 5.1, whether native 5.1 or UpMixed. That's what broadcasters in Australia routinely do. Sending stereo out inside a 5.1 container with most of the channels mute is terrible.


While that sounds like a great idea, having that happen here in the states is pretty much impossible. There is nothing in the signal provided by the major networks to indicate the state of the audio. So, that would require the major networks to do it. Ya, right. Same goes for any syndicated program. Nothing in the feed to indicate the state of the audio. Again, that would mean the distributor would have to do it. Ya, right. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't pushback from producers.

Getting it to happen in the states is slim to none.

What I find surprising is that in the U.K., ITV still broadcasts in stereo only. To the point where the shows they have produced are only produced with a stereo audio track. Sometimes there are shows that reach foreign shores that have a 5.1 audio track. I think ITV believes that there just aren't enough viewers with 5.1 to warrant the expense to do 5.1. I think the BBC is the only major player that does 5.1 and even then many of their scripted programs are stereo.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mrvideo said:


> What I find surprising is that in the U.K., ITV still broadcasts in stereo only. To the point where the shows they have produced are only produced with a stereo audio track. Sometimes there are shows that reach foreign shores that have a 5.1 audio track. I think ITV believes that there just aren't enough viewers with 5.1 to warrant the expense to do 5.1. I think the BBC is the only major player that does 5.1 and even then many of their scripted programs are stereo.


The only things that are ever 5.1 on the BBC (via satellite at least) are some movies (but not very many, certainly not all the movies that ought to be in 5.1), and things like music concerts and events. Everything else is DD2.0. Even things which are definitely supplied to the broadcasters in 5.1, such as "Family Guy".

I've seen a few movies on ITV in 5.1 too. But you're right about their own productions. ITV have always been very backwards. No sign of any HDR support on ITV, ever.

There is indeed a short "glitch" when theses broadcasts switch from 2.0 to 5.1 and back. The AVR display changes accordingly.


----------



## mrvideo

mrtickleuk said:


> The only things that are ever 5.1 on the BBC (via satellite at least) are some movies


Obviously you do not watch _Doctor Who_. I've downloaded a few other dramas from my friend's server, who captures them from freeview OTA, that have been in 5.1.

Freeview uses AAC. At least the BBC does.

Speaking of The Doctor, the series restarts this Sunday.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mrvideo said:


> Obviously you do not watch _Doctor Who_. I've downloaded a few other dramas from my friend's server, who captures them from freeview OTA, that have been in 5.1.


Right, yes. You are correct, I don't watch that. A few rare flagship non-movie productions broadcast by the BBC are also 5.1. I already had said music concerts and events, which you snipped. For example, "His Dark Materials" is another. For that, I had two choices.
1) Watch it with 5.1 sound, with no on-screen logo ruining it, but in SDR - from the broadcast.
2) Watch it with bog-standard stereo sound, with an on-screen logo ruining it, but in HDR - from the iPlayer.

They still won't let me get HDR and 5.1 at the same time


----------



## mrvideo

Yes, I sniped that part, because it wasn't worth repeating, as the point was to add that other shows are 5.1 as well.

AFAIK, HDR can't be sent via satellite or OTA freeview (not part of the standards). Streaming is the only way to get HDR, or DV. Why only stereo is perplexing, since 5.1, with ATMOS, is available via streaming.


----------



## Technology3456

What do you guys think of this? Three sets of side speakers for each row, separating the tweeter and woofer or something.


----------



## Technology3456

noaudiophool said:


> because there's a bug in x4700h where dialogue bleed into surrounds (Dolby Dialog Bleed Through Issue (denon.com)), so the Dolby Surround upmixer is... weird. Perhaps I should try with one of the DTS(something) upmixers 😁


Is this bug also on the x4500h? Is there a fix?


----------



## MagnumX

noaudiophool said:


> A german guy compared three different sound versions of Blade Runner 2049.


And yet he doesn't cover the Auro-3D native mix.... tsk tsk. It's nearly as good as the Atmos version (lack of rear surrounds, unfortunately as it's Auro 11.1, but sounds near identical the Atmos version on a 5.1.4 system other than any speaker placement differences).



> He concludes that even the Cinema Atmos track have a number of "gaps" and that the Auromatic upmixer (using the Atmos UHD track) creates the best "mood" for the movie.
> 
> Have you guys tried the Auro3D upmixer?


The Auro-3D upmixer works on the base track. It has no idea what's in the height layer and unlike Neural X, it doesn't try to find out. Auromatic is known for NOT screwing with the sound stage, but that also means it has no idea what to move overhead. It's hard to imagine how he could prefer the Auromatic upmixer with 5.1 or 7.1 to the Atmos track, but to each their own.


----------



## MagnumX

I'll just point to my post elsewhere since it's not really Dolby Atmos, but the combined effect sounds so much like Dolby Atmos music, I thought I'd share the experiment with those interested (combining Carver Sonic Holography with Multi-Channel Stereo mode to wipe crosstalk from ALL 17.1 speakers). The net effect sounds so much like Dolby Atmos music, it's uncanny. I spent 6+ hours listening to the wee hours of the morning to track after track after track of stereo music in this mode. It's UNREAL how you can get a 360 degree sound bubble out of 2.0 stereo. I do not care for DPLIIx, DSU, Neural X or even Auromatic for music upmixing. They all sound TERRIBLE, IMO. This, however, sounds incredible! Suddenly, all my 2.0 channel albums suddenly sound like 7.1+ albums (there's even some occasional overhead/height effects as well plus the imaging is very tall vertically).

Anyway, those interested, see here: Sonic Holography Multi-Channel Music


----------



## halcyon_888

Technology3456 said:


> What do you guys think of this? Three sets of side speakers for each row, separating the tweeter and woofer or something.


I don't know what he means when he said a "true midrange", but insofar as they are regular woofer/tweeters inside the columns I don't see anything wrong with it--it's his home theater and he's not wrong for saying that theaters are setup this way. He isn't using them for wides, they are used for side surrounds so they likely are active quite a bit.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mrvideo said:


> Yes, I sniped that part, because it wasn't worth repeating, as the point was to add that other shows are 5.1 as well.
> 
> AFAIK, HDR can't be sent via satellite or OTA freeview (not part of the standards). Streaming is the only way to get HDR, or DV. Why only stereo is perplexing, since 5.1, with ATMOS, is available via streaming.


There are several European broadcasting DSAT HDR already, so I'm sure HDR is part of the standards. But the BBC have said they won't do it.

The poor audio on iPlayer and the UK's other "catch-up" services provided by our broadcasters is annoying to me, but few seem to care, the broadcasters only seem to care about people watching content on their telephones. Audio is always an afterthought .


----------



## mrvideo

mrtickleuk said:


> There are several European broadcasting DSAT HDR already, so I'm sure HDR is part of the standards. But the BBC have said they won't do it.


Thanks for the update. Now I know.


----------



## niterida

halcyon_888 said:


> I don't know what he means when he said a "true midrange", but insofar as they are regular woofer/tweeters inside the columns I don't see anything wrong with it--it's his home theater and he's not wrong for saying that theaters are setup this way. He isn't using them for wides, they are used for side surrounds so they likely are active quite a bit.


Yeah pretty sure he just means he has 3 speakers set up in an array along the side walls. he is not splitting the woofer, mid and tweeter and putting one in each column.


----------



## stereoforsale

Josh Z said:


> Unfortunately, many Atmos soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4 channels and make no use of Top Middle speakers if you have more than 4 heights. Even some authored with audio objects leave the TM speakers silent much of the time. Additionally, almost all DTS:X soundtracks are authored as 7.1.4.
> 
> I suspect that your problem was that your Front Height speakers were blending in with your front mains, and your Rear Heights were blending in with your Surround Backs, making it hard to differentiate the heights from the ground level. And since most Atmos and DTS:X tracks weren't using Top Middles, you hardly ever heard anything above your head. Once you downscaled to 7.1.2, your receiver consolidated all height information into the Top Middles and suddenly the top of your room came alive.


I had the exact same experience! Finally SOMEONE has the same issue, and got great advice.

With 4 ceiling speakers there was a huge gap above me, and the atmos effect was vague and far away. Once I added a middle row (and disabled the front and back row), atmos suddenly came alive!… but it doesn’t fill the whole “ceiling bubble”.

I would like to relocate my front and back ceiling speakers, which is a headache, so I want to do it right this time. They are currently set as per Dolby’s recommendations (which gave me a disappointing result):

1) the 2 top Left speakers, and 2 top Right speakers are (roughly) in-line with the ground level main L & R.

2) the angle between the front row and rear row (relative to the main seating position) is 90 degreees. This seems WAY TOO wide to image anything… I’m quite frustrated Dolby recommended 90 degrees as the ideal angle, not the max angle.

I’m guessing I need to shrink the angle to 60 degrees, as you would with ground level main L & R, to maximize imaging. Am I correct? Any expert advice would be appreciated!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

stereoforsale said:


> 1) the 2 top Left speakers, and 2 top Right speakers are (roughly) in-line with the ground level main L & R.


Don't worry about whether they're in line with the mains. Put them at 1/4 and 3/4 the width of your layout (the distance between the side surrounds) where the renderer expects them to be.



stereoforsale said:


> 2) the angle between the front row and rear row (relative to the main seating position) is 90 degreees. This seems WAY TOO wide to image anything… I’m quite frustrated Dolby recommended 90 degrees as the ideal angle, not the max angle.


It isn't that it's too wide so much as a general issue with the dispersion of in-ceiling speakers. If your in-ceilings aim straight down, you're inherently 45 degrees off-axis. Aimable in-ceilings tend to give you about 20 degrees of adjustment generally (though models vary) unless they're pre-angled within the enclosure. So you have to use a little logic based on the speaker in question to determine whether they need to be pulled closer in. Ideally, you'd have ON-ceiling speakers that you can aim as needed, but in-ceilings come with their own compromises. What speakers are you working with and with what room height? Because rather than cut more holes, the answer may well be replacing the speakers you have with something you can direct more toward the MLP so they image better in between.


----------



## stereoforsale

Jeremy Anderson said:


> what speakers are you working with and with what room height? Because rather than cut more holes, the answer may well be replacing the speakers you have with something you can direct more toward the MLP so they image better in between.


Thanks for the tips.

My ceiling speakers are 5.25” Paradigm, can’t remember the model. Probably have bad dispersion. They point straight down. Ceilings 7.5ft.

Yes, I thought about replacing the speakers with angled ones, but since I’d have to cut a bigger hole to accommodate better speakers, I might as well just cut new holes in the right spot to make sure I get the ideal result.

BTW, is it really true that 4 atmos speakers can image something literally above your head? That’s sounds like a bit of stretch. After all, many L&R tower speakers struggle to image without near perfect placement, so it seems like an exaggeration that atmos speakers can be expected to do an even more challenging task.


----------



## stereoforsale

Another thing I realized. Dolby recommends 90 degrees from the SIDE VIEW, but given that each speaker is not directly in front and behind the MLP, the actual angle between the L front row and L rear row speakers (and R front to R rear), relative to the MLP ends up being more than 90 degrees. I did not take that into account when installing the speakers.


----------



## titan ii

stereoforsale said:


> 1) the 2 top Left speakers, and 2 top Right speakers are (roughly) in-line with the ground level main L & R.


See pages 7-9 regarding the top/main alignment.....JA alluded to this a couple posts ago....



https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


----------



## Technology3456

Do you guys think some types of speakers dont just sound better, but they image more in 3D space than others? I had heard before about some speakers having _bigger _soundstages than others, but I thought that meant they just had more "oomph," but not that it related to Atmos imaging specifically. But recently I saw some comments tying the idea of speakers having a "big 3d soundstage" to their ability to image in 3D with atmos, as if the bigger 3D soundstage you are starting off with with an individual speaker, the better that many of those speakers in an Atmos setup will be able to image objects between the speaker and make them sound like they are in "3D space."

In your opinions, 1. is this true? 2. how do you measure something like this to know which speakers excel at this and which don't? When I was choosing speakers to buy, I saw SPL graphs and stuff showing how neutral a speaker was, how accurate, what their range was, etc, but no measurements indicating how 3D their soundstage was. But maybe this ability correlates well with certain other characteristics that _are _measurable?


----------



## Technology3456

Edit: Deleted duplicate post. It gave me error message after failing to load when I hit "post" the first time, so I hit it again, and now it posted twice.


----------



## stereoforsale

titan ii said:


> See pages 7-9 regarding the top/main alignment.....JA alluded to this a couple posts ago....
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


Thanks, but that is what I did. Those recommendations didn’t work for me. It left a massive hole above my head and atmos was distant and vague. I’m trying to fix it now. But thanks for trying to help.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

stereoforsale said:


> My ceiling speakers are 5.25” Paradigm, can’t remember the model. Probably have bad dispersion. They point straight down. Ceilings 7.5ft.


I would imagine Paradigms have decent dispersion... but straight down is straight down. You really need something that will give you better coverage at the seats.


stereoforsale said:


> Yes, I thought about replacing the speakers with angled ones, but since I’d have to cut a bigger hole to accommodate better speakers, I might as well just cut new holes in the right spot to make sure I get the ideal result.


If you did it by the book, there's likely nothing inherently wrong with your placement. It may just be wrong _for those particular speakers_. If you're determined to stick with them, I recommend something I recommended to someone else earlier in the thread: Take one out, hook it up as a main and play music through it, then move from the center axis off to the side. That should give you an idea of how it falls off as you get further off-axis, and accordingly, how much closer to the MLP you might need to move them to get better coverage at the seats. But I still think it might be worth looking around to see if there is something aimable that uses the same size hole, since you could drop them in, see if that fixes the problem and return them if it doesn't work out.


stereoforsale said:


> BTW, is it really true that 4 atmos speakers can image something literally above your head? That’s sounds like a bit of stretch. After all, many L&R tower speakers struggle to image without near perfect placement, so it seems like an exaggeration that atmos speakers can be expected to do an even more challenging task.


Just like your L&R speakers, if you place them 90 degrees apart but point them straight forward, they aren't going to image worth a damn. But if you tow them in toward the listener, you can get them to image better. (This is an example only; don't place your mains 90 degrees apart.) Likewise, if your height speakers are 90 degrees apart but pointing straight down... same issue. Hence why whatever you do, it would be better if you had something you can aim. If you can't aim them, then drawing them closer together to better suit their dispersion is a good compromise.

I can't speak for others as to how well it works for them, but I do get a solid image between my top front and top rear when needed (and laterally between each row as well). Mine, however, are on-ceiling (SVS Prime Elevations, which have a 20 degree angle on the baffle) and are about 85 degrees apart (since I pulled my top rear forward slightly to account for the elevation of my rear surrounds). Even this isn't ideal, as while that 20 degree baffle helps aim sound toward the seats, 30 degrees would have been more ideal... and satellites that I could aim as needed better than that. As far as in-ceilings, in an old room, I used to run Polk RC80i speakers with aimable tweeters that I think I had around 80 degrees apart to get good coverage at the seats, and they actually did a solid job of imaging overhead. I tried them aimed straight down out of curiosity, and imaging between them went bye-bye.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Do you guys think some types of speakers dont just sound better, but they image more in 3D space than others?


My Carver dipole ribbons certainly image in "3D" space better than monopoles (unlike surround dipoles, they are meant to be kept away from the front walls by at least 3 feet and sound comes out the front and back of the speaker equally (if they were too close, the waves would cancel each other out at many frequencies). Real sounds are dipole or even 360 degree spherical in nature of how the sounds go in all directions. Thus, a dipole speaker anchors studio type recordings in space like it's "real" sounding. Now the argument goes against them in that a LIVE recording already has many of those secondary waves and room reflections picked up by the microphone so you're adding more reflections of your own room to the sound and defeating the original space. Studio recordings often don't have a real space, though. They're recorded in heavily matted recording booths designed to absorb all the reflective sound. Those types of recordings sounds wonderful on a dipole (or even front bipole) speaker as it pretty much sounds like the performers are really in your own room (or at least that's what it sounds like to me. I love Tori Amos' music and I have my own piano between the ribbon speakers and it's like she's right there at the piano singing in a way). 

Now whether something like that might "help with Atmos" by making it "more 3D"? Sure, why not. I mean the front soundstage is important so I'd theoretically want a deep soundstage from the channels in use. Realistically, I'm not going to be able to fit dipoles in my home theater. The room just isn't big enough. But that doesn't mean some people couldn't. Martin Logan electrostatics comes to mind. I've seen numerous home theaters over the years that use them all around (and some special center channel). I think they make smaller ones for surround/overhead use now too, maybe? They might not all be dipoles, though. You need to keep dipoles 3+ feet away from any wall. 

What I did recently was add a Carver Sonic Holography unit (only good for 2-channel music) to the home theater to see if it could generate something similar to the Carver speakers upstairs since crosstalk elimination also can expand width, depth and even height separation naturally found in 2-channel recordings. Yes, it did work exceptionally well (for one seat). Music that would normally image between the two 30-degree fronts now expands to past the front wide locations (which are at 45 degrees) to about 60 degrees for most instruments. After tweaking speaker alignments (you want them within 1/4" distance of the MLP), some of the ambient room reverb expanded to a full 90 degrees. I also found the effect works with extra sets of speakers (front wides running main output like the HTP-1 can do) or a mixed overhead "dialog lift". As long as there's an extra set of crosstalk to cancel and they're all evenly aligned, it still apparently works (soundstage just got taller with dialog lift front height speakers engaged; the width stayed the same indicating the overhead layer was also crosstalk cancelling).



> In your opinions, 1. is this true? 2. how do you measure something like this to know which speakers excel at this and which don't? When I was choosing speakers to buy, I saw SPL graphs and stuff showing how neutral a speaker was, how accurate, what their range was, etc, but no measurements indicating how 3D their soundstage was. But maybe this ability correlates well with certain other characteristics that _are _measurable?


Depth with 2-channel is probably a matter of HRTF data being reproduced accurately or as with the dipoles, the effect reproducing naturally off your own room walls to make the sounds appear with a more solid depth in space in the room. Most stereo review type magazines back in the 1980s and 1990s talked about depth reproduction in speaker reviews, but they didn't indicate "how" it managed that exactly. You've got room reverb reflections in original live recordings when the sounds are captured out-of-phase by the same microphones and you've got any HRTR data that might be created survive in the process of various recordings (more common in binaural, but seems to happen incidentally, whether accurate or accidental in some recordings that give height, width and depth cues that you'd otherwise not notice). Some studios created some techniques to make this happen similar to Sonic Holography embedded in the recordings themselves (i.e. you could embed sonic holography yourself using tape-outs on older equipment). One popular one by Sony was called *Q-Sound*. Roger Waters' "Amused to Death" album uses it to amazing effect. It creates sound effects up to 90 degrees to your sides using similar effects on the recording itself (no processing unit needed to decode, just evenly spaced speakers with you sitting in the middle). 

But basically, the general idea is that if a stereo set of speakers sounds exceptionally good for "depth" in stereo, the same speakers might also sound great as surround speakers. But you'd have to know what speakers you like to build upon. I liked PSB Stratus Golds back when I was comparing it against the Carver ribbons, but the ribbons just sounded "more real" but the PSBs were definitely nice. When I built a home theater, that's a big factor of why I chose PSB (their +/- 1.5dB frequency response ratings are twice as good as most other speaker makers and given the effect the room has on frequency response, starting more accurate to begin with should theoretically help reduce the problem for room correction as well as treating the room itself. It makes Audyssey's (or Dirac or whatever) job that much easier as well. Most people choose speakers they like already or ones they've demoed that sounded great or failing that high recommendations from others. It is much more difficult to demo speakers than it used to be given most of the brick and mortar stores that were highly prevalent in the 1990s are gone.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> My Carver dipole ribbons certainly image in "3D" space better than monopoles (unlike surround dipoles, they are meant to be kept away from the front walls by at least 3 feet and sound comes out the front and back of the speaker equally (if they were too close, the waves would cancel each other out at many frequencies). Real sounds are dipole or even 360 degree spherical in nature of how the sounds go in all directions. Thus, a dipole speaker anchors studio type recordings in space like it's "real" sounding. Now the argument goes against them in that a LIVE recording already has many of those secondary waves and room reflections picked up by the microphone so you're adding more reflections of your own room to the sound and defeating the original space. Studio recordings often don't have a real space, though.


What about the argument that bipoles are more diffuse and therefore they will mix or drown out the top speakers?

For example when I was just planning 5.x surround, and no atmos, I was advised to use RS152 bipoles for my rear surrounds. But I saw a comment that with atmos, you dont want to use those are side or rear surrounds because they will cause less separation with the rear atmos ceiling speakers. On the other hand, isnt mixing together what helps the speakers to image objects in between them? Jeremy's recent comment just talks about that, how having speakers too far away from each other without being aimed at each other will cause them to lose imaging between them. So if you had bipoles everywhere wouldnt the sounds mix more and image better in between?

Or... when does mixing of sounds help imaging, and when does it cancel out imaging or make it too diffuse and non-directional? Because if you know exactly where the sound is coming from, i.e., the speaker, then it's like sounds are only coming from your speakers, instead of surround sound feeling like it's all around you. But if it's too diffuse, then the imaging is inexact even though it feels all around you. So when are diffuse bipoles bad for that reason, and when are they good for the prior reason?


MagnumX said:


> Depth with 2-channel is probably a matter of HRTF data being reproduced accurately or as with the dipoles, the effect reproducing naturally off your own room walls to make the sounds appear with a more solid depth in space in the room.


Should I not treat the reflection points then? A normal amount of reflections = good, not bad? Only if you have tile walls or something do you want to treat it, or, you get the point of the question... 

Also you keep talking about 3D depth but what about speakers ability to push _out _3D object sounds, like the Ready Player One coins into the lap of the MLP? That's not depth of sound in the corner of your room, that is 3D imaging out in the center of the room.


MagnumX said:


> (i.e. you could embed sonic holography yourself using tape-outs on older equipment).


?


----------



## stereoforsale

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But I still think it might be worth looking around to see if there is something aimable that uses the same size hole, since you could drop them in, see if that fixes the problem and return them if it doesn't work out.


Yup, I’ve looked for a long time for aimable speakers with same cut-out hole. Not much luck. Most aimable speakers are bigger size.
Good tips, thanks.


----------



## niterida

stereoforsale said:


> Yup, I’ve looked for a long time for aimable speakers with same cut-out hole. Not much luck. Most aimable speakers are bigger size.
> Good tips, thanks.


Build an angled box for your existing speakers and mount them over your existing hole - could even cut your existing hole larger and angle mount them "inside" the ceiling.


----------



## stereoforsale

niterida said:


> Build an angled box for your existing speakers and mount them over your existing hole - could even cut your existing hole larger and angle mount them "inside" the ceiling.


Wouldn’t it be easier to buy a bigger aimable speaker and cut a bigger hole? I’m not committed to keep the ceiling speakers I have. I just don’t want to go through all that, unless I know it will fix the problem. Otherwise I’d prefer to to cut new holes in a better location…. But I’m not exactly sure where. 

But I’m gathering from everyone’s comments that aiming the speaker is more important than location. The problem is DOWN FIRING speakers…. Ugh!!! I would have installed height speakers, but everything I read said ceiling speakers were definitely the best way to go (right???). So disappointed. All that work for nothing.


----------



## X4100

Always remember "take what you read with a grain of salt", you are setting up your room and not someone else's room! I mentioned on another forum how I placed speakers in a cardboard box just to get my angles right based on MY listening position. Once I had what I was looking for....... 😎 😎


----------



## stereoforsale

X4100 said:


> Always remember "take what you read with a grain of salt", you are setting up your room and not someone else's room! I mentioned on another forum how I placed speakers in a cardboard box just to get my angles right based on MY listening position. Once I had what I was looking for....... 😎 😎


HOW? Do tell. Or send link please.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> What about the argument that bipoles are more diffuse and therefore they will mix or drown out the top speakers?


Even with my monopole PSB home theater speakers, there are times when I'd swear a given sound was from the height speakers (common in some movie sound effects) or a lower sound was from the base speakers (I can give some Atmos music examples) and they were exactly the opposite (I can turn off the overheads with a push of a button by muting the amps for them). Now the question becomes does it _matter_ which set of speaker produced a given sound or why it does (e.g. HRTF data that perceptually shifts the sound)??? As long as it seems to match what's on-screen (or not with Atmos music), my answer is no. I just enjoy the imaging extravaganza. 

So why does it matter whether a given speaker makes it hard to tell the layers apart? I didn't know Atmos was all about "distinct sound below and distinct sound above". The Atmos demo "Nature's Fury" said Atmos can image ANYWHERE in "this room". Were they kidding? Doesn't that mean it should be a continuous bubble of sound from ear level to overhead with no distinction whatsoever in the middle? Isn't THAT the ideal? So if a great speaker overlaps into the next layer doesn't that mean you have a nice bubble of sound and you can't tell where the speakers are (beyond speaker tests and or "snap to") because sounds can come from anywhere? It seems to me I just want to hear the Atmos sound object image where it's supposed to be. If you can tell the layers apart distinctly, there's either a "gap" between them in terms of imaging or the sound timbre changes enough that you can tell which speakers are playing. Neither are good, IMO.



> For example when I was just planning 5.x surround, and no atmos, I was advised to use RS152 bipoles for my rear surrounds. But I saw a comment that with atmos, you dont want to use those are side or rear surrounds because they will cause less separation with the rear atmos ceiling speakers. On the other hand, isnt mixing together what helps the speakers to image objects in between them? Jeremy's recent comment just talks about that, how having speakers too far away from each other without being aimed at each other will cause them to lose imaging between them. So if you had bipoles everywhere wouldnt the sounds mix more and image better in between?


The type of bipole/dipole use that I'm talking about is for "spacious" sound not that type of use where you sit in the "null" of the speaker and hope it makes the sounds more diffuse and hard to tell where the sound comes from. I'm talking about depth and 3D imaging (that you brought up) not dipole speaker use as traditional Pro Logic surrounds used them. Dipoles used this way need 3+ feet space and the back wave is facing the wall with the primary driver towards you, not that sit in the null setup.



> Should I not treat the reflection points then? A normal amount of reflections = good, not bad? Only if you have tile walls or something do you want to treat it, or, you get the point of the question...


This has been debated in stereo circles a lot. If you want to hear the "original recording space" most people will recommended a dead room as any reflectxions will reveal YOUR room instead. Most general playback with a mixture of material (studio and live) recommended "live end, dead end" treatments where you absorb early reflections, but leave a mixture of absorptive and reflective surfaces throughout the middle/back of the room so it's not "too dead" sounding, but that was also often for 2-channel music where there won't be any simulated reflections from other speakers in the room like surround music will have. However, for dipoles and bipole speakers used for stereo sources, the entire idea of using the rear wave is to create that front wall reflection (you still might want to put absorption at the first side wall reflection point). Most home theater advice I've seen either absorb as much as possible (dead room; let the speakers do the work) or absorption plus diffusion combinations that try to even it all out (i.e. you can't absorb everything as bass would take absorption many feet thick at some point).

What I have is a relatively active room with the Carver Ribbons (Carpeted room with no absorption on the front wall, only on the left side (the right side is open to two other rooms so it's not an issue) and the back wall is not absorptive, but it isn't normal shaped either (odd shape into foyer with a long hallway going to the bedrooms on the one side). It's almost like bass magic in that room. I get bass response equal to my room correction response downstairs without the room correction and using two stereo 10" bass drivers in the Carver ribbons. I was going to try DIRAC with them (A Miini-DSP is pretty cheap to do with just two speakers to worry about), but after doing the REW tests, I didn't see the point in it. The room is fantastic for a dipole speaker. I'd just be tampering with its natural response somewhat (i.e. It's already +/-4dB on a speaker rated for +/- 3dB to begin with and bass is +/- 2.5dB without correction).

Downstairs, I've got another off-shape room, but I've got a mixture of heavy draping on three walls (including the front behind the screen) and bookshelves, bricks (fireplace on side wall across from heavily draped doorway) and lots of cushy sound absorbing recliners plus two tapestries made of sound absorbing material placed at the first reflection point on the side walls. The room is DEAD sounding. I can yell and there's not even a HINT of an echo or reverb. I've got 17.1 speakers (11.1.6) around the room to make up for it with reflections simulated from the musical recordings instead. 

So upstairs, I get 'holograhic" Tori Amos sounding like she's really in the room singing and downstairs, I can play her live recording from Montreux in upmixed 5.1 and have it sound like I'm at the theater instead. Thus, instead of having to choose between two different types of optimized imaging, I can simply go upstairs/downstairs for a given recording, although with the Sonic Holography unit downstairs, I'm finding I like some studio recordings down there as much or as well now too. But it should be fun to experiment, should it not?



> Also you keep talking about 3D depth but what about speakers ability to push _out _3D object sounds, like the Ready Player One coins into the lap of the MLP? That's not depth of sound in the corner of your room, that is 3D imaging out in the center of the room.


I don't think that's a function of a single speaker. That effect, in particular is dependent on both the front height speaker (and middle if you have them or imaging between) and side surrounds (as well as front wides if you have them). But if all is good and aligned and your speakers are decent, it should be pretty convincing. I found the distance the coins moved depended on whether I used discrete top middle or a biased array. Discrete seemed to dump more in my lap. The biased array seemed to dump them about two feet in front of me. Which is better? I dunno. Where are they _supposed_ to land? It's an off-screen effect. The same thing happens when the Delorean hits the pile of boxes just before that point (and the semi that goes overhead). With discrete top middle at 110 behind me, the boxes literally sound like they flew just over my head. With a biased array, they fly behind me about two feet into the 2nd row. They're still there, but it's probably "scarier" or more noticeable when it almost hits your head. The semi passing overhead sounds great either way, but it's front-to-back constant type sound effect so it's going to pass directly overhead either way.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> So why does it matter whether a given speaker makes it hard to tell the layers apart? I didn't know Atmos was all about "distinct sound below and distinct sound above". The Atmos demo "Nature's Fury" said Atmos can image ANYWHERE in "this room". Were they kidding? Doesn't that mean it should be a continuous bubble of sound from ear level to overhead with no distinction whatsoever in the middle? Isn't THAT the ideal? So if a great speaker overlaps into the next layer doesn't that mean you have a nice bubble of sound and you can't tell where the speakers are (beyond speaker tests and or "snap to") because sounds can come from anywhere?


Yeah definitely. Thats exactly what I want. But maybe the idea is that the less diffuse speakers are more precise individually, and therefore they can image sounds more precisely in between them. The question is whether the less diffuse speakers cause the sounds to be more precisely located as coming from the individual speakers, which would be bad, or whether they cause the sound to be more precisely imaged in between the individual speakers, which would be good.


MagnumX said:


> the right side is open


I have a similar situation. Someone told me I needed to wall that off, but maybe it's a good thing, like having lots of absorption panels there without having to put absorption panels there? I basically have an L shaped room. Back half is open on one side, front half is not. I was wondering about it being uneven compared to the other side though...


MagnumX said:


> But it should be fun to experiment, should it not?


For sure. I can't wait to get to _that _stage of, "I already have an enjoyable great setup, and I already know how to use everything inside out, so now it's just bonus fun to experiment to make it perform even better, even though I don't have to if I'm too busy." Right now I'm still stuck, and have been for awhile, in the "I have to grind away at finding all the info I need, and figuring out the best way to line up 50 different things to all work optimally together, even if it takes a ridiculous amount of time, if I want to get this working at all up to its potential." That stage is not as fun.


MagnumX said:


> I don't think that's a function of a single speaker. That effect, in particular is dependent on both the front height speaker (and middle if you have them or imaging between) and side surrounds (as well as front wides if you have them).


Do you think most 3D imaging in the room is possible with both the center channel behind the screen at teh same level as the L and R, and with the center channel below the screen? Or will having it below the screen ruin the 3D imaging across the board most of the time? MLP will be like 14 feet away from my LCR's so whatever negative effect is probably much less drastic than if I was sitting close, and the upward angle was much higher as a result, but I still wonder whether it will badly affect the atmos. Once I spend $$$ on a non-AT screen, it's too late to change it. But it would be a lot more complicated to do a center speaker at ear level anyway. I just like to learn about this stuff because if it's truly a necessity for good 3D imaging, or makes a huge difference even at my distance, then I might prioritize that even at the cost of greater complication. So it's helpful to learn people's thoughts on it.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Yeah definitely. Thats exactly what I want. But maybe the idea is that the less diffuse speakers are more precise individually


I'm not entirely sure I know what a diffuse speaker is exactly. The only speaker system I ever heard that struck me as being hard to pin-point sounds compared to other systems was Martin Logan electrostatics. I thought it sounded god-awful to be honest. Big wall of unfocused sound. I suppose it could have been the dealer's room, however as Magnepan speakers are big planar speakers and sounded great to my ears. My own Carver ribbons are tall (4 foot ribbons in a six foot speaker), but the drivers are small in width compared to Magnepan or Martin Logan and so they image very differently in the horizontal plane and yet similar in the vertical plane. I get precise imaging like a conventional woofer/tweeter in the horizontal plane, but extremely limited vertical dispersion above/below the 4' ribbon height (i.e. If I crawl on the ground or step on a ladder above them, it's like the sound muffles down to mostly the bass). A larger planar speaker limits both vertical and horizontal dispersion (less room interaction, but harder to pin-point imaging). I'm not sure if the Magnepan speaker had a smaller driver for highs on it or what, but I didn't notice the indistinct imaging there, but perhaps in both cases it was less the imaging and more the response of the room messing with the frequency response in the case of Martin Logan. It wouldn't be the first dealer I've gone to that had a lousy demo room as certainly others seem to love the Martin Logan sound. I'm not sure what models I listened to it's been so long, but I think it was the Sequel II and Aerius. I remember I wanted to hear the Sequel III, but they didn't have it in stock. 



> and therefore they can image sounds more precisely in between them. The question is whether the less diffuse speakers cause the sounds to be more precisely located as coming from the individual speakers, which would be bad, or whether they cause the sound to be more precisely imaged in between the individual speakers, which would be good.


I don't think it has to do with either one. Speakers image in stereo (or higher) as a result of level differences and/or the precedent effect if the time arrivals aren't the same. Now how well a speaker would image with 5 playing at once compared to another might be hard to predict.



> I have a similar situation. Someone told me I needed to wall that off, but maybe it's a good thing, like having lots of absorption panels there without having to put absorption panels there?


Well, it doesn't help side-to-side reverb when there's nothing to reverberate, but I was always under the impression that early side wall reflections generally sound bad (it's not open as far back as the seating, just between the speaker and the seating (goes into the open dining room and then into another room behind that so it's not going to make it back as reverb intact too well as the level would have dropped 6 or more dB by then. The draping is meant to partly absorb the reflection on the left wall.



> Do you think most 3D imaging in the room is possible with both the center channel behind the screen at teh same level as the L and R, and with the center channel below the screen? Or will having it below the screen ruin the 3D imaging across the board most of the time? MLP will be like 14 feet away from my LCR's so whatever negative effect is probably much less drastic than if I was sitting close, and the upward angle was much higher as a result, but I still wonder whether it will badly affect the atmos. Once I spend $$$ on a non-AT screen, it's too late to change it. But it would be a lot more complicated to do a center speaker at ear level anyway. I just like to learn about this stuff because if it's truly a necessity for good 3D imaging, or makes a huge difference even at my distance, then I might prioritize that even at the cost of greater complication. So it's helpful to learn people's thoughts on it.


I think any center that doesn't match the Left/Right is going to be a compromise from using an identical speaker (I always used phantom imaging for a center at my old house when no one else was watching/listening as nothing was going to perfectly match another Carver AL-III except another AL-III which was practical as a center, at least without an acoustical transparent screen and projector and even then, you have to usually EQ a little bit (no screen is 100% transparent at all frequencies). How much does a different center affect it? It probably depends on the design. I never was crazy about those horizontally orientated models that I heard, but I've only heard so many.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Well, it doesn't help side-to-side reverb when there's nothing to reverberate, but I was always under the impression that early side wall reflections generally sound bad (it's not open as far back as the seating, just between the speaker and the seating (goes into the open dining room and then into another room behind that so it's not going to make it back as reverb intact too well as the level would have dropped 6 or more dB by then. The draping is meant to partly absorb the reflection on the left wall.


The open half in my space is the half where the seating is, not the half where the screen is. Sounds like maybe yours is the opposite?


MagnumX said:


> I think any center that doesn't match the Left/Right is going to be a compromise from using an identical speaker (I always used phantom imaging for a center at my old house when no one else was watching/listening as nothing was going to perfectly match another Carver AL-III except another AL-III which was practical as a center, at least without an acoustical transparent screen and projector and even then, you have to usually EQ a little bit (no screen is 100% transparent at all frequencies). How much does a different center affect it? It probably depends on the design. I never was crazy about those horizontally orientated models that I heard, but I've only heard so many.


The Infinity Reference series (what I bought) comes with a "matching" center, it's just horizontal instead of vertical, but they are designed to go together. So it wouldn't be a timber issue in this case, only placement. L&R towers: Infinity REFERENCE 263 | 6-1/2" 3-Way Floorstanding Speaker. 
CC: Infinity REFERENCE RC263 | 3-Way Center Channel Speaker. Infinity RC263 Center Speaker Review.


----------



## dj7675

stereoforsale said:


> Thanks for the tips.
> 
> My ceiling speakers are 5.25” Paradigm, can’t remember the model. Probably have bad dispersion. They point straight down. Ceilings 7.5ft.
> 
> Yes, I thought about replacing the speakers with angled ones, but since I’d have to cut a bigger hole to accommodate better speakers, I might as well just cut new holes in the right spot to make sure I get the ideal result.
> 
> BTW, is it really true that 4 atmos speakers can image something literally above your head? That’s sounds like a bit of stretch. After all, many L&R tower speakers struggle to image without near perfect placement, so it seems like an exaggeration that atmos speakers can be expected to do an even more challenging task.


Just a couple of comments...
-I found the trinnov speaker guide a good interesting read regarding speaker layout.








Trinnov | Trinnov Speaker Layout Guide







www.trinnov.com




-I started with in ceiling and didn't get the desired affect I was hoping for. I changed to on ceiling and found the experience to be much better. This isn't possible in all rooms of course, but if you can it can make a world of difference. Atmos and surround speakers are no different than if listening to stereo pair of speakers. If possible point them at the listeners
-I'm sure in ceiling can work fine but it seems placement is even more important.


----------



## halcyon_888

Technology3456 said:


> The Infinity Reference series (what I bought) comes with a "matching" center, it's just horizontal instead of vertical, but they are designed to go together. So it wouldn't be a timber issue in this case, only placement. L&R towers: Infinity REFERENCE 263 | 6-1/2" 3-Way Floorstanding Speaker.
> CC: Infinity REFERENCE RC263 | 3-Way Center Channel Speaker. Infinity RC263 Center Speaker Review.


I think what @MagnumX is saying is even if you have a horizontal center channel there are still differences in driver layout and most likely the crossover, so this will get close to a timbre match but not exact so EQing will help to even things out. An EQ would still be necessary due to speaker placement anyway, in other words once you have the speakers in the room unless the room is exact on each side for the L and R channels the room will make the speakers sound uneven at the listening position. Dedicated theater rooms have an advantage here for the L and R, but with using a horizontal or vertical center channel it will need some EQ to match the L and R regardless. As an example, I have DIY L and R speakers and a DIY horizontal center channel that has the same drivers as the L and R and nearly the same crossover, yet the driver layout is different being horizontal and the midrange speakers have a different enclosure than the L and R. The result is the center channel--even with the same drivers and nearly the same crossover--sounded different to my ears, before EQing. I ran Audyssey for the first time a few months ago after getting a good prepro and I can say that EQing made the LCR timbre matched now. Yesterday while watching a show there was a fire that started in the left channel and then it panned slowly through the LCR and there was absolutely no timbre difference at all. It was completely seamless and I am someone who is sensitive to timbre matching. So without EQ if you're someone who is sensitive to timbre matching your center channel likely will sound different than the L and R speakers, if nothing else than the room creating differences at the listening position but again the horizontal driver layout and crossover likely will contribute. From there having an AVR with good EQing capability can reduce or eliminate the timbre differences.

As far as 3D surround formats, running Audyssey and getting a good EQ on all my speakers vastly improved the "sound bubble" because it smoothed the frequencies out and all of the speakers match better now. All told with Audyssey (distance settings, delay, EQ) my system can sound what I initially described as "holographic" when I first heard what Audyssey did to my system, of course this has to be with a good Atmos mix.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I think what @MagnumX is saying is even if you have a horizontal center channel there are still differences in driver layout and most likely the crossover, so this will get close to a timbre match but not exact so EQing will help to even things out. An EQ would still be necessary due to speaker placement anyway, in other words once you have the speakers in the room unless the room is exact on each side for the L and R channels the room will make the speakers sound uneven at the listening position.


I was thinking less of timbre differences (same drivers help there) and more about imaging differences since the drivers aren't going to be arranged the same or at the same relative heights. Something will pan across the front and it's going to dip downward or whatever. Most people used to think of center speakers merely as dialog speakers and since they do almost nothing else, they don't matter. I don't think this is true, particularly with Atmos music and the like and I think objects in Atmos pan right through them (i.e. some 5.1, 7.1 stuff might pan through L/R and not even use the center speaker. Older DTS music albums would often not use the center for vocals like Alan Parson's ON AIR album (only used it once for a JFK speech in "Apollo"). Of course, I have to admit I'm usually not aware of which movies or albums avoid the center for whatever sound or effect because it sounds pretty much identical here at the MLP either way.

I have heard differences even between different Audyssey takes (moving the mic sometimes gets very different results so I don't really trust Audyssey's projected graphs), particularly in pink noise. I have nearly all identical drivers (rear speakers are updated versions, but same diameter and based on previous design), but they still sound a little different from different parts of the room, at least in pink noise (much harder to tell with normal sounds even without Audyssey on). The last Audyssey update I just did a little over a week ago I used the arrays I set up all on and it did an amazing job this time of getting most of the speakers to sound alike in pink noise. I noticed even tiny level differences even affect how pink noise sounds so it wouldn't be easy to "correct" manually with an EQ (tried that once in one of the saved settings; had some limited success as an alternative setting to Audyssey, but it was far from perfect). 

Still, even so, _some_ 2-channel music albums sound "harsher" with Audyssey turned on than it off (sometimes "reference" helps, but L/R bypass or OFF works better). Other albums sound slightly muffled with it off in the highs (you can really hear a difference turning it on) and those albums were ones I considered better recorded upstairs. Nearly every Atmos music album sounds fantastic with Audyssey turned on so it might just have been the studio monitors they used for some of those music recordings. I don't think some of their selection back then was the most accurate stuff and had a certain "sound" to it. Bass differences were all over the place back then (some '80s albums have very little bass compared to '90s and newer while ironically stuff from the '70s often had very good bass, but then all bets are off with remasters, etc.) Upstairs, I just tend to not listen to badly recorded albums. I find downstairs, I can get them to sound much better by switching Audyssey modes and/or playing with sub levels. For example, I've NEVER been able to get Firehouse's original album (which I liked the music on) to sound good on a higher-end system (sounded better in the car and on my junk system I had when I was a teenager) as it has this grainy harsh flat sound to it. Using all-channel stereo and Sonic Holography, it actually sounds acceptable downstairs now (The all-channel mode and hologram took care of flat sound and losing Audyssey toned down the harshness a bit). It's still no Dark Side of the Moon, though.


----------



## Technology3456

halcyon_888 said:


> I think what @MagnumX is saying is even if you have a horizontal center channel there are still differences in driver layout and most likely the crossover, so this will get close to a timbre match but not exact so EQing will help to even things out. An EQ would still be necessary due to speaker placement anyway, in other words once you have the speakers in the room unless the room is exact on each side for the L and R channels the room will make the speakers sound uneven at the listening position. Dedicated theater rooms have an advantage here for the L and R, but with using a horizontal or vertical center channel it will need some EQ to match the L and R regardless. As an example, I have DIY L and R speakers and a DIY horizontal center channel that has the same drivers as the L and R and nearly the same crossover, yet the driver layout is different being horizontal and the midrange speakers have a different enclosure than the L and R. The result is the center channel--even with the same drivers and nearly the same crossover--sounded different to my ears, before EQing. I ran Audyssey for the first time a few months ago after getting a good prepro and I can say that EQing made the LCR timbre matched now. Yesterday while watching a show there was a fire that started in the left channel and then it panned slowly through the LCR and there was absolutely no timbre difference at all. It was completely seamless and I am someone who is sensitive to timbre matching. So without EQ if you're someone who is sensitive to timbre matching your center channel likely will sound different than the L and R speakers, if nothing else than the room creating differences at the listening position but again the horizontal driver layout and crossover likely will contribute. From there having an AVR with good EQing capability can reduce or eliminate the timbre differences.
> 
> As far as 3D surround formats, running Audyssey and getting a good EQ on all my speakers vastly improved the "sound bubble" because it smoothed the frequencies out and all of the speakers match better now. All told with Audyssey (distance settings, delay, EQ) my system can sound what I initially described as "holographic" when I first heard what Audyssey did to my system, of course this has to be with a good Atmos mix.


Thanks that makes a lot of sense. EQ is key to timber matching, got it. But can the placement hurdle ever be overcome even with EQ, or will it affect the sound bubble? With matching LCR towers and side surrounds and rear surrounds at the same height, and then a perfect .4 rectangle on the ceiling, you have a, how to put it... steady shape. A perfect trapezoid. With the center channel on the floor, you have a little triangle downward at the front of that "trapezoid." You dont have even height of all the bed layer speakers to create a sound bubble at equal height. So the question is whether the imaging can never be correct and perfectly 3D if one of the bedlayer speakers is lower than the others? In any case I will probably set it up for the best effect I can with the center likely near the floor, and enjoy it regardless, but I'd still like to learn that.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I was thinking less of timbre differences (same drivers help there) and more about imaging differences since the drivers aren't going to be arranged the same or at the same relative heights. Something will pan across the front and it's going to dip downward or whatever.


Right, that is sort of expected, that the front sounds from the center will sound lower. But what Im wondering about is when all seven bedlayer speakers are imaging objects between them around the room, if having the center speaker lower is going to mess up the "connection points" of the sounds through the entire room. Like if the left side surround speaker is combining with the LCR's to image an object halfway between the left side surround speaker, and the center channel, that is supposed to be at about ear level height, is it either:

1. not going to be able to create a 3D "image" in the room at all because the center speaker is not on the same plane as the others? or

2. going to be able to do it, but the sound object it is "imaging" will sound 3 feet off the floor instead of 4 feet because one of the LCR's is lower so the height will average out all the speakers?

#2 wouldn't be so bad. Who can tell the difference 4 feet vs 3 feet? But #1 would ruin the whole effect.


----------



## X4100

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks that makes a lot of sense. EQ is key to timber matching, got it. But can the placement hurdle ever be overcome even with EQ, or will it affect the sound bubble? With matching LCR towers and side surrounds and rear surrounds at the same height, and then a perfect .4 rectangle on the ceiling, you have a, how to put it... steady shape. A perfect trapezoid. With the center channel on the floor, you have a little triangle downward at the front of that "trapezoid." You dont have even height of all the bed layer speakers to create a sound bubble at equal height. So the question is whether the imaging can never be correct and perfectly 3D if one of the bedlayer speakers is lower than the others? In any case I will probably set it up for the best effect I can with the center likely near the floor, and enjoy it regardless, but I'd still like to learn that.


YMMV But I still feel that once you make a decision, and FOLLOW THROUGH with it, you are going to see that you lost a lot of just enjoying your setup and overthinking it!


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I was thinking less of timbre differences (same drivers help there) and more about imaging differences since the drivers aren't going to be arranged the same or at the same relative heights. Something will pan across the front and it's going to dip downward or whatever. Most people used to think of center speakers merely as dialog speakers and since they do almost nothing else, they don't matter. I don't think this is true, particularly with Atmos music and the like and I think objects in Atmos pan right through them (i.e. some 5.1, 7.1 stuff might pan through L/R and not even use the center speaker. Older DTS music albums would often not use the center for vocals like Alan Parson's ON AIR album (only used it once for a JFK speech in "Apollo"). Of course, I have to admit I'm usually not aware of which movies or albums avoid the center for whatever sound or effect because it sounds pretty much identical here at the MLP either way.
> 
> I have heard differences even between different Audyssey takes (moving the mic sometimes gets very different results so I don't really trust Audyssey's projected graphs), particularly in pink noise. I have nearly all identical drivers (rear speakers are updated versions, but same diameter and based on previous design), but they still sound a little different from different parts of the room, at least in pink noise (much harder to tell with normal sounds even without Audyssey on). The last Audyssey update I just did a little over a week ago I used the arrays I set up all on and it did an amazing job this time of getting most of the speakers to sound alike in pink noise. I noticed even tiny level differences even affect how pink noise sounds so it wouldn't be easy to "correct" manually with an EQ (tried that once in one of the saved settings; had some limited success as an alternative setting to Audyssey, but it was far from perfect).
> 
> Still, even so, _some_ 2-channel music albums sound "harsher" with Audyssey turned on than it off (sometimes "reference" helps, but L/R bypass or OFF works better). Other albums sound slightly muffled with it off in the highs (you can really hear a difference turning it on) and those albums were ones I considered better recorded upstairs. Nearly every Atmos music album sounds fantastic with Audyssey turned on so it might just have been the studio monitors they used for some of those music recordings. I don't think some of their selection back then was the most accurate stuff and had a certain "sound" to it. Bass differences were all over the place back then (some '80s albums have very little bass compared to '90s and newer while ironically stuff from the '70s often had very good bass, but then all bets are off with remasters, etc.) Upstairs, I just tend to not listen to badly recorded albums. I find downstairs, I can get them to sound much better by switching Audyssey modes and/or playing with sub levels. For example, I've NEVER been able to get Firehouse's original album (which I liked the music on) to sound good on a higher-end system (sounded better in the car and on my junk system I had when I was a teenager) as it has this grainy harsh flat sound to it. Using all-channel stereo and Sonic Holography, it actually sounds acceptable downstairs now (The all-channel mode and hologram took care of flat sound and losing Audyssey toned down the harshness a bit). It's still no Dark Side of the Moon, though.


My LCR speakers have the same drivers, two 8" woofers, two 4" mids, and a ribbon tweeter. My heights and surrounds have the same ribbon tweeter as the LCR, one 4" mid, and two 6" woofers that are in the same driver family as the LCR 8" woofers. Before EQing, the heights and surrounds sounded very different to my ears, but after EQing (with pink noise from one of those Dolby demo disks) they sounded similar and I was pleased how related they sounded. They still sound a bit different with overhead pans but they are much closer than they ever have been. I'm reluctant to try another Audyssey measurement since I'm so pleased with how it turned out the first time. I measured only at the MLP with about 1 foot between each measurement point, so a very tight area.

I don't listen to music much, in fact I've never listened with Audyssey. The last time I demod music was months ago when I first had my prepro setup, and I much preferred the Marantz pure mode over the others. Much more clarity and imaging--I had to check I was in the right sound mode because the imaging was so good it sounded like my surrounds were on. I'm 99% TV/movies.


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> YMMV But I still feel that once you make a decision, and FOLLOW THROUGH with it, you are going to see that you lost a lot of just enjoying your setup and overthinking it!


Even if my HT was ready and I was using it, I could still discuss atmos with people on the forum and try to learn more, as many members with fully functioning atmos setups do. But as I've said before, my room is not ready to go yet otherwise I would be doing exactly as you say, and exactly as I said in the post you quoted ("I will probably set it up for the best effect I can with the center likely near the floor, and enjoy it regardless, but I'd still like to learn that"). 

Trust me, no one wishes it was all ready more than me, and no one is more aware of the unexpected time commitment to achieving this setup than me who is having to dedicate so much time to it in order to bring it to fruition.


----------



## halcyon_888

Technology3456 said:


> Thanks that makes a lot of sense. EQ is key to timber matching, got it. But can the placement hurdle ever be overcome even with EQ, or will it affect the sound bubble? With matching LCR towers and side surrounds and rear surrounds at the same height, and then a perfect .4 rectangle on the ceiling, you have a, how to put it... steady shape. A perfect trapezoid. With the center channel on the floor, you have a little triangle downward at the front of that "trapezoid." You dont have even height of all the bed layer speakers to create a sound bubble at equal height. So the question is whether the imaging can never be correct and perfectly 3D if one of the bedlayer speakers is lower than the others? In any case I will probably set it up for the best effect I can with the center likely near the floor, and enjoy it regardless, but I'd still like to learn that.


I don't have the perfect placement for Dolby specs and I still get a convincing sound bubble. My center channel is below the TV, it is angled up toward the listening position which helps with the panning. There are compromises with every system, but dedicated theater rooms have advantages since the room can be designed around getting speaker placement as close to spec as possible. Sure I think the closer you get to Dolby specs the better the sound bubble will be, but how _much_ better is something I can't say. I've only experienced Atmos with my system, but I am pleased with how things have turned out.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> My LCR speakers have the same drivers, two 8" woofers, two 4" mids, and a ribbon tweeter. My heights and surrounds have the same ribbon tweeter as the LCR, one 4" mid, and two 6" woofers that are in the same driver family as the LCR 8" woofers. Before EQing, the heights and surrounds sounded very different to my ears, but after EQing (with pink noise from one of those Dolby demo disks) they sounded similar and I was pleased how related they sounded.


The room itself (ceiling and wall reflections, etc.) can change the sound. I think given I'm using on-ceiling speakers and Auro locations, etc. I'm rather lucky my speakers match as well as they do (almost indistinguishable with pink noise now). Oddly, I would have thought the front heights (sitting on the top shelf of an actual bookshelf, but tweeters slightly higher than the on-ceiling rear speakers) would have had the most difficulty with the forward facing proximity to the untreated ceiling, but the Audyssey graph shows they have the best response of any speaker in the room without correction (hard to test surround speakers with REW as you'd have to use 7.1 inputs or rearrange them and 7.1 won't use Audyssey at all, defeating the point of them so I have to take Audyssey's word for all but the front speakers without a lot of extra work). 

But I can and have tested the front mains and front mains + mixed front wides + dialog lift heights. The array mix tests the flattest of all as long as I use Audyssey with the arrays running. But then the mains sound pretty good by themselves, especially with older '80s music that seems a bit harsh in the treble with Audyssey set to Flat or even sometimes Reference. Like I said above, newer/better recordings and Atmos music sound phenominal with Audyssey turned on so it's kind of strange there's harshness on some music CDs, but I assume they used different monitors (let alone humans) for mixing. I used to always read in articles that most people hate "flat" sound, but it sounds darn good with Yello, Booka Shade and Tori Amos, even in the stereo versions.


----------



## X4100

I'm watching "The Meg". The Dolby Atmos on this movie is more than just a reference disc! It is FANTASTIC, I'm at the point where Jonas has rescued the trapped crew in the submersible. The sound is everything that atmos is about. I have to get back to the movie!!!


----------



## chmorgan

X4100 said:


> I'm watching "The Meg". The Dolby Atmos on this movie is more than just a reference disc! It is FANTASTIC, I'm at the point where Jonas has rescued the trapped crew in the submersible. The sound is everything that atmos is about. I have to get back to the movie!!!


I just started watching this late last night and am only 20 minutes into it and am already impressed. Really looking forward to the rest of the experience!


----------



## noah katz

Are you guys watching it on disc or streaming it?

Any reason to think that streaming Atmos via RokuUltra won't sound as good?


----------



## chmorgan

noah katz said:


> Are you guys watching it on disc or streaming it?
> 
> Any reason to think that streaming Atmos via RokuUltra won't sound as good?


I am watching from a disc but have had great results streaming other movies on the Roku Ultra. The original Jumaji and The Matrix blew my mind when I streamed them from Vudu.


----------



## X4100

I just finished watching it on a bluray disc, and since @chmorgan is probably still watching it, I won't give away anything. I must say this is the first movie in Atmos where I wasn't focused on the height speakers, although they were active throughout, I must have made the needed adjustments, or this is a great mix 😎


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Sonic Holography


WOW! Talk about a blast from the past. I used to own the Carver C-4000 Sonic Holography Pre-Amp that was demoed by Carver at the old Washington DC Hi-Fi Show and later sold by Myer-Emco many years ago. I also met Bob Carver at his Woodenville WA facility while on vacation and got a personal tour of the factory (all except for Bob's personal lab) by his chief engineer. While chatting with Bob and his chief engineer, Bob offered to update my C-4000 to the latest specs (it was a 1st generation) for free including shipping both ways. Of course, I immediately accepted. Over the years I also owned a Carver FM tuner and various Carver power amps all of which were the basis along with a Hafler Dolby Surround Decoder for my first Surround Sound system. It sounded quite fantastic for it's time. I do miss it all.


----------



## chmorgan

X4100 said:


> I just finished watching it on a bluray disc, and since @chmorgan is probably still watching it, I won't give away anything. I must say this is the first movie in Atmos where I wasn't focused on the height speakers, although they were active throughout, I must have made the needed adjustments, or this is a great mix 😎


I get what you mean by focusing on the height speakers. Are they on?...I wish I could hear more coming out of them...etc...I focused on them a little bit because my cat was on my lap when I watched more of the movie earlier this evening. She would look at a speaker either height or surround when a creaking noise or something like that would come out of an individual speaker. That's another sign of a great Atmos track, kitty cat approved!


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched _Angels & Demons_ in Dolby Atmos (I think the last time I watched it was when my system was still 6.1 or perhaps it was merely the previous 5.1 soundtrack; I can't recall) and I have to say I was fairly impressed with it, which I think bears saying/sharing given how many mediocre Atmos movies I've watched over the past few years. It's perhaps not a Top 10 or even 20 contender, but the movie does have very nice surround effects and panning through layers of height and depth. There's lots of surround atmosphere (rather than the blank use of surrounds many movies employ when dialog is going on, etc.) and plenty of overhead effects throughout.

I've watched the 3rd movie in the Robert Langdon series, _Inferno_ a few times in Auro-3D and Atmos and it has excellent sound as well (I probably liked that film the best of the three, possibly due in no small part to the lovely Felicity Jones). I've got _The Da Vinci Code_ to rewatch in Atmos yet as well (I remember I first watched that in 2016 right after I got back from Europe and realized I was at a couple of locations in the film (The Louvre in Paris, Rosslyn Chapel outside of Edinburgh) and discovered I was just a 20 minute walk from the Temple Church in London (if I had seen the movie first to know to visit it). My system was definitely still 6.1 in 2016 so it bears a rewatching (It's actually kind of weird to think I have as many speakers overhead now as I had in total back then). I imagine if the same team did its soundtrack, it's probably well done too.


----------



## noah katz

MagnumX said:


> I just watched _Angels & Demons_ in Dolby Atmos


From where?

That's a 2009 movie, and not the kind I'd expect them to remaster.


----------



## MagnumX

noah katz said:


> From where?
> 
> That's a 2009 movie, and not the kind I'd expect them to remaster.


From the 4K UHD BD. All of them are available on 4K BD (Auro-3D version of Inferno is a regular BD). The iTunes streaming copies are all also Atmos except Angels & Demons, which according to the fine print at the bottom apparently is supposed to be to, but someone screwed up as the last time I checked it was still 5.1 on there.


----------



## cathodeRay

noah katz said:


> From where?
> 
> That's a 2009 movie, and not the kind I'd expect them to remaster.


In 2016 believe it or not: Angels & Demons - Ultra HD Blu-ray Ultra HD Review | High Def Digest


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I just watched _Angels & Demons_ in Dolby Atmos (I think the last time I watched it was when my system was still 6.1 or perhaps it was merely the previous 5.1 soundtrack; I can't recall) and I have to say I was fairly impressed with it, which I think bears saying/sharing given how many mediocre Atmos movies I've watched over the past few years. It's perhaps not a Top 10 or even 20 contender, but the movie does have very nice surround effects and panning through layers of height and depth. There's lots of surround atmosphere (rather than the blank use of surrounds many movies employ when dialog is going on, etc.) and plenty of overhead effects throughout.
> 
> I've watched the 3rd movie in the Robert Langdon series, _Inferno_ a few times in Auro-3D and Atmos and it has excellent sound as well (I probably liked that film the best of the three, possibly due in no small part to the lovely Felicity Jones). I've got _The Da Vinci Code_ to rewatch in Atmos yet as well (I remember I first watched that in 2016 right after I got back from Europe and realized I was at a couple of locations in the film (The Louvre in Paris, Rosslyn Chapel outside of Edinburgh) and discovered I was just a 20 minute walk from the Temple Church in London (if I had seen the movie first to know to visit it). My system was definitely still 6.1 in 2016 so it bears a rewatching (It's actually kind of weird to think I have as many speakers overhead now as I had in total back then). I imagine if the same team did its soundtrack, it's probably well done too.


You could almost call it... the holy grail of Atmos mixes.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> You could almost call it... the holy grail of Atmos mixes.


Nah, that would be Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Sadly, its remix wasn't that great.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Nah, that would be Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Sadly, its remix wasn't that great.


Are you saying the 1080p blu-ray had an atmos mix, but the 4K release wasn't great? Or there are two 4K versions with different atmos mixes?


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Are you saying the 1080p blu-ray had an atmos mix, but the 4K release wasn't great? Or there are two 4K versions with different atmos mixes?


They're all 4K versions save Inferno's Australian Auro-3D release. I'm saying the Atmos remixes for the Indy films weren't much improved over their 5.1 prior versions (similar to Neural X doing an upmix). The Robert Langdon series have excellent Atmos remixed soundtracks by comparison.

The 4K video upgrades are neither here nor there in terms of audio. The 2K versions simply lack Atmos (well ATV streaming will do Atmos at 2K on iTunes)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

If you want to enjoy good Atmos, the Underworld 5 movie box is the one to get. Some spectacular object panning going on there and very good use of all speaker locations.









Underworld: Limited Edition 5-Movie Collection Ultra HD...


The eternal battle between vampires and lycans gets upgraded as the Underworld Limited-Edition 5-movie Collection arrives on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. Ralph Potts put the set through the paces. Read on to see his impressions. The Review at a Glance: (max...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## MagnumX

Unfortunately, even Kate Beckinsale in latex couldn't hold my interest for long in that god-awful boring series (Werewolves vs. Vampires... Who will win?) WHO CARES is a better question.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Unfortunately, even Kate Beckinsale in latex couldn't hold my interest for long in that god-awful boring series (Werewolves vs. Vampires... Who will win?) WHO CARES is a better question.


This would be one of the few times I have disagreed with you.
Kate Beckinsale can hold my attention for as long as she wants wearing whatever she wants


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> This would be one of the few times I have disagreed with you.
> Kate Beckinsale can hold my attention for as long as she wants wearing whatever she wants


Well, if the entire movie was a camera following close behind her say in an air duct, I could probably watch for at least 15 minutes.....


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Well, if the entire movie was a camera following close behind her say in an air duct, I could probably watch for at least 15 minutes.....


Have you seen Jolt yet ?


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Have you seen Jolt yet ?


I hadn't even heard of it, but I'm going to have to check it out now.


----------



## fizzyElf

I am still waiting for the Onkyo TX-RZ50 but in the meantime I am using the SR6015.

I am not planning on using the Audyssey XT32 so I set the numbers manually for the time being.

Do these number make sense (multiple pictures) -


http://imgur.com/a/wTBYNZW

?

Another question I had was about the sound modes -


http://imgur.com/a/jlzqB96


Should I always use Dolby Atmos/DSur when available? What about DTS:X?


----------



## niterida

fizzyElf said:


> I am not planning on using the Audyssey XT32 so I set the numbers manually for the time being.
> 
> Do these number make sense (multiple pictures) -
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/wTBYNZW
> 
> ?


No - you cannot just arbitrarily set those numbers. You either need to run the setup or manually use an SPL Meter to correctly set them. Or at very least attempt to have them all at the same level by ear.


----------



## bluesky636

fizzyElf said:


> Should I always use Dolby Atmos/DSur when available? What about DTS:X?


Available sound modes will change depending on the source audio format so like speaker levels, you can't just arbitrarily pick one to use.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Available sound modes will change depending on the source audio format so like speaker levels, you can't just arbitrarily pick one to use.


That's news to me. I can watch any movie in any mode I choose. Only DTS:X locks me out, but if I turn passthrough (bitstream) off, I can use DSU, Neural X, Auromatic, Stereo, Virtual or Multi-channel stereo with any movie source. No, you can't get "Atmos" with non-Atmos, but it's Atmos/DSU, not only Atmos. There's also TrueHD/DSU, TrueHD/Neural X, etc. with Atmos sources.


----------



## ThierryB

MagnumX said:


> That's news to me. I can watch any movie in any mode I choose. Only DTS:X locks me out, but if I turn passthrough (bitstream) off, I can use DSU, Neural X, Auromatic, Stereo, Virtual or Multi-channel stereo with any movie source. No, you can't get "Atmos" with non-Atmos, but it's Atmos/DSU, not only Atmos. There's also TrueHD/DSU, TrueHD/Neural X, etc. with Atmos sources.


That is exactly what @bluesky636 is trying to say. You are effectively changing the source audio format to have a different set of sound modes.
So what he said is correct.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> That's news to me. I can watch any movie in any mode I choose. Only DTS:X locks me out, but if I turn passthrough (bitstream) off, I can use DSU, Neural X, Auromatic, Stereo, Virtual or Multi-channel stereo with any movie source. No, you can't get "Atmos" with non-Atmos, but it's Atmos/DSU, not only Atmos. There's also TrueHD/DSU, TrueHD/Neural X, etc. with Atmos sources.


Sounds like different sound modes for different source formats to me.

5.1 Dolby Digital source:

__
https://flic.kr/p/2mGG2Lv

5.1 Multichannel source:

__
https://flic.kr/p/2mGHmnh


----------



## MagnumX

Those are the same surround modes above. Multi-In or Dolby Digital is the source, not the surround mode. Dsu, Neural X, Virtual X, etc. etc. etc. are the SURROUND _MODES_. 

Pick same mode for different source. So what? DSur = DSU. Neural X, stereo, etc. are the same.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Those are the same surround modes above. Multi-In or Dolby Digital is the source, not the surround mode. Dsu, Neural X, Virtual X, etc. etc. etc. are the SURROUND _MODES_.
> 
> Pick same mode for different source. So what? DSur = DSU. Neural X, stereo, etc. are the same.


Never mind. I'm not interested in arguing semantics.


----------



## Rich 63

fizzyElf said:


> I am still waiting for the Onkyo TX-RZ50 but in the meantime I am using the SR6015.
> 
> I am not planning on using the Audyssey XT32 so I set the numbers manually for the time being.
> 
> Do these number make sense (multiple pictures) -
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/wTBYNZW
> 
> ?
> 
> Another question I had was about the sound modes -
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/jlzqB96
> 
> 
> Should I always use Dolby Atmos/DSur when available? What about DTS:X?


Bigger question i have is whats wrong with the 6015. Why have it, not use as intended then buy something newer?


----------



## fizzyElf

Rich 63 said:


> Bigger question i have is whats wrong with the 6015. Why have it, not use as intended then buy something newer?


I looked into both of them and I prefer the RZ50. Nothing is wrong with the SR6015. I just rather use the Onkyo one. Pre ordered two months ago, still waiting.


----------



## halcyon_888

fizzyElf said:


> I looked into both of them and I prefer the RZ50. Nothing is wrong with the SR6015. I just rather use the Onkyo one. Pre ordered two months ago, still waiting.


Are you planning to use Dirac Live with the RZ50? I'd recommend doing so, that is some very good room correction software. As far as the SR6015 you'll want to use a SPL meter to set your levels, some people get a SPL app on their phone and say it is reasonably accurate to set levels with. Also, manually set your distances with a measuring tape.


----------



## fizzyElf

halcyon_888 said:


> Are you planning to use Dirac Live with the RZ50? I'd recommend doing so, that is some very good room correction software. As far as the SR6015 you'll want to use a SPL meter to set your levels, some people get a SPL app on their phone and say it is reasonably accurate to set levels with. Also, manually set your distances with a measuring tape.


Yes I will definitely be using Dirac Live. The reason why I don't use Audyssey now is that I tried running it multiple times and it fails either in the beginning or in the end or one time it didn't actually save the numbers. Kinda gave up/got annoyed.

I will run it one last time for the distance, if it fails never touching it again ha.

EDIT: by failing I mean the AVR just turns off completely. Temps are fine and it only does it during Audyssey so for me it is not even worth trying to deal with.


----------



## bluesky636

fizzyElf said:


> Yes I will definitely be using Dirac Live. The reason why I don't use Audyssey now is that I tried running it multiple times and it fails either in the beginning or in the end or one time it didn't actually save the numbers. Kinda gave up/got annoyed.
> 
> I will run it one last time for the distance, if it fails never touching it again ha.
> 
> EDIT: by failing I mean the AVR just turns off completely. Temps are fine and it only does it during Audyssey so for me it is not even worth trying to deal with.


Are you using the app to run Audyssey or the AVR? The app can be quite buggy depending on the device it is installed on.

Either that or you don't know how to run Audyssey properly or there is a problem with the AVR. Yet you say:



fizzyElf said:


> Nothing is wrong with the SR6015.


I have never had Audyssey just "break" in all the years I have had it.

In any case, this is the ATMOS thread, not the Audyssey thread.


----------



## fizzyElf

bluesky636 said:


> Are you using the app to run Audyssey or the AVR? The app can be quite buggy depending on the device it is installed on.
> 
> Either that or you don't know how to run Audyssey properly or there is a problem with the AVR. Yet you say:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never had Audyssey just "break" in all the years I have had it.
> 
> In any case, this is the ATMOS thread, not the Audyssey thread.


There is nothing wrong with the SR6015 as a model, I just prefer the RZ50, that's all. Just because mine fails doesn't mean the model is bad. Again, it doesn't matter to me so I didn't even bother mentioning the issue I am having. It is irrelevant to my question.

I use the receiver to run it and I am not sure how one can not know how to run it. It is as straight forward as it gets. It failed 4 times for me. First time in position 3, second time finished and turned off during the last stage, third time in position 7, fourth time right away.

My second question is related to Atmos, but you are right, should have removed the first part of the message.


----------



## Rich 63

Question answered already


----------



## Goughy

I am contemplating whether it is worth trying Atmos out with my setup. Currently my L and R surround are in ceiling speakers, positioned just behind our seating position. I now have some spare surround speakers I could use for them (in what I have learnt is the proper position) and then use the in ceiling speakers for Atmos, but obviously they will not be in the ideal position for a 5.1.2 setup. I cannot change to a 5.1.4 amp.
The other question I have is with regards to non Atmos content. I'm wondering if anyone knows if Yamaha DSP modes (Standard, Drama, Sci-Fi, etc) will expand the sound field to use the in ceiling speakers for regular 5.1 (or lesser) content? I have an RX V6A but haven't gotten an answer in the relevant thread. Thanks for any advice 😊


----------



## niterida

Goughy said:


> I am contemplating whether it is worth trying Atmos out with my setup. Currently my L and R surround are in ceiling speakers, positioned just behind our seating position. I now have some spare surround speakers I could use for them (in what I have learnt is the proper position) and then use the in ceiling speakers for Atmos, but obviously they will not be in the ideal position for a 5.1.2 setup. I cannot change to a 5.1.4 amp.
> The other question I have is with regards to non Atmos content. I'm wondering if anyone knows if Yamaha DSP modes (Standard, Drama, Sci-Fi, etc) will expand the sound field to use the in ceiling speakers for regular 5.1 (or lesser) content? I have an RX V6A but haven't gotten an answer in the relevant thread. Thanks for any advice 😊


Yes you can use the current in-ceiling speakers for Atmos - they are supposed to be slightly in front but being slightly behind will still work effectively. And you can even leave them there when you eventually upgrade to x.x.4
Yamaha DSP modes don't have anything to do with what speakers are used - they just alter the sound coming out of whatever your speaker setup is. What you are talking about is DSU (Dolby Surround Upmixer) which takes 5.1 (or even 2.0) and upmixes it to 5.1.2 - any AVR that has Atmos also has DSU. In fact just setting the AVR to Atmos will automatically engage DSU for non-Atmos sources.
Enjoy your new setup


----------



## chi_guy50

Goughy said:


> I'm wondering if anyone knows if Yamaha DSP modes (Standard, Drama, Sci-Fi, etc) will expand the sound field to use the in ceiling speakers for regular 5.1 (or lesser) content? I have an RX V6A but haven't gotten an answer in the relevant thread. Thanks for any advice 😊


The answer is yes, but I would stay away from those proprietary DSP modes such as Drama, Sci-Fi or Hall in Munich (really? ). Stick to Standard or Surround Decode if you want ungimmicky audio fidelity.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> The answer is yes, but I would stay away from those proprietary DSP modes such as Drama, Sci-Fi or Hall in Munich (really? ). Stick to Standard or Surround Decode if you want ungimmicky audio fidelity.


Agreed. Nevertheless, what have you got against Munich?


----------



## chi_guy50

mrtickleuk said:


> Agreed. Nevertheless, what have you got against Munich?


Well, when Putsch comes to shove . . . 

Full disclosure: Ever since my student days over 50 years ago I have been a big fan of both Karl Valentin and Ferdinand Weisheitinger (aka "Weiß Ferdl") and can still recite many lines from their routines by memory. Here's one of my favorites that pays satirical tribute to that Pearl on the Isar:






How's that for establishing my Bavaria-phile credentials? Na, wos sogst?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Unfortunately, even Kate Beckinsale in latex couldn't hold my interest for long in that god-awful boring series (Werewolves vs. Vampires... Who will win?) WHO CARES is a better question.


Oh I care quite a lot. I love both vampire and werewolf movies and Kate Beckinsale in tight leather is a triple win for me.


----------



## MagnumX

I used to think those Yammy DSP modes all sucked until I finally tried front height speakers with them (i.e. I found out Yamaha receivers have a "dialog lift" feature and discovered my older one from 2006 had it, but it was hidden in the DSP mode parameter list. I bought a pair of matching PSB bookshelf speakers and gave it a shot (The receiver had the extra albeit cheap spring loaded connectors for front heights and could prioritize modes for either rear surrounds or front heights.

I found the "crummy" DSP modes sounded one hell of a lot more convincing with front height speakers 5.1.2 than 7.1. The old movie theater mode in particular sounded totally believable for mono movie like The Maltese Falcon (i.e. It really sounded like I was in this giant room with my eyes closed), although I'm not sure why anyone would want reverb in a movie theater (i.e. It had some noticeable reverb echoes like the walks were completely untreated), but I read it was very common in the 1930s and '40s to have like no treatments in theaters and one of the reasons George Lucas wanted to push a theatrical sound standard do his Star Wars movies didn't sound like crap. But for mono, it was kind of entertaining as no DSP mode ever sounded to me like a real different room before.

The problem was the dialog lift feature was tied to DSP so you had to pick some mode to use it (Spectacle or 70mm was probably the least offensive in terms of altering the sound), but the lift feature worked amazingly well, IMO.

This lead to me wanting to upgrade more and consider Atmos in 2018, but it was clear I wanted a D&M AVR (To try Auro-3D out and Audyssey 32 was much higher rated than Yamaha's EQ (YPAO) and they don't do dialog lift plus D&Ms often go on sale significantly when a new model comes out. I never saw any deals for Yamaha like that. So I thought a DIY dialog lift mode was in order using an active mixer and it works fine (no DSP mode needed).


----------



## Goughy

Regarding dialog lift, I have a Yammy v6a and have in ceiling speakers for the left and right surround that I am now trialling with Atmos, and in both cases when I use the dialog lift function I get some vocal out of those two speakers. But with 5.1.2, the voice only comes out of the two ceiling speakers, not the left and right surround. If I turn the overheads off, the extra vocal is sent to the left and right surrounds.


----------



## MagnumX

Goughy said:


> Regarding dialog lift, I have a Yammy v6a and have in ceiling speakers for the left and right surround that I am now trialling with Atmos, and in both cases when I use the dialog lift function I get some vocal out of those two speakers. But with 5.1.2, the voice only comes out of the two ceiling speakers, not the left and right surround. If I turn the overheads off, the extra vocal is sent to the left and right surrounds.


I think dialog lift is meant more for front heights than surround heights, but maybe it tries to make do to some extent with whatever you have. I only ever heard (or at least noticed) it out the front height speakers on my old 2006 Yamaha HTR-5960 and only in DSP modes.


----------



## Goughy

That's what I thought too, but I guess it's trying to compensate when there are no FP speakers. Out of interest sake, I set my FP speakers to none and the dialogue lift switched to my surround L and R.


----------



## Gates

For those interested, the new 4k of Guns of Navarone has a pretty aggressive ATMOS mix.


----------



## Technology3456

Even No Time To Die can't get a good atmos mix. 



. Going by reviews, this is becoming an epidemic!

And even by 7-channel mix standards, it sounds like the bass is neutered! I actually skipped through that section of the review because I didnt want to see screens of scenes except the beginning of the movie, but pretty sure that's what he was talking about.


----------



## sdrucker

Technology3456 said:


> Even No Time To Die can't get a good atmos mix.
> 
> 
> 
> . Going by reviews, this is becoming an epidemic!
> 
> And even by 7-channel mix standards, it sounds like the bass is neutered! I actually skipped through that section of the review because I didnt want to see screens of scenes except the beginning of the movie, but pretty sure that's what he was talking about.


I’m going to watch in the next day or so. I also have wides and two pairs of side surrounds (Ls1/Rs1 and Ls/Rs) and the .6 overheads so I’ll check the floor presence channels for object use too.


----------



## halcyon_888

Technology3456 said:


> Even No Time To Die can't get a good atmos mix.
> 
> 
> 
> . Going by reviews, this is becoming an epidemic!
> 
> And even by 7-channel mix standards, it sounds like the bass is neutered! I actually skipped through that section of the review because I didnt want to see screens of scenes except the beginning of the movie, but pretty sure that's what he was talking about.


Looks like they had no time for Atmos on this one. I'm strongly considering using the DTS upmixer on this


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Technology3456 said:


> Even No Time To Die can't get a good atmos mix.
> 
> 
> 
> . Going by reviews, this is becoming an epidemic!
> 
> And even by 7-channel mix standards, it sounds like the bass is neutered! I actually skipped through that section of the review because I didnt want to see screens of scenes except the beginning of the movie, but pretty sure that's what he was talking about.


Eh, just finished watching it earlier. I don't really need there to be height activity constantly and those moments he mentions where they use it to good effect were actually pretty cool and made sense for what was happening in the movie at the time. I was more upset at how weak the bass was than the choices the mixer made on when to use heights. It stands out even more after hearing the Atmos mix for Dune, which had some pretty fantastic room-filling bass. An 8 is a pretty solid assessment of NTTD's audio... but I'd hardly call that cause for alarm. It's still better than a lot of 7.1 mixes I've heard. Just not a showcase for Atmos on its own. (And only barely above Quantum in the Craig Bond films... but I digress.)


----------



## sdrucker

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Eh, just finished watching it earlier. I don't really need there to be height activity constantly and those moments he mentions where they use it to good effect were actually pretty cool and made sense for what was happening in the movie at the time. I was more upset at how weak the bass was than the choices the mixer made on when to use heights. It stands out even more after hearing the Atmos mix for Dune, which had some pretty fantastic room-filling bass. An 8 is a pretty solid assessment of NTTD's audio... but I'd hardly call that cause for alarm. It's still better than a lot of 7.1 mixes I've heard. Just not a showcase for Atmos on its own. (And only barely above Quantum in the Craig Bond films... but I digress.)


It's not a Nolan movie, but if the analysis on the Bass EQ site is any guide, there are worse movies for room-filling bass. While there's a bit of a trough in the 70 to 80 Hz area, I've seen worse rolloffs below 30 Hz. Check out the green dashed line (peaks) and the red dashed line (average response) for the LFE response before BEQ is applied:








Bass EQ for Filtered Movies


@MOberhardt I have The Abyss special edition DVD and have ripped both the extended and theatrical versions to my computer. Let me know what settings that you want used in BEQ Designer to extract the audio from these, and I will put the files on G drive.




www.avsforum.com





For illustration, here's a movie that was cited in the original YouTube video on BassEQ that had was heavily filtered at 30 Hz:





War of the Worlds - BEQCatalogue







beqcatalogue.readthedocs.io





And the neutered bass on Raiders of the Lost Ark:








Bass EQ for Filtered Movies


BEQ First Reformed (2017) DTS-HD MA 5.1




www.avsforum.com





No Time to Die could have moderately more bass below 30 Hz to taste, but this isn't nearly as bad as the examples I found.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdrucker said:


> It's not a Nolan movie, but if the analysis on the Bass EQ site is any guide, there are worse movies. While there's a bit of a trough in the 70 to 80 Hz area, I've seen worse rolloffs below 30 Hz. Check out the green dashed line (peaks) and the red dashed line (average response) for the LFE response:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass EQ for Filtered Movies
> 
> 
> @MOberhardt I have The Abyss special edition DVD and have ripped both the extended and theatrical versions to my computer. Let me know what settings that you want used in BEQ Designer to extract the audio from these, and I will put the files on G drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For illustration, here's a movie that was cited in the original YouTube video on BassEQ that had was heavily filtered at 30 Hz:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War of the Worlds - BEQCatalogue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beqcatalogue.readthedocs.io


Yeah, there are definitely worse movies from a bass standpoint. And like I said, I had just come off of watching Dune again, so perhaps it's a matter of contrast. But generally, the sound just wasn't as "full" as I expected based on other movies I've watched recently, especially in the score. Even News Of The World UHD which I watched earlier in the week seemed to have a better presence of bass to me. And that 70-80Hz trough you mentioned may well explain that, as I don't know that it was the lower registers that seemed absent with NTTD.

Like I said, still a solid enough mix. But I kinda' hope that anemic sound is something that doesn't carry over to the UHD disc when it comes out.


----------



## MagnumX

I've never understood how they know how much bass to "restore" in that EQ thread. Like how do you know they purposely rolled the bass off in some cases? Raiders 20Hz output is still higher than the average 200Hz output and only down 5dB on average from 30Hz where it seems to roll downward from. How much real world bass is below 20Hz? I've got pipe organ recordings with 16Hz stops that aren't as loud as some movies.

I thought I read somewhere before by the guy that started that EQ that it's not meant to "correct" the bass as they have no idea most of the time what it's supposed to be (save perhaps where newer BDs have less bass i the same scenes as older releases), but rather put it where he likes it and share the results, but even looking at average overall levels doesn't tell you what bass events are occurring in the movie. Movies aren't all explosions and prop plane engines. 

I could see setting by ear (I'll adjust music that way often as many older CDs are bass shy), but I wouldn't call it accurate. The Raiders THX BD is one of the few I can stand to listen to at full reference volume. The Atmos UHD was an utter disappointment to me as it sounded no better than the 5.1 disc upmixed with Neural X to my ears and seemed to have even less bass if I recall correctly (might be thinking if Top Gun in Atmos that was definitely that way. The DTS-HD MA 6.1 mix in Neural X is night and day better in bass output (although cranking the sub helps) and nearly as good or even just as good for overhead effects.


----------



## halcyon_888

A lot of people have a single subwoofer house curve that was done through REW, but one size doesn't fit every movie. BEQ is like having a custom house curve for each movie. Another way of looking at it is like Atmos: With Atmos wouldn't it be great if more tracks made use of height speakers that we've all paid for and installed? We paid for subwoofers but the studios are cutting off the bass at 20-30hz more often than not: So wouldn't it be great if we can get some bass back?

I don't think the BEQ team is claiming to be fully accurate, nor are they claiming they have no idea what the curve is supposed to be. It's easy to look at a graph and identify what kind of downward slope the bass was filtered with, so that's the first way they arrive at an estimate of what to EQ. I'm a BEQ user and it's one of the best things I've done with my system. I wish it was as easy to get Atmos height effects from movies as it is to get bass back using BEQs.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Gates said:


> For those interested, the new 4k of Guns of Navarone has a pretty aggressive ATMOS mix.


It certainly does, well worth watching.


----------



## MagnumX

Mashie Saldana said:


> It certainly does, well worth watching.


Just ordered it on UHD BD by recommendation of yours and @Gates. I also just discovered _Chain Lightning_ is available on Blu-Ray now for the first time (Archive Edition) for any Bogart fans out there (saw in TCM a couple of years ago in 1080p and it was _so_ much sharper than my old VHS transfer) and ordered both at the same time to get free same day delivery.


----------



## sdrucker

halcyon_888 said:


> Looks like they had no time for Atmos on this one. I'm strongly considering using the DTS upmixer on this


You have a point: it's not quite Atmos in name only, but anything outside of 7.1 was few and somewhat far between. Watched the movie on my ATV4K, and there were only a few scenes where the height speakers or the wides or other presence speakers lit up.

I will say it was nice that after the explosion about 13 minutes in, you get a kind of very quick 360 movement around the room to reflect Bond's disorientation, with object movement on the Altitude's Dolby Viewer that briefly lit up wides, front side surrounds, and the Lc/Rc.

When Paloma and Bond were vocalizing on their ear pieces, you get an effect where an object above the center pulled the voices away from just being on LCR.

One thing to watch for is at about 1:50:00 in, where a helicopter takeoff moves upward and forward, and uses the front heights.

But other than a few other brief scenes like that toward the latter 1/3 of the movie, and occasional “blink or you miss it” dynamic objects popping up, it's a 7.1 channel mix indeed, with subdued LFE. In fact, most of what was audible when I soloed the LFE was from the music score, not the action. I'd describe the LFE as subtle at best. Maybe I'll try Bass EQ and watch again tonight.

Don't get me wrong: as 7.1 goes, I thought that the soundstage had some depth up front, and there was nice use of the surrounds during the car chase a few minutes after the explosion, where the bullets were pinging around my side and rear surrounds. Likewise for music swells when we get to the “poison garden”.

My guess is the mix was deliberately conservative by today’s standards to get that retro feel, but it's no 6 Underground, let alone Dune -where there's more object movement around the room and bass in the first minute of the movie than in all of NTTD.

EDIT: I did a second listen and revised my thoughts, thanks to a spare hour this AM.


----------



## halcyon_888

I watched Shang-Chi last night and there very little height activity so halfway through the movie I used the DTS upmixer instead and had a better experience. SpareChange on Youtube said this is one of those "Atmouse" mixes that has "height channels that barely even turn on." Here is a link to his review, but warning it could be a bit spoilery with some of the clips in the video, but other people might think it's fine:



Spoiler


----------



## Golfa005

halcyon_888 said:


> I watched Shang-Chi last night and there very little height activity so halfway through the movie I used the DTS upmixer instead and had a better experience. SpareChange on Youtube said this is one of those "Atmouse" mixes that has "height channels that barely even turn on." Here is a link to his review, but warning it could be a bit spoilery with some of the clips in the video, but other people might think it's fine:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


this is a bummer and disappointing to hear (re: lack of atmos)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Golfa005 said:


> this is a bummer and disappointing to hear (re: lack of atmos)


Have any of the Marvel movies really made great use of Atmos? I think we all tend toward low expectations when it comes to Disney now, so this one's no real surprise. I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would though. The mix seemed about on par with the other Marvel flicks to me. What's going to be interesting is when those Imax-enhanced DTS:X mixes drop on Disney Plus and you can actually compare the two.


----------



## bartonnen

Jeremy Anderson said:


> when those Imax-enhanced DTS:X mixes drop on Disney Plus


I can't imagine that we'll ever actually get DTS:X - what apps or streaming devices would support that? Possibly only a Shield.


----------



## MagnumX

bartonnen said:


> I can't imaging that we'll ever actually get DTS:X - what apps or streaming devices would support that? Possibly only a Shield.


He obviously means a physical disc (UHD BD). Surely you've heard of Blu-Rays? DTS:X has been available on that for years and years (I've got over 50 titles here and (They can stream locally just fine if you rip them). Most people that want the highest quality buy discs, not streaming as the compression on video is far less than streaming and the audio is lossless.

I have my doubts about a better quality mix, even so. Disney tends to use the same masters for all mixes so I'd imagine they'd be given that and other than the Imax height channel, I doubt much will change (i.e. I've compared Angry Birds 2 in Imax DTS:X to the streaming Atmos version and they sounded identical to my ears and much inferior to the Angry Birds 1 soundtrack on top of that and that's not even a Disney title, but shows how they normally won't bother with a separate mix on anything in the industry save little Turbine in Germany that somehow manages completely separate Atmos and Auro-3D mixes on their collector's titles like Twister, Daylight, Dragonheart, etc. even for small runs. It's amazing how a small company can sell 6k to 10k discs only and yet have two entirely separate soundtracks like that while the biggest of the big studios can't manage a better DTS:X or Atmos mix on disc even for the biggest titles! It shows you where their priorities are...$$$$$$).


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Have any of the Marvel movies really made great use of Atmos?


One of the Captain America movies, I forget whether it was Winter Soldier or Civil War, somehow slipped through the Disney pre-rendering step for home video. It lit up 6 height speakers and Wides. Only other examples I remember are Marvel + Sony productions (e.g., Homecoming makes good use of the height layer and Wides).


----------



## chmorgan

Has anyone compared the Atmos mix on an UHD disc vs streaming from Disney for Marvel, Star Wars etc...? I am considering buying some of the discs but only if the Atmos mix is significantly better. I get hugely disappointed when I watch something on Disney even though I expect the let down every time.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> What's going to be interesting is when those Imax-enhanced DTS:X mixes drop on Disney Plus and you can actually compare the two.





bartonnen said:


> I can't imaging that we'll ever actually get DTS:X - what apps or streaming devices would support that? Possibly only a Shield.


Yeah, I wonder if Disney Plus is doing the full IMAX Enhanced (audio & video) or just the changing aspect ratio part. Haven't heard of an ultra-low bit rate DTS lossy compression codec for streaming, but maybe there's one out there.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> He obviously means a physical disc (UHD BD). Surely you've heard of Blu-Rays? DTS:X


Disney has already confirmed that Disney+, via streaming, will provide some sort of DTS:X for these titles.


----------



## fatherom

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I wonder if Disney Plus is doing the full IMAX Enhanced (audio & video)


They are doing audio as well. Several sources, and Disney themselves, have announced that at some later date, Disney+ will provide DTS:X ImaxEnhanced soundtracks for these MCU movies. What I wonder is: will the Atmos track be gone and can you toggle between the two, like you currently can for the aspect ratio selection.


----------



## fatherom

The following is pure speculation. Some people in the Apple TV (and other) threads think that the ATV4K could do DTS:X in the same way Atmos is done now with Apple's special MAT encoding. Who knows, we'll see.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I wonder if Disney Plus is doing the full IMAX Enhanced (audio & *video*) or just the changing aspect ratio part. Haven't heard of an ultra-low bit rate DTS lossy compression codec for streaming, but maybe there's one out there.


Please don't give them ideas - that would involve downgrading the video from Dolby Vision down to HDR10+


----------



## X4100

I just finished watching "Ready Player One " I really enjoyed the sound!! At first I was caught up in "where are the dropping coins going to image ". Once I put that thought to rest, I was able to enjoy the ATMOS AUDIO. It is a truly immersive mix, with sound coming from and between actual speaker locations. There was fantastic overhead usage as well!


----------



## MagnumX

I'd be shocked if Apple supported DTS in any form as they never have for over 25 years and there's been no legit reason iTunes couldn't have along the way.

The only good thing I liked potentially about Imax titles is they said they would offer the more 16:9 like ratios (forget what it is offhand) for titles rather than 2.35:1 where both were used/available in theaters. It'd be nice to have a choice on movies like Blade Runner 2049.

I've actually got three versions of Tron Legacy. ITunes is 16:9. BD is 2.35:1 and 3D version changes between them like in the theater.


----------



## howard68

I have tried Disney + & Imax Enhanced and it is playing in Atmos! 
I thought DTSX was the sound format for IMAX


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> I'd be shocked if Apple supported DTS in any form as they never have for over 25 years and there's been no legit reason iTunes couldn't have along the way.
> 
> The only good thing I liked potentially about Imax titles is they said they would offer the more 16:9 like ratios (forget what it is offhand) for titles rather than 2.35:1 where both were used/available in theaters. It'd be nice to have a choice on movies like Blade Runner 2049.
> 
> I've actually got three versions of Tron Legacy. ITunes is 16:9. BD is 2.35:1 and 3D version changes between them like in the theater.


I'd be surprised if Apple did DTS too, but we'll have to wait and see what happen when Disney rolls out DTS:X to these MCU films.

I've watched Tron Legacy dozens of times in every format I own (digital iTunes, 2D and 3D) - it flips aspect ratios between 16:9 and 2.35:1 in all three versions. It's one of the few digital itunes copies I own that preserves the aspect ratio switches. And thankfully both the 2D and 3D blu-ray do as well (there's even text at the beginning that warns of the shifting aspect ratios).


----------



## howard68

The Roku has settings for DTS in set up


----------



## titan ii

sdurani said:


> One of the Captain America movies, I forget whether it was Winter Soldier or Civil War, somehow slipped through the Disney pre-rendering step for home video. It lit up 6 height speakers and Wides. Only other examples I remember are Marvel + Sony productions (e.g., Homecoming makes good use of the height layer and Wides).


What processor were you using? Thanks.


----------



## sdurani

titan ii said:


> What processor were you using?


HTP-1


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> I've watched Tron Legacy dozens of times in every format I own (digital iTunes, 2D and 3D) - it flips aspect ratios between 16:9 and 2.35:1 in all three versions. It's one of the few digital itunes copies I own that preserves the aspect ratio switches. And thankfully both the 2D and 3D blu-ray do as well (there's even text at the beginning that warns of the shifting aspect ratios).


 I'll have to check it again. I don't normally watch that version (BD versions have 7.1 sound) so my memory may be faulty (KODI shows 16:9 but it checks only once and mine was from the first year it was on there as I used to be able to decrypt iTunes movies I owned using a program briefly available on Mac OS X server Snow Leopard using the old iTunes) so I could use them with another player like KODI instead of just Apple TV.

But the 2D Blu-ray is definitely 2.35:1 only regardless.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> But the 2D Blu-ray is definitely 2.35:1 only regardless.


That's very odd. My 2D blu-ray (which came in the 3D set I bought) definitely aspect ratio shifts...I watched it last week. blu-ray.com confirms that the 2D disc has multiple aspect ratios.


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> That's very odd. My 2D blu-ray (which came in the 3D set I bought) definitely aspect ratio shifts...I watched it last week. blu-ray.com confirms that the 2D disc has multiple aspect ratios.


Correct, the Tron: Legacy Blu-ray alternates between 2.35:1 and 16:9 in certain sequences.


----------



## MagnumX

Like I said, I'll check again when I get home as I may be misremembering something (It has been 11 years after all). 

I have verified for certain the non-Imax showings at the theater (which I saw in Real 3D at the time) stayed 2.39:1 the entire movie so it's possible that's what I'm thinking of and the different KODI aspect listings had me thinking that still applied (or some streaming version thereof as I definitely recall seeing a fixed aspect ratio version. 

The so-called Imax scenes are actually nothing of the sort, just removing the matte from the original film's 1.85:1 actual ratio as no Imax cameras were used and the camera that was used was 1080p only so there will never be a true 4K version. They could easily have done three versions in any case and the irony is some more recent Marvel films _not_ getting "Imax" versions on BD (notably Infinity War) when many wanted them.


----------



## MagnumX

I've not looked at it yet at home to verify, but after reading something online, I think I know why my Tron Legacy BD rip is probably indeed in 2.35:1 the entire time (so not likely my imagination).

I recompressed the 2D discs to save space with Handbrake (3D version is a straight rip to MKV for Zidoo). The auto-setting for detecting the ratio in Handbrake picks up 2.35:1 because it's shown first. It then uses that framing for the entire movie, clipping the top/bottom off the Imax scenes.

Ironically, because it's a simple matte removal on the BD for just those scenes, this restores the matte for those scenes and reproduces the correct 2.35:1 rendition of the original 2.39:1 non-Imax theatrical showing. You'd have to manually set the ratio in Handbrake for that movie to recompress and maintain the ratio switching.

Thus, that would explain why I was so sure that version was a constant 2.35:1 because it actually was here due to that auto setting in Handbrake. I'll keep it that way in case I ever get m 2.35:1 screen set up as aspect changes on that screen would only cut the sides off rather than make it taller.

*EDIT:* Yeah, that's what happened. iTunes version changes. 3D version changes. 2D BD dump recompressed the video with Handbrake stays 2.35:1.


----------



## mrvideo

howard68 said:


> I thought DTSX was the sound format for IMAX


In the theater or at home? In the theater:

"Most newer IMAX films are now using the IMAX digital sound DDP designed by Sonics. DDP is short for Digital Disc Playback. The system is a digital sound source specifically made for IMAX. Sonics uses compact disc technology to create the highest quality sound delivery possible today. Wide frequency response, dynamic range and the accurate perception of time are the attributes of DDP. A frequency response of 20 – 20.000 Hz is maintained over the entire audio spectrum of ten octaves. Six octaves is found in conventional cinemas. Three CD’s are used for each soundtrack, one CD for every 2 channels. The audio is sent to the Sonics TAC-86. From the TAC-86 the signal is sent to the computer-controlled 1/3 octave equalization unit, developed for IMAX. This unit matches the sound system performance to suit the acoustics of the particular theater in which it is installed. The equalization can also be used to compensate the response of particular films for optimized playback in a particular theater."

(www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1997/50/imax_sound/index.htm)


----------



## dschulz

mrvideo said:


> In the theater or at home? In the theater:
> 
> "Most newer IMAX films are now using the IMAX digital sound DDP designed by Sonics. DDP is short for Digital Disc Playback. The system is a digital sound source specifically made for IMAX. Sonics uses compact disc technology to create the highest quality sound delivery possible today. Wide frequency response, dynamic range and the accurate perception of time are the attributes of DDP. A frequency response of 20 – 20.000 Hz is maintained over the entire audio spectrum of ten octaves. Six octaves is found in conventional cinemas. Three CD’s are used for each soundtrack, one CD for every 2 channels. The audio is sent to the Sonics TAC-86. From the TAC-86 the signal is sent to the computer-controlled 1/3 octave equalization unit, developed for IMAX. This unit matches the sound system performance to suit the acoustics of the particular theater in which it is installed. The equalization can also be used to compensate the response of particular films for optimized playback in a particular theater."
> 
> (www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1997/50/imax_sound/index.htm)


The Sonics DDP system was for IMAX 15/70 film prints. Digital IMAX simply uses uncompressed channel based WAV files for the soundtrack, 6 channels for most and 12 channels for newer IMAX with Laser installations. 

The IMAX Enhanced program for home theatre uses DTS:X.


----------



## MagnumX

I think it's rather amazing IMAX hasn't moved to something like DTS:X in the cinema version. 6-channel sound is rather outdated in 2021. Even 12-channel doesn't compare to 30.2 or 32.1 home systems, let alone the commercial Atmos's 64 discrete capable speaker system for up to 128 objects.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I think it's rather amazing IMAX hasn't moved to something like DTS:X in the cinema version. 6-channel sound is rather outdated in 2021. Even 12-channel doesn't compare to 30.2 or 32.1 home systems, let alone the commercial Atmos's 64 discrete capable speaker system for up to 128 objects.


For IMAX, having a proprietary system they can slap their branding onto is more important than the actual technical merits or quality of that system.


----------



## MagnumX

I watched *The Guns of Navarone* UHD with Dolby Atmos upon recommendation on here. 

The opening narrative seemed a bit harsh sounding (I ended up turning Cinema EQ on) in Atmos, but not in 5.1 or 4.0, which were also included (The 4.0 soundtrack appears to be one of those '60s soundtracks that had a separate magnetic tape for it (like with It Came From Outer Space) and is L/C/R + Mono Surround. I think maybe they were trying to get too much out of the dictation sound there. The rest of the soundtrack was much better in that regard. The naval sounds were no match for Master And Commander (upmixed), but were a vast improvement in immersion over the 5.1 and 4.0 soundtracks. There were also plenty of airplanes overhead (some flying around the room and at least one straight overhead that then reversed as the camera angle changed (oddly just like the Auro-3D demo for Turbo does and the full movie in Neural X). The picture quality is quite sharp (even scaled down to 2K projection playback it blows away the prior BD).

Sometimes, it seemed like sounds that shouldn't really be strongly overhead (or partly overhead) were very noticeably overhead anyway. This was in contrast to many Atmos movies were the ambience for overhead is so low as to be hard to make out. You can call this "strong" use of Atmos or perhaps even overkill in a way, but it was certainly not hard to pick out overhead sounds in this movie at all and they were used quite often, so much so I think I noticed more overhead sounds than I did to the direct sides or behind at ear level most of the movie, which are also present. The waves washing across side-to-side was slightly artificial sounding (again Master & Commander rules here), but did match the on-screen waves well and certainly stood out compared to the prior soundtracks (practically non-existent there). There were also plenty of sounds off-screen or heading into the front wide vicinity here. When they were climbing the cliff, the rain was a nice overhead touch (yet odd looking given you could see stars in the sky in the background when it was supposed to be a raging storm going on....)

Overall, it's a pretty impressive upgrade to the film. A 4K remaster of Force 10 From Navarone would be nice to see as well at some point.


----------



## mrvideo

dschulz said:


> The Sonics DDP system was for IMAX 15/70 film prints. Digital IMAX simply uses uncompressed channel based WAV files for the soundtrack, 6 channels for most and 12 channels for newer IMAX with Laser installations.
> 
> The IMAX Enhanced program for home theatre uses DTS:X.


From what I read, they are using 3 CDs for the 6 channels (2 channels per CD). I don't expect IMAX to ever upgrade the local 2K theater with 12 channel sound. Nor do I expect them to upgrade to 4k laser.


----------



## junh1024

X4100 said:


> I just finished watching "Ready Player One " I really enjoyed the sound!! At first I was caught up in "where are the dropping coins going to image ". Once I put that thought to rest, I was able to enjoy the ATMOS AUDIO. It is a truly immersive mix, with sound coming from and between actual speaker locations. There was fantastic overhead usage as well!


& @Jeremy Anderson; , "Ready Player One " seems to be a fixed 712 render








chmorgan said:


> Has anyone compared the Atmos mix on an UHD disc vs streaming from Disney for Marvel, Star Wars etc...? I am considering buying some of the discs but only if the Atmos mix is significantly better. I get hugely disappointed when I watch something on Disney even though I expect the let down every time.


I would say it's unlikely a disc mix would be different, if you have many speakers your experience would be worse as there's typically less objects for disc by default vs streaming due to the way THD & DDP work.



MagnumX said:


> I think it's rather amazing IMAX hasn't moved to something like DTS:X in the cinema version. 6-channel sound is rather outdated in 2021. Even 12-channel doesn't compare to 30.2 or 32.1 home systems, let alone the commercial Atmos's 64 discrete capable speaker system for up to 128 objects.


IMAX12 is the equivalent of a 705 layout, which is almost 714. A good CBA mix in either would be better than a 712 render &/ barely using height. Not to mention, authoring & implementation of PCM12ch would be cheaper & simpler, and the other 2 formats for cinema are likely using PCM-like things anyway internally.


----------



## mrvideo

From what I can tell, the only way to get a Dolby Atmos Object Viewer is to buy a particular Trinnov product?


----------



## priitv8

mrvideo said:


> From what I can tell, the only way to get a Dolby Atmos Object Viewer is to buy a particular Trinnov product?


I get the same impression. It is a Trinnov product, not Dolby's.
Dolby's visualizer seems to be working with a WIP in Dolby Suite and not with already encoded delivery formats (such as TrueHD and Digital Plus).


----------



## ThierryB

I just watched "Underworld: Awakening" tonight. If like me you have been living under a rock all these years and didn't see it, I really recommend it.
I think it is one of the best, if not the best Atmos soundtrack I have heard. Full of bass and action on the height speakers throughout the movie.
I really loved it ! I've been watching the first 4 one after the other these last four days. Looking forward to watch Underworld: Blood Wars tomorrow !


----------



## halcyon_888

junh1024 said:


> & @Jeremy Anderson; , "Ready Player One " seems to be a fixed 712 render
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...]


Ready Player One is a fixed Atmos track but it's still considered to be one of the best mixes out there.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

junh1024 said:


> & @Jeremy Anderson; , "Ready Player One " seems to be a fixed 712 render


Why are you tagging me in this? I haven't said anything about it recently.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Why are you tagging me in this? I haven't said anything about it recently.


Tag, you're it!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Tag, you're it!


Thanks?  

(I did already know that mix uses static height objects though. Still sounds amazing!)


----------



## Mashie Saldana

ThierryB said:


> I just watched "Underworld: Awakening" tonight. If like me you have been living under a rock all these years and didn't see it, I really recommend it.
> I think it is one of the best, if not the best Atmos soundtrack I have heard. Full of bass and action on the height speakers throughout the movie.
> I really loved it ! I've been watching the first 4 one after the other these last four days. Looking forward to watch Underworld: Blood Wars tomorrow !


Those movies are indeed a pleasure for the ears and eyes.


----------



## Rich 63

Mashie Saldana said:


> Those movies are indeed a pleasure for the ears and eyes.


Well yes. Kate!


----------



## MagnumX

Are we certain Ready Player One is a 7.1.2 render? This snapshot of the semi-truck passing overhead seems to indicate otherwise (not to mention my ears). Just because it's a fixed _object_ soundtrack that doesn't necessarily mean there can't be some type of panning within the sounds inside those objects, although I'm not sure that would work front-to-back if they're both getting the same sounds at the halfway point as it appears. I do seem to see a second set of fixed objects overhead front-to-back there as well (not used to seeing this viewer so it's not always easy to tell the height of the circles) so that may be front-to-back panning objects (one appears to be lit yellow below). Also notice how the Top Rear speakers are both lit yellow (louder) while Top Front are green (not as loud). If it was fixed (i.e. Top Middle Only which isn't shown here), all four speakers should _always_ be in sync without exception, IMO. That indicates 7.1.4 type activity and in fact when the truck passes overhead, it at least sounds like it's panning overhead front-to-back (although I know in Saving Private Ryan it uses the lower channels to pan and just lights up the overheads to make it seem like it's panning overhead when it's really panning at ear level with a partial sound overhead, but sounds pretty convincing just the same. Still, I wonder if some of the soundtracks we glance at and assume are fixed 7.1.2 may actually be fixed 7.1.4 upon closer inspection. Then there's the weird ones like Star Wars from Disney that appear to use SOME objects in key places which steps away from their previous behavior to some degree.

Given the small range of volume levels displayed compared to what you actually hear (e.g. the bike panning form the rear surrounds into the side surrounds and then into the front channels near the end), you don't see much on the screen to indicate any of that other than the side surrounds lighting up because the rear surrounds are still making other ambient noises. And of course without moving objects, the speaker levels are the ONLY indicator you can tell a pan by on there from any set of speakers to any other set and they only go a few shades of green, yellow and orange.

Front Heights are listed, but I'm not sure how they are set up except by themselves, possibly intended for Auro use as there are no Rear Heights shown to go with them and with a fixed object soundtrack, it probably uses one or the other, not both. I'd LOVE, however, to see a Trinnov object viewer of some of the Dolby brand demos using _BOTH_ Heights and Tops at the same time to see what they do. Are there any out there like that?


----------



## howard68

As I understand the ( Disney special) fixed Dolby Atmos soundtrack they do use all 7 floor speakers and FH /RH hight speakers.
However, will not use any other speakers 
So 9.1.6 or anything else above 7.1.4 is not happening


----------



## junh1024

mrvideo said:


> From what I can tell, the only way to get a Dolby Atmos Object Viewer is to buy a particular Trinnov product?


P.much, but AYanguas did some DIY level meters








The *OFFICIAL* Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2ch Flagship AVR Thread


would that affect DTS:X though? In my case: no. I have only noticed the dialogue bleeding into surrounds when using DSU on 2.0 PCM or DD 2.0 sources. And to a lesser degree using N:X. NOT on native 5.1 (and up) sources. Seems like a purely upmixer issue, in my testing.




www.avsforum.com







MagnumX said:


> Are we certain Ready Player One is a 7.1.2 render? This snapshot of the semi-truck passing overhead seems to indicate otherwise (not to mention my ears). Just because it's a fixed _object_ soundtrack that doesn't mean there can't be panning within the sounds inside those objects. Notice how the Top Rear speakers are both lit yellow (louder) while Top Front are green (not as loud).


Well spotted, so I'm wrong & it's mostly 712 bed + _very low _object use.



MagnumX said:


> 'd LOVE, however, to see a Trinnov object viewer of some of the Dolby brand demos using _BOTH_ Heights and Tops at the same time to see what they do. Are there any out there like that?


Sure


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> Sure


That was very interesting to see that one. 

You don't happen to have the Atmos Helicopter demo like that, though, do you? I've been wondering whether the helicopter is supposed to move around the entire ceiling (front height to rear height) or the Tops area only. With only one or the other, it just uses what's available, but there's a pretty big difference between using the full ceiling (heights) and essentially half the ceiling (Tops), but because of the snap to the nearest height speakers, I've never known what the true flight path is.


----------



## mrvideo

junh1024 said:


> P.much, but AYanguas did some DIY level meters


Yep, I've got those plans on my NAS, somewhere.


----------



## junh1024

MagnumX said:


> You don't happen to have the Atmos Helicopter demo like that, though, do you? I've been wondering whether the helicopter is supposed to move around the entire ceiling (front height to rear height) or the Tops area only. With only one or the other, it just uses what's available, but there's a pretty big difference between using the full ceiling (heights) and essentially half the ceiling (Tops), but because of the snap to the nearest height speakers, I've never known what the true flight path is.


I'm not associated with Hulk Cinema, nor do they have it on their page . Perhaps you can ask them to demo the helicopter audio. Or there may be someone here that has a Trinnov. Or you could ask rerecmixer in the "Dolby Atmos Object Demo" thread (NB: I made a reply to the thread on p6, did you read it?) to do something.

But knowing what we know, it's possible that the flight path is a squircle that's 25-50% inwards, aka matches the tops.


----------



## MagnumX

junh1024 said:


> I'm not associated with Hulk Cinema, nor do they have it on their page . Perhaps you can ask them to demo the helicopter audio. Or there may be someone here that has a Trinnov. Or you could ask rerecmixer in the "Dolby Atmos Object Demo" thread (NB: I made a reply to the thread on p6, did you read it?) to do something.
> 
> But knowing what we know, it's possible that the flight path is a squircle that's 25% inwards, aka matches the tops.


I tried asking some Trinnov owners before in the Trinnov owners thread, either ones that have Heights + Tops or know how to use the object viewer. They mostly pretended I didn't exist and all ignored my question about that particular demo behavior when I asked it many months ago at least on two separate occasions (well one guy _did_ ask me directly WTF I was in that thread when I didn't own a Trinnov and didn't plan to spend $30k+ to buy one any time soon). Most of them don't frequent threads like this one and I would imagine many, if not most have turn-key systems and know only so much about it all anyway. In any case, I have no desire to try again.


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> well one guy _did_ ask me directly WTF I was in that thread when I didn't own a Trinnov and didn't plan to spend $30k+ to buy one any time soon


What a snob!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

FYI: Just watched Last Night In Soho in Atmos and it is a jaw-droppingly good mix. Lots of great height use, some cool steering around the space, and interesting use for music. Definitely adding it to my UHD collection when the time comes.


----------



## dschulz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> FYI: Just watched Last Night In Soho in Atmos and it is a jaw-droppingly good mix. Lots of great height use, some cool steering around the space, and interesting use for music. Definitely adding it to my UHD collection when the time comes.


That was definitely the case for the theatrical mix, glad to hear it's translated over to the home video version.

EDIT: Probably you are referring in fact to the theatrical version. Anyway, Edgar Wright uses Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos as well as any director working I think.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> That was definitely the case for the theatrical mix, glad to hear it's translated over to the home video version.
> 
> EDIT: Probably you are referring in fact to the theatrical version. Anyway, Edgar Wright uses Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos as well as any director working I think.


No, I was actually referring to the streamed version with Atmos. Very impressive mix! I can only imagine how much better it must have sounded theatrically.


----------



## thomasphoenix

MagnumX said:


> I tried asking some Trinnov owners before in the Trinnov owners thread, either ones that have Heights + Tops or know how to use the object viewer. They mostly pretended I didn't exist and all ignored my question about that particular demo behavior when I asked it many months ago at least on two separate occasions (well one guy _did_ ask me directly WTF I was in that thread when I didn't own a Trinnov and didn't plan to spend $30k+ to buy one any time soon). Most of them don't frequent threads like this one and I would imagine many, if not most have turn-key systems and know only so much about it all anyway. In any case, I have no desire to try again.


I have a Smyth Realiser A16, 24ch , the front display shows active channels so pans can be observed . Let me know any demos you want to check , I’ll be happy to report back.

The helicopter demo is traveling on my 4 height and 4 top channels . My config is 15.1.8. I will re-listen to confirm.


----------



## howard68

Hi All
So I have a Denon 6700 that I have set up to do 7.2.6
Or 9.2.4

Apart from having a high-end processor 
How do I know if the film is encoded for more than 7.1.4?

Can we set up a database of films not fixed to 7.1.4 ?


----------



## ppasteur

howard68 said:


> Can we set up a database of films not fixed to 7.1.4 ?


Nothing stopping you that I know of. Go for it.


----------



## schwock5

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So I have a Denon 6700 that I have set up to do 7.2.6
> Or 9.2.4
> 
> Apart from having a high-end processor
> How do I know if the film is encoded for more than 7.1.4?
> 
> Can we set up a database of films not fixed to 7.1.4 ?


my understanding is nothing is actually encoded for .2 or .4 or .6.
either it was mixed for atmos or not and the setup of your system is taken into account for the atmos decoder to figure out the best placement of the atmos objects.

i think atmos supports 32 or 64 speakers?
so it just depends where you put them and have told your decoder what you have.

.6 is beneficial for front to back panning for multiple rows of seating.
front wides is useful if you are not sitting near field to the front speakers and bridge the gap from the front to the side surrounds.


----------



## howard68

As I understand it Disney Films are a fixed soundtrack of 7.1.4 and even on a high-end system will not give you the extra channels 
I have watched some films that use more than 7.1.4 
However, it is hard to tell which films are recorded in Full Atmos posed to Disney Atmos lite


----------



## howard68

ppasteur said:


> Nothing stopping you that I know of. Go for it.


Hi 
I am looking for someone who has a high-end system that can confirm that the sound is full Atmos!
Some can also list objects being used


----------



## chi_guy50

schwock5 said:


> my understanding is nothing is actually encoded for .2 or .4 or .6.
> either it was mixed for atmos or not and the setup of your system is taken into account for the atmos decoder to figure out the best placement of the atmos objects.
> 
> i think atmos supports 32 or 64 speakers?
> so it just depends where you put them and have told your decoder what you have.
> 
> .6 is beneficial for front to back panning for multiple rows of seating.
> front wides is useful if you are not sitting near field to the front speakers and bridge the gap from the front to the side surrounds.


Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater will support a maximum speaker configuration of 24.1.10, but content from some studios, such as Disney, has been pre-rendered to just 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 fixed positions.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Eh, just finished watching it earlier. I don't really need there to be height activity constantly and those moments he mentions where they use it to good effect were actually pretty cool and made sense for what was happening in the movie at the time. I was more upset at how weak the bass was than the choices the mixer made on when to use heights. It stands out even more after hearing the Atmos mix for Dune, which had some pretty fantastic room-filling bass. An 8 is a pretty solid assessment of NTTD's audio... but I'd hardly call that cause for alarm. It's still better than a lot of 7.1 mixes I've heard. Just not a showcase for Atmos on its own. (And only barely above Quantum in the Craig Bond films... but I digress.)


I got around to watching No Time to Die tonight. I was thinking about using the DTS upmixer instead of Atmos, but I decided to leave it on Atmos despite Sparechange not liking the mix. I thought it was an okay Atmos mix, average but not bad. It definitely had more height usage than the Sparechange review led me to believe. I'm glad I didn't use the DTS upmixer on this because there were a few scenes that especially used the heights and I doubt the DTS upmixer would have picked up on the height queues. The mix had people talking out of the height channels at one point which was an awesome effect and something I haven't heard before (but note I've only had Atmos for about half a year). And I liked the movie quite a bit so it was a fun evening!


----------



## thomasphoenix

Ready player one is a fixed mix. has only two top channels if your setup contains top middle like 9.1.6, it'll only play back on the middle pair. If you have top front & back like 9.1.4 the same signal is duplicated across to the other pair.

Get this for ( Smyth Realiser A16) dynamic mixes, the decoding still is 9.1.6, listening could be up to 15.1.8, upmixer is not active. How the sound is assigned after decoding there is no mention of that anywhere. There are Dolby demos and a bunch of films where all channels do get activated.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I got around to watching No Time to Die tonight. I was thinking about using the DTS upmixer instead of Atmos, but I decided to leave it on Atmos despite Sparechange not liking the mix. I thought it was an okay Atmos mix, average but not bad. It definitely had more height usage than the Sparechange review led me to believe. I'm glad I didn't use the DTS upmixer on this because there were a few scenes that especially used the heights and I doubt the DTS upmixer would have picked up on the height queues. The mix had people talking out of the height channels at one point which was an awesome effect and something I haven't heard before (but note I've only had Atmos for about half a year). And I liked the movie quite a bit so it was a fun evening!


I don't ever upmix immersive audio tracks. I get why some people do, but I'm a big fan of sound design and I want to hear what they did with the mix, even if I might have preferred they did something different. But then, I don't really mind it when they use the heights (or surrounds for that matter) sparingly if they at least occasionally use them in a novel way that makes sense or adds something to the storytelling.

Likewise, this makes me really appreciate a great Atmos mix (like Dune or Last Night In Soho) when I hear it. They can't all be on par with the best mixes... nor do they need to be. I may be alone in feeling that way though, and I'm okay with it. I've had Atmos in my setup across various moves (and speaker layouts) since 2015 and I can only think of one movie that I felt did absolutely nothing of value with it compared to the 7.1 mix (the Jake Gyllenhaal movie Life). One movie out of 229 Atmos titles in my collection and the ones I've watched via streaming. That's not too bad!


----------



## dschulz

howard68 said:


> As I understand it Disney Films are a fixed soundtrack of 7.1.4 and even on a high-end system will not give you the extra channels
> I have watched some films that use more than 7.1.4
> However, it is hard to tell which films are recorded in Full Atmos posed to Disney Atmos lite


If it's hard to tell which films are recorded in Full Atmos and which are hard coded to 7.1.4 then why should we worry about it at all?

There are many things that go into a good mix - are the dynamics punchy where called for, is the dialogue intelligible (unless it's deliberately not), does the mix serve the storytelling, does the mix enable the work of the composer to shine, are your emotions heightened by what you're hearing? I'd rather hear a good Atmos mix pre-rendered to 7.1.4 than a bad Atmos mix delivered as "full Atmos."


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> does the mix *serve *the storytelling


I agree with all that you said. The "serving" aspect above all else for me. If it ever _leads _the storytelling, or detracts from it in any way, it's failed.


----------



## thomasphoenix

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't ever upmix immersive audio tracks. I get why some people do, but I'm a big fan of sound design and I want to hear what they did with the mix, even if I might have preferred they did something different. But then, I don't really mind it when they use the heights (or surrounds for that matter) sparingly if they at least occasionally use them in a novel way that makes sense or adds something to the storytelling.
> 
> Likewise, this makes me really appreciate a great Atmos mix (like Dune or Last Night In Soho) when I hear it. They can't all be on par with the best mixes... nor do they need to be. I may be alone in feeling that way though, and I'm okay with it. I've had Atmos in my setup across various moves (and speaker layouts) since 2015 and I can only think of one movie that I felt did absolutely nothing of value with it compared to the 7.1 mix (the Jake Gyllenhaal movie Life). One movie out of 229 Atmos titles in my collection and the ones I've watched via streaming. That's not too bad!


A Quiet place is a great example of the immersive track being an important storytelling tool.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't ever upmix immersive audio tracks. I get why some people do, but I'm a big fan of sound design and I want to hear what they did with the mix, even if I might have preferred they did something different. But then, I don't really mind it when they use the heights (or surrounds for that matter) sparingly if they at least occasionally use them in a novel way that makes sense or adds something to the storytelling.
> 
> Likewise, this makes me really appreciate a great Atmos mix (like Dune or Last Night In Soho) when I hear it. They can't all be on par with the best mixes... nor do they need to be. I may be alone in feeling that way though, and I'm okay with it. I've had Atmos in my setup across various moves (and speaker layouts) since 2015 and I can only think of one movie that I felt did absolutely nothing of value with it compared to the 7.1 mix (the Jake Gyllenhaal movie Life). One movie out of 229 Atmos titles in my collection and the ones I've watched via streaming. That's not too bad!


Yea it comes up alot in this thread but I wish the average Atmos track was better than what we are getting. That said I will use the DTS upmixer on an Atmos track on occasion, most recently Shang-Chi which was one of the worst sound mixes Disney has ever put out IMO. It didn't even have a good bed layer mix let alone height usage. It was undynamic to the point I was checking to see if night mode or dynamic EQ somehow got turned on (they weren't). Halfway through the movie I turned on the DTS upmixer and had a somewhat better experience.

I did like No Time to Die though, I believe this is the first bond film with immersive audio (I could be wrong). The bed layer mix was solid and engaging, dynamics were good with the main channels, and the heights when used were creative and interesting but not distracting. Note I use BEQ so I didn't have a problem with the bass on the track. But I definitely think in general we're getting the short end of the stick with immersive audio and I wish they would mix more tracks with a higher bar. At least put some of the soundtrack in the heights to expand the soundstage if they aren't going to get creative with height usage. Note the upmixers generally do this so it seems like it's some kind of standard Dolby and DTS were using. That seems like something simple to do but we're not even getting that with most mixes. Ah well, not turning this into a negative post I liked No Time to Die and thought it was a solid average mix; I like reporting on positive Atmos experiences since for me they are few and far between.


----------



## MagnumX

You'd probably know if a soundtrack in Atmos doesn't use more than 7.1.4 if your room needs say top middle to hear directly above you as you'd have a hole there in your soundfield. The same is true for off-axis seats that depend on extra speakers to image correctly like front wide or ss#1 or ss#2 with multiple rows of seating.

If you can't hear any difference without speakers beyond 7.1.4 for any seats in your home theater then you probably don't need them.

As for poor Atmos mixes, some cannot be excused IMO. Hearing crap is still crap. For example, I bought the updated Phantasm box set (and sold my old one) in part to get the new Atmos remix of the original soundtrack (along with remastered video on the 2nd film and sphere prop) and it's terrible. It sounds like the old soundtrack with the Atmos light on. There's thunder near the end of the movie and it's not overhead at all with the Atmos soundtrack or the old 5.1 or 2.0, but use Neural X on any of the base tracks including the Atmos one and it's overhead where it should be. I didn't rewatch the whole movie in Neural X to compare, but I imagine it's better all around. Incompetence should not be rewarded with respect, IMO.


----------



## MagnumX

thomasphoenix said:


> I have a Smyth Realiser A16, 24ch , the front display shows active channels so pans can be observed . Let me know any demos you want to check , I’ll be happy to report back.
> 
> The helicopter demo is traveling on my 4 height and 4 top channels . My config is 15.1.8. I will re-listen to confirm.


Maybe it images between the two sets with both active? 

The general problem is that on most playback systems it's hard to know the true location of sounds on some configurations due the renderer moving/snapping the sounds to the nearest available speakers instead of attempting to render them at the true location with phantom imaging as DTS:X normally attempts to do (at least with Neural X turned on). 

It may not matter for an individual room, but it's hard to know if you might have preferred Heights or Tops when you only can hear them one way. Heights + Top Middle could easily simulate Tops if the renderer were so inclined, but there's no option on the playback side to do that. Either snap is turned on or not on the encoded version.



thomasphoenix said:


> Ready player one is a fixed mix. has only two top channels if your setup contains top middle like 9.1.6, it'll only play back on the middle pair. If you have top front & back like 9.1.4 the same signal is duplicated across to the other pair.
> 
> Get this for ( Smyth Realiser A16) dynamic mixes, the decoding still is 9.1.6, listening could be up to 15.1.8, upmixer is not active. How the sound is assigned after decoding there is no mention of that anywhere. There are Dolby demos and a bunch of films where all channels do get activated.


 I'm slightly confused. You're saying Ready Player 1 decodes to 9.1.6 even though it's actually 7.1.4? I'd have to actually test (shutting other speakers off) that scene where the semi-truck goes overhead to hear if there's any content in the front/rear heights as opposed to just top middle here (it sure sounds like it's moving overhead although I suppose that could be the lower layer moving and creating an illusion), but I caught a screen capture at that part from a Trinnov object viewer of it and it shows a front-to-back volume difference right there which, unless it's just a glitch, shouldn't happen if the overhead channels are .2 fixed. 

It kind of looked like there was two sets of fixed overhead objects sitting between the Tops pairs (two in each direction, side-by-side and front-to-back), but I could be mistaken what I was looking at.


----------



## thomasphoenix

MagnumX said:


> Maybe it images between the two sets with both active?
> 
> The general problem is that on most playback systems it's hard to know the true location of sounds on some configurations due the renderer moving/snapping the sounds to the nearest available speakers instead of attempting to render them at the true location with phantom imaging as DTS:X normally attempts to do (at least with Neural X turned on).
> 
> It may not matter for an individual room, but it's hard to know if you might have preferred Heights or Tops when you only can hear them one way. Heights + Top Middle could easily simulate Tops if the renderer were so inclined, but there's no option on the playback side to do that. Either snap is turned on or not on the encoded version.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm slightly confused. You're saying Ready Player 1 decodes to 9.1.6 even though it's actually 7.1.4? I'd have to actually test (shutting other speakers off) that scene where the semi-truck goes overhead to hear if there's any content in the front/rear heights as opposed to just top middle here (it sure sounds like it's moving overhead although I suppose that could be the lower layer moving and creating an illusion), but I caught a screen capture at that part from a Trinnov object viewer of it and it shows a front-to-back volume difference right there which, unless it's just a glitch, shouldn't happen if the overhead channels are .2 fixed.
> 
> It kind of looked like there was two sets of fixed overhead objects sitting between the Tops pairs (two in each direction, side-by-side and front-to-back), but I could be mistaken what I was looking at.


The second paragraph was speaking generally, not about Ready Player one. I will report back about status screen decode on this movie.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> 'm slightly confused. You're saying Ready Player 1 decodes to 9.1.6 even though it's actually 7.1.4? I'd have to actually test (shutting other speakers off) that scene where the semi-truck goes overhead to hear if there's any content in the front/rear heights as opposed to just top middle here (it sure sounds like it's moving overhead although I suppose that could be the lower layer moving and creating an illusion), but I caught a screen capture at that part from a Trinnov object viewer of it and it shows a front-to-back volume difference right there which, unless it's just a glitch, shouldn't happen if the overhead channels are .2 fixed.
> 
> It kind of looked like there was two sets of fixed overhead objects sitting between the Tops pairs (two in each direction, side-by-side and front-to-back), but I could be mistaken what I was looking at.


I saw your screenshot but also look at the fixed objects, there are only two heights circled red below. I played the video and saw what you saw with the different volumes in the front and rear heights, which is weird if the two height objects in the viewer represent .2 fixed heights:


----------



## thomasphoenix

So Ready player one shows decode as 9.1.6, ( a 7.1 ch dd or Tru-HD track is shown decode 7.1) but it could be 7.1.4 or 7.1.2, The height channels ( brown) don't get used in static 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 mixes. 

Ready Player one the first race with lots of top activity. 

Alita Battle angel with front back height + top two pairs activity.


----------



## MagnumX

thomasphoenix said:


> So Ready player one shows decode as 9.1.6, ( a 7.1 ch dd or Tru-HD track is shown decode 7.1) but it could be 7.1.4 or 7.1.2, The height channels ( brown) don't get used in static 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 mixes.
> 
> Ready Player one the first race with lots of top activity.
> 
> Alita Battle angel with front back height + top two pairs activity.
> View attachment 3199839


I've never seen that display before. Is the activity indicated by white in the various color squares? What channels are being assigned/used. Is that left/right screen speakers to the left of the center front with the L/R mains outside that and front wides the first green set in line with the heights (orange/brown), side surround #1, side surround and then side surround#2 and rear surrounds? (I'm guessing)

If so, that would indicate Alita at that moment is not using front wides, or surround #1 or #2, but is using the screen left/right speakers and both sets of overheads (tops & heights)?



halcyon_888 said:


> I saw your screenshot but also look at the fixed objects, there are only two heights circled red below. I played the video and saw what you saw with the different volumes in the front and rear heights, which is weird if the two height objects in the viewer represent .2 fixed heights:
> 
> View attachment 3199828


I think I was confusing the side surround left (it appears so high in the picture) along with the objects in the front left corner (not sure what it is). I don't know what the purple object is near the center (is that the chair or subwoofer?)


----------



## thomasphoenix

MagnumX said:


> I've never seen that display before. Is the activity indicated by white in the various color squares? What channels are being assigned/used. Is that left/right screen speakers to the left of the center front with the L/R mains outside that and front wides the first green set in line with the heights (orange/brown), side surround #1, side surround and then side surround#2 and rear surrounds? (I'm guessing)
> 
> If so, that would indicate Alita at that moment is not using front wides, or surround #1 or #2, but is using the screen left/right speakers and both sets of overheads (tops & heights)?
> 
> 
> 
> I think I was confusing the side surround left (it appears so high in the picture) along with the objects in the front left corner (not sure what it is). I don't know what the purple object is near the center (is that the chair or subwoofer?)


center is chair, left side purple object is sub, the channels when active have lighter color moving up down. I will post a video and it'll be clear. Speaker config your guesses are about right though realiser labels may vary. I can capture the labels and share too.


----------



## MagnumX

thomasphoenix said:


> center is chair, left side purple object is sub, the channels when active have lighter color moving up down. I will post a video and it'll be clear. Speaker config your guesses are about right though realiser labels may vary. I can capture the labels and share too.


I was referring to center front, not the chair (which looks like a chair). 

Anyway, I just tried that race in *Ready Player One* with the ear level speakers turned down -12dB and then muted the Top Middle speakers and listened to the semi-truck pass overhead. Other than the slight bleed through (and dialog lift -12dB in the front heights) there's nothing in the front/rear height channels from the overhead signals. Whatever that momentary light difference was in the Trinnov object viewer, it was just a glitch. I verified it does the same trick as Saving Private Ryan (pans the semi-truck sound through the ear/bed level speakers and then plays through the Top Middle speaker fading up/down as the lower level passes by the same point, making it seem like there's front-to-back motion overhead when there is none. It's a dirty trick, IMO (instead of doing properly), but it does prove that people who worry too much about speaker arrays or even some bleed through in "Scatmos" (it must be 100% discrete!!!) are a bit out of their gourds or the effect wouldn't work at all.

Oddly, it's hard to imagine why purposely increasing leakage to the front/rear heights seems to move the image overhead back a bit here with the so-called "Scatmos" Top Middle speakers when it should be the same image location either way. If anything, I would have expected the opposite (i.e. The Top Middle speakers are at 110 degrees azimuth relative to my MLP, right above the side surrounds so any strong sound overhead sound in a x.x.2 soundtrack should image above and behind me, not directly above me, but if anything, it sounds more directly above my head with the top middles nearly fully discrete than it does with front/rear heights playing as well at a lower level (varying the level/leakage just moves it further back). 

Perhaps it's not actually "back" behind me, but more like less 'focused' sounding (larger image rather than sharp box just missing my head, less focused but bigger box spread out further above my head)? It's hard to say because other films and Atmos music sound pretty similar regardless and some music items move forward and backward a bit (but that's an easier to explain array effect as extra front and rear bias would pull it either direction a bit. What I'm finding through experimentation, however, is that all the studies I've read on the Precedence Effect and speaker arrays are all described more as "all or nothing" type scenarios when in fact I often notice a difference of a foot or so in height of a voice on the screen with the "dialog lift" effect by tilting my head upward/downward or reclining in the chair. The change of angle of the earlobes may alter the level/phase of the sound in favor of one set or the other (and the distance to a pair will change slightly when reclined, etc.) and thus raise/lower the phantom image somewhat. But then there's been Atmos movies where sounds seem like they're coming from the overhead speakers and it turns out they're not and vice versa. I assume the HRTF in some recorded sounds is interacting with the brain too rather than absolute position. (e.g. Playing binaural thunderstorm recordings in multi-channel stereo mode results in the sounds overhead even if the overhead speakers aren't used at all).

There's also a fair difference with different frequency ranges and even whether the sounds are dual mono (stereo playback of mono signal) versus a single center speaker (playing with scenes of dialog in *The Maltese Falcon* and the difference surround modes too; Auro-3D raises the dialog even higher with mono sources as it's using overhead speakers to repeat data, for example). It's one of the reasons (along with wanting more separation) I set the dialog and front soundstage "lift" to only 1/3 the height of the screen. With the Auro upmixer and mono soundtracks like _The Maltese Falcon_, the voices come out right about 1/2 the height of the screen while the location of the dialog varies somewhat by other types of movies and yet many uncorrelated sounds can still image right at or even below the main speakers still including narrator dialog (kind of odd and something I didn't expect). But most normal dialog is right at 1/3 up the screen where I set it in most movies.


----------



## howard68

dschulz said:


> If it's hard to tell which films are recorded in Full Atmos and which are hard coded to 7.1.4 then why should we worry about it at all?
> 
> There are many things that go into a good mix - are the dynamics punchy where called for, is the dialogue intelligible (unless it's deliberately not), does the mix serve the storytelling, does the mix enable the work of the composer to shine, are your emotions heightened by what you're hearing? I'd rather hear a good Atmos mix pre-rendered to 7.1.4 than
> 
> When I have set up a theater that can do 9.2.6
> I like to know that I have films to show it off best and use all speakers
> I am not knocking 7.1.4
> I love good mixes from 5.1 up


----------



## ssj3rd

Candyman 4K UHD:

Whoa, the Elevator Scene (about 40min in the movie) was superb in Dolby Atmos, I literally fall off my Sofa.
One of the best Atmos Scenes I ever witnessed, so intense and scary at the same time.

Give it a try, you won’t regret it


----------



## Josh Z

ssj3rd said:


> Candyman 4K UHD:


Original or remake?


----------



## ssj3rd

Josh Z said:


> Original or remake?


Remake


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

The first three eps of The Wheel Of Time on Amazon Prime have some decent Atmos. Especially Episode 3. Was kinda' impressed at how much they're using it, even if it's mostly for ambient sounds.


----------



## anjunadeep

I can do a 57-deg spread for left and right (so, just under the 30-deg dolby max spec) with a 48-deg field of view, or I can push the seat back 1ft and get a 52-deg spread with a 43-deg viewing angle. Which should I go with? I can kinda fiddle inbetween of course, but, is 57-deg (28.5-deg) too wide for the left and right channels?


----------



## ThierryB

ssj3rd said:


> Candyman 4K UHD:
> 
> Whoa, the Elevator Scene (about 40min in the movie) was superb in Dolby Atmos, I literally fall off my Sofa.
> One of the best Atmos Scenes I ever witnessed, so intense and scary at the same time.
> 
> Give it a try, you won’t regret it


Thanks for posting ! I did watch it last night because of your post (wasn't planning to), and it is really a piece of art !
Loved the Atmos effects throughout the movie, supporting the scenes / story and ambiance. Loved it ! One of the best Atmos track I've heard.
I love this thread


----------



## niterida

anjunadeep said:


> I can do a 57-deg spread for left and right (so, just under the 30-deg dolby max spec) with a 48-deg field of view, or I can push the seat back 1ft and get a 52-deg spread with a 43-deg viewing angle. Which should I go with? I can kinda fiddle inbetween of course, but, is 57-deg (28.5-deg) too wide for the left and right channels?


Wrong thread for this question 
But I will answer it anyway - 60deg is the ideal


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

howard68 said:


> Hi All
> So I have a Denon 6700 that I have set up to do 7.2.6
> Or 9.2.4
> 
> Apart from having a high-end processor
> How do I know if the film is encoded for more than 7.1.4?
> 
> Can we set up a database of films not fixed to 7.1.4 ?


That's interesting idea.

I have bundle Atmos native movies and upmixes that some ain't all that good.

With the Denon 8500 set to full height overhead surrounds height 1, 2 and 3. Most movies may utilize the full x6 heights other movies may use x4 heights but some ain't really x4 heights that I have noticed. They appear to be using a duel stereo pair that is encoded to tell the 8500 to play them as front 1 and back 3. The disney, "star wars" 'revenge of the sith' lousy up mxix that is poorly remixed in a hurry from the sounds of the bad crosstalk I can hear leakage from the centre and back surround of the 7.1 remix. 'The revenge of the sith' may as well be 7.1.2 and the misleading 7.1.4 which it isn't, yes 7.1.2.









7.1.4 (really 7.1.2)

So a database?

Playing 'Ad Astra'. native mix and that movie only uses height 2.








7.1.2 height 2 middle only.









7.1.2 (it's encoded as 7.1.4 but that is a misleading disney lie). It uses duel overhead stereo heights 1 front and 3 back only. Don't expect lots of x-wing/tie-fighters flying around on the overhead it is a really disappointing for overhead surround that mostly carries music/score and few sound/fx now and then. The sounds don't pan from height 1 to height 3 they are just duplicated twice to make you think its going to be great.









7.1.6
Some odd pans that appear in height 2 now and then in mix. The mix appears to have discrete sound panning though heights 1 to height 2 (now and then, not all the running time) height 3 along with height 1 they appear most active and again are discrete.









7.1.6
Overhead surrounds heights 1 and (2 is bit more active than "chapter 1") height 3.









7.1.6
The fight scene chapter 14 with often some glass effects overhead? Some of these overhead surround effects often do not match visual continuity some are merely, "let's throw a load of sound/fx and music in the overhead and it would impress people". When two are fighting and the glass floor shatter/breaks and they fall down and the glass should have different frequency for the above overhead and a different sound for when the glass lands on the glass floor below, just doesn't fool me at all. The whole Atmos is missing one vital important channel and that is a discrete below for actual floor smaller speakers or flush fitted in the floor. I should be hearing glass appearing to landing on my own floor. 
I wonder if, 'John Wick' chapter 4 will be final conclusion?









7.1.6
Chapter 13, 1hr 34min 45sec the airplanes heard from the overhead surrounds as the Japanese captain looks upwards, buzz around heights 1, 2 and 3.

That's just few for now I have to listen to the rest later on.


----------



## Hawks07

anjunadeep said:


> I can do a 57-deg spread for left and right (so, just under the 30-deg dolby max spec) with a 48-deg field of view, or I can push the seat back 1ft and get a 52-deg spread with a 43-deg viewing angle. Which should I go with? I can kinda fiddle inbetween of course, but, is 57-deg (28.5-deg) too wide for the left and right channels?


That’s exactly the spread I have. Sounds great!


----------



## howard68

ultimatehomecinema said:


> That's interesting idea.
> 
> I have bundle Atmos native movies and upmixes that some ain't all that good.
> 
> With the Denon 8500 set to full height overhead surrounds height 1, 2 and 3. Most movies may utilize the full x6 heights other movies may use x4 heights but some ain't really x4 heights that I have noticed. They appear to be using a duel stereo pair that is encoded to tell the 8500 to play them as front 1 and back 3. The disney, "star wars" 'revenge of the sith' lousy up mxix that is poorly remixed in a hurry from the sounds of the bad crosstalk I can hear leakage from the centre and back surround of the 7.1 remix. 'The revenge of the sith' may as well be 7.1.2 and the misleading 7.1.4 which it isn't, yes 7.1.2.
> 
> View attachment 3200565
> 
> 7.1.4 (really 7.1.2)
> 
> So a database?
> 
> Playing 'Ad Astra'. native mix and that movie only uses height 2.
> View attachment 3200564
> 
> 7.1.2 height 2 middle only.
> 
> View attachment 3200573
> 
> 7.1.2 (it's encoded as 7.1.4 but that is a misleading disney lie). It uses duel overhead stereo heights 1 front and 3 back only. Don't expect lots of x-wing/tie-fighters flying around on the overhead it is a really disappointing for overhead surround that mostly carries music/score and few sound/fx now and then. The sounds don't pan from height 1 to height 3 they are just duplicated twice to make you think its going to be great.
> 
> View attachment 3200579
> 
> 7.1.6
> Some odd pans that appear in height 2 now and then in mix. The mix appears to have discrete sound panning though heights 1 to height 2 (now and then, not all the running time) height 3 along with height 1 they appear most active and again are discrete.
> 
> View attachment 3200580
> 
> 7.1.6
> Overhead surrounds heights 1 and (2 is bit more active than "chapter 1") height 3.
> 
> View attachment 3200587
> 
> 7.1.6
> The fight scene chapter 14 with often some glass effects overhead? Some of these overhead surround effects often do not match visual continuity some are merely, "let's throw a load of sound/fx and music in the overhead and it would impress people". When two are fighting and the glass floor shatter/breaks and they fall down and the glass should have different frequency for the above overhead and a different sound for when the glass lands on the glass floor below, just doesn't fool me at all. The whole Atmos is missing one vital important channel and that is a discrete below for actual floor smaller speakers or flush fitted in the floor. I should be hearing glass appearing to landing on my own floor.
> I wonder if, 'John Wick' chapter 4 will be final conclusion?
> 
> View attachment 3200659
> 
> 7.1.6
> Chapter 13, 1hr 34min 45sec the airplanes heard from the overhead surrounds as the Japanese captain looks upwards, buzz around heights 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> That's just few for now I have to listen to the rest later on.


Thanks 
Hope we can build a list 
Regards.
H


----------



## MagnumX

First of all, it makes more sense, IMO to make a list of problem movies (that used fixed soundtracks) rather than ones that work (should most MOST of them) or else you end up doing a LOT more work. Second, if people are going to start posting movie box covers while making this list, it's going to get old real fast, especially on smart phones trying to load tons of images that aren't necessary to make note of a movie. Third, it should really be in its own thread not in this one! Or do we really want to see dozens of pages of people posting lists and box covers of movies? It could quickly take over and engulf this entire thread, which is already gigantic as it is (at 3,142 pages and counting here).

Ideally, you would want a new thread with a maintainer holding the 1st post with the list and updating it there so one doesn't have to go through dozens or hundreds of pages to figure what's what. You could even maintain two lists (those verified to be locked objects and those verified to be more normal soundtracks and possibly a 3rd category of locked plus some moving objects or something like that (seeing that's what newer Disney titles appear to do). They should also be alphabetized.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

MagnumX said:


> First of all, it makes more sense, IMO to make a list of problem movies (that used fixed soundtracks) rather than ones that work (should most MOST of them) or It could quickly take over and engulf this entire thread, which is already gigantic as it is (at 3,142 pages and counting here).


I agree as this is Denon 8500 thread. Unless, howard68 likes to start one?


----------



## mrvideo

ultimatehomecinema said:


> I agree as this is Denon 8500 thread. Unless, howard68 likes to start one?


No, it is the Dolby Atmos Thread (Home Theater Version)


----------



## ThierryB

Candyman 2021 got me started, so I watched IT 2017 tonight. Quite good Atmos track as well, supporting the action / atmosphere when needed.
It goes without saying that tomorrow will be IT Chapter Two 

Also one worth watching is Invasion Episode 6 "Home Invasion". This episode makes great use of height speakers, and you fill like you are in the house with them the entire time. I really had the feeling the sound was coming from the ceiling in some scenes, and I only have front height speakers. Really recommend this one for the Atmos effect and atmosphere.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ThierryB said:


> Candyman 2021 got me started, so I watched IT 2017 tonight. Quite good Atmos track as well, supporting the action / atmosphere when needed.
> It goes without saying that tomorrow will be IT Chapter Two
> 
> Also one worth watching is Invasion Episode 6 "Home Invasion". This episode makes great use of height speakers, and you fill like you are in the house with them the entire time. I really had the feeling the sound was coming from the ceiling in some scenes, and I only have front height speakers. Really recommend this one for the Atmos effect and atmosphere.


If you're on a horror kick, do Doctor Sleep next. Fantastic use of Atmos in that movie.


----------



## howard68

*This is The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)
if you can't talk about Dolby Atmos here then where? 

The supposed list is relevant 
if they are limiting the sound on Atmos films and not doing a full atmos film release then we need to bring that to people's attention.
I love Atmos and am sad they are releasing fixed soundtracks some only 7.1.2 
I have a 9.2.6 set up and want to know what films i can order to show my system off.*


----------



## chi_guy50

Ow, I think you've made my ears bleed!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

howard68 said:


> *This is The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)
> if you can't talk about Dolby Atmos here then where?
> 
> The supposed list is relevant
> if they are limiting the sound on Atmos films and not doing a full atmos film release then we need to bring that to people's attention.
> I love Atmos and am sad they are releasing fixed soundtracks some only 7.1.2
> I have a 9.2.6 set up and want to know what films i can order to show my system off.*


----------



## crutzulee

Jeremy Anderson said:


> FYI: Just watched Last Night In Soho in Atmos and it is a jaw-droppingly good mix. Lots of great height use, some cool steering around the space, and interesting use for music. Definitely adding it to my UHD collection when the time comes.


Decided to rent this last night based on your recommendation. 6 minutes in, I had to pause it to make sure someone hadn't messed with my settings or to ascertain whether or not I had blown my amp or speakers. Finding everything in order, I made a mental note to "add Jeremy Anderson to the list" before plodding on.

I'm glad I did! As a narrative device, the ATMOS track doesn't kick in until the story moves on to SOHO in a "we're not in Kansas anymore" moment. When it does...sooey MOMMA!!!

Jeremy Anderson has made the "other" list...


----------



## bluesky636

howard68 said:


> *This is The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)
> if you can't talk about Dolby Atmos here then where?
> 
> The supposed list is relevant
> if they are limiting the sound on Atmos films and not doing a full atmos film release then we need to bring that to people's attention.
> I love Atmos and am sad they are releasing fixed soundtracks some only 7.1.2
> I have a 9.2.6 set up and want to know what films i can order to show my system off.*


There is no need to scream.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> Decided to rent this last night based on your recommendation. 6 minutes in, I had to pause it to make sure someone hadn't messed with my settings or to ascertain whether or not I had blown my amp or speakers. Finding everything in order, I made a mental note to "add Jeremy Anderson to the list" before plodding on.
> 
> I'm glad I did! As a narrative device, the ATMOS track doesn't kick in until the story moves on to SOHO in a "we're not in Kansas anymore" moment. When it does...sooey MOMMA!!!
> 
> Jeremy Anderson has made the "other" list...


Right? I was worried for the first bit of the movie because I thought it was going to be like... Black Swan, but at fashion school. Once the weirdness starts in Soho, they used every speaker (and well!). No spoilers, but even though it wasn't in the heights, I loved the slap that happens toward the end of the movie that moves around the room through the surrounds. My buddy who watched it with me who normally doesn't comment much on sound actually said, "Okay, that was cool" when it happened. Just a fantastic mix all the way around.


----------



## MagnumX

howard68 said:


> This is The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)
> if you can't talk about Dolby Atmos here then where?




Create a NEW thread titled "Dolby Atmos Fixed Soundtrack List" and link it here so people can easily find it. Problem solved. Of course, you should only do this if you're willing to maintain the list as the person posting it will have the first post edit control.



> The supposed list is relevant


Was the bits about being hard for new users and old users alike to find in a 3400+ page thread too confusing to understand? A new thread could keep an updated list at the top on page 1 so it's always up-to-date and instead of a generic Atmos thread, be quite specific about that issue.



> if they are limiting the sound on Atmos films and not doing a full atmos film release then we need to bring that to people's attention.


And you think burying it in 3400+ pages thread that will soon be 3600+ pages and talks about everything under the sun instead of this very specific topic is a better idea? Do you think using this *giant font *somehow makes your argument better? You could go all caps and yell too. 



> I love Atmos and am sad they are releasing fixed soundtracks some only 7.1.2
> I have a 9.2.6 set up and want to know what films i can order to show my system off.


And it's more difficult to find it in a specific thread on that subject?


----------



## howard68

The big typeface was just because I copied and pasted from this post and it keeps the cap hight

You are the only one who has complained about my idea
This is about Dolby Atmos and not your thread

why don't you create a "Pure Atmos" thread where you can control what you deem to be acceptable For people to talk about

Or Stop being an internet Troll!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

howard68 said:


> The big typeface was just because I copied and pasted from this post and it keeps the cap hight
> 
> You are the only one who has complained about my idea
> This is about Dolby Atmos and not your thread
> 
> why don't you create a "Pure Atmos" thread where you can control what you deem to be acceptable For people to talk about
> 
> Or Stop being an internet Troll!


I don't think anyone is complaining about your idea. Just saying that while this is the Dolby Atmos thread in general, it would likely be much easier for your idea to be its own separate thread... which would make it easier for you to manage, since you would be able to edit it and incorporate any info others provide. Otherwise, it will just get lost in the shuffle in what is already a lengthy and very active thread. And that's not an unreasonable request, as it is a far more specific topic than what is generally covered here.


----------



## howard68

In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception. Wikipedia

I will stay away from this site as it seems the trolls Are out today and want to police what we can say about Dolby Atmos in the Dolby Atmos thread!


----------



## fatherom

Good lord.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

howard68 said:


> In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception. Wikipedia
> 
> I will stay away from this site as it seems the trolls Are out today and want to police what we can say about Dolby Atmos in the Dolby Atmos thread!


Well, with a little self-reflection, I think you could understand how others might see that your suggestion is too specific for this general discussion thread and would be better served by its own dedicated thread. And if that thread takes off and your database grows, it could very likely end up as a pinned thread here on the forum, which would be useful. No one's policing what you can say... They're just recommending that it would work better as a separate dedicated thread that could then be linked to if needed.

There are users here who do have harsh unlikeable personalities, and the easiest way to deal with that is to just put them on ignore. It snaps them Thanos-like out of your view and generally makes the experience more pleasant. But in this case, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to recommend that your idea would work better as its own thread so it would be easier for those who wish to participate in it to find it... and for you to manage it yourself. Unless you were wanting others to do all the work for you, in which case someone else willing to cull through all that data can make the thread and you can participate in it. Any volunteers?


----------



## Rich 63

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, with a little self-reflection, I think you could understand how others might see that your suggestion is too specific for this general discussion thread and would be better served by its own dedicated thread. And if that thread takes off and your database grows, it could very likely end up as a pinned thread here on the forum, which would be useful. No one's policing what you can say... They're just recommending that it would work better as a separate dedicated thread that could then be linked to if needed.
> 
> There are users here who do have harsh unlikeable personalities, and the easiest way to deal with that is to just put them on ignore. It snaps them Thanos-like out of your view and generally makes the experience more pleasant. But in this case, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to recommend that your idea would work better as its own thread so it would be easier for those who wish to participate in it to find it... and for you to manage it yourself. Unless you were wanting others to do all the work for you, in which case someone else willing to cull through all that data can make the thread and you can participate in it. Any volunteers?


Well said.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There are users here who do have *harsh unlikeable personalities*, and the easiest way to deal with that is to just put them on ignore.


Pot meet Kettle. 😆 

I may find several people on here offensive, smug and sometimes even borderline insane (Or am I just describing myself  ). So what? I find Sdurani to be the smuggest of them all and he plays the "cancel culture" game too. Of course, he also happens to be correct most of the time and would someone want to miss out on potentially useful news/information just to avoid reading brash or smug posts? How could I even edit my own posts if I did that???  I guess that's up to them. But me, I don't do cancel culture (ignore).

In any case, the idea I'm trolling by suggesting a better way to handle that list that doesn't get "lost" in this thread nor clog it up with dozens of pages of single topic information that makes it hard to find anything else but that single topic is absurd, IMO. I'm not attacking his idea, just pointing out a better place to put it into use. Why that should seem offensive or "trolling" is literally beyond me. This site is a lot bigger than just one thread.


----------



## ssj3rd

Ok Drama Queens, please back to topic. 🙏


----------



## ppasteur

howard68 said:


> Hi
> I am looking for someone who has a high-end system that can confirm that the sound is full Atmos!
> Some can also list objects being used


Sure seems like a lot to ask someone else to do, for what, your personal pleasure? Gathering content (cost $$$) checking Atmos format (time), documenting the results (more time). Do you plan to put up a few thousand dollars to get the collection started? Donate the required equipment? Compensate people for their time? 
Hey, If so, maybe I would do it.  
You know the old adage "if you want something done (right), do it yourself. And, yes, a dedicated thread would be the place to do it.
So add me to your "troll" list ????


----------



## bluesky636

ppasteur said:


> Sure seems like a lot to ask someone else to do, for what, your personal pleasure? Gathering content (cost $$$) checking Atmos format (time), documenting the results (more time). Do you plan to put up a few thousand dollars to get the collection started? Donate the required equipment? Compensate people for their time?
> Hey, If so, maybe I would do it.
> You know the old adage "if you want something done (right), do it yourself. And, yes, a dedicated thread would be the place to do it.
> So add me to your "troll" list ????


We already have a dedicated Blu-Ray review thread by Ralph Potts that rates video and audio performance. It contains all the information I need to know. Anything more would be a huge undertaking. The purpose of this thread is to discuss and answer questions about the technical aspects of Atmos, not reviewing Atmos movies. That belongs in a dedicated thread like the Blu-Ray review thread, BEQ thread, subwoofer calibration thread, and other similar threads. I don't have an Atmos system but am still interested in the subject.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I personally think this hysteria about printed vs non-printed Atmos tracks is a bit overblown.

All we have are good and bad Atmos tracks spread across both types. Some of the very best tracks I have come across are normally using every speaker but sometimes I'm surprised when I check by muting the base 7.1.2 that the track actually was 7.1.2 with some minute audio artifacts in the remaining speakers.

So stop stressing about the number of speakers used and enjoy the show.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Mashie Saldana said:


> I personally think this hysteria about printed vs non-printed Atmos tracks is a bit overblown.
> 
> All we have are good and bad Atmos tracks spread across both types. Some of the very best tracks I have come across are normally using every speaker but sometimes I'm surprised when I check by muting the base 7.1.2 that the track actually was 7.1.2 with some minute audio artifacts in the remaining speakers.
> 
> So stop stressing about the number of speakers used and enjoy the show.


I understand their consternation. Some people paid a lot of money for all this equipment and they want to feel like they are getting their money's worth.

For me, I just take them as they come. Hopefully immersive mixes will get better as time moves on. We have the same problem with HDR. Many discs having only 300 or 400 nits of brightness when many of us have displays that can do 1000+


----------



## Gates

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I understand their consternation. Some people paid a lot of money for all this equipment and they want to feel like they are getting their money's worth.
> 
> For me, I just take them as they come. Hopefully immersive mixes will get better as time moves on. We have the same problem with HDR. Many discs having only 300 or 400 nits of brightness when many of us have displays that can so 1000+


A lot of these people that paid a lot of money also listen from streaming which is far from the best quality.


----------



## mrtickleuk

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I understand their consternation. Some people paid a lot of money for all this equipment and *they want to feel like they are getting their money's worth*.


I understand it too. But their consternation is _utterly_ misplaced IMHO. Just like - *to use an analogy* - the "I want my screen filled" brigade, who hated widescreen on VHS, and still hate 2.35:1 ratio movies up to this day, but in the same breath claim to want the accuracy of real home cinema!



NuSoardGraphite said:


> For me, I just take them as they come. Hopefully immersive mixes will get better as time moves on. We have the same problem with HDR. Many discs having* only 300 or 400 nits* of brightness when many of us have displays that can do 1000+


To me, that's not a problem with HDR at all: that's a problem of expectations. Not every title has to max out anything, either brightness or colour gamut. It's a bit like complaining the the Mona Lisa is the wrong aspect ratio or doesn't have bright enough blues, and just as pointless (and grossly disrespectful to the creator). Unless we're told otherwise, we're getting *exactly* what the artists *wanted *to create, and nothing more or less. We have no right whatsoever to scream and stamp our feet demanding that the artists use brighter or different colours (to *continue the analogy* with both peak-brightness and usage of sound).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mrtickleuk said:


> I understand it too. But their consternation is _utterly_ misplaced IMHO. Just like the "I want my screen filled" brigade, who hated widescreen on VHS, and still hate 2.35:1 ratio movies up to this day, but in the same breath claim to want the accuracy of real home cinema!
> 
> 
> 
> To me that's not a problem with HDR, that's a problem of expectations. Not every title has to max out anything, either brightness or colour gamut. It's a bit like complaining the the Mona Lisa is the wrong aspect ratio or doesn't have bright enough blues, and just as pointless. Unless we're told otherwise, we're getting *exactly* what the artists *wanted *to create, and nothing more or less. We have no right to scream and stamp our feet demanding that the artists use brighter or different colours (to continue the analogy with both peak-brightness and usage of sound).


I beg to differ.

HDTV test did some measurements of real-life objects and their nit levels on a cloudy day (he's in the UK. When is it not cloudy?) and the results might surprise you.






So as you can see, the measurements in the real world are much higher than most of these displays are capable of. The cameras are capturing these nit levels to some degree. When they master these for the home version, they could easily bring out 1000 nits in much of this material. This would bring it that much closer to looking realistic. But they are purposefully limiting the light output in these HDR presentations.






They are giving us SDR programming and calling it HDR. Might as well piss on us and call it rain.

They need to do better.


----------



## mrtickleuk

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> HDTV test did some measurements of real-life objects and their nit levels on a cloudy day (he's in the UK. When is it not cloudy?) and the results might surprise you.


They don't surprise me, no. You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## teachsac

*Please take HDR discussion to the proper forum area. Stick to the discussion of Atmos.*


----------



## Mashie Saldana

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I understand their consternation. Some people paid a lot of money for all this equipment and they want to feel like they are getting their money's worth.


I know exactly how much this equipment cost, I have been running 9.1.6 for over half a decade.


----------



## JonFo

Is there an existing list of 'optimal settings' for Dolby Atmos rendering?

I'm thinking of stuff like the following:

Have run the automatic setup to set levels and delays correctly
Turn off dynamic EQs (they can affect object positioning by skewing levels and timbre)
Minimize or turn off other sound modifiers (e.g. Dialog Enhancer on D&M gear)

I found that the accuracy of the 3D sound image is significantly improved by ensuring that some of the modifiers are disabled. Especially Audyssey Dynamic EQ, which I normally used, but it had serious negative impacts on both my Atmos rigs.
For some reason, the 'Dialog Enhancer' on my 8802A was set at max, and when turned off, the Atmos rendering was much more accurate, as the added EQ on the fronts (center especially) was impacting the positional balance of objects.

Maybe there are others, but in general, having the most accurate levels/delays and room correction, but nothing else set, results in the best positional accuracy for 'flown' objects, as that's what the renderer is assuming.

The most frustrating thing is that many of these settings are buried in the menus, and at least D&M devices do not make it easy to see all the audio settings in a single panel.
And then some are global, some are per input, and others per stream type, so very hard to tell until the program actually starts what is actually set.


----------



## bluesky636

JonFo said:


> Maybe there are others, but in general, having the most accurate levels/delays and room correction, but nothing else set, results in the best positional accuracy for 'flown' objects, as that's what the renderer is assuming.


In your opinion. Those settings are preferential choices so others may disagree with you.


----------



## MagnumX

JonFo said:


> Is there an existing list of 'optimal settings' for Dolby Atmos rendering?
> 
> I'm thinking of stuff like the following:
> 
> Have run the automatic setup to set levels and delays correctly
> Turn off dynamic EQs (they can affect object positioning by skewing levels and timbre)
> Minimize or turn off other sound modifiers (e.g. Dialog Enhancer on D&M gear)
> 
> I found that the accuracy of the 3D sound image is significantly improved by ensuring that some of the modifiers are disabled. Especially Audyssey Dynamic EQ, which I normally used, but it had serious negative impacts on both my Atmos rigs.
> For some reason, the 'Dialog Enhancer' on my 8802A was set at max, and when turned off, the Atmos rendering was much more accurate, as the added EQ on the fronts (center especially) was impacting the positional balance of objects.
> 
> Maybe there are others, but in general, having the most accurate levels/delays and room correction, but nothing else set, results in the best positional accuracy for 'flown' objects, as that's what the renderer is assuming.
> 
> The most frustrating thing is that many of these settings are buried in the menus, and at least D&M devices do not make it easy to see all the audio settings in a single panel.
> And then some are global, some are per input, and others per stream type, so very hard to tell until the program actually starts what is actually set.


I agree with pretty much all of what you said except I've verified and/or corrected levels and delays by manually measuring and/or moving the speakers so they are even. I also found Dynamic EQ was changing levels of some channels (especially the side surrounds) by several decibels. It made it impossible to just turn Audyssey on/off as the levels were completely different with it on/off with Dynamic EQ enabled. With it turned off and levels reset to be even with it off, the levels are the same with and without Audyssey. I never used dialog enhancement or raise the levels thereof and have had no trouble understanding dialog. 

I also have not found any need to raise the volume levels of the overhead channels as many on here seem to do (some 4 or even 6dB above the bed/ear level channels). They're mixed at the levels they're meant to be at (for better or for worse) and raising them changes the balance completely. With proper Atmos soundtracks, there's no issue hearing overhead sounds. The problem is many don't actually use overhead sounds much at all or mix them with the lower levels so they don't stand out overhead).


----------



## JonFo

bluesky636 said:


> In your opinion. Those settings are preferential choices so others may disagree with you.


Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their systems, the question is what is most accurate.

The Atmos renderer (at least the ones in D&M products) assumes that the relative levels and timber between speakers are those captured during setup, so, if the DynamicEQ comes along post-decode and rendering and increases the levels of the top-rears and surrounds, plus changes the timber with EQ, then the object that is supposed to appear at elevation Z and coordinate X/Y will no longer be at the correct position, might even blur it.


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their systems, the question is what is most accurate.
> 
> The Atmos renderer (at least the ones in D&M products) assumes that the relative levels and timber between speakers are those captured during setup, so, if the DynamicEQ comes along post-decode and rendering and increases the levels of the top-rears and surrounds, plus changes the timber with EQ, then the object that is supposed to appear at elevation Z and coordinate X/Y will no longer be at the correct position, might even blur it.


But Audyssey MultEQ calibration does its best to match timbre between different speakers in a system. Dynamic EQ then applies an appropriate and equal amount of frequency correction across all channels. Agreed that the levels are affected differently between channels, but I don't believe timbre is directly.

I'm not saying that your approach is wrong if it produces the best audible results for _you_, but I think your understanding of what Dynamic EQ is doing is slightly wrong.


----------



## JonFo

MagnumX said:


> I also have not found any need to raise the volume levels of the overhead channels as many on here seem to do (some 4 or even 6dB above the bed/ear level channels). They're mixed at the levels they're meant to be at (for better or for worse) and raising them changes the balance completely. With proper Atmos soundtracks, there's no issue hearing overhead sounds. The problem is many don't actually use overhead sounds much at all or mix them with the lower levels so they don't stand out overhead).


Agreed, on both of my systems, the overheads are at 0, and they render quite precisely for tracks that have individual objects.

I think one of the reasons people raise the levels (besides the ones you mention) is that other post-rendering changes skew the image and added overhead volume makes it seem like there is immersion. But if they'd run without those modifiers, then no need for the boost.
Although, from some of the system deployment discussions, there is a matter of how appropriate a given overhead speaker model and its positioning are to the role. As well as the issue of room acoustics as well.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

JonFo said:


> Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their systems, the question is what is most accurate.
> 
> The Atmos renderer (at least the ones in D&M products) assumes that the relative levels and timber between speakers are those captured during setup, so, if the DynamicEQ comes along post-decode and rendering and increases the levels of the top-rears and surrounds, plus changes the timber with EQ, then the object that is supposed to appear at elevation Z and coordinate X/Y will no longer be at the correct position, might even blur it.


I agree with you that the changes DynamicEQ makes to the surround levels throws off Atmos imaging. DEQ's handling of the height channel levels is just guesswork, since they didn't have them available when they did their analysis of how mixers change the mix at lower-than-reference levels. I really wish Audyssey would separate that function of DEQ from the loudness function, because I think a lot of people would enjoy the boosted bass as you get away from reference without the changes in the surround levels. Maybe one day... if Audyssey ever decides to take an interest in it again.


----------



## JonFo

AtmosFTW said:


> But Audyssey MultEQ calibration does its best to match timbre between different speakers in a system. Dynamic EQ then applies an appropriate and equal amount of correction across all channels. Agreed that the levels are affected differently between channels, but I don't believe timbre is.


Intimately familiar with DRC, been doing it with various flavors for a while (decades). I also have the Pro installer kit, which I use to calibrate the 8802A Preamp.

Audyssey Dynamic EQ applies varying amounts of gain, and from both my ears and commentary on this board, boost the highs on top-rear and surrounds. That is NOT compensated for by the renderer, therefore positional accuracy is impacted.

Again, not about preference, just trying to determine the accuracy of the final output in terms of objects location/levels.

Maybe an example will help:
If the movie mixer intends an object containing the vocal track of the actress to be whispering in your right ear, and locates the object at 4' off the ground and 2' to the right of the MLP, then a well set up Atmos playback system should render it there. 
If I engage Dynamic EQ, and it increases the top-rears by 3dB and boost the highs, same for the surrounds, then the location of the object is no longer at ear level, it is pulled up due to the level increase in the tops, and pulled back due to the level increase in the surrounds, and to top it off, is now shriller due to the EQ, so she is no longer whispering in your ear, she is shrieking above and behind you.


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> Audyssey Dynamic EQ applies varying amounts of gain, and from both my ears and commentary on this board, boost the highs on top-rear and surrounds. That is NOT compensated for by the renderer, therefore positional accuracy is impacted.


In that case, agreed. I was aware of the raised volume level on surrounds at lower volume settings but hadn't realised that the Dynamic EQ applied wasn't equal on all channels.

That sounds like a fairly broken approach to me as I'd have expected the raised level to dictate that _less_ EQ would be required for the same perceived spectral response.

For this to not be working ideally, Dynamic EQ level detection for surrounds may be happening before the gain boost. I wonder if that's what's happening here.

PS My internal logic on this is coming from an analogue dynamic EQ system I designed and prototyped over 20 years ago for my own usage as a replacement for a traditional loudness control, so I'm probably not seeing it from the same perspective as the designers of Audyssey Dynamic EQ.


----------



## bluesky636

JonFo said:


> Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their systems, the question is what is most accurate.


Accuracy is not always preferable. Why else do people boost the bass by several dB over what Audyssey sets or create their own house curve frequency response? Given the different speaker configurations and range of placement within those configurations is there ever really "accurate" Atmos playback?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

AtmosFTW said:


> In that case, agreed. I was aware of the raised volume level on surrounds at lower volume settings but hadn't realised that the Dynamic EQ applied wasn't equal on all channels.
> 
> That sounds like a fairly broken approach to me as I'd have expected the raised level to dictate that _less_ EQ would be required for the same perceived spectral response.
> 
> For this to not be working ideally, Dynamic EQ level detection for surrounds may be happening before the gain boost. I wonder if that's what's happening here.
> 
> PS My internal logic on this is coming from an analogue dynamic EQ system I designed and prototyped over 20 years ago for my own usage as a replacement for a traditional loudness control, so I'm probably not seeing it from the same perspective as the designers of Audyssey Dynamic EQ.











This is the contour vs MV for DEQ. It was taken at the processor by a member here some time ago. Can’t remember who or what the circumstances were exactly. But it’s a fun way to “see” what’s going on.


----------



## AtmosFTW

Thank you. I was aware of what the curves were but wasn't aware they weren't applied appropriately for surround channels.


----------



## JonFo

bluesky636 said:


> Accuracy is not always preferable. Why else do people boost the bass by several dB over what Audyssey sets or create their own house curve frequency response? Given the different speaker configurations and range of placement within those configurations is there ever really "accurate" Atmos playback?


I'm trying to see if there is a baseline set of recommended config and settings that will generally result in an accurate 3D audio rendering on most systems with a decent setup.

There are way too many 'Atmos sucks' posts around here, and I bet that most of those are due to setup, room acoustics, or as being discussed, system configuration options that may or may not be appropriate to get the best results possible.

Of course, we all 'season to taste' in various areas, and I too run a house curve on my rigs. But running the low-end a tad hot does not dramatically impact the positioning of objects in the 3D soundspace.
It would be nice to reply to some of those '... it sucks' posts with a clear set of recommended procedures and settings that make it not suck (at least due to controllable factors).
A common complaint is positional accuracy and even I had disappointment in that realm on my big system (5.4.4 in a dedicated, custom designed and acoustically treated room, overheads are JBL SCS8's in ideal, per-spec locations), and it turned out to be DynamicEQ was the worst offender, but there was also another set of settings that when turned off, now let me precisely locate objects in some of my well-mixed recordings.

As for "is there ever really "accurate" Atmos playback " question, I think that yes there is. It's hard to accomplish with processor/room/speakers, but not impossible. Go hear a well set-up, high-speaker count system in a dedicated room driven by a Trinnov processor.
But even my 5.4.2 media-room system, which uses Elac UniFi Dolby elevation speakers, is accurate enough for great enjoyment.

I have 4 Atmos rigs, 2 speaker-based, and 2 headphone-based, one of which is my most accurate, and that is the Smyth Realiser A16 Atmos Headphone processor. I actually modeled my own big system and captured my personalized HRTF and this thing recreates it uncannily accurately. It has BBC and other recording studio models with high channel counts, and good mixes played on the A16 are a great benchmark for what accurate Atmos rendering sounds like.
BTW- Many of the Atmos music recordings we are listening to now, but especially in the future, were/will be mixed using an A16.

For those curious: https://smyth-research.com/ and yes, expensive ($4K), but worth it if you are technical enough.


----------



## bluesky636

JonFo said:


> I'm trying to see if there is a baseline set of recommended config and settings that will generally result in an accurate 3D audio rendering on most systems with a decent setup.


I think a search of this thread will find hundreds or more posts on this subject.


----------



## halcyon_888

JonFo said:


> Is there an existing list of 'optimal settings' for Dolby Atmos rendering?
> 
> I'm thinking of stuff like the following:
> 
> Have run the automatic setup to set levels and delays correctly
> Turn off dynamic EQs (they can affect object positioning by skewing levels and timbre)
> Minimize or turn off other sound modifiers (e.g. Dialog Enhancer on D&M gear)
> 
> I found that the accuracy of the 3D sound image is significantly improved by ensuring that some of the modifiers are disabled. Especially Audyssey Dynamic EQ, which I normally used, but it had serious negative impacts on both my Atmos rigs.
> For some reason, the 'Dialog Enhancer' on my 8802A was set at max, and when turned off, the Atmos rendering was much more accurate, as the added EQ on the fronts (center especially) was impacting the positional balance of objects.
> 
> Maybe there are others, but in general, having the most accurate levels/delays and room correction, but nothing else set, results in the best positional accuracy for 'flown' objects, as that's what the renderer is assuming.
> 
> The most frustrating thing is that many of these settings are buried in the menus, and at least D&M devices do not make it easy to see all the audio settings in a single panel.
> And then some are global, some are per input, and others per stream type, so very hard to tell until the program actually starts what is actually set.


You probably already know this, but the 8802A's remote control's Info button shows an on screen display if Audyssey is on, DEQ, etc.

And it's general practice to turn DEQ and dialogue options off but leaving Audyssey on as well as its distance settings intact. Some people refine the trims that Audyssey set by playing test tones from an external source because playing the internal test tones bypasses Audyssey. I took 8 tight measurements at the main listening position and didn't adjust what Audyssey calculated. I have a 5.1.2 system with the heights a bit forward but still within Dolby spec and I still get a "holographic" sound bubble with the right Atmos tracks.

That being said, there was discussion in here a couple of months ago with someone who preferred using DEQ over not using it.


----------



## halcyon_888

JonFo said:


> There are way too many 'Atmos sucks' posts around here, and I bet that most of those are due to setup, room acoustics, or as being discussed, system configuration options that may or may not be appropriate to get the best results possible.


No I think there are literally Atmos tracks that suck. It's pretty clear when playing Atmos demo tracks or top-tier Atmos mixes like Ready Player One, then switching to a Disney "Atmos" mix and being thoroughly disappointed. Someone can A/B different tracks in their home and clearly hear the difference. Setup, room acoustics, or system configuration options are variables that can play into it so there is some subjectivity involved, as well as someone's personal judgment on what is a good or disappointing Atmos mix. But I wouldn't say that most of the negativity is due to setup, room acoustics, or system config--I think most of it is due to the Atmos mixes themselves.


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> I'm trying to see if there is a baseline set of recommended config and settings that will generally result in an accurate 3D audio rendering on most systems with a decent setup.


The only accurate baseline the average user has to work from is whatever Audyssey MultEQ decides it's going to be. If their speakers are located within recommended confines then 3D rendering should be fairly accurate with Dynamic EQ disabled. To be honest, it doesn't sound wildly wrong to me with it enabled.

With so many variables in the equation including room geometry and loudspeaker directionality to name just two, I don't see how it's possible to come up with an alternative or additional baseline that's guaranteed to be more accurate unless the end-user possesses the necessary equipment to verify that it's more accurate.


----------



## squared80

halcyon_888 said:


> And it's general practice to turn DEQ and dialogue options off


There was a Denon engineer who had said the best results in the 8500 was to turn DEQ _on _(and to obviously leave DVolume off).


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I agree with pretty much all of what you said except I've verified and/or corrected levels and delays by manually measuring and/or moving the speakers so they are even. I also found Dynamic EQ was changing levels of some channels (especially the side surrounds) by several decibels. It made it impossible to just turn Audyssey on/off as the levels were completely different with it on/off with Dynamic EQ enabled. With it turned off and levels reset to be even with it off, the levels are the same with and without Audyssey. I never used dialog enhancement or raise the levels thereof and have had no trouble understanding dialog.
> 
> I also have not found any need to raise the volume levels of the overhead channels as many on here seem to do (some 4 or even 6dB above the bed/ear level channels). They're mixed at the levels they're meant to be at (for better or for worse) and raising them changes the balance completely. With proper Atmos soundtracks, there's no issue hearing overhead sounds. The problem is many don't actually use overhead sounds much at all or mix them with the lower levels so they don't stand out overhead).


Lately what I've been doing is adjusting the height trims by +2dB when using the DSU. And depending on the base track I sometimes will use no trim increase with the DTS Upmixer but sometimes I use +2dB. I know a lot of people prefer the DTS Upmixer but I find myself leaning more toward the DSU in practice. With a regular Atmos track I'm now using no trim increase, like you said for better or for worse. The latest movie I watched was No Time to Die and it was said to not have a good Atmos mix, but I didn't mind it, I didn't use a trim increase. It wasn't top-tier but it wasn't a let-down either, it had some very cool height activity in a couple of scenes, one of which had voices coming from the heights so I think they used the heights creatively.


----------



## JonFo

halcyon_888 said:


> But I wouldn't say that most of the negativity is due to setup, room acoustics, or system config--I think most of it is due to the Atmos mixes themselves.


I will not dispute the fact that many mixes are indeed disappointing, and lead to many complaints.
But having a checklist for config and options would be nice to ensure one is not negatively impacting the playback.
Once I disabled DynEQ, I went back to several albums I know have excellent use of discrete objects and the results were much better. More in line with what I get from the A16.


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> Once I disabled DynEQ, I went back to several albums I know have excellent use of discrete objects and the results were much better. More in line with what I get from the A16.


Bear in mind that anyone listening below reference level (ie, almost everyone) is going to have an inferior experience in other respects by not using Dynamic EQ due to losing the loudness compensation needed to correct for human ears being almost completely broken.

This is why many of us leave it enabled and trim surround levels to compensate for the perceived overcompensation in gain on surrounds. In my case, I just dropped the SL and SR channels by 2dB and left it at that as it sounds acceptably balanced to me at the typical volume levels I listening at.

I'd be the first to agree that there are more accurate ways of tweaking a setup, but the average user won't have access to them and wouldn't know what to do with them even if they had. Recommending a standard set of tweaks and expecting them to work equally well on all setups won't work either.


----------



## MagnumX

AtmosFTW said:


> Bear in mind that anyone listening below reference level (ie, almost everyone) is going to have an inferior experience in other respects by not using Dynamic EQ due to losing the loudness compensation needed to correct for human ears being almost completely broken.
> 
> This is why many of us leave it enabled and trim surround levels to compensate for the perceived overcompensation in gain on surrounds. In my case, I just dropped the SL and SR channels by 2dB and left it at that as it sounds acceptably balanced to me at the typical volume levels I listening at.


I didn't realize how screwed up everything was with Dynamic EQ On. You cannot trust the levels or change Audyssey on/off without completely screwing up the balance. I had two separate smart settings for Audyssey on/off with Dynamic EQ turned on. I didn't need it after getting rid of it as the levels match with it off. Furthermore, the system has absolutely no way of knowing whether what you're playing is set to reference levels (most music and many movies and even Apple TV 4K are not calibrated correctly so Dynamic EQ is almost meaningless in practice).

Unless you listen at wildly varying levels for the same material all the time (I listen at maximum that it's comfortable at), it's easier to just adjust the subwoofer level to compensate for your average listening level (mine is set at +4dB all the time with the secondary setting the 7012 and earlier models had before they removed it due to "consumer confusion" set to +7dB for older albums and multi-channel stereo) and use options temp setting for anything else that needs adjusting, but that is rare and everything sounds much more consistent all around now.

In other words, if your preferred comfort level is -7dB below reference (not on the display but by ear), adjust the sub for that level and leave it. Too much bass at lower levels is rarely objectionable anyway. But comparing dynamic eq on to off, it's obvious things aren't right with some demos with it on and my side surrounds in particular varied wildly (4-6dB) in volume making it difficult to get even panning with movies that were set to different reference volume levels (increasingly common unfortunately).

Sadly, the days of THX (or even Dolby) mixing standards are long gone. Studios like Disney think it's more important to cater to sound bars and headphones than real home theater systems these days and adjust their home mixes accordingly, which is why so many soundtracks suck in recent years, Atmos or not.

But if you're happy with Dynamic EQ, have at it, but after observing the differences not in bass levels so much as channel/surround levels varying so much, I can't recommend it at all. It can flatten a surround movie to be even more front heavy than it already is by reducing surround levels, for example.


----------



## MagnumX

After a flurry of excellent Atmos music albums the past two years (Kraftwerk 3D, Two Booka Shade albums, Steven Wilson's The Future Bites and Yello's Point especially come to mind), I'm not seeing a lot of upcoming full albums in Atmos. 

I just got Loreena McKennitt's _The Visit _in Atmos in September as the most recent purchase, but it's a bit weak in the surround use (closer to a typical 5.1 SACD type album with very little overhead beyond reverb type stuff). 

Unfortunately, it sounds like Apple's primary target is headphones and individual singles more than full albums made with the artist's input. I haven't heard many of them since I'm not into renting music just to hear a few Atmos tracks in lossy DD+.

I'm still not sure it's going to take off either way. Most seemed to hate the Atmos mixes on headphones on another forum I read some comments about Apple's offerings and weak 5.1 or more speaker setups may sound worse than the stereo tracks on better speakers, even sound bars (where the surround speakers are often even worse than the speakers in the sound bar itself).

To get a truly awe-inspiring playback, one needs similar quality drivers of very good quality all the way around on at least 5.1.4 with a decent sub. How many homes have that? Sadly, we may have to count on headphone playback to keep offerings even going.


----------



## JonFo

halcyon_888 said:


> You probably already know this, but the 8802A's remote control's Info button shows an on screen display if Audyssey is on, DEQ, etc.


Yeah, but it does not show ALL relevant info. I even posted on one of the preamp threads looking for a remote app that would give me a single view covering all the audio settings, and no replies yet. So it's harder than it should be to 'glance' at settings and know it's set appropriately.

A good example is the 'Loudness Management' which engages compression, yet is hard to spot in the UI, as it's buried next to the Cinema EQ in Audio->Surround Parameters, and not shown on the OSD summary.

Somehow that was enabled on my Bluray input and was active for Atmos tracks, and affects the Atmos rendering. It's much better with that off, as the levels are left alone.


----------



## JonFo

MagnumX said:


> I haven't heard many of them since I'm not into renting music just to hear a few Atmos tracks in lossy DD+.


From our exchanges on the Surround Music subforum, you know I'm as big a surround / HiRez Quality snob as the next guy  
But I do recommend you subscribe to Apple Music for a bit and sample the Atmos catalog they have, there are some gems there. And if you find something you really like, then get the BluRay (if available).
I have both Apple Music and Tidal HiFi subs, and have been surprised by some of the good recordings one finds, and then disappointed in many others that sound no better than the 2ch version run through the DSU.

It is still early days, and only recently are there options to equip a mix studio with full Atmos capabilities for well under $10K. A MacBookPro + latest Logic Pro + Smyth A16 - Dante Atmos headphone processor + a good headset is all it takes these days.
Then the engineers/musicians need to learn the art of immersive audio mixing.


----------



## JonFo

AtmosFTW said:


> Bear in mind that anyone listening below reference level (ie, almost everyone) is going to have an inferior experience in other respects by not using Dynamic EQ due to losing the loudness compensation needed to correct for human ears being almost completely broken.
> 
> This is why many of us leave it enabled and trim surround levels to compensate for the perceived overcompensation in gain on surrounds. In my case, I just dropped the SL and SR channels by 2dB and left it at that as it sounds acceptably balanced to me at the typical volume levels I listening at.


I'm a total fan of DynamicEQ, and leave it engaged for much of my listening, and combine it with the correct RLO on the input to ensure it is using an appropriate range.
It's just that on Atmos, as my example illustrated, it is a major negative. And as others have mentioned, it would be really nice if D&M/Audyssey would decouple the low-frequency compensation from the mess they make of the surrounds and top-rears.

Your trick of manually compensating for the levels in those channels works for content recorded at reference and within a narrow playback range, but for music, I find that content is all over the map in terms of levels. Plus I change the playback levels constantly, as I need to manage my exposure to volume.
It also seems easy to forget to make adjustments and compensate for a recording. 

So a baseline recommendation would be to turn DynEQ off so they can at least start with a frame of reference from a rendering that is accurate. Then if they want to season to taste and engage in adjustments as you describe, they can.


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> So a baseline recommendation would be to turn DynEQ off so they can at least start with a frame of reference from a rendering that is accurate. Then if they want to season to taste and engage in adjustments as you describe, they can.


Looking at it from the other end...

As a baseline recommendation, I'd recommend that people turn it on as the discrepancy between a flat response and the curve required to compensate for human ears being badly broken at low volume levels is enormous.

If equal perceived loudness at all volume levels matters less to a person than precise sound field accuracy then they can leave this off.

The problem with this type of discussion is that it always goes around in circles ad infinitum. The solution is that a person should use whatever settings sound best to them on their own system with their own ears.


----------



## bluesky636

AtmosFTW said:


> The problem with this type of discussion is that it always goes around in circles ad infinitum. The solution is that a person should use whatever settings sound best to them on their own system with their own ears.


Bingo!

For the record, I find JonFo's use of "they" to be quite obnoxious and demeaning.


----------



## JonFo

bluesky636 said:


> Bingo!
> 
> For the record, I find JonFo's use of "they" to be quite obnoxious and demeaning.


For the record: 'They' are the readers of a recommendation, what else would you call the readers?


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> Plus I change the playback levels constantly, as I need to manage my exposure to volume. It also seems easy to forget to make adjustments and compensate for a recording.


Then try Audyssey Dynamic Volume set to Light.

Unless the implementation in your amplifier is somehow non-standard, it's _not_ a dynamic range compressor regardless of what the manual may infer. It's a predictive dynamic volume control, so the entire dynamic range is still present at any instant in time as opposed to DRC where the entire dynamic range is never present.

I've never had to manually adjust the volume control regardless of input volume or genre to keep everything within an acceptable volume range for a given volume control setting with it enabled. Is the average user ever going to notice it in operation? Apart from the obvious benefits it provides, quite possibly not.

It's a well designed tool that's there for your benefit. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it.


----------



## JonFo

AtmosFTW said:


> Looking at it from the other end...
> 
> As a baseline recommendation, I'd recommend that people turn it on as the discrepancy between a flat response and the curve required to compensate for human ears being badly broken at low volume levels is enormous.
> 
> If equal perceived loudness at all volume levels matters less to a person than precise sound field accuracy then they can leave this off.


I hear you, to you, loudness compensation is more critical to your enjoyment, and you are willing to go to some lengths to compensate for or live with the positional skews it entails.

But if composing a guideline for a set of options that would allow someone not intimately familiar with all the variants possible, never mind preferences, to achieve as accurate a 3D audio rendering as possible so they can assess the impact of the format / recording as it was intended by the authors.
Once they have heard that, then as I said, season to taste.



AtmosFTW said:


> The problem with this type of discussion is that it always goes around in circles ad infinitum. The solution is that a person should use whatever settings sound best to them on their own system with their own ears.


Which is why I've tried to clear that what I'm going for is a baseline that delivers accuracy of Atmos rendering. People can then decide, as you have, what other priorities meet their preferences.

As an engineer, and this being AVS, I like knowing the 'correct' settings, and when I asked, no links or summary were provided.


----------



## JonFo

Here is my take on settings for an accurate Atmos rendering baseline

Pre-requisite: Have run the guided setup that uses the Mic to determine levels and distances for the speakers. Ideally, a room correction measurement is also performed, following the guidelines "Official" Audyssey thread Part II 

AVR/Preamp settings 
Note: these must be reviewed/set while actually playing an Atmos track from the desired source, as some options are hidden if the current audio stream does not support them.
These settings are for the common Denon & Marantz processors, other manufacturers and other DRC systems might call these different terms or have additional elements that might need adjusting.
In general, the idea is run with as few level-altering options as possible.

In Audio->Surround Parameters
- Loudness Management: Off

In Audio->Audyssey

MultEQ XT32: ON (if a calibration was run at setup)
Dynamic EQ: OFF (this messes with relative levels and messes with positioning, turn it off)
Dynamic Volume: OFF
LFC: OFF
Target option is to taste, but generally ‘reference’ is what is used to mix movies

In Options->Channel Level adjust

Set all channels to zero (assuming the calibration at setup is correct).
Subwoofer tweaks of a couple of dB are fine

In Options->Dialog Enhancer
- Set to OFF

This should deliver the greatest fidelity with regards to positional accuracy and 3D soundfield.


----------



## AtmosFTW

JonFo said:


> As an engineer, and this being AVS, I like knowing the 'correct' settings, and when I asked, no links or summary were provided.


I too am an engineer but don't generally make mention of it here as it's not relevant to most conversations.

There will be no "correct" settings that apply globally to all setups as your own recommendations show with a number of "tweak to taste" variables that will add their own inaccuracies into the equation. This is why you won't find "correct" settings here or anywhere else for that matter.

Unless people are using identical speakers identically positioned in identical rooms, settings will never be directly transferrable from one system to another. Suggesting that people should still tweak certain aspects to taste could equally take someone farther away from reference as taking them closer.

I'm done here.


----------



## X4100

I'm sorry, as I look back I think it was @JonFo who made the below referenced statement, please accept my apology for misquoting someone, and let's just all get along

Very interesting, as I normally listen at/near reference level when I'm home alone. Sometimes when I feel I'm not getting the best audio performance, I tend to forget I have dynamic eq enabled. The closer I get to reference, IIRC dynamic eq doesn't come into play. My thoughts going forward is I should just disengage dynamic eq, so as to restore the channel balance. I can either accept the fact the audio experience lower than reference will be so so, while listening at reference level/ close to reference, I'll be hearing the best from the disc at hand...?.. here we go again! I just added those last four words behind . Can't we just read what someone writes without all the drama, I mean if they say something you don't agree as the truth to end all truth, then just let it be! While I was writing the first part of this post @JonFo said this "

So a baseline recommendation would be to turn DynEQ off so they can at least start with a frame of reference from a rendering that is accurate. Then if they want to season to taste and engage in adjustments as you describe, they can"
His above statement makes all the sense in the world to me, as it fits my "personal preference ". If I felt like others, I might say that [USER=9575970]@AtmosFTW has lost his mind. "Live and let live" is my new saying as I had a heart attack Thursday afternoon, and I'm setup for catheterization on Monday morning. For the first time in my 68 years of life I saw a 180 degree angle of the sunrise. While I still enjoy Dolby Atmos, it is not the end of the road of life to get, and show ssssooo much irritation at the next guys post on any forum where we're all just sharing what we know, think we know, or even just trying to find out more of what we ENJOY!!!! 🆒


----------



## bluesky636

JonFo said:


> For the record: 'They' are the readers of a recommendation, what else would you call the readers?


I'm sorry. I misspoke. It is you that I find obnoxious and demeaning with your insistence that you are the only one who knows how to properly set up the audio in their home theater. I'm sure that you will next be insisting that we follow your guidelines for proper video setup.

Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## AtmosFTW

X4100 said:


> The closer I get to reference, IIRC dynamic eq doesn't come into play. My thoughts going forward is I should just disengage dynamic eq, so as to restore the channel balance.


Correct. The introduced channel boost on surrounds also diminishes the closer you get to reference levels if my understanding is correct, so the effect of this should be very close to zero when approaching reference levels anyway.

Dynamic EQ Reference Level is also well worth experimenting with. Setting higher values shifts the effect farther down the volume range, so a setting of, say, 5dB means that it'll be flat with respect to -5dB reference instead of 0dB. This will also reduce its effect at very low volumes which is handy for me as my large floorstanders sound too bassy for my liking at low volumes with it set to 0dB.

Have a play. Whatever sounds best to you is the correct choice.


----------



## AtmosFTW

X4100 said:


> If I felt like others, I might say that AtmosFTW has lost his mind. "Live and let live" is my new saying as I had a heart attack Thursday afternoon, and I'm setup for catheterization on Monday morning. For the first time in my 68 years of life I saw a 180 degree angle of the sunrise. While I still enjoy Dolby Atmos, it is not the end of the road of life to get, and show ssssooo much irritation at the next guys post on any forum where we're all just sharing what we know, think we know, or even just trying to find out more of what we ENJOY!!!! 🆒


Sorry to hear about your troubles. Hope they get you sorted soon.

Apologies if I've given anyone the impression that I've lost my mind, but nearly all of JonFo's final list of recommendations after all of the intervening waffle are actually defaults anyway. The rest is tweaking to personal taste which is what we're all doing already.

I don't know whether or not it was just a willy-waving exercise, but it hasn't actually achieved anything apart from confirming that defaults are most likely best from a purely technical point of view which I don't think many people would argue with.

My mistake is that I allow myself to get sucked into circular arguments. I'll do my best to avoid this in future.


----------



## JonFo

AtmosFTW said:


> There will be no "correct" settings that apply globally to all setups as your own recommendations show with a number of "tweak to taste" variables that will add their own inaccuracies into the equation. This is why you won't find "correct" settings here or anywhere else for that matter.


This is why I've referred to this as a baseline, not a mandate. And discuss the potential inaccuracies that creep in with various options/settings.

There are indeed 'correct' settings to obtain a certain result. Picking 'Stereo' as the surround mode on a Dolby Digital feed will not deliver the outcome the mixer intended. That's the class of settings being discussed, not minute, unique per deployment configs.

But if folks are not interested in finding those, then fine, at least I've documented them for myself.


----------



## ppasteur

JonFo said:


> This is why I've referred to this as a baseline, not a mandate. And discuss the potential inaccuracies that creep in with various options/settings.
> 
> There are indeed 'correct' settings to obtain a certain result. Picking 'Stereo' as the surround mode on a Dolby Digital feed will not deliver the outcome the mixer intended. That's the class of settings being discussed, not minute, unique per deployment configs.
> 
> But if folks are not interested in finding those, then fine, at least I've documented them for myself.


Each system and listener is different. So nothing is going to work for everyone. But I think @JonFo did a pretty good job of letting people know a set of parameters that can be used as a starting point for further testing. That is probably as good as we are going to get in response to the OP quite a ways back that mentioned it would be nice to have some sort of cook book approach.
It is not something I would want to tackle because my setting have developed organically over lots of time and much listening. I still tweak things from time to time, then either revert, or keep settings based on ... whatever. But having some kind of starting point and reasons for the settings may well have value to some or maybe even many readers here.
Personally I am glad that he took the time to put his thoughts down. Now if we can keep the egos out of the discussion, everyone will be much happier.


----------



## X4100

I'm right there with you bud! Hey guys Please don't call the cops on me, I'm trying to find a thread that dealt with how Red Tails sounds with DSU upmixing. I've been browsing the upmixing thread....


----------



## MagnumX

If you have to modify the output results of a mode to get something as simple as even channel output, I'd personally call that mode an abject failure. I'd have to be deaf to not notice the differences in rear height and side surround outputs with Dynamic EQ turned on with something as simple as a pink noise test or any of Dolby's various demos. It's not subtle. 

There's almost an 80% boost (6-8dB if I recall correctly) at -20dB to reference and if you manually adjust to compensate for even output you get the opposite effect (even worse IMO) as volume is raised or Audyssey is turned off. Your surrounds then drop in volume instead.

There's a big difference between loudness compensation and screwing around with surround levels, IMO. The latter is proven to change with volume. I hear no evidence that our perception of surround levels change as I can easily pick out the differences by ear in the demos.

So IF you're going to use it, I'd recommend keeping the correct level settings in the preferences and letting it raise the levels rather than compensate and let it lower the levels for surround channels.

In other words, if it was just bass compensation, I'd probably keep using it, but it plays with channel balance too.


----------



## halcyon_888

I haven't heard any mention of what Dynamic EQ does to the heights. Does it apply a level boost to those as well as the surrounds?


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I'm right there with you bud! Hey guys Please don't call the cops on me, I'm trying to find a thread that dealt with how Red Tails sounds with DSU upmixing. I've been browsing the upmixing thread....


Sadly, it sounds _much_ better with Neural X (probably 80% of the Auro-3D rendition), which I'm aware your AVR doesn't have, but I believe there is an Auro-3D upgrade available for that model if I recall correctly, but maybe it's not worth it for just a dozen or so Auro only titles (my other dozen out of 24 Auro-3D native movies have Atmos versions available as well).

Red Tails and Boss Level probably have the most impressive overhead sound of the Auro only titles. 

I think Twister is better in Auro as the sound effects are 6-7dB louder at the same dialog matched levels making it much scarier sounding, but otherwise both are good (some may not want to play it that loud).


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I haven't heard any mention of what Dynamic EQ does to the heights. Does it apply a level boost to those as well as the surrounds?


It definitely applies a boost to to the rear heights (I assume rear Tops as well if they're used instead). Oddly, I'm not sure that it boosts rear surrounds much, if at all. My sides and rear heights were the most affected.

Some settings may have changed a bit, though on D&M. I don't recall seeing a "Loudness Management" setting that @JonFo mentioned. I know they got rid of the "Sub Level" setting mine has, which is a shame since you can store a secondary sub level that's easily switched to compared to the slow options menu or screwing with your primary settings.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> No I think there are literally Atmos tracks that suck. It's pretty clear when playing Atmos demo tracks or top-tier Atmos mixes like Ready Player One, then switching to a Disney "Atmos" mix and being thoroughly disappointed. Someone can A/B different tracks in their home and clearly hear the difference. Setup, room acoustics, or system configuration options are variables that can play into it so there is some subjectivity involved, as well as someone's personal judgment on what is a good or disappointing Atmos mix. But I wouldn't say that most of the negativity is due to setup, room acoustics, or system config--I think most of it is due to the Atmos mixes themselves.


no amount of speaker, setup or acoustic treatment can make bad atmos tracks like Disney ones for example sound good


----------



## crutzulee

I watched the new Venom movie last night on VOD because my kids wanted to see it and it was mercifully short. While I understand the drawbacks of DD+ compression, I have nevertheless been impressed with how well some recent lossy ATMOS tracks have sounded on my system.

This was NOT the case with this title. Although a few scenes activated my transducers and there were a few discrete sound effects placed in the surrounds and height channels, the track was mostly flat. In fact, this may have been one of the most disappointing soundtracks I've heard since upgrading my system to ATMOS. I generally don't need a lot of gimicky whizz bangery to enjoy a movie, but with a superhero action movie like this, I feel that there was a massively wasted opportunity to enhance the narrative.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> no amount of speaker, setup or acoustic treatment can make bad atmos tracks like Disney ones for example sound good


Oh, I dunno. Neural X can do wonders for some soundtracks and it also re-engages the very speakers locked soundtracks don't support so it's sometimes a double win. (e.g. Phantasm, even the 7.1 base track from the Atmos version sounds much more impressive with Neural X than the poor Atmos remaster does native).


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> Some settings may have changed a bit, though on D&M. I don't recall seeing a "Loudness Management" setting that @JonFo mentioned.


I could be wrong of course but my understanding was that "Loudness Management" was the Dolby-specific setting, that's *only *available in the menus when playing back a particular type of Dolby signal, in the same vein as the Dolby "Center Spread" setting. For me, it (and indeed, Center Spread) vanishes and re-appears in the menus depending on the type of Dolby signal I'm feeding it.


----------



## bluesky636

mrtickleuk said:


> I could be wrong of course but my understanding was that "Loudness Management" was the Dolby-specific setting, that's *only *available in the menus when playing back a particular type of Dolby signal, in the same vein as the Dolby "Center Spread" setting. For me, it (and indeed, Center Spread) vanishes and re-appears in the menus depending on the type of Dolby signal I'm feeding it.


From my Denon AVR-X3500H owner's manual:

Loudness Management This sets whether to output as specified in “Dynamic Compression” or output directly without compressing the dynamic range of audio recorded in the disc. On (Default): Outputs are given based on enabling the settings made in “Dynamic Compression” and Dialogue normalization function. Off: “Dynamic Compression” settings and Dialogue normalization are disabled, and the signals on the disc are output as is. “Loudness Management” can be set when Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Atmos signal is input.

Dynamic Compression Compress dynamic range (difference between loud and soft sounds). Auto: Automatic dynamic range compression on/off control according to source. Low / Medium / High: Off: These set the compression level. Dynamic range compression is always off. “Dynamic Compression” can be set when Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Atmos or DTS signal is input. The default setting is “Off”. When the input signal is the Dolby TrueHD or Dolby Atmos source, the default setting is “Auto”. “Auto” cannot be set when inputting a DTS signal.


----------



## MagnumX

Ah, so it's Dolby specific and not a system wide setting. I don't normally touch those or reduce dynamic range, etc.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Ah, so it's Dolby specific and not a system wide setting. I don't normally touch those or reduce dynamic range, etc.


Neither do I.


----------



## ebailey

JonFo said:


> Here is my take on settings for an accurate Atmos rendering baseline
> 
> Pre-requisite: Have run the guided setup that uses the Mic to determine levels and distances for the speakers. Ideally, a room correction measurement is also performed, following the guidelines "Official" Audyssey thread Part II
> 
> AVR/Preamp settings
> Note: these must be reviewed/set while actually playing an Atmos track from the desired source, as some options are hidden if the current audio stream does not support them.
> These settings are for the common Denon & Marantz processors, other manufacturers and other DRC systems might call these different terms or have additional elements that might need adjusting.
> In general, the idea is run with as few level-altering options as possible.
> 
> In Audio->Surround Parameters
> - Loudness Management: Off
> 
> In Audio->Audyssey
> 
> MultEQ XT32: ON (if a calibration was run at setup)
> Dynamic EQ: OFF (this messes with relative levels and messes with positioning, turn it off)
> Dynamic Volume: OFF
> LFC: OFF
> Target option is to taste, but generally ‘reference’ is what is used to mix movies
> 
> In Options->Channel Level adjust
> 
> Set all channels to zero (assuming the calibration at setup is correct).
> Subwoofer tweaks of a couple of dB are fine
> 
> In Options->Dialog Enhancer
> - Set to OFF
> 
> This should deliver the greatest fidelity with regards to positional accuracy and 3D soundfield.


This is a good list and matches what I have done with my Denon 6700 (which also has the "Toole + Bass" Audyssey house curve from the ratbuddysey thread). I would add though that the Dialog Enhancer is outstanding and I have mine set to "Medium" after extensive testing. An NFL game is a great way of hearing the impact of the different levels. So while it may be somewhat less accurate, it is an astoundingly useful feature (and for some it is worth the extra cost of the 6700 over the 4700).


----------



## Travillion

Do height speakers carry any surround data? I am preparing for my first Atmos setup (term used loosely). Like many others, I have an open floor plan so my rear and surround speakers are in the ceiling. While out of plane speakers is not recommended for any setup, I know it's egregious for an Atmos setup. So I'm thinking of trying it in 3.1.2 to preserve the sound field separation, but I worry I will lose all surround information like that. I currently run it as 7.1 and even though I can tell sometimes the side and surround sounds are coming from higher than they should, I'm still glad they're there.


----------



## Wardog555

Height speakers are completely different compared to side and rear surrounds. Second of all its inappropriate to have ceiling speakers act as side and or rear channels.


----------



## niterida

Wardog555 said:


> Height speakers are completely different compared to side and rear surrounds. Second of all its inappropriate to have ceiling speakers act as side and or rear channels.


Thats not what he is asking - he wants to know where the surround and rear surround signal is sent if he has a 3.1.2 Atmos setup



Travillion said:


> Do height speakers carry any surround data? I am preparing for my first Atmos setup (term used loosely). Like many others, I have an open floor plan so my rear and surround speakers are in the ceiling. While out of plane speakers is not recommended for any setup, I know it's egregious for an Atmos setup. So I'm thinking of trying it in 3.1.2 to preserve the sound field separation, but I worry I will lose all surround information like that. I currently run it as 7.1 and even though I can tell sometimes the side and surround sounds are coming from higher than they should, I'm still glad they're there.


I believe the signal is sent to the front L&R speakers - but someone with more knowledge will hopefully confirm or deny that.


----------



## MagnumX

Wardog555 said:


> Height speakers are completely different compared to side and rear surrounds. Second of all *its inappropriate to have ceiling speakers act as side and or rear channels*.


Given Dolby recommended overhead surround speakers until Atmos came out (preferably about 2/3 up the wall, but on-ceiling was acceptable as well), I fail to see how it's "inappropriate" particularly given his current system is not yet Atmos.

I'd want to see a digram or photos of the room, but the _best_ thing to do in such a situation when upgrading to Atmos is to find a place near ear level in the room to _add_ side and/or rear surround speakers and then use the existing ceiling speakers as "Tops" or "Height" speakers depending on their angular location relative to the listening position. Surround speakers can be mounted on stands or any available wall sections. They could even be set up to be dragged out on a stand only when using them and tucked away the rest of the time if appearances are an issue. 

If all else fails, it would be better, IMO to stay with the existing 7.1 system than go to 3.1.2 or 3.1.4 (if the AVR would even allow such a configuration).

"Where" the surround data goes may very well depend on the options used by the mixing engineer. "Snap" settings could very well move the surround data to the front. With it turned off on other soundtracks, it may very well head for the closer speaker which could be overhead. But it doesn't really matter because even if all of it goes to the overhead, there's not going to be any separation between ear level and overhead sounds and that would be the equivalent of having 7.1 sound (at best). At worst, you have no surround information in the surround locations (all in front) and only overhead sounds (again if the AVR even allows it).


----------



## Wardog555

The fact that someone thinks it's not inappropriate to have ceiling speakers as side and rear surrounds has no clue about how surround channels are supposed to work. 
The side surrounds are designed to be at the left and right of you slightly behind so you can hear say gunshots whizzing past you. If you have them too high then it will sound like it's above you. It's rather not designed that way and the only time when sounds are from above you is with Dolby atmos height channels. Say a helicopter is right above and you would hear it from the atmos speakers.

Besides if you run a 3 channel with the fronts only then you will lose all surround sound from the sides. 

End of discussion unless you rather have badly placed surrounds and have a inaccurate representation and not how the directors intended.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Given Dolby recommended overhead surround speakers until Atmos came out (preferably about 2/3 up the wall, but on-ceiling was acceptable as well), I fail to see how it's "inappropriate" particularly given his current system is not yet Atmos.
> 
> I'd want to see a digram or photos of the room, but the _best_ thing to do in such a situation when upgrading to Atmos is to find a place near ear level in the room to _add_ side and/or rear surround speakers and then use the existing ceiling speakers as "Tops" or "Height" speakers depending on their angular location relative to the listening position. Surround speakers can be mounted on stands or any available wall sections. They could even be set up to be dragged out on a stand only when using them and tucked away the rest of the time if appearances are an issue.
> 
> If all else fails, it would be better, IMO to stay with the existing 7.1 system than go to 3.1.2 or 3.1.4 (if the AVR would even allow such a configuration).
> 
> "Where" the surround data goes may very well depend on the options used by the mixing engineer. "Snap" settings could very well move the surround data to the front. With it turned off on other soundtracks, it may very well head for the closer speaker which could be overhead. But it doesn't really matter because even if all of it goes to the overhead, there's not going to be any separation between ear level and overhead sounds and that would be the equivalent of having 7.1 sound (at best). At worst, you have no surround information in the surround locations (all in front) and only overhead sounds (again if the AVR even allows it).





Wardog555 said:


> The fact that someone thinks it's not inappropriate to have ceiling speakers as side and rear surrounds has no clue about how surround channels are supposed to work.
> The side surrounds are designed to be at the left and right of you slightly behind so you can hear say gunshots whizzing past you. If you have them too high then it will sound like it's above you. It's rather not designed that way and the only time when sounds are from above you is with Dolby atmos height channels. Say a helicopter is right above and you would hear it from the atmos speakers.
> 
> Besides if you run a 3 channel with the fronts only then you will lose all surround sound from the sides.
> 
> End of discussion unless you rather have badly placed surrounds and have a inaccurate representation and not how the directors intended.


Wow.

MagnumX has been a member here since 2006 with over 3800 posts. Wardog555 has been a member for 30 days with a whopping 33 posts. Whose opinion should I give the most credence to? Hmmm. Let me think about that. While I'm thinking, here is a photo of the left side and rear surrounds in my 7.1 system.


__
https://flic.kr/p/2ij1cMX

The right hand side and rear surrounds have even less wall to work with. The speakers are Polk bipolar surrounds. The ceiling is a cathedral type with a big fan at the peak. Couch is on the left and the tv (65" LG) along the right of the photo with the LCR speakers (also Polk). 

Now I obviously have no clue how surround speakers are supposed to work but I can hear sound images above, behind, and at ear level with a well recorded 7.1 sound track or a 5.1 with DTS Neural X. I personally don't like having speakers blasting into my or my wife's ears.

So, yeah Mr. Wardog555, this discussion is over. I happen to think my system sounds great as do others who have heard it and I am quite pleased with it.


----------



## jpco

Travillion said:


> Do height speakers carry any surround data? I am preparing for my first Atmos setup (term used loosely). Like many others, I have an open floor plan so my rear and surround speakers are in the ceiling. While out of plane speakers is not recommended for any setup, I know it's egregious for an Atmos setup. So I'm thinking of trying it in 3.1.2 to preserve the sound field separation, but I worry I will lose all surround information like that. I currently run it as 7.1 and even though I can tell sometimes the side and surround sounds are coming from higher than they should, I'm still glad they're there.


If you have rear and surround in the ceiling and no way to add base level surrounds, I’d stick with 7.1. I would not forego surround to have height speakers (if that’s even possible).


----------



## Travillion

Thank you all for the feedback. I am aware that surround and height speakers are different, and that my setup is not ideal. It's in my living room, not a home theater room. I have no expectation that it will perform better than it is capable of. It is the best that I was willing to make it given the constraints of my room (no wall to the left or rear) and my family (little kids running around = no speaker stands and cables). I am willing to accept these limitations.

So the question really came down to, and was summarized by the second responder, will I lose all surround data if I ditch the surround the speakers? The answer, it seems, is maybe. I ask because Dolby made a big deal out of how Atmos is "object-based" audio instead of discrete channels. So, I didn't know if the AVR would look at where my speakers are and do it's best to render the objects appropriately through whatever speakers it has available, be it height or misplaced surround, or if Atmos still acts like discrete channels (i.e., height encoded channels, LFRC, and side/surround, etc.).

The most common consensus seems to be stick with my hacked 7.1 setup, which would be disappointing to me but may be best nonetheless.


----------



## sdurani

Travillion said:


> So the question really came down to, and was summarized by the second responder, will I lose all surround data if I ditch the surround the speakers? The answer, it seems, is maybe.


You won't lose ANY surround data, it will simply be downmixed to the available speakers.


----------



## chi_guy50

Travillion said:


> Thank you all for the feedback. I am aware that surround and height speakers are different, and that my setup is not ideal. It's in my living room, not a home theater room. I have no expectation that it will perform better than it is capable of. It is the best that I was willing to make it given the constraints of my room (no wall to the left or rear) and my family (little kids running around = no speaker stands and cables). I am willing to accept these limitations.
> 
> So the question really came down to, and was summarized by the second responder, will I lose all surround data if I ditch the surround the speakers? The answer, it seems, is maybe. I ask because Dolby made a big deal out of how Atmos is "object-based" audio instead of discrete channels. So, I didn't know if the AVR would look at where my speakers are and do it's best to render the objects appropriately through whatever speakers it has available, be it height or misplaced surround, or if Atmos still acts like discrete channels (i.e., height encoded channels, LFRC, and side/surround, etc.).
> 
> The most common consensus seems to be stick with my hacked 7.1 setup, which would be disappointing to me but may be best nonetheless.


As Sanjay has just confirmed, you won't lose any data--but the bed sounds intended to localize adjecent to the MLP will instead come from the front speakers. Nonetheless, if I were in your situation I would prioritize 7.1 with the in-ceiling surrounds that appear to be working for you over 3.1.2 or even 3.1.4.

IMHO it's not even a close call.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

I’d stick to 7.1 also.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> The right hand side and rear surrounds have even less wall to work with. The speakers are Polk bipolar surrounds. The ceiling is a cathedral type with a big fan at the peak. Couch is on the left and the tv (65" LG) along the right of the photo with the LCR speakers (also Polk).


It looks like you could put ear level speakers on the bookshelf at the "table top" level easily enough facing towards the listener and again at the back (You'd then set ceiling speakers as top middle and rear height and new bottoms as side surround and if on back wall too as rear surround, getting as much as 7.1.4 with the possibility of front heights as well (or one set could be moved there). 

I'd need to see the other wall/side, of course but speaker stands for smaller bookshelf type speakers are also an option. You might not like the appearance of a speaker there, of course, but most speaker makers do have white speakers that could at least blend in with that white bookshelf.



> Now I obviously have no clue how surround speakers are supposed to work but I can hear sound images above, behind, and at ear level with a well recorded 7.1 sound track or a 5.1 with DTS Neural X. I personally don't like having speakers blasting into my or my wife's ears.


As long as they are more than 3 feet away, they really shouldn't be an issue. The levels will be lowered if they are closer to your deaging position. You can also put them in front of you on the side and behind you so neither points directly at your ears. That's how mine are and they sound great.



> So, yeah Mr. Wardog555, this discussion is over. I happen to think my system sounds great as do others who have heard it and I am quite pleased with it.


I don't know his age, but he clearly never heard of pre-Atmos Dolby recommendations and must have never been to a real movie theater in his life (or didn't look around) as the surround speakers are and have always been well overhead at the theater, even Atmos theaters. 

"Ear level" surround speakers are a very recent thing with Home Atmos and designed to give more separation between layers with lower ceilings. However, with more than one row of seats, it becomes an issue since the chairs and heads tend to block the speakers and it can become muffled sounding so most pro setups put them just above head level for more than one row and then on the ceiling, etc. 

Putting surrounds between rows (and arraying the main channels if needed) can get around part of the issue as well and here I use that plus dialog lift in the front to keep ear level yet get clear sound in rows two and three. I actually have four sets of side surround channels arrayed for Auro-3D and three sets for Atmos (rear set of side surrounds become rear surrounds and the set in-between gets side+rear and front wides get main+sides). 

This also helps even out levels between the front and back if the room reducing the difference for row 2 from 4dB to less than 2dB. There's a reason cinemas use arrays....


----------



## Gates

bluesky636 said:


> Wow.
> 
> MagnumX has been a member here since 2006 with over 3800 posts. Wardog555 has been a member for 30 days with a whopping 33 posts. Whose opinion should I give the most credence to? Hmmm. Let me think about that. While I'm thinking, here is a photo of the left side and rear surrounds in my 7.1 system.
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2ij1cMX
> 
> The right hand side and rear surrounds have even less wall to work with. The speakers are Polk bipolar surrounds. The ceiling is a cathedral type with a big fan at the peak. Couch is on the left and the tv (65" LG) along the right of the photo with the LCR speakers (also Polk).
> 
> Now I obviously have no clue how surround speakers are supposed to work but I can hear sound images above, behind, and at ear level with a well recorded 7.1 sound track or a 5.1 with DTS Neural X. I personally don't like having speakers blasting into my or my wife's ears.
> 
> So, yeah Mr. Wardog555, this discussion is over. I happen to think my system sounds great as do others who have heard it and I am quite pleased with it.


What does post count have to do with anything? Doesn't mean a new member can't be some expert coming in (not saying that he is).


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> It looks like you could put ear level speakers on the bookshelf at the "table top" level easily enough facing towards the listener and again at the back (You'd then set ceiling speakers as top middle and rear height and new bottoms as side surround and if on back wall too as rear surround, getting as much as 7.1.4 with the possibility of front heights as well (or one set could be moved there).
> 
> I'd need to see the other wall/side, of course but speaker stands for smaller bookshelf type speakers are also an option. You might not like the appearance of a speaker there, of course, but most speaker makers do have white speakers that could at least blend in with that white bookshelf.


Thanks for the advice but no thanks.

Here is the other side:


__
https://flic.kr/p/2mN1kgn

Anything on that side would be blasting into the recliner whether someone is sitting there or not and sound would be blocked from getting to the other side of the couch. The wall ends just to the left opening up into the breakfast nook. No place to put anything on a stand. The entire back wall is windowed.

On the side of my original photo, the boxes on the main shelf where a speaker could go are wooden urns holding the ashes of our 5 Golden Retrievers. Kinda sacred ground so to speak. 

The wall section above the shelves was added specifically to mount a speaker. The speakers themselves are placed for maximum reflections off the available walls. Each speaker has one woofer and two tweeters with the woofer/tweeters side aimed in the direction of the listeners and each single tweeter aimed into the overall room. 

Finally, my AVR is a Denon 3500 with only 7 channels. Being retired, a new AVR with more channels is not in the budget. 

Quite happy with the sound I get.  

I agree with all your other comments about you know who.


----------



## bluesky636

Gates said:


> What does post count have to do with anything? Doesn't mean a new member can't be some expert coming in (not saying that he is).


Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. He certainly needs to learn some manners.



Wardog555 said:


> The fact that someone thinks it's not inappropriate to have ceiling speakers as side and rear surrounds has no clue about how surround channels are supposed to work.





Wardog555 said:


> End of discussion unless you rather have badly placed surrounds and have a inaccurate representation and not how the directors intended.


----------



## crutzulee

Travillion said:


> Thank you all for the feedback. I am aware that surround and height speakers are different, and that my setup is not ideal. It's in my living room, not a home theater room. I have no expectation that it will perform better than it is capable of. It is the best that I was willing to make it given the constraints of my room (no wall to the left or rear) and my family (little kids running around = no speaker stands and cables). I am willing to accept these limitations.
> 
> So the question really came down to, and was summarized by the second responder, will I lose all surround data if I ditch the surround the speakers? The answer, it seems, is maybe. I ask because Dolby made a big deal out of how Atmos is "object-based" audio instead of discrete channels. So, I didn't know if the AVR would look at where my speakers are and do it's best to render the objects appropriately through whatever speakers it has available, be it height or misplaced surround, or if Atmos still acts like discrete channels (i.e., height encoded channels, LFRC, and side/surround, etc.).
> 
> The most common consensus seems to be stick with my hacked 7.1 setup, which would be disappointing to me but may be best nonetheless.


While I'm in agreement with the consensus view that you should stick with your 7.1 setup given your room constraints, you could try adding ATMOS upfiring modules on top of your front L/R pairs to see if you can derive a decent soundfield in your room.


----------



## Rich 63

Gates said:


> What does post count have to do with anything? Doesn't mean a new member can't be some expert coming in (not saying that he is).


You are correct anybody new could be an expert. Problem is its been confrontational in many posts. You dont introduce yourself by being confrontational. Magnum can be prickly too but he is well informed. Right now ive seen nothing from wardog other then follow the guidelines exacty or go away. Most cant follow exact and compromise.


----------



## Travillion

I really do appreciate the feedback and discussion, and I'm not one to dismiss advice. The current consensus is that ear-level LCR and ceiling rear/surrounds will sound better as a 7.1 than a 3.1.2 or hacked 5.1.2, because of sound field separation. Since this is the overwhelming opinion, I will setup my new AVR accordingly and try it out.

But.... For the sake of argument, can you clarify this? From my inexperienced perspective, it seems like my default or baseline is the 7.1, and in this situation I get misplaced side/rear effects. I still enjoy this, sounds are generally well placed even if I do notice sometimes that they are misplaced vertically. So, at default, I have no height effects and appreciated but misplaced surround sound effects. Converting this to a hacked 5.1.2 will give me properly placed height effects and (still) misplaced surrounds.

From this arithmetic it seems like the 5.1.2 would be no worse than the 7.1, but could be better because I have the addition of overhead speakers and a more nuanced Atmos track.

Since this is not the prevalent perspective, what am I missing?

Thanks!


----------



## jpco

Travillion said:


> I really do appreciate the feedback and discussion, and I'm not one to dismiss advice. The current consensus is that ear-level LCR and ceiling rear/surrounds will sound better as a 7.1 than a 3.1.2 or hacked 5.1.2, because of sound field separation. Since this is the overwhelming opinion, I will setup my new AVR accordingly and try it out.
> 
> But.... For the sake of argument, can you clarify this? From my inexperienced perspective, it seems like my default or baseline is the 7.1, and in this situation I get misplaced side/rear effects. I still enjoy this, sounds are generally well placed even if I do notice sometimes that they are misplaced vertically. So, at default, I have no height effects and appreciated but misplaced surround sound effects. Converting this to a hacked 5.1.2 will give me properly placed height effects and (still) misplaced surrounds.
> 
> From this arithmetic it seems like the 5.1.2 would be no worse than the 7.1, but could be better because I have the addition of overhead speakers and a more nuanced Atmos track.
> 
> Since this is not the prevalent perspective, what am I missing?
> 
> Thanks!


What kind of separation would there be between surrounds and heights? Where would the heights be? I guess using your sides as top speakers and rears in the ceiling as surrounds would give you something to try. My opinion is that 5.1 is most important to have as good as possible. Side surrounds are most important (outside of LCR) for the sound field of virtually all mixes. 

If you really want to try Atmos, upfiring modules would be something to try, either as 7.1.2 or 5.1.4. But with 4 speakers in the ceiling, I’m not sure how it will sound. I would not go with 3.1.4 in any case.


----------



## bluesky636

Travillion said:


> Since this is not the prevalent perspective, what am I missing?


Sometimes you just have to learn to say "enough".

I looked at many ways to install an Atmos system in our great room. I quickly realized I was just beating my head into the wall. Because of the configuration of walls and ceiling there is no good way to separate Atmos and bed level speakers. But by using the four Polk speakers in bipolar mode I find that I get a combination of diffuse and direct sound that works quite well. The rain at the T-Rex paddock in Jurassic Park sounds like it's coming down from the ceiling on me. When Carroll Shelby lands his plane in Ford v Ferrari, it comes from above and behind, and flies directly overhead and into the TV. Finally in the Netflix version of the Haunting of Hill House when there was banging on the walls of the funeral home, they started far to my right (it sounded like someone banging on the doors to our screened porch) and traveled around the room at ear level. Scared the crap out of me.

With your setup, is it possible to point the tweeters of your ceiling speakers so that they aim more towards your ears versus straight down? Some speakers allow that. If yours don't you might consider replacing them with ones that do and stick with 7.1.

Good luck.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

UCI tower park, UK where I got my cinema projection back 1989, used experiential overhead surround in all ten screens and this was 1989, eat that auro/dtsxliemax/atmos, 1989. 

The cinema speaker PA system was, EV electro-voice duel x15 cabs and large HF (two-way) horn and surrounds was (three-way). All surrounds can be seen in this rare pictures that appeared on fb some years ago by another poster that got them from another poster.

Overhead surround seems like more big deal to some now and less of big deal even when around 2002 for 'we where soldiers'that used in one cinema a cluster of speakers for the overhead surround, dubbed "sonic whole overhead" that used the extra channel on the Dolby SA10 or CP45 with an anti-phase signal would have been mixed in so the signal steers to the rear mono matrix surround channel. EX was and even can be used a LCRS.

All screens used Vic V 35mm with Dolby Stereo CP55 with SRA5 and basic amplifiers from Quad that was modified, with gain volume level placed behind the amp so not to be tampered with. Only three amps in the sound rack one amp for LR 2nd amp for centre and 3rd amp for the surrounds. 

When I heard atmos at the Empire Leicester Square, 2013 'star trek into darkness' I sort of sighed at the captain kirk voice panning overhead cos it reminded me of how overhead surround sounded back at tower park, sure so what atmos and all the other copycat formats auro3d and dtsx liemax, discrete sound so what. Both are rubbish that have no proper Z axis Below discrete surround. I would have thought dolby labs would have designed that into its encoding/decoding mixing. Just a waste of my almost 10 years of listening. Of course most if, you thinking what's below surround? It should have been part of the package at day one.

You can apply an outboard matrix decoder to the AVR surrounds and get that 'unbroken' first 6mins with some planes whooshing underneath the seating of course has to be real cinema seats or can be fitted flush into wooden floor and seat riser so you get sense of the airplane as it flies towards the bomber plane and whooshes underneath the plane. even thou impossible to hear cos of the inside of the bomber plane would be so noisy it be impossible to hear. But the sound is there in the mix. 






























Below surround located underneath Irwin rocker seating. I use the centre + signal output from the matrix as the centre-phantom is being decoded extracted from tghe side surround. The middle overhead as already been decoded by the Denon 8500 Atmos on height 2 of three overhead channels I use, actually I use a lot more than that. 

The other below matrix surround is located at back middle row, JBL control 1 as they are manageable for underneath and sound reflecting upwards then spreads out due to it being reflected and works surprisingly well. And yes I can hear high frequencies cos they also display on the RTA. 

Oh the Bass shakers nothing unusually I use them on floor as well as the seat buckets. So when my feet are on the floor I feel vibrations like I would in real life on bus and when rising feet off the floor, you'd feel less vibration. 









For my below matrix surround and centre middle back surround plus extra channel matrix outputs I use cheap Dolby CP45 that is the same as Dolby SA10 EX. The dts Cad no longer used in the rack, the SRA5 I may install x6 of them back the system. 










Denon 8500 placed top of rack right side. 





























Overhead surrounds not atmos/auro/dtsx, "Overhead surrounds" I use x3 per height 1, 2 and 3 where I extract the centre-phantom and have matrix centre middle, well god? reversed is dog and I call them DOG channels Dolby Overhead god.
When decoding any of this overhead surround discrete is merely stereo pair speakers. I cottoned onto this very quickly and wanted something way better cos now I get precise sound location when its panning around. If the signal is say, 'Ad Astra' most of, brad pitt, narration dialog sounds from middle overhead or DOG 2 and the mix on that movie only uses Height 2 for the stereo overheads as well as in centre front.

JBL 8330 mkII side back surrounds came from famous dubbing stage Twickenham film studios at really cheap. The Overhead JBL 8330A with last one that is DOG 3 at middle height 3, came from USA as I brought all of them from ebay UK cos they was selling mega cheap, and I needed a 3rd one for DOG 3 that arrived very quickly and was installed with some help. They use some good drywall wall plugs that bolt in and tighten up.












120" AT screen wall to wall with Five screen wide and no has nothing to do with front wide channels. I'm surprised I, managed with great exhausting hours testing to get the five screen matrix to work as usually speakers this, close together can be changeling. I get nice half-centre pans on 'Gravity' though to the side surround arrays and behind as well as, overhead and between the overheads plus little extra more as I use summed signal from the x3 Dolby SA10 in the amp rack with some more extra surrounds on the floor at the front and middle to back of the room that really fills in the surround imaging gaps.
JBL 4673A very rare on ebay and got these ultra cheap, cheap so cheap I could have swear I got them at Tandy.
JBL 4645/C subs left to right with rare JBL 4682 TCB middle behind the Oled that and 2nd behind the back row seating. 
The JBL 2380A horns wow I can tune EQ them many ways that I have THX experimented with and they still use the original diaphragms dated 1989, wow. That was good 1989 year for some neat sounding Dolby Stereo movies. 

In all total of x110 JBL speakers at 38.000kw THX. I wanted the best at cheap, cheap which is obtainable if you look around.











Dolby SA10 they look cool and was ultra cheap as fish and chips at a restaurant for party of 4.
Above cinema professional THX booth crossover/monitor x3 of which I privately own. The SA10 decode my height 1, 2 and 3 into four extra channels matrix which is better than nothing.


----------



## niterida

^^^^^ WTF ?


----------



## ppasteur

@ultimatehomecinema 

Wow "at *38.000kw*" . Is that really 38 million watts ? How are your mains setup. 110 speakers? How big is the room?.
But I bet you can give some real ear bleeding headaches with that system. If not gelatinize internal organs..
I do admire your engineering skills though. Very interesting design and implementation. Maybe a bit more complexity than a typical user wants. Not too pertinent to a Dolby Atmos thread either. Especially since you bad mouth Atmos repeatedly...
But like I said, very, very interesting.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Thanks for the advice but no thanks.
> 
> Here is the other side:
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2mN1kgn
> 
> Anything on that side would be blasting into the recliner whether someone is sitting there or not and sound would be blocked from getting to the other side of the couch. The wall ends just to the left opening up into the breakfast nook. No place to put anything on a stand. The entire back wall is windowed.
> 
> On the side of my original photo, the boxes on the main shelf where a speaker could go are wooden urns holding the ashes of our 5 Golden Retrievers. Kinda sacred ground so to speak.
> 
> The wall section above the shelves was added specifically to mount a speaker. The speakers themselves are placed for maximum reflections off the available walls. Each speaker has one woofer and two tweeters with the woofer/tweeters side aimed in the direction of the listeners and each single tweeter aimed into the overall room.
> 
> Finally, my AVR is a Denon 3500 with only 7 channels. Being retired, a new AVR with more channels is not in the budget.
> 
> Quite happy with the sound I get.
> 
> I agree with all your other comments about you know who.


I was thinking a speaker would work great right where that cyan picnic basket looking thing is sitting a few feet in front of the chair/couch. Match on other side and you could have 5.1.4. No speaker playing in anyone's ear either.


----------



## bluesky636

niterida said:


> ^^^^^ WTF ?


I'm certainly confused.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> I was thinking a speaker would work great right where that cyan picnic basket looking thing is sitting a few feet in front of the chair/couch. Match on other side and you could have 5.1.4. No speaker playing in anyone's ear either.


Sorry, but that's a no go. And again, I only have 7 channels. Not gonna buy another AVR and wife would never approve.


----------



## chi_guy50

Travillion said:


> From this arithmetic it seems like the 5.1.2 would be no worse than the 7.1, but could be better because I have the addition of overhead speakers and a more nuanced Atmos track.
> 
> Since this is not the prevalent perspective, what am I missing?


In a nutshell, the main advantage of an immersive audio mix is the expansion of the sound field into three dimensions with the use of audio objects that can take full advantage of the resulting bubble to place sounds precisely on the x/y/z-axes or pan them through the listening space.

But this requires a meaningful separation between the listener- and height-level planes, failing which the bubble collapses. If your overhead speakers (the x.x.2 in your above equation) are on the same horizontal plane as your surrounds, you have greatly defeated the ability to perceive a heightened effect; sounds intended to emanate at ear level will come from overhead, and height elements will be inseparable from the bed level in the rear sound field. You will still benefit from the object-based authoring but to a very compromised degree.

Perhaps you could experiment by temporarily placing a couple of additional speakers adjacent to the MLP as surrounds and test out some Dolby Atmos or DTS:X demo material in a 5.1.4 configuration. If you feel the improvement is worthwhile it might give you motivation to find a way to accommodate those surrounds in the future (many of us, myself included, who lack a dedicated home theater have found ingenious ways to squeeze additional speakers into a multipurpose room). In the meanwhile, you can console yourself with a decent 7.1.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

ppasteur said:


> @ultimatehomecinema
> 
> Wow "at *38.000kw*" . Is that really 38 million watts ? How are your mains setup. 110 speakers? How big is the room?.
> But I bet you can give some real ear bleeding headaches with that system. If not gelatinize internal organs..
> I do admire your engineering skills though. Very interesting design and implementation. Maybe a bit more complexity than a typical user wants. Not too pertinent to a Dolby Atmos thread either. Especially since you bad mouth Atmos repeatedly...
> But like I said, very, very interesting.


Well I spent money on it and when some atnmos mixes, upmixes repeatably scamming the public I'm not amused. Oh dolby labs only licences it they have no control over the mixes. 
Mostly I switched back to 5.1 after all that is what the system is designed for?

imax always liked and still I guess likes bragging about its 44 speakers at 10.000kw. I wouldn't know I not been to real imax 70 since it was demolished in 2013. So I brag my rights at x110 and still room for more cheap priced JBL. Room is dinky size ('16.2" length) ('10.6" wide) thou I only use (9'.2" of that width) so the AT screen appears large. (7'.8" Height) and yes even shallow height ceilings overhead work fine and often defused depending on where sat at back row and like real life, some sounds can be defused and confusing as to where its coming from outdoors due to lots of reflective off, buildings the road surfaces and often be muffled in grass. But I can locate some of the sound/fx on the overhead say, 'Terminator dark fate' "hey lady" that guy drops an engine on that terminator that sounds on height 1, Or later on, "he's found us" hear the helicopter sound close-up inside the helicopter then long wide shot as it approaches and whoohes overhead height 1 to height 2 and lastly on height 3 right side overhead, draws my attention looking over my shoulder. 

How many are using subs connected to the overhead surrounds? As it is very few and far between, rare that the overhead surrounds will see lows down to 20Hz? Not that I checked on my system, connected to RTA to see how many movies go down below 40Hz or 30Hz my JBL 8330A would just manage but better with a sub and bass management DSP crossover to take Height 1 2 3 and then, you know how to do it? Crossover it at 100Hz or 80Hz or I would ensnarement lower using Behringer DCX246. 

Cross the wires on height 1 2 3 + and single gnd and connect to single line input on DCX2496 cos what ever comes out of height 1 in bass if, if it goes low enough? Would go to sub or if all three Overheads are playing same time with low end? Then the signal gets summed up many dB more. won't do no harm to the system if connected that way I see 0 point doing subs for height 1 2 3 when two subs playing the signals, you get what I mean??

I seen some home cinemas using actual JBL 4645C mounted on the walls of their larger room. that ain't happening in mine, so I can put the signal to other subs in the room. Would be interesting how low does the discrete overheads play at and for how many seconds? To see if its worthwhile?


----------



## niterida

^^^^ WTF ?
Who is this guy ?


----------



## Magiclakez

Wow!


----------



## bluesky636

niterida said:


> ^^^^ WTF ?
> Who is this guy ?


Check out his other posts.


----------



## sjm817

ppasteur said:


> @ultimatehomecinema
> 
> Maybe a bit more complexity than a typical user wants.


I hereby nominate you for the 2021 understatement of the year award. 🏆


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ultimatehomecinema said:


> Well I spent money on it and when some atnmos mixes, upmixes repeatably scamming the public I'm not amused. Oh dolby labs only licences it they have no control over the mixes.
> Mostly I switched back to 5.1 after all that is what the system is designed for?
> 
> imax always liked and still I guess likes bragging about its 44 speakers at 10.000kw. I wouldn't know I not been to real imax 70 since it was demolished in 2013. So I brag my rights at x110 and still room for more cheap priced JBL. Room is dinky size ('16.2" length) ('10.6" wide) thou I only use (9'.2" of that width) so the AT screen appears large. (7'.8" Height) and yes even shallow height ceilings overhead work fine and often defused depending on where sat at back row and like real life, some sounds can be defused and confusing as to where its coming from outdoors due to lots of reflective off, buildings the road surfaces and often be muffled in grass. But I can locate some of the sound/fx on the overhead say, 'Terminator dark fate' "hey lady" that guy drops an engine on that terminator that sounds on height 1, Or later on, "he's found us" hear the helicopter sound close-up inside the helicopter then long wide shot as it approaches and whoohes overhead height 1 to height 2 and lastly on height 3 right side overhead, draws my attention looking over my shoulder.
> 
> How many are using subs connected to the overhead surrounds? As it is very few and far between, rare that the overhead surrounds will see lows down to 20Hz? Not that I checked on my system, connected to RTA to see how many movies go down below 40Hz or 30Hz my JBL 8330A would just manage but better with a sub and bass management DSP crossover to take Height 1 2 3 and then, you know how to do it? Crossover it at 100Hz or 80Hz or I would ensnarement lower using Behringer DCX246.
> 
> Cross the wires on height 1 2 3 + and single gnd and connect to single line input on DCX2496 cos what ever comes out of height 1 in bass if, if it goes low enough? Would go to sub or if all three Overheads are playing same time with low end? Then the signal gets summed up many dB more. won't do no harm to the system if connected that way I see 0 point doing subs for height 1 2 3 when two subs playing the signals, you get what I mean??
> 
> I seen some home cinemas using actual JBL 4645C mounted on the walls of their larger room. that ain't happening in mine, so I can put the signal to other subs in the room. Would be interesting how low does the discrete overheads play at and for how many seconds? To see if its worthwhile?


Well, that is certainly a lot of words that say... something. Is there a question about Atmos in there?


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, that is certainly a lot of words that say... something. Is there a question about Atmos in there?


I can't follow most of what he is talking about.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, that is certainly a lot of words that say... something. Is there a question about Atmos in there?


I think he was just saying that Atmos is absolutely rubbish, and especially so compared to his 5.1 system with 100 speakers on the ceiling - or something like that ...........


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Man, I thought “I” was drunk….. Is there English in there?
Maybe it’s a language barrier?


----------



## Rich 63

niterida said:


> ^^^^ WTF ?
> Who is this guy ?


 I know. Has any body noticed an influx of weird posts like this over the last while?


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> I know. Has any body noticed an influx of weird posts like this over the last while?


Yup


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Magiclakez said:


> Wow!


You drink I listen cos trivia drinking impairs on the auditory that' why I pour orange juice for Vit D it improves my state of tinnitus. But otherwise thank you, for the drink.


----------



## Magiclakez

ultimatehomecinema said:


> You drink I listen cos trivia drinking impairs on the auditory that' why I pour orange juice for Vit D it improves my state of tinnitus. But otherwise thank you, for the drink.


That’s subjective and open for a healthy debate; from my perspective it adds another dimension to the entire immersive experience. 🤣. 

Anyways you’re most welcome…Cheers 🍻


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Polyrythm1k said:


> Man, I thought “I” was drunk….. Is there English in there?
> Maybe it’s a language barrier?


stop it, just please stop it. I type and speak differently but I put together an awesome system


sjm817 said:


> I hereby nominate you for the 2021 understatement of the year award. 🏆


Oh, I am humble and like everyone to be the same that way. what they mix there is what they would/should hear here.

This atmos needs more matrix below surround, for now that is until there is a mkII atmos which should have happened at least by now? Well there was A-type and no one would have guessed there would be SR around mid 80's that took another improvement step in state of the sound playback and another few years until first digital sound attempts using, was it VHS or Betamax tape synced with film to provide a better frequency response? Then a few more years later CDS digital discrete sound delivery that lasted short while then, SR-D and so on with other competitors dts, SDDS. Thou I think SDDS wins with most channels for 200 SDDS 8ch titles while rest was just few thousand SDDS 6ch. 

But digital sound delivery offers way of putting more and more channels and time codes to sync it all.

Dolby trueHD offered 16 channels capability right at beginning years ago but never came about until many years later.
16 channels, umm? 

1) L
2) C
3) R
4) Ls
5) Rs
7) Rbs
8) LFE

9) L Overhead surround (between LR Overhead surround can use some additional matrix encode/decode for some extra matrix channels)
10) R Overhead surround (between LR Overhead surround can use some additional matrix encode/decode for some extra matrix channels)

11) R Below underneath surround (this is where it gets complex due to how long is a piece of sting and how many channels are really needed? Our hearing and for below surround would easily detect the source of the speaker there is no if, but or vote about it. There would have to be many below discrete surround channels or most of the below surround speakers would have to be defused like a dipolar effect.

12) R Below underneath surround


13) Upper front L additionally these channels can use some matrix decoding there is no shame in that.
14) Upper front R

15) Below front L additionally these channels can use some matrix decoding there is no shame in that.
16) Below front R

That's it all 16 channels used up and there is no channels leftover for discrete Upper front centre and Below front centre, cos what use is the panning effect to move sounds upwards side to side and diagonally behind the AT screen?

okay atmos claim is 64 channels, even thou my CB radio can do 200 channels of listening/modulation, the irony, only 8 weeks ago managed to reach USA on 200watts due to solar sun flare conditions that produced wonderful listening conditions in the ionosphere.

64 channels now?

Okay let me start with screen channels since the common LCR and even five screen is outdated five screen 70mm Todd-AO been around since 1960's and has only been revived into baby boom for Lc Rc and then, Sony SDDS resurrected it for L Lc C Rc R. But it's still outdated.

Fifteen screen channel yes, 15 screen channels so they can move side to side up and down and diagonally. 

Upper screen channels
L Lc C Rc R
Middle screen channels
L Lc C Rc R
Below screen channels
L Lc C Rc R

Sidewall surround. I think the pan-through makes decent sense of moving the sound along the sidewall surrounds into the back wall surrounds, home only needs so many, be large cinema surrounds or smaller bookshelf which equals even more due to size of the speaker and yet sound air particles is so tiny in size that gets disturbed and excites and propagates. Got to reduce and divide the surround number down now.

I think x4 sidewall surrounds should be enough. Okay so they pan-through.

Left sidewall surround 1
Left sidewall surround 2
Left sidewall surround 3
Left sidewall surround 4

Right sidewall surround 1
Right sidewall surround 2
Right sidewall surround 3
Right sidewall surround 4

Left back wall surround 1
Left back wall surround 2
Left back wall surround 3

Centre middle back wall surround 1

Right back wall surround 1
Right back wall surround 2
Right back wall surround 3

30 channels used so far.

Overhead surrounds. 1 being front and 2 and 3 and so on moving back along the ceiling.

Left ceiling overhead surround 1
Left ceiling overhead surround 2
Left ceiling overhead surround 3
Left ceiling overhead surround 4

Right ceiling overhead surround 1
Right ceiling overhead surround 2
Right ceiling overhead surround 3 
Right ceiling overhead surround 4

Centre middle overhead surround discrete is going to be needed. Again 1 being front and 2 and 3 etc, moving back along the ceiling length.

Centre middle overhead surround 1
Centre middle overhead surround 2
Centre middle overhead surround 3
Centre middle overhead surround 4

Now for the below surround based at floor level. These can be used with smaller bookshelf speakers or speakers flush mounted in the wooden floor and would require regular cleaning due to gravity, like dust and other items that can find there way though the metal protective floor grills with thin layer fabric/filter to collect dust.

Floor Left below surround 1
Floor Left below surround 2
Floor Left below surround 3
Floor Left below surround 4

Floor Right below surround 1
Floor Right below surround 2
Floor Right below surround 3
Floor Right below surround 4

Floor centre below surround 1
Floor centre below surround 2
Floor centre below surround 3
Floor centre below surround 4

Edit: overview that simply isn't enough surrounds for sidewall back wall. There would have to be additionally an upper sidewall and the common middle sidewall that has been what since 1940 fataasound? Below sidewall surround and repeated for the back wall cos where sound/images usually move and I'm thinking more of sound continuity to match the on-screen/off-screen sound positioning. 


So far that;s 55 channels. edit: (so 96 channels)

Baby boom/LFE is outdated and should have been at least many more LFE since 1977.

FLFE stereo for music/soundFX front L R 

SLFE stereo sidewall music/soundFX LR of the sidewall

BLFE stereo back wall subs music/soundFX

OHLFE in-ceiling subs

BSLFE in-floor subs

Okay 64 channels and that would float my boat many times over for the fabricated sound that it is.

Additionally these channels can use matrix decoders to extract any centre phantom sound which means more channels. the more channels the merrier.

So got buy those ex cinema used JBL PA speakers up on ebay as they often sell cheaply.

I give this fantasy a bit more thinking as I have to think of real world and often what sounds happen in real world can't be fully applied, no one is going to listen to _space shuttle launch_ at the SPL dB of its actual level at near to the launch pad would perforated hearing instantly.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Really need an upper below discrete channel as I did simple test few year ago, again Mulder taking a piss against a wall with an ID4 poster on the alleyway wall. It got me thinking? We have all taken piss outdoors and it makes sound once water liquid lands on the ground. Same with when it rains, rain water is silent it makes no sound until it lands on a surface object to make a sound.

I placed small HF horn on the floor and played the scene 'The X-files fight the future' and really did sense Mulder pissing on my floor and was about to get the disinfectant floor cleaner 😄 it really sounded like the truth was peeing on my floor. Note the screen framing, we only see Mulder's head the rest is below the scope frame. otherwise it sounds like he's ekk into his mouth, ekk, See my point?

Commonly movie mixes dump a lot sound/fx into the LCR and with dialog and someone walking around makes no sense cos it sounds like they have their foot in their mouth. Depending on the scene the distance and angle the further away the sound sounds like mono across the road. Get closer to it then you hear the truth with more sound reflection time arrivals that we perceive as stereo.

I could do special sound format for 'The X-files fight the future' a sort of centre HF panning (manual effect) that I active during the scene so others can hear Mulder peeing on the floor for brief few seconds.

Later on, Mulder listens to the floor but still there is no discrete below surround channel it can only be done matrix to enhance for meantime.








This is the dts laserdisc pressing and set to analog so I can switch my cinema processor to play 4.2.4 matrix or the discrete digital dts 6ch. Those bees humming buzzing below waiting for discrete below surround. thou in my room with matrix below surround underneath the seats is eerie. "Maybe? Maybe not".


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Mad Max road rage fury. 
A few of the overhead surrounds when actually buying it years ago I happen to see an Overhead surround speaker, PA announcement speaker.










At time I didn't have Atmos AVR I was doing my own diy matrix overhead surround that worked far better than upmixer dsu, now then. 

That scene in the movie where the motorbikes chasing the truck, I played that scene for 8hrs over and over again. My record has yet to be beaten. Its the sound editing and music mixing that played the scene. 

Now I have Atmos for few years now and listened to the scene just with 12 overhead surround channels is mind sound bending.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Alien Covenant, I get a lot of sense of above middle sidewall and below surround on my THX/Atmos 15.12.6, with the spacecraft flying around and that Alien hissing around the surround behind me.

And where's the 3rd Alien, riddley, I don't want see a movie gucci. I want Alien 3 prequel more acid for overhead surrounds, and below surround.


----------



## bluesky636

Ok. I'm done. Bye-Bye UltimateHomeCinema. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## mrtickleuk

ppasteur said:


> Maybe a bit more complexity than a typical user wants. *Not too pertinent to a Dolby Atmos thread either. Especially since you bad mouth Atmos repeatedly...*


Agreed. Certainly off-topic for this thread.


----------



## ppasteur

sjm817 said:


> I hereby nominate you for the 2021 understatement of the year award. 🏆


Intentional I promise.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

bluesky636 said:


> Ok. I'm done. Bye-Bye UltimateHomeCinema. Welcome to my ignore list.


That's fine with me, I'm immune so be that way and when you want certain help I won't be obligated to help. sigh, how very rude.


----------



## Soulburner

I don't see anything wrong with what he posted and I didn't see any rule in the first post of the thread stating this is a place only for those who say good things about Atmos.

I also thought his posts about his system are fascinating, even if I struggle to understand how it works.


----------



## X4100

I understand @ultimatehomecinema use of speakers to be discreet as opposed to phantom around the sides of the listening position, as well as using a matrix decoder. I love the idea of speakers on the floor to display creepy and creaking footsteps, but I think if done well with creativity Dolby Atmos will deliver the same effect!


----------



## chi_guy50

To change the subject (and return to the topic of this thread): Are there any objective (blind, double-blind, or otherwise) studies to substantiate whether the typical listener can hear an audible difference between the identical Dolby Atmos content delivered in a Dolby TrueHD container vs. Dolby Digital Plus (i.e., physical media vs. streaming)?

I do not believe that I could tell the difference, but then my auditory acuity is not the best. Others swear they can, but I suspect that the relative bit rate is provoking a predetermined bias.


----------



## Rich 63

chi_guy50 said:


> To change the subject (and return to the topic of this thread): Are there any objective (blind, double-blind, or otherwise) studies to substantiate whether the typical listener can hear an audible difference between the identical Dolby Atmos content delivered in a Dolby TrueHD container vs. Dolby Digital Plus (i.e., physical media vs. streaming)?
> 
> I do not believe that I could tell the difference, but then my auditory acuity is not the best. Others swear they can, but I suspect that the relative bit rate is provoking a predetermined bias.


Ive intentionally watched streamed movies that i have on bluray or 4k to compare. The physical media is better in everyway. A more airy/open sound with better depth and detail to the sound plus much better bottom end.
Having said that i have no issues with dd+. I mentioned in a thread a few months back that i fear we have hit a wall with sound formats. Given that they can get very respectable atmos from dd+ and most people are streaming now i think we are at dd+ as the dominate format. Full stop.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I understand @ultimatehomecinema use of speakers to be discreet as opposed to phantom around the sides of the listening position, as well as using a matrix decoder. I love the idea of speakers on the floor to display creepy and creaking footsteps, but I think if done well with creativity Dolby Atmos will deliver the same effect!


I'd love floor speakers too but with no reliable way to determine what goes on the floor, what's the point? I tried an experiment with DTS before after reading many music titles exhibit floor level effects (Trinnov apparently just arrays an extra floor set from what I read so I did the same), but heard no real difference.


----------



## chi_guy50

Rich 63 said:


> Ive intentionally watched streamed movies that i have on bluray or 4k to compare. The physical media is better in everyway. A more airy/open sound with better depth and detail to the sound plus much better bottom end.
> Having said that i have no issues with dd+. I mentioned in a thread a few months back that i fear we have hit a wall with sound formats. Given that they can get very respectable atmos from dd+ and most people are streaming now i think we are at dd+ as the dominate format. Full stop.


I might share that impression, but I could not swear to a bias from knowing that I am spinning a shiny disc. Plus, the obviously superior (relatively uncompressed) UHD/HDR video quality clearly induces one to hear better sound reproduction.

I would be curious to know to what degree one can substantiate an audible difference.


----------



## Rich 63

chi_guy50 said:


> I might share that impression, but I could not swear to a bias from knowing that I am spinning a shiny disc. Plus, the obviously superior (relatively uncompressed) UHD/HDR video quality clearly induces one to hear better sound reproduction.
> 
> I would be curious to know to what degree one can substantiate an audible difference.


Dont see how that's possible given that its subjective. I described the differences i notice and its a holy crap difference not subtle.
The shiny new disc is often a used disc i payed little for so no need to justify costs. Your right. The pic is better for sure, however im one who values sound more then picture.


----------



## ppasteur

Rich 63 said:


> Dont see how that's possible given that its subjective. I described the differences i notice and its a holy crap difference not subtle.
> The shiny new disc is often a used disc i payed little for so no need to justify costs. Your right. The pic is better for sure, however im one who values sound more then picture.


I to hear a very unambiguous difference with TrueHD audio coming out on top every time. Really, it is not subtle. Knowing just a bit about the differences in the capabilities, I wonder if the mastering for disk just might be done better. Rather than something strictly due to DD+ compression. 
I can see that the providers may think that people going to the trouble and expense of playing UHD disks might also be those that worry more about SQ and actually make the disc audio objectively better on the front end. But I have no direct evidence that this happens.
I am not sure what all of the reasons are, but I can easily hear a difference. And yes, I have done some limited A/B comparison (including level matching as close as possible). Not something that is a substitute for doing rigorous testing, but sufficient to satisfy me that I am not imagining things.
I have not seen any controlled double blind testing and statistical analysis that might tell us whether detecting this difference is part of some kind of expectation bias, or not. If anyone knows of anything, I would be grateful to know where it can be accessed.


----------



## chi_guy50

You raise a good point regarding the authoring, which is why I specified "identical Dolby Atmos content." I was thinking in particular of the Atmos demo clips available on disc as well as for streaming; I would guess that the same mix is used in both cases, no?

But then, if discs are more meticulously mixed in general, then the outcome is superior audio regardless of the relative merits of two codecs and the argument is largely moot.

I would still be curious to learn how much is expectation bias and how much can be quantified insofar as audible differences are concerned.


----------



## crutzulee

In the past, I could always tell whether a track was lossy or lossless. The difference between Dolby Digital or DTS and TRUHD or HDMA is not at all subtle.

I don't know, and don't really care, about the ins and outs of what makes DD+ a better container, but I have often found myself very impressed with DD+ ATMOS offerings. I'd be interested in reading about a double blind test with it as I am skeptical about those claiming to hear a discernable difference. It's funny that I am now on the opposite side with those who were skeptical about those of us who can hear a difference in the above mentioned formats, but there you have it...

On a side note, as I mentioned above, the DD+ ATMOS VOD offering of the new Venom movie exhibited all of the compressed nastiness of those earlier lossy formats. If there are advantages that DD+ has over past lossy formats, the sound engineers on this release availed themselves of none of them.


----------



## halcyon_888

crutzulee said:


> On a side note, as I mentioned above, the DD+ ATMOS VOD offering of the new Venom movie exhibited all of the compressed nastiness of those earlier lossy formats. If there are advantages that DD+ has over past lossy formats, the sound engineers on this release availed themselves of none of them.


I felt the same way about Shang-Chi although other people thought it wasn’t terrible, I thought it was.


----------



## bluesky636

I believe it was Stereophile magazine that did extensive double blind testing years ago with lossy Dolby Digital and lossy DTS. Don't remember what the results were. This was pre internet but they might be available somewhere out there. Don't know of any recent double blind testing.

As far as people's non-blind testing goes, I take those with a grain of salt. Human audio memory is very short (a Google search of relevant articles shows 3 to 4 seconds) and any comparative results can be chalked up to confirmation bias.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> As far as people's non-blind testing goes, I take those with a grain of salt. Human audio memory is very short (a Google search of relevant articles shows 3 to 4 seconds) and any comparative results can be chalked up to confirmation bias.


I agree, the only reliable way is to put the tracks through a computer and look at the differences.


----------



## chi_guy50

Soulburner said:


> I agree, the only reliable way is to put the tracks through a computer and look at the differences.


Well, that would not answer the question about differences audible to the human ear, would it?


----------



## chi_guy50

bluesky636 said:


> I believe it was Stereophile magazine that did extensive double blind testing years ago with lossy Dolby Digital and lossy DTS. Don't remember what the results were. This was pre internet but they might be available somewhere out there. Don't know of any recent double blind testing.


Yes, I remember seeing references to some of those studies. They were comparing DD to DTS., which of course is a different issue (if I am not mistaken, it may have been discussed in this or a related thread a number of years ago).



bluesky636 said:


> As far as people's non-blind testing goes, I take those with a grain of salt. Human audio memory is very short (a Google search of relevant articles shows 3 to 4 seconds) and any comparative results can be chalked up to confirmation bias.


That's what I'm thinking. But I am prepared to be proven wrong.


----------



## bluesky636

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, that would not answer the question about differences audible to the human ear, would it?


Double blind testing.


----------



## crutzulee

halcyon_888 said:


> I felt the same way about Shang-Chi although other people thought it wasn’t terrible, I thought it was.


 While I found Shang-Chi disappointing in it's wasted opportunity to use the extra channels that ATMOS affords to great effect or to produce any form of 3D sound stage, VENOM 2 was on a whole other plane of crapulence.

It exhibited EVERY drawback of compression from cutoff highs, to muted lows and everything wrong in between.


----------



## chi_guy50

bluesky636 said:


> Double blind testing.


Right. I was responding to OP's suggestion (as I understood it) to "put the tracks through a computer and look at the differences," which would only demonstrate the statistically quantifiable variances without regard to human perception.


----------



## Soulburner

chi_guy50 said:


> Well, that would not answer the question about differences audible to the human ear, would it?


If we know thresholds of audibility (and I think we know a lot from research), it would.

If a listening test were done, you'd need to select a very specific, short segment, and play in stereo in a rapid A/B switch.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> If we know thresholds of audibility (and I think we know a lot from research), it would.
> 
> If a listening test were done, you'd need to select a very specific, short segment, and play in stereo in a rapid A/B switch.


Double blind test.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

X4100 said:


> I understand @ultimatehomecinema use of speakers to be discreet as opposed to phantom around the sides of the listening position, as well as using a matrix decoder. I love the idea of speakers on the floor to display creepy and creaking footsteps, but I think if done well with creativity Dolby Atmos will deliver the same effect!


Footsteps rarely if not happens. Only way to explain is in video. As what is this forum all about? audio and video.
You have to look at the edited movie and then sound designers/editors have to match a best possible sound it to create approximation to real life sound.

The idea of below surround came mind around 1998 while watching 'The Peacemaker' it odes have some sound flaws in the mix so it ain't all perfect. One scene that worked out when I tried out years later is the scene where the train carrying nuclear warheads for disarmament, that is later hijacked.

As the train leaves the train station, the camera moves upwards as the train is moving forwards and passes underneath the camera then off screen and sounding on the surrounds.'The Peacemaker' is Dolby digital with stereo surrounds.

While chatting with one of the projectionists generally about the how are you, and movie. We was standing at left rear of the auditorium. The surround layout at ABC screen 1, Bournemouth, was arranged as 6 speakers two-way rather large I guess 12" bass driver and bullet-horn-tweeter? With metal grill (unknown brand) and these I have notice had been in use though the 1980's and into early 2000's when they was replaced with JBL 8330 mkI.

The surrounds was lined out on the back wall as x3 for left and x3 for right, typical back wall surround placement for any most 35/70mm cinemas. No surrounds down the sidewalls.

So we heard the sound of the train and due to the surrounds being located few feet above us that is also standard typical placement. The sound of the train sounded above us, and made no sounding sense at all??

If standing on bridge we'd hear that train passing underneath and the train should have sounded like it was passing underneath the auditoriums seating cos that is where the visual sound object was moving off-screen at, into the surrounds of then image on-screen fades to black for few seconds.

The train sound has strong phantom centre and the sounds mixed in that flow from side to side of the stereo surrounds.
I tried at home many headache hours of testing and testing by using the say typical matrix decoder, for what would/used to be for EX professional. The home EX was a watered down cheap version that didn't include the matrix rear output.

I used Dolby CP45 which is the Dolby SA10 they are cheap and look cool, but are matrix limited to only two extra channel outputs. The CP45 pictured in my main system rack in the THX cinema.

Bottom one is for my side-surrounds. The top one is for my back wall surrounds for centre middle back surround that is connected to rear back stereo surrounds on the AVR.










So EX used to have the speaker output for back wall speakers thus frees the signal away from the rest of the stereo surround signal so appears sounds are moving around in a circle effect? Or whatever else you use it.

I thought since I been using matrix rear back surround since 1998 at my other home cinema, yes 1998, nearly full year before EX professional for little star wars about a jar jar, in 1999, and nearly 2 years before home EX. cos the idea came to mind when I was doing projection for UCI cinemas, 1989. Cos stereo surrounds on 70mm frustrated me ad I wanted to come up with something improved. Damn, patent office, if I knew about that, I wouldn't have shard my idea with, dolby labs, New York offices, (since UK offices was closed) at 9pm when I made the long distance phone call. And was talking with Eric Kristofferson, and he seemed very interested in-fact too interested. I didn't say use my idea to capitalised and I get no Credit for the idea and crapped on by dolby labs. Well I talk other with sound editor, on fb, and he says, "dolby labs are notoriously vicious". I could sue dolby labs for stealing my idea. Anyway shall I continue with the topic of about height overTron surround and below and beyond or shall I dribble on about I have serious beef with dolby labs? Work in the cinema industry and get crapped on years later, sigh.

I think you got the general idea on how to use a matrix decoder to allowing it to steer a sound/signal to another speaker location. That is it.

Also the dolby/dtsx/auro3d DSU are both flawed. They don't do any magical sound placement with 4.2.4 or 5.1 or 7.1 mixes only. They only decode the signal from front LR and spread that output on the overhead surrounds and what is the signal doing above me when all that sound should be virtually up-front where the LCR speakers are.

I was expecting with DSU up-mixes and up-mixes is just another fancy word for matrix decoder. Sorry to depress you?

I was expecting the DSU to have built-in individual matrix decoders for front LR and the side surrounds LR and back surrounds LR to at least make a 5.1 soundtrack sound a bit more sound exciting. I was wrong it turned out to be a real scam and cheat. Sure when its a native Dolby Atmos, dtsx, auro signal it decodes discretely extracting sound away from front LR and side surround LR and back surround LR, depending on the mix/encoding to decoding and that is simply it, no if, but debate vote else about it, that is merely it all does.

I have thought of ways to improve my Atmos set-up with maybe extra more matrix decoders for the side surrounds. so when any panned sound moves it can move up and down on the sidewall, but it won't be perfect, it be better than what my Denon 8500 is offering me. A PLIIx decoder is better matrix decoder but I think it has to have digital 5.1 signal for the back surrounds to be active as I tried a test few months ago with my other Yamaha AVR, but the back surround won't activate unless digital signal is present. The rest of the matrix can be used with RCA phone and stereo surround connected it to, FROM THE MAIN AVR IN USE, I sort of gave up and put the Yamaha back in the cupboard along with Marantz SR6012 that I tried to use it into the MAIN SYSTEM AVR Denon 8500. I have some Onkyo AVR that I not yet tried I have around 8 so AVR stacked in a cupboard cos they still may have some use?

















Another view of the other below matrix surround channel, with my cat Sooty and can sense the sound so if it can impress him, then it should impress humans? Well cats have 32 muscles in their ears.

Sooty passed away last year 2020 its complicated and broke my heart and I not been myself since one year later.
Sooty had his own front/centre seat in the THX cinema.








I don't always watch movies but when I do I listen to Dolby Catmos. 😺


----------



## MagnumX

All the double blind tests I read about suggested 640kbps for DD and about 1000-1200kbps for DTS (both in 5.1) were considered "transparent " in _most_ situations. I've certainly never been able to tell reliably at those rates. Whether Atmos is transparent at 768kbps is another matter. That's about double the possible channel equivalents with the default 12 objects with only a little higher rate. DD+ is only more efficient at lower rates so how much difference there is at 768 is unclear.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

These hover boss boards. wonderful idea and I been thinking of taking that idea way, way further but, I simply don't have the room floor space to height of the room space for it as it would take up many floor inches. If my room was little bit wider longer and mostly taller. Maybe someone wants to try the idea I'll share this.

When earthquakes happen the ground is shifting side to side forwards backwards up and down motion same as ocean waves. Why not place many of these on the floor so the floor can move up and down with shimming motion. Of course they would have to have many mm gaps between each "hover boss board" The sound/signals would have to be front LR maybe C and surround LR passed though DSP crossover and the LFE as well. Well it won't be perfect it would work but not perfect cos the sound mixer has no idea they only mix with PA speakers that are set-up in certain way. We tend to look at the image and say, "well I can relate to that image on screen having experienced it first hand", or "I can relate to that image on-screen cos That is what I believe would happen in real life". 

Look at the ground-motion in San Andreas that is what would should be seen from above. Earthquake thou still tops the wow of bass Sensurround with sound/fx only while later movie has music/soundFX playing with screaming/yelling sounds.


----------



## MagnumX

> Also the dolby/dtsx/auro3d DSU are both flawed. They don't do any magical sound placement with 4.2.4 or 5.1 or 7.1 mixes only. They only decode the signal from front LR and spread that output on the overhead surrounds


I disagree. Neural X is usuall_y very _magical with 5.1/7.1 soundtracks here. I'm always amazed just how accurate it is with putting the proper sounds overhead.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

ultimatehomecinema said:


> Footsteps rarely if not happens. Only way to explain is in video. As what is this forum all about? audio and video.
> You have to look at the edited movie and then sound designers/editors have to match a best possible sound it to create approximation to real life sound.
> 
> The idea of below surround came mind around 1998 while watching 'The Peacemaker' it odes have some sound flaws in the mix so it ain't all perfect. One scene that worked out when I tried out years later is the scene where the train carrying nuclear warheads for disarmament, that is later hijacked.
> 
> As the train leaves the train station, the camera moves upwards as the train is moving forwards and passes underneath the camera then off screen and sounding on the surrounds.'The Peacemaker' is Dolby digital with stereo surrounds.
> 
> While chatting with one of the projectionists generally about the how are you, and movie. We was standing at left rear of the auditorium. The surround layout at ABC screen 1, Bournemouth, was arranged as 6 speakers two-way rather large I guess 12" bass driver and bullet-horn-tweeter? With metal grill (unknown brand) and these I have notice had been in use though the 1980's and into early 2000's when they was replaced with JBL 8330 mkI.
> 
> The surrounds was lined out on the back wall as x3 for left and x3 for right, typical back wall surround placement for any most 35/70mm cinemas. No surrounds down the sidewalls.
> 
> So we heard the sound of the train and due to the surrounds being located few feet above us that is also standard typical placement. The sound of the train sounded above us, and made no sounding sense at all??
> 
> If standing on bridge we'd hear that train passing underneath and the train should have sounded like it was passing underneath the auditoriums seating cos that is where the visual sound object was moving off-screen at, into the surrounds of then image on-screen fades to black for few seconds.
> 
> The train sound has strong phantom centre and the sounds mixed in that flow from side to side of the stereo surrounds.
> I tried at home many headache hours of testing and testing by using the say typical matrix decoder, for what would/used to be for EX professional. The home EX was a watered down cheap version that didn't include the matrix rear output.
> 
> I used Dolby CP45 which is the Dolby SA10 they are cheap and look cool, but are matrix limited to only two extra channel outputs. The CP45 pictured in my main system rack in the THX cinema.
> 
> Bottom one is for my side-surrounds. The top one is for my back wall surrounds for centre middle back surround that is connected to rear back stereo surrounds on the AVR.
> 
> View attachment 3204602
> 
> 
> So EX used to have the speaker output for back wall speakers thus frees the signal away from the rest of the stereo surround signal so appears sounds are moving around in a circle effect? Or whatever else you use it.
> 
> I thought since I been using matrix rear back surround since 1998 at my other home cinema, yes 1998, nearly full year before EX professional for little star wars about a jar jar, in 1999, and nearly 2 years before home EX. cos the idea came to mind when I was doing projection for UCI cinemas, 1989. Cos stereo surrounds on 70mm frustrated me ad I wanted to come up with something improved. Damn, patent office, if I knew about that, I wouldn't have shard my idea with, dolby labs, New York offices, (since UK offices was closed) at 9pm when I made the long distance phone call. And was talking with Eric Kristofferson, and he seemed very interested in-fact too interested. I didn't say use my idea to capitalised and I get no Credit for the idea and crapped on by dolby labs. Well I talk other with sound editor, on fb, and he says, "dolby labs are notoriously vicious". I could sue dolby labs for stealing my idea. Anyway shall I continue with the topic of about height overTron surround and below and beyond or shall I dribble on about I have serious beef with dolby labs? Work in the cinema industry and get crapped on years later, sigh.
> 
> I think you got the general idea on how to use a matrix decoder to allowing it to steer a sound/signal to another speaker location. That is it.
> 
> Also the dolby/dtsx/auro3d DSU are both flawed. They don't do any magical sound placement with 4.2.4 or 5.1 or 7.1 mixes only. They only decode the signal from front LR and spread that output on the overhead surrounds and what is the signal doing above me when all that sound should be virtually up-front where the LCR speakers are.
> 
> I was expecting with DSU up-mixes and up-mixes is just another fancy word for matrix decoder. Sorry to depress you?
> 
> I was expecting the DSU to have built-in individual matrix decoders for front LR and the side surrounds LR and back surrounds LR to at least make a 5.1 soundtrack sound a bit more sound exciting. I was wrong it turned out to be a real scam and cheat. Sure when its a native Dolby Atmos, dtsx, auro signal it decodes discretely extracting sound away from front LR and side surround LR and back surround LR, depending on the mix/encoding to decoding and that is simply it, no if, but debate vote else about it, that is merely it all does.
> 
> I have thought of ways to improve my Atmos set-up with maybe extra more matrix decoders for the side surrounds. so when any panned sound moves it can move up and down on the sidewall, but it won't be perfect, it be better than what my Denon 8500 is offering me. A PLIIx decoder is better matrix decoder but I think it has to have digital 5.1 signal for the back surrounds to be active as I tried a test few months ago with my other Yamaha AVR, but the back surround won't activate unless digital signal is present. The rest of the matrix can be used with RCA phone and stereo surround connected it to, FROM THE MAIN AVR IN USE, I sort of gave up and put the Yamaha back in the cupboard along with Marantz SR6012 that I tried to use it into the MAIN SYSTEM AVR Denon 8500. I have some Onkyo AVR that I not yet tried I have around 8 so AVR stacked in a cupboard cos they still may have some use?
> 
> View attachment 3204619
> 
> View attachment 3204615
> 
> Another view of the other below matrix surround channel, with my cat Sooty and can sense the sound so if it can impress him, then it should impress humans? Well cats have 32 muscles in their ears.
> 
> Sooty passed away last year 2020 its complicated and broke my heart and I not been myself since one year later.
> Sooty had his own front/centre seat in the THX cinema.
> View attachment 3204616
> 
> I don't always watch movies but when I do I listen to Dolby Catmos.


Are you Andy black cat? From the UK?


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

MagnumX said:


> I disagree. Neural X is usuall_y very _magical with 5.1/7.1 soundtracks here. I'm always amazed just how accurate it is with putting the proper sounds overhead.


I gather but I won't. How is your system set-up separate DSP EQ and DSP crossover to amps?
I know what your saying and all you'd end up hearing is dtsxupmixer matrix signal taken from front LR and creating an audio frequency masking effect making it near impossible to hear the discrete. I tried myself with Mad Max road rage fury. I mean I did live video few months ago and it is near impossible to hear any discrete sound cos its all been piled onto the other channel with no way of lowering the signal down or say increase that sound/signal.

I also often have to lower the LCRS/SB channels down with few dB equal increase on the overhead height 1 2 3 on only few movies to get a balanced mix playback that sounds then musically and flowing and smoothly balanced on Mad road rage Max, yes a movie that attempted to reboot.

I can see the mix levels on my SDDS VU meters as well as listening and the mix does have some serious atmos flaws when we'd expect some overhead sound and no amount of DSU dtsx up-mixer is going to fix that. You have to add on extra matrix outboard decoders and add in some blend of phantom centre into an audio mixer and blend that into one or more of the Overhead surrounds, for me easy-peasy. I don't ever use the AVR internal amps cos then I am restricted to what I can explore with the sound of surround with.

Okay easy to their own. Even cinemas following director mixers like sheep. At least I can switch these extra outboard matrix decoders on/off but I am watching and thoroughly listening. 

Auro3d is rubbish, When used with 4.2.4 matrix movie mixes all I can hear is serious bad crosstalk leakage into the surrounds and overheads and this is with my LCR and side surround MUTED on my arrays of Behringer DCX2496 so I can closely monitor. Auro3d Rubbish and will never use it again or play, red tails or blade runner sigh 2048 again. 
Oh when I pause the Panasonic 9000 THX, I hear few m/s delay with Auro3d, WHAT THE? Sounds like some cheap Tandy/ Realistic EQ with expander mode and some strange signal delay? And some fanboys think Auro3d is wow, cos their system AVR is using interal amps and they have no means to muting certain channels for close listening to realaize that's some serious crosstalk.

dtsx has less crosstalk and maybe I think crossover slopes in the drsx upo-mixer signal not as shy as dolby dsu and dsu it stinks for 5.1 to place a matrix back wall surround, because it adds a back matrix surround BUT also adds crosstalk from Front LR, DISTRACTING! PLIIx never did that issue it added extra matrx decoding ONLY to the stereo surround signal ONLY and expanded it that sounded decent ENOUGH for 5.1 mixes. 

If you doubt me go and listen and remember to un-wire the other speakers and listen I think you may, end up feeling cheated and that's how I felt. Go and do it, do it Right now. Do a video that should be 20 mins so long to report the findings.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bluesky636 said:


> I believe it was Stereophile magazine that did extensive double blind testing years ago with lossy Dolby Digital and lossy DTS. Don't remember what the results were. This was pre internet but they might be available somewhere out there. Don't know of any recent double blind testing.
> 
> As far as people's non-blind testing goes, I take those with a grain of salt. Human audio memory is very short (a Google search of relevant articles shows 3 to 4 seconds) and any comparative results can be chalked up to confirmation bias.


Iirc, it’s actually the other way. DD had a higher compression rate than DTS and that was the main difference. 
For “listening tests” listening tests? Yeah I agree, too many variables. Source, setup, speakers, placement etc… 
I usually take what other people say about certain tracks or songs and see how it matches up with my own experiences, in my listening spaces.


----------



## MagnumX

ultimatehomecinema said:


> I gather but I won't. How is your system set-up separate DSP EQ and DSP crossover to amps?


It's set up with bass management and Audyssey room correction.



> I know what your saying and all you'd end up hearing is dtsxupmixer matrix signal taken from front LR and creating an audio frequency masking effect making it near impossible to hear the discrete. I tried myself with Mad Max road rage fury. I mean I did live video few months ago and it is near impossible to hear any discrete sound cos its all been piled onto the other channel with no way of lowering the signal down or say increase that sound/signal.


To be perfectly honest, I think Mad Max Fury Road is *vastly overrated* in terms of its Atmos track, IMO. It has very active/loud surround, but very little overhead of anything interesting (discrete). I don't know why it gets placed so highly among some. I think it's because it heavily uses the ear/bed level speakers and people aren't used to that and frankly some on here can't tell overhead sounds from ear level ones, IMO, particularly when they're not completely discrete.

If you wanted to hear what Atmos and/or Neural X can do, it's best to use truly good material to demo it before judging it to be garbage. Something like Brad Pitt's FURY movie or any of the Harry Potter UHD discs in DTS:X (for X and Neural X) would be great ones to test. Neural X turned a movie like The Skeleton Key into something that almost sounded like one of the better Atmos movies (thunderstorms are overhead, creaking boards in the room above, etc.)



> I can see the mix levels on my SDDS VU meters as well as listening and the mix does have some serious atmos flaws when we'd expect some overhead sound and no amount of DSU dtsx up-mixer is going to fix that.


DSU can't "fix" anything because it shoves only ambient sounds overhead and then only into 2 channels (they're arrayed with everything else). That means foggy crappy overhead sounds which is why I almost never use it. Neural X, on the other hand is very discrete sounding overhead and can even pan sounds overhead. Auro-3D's upmixer is crap for movies, IMO as it's all reverb/copy stuff like you correctly observed. Neural X is the only worthwhile upmixer for movies, IMO. Meanwhile, true Atmos and X movies and native Auro-3D for that matter are only as good as the mixing guy made them, which frankly is rather hit and mis.



> You have to add on extra matrix outboard decoders and add in some blend of phantom centre into an audio mixer and blend that into one or more of the Overhead surrounds, for me easy-peasy. I don't ever use the AVR internal amps cos then I am restricted to what I can explore with the sound of surround with.


I've got Dolby Surround outboard decoders to handle the top middle overhead channel. I use full arrays for side surrounds as well just like in the theaters (4 sets of them). Mine still all work with Atmos/X/Auro.



> If you doubt me go and listen and remember to un-wire the other speakers and listen I think you may, end up feeling cheated and that's how I felt. Go and do it, do it Right now. Do a video that should be 20 mins so long to report the findings.


I've done extensive listening to hundreds of movies. I don't feel cheated except by some bad movie mixes (Knives Out comes to mind as one of the most disappointing given all the overhead and ambient party sounds they could have used and didn't, choosing to put most of the sound in the L/C/R channels with only a few exceptions). Something like The Meg in Atmos or even a Neural X upmix sounds like you're really in the submarine with sounds all around like a bubble. Now THAT is what I paid to hear.


----------



## junh1024

ppasteur said:


> I to hear a very unambiguous difference with TrueHD audio coming out on top every time. Really, it is not subtle. Knowing just a bit about the differences in the capabilities, I wonder if the mastering for disk just might be done better. Rather than something strictly due to DD+ compression.


It would be due to compression methinks. I have done tests, and DDP comes out as a bit less dynamic on very loud sounds vs THD Atmos, otherwise very close.




MagnumX said:


> All the double blind tests I read about suggested 640kbps for DD and about 1000-1200kbps for DTS (both in 5.1) were considered "transparent " in _most_ situations. I've certainly never been able to tell reliably at those rates. Whether Atmos is transparent at 768kbps is another matter. That's about double the possible channel equivalents with the default 12 objects with only a little higher rate. DD+ is only more efficient at lower rates so how much difference there is at 768 is unclear.


DDP Atmos defaults to 16 elements at 448kps+, but THD Atmos defaults to lower at every bitrate. Compare Furious 9 (2021):

BD THD Atmos:



Code:


Commercial name : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
...
Number of dynamic objects : 11
Bed channel count : 1 channel

Streaming DDP Atmos:


Code:


Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
Number of dynamic objects : 15
Bed channel count : 1 channel

You can see element count with Mediainfo software (Free).


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

MagnumX said:


> If you wanted to hear what Atmos and/or Neural X can do, it's best to use truly good material to demo it before judging it to be garbage. Something like Brad Pitt's FURY movie or any of the Harry Potter UHD discs in DTS:X (for X and Neural X) would be great ones to test. Neural X turned a movie like The Skeleton Key into something that almost sounded like one of the better Atmos movies (thunderstorms are overhead, creaking boards in the room above, etc.)


Okay I shall be THX audience listening to this tomorrow here in THX/Atmos. I hope for your sake I don't end up throwing this in the cat litter tray, I hope those overhead surrounds are steam tracks and not just another, manual atmos upmix. It be here Saturday or Caturday.
oh, if sounds like a near field it ends up in the cat litter box. 

I have seen this before 5.1 on goggle box and even found it bit disturbing with that scene where they stop off at village with those woman, I found it to be disturbing so I may jump the chapter on that.

I know the tanks used came from Bovington that is 43 miles away, I seen some of the ww2 tanks there years ago. I know what an excavator tracks sound feels like on road surfaces of hearing the sound to feeling it if drives nearby or depending on the geographical landscape terrain of sound transmission through the ground.

I be rehearsing the movie as it plays as I have no idea how low the frequency goes down and at what dynamic range on peak so I be cautious. I gather it won't have serious 100% directional dialog panning so I be listening to 2hrs of centre dialog and that is not how we hear sound in real life. 135mins. I better have cat Magic on my lap to petting for over 2hrs.









Oh at least it used anamorphic lens and not some super35 that I can't stand.
It better not have lens flares in it otherwise I be getting Fury-ious.
I don't care for the actor/guy "i'm not famous anymore" hearing about he actually broke his teeth for the movie part? guy sounds like, transformers nut-case, why would someone self-harm by breaking their own teeth?


----------



## Technology3456

I think it's great how deep you the thread is getting into analyzing the best way to do atmos. I can't speak to things before I started reading the thread, since I'm sure that in the 3,000+ pages, there were ebbs and flows, but the discussion has definitely come a long way since that point, and I think everyone who contributed or read along knows a lot more now than back then. Great work guys!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Technology3456 said:


> I think it's great how deep you the thread is getting into analyzing the best way to do atmos. I can't speak to things before I started reading the thread, since I'm sure that in the 3,000+ pages, there were ebbs and flows, but the discussion has definitely come a long way since that point, and I think everyone who contributed or read along knows a lot more now than back then. Great work guys!


I would say this thread is going in circles over and over again which isn't surprisning with that many pages.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> It's set up with bass management and Audyssey room correction.
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I think Mad Max Fury Road is *vastly overrated* in terms of its Atmos track, IMO. It has very active/loud surround, but very little overhead of anything interesting (discrete). I don't know why it gets placed so highly among some. I think it's because it heavily uses the ear/bed level speakers and people aren't used to that and frankly some on here can't tell overhead sounds from ear level ones, IMO, particularly when they're not completely discrete.
> 
> If you wanted to hear what Atmos and/or Neural X can do, it's best to use truly good material to demo it before judging it to be garbage. Something like Brad Pitt's FURY movie or any of the Harry Potter UHD discs in DTS:X (for X and Neural X) would be great ones to test. Neural X turned a movie like The Skeleton Key into something that almost sounded like one of the better Atmos movies (thunderstorms are overhead, creaking boards in the room above, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> DSU can't "fix" anything because it shoves only ambient sounds overhead and then only into 2 channels (they're arrayed with everything else). That means foggy crappy overhead sounds which is why I almost never use it. Neural X, on the other hand is very discrete sounding overhead and can even pan sounds overhead. Auro-3D's upmixer is crap for movies, IMO as it's all reverb/copy stuff like you correctly observed. Neural X is the only worthwhile upmixer for movies, IMO. Meanwhile, true Atmos and X movies and native Auro-3D for that matter are only as good as the mixing guy made them, which frankly is rather hit and mis.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got Dolby Surround outboard decoders to handle the top middle overhead channel. I use full arrays for side surrounds as well just like in the theaters (4 sets of them). Mine still all work with Atmos/X/Auro.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done extensive listening to hundreds of movies. I don't feel cheated except by some bad movie mixes (Knives Out comes to mind as one of the most disappointing given all the overhead and ambient party sounds they could have used and didn't, choosing to put most of the sound in the L/C/R channels with only a few exceptions). Something like The Meg in Atmos or even a Neural X upmix sounds like you're really in the submarine with sounds all around like a bubble. Now THAT is what I paid to hear.


The great thing about this hobby, and threads like this, is how we can share our experiences and have the ability to "tweak" our individual environments to suit our tastes. Although our individual rooms will reflect these differences, one thing is for sure - they ALL will provide a thrilling ride in comparison to the way most others are experiencing movies!

My experience in my room is very different from yours in your room. While I don't personally care for the movie in it's entirety, I find that the first 8 minutes of FURY ROAD provides the ultimate mic drop on everything ATMOS has to offer. From deep visceral bass that activate the transducers in my chairs, to discrete overhead effects, to bubble of sound elements placed within my room, with the little girl's voice swirling around and then landing INSIDE MY HEAD!

Panning?? When that truck comes up from behind me, flies directly over my head and crashes down in my theater directly in the space between my chair and screen...I duck every time!!

As far as the differences between DSU and Neural X, in my environment, I have preferred the former across my experience with my present DENON amp and the ONKYO that it replaced. In both instances, I have found NEURAL X to be a tad aggressive, bordering on gimicky in it's placement of sounds in the height channels. After doing A/B comparisons for awhile and spending some time using Neural X on DTS tracks and DSU on Dolby tracks, I have settled on simply applying DSU to all tracks that are not natively ATMOS . This has served me well in maximizing the enjoyment of my room without the constant need to tinker on a movie by movie basis.


----------



## CorbyDave

Mashie Saldana said:


> I would say this thread is going in circles over and over again which isn't surprisning with that many pages.


Yes, but are these circles at ear level or ceiling level?


----------



## bryantc

chi_guy50 said:


> To change the subject (and return to the topic of this thread): Are there any objective (blind, double-blind, or otherwise) studies to substantiate whether the typical listener can hear an audible difference between the identical Dolby Atmos content delivered in a Dolby TrueHD container vs. Dolby Digital Plus (i.e., physical media vs. streaming)?
> 
> I do not believe that I could tell the difference, but then my auditory acuity is not the best. Others swear they can, but I suspect that the relative bit rate is provoking a predetermined bias.


Double blind tests are problematic at best when it comes to audio. No human can possibly memorize every detail of a sound and then compare it to something they hear later. Unless you are talking about an extreme difference like a smartphone vs theater.

Years ago I had a music DVD with 96khz/24bit PCM and 448Kbps Dolby Digital. I could seamlessly switch between them and even on the tiny speakers I had I could hear the difference. The best way to describe it is that the DD sounded tinny by comparison. But if you played them to me back to back and asked me to identify them I don't think I could.


----------



## bluesky636

bryantc said:


> Years ago I had a music DVD with 96khz/24bit PCM and 448Kbps Dolby Digital. I could seamlessly switch between them and even on the tiny speakers I had I could hear the difference. The best way to describe it is that the DD sounded tinny by comparison. But if you played them to me back to back and asked me to identify them I don't think I could.


Congratulations. You just did an excellent job of showing the difference in results obtained through confirmation bias and double blind testing.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ultimatehomecinema said:


> Auro3d is rubbish, When used with 4.2.4 matrix movie mixes all I can hear is serious bad crosstalk leakage into the surrounds and overheads and this is with my LCR and side surround MUTED on my arrays of Behringer DCX2496 so I can closely monitor. Auro3d Rubbish and will never use it again or play, red tails or blade runner sigh 2048 again.
> Oh when I pause the Panasonic 9000 THX, I hear few m/s delay with Auro3d, WHAT THE? Sounds like some cheap Tandy/ Realistic EQ with expander mode and some strange signal delay? And some fanboys think Auro3d is wow, cos their system AVR is using interal amps and they have no means to muting certain channels for close listening to realaize that's some serious crosstalk.


I've been digging into Auro's patents to understand just what Auro's "upmixer" actually does to create heights. The quick and dirty version is that it clones the adjacent ear-level channel and applies changes to it based on measurements they got from putting mics in those equivalent speaker positions in some unknown large listening space (or perhaps an amalgam of several "desirable" sounding theaters/auditoriums). Then it attenuates each height channel based on a reverb analysis of each adjacent ear-level channel. So if the sound in the ear-level channel is really dry, the adjacent height will be more attenuated... and if it has a lot of reverb, less so. The parameter that controls the amount of the Auromatic effect basically changes the threshold for this, so you can increase/decrease the amount of altered sound placed in the heights based on the reverb inherent in the source. What's interesting is that there is almost no logic steering going on, at least from what is in their patents and white papers, which differentiates it from what DSU and Neural:X are primarily doing. It's basically an advanced adjustable DSP hall mode based on real-world measurements. That said, it's a pretty inventive way of recreating the sound of a larger space, even if it isn't necessarily "upmixing" in a traditional sense in most cases.

Much like other DSP modes, I never cared for it when I had an Auro-friendly layout years ago. But now that I know more about what it is doing, I can understand why some people dig it. It's an interesting approach. I still prefer the more conservative approach that DSU takes to generating heights, even with the phasing issues that sometimes come from how they analyze opposing channel pairs.


----------



## bryantc

bluesky636 said:


> Congratulations. You just did an excellent job of showing the difference in results obtained through confirmation bias and double blind testing.


As I said what most people call "double blind" testing is mostly useless for audio. The proper way to do it is to switch seamlessly between 2 sources and ask the listener when and if he can hear a difference. If you did that with uncompressed and DD audio I could absolutely tell the difference. Maybe not for a movie but certainly for music.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bryantc said:


> Double blind tests are problematic at best when it comes to audio. No human can possibly memorize every detail of a sound and then compare it to something they hear later. Unless you are talking about an extreme difference like a smartphone vs theater.


Yes, that's why you can use software to help, which can randomise A and B and play them multiple times so that you can take an average (a bit like when the optician says "which looks better, 1 or 2?" and they keep swapping them over without telling you which reveals to them when you're guessing!) And, you can also do it with larger groups of people and aggregate everything. And you don't ask them to identify each one, just ask "which sounds better". Such as on SoundExpert.




__





Readme for listening test file - SoundExpert







soundexpert.org


----------



## bryantc

mrtickleuk said:


> That's why you can use software to help, which can randomise A and B and play them multiple times so that you can take an average. And, you do it with larger groups of people and aggregate everything. *And you don't ask them to identify each one, just ask "which sounds better".* Such as on SoundExpert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Readme for listening test file - SoundExpert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> soundexpert.org


That's the same thing. Tomato tomahto


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I've been digging into Auro's patents to understand just what Auro's "upmixer" actually does to create heights. The quick and dirty version is that it clones the adjacent ear-level channel and applies changes to it based on measurements they got from putting mics in those equivalent speaker positions in some unknown large listening space (or perhaps an amalgam of several "desirable" sounding theaters/auditoriums). Then it attenuates each height channel based on a reverb analysis of each adjacent ear-level channel. So if the sound in the ear-level channel is really dry, the adjacent height will be more attenuated... and if it has a lot of reverb, less so. The parameter that controls the amount of the Auromatic effect basically changes the threshold for this, so you can increase/decrease the amount of altered sound placed in the heights based on the reverb inherent in the source. What's interesting is that there is almost no logic steering going on, at least from what is in their patents and white papers, which differentiates it from what DSU and Neural:X are primarily doing. It's basically an advanced adjustable DSP hall mode based on real-world measurements. That said, it's a pretty inventive way of recreating the sound of a larger space, even if it isn't necessarily "upmixing" in a traditional sense in most cases.
> 
> Much like other DSP modes, I never cared for it when I had an Auro-friendly layout years ago. But now that I know more about what it is doing, I can understand why some people dig it. It's an interesting approach. I still prefer the more conservative approach that DSU takes to generating heights, even with the phasing issues that sometimes come from how they analyze opposing channel pairs.


That I understand and why I hear slight m/s delay when pausing the player. I still have Yamaha DSP100 that has all those echo reverb effects and m/s-delay and that some find it gimmick. I find that myself DSP100 to be gimmick but does sound interesting if I could mic the room up and have the echo delay sound when clapping my hands to give thee impression I am in a room with a echo delay of many m/s but I that system would need signal/gating set at certain dB threshold. Otherwise I clap my hand and I hear maybe fraction m/s as my room is totally absorbed carpet tiles/walls and ceiling. 

But thanks cheers for spending your time reading into that. but I'm not fan of the upmixes cos it adds sound masking to those discrete overheads and even the standard channels LCRS/SB can even cause frequency sound masking to the overheads or vice-versa.

I notice auro3d has max level on its effect that starts at 1 to 12 and messed with it, oh 8 or 10 weeks ago and gave up on it. I did persevere with it for 2hrs. 

I could add more Yamaha DSP100 if I was using them and they sell so cheaply today and have I think 100 DSP settings? Yeah have them for LR and one for Centre and others for surrounds side and back and for the overheads and set different delays, its a way to pass the evening with?









Here's mine and many more like I said they sell so cheap today. And Yamaha did same with mics placed everywhere to capture the acoustical space of the room.


----------



## bluesky636

bryantc said:


> As I said what most people call "double blind" testing is mostly useless for audio. The proper way to do it is to switch seamlessly between 2 sources and ask the listener when and if he can hear a difference. If you did that with uncompressed and DD audio I could absolutely tell the difference. Maybe not for a movie but certainly for music.


Actually, you said no such thing in the post I responded to. Your simplistic description shows a lack of understanding how a true double blind test is conducted.


----------



## bluesky636

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, that's why you can use software to help, which can randomise A and B and play them multiple times so that you can take an average (a bit like when the optician says "which looks better, 1 or 2?" and they keep swapping them over without telling you which reveals to them when you're guessing!) And, you can also do it with larger groups of people and aggregate everything. And you don't ask them to identify each one, just ask "which sounds better". Such as on SoundExpert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Readme for listening test file - SoundExpert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> soundexpert.org


Unfortunately your description of the eye test is not double blind testing as the optician clearly knows which lens they are flipping between.


----------



## chi_guy50

bryantc said:


> Double blind tests are problematic at best when it comes to audio. No human can possibly memorize every detail of a sound and then compare it to something they hear later. Unless you are talking about an extreme difference like a smartphone vs theater.
> 
> Years ago I had a music DVD with 96khz/24bit PCM and 448Kbps Dolby Digital. *I could seamlessly switch between them and even on the tiny speakers I had I could hear the difference*. The best way to describe it is that the DD sounded tinny by comparison. *But if you played them to me back to back and asked me to identify them I don't think I could.*


Are not those two statements contradictory? If you could hear a marked difference between the two in the first instance, then should you not be able to tell which one was superior when played back to back?

I should think that a controlled test using the aforementioned Dolby Atmos demo clips (each no more than one or two minutes in length) would confirm whether the one is audibly superior to the other.

For myself, I will continue to prioritize physical media whenever possible, but I would be curious to know whether the Dolby Atmos experience this affords is significantly (read audibly) more impactful than the streaming counterpart. I raise the issue here in the assumption that others who follow this thread share an interest in such minutiae.



bluesky636 said:


> Congratulations. You just did an excellent job of showing the difference in results obtained through confirmation bias and double blind testing.


Yeah, that was my impression as well.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> My experience in my room is very different from yours in your room. While I don't personally care for the movie in it's entirety, I find that the first 8 minutes of FURY ROAD provides the ultimate mic drop on everything ATMOS has to offer. From deep visceral bass that activate the transducers in my chairs, to discrete overhead effects, to bubble of sound elements placed within my room, with the little girl's voice swirling around and then landing INSIDE MY HEAD!
> 
> Panning?? When that truck comes up from behind me, flies directly over my head and crashes down in my theater directly in the space between my chair and screen...I duck every time!!


That truck you refer to is only in the rear height/tops channel so depending on your layout and where you sit in that layout, it probably won't do the same thing. Here, in a 24 foot long room, the truck is already "on the ground" by the middle of the room (i.e. it's grounded by the time it reaches top middle so it's only overhead in the rear speakers for a moment) so for the front row seats, it's barely noticeable as it sounds mostly like an ear level surround effect as the rear heights are only 22 degrees from the front row due to the distance (even though they're on the ceiling and that's still in the Dolby Heights specs for 6 overheads), but a sound needs to stay overhead into the panning rather than drop like a stone the moment it moves to travel along the ceiling. 

Now, if you have 2 overheads right in the middle, you get a very different effect as the vehicle is suddenly directly overhead because the Atmos renderer moves it to the only channels available. It'll even move it to the front height channels if those are the only available. Now if I sit in the 2nd row, the effect is much more overhead and in the back it's directly overhead like you describe, but the screen is much smaller looking 20 feet away than 8 feet away so I tend to sit in the front. Many of the overhead sounds "blend" in that movie. Here, I think people with "Tops" speakers get more separation, but I tend to think Tops systems don't image as well between layers. When it's seamless, it's hard to tell where one layer starts and the other begins as even ear level speakers can produce sounds above you with some signals. I've been fooled more than once into thinking a sound was from the height speakers or the bed speakers and it was the opposite when that layer was muted. 

How much more so is it to gauge when a sound is panning 40/60 or 60/40? The sound will likely be "part way up the wall" or "somewhat more overhead" rather than on the ceiling. Poorly matched mid-level imaging, though leads to a jump from ear level to ceiling with a lot less in-between and I'm afraid that's what happens with many in-ceiling speakers, particularly if they don't match the ear level ones very well. So many sounds that should be panned up somewhere in-between end up on the ceiling instead and people are reaving about it how great that ceiling sound is. Of course, that's just a theory and I'm not saying any single system is doing that, but when I hear raving comments about some movie that is mostly road noise and explosions, etc. at part-way pans being one of the best Atmos examples compared to a discrete ball hitting the ceiling on OVERLORD and rolling across it like someone dropped it on the floor above, well, I have to wonder what they're hearing differently.

Now compare Ready Player One. People RAVE about how awesome that opening racing scene is and it is very _very_ good for what it's doing. However, as testing has shown, it's only using 2 channels overhead. I have 4 speakers sitting up there silent. So, how good a "reference" track is it really when it's not even using Atmos properly? However, ALL the overhead sounds are directly overhead and there's that preference for direct overhead sound as it has the "Wow" factor (as few, if any sounds were EVER directly overhead in the middle of the ceiling in any prior 5.1/7.1 setup). That's also why I think many prefer "Tops" to "Heights". It has more sounds at higher angles (i.e. closer to directly overhead) because it starts higher up on the ceiling and doesn't move down to blend with the lower speakers as much. Some people want that "wow factor" all the time and might prefer all sounds directly overhead. They say they want them to pan overhead, but not _too_ far. They sound way cooler when they're way up high. You lose half the ceiling and sounds don't blend as well with the lower layer, but hey, it's directly overhead!



> As far as the differences between DSU and Neural X, in my environment, I have preferred the former across my experience with my present DENON amp and the ONKYO that it replaced. In both instances, I have found NEURAL X to be a tad aggressive, bordering on gimicky in it's placement of sounds in the height channels. After doing A/B comparisons for awhile and spending some time using Neural X on DTS tracks and DSU on Dolby tracks, I have settled on simply applying DSU to all tracks that are not natively ATMOS . This has served me well in maximizing the enjoyment of my room without the constant need to tinker on a movie by movie basis.


Yeah, it's total gimmicky to have a plane fly overhead front-to-back because in real life, they fly at ear level and only birds chirp from "somewhere" indistinct overhead. That's totally realistic alright. Yet that's what you get with DSU. But again, I have to wonder about Tops vs Height speaker placement. Maybe those that think Neural X is "too aggressive" have that snap to the ceiling effect and get sounds that are rendering partially higher than ear level in a heights system more directly overhead where it doesn't belong? I wonder that becuase I've NEVER heard one of these cars flying overhead like a plane that people talk about hearing with Neural X. I get planes and helicopters and thunder overhead. I've never heard a car flying overhead with Neural X (BTTF 5.1 in Neural X excepted or the 5.1 version of Harry Potter). But people sure talk about it a lot. So perhaps things like that do happen with Tops, but not Heights? (and I mean the placement, not the setting).


----------



## chi_guy50

bluesky636 said:


> Unfortunately your description of the eye test is not double blind testing as the optician clearly knows which lens they are flipping between.


It's funny that OP mentioned the optician's lens tests since I often struggle mightily when asked "is it better now?".


----------



## MagnumX

As for double blind testing, there are many forms, but those switch boxes that let you switch instantly between two matched signals and spend all the time in the world listening to both forwards and back are the best form I know of. You only have to identify which is which when you make a claim. (i.e. "I think this $10k DAC sounds SOOOO much better than that $10 DAC and I can tell every time!"). Ok, we'll randomly change the connections 10 times over 10 trials and let's see you tell me which DAC is which accurately every time. That's where people fail utterly. They CANNOT tell a $10k DAC from a measly $10 one most of the time. But Stereophile told them digital audio SUCKS unless it's a $10k DAC with $5k cables.


----------



## bryantc

chi_guy50 said:


> Are not those two statements contradictory? If you could hear a marked difference between the two in the first instance, then should you not be able to tell which one was superior when played back to back?


No because when you play the same clip back to back you are requiring me to have a perfect aural memory which I will never claim to have.

Again if you did that with something extreme like a smartphone vs an IMAX theater then yes I would absolutely pass that test and I hope most people with good hearing would too. But if you are talking about the subtle difference between a DD track and TrueHD track then no I will not pass that test.

But if you do the test the way I describe with a single track playing continuously and seamlessly switching between a lower and higher quality version then yes I would be able to tell when the switch is happening.

If you want to draw the conclusion that lossy compression is "good enough" from this information then that is certainly your prerogative.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bluesky636 said:


> Unfortunately your description of the eye test is not double blind testing as the optician clearly knows which lens they are flipping between.


Yes, good point and apologies for introducing any confusion. I was trying to use an analogy of how the randomness of the tests is done from the user's (patient's) perspective, with the software knowing which clip it's playing and sorting out the results afterwards to reduce "lucky guesses".


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> That's where people fail utterly. They CANNOT tell a $10k DAC from a measly $10 one most of the time. But Stereophile told them digital audio SUCKS unless it's a $10k DAC with $5k cables.


Don't forget the $100 cable lifters to stop the cables touching the floor! They need to be spaced at 15cm intervals - other spacings won't sound right.


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> As for double blind testing, there are many forms, but those switch boxes that let you switch instantly between two matched signals and spend all the time in the world listening to both forwards and back are the best form I know of. You only have to identify which is which when you make a claim. (i.e. "I think this $10k DAC sounds SOOOO much better than that $10 DAC and I can tell every time!"). Ok, we'll randomly change the connections 10 times over 10 trials and let's see you tell me which DAC is which accurately every time. That's where people fail utterly. They CANNOT tell a $10k DAC from a measly $10 one most of the time. But Stereophile told them digital audio SUCKS unless it's a $10k DAC with $5k cables.


Say what you want but I've had pretty much every type and brand of AVR/PRE for the past 30 years and there are differences, huge in some cases. The Lyngdorf MP-60 I currently have blows everything else I've ever heard out of the water and it's not even close. The only one I haven't heard yet is the Trinnov.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> That truck you refer to is only in the rear height/tops channel so depending on your layout and where you sit in that layout, it probably won't do the same thing. Here, in a 24 foot long room, the truck is already "on the ground" by the middle of the room (i.e. it's grounded by the time it reaches top middle so it's only overhead in the rear speakers for a moment) so for the front row seats, it's barely noticeable as it sounds mostly like an ear level surround effect as the rear heights are only 22 degrees from the front row due to the distance (even though they're on the ceiling and that's still in the Dolby Heights specs for 6 overheads), but a sound needs to stay overhead into the panning rather than drop like a stone the moment it moves to travel along the ceiling.
> 
> Now, if you have 2 overheads right in the middle, you get a very different effect as the vehicle is suddenly directly overhead because the Atmos renderer moves it to the only channels available. It'll even move it to the front height channels if those are the only available. Now if I sit in the 2nd row, the effect is much more overhead and in the back it's directly overhead like you describe, but the screen is much smaller looking 20 feet away than 8 feet away so I tend to sit in the front. Many of the overhead sounds "blend" in that movie. Here, I think people with "Tops" speakers get more separation, but I tend to think Tops systems don't image as well between layers. When it's seamless, it's hard to tell where one layer starts and the other begins as even ear level speakers can produce sounds above you with some signals. I've been fooled more than once into thinking a sound was from the height speakers or the bed speakers and it was the opposite when that layer was muted.
> 
> How much more so is it to gauge when a sound is panning 40/60 or 60/40? The sound will likely be "part way up the wall" or "somewhat more overhead" rather than on the ceiling. Poorly matched mid-level imaging, though leads to a jump from ear level to ceiling with a lot less in-between and I'm afraid that's what happens with many in-ceiling speakers, particularly if they don't match the ear level ones very well. So many sounds that should be panned up somewhere in-between end up on the ceiling instead and people are reaving about it how great that ceiling sound is. Of course, that's just a theory and I'm not saying any single system is doing that, but when I hear raving comments about some movie that is mostly road noise and explosions, etc. at part-way pans being one of the best Atmos examples compared to a discrete ball hitting the ceiling on OVERLORD and rolling across it like someone dropped it on the floor above, well, I have to wonder what they're hearing differently.
> 
> Now compare Ready Player One. People RAVE about how awesome that opening racing scene is and it is very _very_ good for what it's doing. However, as testing has shown, it's only using 2 channels overhead. I have 4 speakers sitting up there silent. So, how good a "reference" track is it really when it's not even using Atmos properly? However, ALL the overhead sounds are directly overhead and there's that preference for direct overhead sound as it has the "Wow" factor (as few, if any sounds were EVER directly overhead in the middle of the ceiling in any prior 5.1/7.1 setup). That's also why I think many prefer "Tops" to "Heights". It has more sounds at higher angles (i.e. closer to directly overhead) because it starts higher up on the ceiling and doesn't move down to blend with the lower speakers as much. Some people want that "wow factor" all the time and might prefer all sounds directly overhead. They say they want them to pan overhead, but not _too_ far. They sound way cooler when they're way up high. You lose half the ceiling and sounds don't blend as well with the lower layer, but hey, it's directly overhead!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's total gimmicky to have a plane fly overhead front-to-back because in real life, they fly at ear level and only birds chirp from "somewhere" indistinct overhead. That's totally realistic alright. Yet that's what you get with DSU. But again, I have to wonder about Tops vs Height speaker placement. Maybe those that think Neural X is "too aggressive" have that snap to the ceiling effect and get sounds that are rendering partially higher than ear level in a heights system more directly overhead where it doesn't belong? I wonder that becuase I've NEVER heard one of these cars flying overhead like a plane that people talk about hearing with Neural X. I get planes and helicopters and thunder overhead. I've never heard a car flying overhead with Neural X (BTTF 5.1 in Neural X excepted or the 5.1 version of Harry Potter). But people sure talk about it a lot. So perhaps things like that do happen with Tops, but not Heights? (and I mean the placement, not the setting).



You seem intense...I totally dig that!

My room is about 19' by 11'. For the most part, the bed and ceiling channels in my 7.4.4 setup are within the Dolby suggested placement ranges. I've always been a bear for using speakers that are as close to identical as possible throughout a setup. While it would be impossible for me to shove tower speakers up into my ceilings (I would if I could), I have been able to maintain identical tweeters and cone material (with differing sizes) by sticking with the PARADIGM monitor series.

I've played with the AUDESSEY app and tried every parameter available and done loads of comparisons with the various saved settings that the app allows. While I have stadium seating for my back row, It's placement against the back wall, and the desire to keep all the tweeters in the bed layer at ear level, means that for sound, I have prioritized, and calibrated for, a tight MLP around 2 of the 3 seats in my front row.

Between 4 subs and tactile transducers, I'm still sorting out my bass situation but am satisfied that I've done well enough in that regard until I can add minidsp to my rig.

I don't generally stand beside or under any one channel or mute all other channels to verify that sound is actually coming out of it because...well, that sounds a bit crazy to me. What I can say, is that when an ATMOS track is done right, I have on many occasions experienced a feeling in which my speakers seem to disappear. I'm not talking about diffuse or indistinct sound. I'm talking about completely smooth transitions like a car that is coming from directly behind me and then jumps straight over my head and crashes down right in front of me - making sounds in places that I don't have speakers!


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> Say what you want but I've had pretty much every type and brand of AVR/PRE for the past 30 years and there are differences, huge in some cases. The Lyngdorf MP-60 I currently have _*blows everything else I've ever heard out of the water *_and it's not even close. The only one I haven't heard yet is the Trinnov.


The ego bragging "blows everything out of the water" claptrap on ultra high priced gear most cannot afford is usually a key indicator to me I'm dealing with a case of _audiophilia_.

There are reasons some AVRs and AVPs are better than others, but the classical Audiophile DAC and high grade capacitor spiel gets old. I'm reminded of that scene in The Fast and the Furious. "Ferrari!"

Hey, whatever floats your boat. It's no skin off my back.


----------



## Rich 63

Gates said:


> Say what you want but I've had pretty much every type and brand of AVR/PRE for the past 30 years and there are differences, huge in some cases. The Lyngdorf MP-60 I currently have blows everything else I've ever heard out of the water and it's not even close. The only one I haven't heard yet is the Trinnov.


Was this comparision done with with the same speakers in the same room? You get where im going.


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> The ego bragging "blows everything out of the water" claptrap on ultra high priced gear most cannot afford is usually a key indicator to me I'm dealing with a case of _audiophilia_.
> 
> There are reasons some AVRs and AVPs are better than others, but the classical Audiophile DAC and high grade capacitor spiel gets old. I'm reminded of that scene in The Fast and the Furious. "Ferrari!"
> 
> Hey, whatever floats your boat. It's no skin off my back.


Well of course as soon as someone goes against your opinion, you get like this...then you wonder why so many people have you on ignore or don't like you...also the reason you got banned from blu-ray.com  Get a grip. If you like what you have, good for you. There is a difference in the end.


----------



## Gates

Rich 63 said:


> Was this comparision done with with the same speakers in the same room? You get where im going.


I do have the same speakers and room, yes.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> The ego bragging "blows everything out of the water" claptrap on ultra high priced gear most cannot afford is usually a key indicator to me I'm dealing with a case of _audiophilia_.
> 
> There are reasons some AVRs and AVPs are better than others, but the classical Audiophile DAC and high grade capacitor spiel gets old. I'm reminded of that scene in The Fast and the Furious. "Ferrari!"
> 
> Hey, whatever floats your boat. It's no skin off my back.


Hey. It's only $15K. I'm sure there is something even more expensive out there.


----------



## bluesky636

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, good point and apologies for introducing any confusion. I was trying to use an analogy of how the randomness of the tests is done from the user's (patient's) perspective, with the software knowing which clip it's playing and sorting out the results afterwards to reduce "lucky guesses".


No worries. Just didn't want people to get confused.


----------



## Gates

bluesky636 said:


> Hey. It's only $15K. I'm sure there is something even more expensive out there.


There is. I encourage people to read up on Room Perfect to see what it can achieve without changing the characteristics of your speakers.


----------



## bluesky636

Gates said:


> There is. I encourage people to read up on Room Perfect to see what it can achieve without changing the characteristics of your speakers.


I'll be sure to do that as soon as I win the PowerBall or MegaMillions lotteries.


----------



## Gates

bluesky636 said:


> I'll be sure to do that as soon as I win the PowerBall or MegaMillions lotteries.


There are other units that use Room Perfect as well.


----------



## Rich 63

Gates said:


> I do have the same speakers and room, yes.


 Now that's a vailid opinion then. That is a close enough comparison for me. Others will tell you your mind by saying that its confirmation bias though.


----------



## Gates

Rich 63 said:


> Now that's a vailid opinion then. That is a close enough comparison for me. Others will tell you your mind by saying that its confirmation bias though.


Bah, they can say what they want. Like I said, it's not like it's my first unit. All you have to do is do some research and see what people are saying about it, it's not just me.


----------



## bluesky636

Gates said:


> There are other units that use Room Perfect as well.


Mmmmmm. Looks like the nearest dealer is in Denmark. Guess I'll have to fire up the old Gulfstream G550 and hop on over.


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> Well of course as soon as someone goes against your opinion, you get like this...then you wonder why so many people have you on ignore or don't like you...also the reason you got banned from blu-ray.com  Get a grip. If you like what you have, good for you. There is a difference in the end.


I replied in EXACTLY the _same_ _way_ you replied to me so do us both a favor and stop playing the innocent victim.

You didn't like my opinion and so you had to jump in and tell me how wrong I am and how your magical $15,000+ AVP blows everything else out of the water. No proof or double blind testing etc required to make such claims, of course. We should just accept all _our_ systems _suck_ compared to yours...yet _I_ am the one in the wrong to merely tell you if that's the kind of thing you enjoy then have at it? 

I've had similar experiences with Trinnov owners who won't even speak to people who don't own boutique brands. We're the wrong class of people, after all.

I'm banned at blu-ray because the site is full of trolling Jacks the moderators do nothing about and when you've had enough animated gifs of x-rated garbage thrown at you and worse and the moderators laugh right along with these types you eventually have enough of it and fight back and they go after you for the stuff they let their buddies get away with. The guy I told off deserved every last word and if that got me banned there, so be it. The place is a festering sore on the butt of humanity. It's sad because the BD info section is very useful, but many of the people on those forums are just nasty.

On top of that, the moderator in the 2D forum is a piece of work who gets off on his power. He once banned me for reporting someone else breaking the rules (doing the right thing instead of letting it devolve into flames. No one likes a tattle tale...). He's the one that banned me. The moderator of the 3D forum is a nice guy that does his job fairly. I've never had a problem with him ever.

Now the kind of person that brings up other forum issues to try and get empathy/support on this forum as if that somehow magically changes their total lack of support for their claims is not the kind of person I'd want to associate with so I'll gladly try to pay no heed to anything you say from now on. We'll both be happier.


----------



## bluesky636

My "high end" home theater:


__
https://flic.kr/p/2kDFAoX


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> I replied in EXACTLY the _same_ _way_ you replied to me so do us both a favor and stop playing the innocent victim.
> 
> You didn't like my opinion and so you had to jump in and tell me how wrong I am and how your magical $15,000+ AVP blows everything else out of the water. No proof or double blind testing etc required to make such claims, of course. We should just accept all _our_ systems _suck_ compared to yours...yet _I_ am the one in the wrong to merely tell you if that's the kind of thing you enjoy then have at it?
> 
> I've had similar experiences with Trinnov owners who won't even speak to people who don't own boutique brands. We're the wrong class of people, after all.
> 
> I'm banned at blu-ray because the site is full of trolling Jacks the moderators do nothing about and when you've had enough animated gifs of x-rated garbage thrown at you and worse and the moderators laugh right along with these types you eventually have enough of it and fight back and they go after you for the stuff they let their buddies get away with. The guy I told off deserved every last word and if that got me banned there, so be it. The place is a festering sore on the butt of humanity. It's sad because the BD info section is very useful, but many of the people on those forums are just nasty.
> 
> On top of that, the moderator in the 2D forum is a piece of work who gets off on his power. He once banned me for reporting someone else breaking the rules (doing the right thing instead of letting it devolve into flames. No one likes a tattle tale...). He's the one that banned me. The moderator of the 3D forum is a nice guy that does his job fairly. I've never had a problem with him ever.
> 
> Now the kind of person that brings up other forum issues to try and get empathy/support on this forum as if that somehow magically changes their total lack of support for their claims is not the kind of person I'd want to associate with so I'll gladly try to pay no heed to anything you say from now on. We'll both be happier.


Whatever helps you sleep at night. First, I made the comparison with my own experiences and systems. Secondly, you're projecting your own crap onto me and others. Never said a word on your system but feel free to use that for your own agenda. Your track record speaks for itself.


----------



## crutzulee

Part of the fun of this hobby is dreaming of obtaining the next rung on the ladder while wringing out the last drop of performance from the gear you've got.

There's plenty of snake oil to be sure, and I'm sure many of us have had that feeling where an "upgrade" was not worth the money we paid, but by and large, there are improvements to be had in this hobby when one can stretch their budget to the next level.

When it's the former, many will tend to defend their outlay by overstating the results. When it's the latter...well that's just golden..


----------



## Gates

crutzulee said:


> Part of the fun of this hobby is dreaming of obtaining the next rung on the ladder while wringing out the last drop of performance from the gear you've got.
> 
> There's plenty of snake oil to be sure, and I'm sure many of us have had that feeling where an "upgrade" was not worth the money we paid, but by and large, there are improvements to be had in this hobby when one can stretch their budget to the next level.
> 
> When it's the former, many will tend to defend their outlay by overstating the results. When it's the latter...well that's just golden..


I've said in the past when something wasn't up to par with what I paid, not afraid of that. If I didn't like it I'd sell it and get something else.


----------



## crutzulee

Gates said:


> I've said in the past when something wasn't up to par with what I paid, not afraid of that. If I didn't like it I'd sell it and get something else.


My comments were a completely general observation and not at all directed at you or anyone in particular....


----------



## halcyon_888

Looks like there's a new Dolby Atmos version in the works, including an update to the DSU to support wides. I wonder what the update would improve upon with regular Atmos mixes:


----------



## ppasteur

Gates said:


> Bah, they can say what they want. Like I said, it's not like it's my first unit. All you have to do is do some research and see what people are saying about it, it's not just me.


How many of them don't want to justify spending the large amount that they spent...and would admit it if they really couldn't tell any difference. Reviewers, well they want to get those expensive toys to play with...and advertising revenue. Not saying it is not great gear, just that finding an fully objective evaluation is going to be tough.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> Looks like there's a new Dolby Atmos version in the works, including an update to the DSU to support wides. I wonder what the update would improve upon with regular Atmos mixes:


Awesome...so they leave something out so there's room to add it later and have us buy new gear, again.


----------



## bryantc

halcyon_888 said:


> Looks like there's a new Dolby Atmos version in the works, including an update to the DSU to support wides. I wonder what the update would improve upon with regular Atmos mixes:


Denon receivers got that update last year.

It doesn't change anything for Atmos mixes.


----------



## Soulburner

bryantc said:


> Denon receivers got that update last year.


Which receivers?


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> Looks like there's a new Dolby Atmos version in the works, including an update to the DSU to support wides. I wonder what the update would improve upon with regular Atmos mixes:


DSU was updated in June of 2018 to upmix to Wides and Centre Surround. Of the 34 speaker locations for home Atmos, only 4 are still not fed by DSU (the 4 speakers between the LCRs). I think the Denon 6700 had the new DSU upon release last summer.


----------



## halcyon_888

sdurani said:


> DSU was updated in June of 2018 to upmix to Wides and Centre Surround. Of the 34 speaker locations for home Atmos, only 4 are still not fed by DSU (the 4 speakers between the LCRs). I think the Denon 6700 had the new DSU upon release last summer.


Interesting, thanks


----------



## DrDon

Off-topic and insulting posts removed. Remember to discuss the topic and not each other or risk losing posting privileges in this thread.

Questions or comments should be PM'd to me. Do not post those, here.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> Part of the fun of this hobby is dreaming of obtaining the next rung on the ladder while wringing out the last drop of performance from the gear you've got.
> 
> There's plenty of snake oil to be sure, and I'm sure many of us have had that feeling where an "upgrade" was not worth the money we paid, but by and large, there are improvements to be had in this hobby when one can stretch their budget to the next level.
> 
> When it's the former, many will tend to defend their outlay by overstating the results. When it's the latter...well that's just golden..


It's not even a question of overstating (everyone has their own opinions), but the notion someone has heard enough systems that they think they can categorically state something blows _everything_ else away is a difficult one at best, but if it's just their opinion. OK. But if you want to argue about it in response to another opinion,, you're inviting disagreements. 

It's harder to for some if us to think of large differences outside of speakers, but if it's a pre-pro and not some special feature on it mind you like a better room correction system (but even there that assumes the room is bad enough that you _need_ this system no matter what), but just because it's separates and uses high end DACs, etc. well those are known areas of contention in terms of the whole audiophile conception of what matters and what doesn't. Again, some of us have never heard or even read of double blind evidence of superior sound in some of these items so we are less likely to accept it without evidence, but we shouldn't have to if it's merely someone's opinion. But if one wants to debate, that's another matter. 

Some of us simply find it hard to believe in huge differences to certain items like high priced DACs that might have a difference of 0.1dB (When even high end speakers vary by at least 3dB (+/- 1.5dB is lowest I've seen for frequency response) compared to a $10 DAC made in 2020 (we're not living in 1983 anymore. High End then is landfill now) and when a site like Amir's harps on about a DACs ultrasonic performance being terrible (despite being 100% inaudible) we're then living in a whole new world of make believe. IMHO.

I'm certain both Lyngdorf and Trinnov are making some incredible hardware, but I wouldn't want an Altitude 32 for the same reason an audiophile might. There are some on here who bought one and are using 7.1 4 or 9.1.4 or whatever and even an Altitude 16 would have saved them money since they're clearly not using its full capabilities, but they're rich so who cares?

If you're going to spend $15k on an AVP, should you ask yourself first if $11k of room treatments plus a more reasonable alternative might achieve more than a somewhat better room correction system? I would, but then if I were going to get a $30k Trinnov, I'd be getting it to run 20+ speakers not some belief the platinum encased Flux capacitor gave it _timely_ results.

Otherwise, I'm looking at the Monoprice HTP-1 with DIRAC and 15.x support at much more reasonable $4k retail, but it has a few drawbacks as well still.


----------



## borje

sdurani said:


> DSU was updated in June of 2018 to upmix to Wides and Centre Surround. Of the 34 speaker locations for home Atmos, only 4 are still not fed by DSU (the 4 speakers between the LCRs). I think the Denon 6700 had the new DSU upon release last summer.


So does this mean that whats was discussed in the You Tube video as ”new” was already implemented and released in 2018?
I was hoping for an improvement in the Dolby upmixer from 5.1 or 7.1 to Atmos that would match the Auro 3D that looks to be something many likes.


----------



## crutzulee

For those of you looking for aggressive use of your height channels, the new movie BELFAST is an unexpected surprise in this regard with helicopters constantly flying and panning across the ceiling channels.


----------



## sdurani

borje said:


> So does this mean that whats was discussed in the You Tube video as ”new” was already implemented and released in 2018?


No, it was released to licensees in 2018 but the earliest implementation was 2 years later (2021 Denon receivers). This is not uncommon in the industry. DTS demonstrated DTS:X on a 22.2 speaker layout at trade shows in 2016. The ability for DTS to go beyond 11.1 (DTS:X Pro) showed up in products 5 years later (2021).


> I was hoping for an improvement in the Dolby upmixer from 5.1 or 7.1 to Atmos that would match the Auro 3D that looks to be something many likes.


Never going to happen because they use 2 different approaches to upmixing. DSU falls into the category of ambience extraction while Auro-Matic is ambience generation (adds reverb with user adjustable decay tails to simulate different room sizes; same category as Audyssey DSX and Yamaha Cinema DSP modes).


----------



## usc1995

Hey Guys- one of my favorite effects present in a lot of immersive soundtracks is placing rain and thunder sounds in the height speakers. I enjoy the rainstorm demo from the Dolby Atmos demo disc and in movies like the first John Wick. Today I found this recording from YouTube which while not in Atmos sounds great via both the DSU and NeuralX upmixers 



 I thought some of you guys might enjoy it as well.


----------



## bluesky636

usc1995 said:


> Hey Guys- one of my favorite effects present in a lot of immersive soundtracks is placing rain and thunder sounds in the height speakers. I enjoy the rainstorm demo from the Dolby Atmos demo disc and in movies like the first John Wick. Today I found this recording from YouTube which while not in Atmos sounds great via both the DSU and NeuralX upmixers
> 
> 
> 
> I thought some of you guys might enjoy it as well.


All it does is make me want to pee.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> All it does is make me want to pee.


My older brother used to hide under the covers during thunderstorms. He still doesn't like them even in his 50s. I used to love thunderstorms myself and playing out in the rain. I've got several lightning photos I took over the years (film camera, before digital). The problem with most thunderstorms in Atmos is they are too low sounding like the ceiling is way up in the sky. That might match a movie's view of the cloud layer being at the top of the screen/ceiling, but the best thunderstorm demos are binaural recordings of them as they absolutely image way above the ceiling and sound very convincing. Multi-channel stereo playback of binaural thunderstorms or even Neural X will play realistically.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

usc1995 said:


> Hey Guys- one of my favorite effects present in a lot of immersive soundtracks is placing rain and thunder sounds in the height speakers. I enjoy the rainstorm demo from the Dolby Atmos demo disc and in movies like the first John Wick.


One of the things I dig about stormy scenes with Atmos is if they're done logically. A lot of people think the sound of rain should be in the heights... but rain doesn't make a sound until it hits something. So I like when a mix has thunder and wind in the heights and rain striking things around the listener. Or if someone is under a tin roof, the rain strikes being above you. Some of the best are when the scene is in a forest and you hear the rain hitting leaves above and around you, as it logically would. I dig when the mixer actually puts thought into it and places those sounds accordingly. But also, I think a lot of people expect rain sounds above them when there would really be nothing above anyone in the scene for it to hit.

Also, when I've told people I know that rain doesn't make a sound until it hits something, it turns out that they've never actually considered that until the next time it rains and they go, "Oh, wow... That is true."


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I think a lot of people expect rain sounds above them when there would really be nothing above anyone in the scene for it to hit.


Real vs reel. Movie mixers' dilemma: mix for audience expectation or realism? The latter could be distracting if audiences aren't used to it (imagine a fist fight scene with realistic punching sounds). While unrealistic, I don't fault mixers who put rain effects in the height layer.


----------



## bryantc

It doesn't make sense for rain to be coming from the Ear Level speakers either. This is a perfect case for Floor Speakers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Real vs reel. Movie mixers' dilemma: mix for audience expectation or realism? The latter could be distracting if audiences aren't used to it (imagine a fist fight scene with realistic punching sounds). While unrealistic, I don't fault mixers who put rain effects in the height layer.


My point is that the added channels of Atmos let them get significantly more granular with it so they can convey different types of rain sounds if they choose to. When you think back to the 5.1 days, your two basic options for ambient rain sound were either to do big mono with the sound in all 5 channels or invert phase between the surrounds so it generalizes (or combinations of both). Now that they actually have the additional layer to work with, they have a bigger toolbox. And I'm glad that some mixes are actually doing it in a more realistic way... and even doing it multiple ways in the same movie. In fact, I think Age Of Adaline has well-done examples of differing approaches to rain sounds in several parts of the movie.


----------



## Josh Z

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Also, when I've told people I know that rain doesn't make a sound until it hits something, it turns out that they've never actually considered that until the next time it rains and they go, "Oh, wow... That is true."


Well, the rain's gonna hit the top of your head, which is above your ears. So there's that.


----------



## halcyon_888

bryantc said:


> It doesn't make sense for rain to be coming from the Ear Level speakers either. This is a perfect case for Floor Speakers.


It makes me wonder if floor speakers is what's going to be in Atmos II, and if that's the next iteration count me out. I can only have so many speakers--and doing height speakers was already kind of crazy in my book. Floor speakers? Nah, mix the rain in the main and height channels and I'm good.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> It makes me wonder if floor speakers is what's going to be in Atmos II, and if that's the next iteration count me out. I can only have so many speakers--and doing height speakers was kind of crazy to have in my book already. Floor speakers? Nah, mix the rain in the main and height channels and I'm good.


I don't know that we need floor channels. Movies aren't VR... and the sound for them isn't necessarily mixed for the camera or characters' point of view. Mixers have enough tools as it is to convey floor-level events without needing to have speakers there.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't know that we need floor channels.


I'll go further - I know that we don't need floor channels


----------



## MagnumX

Like _Ready Player One_'s 2-channel overheads using ear level directional steering, you probably wouldn't need a bunch of floor channels, just a couple on either side of your chair pointing upward, perhaps even mono channels (the directional cues would come from ear level when needed). We've got seat shakers, so why not floor effects? 

They could even bandwidth limit the channels so it's only used for midrange/high things like creaky floorboards, mice squeaking, rain pattering, a cat's paws walking, etc. A couple of little 2.5" car speakers would do the trick spaced between seats. You could even make home theater chairs with them built-in (pull out on the sides and lock into place and can be tucked back in when not used (or if not used at all). 

But there are definitely some effects that would be awesome on the floor like a mouse scurrying along or squeaking. I can just see women jumping out of their chairs at the theater....


----------



## niterida

Or city sounds when people are standing at the top of buildings, Rivers flowing below the bridge, road noise for in-car scenes etc etc
Bring It On


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Jeremy Anderson said:


> One of the things I dig about stormy scenes with Atmos is if they're done logically. A lot of people think the sound of rain should be in the heights... but rain doesn't make a sound until it hits something. So I like when a mix has thunder and wind in the heights and rain striking things around the listener. Or if someone is under a tin roof, the rain strikes being above you.


Been watching my rant videos over the years have we? its nice others can hear these mixers flawed mixes as well cos they need to do the mixes and work harder at it, not rushing it. 
I been ranting about a below surround yet dolby labs just fall on deaf ears these days now.
Rain is a complex effect to create a near approximation effect would be archived if there was a discrete array below surround that will be fitted in-floor.

Mostly outdoors say a street with pavement and road most of the rain during a heavy rain fall mostly we hear it on the ground surface but don't give many seconds thought about it. When hearing it in a movie. STOP! There's something not correct about these so called atmos 3d, mixes and dolby labs z-axis is totally Scam, just like all the rest. Surrounds located on sidewall then few feet above is the overhead surrounds. So atmos and all the rest is only doing z-axis at only half, half of what its supposed to do. We've all been wasting our, or I have been wasting my listening time. Oh well dolby labs has been wasting their time as well or they only care about counting how much their stoke shares are doing.

Rain virtually falls silent and once the raindrops land on surface object they produce a sound. First raindrop maybe hundreds of feet up on skyscraper and would take extra few m/s before the raindrops landing on our head or side of our ear on on our shoulder cos the raindrops are randomly spread apart. Depending on the type of rainfall?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ultimatehomecinema said:


> Been watching my rant videos over the years have we?


No, I have no idea who you are. And I feel like I would remember your videos.



ultimatehomecinema said:


> its nice others can hear these mixers flawed mixes as well cos they need to do the mixes and work harder at it, not rushing it.
> I been ranting about a below surround yet dolby labs just fall on deaf ears these days now.
> Rain is a complex effect to create a near approximation effect would be archived if there was a discrete array below surround that will be fitted in-floor.


Again, I don't think we need floor speakers at all. With Atmos and other immersive formats, I think mixers have plenty of tools right now to craft enveloping mixes that service the story. It isn't VR, so their priority isn't (nor should it be) making it sound like you're in the POV of the camera or main character. There's far more to cinema sound design than that.



ultimatehomecinema said:


> There's something not correct about these so called atmos 3d, mixes and dolby labs z-axis is totally Scam, just like all the rest. Surrounds located on sidewall then few feet above is the overhead surrounds. So atmos and all the rest is only doing z-axis at only half, half of what its supposed to do. We've all been wasting our, or I have been wasting my listening time. Oh well dolby labs has been wasting their time as well or they only care about counting how much their stoke shares are doing.


_You_ may have been wasting your time. I've enjoyed well over 200 movies in immersive audio and think Atmos is a great tool for sound designers to have at their disposal... even if some use it better than others. They can't all be as good as Doctor Sleep, but I've enjoyed the overwhelming majority of movies with immersive audio.


----------



## halcyon_888

I'm not sure how floor channels would even practically work in a movie theater. So if this would be a home-only based format, it would be likely only be adopted by a few enthusiasts. (I wouldn't be one of them.)


----------



## Rich 63

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm not sure how floor channels would even practically work in a movie theater. So if this would be a home-only based format, it would be likely only be adopted by a few enthusiasts. (I wouldn't be one of them.)


Nor i. 4 atmos was a hard enough do, plus i have no intention of spending the money required to get the pre/pro needed for such an endevour.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm not sure how floor channels would even practically work in a movie theater. So if this would be a home-only based format, it would be likely only be adopted by a few enthusiasts. (I wouldn't be one of them.)


I imagine it would be the same way they managed Atmos in a theater. They would add _more_ _speakers_. You can put them in-floor with grates in the aisle ways, possibly with angled covers to keep popcorn out. I'd go one set of channels with directional cues from above. If it works for _Ready Player One_ with sounds above, it'll work for sounds below. 

I find it strange that some people who embrace Atmos are squeamish about adding more speakers. "Good enough!" is the battle call of the QUAD fans of the 1970s. There's a whole forum of these guys at _Quadraphonic Quad_ forums and many of the old timers get very angry at the suggestion they should have 5.1 speakers (4.0 is all you need baby!) let alone 11+ for Atmos. 

'That's crazy! Who's going to put 11 or more speakers in a room!?!!? Who!??!' (paraphrase of a memory of a thread there) Heck, some advocate going back to MONO. Stereo is an illusion and therefore garbage. Full sized console AM was the crowning achievement of entertainment of mankind and what a shame we don't have virtual radio dramas anymore. Glenn Miller is frozen somewhere just waiting for AM radio to go retro again along with ankle length dresses, corsets and everyone chain smoking unfiltered cigarettes. Those were the days.... 

Personally, I think as long as everything is backwards compatible, there wouldn't be anything wrong with adding floor objects to Atmos or DTS:X. They'd get moved to the ear level layer if they weren't present as they would be now anyway. How well would it work? I have no idea. A subfloor with grating to put the speakers even lower would probably work better (but be a disaster for cleaning up after messy theater patrons). But if it does work, I'd be willing to add at least two more speakers at home to hear the effect, perhaps for the front row (MLP area) only. A discrete sound imaging under me (from a mouse squeak to to a cat meow to a cavern echo below) would be _awesome *if* _it worked well. 



Rich 63 said:


> Nor i. 4 atmos was a hard enough do, plus i have no intention of spending the money required to get the pre/pro needed for such an endevour.


It's a lot easier to add speakers to the floor than the ceiling. Gravity is on your side for one thing. I'd wait until I was ready to upgrade the AVR/AVP anyway. It'd only need 2 extra speakers to give a reasonable effect, IMO, although I'm sure 4 would be better yet. They could actually make towers that had the extra speakers built-in at the bottom, making it easier still (one set of speakers for 4 output or 6 with top bouncy speakers as well). But like I said, _if_ they ever added such a system, I'm sure it would be backwards compatible regardless. I think a binaural render effect could simulate it pretty well even without the extra speakers (like Q-Sound did for surround on-axis with stereo quite effectively). Perhaps Neural X could be updated to separate a lower layer as well as an upper layer? I figure they will eventually need a new addition to keep interest going (or someone else will try to pass them by like Auro-3D attempted before Dolby woke up and answered back with Atmos).

...

BTW, do _NOT_ question their poll system at _Quadraphonic Quad_ or they go insane!!! (No joke. I offered the mere personal opinion that a single album average rating doesn't tell you _anything_ about an album when sound, quality, imaging and personal taste can overwhelm any rating (almost everything on there is rate 9.99/10 because of that and they get angry if someone gives anything less than a 7 for any reason whatsoever). I pointed out if I hated the music, but loved the sound quality it wouldn't get anything better than a 6 or 7 for an album by Elton John or the Beatles or whomever that they'd normally think was a "10" (i.e. not all of us worship the Beatles!) I would prefer surround usage, sound quality and whether one "likes" it or not to be separate ratings as 9.9/10 doesn't tell me much and many of those albums are unlistenable (music wise) and there's no way to tell when they get angry if albums get less than a 7 rating for any reason. 

One guy then actually called me a _male genital part_ for questioning their rating system at all (I thought it was a _discussion_ about the site and its features) and when I merely suggested people who feel the need to call others vile names like that should perhaps take a hard look in the mirror before posting a reply, _that_ got me banned permanently (for advocating civil discussion instead of throwing childish names around no less). If _that_ is all it takes to get a permanent ban there, the guys running it are a few cards short of a full deck, IMO. 100% agreement or ELSE!? That's not a discussion, but a one-way narrative). No wonder they're so opposed to change. They're still living in the 1970s era Soviet Union. _Quad_ Forever baby!


----------



## crutzulee

So Magnumx... just curious... how many forums have you been banned from?


----------



## bluesky636

crutzulee said:


> So Magnumx... just curious... how many forums have you been banned from?


Personally, I find MagnumX's posts more interesting and informative than several of the other posters that have appeared lately in this thread.


----------



## Ricoflashback

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm not sure how floor channels would even practically work in a movie theater. So if this would be a home-only based format, it would be likely only be adopted by a few enthusiasts. (I wouldn't be one of them.)


Think of it like a ButtKicker sound. Only lower.


----------



## chi_guy50

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm not sure how floor channels would even practically work in a movie theater. So if this would be a home-only based format, it would be likely only be adopted by a few enthusiasts. (I wouldn't be one of them.)


I think it is unlikely to enter into the home theater market, but there have been surround-sound systems designed with floor-level speakers such as this Hamasaki 22.2 layout:


----------



## machavez00

Anyone use the Lovesac as part of their system? 




__





Lovesac - Sactionals with StealthTech Sound + Charge


Introducing Lovesac StealthTech. Invisible speakers and wireless chargers transforms any Sactionals setup into an immersive theater experience right at home.




www.lovesac.com


----------



## bluesky636

machavez00 said:


> Anyone use the Lovesac as part of their system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovesac - Sactionals with StealthTech Sound + Charge
> 
> 
> Introducing Lovesac StealthTech. Invisible speakers and wireless chargers transforms any Sactionals setup into an immersive theater experience right at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lovesac.com


Ridiculously expensive and ugly. Wouldn't waste my money on it.


----------



## Rich 63

bluesky636 said:


> Ridiculously expensive and ugly. Wouldn't waste my money on it.


So we'll take that as a no?


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> So we'll take that as a no?


----------



## crutzulee

machavez00 said:


> Anyone use the Lovesac as part of their system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovesac - Sactionals with StealthTech Sound + Charge
> 
> 
> Introducing Lovesac StealthTech. Invisible speakers and wireless chargers transforms any Sactionals setup into an immersive theater experience right at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lovesac.com


When I first clicked on the link, it appeared to be something similar to the tactile transducers that I've attached to my theater seats (albeit with a ridiculous markup!). Clicking on the "more info" tab reveals that this product is more ambitiously looking to take the place of a speaker array in a home theater. 

As a guy who loves his big ugly black boxes, I'm not their target market but for those constrained by WAF, this might be interesting ...despite the unfortunate name.


----------



## crutzulee

bluesky636 said:


> Personally, I find MagnumX's posts more interesting and informative than several of the other posters that have appeared lately in this thread.


Absolutely agreed that they are more interesting...

As I said earlier, he's intense....and I dig that!

One of my favourite things about these forums is the chance to peep in on others' home theaters. I think Magnum has at some point indicated that he is some sort of sound engineer. Looking at his theater thread, my first impression is that he's batshit crazy - IN ALL THE MOST WONDERFUL WAYS!

As much as I love peeping on people's theaters on forums, I'd love the chance to actually sit in them and hear what the curators hear and discuss the merits of each decision. In the absence of this, I can only piece together what they describe as their experiences and pair that with what I see in the post pictures.

Years ago, I dug out an old JVC pro-logic receiver and paired it with my Pioneer Dolby Digital amp in an attempt to derive a rear channel from a Japanese imported LD of THE PHANTOM MENACE. In the absence of Dolby Digital EX and their corresponding test tones being available for the home market at the time, I had to improvise with my trusty analogue SPL meter. Many (including my long suffering wife) thought I was crazy as I went through my whole catalogue of LDs chasing the visceral feeling of that pod race scene.

Sadly, outside of the PHANTOM MENACE and a Godzilla movie, most of my experiences resulted in a collapsing of the surround stage into that rear center channel....but for those that I convinced to sit in the chair, it was undeniable that the experience of those two titles were an unparalleled sonic assault, the likes of which had not been experienced in a home environment up until that point.

When I look at MagnumX's deviations from the traditional layouts, his use of non timberally matched speakers and the frankensteining of various amps to derive something more akin to what is experienced in an auditorium, I feel that he is sacrificing the intended results of the engineers that are mastering the sound on discs as they are intended to be heard in a traditional HT. And yes, I understand that unfortunately, more and more of this "mastering" is being done to accommodate the use of soundbars and yes, I'm sure that there are tracks that are mastered in a fashion that may sound better on his system. But by and large, from many of the posts I've read here from many of the users, I think many of you are missing out on the "bubble of sound" that a properly mastered ATMOS track can convey in favour of gimicky distinct sounds coming from localized speakers.

A couple of years ago, I had the chance to sit in a beautifully appointed theater of another forum member. From the seating, to speakers, to amp, to projector his system was superior to mine in every way. While I was heartened to realize that overall superiority of his setup was not commensurate with the increased financial outlay, the most revealing thing about our discussion was the fact that the professionals that designed and calibrated his system conceded that in order to maximize the experience of those sitting in a narrowly defined MLP, the experience of those in the other 2 rows of his theater had to be compromised.

While I have rocked a two row system with stadium seating in various homes over the years, under various formats, it wasn't until I let go of the desire to create a uniform experience throughout my HT that my constant need to tinker from title to title was cured. With my current Denon amp, I employ a very tight 8 point calibration pattern around 2 of the 3 seats in my front row. This, coupled with strategic placement of 4 subs and tactile transducers enables me to achieve an incredible sound field for 2 of my seats, an almost imperceptibly degraded experience in a third seat and a pretty decent experience in my back row 2 seater in my 7.4.4 setup.

To each their own. We should all enjoy our setups, share our experiences, not get bent out of shape when someone does something different and maybe learn from each other!


----------



## halcyon_888

chi_guy50 said:


> I think it is unlikely to enter into the home theater market, but there have been surround-sound systems designed with floor-level speakers such as this Hamasaki 22.2 layout:
> 
> View attachment 3206911


This is more like what I had in mind with the floor speakers placed at the front stage like in the image, but unlike the image the rest of the speaker would be the regular bed and height Atmos layers to current Dolby specifications. Maybe instead of "Atmos II" they'll call it "Atmos+" or something like that since plussing things seems to be the fad lately. Purely hypothetical, admittedly.


----------



## bluesky636

crutzulee said:


> When I first clicked on the link, it appeared to be something similar to the tactile transducers that I've attached to my theater seats (albeit with a ridiculous markup!). Clicking on the "more info" tab reveals that this product is more ambitiously looking to take the place of a speaker array in a home theater.
> 
> As a guy who loves his big ugly black boxes, I'm not their target market but for those constrained by WAF, this might be interesting ...despite the unfortunate name.


I don't see any information on how whether and how this system interfaces with the tv or AVR. Does this do Atmos? 7.1? 5.1? Or just stereo with a center channel? For what this thing costs, they need to provide a lot more technical information.


----------



## bryantc

chi_guy50 said:


> I think it is unlikely to enter into the home theater market, but there have been surround-sound systems designed with floor-level speakers such as this Hamasaki 22.2 layout:
> 
> View attachment 3206911


DTS:X has the same speakers below the screen (as well as 2 LFE) so its sort of in the home already. In fact my guess is DTS based their layout on the 22.2 Hi-vision.

Microsoft also has support for floor speakers in the latest versions of Windows. They even added an extra number to the layout:

*with support for up to 8.1.4.4 channels (8 channels around the listener – Left, Right, Center, Side Left, Side Right, Back Left, Back Right, and Back Center; 1 low frequency effects channel; 4 channels above the listener; 4 channels below the listener) *


----------



## MagnumX

First, to answer your question above, 2 forums in 26 years, both mentioned and one was bogus as I broke no rules there other than the owners can do anything they want to anyone they want rule. 



crutzulee said:


> When I look at MagnumX's deviations from the traditional layouts, his use of non timberally matched speakers



Um, hold on here. What _deviation_ are you referring to? Other than Top Middle being on the side walls instead of 2.5 feet inward due to the steel beam box overhead creating a placement problem (i.e. It's at the Auro-3D Surround Height Location and which is not noticeable 95% of the time with typical content and when it is, they are simply spaced outward 2 feet which is no different than changing one's seat in a real theater), my layout is otherwise 100% Dolby compliant in speaker locations. 

While 4 speakers are currently using active summation (the same thing the Lyngdorf MP-50 used that cost over $10k), they are otherwise ready to connect to a larger discrete speaker count processor if/when I buy one. Front wides and SS#2 are valid Dolby speaker locations. Use of arrays (via parallel switch box here) are still used by Dolby in the cinema and offered by Trinnov at home. At the MLP, there's no difference in sound location placement. At off-axis locations, the placement is improved over not using the extra speakers. I can also turn them off, lest you think I don't know what it sounds like without them. I've heard these claims made by others including Jeremy Anderson who is ignoring me but made several attempts to attack my system using such nonsense. As for Top Middle "Scatmos" extraction, it is nearly identical (save some tiny leakage) to discrete rendering. In other words, I'm not sure what your problem is.

The 2nd part, "use of non-timbrally matched speakers" (sic) is absolute nonsense. Which speakers do you think I have that aren't matched timbrally? The subwoofer? That's the only speaker that isn't using PSB drivers. In fact, 13 of the 17 speakers (all but the four rear speakers top & bottom) use IDENTICAL drivers and the rear speakers use updated versions of the same drivers (same size too and match each other). They sound virtually identical. In fact, the location of some speakers affects the pink noise more than the slight rear driver differences. With objects moving around the room, they sound identical. The definition of not timbrally matched would mean they do NOT sound identical and that's not the case.



> and the frankensteining of various amps to derive something more akin to what is experienced in an auditorium


Are you sure you're not someone else under a different name with that use of the word Frankenstein? It's not a verb and I don't know what you're talking about either. Frankenstein implies I'm combining parts together. All my amplifiers are discrete and there's never been a requirement to use the same brand amp for all speakers by anyone in the industry ever. I'm not "Frankensteining" anything.



> , I feel that he is sacrificing the intended results of the engineers that are mastering the sound on discs as they are intended to be heard in a traditional HT. And yes, I understand that


Again, you sound like someone else on here that has me on ignore. How would you know what _MY_ system sounds like when you've never heard it? It's a bit like saying the Atmos cinema down the street doesn't sound like real Atmos because it doesn't use 5.1.4 layout _my_ home cinema uses! It's a ridiculous assertion. All the speakers in the Dolby 9.1.6 test image exactly where they are supposed to here other than Top Middle imaging outward slightly (which doesn't affect sounds imaging in-between and matches the side surround below it). It's also a completely compliant location for DTS:X and Auro-3D playback. So while not "perfect" for Atmos, it's a compromise to fit the room and solves the direct overhead issue with very few down sides to it. The helicopter travels ever so slightly diagonal (not even noticeable really) instead of perfectly straight on "square/circle" around the room. Big deal.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> First, to answer your question above, 2 forums in 26 years, both mentioned and one was bogus as I broke no rules there other than the owners can do anything they want to anyone they want rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, hold on here. What _deviation_ are you referring to? Other than Top Middle being on the side walls instead of 2.5 feet inward due to the steel beam box overhead creating a placement problem (i.e. It's at the Auro-3D Surround Height Location and which is not noticeable 95% of the time with typical content and when it is, they are simply spaced outward 2 feet which is no different than changing one's seat in a real theater), my layout is otherwise 100% Dolby compliant in speaker locations.
> 
> While 4 speakers are currently using active summation (the same thing the Lyngdorf MP-50 used that cost over $10k), they are otherwise ready to connect to a larger discrete speaker count processor if/when I buy one. Front wides and SS#2 are valid Dolby speaker locations. Use of arrays (via parallel switch box here) are still used by Dolby in the cinema and offered by Trinnov at home. At the MLP, there's no difference in sound location placement. At off-axis locations, the placement is improved over not using the extra speakers. I can also turn them off, lest you think I don't know what it sounds like without them. I've heard these claims made by others including Jeremy Anderson who is ignoring me but made several attempts to attack my system using such nonsense. As for Top Middle "Scatmos" extraction, it is nearly identical (save some tiny leakage) to discrete rendering. In other words, I'm not sure what your problem is.
> 
> The 2nd part, "use of non-timbrally matched speakers" (sic) is absolute nonsense. Which speakers do you think I have that aren't matched timbrally? The subwoofer? That's the only speaker that isn't using PSB drivers. In fact, 13 of the 17 speakers (all but the four rear speakers top & bottom) use IDENTICAL drivers and the rear speakers use updated versions of the same drivers (same size too and match each other). They sound virtually identical. In fact, the location of some speakers affects the pink noise more than the slight rear driver differences. With objects moving around the room, they sound identical. The definition of not timbrally matched would mean they do NOT sound identical and that's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you're not someone else under a different name with that use of the word Frankenstein? It's not a verb and I don't know what you're talking about either. Frankenstein implies I'm combining parts together. All my amplifiers are discrete and there's never been a requirement to use the same brand amp for all speakers by anyone in the industry ever. I'm not "Frankensteining" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you sound like someone else on here that has me on ignore. How would you know what _MY_ system sounds like when you've never heard it? It's a bit like saying the Atmos cinema down the street doesn't sound like real Atmos because it doesn't use 5.1.4 layout _my_ home cinema uses! It's a ridiculous assertion. All the speakers in the Dolby 9.1.6 test image exactly where they are supposed to here other than Top Middle imaging outward slightly (which doesn't affect sounds imaging in-between and matches the side surround below it). It's also a completely compliant location for DTS:X and Auro-3D playback. So while not "perfect" for Atmos, it's a compromise to fit the room and solves the direct overhead issue with very few down sides to it. The helicopter travels ever so slightly diagonal (not even noticeable really) instead of perfectly straight on "square/circle" around the room. Big deal.


Damn, if you didn't catch me out!

I joined these forums 6 years ago and have used the same name on multiple forums from well before that just to punk you here on the cusp of 2022. I've been playing the long game with you son...buwhahaha!!

Seriously, broski, I stand corrected on the timbre of your speakers as I was going by some of your photos which I think have been taken over a period of years and seem to show different grills and even some bi-pole speakers in your setup.

This will probably fall on deaf years..but here goes - I think that you have a bit of a reputation because you come off as a bit defensive and this precludes you from actually reading what someone is writing when you perceive it to be an attack on your system or the way you have done things. It's partially understandable as you've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your setup.

Aside from my years long subterfuge, I have no reason to antagonize or quarrel with you. I stand by the rest of what I wrote. I never purported to have knowledge of how things sound in your room. I DID mention, that in the absence of actually being there, I can only piece together an opinion based on supplied pictures and reading about your experiences from your posts. This thread is full of posts where your experience with a certain track or movie sequence is different from others. For me, a red flag is your experience with FURY ROAD.

Virtually every internet discussion about reference ATMOS includes this movie. I'm no fan of it and often lament the fact that such a flawed movie represents the state of the art. The first seven minutes of this film will display every feature that ATMOS sound engineers have at their disposal. IN MY OPINION, if you play this sequence on your setup and are not left spent, then indeed something is deficient in your rig.

I am aware that there are a few members that have you on ignore and some have counselled me to do the same or worse, report you. While I respect their rite to this course of action, this will never be me. As a person who holds very unpopular opinions, I've had a few forum members set me on ignore or report a post or two. That's OK, I've got thick enough skin and most importantly have no problem with a little introspection from time to time.

As far as Frankensteining is concerned, I think Americans prefer the more problem solving connotations of Macguyvering...Although I still think of you as more of a mad scientist.


----------



## halcyon_888

bryantc said:


> DTS:X has the same speakers below the screen (as well as 2 LFE) so its sort of in the home already. In fact my guess is DTS based their layout on the 22.2 Hi-vision.
> 
> Microsoft also has support for floor speakers in the latest versions of Windows. They even added an extra number to the layout:
> 
> *with support for up to 8.1.4.4 channels (8 channels around the listener – Left, Right, Center, Side Left, Side Right, Back Left, Back Right, and Back Center; 1 low frequency effects channel; 4 channels above the listener; 4 channels below the listener) *


Do you have a source for DTS:X having floor level speakers? This is the first I've heard of it--not that I'm an authority on such things, it's just the first I've heard mention of it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bryantc said:


> Microsoft also has support for floor speakers in the latest versions of Windows. They even added an extra number to the layout:
> 
> *with support for up to 8.1.4.4 channels (8 channels around the listener – Left, Right, Center, Side Left, Side Right, Back Left, Back Right, and Back Center; 1 low frequency effects channel; 4 channels above the listener; 4 channels below the listener) *


Well... Not necessarily "floor speakers". I'm pretty sure they're referring to Windows Sonic, which is their HRTF solution for headphones (and what Hololens used). It supposedly somehow does sound below you... though I don't know of any games that specifically implement that. Any games that use spatial audio on the Xbox or PC use their software hooks, which can then be ported out to Atmos or DTS:X. That way, software devs can just implement spatial audio using that one part of the SDK (or output to it from supported middleware) and not have to worry about specifically implementing Atmos or DTS:X themselves. The three headphone variants differ somewhat in that they each use different HRTF models... and Windows Sonic uses a spherical equidistant layout, DTS:X a hemispherical equidistant layout, and Atmos an orthogonal layout (so the output is slightly different in practice and which one works best for you largely depends on which model best matches your head/ear shape and hearing).

I don't know that there's any support for actually outputting those below-listener channels to anything other than the headphone variants though.


----------



## bluesky636

halcyon_888 said:


> Do you have a source for DTS:X having floor level speakers? This is the first I've heard of it--not that I'm an authority on such things, it's just the first I've heard mention of it.


DTS:X Pro does but not plain DTS:X.









Trinnov | What is the difference between DTS:X and DTS:X Pro?


What are the difference between the DTS:X and DTS:X Pro immersive sound formats?




www.trinnov.com


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> Do you have a source for DTS:X having floor level speakers?


The original DTS:X speaker layout includes 3 speakers (L*b*, C*b*, R*b*) that are 30° *b*elow ear height (measure from your ears to the floor, multiply that distance by 1.75 and that's where the speakers go on the floor in front of you).


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> The original DTS:X speaker layout includes 3 speakers (L*b*, C*b*, R*b*) that are 30° *b*elow ear height (measure from your ears to the floor, multiply that distance by 1.75 and that's where the speakers go on the floor in front of you).
> View attachment 3207163


This is shown as DTS:X Pro in the link I posted just before your post.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> Seriously, broski, I stand corrected on the timbre of your speakers as I was going by some of your photos which I think have been taken over a period of years and seem to show different grills and even some bi-pole speakers in your setup.


The grills don't match on the mains because I acquired two of them used and they were painted black (the cabinets were oak so the grills were grey). One was new leftover stock (center black grill). This was because I was trying to buy towers that matched the drivers precisely years after the X1T replaced the T-45 series. I already had 4 B15 PSB speakers and two PSB S50 speakers from the 6.1 setup from which I was upgrading. They were great speakers so I wanted the same sound, just an Atmos setup. I have been unable to locate matching grills and was tired of waiting for a black set to show up. Some if the satellite speakers ate different finishes as well due to availability or the lack thereof, but match everywhere else.

The PSB S50 is the bipolar speaker that faces forward/backward for two rows, but has identical drivers. The were already mounted for the 5.1/Pro Logic location which because of the steel beam box would also be the location for surround height speakers. To do Top Middle in line with the mains I'd have to put two sets on the ceiling on either side of the box facing opposite directions and drive them in parallel. I picked up good used deals on more B15 speakers as we, but they were all black. My original ones are oak (Grey grills). 

I didn't think I could fit speakers in the back on the floor because of the sliding glass door there left little room with the half bathroom there, but it turns out the PSB X1T just fits without blocking the doorway. The room correction has work to do there with the proximity, but it does a good job. Sdrucker recommended the PSB CS1000 for overhead use. I went with the slightly smaller CS500, but the drivers match the X1T exactly so the rears match each other and are only marginally different from the older series I have everywhere else.



> This will probably fall on deaf years..but here goes - I think that you have a bit of a reputation because you come off as a bit defensive and this precludes you from actually reading what someone is writing when you perceive it to be an attack on your system or the way you have done things. It's partially understandable as you've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your setup.


From my first posts in the Atmos thread I got attacks from certain people (probably the same ones that told you to ignore me). One of them is their "leader" and as near as I can tell considers himself never wrong so as you might imagine that leads to problems with anyone on here that doesn't agree with him on everything. He put me on ignore as have others that don't like my opinions. I don't put anyone on ignore. Read into that what you will.

I personally think mature adults shouldn't need ignore features. One can choose to ignore on their own without a program hiding things from them, some of which might be important some time.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> The original DTS:X speaker layout includes 3 speakers (L*b*, C*b*, R*b*) that are 30° *b*elow ear height (measure from your ears to the floor, multiply that distance by 1.75 and that's where the speakers go on the floor in front of you).
> View attachment 3207163


I asked about these speakers in a Trinnov forum before because it supports those speakers in the layout. I was told the Trinnov just copies the front three speakers to them (array). It seems like that could lower the overall sound stage, though.

Someone told a story about how it was discovered lower sounds were present in DTS music disc's with some giant pool tower speaker setup and that was supposedly the basis for adding them to the spec, but that sounds more like some HRTF data mixed in occasionally. I tried an array bookshelf set in front and listened to a lot of DTS music discs and numerous soundtracks and I heard nothing of merit even trying one of the disc's mentioned. 

Given hardly any DTS:X soundtracks use objects at all, it certainly isn't going to get use that way either (not sure it even supports them for those speakers).

Give Dolby a few years and they will realize a new feature will make them seem new again so I wouldn't be surprised if floor speaker support gets added some day.


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> This is shown as DTS:X Pro in the link I posted just before your post.


It's from the original DTS:X spec. The diagram I posted has been posted here at AVS since 2015 (years before Pro). The "Pro" label just means that the device will do DTS decoding and upmixing to more than 11.1 outputs.


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> It's from the original DTS:X spec. The diagram I posted has been posted here at AVS since 2015 (years before Pro). The "Pro" label just means that the device will do DTS decoding and upmixing to more than 11.1 outputs.


Ok. So that drawing is now applied to DTS:X Pro and not the garden variety DTS:X. So what is your point?


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> Ok. So that drawing is now applied to DTS:X Pro and not the garden variety DTS:X. So what is your point?


Those speaker locations have been part of DTS:X years before Pro. The introduction of DTS:X Pro doesn't mean that those locations no longer apply to DTS:X.


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> Those speaker locations have been part of DTS:X years before Pro. The introduction of DTS:X Pro doesn't mean that those locations no longer apply to DTS:X.


So what AVRs support DTS:X (non-Pro) and those three speakers?


----------



## X4100

A little help here please! I'm sure some 60,000 plus post ago we discussed the main differences between Dolby Atmos home vs cinema. Does anyone have the short version. Lol!


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> So what AVRs support DTS:X (non-Pro) and those three speakers?


The only one I know of that supports them at all is the Trinnov Altitude series and I was told they just copy/array the L/C/R mains. There might be object support for those locations, but seeing X movies don't normally use objects it doesn't really matter even if they do. I've never read Neural X can separate lower sounds either.



X4100 said:


> A little help here please! I'm sure some 60,000 plus post ago we discussed the main differences between Dolby Atmos home vs cinema. Does anyone have the short version. Lol!


Cinema Atmos

64 discrete speaker channels maximum + 128 objects + array options for bed channels acting as arrays through discrete object channels (i.e. front wides, multiple side locations etc can carry the "side surround bed channel signal like sides of old 5.1 did, but still image discrete objects as well).

Home Atmos

34.1 speakers (32.1 on a regular Altitude 32...with expansion up to 48 channels total; I know of no other home processor that does 34.1) Combined objects up to 16 total. 1 bed speaker (LFE). Creates bed "objects" which is part of 16 max total.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> The only one I know of that supportsthem at all is the Trinnov Altitude series and I was told they just copy/array the L/C/R mains. There might be object support for those locations, but seeing X movies don't normally use objects it doesn't really matter even if they do. I've never read Neural X can separate lower sounds either.


Thanks, but ...

According to the Trinnov website, the Altitude series runs DTS:X Pro. Sdurani stated that DTS:X (non-Pro) supports these so called floor channels "because it's in the DTS:X specifications" so I am asking about AVRs or pre/pros that support floor channels using DTS:X (non-Pro).


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> Sdurani stated that DTS:X (non-Pro) supports these so called floor channels "because it's in the DTS:X specifications" so I am asking about AVRs or pre/pros that support floor channels using DTS:X (non-Pro).


You're conflating specifications with implementation. Atmos has 4 speaker locations between the L/C/R speakers. Do they cease being part of the specs just because no AVR supports them? If the 30.2 speaker locations were only part of DTS:X Pro, how was that diagram posted on this forum 5 years before Pro?


----------



## dschulz

X4100 said:


> A little help here please! I'm sure some 60,000 plus post ago we discussed the main differences between Dolby Atmos home vs cinema. Does anyone have the short version. Lol!


The short version:

Dolby Atmos for cinema supports up to 64 independent speaker feeds, used to play back 9 channel beds and up to 118 objects.

Dolby Atmos for home supports up to 34 independent speaker feeds, and uses spatial coding to cluster those (up to 118) objects into between 12 - 16 objects. This package is delivered via lossless encoding (TrueHD on discs) or lossy encoding (Dolby Digital Plus on discs or streaming).


----------



## bluesky636

sdurani said:


> You're conflating specifications with implementation. Atmos has 4 speaker locations between the L/C/R speakers. Do they cease being part of the specs just because no AVR supports them? If the 30.2 speaker locations were only part of DTS:X Pro, how was that diagram posted on this forum 5 years before Pro?


You ever hear the statement "We reserve the right to change the specifications of our product without notification"? Clearly DTS has chosen to implement the full complement of speakers called out in the original specification into DTS:X Pro and limit the number of speakers in plain old DTS:X.


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> You ever hear the statement "We reserve the right to change the specifications of our product without notification"?


Except the DTS:X Pro layout diagram you linked to didn't change from the DTS:X layout diagram from 5 years ago. Same 30 locations. Likewise with Atmos. AVRs and pre-pros are accommodating more and more speakers, but that hasn't changed the original Atmos layout spec (same 34 locations).


> Clearly DTS has chosen to implement the full complement of speakers called out in the *original specification* into DTS:X Pro and limit the number of speakers in plain old DTS:X.


That was my point: those speaker locations were included in the original spec.


sdurani said:


> The *original DTS:X speaker layout* includes 3 speakers (L*b*, C*b*, R*b*) that are 30° *b*elow ear height...


----------



## bluesky636

I asked a very simple question: Are there any AVRs or pre/pros with non-Pro DTS:X that support the three floor speakers, or whatever you want to call them. So far that question has not been answered. From what I can find, Trinnov does but with DTS:X Pro. Without any additional information, I can only conclude that the answer to my question is "No" and that those positions are only supported by DTS:X Pro. Therefore, the "specification" for what we know as DTS:X is different from the "specification" for DTS:X Pro.

I'm done.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Except the DTS:X Pro layout diagram you linked to didn't change from the DTS:X layout diagram from 5 years ago. Same 30 locations. Likewise with Atmos. AVRs and pre-pros are accommodating more and more speakers, but that hasn't changed the original Atmos layout spec (same 34 locations). That was my point: those speaker locations were included in the original spec.


DTS:X has 32.2 locations. Surround Height is shown in the same block as Top Middle, but it's still a separate location for DTS:X.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> I asked a very simple question: Are there any AVRs or pre/pros with non-Pro DTS:X that support the three floor speakers, or whatever you want to call them. So far that question has not been answered. From what I can find, Trinnov does but with DTS:X Pro. Without any additional information, I can only conclude that the answer to my question is "No" and that those positions are only supported by DTS:X Pro.
> 
> I'm done.


Trinnov's Altitude 16 and 32 weren't always DTS:X Pro capable, though. It still supported those locations when it was just DTS:X. However, it still had the limitation of 11 maximum locations in use until DTS:X Pro was added.


----------



## bluesky636

Fine. I really don't care anymore.


----------



## Technology3456

After the point at which my side surrounds need to be placed, I have an 8 inch indent in the wall on one side of my room but not the other. Im probably going to move to in-wall side surrounds later, so the question is, should one just be 8 inches further than the other, and set the delay accordingly, while making the rest of my setup 100% equal distance, or should I move center seatng 4 inches towards the side with 8 extra inches of width, and move the screen 4 inches overall, and basically achieve a little extra width to the side surrounds this way compared to the front towers? The only downside of this is that everything will not be 100% centered in the room anymore, and I dont know if that is better or worse for sound reflections and stuff like that. Maybe it's a good thing to not have it 100% symmetrical? Or at least makes no difference? What do you guys think?


----------



## sdurani

bluesky636 said:


> From what I can find, Trinnov does but with DTS:X Pro.


They also supported those locations before DTS:X Pro. The link you provided lists the speakers support by Pro:

*PRACTICAL GUIDE - DTS:X PRO SPEAKER LAYOUT*
_Immersive Sound formats created a new challenge for home cinema enthusiasts. 
Indeed Auro Technologies, Dolby Laboratories and DTS recommend different speaker placements for optimum playback. 
For the matter at hand, this is the full DTS:X Pro recommended speaker positions. 
DTS:X supports up to 30 speaker positions with 4 different layers of speaker:_

_Bottom speaker below the screen_
_Floor speakers (front, wide and surround channels)_
_Height speakers between the floor layer and top layer_
_Top speakers_

When you read the above, do you believe it's saying that Bottom speakers, Fronts, Wides, Surrounds, Heights and Tops are only part of the DTS:X Pro spec but not DTS:X?


> Therefore, the "specification" for what we know as DTS:X is different from the "specification" for DTS:X Pro.


Only when it comes to number of outputs; no change for speaker locations. Until recently, ALL technologies from DTS (formats, upmixing, encoding, decoding) were limited to 11.1. The "Pro" designation is a hardware label signifying that a device can do DTS to more than 11.1. This doesn't just apply to the DTS:X format. Their Neural:X upmixer is no longer limited to 11.1. Pro lifted the 11.1 limitation for ALL their technologies. But that's all "Pro" is. It's not a new format with new speaker locations. It's simply a lifting of their 11.1 limitation.


----------



## Soulburner

mrtickleuk said:


> I'll go further - I know that we don't need floor channels


Imagine the use cases, like scaring the ever-living-s**** out of your lady with snakes slithering under her feet or the encroaching footsteps of a serial killer.


----------



## bryantc

It's all a bit academic since I'm not aware of any DTS:X track that goes beyond 11.1 without upmixing. (Imax Enhanced just adds one extra object for Center Height.)


----------



## sdurani

bryantc said:


> It's all a bit academic since I'm not aware of any DTS:X track that goes beyond 11.1 without upmixing.


True, but the discussion was about playback flexibility (which 11.1 speakers to use). To that end, DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtracks have always been able to play back as 9.1.2 or 5.1.6 (upmixer would fill in the unencoded channels).


----------



## X4100

Thanks @MagnumX and @dschulz for your brief comments, I was trying to explain it to a friend, but I got twisted around a bit


----------



## howard68

Hello All.
So I am again listening to The new James Bond film and find no FW Or TM sound
Can anyone
(except @MagnumX) who likes to try to control this website and tells me off for asking questions about Atmos in the Atmos thread!

Please list any films that use FW and or TM
As I want to build my collection that uses FW and or TM for my set up
Many thanks

Regards.
h
P.S.
As @MagnumX objects to photos etc to this site
Just a word list so I Dont get Trolled again


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> They also supported those locations before DTS:X Pro. The link provided lists the speakers support by Pro:
> 
> 
> _Bottom speaker below the screen_
> _Floor speakers (front, wide and surround channels)_
> _Height speakers between the floor layer and top layer_
> _Top speakers_


It's pretty obvious by those descriptions that the bottom speakers were never intended to be floor effects. Floor speakers are referring to ear level speakers. The so-called "bottom" speakers are referring to the bottom of the screen not the floor. That's why they're arrayed. It's clearly meant as a dialog lift/imaging feature, imaging between the mains and bottom of the screen (hence the array on the Trinnov). I think it's now obvious they aren't meant for floor effects. I'm guessing they probably never counted against the 11.1 limit either before DTS:X Pro since they're just a copy of the L/C/R speakers.


----------



## Magiclakez

bryantc said:


> (Imax Enhanced just adds one extra object for Center Height.)


I think Imax enhanced adds Top Surround (VOG) as well, along with Center height.


----------



## sdurani

Magiclakez said:


> I think Imax enhanced adds Top Surround (VOG) as well, along with Center height.


IMAX 6-track and 12-track mixes include an Upper Center channel that is reproduced by a speaker near the top of the tall IMAX screen. IMAX Enhanced soundtracks include this channel as an audio object encoded 25 degrees above the Centre speaker.









Decades ago, IMAX used to refer to the Upper Center channel as the Voice of God channel. These days, VOG refers to the channel/speaker directly overhead (not part of IMAX Enhanced).


----------



## Magiclakez

sdurani said:


> IMAX 6-track and 12-track mixes include an Upper Center channel that is reproduced by a speaker near the top of the tall IMAX screen. IMAX Enhanced soundtracks include this channel as an audio object encoded 25 degrees above the Centre speaker.
> View attachment 3207686
> 
> 
> Decades ago, IMAX used to refer to the Upper Center channel as the Voice of God channel. These days, VOG refers to the channel/speaker directly overhead.


Ok thanks for that. 

When I play any native imax enhanced 4k Blu-ray title, I notice the Top surround getting an active signal along with the Center height channel. I have a 13.1 Auro-3d setup (9.1.4 Dolby atmos) with the Top surround and Center height channels. For Auro-3D the channel directly above/overhead is commonly referred to as Top Surround (Voice of God), so I have been rolling with that. But it’s nice to know the genesis for the same.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Ok thanks for that.
> 
> When I play any native imax enhanced 4k Blu-ray title, I notice the Top surround getting an active signal along with the Center height channel. I have a 13.1 Auro-3d setup (9.1.4 Dolby atmos) with the Top surround and Center height channels. For Auro-3D the channel directly above/overhead is commonly referred to as Top Surround (Voice of God), so I have been rolling with that. But it’s nice to know the genesis for the same.


Imax Enhanced still uses DTS:X so it will use any available DTS:X speakers including the VOG with DTS:X Pro via Neural X.


----------



## X4100

howard68 said:


> Hello All.
> So I am again listening to The new James Bond film and find no FW Or TM sound
> Can anyone
> (except @MagnumX) who likes to try to control this website and tells me off for asking questions about Atmos in the Atmos thread!
> 
> Please list any films that use FW and or TM
> As I want to build my collection that uses FW and or TM for my set up
> Many thanks
> 
> Regards.
> h
> P.S.
> As @MagnumX objects to photos etc to this site
> Just a word list so I Dont get Trolled again


----------



## howard68

X4100 said:


>





X4100 said:


>


----------



## MagnumX

New Bond film finally went to sale instead of rent only. Hoping to watch it tonight in Atmos.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> New Bond film finally went to sale instead of rent only. Hoping to watch it tonight in Atmos.


I might get that. I’m also waiting for Belfast to go on sale. It’s only available to rent atm.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> I might get that. I’m also waiting for Belfast to go on sale. It’s only available to rent atm.


No sign of Ghostbusters Afterlife.... Theater only? Boo. 

Waiting more for Matrix 4. I'd probably go to theater to see that one if there were a decent theater around here. I think that one will be available on day 1 since it's WB.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> No sign of Ghostbusters Afterlife.... Theater only? Boo.
> 
> Waiting more for Matrix 4. I'd probably go to theater to see that one if there were a decent theater around here. I think that one will be available on day 1 since it's WB.


Yeah it looks like I might have to watch GB-Afterlife at the theater. Matrix 4 might become available to stream simultaneously on HBO-MAX being a WB production, like you were alluding to.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Honestly-4 pages about on the floor speakers. That's just a waste of scrolling...


----------



## X4100

If it becomes part of Dolby Atmos, this is the "Atmos Thread"  Although I feel the problem can be handled at the mixing level, sort of how the audio of Master and Commander was done with the above deck sounds.


----------



## X4100

Technology3456 said:


> After the point at which my side surrounds need to be placed, I have an 8 inch indent in the wall on one side of my room but not the other. Im probably going to move to in-wall side surrounds later, so the question is, should one just be 8 inches further than the other, and set the delay accordingly, while making the rest of my setup 100% equal distance, or should I move center seatng 4 inches towards the side with 8 extra inches of width, and move the screen 4 inches overall, and basically achieve a little extra width to the side surrounds this way compared to the front towers? The only downside of this is that everything will not be 100% centered in the room anymore, and I dont know if that is better or worse for sound reflections and stuff like that. Maybe it's a good thing to not have it 100% symmetrical? Or at least makes no difference? What do you guys think?


You could move the opposite wall 8 inches over or just do it the easiest way?????


----------



## X4100

I've been trying to order "Twister" from Turbine, I just finished sending my order! I had received an email this week that it would be available December 17th. Can't wait to hear this movie mixed with the audio track to bring out all the glorious mayhem


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> You could move the opposite wall 8 inches over or just do it the easiest way?????


What do you mean move the wall over?

Whichever way I lay out the MLP and speakers will be the same difficulty, but why not be a perfectionist when cutting holes in the ceiling? I'm just interested to know whether to position the MLP in the center of the room relative to the front walls, or the back walls, seeing as the side surrounds placement will be dictated by the back walls but the front stage placement is _not _dictated by the front walls. Both my options have the MLP centered to the front speakers, since those can be moved with the MLP, but since the side-surrounds will be inside the walls and the walls can't be moved, the MLP can only be centered relative to them in one option, not the other. Here is the full trade-off I'm asking advice on. Which option should I chose?

Option A of moving the MLP 4 inches over centers the MLP between the two side surrounds in the uneven back walls, and centers the ceiling speakers relative to back walls instead of relative to the front walls, but this comes at the expense of the front speakers and ceiling speakers not being equal distance from the front walls anymore since they have to move together with the MLP just like the ceiling speakers do.

Option B of centering the MLP to the front walls, not the rear walls, puts the LCR's and ceiling speakers equal distances from the front walls of the room, and centers the MLP compared to the front walls, but that comes at the expense of the MLP no longer being centered to the back walls/side surrounds, as well as the ceiling speakers no longer being centered relative to back walls, since the ceiling speakers have to be placed according to the MLP.

It's probably easier to understand when you know the room, instead of reading it off th epage. Even though I know the room, it still took about 10 attempts to even describe it the best way in words, so you're not alone if it takes a few rereads to get the full idea. And even after that, it still might be difficult to know which scenario is preferable, since there are so many minor tradeoffs either way. But tricky questions often lead to some insightful answers about theory in general, and how things work and why one tradeoff is preferable to another.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> What do you mean move the wall over?
> 
> Whichever way I lay out the MLP and speakers will be the same difficulty, but why not be a perfectionist when cutting holes in the ceiling? I'm just interested to know whether to position the MLP in the center of the room relative to the front walls, or the back walls, seeing as the side surrounds placement will be dictated by the back walls but the front stage placement is _not _dictated by the front walls. Both my options have the MLP centered to the front speakers, since those can be moved with the MLP, but since the side-surrounds will be inside the walls and the walls can't be moved, the MLP can only be centered relative to them in one option, not the other. Here is the full trade-off I'm asking advice on. Which option should I chose?
> 
> Option A of moving the MLP 4 inches over centers the MLP between the two side surrounds in the uneven back walls, and centers the ceiling speakers relative to back walls instead of relative to the front walls, but this comes at the expense of the front speakers and ceiling speakers not being equal distance from the front walls anymore since they have to move together with the MLP just like the ceiling speakers do.
> 
> Option B of centering the MLP to the front walls, not the rear walls, puts the LCR's and ceiling speakers equal distances from the front walls of the room, and centers the MLP compared to the front walls, but that comes at the expense of the MLP no longer being centered to the back walls/side surrounds, as well as the ceiling speakers no longer being centered relative to back walls, since the ceiling speakers have to be placed according to the MLP.
> 
> It's probably easier to understand when you know the room, instead of reading it off th epage. Even though I know the room, it still took about 10 attempts to even describe it the best way in words, so you're not alone if it takes a few rereads to get the full idea. And even after that, it still might be difficult to know which scenario is preferable, since there are so many minor tradeoffs either way. But tricky questions often lead to some insightful answers about theory in general, and how things work and why one tradeoff is preferable to another.


A drawing might be easier to understand. But you don't have to have the front height or tops (whichever you plan to use) the same distance from the front wall. Delay will assure the sounds reach your ears at the same time. Thus, I'd likely go with centered between side and/or rear surrounds as I think left/right centering is more important than front/back as depth is harder to tell than left/right position.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> A drawing might be easier to understand. But you don't have to have the front height or tops (whichever you plan to use) the same distance from the front wall. Delay will assure the sounds reach your ears at the same time. Thus, I'd likely go with centered between side and/or rear surrounds as I think left/right centering is more important than front/back as depth is harder to tell than left/right position.


I have the ability to make the MLP 100% centered (horizontally, I mean) between all 11 speakers (or all 10, plus being perfectly in line with a centered center speaker). That would be the option where I move the MLP 4 inches to the side. What is lost in that scenario is the ability to have the MLP 100% centered to the front _walls_.

I.e., to keep the MLP centered horizontally to the front towers in this scenario, I'd have to move the front towers over 4 inches also. As a result, now one tower is 4 inches closer to the front wall on its side, and the other tower is 4 inches further to the front wall on its side. So instead of both front towers being 6 inches from the walls closest to them, now one is 2 inches from a wall, and one is 10 inches. And the center channel is 4 inches closer to one side as well. And the left row of ceiling speakers in the back of the room compared to the front left wall would now be say 34 inches instead of 30, and the right row of ceiling speakers compared to the front right wall would now be 26 instead of 30. Although if you measure them to the _back _wall, the opposite situation would happen, where now they would be more centered whereas before one side would have been 8 inches further from the closest wall than the other.


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> I have the ability to make the MLP 100% centered (horizontally, I mean) between all 11 speakers (or all 10, plus being perfectly in line with a centered center speaker). That would be the option where I move the MLP 4 inches to the side. What is lost in that scenario is the ability to have the MLP 100% centered to the front _walls_.
> 
> I.e., to keep the MLP centered horizontally to the front towers in this scenario, I'd have to move the front towers over 4 inches also. As a result, now one tower is 4 inches closer to the front wall on its side, and the other tower is 4 inches further to the front wall on its side. So instead of both front towers being 6 inches from the walls closest to them, now one is 2 inches from a wall, and one is 10 inches. And the center channel is 4 inches closer to one side as well. And the left row of ceiling speakers in the back of the room compared to the front left wall would now be say 34 inches instead of 30, and the right row of ceiling speakers compared to the front right wall would now be 26 instead of 30. Although if you measure them to the _back _wall, the opposite situation would happen, where now they would be more centered whereas before one side would have been 8 inches further from the closest wall than the other.


So the front and rear walls are not parallel to each other is what it comes down to? Having the equipment/speakers parallel to the front wall might look better since you're typically facing forward, but I'd prefer a symmetrical speaker alignment personally. It's up to you, though.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> So the front and rear walls are not parallel to each other is what it comes down to? Having the equipment/speakers parallel to the front wall might look better since you're typically facing forward, but I'd prefer a symmetrical speaker alignment personally. It's up to you, though.


Yeah that's the issue. The walls go like:










Edit: And the side surround speakers have to be in the walls in the ------- top left of the drawing and the *_* bottom line on the left of the drawing.

I also have an open part of the wall also but since I might be able to fix that later, and it doesn't change anything in the question anyway, I dont put it in the drawing.

Speakers, dont care how they look. Hopefully I can black them out with black velvet and not even see them during the movie. But even if I can hopefully I wont see the walls, so they would look symmetrical to the screen either way. Im only interested where to put everything for the best sound.


----------



## MagnumX

I'd still go with centered in back with front moved to match of the two choices.


----------



## X4100

Looking like @MagnumX follows what you're describing and dealing with


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> Looking like @MagnumX follows what you're describing and dealing with


He and some others here have been a big help since I was new to surround/atmos audio and knew absolutely nothing about it, until now when I'm not as new anymore and I still know absolutely nothing about it. So you see, things can change with time. 😅 But seriously, they've helped me learn a lot how to do plan everything with atmos, one topic at a time.


----------



## ASeaRep

I'm wondering if it would be worth the cost to upgrade my receiver and speakers from 5.1.2 to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 in order to have a more immersive sound during Atmos enabled movies. The reason is my room is only 12'x 12'x 8' tall. the distance between the additional 2 or 4 Atmos speaker would only be about 12 inches away from other speakers. (see photo).

Secondly, my Pioneer Elite would have to be replaced to handle the additional speakers.It can only do 7.1. What are your thoughts?


----------



## X4100

I'm running 6.1.4 in a room about the same dimension as your room and I just LOVE MY SETUP  In a 12x12x8 you should be able to achieve greater than 12 inches of separation between your speakers


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> The only one I know of that supports them at all is the Trinnov Altitude series and I was told they just copy/array the L/C/R mains. There might be object support for those locations, but seeing X movies don't normally use objects it doesn't really matter even if they do. I've never read Neural X can separate lower sounds either.


Arraying the LCR to the LbCbRb channels only applies to upmixed content, and can be disabled. As you suspected, there is object support if the content supports those channels, but I don't know of any either. _Maybe_ the Trinnov DTS demo? Since at the end of it all, Trinnov is still a licensee of DTS, they will output whatever the DTS decoder is doing, as they implement the native code from DTS.


----------



## ASeaRep

X4100 said:


> I'm running 6.1.4 in a room about the same dimension as your room and I just LOVE MY SETUP  In a 12x12x8 you should be able to achieve greater than 12 inches of separation between your speakers


Thanks! What receiver are you using? I'm looking at buying the DENON AVR-S760H. There is a long thread about it here on AVS.


----------



## X4100

I have a Denon x4100, I'm one of those guys that jumped right into the "Atmos pool "


----------



## niterida

ASeaRep said:


> I'm wondering if it would be worth the cost to upgrade my receiver and speakers from 5.1.2 to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 in order to have a more immersive sound during Atmos enabled movies. The reason is my room is only 12'x 12'x 8' tall. the distance between the additional 2 or 4 Atmos speaker would only be about 12 inches away from other speakers. (see photo).
> 
> Secondly, my Pioneer Elite would have to be replaced to handle the additional speakers.It can only do 7.1. What are your thoughts?


You have to have your 5.1 or 7.1 speakers at ear level, otherwise Atmos is a waste of time and money. It works on having 2 levels of sound - one at ear level and the Atmo Heights speakers at height - if you can;t do this then don't bother wirh Atmos. 
But if you can then go 5.1.4 - best value for money setup and more suited to your size room. And if you can move the seating about 12" off the wall that would be beneficial also.


----------



## Technology3456

Posted in wrong place by mistake. Either I have too many tabs open, or a ram issue, because randomly it keeps moving background tabs to the foreground. Sorry about that.


----------



## lax01

*🤔* Whats this now? *🤔*


----------



## Magiclakez

Appears to be a demonstration of how to successfully capture ambient effects through the height layer. 🧐 🤣


----------



## halcyon_888

Hang around in this thread long enough and we’ll get a play by play of the next WWE Wrestlemania


----------



## niterida

lax01 said:


> *🤔* Whats this now? *🤔*


I have no idea what you re talking about - probably because whoever posted #63137 is on my ignore list


----------



## mrtickleuk

niterida said:


> I have no idea what you re talking about - probably because whoever posted #63137 is on my ignore list


Nor me - that post just contains an apology for posting in the wrong place by mistake. I missed out on the fun of the original, whatever it was.


----------



## Technology3456

mrtickleuk said:


> Nor me - that post just contains an apology for posting in the wrong place by mistake. I missed out on the fun of the original, whatever it was.


It was about how to successfully capture ambient effects through the height layer. 😅 No but really, if you want a short summary I'll tell you over PM, but I deleted it completely by accident when I edited it (didn't save it I mean), so I can't repost, and if you guys keep talking about it here I'm worried people will get annoyed because it's OT, and then I will get blamed because I'm the one who made the mistake. You guys gotta help me save face here...😄 😄. Once again, mea culpa, and my apologies.


----------



## X4100

I'm running what is officially a 5.1.4 front/rear height configuration, but technically speaking it's a 6.1.6 arrayed setup. When I play a Dolby Atmos speaker check I get the discrete 5.1.4/9.1.6 speaker "call out " correctly as I should. When I play the same speaker check with the " arrayed middle heights " included I get a near discrete signal in the top middle as the signal goes from front height left to top middle left to the left height rear speaker. I'm also using a bipolar speaker in the center rear position as the left/right surround speakers are fed to a DPL2 AVR to give me the fill in for the rear surround. It all comes together very well!!!  . I know from the speaker check that I'm setup correctly, but I rarely hear this same audio from actual Atmos movies. I checked, and rechecked this after listening carefully to the "Power Rangers", as I think I read here that the sound seems to go front to rear in the ceiling, but it is actually in the top middle and travels in the base level front to back to give the impression of ceiling coverage. This is done so well, that when being engaged in the movie I'm not aware that all 6 of my height speakers aren't really being used. I have heard more usage of front height >middle height >rear height, and vice versa with some demos, but not much else with actual movies! I know mention of using floor level speakers is "too much " for some people, but I'm sure we can all agree on more of our speakers being used when the onscreen action calls for it. I'm reminded of the first "Mission Impossible " when Ethan Hunt sprinkled pieces of a light bulb on the floor, in order to hear if someone was trying to sneak up on him. I still feel that better positioning of sounds will increase the experience of the movie and it's audio!


----------



## MagnumX

@X4100 - If you want to hear serious overhead panning in Atmos, the track "Way Down" by Yello on the Atmos version of Point has some serious back-to-front and front-to-back synth pans overhead. Actually several tracks have overhead panning on it including a jet flyover effect from near the front left corner to right rear corner overhead on Rush For Joe at the end.


----------



## X4100

I just watched this video 



 .Please check it out


----------



## ThierryB

I just watched again Fast and Furious Presents : Hobbs & Shaw. The first time I watched this movie I didn't have height speakers.
There is quite a lot going on in the height speakers, music supporting throughout the movie, and some effects going in some action scenes.
I thought it was a pretty decent use of the height speakers, even though it mostly static / ambiance music.


----------



## halcyon_888

ThierryB said:


> I just watched again Fast and Furious Presents : Hobbs & Shaw. The first time I watched this movie I didn't have height speakers.
> There is quite a lot going on in the height speakers, music supporting throughout the movie, and some effects going in some action scenes.
> I thought it was a pretty decent use of the height speakers, even though it mostly static / ambiance music.


I wish more Atmos mixes would at least put supporting music in the height speakers, it seems like such a basic thing to do to get some use out of the height channels. The DSU and Neural X upmixers do this by default so there seems to be some kind of standard there.


----------



## X4100

After suffering through the first half of "Jupiter Ascending " I had to end my misery by cutting it off. This is one movie I should have read the synopsis of, true there was a lot of sounds flying around the room, but hardly any distinct placement in the height speakers. Well the rear height was used more so than the front, I felt that with ssssooo much action on screen, I would be in for some slam bam height effects across the ceiling! The dialogue level was sort of low when one of the brothers was talking, but after reading the synopsis I'll try watching the rest of the movie to see and hear the lizard like rat people ( who wrote the script for this? )    . Is this one of those fixed placement Atmos movies? I'm going to have to force myself to go back to the 3rd chapter of this movie as Ralph Potts gave it a good review as a movie that was very immersive with overhead sound. Man I base my selection of movies on his reviews, I don't know what happened with my setup on this one . I'll check it out later, just not ready for it sssssooo soon. Lol


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> After suffering through the first half of "Jupiter Ascending " I had to end my misery by cutting it off. This is one movie I should have read the synopsis of, true there was a lot of sounds flying around the room, but hardly any distinct placement in the height speakers. Well the rear height was used more so than the front, I felt that with ssssooo much action on screen, I would be in for some slam bam height effects across the ceiling! The dialogue level was sort of low when one of the brothers was talking, but after reading the synopsis I'll try watching the rest of the movie to see and hear the lizard like rat people ( who wrote the script for this? )    . Is this one of those fixed placement Atmos movies? I'm going to have to force myself to go back to the 3rd chapter of this movie as Ralph Potts gave it a good review as a movie that was very immersive with overhead sound. Man I base my selection of movies on his reviews, I don't know what happened with my setup on this one . I'll check it out later, just not ready for it sssssooo soon. Lol


Let's hope the new Matrix movie coming out in a few weeks is better, one of the Wachowskis is directing so I'm hoping she can make a good movie. I'm curious how good it's going to sound too, because I've heard good things about the original Matrix trilogy Atmos tracks.


----------



## audiofan1

Not sure if it's been mentioned here before but Apple Tv's original content has had some of the best use of Atmos I've heard ! Objects are just moving all around above you and placement you would expect , seems some mixers out there are finally making good use of the platform and deserve a nod for whomever they are.


----------



## AshishNJ

can someone share their experiences with mad max Fury atmos ?


----------



## ThierryB

audiofan1 said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned here before but Apple Tv's original content has had some of the best use of Atmos I've heard ! Objects are just moving all around above you and placement you would expect , seems some mixers out there are finally making good use of the platform and deserve a nod for whomever they are.


Agreed. Invasion Episode 6 "Home Invasion" is worth the try for example.


----------



## eaayoung

ThierryB said:


> Agreed. Invasion Episode 6 "Home Invasion" is worth the try for example.


Binged watched Invasion this week. That episode was creepy!


----------



## Technology3456

audiofan1 said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned here before but Apple Tv's original content has had some of the best use of Atmos I've heard ! Objects are just moving all around above you and placement you would expect , seems some mixers out there are finally making good use of the platform and deserve a nod for whomever they are.


Does Apple have any standout films or series? Besides the Atmos, I mean. If they have anything worth watching, then this is great news. If not, hopefully it at least bodes well for if they release something in the future. But they've been around for years and I haven't heard of them releasing anything that has really been heralded as great, which is saying something because it seems like half the series that are released these days are heralded as great, and it usually doesn't mean much. I'm just saying if Apple had made something as good as Game of Thrones' good seasons, or great movies, usually there would be more talk about it.


----------



## MagnumX

I got free Apple TV+ for a year with an iPad purchase. I watched Fraggle Rock a few times and the Mariah Carey Christmas special and found nothing else interesting to me. I plan to cancel after free year.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Does Apple have any standout films or series? Besides the Atmos, I mean. If they have anything worth watching, then this is great news. If not, hopefully it at least bodes well for if they release something in the future. But they've been around for years and I haven't heard of them releasing anything that has really been heralded as great, which is saying something because it seems like half the series that are released these days are heralded as great, and it usually doesn't mean much. I'm just saying if Apple had made something as good as Game of Thrones' good seasons, or great movies, usually there would be more talk about it.


Greyhound, movie starring Tom Hanks, was genuinely great and with a fantastic mix.

For series:

Ted Lasso lives up to the hype
For All Mankind
Foundation (YMMV, I love it but reviews are more mixed)
Servant, if you like M. Night Shyamalan


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> Greyhound, movie starring Tom Hanks, was genuinely great and with a fantastic mix.
> 
> For series:
> 
> Ted Lasso lives up to the hype
> For All Mankind
> Foundation (YMMV, I love it but reviews are more mixed)
> Servant, if you like M. Night Shyamalan


Thanks. Greyhound looks entertaining. Crimson Tide was an entertaining movie that this looks similar to. But I guess you could say it looks similar to a lot of submarine movies or "the captain and his ship in a tactically difficult m military situation at sea" naval movies in general. U-571 was another that kept my interest, I just don't remember it well except that Crimson Tide was probably better.

No idea how the mixes are on those though. That's great that they did a good mix on this one. Hopefully that becomes the norm for all movie studios and streaming services in 2022..........


----------



## audiofan1

dschulz said:


> Greyhound, movie starring Tom Hanks, was genuinely great and with a fantastic mix.
> 
> For series:
> 
> Ted Lasso lives up to the hype
> For All Mankind
> Foundation (YMMV, I love it but reviews are more mixed)
> Servant, if you like M. Night Shyamalan





Technology3456 said:


> Does Apple have any standout films or series? Besides the Atmos, I mean. If they have anything worth watching, then this is great news. If not, hopefully it at least bodes well for if they release something in the future. But they've been around for years and I haven't heard of them releasing anything that has really been heralded as great, which is saying something because it seems like half the series that are released these days are heralded as great, and it usually doesn't mean much. I'm just saying if Apple had made something as good as Game of Thrones' good seasons, or great movies, usually there would be more talk about it.


Add to that *Finch (Tom Hanks as well) *and the series * See ( just listen to the intro) Count me as a fan of Foundation!*


----------



## halcyon_888

Technology3456 said:


> Does Apple have any standout films or series? Besides the Atmos, I mean. If they have anything worth watching, then this is great news. If not, hopefully it at least bodes well for if they release something in the future. But they've been around for years and I haven't heard of them releasing anything that has really been heralded as great, which is saying something because it seems like half the series that are released these days are heralded as great, and it usually doesn't mean much. I'm just saying if Apple had made something as good as Game of Thrones' good seasons, or great movies, usually there would be more talk about it.


The answers you're going to get are going to be subjective--what is good to one person might not be to another, such is the nature of our experiences with TV shows and movies. For example, people recommended For All Mankind but I certainly did not like the show. But what you will generally get from Apple+ is high production value. As far as Atmos goes with For All Mankind, there were a few scenes with height usage but it's mostly a drama with a _lot_ of talking. Just to solidify the point about film/TV being subjective, I almost stopped watching it halfway through the season yet it has a very high rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


----------



## Technology3456

halcyon_888 said:


> I almost stopped watching it halfway through the season yet it has a very high rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


What doesn't these days? Especially TV series.






















Out of 28 movies or TV series on their front page down to that part of the page, 24 are 8/10 or higher. It didn't use to be like that but has been for years now. It basically ruined the website for me because I can't rely on it at all now. Almost everything gets the same score, so how am I supposed to tell one thing from another?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Technology3456 said:


> What doesn't these days? Especially TV series.
> View attachment 3210478
> View attachment 3210475
> View attachment 3210476
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 28 movies or TV series on their front page down to that part of the page, 24 are 8/10 or higher. It didn't use to be like that but has been for years now. It basically ruined the website for me because I can't rely on it at all now. Almost everything gets the same score, so how am I supposed to tell one thing from another?


Wow yes, Ghostbusters getting 97% is absolutely ludicrous.

I could only suggest you don't rely on a single source. "Metacritic" aggregates many reviews into one place.


----------



## Rich 63

mrtickleuk said:


> Wow yes, Ghostbusters getting 97% is absolutely ludicrous.
> 
> I could only suggest you don't rely on a single source. "Metacritic" aggregates many reviews into one place.


It's all subjective anyway.


----------



## Technology3456

Someone told me months ago that some people prefer 5 channel surround to 7 channel, or something. I dont know if that's true, or where he got that, but here's a question based off that. Can an AVR like the x4500h do 7 channel surround with front wides instead of rears? So basically the typical 5 channel setup, but with front wides added instead of rears. And then add 4 atmos up top. And if it could do this, is it possible this would be a preferable setup? Without front wides, I have a big gap between my front soundstage and my side surrounds.


----------



## titan ii

No. All your options are detailed in the manual.


----------



## Technology3456

titan ii said:


> No. All your options are detailed in the manual.


Is it possible on any AVRs? I'm curious about it on a theoretical level. I've never heard anyone talk about 7.x.x before with front wides instead of rear surrounds. Why not? It's basically intellectual curiosity as much as anything. 

Now if it's not possible to do with any AVRs or processors, I guess that would explain why no one talks about doing it.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Is it possible on any AVRs? I'm curious about it on a theoretical level. I've never heard anyone talk about 7.x.x before with front wides instead of rear surrounds. Why not? It's basically intellectual curiosity as much as anything.
> 
> Now if it's not possible to do with any AVRs or processors, I guess that would explain why no one talks about doing it.


I don't know if it's possible on any AVRs, but the Datasat LS10 and RS20i pre/pros could do 7.x.x with Front Wides instead of Rear Surrounds. I don't think it's a great option, because there is a fair amount of 7.1 content apart from Atmos stuff, but I could imagine using it if the room demanded it, such as having a sofa against a back wall such that only side surrounds make sense.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> I don't know if it's possible on any AVRs, but the Datasat LS10 and RS20i pre/pros could do 7.x.x with Front Wides instead of Rear Surrounds. I don't think it's a great option, because there is a fair amount of 7.1 content apart from Atmos stuff, but I could imagine using it if the room demanded it, such as having a sofa against a back wall such that only side surrounds make sense.


Are you saying 7.1 content cant be played with front wides 7 channels only for traditional 7 channels? But then what type of soundtrack do you need to be able to use front wides also even in a 9 channel bedlayer?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Are you saying 7.1 content cant be played with front wides 7 channels only for traditional 7 channels? But then what type of soundtrack do you need to be able to use front wides also even in a 9 channel bedlayer?


Well, you don't want sounds coming from places they're not supposed to come from! A 7.1 soundtrack played back in a 5.1 room simply plays back as 5.1, with the side surrounds and rear surrounds summed to the Left & Right Surround channels. There's nothing to go to the Wides. Similarly a 7.1 soundtrack played back in a 9.1 room (7.1 + Wides) just plays back as 7.1, still nothing for the Wides. 

Wides would light up only when playing Atmos or DTS:X, or when using one of the upmixers that utilize Wides (DSU, Neural:X, Audyssey DSX, etc).


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> Well, you don't want sounds coming from places they're not supposed to come from! A 7.1 soundtrack played back in a 5.1 room simply plays back as 5.1, with the side surrounds and rear surrounds summed to the Left & Right Surround channels. There's nothing to go to the Wides. Similarly a 7.1 soundtrack played back in a 9.1 room (7.1 + Wides) just plays back as 7.1, still nothing for the Wides.
> 
> Wides would light up only when playing Atmos or DTS:X, or when using one of the upmixers that utilize Wides (DSU, Neural:X, Audyssey DSX, etc).


Thanks for explaining. I associated Atmos and DTS:X with height channels and "object based surround" (at least in Atmos's case) but even though I knew they could scale on the bedlayer also, I wasn't sure if regular 7 channel mixes also existed that could scale to 9 unique bedlayer speakers, just with no overheads, or not. But since you laid it out, it does make perfect sense that it's only Atmos and DTS:X (and maybe Auro but you didn't include it so maybe not). That's all I wanted to know about that. Sounds like it wouldn't be a good idea even if my AVR supported it. I will stick with 7.x.4 the traditional version. If the x4500h could do 9.x.4 I'd do it but it can't.


----------



## titan ii

You get wides with 13 channel and up processors. Then, only if a signal is sent to them.


----------



## MagnumX

titan ii said:


> You get wides with 13 channel and up processors. Then, only if a signal is sent to them.


Where do people get their information from. My Marantz 7010 is only 11.1 and fully supports front wides.

As for "7.1" with front wides instead, it helps when people know how it works because it does work and you don't lose anything. It just moves forward.

With front wides, rear sounds image in the side surrounds only. Side surrounds image in both the side surrounds and the front wides. Any pure front wide material images only in the front wides. The net effect is side surround images appear to come from between the front wides and the side surrounds. If the side surrounds are at 120 degrees (like recommended 5.1), you get a nicely spaced, yet differentiated 7.1 soundfield from true 7.1 and with wides imaged in the correct position.

If one then added rear surrounds (9.1), rear images would move back to the rear surrounds and sides would image only in the side surround speakers and wides would only be for wide specific objects/sounds.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Where do people get their information from. My Marantz 7010 is only 11.1 and fully supports front wides.
> 
> As for "7.1" with front wides instead, it helps when people know how it works because it does work and you don't like anything. It just moves forward.
> 
> With front wides, rear sounds image in the side surrounds only. Side surrounds image in both the side surrounds and the front wides. Any pure front wide material images only in the front wides. The net effect is side surround images appear to come from between the front wides and the side surrounds. If the side surrounds are at 120 degrees (like recommended 5.1), *you get a nicely spaced, yet differentiated 7.1 soundfield from true 7.1 and with wides imaged in the correct position.*
> 
> If one then added rear surrounds (9.1), rear images would move back to the rear surrounds and sides would image only in the side surround speakers and wides would only be for wide specific objects/sounds.


Does this mean you actually think 7.1 with front wides is the best way to go? Better than traditional 7.1, and better than 9.1 with front wides because of how the "rear images would move back to the rear surrounds and sides would image only in the side surrounds... etc" reason?


----------



## MagnumX

Technology3456 said:


> Does this mean you actually think 7.1 with front wides is the best way to go? Better than traditional 7.1, and better than 9.1 with front wides because of how the "rear images would move back to the rear surrounds and sides would image only in the side surrounds... etc" reason?


No, I'm only saying it's a viable alternative. I'd prefer 9.1 as long as wides are used, but then if they're not, it's really only 7.1 anyway from a slightly forward relative position.


----------



## X4100

Finally finished watching/listening to "Jupiter Ascending ", I forgot I had disengaged DEQ. The closer I adjusted the volume to reference level I realized this disc is very aggressive all over (heights included). During my first listen my wife was home, so my volume was at 35/40, today I had it on -26, and all mayhem broke loose as Caine was roller skating across my room on the floor, ceiling, and walls!!! Just imagine the fun I would have had at reference level with this movie!!!  Although not the same as the "Matrix " the outlay of this movie has quite a resemblance to the real world of the " Matrix ". In fact I thought I saw creatures from "Close Encounters ", what a mixup of syfy!!! Definitely a good use of the Atmos format , but a very far stretch from reality, I found myself laughing as well as my mind going more numb than it ever had during a movie. I'm feeling that if people dissatisfied with Atmos audio, would listen at, or closer to reference level they would definitely hear what they are looking for.


----------



## chmorgan

X4100 said:


> Finally finished watching/listening to "Jupiter Ascending ", I forgot I had disengaged DEQ. The closer I adjusted the volume to reference level I realized this disc is very aggressive all over (heights included). During my first listen my wife was home, so my volume was at 35/40, today I had it on 26, and all mayhem broke loose as Caine was roller skating across my room on the floor, ceiling, and walls!!! Although not the same as the "Matrix " the outlay of this movie has quite a resemblance to the real world of the " Matrix ". In fact I thought I saw creatures from "Close Encounters ", what a mixup of syfy!!! Definitely a good use of the Atmos format , but a very far stretch from reality, I found myself laughing as well as my mind going more numb than it ever had during a movie. I'm feeling that if people dissatisfied with Atmos audio, would listen at, or closer to reference level they would definitely hear what they are looking for.


I agree, listening closer to reference level does make a difference. I've wondered if a beefy external amp would do the same thing but at lower volume levels. I admit my knowledge of external amps is weak at best.


----------



## X4100

This discussion of front wides gave me an idea ! As some of you might remember I have arrayed middle heights, I moved them closer to the front of my room. They are mounted on the side walls Close to the ceiling. In their new position they cause the front left/right height speakers to image closer to the seating position. By adjusting the volume of the arrayed pair I can either let the front heights be dominant and the arrayed speakers to balance out the top. The sound appears to come from the general area where top front speakers are located. I'm going to listen to the helicopter demo to find the best volume level to use, although this may vary depending on the movie I'm watching.


----------



## halcyon_888

chmorgan said:


> I agree, listening closer to reference level does make a difference. I've wondered if a beefy external amp would do the same thing but at lower volume levels. I admit my knowledge of external amps is weak at best.


Do you mean an external amp would bring out more audio detail at lower listening levels? Pretty much there is a debate that happens often in other threads here on AVS about the utility of external amps. Basically one side of the argument is amps are nothing but SPL, watts per meter considering your speaker's sensitivity rating. The other side of the argument says there's more to external amps like detail at lower and higher volumes, imaging, separation with sounds, etc. The SPL-only folks are often very vocal and criticize the other side of the argument for imagining things, that human sound memory is only a few seconds so comparisons cannot be easily done, double-blind studies, etc. So I would some searching if you're curious to read more details, but the argument normally leans to the SPL-only side. Note I'm not suggesting which side is right or wrong.


----------



## titan ii

MagnumX said:


> Where do people get their information from. My Marantz 7010 is only 11.1 and fully supports front wides.


I stand corrected. The 7010 does wides. However, I do not believe it does wides in conjunction with (Atmos ) height speakers. Please correct me if I am wrong. I was thinking in terms of an Atmos setup as this is a dedicated Atmos thread.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

This ridley scott movie never saw the atmos of overhead light on blu or uhd. Odd isn't? I was so hyped for it and it was a letdown cos it lacked six discrete overheads and maybe six discrete below surround channels. But doesn't mean I can't use different way of overhead the surround without the use of the Denon 8500 upmixer. Shhh my secret.


----------



## halcyon_888

ultimatehomecinema said:


> This ridley scott movie never saw the atmos of overhead light on blu or uhd. Odd isn't? I was so hyped for it and it was a letdown cos it lacked six discrete overheads and maybe six discrete below surround channels. But doesn't mean I can't use different way of overhead the surround without the use of the Denon 8500 upmixer. Shhh my secret.
> View attachment 3210779


According to blu-ray.com the Blu-Ray and 4k are DTS-MA 7.1 only, not Atmos or DTS:X. Reference:









Exodus: Gods and Kings 4K Blu-ray (4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray)


Exodus: Gods and Kings 4K Blu-ray Release Date February 14, 2016. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.




www.blu-ray.com


----------



## niterida

X4100 said:


> today I had it on 26,
> I'm feeling that if people dissatisfied with Atmos audio, would listen at, or closer to reference level they would definitely hear what they are looking for.


But -26 is nowhere near reference. In a properly calibrated system -26 (or 59db avg) is not loud at all - in fact it is less than normal conversation (65db) Reference is 85db avg.


----------



## titan ii

halcyon_888 said:


> According to blu-ray.com the Blu-Ray and 4k are DTS-MA 7.1 only, not Atmos or DTS:X.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exodus: Gods and Kings 4K Blu-ray (4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray)
> 
> 
> Exodus: Gods and Kings 4K Blu-ray Release Date February 14, 2016. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.blu-ray.com


Agreed. Here is the back with details. I have the BR, and the DTS-MA 7.1 upmixed to Neural:X is quite good.


----------



## Technology3456

ultimatehomecinema said:


> This ridley scott movie never saw the atmos of overhead light on blu or uhd. Odd isn't? I was so hyped for it and it was a letdown cos it lacked six discrete overheads and maybe six discrete below surround channels. But doesn't mean I can't use different way of overhead the surround without the use of the Denon 8500 upmixer. Shhh my secret.
> View attachment 3210779


This is one of the few movies like this available on 3D bluray. I definitely hope to check it out on that format, and hope it will be good 3D. Real bummer that the immersive audio isnt delivering though. And I bet they dont even include the atmos track on the 3D disc, since they often omit it from 3D discs, and I have no idea why. The ppl with nice 3D setups are probably more likely to also have atmos than the average person with a 2D setup, even a nice 4K TV, is.


----------



## titan ii

Technology3456 said:


> This is one of the few movies like this available on 3D bluray. I definitely hope to check it out on that format, and hope it will be good 3D. Real bummer that the immersive audio isnt delivering though. And I bet they dont even include the atmos track on the 3D disc, since they often omit it from 3D discs, and I have no idea why. The ppl with nice 3D setups are probably more likely to also have atmos than the average person with a 2D setup, even a nice 4K TV, is.


I have the 3D version and enjoyed it. They did not omit Atmos from the 3D, as it never existed in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, the DTS-MA 7.1 upmixed to Neural:X is quite good.


----------



## Technology3456

titan ii said:


> I have the 3D version and enjoyed it. They did not omit Atmos from the 3D, as it never existed in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, the DTS-MA 7.1 upmixed to Neural:X is quite good.


Saw that in the comments after the one I responded to. Glad you enjoyed the 3D, hopefully I will as well. Thanks for the tip about Neural:X, I'll try that.


----------



## MagnumX

titan ii said:


> I stand corrected. The 7010 does wides. However, I do not believe it does wides in conjunction with (Atmos ) height speakers. Please correct me if I am wrong. I was thinking in terms of an Atmos setup as this is a dedicated Atmos thread.


Strange, but I almost missed this. I think the alert system sometimes misses new posts for unknown reasons, but I don't recall it doing it with quoted posts by me before.

The 7010 can do either 5.1.4 + front wides (four overheads) or 9.1.2 (7.1 + front wides + two overheads). So yes, it can do front wides in Atmos. Mine also has full Auro-3D support added (upgrade), DTS:X and Audyssey DSX plus HD Radio. Other than Audyssey XT32 with app support (7010 has older XT Audyssey and needs Pro kit for curve editing), I think the 7012 I also have is inferior in feature support to the 7010 (No DSX, no HD radio and no front wides support). I think 7012 also has D&M's whole house audio, but I use Airplay/iTunes for that as I've had it since 2007.


----------



## titan ii

MagnumX said:


> Strange, but I almost missed this. I think the alert system sometimes misses new posts for unknown reasons, but I don't recall it doing it with quoted posts by me before.
> 
> The 7010 can do either 5.1.4 + front wides (four overheads) or 9.1.2 (7.1 + front wides + two overheads). So yes, it can do front wides in Atmos. Mine also has full Auro-3D support added (upgrade), DTS:X and Audyssey DSX plus HD Radio. Other than Audyssey XT32 with app support (7010 has older XT Audyssey and needs Pro kit for curve editing), I think the 7012 I also have is inferior in feature support to the 7010 (No DSX, no HD radio and no front wides support). I think 7012 also has D&M's whole house audio, but I use Airplay/iTunes for that as I've had it since 2007.


Thanks for the info and sorry I mentioned inaccurate information. Two things I have to say about the 7010.
1. It has an impressive set of features. 
2. They sure buried the bit about wides with uppers (compared to other configurations) in the manual. 
Thanks.


----------



## X4100

niterida said:


> But -26 is nowhere near reference. In a properly calibrated system -26 (or 59db avg) is not loud at all - in fact it is less than normal conversation (65db) Reference is 85db avg.


Point well taken, I was just saying that I heard more of the height effects by just raising the volume to -26, if I raised it more the better  , but my landlady came home early from work. Thanks very much for your comment, I just went back to edit my post to more accurately describe my experience.


----------



## Amplify This

I just got one of the Atmos demo discs, interestingly, it seems to sound better overall and more immersive than actual 4K movies at the same volume level, a much fuller, more intense sound. Its like how burgers always look better in the commercials than in real life.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Amplify This said:


> I just got one of the Atmos demo discs, interestingly, it seems to sound better overall and more immersive than actual 4K movies at the same volume level, a much fuller, more intense sound. Its like how burgers always look better in the commercials than in real life.


Yes, and like the ones in the pictures lit up behind the counter look better. That's because they aren't real! They are plastic food sometimes, and the photographs are manipulated to increase the saturation of the colours, etc. I like your analogy. And so similarly, the Atmos demo discs are "pumped up" beyond what a real movie would normally do.


----------



## X4100

In agreement with you here, to showcase the format the mixers "dotted the I's, and crossed the t's." I even have some demo material in 7.1 that up mixes better than a couple of Atmos movies, and the overall volume is hotter as well! I'm going through some of my favorite 5.1/7.1 stuff today to check out my new front left/right height arrayed speakers. Movies like "The One ", "The Cave ", and "Batman Begins "


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Technology3456 said:


> Is it possible on any AVRs? I'm curious about it on a theoretical level. I've never heard anyone talk about 7.x.x before with front wides instead of rear surrounds. Why not? It's basically intellectual curiosity as much as anything.
> 
> Now if it's not possible to do with any AVRs or processors, I guess that would explain why no one talks about doing it.


The Marantz SR7010 can 5+wides.1.4. It can also do 9.1.2 with Neural:X upmixing nicely to the wides.


----------



## X4100

Just finished Batman Begins, and what a wonderful delight with my arrayed middle heights in their new position just forward of the MLP at the ceiling/wall juncture. All I can say is AWESOME!!! I'm now watching "The Cave", an old DVD with DSU!! Try it yourself, and just be prepared to be in the Cave with the eiry and fright this movie offers. And chapter 6 of "The One ".Trust me you'll think it's ATMOS   Please forgive me for going off topic!


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Amplify This said:


> I just got one of the Atmos demo discs, interestingly, it seems to sound better overall and more immersive than actual 4K movies at the same volume level, a much fuller, more intense sound. Its like how *burgers* always look better in the commercials than in real life.


Upmix This *Burger* has more fries to serve up on the overhead surrounds.😺





I was 90% going to buy one of those 5 or so atmos demo discs but the content on the disc doesn't look too much few of the movies already have the others I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. Also the cost of atmos/demo/bluray costs more than cat food. I think I take a pass.


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> Just finished Batman Begins, and what a wonderful delight with my arrayed middle heights in their new position just forward of the MLP at the ceiling/wall juncture. All I can say is AWESOME!!! I'm now watching "The Cave", an old DVD with DSU!! Try it yourself, and just be prepared to be in the Cave with the eiry and fright this movie offers. And chapter 6 of "The One ".Trust me you'll think it's ATMOS   Please forgive me for going off topic!
> View attachment 3211242


Just curious, can you upmix to DTS Neural X? I've only had height channels for a few months and have been using the DSU because I preferred it initially, but the past week I've been giving DTS Neural X more of a try and it seems to resolve more "Atmos like" than the DSU. My only complaint about Neural X is sometimes when music and dialogue are in the soundtrack, the music in the heights seems weighted too much compared to the volume of the dialogue, so it ends up being a bit distracting. I'm not using any extra gain on the heights, just what Audyssey came up with and I've double checked the levels with external test tones. But after sitting with Atmos tracks for a few months now and trying Neural X again, it does seem to do a better job than the DSU in most situations. As a side note, with the DSU I thought the heights worked better with a +2 gain on most soundtracks, but with Neural X it's too much gain and I don't use any gain on the heights at all.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Before "sonic whole overhead surround" and auro3d, atmos, dtsx there was UCI experimental overhead surround! 

When doing projection 1989 the new ten screen multiplex UCI tower park, uk, used experimental overhead surround it was one few cinemas. Vic V 35mm, Dolby processors was Dolby Stereo CP55 with SRA5 , EV PA cinema speakers in all screens. A simple booth monitor from sound associates with a surround fader to increase or decrease within +- 3dB. 

The idea of the overhead surround placement was the higher up the mono matrix surround had wider uniform surround coverage compared to the usual sidewall/back wall configuration. After all this was 1989 experimental and worked very good indeed having listened to lots of movies in A-type and SR. I was with UCI for '89/90 and occasionally went down catch SR movies and 'Jurassic Park' in dts in screen 5 with stereo experimental overhead surrounds in 1993. 

Large screens 5 and 6 and I guess this would be original screen 6 as the projection port windows are near to the entrance the projection room went down narrow corridor to screen 5 which was main projection office. x8 EV experimental overhead surrounds.

















Smaller screens was all designed the same from screen 1 to 4 and 7 to 10. The experimental overhead surround used x7 EV due to the narrow entrance way with one at the back and the other x6 on the ceiling as the auditorium widened out.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

war of the worlds, uhd harsh review of this cash cow atmos from skywalker sound or maybe it was technicolour or some other rubbish studio for this manual upmix garbage. No stem tracks used. just taking all the sound from the sleeping-bed channels and just creating a fake atmos overhead surround to sell more atmos cash cow.


----------



## X4100

halcyon_888 said:


> Just curious, can you upmix to DTS Neural X? I've only had height channels for a few months and have been using the DSU because I preferred it initially, but the past week I've been giving DTS Neural X more of a try and it seems to resolve more "Atmos like" than the DSU. My only complaint about Neural X is sometimes when music and dialogue are in the soundtrack, the music in the heights seems weighted too much compared to the volume of the dialogue, so it ends up being a bit distracting. I'm not using any extra gain on the heights, just what Audyssey came up with and I've double checked the levels with external test tones. But after sitting with Atmos tracks for a few months now and trying Neural X again, it does seem to do a better job than the DSU in most situations. As a side note, with the DSU I thought the heights worked better with a +2 gain on most soundtracks, but with Neural X it's too much gain and I don't use any gain on the heights at all.


I jumped on Dolby Atmos right away after it's release, my Denon x4100 doesn't do DTSX. Depending upon the mix I might boost the height channels, but I find listening at/near reference I don't need to adjust anything


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> Just finished Batman Begins, and what a wonderful delight with my arrayed middle heights in their new position just forward of the MLP at the ceiling/wall juncture. All I can say is AWESOME!!! I'm now watching "The Cave", an old DVD with DSU!! Try it yourself, and just be prepared to be in the Cave with the eiry and fright this movie offers. And chapter 6 of "The One ".Trust me you'll think it's ATMOS   Please forgive me for going off topic!
> View attachment 3211242


Do you use .2 atmos or .6?


----------



## X4100

.4 with middle heights arrayed with the front left/right height, I call it .6 as the middle heights can give me an almost discrete sense of sound


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> .4 with middle heights arrayed with the front left/right height


This is what threw me off. "Just finished Batman Begins, and what a wonderful delight with my arrayed middle heights *in their new position just forward of the MLP* at the ceiling/wall juncture."

Are you saying you have two far out in front of MLP, and two just in front, and none behind the MLP?


----------



## X4100

I'm running L/R front height with L/R rear height, I have a L/R set of speakers arrayed with the front left/right height which I have placed in the middle of the room. All of my speakers are located at the wall/ceiling juncture. Sometimes I will move the middle heights closer to the front left/right height, but no more than 1/3 or less into the room. At this position I can use the volume control of the arrayed speakers to blend with the front left/right height thereby causing the sound to appear at the general area of where top front speakers would be. I have also used the middle heights arrayed with the front left/right height, but positioned in the middle of my room still on the wall/ceiling juncture to use as top middle as in a .6 setup. As the signal leaves the front left height going to the rear left height you will hear a very near discrete signal pass through the top middle left, and so on for the right side of the room. With a slight adjustment of the volume of the arrayed top middle speakers, I'm able to follow the famous helicopter demo as it travels around the ceiling level in my room. @MagnumX was very helpful in helping me understand how to do this!!! The demo that @rerecmixer uploaded for us in the "Dolby Atmos Object " Thread does the exact same thing as the helicopter demo. It's amazing what can be done with this thing called immersive audio!!


----------



## Technology3456

X4100 said:


> I'm running L/R front height with L/R rear height, I have a L/R set of speakers arrayed with the front left/right height which I have placed in the middle of the room. All of my speakers are located at the wall/ceiling juncture. Sometimes I will move the middle heights closer to the front left/right height, but no more than 1/3 or less into the room. At this position I can use the volume control of the arrayed speakers to blend with the front left/right height thereby causing the sound to appear at the general area of where top front speakers would be. I have also used the middle heights arrayed with the front left/right height, but positioned in the middle of my room still on the wall/ceiling juncture to use as top middle as in a .6 setup. As the signal leaves the front left height going to the rear left height you will hear a very near discrete signal pass through the top middle left, and so on for the right side of the room. With a slight adjustment of the volume of the arrayed top middle speakers, I'm able to follow the famous helicopter demo as it travels around the ceiling level in my room. @MagnumX was very helpful in helping me understand how to do this!!!


So it's a .6 setup but with a twist basically? But 6 overhead speakers in use total nonetheless? It's a lot to visualize just from the text, since it's a unique setup that I'm not familiar with.


----------



## X4100

It doesn't have a pedigree as such, but when you listen to something good that you're able to do thinking outside of the box, THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IT!!! Not to leave out the bipolar center rear speaker being sent the signal from my left/right surround by means of a DPL2 Denon avr used to fill in the rear. This setup really shows it's mettle with the very best movies, rather Atmos or the up mixed variety.


----------



## MagnumX

I have a switchbox that lets me do "Scatmos" (simulated "discrete" Top Middle") OR an array of rear height together at various mixed amounts. At some settings they sound almost identical at the MLP (changing amount of mix moves some sounds forwards or backwards, without having to move the speakers). The rear height mix is basically what Auro-3D 11.1 movie theaters used for the surround and surround height speakers all the way around.

I recently did something similar with the side surrounds for use with Auro-3D. Adding a mixer, I ended up using the same thing for Atmos as well as it lets me put a mix of rear and sides in two sets of speakers (SS#2 and rear surrounds) so that the volume differences across the room are minimized as well, but it "sounds" the same as using discrete more or less because it just pulls a bit towards the closer speaker and careful adjustment of the mixing levels can move it where you want as well.

I did find discrete top middle (Scatmos) sounds a bit "closer/sharper" to my head when watching that race scene at the beginning of Ready Player One (like a box just missed my head) than arraying it, which spreads it out a bit further (slightly further away from my head depending on where I sit, though). So I've been mostly using Scatmos overhead and arrayed SS#2 and Rears (which with mixed front wides pretty much gives me side surrounds arrayed across the entire length of the room like a real Atmos theater would have. Where it images exactly depends on where you sit, but image just as sharp really and "out of phase" (decorrelated) sounds are much larger in scope (i.e. Himmelrand and Himmelborgen Church music recordings I bought that are in Atmos AND Auro-3D sound "larger" and more even, making it sound more like I'm really there, IMO compared to playing it back fully discrete so I've been pleased overall. There's only a 2dB difference now between the front and rear of the room in terms of front being louder towards the front (actually it's set to be perfectly even in the front so I should say the middle/rear rows are only 2.0 and 2.5dB in difference now) in a 24' long room with 3 rows of seats. It was 4dB and almost 5dB respectively before the array setup was put in place, making the front row three seats the place to be. Now the middle sounds excellent as well.


----------



## X4100

Hey it's getting as quiet in here as underused Dolby Atmos overhead channels


----------



## halcyon_888

Here's a review of Dune UHD, complete with the Trinnov Atmos viewer. Looks like this is a Atmos objects mix. I mentioned several posts ago that it had the score supported in the heights as well as discrete effects, SpareChange mirrors those comments here and more:


----------



## X4100

I just saw on bluray.com that the regular bluray will also have DOLBY ATMOS


----------



## X4100

No success in ordering Twister from the turbine German website. I've tried several times getting as much done on the check out page, and I keep getting use another card. I can't figure out what is going wrong. I even contacted them and was told everything was okay


----------



## pinkfloydhomer

My current system is 5.1 with Monitor Audio Silver 8 fronts, silver center, silver surround speakers placed on the back wall above listening position playing side to side facing each other, playing over the head of listeners in a couch also placed at the back wall. So no room to put anything behind listening position. Subwoofer is an SVS 12".

I am upgrading from my Anthem MRX300 to something like Denon X3700H before long, mostly because the Anthem is acting up and to get 4K, newer HDMI etc. But Atmos will of course then become a possibility. I have generally assumed that I couldn't meaningfully add more speakers since I wouldn't know where to put them in this setup. I can't put any speakers behind listeners, for instance. I might be able to put something ceiling-facing somewhere.

Will I be able to utilize atmos in my setup and if so, which kinds of speakers would be the best bet, how many of them, placed where, pointing where?


----------



## X4100

Glad to hear you are thinking about going the Atmos way of life! What are the dimensions of your room


----------



## sjm817

pinkfloydhomer said:


> My current system is 5.1 with Monitor Audio Silver 8 fronts, silver center, silver surround speakers placed on the back wall above listening position playing side to side facing each other, playing over the head of listeners in a couch also placed at the back wall. So no room to put anything behind listening position. Subwoofer is an SVS 12".
> 
> I am upgrading from my Anthem MRX300 to something like Denon X3700H before long, mostly because the Anthem is acting up and to get 4K, newer HDMI etc. But Atmos will of course then become a possibility. I have generally assumed that I couldn't meaningfully add more speakers since I wouldn't know where to put them in this setup. I can't put any speakers behind listeners, for instance. I might be able to put something ceiling-facing somewhere.
> 
> Will I be able to utilize atmos in my setup and if so, which kinds of speakers would be the best bet, how many of them, placed where, pointing where?


Where I used to live I had a setup with the couch on the back wall. I put in 2 in ceiling speakers that were set to Top Middle positioned a bit forward of the listening position. Worked well.


----------



## halcyon_888

So I watched the Matrix Resurrections last night, and when the title sequence played and throughout the first scene I thought this was going to be a nice dynamic mix, but as the movie wore on it became un-dynamic and made my system sound like I was using a soundbar. There was some Atmos height usage but I was very unimpressed with the audio quality after the first action sequence in the movie.

Interestingly, SpareChange had the opposite experience and says the entire track was a "bonified dynamic Atmos mix," giving it a 8.9. I'm not alone in thinking it was unimpressive though, I've read where other people have said the same thing. Here's the SpareChange review, complete with some Trinnov Atmos viewer visuals:


----------



## MagnumX

I just saw The Matrix Resurrections at an XD theater (I ditched cable years ago, let alone have miserable movie channels like HBO that never show anything I want to watch). I didn't see any overhead speakers, but it sure seemed like the sounds were at more than one height, but it might have been a front/back thing as it was a stadium seating theater. I liked the cushy power chairs, though, but they were a bit noisy raising the footrest.

I can't say it was really loud enough to impress, let alone determine dynamics, but the chairs clearly had shakers in them; I could feel it even in the headrest, which was nice. I heard plenty of discrete left/right surround effects at least, much more than the original movie.

I'll put a spoilers tag here since someone complained, even though there is no plot mentioned below. Read at your own risk.



Spoiler



I'm not sure if I liked the movie or not overall. Parts of it were good, but it felt kind of like a pointless theme rather than a gnostic message hidden behind Kung Fu like the original.

One couple walked out literally 10 minutes or so from the end and said "F this movie!" so clearly they felt strongly about the plot twist which admittedly could be interpreted as a "woke" thing, but given who the director is, what did they expect? I didn't really interpret it that way (although having a woman perform the Rage Against The Machine redeux at the end titles suggests perhaps it was), but I did think Neil Patrick Harris was a poor choice for the bad guy and I'm not sure why they didn't ask Laurence Fishburne to be in it. I read Hugo Weaving wasn't available and that was a shame too as his replacement wasn't even close to his caliber.



I'll be curious to hear how it compares at home when the UHD is out. I wouldn't trust HBO streaming to no further compress the signal etc.


----------



## Rich 63

Removed spoiler


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> Thanks for the spoilers.


And what spoilers would that be??? I didn't mention one word of the plot. Not one.

I'll put a spoilers tag on my opinion just for you. I can't do anything about your total quote of the message, however.


----------



## Rich 63

Spoiler


----------



## MagnumX

There's nothing in bold and for someone so concerned about spoiling the movie you sure gave quoted it enough so my spoiler tag means nothing.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> There's nothing in bold and for someone so concerned about spoiling the movie you sure gave quoted it enough so my spoiler tag means nothing.





Spoiler



In your initial post, you said who the bad guy is.

EDIT: and it was a cool moment for me (the realization that he was the bad guy), so I'm glad I saw the movie before I read your comment.


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> In your initial post, you said who the bad guy is.


I didn't realize the movie made it a big secret. It's not exactly a Luke/Vader moment. Does it hurt to know Hugo Weaving plays an agent in the first movie before you see it?


----------



## Rich 63

MagnumX said:


> There's nothing in bold and for someone so concerned about spoiling the movie you sure gave quoted it enough so my spoiler tag means nothing.


🥱😩🥱


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> I didn't realize the movie made it a big secret. It's not exactly a Luke/Vader moment. Does it hurt to know Hugo Weaving plays an agent in the first movie before you see it?


I didn't watch any trailers for this film. I didn't read any articles. I actually went in completely cold, not even knowing the cast essentially. So, for someone like me, I guess I would say yes...if I knew ahead of time that a cast member was or wasn't in it (and what general role they play), that would be considered a spoiler. Just my opinion.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> Does it hurt to know Hugo Weaving plays an agent in the first movie before you see it?


In the first film, I knew Hugo was in it, but didn't know what role he played (the first film was FANTASTIC for revealing very little in the trailers). That's why that movie blew my mind so much. I didn't even know what "agents" were before seeing the first film.



Spoiler



But for NPH to be the therapist, and then later revealed to be the new "architect" (and a bad guy), is a pretty major spoiler in my opinion. Your comment didn't describe it to that level of detail. But if I hadn't seen the movie first, and read your comment...I would've been watching the movie the whole time watching NPH suspiciously. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> 🥱😩🥱


Gotta love the maturity level around here anymore.... 

Merry Freaking Christmas.


----------



## X4100

"SPOILER ALERT " humpty dumpty was pushed


----------



## Rich 63

MagnumX said:


> Gotta love the maturity level around here anymore....
> 
> Merry Freaking Christmas.


Merry Christmas to you as well.


----------



## niterida

X4100 said:


> "SPOILER ALERT " humpty dumpty was pushed


By Santa Claus ?


----------



## bluesky636

Funny. I thought the intent of this thread was to discuss Atmos setup and other technical issues.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

crutzulee said:


> I don't generally stand beside or under any one channel or mute all other channels to verify that sound is actually coming out of it because...well, that sounds a bit crazy to me. What I can say, is that when an ATMOS track is done right, I have on many occasions experienced a feeling in which my speakers seem to disappear. I'm not talking about diffuse or indistinct sound. I'm talking about completely smooth transitions like a car that is coming from directly behind me and then jumps straight over my head and crashes down right in front of me - *making sounds in places that I don't have speakers!*


This right here is what Atmos is intended to do. The ability for sound to seemingly emanate from anywhere in 3-dimensions.

I think people get too hung up on discrete height effects. Yes those are cool, but thats not the purpose of Atmos. Thats a side benefit.


----------



## Joe in WI

MagnumX said:


> The helicopter demo does NOT play in the base layer at all (at least with real overhead speakers; I never tried it with enabled speakers). I verified this just yesterday (all overheads unplugged). There was no sound in the base/ear level layer whatsoever.
> 
> I believe the helicopter actually flies in a circular path (although it's affected by the speaker layout and may become elliptical with an elongated layout).
> 
> The best "clip" to start out with is the Dolby speaker test demo (preferably 9.1.6 as it tests 6 positions across the ceiling that hold steady for a minute so that you can measure with a sound meter to confirm even levels. Then one can go to the helicopter demo or other demos (rain storm, horizon, etc.)


I finally got moved in and setup my HT in my new place and did some testing.

I have a yamaha RX-A2060. 

If I set the atmos speakers to ceiling or height, you are correct. The helicopter does NOT play in the base layer.

But, if I set the atmos speakers to atmos enabled, the helicopter DOES play in both the atmos and base layer. And, it's not simply sending the same signal to both speakers.

The whirling blades are only in the height speakers. While the deeper rumble appears in the base. The engine noise seems to come from both... definitely some overlap. I guess it's more atmos magic.


----------



## jbnpaul

What is the cross over on those atmos enabled speakers?

If they are configured as upfiring they might be using very high crossover (like 250) and sending all lower frequencies to the base layer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

Joe in WI said:


> But, if I set the atmos speakers to atmos enabled, the helicopter DOES play in both the atmos and base layer. And, it's not simply sending the same signal to both speakers.
> 
> The whirling blades are only in the height speakers. While the deeper rumble appears in the base. The engine noise seems to come from both... definitely some overlap. I guess it's more atmos magic.


It's the crossover slope. Atmos enabled speakers are set to only play above 120Hz. The rest of the signal is sent to the rest of your speakers (however they're bass managed). Plus enabled speakers leak sideways, not just the ceiling bounce so you'll get sounds from both layers with enabled speakers.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Joe in WI said:


> I finally got moved in and setup my HT in my new place and did some testing.
> 
> I have a yamaha RX-A2060.
> 
> If I set the atmos speakers to ceiling or height, you are correct. The helicopter does NOT play in the base layer.
> 
> But, if I set the atmos speakers to atmos enabled, the helicopter DOES play in both the atmos and base layer. And, it's not simply sending the same signal to both speakers.
> 
> The whirling blades are only in the height speakers. While the deeper rumble appears in the base. The engine noise seems to come from both... definitely some overlap. I guess it's more atmos magic.


that's true and I was surprised when I unhooked the amps to my 7.1.4 and only had heights playing that the bird flying overhead in the atmos amaze demo actually flies in the base layer mostly and NOT overhead. Try it out


----------



## petetherock

Protege isn't going to be remembered as anything more than a hot Maggie Q in another Nikita remake, but the Atmos experience and surround is top class... worth a rental or a purchase as a demo worthy disc...


----------



## MagnumX

@Chirosamsung - The bird in the Amaze demo flies at ear level here all the way around the 24' long room in a more or less circular flight path until halfway between me and the center speaker and then turns back to the left surround speaker. It never sounded overhead here. If your speakers are above ear level I'm sure it would seem overhead.


----------



## niterida

So apart from Disney fixed prints does Atmos Home utilise all your speakers even if you have something like 11.x.8 ? Or is it limited to 7.x.4 or does it depend on the mix. I thought it used whatever speakers you AVR had defined but recent reading seems to say it doesn't use front wides at all or is that just DSU ?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

The sound mix of Matrix Resurrection was nowhere nearon the same level as the first three. It was very front heavy for the majority of the time.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> @Chirosamsung - The bird in the Amaze demo flies at ear level here all the way around the 24' long room in a more or less circular flight path until halfway between me and the center speaker and then turns back to the left surround speaker. It never sounded overhead here. If your speakers are above ear level I'm sure it would seem overhead.


Yes, that is correct. It always sounded only slightly higher than ear level (as is the placement of the surrounds in my house) but I recently moved my in ceiling top speakers closer in (HUGE HELP btw even though it cost 500 of contractor cutting and repainting) because originally my top speakers were on a wide wide position because of my couch and room layout. I was erroneously expecting to hear the bird more above as I thought that was the point of the demo but found it was still base layer. I guess in that demo the rain was the use of the height layer. Just wanted to confirm


----------



## Chirosamsung

Mashie Saldana said:


> The sound mix of Matrix Resurrection was nowhere nearon the same level as the first three. It was very front heavy for the majority of the time.


so I guess there is ZERO reason to get that blu ray since the actual movie sucked as well


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Chirosamsung said:


> so I guess there is ZERO reason to get that blu ray since the actual movie sucked as well


Pretty much yes.


----------



## dschulz

niterida said:


> So apart from Disney fixed prints does Atmos Home utilise all your speakers even if you have something like 11.x.8 ? Or is it limited to 7.x.4 or does it depend on the mix. I thought it used whatever speakers you AVR had defined but recent reading seems to say it doesn't use front wides at all or is that just DSU ?


A home Atmos mix will utilize all of your speakers, from 5.1.2 all the way up to 24.1.10. The primary speakers used are the 7.1 main (which play the channel beds) - all other speakers are used for rendering objects as best as possible in 3D space. More speakers, more spatial resolution for the object rendering. 

If there are not many objects flying around the room in the mix, then many of the speakers may be quiet a lot of the time. 

DSU as originally implemented did not use the front wides because Dolby felt that adding wides messed with the front soundstage of mixes that didn't include them, but they have reversed course and the newest implementation of DSU does use the front wides.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> A home Atmos mix will utilize all of your speakers, from 5.1.2 all the way up to 24.1.10. The primary speakers used are the 7.1 main (which play the channel beds) - all other speakers are used for rendering objects as best as possible in 3D space. More speakers, more spatial resolution for the object rendering.


That describes the format but not the mixes, too many of which are pre-rendered to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 and cannot scale to additional speakers. The new Bond movie is the latest example.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Is doctor sleep a really good atmos demo? I can only find it at Best Buy and Amazon Canada for around 33-35 dollars for the 4k and that is steep but will pay it if it is atmos demo worthy and a good movie not just eye or ear candy with no substance like some atmos recs lol


----------



## mrtickleuk

Chirosamsung said:


> so I guess there is ZERO reason to get that blu ray since the actual movie sucked as well


You'd think so, but judgement of the story and acting is every bit as subjective as as judgement of audio and video quality! There are people in threads not very far from here who will buy absolutely _stinkers_, just as "demo material" because that terrible title makes good use of Atmos or HDR for a few minutes in the middle etc. I wouldn't want to give a penny extra profit to such titles, because it only encourages them to make more stinkers like it (sadly, the financials often disproportionately influence what gets made in the future more than awards for artistic merit). In just the same way I wouldn't buy music of a type that I hate, and can't bear to listen to without my fingers in my eyes, just because it's got very high award-winning production values  . But hey that's just me, each to their own, we all have choice


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> That describes the format but not the mixes, too many of which are pre-rendered to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 and cannot scale to additional speakers. The new Bond movie is the latest example.


Thanks for that important clarification. The OP mentioned the Disney fixed printouts, but yes, there are others, and of course anything being hard-coded to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 will utilize only those speakers. Be interesting to hear why the Bond folks decided to do a fixed printout.


----------



## dschulz

Chirosamsung said:


> Is doctor sleep a really good atmos demo? I can only find it at Best Buy and Amazon Canada for around 33-35 dollars for the 4k and that is steep but will pay it if it is atmos demo worthy and a good movie not just eye or ear candy with no substance like some atmos recs lol


I haven't heard the home Atmos mix, but the movie is absolutely fantastic.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Chirosamsung said:


> Is doctor sleep a really good atmos demo? I can only find it at Best Buy and Amazon Canada for around 33-35 dollars for the 4k and that is steep but will pay it if it is atmos demo worthy and a good movie not just eye or ear candy with no substance like some atmos recs lol


If you have Apple TV you can rent it for $2.99 currently and decide for yourself, or just buy it for $9.99. That's what I did with In The Heights as I couldn't justify the $35.00 4K disc , and the streaming file quality is superb.


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> so I guess there is ZERO reason to get that blu ray since the actual movie sucked as well


I found the whole movie to be sub par for the series and even for the genre generally. 
Audio/Video/Plot/acting. All extremely disappointing. And I am pretty easily entertained by action type movies...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> Is doctor sleep a really good atmos demo? I can only find it at Best Buy and Amazon Canada for around 33-35 dollars for the 4k and that is steep but will pay it if it is atmos demo worthy and a good movie not just eye or ear candy with no substance like some atmos recs lol


Doctor Sleep is one of my favorite discs to throw on for people to hear what Atmos is about. It's demo-worthy beginning to end, even for just ambient sounds around you... and when it needs to be showy, it does so incredibly well. Plus, if you like The Shining at all, it's a solid sequel that stands up to multiple viewings.


----------



## Josh Z

Mashie Saldana said:


> The sound mix of Matrix Resurrection was nowhere nearon the same level as the first three. It was very front heavy for the majority of the time.


The beginning of the movie makes some pretty aggressive use of Atmos. After that, however, it does seem to taper off for much of the film.


----------



## Joe in WI

jbnpaul said:


> What is the cross over on those atmos enabled speakers?
> 
> If they are configured as upfiring they might be using very high crossover (like 250) and sending all lower frequencies to the base layer?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For the test, I configured all speakers (base and atmos) to be large to rule out any bass management caused by me. Obviously, I have no idea if yamaha is forcing a crossover because I chose the AE speaker setting. Looking at the onscreen visual diagram (from the avr) and the settings, all speakers are set to large.

I use Klipsch RP-280FA tower speakers with atmos enabled speakers embedded into the tops of the towers. Per Klipsch, the AE speakers are recommended to be crossed over at 80 Hz.

I did additional tests. If I crossover the atmos speakers (either set as AE or ceiling), the lower frequencies go to the subs, not the corresponding base layer speaker.




MagnumX said:


> It's the crossover slope. Atmos enabled speakers are set to only play above 120Hz. The rest of the signal is sent to the rest of your speakers (however they're bass managed). Plus enabled speakers leak sideways, not just the ceiling bounce so you'll get sounds from both layers with enabled speakers.


Per Klipsch, the AE speakers embedded in the RP-280FA towers are recommended to be crossed over at 80 Hz. Why do you say that AE speakers only play above 120 Hz? Where does that come from?

IMO, these AE speakers do NOT leak sideways because they are embedded into the tops of the towers (RP-280FA) and that recessed area is lined with acoustic foam.

Playing the helicopter demo, I assumed I was getting some leakage because I could hear it. But after setting the avr to ceiling speakers, the helicopter only plays in the height layer and I hear no leakage. The base layer is silent. That could be another reason that people have reported more leakage with AE speakers... it might be the avr's AE setting that is sending part of the atmos signal to the corresponding base layer speaker without people realizing it.

For a test, I crossed over the atmos speakers at 200 Hz. The lower frequencies of the helicopter is routed to the subs, not the corresponding base layer speaker.

My bounce locations on my ceiling are very close to where ceiling speakers should be installed. I'm going to leave the avr set to ceiling for awhile to see if I like it better.


----------



## MagnumX

Joe in WI said:


> Looking at the onscreen visual diagram (from the avr) and the settings, all speakers are set to large.
> 
> ...
> 
> Per Klipsch, the AE speakers embedded in the RP-280FA towers are recommended to be crossed over at 80 Hz. Why do you say that AE speakers only play above 120 Hz? Where does that come from?


It comes from the way Dolby implemented Atmos enabled speakers. The lower the frequency the less it "bounces" off the ceiling. I'm not sure you can override the inherent crossover. I can't imagine Klipsch recommending 80Hz for the enabled drivers as it would give poor results.



> IMO, these AE speakers do NOT leak sideways because they are embedded into the tops of the towers (RP-280FA) and that recessed area is lined with acoustic foam.


That reduces it, but will not eliminate it entirely. Believe me, if they worked that well, they'd have a much better reputation than they do.



> Playing the helicopter demo, I assumed I was getting some leakage because I could hear it. But after setting the avr to ceiling speakers, the helicopter only plays in the height layer and I hear no leakage. The base layer is silent. That could be another reason that people have reported more leakage with AE speakers... it might be the avr's AE setting that is sending part of the atmos signal to the corresponding base layer speaker without people realizing it.
> 
> For a test, I crossed over the atmos speakers at 200 Hz. The lower frequencies of the helicopter is routed to the subs, not the corresponding base layer speaker.


You said above the lower speakers were set to Large. That means all non-LFE bass is sent to the main speakers as well.


----------



## Joe in WI

MagnumX said:


> It comes from the way Dolby implemented Atmos enabled speakers. The lower the frequency the less it "bounces" off the ceiling. I'm not sure you can override the inherent crossover. I can't imagine Klipsch recommending 80Hz for the enabled drivers as it would give poor results.
> 
> 
> 
> That reduces it, but will not eliminate it entirely. Believe me, if they worked that well, they'd have a much better reputation than they do.
> 
> 
> 
> You said above the lower speakers were set to Large. That means all non-LFE bass is sent to the main speakers as well.


I attached the page from the Klipsch speaker manual. The newer model (RP-8060FA) has the same recommendations.... 80 Hz for the tower and 150 Hz if you're using add-on module.)

With all due respect, most of the time that I have read negative comments about AE speakers, they were add-on modules which would be more prone to leakage. And, in a lot of posts, people were not applying the technology correctly... most of the time, sitting too far away... like 12 to 15 feet away with an 8 foot ceiling... which means they are sitting outside the reach of the AE speaker. Or, they have a poorly reflective ceiling (cathedral, vaulted, popcorn, acoustic tile, etc.) For those of us who cannot do in-ceiling speakers, properly installed and aligned AE speakers provide a great diffused atmos sound.

I used my left rear tower speaker as my test subject. When all speakers were to large, the subs were still part of the configuration. So, LFE would go the subs. AFAIK, the helicopter demo does not contain any LFE because my subs remained quiet. Then, I crossed over the rear atmos speakers at 200 Hz and that goes to subs only. (My front speakers remained quiet.) In my case, I have the subs configured as left/right. So the left sub plays LFE + any left speaker crossover. The right sub is LFE + any right speaker crossover. The subs responded as expected. If I remove the subs from the avr, then the front L/R are forced to large and play LFE + any crossover.


----------



## ace_xp2

For a different perspective as to the effectiveness of foam around a recessed speaker edge, consider the amount of effort that went into creating the D&D 8C and it's relatively narrow directivity. Getting directivity in lower frequencies is a pretty difficult and acoustically involving task, were that do-able through careful foam usage and speaker aiming, the 8C wouldn't be getting the response in industry it has.


----------



## Wardog555

Are you aware that these up firing speakers are not recommended as they are fake atmos? If you spent your money on a real surround sound system why even bother? It's often suggested if you don't have ceiling based speakers either mounted or in ceiling. Then don't bother as the experience is terrible.


----------



## niterida

Wardog555 said:


> Are you aware that these up firing speakers are not recommended as they are fake atmos? If you spent your money on a real surround sound system why even bother? It's often suggested if you don't have ceiling based speakers either mounted or in ceiling. Then don't bother as the experience is terrible.


That's a bit harsh - bouncy speakers can certainly work but they take a lot of effort to set up properly. Sure they won't be as good as real height speakers but they still work and if you can't mount height speakers then they are better than nothing (unless you have a totally inappropriate room).


----------



## Joe in WI

Wardog555 said:


> Are you aware that these up firing speakers are not recommended as they are fake atmos? If you spent your money on a real surround sound system why even bother? It's often suggested if you don't have ceiling based speakers either mounted or in ceiling. Then don't bother as the experience is terrible.


Fyi, dolby recommends upfiring speakers. You know, the people that created atmos. 

Properly installed and configured upfiring speakers sound great. Do they work in any room? NO. 

The upfiring speakers have specific requirements that unfortunately manufacturers don't advertise that part.

People have reported that upfiring speakers were either nearly the same, the same, and rarely sometimes better than ceiling speakers when demos were done at trade shows, etc. 

Both types of installations have pros/cons. And, both need to be installed and correctly configured.

Upfiring/AE speakers need a reflective spot on the ceiling, the audience must be sitting within the bounce zone, and increase the levels (I use +5.)

Almost every post I've read on this and other forums that report a negative experience with AE speakers, were either sitting too far away or have an incompatible ceiling. That is not the speakers fault. That's user error.

I apologize if I've offended you, wardog555. After all, I only have a lowly yamaha RX-A2060 so I'm limited to 5.x.4. And, I'm not able to install ceiling speakers. 

I know you feel my atmos setup was a waste of time and money, but my AE speakers work great in my room. You're not going to make me feel bad for the choices I've made in my HT.


----------



## appelz

Wardog555 said:


> Are you aware that these up firing speakers are not recommended as they are fake atmos? If you spent your money on a real surround sound system why even bother? It's often suggested if you don't have ceiling based speakers either mounted or in ceiling. Then don't bother as the experience is terrible.


Not recommended by who??

I have several very successful private cinemas that are using Dolby Enabled speakers, quite successfully. They are a compromise, for sure, but I've not worked in many rooms that don't have to compromise somewhere.

Including this one. Glitter Cinema Now With 28 Channel 30 Speaker ATMOS


----------



## halcyon_888

SpareChange has a top 10 audio mixes for 2021 out on Youtube. No Time to Die made the list, which I agree had good audio but not necessarily great Atmos imo. I would say it was good not great, with great Atmos mixes being reserved for titles like Ready Player One. I know other people enjoyed No Time to Die's audio mix more than I did. Atop SpareChange's list is The Tomorrow War and Dune, which I thought were good picks. Matrix 4 didn't make the list at all, which I agree with. Also absent are the Disney Atmouse releases for 2021. He has the Trinnov Atmos object viewer visuals for each of the 10 movies in the list, check it out below. What do you guys think?


----------



## Joe in WI

ace_xp2 said:


> For a different perspective as to the effectiveness of foam around a recessed speaker edge, consider the amount of effort that went into creating the D&D 8C and it's relatively narrow directivity. Getting directivity in lower frequencies is a pretty difficult and acoustically involving task, were that do-able through careful foam usage and speaker aiming, the 8C wouldn't be getting the response in industry it has.


Wow... definitely a different perspective. 

I looked up the D&D 8C... it's a $6,000 speaker! Unfortunately, it's way out of my league. (When I bought mine, I think the price difference between the RP-280F (non AE) and RP-280FA (with AE) was approximately $300-400 each.

Clearly, I'm a noob when it comes to speaker designs. LOL. I mentioned the recessed area lined with foam because in quite a few posts, people tipped the AE modules forward to increase the reach of the speakers... and the futher they tipped the speaker, the worse the localization. IMO, the recessed foam area in my towers goes a long way to helping with that. But I admit that I've never heard the D&D 8C and being designed from the ground up to be more focused, I'm sure they sound amazing for atmos use.

Thanks for the info. When I win the powerball jackpot, I'll place an order for 10 of them in a custom built 15.x.10 HT. This guy from Wisconsin can only dream about such things.


----------



## jbnpaul

If you believe there won't be any side ways leakage on upfiring speakers you can do this experiment...
Play it in the open... And if you can hear the speaker then it would be leakage.

Basically you simply remove the ceiling...in the open sky is your ceiling. 

The upfiring speakers definitely work but in my experience not as well as heights/ceiling. So I would recommend ceiling /height if possible. And use upfiring if ceiling/height can not be used. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> SpareChange has a top 10 audio mixes for 2021 out on Youtube. No Time to Die made the list, which I agree had good audio but not necessarily great Atmos imo. I would say it was good not great, with great Atmos mixes being reserved for titles like Ready Player One. I know other people enjoyed No Time to Die's audio mix more than I did. Atop SpareChange's list is The Tomorrow War and Dune, which I thought were good picks. Matrix 4 didn't make the list at all, which I agree with. Also absent are the Disney Atmouse releases for 2021. He has the Trinnov Atmos object viewer visuals for each of the 10 movies in the list, check it out below. What do you guys think?


just watched Dunkirk for first time in a few years and was pleasantly surprised how well the atmos mix was


----------



## srw1000

Chirosamsung said:


> just watched Dunkirk for first time in a few years and was pleasantly surprised how well the atmos mix was


There's an Atmos mix for this movie?

I though Nolan was strictly 5.1.


----------



## MagnumX

No Time To Die at least used overhead panning. Ready Player One is limited to two overhead channels so I don't think it should be on ant top Atmos list no matter how well it's done otherwise. Yes, it tricks you into thinking there's overhead panning with that semi-truck (actually pans in ear level with a volume change overhead). 

Frankly, I didn't even notice the overhead stuff that much when I first saw it because it's a bit location dependent for the more interesting effects like the box that goes flying over your head right before the truck. If it images right overhead it's incredible sounding, but if not you barely even notice it (the difference between using "Scatmos" here at nearly fully discrete versus an array (the truck sounds the same regardless so slight differences in presentation can make huge impression differences (like that one spaceship effect in Jupiter Ascending; if it's passing just overhead like that one guy reported it sounds incredible. If it images lower (speaker height difference) or several feet in front of you or behind you it's just an OK effect.

The best Atmos/X soundtracks are impressive no matter where you sit (e.g. Fury, Harry Potter, Overlord, The Meg etc.), IMO. But most people only hear one perspective (their own and in the MLP seat, however it's set up).


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> No Time To Die at least used overhead panning. Ready Player One is limited to two overhead channels so I don't think it should be on ant top Atmos list no matter how well it's done otherwise. Yes, it tricks you into thinking there's overhead panning with that semi-truck (actually pans in ear level with a volume change overhead).
> 
> Frankly, I didn't even notice the overhead stuff that much when I first saw it because it's a bit location dependent for the more interesting effects like the box that goes flying over your head right before the truck. If it images right overhead it's incredible sounding, but if not you barely even notice it (the difference between using "Scatmos" here at nearly fully discrete versus an array (the truck sounds the same regardless so slight differences in presentation can make huge impression differences (like that one spaceship effect in Jupiter Ascending; if it's passing just overhead like that one guy reported it sounds incredible. If it images lower (speaker height difference) or several feet in front of you or behind you it's just an OK effect.
> 
> The best Atmos/X soundtracks are impressive no matter where you sit (e.g. Fury, Harry Potter, Overlord, The Meg etc.), IMO. But most people only hear one perspective (their own and in the MLP seat, however it's set up).


That's strange to not like Ready Player One for Atmos, it's considered to be one of the best out there and sounds like one of the Dolby Atmos demos. I wish more mixes were done as good as it is. It's creative with it's use of overhead effects in relation to the on-screen action and that's lacking with so many of the so-called Atmos tracks that we get. I don't have a problem how they handled the semi-truck overhead effect, either: starting in the front speakers, then the heights, then the rears. It sounds great to my ears and demo worthy. I certainly would not rank No Time to Die above Ready Player One. Like I said before, No Time to Die wasn't a bad mix I just found it to be good not great.


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> just watched Dunkirk for first time in a few years and was pleasantly surprised how well the atmos mix was





srw1000 said:


> There's an Atmos mix for this movie?
> 
> I though Nolan was strictly 5.1.


Christopher Nolan doesn't do Atmos. He doesn't even like surround sound. Most of his mixes are extremely front-channel focused.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> That's strange to not like Ready Player One for Atmos


I didn't say I didn't like it at all. I simply don't think _locked_ Atmos soundtracks should be encouraged in any way. I find it unacceptable to not use at _least_ four overheads precisely because you cannot properly pan overhead. (They should all be using objects as Dolby intended, especially since Dolby doesn't have an alternative "fix" like DTS:X Pro's Neural X upmix to all 30.2 speakers). 

"Tricks" should not become a _standard_ of Atmos panning IMO. Thus, I wouldn't highly rate an improper soundtrack for that reason, at least not without making it clear I don't approve of the methods used.



> it's considered to be one of the best out there


By whom? I had never heard that until all that stink was made about gold coins on here. A locked 7.1.2 soundtrack should not be celebrated for the above reasons. We should be demanding true object Atmos and every high rating of "Fakemos" just tells the studios it's OK to not do Atmos properly.



> and sounds like one of the Dolby Atmos demos. I wish more mixes were done as good as it is.


It's _all_ great or just the opening race scene? (That's the only scene anyone ever talks about. Frankly, I wasn't crazy about the movie and I can't seem to make myself watch it all aagain just to listen to more improperly used Atmos). YMMV (and obviously does).

Why even have four or more overhead speakers if movies can refuse to use them?


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> By whom? I had never heard that until all that stink was made about gold coins on here. A locked 7.1.2 soundtrack should not be celebrated for the above reasons. We should be demanding true object Atmos and every high rating of "Fakemos" just tells the studios it's OK to not do Atmos properly.


I've had Atmos for about 8 months now and when I was researching which movies were demo worthy Ready Player One kept coming up. Also there was at least one Youtube video that recommended it along with others to demo as I recall. And of course once I heard it I thought it was fantastic. You're calling it fake Atmos so apparently there is a gulf between our opinions about the soundtrack. I don't disagree that it should be object based but that doesn't change the fact for me that it is an expertly done mix. 



MagnumX said:


> It's _all_ great or just the opening race scene? (That's the only scene anyone ever talks about. Frankly, I wasn't crazy about the movie and I can't seem to make myself watch it all aagain just to listen to more improperly used Atmos). YMMV (and obviously does).


There's a lot of height usage in the movie, like I said before it's often creative in the way they use the heights in relation to the on-screen events. I don't have the movie memorized but it was often well done. Maybe this video can give more timestamps if you want to go and check them out, if you don't then that's fine because I'm not going to go back and re-watch them just for a conversation:


----------



## appelz

halcyon_888 said:


> That's strange to not like Ready Player One for Atmos, it's considered to be one of the best out there and sounds like one of the Dolby Atmos demos. I wish more mixes were done as good as it is. It's creative with it's use of overhead effects in relation to the on-screen action and that's lacking with so many of the so-called Atmos tracks that we get. I don't have a problem how they handled the semi-truck overhead effect, either: starting in the front speakers, then the heights, then the rears. It sounds great to my ears and demo worthy. I certainly would not rank No Time to Die above Ready Player One. Like I said before, No Time to Die wasn't a bad mix I just found it to be good not great.


As someone who calibrates dozens of very high channel count systems a year, clearly I'd like to see better usage of every available channel. But yup, sometimes, a good mix is a good mix!


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> No Time To Die at least used overhead panning. Ready Player One is limited to two overhead channels so I don't think it should be on ant top Atmos list no matter how well it's done otherwise. Yes, it tricks you into thinking there's overhead panning with that semi-truck (actually pans in ear level with a volume change overhead).
> 
> Frankly, I didn't even notice the overhead stuff that much when I first saw it because it's a bit location dependent for the more interesting effects like the box that goes flying over your head right before the truck. If it images right overhead it's incredible sounding, but if not you barely even notice it (the difference between using "Scatmos" here at nearly fully discrete versus an array (the truck sounds the same regardless so slight differences in presentation can make huge impression differences (like that one spaceship effect in Jupiter Ascending; if it's passing just overhead like that one guy reported it sounds incredible. If it images lower (speaker height difference) or several feet in front of you or behind you it's just an OK effect.
> 
> The best Atmos/X soundtracks are impressive no matter where you sit (e.g. Fury, Harry Potter, Overlord, The Meg etc.), IMO. But most people only hear one perspective (their own and in the MLP seat, however it's set up).


I think you are the exception BY FAR to think ready player one ISNT a great atmos mix and that you think it DOESNT have a lot of overhead usage...it's almost like you are talking about a different movie.

FAKE NEWS lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

Josh Z said:


> Christopher Nolan doesn't do Atmos. He doesn't even like surround sound. Most of his mixes are extremely front-channel focused.


ok, well it's great with DTS:X then


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I didn't say I didn't like it at all. I simply don't think _locked_ Atmos soundtracks should be encouraged in any way. I find it unacceptable to not use at _least_ four overheads precisely because you cannot properly pan overhead. (They should all be using objects as Dolby intended, especially since Dolby doesn't have an alternative "fix" like DTS:X Pro's Neural X upmix to all 30.2 speakers).
> 
> "Tricks" should not become a _standard_ of Atmos panning IMO. Thus, I wouldn't highly rate an improper soundtrack for that reason, at least not without making it clear I don't approve of the methods used.
> 
> 
> 
> By whom? I had never heard that until all that stink was made about gold coins on here. A locked 7.1.2 soundtrack should not be celebrated for the above reasons. We should be demanding true object Atmos and every high rating of "Fakemos" just tells the studios it's OK to not do Atmos properly.
> 
> 
> 
> It's _all_ great or just the opening race scene? (That's the only scene anyone ever talks about. Frankly, I wasn't crazy about the movie and I can't seem to make myself watch it all aagain just to listen to more improperly used Atmos). YMMV (and obviously does).
> 
> Why even have four or more overhead speakers if movies can refuse to use them?


its a lot more than the beginning race scene...are you sure you've watched it??? Seriously, no offence but when you ask "who says it is one of or the best atmos mix"? The answer is: ALMOST EVERYONE that's seen it think it's top 3 at the very least and listed at or near the top in most, if not all top atmos movie lists

people were raving about it well before the coin scene discussion-locked 7.X.2 mix or not


----------



## MagnumX

I can't seem to have a conversation with people that ignore everything I wrote. How is two channel locked overhead a good thing or "good Atmos" ??? You saying _everyone_ agrees with you is specious in nature.

I watched the entire movie once. I didn't care for it. I remember good surround. I don't recall good overhead surround offhand so I watched the race scene in question and sitting in the right position it was _very_ impressive sounding. I said that already and keep getting flak for it anyway because I don't approve of the locked nature and improper overhead sound use.

Once more, the movie is highly dependent on where you sit to achieve those effects (which become less impressive as you move away from the top middle speakers (as the other overheads are 100% dead on a 6+ channel system and even 4-channel panning moves with you as an array effect so it's really only "duck time" for certain seats (e.g. That flying box sounds before the semi sounds like it's going to take my head off with discrete top middle just behind me, but use arrayed 4-channel or move further back into the room to rows 3 or 4 and its nowhere near sounding like it's going to hit my head because it images over the top middle speaker location six feet in front of me instead.

I realize for most home theater situations that's probably not an issue because there usually is only one row of seats, but for a proper Atmos experience for all involved, two-channel overhead is not a good thing and has to use panning tricks to make anything overhead seem to be there when it's not (due to an inability to pan forward/backward with only two speakers).

I just find it strange people tend to hate two channel only overhead Atmos systems as inferior yet their favorite Atmos movie is a locked two channel overhead movie? 

I would disqualify it on purely technical grounds if nothing else. Making such movie soundtracks should not be encouraged, IMO. If you want to make fun of that opinion, go ahead, but don't put words in my mouth.

I thought the BTTF Atmos track was massively disappointing, but it's the same thing. It uses a lot of internal arrays and that's not apparent in many/most single row home theaters, but it's very obvious with three rows. Which row I sit in affects how far back into the room most surround effects appear because they're duplicated between front wides, sides and rear surrounds. They move "with" you so halfway back it sounds well balanced, but in my front row it's very front heavy. If the had used more objects instead of duplicated channel effects this would never happen.

But most people had no idea what I was talking about as they only have one row and it's centered. So it was a "great job" to them and think I'm deaf even when I explain it because their one row setup doesn't behave that way. True Atmos object based soundtracks or music image in the same room locations for everyone.

In other words, what sounds good is not necessarily the same thing as a "good" Atmos soundtrack. Most people seem to hate Disney Atmos tracks, but is that because they're locked or because they don't sound good regardless? I'd wager it's the latter because it's quite clear from Ready Player One that "well made" means nothing to most of you, only that it sounded good to you on your particular setup.


----------



## Apgood

appelz said:


> As someone who calibrates dozens of very high channel count systems a year, clearly I'd like to see better usage of every available channel. But yup, sometimes, a good mix is a good mix!


Have had a chance to listen to the effect of StormAudio's StormXT on these limited Atmos mixes?

Seems to improve the overall ambience without adversely impacting the original soundtrack. Mind you I haven't really listened to it in a dedicated room and the rate the construction is going it will be at least another 6 months...

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> ok, well it's great with DTS:X then


DTS Neural:X is the upmixer.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I can't seem to have a conversation with people that ignore everything I wrote. How is two channel locked overhead a good thing or "good Atmos" ??? You saying _everyone_ agrees with you is specious in nature.
> 
> I watched the entire movie once. I didn't care for it. I remember good surround. I don't recall good overhead surround offhand so I watched the race scene in question and sitting in the right position it was _very_ impressive sounding. I said that already and keep getting flak for it anyway because I don't approve of the locked nature and improper overhead sound use.
> 
> Once more, the movie is highly dependent on where you sit to achieve those effects (which become less impressive as you move away from the top middle speakers (as the other overheads are 100% dead on a 6+ channel system and even 4-channel panning moves with you as an array effect so it's really only "duck time" for certain seats (e.g. That flying box sounds before the semi sounds like it's going to take my head off with discrete top middle just behind me, but use arrayed 4-channel or move further back into the room to rows 3 or 4 and its nowhere near sounding like it's going to hit my head because it images over the top middle speaker location six feet in front of me instead.
> 
> I realize for most home theater situations that's probably not an issue because there usually is only one row of seats, but for a proper Atmos experience for all involved, two-channel overhead is not a good thing and has to use panning tricks to make anything overhead seem to be there when it's not (due to an inability to pan forward/backward with only two speakers).
> 
> I just find it strange people tend to hate two channel only overhead Atmos systems as inferior yet their favorite Atmos movie is a locked two channel overhead movie?
> 
> I would disqualify it on purely technical grounds if nothing else. Making such movie soundtracks should not be encouraged, IMO. If you want to make fun of that opinion, go ahead, but don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I thought the BTTF Atmos track was massively disappointing, but it's the same thing. It uses a lot of internal arrays and that's not apparent in many/most single row home theaters, but it's very obvious with three rows. Which row I sit in affects how far back into the room most surround effects appear because they're duplicated between front wides, sides and rear surrounds. They move "with" you so halfway back it sounds well balanced, but in my front row it's very front heavy. If the had used more objects instead of duplicated channel effects this would never happen.
> 
> But most people had no idea what I was talking about as they only have one row and it's centered. So it was a "great job" to them and think I'm deaf even when I explain it because their one row setup doesn't behave that way. True Atmos object based soundtracks or music image in the same room locations for everyone.
> 
> In other words, what sounds good is not necessarily the same thing as a "good" Atmos soundtrack. Most people seem to hate Disney Atmos tracks, but is that because they're locked or because they don't sound good regardless? I'd wager it's the latter because it's quite clear from Ready Player One that "well made" means nothing to most of you, only that it sounded good to you on your particular setup.


With all due respect-i think YOU don't listen to what EVERYONE else writes/says about the movie.

let me be perfectly clear and succinct.


1. Ready Player One is a locked 7.X.2 atmos mix

2. Ready Player One is consistently rated one of the best if not THE BEST atmos mixes out there and is incredible and immersive whether in MLP or sitting elsewhere in the room.

More than one thing can be correct

Hopefully there isn't any ambiguity with that


----------



## mrvideo

Joe in WI said:


> When I win the powerball jackpot


Get in line behind me.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> With all due respect-i think YOU don't listen to what EVERYONE else writes/says about the movie.


I've listened to what some (these forums hardly represent "everyone" and not everyone on here has said that so it's hardly conclusive) say on here (including you) and I agree it sounds _very_ good in the center seat near the top middle overheads during the race (I haven't watched the rest recently to comment). But I don't like what it represents as a locked 7.1.2 soundtrack. 

I've said that three times now and yet I continue to get push back on it. It's like you can't accept that I can like a presentation but dislike the methods used and find the overhead sound less impressive sounding the further I move from the center of the room because the other four overheads are SILENT. 

I dislike people speaking in absolutes and conflating their opinion with "EVERYONE". I seriously doubt RP1 ranks as high as you think it does on the overall Atmos scale and even _if_ it does, what does that say about Dolby Atmos in general? We all wasted our time/money on 4 or more overhead speakers when 2 was all that's needed to make the BEST Atmos soundtrack of all time? Seriously, what's the point of more than two overhead speakers if RP1 is the best? Hollywood should apparently emulate their technique and save the rest of us a ton of money. 

Somehow I also doubt the cinema Atmos version of RP1 only uses two overhead speakers. I think we probably got short changed on the home version, but if I say it's the absolute best with no room for improvement then I'm justifying what Universal did and I refuse to do that regardless of what "everyone" says.

Warner Brothers' Harry Potter in DTS:X may not use objects, but X can still use all speakers anyway and so I don't have anywhere near as big an issue with it for that reason plus it properly pans overhead so yes, I'd rate it leaps and bounds better than RP1 as delivered on home video in that regard. It may not matter to you, but it does to me.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I've listened to what some (these forums hardly represent "everyone" and not everyone on here has said that so it's hardly conclusive) say on here (including you) and I agree it sounds _very_ good in the center seat near the top middle overheads during the race (I haven't watched the rest recently to comment). But I don't like what it represents as a locked 7.1.2 soundtrack.
> 
> I've said that three times now and yet I continue to get push back on it. It's like you can't accept that I can like a presentation but dislike the methods used and find the overhead sound less impressive sounding the further I move from the center of the room because the other four overheads are SILENT.
> 
> I dislike people speaking in absolutes and conflating their opinion with "EVERYONE". I seriously doubt RP1 ranks as high as you think it does on the overall Atmos scale and even _if_ it does, what does that say about Dolby Atmos in general? We all wasted our time/money on 4 or more overhead speakers when 2 was all that's needed to make the BEST Atmos soundtrack of all time? Seriously, what's the point of more than two overhead speakers if RP1 is the best? Hollywood should apparently emulate their technique and save the rest of us a ton of money.
> 
> Somehow I also doubt the cinema Atmos version of RP1 only uses two overhead speakers. I think we probably got short changed on the home version, but if I say it's the absolute best with no room for improvement then I'm justifying what Universal did and I refuse to do that regardless of what "everyone" says.
> 
> Warner Brothers' Harry Potter in DTS:X may not use objects, but X can still use all speakers anyway and so I don't have anywhere near as big an issue with it for that reason plus it properly pans overhead so yes, I'd rate it leaps and bounds better than RP1 as delivered on home video in that regard. It may not matter to you, but it does to me.


replace "everyone" to "most people"
and I stand corrected.

Also, being a very very good atmos disc and considered (one of the ) best by many websites and AVS posters doesn't mean it is "perfect" and can't be improved upon.

I think the fact of the matter that you are finding it hard to reconcile with is that given the overall type and quality of atmos mix Ready Player One presents, most people would rather that then 99% of other Dolby atmos mixes whether fixed or not. Having said that, if it was a true unlocked atmos disc it would then be the best by EVERYONE and not just "most" people/websites


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> just watched Dunkirk for first time in a few years and was pleasantly surprised how well the atmos mix was


I believe it was DTSHDMA. It also sounded HORRIBLE with all the clipping on my system. It was like all my speakers were roached, even at low levels. The fact that this movie won awards for this soundtrack is ridiculous. Imo.


----------



## X4100

@MagnumX said "I just find it strange people tend to hate two channel only overhead Atmos systems as inferior yet their favorite Atmos movie is a locked two channel overhead movie?" I agree with this, YMMV, but for some of us to have just the top middle speakers playing, although we're running a system with a full ceiling/height setup just seems like ineffective use of the format! Sometimes I'll change the configuration to see if that "fixes " the problem.


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> True Atmos object based soundtracks or music image in the same room locations for everyone.


To me this is not a debatable point, but rather something that we should all be in agreement with! To each his own. Sometimes I enjoy a few scenes with immersive height effects along with midair sounds imitating the onscreen action, but if that's the highlight of the movie starting 1 hour or more into the movie than...... that is unacceptable to me as a "GREAT " Atmos mix. We all have our likes and dislikes, but come on some of these mixes are no more than impressive surround mixes with good atmosPHERICS thrown in that I can get using DSU on a stereo track . By the way I'm not knocking RP1, I'm going to view the video posted on the previous page or so.


----------



## X4100

Level of immersion:










Soundstage integration:










Audio object placement:










Effectiveness of Atmos platform:










Entertainment factor:










The above is from Ralph Potts review of Ready Player One the Dolby Atmos track. Below is the review of the 5.1,dts Master Audio track:
Dynamics:










Low frequency effects:










Surround Sound presentation:










Clarity/Detail:










Dialog Reproduction:








The 5.1 track was better by far than the Dolby Atmos track, unless I'm missing something. I'm not trying to nitpick, but the audio object placement and the level of immersion seems to point out what @MagnumX has been saying the last few posts. I liked the movie, but if I were to choose between this, or "The MEG!!! I would definitely recommend THE MEG


----------



## mrtickleuk

X4100 said:


> I liked the movie, but if I were to choose between this, or "The MEG!!! I would definitely recommend THE MEG


😢 
...and thus we get back to >this post< and the cycle repeats itself


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> 😢
> ...and thus we get back to >this post< and the cycle repeats itself


I liked *The Meg* quite a bit. It was Jaws on steroids with a bit of Jason 'Crank' humor thrown in plus both the 3D film and Atmos remuxed and/or Neural X upmixed 5.1 were great as well. I'd certainly rather watch it than any of the Jaws sequels including Jaws 3D. I've seen it 3 times already. I've only watched RP1 once in its entirety. A 3D rendered DeLorean does not a movie make.


----------



## mrtickleuk

I certainly would never have considered Jaws 3d as any good either


----------



## sdrucker

appelz said:


> As someone who calibrates dozens of very high channel count systems a year, clearly I'd like to see better usage of every available channel. But yup, sometimes, a good mix is a good mix!


The Last Duel. Enough said. It does light up my non 7.1 speakers aside from tops at times for accenting some scenes, but it’s intense even when largely front centric during some of the battles.

And while it, for example, would be nice to have a quiet morning scene have wolf howls subtly moving out from the front to overheads with objects located between the top layer and surrounds, it doesn’t exactly suffer being mostly up front and some soft ambience to the sides. Not every mix has to be in your face immersive.

Edit: the climactic duel is an example, at the beginning and the ultimate outcome scene, where the mix does get more agressive with objects and brings in not only tops, but even my front SS1 and Lc/Rc. But most of the fight is 7.1, including all that sword on armor effect.


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> I certainly would never have considered Jaws 3d as any good either


I take it you're not a fan of 3D? Jaws 3D more or less stunk as an overall movie in 2D (gotta love watching Lea Thompson in a bikini, though), but it was a load of fun in 3D, IMO. The same is true of Amityville 3D.


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> Level of immersion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soundstage integration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audio object placement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effectiveness of Atmos platform:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entertainment factor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is from Ralph Potts review of Ready Player One the Dolby Atmos track. Below is the review of the 5.1,dts Master Audio track:
> Dynamics:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low frequency effects:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surround Sound presentation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarity/Detail:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dialog Reproduction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5.1 track was better by far than the Dolby Atmos track, unless I'm missing something. I'm not trying to nitpick, but the audio object placement and the level of immersion seems to point out what @MagnumX has been saying the last few posts. I liked the movie, but if I were to choose between this, or "The MEG!!! I would definitely recommend THE MEG


Nothing against Ralph Potts but I have disagreed with his Atmos ratings in the past, and I disagree with him with Ready Player One as well. Note that the overall Atmos rating was 92 which is still in the reference category in his rating system. SpareChange on Youtube tends to align with my personal ratings of quality, and he gave Ready Player One a 9.5/10 which I posted a link to earlier.


----------



## Chirosamsung

mrtickleuk said:


> 😢
> ...and thus we get back to >this post< and the cycle repeats itself





halcyon_888 said:


> Nothing against Ralph Potts but I have disagreed with his Atmos ratings in the past, and I disagree with him with Ready Player One as well. Note that the overall Atmos rating was 92 which is still in the reference category in his rating system. SpareChange on Youtube tends to align with my personal ratings of quality, and he gave Ready Player One a 9.5/10 which I posted a link to earlier.


I'm pretty sure most posters and review sites and top ten lists for atmos lists RP1 as top 3 or better atmos...


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> Level of immersion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soundstage integration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audio object placement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effectiveness of Atmos platform:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entertainment factor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is from Ralph Potts review of Ready Player One the Dolby Atmos track. Below is the review of the 5.1,dts Master Audio track:
> Dynamics:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low frequency effects:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surround Sound presentation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarity/Detail:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dialog Reproduction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 5.1 track was better by far than the Dolby Atmos track, unless I'm missing something. I'm not trying to nitpick, but the audio object placement and the level of immersion seems to point out what @MagnumX has been saying the last few posts. I liked the movie, but if I were to choose between this, or "The MEG!!! I would definitely recommend THE MEG


I'll take your word that there is a movie called "the Meg" lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I liked *The Meg* quite a bit. It was Jaws on steroids with a bit of Jason 'Crank' humor thrown in plus both the 3D film and Atmos remuxed and/or Neural X upmixed 5.1 were great as well. I'd certainly rather watch it than any of the Jaws sequels including Jaws 3D. I've seen it 3 times already. I've only watched RP1 once in its entirety. A 3D rendered DeLorean does not a movie make.


I think that's the problem, you only seen ready play let one once. Not sure if you were imbibing then or some of your speakers were not connected but man, you are STILL one of the only people I have read posts on AVS or elsewhere that wasn't drooling over RP1 atmos mix. Sure there is some, but for every person like you that says it isn't good, there are 10-20 that say it's "one of" their go to atmos demo discs to show off to friends or family


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I think that's the problem, you only seen ready play let one once. *Not sure if you were imbibing then or some of your speakers were not connected* but man, you are STILL one of the only people I have read posts on AVS or elsewhere that wasn't drooling over RP1 atmos mix. Sure there is some, but for every person like you that says it isn't good, there are 10-20 that say it's "one of" their go to atmos demo discs to show off to friends or family


Says the person who has never heard of The Meg and thinks Dunkirk was in Atmos. 

A movie with only two overheads shouldn't be in anyone's top 3 Atmos list. The fact you appear to absolutely believe everyone agrees with that too tells me all I need to know about you. I didn't watch it again not because I thought it didn't have a good surround mix, but because the plot was derivative, pointedly absurd (Yeah that's what 2045 is going to look like, I'm sure) and total fluff. They could have made that opening race a cartoon short and did everyone a favor. 

Real World critical reception lest you continue to believe this movie is in everyone's Top 3 list:

68% on Rotten Tomatoes originally
64% on Metacritic
82% audience rating on CinemaScore (A-) 
7.4/10 IMDb
Won visual effect awards only. 

OK, let's try a Google search for "Best Atmos movies of all time".

Not on Klipsch's Top 5 list for Atmos. But then they listed #1 as any Marvel movie made between 2012-2019. We all know Disney screwed many of those up so I don't trust their list. Mad Max Fury Road #2? It lacked discrete overhead effects. The Matrix? (Same thing). Bohemian Rhapsody? OK, I'm done there. 

Leawo.org says Bad Boys For Life is #1? The BD is DTS:X if I recall correctly. How do these end up on Atmos lists? The iTunes version is Atmos and it sucked. 

Whathifi.com's list of 18 best Atmos demo scenes (oddly?) doesn't include Ready Player One. Neither does Tech Radar (they all love Mad Mac though. I'd call that great surround but lacking in discrete overhead events because it was based on road vehicles!

Lifewire is the first I've run into that has it on their list at #8 (not top 3).

Page 2:

Theinventory.com put it at the bottom as an honorable mention purely for the opening race scene. 

Mark Henninger's Top 10 list right here at AVSForum does not include RP1.... (oh my) 
. I do agree with his choices of It, Doctor Sleep and Blade Runner 2049, though. 

Samma3a.com - Nope. There's Mad Max, Gravity and The Matrix for the umpteenth time, though. Gravity is impressive (not crazy about the movie itself, though), but Mad Max and The Matrix are bed level heavy (great surround overall, but not overhead show pieces). Even Blade Runner 2049 has less overhead than the remixed Atmos original (but bests it in every other fashion including mega bass). 

HiFiReference.com lists it as best scene #5 for the race. Still not Top 3.

Page 3:

CNET Best 4K UHD list... Nowhere to be found yet Chappie is there? Ouch. 

Not on Home Theater Review's list either. 

Subwoofer101.com has quite a list of Atmos, 4K and DTS:X movies. Chappie! Harry Potter. No Ready Player One.... (oops) 

Ivanyolo.com : Pokémon Detective Pikachu but no RP1... 

Hiresaudiocental.com : Hey Roger Waters The Wall! Yeah baby! That was awesome on Blu-ray in Atmos! Oh. Sorry, no RP1. 

Sanctuaryoftruth.com : Nope. There's John Wick 3 again along with Mad Max, Gravity and Blade Runner 2049... 

OK, I'm done looking. The Top 3 I see again and again are Mad Max Fury Road, Gravity and Blade Runner 2049.

I only saw Ready Player One on 3 sites with that search and two were for the race scene, neither if which were top 3. Only one site had it on their best Atmos disc list and that was at #8.

If "EVERYONE" agrees with you, someone forgot to tell those people....


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Says the person who has never heard of The Meg and thinks Dunkirk was in Atmos.
> 
> A movie with only two overheads shouldn't be in anyone's top 3 Atmos list. The fact you appear to absolutely believe everyone agrees with that too tells me all I need to know about you. I didn't watch it again not because I thought it didn't have a good surround mix, but because the plot was derivative, pointedly absurd (Yeah that's what 2045 is going to look like, I'm sure) and total fluff. They could have made that opening race a cartoon short and did everyone a favor.
> 
> Real World critical reception lest you continue to believe this movie is in everyone's Top 3 list:
> 
> 68% on Rotten Tomatoes originally
> 64% on Metacritic
> 82% audience rating on CinemaScore (A-)
> 7.4/10 IMDb
> Won visual effect awards only.
> 
> OK, let's try a Google search for "Best Atmos movies of all time".
> 
> Not on Klipsch's Top 5 list for Atmos. But then they listed #1 as any Marvel movie made between 2012-2019. We all know Disney screwed many of those up so I don't trust their list. Mad Max Fury Road #2? It lacked discrete overhead effects. The Matrix? (Same thing). Bohemian Rhapsody? OK, I'm done there.
> 
> Leawo.org says Bad Boys For Life is #1? The BD is DTS:X if I recall correctly. How do these end up on Atmos lists? The iTunes version is Atmos and it sucked.
> 
> Whathifi.com's list of 18 best Atmos demo scenes (oddly?) doesn't include Ready Player One. Neither does Tech Radar (they all love Mad Mac though. I'd call that great surround but lacking in discrete overhead events because it was based on road vehicles!
> 
> Lifewire is the first I've run into that has it on their list at #8 (not top 3).
> 
> Page 2:
> 
> Theinventory.com put it at the bottom as an honorable mention purely for the opening race scene.
> 
> Mark Henninger's Top 10 list right here at AVSForum does not include RP1.... (oh my)
> . I do agree with his choices of It, Doctor Sleep and Blade Runner 2049, though.
> 
> Samma3a.com - Nope. There's Mad Max, Gravity and The Matrix for the umpteenth time, though. Gravity is impressive (not crazy about the movie itself, though), but Mad Max and The Matrix are bed level heavy (great surround overall, but not overhead show pieces). Even Blade Runner 2049 has less overhead than the remixed Atmos original (but bests it in every other fashion including mega bass).
> 
> HiFiReference.com lists it as best scene #5 for the race. Still not Top 3.
> 
> Page 3:
> 
> CNET Best 4K UHD list... Nowhere to be found yet Chappie is there? Ouch.
> 
> Not on Home Theater Review's list either.
> 
> Subwoofer101.com has quite a list of Atmos, 4K and DTS:X movies. Chappie! Harry Potter. No Ready Player One.... (oops)
> 
> Ivanyolo.com : Pokémon Detective Pikachu but no RP1...
> 
> Hiresaudiocental.com : Hey Roger Waters The Wall! Yeah baby! That was awesome on Blu-ray in Atmos! Oh. Sorry, no RP1.
> 
> Sanctuaryoftruth.com : Nope. There's John Wick 3 again along with Mad Max, Gravity and Blade Runner 2049...
> 
> OK, I'm done looking. The Top 3 I see again and again are Mad Max Fury Road, Gravity and Blade Runner 2049.
> 
> I only saw Ready Player One on 3 sites with that search and two were for the race scene, neither if which were top 3. Only one site had it on their best Atmos disc list and that was at #8.
> 
> If "EVERYONE" agrees with you, someone forgot to tell those people....


a 68 on rotten tomatoes is like an academy award winner compared to the 42 The Meg got lmao. Sorry, I don't usually hear of or watch many movies that get below 50 on rotten tomatoes. Was that a straight to video release?? Lol

we get it. You don't like ready player one atmos whereas most do...that's fine. We will agree to disagree.

seriously Though, was Meg straight to dvd or not?


----------



## X4100

Not a shabby showing according to Google 
The Meg grossed $145.4 million in the United States and Canada and $384.8 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of *$530.2 million*, against a production budget between $130–178 million.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> a 68 on rotten tomatoes is like an academy award winner compared to the 42 The Meg got lmao. Sorry, I don't usually hear of or watch many movies that get below 50 on rotten tomatoes. Was that a straight to video release??Lol


I don't let critics or even other people tell me what to watch, personally. Clearly, you are one for peer pressure or something. A 26% difference between the two isn't anywhere near as much as you pretend it is and the audience score is almost identical at 84% compared to 85% with RP1.

The people that didn't like The Meg tended to complain about the comedic elements in the movie. They wanted a thriller more like Jaws, but even the sequels to Jaws couldn't live up to the original and they're derivative as most sequels are which is why most people rate them much lower. At least The Meg attempted to do something different. The shark is ridiculously large and so they had some fun with it. If you liked Crank's humor you'd probably like it. If you don't like mixing comedy with horror/thrillers you'll probably hate it. It's just that simple.

And no, it was not straight to video. It's not freaking Sharknado for god's sake. It's not _that_ much of a comedy.



> we get it. You don't like ready player one atmos whereas most do...that's fine. We will agree to disagree.


Seriously, WTF is this "we" you keep referring to? It's bad enough you keep putting words in my mouth (I have never _once_ said I don't like the soundtrack on RP1. I've been very specific about what I have like), but this continued notion that the rest of the Universe agrees with you is getting flipping old. My post above makes it quite provenly clear they do not. It seems like you are living in a Facebook fantasy world where the world always agrees with you.



> seriously Though, was Meg straight to dvd or not?


Seriously, are you too lazy to find out with one Google search result?

It made $530 Million at the box office (on a budget of $130 million) for god's sake....

By comparison, RP1, a Steven Spielberg vehicle, made $582 million on a budget of $175 million. 

Again, almost identical. And you're questioning if it was straight to video? My god....


----------



## X4100

You can try as hard as you can, but some people just don't want to free their mind of fake news. . Personally I enjoy a mix where my speakers seem to disappear, and the sound is coming from places where I don't have speakers. That is what I look for in an Atmos movie, and at the same time have the sound effects in the height and in midair. YMMV, but that's what I expect and enjoy. I also like the views that others have and share, but they are just that their own viewpoint. As I peruse this site and others, I'm on the lookout for what I might enjoy.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I don't let critics or even other people tell me what to watch, personally. Clearly, you are one for peer pressure or something. A 26% difference between the two isn't anywhere near as much as you pretend it is and the audience score is almost identical at 84% compared to 85% with RP1.
> 
> The people that didn't like The Meg tended to complain about the comedic elements in the movie. They wanted a thriller more like Jaws, but even the sequels to Jaws couldn't live up to the original and they're derivative as most sequels are which is why most people rate them much lower. At least The Meg attempted to do something different. The shark is ridiculously large and so they had some fun with it. If you liked Crank's humor you'd probably like it. If you don't like mixing comedy with horror/thrillers you'll probably hate it. It's just that simple.
> 
> And no, it was not straight to video. It's not freaking Sharknado for god's sake. It's not _that_ much of a comedy.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, WTF is this "we" you keep referring to? It's bad enough you keep putting words in my mouth (I have never _once_ said I don't like the soundtrack on RP1. I've been very specific about what I have like), but this continued notion that the rest of the Universe agrees with you is getting flipping old. My post above makes it quite provenly clear they do not. It seems like you are living in a Facebook fantasy world where the world always agrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, are you too lazy to find out with one Google search result?
> 
> It made $530 Million at the box office (on a budget of $130 million) for god's sake....
> 
> By comparison, RP1, a Steven Spielberg vehicle, made $582 million on a budget of $175 million.
> 
> Again, almost identical. And you're questioning if it was straight to video? My god....


man, another example of you talking out of both sides-critics AND audiences both gave 46% and 42% for the Meg-so that means a AGGREGATE site of both people that get paid to rate movies and average joes alike BOTH thought it was terrible...but ok. Keep spreading fake news and also say that doesn't matter either lmao I'm done with your inconsistencies.









The straight to video was clearly a joke that the movie is a joke.
The last thing before I'm out of this Fox News of an arguement is that Adam Sandler has consistently put out TERRIBLE movie after movie over the last 10 years that make a lot more than they cost and he loves mailing it in and cashing in but if that's your arguement why a 46/42 movie isn't as bad as it seems I can't use reason to argue with someone that is unreasonable

good night 😴


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> man, another example of you talking out of both sides-critics AND audiences both gave 46% and 42% for the Meg-so that means a AGGREGATE site of both people that get paid to rate movies and average joes alike BOTH thought it was terrible...but ok. Keep spreading fake news and also say that doesn't matter either lmao I'm done with your inconsistencies.


I got the audience and other score summaries from Google (yeah don't bother asking, just make BS accusations) and I said I was doing a Google search so sorry but you're full of it. Check it yourself. Better yet don't talk to me anymore. Your lying BS accusations, ridiculous and bizarre logical assertions (WTF does Adam Sandler have to do with anything for god's sake) and speaking for everyone on the planet make you someone I'd just assume never talk to again the rest of my life.


----------



## Rich 63

Thought this was a thread about atmos sound. Not movie gross or ratings.


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> Thought this was a thread about atmos sound. Not movie gross or ratings.


And here I thought this thread was about Atmos sound including two movies that have Atmos sound above. Not people whining and moaning about what they consider off-topic regardless of where a response leads....


----------



## Rich 63

MagnumX said:


> And here I thought this thread was about Atmos sound including two movies that have Atmos sound above. Not people whining and moaning about what they consider off-topic regardless of where a response leads....


It wasn't directed specifically at you Magnum, but I'm not surprised you would respond.
A conversation about anything atmos is always welcome and subjective opinions on the merits of an atmos soundtrack certainly fit that bill.
You made your point well in your first post but the rest was just eye rolls. I, as I'm sure other did, skipped over the unneeded and unnessacerily long posts that followed as they lent nothing further to the atmos discussion other then bloating an already huge thread.
I find it curious why you think taking over a thread in this manner benifits anybody?
The movie in question was/is entertaining fluff that is a feast for the eyes and ears regardless of how well they used the height channels. I don't care how many subjective opinions tell me otherwise.
Hence my previous comment.The horse has been flogged. Move on.
Rich


----------



## halcyon_888

Here's a youtuber that says, "We review Dolby Atmos effects on Ready Player One, and it is brilliant. This movie *is the standard by which all Atmos mixes must be graded*, I’m so impressed."


----------



## Polyrythm1k

halcyon_888 said:


> Here's a youtuber that says, "We review Dolby Atmos effects on Ready Player One, and it is brilliant. This movie *is the standard by which all Atmos mixes must be graded*, I’m so impressed."


My issue with evaluations by listening only to height speakers is it misses the point. Imo these mixes are homogeneous, and greater than the sum of their parts. In other words , it’s how the two layers work together. Not independently of each other. Like watching a film with only the surrounds active, or only the center. He was smart to reference certain points by being his opinion, and how he “feels” they should have done XYZ in the track. I didn’t agree with all he said, but that’s MY opinion lol.


----------



## halcyon_888

Polyrythm1k said:


> My issue with evaluations by listening only to height speakers is it misses the point. Imo these mixes are homogeneous, and greater than the sum of their parts. In other words , it’s how the two layers work together. Not independently of each other. Like watching a film with only the surrounds active, or only the center. He was smart to reference certain points by being his opinion, and how he “feels” they should have done XYZ in the track. I didn’t agree with all he said, but that’s MY opinion lol.


The reviewer says he listened to the entire movie with all speakers first, then he listened to the entire movie again with heights only. Ralph Potts has said that he will rewind scenes and turn off his main speakers and listen to heights only as well. So it's a method that reviewers sometimes use.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

halcyon_888 said:


> The reviewer says he listened to the entire movie with all speakers first, then he listened to the entire movie again with heights only. Ralph Potts has said that he will rewind scenes and turn off his main speakers and listen to heights only as well. So it's a method that reviewers sometimes use.


Good points. I just felt like after watching the video he put too much weight on what was only coming from the heights. Atmos is not about just the heights.


----------



## Josh Z

Polyrythm1k said:


> Good points. I just felt like after watching the video he put too much weight on what was only coming from the heights. Atmos is not about just the heights.


The height speakers are what distinguishes Atmos from 5.1 or 7.1. Without the heights, there's nothing an Atmos track can do that couldn't also be accomplished with a regular 7.1 mix.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Josh Z said:


> The height speakers are what distinguishes Atmos from 5.1 or 7.1. Without the heights, there's nothing an Atmos track can do that couldn't also be accomplished with a regular 7.1 mix.


Right. But it’s how they do it together is all I’m saying.


----------



## chi_guy50

Josh Z said:


> The height speakers are what distinguishes Atmos from 5.1 or 7.1. Without the heights, there's nothing an Atmos track can do that couldn't also be accomplished with a regular 7.1 mix.


You don't believe that audio objects in the bed speakers provide more creative flexibility and realism to the reproduction than purely channel-based mixes can achieve?


----------



## halcyon_888

Polyrythm1k said:


> Good points. I just felt like after watching the video he put too much weight on what was only coming from the heights. Atmos is not about just the heights.


The reviewer says that when he hears height effects he makes a determination if it's appropriate, and if it adds to the ambiance and immersion of the movie. This is the premise of his evaluation when he begins the heights demonstration. You'd find that the soundtrack is using more than just the heights if you were to play those scenes back with all speakers on.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> My issue with evaluations by listening only to height speakers is it misses the point. Imo these mixes are homogeneous, and greater than the sum of their parts. In other words , it’s how the two layers work together. Not independently of each other. Like watching a film with only the surrounds active, or only the center. He was smart to reference certain points by being his opinion, and how he “feels” they should have done XYZ in the track. I didn’t agree with all he said, but that’s MY opinion lol.


I don't think many many people rave over ready player one ONLY because it has a lot of height speakers use-I k ow I certainly don't-it's the whole package, base layer, surrounds, heights and how they are all incorporated and used to be very immersive


----------



## noaudiophool

Polyrythm1k said:


> Right. But it’s how they do it together is all I’m saying.


But... they don't do anything "together" when there's absolutely no sound coming from the height speakers.

Check this out: 



 - Skipped to 9:05, where he talks about Mad Max: Fury Road. He concludes there's LESS than 12 minutes with sound coming from the height speakers and they're not even effects (he speculates that the ones doing the Atmos mixing only had the dialogue and soundtrack).

Please note: It is the same guy that called the Ready Player One atmos track EXCELLENT in a video posted above, so it is not because he is "anti-Atmos".


The problem with Atmos is, that studios seems to ask a rookie mixer to make the mix in a couple of weeks, then slaps on an "Atmos-sticker" on the packaging and calls it a day. They should be called out for that.

Instead you have companies like Klipsch rating Mad Max: Fury Road as THE SECOND BEST MOVIE TO ENJOY ATMOS!!! It is both insane and hilarious. Guess they have some "Atmos-enabled" speakers to peddle!

There's no three-dimensional sound or objects, if the sound is all coming from a 2D layer of speakers - and therefore no "bubble" or "immersion" as Atmos is marketed as providing.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Josh Z said:


> The height speakers are what distinguishes Atmos from 5.1 or 7.1. Without the heights, there's nothing an Atmos track can do that couldn't also be accomplished with a regular 7.1 mix.


Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used.


----------



## halcyon_888

noaudiophool said:


> Please note: It is the same guy that called the Ready Player One atmos track EXCELLENT in a video posted above, so it is not because he is "anti-Atmos".


That's what's funny about the review I posted, the guy had watched 5 Atmos movies and was completely underwhelmed and critical about Atmos until he listened to Ready Player One and gushed about it and Atmos.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> I don't think many many people rave over ready player one ONLY because it has a lot of height speakers use-I k ow I certainly don't-it's the whole package, base layer, surrounds, heights and how they are all incorporated and used to be very immersive


And that’s kinda my point. Listening to only certain groups of speakers doesn’t tell you much about the whole experience. While it can give you an idea of what certain speakers are doing, and that can definitely be fun and insightful, that’s not the point. At the same time, it’s surprising sometimes to see how little they’re used.


----------



## Rich 63

noaudiophool said:


> But... they don't do anything "together" when there's absolutely no sound coming from the height speakers.
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> - Skipped to 9:05, where he talks about Mad Max: Fury Road. He concludes there's LESS than 12 minutes with sound coming from the height speakers and they're not even effects (he speculates that the ones doing the Atmos mixing only had the dialogue and soundtrack).
> 
> Please note: It is the same guy that called the Ready Player One atmos track EXCELLENT in a video posted above, so it is not because he is "anti-Atmos".
> 
> 
> The problem with Atmos is, that studios seems to ask a rookie mixer to make the mix in a couple of weeks, then slaps on an "Atmos-sticker" on the packaging and calls it a day. They should be called out for that.
> 
> Instead you have companies like Klipsch rating Mad Max: Fury Road as THE SECOND BEST MOVIE TO ENJOY ATMOS!!! It is both insane and hilarious. Guess they have some "Atmos-enabled" speakers to peddle!
> 
> There's no three-dimensional sound or objects, if the sound is all coming from a 2D layer of speakers - and therefore no "bubble" or "immersion" as Atmos is marketed as providing.


How is a quality atmos movie defined? 12 minutes of height effects in a movie might be all that is needed since the bulk of the movie is likely story driven. 
By your comments can i suppose your feeling is nothing short of continuous use of height effects will suffice. No sure a conversation in a kitchen amongst family members requires height effects though. 
I've watched every movie I own in atmos using both the master hd and atmos offerings. Both are very good however the atmos versions are aways more immersive in my opinion.


----------



## noaudiophool

Rich 63 said:


> How is a quality atmos movie defined? 12 minutes of height effects in a movie might be all that is needed since the bulk of the movie is likely story driven.
> By your comments can i suppose your feeling is nothing short of continuous use of height effects will suffice. No sure a conversation in a kitchen amongst family members requires height effects though.
> I've watched every movie I own in atmos using both the master hd and atmos offerings. Both are very good however the atmos versions are aways more immersive in my opinion.


You're setting up a strawman. Did you even watch the linked Youtube video?

I don't think it is "quality" when somebody below you yells "we can't breathe down here!" - and it is played through the height speakers.

I don't think it is "quality" when massive volumes of water is exiting massive flood pipes above you - and the height speakers are silent.

I think Atmos can (and should) be used appropriately. In a movie like Mad Max less than 12 minutes of height usage is obviously too little.

In a movie like "Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" I would expect very little Atmos. But it could obviously be used when people are standing above the viewer (e.g. when painting the billboards) and when a molotov cocktail is thrown. (EDIT: So less than 10 minutes of height action would probably be fine in this movie. Just as I thoroughly enjoyed my buttkicker watching this movie: It never came on, only when they were driving on the old back roads... it made one "feel" the neglect and was perfect - but it wasn't an action movie, so obviously the buttkicker was inactive 99% of the time).

I highly recommend you watch the entire Youtube clip and you will realize, that I (and the guy behind that Youtube channel) is not arguing that Atmos should be used all the time. But it should and could be used to greater effect than it is today.


----------



## Rich 63

noaudiophool said:


> You're setting up a strawman. Did you even watch the linked Youtube video?
> 
> I don't think it is "quality" when somebody below you yells "we can't breathe down here!" - and it is played through the height speakers.
> 
> I don't think it is "quality" when massive volumes of water is exiting massive flood pipes above you - and the height speakers are silent.
> 
> I think Atmos can (and should) be used appropriately. In a movie like Mad Max less than 12 minutes of height usage is obviously too little.
> 
> In a movie like "Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" I would expect very little Atmos. But it could obviously be used when people are standing above the viewer (e.g. when painting the billboards) and when a molotov cocktail is thrown. (EDIT: So less than 10 minutes of height action would probably be fine in this movie. Just as I thoroughly enjoyed my buttkicker watching this movie: It never came on, only when they were driving on the old back roads... it made one "feel" the neglect and was perfect - but it wasn't an action movie, so obviously the buttkicker was inactive 99% of the time).
> 
> I highly recommend you watch the entire Youtube clip and you will realize, that I (and the guy behind that Youtube channel) is not arguing that Atmos should be used all the time. But it should and could be used to greater effect than it is today.


Yes I did watch the video or esle I wouldn't have commented. Taking a section of the movie and isolating the heights does not give the whole picture. The question is when playing the complete soundtrack does it sound like it's coming from below? This video does not address this so I take it with a grain of salt until I feel the need to pop the movie in and see for myself.
If I'm in a hole shouting up there is still sound that would logically come from above given that a voice carries and bounces off other obstacles,so it stands to reason that some sound will come from the heights to finish the desired audio effect.
This again is the RP1 argument. The overall movie sound effects create a movie that is none stop action filled with sound seemingly coming from everywhere. Watch it in non atmos and you tell me which is better. Forget what other have to say.
Rich


----------



## halcyon_888

Polyrythm1k said:


> And that’s kinda my point. Listening to only certain groups of speakers doesn’t tell you much about the whole experience. While it can give you an idea of what certain speakers are doing, and that can definitely be fun and insightful, that’s not the point. At the same time, it’s surprising sometimes to see how little they’re used.


I disagree with this, and the youtuber that did the analysis would also disagree with this. Also, Ralph Potts will turn off his main speakers and watch scenes over again with only the heights as an analysis tool as well.

The youtuber did a good job starting out the Ready Player One analysis by saying he listened to the movie once with all speakers enabled then listened to it again with only the heights, then he judges based off of criteria whether height usage is appropriate and then does it have ambiance and/or immersion, then he details several specific scenes and their height usage according to the on-screen events, and concludes by complimenting the sound engineers and how much care they took to create the height effects.

Apparently you don't think this kind of analysis is useful, but listening to the height speakers alone can give you valuable information whether a soundtrack is possibly immersive or not. The the purpose of Atmos height speakers is to create an immersive hemisphere of sound, so without height usage then there isn't immersive 3d sound.


----------



## wjchan

Mashie Saldana said:


> Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used.


Totally agree. Objects can be used at ear level as well and that’s when the wides, extra fronts (Lc/Rc, Lsc/Rsc), and extra surrounds come into play. Most people don’t have these so they use heights as an indication of Atmos object usage.


----------



## X4100

What brought this discussion up was the post that said RP1 was a great Atmos movie, some felt that the height speakers were not used enough as it's a middle speaker in the height/top only. I was in agreement. After watching fomo, and listening to his comments (he in another video said that Atmos was not worth it) in this video he is saying that this movie offers what many people are looking for from the Atmos height effects. We have 2 different camps here trying to make their point, and the fact of the matter is getting lost in the sauce. No one that I can think of is only going to listen to his height speakers throughout all of his movie watching time. But for me, if I feel something is missing from the height channels after watching the movie I will go back to those scenes to listen to the height speakers more critically to see why the mixers didn't utilize MY HEIGHT SPEAKERS, I'm just saying. Let's listen more intently to the next guy, and see ONLY the point he is making. Sometimes I really enjoyed a movie and later find out the height speakers were not really used as much as I thought they were, yet I feel satisfied that the movie was very immersive. On the other hand if there's an avalanche, or a building falling down on top of people, or a tunnel collapse, I'm going to be listening for something above me some kind of way. You can get caught up in the director's intent , that's for another different discussion altogether, we were talking about the use of the height speakers in a Atmos movie, that's what the previous post were about. Some of the recent posts touched on things as if that was the conversation. But hey whatever rocks your world. I'm going back to rewatch this movie with a more critical ear, because during my first viewing I was too focused on those "dropping coins " that I think I missed other things. Enjoy


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> It wasn't directed specifically at you Magnum, but I'm not surprised you would respond.
> A conversation about anything atmos is always welcome and subjective opinions on the merits of an atmos soundtrack certainly fit that bill.
> You made your point well in your first post but the rest was just eye rolls. I, as I'm sure other did, skipped over the unneeded and unnessacerily long posts that followed as they lent nothing further to the atmos discussion other then bloating an already huge thread.
> I find it curious why you think taking over a thread in this manner benifits anybody?
> The movie in question was/is entertaining fluff that is a feast for the eyes and ears regardless of how well they used the height channels. I don't care how many subjective opinions tell me otherwise.
> Hence my previous comment.The horse has been flogged. Move on.
> Rich


I don't think that at all and I had no intention of "taking over a thread" but you explain to me the best way to deal with those replies as it's an all too familiar problem online. A person misrepresents what you say to mean something completely different and make you out to be the lone person on Earth that believes something you never said in the first place. Do you just ignore them and let others believe that is what you meant? 

Thus, after getting what I would call trolled, as I eventually concluded everything said had no other purpose but to tick me off, I simply don't care to see more noise complaining about it after the fact and feeling I need to reply again makes it that much more miserable. 

In other words, stepping in during a situation might help, but _after_ is just venting and thus so was my reply of frustration.

Oddly, when I complained about the idea of posting graphic images of every Atmos movie ever released that does not have locked soundtracks (due to massive bandwidth use as I have limited cell data and taking over a thread that would be by better served with its own thread (or a FAQ)), I then got accused by someone else of trolling. To quote the Pink Floyd song Lost For Words, "You know you just can't win."

I actually thought these forums were meant to be fun. My mistake, it seems. The moment you disagree with someone they tend to go ballistic because only their beliefs are "correct". It used to be only religion and politics that were that volatile, but in recent years with the advent of social media, it seems like everything generates that kind of a reaction. 

People are defending Mad Max as the "best" Atmos there is when it has less than 12 minutes of overhead use. I call that confusing good surround with good Atmos. In other words if the question is what movie has the best traditional surround, best 5.1 surround or even best overall surround use, you might get a completely different answer from me than asking for the best movie to demonstrate Dolby Atmos. I wouldn't want to pick a locked two channel overhead movie as that is simply limiting what Atmos is capable of. I wouldn't pick a movie that has limited overhead use to demonstrate either. I'd pick a scene or movie that demonstrates all of what it can do. Many of Dolby's own demos are good for exactly that.

I also honestly believe RP1 in its cinema form does not limit the film to two channel overhead use. That would be unacceptable in a large theater the same way it is in a multi-row home theater. Someone made a decision to limit the home soundtrack. Should that be celebrated by rating it #1 for Atmos? Not in my book. Atmos can do much _much_ better.

I also found no support for the perceived notion "everyone else" agrees it is the best or even in the top 3. The race scene is nice sitting near the center of the room (under working overhead speakers). 

Other movies sound nice everywhere in the room (e.g. The Meg). Why would someone need to like The Meg to agree it has a great Atmos track or even a great upmixed 5.1 one (on the 3D disc)? Why would someone purposely imply it went straight to video when they clearly looked it up by that point to see what was being mentioned? I think some people aren't here to discuss anything. I think they're here to amuse themselves or something by picking fights about nothing.


----------



## Rich 63

halcyon_888 said:


> I disagree with this, and the youtuber that did the analysis would also disagree with this. Also, Ralph Potts will turn off his main speakers and watch scenes over again with only the heights as an analysis tool as well.
> 
> The youtuber did a good job starting out the Ready Player One analysis by saying he listened to the movie once with all speakers enabled then listened to it again with only the heights, then he judges based off of criteria whether height usage is appropriate and then does it have ambiance and/or immersion, then he details several specific scenes and their height usage according to the on-screen events, and concludes by complimenting the sound engineers and how much care they took to create the height effects.
> 
> *Apparently you don't think this kind of analysis is useful, but listening to the height speakers alone can give you valuable information whether a soundtrack is possibly immersive or not. *The the purpose of Atmos height speakers is to create an immersive hemisphere of sound, so without height usage then there isn't immersive 3d sound.


Listening to height info alone has no bearing on how immersive a soundtrack is. It's the sum of the parts that deterimes how immersive a soundtrack is. And you even put a caveat in your own response with the word "possibly". Do you believe your statement or not?


----------



## X4100

I come to the conclusion that even if we had a Thread entirely devoted to having more audio in our height speakers, people would bomb that thread with posts stating that you don't want/need sounds prevalent in the height channels!!! Go figure . Probably even going as far as saying you aren't supposed to listen to just the height speakers during a movie, although we aren't saying that, you just can't help an unreasonable person to hear and reason on just the aspect of a subject without them drawing wrong conclusions about the discussion at hand. We who are of the group that wants more sound in our height speakers understand what we are actually thinking and saying. Nothing short of having our own forum would provide us the opportunity to discuss this subject


----------



## halcyon_888

Rich 63 said:


> Listening to height info alone has no bearing on how immersive a soundtrack is. It's the sum of the parts that deterimes how immersive a soundtrack is. And you even put a caveat in your own response with the word "possibly". Do you believe your statement or not?


I believe everything I wrote, that's why I wrote it. Listening to the heights alone can be an analysis tool to determine height activity, and when it comes to 3d sound like Atmos if you don't have height information you don't have 3d sound. So turn the main channels off and listen for sound from the heights. No sound = no 3d immersion. If there is sound from the heights, then it's possible you'll have 3d immersion. You'll have to turn the other channels on to see. So listening to the heights can be used as an analysis tool. This is what I said in the previous post I made.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I think you are the exception BY FAR to think ready player one ISNT a great atmos mix and that you think it DOESNT have a lot of overhead usage...it's almost like you are talking about a different movie.
> 
> FAKE NEWS lol


Ready Player One is a FANTASTIC sound mix in general. However, not a particularly good ATMOS mix due to its use of Static Objects.

Because the actual sound mix itself is pretty stellar, most people dont notice the static nature of the mix and because the height effects are so aggressive, its hailed as one of the best Atmos mixes.

But the truth is, that the height objects dont really move. They are stuck at the Top-Middle position and sounds are panned from static sound object to sound object (mimicking the old channel paradigm, now just adding heights into the mix)

The problem with this is if you have 6 height channels.....top front, top-middle and top-rear, only the Top-Middle speakers will play height material. Now granted it still sounds amazing but some people wonder how much better it could have sounded had the sound objects been more active.

Here is the scene in question played via the Trinnov object viewer showing the static objects. The yellow balls are the objects. The green and red boxes are the speakers. The speakers light up when they are playing content. The louder the content, the boxes turn yellow then red. Note that the yellow sound objects do not move.







By contrast here is a scene from the Atmos version of 300. Note how active the yellow balls are in this scene. This is how Atmos sound objects should move for maximum immersion.






Note the differences in the behavior of the speakers as well. This guy hosting the video (Hulk Cinema) has 6 ceiling channels. 2 front height, 2 top-front and 2 top-rear. In the Ready Player One video, because the height objects are "static" top-middle objects, they light up his Top-front and Top-rear speakers (imaging between those two positions) but never once do they light up his Front Height channels.

However with the 300 video, the active sound objects light up ALL of his speakers. And if he had Rear Height channels, those would have lit up as well.

This is what people mean when they say "fake atmos". Its not really "fake" Atmos. Its more like Atmos-lite. You can still get immersive 3D effects from the sound mix, but it wont be using your system to its fullest capabilities.


----------



## sdrucker

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ready Player One is a FANTASTIC sound mix in general. However, not a particularly good ATMOS mix due to its use of Static Objects.
> 
> Because the actual sound mix itself is pretty stellar, most people dont notice the static nature of the mix and because the height effects are so aggressive, its hailed as one of the best Atmos mixes.
> 
> But the truth is, that the height objects dont really move. They are stuck at the Top-Middle position and sounds are panned from static sound object to sound object (mimicking the old channel paradigm, now just adding heights into the mix)
> 
> The problem with this is if you have 6 height channels.....top front, top-middle and top-rear, only the Top-Middle speakers will play height material. Now granted it still sounds amazing but some people wonder how much better it could have sounded had the sound objects been more active.
> 
> Here is the scene in question played via the Trinnov object viewer showing the static objects. The yellow balls are the objects. The green and red boxes are the speakers. The speakers light up when they are playing content. The louder the content, the boxes turn yellow then red. Note that the yellow sound objects do not move.


Hmmm....this particular setup has top front and top rears, but doesn't have wides, the extra side or rear surrounds (SS1,SS2, Rs1,Rs2), or extra screen speakers (e.g. Lc/Rc). I have this movie on disc with the Atmos mix and a 13.x.6 setup on my Altitude 32 with wides, SS1 and Lc/Rc; maybe I'll give it a play and see if I notice anything different being displayed on my Object Viewer. I have a vague memory of RP1 being height only but I haven't watched it since before COVID.



> This is what people mean when they say "fake atmos". Its not really "fake" Atmos. Its more like Atmos-lite. You can still get immersive 3D effects from the sound mix, but it wont be using your system to its fullest capabilities.


True; if all mixes were 7.1.2 there would be no point in having the extra speakers, even with a Trinnov, except if you were using their speaker configuration to create arrays or were upmixing a PCM version of 7.1 to Neural:X or something. I did that on some movies (e.g. my 7.1.4 "Disney" preset where I copied mains at a low level to the wides, and the side surround to my SS1), but it's not "optimal".


----------



## X4100

AHH!! the tide appears to be changing here. THANKS ssssoo much for the breath of fresh air, it shows that we ( the silent few) have been making a credible point with these static mixes. WOW, I wasn't aware that a static 7.1.2 would even prevent a trinnov from using all the speakers, unless some sort of upmix is used or adjusting the speaker configuration . Seems us lonely few might be on to something. Lol we always knew it, but it's nice to get support from other knowledgeable guys!


----------



## sdrucker

X4100 said:


> AHH!! the tide appears to be changing here. THANKS ssssoo much for the breath of fresh air, it shows that we ( the silent few) have been making a credible point with these static mixes. WOW, I wasn't aware that a static 7.1.2 would even prevent a trinnov from using all the speakers, unless some sort of upmix is used or adjusting the speaker configuration . Seems us lonely few might be on to something. Lol we always knew it, but it's nice to get support from other knowledgeable guys!


FWIW, it’s fairly simple to create that 7.1.4 “Disney” preset on the Trinnov, leave the top middles off to force the static height object to be split between top front and top rears, and do the arraying I mentioned. Then it’s just a matter of switching from your normal movie listening preset to the “Disney” preset.

The Altitude has 29 presets, so it’s easy to A/B in a few seconds (in “light” mode so that you don’t have to regenerate filters or graphs that use up 10 seconds or so). I also have a plain vanilla 7.1.4 preset with no arraying too, for occasional comparison’s sake.

Not ideal but it’s a workaround for less than SOTA Atmos dynamic object mixes.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> FWIW, it’s fairly simple to create that 7.1.4 “Disney” preset on the Trinnov, leave the top middles off to force the static height object to be split between top front and top rears, and do the arraying I mentioned. Then it’s just a matter of switching from your normal movie listening preset to the “Disney” preset.
> 
> The Altitude has 29 presets, so it’s easy to A/B in a few seconds (in “light” mode so that you don’t have to regenerate filters or graphs that use up 10 seconds or so). I also have a plain vanilla 7.1.4 preset with no arraying too, for occasional comparison’s sake.
> 
> Not ideal but it’s a workaround for less than SOTA Atmos dynamic object mixes.


I can switch between arrayed overheads, darn near discrete Top Middle and 'leaky' Scatmos and sitting in the middle of the room, I'm telling you right now discrete Top Middle (no front/rear height output sounds by far the best with that race scene in Ready Player One. The boxes tumbling just before the semi-truck sound like they just missed hitting my head. Switch to arrayed at all and they sound either behind me or too far above me and less distinct to make me want to duck. 

In other words, I think for the MLP at least, you may be better off running only two overhead rather than phantom imaging between four overhead speakers. Arrays phantom images move with you and aren't necessarily sitting where you might want them for maximum impact. Using two discrete speakers anchors the effect. At least for RP1, I found two overhead superior sounding for at least some of the effects (semi passing overhead was less picky, but that box was night and day in terms of the urge to duck).


----------



## sdrucker

sdrucker said:


> Hmmm....this particular setup has top front and top rears, but doesn't have wides, the extra side or rear surrounds (SS1,SS2, Rs1,Rs2), or extra screen speakers (e.g. Lc/Rc). I have this movie on disc with the Atmos mix and a 13.x.6 setup on my Altitude 32 with wides, SS1 and Lc/Rc; maybe I'll give it a play and see if I notice anything different being displayed on my Object Viewer. I have a vague memory of RP1 being height only but I haven't watched it since before COVID.
> 
> 
> 
> True; if all mixes were 7.1.2 there would be no point in having the extra speakers, even with a Trinnov, except if you were using their speaker configuration to create arrays or were upmixing a PCM version of 7.1 to Neural:X or something. I did that on some movies (e.g. my 7.1.4 "Disney" preset where I copied mains at a low level to the wides, and the side surround to my SS1), but it's not "optimal".


Some followup - couldn’t find the disc so I sprung for RP1 in Dolby Atmos on my Apple TV 4K, purchased on iTunes. I did some surfing, and found a segment to examine that at least shows this movie isn’t a “fixed” 7.1.2.

This is RP1 at some point between 1:18:00 and 1:19:00 on my Altitude 32, using my native Atmos setup (no arrays) on a 13.x.6 layout with the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer. I couldn’t time the exact timestamp because I was going between the Altitude’s VNC viewer on the iPad and my ATV remote on that iPad too.

Note the pairs of objects on the left and right in the front of the stage. And not only do both the top front and mids light up, but both my wides and front side surrounds (SS1) light up. The Lc/Rc and top rears are silent, though. FWIW I have an output offset of 30 to compensate for me not playing too loud at almost midnight, but you get the same results as if I were playing 30 db louder.

You’d miss this with just a 7.x.4 or 7.1.2 Atmos layout, though. So I’d take some of the review of RP1 as “static” with a grain of salt unless played back on a higher channel count system.











Also, these are the “peaks” on the Altitude’s input meter within that one minute range. All channels but Lc/Rc and LFE are shown.









It does appear the race (about 15 minutes in) is indeed just 7.1.2. But that’s not the whole story.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdrucker said:


> Some followup - couldn’t find the disc so I sprung for RP1 in Dolby Atmos on my Apple TV 4K, purchased on iTunes. I did some surfing, and found a segment to examine that at least shows this movie isn’t a “fixed” 7.1.2.
> 
> This is RP1 at some point between 1:18:00 and 1:19:00 on my Altitude 32, using my native Atmos setup (no arrays) on a 13.x.6 layout with the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer. I couldn’t time the exact timestamp because I was going between the Altitude’s VNC viewer on the iPad and my ATV remote on that iPad too.
> 
> Note the pairs of objects on the left and right in the front of the stage. And not only do both the top front and mids light up, but both my wides and front side surrounds (SS1) light up. The Lc/Rc and top rears are silent, though. FWIW I have an output offset of 30 to compensate for me not playing too loud at almost midnight, but you get the same results as if I were playing 30 db louder.
> 
> You’d miss this with just a 7.x.4 or 7.1.2 Atmos layout, though. So I’d take some of the review of RP1 as “static” with a grain of salt unless played back on a higher channel count system.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3218273
> 
> 
> Also, these are the “peaks” on the Altitude’s input meter within that one minute range. All channels but Lc/Rc and LFE are shown.
> 
> View attachment 3218275
> 
> It does appear the race (about 15 minutes in) is indeed just 7.1.2. But that’s not the whole story.


It looks like at that point a few sound objects appear in between the ground layer and height layer. So in that moment was there a sound effect rising or coming down from the air?

The static objects are still in place. They havent moved so it appears as if they add active objects where they feel they need them. Which isnt a bad method. But that begs the question: why didnt they use any during their most bombastic action sequence?


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Some followup - couldn’t find the disc so I sprung for RP1 in Dolby Atmos on my Apple TV 4K, purchased on iTunes. I did some surfing, and found a segment to examine that at least shows this movie isn’t a “fixed” 7.1.2.
> 
> This is RP1 at some point between 1:18:00 and 1:19:00 on my Altitude 32, using my native Atmos setup (no arrays) on a 13.x.6 layout with the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer. I couldn’t time the exact timestamp because I was going between the Altitude’s VNC viewer on the iPad and my ATV remote on that iPad too.
> 
> Note the pairs of objects on the left and right in the front of the stage. And not only do both the top front and mids light up, but both my wides and front side surrounds (SS1) light up. The Lc/Rc and top rears are silent, though. FWIW I have an output offset of 30 to compensate for me not playing too loud at almost midnight, but you get the same results as if I were playing 30 db louder.
> 
> You’d miss this with just a 7.x.4 or 7.1.2 Atmos layout, though. So I’d take some of the review of RP1 as “static” with a grain of salt unless played back on a higher channel count system.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3218273
> 
> 
> Also, these are the “peaks” on the Altitude’s input meter within that one minute range. All channels but Lc/Rc and LFE are shown.
> 
> View attachment 3218275
> 
> It does appear the race (about 15 minutes in) is indeed just 7.1.2. But that’s not the whole story.


If you look back earlier in the thread, I found a similar thing for a moment during the race, but I think it's a viewer anomaly as the object never moves and silencing my bed speakers and top middle at that point produced nothing but silence in the front heights where it showed them light up by themselves for a moment. Even if this briefly engages the fronts alone, wides etc, the objects still appear to be fixed. I'd like to see the cinema version. I'd bet it uses proper moving objects.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> If you look back earlier in the thread, I found a similar thing for a moment during the race, but I think it's a viewer anomaly as the object never moves and silencing my bed speakers and top middle at that point produced nothing but silence in the front heights where it showed them light up by themselves for a moment. Even if this briefly engages the fronts alone, wides etc, the objects still appear to be fixed. I'd like to see the cinema version. I'd bet it uses proper moving objects.


Not what I heard. It’s the intercom from above in the top front and wides telling maintenance to go to some pod when they get to the headquarters closer to 1:19:00. Before that, just before the heroes get there at about 1:18:00, there’s engine noise from the top fronts. Definitely audible when I solo’d only the non 7.1 speakers to check.

IMO it adds dimensionality that it goes above and expands the width of the effect that way with the intercom effect. BTW I saw the same thing in a scene from Star Trek: Into Darkness where Kirk speaks to the Enterprise crew and Lc/Rc light up that way, with a similar effect for a few seconds.

Also, a couple of minutes after that in RP1, there’s music coming from the front tops, and a few seconds (five?) that has some percussion passing through the wides and IIRC front tops as well.

Is RP1 having underutilized or reflect conservative mix choices? Sure. Ask the mixer why they use non 7.1 speakers “for effect” or to accentuate a scene rather than make a listener feel lasers and lightning are in front (LCR) rather than putting them within the scene.

NB: these are cases with short-term static objects, not moving in real time. But so what?


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Not what I heard. It’s the intercom from above in the top front and wides telling maintenance to go to some pod when they get to the headquarters closer to 1:19:00. Before that, just before the heroes get there at about 1:18:00, there’s engine noise from the top fronts. Definitely audible when I solo’d only the non 7.1 speakers to check.
> 
> IMO it adds dimensionality that it goes above and expands the width of the effect that way with the intercom effect. BTW I saw the same thing in a scene from Star Trek: Into Darkness where Kirk speaks to the Enterprise crew and Lc/Rc light up that way, with a similar effect for a few seconds.
> 
> Also, a couple of minutes after that in RP1, there’s music coming from the front tops, and a few seconds (five?) that has some percussion passing through the wides and IIRC front tops as well.
> 
> Is RP1 having underutilized or reflect conservative mix choices? Sure. Ask the mixer why they use non 7.1 speakers “for effect” or to accentuate a scene rather than make a listener feel lasers and lightning are in front (LCR) rather than putting them within the scene.
> 
> NB: these are cases with short-term static objects, not moving in real time. But so what?


I only checked that race scene from the previous Trinnov video so that scene may very well use more speakers, but it still seems like they could have done better with the overheads.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> Some followup - couldn’t find the disc so I sprung for RP1 in Dolby Atmos on my Apple TV 4K, purchased on iTunes. I did some surfing, and found a segment to examine that at least shows this movie isn’t a “fixed” 7.1.2.


I have been playing around with Ready Player One from the disk on my HTP-1 in a 9.1.6 layout. It may not be a "fixed" 7.1.2 but it isn't far off.

I muted the 7 base layer speakers as well as the top middle. At that point the movie is very quiet. There are some very low volume content sporadically in the front wides that you can hear if you crank up the volume. And when I say crank up the volume I mean it nearly blew my head off when I unmuted the rest of the speakers at the end of the testing without turning down the volume first.

The content destined for the front wides is impossible to hear with the rest of the speakers enabled, it is a good 40-50dB below the 7.1.2 track according to the HTP-1 VU meter.


----------



## Josh Z

chi_guy50 said:


> You don't believe that audio objects in the bed speakers provide more creative flexibility and realism to the reproduction than purely channel-based mixes can achieve?


To the listener, there is no audible difference between a 3D object steered through your right surround speaker and a traditional sound effect element panned there in 5.1 or 7.1. They are just different methods of accomplishing the same end result. The integration of the height layer is what distinguishes Atmos.



Mashie Saldana said:


> Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used.


Both DSU and Neural:X can upmix a 5.1 or 7.1 track to use Front Wides. In my experience, far too many Atmos mixes don't use Front Wides and will leave those speakers completely silent. In which case, if the Front Wides are important to you, upmixing from 5.1 can produce a better result.


----------



## sdrucker

Mashie Saldana said:


> I have been playing around with Ready Player One from the disk on my HTP-1 in a 9.1.6 layout. It may not be a "fixed" 7.1.2 but it isn't far off.
> 
> I muted the 7 base layer speakers as well as the top middle. At that point the movie is very quiet. There are some very low volume content sporadically in the front wides that you can hear if you crank up the volume. And when I say crank up the volume I mean it nearly blew my head off when I unmuted the rest of the speakers at the end of the testing without turning down the volume first.
> 
> The content destined for the front wides is impossible to hear with the rest of the speakers enabled, it is a good 40-50dB below the 7.1.2 track according to the HTP-1 VU meter.


I'll check the scene with the intercom or the percussion and see if it's really that different on the Inputs. The peaks (maximums) I took a screenshot of look less extreme, around 25 db different, but individual scenes may differ. There's also the output level for each speaker to consider. When I tested soloing vs. playing all speakers, my reference level was about 80 deb, by the way. Can't say I got that "blow me out of the seat" feel to need to be able to play the wides audibly. I will say that the effect was subtle, though.


----------



## bluesky636

Doesn't anyone just sit and watch a movie for pleasure anymore?


----------



## Rich 63

bluesky636 said:


> Doesn't anyone just sit and watch a movie for pleasure anymore?


That appears to be the division on this aspect of the atmos topic. Everybody wants better atmos mixes. I've now come to understand that some like to discuss the shortcomings and lement that the systems they own are not being used to the full potential. No disagreement there.

Then there is the other camp that say essentially what your saying the overall experience is fantastic. No need to dive the minitiae. Enjoy the show. 
No wrong answer.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

bluesky636 said:


> Doesn't anyone just sit and watch a movie for pleasure anymore?


Every single time I sit down to watch a movie.

The discussion here is an attempt to figure out ways to maximize that pleasure.


----------



## sdrucker

bluesky636 said:


> Doesn't anyone just sit and watch a movie for pleasure anymore?


Sure. Even with the Altitude, I mostly just watch and listen unless someone brings up a technical point that somehow gets my attention, like about RP1. I don't sit there and say "why are the wolf howls stuck in the mains instead of echoing through the room and moving from side to side with dynamic objects moving on the Objects Viewer".


----------



## bluesky636

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The discussion here is an attempt to figure out ways to maximize that pleasure.


Seems like a lot of disagreement on those ways. Makes me glad my system is only 7.1. Last movie I watched (The Wolfman with Lon Chaney Jr) was in mono. It sounded glorious.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

bluesky636 said:


> Seems like a lot of disagreement on those ways. Makes me glad my system is only 7.1. Last movie I watched (The Wolfman with Lon Chaney Jr) was in mono. It sounded glorious.


As always with this hobby. 10 different people will come up with 10 different ways to acheive the same result and endlessly argue which way is better.

With immersive audio being the latest thing, thats what we argue about now. The fun is in all the experimentation in figuring out which way delivers the greatest immersion.

We get to watch some fun movies and play with our gear then come here and talk about it. Thats kinda what enthusiasts do.


----------



## X4100

Mono movies sound great in my room as well, but when something is supposed to be in one of the best audio formats I WANT ALL OF THE SOUND!! Mono tracks play very well from the center channel.


----------



## halcyon_888

I was watching Happy Valley with the DTS Neural X upmixer a couple of days ago, it's a BBC show that is in 2ch stereo and I was getting bleed through with the voices in the heights several times. I've had this before on the show Grantchester which is also 2ch stereo, it's why in the past I used the DSU exclusively to upmix because I haven't noticed the problem using it. But I've been using the DTS upmixer on 5.1 content lately with good results otherwise.

So I guess sometimes when we want to sit back and enjoy a show, tech issues can distract.


----------



## Craig Mecak

halcyon_888 said:


> I was watching Happy Valley with the DTS Neural X upmixer a couple of days ago, it's a BBC show that is in 2ch stereo and I was getting bleed through with the voices in the heights several times. I've had this before on the show Grantchester which is also 2ch stereo, it's why in the past I used the DSU exclusively to upmix because I haven't noticed the problem using it. But I've been using the DTS upmixer on 5.1 content lately with good results otherwise.
> 
> So I guess sometimes when we want to sit back and enjoy a show, tech issues can distract.


I never use Neural:X to UpMix stereo sources. For that exact reason. There is sibilance bleed into my surrounds, like from dialogue etc. It's a fault of the logic in the Neural:X upmixer for 2-ch content. I do, however, use Neural:X to UpMix 5.1 & 7.1 sources for action/space movies, and it is glorious. But never use it for stereo sources. I always just use Dolby Surround for stereo. Much better.


----------



## halcyon_888

Craig Mecak said:


> I never use Neural:X to UpMix stereo sources. For that exact reason. There is sibilance bleed into my surrounds, like from dialogue etc. It's a fault of the logic in the Neural:X upmixer for 2-ch content. I do, however, use Neural:X to UpMix 5.1 & 7.1 sources for action/space movies, and it is glorious. But never use it for stereo sources. I always just use Dolby Surround for stereo. Much better.


Yea that's exactly what I'm getting with the dialogue, good to hear I'm not the only one. I'm going to start using the DSU for stereo, then Neural:X for 5.1 & 7.1, that bleed through in the heights took me out of the show I was watching.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Bringing an older topic of conversation back to the fore for a moment...

I was flicking through the Dolby Atmos White Papers for Music Production and their discussion of how consumer Atmos works, and it is my layman interpretation of this information that you have 11 to a maximum of 15 active speaker "zones" or "clusters." The LFE .1 channel is kept separate from this spatial compression calculation. They mentioned you could pan individual audio objects through these clusters (similar to multiple speaker channel banks or arrays) or move the object clusters around in groups... OR ... you could set up a purely channel based encode with 9.1 up to 15.1 fixed, discrete objects (a 7.1.2 to 9.1.6 layout). The metadata giving panning and sizing information to the renderer seemed to be discrete even if the object clustering was not, given that this metadata must not eat up much data storage. The speaker zoning (cluster) aspect reminds me a lot of Barco and Auro's AuroMAX commercial immersive format, if I am reading this White Paper data correctly.

This seems to jibe with the metadata inspector reports from ripped disc files that you see on some theater forums that show the TrueHD lossless compressed Dolby Atmos track as 16 Channel Meridian Lossless Packing and a separate section stating the count of 11 to 15 objects. We know from prior discussions that the 7 channel bed in the lossless version are turned into objects and are a part of that count. This is why the bed channels cannot be set to array as in the theatrical version of Atmos.

If basically correct, given my interpretation of the papers, it seems to me that when home Dolby Atmos was touted as having the capability of a maximum 34.1 layout, not all of those speakers could be addressed discretely, but instead included as part of the "clustering" aspect due to required spatial compression and data reduction from the much more sophisticated Dolby Atmos mix master (with up to 118 objects and 9.1 channels, which can all be used in a commercial cinema Atmos encode) created in the Production Suite software (via Pro Tools plug-in, integrated into the Fairlight page of DaVinci Resolve Studio 17, etc.).

Given how the paper is worded, 9.1.6 seems to be the _maximum_ speaker zone layout in the home Dolby Atmos version, and then given the sizing of the clustering metadata, the sound from the 9.1.6 track can be spread out to be heard from more speakers (up to 24.1.10). In a round about sort of way, like DTS: X using DTS: X Pro matrix extraction to spread out their 7.1.4 or 7.1.5 tracks to 32 speakers.

Since many of these home video departments, Disney especially, seem to utilize and encode 3D objects so poorly (locked or with little to no immersion), does anyone feel that they should just stick to a 16 channel fixed printout soundtrack, which would at least utilize the the _entire_ 9.1.6 speaker layout rather than sporadic 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layouts? Trinnov Altitude owners of the 24 or 32 channel variety would be left out, but so many times they already are given how so many Dolby Atmos disc tracks are created anyway.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since many of these home video departments, Disney especially, seem to utilize and encode 3D objects so poorly (locked or with little to no immersion), does anyone feel that they should just stick to a 16 channel fixed printout soundtrack, which would at least utilize the the _entire_ 9.1.6 speaker layout rather than sporadic 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layouts? Trinnov Altitude owners of the 24 or 32 channel variety would be left out, but so many times they already are given how so many Dolby Atmos disc tracks are created anyway.


I'm not convinced Atmos cannot address individual speakers beyond 9.1.6 from that reading or that Atmos could not array bed channels at home (Trinnov already allows it; it might not be perfect but arrays aren't perfect anyway; they're meant to give the same experience to more seats for the sounds in question such as a sound that's meant to image directly to the left/right for everyone as opposed to a fixed location). Clustering was always described as something the encoder does based on what's in the master soundtrack and it can supposedly be adjusted by the technician making the home mix if needed to give the impression they're looking for at home. Just because something is clustered in real time doesn't mean it doesn't pan "mostly" through a given speaker beyond 9.1.6. Yes, you might call that "arrayed" in a sense, but technically speaking all panning is arrayed (coming out of two or more speakers for correlated sounds). 

In any case, I fee the "best" solution for Dolby to deal with this printed soundtrack limitations is to do what DTS:X does with Neural X, allow it to be spread out into the larger speaker configurations using Pro Logic like extraction of center points and pan right through it. Arrays keep getting a bad name on here for some reason compared to "discrete" but discrete is a meaningless term when it comes to panning imaging around the room. To pan something between two or more speakers and not just image directly at a given speaker, it must technically be arrayed.

As it stands, DTS:X simply has no issues using the full 30.2 speakers it's capable of using. Even with zero objects, it can fully utilize the speakers in an intelligent fashion and no 30 speaker home theater is going to have speakers sitting there totally silent like many higher speaker count Dolby Atmos home theaters have with these print-through soundtracks. Dolby should update Atmos steering to have a feature similar to Neural X for those situations. The renderer should be able to tell fixed objects panning correlation with other channels and if they're panning between channels that are not side-by-side then they should be expanded to do so in a similar fashion to Neural X. 

My personal feeling is DTS:X is the superior overall format for that reason alone. It simply no longer has any >7.1.4 speaker usage issues whatsoever. In a way, it's a shame that Atmos got the jump on it in that regard. Of course, if Dolby pushed its weight around a bit more to try and force the studios to behave themselves and use proper moving objects, it wouldn't be an issue at all. They seem more worried that the studios might jump ship and go to DTS:X who won't tell them what to do because there's no need to. DTS:X works well with or without objects being used and the channel count is not an issue at all either way.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Bringing an older topic of conversation back to the fore for a moment...
> 
> I was flicking through the Dolby Atmos White Papers for Music Production and their discussion of how consumer Atmos works, and it is my layman interpretation of this information that you have 11 to a maximum of 15 active speaker "zones" or "clusters." The LFE .1 channel is kept separate from this spatial compression calculation. They mentioned you could pan individual audio objects through these clusters (similar to multiple speaker channel banks or arrays) or move the object clusters around in groups... OR ... you could set up a purely channel based encode with 9.1 up to 15.1 fixed, discrete objects (a 7.1.2 to 9.1.6 layout). The metadata giving panning and sizing information to the renderer seemed to be discrete even if the object clustering was not, given that this metadata must not eat up much data storage. The speaker zoning (cluster) aspect reminds me a lot of Barco and Auro's AuroMAX commercial immersive format, if I am reading this White Paper data correctly.
> 
> This seems to jibe with the metadata inspector reports from ripped disc files that you see on some theater forums that show the TrueHD lossless compressed Dolby Atmos track as 16 Channel Meridian Lossless Packing and a separate section stating the count of 11 to 15 objects. We know from prior discussions that the 7 channel bed in the lossless version are turned into objects and are a part of that count. This is why the bed channels cannot be set to array as in the theatrical version of Atmos.
> 
> If basically correct, given my interpretation of the papers, it seems to me that when home Dolby Atmos was touted as having the capability of a maximum 34.1 layout, not all of those speakers could be addressed discretely, but instead included as part of the "clustering" aspect due to required spatial compression and data reduction from the much more sophisticated Dolby Atmos mix master (with up to 118 objects and 9.1 channels, which can all be used in a commercial cinema Atmos encode) created in the Production Suite software (via Pro Tools plug-in, integrated into the Fairlight page of DaVinci Resolve Studio 17, etc.).
> 
> Given how the paper is worded, 9.1.6 seems to be the _maximum_ speaker zone layout in the home Dolby Atmos version, and then given the sizing of the clustering metadata, the sound from the 9.1.6 track can be spread out to be heard from more speakers (up to 24.1.10). In a round about sort of way, like DTS: X using DTS: X Pro matrix extraction to spread out their 7.1.4 or 7.1.5 tracks to 32 speakers.
> 
> Since many of these home video departments, Disney especially, seem to utilize and encode 3D objects so poorly (locked or with little to no immersion), does anyone feel that they should just stick to a 16 channel fixed printout soundtrack, which would at least utilize the the _entire_ 9.1.6 speaker layout rather than sporadic 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 layouts? Trinnov Altitude owners of the 24 or 32 channel variety would be left out, but so many times they already are given how so many Dolby Atmos disc tracks are created anyway.


I dont think they should use all 15 objects to render static channels in a 9.1.6 configuration. Using 7 or 9 static objects to mimic 7.1.2 channels (or just 7.1 leaving all height effects to active objects) leaves 7 to 9 objects or clusters to be used in an immersive fashion. Based on experiences with some very immersive soundtracks, this seems like more than enough to get an approximation of the theatrical mix.

The additional speakers outside of the traditional 7.1.2 paradigm get utilized when an object or cluster passes within that channels sphere of influence, so there is no need to anchor objects at any location other than the traditional bed speakers and maybe two height beds.

The purpose of additional speakers merely being increased accuracy in object placement.


----------



## MagnumX

If people want to hear an extremely well done Dolby Atmos soundtrack, *Monster Hunter* (2020) is top notch, IMO (and the 3D was well above average as well on the German 3D video version which I remuxed for Atmos audio from the 4K UHD disc). Everything correlates to surround sound usage including overhead near constantly. You don't have to wait long or look hard to find examples of sounds in any given area of the room and overheads are doing their thing almost non-stop the first 30 minutes (with barely any slowdown thereafter). 

Where Mad Max is mostly car racing type sounds at ear level (12 minutes of overhead use from what I read), this has objects overhead throughout from Milla tapping on the roof of the Humvee (heard above from the camera shots inside the vehicle) to all kinds of monsters, weapons, etc. and most of the areas have surround sound going full tilt all around you even when the action appears up front (i.e. immersive). I thought the movie was good fun as well (left open for possible sequels meant the ending wasn't totally satisfying, but then it felt like the other world wasn't hardly explored at all in the time frame given and it was a bit Jurassic Park and Pitch Black combined in some respects, although not terribly original in that regard, I suppose).


----------



## Chirosamsung

Has anybody got wind of any new Dolby atmos processors to be announced at CES this year or anytime in the near future if not?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> I'm not convinced Atmos cannot address individual speakers beyond 9.1.6 from that reading or that Atmos could not array bed channels at home (Trinnov already allows it; it might not be perfect but arrays aren't perfect anyway; they're meant to give the same experience to more seats for the sounds in question such as a sound that's meant to image directly to the left/right for everyone as opposed to a fixed location). Clustering was always described as something the encoder does based on what's in the master soundtrack and it can supposedly be adjusted by the technician making the home mix if needed to give the impression they're looking for at home. Just because something is clustered in real time doesn't mean it doesn't pan "mostly" through a given speaker beyond 9.1.6. Yes, you might call that "arrayed" in a sense, but technically speaking all panning is arrayed (coming out of two or more speakers for correlated sounds).
> 
> In any case, I fee the "best" solution for Dolby to deal with this printed soundtrack limitations is to do what DTS:X does with Neural X, allow it to be spread out into the larger speaker configurations using Pro Logic like extraction of center points and pan right through it. Arrays keep getting a bad name on here for some reason compared to "discrete" but discrete is a meaningless term when it comes to panning imaging around the room. To pan something between two or more speakers and not just image directly at a given speaker, it must technically be arrayed.
> 
> As it stands, DTS:X simply has no issues using the full 30.2 speakers it's capable of using. Even with zero objects, it can fully utilize the speakers in an intelligent fashion and no 30 speaker home theater is going to have speakers sitting there totally silent like many higher speaker count Dolby Atmos home theaters have with these print-through soundtracks. Dolby should update Atmos steering to have a feature similar to Neural X for those situations. The renderer should be able to tell fixed objects panning correlation with other channels and if they're panning between channels that are not side-by-side then they should be expanded to do so in a similar fashion to Neural X.
> 
> My personal feeling is DTS:X is the superior overall format for that reason alone. It simply no longer has any >7.1.4 speaker usage issues whatsoever. In a way, it's a shame that Atmos got the jump on it in that regard. Of course, if Dolby pushed its weight around a bit more to try and force the studios to behave themselves and use proper moving objects, it wouldn't be an issue at all. They seem more worried that the studios might jump ship and go to DTS:X who won't tell them what to do because there's no need to. DTS:X works well with or without objects being used and the channel count is not an issue at all either way.


I think the limitation here is consumer Atmos' reliance on *spatial compression*, which even in their diagrams in the White Papers shows the surround and overhead speakers to behave like speaker zones rather than something that can address one speaker at a time unless the object cluster sizing is set to extremely small. You would probably notice this phenomenon more as you moved to greater and greater speaker layouts above the 16 channel waveform structure. The only way to get around spatial compression coding seems to be to lock off the objects and do a hard coded 9.1.6 or less track and then you are left with a smaller channel based soundtrack. The ability to utilize or array more of the speakers is to change the sizing of the object clusters to broadcast out to more of the 34 speakers. No, they're not all discrete (just like DTS: X Pro).

Trinnov does not separate out the bed surround channels of the 7 channel core and array them just like in the theatrical Atmos version (only there it's 9), because it can't. The way they array speakers is to duplicate channel output to multiple designated speaker groupings of your choice, so the audio content of the beds and the object clusters get duplicated as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Has anybody got wind of any new Dolby atmos processors to be announced at CES this year or anytime in the near future if not?


There may be more budget pre-amps that can do more than 7.1.4 along the lines of what ToneWinner is doing. It's hard to say given the parts shortages going around and whether different companies see a niche that needs filling.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I dont think they should use all 15 objects to render static channels in a 9.1.6 configuration. Using 7 or 9 static objects to mimic 7.1.2 channels (or just 7.1 leaving all height effects to active objects) leaves 7 to 9 objects or clusters to be used in an immersive fashion. Based on experiences with some very immersive soundtracks, this seems like more than enough to get an approximation of the theatrical mix.
> 
> The additional speakers outside of the traditional 7.1.2 paradigm get utilized when an object or cluster passes within that channels sphere of influence, so there is no need to anchor objects at any location other than the traditional bed speakers and maybe two height beds.
> 
> The purpose of additional speakers merely being increased accuracy in object placement.


I'm just putting that out there because many studios are NOT doing what you are proposing and don't seem to be getting the memo from Dolby Labs to NOT encode the way they are at present. On some or most of their tracks they seem to insist on a 7.1.2 bed only or 7.1.4 locked layout only. That really futzes things up when you have 6 or more overhead speakers and/or Front Wides as any combo of those will remain silent unless you have a fancier processor that can duplicate channels or add matrixing on top of an immersive track. At least with a 9.1.6 channel-based track the "essence" of the immersive track is allowed to remain with Front Wides to fill in the sonic gap between fronts and side surrounds and three pairs of overheads.

That would certainly at least get Disney on the right track. This is until Dolby, DTS, or some other company can come up with a better, more capable, and less likely to get f--ked up production suite immersive audio solution.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think the limitation here is consumer Atmos' reliance on *spatial compression*, which even in their diagrams in the White Papers shows the surround and overhead speakers to behave like speaker zones rather than something that can address one speaker at a time unless the object cluster sizing is set to extremely small. You would probably notice this phenomenon more as you moved to greater and greater speaker layouts above the 16 channel waveform structure. The only way to get around spatial compression coding seems to be to lock off the objects and do a hard coded 9.1.6 or less track and then you are left with a smaller channel based soundtrack. The ability to utilize or array more of the speakers is to change the sizing of the object clusters to broadcast out to more of the 34 speakers. No, they're not all discrete (just like DTS: X Pro).


I read the white paper before. Yes, how many speakers are included in spatial compression (which changes constantly; it's not like stuck until something clears, but is analyzed on the encoder end every step of the way) depends on the size of the spatial grouping "circle" just as an object size affects how many speakers a given object plays through. The encoder can combine traditional sound panning and combined objects to play the sound as close as possible to the original intent.

Just because a sound is playing in say four speakers doesn't mean it's audible in all of them if it's hard panned to one side or both, for example or may be at a very low volume. In fact, any kind of panning technically is an array since correlated sounds are playing in more than one speaker. The channels may be "discrete" but that doesn't mean the sounds within them are. The Dolby renderer, likewise, sees 34.1 discrete channels it can use and attempts to render to them as best it can within the constraints of both the object size, panning data and clustering from the spatial compression. Spatial compression pre-renders the panning data within the cluster at encoding time so that as little information is lost as possible.

A good way to think of this is multi-track music recording with DAWs on computers like Logic Pro from Apple. I can have theoretically limitless tracks (limited only by cpu power and hard drive speed) per song, but it's ultimately going to be rendered out to anywhere from 2-channels to 5.1 (or to Atmos with the newer plugins).

Think of rendering 50 tracks down to 2-channel sound. If I play the tracks back as-is or pre-rendered they sound exactly the same, but the 2-channel pre-renders is actually now a stereo file that takes almost no resources to play compared to the master file. I can no longer rearrange individual tracks, but the final playback sounds identical.

That is more less what Atmos attempts to do with clustering at any given moment, render a group of objects using panning within the cluster across however many speakers are needed, but by limiting panning for individual sounds, it can mostly isolate sounds to the speakers they were originally meant to be played in. It essentially pre-renders more objects than the cpu power and bandwidth would allow on a home system. None of the information is supposed to be lost and on a good day it should sound pretty darn close to the original master did if it were played over the same number of speakers. The software allows manual adjustments if the clustering defaults don't achieve the desired results. It's not a perfect system, but current hardware and bandwidth on playback methods won't allow cinema Atmos at home nor is it needed in most cases.



> Trinnov does not separate out the bed surround channels of the 7 channel core and array them just like in the theatrical Atmos version (only there it's 9), because it can't.


As long as the objects aren't clustered into the bed objects at any given moment, it should work fine. Even if the are clustered, however, the sounds are still rendered via panning into the additional speakers so even if the side surround array is playing the sound in say 4 sets of arrayed speakers, it will play much louder in the the ss#2 speaker if that's where the object was headed. 

Where you hear a sound is a function of loudness and timing. One typically hears sound from the closer speaker in an array until it's 60-80% louder, but that point varies on where you sit as well (e.g. Halfway between will render between them) so either way the object is going to move through the extra speakers with or without an array present. The benefits of using an array for the side surround speakers in particular with multiple rows of seating probably still outweigh limitations in the home Atmos system which is probably why Trinnov offers array capabilities regardless. 

I use arrays here via mixer and the end result for all three rows of seats are much better than without as it helps reduce the difference between the sound levels of the front of the room relative to the back of the room (more speakers playing means less hot-spotting as sound drops in level over distance).

It also means older soundtracks get hard left/right imaging relative to each row like at the theater instead of the side surrounds being fixed at one location in front of you or behind you if you're not sitting in the MLP. Object panning isn't perfect outside the optimized row (MLP) but it's better than it is with greater level differences by quite a bit. I'm much happier with thend results for all seats using arrays and extra speakers, even if some aren't discrete, than without using them. The MLP sounds more or less the same regardless, but off-axis seats are much improved overall with them added. 

Fully discrete only solves part of the problem. Arrays are still needed IMO in larger rooms to reduce level differences and keep non-object sounds from being locked in place, particularly on non-Atmos soundtracks.




> The way they array speakers is to duplicate channel output to multiple designated speaker groupings of your choice, so the audio content of the beds and the object clusters get duplicated as well.


You can control relative array levels to the discrete levels with a mixer. In smaller rooms, you can trade position for level to get an optimal tradeoff level for both for a given room. I measure and listened at all three rows. For instance, the 2nd row "side" sounds aren't directly to the side, but between the real sides and ss#2 while the transition to rear surround is between the there and the rear. Objects pan smoothly around the room, but start a bit further back than the very front (optimizing levels for the 2nd row on a memory preset evens it out for the 2nd row plus I have a compromise setting in-between when two or all three rows are in use). 

Perfect for all in every case? No, but it's better sounding than the AVR does on its own by miles. A 2dB difference between front and back sounds much better than a 4dB difference and short of line driver arrays, I know of no other way to keep sound from the front from dropping off over distance. Most people probably are happy with just the MLP or one row sounding good and well, the other rows aren't used as much so the heck on them. I wanted at least good sound from all seats and perfect from the MLP.


----------



## dj7675

bluesky636 said:


> Seems like a lot of disagreement on those ways. Makes me glad my system is only 7.1. Last movie I watched (The Wolfman with Lon Chaney Jr) was in mono. It sounded glorious.


Just because there are some disagreements on what content is good, perfect setup, etc... it doesn't mean setting up Atmos isn't one of the best upgrades, however. Everything from upmixing 5.1/7.1 sources to native content is very enjoyable despite the quibbles seen here sometimes!


----------



## Snorefingers

Right now I'm using a pair of Dali Alteco C-1 speakers setup like this:










I'm curious how much of an audio improvement I can expect if I were to mount them like this:










Has anyone had up firing speakers and changed them to be wall mounted? Does it make a significant difference?


----------



## markus767

Snorefingers said:


> Right now I'm using a pair of Dali Alteco C-1 speakers setup like this:
> 
> View attachment 3220322
> 
> 
> I'm curious how much of an audio improvement I can expect if I were to mount them like this:
> 
> View attachment 3220323
> 
> 
> Has anyone had up firing speakers and changed them to be wall mounted? Does it make a significant difference?


Height or top speakers are better than Dolby Atmos-enabled ceiling firing speakers. The problem with the latter is that two delayed sounds reach the listener from different angles. A low-pass filtered version from the speaker location will arrive first, followed by a spectrally different reflection from the ceiling. Furthermore the speaker's reflection point at the ceiling can't be adjusted to match your specific ceiling height and listening position. As a result Dolby Atmos-enabled ceiling firing speakers act more like an "effect processor" with unpredictable results.


----------



## Snorefingers

markus767 said:


> Height or top speakers are better than Dolby Atmos-enabled ceiling firing speakers. The problem with the latter is that two delayed sounds reach the listener from different angles. A low-pass filtered version from the speaker location will arrive first, followed by a spectrally different reflection from the ceiling. Furthermore the speaker's reflection point at the ceiling can't be adjusted to match your specific ceiling height and listening position. As a result Dolby Atmos-enabled ceiling firing speakers act more like an "effect processor" with unpredictable results.


Thank you, so you are saying that if it's possible to mount the speakers on the walls, it makes sense to do so?


----------



## markus767

Snorefingers said:


> Thank you, so you are saying that if it's possible to mount the speakers on the walls, it makes sense to do so?


Yes.


----------



## X4100

IIRC some of the upfireing speakers have a switch that changes their use from Dolby Atmos enabled to be used as a regular/standard speaker


----------



## Snorefingers

X4100 said:


> IIRC some of the upfireing speakers have a switch that changes their use from Dolby Atmos enabled to be used as a regular/standard speaker


Indeed, the Dali C-1 I'm asking about are such a model in fact.


----------



## X4100

If you're going to stay with 5.1.2, you will definitely get fantastic results if you can place the height speakers on your sides where the wall meets the ceiling, and use the middle heights configuration. This will give you overhead left/right. Give it a try with a movie that you like, and are familiar with how it sounds when you had your heights configured as Dolby Atmos enabled vs front heights, and now with the top middle. You will definitely HEAR THE DIFFERENCE   . Slightly in front of your listening position


----------



## X4100

When I first started with Dolby Atmos, I used a 7.1.2 configuration with rear height speakers higher on the back wall, and the top middle left/right. I was thrilled to life! I switched to 5.1.4 front/rear height speakers so I could get front to back coverage overhead sound, which I feel is the best compromise for a 9 speakers limited AVR setup, YMMV. Please report back on your views of the difference in the sound between the positions of the speakers.I enjoyed watching/LISTENING to Tarzan, and Dawn of the Planet of The Apes. As Tarzan is swinging through the jungle with the Apes it sounds like they are right in your room swinging through it!!!!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Snorefingers said:


> Thank you, so you are saying that if it's possible to mount the speakers on the walls, it makes sense to do so?


Mount then on the side walls up near the ceiling and set them as Tops. Side wall placement is better unless you can mount a speaker in or on the ceiling in the optimal positions.
If you only have two, then they would be set as Top Middle.


----------



## Snorefingers

Dan Hitchman said:


> Mount then on the side walls up near the ceiling and set them as Tops. Side wall placement is better unless you can mount a speaker in or on the ceiling in the optimal positions.
> If you only have two, then they would be set as Top Middle.


Unfortunately, due to the way my living room is layed out I'm not sure how viable that is. My current speakers are L&R towers, with up firing speakers on top, at the blue square positions (there's also a center speaker, I just didn't mark it). 











The change I was thinking of was to put in additional rear speakers at the red square position and also move the up firing speakers from being on top of front L&R to wall mounted but still above L&R.
As you can see from the sketch, if I were to put in wall mounted, down firing speakers on the side (purple triangle position), one of them would be right above the dinner table which would make for quite poor aesthetics I think.

My receiver is advertised 7.2, so I think 5.1.2 is the max system possible for me right now (I don't need a second subwoofer).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Snorefingers said:


> Unfortunately, due to the way my living room is layed out I'm not sure how viable that is. My current speakers are L&R towers, with up firing speakers on top, at the blue square positions (there's also a center speaker, I just didn't mark it).
> 
> View attachment 3220365
> 
> 
> 
> The change I was thinking of was to put in additional rear speakers at the red square position and also move the up firing speakers from being on top of front L&R to wall mounted but still above L&R.
> As you can see from the sketch, if I were to put in wall mounted, down firing speakers on the side (purple triangle position), one of them would be right above the dinner table which would make for quite poor aesthetics I think.
> 
> My receiver is advertised 7.2, so I think 5.1.2 is the max system possible for me right now (I don't need a second subwoofer).


Can you sell your upfiring modules and get at least one pair of something like SVS Prime Elevations, if you have access to an SVS dealer in or near your country? They can be easily ceiling mounted with their free, optional safety bracket. They come in white as well if you are concerned about aesthetics. Then hide the speaker wires with paintable wire molding if you are not in a position to run new wires in the ceiling.


----------



## Snorefingers

Dan Hitchman said:


> Can you sell your upfiring modules and get at least one pair of something like SVS Prime Elevations, if you have access to an SVS dealer in or near your country? They can be easily ceiling mounted with their free, optional safety bracket. They come in white as well if you are concerned about aesthetics. Then hide the speaker wires with paintable wire molding if you are not in a position to run new wires in the ceiling.


SVS products are not available here, no. The C-1s I have are designed to also offer wall mounting as an option, similar to the SVS in that way:








I'll have to think about the side mounting position, but a setup like the one in the picture would at the moment be my preference from a purely visual perspective.


----------



## titan ii

Front wall or ceiling...not side.


----------



## X4100

Snorefingers said:


> Right now I'm using a pair of Dali Alteco C-1 speakers setup like this:
> 
> View attachment 3220322
> 
> 
> I'm curious how much of an audio improvement I can expect if I were to mount them like this:
> 
> View attachment 3220323
> 
> 
> Has anyone had up firing speakers and changed them to be wall mounted? Does it make a significant difference?


My response to your question was based on your original post showing this as your room setup.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Snorefingers said:


> SVS products are not available here, no. The C-1s I have are designed to also offer wall mounting as an option, similar to the SVS in that way:
> View attachment 3220385
> 
> I'll have to think about the side mounting position, but a setup like the one in the picture would at the moment be my preference from a purely visual perspective.


If you want a better immersive experience, I would not use Height speaker positions. You will get used to the aesthetic of side wall speakers, but you won't get used to a lesser bubble of sound.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

titan ii said:


> Front wall or ceiling...not side.


You don't get good immersion from hanging them on the front wall as Heights. It barely sounds like audio is coming from above you. Ceiling is best, side walls are second best due to a better angle of separation.


----------



## titan ii

Dan Hitchman said:


> You don't get good immersion from hanging them on the front wall as Heights. It barely sounds like audio is coming from above you. Ceiling is best, side walls are second best due to a better angle of separation.


At least we agree on ceiling being the best.


----------



## Snorefingers

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you want a better immersive experience, I would not use Height speaker positions. You will get used to the aesthetic of side wall speakers, but you won't get used to a lesser bubble of sound.


I've looked through my receivers manual and it doesn't explicitly mention a configuration with side wall speakers. Do you think it would still work if I use the configuration for surround Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers mentioned at the bottom of this page: Connecting 7.1-channel speakers AVR-X1700H ? The ones they list are ceiling firing, so I'm not sure if receiver would just recognize that the speakers are actually at the top thanks to audyssey.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Snorefingers said:


> I've looked through my receivers manual and it doesn't explicitly mention a configuration with side wall speakers. Do you think it would still work if I use the configuration for surround Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers mentioned at the bottom of this page: Connecting 7.1-channel speakers AVR-X1700H ? The ones they list are ceiling firing, so I'm not sure if receiver would just recognize that the speakers are actually at the top thanks to audyssey.


You place the two side wall mounted overhead speakers in the same relative angles as if they were Top Middles for the ceiling (either directly above your head at the main listening position or just in front of your head when looking at the Atmos diagrams, and then the pair of speakers is actually mounted to each side wall up by the ceiling), and you would tell the receiver you had Top Middle speakers. The renderer doesn't care if the Top Middles are on the side walls or the ceiling.

The fact that you are telling the receiver these are no longer up-firing "enabled" speaker modules, but rather regular speakers, and flipping the switch on your Dali Atmos modules, will do the trick.


----------



## Snorefingers

Dan Hitchman said:


> You place the two side wall mounted overhead speakers in the same relative angles as if they were Top Middles for the ceiling (either directly above your head at the main listening position or just in front of your head when looking at the Atmos diagrams, and then the pair is actual speakers mounted to each side wall by the ceiling), and you would tell the receiver you had Top Middle speakers. The renderer doesn't care if the Top Middles are on the side walls or the ceiling.
> 
> The fact that you are telling the receiver these are no longer up-firing "enabled" speaker modules, but rather regular speakers, and flipping the switch on your Dali Atmos modules, will do the trick.


Very helpful and easy to follow, thank you.


----------



## titan ii

Why not try both places? Get a couple 1x2s or 1x3s the height of the walls and mount the speakers to them. Then you can hold them against the wall in both locations and see what you like.


----------



## ppasteur

Snorefingers said:


> I've looked through my receivers manual and it doesn't explicitly mention a configuration with side wall speakers. Do you think it would still work if I use the configuration for surround Dolby Atmos Enabled speakers mentioned at the bottom of this page: Connecting 7.1-channel speakers AVR-X1700H ? The ones they list are ceiling firing, so I'm not sure if receiver would just recognize that the speakers are actually at the top thanks to audyssey.


TML/TMR is the config you would want... if you can place the speakers in the right places. Best in on ceiling, second best on wall close to ceiling, either aimed at MLP.
If you can't get it perfect, do what you can and then pick the closest match in the setup. When people have a multi-use room, often it is impossible to set them up perfectly... especially considering esthetics and WAF. But getting real speakers above your head has the potential of being much better than trying to bounce sound off of a ceiling.


----------



## Rich 63

titan ii said:


> Front wall or ceiling...not side.


Why.?


----------



## Rich 63

titan ii said:


> At least we agree on ceiling being the best.


That not what you said above. Confused


----------



## Snorefingers

Rich 63 said:


> That not what you said above. Confused


I think titan believes that it's ceiling -> front height -> side height whereas Dan believes it's ceiling -> side height -> front height, so while they disagree on the order, they do agree that ceiling is best.


----------



## Rich 63

Snorefingers said:


> I think titan believes that it's ceiling -> front height -> side height whereas Dan believes it's ceiling -> side height -> front height, so while they disagree on the order, they do agree that ceiling is best.


Ok now I get it. I'm with Dan. I've never done ceiling even though that is the ideal I couldn't. Tried front height then went side 1ft in font of mlp. Huge different. With them in the front it expanded the front soundstage more then providing discreet sound from above. 
Rich


----------



## Polyrythm1k

I vote for side heights too. But in the image, it sure likes like they’d be quite a ways away.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

You just place them in the side-height position but name them "Top-Middle" in the amp-section. So your receiver treats them as ceiling speakers and they are useable with Atmos and DTSX.

They would be a bit wider than typical Top-Mide speakers but would work in that position.


----------



## Rich 63

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You just place them in the side-height position but name them "Top-Middle" in the amp-section. So your receiver treats them as ceiling speakers and they are useable with Atmos and DTSX.
> 
> They would be a bit wider than typical Top-Mide speakers but would work in that position.


As I mentioned earlier ceiling was not an option so the side were labels top middle but were out from the fronts by about 1.5ft. When I went 4 atmos they were still 1.5 out but front back. When I'm listening I can appreciate what the more inward recommended configuration would do, however I'm still well immersed, still get left right/front back panning and it sounds great.


----------



## titan ii

Miracles actually happen on forums. I am coming around to what R63 is saying and that may work fine.
BTW....definitely get two side surrounds. I think you previously mentioned them as rear. They are used far more than uppers in Atmos tracks.


----------



## MagnumX

People have this bizarre notion that it matters what they set the overhead speakers to with just two speakers. Top Middle is used more often? Atmos never discards overhead information nor does it put it in the ear level speakers when overhead speakers are available. In other words, ALL the overhead information is going to go to whatever two overheads you use regardless of what you assign it (Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear). The only difference will be the physical placement of the speakers.


----------



## sdurani

Snorefingers said:


> I've looked through my receivers manual and it doesn't explicitly mention a configuration with side wall speakers.


Think of them as being on the ceiling but spread the width of the room.


----------



## Rich 63

titan ii said:


> Miracles actually happen on forums. I am coming around to what R63 is saying and that may work fine.
> BTW....definitely get two side surrounds. I think you previously mentioned them as rear. They are used far more than uppers in Atmos tracks.


I don't consider it a miracle . I consider it open minded thinking. I tried more positions then the ones I mentioned. My wife was not happy for a time. 
Rich


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Not my room. Just for reference


----------



## Rich 63

MagnumX said:


> People have this bizarre notion that it matters what they set the overhead speakers to with just two speakers. Top Middle is used more often? Atmos never discards overhead information nor does it put it in the ear level speakers when overhead speakers are available. In other words, ALL the overhead information is going to go to whatever two overheads you use regardless of what you assign it (Top Front, Top Middle, Top Rear). The only difference will be the physical placement of the speakers.


I alway wondered that magnum. I never bothered to check if it's different but it makes perfect sense. Where else would the height info go. Until your involving more then one set of speakers it shouldnot matter what designation is choosen. Have you confirmed this though? Height info is height info and is never sent to base layer unless you not atmos enabled?


----------



## Rich 63

Polyrythm1k said:


> Not my room. Just for reference


That's my room (not as nice though) , except the fronts are inward to provide the equalateral triangle. Even my surrounds are wall mounted. So my back is more auro, my front is a frankenstien combo. 
Works very well. 
One thing I've noticed is that since I started with atmos 3 years ago that recommendations on this site are not so absolute. There is some flexibility within good practice. I think that is becoming clear to others as well. 
Rich


----------



## ppasteur

Rich 63 said:


> That's my room (not as nice though) , except the fronts are inward to provide the equalateral triangle. Even my surrounds are wall mounted. So my back is more auro, my front is a frankenstien combo.
> Works very well.
> One thing I've noticed is that since I started with atmos 3 years ago that recommendations on this site are not so absolute. There is some flexibility within good practice. I think that is becoming clear to others as well.
> Rich


There is lots of flexibility. We have to work within the constraints that we each have. Much of the discussion here is about the IDEAL setup for getting as close to the intended imaging as possible.
This doesn't mean that doing what is possible can't provide much "better than nothing" sound. If you want ideal, design the room from the ground up to get there. Including ceiling speakers.
If not, do what you can and enjoy...


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Rich 63 said:


> That's my room (not as nice though) , except the fronts are inward to provide the equalateral triangle. Even my surrounds are wall mounted. So my back is more auro, my front is a frankenstien combo.
> Works very well.
> One thing I've noticed is that since I started with atmos 3 years ago that recommendations on this site are not so absolute. There is some flexibility within good practice. I think that is becoming clear to others as well.
> Rich


Agreed. I think it’s important to remember that the guidelines are just that, and not absolutes. Obviously every room has its compromises and i think as long as you can get reasonably close, you should be rewarded with a good experience. 
If ya be with the one you love, love the one you’re with. Lol


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> I alway wondered that magnum. I never bothered to check if it's different but it makes perfect sense. Where else would the height info go. Until your involving more then one set of speakers it shouldnot matter what designation is choosen. Have you confirmed this though? Height info is height info and is never sent to base layer unless you not atmos enabled?


I've confirmed it with all the Dolby demos. Whether a real movie does something different, perhaps if it's not completely on the ceiling, I can't say with absolute certainty.


----------



## MagnumX

So from what I just read, it seems Storm Audio has an "XD" feature (*Correction*: Apparently, it's "Storm XT"; the site I read about it on either had a typo or the wrong name) whereby it can use Center Height and Top Surround (aka "The Voice of God") with Dolby Atmos sources. That sounds like a very nice feature indeed as those two speakers can anchor center overhead information for off-axis listeners. I really believe it was an oversight for Dolbt to not support them (at least for home Atmos) in the first place.


----------



## dj7675

MagnumX said:


> So from what I just read, it seems Storm Audio has an "XD" feature whereby it can use Center Height and Top Surround (aka "The Voice of God") with Dolby Atmos sources. That sounds like a very nice feature indeed as those two speakers can anchor center overhead information for off-axis listeners. I really believe it was an oversight for Dolbt to not support them (at least for home Atmos) in the first place.


The StormXT does exactly what you describe. It will take any speaker that is outside of the compatible speaker layout of a format (such as Atmos/Auro) and it will extract the audio from nearby channels to create the output of normally silent speakers. For example, I installed CH which works really well for both DTS/DTSX because Storm has DTSX Pro, but also for Dolby Atmos and Auro as well as all upmixing using DSU.
A few other interesting things..
-Stormaudio‘s implementation of DSU does not upmix to the front wides. But with StormXT it now uses the FW channels
-Recently I switched from FH/TM/TR to TF/TR because I got tired of running into the issue of hard coded 7.1.4/7.1.2 content. It made a very nice improvement. However, I will be going back to a speaker layout of TF/TM/TR, but instead of configuring the TM speakers as TM, they will be 2 VOG where the TM speakers are located. In this scenario, 2 VOG speakers (at the TM location) will always be active in the following scenarios...
1-With 7.1.4 hard coded content, StormXD will extract audio from the TM/TR channels and send to the 2 VOG channels
2-With 7.1.2 atmos content, it will split the .2 content to the TF/TR channels and then extract audio from the TF/TR and sent to the 2 VOG channels located at the TM location
3-Atmos content not hard coded, audio will be extracted from TF/TM and send to the 2 VOG channels at the TM location
4-DSU and DTS X Pro will upmix to all the speakers
5-DTSX Content via Pro will upmix to all speakers
6-Auro will use the 2 VOG speakers and also the CH speaker via StormXD
It is a really great feature for sure.


----------



## sdrucker

dj7675 said:


> The StormXD does exactly what you describe. It will take any speaker that is outside of the compatible speaker layout of a format (such as Atmos/Auro) and it will extract the audio from nearby channels to create the output of normally silent speakers. For example, I installed CH which works really well for both DTS/DTSX because Storm has DTSX Pro, but also for Dolby Atmos and Auro as well as all upmixing using DSU.
> A few other interesting things..
> -Stormaudio‘s implementation of DSU does not upmix to the front wides. But with StormXT it now uses the FW channels
> -Recently I switched from FH/TM/TR to TF/TR because I got tired of running into the issue of hard coded 7.1.4/7.1.2 content. It made a very nice improvement. However, I will be going back to a speaker layout of TF/TM/TR, but instead of configuring the TM speakers as TM, they will be 2 VOG where the TM speakers are located. In this scenario, 2 VOG speakers (at the TM location) will always be active in the following scenarios...
> 1-With 7.1.4 hard coded content, StormXD will extract audio from the TM/TR channels and send to the 2 VOG channels
> 2-With 7.1.2 atmos content, it will split the .2 content to the TF/TR channels and then extract audio from the TF/TR and sent to the 2 VOG channels located at the TM location
> 3-Atmos content not hard coded, audio will be extracted from TF/TM and send to the 2 VOG channels at the TM location
> 4-DSU and DTS X Pro will upmix to all the speakers
> 5-DTSX Content via Pro will upmix to all speakers
> 6-Auro will use the 2 VOG speakers and also the CH speaker via StormXD
> It is a really great feature for sure.


Minor nitpick: is it Storm XD or Storm XT? On the Storm AVS group for the ISP MK2, it's been called StormXT. Haven't seen much about it mentioned on AVS other than people looking to try it, and one person "loving it", so this is the first comment I've seen that gets into detail. And what you're saying makes sense given what it's supposed to be doing, as a "post processing" of whatever is done by the existing up mixers and the 3D audio codecs.


----------



## X4100

dj7675 said:


> The StormXD does exactly what you describe. It will take any speaker that is outside of the compatible speaker layout of a format (such as Atmos/Auro) and it will extract the audio from nearby channels to create the output of normally silent speakers. For example, I installed CH which works really well for both DTS/DTSX because Storm has DTSX Pro, but also for Dolby Atmos and Auro as well as all upmixing using DSU.
> A few other interesting things..
> -Stormaudio‘s implementation of DSU does not upmix to the front wides. But with StormXT it now uses the FW channels
> -Recently I switched from FH/TM/TR to TF/TR because I got tired of running into the issue of hard coded 7.1.4/7.1.2 content. It made a very nice improvement. However, I will be going back to a speaker layout of TF/TM/TR, but instead of configuring the TM speakers as TM, they will be 2 VOG where the TM speakers are located. In this scenario, 2 VOG speakers (at the TM location) will always be active in the following scenarios...
> 1-With 7.1.4 hard coded content, StormXD will extract audio from the TM/TR channels and send to the 2 VOG channels
> 2-With 7.1.2 atmos content, it will split the .2 content to the TF/TR channels and then extract audio from the TF/TR and sent to the 2 VOG channels located at the TM location
> 3-Atmos content not hard coded, audio will be extracted from TF/TM and send to the 2 VOG channels at the TM location
> 4-DSU and DTS X Pro will upmix to all the speakers
> 5-DTSX Content via Pro will upmix to all speakers
> 6-Auro will use the 2 VOG speakers and also the CH speaker via StormXD
> It is a really great feature for sure.


Now that sounds like "The Be All To End All " to me. Please report back on some of your experiences with this setup!!


----------



## sdrucker

delete


----------



## robert600

Hi ... new to Atmos and this forum. I've recently picked up an older Atmos capable receiver ... OnkyoTX-NR1030 ... there is a forum for it on this site but it appears to be dead.

Anyway a few questions. I'm running it with 11.2 enabled (using a secondary receiver) so 7.2.4. Set the the heights to front and back. When I plug in the setup mic to the onkyo I get a good tone from all the speakers so ... all that seems good. I'm trying to play movies with Atmos soundtracks. I have 2 ways to do this ... blu rays through a UHD bluray player ... downloaded ripped movies through a PC using either potplayer or Powerdvd. Some of the downloaded movies have the TrueHD but most have the DDP audio format. Ok ... all methods light up the Atmos icon on the Onkyo so that seems good. I'm not overwhelmed with the resulting sound though. This may simply be because I'm expecting too much ... are the overhead portions of movie soundtracks kinda subtle or should they be immediately obvious? Can anyone suggest a movie and perhaps a time in that movie when the overhead speakers should be very obviously playing loud and strong? Or is there a better way to test the working of height speakers with an audio file?

Also ... seperate question ... being older, the Onkyo has no Atmos upmixing capability ... is there any pc software or something like that that would upmix 7.1 audio to an Atmos format? Or is that only possible if upmixing is built into the receiver?


----------



## Rich 63

robert600 said:


> Hi ... new to Atmos and this forum. I've recently picked up an older Atmos capable receiver ... OnkyoTX-NR1030 ... there is a forum for it on this site but it appears to be dead.
> 
> Anyway a few questions. I'm running it with 11.2 enabled (using a secondary receiver) so 7.2.4. Set the the heights to front and back. When I plug in the setup mic to the onkyo I get a good tone from all the speakers so ... all that seems good. I'm trying to play movies with Atmos soundtracks. I have 2 ways to do this ... blu rays through a UHD bluray player ... downloaded ripped movies through a PC using either potplayer or Powerdvd. Some of the downloaded movies have the TrueHD but most have the DDP audio format. Ok ... all methods light up the Atmos icon on the Onkyo so that seems good. I'm not overwhelmed with the resulting sound though. This may simply be because I'm expecting too much ... are the overhead portions of movie soundtracks kinda subtle or should they be immediately obvious? Can anyone suggest a movie and perhaps a time in that movie when the overhead speakers should be very obviously playing loud and strong? Or is there a better way to test the working of height speakers with an audio file?
> 
> Also ... seperate question ... being older, the Onkyo has no Atmos upmixing capability ... is there any pc software or something like that that would upmix 7.1 audio to an Atmos format? Or is that only possible if upmixing is built into the receiver?


I'll assume the setting of front and back is because that is where they're located? If so.,what is the room layout? Have you followed atmos recs as to placement? 
Rich


----------



## Rich 63

I ask because front and back is not as immersive as tops or as i have done mounted the speakers on the wall inline with the best ceiling locations but just outside my fronts.


----------



## halcyon_888

robert600 said:


> Hi ... new to Atmos and this forum. I've recently picked up an older Atmos capable receiver ... OnkyoTX-NR1030 ... there is a forum for it on this site but it appears to be dead.
> 
> Anyway a few questions. I'm running it with 11.2 enabled (using a secondary receiver) so 7.2.4. Set the the heights to front and back. When I plug in the setup mic to the onkyo I get a good tone from all the speakers so ... all that seems good. I'm trying to play movies with Atmos soundtracks. I have 2 ways to do this ... blu rays through a UHD bluray player ... downloaded ripped movies through a PC using either potplayer or Powerdvd. Some of the downloaded movies have the TrueHD but most have the DDP audio format. Ok ... all methods light up the Atmos icon on the Onkyo so that seems good. I'm not overwhelmed with the resulting sound though. This may simply be because I'm expecting too much ... are the overhead portions of movie soundtracks kinda subtle or should they be immediately obvious? Can anyone suggest a movie and perhaps a time in that movie when the overhead speakers should be very obviously playing loud and strong? Or is there a better way to test the working of height speakers with an audio file?
> 
> Also ... seperate question ... being older, the Onkyo has no Atmos upmixing capability ... is there any pc software or something like that that would upmix 7.1 audio to an Atmos format? Or is that only possible if upmixing is built into the receiver?


You can search Google for "dolby atmos demo download" and you'll find some safe, free sites to download Atmos demos from. I'd suggest doing this to demo your height speakers with. Not to say you can't use movies also, but I'd start with the Atmos demos.


----------



## dj7675

sdrucker said:


> Minor nitpick: is it Storm XD or Storm XT? On the Storm AVS group for the ISP MK2, it's been called StormXT. Haven't seen much about it mentioned on AVS other than people looking to try it, and one person "loving it", so this is the first comment I've seen that gets into detail. And what you're saying makes sense given what it's supposed to be doing, as a "post processing" of whatever is done by the existing up mixers and the 3D audio codecs.


Yes, it is in fact StormXT, thanks for the correction for the typo.


----------



## dj7675

I originally incorrectly assumed that StormXT would fix a fixed 7.1.4 (a la some disney) on a 7.1.6 ( TF/TM/TR)layout. But it doesn’t because top middle is part of the atmos layout and will remain silent like other processors. It is just if you deliberately use VOG (or 2 VOG) speaker(s) instead of designating them as TM that StormXT fills in the gap.


----------



## robert600

Rich 63 said:


> I'll assume the setting of front and back is because that is where they're located? If so.,what is the room layout? Have you followed atmos recs as to placement?
> Rich


Thanksfor thequick reply.

Sorry I may not have explained very well. In the 'speaker layout' settings of the Onkyo, both Height 1 and Height 2 allow you to pick from 'none, front, middle, back'. For Height1, I picked 'front'; for Height 2 (this I use the preout to the the 2ndary receiver), I picked back.

As far as the height speaker placement in the room; I'm not actually sure what the atmos recs are. I'll do my best to explain where they are but what's simple to see is sometimes hard to explain. They are ceiiling mounted. My seating area is a 2 seat lazy boy type couch. Ok ... from head height of this couch the angle to Height 1 is about 35 degrees toward the screen. Angle from couch to H2 is similar maybe 40 degrees but to the back of the room. In terms of left and right (as you face the screen) both pairs are just outside the armrests of the couch. Does that make sense?


----------



## robert600

halcyon_888 said:


> You can search Google for "dolby atmos demo download" and you'll find some safe, free sites to download Atmos demos from. I'd suggest doing this to demo your height speakers with. Not to say you can't use movies also, but I'd start with the Atmos demos.


Ok thanks for this. Is there any demo in particular that really pushes the height speakers. I'm almost wondering if I disconnected all but the height speakers ... then any thing I heard would obviously be from the heights ... but could that damage my receiver?


----------



## chi_guy50

robert600 said:


> Thanksfor thequick reply.
> 
> Sorry I may not have explained very well. In the 'speaker layout' settings of the Onkyo, both Height 1 and Height 2 allow you to pick from 'none, front, middle, back'. For Height1, I picked 'front'; for Height 2 (this I use the preout to the the 2ndary receiver), I picked back.
> 
> As far as the height speaker placement in the room; I'm not actually sure what the atmos recs are. I'll do my best to explain where they are but what's simple to see is sometimes hard to explain. They are ceiiling mounted. My seating area is a 2 seat lazy boy type couch. Ok ... from head height of this couch the angle to Height 1 is about 35 degrees toward the screen. Angle from couch to H2 is similar maybe 40 degrees but to the back of the room. In terms of left and right (as you face the screen) both pairs are just outside the armrests of the couch. Does that make sense?


Your positioning of the overhead speakers seems to be pretty much spot on. See the below illustration of the range of recommended elevation angles:


----------



## X4100

robert600 said:


> Thanksfor thequick reply.
> 
> Sorry I may not have explained very well. In the 'speaker layout' settings of the Onkyo, both Height 1 and Height 2 allow you to pick from 'none, front, middle, back'. For Height1, I picked 'front'; for Height 2 (this I use the preout to the the 2ndary receiver), I picked back.
> 
> As far as the height speaker placement in the room; I'm not actually sure what the atmos recs are. I'll do my best to explain where they are but what's simple to see is sometimes hard to explain. They are ceiiling mounted. My seating area is a 2 seat lazy boy type couch. Ok ... from head height of this couch the angle to Height 1 is about 35 degrees toward the screen. Angle from couch to H2 is similar maybe 40 degrees but to the back of the room. In terms of left and right (as you face the screen) both pairs are just outside the armrests of the couch. Does that make sense?


You have it!! Now sit back and enjoy. Dolby Amaze is a good one. A great one for the height speakers is Audiosphere


----------



## halcyon_888

robert600 said:


> Ok thanks for this. Is there any demo in particular that really pushes the height speakers. I'm almost wondering if I disconnected all but the height speakers ... then any thing I heard would obviously be from the heights ... but could that damage my receiver?


Here are the ones I downloaded and kept:

Dolby Atmos Helicopter - This one has a helicopter that is only in the height channels. If you have 4 height channels is circles over your head. With 2 height channels it goes left to right over your head.
Amaze
Natures Fury
Unfold
Leaf
Silent
Universe
Shattered

There was a debate a few pages back about the usefulness of disconnecting all speakers but the heights, basically if doing that is useful or not. I won't go into that again but what I will say that you won't damage your receiver if decided to try it.

The Atmos demos should give you an idea of what good Atmos can sound like so perhaps start there without disconnecting anything. The helicopter demo will play in the heights only. (And as I recall, this one was a bit harder to find than others. EDIT: I found it again, search this page for "helicopter" Samples - Official Kodi Wiki )


----------



## robert600

chi_guy50 said:


> Your positioning of the overhead speakers seems to be pretty much spot on. See the below illustration of the range of recommended elevation angles:


Thanks so much for this .... when I gave my angles, I was assuming straight up was 0 degrees. They seem to do it with dead horizontal from seat to screen being 0 degrees. Converting my way to their coordinate system, I have about 55 degrees to H1 and 130 degrees to H2. That's pretty good! Left and right look perfect!

Looking at the 1st diagram ... my rear surrounds are well 'behind' (maybe 4') my rear Heights ... they have theirs in front of the rear Heights. That's not likely to be a problem is it? I'm pretty happy with the sound when they're way back there ... at least with dts 7.1. I'm new to atmos though so this may change. Apart from that (and my sub is on the right not the left), it's a near perfect representation of my speaker layout. I'm encouraged by this.


----------



## robert600

halcyon_888 said:


> The Atmos demos should give you an idea of what good Atmos can sound like so perhaps start there without disconnecting anything. The helicopter demo will play in the heights only. (And as I recall, this one was a bit harder to find than others. EDIT: I found it again, search this page for "helicopter" Samples - Official Kodi Wiki )


Thanks. I found the helicopter trailer but when I tried to download it, it seemed to want me to log into somthing or other and wanted passord etc? I got nervous and left lol. I'll try to fing it elsewhwere ...seems to be exactly the sample I need.


----------



## MagnumX

@robert600 - Just watch Monster Hunter in Atmos. If you don't practically crap your pants when all hell breaks loose in the first 20 minutes, something is wrong with your system.


----------



## robert600

robert600 said:


> Thanks. I found the helicopter trailer but when I tried to download it, it seemed to want me to log into somthing or other and wanted passord etc? I got nervous and left lol. I'll try to fing it elsewhwere ...seems to be exactly the sample I need.


Ok this a little weird but I went back to that site and this time it let me download ... just warned me the file was too big to virus scan. Anyway, I got it ... dropped it into both potplayer and Powerdvd and .... ABSOLUTELY AWESOME ... definitley getting atmos on both front and rear heights ... very, very nice circling effect. My front H seems a little weaker than the other 3 but I'm assuming a little calibration work will fix that up just fine. I think the problem I was having is that the movies I tried to watch had only very subtle atmos height tracks. I've just recently been told that Mad Max: Fury Road has dramatic unmistakable height effects. As luck would have it, my neighbors son has this blu ray and will bring it over in an hour or so. He also has Ready Player One which also apparently has good height effects. I'll post about this after I watch.

Again ... thanks so much ... that sample definitely tests the height channels and very happy that my system passed the test!


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> @robert600 - Just watch Monster Hunter in Atmos. If you don't practically crap your pants when all hell breaks loose in the first 20 minutes, something is wrong with your system.


Ok ... I'll look for that. I'm assuming the normal blu ray has the atmos track or is it just the ultra blu ray (annoying how some only put atmos on the UHD disc)?


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Ok this a little weird but I went back to that site and this time it let me download ... just warned me the file was too big to virus scan. Anyway, I got it ... dropped it into both potplayer and Powerdvd and .... ABSOLUTELY AWESOME ... definitley getting atmos on both front and rear heights ... very, very nice circling effect. My front H seems a little weaker than the other 3 but I'm assuming a little calibration work will fix that up just fine. I think the problem I was having is that the movies I tried to watch had only very subtle atmos height tracks. I've just recently been told that Mad Max: Fury Road has dramatic unmistakable height effects. As luck would have it, my neighbors son has this blu ray and will bring it over in an hour or so. He also has Ready Player One which also apparently has good height effects. I'll post about this after I watch.
> 
> Again ... thanks so much ... that sample definitely tests the height channels and very happy that my system passed the test!


Mad Max has all of 12 minutes of overhead often drowned out by ear level effects like roaring engines. Many love it, but it wouldn't be my first choice to test overheads. Fury, Harry Potter (any of them in DTS:X), Monster Hunter, The Meg, Overlord, original Jumanji and many others are great to try.

Monster Hunter is only Atmos on UHD or streaming AFAIK as it's Sony.


----------



## X4100

After Monster Hunter, if you can take another movie, you just have to watch The MEG


----------



## chi_guy50

robert600 said:


> Thanks so much for this .... when I gave my angles, I was assuming straight up was 0 degrees. They seem to do it with dead horizontal from seat to screen being 0 degrees. Converting my way to their coordinate system, I have about 55 degrees to H1 and 130 degrees to H2. That's pretty good! Left and right look perfect!
> 
> Looking at the 1st diagram ... my rear surrounds are well 'behind' (maybe 4') my rear Heights ... they have theirs in front of the rear Heights. That's not likely to be a problem is it? I'm pretty happy with the sound when they're way back there ... at least with dts 7.1. I'm new to atmos though so this may change. Apart from that (and my sub is on the right not the left), it's a near perfect representation of my speaker layout. I'm encouraged by this.


It's all about the angles to the MLP, really. That plus separation (vertical and horizontal) between the respective speakers (front and back) in the two planes. If your setup respects those two elements, i think you're well positioned for a good immersive result.


----------



## GlocksRock

robert600 said:


> very, very nice circling effect. My front H seems a little weaker than the other 3 but I'm assuming a little calibration work will fix that up just fine.


I noticed the same thing with this demo, the front height atmos speakers sounded quieter than the rear height, and my speakers are properly level matched using a SPL meter. I was wondering if it was just me, but apparently it's not.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Rich 63 said:


> I alway wondered that magnum. I never bothered to check if it's different but it makes perfect sense. Where else would the height info go. Until your involving more then one set of speakers it shouldnot matter what designation is choosen. Have you confirmed this though? Height info is height info and is never sent to base layer unless you not atmos enabled?


The position of the speakers certainly matter for the immersive effects.


----------



## MagnumX

GlocksRock said:


> I noticed the same thing with this demo, the front height atmos speakers sounded quieter than the rear height, and my speakers are properly level matched using a SPL meter. I was wondering if it was just me, but apparently it's not.


If you have something like Dynamic EQ turned on with D&M receivers, that cranks the output of the rear heights/tops up big time compared to the front height/tops. I stopped using it partially for that reason.


----------



## petetherock

X4100 said:


> After Monster Hunter, if you can take another movie, you just have to watch The MEG


MEG is good, Hunter Killer is another remarkable soundtrack.
Free Guy and Venom II is pretty impressive too.


----------



## Snorefingers

I currently have a set of Polk Signature Series speakers with a pair of Dali Alteco C-1 speakers for Atmos height effects. I'm considering mounting the height speakers on the walls instead of having them upfiring as they are now. Since the Dali speakers are black and I would rather have white speakers on the wall, I was thinking of using a pair of Polk ES15 speakers for the height effects. I'm curious if all my speakers being from the same series would have a sound benefit as well or if the height effects are always so subtle that it wouldn't really make a difference and if something like the ES15 would be overkill for the height effect speakers.

These:








Instead of these:


----------



## GlocksRock

MagnumX said:


> If you have something like Dynamic EQ turned on with D&M receivers, that cranks the output of the rear heights/tops up big time compared to the front height/tops. I stopped using it partially for that reason.


I do have dynamic eq turned on in my X4300, what other reasons made you stop using it? I've never heard that before that it would make the rear heights louder than the fronts, why would they do that?


----------



## X4100

That's the way dynamic EQ works, something about it raises the level of the surround speakers and the rear height level along with the bass in those speakers. You can Google it for the technical answer, in fact I think it's in our manual. I have the x4100, and I turned mine off for the same reason, unless I'm playing much lower than reference level.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

GlocksRock said:


> I do have dynamic eq turned on in my X4300, what other reasons made you stop using it? I've never heard that before that it would make the rear heights louder than the fronts, why would they do that?


The claim is basically that DEQ addresses the way hear at lower volumes. Below certain volume levels we are less sensitive to bass, and sound behind us. I also never use DEQ for the same reasons above. It’s annoying. I also have a minidsp with a custom house curve. 
You can play with the reference level offsets. These will change how aggressively DEQ is.


----------



## X4100

Here's the Thread on this site where you can get more information on dynamic eq:
*Set Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ to ON or OFF ?*


----------



## robert600

petetherock said:


> MEG is good, Hunter Killer is another remarkable soundtrack.
> Free Guy and Venom II is pretty impressive too.


Ok ... thanks for that. I have to be a little carefull that the Atmos track is on standard blu ray (some companies only put Atmos on UltraHD discs). Where I live, there is a very good blu ray rental shop still in business ... he absolutely refuses to carry UltraHD discs though (I think he feels that they're too fragile for rental purposes) so my access to Ultra is very limited.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> Mad Max has all of 12 minutes of overhead often drowned out by ear level effects like roaring engines. Many love it, but it wouldn't be my first choice to test overheads. Fury, Harry Potter (any of them in DTS:X), Monster Hunter, The Meg, Overlord, original Jumanji and many others are great to try.
> 
> Monster Hunter is only Atmos on UHD or streaming AFAIK as it's Sony.


Reading the specs of this Onkyo ... I don't believe it can decode DTS:X ... I think I have to stick to Atmos. Presumably because of it's age ... kinda a drag! On the other hand, if it did decode DTS:X and had Atmos upmixing ... the going price of these old 2nd hand receivers would probably be beyond my means. At least it's getting me into Atmos for a few hundred. And, it does have 11.4 preouts. So ... good news ... bad news situation. My car is like that too ... a few dings on the one side ... annoying that they are there but ... if they weren't ... I wouldn't have been able to afford to buy it!


----------



## robert600

Looking through my blu ray collection ... it looks like "Last Witch Hunter" has DTS:X. I'll try it but I think it will be downgraded to DTS Master or something like that.


----------



## robert600

Ok ... tried Fury Road last night. There's a few spots in the movie where it leaves NO DOUBT whatsoever that the heights are working properly. It has discrete sound coming from all over the place ... remarkable really. It also answers my question about my rear surrounds being well behind my rear Heights ... they sound great back there ... I might lower them a bit ... I had them about a foot and 1/2 above ear level for my pre-atmos 7.1 receiver but now with the Atmos, I'll try them at ear level.

Thanks so much for all the help everyone!

Oh ...and for anyone shadowing this thread ... one thing I've learned about blu rays and atmos ... your player is not necessarily going to use the atmos track as the default sound track ... sometimes you have to go into the menu and select it ... if your lucky ... your receiver will have an atmos icon that lights up when it receives an atmos sound track ... then you know you're good!


----------



## dj7675

GlocksRock said:


> I do have dynamic eq turned on in my X4300, what other reasons made you stop using it? I've never heard that before that it would make the rear heights louder than the fronts, why would they do that?


DEQ is 2 things: Loudness Compensation and also surround level compensation. Unfortunately, Denon/Marantz have never separated them. As others have noted, many do not like boosting surround levels. DEQ loudness compensation on the other hand does work really well. But as noted some turn it off because of the boosting of surround levels.


----------



## dj7675

GlocksRock said:


> I do have dynamic eq turned on in my X4300, what other reasons made you stop using it? I've never heard that before that it would make the rear heights louder than the fronts, why would they do that?


DEQ is 2 things: Loudness Compensation and also surround level compensation. Unfortunately, Denon/Marantz have never separated them. As others have noted, many do not like boosting surround levels. DEQ loudness compensation on the other hand does work really well. But as noted some turn it off because of the boosting of surround levels.


----------



## MagnumX

GlocksRock said:


> I do have dynamic eq turned on in my X4300, what other reasons made you stop using it? I've never heard that before that it would make the rear heights louder than the fronts, why would they do that?


Others have stated the reasons they do that. I wouldn't mind an option for volume compensation, but I don't want it changing relative levels. I don't necessarily buy the idea we can't hear sounds behind us as well (It really screws with the side surround and rear height levels in particular; oddly I don't recall it changing the rear surround levels as much). With the "Scatmos" Top Middle processing, changing the levels affects the discreteness of the Top Middle output. The bass results can be somewhat unpredictable as well if you already crank the subwoofer up beyond flat. Some albums are louder than others and I'm not sure if it's using album levels or relative levels to the "reference" level set by Audyssey in those cases. I prefer to just know everything is "flat" and if I want to adjust bass from there, I have the option to do so from the on-screen options and/or (on my 7010 and 7012), the separate subwoofer override controls which you can set to a 2nd favorite and just turn on/off (they removed it in later versions as people were confused what it was for; I love having a 2nd preset personally without having to use up a "Smart" setting).



robert600 said:


> Ok ... thanks for that. I have to be a little carefull that the Atmos track is on standard blu ray (some companies only put Atmos on UltraHD discs). Where I live, there is a very good blu ray rental shop still in business ... he absolutely refuses to carry UltraHD discs though (I think he feels that they're too fragile for rental purposes) so my access to Ultra is very limited.


Too fragile? Blu-Rays (both regular and UHD) are almost impossible to scratch by normal accidental means and likewise are much harder to remove scratches from as well. I have a polishing method where I can fix scratched DVDs. It doesn't work on Blu-Rays as they're _much_ harder material. I don't see how they're anymore fragile other than being denser. 

In any case, if you rent movies over iTunes, you can get Atmos sound even with standard HD video output (My projector is still 1080p/3D only so I use a scaler box that makes the media playback boxes think I have 4K and that fools all the other services like Vudu into thinking I have 4K and they send Atmos as well). Personally, I'd rather watch a streaming Atmos movie than not have Atmos at all (i.e. sound is more important to me than video unlike most people that are obsessed with HDR, etc.)


----------



## bluesky636

dj7675 said:


> DEQ is 2 things: Loudness Compensation and also surround level compensation. Unfortunately, Denon/Marantz have never separated them. As others have noted, many do not like boosting surround levels. DEQ loudness compensation on the other hand does work really well. But as noted some turn it off because of the boosting of surround levels.


Ya know, it is possible to turn down the surround channels by 2 or 3 dB and turn up the height channels by the same amount and still enjoy the benefits of DEQ. For the record, I have never found it necessary to turn my surrounds down and I use DEQ all the time.


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> Here's the Thread on this site where you can get more information on dynamic eq:
> *Set Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ to ON or OFF ?*


An actual link would be helpful.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Mad Max has all of 12 minutes of overhead often drowned out by ear level effects like roaring engines. Many love it, but it wouldn't be my first choice to test overheads. Fury, Harry Potter (any of them in DTS:X), Monster Hunter, The Meg, Overlord, original Jumanji and many others are great to try.


I think the reason many people keep citing Fury Road is that the movie opens right off the bat with a very clear and impressive use of Atmos when Max hears the voices in his head echoing all around him.

After that, you are correct that actual height channel usage is very limited. However, the ground level channels are so loud and assaultive that they drown out everything and make it difficult to tell where any particular sound is coming from. So people just assume that the height channels must be working too.

I'm slowly working my way through Harry Potter with my kids (reading the books, then watching the relevant movie when each is finished). We watched Sorcerer's Stone on Blu-ray, and the video quality looked so terrible I immediately ordered the UHD set to upgrade. I don't recall the audio being anything noteworthy on the BD either. 

Watched Chamber of Secrets next. Big improvement in video, and as you note the DTS:X track is super immersive from start to finish.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> Ya know, it is possible to turn down the surround channels by 2 or 3 dB and turn up the height channels by the same amount and still enjoy the benefits of DEQ. For the record, I have never found it necessary to turn my surrounds down and I use DEQ all the time.


The problem is that placement of any sound between the two layers kinda' depends on the levels being matched or it inherently shifts the image toward the higher-level speaker. So yeah, you can turn down your surrounds to compensate for DEQ turning them up... but DEQ also boosts the rear heights/top rear as well. Is this based on any Atmos-specific research? NOPE. The research that resulted in DEQ took place before immersive audio, so mixers weren't asked what changes they would make at lower volumes in an Atmos setup. 

Whereas you can turn DEQ off, leave everything level matched and then just bump up the sub level to suit your usual listening level and not have to fight with it much. But I think if they separated the two functions of DEQ, a lot of people would keep using the loudness part without the surround presence part.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The problem is that placement of any sound between the two layers kinda' depends on the levels being matched or it inherently shifts the image toward the higher-level speaker. So yeah, you can turn down your surrounds to compensate for DEQ turning them up... but DEQ also boosts the rear heights/top rear as well. Is this based on any Atmos-specific research? NOPE. The research that resulted in DEQ took place before immersive audio, so mixers weren't asked what changes they would make at lower volumes in an Atmos setup.
> 
> Whereas you can turn DEQ off, leave everything level matched and then just bump up the sub level to suit your usual listening level and not have to fight with it much. But I think if they separated the two functions of DEQ, a lot of people would keep using the loudness part without the surround presence part.


Are you claiming that rear heights/top rear don't have a manual trim control? I have seen many posts hear that talk about changing the trim level for height channels. 

Turning DEQ off seems like the lazy way out to me.


----------



## X4100

Just like wanting a link, that you only have to click the cursor on. Lol


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

bluesky636 said:


> Are you claiming that rear heights/top rear don't have a manual trim control? I have seen many posts hear that talk about changing the trim level for height channels.
> 
> Turning DEQ off seems like the lazy way out to me.


No, I'm not claiming that they don't have a trim control. What I'm saying is that given the way DEQ changes the trims behind the scenes for each given step down of the master volume from 0, it would be harder to account for those changes with DEQ enabled such that the speakers are all level-matched than it would be to do a coarse sub level trim that would apply across the board with DEQ disabled. Or even just implement a house curve in the Audyssey app. 

You can definitely manually trim those channels if you want... but if a particular movie is encoded at a different level, you're then going to have to recalculate your trims to get the channel levels to match as the master volume changes. You could certainly put together a table of what trims are necessary to counter DEQ's surround level boosts at each given master volume setting... but that seems like an awful lot of work compared to changing just the subwoofer trim as needed.

Or Audyssey could just separate those two functions of DEQ so we could use one and not the other, which is kinda' the point.


----------



## tbaucom

robert600 said:


> Reading the specs of this Onkyo ... I don't believe it can decode DTS:X ... I think I have to stick to Atmos. Presumably because of it's age ... kinda a drag! On the other hand, if it did decode DTS:X and had Atmos upmixing ... the going price of these old 2nd hand receivers would probably be beyond my means. At least it's getting me into Atmos for a few hundred. And, it does have 11.4 preouts. So ... good news ... bad news situation. My car is like that too ... a few dings on the one side ... annoying that they are there but ... if they weren't ... I wouldn't have been able to afford to buy it!


Are you sure your Onkyo doesn’t have Dolby Surround? I am not aware of anything ever released that had Atmos decoding but not the upmixer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chi_guy50

robert600 said:


> Ok ... tried Fury Road last night. There's a few spots in the movie where it leaves NO DOUBT whatsoever that the heights are working properly. It has discrete sound coming from all over the place ... remarkable really. It also answers my question about my rear surrounds being well behind my rear Heights ... they sound great back there ... I might lower them a bit ... I had them about a foot and 1/2 above ear level for my pre-atmos 7.1 receiver but now with the Atmos, I'll try them at ear level.


If you do lower those SB speakers, try to keep them above your head or seat back, whichever is higher, so that you can maintain line of sight to the calibration mic.

And always rerun (AccuEQ) room calibration after making any changes to your speaker setup.


----------



## mrtickleuk

tbaucom said:


> Are you sure your Onkyo doesn’t have Dolby Surround? I am not aware of anything ever released that had Atmos decoding but not the upmixer.


He's saying it does have Atmos and DSU, but may not have DTS:X and Neural:X .


----------



## GlocksRock

dj7675 said:


> DEQ is 2 things: Loudness Compensation and also surround level compensation. Unfortunately, Denon/Marantz have never separated them. As others have noted, many do not like boosting surround levels. DEQ loudness compensation on the other hand does work really well. But as noted some turn it off because of the boosting of surround levels.


I turned of DEQ and bumped up my sub level a few db and it sounds better. I definitely like the loudness compensation that DEQ gives, but am not a fan of what it does to the boosting of surrounds.


----------



## tbaucom

mrtickleuk said:


> He's saying it does have Atmos and DSU, but may not have DTS:X and Neural:X .


Maybe what he meant but not what he said. Read what I quoted. I want to make sure he is aware he does have the Dolby upmixer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tbaucom

robert600 said:


> Hi ... new to Atmos and this forum. I've recently picked up an older Atmos capable receiver ... OnkyoTX-NR1030 ... there is a forum for it on this site but it appears to be dead.
> 
> Anyway a few questions. I'm running it with 11.2 enabled (using a secondary receiver) so 7.2.4. Set the the heights to front and back. When I plug in the setup mic to the onkyo I get a good tone from all the speakers so ... all that seems good. I'm trying to play movies with Atmos soundtracks. I have 2 ways to do this ... blu rays through a UHD bluray player ... downloaded ripped movies through a PC using either potplayer or Powerdvd. Some of the downloaded movies have the TrueHD but most have the DDP audio format. Ok ... all methods light up the Atmos icon on the Onkyo so that seems good. I'm not overwhelmed with the resulting sound though. This may simply be because I'm expecting too much ... are the overhead portions of movie soundtracks kinda subtle or should they be immediately obvious? Can anyone suggest a movie and perhaps a time in that movie when the overhead speakers should be very obviously playing loud and strong? Or is there a better way to test the working of height speakers with an audio file?
> 
> Also ... seperate question ... being older, the Onkyo has no Atmos upmixing capability ... is there any pc software or something like that that would upmix 7.1 audio to an Atmos format? Or is that only possible if upmixing is built into the receiver?


Just in case you are unaware , your 1030 should have Dolly Surround. That is Dolby upmixer for Atmos configs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## titan ii

From the 1030 description....

*DTS Neo:X 11.1-Channel Upmixing*
DTS Neo:X employs unique algorithms to upmix stereo or 5.1-channel soundtracks for playback through up to eleven channels. Selectable listening modes optimize frequency response for music, movies, and games with intelligent multiplexing technology, allowing you to enjoy balanced and immersive surround sound from regular stereo sources.


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> Just like wanting a link, that you only have to click the cursor on. Lol


Most people when they reference a specific thread post a link to that thread. It's called courtesy.


----------



## robert600

tbaucom said:


> Just in case you are unaware , your 1030 should have Dolly Surround. That is Dolby upmixer for Atmos configs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yes, in fact I am/was unaware. As mentioned ... I'm new to atmos. I'm not sure about Dolby Surround but I thought atmos upmixing was something different. So if what you're saying is correct ... that would be a game changer! Very interesting.

Here's what made me think it couldn't atmos upmix if you have a minute to check it out:









Onkyo TX-NR1030 Review and Specs


Read our detailed analysis and evaluation of Onkyo TX-NR1030, find out its strengths and weaknesses, and how it compares to its predecessor and successor.




www.zkelectronics.com





If you scrool down a bit to the "Pros and Cons" it says under the "Cons" ... no Dolby Surround Upmixer. Of course just cause a website says that ... doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I sure hope you're right!

I believe in the setting menu of the Onkyo I have seen Dolby Surround though ... maybe? Can't quite remember ... maybe it was on the little faceplate screen that lights up on the front of the Receiver - can't quite remember


----------



## X4100

@titan ii don't worry about it, sometimes I can't find a link. I guess @bluesky636 will be looking at your post as well . Meanwhile back to Important things about Atmos


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Ya know, it is possible to turn down the surround channels by 2 or 3 dB and turn up the height channels by the same amount and still enjoy the benefits of DEQ. For the record, I have never found it necessary to turn my surrounds down and I use DEQ all the time.


That is what I used to do, but it only works perfectly for one volume setting. The amount of bass and surround levels change with the master volume control (less effect added as you approach reference volume levels). Since I use "Scatmos" Top Middle extraction, any slight change to volume trim levels _before_ the Pro Logic processors (after is OK) causes leakage into the front/rear height channels instead of discrete output in Top Middle so it's undesirable for Dynamic EQ to alter those levels. I don't like it screwing with my side surround levels either. Once changed, turning Audyssey off changed the overall levels again. It's just not worth the hassle to override. It'd be nice if it could be set to affect bass levels only.


----------



## tbaucom

robert600 said:


> Yes, in fact I am/was unaware. As mentioned ... I'm new to atmos. I'm not sure about Dolby Surround but I thought atmos upmixing was something different. So if what you're saying is correct ... that would be a game changer! Very interesting.
> 
> Here's what made me think it couldn't atmos upmix if you have a minute to check it out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onkyo TX-NR1030 Review and Specs
> 
> 
> Read our detailed analysis and evaluation of Onkyo TX-NR1030, find out its strengths and weaknesses, and how it compares to its predecessor and successor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zkelectronics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you scrool down a bit to the "Pros and Cons" it says under the "Cons" ... no Dolby Surround Upmixer. Of course just cause a website says that ... doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I sure hope you're right!
> 
> I believe in the setting menu of the Onkyo I have seen Dolby Surround though ... maybe? Can't quite remember ... maybe it was on the little faceplate screen that lights up on the front of the Receiver - can't quite remember


According to onkyo, it has Dolby Surround.



TX-NR1030


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> I'm slowly working my way through Harry Potter with my kids (reading the books, then watching the relevant movie when each is finished). We watched Sorcerer's Stone on Blu-ray, and the video quality looked so terrible I immediately ordered the UHD set to upgrade. I don't recall the audio being anything noteworthy on the BD either.
> 
> Watched Chamber of Secrets next. Big improvement in video, and as you note the DTS:X track is super immersive from start to finish.


The soundtrack is completely changed on some scenes with DTS:X. It's almost like they started over again with X. The flying car effects are totally different from the old 5.1 soundtrack. That's really how it should be done to get a true immersive soundtrack, IMO. And yes, the UHD version of The Sorcerer's Stone is a massive improvement in X as well. They all are. I think they may be my favorite immersive movies overall out of everything. I never seem to get tired of watching them either. I remuxed the 3D versions for DTS:X sound as well. 

Your description of Mad Max is exactly what I hear. It's totally active for surround use, but other than a few bits along the way, it is not high on my overhead demonstration disc list. I prefer to show discrete unmistakable scenes. Some Atmos music is actually the best for showing off full Atmos capabilities (e.g.Yello's album _Point_ uses everything you've got up to the full 34 speakers and uses it constantly).


----------



## X4100

DTSX is not the same as DTS NEO X, neo x came before DTS:X. I think it also replaced neo 6. It has the option of either top height or front wide, I think I might revisit it next week


----------



## sdurani

X4100 said:


> DTSX is not the same as DTS NEO X, neo x came before DTS:X.


Neo:X was an upmixer that got replaced by Neural:X.


----------



## robert600

chi_guy50 said:


> If you do lower those SB speakers, try to keep them above your head or seat back, whichever is higher, so that you can maintain line of sight to the calibration mic.
> 
> And always rerun (AccuEQ) room calibration after making any changes to your speaker setup.


Yes ... well said ... that line of sight thing jogged my memory as to why I elevated them a bit for the 7.1 set-up. Maybe I should just leave them be. I was thinking lowering them would provide better spatial separation between them and Height Rears but if it reduces their hearability (or whatever it's properly called?) then I'd be kinda shooting myself in the foot. Sometimes I get so focused on the trees ... I can't see the forest lol. Thanks.


----------



## robert600

tbaucom said:


> According to onkyo, it has Dolby Surround.
> 
> 
> 
> TX-NR1030


Wow man ... that is awesome! Onkyo ought to know... right? Not sure why that zk website says what it does. Thanks so much for pointing this out to me! In terms of using it, I just feed the onkyo some 5.1 or 7.1 audio and it expands it from there ... or do I have to enable something? I think a lot of my downloaded movies have 7.1 AAC audio. Media info gives this kind of report:

Audio #1
ID : 2
Format : AAC LC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
Codec ID : A_AAC-2
Duration : 2 h 12 min
Bit rate : 549 kb/s
Channel(s) : 8 channels
Channel layout : C L R Ls Rs Lb Rb LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 46.875 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossy
Delay relative to video : 20 ms
Stream size : 520 MiB (10%)
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> That is what I used to do, but it only works perfectly for one volume setting. The amount of bass and surround levels change with the master volume control (less effect added as you approach reference volume levels). Since I use "Scatmos" Top Middle extraction, any slight change to volume trim levels _before_ the Pro Logic processors (after is OK) causes leakage into the front/rear height channels instead of discrete output in Top Middle so it's undesirable for Dynamic EQ to alter those levels. I don't like it screwing with my side surround levels either. Once changed, turning Audyssey off changed the overall levels again. It's just not worth the hassle to override. It'd be nice if it could be set to affect bass levels only.


Atmos seems to get more and more complicated with each post I read. I don't know if it is Atmos itself or users trying for "perfection".


----------



## GlocksRock

disregard


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Atmos seems to get more and more complicated with each post I read. I don't know if it is Atmos itself or users trying for "perfection".


Dynamic EQ and Audyssey for that matter has nothing specific to do with Atmos.


----------



## Snorefingers

Snorefingers said:


> I currently have a set of Polk Signature Series speakers with a pair of Dali Alteco C-1 speakers for Atmos height effects. I'm considering mounting the height speakers on the walls instead of having them upfiring as they are now. Since the Dali speakers are black and I would rather have white speakers on the wall, I was thinking of using a pair of Polk ES15 speakers for the height effects. I'm curious if all my speakers being from the same series would have a sound benefit as well or if the height effects are always so subtle that it wouldn't really make a difference and if something like the ES15 would be overkill for the height effect speakers.
> 
> These:
> View attachment 3221065
> 
> Instead of these:
> View attachment 3221066


I notice now the mounting hole on the back of the Polk is in a somewhat awkward position, is it okay to just screw the mounting bracket into the wood of the speaker or would that negatively affect the acoustics?


----------



## titan ii

Snorefingers said:


> I notice now the mounting hole on the back of the Polk is in a somewhat awkward position, is it okay to just screw the mounting bracket into the wood of the speaker or would that negatively affect the acoustics?


Screw it on. It will be fine.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Dynamic EQ and Audyssey for that matter has nothing specific to do with Atmos.


Then why is there so much discussion/complaints about them in this thread?


----------



## X4100

Not complaints, just a discussion my friend. We like to share with others what adjustment might improve on our setup. For example if I listen at reference I have no problem with dynamic eq, but if I'm not and I use it because of the sound affecting my landlady, I'll lower my volume and use dynamic eq. The problem is when I forget it's on, and the rear height speakers overshadow my front left/right height, that's when I have to make an adjustment, I have been running with dynamic eq disabled, and everything is beautiful!


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> Others have stated the reasons they do that. I wouldn't mind an option for volume compensation, but I don't want it changing relative levels. I don't necessarily buy the idea we can't hear sounds behind us as well (It really screws with the side surround and rear height levels in particular; oddly I don't recall it changing the rear surround levels as much). With the "Scatmos" Top Middle processing, changing the levels affects the discreteness of the Top Middle output. The bass results can be somewhat unpredictable as well if you already crank the subwoofer up beyond flat. Some albums are louder than others and I'm not sure if it's using album levels or relative levels to the "reference" level set by Audyssey in those cases. I prefer to just know everything is "flat" and if I want to adjust bass from there, I have the option to do so from the on-screen options and/or (on my 7010 and 7012), the separate subwoofer override controls which you can set to a 2nd favorite and just turn on/off (they removed it in later versions as people were confused what it was for; I love having a 2nd preset personally without having to use up a "Smart" setting).
> 
> 
> 
> Too fragile? Blu-Rays (both regular and UHD) are almost impossible to scratch by normal accidental means and likewise are much harder to remove scratches from as well. I have a polishing method where I can fix scratched DVDs. It doesn't work on Blu-Rays as they're _much_ harder material. I don't see how they're anymore fragile other than being denser.
> 
> In any case, if you rent movies over iTunes, you can get Atmos sound even with standard HD video output (My projector is still 1080p/3D only so I use a scaler box that makes the media playback boxes think I have 4K and that fools all the other services like Vudu into thinking I have 4K and they send Atmos as well). Personally, I'd rather watch a streaming Atmos movie than not have Atmos at all (i.e. sound is more important to me than video unlike most people that are obsessed with HDR, etc.)


Regarding fragility ... I know right! ... those were his words not mine. He's a nice guy and all ... but he does have some odd ideas. Here's something I didn't know that you may or not find interesting. When I was making the case for UHD rental discs, I pointed out that UHD disks typically come with the normal blu ray for not that much more than a blu ray disc like he rents. So he'd be getting 2 discs to rent out. He laughed and said that he's not allowed to rent off-the-shelf blu rays, he's only allowed to rent ... special ... made for renting ... type blu rays which I guess cost him a fortune. He may be ****ting me but ... it's just weird enough to maybe be true! I'm in Canada ... our government has a way of making things difficult!

Speaking of Canada ... I'm kinda in the back woods so ... my internet speed is not good at all. My wife does use netflix, but I can tell from the picture ... the video quality is very low ... not even 1080p.This makes me think that getting any kind of atmos stream from any service would be impossible for me. I'm not up on speeds and things but I do know a typical movie download (8 Gb or so) will take over 3 hours even when it's very well seeded. Hopefully this will change ... right now there is only 1 provider and I have their best package but alas ...

BTW ... couldn't agree more about the relative importance of audio/video quality. I have friends with seriously expensive tvs and they use the tv speakers for audio ...what????


----------



## robert600

Snorefingers said:


> I notice now the mounting hole on the back of the Polk is in a somewhat awkward position, is it okay to just screw the mounting bracket into the wood of the speaker or would that negatively affect the acoustics?


Yes, I've done that to a lot of my speakers ... since I like LOUD ... I put a little rubber (think cut inner tube) between the bracket and the wood but that's probably not at all necessary. A little wood glue on the threads helps keep them tight too.


----------



## bluesky636

Snorefingers said:


> I notice now the mounting hole on the back of the Polk is in a somewhat awkward position, is it okay to just screw the mounting bracket into the wood of the speaker or would that negatively affect the acoustics?


This is the back of the ES15 Polk speakers you said you were interested in. What is so awkward about the keyhole slot location?










You do realize that the plastic (?) panel is part of the power port assembly, right? 










What is on the other side of that panel and wood? Two speakers and the crossover network. Are you really willing to risk hitting any of those if you drill too deep?


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Then why is there so much discussion/complaints about them in this thread?


It's probably because things it does can really screw Atmos up (vastly change front/rear surround level ratios for spurious reasons).


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> It's probably because things it does can really screw Atmos up (vastly change front/rear surround level ratios for spurious reasons).


Does DTS:X have the same issues with Audyssey?


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> Not complaints, just a discussion my friend. We like to share with others what adjustment might improve on our setup. For example if I listen at reference I have no problem with dynamic eq, but if I'm not and I use it because of the sound affecting my landlady, I'll lower my volume and use dynamic eq. The problem is when I forget it's on, and the rear height speakers overshadow my front left/right height, that's when I have to make an adjustment, I have been running with dynamic eq disabled, and everything is beautiful!


Ummm, DEQ isn't active if you are listening at reference level and Reference Level Offset is set to 0 dB, so it doesn't matter if DEQ is on or off.

So you use DEQ when your landlady complains but turn it off (if you have forgotten it's on) every other time?

How do you know that the rear height levels are really correct when you turn DEQ off?


----------



## X4100

No harm meant, but with over 5000 post, and your experience, I would think you'd understand what a newcomer like me is trying to say. 
(1) I know dynamic eq doesn't come to play at reference level, in fact it's effect is reduced the closer you get to reference level 
(2) I live upstairs from my landlady, which means I can't listen at or near reference when she's home. This is when I engage dynamic eq, as it gives me the extra... at lower volume 
(3) sometimes a day or so later when I'm watching/listening to a movie I may have to adjust accordingly if no one is downstairs, as dynamic eq may have the rear height speakers a bit louder than I prefer. 
(4) all things considered, instead of adjusting the level of my rear heights, and surround speakers, which by the way are set just right, I disable dynamic eq. 
Sometimes when I'm posting, I find myself leaving out some information that may clarify what I'm saying


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> Does DTS:X have the same issues with Audyssey?


It's not a codex issue, but the fact DEQ changes surround levels. _All_ surround levels when not at reference. If you correct those levels at a point below reference, it will vary at other levels including reference because you changed the trims. 

I used to use a smart setting to remember different levels and decided it wasn't worth it. I just turn up the sub if I think bass sounds too low now.


----------



## chi_guy50

robert600 said:


> Yes ... well said ... that line of sight thing jogged my memory as to why I elevated them a bit for the 7.1 set-up. Maybe I should just leave them be.* I was thinking lowering them would provide better spatial separation between them and Height Rears *but if it reduces their hearability (or whatever it's properly called?) then I'd be kinda shooting myself in the foot. Sometimes I get so focused on the trees ... I can't see the forest lol. Thanks.


Yes, you are perfectly correct in that approach. You just have to balance competing demands in order to find the best solution for your particular environment.


----------



## bryantc

Random observation: This week I went to a movie theater for the first time in years. It was a Cinemark XD and I was surprised to see a THX Certified plaque at the entrance. I haven't seen that in decades and I thought their theater certification died out a long time ago. But it looks like they have a partnership with Cinemark now.

I don't know if the theater was Atmos but there were 2 levels of speakers along the walls. One pair for each row. The heights were just below the ceiling. The base speakers got higher with each row until at the back they were touching the heights. There was nothing on the ceiling. If this was Atmos I don't see how this configuration makes any real use of the heights. All the sound is simply coming from the sides.

Like this pic except there was a pair for each row:


----------



## bluesky636

X4100 said:


> No harm meant, but with over 5000 post, and your experience, I would think you'd understand what a newcomer like me is trying to say.
> (1) I know dynamic eq doesn't come to play at reference level, in fact it's effect is reduced the closer you get to reference level
> (2) I live upstairs from my landlady, which means I can't listen at or near reference when she's home. This is when I engage dynamic eq, as it gives me the extra... at lower volume
> (3) sometimes a day or so later when I'm watching/listening to a movie I may have to adjust accordingly if no one is downstairs, as dynamic eq may have the rear height speakers a bit louder than I prefer.
> (4) all things considered, instead of adjusting the level of my rear heights, and surround speakers, which by the way are set just right, I disable dynamic eq.
> Sometimes when I'm posting, I find myself leaving out some information that may clarify what I'm saying


As a retired SATCOM Systems Engineer I spent 45+ years dealing with the written word. If I feel that something is missing, contradictory, confusing or whatever, I ask questions. Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## MagnumX

bryantc said:


> Random observation: This week I went to a movie theater for the first time in years. It was a Cinemark XD and I was surprised to see a THX Certified plaque at the entrance. I haven't seen that in decades and I thought their theater certification died out a long time ago. But it looks like they have a partnership with Cinemark now.
> 
> I don't know if the theater was Atmos but there were 2 levels of speakers along the walls. One pair for each row. The heights were just below the ceiling. The base speakers got higher with each row until at the back they were touching the heights. There was nothing on the ceiling. If this was Atmos *I don't see how this configuration makes any real use of the heights. All the sound is simply coming from the sides.*
> 
> Like this pic except there was a pair for each row:
> 
> View attachment 3221424


Sounds imaging between a pair of speakers occurs literally between them, say across from those height speakers on the ceiling. Thats how surround heights work in Auro-3D and DTS:X.

They do typically have a set on the ceiling as well in most movie theaters, however (or at least Barco did). Looking at that particular picture, it kind of looks like there is a row of ceiling speakers hidden in the ceiling tiles, which if true, I'd imagine that might be set up as an Auro-3D theater (11.1).

DTS has been converting many Auro-3D cinemas to DTS:X (there used to be a lot of Auro-3D cinemas in the US including two AuroMax theaters within 5 miles of me, but the content stopped a couple of years ago). They might be in the process of converting to X or even Atmos as well (many Atmos theaters have their surround speakers high on the side walls for some reason, but they normally have overhead speakers too).

I was at an XD theater recently (to see The Matrix Resurrections) and they had surrounds more like the lower pair. However, could swear I heard sounds at different height levels. I thought the round things on the ceiling were air vents, but I suppose the might have been speakers or it could have just been 7.1 sound combined with stadium seating made sounds appear to come from different heights as there was a lot of discrete surround effects during the movie. The very comfortable chairs also had seat shakers and power recline, which was great. In fact, the seat shakers make me think I should consider adding some at home.


----------



## Josh Z

robert600 said:


> Yes, in fact I am/was unaware. As mentioned ... I'm new to atmos. I'm not sure about Dolby Surround but I thought atmos upmixing was something different. So if what you're saying is correct ... that would be a game changer! Very interesting.


What you are calling "Atmos upmixing" is Dolby Surround (also known as the Dolby Surround Upmixer or "DSU"). 

Atmos and DTS:X are both native immersive formats. They are not upmixers.

DSU and DTS Neural:X are the upmixers that take lower channel count soundtracks and spread them to the height speakers.


----------



## Snorefingers

bluesky636 said:


> This is the back of the ES15 Polk speakers you said you were interested in. What is so awkward about the keyhole slot location?


I want to mount them not flush against the wall but angled downwards, toward my listening position:








I'm not sure of a way to use the keyhole for the second mount position. I was under the impression I'd have to use something like this:


----------



## bluesky636

Snorefingers said:


> I want to mount them not flush against the wall but angled downwards, toward my listening position:
> View attachment 3221472
> 
> I'm not sure of a way to use the keyhole for the second mount position. I was under the impression I'd have to use something like this:
> View attachment 3221473


Unless you know exactly what is inside of the Polks where you want to drill I suggest you

1. Find a bracket that doesn't require drilling or

2. Stick with the Dalis and live with black.


----------



## niterida

Snorefingers said:


> I want to mount them not flush against the wall but angled downwards, toward my listening position:
> View attachment 3221472
> 
> I'm not sure of a way to use the keyhole for the second mount position. I was under the impression I'd have to use something like this:


Cut a short piece of 2x4 with 45deg mitred ends - mount across your wall/ceiling and then use keyhole/screw


----------



## titan ii

Use 3/4" screws and you are not going to hit anything with mounts like you show. Just make sure the mounts can carry the weight.


----------



## Rich 63

Snorefingers said:


> I want to mount them not flush against the wall but angled downwards, toward my listening position:
> View attachment 3221472
> 
> I'm not sure of a way to use the keyhole for the second mount position. I was under the impression I'd have to use something like this:
> View attachment 3221473


Create a plate/wide hook that attaches to the mount that then hooks under the rear power plate. No screws.


----------



## robert600

Snorefingers said:


> I want to mount them not flush against the wall but angled downwards, toward my listening position:
> View attachment 3221472
> 
> I'm not sure of a way to use the keyhole for the second mount position. I was under the impression I'd have to use something like this:
> View attachment 3221473


I've just finished installing quite a few ceiling speakers ... using a variety of methods (like you I wanted to angle them both downwards and left to right)... based on my experience ... the brackets you show in the 2nd photo look ideal to me ... once installed ... adjusting both angles is a piece of cake.

Needless to say ...you want the bracket position such that the screws go directly into a ceiling joist (I would not trust drywall plugs). Also, I would consider mounting the speakers horizontally rather than vertically (for both acoustic and aesthetic reasons). Thinking of where to mount the bracket to the speaker ... left to right, you'd want it on the center line ... front to back, you'd want it towards the back (so the speakers center of gravity would naturaly want to tilt the speaker toward the down angle you want.). Also, remember that as the speaker tilts downwards ... the lower back edge of the speaker gets closer and closer to the wall. So the mount-to-ceiling position has to be a little further into the room than you might originally have thought ... I learned this the hard way lol. Anyway ... I know buying those adjustable brackets is no fun but once they're up securely ... adjusting angles is so simple ... worth it in my opinion.

Oh ... and depending on how things look ... sometimes much easier to attach the speaker wire before putting the speaker up ... there's not always a lot of room behind the speaker for fiddling about with wires ...pay attention to positive and negative wire and get it right!


----------



## robert600

robert600 said:


> Wow man ... that is awesome! Onkyo ought to know... right? Not sure why that zk website says what it does. Thanks so much for pointing this out to me! In terms of using it, I just feed the onkyo some 5.1 or 7.1 audio and it expands it from there ... or do I have to enable something? I think a lot of my downloaded movies have 7.1 AAC audio. Media info gives this kind of report:
> 
> Audio #1
> ID : 2
> Format : AAC LC
> Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
> Codec ID : A_AAC-2
> Duration : 2 h 12 min
> Bit rate : 549 kb/s
> Channel(s) : 8 channels
> Channel layout : C L R Ls Rs Lb Rb LFE
> Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
> Frame rate : 46.875 FPS (1024 SPF)
> Compression mode : Lossy
> Delay relative to video : 20 ms
> Stream size : 520 MiB (10%)
> Language : English
> Default : Yes
> Forced : No


Ok ... when I turn the receiver and select PC for input it's default 'sound mode' was 2 channel stereo. Using the remote, this was easy to change to Dolby Surround. Turned on the laptop and started Xmen: Apocalypse, it is encoded in the above audio that was encoded in this format. I used PotPlayer. The results were interesting. In PotPlayer you can configure pretty much everything. Mainly I mucked about with "output mode". There are four choices to pick from. 2 of them, my receiver did not particularly like ... LPCM (I got music, background stuff but no dialogue (no idea what that's about) ... Passthrough after DTS re-encoding ... this works but seems to throw the receiver into DTS listening mode, sound is great for the 7.1 channels but no height sound at all that I could discern. Lights the DTS icon on the receiver's display.

The other 2 were better for height:
PCM (very good 7.1 sound, slight sound from Height channels). Lights the PCM icon on the receiver's display. Stays in 'Dolby Surround listening mode. This is the setting I always used for my former 7.1 system and it works very well for that.

Passthrough after AC3 re-encoding ...(an immediate huge jump in volume ... easily adjusted with the receiver's volume knob ... don't really understand this but it is what it is. The dolby icon lights up, stays in 'Dolby Surround listening mode ... lots of sound to the heights but didn't seem quite as well spread out to the 7.1 speakers as opposed to PCM ... but I guess that sorta/kinda makes sense? Anyway I left it on this setting and watched the rest of the movie and shook the walls pretty good lol... it was great! Probably not as good as an actual Atmos soundtrack but way better than flat 7.1.

So ... it seems fully capable of upmixing flat sound to the height speakers. That zk website had/ has it wrong and had me fooled. Once again, thanks so much for bringing my attention to this. I have probably in excess of 500 movies in this audio format so being able to get some height into the mix is a game changer for me!


----------



## robert600

Josh Z said:


> What you are calling "Atmos upmixing" is Dolby Surround (also known as the Dolby Surround Upmixer or "DSU").
> 
> Atmos and DTS:X are both native immersive formats. They are not upmixers.
> 
> DSU and DTS Neural:X are the upmixers that take lower channel count soundtracks and spread them to the height speakers.


OK ... my bad ... I guess I was equating activating Height sound channels with Atmos. So it would be more correct to say "upmixing to height channels" rather than "upmixing to Atmos"? That would explain something that had me a little puzzled initially last night. When I got Dolby Surround to work last night ...I was a bit surprised that the Atmos icon on the receiver didn't come on despite the fact that it was very obviously driving the height channels. 
I now see that just because the heights are being driven ... that's not necessarily Atmos. So ... I'm thinking that the Atmos icon only comes on if the input source is in an authentic "Atmos" format. Am I thinking about this correctly?


----------



## X4100

That's correct, and enjoy revisiting your many movies!  To verify push the info button on your remote.


----------



## titan ii

robert600 said:


> So ... I'm thinking that the Atmos icon only comes on if the input source is in an authentic "Atmos" format.


That is true for my Onkyo.


----------



## halcyon_888

A lot of people prefer the DTS Neural X upmixer on 5.1/7.1 content, though if your receiver is using an older DTS upmixer I don't have experience with that. I used to use the Dolby upmixer only but lately switched to the DTS upmixer because it sounds more like a mixed Atmos track to me. Note for 2.0 content I still use the DSU because the DTS upmixer will have bleedthrough in the heights with dialogue.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> Sounds imaging between a pair of speakers occurs literally between them, say across from those height speakers on the ceiling. Thats how surround heights work in Auro-3D and DTS:X.
> 
> They do typically have a set on the ceiling as well in most movie theaters, however (or at least Barco did). Looking at that particular picture, it kind of looks like there is a row of ceiling speakers hidden in the ceiling tiles, which if true, I'd imagine that might be set up as an Auro-3D theater (11.1).
> 
> DTS has been converting many Auro-3D cinemas to DTS:X (there used to be a lot of Auro-3D cinemas in the US including two AuroMax theaters within 5 miles of me, but the content stopped a couple of years ago). They might be in the process of converting to X or even Atmos as well (many Atmos theaters have their surround speakers high on the side walls for some reason, but they normally have overhead speakers too).
> 
> I was at an XD theater recently (to see The Matrix Resurrections) and they had surrounds more like the lower pair. However, could swear I heard sounds at different height levels. I thought the round things on the ceiling were air vents, but I suppose the might have been speakers or it could have just been 7.1 sound combined with stadium seating made sounds appear to come from different heights as there was a lot of discrete surround effects during the movie. The very comfortable chairs also had seat shakers and power recline, which was great. In fact, the seat shakers make me think I should consider adding some at home.


It's been a couple of years since I went out to the theater (Tarantino's final film will more than likely be the last time I will ever go), and I wasn't aware that they were adding shakers to the seats now. 

Before going whole hog into an expensive upgrade in my system, I will often look for a cheaper stop gap half measure to assess my willingness to spend. A cheaper Onkyo 9.2 amp was my first forray into DTS X/ ATMOS before quickly determining that I wanted a more expensive Denon that could decode 11.2 channels. A cheapie 120" screen material ended up staying in the mix after I found the less sparkly material more to my liking than the much more expensive material used in the 100" screen it was replacing.

Before going full BUTTKICKER, I tried out a couple of pairs of DAYTON AUDIO PUCKS. These transducers can often be found for next to nothing on sale. I hate anything in my system that reaks of being gimicky. For me, that means I use DSU over DTS NeuralX, I won't use DEQ and I never juice my height channels. It also means that I found no need to upgrade from these cheap pucks as I was able to dial them into my system to a degree that gave me an incredible low end visceral feeling at way below their rated limits. Sure, I can crank them up so that Darth Vader's voice could please a woman sitting in my chairs, but I have found that by limiting the cutoff and amping them at the right level, they GREATLY improve the overall warmth and low end of my 7.4.4 system WITHOUT sounding gimmicky.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Sounds imaging between a pair of speakers occurs literally between them, say across from those height speakers on the ceiling. Thats how surround heights work in Auro-3D and DTS:X.
> 
> They do typically have a set on the ceiling as well in most movie theaters, however (or at least Barco did). Looking at that particular picture, it kind of looks like there is a row of ceiling speakers hidden in the ceiling tiles, which if true, I'd imagine that might be set up as an Auro-3D theater (11.1).
> 
> DTS has been converting many Auro-3D cinemas to DTS:X (there used to be a lot of Auro-3D cinemas in the US including two AuroMax theaters within 5 miles of me, but the content stopped a couple of years ago). They might be in the process of converting to X or even Atmos as well (many Atmos theaters have their surround speakers high on the side walls for some reason, but they normally have overhead speakers too).
> 
> I was at an XD theater recently (to see The Matrix Resurrections) and they had surrounds more like the lower pair. However, could swear I heard sounds at different height levels. I thought the round things on the ceiling were air vents, but I suppose the might have been speakers or it could have just been 7.1 sound combined with stadium seating made sounds appear to come from different heights as there was a lot of discrete surround effects during the movie. The very comfortable chairs also had seat shakers and power recline, which was great. In fact, the seat shakers make me think I should consider adding some at home.


If you're wanting to install a TR device, I recommend going DIY and doing what's called a HoverEze (it used to be called a HoverBOSS). It's cheaper than buying Crowsons or Buttkickers and has more realistic and precise TR, and also has a lower frequency response into the single digits. I provided a link below to the TR thread here on AVS, but don't be put off by the wild setups in that thread because there are mild setups that work great for most people. I have a mild setup and there is a link in my signature with a couple of pictures and info. Here is the TR thread link:








The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))


Got TR!!!??? :D:D:D Lone Survivor 6hz Chopper Scene with a HoverEZe Tactile Response in the Home Theater environment seems to really be catching on these days around here which is awesome!! Really glad to see it, as it can make such an amazing difference in the movie watching and bass...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## X4100

halcyon_888 said:


> If you're wanting to install a TR device, I recommend going DIY and doing what's called a HoverEze (it used to be called a HoverBOSS). It's cheaper than buying Crowsons or Buttkickers and has more realistic and precise TR, and also has a lower frequency response into the single digits. I provided a link below to the TR thread here on AVS, but don't be put off by the wild setups in that thread because there are mild setups that work great for most people. I have a mild setup and there is a link in my signature with a couple of pictures and info. Here is the TR thread link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))
> 
> 
> Got TR!!!??? :D:D:D Lone Survivor 6hz Chopper Scene with a HoverEZe Tactile Response in the Home Theater environment seems to really be catching on these days around here which is awesome!! Really glad to see it, as it can make such an amazing difference in the movie watching and bass...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


THANKS for sharing that, I never imagined you could ever get that feeling when watching a movie, especially the last clip   . One of those and the perfect Atmos movie, and my landlady will definitely be looking for another renter!!!


----------



## Snorefingers

robert600 said:


> Also, I would consider mounting the speakers horizontally rather than vertically


Thank you for the extensive response and especially this part, something I hadn't considered.


----------



## X4100

Here's a great looking room for Dolby Atmos, 








Midbass Quandary


I have four 18" subs in an IB line array. Each drivers sensitivity is 89dB so the combined sensitivity is 95dB. Each driver only gets 350 watts so I'm looking at a peak output of around 126dB before room gain is considered. My theater is in open loft so there is very little room gain. The IB...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> That's correct, and enjoy revisiting your many movies!  To verify push the info button on your remote.


Thanks ... we're back to major covid lockdown protocols (Ontario) 😕 so ... I have lots of time for movie watching and theater tweeking! 😊


----------



## robert600

halcyon_888 said:


> A lot of people prefer the DTS Neural X upmixer on 5.1/7.1 content, though if your receiver is using an older DTS upmixer I don't have experience with that. I used to use the Dolby upmixer only but lately switched to the DTS upmixer because it sounds more like a mixed Atmos track to me. Note for 2.0 content I still use the DSU because the DTS upmixer will have bleedthrough in the heights with dialogue.


Unforunatley I don't think my receiver does DTS Neural X. Of course, I didn't think it did DSU either and I'm very happy to have been wrong about that! Maybe I'm wrong about Neural X as well.


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> THANKS for sharing that, I never imagined you could ever get that feeling when watching a movie, especially the last clip   . One of those and the perfect Atmos movie, and my landlady will definitely be looking for another renter!!!


Actually it's only the wild setups that produce SPL, the mild to medium setups produce little to hardly any at all. It's because the design isn't like a traditional enclosure so the woofer can't generate meaningful soundwaves, but definitely produces tactile response through the moving mass of the cone. I have a mild setup and it doesn't produce hardly any SPL at all.


----------



## halcyon_888

robert600 said:


> Unforunatley I don't think my receiver does DTS Neural X. Of course, I didn't think it did DSU either and I'm very happy to have been wrong about that! Maybe I'm wrong about Neural X as well.


Oh okay, from the link someone posted earlier to your AVR model it looks like it does Neo X but not Neural X. I don't have any experience with Neo X with upmixing unfortunately or I'd be glad to share info.


----------



## X4100

robert600 said:


> Unforunatley I don't think my receiver does DTS Neural X. Of course, I didn't think it did DSU either and I'm very happy to have been wrong about that! Maybe I'm wrong about Neural X as well.


From what I saw in the info you posted earlier, it's likely just like my x4100 Dolby AVR. I don't have DTS:X, but I have neo: x which is ok sometimes


----------



## robert600

halcyon_888 said:


> A lot of people prefer the DTS Neural X upmixer on 5.1/7.1 content, though if your receiver is using an older DTS upmixer I don't have experience with that. I used to use the Dolby upmixer only but lately switched to the DTS upmixer because it sounds more like a mixed Atmos track to me. Note for 2.0 content I still use the DSU because the DTS upmixer will have bleedthrough in the heights with dialogue.


No looking at the onkyo website that someone kindly posted. It only has DTS NEOX. This is what it says about it "This mode expands various input sources for up to 11 channel playback. In this mode, you can enjoy natural and realistic broad surround sound by adding front high/ front wide speakers that create dome-shaped sound field." 

Is this sorta/kinda/almost/a bit like the Neural X upmixer. I don't quite get that it says 11 channel playback but then says "adding front high/ front wide speakers" Can it not do front high and back high?


----------



## titan ii

Snorefingers said:


> Thank you for the extensive response and especially this part, something I hadn't considered.


I would not mount them horizontally. It "may" be okay, but generally not recommended.

Lots of info if you Google 

mounting bookshelf speakers horizontally


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> From what I saw in the info you posted earlier, it's likely just like my x4100 Dolby AVR. I don't have DTS:X, but I have neo: x which is ok sometimes


Sorry you posted this as I was writing the above post. Yes the receivers seem very similar. You find it ok ... does it push your rear heights?


----------



## Rich 63

X4100 said:


> From what I saw in the info you posted earlier, it's likely just like my x4100 Dolby AVR. I don't have DTS:X, but I have neo: x which is ok sometimes


Dts-x was introduced to the home market 2015. 
My original s720w (2016) did not come with it baked in and had to be updated for the feature to be avaliable. And my understanding is it wasn't avaliable when they were first released. Mine was purchased in 2017. Same with my 4300. 
Hope this helps
Rich


----------



## sdurani

robert600 said:


> Is this sorta/kinda/almost/a bit like the Neural X upmixer. I don't quite get that it says 11 channel playback but then says "adding front high/ front wide speakers" Can it not do front high and back high?


It can't. Neo:X is the predecessor of Neural:X. Like all DTS technologies, Neo:X upmixing was limited to 11 output channels. It was originally supposed to have 4 height outputs. Prior to release, Audyssey came out with their DSX upmixer, which added 2 heights and 2 wides. DTS must have thought that this was going to be the dominant speaker configuration in the future and changed the release version of Neo:X to output 2 heights and 2 wides. As a result, Neo:X can upmix to 9.1.2 but not 7.1.4.


----------



## ppasteur

robert600 said:


> No looking at the onkyo website that someone kindly posted. It only has DTS NEOX. This is what it says about it "This mode expands various input sources for up to 11 channel playback. In this mode, you can enjoy natural and realistic broad surround sound by adding front high/ front wide speakers that create dome-shaped sound field."
> 
> Is this sorta/kinda/almost/a bit like the Neural X upmixer. I don't quite get that it says 11 channel playback but then says "adding front high/ front wide speakers" Can it not do front high and back high?


Neural X is the successor to Neo X. I am not sure of the real differences in processing under the hood. But the descriptions used for the two are almost identical.


----------



## robert600

sdurani said:


> It can't. Neo:X is the predecessor of Neural:X. Like all DTS technologies, Neo:X upmixing was limited to 11 output channels. It was originally supposed to have 4 height outputs. Prior to release, Audyssey came out with their DSX upmixer, which added 2 heights and 2 wides. DTS must have thought that this was going to be the dominant speaker configuration in the future and changed the release version of Neo:X to output 2 heights and 2 wides. As a result, Neo:X can upmix to 9.1.2 but not 7.1.4.


Thanks ... that's interesting! Not great for my speaker configuration but very clear explanation of what they mean. I've had no experience whatsoever with wides. I'll try the NEO X and see what it sounds like. I'll feed it the "Last Witch Hunter" bu ray and see what it does ... the sountrack is in DTS:X format (according to the blu ray case). So I guess ... when I turn the receiver on and select blu ray input ...I would then change the sound mode to NEOX ... fire up the blu ray and play the movie.


----------



## mrtickleuk

robert600 said:


> the sountrack is in DTS:X format (according to the blu ray case). So I guess ... when I turn the receiver on and select blu ray input ...I would then change the sound mode to NEOX ... fire up the blu ray and play the movie.


Yes, correct .

Since your AVR can't decode DTS:X, this is what will happen. The AVR will tell the Blu-Ray player its capabilities in the HDMI EDID handshake. The Blu-Ray player will send only the DTS:X's "inner core" DTS-HD Master Audio (up to 7.1) track to the AVR, _not _the full DTS:X track. (Depending on the disc authoring, the disc's menus may not even reveal that there's a DTS:X soundtrack, since it knows you can't play it). Next, the AVR will up-mix this 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack using DTS Neo:X if you select that option, or it will just use plain 5.1 or 7.1 if you turn off up-mixing.

A similar thing happens with AVRs that can playback Dolby TrueHD but not Dolby Atmos.

HTH


----------



## niterida

robert600 said:


> Also, I would consider mounting the speakers horizontally rather than vertically (for both acoustic and aesthetic reasons).





Snorefingers said:


> Thank you for the extensive response and especially this part, something I hadn't considered.


The only reason to mount them horizontally is to improve the coverage across all seats. Mainly used for the Top Middles because if you mount them vertically and aim them at MLP the narrower vertical dispersion may not reach the seats either side of the MLP because they are actually above and below the MLP from the speakers point of view. 
But for 4 Atmos mounted vertically is better because when aimed at MLP the seats either side are still to the side of the speakers dispersion.


----------



## dj7675

Anyone have a list of movies confirmed to be fixed 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 movies? I need a couple to test to see how the Storm Audio handles them but can’t seem to find a list or some examples. I know there are some Disney/Marvel movies (at least I thought there were) but don’t know which ones for sure... anyone?


----------



## bryantc

dj7675 said:


> Anyone have a list of movies confirmed to be fixed 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 movies? I need a couple to test to see how the Storm Audio handles them but can’t seem to find a list or some examples. I know there are some Disney/Marvel movies (at least I thought there were) but don’t know which ones for sure... anyone?


Basically anything from Disney including Marvel and Star Wars. Although within the last year they have actually released some stuff with more object counts.

Also Saving Private Ryan, Ready Player One.


----------



## Rich 63

bryantc said:


> Basically anything from Disney including Marvel and Star Wars. Although within the last year they have actually released some stuff with more object counts.
> 
> Also Saving Private Ryan, Ready Player One.


🍿


----------



## robert600

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, correct .
> 
> Since your AVR can't decode DTS:X, this is what will happen. The AVR will tell the Blu-Ray player its capabilities in the HDMI EDID handshake. The Blu-Ray player will send only the DTS:X's "inner core" DTS-HD Master Audio (up to 7.1) track to the AVR, _not _the full DTS:X track. (Depending on the disc authoring, the disc's menus may not even reveal that there's a DTS:X soundtrack, since it knows you can't play it). Next, the AVR will up-mix this 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack using DTS Neo:X if you select that option, or it will just use plain 5.1 or 7.1 if you turn off up-mixing.
> 
> A similar thing happens with AVRs that can playback Dolby TrueHD but not Dolby Atmos.
> 
> HTH


Yes ... you're 100% corrrect that is exactly what happened. And yes ... the disk menu did not show DTS:X, it simply reported it as DTS-HD Master Audio.

Perceptually to me ...
DTS with no upmixing resulted in no height action but very sharp spatial 'definition' in the 7 flat channels.

DTS NEO:X on ... sound added to front heights only ... with a slight diminishing of the spatial definition of the 7 flat channels

DTS with DSU on ... sound added to both front and rear heights ... perhaps with slightly more diminishing of the 7 flats. I liked this, the best of the 3 so I watched the rest of the movie configured like this. Very happy with the experience except that it is not a very good movie lol. I think this will be the setting I'll use most of the time. At the beginning of the end credits, there's somebody's version of the Stones classic ... Paint it Black, awesome the way DSU handles it ... I cranked it way up, very cool ... in fact its still echoing in my brain lol .


----------



## X4100

Tried to copy links to the neo:x and DSU thread  , but the results were in error


----------



## X4100

I just deleted the link


----------



## robert600

Don't think that link is working


----------



## hackathy

X4100 said:


> Here's one about NEO:X


You need to remove everything after the last slash (/)









Is DTS Neo:X that good


I am thinking about buying a Onkyo 1009 for the DTS Neo:X. I would like to run front high & wides at the same time. Just wondering if DTS Neo:X is that good & worth it?




www.avsforum.com


----------



## howard68

DTS Neo x is an old coda that only had a few films encoded in it
It is not the same as DTSX that uses Top speakers and is currently a DTS coda


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> If you're wanting to install a TR device, I recommend going DIY and doing what's called a HoverEze (it used to be called a HoverBOSS). It's cheaper than buying Crowsons or Buttkickers and has more realistic and precise TR, and also has a lower frequency response into the single digits. I provided a link below to the TR thread here on AVS, but don't be put off by the wild setups in that thread because there are mild setups that work great for most people. I have a mild setup and there is a link in my signature with a couple of pictures and info. Here is the TR thread link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))
> 
> 
> Got TR!!!??? :D:D:D Lone Survivor 6hz Chopper Scene with a HoverEZe Tactile Response in the Home Theater environment seems to really be catching on these days around here which is awesome!! Really glad to see it, as it can make such an amazing difference in the movie watching and bass...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thanks I'll take a look. I'm not thinking of anything hardcore, just to make up for having a concrete floor and maybe a bit more if it's fun. I've got six seats so I'm not sure if I want to try and do them all or maybe just the most used 2-4 or something.

I've been thinking of adding a 2nd sub (A 2nd sub output is just sitting there on the 7012 begging to be used for something since I see no point in a VOG output since all six overhead speakers output the signal already). But despite all the talk of how necessary multiple subs are, the bass already sounds surprisingly good in all the seats and darn near perfect at the MLP according to REW (90% of the time I'm the only one watching these days). I could drive shakers from the 2nd output, but Audyssey might be an issue.

*Edit:* Crowson is the one I looked at before that seemed to be the easiest way to add to existing furniture without bolting on parts. I was all set... Or so I thought. $640 per chair and that doesn't even include the amplifier!

Holy Crap Batman! It wasn't _that_ great at the XD Cinema. I've got six chairs. I could get that HTP-1 AVP for less than what it would cost to shake add it to all six chairs and that includes DIRAC and 15-channel processing.

I guess I don't need the absolute best as it says on their site. Check single direction unit since dual motion unit is the absolute best and not even in stock.... Same price!? Buh Bye Crowson. 

I see why people don't mind building their own or bolting things to their furniture instead. I could buy entirely new seats with seat shakers pre-installed for less.... 

Yeah I guess I'm _cheaper_ than I thought. Each actuator costs more than my bookshelf surround speakers do per pair. I guess I'll never be world class. Oh well.
... 

Has anyone else notice the forum sometimes "forgets" to alert you to thread updates in some threads. I missed two entire pages and part of a third somehow including two direct quotes of my messages in this thread. If I hadn't noticed posts above I hadn't seen and backtracked I wouldn't have even noticed. It's done this several times over the years and I've never seen anyone mention it before. It did notify me of posts in other threads, though.

Hmmm, in this case I think I failed to visit one alert two pages back (I had like 10 notices all at once) and it seems if you don't visit, it falls under "There may be more posts after this" and it just stops giving updates to the thread entirely, perhaps until you post again even or something....


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I'm not thinking of anything hardcore, just to make up for having a concrete floor and maybe a bit more if it's fun.


A sheet of ply, couple of cheap 12" subwoofer drivers, 2 bicycle tubes, one amp channel and you will be all set.
I have a HoverEZE and it absolutely rocks - don't need to drive them hard and they can feel so natural and add so much to the movie and music. One of the best things I have done in my room. I use 3 x 15" Clarion car subs which I bought 2nd hand, had a spare amp channel and with the ply and tubes the whole thing cost me about $200AUD ($150USD) and does my whole 3 seater couch.


----------



## mrtickleuk

howard68 said:


> DTS Neo x is an old coda that only had a few films encoded in it


Eh?!


----------



## tbaucom

mrtickleuk said:


> Eh?!


An example would be Expendables 2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich 63

tbaucom said:


> An example would be Expendables 2
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Neo is an upmixer, not a codec. Expendables 2 used AC3 (5.1) for the audio.


----------



## Snorefingers

Is there any particular reason to go with a 5.1.2 Atmos system instead of a 7.1 one? I'm planning on doing the former since height speakers are a little easier to place than side ones in my living room but I wonder if a "traditional" 7.1 system would have wider compatibility (more 7.1 than atmos movies, no atmos support on PS5 and very limited one on PC etc.). Is it worth trying to make a 7.1 system work?


----------



## tbaucom

Rich 63 said:


> Neo is an upmixer, not a codec. Expendables 2 used AC3 (5.1) for the audio.



I know what Neo:X is. I ran it for several years. There were a few films mixed to take advantage of it. Expendables 2 was specifically mixed to do so.

Expendables 2 Blu-ray Will Be First to Feature DTS Neo:X 11.1 Channel Surround Mix


----------



## sdurani

I posted this in the Neo:X thread 7 years ago:


sdurani said:


> There were three movies from Lionsgate (Dredd, Expendables 2, Step Up Revolution) that started off as discrete 11.1 home video mixes and were matrix encoded using DTS Neo:X to a 7.1 track for Blu-ray release. The Wide channels were split between their respective Front and Side channels; the Height channels were split between their respective Front and Rear channels. If you use the same matrix decoder as the original encoding (Neo:X), you recover the original Height and Wide channels.


----------



## robert600

Rich 63 said:


> Dts-x was introduced to the home market 2015.
> My original s720w (2016) did not come with it baked in and had to be updated for the feature to be avaliable. And my understanding is it wasn't avaliable when they were first released. Mine was purchased in 2017. Same with my 4300.
> Hope this helps
> Rich


Interesting ... I'm assuming when you say 'had to be updated' ... you mean a firmware update?

If so, this leads me to think that once again I may have been mislead by a website (can't remember which one). It clearly stated that DTS:X required an extra chip on the motherboard of the receiver and if your receiver didn't have it ... there was no way a firmware update could ever enable DTS:X. That lead me to believe that both X4100 and I were totally screwed for ever getting DTS:X on our current receivers due to the lack of this chip.

I guess it's possible that both the s720w and the 4300 that you refer to knew in advance what that chip was ... so included it on the motherboards despite not having the software ready to activate it. Then, once the had the activation software up and running ... included it in a firmware update. It's also quite possible that I have no idea about what I'm talking about lol?

It's kinda academic anyway ... our receivers are so old ..., even if software could magically enable DTS:X for us, they're not going to provide a firmware update for us anyway!


----------



## Rich 63

robert600 said:


> Interesting ... I'm assuming when you say 'had to be updated' ... you mean a firmware update?
> 
> If so, this leads me to think that once again I may have been mislead by a website (can't remember which one). It clearly stated that DTS:X required an extra chip on the motherboard of the receiver and if your receiver didn't have it ... there was no way a firmware update could ever enable DTS:X. That lead me to believe that both X4100 and I were totally screwed for ever getting DTS:X on our current receivers due to the lack of this chip.
> 
> I *guess it's possible that both the s720w and the 4300 that you refer to knew in advance what that chip was ... so included it on the motherboards despite not having the software ready to activate it. Then, once the had the activation software up and running ... included it in a firmware update. It's also quite possible that I have no idea about what I'm talking about lol?*
> 
> It's kinda academic anyway ... our receivers are so old ..., even if software could magically enable DTS:X for us, they're not going to provide a firmware update for us anyway!


This is correct. I believe this was the first year that all Marantz/Denon units had dts-x. 
Nothing wrong with atmos. I prefer dts-x soundtracks more but they are few. And the upmixer is very good. 4100 is a good unit. Run it into the ground then look around. And when you look new also look used.


----------



## Rich 63

tbaucom said:


> I know what Neo:X is. I ran it for several years. There were a few films mixed to take advantage of it. Expendables 2 was specifically mixed to do so.
> 
> Expendables 2 Blu-ray Will Be First to Feature DTS Neo:X 11.1 Channel Surround Mix


Thanks for the clarification of your post. This was a blu-ray. I took the AC3 info from the DVD release. Didn't see there was a bluray that was dts HD master. I'll have to keep an eye out for a used copy.


----------



## robert600

sdurani said:


> I posted this in the Neo:X thread 7 years ago:





> "There were three movies from Lionsgate (Dredd, Expendables 2, Step Up Revolution) that started off as discrete 11.1 home video mixes and were matrix encoded using DTS Neo:X to a 7.1 track for Blu-ray release. The Wide channels were split between their respective Front and Side channels; the Height channels were split between their respective Front and Rear channels. If you use the same matrix decoder as the original encoding (Neo:X), you recover the original Height and Wide channels."





> As it happens, I have the Lionsgate blu ray of Expendables 2. Am I processing the above information correctly. If I ... set my receiver to the Neo Sound mode ... select the blu ray audio track of DTS-HD Master Audio and play the movie ... I should get sound from both the front and rear heights?? I'll try this tonight.


----------



## robert600

Rich 63 said:


> Thanks for the clarification of your post. This was a blu-ray. I took the AC3 info from the DVD release. Didn't see there was a bluray that was dts HD master. I'll have to keep an eye out for a used copy.


It looks like you are in Canada as am I. If you have trouble finding the blu ray ... I can easily post you one. Just need an address.


----------



## chi_guy50

Snorefingers said:


> Is there any particular reason to go with a 5.1.2 Atmos system instead of a 7.1 one? I'm planning on doing the former since height speakers are a little easier to place than side ones in my living room but I wonder if a "traditional" 7.1 system would have wider compatibility (more 7.1 than atmos movies, no atmos support on PS5 and very limited one on PC etc.). Is it worth trying to make a 7.1 system work?


I think this is a highly personal decision depending on a number of factors, both objective and subjective. 

On the first count, are the dimensions of your room conducive to the proper positioning of SB speakers or do you have the ability to mount overhead speakers in an effective immersive layout? And what sort of content do you typically play (you have touched on this point already)?

On the second count, what do you judge the probability that your typical sources will increase the availability of Dolby Atmos (and/or DTS:X or Auro-3D) encoding in the near future and how does that compare with native 7.1 content (bearing in mind that native 5.1 sources can be expanded either way--whether to 7.1 or 5.1.2)? And how do you rate the relative improvement to your ears and in your dedicated space of each type of expansion?

Bear in mind that the overhead speakers will not just be used for Dolby Atmos playback; besides the other immersive codecs (DTS:X and Auro-3D, assuming your gear has the respective decoders), they can also be employed via upmixers on all sorts of non-immersive content, from 2.0 on up, to create a three-dimensional soundscape.

Since you specifically mention movies in 7.1, I assume that you rely mostly on physical media and not streaming? Most streaming media sources use Dolby Digital Plus 5.1, at best, in which case you again are going to be relying on an upmixer for the extra channels.

Although most of us here are heavily into immersive audio, it is worth repeating the conventional wisdom that a very good 7.1 setup beats a poor to mediocre 5.1.2 hands down.


----------



## Josh Z

robert600 said:


> As it happens, I have the Lionsgate blu ray of Expendables 2. Am I processing the above information correctly. If I ... set my receiver to the Neo Sound mode ... select the blu ray audio track of DTS-HD Master Audio and play the movie ... I should get sound from both the front and rear heights?? I'll try this tonight.


Any movie with a 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack upmixed with DTS Neural:X will put sound in your front and rear heights. That's what the upmixer is designed to do. The three special cases mentioned above had 7.1 soundtracks that were mixed specifically to take advantage of the upmixer with a little more intentionality than a general soundtrack upmix. If the mixer wanted a specific sound effect to go to the height layer, he'd put it in the ground channels with a particular amount of phase that would trigger the upmixer to extract and move it there.

Neo:X was the predecessor to Neural:X. It was an 11-channel upmixer - 9.1 on the ground (including Front Wides and Surround Backs) and two height channels. It did not have discrete front and rear heights, just a single pair of stereo heights that were meant to cover the whole top layer. 

In theory, those three Neo:X optimized soundtracks should still work just as well (or better) through Neural:X, as the two upmixers are built on very similar logic, though I haven't personally tried them to confirm.


----------



## Rich 63

robert600 said:


> It looks like you are in Canada as am I. If you have trouble finding the blu ray ... I can easily post you one. Just need an address.


Thanks for the offer. I'm in Ottawa and there are lots of used stores close by. I'll check there first.


----------



## ppasteur

howard68 said:


> DTS Neo x is an old coda that only had a few films encoded in it
> It is not the same as DTSX that uses Top speakers and is currently a DTS coda


What is a "coda" ??


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> I posted this in the Neo:X thread 7 years ago:


Three whole movies hmmmm. Now I just need to decide if this warrants me getting an obsolete processor with Neo:X capabilities.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Three whole movies hmmmm. Now I just need to decide if this warrants me getting an obsolete processor with Neo:X capabilities.


Those three Neo:X encoded mixes can be decoded (not upmixed) with Neural:X if configured for 9.1.2.


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Those three Neo:X encoded mixes can be decoded (not upmixed) with Neural:X if configured for 9.1.2.


That is a very interesting distinction, Sanjay. How would you expect the result to differ, assuming the authoring were well executed?


----------



## sdurani

For the tragically technical, the recipe for using Neo:X to matrix encode additional channels into a discrete 7.1 track was pretty straightforward. Audio from each Wide channel was split 1/2 and 1/2 between its respective Front channel and Side channel during encoding. During playback, a simple 2-in 3-out centre channel extraction would recover the Wides. 

Audio from the Front Height channels was split 2/3 to its respective Front channel and 1/3 to its respective Rear channel. Whenever the Neo:X circuit detected audio split with those proportions, it would extract those sounds and steer them to the Front Height speakers. 

IF Neo:X had been released as originally intended, with 4 height channels (and no Wides), then encoding audio for the Rear Height channels would be like the Front Heights, but with the proportions flipped: i.e, 1/3 of the sound in the Front channels and 2/3 of the sound in the Rear channels. 

So while Neo:X was typically used as a blind upmixer, reversing the process allowed it to become a matrix encode/decode technology. You can stuff lots of additional (matrix encoded) channels into a discrete 7.1 track. Same can be done with other upmixers, like DSU.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> That is a very interesting distinction, Sanjay. How would you expect the result to differ, assuming the authoring were well executed?


A blind upmixer will steer content based on level and phase relationships between a pair of discrete channels. What ends up in the additional speakers is not a guess (since the algorithm was following clear instructions), but it most likely would be unintended (the mixer didn't know you would be using height speakers when he was doing his 7.1 mix). When the same algorithm is used in an encode/decode approach, the sounds steered to additional speakers are intended to be heard from those locations (like with the 3 Neo:X encoded mixes). 

Keep in mind that matrix technology is used when you don't have enough discrete channels for delivery. Back in the days of quad music and old Dolby Surround (not DSU), there was no way to deliver discrete multi-channel audio. So even though those quad mixes and DS mixes started off as 4 discrete channels, they could only be delivered as matrix encoded 2-channel tracks. Pro Logic decoding and the various quad decoders were "recovering" channels that were folded into the mix and sending them to speakers at intended locations. 

When discrete multi-channel delivery showed up in the 1990s, people predicted the end of matrix technology. Two decades later and that same matrix technology is used for scaling discrete 11.1 DTS:X soundtracks to 30 speakers.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Thanks I'll take a look. I'm not thinking of anything hardcore, just to make up for having a concrete floor and maybe a bit more if it's fun. I've got six seats so I'm not sure if I want to try and do them all or maybe just the most used 2-4 or something.
> 
> I've been thinking of adding a 2nd sub (A 2nd sub output is just sitting there on the 7012 begging to be used for something since I see no point in a VOG output since all six overhead speakers output the signal already). But despite all the talk of how necessary multiple subs are, the bass already sounds surprisingly good in all the seats and darn near perfect at the MLP according to REW (90% of the time I'm the only one watching these days). I could drive shakers from the 2nd output, but Audyssey might be an issue.
> 
> *Edit:* Crowson is the one I looked at before that seemed to be the easiest way to add to existing furniture without bolting on parts. I was all set... Or so I thought. $640 per chair and that doesn't even include the amplifier!
> 
> Holy Crap Batman! It wasn't _that_ great at the XD Cinema. I've got six chairs. I could get that HTP-1 AVP for less than what it would cost to shake add it to all six chairs and that includes DIRAC and 15-channel processing.
> 
> I guess I don't need the absolute best as it says on their site. Check single direction unit since dual motion unit is the absolute best and not even in stock.... Same price!? Buh Bye Crowson.
> 
> I see why people don't mind building their own or bolting things to their furniture instead. I could buy entirely new seats with seat shakers pre-installed for less....
> 
> Yeah I guess I'm _cheaper_ than I thought. Each actuator costs more than my bookshelf surround speakers do per pair. I guess I'll never be world class. Oh well.
> ...
> 
> Has anyone else notice the forum sometimes "forgets" to alert you to thread updates in some threads. I missed two entire pages and part of a third somehow including two direct quotes of my messages in this thread. If I hadn't noticed posts above I hadn't seen and backtracked I wouldn't have even noticed. It's done this several times over the years and I've never seen anyone mention it before. It did notify me of posts in other threads, though.
> 
> Hmmm, in this case I think I failed to visit one alert two pages back (I had like 10 notices all at once) and it seems if you don't visit,  it falls under "There may be more posts after this" and it just stops giving updates to the thread entirely, perhaps until you post again even or something....


The frequency response and feel of the TR of a HoverEze or Crowsons are going to be better than what the XD Cinema has. I've never been in a XD Cinema with shakers but I had Buttkicker LFEs in the past and the way I had them installed they felt like buzzers. I'd guess that the shakers in the XD Cinema feel more like buzzers too than what a more robust solution would provide. I know the HoverEze feels like the TR I get from my subwoofer which is set against the right side of my couch, except the HoverEze goes lower in frequency as it's designed to do.

Audyssey can be tricky with TR devices. If they are on the same LFE channel then you'd let Audyssey EQ the sub first, then do a loopback measurement in REW to graph the changes Audyssey made, then set corrective filters in a miniDSP from there. It's definitely recommended to get a miniDSP 2x4HD and use BEQ to get the most out of a TR setup. It all was worth it for me, I don't like a ton of TR but I do like having frequency response down to single digits with the TR device. That way the system is representing more of the full frequency band.


----------



## robert600

Rich 63 said:


> Thanks for the offer. I'm in Ottawa and there are lots of used stores close by. I'll check there first.


I'm a bit north of Kingson ... along the Rideau canal ... we're practically neighbors lol.


----------



## robert600

Josh Z said:


> Any movie with a 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack upmixed with DTS Neural:X will put sound in your front and rear heights. That's what the upmixer is designed to do. The three special cases mentioned above had 7.1 soundtracks that were mixed specifically to take advantage of the upmixer with a little more intentionality than a general soundtrack upmix. If the mixer wanted a specific sound effect to go to the height layer, he'd put it in the ground channels with a particular amount of phase that would trigger the upmixer to extract and move it there.
> 
> Neo:X was the predecessor to Neural:X. It was an 11-channel upmixer - 9.1 on the ground (including Front Wides and Surround Backs) and two height channels. It did not have discrete front and rear heights, just a single pair of stereo heights that were meant to cover the whole top layer.
> 
> In theory, those three Neo:X optimized soundtracks should still work just as well (or better) through Neural:X, as the two upmixers are built on very similar logic, though I haven't personally tried them to confirm.


I thought when I read this from the original post: "the Height channels were split between their respective Front and Rear channels" that I might get the rear heights to kick out some sound (using Neo ... my receiver doesn't support Neural) but I may well not be understanding this quote. All I can do is give it a try and see (or in this case ...hear lol).


----------



## Josh Z

robert600 said:


> I thought when I read this from the original post: "the Height channels were split between their respective Front and Rear channels" that I might get the rear heights to kick out some sound (using Neo ... my receiver doesn't support Neural) but I may well not be understanding this quote. All I can do is give it a try and see (or in this case ...hear lol).


If your receiver only has Neo:X, then that is what you should use for those soundtracks. But due to its 11-channel limit, Neo:X only utilizes Front Height speakers, not Rear Heights.


----------



## amanz

I have a Denon AVR X3400H that I currently use in 7.1 mode. I'm considering disabling the rear surrounds and installing a pair of Dolby Atmos enabled add on speakers, possibly ELAC Debut 2.0 A4.2 to sit atop my Hsu Research front speakers. For those that have done this swap, how has your listening experience changed? I have a 4K Roku that has lots of Dolby Atmos content. Much more so than any Blu-rays I might have with 7.1 audio. So I'm thinking I'd get more enjoyment out of using Dolby Atmos than 7.1. Thoughts??


----------



## robert600

Ok ... played the 1st 20 mins of Exp 2 with sound mode set to NEO:X ... clearly I misunderstood as there was no action at all from the rear heights ... nice crisp directional sound from the 7 flats and the front heights. As before ... as soon as I switched the sound mode to Dolby Surround ... the rear heights sprang to life and again this seems to come at the price of a slight diminishment of the crisp directional sound to the 7 flats ... that's the way it seems to me at least. I still like the Dolby Surround setting the best though ... just interesting about the directionality of the flats fading a tad. I didn't bother watching the whole movie ... I have the whole set so I'll watch them in order at some point. I believe Exp 3 has an actual Atmos audio track so that might make an interesting comparison between 1 & 2 (where I'll be using Dolby Surround to upmix).


----------



## batpig

robert600 said:


> I thought when I read this from the original post: "the Height channels were split between their respective Front and Rear channels" that I might get the rear heights to kick out some sound (using Neo ... my receiver doesn't support Neural) but I may well not be understanding this quote. All I can do is give it a try and see (or in this case ...hear lol).


It's important to keep clear the distinction between INPUT and OUTPUT channels. The "split between respective Front and Rear channels" is referring to the INPUT -- in other words, the signal that is intended to be decoded as FH Left speaker is folded down into the Front Left (2/3) and Rear Surround Left (1/3) within the 7.1 mix. This is specifically for encoding the information within a standard 7.1 mix so that the DTS Neo:X upmixer could recover it precisely. And, again, this is only applicable to THREE mixes that were done many years ago.

That has no implication whatsoever for the OUTPUT (upmixing/decoding) applied by Neo:X. It doesn't change the fact that Neo:X cannot output Rear Height information, period. There is no need to test anything, this is an unchanging factual aspect of DTS Neo:X upmixer.



Josh Z said:


> If your receiver only has Neo:X, then that is what you should use for those soundtracks. But due to its 11-channel limit, Neo:X only utilizes Front Height speakers, not Rear Heights.


To nitpick, it's not due to the 11-channel limit (because Front + Rear Heights can fit into 11 channels) it was because of a marketing decision driven by Audyssey DSX, as Sanjay explained above.


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> A blind upmixer will steer content based on level and phase relationships between a pair of discrete channels. What ends up in the additional speakers is not a guess (since the algorithm was following clear instructions), but it most likely would be unintended (the mixer didn't know you would be using height speakers when he was doing his 7.1 mix). When the same algorithm is used in an encode/decode approach, the sounds steered to additional speakers are intended to be heard from those locations (like with the 3 Neo:X encoded mixes).
> 
> Keep in mind that matrix technology is used when you don't have enough discrete channels for delivery. Back in the days of quad music and old Dolby Surround (not DSU), there was no way to deliver discrete multi-channel audio. So even though those quad mixes and DS mixes started off as 4 discrete channels, they could only be delivered as matrix encoded 2-channel tracks. Pro Logic decoding and the various quad decoders were "recovering" channels that were folded into the mix and sending them to speakers at intended locations.
> 
> When discrete multi-channel delivery showed up in the 1990s, people predicted the end of matrix technology. Two decades later and that same matrix technology is used for scaling discrete 11.1 DTS:X soundtracks to 30 speakers.


A question. It seems that I remember that the whole matrix encoding/decoding was a lossy process. Not in the way that codecs work, but in that the recoverable information could not be complete, and/or was somehow bandwidth (frequency?) limited. This being limited by the matrix decoder (and maybe the encoder's precision)? This is a bit of ancient recollection for me, but I thought this was why the whole concept of a system capable of handling discrete full bandwidth signals was hailed as being revolutionary for reproduction quality.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> It seems that I remember that the whole matrix encoding/decoding was a lossy process. Not in the way that codecs work, but in that the recoverable information could not be complete, and/or was somehow bandwidth (frequency?) limited. This being limited by the matrix decoder (and maybe the encoder's precision)?


The original Pro Logic decoder from the early 1980s had a bandwidth limited (100Hz to 7kHz) mono surround channel, which was played back using 2 to 4 surround speakers. By the time PLII showed up, it and competing upmixers had all full range channels (like all the current upmixers).


----------



## robert600

batpig said:


> It's important to keep clear the distinction between INPUT and OUTPUT channels. The "split between respective Front and Rear channels" is referring to the INPUT -- in other words, the signal that is intended to be decoded as FH Left speaker is folded down into the Front Left (2/3) and Rear Surround Left (1/3) within the 7.1 mix. This is specifically for encoding the information within a standard 7.1 mix so that the DTS Neo:X upmixer could recover it precisely. And, again, this is only applicable to THREE mixes that were done many years ago.
> 
> That has no implication whatsoever for the OUTPUT (upmixing/decoding) applied by Neo:X. It doesn't change the fact that Neo:X cannot output Rear Height information, period. There is no need to test anything, this is an unchanging factual aspect of DTS Neo:X upmixer.
> 
> 
> To nitpick, it's not due to the 11-channel limit (because Front + Rear Heights can fit into 11 channels) it was because of a marketing decision driven by Audyssey DSX, as Sanjay explained above.


Ahhh ...ok. Nice explanation ... now I understand ... that turns the little light bulb in my head from off to on 💡. Thanks!


----------



## howard68

mrtickleuk said:


> Eh?!
> [/





mrtickleuk said:


> Eh?!
> 
> Audio codecs is what I meant
> (coder/decoders) are a type of audio data converters that encode analog audio as digital signals and decode digital audio back


----------



## robert600

amanz said:


> I have a Denon AVR X3400H that I currently use in 7.1 mode. I'm considering disabling the rear surrounds and installing a pair of Dolby Atmos enabled add on speakers, possibly ELAC Debut 2.0 A4.2 to sit atop my Hsu Research front speakers. For those that have done this swap, how has your listening experience changed? I have a 4K Roku that has lots of Dolby Atmos content. Much more so than any Blu-rays I might have with 7.1 audio. So I'm thinking I'd get more enjoyment out of using Dolby Atmos than 7.1. Thoughts??


Ok ... my thoughts ... based on me being a longggggg time user of 7.1 and 3 day user of atmos lol. The only experience with Atmos (other than my new-to-me system was at commercial movie theaters) ... no friends or relatives use it. While always being interested in Atmos ... it took me till now to get into precisely because of what you're wondering about. I couldn't bear to think of losing those rear surrounds. In the right movie, they add so much. Accordingly, I was only willing to consider Atmos if I could do 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. Only very recently have older receivers come on the market that could do this for me at a price that I could afford. So that's my background ... here's my suggestion for your situation (bearing in mind that I don't like throwing money at something that I'm not sure I'll like).

I would temporarly somehow get your current rear surround speakers up above where you sit ... one positioned about 18 inches to left, the other 18 inches to right or something like that ... use stepladders with cardboard boxes, bungee cords, whatever or something like that to get them up there ... no I'm not going to hold them up there for you lol. Do whatever you have to do to let the receiver know your using middle heights not rear surrounds and have a good listen. Only you can say which you like better after you run a few tests. At least this way, if you decide you like the rear surrounds better ... you haven't spent a cent.

Bear in mind...if you think that going with heights are a better option and decide to spring for those Atmos enables add ons ... they're not going to be as effective for height effects as your test set up ... so I'm told ...I've had no experience with that type of speaker ... and I think the debate about that isa whole other can of worms.

Oh ... and If you do decide to go the atmos route ... I think you can cheat a little with your surrounds (I presume right now, they're directly to your left and right?). Without the rears ... I'd be tempted to move them back a foot or so ... that'll give some behind feel to the sound field.

Hopefully someone with more direct experience will chime in with suggestions but those are my thoughts.


----------



## niterida

Snorefingers said:


> Is there any particular reason to go with a 5.1.2 Atmos system instead of a 7.1 one? I'm planning on doing the former since height speakers are a little easier to place than side ones in my living room but I wonder if a "traditional" 7.1 system would have wider compatibility (more 7.1 than atmos movies, no atmos support on PS5 and very limited one on PC etc.). Is it worth trying to make a 7.1 system work?


Atmos gives you a distinct 3d bubble of sound rather than a 2d layer around you. A good 7.1 in a well laid out room can give a sense of height sounds, but even a .2 Atmos gives you actual height sounds. In my testing in my room I found 5.1.2 to be much better than 7.1. I actually find 5.1 almost as good as 7.1 and think the extra cost and hassle of going 7.1 over 5.1 is not always going to be worth it (depends on your budget and your room size mainly). Going by your quote saying side speakers are difficult to place I would definitely recommend going 5.1.2. I find that if your room is narrow that side surrounds directly to the side are too overpowering for the outside seats and if you move them back then there is not enough distinction between them and the rear surrounds so you may as well just have 5.1


amanz said:


> I have a Denon AVR X3400H that I currently use in 7.1 mode. I'm considering disabling the rear surrounds and installing a pair of Dolby Atmos enabled add on speakers, possibly ELAC Debut 2.0 A4.2 to sit atop my Hsu Research front speakers. For those that have done this swap, how has your listening experience changed? I have a 4K Roku that has lots of Dolby Atmos content. Much more so than any Blu-rays I might have with 7.1 audio. So I'm thinking I'd get more enjoyment out of using Dolby Atmos than 7.1. Thoughts??


Don't do AES if you can avoid them - unless you have perfect ceilings and can get the AES on the perfect angle to bounce exactly to your seats then it will likely be a disappointment. If you must use AES then get them as high up as you can (and definitely above ear level), but the higher they go the closer to the seats they have to be.


----------



## X4100

@robert600 You have learned quite a lot in this short time, I think you explained it very well!!!


----------



## X4100

@MagnumX I just started having the same problem, a whole page of posts went through without me being notified


----------



## MagnumX

Who you gonna call???

I just watched *Ghostbusters: Afterlife* in Dolby Atmos 17.1 (11.1.6) surround (yes it was iTunes 4K streaming not a disc) and I must say I don't understand the negative reviews _some_ gave of this movie (my only complaint was it was a bit slow here and there (perhaps not great on repeated viewings; the original moved along at a snappy rhythm), but certainly for the initial watch I wasn't bored even so. No, it's not the original movie, but then neither was the first sequel and it had much more reverence for the original than that all-female version (which I didn't hate unlike some and the 3D was good on that one), but it was a fun movie, IMO and the Dolby Atmos surround was FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC! When something was going on, things were imaging all around, _way_ behind me (rear surrounds are awesome when they're not just right behind you; ideally that's where the side surrounds go with wides between you and the front). REAR should ideally mean WAY back like at a cinema (at home I'd say at _least_ 5 feet, 10 is better or yeah, you might have a hard time telling rears from sides that contain the downmixed rear information, but 5-10 feet away there's no mistaking it when it's discrete).

Overhead sounds? Present and accounted for! In fact, it was almost shocking how much stuff imaged _directly_ overhead. In fact, there was so much, now that I'm thinking about it, I'd almost want to see a Trinnov graph to show whether front/rear heights/tops are even used (i.e. might have been 7.1.2, but I doubt it given it's Sony who isn't known for El Cheapo Atmos. I'm pretty sure I heard thunderstorm type activity all over the place, but a few thunder shots were lower in the front near the sides, but perhaps they were meant to be out in the distance?) I thought I heard other sounds moving across the room in front of me, but were they in the overheads too or just above my head as the earl-level speakers can do? I'd have to watch again with the lower channels turned down to be certain, but there was no mistaking things flying right above my head on the ceiling.

In any case, it's certainly not "DisappointMOS" in nature (I'd probably rate it 8.8/10 for overall Atmos surround use). In other words, I feel Atmos was used pretty darn well. Movie plot wise, I'd probably give it an 7.6/10 as my first impression. Fun, but probably not an iconic film, but probably more satisfying than letting Ghostbusters II "end" the series (not saying this is the end by any means as it's fairly long-term open-ended in nature. Watch the end credits for sure).


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Who you gonna call???
> 
> I just watched *Ghostbusters: Afterlife* in Dolby Atmos 17.1 (11.1.6) surround (yes it was iTunes 4K streaming not a disc) and I must say I don't understand the negative reviews _some_ gave of this movie (my only complaint was it was a bit slow here and there (perhaps not great on repeated viewings; the original moved along at a snappy rhythm), but certainly for the initial watch I wasn't bored even so.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Overhead sounds? Present and accounted for! In fact, it was almost shocking how much stuff imaged _directly_ overhead. In fact, there was so much, now that I'm thinking about it, I'd almost want to see a Trinnov graph to show whether front/rear heights/tops are even used (i.e. might have been 7.1.2, but I doubt it given it's Sony who isn't known for El Cheapo Atmos. I'm pretty sure I heard thunderstorm type activity all over the place, but a few thunder shots were lower in the front near the sides, but perhaps they were meant to be out in the distance?) I thought I heard other sounds moving across the room in front of me, but were they in the overheads too or just above my head as the earl-level speakers can do? I'd have to watch again with the lower channels turned down to be certain, but there was no mistaking things flying right above my head on the ceiling.


Do you have a timestamp for the scenes where you think the thunderstorm activity was happening, or a notable scene with overhead content? If I know the time within a minute or two, I can look at my ATV4K and maybe do a screenshot of part of one of those moments to see After it becomes available for rental on 2/1: I don’t think this Is worth an own.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Do you have a timestamp for the scenes where you think the thunderstorm activity was happening, or a notable scene with overhead content? If I know the time within a minute or two, I can look at my ATV4K and maybe do a screenshot of part of one of those moments to see After it becomes available for rental on 2/1: I don’t think this Is worth an own.


I'd have to watch it again to note them. There's a huge action scene right at the start and then it's a bit of narrative and things are intermittent after that with a huge push at the end, of course.

I went ahead and bought it since I own all the others, which was better than paying $20-30 for the rentals only that often play while it's still at the theater. This was $20 to keep.


----------



## Snorefingers

For height Atmos speakers that are mounted on the ceiling for height effects, I won't hear a difference between the small Polk S10 vs the larger Polk S15, right? I'm thinking about buying the S10 speakers rather than the S15s despite the S15s being cheaper because I don't want to have a speaker so large mounted on the ceiling.


----------



## niterida

Snorefingers said:


> For height Atmos speakers that are mounted on the ceiling for height effects, I won't hear a difference between the small Polk S10 vs the larger Polk S15, right? I'm thinking about buying the S10 speakers rather than the S15s despite the S15s being cheaper because I don't want to have a speaker so large mounted on the ceiling.


You want the most capable speaker you can afford, justify and install.
There is full range signal sent to Atmos speakers, and even though they will be crossed over to the sub around 80hz, a bigger better speaker will always sound bigger and better.
The S15 is the best bet and will sound better, but if you can't justify having it hanging form your ceiling then S10 is your answer.


----------



## MortenS

After over 1 year looking for an ok priced Denon(3600/3700) & Marantz 5.1.4 XT32 capable receiver with added amp I'm wondering about biting the bullet and go for "just 5.1.2".
How big is the difference when going from x.x.2 to x.x.4
Is it the same as going from 5.1 to 7.1?
Like if you have heard .4 can you never go to .2 and be happy with that?
My room is smallish with 4,35*3,35*2,35(w*d*h) and about 1,5-1,75m from listening position to rear wall.


----------



## Snorefingers

When wiring up speakers at 50 feet distance, am I fine with a 16 gauge cable or should I go with the 14 gauge one?


----------



## chi_guy50

Snorefingers said:


> When wiring up speakers at 50 feet distance, am I fine with a 16 gauge cable or should I go with the 14 gauge one?


Depending on your speakers, 16AWG should be marginally sufficient at 50 feet (see the guide below). But speaker wire is cheap, and unless there is a cogent reason for using the thinner one (such as speaker posts on the AVR that will not accept the thicker wire), I would counsel going with 14AWG. Shielding is also important, particularly if running through walls or ceilings. Here in the U.S. we have classification ratings (CL2 and CL3) that verify whether the wiring is adequately shielded to avert a potential fire hazard.



https://www.systoncable.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/9.Wire-Chart-1200x800.jpg


----------



## sdurani

MortenS said:


> How big is the difference when going from x.x.2 to x.x.4


2 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right movement overhead. 4 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement overhead. Very noticeable difference.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> 2 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right movement overhead. 4 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement overhead. Very noticeable difference.


It's funny you say "noticeable" because it wasn't particularly _noticeable_ to most of the people on here with _Ready Player One_ and _Saving Private Ryan_. If someone hadn't told them it only uses two overheads, most of them (particularly with only 4 overhead speakers that "appears" to use all 4 because it's set to image between the two) wouldn't have a clue. Both movies use lower ear level panning to fool the brain into thinking it's panning overhead when it's actually not. They're not just effective, but highly rated effects and it makes one wonder how necessary any of that 34.1 maximum limit was necessary in the first place for a consumer system, particularly when Dolby refuses to tell the studios to use objects properly.


----------



## Snorefingers

Ordered the speakers and speaker wire needed to turn my my 3.1 system into a 5.1.2 system. Thanks to everyone who gave advice for helping me along, excited for the electrician to come by on Monday and install it!


----------



## robert600

MortenS said:


> After over 1 year looking for an ok priced Denon(3600/3700) & Marantz 5.1.4 XT32 capable receiver with added amp I'm wondering about biting the bullet and go for "just 5.1.2".
> How big is the difference when going from x.x.2 to x.x.4
> Is it the same as going from 5.1 to 7.1?
> Like if you have heard .4 can you never go to .2 and be happy with that?
> My room is smallish with 4,35*3,35*2,35(w*d*h) and about 1,5-1,75m from listening position to rear wall.


I'm new to Atmos so ... judge my comments according.

I've just started using 7.1.4 system. Oddly, since the avr can't process Neural:X when I use NEO:X to upmix, I get 7.1.2. No sound to my rear heights. If I upmix using DSU .. I get the full 7.1.4. To me at least, the difference is huge ... very noticeable. Bear in mind, that I have rear surrounds so I'm getting rear effects with both upmixers ... it's only the rear heights that are present (or not) and it's still very noticeable when the rear heights fire or not. In your case ... with no rear surrounds ... I would imagine that the prescence/abscense of rear heights would be even more noticeable since the rear heights would be your only source of 'behind you' sound. To my ears and perceptual system ... having 'rearness' in the sound bubble (so to speak) really triggers the 'emersive' experience. It's hard to put this stuff into words but if you could hear the difference, I'm pretty confident you would agree.
Needless to say, my advice would be to hold off till you can get 5.1.4. I know it's hard waiting (I had to wait years to get my AVR) but the difference is profound. The good news is your distance to the rear wall is very good for rear heights (well, unless your ceiling is like 20' high or something lol).


----------



## robert600

Snorefingers said:


> Ordered the speakers and speaker wire needed to turn my my 3.1 system into a 5.1.2 system. Thanks to everyone who gave advice for helping me along, excited for the electrician to come by on Monday and install it!


Nice one! Enjoy, Don't forget to use DSU or Neural:X on your 'flat' sound tracks (DTS Master, etc.) Those upmixers will steer plenty of sound to your heights! It's quite different from the way an 'authentic' Atmos uses the heights ... based on my very limited experience.


----------



## Snorefingers

robert600 said:


> Nice one! Enjoy, Don't forget to use DSU or Neural:X on your 'flat' sound tracks (DTS Master, etc.) Those upmixers will steer plenty of sound to your heights! It's quite different from the way an 'authentic' Atmos uses the heights ... based on my very limited experience.


My receiver supports these codecs: Dolby Atmos, Dolby Atmos Height Virtualizer, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Surround, DTS:X, DTS Neural:X, DTS Virtual:X, DTS-HD Master Audio

You are saying that for material using DTS-HD or Dolby Digital Plus I should not play it back "natively" but rather through DTS:X for best results?


----------



## robert600

Snorefingers said:


> My receiver supports these codecs: Dolby Atmos, Dolby Atmos Height Virtualizer, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Surround, DTS:X, DTS Neural:X, DTS Virtual:X, DTS-HD Master Audio
> 
> You are saying that for material using DTS-HD or Dolby Digital Plus I should not play it back "natively" but rather through DTS:X for best results?


Mmmm ... this brings my inexperience into focus as I don't have those same options. I think you'll find that you can't select Dolby Atmos for 'flat tracks' ... it'll come on automatically for atmos encoded sound ... so that one is 'off the table'. What I was trying to say was use whatever they're calling the upmixers (in my case, I'm limited to what the receiver displays as Dolby Surround when the sound mode button on the receiver's remote is repeated pressed ... it goes through the available option (all channel stereo, DTS, etc ...). I'm assuming "Dolby surround" is what you want for the dolby upmixing option (to do it one way). For the DTS upmixer ... not 100% sure ... I'm guessing DTS Neural:X but it may be DTS Virtual:X. You could try both and see what works ... it'll be very noticeable when the heights start firing. Maybe someone with more experience can shed more light on this ... not sure of the difference between Neural:X and Virtual:X or for that matter, also not sure what Dolbly Atmos Height Virtualizer is ( it may be a somewhat lame attempt to make ear level speakers sound like they're heights ... this may also be the case for Virtual:X ... I'm just not sure?

Anyway, I would try the flat tracks (DTS Master as an example) with both upmixers (dolby and DTS ... either of these will drive your heights) and then also with DTS-HD Master Audio (this won't fire the heights but the sound from the other speakers may be a little crisper. I think you'll find (as I did) the upmixing option to be more pleasurable but we're all different so who knows?

For my 1st attempt at the DTS upmixer ... I would try the Neural:X option ... if that didn't work, I would try DTS Virtual:X ... unless someone chimes in with a definitive answer as to which is the upmixer.


----------



## halcyon_888

Snorefingers said:


> My receiver supports these codecs: Dolby Atmos, Dolby Atmos Height Virtualizer, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Surround, DTS:X, DTS Neural:X, DTS Virtual:X, DTS-HD Master Audio
> 
> You are saying that for material using DTS-HD or Dolby Digital Plus I should not play it back "natively" but rather through DTS:X for best results?


Dolby Surround is going to be the Dolby upmixer (abbreviated DSU), and DTS Neural:X is the DTS upmixer. If you have height channels then you can use either upmixer, and which one is mostly personal preference. I've had height channels for about 8 months now and I started out preferring the DSU, but lately I began trying Neural:X and I prefer it because it sounds more like a native Atmos track to my ears. Note I'm only upmixing on multichannel soundtracks to Neural:X because for 2 channel upmixing Neural:X places some sounds from dialogue in the heights, the DSU doesn't do this.


----------



## ppasteur

robert600 said:


> For my 1st attempt at the DTS upmixer ... I would try the Neural:X option ... if that didn't work, I would try *DTS Virtual:X* ... unless someone chimes in with a definitive answer as to which is the upmixer.


The *Virtual:X* upmixer is much like the new "Dolby Height Virtualizer" (recently being enabled on Denon AVRs). It is designed to give the impression of height information _without _using height speakers.
Virtual:X is disabled on my AVR when height speakers are included/configured in the system. For systems with height speakers Neural:X or DSU would engage them.


----------



## Snorefingers

halcyon_888 said:


> Dolby Surround is going to be the Dolby upmixer (abbreviated DSU), and DTS Neural:X is the DTS upmixer. If you have height channels then you can use either upmixer, and which one is mostly personal preference. I've had height channels for about 8 months now and I started out preferring the DSU, but lately I began trying Neural:X and I prefer it because it sounds more like a native Atmos track to my ears. Note I'm only upmixing on multichannel soundtracks to Neural:X because for 2 channel upmixing Neural:X places some sounds from dialogue in the heights, the DSU doesn't do this.


Can you only use the DTS upmixer with DTS content and the DSU only with Dolby content or do they work with everything and it's just two different "brands"?


----------



## tbaucom

Snorefingers said:


> Can you only use the DTS upmixer with DTS content and the DSU only with Dolby content or do they work with everything and it's just two different "brands"?


It depends on your processor. Some processors don't allow cross upmixing even though there is no rule against it from Dolby/DTS. My unit (Arcam AV40) doesn't allow it.

What processor/receiver do you have?


----------



## sdurani

Snorefingers said:


> Can you only use the DTS upmixer with DTS content and the DSU only with Dolby content or do they work with everything and it's just two different "brands"?


The upmixers should be codec agnostic. Meaning you should be able to use any brand of upmixer with any codec, whether lossless (TrueHD, DTS-HD MA) or lossy (DD, DD+, DTS, DTS-HD HR) or even uncompressed PCM (Compact Discs). Whether the manufacturer of your receiver implemented it that way is a different story.


----------



## Snorefingers

tbaucom said:


> What processor/receiver do you have?


I am using a Denon X1700H, I'll have to play around with the various upmixing modes once the new speakers are connected.


----------



## bluesky636

Snorefingers said:


> I am using a Denon X1700H, I'll have to play around with the various upmixing modes once the new speakers are connected.


You should review this thread:









"OFFICIAL" 2021 Denon AVR Owner's Thread...


This thread is for discussion of the 2021 Denon AVRs: S660H/S760H/X1700H. Notes: 1. These are the only new Denon AVR models to be released for 2021. 2. Refer to the 2020 Denon AVR Owner's thread for discussion of the 2020 models (all of which will not be replaced in 2021) as well as the new...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## tbaucom

Snorefingers said:


> I am using a Denon X1700H, I'll have to play around with the various upmixing modes once the new speakers are connected.


Sound mode that can be selected for each input signal AVR-X1700H


----------



## Snorefingers

Thanks, looks like both Neural:X and DSU work with just about any input signal, good news!


----------



## chi_guy50

tbaucom said:


> It depends on your processor. Some processors don't allow cross upmixing even though there is no rule against it from Dolby/DTS. My unit (Arcam AV40) doesn't allow it.





tbaucom said:


> It depends on your processor. *Some processors don't allow cross upmixing *even though there is no rule against it from Dolby/DTS. *My unit (Arcam AV40) doesn't allow it.*
> 
> What processor/receiver do you have?


Nor does Yamaha, sadly.


----------



## Rich 63

MortenS said:


> After over 1 year looking for an ok priced Denon(3600/3700) & Marantz 5.1.4 XT32 capable receiver with added amp I'm wondering about biting the bullet and go for "just 5.1.2".
> How big is the difference when going from x.x.2 to x.x.4
> Is it the same as going from 5.1 to 7.1?
> Like if you have heard .4 can you never go to .2 and be happy with that?
> My room is smallish with 4,35*3,35*2,35(w*d*h) and about 1,5-1,75m from listening position to rear wall.


What @sdurani mentioned but also the upper tier units have better DAC and better room correction plus independent subs. To me the combined gain is worth the coin. I've been reading on this site that 3700 is around. I would suggest putting your name in for every site that sells them to get a notice when they are avaliable.


----------



## crutzulee

How is nobody here discussing the ATMOS track in the new DUNE UHD?

In a word, it is UNRELENTING.... you guys are going to lose your $hit..


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> How is nobody here discussing the ATMOS track in the new DUNE UHD?
> 
> In a word, it is UNRELENTING.... you guys are going to lose your $hit..


I'm too busy recovering from the experience. The streamed version was impressive... but the disc? Wow. I have some new rattles in my room to track down and fix. That's going to be a hard disc to beat for Atmos for a while. Plus, I just love the movie. It's the 4th time I've watched it.


----------



## robert600

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm too busy recovering from the experience. The streamed version was impressive... but the disc? Wow. I have some new rattles in my room to track down and fix. That's going to be a hard disc to beat for Atmos for a while. Plus, I just love the movie. It's the 4th time I've watched it.


When you say disc ... do you happen to know if the standard blu ray has the atmos track or ... just the UHD. I liked that movie too but haven't heard it with atmos yet. Something for me to look forward to!


----------



## X4100

Dune (2021) shows both on bluray.com


----------



## crutzulee

The bluray.com review claims that the ATMOS track is perhaps a bit "hot".... giggle, snicker.teehee... you'll have to hear for yourself.


----------



## mjwagner

Snorefingers said:


> When wiring up speakers at 50 feet distance, am I fine with a 16 gauge cable or should I go with the 14 gauge one?


I used 14 for all my speaker wire. IMO you are better off considering the minimal price difference.


----------



## titan ii

robert600 said:


> do you happen to know if the standard blu ray has the atmos track


Yes


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> How is nobody here discussing the ATMOS track in the new DUNE UHD?
> 
> In a word, it is UNRELENTING.... you guys are going to lose your $hit..


Better than Monster Hunter? I thought it was relentless (awesome).

I've ordered Dune in 3D from Germany last week (they were out of it locally and on Amazon US at time. $22 USD shipped from jpc.de. Might take awhile to get here though. I plan to just remux the 3D disc from the Atmos track on the 2D BD.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> Better than Monster Hunter? I thought it was relentless (awesome).
> 
> I've ordered Dune in 3D from Germany last week (they were out of it locally and on Amazon US at time. $22 USD shipped from jpc.de. Might take awhile to get here though. I plan to just remux the 3D disc from the Atmos track on the 2D BD.


I actually own Monster Hunter but have never seen it. I buy superhero and video game movies for my kids and will watch with them when I can. In the case of this title, my kids watched it without me and gave it me a thumbs down so the chances of me watching are slim to none.....Dune was a title I wanted to see. The fact that the ATMOS track is reference is just a bonus!


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> I actually own Monster Hunter but have never seen it. I buy superhero and video game movies for my kids and will watch with them when I can. In the case of this title, my kids watched it without me and gave it me a thumbs down so the chances of me watching are slim to none.....Dune was a title I wanted to see. The fact that the ATMOS track is reference is just a bonus!


Watch the first 20 minutes even of Monster Hunter. You probably won't be able to shut it off. I really don't get why people didn't like it. It's like a cross between Tremors, Pitch Black and Starship Troopers with the girl from Resident Evil kicking butt in top form still. OK some plot points were weak/convenient and it's definitely derivative, but if Boss Baby and Godzilla #38 Part II can be a hit, what the hell does the plot matter these days for an action film?


----------



## MortenS

sdurani said:


> 2 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right movement overhead. 4 height speakers let you hear left-vs-right AND front-vs-back movement overhead. Very noticeable difference.





robert600 said:


> I'm new to Atmos so ... judge my comments according.
> 
> I've just started using 7.1.4 system. Oddly, since the avr can't process Neural:X when I use NEO:X to upmix, I get 7.1.2. No sound to my rear heights. If I upmix using DSU .. I get the full 7.1.4. To me at least, the difference is huge ... very noticeable. Bear in mind, that I have rear surrounds so I'm getting rear effects with both upmixers ... it's only the rear heights that are present (or not) and it's still very noticeable when the rear heights fire or not. In your case ... with no rear surrounds ... I would imagine that the prescence/abscense of rear heights would be even more noticeable since the rear heights would be your only source of 'behind you' sound. To my ears and perceptual system ... having 'rearness' in the sound bubble (so to speak) really triggers the 'emersive' experience. It's hard to put this stuff into words but if you could hear the difference, I'm pretty confident you would agree.
> Needless to say, my advice would be to hold off till you can get 5.1.4. I know it's hard waiting (I had to wait years to get my AVR) but the difference is profound. The good news is your distance to the rear wall is very good for rear heights (well, unless your ceiling is like 20' high or something lol).





Rich 63 said:


> What @sdurani mentioned but also the upper tier units have better DAC and better room correction plus independent subs. To me the combined gain is worth the coin. I've been reading on this site that 3700 is around. I would suggest putting your name in for every site that sells them to get a notice when they are avaliable.


Thanks for replies guys.
Then i will hold out until i can get a 5.1.4(with ext amp) XT32 receiver.


----------



## tigerhonaker

crutzulee said:


> How is nobody here discussing the ATMOS track in the new DUNE UHD?
> 
> In a word, it is UNRELENTING.... you guys are going to lose your $hit..


Mine just arrived.
Looking forward to Seeing & Hearing it !!!







Terry


----------



## tigerhonaker

MagnumX said:


> Watch the first 20 minutes even of Monster Hunter. You probably won't be able to shut it off. I really don't get why people didn't like it. It's like a cross between Tremors, Pitch Black and Starship Troopers with the girl from Resident Evil kicking butt in top form still. OK some plot points were weak/convenient and it's definitely derivative, but if Boss Baby and Godzilla #38 Part II can be a hit, what the hell does the plot matter these days for an action film?


Just placed my order for the 4K version after seeing the positive comments on here.

I also went for the 4K version of the 10-Commandments.
The reviews for it are also very positive.

Terry


----------



## petetherock

tigerhonaker said:


> Just placed my order for the 4K version after seeing the positive comments on here.
> 
> I also went for the 4K version of the 10-Commandments.
> The reviews for it are also very positive.
> 
> Terry


Monster Hunter?
Nice disc, best way to annoy your neighbors


----------



## tigerhonaker

tigerhonaker said:


> Just placed my order for the 4K version after seeing the positive comments on here.
> 
> Terry





petetherock said:


> Monster Hunter?
> Nice disc, best way to annoy your neighbors


Pete,

Trust me with 4 SVS PB16-Ultra Subs located in all 4-corners I'm looking forward to it. 







This is going to be some Super-Fun-Listening guys. 

Terry


----------



## amanz

robert600 said:


> Ok ... my thoughts ... based on me being a longggggg time user of 7.1 and 3 day user of atmos lol. The only experience with Atmos (other than my new-to-me system was at commercial movie theaters) ... no friends or relatives use it. While always being interested in Atmos ... it took me till now to get into precisely because of what you're wondering about. I couldn't bear to think of losing those rear surrounds. In the right movie, they add so much. Accordingly, I was only willing to consider Atmos if I could do 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. Only very recently have older receivers come on the market that could do this for me at a price that I could afford. So that's my background ... here's my suggestion for your situation (bearing in mind that I don't like throwing money at something that I'm not sure I'll like).
> 
> I would temporarly somehow get your current rear surround speakers up above where you sit ... one positioned about 18 inches to left, the other 18 inches to right or something like that ... use stepladders with cardboard boxes, bungee cords, whatever or something like that to get them up there ... no I'm not going to hold them up there for you lol. Do whatever you have to do to let the receiver know your using middle heights not rear surrounds and have a good listen. Only you can say which you like better after you run a few tests. At least this way, if you decide you like the rear surrounds better ... you haven't spent a cent.
> 
> Bear in mind...if you think that going with heights are a better option and decide to spring for those Atmos enables add ons ... they're not going to be as effective for height effects as your test set up ... so I'm told ...I've had no experience with that type of speaker ... and I think the debate about that isa whole other can of worms.
> 
> Oh ... and If you do decide to go the atmos route ... I think you can cheat a little with your surrounds (I presume right now, they're directly to your left and right?). Without the rears ... I'd be tempted to move them back a foot or so ... that'll give some behind feel to the sound field.
> 
> Hopefully someone with more direct experience will chime in with suggestions but those are my thoughts.


The surrounds are to the L and R of the seating position, slightly behind and about 2' higher than seating position. The rear surrounds are about 8' behind the seating position, mounted on the back wall, at the same height as the side surrounds. I recently moved the love seat further back from my LG 65 C1, which places the seating position closer to the side surrounds. In the prior position, the side surrounds were further back from the seating position. Moving the loveseat back also gives more room for my greyhounds to lounge around.


----------



## Rich 63

amanz said:


> The surrounds are to the L and R of the seating position, slightly behind and about 2' higher than seating position. The rear surrounds are about 8' behind the seating position, mounted on the back wall, at the same height as the side surrounds. I recently moved the love seat further back from my LG 65 C1, which places the seating position closer to the side surrounds. In the prior position, the side surrounds were further back from the seating position. Moving the loveseat back also gives more room for my greyhounds to lounge around.


 Just an fyi on case it hasn't been mentioned. If your going to dive into atmos the surrounds will need to be lowered to ear height. The way you have your surrounds now are old surround recommendations


----------



## Snorefingers

My front towers, Polk S50s, are slightly below seating position, I figure if I mount my rear surrounds at the same height that'll be fine, right?


----------



## Rich 63

Snorefingers said:


> My front towers, Polk S50s, are slightly below seating position, I figure if I mount my rear surrounds at the same height that'll be fine, right?


38" tall so the tweeters are at 36ish". That's where mine are and works just fine. My ears are when seated at 36ish" too.


----------



## robert600

Snorefingers said:


> My front towers, Polk S50s, are slightly below seating position, I figure if I mount my rear surrounds at the same height that'll be fine, right?


Ummm ... I'm not sure what you sit on. What you want is (line of sight so to speak) from your ears to the speakers. In all liklihood... with your fronts being a little lower ... this is not an issue. The rears maybe a little different. In my case, I sit in in a 'lazy-boy" type couch ... the height of the back of the couch is slightly HIGHER than my ear position when I'm seated ... thus, putting rear surrounds ... even at dead horizontal would put them in a "sound shadow" from the back of the couch (know what I mean? Having them lower than horizontal would be even worse. Accordingly, I put my rear surrounds a little higher than dead horizontal ... so that if I twist my head when seated ... I can just see the bottom of my surround speakers (fortunately 'ear height' is only an inch lower than eye height so this works pretty well.

Whether or not the above applies to your situation depends on your height (I'm quite tall) and the height of the back of whatever you're sitting on. Bottom line is ... avoid having your ears in a 'sound shadow' for any of your speakers ... often it's the rear surrounds that require a bit of a tweak from 'theoretical ideal position' to actual 'ideal for your situation position'. I hope you can make sense of what I said.

Oh ... I'm assuming your receiver has/will have a calibration mic? Be absolutely certain you put it at just the right place (both left and right ... and very importantly height wise. Be careful where you're standing when you run the calibration ... you don't want your body creating a 'sound shadow'!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Snorefingers said:


> My front towers, Polk S50s, are slightly below seating position, I figure if I mount my rear surrounds at the same height that'll be fine, right?


Don't base your rear surround height on the front soundstage. Base it on clearing the seat backs. You can elevate the rear surrounds up to 25 degrees above ear level per Dolby and still be in spec. And you can mitigate putting them closer to the heights by adjusting the placement of the heights to compensate so you maintain good separation. See pp. 9-10 of Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Certification Guide (which you can find by Googling).

Also, if you move up and down and hear the sound of your front towers change such that you think they need to be raised up, a crafty and not-too-bad-looking solution for speakers that don't have threaded feet is to put your towers up on monitor stand risers. They are typically just a bit bigger than the footprint of tower speakers and provide a stable base. If your speakers do have threaded feet (and I don't think the S50s do), you can get screw-in furniture pads to raise them up. My SVS Prime Towers were a bit too low for my tastes (36") so I tried some 2.5" tall rubber furniture feet with the same M8 thread, and it worked well to bring them up to the same level that my center channel was (and actually looks pretty nice).


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> Watch the first 20 minutes even of Monster Hunter. You probably won't be able to shut it off. I really don't get why people didn't like it. It's like a cross between Tremors, Pitch Black and Starship Troopers with the girl from Resident Evil kicking butt in top form still. OK some plot points were weak/convenient and it's definitely derivative, but if Boss Baby and Godzilla #38 Part II can be a hit, what the hell does the plot matter these days for an action film?


I had the opposite experience. Flat acting by the girl from Resident Evil who was much better in the first Resident Evil film than here. And from everyone else. Herky jerky random camera editing from one person to another. No thought put into the sequence of shots, you can tell they just recorded the same scene randomly from a few angles and then just smashed them together in the editing room. Almost zero character development the first half of the movie besides Mila ponderously looking at a ring a few times, and her and the bow guy trying to kill each other.

Is anyone else tired of this new trope in movies where every time two characters meet, they have to fight hand to hand combat first before they become friends, and to make it even worse, they do it in such violent ways that a real person would be dead 20 times by the end? Yes of course the heroes will fight with the enemies in the movie, but these characters are the only people in an abandoned desert with the devil and spiders trying to kill them, so you'd think they would work together, which everyone knows is exactly what's going to happen after the fight, making a drawn out long fight scene something that just delays the story. They even did it in Black Widow with two sisters, including one taking full intention swings with a knife at the other's head, then they work together the rest of the movie. "You didn't come to visit me when you were busy saving the world, now die!" And just like the beginning of Black Widow they slap one (or maybe two) too many action scenes like this back to back to back with little story or character development in between before the story really gets started (assuming it ever does with Monster Hunter), which hurts the pacing. At least Black Widow had some quality action scenes, different environments, big budget, etc. Monster Hunter not so much. They did a decent job with the CGI spiders in the horror-action scenes but it's so CGI heavy (and seemingly shot digital) that the atmosphere is not really there. I can't think of a great example of anyone doing it better except LOTR but maybe if I really wrack my memory, there are underground tunnels in The 13th Warrior that are more atmospheric and real looking.

Flat characters in Monster Hunter. Flat military dialogue probably written by a computer, or copied straight from a placeholder script that is just used to help with story structure when writing a real script. Cinematography and editing probably coordinated by a _broken_ computer. One-note environment all movie (before I turned it off 45 minutes) which is also empty of humans. Almost zero extras in the film! I watched Lawrence of Arabia again recently and even back in 1962 they were able to get tons of extras, all in costume, into tons of shots.

That's another huge problem with modern movies. Where are all the extras? Human and animal also? Big environments, big action, and big CGI are only half of what gives a movie scale and life. The other half is lots of people (and animals)! To make the movie feel _alive _you need _life_ in it! Real people. Lawrence of Arabia has huge crowds of people, often in motion not just standing still (sometimes you can get even more energy coming off the screen from people who are moving, as humans are known to do), as well as tons of animals (camels and horses) in the shots. That adds to the scale. Another classic The Godfather is very similar in this way (minus as many animals). I think some CGI looks great. And I like action. But so many modern movies are just a handful of people in the whole movie and they film their action one person at a time, or a couple people at a time, in front of a green screen, and there are no extras. Where are the crowds???? These movies are supposed to be taking place on planet earth which has seven billion people. (Monster Hunter doesn't take place on earth but I'm talking about modern films in general, whether it's earth or a sci-fi environment that is also populated). Well, Monster Hunter takes this problem to a new level with just one or two characters in a giant desaturated desert with nothing in it early in the movie except antagonistic creatures that have no dialogue or personality other than hunting the protagonists. Maybe more characters are introduced later but I already suspect there will be no crowds. I know people will blame covid but this was becoming a problem with a lot of movies even before that, plus I recently saw sporting events with like 60,000 people packed into one stadium so it's no excuse. Studios are just cutting corners and the quality of the films is suffering.


----------



## Rich 63

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't base your rear surround height on the front soundstage. Base it on clearing the seat backs. You can elevate the rear surrounds up to 25 degrees above ear level per Dolby and still be in spec. And you can mitigate putting them closer to the heights by adjusting the placement of the heights to compensate so you maintain good separation. See pp. 9-10 of Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Certification Guide (which you can find by Googling).
> 
> Also, if you move up and down and hear the sound of your front towers change such that you think they need to be raised up, a crafty and not-too-bad-looking solution for speakers that don't have threaded feet is to put your towers up on monitor stand risers. They are typically just a bit bigger than the footprint of tower speakers and provide a stable base. If your speakers do have threaded feet (and I don't think the S50s do), you can get screw-in furniture pads to raise them up. My SVS Prime Towers were a bit too low for my tastes (36") so I tried some 2.5" tall rubber furniture feet with the same M8 thread, and it worked well to bring them up to the same level that my center channel was (and actually looks pretty nice).


As to surround height. I don't disagree with your take on raising them. Certainly at least the tweeter should be above the seatback. In my case my ceilings are basement at 7'4" so raising the heights is not an option. They are already as high as I can get them My ears are just above my seatback so ear height is acceptable. Guess all setups have different compromises. Just have to minimize them.


----------



## halcyon_888

Monster Hunter has a good bass soundtrack natively, but with BEQ it's one of the best out there and demo worthy. The Atmos is great too, the heights are very active. Surround usage is plentiful. The quality of the movie is debatable, I like the Godzilla and Kong monsterverse movies so Monster Hunter is right up my alley. Is it Oscar worthy? Not a chance, but it's entertaining if you are someone who can be entertained by these kinds of movies. As far as audio/visual qualities are concerned, this is one of the best of 2021.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Technology3456 said:


> That's another huge problem with modern movies. Where are all the extras?


I know what you mean. The funeral scene in Gandi (1982) is epic because of the number of people in it. 300,000 extras. That will never be beaten, it will be CGI these days. I gave you a like because it was well argued, not that I 100% agree with the whole post to be clear . Anyway the impression I got last time I mentioned movie quality was that on this thread the main focus is on audio quality, even if the movies are obvious stinkers, people can see past that (I definitely can't, if it stinks I can't just watch it with a clothes-peg on my nose and enjoy it like some people here apparently can!) and they didn't really want/enjoy detailed discussions about the non-audio stuff in here


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Rich 63 said:


> As to surround height. I don't disagree with your take on raising them. Certainly at least the tweeter should be above the seatback. In my case my ceilings are basement at 7'4" so raising the heights is not an option. They are already as high as I can get them My ears are just above my seatback so ear height is acceptable. Guess all setups have different compromises. Just have to minimize them.


Yeah, every layout has compromises. I tend to take a fairly holistic approach to logically place things within the spec. With a single row of seating and low seatbacks, ear level surrounds may work great. With two rows, you may need the rear surrounds to be elevated and angled down to match the angle of the two rows so you get good coverage. In my room, I used some adjustable speaker stands that I had to try different heights for my rear surrounds until I found what worked best with the recliners that I have. I did the same thing with my side surrounds, and I recommend doing this before locking down speaker positions if you can snag some cheap adjustable-height stands. In my room, the tops of each speaker are at 38" LCR, 42" side surrounds, and 47" rear surrounds, giving me a gentle rising slope front to back; I also adjusted my height rows slightly narrower and brought the top rears slightly forward to account for it. (It's well established that I'm super nitpicky.)

My point was that you don't need to stick to that ear-level thing too closely. That rule is to keep separation between the ear-level and height layers in a smaller space than the theater... but you can adjust the heights to maintain that separation if you have to raise the surrounds for practical reasons. And Dolby's mix room guidelines offer a way to do this that isn't too hard to implement and match the theatrical rules.


----------



## Technology3456

halcyon_888 said:


> Monster Hunter has a good bass soundtrack natively, but with BEQ it's one of the best out there and demo worthy. The Atmos is great too, the heights are very active. Surround usage is plentiful. The quality of the movie is debatable, I like the Godzilla and Kong monsterverse movies so Monster Hunter is right up my alley. Is it Oscar worthy? Not a chance, but it's entertaining if you are someone who can be entertained by these kinds of movies. As far as audio/visual qualities are concerned, this is one of the best of 2021.


I heard the Atmos is great on this also, so no gripes there. Just responding to Magnum's opinion of the actual movie. I'm not sure how most people prefer the topic to work, that you don't talk about the quality of the actual movie at all, or that people can start with the atmos, then it evolves to talking about the movie too a little bit, and then back to the atmos, or on to another movie starting with the atmos. I don't know who really decides this things anyway. But I'll respond more about the movie and if it's determined that we're not supposed to do that then I won't keep doing it. All this is just my opinion but I won't keep repeating that for every statement so I don't make the post longer. To address what you said about the Godzilla and Kong monsterverse movies are bigger budget movies, with some decent scale real locations, and bigger and better casts (we're speaking relatively here because compared to other casts their casts are not as good, and they didn't necessarily perform well either but they still had more character than Monster Hunter, however now we're speaking _really _relatively because the character development was still poor in the ones I saw). And Peter Jackson's Kong movie is an actual _film _(Imean that in the sense of Scorscesse's quote about "film" vs entertainment) albeit it with some extra CGI scenes in between that distracted from the "film" at its core. But it was still there. Ann Darrow's character arc is not going to be matched by Monster Hunter. Jack Black's character... not sure he had much arc... is not going to be matched. I'm not saying it was Shakespeare but he at least had a character, and a goal besides "escape giant monster for whole movie." Well, he actually did have that goal too for part of the movie, but also other more interesting ones.



mrtickleuk said:


> I know what you mean. The funeral scene in Gandi (1982) is epic because of the number of people in it. 300,000 extras. That will never be beaten, it will be CGI these days. I gave you a like because it was well argued, not that I 100% agree with the whole post to be clear .


300,000 extras? Sheesh. How did they pull that off? I'm not asking for 300,000 in every movie but you need a certain number. When a wedding in The Godfather has more extras than a giant battle scene in Game of Thrones or something like that, it's taking away from the movie (or show).



> Anyway the impression I got last time I mentioned movie quality was that on this thread the main focus is on audio quality, even if the movies are obvious stinkers, people can see past that and didn't really want/enjoy detailed discussions about the non-audio stuff in here


Thanks for the heads up. If that's the case then I'll leave it there.


----------



## crutzulee

The 2 biggest improvements that locked in the ATMOS bubble for me was the lowering of my surround and rear channels to create better separation from the heights, and giving up on trying to balance the sound in my back row.
Once I focused my calibration on a more narrowly defined space for the MLP, I improved the true ATMOS experience for all 3 seats in my front row. It's not like the experience is bad in the back row. Most lay people would still be impressed back there even if they are outside of the "bubble"


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> The 2 biggest improvements that locked in the ATMOS bubble for me was the lowering of my surround and rear channels to create better separation from the heights, and giving up on trying to balance the sound in my back row.
> Once I focused my calibration on a more narrowly defined space for the MLP, I improved the true ATMOS experience for all 3 seats in my front row. It's not like the experience is bad in the back row. Most lay people would still be impressed back there even if they are outside of the "bubble"


Same here. My back row is kind of an afterthought. It literally only exists because when I moved in, I had an extra couch someone had given me, so I put it behind my three recliners. But people who've watched movies in the back row are still blown away by it and say it's as good as the theater... even though everything is calibrated and tweaked for the front row. I'm eventually going to build a riser and get better seating for the back row, but it's pretty low on my to-do list right now.


----------



## chi_guy50

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Don't base your rear surround height on the front soundstage. Base it on clearing the seat backs. You can elevate the rear surrounds *up to 25 degrees above ear level* per Dolby and still be in spec. And you can mitigate putting them closer to the heights by adjusting the placement of the heights to compensate so you maintain good separation. See pp. 9-10 of Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Certification Guide (which you can find by Googling).


Not 25 degrees, but rather no more than 1.25 times the height of the mains, according to Dolby's recommendations.

_If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front
speakers. If the room design makes this impractical or impossible, the rear speakers may be
positioned higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the height of the rear
speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers._


----------



## Snorefingers

Gonna install my rears slightly higher than my fronts, in case I upgrade to bigger fronts later.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chi_guy50 said:


> Not 25 degrees, but rather no more than 1.25 times the height of the mains, according to Dolby's recommendations.
> 
> _If possible, the height of the rear speakers should be the same as the height of the front
> speakers. If the room design makes this impractical or impossible, the rear speakers may be
> positioned higher than the front speakers. However, we suggest that the height of the rear
> speakers not be more than 1.25 times the height of the front speakers._


That's their generalized home guidelines. Again, see pp. 9-10 of Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Certification Guide for more specificity and the math to adjust for elevation.


----------



## MagnumX

@Technology3456 -

I compare Monster Hunter to Godzilla, Tremors and Pitch Black and you're talking about Lawrence of Arabia. Clearly, you have different expectations of summer action films. I was mostly talking about how utterly fantastic the Atmos and 3D is on it, which made a B-Movie super enjoyable and you're comparing it to Lord of the Rings. 

Oddly, for all the dialog and character development there, I find LOTR hard to watch because to get the full story it's like 12+ hours long for the extended version with (sorry) a lot of boring dialog and whining by Sam about how much he loves Frodo.... Frankly, I prefer Harry Potter for long movies as it's almost always interesting even when they're just going to school. Raging Against The Machine gets old after awhile (the entire point of LOTR is it's a symbolic reflection of modern society placed in a more medieval atmosphere). Yeah, it's unbelievable the first time around, but to me gets old on repeated viewings, save Hobbit World which at least looks like an interesting place to live.

Here, it's simple. They get trapped in an alternate Earth with giant monsters that exist at least close to the ancient fortress that an advanced civilization once controlled. They don't necessarily imply the entire planet is overrun, but the giant monsters protect the technology in the fortress by making it near impossible to approach. 

Why develop her team characters when they aren't used? Yes, the plots of a lot of action movies these days look hella similar to what came before. That's why I said it's derivative. This is another comic book series come to life and expecting Superman to be the equivalent of the Great Gatsby is probably going to disappoint. 

I've seen bigger plot holes than this in Star Trek and all the nerds love that, no matter how wooden Shatner's acting was. Hell, so do I. It's over the top. That's part of its appeal. Reality sucks. Political reality is even worse. I'd just assume watch fantasy than reality in the modern time period for movies. 

Monster Hunter is a popcorn movie, nothing more, nothing less. Ron Perlman is badarse. The 3D and Atmos are impeccable. If people want character and dialog development they should probably look elsewhere. No one watches Transformers expecting snappy dialog like Pulp Fiction or some great personal revelation like the main character was a ghost the entire movie or the woman was actually a guy (omg that movie wouldn't shock _anyone_ these days).


----------



## MagnumX

I'd be careful putting rear surrounds at 20+ degrees. That's already in the Heights category for six overheads. I don't put my sides or rears above my seat backs as there'd be no separation. If you're sitting in a chair that's how it will sound to you with anything in that same room in real life. Put the Audyssey (or whatever room correction microphone) where your ears will be and let it worry about it. I don't get muffled sound from behind me. It sounds great.

If you're really worried, don't use chairs with high seat backs, but I would try to avoid compromising the Atmos separation by putting them too close together. But if you're going to put surrounds at 25 degrees, I'd consider tops at 55 degrees instead of 45, if possible.


----------



## Rich 63

mrtickleuk said:


> I know what you mean. The funeral scene in Gandi (1982) is epic because of the number of people in it. 300,000 extras. That will never be beaten, it will be CGI these days. I gave you a like because it was well argued, not that I 100% agree with the whole post to be clear . Anyway the impression I got last time I mentioned movie quality was that on this thread the main focus is on audio quality, even if the movies are obvious stinkers, people can see past that and didn't really want/enjoy detailed discussions about the non-audio stuff in here


 Agreed. Plus there is never an issue watching Mila be Mila. For me anyway. 
I often watch movies more for the sound and image. Sci-fi, fantasy, space, sandel pic, war movies, etc deliver that. If I get a story. Bonus. Like saving or lord.


----------



## halcyon_888

By the way, I watched Eternals last night and there was one scene that had really good height usage with someone's voice coming out of the height channels. It's toward the end of the movie. I'm not sure how well the Atmos is other than that, I was paying attention to the movie more than judging the Atmos, but this one scene did jump out at me.


----------



## crutzulee

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Same here. My back row is kind of an afterthought. It literally only exists because when I moved in, I had an extra couch someone had given me, so I put it behind my three recliners. But people who've watched movies in the back row are still blown away by it and say it's as good as the theater... even though everything is calibrated and tweaked for the front row. I'm eventually going to build a riser and get better seating for the back row, but it's pretty low on my to-do list right now.


My "back row" is simply a double recliner that used to be my front row. When I got theater seats, I put it up on a nice riser made out of a couple of bookshelves that I slapped together years ago and some other reclaimed wood. I'm no Carpenter.
A couple of years ago, I visited one of our fellow members' home as we went in on a powerbuy for some really nice HT gear metal signs. His HT was gorgeous. It had been professionally planned and built out with 3 rows of stadium seating and top notch 7.6.6 gear.
Even he admitted at the time that the pro calibration team that setup his beautifully arrayed system gave him a choice of either having a stellar experience in a few chairs or an above average experience in all... guess what he chose..


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> I watched Eternals last night and there was one scene that had really good height usage with someone's voice coming out of the height channels. It's toward the end of the movie.


Is that the scene with the deviant sneaking up on Angelina Jolie's character in a cave? Both at home and at Atmos movie theatres, some of his dialogue came from above.


----------



## halcyon_888

sdurani said:


> Is that the scene with the deviant sneaking up on Angelina Jolie's character in a cave? Both at home and at Atmos movie theatres, some of his dialogue came from above.


Yea that’s the one, kind of surprising to have a scene like that in a Disney soundtrack.


----------



## Snorefingers

I might give BR2049 another watch once the new speakers arrive, I saw Eternals in theaters and unfortunately thought it was a stinker.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> Even he admitted at the time that the pro calibration team that setup his beautifully arrayed system gave him a choice of either having a stellar experience in a few chairs or an above average experience in all... guess what he chose..


That's one thing I like about D&Ms "Smart Settings". You can store modified layouts using the options menu sound adjustments. I keep one setting for perfect front row evenness, another that's perfect for row 2 and close to it for row 3 (really only one seat unless I bring out a padded extra chair) and a third smart setting that's a compromise of the two (all seats within 3dB of reference, but none perfect). With perfect settings 1 & 2, the front or back two rows have at least one set of speakers off by 4dB, possibly even 5dB. Array use drops it another dB. So, things are mostly within 2dB on the compromise and either perfect or off 3-4dB depending on the row used. 

So it's simple now. If 1-3 are watching in row 1, use setting 1, otherwise use setting 3. If I want to watch from row 2, use 2 (more interesting surround sometimes, particularly with music as you're sitting in the middle of it, but smaller picture). 

Last night I listened to many of my Atmos music albums from row 3 to hear how a rear perspective sounded. Very different. Very layered front-to-back sound with some effects (one synth on Booka Shade's Dear Future Self snakes in a curve left to right and back as it goes front-to-back and vice versa, but the front had a bit less impact. Rows 1 & 2 center sound the best.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> I'd be careful putting rear surrounds at 20+ degrees. That's already in the Heights category for six overheads. I don't put my sides or rears above my seat backs as there'd be no separation. If you're sitting in a chair that's how it will sound to you with anything in that same room in real life. Put the Audyssey (or whatever room correction microphone) where your ears will be and let it worry about it. I don't get muffled sound from behind me. It sounds great.
> 
> If you're really worried, don't use chairs with high seat backs, but I would try to avoid compromising the Atmos separation by putting them too close together. But if you're going to put surrounds at 25 degrees, I'd consider tops at 55 degrees instead of 45, if possible.


Nice post. I agree ... rear surrounds at 20+ seems extreem ... especially if you have rear heights. I do think you're down-playing the 'shadow effect' of high seat backs a little though. Anecdote from quite a few years back ... had just gotten into 7.1 and was loving it, had the rears up from horizontal a little to avoid the dreaded 'shadow' ... one day I watched something or other with DTS Master 7.1 and realized ... what's going on - no rear sound??? Got off the couch... went to the back of theater ... plenty of sound pouring out from the rears??? ...Went back to the couch and realized ... I had grabbed a pillow from the bed and put it on the couch behind my head, sticking out of course well past my ears. Remove the pillow ... sound was great ... put it back ... rear sound was all but gone. It was an eider, down pillow and down must have huge sound-absorbing properties cause the difference was huge. Don't know if a 'normal' pillow would have as much as an effect or not. Anyone with a 7.1 system, who doesn't believe in 'sound shadows' could easily grab a pillow, put it behind their head and check out the difference. So thinking of a high backed chair, maybe it depends a lot on what it's stuffed with and how thick the stuffing is behind the head?

Also what you say about "that's how it will sound to you with anything in that same room in real life." I think you have to be a little careful with that ... The entrance to my theater is in the back so in my case, that anything would be my wife nattering away to me lol, and since she's standing in the doorway her mouth (unfortunately for me) is well above 'sound shadow' effects" ha ha.

I think you're right ... avoiding seats with high back rests would be best ... I'm kinda stuck with what I have and fortunately I'm quite tall so not much elevation of the rears is required at all (maybe 12" ... not sure what the angle would be but since they're well behind the couch ... not much (I'd guess maybe 5 ... 10 tops).

Thinking of angles of the heights ... I just kinda eyeball mine. Is there an easy way to measure the angle. I guess I could measure the actual distance ... drop a plumb bob and measure the horizon distance and then do the old sine, cosine thing but is there a simpler way to find the angle?


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> Monster Hunter has a good bass soundtrack natively, but with BEQ it's one of the best out there and demo worthy. The Atmos is great too, the heights are very active. Surround usage is plentiful. The quality of the movie is debatable, I like the Godzilla and Kong monsterverse movies so Monster Hunter is right up my alley. Is it Oscar worthy? Not a chance, but it's entertaining if you are someone who can be entertained by these kinds of movies. As far as audio/visual qualities are concerned, this is one of the best of 2021.


I hate how it's mostly 1 or the other; ie good atmos, bad movie or bad atmos, good movie


----------



## petetherock

tigerhonaker said:


> Pete,
> 
> Trust me with 4 SVS PB16-Ultra Subs located in all 4-corners I'm looking forward to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is going to be some Super-Fun-Listening guys.
> 
> Terry


I guess you're giving them good vibes...


----------



## chi_guy50

robert600 said:


> Thinking of angles of the heights ... I just kinda eyeball mine. Is there an easy way to measure the angle. I guess I could measure the actual distance ... drop a plumb bob and measure the horizon distance and then do the old sine, cosine thing but *is there a simpler way to find the angle?*


Ask and ye shall receive:

*Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


----------



## robert600

chi_guy50 said:


> Ask and ye shall receive:
> 
> *Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


 Thanks ... very cool ... where was this when I was in high school tearing my hair out over this kind of thing? LOL. So ... I'd plug in distances b and c and it'll figure the rest ... awesome!


----------



## MagnumX

CAH, SOH, TOA. That's how I always remember them. 

COS(x) = Adjacent / Hypotenuse 
SIN(x) = Opposite / Hypotenuse 
TAN(x) = Opposite / Adjacent 

Where x is the angle of the triangle being looked at.

Simple calculator plug in from there.


----------



## bartonnen

MagnumX said:


> CAH, SOH, TOA.


We were taught SOH CAH TOA - easier to say in your head I think.


----------



## MagnumX

bartonnen said:


> We were taught SOH CAH TOA - easier to say in your head I think.


I wasn't implying any particular order, just the individual sounds (I see I defaulted to alphabetical order without thinking about it). No one taught me a method to memorize. I just thought it made sense to make them sound like words so they'd be easier to remember. I used to also associate words/facts with any odd/goofy thing/image/sound I could think of so I'd have a secondary way of remembering it if the primary method slipped my mind. It seemed to work well for me as I never really had to study much to ace tests.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bartonnen said:


> We were taught SOH CAH TOA - easier to say in your head I think.


Yep. Sock-a-toe-ah! It works because I remember it many years later  . We were taught to say it like that deliberately. I felt sorry for the classes a few years before us who didn't have calculators capable of doing the functions, they had to look up the values in log table books


----------



## mjwagner

mrtickleuk said:


> Yep. Sock-a-toe-ah! It works because I remember it many years later  . We were taught to say it like that deliberately. I felt sorry for the classes a few years before us who didn't have calculators capable of doing the functions, they had to look up the values in log table books


Ah yes, log books...there is a memory...LOL. And I was taught, Sally Could Tell Oscar Had A H**d On Always....funny what teenage boys will remember...LOL.


----------



## robert600

mrtickleuk said:


> I felt sorry for the classes a few years before us who didn't have calculators capable of doing the functions, they had to look up the values in log table books


Yes, that would be me! Always puzzled me. Years later (nobody gave it a thought back then) I was shown to be somewhat dyslexic ... probably didn't help. Found out the hard way playing hold-em ... if you have 6s and think they are 9s ... you get punished hard!


----------



## robert600

chi_guy50 said:


> Ask and ye shall receive:
> 
> *Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator*


Interesting exercise. Doing the measuring ... I quickly realized (since my ceiling is flat) that determining the height above the ideal listening position (ILP) is wayyyyy easier than that crazy plumb bob thing I was thinking of. Distance to ceiling from ILP minus distance from ceiling to mid point of Height Speaker. That gives me 'a' in the calculator. Measuring form the face of the speaker to the ILP gives me the hypotenus (c). Plug those numbers in ... and out pop the angles ...perfect.

Here's something I don't quite get! As usual words are problematic but hopefully it'll kinda be clear. Measuring from the face of any of the Heights to the ILP gives you the hypotenus BUT ... Does not that angle have BOTH a vertical portion and a horizontal portion to it? This bothered me enough to actually make a mark in the ceiling half way between (left and right) where the speakers actually are and measuring from there as well (holding the tape down a little to where I figured the midpoint of the speaker would be. Would this be the purely height portion of the angle? This of course results in a little shorter hypotenuse (the height measurement stays the same). Turns out the resulting angle is not HUGELY different but percentage wise 3 - 4 degrees is getting towards 10%. Anybody know what is the correct way to think about the angle to your heights??? Or am I just very confused?

Anyway, running my numbers (assuming my wife was reading the tape correctly) was interesting ... Front heights right around 45, rear surrounds elevated (to eliminate sound shadow) 5 to 6. Both those are pretty good ...right? It seems my Back Heights are a little too far back ... around 52 (if dead straight up is 0). I'm thinking of moving them forward one joist ... 16"), That should get me at least to 45 and ... provide a little more perceptual separation between the rear heights and the rear surrounds. The joists run left to right. I guess if I wanted to change the front-back distance by less than 16", I could make a wooden bridge type thing but I'd rather avoid that if possible.

Any thoughts or advice about the above would be much appeciated


----------



## ppasteur

mrtickleuk said:


> I felt sorry for the classes a few years before us who didn't have calculators capable of doing the functions, they had to look up the values in log table books


You must be a young pup... We weren't allowed to even use calculators in class or especially on tests. Log books was it...


----------



## ppasteur

robert600 said:


> Interesting exercise. Doing the measuring ... I quickly realized (since my ceiling is flat) that determining the height above the ideal listening position (ILP)


Really, just curious, why use ILP rather than what is almost universally used... MLP (main listening position). I guess that there could be a difference. Like if no one ever actually listens at the ideal location. But that would suck...


----------



## mrtickleuk

ppasteur said:


> You must be a young pup... We weren't allowed to even use calculators in class or especially on tests. Log books was it...


Thanks for your kind words . I remember one maths class there weren't enough calculators to go around (the school had a box of them available for children who couldn't afford them), and the teacher found a very old and basic calculator in the back of his cupboard. It could only do basic + - * / *and it plugged into the mains electricity*! Wasn't really much use for trig


----------



## halcyon_888

mrtickleuk said:


> Yep. Sock-a-toe-ah! It works because I remember it many years later  . We were taught to say it like that deliberately. I felt sorry for the classes a few years before us who didn't have calculators capable of doing the functions, they had to look up the values in log table books





mjwagner said:


> Ah yes, log books...there is a memory...LOL. And I was taught, Sally Could Tell Oscar Had A H**d On Always....funny what teenage boys will remember...LOL.


Some Old Horse Came A Hoppin' Through Our Alley is what we were taught, doesn't make sense but it's funny to think about and kind of why it stuck.


----------



## robert600

ppasteur said:


> Really, just curious, why use ILP rather than what is almost universally used... MLP (main listening position). I guess that there could be a difference. Like if no one ever actually listens at the ideal location. But that would suck...


Sorry, I didn't know the correct phrase so I made up ILP. Really I meant MLP ... in my case (2 seater recliner), I put the calibration mic half-way (left to right) along the couch and at my ear height (my wife is quite a bit shorter than I am but what can I say ... sucks to be her lol). In my head, since I have no one to talk to about this stuff ... I just thought of this mic position as 'Ideal Listening Position'. Now I know better. Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched *Divergence* 4K UHD in DTS:X and I have to say it had EXCELLENT sound! It was downright holographic sounding at times with things moving around the space around me well in front of the screen quite regularly and all around and smoothly from above right with the action on-screen just like you'd expect from a proper Atmos soundtrack. The front wides were heavily used based on the imaging in that area of the room and at one point a dog sounded like it was jumping right at me off to the left of my chair and I almost flinched (probably would have if I had cranked volume louder). The usage was right up there with the Harry Potter series, IMO and well above even a typical "good" Atmos soundtrack, IMO. Even good Atmos movies rarely pan through the front wide areas like typical DTS:X soundtracks often do. Even without actual wides, the difference is noticeable, IMO as sounds move from the fronts to the sides smoothly. Many Atmos and older surround movies (not all) tend to sort of "jump" to the surrounds rather than move smoothly through the area in-between for some reason.

The sharpness/clarity of this movie even downscaled (using an external scaler) on my 2K projector is simply stunning. I'd almost swear it was a 4K projector during the scenes in the choosing room with the crowds as everyone was so detailed even from a long distance. Good stuff. Too bad they never finished the series. I have the 2nd movie (Insurgent) in 3D + Atmos so it'll be interesting to compare the Atmos audio on it to the DTS:X track that came after it on this 4K UHD release of the original movie.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> Many Atmos and older surround movies (not all) tend to sort of "jump" to the surrounds rather than move smoothly through the area in-between for some reason.


Yes, well said! Being new to this ... when I noticed this, I thought it was because of calibration errors in my system.But checking that, it seemed perfect. Eventually,I came to realize it was the way the soundtrack was mixed. What really convinced me was that Atmos Demo 'Helicopter' ... there, it circles overhead, moving smoothly front to back and left to right. No jumping at all! Actually, I watched John Wick 2 last night - good Atmos with little to no 'jumpiness'.

BTW ... I'm hoping to receive a matched pair of older receivers this coming week. I'm going to try SCATMOS. Looking at your system ... you have this well figured out ... and then some! lol. If I get into problems (quite likely) will you assist me? One immediate question about that is ... I have 2 traditional type 'center' speakers to use for Mid Heights. What would you say is the best way to mount them ... long axis going front back or long axis going left to right??? I'm thinking, front to back but, I get easily confused.


----------



## lax01

For a non-action movie, The Tragedy of Macbeth on AppleTV+ had excellent Dolby Atmos effects


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> BTW ... I'm hoping to receive a matched pair of older receivers this coming week. I'm going to try SCATMOS. Looking at your system ... you have this well figured out ... and then some! lol. If I get into problems (quite likely) will you assist me? One immediate question about that is ... I have 2 traditional type 'center' speakers to use for Mid Heights. What would you say is the best way to mount them ... long axis going front back or long axis going left to right??? I'm thinking, front to back but, I get easily confused.


I'll help out if I can. As for the "centers" are you talking about mounting them flat on the ceiling either vertically or horizontally or on a mount where they can be manipulated to point towards the MLP at an angle? For the latter, you could easily try both and see which gives the best sounding response, but what's more important is having the tweeter on-axis in regards to the MLP if possible. Most center designs assume a forward facing position. These would likely be mounted to the left/right of the MLP so where the woofers are seems less important than simply trying to get the best on-axis response. Whether you'd get lobing or something even in the front depends on the specific design.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Just watched Doctor Sleep-man, that is a great atmos flick.

very high quality audio AND great actual movie plot. It's refreshing when they are both present together


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> Just watched Doctor Sleep-man, that is a great atmos flick.
> 
> very high quality audio AND great actual movie plot. It's refreshing when they are both present together


That is one of my favorite mixes. Fantastic Atmos for the whole movie. Been using the scene where Rose tries to invade Abra's mind to show off to friends.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> That is one of my favorite mixes. Fantastic Atmos for the whole movie. Been using the scene where Rose tries to invade Abra's mind to show off to friends.


is that the first confrontation?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> is that the first confrontation?


The scene where she traps her hand in the filing cabinet. Fantastic use of sound.


----------



## Snorefingers

Chirosamsung said:


> Just watched Doctor Sleep-man, that is a great atmos flick.
> 
> very high quality audio AND great actual movie plot. It's refreshing when they are both present together


Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out. I watched a bit of Monster Hunter as people have been praising it's Atmos but the opening scene looked very poor, turned it off before I even got to any of the dialogue. As nice as great audio can be, I just can't watch a movie for that reason alone.

Are there any videogames with particularly good surround/atmos people would recommend? I tried some Forza Horizon 5 today and it was quite nice, noticeable difference to my old system.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Snorefingers said:


> Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out. I watched a bit of Monster Hunter as people have been praising it's Atmos but the opening scene looked very poor, turned it off before I even got to any of the dialogue. As nice as great audio can be, I just can't watch a movie for that reason alone.
> 
> Are there any videogames with particularly good surround/atmos people would recommend? I tried some Forza Horizon 5 today and it was quite nice, noticeable difference to my old system.


yes, unlike some atmos demo recs, this actually has a great plot as well.

as for video games, I would say resident evil 8 comes to mind. I also like red dead redemption through the Upmixer on 7.1.4


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rich 63 said:


> Just an fyi on case it hasn't been mentioned. If your going to dive into atmos the surrounds will need to be lowered to ear height. The way you have your surrounds now are old surround recommendations


If it's a one seat room, then move the lower level side and rear surrounds to ear level. If you have two or more viewers in the room at once, the best height for mounting them is just above average seated head height, so that people's heads don't block or muffle the sound from those speakers.


----------



## niterida

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's a one seat room, then move the lower level side and rear surrounds to ear level. If you have two or more viewers in the room at once, the best height for mounting them is just above average seated head height, so that people's heads don't block or muffle the sound from those speakers.


Or mount the side surrounds slightly behind the seats so that at ear level they are still not blocked.


----------



## Rich 63

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's a one seat room, then move the lower level side and rear surrounds to ear level. If you have two or more viewers in the room at once, the best height for mounting them is just above average seated head height, so that people's heads don't block or muffle the sound from those speakers.


That would depend on one's ability to keep proper seperation of the base from height speakers. Ceiling height for me has its issues. 
Also in a 5.x.4 layout surrounds are 110-120 degrees. At 120 using a single row I would think there would be sufficient speaker dispersion for all to hear the surrounds correctly. Certainly works for us but we are 2. Anybody else does not matter really. I can agree that in a dedicated purpose built theatre your suggestion would be ideal, particularly with 2 rows. 
All situations have there limitations from the ideal.


----------



## MagnumX

Snorefingers said:


> Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out. I watched a bit of Monster Hunter as people have been praising it's Atmos but the opening scene looked very poor, *turned it off before I even got to any of the dialogue*. As nice as great audio can be, I just can't watch a movie for that reason alone.
> 
> Are there any videogames with particularly good surround/atmos people would recommend? I tried some Forza Horizon 5 today and it was quite nice, noticeable difference to my old system.


Yeah, it sounds like you _really_ gave it a chance, alright.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, it sounds like you _really_ gave it a chance, alright.


I am with @Snorefingers on this one - I would have turned it off after 2 minutes as well except it has Mila in it so I persevered - it didn't get any better.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> I am with @Snorefingers on this one - I would have turned it off after 2 minutes as well except it has Mila in it so I persevered - it didn't get any better.


Yeah, Monster Hunter isn't the greatest movie. I enjoyed it as good dumb action, but... it's almost nothing like the game it's based on and was just generic across the board. But at least it has good sound, I guess. And Milla.


Snorefingers said:


> Are there any videogames with particularly good surround/atmos people would recommend? I tried some Forza Horizon 5 today and it was quite nice, noticeable difference to my old system.


The recent Assassin's Creed games have used it for atmospheric sound pretty well. But Halo Infinite probably has some of the best Atmos audio of current games.


----------



## Snorefingers

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The recent Assassin's Creed games have used it for atmospheric sound pretty well. But Halo Infinite probably has some of the best Atmos audio of current games.


Damn, I finished Halo like the week before getting the new speakers haha.


----------



## dschulz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yeah, Monster Hunter isn't the greatest movie. I enjoyed it as good dumb action, but... it's almost nothing like the game it's based on and was just generic across the board. But at least it has good sound, I guess. And Milla.


Slightly off topic but I have a real fondness for Monster Hunter in part because of my viewing circumstances. Last winter when cinemas across California were shuttered, desperate to see Wonder Woman 84 on the big screen, I took a road trip to Vegas where theatres were open. Just a weekend, one night stay to see a movie, probably the only time in Vegas history anyone's done that. Anyway, I had time to squeeze in a double feature and chose Monster Hunter based on its convenient showtime. Loved it. I liked WW84 more than most as well, fueling my theory that when people see movies in a cinema they give them a warmer reception than when viewed at home.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it's a one seat room, then move the lower level side and rear surrounds to ear level. If you have two or more viewers in the room at once, the best height for mounting them is just above average seated head height, so that people's heads don't block or muffle the sound from those speakers.


"Listen up, studios! Dolby Atmos Lite™ print-outs must stop!!"

^^ From your signature you mean garbage trash atmos mixes mixed by filmmixer mixer, those garbage trash ones that sound so cheap and nasty, as they take the sounds from the regular channels and just stuff them up on the overheads that have no individuality. I know the filmmixer mixes your talking about. 'star wars revenge of the sith' is one such garbage trash disney skywalker sound mix. The DVD sounds better than 4 garbage k disc. 

Oh I was so wrong to have jumped on the Denon AVC-X8500H for auro garbage 3d, dts garbage x, and dolby labs garbage atmos. I switched the Denon back to 5.1 six channel and mostly use my flagship Dolby Stereo CP200 now as its way more immersive, i had enough of dolby labs atmos and filmmixer mixes doing tatty garbage trash, upmixes so studios can Brand atmos on the disc to sell old outdated movies and often new movies also sound garbage trash with little use of the overhead surrounds, what a auro, dts,x dolby labs atmos scam.


https://www.avsforum.com/posts/61359301/bookmark


----------



## howard68

The Dolby Atmos Lite™ is total B/S
I have set up for 9.2.6 and find many films do not use the extra speakers 
Some films are fixed at 7.1.2 WTF!!!!!!
I hope this has to stop anyone producing Dolby Atmos Lite™


----------



## X4100

ultimatehomecinema said:


> "Listen up, studios! Dolby Atmos Lite™ print-outs must stop!!"
> 
> ^^ From your signature you mean garbage trash atmos mixes mixed by filmmixer mixer, those garbage trash ones that sound so cheap and nasty, as they take the sounds from the regular channels and just stuff them up on the overheads that have no individuality. I know the filmmixer mixes your talking about. 'star wars revenge of the sith' is one such garbage trash disney skywalker sound mix. The DVD sounds better than 4 garbage k disc.
> 
> Oh I was so wrong to have jumped on the Denon AVC-X8500H for auro garbage 3d, dts garbage x, and dolby labs garbage atmos. I switched the Denon back to 5.1 six channel and mostly use my flagship Dolby Stereo CP200 now as its way more immersive, i had enough of dolby labs atmos and filmmixer mixes doing tatty garbage trash, upmixes so studios can Brand atmos on the disc to sell old outdated movies and often new movies also sound garbage trash with little use of the overhead surrounds, what a auro, dts,x dolby labs atmos scam.
> 
> 
> AVS Forum


I am more than willing to take your x8500H off your hands by means of a trade, I'll switch my x4100 Denon, then BOTH OF US WILL BE HAPPY


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

X4100 said:


> I am more than willing to take your x8500H off your hands by means of a trade, I'll switch my x4100 Denon, then BOTH OF US WILL BE HAPPY


I have to ask my cat, Magic as he is the atcatmos boss.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched *Insurgent* in 3D with Atmos. The 3D was a bit primitive in some respects compared to newer releases, but the Atmos wasn't too shabby sounding. I don't think it was quite as good as the DTS:X track on *Divergent *, though.

Overheads and surrounds seemed less prominent in average ambience scenes (i.e. lower relative volume), but they were otherwise used fairly effectively. I feel it lacked some of the sweeping holographic-like shifts/effects that were so surprisingly good sounding in _Divergent_, but it's not like they weren't present at all (e.g. Where the birds flew out towards the screen, they did appear in the surrounds and overheads, but I didn't feel like I needed to duck like I did for some of the effects in the DTS:X _Divergent_ where effects would even image right through the middle of me in a few places. Still, it was _far_ from being "Crapmos" 8n at least the surrounds were generally well used (not sure how much overhead total but I do remember some key moments with lights turning on overhead that clearly sound on the ceiling. In between sounds are harder to guage without turning things off).

If _Divergent_ was practically a 10 for immersive audio imaging (not saying it was the most active ever made, but well done), _Insurgent_ was probably an 8 or so by comparison, IMO, but that's a rough estimate and for overall surround sound use. Divergent was more impressive by far.


----------



## mrvideo

ultimatehomecinema said:


> "Listen up, studios! Dolby Atmos Lite™ print-outs must stop!!"
> 
> ^^ From your signature you mean garbage trash atmos mixes mixed by filmmixer mixer, those garbage trash ones that sound so cheap and nasty, as they take the sounds from the regular channels and just stuff them up on the overheads that have no individuality. I know the filmmixer mixes your talking about. 'star wars revenge of the sith' is one such garbage trash disney skywalker sound mix. The DVD sounds better than 4 garbage k disc.
> 
> Oh I was so wrong to have jumped on the Denon AVC-X8500H for auro garbage 3d, dts garbage x, and dolby labs garbage atmos. I switched the Denon back to 5.1 six channel and mostly use my flagship Dolby Stereo CP200 now as its way more immersive, i had enough of dolby labs atmos and filmmixer mixes doing tatty garbage trash, upmixes so studios can Brand atmos on the disc to sell old outdated movies and often new movies also sound garbage trash with little use of the overhead surrounds, what a auro, dts,x dolby labs atmos scam.


Damn.... tell us how your really feel.


----------



## kiddbios

I asked this in the Revel owner's thread, but didn't get any takers. I've got some new height (not top) speakers coming and I thought I'd ask in the dedicated thread:

What is the recommendation for height speaker placement? I already have 6 top speakers, so these 4 will be going in the front and the back. I have 9 bed layer speakers - LCR, wides, surrounds and rear surrounds. The room is 15' wide and the L/R are about 18" from their respective side walls, slightly toed in. The rear surrounds are about 50" from their respective side walls. The space between the floor and the acoustic panels on my ceiling is 8.5'.

Dolby's Atmos setup guide (Page 59) has a little bit of information, but I am still unclear on how high the speakers should be mounted. Their diagram and instructions say to place the speakers directly above the L/R and then have them angled on a 30 degree horizontal axis with the MLP. I assume this means that I could have my rear height speakers mounted slightly more narrowly, and then just have them aimed at the MLP? However, in this guide, it shows on 1 diagram that the height speakers are mounted slightly in from the L/R speakers and maybe 1 foot below the ceiling. While this diagram has an angle on all of the other speakers, it appears to have the height speakers firing straight forward.


----------



## MagnumX

kiddbios said:


> I asked this in the Revel owner's thread, but didn't get any takers. I've got some new height (not top) speakers coming and I thought I'd ask in the dedicated thread:
> 
> What is the recommendation for height speaker placement? I already have 6 top speakers, so these 4 will be going in the front and the back. I have 9 bed layer speakers - LCR, wides, surrounds and rear surrounds. The room is 15' wide and the L/R are about 18" from their respective side walls, slightly toed in. The rear surrounds are about 50" from their respective side walls. The space between the floor and the acoustic panels on my ceiling is 8.5'.
> 
> Dolby's Atmos setup guide (Page 59) has a little bit of information, but I am still unclear on how high the speakers should be mounted. Their diagram and instructions say to place the speakers directly above the L/R and then have them angled on a 30 degree horizontal axis with the MLP. I assume this means that I could have my rear height speakers mounted slightly more narrowly, and then just have them aimed at the MLP? However, in this guide, it shows on 1 diagram that the height speakers are mounted slightly in from the L/R speakers and maybe 1 foot below the ceiling. While this diagram has an angle on all of the other speakers, it appears to have the height speakers firing straight forward.


The diagram is more or less for show/example, not precision. Pointing the speaker at the listener is to get the best frequency response (i.e. most speakers are not as accurate off-axis from the center of the drivers and thus it's usually good to point the speakers towards the primary listening location. On the ground this is usually toe-in. Higher up, it may be tilt. Depending on how you mount said speakers, you may or may not be able to tilt them fully towards the listening position, but that is the purpose. Room correction may help compensate either way.

As for the height above the floor, Dolby's angular recommendation is 20-45 degrees for "Height" speakers when six or more overheads are in use. You've indicated you already have six Tops overhead so this gives you some leeway for the heights, probably in the 20-35 degree range relative to the MLP, which often puts them near or on the ceiling above the screen. The discrepancy in the diagram relative to horizontal position is due to the cinema heights being in line with left-center and right-center, not the L/R mains. Either are acceptable in a home environment, but it sounds like your mains are pretty wide as it is. It's probably more important to align them with the rear heights and tops speakers for a consistent overhead imaging layer than the mains themselves at this point.


----------



## kiddbios

MagnumX said:


> The diagram is more or less for show/example, not precision. Pointing the speaker at the listener is to get the best frequency response (i.e. most speakers are not as accurate off-axis from the center of the drivers and thus it's usually good to point the speakers towards the primary listening location. On the ground this is usually toe-in. Higher up, it may be tilt. Depending on how you mount said speakers, you may or may not be able to tilt them fully towards the listening position, but that is the purpose. Room correction may help compensate either way.
> 
> As for the height above the floor, Dolby's angular recommendation is 20-45 degrees for "Height" speakers when six or more overheads are in use. You've indicated you already have six Tops overhead so this gives you some leeway for the heights, probably in the 20-35 degree range relative to the MLP, which often puts them near or on the ceiling above the screen. The discrepancy in the diagram relative to horizontal position is due to the cinema heights being in line with left-center and right-center, not the L/R mains. Either are acceptable in a home environment, but it sounds like your mains are pretty wide as it is. It's probably more important to align them with the rear heights and tops speakers for a consistent overhead imaging layer than the mains themselves at this point.


Thanks so much for all the info. So are you saying to put the heights in line with the tops? I’m using Revel C763L in-ceiling speakers, which are angled towards the MLP. They are roughly in-line with the L/R mains. I have about a foot of space between the ceiling and the screen. If I were to mount them above the rear surrounds - 50” from either side wall - is that too narrow in a 15’ room?

Edit: This is what I'm working with:


----------



## MagnumX

kiddbios said:


> Thanks so much for all the info. So are you saying to put the heights in line with the tops? I’m using Revel C763L in-ceiling speakers, which are angled towards the MLP. They are roughly in-line with the L/R mains. I have about a foot of space between the ceiling and the screen. If I were to mount them above the rear surrounds - 50” from either side wall - *is that too narrow in a 15’ room?*
> 
> Edit: This is what I'm working with:
> View attachment 3226507
> View attachment 3226508


I'd try to keep all the overheads in line with each other. If anything, you could probably widen the rear surrounds to match the fronts in a line if that's where the tops are also aligned.


----------



## Technology3456

MagnumX said:


> I just watched *Insurgence* in 3D with Atmos. The 3D was a bit primitive in some respects compared to newer releases, but the Atmos wasn't too shabby sounding. I don't think it was quite as good as the DTS:X track on *Divergence*, though.
> 
> Overheads and surrounds seemed less prominent in average ambience scenes (i.e. lower relative volume), but they were otherwise used fairly effectively. I feel it lacked some of the sweeping holographic-like shifts/effects that were so surprisingly good sounding in _Divergence_, but it's not like they weren't present at all (e.g. Where the birds flew out towards the screen, they did appear in the surrounds and overheads, but I didn't feel like I needed to duck like I did for some of the effects in the DTS:X _Divergence_ where effects would even image right through the middle of me in a few places. Still, it was _far_ from being "Crapmos".
> 
> If _Divergence_ was practically a 10 for immersive audio imaging (not saying it was the most active ever made, but well done), _Insurgence_ was probably an 8.8 or so by comparison, IMO, but that's a rough estimate.


_Soldier: "We've been hunting for the divergent for so long. I think we've finally found her! Kill her now!"

Captive: "No wait stop! I'm not the divergent, I'm just the divergence!"

Soldier: "Dammit Threehundredandfiftytwo! Looks like you caught the wrong one again! Heck, you could almost say we're the ones who need a divergence from our past tactics if we want to catch her!"

Captive: "I couldn't help but overhear... maybe as the divergence myself, I can help you with that. After you let me go so we can have a 10 minute fist fight to make us allies, I'll help you catch her. For starters, the one you're looking for is named Beatrice, not Martha. But first, there's something I want..."_

Oh crap, sorry if those quotes qualify as massive spoilers for the fourth movie: _Divergence vs Divergent: Dawn of Dievengeance: Justice Is 50 Shades of Grey _hard-cover Steele-book Edition Divectors Cut. Sorry if I ruined it for everyone... Well, since I already started down this path, you already don't need me to tell you, the atmos track only utilizes the height speakers three minutes in the entire movie. But as for the movie itself, it is a masterpiece the likes of which we have not seen since maybe one of those middle episodes of Disney+ Loki...

Sorry Magnum I couldn't resist having some stupid fun with that. 😄 It's called Divergent, not Divergence. I take no pride in that knowledge but I have seen it. Hey, it's probably better than the average big budget movie release the last few years... if that's worth anything... 🤷‍♂️ And if it has great atmos then it's probably better than a majority of them. Too bad the atmos quality is not there on the sequels. The sequels are a further step down in quality anyway though. Im not sure I ever made it through either of them, but I did start both.


----------



## MagnumX

Divergence
Insurgence
Allegiance

Divergent
Insurgent
Allegiant

At least I was self-consistently wrong with the titles.... 

The real problem is they split the third book up Harry Potter style, not realizing everyone hated the third book, especially the ending. They never finished it with a TV movie or TV series as they promised and the movies are left dangling, unfinished. Given how poor the third movie was, they probably should have just ended the 2nd movie as it was, implying a possible happy ending, something the books failed to deliver, making it a pale shadow of The Hunger Games. Maze Runner had similar problems (strong start, but progressively worse movies, IMO), but at least they finished it....

As for the amount of overhead sound. If it's really only 3 minutes, that goes to show how easily we can be fooled by either several short bursts or sounds that seemed in-between layers, but may actually just be the bed objects. Short of turning off the lower layer and listening only for overhead sounds, it can be tricky at times.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Spoiler: In the fourth movie, she marries a football player and spends her time arguing with people on Instagram. There's almost no height activity to be found.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

howard68 said:


> The Dolby Atmos Lite™ is total B/S
> I have set up for 9.2.6 and find many films do not use the extra speakers
> Some films are fixed at 7.1.2 WTF!!!!!!
> I hope this has to stop anyone producing Dolby Atmos Lite™


disney fake the dolby atmos cash cow on that star wars rubbish, 'rogue one' and I have 'revenge of the sith' worst upmix that has been so rushed by skywalker sound. skywalker sound has gotten tatty and rubbish with their filmmixer mixing today.

I set the Denon AVC-X8500H back to 5.1 for six-track Dolby Stereo. I've had enough of the dolby labs atmos garbage trash and my JBL/THX/atmos has quite a better overhead spaker layout than then dolby labs substandard.
If using separate amplifiers to power the system? Use matrix decoders placed on height 1 2 and 3 and bingo you now have x9 overheads and sounds far better. Place the new speaker or it is basically same as layout for pro-logic LCR. All the decoder be doing is removing any centre mono phantom and placing in a proper location that can easily be localized.


----------



## MagnumX

Am I experiencing deja vu?


----------



## X4100

I thought I was seeing things, I guess he's excited about something ! That's the 3rd time I think


----------



## MagnumX

Bangers & Mash, blood pudding, beans, greasy chips, deep fried battered fish, toad in a hole, etc. Typical British fare.

I'd be extra cranky too after getting backed up eating that stuff day after day. 

Perhaps a nice bran muffin style scone with some prunes and clotted cream would help (or at least a good curry).


----------



## 2eachhisown

howard68 said:


> The Dolby Atmos Lite™ is total B/S
> I have set up for 9.2.6 and find many films do not use the extra speakers
> Some films are fixed at 7.1.2 WTF!!!!!!
> I hope this has to stop anyone producing Dolby Atmos Lite™


I work in a Dolby Atmos music facility.

My understanding with Dolby “Home Theater” Atmos films/shows is 7.1.4 is the preferred maximum. Most will default to that.


----------



## MagnumX

2eachhisown said:


> I work in a Dolby Atmos music facility.
> 
> My understanding with Dolby “Home Theater” Atmos films/shows is 7.1.4 is the preferred maximum. Most will default to that.


I prefer the sound guys do a proper job and use objects correctly so Atmos can use as many speakers as it needs to rather than what someone thinks people "prefer". 

This is why I'm rooting for DTS:X to be supported by Disney+ and then spread like a streaming cancer across the land (because DTS:X Pro with Neural X can use all your speakers no matter how lazy the filmmixer gets).


----------



## petetherock

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Spoiler: In the fourth movie, she marries a football player and spends her time arguing with people on Instagram. There's almost no height activity to be found.


You can blame Shailene Woodley... she has her shortcomings and heights were never the strong point


----------



## howard68

2eachhisown said:


> I work in a Dolby Atmos music facility.
> 
> My understanding with Dolby “Home Theater” Atmos films/shows is 7.1.4 is the preferred maximum. Most will default to that.


The John Williams blu ray _is in 9.2.4







_


----------



## Robert Saccone

howard68 said:


> The John Williams blu ray _is in 9.2.4
> View attachment 3226910
> _


Which Blu Ray is that? Looks interesting.


----------



## Pirotto

That's Live in Vienna. Pretty, pretty good stuff


----------



## titan ii

She is awesome......
Anne-Sophie Mutter
German Violinist


----------



## halcyon_888

titan ii said:


> View attachment 3226921


1080i resolution, strange


----------



## priitv8

howard68 said:


> The John Williams blu ray _is in 9.2.4
> _


Makes me wonder : why advertise it as Atmos, if it is a channel-based mix?
Just because 4-height channels are in the mix?
Original marketing talk about Atmos was, that it gets rid of fixed channels and uses objects instead.


----------



## jimmiejams

titan ii said:


> She is awesome......
> Anne-Sophie Mutter
> German Violinist
> 
> View attachment 3226921


Thanks for putting me on to this. I've just upgraded to Atmos speakers and have been looking for something with consistent Atmos channels to get an idea of how that sounds. I just discovered that (a) Apple Music supports Atmos on my AppleTV 4k, and (b) it has this album too, so win-win


----------



## X4100

priitv8 said:


> Makes me wonder : why advertise it as Atmos, if it is a channel-based mix?
> Just because 4-height channels are in the mix?
> Original marketing talk about Atmos was, that it gets rid of fixed channels and uses objects instead.


 I don't understand, it's still Atmos isn't it??


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

I don´t really expect a concert movie to have moving objects either. If it´s 9.1.4 it´s having wides also, that´s something...


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> Makes me wonder : why advertise it as Atmos, if it is a channel-based mix?
> Just because 4-height channels are in the mix?
> Original marketing talk about Atmos was, that it gets rid of fixed channels and uses objects instead.


Theatrical Atmos and home Atmos have always been hybrid formats (hybrid = channels + objects). The format has the option to use dynamic objects but is not required to use them. A mix can still be labelled Atmos even when the output is all static objects (channels).


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Theatrical Atmos and home Atmos have always been hybrid formats (hybrid = channels + objects). The format has the option to use dynamic objects but is not required to use them. A mix can still be labelled Atmos even when the output is all static objects (channels).


I would like a clarification as I am engaged in a similar sort of discussion on another thread. Are " Channels" always static objects. I notice you mention static object then in parenthesis add (channels). If so, why is the term channels used, especially if the term means something other than when it is used in a discrete "channel" system such as 7.1 (non-Atmos). A bit confusing isn't it?


----------



## MagnumX

jimmiejams said:


> Thanks for putting me on to this. I've just upgraded to Atmos speakers and have been looking for something with consistent Atmos channels to get an idea of how that sounds. I just discovered that (a) Apple Music supports Atmos on my AppleTV 4k, and (b) it has this album too, so win-win


It's a live concert. All surround content is reverb. In other words, don't expect to hear any discrete type sounds in the mix (It is a nice recording, however). If you really want to test Atmos, you're better off with something like Yello's _Point_ album or Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_. They use all the speakers and sounds come from literally everywhere in the room, practically.


----------



## X4100

ppasteur said:


> I would like a clarification as I am engaged in a similar sort of discussion on another thread. Are " Channels" always static objects. I notice you mention static object then in parenthesis add (channels). If so, why is the term channels used, especially if the term means something other than when it is used in a discrete "channel" system such as 7.1 (non-Atmos). A bit confusing isn't it?


If you're able, what is the Thread you are on?


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> Are " Channels" always static objects.


Only for the home Atmos format, where the decoder outputs everything (except LFE) as objects: some objects don't move and are assigned to traditional 7-ch speaker locations (static objects) while other objects move all over the place (dynamic objects). The only thing that is output as a channel is LFE. This is why Atmos soundtracks, even when pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, cannot be upmixed (channels can be upmixed, objects cannot be upmixed). 

By comparison, the home DTS:X decoder outputs channels and objects. Channels are upmixed to your speaker layout, objects are mapped to your speaker layout (no such thing as upmixing an object). 

The theatrical version of Atmos also retains its channels + objects structure. This allows some of the channels (surrounds, heights) to be arrayed during playback while objects move through the speaker array. Can't do that with the home version of Atmos.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

jimmiejams said:


> Thanks for putting me on to this. I've just upgraded to Atmos speakers and have been looking for something with consistent Atmos channels to get an idea of how that sounds. I just discovered that (a) Apple Music supports Atmos on my AppleTV 4k, and (b) it has this album too, so win-win


I've been toying with Atmos music on Tidal lately. I've never cared about Billie Eilish, but... the song Bury A Friend makes great use of every channel. Actually, all three of her albums are very well done in Atmos. Worth a listen!


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Only for the home Atmos format, where the decoder outputs everything (except LFE) as objects: some objects don't move and are assigned to traditional 7-ch speaker locations (static objects) while other objects move all over the place (dynamic objects). The only thing that is output as a channel is LFE. This is why Atmos soundtracks, even when pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, cannot be upmixed (channels can be upmixed, objects cannot be upmixed).


Not true.

The TRUTH is Atmos ultimately renders ALL output to channels and it can be *easily* upmixed _after_ that stage of processing. In fact, that is exactly what Storm does on their AVPs with *Storm XT. *Monoprice does a mixer effect for wides (supposed to work for Top Middle as well, but seems to be broken in firmware at the moment) and anyone can do "Scatmos" using the channel out RCA jacks (which proves my point about upmixing after channel conversion, which internally would be then simple to send to something like Neural X if it were set up for it the same way it's set up for multi-channel input up to 7.1).




> This allows some of the channels (surrounds, heights) to be arrayed during playback while objects move through the speaker array. Can't do that with the home version of Atmos.


This is simply not true with the typical relatively small number of channels used in most home systems and scale of things. I've done it here. How? Active mixers and speaker impedance matching switch boxes from Monoprice.

Mix front + sides. You now have both arrayed with "front wides" and it does not impede object imaging whatsoever. In fact, it improves it over not having front wides. Mix sides + rears and you now have sides arrayed at three sets of speakers and an improvement between sides and rears. The "end" speakers (i.e. Mains and rears and front/rear heights can be arrayed as well.

If you have six overheads, you can array or mix the rear heights/tops (or front + rear heights with a mixer) at Top Middle and fill the gap often created there with "Heights" in medium to larger sized rooms. You can also use "Scatmos" to do it discretely instead, but my point is about speaker arrays and what you posted is simply misleading.

Trinnov allows you to set up arrays all you want as well as having a remapping function that creates virtual arrays in the process. Given Dolby rescinded the prohibition on upmixing Atmos, there is nothing to stop DTS from offering a Neural X upmixer for it if they wanted to (or any third party AVP maker like Storm has already done).

You'll never see what I wrote since you have me on ignore, but everyone else deserves to know the actual truth.


----------



## jimmiejams

MagnumX said:


> It's a live concert. All surround content is reverb. In other words, don't expect to hear any discrete type sounds in the mix (It is a nice recording, however). If you really want to test Atmos, you're better off with something like Yello's _Point_ album or Booka Shade's _Dear Future Self_. They use all the speakers and sounds come from literally everywhere in the room, practically.


Thanks for the tips on the albums.

As far as the John Williams one goes, it does sound very "hall like" (sort of what I was expecting). When you say reverb, do you mean they literally took the front mics and put reverb on them, or do you mean the natural reverb you'd get in a concert hall (and they miked for that separately)? I'm guessing the latter?


----------



## X4100

I copied this attachment from the DTS:X Thread, is this showing that the objects in Dolby Atmos have been encoded/






decoded as channels


----------



## MagnumX

jimmiejams said:


> Thanks for the tips on the albums.
> 
> As far as the John Williams one goes, it does sound very "hall like" (sort of what I was expecting). When you say reverb, do you mean they literally took the front mics and put reverb on them, or do you mean the natural reverb you'd get in a concert hall (and they miked for that separately)? I'm guessing the latter?


Yes. Natural hall ambience


----------



## chi_guy50

@MagnumX posted: QUOTE



sdurani said:


> Only for the home Atmos format, where the decoder outputs everything (except LFE) as objects: some objects don't move and are assigned to traditional 7-ch speaker locations (static objects) while other objects move all over the place (dynamic objects). The only thing that is output as a channel is LFE. This is why Atmos soundtracks, even when pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, cannot be upmixed (channels can be upmixed, objects cannot be upmixed).


Not true.

The TRUTH is Atmos ultimately renders ALL output to channels and it can be *easily* upmixed _after_ that stage of processing. In fact, that is exactly what Storm does on their AVPs with *Storm XT. *Monoprice does a mixer effect for wides (supposed to work for Top Middle as well, but seems to be broken in firmware at the moment) and anyone can do "Scatmos" using the channel out RCA jacks (which proves my point about upmixing after channel conversion, which internally would be then simple to send to something like Neural X if it were set up for it the same way it's set up for multi-channel input up to 7.1).



sdurani said:


> This allows some of the channels (surrounds, heights) to be arrayed during playback while objects move through the speaker array. Can't do that with the home version of Atmos.


This is simply not true with the typical relatively small number of channels used in most home systems and scale of things. I've done it here. How? Active mixers and speaker impedance matching switch boxes from Monoprice.

Mix front + sides. You now have both arrayed with "front wides" and it does not impede object imaging whatsoever. In fact, it improves it over not having front wides. Mix sides + rears and you now have sides arrayed at three sets of speakers and an improvement between sides and rears. The "end" speakers (i.e. Mains and rears and front/rear heights can be arrayed as well.

If you have six overheads, you can array or mix the rear heights/tops (or front + rear heights with a mixer) at Top Middle and fill the gap often created there with "Heights" in medium to larger sized rooms. You can also use "Scatmos" to do it discretely instead, but my point is about speaker arrays and what you posted is simply misleading.

Trinnov allows you to set up arrays all you want as well as having a remapping function that creates virtual arrays in the process. Given Dolby rescinded the prohibition on upmixing Atmos, there is nothing to stop DTS from offering a Neural X upmixer for it if they wanted to (or any third party AVP maker like Storm has already done).

*You'll never see what I wrote since you have me on ignore, but everyone else deserves to know the actual truth.*
/QUOTE

Fixed that for you since I would be very interested in hearing Sanjay's response regarding this issue of Atmos objects vs. channels, should he wish to reply.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Only for the home Atmos format, where the decoder outputs everything (except LFE) as objects: some objects don't move and are assigned to traditional 7-ch speaker locations (static objects) while other objects move all over the place (dynamic objects). The only thing that is output as a channel is LFE. This is why Atmos soundtracks, even when pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, cannot be upmixed (channels can be upmixed, objects cannot be upmixed).


It's worth clarifying: The objects assigned to the traditional 7-channel speaker locations in Atmos are not content-identical to the channels in the 7.1 base layer of the bitstream, but specific to the Atmos mix. So when sdurani says it can't be upmixed, he literally means that those objects used in the Atmos mix are actually completely inaccessible by the other upmixers. NeuralX and Auro and the like are upmixing the base layer of the bitstream, which contains a downmix of the original Atmos so that it includes all of the sound for backwards compatibility. For other upmixers to actually work with the objects placed at the 7-ch speaker locations as static objects, you would have to first process the track through the Atmos decoder, output the channels based on the speakers available to the system, then take that output and pass it to the upmixer. Handling it that way would be pointless, because anything in the heights would no longer exist in the objects placed in the traditional 7-ch speaker locations, so there would be no "height" content for Auro/NeuralX to derive for steering to the heights.


----------



## ppasteur

X4100 said:


> I copied this attachment from the DTS:X Thread, is this showing that the objects in Dolby Atmos have been encoded/
> View attachment 3227072
> decoded as channels
> View attachment 3227072


My thought is the problem lies in the fact that Dolby uses the word "channels" in different ways depending on whether non-Atmos forms or Atmos is being discussed.
"Channel" in non-Atmos systems means discrete channels of both input and output. With Atmos (for home) it seems to mean available speakers to be used to distribute objects AFTER decoding/processing.
Now I am trying to better understand this, so this is more of a question than statement of fact. But it certainly fits with my understanding as of now.

BTW, thanks @Sanjay for that explanation. 
Leave it to Dolby to obfuscate by using the same term to mean different things in different contexts.


----------



## ppasteur

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's worth clarifying: The objects assigned to the traditional 7-channel speaker locations in Atmos are not content-identical to the channels in the 7.1 base layer of the bitstream, but specific to the Atmos mix. So when sdurani says it can't be upmixed, he literally means that those objects used in the Atmos mix are actually completely inaccessible by the other upmixers. NeuralX and Auro and the like are upmixing the base layer of the bitstream, which contains a downmix of the original Atmos so that it includes all of the sound for backwards compatibility. For other upmixers to actually work with the objects placed at the 7-ch speaker locations as static objects, you would have to first process the track through the Atmos decoder, output the channels based on the speakers available to the system, then take that output and pass it to the upmixer. Handling it that way would be pointless, because anything in the heights would no longer exist in the objects placed in the traditional 7-ch speaker locations, so there would be no "height" content for Auro/NeuralX to derive for steering to the heights.


That fits with my understanding. Atmos objects sent to speaker location after processing can then be further manipulated in the analog domain. As in matrixed or subjected to additional up-mixing to provide signals to multiple additional speakers. Same with other processors (Trinnov). But that is dealing with output that is manipulated after Atmos processing. So yes, there are speaker channels associated with amplifier channels to be manipulated POST processing. But the Atmos decoder only deals with distributing _objects_ among the speakers that is knows about as configured in the original device doing the decoding.
In any case, this kind of post processing does not change how the Atmos engine behaves. That is fixed.
Again this kind of comes down to semantics, but it is worth understanding the difference. IMHO.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's worth clarifying: The objects assigned to the traditional 7-channel speaker locations in Atmos are not content-identical to the channels in the 7.1 base layer of the bitstream, but specific to the Atmos mix. So when sdurani says it can't be upmixed, he literally means that those objects used in the Atmos mix are actually completely inaccessible by the other upmixers. NeuralX and Auro and the like are upmixing the base layer of the bitstream, which contains a downmix of the original Atmos so that it includes all of the sound for backwards compatibility. For other upmixers to actually work with the objects placed at the 7-ch speaker locations as static objects, you would have to first process the track through the Atmos decoder, output the channels based on the speakers available to the system, then take that output and pass it to the upmixer. Handling it that way would be pointless, because anything in the heights would no longer exist in the objects placed in the traditional 7-ch speaker locations, so there would be no "height" content for Auro/NeuralX to derive for steering to the heights.


Everything I mentioned was AFTER Atmos decoding. Pointless? Storm didn't find it pointless or anyone using Scatmos. It works perfectly.

Arraying Atmos after processing would be no different than DTS:X Pro doing the same with Neural X. You're creating in-between speakers for the already rendered panning. Would it be better to render directly to the speakers? Of course. Would you be able to tell the difference on most home systems? Possibly, but unlikely and it's still better than having those speakers sit there idle doing nothing.

An arrayed speaker moves the overall image according to the Precedence Effect, but it's a lot better than something like a gap in imaging overhead which an arrayed rear height to Top Middle can easily accomplish for the price of a mixer and Amp or with Monoprice impedance matching parallel drive, about $60 and a bit of speaker wire. Even a pricey 13+ channel AVR can't fill that gap overhead with locked Atmos channel layouts. A simple array of the rear height speakers or a mix of front & rear heights can fix it and allow the use of Auro compatible heights instead of Tops where desired without a gap overhead.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ppasteur said:


> My thought is the problem lies in the fact that Dolby uses the word "channels" in different ways depending on whether non-Atmos forms or Atmos is being discussed.
> "Channel" in non-Atmos systems means discrete channels of both input and output. With Atmos (for home) it seems to mean available speakers to be used to distribute objects AFTER decoding/processing.
> Now I am trying to better understand this, so this is more of a question than statement of fact. But it certainly fits with my understanding as of now.


Yeah, kinda', so maybe we should differentiate between "channel" (meaning the legacy channels we refer to in a 5.1/7.1 layout) and "output channel" (meaning the output after the objects have been processed to steer to the available speakers). I'll give you a for-instance: A 5.1.x layout will have both different front and side surround content at the output stage than a 7.1.x layout would... because Atmos treats the side surrounds as the rear bounds of the room in a 5.1.x layout and the rear surrounds as the rear bounds of the room in a 7.1.x layout. So the static objects for the "rear surround" location in the virtual Atmos room would actually get played back in the side surrounds in a 5.1.x layout (which is why Dolby says to put them further behind you in this layout)... and the static objects for the "side surround" location in the virtual Atmos room would actually get played back between the front and side output channels in varying levels to try to image that content between them. This way, you don't lose any of the sound. It just uses whatever speakers it has available to try to place those objects there.

If you want to really confuse things, if you try to do a 6.1.x layout with a single rear surround, the Atmos decoder still uses the side surrounds as the rear bounds of the room... and only uses the single rear surround to steer objects through. You would think that they would try to image the static objects at the "rear surround" location by steering them between the single rear and the side surrounds, but they don't. Maybe because that's such a niche use case that it isn't worth doing the math or maybe just because they didn't account for it.


ppasteur said:


> That fits with my understanding. Atmos objects sent to speaker location after processing can then be further manipulated in the analog domain. As in matrixed or subjected to additional up-mixing to provide signals to multiple additional speakers.


Exactly. You can use matrix processing on the post-decoder Atmos output channels (pre-outs) because the decoder has already steered the objects between them as needed. So for instance, going back to the previous example of how "side surround" static objects get steered between the side surrounds and mains in a 5.1.x layout, you could then apply matrix decoding to those two channels (left and left side surround) to approximately derive an additional channel between them. This same logic is why Scatmos works - because the objects have already been steered for output.

But if you change your AVR to Auro or NeuralX, it no longer uses the Atmos decoder at all, sending the base 7.1 part of the bitstream to those upmixers. They're literally blind to all object data in the other part of the bitstream.


----------



## ppasteur

X4100 said:


> If you're able, what is the Thread you are on?


Denon 2020 AVR thread


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Exactly. You can use matrix processing on the post-decoder Atmos output channels (pre-outs) because the decoder has already steered the objects between them as needed.


What you're referring to is _not_ Matrix decoding. Matrix decoding uses phase to store information meant for other speakers in a set of channels that can then be reversed again using the reverse process.

Extracting a center output between two in-phase (correlated) outputs is what Dolby refers to as *Logic Steering *(hence the term "Logic" in "Dolby Pro Logic"). That is what _Scatmos _uses and how it does it. While not privy to Neural X's exact processing, one can probably safely assume it is doing something fundamentally similar with Neural X except fully in the digital realm.

It really has nothing to do with matrix encoding, however. That is how Dolby encoded its _surround_ channels in 2-channel soundtracks. The center was Logic steering derived and full range.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> I would be very interested in hearing Sanjay's response regarding this issue of Atmos objects vs. channels, should he wish to reply.


From the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide:









The home version of Atmos uses spatial coding (clustering). All incoming channels (except LFE) become objects. The output is all objects and one channel (LFE). Objects cannot be upmixed. Even the DTS:X format only upmixes channels, not objects.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

jimmiejams said:


> Thanks for the tips on the albums.
> 
> As far as the John Williams one goes, it does sound very "hall like" (sort of what I was expecting). When you say reverb, do you mean they literally took the front mics and put reverb on them, or do you mean the natural reverb you'd get in a concert hall (and they miked for that separately)? I'm guessing the latter?


I would guess they mic’d the room but it’s hard to say.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> So when sdurani says it can't be upmixed, he literally means that those objects used in the Atmos mix are actually completely inaccessible by the other upmixers.


It's more basic than that. Objects (static or dynamic) are sounds assigned to a location in 3D space. They are reproduced using whatever nearby speakers are needed to image those sounds at that location. What would an upmixer do? Use more speakers than needed? Change the object size to be larger?

IF the output of the home Atmos decoder had included channels, like DTS:X, then pre-rendered Atmos soundtracks could be upmixed, just as easily as DTS:X does.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> From the Dolby Atmos Renderer Guide:
> View attachment 3227098
> 
> 
> The home version of Atmos uses spatial coding (clustering). All incoming channels (except LFE) become objects. The output is all objects and one channel (LFE). Objects cannot be upmixed. Even the DTS:X format only upmixes channels, not objects.


*No one* was talking about upmixing _objects (_except apparently Sanjay). That doesn't even make sense as an upmixer couldn't possibly access them without decoding Atmos itself and inserting itself in the middle. That, by definition would no longer be Atmos.

Sanjay's own words:



> This is why Atmos soundtracks, even when pre-rendered to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4, cannot be upmixed


That as quoted is what is not true as any upmixer by design would be applied AFTER Atmos decoding. DSU is applied after DD or DTS decoding not during decoding so at best it's a straw man defense to say he only referred to objects stored in the meta data, not Atmos in general as that makes no sense whatsoever as NO upmixer works that way or has _ever_ worked that way.



> IF the output of the home Atmos decoder had included channels, like DTS:X, then pre-rendered Atmos soundtracks could be upmixed, just as easily


The output of the home Atmos decoder DOES include channels. How the hell do you think the AVR/AVP outputs to speakers??? It doesn't send objects to the speakers! It decodes them into channels.

Storm takes that output and outputs to more channels (CH and VOG for example) just like DTS:X Pro does with its Storm XT. I'd call that upmixing. It is how ALL upmixers work.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> The home version of Atmos uses spatial coding (clustering). All incoming channels (except LFE) become objects. The output is all objects and one channel (LFE). Objects cannot be upmixed. Even the DTS:X format only upmixes channels, not objects.


That is correct. 

Channels cease to exist discreetly once they are encoded into Atmos (home..)…. Which is why a mix that is “locked” (i.e. 7.1, 7.1.4, etc) isn’t technically 9 or 11 channels. 

It’s why you can’t discreetly array surround channels vs. objects after an Atmos track has been decoded…. The sounds coming out of said surrounds will also include any object content that is there at the same time…. 

When the format was first rolled out, there was a lot of confusion about exactly how the encoding worked, even by some people at rolling it out  

I shared some of the same misconceptions about how exactly it worked for quite a while. But I’ve now mixed enough content, and had enough experience with the format, to have a better understanding of what is and is not possible.


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> It’s why you can’t discreetly array surround channels vs. objects after an Atmos track has been decoded…. The sounds coming out of said surrounds will also include any object content that is there at the same time….


Why would you want to separate object content _after_ it's been rendered? It's where it's supposed to be. 

An object panned between side surround and rear surround will appear in a ss#2 speaker if you create a channel between them with steering logic after Atmos has been rendered (aka "Scatmos") . Is that not the exact same location the sound would appear if it were rendered to a setup including ss#2??? Of course it is! 

You might lose some slight precision in "discreteness" but it's a lot better than having the speaker silent and nearly as good as rendered. This is what Neural X does in DTS:X Pro. It's an upmixer. 

There is no technical reason Neural X couldn't be adapted to deal with all channels of Atmos rendered output. Storm ready does this with "Storm XT" to support center height and top surround (Auro/X speakers). The same could be used to place "locked" Atmos soundtracks in the appropriate speakers. Test for correlated sound between channels and steer them there where needed. If there is no correlated information it's discrete (proper Atmos) or it's not in use and nothing needs to be done.


----------



## sdrucker

Pirotto said:


> That's Live in Vienna. Pretty, pretty good stuff


Also available on Apple Spatial Audio. I have to say that some of that John Williams content sounds hard-coded, so if you really want wides playing all the time, it's a good choice.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> It's more basic than that. Objects (static or dynamic) are sounds assigned to a location in 3D space. They are reproduced using whatever nearby speakers are needed to image those sounds at that location. What would an upmixer do? Use more speakers than needed? Change the object size to be larger?


I know. I was just trying to draw the distinction since someone else in the thread was trying to pivot to something completely unrelated to the original question you answered. I think the rest of us are on the same page.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> Why would you want to separate object content _after_ it's been rendered? It's where it's supposed to be.


Because if you’re using a 24.1.10 system you might want the surrounds arrayed like they are in a cinema.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> What would an upmixer do? Use more speakers than needed? Change the object size to be larger?


You're kidding, right? Sadly, you're not...  

What it _would do_ is use speakers a locked Atmos print wouldn't use like Top Middle! Or it could use unsupported speakers like center height or the VOG. 

Once more, Storm Audio ALREADY does this with Storm XT! If what you said were true, then Storm XT and Scatmos for that matter don't exist and we're all pretending to use them since Atmos "can't be upmixed".

For god's sake, this is getting to be absurd beyond all measure....


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> Because if you’re using a 24.1.10 system you might want the surrounds arrayed like they are in a cinema.


Talk to Dolby about that. They considered it and decided against it. You can still get halfway there without issues by using an active mixer to create a correlated arrayed channel between discrete pairs.

You can get all the way there in terms of print-through Atmos not using all your speakers with steering logic. In other words, Dolby could fix improper Atmos soundtracks the same way DTS:X Pro does with Neural X. Steering logic could be applied to any adjacent channels that contain correlated information and steer the center to a speaker in-between. All objects are preserved in their relative locations and all 34 speakers could be used.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> You're kidding, right? Sadly, you're not...
> 
> What it _would do_ is use speakers a locked Atmos print wouldn't use like Top Middle! Or it could use unsupported speakers like center height or the VOG.
> 
> Once more, Storm Audio ALREADY does this with Storm XT! If what you said were true, then Storm XT and Scatmos for that matter don't exist and we're all pretending to use them since Atmos "can't be upmixed".
> 
> For god's sake, this is getting to be absurd beyond all measure....


You might want to read this post I linked. StormXT isn’t going to automagically upmix to speakers in an Atmos layout with a native Atmos mix where they happen to be silent, such as wides on a 7.1.2 “locked” mix. What it will do is, if you have two top middles defined instead as dual VOG or a center height is apply post process upmix/extending to these speakers based on the rendered native Atmos mix. That is, “Auro” a/k/a non-Atmos speakers.

Whether that’s a good thing sonically is debatable, and depends on your room and seating.

See here: Storm Audio ISP MK2 Processor official thread


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> Talk to Dolby about that. They considered it and decided against it. You can still get halfway there without issues by using an active mixer to create a correlated arrayed channel between discrete pairs.
> 
> You can get all the way there in terms of print-through Atmos not using all your speakers with steering logic. In other words, Dolby could fix improper Atmos soundtracks the same way DTS:X Pro does with Neural X. Steering logic could be applied to any adjacent channels that contain correlated information and steer the center to a speaker in-between. All objects are preserved in their relative locations and all 34 speakers could be used.


I did talk to Dolby about it. Have you?

So I know you have no idea what you’re talking about. 

If you have an objet that is traveling up the wall it gets mixed in with the surrounds when using spatial coding…. So you array the surrounds the object will come out of more than one speakers, which was not the desired effect. 

DTS allows you to designate any stream as either a channel or object. 

Dolby does not.

It is easy to matrix channels in X because they are still discrete, you can still treat them as stereo pairs, and in addition you can keep an object separate if you so choose. 

Serious question …. What real world, daily experience makes you an expert on this subject besides being an enthusiast?


----------



## jeep05

Everybody switch your receivers back to 5.1 and just enjoy the movie.  (Including yours truly.)


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> It’s why you can’t discreetly array surround channels vs. objects after an Atmos track has been decoded…. The sounds coming out of said surrounds will also include any object content that is there at the same time….


Yep, the original intent for home Atmos was to mimic theatrical Atmos by having channels array (to multiple speakers) while objects panned through the array (treating each speaker individually). Here was the intended channel distribution chart for base layer channels and height layer channels: 









Side channels could array to up to 3 speakers, Rear channels up to 4 speakers, Height channels up to 5 speakers. Objects could move back and forth through those arrays. 

Spatial coding nixed that possibility. Once channels and objects were clustered during encoding, there was no separating them back out for discrete channel arrays during decoding (can't unscramble an egg).


> When the format was first rolled out, there was a lot of confusion about exactly how the encoding worked, even by some people at rolling it out


Do you remember the Scott Wilkinson podcast here at AVS when home Atmos was initially announced, with the Dolby guys giving vague (sometimes contradictory) answers to viewer questions? Confusion indeed.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

Array surrounds been doing it for years. Of course to do even proper 5.1 got use left-half right-half. My Dolby cinema reference can do that so, 'Star Wars' laserdisc plays as it did with that proper hass-effect. I may redo my overhead surrounds so I can switch regular surrounds to the overheads at flip of switch. The Denon 8500 can't do that as it wasn't designed into it.

JBL side/back 8330 mkIII x11 - overhead surrounds JBL 8330A x9 using special so none of that phantom sound floating between the common stereo pair overheads. I use x3 sort of vog channels or DOG channels I call them. It takes x3 matching Dolby SA10 cheap. And sounds way better than substandard atmos. Most times those overheads will be playing a phantom mono sound, so don't be too surprised.



















Of course UCI tower park and another UCI site on south coast was doing, experimental overhead surround with Dolby Stereo CP55 in 1989 when I was projectionist there.
When I left and few years later it was rewired and running Jurassic Park dts with stereo overhead surrounds. picture is screen 6. I can tell from the projection port window and port far right is where the 35mm Vic V, projector is and port to lefty the side projector for advertisements and beside that the Dolby amp rack that was very small basic x3 amps LCR and surrounds. no subs installed 1989 thou required for SR soundtracks. All speakers was EV. There was x8 EV overhead surrounds in larger screens 5 and 6.










Smaller screens 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 used x7 overhead surrounds.









Cinerama 70mm at Bournemouth used overhead surrounds x6 in the ceiling. 
Cinerama was phased out in 1970 replaced with 35mm but the five screen and overhead remained for LCR and was noticeable for some _disturbance in the force, _about an immersive storytelling star destroyer when 'Star Wars' went national in the uk Feb 1978, opened in London Dec 1977. Yep that overhead surround at the Gaumont screen 1 and also downstairs screen 2 was rigged with a surround array. 

'The Abyss' sounded neat with buoy being fired from the submarine and appeared to circle around. I saw it thee times as it was cool Dolby Stereo mix. Two people in front of me, said "that sounded good" when the submersible docks with deep core. 

I always sat on centre line middle or sometimes front and centre as the stereo LCR width increases for wild wide LCR stereo. The further back the stereo image gets narrower.

You'll see some JBL 8330 mkI going around the curve the ceiling those was fitted in 1999, the last time I heard the original overhead surrounds working was 1998 and then back corners fitted with cheap mini-hi-fi speakers as cinemas do have budgets as well. 

So when mixes do overhead today, it isn't new to me. Now if dolby labs or any other had Below Surround, then I might pay more attention to Listening!









This is screen 2 some of the overhead are visible in the ceiling at least x6 of them. The picture taken not sure which year? But was when it was still original and not the gutted one done in ,1989 into 5 shoe box screens. There was x4 surrounds on back wall and some x4 more I think spread along the sidewalls. so with side/back and overhead that is playing the same mono matrix from a Dolby Stereo CP50, it sounded rarther neat and that was in the mid 1970's. 'Robocop' sounded neat with ED-209 made me duck and fletch when it came in that office room.


----------



## chi_guy50

Fascinating discussion. Thanks to Marc and Sanjay for the deep background.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> I'll help out if I can. As for the "centers" are you talking about mounting them flat on the ceiling either vertically or horizontally or on a mount where they can be manipulated to point towards the MLP at an angle? For the latter, you could easily try both and see which gives the best sounding response, but what's more important is having the tweeter on-axis in regards to the MLP if possible. Most center designs assume a forward facing position. These would likely be mounted to the left/right of the MLP so where the woofers are seems less important than simply trying to get the best on-axis response. Whether you'd get lobing or something even in the front depends on the specific design.


Ok thanks ... looking at the centers ... there is a tweeter dead center and a woofer to each side ... so on-axis is quite straightforward. It's looking like those recievers won't be here this week after all.I've hooked the centers up to an alternative device and played around with their positions. Not much in it between front to back and left to right positioning and since front to back looks so much better in the room, I've gone ahead and installed them that way ... on axis but not flat ... tilted a bit toward MLP. So ... when the receivers come, I can muddle my way through the crossed rca jacks from pre outs on the main receiver, change the Heights speakers wires around as appropriate and be up and running in not much time at all. Looking forward to checking it out. Thanks!


----------



## ppasteur

ultimatehomecinema said:


> Array surrounds been doing it for years. Of course to do even proper 5.1 got use left-half right-half. My Dolby cinema reference can do that so, 'Star Wars' laserdisc plays as it did with that proper hass-effect. I may redo my overhead surrounds so I can switch regular surrounds to the overheads at flip of switch. The Denon 8500 can't do that as it wasn't designed into it ....


I think this is just a duplicate post of one you did a few months ago. Why exactly? It has little to do, if anything, with Atmos!


----------



## X4100

This has been a very interesting topic these last couple of pages, I was thinking I had it figured out, but the next post had me agreeing with it. I had to go back and reread, and I'm seeing the rabbit hole is deeper with a lot of twist!! I enjoy reading about Dolby Atmos, as I really feel the format is here to stay, just hoping that the format is improved upon to it's full potential!!


----------



## robert600

dschulz said:


> There should not be much difference in terms of what gets sent where. The same Atmos mix is used for both disc and streaming. There _could_ be differences in terms of the total number of objects used for the delivery and of course the disc is probably losslessly encoded vs lossy for the stream.
> 
> I believe it's also the case that the lossy stream may have a 5.1 rather than 7.1 base for the delivery, but I'm a little fuzzy on this point. Perhaps someone more familiar with those workflows can chime in.


Quite correct about the 5.1 ... at least 'mediainfo' shows me this about the file:

Format : E-AC-3 JOC
Format/Info : Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding
Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_EAC3
Duration : 2 h 35 min
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 768 kb/s
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossy


----------



## Apgood

sdrucker said:


> You might want to read this post I linked. StormXT isn’t going to automagically upmix to speakers in an Atmos layout with a native Atmos mix where they happen to be silent, such as wides on a 7.1.2 “locked” mix. What it will do is, if you have two top middles defined instead as dual VOG or a center height is apply post process upmix/extending to these speakers based on the rendered native Atmos mix. That is, “Auro” a/k/a non-Atmos speakers.
> 
> Whether that’s a good thing sonically is debatable, and depends on your room and seating.
> 
> See here: Storm Audio ISP MK2 Processor official thread


Yes and also StormXT only puts ambient sounds into those extra channels it uses based on what StormAudio have said. 

In other words it won't have say the sound of a bullet pass through them as it moves from front to back or left to right.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> I did talk to Dolby about it. Have you?


Why would I? They made that decision long before I got into Atmos.

But yes, I know someone at Dolby from a common interest on another forum, as a matter of fact.



> So I know you have no idea what you’re talking about.


You just _know_ it, eh? I have no idea at all? LOL. So you think working on soundtracks gives you the right to make *belittling statements* about others here just as a matter of fact without any real logical arguments? Given your poor reasoning and writing skills, I'd say that's about accurate. The thing is _mixing_ soundtracks has very little to do with _designing_ a system like Atmos. I wouldn't hire the guy who _paints_ my house to _design_ my house! And let's face it, FilmMixer, you're a mixing guy, not an engineer who helped design Dolby Atmos or do you have some previously unknown degrees we should know about?

You see I actually _am_ an electronic engineer and also have some background in software writing and even sound mixing. I mixed and mastered my own rock album that is commercially available (you can ask @niterida how it sounds as he's heard it, but I value my privacy so I don't advertise it). Implying I have no business discussing Atmos on a hobby forum and stating that I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about? That's beyond ridiculous and says far more about you than it does me. 

Atmos' own spatial errors in "downmixing" to lesser than 24.1.10 setups is _far_ worse than any small error involved in moving a sound into an array. For example, the Dolby Atmos demos will all move an object meant for the rear height location in the "grid" to the front height location rather than image in the rear surrounds below that location. That's about a 17 foot error in my home theater in terms of spatial accuracy, but you're worried about a few feet or even inches in using an array to represent a point between the sides and rear speakers? Seriously? Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. 

Have you even heard of the _Precedence Effect_? Stereo panning at any other point than directly between a stereo pair will "pull" to the closer speaker. Using an extra speaker in-between (even as mixer based +3dB array) typically improves the spatial imaging by comparison, not makes it worse for any location other than dead center or the time delay equivalent (real theaters have more than one seat). A discrete render is preferable, of course, but a mixed array is better than nothing and "Scatmos" (using Dolby's own Logic Steering "center extraction") is pretty darn close to the real deal. But since I don't know what I'm talking about, I guess you think it's preferable to just let a Disney print-through soundtrack disable my top middle speakers entirely so there's an audible big "gap" overhead because it's not what was _intended_? Really? 

Hey, what about that pesky _Spatial Coding_? It's taking objects that were fully discrete and groups them together instead to save bandwidth and processing power! You don't think that produces any spatial error in the process? It might not be much in an audible sense, but than neither is putting an array option overhead to fill a gap Atmos lets go blank due to companies like Disney that refuse to mix properly. Best of all Dolby says JACK SQUAT to them (They wouldn't want to offend the clients, just screw the home theater owners that paid several thousand dollars for an Atmos processor that supports six overheads for Atmos to not use them at all!) Yes, there would be nothing like paying 10 Grand for an Atmos processor that lets my Top Middle speakers sit there doing nothing while there's a gap overhead to boot because Heights alone in a large room don't phantom image well across that distance.


----------



## dschulz

I've praised this show before, but as the first episode of Season 3 just dropped allow me to echo - "Servant" on Apple TV+ is really good and has absolutely outstanding sound design and mixing happening. If you're looking for something with aggressive but subtle use of Atmos (as in, active use of every tool in the kit, but no explosions or helicopters), check it out


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I mixed and mastered my own rock album that is commercially available (you can ask @niterida how it sounds as he's heard it


Yep it gets both of my


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> Hey, what about that pesky _Spatial Coding_? It's taking objects that were fully discrete and groups them together instead to save bandwidth and processing power! You don't think that produces any spatial error in the process?


This is simply a lossy compression method of objects and their spatial metadata information. Being lossy, it is indeed irreversible later on the decoder/renderer end.
Makes me wonder (again) - how much computing power is really required to make theatrical Atmos work?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

The thing I find funny is... No one was talking about Scatmos or whatever the discussion kept trying to pivot to. No one. We were talking about how the static object "channels" in an Atmos bitstream are not fundamentally the same as the channels in the base layer of the bitstream. And that other upmixers in the AVR have zero access to that object data directly (not that they would need to), so they use the base 7.1 track. Those two things are objectively true as a function of how Atmos is packaged for home use, which is what was being explained. And yet, as usually happens, it veered off on some weird tangent about something completely unrelated.

But those original points made by sdurani and Filmmixer remain factually correct. Glad we got back on track and were able to focus on the original question.


priitv8 said:


> This is simply a lossy compression method of objects and their spatial metadata information. Being lossy, it is indeed irreversible later on the decoder/renderer end.
> Makes me wonder (again) - how much computing power is really required to make theatrical Atmos work?


I've been curious about the difference in DSP required between home and cinema, but you can't find much info on what kind of chipset is in something like Dolby's CP850 processor. It would be interesting to see what kinda' processing power it takes to handle that many channels of output, for sake of comparison to something like the Trinnov or your average AVR.


----------



## ToddUGA

Just received the German Atmos version of Twister. Gonna fire up the HT today and see if I can piss off the neighbors.


----------



## ultimatehomecinema

ToddUGA said:


> Just received the German Atmos version of Twister. Gonna fire up the HT today and see if I can piss off the neighbors.


I doubt that hardly. also do a video, yes I nominate you do a video to say what you can hear on the overhead surrounds? So you have disconnect the LCRS LFE.1 channels, so you can monitor what sounds is playing on the overhead surrounds. 
Is it a manual mix or have they used actual stem tracks to create a new mix or is manual and sounds like cheap to milk the consumer with atmos/auro cash cow? 
Do a video.


----------



## FilmMixer

priitv8 said:


> This is simply a lossy compression method of objects and their spatial metadata information. Being lossy, it is indeed irreversible later on the decoder/renderer end.
> Makes me wonder (again) - how much computing power is really required to make theatrical Atmos work?


It takes very little computing power. You can run it on a very moderate Mac. 

As a simple explanation, the only real world difference between the 2 (cinema vs “home”) is the max number of speaker outputs…. But the production process is exactly the same (10 bed channels and 118 objects…)


----------



## X4100

ToddUGA said:


> Just received the German Atmos version of Twister. Gonna fire up the HT today and see if I can piss off the neighbors.


I gave up trying to order mine, I got as far as the check out portion, but kept getting the message to use another credit card. I have excellent credit, so I'm perplexed over what happened??? I even emailed them, and was told that everything is fine, and go ahead and place the order


----------



## dschulz

FilmMixer said:


> It takes very little computing power. You can run it on a very moderate Mac.
> 
> As a simple explanation, the only real world difference between the 2 (cinema vs “home”) is the max number of speaker outputs…. But the production process is exactly the same (10 bed channels and 118 objects…)


Do you know if the decision to use spatial coding to combine objects + channels into a pretty small number of objects was due to DSP processing limitations, or HDMI bandwidth limitations? Or a bit of both?


----------



## nocoyeti

Hey All,


My 2,000 sqft basement is unfinished which I will be finishing about 3/4 of it. This is my first basement ever so I am excited and overwhelmed at the same time.

I am working on the design for my 7.2.4 or 7.1.4 home theater and I would love some input from you all. I am new to projectors so I just starting to research projectors and screens, both UST and long-throw. I enjoy 2 channel music so I am thinking about going with Klipsch RP-8000F ( L / R ), RP-404C ( C ), RP-402S (Surrounds) but I am completely open to any and all suggestions. I am leaning towards on the wall speakers for the easy of installation and portability just in case we move which I don’t see happening. Again, completely open to switching brands or to in-wall if convinced of the benefit.

As you can see below my theater right now is roughly 15' x 27’ x 8.5’. Do you think that 27' would be too long? I am concerned that the rear surrounds would be too far back.

Any advice or opinions would be GREATLY appreciated.

Dan


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> Do you know if the decision to use spatial coding to combine objects + channels into a pretty small number of objects was due to DSP processing limitations, or HDMI bandwidth limitations? Or a bit of both?


dschulz managed to formulate my question faster.
I also got the impression that Dolby implies the reduction of data rate and simplification of decoding is needed due to lack of processing power in consumer decoder/renderer equipment. Cost of amplification channels might be a factor as well, but can easily be left for the user to scale out as seen fit.
So I am wondering what kind of CPUs and DSPs are used in cinema Atmos decoders?
What kind of data rates are we talking about in cinema Atmos delivery media, to begin with?


----------



## X4100

J


X4100 said:


> I gave up trying to order mine, I got as far as the check out portion, but kept getting the message to use another credit card. I have excellent credit, so I'm perplexed over what happened??? I even emailed them, and was told that everything is fine, and go ahead and place the order


I just completed my order of TWISTER!!! don't know what I had been doing before, I clicked on prepay and it was confirmed   By the way @ToddUGA how long did it take your order to arrive from Germany?


----------



## niterida

dancolt said:


> I am working on the design for my 7.2.4 or 7.1.4 home theater and I would love some input from you all.


Best to start your own thread in the proper forum.


----------



## nocoyeti

niterida said:


> Best to start your own thread in the proper forum.


Will do. Someone recommended that I post it here.

Thanks!


----------



## Ricoflashback

niterida said:


> Best to start your own thread in the proper forum.


I don't know why you answered this poster this way. I've seen multiple instances of folks posting their diagrams and asking for assistance in a Dolby Atmos setup here. If this isn't the proper forum, then what is? I thought it was very rude of you with your response. Unless, of course, you speak for the entire thread and then excuse me.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The thing I find funny is... No one was talking about Scatmos or whatever the discussion kept trying to pivot to. No one.


So only YOU get to decide what is allowed to be talked about on here!? Ridiculous. 

It came up as part of an explanation of how upmixing can be accomplished after your factually incorrect buddy Sanjay claimed it CANNOT be up mixed which is absolute nonsense. But somehow you've twisted the truth into it all being about Scatmos.... If you're not even willing to read my posts and hide behind IGNORE then maybe you should just leave it alone as you aren't a part of the conversation. 



> But those original points made by sdurani and Filmmixer *remain factually correct*.


The hell they do! Sanjay said you can't *upmix* Atmos. That is absolutely NOT TRUE and wishing your buddy had been right or saying he didn't mean what he said is a cop out. Dolby themselves announced a couple of years ago the restriction on upmixing Atmos was lifted, proving even they admit it can be upmixed.

Like any format that is up occurs AFTER decoding and there is nothing on hell or earth to stop someone from taking that output and modifying it! Trinnov has done this all along with its remapping feature, which isn't any fundamentally different from how any other upmixer could interact with the decoded signals.


----------



## ppasteur

dancolt said:


> Will do. Someone recommended that I post it here.
> 
> Thanks!


Hang in there. I am sure that there will be people here that can comment. Starting your own thread may be OK, but you will definitely get more "views" here.


----------



## sdurani

dancolt said:


> Any advice or opinions would be GREATLY appreciated.


Replied with suggestions (unrelated to Atmos) in your dedicated thread.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> It came up as part of an explanation of how upmixing can be accomplished after your factually incorrect buddy Sanjay claimed it CANNOT be up mixed which is absolute nonsense. But somehow you've twisted the truth into it all being about Scatmos.... If you're not even willing to read my posts and hide behind IGNORE then maybe you should just leave it alone as you aren't a part of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> The hell they do! Sanjay said you can't *upmix* Atmos. That is absolutely NOT TRUE and wishing your buddy had been right or saying he didn't mean what he said is a cop out. Dolby themselves announced a couple of years ago the restriction on upmixing Atmos was lifted, proving even they admit it can be upmixed.
> 
> Like any format that is up occurs AFTER decoding and there is nothing on hell or earth to stop someone from taking that output and modifying it! Trinnov has done this all along with its remapping feature, which isn't any fundamentally different from how any other upmixer could interact with the decoded signals.


The Atmos codec does not support upmixing. 

By design the format is capable of rendering to the maximum amount of speakers the system supports…. It will always scale, so there is no need to feed new speakers that weren’t used when the content was created…. The codec always has the ability to get to as many speakers as you can put in a.system (24.1.10..)…. 

That isn’t an opinion. 

That is fundamentally different than what Trinnov does with speaker remapping…. When the Trinnov remaps the left channel, for example, the Atmos rendered still renders to the left channel output…. If the Trinnov has to use the C and Left Side surround to “move” that speaker within a room the Atmos decoder does not know. 

Again…. wholly different than extracting and steering content to speaker positions that did not exist when the content was created 

What you can do with a home brewed, external solution doesn’t make it a function, or feature, of the codec.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> Again…. wholly different than extracting and steering content to speaker positions that did not exist when the content was created


DTS:X can do this. That's the distinction between channels and static objects.


----------



## FilmMixer

sdurani said:


> DTS:X can do this. That's the distinction between channels and static objects.


And it’s my understanding that you can have objects still independently render vs the channels… In a 7.1.4 + 2 object DTS:X encode for example. Don’t know how that works with Pro however…..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ricoflashback

ppasteur said:


> Hang in there. I am sure that there will be people here that can comment. Starting your own thread may be OK, but you will definitely get more "views" here.


Absolutely. Thanks for your post. And to the OP - - post your excellent diagram. It is very thorough and there are many knowledgeable folks here who have similar basements. They can provide excellent guidance on the many options you have.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> And it’s my understanding that you can have objects still independently render vs the channels…In a 7.1.4 + 2 object DTS:X encode for example.


Yup. During decoding, the DTS:X stream is split into channels & objects, with each sent down different paths: channels are scaled/upmixed to the speaker layout while objects are mapped to the speaker layout.


> Don’t know how that works with Pro however…..


Works the same. Until recently, all DTS technologies (formats, upmixers, etc) were limited to 11.1 outputs. Pro simply lifts that limitation (and that's all that the "Pro" designation means). 

But the channel scaling was always built into the home DTS:X format. To jar your memory, Scott Simonian and I were at your place after you did the DTS:X update to your Denon receiver back in 2016. We configured the receiver for 9.1.2 and played a DTS:X 7.1.4 track. Sure enough, it extracted Wides. So matrix scaling of channels has been part of DTS:X decoding from the beginning.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Yup. During decoding, the DTS:X stream is split into channels & objects, with each sent down different paths: channels are scaled/upmixed to the speaker layout while objects are mapped to the speaker layout.


Is that what the toggle is for applying NeuralX that shows up when you play a DTS:X track? I've never been able to hear a difference turning it on and off, but... with my 7.1.4 setup, from what you're saying, it basically wouldn't have anything to do because there are no speakers outside of the standard layout. Right?


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Is that what the toggle is for applying NeuralX that shows up when you play a DTS:X track?


Yes. On the early receiver I mentioned in my previous post, turning off Neural:X extraction for the WIdes ended up sending a copy of the Side channels to the Wides. If you configured Wides, there was no option where those speakers stayed silent when playing back DTS:X.


> I've never been able to hear a difference turning it on and off, but... with my 7.1.4 setup, from what you're saying, it basically wouldn't have anything to do because there are no speakers outside of the standard layout. Right?


Right.


----------



## niterida

Ricoflashback said:


> I don't know why you answered this poster this way. I've seen multiple instances of folks posting their diagrams and asking for assistance in a Dolby Atmos setup here. If this isn't the proper forum, then what is? I thought it was very rude of you with your response. Unless, of course, you speak for the entire thread and then excuse me.


Wow ok - I didn't say he couldn't post it here or that anyone else wasn't allowed to respond to them..
I simply suggested to him to start his own thread where he will get a lot more response than being buried in a thread discussing a lot of other Atmos related content. Especially considering he had a lot of questions unrelated to Atmos and was asking for general HT setup help.
I was obviously wrong since everyone has since helped him out - oh wait here we are 12hrs later and no-one has actually responded to him anyway. 
If you have a look at my post history I am more than happy to help out with setup questions as that is just about all I do on here. 
So I stand by my original suggestion that he is best to start a dedicated thread.


----------



## Ricoflashback

niterida said:


> Wow ok - I didn't say he couldn't post it here or that anyone else wasn't allowed to respond to them..
> I simply suggested to him to start his own thread where he will get a lot more response than being buried in a thread discussing a lot of other Atmos related content. Especially considering he had a lot of questions unrelated to Atmos and was asking for general HT setup help.
> I was obviously wrong since everyone has since helped him out - oh wait here we are 12hrs later and no-one has actually responded to him anyway.
> If you have a look at my post history I am more than happy to help out with setup questions as that is just about all I do on here.
> So I stand by my original suggestion that he is best to start a dedicated thread.


I think the OP will get a lot more views here. But I haven’t followed this thread in a long time. Looks like it’s turned into the ”no help” thread if folks like sdurani agree with you. Constant bickering and a totally different focus. It used to be a place to share layouts and ask for help. I guess it’s devolved into an esoteric place.


----------



## X4100

Seems like some of the above points concerning DTS:X, are in agreement with what @MagnumX has been saying all along about the discussion of what Dolby could have done with the Atmos format to enable the use of more speakers. IIRC he has mentioned some of these same things, I'm not calling anyone out or anything, but it seems the option to "ignore" someone doesn't do justice to others or oneself . Just think if in upcoming iterations Dolby Atmos decided to use some sort of "SCATMOS" configuration to expand/extend output to more speakers. Just saying guys???? I'm not an engineer/mixer, but an "enthusiast " who has been trying to increase the number of speakers since being a teenager to get a "more immersive experience." If objects are decoded after processing, why can't they be transferred via preouts for further expansion? If I knew what audio I'm listening to is an "object" as it moves across, and around my listening area I would be able to state my case using terms that knowledgeable people in this Thread could understand. I enjoy Dolby Atmos very much, and since I don't have access to an unlimited savings account ( I do have credit cards with $25,000 limit), I'm not able to have a "money's no object " setup! I was an irresponsible user of credit in my youth, and I have learned my lesson. If I can increase my experience, and add to my enjoyment of Atmos using methods that may very well be incorporated into Dolby's design I would be ahead of my time. Who knows what's coming next????


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> The Atmos codec does not support upmixing.


Who said the codex supported it? No codex needs to "support" an upmixer. Do you think Neural X _needs_ Atmos to support it? It can take raw PCM from multi-channel 7.1 HDMI inputs and send the sounds around the room to 32 speakers including overheads. So then, what's to technically stop DTS from taking decoded 11.1 or 15.1 internal decoded channel outputs from Atmos and doing the exact same thing??? The correct answer is NOTHING IS STOPPING THEM, particularly now that Dolby rescinded their directive on the matter.



> By design the format is capable of rendering to the maximum amount of speakers the system supports…. It will always scale, so there is no need to feed new speakers that weren’t used when the content was created….


Here I thought you heard about locked print-through soundtracks that don't scale to all those speakers and the fact I mentioned them about 10 times now, but that doesn't fit your narrative so now the problem doesn't magically exist! Atmos is perfect! Oh yeah, it also doesn't support Center Height or VOG speakers that could lock the center overhead for all seats in a home theater, but that's OK too! Dolby knows best! It's not like I expected you to actually _read_ arguments already put forth before spouting another round of incoherency.



> That isn’t an opinion.


No, it simply has NOTHING to do with anything I said before, ignores all prior arguments put forth, ignores locked soundtracks and unsupported speakers and carries the usual filmmixer pretense of I don't _need_ an actual argument because I'm filmmixer for God's sake!  



> That is fundamentally different than what Trinnov does with speaker remapping…. When the Trinnov remaps the left channel, for example, the Atmos rendered still renders to the left channel output…. If the Trinnov has to use the C and Left Side surround to “move” that speaker within a room the Atmos decoder does not know.


Again, what does that have to do with ANYTHING AT ALL!?! The Dolby Digital codec isn't "aware" of the Neural X upmixer doing anything either. That in no way on Earth doesn't make Neural X an upmixer! Trinnov's remapping feature isn't doing anything different from how an upmixer like Neural X would if it were adapted to full Atmos decoding.


----------



## bluesky636

Ricoflashback said:


> Constant bickering and a totally different focus. It used to be a place to share layouts and ask for help. I guess it’s devolved into an esoteric place.


I will never have an Atmos/DTS:X setup in my current home due to my room configuration but I do have an interest in it from a purely technical standpoint. But you are right. These last few weeks have seen a lot of bickering, and insults, not to mention movie reviews (there already exists a sub forum where movies are reviewed and people can express their views of them). Not sure why I bother following this thread anymore.


----------



## X4100

Well, for a while, not too long ago, we were having a very nice conversation here about the future of Atmos having the potential to utilize more speakers! Sometimes a poster who has something along a different line of thought posts his views along the lines of someone who is on ignore by him, and then.....happens! This is still the best Thread on this forum dealing with Atmos audio, that's why you, and others continue to come back. There is sssssoo much "AGNST" in the world today, and it finds it's way here as well. I come here to listen and learn from the next guy, and I try to "live, and let live". No one knows everything, even Dolby proponents said some things that didn't seem right when Atmos was first introduced!! We feel very passionately about this subject. Personally I think the ignore capabilities here contributes to some of the problems, if someone expresses their views that are different than mine ( I might feel a bit irked) but that's their view, and they have every right to Express, and explain it. At times their view made me stop and do research about the discussion, and I have always come away with more than I thought I would  . Keep coming back, it works when you work IT!!!


----------



## FilmMixer

X4100 said:


> Seems like some of the above points concerning DTS:X, are in agreement with what @MagnumX has been saying all along about the discussion of what Dolby could have done with the Atmos format to enable the use of more speakers. IIRC he has mentioned some of these same things, I'm not calling anyone out or anything, but it seems the option to "ignore" someone doesn't do justice to others or oneself . Just think if in upcoming iterations Dolby Atmos decided to use some sort of "SCATMOS" configuration to expand/extend output to more speakers. Just saying guys???


Here is what’s getting lost in the discussion. 

Atmos ALWAYS scales to as many speakers as are available to it…. They don’t need an upmixer to do that.

That is why you can’t compare it to taking a 7.1 PCM mix and using an up mixer…

Atmos already supports 34 speakers…. 

“Scatmos” came about because people desired more speaker outputs that the original hardware choices provided…. And then options that do go past 16 speakers aren’t affordable to most. 

The fact that some studios produce “locked” 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 content doesn’t change that…. 

Atmos decoders will always render to the max number of speakers available to the processor. 

Dolby doesn’t control what I do as a mixer, how I choose to use the format, or how a studio decides to produce content…. 

IMO that’s dangerous territory to produce an artistic tool and then dictate/mandate how it’s used. No different for how a film maker uses color correction tools, or film grain removal, or ????

Of course Dolby does not think print throughs are an ideal way to utilize the format…. 

I’m mot defending Dolby or the this codec. 

DTS did something different…. And their home content is almost exclusively 7.1.4 channel mixes, so the inclusion of upmixer a in DTS:X makes sense. 

But as a content creator you are kind of “forced” to make 7.1.4 print outs with DTS:X because there isn’t an easy way to encode content with many, many objects…. 

Atmos let’s you use a 7.1.2 bed and add up to 118 objects…. And was always designed to scale to its max 24.1.10 speakers. There is no way for the codec to know what is being fed into it…. 

For better or worse the codec is what it is. 

Two completely different approaches….


----------



## X4100

I understand the 24.1.10, but that's way too expensive for the average person that I know. I'm just a regular guy who is intrigued by the technology and how we are able to use it. I do have ideas that I've implemented in my smallish room. I run my side surround preouts to another Denon AVR to extract a center rear that I output to a Deftech bipolar speaker that gives me the fill in for the rear, it works very well in my one seat room. There's a scene in " The Last of the Dogmen" where an arrow comes out of the front center speaker, goes straight through me as it comes out the rear center speaker. I Love it when someone is sitting in my chair, and I see them ducking!! I used to have tweeters, and midrange speakers with different cutoffs arranged around my room that were hidden from view, my friends were always intrigued by my setup and wondered how I had audio where they didn't with the same movie. I can't explain the technical aspects of this thing, but I know what I enjoy doing with the capabilities that are now available. Please continue posting as your experience as a film mixer is valuable here. I feel that if it wasn't for Dolby Atmos I wouldn't be able to do anything near what I have now. I have my front heights at the ceiling/wall juncture in the front of my room, but I also have left/right on the side walls at the ceiling/wall juncture. With a mixer I can get an output similar to front tops ( I can't put actual speakers on my ceiling) it's a nice compromise. Some movies to me sound more immersive using one or the other speaker setup for overhead sound. Just preference while I listen at reference ( pun intended) nice talking to you @FilmMixer


----------



## priitv8

Here I am, wondering the third time. 
What is actually wrong with silent speakers?
When I listen to a stereo soundtrack or to a 5.1 mix from SACD on my 5.1.4 speaker setup, i do not expect all of them fire up, as the content was never created for them. 
IMHO it is the same question with watching old 4:3 aspect movie on a 16:9 screen - should i absolutely try to force the image to fill the screen, because the screen-estate is there?
I will only distort the picture by doing this, and the intent of the director. 

As I see it, the dispute here circles around two different assumptions - one about codec vs upmixing, another about upmixing the already decoded/rendered speaker signals. 

As you can see from the beginning of this post, I am not user of any upmixers myself, so I may be totally wrong here.


----------



## mrvideo

priitv8 said:


> As you can see from the beginning of this post, I am not user of any upmixers myself, so I may be totally wrong here.


I'm not going to use any upmixers, by choice, either. I want the audio to go to the speakers as originally intended.


----------



## X4100

priitv8 said:


> Here I am, wondering the third time.
> What is actually wrong with silent speakers?
> When I listen to a stereo soundtrack or to a 5.1 mix from SACD on my 5.1.4 speaker setup, i do not expect all of them fire up, as the content was never created for them.
> IMHO it is the same question with watching old 4:3 aspect movie on a 16:9 screen - should i absolutely try to force the image to fill the screen, because the screen-estate is there?
> I will only distort the picture by doing this, and the intent of the director.
> 
> As I see it, the dispute here circles around two different assumptions - one about codec vs upmixing, another about upmixing the already decoded/rendered speaker signals.
> 
> As you can see from the beginning of this post, I am not user of any upmixers myself, so I may be totally wrong here.


That might be why you don't quite understand the difference in opinion here. It may be like explaining the difference between black and dark blue to someone who is blind, or has problems with their eyesight.


----------



## X4100

mrvideo said:


> I'm not going to use any upmixers, by choice, either. I want the audio to go to the speakers as originally intended.


Sssssooo if you're watching a movie like Harry Potter, and all sorts of wizardry mayhem is going on, are you saying you wouldn't even have a slight teeny weeny wonderment of why the height speakers weren't fully utilized? if not I don't think (in my opinion) this thread is for you   . YMMV, but the standing view from poster's perspective is that we want MORE SPEAKERS/LOCATIONS!! That's the bottom line, it could have been done differently. If you feel otherwise I guess we'll need a thread that is only for people who feel like you, and others, and another thread for poster's opinion on how we can use "SCATMOS " to expand our imagination by means of a better utilization of sound output thingys known as speakers. That would be like approval of this "cancel culture" thing that is taken over the world. I mean why can't we just openly talk about things that we feel passionate about, without feeling that we are the only one who is right, and the opposite view is deadly wrong?


----------



## jpco

X4100 said:


> I mean why can't we just openly talk about things that we feel passionate about, without feeling that we are the only one who is right, and the opposite view is deadly wrong?


It’s clear that we can openly talk about things we are passionate about, because we are, but how we choose to talk about things may limit our audience. A member putting someone on ignore is not a cancellation. It’s a personal choice that does not limit the ignored member’s speech. Just because we want to talk doesn’t mean everyone has to listen. We can have opinions, but we can’t control and won’t always like how others respond to them.

Atmos and Scatmos are two different things. Going beyond the rendered channels/speakers is a matter of preference, always. Saying someone not appreciating the extra channels is akin to explaining color to a blind person seems to go beyond stating a preference.

And Harry Potter in DTS:X is awesome and leaves nothing to be desired IMO.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

priitv8 said:


> As I see it, the dispute here circles around two different assumptions - one about codec vs upmixing, another about upmixing the already decoded/rendered speaker signals.
> 
> As you can see from the beginning of this post, I am not user of any upmixers myself, so I may be totally wrong here.


The original discussion really had zero to do with upmixing as much as how Atmos itself uses static objects as the "channels" compared to the base 7.1 track with actual channels, and that those two sets of data are not the same. It was trying to draw the distinction that with the way Atmos is packaged, that base 7.1 track isn't used at all in Atmos playback, except for the LFE (which would be the only part that would be consistent between the two, logically). The point about upmixing was only that you can't directly upmix with another company's upmixer based on the objects in the metadata because they don't know how to interpret that data directly, which is why upmixers like Auro and NeuralX applied to an Atmos track use the base 7.1 part of the track. That's it. That's all that was being said, none of which should have been particularly controversial.

None of that has anything to do with what manipulation you can do after decoding. The entire debate, such as it was, stemmed from a misunderstanding of what was originally being said, and a defense of something no one was even attacking. And yet, it somehow gets dragged in that direction every time. We all know Atmos' weaknesses where mixes with 2 static height objects and no dynamic objects are concerned, but that didn't have anything to do with what was being discussed about how the ear-level channels are conveyed in the bitstream. But hopefully now people understand the original point that was being made.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> What is actually wrong with silent speakers?


Missed opportunity. If you play 2-channel material (movies or music) using 2 speakers, you'll notice that the most important content (vocals/dialogue, instrument solos, etc) is mixed to image at the centre of the soundstage. But this important content is reproduced as a phantom image, which is inherently unstable (you move, it moves with you). 

If you move that content to a third speaker at the centre of the soundstage, either during initial mixing or later using an upmixer, then that content is locked to the centre of the soundstage. No matter were you are in the room, you will always hear those sounds at the centre of the soundstage, as intended, rather than pulling to the speaker closest to you. Same directionality but with greater imaging stability. By leaving some of the speakers silent, you miss taking advantage of that opportunity to stabilize the imaging. 

BTW, I'm not talking about upmixing a 5.1 track to 5.1.4, since that mix wasn't done with a height layer in mind (moving arbitrary sounds to overhead speakers). Instead this is about the frustration of not being able to scale a 7.1.4 Atmos track to a 9.1.6 layout. The mix will have sounds that phantom image at the Wides and Top Middles locations but the encoding of the track won't let you take advantage of those speakers to stabilize the imaging.


----------



## X4100

jpco said:


> It’s clear that we can openly talk about things we are passionate about, because we are, but how we choose to talk about things may limit our audience. A member putting someone on ignore is not a cancellation. It’s a personal choice that does not limit the ignored member’s speech. Just because we want to talk doesn’t mean everyone has to listen. We can have opinions, but we can’t control and won’t always like how others respond to them.
> 
> Atmos and Scatmos are two different things. Going beyond the rendered channels/speakers is a matter of preference, always. Saying someone not appreciating the extra channels is akin to explaining color to a blind person seems to go beyond stating a preference.
> 
> And Harry Potter in DTS:X is awesome and leaves nothing to be desired IMO.


Point taken, what I was trying to say is that for a person who likes the extra channels attempting to explain to someone who could care less about the advantage of having output to more speakers is to me like trying to use the color analogy. My wife is pleased to listen to you tube videos with earbuds, and doesn't see why I have so many speakers all over the place. That's the real point I was trying to make. My wife can come in the room and sounds are all over the place, but it doesn't matter to her.


----------



## sdurani

Ricoflashback said:


> Looks like it’s turned into the ”no help” thread if folks like sdurani agree with you.


He IS getting help from people in this thread, but it's being posted in his dedicated build thread. The advice being given isn't Atmos related, since his original post wasn't asking for help with Atmos. Having that discussion in a more appropriate thread doesn't mean this has turned into the "no help" thread. It's simply keeping the focus of this thread on discussions about Atmos. Is that unreasonable?


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> But the channel scaling was always built into the home DTS:X format. To jar your memory, Scott Simonian and I were at your place after you did the DTS:X update to your Denon receiver back in 2016. We configured the receiver for 9.1.2 and played a DTS:X 7.1.4 track. Sure enough, it extracted Wides. So matrix scaling of channels has been part of DTS:X decoding from the beginning.


It's quite sad that D&M managed to break that upmixing of DTS:X content a year or so later on the 2015 models. At least they didn't break Neutral:X on native content at the same time.


----------



## Ricoflashback

sdurani said:


> He IS getting help from people in this thread, but it's being posted in his dedicated build thread. The advice being given isn't Atmos related, since his original post wasn't asking for help with Atmos. Having that discussion in a more appropriate thread doesn't mean this has turned into the "no help" thread. It's simply keeping the focus of this thread on discussions about Atmos. Is that unreasonable?


Fine. Dedicated build thread it is. If someone is asking for help on how to setup their Dolby Atmos speakers, I can’t see how that isn’t about Dolby Atmos. I saw tons of posts like that early on in this thread. My mistake for ever suggesting it. Won’t happen again. He’s better off out of this thread anyway. It’s become a rathole for a few posters who enjoy the banter.


----------



## rebith75

Hello! I am doing some HT rearranging and would love opinions on ideal atmos placement for my room (those bookshelves to the side of the screen are wides). I have 4 bookshelf speakers that will be used (volt6). I am able to mount them anywhere.

The MLP is ~9.5 feet from the screen and ~5 feet from the back wall. As you can see the ceiling is angled.

The way they are currently arranged, I have front heights mounted as high up as possible on that front wall pointed down and the side heights in picture working as "rear heights." I feel I would get more height effects pulling the front heights back away from the mains, and placing them up on the side walls approximately between the two windows, then moving the other ones on the back wall pointed down. Putting them on the angled ceiling in traditional atmos placements? Or leaving alone because the differences are likely negligible?

Any particular arrangement jump out to anyone? Thank you!!


----------



## niterida

rebith75 said:


> Hello! I am doing some HT rearranging and would love opinions on ideal atmos placement for my room (those bookshelves to the side of the screen are wides). I have 4 bookshelf speakers that will be used (volt6). I am able to mount them anywhere.
> 
> The MLP is ~9.5 feet from the screen and ~5 feet from the back wall. As you can see the ceiling is angled.
> 
> The way they are currently arranged, I have front heights mounted as high up as possible on that front wall pointed down and the side heights in picture working as "rear heights." I feel I would get more height effects pulling the front heights back away from the mains, and placing them up on the side walls approximately between the two windows, then moving the other ones on the back wall pointed down. Putting them on the angled ceiling in traditional atmos placements? Or leaving alone because the differences are likely negligible?
> 
> Any particular arrangement jump out to anyone? Thank you!!


Unless you have major issues with your current setup I would just leave it as is.
You may get a slight benefit mounting them where you are suggesting but only if you also angle them towards the listeners.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

rebith75 said:


> Hello! I am doing some HT rearranging and would love opinions on ideal atmos placement for my room (those bookshelves to the side of the screen are wides). I have 4 bookshelf speakers that will be used (volt6). I am able to mount them anywhere.
> 
> The MLP is ~9.5 feet from the screen and ~5 feet from the back wall. As you can see the ceiling is angled.
> 
> The way they are currently arranged, I have front heights mounted as high up as possible on that front wall pointed down and the side heights in picture working as "rear heights." I feel I would get more height effects pulling the front heights back away from the mains, and placing them up on the side walls approximately between the two windows, then moving the other ones on the back wall pointed down. Putting them on the angled ceiling in traditional atmos placements? Or leaving alone because the differences are likely negligible?
> 
> Any particular arrangement jump out to anyone? Thank you!!


Do you have an option to hang them from the ceiling using poles/chains. If so then you could get all 4 ceiling speakers in the ideal locations.


----------



## rebith75

Yes, I could put them on the ceiling. I could use a speaker bracket that can be moved to direct at MLP


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> Atmos ALWAYS scales to as many speakers as are available to it…. They don’t need an upmixer to do that.


You know full well it _DOES NOT_ work with those locked soundtracks and _that_ is precisely why an upmixer of sorts is _badly needed_ to correct the situation because having a hole above your head when you own Top Middle speakers is ridiculous, as they sit there silent and two height speakers attempt to image across a 30' room. 

That is exactly what Neural X does for 7.1.4 channel-based DTS:X. It upmixes it to up to 32.1 speakers and it _could_ be adapted to do the same for Atmos locked soundtracks which _BEHAVE_ like a channel-based soundtrack after they're decoded (regardless of what happens internally before that stage). 

A simple comparative check of correlated (in-phase) information between nearby but not directly adjacent channels (e.g. Check between the Mains and Side Surround and Front and Rear Heights/Tops on a 9.1.6 system would tell it whether it should upmix or not since there won't be any correlated information between those channels if Front Wides or Top Middle are being used as that information would have been rendered to those speakers instead. Nothing you have said changes that FACT.

That's not an opinion. 



> That is why you can’t compare it to taking a 7.1 PCM mix and using an up mixer…


That false statement shows absolute ignorance about how Neural X works because that's _exactly_ what it does internally to an 11.1-channel DTS:X soundtrack! It upmixes it to up to 32.2 speakers.



> Atmos already supports 34 speakers….


If it _doesn't actually use them_ due to poor mixing practices, it doesn't matter what it "supports". I still end up with silent speakers and an imaging gap directly overhead that Top Middle (or the VOG with Auro-3D and DTS:X) was designed to eliminate. If it isn't used, it doesn't eliminate the issue. Given Dolby will not stand up to the studios and demand they properly use objects, this will continue to be a dark cloud over Atmos.



> “Scatmos” came about because people desired more speaker outputs that the original hardware choices provided…. And then options that do go past 16 speakers aren’t affordable to most.


Its origins are irrelevant to the point being made here that you keep on ignoring. The FACT is that it gets around the "locked" soundtracks limitation of only 4 overhead speakers by using Dolby's own Logic Steering to move the information produced between the two sets of overhead channels to the Top Middle speakers where it actually belongs. In other words, the soundtrack is not longer "locked" in that sense. It now uses and _properly_ reproduces 6 overheads instead of 4. 

Thus, it _also_ proves that DTS or someone else could easily take the same decoded outputs of Atmos internally and do the same thing, possibly to even more speakers. That, in FACT, is exactly what Neural X already does for DTS:X Pro. It takes a 7.1.4 soundtrack or even a 7.1.2 one or a 7.1.0 one or 5.1 soundtrack or even a 2.0 soundtrack and expands them to 32 channels. The *functional* difference between a so-called "locked" Atmos soundtrack that behaves very much like a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 soundtrack and an actual channel-based one is exactly ZERO on the digital/analog outputs of the channels in question. That is _precisely_ why Neural X could work on locked Atmos soundtracks if DTS were to adapt it for that usage.



> Dolby doesn’t control what I do as a mixer, how I choose to use the format, or how a studio decides to produce content….


They _could_ legally license Atmos to only be used in a certain way as part of that license as any software license can do with that long-winded legal crap they make you agree to. The fact they _don't_ says Dolby only really cares about one thing and that is making money, not producing the best possible audio experience at home. They themselves could get around the locked soundtrack problem with a solution similar to DTS' Neural X, but it's not important to them. Most people only have 5.1.2 - 7.1.4 setups and won't notice the difference anyway so why bother?



> IMO that’s dangerous territory to produce an artistic tool and then dictate/mandate how it’s used. No different for how a film maker uses color correction tools, or film grain removal, or ????


Dangerous? To _image_ a "center" speaker between front and rear overhead speakers where the phantom image _already_ images using a hard center instead? Really? Dolby's been doing it since Dolby Surround first came out in 1975 with a hard center from a stereo soundtrack that images a phantom there without it! Did people complain they used a hard center instead of a stereo phantom center in those movies? Was that "dangerous" ??? REALLY!?!?? This is getting absurd once again. 

The speakers in question aren't _new locations_. They're hard speakers instead of phantom images and you're talking about color correction and film grain removal (not even _close_ to the same thing). 

This conversation once again proves why I wouldn't hire the guy who _paints_ my house to _design_ my house. Hardware and Software engineers designed Atmos, not film mixers and for good reason.



> But as a content creator you are kind of “forced” to make 7.1.4 print outs with DTS:X because there isn’t an easy way to encode content with many, many objects….


DTS has provided the solution to that problem with Neural X in DTS:X Pro. It automatically creates hard speakers for those phantom images and that's exactly what it COULD do for locked Atmos soundtracks (or what Dolby themselves could design a fix for if it were important to them). No one is talking about changing the locations of images, just expanding the number of hard speakers in a larger room that needs it for imaging integrity. I don't know why that is so controversial to you or why Sanjay said it can't be done, but both positions are flat out wrong and irrelevant. You can already get part of the way there yourself with Scatmos. 

I'm hard pressed to buy a Denon 8500 to get _true_ Top Middle decoding/rendering when my room is large enough that I get one of those imaging "gaps" (not distinct imaging) directly above if I only use 4 Heights to image. But if I add Top Middle (via Scatmos), even the _locked_ Disney soundtracks image properly overhead where they would in a smaller room. It doesn't change WHERE the soundtrack images, just the quality of the overhead image (and locks the image in place dead center for all seats in the home theater, not just someone sitting directly between the overheads as 7.1.4 does by necessity).


----------



## dschulz

I think this is all much ado about nothing. If you had never read AVS Forum, and visited a nice private 9.1.6 screening room, and watched Saving Private Ryan, would you walk away thinking "wow, that movie was great but the Atmos mix sucked?" Would you even _notice_ that the track was more-or-less locked to 7.1.2?

It seems as though Dolby has to do some work to address the concerns of mixers who don't trust the renderer to behave appropriately in all circumstances, a concern the mixers address by doing fixed printouts, but this doesn't affect the viewing experience at all. You are hearing the soundtrack exactly as it was mixed by the mixers. If you are checking soundtracks by watching object viewers or muting the base level speakers in order to divine precisely how much is in the overheads, you're spending time that could be otherwise used enjoying music or movies in your Atmos room.

I don't mind people doing that research to post their findings here at AVS - it's interesting in a sort of academic way, and many of us are the sorts of nerds that find this stuff interesting. But to get wound up about it to the point of flame wars I find baffling.


----------



## robert600

dancolt said:


> Hey All,
> 
> 
> My 2,000 sqft basement is unfinished which I will be finishing about 3/4 of it. This is my first basement ever so I am excited and overwhelmed at the same time.
> 
> I am working on the design for my 7.2.4 or 7.1.4 home theater and I would love some input from you all. I am new to projectors so I just starting to research projectors and screens, both UST and long-throw. I enjoy 2 channel music so I am thinking about going with Klipsch RP-8000F ( L / R ), RP-404C ( C ), RP-402S (Surrounds) but I am completely open to any and all suggestions. I am leaning towards on the wall speakers for the easy of installation and portability just in case we move which I don’t see happening. Again, completely open to switching brands or to in-wall if convinced of the benefit.
> 
> As you can see below my theater right now is roughly 15' x 27’ x 8.5’. Do you think that 27' would be too long? I am concerned that the rear surrounds would be too far back.
> 
> Any advice or opinions would be GREATLY appreciated.
> 
> Dan
> 
> View attachment 3227527


My thoughts based on being a longtime projector 7.1 user and very recent 7.1.4 user.

From what I can see ... you're optomizing your speaker locations for the front couch ... yes?

In my opinion ... thinking of distances etc. .... everything depends on ... how WIDE a screen you go for. It's really the first step in speaker layout.

Thinking of the rear sorrounds for instance ... to say they're 27' back is misleading ... that back measurement you want is from MLP (front couch in your case?) ... the distance to the screen is irrelevent. The problem at the moment is ... how close to the screen will that front couch be? ... that depends on the width of the screen. If you fill that back wall with a screen (15') then obviously the couch will have to be further back then if it is a 8' screen. Does this make sense?


----------



## dj7675

Apgood said:


> Yes and also StormXT only puts ambient sounds into those extra channels it uses based on what StormAudio have said.
> 
> In other words it won't have say the sound of a bullet pass through them as it moves from front to back or left to right.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


This is true according to Storm. It is to fill the gap with non object info. Also, the output levels seem to be lower than the nearby channels. I asked Storm about this and they mentioned that this is by design. Via support, they don’t rule out further developments and/or changes to StormXT


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> You know full well it _DOES NOT_ work with those locked soundtracks and _that_ is precisely why an upmixer of sorts is _badly needed_ to correct the situation because having a hole above your head when you own Top Middle speakers is ridiculous, as they sit there silent and two height speakers attempt to image across a 30' room.
> 
> That is exactly what Neural X does for 7.1.4 channel-based DTS:X. It upmixes it to up to 32.1 speakers and it _could_ be adapted to do the same for Atmos locked soundtracks which _BEHAVE_ like a channel-based soundtrack after they're decoded (regardless of what happens internally before that stage).
> 
> A simple comparative check of correlated (in-phase) information between nearby but not directly adjacent channels (e.g. Check between the Mains and Side Surround and Front and Rear Heights/Tops on a 9.1.6 system would tell it whether it should upmix or not since there won't be any correlated information between those channels if Front Wides or Top Middle are being used as that information would have been rendered to those speakers instead. Nothing you have said changes that FACT.
> 
> That's not an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> That false statement shows absolute ignorance about how Neural X works because that's _exactly_ what it does internally to an 11.1-channel DTS:X soundtrack! It upmixes it to up to 32.2 speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> If it _doesn't actually use them_ due to poor mixing practices, it doesn't matter what it "supports". I still end up with silent speakers and an imaging gap directly overhead that Top Middle (or the VOG with Auro-3D and DTS:X) was designed to eliminate. If it isn't used, it doesn't eliminate the issue. Given Dolby will not stand up to the studios and demand they properly use objects, this will continue to be a dark cloud over Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Its origins are irrelevant to the point being made here that you keep on ignoring. The FACT is that it gets around the "locked" soundtracks limitation of only 4 overhead speakers by using Dolby's own Logic Steering to move the information produced between the two sets of overhead channels to the Top Middle speakers where it actually belongs. In other words, the soundtrack is not longer "locked" in that sense. It now uses and _properly_ reproduces 6 overheads instead of 4.
> 
> Thus, it _also_ proves that DTS or someone else could easily take the same decoded outputs of Atmos internally and do the same thing, possibly to even more speakers. That, in FACT, is exactly what Neural X already does for DTS:X Pro. It takes a 7.1.4 soundtrack or even a 7.1.2 one or a 7.1.0 one or 5.1 soundtrack or even a 2.0 soundtrack and expands them to 32 channels. The *functional* difference between a so-called "locked" Atmos soundtrack that behaves very much like a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 soundtrack and an actual channel-based one is exactly ZERO on the digital/analog outputs of the channels in question. That is _precisely_ why Neural X could work on locked Atmos soundtracks if DTS were to adapt it for that usage.
> 
> 
> 
> They _could_ legally license Atmos to only be used in a certain way as part of that license as any software license can do with that long-winded legal crap they make you agree to. The fact they _don't_ says Dolby only really cares about one thing and that is making money, not producing the best possible audio experience at home. They themselves could get around the locked soundtrack problem with a solution similar to DTS' Neural X, but it's not important to them. Most people only have 5.1.2 - 7.1.4 setups and won't notice the difference anyway so why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous? To _image_ a "center" speaker between front and rear overhead speakers where the phantom image _already_ images using a hard center instead? Really? Dolby's been doing it since Dolby Surround first came out in 1975 with a hard center from a stereo soundtrack that images a phantom there without it! Did people complain they used a hard center instead of a stereo phantom center in those movies? Was that "dangerous" ??? REALLY!?!?? This is getting absurd once again.
> 
> The speakers in question aren't _new locations_. They're hard speakers instead of phantom images and you're talking about color correction and film grain removal (not even _close_ to the same thing).
> 
> This conversation once again proves why I wouldn't hire the guy who _paints_ my house to _design_ my house. Hardware and Software engineers designed Atmos, not film mixers and for good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> DTS has provided the solution to that problem with Neural X in DTS:X Pro. It automatically creates hard speakers for those phantom images and that's exactly what it COULD do for locked Atmos soundtracks (or what Dolby themselves could design a fix for if it were important to them). No one is talking about changing the locations of images, just expanding the number of hard speakers in a larger room that needs it for imaging integrity. I don't know why that is so controversial to you or why Sanjay said it can't be done, but both positions are flat out wrong and irrelevant. You can already get part of the way there yourself with Scatmos.
> 
> I'm hard pressed to buy a Denon 8500 to get _true_ Top Middle decoding/rendering when my room is large enough that I get one of those imaging "gaps" (not distinct imaging) directly above if I only use 4 Heights to image. But if I add Top Middle (via Scatmos), even the _locked_ Disney soundtracks image properly overhead where they would in a smaller room. It doesn't change WHERE the soundtrack images, just the quality of the overhead image (and locks the image in place dead center for all seats in the home theater, not just someone sitting directly between the overheads as 7.1.4 does by necessity).


I'm following your line of thought, but I need a few clarifications. Am I correct in thinking that neural x cannot upmix across another format such as Auro, and Dolby Atmos, but can be applied to the signal after the decoder has extracted the audio elements, and then sending them to the preouts of a processor that will than be sent to an external amplifier or AVR


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> You are hearing the soundtrack exactly as it was mixed by the mixers.


I have trouble believing that different mixers working on different movies at Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm ALL did mixes that were pre-rendered to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2. More likely an encoding decision made at Disney Home Video that affected all the studios under the Disney umbrella. That level of consistency doesn't come across as respecting the intent of a variety of mixers.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> You know full well it _DOES NOT_ work with those locked soundtracks and _that_ is precisely why an upmixer of sorts is _badly needed_ to correct the situation because having a hole above your head when you own Top Middle speakers is ridiculous, as they sit there silent and two height speakers attempt to image across a 30' room.
> 
> That is exactly what Neural X does for 7.1.4 channel-based DTS:X. It upmixes it to up to 32.1 speakers and it _could_ be adapted to do the same for Atmos locked soundtracks which _BEHAVE_ like a channel-based soundtrack after they're decoded (regardless of what happens internally before that stage).
> 
> A simple comparative check of correlated (in-phase) information between nearby but not directly adjacent channels (e.g. Check between the Mains and Side Surround and Front and Rear Heights/Tops on a 9.1.6 system would tell it whether it should upmix or not since there won't be any correlated information between those channels if Front Wides or Top Middle are being used as that information would have been rendered to those speakers instead. Nothing you have said changes that FACT.
> 
> That's not an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> That false statement shows absolute ignorance about how Neural X works because that's _exactly_ what it does internally to an 11.1-channel DTS:X soundtrack! It upmixes it to up to 32.2 speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> If it _doesn't actually use them_ due to poor mixing practices, it doesn't matter what it "supports". I still end up with silent speakers and an imaging gap directly overhead that Top Middle (or the VOG with Auro-3D and DTS:X) was designed to eliminate. If it isn't used, it doesn't eliminate the issue. Given Dolby will not stand up to the studios and demand they properly use objects, this will continue to be a dark cloud over Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> Its origins are irrelevant to the point being made here that you keep on ignoring. The FACT is that it gets around the "locked" soundtracks limitation of only 4 overhead speakers by using Dolby's own Logic Steering to move the information produced between the two sets of overhead channels to the Top Middle speakers where it actually belongs. In other words, the soundtrack is not longer "locked" in that sense. It now uses and _properly_ reproduces 6 overheads instead of 4.
> 
> Thus, it _also_ proves that DTS or someone else could easily take the same decoded outputs of Atmos internally and do the same thing, possibly to even more speakers. That, in FACT, is exactly what Neural X already does for DTS:X Pro. It takes a 7.1.4 soundtrack or even a 7.1.2 one or a 7.1.0 one or 5.1 soundtrack or even a 2.0 soundtrack and expands them to 32 channels. The *functional* difference between a so-called "locked" Atmos soundtrack that behaves very much like a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 soundtrack and an actual channel-based one is exactly ZERO on the digital/analog outputs of the channels in question. That is _precisely_ why Neural X could work on locked Atmos soundtracks if DTS were to adapt it for that usage.
> 
> 
> 
> They _could_ legally license Atmos to only be used in a certain way as part of that license as any software license can do with that long-winded legal crap they make you agree to. The fact they _don't_ says Dolby only really cares about one thing and that is making money, not producing the best possible audio experience at home. They themselves could get around the locked soundtrack problem with a solution similar to DTS' Neural X, but it's not important to them. Most people only have 5.1.2 - 7.1.4 setups and won't notice the difference anyway so why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous? To _image_ a "center" speaker between front and rear overhead speakers where the phantom image _already_ images using a hard center instead? Really? Dolby's been doing it since Dolby Surround first came out in 1975 with a hard center from a stereo soundtrack that images a phantom there without it! Did people complain they used a hard center instead of a stereo phantom center in those movies? Was that "dangerous" ??? REALLY!?!?? This is getting absurd once again.
> 
> The speakers in question aren't _new locations_. They're hard speakers instead of phantom images and you're talking about color correction and film grain removal (not even _close_ to the same thing).
> 
> This conversation once again proves why I wouldn't hire the guy who _paints_ my house to _design_ my house. Hardware and Software engineers designed Atmos, not film mixers and for good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> DTS has provided the solution to that problem with Neural X in DTS:X Pro. It automatically creates hard speakers for those phantom images and that's exactly what it COULD do for locked Atmos soundtracks (or what Dolby themselves could design a fix for if it were important to them). No one is talking about changing the locations of images, just expanding the number of hard speakers in a larger room that needs it for imaging integrity. I don't know why that is so controversial to you or why Sanjay said it can't be done, but both positions are flat out wrong and irrelevant. You can already get part of the way there yourself with Scatmos.
> 
> I'm hard pressed to buy a Denon 8500 to get _true_ Top Middle decoding/rendering when my room is large enough that I get one of those imaging "gaps" (not distinct imaging) directly above if I only use 4 Heights to image. But if I add Top Middle (via Scatmos), even the _locked_ Disney soundtracks image properly overhead where they would in a smaller room. It doesn't change WHERE the soundtrack images, just the quality of the overhead image (and locks the image in place dead center for all seats in the home theater, not just someone sitting directly between the overheads as 7.1.4 does by necessity).


The codec wasn’t designed to “know” whether the content is static (7.1.4 “locked”) or not. 

You know full well who is producing said content and if you don’t like it then you can vote with your wallet. 

You also know the differences between how Atmos works and DTS works…. 

Once audio is processed using sprain coding, the decoder has no way to know what were originally 7.1.4 channels and what were objects. 

DTS:X can do that. 

Dolby Atmos cannot. 

Ranting and raving about “poor mixes” or studios decisions on how they use the codec doesn’t change the fact that Atmos will never behave like you want it to. 

It cannot. It has no way of knowing if the original content is mono, stereo, 5.1, 7.1.4 or “Atmos…”. 

I once sat with a handful of Dolby engineers and a very well know, multiple Oscar winning mixer when the studio I worked for did their first Atmos install.. 56 speakers…. 

Said mixer kept asking for the surround arrays (side and rear surround) to use different speakers than they were setup to do while still being accessible to objects… 

The lead Dolby engineer said they couldn’t do that.. it wasn’t designed that way, it won’t playback that way in any theater in the world, etc…

The mixer kept saying “but I want it to do this…. “

And they said it could not …. It went back and forth for 30 minutes.. back and forth…

Home Atmos cannot identify a track that is “locked” 7.1.4.

The codec has no provisions to do so…. It never has..

DTS:X does has that ability. . 

So yes, of course I KNOW FULL WELL you will have silent speakers with some content. 

Knowing these limitations, you then, as a consumer, have a choice. 

Don’t listen to those encodes and / or don’t buy it. 

But to keep arguing about something that cannot and will not change, and knowing FULL WELL the constraints and fundamental design of the technology as it exists today, is futile. 

Both for you and those of us who engage with you.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> I have trouble believing that different mixers working on different movies at Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm ALL did mixes that were pre-rendered to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2. More likely an encoding decision made at Disney Home Video that affected all the studios under the Disney umbrella. That level of consistency doesn't come across as respecting the intent of a variety of mixers.


It may have been a top level decision, but I think those pre-renders are being done on the stage, not at some later encoding step. I could be wrong, mind you, but I find it hard to believe that the mixers wouldn't know that there is some mandate for the delivery to be 7.1.4 and monitor and render accordingly. The question is, what motivated that mandate and can Dolby do anything to address the concerns of those who made it? 

Side note - almost all of the stages doing this work are only set up for 7.1.4 anyway, so the mixers are hearing only 7.1.4 to begin with. Mandating a pre-render is a way of ensuring that the consumer hears exactly what was done on stage, eliminating the wild card of how the renderer will handle a moving object in a room with more speakers.


----------



## X4100

dschulz said:


> I think this is all much ado about nothing. If you had never read AVS Forum, and visited a nice private 9.1.6 screening room, and watched Saving Private Ryan, would you walk away thinking "wow, that movie was great but the Atmos mix sucked?" Would you even _notice_ that the track was more-or-less locked to 7.1.2?
> 
> It seems as though Dolby has to do some work to address the concerns of mixers who don't trust the renderer to behave appropriately in all circumstances, a concern the mixers address by doing fixed printouts, but this doesn't affect the viewing experience at all. You are hearing the soundtrack exactly as it was mixed by the mixers. If you are checking soundtracks by watching object viewers or muting the base level speakers in order to divine precisely how much is in the overheads, you're spending time that could be otherwise used enjoying music or movies in your Atmos room.
> 
> I don't mind people doing that research to post their findings here at AVS - it's interesting in a sort of academic way, and many of us are the sorts of nerds that find this stuff interesting. But to get wound up about it to the point of flame wars I find baffling.


I can't comment on Saving Private Ryan, but I will use Midway as my choice. With all the aircraft zooming in the air at various locations and heights, bombs dropping I would enjoy the movie. Now if after a more serious analysis of the audio I find that instead of using the height speakers to the full as this movie requires, I would be surprised. I can't understand why the height speakers, and the base layer couldn't be utilized as a whole to put sounds midway into the room, a little over my head when a dive bomber swoops down, when a ship sinks and sailors are trapped inside or underwater. As I mentioned earlier with Ready Player One, initially I was very pleased, but as I personally checked the sound stage, and realized it was 7.1.2, I was like WHY. YMMV but that's how I feel about my audio!


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> The question is, what motivated that mandate and can Dolby do anything to address the concerns of those who made it?


Also, how did titles escape the mandate (_'Captain America: Civil War'_ is not one of the pre-renders).


----------



## halcyon_888

priitv8 said:


> Here I am, wondering the third time.
> What is actually wrong with silent speakers?
> When I listen to a stereo soundtrack or to a 5.1 mix from SACD on my 5.1.4 speaker setup, i do not expect all of them fire up, as the content was never created for them.
> IMHO it is the same question with watching old 4:3 aspect movie on a 16:9 screen - should i absolutely try to force the image to fill the screen, because the screen-estate is there?
> I will only distort the picture by doing this, and the intent of the director.
> 
> As I see it, the dispute here circles around two different assumptions - one about codec vs upmixing, another about upmixing the already decoded/rendered speaker signals.
> 
> As you can see from the beginning of this post, I am not user of any upmixers myself, so I may be totally wrong here.





mrvideo said:


> I'm not going to use any upmixers, by choice, either. I want the audio to go to the speakers as originally intended.


I watched Goldfinger a couple of days ago, it was in 5.1 and a front heavy mix. This is expected being such an old movie from 1964, unless it was remastered to use surrounds, which it wasn't. But I used the DTS Neural X upmixer anyway, and toward the end there was an airplane flyover scene and the upmixer correctly put the sound effect in the heights. It was appropriate to the on-screen action and it's moments like this that I feel I get my money's worth out of my Atmos setup that I paid a lot of money for. If I hadn't used the upmixer I would have missed out on this cool special effect.

An analogy would be upconverting DVDs to 1080p resolution or 4k. It's not the original intent, but does it provide a benefit? Yes, even though it's not in the format originally intended. It's a choice not to use an upmixer and that's fine, it's definitely a point of view and I understand that. Just wanting to reply with the other point of view 

Also if dealing with an older soundtrack like 5.1 SACD or an old movie like Goldfinger from 1964, if newer technology like Atmos existed back then would they have used the surrounds and heights? Yes I'd say so for movies at least, so that's another way to look at using an upmixer.


----------



## X4100

FilmMixer said:


> decoder has no way to know what were originally 7.1.4 channels and what were objects.


That statement you made a few posts earlier, answered a question I've been wondering about, so I guess it would take a trinnov viewer to see an approximate view of objects as they move around the sound stage. I was just wondering how to tell the difference between objects and sound fixed to channels


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> Side note - almost all of the stages doing this work are only set up for 7.1.4 anyway, so the mixers are hearing only 7.1.4 to begin with. Mandating a pre-render is a way of ensuring that the consumer hears exactly what was done on stage, eliminating the wild card of how the renderer will handle a moving object in a room with more speakers.


Well... almost all of the home certification stages are 7.1.4. Major studios certainly do a lot of their big flicks on the larger better-equipped stages for the theatrical release, though I'm sure COVID affected that somewhat, and then whoever adapts the home version just uses that data.

But related question for Sanjay or Marc: When we talk about a "7.1.4 printout", what are we even talking about? Because all we have seen from the Trinnov object viewer is either 2 static height objects by themselves... or 2 static heights plus dynamic objects that can move anywhere. Maybe I'm wrong, but have we ever seen one that just has 4 static height objects locked to top front/rear locations? My assumption has always been that the 2 static height objects we've seen are basically meant to pass as the constructive "channels" - the way Atmos can send audio to all of the speakers in each height row at once OR steer things through them independently.


----------



## mrtickleuk

X4100 said:


> I was just wondering how to tell the difference between objects and sound fixed to channels


They're shown as different colours/shapes.


----------



## sdurani

rebith75 said:


> Putting them on the angled ceiling in traditional atmos placements? Or leaving alone because the differences are likely negligible?


Another vote for leaving it alone (too much trouble for not enough difference).


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but have we ever seen one that just has 4 static height objects locked to top front/rear locations?


I know there are videos of soundtracks being analyzed with the Object Viewer, since they are linked in this thread occasionally, but I haven't been keeping up with them. It's possible there hasn't been an example of a 7.1.4 track yet, but I wouldn't take that to mean they're not out there.


----------



## mrvideo

X4100 said:


> Sssssooo if you're watching a movie like Harry Potter, and all sorts of wizardry mayhem is going on, are you saying you wouldn't even have a slight teeny weeny wonderment of why the height speakers weren't fully utilized?


I'm saying that it would be wizardry to place sound where it wasn't placed in the first place. While many here do not like all of their speakers not emitting sound, it was what the director, or whomever was in charge, wanted. This is akin to those who stretch, or enlarge, 4:3 video to fill their 16:9 screen because they don't like pillar bars.


----------



## sdrucker

sdurani said:


> I know there are videos of soundtracks being analyzed with the Object Viewer, since they are linked in this thread occasionally, but I haven't been keeping up with them. It's possible there hasn't been an example of a 7.1.4 track yet, but I wouldn't take that to mean they're not out there.


I have a vague memory of at least one. I’ll take a look and see if I can find it. However that might be on Apple Spatial Music rather than a movie.


----------



## X4100

Try Spare Change " What's in an Atmos mix are you missing much object viewer trinnov. I tried to send a link


----------



## halcyon_888

mrvideo said:


> While many here do not like all of their speakers not emitting sound, it was what the director, or whomever was in charge, wanted.


Not necessarily, there are other reasons for Atmos tracks that don't make use of the heights. Budget constraints being one, a sound engineer that isn't creative or talented as someone else and doesn't use the heights when they could, not enough time given to create a proper Atmos track. I'd wager that time and budget constraints are the main reasons we're getting so many flat Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## X4100




----------



## batpig

X4100 said:


> That statement you made a few posts earlier, answered a question I've been wondering about, so I guess it would take a trinnov viewer to see an approximate view of objects as they move around the sound stage. I was just wondering how to tell the difference between objects and sound fixed to channels


It’s important to understand (as FilmMixer was trying to explain) that the concept of beds vs objects as used in the cinematic mix doesn’t exist with home Atmos. Once the full mix goes through the spatial coding process to prepare for home delivery, everything (channels + objects) has to be squeezed into 11, 13, or 15 dynamic objects (depending on the output setting). 15 is the maximum (technically 16 elements since there’s also the static LFE but you get the drift).

So with 15 maximum elements at any time, the spatial coding groups sounds in close proximity within one of those 15 clusters. So the static left surround “channel” could at times be clustered with a dynamic object that moves to the left side of the room. Then that dynamic object moves somewhere else and is no longer clustered with the left surround channel info. On the flip side, sometimes there will be NO object at a speaker location briefly if the limit of total elements is reached and the spatial coding requires the sound to be elsewhere.

If you watch the videos mentioned, you’ll see that for the most part 9 or 11 (depending on if 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 as the core elements) of the yellow balls are sitting there fixed, looking for all purposes like speaker channels. Some yellow balls will be zooming around and occasionally merge with one of the fixed points. But then at times during busy sections you’ll see a back surround disappear for a moment as stuff is zooming around. So the only way to sort of “tell the difference between objects and sound fixed to channels” is that some of the yellow balls stay still most of the time, and others don’t. 

The screenshot below is from the Atmos renderer guide, and illustrates what I’m describing.










This is the reason the renderer has no idea what was originally channels/beds and what was dynamic objects. There is no difference with home Atmos, other than some of those will end up mostly sticking in the primary speaker locations. So they mimic channels, but aren’t identifiable as such by the decoder. As far as the decoder is concerned, a fixed 7.1.2 mix is just 9 dynamic objects sitting around, but in theory they (or additional clustered elements) could move around at any moment and any speaker could be called upon to make noise. It doesn’t “know” it’s static or that there are some speakers which will be permanently silent for the entire mix, so it can’t upmix to those silent speakers.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> Try Spare Change " What's in an Atmos mix are you missing much object viewer trinnov. I tried to send a link


I've watched all of his object viewer videos and haven't seen one yet that has 4 static objects. Just either dynamic objects or 2 static for heights. So that's why I was wondering.


halcyon_888 said:


> Not necessarily, there are other reasons for Atmos tracks that don't make use of the heights. Budget constraints being one, a sound engineer that isn't creative or talented as someone else and doesn't use the heights when they could, not enough time given to create a proper Atmos track. I'd wager that time and budget constraints are the main reasons we're getting so many flat Atmos soundtracks.


But ultimately, I want to hear whatever the sound designer did with the mix, warts and all. If it's a bad mix, then it's a bad mix... just like the countless 5.1/7.1 mixes that I've heard that didn't quite take advantage of all the channels until they learned more about how to use it. I want to hear the differences between how Ren Klyce designed a mix versus how Gary Rydstrom does. (I chose those two because I just watched The Incredibles 2 and Brave today.) I think we all agree that if there was a better theatrical mix done, we'd like that carried over rather than just a home version that uses 2 static height objects (though I think if things are panned well between those, a la RPO, that's not a huge issue either). But then, we'd likely never know, having no basis for comparison.

I disagree with FOMO and others who find Atmos lacking in that I haven't heard very many Atmos discs that didn't sound pretty amazing in my room. I can only think of 2 titles out of my 240+ discs where I thought, "Oh, that's unfortunate" (the worst being Life on UHD). But I'm generally pretty happy with the 4 speakers I put on my ceiling, and feel like they add a lot to the experience in my room, even on discs where people think sounds should be moving as if the viewer was hearing everything from the camera POV. I get that people want their newest speakers to get used a lot... and saw the same thing on the forum back when we went to DD-EX, DTS-ES, and then to 7.1. If a movie wasn't lighting up those back speakers, everyone acted like it was an awful mix. And just like then, now I see people who will upmix the base track to fill their height channels with reverb rather than listen to the intended mix using that same logic. And I understand. We spend a lot of money on this stuff and want it to get shown off with every track possible. But I wish more people appreciated sound design as an art, including the choices those mixers have to make that go beyond just filling every speaker with sound because someone wants it.


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> The codec wasn’t designed to “know” whether the content is static (7.1.4 “locked”) or not.
> You know full well who is producing said content and if you don’t like it then you can vote with your wallet.


What does that have to do with my statements about whether an upmixer can be adapted to work with Atmos decoded output and move the sounds to more speakers than the locked soundtrack can decode to? 

I don't have to vote with my wallet either as my 'Scatmos' derived Top Middle works with everything, locked or not, which is why I say something like Neural X could easily be adapted to do the same digitally internally after Atmos is decoded (aka UPMIXING). I already stated in the previous post how it can easily tell whether it's needed or not (locked VS proper object use) by a simple correlated phase comparison. 

The Monoprice HTP-1 does something more basic for front wides (which was supposed to work with Top Middle as well, but currently doesn't for some buggy firmware reason) in that it does a simple mixer addition of signals when front wides aren't present (something Lyngdorf used to use as well a couple of years ago until DTS:X Pro was added), but it's still the same idea, to address the problem of improperly used Atmos soundtracks.




> Once audio is processed using sprain coding, the decoder has no way to know what were originally 7.1.4 channels and what were objects.
> 
> DTS:X can do that.
> 
> Dolby Atmos cannot.


But it's NOT DTS:X itself that is doing that. It's the Neural X upmixer and always has been and again, it does it _AFTER_ DTS:X decoding. That is why it could easily be adapted to do the same for Atmos. Dolby knew this which is why they forbade other upmixers to work with their signals. A European court threatened legal action and they rescinded the order. 

If DTS wanted to make Neural X work with decoded Atmos instead of the base track, they could do so. The only thing that would need to be added is a detection step (checking phase of channels one past adjacent for correlated signals) to determine whether to apply it or not for a given set.



> Ranting and raving about “poor mixes” or studios decisions on how they use the codec doesn’t change the fact that Atmos will never behave like you want it to.


The only person I see _ranting_ is YOU. I think you and Sanjay would rather die than admit you're wrong so you keep on moving off into tangents, avoiding any arguments put forth and generally repeating yourself while your groupies "like" everything you say no matter how absurdly incoherent. 

Frankly, I think you should stick with placing karate kick sounds in films and leave engineering talk to people that actually know something about the subject as it was clear from those Trinnov comments earlier that you don't even understand WTF an upmixer is and where it is in the signal chain (after decoding).



> I once sat with a handful of Dolby engineers


Wow. You _sat_ with them. Impressive! 

I once built my own analog based audio scrambler/descrambler system from scratch (CAD Circuit Board drawing to finished product including making my own case with a sheet metal press) to have private conversations over CB radio (senior engineering project). It was designed to sound like side band radio so regular CB traffic would tend to ignore it), but it wasn't. My supervising professor worked at NASA during the moon shot years and loved it, especially that it wasn't digital as he said that would really throw those NSA types for a loop, particularly if encrypted as well as they'd probably have no clue what they were listening to.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But ultimately, I want to hear whatever the sound designer did with the mix, warts and all. If it's a bad mix, then it's a bad mix... just like the countless 5.1/7.1 mixes that I've heard that didn't quite take advantage of all the channels until they learned more about how to use it. I want to hear the differences between how Ren Klyce designed a mix versus how Gary Rydstrom does. (I chose those two because I just watched The Incredibles 2 and Brave today.) I think we all agree that if there was a better theatrical mix done, we'd like that carried over rather than just a home version that uses 2 static height objects (though I think if things are panned well between those, a la RPO, that's not a huge issue either). But then, we'd likely never know, having no basis for comparison.
> 
> I disagree with FOMO and others who find Atmos lacking in that I haven't heard very many Atmos discs that didn't sound pretty amazing in my room. I can only think of 2 titles out of my 240+ discs where I thought, "Oh, that's unfortunate" (the worst being Life on UHD). But I'm generally pretty happy with the 4 speakers I put on my ceiling, and feel like they add a lot to the experience in my room, even on discs where people think sounds should be moving as if the viewer was hearing everything from the camera POV. I get that people want their newest speakers to get used a lot... and saw the same thing on the forum back when we went to DD-EX, DTS-ES, and then to 7.1. If a movie wasn't lighting up those back speakers, everyone acted like it was an awful mix. And just like then, now I see people who will upmix the base track to fill their height channels with reverb rather than listen to the intended mix using that same logic. And I understand. We spend a lot of money on this stuff and want it to get shown off with every track possible. But I wish more people appreciated sound design as an art, including the choices those mixers have to make that go beyond just filling every speaker with sound because someone wants it.


I don't want to hear an Atmos track that has warts all over it, I want quality Atmos mixes that are professionally done and make excellent use of the technology. What we're getting is labeled "Atmos" but they are mostly 7.1 mixes with some rare height activity sprinkled in. Titles like Monster Hunter, Ready Player One (yes it's 7.1.2 but it's a great mix for what it is), and most recently Dune can show what the technology can--and should do. There's no way that 240+ of the discs you have are on the level of mixing of these movies because there's simply not that many titles that use the technology like these movies do. This is what I mean when I talk about flat Atmos mixes, compare the 240 titles you have to the best Atmos mixes out there and they won't measure up. Most Atmos mixes should give us the immersive experience we want but instead the industry is turning out underwhelming mixes as the standard. I hung speakers from my ceiling, bought an external amplifier to power them, and bought a prepro for Atmos. I know what the best mixes sound like but I put on the common "Atmos" mix and the heights are underutilized, have missed opportunities, and lack immersion. Give me a mix that is good and I will give it praise, give me a mix that is underwhelming and I will knock it like it should be done. No Time to Die wasn't the best Atmos mix out there but it was good and I gave it praise in this thread. The Man from UNCLE was underwhelming and opted to use an upmixer halfway through the movie and had a more immersive experience and talked about it in this thread. So not all Atmos mixes can be top-tier Atmos, but if I were to take 240 titles and judge the quality of Atmos certainly there would be more than just 2 that were underwhelming. The industry is simply churning more underwhelming Atmos titles than immersive ones.


----------



## petetherock

24 speakers..
I think the average person will baulk at that..


----------



## D. Nance

Dear Sirs,
I feel in my opinion that you missed a little on the intent of atmos. Although it is a ”special effect” the atmos effect is to give realness to your presence in your viewing. As all sound doesn’t happen at ear level. There is a particular video on you tube through apple 4K of swimming underwater with dolphins which captures the effect perfectly.


----------



## dschulz

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well... almost all of the home certification stages are 7.1.4. Major studios certainly do a lot of their big flicks on the larger better-equipped stages for the theatrical release, though I'm sure COVID affected that somewhat, and then whoever adapts the home version just uses that data.


Yes, the theatrical mixes are done in large rooms. Although you could simply export that theatrical mix to home Atmos, in almost all cases there is a nearfield remix in a smaller (usually 7.1.4 room) to adjust the mix to account for somewhat lower levels, closer speakers and bass management.


----------



## D. Nance

dschulz said:


> Yes, the theatrical mixes are done in large rooms. Although you could simply export that theatrical mix to home Atmos, in almost all cases there is a nearfield remix in a smaller (usually 7.1.4 room) to adjust the mix to account for somewhat lower levels, closer speakers and bass management.


Agreed I just wanted to point out that the effect is a cohesive all speakers to play as one to pinpoint your mlp rather than expect a sound from just one or two speakers during a scene. Atmos is the means by which the cohesive or realness of the sound is reached.


----------



## dschulz

D. Nance said:


> Agreed I just wanted to point out that the effect is a cohesive all speakers to play as one to pinpoint your mlp rather than expect a sound from just one or two speakers during a scene. Atmos is the means by which the cohesive or realness of the sound is reached.


Ah, I wasn't trying to disagree with the point you were making, I was responding to Jeremy's earlier point about theatrical mixes being done in large rooms with much more than 7.1.4 layouts. Definitely in agreement with you that a good immersive mix should be, well, immersive.


----------



## D. Nance

Sorry I wasn’t speaking expressly to you on your subject. I just jumped in with my opinion. I do agree with you though it would stand to reason mixes are made to accommodate lesser systems found in homes rather than the mammoths in theaters.


----------



## dschulz

dschulz said:


> Yes, the theatrical mixes are done in large rooms. Although you could simply export that theatrical mix to home Atmos, in almost all cases there is a nearfield remix in a smaller (usually 7.1.4 room) to adjust the mix to account for somewhat lower levels, closer speakers and bass management.


Here's a point I'm fuzzy on (will try to find out an answer): before the Atmos era, several studios (not all) would do the home theatre remix on the same big dubbing stage as the theatrical mix. Once the theatrical deliverables were complete, they'd bring in nearfield speakers and set them up around the console, adjust the level downwards for the home mix, and do a trim pass. The idea was that by keeping it on the same console, in the same room, with the same mixers, the mix would be fresh on their minds and all the tools & assets close at hand. 

This obviously doesn't work if you need to add 4 or 6 overhead speakers for home Atmos, so I wonder how they are done? Do the same mixers just move into a smaller room down the hall for the home Atmos mix? They do have the ability to listen to the theatrical mix on the stage with the spatial coding engaged so they can see what that part of the home deliverable sounds like, so maybe they're OK with doing a pass with spatial coding on to make any adjustments there, and then trusting the home video team to do the actual remix? Will see what I can find.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I don't want to hear an Atmos track that has warts all over it, I want quality Atmos mixes that are professionally done and make excellent use of the technology. What we're getting is labeled "Atmos" but they are mostly 7.1 mixes with some rare height activity sprinkled in. Titles like Monster Hunter, Ready Player One (yes it's 7.1.2 but it's a great mix for what it is), and most recently Dune can show what the technology can--and should do. There's no way that 240+ of the discs you have are on the level of mixing of these movies because there's simply not that many titles that use the technology like these movies do. This is what I mean when I talk about flat Atmos mixes, compare the 240 titles you have to the best Atmos mixes out there and they won't measure up. Most Atmos mixes should give us the immersive experience we want but instead the industry is turning out underwhelming mixes as the standard. I hung speakers from my ceiling, bought an external amplifier to power them, and bought a prepro for Atmos. I know what the best mixes sound like but I put on the common "Atmos" mix and the heights are underutilized, have missed opportunities, and lack immersion. Give me a mix that is good and I will give it praise, give me a mix that is underwhelming and I will knock it like it should be done. No Time to Die wasn't the best Atmos mix out there but it was good and I gave it praise in this thread. The Man from UNCLE was underwhelming and opted to use an upmixer halfway through the movie and had a more immersive experience and talked about it in this thread. So not all Atmos mixes can be top-tier Atmos, but if I were to take 240 titles and judge the quality of Atmos certainly there would be more than just 2 that were underwhelming. The industry is simply churning more underwhelming Atmos titles than immersive ones.


I'm not saying that like I want there to be bad mixes. I just mean that I want to hear whatever the mix is as accurately as possible. And I don't judge the majority of Atmos mixes by the top 10% any more than I judged the bulk of 5.1/7.1 mixes by the best on the format. That's unrealistic. If I compared the 700+ 5.1 and 7.1 mixes I have to the best of them, they won't match up either... but that doesn't mean they're bad mixes. I mean, I love when someone does a fantastic job like with Dune or Last Night In Soho... but I also think the majority of Atmos mixes are perfectly serviceable, even if not as good as the best. But as I said, I understand why people want every speaker used after spending the money. It's nothing we haven't seen with past format upgrades.


dschulz said:


> They do have the ability to listen to the theatrical mix on the stage with the spatial coding engaged so they can see what that part of the home deliverable sounds like, so maybe they're OK with doing a pass with spatial coding on to make any adjustments there, and then trusting the home video team to do the actual remix? Will see what I can find.


The question I've always had is: If the movie was originally done in Atmos for theaters, why would any of them end up as a 7.1.2 with static heights? Is there some quickie conversion in the software that just dumps it down to that and pans things between those 9 static objects to "pre-mix" it into the container? Or was the original mix for theaters done that way too, just using the heights as channels rather than doing any actual object movement? Since we can't ever see the before and after, I guess we'll never know. Seems to me that if they just ran the theatrical through spatial coding after the nearfield adjustments, you would at least have a few dynamic objects as a general rule.


----------



## D. Nance

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm not saying that like I want there to be bad mixes. I just mean that I want to hear whatever the mix is as accurately as possible. And I don't judge the majority of Atmos mixes by the top 10% any more than I judged the bulk of 5.1/7.1 mixes by the best on the format. That's unrealistic. If I compared the 700+ 5.1 and 7.1 mixes I have to the best of them, they won't match up either... but that doesn't mean they're bad mixes. I mean, I love when someone does a fantastic job like with Dune or Last Night In Soho... but I also think the majority of Atmos mixes are perfectly serviceable, even if not as good as the best. But as I said, I understand why people want every speaker used after spending the money. It's nothing we haven't seen with past format upgrades.
> 
> The question I've always had is: If the movie was originally done in Atmos for theaters, why would any of them end up as a 7.1.2 with static heights? Is there some quickie conversion in the software that just dumps it down to that and pans things between those 9 static objects to "pre-mix" it into the container? Or was the original mix for theaters done that way too, just using the heights as channels rather than doing any actual object movement? Since we can't ever see the before and after, I guess we'll never know. Seems to me that if they just ran the theatrical through spatial coding after the nearfield adjustments, you would at least have a few dynamic objects as a general rule.


And that’s my point in a nutshell. A few dynamic objects. Turn those dynamics into how it would sound if you were standing/sitting right there. The sound would not come from one speaker. Your ears would pick up sound from all around. It’s the break from pinpointing sound and hearing it as it occurs from all around in the environment. The pinpoint is the ability to place the realism in the direction of occurrence. You may have three speakers working in unison to give the sound of the dynamic.


----------



## FilmMixer

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The question I've always had is: If the movie was originally done in Atmos for theaters, why would any of them end up as a 7.1.2 with static heights? Is there some quickie conversion in the software that just dumps it down to that and pans things between those 9 static objects to "pre-mix" it into the container? Or was the original mix for theaters done that way too, just using the heights as channels rather than doing any actual object movement? Since we can't ever see the before and after, I guess we'll never know. Seems to me that if they just ran the theatrical through spatial coding after the nearfield adjustments, you would at least have a few dynamic objects as a general rule.


The answer to your first question is because the content creators decided they like that delivery of their material better than the “other” way…. It bears repeating it is a greater exception than SOP…

It takes extra effort to create a 7.1.4/7.1.2 “printed” mix in Atmos (although the steps to do so have changed over the last couple of years and the process has been simplified a bit…). I think the few exceptions I’ve heard of as 7.1.2 home Atmos encodes were actually catalog titles remastered into Atmos. 

Theatrical Atmos also has height channels (in addition to accessing those speakers with objects)… you can use the top speakers arrayed as LR stereo pairs…


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

FilmMixer said:


> It takes extra effort to create a 7.1.4/7.1.2 “printed” mix in Atmos (although the steps to do so have changed over the last couple of years and the process has been simplified a bit…). I think the few exceptions I’ve heard of as 7.1.2 home Atmos encodes were actually catalog titles remastered into Atmos.


So you're saying it's actually harder to put out a 7.1.2 printed mix than to just convert the objects done for the theatrical mix? That makes it seem even more silly that some recent titles are done that way. Is it just to minimize file size for the track? Is it a concession for streaming? Surely there has to be some rationale for it.

Though for the last few months, there have been some great releases that retain dynamic objects, so perhaps there is a shift away from that practice.


----------



## Chirosamsung

What I would give to have Marvel movies use REAL atmos...

such a shame and wasted opportunity


----------



## priitv8

halcyon_888 said:


> ... it's moments like this that I feel I get my money's worth out of my Atmos setup that I paid a lot of money for.


Its the exact way I refuse to allow me thinking. It is like thinking : "I paid a lot for my ferrary, so I'd like to drive it pedal to the metal at all times". I like to know that I have the capacity available, when I need it, but it does not mean I need to be using it at all times.



halcyon_888 said:


> An analogy would be upconverting DVDs to 1080p resolution or 4k. It's not the original intent, but does it provide a benefit? Yes, even though it's not in the format originally intended. It's a choice not to use an upmixer and that's fine, it's definitely a point of view and I understand that. Just wanting to reply with the other point of view


I disagree with this analogy. Upscaling FHD to UHD is like upsampling 44.1 to 96. 
I think my analogy of black pixels on 16:9 screen when watching letterboxed video is more appropriate.
I've even read similar opinions on other places online, where people say those black bars are wasting their hard-earned money.


----------



## Pixelatto

Sorry for interrupting such expert discussion with a basic question that in addition is a derivative of surround placement question discussed many times. Read many posts but could not really find answer that combines theory with actual Atmos usage experience. Mounting on walls or ceiling is not on the table, rental limitations  Below is the room/speaker/fixed furniture layout, existing speakers are in orange, in yellow would be additional side speaker and new position for what is now SL and SR.

What would be the best way to assign surround speakers for expanding 5.1.4 to 7.1.4? By best I mean that based on your experience they would be on average actually engaged in action. It looks like by the book and due to physical placement limitations new ones should be Front Wide and existing ones would remain Surround? Or would it be more optimal to have new ones as Surround (albeit moved 2 feet towards front compared to listening position) and move the old surrounds a bit back and assign them as Back Surround?

Finally, what would be recommendation for amplification? FL FR and center are obvious candidates for 3 Parasound channels - what would be the other 2 in recommended 7.1.4 setup?

Theoretically, I could add back surrounds on the wall behind the bed for 9.1.4 setup (not shown on diagram) but from what I gathered that would not really work as surrounds and back surrounds would be 50 cm or less than 2 feet apart. Also, I gathered from the thread that it would not be worth adding 2 more height speakers given that 4 existing ones seem enough given the usage they get.

Many thanks in advance for your help. It will be much appreciated.

Gear: Denon 6700H receiver, Parasound A 52+ 5 channel amp, Klipsch RP series towers (front+surround), center and up firing Atmos (integrated in fronts, top-ups for surround). New surround would also be Klipsch RP series towers.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm not saying that like I want there to be bad mixes. I just mean that I want to hear whatever the mix is as accurately as possible. And I don't judge the majority of Atmos mixes by the top 10% any more than I judged the bulk of 5.1/7.1 mixes by the best on the format. That's unrealistic. If I compared the 700+ 5.1 and 7.1 mixes I have to the best of them, they won't match up either... but that doesn't mean they're bad mixes. I mean, I love when someone does a fantastic job like with Dune or Last Night In Soho... but I also think the majority of Atmos mixes are perfectly serviceable, even if not as good as the best. But as I said, I understand why people want every speaker used after spending the money. It's nothing we haven't seen with past format upgrades.


I'm not sure why you keep repeating "it's nothing we haven't seen in the past with format upgrades." Repeating it doesn't make the argument any less valid, in fact it gives the argument more validity that it's been a quality problem for so long. Here is what I'm sure of: Take 700 5.1/7.1 titles and we will grade them much differently. I'm sure you'd find disappointing surround usage acceptable. Likewise for Atmos mixes, I'm sure you'd find disappointing, underused heights, missed opportunities, and non-immersive Atmos acceptable and satisfying. We clearly disagree on how much quality we expect in our mixes, and we'll likely continue to talk past each other on the issue.


----------



## sdurani

Pixelatto said:


> It looks like by the book and due to physical placement limitations new ones should be Front Wide and existing ones would remain Surround?


That's what I would do in your situation: 5.1 + Wides.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm not sure why you keep repeating "it's nothing we haven't seen in the past with format upgrades." Repeating it doesn't make the argument any less valid, in fact it gives the argument more validity that it's been a quality problem for so long. Here is what I'm sure of: Take 700 5.1/7.1 titles and we will grade them much differently. I'm sure you'd find disappointing surround usage acceptable. Likewise for Atmos mixes, I'm sure you'd find disappointing, underused heights, missed opportunities, and non-immersive Atmos acceptable and satisfying. We clearly disagree on how much quality we expect in our mixes, and we'll likely continue to talk past each other on the issue.


But it's not an invalid argument at all. I don't expect every guitarist to be Jimi Hendrix either. Not every sound designer can be incredible and each has his/her own style. I like to hear those different styles, even if they aren't all to my taste. You want something different, and that's totally fine. But we both enjoy a great mix, so there's at least some common ground. Hopefully more movies going forward will have more of that.


----------



## Pixelatto

sdurani said:


> That's what I would do in your situation: 5.1 + Wides.


Many thanks. Was hoping that perhaps I can pull off surround and back surround, but I guess physics is difficult to get around


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But it's not an invalid argument at all. I don't expect every guitarist to be Jimi Hendrix either. Not every sound designer can be incredible and each has his/her own style. I like to hear those different styles, even if they aren't all to my taste. You want something different, and that's totally fine. But we both enjoy a great mix, so there's at least some common ground. Hopefully more movies going forward will have more of that.


Yes you're right, we would likely agree on many top tier Atmos mixes. Where we disagree is of the 240 Atmos discs you have, you said only 2 were underwhelming to you. My number would be at least over half of the 240; and I wouldn't just select the top tier, it's the mixes below that which become quickly underwhelming to me. Since you mentioned 5.1/7.1 soundtracks, I have a problem being underwhelmed with those too, but the numbers aren't as bad as it is for Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

I've been following the "controversy" about Atmos mixes for the last few years here, and while I enjoy a movie with lots of dynamic object use (think "The House with a Clock on Its Walls" that regularly used all of my heights and Atmos presence speakers outside of 7.1.4) for amazing sound, are we engineers here or consumer A/V enthusiasts that have our HT setup to an end purpose?

Quite frankly I don't care if a movie is largely 7.1.2 if the mix, with panning, use of side and rear surrounds, and engagement that fits the movie's subject, makes the movie an enjoyable experience on balance. My feeling is that if having all the speakers playing all the time is the ONLY criteria important for a movie, just down mix the movie to stereo, pick up a MiniDSP or other processor that allows mixing of speakers into other speakers (an array; I'm pretty far removed from D&M "All channel stereo", but isn't that limited to 7.1?), and enjoy.

The other alternative for the passion majority of AVSers here that care about all speakers playing immersive audio all the time is to simply have the content played back as 7.1 by outputting to multichannel LPCM rather than output as HDMI bitstream, and run Neural:X, Auromatic, or (for those that have it) StormXT, and call it a day. Except for a prolific poster or others that have a few old two-channel AVRs around to do Scatmos, which is personal choice IMO.

If you want to blame the mixer for mixer choices (as opposed to some mandate from Disney to have hard-wired 7.1.2), not sure what we can do about as consumers except shop for movies according to whom the mixer is. Or what, organize a boycott of Disney or ask corporate investors to divest from it due to an apparent philosophy choice? Pitch in to fly a plane with a "stop Lite Atmos" banner over studio HQs?

Speaking just for myself, while I like watching that Dolby Atmos Viewer on my Altitude from time to time or to verify that a mix is using dynamic objects or is just 7.1.2 static for academic reasons, and I prefer Atmos movies over others as much as possible, I'd rather just watch movies I like on my ATV+ or Netflix than pick strictly based on Atmos use, enjoy upmix for 5.1/7.1 movies or music outside of Atmos object use, and move on. At the end of the day this isn't curing cancer. It's entertainment.


----------



## ppasteur

halcyon_888 said:


> Yes you're right, we would likely agree on many top tier Atmos mixes. Where we disagree is of the 240 Atmos discs you have, you said only 2 were underwhelming to you. My number would be at least over half of the 240; and I wouldn't just select the top tier, it's the mixes below that which become quickly underwhelming to me. Since you mentioned 5.1/7.1 soundtracks, I have a problem being underwhelmed with those too, but the numbers aren't as bad as it is for Atmos.


I wonder which of you is happier? Which one get more pleasure out of watching the movies for what they are intended...pure entertainment? 
Agonizing over what you "want" and getting aggravated when you don't get it is just not very productive IMHO. Especially when the goal is just enjoying the content.


----------



## halcyon_888

ppasteur said:


> I wonder which of you is happier? Which one get more pleasure out of watching the movies for what they are intended...pure entertainment?
> Agonizing over what you "want" and getting aggravated when you don't get it is just not very productive IMHO. Especially when the goal is just enjoying the content.


Why don't we get rid of AMC Prime movie theaters since the goal is just enjoying the content? At home why don't we just go back to TV speakers since the goal is just enjoying the content? Okay maybe going back to TV speakers is too drastic: How about 2ch audio? 5.1? 7.1? Maybe I should get rid of my 75" TV too? The fact is the audio/visual quality contributes to the overall experience and people spend a lot of money and time on AV equipment because of this.

A few months ago I remember reading other people posting about the overall lack of quality in Atmos tracks, so there are other people on this forum like me who are underwhelmed with what the industry is churning out. I don't "agonize" over it. It is disappointing, however. I hung speakers from my ceiling, purchased an amplifier for them, and bought a prepro for Atmos only to find out the majority of Atmos titles are lackluster. I'm obviously in the group that is disappointed with the overall quality of Atmos, but likewise there is a group of people who are satisfied with Atmos. And that's fine if people are satisfied, I wish I was one of them. But for the people who aren't satisfied, getting aggravated with Atmos comes along with the territory.

But no, the goal isn't just enjoying the content when the audio visual experience contributes to that. I watched Eternals a couple of weeks ago. The first thing I noticed was the bass was great (with BEQ). Then about 30-45 minutes into the movie I noticed it was a front-heavy mix and had a quick, passing thought about that. It's a Disney mix so it's to be expected. Then about 1.5 hours into the movie there was a surround effect, and it was a good effect but reminded me how much I haven't been hearing the surrounds. At this point I have been paying more attention to the movie than the audio/video. Then toward the end of the movie there was a fantastic Atmos effect in the cave scene that put a smile on my face. Later I came into this thread and posted about that special effect. So you asked which of me is happier, the side of me that watches a movie for content, or the person that analyzes the audio/visual experience while watching a movie. With Eternals, I was paying attention to the movie more and didn't sit there just analyzing the audio. Same when I watched Goldfinger a couple of days ago, which is obviously a front-heavy mix since it is so old. I posted in here about how the DTS Neural X upmixer correctly placed a plane flyover sound effect in the heights, it jumped out at me and I was impressed by it. Otherwise I enjoyed the movie. So I'm afraid you've made a false characterization that I can't enjoy content, because that's obviously not true. And that doesn't change the fact that I'm in the group of people who are underwhelmed by the quality of Atmos tracks out there.


----------



## X4100

I'm not about to snatch my speakers off the ceiling/wall because of the lack of Atmos tracks that are great! I'm not going to give away my movie collection, nor am I getting rid of my x4100, but I am a bit tired of these wimpy "flatmos" sound tracks. I have only about 30 BD'S in Atmos, and I enjoy the majority of them, but due to the lackluster performance of some movies, I'm more selective about my purchases. It's forums like this one, which alerts me to wimpy Atmos. I appreciate my fellow posters who give feedback on various issues of flatmos. Will I stop buying movies, NO. I'm currently waiting for my copy of "Twister " from Germany, it's in both Dolby Atmos, and Auro. What company does that in America, none that I'm aware of. This purchase was made based upon a review of one of our poster's who highly recommended it because of it's awesome ATMOS AUDIO, AND PLACEMENT OF THE AUDIO!! That's what we do here.


----------



## MagnumX

Pixelatto said:


> Many thanks. Was hoping that perhaps I can pull off surround and back surround, but I guess physics is difficult to get around


5.1+Wides actually spaces the side phantom image with an array (i.e. Front wides play side output too). That means rear sounds come out your side surrounds only, side surround sounds phantom image between the wides and side surrounds due to the array and front wides come from themselves. 

In other words, you'll still get 7.1 spacing, just pulled forward a bit.


----------



## dschulz

Speculation on my part here, as I do not have firm numbers (and it's a bit subjective anyway), and also not as much visibility as I'd like into the post workflows, but it does seem to me a growing number of the standout home Atmos track are to be found on streaming services rather than the home entertainment remixes of theatrical material. Titles that come to mind: the Fear Street Trilogy, Stranger Things, the Netflix/Marvel shows, Squid Game, Witcher, Dark (all on Netflix), Foundation and Servant (Apple TV+), Carnival Row (Amazon) - all have outstanding mixes. Since these shows are all designed up front for streaming, and their studios have an Atmos mandate for delivery, it seems the creative teams are feeling pretty free to be aggressive with the mixes. For those on the thread that are feeling down on the state of Atmos delivery today I encourage you to check out these shows.


----------



## ppasteur

halcyon_888 said:


> Why don't we get rid of AMC Prime movie theaters since the goal is just enjoying the content? At home why don't we just go back to TV speakers since the goal is just enjoying the content? Okay maybe going back to TV speakers is too drastic: How about 2ch audio? 5.1? 7.1? Maybe I should get rid of my 75" TV too? The fact is the audio/visual quality contributes to the overall experience and people spend a lot of money and time on AV equipment because of this.
> 
> A few months ago I remember reading other people posting about the overall lack of quality in Atmos tracks, so there are other people on this forum like me who are underwhelmed with what the industry is churning out. I don't "agonize" over it. It is disappointing, however. I hung speakers from my ceiling, purchased an amplifier for them, and bought a prepro for Atmos only to find out the majority of Atmos titles are lackluster. I'm obviously in the group that is disappointed with the overall quality of Atmos, but likewise there is a group of people who are satisfied with Atmos. And that's fine if people are satisfied, I wish I was one of them. But for the people who aren't satisfied, getting aggravated with Atmos comes along with the territory.
> 
> But no, the goal isn't just enjoying the content when the audio visual experience contributes to that. I watched Eternals a couple of weeks ago. The first thing I noticed was the bass was great (with BEQ). Then about 30-45 minutes into the movie I noticed it was a front-heavy mix and had a quick, passing thought about that. It's a Disney mix so it's to be expected. Then about 1.5 hours into the movie there was a surround effect, and it was a good effect but reminded me how much I haven't been hearing the surrounds. At this point I have been paying more attention to the movie than the audio/video. Then toward the end of the movie there was a fantastic Atmos effect in the cave scene that put a smile on my face. Later I came into this thread and posted about that special effect. So you asked which of me is happier, the side of me that watches a movie for content, or the person that analyzes the audio/visual experience while watching a movie. With Eternals, I was paying attention to the movie more and didn't sit there just analyzing the audio. Same when I watched Goldfinger a couple of days ago, which is obviously a front-heavy mix since it is so old. I posted in here about how the DTS Neural X upmixer correctly placed a plane flyover sound effect in the heights, it jumped out at me and I was impressed by it. Otherwise I enjoyed the movie. So I'm afraid you've made a false characterization that I can't enjoy content, because that's obviously not true. And that doesn't change the fact that I'm in the group of people who are underwhelmed by the quality of Atmos tracks out there.


We should get rid of them. Maybe to soothe the agony. But you are going way over the top with these suggestions. We are where we are. No one would argue the 5.1.2 is better than 2ch audio. Are we?
Maybe you you should petition the studios. Maybe organize a boycott. Bitching and moaning here probably will not change anything... unless maybe soothing your angst. Maybe ???
More likely just feed you dissatisfaction though... Sorry for that!
To me, enjoying the content is paramount. How is it not for you?? I do feel bad for you. Eternals was not the best audio... but was involving. Goldfinger, I just liked the fact that I could play it an enjoy it with sound that I never had access to when it was released.. Too bad your "group of people" (are they permanently miserable too??) that are underwhelmed by things that they have no control over miss out on the overall experience due to personal biases. <SIGH>


----------



## niterida

priitv8 said:


> "I paid a lot for my ferrary, so I'd like to drive it pedal to the metal at all times"


You have a Ferrari ?


----------



## halcyon_888

ppasteur said:


> We should get rid of them. Maybe to soothe the agony. But you are going way over the top with these suggestions. We are where we are. No one would argue the 5.1.2 is better than 2ch audio. Are we?
> Maybe you you should petition the studios. Maybe organize a boycott. Bitching and moaning here probably will not change anything... unless maybe soothing your angst. Maybe ???
> More likely just feed you dissatisfaction though... Sorry for that!
> To me, enjoying the content is paramount. How is it not for you?? I do feel bad for you. Eternals was not the best audio... but was involving. Goldfinger, I just liked the fact that I could play it an enjoy it with sound that I never had access to when it was released.. Too bad your "group of people" (are they permanently miserable too??) that are underwhelmed by things that they have no control over miss out on the overall experience due to personal biases. <SIGH>


Why do you feel bad for me? You don't know what I watch, when or if I analyze while watching and if I "miss out on content", or how often I come away disappointed or pleased. Your post is full of false characterizations and you're lamenting about that false idea you have. I get it, you like Atmos just the way it is. You're satisfied with it and you think all people who are underwelmed by Atmos _must_ be "permanently miserable". So untrue.

When a soundtrack has flat Atmos would you rather nobody posted about it because you perceive them as "bitching and moaning"? Do you only want people to post positive things about Atmos to align with your belief that most Atmos tracks are satisfying? Like I said in a post to Jeremy, I understand that he likes most Atmos soundtracks and that's fine, I wish I were that way. I think you need to be more tolerant with other people's opinions.

I do think that enjoying the content is paramount--and a large part of that enjoyment is the audio/visual experience. That's why I have a prepro, two outboard amps, eight DIY speakers including my subwoofer, a DIY TR device, BEQ, and a 75" TV. So if I come across a soundtrack that has lackluster Atmos, of course I'll be disappointed with the sound. And _occasionally_ in the past I have come in here and posted about it. I also come in here and post positive things about Atmos, like most recently the Eternals height sound effect in the cave and Goldfinger's airplane flyover upmixing with Neural X. How is that a "personal bias"? It's not, it's being fair.


----------



## sdrucker

ppasteur said:


> Maybe you you should petition the studios. Maybe organize a boycott. Bitching and moaning here probably will not change anything... unless maybe soothing your angst. Maybe ???


Well, if someone wants to start a GoFundMe, according to Ad Age, a 30 second spot for the upcoming 2022 Super Bowl is about $6.5 million. Maybe somebody could put together pictures of happy hobbyists wiring their system and talking about how great Atmos will be, then playing a Disney movie and hearing no sound from their wides...and then throwing their speakers out and buying a sound bar out of disgust. As the camera pans over a industrial wasteland of speakers polluting the environment, you could have a VoiceOver with "Don't be a victim of Lite Atmos. Buy movies that have true 3D audio. The hobby you save could be your own". LOL.

There's also this petition on Change.Org:





Sign the Petition


Improve Audio (Dynamic EQ, LFE (Bass) Levels) in Disney Home Video Releases




www.change.org





However, on a quick search there's nothing about Atmos being locked to 7.1.2 specifically or Lite Atmos. I'm half surprised that nobody has started one, to be honest.


----------



## ppasteur

halcyon_888 said:


> Why do you feel bad for me? How is that a "personal bias"? It's not, it's being fair.


I feel bad for you as you are in agony about things you can't control. Don't worry...be happy !  Control your local environment as best you can. Use what you get.
Or do something real about it. Not weeping and wailing here.
So yeah, I feel bad for you.


----------



## MagnumX

What I find _sad_ is that so many people in an Atmos hobbyist forum apparently couldn't care less if studios release garbage mixes, mixes that won't use the speakers they paid a small fortune to be able to use with >11.1 processing and whether Dolby or anyone else ever does anything about it. 

We're just stuck with it so just don't buy those soundtracks (as if they'd notice when TV or even phone speakers is what the typical movie watcher uses) is what the one guy who mixes soundtracks seems to be saying. Don't complain to Dolby. There's nothing they can do.... Right.


----------



## howard68

I think Dolby and the Studios need to get their sh%t together 
Fixed Atmos prints 7.1.2 should be not allowed 
It defeats the point especially if you have 7.1.4 
And beyond!


----------



## niterida

priitv8 said:


> Its the exact way I refuse to allow me thinking. It is like thinking : "I paid a lot for my ferrary, so I'd like to drive it pedal to the metal at all times". I like to know that I have the capacity available, when I need it, but it does not mean I need to be using it at all times.


No - it's more like thinking I have Bugatti Chiron but some times when I fill it up only 2 of the 4 turbos work, and then the next time I only have 12 of the 16 cylinders firing and occasionally I only have 12 cyls AND 2 turbos. Rarely do I get a full tank of fuel that gives me all 16 cyls and 4 turbos, but when I do woah baby this thing is fast.

On a side note a full tank of fuel (26.4gallons or about $100) lasts 12mins (or 50miles) at full throttle in a Chiron - but what a 12mins that would be


----------



## priitv8

niterida said:


> You have a Ferrari ?


Was speaking figuratively.


----------



## Pixelatto

MagnumX said:


> 5.1+Wides actually spaces the side phantom image with an array (i.e. Front wides play side output too). That means rear sounds come out your side surrounds only, side surround sounds phantom image between the wides and side surrounds due to the array and front wides come from themselves.
> 
> In other words, you'll still get 7.1 spacing, just pulled forward a bit.


Great and many thanks for taking time to explain. That is exactly what I was hoping for. 

As a complete newbie to Atmos, I must agree with all that experience did not meet the expectations I had. My comments are limited to streaming (Amazon, Apple, Netflix) as I am yet to start acquiring discs. Additional audio resolution (bitrate?) is probably the biggest benefit. Height channel utilization is disappointing as many say - and that was what I was hoping for. It is obviously frustrating to be with a hot date and rarely make it past the first base. But unfortunately that will likely not change at least as far as big studios are concerned. I do hope that as noted, Netflix, Amazon and Apple will take a different approach and produce some worthy Atmos content. 

My best guess is that we will be getting Atmos Lite on UHD and 4K streaming (even lighter) and big studios are holding back to release full Atmos (that they will likely rebrand to Atmos Ultimate or something) on the next generation of higher video/audio resolution media/stream whatever that will be. This will force a number of audioholics (not just videoholics) to buy yet another copy of their favorite titles even though they don't necessarily have a 150" screens that could potentially benefit from the increased video resolution. For now they think (and are probably right) that upgrade from HD 5.1 to 4K Atmos light is sufficient for people to but the content.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

One of the youtube channels that has a short list of videos of the Trinnov Object Viewer running is called "Hulk Cinema"

This channel has a playlist of 7 videos using the object video. Several Atmos demos along with scenes from Ready Player One, 300, Spiderman Far from Home and New Mutants.



https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4noSnuPoSmbmYpNQahZjOrdbYkoJoj



Among these various scenes you get to see examples of what we call a "static" mix vs an active one. You see that Ready Player One is a mostly static 7.1.2 mix. Where 300 and New Mutants are fully active mixes (as are the Atmos demos) and Spiderman Far From Home is kind of a hybrid semi-static mix which uses the height objects in a very interesting way. Its three different ways of approaching Atmos mixes and I find that dynamic quite interesting.

I think the ultimate goal is that the final result is appropriately immersive. A good example being Ready Player One, even though its completely static during the entirety of the New York race scene....easily one of the most bombastic action scenes in the movie, the actual sound mix itself is top-notch, one of the best in fact, and without any knowledge that the mix itself is static in its use of Objects, one would come away from that scene suitably impressed.


----------



## dimi123

dschulz said:


> Speculation on my part here, as I do not have firm numbers (and it's a bit subjective anyway), and also not as much visibility as I'd like into the post workflows, but it does seem to me a growing number of the standout home Atmos track are to be found on streaming services rather than the home entertainment remixes of theatrical material. Titles that come to mind: the Fear Street Trilogy, Stranger Things, the Netflix/Marvel shows, Squid Game, Witcher, Dark (all on Netflix), Foundation and Servant (Apple TV+), Carnival Row (Amazon) - all have outstanding mixes. Since these shows are all designed up front for streaming, and their studios have an Atmos mandate for delivery, it seems the creative teams are feeling pretty free to be aggressive with the mixes. For those on the thread that are feeling down on the state of Atmos delivery today I encourage you to check out these shows.


You may be right about the mixes but what about the sound quality of streaming Atmos? These tracks are heavily compressed with no more than 768 kb/s bitrate. That's like mp3 quality compared to the tracks found on discs.


----------



## dschulz

dimi123 said:


> You may be right about the mixes but what about the sound quality of streaming Atmos? These tracks are heavily compressed with no more than 768 kb/s bitrate. That's like mp3 quality compared to the tracks found on discs.


E-AC3 is a very good codec, and Atmos at 768k sounds great. Not as good as the Dolby TrueHD package on disc, but the difference is not as much as you'd think. Between the codec and bitrate streaming audio is better than we had for Dolby Digital on 35mm film prints, DVDs or cable or broadcast television.

Fun fact - Netflix redid their audio delivery specifications after the Duffer Brothers complained about how their mix for Stranger Things S1 sounded on the platform compared to what they heard on the dubbing stage. This sparked a whole research project at Netflix and led to them rolling out their adaptive bitrate for audio, with a goal of making sure the stream sounded the same to the Duffers as their original uncompressed mix.


----------



## nocoyeti

niterida said:


> Wow ok - I didn't say he couldn't post it here or that anyone else wasn't allowed to respond to them..
> I simply suggested to him to start his own thread where he will get a lot more response than being buried in a thread discussing a lot of other Atmos related content. Especially considering he had a lot of questions unrelated to Atmos and was asking for general HT setup help.
> I was obviously wrong since everyone has since helped him out - oh wait here we are 12hrs later and no-one has actually responded to him anyway.
> If you have a look at my post history I am more than happy to help out with setup questions as that is just about all I do on here.
> So I stand by my original suggestion that he is best to start a dedicated thread.


No one responded because you redirected the conversion to a different thread.


robert600 said:


> My thoughts based on being a longtime projector 7.1 user and very recent 7.1.4 user.
> 
> From what I can see ... you're optomizing your speaker locations for the front couch ... yes?
> 
> In my opinion ... thinking of distances etc. .... everything depends on ... how WIDE a screen you go for. It's really the first step in speaker layout.
> 
> Thinking of the rear sorrounds for instance ... to say they're 27' back is misleading ... that back measurement you want is from MLP (front couch in your case?) ... the distance to the screen is irrelevent. The problem at the moment is ... how close to the screen will that front couch be? ... that depends on the width of the screen. If you fill that back wall with a screen (15') then obviously the couch will have to be further back then if it is a 8' screen. Does this make sense?


Sorry for the delayed response, I was chased away earlier.  

You are correct the rear surrounds are 16-17 feet away from my MLP. I am probably going with a 120' 16x9 screen which works for me from about 10-11 feet away. 

I do have another question and hopefully I won't be reprimanded for posting it here since it is Atmos speakers related. 

I'm looking at purchasing a pair of Klipsch RP–8000F's for my L/R speakers and wanted to pair it with their in-wall Pro-250 RPW. Does anybody have experience with combining the 8000 with the 250? I'm hoping it will enable seamless panning across the soundstage. The reason I'm considering this speaker is that I'm leaning towards an ultra short throw and this eliminates the problem of where to put the center speaker.

Thank you for your reply!
Dan


----------



## halcyon_888

dancolt said:


> I do have another question and hopefully I won't be reprimanded for posting it here since it is Atmos speakers related.
> 
> I'm looking at purchasing a pair of Klipsch RP–8000F's for my L/R speakers and wanted to pair it with their in-wall Pro-250 RPW. Does anybody have experience with combining the 8000 with the 250? I'm hoping it will enable seamless panning across the soundstage. The reason I'm considering this speaker is that I'm leaning towards an ultra short throw and this eliminates the problem of where to put the center speaker.
> 
> Thank you for your reply!
> Dan


Are you someone who is sensitive to timbre matching? Some people are, some people aren't. Some people say there's no such thing, some people think it's important. My front three speakers have two woofers, two mids, and one tweeter. My surrounds and heights have different woofers, one of the same mids, and the same tweeter. The surrounds and heights always sounded "brighter" than the LCR even though they shared some of the same drivers. But this was before I ran room correction, after I ran room correction with Audyssey XT32 the surrounds and heights closely matched the LCR in timbre and I was finally satisfied. The Atmos hemisphere "bubble" improved and the right Atmos soundtrack sounded holographic. So although I don't have direct experience with the specific speakers you're wanting to use, if you have good room correction it goes a long way to help even out timbre differences.


----------



## nocoyeti

halcyon_888 said:


> Are you someone who is sensitive to timbre matching? Some people are, some people aren't. Some people say there's no such thing, some people think it's important. My front three speakers have two woofers, two mids, and one tweeter. My surrounds and heights have different woofers, one of the same mids, and the same tweeter. The surrounds and heights always sounded "brighter" than the LCR even though they shared some of the same drivers. But this was before I ran room correction, after I ran room correction with Audyssey XT32 the surrounds and heights closely matched the LCR in timbre and I was finally satisfied. The Atmos hemisphere "bubble" improved and the right Atmos soundtrack sounded holographic. So although I don't have direct experience with the specific speakers you're wanting to use, if you have good room correction it goes a long way to help even out timbre differences.


Hey Halcyon,

I can't say how sensitive I am to timbre matching since I've always had matching left right and center. I'm so glad you mentioned Audyssey because I was wondering if that would help match the front stage. The speakers I mentioned seemed to be very similar so I do not think it would create an issue for me. Like I would never go with a non-horn based speaker for the center knowing the other two are.


----------



## robert600

dancolt said:


> No one responded because you redirected the conversion to a different thread.
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delayed response, I was chased away earlier.


Yeah ... that intial response you got surprised me. Totally inappropriate in my book (but I'm new too this forum). I'm trying to think he meant well but ...



dancolt said:


> You are correct the rear surrounds are 16-17 feet away from my MLP. I am probably going with a 120' 16x9 screen which works for me from about 10-11 feet away.


Your room is amazingly similar to mine and as it happens that's exactly what I have for a screen. I had total freedom for screen to couch distance and mucking about with it I found 11' to be the sweet spot (exactly what you're thinking so we're both on the same page).

That puts your rear surrounds at a bit less then 16' (to the the front face of the speaker ... unless they're in wall speakers). My rear surrounds are 14' behind and they sound great back there so ... I don't think you'll have any problems whatsoever. I really don't get the "official atmos speaker placement guide" ... they seem to want the rear surrounds closer to the MLP than the rear Heights ... WHAT????? I did try it their way and quickly moved them way back. Somebody blundered there with that recommendation IMHO.

Despite our rooms being near identical. Here's why my rear surrounds are not as far back as yours will be. I went with a motorized drop down screen. I mounted it 2' into the room from the wall. This has huge advantages (for me). That wall has the only window in the room ... screen up during the day gives me natural light for doing other stuff. Also, gives me room for a desk and wall to wall shelving along that wall. When I drop the screen ... it just clears the front edge of the desk ... I just move the chair to beside the desk (twisting it so the back is to the wall) and everything's good. It works really, really well! Nice to have a room serve multiple purposes. Just something for you to consider ... your room is ideal for that!

Can't help with actuall speakers ... not my area. The projector though ... Are you thinking ceiling mount? If I were you, I'd think long and hard about short throw ones. I'm not sure what's motivating your thinking? I know optics are good these days but ... the longer the throw the less optical distortion you will get. Plus ... a ceiling mounted long throw projecture would be well behind MLP so ... not in your visual field and minimal sound when the fan is running.



dancolt said:


> I do have another question and hopefully I won't be reprimanded for posting it here since it is Atmos speakers related.
> 
> I'm looking at purchasing a pair of Klipsch RP–8000F's for my L/R speakers and wanted to pair it with their in-wall Pro-250 RPW. Does anybody have experience with combining the 8000 with the 250? I'm hoping it will enable seamless panning across the soundstage. The reason I'm considering this speaker is that I'm leaning towards an ultra short throw and this eliminates the problem of where to put the center speaker.
> 
> Thank you for your reply!
> Dan


Do your couches recline? ... if so ... i think you'll want your screen as high as possible on that wall ... the less neck strain the better in my book.


----------



## dimi123

dschulz said:


> E-AC3 is a very good codec, and Atmos at 768k sounds great. Not as good as the Dolby TrueHD package on disc, but the difference is not as much as you'd think. Between the codec and bitrate streaming audio is better than we had for Dolby Digital on 35mm film prints, DVDs or cable or broadcast television.
> 
> Fun fact - Netflix redid their audio delivery specifications after the Duffer Brothers complained about how their mix for Stranger Things S1 sounded on the platform compared to what they heard on the dubbing stage. This sparked a whole research project at Netflix and led to them rolling out their adaptive bitrate for audio, with a goal of making sure the stream sounded the same to the Duffers as their original uncompressed mix.


Average bitrate of TrueHD Atmos tracks on discs is between 3500 kb/s and 5500 kb/s. That's a big difference and pretty audible to audio enthusiasts in general. It's not a deal breaker for me, but I've got friends who refuse to watch streaming movies because of the sound quality alone. 

P.S.: That's an interesting tidbit about Netflix. Thanks for that.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> What I find _sad_ is that so many people in an Atmos hobbyist forum apparently couldn't care less if studios release garbage mixes, mixes that won't use the speakers they paid a small fortune to be able to use with >11.1 processing and whether Dolby or anyone else ever does anything about it.
> 
> We're just stuck with it so just don't buy those soundtracks (as if they'd notice when TV or even phone speakers is what the typical movie watcher uses) is what the one guy who mixes soundtracks seems to be saying. Don't complain to Dolby. There's nothing they can do.... Right.


My work speaks for itself. 

Dolby gets no credit for it. Nor would the be to blame if my mix was/is terrible. 

Neither do the studios and producers I work for. 

A “bad mixl is a “bad mix..” in the end it’s what the sound team and the directors/producers decided it should be. 

The studio in question has decided to send their mixes home in a certain way that, like it or not, is one way to deliver it to the home that still falls under the definition and umbrella of Atmos as a codec. 

You want Atmos to function in a way it was not designed to. 

It won’t have matrix decoders for locked soundtrack (I’ve discussed it with them directly…). It’s not trivial to do. 

Knowing all that one has choices. 

One can continue to complain about what it doesn’t do and wasn’t designed to do knowing it won’t change (Dolby is not going to change things)

One can not consume content they know is “deficient” to them (i.e. not > 7.1.2 or 7.1.4) 

To continue to bash Dolby for the way their tools are used is futile. 

Mixes create bad mixes. 

Studios make policies you might not agree with. 

But Dolby doesn’t control either of those things. 

Chastise me for one of my oozes you don’t like. Blame a studio for home that makes it home in a way you don’t like (and blame i mean don’t give them your money…)

My mixes speak for themselves…. 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos..

But please stop throwing passive aggressive barbs my way, and blaming Dolby for things out of their control and domain.


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> You want Atmos to function in a way it was not designed to.


It's funny becuase I don't recall talking about how it _functions_ at all. What I originally did was comment on Sanjay's post that said Dolby Atmos CANNOT be "upmixed" and that's simply not correct. ALL "upmixing" occurs AFTER decoding and thus Atmos could be upmixed at that point, just like 11.1 DTS:X can be upmixed with Neural X _after_ it's decoded. 

All Neural X does is use a digital form of steering logic (quite similar in function to Dolby's own Logic Steering from 1975, but in the digital domain) to create hard speakers between existing sets that are currently using phantom images instead. That's what it does. In other words, I'm saying DTS _COULD_ (not that they _WILL_) make it work with Atmos locked soundtracks and like Storm XT, support Center Height and Top Surround (AKA VOG) instead. 

That is essentially ALL I said about that particular matter. Everything else is a distortion or flat out made up by you.

I also talked about partial arrays created after decoding (not the same as the cinema system before does BEFORE decoding), but still plenty usable in a 12-18 speaker setup beyond 11.1, but that's not related to the above about upmixing to use more speakers.



> Knowing all that one has choices.


What _choice_ is that? Don't buy it and go play something like Playstation or perhaps Frisbee instead? That's essentially the "alternate choice" you offer. 

Somehow, I think not buying a movie based _solely_ on the _soundtrack_ it has seems a bit trite given the overall movie might still be great. That doesn't mean people shouldn't complain about a poor soundtrack.

The other problem is knowing _which_ soundtracks are a problem before you buy them. It can be particularly difficult when reviews often don't consider such things (e.g. Ralph Potts on here has made it clear he doesn't consider how much use Atmos has, just the overall impression of the soundtrack, which is subjective). 

I just bought the new Atmos version of PHANTASM (because I love the movie and hoped it would improve the soundtrack) and sadly it sounds pretty much identical to the 5.1 soundtrack (e.g. Thunder isn't even overhead near the end, but it is if you use Neural X instead with either version of the soundtrack). The only thing "Atmos" about it is that it lights up the indicator on the receiver.



> One can continue to complain about what it doesn’t do and wasn’t designed to do knowing it won’t change (*Dolby is not going to change things*)


How do you know what Dolby would do if enough people complained? A lot of people complained about DSU not using front wides and they've since updated DSU to use front wides in V2.0 of DSU. I suppose that's entirely a coincidence?



> One can not consume content they know is “deficient” to them (i.e. not > 7.1.2 or 7.1.4)


If they'd write on the disc case, "Atmos Deficient" or "Sadmos" or something that would help. Or should I just ask for my money back after I bought one that sucks? 

In other words, like I said above we aren't told which soundtracks suck and which do not. Not even all Disney soundtracks are locked. Star Wars Episodes IV, for example has some moving objects (like opening Star Destroyer scene) in it now so it's not just "write off Disney" and you're good. Ready Player One is 7.1.2 and it's Universal, not Disney, but many Universal titles are NOT "locked" at all. And Ready Player One is at least a great sounding 7.1.2 title. I'd take it over Phantasm's "Atmos" soundtrack any day of the week, locked or not.



> To continue to bash Dolby for the way their tools are used is futile.


I don't recall "bashing" Dolby. But then you seem to be reading a different version of the forums in a parallel universe or something half the time since most of what you write in reply has NOTHING to do with anything I said.

For example:


> Mixes create bad mixes.


Mixes create bad mixes? Is that out of a fortune cookie or something because it makes no sense at all. Now if you said mixERS create bad mixes, that would be a bit more coherent, but it just shifts the blame to your fellow coworkers.



> But Dolby doesn’t control either of those things.


Dolby did create the system and they could active discourage "locked" mixes by not making it as easy to do.

Dolby can also license HOW their system is used like any software license and forbid fixed/locked channel soundtracks and subject them to verification for proper operation before release. This would make it legally enforceable 

Dolby clearly doesn't want to do ANY of that because it would encourage their customers to use DTS:X instead. I'd prefer they did encourage that since Xperi at least made their system work with 32 speakers regardless of how its made (channels upmix to 32 speakers and objects map normally). It's literally *impossible* to "lock" a DTS:X soundtrack in the way that these studios are doing with Dolby Atmos. 

You imply Dolby can't "fix" Atmos so it does something similar. I disagree. They _can_ fix it through their upmixer the same way DTS did it for DTS:X, but that would require expanding DSU to do a lot more than it currently does. Whether they _ever_ will or not is another matter. If no one complains to them as you would suggest, that's the signal that they need not bother.



> But please stop throwing passive aggressive barbs my way, and blaming Dolby for things out of their control and domain.


Please stop responding to my posts, _particularly_ with ones implying I said things I did not say and ignoring all my arguments and I'll gladly ignore you for the rest of your life.


----------



## FilmMixer

MagnumX said:


> It's funny becuase I don't recall talking about how it _functions_ at all. What I originally did was comment on Sanjay's post that said Dolby Atmos CANNOT be "upmixed" and that's simply not correct. ALL "upmixing" occurs AFTER decoding and thus Atmos could be upmixed at that point, just like 11.1 DTS:X can be upmixed with Neural X _after_ it's decoded.
> 
> All Neural X does is use a digital form of steering logic (quite similar in function to Dolby's own Logic Steering from 1975, but in the digital domain) to create hard speakers between existing sets that are currently using phantom images instead. That's what it does. In other words, I'm saying DTS _COULD_ (not that they _WILL_) make it work with Atmos locked soundtracks and like Storm XT, support Center Height and Top Surround (AKA VOG) instead.
> 
> That is essentially ALL I said about that particular matter. Everything else is a distortion or flat out made up by you.
> 
> I also talked about partial arrays created after decoding (not the same as the cinema system before does BEFORE decoding), but still plenty usable in a 12-18 speaker setup beyond 11.1, but that's not related to the above about upmixing to use more speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> What _choice_ is that? Don't buy it and go play something like Playstation or perhaps Frisbee instead? That's essentially the "alternate choice" you offer.
> 
> Somehow, I think not buying a movie based _solely_ on the _soundtrack_ it has seems a bit trite given the overall movie might still be great. That doesn't mean people shouldn't complain about a poor soundtrack.
> 
> The other problem is knowing _which_ soundtracks are a problem before you buy them. It can be particularly difficult when reviews often don't consider such things (e.g. Ralph Potts on here has made it clear he doesn't consider how much use Atmos has, just the overall impression of the soundtrack, which is subjective).
> 
> I just bought the new Atmos version of PHANTASM (because I love the movie and hoped it would improve the soundtrack) and sadly it sounds pretty much identical to the 5.1 soundtrack (e.g. Thunder isn't even overhead near the end, but it is if you use Neural X instead with either version of the soundtrack). The only thing "Atmos" about it is that it lights up the indicator on the receiver.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what Dolby would do if enough people complained? A lot of people complained about DSU not using front wides and they've since updated DSU to use front wides in V2.0 of DSU. I suppose that's entirely a coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> If they'd write on the disc case, "Atmos Deficient" or "Sadmos" or something that would help. Or should I just ask for my money back after I bought one that sucks?
> 
> In other words, like I said above we aren't told which soundtracks suck and which do not. Not even all Disney soundtracks are locked. Star Wars Episodes IV, for example has some moving objects (like opening Star Destroyer scene) in it now so it's not just "write off Disney" and you're good. Ready Player One is 7.1.2 and it's Universal, not Disney, but many Universal titles are NOT "locked" at all. And Ready Player One is at least a great sounding 7.1.2 title. I'd take it over Phantasm's "Atmos" soundtrack any day of the week, locked or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall "bashing" Dolby. But then you seem to be reading a different version of the forums in a parallel universe or something half the time since most of what you write in reply has NOTHING to do with anything I said.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> Mixes create bad mixes? Is that out of a fortune cookie or something because it makes no sense at all. Now if you said mixERS create bad mixes, that would be a bit more coherent, but it just shifts the blame to your fellow coworkers.
> 
> Dolby did create the system and they could active discourage "locked" mixes by not making it as easy to do.
> 
> Dolby can also license HOW their system is used like any software license and forbid fixed/locked channel soundtracks and subject them to verification for proper operation before release. This would make it legally enforceable
> 
> Dolby clearly doesn't want to do ANY of that because it would encourage their customers to use DTS:X instead. I'd prefer they did encourage that since Xperi at least made their system work with 32 speakers regardless of how its made (channels upmix to 32 speakers and objects map normally). It's literally *impossible* to "lock" a DTS:X soundtrack in the way that these studios are doing with Dolby Atmos.
> 
> You imply Dolby can't "fix" Atmos so it does something similar. I disagree. They _can_ fix it through their upmixer the same way DTS did it for DTS:X, but that would require expanding DSU to do a lot more than it currently does. Whether they _ever_ will or not is another matter. If no one complains to them as you would suggest, that's the signal that they need not bother.
> 
> Please stop responding to my posts, _particularly_ with ones implying I said things I did not say and ignoring all my arguments and I'll gladly ignore you for the rest of your life.


First off, “mixes” was a typo.. 

But I digress…. I’m just trying to keep things straight so as to not confuse some that might not understand some things wholly. Those aren’t for you…. 

I do think some things you pass off as facts and truths don’t hold up and want to make sure some are cleared up for everyone, need clarification or elaborated on. 

You cannot upmix an Atmos track. It is always at its maximum speaker capability. If you have 9 channels in the system, it will ouout 9 channels. 34 channels it will output to 34. That does not mean every speaker will get audio. But there is no delineation between active and non active speakers at any given point in time. 

But there is nothing to upmix (taking a lower count and UPmxing to a higher count…)

There is no definition in encoded Atmos content of a channel vs an object. 

There is a clear definition in DTS:X between which of its 15 streams are either channels and objects. This means the DTSX codec knows which speakers are NOT getting audio information from any audio CHANNELS contained in the encode.. 

The DTS “Neural:X” upmixer takes 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 channel based PCM (raw or decoded Dolby or DTS content) and upmixes it. 

DTS:X and DTS:X Pro uses matrix decoders on any CHANNELS in the encode, and then renders any objects (if they exists in said encode) on top of that..

These are important distinctions, and is why saying “just do it like DTS does” is not a valid “solution.” to locked channel Atmos encodes. 

I don’t agree with you about what Dolby can and can’t mandate…. that is a another subject entirely. But they are not, and have never been, content police…. The business of using their technology for the cinema, and providing QC stamps of approval, is entirely and fundamentally different than providing tools to content creators. 

Dolby has actively discouraged studios not to do locked encodes. 

There is no practical way to make it harder for them since there is ALWAYS a workaround… by playing an Atmos track on a 7.1.4 system, there is no way to block someone from re-capturing that audio and then feeding that back into an encoder. The metadata also isn’t a solution because there are many time mixers using static objects (4 on the ceiling for example) and pan through said objects…. To the encoder it looks like 4 static objects, but can have very active audio panning through them..

You ask ”how do you know what Dolby would do if enough people complained.”

Because they asked me what I thought …

I’ve had multiple meetings over the years about this directly with them.

You assume that DSU wides was not in the tech roadmap from the beginning…. You know what they say about assumptions.


----------



## sdurani

FilmMixer said:


> DTS:X and DTS:X Pro uses matrix decoders on any CHANNELS in the encode, and *then* renders any objects (if they exists in said encode) on top of that..


Yep. The channel scaling step is part of DTS:X decoding, taking place before the decoder combines channels and objects for the final output. It's not like applying Neural:X to a decoded soundtrack. Instead, 2-in 3-out and 2-in 4-out upmixing modules are applied to channel pairs in order to feed speakers between the pairs. Channel scaling has been built into the format since inception, not something added for DTS:X Pro.


----------



## nocoyeti

robert600 said:


> Yeah ... that intial response you got surprised me. Totally inappropriate in my book (but I'm new too this forum). I'm trying to think he meant well but ...
> 
> 
> 
> Your room is amazingly similar to mine and as it happens that's exactly what I have for a screen. I had total freedom for screen to couch distance and mucking about with it I found 11' to be the sweet spot (exactly what you're thinking so we're both on the same page).
> 
> That puts your rear surrounds at a bit less then 16' (to the the front face of the speaker ... unless they're in wall speakers). My rear surrounds are 14' behind and they sound great back there so ... I don't think you'll have any problems whatsoever. I really don't get the "official atmos speaker placement guide" ... they seem to want the rear surrounds closer to the MLP than the rear Heights ... WHAT????? I did try it their way and quickly moved them way back. Somebody blundered there with that recommendation IMHO.
> 
> Despite our rooms being near identical. Here's why my rear surrounds are not as far back as yours will be. I went with a motorized drop down screen. I mounted it 2' into the room from the wall. This has huge advantages (for me). That wall has the only window in the room ... screen up during the day gives me natural light for doing other stuff. Also, gives me room for a desk and wall to wall shelving along that wall. When I drop the screen ... it just clears the front edge of the desk ... I just move the chair to beside the desk (twisting it so the back is to the wall) and everything's good. It works really, really well! Nice to have a room serve multiple purposes. Just something for you to consider ... your room is ideal for that!
> 
> Can't help with actuall speakers ... not my area. The projector though ... Are you thinking ceiling mount? If I were you, I'd think long and hard about short throw ones. I'm not sure what's motivating your thinking? I know optics are good these days but ... the longer the throw the less optical distortion you will get. Plus ... a ceiling mounted long throw projecture would be well behind MLP so ... not in your visual field and minimal sound when the fan is running.
> 
> 
> 
> Do your couches recline? ... if so ... i think you'll want your screen as high as possible on that wall ... the less neck strain the better in my book.


Good morning Robert,

Very cool that we basically have the same size room. I like what you did with your screen and the fact that it hides that it's actually a multifunction room. I have another room that I'm turning into an office so I won't need to do that.

I actually was thinking about going in the wall for the back since I have read multiple times that bipole speakers for the rear are not a good option. I am leaning towards an ultra short throw projector since there will be many times we will be watching football games and wanting quite a few lights on in the room and I believe that this would be my best option besides going with the TV which would be too small at 85 inches. 

I haven't picked out the couches yet but I guarantee you they will recline.  Right now I have a screen masked out on the wall at about 34 inches off the ground which makes it about 12 to 14 inches from the ceiling. I even went out and bought a $70 projector from Amazon to see what it looks like at that height, I think it'll work. 

If anybody has opinions of screen height or distance from the ceiling I would appreciate hearing them.

Dan


----------



## priitv8

batpig said:


> It’s important to understand (as FilmMixer was trying to explain) that the concept of beds vs objects as used in the cinematic mix doesn’t exist with home Atmos. Once the full mix goes through the spatial coding process to prepare for home delivery, everything (channels + objects) has to be squeezed into 11, 13, or 15 dynamic objects (depending on the output setting). 15 is the maximum (technically 16 elements since there’s also the static LFE but you get the drift).
> View attachment 3228119





FilmMixer said:


> There is no definition in encoded Atmos content of a channel vs an object.


Do I understand it correctly, that (in contrast to cinematic), the home (consumer) Atmos, always goes through the Spatial compression, thereby reducing 10 beds and 118 objects down to maximally 15 clusters and 1 LFE?
And that is true for both delivery formats - Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD?
If so, then whenever I watch those yellow object-balls jumping around on this Trinnov object visualizer, I am actually seeing the clusters and not objects, based on the above description of Spatial Coding?


----------



## FilmMixer

priitv8 said:


> Do I understand it correctly, that (in contrast to cinematic), the home (consumer) Atmos, always goes through the Spatial compression, thereby reducing 10 beds and 118 objects down to maximally 15 clusters and 1 LFE?
> And that is true for both delivery formats - Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD?
> If so, then whenever I watch those yellow object-balls jumping around on this Trinnov object visualizer, I am actually seeing the clusters and not objects, based on the above description of Spatial Coding?


Atmos is not delivered in the same way for DD+ and TrueHD…. in simplest terms DD+ does not not carry carry the 12-16 “streams/elements” but the authoring software “analyzes”what the Atmos mix would be if you were using spatial coding set to 16 elements and then uses another lossy process (joint object coding, or JOC) to deliver it in an EC3 DD+ encode. (That is a large oversimplification…. And I’m a bit rusty on the details…. It’s been a long, long time since it was explained to me ) I’ll do a brush up in a few weeks and circle back…

Yes…. You are seeing actively moving “clusters…”. 

An object exists in production as a mono PCM audio track that runs from the start of program until the end and has its associated panning information (metadata) in the same audio track inside whatever workstation you are using.to mix and record with…. There is really no direct correlation to that “workflow” in home Atmos, hence the need to create a spatial coding technology.

DTS does allow for “true” objects….” However bandwidth limitations of both physical media and streaming limit how many streams you can have (15 in DTS:X…. )

And since you can have hundreds of pieces of audio playing at one time when mixing, it becomes necessary to create workflows and “helper” technologies to bring those mixes home. 

Dolby created, designed and implemented Spatial Coding

The DTS “equivalent” is rendering mixes out to (and up to) 9.1.6 channels (or less) …. 

Both methodologies have their pros and cons….


----------



## priitv8

FilmMixer said:


> Atmos is not delivered in the same way for DD+ and TrueHD…. in simplest terms DD+ does not not carry carry the 12-16 “streams/elements” but the authoring software “analyzes”what the Atmos mix would be if you were using spatial coding set to 16 elements and then uses another lossy process (joint object coding, or JOC) to deliver it in an EC3 DD+ encode. (That is a large oversimplification…. And I’m a bit rusty on the details…. It’s been a long, long time since it was explained to me ) I’ll do a brush up in a few weeks and circle back…


Yes, for DD+ a backwardly-compatible downmix to 5.1 is delivered and the JOC metadata allows the recreation of spatial clusters from channel content, using a QMF/DCT transform. My high-level understanding is based on this article:


https://learning.dolby.com/hc/en-us/articles/4408217194772-Appendix-C-Dolby-Atmos-Delivery-Codecs-


Carrying the legacy can obviously be a burden...


FilmMixer said:


> Yes…. You are seeing actively moving “clusters…”.


I see. That explains why also with seemingly static clusters, objects can still be panned, as they will migrate from one cluster to another.
Hence it makes little sense to call it object visualization.
On the other hand, it makes it impossible to visualize the spatial coordinates of original objects, as this information gets discarded during spatial compression (aka coding).
interestingly, some of the demos in the above linked YT channel, especially the Dolby's own demo clips, show nicely, how they have placed 4 clusters in the four corners of the room.


----------



## dschulz

How is the DD+JOC delivery different from what is done for Atmos via TrueHD?


----------



## priitv8

dschulz said:


> How is the DD+JOC delivery different from what is done for Atmos via TrueHD?


To the best of my understanding, apart from variable vs fixed bitrate encoding, TrueHD stream allows for a larger number of substreams, that the older decoders will simply ignore.
The additional channels and Atmos information can be carried in those additional streams and will be ignored by pre-Atmos decoders. This avoids the complicated JOC process that seems to be there only to ensure backwards-compatibility with pre-Atmos DD+ decoders.
DD+ must be called a single-stream dataflow, then?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> How is the DD+JOC delivery different from what is done for Atmos via TrueHD?


Both start with 11 or 13 or 15 spatially coded clusters plus LFE. Aside from lossless packing vs lossy compression, the main difference is how they do backwards compatibility. 

TrueHD does backwards compatibility by having its bitstream structured as a series of substreams: 2-ch, 5.1, 7.1, Atmos. The first 3 of those can be decoded with pre-Atmos decoders, which will decode to channels (not static objects) and have the option to be upmixed (using PLIIx, PLIIz, Neo:X, etc) to additional speakers. 

DD+ does backwards compatibility by rendering the Atmos mix to 7.1 and then downmixing it to 5.1 channels. The 5.1 channel mix can be decoded with pre-Atmos decoders and optionally upmixed. The metadata for the original objects (clusters) is saved plus the differences between them. That latter part is JOC. Similar in concept to how 3D video is stored and decoded. There are no separate left-eye and right-eye data streams. Instead there is the left-eye data and another stream that has the left-vs-right difference. Same with FM radio: mono channel with all the audio (L+R) and a difference channel (L-R). DD+ Atmos decoders use the original object metadata and JOC info to recreate the original object clusters and their intended locations from the 5.1 bitstream. Make sense?


----------



## ppasteur

sdurani said:


> Both start with 11 or 13 or 15 spatially coded clusters plus LFE. Aside from lossless packing vs lossy compression, the main difference is how they do backwards compatibility.
> 
> TrueHD does backwards compatibility by having its bitstream structured as a series of substreams: 2-ch, 5.1, 7.1, Atmos. The first 3 of those can be decoded with pre-Atmos decoders, which will decode to channels (not static objects) and have the option to be upmixed (using PLIIx, PLIIz, Neo:X, etc) to additional speakers.
> 
> DD+ does backwards compatibility by rendering the Atmos mix to 7.1 and then downmixing it to 5.1 channels. The 5.1 channel mix can be decoded with pre-Atmos decoders and optionally upmixed. The metadata for the original objects (clusters) is saved plus the differences between them. That latter part is JOC. Similar in concept to how 3D video is stored and decoded. There are no separate left-eye and right-eye data streams. Instead there is the left-eye data and another stream that has the left-vs-right difference. Same with FM radio: mono channel with all the audio (L+R) and a difference channel (L-R). DD+ Atmos decoders use the original object metadata and JOC info to recreate the original object clusters and their intended locations from the 5.1 bitstream. Make sense?


It makes perfect sense, especially as I have done lots of reading on the subject. I guess my question is, as both the EAC3 and JOC process are lossy prosses, how much are we losing in the process versus the TrueHD/Atmos process. Codec performance as far as frequency response and other factors (Signal to noise, distortion, etc.) is easy to measure. But what kind of loss is incurred to to lossy JOC. Object location precision ??


----------



## robert600

dancolt said:


> I haven't picked out the couches yet but I guarantee you they will recline.  Right now I have a screen masked out on the wall at about 34 inches off the ground which makes it about 12 to 14 inches from the ceiling. I even went out and bought a $70 projector from Amazon to see what it looks like at that height, I think it'll work.
> 
> If anybody has opinions of screen height or distance from the ceiling I would appreciate hearing them.
> 
> Dan


The motor housing for my screen is screwed directly to my ceiling. Thus ... the screen starts about 6" below the ceiling. Thinking about your set-up ... I'm still wondering if your projector will be a ceiling mount or table mount? If table mount, how high will the table be? I've had no experience with ultra short throw projectors ... is there one in particular you're looking at so I can see how it projects. You may be thinking you can change the height of the projected image by simply tilting the projecture ... and of course you can but ... doing that you get into keystoning issues very quickly and it's really best to keep the correction needed to handle that to a bare minimum (if you can't avoid it entirely).


----------



## ricardo.vix

Hello, guys! I'm very happy because I just finalized my atmos setup with two KEF Q50a!

Now I'm looking for content with good atmos sound to test it. What does you suggest? I don't have a bluray player, so it has to be from a streaming app.

Is there a website or topic with a "ranking" of best atmos movies/scenes that I can look at?

Thanks!


----------



## X4100

I'm wondering, am I losing anything as I have a first generation x4100 Atmos AVR. Things are getting a little clearer, but I remember it being said that the home version of Dolby Atmos didn't have the 118 objects like the cinematic version. Am I correct in saying that the 118 if used are spatially coded in clusters therefore making the home/cinema version identical as far as the audio is concerned? This is some nice information!!


----------



## halcyon_888

ricardo.vix said:


> Hello, guys! I'm very happy because I just finalized my atmos setup with two KEF Q50a!
> 
> Now I'm looking for content with good atmos sound to test it. What does you suggest? I don't have a bluray player, so it has to be from a streaming app.
> 
> Is there a website or topic with a "ranking" of best atmos movies/scenes that I can look at?
> 
> Thanks!


In no particular order, these came to mind: The Tomorrow War on Amazon Prime. Dune on HBO Max. I don't know if the titles on HBO Max are still available to stream or not.


----------



## sdurani

ppasteur said:


> But what kind of loss is incurred to to lossy JOC. Object location precision ??


Good question. ALL home Atmos tracks are spatially lossy due to the clustering process: once you combine neaby objects and channels into a cluster, there is no un-combining them to their original (slightly different) locations. I'm not as concerned about the lossy nature of the DD+ codec because perceptual coding has improved so much since the days of DD and MP3. 

However, streaming Atmos adds a whole 'nother layer of lossiness by compressing (I don't know what other word to use) all the clusters into 5.1 channels, using a combination of rendering AND downmixing, and then trying to recover the original clusters. How spatially lossy might that be? Do those clusters end up at their intended locations? Reasonably close? Only way to test location precision would be to compare the same mix on disc vs streaming. But you'd really have to be sure it was the same mix AND not bit starved during streaming. This would make JOC the main variable.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

ricardo.vix said:


> Hello, guys! I'm very happy because I just finalized my atmos setup with two KEF Q50a!
> 
> Now I'm looking for content with good atmos sound to test it. What does you suggest? I don't have a bluray player, so it has to be from a streaming app.
> 
> Is there a website or topic with a "ranking" of best atmos movies/scenes that I can look at?
> 
> Thanks!


I've said this before but I still think that ROMA has one of the very best ATMOS mixes available anywhere. It's on Netflix in 4K and Criterion has issued an Atmos blu-ray version of it as well. It's not a crash-and-boom kind of mix but absolutely astonishing in the bubble of sound it creates *consistently* throughout the film using everyday sounds. For people who complain of Atmos being used too sparingly in most films, this ain't one of them.

The movie may not be to everyone's taste, however. But if you have Netflix 4K it won't cost you anything to give it a listen.

Also a 2nd vote for DUNE (2021) which I watched on 4K disc as well as 4K streaming with the included file.


----------



## sdurani

X4100 said:


> Am I correct in saying that the 118 if used are spatially coded in clusters therefore making the home/cinema version identical as far as the audio is concerned?


The audio from ALL the theatrical objects ends up in the home Atmos mix. None of it is discarded. The only thing sacrificed is precise location information for each object, since multiple nearby objects and channels are combined.


----------



## batpig

Yes, with the transition to home Atmos you don't lose audio quality or any of the audio content, you lose spatial resolution. Which is a reasonable place to trim down the bandwidth, given how much smaller a home theater is vs a commercial cinema (and how many fewer listeners there are).


----------



## nocoyeti

robert600 said:


> The motor housing for my screen is screwed directly to my ceiling. Thus ... the screen starts about 6" below the ceiling. Thinking about your set-up ... I'm still wondering if your projector will be a ceiling mount or table mount? If table mount, how high will the table be? I've had no experience with ultra short throw projectors ... is there one in particular you're looking at so I can see how it projects. You may be thinking you can change the height of the projected image by simply tilting the projecture ... and of course you can but ... doing that you get into keystoning issues very quickly and it's really best to keep the correction needed to handle that to a bare minimum (if you can't avoid it entirely).


It will be table mount and I will either find a table that works for me or have one made. The projector that I am considering is the Hisense PX1-PRO.


----------



## MagnumX

FilmMixer said:


> You *cannot upmix* an Atmos track.


Seriously, what is your accepted definition of an "upmixer" because what you're saying it JUST NOT TRUE to the definition I'm aware of which is any method (software/hardware) to increase the usable channel count beyond a simple copy (array) of the output. That might even include additive mixers as they're summing the signal and have 3dB separation. It's not much, but it's not just an arrayed copy either and improves the _Precedence Effect_ rather than making it worse. The Auromatic UPMIXER uses copies + reverb. We _still_ call it an upmixer. Current upmixers (save Trinnov remapping and Storm's XT) use base soundtracks of other codecs (2 -> 7.1 channels) to upmix, but there's no technical reason they couldn't use higher channel count outputs from something like Atmos or even DTS:X or Auro-3D. If it can take that digital (or analog) output and create a more usable output channel, it's an upmixer.

You keep saying Atmos is maxed out for channel rendering, but we both know that's not really true in the case of LOCKED channel soundtracks. While not technically internally the same as a true channel based format, they BEHAVE EXACTLY LIKE ONE! Locked soundtracks limit the rendered output despite having correlated information between channels (i.e. If there's a pan between Front/Rear Heights/Tops, then Top Middle should have been utilized, but with a locked soundtrack it won't. You'll get a gap with Heights + Top Middle where it's not used and that sounds very poor indeed). You already know this and you've been told several times how this "gap" might be filled with what are called "upmixers". The methods I'm talking about don't even change the rendering locations (as DSU/Neural X may do with 2-channel inputs, for example). They simply steer phantom center sounds to a real hard speaker and that is a completely valid tools to improve these locked soundtracks.

For example, I can and _already_ _do_ force an Atmos track to use Top Middle output with one of their own Pro Logic devices (center steering logic aka "Scatmos") and it works with those same locked soundtracks to increase the usable speaker count. This is still a form of upmixing as I'm increasing the _USABLE_ channel count on both locked (Disney) and unlocked soundtracks. If one bought a Denon 8500, they are limited to 13.1 output. This means they have to choose between 7.1.6 or 9.1.4. They cannot have 9.1.6 from that unit alone (let alone if Disney locked it to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4). But using an external device, they can get 9.1.6 output and those extra two channels will work with everything, even Auro-3D (which doesn't support "Top Middle") because it's simply providing a hard center between adjacent channels instead of a phantom one. 

This is the same functional thing Neural X uses internally in a digital fashion (i.e. 7.1.4 DTS:X has no "Top Middle" channel; it has to create it using the same kind of steering logic Dolby invented in 1975). You keep saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to do, but I do it every day and so have others using simple analog outputs from the receiver. The output from that is damn near _identical_ to true rendered Top Middle output because the center point between any two speaker pairs is always the same in a grid-based system (period). 

The _only_ thing such an internal upmixer would need is access to the digital channel outputs of Atmos to apply a similar steering logic to any of its channel pairs without the added noise of an external analog processing unit. Neural X can already upmix to 32 channel from a 2 -> 7.1 channel set of inputs from a base Atmos soundtrack. There is no technical reason it could not be extended to higher channel counts. The simplest way (without any detection) would be to render to 7.1.4 and apply it to the 11.1 output the same way it does it from DTS:X's 11.1 output internally and make this an OPTION just like the 7.1 upmixing option with Neural X. It would still be a far better _option_ than having silent speakers. We can _already_ do that with the Atmos' base 7.1 track on AVRs that don't restrict non-Dolby upmixers and even that may very well be better with some system set ups (gap issue) than having (e.g. Top Middle) be silent. 

A slightly more complex, but still doable way is to detect correlated information between non-adjacent pairs (subtractive comparison within a certain phase range) and apply a center-output between them to the speaker there only to any correlated information. I've already indicated this multiple times. You keep on ignoring it because you have no valid response to it. Just saying something won't/can't work isn't proof in the slightest and neither are "likes" from your groupies on here or sad/angry marks on mine. They don't change the reality of physics. 

There's a _huge_ difference between "CAN'T" and "WON'T". There probably _*won't*_ be such an upmixer on receivers beyond Storm XT and Trinnov remapping tech (which still use more speakers than the system can otherwise), but that doesn't mean there _*can't*_ be and both you and Sanjay keep using the word CAN'T/CANNOT and then double down on it. It's ridiculous. It's like trying to convince a Flat Earther the Earth isn't flat. They won't even believe their own eyes if you take them up in a rocket (they were "drugged" and shown a simulation). Well, the Earth isn't flat and Atmos' output CAN be upmixed to use more (normally unsupported) speaker pairs (including Center Height and VOG as Storm XT already does).


----------



## mrvideo

dancolt said:


> It will be table mount and I will either find a table that works for me or have one made. The projector that I am considering is the Hisense PX1-PRO.
> View attachment 3229592


I didn't know that projector backs faced the screen.


----------



## titan ii

mrvideo said:


> I didn't know that projector backs faced the screen.


If not, all your cables would face the viewers...


----------



## priitv8

ppasteur said:


> …both the EAC3 and JOC process are lossy prosses…
> But what kind of loss is incurred to to lossy JOC. Object location precision ??


Why do you think JOC is a lossy process?
In my understanding DCT-based algorithms can be lossless, if no data gets discarded in the process. 
My question is purely rhetorical, as I do not know whether DD+ Atmos does this in a lossless or lossy way. 
The objective of JOC decoding is to recreate the object (cluster) essences (PCM snippets) from the channel-based downmix. 
From what we’ve seen in the Atmos Demo clips discussed in neighboring thread, DD+ has object aliasing problem that one can observe when just one object is rendered and main content of the stream is silence. Then the object can be faintly heard from other speakers as well. 
Shall I call it “positional clarity”?


----------



## mrvideo

titan ii said:


> If not, all your cables would face the viewers...


With normal projectors, in some cases, the cables do face the viewers.


----------



## Pixelatto

dancolt said:


> If anybody has opinions of screen height or distance from the ceiling I would appreciate hearing them.
> 
> Dan


Not really a screen and lists for $17K, but interesting option from Sony - 100" Full array LED. If I had bigger room, that would be a serious contender to the projector/screen combo.









Sony BRAVIA XR 100" Class X92 4K HDR Full Array LED with Google TV (2021) | XR-100X92


Discover Sony BRAVIA XR X92 4K HDR Full Array TV with XR TRILUMINOS PRO™ and ACOUSTIC MULTI-AUDIO for the ultimate big screen experience.




electronics.sony.com


----------



## titan ii

mrvideo said:


> With normal projectors, in some cases, the cables do face the viewers.


Yes. However, your comment was in response to a specific post regarding the Hisense PX1-PRO.


----------



## nocoyeti

Pixelatto said:


> Not really a screen and lists for $17K, but interesting option from Sony - 100" Full array LED. If I had bigger room, that would be a serious contender to the projector/screen combo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony BRAVIA XR 100" Class X92 4K HDR Full Array LED with Google TV (2021) | XR-100X92
> 
> 
> Discover Sony BRAVIA XR X92 4K HDR Full Array TV with XR TRILUMINOS PRO™ and ACOUSTIC MULTI-AUDIO for the ultimate big screen experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> electronics.sony.com


A little too much $$$ for tech that will drop significantly over the next few years and it wouldn't fit down the stairs and thru my basement door.


----------



## robert600

mrvideo said:


> I didn't know that projector backs faced the screen.


Too funny!!!! This was exactly my reaction as well ha ha.

I guess our age is showing. I'm not used to these short throw projectors either. They must be adopting 'front and back' to be relative to MLP. On long throws ... since the projector is behind MLP ... the front face is the 'lens side': On short throws ... since the projector is between MLP and the screen ... the back face is the 'lens side'. That's the only way I can think of it to make sense of the front-back thing but it's weird IMHO. I mean thinking about cars for instance ... even if you're standing behind your car ... you would never refer to the trunk end of the car as the front of the car and the headlight end as the back lol.


----------



## Rich 63

robert600 said:


> Too funny!!!! This was exactly my reaction as well ha ha.
> 
> I guess our age is showing. I'm not used to these short throw projectors either. They must be adopting 'front and back' to be relative to MLP. On long throws ... since the projector is behind MLP ... the front face is the 'lens side': On short throws ... since the projector is between MLP and the screen ... the back face is the 'lens side'. That's the only way I can think of it to make sense of the front-back thing but it's weird IMHO. I mean thinking about cars for instance ... even if you're standing behind your car ... you would never refer to the trunk end of the car as the front of the car and the headlight end as the back lol.


That would be bonnet and boot. 😉


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

How it started: People were mad that niterida suggested a dedicated thread for dancolt's build so we didn't get off-topic.

How it ended: Front projectors!


----------



## robert600

dancolt said:


> It will be table mount and I will either find a table that works for me or have one made. The projector that I am considering is the Hisense PX1-PRO.
> View attachment 3229592


That projector is an impressive piece of kit ...well outside my range of experience. It boogles my mind that it can be less than 17" from the wall and still project a 120" image to that wall!!! I would of thought the distortion to the outer image of such a projection would be severe but the reviews are very good. That is one awesome lens!

Ideal screen height is ... very hard to predict. There's so many factors. Not the least of which is ... how far back are you going to recline? ... my couch will go back to near full horizontal ... I don't watch reclined that far but as I'm usually watching at the end of the day ... I like to lay well back ... I'm guessing somewhere around 40 degrees. The farther I recline ... the higher that ideal height position becomes. I really don't like crinking my neck for hours ... know what I mean?

My thinking on your height of screen ... maybe 2" higher than what you're thinking (I'm just going by gut feeling here) so ...36" above the floor. Your projector's vertical offset is 17" so that would mean your table height would be 19" which I think would be ok? In an ideal world, I think in your situation, I would actually install the screen last but you'd need to have the projector and the couch. I'd simply put the couch where I want it, put the projector on an height adjustable ironing board ...project a movie to the bare wall (hopefully it's white drywall or something ... the quality of the image doesn't matter in the least anyway) ... sit in the couch reclined the way you like (bearing in mind that a position that's comfy for 2 minutes may not be for 2 hours) ... then raise and lower the ironing board until you zero in on the ideal screen height. This probably sounds OTT to you but ... comfort is important and your setup is so sweet why not max it out?... well worth the little bit of extra effort in my opinion.


----------



## ppasteur

priitv8 said:


> Why do you think JOC is a lossy process?
> In my understanding DCT-based algorithms can be lossless, if no data gets discarded in the process.
> My question is purely rhetorical, as I do not know whether DD+ Atmos does this in a lossless or lossy way.
> The objective of JOC decoding is to recreate the object (cluster) essences (PCM snippets) from the channel-based downmix.
> From what we’ve seen in the Atmos Demo clips discussed in neighboring thread, DD+ has object aliasing problem that one can observe when just one object is rendered and main content of the stream is silence. Then the object can be faintly heard from other speakers as well.
> Shall I call it “positional clarity”?


Probably this: https://learning.dolby.com/hc/en-us/articles/4408217194772-Appendix-C-Dolby-Atmos-Delivery-Codecs-
*"Dolby Digital Plus with Atmos Content* (also referred to as Dolby Digital Plus JOC) is a high-efficiency *lossy* codec used for streaming delivery as well as terrestrial broadcast"

But in re-reading it I can see that the reference may be to DD+ itself rather than JOC in particular. My question came to mind due to the fact that I can hear consistent kinds of differences between DD+ and TrueHD Atmos tracks. I know (in my perception, with my system) that there are differences in the frequency domain. I was wondering if the encoding/decoding using JOC/OAMD is also lossy leading to less precision in object placement. Which therefore may be part of the differences that I hear. Which is why I posed the entire post as a question, rather than statement of fact.
I am curious about the why of what I am hearing. Supposedly, (theoretically ?) DD+ is good enough that it should be "transparent". Whether this is true of the JOC/OAMD part of the process, I don't know. 
This whole idea that some object audio using DD+ JOC is (or can be) "smeared" or aliased among various speakers is interesting. I can see where this could lead to audible differences to the same content using TrueHD/Atmos.


----------



## priitv8

ppasteur said:


> This whole idea that some object audio using DD+ JOC is (or can be) "smeared" or aliased among various speakers is interesting. I can see where this could lead to audible differences to the same content using TrueHD/Atmos.


I think this post in particular touches these topics. Also, check out the linked article!








Dolby Atmos Object Demo


That second video was a lot of fun. What surprised me was when the voice was supposed to be in the middle of the room, it sounded kinda like it was inside my head. Really fun. Looking forward to more. Thanks for doing these.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

Rich 63 said:


> That would be bonnet and boot. 😉


*Thank-you*, yes!


----------



## nocoyeti

robert600 said:


> My thinking on your height of screen ... maybe 2" higher than what you're thinking (I'm just going by gut feeling here) so ...36" above the floor. Your projector's vertical offset is 17" so that would mean your table height would be 19" which I think would be ok? In an ideal world, I think in your situation, I would actually install the screen last but you'd need to have the projector and the couch. I'd simply put the couch where I want it, put the projector on an height adjustable ironing board ...project a movie to the bare wall (hopefully it's white drywall or something ... the quality of the image doesn't matter in the least anyway) ... sit in the couch reclined the way you like (bearing in mind that a position that's comfy for 2 minutes may not be for 2 hours) ... then raise and lower the ironing board until you zero in on the ideal screen height. This probably sounds OTT to you but ... comfort is important and your setup is so sweet why not max it out?... well worth the little bit of extra effort in my opinion.


Good idea. I like the ironing board idea. I would've never thought of that.


----------



## mrvideo

titan ii said:


> Yes. However, your comment was in response to a specific post regarding the Hisense PX1-PRO.


Correct. But the response made it read as though cabling facing viewers is a bad thing.


----------



## mrvideo

robert600 said:


> On long throws ... since the projector is behind MLP ... the front face is the 'lens side':


Depending on your home theater configuration, it is possible to have a front lens projector be in front of viewers. For the time being, mine is in front of me. But, once the room is finally done, it will be above and behind me.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> I'll help out if I can. As for the "centers" are you talking about mounting them flat on the ceiling either vertically or horizontally or on a mount where they can be manipulated to point towards the MLP at an angle? For the latter, you could easily try both and see which gives the best sounding response, but what's more important is having the tweeter on-axis in regards to the MLP if possible. Most center designs assume a forward facing position. These would likely be mounted to the left/right of the MLP so where the woofers are seems less important than simply trying to get the best on-axis response. Whether you'd get lobing or something even in the front depends on the specific design.


Ok ... one of the two older receivers has arrived so I was able to proceed most of the way. I'll use it and my old 7.1 receiver as the 2 secondary receivers. Hopefully, the other matching receiver will arrive shortly and then I can pass on the 7.1 receiver to a friend. But, I didn't feel like waiting for it so I went ahead.

I'm not at all sure about the best way to balance up all the channels. Here's what I did ... if there is a better way please let me know! I ran the test tone program of each of the 2ndary receivers and balanced them up as best I could (I have no sound meter, just did it by ear, adjusting distance etc.). I then did the necessary cross rca wiring from the pres on the primary to the 2 2ndaries, made sure both were PL II mode and, then I ran the calibration of the primary receiver (using the set up mic). Initially, I got no test signal on the Front Heights. This turned out to be my lack of understanding about pres. I assumed since there are no longer speakers hooked up to the Front Height speaker output jacks of the primary ... you would 'tell' it that there were no speakers there. Turns out ... doing that turns of the pres ... I'm very surprised by this but ... it is what it is.

Anyway ... after 'telling' the primary that there were Front Heights ... I got the test signal from all channels except of
course from the Mid Heights. So I let it auto-calibrate. Playing the atmos helicopter demo file ... does indeed result in engaging the Mid Heights as it transitions from front to rear to front etc.Watched an atmos movie ... sounded great! So all seems good. I'm thinking it might be a little better if instead of using the 'center speakers' that I had on hand as Mid Heights, using the same speakers as the Front and Rear Heights. When the centers kick in ... the (is the right word tone?) seems just a little different from the Front/Rears so the transition suffers a wee bit. I can live with that for a while but I think I'll keep an eye out for the other speakers.

Questions!
Is there a better way to calibrate SCATMOS?
When I turn up the volume of the primary receiver ... does this turn up the volume of the pres signal? I guess I'm asking ... if I turn up the volume of the primary receiver ... do I also have to manually turn up the volume on each of the 2ndary receivers or do I just simply leave their volume settings as is?


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Turns out ... doing that turns of the pres ... I'm very surprised by this but ... it is what it is.


It doesn't mean speaker level connection, but whether you're using the height speakers period. D&M pre-outs are normally hot as long as a speaker is marked as available.



> Anyway ... after 'telling' the primary that there were Front Heights ... I got the test signal from all channels except of
> course from the Mid Heights.


The Dolby 9.1.6 speaker test is great for setting the Top Middle output. It has a pink noise signal for all the speakers in a 9.1.6 configuration. The original Bluray version has "snap to" turned on for front wides so you won't get a proper test signal there if you did Scatmos front wides, but the MP4 version they used to offer on their web site has snap turned off and works correctly. Top Middle is fine on both.



> So I let it auto-calibrate. Playing the atmos helicopter demo file ... does indeed result in engaging the Mid Heights as it transitions from front to rear to front etc.Watched an atmos movie ... sounded great! So all seems good. I'm thinking it might be a little better if instead of using the 'center speakers' that I had on hand as Mid Heights, using the same speakers as the Front and Rear Heights. When the centers kick in ... the (is the right word tone?) seems just a little different from the Front/Rears so the transition suffers a wee bit. I can live with that for a while but I think I'll keep an eye out for the other speakers.


Yes, matching speakers can help. You can also use the secondary receiver's room correction or EQ correction to try and improve it as well.



> Questions!
> Is there a better way to calibrate SCATMOS?
> When I turn up the volume of the primary receiver ... does this turn up the volume of the pres signal?


Yes, it turns up the low voltage preamp signal to the pre-outs. It's best to have even output manual volume settings on the primary AVR and more importantly (unless you want leakage for say 7.1.2 soundtracks or to even the sound out a bit) to have even distance settings on the primary (secondary adjustments for level and distance are fine).

So generally set an even level for front/rear heights on the primary and then adjust the trims on the secondary to get actual even output at the MLP, including the Top Middle speakers (center output on secondary). Like I said, the Dolby 9.1.6 speaker test is perfect for this. You could probably get close with a sound meter and all channel stereo stereo mode using any 2-channel pink noise signal (meter close range to speakers).


----------



## MagnumX

Sadly, I'm not seeing a whole lot in the way of Dolby Atmos (or aAuro/X) full music albums coming out this year (just scanned the lists at QQ). I'm afraid Atmos music might die a quick death the same way Quad did. I just don't think there's enough interest in the general population to bother, even with Apple's support... 

It's too bad. I need a fix of new Atmos/Auro music. I'm playing the same albums over and over again. I enjoy some of them more than Atmos/X/Auro-3D movies. 

I more recently bought Jennifer Batton's _Whatever_ album (2-channel) based on the Auro-3D demo disc #1 track "Ass Whoopin'". Sadly, it's the best track, but at least the Auro-3D demo track is great in 10.1. She's a crazy good guitar player, but song writing is another matter. That track is awesome, however. It was worth getting a hold of the first demo disc just for that track. 

Anyone know of any demo tracks worth getting other Atmos or DTS:X BD demo disc's for? 

I wouldn't mind trying Apple's music streaming to hear more, but given the relatively small number of tracks out there, I'd prefer to just buy the music rather than paying rent to listen to the same tracks over and over.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> Sadly, I'm not seeing a whole lot in the way of Dolby Atmos (or aAuro/X) full music albums coming out this year (just scanned the lists at QQ). I'm afraid Atmos music might die a quick death the same way Quad did. I just don't think there's enough interest in the general population to bother, even with Apple's support...
> 
> It's too bad. I need a fix of new Atmos/Auro music. I'm playing the same albums over and over again. I enjoy some of them more than Atmos/X/Auro-3D movies.
> 
> I more recently bought Jennifer Batton's _Whatever_ album (2-channel) based on the Auro-3D demo disc #1 track "Ass Whoopin'". Sadly, it's the best track, but at least the Auro-3D demo track is great in 10.1. She's a crazy good guitar player, but song writing is another matter. That track is awesome, however. It was worth getting a hold of the first demo disc just for that track.
> 
> Anyone know of any demo tracks worth getting other Atmos or DTS:X BD demo disc's for?
> 
> I wouldn't mind trying Apple's music streaming to hear more, but given the relatively small number of tracks out there, I'd prefer to just buy the music rather than paying rent to listen to the same tracks over and over.


Sadly, there doesn't seem to be many new releases that truly awe/inspire. I picked up Yello's Point (based on your recommendation; I've been a fan of Yello for 20 years and hadn't known they released an Atmos disc).

I know it's not the same, but the following are just a couple of the multichannel discs that I really really enjoy upmixed to use all of my speakers:

Depeche Mode (5.1 SACD discs) (especially Violator, Music for the Masses, Black Celebration, Some Great Reward)
Blue Man Group's Audio (DVD-Audio)


----------



## crutzulee

Watched the streaming version of Ghostbusters Afterlife a couple of days ago with my daughter. I'm sure the UHD ATMOS will be even better, but we thoroughly enjoyed the DD+ compressed ATMOS track on the 4K stream.

Movies like this are a major reason why I built an HT. It was pure popcorn fun.....minus the popcorn for me as I'm currently on a starvation diet LOL (down 21 pounds since Jan 2).


----------



## mrvideo

crutzulee said:


> down 21 pounds since Jan 2


You do understand that number is pretty much meaningless without a reference point. 21 lbs down from the size of an elephant or the size of a bear?


----------



## usc1995

MagnumX said:


> Sadly, I'm not seeing a whole lot in the way of Dolby Atmos (or aAuro/X) full music albums coming out this year (just scanned the lists at QQ). I'm afraid Atmos music might die a quick death the same way Quad did. I just don't think there's enough interest in the general population to bother, even with Apple's support...
> 
> It's too bad. I need a fix of new Atmos/Auro music. I'm playing the same albums over and over again. I enjoy some of them more than Atmos/X/Auro-3D movies.
> 
> I more recently bought Jennifer Batton's _Whatever_ album (2-channel) based on the Auro-3D demo disc #1 track "Ass Whoopin'". Sadly, it's the best track, but at least the Auro-3D demo track is great in 10.1. She's a crazy good guitar player, but song writing is another matter. That track is awesome, however. It was worth getting a hold of the first demo disc just for that track.
> 
> Anyone know of any demo tracks worth getting other Atmos or DTS:X BD demo disc's for?
> 
> I wouldn't mind trying Apple's music streaming to hear more, but given the relatively small number of tracks out there, I'd prefer to just buy the music rather than paying rent to listen to the same tracks over and over.


I still find plenty Atmos music to listen to on Apple Music. The monthly fee is less than the price of a new CD every month. While physical media is preferable for building a collection the world has shifted to streaming.


----------



## niterida

crutzulee said:


> It was pure popcorn fun.....minus the popcorn for me as I'm currently on a starvation diet LOL


Popcorn is good for you 
As long as it is not covered in salt and/or butter etc !!


----------



## crutzulee

niterida said:


> Popcorn is good for you
> As long as it is not covered in salt and/or butter etc !!





mrvideo said:


> You do understand that number is pretty much meaningless without a reference point. 21 lbs down from the size of an elephant or the size of a bear?


LOL...220 down to 199... at 5'10" I had lose 20lbs to be a bear...

Is there any other way to eat popcorn?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

usc1995 said:


> I still find plenty Atmos music to listen to on Apple Music. The monthly fee is less than the price of a new CD every month. While physical media is preferable for building a collection the world has shifted to streaming.


I've been fiddling around with Tidal on a 3 month trial, since it's the only service that does Atmos music on my FireStick 4K. There's a lot of Atmos content there, and it seems like they're getting new albums pretty much weekly, which was surprising to me. That said, I haven't found a heck of a lot that makes me want to hang on to Tidal for $20 a month. The Billie Eilish stuff is incredible and there's a Lianne La Havas album that is very well done, but so far, I'm just not finding anything that blows me away. Part of it is how awful the Tidal app is for finding music related to artists you like, or specifically in Atmos, plus the app crashes half the time you try to browse other stuff while something is playing. I really need to get a better streaming device, especially since browsing my DLNA server from my Oppo has been broken for some time now.

But while I still have Tidal, if anyone has any recommendations, toss 'em at me.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> It doesn't mean speaker level connection, but whether you're using the height speakers period. D&M pre-outs are normally hot as long as a speaker is marked as available.


Ok ...this is good to know since I've never had pres before (except for the subs of course). Thanks.



MagnumX said:


> The Dolby 9.1.6 speaker test is great for setting the Top Middle output. It has a pink noise signal for all the speakers in a 9.1.6 configuration. The original Bluray version has "snap to" turned on for front wides so you won't get a proper test signal there if you did Scatmos front wides, but the MP4 version they used to offer on their web site has snap turned off and works correctly. Top Middle is fine on both.


It took me a bit (I'm terrible at web searching for some reason) but eventually found a single-sided BR iso of Atmos Demos (2015). Downloaded, burned the BR25 and much to my delight ... there was the 9.1.6 test file (and a huge amount of other Atmos stuff) Absolutely brilliant man! Thanks so much for pointing me in the right direction. A couple of questions though if you don't mind? Since it's a test of 9 flats ... the video bit going along with the sound depicts speakers midway between the fronts and surround (no idea what to call them). My system being 7 has no such speakers ... when these were highlighted in the video ... the sound was sent to my fronts ... this is as expected??? 

Apart from that ... all was good ... although tweeking is most definitely needed ... for instance all my right side heights were a bit fainter than all my left heights. It was so nice to get sound from each of the mid heights (and only the mids). I can not for the life of me figure out how that happens? I mean the primary receiver that decodes the Atmos track has no idea that I even have mid heights but somehow it triggers the the 2ndary receivers to only send sound to the center speaker ... I'm baffled by this but very glad it works!

One of the demo tracks on that BR is called '747 takeoff' ... that'll soon tell you if your heights are working lol.



MagnumX said:


> Yes, matching speakers can help. You can also use the secondary receiver's room correction or EQ correction to try and improve it as well.


I'll wait until the 2nd, matching receiver shows up to do the EQ thing. I'll be looking for matching speakers for sure ... if I'm patient, I should be able to score some used ones.



MagnumX said:


> Yes, it turns up the low voltage preamp signal to the pre-outs. It's best to have even output manual volume settings on the primary AVR and more importantly (unless you want leakage for say 7.1.2 soundtracks or to even the sound out a bit) to have even distance settings on the primary (secondary adjustments for level and distance are fine).
> 
> So generally set an even level for front/rear heights on the primary and then adjust the trims on the secondary to get actual even output at the MLP, including the Top Middle speakers (center output on secondary). Like I said, the Dolby 9.1.6 speaker test is perfect for this. You could probably get close with a sound meter and all channel stereo stereo mode using any 2-channel pink noise signal (meter close range to speakers).


Ok ... understood! I've never owned or even used a sound meter but ... I'm thinking it's time. Is there a not-to-expensive one that you'd recommend?

Again, Thanks so much for all the info ... game changer for me!


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> A couple of questions though if you don't mind? Since it's a test of 9 flats ... the video bit going along with the sound depicts speakers midway between the fronts and surround (no idea what to call them). My system being 7 has no such speakers ... when these were highlighted in the video ... the sound was sent to my fronts ... this is as expected???


As I said above, the Blu-ray disc version has a feature called "snap to speaker" that's enabled on it for the Front Wide speakers. Those are the ones in question. If you don't have those speakers or they're not decoded by the Atmos renderer, they "snap" to the nearest speakers instead on the same height layer, which in this case would be your front speakers. 

The MP4 version Dolby used to make available on their website, but for some reason removed had "snap" turned off. On that version you would hear a phantom image between the mains and side speakers (and Scatmos derived Front Wides would function just like Top Middle does). It's hard to say how many movies actually use the feature, but I don't think it's that many as phantom imaging for panning is still preferable to no panning at all (all stereo panning is phantom save hard left and hard right, for example).



> Apart from that ... all was good ... although tweeking is most definitely needed ... for instance all my right side heights were a bit fainter than all my left heights. It was so nice to get sound from each of the mid heights (and only the mids). I can not for the life of me figure out how that happens?


Dolby Pro Logic has a feature called "Logic Steering" in it that was invented in 1975. It creates a center channel from a stereo source using phase correlation and removes that sound from the left/right signals at an appropriate ratio (100% at the equal level phase center) and sends the new signal it removed to the center channel speaker.

That center comes from the Left/Right source signal so varying the levels (balance) before the steering logic decoder will upset the balance and "leak" sound to the left/right channels that should have steered mostly or only to the center. "Scatmos" is using two center steering decoders to derive a center between the left heights and the second one for the right heights. That's why you need the same levels and distance settings to get it perfect and why the master volume changes the overall level for the middle output on the second since it's the signal going into the decoder.



> I mean the primary receiver that decodes the Atmos track has no idea that I even have mid heights but somehow it triggers the the 2ndary receivers to only send sound to the center speaker ... I'm baffled by this but very glad it works!


It's just doing what Pro Logic center extraction does for a stereo signal, just between a different set of inputs. Neural X does something similar in the digital domain to create extra speakers with DTS:X or any other base input.





> Ok ... understood! I've never owned or even used a sound meter but ... I'm thinking it's time. Is there a not-to-expensive one that you'd recommend?


I bought mine from Radio Shack back in the 1990s. It still works great. I haven't looked into current meters



> Again, Thanks so much for all the info ... game changer for me!


Glad to help.


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> The MP4 version Dolby used to make available on their website, but for some reason removed had "snap" turned off.


I might have that file stored somewhere.


----------



## usc1995

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I've been fiddling around with Tidal on a 3 month trial, since it's the only service that does Atmos music on my FireStick 4K. There's a lot of Atmos content there, and it seems like they're getting new albums pretty much weekly, which was surprising to me. That said, I haven't found a heck of a lot that makes me want to hang on to Tidal for $20 a month. The Billie Eilish stuff is incredible and there's a Lianne La Havas album that is very well done, but so far, I'm just not finding anything that blows me away. Part of it is how awful the Tidal app is for finding music related to artists you like, or specifically in Atmos, plus the app crashes half the time you try to browse other stuff while something is playing. I really need to get a better streaming device, especially since browsing my DLNA server from my Oppo has been broken for some time now.
> 
> But while I still have Tidal, if anyone has any recommendations, toss 'em at me.


I had Tidal for awhile too and grew really frustrated with the nonstop hip hop recommendations even though I never listened to it. It’s just not my cup of tea. Also, $20 when Apple is only $10 is tough for my cheap self to swallow. Apple Music is better but I still prefer Spotify. Of course Spotify is the only one without Atmos or lossless…I really like the latest Bleachers album. I also love the latest remasters of the Beatles albums. Abbey Road and Let it Be are both in Atmos if I remember correctly.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Sadly, I'm not seeing a whole lot in the way of Dolby Atmos (or aAuro/X) full music albums coming out this year (just scanned the lists at QQ). I'm afraid Atmos music might die a quick death the same way Quad did. I just don't think there's enough interest in the general population to bother, even with Apple's support...


Considering how big Apple's Spatial Music selection is (and yes, it takes some drill down beyond the basic menu under Music), I find this hard to believe. Streaming, like it or not, is really going to be future of Atmos music.

I have a few shiny discs in Atmos (i.e. R.E.M, Luca Terrulli, Hans Zimmer) but I see no reason to wait for shiny disc when Atmos on Spatial Music or Tidal is a few clicks away. Let's just say I'd never have heard of Maneskin or Lake Shore Dive without Spatial Music  .



> I wouldn't mind trying Apple's music streaming to hear more, but given the relatively small number of tracks out there, I'd prefer to just buy the music rather than paying rent to listen to the same tracks over and over.


You really should...IMO it's a better buy even as a "rental" (you can save an artist to your Apple Music library easily enough) than waiting for discs with Atmos.

I have a Tidal subscription too that supports Atmos, but I might drop it since I think the mast majority of anything available in Atmos for music is available (albeit with some searching) on both platforms.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Considering how big Apple's Spatial Music selection is (and yes, it takes some drill down beyond the basic menu under Music), I find this hard to believe. *Streaming, like it or not, is really going to be future of Atmos music*.


If they'd increase the streaming rates, it might help. I've been told turning off the ear level speakers on Atmos music doesn't sound too great up top. I don't mind movies streaming, but music should be top quality. Apple has 2-channel in lossless now, but not Atmos (A mere 768kbps for even 12 objects isn't much per channel output stream on a 7.1.4 system (only 64kbps if evenly distributed) if they're all busy) . Blu-ray Atmos music is lossless.



> I have a few shiny discs in Atmos (i.e. R.E.M, Luca Terrulli, Hans Zimmer) but I see no reason to wait for shiny disc when Atmos on Spatial Music or Tidal is a few clicks away. Let's just say I'd never have heard of Maneskin or Lake Shore Dive without Spatial Music


Apple's "spatial audio" doesn't necessarily mean Atmos. The former is only for headphones. Plus, I said I don't have Apple Music. I'm not into renting music when I've already got a massive music collection and I'm not crazy about where the industry has gone since the '90s.

A recent article showed old music sales as almost 70% of the market share and growing compared to newer music so you have to wonder WTF they're making music for these days.

I've got at least a dozen Atmos music Blu-rays and about another dozen Auro-3D ones. The problem with streaming is they're just singles for the most part. If they can't be bothered with full albums then they're not very serious about it.

I think the original artists should be consulted as well. Just throwing guitars around in circles for the heck of it or doing only hall ambience (at the other extreme of the spectrum) isn't even worth doing, IMO. I can simulate 3D with Sonic Holography played over multi-channel stereo, but it's arbitrary, not artist intent.

The real question is where are the new full albums mixed in Atmos? You can get a plug in for Logic Pro now even and do it yourself. There's no demand. Bad Atmos (cheap sound bars) sounds worse than just 2-channel IMO.

We might appreciate a higher quality setup on here, but casual listeners associate Atmos with headphones if they've even heard of it at all.

How many of us have even heard Atmos anywhere outside a movie theater except on our own systems? Sadly, we're probably a tiny niche like Quad was.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> As I said above, the Blu-ray disc version has a feature called "snap to speaker" that's enabled on it for the Front Wide speakers. Those are the ones in question. If you don't have those speakers or they're not decoded by the Atmos renderer, they "snap" to the nearest speakers instead on the same height layer, which in this case would be your front speakers.
> 
> The MP4 version Dolby used to make available on their website, but for some reason removed had "snap" turned off. On that version you would hear a phantom image between the mains and side speakers (and Scatmos derived Front Wides would function just like Top Middle does). It's hard to say how many movies actually use the feature, but I don't think it's that many as phantom imaging for panning is still preferable to no panning at all (all stereo panning is phantom save hard left and hard right, for example).
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Pro Logic has a feature called "Logic Steering" in it that was invented in 1975. It creates a center channel from a stereo source using phase correlation and removes that sound from the left/right signals at an appropriate ratio (100% at the equal level phase center) and sends the new signal it removed to the center channel speaker.
> 
> That center comes from the Left/Right source signal so varying the levels (balance) before the steering logic decoder will upset the balance and "leak" sound to the left/right channels that should have steered mostly or only to the center. "Scatmos" is using two center steering decoders to derive a center between the left heights and the second one for the right heights. That's why you need the same levels and distance settings to get it perfect and why the master volume changes the overall level for the middle output on the second since it's the signal going into the decoder.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just doing what Pro Logic center extraction does for a stereo signal, just between a different set of inputs. Neural X does something similar in the digital domain to create extra speakers with DTS:X or any other base input.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bought mine from Radio Shack back in the 1990s. It still works great. I haven't looked into current meters
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to help.


More than 20 years ago, before Dolby Digital EX receivers were commercially available, I used an old JVC pro-logic amp with my main PIONEER DD amp to extract a rear channel in the same way that you are implementing SCATMOS. My wife had ordered me a Japanese LD of THE PHANTOM MENACE (for which DDEX was invented) for my birthday. I must have listened to that pod race a thousand times LOL.

I still have my old analogue Radio Shack SPL meter..


----------



## usc1995

MagnumX said:


> If they'd increase the streaming rates, it might help. I've been told turning off the ear level speakers on Atmos music doesn't sound too great up top. I don't mind movies streaming, but music should be top quality. Apple has 2-channel in lossless now, but not Atmos (A mere 768kbps for even 12 objects isn't much per channel output stream on a 7.1.4 system (only 64kbps if evenly distributed) if they're all busy) . Blu-ray Atmos music is lossless.
> 
> 
> 
> Apple's "spatial audio" doesn't necessarily mean Atmos. The former is only for headphones. Plus, I said I don't have Apple Music. I'm not into renting music when I've already got a massive music collection and I'm not crazy about where the industry has gone since the '90s.
> 
> A recent article showed old music sales as almost 70% of the market share and growing compared to newer music so you have to wonder WTF they're making music for these days.
> 
> I've got at least a dozen Atmos music Blu-rays and about another dozen Auro-3D ones. The problem with streaming is they're just singles for the most part. If they can't be bothered with full albums then they're not very serious about it.
> 
> I think the original artists should be consulted as well. Just throwing guitars around in circles for the heck of it or doing only hall ambience (at the other extreme of the spectrum) isn't even worth doing, IMO. I can simulate 3D with Sonic Holography played over multi-channel stereo, but it's arbitrary, not artist intent.
> 
> The real question is where are the new full albums mixed in Atmos? You can get a plug in for Logic Pro now even and do it yourself. There's no demand. Bad Atmos (cheap sound bars) sounds worse than just 2-channel IMO.
> 
> We might appreciate a higher quality setup on here, but casual listeners associate Atmos with headphones if they've even heard of it at all.
> 
> How many of us have even heard Atmos anywhere outside a movie theater except on our own systems? Sadly, we're probably a tiny niche like Quad was.


Years ago I did a blind test between Spotify Premium (256 kbps AAC) and my own collection in FLAC. I was shocked to discover I couldn’t hear a real difference. From that day on I took my music budget and applied it to my bluray collection because I couldn’t justify buying the discs when I couldn’t hear a difference. It was a little sad but liberating at the same time. I agree that audio gets compressed noticeably when streaming video and the video shows far too many artifacts that is why I buy movies on disc. But for music my ears are either shot or my system isn’t “revealing enough” to hear a difference so I don’t pay for it anymore. Add the convenience factor in and it’s just the cherry on top of the cake. You can get a free three month trial to find out for yourself: Apple Music


----------



## dschulz

usc1995 said:


> Years ago I did a blind test between Spotify Premium (256 kbps AAC) and my own collection in FLAC. I was shocked to discover I couldn’t hear a real difference. From that day on I took my music budget and applied it to my bluray collection because I couldn’t justify buying the discs when I couldn’t hear a difference. It was a little sad but liberating at the same time. I agree that audio gets compressed noticeably when streaming video and the video shows far too many artifacts that is why I buy movies on disc. But for music my ears are either shot or my system isn’t “revealing enough” to hear a difference so I don’t pay for it anymore. Add the convenience factor in and it’s just the cherry on top of the cake. You can get a free three month trial to find out for yourself: Apple Music


It's not your ears, or a deficiency in your system. For two channel stereo 256kbps AAC is transparent to Red Book, and under double-blind conditions no one can tell them apart. And Apple Music is even slightly better than that, as their Mastered for iTunes program is using 24-bit masters for encoding to AAC. 

The Atmos tracks are a different story; it's not only data rate coming into play, but entirely different delivery mechanisms. I shouldn't be surprised if Atmos music on disc is audibly superior to the stream. Still, the Atmos delivery on Apple Music sounds pretty damn good.


----------



## MagnumX

usc1995 said:


> Years ago I did a blind test between Spotify Premium (256 kbps AAC) and my own collection in FLAC. I was shocked to discover I couldn’t hear a real difference. From that day on I took my music budget and applied it to my bluray collection because I couldn’t justify buying the discs when I couldn’t hear a difference. It was a little sad but liberating at the same time. I agree that audio gets compressed noticeably when streaming video and the video shows far too many artifacts that is why I buy movies on disc. But for music my ears are either shot or my system isn’t “revealing enough” to hear a difference so I don’t pay for it anymore. Add the convenience factor in and it’s just the cherry on top of the cake. You can get a free three month trial to find out for yourself: Apple Music


But that's 128kbps per channel, not 64kbps (and that assumes only 12 objects in the stream; there could up to 16, I believe). I can't tell 256kbps AAC (stereo) from lossless, but 128kbps (stereo or 64kbps per channel) is another matter. I'm not sure, but I think AAC may be superior to Dolby Digital for that matter in compression versus sound quality. 

Sure, if not much is going on in some channels, it may be fine, but something like Yello's album Point? I dunno. Those that have Apple Music (streaming) could try a test with that album and listen to just the height channels during a busy track and see how it sounds.


----------



## Josh Z

crutzulee said:


> My wife had ordered me a Japanese LD of THE PHANTOM MENACE (for which DDEX was invented) for my birthday. I must have listened to that pod race a thousand times LOL.


----------



## Craig Mecak

MagnumX said:


> But that's 128kbps per channel, not 64kbps (and that assumes only 12 objects in the stream; there could up to 16, I believe). I can't tell 256kbps AAC (stereo) from lossless, but 128kbps (stereo or 64kbps per channel) is another matter. I'm not sure, but I think AAC may be superior to Dolby Digital for that matter in compression versus sound quality.
> 
> Sure, if not much is going on in some channels, it may be fine, but something like Yello's album Point? I dunno. Those that have Apple Music (streaming) could try a test with that album and listen to just the height channels during a busy track and see how it sounds.


I think if Apple changed the Dolby Atmos audio streams from 768 kb/s to 1.5 Mb/s (using Dolby Digital Plus eAC-3), then not many people would be complaining. That's still less data than their Apple Lossless 2-ch at 24 bit 192 Khz.


----------



## mrvideo

crutzulee said:


> My wife had ordered me a Japanese LD of THE PHANTOM MENACE


I have that same LD in my collection.


----------



## petetherock

Josh Z said:


> View attachment 3231385


After Lion King, this was the other movie that made me sit up at the Yamaha showroom years back.. 
The put put put sound of bass notes as the pods fly by.... yep, I was sold on a good subwoofer. 
Back then, the REL Q100E was the budget sub to own...


----------



## MagnumX

Craig Mecak said:


> I think if Apple changed the Dolby Atmos audio streams from 768 kb/s to 1.5 Mb/s (using Dolby Digital Plus eAC-3), then not many people would be complaining. That's still less data than their Apple Lossless 2-ch at 24 bit 192 Khz.


I agree that would be much preferable for the reasons given. The trick is how do you get them to do that? Apple generally needs a lot of complaints, media attention or somebody pretty big involved to get them to listen about anything these days. I'd also love if they'd support DTS in their operating system, at the very least (I always hated how iTunes wouldn't let you use 3rd party formats from everything from OGG to FLAC to even AVI (I have a lot of older home videos from cameras that saved in that lossy format and every conversion makes the quality worse. How much bother would have been for them to support it so even early generation (e.g. Gen 1) Apple TV could view your own home videos in that format? Too much bother, that's how much because Apple only cares about being dominant and/or making money. If 1.5Mbps would somehow make them more money or more dominant in the industry, they'd go for it, but otherwise, it's just a waste of bandwidth (money). Look how long it took for them to support lossless 2-channel. 

I realize 256kbps AAC is probably good enough for 99.9% of actual listening (i.e. double blind tests), but there's a widespread belief (however inaccurate) that lossless is simply better. Some claim to hear it and others just don't want to wonder if it could sound better, but lossless for Atmos is pretty much out of the question for streaming (downloads could work, but Apple doesn't want to sell anything anymore they don't ultimately control that meant no downloads of 4K movies you could store, even encrypted. Whether that's the movie industry pushing that from behind the scenes, possibly (at least Steve Jobs never wanted to be forced to carry encrypted music, but with him gone, who can say what Tim Cook's priorities are other than making money), but at the moment they clearly believe 768kbps is good enough (after all it was higher than the competition was using; look how long it took Netflix to go to a mere 640kbps for 5.1 even).

I'll be rooting for DTS:X streaming via Disney+ to have some effect as I think some real competition for Dolby Atmos would be a good thing in the long run (It's also why I continue to buy Auro-3D movies, however distant the sales as there are still a LOT of movies with only 5.1 or even just stereo out there). If Dolby is allowed to continue to just steamroll the competition, improvements and continued evolution of the audio side of things might go another couple of decades without improvement. It took from Dolby Digital's cinematic debut in 1992 (Batman Returns) to 2010 (18 years!) just to get 7.1 sound with Toy Story 3 in 2010 (7 years to get a simple matrixed rear channel with The Phantom Menace in 1999) and over two decade and the threat of Auro-3D leapfrogging them in the theaters to push them to do Dolby Atmos. Would they have even bothered had Sony SDDS and DTS not existed? Would we still be using Dolby PLIIz if Wilfried Van Baelen hadn't invented Auro-3D?

It's hard to say for certain, but it took George Lucas and his blockbuster Star Wars just to push THX standards to theaters. Ironically, the industry no longer follows those standards. Many Atmos (and other) movies no longer conform to the reference standard for theater levels and dynamic range in movie soundtracks. I've noticed differences between movies in the 15dB range for average level in the past 10 years. That's almost as bad as the music industry. Throw in companies like Disney producing movie offerings with inconsistent dynamic range and sound quality (despite having purchased Skywalker Sound), let alone proper Atmos object usage with those locked 7.1.2 and 7.1.4 soundtracks and I think streaming competition would still be a very good thing indeed. 

The sheer difference between, for example, _Divergent_ (DTS:X retrofit) and its sequel _Insurgent_ (Atmos) is rather striking and not in Atmos' favor. It's not the format's fault, of course, but all the more reason it would be nice to have alternate soundtrack mixes available and let the consumer choose the better (more immersive and/or dynamic) soundtrack of their choice. Turbine, a relatively small outfit in Germany is doing exactly that with many of its Mediabook releases, including totally separately made Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D soundtracks for movies like Twister, Dragonheart and Daylight. 

Sometimes the Atmos mix is better (Daylight), sometimes Auro-3D is better (Twister) and sometimes they're just a bit different (Dragonheart) (my opinions only of course), but it's nice with those movies to have a choice of which soundtrack to listen to (along with the original cinematic 2.0, 4.0 and 5.1 soundtracks in many cases of boutique brand releases. I only see this on Blu-Ray discs, however. It would seem obvious that streaming could support _a lot more_ choices (as it would only have to stream the one you choose), but that just hasn't been the case thus far.


----------



## petetherock

I'm enjoying the 2021 version of Dune, very atmospheric... pun intended...


----------



## crutzulee

Josh Z said:


> View attachment 3231385


Yeah.. that's the one. I still have it displayed with my "faces" original trilogy set in my HT.
Usually, I can't stand subtitles outside of the frame in the movie but with that title, I was happy that the Japanese subtitles were in the black bars as my projector had a masking feature that could completely block them out. I wish more modern projectors had that feature.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

The main problem with lossy compressed streaming music is that when used with bluetooth soundbar or headphones (primary use case) it is compressed again with a different codec. Even when using a good bluetooth codec like LDAC or Aptx, it´s still like taking a picture of a picture. When your source is lossless the end result will be better.

768 kbps Atmos may be acceptable for some random show with the occasional height effect. But for music, I don´t think so. Is there any streaming source that uses higher bitrates than this?


----------



## dschulz

G4n0nD0rf said:


> The main problem with lossy compressed streaming music is that when used with bluetooth soundbar or headphones (primary use case) it is compressed again with a different codec. Even when using a good bluetooth codec like LDAC or Aptx, it´s still like taking a picture of a picture. When your source is lossless the end result will be better.
> 
> 768 kbps Atmos may be acceptable for some random show with the occasional height effect. But for music, I don´t think so. Is there any streaming source that uses higher bitrates than this?


That's a good point, although one of the things I like about Apple (should you choose to live entirely within their walled garden) is they bypass the decode/re-encode step; the AAC file is streamed over BlueTooth to your wireless headphones. Doesn't help with lossless or Atmos streams of course, but makes for a very clean signal path when listening to Apple Music lossy stereo streams.


----------



## Ricoflashback

ricardo.vix said:


> Hello, guys! I'm very happy because I just finalized my atmos setup with two KEF Q50a!
> 
> Now I'm looking for content with good atmos sound to test it. What does you suggest? I don't have a bluray player, so it has to be from a streaming app.
> 
> Is there a website or topic with a "ranking" of best atmos movies/scenes that I can look at?
> 
> Thanks!


Here you go - 18 of the best Dolby Atmos movie scenes to test your home cinema sound

My personal favorites are Unbroken (bombing scene) and not on the list - Sully. If you have a good Atmos system with Sully, you’ll be looking for the flight attendant button above you when the droning of the jet engines and metal crunching begins. Enjoy!


----------



## MagnumX

Ricoflashback said:


> Here you go - 18 of the best Dolby Atmos movie scenes to test your home cinema sound
> 
> My personal favorites are Unbroken (bombing scene) and not on the list - Sully. If you have a good Atmos system with Sully, you’ll be looking for the flight attendant button above you when the droning of the jet engines and metal crunching begins. Enjoy!


Few of those would make my top list. There are much better height examples out there and almost any action scene from Harry Potter (albeit DTS:X) would blow most of those away, IMO. 

A few examples (can't provide time frames right now, sorry) :

Mosquito scene from original Jumanji will have you swatting at them right over your head. 

Megdalon attack in The Meg on sub. 

Germans attacking tank near end of Fury.


----------



## Ricoflashback

MagnumX said:


> Few of those would make my top list. There are much better height examples out there and almost any action scene from Harry Potter (albeit DTS:X) would blow most of those away, IMO.
> 
> A few examples (can't provide time frames right now, sorry) :
> 
> Mosquito scene from original Jumanji will have you swatting at them right over your head.
> 
> Megdalon attack in The Meg on sub.
> 
> Germans attacking tank near end of Fury.


All personal preference. It was just a start - just a list to consider. It’s not always about height examples. I can’t think of anything more dramatic than the bombing run in Unbroken. It has everything from right to left, side to side, back to front and overhead sounds. Fury is an excellent choice as the tanks will sound like they are coming through your home. That’s a good sub check, as well.


----------



## MagnumX

Ricoflashback said:


> All personal preference. It was just a start - just a list to consider. It’s not always about height examples. I can’t think of anything more dramatic than the bombing run in Unbroken. It has everything from right to left, side to side, back to front and overhead sounds. Fury is an excellent choice as the tanks will sound like they are coming through your home. That’s a good sub check, as well.


That's a good scene, but try the plane run to bring the team to parachute into Germany in *Overlord* and I think you'll be more impressed. Plus the big difference is the Atmos effects just keep coming in that one (ball rolls on ceiling at one point sounds so real I'd think I had hard wood floors upstairs).

Nothing I've heard yet beats the opening bass hit in Blade Runner 2049. Dune 2021 (same director) also has great hard hitting bass.


----------



## sdrucker

Ricoflashback said:


> Here you go - 18 of the best Dolby Atmos movie scenes to test your home cinema sound
> 
> My personal favorites are Unbroken (bombing scene) and not on the list - Sully. If you have a good Atmos system with Sully, you’ll be looking for the flight attendant button above you when the droning of the jet engines and metal crunching begins. Enjoy!


Unbroken was used as an Atmos demo by Trinnov at one point. Deep in the Altitude thread there's a screenshot by Curt Hoyt showing all the channels activated by that bombing run in a 20.210 system, so you have a point.









Trinnov Altitude


Hello It may dependsp on what version of trinnov you have got, I have the 16 channel version and in the" initial layout " set-up the it is 9.1.4 Alan Alan, it doesn't give you the option for 9.1.6, or 7.1.8?




www.avsforum.com


----------



## appelz

sdrucker said:


> Unbroken was used as an Atmos demo by Trinnov at one point. Deep in the Altitude thread there's a screenshot by Curt Hoyt showing all the channels activated by that bombing run in a 20.210 system, so you have a point.


20.210 ? WOW! Gonna have to step up plans for my Lab!


----------



## Yrd

I'm in the process of aquiring a new denon3700 avr. Replacing my old 3100w. I only run 5.1 currently.

I have a set of speakers from HTD that I'm happy with, but they don't sell the cherry finish anymore. I like that the are wall mountable, even the center channel. I don't like the idea of replacing all my speakers to match, and I don't like having 2-4 new speakers with a different finish in the set.

That turns out to be what I will have to do.

I have been eyeballing klipsch 500sa because of the wall mountability and angle for front highs to start my atmos journey. It's not a very big room, the rear speakers are bookshelf mounted up near the ceiling which I may change to more of these klipsch angled speakers later and find a way to make the rear speakers ear level like they should be.

These klipsch are an upgrade and of course mismatching all the rest of the speakers. I think they are designed to be set on top of floor standing, which I will do until I get to mounting them.

Any advice on my plans here, from guys that are already atmosin'?


----------



## halcyon_888

Yrd said:


> I'm in the process of aquiring a new denon3700 avr. Replacing my old 3100w. I only run 5.1 currently.
> 
> I have a set of speakers from HTD that I'm happy with, but they don't sell the cherry finish anymore. I like that the are wall mountable, even the center channel. I don't like the idea of replacing all my speakers to match, and I don't like having 2-4 new speakers with a different finish in the set.
> 
> That turns out to be what I will have to do.
> 
> I have been eyeballing klipsch 500sa because of the wall mountability and angle for front highs to start my atmos journey. It's not a very big room, the rear speakers are bookshelf mounted up near the ceiling which I may change to more of these klipsch angled speakers later and find a way to make the rear speakers ear level like they should be.
> 
> These klipsch are an upgrade and of course mismatching all the rest of the speakers. I think they are designed to be set on top of floor standing, which I will do until I get to mounting them.
> 
> Any advice on my plans here, from guys that are already atmosin'?


If the speakers are Atmos enabled (designed to be set on top of floor standing speakers) then you don't want to use them in a different location because from what I've read the crossover is different and designed for the "bounce" effect off the ceiling. This is, of course, unless the particular Klipsch speakers say they can be mounted in other positions.


----------



## robert600

Yrd said:


> I'm in the process of aquiring a new denon3700 avr. Replacing my old 3100w. I only run 5.1 currently.
> 
> I have a set of speakers from HTD that I'm happy with, but they don't sell the cherry finish anymore. I like that the are wall mountable, even the center channel. I don't like the idea of replacing all my speakers to match, and I don't like having 2-4 new speakers with a different finish in the set.
> 
> That turns out to be what I will have to do.
> 
> I have been eyeballing klipsch 500sa because of the wall mountability and angle for front highs to start my atmos journey. It's not a very big room, the rear speakers are bookshelf mounted up near the ceiling which I may change to more of these klipsch angled speakers later and find a way to make the rear speakers ear level like they should be.
> 
> These klipsch are an upgrade and of course mismatching all the rest of the speakers. I think they are designed to be set on top of floor standing, which I will do until I get to mounting them.
> 
> Any advice on my plans here, from guys that are already atmosin'?


I've recently done an atmos conversion from something a bit similar to what you have so ...I maybe able to help. I need more info though.

What are you working towards? You wil have the preouts and processing for 11.1 so your options would appear to be ... 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. (the latter 2 options would require on external 2 channel amp/receiver of some sort). Which are you thinking?

You mention having 'rear bookshelf' speakers but you also say you're running 5.1 so ... I'm thinking 'rear' in that context is what I would call 'surround' (I reserve 'rear' for farthest back speakers in a 7.1 setup). In any case, having them 'up near the ceiling' is not going to be good for your eventual atmos layout.

How far is the screen from your ears when seated in your main listening position (MLP)?
How high from the floor to your ears?
How high is your ceiling?
How for behind MLP is your back wall?

If I knew the answers to those questions ... I could be more helpful,


----------



## robert600

robert600 said:


> What are you working towards? You wil have the preouts and processing for 11.1 so your options would appear to be ... 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. (the latter 2 options would require on external 2 channel amp/receiver of some sort). Which are you thinking?


Sorry ... I miswrote the above ... I meant to write the latter option (7.1.4) would require etc.


----------



## Yrd

robert600 said:


> I've recently done an atmos conversion from something a bit similar to what you have so ...I maybe able to help. I need more info though.
> 
> What are you working towards? You wil have the preouts and processing for 11.1 so your options would appear to be ... 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. (the latter 2 options would require on external 2 channel amp/receiver of some sort). Which are you thinking?
> 
> You mention having 'rear bookshelf' speakers but you also say you're running 5.1 so ... I'm thinking 'rear' in that context is what I would call 'surround' (I reserve 'rear' for farthest back speakers in a 7.1 setup). In any case, having them 'up near the ceiling' is not going to be good for your eventual atmos layout.
> 
> How far is the screen from your ears when seated in your main listening position (MLP)?
> How high from the floor to your ears?
> How high is your ceiling?
> How for behind MLP is your back wall?
> 
> If I knew the answers to those questions ... I could be more helpful,


Give me a little bit of time and I will take these measurements. Never have done.

Here is one of my rear speakers. As you can see by the room there is little space for ear level positioning. But I plan to work something out eventually. For now it will be how it is pictured.


----------



## MagnumX

Yrd said:


> Give me a little bit of time and I will take these measurements. Never have done.
> 
> Here is one of my rear speakers. As you can see by the room there is little space for ear level positioning. But I plan to work something out eventually. For now it will be how it is pictured.
> View attachment 3232824


You could leave it where it is as a rear height speaker and add an ear level speaker instead. You might have remove a guitar to put an ear level speaker there, though.


----------



## Yrd

*How far is the screen from your ears when seated in your main listening position (MLP)?*
About 68-70"

It's a 65" cheapo TCL 65r615. I have been thinking about a 77 OLED to replace, but just consider it the 65 for now. The TV previous was mounted on the wall and my center channel is also mounted on the wall beneath where the old tv was. When I get whatever OLED I get, it's going to go on the wall above the center channel which is firing right into the back of the TV right now, as it sits on a TV/AV stand. So if you want to consider my eventual upgrade say the height will be 8-10 inches higher to clear the center channel.

*How high from the floor to your ears?*
TV sitting on the stand is 27" to the bottom or about 43" to the middle. Not sure what you need.

*How high is your ceiling?*
8ft

*How for behind MLP is your back wall?*
Back wall is about 64-68"

Front speakers are floorstanding.


There is no way to mount side speakers, so those are out of the question.

My plan for now is to start with front highs. Those Klipsch 500sa speakers. They have a switch on them that says Surr or Atmos. I believe the Atmos mode is meant for setting on floorstanding speakers. Then eventually the same speakers to go in place of those rear speakers mounted flush against the back wall. They are angled so they would face downward. Move the current mounted surrounds, I call them rears, to ear level with some stands. My other consideration may be dipole speakers, but I think the room is too small for them.

The denon 3700 is a 9 channel amp, without any preout setups. I have no plans to get any extra amp setup. With the 9 channels I would like to do my current 5 channels with eventual 2 sets of highs. Front to start then when I figure out how to get my rear situation sorted, rear highs.


----------



## MagnumX

> There is no way to mount side speakers, so those are out of the question.


Mount? It's called a speaker stand. There are also towers that stand on their own.


----------



## Yrd

MagnumX said:


> Mount? It's called a speaker stand. There are also towers that stand on their own.


No where to place them or set them. They are out of the question.


----------



## MagnumX

Yrd said:


> No where to place them or set them. They are out of the question.


I see plenty of space there. Move a guitar or that tupperwear storage thing. Or not. The problem is Atmos doesn't work without ear level surrounds. The best you can do is 5.1 without them. Ironically, your existing surrounds are in a good place for heights. You just need a timbre matching pair below them. It doesn't even have to be right below them, but somewhere nearby.


----------



## Yrd

MagnumX said:


> I see plenty of space there. Move a guitar or that tupperwear storage thing. Or not. The problem is Atmos doesn't work without ear level surrounds. The best you can do is 5.1 without them. Ironically, your existing surrounds are in a good place for heights. You just need a timbre matching pair below them. It doesn't even have to be right below them, but somewhere nearby.


The original comment you quoted was:
*There is no way to mount side speakers, so those are out of the question*.

I'm talking about side speakers. The picture I posted is behind listening position. Those are my rear speakers. I have no place to have side speakers for a 7.1 speaker setup.

Side speakers are to be placed in line with your ears at the side of your head. The side of that room has a desk with a computer taking up the entire wall.


----------



## MagnumX

Yrd said:


> The original comment you quoted was:
> *There is no way to mount side speakers, so those are out of the question*.
> 
> I'm talking about side speakers. The picture I posted is behind listening position. Those are my rear speakers. I have no place to have side speakers for a 7.1 speaker setup.
> 
> Side speakers are to be placed in line with your ears at the side of your head. The side of that room has a desk with a computer taking up the entire wall.


Side speakers don't have to be right to the side of your head. Mine are at 110 degrees (behind me) with front wides in front of me. I have rear surrounds even further back into the room. There's a lot of latitude for positioning.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Yrd said:


> The original comment you quoted was:
> *There is no way to mount side speakers, so those are out of the question*.
> 
> I'm talking about side speakers. The picture I posted is behind listening position. Those are my rear speakers. I have no place to have side speakers for a 7.1 speaker setup.
> 
> Side speakers are to be placed in line with your ears at the side of your head. The side of that room has a desk with a computer taking up the entire wall.


not true-side surrounds actually work better in 7.1/7.1.4 slightly in front of ear (~80 degrees) and facing MLP. Maybe give that a try. I heard that recommended over and over and currently do that ATM and find it is an improvement


----------



## sdrucker

In the interests of science (OK, because my wife and I both wanted to watch it), we pre-ordered House of Gucci over the weekend on our ATV4K. According to the label, it's in Dolby Atmos as well as Dolby Vision.

Didn't get to watch the entire movie because it became available at midnight ET today (2/1), but through about 45 minutes, it's one of those movies that are Atmos in name only. No height activity at all, but it does have the seven yellow balls on the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer for the 7.1 channels.

I'll edit this post if that changes... but I've seen a few things like that, such as "Hit and Run" on Netflix. It's almost like someone used the Atmos metadata format for convenience for rendering to a home mix on what was otherwise a 7.1 mix for home to start with.

If anyone saw this theatrically in Atmos I'd be curious. We were going to see it locally (non-Atmos as far as I know), but decided to wait due to Omicron and having our HT to start with .


----------



## halcyon_888

sdrucker said:


> In the interests of science (OK, because my wife and I both wanted to watch it), we pre-ordered House of Gucci over the weekend on our ATV4K. According to the label, it's in Dolby Atmos as well as Dolby Vision.
> 
> Didn't get to watch the entire movie because it became available at midnight ET today (2/1), but through about 45 minutes, it's one of those movies that are Atmos in name only. No height activity at all, but it does have the seven yellow balls on the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer for the 7.1 channels.
> 
> I'll edit this post if that changes... but I've seen a few things like that, such as "Hit and Run" on Netflix. It's almost like someone used the Atmos metadata format for convenience for rendering to a home mix on what was otherwise a 7.1 mix for home to start with.
> 
> If anyone saw this theatrically in Atmos I'd be curious. We were going to see it locally (non-Atmos as far as I know), but decided to wait due to Omicron and having our HT to start with .


I'm not sure why they would do that. It seems to me they could at least run it through a studio-grade upmixer to expand the score to the heights. That wouldn't take a lot of effort but still provide some use of Atmos. Thanks for the heads up though, I'm going to use the DTS Neural X upmixer on this if I get around to watching it.


----------



## sdrucker

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm not sure why they would do that. It seems to me they could at least run it through a studio-grade upmixer to expand the score to the heights. That wouldn't take a lot of effort but still provide some use of Atmos. Thanks for the heads up though, I'm going to use the DTS Neural X upmixer on this if I get around to watching it.


To be fair, we need to watch the whole movie, but it stood out. Those 7 yellow balls (+LFE) were completely static...


----------



## MagnumX

When your balls are yellow & static you need to see a doctor....


----------



## wjchan

sdrucker said:


> To be fair, we need to watch the whole movie, but it stood out. Those 7 yellow balls (+LFE) were completely static...


The Gucci's were not flying around in helicopters? Maybe we should output the base 7.1 and upmix.


----------



## Yrd

Chirosamsung said:


> not true-side surrounds actually work better in 7.1/7.1.4 slightly in front of ear (~80 degrees) and facing MLP. Maybe give that a try. I heard that recommended over and over and currently do that ATM and find it is an improvement





MagnumX said:


> Side speakers don't have to be right to the side of your head. Mine are at 110 degrees (behind me) with front wides in front of me. I have rear surrounds even further back into the room. There's a lot of latitude for positioning.


I don't know why the side speakers are such a hot button issue. Just trust there is no place to put side speakers. The picture I took was right about listening position. In front of those plastic containers is a door, just out of frame. The wall from that door to the next door, is a desk, taking the entire wall. Then is the front of the room and the TV. Drop the side speakers. There's no place for them. I don't want them to boot.

I don't think I'm going to be in this house and this room for very long either.


----------



## sdurani

Yrd said:


> The picture I took was right about listening position.


Looking at the picture you posted, can you remove the black & white guitar and lower the speaker above it in its place?


----------



## Yrd

sdurani said:


> Looking at the picture you posted, can you remove the black & white guitar and lower the speaker above it in its place?
> View attachment 3233562


Is that the consensus then? That speaker should be at ear level?

Yes I can pack the guitar up, but if I just set it on top of that container, with something to raise it a little, will probably be easiest. I even have some isolation pads from an older setup.

Just eyeballing the situation, the pictured speaker, on top of that plastic container would be exactly the height of the front floor standers. Maybe with the pads, the exact height.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Yrd said:


> Is that the consensus then? That speaker should be at ear level?
> 
> Yes I can pack the guitar up, but if I just set it on top of that container, with something to raise it a little, will probably be easiest. I even have some isolation pads from an older setup.
> 
> Just eyeballing the situation, the pictured speaker, on top of that plastic container would be exactly the height of the front floor standers. Maybe with the pads, the exact height.


Yes. That is the consensus. For the best Atmos coverage, the ground level speakers need to be at ear level (they can be a little elevated if you need to clear the audiences head, but only just above the seated listeners head) so there is distinct separation between the base layer and the height/top layer.

I would recommend simply pulling everything off your walls. Rearrange the speakers in the best configuration for your room, THEN place all your decorations and paraphenalia based on the new setup.

You can have all the guitars up you want. Just place your speakers first, then figure out where the guitars would go (same thing applies to posters and artwork)


----------



## Yrd

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes. That is the consensus. For the best Atmos coverage, the ground level speakers need to be at ear level (they can be a little elevated if you need to clear the audiences head, but only just above the seated listeners head) so there is distinct separation between the base layer and the height/top layer.
> 
> I would recommend simply pulling everything off your walls. Rearrange the speakers in the best configuration for your room, THEN place all your decorations and paraphenalia based on the new setup.
> 
> You can have all the guitars up you want. Just place your speakers first, then figure out where the guitars would go (same thing applies to posters and artwork)


I'm assuming the matching speaker needs to be at the same height or can there be any wiggle room? Because I don't have an easy plastic container over there.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> When your balls are yellow & static you need to see a doctor....


I don't think I've ever said this to one of your posts, but that is truly hilarious.


----------



## Matt L

Kicking around and idea want some input. Love my main Atmos setup, got a smaller system in my bedroom and got a more basic AVR from Onkyo when my older TX failed. I'm running 4 speakers, and have the capability of adding 2 Atmos speakers. Room is about 12'X14' all viewing/listening is from my bed, speakers are at ear level. Main front speakers are old AR 4a's with decent low end, the sides are smallish bookshelf Missions. No issue if I want recessed Atmos in the ceiling, but is that the best option?

What is the best option for a small system? Is it worth the effort?


----------



## niterida

Matt L said:


> Kicking around and idea want some input. Love my main Atmos setup, got a smaller system in my bedroom and got a more basic AVR from Onkyo when my older TX failed. I'm running 4 speakers, and have the capability of adding 2 Atmos speakers. Room is about 12'X14' all viewing/listening is from my bed, speakers are at ear level. Main front speakers are old AR 4a's with decent low end, the sides are smallish bookshelf Missions. No issue if I want recessed Atmos in the ceiling, but is that the best option?
> 
> What is the best option for a small system? Is it worth the effort?


Best option is bookshelf mounted to the ceiling. But for just 2 heights you can possiby get away with straught down-firing in-ceilings if you mount them a bit narrower L-R and since I guess you are not after the absolute ideal sound given it is your secondary system. Otherwise a pair of RSL C34e or Monoprice 15deg angled in-ceilings will be pretty good option at around $100-125each.


----------



## sdurani

Yrd said:


> Just eyeballing the situation, the pictured speaker, on top of that plastic container would be exactly the height of the front floor standers. Maybe with the pads, the exact height.


Perfect. This will allow you to clearly hear the difference between sounds around you vs sounds above you, which is the intent of Atmos.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> Glad to help.


Ok ... the matching 2ndary receiver has arrived. I'm getting ready to calibrate in the manner you suggested earlier. However ... prior to doing this, I'm going to add a 2nd sub. This leads me to a few other questions if you don't mind?

There are 4 sub preouts ... 2 for sw1 and 2 for sw2 (see pic below). My current sub is connected to the top right terminal. My questions:
Do all these sub preouts produce the same signal?
Why are bottom preouts for sw1 and sw2 highlighted with a white background?
Given that I'm going to use 2 of them ... which 2 do you reckon would be best to use?
Why would anyone ever use 4 subs (I guess those 'shaker' type seats could use a couple but I don't think they were around when the receiver was built)?
It's an Onkyo TX-NR1030 if that matters.


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Ok ... the matching 2ndary receiver has arrived. I'm getting ready to calibrate in the manner you suggested earlier. However ... prior to doing this, I'm going to add a 2nd sub. This leads me to a few other questions if you don't mind?
> 
> There are 4 sub preouts ... 2 for sw1 and 2 for sw2 (see pic below). My current sub is connected to the top right terminal. My questions:
> Do all these sub preouts produce the same signal?
> Why are bottom preouts for sw1 and sw2 highlighted with a white background?
> Given that I'm going to use 2 of them ... which 2 do you reckon would be best to use?
> Why would anyone ever use 4 subs (I guess those 'shaker' type seats could use a couple but I don't think they were around when the receiver was built)?
> It's an Onkyo TX-NR1030 if that matters.
> 
> View attachment 3233947


I'm guessing it's a convenience thing if you want a 2nd output from an input (shakers or up to 4 subs without needing a Y-adapter). My Marantz 7012 doesn't have those extra jacks, just SW1 and SW2 (where SW2 doubles as Top Surround (VOG) for Auro-3D). I couldn't tell you why they're highlighted. Have you looked in your manual? Unless you plan to use an external EQ device like a Mini with Dirac, I'd say the normal method would be to use SW2 and let Audyssey handle the combined bass. The more subs you use, the more the room modes should "average" out to be smaller dips & peaks (with some trial/error).


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I'm guessing it's a convenience thing if you want a 2nd output from an input (shakers or up to 4 subs without needing a Y-adapter).


I was curious so I checked the manual (which is as clear as mud) and you are correct.
There are 2 pre-outs for each SW output - so basically just an internal splitter for each.


----------



## robert600

niterida said:


> I was curious so I checked the manual (which is as clear as mud) and you are correct.
> There are 2 pre-outs for each SW output - so basically just an internal splitter for each.


 The manual is pathetic isn't it!

If I 'm understanding what youre saying correctly ... if I were to use both of the sw1 outputs and then ran the calibration program ... the subwoofer 'ping' would activate both subs simultaneously.

Whereas ... if I use sw1 and sw2 ... I might get a separate 'ping' for each of the subs ... that would be very good indeed! Maybe I'll try it both ways and see/hear. Interesting.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Yrd said:


> I'm assuming the matching speaker needs to be at the same height or can there be any wiggle room? Because I don't have an easy plastic container over there.


Yes, they should absolutely match as closely as possible. The integrity of the sound field relies heavily on proper angles and symmetry.


----------



## niterida

robert600 said:


> The manual is pathetic isn't it!
> 
> If I 'm understanding what youre saying correctly ... if I were to use both of the sw1 outputs and then ran the calibration program ... the subwoofer 'ping' would activate both subs simultaneously.
> 
> Whereas ... if I use sw1 and sw2 ... I might get a separate 'ping' for each of the subs ... that would be very good indeed! Maybe I'll try it both ways and see/hear. Interesting.


Yes that is correct - 2nd SW1 pre-out output is the same as 1st.
SW1 and SW2 are different and you should be able to apply different delay and EQ to each of them.


----------



## robert600

niterida said:


> Yes that is correct - 2nd SW1 pre-out output is the same as 1st.
> SW1 and SW2 are different and you should be able to apply different delay and EQ to each of them.


Yes, that worked exactly as predicted. Using the mic ... resulted in it displaying both subs ... and all other speakers except my mid heights ... perfect. The only sleight onnayance was that on the on-screen display of the speakers (the speaker it's pinging turns blue) ... when it pinged sw1 ... that displayed the sub on the left and my sw1 is on the right ... and of course when it pinged sw2 it pinged my left sub but it depicted the sub on the right. I'm correct in thinking this is of no importance at all? I may at some point reverse the RCA inputs if I have to run the mic program again ... but that would be just for convenience ... am I right about this?

Couple more questions about subs:
Despite being labelled sub channels1 & 2 ... this is really only for calibration purposes. When actually playing a movie or whatever ... both sub channels are being feed exactly the same sound tracts. In that sense, they are not seperate channels at all. Am I thinking about this correcty?
For my original sw1 ... I have a proper one piece sub specified RCA cable. Sw2 however is further away so I've used two (nice quality, but not sub specific) RCA cables with one of those double ended female socket type things. Am I 'losing' much by doing this?

Anyway, after calibating the primary and both the 2ndary receivers. I played Blade Runner 2049 ... it sounded great! It was a good test for both the dual-sub setup and the SCATMOS Heights.Very pleased with the results. I think it can be tuned up a little better with a sound meter ... I have a birthday coming up this month so that'll hopefully take care of that ... and solve the "you're so hard to buy for" problem!


----------



## niterida

robert600 said:


> when it pinged sw1 ... that displayed the sub on the left and my sw1 is on the right ... and of course when it pinged sw2 it pinged my left sub but it depicted the sub on the right. I'm correct in thinking this is of no importance at all? I may at some point reverse the RCA inputs if I have to run the mic program again ... but that would be just for convenience ... am I right about this?


Yes


robert600 said:


> Despite being labelled sub channels1 & 2 ... this is really only for calibration purposes. When actually playing a movie or whatever ... both sub channels are being feed exactly the same sound tracts. In that sense, they are not seperate channels at all. Am I thinking about this correcty?


Not quite - the same LFE channel signal is used but different EQ and delays can be applied before being sent to the different sub outputs.


----------



## MagnumX

I just listened to *Lichtmond 4 - The Journey* in _Dolby Atmos_ again for the first time in awhile and I have to say the album is a good test of Atmos circular imaging as vocals and various instruments circle the room regularly at both height levels. I don't think the music is as good as the previous album (*Lichtmond 3 - Days of Eternity* in _Auro-3D_), overall, but it's still a pretty good Atmos demonstration. You can compare timbre matching and panning smoothness around the room while grooving to the beat.


----------



## halcyon_888

Here is a recent to 10 video ranking Atmos tracks. Not surprisingly (to me), Ready Player One made the top spot despite it being a locked mix:


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Here is a recent to 10 video ranking Atmos tracks. Not surprisingly (to me), Ready Player One made the top spot despite it being a locked mix:


Not a bad list... though I would take Bohemian Rhapsody and Us off in exchange for Doctor Sleep and Fury. And I might actually swap A Star Is Born out for The House With A Clock In Its Walls.

And as much as I dig Unbroken, give that spot to Midway since the best part of Unbroken is on the Dolby demo disc.


----------



## sdrucker

halcyon_888 said:


> Here is a recent to 10 video ranking Atmos tracks. Not surprisingly (to me), Ready Player One made the top spot despite it being a locked mix:


RP1 isn’t completely “locked”. Just not “jail broken” all but infrequently. See here:








The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used. Totally agree. Objects can be used at ear level as well and that’s when the wides, extra fronts (Lc/Rc, Lsc/Rsc), and extra surrounds come into play. Most people don’t have these so they use heights as an indication of Atmos object...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> Here is a recent to 10 video ranking Atmos tracks. Not surprisingly (to me), Ready Player One made the top spot despite it being a locked mix:


2 things can be true:

it can be a locked mix

it can be the most impressive atmos mix (despite a few peoples gripes)


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not a bad list... though I would take Bohemian Rhapsody and Us off in exchange for Doctor Sleep and Fury. And I might actually swap A Star Is Born out for The House With A Clock In Its Walls.
> 
> And as much as I dig Unbroken, give that spot to Midway since the best part of Unbroken is on the Dolby demo disc.


doctor sleep is GREAT atmos


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> 2 things can be true:
> 
> it can be a locked mix
> 
> it can be the most impressive atmos mix (despite a few peoples gripes)


Good points


----------



## MagnumX

IT Parts 1 & 2 were both awesome in Atmos and often get overlooked. Good version of the story too.


----------



## X4100

I thought I'd give RP1, another listen. I moved my chair about 2 feet closer to the front speakers ( height). I must say that I had a much more immersive experience, with the audio effects. I was able to get lost in the movie, and I had a wonderful experience of all kinds of sound moving through the entire room  . Now I can move on to other movies! "Not a Good Day to Die " is now showing.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> Here is a recent to 10 video ranking Atmos tracks. Not surprisingly (to me), Ready Player One made the top spot despite it being a locked mix:


Thats because Ready Player One is a fantastic mix, even if its a (mostly) locked mix. As a channel-based mix, its incredible. The static nature of the sound objects doesnt change that fact.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Thats because Ready Player One is a fantastic mix, even if its a (mostly) locked mix. As a channel-based mix, its incredible. The static nature of the sound objects doesnt change that fact.


Yup, I agree 100%


----------



## MagnumX

Channel based has nothing to do with it. Nearly all DTS:X movies are channel based and all Auro-3D soundtracks. The problem with RP1 is it only uses one overhead channel (locked). Like Saving Private Ryan, it uses panning in the ear-level speakers combined with fading to fake overhead panning. It does a good job of this, but it shouldn't be encouraged, IMO. 

I suppose if all soundtracks did that we could have saved a lot of money since we would have only needed one set of overhead speakers (Top Middle). I find it a little ironic so many people on here discourage/disdain .2 overhead setups yet think RP1 is just awesome.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Channel based has nothing to do with it. Nearly all DTS:X movies are channel based and all Auro-3D soundtracks. The problem with RP1 is it only uses one overhead channel (locked).


Then explain this between 1:18:00 and 1:19:00:
f59f42dd-342a-446d-aa93-84fff0756e28-png.3218273

I will grant you that the soundtrack IS vast majority 7.1.2. But this is a far cry from using the term "only".


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Then explain this between 1:18:00 and 1:19:00:
> f59f42dd-342a-446d-aa93-84fff0756e28-png.3218273
> 
> I will grant you that the soundtrack IS vast majority 7.1.2. But this is a far cry from using the term "only".


I'll explain that if you explain to me why they would use a locked overhead channel and pan the semi-truck overhead by panning it through the ear-level bed channels instead of the overhead ones if they were ready, willing and able to use 4 overhead objects as that one minute shows. It makes no logical sense whatsoever so picking on one anomaly as if that excuses the rest of the soundtrack locking a single overhead seems trite at best to 'win' an argument where none really exists (i.e. 1 minute of the movie doesn't excuse the rest of it using one overhead, in my opinion).

My best _guess_ (and it is just a _guess_) is that for whatever reasoning they had to do a locked 7.1.2 soundtrack for the home version (Space savings? Your guess is as good as mine there), they simply overlooked/missed and/or screwed up that one scene during the conversion somehow (almost anything can happen in editing). Whether they noticed and left it be or just overlooked that one bit, I don't know, but I doubt it was intentional to be in the home version in the first place. In other words, there is no way the cinematic version of that soundtrack used locked 2-channel overheads. They had to have made a conscious decision at some point to purposely limit it to 2 overheads for the home version. Two overheads really wouldn't work in a large theater (and starts to sound weird if you wander too far away from the center even in a home theater with top middle rendering only across 2 speakers instead of 4 played in stereo). 

So again, it comes back to the question of why these studios (Disney probably being the worst offender) are making these decisions in the first place. Other studios (and even films within the same studio) manage to do proper conversions with active moving objects, but Universal found themselves thinking 7.1.2 is a great idea? A certain someone on here knows the reason for sure, at least in Disney's case, but he's not sharing (It's Top Secret Eyes Only information, after all). Certainly, the same is true for Disney. The cinema versions are definitely _NOT_ using locked 7.1.2 or 7.1.4.

Maybe their home mixing room didn't have 4 working overheads that day and they were on a deadline? 

Either way, I'd like to have a _proper_ conversion of the cinematic version of the soundtrack for Ready Player One. As good as the 7.1.2 mix is, I'm sure a proper conversion would blow it away. It makes you wonder what you're missing, really, does it not? Maybe they're saving it for the 8K re-release?


----------



## X4100

I have to revisit that 1:18/1:19 point of RP1 myself, as I saw the blue LED lights blinking on the 2 external "amps" for both front left/right and rear left/right height speakers at some point in the movie. I'm not 100% certain that this was what was mentioned as evidence of not being a total 7.1.2 mix  , but it definitely brought a BIG  as I not only heard something, while at the same time catching a glimpse of the LED lights blinking. It gave me a momentary pause, but at that point I was kinda engrossed in the action I was listening to, and watching! This does make me wonder what happened here ( don't get me wrong) why didn't the mixer do this throughout this very immersive mix, because if he did, I'm sure we ALL would be


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> I have to revisit that 1:18/1:19 point of RP1 myself, as I saw the blue LED lights blinking on the 2 external "amps" for both front left/right and rear left/right height speakers at some point in the movie. I'm not 100% certain that this was what was mentioned as evidence of not being a total 7.1.2 mix  , but it definitely brought a BIG  as I not only heard something, while at the same time catching a glimpse of the LED lights blinking. It gave me a momentary pause, but at that point I was kinda engrossed in the action I was listening to, and watching! This does make me wonder what happened here ( don't get me wrong) why didn't the mixer do this throughout this very immersive mix, because if he did, I'm sure we ALL would be


Keep in mind that just because you don't see objects moving, that doesn't mean there aren't pans between those "locked" channels that still steer sounds above ear level. You just wouldn't see it on an object viewer because it's pre-baked into the static objects. Perhaps the encoder just didn't see any need to use any dynamic objects with the original objects as placed.

It still sucks for people with higher speaker count systems though. Perhaps if they see more demand as Atmos systems become more prevalent, they'll focus on this more.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Keep in mind that just because you don't see objects moving, that doesn't mean there aren't pans between those "locked" channels that still steer sounds above ear level. You just wouldn't see it on an object viewer because it's pre-baked into the static objects. Perhaps the encoder just didn't see any need to use any dynamic objects with the original objects as placed.
> 
> It still sucks for people with higher speaker count systems though. Perhaps if they see more demand as Atmos systems become more prevalent, they'll focus on this more.


I imagine that when mixing studios were first setting up to start mixing for Atmos way back in 2014 and 2015, they were told that the vast majority of setups will be 7.1.4 or lower and that they didnt have to worry about higher channel counts as the Atmos renderer should take care of this. But they didnt account for mixers choosing to use the two default height beds and treating them as channels. Which according to an old Home Theater geeks interview with Dolby engineers, they added those on purpose to ease the transition for those mixers who were leery of dealing in all objects so they had a more traditional mixing environment which included height information. But they hoped over time mixers would eventually transition over to using all objects in their mixes.

Well its been 7 years and here we are. Things arent really all that different.


----------



## MagnumX

Send 'em all back to mixing school.... Learn to be a mixologist in just 6 short weeks!


----------



## howard68

The new processor for the home are now pushing 13 speakers + for under $3000
So I hope the mixers are going to use the speakers 
Having FW or TM not being used is a real pain when you go the extra mile to create a home cinema


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

howard68 said:


> The new processor for the home are now pushing 13 speakers + for under $3000
> So I hope the mixers are going to use the speakers
> Having FW or TM not being used is a real pain when you go the extra mile to create a home cinema


All they have to do is add active sound objects in the appropriate locations and it will use those speakers and many others.

Though honestly as I am not a sound engineer, I have no idea how difficult this idea actually is. I wouldnt imagine it would be that difficult considering its the primary function of the entire format, but I have no knowledge of this myself.


----------



## ss nimrod

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not a bad list... though I would take Bohemian Rhapsody and Us off in exchange for Doctor Sleep and Fury. And I might actually swap A Star Is Born out for The House With A Clock In Its Walls.
> 
> And as much as I dig Unbroken, give that spot to Midway since the best part of Unbroken is on the Dolby demo disc.



I think the mix of A Star is Born is fantastic. The concert clips make the hair on my arms stand up, they are outstanding!


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> All they have to do is add active sound objects in the appropriate locations and it will use those speakers and many others.
> 
> Though honestly as I am not a sound engineer, I have no idea how difficult this idea actually is. I wouldnt imagine it would be that difficult considering its the primary function of the entire format, but I have no knowledge of this myself.


Is it possible some of the old school mixers are simply set in their ways and have little interest in learning a new way of doing things? Or is this really a matter of some kind of issue with home conversions of the theatrical tracks? I've never heard Atmos at a real movie theater (none around here) to be able to compare a theatrical showing versus the home version of the same movie. What I do know is some Blu-Ray releases like They Live or Phantasm seem to do little more than light the Atmos indicator on the AVR compared to the 5.1 mixes.

Perhaps some Hollywood studios should hire those guys that did the Booka Shade albums and Yello's Point album to do the more important Atmos soundtracks. Those albums are AMAZING sounding compared to most Atmos soundtracks. Admittedly, they don't have to sync to video action, but the skills are clearly there for using objects well and with fairly complex sounding arrangements all around the room (e.g. Perfect In A Way", "Plexus 3AM" and "Torch" on Booka Shade's Dear Future Self album).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> All they have to do is add active sound objects in the appropriate locations and it will use those speakers and many others.
> 
> Though honestly as I am not a sound engineer, I have no idea how difficult this idea actually is. I wouldnt imagine it would be that difficult considering its the primary function of the entire format, but I have no knowledge of this myself.


Well, considering what Filmmixer said about how it's actually more work to do those locked 7.1.2 printouts, there has to be some motivation for doing them that we're not understanding. The question is whether movies like RPO had a full object mix theatrically which was then folded down... and with what reasoning. At least if they said it was to conserve space, that would be a reason, though I don't know that any of these UHD discs are starved for space such that they have to do that. Perhaps it is to conserve space so they can cram all the other languages on the same disc to save on authoring/replication costs. Who knows? From my standpoint, if the encoder can do all the grouping of objects to convert the theatrical down to the home format, I'm not sure what reasoning would make sense to justify ANY Atmos mix getting locked down that way. I wouldn't think that would be something that the person doing the home conversion has to have much of a hand in, since they would mostly be working on adapting it for nearfield listening (which from a workflow perspective, I imagine they're doing to the objects in the theatrical format before conversion for home).

Again, because of how the home format functions, I don't know that this is a huge deal for people using 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. But it is kind of a slap in the face to people using higher channel counts, since the whole point of object-based mixes would be to have them be channel-agnostic so they adapt to whatever layout is present. Again, though... that is a niche within a group that is already pretty niche, so I'm not sure we'll ever see it change. Perhaps if reviewers like SpareChange started docking points heavily for static mixes so that they get negative reviews, the companies would stop doing it.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, though... that is a niche within a group that is already pretty niche, so I'm not sure we'll ever see it change.


Sadly, I have to agree that this is the case. The number of people affected are miniscule in the grand scheme of things. It's not going to change.


----------



## CommanderROR

I have a rather specific question:
I have had an "issue" with my Atmos Setup for a long time now. I currently have 6 Tops mounted, but it was the same for the 7.2.4 layout and it also doesn't seem to matter much whether the are mounted at the 30° or 45° elevation...

When I run the Dolby Helicopter demo track, then I can't seem to get the helicopter to fly in a circle or square above me. What I hear is the helicopter starting in the front height right, then moving overhead directly (like 90° above me) then to the front Left height. Then it moves to the rear left height, flies past somewhere above and behind me and returns to the front right height. 
I would expect it to sound like it is crossing in a line between my front ceiling speakers, instead of sounding like it swerves to the middle of the ceiling.


Any ideas? Is this a fault in the Demo or something to do with my Speaker layout or ears?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

CommanderROR said:


> I have a rather specific question:
> I have had an "issue" with my Atmos Setup for a long time now. I currently have 6 Tops mounted, but it was the same for the 7.2.4 layout and it also doesn't seem to matter much whether the are mounted at the 30° or 45° elevation...
> 
> When I run the Dolby Helicopter demo track, then I can't seem to get the helicopter to fly in a circle or square above me. What I hear is the helicopter starting in the front height right, then moving overhead directly (like 90° above me) then to the front Left height. Then it moves to the rear left height, flies past somewhere above and behind me and returns to the front right height.
> I would expect it to sound like it is crossing in a line between my front ceiling speakers, instead of sounding like it swerves to the middle of the ceiling.
> 
> 
> Any ideas? Is this a fault in the Demo or something to do with my Speaker layout or ears?


Something wired in reverse? Out of phase speakers can do this.


----------



## MagnumX

CommanderROR said:


> I have a rather specific question:
> I have had an "issue" with my Atmos Setup for a long time now. I currently have 6 Tops mounted, but it was the same for the 7.2.4 layout and it also doesn't seem to matter much whether the are mounted at the 30° or 45° elevation...
> 
> When I run the Dolby Helicopter demo track, then I can't seem to get the helicopter to fly in a circle or square above me. What I hear is the helicopter starting in the front height right, then moving overhead directly (like 90° above me) then to the front Left height. Then it moves to the rear left height, flies past somewhere above and behind me and returns to the front right height.
> I would expect it to sound like it is crossing in a line between my front ceiling speakers, instead of sounding like it swerves to the middle of the ceiling.
> 
> 
> Any ideas? Is this a fault in the Demo or something to do with my Speaker layout or ears?


The front height speakers are out of phase. Check your speaker +/- connections.


----------



## CommanderROR

Nope, everything is wired correctly and Audyssey didn't complain about anything either. I have had this exact same phenomenon with different Speakers in different locations...the only thing I could imagine is that maybe the Ceiling Speakers are spread too far apart, but I don't really think so.

On a side note...on a YT Video with binaural recordings of this same demo, I believe I got the same effect on headphones...so maybe it's intentional in this demo?


Edit: I believe it was in this Video.


----------



## Josh Z

CommanderROR said:


> Nope, everything is wired correctly and Audyssey didn't complain about anything either. I have had this exact same phenomenon with different Speakers in different locations...the only thing I could imagine is that maybe the Ceiling Speakers are spread too far apart, but I don't really think so.
> 
> On a side note...on a YT Video with binaural recordings of this same demo, I believe I got the same effect on headphones...so maybe it's intentional in this demo?


Do you have a receiver or processor that decodes x.x.6, or are you doing Scatmos to extract Top Middles? 

I think this is a wiring or setup issue. It's definitely not intentional. I've played that demo many times, and the helicopter moves in an accurate circling pattern over my head. (IIRC, it's a counter-clockwise circle, but I don't have time to check at the moment.)


----------



## CommanderROR

I'm running this on a Denon X6700 so yes, native 7.2.6 support. But the issue was there with a 7.2.4 Setup and a Yamaha 3080 as well, so it's not down to the AVR. Cables are all fine, but I can check them again...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, considering what Filmmixer said about how it's actually more work to do those locked 7.1.2 printouts, there has to be some motivation for doing them that we're not understanding. The question is whether movies like RPO had a full object mix theatrically which was then folded down... and with what reasoning. At least if they said it was to conserve space, that would be a reason, though I don't know that any of these UHD discs are starved for space such that they have to do that. Perhaps it is to conserve space so they can cram all the other languages on the same disc to save on authoring/replication costs. Who knows? From my standpoint, if the encoder can do all the grouping of objects to convert the theatrical down to the home format, I'm not sure what reasoning would make sense to justify ANY Atmos mix getting locked down that way. I wouldn't think that would be something that the person doing the home conversion has to have much of a hand in, since they would mostly be working on adapting it for nearfield listening (which from a workflow perspective, I imagine they're doing to the objects in the theatrical format before conversion for home).
> 
> Again, because of how the home format functions, I don't know that this is a huge deal for people using 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. But it is kind of a slap in the face to people using higher channel counts, since the whole point of object-based mixes would be to have them be channel-agnostic so they adapt to whatever layout is present. Again, though... that is a niche within a group that is already pretty niche, so I'm not sure we'll ever see it change. Perhaps if reviewers like SpareChange started docking points heavily for static mixes so that they get negative reviews, the companies would stop doing it.


i think the simplist reason is the easiest.
They are lazy.

think about it-how many people in their target sales audience has MORE than 7.1.4??? Maybe 1%....if that.

what's their incentive when the vast vast majority have a sonos arc or some other soundbar that does "atmos" and the relatively large remainder have maybe 7.1.4 and a scant amount of buyers would qualify as beyond 7.1.4...there isn't nearly enough to move the needle and as much as I would love it, it's a numbers game.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Josh Z said:


> Do you have a receiver or processor that decodes x.x.6, or are you doing Scatmos to extract Top Middles?
> 
> I think this is a wiring or setup issue. It's definitely not intentional. I've played that demo many times, and the helicopter moves in an accurate circling pattern over my head. (IIRC, it's a counter-clockwise circle, but I don't have time to check at the moment.)


Been awhile for me too but iirc it makes a squarish pattern in my IC tops. Definitely clear in its pattern. 
I also still think it’s wiring.


----------



## CommanderROR

Just a theory here (since I can't see anything wrong with the wiring):
I have my Heights angled and pointing right at my head in the MLP...so, strictly speaking, the "phantom center" between the height Channels is right above my head...which is what happens when the helicopter arrives at the point directly in the middle between the two front height Speakers...maybe I will try angling them differently and see how that affects the sound.
It's a pity there is no better demo material that purely runs in the heigh channels though...


----------



## MagnumX

It's definitely nothing to do with angled speakers. That affects frequency response not imaging location. Try reversing the +/- wires on just one of the front height speakers and play it again and see what it does. It's not impossible the speakers are wired backward inside even. The fact it only happens in the front height suggests it's a phase problem as that is exactly what it does when they're out of phase (purposely tried it here). Audyssey is unreliable detecting phase, particularly near the ceiling where reflections can cause havoc.

There's also the remote possibility it's your ears/brain hearing it differently (sinus issue even?), but I'd imagine you'd have the same problem with the center image on regular stereo speakers if that were the case.


----------



## CommanderROR

I will try it tomorrow. But since this has been an issue for me for years with three different kinds of ceiling Speakers and amps, I doubt it is the wiring. Maybe my ears/brain are at fault here...but I don't have the issue with the fronts...
I don't really notice it with actual content though, just the helicopter demo and to a lesser extent the DTS simulator on the Xbox Series X


----------



## chmorgan

Does anyone know if and where from the helicopter demo can be downloaded to a flash drive or is there a demo disc that can be purchased with various atmos demos on it?


----------



## halcyon_888

chmorgan said:


> Does anyone know if and where from the helicopter demo can be downloaded to a flash drive or is there a demo disc that can be purchased with various atmos demos on it?


Search or scroll down on this page to find the helicopter demo:






Samples - Official Kodi Wiki







kodi.wiki


----------



## chmorgan

halcyon_888 said:


> Search or scroll down on this page to find the helicopter demo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samples - Official Kodi Wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kodi.wiki


Thanks. I tried this page once before but I didn't see a way to download any of the files. Maybe I was having a senior moment. I'll give it another shot.


----------



## niterida

CommanderROR said:


> I'm running this on a Denon X6700 so yes, native 7.2.6 support. But the issue was there with a 7.2.4 Setup and a Yamaha 3080 as well, so it's not down to the AVR. Cables are all fine, but I can check them again...


Could be the room reflections since that appears to be the only common thing left


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> Thanks. I tried this page once before but I didn't see a way to download any of the files. Maybe I was having a senior moment. I'll give it another shot.


I'm all too familiar with those kinda moments. Try this:









Dolby ATMOS Helicopter.m2ts







drive.google.com


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Could be the room reflections since that appears to be the only common thing left


That was my thought. If he has a sidewall reflection with widely spaced heights, it could be causing a perceived reversal. I encountered that back when I had Polk in-ceilings, but changing the way I had them aimed helped. In my current room, my top right rear speaker did something similar and it ended up being because of a picture on the wall that was dead on the reflection point.


CommanderROR said:


> Just a theory here (since I can't see anything wrong with the wiring):
> I have my Heights angled and pointing right at my head in the MLP...so, strictly speaking, the "phantom center" between the height Channels is right above my head...which is what happens when the helicopter arrives at the point directly in the middle between the two front height Speakers...maybe I will try angling them differently and see how that affects the sound.
> It's a pity there is no better demo material that purely runs in the heigh channels though...


Don't point them right at the MLP. Try the theatrical method of aiming them at a point half-way between their position and the center line/MLP instead. Or if they are close to the sidewalls, you might even try them criss-crossed so the left heights aim more toward the right seats and vice versa. That might help move the sidewall reflection further off-axis.


----------



## CommanderROR

Thanks!
Sidewall reflections are definitely part of the problem, but I am starting to think that the spacing of the Speakers is possibly the main culprit. The "center image" gets too diffuse and then the perceived location of the sound seems to be coming from "somewhere between the Speakers" which then leads to the perceived location directly overhead.
Unfortunately testing out a narrower placement is a bit problematic since I will have to drill new holes in my concrete ceiling and also work around aom absorbers...but I guess I will try it when I have some time


----------



## niterida

CommanderROR said:


> Thanks!
> Sidewall reflections are definitely part of the problem, but I am starting to think that the spacing of the Speakers is possibly the main culprit. The "center image" gets too diffuse and then the perceived location of the sound seems to be coming from "somewhere between the Speakers" which then leads to the perceived location directly overhead.
> Unfortunately testing out a narrower placement is a bit problematic since I will have to drill new holes in my concrete ceiling and also work around aom absorbers...but I guess I will try it when I have some time


My front heights are in the top corenrs of the room, 14' apart and nearly 12' from MLP, while the rears are in Auro 3D position above my surrounds at 110deg. Helicopter flies perfectly aorund the room.
And to clarify something you said earlier - the helicopter demo uses only the heights - there is no sound in the ear level speakers at all according to @MagnumX


----------



## priitv8

niterida said:


> And to clarify something you said earlier - the helicopter demo uses only the heights - there is no sound in the ear level speakers at all according to @MagnumX


I think he also mentioned that bass management cross-over can bring some of it down to mains/subs.


----------



## MagnumX

CommanderROR said:


> Thanks!
> Sidewall reflections are definitely part of the problem, but I am starting to think that the spacing of the Speakers is possibly the main culprit. The "center image" gets too diffuse and then the perceived location of the sound seems to be coming from "somewhere between the Speakers" which then leads to the perceived location directly overhead.
> Unfortunately testing out a narrower placement is a bit problematic since I will have to drill new holes in my concrete ceiling and also work around aom absorbers...but I guess I will try it when I have some time


It’s a lot easier to try swapping a speaker cable than drilling holes in the ceiling. I can virtually guarantee you the width of those speakers has nothing to do with it nor wall reflections. Those cannot place sounds above your head nor would a diffuse image. It would still be in front of you not overhead, but out of phase can seem overhead because it is coming from a non-specific direction.


----------



## CommanderROR

I agree, however, since I have checked and rechecked the phase and cabling, I have to conclude that it wasn't the issue...🤷‍♂️


----------



## MagnumX

CommanderROR said:


> I agree, however, since I have checked and rechecked the phase and cabling, I have to conclude that it wasn't the issue...🤷‍♂️


You could try connecting the height speakers to the main L/R connections and play a regular stereo signal through it with phase check and see if you get a phantom center or not (simple in-phase, out-of-phase signal test like from DTS will work or just a typical modern pop/rock song as their vocals are normally in the center). If it sounds weird both in and out of phase you'll know it's something with the room or even the speakers themselves. If it sounds normal, it might be something wrong the AVR height channels and/or amps for them.


You're not the only one with a bizarre problem. I'm having my own misery right now with my home Network (cable modem will no longer connect gigabit to the router and neither will my Mac server, but same cables connect to other gigabit devices just fine as gigabit). I've tried two different routers even with the same result. I could believe the ethernet jack went bad (a pin or two that's needed for gigabit but not 100Mbps), but BOTH Ethernet jacks on the Mac and cable modem? The pins all look fine (not bend or marked). I've tried several cables as well. It's absurd.

It all use to work fine too, but then one day.... It stopped working all on its own. At least one cable works with one router and not the other, but another cable works with both, but neither will do gigabit, but if I connect the cable to the router and another gigabit device (e.g. AC wall network device), it reads Gigabit just fine on the router. It's unbelievable as it appears to point to two Ethernet ports going partially bad at the same time, which sounds absurd. I'm wondering if there's interference from my new UPS units or something (but it didn't happen the day I installed them or anything). At least I'm getting 100Mbps connections (limits throughput to 79Mbps wired and around 60Mbps WiFi when I got the full 130 on both before and higher than that local network from laptop to server for file transfers, almost 900Mbps) and now all shot to hell. I guess I'll start with getting the cable modem replaced....


----------



## f1ms

A couple of quick questions:

1. Are the .4 height speakers discrete i.e. front and rear height left receive different signals or front right and left receive different signals? Asking if I need a 4 channel amp or if a 2 channel with a 2 speaker pair option would work (probably in .2 config?)

2. Should the speakers be aimed at the MLP or point straight down. The Dolby site seem to indicate straight down if mounted 45 degrees in front of and behind the MLP.

Thanks


----------



## AndreNewman

MagnumX said:


> It all use to work fine too, but then one day.... It stopped working all on its own. At least one cable works with one router and not the other, but another cable works with both, but neither will do gigabit, but if I connect the cable to the router and another gigabit device (e.g. AC wall network device), it reads Gigabit just fine on the router. It's unbelievable as it appears to point to two Ethernet ports going partially bad at the same time, which sounds absurd. I'm wondering if there's interference from my new UPS units or something (but it didn't happen the day I installed them or anything). At least I'm getting 100Mbps connections (limits throughput to 79Mbps wired and around 60Mbps WiFi when I got the full 130 on both before and higher than that local network from laptop to server for file transfers, almost 900Mbps) and now all shot to hell. I guess I'll start with getting the cable modem replaced....


As there's a cable modem involved look into a grounding problem, cable networks are notorious for introducing noise on the grounds. There can sometimes be so much interference the Ethernet port will negotiate down to 100M or even 10M because 1G doesn't appear to work, too much hash.


----------



## AndreNewman

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, considering what Filmmixer said about how it's actually more work to do those locked 7.1.2 printouts, there has to be some motivation for doing them that we're not understanding.


I have a theory.

I wonder if the theatrical mix has very heavy use of objects with very different trajectories. If so maybe a home version folded down to home atmos limitations sounds really bad? Either because there is too much going on and the objects don't group very well, or because the "easy button" automatic grouping does a bad job in these situations?

If so perhaps doing a locked printout mix actually sounds better, all the objects get rendered properly at full quality as they are channelised. Probably the positioning suffers but maybe the end result sound better overall.

We will never know I'm sure but maybe these printed mixes sound better than a bit starved object based mix where there aren't enough objects possible and the limited bandwidth in home atmos isn't enough.

IDK, just a theory.


----------



## CommanderROR

MagnumX said:


> You could try connecting the height speakers to the main L/R connections and play a regular stereo signal through it with phase check and see if you get a phantom center or not (simple in-phase, out-of-phase signal test like from DTS will work or just a typical modern pop/rock song as their vocals are normally in the center). If it sounds weird both in and out of phase you'll know it's something with the room or even the speakers themselves. If it sounds normal, it might be something wrong the AVR height channels and/or amps for them.
> 
> 
> You're not the only one with a bizarre problem. I'm having my own misery right now with my home Network (cable modem will no longer connect gigabit to the router and neither will my Mac server, but same cables connect to other gigabit devices just fine as gigabit). I've tried two different routers even with the same result. I could believe the ethernet jack went bad (a pin or two that's needed for gigabit but not 100Mbps), but BOTH Ethernet jacks on the Mac and cable modem? The pins all look fine (not bend or marked). I've tried several cables as well. It's absurd.
> 
> It all use to work fine too, but then one day.... It stopped working all on its own. At least one cable works with one router and not the other, but another cable works with both, but neither will do gigabit, but if I connect the cable to the router and another gigabit device (e.g. AC wall network device), it reads Gigabit just fine on the router. It's unbelievable as it appears to point to two Ethernet ports going partially bad at the same time, which sounds absurd. I'm wondering if there's interference from my new UPS units or something (but it didn't happen the day I installed them or anything). At least I'm getting 100Mbps connections (limits throughput to 79Mbps wired and around 60Mbps WiFi when I got the full 130 on both before and higher than that local network from laptop to server for file transfers, almost 900Mbps) and now all shot to hell. I guess I'll start with getting the cable modem replaced....


Thanks!
I used a small stereo amp to test just that. I have the Cesky test disk where a voice calls out the left, center and right positions and also the in phase and out of phase callouts. I tested all three pairs of Overhead speakers this way, and got the strange "directly overhead" effect only on the front height. It is 95% a room acoustics anomaly...🤷‍♂️


Concerning your network issue...I feel you! I recently connected a WiFi bridge upstairs, and it simply wouldn't connect to the Internet. I tried everything and nothing helped. After messing with it for hours I stumbled on the solution...the port on my Ethernet switch had somehow gone dead, although it was showing activity and everything else was working. After connection right to the Router, it suddenly worked. I had a different Switch lying around and hooked that up, and that also worked. Restarting the switch fixed the issue for a bit, but for some reason the exact combo of that switch and WiFi Bridge kept on acting up. Electronics are weird...never had any issues with the Switch, it was running non-stop gor 3 years...but now I don't trust it anymore and am using the old one again.
Funny side note: the Wifi Bridge turned out to have other issues, so I replaced it with a different one now. The Switch probably would not have any problems with this one, but I still refrained from using it again...🙈


----------



## CommanderROR

f1ms said:


> A couple of quick questions:
> 
> 1. Are the .4 height speakers discrete i.e. front and rear height left receive different signals or front right and left receive different signals? Asking if I need a 4 channel amp or if a 2 channel with a 2 speaker pair option would work (probably in .2 config?)
> 
> 2. Should the speakers be aimed at the MLP or point straight down. The Dolby site seem to indicate straight down if mounted 45 degrees in front of and behind the MLP.
> 
> Thanks


They are discrete, so for 4 height Channels you need a 4 Channel amp or 2X Stereo amp.

And the Speakers should be angled towards the MLP at least to some degree if the don't have perfect 45° or more dispersion (which almost no Speaker has).


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> I'm all too familiar with those kinda moments. Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby ATMOS Helicopter.m2ts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


That worked like a charm. Thank you so much!


----------



## Nick V

Just wondering if anyone is running 7.x.4, but with front wides instead of surround back channels? Is that layout even supported?

My room is fairly small (15' x 11' x 8', but with a 2' bump-out along the back 2/3 of the room on one side to 13' wide) and the seating is fairly close to the rear wall (3' to MLP). My current 5.2.4 setup is very close to the Dolby guideline. Due to a large window beside the couch on one side, I went with the 5.x.4 layout as the surround speakers had to be a little behind the MLP due to the window. 

I don't think I would gain much by putting surround back speakers a couple feet away (on the back wall) from the current side surrounds that are already positioned slightly behind the MLP, but I could close up a different angle gap by installing front wides on the side walls about 5-6' in front of the MLP on the other side of that dreaded window. I'd be installing a pair of JBL Synthesis SCL-7 which angle the compression driver towards the MLP which would help out a bit as well.

The room:


















It might not be worthwhile at the end of the day, just thinking about a future upgrade.


----------



## sdurani

Nick V said:


> Just wondering if anyone is running 7.x.4, but with front wides instead of surround back channels? Is that layout even supported?


Most receivers and processors that support Wides will allow for an alternate 7.1 base layer that is 5.1+Wides. This configuration is especially useful for narrow rooms like yours. IF your receiver does support Wides, consider placing speakers at the forward edge of the window (and directly opposite), aimed towards the listeners. 

Let's separate channels from speakers for a moment. With a 5.1+Wides layout, the Rear channels go to the Surround speakers rearward you. The Wides info goes to the Wides speakers forward of you. Here's the interesting part: the Side channels are routed to both pairs of speakers, Surrounds and Wides, so that those sounds phantom image at your sides (where the Side speakers would have been). This allows you to hear those sounds from their intended direction without having a speaker on the side wall shouting down the ear canal of the listener on either end of the couch. Perfect for narrow rooms.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

CommanderROR said:


> Thanks!
> Sidewall reflections are definitely part of the problem, but I am starting to think that the spacing of the Speakers is possibly the main culprit. The "center image" gets too diffuse and then the perceived location of the sound seems to be coming from "somewhere between the Speakers" which then leads to the perceived location directly overhead.
> Unfortunately testing out a narrower placement is a bit problematic since I will have to drill new holes in my concrete ceiling and also work around aom absorbers...but I guess I will try it when I have some time


Before you go moving stuff, check to see if it is sidewall reflections by hanging a blanket up on the sidewall to see how it changes. Or have someone hold a pillow at the reflection point while you listen. Just an idea. If that sorts things out, it should be easy enough to do a little treatment on those spots or re-aim the speakers to account for it.


----------



## Josh Z

CommanderROR said:


> Just a theory here (since I can't see anything wrong with the wiring):
> I have my Heights angled and pointing right at my head in the MLP...so, strictly speaking, the "phantom center" between the height Channels is right above my head...which is what happens when the helicopter arrives at the point directly in the middle between the two front height Speakers...maybe I will try angling them differently and see how that affects the sound.


The next time you play the helicopter demo, stand up and walk around your room from speaker to speaker following the sound. So long as you stand close enough, you should be able to conclusively tell which speakers the sound is coming from at what time.

If the speakers are firing in the correct order, then the problem is either the phase or their positioning.


----------



## ppasteur

Chirosamsung said:


> i think the simplist reason is the easiest.
> They are lazy.
> 
> think about it-how many people in their target sales audience has MORE than 7.1.4??? Maybe 1%....if that.
> 
> what's their incentive when the vast vast majority have a sonos arc or some other soundbar that does "atmos" and the relatively large remainder have maybe 7.1.4 and a scant amount of buyers would qualify as beyond 7.1.4...there isn't nearly enough to move the needle and as much as I would love it, it's a numbers game.


I think that "less than 1%" part may apply to people that have 7.1.4 systems that are setup properly. Not only 7.1.6 systems. Heck the vast majority of people use TV speakers or sound bars. They are thrilled if they see some kind of light come on that says "Atmos"...
Yes, as people here are all enthusiasts talking to each other, we forget how rare a breed we are.


----------



## Chirosamsung

ppasteur said:


> I think that "less than 1%" part may apply to people that have 7.1.4 systems that are setup properly. Not only 7.1.6 systems. Heck the vast majority of people use TV speakers or sound bars. They are thrilled is they see some kind of light come on that says "Atmos"...
> Yes, as people here are all enthusiasts talking to each other, we forget how rare a breed we are.


Agreed. it is naive to think they will change their mixing strategy for a niche or a niche amount of users


----------



## CommanderROR

Josh Z said:


> The next time you play the helicopter demo, stand up and walk around your room from speaker to speaker following the sound. So long as you stand close enough, you should be able to conclusively tell which speakers the sound is coming from at what time.
> 
> If the speakers are firing in the correct order, then the problem is either the phase or their positioning.


Yep, I did that and the sound is coming from all the right speakers at the correct time.

I also already have a decent amount of room treatment installed since my room is quite small.


----------



## CommanderROR

Nick V said:


> Just wondering if anyone is running 7.x.4, but with front wides instead of surround back channels? Is that layout even supported?
> 
> My room is fairly small (15' x 11' x 8', but with a 2' bump-out along the back 2/3 of the room on one side to 13' wide) and the seating is fairly close to the rear wall (3' to MLP). My current 5.2.4 setup is very close to the Dolby guideline. Due to a large window beside the couch on one side, I went with the 5.x.4 layout as the surround speakers had to be a little behind the MLP due to the window.
> 
> I don't think I would gain much by putting surround back speakers a couple feet away (on the back wall) from the current side surrounds that are already positioned slightly behind the MLP, but I could close up a different angle gap by installing front wides on the side walls about 5-6' in front of the MLP on the other side of that dreaded window. I'd be installing a pair of JBL Synthesis SCL-7 which angle the compression driver towards the MLP which would help out a bit as well.
> 
> The room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be worthwhile at the end of the day, just thinking about a future upgrade.


Concerning Wides...I tried them briefly but gave up on them. The trouble was, that they are not included in most static Atmos Mixes (which sadly means many) and weren't even used that much by the Upmixers. So, you're essentially installing two Speakers that will remain silent most of the time, at least if you are running one of the usual AVRs like Denon/Marantz.
The more pricey options like Trinnov that allow Channel remapping can make better use of Wides, but that's a completely different matter.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

I have a 6.2.4 Atmos setup and find my Atmos speakers get far more use with Atmos music which has come on strong in the last year. Just wondering - does Atmos music also use the middles in a 6 speaker Atmos configuration ? I'm guessing no, but just wondered.


----------



## MagnumX

CommanderROR said:


> Concerning Wides...I tried them briefly but gave up on them. The trouble was, that they are not included in most static Atmos Mixes (which sadly means many) and weren't even used that much by the Upmixers. So, you're essentially installing two Speakers that will remain silent most of the time, at least if you are running one of the usual AVRs like Denon/Marantz.
> The more pricey options like Trinnov that allow Channel remapping can make better use of Wides, but that's a completely different matter.


That's why I'm still using Scatmos and active additive mixers and even parallel impedance matching speaker switches that can drive sets of speakers in parallel (instant array options which works great for Auro-3D) for my extra 6-channels over the 7012's outputs. 

They all work with everything including discrete Top Middle for Atmos and DTS:X. Even my rears and two sets of arrayed overheads (surround height and rear height arrayed) now works as surround arrays in Auro-3D just like the theater version and for a tiny fraction of the price of a Trinnov. 

The Monoprice HTP-1 is the first AVP that has me considering an upgrade to 15-channel discrete (I'd use Scatmos for SS#2 speakers instead of Top Middle and then have the option for truly discrete 17-channel sound with DIRAC instead of Audyssey. 

The remaining issues other than a supply shortage include their own built-in mixer option for front wides on fixed soundtracks and non-support (like Auro-3D) doesn't work for Top Middle currently when it was advertised as such (firmware issue I'm sure) and a boot loop problem and the continued lack of DTS:X Pro support (promised for years now). If they get those sorted then I'll likely upgrade. I don't want to take a step back to move one forward. At best I'd end up going sideways (save DIRAC). 

For now, Scatmos and mixer/switches work surprisingly well. Fully discrete isn't a giant leap forward in Atmos like stereo to 5.1. Arrays work quite well for fill and Scatmos is nearly as good as real discrete rendering without the non-functional drawbacks of fixed layout soundtracks. 

It's why I'd fully support Xperi (DTS) offering a full post-Atmos rendering version of the Neural X upmixer. It could, for example in this mode use a fixed 7.1.4 rendering as the basis the same way it already works for DTS:X 7.1.4 mixes. Once it's been rendered to 7.1.4, Atmos is no longer any _functionally_ different from X in that sense and most certainly COULD be upmixed to more speakers at that stage in the chain just like X can in the Pro version of DTS:X. 

It wouldn't need to be aware of objects or anything. If you don't hear your extra beyond 7.1.4 speakers working, click Atmos 7.1.4 + Neural X from the upmixer menu and it would behave for Atmos the same way it would for X by limiting rendering to 7.1.4 channels and treating the output the same as it does X's 7.1.4 channel output). This would work with 100% certainty (despite the ignorant condescending comments of one or two on here towards me).

I'm other words, these issues _can_ be worked around even if the studios and film mixers of the world don't give a crap about what they see as a very small (yet highly lucrative part of the home theater market; just ask Trinnov who as you correctly pointed out have their own workaround of a sort with their remapping feature and ability to create copies of channels {i.e arrays} as desired to at least not have dead zone gaps in the room as a missing Top Middle can do with Heights in a large room). 

What the studios don't apparently appreciate is that when you aim for the bottom of the market instead of the top of it, people are bound to be disappointed by it. Even people who couldn't afford $25,000 CRT projectors back in the 1990s could still appreciate them at trade shows and see where the market is going in the future and maybe give people something to save up for to one day own.

When you show them broken locked soundtracks that don't even hardly use the overheads anyway and play it over soundbars made to sell at Best Buy, they tend to be less impressed at these shows and wonder why they should even bother. TV speakers and phone playback is what the industry aims for these days.... It's sad, but then some say it's all about participation now, not being a winner so what else can you really expect? Aim low and expect even less.


----------



## MagnumX

bobbyhollywood said:


> I have a 6.2.4 Atmos setup and find my Atmos speakers get far more use with Atmos music which has come on strong in the last year. Just wondering - does Atmos music also use the middles in a 6 speaker Atmos configuration ? I'm guessing no, but just wondered.


It certainly does use them so long as they made it with objects, which most, if not all of them do as far as I know. It seems to be only movie studios that treat their own customers with utter contempt in that regard.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> What the studios don't apparently appreciate is that when you aim for the bottom of the market instead of the top of it, people are bound to be disappointed by it. Even people who couldn't afford $25,000 CRT projectors back in the 1990s could still appreciate them at trade shows and see where the market is going in the future and maybe give people something to save up for to one day own.


I wonder if Netflix so openly supporting aggressive Atmos mixes will prompt the old mainline studios to encourage more aggressive use of Atmos on their home video mixes? All of the Netflix A-titles are delivered in Atmos, usually with a lot of dynamic range and pretty aggressive use of the format. Netflix requires their mixes to be monitored at a minimum of 7.1.4 but strongly encourages monitoring at 9.1.6, and they are delivered as object mixes, not pre-rendered to a fixed layout.


----------



## CommanderROR

MagnumX said:


> That's why I'm still using Scatmos and active additive mixers and even parallel impedance matching speaker switches that can drive sets of speakers in parallel (instant array options which works great for Auro-3D) for my extra 6-channels over the 7012's outputs.
> 
> They all work with everything including discrete Top Middle for Atmos and DTS:X. Even my rears and two sets of arrayed overheads (surround height and rear height arrayed) now works as surround arrays in Auro-3D just like the theater version and for a tiny fraction of the price of a Trinnov.
> 
> The Monoprice HTP-1 is the first AVP that has me considering an upgrade to 15-channel discrete (I'd use Scatmos for SS#2 speakers instead of Top Middle and then have the option for truly discrete 17-channel sound with DIRAC instead of Audyssey.
> 
> The remaining issues other than a supply shortage include their own built-in mixer option for front wides on fixed soundtracks and non-support (like Auro-3D) doesn't work for Top Middle currently when it was advertised as such (firmware issue I'm sure) and a boot loop problem and the continued lack of DTS:X Pro support (promised for years now). If they get those sorted then I'll likely upgrade. I don't want to take a step back to move one forward. At best I'd end up going sideways (save DIRAC).
> 
> For now, Scatmos and mixer/switches work surprisingly well. Fully discrete isn't a giant leap forward in Atmos like stereo to 5.1. Arrays work quite well for fill and Scatmos is nearly as good as real discrete rendering without the non-functional drawbacks of fixed layout soundtracks.
> 
> It's why I'd fully support Xperi (DTS) offering a full post-Atmos rendering version of the Neural X upmixer. It could, for example in this mode use a fixed 7.1.4 rendering as the basis the same way it already works for DTS:X 7.1.4 mixes. Once it's been rendered to 7.1.4, Atmos is no longer any _functionally_ different from X in that sense and most certainly COULD be upmixed to more speakers at that stage in the chain just like X can in the Pro version of DTS:X.
> 
> It wouldn't need to be aware of objects or anything. If you don't hear your extra beyond 7.1.4 speakers working, click Atmos 7.1.4 + Neural X from the upmixer menu and it would behave for Atmos the same way it would for X by limiting rendering to 7.1.4 channels and treating the output the same as it does X's 7.1.4 channel output). This would work with 100% certainty (despite the ignorant condescending comments of one or two on here towards me).
> 
> I'm other words, these issues _can_ be worked around even if the studios and film mixers of the world don't give a crap about what they see as a very small (yet highly lucrative part of the home theater market; just ask Trinnov who as you correctly pointed out have their own workaround of a sort with their remapping feature and ability to create copies of channels {i.e arrays} as desired to at least not have dead zone gaps in the room as a missing Top Middle can do with Heights in a large room).
> 
> What the studios don't apparently appreciate is that when you aim for the bottom of the market instead of the top of it, people are bound to be disappointed by it. Even people who couldn't afford $25,000 CRT projectors back in the 1990s could still appreciate them at trade shows and see where the market is going in the future and maybe give people something to save up for to one day own.
> 
> When you show them broken locked soundtracks that don't even hardly use the overheads anyway and play it over soundbars made to sell at Best Buy, they tend to be less impressed at these shows and wonder why they should even bother. TV speakers and phone playback is what the industry aims for these days.... It's sad, but then some say it's all about participation now, not being a winner so what else can you really expect? Aim low and expect even less.


Interesting...
Where do you get that info about DTS Upmixing? I have DTS:X Pro and have the Neural:X Upmixing active, but when a native DTS:X is playing, I don't get any Neural:X Upmixing as far as I can tell. That might be somehow related to the way the Xbox Series X outputs DTS:X though...I'm not sure. Sadly I don't have any DTS Sources beyond the Xbox Games...
On Atmos I of course can't currently apply Neural:X but it would be cool if this were possible in future, essentially like what Yamaha does with their Surround:AI. I don't see much hope though, because Dolby will try everything to stop a rival Upmixer from being applied on top of native Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

CommanderROR said:


> Interesting...
> Where do you get that info about DTS Upmixing? I have DTS:X Pro and have the Neural:X Upmixing active, but when a native DTS:X is playing, I don't get any Neural:X Upmixing as far as I can tell. That might be somehow related to the way the Xbox Series X outputs DTS:X though...I'm not sure. Sadly I don't have any DTS Sources beyond the Xbox Games...
> On Atmos I of course can't currently apply Neural:X but it would be cool if this were possible in future, essentially like what Yamaha does with their Surround:AI. I don't see much hope though, because Dolby will try everything to stop a rival Upmixer from being applied on top of native Atmos.


Dolby already changed their policy on allowing upmixers, even for Atmos after the European Union threatened them with legal action so theoretically DTS or anyone else could extend their upmixer to use rendered Atmos output. So far, the only thing I know of that comes close is Storm XT that allows Auro-3D CS and TS (VOG) speakers to be used and Trinnov’s remapping and Array features and of course many AVRs allow Neural X upmixing of the 7.1 base tracks, but the door is now open to go further. Monoprice uses active mixing to extend sound to otherwise unused front wides (It was supposed to work with Top Middle as well, but currently seems broken there last I checked).

On D&M AVRs, there’s a setting to allow Neural X to be used with DTS:X. With DTS:X Pro, this should extend to speakers available beyond 7.1.4. If I don’t use all 11 channels here, it will use Top Surround, for example even on my 11.1 AVR. On my older 7010, it will also use front wides if available.


----------



## CommanderROR

Yeah, I have that option active on my Denon X6700 and it sadly doesn't seem to extend to my Top Middle Speakers when receiving a DTS:X 7.1.4 signal from the Xbox Series X. 
It also doesn't extend to the Heights at all when getting a DTS:X Signal with no Output in the Height Channels (that is what the Xbox does when a Game doesn't have native Spatial Audio).
Atmos on the Xbox automatically uses DSU Upmixing when no native Spatial Audio is detected. Sadly Atmos doesn't extend its signal to additional Height Channels when it gets a static 7.1.x Mix...but that's a different story.

I think this might be down to the way the Xbox handles DTS:X, but that my experience.so far.


----------



## MagnumX

CommanderROR said:


> Yeah, I have that option active on my Denon X6700 and it sadly doesn't seem to extend to my Top Middle Speakers when receiving a DTS:X 7.1.4 signal from the Xbox Series X.
> It also doesn't extend to the Heights at all when getting a DTS:X Signal with no Output in the Height Channels (that is what the Xbox does when a Game doesn't have native Spatial Audio).
> Atmos on the Xbox automatically uses DSU Upmixing when no native Spatial Audio is detected. Sadly Atmos doesn't extend its signal to additional Height Channels when it gets a static 7.1.x Mix...but that's a different story.
> 
> I think this might be down to the way the Xbox handles DTS:X, but that my experience.so far.


That does sound a bit suspicious with the Xbox using DTS:X without heights for games (sounds similar to the PS4 using "7.1" output to the receiver when the game is clearly only using 5.1 channels or a song is in stereo. It's really just multichannel audio mode through HDMI. 

So you've never tried an actual DTS:X UHD disc with your system to see what it does? The reviews I read even before DTS:X Pro came out sometimes tested Top Surround (VOG) with 5.1.4 + VOG. It only used it for directly overhead steering, but it reportedly worked.


----------



## CommanderROR

It is essentially down to the Xbox trying not to switch Sound Modes. If you enable DTS:X the DTS app takes over and encodes everything as DTS:X. However, this doesn't take into account whether there is actually more than 2, 5 or 7 Speakers being supplied with a signal. Dolby handled it similarly at first and then changed it.
Ideally, the system would fall back to 7.1 PCM it no Spatial Audio is available and only go DTS: X when needed, but there were apparently technical.issues with that.
Dolby sadly forces everything that doesn't have native Spatial info into using DSU,.which isn't ideal either. Also...Atmos causes Aufio Delay which DTS doesn't (or at least only to a lesser extent) and 7.1 PCM even less, even with Neural:X Upmixing.

Anyway...BTT...😇


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> I wonder if Netflix so openly supporting aggressive Atmos mixes will prompt the old mainline studios to encourage more aggressive use of Atmos on their home video mixes?


Possibly. Hopefully. It can't do any harm, at least 

But we're still a niche. Most viewers have the TV's internal speakers only (or one of those new "sound bar" things I've heard about) at best


----------



## halcyon_888

AndreNewman said:


> I have a theory.
> 
> I wonder if the theatrical mix has very heavy use of objects with very different trajectories. If so maybe a home version folded down to home atmos limitations sounds really bad? Either because there is too much going on and the objects don't group very well, or because the "easy button" automatic grouping does a bad job in these situations?
> 
> If so perhaps doing a locked printout mix actually sounds better, all the objects get rendered properly at full quality as they are channelised. Probably the positioning suffers but maybe the end result sound better overall.
> 
> We will never know I'm sure but maybe these printed mixes sound better than a bit starved object based mix where there aren't enough objects possible and the limited bandwidth in home atmos isn't enough.
> 
> IDK, just a theory.


It's a good theory IMO. Ready Player One sounds like one of the Atmos Demos: there is a *lot *going on in this soundtrack and it makes sense that the theater mix might not have sounded good folded down to the home mix due to the objects not grouping well. So your theory that the locked print actually sounded better makes perfect sense to me. Now in the case of the Disney Atmouse tracks, I wouldn't use this theory 😆


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> That worked like a charm. Thank you so much!


No problem.
If you want to test the transitions of your whole speaker array (not just the heights) ... front to back only. Turn up the volume and try this (you'll have to copy and paste the link into your browser):



http://www.snamsup.com/download/Dolby-Atmos-Demo-Test/DOLBY-ATMOS-747-Takeoff.zip


----------



## robert600

robert600 said:


> (you'll have to copy and paste the link into your browser):


 Actualy, I think you can just click on the link!


----------



## ppasteur

mrtickleuk said:


> But we're still a niche. Most viewers have the TV's internal speakers only (or one of those new "sound bar" things I've heard about) at best


Is there an echo in here ???


----------



## CommanderROR

robert600 said:


> No problem.
> If you want to test the transitions of your whole speaker array (not just the heights) ... front to back only. Turn up the volume and try this (you'll have to copy and paste the link into your browser):
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.snamsup.com/download/Dolby-Atmos-Demo-Test/DOLBY-ATMOS-747-Takeoff.zip


Thanks! I will download and try this.


----------



## X4100

LOVED LOVED LOVED IT


----------



## regster

robert600 said:


> No problem.
> If you want to test the transitions of your whole speaker array (not just the heights) ... front to back only. Turn up the volume and try this (you'll have to copy and paste the link into your browser):
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.snamsup.com/download/Dolby-Atmos-Demo-Test/DOLBY-ATMOS-747-Takeoff.zip


I bet this sounds great, unfortunately my panny UB820 doesn't support this file, but thanks for the Helicopter link worked great and the sound goes around my 6 in ceiling speakers



sdrucker said:


> Then explain this between 1:18:00 and 1:19:00:
> f59f42dd-342a-446d-aa93-84fff0756e28-png.3218273


I also played this scene on my 6700H 5.1.6 setup both on UHD disc and VUDU digital copy and unfortunately sound only came out of the TM speakers. If it did have audio on the other channels it might have been too faint for my ears standing on a step ladder below. 



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, because of how the home format functions, I don't know that this is a huge deal for people using 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. But it is kind of a slap in the face to people using higher channel counts, since the whole point of object-based mixes would be to have them be channel-agnostic so they adapt to whatever layout is present. Again, though... that is a niche within a group that is already pretty niche, so I'm not sure we'll ever see it change. Perhaps if reviewers like SpareChange started docking points heavily for static mixes so that they get negative reviews, the companies would stop doing it.


Have quite a collection of UHD movies with Atmos, and because of these static mixes I was debating to try changing back from 6 to 4 top format to see if I can enjoy the likes of RP1 and others better, but after watching DUNE (all tops active) and the first 3 of 8 the Harry Potter collection this weekend.... that experiment is not going to happen  .

Surprisingly, I found some movies like Edge of Tomorrow, V for Vendetta and Gravity streamed on VUDU and ATV for Gravity have pretty dynamic heights and not limited to top middle.


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> No problem.
> If you want to test the transitions of your whole speaker array (not just the heights) ... front to back only. Turn up the volume and try this (you'll have to copy and paste the link into your browser):
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.snamsup.com/download/Dolby-Atmos-Demo-Test/DOLBY-ATMOS-747-Takeoff.zip


Thank you for the link! Unfortunately my blu-ray player won't play this file type. This would have been a great sanity check.


----------



## MagnumX

regster said:


> I also played this scene on my 6700H 5.1.6 setup both on UHD disc and VUDU digital copy and unfortunately sound only came out of the TM speakers. If it did have audio on the other channels it might have been too faint for my ears standing on a step ladder below.


Interesting. @sdrucker was metaphorically beating my head with that scene (never got around to checking it out that detailed), but it seems it's not what it appears to be.



> Have quite a collection of UHD movies with Atmos, and because of these static mixes I was debating to try changing back from 6 to 4 top format to see if I can enjoy the likes of RP1 and others better, but after watching DUNE (all tops active) and the first 3 of 8 the Harry Potter collection this weekend.... that experiment is not going to happen  .


I really don't think the Top Middle only rendition is a real problem anyway. I can easily switch between "discrete" Top Middle ("Scatmos" full center extraction") and an arrayed top middle that acts more like 4-channel overhead would if the room were smaller and at least for the front two rows, the race scene in Ready Player One sounds better with Top Middle only than an array. I think this is because a 4-channel pan tends to pull towards the closer speaker (Precedence Effect) and even with a proper delay, it still shifts its position in the room somewhat if you're sitting closer to one than the other. 

With Top Middle, it images precisely in the same location every time regardless of where you sit. In the case of Ready Player One, this means the part just before the semi-truck that passes overhead where the Delorean hits the pile of boxes under the freeway overpass, the boxes remain fixed in my room regardless of where I sit with Top Middle only. They sound like they just miss my head in the front row and go flying just in front of my head in the 2nd row. With a 4-channel (or 6-channel array pan behaving similar to one), the boxes tend to move further back into the room and the boxes don't sound like they're going to hit my head at all (takes all the impact away from the scene). The semi-truck is a much stronger pan and sounds good either way. In other words, I think the sounds in that movie are meant to be discrete overhead, not dual-mono arrayed overhead as it simply sounds better here that way. Yes, true 4 or 6-channel panning overhead would be better yet, but the way it was mixed, it's meant to be a strict sound effect directly in the middle of the room in line with the side surrounds so the ear-level panning works correctly.



> Surprisingly, I found some movies like Edge of Tomorrow, V for Vendetta and Gravity streamed on VUDU and ATV for Gravity have pretty dynamic heights and not limited to top middle.


Most movies outside Disney (save a few from Universal) use proper overhead panning. There's no way I would go to 4-channel overhead just for a handful of movies even if they did sound better that way. Besides, if you really want 4-channel overhead, you can simply disable the top middle speaker in the settings menu for that movie and it will use 4 overheads instead. You don't actually have to handicap your room permanently to achieve that effect (unless of course that meant you were going to move the 4 overheads closer together or something).


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched _Fifty Shades of Darker_ in DTS:X and I have to say for a non-action movie it was pretty impressive sounding. Helicopters and fireworks overhead. Songs in full surround on multiple levels instead of just up front and actual room ambience in scenes all around. Sadly, the first movie in X wasn't as good sounding, but it was more of a 4K retrofit (not that it excuses it). Even the regular BD of the 2nd and 3rd movies had X on them. So I assume the 3rd movie will do well too when I get around to it. Yeah, I know this type of movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the soundtrack was a pleasant surprise just the same.


----------



## Chirosamsung

CommanderROR said:


> Concerning Wides...I tried them briefly but gave up on them. The trouble was, that they are not included in most static Atmos Mixes (which sadly means many) and weren't even used that much by the Upmixers. So, you're essentially installing two Speakers that will remain silent most of the time, at least if you are running one of the usual AVRs like Denon/Marantz.
> The more pricey options like Trinnov that allow Channel remapping can make better use of Wides, but that's a completely different matter.


is there any list of data base on which atmos movies use wides? I am thinking of going to 9.1.4 in the next month and just wonder what content is actually out there.


----------



## CommanderROR

Chirosamsung said:


> is there any list of data base on which atmos movies use wides? I am thinking of going to 9.1.4 in the next month and just wonder what content is actually out there.


You can check out Spare Change's YouTube Channel. He does a lot of Reviews with the Atmos Object Viewer enabled, so you get an idea of which Movies are Channel based and which ones.are Object Based.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I just watched _Fifty Shades of Darker_ in DTS:X and I have to say for a non-action movie it was pretty impressive sounding. Helicopters and fireworks overhead. Songs in full surround on multiple levels instead of just up front and actual room ambience in scenes all around. Sadly, the first movie in X wasn't as good sounding, but it was more of a 4K retrofit (not that it excuses it). Even the regular BD of the 2nd and 3rd movies had X on them. So I assume the 3rd movie will do well too when I get around to it. Yeah, I know this type of movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the soundtrack was a pleasant surprise just the same.


looooool. Fifty shades of darker?!?

If I ever got through the hundreds of movies I want to one day I don't know if I would fall back to a movie like that and if I did I don't know if I would mention it on AVS lmao

on another note-do you think they will rerelease the sex in the city movie from years back in 4k with Dolby atmos and if they do can you let us know how the sound from the top middle is on that one...would love to know. Also, if the panning and the bass is good as well, that way I'll know whether it's a day one buy for me


----------



## Chirosamsung

CommanderROR said:


> You can check out Spare Change's YouTube Channel. He does a lot of Reviews with the Atmos Object Viewer enabled, so you get an idea of which Movies are Channel based and which ones.are Object Based.


i will Definetly check that out-was just curious if anyone compiled a list anywhere of atmos movies that use wides (ie 9.1.4 or 9.1.6). Probably a long shot. Thanks for pointing me in that direction


----------



## CommanderROR

Ok, so I repositioned my Atmos Speakers today...waa quite a lot of work.
My acoustical anomaly seems slightly better, but still there. It was still worth it though, because I made use if the situation and optimised my elevation angles a bit. Sounds good so far, but I haven't retun Audyssey yet ..will do that tomorrow


----------



## sdrucker

regster said:


> I also played this scene on my 6700H 5.1.6 setup both on UHD disc and VUDU digital copy and unfortunately sound only came out of the TM speakers. If it did have audio on the other channels it might have been too faint for my ears standing on a step ladder below.


A couple of possibilities:
1) You're running 5.1.6, and I'm running 13.1.6 with both side and rear surrounds, as well as wides and five screen speakers (L,Lc,C,Rc,R). There might be some folding down of the objects due to just having a single pair of surrounds, although why that would affect pullout to top front and top rears is beyond me. I can try to replicate this (or test it) by playing that scene with your 5.1.6 setup and see if I pick up something similar on the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer and the Output screenshot I put up for the 'maximum' use of channels in that timeframe. I can do a test preset to look at that when I'm home later tonight.
2) Trinnov is supposedly using the original code supplied by Dolby for Atmos, while other manufacturers are using DSP implementations of the Dolby code. There could be some compromise in how the DSP processing of Atmos works compared to the original code, or Trinnov has an update that's not in the DSP of the 6700H.

The screenshot that you reposted from me has two dynamic objects between the L/Lw and Ltf, and two between the R/Rw and Rtf. It was a scene where there was an effect from an overhead speaker. But now that I think of it, I wonder if the lack of wides in your 5.1.6 setup might have something to do with what you're hearing: those two pairs of objects in my screenshot might get folded down into the mains, which might mean that with just a 5.1.6 setup, your top front are silent IF those objects are doing some playback of top front and wides with L/R.

You might want to read my full post on that scene here:








The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used. Totally agree. Objects can be used at ear level as well and that’s when the wides, extra fronts (Lc/Rc, Lsc/Rsc), and extra surrounds come into play. Most people don’t have these so they use heights as an indication of Atmos object...




www.avsforum.com





Or...it could just be that if you just play the top front you're not hearing much of anything at your listening volume. In my screenshot of the output, the top front and wides are playing about -20db vs. LCR and about -10db vs. the top middle.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Interesting. @sdrucker was metaphorically beating my head with that scene (never got around to checking it out that detailed), but it seems it's not what it appears to be.


Read my post on the subject today. Frankly without the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer I wouldn't have bothered looking and found where those top front speakers or wides were momentarily lighting up from that 1:18 to 1:19 timeframe, and played the scene a few times with more attention to what I was hearing and seeing on the Output viewer. 

I know you've put a lot of time into Scatmos, mixers, and other technology to stretch out a more basic 7.1.4 (I think) Atmos decode in your room, but as long as it's an enjoyable mix I don't obsess nearly much as I would have a few years ago about what speakers are playing or when. Unless it obviously stands out with an aggressive panning with the objects, or maybe some music content like Booka Shade (where I really think with Spatial Audio and Tidal Atmos the Atmos-based mixes play up the advantage of 3D audio in higher channel count more than movies).

Agreed about the race scene in RP1. It's plain old 7.1.2. I've went back and forth with turning off my top middles to force that overhead TM to play from both TF and TR, but the difference in what I hear is so subtle that I don't usually bother unless I feel that the overhead effect is artificial.


----------



## squared80

Yrd said:


> Is that the consensus then? That speaker should be at ear level?
> 
> Yes I can pack the guitar up, but if I just set it on top of that container, with something to raise it a little, will probably be easiest. I even have some isolation pads from an older setup.
> 
> Just eyeballing the situation, the pictured speaker, on top of that plastic container would be exactly the height of the front floor standers. Maybe with the pads, the exact height.


I haven't been following this whole thread, but bottom line, if base level speakers aren't at or near ear level, you're compromising your experience. And if Atmos speakers aren't above you in the ceiling, anything else you do is a compromise to that, too.

If you _can _do ear level and/or in-ceiling, but choose not you, you're making a mistake. Many people don't have those options, but they still get as close as possible.


----------



## MagnumX

squared80 said:


> I haven't been following this whole thread, but bottom line, if base level speakers aren't at or near ear level, you're compromising your experience. And if Atmos speakers aren't above you in the ceiling, anything else you do is a compromise to that, too.
> 
> If you _can _do ear level and/or in-ceiling, but choose not you, you're making a mistake. Many people don't have those options, but they still get as close as possible.


Why do you believe it has to be in-ceiling? What's wrong with _on_ or _at_ the ceiling (I.e. Just below it). We're talking inches difference at most. People's ceiling heights are often a foot or more. We can't hear sounds placed accurately in terms of height above us to that degree anyway and in-ceiling speakers often can't be aimed properly at the listeners compared to on or at ceiling brackets. 

Auro Technologies did a study about overhead sounds and found we're not only better at localizing sources placed at the 20-35 degree range (with a helper overhead "Voice of God" array to bridge the difference for direct overhead sounds with the surround height speakers handling directivity) but that >85% of real sounds fall within that range. It's why they went with Heights + VOG instead of Tops speakers. 

Dolby would need Heights plus Top Middle to achieve something similar in terms of overhead range and scope, but that's where the locked soundtracks that don't support Top Middle become a real issue and it's one that shouldn't exist in the first place, IMO. 

It might have been preferable to have a 13-15 channel system that actually gets fully utilized every single time instead of a 34-channel capable system that often does not.


----------



## regster

MagnumX said:


> I really don't think the Top Middle only rendition is a real problem anyway. I can easily switch between "discrete" Top Middle ("Scatmos" full center extraction") and an arrayed top middle that acts more like 4-channel overhead would if the room were smaller and at least for the front two rows, the race scene in Ready Player One sounds better with Top Middle only than an array. I think this is because a 4-channel pan tends to pull towards the closer speaker (Precedence Effect) and even with a proper delay, it still shifts its position in the room somewhat if you're sitting closer to one than the other.
> 
> With Top Middle, it images precisely in the same location every time regardless of where you sit. In the case of Ready Player One, this means the part just before the semi-truck that passes overhead where the Delorean hits the pile of boxes under the freeway overpass, the boxes remain fixed in my room regardless of where I sit with Top Middle only. They sound like they just miss my head in the front row and go flying just in front of my head in the 2nd row. With a 4-channel (or 6-channel array pan behaving similar to one), the boxes tend to move further back into the room and the boxes don't sound like they're going to hit my head at all (takes all the impact away from the scene). The semi-truck is a much stronger pan and sounds good either way. In other words, I think the sounds in that movie are meant to be discrete overhead, not dual-mono arrayed overhead as it simply sounds better here that way. Yes, true 4 or 6-channel panning overhead would be better yet, but the way it was mixed, it's meant to be a strict sound effect directly in the middle of the room in line with the side surrounds so the ear-level panning works correctly.
> 
> Most movies outside Disney (save a few from Universal) use proper overhead panning. There's no way I would go to 4-channel overhead just for a handful of movies even if they did sound better that way. Besides, if you really want 4-channel overhead, you can simply disable the top middle speaker in the settings menu for that movie and it will use 4 overheads instead. You don't actually have to handicap your room permanently to achieve that effect (unless of course that meant you were going to move the 4 overheads closer together or something).


Thanks for expounding on this. I had doubts to begin with - that I'm missing much with just having top middles vs a 4 top array - which from my understanding when setup properly would be imaging sound between the TF and TR, which is where my TM speakers are. I think that curiosity of how that imaging sounds from four speaker vs discrete TM's is what was nagging on me. Well, with one row seating, it looks like I'm good the way it is set up. 

No, definitely not making new holes to move the overheads. Was just thinking of changing the assign setup from 5.1.6 to 5.1.4. Thank for the tip!, I didn't even think of just disabling the TM speaker, just need to figure out how to do that in the settings.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

CommanderROR said:


> Ok, so I repositioned my Atmos Speakers today...waa quite a lot of work.
> My acoustical anomaly seems slightly better, but still there. It was still worth it though, because I made use if the situation and optimised my elevation angles a bit. Sounds good so far, but I haven't retun Audyssey yet ..will do that tomorrow


Room trearments. Control your reflections.


----------



## regster

sdrucker said:


> A couple of possibilities:
> 1) You're running 5.1.6, and I'm running 13.1.6 with both side and rear surrounds, as well as wides and five screen speakers (L,Lc,C,Rc,R). There might be some folding down of the objects due to just having a single pair of surrounds, although why that would affect pullout to top front and top rears is beyond me. I can try to replicate this (or test it) by playing that scene with your 5.1.6 setup and see if I pick up something similar on the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer and the Output screenshot I put up for the 'maximum' use of channels in that timeframe. I can do a test preset to look at that when I'm home later tonight.
> 
> You might want to read my full post on that scene here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...
> 
> 
> Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used. Totally agree. Objects can be used at ear level as well and that’s when the wides, extra fronts (Lc/Rc, Lsc/Rsc), and extra surrounds come into play. Most people don’t have these so they use heights as an indication of Atmos object...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or...it could just be that if you just play the top front you're not hearing much of anything at your listening volume. In my screenshot of the output, the top front and wides are playing about -20db vs. LCR and about -10db vs. the top middle.


Didn't realize there was good discussion on this awhile back, curious to hear what you find out after you do a test on a 5.1.6 setup. Not sure about the listening volume, it is loud enough from the Top Middle and I played the entire scene while listening inches below from each top speaker.


----------



## CommanderROR

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Room trearments. Control your reflections.


Already did that.


----------



## sdrucker

regster said:


> Didn't realize there was good discussion on this awhile back, curious to hear what you find out after you do a test on a 5.1.6 setup. Not sure about the listening volume, it is loud enough from the Top Middle and I played the entire scene while listening inches below from each top speaker.


OK - last night I set up a temporary 5.1.6 preset like you have, and put on RP1 with the Atmos mix again with ATV4K as a source. And I still see those top fronts lighting up, but I'm finding that regardless of my layout, the top fronts are playing about 10 db lower than the top middles, in that scene at about 1:18:30. It's the part where the worker are marching in the facility, with a supporting music effect that expands a little bigger with the top fronts activated. In my setup with wides, same thing, lower level db but the extra speakers make those pair of "objects" I cited sound a bit bigger and three dimensional. It's just before the part where the overhead tells maintenance to report to a loyalty pod, if you want a reference.

The impact IS audible if you solo and as you play the mix louder, I will say. And I see something similar around 1:20:00, and between about 1:21:20 and :30 you get a distinct audible percussion effect from just the top fronts. Both of these are with the 5.1.6 preset I set up.

So, no object folding away of top front, and the effect is subtle in the "blink or you'll miss it sense". But if you play the same mix with the speakers set to 5.1.2 (another preset I did based on the 5.1.6), the difference is noticeable.

What I think: top fronts and wides are presence speakers here, used very sparingly, and leaving aside that they're used (vs. not) based on the Object Viewer, you have to really be sensitive to what they're doing and when. Whether you notice depends on the volume you listen to and your personal hearing sensitivity.

Bottom line is that this is NOT a fixed 7.1.2, but it could be more frequent IF you're one of those people that expect all your speakers to contribute at some time in any given movie you watch. And in the case of that overhead effect I mentioned, it's only coming from the top middle, but you'll swear it's just in front and above you rather than directly overhead with all speakers playing. Which could be ventriloquist effect when you listen solo (or not; my top middles are right at about 80 degrees azimuth horizontally from my row of seats), but in context it's perfectly fine for what you're hearing, and when, in this case.

This is a very long-winded way of saying to kick back and enjoy the mix. If 13.1.6 makes the mix momentarily at times more "realistic" or enjoyable than a 5.1.6 or 7.1.4 setup, go for it. Or just enjoy what you have and not worry about what speakers are playing, and when.


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> Thank you for the link! Unfortunately my blu-ray player won't play this file type. This would have been a great sanity check.





regster said:


> I bet this sounds great, unfortunately my panny UB820 doesn't support this file, but thanks for the Helicopter link worked great and the sound goes around my 6 in ceiling speakers


Ok ... I'm no expert on file tranfers and whatnot but I've uploaded these and I think the links work. They're both in m2ts format (same as helicopter) so they should work for you.

Sit at MLP ... turn up the volume ... and try not to flinch for takeoff lol. Here it is:

Google Drive - Virus scan warning

Here's another I quite like ... encounter:

Google Drive - Virus scan warning

Let me know if the links work as I don't really know what I'm doing.


----------



## robert600

Oh ... when I posted ... it changed the link address to that "virus scan warning". The link still works ... it just means the files were too large for goggle drive to check. I uploaded them myself so don't worry ... they're clean!


----------



## Apgood

sdrucker said:


> OK - last night I set up a temporary 5.1.6 preset like you have, and put on RP1 with the Atmos mix again with ATV4K as a source. And I still see those top fronts lighting up, but I'm finding that regardless of my layout, the top fronts are playing about 10 db lower than the top middles, in that scene at about 1:18:30. It's the part where the worker are marching in the facility, with a supporting music effect that expands a little bigger with the top fronts activated. In my setup with wides, same thing, lower level db but the extra speakers make those pair of "objects" I cited sound a bit bigger and three dimensional. It's just before the part where the overhead tells maintenance to report to a loyalty pod, if you want a reference.
> 
> The impact IS audible if you solo and as you play the mix louder, I will say. And I see something similar around 1:20:00, and between about 1:21:20 and :30 you get a distinct audible percussion effect from just the top fronts. Both of these are with the 5.1.6 preset I set up.
> 
> So, no object folding away of top front, and the effect is subtle in the "blink or you'll miss it sense". But if you play the same mix folded down to 5.1.2 (another preset I did based on the 5.1.6), it's noticeable.
> 
> What I think: top fronts and wides are presence speakers here, used very sparingly, and leaving aside that they're used (vs. not) based on the Object Viewer, you have to really be sensitive to what they're doing and when. Whether you notice depends on the volume you listen to and your personal hearing sensitivity.
> 
> Bottom line is that this is NOT a fixed 7.1.2, but it could be more frequent IF you're one of those people that expect all your speakers to contribute at some time in any given movie you watch. And in the case of that overhead effect I mentioned, it's only coming from the top middle, but you'll swear it's just in front and above you rather than directly overhead with all speakers playing. Which could be ventriloquist effect when you listen solo (or not; my top middles are right at about 80 degrees azimuth horizontally from my row of seats), but in context it's perfectly fine for what you're hearing, and when, in this case.
> 
> This is a very long-winded way of saying to kick back and enjoy the mix. If 13.1.6 makes the mix momentarily at times more "realistic" or enjoyable than a 5.1.6 or 7.1.4 setup, go for it. Or just enjoy what you have and not worry about what speakers are playing, and when.


Sounds like the extra speakers are really used to enhance/emphasise the content from some of the primary speakers. I wonder if this is to do with the object (cluster?) size?

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## sdrucker

Apgood said:


> Sounds like the extra speakers are really used to enhance/emphasise the content from some of the primary speakers. I wonder if this is to do with the object (cluster?) size?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


That could be, or the objects are very subtly designed to do that as "support" for the mains speaker.

Supposedly the Altitude's Object Viewer shows object size according to how big they're defined by the mixer, but I don't know if that's literally true. In the example where I did a screenshot, there were objects between the left speaker and top left front, and likewise between the right speaker and top right front (as well as just to the side of the wides).

I'll play that one scene again, isolate the L/R main along with the tops and wides, and see.


----------



## regster

sdrucker said:


> OK - last night I set up a temporary 5.1.6 preset like you have, and put on RP1 with the Atmos mix again with ATV4K as a source. And I still see those top fronts lighting up, but I'm finding that regardless of my layout, the top fronts are playing about 10 db lower than the top middles, in that scene at about 1:18:30. It's the part where the worker are marching in the facility, with a supporting music effect that expands a little bigger with the top fronts activated. In my setup with wides, same thing, lower level db but the extra speakers make those pair of "objects" I cited sound a bit bigger and three dimensional. It's just before the part where the overhead tells maintenance to report to a loyalty pod, if you want a reference.
> 
> The impact IS audible if you solo and as you play the mix louder, I will say. And I see something similar around 1:20:00, and between about 1:21:20 and :30 you get a distinct audible percussion effect from just the top fronts. Both of these are with the 5.1.6 preset I set up.
> 
> So, no object folding away of top front, and the effect is subtle in the "blink or you'll miss it sense". But if you play the same mix folded down to 5.1.2 (another preset I did based on the 5.1.6), it's noticeable.
> 
> What I think: top fronts and wides are presence speakers here, used very sparingly, and leaving aside that they're used (vs. not) based on the Object Viewer, you have to really be sensitive to what they're doing and when. Whether you notice depends on the volume you listen to and your personal hearing sensitivity.
> 
> Bottom line is that this is NOT a fixed 7.1.2, but it could be more frequent IF you're one of those people that expect all your speakers to contribute at some time in any given movie you watch. And in the case of that overhead effect I mentioned, it's only coming from the top middle, but you'll swear it's just in front and above you rather than directly overhead with all speakers playing. Which could be ventriloquist effect when you listen solo (or not; my top middles are right at about 80 degrees azimuth horizontally from my row of seats), but in context it's perfectly fine for what you're hearing, and when, in this case.
> 
> This is a very long-winded way of saying to kick back and enjoy the mix. If 13.1.6 makes the mix momentarily at times more "realistic" or enjoyable than a 5.1.6 or 7.1.4 setup, go for it. Or just enjoy what you have and not worry about what speakers are playing, and when.


That looks like a lot of work, thanks for checking it out and sharing, I tried listening to it again top Fronts a few times at the reference you mentioned with volume turned up much higher this time, maybe it's my ears I still didn't hear anything. Oh well. I was just curious. I'm good with my setup.


----------



## regster

robert600 said:


> Ok ... I'm no expert on file tranfers and whatnot but I've uploaded these and I think the links work. They're both in m2ts format (same as helicopter) so they should work for you.
> 
> Sit at MLP ... turn up the volume ... and try not to flinch for takeoff lol. Here it is:
> 
> Google Drive - Virus scan warning
> 
> Here's another I quite like ... encounter:
> 
> Google Drive - Virus scan warning
> 
> Let me know if the links work as I don't really know what I'm doing.


Links worked. Thanks for the conversion. Sounded great! the different effects on the encounter was quite interesting.. from spacecraft hovering above and then the clattering reminded me of a scene in the movie LIFE where the alien was trying to get into the different vents trying to escape the lab, but its probably just spacecraft clattering until it took off again at the end.


----------



## sdrucker

regster said:


> That looks like a lot of work, thanks for checking it out and sharing,


Not as much as you think. On the Altitude, there’s a tab where you can “solo” or “mute” each speaker individually, which also allow you to do the same thing for sets that you choose. It also shows the db level on an Input screen for each speaker of the audio as it’s being decoded in real time, which you can also freeze and take a screenshot. That’s how I was able to look at the audio the way I did.

Going through the scenes and moving back and forth was actually the more tedious part, but that’s where having both the ATV4K synched to my iPad with the remote there, and flipping through Trinnov Object Viewer, Input and Output screens on an app on my iPad (VNC) was super helpful.

I seriously doubt the Atmos mix is different on my Apple TV stream as on UHD disc, but I also have the shiny disc of RP1 and might repeat what I looked at just for fun.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdrucker said:


> Not as much as you think. On the Altitude, there’s a tab where you can “solo” or “mute” each speaker individually, which also allow you to do the same thing for sets that you choose. It also shows the db level on an Input screen for each speaker of the audio as it’s being decoded in real time, which you can also freeze and take a screenshot. That’s how I was able to look at the audio the way I did.
> 
> Going through the scenes and moving back and forth was actually the more tedious part, but that’s where having both the ATV4K synched to my iPad with the remote there, and flipping through Trinnov Object Viewer, Input and Output screens on an app on my iPad (VNC) was super helpful.
> 
> I seriously doubt the Atmos mix is different on my Apple TV stream as on UHD disc, but I also have the shiny disc of RP1 and might repeat what I looked at just for fun.


I wonder if people could make a preset on their AVR or processor like a DIRAC slot where the wides play much louder to get more of an effect while watching a movie with only rare and subtle wide usage...


----------



## MagnumX

Front Wides aren't just some discrete location to make louder. Proper wide usage is a smooth transition between mains and side surrounds (It exists nearly right between them). Changing the volume level of them would just muck the phantom panning up between either set. In other words, "subtle usage" implies that's how it's meant to sound (or the film mixer guy sucks at his job).


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> Ok ... I'm no expert on file tranfers and whatnot but I've uploaded these and I think the links work. They're both in m2ts format (same as helicopter) so they should work for you.
> 
> Sit at MLP ... turn up the volume ... and try not to flinch for takeoff lol. Here it is:
> 
> Google Drive - Virus scan warning
> 
> Here's another I quite like ... encounter:
> 
> Google Drive - Virus scan warning
> 
> Let me know if the links work as I don't really know what I'm doing.


Wow. Just Wow! So impressive. The Encounter was really spectacular with panning and isolated sounds and some nice use of LFE.

Thanks again for your effort sharing these demos. Are you getting these from the Kodi site? I saw some sort of Google download thingy for the demos there but have been hesitant to use it. All I have is a work computer and I really don't want to make a call to our IT department because I downloaded something nasty.


----------



## chmorgan

Is there some sort of an external object viewer available like the Trinnov has or is that something that is exclusive to Trinnov?


----------



## halcyon_888

Kodi is a legit website, see here for more information about what Kodi is:








Kodi (software) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





I use it for local file playback on my nVidia Shield, and I've downloaded demos from the website I posted a few days back with no problems.


----------



## appelz

Functional Testing by Dolby Labs


Album · 2022 · 16 Songs




music.apple.com





Another useful AppleTV app is https://apps.apple.com/us/app/surround-generator/id1254544184

I may have linked that one before.


----------



## MagnumX

chmorgan said:


> Wow. Just Wow! So impressive. The Encounter was really spectacular with panning and isolated sounds and some nice use of LFE.
> 
> Thanks again for your effort sharing these demos. Are you getting these from the Kodi site? I saw some sort of Google download thingy for the demos there but have been hesitant to use it. All I have is a work computer and I really don't want to make a call to our IT department because I downloaded something nasty.


There used to be a couple of sites that carried all the Atmos, Auro and X demos. I think at least one is still there, but they might not have had everything anymore. Hmmm, it looks like both sites are still active (links below)

Here's one:
Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater 

The other:








Dolby Atmos Demo Trailers | Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered and Silent


l➤ ⭐ Dolby Atmos Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered, Silent Demo Trailers for download ➨➨ in m2ts and mkv format.【 List of all downloads 】




www.demolandia.net


----------



## chmorgan

MagnumX said:


> There used to be a couple of sites that carried all the Atmos, Auro and X demos. I think at least one is still there, but they might not have had everything anymore. Hmmm, it looks like both sites are still active (links below)
> 
> Here's one:
> Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater
> 
> The other:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos Demo Trailers | Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered and Silent
> 
> 
> l➤ ⭐ Dolby Atmos Audiosphere, Horizon, Shattered, Silent Demo Trailers for download ➨➨ in m2ts and mkv format.【 List of all downloads 】
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.demolandia.net


Thanks for the info. Looking forward to checking these sites out.


----------



## appelz

chmorgan said:


> Thanks for the info. Looking forward to checking these sites out.


Some Trinnov trailers are available as well. 









Trinnov | Trinnov 2020 Trailer







www.trinnov.com


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Front Wides aren't just some discrete location to make louder. Proper wide usage is a smooth transition between mains and side surrounds (It exists nearly right between them). Changing the volume level of them would just muck the phantom panning up between either set. In other words, "subtle usage" implies that's how it's meant to sound (or the film mixer guy sucks at his job).


I mean more for systems that only have wide synth and not DTS:X Pro. Wide synth uses wides at 6 dB LOWER than they normally would be. This way DIRAC could possibly offset that by having a preset tht boosts the wides by 6 dB to negate that limitation

Make sense?


----------



## Erod

Chirosamsung said:


> I mean more for systems that only have wide synth and not DTS:X Pro. Wide synth uses wides at 6 dB LOWER than they normally would be. This way DIRAC could possibly offset that by having a preset tht boosts the wides by 6 dB to negate that limitation
> 
> Make sense?


The problem with wide synth (which I use) is that it essentially duplicates the sound in the fronts and side surrounds simultaneously, so when specific effects or music is being played in both the front and side surround, the front wide tends to be louder and draws too much attention to itself. 

However, without synth on, they hardly ever play anything.

I'm thinking about reducing the wides trims by a few decibels, but haven't tinkered with that yet.


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> Wow. Just Wow! So impressive. The Encounter was really spectacular with panning and isolated sounds and some nice use of LFE.
> 
> Thanks again for your effort sharing these demos. Are you getting these from the Kodi site? I saw some sort of Google download thingy for the demos there but have been hesitant to use it. All I have is a work computer and I really don't want to make a call to our IT department because I downloaded something nasty.


No ... I uploaded them straight from the 2015 Dolby Atmos Demonstration Blue Ray. I don't know why those 2 tracks are so hard to find online (given how good they are). I looked at that Kodi site a while back ... and like you ... it spooked me a bit ... I can't remember the details but I never ended up using it.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I mean more for systems that only have wide synth and not DTS:X Pro. Wide synth uses wides at 6 dB LOWER than they normally would be. This way DIRAC could possibly offset that by having a preset tht boosts the wides by 6 dB to negate that limitation
> 
> Make sense?


I would say it depends on the overall levels. Since the mains and sides are also playing, what's most important is that the sum total is the same loudness for the "Front Wide" speaker setting as all the other channels. With a mixer, you can change the balance of the mains versus side input. This also shifts the arrayed image combination of each set in the process (i.e. you can have your mains phantom image where they're not sitting or closer to them). I'm using an active mixer for the same effect (Scatmos processors take up a LOT of room so I only use two where it's most important for Top Middle and as a plus active mixing works great for 2-channel music as it widens it a bit).

Front wides are actually spaced slightly closer to the mains in most Dolby drawings, which can be a good thing as my front row would be too close to the front wides otherwise, but careful balancing is needed to get a strong front wide image at the front wide location and not drift the mains or sides too far off course (unless you want them to, of course as you can purposely set them closer together and let the mixed front wide array pull them apart in image while the actual speakers are closer together. Disabling the effect moves the image back to the speaker, however. Depending on the room layout, this may be desirable for music to have a wider sound than movies, for instance. So yes, it would be handy if one could store different input combinations to these "synth" front wides to move the phantom imaging where you want it for different sources.

It sounds like the wide synth feature can create a volume imbalance (@Erod above) which is where having access to the component makeup of the wide synth (how much main and sides go into it) can be helpful. I have to do that with potentiometers on the mixer here so I leave one setting and moved my mains slightly closer together and generally leave it on all the time, but having a discrete version in some movies might change where some of the imaging takes place. Such is both the problem and the usefulness of arrays depending on what you're aiming for.


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> No ... I uploaded them straight from the 2015 Dolby Atmos Demonstration Blue Ray. I don't know why those 2 tracks are so hard to find online (given how good they are). I looked at that Kodi site a while back ... and like you ... it spooked me a bit ... I can't remember the details but I never ended up using it.


Ok, thanks. I was looking at some of the newer demo disks myself. They're kind of spendy though. I remember seeing $19-$25 and I'm not sure that included shipping. I may just pop for one of them since I'll probably misplace my thumb drive at some point down the road.


----------



## howard68

So just got the surround generator App on Apple tv for $24 as it says it has tests for Atmos in 9.2.6
However it is a complete Con!
You only get 7.1 for that price
And want almost $60 to access the Atmos!
How do you get for a refund!

Don't fall for this B/S


----------



## howard68




----------



## X4100

Maybe this link will help https://m.facebook.com/studiosixdig...ur-apple-tv-surround-genera/3108321919261568/


----------



## appelz

howard68 said:


> So just got the surround generator App on Apple tv for $24 as it says it has tests for Atmos in 9.2.6
> However it is a complete Con!
> You only get 7.1 for that price
> And want almost $60 to access the Atmos!
> How do you get for a refund!
> 
> Don't fall for this B/S


Not my product, and i don't make anything from linking it. It is however, an extremely useful tool for professional calibrations. Individual channels, LCR, pink noise full bandwidth, bandwidth limited, impulse and polarity, etc etc. Quite a value to me. YMMV.


----------



## X4100

robert600 said:


> Ok ... I'm no expert on file tranfers and whatnot but I've uploaded these and I think the links work. They're both in m2ts format (same as helicopter) so they should work for you.
> 
> Sit at MLP ... turn up the volume ... and try not to flinch for takeoff lol. Here it is:
> 
> Google Drive - Virus scan warning
> 
> Here's another I quite like ... encounter:
> 
> Google Drive - Virus scan warning
> 
> Let me know if the links work as I don't really know what I'm doing.


I'm definitely not trying to "whip a dead horse, " but if anyone wants to experience the height as well as the overall sound as IT SHOULD BE on Dolby Atmos, just download and listen to the "Encounter" demo clip. Case closed! This is a very well done demo, sounds are phantom imagining where I never thought of putting actual speakers!   By the way THANKS for sharing @robert600


----------



## X4100

@robert600 I've been trying to get the 747 demo, THANKS FOR SHARING!! The sound travels my entire ceiling front to back, man that saved me from switching to top front/ top rear, and redoing audio calibration.


----------



## MagnumX

The Auro-3D demos have both a 747 front-to-back and two helicopters coming rear-to-front that are even more impressive sounding than the Atmos 747 if you can play them (Neural X does a reasonably good job with them). But yes, they're edge to edge and beyond on both (Atmos and Auro). 

There's an Auro movie clip from the movie Turbo with a plane that goes halfway across the room and then the camera changes view and it goes back the other way that's also impressive sounding. I bought the full 3D movie, but it had only 7.1 sound. However, Neural X did nearly as good a job with that scene (and more) than the Auro native demo (Auro-3D Demo Disc #1).

There's a Dolby Atmos "Rain Storm" demo that's quite impressive sounding, if slightly inaccurate too (text only picture with sound similar to The Encounter and 747 demos. It's a good one to check if the rain is all around and above (above might be inaccurate, but it's a good test of even coverage (You should be able to look up and still tell rain all around and above like it's practically bouncing off your head) especially across multiple rows and 6+ overhead speakers. 

The storm on the Dolby Atmos "Amaze" demo is more of a curtain of rain front to back, but also has that nice ear level bird flying around the room bit to test even ear level panning. It should come around in a circular fashion and turn mid-way between you and the front speakers and head back to the side left speaker from which it started. In the back third of my room (3rd row) it turns between the sides and rear speakers instead here passing through the front row instead of in front of it. 

HORIZON has a great spaceship pan across the entire ceiling plus loads of bugs (crickets), waterfalls, cars zooming by etc. 

SHATTERED has a great effect of a baseball breaking a window and shards going above, in front and all around. 

SILENT has this great effect of the Grinder organ moving from the rear of the room at ear level right through you into the front of the room at the start. If it doesn't move slowly and evenly and pass through you like a ghost you might need to tweak the levels or speaker placement.

AUDIOSPHERE has balls bouncing on a TRON-like disc with sounds/notes coming from around you where it lands on the disc as if you are the center of it. Music notes play above and to the sides on-screen and do the same above you crossing over towards the side surrounds. Depending on where you sit and if you limit what overheads are playing you can have them move in the front, middle or rear of the room to test the effect. 

CONDUCTOR has a great bird effect flying left to right up and across the ceiling and other animal sounds from rear ear and height level and then the girl swings around you like Indiana Jones. 

NATURE'S FURY has all kinds of effects matching the on-screen sphere light up positions and flies around you in all directions like a twirling gyroscope and then transitions to clips from other demos and scenes.


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> The Auro-3D demos have both a 747 front-to-back and two helicopters coming rear-to-front that are even more impressive sounding than the Atmos 747 if you can play them (Neural X does a reasonably good job with them). But yes, they're edge to edge and beyond on both (Atmos and Auro).
> 
> There's an Auro movie clip from the movie Turbo with a plane that goes halfway across the room and then the camera changes view and it goes back the other way that's also impressive sounding. I bought the full 3D movie, but it had only 7.1 sound. However, Neural X did nearly as good a job with that scene (and more) than the Auro native demo (Auro-3D Demo Disc #1).
> 
> There's a Dolby Atmos "Rain Storm" demo that's quite impressive sounding, if slightly inaccurate too (text only picture with sound similar to The Encounter and 747 demos. It's a good one to check if the rain is all around and above (above might be inaccurate, but it's a good test of even coverage (You should be able to look up and still tell rain all around and above like it's practically bouncing off your head) especially across multiple rows and 6+ overhead speakers.
> 
> The storm on the Dolby Atmos "Amaze" demo is more of a curtain of rain front to back, but also has that nice ear level bird flying around the room bit to test even ear level panning. It should come around in a circular fashion and turn mid-way between you and the front speakers and head back to the side left speaker from which it started. In the back third of my room (3rd row) it turns between the sides and rear speakers instead here passing through the front row instead of in front of it.
> 
> HORIZON has a great spaceship pan across the entire ceiling plus loads of bugs (crickets), waterfalls, cars zooming by etc.
> 
> SHATTERED has a great effect of a baseball breaking a window and shards going above, in front and all around.
> 
> SILENT has this great effect of the Grinder organ moving from the rear of the room at ear level right through you into the front of the room at the start. If it doesn't move slowly and evenly and pass through you like a ghost you might need to tweak the levels or speaker placement.
> 
> AUDIOSPHERE has balls bouncing on a TRON-like disc with sounds/notes coming from around you where it lands on the disc as if you are the center of it. Music notes play above and to the sides on-screen and do the same above you crossing over towards the side surrounds. Depending on where you sit and if you limit what overheads are playing you can have them move in the front, middle or rear of the room to test the effect.
> 
> CONDUCTOR has a great bird effect flying left to right up and across the ceiling and other animal sounds from rear ear and height level and then the girl swings around you like Indiana Jones.
> 
> NATURE'S FURY has all kinds of effects matching the on-screen sphere light up positions and flies around you in all directions like a twirling gyroscope and then transitions to clips from other demos and scenes.


LOVED your post! Those are the same demo effects I'm getting as well. Thanks again for your tip on Twister on Turbine Germany. Mine has shipped. I'm searching for the Auro version of the 747.


----------



## MagnumX

LEAF and UNFOLD are also great Atmos demos (all available on sites above). 

The OBJECT EMULATOR in DTS:X (also on a site above I posted) is a must hear as well (ball moves around room with different speaker configurations and plays out your speakers where it's displayed on screen in that configuration. There's a speaker test in X as well that's cool but it's 11.1 only. 

The Auro-3D trailer with 747 etc during it plus outdoor sounds etc. is on this page from above:









Auro 3D and other Brands Demo Trailers HD


l➤ ⭐ Auro 3D and Brands Demo Trailers HD and SD ➨➨ in Dolby Surround TrueHD, Atmos and DTS:X in mkv format.【 List of all downloads 】




www.demolandia.net


----------



## Gates

chmorgan said:


> Is there some sort of an external object viewer available like the Trinnov has or is that something that is exclusive to Trinnov?


Pretty sure it's only on the Trinnov.


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> LEAF and UNFOLD are also great Atmos demos (all available on sites above).
> 
> The OBJECT EMULATOR in DTS:X (also on a site above I posted) is a must hear as well (ball moves around room with different speaker configurations and plays out your speakers where it's displayed on screen in that configuration. There's a speaker test in X as well that's cool but it's 11.1 only.
> 
> The Auro-3D trailer with 747 etc during it plus outdoor sounds etc. is on this page from above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auro 3D and other Brands Demo Trailers HD
> 
> 
> l➤ ⭐ Auro 3D and Brands Demo Trailers HD and SD ➨➨ in Dolby Surround TrueHD, Atmos and DTS:X in mkv format.【 List of all downloads 】
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.demolandia.net


You da man!


----------



## howard68

It is asking for $59!!!! For just a Atmos 9.1.6 test
You can get a Dolby Demo disc test from eBay for half that !
Trying to get a refund for the original $24
From apple
Total B%$l S&$t

Dont fall for this everyone


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> The OBJECT EMULATOR in DTS:X (also on a site above I posted) is a must hear as well (ball moves around room with different speaker configurations and plays out your speakers where it's displayed on screen in that configuration. There's a speaker test in X as well that's cool but it's 11.1 only.


It's quite disingenuous on the part of DTS to call that an object emulator as there are no objects, just fixed channels and panned audio, and the only reason it tops out at 7.1.4 is the fact that this is pretty much consumer DTS: X's limit (IMAX DTS: X has one more channel in an uncommon location).


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's quite disingenuous on the part of DTS to call that an object emulator as there are no objects, just fixed channels and panned audio


Perhaps it refers to the object visible on the screen. Plus "emulator" means something similar to simulator, which would mean simulated objects, not "real" ones. 

Either way, I don't have the tools to see if it uses an object or channels so I'll take your word for it, but some of the more recent demos from DTS at trade shows have used objects. They can't force Hollywood to use them in the home soundtracks when it's so much simpler to convert the unlimited object masters to 7.1.4 and let Neural X handle the rest.

I don't really understand the obsession with "objects" on here when a large number of Atmos movies (i.e. Disney) don't use them properly and most of the rest don't pan a damn thing through the front wides. Most DTS:X soundtracks regularly use front wides if you have Neural X active for them (within limit or Pro). The Harry Potter series in DTS:X, for example, pans right through them all the time. Atmos movies seem to go out of their way to magically start at the side surrounds and if anything pan backwards from there or just pan into the sides straight from the mains while somehow skipping over the front wide location (very odd since panning through them with an object would automatically use them).

Even if you only have 7.1.4 it will still phantom pan smoothly through that area of the room. Again, many Atmos soundtracks seem to go out of their way to avoid that part of the room entirely. I'm not sure how they're doing that since any object moving from front-to-back should pass through that area and render a phantom image even if you don't have front wides. Perhaps if "snap to" is turned on it avoids them automatically? I'm not certain what "snap to" does during a pan. Does it just sit there doing nothing if front wides aren't available or is panning lost entirely when it's on and it only "jumps" to the next speaker if the object moves closer to one than the other?

Personally, I don't really care if Neural X fills in the mid-point like "Scatmos" does or Atmos "renders" the points in-between with more speakers. The end result will sound pretty much the same. Some have suggested there might be more "spatial resolution" with "rendering" as opposed to "steering" but I highly doubt this would be even slightly noticeable in an average sized home theater. I'm not sure anyone would even notice in a cinema since they aren't known for their precision (most Atmos cinema reviews talk about how "loud" ruins any sense of space at all and sadly, you can't typically go to your local Atmos cinema and ask they play your favorite Dolby Demo disc to compare to the home version.



> and the only reason it tops out at 7.1.4 is the fact that this is pretty much consumer DTS: X's limit (IMAX DTS: X has one more channel in an uncommon location).


If you re-read what I wrote I was referring to the DTS:X Speaker Test demo that calls out channels specifically, not the object emulator, which should pan through any speakers in-between those locations on-screen if you have DTS:X Pro _NOT_ the so-called "Object Emulator" demo. While it shows only 11 speakers on-screen, it will use more if you have them available within your processor limits. The Speaker Callout demo, OTOH, will not (beyond the intro part showing the floor panning into place) as it calls out specific speaker locations only.



howard68 said:


> It is asking for $59!!!! For just a Atmos 9.1.6 test
> You can get a Dolby Demo disc test from eBay for half that !
> Trying to get a refund for the original $24
> From apple
> Total B%$l S&$t
> 
> Dont fall for this everyone


It might be worth the money if it could send test tones to all potential 34.1 speakers that Dolby Atmos offers, not just 9.1.6 (e.g. I'd like a calibration tone for SS#2 to use with either Scatmos or active mixing to set the levels precisely). 

Beyond whatever calibration options Trinnov offers, I have not heard of any Atmos (or X) speaker test tone demos that can send pink noise to every single speaker Atmos or X offers. Even the ones on the Auro-3D demo discs for its 13.1 speakers are sine wave tones, not pink noise so they're of limited value, IMO. I could set Top Surround's level here on my Marantz 7012 using the speaker test tone, but it doesn't take Audyssey calibration into account so it might be incorrect even so.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> Perhaps it refers to the object visible on the screen. Plus "emulator" means something similar to simulator, which would mean simulated objects, not "real" ones.
> 
> Either way, I don't have the tools to see if it uses an object or channels so I'll take your word for it, but some of the more recent demos from DTS at trade shows have used objects. They can't force Hollywood to use them in the home soundtracks when it's so much simpler to convert the unlimited object masters to 7.1.4 and let Neural X handle the rest.
> 
> I don't really understand the obsession with "objects" on here when a large number of Atmos movies (i.e. Disney) don't use them properly and most of the rest don't pan a damn thing through the front wides. Most DTS:X soundtracks regularly use front wides if you have Neural X active for them (within limit or Pro). The Harry Potter series in DTS:X, for example, pans right through them all the time. Atmos movies seem to go out of their way to magically start at the side surrounds and if anything pan backwards from there or just pan into the sides straight from the mains while somehow skipping over the front wide location (very odd since panning through them with an object would automatically use them).
> 
> Even if you only have 7.1.4 it will still phantom pan smoothly through that area of the room. Again, many Atmos soundtracks seem to go out of their way to avoid that part of the room entirely. I'm not sure how they're doing that since any object moving from front-to-back should pass through that area and render a phantom image even if you don't have front wides. Perhaps if "snap to" is turned on it avoids them automatically? I'm not certain what "snap to" does during a pan. Does it just sit there doing nothing if front wides aren't available or is panning lost entirely when it's on and it only "jumps" to the next speaker if the object moves closer to one than the other?
> 
> Personally, I don't really care if Neural X fills in the mid-point like "Scatmos" does or Atmos "renders" the points in-between with more speakers. The end result will sound pretty much the same. Some have suggested there might be more "spatial resolution" with "rendering" as opposed to "steering" but I highly doubt this would be even slightly noticeable in an average sized home theater. I'm not sure anyone would even notice in a cinema since they aren't known for their precision (most Atmos cinema reviews talk about how "loud" ruins any sense of space at all and sadly, you can't typically go to your local Atmos cinema and ask they play your favorite Dolby Demo disc to compare to the home version.
> 
> 
> 
> If you re-read what I wrote I was referring to the DTS:X Speaker Test demo that calls out channels specifically, not the object emulator, which should pan through any speakers in-between those locations on-screen if you have DTS:X Pro _NOT_ the so-called "Object Emulator" demo. While it shows only 11 speakers on-screen, it will use more if you have them available within your processor limits. The Speaker Callout demo, OTOH, will not (beyond the intro part showing the floor panning into place) as it calls out specific speaker locations only.


According to FilmMixer, home DTS: X was limited to channels by DTS themselves, _not_ the industry. DTS told the engineers that any other speaker positions would be addressed using an upmixer. If you look at their DTS Production Suite software it even says it outputs 11.1 or 12.1 (IMAX). The consumer trade show DTS: X tracks do not use objects either. Yes, you can use objects during mixing, just like Dolby Atmos, but then on export you can only choose one of the two options. As for cinema DTS: X (which I don't know if it's really used that much in theaters anyway), which is based on the MDA format, those limits may not be present because it's a different animal.

Without true 3D pannable objects on the exported file, DTS: X Pro is an upmixer. That's all.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> As for cinema DTS: X (which I don't know if it's really used that much in theaters anyway), which is based on the MDA format, those limits may not be present because it's a different animal.


The cinema version is all objects with no defined speaker placement (complete flexibility). I was at the roll-out for the home version and DTS used the event to promote both versions, allowing for some blurring of features between the two. It's no wonder that some at AVS initially thought that the home version was all objects with no defined speaker placement (remember when folks thought that you could place the speakers anywhere and DTS:X would compensate?).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> The cinema version is all objects with no defined speaker placement (complete flexibility). I was at the roll-out for the home version and DTS used the event to promote both versions, allowing for some blurring of features between the two. It's no wonder that some at AVS initially thought that the home version was all objects with no defined speaker placement (remember when folks thought that you could place the speakers anywhere and DTS:X would compensate?).


Yes, I sure remember the initial rollout. The PR spin said one thing, the reality was entirely another, at least in terms of the consumer version. What I don't get is why DTS (and by extension, Dolby) didn't come up with a wholly new, more advanced immersive codec stream not reliant on backwards compatibility with the codecs they already had. They would only play if said new immersive decoder was detected. Kind of like with Dolby TrueHD... it has a "secret" parallel DD track that would be decoded if there was no TrueHD decoder detected. In this regard, the older lossless codec track would play only if the higher end immersive decoder wasn't recognized. They seem to have had the space to put multiple lossless soundtracks on 4k disc to begin with if you look at how many discs are authored.


----------



## usc1995

Here is the best collection of demos and trailers I have found and right here on AVS to boot: Reelwood 2019 Demo Clips Collection 4K Atmos dtsX and more


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> According to FilmMixer, home DTS: X was limited to channels by DTS themselves, _not_ the industry. DTS told the engineers that any other speaker positions would be addressed using an upmixer. If you look at their DTS Production Suite software it even says it outputs 11.1 or 12.1 (IMAX). The consumer trade show DTS: X tracks do not use objects either. Yes, you can use objects during mixing, just like Dolby Atmos, but then on export you can only choose one of the two options. As for cinema DTS: X (which I don't know if it's really used that much in theaters anyway), which is based on the MDA format, those limits may not be present because it's a different animal.
> 
> Without true 3D pannable objects on the exported file, DTS: X Pro is an upmixer. That's all.


Just ask your buddy Sanjay if DTS:X at home can use objects because I'm tired of arguing with someone that's NOT LISTENING (Sanjay provided screenshots of former BDs that used objects at home and IMAX Enhanced has center height as an object so clearly it CAN use them. CAN and DOES aren't the same thing for a given movie). 

You seem to have some kind of agenda against DTS:X for unknown reasons. You have provided zero evidence that steering logic sounds somehow worse than rendering. It's all just DTS defamation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

MagnumX said:


> Just ask your buddy Sanjay if DTS:X at home can use objects because I'm tired of arguing with someone that's NOT LISTENING (Sanjay provided screenshots of former BDs that used objects at home and IMAX Enhanced has center height as an object so clearly it CAN use them. CAN and DOES aren't the same thing for a given movie).
> 
> You seem to have some kind of agenda against DTS:X for unknown reasons. You have provided zero evidence that steering logic sounds somehow worse than rendering. It's all just DTS defamation.


DTS defamation. LOL. They no longer use objects with home DTS: X. Those handful of early Blu-ray discs from Well Go (7.1.4 + 5 objects) and one Fox 4k title (ID4 at 7.1.4 + 1 object) were it. Now they are 7.1.4 or 7.1.5 fixed pattern, channel-based tracks. Don't believe me? Believe an industry insider like FilmMixer.

I was at the Trinnov/Triad demo of DTS: X Pro at CEDIA 2019. One of Triad's head reps and former designers at the time agreed with me and didn't think DTS: X Pro was as good as unlocked Dolby Atmos tracks. Triad ought to know a little something as they were assisting Dolby Labs in getting home Dolby Atmos out the door for consumer use. They were using DTS: X tracks with no objects (consumer DTS: X track clips). These movie clips have also been used as demos for Dolby Atmos on Blu-ray and sometimes at the same darn electronics expos, so a comparison could be made easily. DTS: X Pro doesn't have the placement precision because matrix steering logic has never been as good as fully discrete audio. N...e...v...e...r. That's why we no longer use Dolby Stereo matrixing and have gone to discrete surround audio reproduction instead.


----------



## robert600

usc1995 said:


> Here is the best collection of demos and trailers I have found and right here on AVS to boot: Reelwood 2019 Demo Clips Collection 4K Atmos dtsX and more


Sorry, I'm notoriously bad at searching for things. Can you provide the post # that contains the link to those demos. Going through that forum you linked to ... the only actual link I could find was in post #1...but when I click on it, I get ... "server not found"?


----------



## appelz

howard68 said:


> It is asking for $59!!!! For just a Atmos 9.1.6 test
> You can get a Dolby Demo disc test from eBay for half that !
> Trying to get a refund for the original $24
> From apple
> Total B%$l S&$t
> 
> Dont fall for this everyone


For a professional calibrator, there is _substantially_ more than just a 9.1.6 Atmos test. It sounds like you purchased a tool that you have no use for. Lots of guys also have power tools in their garage that they never should have purchased also.


----------



## howard68

appelz said:


> For a professional calibrator, there is _substantially_ more than just a 9.1.6 Atmos test. It sounds like you purchased a tool that you have no use for. Lots of guys also have power tools in their garage that they never should have purchased also.


The tool is great but not hide the true price as $24 when it is $90!!!!
That the problem


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> It might be worth the money if it could send test tones to all potential 34.1 speakers that Dolby Atmos offers, not just 9.1.6 (e.g. I'd like a calibration tone for SS#2 to use with either Scatmos or active mixing to set the levels precisely).
> 
> Beyond whatever calibration options Trinnov offers, I have not heard of any Atmos (or X) speaker test tone demos that can send pink noise to every single speaker Atmos or X offers. Even the ones on the Auro-3D demo discs for its 13.1 speakers are sine wave tones, not pink noise so they're of limited value, IMO. I could set Top Surround's level here on my Marantz 7012 using the speaker test tone, but it doesn't take Audyssey calibration into account so it might be incorrect even so.


I've been trying to get a demo disc like that published for some time now. I seem to get lots of interest, including some engineers with the tools to get it done, and then everyone gets busy and it loses traction. I've been on a workgroup with Trinnov to develop a test disc also, but development on that has also stalled, as they have lots of other higher priority projects also. We've put together a document with our wish list of files, and have the resources on the team to make it happen, so just a matter of everyone having the bandwidth to push forward on it. I think part of the problem is that much of the content has little use outside of a Trinnov/Storm/CP950, and probably half of the files on my list fall under research, and wouldn't be as useful in a calibration process. It would definitely help determine some "best practices" however, so maybe once the work on CEDIA/CTA RP22 is finished, I can push ahead with that.


----------



## halcyon_888

howard68 said:


> It is asking for $59!!!! For just a Atmos 9.1.6 test
> You can get a Dolby Demo disc test from eBay for half that !
> Trying to get a refund for the original $24
> From apple
> Total B%$l S&$t
> 
> Dont fall for this everyone


Here are some Dolby Atmos test tones. They were made by Dolby and I tested the download link for the 9.1.6 test and it still works:









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## howard68

halcyon_888 said:


> Here are some Dolby Atmos test tones. They were made by Dolby and I tested the download link for the 9.1.6 test and it still works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...
> 
> 
> Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thanks 
Will have a look 
😎


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> DTS defamation. LOL. They no longer use objects with home DTS: X. Those handful of early Blu-ray discs from Well Go (7.1.4 + 5 objects) and one Fox 4k title (ID4 at 7.1.4 + 1 object) were it. Now they are 7.1.4 or 7.1.5 fixed pattern, channel-based tracks. Don't believe me? Believe an industry insider like FilmMixer.
> 
> I was at the Trinnov/Triad demo of DTS: X Pro at CEDIA 2019. One of Triad's head reps and former designers at the time agreed with me and didn't think DTS: X Pro was as good as unlocked Dolby Atmos tracks. Triad ought to know a little something as they were assisting Dolby Labs in getting home Dolby Atmos out the door for consumer use. They were using DTS: X tracks with no objects (consumer DTS: X track clips). These movie clips have also been used as demos for Dolby Atmos on Blu-ray and sometimes at the same darn electronics expos, so a comparison could be made easily. DTS: X Pro doesn't have the placement precision because matrix steering logic has never been as good as fully discrete audio. N...e...v...e...r. That's why we no longer use Dolby Stereo matrixing and have gone to discrete surround audio reproduction instead.


So you admit home X supports the potential use of objects....

The biggest difference is DTS:X Pro has a solution for its 11 channel limit on channel based soundtracks while short of external hardware like Scatmos you're pretty much screwed with locked Atmos soundtracks for higher speaker counts. DTS also supports CH and TS speakers which are superior for locking in center overhead sounds for off-axis seating (A noticeable oversight on Dolby's part, IMO).

For a typical 7.1.4 setup there is zero advantage to using moving objects in either system. The real question is why do you need more than 7.1.4 to begin with? It phantom images panning between channels so why bother? In other words, are the extra channels there for extra spatial resolution or to help defeat the precedence effect for off-axis seating and poor stereo imaging when there's too much angular distance between speaker pairs? 

If it's mostly for the latter (as the former is unlikely to be noticed in typical home sized rooms) then what's worse if you had to choose between the two bad points? Theoretically poorer spatial resolution that's not likely going to be noticed or the utter lack of Top Middle in Disney soundtracks that absolutely will be noticed if the room is too long or you are sitting off-axis? That's up to the individual to decide if it ever comes up. 

Personally, I'll take whatever immersive soundtrack I can get my hands on, be it Atmos, X, Auro-3D or just the superior Neural X upmixer. Any of them is better than plain 5.1 or 7.1, let alone stereo. 


As for matrix decoding, there's a fundamental difference between using steering logic to extract a single in-phase center channel (My Scatmos Top Middle speakers have almost zero leakage into the front/rear heights in the Atmos Top Middle speaker test and that's using 1st generation Pro Logic steering with analog signals, not modern digital processing that Neural X is using). If you want to see what state of the art matrix extraction can do, check out Involve Audio's Surround Master V3). 

The surround channels, however can only be finessed so much with a two channel source. Besides, PLII and PLIIx came out after Dolby Digital, which brought more to the table than mere discrete sound. But trying to conflate Neural X center-point extraction with 2-channel matrixing is disengenuous at best.


----------



## rec head

Chirosamsung said:


> I mean more for systems that only have wide synth and not DTS:X Pro. Wide synth uses wides at 6 dB LOWER than they normally would be. This way DIRAC could possibly offset that by having a preset tht boosts the wides by 6 dB to negate that limitation
> 
> Make sense?


The HTP-1's Wide Synth is down 6dB because it is adding the two signals together. It is like a crossover slope as one driver blends with the other. I use Wide Synth but don't notice it in the strict sense but my pans from front to side are great.


----------



## agent cooper

robert600 said:


> Sorry, I'm notoriously bad at searching for things. Can you provide the post # that contains the link to those demos. Going through that forum you linked to ... the only actual link I could find was in post #1...but when I click on it, I get ... "server not found"?


Download the torrent file, change the extension to from .txt to .torrent and that will work.


----------



## robert600

agent cooper said:


> Download the torrent file, change the extension to from .txt to .torrent and that will work.


Thanks ... that does the magic! Somehow I missed that in the instructions and tried to download the magnetic link. There is a lot of files there for sure!

Santeria and Natures Fury are both very good!


----------



## robert600

agent cooper said:


> Download the torrent file, change the extension to from .txt to .torrent and that will work.


For anyone without torrent software ... Tixati is free and very good.


----------



## fatherom

robert600 said:


> For anyone without torrent software ... Tixati is free and very good.


I can't think of ANY torrent client that costs money.


----------



## robert600

fatherom said:


> I can't think of ANY torrent client that costs money.


To me 'free' is more than costing money. Try the 'free' version of 'utorrent'. It constantly runs ads while downloading ... and bugs you incessantly to upgrade to their 'pro' version. Not my idea of free. Color me superstitious but ... when I'm downloading a torrent ...I don't want the client to be simultaneously downloading unwanted adverts.


----------



## fatherom

robert600 said:


> To me 'free' is more than costing money. Try the 'free' version of 'utorrent'. It constantly runs ads while downloading ... and bugs you incessantly to upgrade to their 'pro' version. Not my idea of free. Color me superstitious but ... when I'm downloading a torrent ...I don't want the client to be simultaneously downloading unwanted adverts.


I’ve run every torrent client under the sun and have never seen this.


----------



## X4100

I replaced the .txt with .torrent, but still no success with the download of the files. I was able to get the pdf file of the various demos. I have some files from a Google drive that was listed some time ago.


----------



## fatherom

X4100 said:


> I replaced the .txt with .torrent, but still no success with the download of the files. I was able to get the pdf file of the various demos. I have some files from a Google drive that was listed some time ago.


What torrent client are you using?


----------



## X4100

This is what confused me, I thought I had to download the files first, then download torrent to open them. Can you please explain how to do it correctly


----------



## fatherom

X4100 said:


> This is what confused me, I thought I had to download the files first, then download torrent to open them. Can you please explain how to do it correctly


No you load the torrent file into a torrent client and then all the files will download.


----------



## X4100

THANKS for your help!


----------



## robert600

I think you might find ... once the torrent client is installed ... simply doubleclicking on the .torrent file will auto load it into the client ... simply pick the destionation folder where you want the downloaded file to end up in and ... away it goes!

Bear in mind ... that particular torrent is huge! You may want to pick and choose which files you actually want. Usually there are checkboxes.


----------



## X4100

THANKS again, I've read in some posts that there are different types of torrent clients, which is easier to use, this is my first time


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> THANKS again, I've read in some posts that there are different types of torrent clients, which is easier to use, this is my first time


I've only ever used two. Utorrent and Tixati ... both work. Utorrent is prettier but displays ads and bugs you about about "58% off" utorrent pro ... that gets stale very quickly. Tixati isn't as pretty but leaves you alone ... it's probably myimagination but it seems a little quicker too. I've heard good things about qBittorrent but haven't tried it.
You know about VPNs ... right? I don't think the linked torrent is a problem but with some ... better if they don't know where you are! Might result in nasty letters to you from your ISP.


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> THANKS again, I've read in some posts that there are different types of torrent clients, which is easier to use, this is my first time


This is very 'old school thinking' but when I'm torrenting ... I don't do anything else with the computer. What I find best is to set it all upbefore I retire for the night. I use the settings of the client to "turn off computer when downloads complete" and then wake up to the download(s). Works well for me. Like I mentioned earlier ... that particular torrent is HUGE ... so unless you're on fiber or something ... it's going to take some time.
Don't even think about looking at the files as they are downloading ... just leave em be until the entire torrent is done ... it doesn't download multiple files one by one ... you get bits of each of the files throughout the entire download process.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for the help, looking forward to trying this tonight, by the way my copy of Twister arrived from Germany and has been cleared by USA customs on Monday. Will watch (LISTEN) as soon as I get it


----------



## fatherom

I'm grabbing the entire ~250GB torrent on my seedbox as we speak...


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> Thanks for the help, looking forward to trying this tonight, by the way my copy of Twister arrived from Germany and has been cleared by USA customs on Monday. Will watch (LISTEN) as soon as I get it


Thinking further re this. That torrent is seriously big (250 GB) to 'cut your teeth on'. Do you have unlimited download from your ISP? Hate to see you get stuck with a huge internet overcharge. Also of course ... you need to have that much space available on your harddrive.
If it were me ... I'd start by downloading just a few of the files. When you first load up the torrent file into the client ... it's 'default' will be to download all the files. You will see, all the little boxes will have a checkmark in the checkbox, I would click the checkmark to an X (X the checkbox for a folder will clear the checkbox for all the files in that folder.
Then open the 'Reelwood 16X9 Demo Files' folder
Checkmark the boxes beside Amaze16X9 Dolby Atmos and Santeria Dolby Atmos. Nature's Fury is also good but is in a mkv container which I think you said wouldn't play on your system.
Anyway, then start the torrent with just those 2 or 3 files selected ... they should download pretty quickly (10mins maybe). When they're done downloading ... Exit the torrent client ... find the downloaded files and check them out ... if all is good ... you can reload the .torrent file and download a whole bunch more (or even the entire thing... yikes!).


----------



## bartonnen

X4100 said:


> there are different types of torrent clients, which is easier to use, this is my first time


I switched from uTorrent to qBittorrent years ago - easy to use and no ads


----------



## tomnan24

This question could have gone to many different forums but my primary reason for asking has to do with my soon to be Atmos setup. 

Three seats are perfect for my 165" wide room. I will probably buy four and center them in the room. For those who have done that how did it work out sound wise and in regard to no distinct MLP and also ceiling speaker location (I have yet to drill). I appreciate any and all comments.


----------



## robert600

tomnan24 said:


> This question could have gone to many different forums but my primary reason for asking has to do with my soon to be Atmos setup.
> 
> Three seats are perfect for my 165" wide room. I will probably buy four and center them in the room. For those who have done that how did it work out sound wise and in regard to no distinct MLP and also ceiling speaker location (I have yet to drill). I appreciate any and all comments.


The devil is in the details and you haven't provided many. How many channels are you thinking? Height of ceiling? Do you anticipate using ceiling speakers or those ones that bounce the sound off the ceiling? Do you mean 1 row of 4 seats or 2 rows of 2?


----------



## tomnan24

I'm asking people for their experiences as opposed to my particular details. Please don't reply back, I won't.


----------



## appelz

tomnan24 said:


> I'm asking people for their experiences as opposed to my particular details. Please don't reply back, I won't.


Seemed like he was legitimately wanting to help, and just wanted some more information. If I'd felt inclined to help, I'd want to know more details so I could provide the best advice also. But, thanks for saving me the time to compose a helpful post. 

Best of luck to ya.


----------



## rontalley

tomnan24 said:


> I'm asking people for their experiences as opposed to my particular details. Please don't reply back, I won't.


Did I miss something? Those were all reasonable questions...


----------



## ppasteur

appelz said:


> Seemed like he was legitimately wanting to help, and just wanted some more information. If I'd felt inclined to help, I'd want to know more details so I could provide the best advice also. But, thanks for saving me the time to compose a helpful post.
> 
> Best of luck to ya.


Yes he seemed overly touchy. Knowing specifics is essential to giving any kind of good recommendations.


----------



## mrtickleuk

ppasteur said:


> Yes he seemed overly touchy. Knowing specifics is essential to giving any kind of good recommendations.


Seems that "I appreciate *any and all* comments." wasn't true after all


----------



## Jeremy Anderson




----------



## MagnumX

tomnan24 said:


> This question could have gone to many different forums but my primary reason for asking has to do with my soon to be Atmos setup.
> 
> Three seats are perfect for my 165" wide room. I will probably buy four and center them in the room. For those who have done that how did it work out sound wise and in regard to no distinct MLP and also ceiling speaker location (I have yet to drill). I appreciate any and all comments.


I think people are confused about what you were asking and unfortunately responded in their usual low maturity level around here. 

I've got three chairs across in the front (MLP is centered though). Not having a centered seat is a big compromise, IMO and one where the significant other doesn't want to feel second fiddle might require it, but if you're the main viewer, you'd probably prefer to have your seat perfect.

As for the other chairs, the lack of support from Dolby Atmos for center height and top surround (VOG) means off-axis seats will never have perfect panning and centered overhead sounds unless you do something like Scatmos to trick it into using them. I find I'd rather sit 2nd row or even 3rd row center than front row left or right for the more perfectly balanced left/right sound.

Not everyone feels the same, though. A certain older family member loves front row right (cushier recliner for one thing) and has trouble hearing imaging effects overhead anyway (prefers extra loud bass and it's a bit louder there than the center so she's happy).


----------



## MagnumX

*Sound United*, parent company of *Denon & Marantz* among others was just sold to a company called _Masimo Corporation_, who apparently only has been around since 2011 and makes medical monitoring devices.....

Maybe we'll be able to plug in a heart monitor and listen to it in surround sound....  

Given many of us own D&M products, I'm a bit concerned, especially since the purchase price of $1 billion was debt financed. 

Maybe time to switch back to Yamaha. Good thing they just added Auro-3D to their top models.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> *Sound United*, parent company of *Denon & Marantz* among others was just sold to a company called _Masimo Corporation_, who apparently only has been around since 2011 and makes medical monitoring devices.....
> 
> Maybe we'll be able to plug in a heart monitor and listen to it in surround sound....
> 
> Given many of us own D&M products, I'm a bit concerned, especially since the purchase price of $1 billion was debt financed.
> 
> Maybe time to switch back to Yamaha. Good thing they just added Auro-3D to their top models.


Info is here:








Sound United Enters into Agreement to Be Acquired by Masimo Corporation


Sound United, LLC (“Sound United”), a leading innovator of premium, high-performance audio products for consumers around the world, today announced th



www.businesswire.com





Not sure how this will impact consumer A/V, since at least for now Sound United will still have the same leadership at the top. From the article, it seems Masimo is primarily interested in SU's distribution channels, maybe the "cloud connected home ecosystem". How that will work I don't know.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Anyone know if Dune 4k uses wides?


----------



## wjchan

Chirosamsung said:


> Anyone know if Dune 4k uses wides?


Yes it does.


----------



## Chirosamsung

wjchan said:


> Yes it does.


sweet-it's about time. So many of the atmos blu rays don't


----------



## MagnumX

Any Blu-Ray that is not locked into channels that has an object that passes from mains to side surrounds or is large enough to encompass them will automatically use front wides if available. That should be the majority of all Atmos movies (save ones from Disney and some smaller studios). The fact so many report their real front wides sit there doing nothing despite that fact is disconcerting. It means either they purposely avoided putting objects in that area for some bizarre reason (who wouldn't want smooth panning from mains to sides?) or there's some other setting we're unaware of that avoids using them (like "snap" will avoid phantom imaging in that area if you don't have actual front wides installed, but that's exactly the opposite of the issue as that would use real front wides more, not less).


----------



## howard68

Dolby needs to send the mixers back to 
Atmos School,especially the Disney mixers!

Atmos should be Full Atmos not fixed prints at 7.1.2 or 7.1.4
no Atmos Lite please 🙏 

H


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Saw the Sound United news the other day. I am currently in the Denon ecosystem and was considering my next purchase to be an X6700H because it can go over 11 channels. Though I do plan to move on to seperates after that so not sure if this acquisition will affect me at all.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

howard68 said:


> Dolby needs to send the mixers back to
> Atmos School,especially the Disney mixers!
> 
> Atmos should be Full Atmos not fixed prints at 7.1.2 or 7.1.4
> no Atmos Lite please 🙏
> 
> H


It may take a generation for the old sound mixers to retire and the new batch of sound mixers to come in, ready and eager to work with Atmos. I hope thats not the case, but that might be what needs to happen.


----------



## X4100

Wouldn't you know it! My copy of Twister was delivered this afternoon, my wife is sleeping as she works this weekend overnight Friday, and Saturday, and the landlady is due to get home anytime. So I will have to wait until the coast is clear.  . I feel that this is going to be worth the price of waiting. It took a little over two weeks to arrive from Germany, not bad!


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It may take a generation for the old sound mixers to retire and the new batch of sound mixers to come in, ready and eager to work with Atmos. I hope thats not the case, but that might be what needs to happen.


Any well run company would fire them if they can't manage to do their job properly. My experience is most large companies put up with incompetence at unbelievable rates. CEOs often have zero experience with the tech their company sells for that matter so they have no idea there's even an issue, particularly when companies like Apple sell anyway with an almost cult-like following.

It just doesn't seem to matter. Most people are happy listening to flat TV speakers (and we think sound bars are bad). People eat at McDonald's for God's sake (when there's Jersey Mike's or even Wendy's sitting right next door, let alone a real restaurant).


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Any Blu-Ray that is not locked into channels that has an object that passes from mains to side surrounds or is large enough to encompass them will automatically use front wides if available. That should be the majority of all Atmos movies (save ones from Disney and some smaller studios). The fact so many report their real front wides sit there doing nothing despite that fact is disconcerting. It means either they purposely avoided putting objects in that area for some bizarre reason (who wouldn't want smooth panning from mains to sides?) or there's some other setting we're unaware of that avoids using them (like "snap" will avoid phantom imaging in that area if you don't have actual front wides installed, but that's exactly the opposite of the issue as that would use real front wides more, not less).


so once again,

Is there any list that actually tells which atmos mixes actually use the wide speakers (not just compatible with wides)?


----------



## X4100

Sounds like a good question to ask "spare change " on his you tube channel, other than that IIRC that question has floated past here b4


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> so once again,
> 
> Is there any list that actually tells which atmos mixes actually use the wide speakers (not just compatible with wides)?


While it would be nice to know what to expect from every Atmos soundtrack in detail, it would be a full time job to check every blu-ray for front wide content. 

Is there a minimum amount of use that would satisfy? I mean if it only used them for 20 seconds total in a two hour movie, is that worth getting the extra speakers? What about ss#1 or ss#2 or rear center? Should we make lists of those too? 

Do we buy content based only on how much front wide usage there is? I got virtually laughed at by someone on Audioholics for buying Auro-3D movie when there's hardly any out there according to them. Many wish it would die already. But then we would only have Boss Level and Redtails in 5.1 instead of 13.1 and 11.1 respectively. If your system doesn't support Auro-3D, it will still play back in 7.1 or 5.1 so what's the harm? It doesn't matter. Some people just hate to hate it seems. We should all drive SUVs too. I hate those things called cars and trucks. SUVs rock, particularly the really slow ones that can almost make it around the corner at 10mph. (Yes Sheldon that's sarcasm).

The reviews on here don't even normally take overhead use in general into consideration for an Atmos rating (something some of us have complained about) and are told overhead use doesn't make an Atmos soundtrack. Really? I could have stuck with 7.1 then. Reviews could rate sound quality, surround use, overhead use, proper Atmos object use (yes/no/sort of) and we'dbe a lot more informed, but that would require effort. 

I used to run a CD review site in the mid to late '90s that considered sound quality as a separate rating. I got hate mail from a band member once whose album I rated "A" for music but "D" for sound quality. They didn't even understand what I was talking about. What's an audiophile?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> so once again,
> 
> Is there any list that actually tells which atmos mixes actually use the wide speakers (not just compatible with wides)?


Its gonna take enthusiasts who have Wides and a Trinnov Altitude processor to compile that information. Or for those with wides to go through their Atmos movie collection, listening to their Wide channels through entire movies. I dont see it happening any time soon.

Probably the easiest way is to have those with Trinnov pre-amps to post clips of the most active moments in each particular film and show how active the sound objects are and which speakers "light up". As others have noted, Spare Change does this from time to time.


----------



## sdrucker

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its gonna take enthusiasts who have Wides and a Trinnov Altitude processor to compile that information. Or for those with wides to go through their Atmos movie collection, listening to their Wide channels through entire movies. I dont see it happening any time soon.
> 
> Probably the easiest way is to have those with Trinnov pre-amps to post clips of the most active moments in each particular film and show how active the sound objects are and which speakers "light up". As others have noted, Spare Change does this from time to time.


Every so often I think about this, but there's too many movies to track and my home theatre time is maybe two hours a night, a few more on weekends. And it's not all movies: it's about 40% music, and even the non-music side is stuff that might be upmixed probably half the time.

Usually I'll check a movie if someone mentions it specifically and I have the time, or on some things like Netflix if I'm curious. Maybe a new release if I'm really curious (e.g. No Time to Die when it was released). But even so I focus on more than just wides...and it's nice to just watch the movie too .


----------



## mjwagner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Saw the Sound United news the other day. I am currently in the Denon ecosystem and was considering my next purchase to be an X6700H because it can go over 11 channels. Though I do plan to move on to seperates after that so not sure if this acquisition will affect me at all.


NM…now I did see that you did include the word “acquisition”….I agree that I have seen nothing at this point that would cause me to be concerned.


----------



## CommanderROR

Concerning the whole Atmos thingy...it was recently pointed out to me, that Dolby has updated (and upgraded) it's Upmixer. My Denon X6700 supposedly got the new DSU Upmixer with the December Update, and I am now trying to find good content to compare it again with Neural:X. I used to have a lineup of good scenes to compare, but it's been a while and I forgot what I used back then. Can someone suggest good 5.1 or 7.1 content (preferably on Netflix, Disney or Prime Video) that I can use to test and compare? Thanks!


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdrucker said:


> ...and it's nice to just watch the movie too .


That is the best approach, just enjoy the movie/TV series.


----------



## howard68

I hope people who have a Trinnov can report of the use of Full Fat Atmos when they get time!

This Atmos lite It is like Paying for a color printer
And only getting Black and white photos to print
More Full Atmos please


----------



## crutzulee

Mashie Saldana said:


> That is the best approach, just enjoy the movie/TV series.


After reading this thread, I thought the best approach was to watch the movie 11 times standing beside a different speaker each time to make sure that the sound engineers aren't cheating you.


----------



## X4100

If anyone wants to get their "ATMOS FIX" all you need to do is get the movie Twister from turbine Germany!! I'm watching ( listening really) to it right now. My wife is home, so the master volume is only on 32db, but with this disc in Atmos I'm actually afraid to take the volume anywhere near reference. I don't think the foundation of the house let alone the room can handle it! I thought the first tornado scene in the cellar was something. The second tornado when the truck was stuck under an embankment was truly awesome, the sound was very immersive from the front left/right height clear through the rear height speakers! The cow scene was astonishing with the cow mooing across the room. My wife came in the room during the twin tornado scene wondering if I was okay or not, a true sign that everything was just right sound wise! Oops they're about to chase another tornado, sssssooo I gotta go for now


----------



## Mashie Saldana

crutzulee said:


> After reading this thread, I thought the best approach was to watch the movie 11 times standing beside a different speaker each time to make sure that the sound engineers aren't cheating you.


You need to do it 15 times actually as the printed ones works fine on 7.1.4.


----------



## X4100

This release of Twister is an excellent example of how Atmos should be used by the mixers, can't wait to get to the scene where they rescue aunt Meg, while her home is caving in


----------



## ToddUGA

X4100 said:


> If anyone wants to get their "ATMOS FIX" all you need to do is get the movie Twister from turbine Germany!! I'm watching ( listening really) to it right now. My wife is home, so the master volume is only on 32db, but with this disc in Atmos I'm actually afraid to take the volume anywhere near reference. I don't think the foundation of the house let alone the room can handle it! I thought the first tornado scene in the cellar was something. The second tornado when the truck was stuck under an embankment was truly awesome, the sound was very immersive from the front left/right height clear through the rear height speakers! The cow scene was astonishing with the cow mooing across the room. My wife came in the room during the twin tornado scene wondering if I was okay or not, a true sign that everything was just right sound wise! Oops they're about to chase another tornado, sssssooo I gotta go for now


Yep. It's definitely impressive. Even the video transfer was better, with a more natural looking picture with film grain and a lack of DNR. Can't wait for WB to finally give us a 4K release.


----------



## X4100

Mashie Saldana said:


> You need to do it 15 times actually as the printed ones works fine on 7.1.4.


You need to try Twister my man! And LOWER YOUR VOLUME if you want to. No need to stand under the speakers on this one!!!


----------



## titan ii

Ordering Twister right now! Thanks for helping me spend money.

Update....ordered.


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> You need to try Twister my man! And LOWER YOUR VOLUME if you want to. No need to stand under the speakers on this one!!!


This I'd like to experience. Rip me a copy lol.


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> If anyone wants to get their "ATMOS FIX" all you need to do is get the movie Twister from turbine Germany!! I'm watching ( listening really) to it right now. My wife is home, so the master volume is only on 32db, but with this disc in Atmos I'm actually afraid to take the volume anywhere near reference. I don't think the foundation of the house let alone the room can handle it! I thought the first tornado scene in the cellar was something. The second tornado when the truck was stuck under an embankment was truly awesome, the sound was very immersive from the front left/right height clear through the rear height speakers! The cow scene was astonishing with the cow mooing across the room. My wife came in the room during the twin tornado scene wondering if I was okay or not, a true sign that everything was just right sound wise! Oops they're about to chase another tornado, sssssooo I gotta go for now


how can I get this copy? Amazon? Link please


----------



## X4100

Turbine-Shop .
Mine took a little over 2 1/2 weeks to arrive, when you get to the site click the menu button on the left side and touch the flag in order to choose English language


----------



## X4100

IIRC @MagnumX said that Daylight with Sylvester Stallone is even more immersive.


----------



## mrtickleuk

crutzulee said:


> After reading this thread, I thought the best approach was to watch the movie 11 times standing beside a different speaker each time to make sure that the sound engineers aren't cheating you.


Standing on the floor 7 times. Stood on a tall stool with ears near the ceiling the other 4 times


----------



## robert600

mrtickleuk said:


> Standing on the floor 7 times. Stood on a tall stool with ears near the ceiling the other 4 times


Been there ... done that! lol


----------



## halcyon_888

robert600 said:


> Been there ... done that! lol


Same here lol


----------



## MagnumX

Try listening to movies and/or Atmos music discs with just the height layer turned on (or the bed layer turned way down). I turned down the bed layer -12dB and the height layer up +12dB and listened to several Auro-3D and Atmos movie scenes and then some Atmos music albums. It's kind of shocking what is and what is not overhead on some of them as in-between sounds can fool you. (You can also do the reverse and lower overheads to near nothing and turn bed layers up to compare, even on a smart setting on D&M AVRs to fairly quickly switch back and forth).

I also found some rear centered sounds (even with 4 speakers producing rear surround instead of two, let alone one) still seem to image in front of you from time to time (turns your head and it's way behind you) as I noticed with Booka Shade's Galvany Street album with one instrument in particular that seemed to image just in front of my face was actually coming from directly behind me. There was some vocals I thought seemed to shift between the center and top middle ceiling and sure enough, I wasn't imagining it on "Loneliest Boy". It really did have a 2nd vocal centered in Top Middle right above my head, but the center front is usually louder so it seems to come from in front of me, but up in the air a bit.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mrtickleuk said:


> Standing on the floor 7 times. Stood on a tall stool with ears near the ceiling the other 4 times


I think I have only done that 3 times at this point.

Maybe 5 times if you count the times I did that at my friends house.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> Try listening to movies and/or Atmos music discs with just the height layer turned on (or the bed layer turned way down). I turned down the bed layer -12dB and the height layer up +12dB and listened to several Auro-3D and Atmos movie scenes and then some Atmos music albums. It's kind of shocking what is and what is not overhead on some of them as in-between sounds can fool you. (You can also do the reverse and lower overheads to near nothing and turn bed layers up to compare, even on a smart setting on D&M AVRs to fairly quickly switch back and forth).
> 
> I also found some rear centered sounds (even with 4 speakers producing rear surround instead of two, let alone one) still seem to image in front of you from time to time (turns your head and it's way behind you) as I noticed with Booka Shade's Galvany Street album with one instrument in particular that seemed to image just in front of my face was actually coming from directly behind me. There was some vocals I thought seemed to shift between the center and top middle ceiling and sure enough, I wasn't imagining it on "Loneliest Boy". It really did have a 2nd vocal centered in Top Middle right above my head, but the center front is usually louder so it seems to come from in front of me, but up in the air a bit.


I haven’t been able to listen to Yello, but I have listened to Booka Shade on my Atv 4K. It’s absolutely transformative. In my room, I have sounds all around my head. On one of the tracks from dear future self, I feel like I need a towel to wipe off my head and neck, as there’s some weird sound that sounds like dripping water. I swear it’s an inch from my head LOOOOOOOVE it.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> I haven’t been able to listen to Yello, but I have listened to Booka Shade on my Atv 4K. It’s absolutely transformative. In my room, I have sounds all around my head. On one of the tracks from dear future self, I feel like I need a towel to wipe off my head and neck, as there’s some weird sound that sounds like dripping water. I swear it’s an inch from my head LOOOOOOOVE it.


_Torch_, I believe. It has weird synth sounds dropping down from above too.


----------



## mrvideo

X4100 said:


> You need to try Twister my man! And LOWER YOUR VOLUME if you want to.


It is my understanding that the German _Twister_ release has a Dolby Atmos demo on it as well. If so, how does it sound?


----------



## ToddUGA

mrvideo said:


> It is my understanding that the German _Twister_ release has a Dolby Atmos demo on it as well. If so, how does it sound?


Damn. I just ripped the movie only. Now I'm gonna go back and see if it's there. Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

mrvideo said:


> It is my understanding that the German _Twister_ release has a Dolby Atmos demo on it as well. If so, how does it sound?


I never noticed because I never watched it off the disc. I did, however notice on the sequel to Divergent (_Insurgent_) that it had the Dolby Atmos "Unfold" demo with 3D video. I only noticed that because when I dumped the movie, it had one of those multiple fake versions on it to discourage piracy, that only ends up making it harder to dump/store on a server so I ended up watching it off the disc. It was pretty cool in 3D and unlike hte download versions where the audio didn't seem to match the titles flying onto the screen for some reason, they were timed perfectly on the disc.

I just watched *Last Night In Soho* in Atmos and I have to say if you want a movie that pans sound around in circles (full way around room to back) and semi-circles (i.e. behind me with side surrounds instead of in the rear surrounds) plus a lot of stuff overhead both incidental and eventually voices, etc. as well, it's pretty impressive in that regard (You wouldn't guess it in the first 30 minutes, but it goes nuts later over time). The story is a bit strange, but interesting.


----------



## boomer1950

I'm surprised by the lack of photos of well-installed home theater speakers both in-wall & in-ceiling. The photos seem to emphasize the hidden wall of subwoofers or the amazing theater seats or the massive LCR & projection screens. I'm trying to show my wife how subtle properly installed in-wall & in-ceiling speakers can look, but I can't find good photos of "stealth" systems. 

I'm planning a 5.1.4 system installed as my living room is being remodeled. I have 3 ELAC Uni-fi Slim centers for LCR with a subwoofer under the center speaker. I plan to have the side surrounds as in-wall speakers & 4 Atmos as in-ceiling speakers. Pictures rarely seem to focus on the hidden aspect of these speakers, because the home theater owners are more interested in the rest of the room.

Help me out here, guys. I know a lot of you must have great theaters with the Atmos speakers & in-wall speakers installed well. I'm sure of that. Could some of you who have had the opportunity to cut holes in sheetrock & install in-wall & in-ceiling speakers properly post some photos of how good these speakers can look - meaning how little you can see them? I need some help in convincing my wife that these speakers won't look terrible & won't hurt the resell value of our house (even though we have no plans to sell in the near future)? Thanks.


----------



## ToddUGA

So I put in the disc and loaded up MakeMKV. I didn’t see anything with an Atmos track besides the main title.


----------



## Ladeback

boomer1950 said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of photos of well-installed home theater speakers both in-wall & in-ceiling. The photos seem to emphasize the hidden wall of subwoofers or the amazing theater seats or the massive LCR & projection screens. I'm trying to show my wife how subtle properly installed in-wall & in-ceiling speakers can look, but I can't find good photos of "stealth" systems.
> 
> I'm planning a 5.1.4 system installed as my living room is being remodeled. I have 3 ELAC Uni-fi Slim centers for LCR with a subwoofer under the center speaker. I plan to have the side surrounds as in-wall speakers & 4 Atmos as in-ceiling speakers. Pictures rarely seem to focus on the hidden aspect of these speakers, because the home theater owners are more interested in the rest of the room.
> 
> Help me out here, guys. I know a lot of you must have great theaters with the Atmos speakers & in-wall speakers installed well. I'm sure of that. Could some of you who have had the opportunity to cut holes in sheetrock & install in-wall & in-ceiling speakers properly post some photos of how good these speakers can look - meaning how little you can see them? I need some help in convincing my wife that these speakers won't look terrible & won't hurt the resell value of our house (even though we have no plans to sell in the near future)? Thanks.


There are some great build on the forum where in-walls and ceiling speakers have been used. Here is the Swizzle Stick where Triad in-wall Speakers were used. Hope this helps.









Swizzle Stick Theater


10 years ago when we built our new home, I made sure to create a place in the basement for a dedicated home theater. This included digging down an extra 2 feet: 9 foot ceilings for the most of the (walk-out) basement, but 11 feet deep concrete floor for the home theater area. I also had the...




www.avsforum.com





Also check out Audio Advice. They have some videos they did on some of their builds with JBL Synthesis speakers. They an app you can use to design your room and see what it could look like and speaker placement.

Massive JBL Synthesis Home Theater with 18' Screen, 18 Seats & Five 18" Subs 









Incredible 9.4.4 JBL Dolby Atmos Synthesis Sony Home Theater Install Timelapse


Watch our full installation of a mammoth 9.4.4 JBL Synthesis and Sony home theater for watching sports, movies, and playing video games.




www.audioadvice.com










Home Theater, Home Audio, Turntables, Headphones | Raleigh & Charlotte, NC | Audio Advice


Audio Advice is the premier destination for home theater, high-performance home audio, & smart home integration. Our Raleigh & Charlotte, NC showrooms feature fully-immersive listening and demo rooms staffed by the most knowledgeable professionals in the country.




www.audioadvice.com


----------



## robert600

ToddUGA said:


> So I put in the disc and loaded up MakeMKV. I didn’t see anything with an Atmos track besides the main title.


I think you'll find if you select the True HD 7.1 track ... you'll get Atmos ... not sure why MakeMKV doesn't show it better but it is what it is.


----------



## ToddUGA

robert600 said:


> I think you'll find if you select the True HD 7.1 track ... you'll get Atmos ... not sure why MakeMKV doesn't show it better but it is what it is.


Actually I was referring to someone mentioning an Atmos demo on the disk. I didn’t see any. All the other titles showing up in MakeMKV show a stereo audio track.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

boomer1950 said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of photos of well-installed home theater speakers both in-wall & in-ceiling. The photos seem to emphasize the hidden wall of subwoofers or the amazing theater seats or the massive LCR & projection screens. I'm trying to show my wife how subtle properly installed in-wall & in-ceiling speakers can look, but I can't find good photos of "stealth" systems.
> 
> I'm planning a 5.1.4 system installed as my living room is being remodeled. I have 3 ELAC Uni-fi Slim centers for LCR with a subwoofer under the center speaker. I plan to have the side surrounds as in-wall speakers & 4 Atmos as in-ceiling speakers. Pictures rarely seem to focus on the hidden aspect of these speakers, because the home theater owners are more interested in the rest of the room.
> 
> Help me out here, guys. I know a lot of you must have great theaters with the Atmos speakers & in-wall speakers installed well. I'm sure of that. Could some of you who have had the opportunity to cut holes in sheetrock & install in-wall & in-ceiling speakers properly post some photos of how good these speakers can look - meaning how little you can see them? I need some help in convincing my wife that these speakers won't look terrible & won't hurt the resell value of our house (even though we have no plans to sell in the near future)? Thanks.


Not sure how you decided, but I would definitely NOT use three centers for LCR.


----------



## chi_guy50

boomer1950 said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of photos of well-installed home theater speakers both in-wall & in-ceiling. The photos seem to emphasize the hidden wall of subwoofers or the amazing theater seats or the massive LCR & projection screens. I'm trying to show my wife how subtle properly installed in-wall & in-ceiling speakers can look, but I can't find good photos of "stealth" systems.
> 
> I'm planning a 5.1.4 system installed as my living room is being remodeled. I have 3 ELAC Uni-fi Slim centers for LCR with a subwoofer under the center speaker. I plan to have the side surrounds as in-wall speakers & 4 Atmos as in-ceiling speakers. Pictures rarely seem to focus on the hidden aspect of these speakers, because the home theater owners are more interested in the rest of the room.
> 
> Help me out here, guys. I know a lot of you must have great theaters with the Atmos speakers & in-wall speakers installed well. I'm sure of that. Could some of you who have had the opportunity to cut holes in sheetrock & install in-wall & in-ceiling speakers properly post some photos of how good these speakers can look - meaning how little you can see them? I need some help in convincing my wife that these speakers won't look terrible & won't hurt the resell value of our house (even though we have no plans to sell in the near future)? Thanks.


Here's one for you. This guy appears to have installed a full seven-speaker system using in-ceiling speakers.

Bear in mind that many in-ceiling/in-wall speakers also have paintable grilles that help them to further disappear from view.


----------



## X4100

Room looks great, but I hope he's not trying to implement Dolby Atmos with this setup. 😢


----------



## robert600

ToddUGA said:


> Actually I was referring to someone mentioning an Atmos demo on the disk. I didn’t see any. All the other titles showing up in MakeMKV show a stereo audio track.


Ah ok ... understood ... my bad. I thought you meant you didn't get atmos when you ripped to'main movie'. Sometimes when you do that ... it defaults the audio to a lossy conversion ... to save discspace, I presume.


----------



## Chirosamsung

X4100 said:


> Room looks great, but I hope he's not trying to implement Dolby Atmos with this setup. 😢


and I hope he has a good chiropractor he can use with that tv height


----------



## niterida

boomer1950 said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of photos of well-installed home theater speakers both in-wall & in-ceiling. The photos seem to emphasize the hidden wall of subwoofers or the amazing theater seats or the massive LCR & projection screens. I'm trying to show my wife how subtle properly installed in-wall & in-ceiling speakers can look, but I can't find good photos of "stealth" systems.
> 
> I'm planning a 5.1.4 system installed as my living room is being remodeled. I have 3 ELAC Uni-fi Slim centers for LCR with a subwoofer under the center speaker. I plan to have the side surrounds as in-wall speakers & 4 Atmos as in-ceiling speakers. Pictures rarely seem to focus on the hidden aspect of these speakers, because the home theater owners are more interested in the rest of the room.
> 
> Help me out here, guys. I know a lot of you must have great theaters with the Atmos speakers & in-wall speakers installed well. I'm sure of that. Could some of you who have had the opportunity to cut holes in sheetrock & install in-wall & in-ceiling speakers properly post some photos of how good these speakers can look - meaning how little you can see them? I need some help in convincing my wife that these speakers won't look terrible & won't hurt the resell value of our house (even though we have no plans to sell in the near future)? Thanks.


If you must go in-ceilings for heights then make sure you get ones with angled baffles so you can aim them at listeners.
30-45 deg is best but are around $500 each
15deg ones are OK and can be had for around $100
Down-firing are your least preferred option as the Main Listening Position will be more than 45deg off-axis and you want to be as on-axis as possible to all speakers.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> If you must go in-ceilings for heights then make sure you get ones with angled baffles so you can aim them at listeners.
> 30-45 deg is best but are around $500 each
> 15deg ones are OK and can be had for around $100
> Down-firing are your least preferred option as the Main Listening Position will be more than 45deg off-axis and you want to be as on-axis as possible to all speakers.


in my experience there are very few if any in ceiling height speakers that angle 45 degrees. Most are about 15 degrees


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> in my experience there are very few if any in ceiling height speakers that angle 45 degrees. Most are about 15 degrees


Yeah there is a few - but mainly from higher end manufacturers - and being around $500 each makes them very very expensive IMO.
Thats why I always suggest bookshelf speakers mounted on-ceiling - can get 4 quality ones for the same as one in-ceiling and with the proper mount can aim them exactly as needed.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched The Tomorrow War on Prime in Atmos and I have to say it was awesome (The Atmos soundtrack that is). The movie wasn't too bad either. 

Sounds everywhere. Often. Check it out.


----------



## X4100

I have prime, but I can't get Atmos, is that because I don't have 4k? I heard that there is a work around for this 😢


----------



## howard68

You need to have a 4k tv 
I still using my Elite Plazma tv 1080 p 
So I got a gadget to trick the system to think I have a 4k tv from HD Fury 
I believe that you can now get cheap versions that downscale 4K to 1080 p from Amazion 

H


----------



## X4100

Yes, that's what I was trying to remember. I'm going to Amazon now!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Amazon.com: 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2 : Electronics


Buy 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2: Splitters - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com




I think this is one that’s popular.


----------



## ebailey

boomer1950 said:


> I'm surprised by the lack of photos of well-installed home theater speakers both in-wall & in-ceiling. The photos seem to emphasize the hidden wall of subwoofers or the amazing theater seats or the massive LCR & projection screens. I'm trying to show my wife how subtle properly installed in-wall & in-ceiling speakers can look, but I can't find good photos of "stealth" systems.
> 
> I'm planning a 5.1.4 system installed as my living room is being remodeled. I have 3 ELAC Uni-fi Slim centers for LCR with a subwoofer under the center speaker. I plan to have the side surrounds as in-wall speakers & 4 Atmos as in-ceiling speakers. Pictures rarely seem to focus on the hidden aspect of these speakers, because the home theater owners are more interested in the rest of the room.
> 
> Help me out here, guys. I know a lot of you must have great theaters with the Atmos speakers & in-wall speakers installed well. I'm sure of that. Could some of you who have had the opportunity to cut holes in sheetrock & install in-wall & in-ceiling speakers properly post some photos of how good these speakers can look - meaning how little you can see them? I need some help in convincing my wife that these speakers won't look terrible & won't hurt the resell value of our house (even though we have no plans to sell in the near future)? Thanks.


If it helps, here's my 5.1.2 setup in our new addition we built last year - all speakers are Paradigm, Mains are in-walls, Center is a Decor mounted on the bottom of the Sony OLED, Surrounds are small on-walls (the black has since been replaced by white so it's even less visible), and ceilings are in-ceiling (in one of the photos you can just barely see one of them by the fan). TV is on a motorized MantelMount. There are, of course, compromises with an unobtrusive system, but no regrets here at all!


----------



## X4100

Polyrythm1k said:


> Amazon.com: 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2 : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2: Splitters - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one that’s popular.


THANKS!! I just placed my order, should be here Saturday


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I just watched The Tomorrow War on Prime in Atmos and I have to say it was awesome (The Atmos soundtrack that is). The movie wasn't too bad either.
> 
> Sounds everywhere. Often. Check it out.


Yea it was good, I watched it before I had ran Audyssey so it would have sounded even better if I had done that first. Still it's a great Atmos mix


----------



## howard68

Polyrythm1k said:


> Amazon.com: 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2 : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2: Splitters - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one that’s popular.


Do report back on how it works 
😧😁


----------



## csmonroe

I am experiencing intermittent Dolby ATMOS availability on my Samsung TV Netflix "smart" app. A good example is "Inventing Anna" for which ATMOS is listed as available. This has been going on for about a month now. Other smart apps, e.g., Prime Video, Apple TV+, and HBO Max, stream Dolby ATMOS content flawlessly via ARC to my Denon AVR when available. My system is 7.2.4. Thoughts? Comments?


----------



## MagnumX

howard68 said:


> Do report back on how it works
> 😧😁


I think the one I bought two years ago is an earlier version of that one (my Amazon record points to the new one above). It works perfect here. He can also get Atmos from Prime with an Apple TV 4K unit even without it as it will send Atmos for Prime, iTunes, Disney+ and maybe more at 1080p too.


----------



## X4100

Just finished Twister, even at 38 db what an EXTRAVAGANZA of a soundtrack.  especially when you consider the age of the original movie!


----------



## X4100

I wonder if turbine will do Das Boot in Dolby Atmos, because the 5.1 upmixed with DSU is amazingly good!


----------



## halcyon_888

I'm hoping they don't botch Avatar's atmos if it ever comes out, that's another soundtrack that upmixes extremely well


----------



## Visconti12

csmonroe said:


> I am experiencing intermittent Dolby ATMOS availability on my Samsung TV Netflix "smart" app. A good example is "Inventing Anna" for which ATMOS is listed as available. This has been going on for about a month now. Other smart apps, e.g., Prime Video, Apple TV+, and HBO Max, stream Dolby ATMOS content flawlessly via ARC to my Denon AVR when available. My system is 7.2.4. Thoughts? Comments?


What's your Samsung TV model and firmware version? I'm experiencing a similar issue with mine QE75Q7 (2017) not yet resolved.


----------



## padlock_

ebailey said:


> If it helps, here's my 5.1.2 setup in our new addition we built last year - all speakers are Paradigm, Mains are in-walls, Center is a Decor mounted on the bottom of the Sony OLED, Surrounds are small on-walls (the black has since been replaced by white so it's even less visible), and ceilings are in-ceiling (in one of the photos you can just barely see one of them by the fan). TV is on a motorized MantelMount. There are, of course, compromises with an unobtrusive system, but no regrets here at all!
> 
> View attachment 3245238
> 
> 
> View attachment 3245239
> 
> 
> View attachment 3245240
> 
> 
> View attachment 3245242


I was just thinking that the TV was way to high (especially compared to the front speakers) until I saw your last picture. That looks awesome.


----------



## ebailey

padlock_ said:


> I was just thinking that the TV was way to high (especially compared to the front speakers) until I saw your last picture. That looks awesome.


 Yep we almost never use the TV "up" (although we do sometimes, like when we have a fire going, or if it is just on in the background). The mount is truly amazing - can't say enough good things about it! MM860 Motorized Drop Down & Swivel TV Mount - Default Title


----------



## Gates

Chirosamsung said:


> in my experience there are very few if any in ceiling height speakers that angle 45 degrees. Most are about 15 degrees


Paradigm make a few models at 30 degrees, like my CI Elite 80-A. Some of the other speakers in the CI Pro and CI Home have them as well.


----------



## X4100

Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> in my experience there are very few if any in ceiling height speakers that angle 45 degrees. Most are about 15 degrees


Just did a quick Duck-Duck-Go search and there aren't many :

45deg :
Triad : Triad’s In-Ceiling Speaker Takes Aim at Dolby Atmos, DTS:X : $800
More Triad : Triad Gold Series In-Ceiling Omni SE Speaker (Left Side Mount) | Snap One : $unknown
Klipsch : Klipsch PRO-180RPC LCR 8" Angled In-Ceiling Speaker (Each): $350-400 ? (All I could find was $700AUD)
B&W : https://www.bowers-wilkins-custom-id.com/speakers/ccm8-5-d/ : $unknown
Monoprice : Monoprice Alpha Ceiling Speaker Dual 5.25in Carbon Fiber Surround 2-way Vari-Angled (single) - Monoprice.com : $80 - You have to mount these rectangular ones on an angle (to the walls, not the ceiling) as you can't rotate those for perfect aiming.

35 deg :
Focal : https://www.abt.com/Focal-1000-ICA6...xial-Loudspeaker-Each-F1000ICA6/p/164692.html : $1200

30 deg :
Paradigm : CI Elite E80-A : $450-500 ?

25 deg :
Martin Logan : https://www.abt.com/MartinLogan-Motion-MC6-HT-White-In-Ceiling-Speaker-Each-MC6HT/p/160810.html : $500

15 deg :
RSL : C34E Ceiling Speaker - RSL Speakers : $125
Monoprice : Monoprice Alpha In-Ceiling Speakers 8in Carbon Fiber 2-Way with 15 degree Angled Drivers (pair) - Monoprice.com : $75

All prices are each, not pairs.

I have created a thread with all the above info : List of angled in-ceiling speakers for Immersive Sound...


----------



## petetherock

ebailey said:


> If it helps, here's my 5.1.2 setup in our new addition we built last year - all speakers are Paradigm, Mains are in-walls, Center is a Decor mounted on the bottom of the Sony OLED, Surrounds are small on-walls (the black has since been replaced by white so it's even less visible), and ceilings are in-ceiling (in one of the photos you can just barely see one of them by the fan). TV is on a motorized MantelMount. There are, of course, compromises with an unobtrusive system, but no regrets here at all!
> 
> View attachment 3245238
> 
> 
> View attachment 3245239
> 
> 
> View attachment 3245240
> 
> 
> View attachment 3245242


What a beautiful home, thumbs up mate...


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Just did a quick Duck-Duck-Go search and there aren't many :
> 
> 45deg :
> Triad : Triad’s In-Ceiling Speaker Takes Aim at Dolby Atmos, DTS:X : $800
> More Triad : Triad Gold Series In-Ceiling Omni SE Speaker (Left Side Mount) | Snap One : $unknown
> Klipsch : Klipsch PRO-180RPC LCR 8" Angled In-Ceiling Speaker (Each): $350-400 ? (All I could find was $700AUD)
> B&W : https://www.bowers-wilkins-custom-id.com/speakers/ccm8-5-d/ : $unknown
> Monoprice : Monoprice Alpha Ceiling Speaker Dual 5.25in Carbon Fiber Surround 2-way Vari-Angled (single) - Monoprice.com : $80 - You have to mount these rectangular ones on an angle (to the walls, not the ceiling) as you can't rotate those for perfect aiming.
> 
> 35 deg :
> Focal : https://www.abt.com/Focal-1000-ICA6...xial-Loudspeaker-Each-F1000ICA6/p/164692.html : $1200
> 
> 30 deg :
> Paradigm : CI Elite E80-A : $450-500 ?
> 
> 25 deg :
> Martin Logan : https://www.abt.com/MartinLogan-Motion-MC6-HT-White-In-Ceiling-Speaker-Each-MC6HT/p/160810.html : $500
> 
> 15 deg :
> RSL : C34E Ceiling Speaker - RSL Speakers : $125
> Monoprice : Monoprice Alpha In-Ceiling Speakers 8in Carbon Fiber 2-Way with 15 degree Angled Drivers (pair) - Monoprice.com : $75
> 
> All prices are each, not pairs.
> 
> I have created a thread with all the above info : List of angled in-ceiling speakers for Immersive Sound...



No love for PSB?

CS AIC 860 (IN-CEILING 15 degree angled woofer baffle with fully pivoting/aimable tweeter)
CS AIC 860 – 6" Angled In-Ceiling Speaker - PSB Speakers

I'm seeing $649 each on Crutchfield and $849 a pair on eBay ($427.50 each)

These go well with the PSB Imagine series of speakers according to their documentation.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> I just watched The Tomorrow War on Prime in Atmos and I have to say it was awesome (The Atmos soundtrack that is). The movie wasn't too bad either.
> 
> Sounds everywhere. Often. Check it out.


Based on this I downloaded and watched it. Yes ... the movie was quite good and the sound ...excellent!


----------



## chmorgan

Can we swing back to calculating angles please? I just don't get it. I am using one the online calculators.

Sitting at the MLP, I measure 5' to the ceiling and 8' to the wall in front of me. The result is 35 degrees. What does that represent?

I think my front heights are too far in front of me and am doing a sanity check to get them to 45 degrees. 

Geometry was never my strong point.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chmorgan said:


> Can we swing back to calculating angles please? I just don't get it. I am using one the online calculators.
> 
> Sitting at the MLP, I measure 5' to the ceiling and 8' to the wall in front of me. The result is 35 degrees. What does that represent?
> 
> I think my front heights are too far in front of me and am doing a sanity check to get them to 45 degrees.
> 
> Geometry was never my strong point.


If you measure 5' to the ceiling from your ears at the MLP, then 45 degrees forward would be 5' in front of you. Easy peasy. That said, if you have them at 35 degrees now and have them set as front height instead of top front, that is fine. The only reason I would move it is if you prefer more overhead sound than just elevated front sound. I prefer top front/rear placement, but arguments have been made for just about every layout. It's up to you.


----------



## X4100

I agree with your comment about top vs height, with some soundtracks  . I don't quite understand why, I suppose it has to do with the mixing process. Sometimes there is a very nice overhead effect, which is really enjoyable, and at other times there's a strong sense of front to back as well as side to side envelopment. I guess if I had all bases covered with a tops, and height configuration I would have the best of both worlds. That's why I'm using the arrayed middle heights in conjunction with front heights to get a more immersive overhead, and at the same time extension of the sound to the front left/right height as well . I really noticed that experience while watching Twister in Dolby Atmos. At times it felt as if I was caught up in the tornado, and at other times it had the effect of the tornado going off screen towards the front of the room as it withdrew into the air


----------



## Polyrythm1k

chmorgan said:


> Can we swing back to calculating angles please? I just don't get it. I am using one the online calculators.
> 
> Sitting at the MLP, I measure 5' to the ceiling and 8' to the wall in front of me. The result is 35 degrees. What does that represent?
> 
> I think my front heights are too far in front of me and am doing a sanity check to get them to 45 degrees.
> 
> Geometry was never my strong point.


----------



## X4100

I remember thinking when I first heard of the use of overhead speakers, (after the days of PLIIZ) I was very excited about the VOG speaker being discrete unlike the 2 front heights used with PLIIZ. As time passed, I realized that the VOG wasn't implemented by Dolby Atmos, but with DTS:X, which my x4100 doesn't support. I have never heard a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X movie in a cinema, as none are near me, and I have no problems with this, YMMV, but I'm totally happy with the results I have at home!! No sticky floor, being shot at, people talking on phones..... and the dreadful child in back of me kicking my chair experience! I'm finally getting to the point of enjoying the ride, and trying not to focus on my overhead sound. I was watching a CSI episode the other day and I realized that the sound was in the room where the speakers seemed to have vanished, even the reality show 60 Days In, has some nice effects whereby I can't pinpoint the sound location, it's just there! I played Ready Player 1, and realized how well the mixer placed the sounds. I received the 4k HDMI input/output switch, and hopefully I'll be able to get the Dolby Atmos on Amazon Prime. Right now I'm just trying to decide what movies to "listen to " next week. AHH!! the Joy's of retirement! Hopefully this fiasco with covid will go away!! But something else will happen, have a great weekend my friends!!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> I have never heard a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X movie in a cinema, as none are near me, and I have no problems with this, YMMV, but I'm totally happy with the results I have at home!! No sticky floor, being shot at, people talking on phones..... and the dreadful child in back of me kicking my chair experience! I'm finally getting to the point of enjoying the ride, and trying not to focus on my overhead sound.


We have one Atmos theater here, but it's a boutique theater where they serve dinner and drinks (so you're looking at $80-100 a pop if you take someone). Every other theater here is garbage. Like... 7.1 at best, usually with barely working speakers. Knowing what I'm listening for, I usually can single out which speaker is blown, where crackles are coming from, dead amps, etc. With 7.1.4 in my home, I feel zero motivation to go through that anymore, especially because of how inconsiderate people have become. My friends who have heard my setup usually opt to just come over when I get a new flick on UHD. They all know that a bigger screen is next... and more room treatments... and my endless tweaking with MultEQ X to eke out that last little bit of performance only I will notice. And you do get satisfaction out of it when people's jaws hit the floor. I ran the opening of Ghostbusters Afterlife for guests recently and got several cries of "Holy s#-t!"


----------



## titan ii

X4100 said:


> . As time passed, I realized that the VOG wasn't implemented by Dolby Atmos, but with DTS:X, which my x4100 doesn't support.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the VOG goes with Auro 3D.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

titan ii said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the VOG goes with Auro 3D.


Yep. It does.


----------



## chmorgan

Thanks for the responses guys. 

My front heights are just about 5 feet in front of me. They are actually tops as they are on ceiling but I recently reassigned them to heights to see if it made any differences in the overhead sound which I prefer but have a hard time distinguishing from the fronts.

I've tried movies like Overlord with the ball rolling upstairs but I did not get that sound in my room that it was right above me. 

I recently tried running them hot and that does make a difference but I'm not sure that it's a good difference. I need to go back and test some specific scenes.

Thanks again. I enjoy reading this thread even if a lot of what is being said is above my pay grade. There's always something to learn.


----------



## MagnumX

titan ii said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the VOG goes with Auro 3D.


DTS:X supports most Atmos locations and all Auro-3D speaker locations including the VOG. You do need to have available channels left (i.e.If you're already running 7.1.4 in DTS:X, you can't have the VOG active too since that would then be 12 channels plus DTS:X needs the Pro version to support >11.1 channels even if the AVR/AVP supports more (many still haven't added Pro). But even my Marantz 7012 will use the VOG in DTS:X if I run a 5.1.4 + VOG setup instead of 7.1.4.

An AVR like the Denon 8500 could run DTS:X in 7.1.4 + CH + VOG since it has both 13 channels plus DTS:X Pro support. It could also run Auro-3D 13.1 that uses both as well.

It's a shame Dolby doesn't support CH & VOG as they lock the center overhead panning and sounds in place for all seats including off-axis ones. You could create your own functional support in Atmos for both, though by using a Pro Logic processor to create a center output between Top Middle speaker output in Atmos mode and a CH between the Front Heights.


----------



## X4100

Thanks for the correction, I can do Auro, but not for $200.00


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> Thanks for the correction, I can do Auro, but not for $200.00


The way I looked at it when I was using the Marantz 7010 is that for the price of two dinners for two at a decent restaurant I could try out Auro-3D and it's upmixer and that lasts a lot longer than dinner. Besides, it was such a small percentage of the overall cost. 

I've now got 24 Auro-3D movies (Twister is better in Auro-3D IMO) and a dozen music albums and the upmixer works on everything. Many prefer it for music upmixing.


----------



## LawCPA

MagnumX said:


> The way I looked at it when I was using the Marantz 7010 is that for the price of two dinners for two at a decent restaurant I could try out Auro-3D and it's upmixer and that lasts a lot longer than dinner. Besides, it was such a small percentage of the overall cost.
> 
> I've now got 24 Auro-3D movies (Twister is better in Auro-3D IMO) and a dozen music albums and the upmixer works on everything. Many prefer it for music upmixing.


Audioholics hasn’t been backing it. At least the “medium” setting for music upmixing, they’re saying it dumps too much in center. Then again they said it sounded like all channel stereo as well. Also they’ve confirmed different Auro software numbers so it’s been updated? I bought the upgrade a long time ago but the bass boost is too much as I’ve tweaked and have a house curve already. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

titan ii said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the VOG goes with Auro 3D.


Auro 3D and DTS:X-Pro/Imax Enhanced


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

So what are people finding to be the best kind of speakers to go with Immersive Audio?

Speakers with good horizontal dispersion (wide soundstage) but what about good verticle dispersion for imaging with the height channels? Depending on how your height channels are mounted, they may need good verticle dispersion to image properly between the height channels (depending on the listeners position)

How about Line Array or Line Source speakers? I was looking at the JBL Line Array speakers the CBT 70-J and those seem like they would work very well as the surround (and maybe height) speakers in an immersive setup.

What speakers have people found help to facilitate that seamless bubble of sound effect from Atmos soundtracks?


----------



## MagnumX

LawCPA said:


> Audioholics hasn’t been backing it. At least the “medium” setting for music upmixing, they’re saying it dumps too much in center. Then again they said it sounded like all channel stereo as well. Also they’ve confirmed different Auro software numbers so it’s been updated? I bought the upgrade a long time ago but the bass boost is too much as I’ve tweaked and have a house curve already.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Do I look like someone who cares what Audioholics thinks?










A strength setting of up to about 7 in Auro's upmixer will have little to no effect on bass output (tested with REW). I've posted graphs to adjust sub for higher settings before. I've noticed no center heaviness either. If anything, I find the effects too timid for stereo sources, but it does work very well on multichannel music here, both to keep 5.1 albums out of the rear surround speakers (since it doesn't support rear surrounds here with 4 or more overheads assigned) and to extend the imaging to a larger room filling image. Others seem to love it for two channel also, however so to each their own.

I would not compare it to multichannel stereo. The levels are not remotely as loud in the extended speakers (all normally even in multichannel stereo) and it adds some reverb as well. 

I have found multichannel stereo mode with two channel sources to be very interesting ibdeed when combined with Carver's old outboard Sonic Holography, however, particularly when combined with a single Top Middle overhead output (side effect of Scatmos). It sounds like a much more natural circular wrap, very reminiscent of real 5.1 or 7.1 music albums with a hint of overhead here and there.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> but what about good verticle dispersion for imaging with the height channels?


Thats a very good question - I haven't seen that brought up or mentioned anywhere else. It does make sense though and would be interested to see if anybodya has done any sort of testing for it.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> How about Line Array or Line Source speakers?


There is a theatre with all 13 or 15 identical line array speakers on here : Archaea's multi-purpose Home Theater room
I am sure @Archaea will be able to espouse the benefits of line arrays.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chmorgan said:


> My front heights are just about 5 feet in front of me. They are actually tops as they are on ceiling but I recently reassigned them to heights to see if it made any differences in the overhead sound which I prefer but have a hard time distinguishing from the fronts.
> 
> I've tried movies like Overlord with the ball rolling upstairs but I did not get that sound in my room that it was right above me.
> 
> I recently tried running them hot and that does make a difference but I'm not sure that it's a good difference. I need to go back and test some specific scenes.


Are you running 2 heights or 4? You haven't mentioned anything other than top fronts.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Speakers with good horizontal dispersion (wide soundstage) but what about good verticle dispersion for imaging with the height channels? Depending on how your height channels are mounted, they may need good verticle dispersion to image properly between the height channels (depending on the listeners position)


Interesting thought. I wouldn't think the dispersion matters except for coverage (i.e. trying to get all the seats within the general listening window). Vertical certainly wouldn't matter for the ear-level channels and you presumably might prefer lower dispersion on the vertical to minimize ceiling reflections. The height channels, however... Getting them aimed for coverage can certainly be affected by the design. I use SVS Prime Elevations on my ceiling and they work pretty well, but with a caveat. Like most of the Prime line, once you get significantly off-axis vertically, you start to see a dip at the crossover point between the tweeters and mids. Not an issue for ear-level channels or even mounting surrounds a bit higher (because they don't fall off as much BELOW the tweeter)... but if you put the Elevations at the customary 45 degrees fore and aft, that 20 degree angle to their baffle leaves you 25 degrees off axis. In my room, you see it exhibit about a 4dB dip at 2kHz - a little lower frequency than the usual BBC dip and where Audyssey tends to apply MRC. And yet, I still get very solid imaging between them and the ear-level channels. That imaging doesn't seem to be affected whether I let Audyssey try to correct that dip and kill MRC or if I leave MRC in place just on those speakers. But I'd lay good money that if I put them on articulating mounts and aimed them, they would be better (which is why other than how good they look aesthetically, I think you're better off with something you can aim). Personally, I think SVS should have gone with a 30 degree angle to the baffle, which would have been more ideal for front/rear height and work a bit better for top front/rear. Even sidewall placement would benefit.

So I wonder if much of that is taken into consideration with in-ceiling designs other than just getting them as close to on-axis as possible.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> Thats a very good question - I haven't seen that brought up or mentioned anywhere else. It does make sense though and would be interested to see if anybodya has done any sort of testing for it.
> 
> There is a theatre with all 13 or 15 identical line array speakers on here : Archaea's multi-purpose Home Theater room
> I am sure @Archaea will be able to espouse the benefits of line arrays.


Yes, I have seen that thread. He is using the JBL speakers I was looking at.

There is also a Youthman video about that room I think. And another video with a guy who owns Wilson Audio Line Source speakers. But those kinds of speakers are way outta my price range.


----------



## chmorgan

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Are you running 2 heights or 4? You haven't mentioned anything other than top fronts.


4 which have now been reassigned to tops. I really didn't hear any difference whether I them assigned as heights or tops.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chmorgan said:


> 4 which have now been reassigned to tops. I really didn't hear any difference whether I them assigned as heights or tops.


It usually isn't the assignment itself that matters so much when you aren't getting a sense of overhead sound, if they are at the right position for top front/rear. I've found that you sometimes need to tweak the distances a hair to solidify imaging between the two pairs. Try playing the 9.1.6 test tone track from Dolby if you have access to it. When it gets to top mid, listen for whether it is imaging it between the top front and rear. If you aren't getting a good phantom image there above you between them, listen for which direction it seems to be biased and raise the opposing speaker 0.1 ft in distance. In other words, if the image seems more toward the top front left than it should, bump the top rear left up a hair. Assuming all your levels are matched, this should shift the phantom image back toward the rear so that it is directly overhead between them. Do the same for the other side. After that, play the Helicopter demo and listen for imaging between front/rear as it moves around the speakers. I've found that it usually takes a minor change from what auto-cal detects to get things lined up optimally.

Otherwise, it may take a closer look at pics of your room to see what the root cause is.


----------



## chmorgan

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It usually isn't the assignment itself that matters so much when you aren't getting a sense of overhead sound, if they are at the right position for top front/rear. I've found that you sometimes need to tweak the distances a hair to solidify imaging between the two pairs. Try playing the 9.1.6 test tone track from Dolby if you have access to it. When it gets to top mid, listen for whether it is imaging it between the top front and rear. If you aren't getting a good phantom image there above you between them, listen for which direction it seems to be biased and raise the opposing speaker 0.1 ft in distance. In other words, if the image seems more toward the top front left than it should, bump the top rear left up a hair. Assuming all your levels are matched, this should shift the phantom image back toward the rear so that it is directly overhead between them. Do the same for the other side. After that, play the Helicopter demo and listen for imaging between front/rear as it moves around the speakers. I've found that it usually takes a minor change from what auto-cal detects to get things lined up optimally.
> 
> Otherwise, it may take a closer look at pics of your room to see what the root cause is.


The 9.1.6 test tone trick is a great idea. I am going to hunt that down and give it a shot.

I have used the helicopter demo and it images very well between left and right and from front to rear. I can hear it transition to all speakers without any gaps in the movement. It just seems a bit too far forward but the audio is definitely coming from up high, just not anchored directly above me. But maybe it's not supposed to be directly above me.

Thanks for giving me some things to check out.


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> My front heights are just about 5 feet in front of me. They are actually tops as they are on ceiling but I recently reassigned them to heights to see if it made any differences in the overhead sound which I prefer but have a hard time distinguishing from the fronts.


I'm not sure why you're thinking of them as tops. If the distance from MLP to ceiling is 5' and the distance from MLP is close to 5' and the distance from MLP to your screen is 8' then, to my way of thinking, those are "Front Heights" not tops. Changing their assignment from "tops" to "Front Heights" should make a substantial difference.

Sorry, I've totally forgotten your set up. I see you have a Denon x4500H ... are you running 5.x.4? Basically I'm asking if you have "Rear Heights"? Or are the speakers you've been dicussing your only Height channels (7.x.2)?


chmorgan said:


> I've tried movies like Overlord with the ball rolling upstairs but I did not get that sound in my room that it was right above me.
> 
> I recently tried running them hot and that does make a difference but I'm not sure that it's a good difference. I need to go back and test some specific scenes.
> 
> Thanks again. I enjoy reading this thread even if a lot of what is being said is above my pay grade. There's always something to learn.


I'm not at all sure what you mean by "running them hot"?


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> I'm not sure why you're thinking of them as tops. If the distance from MLP to ceiling is 5' and the distance from MLP is close to 5' and the distance from MLP to your screen is 8' then, to my way of thinking, those are "Front Heights" not tops. Changing their assignment from "tops" to "Front Heights" should make a substantial difference.
> 
> Sorry, I've totally forgotten your set up. I see you have a Denon x4500H ... are you running 5.x.4? Basically I'm asking if you have "Rear Heights"? Or are the speakers you've been dicussing your only Height channels (7.x.2)?
> 
> 
> I'm not at all sure what you mean by "running them hot"?


My understanding of heights vs tops are the heights are located where the front wall meets the ceiling and where the back wall meets the ceiling or directly above the front and rear speakers.

My speakers are on the ceiling in toward the MLP from the front speakers and inward about 2.5 feet from the side walls. I got a fancy new laser measuring tape and was sitting pointing it at the front wall not realizing I was holding my arms out to do so. The actual distance from the MLP to front wall is about 10 feet. I do bonehead stuff like this all the time. It's pretty fun to be around me.

When I say running the speakers hot, I mean setting them about 5db over what Audyssey set them at and also compared to the volume of the front stage. So the adjustment was basically moving them from -2db to +3db.


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> I'm not sure why you're thinking of them as tops. If the distance from MLP to ceiling is 5' and the distance from MLP is close to 5' and the distance from MLP to your screen is 8' then, to my way of thinking, those are "Front Heights" not tops. Changing their assignment from "tops" to "Front Heights" should make a substantial difference.
> 
> Sorry, I've totally forgotten your set up. I see you have a Denon x4500H ... are you running 5.x.4? Basically I'm asking if you have "Rear Heights"? Or are the speakers you've been dicussing your only Height channels (7.x.2)?
> 
> 
> I'm not at all sure what you mean by "running them hot"?


I get 32 degrees (heights), but it makes no difference whatsoever with the heights/tops setting on any Atmos demo or movie I've ever compared and that's probably because it moves objects to the nearest available speakers in the height layer and thus Tops become Heights and Heights become Tops. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Now running both at the same time on a Trinnov is a different story.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

robert600 said:


> I'm not sure why you're thinking of them as tops. If the distance from MLP to ceiling is 5' and the distance from MLP is close to 5' and the distance from MLP to your screen is 8' then, to my way of thinking, those are "Front Heights" not tops. Changing their assignment from "tops" to "Front Heights" should make a substantial difference.


If the speakers are at 45 degrees and on the ceiling, he's right to call them top fronts, not front heights... Because that's how Dolby specifies them. If they were closer to 30 degrees elevation, they would be front heights, but 45 degrees is unquestionably at the top front position. As for the "substantial difference", it isn't so substantial. It doesn't affect the individual range of the height layer itself so much as how the heights are used in conjunction with the other speakers. But even that amounts to relatively minor changes in levels for objects below max Z to place them more accurately between the two layers (and mostly longitudinally, based on the expected position of that designation in the renderer).



chmorgan said:


> My speakers are on the ceiling in toward the MLP from the front speakers and inward about 2.5 feet from the side walls.


How wide is your room?


----------



## chmorgan

Jeremy Anderson said:


> If the speakers are at 45 degrees and on the ceiling, he's right to call them top fronts, not front heights... Because that's how Dolby specifies them. If they were closer to 30 degrees elevation, they would be front heights, but 45 degrees is unquestionably at the top front position. As for the "substantial difference", it isn't so substantial. It doesn't affect the individual range of the height layer itself so much as how the heights are used in conjunction with the other speakers. But even that amounts to relatively minor changes in levels for objects below max Z to place them more accurately between the two layers (and mostly longitudinally, based on the expected position of that designation in the renderer).
> 
> 
> How wide is your room?


 Approximately 12 feet.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chmorgan said:


> Approximately 12 feet.


You _may_ be running into the same problem I did - placing the heights too wide. My room is also 12' wide and I initially had them at about the same place you do. Dolby calls for them to _ideally_ be 0.5x the layout width apart (the distance between the side surrounds, not the room). In my room, my side surrounds are 6" deep, so my layout width is about 11'. That means the height rows should be 5.5' apart, center-to-center, which puts the center of each 3.25' from each side wall.

Not saying definitively that this is your problem, but... what I found in my room was that having them spaced out too wide made them blend more with the sound on the sides than they should. So you had more of a sense of elevated sound to your sides rather than anything being "overhead". Moving them so that they were at Dolby's "ideal" spacing (and confirming that this closely matched the mix room math for angular separation) made a noticeable difference in my room.

That said, if you're aiming them in toward the MLP, it may not make much of a difference. I'm just throwing it out there as something to consider.


----------



## chmorgan

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You _may_ be running into the same problem I did - placing the heights too wide. My room is also 12' wide and I initially had them at about the same place you do. Dolby calls for them to _ideally_ be 0.5x the layout width apart (the distance between the side surrounds, not the room). In my room, my side surrounds are 6" deep, so my layout width is about 11'. That means the height rows should be 5.5' apart, center-to-center, which puts the center of each 3.25' from each side wall.
> 
> Not saying definitively that this is your problem, but... what I found in my room was that having them spaced out too wide made them blend more with the sound on the sides than they should. So you had more of a sense of elevated sound to your sides rather than anything being "overhead". Moving them so that they were at Dolby's "ideal" spacing (and confirming that this closely matched the mix room math for angular separation) made a noticeable difference in my room.
> 
> That said, if you're aiming them in toward the MLP, it may not make much of a difference. I'm just throwing it out there as something to consider.


I had not noticed an issue with the overheads blending with the sides before but I will give it a more critical listen.

I do have the overheads pointed at the MLP so to your point, moving them a bit inward might not make much difference. It's something to consider though.


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> The 9.1.6 test tone trick is a great idea. I am going to hunt that down and give it a shot.
> 
> I have used the helicopter demo and it images very well between left and right and from front to rear. I can hear it transition to all speakers without any gaps in the movement. It just seems a bit too far forward but the audio is definitely coming from up high, just not anchored directly above me. But maybe it's not supposed to be directly above me.
> 
> Thanks for giving me some things to check out.


Ok ... sorry about the confusion about tops and heights,. It seems I have that wrong somehow... my bad. You seem reluctant to answer about what speaker system you're running 5.x.4 or7.x.2 or x.x.6???

When I was running helicopter in 7.1.4 ... it would move around and at times be overhead (sometimes a little left or right ... but overhead front to back). Now that I'm running 7.2.6 ... it's even moreso experienced as overhead.

Anyway, if you're having trouble finding the 9.1.6 test, here it is:

9.1.6.testTones.m2ts

It's larger than the other files (1.6Gb) I posted so it may require a little time to download. Again, don't worry about the virus bit, It's straight from the blueray to google drive. It seems to ping each speaker for about 1.5 minutes and I can't figure out a way to get it to jump to the next speaker. It appears to have 'chapters' to do that but for some reason ... my player at least doesn'tdo anything when I hit the 'next chapter' button. Maybe you'll have better luck. Whatever ... 1.5minutes isn't that long lol.


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> Ok ... sorry about the confusion about tops and heights,. It seems I have that wrong somehow... my bad. You seem reluctant to answer about what speaker system you're running 5.x.4 or7.x.2 or x.x.6???
> 
> When I was running helicopter in 7.1.4 ... it would move around and at times be overhead (sometimes a little left or right ... but overhead front to back). Now that I'm running 7.2.6 ... it's even moreso experienced as overhead.
> 
> Anyway, if you're having trouble finding the 9.1.6 test, here it is:
> 
> 9.1.6.testTones.m2ts
> 
> It's larger than the other files (1.6Gb) I posted so it may require a little time to download. Again, don't worry about the virus bit, It's straight from the blueray to google drive. It seems to ping each speaker for about 1.5 minutes and I can't figure out a way to get it to jump to the next speaker. It appears to have 'chapters' to do that but for some reason ... my player at least doesn'tdo anything when I hit the 'next chapter' button. Maybe you'll have better luck. Whatever ... 1.5minutes isn't that long lol.


I'm not reluctant to share my system info, it just hadn't come up to do so yet. My apologies if I missed something. 

I have a 7.2.4 system and do not get the overhead effect from the helicopter, just that it distinctly circles around me from above. 

Once again, thank you for the link! I may actually have this one with how you describe it. I'll be sure to check it out though.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You _may_ be running into the same problem I did - placing the heights too wide. My room is also 12' wide and I initially had them at about the same place you do. Dolby calls for them to _ideally_ be 0.5x the layout width apart (the distance between the side surrounds, not the room). In my room, my side surrounds are 6" deep, so my layout width is about 11'. That means the height rows should be 5.5' apart, center-to-center, which puts the center of each 3.25' from each side wall.
> 
> Not saying definitively that this is your problem, but... what I found in my room was that having them spaced out too wide made them blend more with the sound on the sides than they should. So you had more of a sense of elevated sound to your sides rather than anything being "overhead". Moving them so that they were at Dolby's "ideal" spacing (and confirming that this closely matched the mix room math for angular separation) made a noticeable difference in my room.
> 
> That said, if you're aiming them in toward the MLP, it may not make much of a difference. I'm just throwing it out there as something to consider.


BS. I have an Auro layout and sounds go anywhere on the ceiling, Atmos or otherwise.


----------



## robert600

chmorgan said:


> I have a 7.2.4 system and do not get the overhead effect from the helicopter, just that it distinctly circles around me from above.


Words are always difficult to describe perceptual phenomena. Yes ... to that circling effect. Here's the question though. As it does that circling and is moving from say the rear to the front ...and it is off to side a bit .... do you get the sense that it is ... directly overhead (front to back) but a little to the left (or right) of you ... moving smoothly from behind you to in front of you? Or ... does it seem to jump from behind you to in front of you? Do you know what I mean?
I don't think there is an instance in that demo where it sounds like it's overhead in both the front/back left/right dimensions at the same time ... but while it's circling (anticlockwise) it should move smoothly left to right and front to back (and vice versa) with no jumpiness ... smooth transitions across the speaker array.


----------



## X4100

The 9.1.6 file that was recently uploaded is not playing in Dolby Atmos, I tried another version of the same file, and Atmos lite up.


----------



## chmorgan

robert600 said:


> Words are always difficult to describe perceptual phenomena. Yes ... to that circling effect. Here's the question though. As it does that circling and is moving from say the rear to the front ...and it is off to side a bit .... do you get the sense that it is ... directly overhead (front to back) but a little to the left (or right) of you ... moving smoothly from behind you to in front of you? Or ... does it seem to jump from behind you to in front of you? Do you know what I mean?
> I don't think there is an instance in that demo where it sounds like it's overhead in both the front/back left/right dimensions at the same time ... but while it's circling (anticlockwise) it should move smoothly left to right and front to back (and vice versa) with no jumpiness ... smooth transitions across the speaker array.


Yes, it is off to the sides but still overhead. I wasn't sure if I should hear some sort of anchoring at dead center between all of my overhead speakers or if there were instances where the helicopter moved from the left and right front speakers to the left and right rear speakers that would give that dead center overhead effect.

Very smooth transitions no matter which direction the helicopter is moving. No "jump" at all.

It would be helpful if these demos included visuals that coincide with the audio so you could see which speakers are supposed to be active.


----------



## X4100

robert600 said:


> Words are always difficult to describe perceptual phenomena. Yes ... to that circling effect. Here's the question though. As it does that circling and is moving from say the rear to the front ...and it is off to side a bit .... do you get the sense that it is ... directly overhead (front to back) but a little to the left (or right) of you ... moving smoothly from behind you to in front of you? Or ... does it seem to jump from behind you to in front of you? Do you know what I mean?
> I don't think there is an instance in that demo where it sounds like it's overhead in both the front/back left/right dimensions at the same time ... but while it's circling (anticlockwise) it should move smoothly left to right and front to back (and vice versa) with no jumpiness ... smooth transitions across the speaker array.


I have .4 ceiling, and when the middle heights is playing, the sound is evenly distributed from the front and rear to phantom image in the middle. Yes it does circle the room smoothly left to right, without jumping. Do you have any other files with speaker locations in Dolby Atmos?


----------



## MagnumX

chmorgan said:


> Yes, it is off to the sides but still overhead. I wasn't sure if I should hear some sort of anchoring at dead center between all of my overhead speakers or if there were instances where the helicopter moved from the left and right front speakers to the left and right rear speakers that would give that dead center overhead effect.
> 
> Very smooth transitions no matter which direction the helicopter is moving. No "jump" at all.
> 
> It would be helpful if these demos included visuals that coincide with the audio so you could see which speakers are supposed to be active.


It doesn't go straight down through the middle center of the room between the speakers (i.e. Directly overhead). It circles around the room more towards the outside edges. It might even sound more like a square or rectangular path on some systems.

If you want to test something a bit closer to directly overhead, the Dolby Atmos "Conductor" demo has a bird fly left to right across the middle of the ceiling right near the start of it. With four speakers it might pull forward or backward a bit depending on which you sit closer to (precedence effect), but with six overheads or just two in Top Middle position or if you sit directly between the four overheads, it will cross directly over the middle of the room (or wherever the Top Middle is located).


----------



## howard68

X4100 said:


> The 9.1.6 file that was recently uploaded is not playing in Dolby Atmos, I tried another version of the same file, and Atmos lite up.


I have the same problem
Thought it was my bad download


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

MagnumX said:


> I get 32 degrees (heights), but it makes no difference whatsoever with the heights/tops setting on any Atmos demo or movie I've ever compared and that's probably because it moves objects to the nearest available speakers in the height layer and thus Tops become Heights and Heights become Tops. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Now running both at the same time on a Trinnov is a different story.


Is this true? I remember it being up for debate for a long time. As I recall, with DTS:X it does make a difference. When using tops the height channels bleed into the front and rear surround speakers. I know this is by design, but in my previous house the effect was really bad.

I'm now in the middle of building my new home theater. I will use in ceiling top speakers at 45° but I don't want the DTS:X height channels to bleed into the front and rear surround speakers. Should I just configure them as height speakers then? Does this really have no noticeable effect on Atmos?


----------



## MagnumX

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Is this true? I remember it being up for debate for a long time. As I recall, with DTS:X it does make a difference. When using tops the height channels bleed into the front and rear surround speakers. I know this is by design, but in my previous house the effect was really bad.
> 
> I'm now in the middle of building my new home theater. I will use in ceiling top speakers at 45° but I don't want the DTS:X height channels to bleed into the front and rear surround speakers. Should I just configure them as height speakers then? Does this really have no noticeable effect on Atmos?


I've never heard a _significant_ difference in testing (slight difference in what sounded like the helicopter timing for the length of the room part, maybe; no difference at all in Dolby's other demos).

Dolby rates 45 degrees as both a Heights *and* Tops location so if you don't want the DTS:X bleeding then yes, I'd choose heights and forget about it. If you have Auro-3D then it will work with that too. Some people actually store settings for both on USB sticks, which seems like a ridiculous PITA to me given the lack of differences in Atmos and Heights being preferable to most people with X (and the compatibility thing with Auro-3D on AVRs/AVPs that have it).


----------



## chmorgan

MagnumX said:


> It doesn't go straight down through the middle center of the room between the speakers (i.e. Directly overhead). It circles around the room more towards the outside edges. It might even sound more like a square or rectangular path on some systems.
> 
> If you want to test something a bit closer to directly overhead, the Dolby Atmos "Conductor" demo has a bird fly left to right across the middle of the ceiling right near the start of it. With four speakers it might pull forward or backward a bit depending on which you sit closer to (precedence effect), but with six overheads or just two in Top Middle position or if you sit directly between the four overheads, it will cross directly over the middle of the room (or wherever the Top Middle is located).


Thanks for the sanity check. I hear a square pattern when the copter is flying.

Thanks also for the heads up on the Conductor demo. This is what I want to hear, something that is directly overhead. I get what you are saying that it may pull forward or backward a bit, a good thing to be aware of.


----------



## X4100

I'm in agreement with the "flight path " on the helicopter demo. I've heard different posters say things that I didn't agree with, I thought it was just me. Lol


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

G4n0nD0rf said:


> Is this true? I remember it being up for debate for a long time. As I recall, with DTS:X it does make a difference. When using tops the height channels bleed into the front and rear surround speakers. I know this is by design, but in my previous house the effect was really bad.


DTS:X is hemispherical, so it makes sense for it to have that behavior. Atmos is room-centric. So for DTS:X, you actually want that bleed into front/rear because that's how it places sounds in the regions between those speaker positions. Atmos doesn't pan that way.



G4n0nD0rf said:


> I'm now in the middle of building my new home theater. I will use in ceiling top speakers at 45° but I don't want the DTS:X height channels to bleed into the front and rear surround speakers. Should I just configure them as height speakers then? Does this really have no noticeable effect on Atmos?


It will have no noticeable effect on the height channels themselves with objects that are at max Z, as they effectively represent a range of 0.0-1.0 regardless of designation. Where it does have some effect is on the precision of any object below max Z that gets steered between the other channels, as the renderer has different expectations between front/rear height and top front/rear. This affects the levels that are steered between the adjacent channels longitudinally. In other words, any sound meant to be mixed between the two layers gets shifted forward/back slightly by each of these predefined positions due to the math done to place the sound. Is it something you could pinpoint with any particular demo clip? Probably not. The differences in levels would be relatively minor. In one instance, you might have 10% more sound toward the front ear-level speakers and in the other, that 10% would shift toward side surround, depending on the object's placement. And that would only be true of content with dynamic objects between the two layers, as none of that affects mixes with static heights which are at max Z.

That's a long way of saying that yeah, there are differences, but noticeable? Not unless you knew exactly what to listen for and had exactly the right content. If you just isolated the height channels, there would be no perceivable difference other than a bit of variation in the speed of pans moving through it (again because of how they interact with the adjacent channels).


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> The 9.1.6 file that was recently uploaded is not playing in Dolby Atmos, I tried another version of the same file, and Atmos lite up.





howard68 said:


> I have the same problem
> Thought it was my bad download


Here is a 9.1.6 Dolby Atmos test file to download directly from Dolby. Click on the link below, then look for the 9.1.6 demo file download, then click to download it. I don't know what the other person was posting or if it's the same demo. If it's the same I have no idea why they would host it separately when you can download it straight from Dolby by following the link below:









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## X4100

THANKS @halcyon_888 for the demo! @Jeremy Anderson THANKS as well for your comments above!


----------



## tacos

Posted this in the speaker forum with no luck...any help would be greatly appreciated.

Should I turn my atmos speakers all the way up in setup options on my Denon AVR X4300H? Not really noticing alot from my atmos speakers. Haven't been watching alot of Blu rays lately. Noticed this past weekend Im not really hearing much from my atmos though. Back when I first got them. I was watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre UHD from Germany and it had alot of atmos effects that I really noticed. Not so much anymore. I know up firing isn't the greatest. However, its what I'm limited to. Wondering if going in any manually turning them all the way up would make a difference? Thanks and sorry if this is a stupid question. Not the most audio/video savy person out there.


----------



## X4100

IIRC the upfireing speakers need to be set up to bounce the sound in just the right angle to get the desired effect. I find that the closer my system is to reference level the height speakers kick in much better.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> DTS:X is hemispherical, so it makes sense for it to have that behavior. Atmos is room-centric. So for DTS:X, you actually want that bleed into front/rear because *that's how it places sounds in the regions between those speaker positions. Atmos doesn't pan that way*.


How sounds are electrically panned between channels has not magically changed with the advent of Atmos or X. They are panned the same way electrically speaking that they always have been. _PLACEMENT_ of sounds in locations where speakers are not available is where some differences exist, but they are design choices and are not related to the differences in speaker layouts.

Neural X (not X) attempts to place sounds where they are meant to come from when speakers are not in a given location. Neural X can also be disabled for use with X on most AVRs if the behavior is not desired.

Atmos moves the sounds to a different location (nearest available speakers in the same closest vertical plane). That is a design CHOICE by Dolby. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the layouts whatsoever!

Atmos could have had its renderer easily do the same thing Neural X does if they so desired. X, however, cannot move channels around like they are objects. X supports objects, but they are rarely used outside IMAX's center height location so it's hard to even know how X would handle an object in the same situation.

Essentially, Neural X attempts to compensate for a missing speaker location by using phantom imaging combinations of existing speakers to get as close as possible whereas Atmos doesn't bother to try to be accurate and just moves the sounds to an available speaker pair, even if it's on the other side of the room.

For example, try that Atmos "Conductor" demo and the animal roar early on meant for the rear heights will be be moved to front heights if you tell the setup that's the only height speakers you have. If that were an X demo, it would likely move the sound to the rear surround speakers instead, possibly with some overhead assist from top middle or front height if available to try and place a phantom image as close to the rear height location as possible as that is where the sound was meant to come from, not the front half of the room.

It has NOTHING to do with panning or the speaker layout, however. It's a design choice difference For example, if a sound is meant to move from front heights to rear heights or even just appear in rear heights and fade out of the rear heights of the room, do you really want it fading out in the front of the room instead if there is no rear height speakers available (Atmos) or would it be better to use the rear surrounds instead? X does rear surrounds with phantom imaging as close to rear height as it thinks it can achieve (NeuralX).

One can verify this with the Atmos helicopter demo. It will just go left/right in the front heights if you tell the setup that's the only overhead speakers you have. Run the DTS:X "object emulator" demo with only front heights and it will come out the rear surrounds (with possible assist for phantom imaging) when panning to rear heights as that location is closer to the object on-screen than the front heights. Which makes more sense? Both systems would likely use other nearby available speakers as that object on-screen begins to change in height to move into the lower layer.


----------



## X4100

You brought up some good points in your last post @MagnumX  as I'm running a .4 overhead setup I've never experienced those situations. I have to say this topic is very interesting. I have been using NEO:X here lately, and I'm enjoying the experience, the rabbit hole is getting very deep. Lol


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

tacos said:


> Posted this in the speaker forum with no luck...any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Should I turn my atmos speakers all the way up in setup options on my Denon AVR X4300H? Not really noticing alot from my atmos speakers. Haven't been watching alot of Blu rays lately. Noticed this past weekend Im not really hearing much from my atmos though. Back when I first got them. I was watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre UHD from Germany and it had alot of atmos effects that I really noticed. Not so much anymore. I know up firing isn't the greatest. However, its what I'm limited to. Wondering if going in any manually turning them all the way up would make a difference? Thanks and sorry if this is a stupid question. Not the most audio/video savy person out there.


No, dont do that. The speakers in your surround setup should be balanced against each other. So sounds that pan from one speaker to another doesnt suddenly get louder or quieter as they pan across the soundfield.

If you cant hear the sounds, turn up your main volume a bit. Surround and height content can be subtle and easily lost to ambient noise in your room at low volume levels. So turn up the volume a bit (maybe +5db) until everything becomes clear.

Keep in mind a lot of the problem isnt with your setup, its with the content. Try movies like Ready Player One, Godzilla v Kong, John Wick, Jupiter Ascending, Mission Impossible: Fallout etc. These movies have a lot of action scenes which include tons of height content. After listening to one of these movies, you will know for certain if your Atmos is working or not.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

tacos said:


> Posted this in the speaker forum with no luck...any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Should I turn my atmos speakers all the way up in setup options on my Denon AVR X4300H? Not really noticing alot from my atmos speakers. Haven't been watching alot of Blu rays lately. Noticed this past weekend Im not really hearing much from my atmos though. Back when I first got them. I was watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre UHD from Germany and it had alot of atmos effects that I really noticed. Not so much anymore. I know up firing isn't the greatest. However, its what I'm limited to. Wondering if going in any manually turning them all the way up would make a difference? Thanks and sorry if this is a stupid question. Not the most audio/video savy person out there.


One thing you might check is the distances. With upfirers, nailing the distance is critical and auto-cal doesn't get it right because it's measuring the direct path. I'm not sure about the 4300, but my 5200 didn't have the option to set the distance from the upfirer to the ceiling that later models did, so it worked on the assumption of an 8' ceiling. Go to the bottom of the distances under speaker settings and see if there is an option for Dolby Atmos. If your receiver supports it, that is where you will find the setting to adjust the speaker-to-ceiling distance from its default. Measure that distance and put it in, and it should have a better idea of the distance the "bounce" should be.

If the 4300 doesn't have that option, put a demo clip on a loop and try adjusting the distances of your upfirers in equal amounts upward (especially if your ceilings are higher than 8'). You should hear a shift at some point where they sound more in-line with the other speakers WITHOUT raising their levels. Upfirers can work, but it's a lot harder to get them set up right than Dolby would have you believe.


----------



## tacos

Thank you. I will not have time to play with it again until Friday. Lets say the 4300 doesn't have that option. Do you have a demo clip in mind? One that I can play on a continous loop? Search youtube perhaps? Thank you and the others for taking time to try and help. I knew something wasn't right with my setup lol.


----------



## X4100

Keep in mind that anything on YouTube, IS NOT in Dolby Atmos


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

tacos said:


> Thank you. I will not have time to play with it again until Friday. Lets say the 4300 doesn't have that option. Do you have a demo clip in mind? One that I can play on a continous loop? Search youtube perhaps? Thank you and the others for taking time to try and help. I knew something wasn't right with my setup lol.


When I had upfirers, I used the LEAF clip. Not for the leaf sound, which mostly spins around the ear-level channels, but it has several bursts of wind that go from rear left up overhead to front right and back again. You could also use ENCOUNTER, which has a sound that goes to the right surround then arcs overhead to left and back. Basically any clip that moves sound between the two layers will work for this. Also, it can't be from Youtube, because that's stereo only. There are downloadable clips that people here can point you to. Alternately, if you have an Xbox One, there are Atmos demo clips available through the Dolby app and I believe some streaming devices have the Dolby app with some of these clips as well.

It should sound like a bubble of sound around you. You'll know when you get it right.


----------



## ss nimrod

Yes you can set the distance with the 4300 (I have a 4300 also)


----------



## Visconti12

ss nimrod said:


> Yes you can set the distance with the 4300 (I have a 4300 also)


Distance to the ceiling not to the MLP. You have this option in all latest models Denon AVR or AVC-XxxxxH only.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Visconti12 said:


> Distance to the ceiling not to the MLP. You have this option in all latest models Denon AVR or AVC-XxxxxH only.


Just looked at the manual for the 4300 and it does have the distance to ceiling parameter, so he's correct.


----------



## Visconti12

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Just looked at the manual for the 4300 and it does have the distance to ceiling parameter, so he's correct.


Good, then one of latest production like XxxxxH as my previous X6200W didn't have it.


----------



## tacos

Jeremy Anderson said:


> When I had upfirers, I used the LEAF clip. Not for the leaf sound, which mostly spins around the ear-level channels, but it has several bursts of wind that go from rear left up overhead to front right and back again. You could also use ENCOUNTER, which has a sound that goes to the right surround then arcs overhead to left and back. Basically any clip that moves sound between the two layers will work for this. Also, it can't be from Youtube, because that's stereo only. There are downloadable clips that people here can point you to. Alternately, if you have an Xbox One, there are Atmos demo clips available through the Dolby app and I believe some streaming devices have the Dolby app with some of these clips as well.
> 
> It should sound like a bubble of sound around you. You'll know when you get it right.


Thank you for all the help. I don't have an Xbox one but do have a PS5. Do you think I can find that on there somewhere? Im off work tomorrow. I plan on popping a few tops tomorrow afternoon and getting this setup correct once and for all. 


ss nimrod said:


> Yes you can set the distance with the 4300 (I have a 4300 also)


I appreciate you letting me know. So let me ask. Do I actually measure from the speaker to the top of the ceiling? If so, does it matter where on the speaker? I have emotiva air motiv A1's. Thanks and sorry for all the questions.


----------



## X4100

I'm watching this video that I saw on Google, Dolby Atmos Setup Major Mistakes | Fix your Hom…:


----------



## Chirosamsung

I've learned by now that there is no official definitive list for Dolby atmos movies that have some/moderate/good use of the wide speakers but is it possible for some of you to recommend a few Dolby movies that you found that use wides at least enough to notice it even if just panning?

i upgraded to 9.1.4 and would like some discs that can show it off. I heard dune uses wides and bought that but would like recommendations for others please and thank you


----------



## dschulz

Chirosamsung said:


> I've learned by now that there is no official definitive list for Dolby atmos movies that have some/moderate/good use of the wide speakers but is it possible for some of you to recommend a few Dolby movies that you found that use wides at least enough to notice it even if just panning?
> 
> i upgraded to 9.1.4 and would like some discs that can show it off. I heard dune uses wides and bought that but would like recommendations for others please and thank you


Gravity and Roma (Alfonso Cuarón seems to have a thing for Atmos mixes)
Episodics: Carnival Row on Amazon Prime Video, Daredevil on Netflix

I have not checked the below personally for Wides specifically, but knowing how aggressive their mixes are I bet the wides are used quite a bit:
Netflilx's Fear Street Trilogy, and a sci-fi movie called Oxygen
Blade Runner 2049
Episodics: Stranger Things on Netflix


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

tacos said:


> Thank you for all the help. I don't have an Xbox one but do have a PS5. Do you think I can find that on there somewhere? Im off work tomorrow. I plan on popping a few tops tomorrow afternoon and getting this setup correct once and for all.
> 
> I appreciate you letting me know. So let me ask. Do I actually measure from the speaker to the top of the ceiling? If so, does it matter where on the speaker? I have emotiva air motiv A1's. Thanks and sorry for all the questions.


As far as I know, PS5 doesn't support output of any of the immersive formats with their apps, so I doubt they have the Dolby app on there.

I would say measure from the tweeter to the ceiling.


----------



## chmorgan

X4100 said:


> I'm watching this video that I saw on Google Dolby Atmos Setup Major Mistakes | Fix your Hom…:


This was very helpful. Thank you for posting!


----------



## X4100

THANKS, it really opened my eyes to what has been said many times before about the angle between speakers, base level and height level in totality in order to achieve the desired spatial bubble that we're striving to achieve! When I get home, I'm going to check out my angles. To get this information from an installer is very helpful, and valuable


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> I'm watching this video that I saw on Google Dolby Atmos Setup Major Mistakes | Fix your Hom…:


Yes ... thanks for the post ... a nice clear video indeed ... he explains things very clearly ... I think I understood everything he said which is rare for me!

After watching ...it seems clear to me I should raise my rear surrounds closer to the 20 degree mark (right now they're at 8) to get me more out of the couchback shadow ... and with them higher it convinces me to move my top rears forward to maybe 35 - 40 degrees. One thing he didn't mention though was the effect that might have on top/middles. Right now my top/fronts and top/rears are the same distance from MLP and the top/middles are exactly half way between ... which puts them directly overhead. However, when I move the top/rears forward a bit ... do I also move the top/middles forward half that distance so they stay exactly half way between the top/fronts and top/rears but no longer directly overhead ... OR do I leave them right where they are so that they're directly overhead but a little offcenter in regards to the front and rears? I'm thinking the latter is the better option.

I may also raise my surrounds a bit. What he says about the sound shadow of the other persons head makes sense to me.


----------



## X4100

I need to watch it again for that reason as well, but I'm thinking that if we maintain the 45 degrees, give or take 10 degrees, and not extend too close to 90, we should be ok  . At least that's what I'm going to try this weekend. IIRC he showed how you might have the top rear left/right at 35 degrees from the top middle heights, and keep the 45 degrees between the middle heights and the top front. The biggest thing is to maintain closer to 45 degrees between all the speakers so as to get the phantom image/bubble of immersion. Correct me if I am missing something, I may have explained it wrong, but I think I'm on the right track.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I need to watch it again for that reason as well, but I'm thinking that if we maintain the 45 degrees, give or take 10 degrees, and not extend too close to 90, we should be ok  . At least that's what I'm going to try this weekend. IIRC he showed how you might have the top rear left/right at 35 degrees from the top middle heights, and keep the 45 degrees between the middle heights and the top front. The biggest thing is to *maintain closer to 45 degrees between all the speakers* so as to get the phantom image/bubble of immersion. Correct me if I am missing something, I may have explained it wrong, but I think I'm on the right track.


It's strange, but I got no "alert" for new messages in this thread for the past 12 hours. It does this all the time on here. I don't know if I missed an old alert ("There may be more messages after that") and so it doesn't update or what.

I haven't watched the video yet (data limit on my phone), but it probably shouldn't be inferred 45 degrees between speakers. "Tops" are actually 90 degrees apart from each other. They might be 45 degrees each from you sitting in the middle, though.

If you have Top Middle you can have heights below 30 degrees, even according to Dolby' s own standards (20 with Top Middle). That would be 70 degrees between speakers with only 20 above ear level, but still well below the 90 total with two 45 degrees Tops.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I've learned by now that there is no official definitive list for Dolby atmos movies that have some/moderate/good use of the wide speakers but is it possible for some of you to recommend a few Dolby movies that you found that use wides at least enough to notice it even if just panning?
> 
> i upgraded to 9.1.4 and would like some discs that can show it off. I heard dune uses wides and bought that but would like recommendations for others please and thank you


Look for movies that have very active sound objects. Some movies are kind of "locked" to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 channels (and only occasionally use active sound objects that move around) and others have more active sound objects. When those sound objects move around the soundfield, they'll pass through the wides and activate them.

So look for reviews of Atmos movies that mention the active nature of the sound objects. Spare Change will do this in his reviews. Also look for DTSX movies. When you play a DTSX movie, you can go into the audio options and activate Neural X and it will "upmix" the 7.1 aspect of the sound mix to use the Wides. Then the sound objects will pass through those areas as well.

One movie to test this with would be Gladiator. Its in DTSX and the opening scene with the battle against the German horde where they are launching arrows and catapult ammo has a lot of sound objects. Its very immersive.

An Atmos movie where I know it uses a lot of active sound objects is Zack Snyder's 300.

Another movie with very active sound objects is The New Mutants. Not the best movie but you might be able to find it cheap if you just want to use it to test your atmos sound field.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Check out how active this New Mutants sound mix is


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

This one is interesting. Spiderman: No Way Home, the sound objects arent super active, but the height objects shift back and forth to widen the soundstage. 

You can see them shift very wide and activate the Front Heights and Top Rears. Then they will shift back to the Top-Middle position and activate the Top-Front and Top-Rear. At certain points, all 6 upper channels are active (front height, top-front and top-rear)

However there doesnt seem to be much action on the ground layer, so the Wides will probably be silent in this scene.






So with this movie, someone with 6 ceiling speakers should have a very immersive experience with the height information shifting between their front and rear height or top channels and then to their top-middles and occasionally activating all 6.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

For context, here is what a very active Atmos mix should look like. Note how the sound objects move everywhere.

Even the center bed object which you think would be pretty static, moves to the left and right.

In this scenario, every speaker in your system should light up. Even setups beyond 9.1.6. No problems with Wides or 6 height/ceiling channels under these conditions.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

And finally 300 where we see a lot of active sound objects. All 6 height channels are active and we occasionally see sound objects travelling between the Front left and right speakers and the side surrounds. Those sound objects would activate the wides. This guy doesnt have wides to light up, but theres no question that in this scenes, the wides would be quite active.

This movie and the New Mutants I posted earlier are prime examples of a proper immersive mix for an action/fantasy/sci-fi movie with these kinds of dynamic action scenes.

Ready Player One should have been mixed this way but for some odd reason, they chose to make it a mostly static mix.


----------



## priitv8

NuSoardGraphite said:


> And finally 300 where we see a lot of active sound objects.


It is important to note, that these are not objects moving. In Home Atmos, these are object clusters moving and as per Spatial Compression definition, individual objects can jump from one cluster to next, and this can not be visualized. This is the price paid for lossy spatial compression Home Atmos uses.


----------



## MagnumX

OK, I watched the video above about angles. The guy actually says 45/135 by itself is not great. You won't hear much of anything directly above you, at least with any accuracy. You need Top Middle! OK, with Heights, yes you really do. But do people with 4 Tops feel they have no sound clearly defined directly overhead? I've seen people claim they added Top Middle with Tops and couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. He says it makes all the difference in the world. You'll be swatting at flies. Yes, I was swatting at mosquitoes in the original Jumanji in Atmos, but I'm using Heights + Top Middle. I haven't heard in-ceiling 45/135 to compare. I can move my chair to come close (Sitting closer to front height so it's at 45 degrees and using Top Middle to simulate Top Rear using half the room and I have to say the imaging sounds pretty good overhead. Are those of you with Tops at 45/135 unhappy with your overhead imaging? I'd say Top Middle is more for anchoring the imaging in place for more than one row above a certain angle.

He also goes on about how 35 degrees (azimuth) for the mains as being his favorite angle (while saying it can be up to 45, which again validates "Tops" at 45 degrees from the listener or 90 degrees apart total), but then in the next breath goes on about how your speakers get further apart with higher ceilings. WTF is he talking about? It's like he's confusing azimuth with elevation at that point. I don't care how high your ceiling is, the overhead speakers don't move further apart in the X-axis (width of room). His own diagram showed 0.5 - 0.7 x Width of room separation. That doesn't change with ceiling height. The distance on the Y-Axis (whether the speakers end up on the wall or the ceiling) _does_ change with ceiling height, but that's not at all related to the 35 azimuth for the mains he talked about earlier. 

Now maybe it's poor editing or just poorly communicated, but my impression was he was smoking something before he started the video as the two (azimuth and elevation) aren't related directly to one another in the way he seems to correlate them. You're typically going to align Atmos overheads with the Mains or the Screen speakers. Auro-3D (and optionally DTS:X) align with the Mains/Rears and/or Side Surrounds (for Surround Height). That alignment doesn't vary with the ceiling height. That would be the Y-Axis (front to back distance from listener to achieve the same angle with a higher ceiling or what he didn't mention, SITTING CLOSER to the front wall!) No one ever said you had to space speakers out equidistance to the room itself. You can use half a room if you like. All that matters is the placement relative to YOU for a single row. For multiple rows (which he doesn't address at all), those angles are going to vary by where you sit so a room-centric alignment with more speakers such as Top Middle to anchor imaging is probably preferable).

45 degrees relative to the listener (90 degrees total) is probably approaching the limit for solid phantom imaging based on traditional Heights Vs Tops comparisons in most rooms (although some smaller rooms seem to image OK overhead with 60 degrees and 120 degrees total). However and oddly, 180 degrees at least at first appears to work pretty well for side surround speakers imaging across the room, IMO such as on the Alan Parsons ON AIR surround album where the guy is walking across the back of the room while singing and playing guitar so apparently these limits vary somewhat depending in which quadrant you're listening to them in. In other words, overhead imaging seems weak directly overhead with 120 degree separated Heights, but strong with 180 degree separated side surrounds (90 degrees to either side of you) so go figure. I've never heard of having "center surrounds" in the middle of the room between side surrounds (given there's usually seating in that area), but that would be the only way to really cut that angle down between the left/right side surrounds. It's just not done. Maybe that's why sounds are not often heard imaging right next to your head in the surround speakers. It's possibly actually weaker there than the ON AIR album would have you believe (i.e. that part works well if it's well behind you or in front of you and not so well if he's walking literally right through you. It's there, but it's not pin-point, but does become more pin-point as they're spaced further ahead of you or behind you and yet are still way above 60 degrees apart relative to you, the listener). 

Thus, one could argue perhaps we need "center surrounds" to go with "VOG" (aka Top Surround) and Center Height to anchor sounds in the middle of the room. Can you imagine Atmos soundtracks where someone whispers in your ear and you just about jump out of your skin? You'd need those extra speakers to even hope to pull that off (and you might need extra centers for front wides, SS#1 and SS#2 if you have them to _really_ nail the holographic nature of the imaging in larger rooms. Sadly, this is a bit unrealistic for most rooms and layouts (and the surround speakers can't be placed too close to your head either so rows of side surrounds and the like would need to be in front of and behind you and not directly to your sides to even hope to place a center surround there (at least 3 feet away, preferably 5 or more feet). 

Yet the odd thing is that with side heights, I still get imaging very close to my head (more so than with the ear level side surrounds) with soundtracks that place sound there (e.g. Ready Player One when the Delorean hits the boxes in the underpass I feel the need to duck because they seem to image just above my head and those come from the Top Middle location imaged directly in the center of the room above my head, but that's a 180 degree total separation angle (90 to each side and about 40 degrees elevated). That leads to me to think the angular measurement thing doesn't seem completely reliable for predicting phantom imaging ability. It seems to vary somewhat by quadrant placement and perhaps even distance between speakers, at least when the speakers are directly to the sides (i.e. The side surrounds aren't terribly far from the central listening location in a 12' wide room yet they can image across it better than one might think as the On Air album demonstrates). It also seems like 30/150 Heights (without Top Middle) image better overhead in smaller rooms than larger ones.


----------



## X4100

Say @NuSoardGraphite THANKS for sharing those clips


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

X4100 said:


> Say @NuSoardGraphite THANKS for sharing those clips


No problem. They are from the Hulk Cinema youtube channel.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

priitv8 said:


> It is important to note, that these are not objects moving. In Home Atmos, these are object clusters moving and as per Spatial Compression definition, individual objects can jump from one cluster to next, and this can not be visualized. This is the price paid for lossy spatial compression Home Atmos uses.


Yes we have discussed the fact that the home version uses object clusters vs individual objects due to limitations in processing power and bandwidth limitations.

The visualizer makes them look like individual objects, even though they are clusters. I saw a visualization of a different Dolby demo which showed yellow "objects" track around the entire sound field in 360 degrees hitting every channel on the ground layer then transitioning up top to do the same thing in the height layers.

So are these yellow balls the object "clusters"? If the entire cluster is moving around dynamically, just carrying all of the sounds that are supposed to be moving in that direction, is it functionally all that different from an individual sound object in its behavior?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I found another channel that has some material with the Trinnov Object Analyzer.

Here is a video of Disney's Mulan showing a very active scene.









Trinnov Altitude 16 object sound. Mulan Atmos in action


Trinnov Altitude 16. Movie "Mulan" Coming from disney, I must say the atmos is really not bad... Very active object sound!




youtube.com


----------



## X4100

I was thinking about this as well, objects in a cluster, aren't they the same theoretically.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So are these yellow balls the object "clusters"? If the entire cluster is moving around dynamically, just carrying all of the sounds that are supposed to be moving in that direction, is it functionally all that different from an individual sound object in its behavior?


No, those are the actual objects for the home mix, which may contain sound from multiple objects from the original mix. The "clusters" are things transitioned between those objects. So basically, objects in the original mix get pre-panned between these objects as needed, which can shift off of the channel locations when that cluster grouping determines they should for a pan. This is why you sometimes see those static ear-level objects that are placed at "channel" locations temporarily move around toward other objects in the visualizer - to effectively "hand off" a sound to a nearby object so that it is no longer part of that cluster.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

@Chirosamsung 

Since you are researching info about the wide channels I thought I would share this video with you. Spare Change was integrating Wide channels (and a Center Rear) into his own setup and he did a video about the kind of content that activated the additional channels including Wides.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> One movie to test this with would be Gladiator. Its in DTSX and the opening scene with the battle against the German horde where they are launching arrows and catapult ammo has a lot of sound objects.


Quick clarification: no objects in that soundtrack, just 11.1 channels (7.1.4 configuration).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Quick clarification: no objects in that soundtrack, just 11.1 channels (7.1.4 configuration).


Very well mixed then. There were moments in that opening battle that sounded very object-like.

I imagine activating Neural-X with the native DTSX mix will use more than 11 channels. Is that correct?


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Look for movies that have very active sound objects. Some movies are kind of "locked" to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 channels (and only occasionally use active sound objects that move around) and others have more active sound objects. When those sound objects move around the soundfield, they'll pass through the wides and activate them.
> 
> So look for reviews of Atmos movies that mention the active nature of the sound objects. Spare Change will do this in his reviews. Also look for DTSX movies. When you play a DTSX movie, you can go into the audio options and activate Neural X and it will "upmix" the 7.1 aspect of the sound mix to use the Wides. Then the sound objects will pass through those areas as well.
> 
> One movie to test this with would be Gladiator. Its in DTSX and the opening scene with the battle against the German horde where they are launching arrows and catapult ammo has a lot of sound objects. Its very immersive.
> 
> An Atmos movie where I know it uses a lot of active sound objects is Zack Snyder's 300.
> 
> Another movie with very active sound objects is The New Mutants. Not the best movie but you might be able to find it cheap if you just want to use it to test your atmos sound field.


problem with gladiator is if it's DTSX and I am asking about wides, DTSX is limited to 11 channels...so won't play wides.

still surprised with all the members that have beyond 7.1.4 there isn't more recommendations of good atmos movies with wide usage..,


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Very well mixed then. There were moments in that opening battle that sounded very object-like.
> 
> I imagine activating Neural-X with the native DTSX mix will use more than 11 channels. Is that correct?


There is no object-like sound. It's just a way of handling more channels potentially. Objects are not _necessarily_ better than X with Neural X, especially when poorly used. The Harry Potter series in UHD DTS:X are some of the most immersive soundtracks out there, IMO.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I imagine activating Neural-X with the native DTSX mix will use more than 11 channels. Is that correct?


Yes, Neural:X will use good ol' fashioned matrix upmixing to scale 11.1 channels to more than 11 speakers on devices that are designated DTS:X Pro (Pro = more than 11 channels of DTS).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> problem with gladiator is if it's DTSX and I am asking about wides, DTSX is limited to 11 channels...so won't play wides.
> 
> still surprised with all the members that have beyond 7.1.4 there isn't more recommendations of good atmos movies with wide usage..,


I mentioned two: New Mutants and 300.

Now if you are looking for GOOD movies, I really liked 300.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> There is no object-like sound. It's just a way of handling more channels potentially. Objects are not _necessarily_ better than X with Neural X, especially when poorly used. The Harry Potter series in UHD DTS:X are some of the most immersive soundtracks out there, IMO.


What I mean by "object-like" is that 3d presentation where a sound comes into the sound field rather than hovering around the edge of the sound field. There are several moments in that opening battle of Gladiator which do that quite effectively. The rest of the movie has a conventional 5.1/7.1 type presentation, and doesnt really sound 3D in nature.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Yes, Neural:X will use good ol' fashioned matrix upmixing to scale 11.1 channels to more than 11 speakers on devices that are designated DTS:X Pro (Pro = more than 11 channels of DTS).


Has anyone gotten a chance to try the new version of Dolby Surround which is supposed to upmix to higher channel counts as well (including Wides)?


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> What I mean by "object-like" is that 3d presentation where a sound comes into the sound field rather than hovering around the edge of the sound field. There are several moments in that opening battle of Gladiator which do that quite effectively. The rest of the movie has a conventional 5.1/7.1 type presentation, and doesnt really sound 3D in nature.


That's pretty much correlated (in-phase) panning in the surround field. Most older movies don't do it as it images within the audience space (or above it with Atmos/X/Auro).


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> OK, I watched the video above about angles. The guy actually says 45/135 by itself is not great. You won't hear much of anything directly above you, at least with any accuracy. You need Top Middle! OK, with Heights, yes you really do. But do people with 4 Tops feel they have no sound clearly defined directly overhead? I've seen people claim they added Top Middle with Tops and couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. He says it makes all the difference in the world. You'll be swatting at flies. Yes, I was swatting at mosquitoes in the original Jumanji in Atmos, but I'm using Heights + Top Middle. I haven't heard in-ceiling 45/135 to compare. I can move my chair to come close (Sitting closer to front height so it's at 45 degrees and using Top Middle to simulate Top Rear using half the room and I have to say the imaging sounds pretty good overhead. Are those of you with Tops at 45/135 unhappy with your overhead imaging? I'd say Top Middle is more for anchoring the imaging in place for more than one row above a certain angle.
> 
> He also goes on about how 35 degrees (azimuth) for the mains as being his favorite angle (while saying it can be up to 45, which again validates "Tops" at 45 degrees from the listener or 90 degrees apart total), but then in the next breath goes on about how your speakers get further apart with higher ceilings. WTF is he talking about? It's like he's confusing azimuth with elevation at that point. I don't care how high your ceiling is, the overhead speakers don't move further apart in the X-axis (width of room). His own diagram showed 0.5 - 0.7 x Width of room separation. That doesn't change with ceiling height. The distance on the Y-Axis (whether the speakers end up on the wall or the ceiling) _does_ change with ceiling height, but that's not at all related to the 35 azimuth for the mains he talked about earlier.
> 
> Now maybe it's poor editing or just poorly communicated, but my impression was he was smoking something before he started the video as the two (azimuth and elevation) aren't related directly to one another in the way he seems to correlate them. You're typically going to align Atmos overheads with the Mains or the Screen speakers. Auro-3D (and optionally DTS:X) align with the Mains/Rears and/or Side Surrounds (for Surround Height). That alignment doesn't vary with the ceiling height. That would be the Y-Axis (front to back distance from listener to achieve the same angle with a higher ceiling or what he didn't mention, SITTING CLOSER to the front wall!) No one ever said you had to space speakers out equidistance to the room itself. You can use half a room if you like. All that matters is the placement relative to YOU for a single row. For multiple rows (which he doesn't address at all), those angles are going to vary by where you sit so a room-centric alignment with more speakers such as Top Middle to anchor imaging is probably preferable).
> 
> 45 degrees relative to the listener (90 degrees total) is probably approaching the limit for solid phantom imaging based on traditional Heights Vs Tops comparisons in most rooms (although some smaller rooms seem to image OK overhead with 60 degrees and 120 degrees total). However and oddly, 180 degrees at least at first appears to work pretty well for side surround speakers imaging across the room, IMO such as on the Alan Parsons ON AIR surround album where the guy is walking across the back of the room while singing and playing guitar so apparently these limits vary somewhat depending in which quadrant you're listening to them in. In other words, overhead imaging seems weak directly overhead with 120 degree separated Heights, but strong with 180 degree separated side surrounds (90 degrees to either side of you) so go figure. I've never heard of having "center surrounds" in the middle of the room between side surrounds (given there's usually seating in that area), but that would be the only way to really cut that angle down between the left/right side surrounds. It's just not done. Maybe that's why sounds are not often heard imaging right next to your head in the surround speakers. It's possibly actually weaker there than the ON AIR album would have you believe (i.e. that part works well if it's well behind you or in front of you and not so well if he's walking literally right through you. It's there, but it's not pin-point, but does become more pin-point as they're spaced further ahead of you or behind you and yet are still way above 60 degrees apart relative to you, the listener).
> 
> Thus, one could argue perhaps we need "center surrounds" to go with "VOG" (aka Top Surround) and Center Height to anchor sounds in the middle of the room. Can you imagine Atmos soundtracks where someone whispers in your ear and you just about jump out of your skin? You'd need those extra speakers to even hope to pull that off (and you might need extra centers for front wides, SS#1 and SS#2 if you have them to _really_ nail the holographic nature of the imaging in larger rooms. Sadly, this is a bit unrealistic for most rooms and layouts (and the surround speakers can't be placed too close to your head either so rows of side surrounds and the like would need to be in front of and behind you and not directly to your sides to even hope to place a center surround there (at least 3 feet away, preferably 5 or more feet).
> 
> Yet the odd thing is that with side heights, I still get imaging very close to my head (more so than with the ear level side surrounds) with soundtracks that place sound there (e.g. Ready Player One when the Delorean hits the boxes in the underpass I feel the need to duck because they seem to image just above my head and those come from the Top Middle location imaged directly in the center of the room above my head, but that's a 180 degree total separation angle (90 to each side and about 40 degrees elevated). That leads to me to think the angular measurement thing doesn't seem completely reliable for predicting phantom imaging ability. It seems to vary somewhat by quadrant placement and perhaps even distance between speakers, at least when the speakers are directly to the sides (i.e. The side surrounds aren't terribly far from the central listening location in a 12' wide room yet they can image across it better than one might think as the On Air album demonstrates). It also seems like 30/150 Heights (without Top Middle) image better overhead in smaller rooms than larger ones.


I'd like to respond to this but I need to be very clear about what is meant by an azimuth angle? Does that mean the angle of separation between 2 speakers in plane parallel to the floor? So ... if my surrounds are directly to left and right of MLP and my top/middles are the same distance from the screen as MLP then ... the azimuth angle between say left surround and left top/middle would be 0 degrees?


----------



## X4100

I think I feel the same @robert600 , everytime I think I'm seeing something that explains the angle aspect of speaker placement/setup, I find I'm missing much more than what I thought I was learning  . Well my speakers are located symmetrically in my room. When playing the DTS speaker check clip, I have an excellent phantom image between the two speakers that are being used, as well as a nice out of phase placement! Now is a good time for me to stop chasing "the holy grail " in regards to speaker setup angles!!! Being that I don't have DTS:X, and it's upmixer, I've been using NEO:X with some of my legacy bluray movies. It actually isn't bad, I didn't utilize it at first, because it doesn't make use of the rear overhead speakers. My way around that is either don't freak out about it, or to assign the rear height speakers as back surround (albeit raised a bit higher) as in the "good old days of prologic." There's more than one way of skinning a cat!


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> I'd like to respond to this but I need to be very clear about what is meant by an azimuth angle? Does that mean the angle of separation between 2 speakers in plane parallel to the floor? So ... if my surrounds are directly to left and right of MLP and my top/middles are the same distance from the screen as MLP then ... the azimuth angle between say left surround and left top/middle would be 0 degrees?


Yes, the angle measured from you to the speaker relative to how far apart the are from you (and by extension each other). I'd call that the x-axis. The y-axis is front to back distance and the z-axis is elevation (Hence the name Dolby PLIIz that predates Atmos as z is for elevation).


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> Yes, the angle measured from you to the speaker relative to how far apart the are from you (and by extension each other). I'd call that the x-axis. The y-axis is front to back distance and the z-axis is elevation (Hence the name Dolby PLIIz that predates Atmos as z is for elevation).


Sorry if I seem obtuse or anal but for me to understand (I'm a bit dyslexic) I need a definitive (yes or no) answer to these questions: 

If my surrounds are directly to left and right of MLP and my top/middles are the same distance from the screen as MLP then ... the azimuth angle between say left surround and left top/middle would be 0 degrees? The angular difference in these speakers would be a 100% elevation angle difference?


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Sorry if I seem obtuse or anal but for me to understand (I'm a bit dyslexic) I need a definitive (yes or no) answer to these questions:
> 
> If my surrounds are directly to left and right of MLP and my top/middles are the same distance from the screen as MLP then ... the azimuth angle between say left surround and left top/middle would be 0 degrees? The angular difference in these speakers would be a 100% elevation angle difference?


The measurements are typically from the listener or MLP so a surround directly to your left would be 90 degrees azimuth and a total of 180 degrees between both. But yes, they are zero azimuth from each other if one is directly above the other.

If the Top Middle speakers are directly above the side surround speakers they'd also be 90 degrees azimuth with the elevation angle measured between your ears (or a chosen fixed point on the MLP chair) and the Top Middle speaker.

You could measure with a protractor or just measure the distance to the speaker below it in the same plane {x} and its height above ear level {z} and do Inv-Tan(z/x) to find the elevation angle relative to the MLP.

I'm not certain what you mean by a 100% elevation angle difference. If you mean the only angle difference between the two and the MLP would be elevation angle {z} for a pair above one another, yes that would be correct.

That is exactly how Auro-3D aligns heights (directly above bed/ear level speakers). They do thus so the soundfields are directly aligned with one another (no diagonal smear between sounds being recorded with fixed microphone ratios).

Atmos is typically mixed, not recorded with matching microphone setups, so one would expect the angle recommendations to be more important for aligning soundfields, but Dolby gives a range of recommendations so it's difficult to be as precise. 

But then we're talking about a company (Dolby) that recommends "bouncy" speakers and licenses soundbars (cash over quality) so small wonder some of us prefer the Auro-3d layout, which sounds great for Atmos also as the differences are small so far as Atmos is concerned.


----------



## titan ii

titan ii said:


> Ordering Twister right now! Thanks for helping me spend money.
> Update....ordered.


Arrived yesterday from the Turbine-Shop. That is excellent service.


----------



## X4100

Enjoy, and don't forget to run as fast as you can! Lol


----------



## StephenMSmith

I was just listening to AVRant podcast and they said something interesting -- I have Front Heights up on wall and Top Middle in-ceilings above couch. According to them, I should reassign my Top Middle's as Rear Heights. It makes no difference at all in Atmos, but makes a big difference for DTS-X. Did I understand them correctly and is true? Absolutely no difference in Atmos b/c assigning Top Middles as Rear Heights? And what about Audyssey, does Audyssey care whether the back Atmos speakers are assigned Rear Height or Top Middle?

QotD: How You Should Label Your Atmos Speakers


----------



## MagnumX

StephenMSmith said:


> I was just listening to AVRant podcast and they said something interesting -- I have Front Heights up on wall and Top Middle in-ceilings above couch. According to them, I should reassign my Top Middle's as Rear Heights. It makes no difference at all in Atmos, but makes a big difference for DTS-X. Did I understand them correctly and is true? Absolutely no difference in Atmos b/c assigning Top Middles as Rear Heights? And what about Audyssey, does Audyssey care whether the back Atmos speakers are assigned Rear Height or Top Middle?
> 
> QotD: How You Should Label Your Atmos Speakers


Absolutely true. Atmos moves objects to the nearest available location at the same height level, but DTS tries to keep sounds at the actual locations in which the are assigned. By telling it that Top Middle is rear heights, it will play sounds directly overhead. As Top Middle, it'd probably do something weird like mix rear surrounds with Top Middle to try and keep the sound where it thinks the rear heights should image.


----------



## DocCasualty

titan ii said:


> Arrived yesterday from the Turbine-Shop. That is excellent service.





X4100 said:


> Enjoy, and don't forget to run as fast as you can! Lol


Thanks for the recommendation. Received mine this past weekend. Awesome sound track.


----------



## X4100

DocCasualty said:


> Thanks for the recommendation. Received mine this past weekend. Awesome sound track.


I'm glad you enjoyed it! Really it was a very good recommendation from @MagnumX . He also says that "Daylight " with Sylvester Stallone is even better as far as the Atmos is concerned!!


----------



## DocCasualty

X4100 said:


> I'm glad you enjoyed it! Really it was a very good recommendation from @MagnumX . He also says that "Daylight " with Sylvester Stallone is even better as far as the Atmos is concerned!!


Thanks to @MagnumX too!


----------



## X4100

Just wondering if anyone agrees with this


----------



## MagnumX

@X4100


I almost hate to critique the video since I'd like to see Auro-3D stick around (the more the merrier is my thinking as I have several excellent Auro-3D only movies and there's plenty of 2-channel and 5.1 soundtracks that could use upgrading in terms of immersiveness) and any positive reviewing is potentially helpful.

However, several things bother me in the video. The biggest is that it appears Joe doesn't understand what uncorrelated sounds are. He's absolutely perplexed why DSU cuts out overhead sounds with his tone generator. Having a sound on only the left speaker is NOT uncorrelated sound. Uncorrelated means it's in *both* speakers but out-of-phase. The fact he seems utterly confused by this and praises Auro-3D for panning (copying) tells me he's lacking in even the most basic understanding of how sound works. And he's lecturing people on YouTube?

I find it even stranger that he prefers Auro-3D over Neural X. He shows the height only output, but fails to mention when they're on, the combined array means sounds are not on the ceiling, but somewhere in the middle and probably closer to the bottom since the heights aren't as loud.

The "pumping" in Neural X is it actually analyzing the frequencies to determine what belongs on the ceiling in real time. It may not be correct, but given DSU puts nothing correlated on the ceiling whatsoever it's hard to take the comparison seriously. 

I think he listens to far too many test tones and not nearly enough actual content or he'd realize the superiority of Neural X for putting actual sounds like helicopters and thunder on the ceiling. To me, that's far more important than having the overhead speakers constantly in use.

He doesn't seem to like native Auro any better than "most" native Atmos either, which tells me his real complaint is that sound mixing engineers tend to suck at their jobs, which I might agree, but then I've been told of some of the ridiculously short timr schedules they are often given to slap an entire soundtrack together. Early on, I thought far too many Atmos soundtracks sucked, but a recent recount puts it far closer to 1/5 than 1/2 now, although only 15-25% would rate excellent, IMO. Many are at least better than standard 5.1 so that's something. Neural X can often do as good a job or better in some cases (e.g. Phantasm) than the native Atmos track.

Does he really think they have time to analyze whether ceiling reverb sounds correct in a given scene or perhaps it's simply easier not to use it than use it poorly? 

OTOH, taste is subjective and if he prefers a big reverb room sound that Auromatic puts out then that's what he enjoys. I do then have to wonder why he didn't buy a Yamaha AVR as they always include lots of DSP reverb heavy room simulation options that I'm sure he'd love. The newest Yammies even include Auro-3D so he could have the best of both worlds. 

Personally, I like Auro-3D's upmixer for use with 5.1 music albums. It increases the ambience without too much reverb or radically altering the soundstage and at least on 11.1 only models keeps the sounds from "U-Turning" into the rear surrounds for something meant to move straight across behind you like the guy singing and playing guitar on the 2nd Blue Blue Sky on the Alan Parsons album ON AIR.

Auromatic is also not too bad for two channel, but I prefer Carver's Sonic Holography instead (via outboard processor) or just using my 6-channel mixer array I use for adding front wides and dialog/front stage lift (to make sounds appear to come from the screen instead of below it). Well, the combination produces a heck of a large front soundstage and adding Sonic Holography makes it wrap around to at least 90 degrees (full 180 in Multichannel Stereo mode).


----------



## X4100

THANKS! I was getting a little bit confused when I watched it the first time, and I was still trying to follow him the second time. The part about the correlated, and uncorrelated sound didn't appear correct. And when he said he preferred auromatic to Auro 3D, that went against logical thinking. Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## helvetica bold

I watched The Batman in the Dolby Cinema and the Atmos mix is awesome. Some truly fantastic sound design brought to life with Dolby Atmos. This has renewed my interest in Atmos. I never upgraded past 5.1 but now I really want to! Also I relocated during the pandemic so that put things on hold. Cant wait for this to be release on HBOMax and UHD.


----------



## halcyon_888

helvetica bold said:


> I watched The Batman in the Dolby Cinema and the Atmos mix is awesome. Some truly fantastic sound design brought to life with Dolby Atmos. This has renewed my interest in Atmos. I never upgraded past 5.1 but now I really want to! Also I relocated during the pandemic so that put things on hold. Cant wait for this to be release on HBOMax and UHD.


I haven't seen the movie, I'm waiting for it to come out on streaming but I've heard good things about the sound. I watch the John Campea show on Youtube and they were raving about the sound design for the Batmobile. If Warner sticks to their 45 day to hit streaming, we only have to wait about 5 more weeks lol


----------



## X4100

Watched "No Time to Die, " today. Had the Apt to myself  ! LOVED the movie, even the ending. (SSSHHH). Nice use of the overheads as well. As some have mentioned, the bass was a little less than normal, but the atmosPHERICS, made up for it for me.


----------



## GMil

Hey guys,
Quick question. It's a little off topic (but not really cause I'm doing this to create pseudo wides) I am connecting an external amp (L/R) and will be using the rca pre outs. Anything I should be concerned about with atmos over rca?


----------



## X4100

No problem, because the Atmos will already be decoded, and the audio signal will be passed on just like any other signal. I do something similar with my L/R surround signal, running into a DPL receiver in order to extract to a center rear bipolar speaker. Sounds fantastic, audio leaving the front center straight to the rear goes right through me. I find myself ducking from bullets, arrows, you name it.


----------



## Visconti12

GMil said:


> Hey guys,
> Quick question. It's a little off topic (but not really cause I'm doing this to create pseudo wides) I am connecting an external amp (L/R) and will be using the rca pre outs. Anything I should be concerned about with atmos over rca?


Just set it in your AVR and select Dolby Atmos for such position. Actually I've got some noise issues from ext amp (Das PS-400) with my Denon AVR-X6200W while no reproducing any DD, DS or Atmos sound. It was an annoying hissing in Atmos wide speakers while the AVR was in pause or running lower level of sound tracks.


----------



## ebailey

X4100 said:


> Watched "No Time to Die, " today. Had the Apt to myself  ! LOVED the movie, even the ending. (SSSHHH). Nice use of the overheads as well. As some have mentioned, the bass was a little less than normal, but the atmosPHERICS, made up for it for me.


I've actually been surprised on how little I've heard about the overhead use in this movie (I have a 5.1.2 setup) - it's unique in my experience and was very cool!


----------



## X4100

Especially the conversation with the earpieces   !!!!!


----------



## halcyon_888

ebailey said:


> I've actually been surprised on how little I've heard about the overhead use in this movie (I have a 5.1.2 setup) - it's unique in my experience and was very cool!


I mentioned it a few pages back after I watched it 



X4100 said:


> Especially the conversation with the earpieces   !!!!!


Yea that was a cool effect


----------



## MagnumX

There's an entire discussion of No Time to Die here:









No Time to Die Ultra HD Blu-ray Review


James Bond has left active service. His peace is short-lived when Felix Leiter, an old friend from the CIA, turns up asking for help, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology. Ralph Potts reviews the Ultra HD Blu-ray release of No Time to Die from...




www.avsforum.com





I did mention the earpiece scene in my own review as well.


----------



## Visconti12

But it seems last movie of Daniel Craig in the series. A real pity!!


----------



## X4100

Just took a visit back to Batman vs. Superman, dark movie literally and figuratively, but what a wonderful Atmos mix. The bass is I would say more of a deep nature than just louder. The movie itself is a bit longer than I imagined, but something with this much atmosphere, I can get with! The overhead is used pretty well, especially during the dreamlike scenes. I actually thought it was in real time


----------



## Polyrythm1k

X4100 said:


> Just wondering if anyone agrees with this


Nope. While I do like that joe is articulate and well spoken. I really feel
Like this was just him justifying why he likes Auromatic, in a technical way. 
I almost quit watching when he mentioned techno dad. That guy is annoying…


----------



## mrtickleuk

Polyrythm1k said:


> I almost quit watching when he mentioned techno dad. That guy is annoying…


Could have been worse - he could have praised Linus tech tips, Youthman, or Quantum.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

mrtickleuk said:


> Could have been worse - he could have praised Linus tech tips, Youthman, or Quantum.


Lol! The only one of those I know is youthman.
He’s not super technical, but at least I can listen to him talk without throwing my phone across the room. Lol


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Polyrythm1k said:


> Nope. While I do like that joe is articulate and well spoken. I really feel
> Like this was just him justifying why he likes Auromatic, in a technical way.
> I almost quit watching when he mentioned techno dad. That guy is annoying…


I've had a few exchanges with Joe about Auromatic when we were digging into their patents. He's a good guy. We clashed a bit when I called it an adjustable hall DSP mode (which at its core is what it is based on their patents). All in good fun though. And Techno Dad's not too bad. Had a few e-mail exchanges with him about Atmos, though he kinda' misinterpreted what I said. I actually enjoy watching Daily HiFi with them, Youthman and Erin Hardison. I may not always agree with them, but they're passionate about the hobby.

I still think using Auro on native Atmos tracks is silly though. I'm in it to hear the actual mix in my room. But good on anyone who wants to apply that reverb-laden mess all willy-nilly like that.


----------



## ted_b

MagnumX said:


> Early on, I thought far too many Atmos soundtracks sucked, but a recent recount puts it far closer to 1/5 than 1/2 now, although only 15-25% would rate excellent, IMO. Many are at least better than standard 5.1 so that's something. Neural X can often do as good a job or better in some cases (e.g. Phantasm) than the native Atmos track.


I apologize for the newbie question here, but search did me no good, at least so far: is there a database or listing of films rated (by you guys) for Atmos mixes, kind of a SQ Tier Thread? The audio tier thread is not Atmos-specific.

I am about 3 weeks away from going live with my new room and wanted, of course, to start with some of the top rated Atmos mixes (not necessarily most aggressive, but most effective). Thx

P.S. I'm not asking for recommendations here, to clutter up this technical discussion, I'm simply asking for a link where folks have already done the work...thx


----------



## halcyon_888

ted_b said:


> I apologize for the newbie question here, but search did me no good, at least so far: is there a database or listing of films rated (by you guys) for Atmos mixes, kind of a SQ Tier Thread? The audio tier thread is not Atmos-specific.
> 
> I am about 3 weeks away from going live with my new room and wanted, of course, to start with some of the top rated Atmos mixes (not necessarily most aggressive, but most effective). Thx
> 
> P.S. I'm not asking for recommendations here, to clutter up this technical discussion, I'm simply asking for a link where folks have already done the work...thx


Here are a few top 10 lists that Spare Change has on his YT channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLebwdQgy9ryegaZwR_TqJevFuFFcnke8H


----------



## csmonroe

Visconti12 said:


> What's your Samsung TV model and firmware version? I'm experiencing a similar issue with mine QE75Q7 (2017) not yet resolved.


Issue remains intermittent to this date. It has to be Netflix-on-SamsungTV stream-related because other apps that use ATMOS are fine. My Samsung TV model number is QN82Q70RAFXZA. Firmware version is T-MSMAKUC-1391-0.


----------



## mrtickleuk

csmonroe said:


> Issue remains intermittent to this date. It has to be Netflix-on-SamsungTV stream-related because other apps that use ATMOS are fine. My Samsung TV model number is QN82Q70RAFXZA. Firmware version is T-MSMAKUC-1391-0.


Sorry to read this. When you say "intermittent Dolby ATMOS availability", what happens exactly?
Is it that the Netflix app lists Atmos on the screen as being available, but when you play the title the AVR doesn't switch to Atmos-inside DD+ - mode?
Or when you play the title the AVR does switch to Atmos-inside DD+ mode but you don't hear anything from the top speakers?

Or does the app intermittently stop listing Atmos as being available?

Or something else (what)? 

When it happens, can you immediately switch to one of your working apps and get Atmos ok? (I assume yes from what you say). The reason for this last question is that on my set up, sometimes all internal apps lose Atmos, probably due to a glitch in the power-on handshake between AVR and TV. To fix it I follow this process:

Denon AVR: Set to a source other than "TV audio" so that you can see the onscreen menus.
Denon AVR: Setup, Video, HDMI Setup, HDMI Control Off. ARC Off. Back out of menu and wait for HDMI re-sync.
Denon AVR: Setup, Video, HDMI Setup, HDMI ARC On (first) then HDMI Control On (second), ARC item is greyed. Back out of menu and wait for HDMI re-sync.
Denon AVR: Move back to "TV audio" and check Atmos works, but only use a previous known good source (On my LG TV the built-in "Sample Videos" are Atmos, or there is the "Dolby Access" app on the TV which is a showcase for Atmos).

This is a pain but it always fixes it. I can use the Denon web interface to do it that way too. I don't think it's your issue, but posting it in case it helps someone else.


----------



## csmonroe

Thank you for your assistance.

When the Netflix (Samsung) smart app lists Atmos as the audio (available) and I play the title, the AVR does not switch to Atmos consistently. Sometimes it does, most of the time (lately) it doesn't. I tried your remedy, it did not work for my system. I have a Denon AVR-X8500H.

All other Smart apps that I use on my Samsung television, which are Atmos-capable, e.g., Prime Video, Apple TV+, and HBO Max, consistently recognize Atmos when available (vs 5.1 or 2ch), and are processed via ARC through my AVR. My system is 7.2.4. The fact that the Netflix app intermittently recognizes Atmos is only a recent problem (in the last month). Perhaps a recent Netflix app firmware update, specifically for Samsung TV apps, is the problem. Again, only Netflix is affected. NOTE: I have learned through experience many Samsung TV smart apps do not yet support Dolby ATMOS for either movies or TV shows. I have listed the ones I use below:

Hulu
Disney+
Paramount+
Showtime
YouTubeTV
Atmos is my preferred audio solution, whether watching movies or TV shows. I also have an Apple TV 4K player (2021) with is hooked up to my AVR via HDMI 1. So when the Samsung TV Netflix smart app misbehaves, I switch to the Apple TV 4K version for the more immersive audio experience.


----------



## mrtickleuk

csmonroe said:


> When the Netflix (Samsung) smart app lists Atmos as the audio (available) and I play the title, the AVR does not switch to Atmos consistently. Sometimes it does, most of the time (lately) it doesn't.


Right. It really does sound like a bug in that app then. If that's the case the only thing would be uninstall/reinstall that app if you haven't already. Wait for Netflix to fix, report to Netflix as you're a paying customer, etc. Those channels.

Other than that it's the realm of desperation - completely unreasonable things like "factory reset of TV", which I put in the same category as "knock down and rebuild your house to fix a dripping tap [faucet]" !


----------



## BC3326

What year was the last Dolby demo disk released?


----------



## ted_b

BC3326 said:


> What year was the last Dolby demo disk released?


And a follow-up: what is the best Atmos test disc to use when setting up Atmos calibration, or when confirming your Atmos speaker settings sound right? I realize the room correction DSP in the AVR/prepro takes precedence (mine is RoomPerfect in my Lyngdorf MP-40) but wondered nonetheless...thx I have the ripped Dolby Atmos test discs from 2015 and 2016.


----------



## X4100

I need some help! I have Amazon Prime, but not a 4k tv. I have a 4k scaler, my question is do I attach the 4k scaler to my desktop PC via HDMI, and connect it to my AVR x4100? I'm currently running a HDMI cable from the desktop to the AVR which will be able to decode the Atmos audio, and send the video to the TV On the other hand, I'm thinking of buying a 4k bluray player. Do I connect the 4k bluray output to the 4k scaler input, and then output to my AVR X4100? My thoughts on this is the 4k bluray player will recognize the scaler as 4k, and then I'll be able to get the Atmos audio track from the many movies that are only on the 4k UHD discs, to play through my current system.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

csmonroe said:


> Thank you for your assistance.
> 
> When the Netflix (Samsung) smart app lists Atmos as the audio (available) and I play the title, the AVR does not switch to Atmos consistently. Sometimes it does, most of the time (lately) it doesn't. I tried your remedy, it did not work for my system. I have a Denon AVR-X8500H.
> 
> All other Smart apps that I use on my Samsung television, which are Atmos-capable, e.g., Prime Video, Apple TV+, and HBO Max, consistently recognize Atmos when available (vs 5.1 or 2ch), and are processed via ARC through my AVR. My system is 7.2.4. The fact that the Netflix app intermittently recognizes Atmos is only a recent problem (in the last month). Perhaps a recent Netflix app firmware update, specifically for Samsung TV apps, is the problem. Again, only Netflix is affected. NOTE: I have learned through experience many Samsung TV smart apps do not yet support Dolby ATMOS for either movies or TV shows. I have listed the ones I use below:
> 
> Hulu
> Disney+
> Paramount+
> Showtime
> YouTubeTV
> Atmos is my preferred audio solution, whether watching movies or TV shows. I also have an Apple TV 4K player (2021) with is hooked up to my AVR via HDMI 1. So when the Samsung TV Netflix smart app misbehaves, I switch to the Apple TV 4K version for the more immersive audio experience.


Why not just use the ATV?


----------



## csmonroe

Polyrythm1k said:


> Why not just use the ATV?


Good question! For watching network television, I prefer the Samsung TV smart app version of YouTubeTV. In my opinion, the Apple TV version of YouTubeTV does not have a "sharp" picture. It's virtually "matted." That said, it's more convenient to switch from YouTubeTV to other Samsung TV smart apps, than navigating back to Apple TV to watch the same content.


----------



## X4100

I hooked up the 4k scaler with the desktop running into my x4100, the problem is that I am only seeing, and receiving a stereo signal, and not even 5.1 from Amazon Prime?????


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I hooked up the 4k scaler with the desktop running into my x4100, the problem is that I am only seeing, and receiving a stereo signal, and not even 5.1 from Amazon Prime?????


What do you mean by desktop? Normally you want the scaler between the receiver output and your TV or Projector so everything in front of it thinks you have a 4K display but the display actually gets scaled 1080p.

The apps need to be set to run in 4K modes if applicable as well (e.g. VUDU won't offer Atmos unless you're running the 4K version of the movie).


----------



## X4100

THANKS! I I'll change it


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> This is very strange?? I see @MagnumX reply in my email notification, but not in the forum  I have finally cracked up. Lol


My first reply somehow disappeared into the void after hitting post so I sent a second reply which did show up.


----------



## X4100

It must be the Amazon Prime video app, because it's still in just stereo


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> It must be the Amazon Prime video app, because it's still in just stereo


On what device? I get Atmos from my Shield and ATV 4K with Prime (few titles as they are).


----------



## X4100

Right off the desktop, maybe I need a 4k firestick, or something? When I was streaming via my bluray player, I was at least receiving 5.1. I'll read up on this some more, and get back to it later. THANKS for the help!


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> Right off the desktop, maybe I need a 4k firestick, or something? When I was streaming via my bluray player, I was at least receiving 5.1. I'll read up on this some more, and get back to it later. THANKS for the help!


Playing Amazon from a browser will only give stereo playback


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> Right off the desktop, maybe I need a 4k firestick, or something? When I was streaming via my bluray player, I was at least receiving 5.1. I'll read up on this some more, and get back to it later. THANKS for the help!


The 4K firestick is on sale right now for dirt cheap. I'm thinking of ordering one just for a replacement remote (did that to use one with the Nvidia Shield as it's a better remote).


----------



## X4100

When doing research on my issue, I saw the fire stick 4k, and I'm ordering it now! THANKS AGAIN! Just ordered the fire tv stick 4k, and it was only $21.00 due to my rewards points! YEAH!! It will arrive Monday. Since Dolby Atmos works with Microsoft Edge, I thought it would give me the Atmos audio, but now I see you only get 2 channels with it.


----------



## X4100

Just wanted to know if I'm correct in regards installing the firestick 4k  Simply insert it into a HDMI PORT on the AVR running output into the 4k scaler out to the tv. Is this correct?


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> Just wanted to know if I'm correct in regards installing the firestick 4k  Simply insert it into a HDMI PORT on the AVR running output into the 4k scaler out to the tv. Is this correct?


The AVR output goes to the scaler. Firestick plugs into a HDMI input. The Firestick probably will want more power, though. It should include a USB cable and a power adapter.


----------



## X4100

Gotcha!


----------



## priitv8

Was referred to an article about Apple Music Atmos, that basically seems to be a history lesson with some rant about DD+JOC. 









Trust Your Ears. Dolby Atmos on Apple Music Doesn't Sound "Right"


Back in May, Apple announced a partnership with Dolby Atmos to deliver Spatial Music to all Apple Music subscribers.




www.digitalmusicnews.com





But the real value of that article is in another insight by a professional (music) mixer, referenced early in the article:









Why Your Atmos Mix Will Sound Different On Apple Music | Production Expert


In this article Edgar Rothermich gives a detailed explanation of the differences between Dolby Atmos and Apple’s Spatial Audio and all the steps you have to take to audition a Spatial Audio rendering of your Atmos mix!




www.pro-tools-expert.com


----------



## robert600

Downloaded (I can't stream) The Adam Project (Netflix I believe). Ryan Reynolds plays the same character he always does. Good enough movie and the atmos is good in spots (jet scenes).It won't blow you away or anything but maybe worth a watch and listen if you like Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool etc.).


----------



## regster

robert600 said:


> Downloaded (I can't stream) The Adam Project (Netflix I believe). Ryan Reynolds plays the same character he always does. Good enough movie and the atmos is good in spots (jet scenes).It won't blow you away or anything but maybe worth a watch and listen if you like Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool etc.).


I found Free Guy quite entertaining and one of the better Disney Atmous tracks. There’s hope the mouse is listening .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## halcyon_888

Free Guy started out as a Fox title then it was released as a 20th Century Studios title after the Disney/Fox merger. So Disney is the parent company but it's still made by 20th Century Studios, and I wouldn't judge the bass/Atmos performance of this movie as indicative of Disney releases going forward. (Marvel releases, either.) In fact, the mixes by 20th Century Studios could get _worse_ in the future...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

X4100 said:


> Watched "No Time to Die, " today. Had the Apt to myself  ! LOVED the movie, even the ending. (SSSHHH). Nice use of the overheads as well. As some have mentioned, the bass was a little less than normal, but the atmosPHERICS, made up for it for me.


This one is kind of like Ready Player One. People swear up and down that it's a great Atmos mix. It isn't. There is very little going on in the overheads and it is a locked object mix that does not scale with greater and greater Atmos systems.


----------



## X4100

YES YES YES!!! my fire stick 4k came 1/2 hour ago, and I'm watching Jack Ryan in Dolby Digital + + DSU = Dolby Atmos on Amazon Prime! THANKS for your help @MagnumX and @halcyon_888 . As I've been trying to figure out what was happening, that I wasn't able to get Amazon Prime to output Dolby Atmos


----------



## X4100

Dan Hitchman said:


> This one is kind of like Ready Player One. People swear up and down that it's a great Atmos mix. It isn't. There is very little going on in the overheads and it is a locked object mix that does not scale with greater and greater Atmos systems.


I don't know about their system, BUT MINE WAS HITTING ALL THE SPEAKERS!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> For context, here is what a very active Atmos mix should look like. Note how the sound objects move everywhere.
> 
> Even the center bed object which you think would be pretty static, moves to the left and right.
> 
> In this scenario, every speaker in your system should light up. Even setups beyond 9.1.6. No problems with Wides or 6 height/ceiling channels under these conditions.


This goes to show you that about the only people who know how to mix in Dolby Atmos properly... are those engineers who work at Dolby Labs. Most sound mixers need a refresher course, it seems. Along with those making the stupid mistake of locking the home mixes to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 in the Atmos suite.

Dolby should also make sure that the maximum 15 object clusters setting is always used. The TrueHD container for home Atmos seems to be a 16 channel (15.1) Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) encoding from which the objects and metadata are extracted.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

X4100 said:


> YES YES YES!!! my fire stick 4k came 1/2 hour ago, and I'm watching Jack Ryan in Dolby Digital + + DSU = Dolby Atmos on Amazon Prime! THANKS for your help @MagnumX and @halcyon_888 . As I've been trying to figure out what was happening, that I wasn't able to get Amazon Prime to output Dolby Atmos


Ok. Just wondering if I’m dumm. How does DSU=Atmos?


----------



## X4100

I wouldn't say dumm, or dumb, but I always thought that Dolby Digital + carried Atmos when streaming content , at least it showed Atmos/Dolby Surround on my Denon. Just saw this on Google.com: *Dolby Digital Plus offers higher quality than regular Dolby Digital*, it was used for HD DVD films and currently by streaming services. Dolby Atmos is object based and supports more channels, it can be either higher quality with Dolby TrueHD or it can actually be powered using Dolby Digital Plus as well.Sep 13, 2017


----------



## mrtickleuk

Polyrythm1k said:


> Ok. Just wondering if I’m dumm. How does DSU=Atmos?


It doesn't. If you are engaging the Dolby Surround Upmixer, that's something that is only possible if the input soundtrack is _not_ Atmos. 

Atmos can be carried in a DD+ stream or a TrueHD stream.

You can definitely have DD+ containing Atmos, and when that's the case, the AVR will include the 5 letters "Atmos" on the front (not DD+ +DSU), and it will not let you engage DSU.

Like this:


----------



## X4100

I'm the DUMB ONE. Lol


----------



## Polyrythm1k

X4100 said:


> I wouldn't say dumm, or dumb, but I always thought that Dolby Digital + carried Atmos when streaming content , at least it showed Atmos/Dolby Surround on my Denon. Just saw this on Google.com: *Dolby Digital Plus offers higher quality than regular Dolby Digital*, it was used for HD DVD films and currently by streaming services. Dolby Atmos is object based and supports more channels, it can be either higher quality with Dolby TrueHD or it can actually be powered using Dolby Digital Plus as well.Sep 13, 2017


yes. This I do know. What made me ask was the equation you posted earlier stating 
DD+ +DSU=Atmos. 
Just wanted to know if my interpretationing skills are bad lol. 


mrtickleuk said:


> It doesn't. If you are engaging the Dolby Surround Upmixer, that's something that is only possible if the input soundtrack is _not_ Atmos.
> 
> Atmos can be carried in a DD+ stream or a TrueHD stream.
> 
> You can definitely have DD+ containing Atmos, and when that's the case, the AVR will include the 5 letters "Atmos" on the front (not DD+ +DSU), and it will not let you engage DSU.
> 
> Like this:
> View attachment 3252681


Exactly.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> This one is kind of like Ready Player One. People swear up and down that it's a great Atmos mix. It isn't. There is very little going on in the overheads and it is a locked object mix that does not scale with greater and greater Atmos systems.


If its like Ready Player One, then it is a FANTASTIC sound mix given a lackluster Atmos presentation.

It is one of the most dense sound mixes I have heard and most things map to whats happening on the screen very well. Tons of height effects. It just doesnt scale to higher channel counts and ignores Wide channels. But if you have a 7.1.4 setup, it sounds like one of the greatest mixes ever. You would have no idea that its lacking in any way.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> If its like Ready Player One, then it is a FANTASTIC sound mix given a lackluster Atmos presentation.
> 
> It is one of the most dense sound mixes I have heard and most things map to whats happening on the screen very well. Tons of height effects. It just doesnt scale to higher channel counts and ignores Wide channels. But if you have a 7.1.4 setup, it sounds like one of the greatest mixes ever. You would have no idea that its lacking in any way.


Actually, it sounds great with 6 overheads even only using Top Middle (Saving Ryan's Privates is the same) as it's re-designed to really only use two overheads. Four overheads just mixes it directly between the overhead speakers like a phantom center. It also proves even 5.1.2 can sound fantastic (some have said don't bother if you're only going to do two overheads).

Even so, I'd like to hear the original cinematic Atmos soundtrack converted to use all overheads. Even an automatic down conversion would likely be superior to locked two overheads, particularly for multiple rows of seating.

I do keep wondering, however, if Dolby themselves couldn't at least improve the situation by adjusting DSU to do something similar to Neural X when there is correlated material present between two channels where there is a speaker pair present between the two. Subtract the in-phase components and send the difference to the speakers between. Any overlap within the phase range is correlated and can be removed and sent to another speaker. Call it the Dolby Disney Detector.... 

It _might_ need more DSP power than older units can use, but it would be a great boon to have on newer units. StormXT does something similar for speakers Atmos doesn't normally use abd even the Monoprice HTP-1 has at least a basic mixer-like mode for front wides.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I'm the DUMB ONE. Lol


So is it in Atmos or were you using DSU with 5.1? If it was the latter there's probably a setting set wrong somewhere on the Firestick.


----------



## Matt L

robert600 said:


> Downloaded (I can't stream) The Adam Project (Netflix I believe). Ryan Reynolds plays the same character he always does. Good enough movie and the atmos is good in spots (jet scenes).It won't blow you away or anything but maybe worth a watch and listen if you like Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool etc.).


The special audio effects are fine and work where it's appropriate. That said for me the sense of "space" is Atmos's real advantage. I thought The Adam Project was fine, but I also really like the "atmosphere" while watching West Side Story. No jets zooming overhead but a fine audio environment if you will.
The WOW factor is nice but overtime can become a gimmick. I was a young kid when stereo got popular, back then it was the ping pong effect. I got quite involved with SQ QS and CD-4 back in the 70's and there was lots of circular sound activity with that. But all the formats matured and the gimmicks fell away for the most part. With action movies Atmos will be used to great effect, but it will also add a lot to non action movies as well.


----------



## X4100

@MagnumX I'm a little confused, as it reads Dolby Digital + on the info screen. If I click on the movie screen to see available decoder options Atmos/surround shows as the chosen option. I've encountered this with other Dolby Digital plus tracks. I'll take another look at this on Monday. The same thing happened when I checked out "The Expanse ". I switched to a Dolby Atmos movie on my bluray player, and the info screen showed ATMOS, and Atmos displays on the front of the AVR. I'm going to give it a rest, and check it tomorrow. THANKS for asking, the problem as you mentioned might be a setting on the firestick. . It appears looking at the information screen that it's just 5.1!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> @MagnumX I'm a little confused, as it reads Dolby Digital + on the info screen. If I click on the movie screen to see available decoder options Atmos/surround shows as the chosen option. I've encountered this with other Dolby Digital plus tracks. I'll take another look at this on Monday. The same thing happened when I checked out "The Expanse ". I switched to a Dolby Atmos movie and the info screen showed ATMOS, and Atmos displays on the front of the AVR. I'm going to give it a rest, and check it tomorrow. THANKS for asking, the problem as you mentioned might be a setting on the firestick.


On the Firestick 4K, you have to either have it set to Best Available or lock it to DD+ for Atmos to work. It should be pretty obvious, because the front panel of your Denon will either say Dolby Atmos for native content or DD + DSU for upmixed content. I have the Firestick 4K plugged into the back of my Denon 4500 and am getting Atmos from Prime when the content has it. Netflix, however, is another story, as you have to sideload an older version (and use dev tools to turn off auto updates) to get Atmos... and no one can explain why that is the case. It used to work just fine until they updated it.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> @MagnumX I'm a little confused, as it reads Dolby Digital + on the info screen. If I click on the movie screen to see available decoder options Atmos/surround shows as the chosen option. I've encountered this with other Dolby Digital plus tracks. I'll take another look at this on Monday. The same thing happened when I checked out "The Expanse ". I switched to a Dolby Atmos movie and the info screen showed ATMOS, and Atmos displays on the front of the AVR. I'm going to give it a rest, and check it tomorrow. THANKS for asking, the problem as you mentioned might be a setting on the firestick.


As long as it says Atmos in the lower left quadrant when you press the INFO button, it's Atmos. If it shows a channel grid instead of Atmos, it's not Atmos. The surround mode will also say Atmos/DD+ or to that effect for Atmos above on the info screen. If it says DSU/DD+ then it's not Atmos. I could take a screenshot when I get home if that helps, but just compare a known Atmos title for the INFO overlay as it's obvious there. Atmos never shows channels on the input grid.


----------



## G4n0nD0rf

Dan Hitchman said:


> Dolby should also make sure that the maximum 15 object clusters setting is always used. The TrueHD container for home Atmos seems to be a 16 channel (15.1) Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) encoding from which the objects and metadata are extracted.


Exactly! A lot of mixes only use 11 objects. Why?

Most Disney mixes use 13 objects even though they are mostly locked to 7.1.4. Weird


----------



## X4100

MagnumX said:


> As long as it says Atmos in the lower left quadrant when you press the INFO button, it's Atmos. If it shows a channel grid instead of Atmos, it's not Atmos. The surround mode will also say Atmos/DD+ or to that effect for Atmos above on the info screen. If it says DSU/DD+ then it's not Atmos. I could take a screenshot when I get home if that helps, but just compare a known Atmos title for the INFO overlay as it's obvious there. Atmos never shows channels on the input grid.


This is very much appreciated! The info does show a 5.1 channel configuration 😢. It's back to the "drawing board " to figure out what is going on.


----------



## mrtickleuk

X4100 said:


> This is very much appreciated! The info does show a 5.1 channel configuration 😢. It's back to the "drawing board " to figure out what is going on.


Hope you can get it sorted - looks like there are few setup changes that @Jeremy Anderson mentions you could look at.

When you make a change, it may be worth re-starting whatever streaming app you're in. On my setup with internal LG apps, when I "fix" Atmos* it doesn't take effect until the next time I load the app.

What the app shows on the screen, is always what it's detected your system as being capable of, and what it outputs.

So you need a title which you know is definitely Atmos, *and *you need to notice when it quietly starts saying "5.1" on the app's info screen in the app to realise there is any issue at all! This often catches me out: when my setup "loses" Atmos* after a glitch, it can sometimes take me days to realise this has happened, because I just think that those titles are 5.1 titles!

* Every few weeks, it randomly decides that my AVR doesn't support Atmos, and reverts to plain 5.1 support. Don't know the cause, could be the order things are turned on or a CEC-glitch. I fix it by forcing a HDMI re-sync. After I notice, which is the tricky part.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> This is very much appreciated! The info does show a 5.1 channel configuration 😢. It's back to the "drawing board " to figure out what is going on.


Is your display 4K? Because I've seen some reports of Atmos tracks only being on the 4K version of the stream. In fact, at one point I think Prime had two different versions you could pick from and you had to make sure you picked the UHD version of Jack Ryan.


----------



## X4100

THANKS @MagnumX and @Jeremy Anderson I'm taking a look into the settings for Prime and I see the choice of audio. I've chosen Dolby Digital plus, and I made the selection of the movie in the 4k UHD section, but it still doesn't show Atmos on the AVR or the information screen. I'm going to give it a rest and try later. My TV isn't 4k, but I have a 4k scaler between the signal, I probably have to revisit how I have things set up


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> THANKS @MagnumX and @Jeremy Anderson I'm taking a look into the settings for Prime and I see the choice of audio. I've chosen Dolby Digital plus, and I made the selection of the movie in the 4k UHD section, but it still doesn't show Atmos on the AVR or the information screen. I'm going to give it a rest and try later. My TV isn't 4k, but I have a 4k scaler between the signal, I probably have to revisit how I have things set up


If you have it set to Best Available or DD+ in the Firestick settings, it should be working. Is it plugged directly into your AVR?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> In fact, at one point I think Prime had two different versions you could pick from and you had to make sure you picked the UHD version of Jack Ryan.


Amazon Video's way of doing it is the worse possible. It's still the case that they have separate SDR and 4kHDR versions of everything. Searches often only find the SDR version. Etc. Really diabolical.
Edit: to be fair I've seen recent attempts in the UI to hide this from the user and "fold" the two titles together for display and selection. Still very hit and miss in my experience though.


----------



## mrtickleuk

X4100 said:


> THANKS @MagnumX and @Jeremy Anderson I'm taking a look into the settings for Prime and I see the choice of audio. I've chosen Dolby Digital plus, and I made the selection of the movie in the 4k UHD section, but it still doesn't show Atmos on the AVR or the information screen. I'm going to give it a rest and try later. My TV isn't 4k, but I have a 4k scaler between the signal, I probably have to revisit how I have things set up


Let's concentrate on titles. I'm not sure of any titles on Amazon Video which are definitely Atmos. So it's probably best that we can all agree on one title which is definitely Atmos, where people with working setups can confirm it's Atmos and then you can try that particular title. Rather than randomly trying lots of titles which are probably all 5.1 anyway and it'd a wild goose chase?


----------



## halcyon_888

mrtickleuk said:


> Let's concentrate on titles. I'm not sure of any titles on Amazon Video which are definitely Atmos. So it's probably best that we can all agree on one title which is definitely Atmos, where people with working setups can confirm it's Atmos and then you can try that particular title. Rather than randomly trying lots of titles which are probably all 5.1 anyway and it'd a wild goose chase?


The Tomorrow War was definitely Atmos on my system. Though I have no idea if they have separate 4k and HD versions. The title I played was 4k and Atmos.


----------



## X4100

I was trying Jack Ryan, it's supposed to be in Atmos? I will try The Tomorrow War, since that's a known Atmos movie. THANKS for your suggestions everyone, by the way I've tried the firestick direct to the AVR, as well as to the 4k scaler first


----------



## mrtickleuk

X4100 said:


> I was trying Jack Ryan, it's supposed to be in Atmos? I will try The Tomorrow War, since that's a known Atmos movie. THANKS for your suggestions everyone, by the way I've tried the firestick direct to the AVR, as well as to the 4k scaler first


Cool! (Tom Clancy's) Jack Ryan (season 1, not necessarily season 2) - starring John Krasinski did _used _to be the "double Dolby" (Dolby vision and Dolby Atmos!) but over the years I've seen reports if it randomly changing for periods, then Amazon fixes it, then it breaks again.

So The Tomorrow War is probably a more stable thing to try then. Good luck 

(I don't currently subscribe so I'll bow out of that side of things, but my LG TV's Amazon app is giving me no clue as to the audio format on the info screen. I was getting mixed up with Netflix and Disney+ which both tell you what it is before you play it, so they make it that bit easier)


----------



## X4100

All this time I was trying to get a non Atmos movie to play in Dolby Atmos. I continued checking, and rechecking everything, because Jack Ryan is "listed " as being Atmos, I just went to the 4k UHD section and picked a movie and GUESS WHAT!!!!! THANKS AGAIN TO EVERYONE WHO GAVE ME INFORMATION


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> All this time I was trying to get a non Atmos movie to play in Dolby Atmos. I just went to the 4k UHD section and picked a movie and GUESS WHAT!!!!! THANKS AGAIN TO EVERYONE WHO GAVE ME INFORMATION


Awesome, let the fun begin!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

X4100 said:


> All this time I was trying to get a non Atmos movie to play in Dolby Atmos. I just went to the 4k UHD section and picked a movie and GUESS WHAT!!!!! THANKS AGAIN TO EVERYONE WHO GAVE ME INFORMATION


Yay!!!


----------



## mrtickleuk

X4100 said:


> All this time I was trying to get a non Atmos movie to play in Dolby Atmos. I continued checking, and rechecking everything, because Jack Ryan is "listed " as being Atmos, I just went to the 4k UHD section and picked a movie and GUESS WHAT!!!!! THANKS AGAIN TO EVERYONE WHO GAVE ME INFORMATION


Wahey! Glad it's sorted, and you now have proof that it works, you can reproduce these steps if it ever breaks 
Can you hear a nice difference?



mrtickleuk said:


> Let's concentrate on titles. I'm not sure of any titles on Amazon Video which are definitely Atmos. So it's probably best that we can all agree on one title which is definitely Atmos, where people with working setups can confirm it's Atmos and then you can try that particular title. Rather than randomly trying lots of titles which are probably all 5.1 anyway and it'd a wild goose chase?


Well done whoever thought of that idea LOL


----------



## X4100

Sounds WONDERFUL! That is funny @mrtickleuk l just went back a page or two trying to find who sent me that very information! THANKS!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

X4100 said:


> I was trying Jack Ryan, it's supposed to be in Atmos? I will try The Tomorrow War, since that's a known Atmos movie. THANKS for your suggestions everyone, by the way I've tried the firestick direct to the AVR, as well as to the 4k scaler first


Jack Ryan is indeed in Atmos. I played the 1st episode and it worked for me. Make sure its the 4k/UHD version.

Also The Tomorrow War and Carnival Row were in Atmos as well. Carnival Row is worth watching if you like supernatural/fantasy types shows.

Always make sure its the 4k/UHD version. Those are the only ones with Atmos. Same as Netflix.


----------



## Craig Mecak

*The Wheel of Time* is also in Dolby Atmos on Prime.


----------



## X4100

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Jack Ryan is indeed in Atmos. I played the 1st episode and it worked for me. Make sure its the 4k/UHD version.
> 
> Also The Tomorrow War and Carnival Row were in Atmos as well. Carnival Row is worth watching if you like supernatural/fantasy types shows.
> 
> Always make sure its the 4k/UHD version. Those are the only ones with Atmos. Same as Netflix.


I've tried several times, and all I get is Dolby Digital plus in 5.1 for Jack Ryan on Amazon Prime Video. No matter, because with the benefits of free shipping, and now the movies I have access to I'm good.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> I've tried several times, and all I get is Dolby Digital plus in 5.1 for Jack Ryan on Amazon Prime Video. No matter, because with the benefits of free shipping, and now the movies I have access to I'm good.


Are you sure the video mode on the Firestick is set to 4K? If you press your menu button on your Denon AVR and you can still see the picture playing in the background then you're in 1080p on the Firestick (older D&M units can't show menu and picture at the same time in 4K).


----------



## X4100

Thanks for the tip! I'll check it out asap.


----------



## robert600

X4100 said:


> I've tried several times, and all I get is Dolby Digital plus in 5.1 for Jack Ryan on Amazon Prime Video. No matter, because with the benefits of free shipping, and now the movies I have access to I'm good.


This is wayyy out of my experience but when does that ever stop me lol.

I'm just wondering, Is there any possibility your !SP simply isn't giving you the necessary speed to allow for 4K with Atmos streaming? I can't remember the required speed (it's well beyond what I have) but I do remember that you cannot go by specs of the package the ISP is charging you for. You actually have to check it with some sort of 'ping' test ... you can pretty much count on it being well below what the ISP says they're giving you (and what you are paying for). 
I believe sites like Prime, Netflix etc ... do a test of your actually network speed ...and adjust what they send accordingly.


----------



## X4100

Jack Ryan is the only one that doesn't play in Atmos, as you can see below I do get Atmos


----------



## regster

Just watched Protégé on disc, one of the better Atmos track I’ve heard this year. Clear Dialogue, good use of all 6 top speakers in my setup, detailed LFE. I’d put this on the same level with No Time to Die for audio detail, at least with my ears.

This is also on Prime but only on 5.1 on ATV4K, did not check on 4K firestick if it is in Atmos.


----------



## X4100

Just checked The Protege', it's Dolby Digital plus on my firestick. The Tomorrow War is definitely Atmos, I love the scenes when they make "the jump, " it's like my ceiling is opening up above me!!


----------



## regster

I think "The Tomorrow War" and if I remember correctly "Justice League - Snyder Cut" is the best Atmos tracks I have watched on streaming platforms.


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> Just checked The Protege', it's Dolby Digital plus on my firestick. The Tomorrow War is definitely Atmos, I love the scenes when they make "the jump, " it's like my ceiling is opening up above me!!


The Aeronauts on Amazon is also Atmos and the height channels get some usage. But it's bass needs an increase with the subwoofer level. As far as the actual movie quality, I thought it was an overachiever and better than I thought it would be. Maybe give this one a whirl too


----------



## X4100

Will do, that's the one with the man,and woman in a hot air balloon right?


----------



## halcyon_888

X4100 said:


> Will do, that's the one with the man,and woman in a hot air balloon right?


Yea that's the one. Also just mentioning I turned my center channel up 2.5dB to hear the dialogue clearer, not sure if you'd have the same problem though


----------



## Visconti12

regster said:


> I think "The Tomorrow War" and if I remember correctly "Justice League - Snyder Cut" is the best Atmos tracks I have watched on streaming platforms.


Take a look to this video on YouTube


----------



## Chirosamsung

Visconti12 said:


> Take a look to this video on YouTube


ya, dune was like blade runner audio mixwise

anybody got any thoughts on resident evil raccoon city? I want to give it a chance cause I like the games but heard many times it's terrible but has a good atmos mix...any feedback?


----------



## niterida

I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD 
I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.

😭😭😭


----------



## datman

niterida said:


> I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD
> I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
> So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.
> 
> 😭😭😭


I have not been able to figure out how to stream atmos from any source.


----------



## X4100

What streaming service do you have available


----------



## X4100

niterida said:


> I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD
> I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
> So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.
> 
> 😭😭😭


I thought I had misplaced my Atmos edition of Gravity, searched for it about an hour. It doesn't have the Atmos logo on the case or the disc, but after I saw the ridiculously priced ads on Ebay, I found it!!!


----------



## mjwagner

datman said:


> I have not been able to figure out how to stream atmos from any source.


It’s all dependent on the combination of device(s), service, and show.


----------



## datman

X4100 said:


> I thought I had misplaced my Atmos edition of Gravity, searched for it about an hour. It doesn't have the Atmos logo on the case or the disc, but after I saw the ridiculously priced ads on Ebay, I found it!!!


I bought that one too just for Atmos. Just like all the DTSX discs I bought. Glad you found it.


----------



## Apgood

niterida said:


> I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD
> I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
> So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.


Prime does do Atmos in Australia, but only device it has done it with for me is Fire TV and only when streaming 4K HDR version of a film or show that has Atmos. Also some time it need to toggle the audio stream to trigger the Atmos stream.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## regster

Visconti12 said:


> Take a look to this video on YouTube


 Thanks. Good list. I have all the titles on disc besides Monster Hunter and Resident Evil. I follow his channel and like that his movie reviews is focused on Audio and Picture quality, which often are the criterias I consider more when buying those shiny discs 😊. Dune! On my favorite list for sure. Protégé I thought is deserving on this list. I saw it mentioned few times in the comments. I was hoping to see the review with Atmos viewer.


----------



## regster

niterida said:


> I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD
> I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
> So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.
> 
> 😭😭😭


☹☹
I bought Gravity w/ Atmos on Apple TV, I’m sure the audio on the blu-ray is much better. Not biting on those crazy prices on ebay.


----------



## MagnumX

regster said:


> ☹☹
> I bought Gravity w/ Atmos on Apple TV, I’m sure the audio on the blu-ray is much better. Not biting on those crazy prices on ebay.


It's identical sounding unless you have golden ears (i.e. Only difference is lossy DD+ VS TrueHD and Apple has a decent streaming rate compared to most).

I bought the BD years ago, but have never used it except to dump the soundtrack to use with the 3D BD video (combine with MKVToolnix). 3D video + 3D audio = A real vomit comet coaster ride. I seriously had to pause after the wreckage scene from all that 3D spinning (audio spinning with it).

The only other 3D movie that I ever had to stop for awhile was Doctor Strange. All that city flipping turning upside down madness was too much in 3D. Motion sickness.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I bought the BD years ago, but have never used it


Want to sell it to a friend for "mates rates" ? 😁


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD
> I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
> So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.
> 
> 😭😭😭


If you have access to Vudu or AppleTV+, you can rent movies from those services which have Atmos. A few bucks for a rental.


----------



## regster

MagnumX said:


> It's identical sounding unless you have golden ears (i.e. Only difference is lossy DD+ VS TrueHD and Apple has a decent streaming rate compared to most).
> 
> I bought the BD years ago, but have never used it except to dump the soundtrack to use with the 3D BD video (combine with MKVToolnix). 3D video + 3D audio = A real vomit conet coaster ride. I seriously had to pause after the wreckage scene from all that 3D spinning (audio spinning with it).
> 
> The only other 3D movie that I ever had to stop for awhile was Doctor Strange. All that city flipping turning upside down madness was too much in 3D. Motion sickness.


That’s good to hear. I have to crank the volume about 9-10db higher when I watched it using ATV4k.

My 3D TV broke years ago and never got to adjust to the 3D effect that made me dizzy. I still get some motion issues on some action scenes with an OLED now.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> It's identical sounding unless you have golden ears (i.e. Only difference is lossy DD+ VS TrueHD and Apple has a decent streaming rate compared to most).
> 
> I bought the BD years ago, but have never used it except to dump the soundtrack to use with the 3D BD video (combine with MKVToolnix). 3D video + 3D audio = A real vomit comet coaster ride. I seriously had to pause after the wreckage scene from all that 3D spinning (audio spinning with it).
> 
> The only other 3D movie that I ever had to stop for awhile was Doctor Strange. All that city flipping turning upside down madness was too much in 3D. Motion sickness.


I dont consider myself to be a goldenear, but I can tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD. Much more dynamics in a TrueHD mix. The overall difference sounds more "full". Kinda like the difference between the old Dolby Digital and DTS codecs on DVD.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> If you have access to Vudu or AppleTV+, you can rent movies from those services which have Atmos. A few bucks for a rental.


VUDU not officially available in Aus.
I looked into ATV+ a while ago but decided against it - will have another look now. Cheers


----------



## regster

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I dont consider myself to be a goldenear, but I can tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD. Much more dynamics in a TrueHD mix. The overall difference sounds more "full". Kinda like the difference between the old Dolby Digital and DTS codecs on DVD.


Dune and Justice League Snyder Cut definitely sounded good on HBO Max with DD+, for me sounded even better on discs with TrueHD.


----------



## DocCasualty

niterida said:


> VUDU not officially available in Aus.
> I looked into ATV+ a while ago but decided against it - will have another look now. Cheers


As far as Gravity with Atmos, it is only available on AppleTV in the US, not VUDU. It has a 5.1 track when played on Amazon of VUDU.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I dont consider myself to be a goldenear, but I can tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD. Much more dynamics in a TrueHD mix. The overall difference sounds more "full". Kinda like the difference between the old Dolby Digital and DTS codecs on DVD.


That's usually a level difference, particularly with Apple TV, which is known to have levels as much as 10dB below what most BD players put out. I have run into some movie exceptions, though and even TIDAL has been reported to have ridiculously low Atmos output levels compared to stereo, leading to people getting blasted out of chairs when a non-Atmos track comes on unexpectedly. 

Given Yello's Atmos album Point needs to play here at a near reference setting to sound right as it is, I can imagine why some have dismissed it as unimpressive if they can't get the volume turned up because it sounds like weak bass shy undynamic crap fest at -10dB here, but like an Atmos Miracle™ at - 2dB. Volume makes a world of difference on that album as it hasn't crapped all over dynamic range like most music these days (Listen to Pink Floyd's The Wall for a similar effect. Even in analog, it has vastly more dynamic range than a typical modern album). 

I bring this up because lossy compression itself has nothing to do with dynamic range, bass levels or fullness. While radio stations and music channel crap most cable boxes include would have you believe otherwise, they've cooked the books with compression (the loudness/dynamic variety) not lossy data compression which sounds more like swishing sounds, particularly in the treble range. 

As for DD VS DTS, that was DTS using 3-6dB more bass in the LFE channels that gave it the more full sound. I maintain DTS had the correct levels, however as comparing my old Jurassic Park laserdisc to the newer DTS:X track revealed levels with 1.5dB of each other for the most part while the new Atmos Top Gun and Raiders of the Lost Ark soundtracks have bass about 6dB below the DTS-HD MA blu-rays and sound like crap by comparison at +4dB levels, let alone reference! But then put in Blade Runner 2049 or the new Dune Atmos BD and it's got mind blowing bass that makes JP and Top Gun seem tame by comparison! The Auro-3D version of the former matches it in the LFE track so it's no format issue, but I have to wonder if there's a setting issue that Top Gun sounds like a wimp version compared to DTS-HD MA.


----------



## Pirotto

No level difference between stereo and Atmos tracks here with Tidal. I use an Nvidia Shield.


----------



## MagnumX

Pirotto said:


> No level difference between stereo and Atmos tracks here with Tidal. I use an Nvidia Shield.


Maybe they fixed it since then. That would be annoying. I never actually used Tidal myself.


----------



## halcyon_888

Just finished watching Daredevil season 1 episode 6 and I used the DTS:Neural X upmixer since it's in 5.1. Wow it did a good job! From the beginning helicopters were flying overhead and a few times there was left to right panning in the height speakers too, it sounded like an Atmos track! It had good surround usage and the bass is decent too. It's my first time watching the series and I'm enjoying it so far


----------



## dschulz

halcyon_888 said:


> Just finished watching Daredevil season 1 episode 6 and I used the DTS:Neural X upmixer since it's in 5.1. Wow it did a good job! From the beginning helicopters were flying overhead and a few times there was left to right panning in the height speakers too, it sounded like an Atmos track! It had good surround usage and the bass is decent too. It's my first time watching the series and I'm enjoying it so far


I thought Daredevil was native Atmos? Or did that not kick in until Season 2?


----------



## halcyon_888

dschulz said:


> I thought Daredevil was native Atmos? Or did that not kick in until Season 2?


I had to do some digging but apparently it's a Disney+ thing for now:



https://www.techradar.com/news/why-arent-netflixs-marvel-shows-available-in-4k-on-disney-plus


----------



## dschulz

halcyon_888 said:


> I had to do some digging but apparently it's a Disney+ thing for now:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.techradar.com/news/why-arent-netflixs-marvel-shows-available-in-4k-on-disney-plus


Oh that sucks. Get it together Disney!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I bring this up because lossy compression itself has nothing to do with dynamic range, bass levels or fullness. While radio stations and music channel crap most cable boxes include would have you believe otherwise, they've cooked the books with compression (the loudness/dynamic variety) not lossy data compression which sounds more like swishing sounds, particularly in the treble range.


I had to add +3db to the source for my RokuTV to sound anywhere close to my PS5 (my current blu ray player) which makes it difficult to do true comparisons between the formats. However when I have rented a movie via Vudu in Atmos (DD+) then purchased the same movie on 4k disc, the TrueHD version has always sounded more dynamic and definitely more full on the low end. Not to mention tracks that are native 7.1 on the disc get down mixed to 5.1 on streaming. (which Atmos doesnt care about, another benefit of the format)
For sure cable feeds are dynamically compressed by a lot.....far more than DD+ streams.



> As for DD VS DTS, that was DTS using 3-6dB more bass in the LFE channels that gave it the more full sound. I maintain DTS had the correct levels, however as comparing my old Jurassic Park laserdisc to the newer DTS:X track revealed levels with 1.5dB of each other for the most part while the new Atmos Top Gun and Raiders of the Lost Ark soundtracks have bass about 6dB below the DTS-HD MA blu-rays and sound like crap by comparison at +4dB levels, let alone reference! But then put in Blade Runner 2049 or the new Dune Atmos BD and it's got mind blowing bass that makes JP and Top Gun seem tame by comparison! The Auro-3D version of the former matches it in the LFE track so it's no format issue, but I have to wonder if there's a setting issue that Top Gun sounds like a wimp version compared to DTS-HD MA.


Yeah, DTS definitely goosed the bass a bit, which made it sound much more authentic to a theatrical presentation. Another benefit of DTS over Dolby Digital was DTS had fairly higher bitrates. DD+ basically is Dolby catching up to DTS in that regard.

The first time I heard Lord of the Rings in DTS my mind was blown. The soundtrack was incredibly dynamic with full bass. It was the first time I ever experienced "chest thump" from a soundtrack....and I didnt even have a sub at the time (my fronts had 8" woofers)

TrueHD and DTS HD MA tracks are better, but legacy DTS still holds its own to this day.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> Just finished watching Daredevil season 1 episode 6 and I used the DTS:Neural X upmixer since it's in 5.1. Wow it did a good job! From the beginning helicopters were flying overhead and a few times there was left to right panning in the height speakers too, it sounded like an Atmos track! It had good surround usage and the bass is decent too. It's my first time watching the series and I'm enjoying it so far


Neural-X is definitely good at its job. Its my default upmixer. Thats why any 16 channel processor I consider has to have the DTS:X-Pro upgrade so it can upmix to more than 11 channels.

Unfortunately, not many 16 channel processors have Pro. I know the Trinnov does. But none of the ones I am incline to look at have it (Emotiva, Arcam, JBL etc)


----------



## classic_erik

Anyone have the inside scoop on the horrible audio dropouts / pops and cracks when watching 4K Atmos content on Netflix via AppleTV 4K 2021 (2nd Gen)? It seems to be evident with all 4K Atmos shows but Drive to Survive is the worst offender.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Just started to watch Kong vs Godzilla and man is that a hot, active and loud atmos mix so far-can tell they run all the channels hot like blade runner and I'm only 5 min into the movie!!


----------



## dj7675

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Neural-X is definitely good at its job. Its my default upmixer. Thats why any 16 channel processor I consider has to have the DTS:X-Pro upgrade so it can upmix to more than 11 channels.
> 
> Unfortunately, not many 16 channel processors have Pro. I know the Trinnov does. But none of the ones I am incline to look at have it (Emotiva, Arcam, JBL etc)


I agree. NeuralX up mixer for all movie 5.1/7.1 upmixing for me as well. It amazes me how good it can be. Also agree that any 16+ channel processor that doesn’t have it, would not be a consideration for me. I went with a StormAudio unit. Before that I had the Denon X8500 which also has it (limited to 13 channels).
To give some context, Denon, Trinnov, Storm have all had it for 1-2 years...


----------



## niterida

niterida said:


> I bought a Gravity Deluxe edition just for the Atmos for $60AUD last year - it got lost in the mail and they are now selling for over $200AUD
> I bought Dune in January for $30AUD and it also got lost on the mail and now they are $60AUD
> So I have been stuck with just streaming Atmos from Disney and Netflix - Prime doesn't do Atmos in Australia and I am not paying for any more services.
> 
> 😭😭😭


woohoo my copy of Dune just arrived 
played a quick minute or 2 of it about halfway in to the movie and it looks and sounds fantastic - can't wait to watch it at reference level 

And yes I informed the seller and will be refunding my refund to them.

Now if I could just find an affordable copy of Gravity somewhere............... @MagnumX any ideas ?


----------



## ebailey

classic_erik said:


> Anyone have the inside scoop on the horrible audio dropouts / pops and cracks when watching 4K Atmos content on Netflix via AppleTV 4K 2021 (2nd Gen)? It seems to be evident with all 4K Atmos shows but Drive to Survive is the worst offender.


Yep - been happening for a while... Had it a lot on Inventing Anna. Rebooting the unit seems to address it - it's quick. To my surprise I had a similar issue on the new Mulan (Disney+) a few days ago - that's the first time I've heard stutter outside of Netflix - may or may not have been the same issue.


----------



## Chirosamsung

dj7675 said:


> I agree. NeuralX up mixer for all movie 5.1/7.1 upmixing for me as well. It amazes me how good it can be. Also agree that any 16+ channel processor that doesn’t have it, would not be a consideration for me. I went with a StormAudio unit. Before that I had the Denon X8500 which also has it (limited to 13 channels).
> To give some context, Denon, Trinnov, Storm have all had it for 1-2 years...


Hoping the HTP-1 eventually get it too!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dj7675 said:


> I agree. NeuralX up mixer for all movie 5.1/7.1 upmixing for me as well. It amazes me how good it can be. Also agree that any 16+ channel processor that doesn’t have it, would not be a consideration for me. I went with a StormAudio unit. Before that I had the Denon X8500 which also has it (limited to 13 channels).
> To give some context, Denon, Trinnov, Storm have all had it for 1-2 years...


Absolutely. If Marantz ever produces a 16 channel processor, thats what I'm getting because I know it will have everything. And I am very familiar with Audyssey so I will know how to tune it.

But ultimately I want 9.4.6 but I dont want any codecs limited to 11.1 channels in that setup. With the amount of money we have to spend on this stuff, I refuse to accept limitations like that.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Absolutely. If Marantz ever produces a 16 channel processor, thats what I'm getting because I know it will have everything. And I am very familiar with Audyssey so I will know how to tune it.
> 
> But ultimately I want 9.4.6 but I dont want any codecs limited to 11.1 channels in that setup. With the amount of money we have to spend on this stuff, I refuse to accept limitations like that.


personnaly I wouldn't settle for Auddessey just to have DTS:X Pro


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> personnaly I wouldn't settle for Auddessey just to have DTS:X Pro


That depends on what they ultimately do with MultEQ-X. They are planning a lot of upgrades with that including Impulse Response which would bring it closer in line with what Dirac can do. In which case Audyssey would no longer be much of a limitation.

Currently I am quite happy with what just the app can do. The Pro version is icing on the cake.


----------



## Gates

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I dont consider myself to be a goldenear, but I can tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD. Much more dynamics in a TrueHD mix. The overall difference sounds more "full". Kinda like the difference between the old Dolby Digital and DTS codecs on DVD.


That's because there is a big difference between the compressed crap on streaming and disc. Don't care what anyone else says here on that subject. It's widely known to everyone except some people in this thread. Has nothing to do with golden ears either.


----------



## skyberval

Hey all.

Has anyone ever had this issue when having PC -> AVR -> TV and having the PC set to Dolby Atmos in sound settings and have a delay for audio to start playing (not desync/lag, just an initial delay)?


----------



## X4100

I have my desktop hooked up that way, sometimes I get a situation like that. I believe it's some sort of handshake issue. When playing Dolby Atmos demos with the Dolby Atmos App, I don't set my audio settings on the desktop to "dolby atmos for home theater, " I just let the AVR do the decode. Sometimes if I switch from watching YouTube videos through the connection you mentioned, to watching something in Atmos it will play in Dolby surround, instead of Dolby Atmos . I'll simply cut off the AVR, and power it back on, and , I'm back to Atmos. I have a few Atmos demo clips on my desktop that I watch from timeto time. I'm not sure if this is the problem you are experiencing, but that's what happens to me when I use desktop >AVR setup.


----------



## priitv8

skyberval said:


> Hey all.
> 
> Has anyone ever had this issue when having PC -> AVR -> TV and having the PC set to Dolby Atmos in sound settings and have a delay for audio to start playing (not desync/lag, just an initial delay)?


I think I see it also both with my appleTV and bluray player, so I assume it is the initial delay the decoder needs to get synced up. I may be assuming wrong, of course.


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> That's because there is a big difference between the compressed crap on streaming and disc. Don't care what anyone else says here on that subject. It's widely known to everyone except some people in this thread. Has nothing to do with golden ears either.



Preach it brutha! But come on! A real audiophile believer like yourself who knows blind testing is for losers and proof is for morons would *never* listen to movies with digital soundtracks! It's gotta be analog or nuthin' at all! Get out the laserdiscs and VHS tapes! Everything else is sonic garbage and everyone on here knows it except people in this here thread! Blind testing of any type is for blind people! Only a total turkey would take that bait!

Every audiophile knows that eyes complement the brain in listening tests and knowing your $150k system is superior to everyone else's garbage streaming system is the greatest high in the world! Forget drugs. Get high on knowing audiophiles rule baby! Give me $10k RCA cables and Majicks Shakti Stones or give me death!

Hell yeah! Stereophile forever!!! Woo-hoo!

(Ain't nuthin on this here sweet Earth beats the sound of a diamond stylus being dragged through plastic, though! Booya!)

😈


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> Preach it brutha! But come on! A real audiophile believer like yourself who knows blind testing is for losers and proof is for morons would *never* listen to movies with digital soundtracks! It's gotta be analog or nuthin' at all! Get out the laserdiscs and VHS tapes! Everything else is sonic garbage and everyone on here knows it except people in this here thread! Blind testing of any type is for blind people! Only a total turkey would take that bait!
> 
> Every audiophile knows that eyes complement the brain in listening tests and knowing your $150k system is superior to everyone else's garbage streaming system is the greatest high in the world! Forget drugs. Get high on knowing audiophiles rule baby! Give me $10k RCA cables and Majicks Shakti Stones or give me death!
> 
> Hell yeah! Stereophile forever!!! Woo-hoo!
> 
> (Ain't nuthin on this here sweet Earth beats the sound of a diamond stylus being dragged through plastic, though! Booya!)
> 
> 😈



....sometimes...you have to lay off the pipe...just for a few hours...get some sleep..

Because I am impatient, I often watch a stream before my discs arrive. The sound on many presentations is far from "crap"....The streaming presentation of DUNE is quite impressive in both sound and video....and yet I have NEVER experienced a greater disparity between what I have experienced on disc and stream. The disc blows away what is an already impressive stream.

Everyone just needs to calm down. You don't need golden ears to tell the difference between compressed and lossless...and yes, there are many times when a portion of that difference can be attenuated with an increase in volume (driving my family crazy)...but there is STILL a difference. I've heard it described many ways, but for me, it's like there is a thin wall or extra layer of fabric between me and my speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> ....sometimes...you have to lay off the pipe...just for a few hours...get some sleep..
> 
> Because I am impatient, I often watch a stream before my discs arrive. The sound on many presentations is far from "crap"....The streaming presentation of DUNE is quite impressive in both sound and video....and yet I have NEVER experienced a greater disparity between what I have experienced on disc and stream. The disc blows away what is an already impressive stream.
> 
> Everyone just needs to calm down. You don't need golden ears to tell the difference between compressed and lossless...and yes, there are many times when a portion of that difference can be attenuated with an increase in volume (driving my family crazy)...but there is STILL a difference. I've heard it described many ways, but for me, it's like there is a thin wall or extra layer of fabric between me and my speakers.


My point is unless it's been _proven_ with a double blind test such claims it's meaningless because prior scientific testing has shown that human beings favor something as simple as a level difference of even a single decibel in controlled testing and that invariably most of the claims that people make with such veracity (such as this $5000 DAC is night and day better than the $5 DAC in the AVR) disappear when they're put on the spot to identify which source is which under double blind conditions. The mind is a powerful thing and even a small difference can lead you to believe something sounds better. I find it especially disconcerting when the claims talk about dynamic range differences or more solid bass because lossy compression _does not_ affect dynamic range or the amount of bass included. It's usually identified at higher frequencies and sounds more like a swirling sound in the cymbals and other high frequencies. Listen to a 64kbps MP3 and it's blatant on the high end, but the bass is fine. Dolby has identified 640kpbs as mostly transparent for 5.1 and 768kbps for Atmos. That means most of the time there are no audible differences and issues in lossy compression are not constant. So if you're hearing "constant" better sound with more dynamic range and cleaner bass, you're _far_ more likely to be hearing a level difference than some artifact of lossy compression.

Now if someone believes that it's best to have lossless music or movie soundtracks when possible, fine. A lot of people would rather be safe than sorry, but the _worst_ part is this, however, is when people speak for other people, particularly when it's "everyone" as in "Everyone knows this is true" when that is not the case at all. In this case, the poster said, "It's widely known to *everyone* except some people in this thread" and speaks for the _entire flipping world_ outside this thread! It reeks of 'I said it and therefore it's true'. 

Imagine if someone said, "It seems that the people in this thread are the only ones on Earth that don't know the basic accepted _fact_ that the world is indeed FLAT!" Even _if _most of the people on the planet _believed_ the world was flat, that doesn't mean it's true. Most of the people reading Stereophile magazine believed digital sound was evil and that green marker pens could improve the sound on a CD if you painted a ring around the outer edge. Stereophile endorsed that product and admitted they couldn't think of a single reason why it worked, but it does (yeah it's called the _placebo effect_) and it probably made that company rich seeing as their markers cost like $20 each. Some admitted to buying cheap regular green markers and claimed they sounded just as good as the brand name ones. I claim they're _all_ delusional as painting the outside edge of a CD has nothing to do with anything. The laser isn't even focused over there and besides, it's a laser for god sake. That means green coloring inches away don't have any effect on it. Otherwise, the layer of bits sitting a tiny fraction of an inch from the one its reading might affect it a lot more than something inches away. Why didn't they paint the entire CD green? It stopped working? Yeah, that really would improve the sound just like those mats they had to insert into trays loaded the motors down and all scientific testing showed it made tracking worse, not better. Some _improvement. _And that's why you don't go by just your ears/brain, golden or not on such claims.

Here, we know, for instance, that Apple's ATV4K device has vastly different levels than most Blu-Rays right from the start. In fact, the differences are so large that something like Yello's Point album might not even be able to reach the same levels on the ATV as the Blu-Ray as I'm already listening to the Blu-Ray at -2dB and ATV is typically off by 6-8dB in level. That puts me into the positive range on my AVR and some AVRs with some speakers may be out of range at that point or someone might think nothing else they've played has ever needed to be that loud, but -2dB is where it sounds "right" here on the Blu-Ray and I could go higher without being uncomfortable. So right there is an instant issue why the ATV might not sound right. Most people don't do reference sound checks with a SPL meter to make _sure_ they are the same level to compare.


----------



## crutzulee

OK I'll bite... broski, I'm old enough to remember the double blind tests stereophile did when they were comparing DTS vs DD tracks on DVD and the conclusions that they reached in that article.
In my post, I even agree with you, as I have in the past, that in many situations, I have found that the recording level differences between a stream and a disc can close the gap. I'm NOT in the camp that thinks compressed audio is all crap.

I'm not a sound engineer... but I know how compression works, and you lost me on that point.

It doesn't matter what you or I think...mess with the levels all you want... it's impossible not to hear the difference in the streamed vs the lossless DUNE tracks on the disc. It's easy because this is the worst example... but rest assured, there are many others and it is not a placebo effect.

As I write this, I'm even willing to concede that it may not be a codec issue... they may simply be purposefully gimping the stream to sell discs to enthusiasts...I don't really care. I have no skin in this game. My life would be easier if the discs offered no increased quality as I don't watch special features or give a rat's ass about packaging...hell, for most of the crap that's out there, I don't NEED the absolute best sound and video.. simple upscaled 1080p with surround sound can be good enough for the latest direct to video premiere


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> OK I'll bite... broski, I'm old enough to remember the double blind tests stereophile did when they were comparing DTS vs DD tracks on DVD and the conclusions that they reached in that article.
> In my post, I even agree with you, as I have in the past, that in many situations, I have found that the recording level differences between a stream and a disc can close the gap. I'm NOT in the camp that thinks compressed audio is all crap.
> 
> I'm not a sound engineer... but I know how compression works, and you lost me on that point.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think...mess with the levels all you want... it's impossible not to hear the difference in the streamed vs the lossless DUNE tracks on the disc. It's easy because this is the worst example... but rest assured, there are many others and it is not a placebo effect.
> 
> As I write this, I'm even willing to concede that it may not be a codec issue... they may simply be purposefully gimping the stream to sell discs to enthusiasts...I don't really care. I have no skin in this game. My life would be easier if the discs offered no increased quality as I don't watch special features or give a rat's ass about packaging...hell, for most of the crap that's out there, I don't NEED the absolute best sound and video.. simple upscaled 1080p with surround sound can be good enough for the latest direct to video premiere


Unfortunately, I don't think I have the digital copy of Dune to compare as I ordered the 3D BD from Germany and took the Atmos track from the 2D disc to remux the 3D version or I'd ask for a scene to compare. 

It would indeed be sad if they are gimping streaming versions on purpose. They certainly used to do that with Cable music stations (partly to make sure levels were even between songs from different albums) and the results were awful. 

Someone told me the new Tears For Fears album Tipping Point, which only has 2000 copies on limited edition Blu-ray (Steven Wilson did both the 5.1 and Atmos mix) has vastly better bass on the BD compared to Apple Music. Now whether that's a level issue or it's gimped, I don't know. My own BD of the album just arrived today and I haven't gotten to listen to it yet, but I don't have Apple Music to compare anyway (not a big fan of renting music).


----------



## Wardog555

crutzulee said:


> OK I'll bite... broski, I'm old enough to remember the double blind tests stereophile did when they were comparing DTS vs DD tracks on DVD and the conclusions that they reached in that article.
> In my post, I even agree with you, as I have in the past, that in many situations, I have found that the recording level differences between a stream and a disc can close the gap. I'm NOT in the camp that thinks compressed audio is all crap.
> 
> I'm not a sound engineer... but I know how compression works, and you lost me on that point.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think...mess with the levels all you want... it's impossible not to hear the difference in the streamed vs the lossless DUNE tracks on the disc. It's easy because this is the worst example... but rest assured, there are many others and it is not a placebo effect.
> 
> As I write this, I'm even willing to concede that it may not be a codec issue... they may simply be purposefully gimping the stream to sell discs to enthusiasts...I don't really care. I have no skin in this game. My life would be easier if the discs offered no increased quality as I don't watch special features or give a rat's ass about packaging...hell, for most of the crap that's out there, I don't NEED the absolute best sound and video.. simple upscaled 1080p with surround sound can be good enough for the latest direct to video premiere


it seems that there are worlds apart here. one side you have the enthusiasts who care deeply about maximum quality and that's why they always choose disks over streaming. me included. and then there's the other type who doesn't care and often they don't know the differences etc. and unwilling to accept better things or experiences etc. which you sound like the latter option.

its really disappointing that people have so much difference in preferences and views/ opinions on here and the messages for whats best doesnt get through to people.

when it comes to home theater based forums i assume its for those people who deeply care about maxim quality.

i am the person who WAITS for content to be released on disk before i watch to receive the maxium enjoyment and immersion possible. i see peole all the time watching streamed movies well before they are released on disk. zack synders justice leage is one example. i saw one website claming a disk relase is going to happen therefore i waited for the 4k uhd blu-ray disk to watch that movie for the HIGHEST QUALITY POSSIBLE thats released publicy


----------



## MagnumX

Wardog555 said:


> it seems that there are worlds apart here. one side you have the enthusiasts who care deeply about maximum quality and that's why they always choose disks over streaming. me included. and then there's the other type who doesn't care and often they don't know the differences etc. and unwilling to accept better things or experiences etc. which you sound like the latter option.
> 
> its really disappointing that people have so much difference in preferences and views/ opinions on here and the messages for whats best doesnt get through to people.
> 
> when it comes to home theater based forums i assume its for those people who deeply care about maxim quality.
> 
> i am the person who WAITS for content to be released on disk before i watch to receive the maxium enjoyment and immersion possible. i see peole all the time watching streamed movies well before they are released on disk. zack synders justice leage is one example. i saw one website claming a disk relase is going to happen therefore i waited for the 4k uhd blu-ray disk to watch that movie for the HIGHEST QUALITY POSSIBLE thats released publicy


It's a real shame some people just cannot comprehend that most of the differences they so thoroughly believe in don't even exist except in their imagination and this has been proven time and time again with double blind testing where massive claims all but evaporate.

Dolby themselves state 640kbps is mostly transparent for 5.1, but people like you don't believe the scientists that created these formats. Lossy sucks. Period. 

What about at every rate possible? YES! Nothing less than lossless is acceptable to you. DTS had a greater than 1500kbps rate on many old DVDs. They were utterly transparent at that rate, but you don't see many repacking MKV Rips only with DTS on 5.1 titles. Nope. Got to have DTS-HD MA or nothing at all! (Look at all the whining that occurred with the two Fast & The Furious titles that used DTS-HD HR audio base tracks, using a rate 2-4x higher still than 1500kbps). There is no audible difference at that rate, but people screamed bloody murder. 

You don't care about the truth, only the audiophile wet dream. It's obvious that the fantasy is far more important than actual reality.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> It reeks of 'I said it and therefore it's true'.





MagnumX said:


> It's a real shame some people just cannot comprehend that most of the differences they so thoroughly believe in don't even exist except in their imagination


It feels like your second statement here is an example of your first statement. Just observing as someone on the sidelines of the debate.


----------



## dschulz

Wardog555 said:


> it seems that there are worlds apart here. one side you have the enthusiasts who care deeply about maximum quality and that's why they always choose disks over streaming. me included. and then there's the other type who doesn't care and often they don't know the differences etc. and unwilling to accept better things or experiences etc. which you sound like the latter option.
> 
> its really disappointing that people have so much difference in preferences and views/ opinions on here and the messages for whats best doesnt get through to people.
> 
> when it comes to home theater based forums i assume its for those people who deeply care about maxim quality.
> 
> i am the person who WAITS for content to be released on disk before i watch to receive the maxium enjoyment and immersion possible. i see peole all the time watching streamed movies well before they are released on disk. zack synders justice leage is one example. i saw one website claming a disk relase is going to happen therefore i waited for the 4k uhd blu-ray disk to watch that movie for the HIGHEST QUALITY POSSIBLE thats released publicy


Here's my take, FWIW:

I watch a lot of movies, partly on my own and partly with a group of friends who come over every two weeks for MovieNite. My friends pick the movie through a system in which everyone chucks a couple of titles into a cookie jar, and every two weeks we watch a movie, and at the end of the night draw to see what we're watching next.

I take picture & sound quality pretty seriously. Alas, I cannot afford to purchase every movie I may want to watch, or that my MovieNite group selects. In the Before Times I was well served by area video rental stores (I am lucky enough to live in LA, so even really obscure stuff could be obtained 99% of the time). Nowadays I am reliant on a mix of discs in the mail from Netflix, streaming services or VOD rentals.

My stance at the moment: if I can get a Blu Ray from Netflix, I will absolutely roll with that, but if Netflix has only DVD or doesn't have a disc at all, I will go with a VOD rental (or streaming service, if the movie in question is on a service to which I have a subscription). Picture and sound quality is better on physical media, yes, but not enough better to prompt me to buy a movie I may watch only the one time. I am surprised at how good streaming has gotten, and consider it perfectly acceptable for showing friends movies at my place.


----------



## crutzulee

I used to be the guy that waited an additional 3 to 6 months and drove out of my way to get the latest laserdisc release when I had a blockbuster across the parking lot from my apartment in university. It would make my girlfriend crazy... but OAR even on a 4x3 screen was and still is important to me...

I just turned 50...I can watch a movie a second time within a month now and it can still seem new to me...if I watch it streaming the first time and enjoy the story, I don't feel cheated watching it a second time on disc in better quality. If the movie is a dog, I can usually rest easy canceling the disc secure in the knowledge that the better sound and video quality is not going to make me enjoy it more...


----------



## Expidia

Chirosamsung said:


> Just started to watch Kong vs Godzilla and man is that a hot, active and loud atmos mix so far-can tell they run all the channels hot like blade runner and I'm only 5 min into the movie!!


Ya, I thought the Atmos in the HBOmax movie was great. So much so, I ordered the 4K UHD Atmos disk off Amazon. I'm just waiting for my downstairs neighbor to go out for the day before I can do it justice 😆


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> It feels like your second statement here is an example of your first statement. Just observing as someone on the sidelines of the debate.


That depends on what you _think_ I'm saying. I'm not making any claims that something sounds better or worse, only stating studies show many people who make claims without any proof to back their claims of superiority are unable to prove their claims when actually tested. If it's subjective, such claims can be dismissed as preference, but once yostart making claims for others, particularly nearly the entire world outside these forums, you've stepped beyond subjective into the world of making testable claims

In other words, there _might_ be a difference with some discs or streaming services, but generalities without any proof mean very little to me, particularly when someone claims _everyone_ _else_ out there agrees with them. I don't claim everyone agrees with me. It's obvious many don't. That still doesn't prove their claim that discs sound better and _everyone else _knows that (taken for granted).

I've also made no comments on picture quality of BD versus most streaming, whis is often at least somewhat softer looking (save perhaps Kalaidiscape). I'm talking purely about lossy audio codes versus lossless. At what point (or bitrate) is it virtually impossible to tell them apart with just your ears?


----------



## X4100

I was trying to stay out of this, but I think YMMV in this case. I have some Dolby Atmos demos that I downloaded containing clips from various movies, the volume of every one of them is lower than some 5.1 Dolby Digital demos I had also downloaded. I found that confusing at first. I turn the volume up, which makes the Atmos demos sound more like what I'm used to hearing. I'm just wondering if the demos that I downloaded are the "lossy" type being discussed. As I mentioned once I increase the Master volume I can't tell the difference between the same scene on an actual BD movie. Is it possible that all that needs to be done is to raise the playback volume, and voila everything is back in stride again  . I've only been streaming Dolby Atmos on Amazon Prime for a few weeks, therefore I really can't comment on the quality of streaming vs actual disc.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Expidia said:


> Ya, I thought the Atmos in the HBOmax movie was great. So much so, I ordered the 4K UHD Atmos disk off Amazon. I'm just waiting for my downstairs neighbor to go out for the day before I can do it justice 😆


One of the loudest, bass heavy atmos track out there


----------



## crutzulee

Chirosamsung said:


> One of the loudest, bass heavy atmos track out there


More than FURY?....I FINALLY got around to watching this yesterday....HOLY CRAP IT WAS AWESOME!!!!


----------



## MagnumX

I've listened to *Tears For Fears* - _The Tipping Point_ in Dolby Atmos from one of the 2000 limited edition Blu-Rays. It's also available on streaming services like Apple Music, although I haven't heard any streaming versions. It also contains a DTS-HD MA 5.1 mix. Both mixes were done by Steven Wilson. I also listened to the first track, _No Small Thing_ in Atmos, TrueHD 7.1, DTS 5.1, Auro-3D upmixer, DSU upmixer (of the DTS track) and Neural X of the DTS and Atmos tracks plus stereo downmixes of both to get some idea of how the various incarnations compare. The disc contains no stereo mixes (I created a Pro Logic II one with Handbrake and also tried my AVRs downmix stereo mode).










The first track is a good one to compare because it has a flanger effect part mid-way through moves across the room/ceiling from side-to-side in a sort of sideways figure 8 pattern (like infinity). It moves across the Top Middle/Side Surround area of the room in Atmos. In downmixed Atmos, even in stereo it does the same thing, but across the front of the room (lower or higher depending on the upmixer or lack thereof). The separate 5.1 mix does no such thing. The flanger effect kind of stays in the front speakers and I think it just changes positions after just kind of sitting there. I haven't compared the entire album, but certainly the Atmos mix strikes me as superior for that track and not just the flanger effect, but also use of the rear surround speakers. Overall, though, it wasn't a massive difference in mixing style between the two. The 2.0 downmixed track (done with Handbrake set to Pro Logic II downmixing) sent to DSU actually expanded quite well in terms of stereo surround.

I did notice some clarity differences in the different modes of the vocals to some extent. Oddly, they were clearest in stereo downmixes and least clear in Neural X upmixing. Atmos seemed slightly more spaced out and less focused than the TrueHD 7.1 base track on the vocals. The DTS mix downmixed to stereo sounded cleaner/clearer in terms of impression, but I could understand the lyrics much clearer on the Atmos track downmixed to stereo which felt kind of out of place. These aren't massive differences in clarity, but somehow the whole album had me thinking despite the surround mix being pretty well down, the actual recording quality of _some_ of the parts could have been somewhat better, IMO. In fact, the vocals are much clearer/cleaner sounding on some tracks than others and I don't think it's really an effect kind of thing. 

If I compare Yello's Point album in sound quality to The Tipping Point, Yello wins hands down and also has far crazier Atmos effects to boot (some might call that distracting, however). This album definitely sounds a bit closer to Steven Wilsons own _The Future Bites_ in terms of its mix (no shock since he mixed both in 5.1 and collaborated on the Atmos mix of his album), but his album was recorded much better/clearer/cleaner, IMO. That's not to say it's terrible by any means, but I guess I expected some of the tracks to really have some bite to them and instead they seemed almost too relaxed sounding like maybe too much chorus/reverb/spread going on or something that kind of dulls the individual instruments on some parts/songs. 

That was my first impression anyway keeping Booka Shade, Yello and Steven's own The Future Bites albums in mind by ways of comparison. I put on Alan Parsons Project - _Eye In The Sky_ afterward from the newer 5.1 Blu-Ray and while I feel the need to turn the sub up a few dB, it's just so darn CLEAN sounding and it was recorded in 1982! I thought Tori Amos' newest album (Ocean To Ocean) wasn't recorded as well as some of her earlier albums, but even with just stereo or using the DSU upmixer or Auro-3D upmixer, it sounded cleaner/clearer overall so I don't think it's just my imagination, but it may be more of a processed sound type of thing where I wanted it a bit more visceral. I did have a cold recently, so I don't fully trust my ears yet, but that's why I played some comparison tracks to compare. 

Listening to some Tears For Fears from Songs From The Big Chair in 5.1, the overall "sound" is quite similar in recording quality so maybe it just comes down to that's their style of sound rather than some particular issue. I read someone say the streaming version doesn't sound as good as the Blu-Ray. I can't confirm that, however. I also read very poor comments about the stereo mix (like it was mixed for phones or something). Now that doesn't mean the surround sound mix wasn't good on the Blu-Ray here, but don't expect sound effects flying all over the place with a couple of exceptions like that flanger. It's more of a giant "room" of sound. In fact, it felt like I was in much larger room than my 12'x24' home theater with my eyes closed. To be honest, though I would have liked a few more obvious ceiling effects (e.g. Steven's own Personal Shopper at least has some of the voices appear overhead along with a guitar tornado effect that felt vertical in Atmos). 

Musically, I'm not sure where I'm at after only one trip through the whole album (although I think I listened to No Small Thing about 12 times). It strikes me as a pretty good album, but if you're expecting a string of mega hits like *Songs From The Big Chair*, don't. There's nothing as catchy as _Shout_ or _Everybody Wants To Rule The World_, although _My Demons_ came close for me for a first listen and _No Small Thing_ is also a very strong track. _Rivers of Mercy_ was also particularly good and was the track that gave me the "giant room" impression the most. It just felt like the sounds went on out into the distance for half a block or so. I'd say you could almost call the album, _Songs From The Big Room_.


----------



## rec head

dschulz said:


> Here's my take, FWIW:
> 
> I watch a lot of movies, partly on my own and partly with a group of friends who come over every two weeks for MovieNite. My friends pick the movie through a system in which everyone chucks a couple of titles into a cookie jar, and every two weeks we watch a movie, and at the end of the night draw to see what we're watching next.
> 
> I take picture & sound quality pretty seriously. Alas, I cannot afford to purchase every movie I may want to watch, or that my MovieNite group selects. In the Before Times I was well served by area video rental stores (I am lucky enough to live in LA, so even really obscure stuff could be obtained 99% of the time). Nowadays I am reliant on a mix of discs in the mail from Netflix, streaming services or VOD rentals.
> 
> My stance at the moment: if I can get a Blu Ray from Netflix, I will absolutely roll with that, but if Netflix has only DVD or doesn't have a disc at all, I will go with a VOD rental (or streaming service, if the movie in question is on a service to which I have a subscription). Picture and sound quality is better on physical media, yes, but not enough better to prompt me to buy a movie I may watch only the one time. I am surprised at how good streaming has gotten, and consider it perfectly acceptable for showing friends movies at my place.


I use this service for disc rental. 


https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/default.asp


----------



## rec head

I don't really care about the quality issues about streaming vs disc and have only skimmed the previous debate. My only addition is that streaming being as good as disc assumes that the streaming company, your internet provider and the app developer all have their part working. When Tidal first started doing Atmos I signed up to check it out. It was horrible. The Atmos tracks were the lifeless sounding. It was not a leveling issue, I tried that. The same songs on Tidal in stereo were vastly better. I have no idea what part of the chain was failing but it would not have happened on disc. I know on the Shield that some apps are better than others in providing the Atmos stream. That doesn't happen on disc either. 

I think a lot of us here are probably old enough to remember old mp3 downloads. So many poor sounding low bitrate mp3's have probably formed our impression of what compression sounds like.

I don't follow the BEQ thread but they analyze everything. If you want to know if a movie is different in streaming vs disc they probably know the answer. I have noticed when I load BEQ filters that there are different versions but have not compared them. I'm not a purist. I like what I like and don't care how I get there. Stream, disc, EQ, upmix, remux, upscale. Whatever. I just want to have a good time.

Here's a test just for funsies.


----------



## DocCasualty

Chirosamsung said:


> Just started to watch Kong vs Godzilla and man is that a hot, active and loud atmos mix so far-can tell they run all the channels hot like blade runner and I'm only 5 min into the movie!!


Thanks for the recommendation! Watching it now on HBOMax and the 4K video and Atmos track are stellar!


----------



## Chirosamsung

crutzulee said:


> More than FURY?....I FINALLY got around to watching this yesterday....HOLY CRAP IT WAS AWESOME!!!!


Might be more, yes. At least in the same league. Almost too loud-have to turn it way down lol


----------



## MagnumX

I don't remember Fury being loud. I do remember some awesome Atmos moments, however. The only movie I remember that was too loud was the opening note on Blade Runner 2049. It gives you no time to adjust your volume setting to fit the movie, but even then you tend to end up turning it down too much based on the first few seconds and it's never really _that_ loud again, but it does have more LFE than most. Dune is similar (same director), but without the opening note shock. Both have much higher LFE than "typical" Dolby codec movies and sound more like DTS than DTS even, proving it's not the format, but a conscious decision to neuter bass for sound bars or whatever. 

Compare the DTS-HD MA 6.1 Top Gun soundtrack to the new Atmos one. Match dialog levels and the bass is 6-8dB higher on the DTS one and at proper or even slightly boosted bass levels, the DTS one sounds awesome. The Atmos one sounds neutered. I had to turn up the LFE levels by almost 8dB to restore a similar sound. And yes real jet engines are far louder than even the DTS track. 

The real question is why they are neutering bass in the first place. They should have put in a neuter bass switch on all Atmos gear for sound bars and old ladies and apartment dwellers and left the darn soundtracks alone!


----------



## crutzulee

FURY is all kinds of quiet.... until it's not....


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Last night I watched The Great Wall in 4k/UHD with an Atmos soundtrack.

1st of all, its a fun movie. If you liked movies like Crouching Tiger, Hero or House of the Flying Daggers, you might like this one. Its not an Oscar Winning drama like Crouching Tiger or Hero, but its got action on that scale.

As for the sound mix, it was pretty good. Just in general had some nice dynamics and decent LFE. Plenty of explosions and hard-hitting impacts. Some immersive effects are very nice (flights of arrows and that sort of thing) and there was one particular moment where the heroes were underground with creatures running amok above them and you get direct sound of the beasties footsteps directly above. Some pretty discrete audio in the height channels from time to time in this feature.

So if you dont mind bombastic action films with a theme of kung fu warriors vs some pretty nasty creatures, this one is worth checking out.

If your tastes run closer to the more realistic zone, you might want to steer clear of this one.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Last night I watched The Great Wall in 4k/UHD with an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> 1st of all, its a fun movie. If you liked movies like Crouching Tiger, Hero or House of the Flying Daggers, you might like this one. Its not an Oscar Winning drama like Crouching Tiger or Hero, but its got action on that scale.
> 
> As for the sound mix, it was pretty good. Just in general had some nice dynamics and decent LFE. Plenty of explosions and hard-hitting impacts. Some immersive effects are very nice (flights of arrows and that sort of thing) and there was one particular moment where the heroes were underground with creatures running amok above them and you get direct sound of the beasties footsteps directly above. Some pretty discrete audio in the height channels from time to time in this feature.
> 
> So if you dont mind bombastic action films with a theme of kung fu warriors vs some pretty nasty creatures, this one is worth checking out.
> 
> If your tastes run closer to the more realistic zone, you might want to steer clear of this one.
> View attachment 3260485


It had a relatively good Atmos soundtrack, but I prefer the 3D version to 4K on a large screen. Atmos actually works best with 3D. It's a shame TV manufacturers (save some projectors) abandoned 3D.

I'd rate Mortal Engines in a similar vein (ridiculous story but with good/great Atmos and 3D).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> It had a relatively good Atmos soundtrack, but I prefer the 3D version to 4K on a large screen. Atmos actually works best with 3D. It's a shame TV manufacturers (save some projectors) abandoned 3D.
> 
> I'd rate Mortal Engines in a similar vein (ridiculous story but with good/great Atmos and 3D).


Yes indeed. I also own Mortal Engines.


----------



## Wardog555

DocCasualty said:


> Thanks for the recommendation! Watching it now on HBOMax and the 4K video and Atmos track are stellar!


You want the lossless Dolby atmos uhd blu-ray disk release. People don't value the lossless audio which is significantly better?


----------



## MagnumX

All hail the power of the placebo effect....


----------



## davcole

Question for those who have the Apple Music 4k box?

I know the Atmos film soundtracks are lossy, but what about the Apple Music tracks, listed as lossless, in Atmos? Are the multichannel tracks truly lossless?

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


----------



## priitv8

davcole said:


> I know the Atmos film soundtracks are lossy, but what about the Apple Music tracks, listed as lossless, in Atmos? Are the multichannel tracks truly lossless?


I seriously doubt it, I am sure, they use the same technology in the background.
There was actually even an article that mentions DD+ and JOC being used:








Why Your Atmos Mix Will Sound Different On Apple Music | Production Expert


In this article Edgar Rothermich gives a detailed explanation of the differences between Dolby Atmos and Apple’s Spatial Audio and all the steps you have to take to audition a Spatial Audio rendering of your Atmos mix!




www.pro-tools-expert.com





Keep in mind, that now several renderings of same audio track are being used.
And from the article above, using AppleTV with AVR or soundbar is the only way to hear the authentic multichannel DD+ mix.
All others hear the binaural mix of the track.


----------



## davcole

priitv8 said:


> I seriously doubt it, I am sure, they use the same technology in the background.
> There was actually even an article that mentions DD+ and JOC being used:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Your Atmos Mix Will Sound Different On Apple Music | Production Expert
> 
> 
> In this article Edgar Rothermich gives a detailed explanation of the differences between Dolby Atmos and Apple’s Spatial Audio and all the steps you have to take to audition a Spatial Audio rendering of your Atmos mix!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pro-tools-expert.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, that now several renderings of same audio track are being used.
> And from the article above, using AppleTV with AVR or soundbar is the only way to hear the authentic multichannel DD+ mix.
> All others hear the binaural mix of the track.


Thank you!!

Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Last night I watched The Great Wall in 4k/UHD with an Atmos soundtrack.
> 
> 1st of all, its a fun movie. If you liked movies like Crouching Tiger, Hero or House of the Flying Daggers, you might like this one. Its not an Oscar Winning drama like Crouching Tiger or Hero, but its got action on that scale.
> 
> As for the sound mix, it was pretty good. Just in general had some nice dynamics and decent LFE. Plenty of explosions and hard-hitting impacts. Some immersive effects are very nice (flights of arrows and that sort of thing) and there was one particular moment where the heroes were underground with creatures running amok above them and you get direct sound of the beasties footsteps directly above. Some pretty discrete audio in the height channels from time to time in this feature.
> 
> So if you dont mind bombastic action films with a theme of kung fu warriors vs some pretty nasty creatures, this one is worth checking out.
> 
> If your tastes run closer to the more realistic zone, you might want to steer clear of this one.
> View attachment 3260485


I enjoyed this one.. I've watched it more than five times, and more if you count the times I just watched the Atmos demo worthy scenes..
Not too realistic, but hey, that's not why I go into movies ( for reality, I could visit a hospital's ED) 
Plenty of demo worthy scenes and good chemistry between the two guys, and enough suspense before they reveal the monster..
Having climbed the wall - I visited the more isolated sections where you will need to really climb, it was a really breath taking structure.
A tip for any visitors: do not head to the touristy spots, with thousands of people and an escalator to bring you up. Ask your guide to show you the real deal. It's further away, with less vendors, people, and if you go in winter, you could be the only person for miles around. It's a sight to behold... 

Great cardio training too... the view isn't the only thing to take your breath away.. 

Oh, if you do take the less travelled route, please pee before you hit the trail... there are no toilets on top and you don't want to be arrested for wanton peeing


----------



## fredxr2d2

rec head said:


> Here's a test just for funsies.


I did this test on my work computer with $8 headphones and I only got one right. I'm very curious to try it again at home on the theater system and see where I land. I have a suspicion I am not a golden ear, but it's fun to try!


----------



## niterida

niterida said:


> woohoo my copy of Dune just arrived


And I finally found time to sit down and waste 2 1/2 hours of my life - what a dissappointment


----------



## Sorny

niterida said:


> And I finally found time to sit down and waste 2 1/2 hours of my life - what a dissappointment


Different strokes for different folks. I found the movie to be absolutely fantastic... Changes to a certain character's gender notwithstanding.


----------



## X4100

Someone posted this on another thread "Atmos really IS worthless ". I asked him if he is setup correctly.

Ubbe2 said:
I have 11 channels and two independent subwoofer channels in my Denon X3700 and have a 7.2.4 configuration. When running the Atmos demo "leaf" and "amazing" everything with insects and birds and rain swirls around as it should when trying all 6 different speaker configuration available for Atmos in the Denon. When testing with the movie Avenger End Game and focusing on chapter 2 where Captain America are shaving and the spaceship are brought in, then if I have rear height speaker configured I hear a rattle from the ship, or room, back up at the right. Any other setting that height rear speakers are not present will have that sound totally absent. When the ship are landing and moving above you I can hear mechanical sounds from the ship from middle top speaker but any other configuration without middle top have that sound absent. The mix for that movie, contrary to the demos, seem to be speaker oriented and not object oriented. Or the Atmos DSP processing in the Denon isn't advanced enough to average a sound to be played from other speakers. It is as if a sound cannot be played from the exact position it has been recorded to it will not be played at all. You would think that height speakers in all four corners would be able to pan all top sounds above my head over the whole ceiling area, but no, it doesn't work that way.

I cannot get all Atmos sounds to be produced with only one setup of the 6 available in the Denon. I would need 13 channels or even 15 to get all the Atmos sound objects produced in the audio bubble. So whenever people listen to just one speaker pair they will not hear all Atmos sound and will think it is very little content being mixed as Atmos. It can depend on the DSP and software used, that Denon are one of the worse of reproducing Atmos sounds and that other brands does a better job of it. Denon needs all amps and speakers available to be able to play most Atmos sounds, but rear height speakers cannot be moved to instead be rear top as some sounds will be absent, at least in that Avenger UHD movie.

Denons Audessey calibration are also strange as it will result in all surround speakers running 10dB too loud. To make the demos sound balanced, and also when watching upmixed DD content, I have to reduce all surround speakers level 10dB, except the Atmos top speakers


Has anyone else experienced this???


----------



## crutzulee

niterida said:


> And I finally found time to sit down and waste 2 1/2 hours of my life - what a dissappointment


It's disappointing when something has so much hype and then falls flat. I've never watched the original because I've kind of felt that way about everything I have seen from David Lynch thus far.

Going in with super low expectations, I found Villeneuve's movie to be the best movie experience I had last year. The disc is surely reference quality for both audio and video.


----------



## Sorny

crutzulee said:


> Going in with super low expectations, I found Villeneuve's movie to be the best movie experience I had last year. The disc is surely reference quality for both audio and video.


Agreed, the audio and video are superb on this release. It was the first thing I watched after installing the extra 4 speakers to go from 7.1.4 to 9.1.6. Zimmer scored it well, the ambient sounds in the desert, the Sardukar chanting, rain overhead, ornithopers and sandstorm, worms... just awesome. 

Like Blade Runner 2049 before it, the home release is another example of how to do Atmos properly.


----------



## sdurani

crutzulee said:


> I found Villeneuve's movie to be the best movie experience I had last year.


Same. Saw it twice in the theatres and more times than that at home.


----------



## crutzulee

sdurani said:


> Same. Saw it twice in the theatres and more times than that at home.


My HT has gone through a few updates over the last 2 or 3 months... selected scenes from BLADE RUNNER 2049, THE INVISIBLE MAN and DUNE have been playing endlessly in my home to judge each individual change...I just added FURY to the chagrin of my wife. LOL...


----------



## sdurani

crutzulee said:


> I just added FURY to the chagrin of my wife.


Watched the Atmos version last weekend. Love the scenes inside the tank where you can hear footsteps and metal clanging overhead. The original 5.1 mix was done by AVS member FilmMixer.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

X4100 said:


> Someone posted this on another thread "Atmos really IS worthless ". I asked him if he is setup correctly.
> 
> Ubbe2 said:
> I have 11 channels and two independent subwoofer channels in my Denon X3700 and have a 7.2.4 configuration. When running the Atmos demo "leaf" and "amazing" everything with insects and birds and rain swirls around as it should when trying all 6 different speaker configuration available for Atmos in the Denon. When testing with the movie Avenger End Game and focusing on chapter 2 where Captain America are shaving and the spaceship are brought in, then if I have rear height speaker configured I hear a rattle from the ship, or room, back up at the right. Any other setting that height rear speakers are not present will have that sound totally absent. When the ship are landing and moving above you I can hear mechanical sounds from the ship from middle top speaker but any other configuration without middle top have that sound absent. The mix for that movie, contrary to the demos, seem to be speaker oriented and not object oriented. Or the Atmos DSP processing in the Denon isn't advanced enough to average a sound to be played from other speakers. It is as if a sound cannot be played from the exact position it has been recorded to it will not be played at all. You would think that height speakers in all four corners would be able to pan all top sounds above my head over the whole ceiling area, but no, it doesn't work that way.
> 
> I cannot get all Atmos sounds to be produced with only one setup of the 6 available in the Denon. I would need 13 channels or even 15 to get all the Atmos sound objects produced in the audio bubble. So whenever people listen to just one speaker pair they will not hear all Atmos sound and will think it is very little content being mixed as Atmos. It can depend on the DSP and software used, that Denon are one of the worse of reproducing Atmos sounds and that other brands does a better job of it. Denon needs all amps and speakers available to be able to play most Atmos sounds, but rear height speakers cannot be moved to instead be rear top as some sounds will be absent, at least in that Avenger UHD movie.
> 
> Denons Audessey calibration are also strange as it will result in all surround speakers running 10dB too loud. To make the demos sound balanced, and also when watching upmixed DD content, I have to reduce all surround speakers level 10dB, except the Atmos top speakers
> 
> 
> Has anyone else experienced this???


I suspect they are using Dynamic EQ with a reference level offset of 0db, which would account for such a huge disparity in the surrounds vs the front stage.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> Someone posted this on another thread "Atmos really IS worthless ". I asked him if he is setup correctly.
> 
> Ubbe2 said:
> ....
> The mix for that movie, contrary to the demos, seem to be speaker oriented and not object oriented. Or the Atmos DSP processing in the Denon isn't advanced enough to average a sound to be played from other speakers. It is as if a sound cannot be played from the exact position it has been recorded to it will not be played at all. You would think that height speakers in all four corners would be able to pan all top sounds above my head over the whole ceiling area, but no, it doesn't work that way.


Atmos never deletes a sound from playing at all. It moves it to a different speaker(s). If the sound is not being heard *at all* in any ear level or overhead speaker, then there's something wrong in the setup somewhere.

For example, if Disney locks sounds into heights, it can still move to Tops instead and vice versa. If you only have Top Middle it will move them both there.

Where you get no sound from a given speaker set where you normally should is when you have all 6 overhead and Disney locks them to heights. Because you have the requested speakers, it puts them exactly where the mixing guy told them to go, the heights speakers. Any pre-panning in those channels will phantom image in the Top Middle vicinity, but not play out of the Top Middle speakers because the film mixing guy specifically said heights only (when available). That defeats the point of having Top Middle and you may get weak imaging overhead there if the height speakers are too far apart as a result, but the sounds _will_ still be playing from the Heights speakers.

No sound at all means a speaker is configured incorrectly or something of that nature.



> Denons Audessey calibration are also strange as it will result in all surround speakers running 10dB too loud.


That is likely Audyssey Dynamic EQ being turned on (or was manually modified with it on at some point) as @NuSoardGraphite has suggested. It's why I stopped using it as it was interfering with my "Scatmos" based Top Middle speakers which need to be level balanced out of the pre-outs. Turning it off will solve the problem.

It's also possible that having rear heights 10dB too loud overemphasized a sound back there that when moved elsewhere simply wasn't as noticeable particularly with a lot of other sounds playing. It should not have disappeared entirely, however. 

I have otherwise never heard a D&M (Marantz here) Atmos rendering go "wrong" or worse than anyone else, but then I haven't heard everyone else. Dolby does not "delete" sounds, however.


----------



## Ricoflashback

Deleted.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> Watched the Atmos version last weekend. Love the scenes inside the tank where you can hear footsteps and metal clanging overhead. The original 5.1 mix was done by AVS member FilmMixer.


I'm pretty sure he did the Atmos mix as well.


----------



## niterida

crutzulee said:


> The disc is surely reference quality for both audio and video.


I found the sound to be awful - sure it was good use of surrounds and heights but the actual sound was making my ears bleed as the music and effects seemed to be very high pitched and I couldn't understand a word they said. Its the only source I have had this problem with as vocals are usually crystal clear even with movies others complain about.


Sorny said:


> Different strokes for different folks. I found the movie to be absolutely fantastic...


I kept waiting for something to happen but the movie just dragged on with no real high points and I didn't engage with any of the characters. I turned it off before the end I was that bored with it.


----------



## crutzulee

niterida said:


> I found the sound to be awful - sure it was good use of surrounds and heights but the actual sound was making my ears bleed as the music and effects seemed to be very high pitched and I couldn't understand a word they said. Its the only source I have had this problem with as vocals are usually crystal clear even with movies others complain about.
> 
> I kept waiting for something to happen but the movie just dragged on with no real high points and I didn't engage with any of the characters. I turned it off before the end I was that bored with it.


As Jeff Probst would say " I got nothing for ya, head on back to camp"....LOL..


----------



## MagnumX

The first part of Dune is likely to be slower paced as they had to introduce characters etc. I still found it interesting and far better than the previous versions. I watched it in 3D plus Atmos added/remuxed. I thought the soundtrack was very similar in quality to Blade Runner 2049's Atmos soundtrack (excellent). 

If there is too much higher pitched sound, you could try the Cinema EQ filter designed for straight cinema transfers. It definitely reduces the higher treble region. Turning off Audyssey at least for the mains can sometimes help depending on how it was set up as full range Audyssey has a tendency sometimes to over correct natural treble rolloff in some rooms. That's probably why the "flat" setting is so unpopular.


----------



## Chirosamsung

crutzulee said:


> It's disappointing when something has so much hype and then falls flat. I've never watched the original because I've kind of felt that way about everything I have seen from David Lynch thus far.
> 
> Going in with super low expectations, I found Villeneuve's movie to be the best movie experience I had last year. The disc is surely reference quality for both audio and video.


DUNE (or mad max for that matter)

sound: 10/10
Picture quality: 10/10
Story/Plot: 3/10


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> DUNE (or mad max for that matter)
> 
> sound: 10/10
> Picture quality: 10/10
> Story/Plot: 3/10


From what I remember its pretty accurate to the book. I havent read the book in 20 years but I have read it multiple times. 

I think once we get part 2 and the rest of the story, part-1 will age better for people who were expecting something more bombastic.

As far as Mad Max, that was a 7/10 for me (story). Its a post-apocalyptic action/adventure story, so as far as thats concerned, it succeeded brilliantly.


----------



## Gates

MagnumX said:


> Preach it brutha! But come on! A real audiophile believer like yourself *who knows blind testing is for losers and proof is for morons would never listen to movies with digital soundtracks! *It's gotta be analog or nuthin' at all! Get out the laserdiscs and VHS tapes! Everything else is sonic garbage and everyone on here knows it except people in this here thread! Blind testing of any type is for blind people! Only a total turkey would take that bait!
> 
> Every audiophile knows that eyes complement the brain in listening tests and knowing your $150k system is superior to everyone else's garbage streaming system is the greatest high in the world! Forget drugs. Get high on knowing audiophiles rule baby! Give me $10k RCA cables and Majicks Shakti Stones or give me death!
> 
> Hell yeah! Stereophile forever!!! Woo-hoo!
> 
> (Ain't nuthin on this here sweet Earth beats the sound of a diamond stylus being dragged through plastic, though! Booya!)
> 
> 😈


I never said any of that and I have no "magic expensive wires" either, but you go on with putting down what isn't your big box store system (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'm not even an audiophile either. In a lot of your posts you keep defending your own system that apparently makes everything sound the same whether it be lossy or not. Maybe get your ears checked if it all sounds as good to one another, because again, whether you like it or not, it's a known fact that the audio from streaming doesn't compare to disc. You're always posting like you're an authority on the subject in this thread, but in reality you're just some joe with a "know-it-all" attitude, nothing more.


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> but in reality you're just some joe with a "know-it-all" attitude, nothing more.


Keep telling yourself that. Some day you might actually believe it.


----------



## MagnumX

I wrote this as a response in a limited other thread, but I thought it might be interesting to some here given previous discussion about *Ready Player One* that has mostly 2-channel overhead sound directed at the Top Middle location. I thought it would be interesting to hear how the race scene near the beginning sounded with overhead speakers in different positions in my 24' long room.

By changing to four overheads instead of six (making Top Middle the Rear Height speaker instead) and adjusting relative levels of the overheads, I can pull the phantom overhead image anywhere between front height and the Top Middle speakers (which are at 110 degrees here behind me, not directly over the front row). Similarly, by swapping speakers on the Monoprice switchbox, I could move the single overhead phantom image into the back of the room to any point in-between so it was basically like moving two overheads on a track forward/backward to compare how it sounded at different positions.

It was very interesting. Where King Kong would jump down from above or where the subway and truck passed overhead could be moved anywhere in the room. It would blend with the lower layer cues and still give a convincing effect in most positions with most sounds. Since the effects are off-screen, it's not tied to a particular location as much as I thought it might be and I suppose it's subjective which positions sounded best. 

My primary chair is 9 feet from the screen in a 24 foot long room with full ceiling and floor speaker coverage. My impression was that Front Height alone 10.5 feet in front of me still sounded infinitely preferable to Rear Height alone some 13+ feet behind me, which was just too far from the screen to be believable for the MLP for some of the effects (but sounded great in the third row as it was just above and behind that seat). 

Overall, I think the most satisfying locations were either just above my head (85-90 degrees) to the point just behind me (straight Top Middle at 105-110 degrees depending on my recline position). The 75-85 degree position (often given as best for only Top Middle being overhead but a bit in front of you) worked fine for most effects, but lacked the visceral "danger" of things like the boxes the DeLorean hit underneath the overpass (as it misses more than directly overhead or just behind you that sounds like you almost got clobbered and you want to duck), but many effects worked pretty well over a fairly large range including 45 degrees.


----------



## satfam

After being told to post here, not in the Audessey thread, here goes.

Several years ago when DSX was being touted I had front top and front wide speakers and necessary wiring added to my dedicated HT. Just bad timing on my part with Atmos coming out soon after. In order to try to take advantage of Atmos, I began using the front top as front Atmos and the back surround as back Atmos. I have 7 and 5 channel Marantz amps to drive the speakers and a AV 7702 Mk2 processor.

Still, I feel I am missing a lot by not having true ceiling Atmos speakers. Rewiring will be somewhat costly but any opinions on sticking with what I’ve got vs a true benefits from moving forwarded with rewiring for true Atmos. 

Thanks.


----------



## Rich 63

satfam said:


> After being told to post here, not in the Audessey thread, here goes.
> 
> Several years ago when DSX was being touted I had front top and front wide speakers and necessary wiring added to my dedicated HT. Just bad timing on my part with Atmos coming out soon after. In order to try to take advantage of Atmos, I began using the front top as front Atmos and the back surround as back Atmos. I have 7 and 5 channel Marantz amps to drive the speakers and a AV 7702 Mk2 processor.
> 
> Still, I feel I am missing a lot by not having true ceiling Atmos speakers. Rewiring will be somewhat costly but any opinions on sticking with what I’ve got vs a true benefits from moving forwarded with rewiring for true Atmos.
> 
> Thanks.


If your using the ground level rear surrounds as atmos speakers that is a wasted effort. There are some tricks to wiring that you might not be aware of. A pic of the room from a few angles would help with placement suggestions.


----------



## MagnumX

satfam said:


> After being told to post here, not in the Audessey thread, here goes.
> 
> Several years ago when DSX was being touted I had front top and front wide speakers and necessary wiring added to my dedicated HT. Just bad timing on my part with Atmos coming out soon after. In order to try to take advantage of Atmos, I began using the front top as front Atmos and the back surround as back Atmos. I have 7 and 5 channel Marantz amps to drive the speakers and a AV 7702 Mk2 processor.
> 
> Still, I feel I am missing a lot by not having true ceiling Atmos speakers. Rewiring will be somewhat costly but any opinions on sticking with what I’ve got vs a true benefits from moving forwarded with rewiring for true Atmos.
> 
> Thanks.


Contrary to the beliefs of some, it's not necessary to have overhead speakers used in Atmos actually _in_ the ceiling, particularly if your ceiling height is reasonable. The speakers will image in a plane relative to their height on the wall or position on or in the ceiling. So, for example, if you have a 9 foot ceiling and an on-ceiling speaker with bracket hangs down 1 foot with the center line of the driver's at 6 inches down from the ceiling, it's essentially the sonic equivalent of having in-ceiling speakers on a 8.5' ceiling.

Depending on ceiling height and the listening chair/couch position, front heights could be on the front wall. Dolby recommends 30 degrees to 55 degrees for heights->tops with four overhead speakers and 20-55 degrees for six overhead speakers (the angular distance between pairs is more important for smooth imaging across the speaker plane and thus ceiling overhead than absolute height alone).

Heights at 30 degrees or less usually need Top Middle speakers to get a smooth transition and strong imaging directly overhead compared to Tops at 45-55 degrees which are closer together and start sounds more directly overhead (which some prefer), but at the cost of not imaging across the entire ceiling or directly above the screen for on-screen events. It's a subjective tradeoff. If on or in-ceiling mounting is a real problem, you can move the speakers to the side walls instead (more of an Auro-3D location, but it works surprisingly well for Atmos in many rooms that aren't too wide).

If you're going to use only two speakers overhead, you'll get a better overall effect, IMO using two speakers in the Top Middle position mounted closer to directly overhead wherever your listening position is. I found recently with testing using a movie that only has sounds overhead in that position (Ready Player One) that 85-110 degrees sounded the best. 

However, speaking as an owner of a Marantz 7010 that supports both DSX and Atmos, X and Auro-3D, if you can find one (or it's Denon equivalent) used, you can keep using your current setup and adapt it to Atmos over time. It fully supports Front Wide speakers for Atmos (a rarity for an 11.1 based AVR) as well as DSX and front heights for both as well so you would immediately have a form of Atmos and X that could use your current layout while letting you add rear or middle overhead speakers to complete a setup with 4 overhead speakers. You can do 5.1.4 plus front wides or 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 with it. Something like the Denon 8500 (13-channel) can do 9.1.4 as well.


----------



## satfam

Here are some pictures of my current set up. My 7702 Mk2 supports Atmos, DSX front wide and front and rear height. I don’t see where it can support Atmos front wide though. I’ll have to dig thru the manual. Thanks for y’all’s thoughts.


----------



## Rich 63

satfam said:


> Here are some pictures of my current set up. My 7702 Mk2 supports Atmos, DSX front wide and front and rear height. I don’t see where it can support Atmos front wide though. I’ll have to dig thru the manual. Thanks for y’all’s thoughts.


After seeing the setup (nice space btw) I think your halfway there. As magnum eluded too it will be your angles relative to mlp that will determine how much they have to move the speakers. The rears/fronts could easily be elevated up to the ceiling or ceiling wall intersection. Again depending on angles. It would not be difficult to splice wire and move it further up as needed. There will be a 2x4 or 2 at the the wall/ceiling intersection but its easily drilled through. Holes just big enough to fish wire will be easily patched/painted . You would run a 5.x.4.


----------



## MagnumX

satfam said:


> Here are some pictures of my current set up. My 7702 Mk2 supports Atmos, DSX front wide and front and rear height. I don’t see where it can support Atmos front wide though. I’ll have to dig thru the manual. Thanks for y’all’s thoughts.


All you really need to do by the looks of it is add ear level speakers on the side and/or rear. You can use your existing side/rear speakers as heights as-is, possibly raising them a bit higher depending on the angles, but they're already at the top of the screen height. The front wides and mains are fine where they're at.


----------



## satfam

One thing I should have mentioned after looking at the pics I posted, please ignore the JBL L100 speakers. They are 2 channel for only mainly for vinyl driven by the Mac. The Goldenear Tritons 2s are what is used for HT. I know, kinda of crowded. 😀
Very helpful suggestions. Thanks, I’ll see what I can work out. I’m also thinking of replacing my 7702 with a SR 8015 and using it to drive my amps and using a couple of the internal amps as well.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

satfam said:


> Here are some pictures of my current set up. My 7702 Mk2 supports Atmos, DSX front wide and front and rear height. I don’t see where it can support Atmos front wide though. I’ll have to dig thru the manual. Thanks for y’all’s thoughts.


A Goldenear Theater?!?!?!


My hero!


----------



## crutzulee

Last year, I got burned buying a second hand pair of PARADIGM monitor 9 speakers. Due to COVID, I didn't do as good a job of auditioning them as I would have under normal circumstances. 

The plan was to upgrade from the monitor 7 s that I've used as my mains for almost 30 years. Enough time has passed that I can calmly talk about the dissapointment I experienced when, after moving around my entire setup, carefully measuring distances and angles, I discovered that the tweeters were blown only during calibration...

My long suffering wife has had to put up with these monsters in our laundry room for the better part of a year. Thankfully, I've recently come in to a pair of monitor 3 s from the same year. While I hated tearing apart a perfectly good pair of well regarded speakers, the end results have been well worth it!

As I've mentioned before, I swear by identical tweeters across all 11 channels in my system. I could have replaced the tweeters in the 9s with decent available silk dome and been done with it. I'm glad my patience paid off.

Frankensteining the tweeters was actually easier than switching these out with my monitor 7s. The 9s are much bigger and heavier so the the careful operation to switch them under the masking portion into the tiny alcove I've built behind my new AT screen was quite a challenge even with my son's help. 

An unexpected side benefit of sacrificing the 3s was that I was able to use the cabinets along with a pair of speaker stands to get the tweeters on my CC350 center channel perfectly aligned with the new 9s!

Using my old surround monitor 3s under my 7s, I now have the tweeters of my mains, center and L/R surrounds perfectly aligned at ear height to my front row MLP. My rear surround are slightly elevated, with the tweeters about 5 inches higher. 

The results, after calibration, have been amazing! The ATMOS bubble can now be felt across my front row with a more cohesive front stage coming directly from the screen.

I can't imagine the sound being any better if I were to attempt to sort out an identical monitor 9 to completely replace my long serving center channel.......


..... of course, that won't stop me from sourcing one out...LOL... sigh


----------



## Rich 63

crutzulee said:


> Last year, I got burned buying a second hand pair of PARADIGM monitor 9 speakers. Due to COVID, I didn't do as good a job of auditioning them as I would have under normal circumstances.
> 
> The plan was to upgrade from the monitor 7 s that I've used as my mains for almost 30 years. Enough time has passed that I can calmly talk about the dissapointment I experienced when, after moving around my entire setup, carefully measuring distances and angles, I discovered that the tweeters were blown only during calibration...
> 
> My long suffering wife has had to put up with these monsters in our laundry room for the better part of a year. Thankfully, I've recently come in to a pair of monitor 3 s from the same year. While I hated tearing apart a perfectly good pair of well regarded speakers, the end results have been well worth it!
> 
> As I've mentioned before, I swear by identical tweeters across all 11 channels in my system. I could have replaced the tweeters in the 9s with decent available silk dome and been done with it. I'm glad my patience paid off.
> 
> Frankensteining the tweeters was actually easier than switching these out with my monitor 7s. The 9s are much bigger and heavier so the the careful operation to switch them under the masking portion into the tiny alcove I've built behind my new AT screen was quite a challenge even with my son's help.
> 
> An unexpected side benefit of sacrificing the 3s was that I was able to use the cabinets along with a pair of speaker stands to get the tweeters on my CC350 center channel perfectly aligned with the new 9s!
> 
> Using my old surround monitor 3s under my 7s, I now have the tweeters of my mains, center and L/R surrounds perfectly aligned at ear height to my front row MLP. My rear surround are slightly elevated, with the tweeters about 5 inches higher.
> 
> The results, after calibration, have been amazing! The ATMOS bubble can now be felt across my front row with a more cohesive front stage coming directly from the screen.
> 
> I can't imagine the sound being any better if I were to attempt to sort out an identical monitor 9 to completely replace my long serving center channel.......
> 
> 
> ..... of course, that won't stop me from sourcing one out...LOL... sigh


Maybe I'm dense. You used the 3 as a parts bin to make the 9s functional? Smart move. The paridigm monitors used the same tweeters throughout the lineup. The only variation was the 6.5 woofers or the 8 woofers. I would keep an eye on used monitors and snag them when possible. Escpesially if they are minis. I pick them up in my neck of the woods for under a 100 bucks. The monitors are in my opinion one of the truly great value speaker and hold up to many offering out now.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

crutzulee said:


> Last year, I got burned buying a second hand pair of PARADIGM monitor 9 speakers. Due to COVID, I didn't do as good a job of auditioning them as I would have under normal circumstances.
> 
> The plan was to upgrade from the monitor 7 s that I've used as my mains for almost 30 years. Enough time has passed that I can calmly talk about the dissapointment I experienced when, after moving around my entire setup, carefully measuring distances and angles, I discovered that the tweeters were blown only during calibration...
> 
> My long suffering wife has had to put up with these monsters in our laundry room for the better part of a year. Thankfully, I've recently come in to a pair of monitor 3 s from the same year. While I hated tearing apart a perfectly good pair of well regarded speakers, the end results have been well worth it!
> 
> As I've mentioned before, I swear by identical tweeters across all 11 channels in my system. I could have replaced the tweeters in the 9s with decent available silk dome and been done with it. I'm glad my patience paid off.
> 
> Frankensteining the tweeters was actually easier than switching these out with my monitor 7s. The 9s are much bigger and heavier so the the careful operation to switch them under the masking portion into the tiny alcove I've built behind my new AT screen was quite a challenge even with my son's help.
> 
> An unexpected side benefit of sacrificing the 3s was that I was able to use the cabinets along with a pair of speaker stands to get the tweeters on my CC350 center channel perfectly aligned with the new 9s!
> 
> Using my old surround monitor 3s under my 7s, I now have the tweeters of my mains, center and L/R surrounds perfectly aligned at ear height to my front row MLP. My rear surround are slightly elevated, with the tweeters about 5 inches higher.
> 
> The results, after calibration, have been amazing! The ATMOS bubble can now be felt across my front row with a more cohesive front stage coming directly from the screen.
> 
> I can't imagine the sound being any better if I were to attempt to sort out an identical monitor 9 to completely replace my long serving center channel.......
> 
> 
> ..... of course, that won't stop me from sourcing one out...LOL... sigh


How does your surround soundfield work for you being slightly above ear height?

For me, I had my surrounds at about 6" to 8" above ear height before and the immersive effects in my room were incredible with them in that position. But eventually I had to take my surrounds off the wall because they were getting bumped into and put them on stands exactly at ear height and a lot of my immersive effects have been considerably lessened as a result.


----------



## crutzulee

I'll have to update my sig later... but I now have MON ITOR 9s as my mains with a CC350 propped up on stands and the carcasses of a couple of monitor 3s behind a DIY Spandex AT screen. Their tweeters are perfectly aligned with a pair of MONITOR 7s that I have standing on a pair of unused but functional MONITOR 3s as my L/R surround channels.

In back, I have a set of MONITOR 3s as my rear channels. They are slightly elevated on shelves that I built on my back wall..I may still decide to lower them, but am not sure whether, given the height of my theater chairs, the slight elevation is desirable.. I'll pay with it in this configuration for a bit before making a decision to tear up my back wall..

Up top, I have 4 mini monitors as my height channels....ALL MY TWEETERS ARE IDENTICAL!!!!

one of the best things I did to properly lock in the ATMOS bubble was moving my surrounds from a high wall placement (left over from my 7.1 days) to ear level creating better separation from my heights..


----------



## crutzulee

NuSoardGraphite said:


> How does your surround soundfield work for you being slightly above ear height?
> 
> For me, I had my surrounds at about 6" to 8" above ear height before and the immersive effects in my room were incredible with them in that position. But eventually I had to take my surrounds off the wall because they were getting bumped into and put them on stands exactly at ear height and a lot of my immersive effects have been considerably lessened as a result.


My experience has been the opposite of yours. Creating better separation between my base channels and my heights "unlocked" the true potential of ATMOS for me.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> My experience has been the opposite of yours. Creating better separation between my base channels and my heights "unlocked" the true potential of ATMOS for me.


They might sound even better on the floor or even below it with new angled in-floor speakers! Ditch the towers and go for some _real_ separation! 

Seriously, there's always going to be some trade-off with some rooms, particularly with multiple rows (not blocking sound with heads or furniture) and screen positioning/alignment, if that's important to some (sound coming out of screen instead of below it either with acoustically transparent material or a dialog lift setup). Then there's the height of the room to consider. You can still get good separation above ear level with a taller ceiling. 

Finally, there's the cohesion vs separation factor. At some point with various speakers and layouts, the "bubble" turns into more of a hemisphere if the separation is too far apart. This one reason Dolby has side surrounds in more of a side height position well above ear level in larger theaters. If they're too low, the cohesion is lost, which is one thing I liked better about AuroMax theaters as they had three layers (lower sides, side/surround heights and overhead ceiling speakers for maximum cohesion AND separation). 

If you can always clearly tell when sounds are coming from overhead speakers, you may have _too much_ separation. The speakers, ideally, should not be localized overall, but rather sounds should be ae to come from almost anywhere in the "dome" (better term than bubble IMO as bubble implies underneath as well and that is not the case with Atmos) of sound around you.


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> They might sound even better on the floor or even below it with new angled in-floor speakers! Ditch the towers and go for some _real_ separation!


I'll stick with tweeters at ear height...my rears pending..


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> I'll stick with tweeters at ear height...my rears pending..


I really do wish Atmos would add floor options, though, even if they're just a two or four channel based array meant to go alongside the chairs pointing upward plus perhaps some in the front (perhaps placed between rows of chairs). There are definitely some film moments for sounds coming from below ranging from creaking floor boards to mice to a room (e.g. Basement) below.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> I really do wish Atmos would add floor options, though, even if they're just a two or four channel based array meant to go alongside the chairs pointing upward plus perhaps some in the front (perhaps placed between rows of chairs). There are definitely some film moments for sounds coming from below ranging from creaking floor boards to mice to a room (e.g. Basement) below.


I can confirm that Dolby has, at least, considered this and experimented with it. In their headquarters is a room called the "Sandbox," which consists of one central listening position surrounded by dozens of speakers on stands and hanging from the ceiling, from just about every conceivable angle, including so-called "puddle splash" speakers on the floor . They're all connected to an elaborate mixing board that allows the engineer to put sounds into any combination of speakers they want. 

This was how they developed Atmos, and test out other potential future enhancements or new sound formats. Of all the possible speaker combination available, they start by using everything all at once, and then gradually reduce the number of speakers in operation until they identify which channels are the most beneficial or impactful. At the time I last visited, they indicated that the puddle-splash effect has such limited use in most movie soundtracks that it simply wasn't pragmatic to implement. It made more sense to focus their resources on height channels instead. That was, sigh, a decade ago, but I doubt much has changed.

I'm sure DTS does something similar as well.


----------



## crutzulee

Josh Z said:


> I can confirm that Dolby has, at least, considered this and experimented with it. In their headquarters is a room called the "Sandbox," which consists of one central listening position surrounded by dozens of speakers on stands and hanging from the ceiling, from just about every conceivable angle, including so-called "puddle splash" speakers on the floor . They're all connected to an elaborate mixing board that allows the engineer to put sounds into any combination of speakers they want.
> 
> This was how they developed Atmos, and test out other potential future enhancements or new sound formats. Of all the possible speaker combination available, they start by using everything all at once, and then gradually reduce the number of speakers in operation until they identify which channels are the most beneficial or impactful. At the time I last visited, they indicated that the puddle-splash effect has such limited use in most movie soundtracks that it simply wasn't pragmatic to implement. It made more sense to focus their resources on height channels instead. That was, sigh, a decade ago, but I doubt much has changed.
> 
> I'm sure DTS does something similar as well.


This the one over at DTS labs....


----------



## niterida

Josh Z said:


> they indicated that the puddle-splash effect has such limited use in most movie soundtracks that it simply wasn't pragmatic to implement.


bollocks - how many scenes are there where people are on a bridge or on top of a building or a hill/mountain. Water running underneath you, cars and city noise below you, birds flapping and squawking lower than you - how much would that add to the realism ??
Not to mention plane or spaceship fighting scenes with them whizzing by from ALL directions.
I know I would be up for some low level speakers in my room - bring it on please Dolby/DTS/Auro


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> bollocks - how many scenes are there where people are on a bridge or on top of a building or a hill/mountain. Water running underneath you, cars and city noise below you, birds flapping and squawking lower than you - how much would that add to the realism ??
> Not to mention plane or spaceship fighting scenes with them whizzing by from ALL directions.
> I know I would be up for some low level speakers in my room - bring it on please Dolby/DTS/Auro


Not to mention the massive separation you'd have from floor to ceiling. That would be awesome.


----------



## mrvideo

Floor speakers sound like good idea. That said, home release's soundtracks come from theatrical soundtracks. I don't know of any theater soundtracks that have below you sound, since there aren't any theaters that have below you speakers. I sure has hell wouldn't spend the money to remix a movie for home release when the number of home theater configurations with floor speakers would be very, and I mean, very limited.


----------



## Josh Z

niterida said:


> bollocks - how many scenes are there where people are on a bridge or on top of a building or a hill/mountain. Water running underneath you, cars and city noise below you, birds flapping and squawking lower than you - how much would that add to the realism ??
> Not to mention plane or spaceship fighting scenes with them whizzing by from ALL directions.
> I know I would be up for some low level speakers in my room - bring it on please Dolby/DTS/Auro


Those sort of lower-direction effects can be imitated in the sound mix by playing with phase, the same way that "virtual" Atmos soundbars and such mimic height effects. Maybe that's not as good as having real speakers in those locations, but again, installing speakers in your floor is not terribly pragmatic.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Those sort of lower-direction effects can be imitated in the sound mix by playing with phase, the same way that "virtual" Atmos soundbars and such mimic height effects. Maybe that's not as good as having real speakers in those locations, but again, installing speakers in your floor is not terribly pragmatic.


Yeah, but they DON'T do it. They could have used such clues for height sounds 25 years ago. It never occurred to them, apparently.

But then why would it when ALL surround speakers in theaters were already overhead. If anything, it's really the ear level speakers that are new... Except they're NOT at ear level in Dolby Atmos Cinemas. They're STILL overhead.

Maybe that's why do many reviews of Atmos cinema talk about not noticing anything different except it's too loud? I don't have a Dolby Atmos theater near me to try, but I get the feeling it's actually a better potential experience at home despite the limitations of the home format.



mrvideo said:


> Floor speakers sound like good idea. That said, home release's soundtracks come from theatrical soundtracks. I don't know of any theater soundtracks that have below you sound, since there aren't any theaters that have below you speakers. I sure has hell wouldn't spend the money to remix a movie for home release when the number of home theater configurations with floor speakers would be very, and I mean, very limited.


I never meant that they shouldn't add the floor level speakers at the movie theater as well. Some theaters already have butt shakers and the chair itself is the perfect place to put the floor level speakers. Mount them on the back legs of the chairs so the row in front of you plays them (It'd work even better for stadium seating). Imagine people jumping up when the hear the sound of a rat squeaking on the floor in front of them. 

Again, you'd really only need two channels in an array (sounds would be localized below just you of just in front of you on the floor or all around if played out of phase).


----------



## Visconti12

I'm afraid they're reinventing/poping-up the business as floor reflections maybe different almost in every home which makes much difficult than ceiling/wall. Then they need a wider variety of speakers...business!!


----------



## MagnumX

What floor reflections? You would point the speakers upwards towards listeners. Carpeting is a pretty good absorber of sound anyway. A hardwood floor home theater is asking for room problems, IMO.


----------



## Visconti12

MagnumX said:


> What floor reflections? You would point the speakers upwards towards listeners. Carpeting is a pretty good absorber of sound anyway. A hardwood floor home theater is asking for room problems, IMO.


IMHO, the floor in its varied surfaces and other obstacles are affecting to normal sound reflections although you upwards toward the listeners. Carpet is not always installed but hard surfaces as wood, ceramic, marble. That's a key factor to manage/create a new line of speakers.


----------



## Gabre

People are just looking for an excuse to upgrade their gear. 

Nobody sain needs speakers in floor if they already have a dedicated atmos setup. 

It's like when they asked musk would he make an aquatic car. 

Yeah it can be done, but the potential buyers are non existent.


----------



## ChristianMM

maikeldepotter said:


> There is no etcetera. The maximum number of "dynamic objects" is 15 (16 waveforms minus one LFE bed channel).
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there could be some misunderstanding about the term "dynamic object". Those 15 dynamic objects can consist of a single original (cinematic) audio object, a cluster of such objects, a positional static object representing an original (cinematic) bed channel, or clusters in which original audio objects and original bed channels are combined. The dynamics of those objects/clusters is represented by the constant change in which the different elements are combined. In other words: a "dynamic object" can also be a (temporarily or permanent) static object located at an ITU speaker position.
> 
> PS I understand that this definition of "dynamic object" could be contradicting Dolby's explanation of the difference between "dynamic objects" and "bed objects", in which the latter are objects with positional metadata that do not change over time. However, since the (dynamic) spatial coded clusters (same as ISF's?) can include those static bed objects, I suspect that was decided to categorize dynamic objects, static objects and spatial coded clusters all under the same name: dynamic objects ... just my 2 cts.


I believe yours might be the most plausible explanation, because, ... I have an OPPO 203 which can play either 8 analogue channels and/or Dolby Atmos through his Dolby TrueHD MA and I have observed that both types of audio outputs contains the entire audio information, but which is distributed through 8 channels only or 16, ... I was hearing very closely Dr Strange and on chapter 6, during the astral travel scene, the background voice "talking" with his astro projection body, is clearly surrounding between 8 out of 12 Atmos channels, while the same exact audio content, heard just from the Oppo 7.1 analogue output could be heard surrounding between 4 channels instead of 8. That means, the total audio content of the 7.1 analogue output is identical with the total audio content of 16 channels MLP FBA 16-ch, offered by the Emotiva RMC 1 receiver. However, I noticed that, as already published above with the 4 examples, if there are only 11, 13, or 15 plus 1 bed channel mentioned, that is equal to have sound decoded only with 7.1.4 Atmos, 9.1.4 Atmos, or 7.1.6 Atmos or the maximum 9.1.6 Atmos. However, some of the mkv files don't have all the Atmos flags in order to "tell" the Oppo and Emotiva to play the last 2 Middle Height L,R pairs and the last 2 Wide top Front L,R pairs. This happens because DTS X Pro is not yet available for the future firmwares, and Atmos is not upmixing with Neural X the remaining unused channels. Maybe the "lost" flags for Middle Height L,R and Width L,R might be restored by using a converted mkv to Blu Ray disc which is played from the Oppo Blu Ray disc unit. I can 100% sure to confirm that all my 4k master Blu Ray collection is played and decoded with Atmos through the number of channels mentioned on the disc sleeve cover. Therefore, the basic 7.1 channels delivered by Dolby TrueHD must and I am sure of that, must contain the entire sound information if we collect it from the 16 channels Atmos output. The only difference between these two is how it is distributed ... either through 7.1 that is suitable for every player produced in 2022, or through any Atmos combination, such as 7.1.4, 9.1.4, 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 and others with even less channels such as 7.1.2 (as heard in The Wolfs Call 2019, the French movie). I would love to hear your opinion about. This is only my own speculation based upon what I could compare by hearing.


----------



## MagnumX

Gabre said:


> People are just looking for an excuse to upgrade their gear.
> 
> Nobody sain needs speakers in floor if they already have a dedicated atmos setup.
> 
> It's like when they asked musk would he make an aquatic car.
> 
> Yeah it can be done, but the potential buyers are non existent.


I say bologna. That's the exact same argument made by 5.1 and 7.1 owners when Atmos was first announced. 

No sane person needs 11 speakers in their room, let alone 17 or 32!!! 5.1 speakers are more than enough! That's like Elon Musk saying he's gonna make an electric car he wants to name after Tesla for god's sake! Sure, he could make one, but the potential buyers are non-existent!

640k should be enough for anyone.

Yeah, well I'd add a set of floor speakers in a heartbeat if they were supported and Teslas are selling like hotcakes and many many people have more than 11.1 Atmos configurations these days because more is always better in surround sound. 

What's really being said is I'm tired of new things coming out and don't want to have to upgrade again. I'm saying sounds coming from below to anywhere overhead and in-between would complete the Atmos "bubble" instead of a dome and that could be awesome.


----------



## halcyon_888

I've said it before in this thread, if floor speakers ever become a new audio format, count me out.


----------



## Mister bee

If god meant for man to listen to Atmos, he would have given us 22 ears!


----------



## X4100

ChristianMM said:


> I believe yours might be the most plausible explanation, because, ... I have an OPPO 203 which can play either 8 analogue channels and/or Dolby Atmos through his Dolby TrueHD MA and I have observed that both types of audio outputs contains the entire audio information, but which is distributed through 8 channels only or 16, ... I was hearing very closely Dr Strange and on chapter 6, during the astral travel scene, the background voice "talking" with his astro projection body, is clearly surrounding between 8 out of 12 Atmos channels, while the same exact audio content, heard just from the Oppo 7.1 analogue output could be heard surrounding between 4 channels instead of 8. That means, the total audio content of the 7.1 analogue output is identical with the total audio content of 16 channels MLP FBA 16-ch, offered by the Emotiva RMC 1 receiver. However, I noticed that, as already published above with the 4 examples, if there are only 11, 13, or 15 plus 1 bed channel mentioned, that is equal to have sound decoded only with 7.1.4 Atmos, 9.1.4 Atmos, or 7.1.6 Atmos or the maximum 9.1.6 Atmos. However, some of the mkv files don't have all the Atmos flags in order to "tell" the Oppo and Emotiva to play the last 2 Middle Height L,R pairs and the last 2 Wide top Front L,R pairs. This happens because DTS X Pro is not yet available for the future firmwares, and Atmos is not upmixing with Neural X the remaining unused channels. Maybe the "lost" flags for Middle Height L,R and Width L,R might be restored by using a converted mkv to Blu Ray disc which is played from the Oppo Blu Ray disc unit. I can 100% sure to confirm that all my 4k master Blu Ray collection is played and decoded with Atmos through the number of channels mentioned on the disc sleeve cover. Therefore, the basic 7.1 channels delivered by Dolby TrueHD must and I am sure of that, must contain the entire sound information if we collect it from the 16 channels Atmos output. The only difference between these two is how it is distributed ... either through 7.1 that is suitable for every player produced in 2022, or through any Atmos combination, such as 7.1.4, 9.1.4, 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 and others with even less channels such as 7.1.2 (as heard in The Wolfs Call 2019, the French movie). I would love to hear your opinion about. This is only my own speculation based upon what I could compare by hearing.


Sorry, but I feel mixed up after reading your post, the part dealing with Atmos audio being played through the 7.1 analogue output  or did I just not understand


----------



## bobbyhollywood

I can't figure out how floor speakers could work in a commercial theatre environment; aside from the seats blocking sounds how could you ever protect them from the inevitable spilled drinks that will happen sooner or later in pretty much every corner of the auditorium ?


----------



## Chirosamsung

i think the floor speaker debate has run its course....resurfaces every 200 or so pages and the fizzles out same way...


----------



## MagnumX

bobbyhollywood said:


> I can't figure out how floor speakers could work in a commercial theatre environment; aside from the seats blocking sounds how could you ever protect them from the inevitable spilled drinks that will happen sooner or later in pretty much every corner of the auditorium ?


Ever hear of outdoor speakers for liquid protection? As for the other, I already said twice you would put them on the bottom backs of the chairs in front of them pointed upward the listener in front of you on either side for a giant 2-channel floor surround array. You would only need 2-channels then to cover it, but in theaters, it could probably be far better utilized with all the excess channel capability it already has. How much has computer hardware evolved since 2012?

Atmos is almost a decade old now. They're going to need some kind of upgrade to keep it interesting in the next 3-7 years (5.1 Dolby Digital released in theaters in 1992; Dolby Digital EX 6.1 -> 1999 [7 years], 7.1 -> 2010 [11 years], TrueHD and Atmos Inception -> 2012 [2 years]; Atmos released in theaters 2014 [4 years since 7.1]. It's now 2022. Other than DSU V2.0, Atmos is getting a little long in the tooth at 8 years. 11 years is the previous longest stretch since digital theatrical sound was introduced. That gives them 3 more years (10 more if you want to count 5.1 -> 7.1 and skip Dolby's half-arse EX format that was bested by DTS-ES discrete 6.1) to upgrade Atmos into something more interesting than a "dome" of sound (bubble is _wildly inaccurate_ without sound from underneath).

The great thing is it would be easy to add a backwards compatible meta layer (floor sounds, whether 2-channel, 4-channel or more would simply appear in the ear-level layers if not recognized and thus be fully backwards compatible. To get Dolby to notice, one needs to demand better. Auro-3D forced Dolby to look into Atmos. Neural X along with DTS:X Pro forced Dolby to improve DSU to support wides (and I gather some other surrounds only a Trinnov or Storm owner would likely notice). It's actually a shame DTS:X's "floor" speakers are more or less under-the-tv speakers as implemented currently on a Trinnov. Using objects, they _could_ potentially do other things and word would get around pretty quickly if they were used to some great effect in a movie of Harry Potter caliber.



Chirosamsung said:


> i think the floor speaker debate has run its course....resurfaces every 200 or so pages and the fizzles out same way...


_You_ think it has. Good for _you_. At least a few of us want to see it implemented as a natural update to Atmos to finish the "bubble". If you don't want to implement it in your room, no one will make you. It would be fully backwards compatible and the sounds would simply come out of your ear level speakers, probably the side surrounds for a 2-channel implementation, potentially more for a Trinnov 48 model. Frankly, I'd rather have 5.1.4.2 than 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. A full sphere of sound is more interesting than a dome of sound.


----------



## X4100

You da man @MagnumX I've been thinking of running some sort of L/R into a DPL AVR, and just let the signal be fully extracted to see what the results would be. Who knows, maybe something will be produced whereby it can be used for the floor effects   just think!!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Yeah right! Floor speakers could be fun, and I can even think of scenes that would make use of them. But I just don’t see it happening. 
PLUS, who the hell wants to read through endless posts about people whining that their floor speakers don’t get any action. Or should I use towers for my floor speakers, or do I need aimable tweeters(like they work)? Or, OH NO, I can’t meet the requirements for angular floor separation because I have a chair in the way and nana loves that seat…..
Fun? sure. Happening? Doubt it…


----------



## X4100

Amiable tweeters placed in the footrest of a lounge chair!!! You just hit the nail on the head. I've seen gaming chairs hooked up with speakers, so why not floor effects.


----------



## MagnumX

X4100 said:


> Amiable tweeters placed in the footrest of a lounge chair!!! You just hit the nail on the head. I've seen gaming chairs hooked up with speakers, so why not floor effects.


And yet the naysayers just B & moan at the very suggestion. I'm amazed some of these people ever made it past stereo!

Come on! Can you imagine the pages of whining about wires, furniture in the way and spouses telling them no way in hell are you putting 5 speakers in a single room! I don't even want two speakers in my family room!!! 5.1 could be fun, but I just don't see it ever happening.


----------



## GMil

New firmware available for my Marantz SR6014 just came available. 2 min. Download. Must not be substantial. FYI


----------



## Gabre

MagnumX said:


> Ever hear of outdoor speakers for liquid protection? As for the other, I already said twice you would put them on the bottom backs of the chairs in front of them pointed upward the listener in front of you on either side for a giant 2-channel floor surround array. You would only need 2-channels then to cover it, but in theaters, it could probably be far better utilized with all the excess channel capability it already has. How much has computer hardware evolved since 2012?
> 
> Atmos is almost a decade old now. They're going to need some kind of upgrade to keep it interesting in the next 3-7 years (5.1 Dolby Digital released in theaters in 1992; Dolby Digital EX 6.1 -> 1999 [7 years], 7.1 -> 2010 [11 years], TrueHD and Atmos Inception -> 2012 [2 years]; Atmos released in theaters 2014 [4 years since 7.1]. It's now 2022. Other than DSU V2.0, Atmos is getting a little long in the tooth at 8 years. 11 years is the previous longest stretch since digital theatrical sound was introduced. That gives them 3 more years (10 more if you want to count 5.1 -> 7.1 and skip Dolby's half-arse EX format that was bested by DTS-ES discrete 6.1) to upgrade Atmos into something more interesting than a "dome" of sound (bubble is _wildly inaccurate_ without sound from underneath).
> 
> The great thing is it would be easy to add a backwards compatible meta layer (floor sounds, whether 2-channel, 4-channel or more would simply appear in the ear-level layers if not recognized and thus be fully backwards compatible. To get Dolby to notice, one needs to demand better. Auro-3D forced Dolby to look into Atmos. Neural X along with DTS:X Pro forced Dolby to improve DSU to support wides (and I gather some other surrounds only a Trinnov or Storm owner would likely notice). It's actually a shame DTS:X's "floor" speakers are more or less under-the-tv speakers as implemented currently on a Trinnov. Using objects, they _could_ potentially do other things and word would get around pretty quickly if they were used to some great effect in a movie of Harry Potter caliber.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ think it has. Good for _you_. At least a few of us want to see it implemented as a natural update to Atmos to finish the "bubble". If you don't want to implement it in your room, no one will make you. It would be fully backwards compatible and the sounds would simply come out of your ear level speakers, probably the side surrounds for a 2-channel implementation, potentially more for a Trinnov 48 model. Frankly, I'd rather have 5.1.4.2 than 7.1.4 or 9.1.2. A full sphere of sound is more interesting than a dome of sound.


A few of you is a minority and nobody cares. 

If anybody saw profits in implementing it, it would of been available already.


----------



## X4100

Gabre said:


> A few of you is a minority and nobody cares.
> 
> If anybody saw profits in implementing it, it would of been available already.


Personally, I feel your comments are just your opinion! We wouldn't have Atmos audio if nobody cared. When it becomes available, you won't be FORCED to use it.


----------



## Gabre

X4100 said:


> Personally, I feel your comments are just your opinion! We wouldn't have Atmos audio if nobody cared. When it becomes available, you won't be FORCED to use it.


I sure hope so my comments are my opinion. It shouldn't be that way? 

You guys write what somebody else tells you?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Chirosamsung said:


> i think the floor speaker debate has run its course....resurfaces every 200 or so pages and the fizzles out same way...


It keeps coming back, though! Like a fungus.


----------



## X4100

Gabre said:


> I sure hope so my comments are my opinion. It shouldn't be that way?
> 
> You guys write what somebody else tells you?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yeah right! Floor speakers could be fun, and I can even think of scenes that would make use of them. But I just don’t see it happening.
> PLUS, who the hell wants to read through endless posts about people whining that their floor speakers don’t get any action. Or should I use towers for my floor speakers, or do I need aimable tweeters(like they work)? Or, OH NO, I can’t meet the requirements for angular floor separation because I have a chair in the way and nana loves that seat…..
> Fun? sure. Happening? Doubt it…


I would think the bigger problem from a practical standpoint is coverage in the theater. In a home space, you could certainly arrange a floor channel or two that hit the seats as needed... but in the context of a theatrical space, floor channels would be occluded by seating and people in a pretty unpredictable way. Practically, how would you even calibrate for it? Whereas every other channel is in a position that wouldn't be occluded for any given seat in the theater, you couldn't measure floor channels in the space from the RLP of the theater in a way that would consistently translate to a mix stage.

But mostly, I think it's just because movies aren't mixed to sound like you're in them, as if the camera was your POV. That might work better with VR and video games (and Microsoft actually does have steering below the listener in their audio SDK, but only through Windows Sonic via HRTF and I don't know that any audio middleware supports steering sound there). I don't know that any sound designers for movies are particularly clamoring for sound below the listeners in the theater.


----------



## X4100

I'm thinking about doing this in my personal space by means of a DPL AVR. By means of trial and error I'll check which channel will provide me with audio ,that I can place close to the floor . Of course this won't be just any random sound so I can get something at the floor level, but I'm interested in finding something that will contribute to the overall experience, be it ambiance......


----------



## Chirosamsung

i think the floor speaker debate has run its course....resurfaces every 100 or so pages and the fizzles out


Gabre said:


> A few of you is a minority and nobody cares.
> 
> If anybody saw profits in implementing it, it would of been available already.


^this!! lmao

ps this is coming from someone who has slightly more speakers than stereo only


----------



## bobbyhollywood

MagnumX said:


> As for the other, I already said twice you would put them on the bottom backs of the chairs in front of them pointed upward the listener in front of you on either side for a giant 2-channel floor surround array. You would only need 2-channels then to cover it, but in theaters, it could probably be far better utilized with all the excess channel capability it already has. How much has computer hardware evolved since 2012?.


Your suggestion that theatres would install over 300 back-seat speakers in a 300 seat auditorium for a system that would implement them maybe 5% of the time seems unlikely considering the effects of the pandemic on theatres and almost all businesses in the last two years.


----------



## X4100

For the theater, maybe not. Remember that this is the home theater side of things, just as DTS:X has expanded it's neural x upmixer. Dolby Atmos can definitely do something similar. I'm thinking take the out of phase content and use it as extra ambient audio at the floor level. This is not impossible, and I believe something similar WILL HAPPEN


----------



## Gabre

Chirosamsung said:


> i think the floor speaker debate has run its course....resurfaces every 100 or so pages and the fizzles out
> 
> 
> ^this!! lmao
> 
> ps this is coming from someone who has slightly more speakers than stereo only


Same here. 
I have Atmos setup for years, and have no itch for any changes or adding anything.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X4100 said:


> For the theater, maybe not. Remember that this is the home theater side of things, just as DTS:X has expanded it's neural x upmixer. Dolby Atmos can definitely do something similar. I'm thinking take the out of phase content and use it as extra ambient audio at the floor level. This is not impossible, and I believe something similar WILL HAPPEN


The theater is what financially drives the business though, not home theater. And it's not even close. I wouldn't hold your breath on them implementing something like that in the home without some theatrical equivalent. And even if they did, it would have about as much content available here as... well, native Auro3D. Niche of a niche of a niche.


----------



## sdrucker

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The theater is what financially drives the business though, not home theater. And it's not even close. I wouldn't hold your breath on them implementing something like that in the home without some theatrical equivalent. And even if they did, it would have about as much content available here as... well, native Auro3D. Niche of a niche of a niche.


Or MagnumX can cut to the chase and possibly add some Scatmos processors and mixers to create the extra floor channels, maybe with some phase adjustment and high/low pass filter adjustment. He might be enough of a creative enthusiast to actually try it. LOL.


----------



## X4100

sdrucker said:


> Or MagnumX can cut to the chase and possibly add some Scatmos processors and mixers to create the extra floor channels, maybe with some phase adjustment and high/low pass filter adjustment. He might be enough of a creative enthusiast to actually try it. LOL.


I wouldn't say Lol! I feel very strongly that he may be able to do just that!! With the things he has already accomplished, I'm sure he, or any one else experienced in this situation will come up with something. It might not have a "pedigree, " but if it does the job. So be it, never say never! This is how new technologies are born, by thinking outside the box. No one is forcing anyone to get on board with this idea live and let live! Just before Atmos came out, I had 3 component sets of speakers on my front basement wall each set at different frequency crossovers as you just mentioned. For me, and those who experienced it, it was awesome. Believe me it can, and will be done by someone with a creative mind.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson




----------



## crutzulee

If a floor channel was ever put in place, I'd actually be in a pretty good position to implement it between my back row riser and the cork floor I've used in my dedicated room. That being said, I think they'll have to pull a few engineers off of their primary project strapping rockets to pigs before we see this.

I don't understand anyone trying to frankenstein pro-logic this at home as the sound dynamics are completely different from trying to derive a phantom channel from a place between to other physical channel where a sound engineer has made an effort to place it. Until someone mixes a track with floor effects intended, you will only wind up with some weird and random sounds coming from your feet.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> Until someone mixes a track with floor effects intended, you will only wind up with some weird and random sounds coming from your feet.


The older I get, the more that happens anyway...


----------



## MagnumX

Gabre said:


> *A few of you is a minority and nobody cares.*


Wow. It's great you actually know how many and that "nobody" cares. 



> If anybody saw profits in implementing it, it would of been available already.


No one asked for Atmos either. "5.1 is good enough for anybody" (and 640k RAM too) and "most" people are listening to TV speakers or cheap soundbars so why bother selling something "no one" or "a few" are interested in?

Is that how anything new in society works? Did people say to the wheel back in ancient times if anyone saw profits in such a thing, it would have been available already? Your argument has no merit.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> I would think the bigger problem from a practical standpoint is coverage in the theater. In a home space, you could certainly arrange a floor channel or two that hit the seats as needed... but in the context of a theatrical space, floor channels would be occluded by seating and people in a pretty unpredictable way. Practically, how would you even calibrate for it? Whereas every other channel is in a position that wouldn't be occluded for any given seat in the theater, you couldn't measure floor channels in the space from the RLP of the theater in a way that would consistently translate to a mix stage.


He'd have the answer if he didn't put people on ignore.... 

Small speakers on bottoms of chairs in front of you angled upward would be simple to implement in a theater, at least as simple as buttkickers. They don't have to be full range.



> But mostly, I think it's just because movies aren't mixed to sound like you're in them, as if the camera was your POV.


Yeah, that's why all the Dolby Atmos demos are mixed like you're in them with sounds all around. That's why jets and Cars fly past you in Top Gun and The Matrix Reloaded because movies aren't mixed to SURROUND you with sound. 

People can't even be honest. They don't _want_ to upgrade anymore so _no one else should either_. Same stale arguments from 5.1 to 7.1 and to Atmos. It's _good enough already _and you should be happy with what you have not coming up with crazy ideas like home theater when people _go out_ to get out of their homes for god's sake!

Seriously, if any of these people aren't interested, they don't have to do a thing. It would be backwards compatible. What I don't understand is why people feel the need to shoot down others constantly as if everyone around them must think the same way and agree with everything they want or it's be rude attack time.

I suppose society as a whole is becoming dangerously partisan on issues anymore. They claim to be enlightened and diverse yet they attack anyone and everyone that disagrees with them, sometimes violently. Ironically, that's exactly the _opposite_ of diverse.


----------



## MagnumX

bobbyhollywood said:


> Your suggestion that theatres would install over 300 back-seat speakers in a 300 seat auditorium for a system that would implement them maybe 5% of the time seems unlikely considering the effects of the pandemic on theatres and almost all businesses in the last two years.


That's why my local XD theater implemented butt shakers and power chairs in every seat in the theater recently because it's too much bother/expense when it only engages noticeably in the loudest bass parts (maybe three times during the Matrix 4 movie I watched there). That's less than 5% of the movie yet I sure as heck noticed when it did and had a big smile on my face.

How often are ceiling speakers used in most Atmos movies? People point to Mad Max Fury Road as a great Atmos demo, but it has less than 10 minutes of actual overhead sound in a 2 hour movie. That's less than 5% of the 2 hour movie yet people rave about it. Maybe _quality_ is more important than sheer quantity.


----------



## Gabre

MagnumX said:


> Wow. It's great you actually know how many and that "nobody" cares.
> 
> 
> 
> No one asked for Atmos either. "5.1 is good enough for anybody" (and 640k RAM too) and "most" people are listening to TV speakers or cheap soundbars so why bother selling something "no one" or "a few" are interested in?
> 
> Is that how anything new in society works? Did people say to the wheel back in ancient times if anyone saw profits in such a thing, or would have been available already? Your argument has no merit.
> 
> 
> 
> He'd have the answer if he didn't put people on ignore....
> 
> Small speakers on bottoms of chairs in front of you angled upward would be simple to implement in a theater, at least as simple as buttkickers. They don't have to be full range.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why all the Dolby Atmos demos are mixed like you're in them with sounds all around. That's why jets and Cars fly past you in Top Gun and The Matrix Reloaded because movies aren't mixed to SURROUND you with sound.
> 
> People can't even be honest. They don't _want_ to upgrade anymore so _no one else should either_. Same stale arguments from 5.1 to 7.1 and to Atmos. It's _good enough already _and you should be happy with what you have not coming up with crazy ideas like home theater when people _go out_ to get out of their homes for god's sake!
> 
> Seriously, if any of these people aren't interested, they don't have to do a thing. It would be backwards compatible. What I don't understand is why people feel the need to shoot down others constantly as if everyone around them must think the same way and agree with everything they want or it's be rude attack time.
> 
> I suppose society as a whole is becoming dangerously partisan on issues anymore. They claim to be enlightened and diverse yet they attack anyone and everyone that disagrees with them, sometimes violently. Ironically, that's exactly the _opposite_ of diverse.


this forum is full of philosophers that need to analyze everything and everybody. 

get yourself another hobby where u r gonna burn your money instead of convincing us into benefits of floor speakers lol.


----------



## crutzulee

Like I said, I have the ability to, and probably would, add a ground effects layer to my HT if it ever became viable. By that, I mean that after being added to a spec, a critical mass of sound engineers started mixing for it and a certain number of legacy titles were to be remixed in the new backwards compatible format.

..... but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this will NEVER come to pass - no matter how passionate an underwhelming minority calls out for it.


----------



## MagnumX

Gabre said:


> this forum is full of philosophers that need to analyze everything and everybody.
> 
> get yourself another hobby where u r gonna burn your money instead of convincing us into benefits of floor speakers lol.


Why do you think that I'm trying to convince YOU? A better question is who the hell are you trying to convince? Go back to your gramophone and leave state of the art surround sound to people that actually give a crap about it. 



crutzulee said:


> Like I said, I have the ability to, and probably would, add a ground effects layer to my HT if it ever became viable. By that, I mean that after being added to a spec, a critical mass of sound engineers started mixing for it and a certain number of legacy titles were to be remixed in the new backwards compatible format.
> 
> ..... but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this will NEVER come to pass - no matter how passionate an underwhelming minority calls out for it.


Nobody said it would. I said I wish they would add it. Given they've at least been experimenting with it makes it more likely than some things. 

A better question might be, where else can surround sound and/or Atmos go from here? Or do people seriously believe we'll still be using Atmos as it is right now 20, 50 or even 100 years from now? If Dolby doesn't keep moving, someone else will appear to pass them by or push them into doing something like Auro Technologies did to get Dolby off their PLIIz crapola and into actual discrete overhead surround sound. 

Make no mistake. If Dolby had sat on their hands and said no one wants that many speakers we'd all likely be using Auro-3D right now. For such a small upstart company, Auro Technologies had quite a lead in cinemas for a few years with Barco (There were two Auro-3D theaters within a ten minute drive from me and still zero Atmos theaters. I think the Auro ones are converting to DTS:X because it's easier/cheaper as they can keep the same speaker layout), but Auro lacked the clout to push Dolby into obscurity.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> A better question might be, where else can surround sound and/or Atmos go from here?


I'll bite on this, since I see a few different directions:
1) More objects (LOL), or more to the point, more ability for users to selectively steer objects. Like (and I'm making this up from scratch) an object located at the left speaker, and being able to size it with some presets to expand to encompass wides or top fronts. In other words, more than 'mixer intent'. How likely is that knowing the film studios? Probably as likely as floor speakers.
2) For music, my ultimate pipe dream would be to have X number of objects available, each with their own track from a multi-track mix, and be able to decide - again using preset choices based on some AI engine, or for an expert user - how they get applied to an Atmos layout.

The R.E.M. Atmos release of "Automatic for the People". Imagine being able to pull out the acoustic guitar that might be in, just the center speaker, make that the dominant sound, then pull in another object that has the violin. I'd love to do that on something Bruce Springsteen might have done on The River, where I can bring out the rhythm guitars and bring out the saxophone on a solo. Or distribute three singers from just being a center object to left, center and right.

My ultimate pipe dream: edit Mickey Thomas out of every Jefferson Starship song he didn't sing lead from 1979 to 1984. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## MagnumX

@sdrucker - You're basically asking for permission to modify content. Artists tend to be touchy about that sort of thing. DTS can't even get Hollywood to put the damn dialog on a dedicated object/track as the film mixing guys don't want consumers ruining their "art". The best we have is adjust center channel, but dialog doesn't have to be on the center channel and the center channel doesn't have to contain just dialog. 

Where will theatrical Atmos or surround sound go next? Obviously, some on here think completing the "bubble" with sounds from below isn't it. Or do people think theaters are going to die out so it doesn't matter?


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> @sdrucker - You're basically asking for permission to modify content. Artists tend to be touchy about that sort of thing. DTS can't even get Hollywood to put the damn dialog on a dedicated object/track as the film mixing guys don't want consumers ruining their "art". The best we have is adjust center channel, but dialog doesn't have to be on the center channel and the center channel doesn't have to contain just dialog.
> 
> Where will theatrical Atmos or surround sound go next? Obviously, some on here think completing the "bubble" with sounds from below isn't it. Or do people think theaters are going to die out so it doesn't matter?


I know all that. But it's where I wish things would go in my perfect world. Say what you will, but if there's any chance for that kind of thing, it might be for music mixed in Atmos, and in a streaming format most likely at that.


----------



## johnnyboy632

halcyon_888 said:


> I've said it before in this thread, if floor speakers ever become a new audio format, count me out.


Pretty sure DtsX pro has floor speakers for the front sound stage in their specs, I think the only processor that will support it now would be trinnov, it be a bit over kill for small rooms though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> Where will theatrical Atmos or surround sound go next? Obviously, some on here think completing the "bubble" with sounds from below isn't it. Or do people think theaters are going to die out so it doesn't matter?


I also wonder, what kind of computing platform will be needed for all those developments?
As I see it today, looking at my own AVR, the DSP resource seems to be a major bottleneck in the chain.
Trinnov may be the only exception, but they are apparently using PC hardware and 100% software-based signal processing. I may be wrong here.
In my AVR it takes three 450 MHz 40-bit floating-point DSP-s working in conveyor mode (one after another) to handle all the necessary tasks (EQ, Bass management, "room correction", transport format decoding and Object rendering).


----------



## dschulz

johnnyboy632 said:


> Pretty sure DtsX pro has floor speakers for the front sound stage in their specs, I think the only processor that will support it now would be trinnov, it be a bit over kill for small rooms though
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The NHK 22.2 channel system proposed for Super Hi-Vision (4K & 8K broadcast system) also includes 3 floor speakers for the front stage.


----------



## sdurani

johnnyboy632 said:


> Pretty sure DtsX pro has floor speakers for the front sound stage in their specs, I think the only processor that will support it now would be trinnov, it be a bit over kill for small rooms though


3 floor speakers, at -30° elevation (30° below ear height), with the L/R floor speakers at ±45° azimuth (45° from Centre). This was part of the original DTS:X (not DTS:X Pro) speaker layout. At the moment, configuring the floor speakers results in copies of the L/C/R channels.


----------



## halcyon_888

Floor channels seems like it would be like Dolby Pro Logic IIz as far as adoption is concerned, adding those height channels was _very_ niche and a small percentage of enthusiasts used it. It just seems to me that floor channels would end up with the same fate.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Floor channels seems like it would be like Dolby Pro Logic IIz as far as adoption is concerned, adding those height channels was _very_ niche and a small percentage of enthusiasts used it. It just seems to me that floor channels would end up with the same fate.


DPLIIz was matrix extraction where no real height information existed unless specifically encoded do it was rather pointless. 

This would be a discrete set of floor channels that could play anything from a mouse squeaking across the floor to proper footsteps to rain hitting the ground (where it belongs, not in ear or height speakers) to someone hitting the ceiling in the apartment or basement below to a volcano erupting below a rope bridge in a temple of doom. 

The uses could be quite varied and fully discrete with total backwards compatibility. That's a far cry from using some uncorrelated phase effects.


----------



## halcyon_888

Yes I realize it would be discrete, but as far as the adoption rates of the technology I think they would be extremely low. It would be a niche among home theater enthusiasts.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Yes I realize it would be discrete, but as far as the adoption rates of the technology I think they would be extremely low. It would be a niche among home theater enthusiasts.


I don't see why it would be anymore niche than the other 15-19 speakers no one outside of Storm, Trinnov or some Scatmos hack uses yet Dolby thought to include all those speakers in the home version of Atmos. A simple software update could add or substitute the new locations and we'd have an actual good use for >15-channel processors (although 5.1.4.2 or even 5.1.2.2 would only require 11- or even 9-channels to do basic three layers) as let's face it, not many use 17+ channel setups. 

The Anthem AVM-90 has 19-channel support. I could convert my existing 17-channel (11.1.6) layout to full discrete and still have two channels leftover for a floor array. I think that would be an awesome option and I'd be far more willing to buy one if it could do that (although I find it mind boggling a high-end 19-channel unit doesn't have Auro-3D support so it's doubtful it would be updated anyway). But I bet Trinnov and Storm would add support in short order if it became part of the specs.


----------



## niterida

They don't have to be in the floor - a couple of them on the floor at about where the front wides would be and/or directly under the seats would be enough to get the sound down lower.
Easy and cheap to do - don't even have to cut or drill holes like you do for height speakers.
Maybe we should petition Auro to do it and then Dolby and DTS will have to follow


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> They don't have to be in the floor - a couple of them on the floor at about where the front wides would be and/or directly under the seats would be enough to get the sound down lower.
> Easy and cheap to do - don't even have to cut or drill holes like you do for height speakers.
> Maybe we should petition Auro to do it and then Dolby and DTS will have to follow


Sadly, Auro can't even update their website to remove the apparently defunct movies in theater section that hasn't seen a new movie in years. 

What happened to Barco? I think they had hundreds, if not over one thousand Auro-based theaters at one point and why the years previous to that had a pretty good list. 

At least there's been a lot more Auro movies and now downloadable music titles the past two years. I've got over three dozen native titles now. A fraction of Atmos, but starting to catch up with DTS:X (49 here) which seems to be fizzling out lately.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Sadly, Auro can't even update their website to remove the apparently defunct movies in theater section that hasn't seen a new movie in years.


hmmmm might have to pull out the big guns and get my mate to call his brother in law who is a director at Dolby and tell him 2 or 3 people want to have floor speakers and request they implement ASAP


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> hmmmm might have to pull out the big guns and get my mate to call his brother in law who is a director at Dolby and tell him 2 or 3 people want to have floor speakers and request they implement ASAP


Don't tease.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Don't tease.


How much of a tease do you think it is for me to be so close to a man of potential influence and not really being able to do anything about it as I doubt he would want to hear from a mere mortal like me 
its probably worse for my mates wife though - her sister married one of the richest men in the world and she married a greyhound trainer - and not a very good one at that.


----------



## crutzulee

I watched the 4K stream of Ti West's X (twice). As is the case with most horror titles, the ATMOS track was instrumental in creating a sense of suspense and dread. If you're a fan of the genre, this one is highly recommended.


----------



## dschulz

crutzulee said:


> I watched the 4K stream of Ti West's X (twice). As is the case with most horror titles, the ATMOS track was instrumental in creating a sense of suspense and dread. If you're a fan of the genre, this one is highly recommended.


I caught that in a cinema (5.1 only, sadly); loved it!


----------



## dschulz

Blade Runner 2049 showed up on Netflix just a few weeks back. Since this is considered a reference soundtrack, this would be a good one for someone to compare the Netflix stream to the UHD Blu Ray, especially audio-wise.


----------



## crutzulee

dschulz said:


> I caught that in a cinema (5.1 only, sadly); loved it!


Given my age, if Tarantino never makes another film, there is a strong possibility that I may never attend a commercial theater again....but it would make me bonkers to have seen that ATMOS logo at the end of the credits and to wonder how much better the experience might have been..


----------



## MagnumX

I saw Blade Runner 2049 in Phoenix, Arizona at the mall cinema next to Castles & Coasters when it came out. Huge two story cineplex. No 3D. No Atmos. Still a great movie.

Now I've got 5 versions of the original (6 different soundtracks, original Final Cut and new Atmos version) and both 2D & 3D Blade Runner 2049 versions with both Atmos and Auro-3D soundtracks attached (remux from separate releases). New Atmos soundtrack is awesome on the original IMO and both Atmos and Auro are great on 2049. 3D isn't in your face, but very believable on 2049. Ana de Armas alone makes it worth watching.


----------



## flyers10

MagnumX said:


> I saw Blade Runner 2049 in Phoenix, Arizona at the mall cinema next to Castles & Coasters when it came out. Huge two story cineplex. No 3D. No Atmos. Still a great movie.


That you weren't mugged or worse at Metrocenter was enough of an achievement.


----------



## dschulz

crutzulee said:


> Given my age, if Tarantino never makes another film, there is a strong possibility that I may never attend a commercial theater again....but it would make me bonkers to have seen that ATMOS logo at the end of the credits and to wonder how much better the experience might have been..


I have an AMC A-List subscription and a theatre close to my office, and my wife has a standing date on Tuesdays with her writer's group, so any given Tuesday night there's a better than 50% chance I'll be watching something in the cinema.


----------



## MagnumX

flyers10 said:


> That you weren't mugged or worse at Metrocenter was enough of an achievement.


It's a shame because it clearly was a nice mall at one point and I love mini-golf and pinball at C&C when I'm there, but it was definitely night and day since when I was first there in 2005 when I almost moved there. I've been back four times since then as Arizona just feels so different from most states. Even large swaths of Alaska just feels like a much larger/taller West Virginia in the summer.

Driving on the freeway system felt a lot more perilous as well the last time I was in Arizona in 2017 plus my favorite restaurant Cowboy CIAO is no more. I enjoyed Jerome and Lake Havasu much more this last time. Lake Powell might go dry soon. I'm glad I took a boat ride to Rainbow Bridge already. The Grand Canyon is also great. 

Now I'm going to have to watch National Park Adventure in 3D/Atmos or Grand Canyon Adventure in 3D....


----------



## crutzulee

As I have simultaneous discussions here and other threads on similar topics, I realize that some of my points might appear to be a bit contradictory.
All of us are trying to create the best movie experience we can at home. Some of us are trying to make a better experience.. lol..

In our more honest moments, we recognize that, while we can always have a more civilized and comfortable presentation, and at times a better A/V experience, at the pinacle should always be a presentation that the the director intended their opus to be viewed in. It gives us enthusiasts something to aspire to. When my kids told me that they would rather wait and watch the new Spiderman movie at home "because it's better here" , you could not remove the smile from my face.

Now, I'm not delusional enough to think that my rig compares to a DOLBY CINEMA, but I raised my kids right. They KNOW the value of watching a movie in their PJs at whatever time they want, eating and drinking whatever they want, siting in whatever fashion they want in their private chairs. While there is a compromise in A/V, nine feet from a 130" 2.2:1 screen with a properly appointed and calibrated 7.4.4 ATMOS setup is not a hardship - it is arguably comparable...to them anyway.

For the hardcore enthusiast, there will always be a compromise. We notice things at the margins that others (normal people) don't. But as more and more movies get released on streaming. in 4K HDR quality with ATMOS sound, in increasingly shorter windows from their theatrical presentations, I am more than happy to forgo the increased quality offered by physical disc in order to have an initial viewing sooner than later. If the movie is worthy, I'm happy to rewatch at a later date in better quality.

.... but if I am going to hall my cookies out to a theater... then you had best not gimp my experience!! If a movie has an ATMOS mix, then It had better be presented as such. As I said earlier, I pretty much only go out for Tarantino because I need to see that day 1 and projected on film. It has burned me that one of the last places in Toronto that can project film has neglected to employ a proper masking system. COMPLETELY UNFORGIVABLE!!!


----------



## dschulz

crutzulee said:


> As I have simultaneous discussions here and other threads on similar topics, I realize that some of my points might appear to be a bit contradictory.
> All of us are trying to create the best movie experience we can at home. Some of us are trying to make a better experience.. lol..
> 
> In our more honest moments, we recognize that, while we can always have a more civilized and comfortable presentation, and at times a better A/V experience, at the pinacle should always be a presentation that the the director intended their opus to be viewed in. It gives us enthusiasts something to aspire to. When my kids told me that they would rather wait and watch the new Spiderman movie at home "because it's better here" , you could not remove the smile from my face.
> 
> Now, I'm not delusional enough to think that my rig compares to a DOLBY CINEMA, but I raised my kids right. They KNOW the value of watching a movie in their PJs at whatever time they want, eating and drinking whatever they want, siting in whatever fashion they want in their private chairs. While there is a compromise in A/V, nine feet from a 130" 2.2:1 screen with a properly appointed and calibrated 7.4.4 ATMOS setup is not a hardship - it is arguably comparable...to them anyway.
> 
> For the hardcore enthusiast, there will always be a compromise. We notice things at the margins that others (normal people) don't. But as more and more movies get released on streaming. in 4K HDR quality with ATMOS sound, in increasingly shorter windows from their theatrical presentations, I am more than happy to forgo the increased quality offered by physical disc in order to have an initial viewing sooner than later. If the movie is worthy, I'm happy to rewatch at a later date in better quality.
> 
> .... but if I am going to hall my cookies out to a theater... then you had best not gimp my experience!! If a movie has an ATMOS mix, then It had better be presented as such. As I said earlier, I pretty much only go out for Tarantino because I need to see that day 1 and projected on film. It has burned me that one of the last places in Toronto that can project film has neglected to employ a proper masking system. COMPLETELY UNFORGIVABLE!!!


I am very grateful to live in a city with such embarrassing riches, cinema-wise, and believe me I know the situation is very different elsewhere. The AMC near my office has a Prime screen (a decent Atmos room), a full-on Dolby Cinema and an IMAX with Laser house, all of which are frequently used by the studios and thus typically calibrated regularly. I saw X in 5.1 only because I caught it towards the end of its theatrical run, had I gotten out early I could've heard the Atmos mix. In addition to my local, there are any number of stellar cinemas in the LA area, from an Alamo Drafthouse spot downtown to commercial one-screen palaces (the Village, the Chinese), the screens run by the Academy, the Laemmle arthouse chain, and specialty screens showing repertory movies such as Quentin Tarantino's New Beverly or the American Cinematheque's Egyptian and Aero Theatres. I _love_ going to the movies, both for the technical experience and also the joy of sitting in the dark with strangers, being told a story.

All that said - I love home theatre as well. I host a regular MovieNIte at my place, and enjoy all flavors of movies. As much as I love going out to the movies I'm sure I still see more at home, and for that reason find it rewarding to have a home theatre that is up to snuff!


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> It has burned me that one of the last places in Toronto that can project film has neglected to employ a proper masking system. COMPLETELY UNFORGIVABLE!!!


Wow. _That_ is what really burned you? Yet you went to watch actual low quality 3rd gen prints (aka "film" that is typically all of 720p equivalent resolution in its 35mm 3rd gen print form) and you're complaining about masking?  

You wouldn't like my screen. I don't have masking for 4:3 or 2.3x:1 either or even a 4K projector. Heck, I didn't even paint my ceiling black. It's a wonder I can stand to watch movies at all. I don't know I could stand watching laserdisc movies on a 27" CRT growing up, let alone VHS before that.

The rest of your post just came across as bragging. Sadly, we don't all have professionally installed and/or calibrated high-end systems. I don't have any kids to tell me how great my system is, but I've only watched 5 movies at the theater in the past 7 years when I saw hundreds in theaters during the 1990s so I must be getting by somehow given I've purchased over 500 movies during that time (250+ 3D ones and around 200 Atmos, Auro and DTS:X physical Discs in the past three years, many many more with streaming included as iTunes upgraded many digital copies automatically).


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> Wow. _That_ is what really burned you? Yet you went to watch actual low quality 3rd gen prints (aka "film" that is typically all of 720p equivalent resolution in its 35mm 3rd gen print form) and you're complaining about masking?
> 
> You wouldn't like my screen. I don't have masking for 4:3 or 2.3x:1 either or even a 4K projector. Heck, I didn't even paint my ceiling black. It's a wonder I can stand to watch movies at all. I don't know I could stand watching laserdisc movies on a 27" CRT growing up, let alone VHS before that.
> 
> The rest of your post just came across as bragging. Sadly, we don't all have professionally installed and/or calibrated high-end systems. I don't have any kids to tell me how great my system is, but I've only watched 5 movies at the theater in the past 7 years when I saw hundreds in theaters during the 1990s so I must be getting by somehow given I've purchased over 500 movies during that time (250+ 3D ones and around 200 Atmos, Auro and DTS:X physical Discs in the past three years, many many more with streaming included as iTunes upgraded many digital copies automatically).


By your own admission, you've been kicked off of multiple forums. There are multiple members in this very thread that have set you on IGNORE. Personally, I can't think of anything more emasculating than to have to take such action on something as trivial as an internet forum, but honestly, as I routinely scroll past your wall of text ramblings, I guess I'm effectively doing the same thing. In this case you're responding to one of my posts, so, against my better judgement, here goes....

Your assertion that an opening night screening of a newly struck print is akin to 720p pretty much discounts you from any serious discussion. You're lack of understanding about the need for matting with front projection systems might mean that you have impaired vision. In which case, you should just admit that the visual side of home theater is not important to you and stop trolling.

Proper masking has always been important to me, going all the way back to when I too watched laserdiscs on a much smaller screen. Back then, I would use black construction paper taped to the screen. Improving perceived contrast ratio with masking and black wall treatment is easily the single largest benefit to cost ratio hacks one can make to their home theater. It costs virtually nothing and will yield immediate benefit . If you try it, you will 100% agree. I personally guarantee it. As hard headed as you are, and as loathe as you will be to admit it, you will have to come back here and thank me. YOU will indeed wonder how you were able to watch movies at all without it.

As far as bragging is concerned, I guarantee you with 100% certainty that my gear cost me a fraction of what you have paid for yours with better results. Every single piece of gear in my HT is either, open boxed, refurbed or purchased second hand. With the help of test discs, filters , SPL meters, room correction software and years of experimenting I have always wrung out every last drop of performance from the gear I've had at any given time without shelling out for professional calibration. All this while you have been frankensteining multiple receivers with non standard speaker placements and then coming to this thread to criticize sound mixes that are generally considered reference quality. 

YOU CAN"T EVEN BE BOTHERED TO TRY MATTING YOUR SCREEN! For the love of all that is holy, take a brake from your rambling about speakers on the floor and do this one thing to greatly improve on your setup. Who knows, it might just wake you up to the fact that you don't know everything about this hobby and that YOU might actually be capable of learning something from the wealth of knowledge available here from your fellow enthusiasts.


----------



## mrvideo

crutzulee said:


> take a brake from your rambling


Was that intentional, or did you really mean: break?


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> By your own admission, you've been kicked off of multiple forums. There are multiple members in this very thread that have set you on IGNORE. Personally, I can't think of anything more emasculating than to have to take such action on something as trivial as an internet forum


I can't control what people do on these forums. I don't find that emasculating in the slightest because frankly, if you have to hide from any criticism whatsoever, I'm probably not going to enjoy talking to you anyway. Suggesting it's emasculating seems to be an effort to discredit anything I say with no argument at all. It also implies it sounds insulting. How do you know who does or does no put you on ignore? Moderators encourage ignore if you can't deal with criticism. I have no one on ignore.


> Your assertion that an opening night screening of a newly struck print is akin to 720p pretty much discounts you from any serious discussion.


 I'm sorry but that is the result of a real study done by Hollywood film studios before they went to digital projection around 1999 to see how early digital projection compared and is the real world result of using 3rd generation prints in actual theaters (only the original negatives have much higher resolution). 70mm prints of 35mm negatives get you about 1080p equivalent resolution by comparison. Actual 70mm film would be higher, of course. If you have a problem with the study, by all means feel free to hunt them down and tell them they're wrong. It's been several years and I'm having trouble locating the study, so I'm sure you will imply I made it up.... 



> You're lack of understanding about the need for matting with front projection systems might mean that you have impaired vision.


I've got news for you. Most people at home don't have matting for their projection screens. Do you seriously think a little dark grey on the sides or top/bottom of a screen is worth manually putting up fabric via velcro or magnets at home or spending a small fortune to get a screen that can do it with drop down matting or more than one screen? It simply doesn't bother most people that much or built-in matting would be a standard feature. Some argue endlessly about HDR and DC and it's a wonder they could stand to watch anything before 4K.... 

I'm far more concerned about audio than some tiny resolution increase or contrast changes. So your conclusion is there's something wrong with my vision? That doesn't sound like a personal attack to you? For the record, I have worn glasses since 1st grade. It's usually corrected to 20:10 lately, but varies with my sinus pressure. Perhaps because I have floaters, little things like a shade of black or contrast effect thereof doesn't bother me much at all by comparison. But then many use projection in rooms that aren't light controlled so if you think I'm crazy, don't talk to any of them....



> In which case, you should just admit that the visual side of home theater is not important to you and stop trolling.


It obviously isn't nearly as important to me as you, but the accusation of trolling is absolute hogwash. I simply find your comments contradictory between going to watch actual film that has been proven to be less than 1080p in actual use with 3rd generation 35mm prints (normal distribution) and then practically screaming that the lack of matting is UNFORGIVABLE. To me, even murder isn't _always_ unforgivable, so it just sounds like a crazy rant. Go to a digital theater if you want better quality.



> Proper masking has always been important to me, going all the way back to when I too watched laserdiscs on a much smaller screen. Back then, I would use black construction paper taped to the screen.


To me, that's ridiculous. I might as well get the 2.35:1 screen I want and manually zoom/focus/align it before every movie/program instead of debating whether I want to buy a new projector too in order to make it tolerable and you're talking about taping/velcroing/otherwise attaching some material every time. That's never going to happen and I doubt I'm in the minority thinking that's way too much bother for day to day use. 



> Improving perceived contrast ratio with masking and black wall treatment is easily the single largest benefit to cost ratio hacks one can make to their home theater. It costs virtually nothing and will yield immediate benefit . If you try it, you will 100% agree. I personally guarantee it.


What does it do to home resale value? Most people don't like black walls or ceilings. I'd have to remove wallpaper as well. I have been thinking of putting up velvet on the first few feet of the ceiling when I get my new screen, but even finding a usable drop down screen that doesn't cost thousands is getting to be difficult. I've got a window behind my screenwith blackout drapes so using a fixed screen seemed like a bad option, but I can get an acoustically transparent fixed screen for half what the non-transparent screen cost that is out of stock or priced through the roof. But I'm more concerned with keeping speakers aligned if I went to 2.35:1 than matting because sound is more important to me.



> As hard headed as you are, and as loathe as you will be to admit it, you will have to come back here and thank me. YOU will indeed wonder how you were able to watch movies at all without it.


_I_ am hard headed?



> As far as bragging is concerned, I guarantee you with 100% certainty that my gear cost me a fraction of what you have paid for yours with better results.


With zero information about your costs and having not heard my system, I have no idea how you can make such statements. It's also not just equipment, but the room it must go in. (Fixed screen above).


----------



## dschulz

Goodness.

A few points:


True that 3rd generation 35mm film prints off high speed release printers don't look nearly as good as film-uber-alles folks claim, and their effective resolution is nowhere near that of 2K digital cinema, much less 4k
Also true that to claim that a good 35mm print, even a 3rd gen high speed print, is no better than _consumer_ 720p is just asinine

On the subject of masking I fall somewhere in between: I obviously don't consider its omission unforgivable, as I continue to visit cinemas that have lamentably forgone masking, but I'm not happy about it and I consider masking important to achieve a truly great presentation. Obviously I wouldn't yell at a friend who decided not to install masking in his home theatre and I'd still visit his place, but my friend isn't charging me admission. I personally think the cost of a movie ticket should come with some minimum presentation standards, and only a generation ago a projectionist would be fired for showing an audience empty screen. And indeed in much of the rest of the world proper masking is still considered de rigeur (and is in fact required by law in France). US multiplexes are the outlier here, although I fear IMAX and Dolby Cinema are leading the charge in reinforcing the idea that a proper cinema just has a giant unmasked Flat-ish screen with Scope material letterboxed inside, sans masking.


----------



## mrvideo

dschulz said:


> although I fear IMAX and Dolby Cinema are leading the charge in reinforcing the idea that a proper cinema just has a giant unmasked Flat-ish screen with Scope material letterboxed inside, sans masking


Many IMAX showings contain two formats. You can't mask such a presentation. I personally do not care if the screen is masked, or not.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> Also true that to claim that a good 35mm print, even a 3rd gen high speed print, is no better than _consumer_ 720p is just asinine


Are you really going to make me find that study to prove your OPINION isn't a fact? I didn't create the results of that study say what it said for God's sake, only reporting the real scientifically reported results of it as best my memory allows (I was surprised too when I read it if that helps), but implying I'm a liar (asinine) just royally pisses me off because the results were quite clear. They used some of the best theaters at the time as well for testing. Shabby theaters probably did far worse.

EDIT: I found a link to it in a previous post of mine on these forums talking about the topic. Here's the link to the research paper (PDF format).



http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/35mm_resolution_english.pdf



Takeaway Results On Page 10:

*"The highest resolution that the expert assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen (not necessarily in its center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 lines/PH. The average resolution in the sharpest part of their screen of the six movie theaters was about 750 lines/ph. The highest resolution averaged over the eight multiburst groups measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about 685 lines/ph."*

The _average_ vertical resolution across six high quality 35mm film movie theaters was 685 vertical lines. That is actually below 720p equivalent vertical resolution. Looking at the reported results and areas of the screen, it usually averaged below 720p resolution. The highest resolution found was 875 vertical lines (well below 1080p, which is of course 1080 vertical lines). That is with high quality equipment using 1st generation brand new prints on six real world movie theaters at the time in 2003. Quality varied a lot, it seems and not for the better.

The _negative_ when projected (never the real case with actual movies) over real world movie theater projectors produced something somewhat over 1080p resolution, but _far_ from the known scannable resolutions that are closer to or even surpassing 4K. The bottom line is _no one_ in a 35mm film movie theater watching 3rd generation prints _ever_ saw a movie at even 1080p equivalent resolution in the real world (unless these six theaters were all substandard examples) unless it was on a 70mm print of a 35mm negative. So it's not a small wonder that Hollywood went ahead with the push for _digital_ projection.

...

As for masking, if the screen makers didn't make it a royal PITA to do, I'd use a reasonable system. Manually taping fabric onto the screen for every 4:3 or 2.35:1 showing (let alone 1.85:1 and some other less common ratios) is beyond the pale, IMO. I'd prefer a Panavision lens and a constant height capable projector to use it with some power drapes (That's what most local movie theaters used for "matting"), but my room layout wouldn't support that either with the in-wall bookcases. Frankly, a grey screen with a brighter projector with better contrast wouldn't be very noticeable for bars anyway and a much simpler solution for a fraction of the cost of power matting drop down overlays.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> As for masking, if the screen makers didn't make it a royal PITA to do, I'd use a reasonable system. Manually taping fabric onto the screen for every 4:3 or 2.35:1 showing (let alone 1.85:1 and some other less common ratios) is beyond the pale, IMO.


I have a Seymour screen and they provide magnetic panels that look wonderful and can be put on or removed in about 60 seconds. For me, it makes a huge difference, and the ease-of-use of them makes it worth it.


----------



## crutzulee

fatherom said:


> I have a Seymour screen and they provide magnetic panels that look wonderful and can be put on or removed in about 60 seconds. For me, it makes a huge difference, and the ease-of-use of them makes it worth it.


I don't want to hijack this thread about ATMOS with talk about masking, but suffice to say that there has never been anyone that has not realized the dramatic difference between a masked and unmasked presentation. It is the easiest thing in world to do an A/B comparison. The only thing stopping someone is shear laziness and hard headedness.

I built my 130" acoustically transparent screen out of $92 USD worth of SPANDEX. That and a staple gun is literally all you need. Pertinent to this thread is that I am now able to properly anchor my center channel in the "center" of my screen! I now only have to mask vertically for an infinite number of ratios. While I will eventually setup a nice curtain rod with blackout drapes, my current system consists of black velvet strips I had lying around and velcro ( cost is $15 at a stretch). 

Don't debate me about it...JUST DO IT and thank me later.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> Are you really going to make me find that study to prove your OPINION isn't a fact? I didn't create the results of that study say what it said for God's sake, only reporting the real scientifically reported results of it as best my memory allows (I was surprised too when I read it if that helps), but implying I'm a liar (asinine) just royally pisses me off because the results were quite clear. They used some of the best theaters at the time as well for testing. Shabby theaters probably did far worse.


I was at some of those tests, I am very familiar with them. I pull out those same numbers all the time when I'm arguing with film partisans who insist that there is some magical quality to film presentation that digital cinema cannot approach. The limited resolution of film is well understood. But vertical resolution is not all there is to moving picture presentation! Projected onto a large screen there is simply no comparison in image quality between a good 35mm print that throws a full-frame static image onscreen 24 times per second and 720p video with Rec 709 color designed for display on a CRT. These discussions of resolution were and are germane to the development of digital cinema, but cannot be used to say that somehow home theatre was superior to going to the movies in the 35mm days because of the limited vertical resolution of release prints.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer home theatre (no neighbors with cell phones, no one kicking your seat, no sticky floors) without also trying to justify it by saying the picture in cinemas sucked. It didn't.


----------



## Chirosamsung

crutzulee said:


> By your own admission, you've been kicked off of multiple forums. There are multiple members in this very thread that have set you on IGNORE. Personally, I can't think of anything more emasculating than to have to take such action on something as trivial as an internet forum, but honestly, as I routinely scroll past your wall of text ramblings, I guess I'm effectively doing the same thing. In this case you're responding to one of my posts, so, against my better judgement, here goes....
> 
> Your assertion that an opening night screening of a newly struck print is akin to 720p pretty much discounts you from any serious discussion. You're lack of understanding about the need for matting with front projection systems might mean that you have impaired vision. In which case, you should just admit that the visual side of home theater is not important to you and stop trolling.
> 
> Proper masking has always been important to me, going all the way back to when I too watched laserdiscs on a much smaller screen. Back then, I would use black construction paper taped to the screen. Improving perceived contrast ratio with masking and black wall treatment is easily the single largest benefit to cost ratio hacks one can make to their home theater. It costs virtually nothing and will yield immediate benefit . If you try it, you will 100% agree. I personally guarantee it. As hard headed as you are, and as loathe as you will be to admit it, you will have to come back here and thank me. YOU will indeed wonder how you were able to watch movies at all without it.
> 
> As far as bragging is concerned, I guarantee you with 100% certainty that my gear cost me a fraction of what you have paid for yours with better results. Every single piece of gear in my HT is either, open boxed, refurbed or purchased second hand. With the help of test discs, filters , SPL meters, room correction software and years of experimenting I have always wrung out every last drop of performance from the gear I've had at any given time without shelling out for professional calibration. All this while you have been frankensteining multiple receivers with non standard speaker placements and then coming to this thread to criticize sound mixes that are generally considered reference quality.
> 
> YOU CAN"T EVEN BE BOTHERED TO TRY MATTING YOUR SCREEN! For the love of all that is holy, take a brake from your rambling about speakers on the floor and do this one thing to greatly improve on your setup. Who knows, it might just wake you up to the fact that you don't know everything about this hobby and that YOU might actually be capable of learning something from the wealth of knowledge available here from your fellow enthusiasts.


lmao this is gold Jerry gold


----------



## mjwagner

crutzulee said:


> I don't want to hijack this thread about ATMOS with talk about masking, but suffice to say that there has never been anyone that has not realized the dramatic difference between a masked and unmasked presentation. It is the easiest thing in world to do an A/B comparison. The only thing stopping someone is shear laziness and hard headedness.
> 
> I built my 130" acoustically transparent screen out of $92 USD worth of SPANDEX. That and a staple gun is literally all you need. Pertinent to this thread is that I am now able to properly anchor my center channel in the "center" of my screen! I now only have to mask vertically for an infinite number of ratios. While I will eventually setup a nice curtain rod with blackout drapes, my current system consists of black velvet strips I had lying around and velcro ( cost is $15 at a stretch).
> 
> Don't debate me about it...JUST DO IT and thank me later.


So in your world anyone that doesn’t mask is either lazy or hardheaded? Um ok…🤣 ever hear of the concept different strokes for different folks…


----------



## crutzulee

mjwagner said:


> So in your world anyone that doesn’t mask is either lazy or hardheaded? Um ok…🤣 ever hear of the concept different strokes for different folks…


I hold my hands up that I could have worded that better. In the context of the discussion surrounding matting, it is my assertion that there can never be a sighted person that does not recognize an immediate benefit when doing a simple A/B comparison between a matted and unmatted presentation (with the possible exception of a 2 story IMAX type screen that truly takes up a person's field of view depending on their seating position).

One can argue about the degree of the improvement all they want, but not whether or not there is an improvement...No matter how different you like your strokes, you're being hard headed if you claim that grey bars are more cinematic than proper mattes.

I have no time for anyone who even enters the discussion without having tried masking. If you find yourself arguing against something that you have not even tried, then you are obviously the very definition of ill informed or ignorant. As I've pointed out, nothing could be simpler than throwing up a piece of black fabric or cardboard. Hell you can watch countless videos on the laptop you're keyboard warrioring on right now that show the A/B comparison. If you choose not to, how can it be anything other than hard headedness or laziness?


----------



## mjwagner

crutzulee said:


> I hold my hands up that I could have worded that better. In the context of the discussion surrounding matting, it is my assertion that there can never be a sighted person that does not recognize an immediate benefit when doing a simple A/B comparison between a matted and unmatted presentation (with the possible exception of a 2 story IMAX type screen that truly takes up a person's field of view depending on their seating position).
> 
> One can argue about the degree of the improvement all they want, but not whether or not there is an improvement...No matter how different you like your strokes, you're being hard headed if you claim that grey bars are more cinematic than proper mattes.
> 
> I have no time for anyone who even enters the discussion without having tried masking. If you find yourself arguing against something that you have not even tried, then you are obviously the very definition of ill informed or ignorant. As I've pointed out, nothing could be simpler than throwing up a piece of black fabric or cardboard. Hell you can watch countless videos on the laptop you're keyboard warrioring on right now that show the A/B comparison. If you choose not to, how can it be anything other than hard headedness or laziness?


🤣…obviously seeing things from anyones perspective other than your own is a foreign concept to you so I’ll politely bow out of this non discussion…


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Not to try and distrtact to much from the current screen discussions in the Atmos thread but the new Halo series on Paramount+ has a really good Atmos track. It is also a good high budget show in general with movie quality visual effects.


----------



## mjwagner

Mashie Saldana said:


> Not to try and distrtact to much from the current screen discussions in the Atmos thread but the new Halo series on Paramount+ has a really good Atmos track. It is also a good high budget show in general with movie quality visual effects.


The aliens (not the soldiers) are some of the best cgi I have seen.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> I was at some of those tests, I am very familiar with them. I pull out those same numbers all the time when I'm arguing with film partisans who insist that there is some magical quality to film presentation that digital cinema cannot approach. The limited resolution of film is well understood. But vertical resolution is not all there is to moving picture presentation!


That's difficult to believe given you just said it was ASININE to suggest 35mm film is the equivalent of 720p digital resolution when that is EXACTLY what that report says! Now you're talking about abstract things if picture presentation (bigger screen or shared laughs perhaps?) that have not a thing to do with resolution. The horizontal resolution was even worse. 



> Projected onto a large screen there is simply no comparison in image quality between a good 35mm print that throws a full-frame static image onscreen 24 times per second and 720p video with Rec 709 color designed for display on a CRT.


Video. CRT. Rec 709. Every word you state is a deflection from the fact your word "asinine" is 100% nonsense. I was talking about resolution, not color space or actual commercial grade digital projection, which is superior in almost every way possible, particularly when used with real digital cameras (no film grain for one thing).

The fact is most real theaters had poor brightness, poor resolution and poor sound compared to today. I preferred watching movies at home even when I had a 720p projector because of all those other reasons (kids kicking seats, cell phones lighting up, vastly inferior sound at most real world cinemas outside major cities, etc). The only thing going for real theaters was the massive screen (something many local cineplexes reduced to fit twice as many half size screens to try and compete with the newer multi-screen cineplexes being built like Tintseltown) and shared laughs/experiences (assuming the place wasn't mostly empty; there was two other peoplewatching Blade Runner 2049 in Arizona, for example). 

All these small differences in color space (most home projectors with 4K/HDR still fail to reach the standards and real projected film was nowhere near bright enough to take advantage of what was present. Need I mention the ever present whine click click sound of the projector itself back then in most real world theaters. Until George Lucas came along, sound and picture was terrible in most cinemas. Say what you will about THX, but many theaters started vastly improving thereafter.

Digital projection, particularly modern 2K and especially 4K laser wipe the floor of grainy, blurry scratched up after a few viewings film. People who yearn for the days of film are thinking about nostalgia. I continued to use 35mm film after digital became popular, but even cell phones can take comparable pictures these days to many consumer grade SLR cameras from the 1990s and getting film developed today usually means trusting the mail system or doing it yourself. Compared to that drawback list above, matting seems minor to some of us.




> There are plenty of reasons to prefer home theatre (no neighbors with cell phones, no one kicking your seat, no sticky floors) without also trying to justify it by saying the picture in cinemas sucked. It didn't.


It did suck. It just sucked far far less than the absolute crap fest that was NTSC at home at the time and that's why it seems pleasant in memory because even 720p blows the doors off analog NTSC. Even 480p DVD on a CRT was a massive improvement. I had 55" Pioneer Elite TV with a wide mode for a couple of years followed by a 57" Panasonic HD Ready CRT rear projector that had 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i support. The image was a huge step up from a console TV with the Pioneer and night and day bettwon the Panasonic even for just progressive anamorphic DVDs. 

Dolby Digital & DTS at home sounded better than many theaters as well, but you can't compare a 57" TV to a 200 foot screen at a cinema even if you sit close. Bigger is better and that's where the tradeoff was/is with OLED today. Even an 80" OLED doesn't compare to a 92" projection screen, let alone a 200" one, but hey contrast and completely dark black areas (no matting needed to achieve it). Small wonder Samsung is going for even larger QLED displays and there are even theater sized TVs now at the pro level. Where's superior 35mm film at? Christopher Nolan can keep it along with his 1990s 5.1 sound.


----------



## crutzulee

My kids tell me that the ATMOS track on the 4k/HDR stream of the THE BATMAN was awesome! The bass in the first half hour had my transducers working overtime.....to put me to sleep LOL..

This movie is 3 hours long and we started after midnight....When I dragged myself upstairs to bed shortly after 3 this morning, my long suffering wife concurred that, 3 floors up from our HT, the ATMOS track was indeed impressive.


----------



## opcod

Well.. about picture quality it's quite a different topic. 720, 4k and 8k are just not the same vs film. Reading on the topic will answer all, but let say : watch the first 2-3 season of The Walking dead. This was shot on 16mm and so the movie Antropoid. The grain is present and that make the so call mood and tone of the movie. And so, goint to theather in 35mm projo vs going to digital one with like : Prometheus, what a shock. Here are Atmos sound.. You can brand everywhere atmos at netflix, but the mix are so bad, that the concept is way worst than 5.1. music being overhead or having 2 bird at back during 2hr movie is ... not that much used of the spacial system. But on the opposite, appl serie : See is quite the perfect use of atmos track.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> That's difficult to believe given you just said it was ASININE to suggest 35mm film is the equivalent of 720p digital resolution when that is EXACTLY what that report says! Now you're talking about abstract things if picture presentation (bigger screen or shared laughs perhaps?) that have not a thing to do with resolution. The horizontal resolution was even worse.
> 
> Video. CRT. Rec 709. Every word you state is a deflection from the fact your word "asinine" is 100% nonsense. I was talking about resolution, not color space or actual commercial grade digital projection, which is superior in almost every way possible, particularly when used with real digital cameras (no film grain for one thing).


I am not talking about screen size or shared laughs. What I'm saying is that consumer 720p is not adequate to capture all of the image information available in a decent 35mm print. The color space, chroma subsampling and video compression scheme all add up to yield a picture that is simply not as detailed as a decent 35mm release print in action, even if 720 vertical lines is adequate spatial resolution. I mean that was the entire point of all that testing, to determine what was needed to develop a digital cinema system that _was_ able to equal a film presentation; that's how we wound up with DCI P3 color and JPEG2000 as the encoding scheme. 

It's a little closer now with the UHD Blu Ray specs, but even UHD Blu Ray doesn't convey as much image information as even a 2K DCP. 

Apologies for going so far off topic, I'll stop there.


----------



## crutzulee

dschulz said:


> I am not talking about screen size or shared laughs. What I'm saying is that consumer 720p is not adequate to capture all of the image information available in a decent 35mm print. The color space, chroma subsampling and video compression scheme all add up to yield a picture that is simply not as detailed as a decent 35mm release print in action, even if 720 vertical lines is adequate spatial resolution. I mean that was the entire point of all that testing, to determine what was needed to develop a digital cinema system that _was_ able to equal a film presentation; that's how we wound up with DCI P3 color and JPEG2000 as the encoding scheme.
> 
> It's a little closer now with the UHD Blu Ray specs, but even UHD Blu Ray doesn't convey as much image information as even a 2K DCP.
> 
> Apologies for going so far off topic, I'll stop there.


I'm one of the guiltiest parties at taking the thread off topic with video discussion and I'm not looking to poke the bear, but I do find your posts enlightening. I've always loved the "look" of things shot on film and have also argued that I'm not so fussed about the playback format. I attend screenings of Tarantino on film as an "event". I get to go up in the booth and checkout the projector. If I sit far enough back, I can hear the "clack" of the sprokets. For OUATIH, I took my daughter. We had a blast! For TH8, I caught the "roadshow' screening complete with "pee break" intermission!

I'm heartened by the fact that every year, movie makers seem to be getting better and better tools that allow them to more closely approach the "look" that I love. I actually shut off the movie CODA about 10 minutes in because I absolutely HATED the look - like it had been shot on an iphone... Luckily, my better half wanted to see it and I gave it a second chance.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> I am not talking about screen size or shared laughs. What I'm saying is that consumer 720p is not adequate to capture all of the image information available in a decent 35mm print. The color space, chroma subsampling and video compression scheme all add up to yield a picture that is simply not as detailed as a decent 35mm release print in action, even if 720 vertical lines is adequate spatial resolution. I mean that was the entire point of all that testing, to determine what was needed to develop a digital cinema system that _was_ able to equal a film presentation; that's how we wound up with DCI P3 color and JPEG2000 as the encoding scheme.
> 
> It's a little closer now with the UHD Blu Ray specs, but even UHD Blu Ray doesn't convey as much image information as even a 2K DCP.
> 
> Apologies for going so far off topic, I'll stop there.


The 720p reference was simply to indicate exactly _how_ _poor_ the resolution is in actual playback at real cinemas (people have this notion that film is 4K or better when 3rd gen prints are nowhere NEAR that) not to compare the *total* picture quality to a 720p TV or projector. You would compare the total picture to a modern digital 4K HDR/DV projector and you'd still find film sucks compared to digital in almost every way imaginable. People have this retro view of film that it was glorious when it wasn't. It was significantly better than watching on a tiny 4:3 CRT at home. The actual point was being made that to complain about intolerable lack of matting seems trivial to me compared to watching crappy 35mm film when you could be watching a 4K HDR laser projection system instead (probably in a theater with proper matting to boot). All this NONSENSE NOISE about 720p TV's total picture has not a darn thing to do with it! Who wants to watch 720p _equivalent_ _resolution_ on a 200 foot screen even if the color is better than actual 720p TVs when we have 4K projectors now?


----------



## halcyon_888

This is the Atmos thread folks. Might I suggest starting a different thread about resolutions and taking that discussion over there? Thanks in advance.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Here's an Atmos question -- I've goggled all over but still can't get a good answer to what theatrical movies streaming on any service in Atmos? Not any streaming originals like on Netflix or Apple+, but theatrically released movies than I get stream in Atmos.

HBOMax has a few (Dune, Matrix movies) and I do see an occasional recent theatrical release in Atmos (like Jackass Forever on Paramount+ I think), but what older movies like all the ones that show up on the Best Atmos Demo movies?


----------



## Rich 63

mrvideo said:


> Was that intentional, or did you really mean: break?


Either way it was funny and spot on.


----------



## jbncccb

StephenMSmith said:


> Here's an Atmos question -- I've goggled all over but still can't get a good answer to what theatrical movies streaming on any service in Atmos? Not any streaming originals like on Netflix or Apple+, but theatrically released movies than I get stream in Atmos.
> 
> HBOMax has a few (Dune, Matrix movies) and I do see an occasional recent theatrical release in Atmos (like Jackass Forever on Paramount+ I think), but what older movies like all the ones that show up on the Best Atmos Demo movies?


As you have found there are very few. Disney+, has several and Amazon Prime as well. I think Apple TV, but I don't have that one. Just because a disk has Atmos doesn't mean the streaming provider will offer it. Due to the additional bandwidth requirements they are limiting what they provide.
Netflix has zero, Peacock has zero, Hulu I have yet to find one, etc. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

StephenMSmith said:


> Here's an Atmos question -- I've goggled all over but still can't get a good answer to what theatrical movies streaming on any service in Atmos? Not any streaming originals like on Netflix or Apple+, but theatrically released movies than I get stream in Atmos.
> 
> HBOMax has a few (Dune, Matrix movies) and I do see an occasional recent theatrical release in Atmos (like Jackass Forever on Paramount+ I think), but what older movies like all the ones that show up on the Best Atmos Demo movies?


To my surprise, "Braveheart" is on Disney+ in Atmos (in the UK at least). Laughable movie, though! (I can promise you that if a Brit tried to make a movie about the American Civil war and got THAT many things so hilariously and massively wrong, there's no _way _it would ever get made let alone actually do well. They simply wouldn't allow it, nor would pathetic and insulting excuses like "it made for a better drama than the real events" be tolerated)


----------



## Rich 63

mjwagner said:


> So in your world anyone that doesn’t mask is either lazy or hardheaded? Um ok…🤣 ever hear of the concept different strokes for different folks…


He didn't suggest that at all in my opinion. He suggested that doing and a/b comparison to prove the benifits of masking can easily be proven unless your lazy.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Braveheart in Atmos is a surprise. But surely, somebody out there on the internet has compiled a list of theatrical movies streaming in Atmos? Right?


----------



## dschulz

jbncccb said:


> As you have found there are very few. Disney+, has several and Amazon Prime as well. I think Apple TV, but I don't have that one. Just because a disk has Atmos doesn't mean the streaming provider will offer it. Due to the additional bandwidth requirements they are limiting what they provide.
> Netflix has zero, Peacock has zero, Hulu I have yet to find one, etc.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


Apple TV+ doesn't have much in the way of library titles, but their original features are always delivered in Atmos AFAIK. CODA (excellent!), Greyhound (excellent!) and Swan Song (haven't watched it yet) come to mind.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Good point about Disney+, they have the star wars series and most Marvel movies in Atmos.


----------



## fatherom

StephenMSmith said:


> Braveheart in Atmos is a surprise. But surely, somebody out there on the internet has compiled a list of theatrical movies streaming in Atmos? Right?


Nearly every 4K disc that's released (that contain Atmos) has a 4K itunes/Vudu/MA counterpart which usually also has Atmos. Probably blu-ray.com would the best way to find them...use the advanced search and you can probably pick the service, and the soundtrack type.


----------



## fatherom

jbncccb said:


> As you have found there are very few. Disney+, has several and Amazon Prime as well. I think Apple TV, but I don't have that one. Just because a disk has Atmos doesn't mean the streaming provider will offer it. Due to the additional bandwidth requirements they are limiting what they provide.
> Netflix has zero, Peacock has zero, Hulu I have yet to find one, etc.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


FYI @StephenMSmith 

Not sure I agree. I have about 600 movie discs in my collection and the following are all the iTunes movies that correspond to those films, and have Atmos (about 157 in total...a decent percentage). This doesn't include what I may also have in Vudu, etc.



Spoiler




19172012300The 5th WaveAladdinAladdin (2019)Alien: CovenantAlita: Battle AngelAmerican PsychoAmerican SniperAnt-ManAnt-Man and the WaspAquamanThe AvengersAvengers: Age of UltronAvengers: Infinity WarAvengers: EndgameBack to the Future 1Back to the Future 2Back to the Future 3BatmanBatman ReturnsBatman ForeverBatman & RobinBatman Vs Superman: Dawn of JusticeBlack PantherBlack WidowBladeBlade Runner 2049Bohemian RhapsodyBumblebeeCaptain America: The First AvengerCaptain America: The Winter SoldierCaptain America: Civil WarCarsThe Da Vinci CodeDeadpoolDeadpool 2Doctor SleepDoctor StrangeThe DoorsDraculaDuneEncantoEternalsThe Fifth ElementFinding DoryFinding NemoFirst ManFord Vs FerrariForrest GumpFrozenFrozen IIFuryGattacaGhostbustersGhostbusters IIGhostbusters: AfterlifeGodzillaGodzilla Vs KongGodzilla: King of the MonstersGravityThe Green MileGroundhog DayGuardians of the GalaxyGuardians of the Galaxy Vol 2HellboyHobbit: An Unexpected JourneyHobbit: The Desolation of SmaugHobbit: The Battle of the Five ArmiesThe Hunger GamesThe Hunger Games: Catching FireThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2HustlersThe IncrediblesIncredibles 2Independence Day: ResurgenceRaiders of the Lost ArkIndiana Jones & the Temple of DoomIndiana Jones & the Last CrusadeIndiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal SkullInside OutIron ManIron Man 2Iron Man 3JigsawJokerJustice LeagueThe Karate KidKick-AssKnives OutKong: Skull IslandThe Lego Batman MovieThe Lego Movie 2: The Second PartThe Lion KingThe Little MermaidLoganLucyMad Max: Fury RoadMan of SteelThe Martian (Extended Edition)Men in Black TrilogyMission Impossible V (Rogue Nation)Mission Impossible VI (Fallout)MulanNational TreasureNational Treasure 2: Book of SecretsNo Time to DieNow You See Me 2Pacific RimPacific Rim: UprisingPassengersPhiladelphiaWar For the Planet of the ApesA Quiet PlaceA Quiet Place IIRatatouilleReady Player OneResident Evil: The Complete CollectionSawSchindler's ListScott Pilgrim Vs the WorldThe ShallowsShang-Chi & the Legend Of the Ten RingsShazam!Solo: A Star Wars StorySpidermanSpiderman 2Spiderman 3Spiderman HomecomingSpiderman Far From HomeSpider-Man: Into the Spider-VerseStar Trek: BeyondStar Wars: Skywalker SagaStarship TroopersStuberThe Suicide SquadTangledTerminator Dark FateThorThor: The Dark WorldThor: RagnarokTop GunToy StoryToy Story 2Toy Story 3Toy Story 4Trainspotting 2Transformers [2007]Transformers - Age of ExtinctionTransformers - The Last KnightV For VendettaWall-EWonder WomanWonder Woman 1984


----------



## fatherom

StephenMSmith said:


> Braveheart in Atmos is a surprise. But surely, somebody out there on the internet has compiled a list of theatrical movies streaming in Atmos? Right?





https://www.blu-ray.com/digital/search.php?action=search&audio=Atmos&sortby=titlechronological



Note: this covers the streaming services like iTunes/Vudu/MA where you "own" the title. It doesn't cover things like Disney+.


----------



## mrtickleuk

fatherom said:


> https://www.blu-ray.com/digital/search.php?action=search&audio=Atmos&sortby=titlechronological
> 
> 
> 
> Note: this covers the streaming services like iTunes/Vudu/MA where you "own" the title. It doesn't cover things like Disney+.


I thought the question was about the latter, and not the former though . For the former if you already "own" the right to playback the title from your physical media, you shouldn't even care about the streaming back-up equivalent on those other services, because they are normally technically inferior to the high bit-rate disc. I'm sure the OP already knows his own disc collection!


----------



## fatherom

mrtickleuk said:


> I thought the question was about the latter, and not the former though . For the former if you already "own" the right to playback the title from your physical media, you shouldn't even care about the streaming back-up equivalent on those other services, because they are normally technically inferior to the high bit-rate disc. I'm sure the OP already knows his own disc collection!


Don't agree fully. I actually watch my iTunes collection fairly often due to convenience, but mainly because I have Airpods Max that support spatial audio.

But the disc aspect is mainly secondary. The point more was that iTunes offers these films for rent/purchase (outside of the context of owning the disc) and they include Atmos.


----------



## StephenMSmith

fatherom said:


> FYI @StephenMSmith
> 
> Not sure I agree. I have about 600 movie discs in my collection and the following are all the iTunes movies that correspond to those films, and have Atmos (about 157 in total...a decent percentage). This doesn't include what I may also have in Vudu, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19172012300The 5th WaveAladdinAladdin (2019)Alien: CovenantAlita: Battle AngelAmerican PsychoAmerican SniperAnt-ManAnt-Man and the WaspAquamanThe AvengersAvengers: Age of UltronAvengers: Infinity WarAvengers: EndgameBack to the Future 1Back to the Future 2Back to the Future 3BatmanBatman ReturnsBatman ForeverBatman & RobinBatman Vs Superman: Dawn of JusticeBlack PantherBlack WidowBladeBlade Runner 2049Bohemian RhapsodyBumblebeeCaptain America: The First AvengerCaptain America: The Winter SoldierCaptain America: Civil WarCarsThe Da Vinci CodeDeadpoolDeadpool 2Doctor SleepDoctor StrangeThe DoorsDraculaDuneEncantoEternalsThe Fifth ElementFinding DoryFinding NemoFirst ManFord Vs FerrariForrest GumpFrozenFrozen IIFuryGattacaGhostbustersGhostbusters IIGhostbusters: AfterlifeGodzillaGodzilla Vs KongGodzilla: King of the MonstersGravityThe Green MileGroundhog DayGuardians of the GalaxyGuardians of the Galaxy Vol 2HellboyHobbit: An Unexpected JourneyHobbit: The Desolation of SmaugHobbit: The Battle of the Five ArmiesThe Hunger GamesThe Hunger Games: Catching FireThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2HustlersThe IncrediblesIncredibles 2Independence Day: ResurgenceRaiders of the Lost ArkIndiana Jones & the Temple of DoomIndiana Jones & the Last CrusadeIndiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal SkullInside OutIron ManIron Man 2Iron Man 3JigsawJokerJustice LeagueThe Karate KidKick-AssKnives OutKong: Skull IslandThe Lego Batman MovieThe Lego Movie 2: The Second PartThe Lion KingThe Little MermaidLoganLucyMad Max: Fury RoadMan of SteelThe Martian (Extended Edition)Men in Black TrilogyMission Impossible V (Rogue Nation)Mission Impossible VI (Fallout)MulanNational TreasureNational Treasure 2: Book of SecretsNo Time to DieNow You See Me 2Pacific RimPacific Rim: UprisingPassengersPhiladelphiaWar For the Planet of the ApesA Quiet PlaceA Quiet Place IIRatatouilleReady Player OneResident Evil: The Complete CollectionSawSchindler's ListScott Pilgrim Vs the WorldThe ShallowsShang-Chi & the Legend Of the Ten RingsShazam!Solo: A Star Wars StorySpidermanSpiderman 2Spiderman 3Spiderman HomecomingSpiderman Far From HomeSpider-Man: Into the Spider-VerseStar Trek: BeyondStar Wars: Skywalker SagaStarship TroopersStuberThe Suicide SquadTangledTerminator Dark FateThorThor: The Dark WorldThor: RagnarokTop GunToy StoryToy Story 2Toy Story 3Toy Story 4Trainspotting 2Transformers [2007]Transformers - Age of ExtinctionTransformers - The Last KnightV For VendettaWall-EWonder WomanWonder Woman 1984


What a minute, I forgot to add critical tidbit -- I don't want to buy or pay for anything! Just my streaming services.


----------



## fatherom

StephenMSmith said:


> What a minute, I forgot to add critical tidbit -- I don't want to buy or pay for anything! Just my streaming services.


Yeah, I was thinking you probably meant that, but I figured I'd pass along the info anyway. Point is, there are a lot of Atmos streaming titles out there.

BTW, you pay for your streaming services.


----------



## mrtickleuk

StephenMSmith said:


> What a minute, I forgot to add critical tidbit -- I don't want to buy or pay for anything! Just my streaming services.


Right, thanks for clarifying. No extra rental charges then on top of what's included in the Netflix/Disney+ et all, that's what I thought you meant. 

And quite right, we pay quite enough monthly already as it is.


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> I thought the question was about the latter, and not the former though . For the former if you already "own" the right to playback the title from your physical media, you shouldn't even care about the streaming back-up equivalent on those other services, because they are normally technically inferior to the high bit-rate disc. I'm sure the OP already knows his own disc collection!


Sometimes, the disc came out 10+ years ago and the digital copy you got free was enabled to be redeemed directly from iTunes. Years later that title got a free upgrade to 4K + Dolby Atmos, many times when there is no 4K UHD disc to but even. I would say that's a very nice bonus from Apple. I got probably over 100 titles upgraded over the years. I'm not sure it's worth paying $20+ to get the UHD even if there is one by now, particularly if it's not a movie you watch often. 

Digital copies (as well as disc MKV dumps) are also great to watch around the house or even from an iPhone or iPad when on a plane, for instance. I can also watch my collection when I visit my mother, for example using her Apple TV I set up. Sometimes the Apple version has Dolby Vision and the Discs does not. Is the small difference in lossy encoded resolution between the two worth using HDR instead of DV? Only you can decide. Thus, digital copies are often nice to have evenif you don't use all of them.


----------



## joel_9452

*Tutorial to set up Dolby Atmos renderer with ProTools*


In this post today I will walk you through the process of setting up the Dolby Atmos Renderer and how to effectively use it with Pro Tools.
The setup process is pretty simple and we will go through all the steps one by one.
Related blog: What is Spatial Audio?
*Step 1*
Download the Dolby Atmos Renderer and the Dolby Music Panner from the website:




__





Dolby Atmos Music Panner | Dolby Developer







developer.dolby.com





Dolby is currently offering a 90 day free trial for new users. You can access them here:




__





Content Creation and Delivery | Dolby







developer.dolby.com




























*Step 2*
Install the Renderer








*Step 3*
Set the Playback Engine of Pro Tools to “Dolby Audio Bridge”








*Step 4*
Open the Renderer and go to the settings and change the input of the Renderer to “Dolby Audio Bridge”








*Step 5*
Change the Output to your given Audio Interface “HD Native Thunderbolt”
*Step 6*
Go to Setup – Peripherals and make sure that the Dolby Audio Renderer is connected as a Peripheral in Pro Tools








*Step 7*
Go to Setup – I/O – Outputs and create a new 10 channel or a 7.1.2 Output and in the bus section route it to the renderer








*Step 8*
Import Audio Tracks into your session and route them to a 7.1.2 Submix








*Step 9*
Set the output of your Submix to the 7.1.2 output that is mapped to the renderer
*Step 10*
Go to the setting of the Dolby Audio Renderer and change the setting in the speaker section to headphone only mode and set the renderer setting to “Binaural”








*Step 11*
Now using the Panner you should be able to place sounds around you using the Encoder, which will take the placement of sound from your DAW and render it to feel like it was placed behind you if you hear it through your headphones.















Gray Spark Audio & Sound Engineering Academy's Blog


----------



## trevorlj

StephenMSmith said:


> Here's an Atmos question -- I've goggled all over but still can't get a good answer to what theatrical movies streaming on any service in Atmos? Not any streaming originals like on Netflix or Apple+, but theatrically released movies than I get stream in Atmos.
> 
> HBOMax has a few (Dune, Matrix movies) and I do see an occasional recent theatrical release in Atmos (like Jackass Forever on Paramount+ I think), but what older movies like all the ones that show up on the Best Atmos Demo movies?


I usually will never chose streaming over lossless audio on disc but iTunes has a few theatrical movies w/Atmos that aren't available on disc:

National Treasure 1 & 2 (also in Atmos on Disney+)
Twilight Series (ugh  (1 is in Atmos on 4K disc))
Samsara
Hercules (2014 w/The Rock)
Money Monster
Flatliners (2017)
Holmes & Watson
The Addams Family (2019)
The Art of Racing in the Rain
Midsommar
Green Room
Waves
The High Note
Promising Young Woman
Barb & Star go to Vista Del Mar
Belfast
The Little Things
Mitchells vs The Machines (Netflix originally)
C'Mon C'Mon
Christopher Robin (also on Disney+)
Cyrano
Scream (2022) (also on Paramount+ and Vudu)
Rocky IV
The Secret Garden (2020)
Wendy
Uglydolls
IP Man 1 & 2 (3 is in DTS:X on disc and 4 is Atmos on 4k disc)
House of Gucci


----------



## X4100

If you have Amazon Prime, you will have access to the movies


----------



## Chirosamsung

trevorlj said:


> I usually will never chose streaming over lossless audio on disc but iTunes has a few theatrical movies w/Atmos that aren't available on disc:
> 
> National Treasure 1 & 2 (also in Atmos on Disney+)
> Twilight Series (ugh  (1 is in Atmos on 4K disc))
> Samsara
> Hercules (2014 w/The Rock)
> Money Monster
> Flatliners (2017)
> Holmes & Watson
> The Addams Family (2019)
> The Art of Racing in the Rain
> Midsommar
> Green Room
> Waves
> The High Note
> Promising Young Woman
> Barb & Star go to Vista Del Mar
> Belfast
> The Little Things
> Mitchells vs The Machines (Netflix originally)
> C'Mon C'Mon
> Christopher Robin (also on Disney+)
> Cyrano
> Scream (2022) (also on Paramount+ and Vudu)
> Rocky IV
> The Secret Garden (2020)
> Wendy
> Uglydolls
> IP Man 1 & 2 (3 is in DTS:X on disc and 4 is Atmos on 4k disc)


Any good ones though??


----------



## mrtickleuk

Chirosamsung said:


> Any good ones though??


Ha, naughty! . That's all subjective of course... Midsommar, Green Room and Mitchells vs The Machines are all good IMHO and worth a watch. (The latter surely hasn't been removed from USA Netflix?). Sir Patrick Stewart has a role in Green Room and is great as ever. It's disturbing but good.

I haven't seen any of the others, but I want to see Belfast.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Green Room was rivetng, surprisingly great. . I steamed it but can't where remember here. So it's streaming in Atmos on Prime now?


----------



## trevorlj

Chirosamsung said:


> Any good ones though??


A few but there are quite a few stinkers in there too! 

*** Edited the previous list to include House of Gucci ***


----------



## chi_guy50

Chirosamsung said:


> Any good ones though??


If you have not watched _Samsara_, you are missing a real treat. It is one of the most impressive visual experiences available on Blu-ray disc.


----------



## rolldog

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'd still get an amp that is at least similar in output to what your AVR would provide (or use a spare receiver, as titan ii said). But ideally, I think you're better off in the long run getting a solid amp to run your L/R speakers off (or even a 3-channel to handle your LCR) since that is where the bulk of the sound comes from... then letting your AVR handle the surrounds/heights. I run an Emotiva XPA-3 with my Denon 4500 this way and that extra oomph for the LCR works out great for me.


I have an Emotiva too, but my only complaint with it is the wiring of the XLR jacks. I always says the speakers connected to it are out of phase


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dschulz

chi_guy50 said:


> If you have not watched _Samsara_, you are missing a real treat. It is one of the most impressive visual experiences available on Blu-ray disc.


Seconded, and don't sleep on Baraka, the previous film from the same team.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anyone suggest a couple demo scenes from dune? Time stamps or chapters if possible


----------



## chi_guy50

dschulz said:


> Seconded, and don't sleep on Baraka, the previous film from the same team.


Both are eye-popping.

As far as a visual treat (including 3D, if that is your thing) with an equally stellar Atmos track, my favorite is probably _Enchanted Kingdom_ (aka _Nature_). The Victoria Falls sequence (at about the 1hr mark) will have you reaching for a towel to dry off.


----------



## Gabre

jbncccb said:


> As you have found there are very few. Disney+, has several and Amazon Prime as well. I think Apple TV, but I don't have that one. Just because a disk has Atmos doesn't mean the streaming provider will offer it. Due to the additional bandwidth requirements they are limiting what they provide.
> Netflix has zero, Peacock has zero, Hulu I have yet to find one, etc.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


What I want to know, what type of signal is it? And what player do you use that does Atmos passthrough to the receiver? 

As I'm yet to see an Atmos playing in my HT from Firestick 4k that connected to the receiver.


----------



## priitv8

StephenMSmith said:


> Here's an Atmos question -- I've goggled all over but still can't get a good answer to what theatrical movies streaming on any service in Atmos? Not any streaming originals like on Netflix or Apple+, but theatrically released movies than I get stream in Atmos.
> 
> HBOMax has a few (Dune, Matrix movies) and I do see an occasional recent theatrical release in Atmos (like Jackass Forever on Paramount+ I think), but what older movies like all the ones that show up on the Best Atmos Demo movies?


A Quiet Place would be good place to start. On aTV+ in Dolby Vision+Atmos.
Both parts are a good Atmos demo material, especially with the basement scenes, where the creatures move around overhead, without being visible at all.


----------



## Rich 63

Gabre said:


> What I want to know, what type of signal is it? And what player do you use that does Atmos passthrough to the receiver?
> 
> As I'm yet to see an Atmos playing in my HT from Firestick 4k that connected to the receiver.


Disney has many titles with atmos. The info is deeper info of each title. Netflix has many titles. I'm sure over a hundred and most of their new stuff as well. You need the premium package to get it. Prime used to bit I can't get much now. 
Your model firestick is supposed to support atmos. So I would say it's a setting issue. Now I use internal apps so can't speak to the proper settings for you. I'm assuming your running from avr to panel?


----------



## Gabre

Rich 63 said:


> Disney has many titles with atmos. The info is deeper info of each title. Netflix has many titles. I'm sure over a hundred and most of their new stuff as well. You need the premium package to get it. Prime used to bit I can't get much now.
> Your model firestick is supposed to support atmos. So I would say it's a setting issue. Now I use internal apps so can't speak to the proper settings for you. I'm assuming your running from avr to panel?


I have a home theater, 120" screen and 5.1.2 Atmos setup with firestick 4k connected to Marant AVR. 

I don't think it sends proper Dolby True HD, i believe if it is, it's like Dolby digital+ or something. 

Settings are very limited in Firestick, not much to choose from hehe


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Gabre said:


> I have a home theater, 120" screen and 5.1.2 Atmos setup with firestick 4k connected to Marant AVR.
> 
> I don't think it sends proper Dolby True HD, i believe if it is, it's like Dolby digital+ or something.
> 
> Settings are very limited in Firestick, not much to choose from hehe


Set audio either to Best Available or to Dolby Digital Plus to get Atmos. I have the Firestick 4K connected to a Denon 4500. If you look at the audio settings, it now has an advanced screen that will show you the hardware's capabilities with your receiver (and play a demo clip with Dolby Vision and Atmos for testing). And no, streaming does not do Dolby TrueHD, but Atmos is provided via DD+.

I would love to say it does so consistently, but when I went to watch The Batman this week on HBO Max, it wouldn't play in Atmos despite others with the Firestick 4K telling me they got Atmos. That same thing happened back when Dune first came out and I ended up side-loading an older version of the app to get Atmos back (which was annoying). I've never gotten Atmos from Netflix either, though I consistently get Atmos from Disney Plus and Amazon Prime. In my experience, the Firestick 4K has been kind of a crapshoot where Atmos support is concerned.


----------



## rolldog

I've used a Roku, Roku Ultra, Firestick, Xbox, internal apps in the TV, Apple TV 4K, and Nvidia Shield for streaming content, and I think the Nvidia Shield provides the best picture/sound. The Apple TV is probably the easiest to use as most people are familiar with iPhones, which is similar to the UI, however, Apple uses some kind of compressed PCM signal to deliver their Atmos tracks. For the best picture quality and sound, you must stick with Ultra HD Blu-ray discs since they have way more data for picture quality and sound that can be delivered via streaming. Sometimes I wish Netflix would have stuck with their DVD delivery model as I have a ton of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. I have bought them with the intention of being able to watch them whenever I want, but I hardly ever watch the same thing twice.


----------



## dschulz

rolldog said:


> I've used a Roku, Roku Ultra, Firestick, Xbox, internal apps in the TV, Apple TV 4K, and Nvidia Shield for streaming content, and I think the Nvidia Shield provides the best picture/sound. The Apple TV is probably the easiest to use as most people are familiar with iPhones, which is similar to the UI, however, Apple uses some kind of compressed PCM signal to deliver their Atmos tracks. For the best picture quality and sound, you must stick with Ultra HD Blu-ray discs since they have way more data for picture quality and sound that can be delivered via streaming. Sometimes I wish Netflix would have stuck with their DVD delivery model as I have a ton of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. I have bought them with the intention of being able to watch them whenever I want, but I hardly ever watch the same thing twice.


Netflix still has the disc subscription service! It never went away. I just wish they would add UHD Blu Ray to the inventory, it's still only DVD/Blu Ray.


----------



## rolldog

dschulz said:


> Netflix still has the disc subscription service! It never went away. I just wish they would add UHD Blu Ray to the inventory, it's still only DVD/Blu Ray.


Seriously? I didn't realize that. If they would start shipping UHD Blu-ray discs, I'd definitely be on board. This is also something Red Box should do as the only reason anyone would want to use a Blu-ray player is for the additional content on the UltraHD discs. I can't even tell you the last time my daughters watched anything on DVD, except Baby Einstein when they were little, and one of them is now in college.


----------



## dschulz

rolldog said:


> Seriously? I didn't realize that. If they would start shipping UHD Blu-ray discs, I'd definitely be on board. This is also something Red Box should do as the only reason anyone would want to use a Blu-ray player is for the additional content on the UltraHD discs. I can't even tell you the last time my daughters watched anything on DVD, except Baby Einstein when they were little, and one of them is now in college.


Yep! I do a lot of streaming as well, but I watch a pretty steady stream of movies that come in the mail from Netflix. Honestly I live in fear of them turning off the service, as they have quite a library of films that are not available anywhere else now that the video stores have been killed off.


----------



## Gabre

rolldog said:


> I've used a Roku, Roku Ultra, Firestick, Xbox, internal apps in the TV, Apple TV 4K, and Nvidia Shield for streaming content, and I think the Nvidia Shield provides the best picture/sound. The Apple TV is probably the easiest to use as most people are familiar with iPhones, which is similar to the UI, however, Apple uses some kind of compressed PCM signal to deliver their Atmos tracks. For the best picture quality and sound, you must stick with Ultra HD Blu-ray discs since they have way more data for picture quality and sound that can be delivered via streaming. Sometimes I wish Netflix would have stuck with their DVD delivery model as I have a ton of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. I have bought them with the intention of being able to watch them whenever I want, but I hardly ever watch the same thing twice.


Nvidia shield is the only device that actually does full audio passthrough to your receiver, true dloby True HD 
none of these other streaming sticks will do that. 

DD+ is a half ass audio and rarely any stick even passes through that. 

When I know there's a movie with at.os, I will just download full BR and enjoy proper audio and sound, not compressed low bitrate audio/video.


----------



## BlueMan Jones

GameFly is a good source to rent UHD disks. Their library is not nearly as big as Netflix, but they generally do have all the latest releases and a lot of popular catalog titles.


----------



## flyers10

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Set audio either to Best Available or to Dolby Digital Plus to get Atmos. I have the Firestick 4K connected to a Denon 4500. If you look at the audio settings, it now has an advanced screen that will show you the hardware's capabilities with your receiver (and play a demo clip with Dolby Vision and Atmos for testing). And no, streaming does not do Dolby TrueHD, but Atmos is provided via DD+.
> 
> I would love to say it does so consistently, but when I went to watch The Batman this week on HBO Max, it wouldn't play in Atmos despite others with the Firestick 4K telling me they got Atmos. That same thing happened back when Dune first came out and I ended up side-loading an older version of the app to get Atmos back (which was annoying). I've never gotten Atmos from Netflix either, though I consistently get Atmos from Disney Plus and Amazon Prime. In my experience, the Firestick 4K has been kind of a crapshoot where Atmos support is concerned.


I've had issues with HBO Max showing atmos and then same title a day later it won't give it. Pretty sure that one is on HBO Max end.
Firestick 4k still won't do atmos for Netflix. Have to go up to their Cube or I believe the new firestick 4k Max will pass it. I switch to my Xbox one S for Netflix. Soon will have a Shield Pro and problem solved. 😁


----------



## Sorny

Gabre said:


> Nvidia shield is the only device that actually does full audio passthrough to your receiver, true dloby True HD
> none of these other streaming sticks will do that.
> 
> DD+ is a half ass audio and rarely any stick even passes through that.
> 
> When I know there's a movie with at.os, I will just download full BR and enjoy proper audio and sound, not compressed low bitrate audio/video.


Level match the output and I'd suggest you'll be hard pressed to tell which is True-HD and which is DD+ audio.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Can anyone suggest what time stamp or chapter is a good demo scene from the movie Dune?


----------



## chi_guy50

rolldog said:


> Sometimes I wish Netflix would have stuck with their DVD delivery model as I have a ton of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. I have bought them with the intention of being able to watch them whenever I want, but I hardly ever watch the same thing twice.





dschulz said:


> Netflix still has the disc subscription service!* It never went away.*


Not entirely true. Have you forgotten the Quikster debacle?



dschulz said:


> I just wish they would add UHD Blu Ray to the inventory, it's still only DVD/Blu Ray.


After many years as a subscriber, I have long since given up on Netflix's DVD-by-mail service and now rely exclusively on 3D-BlurayRental.com for all of my disc viewing. They provide Blu-rays, Ultra HD Blu-rays, 3D Blu-rays, and video games. Furthermore, all of their discs are the unadulterated retail version, not a gimped rental copy such as you sometimes get from Netflix (looking at you, Lion's Gate).

You can select from one of their monthly subscription levels or simply establish an account and order discs a la carte. The service is not perfect (there can be a long wait for a given title if it is in high demand and transit times are at the mercy of USPS bottlenecks), but the customer support is first-rate and communications via email are answered promptly and responsively. They are a small operation (Reed Hastings could probably buy them out with what he spends on business lunches in a year) but IMHO provide a valuable niche service.

Just today they announced that they are tightening their monthly limits in an effort to offset rising costs, and I would dearly like to see them stay in business. I would urge anyone looking for a disc rental source to give 3D-BlurayRental a try.



https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/default.asp


----------



## Rich 63

Gabre said:


> I have a home theater, 120" screen and 5.1.2 Atmos setup with firestick 4k connected to Marant AVR.
> 
> I don't think it sends proper Dolby True HD, i believe if it is, it's like Dolby digital+ or something.
> 
> Settings are very limited in Firestick, not much to choose from hehe


That's what you get from streaming because it's compressed due to bandwidth. So your getting dd+ with atmos piggybacking on it. On my Denon 4300h it shows as dd+/atmos. On Netflix you should see atmos designated on each title that has it instead of 5.1. If your not your not on the top teir Netflix plan or one of your devices is being recognised as not having atmos capabilities. What Marantz avr?
Just found this article. It might help. Also suggested on other forum to not be in auto but in dd+. 








Dolby Atmos surround sound audio is supported in Netflix on the Fire TV Stick 4K Max


One of the shortcomings of the original Fire TV Stick 4K is that, even though the device supports Dolby Atmos surround sound audio, it is not supported within the Netflix app.




www.aftvnews.com


----------



## Rich 63

Gabre said:


> Nvidia shield is the only device that actually does full audio passthrough to your receiver, true dloby True HD
> none of these other streaming sticks will do that.
> 
> DD+ is a half ass audio and rarely any stick even passes through that.
> 
> When I know there's a movie with at.os, I will just download full BR and enjoy proper audio and sound, not compressed low bitrate audio/video.


Dd+atmos is quite good in my opinion. Yes not as good as my bluerays uncompressed but very good none the less. Where are you streaming uncompressed?


----------



## GLBright

Gabre said:


> I have a home theater, 120" screen and 5.1.2 Atmos setup with firestick 4k connected to Marant AVR.
> 
> I don't think it sends proper Dolby True HD, i believe if it is, it's like Dolby digital+ or something.
> 
> Settings are very limited in Firestick, not much to choose from hehe


Unless your projector is 4K w/ DolbyVision you won't be able to get Atmos from either Netflix or Disney+. I've yet to find a workaround w/ my LG 1080p projector.


----------



## alfa1

GLBright said:


> Unless your projector is 4K w/ DolbyVision you won't be able to get Atmos from either Netflix or Disney+. I've yet to find a workaround w/ my LG 1080p projector.


Several devices from HD Fury will allow you to get Atmos audio with 1080p display, the least expensive being the Linker - I know because I use one to get Atmos audio from Netflix and Disney+ with my Panasonic ZT 60 display.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

alfa1 said:


> Several devices from HD Fury will allow you to get Atmos audio with 1080p display, the least expensive being the Linker - I know because I use one to get Atmos audio from Netflix and Disney+ with my Panasonic ZT 60 display.


Seen guys use this one too. Cheeeep!









Amazon.com: 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2 : Electronics


Buy 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2: Splitters - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> Seen guys use this one too. Cheeeep!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2 : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2: Splitters - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


That's the one (or sequel; Amazon says I bought it, but I don't think mine is also a splitter, but that would work a treat for a second audio output as well) I've been using with my 1080p 3D projector for years. Dirt cheap and works perfectly. There's no reason to spend a small fortune just to fool streaming devices. 

I've also found video settings on my Epson projector that look darn near perfect in HDR/Rec 2100 despite it not supposedly supporting it (better results than the tone mapping ATV, Zidoo or my LG BD player produce anyway). If someone wants a copy of the settings let me know. 

Between the two I've felt little need to upgrade the projector given how poor HDR is on most projectors anyway and the resolution increase on a fake 4K Epson is modest at any distance at 92" anyway and the newest Epson ditched 3D support so screw Epson.


----------



## mrvideo

GLBright said:


> Unless your projector is 4K w/ DolbyVision you won't be able to get Atmos from either Netflix or Disney+.


No projector can do DolbyVision.


----------



## mjwagner

GLBright said:


> Unless your projector is 4K w/ DolbyVision you won't be able to get Atmos from either Netflix or Disney+. I've yet to find a workaround w/ my LG 1080p projector.


No projectors currently do DV. But you don't need a DV projector to get ATMOS on NetFlix and Disney+. If your projector is 4k HDR capable you will get ATMOS. I have a Optoma UHZ65 laser projector which does 4k HDR and I get ATMOS on NetFlix and Disney+ (and AppleTV+, Prime Video, etc.). Note that not all streaming devices support it (particularly NetFlix for some reason) but it certainly works with my ATV 4k.


----------



## BlueMan Jones

chi_guy50 said:


> Not entirely true. Have you forgotten the Quikster debacle?
> 
> 
> 
> After many years as a subscriber, I have long since given up on Netflix's DVD-by-mail service and now rely exclusively on 3D-BlurayRental.com for all of my disc viewing. They provide Blu-rays, Ultra HD Blu-rays, 3D Blu-rays, and video games. Furthermore, all of their discs are the unadulterated retail version, not a gimped rental copy such as you sometimes get from Netflix (looking at you, Lion's Gate).
> 
> You can select from one of their monthly subscription levels or simply establish an account and order discs a la carte. The service is not perfect (there can be a long wait for a given title if it is in high demand and transit times are at the mercy of USPS bottlenecks), but the customer support is first-rate and communications via email are answered promptly and responsively. They are a small operation (Reed Hastings could probably buy them out with what he spends on business lunches in a year) but IMHO provide a valuable niche service.
> 
> Just today they announced that they are tightening their monthly limits in an effort to offset rising costs, and I would dearly like to see them stay in business. I would urge anyone looking for a disc rental source to give 3D-BlurayRental a try.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/default.asp


+1 for 3D-BlurayRental.com. I've used them mainly for 3D rentals as no other rental service has the stock of 3D Blurays that they have, if they have them at all. The website leaves a little to be desired and honestly has a whiff of sketch to it, but I took the chance on a rental and they proved legit. I've rented more than a few times from them since then. And yes, the rentals can take a while to arrive, even longer than GameFly, but so much of that is where you live in relation to Illinois where i think they mail from. And the rentals are about what you'd pay for a new release online rental ($4 to $7), but you don't get the compressed audio and video that you'd get with streaming.


----------



## MagnumX

mjwagner said:


> No projectors currently do DV. But you don't need a DV projector to get ATMOS on NetFlix and Disney+. If your projector is 4k HDR capable you will get ATMOS.


You don't _need_ a 4K projector period. That $30 box works perfectly to fool these streamers that shouldn't be tying Atmos to 4K to begin with.


----------



## mjwagner

MagnumX said:


> You don't _need_ a 4K projector period. That $30 box works perfectly to fool these streamers that shouldn't be tying Atmos to 4K to begin with.


LOL, yeah I worded that poorly. Was just trying to point out that you will get ATMOS if you have a 4K HDR capable projector.


----------



## Chirosamsung

No one can suggest demo scenes in Dune??


----------



## MikeyJ78

Chirosamsung said:


> No one can suggest demo scenes in Dune??


I don't know what chapter it is, it's about an hour into the movie, the sandworm reveal is imo the best scene.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> No one can suggest demo scenes in Dune??


Kinda' hard to just whip out chapter numbers without actually putting the disc in and taking notes. But if you watch the movie, it will be pretty obvious. Personally, the whole movie sounded incredible, but if you want two scenes... When the sandworm arrives to attack the spice miners and when the thopter flies through the sandstorm. But that movie is pretty much end-to-end demo quality sound.


----------



## GLBright

Polyrythm1k said:


> Seen guys use this one too. Cheeeep!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2 : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy 4K HDMI Splitter 1x2 HDR D-o-l-b-y Vision Atmos Down Scaler - HDMI Scaler 4K 1080P Sync,4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI Splitter 1 in 2 Out HDCP2.2, EDID 4K5.1/4K7.1/ Copy, for Game Xbox PS5 1080p120Hz Roku SP12H2: Splitters - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


That or its predecessor is what I use as well. Mine doesn't work for Netflix or Disney+. Maybe I should try the newest model.


----------



## MagnumX

GLBright said:


> That or its predecessor is what I use as well. Mine doesn't work for Netflix or Disney+. Maybe I should try the newest model.


What streamer are you using? My 2017 Shield needs HDR turned on to do Atmos in Disney+, but I've got a dynamic video setting that works fine for HDR. Netflix on the Shield needs a 2019 model to work period, although there is a plug in for KODI that works (ugly interface by comparison, but it works). 

My ATV 4K does both without the box even, though. The only app I found it needs it for is VUDU the last time I checked and with iTunes already being Movies Anywhere there isn't much need for me to use it, but it works fine too with the scaler.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

GLBright said:


> That or its predecessor is what I use as well. Mine doesn't work for Netflix or Disney+. Maybe I should try the newest model.


Interesting that it doesn’t work for Netflix. 

I have a 2k display as well, but don’t have a scaler. Disney+ and and all the Apple stuff works fine. Like magnumX Vudu doesn’t do Atmos here either. I had premium Netflix before I realized that I needed a 4K display. I canceled it and haven’t upped it again. Maybe once I get a scaler.


----------



## MagnumX

I just watched the 2021 movie _*Candyman*_ in Dolby Atmos. Notably, the streaming versions I've seen do _not_ include Atmos for some odd reason so you either need the Blu-Ray or the UHD Blu-Ray to hear the excellent Atmos soundtrack (beware, I think I saw a version at Walmart that didn't have Atmos as well in a value pack with the original movie before so I didn't buy it, but ordered it on Amazon).












I have never seen the previous three films and having just read some summaries, it's now obvious this is a 4th film and direct sequel to at least the first two movies (Candyman [1992] and Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh [1995]). The original was based on a short story by Clive Barker, but moved from Liverpool, England to Chicago by the director that thought the racial disparities would make a more effective background story than the British class system. Having not seen the previous movies and some appearances by actors/actresses reprising their roles were a little bit confusing along the way as there are obvious references to the previous movies, but after reading some basic plot summaries, it all makes a lot more sense now. I really should watch the original movie at the very least. I believe Turbine has just released a new 4K remaster of it, albeit still only in 5.1 sound, unfortunately. All in all, I thought this film was a fairly effective very moody with some excellent atmosphere, albeit not terribly scary or particularly gross horror film. It clearly could have been a lot more of the latter (ala Clive Barker's own rather gory Hellraiser movies that still had enough originality and nuance to be rather memorable beyond just the gore). The unraveling of the story and back story and motives seemed far more interesting than intrinsic horror as the movie spends a lot of time covering that aspect and artistic parallels rather than setting up horror scenes involving the Candyman (although there are still several). How effective they are compared to the previous movies will have to wait until I see them.

In any case, as far as Dolby Atmos goes, the film is absolutely top notch. I read some mention of the elevator scene, but in reality, there are several scenes with excellent overhead sound and a lot of scenes with very three dimensional sound (e.g. walking through a hallway the buzz of transformers powering the lighting pass by as if going by your face if you close your eyes you'd swear they were right in front of you and passing right by your head). 

There's also a scene where the police are yelling and running on the floor above and it starts from the front left height speaker here and moves towards the top middle area and turns and runs right above my head across the ceiling. If I adjust the "Scatmos" extraction to "blend" a bit instead of fully discrete, the whole thing moves forward several feet and happens just in front of me overhead instead of right above me (the top middle speakers are actually several feet behind me). This is really just a case of the precedence effect pulling towards the closer speakers (forward front heights in this case), but it's interesting because whereas in Ready Player One where the DeLorean hits a box in the race scene under the bridge, the discrete render sounds like a box just missed my head right behind me, it seems vague and not threatening with the bleedover render whereas here, both the elevator scene and the steps overhead somehow seem stronger rendered in front of me overhead instead of directly overhead almost like it's just too close or something, but that's nit-picking and subjective. 

Regardless of where it focused on the ceiling, it's darn fun to listen to sounds image overhead for some reason, probably because despite hundreds of Atmos movies, overhead effects are still like 1%-8% of the movie on average and just not where you're used to hearing sounds (unless your previous home theater arrangement was all overhead speakers to keep speaker out of sight in the room). So I'd say even if you don't like the movie for some reason or don't find it scary enough, I don't think you can argue the Atmos soundtrack is weak because it's definitely in the upper 10% that's almost constantly doing something strong in the surround speakers in general, if not overhead as well or in combination. I'd give the soundtrack a 10/10 for Atmos effects, joining Monster Hunter for the most impressive Atmos usage I've heard over the past year (Dune is fantastic as well, but there's some dialog/dull points whereas Monster Hunter and Candyman are kicking in surround and/or overhead surround almost constantly.

.

I also just picked up the Jason Bourne Ultimate Collection in 4K UHD (all five movies with DTS:X) so that should be interesting as I've heard the DTS:X soundtracks are all top notch (as in Harry Potter quality) so they should be interesting to hear in the coming days/weeks.


----------



## petetherock

Kingsman 3 has a confusing plot, but the Atmos performance is quite satisfying..


----------



## Gabre

mjwagner said:


> No projectors currently do DV. But you don't need a DV projector to get ATMOS on NetFlix and Disney+. If your projector is 4k HDR capable you will get ATMOS. I have a Optoma UHZ65 laser projector which does 4k HDR and I get ATMOS on NetFlix and Disney+ (and AppleTV+, Prime Video, etc.). Note that not all streaming devices support it (particularly NetFlix for some reason) but it certainly works with my ATV 4k.


Guys, what are you talking about? 
Screen has nothing to do with Atmos. That's just wrong info. 

Last night I watched Moon Knight on Disney+ and it was showing Dolby Atmos on my receiver when I press info on audio. 

Then I tried something on Amazon Prime and also was showing Atmos. 

I'll test Netflix tonight. I do have best plan on Netflix. 

Marantz 5010 with 1080 JVC projector and Firestick 4k. 
Also, Plex will push atmos as well no problem from my local library. 
Someone asked where I stream True HD. I don't. I download movies.


----------



## Gabre

mjwagner said:


> LOL, yeah I worded that poorly. Was just trying to point out that you will get ATMOS if you have a 4K HDR capable projector.


What are you talking about? Don't spread wrong info. 

My projector is neither 4k or HDR, and I still get Atmos no problem. Maybe you are referring to a AV receiver which ofcourse makes sense as you need a Atmos capable receiver plus enough speakers.


----------



## BlueMan Jones

Gabre said:


> What are you talking about? Don't spread wrong info.
> 
> My projector is neither 4k or HDR, and I still get Atmos no problem. Maybe you are referring to a AV receiver which ofcourse makes sense as you need a Atmos capable receiver plus enough speakers.


This is correct. Until recently, i was using a 720p projector and was definitely getting Atmos through my AVM70. The display does not determine whether you get Atmos or not....unless you have the source directly connected to the display. Then I could see someone saying that it does. But it would not be the display determining whether Atmos is played, it would be whether Atmos can be decoded by that display's audio path, not the display itself.


----------



## fatherom

Gabre said:


> Guys, what are you talking about?
> Screen has nothing to do with Atmos. That's just wrong info.


It _can_ affect it, like people have said, if a receiver isn't involved or depending on the hdmi chain. The entire signal path, in certain situations, must support 4K, otherwise the Apple TV will not provide Atmos. There are situations (not yours) where this can happen.



Gabre said:


> omeone asked where I stream True HD. I don't. I download movies.


Discussing piracy is not allowed on avsforum.


----------



## BlueMan Jones

fatherom said:


> The entire signal path, in certain situations, must support 4K, otherwise the Apple TV will not provide Atmos.


I've heard of this on another forum, can't remember which now. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it's something that Apple decided to do on their own and would be really unfortunate for the consumer. As ubiquitous as 4K may seem, a lot of folks still do not have 4K displays, but you can get an Atmos receiver for $400 to $500 these days so that upgrade may come before the 4K display.


----------



## mjwagner

Gabre said:


> What are you talking about? Don't spread wrong info.
> 
> My projector is neither 4k or HDR, and I still get Atmos no problem. Maybe you are referring to a AV receiver which ofcourse makes sense as you need a Atmos capable receiver plus enough speakers.


Before you accuse anyone of spreading wrong information you probably should take a step back and do a bit of research. 
Some streaming services only provide the ATMOS sound track on the 4k and even 4k DV and/or HDR versions of movies/shows. So if EDID reports that your connected devices don't support 4k or 4k DV/HDR you won't be able to get the version of the movie/show that includes ATMOS. This is well documented here and elsewhere.
I have not personally experienced the issue since all my equipment in all my main viewing locations support 4k DV/HDR (HDR not DV in my HT since I use a projector) but others have and have documented the issue. It is not specific to the ATV 4k but it is specific to certain streaming services.


----------



## Rich 63

fatherom said:


> Discussing piracy is not allowed on avsforum.


I wasn't discussing piracy I was asking where he got uncompressed. As far as i know there is no uncompressed to stream. Now I see what he was saying. My ignorance.


----------



## fatherom

Rich 63 said:


> I wasn't discussing piracy I was asking where he got uncompressed. As far as i know there is no uncompressed to stream. Now I see what he was saying. My ignorance.


I never said you were discussing piracy. Gabre was.


----------



## Rich 63

fatherom said:


> I never said you were discussing piracy. Gabre was.


Sorry. I am the guy he was responding to who asked the question about where he's streaming uncompressed. Thought you had read my post. All good


----------



## fatherom

Rich 63 said:


> Sorry. I am the guy he was responding to who asked the question about where he's streaming uncompressed. Thought you had read my post. All good


Yeah, I definitely had read your post. Nothing was wrong with your original post/question.


----------



## halcyon_888

Rich 63 said:


> I wasn't discussing piracy I was asking where he got uncompressed. As far as i know there is no uncompressed to stream. Now I see what he was saying. My ignorance.


Yea as far as I know there isn't any streaming service with uncompressed audio. The Kaleidescape has lossless audio in a digital format, but from what very little I know about it you legally download the file to a Kaleidescape server in your home and the movie is stored there. I do wonder when or if we would ever get uncompressed audio via streaming, it seemed like it took forever for DD+ to become the standard rather than the lower bitrate Dolby Digital 5.1.


----------



## mrtickleuk

halcyon_888 said:


> I do wonder when or if we would ever get uncompressed audio via streaming, it seemed like it took forever for DD+ to become the standard rather than the lower bitrate Dolby Digital 5.1.


Slightly pedantic but (as it's technical!) I don't care about getting uncompressed audio. It's always going to be compressed for efficient transport over the network.

Whether it's lossless (for example TrueHD) or lossy (for example DD+), is the _real_ question. . Both are heavily compressed.

Campaign for compressed but lossless, if anything . Even the guy who's pirating stuff (and wrongly accusing people of spreading "wrong info") isn't getting uncompressed audio on his pirated movies.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Yea as far as I know there isn't any streaming service with uncompressed audio. The Kaleidescape has lossless audio in a digital format, but from what very little I know about it you legally download the file to a Kaleidescape server in your home and the movie is stored there. I do wonder when or if we would ever get uncompressed audio via streaming, it seemed like it took forever for DD+ to become the standard rather than the lower bitrate Dolby Digital 5.1.


If we are to believe FilmMixer, it's not even _technically_ possible to "stream" TrueHD. I say that's utter nonsense (I can stream it just fine locally so with more bandwidth why would it be an issue if properly buffered) and if nothing else, it could certainly be set up to pre-download the entire movie (AppleTV Gen1 could do that even) and then play back. People wouldn't like the delay, but as speeds ever increase that delay would only be a few minutes at some point.

Meanwhile, I'm seeing more MUSIC being offered for download in some immersive formats at full lossless, namely Auro-3D just announced over a dozen classical releases for sale with lossless download. Personally, I'd much rather buy music one than "rent" it from Apple in perpetuity (that can only lead to bad things in the long run like increased rental prices for the same music or even censorship if certain elements in society get their way in the future). Once you have a physical or even a non-copy protected download file, they can't alter it and you can back it up.


----------



## fatherom

mrtickleuk said:


> Even the guy who's pirating stuff isn't getting uncompressed audio on his pirated movies.


Not sure I follow on this point...certainly full disc rips of movies are available via questionable means...if it's a full disc rip, it includes the lossless soundtrack.

Unless you were referring to true uncompressed audio (like a WAV file)


----------



## mrtickleuk

fatherom said:


> Not sure I follow on this point...certainly full disc rips of movies are available via questionable means...if it's a full disc rip, it includes the lossless soundtrack.


Yes, indeed, those illegal releases are lossless and compressed. That's the point I was making.

As opposed to lossless and uncompressed. I'm saying that if he thought he was getting uncompressed audio, he wasn't. There aren't any sources of uncompressed audio and it wouldn't be worthwhile campaigning for them. (Even some WAV files are losslessly compressed!  )


----------



## Rich 63

halcyon_888 said:


> Yea as far as I know there isn't any streaming service with uncompressed audio. The Kaleidescape has lossless audio in a digital format, but from what very little I know about it you legally download the file to a Kaleidescape server in your home and the movie is stored there. I do wonder when or if we would ever get uncompressed audio via streaming, it seemed like it took forever for DD+ to become the standard rather than the lower bitrate Dolby Digital 5.1.


Yes kaleidescape=expensive. I don't think we will ever see it. There is no money in it for the streamers and lucky if 3% of subscribers care.


----------



## halcyon_888

mrtickleuk said:


> Slightly pedantic but (as it's technical!) I don't care about getting uncompressed audio. It's always going to be compressed for efficient transport over the network.
> 
> Whether it's lossless (for example TrueHD) or lossy (for example DD+), is the _real_ question. . Both are heavily compressed.
> 
> Campaign for compressed but lossless, if anything . Even the guy who's pirating stuff (and wrongly accusing people of spreading "wrong info") isn't getting uncompressed audio on his pirated movies.


You're right, I meant to say lossless audio via streaming. I'd like to see TrueHD one day but it seems like we just now got DD+ after what felt like forever.


----------



## Gabre

I'd like to read that documented issues with Atmos signal being blocked sent to a REVCEIVER because of SCREEN used.


----------



## fatherom

Gabre said:


> I'd like to read that documented issues with Atmos signal being blocked sent to a REVCEIVER because of SCREEN used.


On Apple TV, using iTunes, here's an example. A movie like Thor Ragnarok only provides Atmos if you're watching the 4K version of the film. The HD version gives you DD+5.1. So, if you have an Apple TV connected to a receiver which is then connected to a 1080p projector, and you bring up Thor, it will only play the HD version because the Apple TV looks at the signal chain and says "the highest this person can play is 1080p". And because you're watching the 1080p version, iTunes only gives you DD+5.1, not Atmos.

The point being that the Apple TV itself won't even be outputting a 4K video signal in that scenario. And without that, you don't get Atmos, because Apple chooses to tie the Atmos track to the 4K version of the film.

And this is why someone like @MagnumX uses a device like an HDFury which sits after the Apple TV in the signal chain, spoofing the EDID of a 4K device on the other end (so the Apple TV thinks it's talking to a 4K display when it really isn't), thereby allowing the Atmos track to be accessed.


----------



## MagnumX

Gabre said:


> I'd like to read that documented issues with Atmos signal being blocked sent to a REVCEIVER because of SCREEN used.


Buy a Nvidia Shield and just try to get Atmos from Vudu or Disney+. VUDU won't work on an Apple TV without 4K support or a scaler to fool it. They only have Atmos with the 4K streams on VUDU so that's why it needs 4K. It was a business decision, not a law of physics.


----------



## Gabre

MagnumX said:


> Buy a Nvidia Shield and just try to get Atmos from Vudu or Disney+. VUDU won't work on an Apple TV without 4K support or a scaler to fool it. They only have Atmos with the 4K streams on VUDU so that's why it needs 4K. It was a business decision, not a law of physics.


Literally last night I watched Moon Knight on Disney+ in Atmos. Fire stick 4k on receiver and 1080 projector.


----------



## fatherom

Gabre said:


> Literally last night I watched Moon Knight on Disney+ in Atmos. Fire stick 4k on receiver and 1080 projector.


Looks like the 1080p stream of Moon Knight provided by Disney+ includes Atmos. Not sure if all Disney+ content follows this pattern.


----------



## MagnumX

Gabre said:


> Literally last night I watched Moon Knight on Disney+ in Atmos. Fire stick 4k on receiver and 1080 projector.


Apparently you didn't read what I said. Did I mention a Firestick ANYWHERE!? 

I said it's dependent on both the apps and streaming OS. Apple TV doesn't need a 4K display except for VUDU. The Nvidia Shield needs it for Disney+ and VUDU, but not PRIME, the Apple TV App or KODI. I have not tested the Firestick. ROKU worked for Disney+ and Netflix without the scaler. I didn't try anything else as I don't care for Roku's locked interface.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> The Nvidia Shield needs it for Disney+


If you're able to try, I'd be curious if the Disney+ 1080p stream of Moon Knight provides the Atmos stream on the Nvidia shield (can't remember if you have one).


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> If you're able to try, I'd be curious if the Disney+ 1080p stream of Moon Knight provides the Atmos stream on the Nvidia shield (can't remember if you have one).


If I can remember tonight I'll try it. But that reminds me. It wasn't 4K Disney+ needed on the Shield, just HDR. 1080p with HDR worked just fine to get Atmos too. VUDU demands 4K, however.


----------



## rec head

dschulz said:


> Netflix still has the disc subscription service! It never went away. I just wish they would add UHD Blu Ray to the inventory, it's still only DVD/Blu Ray.


I'm not caught up on the thread but 3D Bluray Rental rents current UHD's. There's a thread about them on the forum. Most of the posts are about the slow shipping but it really seems to be a postal issue.


----------



## halcyon_888

Anyone have any opinions on The Batman Atmos soundtrack? I was concentrating on watching the movie but one moment stood out to me when Catwoman was getting in a cab and the elevated train was overhead. That's about all that jumped out at me


----------



## halcyon_888

Spare Change put the Atmos viewer on the soundtrack and has a few more notable scenes, I must have missed these since I was paying more attention to the story:


----------



## chmorgan

halcyon_888 said:


> Anyone have any opinions on The Batman Atmos soundtrack? I was concentrating on watching the movie but one moment stood out to me when Catwoman was getting in a cab and the elevated train was overhead. That's about all that jumped out at me


I'd have to say that was the one that stood out for me too. There were a couple of others but I don't recall them.


----------



## regster

halcyon_888 said:


> Anyone have any opinions on The Batman Atmos soundtrack? I was concentrating on watching the movie but one moment stood out to me when Catwoman was getting in a cab and the elevated train was overhead. That's about all that jumped out at me


Check out @SpareChange review with Atmos viewer on YT.

Edit: oh well I didn’t see your post with his review


----------



## niterida

halcyon_888 said:


> I must have missed these since I was paying more attention to the story:


To me that is exactly how it should be 
People seem to want Atmos to jump out and bash them over the head with bombastic sound all the time.
But that is not what Atmos is all about - it is about helping imerse you into the movie and shouldn't overly draw attention to itself IMO


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> To me that is exactly how it should be
> People seem to want Atmos to jump out and bash them over the head with bombastic sound all the time.
> But that is not what Atmos is all about - it is about helping imerse you into the movie and shouldn't overly draw attention to itself IMO


Mono doesn't draw attention to itself. Maybe we should go back to that?


----------



## bartonnen

Re:Samsara


chi_guy50 said:


> It is one of the most impressive visual experiences available on Blu-ray disc.


It does look fantastic - but I could do without the vegan activist overtones.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Mono doesn't draw attention to itself. Maybe we should go back to that?


There's a simpler solution. Go two-channel and use something like this:








The Bacch-SP 3D Sound Experience


Princeton physics professor Edgar Choueiri is a suave handsome man. He is also a sophisticated art collector, and when he joins you for dinner, the IQ at the table rises dramatically. For his regular day job, he designs plasma rocket engines. Last, but not least, he is the mind and force behind...




www.stereophile.com





I actually saw this in a two-channel room at AXPONA yesterday. On the demo material - some guy walking around a room and a conversation that went from left to right, as well as some jazz album in mono - it did a pretty convincing job of getting pinpoint imaging to produce sound in what would be about a 90 degree space from left to right.

No need for an upmixer there...but it's more like 180 degrees than 360 sound. The "consumer" version is going for about $20K now from what I was told. You won't quite have Atmos, but more like a reproduction of sound to the left and right of you that might simulate how our ears hear. LOL.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> There's a simpler solution. Go two-channel and use something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bacch-SP 3D Sound Experience
> 
> 
> Princeton physics professor Edgar Choueiri is a suave handsome man. He is also a sophisticated art collector, and when he joins you for dinner, the IQ at the table rises dramatically. For his regular day job, he designs plasma rocket engines. Last, but not least, he is the mind and force behind...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stereophile.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually saw this in a two-channel room at AXPONA yesterday. On the demo material - some guy walking around a room and a conversation that went from left to right, as well as some jazz album in mono - it did a pretty convincing job of getting pinpoint imaging to produce sound in what would be about a 90 degree space from left to right.
> 
> No need for an upmixer there...but it's more like 180 degrees than 360 sound. The "consumer" version is going for about $20K now from what I was told. You won't quite have Atmos, but more like a reproduction of sound to the left and right of you that might simulate how our ears hear. LOL.


I've already got a device that gives me 180 degree sound from 2-channel. It's Bob Carver's Sonic Holography from the 1980s. It only works for seats in the center line (although that's 3/6 here), but it's pretty convincing and works even further (full 360 minus height information) in Multi-Channel Stereo mode. Adding heights to that mode (option in settings) does put occasional sounds more pinpoint overhead, but expands height of all the images. 

It cost me closer to $150 on eBay.


----------



## ppasteur

bartonnen said:


> Re:Samsara
> 
> It does look fantastic - but I could do without the vegan activist overtones.


This is a growing problem with just about all contemporary media. I haven't seen anything in the last couple of years that hasn't contained blatant attempts at social engineering. 
Such a shame, I would much prefer to just have entertainment and no forced "education".


----------



## chi_guy50

ppasteur said:


> This is a growing problem with just about all contemporary media. I haven't seen anything in the last couple of years that hasn't contained blatant attempts at social engineering.


Really? Commentary on environmental degradation amounts to "blatant attempts at social engineering"? Hyperventilate much?













ppasteur said:


> Such a shame, I would much prefer to just have entertainment and no forced "education".


In that case maybe you should just stick to comic book movies.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Mono doesn't draw attention to itself. Maybe we should go back to that?


i actually think you have it backwards-mono-by definition draws more attention to itself than anything!


----------



## MagnumX

ppasteur said:


> This is a growing problem with just about all contemporary media. I haven't seen anything in the last couple of years that hasn't contained blatant attempts at social engineering.
> Such a shame, I would much prefer to just have entertainment and no forced "education".


Education or _indoctrination_? There's a difference between the two. Some of these groups claim to celebrate "diversity" but in reality, they ban/censor/cancel everyone that thinks differently from themselves. That's not diversity. It's the exact opposite, _conformity_. 

Time to go watch THX 1138 followed by 1984....


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> i actually think you have it backwards-mono-by definition draws more attention to itself than anything!


Ridiculous. It's stationary. It's most dialog even in non-mono movies. You're thinking about it being mono instead of listening to Bogart saying, "Here's looking at you, kid?" Heaven forbid the phone ring in your house....


----------



## Zappiti user Vietnam

Denon AVRX3300 look only to be able to do 5.2.2 and that's my AMP, what best option take my 2 in-ceiling back speaker and make them back / Atmos add new back in-ceiling speakers or add 2 new in front high Atmos and leave my current back alone, I do not have any side speakers only front and back. 

OR

Buy a new 4700 that supports more speakers and get both? front and back Atmos and Back speakers,

Im in Vietnam so no returns once lock in the deal, so any advice is super appreciated, also if not the same AVR AMP etc..


----------



## cricket9998

Zappiti user Vietnam said:


> Denon AVRX3300 look only to be able to do 5.2.2 and that's my AMP, what best option take my 2 in-ceiling back speaker and make them back / Atmos add new back in-ceiling speakers or add 2 new in front high Atmos and leave my current back alone, I do not have any side speakers only front and back.
> 
> OR
> 
> Buy a new 4700 that supports more speakers and get both? front and back Atmos and Back speakers,
> 
> Im in Vietnam so no returns once lock in the deal, so any advice is super appreciated, also if not the same AVR AMP etc..


If you are serious about watching movies 5.2.4 is worth the upgrade only if you can get a proper atmos setup


----------



## crutzulee

Has anyone measured how much low frequency info there is in an ATMOS track in the surrounds and height channels? I'm about to dive down the rabbit hole of properly calibrating my low end and have some time to kill before some of the gear shows up.
My UMIK-1 showed up yesterday. A clean up of my junk pile revealed 3 old laptops, one linux, one with what appears to be an expanding battery and one just right for dedicating for A/V calibration ( I will use it to also calibrate my JVC projector). With my day off, and my wife out for the morning, I had been planning to jump into REW. The decision to wipe the laptop before starting has put the kibosh on those plans as I'm now 2 hours into a WINDOWS 10 reinstall..arggh.
I've been very happy with what AUDESSEY has achieved between what is built into my DENON receiver and the tweaks applied via the android app. The APP shows that my speakers have a pretty flat response throughout with little need for room compensation. I'm fairly confident that REW is going to bear this out as I can't imagine ATMOS sounding any better than the bubble I experience in my front row of seats. 
Integrating my 4 subs and tactile transducers has required a little more guess work than I'd like, given the DENON's 2 sub output limitation. I purchased a miniDSP (along with a SPYDER5 for the projector) from a member here. Unfortunately, I had to have them shipped to my in-laws in Florida so I'll have to wait until they return next month.
While most of my questions are going to be answered between AUDYSSEY , miniDSP and REW threads, I'm wondering specifically - how much below 50hz info is there in the surrounds and height channels in a typical ATMOS track?

If REW analysis bears out what the AUDYSSEY app curves are showing, I may just drive my front 2 channels full range. Even my monitor 7s and 3s seem more than capable according to the app. If there is no info below 50hz, than I'm confident that my mini-monitors can be driven full range as heights. I'm thinking that using the MULTIPLE SUBWOOFER OPTIMIZER (MSO) would be even easier if I only have to concern myself with the LFE channel.


----------



## halcyon_888

crutzulee said:


> Has anyone measured how much low frequency info there is in an ATMOS track in the surrounds and height channels? I'm about to dive down the rabbit hole of properly calibrating my low end and have some time to kill before some of the gear shows up.


Surrounds can have full range frequencies, and I believe I remember seeing a post where someone found full range in the heights too.


----------



## crutzulee

halcyon_888 said:


> Surrounds can have full range frequencies, and I believe I remember seeing a post where someone found full range in the heights too.


Yeah, I know that they're all full range and I've traditionally just used the standard 80Hz THX specified cutoff across the board. The AUDYSSEY app indicates that even my ceiling mini monitors seem to be able to maintain a flat response down to 20Hz without breaking a sweat.

If REW bears that out, then I'm going to go full range throughout. I just can't see that much use of bass at that depth in a ceiling channel.


----------



## mrtickleuk

crutzulee said:


> Yeah, I know that they're all full range and I've traditionally just used the standard 80Hz THX specified cutoff across the board. The AUDYSSEY app indicates that even my ceiling mini monitors seem to be able to maintain a flat response down to 20Hz without breaking a sweat.
> 
> If REW bears that out, then I'm going to go full range throughout. I just can't see that much use of bass at that depth in a ceiling channel.


"Blade Runner 2049" has "overhead bass" for flying cars/ships etc. I found it very impressive in the cinema, so if you wanted to find particular content, then hopefully that helps!
But with the wavelengths of low frequencies (being longer than the room in some cases) meaning you can't really tell direction, I can't imagine the benefit of trying to get the ceiling speakers to create those frequencies. For my setup, the sub will definitely be better.


----------



## ThePrisoner

I currently have Definitive technology PM800 speakers ceiling mounted as FH & TM. My question is and that's why I included a pic of the rear of the room, could I change this TM position to TR? And if I did change it to TR would it sound fine? I set up my Atmos layout in early 2016 and am still slightly confused on all layout patterns. Thanks and very sorry if this pic is huge.


----------



## crutzulee

mrtickleuk said:


> "Blade Runner 2049" has "overhead bass" for flying cars/ships etc. I found it very impressive in the cinema, so if you wanted to find particular content, then hopefully that helps!
> But with the wavelengths of low frequencies (being longer than the room in some cases) meaning you can't really tell direction, I can't imagine the benefit of trying to get the ceiling speakers to create those frequencies. For my setup, the sub will definitely be better.


I've worn that disc out with every change I've made LOL...


----------



## crutzulee

ThePrisoner said:


> I currently have Definitive technology PM800 speakers ceiling mounted as FH & TM. My question is and that's why I included a pic of the rear of the room, could I change this TM position to TR? And if I did change it to TR would it sound fine? I set up my Atmos layout in early 2016 and am still slightly confused on all layout patterns. Thanks and very sorry if this pic is huge.
> View attachment 3272571


What amp/receiver are you using? Are you applying any room correction software like AUDYSSEY or DIRAC?

If so, then I'm not sure that it will matter much whether you assign it TR or TM. The software will take into account the measured distance of that speaker to your MLP and will steer the appropriate sound info to it based on what you have entered about your total speaker layout in it's matrixing.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ThePrisoner said:


> I currently have Definitive technology PM800 speakers ceiling mounted as FH & TM. My question is and that's why I included a pic of the rear of the room, could I change this TM position to TR? And if I did change it to TR would it sound fine? I set up my Atmos layout in early 2016 and am still slightly confused on all layout patterns. Thanks and very sorry if this pic is huge.


It won't make any difference for dynamic objects placed at max Z, since the coordinate range is going to be 0.0-1.0 either way. The designation change will have a slight (and possibly not noticeable) effect on how the decoder steers things between the heights and the available ear-level channels. And if a track has 2 static objects for heights locked at the top mid position, you might now get that sound split between FH & TM instead of just TM, which may actually be preferable.

Short answer: Play demo clip, change designation, play demo clip again, see if it matters. The differences are likely minimal, but you might prefer it the other way.


----------



## niterida

ThePrisoner said:


> I currently have Definitive technology PM800 speakers ceiling mounted as FH & TM. My question is and that's why I included a pic of the rear of the room, could I change this TM position to TR? And if I did change it to TR would it sound fine? I set up my Atmos layout in early 2016 and am still slightly confused on all layout patterns. Thanks and very sorry if this pic is huge.


You would get a bigger benefit by moving your seating forward a couple of feet if you can.


----------



## ThePrisoner

crutzulee said:


> What amp/receiver are you using? Are you applying any room correction software like AUDYSSEY or DIRAC?
> 
> If so, then I'm not sure that it will matter much whether you assign it TR or TM. The software will take into account the measured distance of that speaker to your MLP and will steer the appropriate sound info to it based on what you have entered about your total speaker layout in it's matrixing.


I'm using a Denon X4500 w/ Audyssey. That makes sense about measured distances. Thanks.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> It won't make any difference for dynamic objects placed at max Z, since the coordinate range is going to be 0.0-1.0 either way. The designation change will have a slight (and possibly not noticeable) effect on how the decoder steers things between the heights and the available ear-level channels. And if a track has 2 static objects for heights locked at the top mid position, you might now get that sound split between FH & TM instead of just TM, which may actually be preferable.
> 
> Short answer: Play demo clip, change designation, play demo clip again, see if it matters. The differences are likely minimal, but you might prefer it the other way.


Thanks. I may change config and listen as you mentioned. I'm also sure your correct in that I may not hear much at all difference.


----------



## halcyon_888

crutzulee said:


> Yeah, I know that they're all full range and I've traditionally just used the standard 80Hz THX specified cutoff across the board. The AUDYSSEY app indicates that even my ceiling mini monitors seem to be able to maintain a flat response down to 20Hz without breaking a sweat.
> 
> If REW bears that out, then I'm going to go full range throughout. I just can't see that much use of bass at that depth in a ceiling channel.


I don't like using an 80Hz crossover for my main speakers because they sound too thin with one, so I use a 60Hz. My LR is ported and models to around 33Hz -F3, my center channel is sealed and models to 53Hz -F3, and my two surrounds and two heights are sealed and model to 66Hz -F3. I don't have the Audyssey app because my Marantz 8802a prepro isn't supported by it, but I can look at the results in the prepro and Audyssey cuts the low frequencies when it EQs them for all my speakers (except for the center channel) due to boundary gain--in other words, because of boundary gain the 60Hz crossover I use for my speakers is fine.

I have tried a 40Hz crossover before but then the system doesn't sound like it has enough midbass from the mains, so 60Hz was the sweet spot for my system that sounds the best to my ears.


----------



## MagnumX

I watched _Goldeneye_ (1995 James Bond) in Neural X last night. It along with Jurassic Park (on DTS Laserdisc) were the first two 5.1 movies I ever watched on my newly upgraded to 5.1 home theater back in the fall of 1995.

It was a Technics outboard DD/DTS processor plugged into a 5.1 ready Denon receiver with my new Carver AL-III ribbon speakers (which are flat to 26Hz themselves) in the front, an Energy center speaker and Definitive Technology BP-2 bipolar surrounds mounted to the sides of the couch, which was against the back wall with a Def Tech PF-1500 sub.

I remember being blown away by stereo surround and wall shaking bass (it was on concrete so it's the walls you could feel shaking) and Goldeneye was and still is my favorite Bond movie. I don't know how many times I watched that over the years, but I certainly watched it at my new house in 6.1 with wall mounted PSB bipoles (that angle front/back instead) using Dolby PLIIx decoding.

But this is the first time I've watched it in 11.1.6 Neural X. Holy Crap Batman! I used to think 5.1 wasn't mixed nearly as well in the 1990s as the 2000s, but now I might have to rethink that opinion. This is the newer Blu-ray, but still the same mix AFAIK. It was incredible sounding with distinct imaged sounds almost everywhere you can imagine in the room.

I imagine Neural X is a big part of that, but it still needs a good base 5.1 mix to perform. There were sounds overhead where you'd expect and one moment on the train where Sean Bean's 006 character's voice is telling Bond he set the timer for the same six minutes he gave him (opening bit of movie) and just like the newest Bond movie (No Time to Die) bit with the earpiece imaging on the ceiling, it images up on the ceiling too (1/3 into the room instead of directly overhead, but a sweet effect nonetheless).

I can't say enough about how impressive Neural X can be, making many older 5.1 soundtracks like this sound not like a mediocre Atmos mix, but a pretty darn good one! I also think since setting up an array of side/rear speakers (front wide, side, side#2 that is a mix of side and rear and rear surrounds) that the imaging in the back of the room is so much more defined, spread out evenly and easy to hear even when it's just reverb from the recording space, it sounds like the best surround sound I've ever heard in my life. There are no gaps where things don't image in the room (the side area between the surrounds and front mains always felt weak in 5.1 and even 6.1). The extra arrayed front wides and extra rear sides before the back rears just make it one giant ball of imaging even without Atmos in this 24' long room.

I had no idea Goldeneye had such subtleties of sounds in the front wide to side region, for example because they didn't image there before in regular 5.1. Neural X even made an all encompassing drop of the stealth tiger helicopter coming down from above like it was landing on my head. I feel like Goldeneye couldn't do much better if they made a specific Atmos remaster. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was almost like _hearing_ a new soundtrack for the first time. Some bits were similar (car race at start after credits), but other parts were just no longer subtle and spread out across the entire room.


----------



## cricket9998

mrtickleuk said:


> "Blade Runner 2049" has "overhead bass" for flying cars/ships etc. I found it very impressive in the cinema, so if you wanted to find particular content, then hopefully that helps!
> But with the wavelengths of low frequencies (being longer than the room in some cases) meaning you can't really tell direction, I can't imagine the benefit of trying to get the ceiling speakers to create those frequencies. For my setup, the sub will definitely be better.


I know the rule of thumb is you can’t tell where bass is coming from but I don’t think that’s always true. I have corner subs and I can absolutely tell which one is on when I am playing a test signal. I can clearly hear more on the left vs right etc. So having speakers that can handle 80hz or so is important. A back box is also essential for ceiling speakers.


----------



## am2model3

yes, Neural X and DSU upmixing for 5.1 or 7.1 sound sources, its amazing! good stuff! I will rewatch Goldeneye sometime soon; i think amz prime video has it 4K UHD. 

I watched MoonFall last night, over Vudu 4K UHD and DolbyAtmos. Its another Roland Emmerich wild one; but the Dolby Atmos sound was really fun to listen to!


----------



## crutzulee

cricket9998 said:


> I know the rule of thumb is you can’t tell where bass is coming from but I don’t think that’s always true. I have corner subs and I can absolutely tell which one is on when I am playing a test signal. I can clearly hear more on the left vs right etc. So having speakers that can handle 80hz or so is important. A back box is also essential for ceiling speakers.



Yeah, at 80hz, you can still pick out direction.. the AUDESSEY sweep seems to indicate that even my mini monitor height channels have a flat response to below 50 hz.. my question is even in BLADERUNNER, how much ceiling bass is there below 50hz??
I won't get around to verifying the AUDESSEY numbers until next week so I've gone ahead and ordered a mic stand in the interim as I've been using a tripod forever and have found it a bit clunky when going between positions and trying to maintain ear height..

It would be nice if there was some actual measured results for bass in the height channels in a given track..


----------



## halcyon_888

News out of Cinemacon is Avatar has received a remaster and is going to be released later this year in theaters before the sequel comes out. I wonder if the remaster is Atmos? And I'm also wondering if they'll release a 4k disc around the same time. Avatar is one movie that upmixes really well and I'm very curious to hear an Atmos track on this


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> News out of Cinemacon is Avatar has received a remaster and is going to be released later this year in theaters before the sequel comes out. I wonder if the remaster is Atmos? And I'm also wondering if they'll release a 4k disc around the same time. Avatar is one movie that upmixes really well and I'm very curious to hear an Atmos track on this


they probably want to rerelease it in theatres to see if it can regain the top money making spot from avengers endgame


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> they probably want to rerelease it in theatres to see if it can regain the top money making spot from avengers endgame


I hear you, but it's already about $50M above Endgame according to Box Office Mojo. Maybe extending it's lead?:








Top Lifetime Grosses







www.boxofficemojo.com


----------



## MagnumX

Endgame SUCKED (they should have ended it with Infinity War, which was _way_ better) so I see no correlation between movie quality and box office receipts. Look how awful Jurassic Park II was, but people went to see it because the original was great....


----------



## crutzulee

halcyon_888 said:


> News out of Cinemacon is Avatar has received a remaster and is going to be released later this year in theaters before the sequel comes out. I wonder if the remaster is Atmos? And I'm also wondering if they'll release a 4k disc around the same time. Avatar is one movie that upmixes really well and I'm very curious to hear an Atmos track on this


I'll get a 4K release for this if it has an ATMOS track but this movie has to be seen in 3D!

I'll have to get my son to do whatever he does to remux the new track with the old 3D disc...
I'll also have to get around to getting all new 3D gear as my old stuff won't work with my new projector.... This hobby NEVER ends...


----------



## halcyon_888

crutzulee said:


> I'll get a 4K release for this if it has an ATMOS track but this movie has to be seen in 3D!
> 
> I'll have to get my son to do whatever he does to remux the new track with the old 3D disc...
> I'll also have to get around to getting all new 3D gear as my old stuff won't work with my new projector.... This hobby NEVER ends...


I don't have a 3D TV or projector, but I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater and it was amazeballs


----------



## dschulz

halcyon_888 said:


> News out of Cinemacon is Avatar has received a remaster and is going to be released later this year in theaters before the sequel comes out. I wonder if the remaster is Atmos? And I'm also wondering if they'll release a 4k disc around the same time. Avatar is one movie that upmixes really well and I'm very curious to hear an Atmos track on this


I am 100% certain that they'll be mastering for Atmos, Dolby Vision and IMAX theatrically, and a UHD Blu Ray with Atmos and (probably) Dolby Vision. I do find myself wondering if he's going to try to do a HFR remaster for theatrical as well, to match the HFR versions of the sequel.


----------



## Wardog555

Has anybody ever designed a room where speaker placements are first then design the room around the speakers? I'm doing this with my future home theater room.

Speakers first. Room design/cosmetics later!


----------



## crutzulee

Wardog555 said:


> Has anybody ever designed a room where speaker placements are first then design the room around the speakers? I'm doing this with my future home theater room.
> 
> Speakers first. Room design/cosmetics later!


I kind of did this like 20 years ago in my present room when the specs for DD and DTS were more friendly to surrounds up high on a wall and closer to the MLP than the fronts. The plan is to build from scratch in our "retirement" home in a couple of years something that exactly matches the ATMOS layout without compromise.


----------



## mjwagner

halcyon_888 said:


> I don't have a 3D TV or projector, but I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater and it was amazeballs


I am not a huge 3D fan but when Avatar came out I saw it in 3D IMAX…it was honestly crazy amazing. I’m not a fan of the story itself (big bad corporations are evil…got it James Cameron, many of your movies are the same plot just different settings…the preaching gets boring!) but the SFX and cinematography are amazing.


----------



## appelz

Wardog555 said:


> Has anybody ever designed a room where speaker placements are first then design the room around the speakers? I'm doing this with my future home theater room.
> 
> Speakers first. Room design/cosmetics later!


Recommended practice would be seating locations and layout first, screen size to support the seating distance (based on Reference Seating Position), and then speaker layout/positions.


----------



## niterida

crutzulee said:


> Yeah, at 80hz, you can still pick out direction.. the AUDESSEY sweep seems to indicate that even my mini monitor height channels have a flat response to below 50 hz.. my question is even in BLADERUNNER, how much ceiling bass is there below 50hz??
> I won't get around to verifying the AUDESSEY numbers until next week so I've gone ahead and ordered a mic stand in the interim as I've been using a tripod forever and have found it a bit clunky when going between positions and trying to maintain ear height..
> 
> It would be nice if there was some actual measured results for bass in the height channels in a given track..


I can't remember who or which movies/scenes, but someone did test and found output down to 20hz in the height channels !!


appelz said:


> Recommended practice would be seating locations and layout first, screen size to support the seating distance (based on Reference Seating Position), and then speaker layout/positions.


I disagree - this would be if the room is already built. @Wardog555 is talking about laying out the speakers then building the room, which is the ideal way.
Sure the seating and screen should come first, but then the speaker layout can be determined and speakers put in an equidistant dome around the MLP and then the dimensions of the room calculated. Definitely the way to go if you can.


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> I disagree - this would be if the room is already built. @Wardog555 is talking about laying out the speakers then building the room, which is the ideal way.
> Sure the seating and screen should come first, but then the speaker layout can be determined and speakers put in an equidistant dome around the MLP and then the dimensions of the room calculated. Definitely the way to go if you can.


It is extremely rare that a design happens before some sort of room dimensions are known. And in general, we want the largest space you can build, as long as the equipment budget supports the demands that a larger space requires. 

You said seating and screen should come first, and then speaker layout, which is exactly what CEDIA's recommended practice is (and what I wrote), and will be fully described in RP22 (Multi-Channel Audio Design Recommended Practice), coming soon! RP23 for video is also in progress.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mjwagner said:


> I am not a huge 3D fan but when Avatar came out I saw it in 3D IMAX…it was honestly crazy amazing. I’m not a fan of the story itself (big bad corporations are evil…got it James Cameron, many of your movies are the same plot just different settings…the preaching gets boring!) but the *SFX and cinematography are amazing*.


Yes, for me it was the most beautiful movie I've seen that's also a _terrible _movie. Normally, a terrible movie doesn't look this nice! It has _very _problematic and thinly-disguised "White Saviour" overtones (ref) (ref2) and would be very different if it was being made these days, I'm sure. Unfortunately some of the dialogue was so poor I was actually laughing out loud. Hopefully the sequel is better because I don't want to be distracted from great visuals by a bad story.


----------



## Matt L

With all this talk of Avatar I recalled I bought the BD may years ago, dug through a few boxes and popped it in my UHD player. For only being a Blue ray, on my 65"LG CX it looks stunning, Have not watched an actual disk in some time. Will be curious to see a 4K version. Played it back with DTX neural X.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> I hear you, but it's already about $50M above Endgame according to Box Office Mojo. Maybe extending it's lead?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Lifetime Grosses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boxofficemojo.com


Im pretty sure according to about every source EXcept that one-Endgame is highest grossing

and @MagnumX Endgame certainly DIDNT suck-you must've watched a different movie and most marvel fans would disagree with you heavily but whatever, your opinions are usually contrarian and often in the minority


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Sure the seating and screen should come first, but then the speaker layout can be determined and speakers put in an equidistant dome around the MLP and then the dimensions of the room calculated. Definitely the way to go if you can.


Why start with a requirement of equidistant speaker placement, which can hamper other aspects of the set-up (e.g., ceiling height), when you can do electronic time alignment? What does physical time alignment buy you?


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> Im pretty sure according to about every source EXcept that one-Endgame is highest grossing


I just did a search and all the sources I found had Avatar at all-time highest. Endgame overtook Avatar a while back but then they re-released Avatar and it reclaimed the #1 spot. I'm not sure which source you're looking at....


----------



## sdurani

BoxOfficeMojo


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> BoxOfficeMojo
> View attachment 3273662


I stand corrected


----------



## MagnumX

Turbine just announced a new Atmos version of *Pitch Black*. Unfortunately, it's pretty expensive and I already bought the 4K special edition from Arrow, which also wasn't cheap. Sadly, it was 5.1 only. I'm curious to hear it in Atmos, so I went ahead and pre-ordered it anyway as it was one of the better Sci-fi horror movies ever made, IMO along with Event Horizon and the first two Alien movies.









Pitch Black - Director's Cut (3-Disc Ultimate Edition - Motiv A - lim. 2.222 Stück) (UHD + 2x BD)


Inhaltsangabe: Totale Finsternis, totales Grauen! Ein Transportraumschiff stürzt auf einem fremden Planeten ab. Unter den wenigen Überlebenden ist…




turbine-shop.de


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> What does physical time alignment buy you?


Perfection


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Perfection


Doesn't exist.


----------



## dschulz

A couple of soundtracks for people to check out:

Outer Range (episodic, Amazon Prime Video) - been described as Yellowstone meets The X-Files, starring Josh Brolin, and like any good piece in this genre uses its soundtrack to really build up the mood

IO (feature, Netflix) - I haven't watched this myself yet, but noted in another thread on AVS that people were struck by its use of LFE, especially right at the top


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Doesn't exist.


Challenge accepted. Well, accepted someday when the budget allows...


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Doesn't exist.


What if we started with the perfect speaker placement in an equidistant dome around MLP and then built the room as a dome


----------



## MagnumX

@niterida

Maybe that new thin-film speaker MIT just invented that supposedly turns any hard surface into a "high quality" (why do I doubt that part of the article's claim?) speaker could give you a nice Atmos 34 speaker setup for a fraction of the cost and space of traditional methods. We could perhaps move to 256 speaker "blocks" per room. Imagine the precision imaging.... I suppose you'd still need a boat load of amplifiers regardless and Trinnov wouldn't get any cheaper either.


----------



## MagnumX

Booka Shade's 2nd album "_Movements_" was scheduled to be re-released in a Dolby Atmos mix today on Blu-ray. I ordered it on Jpc.de. Given how good _Dear Future Self_ and _Galvany Street_ were, I have some high expectations.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> What if we started with the perfect speaker placement in an equidistant dome around MLP and then built the room as a dome


Which ear would they be time aligned to?


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Challenge accepted. Well, accepted someday when the budget allows...


What is the perfect speaker arrangement?


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Which ear would they be time aligned to?


The middle one


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> The middle one


He obviously never heard of Sonic Holography. It time aligns each speaker to each ear through crosstalk cancelation.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sdurani said:


> Which ear would they be time aligned to?


Lol, Touché!


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> The middle one


That's for equilibrium, not hearing.


----------



## DocCasualty

sdurani said:


> That's for equilibrium, not hearing.


Not to be pedantic but the middle ear’s function is hearing. The inner ear’s function is both equilibrium/balance/posture and hearing.


----------



## sdurani

DocCasualty said:


> Not to be pedantic but the middle ear’s function is hearing. The inner ear’s function is both equilibrium/balance/posture and hearing.


My mistake. Since there are two middle ears, my original question still stands.


----------



## DocCasualty

sdurani said:


> My mistake. Since there are two middle ears, my original question still stands.


I’ll leave that discussion to the original participants.


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> Perfection


Except it isn't perfection. Physical distance to speakers isn't the most accurate way to time align a system. Theaters are a system.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Deleted


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> A lot of Atmos mixes only use the Top-Middle bed objects. If you have 4 height/top channels it sounds fine, but add 6 height/top channels and suddenly the mix is loced to the top-middle channels with the front and rear channels being silent.


But they're supposed to be silent on those soundtracks! Having front/rear heights or tops just copy the signal does nothing but blur certain effects (like the box the DeLorean hits under the bridge in Ready Player One; if I alter the distances so "Scatmos" bleeds into the front/rear heights, the sound spreads out more and the box no longer sounds like it just missed my head).

If you sit equidistant between four quality overhead speakers it sounds the same as one row of Top Middle speakers do why are people upset that they're silent in that movie? Would you want your rear surrounds playing for a sound coming out at the side surrounds or between them and the mains (front wides) just because you don't like them sitting idle? What's the point of discrete surround if we want all speakers active at all times?



> Sometimes the mixes lock to the front and rear height/top channels, in which case your top-middles will be silent.


Now that one really _is_ a problem and the major reason (along with front wides not being used in too many soundtracks) I continue to use "Scatmos" here that avoids it (but still has above "problem" unless I purposely leak into the front/rear speakers by changing the inputs to unequal distances).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> But they're supposed to be silent on those soundtracks! Having front/rear heights or tops just copy the signal does nothing but blur certain effects (like the box the DeLorean hits under the bridge in Ready Player One; if I alter the distances so "Scatmos" bleeds into the front/rear heights, the sound spreads out more and the box no longer sounds like it just missed my head).
> 
> If you sit equidistant between four quality overhead speakers it sounds the same as one row of Top Middle speakers do why are people upset that they're silent in that movie? Would you want your rear surrounds playing for a sound coming out at the side surrounds or between them and the mains (front wides) just because you don't like them sitting idle? What's the point of discrete surround if we want all speakers active at all times?


For me, personally, it doesnt bother me. I know what the mixes are doing and why certain speakers are silent in some movies and why they are active with others. I understand it was a design choice by the sound mixer and as long as the appropriate effects are delivered by the mix, I'm fine with it. RPO being locked to Top-Middles is just fine because it sounds amazing when delivered in that fashion.

But there are so many who have just finally figured out what Atmos and object based audio is supposed to do (scale to your specific setup) and when they find movies that dont do that, they are confused anew and now angry that their expensive setup isnt being used to the fullest. They feel cheated. Bamboozled. Ripped off. It takes a while for them to come to the conclusion that its the sound mixers and studios that need to catch up. If they ever get there. Many dont and just remain angry that Atmos "is a scam".



> Now that one really _is_ a problem and the major reason (along with front wides not being used in too many soundtracks) I continue to use "Scatmos" here that avoids it (but still has above "problem" unless I purposely leak into the front/rear speakers by changing the inputs to unequal distances).


They could easily fix it by doing what DTS does and allow Dolby Surround to be used with Atmos content. Have Dolby Surround upmix the Bed channel mix to additional speakers like Neural X does for DTSX, then allow the Sound Objects to do their things as usual.

Under those circumstances, all your channels would be used regardless of how the sound mixer deciced to do it.

I am wondering if there is any way for us to communicate this to Dolby.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> For me, personally, it doesnt bother me. I know what the mixes are doing and why certain speakers are silent in some movies and why they are active with others. I understand it was a design choice by the sound mixer and as long as the appropriate effects are delivered by the mix, I'm fine with it. RPO being locked to Top-Middles is just fine because it sounds amazing when delivered in that fashion.
> 
> But there are so many who have just finally figured out what Atmos and object based audio is supposed to do (scale to your specific setup) and when they find movies that dont do that, they are confused anew and now angry that their expensive setup isnt being used to the fullest. They feel cheated. Bamboozled. Ripped off. It takes a while for them to come to the conclusion that its the sound mixers and studios that need to catch up. If they ever get there. Many dont and just remain angry that Atmos "is a scam".
> 
> 
> 
> They could easily fix it by doing what DTS does and allow Dolby Surround to be used with Atmos content. Have Dolby Surround upmix the Bed channel mix to additional speakers like Neural X does for DTSX, then allow the Sound Objects to do their things as usual.
> 
> Under those circumstances, all your channels would be used regardless of how the sound mixer deciced to do it.
> 
> I am wondering if there is any way for us to communicate this to Dolby.


All they need to do is compare channels for correlated information. If there is correlated information between sides and the mains, but front wides are silent, activate upmixer between those two channels like Neural X does. If not and/or front wides are active, leave it alone. It just isn't that difficult. Dolby allowed these companies to create garbage so they need to start taking out the trash!


----------



## mrvideo

crutzulee said:


> I'll also have to get around to getting all new 3D gear as my old stuff won't work with my new projector....


What keeps you from doing 3D, just because you changed the projector?


----------



## mrvideo

halcyon_888 said:


> I don't have a 3D TV or projector, but I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater and it was amazeballs


It looks great on my home system, except that it was in full screen IMAX when it came out.


----------



## mrvideo

dschulz said:


> I do find myself wondering if he's going to try to do a HFR remaster for theatrical as well, to match the HFR versions of the sequel.


Not sure how he can do HFR without the actual extra frames.


----------



## mrvideo

mjwagner said:


> I am not a huge 3D fan


LOVE 3D!!!


----------



## crutzulee

mrvideo said:


> What keeps you from doing 3D, just because you changed the projector?


The JVC requires an RF emitter and compatible glasses which I had, and sold off, 2 projectors ago in favour of the DLPlink setup I used on my OPTOMA. 

I actually had to buy a couple of the DLP link glasses because I had given away a set 3 projectors ago LOL... I've been back and forth between the 2 formats twice!


----------



## mrvideo

Ah, gotchya. FYI, DLP projection is better for 3D clarity. I don't get any smear with my BenQ 4K/3D projector.


----------



## ted_b

As I go to affix my four (4) Atmos ceiling speakers (SVS Prime Elevation) I was wondering one thing in particular:
* assuming a directional-type speaker, has anyone turned their on-ceiling speakers to be firing a bit more angled toward the main listening position (i.e toe-ing in ceiling speakers  ), or does everyone have them shooting down the plane (determined by the width of the main l/r speakers, of course)? I'm not talking moving outside the Dolby spec, I just mean same spot, but directionally angled, maybe even slightly; I realize when we have guests for, say, a movie, the second row still needs to get good Atmos effects too. Thx


----------



## niterida

ted_b said:


> As I go to affix my four (4) Atmos ceiling speakers (SVS Prime Elevation) I was wondering one thing in particular:
> * assuming a directional-type speaker, has anyone turned their on-ceiling speakers to be firing a bit more angled toward the main listening position (i.e toe-ing in ceiling speakers  ), or does everyone have them shooting down the plane (determined by the width of the main l/r speakers, of course)? I'm not talking moving outside the Dolby spec, I just mean same spot, but directionally angled, maybe even slightly; I realize when we have guests for, say, a movie, the second row still needs to get good Atmos effects too. Thx


Yes - ideally you want all your speakers aimed at your Main Listening Positioning, or as close as you can to cover all your listeners.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ted_b said:


> As I go to affix my four (4) Atmos ceiling speakers (SVS Prime Elevation) I was wondering one thing in particular:
> * assuming a directional-type speaker, has anyone turned their on-ceiling speakers to be firing a bit more angled toward the main listening position (i.e toe-ing in ceiling speakers  ), or does everyone have them shooting down the plane (determined by the width of the main l/r speakers, of course)? I'm not talking moving outside the Dolby spec, I just mean same spot, but directionally angled, maybe even slightly; I realize when we have guests for, say, a movie, the second row still needs to get good Atmos effects too. Thx


I mounted mine straight forward/back. After doing some measurements in the room, I plan on rotating the mounts to angle them inward soon. 

Also, the Elevations are solid speakers, but their vertical off-axis response exhibits the same issues that all of the other Prime line does above the tweeter. They should have gone with a 30 degree baffle angle on them. If you're going to use their mounts, I recommend bringing them a little closer than a bone-stock 45/135 degree placement. Otherwise, put them on a mount that lets you angle them a bit more. 

In hindsight, I think I would have been better off getting 4 Prime Sats on mounts for the best coverage, but... the Elevations sure do look nice on the ceiling!


----------



## titan ii

ted_b said:


> As I go to affix my four (4) Atmos ceiling speakers (SVS Prime Elevation) I was wondering one thing in particular:
> * assuming a directional-type speaker, has anyone turned their on-ceiling speakers to be firing a bit more angled toward the main listening position (i.e toe-ing in ceiling speakers  ), or does everyone have them shooting down the plane (determined by the width of the main l/r speakers, of course)? I'm not talking moving outside the Dolby spec, I just mean same spot, but directionally angled, maybe even slightly; I realize when we have guests for, say, a movie, the second row still needs to get good Atmos effects too. Thx


Absolutely aimed at the MLP. It is also mentioned to do that in the Dolby Atmos installation guidlines.


----------



## ted_b

Thanks, yes I am thinking of off axis response as well. All speakers behave differently. Heck, my main Aerial 20Ts are only slightly toed-in for best imaging, yet their LR5 center and surround brethren are currently aimed right at me (the surrounds slightly more open than straight on). I will mount the Elevations at a slight toed -in angle as well. Thx


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ted_b said:


> Thanks, yes I am thinking of off axis response as well. All speakers behave differently. Heck, my main Aerial 20Ts are only slightly toed-in for best imaging, yet their LR5 center and surround brethren are currently aimed right at me (the surrounds slightly more open than straight on). I will mount the Elevations at a slight toed -in angle as well. Thx


I don't want you to think that the off-axis response is AWFUL... but on the vertical, you start to see a dip in the speaker's crossover region (2.5kHz). EQ can mitigate it somewhat. But from experience, I think you'll be happier with them toed in. Also, place them at about 1/4 and 3/4 of your layout width (distance between the side surrounds).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

ted_b said:


> Thanks, yes I am thinking of off axis response as well. All speakers behave differently. Heck, my main Aerial 20Ts are only slightly toed-in for best imaging, yet their LR5 center and surround brethren are currently aimed right at me (the surrounds slightly more open than straight on). I will mount the Elevations at a slight toed -in angle as well. Thx


Wide dispersion speakers are what you want to use for your atmos channels anyway. The wider the dispersion, the wider seating area you can cover.

I would say that you dont necessarily need to aim them directly at the center seat. If you know your speakers dispersion pattern, you can aim them with the goal of covering as much of the seating area as possible. Obviously the MLP is going to fall well within the coverage area.


----------



## MagnumX

I watched _Passengers_ last before I set up for Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D. I just watched it in Atmos (and compared some key scenes in Auro-3D as I remuxed both soundtracks onto one 3D MKV file; they were more alike than not and both had similarly great overhead moments) and I have to say it had some pretty good sound scenes with the ship outside and issues (and even a robot falling from the ceiling overhead). The 3D could have been better (not much for negative parallax, but the depth was pretty good). 

I've also now watched the first 3 out of the 5 Jason Bourne movies off UHD BD in DTS:X (bringing my total DTS:X count to 54 movies). Someone told me they were in the same league as Harry Potter in terms of high quality DTS:X sound. The first movie certainly had very good DTS:X sound with thunderstorms and helicopters overhead among other things. The next too were decent, but didn't exactly have overhead moments stand out as much as say Passengers above. I would not put them in the same league as Harry Potter thus far (which are probably in my top list of immersive films along with Monster Hunter in Atmos), but they're certainly very good.


----------



## niterida

niterida said:


> What if we started with the perfect speaker placement in an equidistant dome around MLP and then built the room as a dome


Here ya go - Harmon beat me to it :









And it has floor level speakers - BRING IT ON


----------



## AndreNewman

niterida said:


> Here ya go - Harmon beat me to it :
> View attachment 3275822


But but, he's not sat in the center!


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Here ya go - Harmon beat me to it :
> View attachment 3275822


I like how he has a face diaper on despite being the only one in the room.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I like how he has a face diaper on despite being the only one in the room.


They are obviously sensitive speakers 
I added a bit about having floor level speakers too


----------



## mrtickleuk

AndreNewman said:


> But but, he's not sat in the center!


And there's no room for a TV!


----------



## am2model3

the TV could be a globe projection around him lol


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

That dude's straight up about to trigger the death blossom. The Kodan armada doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## MagnumX

I just read a post over at AVForums (British based forum) by an installer that claims the new rumor is the next version of the Dolby Atmos upmixer is expected to support the TS speaker (aka Voice of God). That's the first one heard that (another guy confirmed he heard the same thing).

I'm asking for clarification if he means DSU or the Atmos Renderer itself as DSU as we know it now uses a L/R only overhead array so VOG support seems unlikely unless they're either planning a real overhaul of how it works, he really means VOG speaker support for the renderer itself (that would be darn nice) or it's just a false rumor.

Anyone else hear any similar rumors?

If a newer version of the Atmos renderer supported Auro-3D speakers (as DTS:X already does via Neural X), I might rethink some of my upgrade plans. I was just about to order four more PSB CS500 speakers and was thinking about six to include CH if I get the acoustically transparent screen I've been looking at. That one is easy to simulate with a single Pro Logic processor to create a mostly discrete center height.

You could also create an Atmos compatible VOG putting a Pro Logic unit with Top Middle inputs (assuming the Atmos soundtrack even used those as some of these fixed one don't). But I'd love to see more direct intercompatability/support. I would certainly think the Atmos renderer could be fairly easily upgraded to support other locations to render at. I just figured they wouldn't want to help give Auro any traction by making the layouts fully compatible.

Edit: I see there's a SpareChange video on YouTube that discusses the new DSU upgrade to possibly include upmixing to over 30+ channels. I can't watch it until I get home, though.

Edit2: I've watched it. Sadly, not much information there, just some rumors, but they are from Trinnov so probably real, just not much information. It sounds like Dolby really is working on something to compete with Neural X. Whether they add support for Auro speakers used with X and Imax Enhanced X, remains to be seen.


----------



## AndreNewman

MagnumX said:


> I just read a post over at AVForums (British based forum) by an installer that claims the new rumor is the next version of the Dolby Atmos upmixer is expected to support the TS speaker (aka Voice of God).


Interesting if true, took me ages to find the post on AVF.

Well I've been wondering what to do with a single unused channel on my HTP-1, would require the rumour to be true, Dolby to release their update and Monolith to release an update including it. The last item seems the most unlikely.

Interesting though, VoG (maybe center height) is about the only thing that I think would be worth adding for our setup.


----------



## MagnumX

AndreNewman said:


> Interesting if true, took me ages to find the post on AVF.
> 
> Well I've been wondering what to do with a single unused channel on my HTP-1, would require the rumour to be true, Dolby to release their update and Monolith to release an update including it. The last item seems the most unlikely.
> 
> Interesting though, VoG (maybe center height) is about the only thing that I think would be worth adding for our setup.


The HTP-1 outputs the VOG as dual mono through Top Middle already so it seems less likely Monoprice would bother with it, although they could have Top Middle output CH + VOG instead, which frankly might be the better layout option since that would offer centered top of screen and middle of the room overhead effects for all seats whereas Top Middle is still off-axis unfriendly.


----------



## petetherock

I just watched Moonfall, and it doesn't disappoint from a Atmos / surround demo POV... truly awful plot, but it was a surround fest with plenty of good bass too. I'll still recommend it to HT aficionados.. just turn off the brain and sit back..


----------



## Visconti12

petetherock said:


> I just watched Moonfall, and it doesn't disappoint from a Atmos / surround demo POV... truly awful plot, but it was a surround fest with plenty of good bass too. I'll still recommend it to HT aficionados.. just turn off the brain and sit back..


Fully agree: simply awful plot but nice Atmos sound!!


----------



## Visconti12

niterida said:


> Here ya go - Harmon beat me to it :
> View attachment 3275822
> 
> 
> And it has floor level speakers - BRING IT ON


You may need to sit on a crater of a volcano!! 🤬


----------



## crutzulee

petetherock said:


> I just watched Moonfall, and it doesn't disappoint from a Atmos / surround demo POV... truly awful plot, but it was a surround fest with plenty of good bass too. I'll still recommend it to HT aficionados.. just turn off the brain and sit back..


I was excited to see this as a mindless diversion and home theater candy but I simply was unable to shut my brain off enough..... AND I'M A LEAF'S FAN....


----------



## dschulz

crutzulee said:


> I was excited to see this as a mindless diversion and home theater candy but I simply was unable to shut my brain off enough..... AND I'M A LEAF'S FAN....


I saw it in the theatre - was really hoping for it to fall in the "so bad it's good" category, but it didn't even hit that level. A filmmaker with absolute contempt for his own audience and the concept of filmmaking itself.


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> I saw it in the theatre - was really hoping for it to fall in the "so bad it's good" category, but it didn't even hit that level. A filmmaker with absolute contempt for his own audience and the concept of filmmaking itself.


Quite. You'd need a lobotomy to enjoy this movie. It has no redeeming features (and no, picture and sound quality can never redeem a stinker like this). Let's try to at least have *some *standards, people, otherwise they'll make more like this!


----------



## halcyon_888

mrtickleuk said:


> Quite. You'd need a lobotomy to enjoy this movie. It has no redeeming features (and no, picture and sound quality can never redeem a stinker like this). Let's try to at least have *some *standards, people, otherwise they'll make more like this!


It was a huge box office bomb, an estimated $146M to make and it made $44M worldwide 








Box Office: ‘Moonfall’ Lands China Release Date


The Roland Emmerich action film, which disappointed at the North American box office, was heavily financed by Chinese studio Huayi Brothers Media.




www.hollywoodreporter.com












Moonfall







www.boxofficemojo.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

halcyon_888 said:


> It was a huge box office bomb, an estimated $146M to make and it made $44M worldwide


Sure but that's irrelevant to me. A stinker is still a stinker, even if it makes millions/billions in profits. (and sometimes, sadly, they do). Great news, though, on this occasion the public had taste!


----------



## MagnumX

I found this thread linked from another thread I per chanced to read. Given requests before by people on here about what movies use front wides, it seems strange no one has updated this thread in awhile since it had a pretty strong start for listing content with strong front wide material in it. I see the OP was banned at some point, but the thread still seems valid if people want to continue to test/post Front Wide movie results or possibly start a new thread and include their results (summarized on the 2nd to last page I think).









Official Atmos Width Channel Exploiting Thread


Official Atmos Width-Channel Fetishist's Exploitaition Thread -WOW SCALE Hi Guys, In my opinion the width channel is one of the most emotionally satisfying channels although it appears some rerecording engineers are phoning in their work and on the early releases seems largely unused. So I...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Gabre

A moon doing a flyby in slow motion is filmography gold


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> I just watched Moonfall, and it doesn't disappoint from a Atmos / surround demo POV... truly awful plot, but it was a surround fest with plenty of good bass too. I'll still recommend it to HT aficionados.. just turn off the brain and sit back..


Disaster movies dont have to have a complex and coherent plot. They are about the spectacle.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I found this thread linked from another thread I per chanced to read. Given requests before by people on here about what movies use front wides, it seems strange no one has updated this thread in awhile since it had a pretty strong start for listing content with strong front wide material in it. I see the OP was banned at some point, but the thread still seems valid if people want to continue to test/post Front Wide movie results or possibly start a new thread and include their results (summarized on the 2nd to last page I think).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Official Atmos Width Channel Exploiting Thread
> 
> 
> Official Atmos Width-Channel Fetishist's Exploitaition Thread -WOW SCALE Hi Guys, In my opinion the width channel is one of the most emotionally satisfying channels although it appears some rerecording engineers are phoning in their work and on the early releases seems largely unused. So I...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Excellent find. Now I have another big ass thread to read!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I just read a post over at AVForums (British based forum) by an installer that claims the new rumor is the next version of the Dolby Atmos upmixer is expected to support the TS speaker (aka Voice of God). That's the first one heard that (another guy confirmed he heard the same thing).
> 
> I'm asking for clarification if he means DSU or the Atmos Renderer itself as DSU as we know it now uses a L/R only overhead array so VOG support seems unlikely unless they're either planning a real overhaul of how it works, he really means VOG speaker support for the renderer itself (that would be darn nice) or it's just a false rumor.
> 
> Anyone else hear any similar rumors?
> 
> If a newer version of the Atmos renderer supported Auro-3D speakers (as DTS:X already does via Neural X), I might rethink some of my upgrade plans. I was just about to order four more PSB CS500 speakers and was thinking about six to include CH if I get the acoustically transparent screen I've been looking at. That one is easy to simulate with a single Pro Logic processor to create a mostly discrete center height.
> 
> You could also create an Atmos compatible VOG putting a Pro Logic unit with Top Middle inputs (assuming the Atmos soundtrack even used those as some of these fixed one don't). But I'd love to see more direct intercompatability/support. I would certainly think the Atmos renderer could be fairly easily upgraded to support other locations to render at. I just figured they wouldn't want to help give Auro any traction by making the layouts fully compatible.
> 
> Edit: I see there's a SpareChange video on YouTube that discusses the new DSU upgrade to possibly include upmixing to over 30+ channels. I can't watch it until I get home, though.
> 
> Edit2: I've watched it. Sadly, not much information there, just some rumors, but they are from Trinnov so probably real, just not much information. It sounds like Dolby really is working on something to compete with Neural X. Whether they add support for Auro speakers used with X and Imax Enhanced X, remains to be seen.


So I am thinking about how to do this myself. I want to set up the 7.1.6 with front and rear heights and top-middle for both Atmos and Auro3D.

Trying to think about how to get the VoG to the Top-Middle speakers as a phantom image. Lets say you have external amps with both unbalanced and balanced xlr inputs. I imagine you could go XLR to the Top-Middle speakers then unbalanced RCA from the VoG output to the RCA on the same amp. Then just switch between them when you switch codecs.

However if you have a receiver or something that only has unbalanced outputs, could you use a splitter out of the VoG ouput, then use a splitter at the L/R inputs on the amp....have the Top-Middle and VoG both going into the L/R at the same time, but obviously when playing Atmos or Auro content, only one output will be active so there would be no mixing of the signals.

And of course, there would be two different calibration profiles. One as Auro layout with VoG and another as Atmos with Top-Middle layout. 

I imagine something like that should work fine. Especially with individual calibrations in play.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So I am thinking about how to do this myself. I want to set up the 7.1.6 with front and rear heights and top-middle for both Atmos and Auro3D.


What AVR/AVP are you using or planning to use? The Monoprice HTP-1, for example, already sends dual mono VOG to Top Middle for Auro-3D. 

With say a Denon 8500, you could take a Y-splitter to the VOG output and plug them into an active mixer along with Top Middle and then the mixer output to an amplifier. That would automatically use Top Middle for both. 

If you happened to have two high level speaker outputs (say y-split VOG plugged into an Amp and the AVR's own powered Top Middle), you could plug them both into something like a Monoprice impedance matching speaker switchbox and select which input the Top Middle speakers use (probably better to do the mixer thing since you'd need an amp for VOG anyway, but in my case I have only high level outputs from my Onkyo "Scatmos" units so I'd either have to switch to Kenwood to get pre-outs or go with the switchbox). 

Also, Auro-3D automatically sends the VOG signal as dual mono to either surround height or rear height (and to front heights either way) if you don't configure the VOG. DTS:X via Neural X can use either one (Top Middle or VOG) if channels are available. 

So in my case, derived "Scatmos" Top Middle already contains the VOG signal (which Scatmos duly sends to only Top Middle since it's a mono signal found in both front/rear heights), but I can also run surround heights with or without rear heights as well thanks to said Monoprice switchbox (selects between Scatmos Top Middle or Rear Height signal) in which case the VOG is found in all six overheads for a rather large 6-channel VOG array that puts it directly overhead and just in front of you no matter where you sit in the room.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> What AVR/AVP are you using or planning to use? The Monoprice HTP-1, for example, already sends dual mono VOG to Top Middle for Auro-3D.


For now the plan is to use a Denon X6700H (still need to purchase) with an upgrade path to a 16 channel preamp once I find one that does everything I want for under $8000. So far this has proven to be quite challenging. The only preamp that does EVERYTHING I want under $12000 is the Marantz 8805 and thats only 13.1 channels. (Also the McIntosh MX-123, but that has the same problem as it is based on the Marantz) and ultimately, I want 9.1.6 Atmos and DTS:X-pro with 13.1 Auro3D/Auromatic capability. I dont know why this is so difficult for mid-priced preamps like Anthem and Arcam, Emotiva and Monoprice when D&M receivers can nearly do it (simply missing 2 channels). Frankly it's embarrassing for those brands.

Kudos to monoprice for allowing their processor to natively convert Top-Middles to phantom VoG. This should be standard in all processors and Auro enabled receivers though.



> With say a Denon 8500, you could take a Y-splitter to the VOG output and plug them into an active mixer along with Top Middle and then the mixer output to an amplifier. That would automatically use Top Middle for both.


Would an active mixer be necessary if the VoG output and the Top-Middle outputs are seperate and each going into the same amplifier inputs. Each output would be operating independantly of each other with the opposite output dormant/ inactive with no signal to interfere with the active ouput.



> If you happened to have two high level speaker outputs (say y-split VOG plugged into an Amp and the AVR's own powered Top Middle), you could plug them both into something like a Monoprice impedance matching speaker switchbox and select which input the Top Middle speakers use (probably better to do the mixer thing since you'd need an amp for VOG anyway, but in my case I have only high level outputs from my Onkyo "Scatmos" units so I'd either have to switch to Kenwood to get pre-outs or go with the switchbox).


I would ultimately be using external amps for both VoG and Top-Middle (all channels eventually)



> Also, Auro-3D automatically sends the VOG signal as dual mono to either surround height or rear height (and to front heights either way) if you don't configure the VOG. DTS:X via Neural X can use either one (Top Middle or VOG) if channels are available.


What if one were to tell the processor that the Top-Middles were Surround Heights for Auro3D/Auromatic playback? Obviously one would lose their Rear Height speakers in that case.



> So in my case, derived "Scatmos" Top Middle already contains the VOG signal (which Scatmos duly sends to only Top Middle since it's a mono signal found in both front/rear heights), but I can also run surround heights with or without rear heights as well thanks to said Monoprice switchbox (selects between Scatmos Top Middle or Rear Height signal) in which case the VOG is found in all six overheads for a rather large 6-channel VOG array that puts it directly overhead and just in front of you no matter where you sit in the room.


Yeah, I am trying to avoid a "phantom" VoG using the Front and Rear Height channels since they would end up being so far apart (somewhere between 30 and 40 degrees altitude) and thus lack much of a phantom image directly above the listeners. The Top-Middles would get closest to that without having to actually place a top-surrond speaker there, which I am not completely opposed to doing if the phantom options are too costly or convoluted.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would ultimately be using external amps for both VoG and Top-Middle (all channels eventually)


I was thinking of "amp" as a straight amp, notike an integrated one with switching. But yeah, you could send Top Middle to one input and a y-adapter VOG to another and switch with a remote. The mixer is nice because you don't have to switch (only around $30-40 on Amazon for a Rolls active mixer. I use three if them). 




> What if one were to tell the processor that the Top-Middles were Surround Heights for Auro3D/Auromatic playback? Obviously one would lose their Rear Height speakers in that case.


Yeah, surround heights will contain the VOG. That configuration will probably cause problems for Top Middle and your rear surrounds will be silent. It'd be a shame for the 6700 since it can do rear surrounds in Auro-3D. But having the overheads more directly overhead sounds good too (I can switch either way here with that speaker switchbox, but my Auro-3D decoder can only do rear surrounds with front heights only. For four or five heights, it only uses the side surrounds. I'm not sure why that is because it's 11-channel so 7+4 should work, but it doesn't. I've set my ss#2 and rear surrounds (and front wides for that matter to be able to do side arrays for Auro, though so the speakers are still used and help the other rows, but don't image to the back of the room from the MLP like Atmos and X do, but out of phase music reflections sound excellent).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I was thinking of "amp" as a straight amp, notike an integrated one with switching. But yeah, you could send Top Middle to one input and a y-adapter VOG to another and switch with a remote. The mixer is nice because you don't have to switch (only around $30-40 on Amazon for a Rolls active mixer. I use three if them).



Oh at that cost its no problem. Sounds like a viable solution.



> Yeah, surround heights will contain the VOG. That configuration will probably cause problems for Top Middle and your rear surrounds will be silent. It'd be a shame for the 6700 since it can do rear surrounds in Auro-3D. But having the overheads more directly overhead sounds good too (I can switch either way here with that speaker switchbox, but my Auro-3D decoder can only do rear surrounds with front heights only. For four or five heights, it only uses the side surrounds. I'm not sure why that is because it's 11-channel so 7+4 should work, but it doesn't. I've set my ss#2 and rear surrounds (and front wides for that matter to be able to do side arrays for Auro, though so the speakers are still used and help the other rows, but don't image to the back of the room from the MLP like Atmos and X do, but out of phase music reflections sound excellent).


Dont forget that the X700H Denons now come with the ability to setup TWO seperate calibration profiles in the receiver itself (and you can make several with the app or the MultEQ-X system in your laptop) so you can set up profile 1 with the amp assign as Top-Middle for Atmos and profile 2 with the amp assign as Surround Height instead of Top-Middle. That way it should allow you to keep 7 channels on the ground layer but you would lose your Rear Heights as you now have Surround Heights (in the top-middle position). Auro wont let you have both.

Thats something for people to bring up to Wilfread.....why not allow Front, Surround and Rear Heights all at the same time? If that were possible, people would set up 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 and do two calibration profiles with one set for Atmos and Top-Middle and the other set for Auro-3D and Surround Heights. That would solve a lot of this back and forth.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Dont forget that the X700H Denons now come with the ability to setup TWO seperate calibration profiles in the receiver itself (and you can make several with the app or the MultEQ-X system in your laptop) so you can set up profile 1 with the amp assign as Top-Middle for Atmos and profile 2 with the amp assign as Surround Height instead of Top-Middle.


I didn't realize it allowed entirely different setups. I was under the impression it just stored two sets of Audyssey measurements. Yeah, if you can store two different setups, that could work if you don't mind Auro overhead sounds ending at Top Middle.



> Thats something for people to bring up to Wilfread.....why not allow Front, Surround and Rear Heights all at the same time? If that were possible, people would set up 7.1.6 or 9.1.6 and do two calibration profiles with one set for Atmos and Top-Middle and the other set for Auro-3D and Surround Heights. That would solve a lot of this back and forth.


I don't know that Wilfried is the problem. One of Auro's own diagrams show Auro 11.1 as having multiple surround height speakers and multiple surround speakers. It may simply be the AVR makers never thought to set it up that way. Monoprice has dual VOG through Top Middle so it's obvious Auro doesn't mind so I see no reason D&M couldn't offer the option on their 13-channel AVR/AVPs. 

It's also why I've set it up that way here with multiple arrays since I'm limited to Auro 10.1 maximum. It uses more speakers, helps with the other rows and offers more artificial reflection points for the room in the signal instead of my room (which I have heavily damped). It's also much closer to the actual Cinema Auro 11.1 Barco used. 

I've got four pairs of surrounds (FW, SS, SS#2 and RS all set to carry the side surround output one way or another via either mixer and/or switchbox. That's an advantage of mixer based summed +3dB pairs. They're also technically arrays). I've got Surround Height and Rear Height on a Monoprice impedance matching switch box so I can switch surround height between extracted Top Middle or the Rear Height signal (which is identical to the Surround Height signal). I can run one, the other or both In parallel (and the switch impedance matches them so the impedance doesn't drop, which could otherwise risk damaging an amp). 

The mixer summed channels also work exceedingly well for Atmos and X (no Disney locks) and giving more arrayed reflection points, particularly on older movies (simulates cinema arrays) while the +3dB summed channels don't interfere with object movement since they're panning between those channels anyway. 

It also enabled me to test a rear channel array for Heights to see if that can fix the overhead "gap" problem in a setup using Heights without the complexity of Scatmos or the price of a higher channel count AVR. 

A Monoprice impedance matching speaker switch is around $55 and all you need besides the extra speakers to do a six overhead Atmos Heights setup that has no gap directly overhead! Set the Top Middle speaker passive volume down one notch, carrying the Rear Height signal, and it sounds almost just like discrete Scatmos overhead except it moves with you if you move your chair or have more than one row and it saves a bundle. You don't even need an extra amplifier! 

But for some reason, many on here bad mouth arrays in the "discrete age" despite the usefulness of them, the better reflected ambient sound and the fact Dolby still uses them in real theaters. D&M AVRs will actually auto array 5.1.4+FW to pull the sounstage forward and sound more like 7.1.4. 

Dolby probably should have had array setup as an advanced option on many processors, especially Trinnov, IMO. But you can add summed channel speakers, giving a partial array capability to Atmos and full capability to Auro-3D that doesn't use objects in the first place. 

That's because the objects have to pass through that point anyway so it matters not if the bed information is duplicated, but you might have to adjust placement slightly to accommodate the mixed array phantom location of the speakers involved (e.g. I moved my mains inward a bit so the phantom main is below the front height speaker in question, not the physical speaker). Simple speaker test signals make this simple (you can also adjust the relative levels instead of moving the speaker to some degree; I can set sides to phantom to my direct left or right instead of behind me a 110 degrees where the actual speaker is located if desired).


----------



## MagnumX

Booka Shade's _Movements_ album in Atmos almost got hear today (signature required). I should have it tomorrow. Based on how great their last two albums were in Atmos and this (their 2nd album remixed to Atmos) is the one that put them on the dance charts in Germany, I'm expecting great things, Mr. Potter....


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I was looking for threads about DTS:X and Pro and not finding a whole lot. Maybe such a thread should be started. Its got enough of its own idiosyncracies to have a dedicated thread..

[Edit] found the thread....its just 2 years out of date.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I was looking for threads about DTS:X and Pro and not finding a whole lot. Maybe such a thread should be started. Its got enough of its own idiosyncracies to have a dedicated thread..


I brought that up once before. No one said a thing so I figured zero interest. It's probably a deader format than Auro-3D at this point, though. It's looking like IMAX ditched DTS on Disney and now Atmos may accommodate the CH/TS channels to please Disney and IMAX and thus keep DTS out of the streaming loop.

Ironically, I see almost nothing coming from DTS lately while it seems like Auro has new titles by the week on their web site. Source1 has been releasing new exclusive Auro-3D titles almost every month on average and Dutch Filmworks has exclusives as well and Turbine often includes separate mixes for both. DTS doesn't seem to do music either while Auro-3D has over a dozen new classical recordings in the past few months.

I do have to wonder how it is Turbine manages to do exclusive Atmos and Auro-3D separate soundtrack mixes for small batch (I mean 3000 limited edition copies per run or a mere 9000 total in Twister's case AFAIK) licensed movies like Twister (that they couldn't even get permission to release in 4K) while Hollywood regularly bungles their 4K releases with 1990s style 5.1 soundtracks! No 4K Pitch Black from Universal, but Arrow had a 4K 5.1 version and now Turbine is getting a 4K Atmos version. Are the studios so poor that smaller 3rd party companies can do things they cannot or will not? No wonder 3D was doomed. Hollywood seems to be doing _everything_ half-arsed these days....

The best thing about DTS has been their excellent upmixer Neural X, but it seems Dolby has had enough of that beating them over the head as their new V3.0 DSU reportedly supports all 34 speakers in a fashion more like Neural X plus possibly CH/TS as well. But I'll believe that when I see it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I brought that up once before. No one said a thing so I figured zero interest. It's probably a deader format than Auro-3D at this point, though. It's looking like IMAX ditched DTS on Disney and now Atmos may accommodate the CH/TS channels to please Disney and IMAX and thus keep DTS out of the streaming loop.


Its unfortunate as DTS:X seems to be the most user-friendly out of the three formats, embracing both setup philosphies and including larger channel counts than Auro3D. And the upmixer, while not as bombastic as Auromatic, is far superior to Dolby Surround in it efficacy in upmixing legacy content.

I didnt know that Atmos was considering utilizing Center Height and Top-Surround positions. That would be fantastic if they did allowing users to impliment truly universal speaker layouts.



> Ironically, I see almost nothing coming from DTS lately while it seems like Auro has new titles by the week on their web site. Source1 has been releasing new exclusive Auro-3D titles almost every month on average and Dutch Filmworks has exclusives as well and Turbine often includes separate mixes for both. DTS doesn't seem to do music either while Auro-3D has over a dozen new classical recordings in the past few months.


Yes, that is quite disappointing. The few DTS:X discs I have tend to be immersive audio standouts. I have at least one more DTS:X movie I havent watched yet but I plan to soon and as a action packed science fiction movie (Serenity) I am expecting good things.

There was a time when I thought the Asian film market might be adopting DTS:X. That would have been an ideal situation with each format having a dominant market and regular content coming out for all three. But alas, it seems that Atmos is dominating the Chinese film market as well. I like to collect kung fu movies and having some of them in DTS:X would have been awesome (I have one in DTS:X currently and it is one of the more immersive soundtracks in my collection)



> I do have to wonder how it is Turbine manages to do exclusive Atmos and Auro-3D separate soundtrack mixes for small batch licensed movies like Twister (that they couldn't even get permission to release in 4K) while Hollywood regularly bungles their 4K releases with 1990s style 5.1 soundtracks! No 4K Pitch Black from Universal, but Arrow had a 4K 5.1 version and now Turbine is getting a 4K Atmos version. Are the studios so poor that smaller 3rd party companies can do things they cannot or will not? No wonder 3D was doomed. Hollywood seems to be doing _everything_ half-arsed these days....


No kidding. I want the entire Riddick collection in immersive audio. It would be phenomenal. But nothing as of yet. If Turbine is releasing it I'm on board (want all three movies though). Its stuff like The Chronicles of Riddick lacking immersive audio mixes that is forcing me to upgrade to an Auromatic enabled receiver/processor. DTS:X-Pro would work well for this too. I plan many head to head competitions between those formats when I am up and running.



> The best thing about DTS has been their excellent upmixer Neural X, but it seems Dolby has had enough of that beating them over the head as their new V3.0 DSU reportedly supports all 34 speakers in a fashion more like Neural X plus possibly CH/TS as well. But I'll believe that when I see it.


Absolutely, Neural-X is my go to upmixer on my current receiver. When I upgrade I will be deciding between Neural-X and Auromatic. Once I go full 9.1.6, it will probably be Neural-X for the full layout unless the new version of DSU impresses me far more than it has so far.

Speaking of DSU, hopefully Dolby adds the ability to upmix native Atmos soundtracks via DSU the same way DTSX does with Neural-X so we can fix those damned locked bed mixes. If Dolby doesnt add that to its suite of tools, then Neural-X will continue to be the superior format in my eyes...or rather in my ears.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> No kidding. I want the entire Riddick collection in immersive audio. It would be phenomenal. But nothing as of yet. If Turbine is releasing it I'm on board (want all three movies though).


I wouldn't hold my breath on all three, but Pitch Black is still my favorite of the three and it's real, coming out soon in 4K + Atmos, but limited edition so I wouldn't wait too long. Mine is on pre-order already. Yes, it will have an English Atmos soundtrack with it.









Pitch Black - Director's Cut (3-Disc Ultimate Edition - Motiv A - lim. 2.222 Stück) (UHD + 2x BD)


Inhaltsangabe: Totale Finsternis, totales Grauen! Ein Transportraumschiff stürzt auf einem fremden Planeten ab. Unter den wenigen Überlebenden ist…




turbine-shop.de


----------



## petetherock

mrtickleuk said:


> Quite. You'd need a lobotomy to enjoy this movie. It has no redeeming features (and no, picture and sound quality can never redeem a stinker like this). Let's try to at least have *some *standards, people, otherwise they'll make more like this!


It's still a sinful pleasure for me... there are so many chopper flybys, the bass as the moon comes, just ambient noises and such... gobsmack plot, but that's ok, I can forward to the relevant demo scenes...

Just to share, the original Transformers 1, I have seen the bass demo scene where there's a round launched at least 50 times


----------



## MagnumX

I just got word from Turbine in Germany that my Dolby Atmos version of Pitch Black - Director's Cut has shipped two weeks early.... woo hoo!


----------



## MagnumX

I listened to Booka Shade's _Movements_ album in Atmos. It's definitely different from _Galvany Street_ (more pop-like) and _Dear Future Self_ (some combination of the two). I'm not used to the songs yet after one listen so I don't want to comment on if they're any good or not, but they're all instrumentals save some voice snippet type things and very heavy on the analog synth type sound. There's far less heavy drum/bass type rhythms than Dear Future Self, but still clearly club-minded, just more a retro-70s synth vibe albeit without the heavy pop angle of something like Daft Punk's RAM album. 











As for the Atmos mix, it's definitely placing sounds all over the place with a lot of emphasis on direct overhead sounds early-on (as in hovering right above my head). In other words, I can't fault the mix for not using the room space around me as sounds were appearing on the walls, corners, ceiling and 14 feet directly behind me. Still, the album is an adjustment from the previous two (newer) albums. If you listened to this first and then those two albums you'd hear a progression of sound to more complexity, I think, but clearly the album was popular on its own terms, at least in Germany. Only time will tell if I grow to like the songs on it as they are definitely not my average cup of tea.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I need to get into some Atmos music. Once I upgrade my receiver I will probably reactivate Amazon Music HD and get it that way. Maybe look for some titles on blu ray audio discs. What are some good suggestions?


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I need to get into some Atmos music. Once I upgrade my receiver I will probably reactivate Amazon Music HD and get it that way. Maybe look for some titles on blu ray audio discs. What are some good suggestions?


That might depend on what type of music you like to listen to.

These are all great in Atmos, Auro-3D or both and should get your started, at least:


Pop/Techno/Movie

*Booka Shade* -> Movements -> Galvany Street -> Dear Future Self (3 very good Atmos album Techno/Techno Pop mixes)

*Kraftwerk* 3D (There's a 1 BD set and a 4 BD set; the latter has the whole catalog and the video is in 3D video including concert footage that includes video backgrounds and separate video footage versions that just shows the video background footage made for the songs. The 1 BD set is more or less their greatest hits in a concert footage format taken from the other set in 2D video. All of the tracks are in Atmos and sound fantastic).

*Lichtmond* IV - The Journey (Computer generated 3D video footage + Atmos music; kind of Pink Floyd meets Enigma in style. Lichtmond 3 - Days of Eternity is also great, but it's Auro-3D only).

*Loreena McKennitt* - The Book of Secrets (Atmos immersive remix of her first folk/pop album; the mix is pretty good on some tracks, more front-heavy on others)

*Mando Diao* - Aelita (Scandinavian pop duo and a great Auro-3D mix album)

*Roger Waters* - THE WALL (Atmos live concert and interview/trip footage of Roger visiting the graves of his father and grandfather and discussing the tour. The tour footage is phenomenal and the Atmos sound is fantastic. I only wish the two weren't mixed together).

*Steven Wilson* - The Future Bites (different sort of rock album for Steven; I like it better than his other stuff personally. Most do not, but the Atmos mix is great either way).

*Tears For Fears* - The Tipping Point (Surprisingly listenable album that isn't quite as mind blowing as the best songs from Songs From The Big Chair, but no real duds either and a pretty good Atmos mix. They were supposedly doing a 2nd run of Blu-Rays. It's also out there in streaming).

*Yello* - Point (Mind blowing Atmos mix and my favorite Yello album as well, although that's probably not shared by most Yello fans. My vote for best Atmos mix period).

*John Williams* in Vienna (Atmos live concert with video footage of his movie music hits performed live in Vienna, Austria. There's also an audio only set of tracks. All are in Atmos, but of the live "hall" variety)

*Hans Zimmer* - Live in Prague (Atmos live concert of Hans Zimmer and company performing his movie music hits)

Church Music
*Himmelborgen* & *Himmelrand* (Two Atmos & Auro-3D Blu-Rays of hymnal organ music from a Norwegian church dedication)

Jazz
*Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band* - The Gordian Knot (Great Atmos big band style jazz mix)
Bernie Dresel - Bern Bern Bern (Great Jazz big band Auro-3D album)

Motown Style
George McCrae - LOVE (Auro-3D album with a very good mix)


----------



## MagnumX

I finally watched *The Matrix IV - Resurrections* in Dolby Atmos. I saw it at the theater last December in 7.1 with buttshaker style seating. I had mixed feelings about the plot, but it seemed to have a fairly immersive mix for 7.1 (very distinctive panning almost to the point whether I questioned if the theater was more than just 7.1). I'd still say the movie was somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd in terms of plot, but I did like it more this time around. I think I'd like it more still if they'd do a director's cut without so many flipping flashbacks. But I noticed a lot more plot snippets this time around ('Bugs' was not easy to understand in the theater in the first part and still not so much here either; she speaks too fast and sounds a bit mumbly) and it didn't seem quite as goofy as it did in the theater. I think it sought to rectify the 3rd movie ending more than anything else and leave the door open for more movies in that Universe. Given the poor box office performance, I find that somewhat unlikely, however.











As for the Atmos sound, I thought it was pretty good overall. The bass could have been a bit stronger (crank LFE a few clicks), but in the scenes that called for it, the sound effects were vastly more immersive sounding than the original movie refit, IMO. Sounds would fly around the room at points a bit like the Dolby demos, but more reserved. Overhead effects were much more noticeable as well. 

If only the movie felt a bit more relevant than a plot correction, it could have been great. Not having two of the major actors reprise their rolls while still using their characters felt weird as well. I think the new Morpheus (even though he's meant to be a "simulation") was a bit over-the-top bombastic while the real Morpheus was much more serious. That didn't feel right either. I think those notes had as much deleterious effect on the movie as too many darn flashbacks. A few changes and the movie probably could have been at least a pretty good movie, but I doubt anything could top the original.

Note to STAFF - Image Controls appear to be broken lately. I cannot delete an image once added (i.e. resized it and added smaller version). It says I do not have permission "to view this page or perform this action" when I hit the *image* _delete_ button. This happened once on my phone a few days ago and now on my full size browser as well.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> That might depend on what type of music you like to listen to.
> 
> These are all great in Atmos, Auro-3D or both and should get your started, at least:
> 
> 
> Pop/Techno/Movie
> 
> *Booka Shade* -> Movements -> Galvany Street -> Dear Future Self (3 very good Atmos album Techno/Techno Pop mixes)
> 
> *Kraftwerk* 3D (There's a 1 BD set and a 4 BD set; the latter has the whole catalog and the video is in 3D video including concert footage that includes video backgrounds and separate video footage versions that just shows the video background footage made for the songs. The 1 BD set is more or less their greatest hits in a concert footage format taken from the other set in 2D video. All of the tracks are in Atmos and sound fantastic).
> 
> *Lichtmond* IV - The Journey (Computer generated 3D video footage + Atmos music; kind of Pink Floyd meets Enigma in style. Lichtmond 3 - Days of Eternity is also great, but it's Auro-3D only).
> 
> *Loreena McKennitt* - The Book of Secrets (Atmos immersive remix of her first folk/pop album; the mix is pretty good on some tracks, more front-heavy on others)
> 
> *Mando Diao* - Aelita (Scandinavian pop duo and a great Auro-3D mix album)
> 
> *Roger Waters* - THE WALL (Atmos live concert and interview/trip footage of Roger visiting the graves of his father and grandfather and discussing the tour. The tour footage is phenomenal and the Atmos sound is fantastic. I only wish the two weren't mixed together).
> 
> *Steven Wilson* - The Future Bites (different sort of rock album for Steven; I like it better than his other stuff personally. Most do not, but the Atmos mix is great either way).
> 
> *Tears For Fears* - The Tipping Point (Surprisingly listenable album that isn't quite as mind blowing as the best songs from Songs From The Big Chair, but no real duds either and a pretty good Atmos mix. They were supposedly doing a 2nd run of Blu-Rays. It's also out there in streaming).
> 
> *Yello* - Point (Mind blowing Atmos mix and my favorite Yello album as well, although that's probably not shared by most Yello fans. My vote for best Atmos mix period).
> 
> *John Williams* in Vienna (Atmos live concert with video footage of his movie music hits performed live in Vienna, Austria. There's also an audio only set of tracks. All are in Atmos, but of the live "hall" variety)
> 
> *Hans Zimmer* - Live in Prague (Atmos live concert of Hans Zimmer and company performing his movie music hits)
> 
> Church Music
> *Himmelborgen* & *Himmelrand* (Two Atmos & Auro-3D Blu-Rays of hymnal organ music from a Norwegian church dedication)
> 
> Jazz
> *Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band* - The Gordian Knot (Great Atmos big band style jazz mix)
> Bernie Dresel - Bern Bern Bern (Great Jazz big band Auro-3D album)
> 
> Motown Style
> George McCrae - LOVE (Auro-3D album with a very good mix)


John Williams and Hans Zimmer for sure. Maybe Tears for Fears and Roger Waters.


----------



## AndreNewman

MagnumX said:


> These are all great in Atmos, Auro-3D or both and should get your started, at least:


Thanks for doing this.

I was just about to ask... and you provided a full summary  

I have the Yello album and the Roger Waters thing (agreed about this one) but I've now got an Auro 3d capable processor and zero Auro 3D material.

Thanks for the shopping list.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I want to give a shout out to Chad B who calibrated my audio/video in my theater room this week. It sounds and looks amazing. I highly recommend Chad and his calibration services. He was prompt, friendly, and made my system look and sound better (I immediately noticed the difference). hdtvbychadb.com is where you can initiate booking.


----------



## Chirosamsung

fredxr2d2 said:


> I want to give a shout out to Chad B who calibrated my audio/video in my theater room this week. It sounds and looks amazing. I highly recommend Chad and his calibration services. He was prompt, friendly, and made my system look and sound better (I immediately noticed the difference). hdtvbychadb.com is where you can initiate booking.


Does he come to Toronto area? I am
Trying to get @D-Nice to come but it's been over a year


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I found this thread linked from another thread I per chanced to read. Given requests before by people on here about what movies use front wides, it seems strange no one has updated this thread in awhile since it had a pretty strong start for listing content with strong front wide material in it. I see the OP was banned at some point, but the thread still seems valid if people want to continue to test/post Front Wide movie results or possibly start a new thread and include their results (summarized on the 2nd to last page I think).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Official Atmos Width Channel Exploiting Thread
> 
> 
> Official Atmos Width-Channel Fetishist's Exploitaition Thread -WOW SCALE Hi Guys, In my opinion the width channel is one of the most emotionally satisfying channels although it appears some rerecording engineers are phoning in their work and on the early releases seems largely unused. So I...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Not much activity on either of those threads since 2020.

lota of people asking but not one single list of movies that use wides despite many many requests over the last 5 years. Kinda like people have just given up on caring or asking...


----------



## fredxr2d2

Chirosamsung said:


> Does he come to Toronto area? I am
> Trying to get @D-Nice to come but it's been over a year


I don't know if Chad ever makes it up North. He's based out of Ohio and I'm in upstate NY. You could always email and find out.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Not much activity on either of those threads since 2020.


That's the point in bringing it back up so if newer users who have access to equipment that can test wides (or are willing to listen to a movie with the other speakers squelched to tell for sure as phantom images can overlap the area on things like Disney soundtracks even if the speakers aren't on). I didn't even know the thread existed. There's a million threads on this site. When they get buried, they become hard to find. The thread started out strong, but part of the problem is most people don't have the equipment to see how much activity is in the Front Wides channels. Other than Disney, they're probably "active" as objects should automatically use them, but if the mixer doesn't move objects by them or enlarge objects to encompass them, they're going to have weak content (as a few of the titles tested suggest).



> lota of people asking but not one single list of movies that use wides despite many many requests over the last 5 years. Kinda like people have just given up on caring or asking...


The idea isn't for everyone who wants to know to "ask" (everyone else to do it for them), but for them to participate with each other to find out. When you watch a movie and notice wides activity, you can add it to the thread. There's a summary on the next to last page that could be built upon.

I'd be curious to know which movies use SS#1 and SS#2, but short of a Trinnov, it's hard to find out. One does assume objects passing by there on non-Disney soundtracks should automatically use them. But it seems like some Trinnov users like @sdrucker have reported little activity in channels like Lc/Rc too and they're right up by the mains so one must assume some of these mixers are going out of their way to make sure they're not used as Atmos would automatically use them if they did objects like they're supposed to, but then I wonder how many of these mixers keep having having 5.1 in mind and keep trying to do things that way despite the newer tools.


----------



## halcyon_888

I watched Uncharted with Atmos, to be honest I didn't notice much Atmos usage except at the end of the movie for a bit. Most of the movie seemed front-heavy going from memory.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I watched Uncharted with Atmos, to be honest I didn't notice much Atmos usage except at the end of the movie for a bit. Most of the movie seemed front-heavy going from memory.


Yeah, there were a few action bits in Uncharted that sounded solid, but the audio never really impressed me overall. I'd agree that it felt pretty front-heavy. I watched The Lost City in Atmos last night and that surprisingly had some decent Atmos use when called for.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> I'd be curious to know which movies use SS#1 and SS#2, but short of a Trinnov, it's hard to find out. One does assume objects passing by there on non-Disney soundtracks should automatically use them. But it seems like some Trinnov users like @sdrucker have reported little activity in channels like Lc/Rc too and they're right up by the mains so one must assume some of these mixers are going out of their way to make sure they're not used as Atmos would automatically use them if they did objects like they're supposed to, but then I wonder how many of these mixers keep having having 5.1 in mind and keep trying to do things that way despite the newer tools.


I know I've seen some with SS1, at least for more aggressive Atmos mixes. For Lc/Rc, I've paid some attention and off the top of my head I think of the pod chase in Oblivion, some scenes in War for the Planet of the Apes, Hunter-Killer, Overlord, and Moonfall*.

Definitely SS1 and Lc/Rc for at least one music release in Atmos - I want to say Luca Turilli's Rhapsody, R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People, and at least one on Apple Spatial Music*. Not Hans Zimmer's live BD from what I remember. I find Lc/Rc used on, of all things, one of The Doors albums that just showed up on Spatial Music in Atmos. It was either Strange Days or The Soft Parade.

Speaking of use of object passthrough, as a thought experiment, I set up a test preset where I shifted my SS1 and SS forward in the Trinnov Speaker Configuration, reset my actual SS as rear surrounds, and used my actual rears (which actually are at about 150 degrees) as Lrs2/Rrs2 to see if I could find movies or music that used them, with remapping off. I actually found a few - Moonfall comes to mind. 

* = tested on Apple TV+ or Spatial Music; not available on shiny disc AFAIK.


----------



## MagnumX

sdrucker said:


> Definitely SS1 and Lc/Rc for at least one music release in Atmos - I want to say Luca Turilli's Rhapsody, R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People, and at least one on Apple Spatial Music*. Not Hans Zimmer's live BD from what I remember. I find Lc/Rc used on, of all things, one of The Doors albums that just showed up on Spatial Music in Atmos. It was either Strange Days or The Soft Parade.


Do you have Yello's album _Point_ or any of the Booka Shade albums (three now, _Movements_, _Galvany Street_ and _Dear Future Self_)? They are the most aggressive sounding Atmos music albums I've heard, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean they're using beyond 7.1.4. I'd be curious to know what the Trinnov would reveal. I think at least some of them are on Apple Music in streaming firm. I only have Atmos music Blu-rays here.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Do you have Yello's album _Point_ or any of the Booka Shade albums (three now, _Movements_, _Galvany Street_ and _Dear Future Self_)? They are the most aggressive sounding Atmos music albums I've heard, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean they're using beyond 7.1.4. I'd be curious to know what the Trinnov would reveal. I think at least some of them are on Apple Music in streaming firm. I only have Atmos music Blu-rays here.


I have Point and Dear Future Self bookmarked on Spatial Audio (which I tend to call "Spatial Music") in Atmos. I might take a look tonight and see, but I think they do go beyond 7.1.4. They're definitely active mixes with objects.


----------



## cricket9998

I don’t understand the discussion about atmos mixes using only TF/TR vs top middle etc. isn’t the point of atmos to be object based and let the avr decide where to play the sound?


----------



## mrtickleuk

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t understand the discussion about atmos mixes using only TF/TR vs top middle etc. isn’t the point of atmos to be object based and let the avr decide where to play the sound?


Yes, but some Atmos mixes use objects which are in "fixed positions" effectively at the TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR speaker locations, in a completely misguided attempt to guarantee that it sounds the same regardless of whether you have 4 or 6 ceiling speakers. This is commonly referred to as a "print out" Atmos track (since the choices of which speakers play which sounds was stolen from the AVR's Atmos renderer and instead made back in the studio by the sound mixer), misses the whole point of what Atmos is about, and leaves the people with 6 ceiling speakers feeling cheated as the top middle speakers remain silent throughout.

It's purely a choice made during the production stage and there's nothing the end-user can do about it, other than campaigning.


----------



## sdurani

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t understand the discussion about atmos mixes using only TF/TR vs top middle etc. isn’t the point of atmos to be object based and let the avr decide where to play the sound?


Yes, aside from adding a height layer, the other main point of Atmos was object-based audio. However, one of the options in the Atmos *en*coder is the ability to "pre-render" an object-based mix to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 fixed speaker locations, which some studios (Disney especially) have been taking advantage of. Defeats the scalability promised with object-based audio.


----------



## cricket9998

sdurani said:


> Yes, aside from adding a height layer, the other main point of Atmos was object-based audio. However, one of the options in the Atmos *en*coder is the ability to "pre-render" an object-based mix to 7.1.4 or 7.1.2 fixed speaker locations, which some studios (Disney especially) have been taking advantage of. Defeats the scalability promised with object-based audio.





mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, but some Atmos mixes use objects which are in "fixed positions" effectively at the TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR speaker locations, in a completely misguided attempt to guarantee that it sounds the same regardless of whether you have 4 or 6 ceiling speakers. This is commonly referred to as a "print out" Atmos track (since the choices of which speakers play which sounds was stolen from the AVR's Atmos renderer and instead made back in the studio by the sound mixer), misses the whole point of what Atmos is about, and leaves the people with 6 ceiling speakers feeling cheated as the top middle speakers remain silent throughout.
> 
> It's purely a choice made during the production stage and there's nothing the end-user can do about it, other than campaigning.


Thanks that makes sense. I assume Dolby did that to incentivize people to adopt it but it’s pretty annoying. I remember reading how Disney has the worst atmos mixes. Hopefully it stops soon.


----------



## mrtickleuk

cricket9998 said:


> Thanks that makes sense. I assume Dolby did that to incentivize people to adopt it but it’s pretty annoying. I remember reading how Disney has the worst atmos mixes. Hopefully it stops soon.


No it's not Dolby doing it at all, Dolby's demos are done properly. It's the movie studios. And they are very tight-lipped as to why.


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, but some Atmos mixes use objects which are in "fixed positions" effectively at the TFL, TFR, TRL, TRR speaker locations, in a completely misguided attempt to guarantee that it sounds the same regardless of whether you have 4 or 6 ceiling speakers.


That's the irony, though. It won't sound the same in larger setups or ones that need less angular separation as 70 degrees is reportedly the limit of angular distance between speakers where phantom imaging can fully manifest according to the Wend Carlos wen site on Quad and Surround Sound.






Wendy Carlos Surround1


The Official Wendy Carlos Surround Sound Page.;Write Wendy" Maildrop.



www.wendycarlos.com





Now that site is pre-Atmos so it's not clear if the 70 degree limit is azimuth specific or may include elevation angles as well. Even the 4-speaker based "Tops" that are often preferred for better overhead imaging compared to "Heights" (technically 45 degrees is either/or according to Dolby) are still 90 degrees apart in elevation terms, suggesting Top Middle may have solidifying value for both "Tops" and "Heights". 

Certainly, I can confirm the vastly stronger direct overhead imaging I get from an extracted Top Middle that works with everything including those Disney soundtracks. Without it, Heights in the 20-35 range are very weak directly overhead, particularly if you sit exactly between them. With Top Middle, the angular distance between even 20 degree heights is reduced to 70 degrees which is stable and perhaps not coincidentally the exact limit recommended by Dolby for overheads with Top Middle present.

A full Atmos complement would include 24 ear height speakers nominally 15 degrees apart. That would be very solid phantom imaging indeed as well as very strong in the off-axis seating front-to-back, but even that setup could be hamstrung by a lack of "center" speakers in the surround part of the room (one area where Auro-3D and DTS:X's support of Center Height and Top Surround support give it a clear advantage in the overhead layer, at least).

Thus, even just not sitting directly centered in an Atmos setup can end up sounding very "different". So in my opinion, locking 7.1.4 to make it "sound the same" would be very misguided indeed. The whole point of the renderer making the decision is to make it sound as good as it can sound with a particular layout. The object positioning should guide the renderer not the mixer's hand on old fashioned pan-pot knobs.


----------



## crutzulee

Just watched, THE NORTHMAN on VOD,- not going to debate bitrates etc, but the 4K HDR/ ATMOS presentation was stellar. Movies like this are why I built my theatre!
The ATMOS track has plenty of in your head moments and immersion with fantastic bass. My 4 subs and tactile transducers were well fed.... and it was a pretty decent flick to boot..


----------



## crutzulee

Chirosamsung said:


> Does he come to Toronto area? I am
> Trying to get @D-Nice to come but it's been over a year


There's a guy over on bluray.com that goes by the name SAPIENDUT that is Toronto based that is certified and well regarded.

I will probably be using him at some point in the future when I finish the next round of tinkering in my cave. 

The inlaws are coming back from Florida in less than 2 weeks and they'll be bringing with them all the stuff I bought off of members here and had shipped to them (SPYDER 5, MINIDSP and a JVC 3D emmitter with 8 pairs of glasses).

If today's screening of THE NORTHMAN is any indication, I'll be hard pressed to do better than what I've accomplished with test discs, an SPL meter and the AUDESSEY app....but I'm happy to give her a go with the new toys when they arrive.... and then book an appointment and learn something from a pro..


----------



## petetherock

Ok, here's another in the long line of big dumb fun:
Resident Evil, Welcome To Raccoon City -
Somehow the producers couldn't decide if this was a thriller, horror or just a scifi show and decided to blend all three in for the reboot. Throw in protagonists with nostalgic names and plenty of references to the older show, classic slow moving zombies instead of the more modern fast moving varieties - and somehow they all look more like chemo patients sadly then bonafide zombies.
But don't let that get you down, because the sound track is a surround fest. As you can expect with many moments of impending doom to keep your heart rate up, the sound track is the highlight and does not disappoint. Plenty of sound movement across, above, behind and more. Your subs will be busy too, so either rent it, or wait for a sale and get it as a demo show. Just pretend the zombies ate your brains too..


----------



## Visconti12

crutzulee said:


> Just watched, THE NORTHMAN on VOD,- not going to debate bitrates etc, but the 4K HDR/ ATMOS presentation was stellar. Movies like this are why I built my theatre!
> The ATMOS track has plenty of in your head moments and immersion with fantastic bass. My 4 subs and tactile transducers were well fed.... and it was a pretty decent flick to boot..


"I will avenge you, father. I will save you, mother. I will kill you, Fjölnir"


----------



## halcyon_888

I have the The Lord of the Rings 1080p extended edition versions and watched The Fellowship of the Ring today with the DTS NeuralX upmixer, and I wasn't impressed. There were only a couple of times in a 3+ hour movie that it activated the heights, otherwise the heights were used to expand the soundstage but even that was minimal. 

Has anyone watched The Lord of the Rings movies with Atmos? Comments?


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I have the The Lord of the Rings 1080p extended edition versions and watched The Fellowship of the Ring today with the DTS NeuralX upmixer, and I wasn't impressed. There were only a couple of times in a 3+ hour movie that it activated the heights, otherwise the heights were used to expand the soundstage but even that was minimal.
> 
> Has anyone watched The Lord of the Rings movies with Atmos? Comments?


I've got the extended 4K streaming Atmos on iTunes (Extended BDs with 6.1 DTS) and The Hobbit as well (3D BD and 4K Atmos streaming), but have not watched any yet, not even 3D video or 6.1 BDs despite buying them years ago because they're too damn long.

I've seen the extended DVDs and the rest at the theater and the original BDs (not extended) and as good as they are, the only one I like to watch multiple times is the Fellowship of the Rings. I have been meaning to check the Atmos versions out, but 4 hours for one extended movie is rough... Even a Harry Potter movie of that length would be rough. But I hate watching in parts too.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I've got the extended 4K streaming Atmos on iTunes (Extended BDs with 6.1 DTS) and The Hobbit as well (3D BD and 4K Atmos streaming), but have not watched any yet, not even 3D video or 6.1 BDs despite buying them years ago because they're too damn long.
> 
> I've seen the extended DVDs and the rest at the theater and the original BDs (not extended) and as good as they are, the only one I like to watch multiple times is the Fellowship of the Rings. I have been meaning to check the Atmos versions out, but 4 hours and 45 minutes for one extended movie is rough... Even a Harry Potter movie of that length would be rough. But I hate watching in parts too.


I watched the first one in the theaters when it came out but I fell asleep, I didn't have any appreciation for the movies back then. But years later I watched the extended edition DVDs over a friend's house one weekend who had a dedicated home theater and killer bass. I was blown away by the movies and thought they were the best movies I've ever seen. The last time I watched them was about 8 years ago, but now I have a better TV (75 inch) with better colors, a better blu-ray player, a better processor, and height speakers. I also did custom BassEQs for all three movies after ripping them. So I wanted to watch them again and the picture quality of them was better than I remember, albeit my player is upscaling the 1080p to 4k but my TV is now better too. Honestly I was expecting more from the DTS Neural X upmixer, this was the first time that I've been underwhelmed with it. I was thinking about buying the 4k versions of the movies but I've seen screenshot comparisons to the blu-ray 1080p and I don't like how they changed the color timing of the movies in the 4k. Next weekend I'll watch The Two Towers, but yea The Return of the King extended edition is 4 hours long minus the end credits! I still love these movies though


----------



## halcyon_888

Okay I watched The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers extended edition 1080p blu-ray tonight and the DTS Neural:X upmixer did a good job with this movie. Sans the odd moments where horses breath would show up in the heights, it did a good job with the Nazgul flyers and a thunder effect in one scene. There were more overhead moments but these stood out to me


----------



## regster

halcyon_888 said:


> Okay I watched The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers extended edition 1080p blu-ray tonight and the DTS Neural:X upmixer did a good job with this movie. Sans the odd moments where horses breath would show up in the heights, it did a good job with the Nazgul flyers and a thunder effect in one scene. There were more overhead moments but these stood out to me


I’m a fan of the series. Seen them at the theaters and have the 4k trilogy for LOTR and the Hobbit. It’s been awhile since I watched both to refer to any specific scenes but the Atmos tracks are pretty good, dialogue clarity especially imo(used all 6 height channels on my setup, that might be a bias😊) PQ is also really good on my OLED, but you have to like HFR.

On a different note, the last movie I have seen that had really good Atmos is “OLD” its a snoozer for me, but the soundtrack got me engaged, unlike Moonfall which had a great immersive atmos track with all the action and sound coming from everywhere. This is more subtle (like A Quiet Place) where you can distinguish discrete sounds from the height channels. Near the end the helicopter sound moved from TR - TM - TF on the left side.


----------



## crutzulee

halcyon_888 said:


> Okay I watched The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers extended edition 1080p blu-ray tonight and the DTS Neural:X upmixer did a good job with this movie. Sans the odd moments where horses breath would show up in the heights, it did a good job with the Nazgul flyers and a thunder effect in one scene. There were more overhead moments but these stood out to me


My first amp with ceiling channels was an ONKYO . With it, I had determined that I preferred the DSU over NeuralX because I felt that the latter often sounded gimmicky with what I perceived to be too aggressive an approach to placing info above the MLP.

When I upgraded to 4 height channels with my DENON, I simply carried over this bias and chose Dolby as the default upmixer for all my non native content. 
While I've been happy with this, I've always wondered whether or not I should be giving DTS a second shot with the new amp. I see you have a MARANTZ, which I believe has the same parent company as DENON. Even though you liked the experience as a whole, hearing unnatural sounds from above, even sporadically, would be a deal breaker for me. 

I just can't sit through any of the LOTR movies again but you've made me think that I should try NeuralX again on some lighter fare.


----------



## MagnumX

I wonder how Neural X compares with Heights versus Tops. I've never really noticed any weird sounds on the ceiling, but when you start at 45 or 55 degrees instead of 25-35 degrees (or 45 versus 65 if you want to take the studio DTS numbers approach rather than Dolby position setups), it's possibly going to seem a bit more aggressive as sounds that might be near the top of the screen here could be halfway to the listening position on the ceiling starting higher up, particularly if you set the AVR to the "Heights" setting to get rid of leakage that's meant to place images lower on such systems.

I've certainly never heard a car on the ceiling with Neural X, but I have heard golf balls hitting the roof up there (Newer Magnum PI episode in 5.1), plenty of helicopters, thunder rolls and fireworks and even Sean Bean's voice in Goldeneye coming over the intercom just like in the new actual Atmos No Time to Die movie with the ear pieces (slightly forward 1/4 into room rather than 90 degrees overhead, but definitely on the ceiling.

My front heights start at 25 degrees sitting, closer to 30 reclined with Top Middle at 110 and rear heights around 22 relative to the front row. That's all 100% Dolby spec foe 6 overhead elevation in heights mode, but I'm not sure where Sean Bean's voice would be with Tops starting higher up on the ceiling. 110 mixed with 25 would pull it towards the MLP more than 90, but starting at 45 or even 55 is at or past that point so I'm guessing closer to 65 or 75 degrees.


----------



## halcyon_888

crutzulee said:


> My first amp with ceiling channels was an ONKYO . With it, I had determined that I preferred the DSU over NeuralX because I felt that the latter often sounded gimmicky with what I perceived to be too aggressive an approach to placing info above the MLP.
> 
> When I upgraded to 4 height channels with my DENON, I simply carried over this bias and chose Dolby as the default upmixer for all my non native content.
> While I've been happy with this, I've always wondered whether or not I should be giving DTS a second shot with the new amp. I see you have a MARANTZ, which I believe has the same parent company as DENON. Even though you liked the experience as a whole, hearing unnatural sounds from above, even sporadically, would be a deal breaker for me.
> 
> I just can't sit through any of the LOTR movies again but you've made me think that I should try NeuralX again on some lighter fare.


I just watched the last LOTR movie, The Return of the King extended edition and it's 4 hours long without credits 😆 Regarding the horses breath in the 2nd movie, it was mainly in the floor channels but some of it bled into the heights. In the 3rd movie there were times where sounds bled into the heights, but then there were moments where it was totally appropriate. The Dolby upmixer is less aggressive as you've noted and I used to only use the DSU but have come to like what NeuralX does on most content, warts and all. I will use the Dolby upmixer on 2 channel content because NeuralX has bled dialogue into the heights too often even for my taste. It seems that NeuralX is more suited for 5.1/7.1 content than 2 channel.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I just watched the last LOTR movie, The Return of the King extended edition and it's 4 hours long without credits 😆 Regarding the horses breath in the 2nd movie, it was mainly in the floor channels but some of it bled into the heights. In the 3rd movie there were times where sounds bled into the heights, but then there were moments where it was totally appropriate. The Dolby upmixer is less aggressive as you've noted and I used to only use the DSU but have come to like what NeuralX does on most content, warts and all. I will use the Dolby upmixer on 2 channel content because NeuralX has bled dialogue into the heights too often even for my taste. It seems that NeuralX is more suited for 5.1/7.1 content than 2 channel.


So when you say dialog bleeds into the height channels, how do you hear that? Two separate sounds? I purposely mix dialog and even the front soundstage into the heights (to ~1/3 screen height) so that it sounds more Iike the speakers are behind the screen instead of under it so I fail to understand how a little "bleed" in most systems is causing anything unpleasant. My screen is tall so it'd take a hell of a lot of bleed to get dialog to the top near the ceiling and yet even there it's still _on_ the screen (my screen tops out just below the ceiling).


----------



## crutzulee

Watched MORBIUS last night with my kids. It was laughably craptacular as one would expect. The ATMOS track, although compressed in the stream, was quite impressive with loads of height activity...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> Watched MORBIUS last night with my kids. It was laughably craptacular as one would expect. The ATMOS track, although compressed in the stream, was quite impressive with loads of height activity...


Agreed. Impressive sound for an expectedly lackluster movie. But worth a spin if you're bored.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> So when you say dialog bleeds into the height channels, how do you hear that? Two separate sounds? I purposely mix dialog and even the front soundstage into the heights (to ~1/3 screen height) so that it sounds more Iike the speakers are behind the screen instead of under it so I fail to understand how a little "bleed" in most systems is causing anything unpleasant. My screen is tall so it'd take a hell of a lot of bleed to get dialog to the top near the ceiling and yet even there it's still _on_ the screen (my screen tops out just below the ceiling).


With the dialogue bleed with 2 channel content the DTS upmixer picked up the "S", "SH", "CH" sounds from their speech--basically "whispy" sounds--then placed those into the heights. It was pretty obvious it shouldn't be placed there and it was a bit distracting. It occurred on the show Grantchester which was 2 channel, but I also got it on another show I was streaming at the time but I don't recall the name of that one. It might have been Endeavor, the first few seasons of it were in 2 channel. The later seasons were 5.1 and I didn't get dialogue bleed using the DTS upmixer on those.


----------



## MagnumX

I was looking at Trinnov's site and noticed they appear to have an on-screen display for basic functions coming some time this year. I'm kind of surprised to see it after all these years. 

I also wonder if their +4 channels free upgrade (taking the 32 to up to 36 channels without the 48 add-on unit) has anything to do with the rumors of DSU and/or the updated Atmos renderer supporting TS and possibly CH in the near future (giving it 36 possible channels). It was someone from Trinnov that first hinted at TS (VOG) support from Dolby in the next iteration. I've heard no rumors about surround height support (38 channels?), but certainly for Imax over Atmos CH in particular would be useful.


----------



## filmgeek47

Is the Audiosource amp100vs still the go to recommendation for an inexpensive height channels amp? I’m ideally looking for something with variable input gain.


----------



## chi_guy50

filmgeek47 said:


> Is the Audiosource amp100vs still the go to recommendation for an inexpensive height channels amp? I’m ideally looking for something with variable input gain.


I formerly had a couple of AMP100's for my height speakers and they did the trick. That is now an older model (the newer one is the AMP102VS), but either one is still a good option with the advantages of low price, small footprint, and cool-running energy efficiency.

Dayton Audio also has a very similar amp, the APA102BT, which adds Bluetooth capability.


----------



## halcyon_888

chi_guy50 said:


> I formerly had a couple of AMP100's for my height speakers and they did the trick. That is now an older model (the newer one is the AMP102VS), but either one is still a good option with the advantages of low price, small footprint, and cool-running energy efficiency.
> 
> Dayton Audio also has a very similar amp, the APA102BT, which adds Bluetooth capability.


I have the APA102BT that is currently powering my computer speakers. The first one was sent back as a return because out of the box it had something rattling inside of it like a nut or something, then over time it developed a louder and louder hiss coming through the speakers. The second one I received doesn't output stereo correctly on the "A" speaker selection, it's hard to describe but it sounds like reverse stereo. I tried everything: switching L/R RCA inputs, L/R speaker outputs, swapping negative and positive on the speakers. Nothing worked. So I switched everything to the "B" speaker selection and everything works as normal. I didn't return this one because I'll never have more than one pair of speakers hooked up to the amp. The point is that I would normally recommend the Dayton APA102BT as an alternative to the AMP102VS, but my personal experience with the Dayton has been pretty bad with the model.


----------



## filmgeek47

Thanks! Anyone know if it’s safe/advisable to stack a pair of the audiosource amps?


----------



## chi_guy50

filmgeek47 said:


> Thanks! Anyone know if it’s safe/advisable to stack a pair of the audiosource amps?


Absolutely. I had three of them (AMP100s) stacked at one point. 

These amps are lightweight and do not generate much heat, but whatever additional breathing room you can give them is just added protection for the electronics' longevity. If space allows, I can recommend adding some amplifier foot pads such as these.


----------



## Duke_Sweden

Hey guys, new to Dolby ATMOS here. I just bought a pair of Klipsch Dolby ATMOS upfiring speakers today to go with my Denon AVR-S960H. I'm getting sound from the speakers but not the "ATMOS Effect". I can hear the sound coming from the speakers, not overhead. Using content with ATMOS TrueHD sound, but I've only seen ATMOS on the AVR's display panel once, and not while watching the content. Am I to assume that you don't just plug them in and let 'er rip? Is there any tweaking that needs to be done? One other thing, I have a vaulted ceiling in my Home Theater. It's 10' on the right side, rising to 15' on the left, and ending up at 20' on the far left of the room. I know what you're thinking, this guy's a friggin' lunatic. Humor me, won't you? ;-)


----------



## niterida

Duke_Sweden said:


> Hey guys, new to Dolby ATMOS here. I just bought a pair of Klipsch Dolby ATMOS upfiring speakers today to go with my Denon AVR-S960H. I'm getting sound from the speakers but not the "ATMOS Effect". I can hear the sound coming from the speakers, not overhead. Using content with ATMOS TrueHD sound, but I've only seen ATMOS on the AVR's display panel once, and not while watching the content. Am I to assume that you don't just plug them in and let 'er rip? Is there any tweaking that needs to be done? One other thing, I have a vaulted ceiling in my Home Theater. It's 10' on the right side, rising to 15' on the left, and ending up at 20' on the far left of the room. I know what you're thinking, this guy's a friggin' lunatic. Humor me, won't you? ;-)


Not a lunatic but close - upfiring will absolutely not work with that ceiling. As in no way, not even close, don't bother, wasting your time etc etc. 

But aside from that - have you told your AVR you have height speakers in the setup menu ?


----------



## Snakeyeskm

Bouncy Atmos speakers are designed for flat ceilings. I would return the speakers and use height speakers on the walls to get the Atmos effect. Alternatively, you could try to use spacers under the speakers to change the angle and try to get a reflection on your main listening position. I doubt if this would work too easily, given the slope of your ceiling.


----------



## MagnumX

So I watched _The Empire Strikes Back_ with the 70mm 6-channel soundtrack from 1980, the 35mm Dolby Stereo soundtrack, the more recent 6.1 DTS soundtrack upmixed with Neural X and so far about 1/2 of the newest Dolby Atmos soundtrack (getting too sleepy). The 70mm soundtrack is quite good, vastly better than the 35mm stereo one even upmixed with Neural X. The 6.1 soundtrack upmixed was even better. Now Atmos is a bit of a quandary. Some things are better, but it seemed to mostly use Top Middle for overhead effects and there were some strange moments. 

For example, compare about 43 minutes into the film when the swamp creature spits R2D2 out. In the 70mm/35mm soundtracks, R2 "screams" in the center channel vicinity, perhaps slightly raised with Neural X. In the DTS 6.1 soundtrack with Neural X, R2 screams off to the left of the left main and flies upward overhead diagonally across the ceiling to somewhere behind me, slightly to the right. 

On the Atmos soundtrack, however, R2 starts somewhere over there on the left, but then his "scream" dips massively in volume and is only half there as he flies a similar path overhead, perhaps more to the straight middle behind me, but it's harder to tell since R2 is MUFFLED overhead half the time in flight. WTF happened there? Atmos isn't supposed to lose any sounds, just move them, so what happened to R2's scream noise? Either the mixing guy screwed it up somehow or perhaps it was there in the Front Height of the original OBJECT MIX they made, but then they did a "Home" downmix to only use 7.1.2 and because of the straight channel conversion, R2 literally just disappears (lowers in volume as he goes up in height) in the Front Height vicinity and then reappears as his vector approaches Top Middle and then falls to the ground. Since most of the "scream" is at the start point, a good chunk of it is just plain lost as a <1/2 sound in the process. 

This just a guess, but I just get the feeling that they did do a proper Atmos mix and then FUDGED IT UP with the "home" technique of making Atmos into a joke by wiping out the front/rear heights and only leaving Top Middle. I noticed something similar with a tie fighter flying straight out towards the screen. There was literally no overhead sound until the point where you'd expect it to be directly overhead and then it just appears in the Top Middle speakers. WTF was it in the Front Heights? It's not there because it's not using Front Heights. It's .2 only. But I think it DOES use Front Heights, but it's just CUT OUT for this "locked channel" mix that is only 7.1.2. You only hear a bit of in the lower speakers and then suddenly it's screaming overhead in Top Middle. It _should_ have been screaming all along in Front Height panning to Top Middle and I think the lack of volume shows that they did make a proper Atmos soundtrack and then FUXORED it on purpose to only one set of channels overhead, but unlike Ready Player One and Saving Private Ryan, some of the effects get "chopped" up a bit. The real question is whether we'll ever get to hear the TRUE Atmos soundtracks for both Ready Player One and Star Wars. Maybe on the 8K editions??? Probably not.


----------



## Duke_Sweden

niterida said:


> Not a lunatic but close - upfiring will absolutely not work with that ceiling. As in no way, not even close, don't bother, wasting your time etc etc.
> 
> But aside from that - have you told your AVR you have height speakers in the setup menu ?


ok, thanks for confirming I'm a lunatic.


----------



## Duke_Sweden

Snakeyeskm said:


> Bouncy Atmos speakers are designed for flat ceilings. I would return the speakers and use height speakers on the walls to get the Atmos effect. Alternatively, you could try to use spacers under the speakers to change the angle and try to get a reflection on your main listening position. I doubt if this would work too easily, given the slope of your ceiling.


Thanks for the advice. Cheers!


----------



## Duke_Sweden

Tried changing the angle. Slightly better. When I checked Best Buy height vs. upfiring they showed the same speakers I got as being height speakers so that doesn't help. Anyway, it's lunch time! Oh, and the AVR defaulted to dolby surround when it should have been dolby front. I changed it, it just seems to bring the overall volume down. Found a youtube how to on setting up dolby speakers so I'll check that out in a bit.


----------



## Duke_Sweden

Duke_Sweden said:


> Tried changing the angle. Slightly better. When I checked Best Buy height vs. upfiring they showed the same speakers I got as being height speakers so that doesn't help. Anyway, it's lunch time! Oh, and the AVR defaulted to dolby surround when it should have been dolby front. I changed it, it just seems to bring the overall volume down. Found a youtube how to on setting up dolby speakers so I'll check that out in a bit.


The youtube video didn't tell me anything I already figured out for myself. Anyway, I'm thinking of mounting my upfiring speakers high on my wall with the speaker pointing down towards my listening position. Can I do that or do they have to be specifically "height" speakers?


----------



## BlueMan Jones

Duke_Sweden said:


> The youtube video didn't tell me anything I already figured out for myself. Anyway, I'm thinking of mounting my upfiring speakers high on my wall with the speaker pointing down towards my listening position. Can I do that or do they have to be specifically "height" speakers?


Nope. They can be regular speakers. The "benefit" that height speakers have is that they are designed so that the cones point at the listening area when the backs of the speakers are flat against the wall which makes installation simpler. If you go with, say, bookshelf speakers, you'll have to angle them yourself. Not impossible by no means, but not as easy as hanging a speaker on a nail in the wall.

If those Klipsch's that you have are the RP-500SA's then they are angled so all you pretty much have to do is hang them on the wall unless the distance between the wall and the main listening position is so great, or short, that the cone direction comes nowhere close to the MLP.


----------



## Duke_Sweden

BlueMan Jones said:


> Nope. They can be regular speakers. The "benefit" that height speakers have is that they are designed so that the cones point at the listening area when the backs of the speakers are flat against the wall which makes installation simpler. If you go with, say, bookshelf speakers, you'll have to angle them yourself. Not impossible by no means, but not as easy as hanging a speaker on a nail in the wall.
> 
> If those Klipsch's that you have are the RP-500SA's then they are angled so all you pretty much have to do is hang them on the wall unless the distance between the wall and the main listening position is so great, or short, that the cone direction comes nowhere close to the MLP.


Hey thanks for the response. Yep, they're actually R-41-SA's but they're angled. Can I use these? If so I'll be hanging them tomorrow after I get up the strength to carry my ladder upstairs. Thanks again for the info. You've made my day. Cheers!


----------



## niterida

Duke_Sweden said:


> Hey thanks for the response. Yep, they're actually R-41-SA's but they're angled. Can I use these? If so I'll be hanging them tomorrow after I get up the strength to carry my ladder upstairs. Thanks again for the info. You've made my day. Cheers!


Did you really need to ask that question - 2 secs on Dr Google : R-41SA Dolby Atmos Elevation / Surround Speaker - BLK/GNM | Klipsch


----------



## BlueMan Jones

Duke_Sweden said:


> Hey thanks for the response. Yep, they're actually R-41-SA's but they're angled. Can I use these? If so I'll be hanging them tomorrow after I get up the strength to carry my ladder upstairs. Thanks again for the info. You've made my day. Cheers!


Yes. You can use these.


----------



## Goname31

To stay on subject, I just finished season 3 of Love Death Robot. That was a treat, for the eyes, the mind and of course the ears. Much better than S2, S1 quality. The Swamp and the David Fincher one were extraordinary.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Duke_Sweden said:


> Hey thanks for the response. Yep, they're actually R-41-SA's but they're angled. Can I use these? If so I'll be hanging them tomorrow after I get up the strength to carry my ladder upstairs. Thanks again for the info. You've made my day. Cheers!


Make sure you tell the AVR that the speakers are to be used as height or top speakers and not Dolby enabled. Also make sure if the speaker has a switch that it’s in the correct position for the placement.


----------



## squared80

Duke_Sweden said:


> Hey guys, new to Dolby ATMOS here. I just bought a pair of Klipsch Dolby ATMOS upfiring speakers today to go with my Denon AVR-S960H. I'm getting sound from the speakers but not the "ATMOS Effect". I can hear the sound coming from the speakers, not overhead. Using content with ATMOS TrueHD sound, but I've only seen ATMOS on the AVR's display panel once, and not while watching the content. Am I to assume that you don't just plug them in and let 'er rip? Is there any tweaking that needs to be done? One other thing, I have a vaulted ceiling in my Home Theater. It's 10' on the right side, rising to 15' on the left, and ending up at 20' on the far left of the room. I know what you're thinking, this guy's a friggin' lunatic. Humor me, won't you? ;-)


The way to get the Atmos effect is to use *in-ceiling speakers*. Speakers that bounce sounds off the ceiling don't work very well, and you really need a ceiling that is 8' or lower to notice them. But they sure do a good job of marketing them, don't they.


----------



## dschulz

squared80 said:


> The way to get the Atmos effect is to use *in-ceiling speakers*. Speakers that bounce sounds off the ceiling don't work very well, and you really need a ceiling that is 8' or lower to notice them. But they sure do a good job of marketing them, don't they.


I don't know how this idea took such hold, but it's simply not true. Their use case is, as you say, a relatively low ceiling, and the ceiling needs to be flat and with no obstructions (ceiling fans, etc). In that circumstance, Atmos Enabled speakers that bounce sound off the ceiling can work very, very well.

In-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers are definitely preferred, and in the case of the original query regarding a cathedral ceiling with slanted ceilings Atmos Enabled won't work at all, but they can be very effective for their intended use.


----------



## New2Sounds

dschulz said:


> I don't know how this idea took such hold, but it's simply not true. Their use case is, as you say, a relatively low ceiling, and the ceiling needs to be flat and with no obstructions (ceiling fans, etc). In that circumstance, Atmos Enabled speakers that bounce sound off the ceiling can work very, very well.
> 
> In-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers are definitely preferred, and in the case of the original query regarding a cathedral ceiling with slanted ceilings Atmos Enabled won't work at all, but they can be very effective for their intended use.


I agree with you ! Yes,If you want true atmos the ceiling speakers or speakers pointed down at you will be preferable for someone looking for a true atmos sound, but certain Soundbars,like my a7000 with up firing rears can give some very convincing atmos effects! Having low smooth ceilings and a smaller room can sound damn good! Most people who say you can’t get this are dead wrong. If you’re looking for good surround sound and good atmos effect,these can be very convincing and of course convenience is a huge part for people with small rooms who don’t want wires and 5-7 speakers spread around the room! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wardog555

New2Sounds said:


> I agree with you ! Yes,If you want true atmos the ceiling speakers or speakers pointed down at you will be preferable for someone looking for a true atmos sound, but certain Soundbars,like my a7000 with up firing rears can give some very convincing atmos effects! Having low smooth ceilings and a smaller room can sound damn good! Most people who say you can’t get this are dead wrong. If you’re looking for good surround sound and good atmos effect,these can be very convincing and of course convenience is a huge part for people with small rooms who don’t want wires and 5-7 speakers spread around the room!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


wrong by many many accounts. feel free to believe otherwise but its not effective with soundbars and yes its been proven tons and tons of times.


----------



## New2Sounds

Wardog555 said:


> wrong by many many accounts. feel free to believe otherwise but its not effective with soundbars and yes its been proven tons and tons of times.


I was agreeing with dschulz so why don’t you tell him your theory and your scientifically proven ineffectiveness BS! I stopped posting you because all you do is say the same old tired crap over and over!

Regards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markus767

dschulz said:


> I don't know how this idea took such hold, but it's simply not true. Their use case is, as you say, a relatively low ceiling, and the ceiling needs to be flat and with no obstructions (ceiling fans, etc). In that circumstance, Atmos Enabled speakers that bounce sound off the ceiling can work very, very well.
> 
> In-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers are definitely preferred, and in the case of the original query regarding a cathedral ceiling with slanted ceilings Atmos Enabled won't work at all, but they can be very effective for their intended use.


Define "work very, very well". If you mean that Dolby Atmos-enabled (DAE) speakers can add _some_ perception of "spaciousness" in a totally *unpredictable* manner, yes, they do that but they are no replacement for top speakers firing at the listening position. The reasons for that have been posted before:

With DAE speakers a low-passed version of the direct sound reaches the listener first triggering the precedence effect so sound is localized as coming from the speaker location, not the ceiling. The spectrally different reflection from the ceiling can only add some spaciousness.
In 99.9% of all cases the angle of a DAE speaker doesn't correspond with the listening position(s), it would need to be adjustable to create a loud and distinct reflection from the ceiling. As a result there's spectrally distorted direct sound and a spectrally distorted ceiling reflection with unknown level relationship.
Room correction systems get confused by the first low level impulse response peak and the second louder one so time alignment is off more often than not.
When you measure the loudspeaker feeds of a system with DAE speakers you'll notice there's a second bass management system in place that redirects bass from the DAE speaker feed to the corresponding floor speaker underneath. The characteristics of that bass management scheme is less than ideal and additionally butchers the signal.
So if you do want to have *predictable* results from an Atmos mix DAE speakers are no replacement for top speakers in/on the ceiling/wall.

Fun fact, when doing extensive testing with the DAE speaker concept I remember a listening session where I thought "these rain drops coming from above sound damn realistic". When I muted channels to isolate which speakers were playing the sound I found out it was the floor speakers only. No sound was coming from the tops at all.


----------



## squared80

dschulz said:


> I don't know how this idea took such hold, but it's simply not true.


It is true. They can do the job with the right circumstances/setup and if you're seated just right, but they are a significant compromise and _most _users (not all) will be disappointed.


----------



## markus767

squared80 said:


> It is true. They can do the job with the right circumstances/setup and if you're seated just right, but they are a significant compromise and _most _users (not all) will be disappointed.


"Most" users have no idea how these things work and they have no idea what to expect so anything that is different from what they had before is likely considered "good". Sometimes seeing an Atmos logo on their soundbar is enough of a difference


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> In that circumstance, Atmos Enabled speakers that bounce sound off the ceiling can work very, very well.


Been my experience as well the few times I've heard them and/or helped set them up. Myself and other listeners could not only hear sounds above us but also vertical phantom imaging, with some sounds clearly floating between ear height and the ceiling.


----------



## dschulz

markus767 said:


> Define "work very, very well".


The first demo I saw had in-ceiling speakers installed but not activated, and everyone believed they were listening to those until the reveal at the end. I'd call that performing very, very well.

Now that was in a sense a rigged demo, in that the room was calibrated to within an inch of its life, and of course we were all suffering from expectation bias, but you could absolutely hear sounds from the ceiling and objects moving around the room.



> If you mean that Dolby Atmos-enabled (DAE) speakers can add _some_ perception of "spaciousness" in a totally *unpredictable* manner, yes, they do that but they are no replacement for top speakers firing at the listening position. The reasons for that have been posted before...


I am not arguing that DAE are as good as actual ceiling speakers; all of the reasons you delineate are fair to note and why DAE are of course a compromise. But you are speaking as if Dolby has never heard of the precedence effect, or hadn't thought of working with Audyssey to make sure the calibration played nicely with the DAE speakers. If you get the placement right, and have the right sort of room, DAE can do more than give you a sense of vague spaciousness, they truly can give you a good Atmos experience.

I do appreciate your note about reflection angles, and a variable-angle DAE speaker would be a pretty cool product. Hope someone jumps on that.



> Fun fact, when doing extensive testing with the DAE speaker concept I remember a listening session where I thought "these rain drops coming from above sound damn realistic". When I muted channels to isolate which speakers were playing the sound I found out it was the floor speakers only. No sound was coming from the tops at all.


Just to note that this is true if you have actual ceiling speakers as well, a surprising amount of what we think we're hearing from overhead is still coming from the surrounds. This is one reason why I don't get too bent about immersive mixes having the heights active only x% of the time.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Due to several moves, I went from 7.1.4 with in-ceilings to a space where I couldn't do anything but upfirers. Worse, my receiver at the time was one of the early models that didn't have the distance-to-ceiling adjustment to better align the bounce, with Denon applying a delay based on an assumption of an 8-9 foot ceiling. I got 2 of the Pioneer upfirers and was initially unimpressed. But after putting demo clips on a loop and tweaking the delays a bit, I finally heard things overhead. Added 2 more of the upfirers after that and was very happy with how that sounded. Bear in mind that before this, I had both 7.1.4 with on-ceilings and with in-ceilings in another room, so I knew what it was "supposed" to sound like. And other than the upfirers being more generalized, I was impressed with how well they worked.

That said, they required some critical tweaking to work well. And even after I changed to a newer AVR that had the distance-to-ceiling parameter to adjust the delay time to account for the bounce, it still took a bit of tweaking to line things up well. In contrast, in and on-ceiling speakers were far easier to get good results from and just... worked. But ultimately, if you have a flat ceiling and can't put speakers up there, I would still say upfirers are worth doing because some Atmos is better than no Atmos.

Since then, I bought a new house and went back to on-ceiling speakers and obviously, that is much preferred. But upfirers definitely worked well for me for the 2 years I couldn't have speakers on the ceiling.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> The first demo I saw had in-ceiling speakers installed but not activated, and everyone believed they were listening to those until the reveal at the end.


The first demo I got was when Scott Wilkinson took 5 of us AVS members to the Atmos roll-out here in Burbank, where they repeatedly switched between ceiling speakers and upfiring modules so that we could hear the difference instantaneously. The fact that we had something to compare it to made the results all the more impressive.


> I am not arguing that DAE are as good as actual ceiling speakers...


No one is but that is what we are accused of if we've heard upfiring speakers place sounds clearly above ear height.


----------



## davcole

Can I say, The Batman Atmos on disc, way more impressive than on HBO MAX!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## markus767

dschulz said:


> The first demo I saw had in-ceiling speakers installed but not activated, and everyone believed they were listening to those until the reveal at the end. I'd call that performing very, very well.
> 
> Now that was in a sense a rigged demo, in that the room was calibrated to within an inch of its life, and of course we were all suffering from expectation bias, but you could absolutely hear sounds from the ceiling and objects moving around the room.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not arguing that DAE are as good as actual ceiling speakers; all of the reasons you delineate are fair to note and why DAE are of course a compromise. But you are speaking as if Dolby has never heard of the precedence effect, or hadn't thought of working with Audyssey to make sure the calibration played nicely with the DAE speakers. If you get the placement right, and have the right sort of room, DAE can do more than give you a sense of vague spaciousness, they truly can give you a good Atmos experience.
> 
> I do appreciate your note about reflection angles, and a variable-angle DAE speaker would be a pretty cool product. Hope someone jumps on that.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to note that this is true if you have actual ceiling speakers as well, a surprising amount of what we think we're hearing from overhead is still coming from the surrounds. This is one reason why I don't get too bent about immersive mixes having the heights active only x% of the time.





Jeremy Anderson said:


> Due to several moves, I went from 7.1.4 with in-ceilings to a space where I couldn't do anything but upfirers. Worse, my receiver at the time was one of the early models that didn't have the distance-to-ceiling adjustment to better align the bounce, with Denon applying a delay based on an assumption of an 8-9 foot ceiling. I got 2 of the Pioneer upfirers and was initially unimpressed. But after putting demo clips on a loop and tweaking the delays a bit, I finally heard things overhead. Added 2 more of the upfirers after that and was very happy with how that sounded. Bear in mind that before this, I had both 7.1.4 with on-ceilings and with in-ceilings in another room, so I knew what it was "supposed" to sound like. And other than the upfirers being more generalized, I was impressed with how well they worked.
> 
> That said, they required some critical tweaking to work well. And even after I changed to a newer AVR that had the distance-to-ceiling parameter to adjust the delay time to account for the bounce, it still took a bit of tweaking to line things up well. In contrast, in and on-ceiling speakers were far easier to get good results from and just... worked. But ultimately, if you have a flat ceiling and can't put speakers up there, I would still say upfirers are worth doing because some Atmos is better than no Atmos.
> 
> Since then, I bought a new house and went back to on-ceiling speakers and obviously, that is much preferred. But upfirers definitely worked well for me for the 2 years I couldn't have speakers on the ceiling.





sdurani said:


> The first demo I got was when Scott Wilkinson took 5 of us AVS members to the Atmos roll-out here in Burbank, where they repeatedly switched between ceiling speakers and upfiring modules so that we could hear the difference instantaneously. The fact that we had something to compare it to made the results all the more impressive. No one is but that is what we are accused of if we've heard upfiring speakers place sounds clearly above ear height.


While I don't discount that what you've perceived is true my testing came to a very different conclusion. And I didn't do just casual testing but was actually looking into solving the speaker angle issue of current DAE speaker offerings. Several prototypes were built. I didn't proceed because of the mediocre results I got.
Having said that there are several reasons what could cause such a different outcome:

1. Physiological/anatomical differences

DAE also relies on HRTF filtering which is applied on top of an already HRTF filtered sound (because the reflection is coming from above). We know from psychoacoustic studies that individual HRTFs can vary dramatically from person to person. So it's very plausible that some experience a distinct height effect and others don't.
This would also suggest that the ceiling reflection isn't even the main driving factor for the height perception of DAE speakers, the HRTF filter is. The implication is that DAE aren't needed at all.

2. Test was rigged – intentionally or unintentionally

Once the precedence effect has kicked in it's hard for our brain to "let go". We all read about the test where the tester could disconnect one speaker, even show the disconnected cable to the listeners, and sound was still localized in the previously leading speaker and not in the speaker that was actually playing the sound.
Smyth used to do their famous sighted listening sessions where you could switch between headphone and speaker playback and there would be no discernible difference between the two whatsoever. At home things were the opposite though. Without visible speakers there were front-back reversals or externalization could break down completely. At one point they even suggested to hang up fake speaker cones which indeed did help.
So when Dolby was switching between visible speakers and DAE it is very plausible that what was perceived was not really what was heard.
Furthermore it is well known that a presenter can influence the audience's perception significantly – intentionally or unintentionally. That's why double blind test protocols exist.

3. Expectation

Like with many things in consumer audio there's no reference as most people haven't been in the dubbing stage and therefore do not know how a specific Atmos movie mix should sound like. So if there's some height effect from their DAE speakers they are perfectly fine with the results even if it's not nearly the same as what the mixer intended.


Talking about double blind tests, this would probably be the only way to find out why there's such different experiences. But because we're all scattered around the world this probably isn't going to happen.


----------



## dschulz

markus767 said:


> While I don't discount that what you've perceived is true my testing came to a very different conclusion. And I didn't do just casual testing but was actually looking into solving the speaker angle issue of current DAE speaker offerings. Several prototypes were built. I didn't proceed because of the mediocre results I got.
> Having said that there are several reasons what could cause such a different outcome...


I don't really have any quarrel with anything in this post. There is a world of difference, though, between, "DAE is manifestly inferior to properly placed in-or-on ceiling speakers" and "DAE sucks and you shouldn't use it, it's a gimmick"

I guess my question for you is: if I lived in an apartment, with an 8' flat ceiling, with a decent 5.1 system, would it be worth adding 2 or 4 DAE speakers to add Atmos to my system?


----------



## markus767

dschulz said:


> I don't really have any quarrel with anything in this post. There is a world of difference, though, between, "DAE is manifestly inferior to properly placed in-or-on ceiling speakers" and "DAE sucks and you shouldn't use it, it's a gimmick"


Not much of a difference in my experience and the experience of others obviously.



dschulz said:


> I guess my question for you is: if I lived in an apartment, with an 8' flat ceiling, with a decent 5.1 system, would it be worth adding 2 or 4 DAE speakers to add Atmos to my system?


It would be worth adding on/in-ceiling tops.


----------



## priitv8

I started with 2 DAE speakers, later upgraded to 4.
If you have a cuboid-shaped room with low and flat, reflective ceiling, then you will definitely notice the added immersion DAE speakers will give you.
Absolutely worth trying, especially if your ceiling is concrete and you can not drill holes in it.
Personally, I also feel 4 height speakers are far superior to only 2. At least you can get the whole-surface panning across the ceiling.
In a x.x.2 setup, Atmos seems to merge all front-to-back movement together into 2 height speakers, so you will be left with left-to-right panning only.


----------



## halcyon_888

I watched the first two episodes of Obi-Wan and there is some good height usage in the first episode. They even have some of the music playing in the heights to expand the soundstage, which is impressive for a TV show to have such activity. I can't say much about the second episode, I stopped paying attention to the soundtrack and just watched the show. However there was one moment at the end that I thought was a missed opportunity, can't win them all I guess. Still I'd be curious to know what others thought about the mix.


----------



## MagnumX

I failed to get notice that *Pitch Black* in 4K with _Atmos_ from Turbine in Germany arrived last week and needed a signature. It's been rotting at the local post office all this time (good thing I thought to check on its tracking). Anyway, I've got it now and hope to find out tonight what my favorite SciFi Horror movie (well save Tremors if you can call that _horror_) has to offer in overhead spectacle.


----------



## MagnumX

I watched the original 1992 Candyman in Atmos last night (scratches from the factory ruined the 4K theatrical version, but the Unrated 4K and both versions in 1080p, which also have Atmos survived; I'm debating whether to return it for a replacement as it seems over half are scratched up from the factory for some reason based on reports at bluray.com










Anyway, that's the first time I saw the original and based on the 2021 sequel not what I expected in a tangential sort of way, but still pretty good for a horror movie, possibly because Clive Barker wrote the original short story and was a producer on it). That's to say there's lots of story development, not just shock & awe and thus a more enjoyable experience than most for me.

The Atmos soundtrack wasn't exactly demo quality (the 2021 movie has far more jump moments using the overheads on purpose) whereas this one searches for moments to use it and finds it in a scene with a helicopter overhead, lots of creepy music queues that venture upward a lot (soundtrack by Phillip Glass) and intermittent sound effects in several places. It's still a nice improvement over the original 2.0 and later 5.1 tracks, which the former let's you know in the credits it was originally handled in THX by Skywalker Sound. All three soundtracks are included.


----------



## New2Sounds

markus767 said:


> While I don't discount that what you've perceived is true my testing came to a very different conclusion. And I didn't do just casual testing but was actually looking into solving the speaker angle issue of current DAE speaker offerings. Several prototypes were built. I didn't proceed because of the mediocre results I got.
> Having said that there are several reasons what could cause such a different outcome:
> 
> 1. Physiological/anatomical differences
> 
> DAE also relies on HRTF filtering which is applied on top of an already HRTF filtered sound (because the reflection is coming from above). We know from psychoacoustic studies that individual HRTFs can vary dramatically from person to person. So it's very plausible that some experience a distinct height effect and others don't.
> This would also suggest that the ceiling reflection isn't even the main driving factor for the height perception of DAE speakers, the HRTF filter is. The implication is that DAE aren't needed at all.
> 
> 2. Test was rigged – intentionally or unintentionally
> 
> Once the precedence effect has kicked in it's hard for our brain to "let go". We all read about the test where the tester could disconnect one speaker, even show the disconnected cable to the listeners, and sound was still localized in the previously leading speaker and not in the speaker that was actually playing the sound.
> Smyth used to do their famous sighted listening sessions where you could switch between headphone and speaker playback and there would be no discernible difference between the two whatsoever. At home things were the opposite though. Without visible speakers there were front-back reversals or externalization could break down completely. At one point they even suggested to hang up fake speaker cones which indeed did help.
> So when Dolby was switching between visible speakers and DAE it is very plausible that what was perceived was not really what was heard.
> Furthermore it is well known that a presenter can influence the audience's perception significantly – intentionally or unintentionally. That's why double blind tests protocols exist.
> 
> 3. Expectation
> 
> Like with many things in consumer audio there's no reference as most people haven't been in the dubbing stage and therefore do not know how a specific Atmos movie mix should sound like. So if there's some height effect from their DAE speakers they are perfectly fine with the results even if it's not nearly the same as what the mixer intended.
> 
> 
> Talking about double blind tests, this would probably be the only way to find out why there's such different experiences. But because we're all scattered around the world this probably isn't going to happen.


Thank You for your in depth piece on your post.It has been rather enjoyable hearing from someone like yourself who truly digs into the subject rather than just broadly say it’s all “Fakemos”…

Awesome post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

I watched *PITCH BLACK* in 4K _Dolby Atmos_ in the Ultimate Director's Cut Edition from Turbine in Germany here on my 11.1.6 layout.










The set includes a 4K HDR Dolby Vision UHD disc as well as a 1080p Blu-Ray and a Blu-Ray Bonus Material disc. Both the UHD and BD have Dolby Atmos (with its 7.1 base track), the DTS 2.0 HD-MA original stereo track as well as two commentary tracks as well. It also contains German language Atmos tracks as well. The package even includes some movie prop niceties like a uniform patch, ID card for one of the characters and a duplicate of the core sample slip found in the movie. There's a little book (in German), a fold-out movie poster and some kind of Pitch Black cards (I thought they were postcards at first). 

For those somehow unfamiliar with the plot, a transport ship carrying 40 passengers including one rather dangerous prisoner (Riddick) and a mercenary that's trying to cash in on his capture run into a rogue comet which damages the ship, wakes up the crew from cryo-sleep and ultimately causes it to crash on a planet in a trinary system (3 stars). The schtick is that the planet is always daylight due to the three stars (two orbiting each other and one on the other side of the system with a giant Saturn-like planet in-between on one side and another large planet on the other side) except once every 22 years when the orbits align with the other two planets and cause a rather long lasting eclipse and hence "Pitch Black" as the planet roils in darkness and some rather dangerous inhabitants of the planet come out at night. 

The movie never makes it clear how the planet had supported other giant creatures in light of the predators on it. One might assume they are not originally native to the planet or mutated and breed out of control. Whatever the excuse, it puts the crashed survivors in extreme danger while having to worry about the murderer prisoner that is Riddick besides. He can see in the dark via a "shine job" to his eyes (they glow a bit like marbles). Anyway, the movie ingeniously blends Sci-Fi with horror with the uptick that perhaps the most dangerous creature on that planet is Riddick himself.

I also have the previous Arrow 4K release and in terms of compression, it made for slightly larger MKV file when I dumped it for playback on my Zidoo X9S. Thus, one might view the new Turbine release as perhaps containing slightly less resolution (I did not do any direct comparisons; both looked as sharp as my lowly 2K projector could manage with a scaler), but unlike the Arrow release, it includes a brand new Dolby Atmos soundtrack, which is the theme of the forum here.

The first half the movie seemed a little bit disappointing in Atmos terms. There are some clearly music bits above and some surround effects during the spaceship crash and what not that are clearly elevated, but nothing too crazy, making it seem as thought perhaps the 5.1 soundtrack with Neural X applied might have been good enough. However, once the lights go out on the planet, the ceiling lights up instead with loads of overhead Atmos effects. The creatures can fly and make these sonar-like noises to "see" by as their own actual vision is quite poor. These sounds are just all over the place during the final hour and especially prevalent overhead side to side and straight above as well. At one point the things are just flying like made across the ceiling and it would make quite a nice little Atmos demo, I think. I believe this is a marked improvement over the 5.1 soundtrack and makes the darkness all that much more fun to experience.

Overall, I would say this is the best Pitch Black experience to be had and my personal favorite Riddick movie and one of my favorite Sci-Fi horror movies of all time (Event Horizon being the other; I would like an Atmos version of it next please!). It was not a cheap experience at €46 (around $49 at the current US exchange rate, so better than usual), but well worth it if you love this movie and want not only the best picture, but the best soundtrack to go with it.


----------



## Wardog555

halcyon_888 said:


> I watched the first two episodes of Obi-Wan and there is some good height usage in the first episode. They even have some of the music playing in the heights to expand the soundstage, which is impressive for a TV show to have such activity. I can't say much about the second episode, I stopped paying attention to the soundtrack and just watched the show. However there was one moment at the end that I thought was a missed opportunity, can't win them all I guess. Still I'd be curious to know what others thought about the mix.


I have a different opinion. There was only one instance that I recognized that was overhead. Apart from that I was disappointed!


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Anyway, that's the first time I saw the original and based on the 2021 sequel not what I expected in a tangential sort of way, but still pretty good for a horror movie, possibly because Clive Barker wrote the original short story and was a producer on it).


The movie has next to nothing to do with the original short story. It's basically an in-name-only adaptation with a few details tweaked (such as calling the villain Candyman). I don't believe Barker was directly involved in the production either. His producer credit was a requirement to allow use of his name to promote the film. 

That's not to say it's a bad movie, just that it has very little to do with Clive Barker. Anything you like or don't like about the film is the doing of director Bernard Rose.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> The movie has next to nothing to do with the original short story. It's basically an in-name-only adaptation with a few details tweaked (such as calling the villain Candyman).


Yes, because Hollywood pays and gives credit to use "next to nothing" from stories. I suppose Sanford & Son has _next to nothing_ to do with Steptoe & Son either.  

See: [Image] The Very First Depiction of Clive Barker’s Candyman Was Far Different Than Tony Todd’s Portrayal

And

Candyman Was Originally White - Here's Why The Character Changed 

The character, the painting lair, the basic story, all taken from_ The Forbidden_. Bernard changed the outfit and racial origin to make it more suited to an American audience. Obviously a new screenplay was written, but saying Candyman has _next to nothing_ to do with Clive Barker is like saying newer Star Wars shows and movies have _next to nothing_ to do with George Lucas. Somehow, I doubt Bernard would agree.

Clive's own Hellraiser movie is a significantly modified adaption of his own short story, The Hellbound Heart; I guess he had next to nothing to do with himself... 

My point was that Clive, heavily or lightly adapted or not, tells actual stories. He does not make/write simple slasher flicks and even a movie like Hellraiser has far more going on than just Frank killing to get his body back. Pinhead doesn't even show up until over halfway through the film other than the brief introductory scene. Candyman follows similar pacing and whether Bernard was imitating the pacing is up to debate, but Bernard makes no bones about where he got the idea for his adaption.


----------



## petetherock

Just watched Spiderman 3 - it was a lovely movie with a wonderful plot, but it wasn't as "Atmos"y as say Moonfall..
However the new season 2 of Ghost In A Shell 2045 was pretty good, just remember to switch to the Japanese soundtrack for Atmos..

On a totally unrelated note, RIP Vangelis, and thank you for all the songs.. gonna watch Chariots of Fire in Mono with just the TV speakers tonight...


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Yes, because Hollywood pays and gives credit to use "next to nothing" from stories. I suppose Sanford & Son has _next to nothing_ to do with Steptoe & Son either.
> 
> See: [Image] The Very First Depiction of Clive Barker’s Candyman Was Far Different Than Tony Todd’s Portrayal
> 
> And
> 
> Candyman Was Originally White - Here's Why The Character Changed
> 
> The character, the painting lair, the basic story, all taken from_ The Forbidden_. Bernard changed the outfit and racial origin to make it more suited to an American audience. Obviously a new screenplay was written, but saying Candyman has _next to nothing_ to do with Clive Barker is like saying newer Star Wars shows and movies have _next to nothing_ to do with George Lucas. Somehow, I doubt Bernard would agree.


You are getting awfully defensive about this for no reason. Have you even read the story? It's a _short _story. You can read the whole thing in about 1/4 the time it takes to watch the movie. Almost the entirety of the plot and story in the movie was invented _for the movie_.



> My point was that Clive, heavily or lightly adapted or not, tells actual stories. He does not make/write simple slasher flicks


And _my _point is that Clive Barker neither made nor wrote the movie Candyman. That's all. If you like the movie, credit writer/director Bernard Rose, who actually made it. 

If you think all movies based on Clive Barker stories are super smart and interesting, I invite you to watch Rawhead Rex sometime.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> You are getting awfully defensive about this for no reason.


Defensive? I write a review to help Atmos buyers and you attack my post with some demeaning crap about Clive Barker whom you clearly believe had _next to nothing_ to do with it. Never mind he created the original story behind Candyman that Bernard Rose was a fan of. In fact, it was his favorite short story of Clive's. That's called an adaption of a short story in the industry.

See: http://www.clivebarker.info/candyman.html 

To paraphrase, it's Bernard Rose's movie, but the thematic concepts, villain and basic premise are based on Clive's story _The Forbidden_, which was Rose's favorite short story by Clive Barker. They discussed it and the changes needed to adapt it for an American audience in London. Clive consulted by teleconference. (He has a credit for a reason even though it seems you believe he doesn't deserve one).

A short story, however is not a screenplay or a movie. If someone based a screenplay off a Steven King novel or story, you would not say that the end resulting movie had _next to nothing_ to do with Steven King.

But then people on these forums rarely credit the screenwriters either. It's all about the *director*'s intent. No one else had anything to do with the movie, not the screenwriters, the actors, the casting director, the cinematographer(s) or the typically hundreds or even thousands of people that appear in modern credits for a given movie. It clearly had _next to nothing_ to do with any of them! Bernard Rose did it all single handed. 



> If you think all movies based on Clive Barker stories are super smart and interesting, I invite you to watch Rawhead Rex sometime.


Where did I _ever_ suggest all movies based on Clive Barker stories are "super smart and interesting?" Not everyone is a Stephen King fanboy and yet there are plenty of bad film adaptions of his novels as well.

I intimated Clive Barker has an interesting style and story development for the horror genre. Hellraiser 1 & 2 are also two of my favorite horror movies, despite some flaws in the 2nd. (Should I give Tony Randel _sole_ credit for the 2nd movie for that matter?)


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I failed to get notice that *Pitch Black* in 4K with _Atmos_ from Turbine in Germany arrived last week and needed a signature. It's been rotting at the local post office all this time (good thing I thought to check on its tracking). Anyway, I've got it now and hope to find out tonight what my favorite SciFi Horror movie (well save Tremors if you can call that _horror_) has to offer in overhead spectacle.


If your think that's even a decent horror movie you should watch the exorcist and the shining-now those are REAL good horro movies


----------



## markus767

Reading through these threads is sometimes horror enough for me


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Defensive? I write a review to help Atmos buyers and you attack my post with some demeaning crap about Clive Barker whom you clearly believe had _next to nothing_ to do with it. Never mind he created the original story behind Candyman that Bernard Rose was a fan of. In fact, it was his favorite short story of Clive's. That's called an adaption of a short story in the industry.


I did not attack you. This is you misreading a post and flying off the handle. Again.



> A short story, however is not a screenplay or a movie. If someone based a screenplay off a Steven King novel or story, you would not say that the end resulting movie had _next to nothing_ to do with Steven King.


The movie called The Lawnmower Man has literally *nothing at all* to do with the Stephen King short story it is allegedly "based on." The only thing they have in common is the title, and the fact that a character in the movie is briefly seen using a lawnmower (which was only thrown in to justify the title).

These things happen in Hollywood. All the time.



> But then people on these forums rarely credit the screenwriters either. It's all about the *director*'s intent. No one else had anything to do with the movie, not the screenwriters, the actors, the casting director, the cinematographer(s) or the typically hundreds or even thousands of people that appear in modern credits for a given movie. It clearly had _next to nothing_ to do with any of them! Bernard Rose did it all single handed.


Bernard Rose wrote and directed the movie Candyman. Clive Barker did neither of those things. Barker is a talented writer and director in his own right, but he did not make this one. More than 80% of the content in Candyman is exclusive to the movie and was invented by Rose.

So, yeah, I think it's fair to say that the movie has very little to do with the original story. If you like the movie, credit the people who actually made it. All Barker did was lend his name to it for promotional purposes.

That's as much as I have to say about this.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> I did not attack you. This is you misreading a post and flying off the handle. Again.


You're the one flying off the handle. I wrote a review and you're having a chit fit about it and then claiming I'm the one with the problem. Ridiculous.



> The movie called The Lawnmower Man has literally *nothing at all* to do with the Stephen King short story it is allegedly "based on." The only thing they have in common is the title, and the fact that a character in the movie is briefly seen using a lawnmower (which was only thrown in to justify the title).


The problem for me is your "_next to nothing_" language, not your belief Rose is responsible for the movie. It's hard to believe you're a writer and cannot grasp that simple concept. If Stephen King had "next to nothing" to do with The Lawnmower Man, they wouldn't have given him credit for the story it's based on. The movie <> the story, however. You could have 10 adaptions of "IT" (there were three previous ones and I thought the first two weren't scary at all; only the last version worked for me) and 9/10 could be crap. That doesn't mean Stephen King had _nothing_ to do with it. That's why it's called an *ADAPTION*. 

Yes, Candyman changes a number of things from _The Forbidden_ and the film screenplay is new and unlike most movies, Rose is the screenwriter and the director, but how does that equate to "next to nothing" to do with it? It had _everything_ to do with it. If _The Forbidden_ didn't exist, _Candyman_ wouldn't exist. I'd call that a lot more than nothing. Without George Lucas, The Mandalorian wouldn't exist even though George Lucas didn't write or work on the TV show The Mandalorian. Thus, I would never say The Mandalorian has next to nothing to do with George Lucas. It's based off his story/universe, so of course it has a very large something to do with it. You want me to give credit to Rose for Candyman, fine, I never was talking about credits for the movie, but the storytelling method. But _you_ need to recognize dismissing story ideas based on short stories or novels as having nothing to do with movies is tantamount to plagiarism. Do you give credit for the 2021 Candyman movie to Nia DaCosta (director) or Bernard Rose??? The screenplay for that one was written by Jordan Peele, Win Rosenfield and Nia DaCosta. It's listed as based on Candyman by Bernard Rose & Clive Barker. 

As I said before, "movies" are more than just the story, but "credits" are listed for everything from the primary actors to the stunt men and people who built the sets. The "movie" doesn't get made by just one person. Online, people tend to talk about "director's intents" as paramount, when it seems to me the screenwriter and the original writer are the two that most directly created the idea for the movie. But an idea is not a visual. The Wachowskis directed The Matrix, but the visuals were handled by Bill Pope. Does Bill Pope have "next to nothing" to do with it since he's neither the screenwriter nor the director? By your logic, I have to wonder.

Furthermore, I wasn't "giving credit" for the _movie _itself, period. I was speculating if the _story telling method_ Rose used in the film was based on Barker's more expositional storytelling method. Given Rose is a fan of Barker and his favorite short story by him is the one he based Candyman on, I don't think that's an unreasonable speculation at all. But then you jump in telling me how Barker had _next to NOTHING_ to do with _any_ of it, when Barker's own account and the screen credits tell quite a different story. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that, but there it is.



Chirosamsung said:


> If your think that's even a decent horror movie you should watch the exorcist and the shining-now those are REAL good horro movies


I've seen both. I don't particularly care for the Exorcist (or Poltergeist for that matter). I own The Shining and Doctor Sleep 4K editions and both are great movies (the latter has crazy good Atmos as well), but neither are Sci-Fi horror so it's not quite the same thing (Event Horizon, The Cloverfield Paradox and even Ghosts of Mars are the more comparable films). Vin Diesel's cool as a cucumber character and slow change for redemption is what makes Pitch Black work more than the story itself. Now an Atmos version of Event Horizon is one I'd pick up immediately.


----------



## audiofan1

Just finished The last two *Hobbit 4k Atmos* movies and have to give them both a reference Atmos mix, there was repeated precision and use of the platform coupled with a very realistic tangible bubble, effects placement was on the money and the Smaug scenes ? Good gravy!. The PQ is off the charts good and still gets a reference nod as a whole. Has made my top 5 Atmos mixes.


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> The problem for me is your "_next to nothing_" language, not your belief Rose is responsible for the movie. It's hard to believe you're a writer and cannot grasp that simple concept. If Stephen King had "next to nothing" to do with The Lawnmower Man, they wouldn't have given him credit for the story it's based on. The movie <> the story, however. You could have 10 adaptions of "IT" (there were three previous ones and I thought the first two weren't scary at all; only the last version worked for me) and 9/10 could be crap. That doesn't mean Stephen King had _nothing_ to do with it. That's why it's called an *ADAPTION*.


Seriously, read that short story and then watch the movie. 

The Lawnmower Man movie began life as a totally unrelated script called Cyber God. Late during development, one of the producers realized he could buy the rights to a Stephen King short story for a reasonable amount of money, which would allow them to exploit Stephen King's name all over the advertising. As a result, some last-minute tweaking was done to change a couple character names and briefly show the main character using a lawnmower. That is the extent of the similarities between the two works. 

The plot of the short story is literally: Crazy guy with lawnmower kills people, the end. I believe he may have been a supernatural demon, as I recall. The short story has no sci-fi elements or any of the "virtual reality" silliness that the movie is entirely about.

That's how a random low-budget sci-fi thriller starring little known actor Jeff Fahey became *STEPHEN KING'S* The Lawnmower Man, in order to trick Stephen King fans into paying for tickets.

Along similar lines, Candyman started out as an unrelated boogeyman thriller inspired by a series of newspaper articles Bernard Rose had read about murders in a low-income Chicago housing project. The script was retooled a little when the rights to the Barker story became available, but the movie and the short story are very different entities with little in common. Rose may have exaggerated his Clive Barker fandom when promoting the movie.



> You're the one flying off the handle. I wrote a review and you're having a chit fit about it and then claiming I'm the one with the problem. Ridiculous.


You wrote that you saw an awesome Clive Barker movie that's really great because it's so Clive Barker-y. All I did was point out that the movie didn't really have much involvement from Clive Barker. 

We are well off the subject of Dolby Atmos now, so let's please drop it.


----------



## eaayoung

MagnumX said:


> That might depend on what type of music you like to listen to.
> 
> *Roger Waters* - THE WALL (Atmos live concert and interview/trip footage of Roger visiting the graves of his father and grandfather and discussing the tour. The tour footage is phenomenal and the Atmos sound is fantastic. I only wish the two weren't mixed together.


I’m a big fan of Pink Floyd and especially David Gilmore. But not so much Roger Waters. With Waters, I’m easily turned off by having his his political views rammed down my throat (like a lot of other celebrities). Curious to know if his Wall BD is with the other Pink Floyd members or just him and his band? And is it loaded with his politics?


----------



## MagnumX

eaayoung said:


> I’m a big fan of Pink Floyd and especially David Gilmore. But not so much Roger Waters. With Waters, I’m easily turned off by having his his political views rammed down my throat (like a lot of other celebrities). Curious to know if his Wall BD is with the other Pink Floyd members or just him and his band? And is it loaded with his politics?


It's just him and his band. The concert has added a few things you might consider political to the projections on the wall in the background, but it's more about him visiting his father and grandfathers' graves and what not. I would say the following concert ("US & Them") is more political and less well recorded than The Wall, which was for the most part spectacular, IMO. I just wish they'd left his little car trip as a separate program on the disc instead of interrupting the concert every few songs. The sound quality is excellent, though and Atmos uses bits like the airplanes flying overhead and what not.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> The Lawnmower Man movie began life as a totally unrelated script called Cyber God. Late during development, one of the producers realized he could buy the rights to a Stephen King short story for a reasonable amount of money, which would allow them to exploit Stephen King's name all over the advertising. As a result, some last-minute tweaking was done to change a couple character names and briefly show the main character using a lawnmower. That is the extent of the similarities between the two works.
> 
> The plot of the short story is literally: Crazy guy with lawnmower kills people, the end. I believe he may have been a supernatural demon, as I recall. The short story has no sci-fi elements or any of the "virtual reality" silliness that the movie is entirely about.
> 
> That's how a random low-budget sci-fi thriller starring little known actor Jeff Fahey became *STEPHEN KING'S* The Lawnmower Man, in order to trick Stephen King fans into paying for tickets.


That's very interesting! Thanks for posting that, just wanted to add this to say that something positive came out of the discussion


----------



## bweissman

Can an old movie be remixed into Atmos? I would think going from a channel-based to an object-based soundtrack would be difficult.

Last night, I watched Top Gun (1986) on Paramount+ via Roku Ultra, and my Marantz preamp reported it was receiving Atmos audio. It sounded great, with plenty of vertical movement as you'd expect from that movie.


----------



## Josh Z

bweissman said:


> Can an old movie be remixed into Atmos? I would think going from a channel-based to an object-based soundtrack would be difficult.


Yes, this happens all the time these days. Some are better than others.

Ideally, the mixers should go back to the original individual audio elements and stems and convert them into objects. Depending on how well those materials were archived, they may or may not still be available.

If not, in a worst case scenario (and we do see this a lot, unfortunately), the original mix is effectively run through a fancy upmixer to simulate Atmos.


----------



## Twood2009

I am also considering the klipsch 41sa as my surround speaker to make a 7.1. I just bought 4 r-51m and use them as front l/r and current surround in a 5.1 set up. I was thinking of having the 41sa as the surround and the 51 as surround back. Do you think they will sound okay? My living room and kitchen is open concept so I would be mounting them (41sa) on side wall about above a standard door frame. But would be about even with the couch we sit on. Just curious if y’all think these would be good to do that with?

thanks


----------



## robert600

Downloaded the new Fantastic Beasts movie for my neighbours and sat through it with them. Nice use of atmos ... no wow overhead moments that I recall but a nice overall emmersive experience ... if you like that sort of movie.


----------



## Visconti12

Twood2009 said:


> I am also considering the klipsch 41sa as my surround speaker to make a 7.1. I just bought 4 r-51m and use them as front l/r and current surround in a 5.1 set up. I was thinking of having the 41sa as the surround and the 51 as surround back. Do you think they will sound okay? My living room and kitchen is open concept so I would be mounting them (41sa) on side wall about above a standard door frame. But would be about even with the couch we sit on. Just curious if y’all think these would be good to do that with?
> 
> thanks


Not sure about the result but I wouldn’t do it. IMO this box hasn’t got enough volume for a current reverberation of shelf and front standards of high quality sound.


----------



## markus767

Twood2009 said:


> I am also considering the klipsch 41sa as my surround speaker to make a 7.1. I just bought 4 r-51m and use them as front l/r and current surround in a 5.1 set up. I was thinking of having the 41sa as the surround and the 51 as surround back. Do you think they will sound okay? My living room and kitchen is open concept so I would be mounting them (41sa) on side wall about above a standard door frame. But would be about even with the couch we sit on. Just curious if y’all think these would be good to do that with?
> 
> thanks


It will sound "okay" but you (we) don't have nearly enough information whether those speakers are up to the task.


How loud do you listen?
How loud can these speakers go? Unfortunately the majority of manufacturers don't provide that data. An example of what they should provide:


https://static-neumann.s3.amazonaws.com/global_images/image/file/479/kh120_max_spl_510.gif


How much more SPL is required from room correction in your particular room?


----------



## ThierryB

I just watched Sonic the Hedgehog 2 with the kids tonight. Really nice immersive Atmos soundtrack throughout, with solid bass.
I recommend to watch it to experience the audio track, feels that you hear things flying all around you the entire movie.
Really good soundtrack, and entertaining with the kids.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

bweissman said:


> Can an old movie be remixed into Atmos? I would think going from a channel-based to an object-based soundtrack would be difficult.
> 
> Last night, I watched Top Gun (1986) on Paramount+ via Roku Ultra, and my Marantz preamp reported it was receiving Atmos audio. It sounded great, with plenty of vertical movement as you'd expect from that movie.


Some of the best Atmos mixes can be found on older remixed movie releases.


----------



## Twood2009

markus767 said:


> It will sound "okay" but you (we) don't have nearly enough information whether those speakers are up to the task.
> 
> 
> How loud do you listen?
> How loud can these speakers go? Unfortunately the majority of manufacturers don't provide that data. An example of what they should provide:
> 
> 
> https://static-neumann.s3.amazonaws.com/global_images/image/file/479/kh120_max_spl_510.gif
> 
> 
> How much more SPL is required from room correction in your particular room?


This is what I got from crutchfield about the klipsch r-41sa
We also don’t listen to it super loud. My current receiver is a pioneer and don’t go much louder than 30db 🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m looking at getting the denon 3700h

sensitivity: 90 dB
power handling: up to 50 watts RMS (200 watts peak


----------



## dschulz

Watched The Adam Project from Netflix last night - quite an aggressive soundtrack for LFE, dynamic range and use of surrounds. Worth checking out.


----------



## halcyon_888

I saw Top Gun Maverick today. It's been a few years since I've been in a movie theater so I just sat down and started watching it. To be honest my memory of this theater's sound was better than it actually was. I wasn't specifically analyzing the audio, but one moment jumped out at me with an airplane sound effect traveling to the side of the theater--and then I began to realize the theater didn't have Atmos! I looked up and sure enough I couldn't see any height speakers. That explains why the airplane sound effect was only to the side.

Anyone know if the Atmos is good in this movie? Tom Cruise produced this and many of his movies have good sound design, so there's hoping.


----------



## Worf

Yes the Atmos is good in Maverick.

Basically the consensus is to see it in the biggest screen as possible - IMAX if you can, else a Dolby cinema. Basically anything other than a regular theatre for maximum effect. Even screenX if that's all you got. It is a visual and audio feast


----------



## MagnumX

Worf said:


> Yes the Atmos is good in Maverick.
> 
> Basically the consensus is to see it in the biggest screen as possible - IMAX if you can, else a Dolby cinema. Basically anything other than a regular theatre for maximum effect. Even screenX if that's all you got. It is a visual and audio feast


Too bad if you don't live near a large city. The nearest Dolby Atmos theater is 5 hours away. Both Dolby and DTS make it extremely difficult to locate where their theaters are at. I click on Top Gun Maverick on Dolby's site and it asks for a zip code. I tried mine. I tried where family lives. I even tried Cleveland. 

"Sorry, we couldn't find ANY Dolby Cinemas or Dolby Atmos partner theaters currently playing this movie". Do you have to enter every zip code in the USA to find a result? How is that intuitive? 

DTS was not any better. They don't offer Maverick, but Jurassic Dominion is available in X. I click on the map for the USA and it lists chains that have some theaters in X. But obviously not all Regal Cinemas have X in them. WHICH theaters have X? They apparently don't want you to know for some bizarre reason unknown. 

Atmos is supposed to be this huge success, but they can't get more theaters to upgrade? That leaves an opportunity for DTS:X to step in like in the 1990s (We had 15 or so DTS theaters in the 1990s near me, but only 1 or 2 Dolby Digital theaters. I'm guessing Dolby wanted and still wants way too much money for their product and theaters are barely eeking by these days, particularly after the Pandemic. We don't all live in London, Toronto, LA, Chicago or NYC. 

IMAX's site, meanwhile said this:










There was no option to extend to 100 miles or 200 miles, etc. It's exasperating if you want to try it out. You have to keep entering addresses and praying.... 

Ridiculous in 2022! No wonder I have yet to hear a movie in Atmos or X in 2022 outside my own home theater. I don't even know a single person with an Atmos capable home theater in my area to compare. You used to be able to at least demo somewhat questionable setups in HiFi shops back in the 1990s and early 2000s, but most of them have dried up thanks to Best Buy type retailers (many of whom have also gone out of business thanks to the Internet, which isn't helpful for previewing anything). 

Fortunately, a movie's entertainment value isn't dependent on either else movies like The Maltese Falcon wouldn't be worth watching. Large picture or Atmos sound are eye/ear candy, but it's the actual movie, story and acting that ultimately make it good or crap. IMAX sized crap is just extra large crap. 

Size is also relative to distance. My mere 92" screen looks similar at 9' than Regal Cinema's screen looked at the theater I saw it in at 50 feet or whatever it was (my eventual planned upgrade to a 115" 2.35:1 screen is probably as large as I'd ever want to view a movie at 9'). 

Regal only had 5.1 sound as well. The movie was still _fantastic_. I look forward to trying it at home in Atmos.


----------



## mrvideo

IMAX doesn't have ATMOS. I think my local AMC has one of the screens with ATMOS. But, I watched it on the IMAX screen.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> Ridiculous in 2022! No wonder I have yet to hear a movie in Atmos or X in 2022 outside my own home theater.


Where in the world do you live?! 

Dolby Cinemas are definitely uncommon outside of metropolitan areas, but an Atmos theater is pretty common at most AMC, Marcus, Regal it seems. 

Maybe try Dolby Cinema at AMC ? Their search will list nearby cinemas, and under each is specifics for theater type, seating type, etc.


----------



## halcyon_888

mrvideo said:


> IMAX doesn't have ATMOS. I think my local AMC has one of the screens with ATMOS. But, I watched it on the IMAX screen.


Thanks I didn't know that about IMAX. The theater I saw Top Gun Maverick in was a Cinemark theater before, so I guess when AMC took over they didn't upgrade the sound. They did change the seats out, though.

I have a AMC 24 just a few minutes further away and I just checked and it has IMAX and Dolby Cinema. I'm not upset I didn't see Maverick in a better theater, it was a good movie and I enjoyed it. But when I go to see Avatar 2 later this year, I'll definitely be reserving tickets in the AMC 24 Dolby Cinema (and 3D!)


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> Where in the world do you live?!
> 
> Dolby Cinemas are definitely uncommon outside of metropolitan areas, but an Atmos theater is pretty common at most AMC, Marcus, Regal it seems.
> 
> Maybe try Dolby Cinema at AMC ? Their search will list nearby cinemas, and under each is specifics for theater type, seating type, etc.


I live in NE Ohio. Closest city is Youngstown. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are both over an hour away. 

Nearest AMC theater is in Solon, Ohio (58 miles away). Their site gives zero indication if any screens are in Atmos (Dolby still has 7.1/5.1 offerings so having Dolby as the affiliate alone doesn't guarantee Atmos). 

I remember when I lived in the Akron/Canton area in the 1990s the local newspaper listings would proudly list DTS or Dolby Digital or SDDS so you'd know for a given movie. In 2022, the web sites can't even be bothered to show the audio system when they'renot paying for newspaper ad space to do it. I guess they figure in the phone age, no one cares. 

Auro-3D's website used to show two theaters locally (Regal Cinema and possibly Cinemark) had Auro-3D screens, but the link is broken on their site now. Regal's website confirms they do offer Top Gun 2 in Auro-3D 11.1 (I was surprised; Auro's own site stopped updating cinema releases years ago, but I DB search confirms most major movies are still available in Auro 11.1). But unfortunately they don't indicate which theaters or screens have it (They also indicate chain support for Atmos and RPX lossless which I had never heard of, but might be their local brand like "XD" is for Cinemark.

I've actually got free tickets for Regal from AAA so maybe I'll visit them and ask some questions. I'd love to hear a cinema version of Auro-3D, DTS:X or Dolby Atmos on a well done film.


----------



## MagnumX

I found this thread interesting at film-tech.com in regards to the posts on near-field mixes versus theatrical mixes. Originally, these were advertised as mixes more appropriate for speakers closer to you at home than a theater, but THX's Re-EQ and everyone else's "Cinema EQ" was already created over a decade earlier to deal with the excess treble in cinema soundtracks. Up until around 1999-2008 depending on the studio, nearly All home soundtracks were based off the cinema tracks.

I've got a translated Cinema DTS version of The Matrix I can compare directly with the Atmos and DD soundtracks on the newer 4K UHD Blurays. The sound effects with dialog matched are about 8dB louder on the Cinema DTS version. Even with Atmos height effects added and lossless sound, there is no comparison, IMO. The louder sound effects have so much more impact and Neural X does a fine job with simulating many (but not all) of the height effects.

An easier comparison is to compare the Auro-3D and Atmos mixes both included in the Turbine media book version of Twister. The Auro-3D version uses the cinema levels and has sound effects 6-8dB louder with dialog levels matched compared to the Atmos mix. The torbadoes are much scarier with the louder Auro-3D levels.

If you compare the original Paramount (THX certified?) version of Top Gun on Bluray with the newer Atmos version, there's a 7dB difference in the LFE/bass levels and it's not in the Atmos versions favor, IMO. I'm sure there are other examples out there.

Here's the link and quotes of a few of the comments at the Film-Tech Forums, which are for professionals in the business. I've seen and mentioned some conn9from another thread on there in the past that talked more about the high frequency thing, but also mentioned newer titles were going much much further with "near field" mixes and were really becoming what's talked about below, more like "home mixes" for sound bars, TVs and people who aren't paying attention.

Why Hollywood can include a half dozen foreign soundtracks on a disc these days (particularly 4K UHDs that tend to have a lot of extra space on them) but not include a theatrical mix is beyond me. One person there even says the near field mix should be a Dolby Digital track and Atmos/X/TrueHD/DTS-HD MA, etc should be reserved for the theatrical soundtrack. I thoroughly agree.

These are from 2019, so it's relatively recent commentary :



Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DTS Disks hack



_ "Why all of this effort? [referring to converting old DTS theatrical discs to a home format]. It's to get rid of those god-awful 'near field' remixes on blurays that are the worst thing to ever happen to movie sound, yet the studios have been scammed and brainwashed into thinking they need to do it by various audio engineers and audio post-production houses desperately seeking work. " -Brad Miller

"If you are ever on the position of being able to directly compare a 35mm print with DTS, SRD or SDDS against a bluray near field remix, you will totally understand why the near field remixes are total garbage" -Brad Miller

"The near-field mixes that Disney have put out lately have been absolute trash." - Jarod Reddig

"Basically, a near field mix if [sic] one that has been 'dumbed' down at a much lower volume level for home speakers with the goal of keeping the dialogue at a level that is easy to hear. As one remixer put it....'so you can talk on the phone and still hear the dialogue without all the other noise.....' Go figure" -Don Furr_


----------



## markus767

I agree that "home mixes" are a step in the wrong direction. These days all "necessary" device/application dependent mixes could be automatically controlled using meta data in object-based audio formats. For example dialog could be a tagged object and automatically raised in level when the device is a sound bar, or if someone has hearing difficulties. It's unfortunate the industry isn't using object-based audio to its full extent.

But the problem starts way earlier. The movie industry doesn't have enough meaningful standards (caused by a lack of psychoacoustic research) ensuring that mixes really would "translate" between different acoustical environments. For example there is a difference how loudness is perceived in a cinema and a living room. It has never been studied in detail.
Some efforts have been made to investigate – including experts like Toole – but there are so many commercial interests involved, not sure anything meaningful will ever come out of it.


----------



## Worf

IMAX doesn't have Atmos, but it is an 11 channel system with overheads. Since IMAX theatres are basically fixed configurations and calibrated, it's effectively pre-rendered objects so each theatre sounds exactly the same.

A tool to locate large format theatres is available at Theaters – LF Examiner - they actually go in detail to see if the IMAX theatre near you is actually a LIEMAX theatre.


----------



## mrvideo

Worf said:


> IMAX doesn't have Atmos, but it is an 11 channel system with overheads.


If only that were true at all of the IMAX locations. My location is an old one that has not been upgraded to DLP. The audio is still 5.1, where the rear speakers are in the upper-left and upper-right corners.

My location just does not rate the latest IMAX projection and sound. Many a time IMAX won't even let us have a 3D movie in 3D. But, the last few have been.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> I found this thread interesting at film-tech.com in regards to the posts on near-field mixes versus theatrical mixes. Originally, these were advertised as mixes more appropriate for speakers closer to you at home than a theater, but THX's Re-EQ and everyone else's "Cinema EQ" was already created over a decade earlier to deal with the excess treble in cinema soundtracks. Up until around 1999-2008 depending on the studio, nearly All home soundtracks were based off the cinema tracks.


I remember that (and similar threads) at Film-Tech, including several I participated in. I also remember more than one actual mixer of movies getting chased off by the regulars when they tried to present their own perspective. The regular posters at Film-Tech are in the main projectionists, so they have a lot of expertise in that sense, but they are not sound engineers or physicists. But they are, like AVSForum members, enthusiastic lovers of movies, who see more films in cinemas than the rest of us by the nature of their career.

My $0.02 for what it's worth - a home theatre remix can be good or bad, but a theatrical mix is _always_ going to have been done on a much larger stage than appropriate for a home theatre mix, and at a _much_ higher level. Obviously that can translate OK when played in a small room at reduced volume, especially with something like THX re-EQ involved, but a good trim pass with the original mixers in which they take the mix they just finished, and polish it up for the home delivery, listening at a slightly reduced level and the speakers sitting closer, is overall a good approach. Things get spottier when studios do home theatre remixes of catalogue titles - the original mixers are probably not on the job, and the mixers don't have at their fingertips every asset used for the theatrical mix, or the recent memory of how things were mixed (and why). And obviously all of us are unhappy with what seems to be an edict from Disney to constrain dynamic range on their home theatre deliveries.


----------



## halcyon_888

dschulz said:


> And obviously all of us are unhappy with what seems to be an edict from Disney to constrain dynamic range on their home theatre deliveries.


Yea I was starting to watch Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and the Marvel logo didn't sound right to me. So I pause it, then go to each speaker playing test tones and listing for #1 A channel going out on one of my amps or #2 A crossover in one of my speakers going bad. End result? Nothing was wrong with my system, then I remembered Disney's undynamic soundtracks and chalked it up to that.


----------



## dschulz

Another interesting to thing to note on the theatrical-vs-home remix topic: cinemas don't use bass management (except for Atmos rooms, which bass manage the surrounds). So those theatrical mixes that got transferred straight to home were mixed in rooms with massive full-range LCRs + a completely separate, dedicated LFE channel that was routed to the subwoofer array, and often treated the surround arrays as full range as well. Those mixes, when played back in our bass-managed home theatres, are then sending all of the LFE channel + everything below the designated crossover point from the mains to the subs, resulting in there being more bass buildup in the room than intended by the original mix. But after listening to movies for a couple of decades in bass-managed 5.1 rooms, we trained ourselves to think that's what movies are supposed to sound like! Now the home-theatre remixes are being done in bass-managed stages, with the mixers setting the relative levels of bass exactly where they want them to be, but some of us think they sound too anemic. I think this in part explains the popularity of the Bass-EQ project; mixers are rolling off the bass because that's where they want it (not because of corporate suits who hate bass, just putting the level where they think it sounds correct), but us home-theatre bass-heads want it back.

EDIT to add: this all came up when I worked at DTS, because the DTS theatrical system used high-pass/low-pass filters to "hide" that LFE track in the surrounds. When mixers pushed bass through the surround arrays, and they did, everything below 80Hz in the surrounds got sent to the subwoofer array along with the LFE channel. This resulted in too much bass! Some mixers decided to work around this by remembering not to dig that deep in the surrounds; others just asked us to roll off the surrounds in their mix at 80Hz prior to DTS encoding. Those latter mixes, if printed straight to DVD for home, would then have too much bass when our home theatres do the bass management.


----------



## markus767

dschulz said:


> Those mixes, when played back in our bass-managed home theatres, are then sending all of the LFE channel + everything below the designated crossover point from the mains to the subs, resulting in there being more bass buildup in the room than intended by the original mix.


Not sure this is generally true. In some dubbing stages bass from multiple speakers can create more bass build-up when compared to a bass managed system. There are also correlated and decorrelated sounds in multiple channels creating different bass levels in a bass managed vs a non-bass managed system. In short, it depends on the particular room and recording/mix.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> My $0.02 for what it's worth - a home theatre remix can be good or bad, but a theatrical mix is _always_ going to have been done on a much larger stage than appropriate for a home theatre mix, and at a _much_ higher level.


Levels are relative, though. You can turn the overall volume up or down. It's the sound effects versus dialog levels that are being adjusted and they're being adjusted because of years of complaints by people that they cannot understand what's being said at home. This, in my experience, probably has more to do with hearing issues and a lack of quality speakers at home. As for bass levels, I still remember seeing "Magic Journeys" in Walt Disney World back in the 1980s in 3D and the middle part of the soundtrack shook the walls! Now that was some nice theatrical bass! I've long wanted to try that movie short at home, but they've never offered it, even when home 3D became available. But either way, bass levels can be adjusted easily enough. 

What sucks is when they turn the dialog way up so the sound effects inevitably get turned down (because at some point the dialog becomes like screaming in your ear if you try to get the rest of the sound up further). If dialog were on its own channel, you could adjust this. DTS made this available. Hollywood refuses to use it. You could turn down the center channel, but that speaker doesn't always just carry dialog and dialog isn't always just in the center channel so it's an issue.

All I can say is having the original untouched 70mm soundtracks for the original Star Wars movies, the original Cinema DTS track for The Matrix, a proper THX cinema version of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Turbine's perfect cinema level matched new Auro 13.1 mix of Twister that I have ZERO trouble understanding dialog on any of these films (so that argument goes out the window for me), the surround sound is SO much better sounding than the "near field" mix alternatives (i.e. for all the praise the new Atmos soundtrack for The Matrix gets, the relative sound effect levels are 80% lower than the cinema version and the sheer impact that makes in scenes like where the helicopter explodes or the hovercraft is backing up is UNREAL. If that's "bad" I want more bad because the cinema version is AWESOME. I'm using a 12'x24' room so size isn't the issue. Admittedly, a sound bar would have trouble dealing with that and sounding good, but with 17.1 speakers, it's not a problem. 

Twister is similarly better with the Auro mix, not because of the different layout, but because they kept the cinema relative levels where the Atmos team did a near field mix. When the barn gets it's top ripped off, it's scary as hell in the Auro mix, while the Atmos version sounds like a movie. You could turn the Atmos version up, but as soon as they start talking, it's like metal piercing through your eardrums!

As for Star Wars, the 70mm tracks are shocking how good they are for back then in terms of surround. But in their case, I'd say the 6.1 mixes from a few years ago sound pretty good so I wouldn't complain as much there (other than the changes to the film themselves), but the new Atrmos mixes are Top Middle heavy and seem to delete some sounds (e.g. Empire Strikes Back when R2D2 is thrown across the swamp, his "voice" is muted a great deal as he passes to the middle of the room and then suddenly comes back. It's like in their fever to reduce Atmos at home to only Top Middle, they chopped the sound off. Both the 70mm original and the 6.1 DTS-HD MA version have the full R2 "scream" without any muted effect and Neural X sends R2 flying from the front left corner overhead to just behind me on my right and sounds fully believable, while the Atmos version sounds like he's changing in volume drastically for an unknown reason, ruining the effect.

What Hollywood should be doing is including the Cinema Track on UHDs, at least, for real home theater enthusiasts to enjoy. The could even default to a crappy near field mix, but leave an OPTION for the cinema soundtrack for those of us that have home theaters that can make good use of them. Neutering soundtracks is not a good experience, IMO. Obviously, some home versions are much better/worse than others, but when it's bad, it's bad.


----------



## AndreNewman

MagnumX said:


> What Hollywood should be doing is including the Cinema Track on UHDs, at least, for real home theater enthusiasts to enjoy. The could even default to a crappy near field mix, but leave an OPTION for the cinema soundtrack for those of us that have home theaters that can make good use of them. Neutering soundtracks is not a good experience, IMO. Obviously, some home versions are much better/worse than others, but when it's bad, it's bad.


I've been saying this for years, back as far as anamorphic DVDs.

It works both ways, if you have a proper home cinema you _really want_ the theatrical mix (or something close) if you have TV Speakers or a soundbar you _really want_ the nearfield effects mixed back version.

I saw a few movies a while back that had a "night mix" as an alternate soundtrack, I thought that might be the beginnings of alternate mixes on blurays but I haven't seen one of those lately.

Yes, yes, yes, default to the wimpy TV Speakers or mobile phone version, as long as there's a proper soundtrack there as well. Those of us who want it will find it, the ignorant will be able to hear the dialogue while munching crisps and talking.


----------



## petetherock

I had a blast with The Lost City... it's no Raiders, but like Coke Lite, it taste fine enough, even if it isn't the real thing..








The Lost City Movie Review


The success of Raiders of the Lost Ark has spawn countless imitations, and of the better ones, there was Romancing The Stone, National Treas...




peteswrite.blogspot.com





Great Atmos track..


----------



## halcyon_888

Wow I just watched Godzilla: King of the Monsters and what an audio-fest it was! Great usage of the heights throughout the movie, and excellent floor channel usage as well. If only all Atmos soundtracks could be this good!


----------



## MagnumX

Edited:

I tested out the *SVS SoundPath Subwoofer Isolation System. *It seemed to make a larger improvement in reducing wall rattle originally than I thought possible. However, despite being relatively sure I didn't touch the gain control, the output levels were altered and were down 6dB-10dB during initial testing. After recalibrating, at least one wall vibration audible noise returned, albeit at a lower perceived level on two songs that triggered it before. All the other sympathetic vibrations I've been hearing since Spring/Summer raised temperatures (which seems to increase such vibrations) are still gone. I'm uncomfortable attributing the decrease purely to the feet at this point, particularly since carpet on concrete isn't the best conductor to begin with so isolating the sub from it wouldn't immediately spring to mind a huge change, but perhaps a small one. I'll see how it compares over the long haul.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> Wow I just watched Godzilla: King of the Monsters and what an audio-fest it was! Great usage of the heights throughout the movie, and excellent floor channel usage as well. If only all Atmos soundtracks could be this good!


is it better movie or sound than Godzilla vs Kong??


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I thought I'd mention this here because I was so blown away by the improvement. I tend to get rattles in the wall next to my subwoofer in the warmer months and _sometimes_ in the winter with some material. Lately, it's been worse with the opposite wall halfway back through the room rattling too. I came across a review of the *SVS SoundPath Subwoofer Isolation System* that raved about 5-6dB improvement in rattle reduction (meaning they could play it 5-6dB higher before they heard anything). The review did say it worked better on wooden floors to isolate the subwoofer. SVS' factory is literally like 20-25 minutes from my house so I guess I wasn't surprised when Amazon said they could deliver it the same day I ordered it (I got them delivered about 12 hours later).
> 
> My sub is on carpet that's on top of concrete so I had little hope for improvement, but the review I read said it still improved things on concrete as well so I thought at well under $50, I figured what the heck. Short of filling my walls with some kind of insulating material or bracing them somehow structurally, I don't know how I could stop occasional rattling. I didn't even know if my sub had "feet" on it as I don't recall seeing them and it looks like it was sitting on the floor flat. Sure enough, it has tiny little flat ones (easy to drag around on carpeting). The kit fit the ancient DefTech sub from 1995 perfectly (took all of 8 minutes to install total including dragging it out from the nook its in).
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED* at the difference. I thought the subwoofer wasn't even on at first or broke when I had it sitting on its side or something. I had to get the sound pressure meter out to make sure it was still outputting the correct levels. Yes, they were right at flat on the default setting with the rest of the speakers (65dB @ -20dB to reference). I played every noisy 5.1, Auro-3D and Atmos music track I could think of that rattle the walls (the new Booka Shade Atmos conversion of their 2nd album Movements was particularly onerous before for setting of things rattling all over the place in the room) and NOTHING. SILENCE from the walls. I couldn't hear a single "rattle" sound in any song I played. The sub no longer engaged the walls directly so some feelings of the room shaking along with it were gone and the subwoofer sounded more like the PSB mains in Low Q behavior, except playing much lower. Only when I hit sub 30Hz notes did the room appear to shake (no obvious sounds I'd call rattles, though). I turned the sub up above flat to +4dB and +7dB. Yeah, there's the bass alright, but still no sympathetic vibrations or rattles of any kind. On carpet covered concrete! *Unbelievable*.
> 
> I'd have to say that's the best $40 I ever spent on a room improvement. I can't believe isolation feet make such a _massive_ difference on carpet covered concrete.


2 things:

1. svs PC4000s which I have come which isolation feet on them when you buy them-probably because they are cylinder

2. It sounds to me that if things are not rattling anymore with them then they actually make it worse as all the sub 25 Hz sounds make the vibration and rattling and sounds like your feet made the sub more anemic in that department with tactile feel at the same levels


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> 2. It sounds to me that if things are not rattling anymore with them then they actually make it worse as all the sub 25 Hz sounds make the vibration and rattling and sounds like your feet made the sub more anemic in that department with tactile feel at the same levels


Actually, it turns out something happened to the levels on the sub. I don't recall so much as touching the gain control and it didn't look like it changed positions, but being on its side, who knows. After recalibrating output levels, the bass levels were restored to what I had before. Two songs still trigger a vibration in the wall closest to it, although it doesn't seem nearly as loud (more like in winter when it acts up slightly) but all the other rattles I've heard lately were still gone. At least one of them might have been an object (3D glasses) someone left on the ledge by the wall. So, it's hard to be sure how much direct effect there was after moving everything, but I'll take any improvement I can get. 

And no, I don't believe it's sub 25Hz information causing the wall to make the noticeable sound. I'd estimate it's actually closer to the 40Hz-60Hz region on an Alan Parsons Song (_A Recurring Dream Within A Dream_, which is a remix from the _A Valid Path_ album of the two combined songs _A Dream Within A Dream_ and _The Raven_ from their album, _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Edgar Allen Poe bits of story told with music). The initial electronic bass/drum beats have a little wall vibration hang until the other instruments kick in. It was much louder before for the past few months on that song. The other song I noticed it on is Booka Shade's new Atmos conversion of their _Movements_ album on the track _Body Languag_e. I ran all the Aria bass tone tests, DTS 7.1 sound check and Atmos speaker check tones to calibrate and verify it's flat at default settings now. I didn't get any rattles with the 20-30Hz sweeps (and it measured flat to 21Hz before dropping off a cliff).


----------



## Polyrythm1k

MagnumX said:


> Actually, it turns out something happened to the levels on the sub. I don't recall so much as touching the gain control and it didn't look like it changed positions, but being on its side, who knows. After recalibrating output levels, the bass levels were restored to what I had before. Two songs still trigger a vibration in the wall closest to it, although it doesn't seem nearly as loud (more like in winter when it acts up slightly) but all the other rattles I've heard lately were still gone. At least one of them might have been an object (3D glasses) someone left on the ledge by the wall. So, it's hard to be sure how much direct effect there was after moving everything, but I'll take any improvement I can get.
> 
> And no, I don't believe it's sub 25Hz information causing the wall to make the noticeable sound. I'd estimate it's actually closer to the 40Hz-60Hz region on an Alan Parsons Song (_A Recurring Dream Within A Dream_, which is a remix from the _A Valid Path_ album of the two combined songs _A Dream Within A Dream_ and _The Raven_ from their album, _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Edgar Allen Poe bits of story told with music). The initial electronic bass/drum beats have a little wall vibration hang until the other instruments kick in. It was much louder before for the past few months on that song. The other song I noticed it on is Booka Shade's new Atmos conversion of their _Movements_ album on the track _Body Languag_e. I ran all the Aria bass tone tests, DTS 7.1 sound check and Atmos speaker check tones to calibrate and verify it's flat at default settings now. I didn't get any rattles with the 20-30Hz sweeps (and it measured flat to 21Hz before dropping off a cliff).


Since you live so close to SVS’s home, have you ever considered trying out one of their subs?


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> is it better movie or sound than Godzilla vs Kong??


To be honest I don't recall the Atmos on GvK to compare, but I do recall the bass on GvK. I use BEQ, but still the bass on GvK was much better imo. Also I'd give GvK the nod for the better of the two movies by comparison.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> Since you live so close to SVS’s home, have you ever considered trying out one of their subs?


the PC4000 actually come with the isolation feet


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Chirosamsung said:


> the PC4000 actually come with the isolation feet


Yep.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> Since you live so close to SVS’s home, have you ever considered trying out one of their subs?


I've talked to them. It's the same in-house test policy regardless. They have no showroom or anything. I'm considering them as a possibility for a 2nd sub to put opposite of the current one in the mid-back of the room to get smoother bass for the other seats, but given I'm the only listener 98% of the time now, I'm not in a hurry. A larger sub may just make sympathetic vibrations worse, although it should let me lower the volume 3dB per sub for the same output.


----------



## MortenS

Installing my x.x.4 on ceiling speakers

Room: 4,35*3,35*2,45(WxDxH) in meters

Atmos Width between speakers about 1,8meter (about 30degree angle from MLP)
Atmos behind/Ahead of MLP about 1,55 meter (45 degree angre from MLP)

1.My speakers is on ceiling/wall pointed inwards to MLP, is the 45 degree vertical and 30 degree horizontal the best?

2.With 4,35*3,35 room will 5.1.4 be better than 7.1.4?
3.Surround heights after installing atmos should be same height as Fronts tweater or MLP?


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> Installing my x.x.4 on ceiling speakers
> 
> Room: 4,35*3,35*2,45(WxDxH) in meters
> 
> Atmos Width between speakers about 1,8meter (about 30degree angle from MLP)
> Atmos behind/Ahead of MLP about 1,55 meter (45 degree angre from MLP)
> 
> 1.My speakers is on ceiling/wall pointed inwards to MLP, is the 45 degree vertical and 30 degree horizontal the best?
> 
> 2.With 4,35*3,35 room will 5.1.4 be better than 7.1.4?
> 3.Surround heights after installing atmos should be same height as Fronts tweater or MLP?


1. Not sure exactly what you mean - the Dolby recommend is 45deg elevation and 45deg horizontal for fronts and rears. In other words a perfect square around the MLP. But if you cant do that then just get as clsoe as you can - a few inches or deg isn't going to be a deal breaker.

2. Definitely - IMO the room is not wide enough for 7. You can do 7 with the surrounds slightly behind or slightly in front instead of directly to the side. But I have tested slightly in front and it sounded odd with rear effects coming from in front of me. And if you put them behind then the rear surrounds have less of an effect. I think that 7 is better but only by about 5-10% and only if you can get pefect setup, and of course 5.1 is generally a few hundred dollars cheaper and less hassle to install.

3. Tweeters should be at ear level, but only if they are not blocked by seat backs, heads etc. They can be raised up to 1.25 times the height of the fronts. If you go for a 7.1 setup then the fronts, surrounds and rear surrounds tweeter heights should all form a straight line (or as close as possible) when viewed from the side.

Might be best to start a dedicated thread with detailed room plans to get better and more accurate advice.


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> 1. Not sure exactly what you mean - the Dolby recommend is 45deg elevation and 45deg horizontal for fronts and rears. In other words a perfect square around the MLP. But if you cant do that then just get as clsoe as you can - a few inches or deg isn't going to be a deal breaker.
> 
> 2. Definitely - IMO the room is not wide enough for 7. You can do 7 with the surrounds slightly behind or slightly in front instead of directly to the side. But I have tested slightly in front and it sounded odd with rear effects coming from in front of me. And if you put them behind then the rear surrounds have less of an effect. I think that 7 is better but only by about 5-10% and only if you can get pefect setup, and of course 5.1 is generally a few hundred dollars cheaper and less hassle to install.
> 
> 3. Tweeters should be at ear level, but only if they are not blocked by seat backs, heads etc. They can be raised up to 1.25 times the height of the fronts. If you go for a 7.1 setup then the fronts, surrounds and rear surrounds tweeter heights should all form a straight line (or as close as possible) when viewed from the side.
> 
> Might be best to start a dedicated thread with detailed room plans to get better and more accurate advice.


Thanks for very good answers.
Before adding the 4 atmos i have used a 6.1 setup, will now convert to 5.1.4 based on youre response (which i was assuming, not enough width).


See picture, was thinking of 35 degrees here to get width like explained in one of the videos on first page.
But you think it's better to use 45 degrees here as well and get 1,55 between all the atmos speakers?

My vertical is 45 degrees from MLP to get so they are 1,55meter behind/infront me and 1,55 above.


----------



## MortenS

So for my 5.1.4

Do i replace my Klipsch RS-52 bipolar surrounds with direct firing?

Yes: With what? (Klipsch RB-61?)
No:Wheres optimal placement?


----------



## Chirosamsung

MortenS said:


> So for my 5.1.4
> 
> Do i replace my Klipsch RS-52 bipolar surrounds with direct firing?
> 
> Yes: With what? (Klipsch RB-61?)
> No:Wheres optimal placement?


I use my bipole (Monitor Audio Gold FX) as rears as they are mounted on back wal and fairly close to the back of the couch (maybe 1.5 feet)-this allows me to get atmos placement but avoid the hot spotting of those speakers I had with monopoles in that location. Same logic would apply if the side surrounds are too close to a listener at edge of couch.


----------



## niterida

My experience with bipoles is that they just don't work for Atmos. Think about how atmos works - it uses xyz co-ordinates to stereo image a sound in a certain location and it can only do this if it is a stereo image. If you suddenly have one of those sound sources being duplicated and sent out in 2 different directions it makes it very hard to have a proper stereo image. 
Sure you can use them and they may work fine for you but pretty certain it would be better with monopoles. At least thats my opinion after testing bipoles in my room.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> My experience with bipoles is that they just don't work for Atmos. Think about how atmos works - it uses xyz co-ordinates to stereo image a sound in a certain location and it can only do this if it is a stereo image. If you suddenly have one of those sound sources being duplicated and sent out in 2 different directions it makes it very hard to have a proper stereo image.
> Sure you can use them and they may work fine for you but pretty certain it would be better with monopoles. At least thats my opinion after testing bipoles in my room.


My experience (as well as the Dolby official guidelines) is much different.
Bipoles DO work well for atmos in certain speaker spots. Especially is near-field to avoid hotspottting. I also use majority of monopoles for rest.

Now DIPOLES is different. They will not work.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> My experience with bipoles is that they just don't work for Atmos. Think about how atmos works - it uses xyz co-ordinates to stereo image a sound in a certain location and it can only do this if it is a stereo image. If you suddenly have one of those sound sources being duplicated and sent out in 2 different directions it makes it very hard to have a proper stereo image.
> Sure you can use them and they may work fine for you but pretty certain it would be better with monopoles. At least thats my opinion after testing bipoles in my room.


I disagree. I have Carver 6' ribbon dipoles in my upstairs system. They image stereo perfectly and with enhanced ambience. All real world sounds are 360 degree dipolar in nature, which is why they can make it sound like Tori Amos is actually in the room with studio recordings. You need the rear wave to place her voice precisely in 3D space.

That differs from old school dipole surround speakers where you sit in the null of the speaker to make it sound like a giant decorrelated array. I don't sit in any null. The drivers face me and the speakers are kept 4 feet from the front wall so they don't cancel out at certain frequencies.

There are bipolar speakers from Mirage and Definitive Technology that use the same principle, the primary difference being because the drivers are in-phase with each other, they don't need to several feet from the wall. 12" will suffice.

Bipolar surrounds depend on the design used and how the are used. If they are used front-to-back for ambience, they will image just fine compared to a monopole. If you sit to the side of them, they still image reasonably well as there is no "null", but you're dependent on reflected sound so they may suffer uneven frequency response and not image quite as cleanly as a monopole.

These were popular in the 1990s as a compromise between dipoles for older decorrelated mono surround soundtracks and monopoles for newer Dolby Digital and DTS discrete stereo surround tracks as they could do both pretty well, but perhaps not ideal for either. These are probably the type/use you're thinking of and I wouldn't really recommend them for Atmos if they can be avoided. Still, they're still vastly preferable to a null based dipolar surround. Dolby says the old null based dipolar surrounds should not be used, but they say nothing about bipoles.

A third bipole type is a side mounted variety where the drivers are angled but not 180 degrees like front/back designs. These are great for using them between rows in a multi-row home theater because they don't need to be very far off to the side to be on-axis for both rows since they're essentially just two arrayed monopoles facing different directions, making them on-axis for pretty much everyone.

I use this type for Top Middle (formerly for side surround before Atmos) because they face both the front and rear rows but only require mounting one speaker whereas on the bed level I use two monopoles for the same effect, mostly because I couldn't locate that model to buy another pair, but the B15 monopole bookshelf were all over eBay. Apparently, they were much more popular.


----------



## petetherock

niterida said:


> My experience with bipoles is that they just don't work for Atmos. Think about how atmos works - it uses xyz co-ordinates to stereo image a sound in a certain location and it can only do this if it is a stereo image. If you suddenly have one of those sound sources being duplicated and sent out in 2 different directions it makes it very hard to have a proper stereo image.
> Sure you can use them and they may work fine for you but pretty certain it would be better with monopoles. At least thats my opinion after testing bipoles in my room.


My own experience with bipoles has been good... especially in a smaller room - where you sit close to the surrounds, it helps spread the sound out a bit more smoothly, but doesn't detract from the deliberate directionality either..


----------



## sdurani

MortenS said:


> Do i replace my Klipsch RS-52 bipolar surrounds with direct firing?


Think of bipoles surrounds as monopoles with a really wide (180°) dispersion pattern. This can come in handy if you're trying to provide coverage for a large group of listeners. The main difference you'll hear is more reflected sound with bipoles (it's spraying sound everywhere) compared to less reflected sound with monopoles (narrower dispersion pattern). In both cases, your human hearing will imprint on the first arrival of the sound, so directionality will be the same with both. Bipoles will sound more spacious because of more reflected sound than the monopoles. Comes down to personal preference and whether you like that sort of sound.


----------



## Chirosamsung

petetherock said:


> My own experience with bipoles has been good... especially in a smaller room - where you sit close to the surrounds, it helps spread the sound out a bit more smoothly, but doesn't detract from the deliberate directionality either..


it seems like MOST (can't say all because that guy) find atmos works well with Bipoles.

including Dolby themselves....

just sayin'


----------



## MortenS

Thanks all, i have little width in my room so will try bipolar on sides. Ordered monopol and will first try in back for 7.1.4, if not replace bipol and go 5.1.4 👌👌👌


----------



## flyers10

MortenS said:


> Thanks all, i have little width in my room so will try bipolar on sides. Ordered monopol and will first try in back for 7.1.4, if not replace bipol and go 5.1.4 👌👌👌


Didn't you say your width was 4.35 meters (about 14ft)? If so that is plenty of width for monopole speakers. (unless cramming a seat right next to it which isn't an ideal seating placement regardless)


----------



## Chirosamsung

flyers10 said:


> Didn't you say your width was 4.35 meters (about 14ft)? If so that is plenty of width for monopole speakers. (unless cramming a seat right next to it which isn't an ideal seating placement regardless)


If he is going for 7.1.4 he can put rears as bipole like mine as I have a similar length room and this would be the best layout leaving monopoles as the side surrounds


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> If he is going for 7.1.4 he can put rears as bipole like mine as I have a similar length room and this would be the best layout leaving monopoles as the side surrounds
> View attachment 3303573
> 
> View attachment 3303574


Those bipoles seem awfully close to where your head would be aimed right at them in the MLP in the first photo. How far are those from the couch? Maybe it's just the photos not showing depth? 

I'd ideally want at least 3 feet between me and any speaker pointed directly towards my ears. I take it you're happy with the result, though?


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Those bipoles seem awfully close to where your head would be aimed right at them in the MLP in the first photo. How far are those from the couch? Maybe it's just the photos not showing depth?
> 
> I'd ideally want at least 3 feet between me and any speaker pointed directly towards my ears. I take it you're happy with the result, though?


The speaker is between 2-2.5 feet from head/ears of person in front of it. I placed them so they are kinda facing forward from the seats right beside MLP and that way it works best with the diffusion pattern of the bipole to get the best rear results for the main 3 seats and even some coverage for the outside seats.

I find it works well as the monopole would have been too close and not worked.
 















































Here are all the pictures.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> The speaker is between 2-2.5 feet from head/ears of person in front of it. I placed them so they are kinda facing forward from the seats right beside MLP and that way it works best with the diffusion pattern of the bipole to get the best rear results for the main 3 seats and even some coverage for the outside seats.
> 
> I find it works well as the monopole would have been too close and not worked.
> View attachment 3303692
> 
> View attachment 3303693
> 
> View attachment 3303691
> 
> View attachment 3303689
> 
> View attachment 3303688
> 
> View attachment 3303690
> 
> Here are all the pictures.


As long as the results sound good to you, that's what matters. 

Did you ever try placing the side surrounds a bit further forward to increase separation between the side and rear speakers while increasing panning cohesion with the mains? I know some don't like side effects forward of the sides, but I've found with rears in place, it works fine (e.g. 2nd/3rd row here).

Does the projector do 3D? I see Life of Pi there. Screwed up movie plot when you find out the truth of what _really_ happened (I wanted to throw up), but it had nice visuals in 3D.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> As long as the results sound good to you, that's what matters.
> 
> Does the projector do 3D? I see Life of Pi there. Screwed up movie plot when you find out the truth of what _really_ happened (I wanted to throw up), but it had nice visuals in 3D.


whoops that's the tv not projector-not sure how that got on there.

not as messed up as Donny Darko or Memento lol


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> whoops that's the tv not projector-not sure how that got on there.
> 
> not as messed up as Donny Darko or Memento lol


Donny Darko's ending bothered me from a deterministic standpoint. I was really enjoying it up until then. Memento's ending was certainly disturbing.

My favorite for a mind twist was probably Dark City, but those seeing it for the first time need the Director's Cut as the theatrical version gives way too much away, which spoils the ending. 

There's always David Kronenberg if you want some really freaky stuff. Everyone loves Scanners, but Videodrome with James Woods was way more screwed up. Nightbreed was interesting too. I hadn't seen The Dead Zone in over a decade and didn't realize it was filmed in Niagara On-The-Lake until I saw it again (I've been up there a dozen times since then).

I never understood why Color of Night (with Bruce Willis) got such low numbers. I watched it at the theater and loved it. I hadn't seen in since the 90s and bought it on BD and watched it again not that long ago and it was still great. Kind of neo-film noir detective type movie with a fudged up twist. But then I'm guilty of watching The Ninth Gate (my favorite Johnny Depp movie) far far too many times so maybe it's just a guilty pleasure. 

Other fun movies with oddities or twists:

The Prestige 
Phantasm (now with Atmos)
The Thirteenth Floor
They Live (now with Atmos) 
10 Cloverfield Lane (Atmos to good effect) 
Brainstorm (more Christopher Walkin) 
Doctor Sleep (fantastic Atmos) 
Dreamscape
The Game (Auro-3D version exists from France)

I just got Edge of Tomorrow in UHD Atmos today. I need to remux Atmos to the 3D version and compare.


----------



## halcyon_888

Gotta include Sixth Sense for a movie with a twist ending...


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Donny Darko's ending bothered me from a deterministic standpoint. I was really enjoying it up until then. Memento's ending was certainly disturbing.
> 
> My favorite for a mind twist was probably Dark City, but those seeing it for the first time need the Director's Cut as the theatrical version gives way too much away, which spoils the ending.
> 
> There's always David Kronenberg if you want some really freaky stuff. Everyone loves Scanners, but Videodrome with James Woods was way more screwed up. Nightbreed was interesting too. I hadn't seen The Dead Zone in over a decade and didn't realize it was filmed in Niagara On-The-Lake until I saw it again (I've been up there a dozen times since then).
> 
> I never understood why Color of Night (with Bruce Willis) got such low numbers. I watched it at the theater and loved it. I hadn't seen in since the 90s and bought it on BD and watched it again not that long ago and it was still great. Kind of neo-film noir detective type movie with a fudged up twist. But then I'm guilty of watching The Ninth Gate (my favorite Johnny Depp movie) far far too many times so maybe it's just a guilty pleasure.
> 
> Other fun movies with oddities or twists:
> 
> The Prestige
> Phantasm (now with Atmos)
> The Thirteenth Floor
> They Live (now with Atmos)
> 10 Cloverfield Lane (Atmos to good effect)
> Brainstorm (more Christopher Walkin)
> Doctor Sleep (fantastic Atmos)
> Dreamscape
> The Game (Auro-3D version exists from France)
> 
> I just got Edge of Tomorrow in UHD Atmos today. I need to remux Atmos to the 3D version and compare.


Agree with the prestige and 10 Cloverfield Lane

also include the usual suspects and the departed and inception to the list. 

just got Edge of Tomorrow yesterday and the atmos is FANTASTIC and it's a pretty good movie as well.


----------



## MortenS

Chirosamsung said:


> it seems like MOST (can't say all because that guy) find atmos works well with Bipoles.
> 
> including Dolby themselves....
> 
> just sayin'





flyers10 said:


> Didn't you say your width was 4.35 meters (about 14ft)? If so that is plenty of width for monopole speakers. (unless cramming a seat right next to it which isn't an ideal seating placement regardless)


No 4,35x3,35x2,45
So placing bipoles as sides at 90 degree i get 145cm at very center of room. Gonna try 70 or 110 degrees to get more distance to closet seating and also get them fire more direct with 1 side.


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> No 4,35x3,35x2,45
> So placing bipoles as sides at 90 degree i get 145cm at very center of room. Gonna try 70 or 110 degrees to get more distance to closet seating and also get them fire more direct with 1 side.


I suggest 5.1 with surrounds at 120deg. That is how I have my room which is 4.3m wide. Just nowhere near enough width for them any closer.


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> I suggest 5.1 with surrounds at 120deg. That is how I have my room which is 4.3m wide. Just nowhere near enough width for them any closer.


Getting the new monopols tomorrow so will test both 5.1 as u suggest. Also. Mono 140degree and bipol around 80 for 7.1.4

Any tips for choosing top or height in marantz for my .4?, they are on ceiling 45 degres vertical 35 horizontal like video in post 1 suggest.


----------



## flyers10

MortenS said:


> No 4,35x3,35x2,45
> So placing bipoles as sides at 90 degree i get 145cm at very center of room. Gonna try 70 or 110 degrees to get more distance to closet seating and also get them fire more direct with 1 side.


Ok so width is 3.35. Still doable with monopoles just depends on seat location. But bipoles are fine there.

I think you typed 4.35 as W (width) earlier hence my confusion. 



MortenS said:


> Installing my x.x.4 on ceiling speakers
> 
> Room: 4,35*3,35*2,45(WxDxH) in meters


----------



## StevenC56

I use Def Tech bipoles for both my side surround and rear surround positions. Works well for me.


----------



## MortenS

flyers10 said:


> Ok so width is 3.35. Still doable with monopoles just depends on seat location. But bipoles are fine there.
> 
> I think you typed 4.35 as W (width) earlier hence my confusion.


My bad, looking at speakers too much WxDxH 😅 so lenght 435


----------



## MortenS

StevenC56 said:


> I use Def Tech bipoles for both my side surround and rear surround positions. Works well for me.


Distance and angles from MLP?, at ear level height?


----------



## halcyon_888

Anyone know if umbrella academy season 3 is supposed to be in Atmos?


----------



## StevenC56

MortenS said:


> Distance and angles from MLP?, at ear level height?


My room is pretty narrow so placement is pretty limited.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> My room is pretty narrow so placement is pretty limited.
> View attachment 3304047


I liked those chairs. What's the difference between the two sets of rear surrounds back there?


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> I liked those chairs. What's the difference between the two sets of rear surrounds back there?


The outboard speakers are the smaller BPX model and another pair of those mirror them on the front wall. They are "effects" or "presence" speakers as I've used Yamaha receivers and processors for over 30 years. The side and rear surrounds are the larger BPVX model.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> The outboard speakers are the smaller BPX model and another pair of those mirror them on the front wall. They are "effects" or "presence" speakers as I've used Yamaha receivers and processors for over 30 years. The side and rear surrounds are the larger BPVX model.


I thought the presence speakers were one and the same as the height speakers on newer models? Or do you use more than one AVR for different things? Or does it have more speaker posts for switching?

My last AVR was a Yamaha (Component instead of HDMI) and it could do 7.1 (only decoded to 6.1 ES/EX, but it could take an outboard processor and I briefly tried 7.1 TrueHD/DTS HD-MA with one testing out whether I could make 7.1 work well enough to do Atmos 7.1.4 (As I have an odd room) or 5.1.2 with on the fly switching (preference setting for which to use automatically). That was 5.1.2 presence DSP with dialog lift. I didn't even know the dialog lift feature was on it until I read about it in an article like 9 years later as it's buried in the manual under DSP enhancement options. I would have tried it sooner otherwise as the rear center I set up didn't get much use (very little 6.1 content).

I never really cared for the DSP modes until I then tried installing an identical pair of front heights (PSB B15). Holy crap! What a difference for DSP which now sounded more believable and less than toy-like. The biggest difference was the dialog lift option. For the first time, voices came from the center of the screen instead of below it. Mono movie classic cinema mode was an absolute hoot with old Bogart films. The room felt gigantic, but too echoey for serious listening (reverb was adjustable), but from what I read early theaters weren't designed to deaden sound. But compared to straight mono, it at least sounded huge.

That sold me on dialog lift. If Yamaha had supported Auro-3D then, I would probably be using it now. So I devised my own whole front stage lift system with a mixer so most front sounds and dialog now come from 1/3 up the screen (compromise to keep as much separation between layers as possible while keeping sounds in the screen area (top of screen is the ceiling).


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> I thought the presence speakers were one and the same as the height speakers on newer models? Or do you use more than one AVR for different things? Or does it have more speaker posts for switching?
> 
> My last AVR was a Yamaha (Component instead of HDMI) and it could do 7.1 (only decoded to 6.1 ES/EX, but it could take an outboard processor and I briefly tried 7.1 TrueHD/DTS HD-MA with one testing out whether I could make 7.1 work well enough to do Atmos 7.1.4 (As I have an odd room) or 5.1.2 with on the fly switching (preference setting for which to use automatically). That was 5.1.2 presence DSP with dialog lift. I didn't even know the dialog lift feature was on it until I read about it in an article like 9 years later as it's buried in the manual under DSP enhancement options. I would have tried it sooner otherwise as the rear center I set up didn't get much use (very little 6.1 content).
> 
> I never really cared for the DSP modes until I then tried installing an identical pair of front heights (PSB B15). Holy crap! What a difference for DSP which now sounded more believable and less than toy-like. The biggest difference was the dialog lift option. For the first time, voices came from the center of the screen instead of below it. Mono movie classic cinema mode was an absolute hoot with old Bogart films. The room felt gigantic, but too echoey for serious listening (reverb was adjustable), but from what I read early theaters weren't designed to deaden sound. But compared to straight mono, it at least sounded huge.
> 
> That sold me on dialog lift. If Yamaha had supported Auro-3D then, I would probably be using it noe. So I devised my own whole front stage lift system with a mixer so most front sounds and dialog now come from 1/3 up the screen (compromise to keep as much separation between layers as possible while keeping sounds in the screen area (top of screen is the ceiling).


Yamaha's presence speaker location is the same for my CX-A5200 and goes back a few processor generations. They do now allow for 4 overheads instead of the 4 wall mounted locations as an option. You can have 2 "speaker set" configurations stored in the Yamaha's and switch between the 2. I have both the wall mounted front and rear plus 4 overheads for Atmos. I use 2 Yamaha MX-5000 amps and use the A_B switching on those to toggle between the speaker sets.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> Yamaha's presence speaker location is the same for my CX-A5200 and goes back a few processor generations. They do now allow for 4 overheads instead of the 4 wall mounted locations as an option. You can have 2 "speaker set" configurations stored in the Yamaha's and switch between the 2. I have both the wall mounted front and rear plus 4 overheads for Atmos. I use 2 Yamaha MX-5000 amps and use the A_B switching on those to toggle between the speaker sets.


How high are those mounted? The old standard according to the Yamaha FAQ was about 6 feet above the ground and I would imagine they're probably adjusted for Dolby height usage in newer manuals (~30 degrees or at least close to the ceiling). Yours appear to be only slightly higher than the ear level surrounds. Wouldn't you get a better effect with them mounted higher up to distinguish them from the rear surrounds? It doesn't look like that would be an issue there.


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> How high are those mounted? The old standard according to the Yamaha FAQ was about 6 feet above the ground and I would imagine they're probably adjusted for Dolby height usage in newer manuals (~30 degrees or at least close to the ceiling). Yours appear to be only slightly higher than the ear level surrounds. Wouldn't you get a better effect with them mounted higher up to distinguish them from the rear surrounds? It doesn't look like that would be an issue there.


They are all 6' up from the floor, (4' down from the ceiling) except now with the rear riser they are 14" less from the riser up. These wires were ran by me when the house was being built 26 years ago. I have no plans to raise them. They are used for non-Atmos soundtrack movies and work fine with Yamaha's DSP modes over DD and DTS. For Atmos these are not connected, and the 4 overhead speakers take over. I have 2 extra ceiling speakers in case I get a processor someday that can do 6 Atmos overheads.


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> They are all 6' up from the floor, (4' down from the ceiling) except now with the rear riser they are 14" less from the riser up. These wires were ran by me when the house was being built 26 years ago. I have no plans to raise them. They are used for non-Atmos soundtrack movies and work fine with Yamaha's DSP modes over DD and DTS. For Atmos these are not connected, and the 4 overhead speakers take over. I have 2 extra ceiling speakers in case I get a processor someday that can do 6 Atmos overheads.


It must be the riser that makes them appear lower than they are, particularly with such a tall ceiling, although stadium theaters I've been to have surrounds stepped up at the same ratio relative to the seats than absolute height.

That admittedly can cause some strange panning anomalies, though (e.g. The Matrix Ressurections sounded in 7.1 sounded like it had height layers because surround effects at the screen, side surrounds where I was sitting and rear surrounds were all at different heights so pans would swoop upward). 

In any case, with a higher count processor it does seem like Heights + Tops could work well in that room in the future as you certainly have the space for it.

So a 10 foot ceiling eh? I'd certainly be curious to hear an Atmos demo with that kind of height. Sometimes overhead sounds seem a bit too close at 8.5' (8' usable with on-ceiling speakers), although it does have moments where objects seem to just miss your head (boxes in race scene of Ready Player One) that _might_ be less scary sounding higher up. I've got no frame of reference to compare. But some thunder effects just seem too close to be believable (depending on how dispersed the recorded sound is to begin with). I'd imagine they'd sound much better with an extra 2 feet of clearance.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Please excuse my ignorance but to the Atmos experts, just a few questions. Is it true that going over 7.2.4 is a waste because studios are hard mixing Atmos tracks to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4? 

I see some people rocking 9.2.4 setups, but with the limitations in software and hardware rendering is it even worth the added expense and effort to go further than 7.2.4? I don't have any experience with this, it's just some stuff I've read online on some forums.

Then I see guys with high-end processors like Trinnov that have 16 channels or even 32 channels and I wonder how much better it can get, but if the studios are only limited to 7.2.4 (again, I could be totally wrong so please correct me if I am wrong) then is there any point in going over and above this?

So much conflicting info on the internet, so I'd like some clarity on this if someone could please chime in. Thanks.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Stephan Mire said:


> Please excuse my ignorance but to the Atmos experts, just a few questions. Is it true that going over 7.2.4 is a waste because studios are hard mixing Atmos tracks to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4?
> 
> I see some people rocking 9.2.4 setups, but with the limitations in software and hardware rendering is it even worth the added expense and effort to go further than 7.2.4? I don't have any experience with this, it's just some stuff I've read online on some forums.
> 
> Then I see guys with high-end processors like Trinnov that have 16 channels or even 32 channels and I wonder how much better it can get, but if the studios are only limited to 7.2.4 (again, I could be totally wrong so please correct me if I am wrong) then is there any point in going over and above this?
> 
> So much conflicting info on the internet, so I'd like some clarity on this if someone could please chime in. Thanks.


diminishing returns after 7.1.4 overall but certainly not a waste just not as much improvement each set as there is going up to 7.1.4

7.1.4 is the sweet spot, but when has any/most of us on AVS ever stopped on sweet spot or good enough??

ps I have 9.1.4


----------



## sdurani

Stephan Mire said:


> Is it true that going over 7.2.4 is a waste because studios are hard mixing Atmos tracks to 7.1.2 or 7.1.4?


Not a complete waste because there are Atmos mixes that will take advantage of the additional speakers. If the budget allows, I would add Wides. Only thing I would avoid is an odd number of height pairs (3 pairs or 5 pairs) and instead stick with 2 pairs or 4 pairs in the height layer. Atmos mixes that are pre-rendered to 7.1.2 will result in all the overhead sound being reproduced by the middle pair, so I would simply avoid the middle pair.


----------



## halcyon_888

It also depends on how much content you watch that utilizes Atmos well. For example, I find myself watching TV shows most of the time that are DD+ 5.1 and I don't re-watch movies 99% of the time. I'm happy with my 5.1.2 setup--and contrary to popular belief, two heights is Atmos as well 😅


----------



## chi_guy50

halcyon_888 said:


> It also depends on how much content you watch that utilizes Atmos well. For example, I find myself watching TV shows most of the time that are DD+ 5.1 and I don't re-watch movies 99% of the time. I'm happy with my 5.1.2 setup--and contrary to popular belief, two heights is Atmos as well 😅


There is no question that a well thought out 5.1.2 setup can deliver very good three-dimensional effects--especially if that overhead pair is located just forward of the MLP. My secondary (bedroom) system is in this configuration and, while the result may not be as all-enveloping as my 9.1.4 main system, it most definitely serves the purpose for us.

Furthermore, although we do watch a good deal of Atmos content, the upmixers (DSU, Neural:X, and Auro-Matic) do a fine job as well. During the pandemic we have been live-streaming concerts that we would otherwise have attended in person in excellent, acoustically treated performance spaces. The 2.0 PCM streams upmixed to 7.1.4 with Auro-Matic have been very enjoyable (enhanced at home by a nice glass of wine), and we didn't have to fight traffic, find a parking space, and deal with crowds of spectators in the process.

N.B.: Support your local non-profit performance venues! We make annual contributions regardless of whether we are able to attend ourselves.


----------



## halcyon_888

chi_guy50 said:


> There is no question that a well thought out 5.1.2 setup can deliver very good three-dimensional effects--especially if that overhead pair is located just forward of the MLP. My secondary (bedroom) system is in this configuration and, while the result may not be as all-enveloping as my 9.1.4 main system, it most definitely serves the purpose for us.
> 
> Furthermore, although we do watch a good deal of Atmos content, the upmixers (DSU, Neural:X, and Auro-Matic) do a fine job as well. During the pandemic we have been live-streaming concerts that we would otherwise have attended in person in excellent, acoustically treated performance spaces. The 2.0 PCM streams upmixed to 7.1.4 with Auro-Matic have been very enjoyable (enhanced at home by a nice glass of wine), and we didn't have to fight traffic, find a parking space, and deal with crowds of spectators in the process.
> 
> N.B.: Support your local non-profit performance venues! We make annual contributions regardless of whether we are able to attend ourselves.


Yea a good 5.1.2 setup still provides a "bubble" of sound as I can attest to that with my 5.1.2 setup. I don't listen to music, just TV shows and movies, and of the two I'm finding I watch more TV shows than movies. I use the Neural:X upmixer on DD+ 5.1 content so it does help to expand the soundstage and provide an occasional directly placed sound overhead. It seems like you get more out of the upmixers than I do with the music content you watch.

The most recent TV show I completed was Winning Time on HBO, so the upmixers didn't have much to work with at all since it was dialogue driven. Shows I'm currently watching are The Crown season 3, Yellowstone season 3, The Offer, and The Terminal List. So among those shows the upmixers don't have a lot to work with, except for The Terminal List which has a little more to work with since it's more action based.

I recently thought about adding two more heights to my setup, my speakers are DIY so I would have to build two additional height speakers which is no small feat. I admit it was fun to go through the process of spec'ing out the system, but at the end of the day I did a cost/benefit analysis of a 5.1.4 setup over a 5.1.2. It just wasn't worth it for me. Most of what I watch are TV shows, and even when I watch a movie most of the Atmos soundtracks are a let-down IMO. So I concluded that the extra labor, cost, and installation difficulty just isn't worth going with 5.1.4 over my 5.1.2 setup which I already have--besides I already have two heights to capture the height content when it is available.

So that's why I was advising to consider what content someone watches (or like you pointed out, listens to with music upmixing), and how much the heights would be used with that content. There's a difference between having the speakers available to play height content and having content that will utilize them. I don't think we are in disagreement, someone will have to decide for themselves if additional heights would be worth it or not to them.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Not a complete waste because there are Atmos mixes that will take advantage of the additional speakers. If the budget allows, I would add Wides. Only thing I would avoid is an odd number of height pairs (3 pairs or 5 pairs) and instead stick with 2 pairs or 4 pairs in the height layer. Atmos mixes that are pre-rendered to 7.1.2 will result in all the overhead sound being reproduced by the middle pair, so I would simply avoid the middle pair.


I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate on this: if you have a 9.1.6 setup, and play a pre-rendered 7.1.2 track, you'll be hearing it exactly how it was mixed, and how bad can that be, really? 

I would prioritize Wides over an extra pair of tops, but I don't think having 3 pairs of tops is crazy for a 2-row theatre.

One thing worth bearing in mind with all of this: most mixing rooms in Hollywood creating home entertainment content are set up for 7.1.4 monitoring, with premiere rooms starting to move to 9.1.6.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate on this: if you have a 9.1.6 setup, and play a pre-rendered 7.1.2 track, you'll be hearing it exactly how it was mixed, and how bad can that be, really?


We don't know how it was mixed, only how the studio decided to deliver it. I have trouble believing that all the mixers that worked on all the Atmos mixes for Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc., wanted them all delivered as pre-rendered soundtracks. That would be some coincidence. This is a corporate decision, not something at the mixer (artistic) level.


> I don't think having 3 pairs of tops is crazy for a 2-row theatre.


Not crazy, but something I would avoid because with 7.1.2 tracks the entire height layer will hotspot in the middle of the ceiling, while there will be less of that with 2 pairs instead of 3.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> We don't know how it was mixed, only how the studio decided to deliver it. I have trouble believing that all the mixers that worked on all the Atmos mixes for Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc., wanted them all delivered as pre-rendered soundtracks. That would be some coincidence. This is a corporate decision, not something at the mixer (artistic) level. Not crazy, but something I would avoid because with 7.1.2 tracks the entire height layer will hotspot in the middle of the ceiling, while there will be less of that with 2 pairs instead of 3.


A far far simpler solution is not to discard any idea of a six overhead speaker install (to go to 8 overheads, you'd need a Trinnov or at least a Storm processor as they are the only ones that support 8 overhead speakers or more currently and cost a small fortune so using 8 is _not_ a realistic option for most people), but rather to simply disable "Top Middle" if you prefer to use all four overhead speakers instead of just Top Middle. That takes a few seconds to turn off. You can't put back speakers you never installed if you want six and only have four. 

Besides, who would give up six overheads because of one or two movies, regardless? More to the point, a movie like Ready Player One is designed to use only Top Middle if you have it. Two speakers producing discrete objects only meant for Top Middle is _always_ going to be more precise than using four speakers to make the sound because of the Precedence Effect (sounds pull towards closer speakers when panned in-between unless you sit directly between all four speakers at which point it would sound either exactly the same as Top Middle by itself or a less precise version spread out because the speakers are too far apart such as with larger rooms with only Heights speakers. _That_ is precisely why you would want Top Middle in addition to Front/Rear Heights or Tops in the first place. Leaving Top Middle out will _always_ result in poorer spatially accurate sound. That is a FACT.

For example, the boxes the DeLorean hits in Ready Player One under the bridge at the race near the start of the movie is supposed to be directly in the middle of the room aligned with the side surrounds. Properly played, it sounds like the box flies in that exact spot (either missing your head just in front of or behind or directly over it depending on your seat. But using 4 speakers, spreads the sound outward further, making it sound hardly even noticeable, just coming from all around in a more general sense the further away the front/rear overheads are placed. In other words, placed anywhere else, it won't sound like it just missed your head. But using 4 speakers overhead brings the _Precedence Effect_ into play, which pulls imaged sounds closer to the speaker you are sitting closest to. So unless you sit directly centered between them (and if you do sit directly between them, it sounds exactly the same as using Top Middle, only perhaps less "tight" in the spatial resolution), it will pull either closer to the front overheads or back overheads and not image directly in-between them.

So sorry, but six speakers overhead are always going to be better than four! Again, if you really want to only use four speakers for a particular movie, all you have to do is disable Top Middle temporarily and it will use x.x.4 instead. So simple.

Sadly, unless someone quotes me, you won't even see it since AFAIK you still have me on ignore 4 years later. But others should know these things because, IMO it's terribly _BAD ADVICE_ to forgo six overheads you could have had just because of one movie (whether you like the effect or not). It's too easy to simply bypass, regardless.



sdurani said:


> We don't know how it was mixed, only how the studio decided to deliver it. I have trouble believing that all the mixers that worked on all the Atmos mixes for Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc., wanted them all delivered as pre-rendered soundtracks. That would be some coincidence. This is a corporate decision, not something at the mixer (artistic) level. Not crazy, but something I would avoid because with 7.1.2 tracks the entire height layer will hotspot in the middle of the ceiling, while there will be less of that with 2 pairs instead of 3.


For goodness sake, it's *supposed* to "hotspot" (aka phantom image) directly at the Top Middle location! We call that _precise_ phantom imaging! What on god's Earth makes you think it should be more "spread out" sounding? If that was the sound they were looking for, they can easily make it do that if they want to using 4 overheads and putting the sounds out-of-phase! The box hit in Ready Player One is not supposed to be "diffuse" sounding! It's supposed to sound like it flew just past the spot right dead center in the room! That's why it's in Top Middle. 

You must be the only person I've ever seen suggest that rendering an Atmos object with an array (more speakers than needed) is better than doing it discretely (not more than 1 or 2 speakers needed to place the sound). It's almost _unbelievable_ to me that you'd even have that view.

Frankly, if you don't like how Ready Player One is rendered, write Universal and complain. Tell them you want the cinema version properly converted. Because hamstringing your own listening room to play it the way you want (instead of just turning off Top Middle temporarily) isn't going to fix the source of the problem! One or two movies like this should not be a reason to ditch six overheads regardless. You can play it in Neural X and it'll put 90% of the sounds overhead (using all overhead you have). Even Auro-3D's upmixer works well with RP1. Any of these options is better than only using four overheads when your processor/receiver supports six.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> We don't know how it was mixed, only how the studio decided to deliver it. I have trouble believing that all the mixers that worked on all the Atmos mixes for Disney, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc., wanted them all delivered as pre-rendered soundtracks. That would be some coincidence. This is a corporate decision, not something at the mixer (artistic) level. Not crazy, but something I would avoid because with 7.1.2 tracks the entire height layer will hotspot in the middle of the ceiling, while there will be less of that with 2 pairs instead of 3.


It's not that the mixers decided they _wanted_ it that way, but I'm pretty sure they did their Atmos mix knowing that it would ultimately be delivered as a pre-render to a specified layout and so mixing and monitoring accordingly.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I'm pretty sure they did their Atmos mix knowing that it would ultimately be delivered as a pre-render to a specified layout and so mixing and monitoring accordingly.


You think the home Atmos mix for _'Avengers: Endgame'_ was mixed and monitored on a 7.1.2 speaker layout?


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> You think the home Atmos mix for _'Avengers: Endgame'_ was mixed and monitored on a 7.1.2 speaker layout?


Yes, or if not that they mixed/monitored on something in between 7.1.2 and 9.1.6 and then did a couple of sessions where they played back the mix in 7.1.2 and tweaked if they felt it necessary.


----------



## mrtickleuk

dschulz said:


> Yes, or if not that they mixed/monitored on something in between 7.1.2 and 9.1.6 and then did a couple of sessions where they played back the mix in 7.1.2 and tweaked if they felt it necessary.


It's a theory which seems to be highly speculative to me. I'm just wondering what else you know that leads you to say that you were "pretty sure" of it?


----------



## dschulz

mrtickleuk said:


> It's a theory which seems to be highly speculative to me. I'm just wondering what else you know that leads you to say that you were "pretty sure" of it?


I don't know anything definitive (though I'll see what I can find out), but if the average forum user knows that Disney is hard printing things, do you really think the home entertainment re-recording mixers are unaware and just going all-out in a 9.1.6 room and then being unpleasantly surprised to find that downstream of their work someone has hard-rendered to 7.1.2 without them knowing about it? Delivery specs are typically distributed in writing ahead of the work being done.

And even if that _is_ the case, at the very least someone responsible for creative sign-off is QCing that hard-rendered track and approving it, saying "yes, this is the delivered mix as intended."


----------



## dschulz

This discussion reminds me of something I've meant to bring up in the past, but neglected; wondering about the QC process in the opposite direction. If the mix is being done in a 7.1.4 room, what (if any QC) is done to see how that Atmos mix sounds in a 9.1.6 or 11.1.8 or 24.1.10 environment? I mean at some point we have to just trust the Atmos renderer to do its thing, and you're not going to double-check every possible Atmos configuration, but it does seem sort of weird that you'd do an Atmos mix and then literally the first time anyone hears how it sounds in anything approaching 24.1.10 would be when a consumer plays it back. And yet as far as I can tell all of the mixing and QC is being done in rooms converging around 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 or thereabouts.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> I mean at some point we have to just trust the Atmos renderer to do its thing...


Not if you pre-render. Laziness has its advantages.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Not if you pre-render. Laziness has its advantages.


One wonders if the real issue here is that some people _don't_ trust the renderer...


----------



## Polyrythm1k

dschulz said:


> One wonders if the real issue here is that some people _don't_ trust the renderer...


Hmmmmmmm. Indeed.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> One wonders if the real issue here is that some people _don't_ trust the renderer...


Instead of arguing with people over nonsensical claims about why six speakers doesn't behave the way one person wants it to rather than how it does, perhaps we can consider what someone told me about the reason some movies seem to be, but really aren't truly 7.1.2. I can't vouch for the authenticity of the information, but it at least makes some sense.

_Ready Player One_ and _Saving Private Ryan_ were both early Atmos mixes and from what someone suggested to me apparently actually primarily used a 9.1 bed layer at the cinema in Atmos (Unlike home Atmos, cinema Atmos has 9.1 channels for bed objects including 2 channels for a height layer) . That means 7.1 + 2 arrayed heights as bed channels, not objects. There might be some brief objects, but I gather they are largely 9.1 bed channel based.

In other words, played on a cinema system, all overhead speakers played the same .2 overhead channel in all overhead speakers just as "side channels" play in all side speakers at the cinema as arrays. Only objects move through individual speakers there.

Home Atmos doesn't directly support arrays like they originally planned/considered so it only plays the bed height tracks as Top Middle (or between the heights/tops if not available). This is apparently the default auto conversion behavior for bed heights.

I'm other words, no one actually sets out to make 7.1.2 Atmos tracks directly as such. It's simply a result of bed channel conversion of cinema 9.1 beds for home and an almost total lack of other objects in use overhead. It also explains the anomaly @sdrucker found later in the movie where there briefly is four overhead objects. The software is just converting whatever is there. Newer Disney movies are using occasional moving objects (Star Destroyer pan overhead), but are still _mostly_ bed height information that ends up in Top Middle. So they're not actually "locked" or "print through" so much as they are mostly 9.1 bed channel based with limited object use.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> I'm other words, no one actually sets out to make 7.1.2 Atmos tracks directly as such. It's simply a result of bed channel conversion of cinema 9.1 beds for home and an almost total lack of other objects in use overhead. It also explains the anomaly @sdrucker found later in the movie where there briefly is four overhead objects. The software is just converting whatever is there. Newer Disney movies are using occasional moving objects (Star Destroyer pan overhead), but are still _mostly_ bed height information that ends up in Top Middle. So they're not actually "locked" or "print through" so much as they are mostly 9.1 bed channel based with limited object use.


This seems to me an extremely plausible description, and points to a possible additional point of failure in QC - if the mix is done/monitored in a 7.1.4 room, with the software converting the overhead bed channels to a single pair of TM objects, then in that 7.1.4 environment they are effectively being arrayed (across the TF and TR pairs), with no one thinking about the hot-spotting that will occur when played back in a 9.1.6 system.


----------



## MagnumX

dschulz said:


> This seems to me an extremely plausible description, and points to a possible additional point of failure in QC - if the mix is done/monitored in a 7.1.4 room, with the software converting the overhead bed channels to a single pair of TM objects, then in that 7.1.4 environment they are effectively being arrayed (across the TF and TR pairs), with no one thinking about the hot-spotting that will occur when played back in a 9.1.6 system.


It's _not_ hot-spotting if it's in-phase correlated information. There seems to be a _major_ misunderstanding on here about arrays and how they work, possibly because so few have any practical experience with them, at least in a sense they recognize. However, what most people don't realize is that STEREO itself is an array!

Correlated information in arrays image literally in sharp contrast to decorrelated information in arrays. A phantom center and any information imaged between two stereo speakers is in a sense a correlated array. 

These phantom images are sharp realized forms and if you're using an identical center channel speaker properly placed where the mains aren't too far apart, the images will sound nearly _identical_ for all practical purposes (ignoring different room reflections possible from the different speakers). 

This would be the corollary to having Tops and Top Middle. With Top Middle turned off and sitting exactly halfway between said overhead speakers, you will hear a nearly _identical_ presentation of Ready Player One as you will with Top Middle turned on, assuming identical speakers and no on or off-axis distribution probkems! This is a fact. There is no hot-spotting! They image identical! 

Where there _is_ a difference is if you move forward or backward relative to the mid-point between the Tops speakers compared to Top Middle. The dreaded _Precedence Effect_ then comes into play and the phantom correlated overhead image will move to the closer overhead speaker set very quickly as you move towards it while Top Middle will be locked into place in the middle of the room. The size/width of the image will not change at all and hence no "hot-spotting".

Which is the more accurate placement? Well, look at the front main corollary again, namely the L/C/R speakers. Tops is to Stereo as Top Middle is to the Center Channel Speaker! 

_No one_ ever said stereo phantom center placement was more accurate than having a dedicated center channel! It is accurate for exactly _one_ point in the room and that is dead center between the left & right mains. If you start sitting to the left or the right of center, the phantom center will move with you towards the nearest speaker (Precedence Effect) while having a real center channel speaker locks that center dialog into place regardless of where you sit! The same is true of Top Middle! It locks objects imaged between the Tops speakers into place _between_ them where they are supposed to be!

Have you _ever_ heard anyone say that a center channel speaker causes "hot-spotting" in the center of the screen before in your entire life for discrete 5.1 or higher digital sound? Of course not! That's why this notion of Top Middle causing it is absolutely _absurd_! If that's where the correlated image is assigned to be then Top Middle will always create a more stable and therefore more accurate image than the phantom image created by 4 overhead speakers placed in the front/rear of that location the very same way a center speaker creates a more stable image between Left & Right mains (and even more so when using "Heights" speaker locations as the are far enough apart to cause gap issues directly overhead without Top Middle. 

There is no argument to be made here but some kind of personal preference, in which case you can easily turn Top Middle off in the AVR settings the same way you can turn the center speaker off and it will then use the front/rear Tops or Heights instead. That is a simple solution. You can't turn back on a center channel speaker you never installed, however which is why advice to avoid a six overhead speaker setup is so darn bad, IMO.

Decorrelated sounds from arrays by comparison are nebulous in nature (any out-of-phase stereo test will demonstrate this). That is with two speakers. _More_ arrayed speakers playing decorrelated information results in less so-called _hot-spotting_ not more, which makes Sanjay's advice all the more baffling. DSU, for example, which arrays all overhead speakers (up to 5 pairs) will absolutely provide better overhead decorrelated ambience, for example with six overhead speakers playing than just four. The more the merrier, which is why cinemas had arrays of surround speakers decades before even Dolby Digital came out and why even Atmos cinemas still use them them today.

I use four pairs of arrayed side surrounds and two pairs of arrayed surround height speakers in Auro 11.1 mode at home and the extra speakers merely move the location of in-phase correlated sounds to the closest speaker relative to the listener's seat/row. The image is still clearly defined and sharp sounding. But for out-of-phase decorrelated sounds like the recorded church ambience in the _Himmelrand_ and _Himmelborgan_ recordings I have, the extra pairs or arrayed speakers extend the walls of the recreated church to all those points around the room, recreating the recorded ambience rather than just my own room, which is why I keep my home theater heavily damped. It sounds like I'm really there. Arrays make that recoding better, not worse by NOT hot-spotting surrounding ambience.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> These phantom images are sharp realized forms


That is only true in a typical stereo configuration (equliateral triangle, speakers in horizontal plane). Localization becomes fuzzy and ambiguous if the stereo pair is at other locations. So be careful when making generalized statements about phantom source localization with 2 (or more) sound sources. See localization experiments described in Blauert "Spatial hearing".

P.S. Just a suggestion, you should keep your posts shorter if you expect people to read them in full.


----------



## Chirosamsung

dschulz said:


> This discussion reminds me of something I've meant to bring up in the past, but neglected; wondering about the QC process in the opposite direction. If the mix is being done in a 7.1.4 room, what (if any QC) is done to see how that Atmos mix sounds in a 9.1.6 or 11.1.8 or 24.1.10 environment? I mean at some point we have to just trust the Atmos renderer to do its thing, and you're not going to double-check every possible Atmos configuration, but it does seem sort of weird that you'd do an Atmos mix and then literally the first time anyone hears how it sounds in anything approaching 24.1.10 would be when a consumer plays it back. And yet as far as I can tell all of the mixing and QC is being done in rooms converging around 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 or thereabouts.


I don't think any studio really cares what anything sounds like past 7.1.4 on home mixes

to be frank, it's probably about 0.01% of thier sales-why would they even give it any thought at all?!?


----------



## markus767

Chirosamsung said:


> it's probably about 0.01% of thier sales-why would they even give it any thought at all?!?


Opinion leadership.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> One wonders if the real issue here is that some people _don't_ trust the renderer...


Ask Marc.


----------



## Chirosamsung

markus767 said:


> Opinion leadership.


Same dull questions/ opinions why studios don't care past 7.1.4 =same responses


----------



## MagnumX

markus767 said:


> That is only true in a typical stereo configuration (equliateral triangle, speakers in horizontal plane). Localization becomes fuzzy and ambiguous if the stereo pair is at other locations. So be careful when making generalized statements about phantom source localization with 2 (or more) sound sources. See localization experiments described in Blauert "Spatial hearing".
> 
> P.S. Just a suggestion, you should keep your posts shorter if you expect people to read them in full.


Is your Atmos theater *fuzzy and ambiguous sounding* with imaging overhead between front or top heights and the top middle location? Because mine is not. I can clearly pick out a helicopter or other sound overhead during the Nature's Fury Atmos demo (with 6 overheads no less). I can't place sounds BEHIND ME quite as _accurately_ as in front of me or directly above me or to the sides of me (that's what you're referring to), but it's certainly _nothing_ like out-of-phase ambience that is hard to tell which direction it's even coming from. 

I recommend trying the DTS 7.1 Sound Check demo. It has lovely odd combinations of speaker phase tests after the level checks that demonstrate this effect perfectly. Out-of-phase (uncorrelated) signals are always much harder to tell from in-phase ones (correlated). In other words, your post has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. 

Perhaps instead of ridiculing a tiny scrap of what I wrote above without any idea what I was talking about, you should take the time (a whole minute) to actually read it. You might learn something. Because frankly, what Sanjay said about recommending against six overhead speakers compared to four is absolute the worst advice he's EVER given on here. It's the exact equivalent of recommending against a center channel speaker in favor of using a phantom image between the front mains. A real speaker(s) is always going to be more accurate than a phantom image. 

Whatever problem a few movies have with Atmos has everything to do with their poor choices and nothing to do with a more accurate playback setup at home. As I pointed out, you can always turn Top Middle OFF temporarily if you prefer that effect for some reason. You cannot turn it "ON" if it's not installed.


----------



## Goname31

I went 7.2.6 about two month ago. I watch a ton of Netflix shows, UHD movies, listen to atmos music and play a lot of games, native atmos or upmixed. I won't come back! 

My room doesn't allow Wides, my .4 was Fh RH and that was the best config I had. I'm renting, so nothing goes on the ceiling. 
I tried FH with false TM (Svs elevation on the side wall), it was OK, especially on Ready player one with that wood crate effect, but for the vast majority of other movies and content, FH/RH was more enveloping). 

But still, I wanted to try .6 because of the gap 4 heights leave above my head. Man its so good.. On Ready player one the crate effect makes a come back after having disappeared with my previous setup, Atmos music is just amazing (I recommend the work of Jennifer Athena Galatis on Tidal. Mind blowing), and even upmixed games are stunning (It Takes two, the Ascent..). The last season of stranger thing makes a full use of my height speakers. 

So yeah, got 6 overhead, does not have multiple rows, but I'm really happy with my decision. It's a journey..


----------



## StevenC56

How can you even do .6 if your receiver or pre-pro only does .4?


----------



## Goname31

Well having a 13ch prepro is a good start to have 13 channels right?

Sorry was the reply even addressed to me?


----------



## StevenC56

Goname31 said:


> Well having a 13ch prepro is a good start to have 13 channels right?
> 
> Sorry was the reply even addressed to me?


It was to anybody that could answer it. So in your case the receiver/pre-pro allows for .6, correct?


----------



## Goname31

Yep, got the Emotiva basx MC1. Great cheap piece of equipment (not without its quirks).


----------



## MagnumX

StevenC56 said:


> How can you even do .6 if your receiver or pre-pro only does .4?


You have three basic options.

1> Upgrade to an AVR/AVP that handles six. Obvious, but expensive.

2> Use two Dolby Pro Logic processors such that front left + front rear left heights/tops are used as if they were L+R mains to get center output "Left Top Middle". Repeat with 2nd unit to get Right Top Middle. This was named "Scatmos" by its inventor. It's almost as discrete as option #1, but it takes up a fair bit of space. It may not cost much using used equipment you already own or buy off eBay.

3> Add Top Middle speaker either using a summed channel mixer (add front/rear overheads via their pre-outs) or copy/array switch (e.g. Monoprice impedance matching switch with volume control). These are not discrete options, but the can all but eliminate the direct overhead 'gap' you can get with four overheads too far apart and costs very little to implement.

I've tried both options #2 & #3 here. I actually like the 3rd option for front wides because they're always in use and give an excellent effect with stereo (wide-stereo). The Monoprice HTP-1 has a wide mode for stereo and soundtracks that don't use discrete front wides. 

For Top Middle, Scatmos sounds darn near identical to a true rendered output, except room correction before the outputs can potentially leak sound (the more the correction, the less discrete the sound, but still usually way more discrete than a mixer). You possibly correct after the output instead (limit Audyssey to bass region only and use outboard receiver correction or mini-dsp for correction). The speaker delays and output levels need to match on primary AVP so settings need to be on secondary Pro Logic units or mini-dsp.


----------



## StevenC56

MagnumX said:


> You have three basic options.
> 
> 1> Upgrade to an AVR/AVP that handles six. Obvious, but expensive.
> 
> 2> Use two Dolby Pro Logic processors such that front left + front rear left heights/tops are used as if they were L+R mains to get center output "Left Top Middle". Repeat with 2nd unit to get Right Top Middle. This was named "Scatmos" by its inventor. It's almost as discrete as option #1, but it takes up a fair bit of space. It may not cost much using used equipment you already own or buy off eBay.
> 
> 3> Add Top Middle speaker either using a summed channel mixer (add front/rear overheads via their pre-outs) or copy/array switch (e.g. Monoprice impedance matching switch with volume control). These are not discrete options, but the can all but eliminate the direct overhead 'gap' you can get with four overheads too far apart and costs very little to implement.
> 
> I've tried both options #2 & #3 here. I actually like the 3rd option for front wides because they're always in use and give an excellent effect with stereo (wide-stereo). The Monoprice HTP-1 has a wide mode for stereo and soundtracks that don't use discrete front wides.
> 
> For Top Middle, Scatmos sounds darn near identical to a true rendered output, except room correction before the outputs can potentially leak sound (the more the correction, the less discrete the sound, but still usually way more discrete than a mixer). You possibly correct after the output instead (limit Audyssey to bass region only and use outboard receiver correction or mini-dsp for correction). The speaker delays and output levels need to match on primary AVP so settings need to be on secondary Pro Logic units or mini-dsp.


I already have an extra pair of in ceiling speakers to match the 2 pairs I currently have installed, so I'll just wait until I replace my Pre-Pro down the road with one that can do .6. Right now my .4 speakers are basically in the rear and middle of the ceiling in my HT, but they focus on my main seating just fine for now.


----------



## MortenS

So before locking my speakers in place for now by starting audyssey and roomcorrection installation.

1. I have my 77"TV out from wall to get more immersive but this make the center channel to be behind the tv to get about same MLP distance as fronts.
-Do i put the center right below tv and get 30cm less distance than the fronts from MLP (around 2,1m instead of 2,4m)
- less distance between fronts and put closer to MLP? They are now 8 ft distance, think i read that is a good minimum.
2. Bipolar speakers side surround, do i put them in angle between fronts and rear surround? ( fronts at 30* and rear surround at 130* so 80*?).

Info:
Room Lenght*Width*Height (4,35*3,35*2,45meters)
4*Atmos 1,55m behind,1,55m up and 1,1m to the side (set as top heights in marantz).
2*Monopol Surround back 1,30m Behind, 1,40m to the side
2*Bipol Surround Side 1,5m to side and 0,2m Ahead
2*Front 2,4 Meter from MLP and Each other and 0,5m out from wall 
Center 2,4 Meter from MLP when behind and below TV
SUB Under tv 20cm out from wall
Everything is angled towards center MLP


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have a new movie added to my all time top 5 atmos movie demos:

Mother

it is creepy and weird and different and easily the most claustrophobic and atmospheric atmos mix made. It really feels like the house is a character and you hear every small and large crack and sound-truly impressive mix!


----------



## mrtickleuk

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a new movie added to my all time top 5 atmos movie demos:
> 
> Mother
> 
> it is creepy and weird and different and easily the most claustrophobic and atmospheric atmos mix made. It really feels like the house is a character and you hear every small and large crack and sound-truly impressive mix!


Do you mean "Mother!", the 2017 Darren Aronofsky movie? Heard quite a lot about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a new movie added to my all time top 5 atmos movie demos:
> 
> Mother
> 
> it is creepy and weird and different and easily the most claustrophobic and atmospheric atmos mix made. It really feels like the house is a character and you hear every small and large crack and sound-truly impressive mix!


I am simultaneously curious about what the Atmos mix sounds like... and wondering if I ever want to watch that movie again, because it was _super_ weird. 🤔


----------



## Chirosamsung

mrtickleuk said:


> Do you mean "Mother!", the 2017 Darren Aronofsky movie? Heard quite a lot about it
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother!


Yes

it's possibly top 3 atmos mixes


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I am simultaneously curious about what the Atmos mix sounds like... and wondering if I ever want to watch that movie again, because it was _super_ weird. 🤔


Weird yes. But weird with AMAZING atmos


----------



## Chirosamsung

Edge of tomorow is also great atmos


----------



## priitv8

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I am simultaneously curious about what the Atmos mix sounds like... and wondering if I ever want to watch that movie again, because it was _super_ weird. 🤔


I believe it builds on biblical symbols. At least that is what the interpreters suggest.








Mother Movie Explained: What Darren Aronofsky's Film Means


Darren Aronofsky's Mother movie is jam-packed with symbolism, metaphor, and allegory, so we try to break down what his controversial film means.




collider.com


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> Edge of tomorow is also great atmos


I was saddened that the initial bass drop was cut down on the UHD of Edge Of Tomorrow, but MAN they did a great job with the Atmos steering for the action scenes. Worth the purchase.

Random one: I rewatched Warcraft last night because I had forgotten that it released with an Atmos track, and that one surprisingly sounded very solid. Been revisiting a few of the earlier Atmos releases lately and it was a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I was saddened that the initial bass drop was cut down on the UHD of Edge Of Tomorrow, but MAN they did a great job with the Atmos steering for the action scenes. Worth the purchase.
> 
> Random one: I rewatched Warcraft last night because I had forgotten that it released with an Atmos track, and that one surprisingly sounded very solid. Been revisiting a few of the earlier Atmos releases lately and it was a pleasant surprise.


Yup. 99% of the movie is improved


----------



## halcyon_888

So I watched Jurassic World Dominion, and it had pretty good Atmos! It maybe a few missed moments when comparing it to the best Atmos tracks, but they nailed some moments like dinosaurs flying overhead about halfway into the movie. I have a 5.1.2 setup so there was some left-to-right panning in the heights, and it's possible it had some front-to-back panning in a 4 speaker ceiling setup but I can't confirm. SpareChange on YouTube doesn't have a video up about the movie at the time I'm writing this, so perhaps stay tuned into his channel to get his impressions. Now if the movie itself was good is another story... let's just say in my opinion its strengths were when the dinosaurs were eating people 😅 😅


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> I watched Jurassic World Dominion, and it had pretty good Atmos!


Agreed, some good overhead action when I saw it at the local Atmos theatre. BTW, it's coming on BD & UHD with a DTS:X track.


----------



## lax01

Watched Lightyear with Atmos last night...pretty disappointing Atmos and Surrounds effects...another Disney-Atmos special?


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Agreed, some good overhead action when I saw it at the local Atmos theatre. BTW, it's coming on BD & UHD with a DTS:X track.


Not the type of movie that would ordinarily appeal to me, but I might just rent the UHD BRD on the merits of the AQ/VQ and hope for some modest entertainment to boot.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> So I watched Jurassic World Dominion, and it had pretty good Atmos! It maybe a few missed moments when comparing it to the best Atmos tracks, but they nailed some moments like dinosaurs flying overhead about halfway into the movie. I have a 5.1.2 setup so there was some left-to-right panning in the heights, and it's possible it had some front-to-back panning in a 4 speaker ceiling setup but I can't confirm. SpareChange on YouTube doesn't have a video up about the movie at the time I'm writing this, so perhaps stay tuned into his channel to get his impressions. Now if the movie itself was good is another story... let's just say in my opinion its strengths were when the dinosaurs were eating people 😅 😅


I assume it was a streaming version since the disc is supposedly DTS:X. 

Fallen Kingdom was that way (Atmos streaming and X on disc) and so one of the few titles you can directly compare Atmos to X ignoring data rate lossless VS lossy. I personally couldn't hear a difference, making me think DTS:X's greatest asset is the ability to use Auro speaker layouts, not anything particular with the same layout.

But then there's the question of higher speaker counts with object based Atmos VS DTS:X Pro using Neural X. Only a Trinnov owner could really answer that past 13 channels. I've seen few to no real comparisons in that area (some commenting on 30.2 Neural X in general, but no Atmos VS X direct comparisons (assuming the Atmos mix even uses objects, of course and isn't a print-through channel mix limited to 7.1.4).


----------



## halcyon_888

lax01 said:


> Watched Lightyear with Atmos last night...pretty disappointing Atmos and Surrounds effects...another Disney-Atmos special?


I just finished watching Lightyear and I'm not saying there isn't any height usage but I didn't notice anything, it was very disappointing. However, the front stage had good channel separation so it had that going for it. On the downside, the streaming version suffers from a lack of dynamic range. If you're into bass, you have something to look forward to with BassEQ, it was the highlight for the audio for this movie. It's a pretty good flick too imo, despite it's poor box office performance.


----------



## lax01

halcyon_888 said:


> I just finished watching Lightyear and I'm not saying there isn't any height usage but I didn't notice anything, it was very disappointing. However, the front stage had good channel separation so it had that going for it. On the downside, the streaming version suffers from a lack of dynamic range. If you're into bass, you have something to look forward to with BassEQ, it was the highlight for the audio for this movie. It's a pretty good flick too imo, despite it's poor box office performance.


Think the only time I heard overhead effects (or near that) was the scene with the sparks...if you can decipher which scene I'm talking about - otherwise, yes, very few Atmos above or behind effects


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> Not the type of movie that would ordinarily appeal to me, but I might just rent the UHD BRD on the merits of the AQ/VQ and hope for some modest entertainment to boot.


Modest.


----------



## Rich 63

MortenS said:


> So before locking my speakers in place for now by starting audyssey and roomcorrection installation.
> 
> 1. I have my 77"TV out from wall to get more immersive but this make the center channel to be behind the tv to get about same MLP distance as fronts.
> -Do i put the center right below tv and get 30cm less distance than the fronts from MLP (around 2,1m instead of 2,4m)
> - less distance between fronts and put closer to MLP? They are now 8 ft distance, think i read that is a good minimum.
> 2. Bipolar speakers side surround, do i put them in angle between fronts and rear surround? ( fronts at 30* and rear surround at 130* so 80*?).
> 
> Info:
> Room Lenght*Width*Height (4,35*3,35*2,45meters)
> 4*Atmos 1,55m behind,1,55m up and 1,1m to the side (set as top heights in marantz).
> 2*Monopol Surround back 1,30m Behind, 1,40m to the side
> 2*Bipol Surround Side 1,5m to side and 0,2m Ahead
> 2*Front 2,4 Meter from MLP and Each other and 0,5m out from wall
> Center 2,4 Meter from MLP when behind and below TV
> SUB Under tv 20cm out from wall
> Everything is angled towards center MLP
> 
> 
> View attachment 3305579


Could you delineate what each piece is. It doesn't look like the l/r are equalateral triangle to mlp (red square)?


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Modest.


Mission Impossasaurus.


----------



## mrvideo

Speaking of _Jurassic World Dominion_, how many of you caught the following easter egg? I caught it while watching the IMAX 3D showing.


----------



## halcyon_888

mrvideo said:


> Speaking of _Jurassic World Dominion_, how many of you caught the following easter egg? I caught it while watching the IMAX 3D showing.
> View attachment 3307291


Yup! Definitely caught that one, it was a cool moment


----------



## MortenS

Rich 63 said:


> Could you delineate what each piece is. It doesn't look like the l/r are equalateral triangle to mlp (red square)?












Sorry for bad pic n cables (work in progress)
I see drawing is inacurrate for the front row. when in MLP 1 person immersive edition i get about same distance from MLP to LR and between them 2,3m.
They are moved closer to wall (15cm out) Center is about 1,9m from MLP








Bipolar at 110 and surr back 150 degrees.
the bipolar on back is not in use


----------



## chi_guy50

chi_guy50 said:


> Not the type of movie that would ordinarily appeal to me, but I might just rent the UHD BRD on the merits of the AQ/VQ and hope for some modest entertainment to boot.





sdurani said:


> Modest.


OK, thanks for the (extraordinarily succinct) heads-up.


----------



## billqs

MagnumX said:


> That sold me on dialog lift. If Yamaha had supported Auro-3D then, I would probably be using it noe. So I devised my own whole front stage lift system with a mixer so most front sounds and dialog now come from 1/3 up the screen (compromise to keep as much separation between layers as possible while keeping sounds in the screen area (top of screen is the ceiling).


I know this is somewhat off-topic, but could you describe what you did to have a dialog lift on a non-Yahama system? Currently, my front heights in a 6 channel height layer are configured as Front Height. I was considering moving them to the 6 overhead positions as mentioned in the Dolby Installation Guidelines. Moving up the sound would be a big benefit to the front stage.


----------



## billqs

Last year I went up to 6 channels of height. I had my front heights on top of the screen on the front wall leaving my other 4 height speakers in their original locations. Going back through the Dolby Installation Manual it favors 6 speakers set out overhead above the MLP at angles of 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees rather than the previous Front Height position. Currently, I don't feel like my overheads are really differentiating what I am hearing especially things closest to the screen. I didn't know what experiences those other 6 height channel Atmos users are experiencing. Any help would be great!


----------



## MagnumX

billqs said:


> I know this is somewhat off-topic, but could you describe what you did to have a dialog lift on a non-Yahama system? Currently, my front heights in a 6 channel height layer are configured as Front Height. I was considering moving them to the 6 ocverhead position as mentioned in the Dolby Installation Guidelines. Moving up the sound would be a big benefit.


I take the pre-outputs for L/C/R mains and send them to a Rolls active mixer along with the front heights signal (mixer can adjust/boost channels individually) and then send the output to an external amp/receiver and to the front heights from there. Adjust levels between AVR output and mixer to get proper overall level and to adjust height of the soundstage.

I set delays on that external amp/receiver but I suspect it doesn't work in 7.1 input mode. Add enough level to overcome the Precedence Effect and it will still move upward, though (having more center output in heights solves my center channel being blocked by MLP seat issue for rows 2 & 3 center channel as I can't move them upward as it would block the screen (clean signal from heights ensures clear dialog and L/R aren't blocked so it sounds surprisingly good from all seats; proximity of Top Middle to 2nd row ensures there's no confusing overhead information much past the very front of the screen from row 2 and 3 while front row still has 2/3 height of wall separation) and from that distance sounds like it's coming directly from the middle of the screen (about 1/3 up from front row).

You could run it through a mini-dsp if it's really a problem (Yamaha obviously adjusts it internally based of YPAO). If you have a center height speaker, you can run the center channel separately to mix with just that speaker instead of using a phantom image with front heights as Yamaha does. That ensures the image is locked dead center (mine drifts slightly left/right diagonally if you sit off-axis, but at least it's still on the screen instead of below it).



billqs said:


> Last year I went up to 6 channels of height. I had my front heights on top of the screen on the front wall leaving my other 4 height speakers in their original locations. Going back through the Dolby Installation Manual it favors 6 speakers set out overhead above the MLP at angles of 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees rather than the previous Front Height position. Currently, I don't feel like my overheads are really differentiating what I am hearing especially things closest to the screen. I didn't know what experiences those other 6 height channel Atmos users are experiencing. Any help would be great!


It sure looks like Dolby recommends between 20/70/170 to 30/110/160 to me with 9.1.6 from their official installation guide that this is taken from. Top Middle benefits a Tops installation too, but benefits a Heights setup even more.


----------



## richsto

lax01 said:


> Watched Lightyear with Atmos last night...pretty disappointing Atmos and Surrounds effects...another Disney-Atmos special?


Lightyear has super disappointing Atmos and completely neutered and uninspiring sound design when we saw it at our reference theater. Would have gotten the same experience with a cheap soundbar….terrible sound on this movie from my experience.

Thst said, the movie was even worse. Won’t waste my time seeing it again. No redeeming qualities - feel like I just dropped my money in the Disney slot machine. Ugh.

Of course your mileage may vary.


----------



## MagnumX

richsto said:


> Lightyear has super disappointing Atmos and completely neutered and uninspiring sound design when we saw it at our reference theater. Would have gotten the same experience with a cheap soundbar….terrible sound on this movie from my experience.
> 
> Thst said, the movie was even worse. Won’t waste my time seeing it again. No redeeming qualities - feel like I just dropped my money in the Disney slot machine. Ugh.
> 
> Of course your mileage may vary.


Disney doesn't get what's wrong with that movie on multiple levels. Until they do, I'd avoid most Disney crap unless it gets a great rating from a trusted reviewer.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

lax01 said:


> Watched Lightyear with Atmos last night...pretty disappointing Atmos and Surrounds effects...another Disney-Atmos special?


Atmouse strikes again?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I take the pre-outputs for L/C/R mains and send them to a Rolls active mixer along with the front heights signal (mixer can adjust/boost channels individually) and then send the output to an external amp/receiver and to the front heights from there. Adjust levels between AVR output and mixer to get proper overall level and to adjust height of the soundstage.
> 
> I set delays on that external amp/receiver but I suspect it doesn't work in 7.1 input mode. Add enough level to overcome the Precedence Effect and it will still move upward, though (having more center output in heights solves my center channel being blocked by MLP seat issue for rows 2 & 3 center channel as I can't move them upward as it would block the screen (clean signal from heights ensures clear dialog and L/R aren't blocked so it sounds surprisingly good from all seats; proximity of Top Middle to 2nd row ensures there's no confusing overhead information much past the very front of the screen from row 2 and 3 while front row still has 2/3 height of wall separation) and from that distance sounds like it's coming directly from the middle of the screen (about 1/3 up from front row).
> 
> You could run it through a mini-dsp if it's really a problem (Yamaha obviously adjusts it internally based of YPAO). If you have a center height speaker, you can run the center channel separately to mix with just that speaker instead of using a phantom image with front heights as Yamaha does. That ensures the image is locked dead center (mine drifts slightly left/right diagonally if you sit off-axis, but at least it's still on the screen instead of below it).
> 
> 
> 
> It sure looks like Dolby recommends between 20/70/170 to 30/110/160 to me with 9.1.6 from their official installation guide that this is taken from. Top Middle benefits a Tops installation too, but benefits a Heights setup even more.
> 
> View attachment 3307596


I get the impression that "optimal" angles for Front Height--Top-Middle--Rear Height configuration is: 30/90/150.

That puts 60 degrees between each speaker which is a good angle for proper stereo imaging, though less precise in the vertical plane.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I get the impression that "optimal" angles for Front Height--Top-Middle--Rear Height configuration is: 30/90/150.
> 
> That puts 60 degrees between each speaker which is a good angle for proper stereo imaging, though less precise in the vertical plane.


It depends on how you look at it. We phantom image vertically worse than transverse (front to back) plus if you want sound alignment with the screen you might want it above it where 30 degrees might be on the ceiling two feet into the room. Mine are at 23 seated and 26 reclined and image fine all across the ceiling.


----------



## crutzulee

Watched The Black Phone two days ago with my daughter on VOD. While there was much to like about the movie, I rated it a 3 out of 5 in it's thread. Ultimately, I found it to be "just OK", which, if I'm being honest, was a bit of a letdown as I was hyped to see this a little more than I should have been. I never watch trailers and try to go into each movie as cold as possible, but I was aware of the big name talent and that it was being fairly well received which is generally rare for the genre.

It will be an interesting comparison once the physical disc comes out. The 4K HDR stream was a bit dull and dark. Although I think that this may have been an aesthetic choice to achieve a certain feeling about it's late 70's, less than ideal family dynamic backdrop. The look and narrative certainly nailed this. Shadow detail was decent. I did not notice any black crush or compression issues. While there were some interesting surround effects and one or two notable uses of the height channels, I wouldn't be using this presentation to demonstrate what ATMOS can do. I'm not a person who needs whizz bangery from my soundtracks...but if it's horror (which my daughter says is debatable), and it says ATMOS on the tin...I expect a little more....

At any rate, it led us to watch SINISTER last night and we had a blast! It was new to her and just as good as for me as I did not recall a thing from my first viewing way back when I first got the bluray. We both agreed that it was a superior movie. Although not ATMOS, the DSU on my DENON effectively presented the DTS-MA track. It couldn't create the "bubble of sound" that a proper ATMOS track should (although most native mixes don't achieve this), but the overhead effects were not only plentiful but ACCURATE (not gimmicky). There are 2 instances in the film where the lead actor looks out and up into your theater at sounds from his attic. The sounds are reproduced by the DSU RIGHT ABOVE YOUR HEAD!!!!

Anyways...I have the second installment on order and will definitely hope that the first gets a UHD with a native ATMOS track...you know, to watch in another couple of years when I forget the story and it'll be new to me again..LOL


----------



## robert600

billqs said:


> Last year I went up to 6 channels of height. I had my front heights on top of the screen on the front wall leaving my other 4 height speakers in their original locations. Going back through the Dolby Installation Manual it favors 6 speakers set out overhead above the MLP at angles of 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees rather than the previous Front Height position. Currently, I don't feel like my overheads are really differentiating what I am hearing especially things closest to the screen. I didn't know what experiences those other 6 height channel Atmos users are experiencing. Any help would be great!


I'd like to chime in on this but ... I get confused on the heights vs tops thing. You mention the angles 45/90/135 and 6 height channels ... my understanding is that there is no middle height so are you configured front height, middle top, rear height or am I just really confused.

In any event, I do run 6 channel overhead speakers but they're all configured as tops not heights. The middle tops have always been at 90 but using step ladders etc. I've played around with the location of the fronts and rears quite a bit. Initially I had them quite wide at around 25 and 155. This was ok but I found I wasn't getting great separation from my rear surrounds and my rear tops (the rear sorrounds are a bit elevated to remove the sound shadow from the back of the couch). So ... messing around with the positioning of front tops and rear tops I eventually found what I considered to be an optimal position ... very close to 45/90/135. I can easily diffentiate now between rear surround and rear top and I get good sound travel around the ceiling with a good atmos mix. I'm not sure if this is of any use to you or not ...again I stress ... I'm configured for tops ... not heights.


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> I'd like to chime in on this but ... I get confused on the heights vs tops thing. You mention the angles 45/90/135 and 6 height channels ... my understanding is that there is no middle height so are you configured front height, middle top, rear height or am I just really confused.


The terms are settings related, not really anything to do with reality. 45 can be configured as Height or Top according to Dolby. What matters is that Dolby supports 10 overhead sets of speakers. Their placement can vary quite a bit, With 6 overheads, you can place a speaker anywhere from 20 degrees to 55 degrees. The only difference the setting makes when you don't have both Tops and Heights is the timing of panning front-to-back on certain objects. The whole thing is way overblown. It comes down to whether you want full ceiling coverage or more direct overhead sounds. Our ears our optimized for sounds coming from 40 degrees or less. Having a Top Middle overhead covers angles enough that you will have full solid phantom imaging across the entire ceiling even with 20 degree Heights. Some peole prefer having more sounds directly overhead at the cost of losing up to 1/4 their ceiling for imaging. Those people choose Tops. Other people want objects to image the same range as the bed speakers (entire ceiling). Those people should choose Heights with 6 overheads. Everything else is merely preference.



> In any event, I do run 6 channel overhead speakers but they're all configured as tops not heights. The middle tops have always been at 90 but using step ladders etc. I've played around with the location of the fronts and rears quite a bit. Initially I had them quite wide at around 25 and 155. This was ok but I found I wasn't getting great separation from my rear surrounds and my rear tops (the rear sorrounds are a bit elevated to remove the sound shadow from the back of the couch). So ... messing around with the positioning of front tops and rear tops I eventually found what I considered to be an optimal position ... very close to 45/90/135. I can easily diffentiate now between rear surround and rear top and I get good sound travel around the ceiling with a good atmos mix. I'm not sure if this is of any use to you or not ...again I stress ... I'm configured for tops ... not heights.


As the angles decrease for any listener, the farthest sounds get closer together. If you have more than one row, however, that changes radically when you sit in those seats. If I used Tops, the 3rd row would have overhead sounds in front of the seat instead of behind it, for example because that row is near the back of the room and 135 is 1/4 into the back of the room. 

As for easily being able to tell rears from overheads, that misses the point of Atmos that y_ou aren't supposed to be able to localize individual speakers _so if you can always tell where a sound is coming from (exact speaker set), you really don't have a continuous soundfield. There's a gap there. An object starting in Rear Heights may sound similar to the rear surrounds for the front row at 160 degrees, for example (but much higher for someone sitting further back in the room), but as it pans forward, it tracks the ceiling just a real object would. 

In other words, a drone flying from the ceiling in the back of the room at 160 degrees to the front of the room at 20 degrees will cross the entire ceiling end-to-end. Using Tops essentially forces the drone to start 1/4 into the back of the room on the ceiling even though the object may have been placed in the Atmos renderer at the rear ceiling point. You are now hearing a mis-representation of what the mixer intended. Heights + Top Middle can cover every possible object position in the room, but Tops + Top Middle cannot because it doesn't start at the end points. 

Jeremy Anderson on here argued relentlessly about this and put me on ignore over it as he thinks the Atmos renderer is intelligent and can account for that, but it's actually a pretty dumb renderer. It has no idea where you placed your speakers (higher on a 12 foot ceiling, on the front wall or 1/4 into the room). It only sees a grid and more importantly, Dolby Atmos does NOT try to make up for missing speakers like DTS:X does using combinations of lower and higher speakers. It moves them to the nearest available speakers instead. It's easily tested with Dolby's demos. 

But as I said, some people prefer more sounds closer to directly overhead and that's fine. They want to know the sounds are coming from the ceiling speakers at all times and imaging near the walls puts them off, even though the walls are arbitrary (if they weren't there the ceiling could theoretically continue for miles if the building were large enough). Personally, I want the overhead imaging area just as large as the bed area. Auro-3D's layout is actually optimal for that. The helicopter travels around the room exactly the same high and low turning on/off the overheads here. With a Tops system, the helicopter will only travel around half the room (losing 1/4 in on either end).


----------



## Technology3456

For the rear surround speakers in a 7.x.4 set up, bookshelf speakers, how far should their backs be from the wall to avoid hurting sound quality, normally?

And then what is the closest you can shave it if you treat the wall with the material for this right behind the backs of the bookshelf speakers?


----------



## niterida

Technology3456 said:


> For the rear surround speakers in a 7.x.4 set up, bookshelf speakers, how far should their backs be from the wall to avoid hurting sound quality, normally?
> 
> And then what is the closest you can shave it if you treat the wall with the material for this right behind the backs of the bookshelf speakers?


What does that have to do with Atmos ?


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> What does that have to do with Atmos ?


.
I was remeasuring things after someone told me to try to have my seating 2/3 into the room to avoid bass lulls, and I realized that to calculate whether certain arrangements would work out, I needed to re-trackdown the answer about how far the back speakers can be off the wall, because that could affect the angle that the back atmos speakers go at. So that's why I posted it here.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Technology3456 said:


> .
> I was remeasuring things after someone told me to try to have my seating 2/3 into the room to avoid bass lulls, and I realized that to calculate whether certain arrangements would work out, I needed to re-trackdown the answer about how far the back speakers can be off the wall, because that could affect the angle that the back atmos speakers go at. So that's why I posted it here.


ya, it's not like ceiling speaker angle and height and amount haven't been talked to death-but the second someone asks about a bed level speaker in a 7.1.4....


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> ya, it's not like ceiling speaker angle and height and amount haven't been talked to death-but the second someone asks about a bed level speaker in a 7.1.4....


But he was asking about how far from the wall to place a speaker in respect to SBIR - absolutely nothing to do with Atmos.


----------



## crutzulee

In an ATMOS system, the placement of ALL speakers ,bed and height, are relevant to the discussion...


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> But he was asking about how far from the wall to place a speaker in respect to SBIR - absolutely nothing to do with Atmos.


Atmos doesn't use rear speakers?


----------



## MagnumX

I watched the latest _Fantastic Beasts: Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)_ movie in Dolby Atmos. Compared to the Harry Potter movies, I found it disappointing both in terms of Atmos (somewhat above average, but not even close to the DTS:X soundtracks on the original, IMO) and especially how _boring_ the movie was. I found I didn't care much about any of the characters and couldn't wait for it to be over. Frankly, I hope that's the last one. I'd much rather see the original cast do a movie or two from the more recent time travel based Harry Potter play instead. They're approaching that age range now for real so it would work, IMO.

I watched _The Ice Road_ (2021)in Auro-3D two days ago and WOW! That's an immersive soundtrack! Good job Dutch Filmworks! Ice breaking sounds all throughout the middle of the room (not just to the sides) giving a heck of a holographic-like 3D effect all around me. There were also vehicles/guns surround galore and even dynamite blowing up directly overhead from within a mine at one point that sounded awesome (and another explosion in the first 5 minutes where I almost jumped out of my seat). The movie used every surround effect it possibly could every chance it got. I was impressed. The movie was also much much better than I ever expected it to be. I really loved Amber Midthunder in it too. Wow, she's beautiful. 

The movie _Pleasure_ (2021) in Auro-3D had an interesting use of the VOG speaker set in that vocals for a rap/hip-hop songs were coming discretely out of it with music all around me. That was an awesome perspective and one I think some Atmos music could learn something new to try (image between top middle for vocals or even between top middle and front heights or tops. It was just refreshing to hear something new in terms of a surround mix. For a movie about a Swedish girl trying to break into the pRoN industry, it also used immersive sound every chance it got (airplanes, helicopters overhead, tons of music cues used all over the ceiling as emphasis, etc.). All these locations could work in Atmos too; they just need to set an object there.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

crutzulee said:


> While there were some interesting surround effects and one or two notable uses of the height channels, I wouldn't be using this presentation to demonstrate what ATMOS can do. I'm not a person who needs whizz bangery from my soundtracks...but if it's horror (which my daughter says is debatable), and it says ATMOS on the tin...I expect a little more....


I enjoyed The Black Phone, but you're right that the Atmos is pretty sparse. I recently re-watched Doctor Sleep though (which is the gold standard in my book), and that made the lack of Atmos use really stand out. Plus, while I generally don't care for jump scares punctuated by sound, TBP really needed more of that sorta' thing in the sound design IMHO. It comes across more thriller than horror.


----------



## niterida

crutzulee said:


> In an ATMOS system, the placement of ALL speakers ,bed and height, are relevant to the discussion...


Yes but just to repeat myself :
He was asking about how far from the wall to place a speaker in respect to SBIR - absolutely nothing to do with Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Yes but just to repeat myself :
> He was asking about how far from the wall to place a speaker in respect to SBIR - absolutely nothing to do with Atmos.


If we're going to repeat much to do about nothing, I could use some clarification here so as not to offend in the future.

If he had asked about an Atmos exclusive speaker placement (e.g. Screen Left), would that have been OK?

What about speakers used in common with other immersive formats like DTS:X like say Rear Heights or Top Middle? Do they have _something_ to do with Atmos? 

Personally, I'd say that eating quiche has "absolutely nothing" to do with Atmos, but placing speakers or chairs relative to speakers that are used in Atmos has _something_ to do with Atmos.


----------



## Rich 63

For those new to this thread. Welcome to the Atmos thread. Contributed to by a few and not read anymore by most.


----------



## lax01

Watched Edge of Tomorrow TrueHD Atmos last night...wow, great sound and great use of Atmos. There's a lot of spatial audio that is super crisp and easy to locate.


----------



## niterida

I am running a 7.1.4 config and have a new processor and would like to know if I should buy a surge protector for it ?


----------



## Technology3456

niterida said:


> I am running a 7.1.4 config and have a new processor and would like to know if I should buy a surge protector for it ?


How big is your room? You might want to do 7.x.4 with x being 2 or more subs if you have a big room. As far as the surge protector, if the decision to buy a surge protector or not will affect where you put your atmos speakers, then you should figure that out in conjunction with your atmos decisions, but if not, you can figure out atmos placement separately and deal with the surge protector question only once they're installed and you're ready to turn them on.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

lax01 said:


> Watched Edge of Tomorrow TrueHD Atmos last night...wow, great sound and great use of Atmos. There's a lot of spatial audio that is super crisp and easy to locate.


I'm about to pick this up. Good to hear the Atmos is solid.


----------



## MagnumX

I also just watched _Edge of Tomorrow_ with the new 4K Atmos track extracted and remuxed onto the 3D video version. The movie was even more enthralling than I remembered and Emily Blunt never looked better, IMO. They seem to strive hard to not overdo the repetition too much, something Groundhog Day sometimes was guilty of doing, IMO as fun as it still was.

I tried comparing some overhead sound scenes with the original 7.1 DTS-HD MA track I left on there and I was surprised how well it often compared with Neural X engaged. I'd say the Atmos track overall is still an improvement with more defined overhead sounds in many places. Other than the intro where Atmos reduces it, the sub bass still sounded very good throughout the movie.


----------



## crutzulee

Like most threads on most forums this one has devolved into one with factions where people look at who is writing the post rather than it's contents before deciding how to respond. 

As in real life life, I have neither friends nor enemies. While I often find myself on the other side of the argument from Technology or Magnum etc, I think the question of relative speaker placement in 7.x.4 setup is far more relevant than the point nitereda is trying to make about power conditioning... although I do think that most here would simply answer that query here without questioning its relevance ( were it not an obvious attempt at humour) based on WHO was asking...

At any rate, at the risk of going down the rabbit hole, there are many considerations that I've has to take when considering speaker placement..The DOLBY ATMOS page is the place to start. Most of us have to make compromises based on room shape and sizes. The speaker's placement in proximity to the wall can and will change it's sound in different ways depending on it's construction (rear or front ported etc. ). This can be ameliorated with treatments and room correction in the software of your amp...


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I watched the latest _Fantastic Beasts: Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)_ movie in Dolby Atmos. Compared to the Harry Potter movies, I found it disappointing both in terms of Atmos (somewhat above average, but not even close to the DTS:X soundtracks on the original, IMO) and especially how _boring_ the movie was. I found I didn't care much about any of the characters and couldn't wait for it to be over. Frankly, I hope that's the last one. I'd much rather see the original cast do a movie or two from the more recent time travel based Harry Potter play instead. They're approaching that age range now for real so it would work, IMO.
> 
> I watched _The Ice Road_ (2021)in Auro-3D two days ago and WOW! That's an immersive soundtrack! Good job Dutch Filmworks! Ice breaking sounds all throughout the middle of the room (not just to the sides) giving a heck of a holographic-like 3D effect all around me. There were also vehicles/guns surround galore and even dynamite blowing up directly overhead from within a mine at one point that sounded awesome (and another explosion in the first 5 minutes where I almost jumped out of my seat). The movie used every surround effect it possibly could every chance it got. I was impressed. The movie was also much much better than I ever expected it to be. I really loved Amber Midthunder in it too. Wow, she's beautiful.
> 
> The movie _Pleasure_ (2021) in Auro-3D had an interesting use of the VOG speaker set in that vocals for a rap/hip-hop songs were coming discretely out of it with music all around me. That was an awesome perspective and one I think some Atmos music could learn something new to try (image between top middle for vocals or even between top middle and front heights or tops. It was just refreshing to hear something new in terms of a surround mix. For a movie about a Swedish girl trying to break into the pRoN industry, it also used immersive sound every chance it got (airplanes, helicopters overhead, tons of music cues used all over the ceiling as emphasis, etc.). All these locations could work in Atmos too; they just need to set an object there.


have you seen "Mother" (2017) yet? I think you would be blown away at the atmos on that


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I enjoyed The Black Phone, but you're right that the Atmos is pretty sparse. I recently re-watched Doctor Sleep though (which is the gold standard in my book), and that made the lack of Atmos use really stand out. Plus, while I generally don't care for jump scares punctuated by sound, TBP really needed more of that sorta' thing in the sound design IMHO. It comes across more thriller than horror.


Doctor Sleep had excellent atmos!


----------



## Chirosamsung

lax01 said:


> Watched Edge of Tomorrow TrueHD Atmos last night...wow, great sound and great use of Atmos. There's a lot of spatial audio that is super crisp and easy to locate.


Edge of tomorow is amazing atmos!!


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> have you seen "Mother" (2017) yet? I think you would be blown away at the atmos on that


No, but I just bought it on your recommendation. So I'll listen to it soon.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> have you seen "Mother" (2017) yet? I think you would be blown away at the atmos on that


OK, I watched it, albeit a streaming version from iTunes. Wow, that had a lot of circular room panning! Actually, it had a lot of everything Atmos, even panned dialog at times, which was refreshing. I cranked the volume to supposedly reference levels, which felt a little shy of where it should be so I cranked it up another 3dB (iTunes streaming movies seem low in volume even on an NVidia Shield). It's definitely a showpiece for Atmos sound effects, if you can stand to watch the movie itself, which more irritated me than entertained, sadly, probably because I spent most of the movie wondering what the heck was going on and even after reading what was supposed to be going on (some parts still didn't make sense even to the people describing their views. What was she drinking? What was that squid-like creature in the toilet? Why was the blood corrosive? Symbolism, when too obscure only makes sense to the person who wrote it is what I conclude). It seems rather split online whether this was a great movie or a horrible movie. I read it got simultaneous boos and cheers when it premiered and I can see why. Great audio, bizarre symbolism. And yay, more cannibalism! (Aronofsky seems to enjoy that theme). But yes, it definitely pans sounds into the distance and keeps them going like you'd expect in a real house rather than movies where they fade sounds out into the surrounds to not distract from the screen. But here, the surround sound just adds to the confusion you feel watching it for the first time, which may be why it's used so consistently.

Overall, great surround and Atmos. Mixed feelings on the movie plot.


----------



## billqs

MagnumX said:


> If you have a center height speaker, you can run the center channel separately to mix with just that speaker instead of using a phantom image with front heights as Yamaha does. That ensures the image is locked dead center (mine drifts slightly left/right diagonally if you sit off-axis, but at least it's still on the screen instead of below it).


Thanks for your help! I think I know the answer to this, but if I were just to run the Center Channel out to the Center and also a Center Height, how important would it be to run the left and right into the top heights as well? I agree anchoring dialogue 1/3 to mid screen will be a real benefit, but would the soundstage fall apart if I left the left and right channels alone? The speakers for L & R are directly below the screen.


----------



## MagnumX

billqs said:


> Thanks for your help! I think I know the answer to this, but if I were just to run the Center Channel out to the Center and also a Center Height, how important would it be to run the left and right into the top heights as well? I agree anchoring dialogue 1/3 to mid screen will be a real benefit, but would the soundstage fall apart if I left the left and right channels alone? The speakers for L & R are directly below the screen.


Most movies don't have panned dialog so you probably wouldn't notice any height change relative to the center from L/R from that, but panning sound effects might shift a bit. You could always try it and if it bothers you, raise the L/R as well. If it doesn't, leave it be. Mine shifts into the front wides back to ear level and to be honest, I can't even tell it's so gradual there, but then I'm not raising it leaps and bounds, just a foot or so (tweeters are already just below screen height so 1/3 up isn't that far, although some movies seem to move more/less than others for some things. I think HRTF comes into play too and affects it a bit. I used to have it set 1/2 way up and there was some variation there as well on modes, but things like Auromatic already add some bed level to heights, so perhaps it just raised it a bit further and at 1/3 moves to 1/2.


----------



## Molon_Labe

MagnumX said:


> Overall, great surround and Atmos. Mixed feelings on the movie plot.


That is the rub with Atmos. There are chitty movies with great mixes while full on blockbusters are meh at best. One would expect the opposite, but sadly that is not the case.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Molon_Labe said:


> That is the rub with Atmos. There are chitty movies with great mixes while full on blockbusters are meh at best. One would expect the opposite, but sadly that is not the case.


One of my favorite sound mixes is Jupiter Ascending, which is a movie I love but most people hate this film.

But that sound mix is fantastic.


----------



## dschulz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> One of my favorite sound mixes is Jupiter Ascending, which is a movie I love but most people hate this film.
> 
> But that sound mix is fantastic.


Count me on board team Jupiter Ascending. That movie is bonkers in the best possible way. And you're right about the Atmos track!


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> OK, I watched it, albeit a streaming version from iTunes. Wow, that had a lot of circular room panning! Actually, it had a lot of everything Atmos, even panned dialog at times, which was refreshing. I cranked the volume to supposedly reference levels, which felt a little shy of where it should be so I cranked it up another 3dB (iTunes streaming movies seem low in volume even on an NVidia Shield). It's definitely a showpiece for Atmos sound effects, if you can stand to watch the movie itself, which more irritated me than entertained, sadly, probably because I spent most of the movie wondering what the heck was going on and even after reading what was supposed to be going on (some parts still didn't make sense even to the people describing their views. What was she drinking? What was that squid-like creature in the toilet? Why was the blood corrosive? Symbolism, when too obscure only makes sense to the person who wrote it is what I conclude). It seems rather split online whether this was a great movie or a horrible movie. I read it got simultaneous boos and cheers when it premiered and I can see why. Great audio, bizarre symbolism. And yay, more cannibalism! (Aronofsky seems to enjoy that theme). But yes, it definitely pans sounds into the distance and keeps them going like you'd expect in a real house rather than movies where they fade sounds out into the surrounds to not distract from the screen. But here, the surround sound just adds to the confusion you feel watching it for the first time, which may be why it's used so consistently.
> 
> Overall, great surround and Atmos. Mixed feelings on the movie plot.


yup-great atmos but spent lots on time on Reddit reading about what that movie is supposed to be like.

long story short, she is Mother Earth, he is god and the guests are first Adam and eve than all of humanity up to now. The baby was jesus

the drink was anxiety meds


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> One of my favorite sound mixes is Jupiter Ascending, which is a movie I love but most people hate this film.
> 
> But that sound mix is fantastic.


Terrible movie but decent atmos lol


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Terrible movie but decent atmos lol


I love the movie. Its pretty much a pure Space Opera movie with modern special effects. It was fantastic.

But a classical type Space Opera is really old-fashioned by today's standards in how they handle their characters, so a lot of people just wont get into them.

I think the last pure space opera that people liked was The Fifth Element. [Edit: more like Guardians of the galaxy but that might not be considered "pure" Space Opera because of its superhero roots)


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> yup-great atmos but spent lots on time on Reddit reading about what that movie is supposed to be like.
> 
> long story short, she is Mother Earth, he is god and the guests are first Adam and eve than all of humanity up to now. The baby was jesus
> 
> the drink was anxiety meds


I didn't want to give the premise away, although I think personally I would have enjoyed it more if I had known it. Descriptions of the movie's plot on iTunes sounded more like director flattery than giving you the faintest idea what it is about and the movie doesn't help at all. If it weren't so frustrating, I might have enjoyed trying to make sense of it, but it got irritating to the point of disgust for me about halfway through. 

Compare this to _The Ninth Gate_ where you're supposed to be a bit surprised at what's really going on, but it makes it clear by the end and you have a plot at work in the mean time. That's one of my favorite movies (I've probably watched it a dozen times over the past 10 years since seeing it for the first time). Mother is probably not going to be, no matter how good the Atmos. I rather wish The Ninth Gate would get a soundtrack upgrade for that matter.


----------



## MortenS

So my build is nearing finish.
I thought my speakers were in position then i got some input on my atmos speakers, so with pics i come to the pros again .
Room(4,35*3,35*2,35)(L*W*H) meters (14,5m2)
My atmos is about 45 degrees in vertical and 35 horizontal on ceiling angled down and set as height and not top in receiver
Is this the best solution for a 4 atmos setup or should i go for a smaller vertical angle (bring them towards MLP).


----------



## petetherock

Molon_Labe said:


> That is the rub with Atmos. There are chitty movies with great mixes while full on blockbusters are meh at best. One would expect the opposite, but sadly that is not the case.


Somehow certain movies seem to have spent more on the mixing engineering than the script writer, but that means I get a few guilty indulgences, and it's not too bad, because these movies drop in price quickly, haha
Most scary movies get nice soundtracks, and many blockbusters too, but yep, there are a few duds...


----------



## Wardog555

I wish many atmos mixes are great. It's a downside for sure!


----------



## MortenS

Wardog555 said:


> Bring them closer together by 10 degrees vertical axies towards the MLP as suggested in the Dolby atmos mistakes thread.
> [/QUOTE


Okay did follow the guidelines of the video in post 1, thought 45 vertical was good and 35 horizontal

But then instead of 155 up and 155 forward&back (45 degree) i go for 35 degrees for all 155 up and 108 forward&back and 108 to the side

Will change position today 👍
If anyone have any input and experience with similar room and best angle im happy to hear.

Rewatched the video now and i see he "fixes the hole" by putting a top middle speaker thats why i did not think about changing to less than 45. So im at 90 degree gap now which is too much.

My fronts is probably at some degrees upwards and center below so i gues 0" here is ok. Any reason not go all the way and do 30 degrees for heights to get 60 between front, front hight and back hight?


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I didn't want to give the premise away, although I think personally I would have enjoyed it more if I had known it. Descriptions of the movie's plot on iTunes sounded more like director flattery than giving you the faintest idea what it is about and the movie doesn't help at all. If it weren't so frustrating, I might have enjoyed trying to make sense of it, but it got irritating to the point of disgust for me about halfway through.
> 
> Compare this to _The Ninth Gate_ where you're supposed to be a bit surprised at what's really going on, but it makes it clear by the end and you have a plot at work in the mean time. That's one of my favorite movies (I've probably watched it a dozen times over the past 10 years since seeing it for the first time). Mother is probably not going to be, no matter how good the Atmos. I rather wish The Ninth Gate would get a soundtrack upgrade for that matter.


I agree with you that mother is NOT a great movie IMO and audiences were really split with it. I was also frustrated and at times disgusted with it

but, in terms of atmos sound-it's top notch


----------



## Chirosamsung

petetherock said:


> Somehow certain movies seem to have spent more on the mixing engineering than the script writer, but that means I get a few guilty indulgences, and it's not too bad, because these movies drop in price quickly, haha
> Most scary movies get nice soundtracks, and many blockbusters too, but yep, there are a few duds...


horror yea get great atmos more than most

IT 1 and 2, Resident Evil, doctor sleep...


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> Okay did follow the guidelines of the video in post 1, thought 45 vertical was good and 35 horizontal
> 
> But then instead of 155 up and 155 forward&back (45 degree) i go for 35 degrees for all 155 up and 108 forward&back and 108 to the side
> 
> Will change position today 👍
> If anyone have any input and experience with similar room and best angle im happy to hear.
> 
> Rewatched the video now and i see he "fixes the hole" by putting a top middle speaker thats why i did not think about changing to less than 45. So im at 90 degree gap now which is too much.
> 
> My fronts is probably at some degrees upwards and center below so i gues 0" here is ok. Any reason not go all the way and do 30 degrees for heights to get 60 between front, front hight and back hight?


Why are you making it so hard ? measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. measure that same distance forward and rearward from directly above you. now from those 2 points measure that same distance again to the L and R. That is exactly where your speakers should go. (assuming your surrounds are a t or only slightly above ear height). 
That is Dolby recommendation and IMO you should follow that and not some guy who posts internet videos and tells you to mount them closer to you.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> horror yea get great atmos more than most
> 
> IT 1 and 2, Resident Evil, doctor sleep...


Is that the Resident Evil 4K import (Milla Jovovitch) with Atmos you're referring to? I'd love to have an upgraded soundtrack to the first movie. I might have to buy the box set (Atmos upgrades to the 3D films would be great too).


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Is that the Resident Evil 4K import (Milla Jovovitch) with Atmos you're referring to? I'd love to have an upgraded soundtrack to the first movie. I might have to buy the box set (Atmos upgrades to the 3D films would be great too).


Welcome to raccoon city


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> Why are you making it so hard ? measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. measure that same distance forward and rearward from directly above you. now from those 2 points measure that same distance again to the L and R. That is exactly where your speakers should go. (assuming your surrounds are a t or only slightly above ear height).
> That is Dolby recommendation and IMO you should follow that and not some guy who posts internet videos and tells you to mount them closer to you.


Well, dolby says 45 (30-55). And I'm not trying to make it hard. Have done full rebuild of my room and placements, first i setup what i read from dolby and experiences very temporary and not perfect measurements cause i did not know where MLP would be 100%. Now i do more permanent and got advice to move atmos closer, so i asked here. The first reply was the same as the advice i got, but now you tell me oposite (so thats the hard part).


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> Well, dolby says 45 (30-55). And I'm not trying to make it hard. Have done full rebuild of my room and placements, first i setup what i read from dolby and experiences very temporary and not perfect measurements cause i did not know where MLP would be 100%. Now i do more permanent and got advice to move atmos closer, so i asked here. The first reply was the same as the advice i got, but now you tell me oposite (so thats the hard part).


My advice is to do it according to Dolby - what I described is 45deg/135deg elevation front/back and left/right and 45deg/135deg horizontal - exactly what Dolby say is the ideal.
But at the end of the day you can only do what your room allows and if it is not exactly within spec it should still sound good. If you move them closer it will obviously sound more overhead (which IMO is not necessarily what you want as that is not how it was mixed) and is not a deal breaker either way.


----------



## niterida

MortenS said:


> Well, dolby says 45 (30-55). And I'm not trying to make it hard. Have done full rebuild of my room and placements, first i setup what i read from dolby and experiences very temporary and not perfect measurements cause i did not know where MLP would be 100%. Now i do more permanent and got advice to move atmos closer, so i asked here. The first reply was the same as the advice i got, but now you tell me oposite (so thats the hard part).





niterida said:


> My advice is to do it according to Dolby - what I described is 45deg/135deg elevation front/back and left/right and 45deg/135deg horizontal - exactly what Dolby say is the ideal.
> But at the end of the day you can only do what your room allows and if it is not exactly within spec it should still sound good. If you move them closer it will obviously sound more overhead (which IMO is not necessarily what you want as that is not how it was mixed) and is not a deal breaker either way.


HOLD THE LINE !!

I finally got around to putting my speakers in the positions as I described. When I marked those positions on the ceiling they looked perfect. I also marked the 60deg elevation positions as recommended in the "Dolby Atmos Mistakes" video and they looked WAY too close.
But now they are installed at 45 there doesn't visually seem to be as much separation from my ear level speakers as there should be (IMO). It sounds OK but not as good as I was expecting, especially compared to my previous setup which was basically front heights at 25deg elevation and top middles at 50deg elevation but 110deg horizontal.
So now I am wondering if the advice we have been giving to put them on the corner of the 45deg square is wrong. I know it is correct according to Dolby drawings but now I am wondering if it should be a circle at the 45deg point on the ceiling ? This would bring them in a bit closer (but not as close as the aforementioned 'Mistakes' video).

I will see if I can knock up a quick drawing to try to explain it a bit better and so people can visualise it easier.

Anyone have thoughts on this ?


----------



## petetherock

MagnumX said:


> Is that the Resident Evil 4K import (Milla Jovovitch) with Atmos you're referring to? I'd love to have an upgraded soundtrack to the first movie. I might have to buy the box set (Atmos upgrades to the 3D films would be great too).


The first and second movie sound much better now with the new Atmos mix. I'll recommend a re-buy (did that) because of the significant difference.. these two were also much better in terms of the plot, but I'll still recommend switching off your brain for a couple of hours..


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> HOLD THE LINE !!
> 
> I finally got around to putting my speakers in the positions as I described. When I marked those positions on the ceiling they looked perfect. I also marked the 60deg elevation positions as recommended in the "Dolby Atmos Mistakes" video and they looked WAY too close.
> But now they are installed at 45 there doesn't visually seem to be as much separation from my ear level speakers as there should be (IMO). It sounds OK but not as good as I was expecting, especially compared to my previous setup which was basically front heights at 25deg elevation and top middles at 50deg elevation but 110deg horizontal.
> So now I am wondering if the advice we have been giving to put them on the corner of the 45deg square is wrong. I know it is correct according to Dolby drawings but now I am wondering if it should be a circle at the 45deg point on the ceiling ? This would bring them in a bit closer (but not as close as the aforementioned 'Mistakes' video).
> 
> I will see if I can knock up a quick drawing to try to explain it a bit better and so people can visualise it easier.
> 
> Anyone have thoughts on this ?


I'm trying to picture how your Top Middle could be at 110 degrees azimuth, but only 50 degrees elevation.Taken in a straight arc (arm moving upward in front of you), 90 degrees is right above your head. 50 degrees would be _in front of you _(just past 1/4 point into room in a typical room if sitting at the mid-point), but 110 degrees azimuth is by definition _behind_ you. 

Personally, I'm doing 26/110/22 (relative to the MLP; it's actually _room_ based at front/middle/back positions since I have three rows of seats. Seating is relative just like in an actual cinema. Imaging can occur anywhere on the ceiling from all three rows (e.g. The Dolby Helicopter demo moves entire ceiling length from all three rows). 45/110/135 translated to a symmetrical room layout would be closest to 0.25/0.5/1.0 and largely exclude 1/2 the room from full ceiling pans. To me, that's unacceptable. Others love it (more sounds that start closer to directly overhead).


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I'm trying to picture how your Top Middle could be at 110 degrees azimuth, but only 50 degrees elevation.Taken in a straight arc (arm moving upward in front of you), 90 degrees is right above your head. 50 degrees would be _in front of you _(just past 1/4 point into room in a typical room if sitting at the mid-point), but 110 degrees azimuth is by definition _behind_ you.


50deg elevation when viewed from behind. so yeah about 100deg elevation when viewed from the side. They were actually Auro 3D layout.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> HOLD THE LINE !!
> 
> I finally got around to putting my speakers in the positions as I described. When I marked those positions on the ceiling they looked perfect. I also marked the 60deg elevation positions as recommended in the "Dolby Atmos Mistakes" video and they looked WAY too close.
> But now they are installed at 45 there doesn't visually seem to be as much separation from my ear level speakers as there should be (IMO). It sounds OK but not as good as I was expecting, especially compared to my previous setup which was basically front heights at 25deg elevation and top middles at 50deg elevation but 110deg horizontal.
> So now I am wondering if the advice we have been giving to put them on the corner of the 45deg square is wrong. I know it is correct according to Dolby drawings but now I am wondering if it should be a circle at the 45deg point on the ceiling ? This would bring them in a bit closer (but not as close as the aforementioned 'Mistakes' video).
> 
> I will see if I can knock up a quick drawing to try to explain it a bit better and so people can visualise it easier.
> 
> Anyone have thoughts on this ?


When you say they're installed at 45... Are your ear-level speakers all actually at ear level or are any of them elevated to clear seating, additional rows, etc.? Because if they are, I recommend using Dolby's mix room guidelines for maintaining the separation. And that essentially negates them being in a square on the ceiling because their positions may shift inward on different axes as a result. From any adjacent speakers, you use the math 45 degrees + 1/2 the elevation of the adjacent speakers. So for instance, if your side surrounds are 10 degrees above ear level at the MLP, both height rows would shift inward laterally by 5 degrees. If your front soundstage is above ear level, the top fronts would shift back toward you using that same math. If your rear surrounds are above ear level, the top rears would shift forward with that same math. You're less worried about them ending up in a perfect square than you are consistent angular separation from the nearest speaker. Lots of installers do this logically without referencing that exact math, but it's the same principle. On the lateral, it's often easier to hew toward 1/4 and 3/4 of the layout width for the spacing of the rows (since that's the Atmos renderer's expected positions for them - 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates) and then make small adjustments inward if you elevate your side surrounds.

If you can't picture it and are doing top front/rear, download Dolby's Audio Room Design Tool. It's an Excel spreadsheet that lets you poke in the room dimensions (and MLP position) and will kick out their "ideal" placements. You can then check a box to make adjustments to surround heights and speaker placements and see visually (and with provided measurements from the walls) where this shifts the height placements. For example, after adjusting my rear surrounds inward on the back wall due to a doorway, this is what I end up with in DARDT.


----------



## MagnumX

petetherock said:


> The first and second movie sound much better now with the new Atmos mix. I'll recommend a re-buy (did that) because of the significant difference.. these two were also much better in terms of the plot, but I'll still recommend switching off your brain for a couple of hours..


I went ahead and ordered the entire 4K UHD BD import set with Atmos ($40 after my Amazon rewards applied). Thanks.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> When you say they're installed at 45... Are your ear-level speakers all actually at ear level


All exactly at ear level - only one row of low backed seats 
This is my room and with them (the rectangle ones) at the recommended 45deg they are actually just ovcer 30deg elevation when measured from the MLP and looking directly at them.
The circular ones are at 45deg when viewed directly from MLP.









The dashed lines are 45deg and the rectangle speakers are positioned so the acoustic centre is on the 45deg line. And yes I know the acoustic centres should be at the corners of the square but I had other constraints and that would have put them even lower in elevation angle when viewed directly from MLP


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> HOLD THE LINE !!
> 
> So now I am wondering if the advice we have been giving to put them on the corner of the 45deg square is wrong. I know it is correct according to Dolby drawings but now I am wondering if it should be a circle at the 45deg point on the ceiling ? This would bring them in a bit closer (but not as close as the aforementioned 'Mistakes' video).
> 
> I will see if I can knock up a quick drawing to try to explain it a bit better and so people can visualise it easier.
> 
> Anyone have thoughts on this ?


😵
Just came to post update 🤣🤣, did good followed ur advice, also did some more reading and i think with my on ceiling angled speakers towards MLP being in the 40-45 angle area is good.

So my first install was off so had more than i 90 degr between atmos front and rear. My height above ear level to atmos was a bit lower than i thought, and MLP has been moved.
So back heights still in old pos because they were just under 135 degr, and also being able to keep at back wall towards ceiling is nice install.
fronts I just moved 0,5m closer to MLP, around 40 degree (must measure when i get home).
When i have company seating are moved back a little. So a little compromise to make the total for different situations good.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> The dashed lines are 45deg and the rectangle speakers are positioned so the acoustic centre is on the 45deg line. And yes I know the acoustic centres should be at the corners of the square but I had other constraints and that would have put them even lower in elevation angle when viewed directly from MLP


Looking at that drawing, my immediate read is that you have the heights too widely spaced laterally. Dolby does give that "0.5-0.7 times the layout width apart" guideline... but just at a glance, I would bet that you aren't even within the 0.7x the layout width (distance between side surrounds). And I've always argued that the 0.5x is actually the ideal, since the renderer's expectation is 0.25 and 0.75 laterally. 

But before you move anything, the question is really where you're hearing a problem in the pans through. Play the Leaf demo and listen for the wind sound that goes from back left overhead to front right. Play the Encounter demo and listen for the arcs that go from right surround overhead to left and back again. It should sound like a smooth pan through in both cases. If I had to guess, your wide placement of the heights is going to mean you'll hear the elevation of the sounds in the Encounter clip but then a weak transition across the two height rows.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> I am wondering if it should be a circle at the 45deg point on the ceiling ?


That's the DTS:X placement spec. Their lowest height layer is a circle at 45° elevation. That's where their renderer thinks the speakers are.








To do that placement, measure from your ears to the ceiling and multiply by 0*.*7 for distance forward & rearward of you.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

What I like about DTS:X is that it uses a combination of Atmos and Auro setup.

Ground layer-->Height layer-->Top layer. 

But the top-layer isnt just a voice of god. Its 5 speakers total: Top-Front, Top-Rear plus the VoG.

That makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> But the top-layer isnt just a voice of god. Its 5 speakers total: Top-Front, Top-Rear plus the VoG.


DTS considers the Tops and VOG to be different layers because they have different elevations: Tops = 60°, Oh = 90°.

There are 3 layers above the base layer:
45° ring with 8 speakers = Heights
60° ring with 4 speakers = Tops
90° single speaker = Oh (Overhead - voice of god)


----------



## Rich 63

niterida said:


> Why are you making it so hard ? measure from your seated ears to the ceiling. measure that same distance forward and rearward from directly above you. now from those 2 points measure that same distance again to the L and R. That is exactly where your speakers should go. (assuming your surrounds are a t or only slightly above ear height).
> That is Dolby recommendation and IMO you should follow that and not some guy who posts internet videos and tells you to mount them closer to you.


You have had many posts arguing with that guy on his thread to prove it. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I went ahead and ordered the entire 4K UHD BD import set with Atmos ($40 after my Amazon rewards applied). Thanks.


whatever one is welcome to racoon city get


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> DTS considers the Tops and VOG to be different layers because they have different elevations: Tops = 60°, Oh = 90°.
> 
> There are 3 layers above the base layer:
> 45° ring with 8 speakers = Heights
> 60° ring with 4 speakers = Tops
> 90° single speaker = Oh (Overhead - voice of god)
> View attachment 3310254


I know "overhead" is technically its own layer, but its just sitting there all by itself.

Its basically the same as Atmos 6 Top speakers only with a Voice of God instead of 2 top-middles.


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> whatever one is welcome to racoon city get


I have the raccoon city 4k BB steelbook. Day 1 pick up. Yes the atmos is awesome, wouldn’t say the same for the plot. But whenever you get a great atmos mix, the other stuff becomes mostly academic/irrelevant.


----------



## Magiclakez

I don’t think I have seen this title being mentioned so apologies if this has been covered earlier. But I would strongly recommend Hurricane Heist 4k Blu-ray. It’s a borderline B rated flick with an asinine/ head scratching plot. All that nonsense aside, the atmos implementation is over the top, insane. Very reminiscent of the Twister Blu-ray presented in dual Auro-3d / Dolby atmos through Turbine films, Germany.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> DTS considers the Tops and VOG to be different layers because they have different elevations: Tops = 60°, Oh = 90°.
> 
> There are 3 layers above the base layer:
> 45° ring with 8 speakers = Heights
> 60° ring with 4 speakers = Tops
> 90° single speaker = Oh (Overhead - voice of god)
> View attachment 3310254


DTS:X can also use Top Middle OR Surround Height (not both at same time AFAIK) in addition to VOG (locks center line in position even with Top Middle or Surround Height, although some model AVR/AVPs may not allow both at same time (pretty certain Trinnov will). 

Typically, Auro-3D uses Surround Height and/or Rear Height to steer left/right while VOG anchors dead center. DTS:X VOG would be the equivalent of a center channel between the Top Middle speakers when Top Middle is used instead of Surround Height in a DTS:X Pro system. 

Atmos is rumored to use the VOG (possibly CH as well due to their alliance with IMAX on Disney+) in it's upcoming V3 iteration, at least for DSU if not the renderer itself as V3 DSU is reported to finally support all prior 34 speakers plus the new ones (According to a recent Trinnov Interview). This could make Atmos fully or nearly fully (I've read nothing about Surround Height support, but it wouldn't be difficult for them to add to the renderer) layout agnostic like DTS:X Pro (minus 4 rarely used Atmos speakers they don't support).

Also, as usual, your DTS:X angles are based on a DTS mixing studio layout, not DTS's official position on the matter (which is they support both Atmos and Auro-3D layouts with DTS:X including the angles used) as they know that surround phantom images moved a few feet forward or backward off-screen where there is no visual alignment with anything matter little, particularly as room sizes vary drastically, affecting overall alignment as well.

I just find it ironic you harp about visual alignment specs based on pictures of select DTS mixing rooms rather than their stated position on home playback, yet you've stated supporting placing side surrounds in front of the MLP at home, which is out of Dolby's official stated specs for that speaker regardless of the configuration. Do official stated specs matter or just your preferences?


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> whatever one is welcome to racoon city get


I'll look into it, but I didn't read much good about the plot (video game orientated rather than movie plot based), but maybe I can pick it up on sale. The first movie with Milla Jovovich is my favorite. The UK box set I ordered has Atmos for all six films in that series and at $10 a movie (without rewards) not a bad price per movie.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I'll look into it, but I didn't read much good about the plot (video game orientated rather than movie plot based), but maybe I can pick it up on sale. The first movie with Milla Jovovich is my favorite. The UK box set I ordered has Atmos for all six films in that series and at $10 a movie (without rewards) not a bad price per movie.


never Said the plot was good. Like most atmos mixes it's either one or the other...


----------



## petetherock

Tried Gray Men, pulsating action, standard plot, but the Atmos isn't demo material, I'm afraid...








Gray Man Movie Review


This is one of the largest movies to come out of Netflix, with around 200 million spent making this and it treads a rather familiar path, a ...




peteswrite.blogspot.com


----------



## petetherock

Magiclakez said:


> I don’t think I have seen this title being mentioned so apologies if this has been covered earlier. But I would strongly recommend Hurricane Heist 4k Blu-ray. It’s a borderline B rated flick with an asinine/ head scratching plot. All that nonsense aside, the atmos implementation is over the top, insane. Very reminiscent of the Twister Blu-ray presented in dual Auro-3d / Dolby atmos through Turbine films, Germany.


Yep, the Hurricane Heist was a nice brainless piece of entertainment with a good soundfield.


----------



## halcyon_888

petetherock said:


> Tried Gray Men, pulsating action, standard plot, but the Atmos isn't demo material, I'm afraid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gray Man Movie Review
> 
> 
> This is one of the largest movies to come out of Netflix, with around 200 million spent making this and it treads a rather familiar path, a ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peteswrite.blogspot.com


I just finished watching it, it had a couple of Atmos moments but yea it wasn't a demo movie. I expected more from a $200 million spend. I thought the movie itself was "okay", C-grade. Forgettable. I hope nobody is wondering anymore why Netflix's stock price is in the toilet..


----------



## niterida

niterida said:


> HOLD THE LINE !!
> 
> I finally got around to putting my speakers in the positions as I described. When I marked those positions on the ceiling they looked perfect. I also marked the 60deg elevation positions as recommended in the "Dolby Atmos Mistakes" video and they looked WAY too close.
> But now they are installed at 45 there doesn't visually seem to be as much separation from my ear level speakers as there should be (IMO). It sounds OK but not as good as I was expecting, especially compared to my previous setup which was basically front heights at 25deg elevation and top middles at 50deg elevation but 110deg horizontal.
> So now I am wondering if the advice we have been giving to put them on the corner of the 45deg square is wrong. I know it is correct according to Dolby drawings but now I am wondering if it should be a circle at the 45deg point on the ceiling ? This would bring them in a bit closer (but not as close as the aforementioned 'Mistakes' video).
> 
> I will see if I can knock up a quick drawing to try to explain it a bit better and so people can visualise it easier.
> 
> Anyone have thoughts on this ?


So I posted this simply based on my visual assessment of the layout. What I was actually trying to say is, are we interpreting Dolby guidelines correctly since putting them at the corners of the 45deg square actually puts them at a lower elevation when measured directly from MLP. I have reread Dolby guides and it appears that this is correct.
I just realised too that my surrounds are temporarily 8" above ear height and since I have 5.1.4 and surrounds at 120deg they are almost directly below the heights. This is why they look too close. In a 7.1.4 setup they would be a lot further away.
At the time of posting I hadn't actually listened to anything as I only had 3 speakers installed. I have since installed the 4th and have listened to some known good scenes and it definitely images overhead just fine. So I am happy with the setup and happy to advise following Dolby specs.


----------



## Magiclakez

petetherock said:


> Tried Gray Men, pulsating action, standard plot, but the Atmos isn't demo material, I'm afraid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gray Man Movie Review
> 
> 
> This is one of the largest movies to come out of Netflix, with around 200 million spent making this and it treads a rather familiar path, a ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peteswrite.blogspot.com


In that case I’m glad I watched it in my (non atmos) setup in the living room. I wanted to watch it in my dedicated HT for the atmos, but reading some of the the lackluster comments out here, makes me feel better.

There a couple of Netflix films which imho are standout; “Adam’s project” and the international/Indian film “RRR” which has some outrageous action and Atmos sequences. The latter is a much watch.


----------



## Magiclakez

Does switching between Tops and Heights mess up room correction? I have currently assigned my height speakers as “heights” but I’m planning on running them as “tops” for the next few days. Just hoping that I don’t need to re-run room correction.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> Does switching between Tops and Heights mess up room calibration? I have currently assigned my height speakers as “heights” but I’m planning on running them as “tops” for the next few days. Just hoping that I don’t need to re-run room correction.


If we're talking Denon/Marantz, yes. They are part of the speaker configuration, so any change to the speaker config disables Audyssey.


----------



## MortenS

niterida said:


> I am happy with the setup and happy to advise following Dolby specs.


Thanks for this. Got a bit confused if you changed recommendation.
With 45 degrees or close to, do i set top or height in receiver?
PS i have on ceiling angled speakers if this matters.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Does switching between Tops and Heights mess up room calibration? I have currently assigned my height speakers as “heights” but I’m planning on running them as “tops” for the next few days. Just hoping that I don’t need to re-run room correction.


Yes, you have to do a separate calibration for the different positions, but thats why D&M allow for two different calibration profiles to be saved on the receiver. Or save them in the app and load the one you need in 2 minutes.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes, you have to do a separate calibration for the different positions, but thats why D&M allow for two different calibration profiles to be saved on the receiver. Or save them in the app and load the one you need in 2 minutes.


Thanks, guess I will need to save them on the app.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> I just realised too that my surrounds are temporarily 8" above ear height and since I have 5.1.4 and surrounds at 120deg they are almost directly below the heights. This is why they look too close. In a 7.1.4 setup they would be a lot further away.


There's a reason Auro-3D has the height layer directly above the bed layer. It aligns the sound fields. The notion they might be too close together is a bit erroneous because even if you have say Top Rear far from the side surrounds in a 7.1.4 system, there's still a point where the panned phantom image overlaps that point in space above the side surrounds. 

In other words, if you think of the potential imaging range of the lower and upper height layers as two virtual swimming pools of sound (when not mixed directly with each other), the only real separation is the vertical distance between these layers. The points where physical speakers exist are otherwise largely irrelevant in a separation sense, but aligning sounds mapped out in the Atmos renderer and/or layers recorded with Auro's dual layer quad microphones can e considered important if you want accurate panning and/or alignment in the vertical domain (sound moving straight up/down insteadof diagonally, for example).



MortenS said:


> Thanks for this. Got a bit confused if you changed recommendation.
> With 45 degrees or close to, do i set top or height in receiver?
> PS i have on ceiling angled speakers if this matters.
> View attachment 3310608


45 degrees is considered optionally either one by Dolby and other than a slight difference in panning speed front-to-back, there is no real difference between the settings on a system that can only run one or the other (Trinnov can run both and separates sounds by object placement in the grid accordingly). 

However, if you don't want DTS:X phantom imaging via Neural X to try and approximate height positions, you're better off with the Heights setting for more discrete output. If you have Auro-3D deciding, it also needs a height setting so IMO the choice is clear unless you're doing 55/125 degrees.


----------



## chi_guy50

Chirosamsung said:


> never Said the plot was good. Like most atmos mixes it's either one or the other...


IMHO life is too short to waste spending hours watching a bad movie. But I do not agree that you have to choose between an enjoyable Atmos mix and a worthwhile cinematic experience: Since few of the countless movies (or TV shows, or books, etc.) can be expected to rise above the pedestrian, if you want to minimize disappointment you just have to be more selective.

Perhaps I am not as discerning an audiophile as others on this thread, but I have seldom been disappointed by the Atmos sound track on any of the movies I care to watch (but then I do not bother with most of those titles mentioned here and so that is certainly a factor in my level of satisfaction).

This week I watched _Everything Everywhere All at Once_ on UHD BRD and can highly recommend it on both counts. And if you like that work, I can also recommend _Swiss Army Man_ from the same writer/director team (the Daniels).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> So I posted this simply based on my visual assessment of the layout. What I was actually trying to say is, are we interpreting Dolby guidelines correctly since putting them at the corners of the 45deg square actually puts them at a lower elevation when measured directly from MLP. I have reread Dolby guides and it appears that this is correct.


Ignore the square in the overhead view. That diagram is shown to give you the RANGES of angles they should stay within, not specify that the tops are supposed to absolutely be in a square pattern. In most cases, their actual placement would mimic the shape of the room itself, especially if you adjust them based on elevated side surrounds. See:







Even the home guideline shows on the longitudinal: "Centered over listener. Separated to achieve target elevation angle." You wouldn't necessarily move the height rows outward to match their longitudinal placement just to maintain a square pattern.


niterida said:


> I just realised too that my surrounds are temporarily 8" above ear height and since I have 5.1.4 and surrounds at 120deg they are almost directly below the heights. This is why they look too close. In a 7.1.4 setup they would be a lot further away.


Bear in mind that in a 5.1.4 setup, the "side surrounds" are functionally doing rear surround duty (because the rearmost speaker becomes the high end of the coordinate range). The static objects at the side surround position are played back using the side surround and main on that side. So they might look too close, but where you should really be looking as far as angular separation goes would be directly to your sides at the height where a speaker would be if the speakers were placed at a consistently increasing elevation from front to back.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Ignore the square in the overhead view. That diagram is shown to give you the RANGES of angles they should stay within, not specify that the tops are supposed to absolutely be in a square pattern. In most cases, their actual placement would mimic the shape of the room itself, especially if you adjust them based on elevated side surrounds. See:
> View attachment 3310815
> 
> Even the home guideline shows on the longitudinal: "Centered over listener. Separated to achieve target elevation angle." You wouldn't necessarily move the height rows outward to match their longitudinal placement just to maintain a square pattern.
> 
> Bear in mind that in a 5.1.4 setup, the "side surrounds" are functionally doing rear surround duty (because the rearmost speaker becomes the high end of the coordinate range). The static objects at the side surround position are played back using the side surround and main on that side. So they might look too close, but where you should really be looking as far as angular separation goes would be directly to your sides at the height where a speaker would be if the speakers were placed at a consistently increasing elevation from front to back.


Those Tops in the diagram may be correct, but IMO they give the impression of being way too far inward and close to the MLP (They look more like 60 degree elevations to my eye, probably because they're too far inward; extend them out to the L/R line and they would look more like Dolby's diagrams). Overheads at home typically tend to be in line with the front Left/Right in a home system (see an actual Dolby diagram), but technically 0.5-0.7 times the width of the total room. If you have them too far inward, you end up with far too little horizontal separation overhead. Your helicopter in that drawing will barely move left/right overhead. In larger rooms like a real world cinema, they end up being closer to the Screen Left & Screen Right positions your diagram shows, but those rooms are much larger overall in width than typical home setups.

Dolby's actual diagram is here: 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos-enabled Speaker Setup

As one can see, 135 is the start of the range. The "optimal" setting is normally considered to be in the middle of the range, but all are acceptable. What one really wants is symmetry, either to the MLP or the room itself in larger setups.

Here's the official Dolby Home setup diagrams (interestingly, the overheads are only supposed to be 2x-3x the height of the ear-level speakers maximum in the home recommendations (e.g. Ear levels mounted at 4 feet, that means overheads should be 8-12 feet. For ear 3 feet, 6-9 feet, etc. That's actually lower than I expected as you'd think more separation would be better, but it probably explains why cinema surrounds are so darn high on the side walls in Atmos theaters to the point where they sound way overhead already and defeat the point of ear level/overhead as they are more like overhead/ceiling):


----------



## squared80

chi_guy50 said:


> IMHO life is too short to waste spending hours watching a bad movie.


How do you know it's bad... unless you watch it.


----------



## MagnumX

My Resident Evil 6-pack 4K Atmos import box set has arrived. I know what I'm watching tonight...


----------



## MagnumX

I watched the first *Resident Evil* movie (2002) from the UK 4K UHD Boxset ($60 on Amazon) on my Zidoo X9S after dumping all the 4K discs. It also includes 6 1080p Blu-Ray discs with the original 5.1 sound. The 4K discs includes the new Dolby Atmos soundtracks plus the original DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtracks as well (Dolby Digital 5.1 on some of the later movies, separate from the Atmos encoded TrueHD 5.1 tracks.












Overall, I was pretty impressed. The movie, even scaled down for my 1080p projector, but set to run in Rec 2020 HDR using settings I found that work exceptionally well on my projector looked about as sharp as any movie can on that projector (almost like watching a Pixar movie level sharp). The movie itself is what it is, love it or hate it. But the new Atmos soundtrack is FANTASTIC! 

While this movie doesn't have quite as many opportunities for creepy zombies cues coming from above (although it does have several just the same), it certainly has a lot of other overhead and all around sounds including key parts of the creepy Marilyn Manson industrial soundtrack, which somehow sounds even creepier moving over the ceiling (although mostly in the Front Heights here). The Red Queen's voice moves all around the ceiling while she's talking, reminiscent of the opening title sequence of Flatliners (2017) in Atmos and Auro-3D that I consider an Atmos/Auro demo quality scene. Overall, the Atmos was excellent, IMO. I can't wait to hear the next 5 movies in Atmos as well (I still have to remux the last three movies for my 3D BD dumps as well). 

I did also compare a few bits to the 5.1 soundtrack which I dumped along with the Atmos one. For example, the scene just before the end plays a load of creepy industrial music and it's obvious the DTS soundtrack is 4-6dB louder than the Atmos one and the overhead parts were in the main L/R speakers instead. Both sounded great, but I think it would have been even better if the music had been set to move into the sides/rears as the camera backed up. My new favorite immersion music is in the movie _Pleasure_ (2021) in Auro-3D which has a hip-hop/rap moment where the vocals are in the VOG speaker (centered between Top Middle here and slightly forward as it's also in the front heights, putting just a hair in front of my head directly above me) while the music is spread all around the room like you're in a circle. Now THAT was a sweet effect. I'd like to hear some pop/rock music do something like that. Yello's Point album in Atmos has instruments and synths moving everywhere, but the vocals are mostly up front as usual, even more so than the stereo album (which had some in the L/R speakers instead on one track). But having Vocals for music discretely directly overhead seemed quite novel as I've never heard that before.


----------



## chi_guy50

squared80 said:


> How do you know it's bad... unless you watch it.


How do you know whether something is edible unless you try to eat it first?  

On a more serious note, the answer is to use your experience and good judgment or trust the discernment of knowledgeable sources. Tastes vary, so find a respected movie reviewer(s) whose opinions seem to match yours and follow his/her advice (A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis are my personal favorites; it helps that they are exceptional writers and their reviews themselves are a great read). Supplement that with your own independent research (other published sources or acquaintances who share your tastes). Trailers can be deceiving but can also help to confirm or refute your assessment.

Not every movie will live up to your expectations regardless of how well you vet it (that's where your tongue-in-cheek point comes into play), but then there's always the hidden gem that will unexpectedly delight you and which you only came across through your research efforts. There are enough well-crafted movies in the film library to choose from (with more being added every month) that you should not need to settle for schlock.

As a devoted cinephile for over half a century I take the same deliberative approach to my movie selection as I do to assembling the A/V setup that supports it.


----------



## mrtickleuk

chi_guy50 said:


> There are enough well-crafted movies in the film library to choose from (with more being added every month) that *you should not need to settle for schlock.*
> 
> As a devoted cinephile for over half a century I take the same deliberative approach to my movie selection as I do to assembling the A/V setup that supports it.


I agree completely! I despair at some of the schlock movies that people rave about on AVS, _just because they are very good technically_. I like to have standards!

"Everything Everywhere All at Once" is on my list to see at some point, it as very highly praised over here.


----------



## MagnumX

Well, if it's gotta be _acclaimed_ movies, I've got _Rosemary's Baby_ coming tomorrow, but I'm not sure its mono soundtrack is going to put my Atmos system to the test.... 

I mean this is the Dolby ATMOS thread, not the acclaimed movie recommendation thread and hence all the schlocky Atmos recommendations since it's about the sound in this thread more than the movie. It's just that popcorn action movies and horror movies tend to have more use for overhead speakers than converted play dramas like _California Suite _or a staged based comedy like _Noises Off_.


----------



## crutzulee

I'm not sure what governing body determines who is, or who is not a cinephile...I'm sure my credentials have been revoked many times over at any rate.

Like many here, I'm on an ongoing journey to create the most entertaining space possible to screen movies at home. ATMOS/DTS X is a gamechanger in that respect. Unlike many here, I've learned to become LESS discerning about what I watch. When I was younger, I would make sure that my party arrived at the cinema extra early so that I could ensure a spot dead center of the screen, at the optimal distance. I used to LOVE the trailers before the feature presentation and would read trade magazines to learn everything I could about what was in the pipeline.

Now, I rarely attend the cinema. I haven't been in a couple of years due to COVID, but rarely went more than once a year before that. I now AVOID trailers, reviews and movie threads before I see a feature (essentially anything that can spoil a plot). I watch a lot of movies and go into many of them completely cold. I watch a lot of garbage with this method....but it truly makes the gems shine that much brighter.

There is nothing like the thrill of watching a horror movie when you didn't know it was a horror going in! This is especially true when it's made by a gifted film maker with the chops to build a proper setup before the carnage without the need to spoonfeed the audience with menacing audio cues (OK, your supposed to be scared now in 3,2,1...) or gimmicky jump scares ( nothing wrong with a well placed jump scare mind you - a la EXORCIST 3).

While an engaging story will ALWAYS be paramount, I can confess that a beautifully shot movie, or one that delivers the goods that ATMOS has to offer, can elevate a movie's score in my book.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mrtickleuk said:


> I agree completely! I despair at some of the schlock movies that people rave about on AVS, _just because they are very good technically_. I like to have standards!
> 
> "Everything Everywhere All at Once" is on my list to see at some point, it as very highly praised over here.


I happen to love schlock, so watching a lot of bad movies is no issue for me. The main thing I look for is entertainment value. Anything beyond that is extra and raises a movies score for me.


----------



## Magiclakez

I did find Alfred Hitchcock’s “the lady vanishes” quite riveting. There was a moment when I distinctly felt some ambient effects(through my center speaker), when the train pulled into the remote Balkan station. Similar experience while watching (Stanley Kubrick’s classic noir) Killer’s kiss and Howard’s end.


----------



## chi_guy50

crutzulee said:


> Now, I rarely attend the cinema. I haven't been in a couple of years due to COVID, but rarely went more than once a year before that.


When I was a graduate student in Paris in the 1970's I sometimes visited two or three different cinemas in a day, taking advantage of retrospectives of all the great film directors. But in the past decade I don't believe I've been to a movie theater more than a handful of times; this is due mostly (although not by any means entirely) to the resources I've devoted to my HT setup and to the availability of advanced A/V technology for the home market in both streaming media and UHD Blu-ray. 

The single biggest factor in my view has been the dual features of immersive audio and high-dynamic-range video, which bring a high-calibre cinematic experience to the home viewer. I appreciate that there is still a place for movie theaters for those who relish the theatrical setting or who lack a suitable setup at home, and I would be sad to see the more discriminating venues disappear from the film distribution landscape. And I do want filmmakers to create their products with the big-screen impact in mind.



MagnumX said:


> I mean this is the Dolby ATMOS thread, not the acclaimed movie recommendation thread and hence all the schlocky Atmos recommendations since it's about the sound in this thread more than the movie.


I admit that I have been seduced by the immersive sound track into watching a few titles that I might otherwise have let slip by. But there has to be something more substantial there to entice me beyond the audio mix.



mrtickleuk said:


> "Everything Everywhere All at Once" is on my list to see at some point, it as very highly praised over here.


I recommend the (UHD) Blu-ray (both discs offer an Atmos sound track), as the film's convoluted idiosyncrasy, interweaving plot lines, and dizzily interspersed array of sets/costumes/alter egos ("universes" in the directors' lingo) beg multiple viewings; and the background features and commentary contained on the disc are also very illuminating. It is intriguing to see the methodology behind the production as those Daniels are undoubtedly the most zanily inventive filmmakers of our time.


----------



## billqs

petetherock said:


> Tried Gray Men, pulsating action, standard plot, but the Atmos isn't demo material, I'm afraid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gray Man Movie Review
> 
> 
> This is one of the largest movies to come out of Netflix, with around 200 million spent making this and it treads a rather familiar path, a ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peteswrite.blogspot.com


Personally, I thought the Atmos mix was pretty good. There are lots of sounds emanating away from the front screen, or starting front screen and continuing to back. A lot the location sound was in the bed level rather than heights but I thought it served the movie well.


----------



## billqs

Not to reignite a flame war, but one suggestion to have more speakers utilized on "print locked" Atmos titles, was to change from bitstream to LPCM and play the resultant soundtrack through DTS Neural X. Has anyone actually done this? If so, does it activate top middle speakers in mixes that would ordinarily leave them silent?

I'm curious. I just listed my old Denon receiver to sell after doing a rather expensive upgrade to enable 6 top speakers. It was an incredible receiver, but could only process 4 overheads. Given the lack of software (movie) support for 6 overheads, I'm actively questioning whether I should go back to the Denon and try to find some other way of activating top middle speakers (e.g Scatmos or some alternative.)


----------



## crutzulee

chi_guy50 said:


> When I was a graduate student in Paris in the 1970's I sometimes visited two or three different cinemas in a day, taking advantage of retrospectives of all the great film directors. But in the past decade I don't believe I've been to a movie theater more than a handful of times; this is due mostly (although not by any means entirely) to the resources I've devoted to my HT setup and to the availability of advanced A/V technology for the home market in both streaming media and UHD Blu-ray.
> 
> The single biggest factor in my view has been the dual features of immersive audio and high-dynamic-range video, which bring a high-calibre cinematic experience to the home viewer. I appreciate that there is still a place for movie theaters for those who relish the theatrical setting or who lack a suitable setup at home, and I would be sad to see the more discriminating venues disappear from the film distribution landscape. And I do want filmmakers to create their products with the big-screen impact in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that I have been seduced by the immersive sound track into watching a few titles that I might otherwise have let slip by. But there has to be something more substantial there to entice me beyond the audio mix.
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend the (UHD) Blu-ray (both discs offer an Atmos sound track), as the film's convoluted idiosyncrasy, interweaving plot lines, and dizzily interspersed array of sets/costumes/alter egos ("universes" in the directors' lingo) beg multiple viewings; and the background features and commentary contained on the disc are also very illuminating. It is intriguing to see the methodology behind the production as those Daniels are undoubtedly the most zanily inventive filmmakers of our time.


A guy like you would get crucified over at bluray.com lol...
I too am at a stage in my life where, having achieved a certain amount of success at creating a suitable HT, I prefer to watch at home while supporting filmmakers that gear their output towards larger scale presentation. 

For reasons unconvincing to me, I've constantly been told that the two are incompatible and that I'm somehow part of the problem that is killing cinema..

As far as EEAAO is concerned, both my adult kids loved it with my daughter declaring it favourite movie of all time. With my CIH screen, I'm not a fan of changing aspect ratio movies. Al though, from what I gather the movie was shown pillarboxed theatrically, like I screened it. 
I'm embarrassed to admit that I fell asleep both times we've watched it... I'll have a bit more caffeine the next time my daughter is up for a viewing...


----------



## am2model3

petetherock said:


> I just watched Moonfall, and it doesn't disappoint from a Atmos / surround demo POV... truly awful plot, but it was a surround fest with plenty of good bass too. I'll still recommend it to HT aficionados.. just turn off the brain and sit back..


Honestly, some movies are just fun. forget plot, logic, story, etc. Turn off the brain and enjoy. ignorance is bliss. People would enjoy movies more this way, but yes, i get the other side and point of view for films. Suspension of disbelief. We all have varying levels of suspension of disbelief. As adults, everyone is jaded. great post!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

billqs said:


> Not to reignite a flame war, but one suggestion to have more speakers utilized on "print locked" Atmos titles, was to change from bitstream to LPCM and play the resultant soundtrack through DTS Neural X. Has anyone actually done this? If so, does it activate top middle speakers in mixes that would ordinarily leave them silent?
> 
> I'm curious. I just listed my old Denon receiver to sell after doing a rather expensive upgrade to enable 6 top speakers. It was an incredible receiver, but could only process 4 overheads. Given the lack of software (movie) support for 6 overheads, I'm actively questioning whether I should go back to the Denon and try to find some other way of activating top middle speakers (e.g Scatmos or some alternative.)


Yes, this should work. But you must have DTS:X-Pro to do it with Neural-X.

Dolby Surround will do it.....it will upmix to 6 height/Top channels. But some versions of Dolby Surround ignores Wide Channels and other non-standard ground level speakers.

Auro3D seems to be the best at it in some ways. Less discrete than Dolby Surround and Neural-X but it puts some information from the ground layer into the height layer, extending the soundstage upward. It also will steer some sounds more fully in the height and top layer (if you have a top layer) for overhead content like flyovers.

I am planning to use a Denon X6700H to build a system with 6 height channels: Front Height, Top-Middle and Rear Height. And for Auro3D, the ability to turn the Top-Middle speakers into a voice of god channel.

And to be clear about "print locked" movies. More often than not they will be a "bed channel mix" which means the sound mixer just used the bed channels included in Atmos, which are the traditional 7.1 speakers plus 2 "height beds" which are located in the Top-Middle position.

When you have 6 height/top channels, the bed mix will play height information only from the Top-Middle, effectively ignoring your top-front and top-rear speakers. The bed mix will also only play out of the traditional 7 ground speakers, ignoring anything non-standard like Wides or a center rear surround speaker. The bed mix effectively turns your system into a 7.1.2 system, even if you have many more channels than that.

When an active sound object breaks away from the bed channels, then it will pass through every speaker in its path including Wide channels and any height channel. But those mixes that are only using the bed objects, they will completely ignore these channels

A very good example of a bed channel mix is Ready Player One.


----------



## chi_guy50

am2model3 said:


> Turn off the brain and enjoy. *ignorance is bliss*.


Personally, I prefer "knowledge is power."  But, as Thomas Gray posits, if thought would destroy your paradise . . .



Spoiler



It is a pet peeve of mine that this line from Gray's poem is so often misquoted and thus misinterpreted. His message is that one would be better off if spared from that knowledge that would serve no purpose other than to bring sorrow: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."


----------



## billqs

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes, this should work. But you must have DTS:X-Pro to do it with Neural-X.
> 
> Dolby Surround will do it.....it will upmix to 6 height/Top channels. But some versions of Dolby Surround ignores Wide Channels and other non-standard ground level speakers.
> 
> Auro3D seems to be the best at it in some ways. Less discrete than Dolby Surround and Neural-X but it puts some information from the ground layer into the height layer, extending the soundstage upward. It also will steer some sounds more fully in the height and top layer (if you have a top layer) for overhead content like flyovers.
> 
> I am planning to use a Denon X6700H to build a system with 6 height channels: Front Height, Top-Middle and Rear Height. And for Auro3D, the ability to turn the Top-Middle speakers into a voice of god channel.
> 
> And to be clear about "print locked" movies. More often than not they will be a "bed channel mix" which means the sound mixer just used the bed channels included in Atmos, which are the traditional 7.1 speakers plus 2 "height beds" which are located in the Top-Middle position.
> 
> When you have 6 height/top channels, the bed mix will play height information only from the Top-Middle, effectively ignoring your top-front and top-rear speakers. The bed mix will also only play out of the traditional 7 ground speakers, ignoring anything non-standard like Wides or a center rear surround speaker. The bed mix effectively turns your system into a 7.1.2 system, even if you have many more channels than that.
> 
> When an active sound object breaks away from the bed channels, then it will pass through every speaker in its path including Wide channels and any height channel. But those mixes that are only using the bed objects, they will completely ignore these channels
> 
> A very good example of a bed channel mix is Ready Player One.


I thought if I turned off bit-streaming and sent LPCM for 7.1 for the mix, then Neural X would work. It currently works for PCM 2 channel audio, but I haven't tried a full LPCM soundtrack.


----------



## mrvideo

chi_guy50 said:


> When I was a graduate student in Paris in the 1970's I sometimes visited two or three different cinemas in a day, taking advantage of retrospectives of all the great film directors. But in the past decade I don't believe I've been to a movie theater more than a handful of times; this is due mostly (although not by any means entirely) to the resources I've devoted to my HT setup and to the availability of advanced A/V technology for the home market in both streaming media and UHD Blu-ray.


Even though I am working on my 7.1.6 HT (4K/3D Benq projector), I will tend to first see a movie at the local IMAX (and in 3D when it is available) because these days the filmed (sic) for IMAX means that many scenes in the movie, if not the complete movie, will fill the IMAX screen. I do not know of any home IMAX screens. Even if you were to build one, getting true IMAX aspect ratio releases is impossible.


----------



## dschulz

chi_guy50 said:


> When I was a graduate student in Paris in the 1970's I sometimes visited two or three different cinemas in a day, taking advantage of retrospectives of all the great film directors. But in the past decade I don't believe I've been to a movie theater more than a handful of times; this is due mostly (although not by any means entirely) to the resources I've devoted to my HT setup and to the availability of advanced A/V technology for the home market in both streaming media and UHD Blu-ray.


I'm in a different boat - lucky enough to live in LA, where there are plenty of great cinemas, including state-of-the-art venues for new releases (including multiple IMAX and Dolby Cinema screens), old-school one-screen movie palaces that have kept up with the times, art-house venues and repertory cinemas. I'm now an AMC A-List subscriber, which has me averaging just under a movie a week on the big screen.

But i still care very much about home theatre! Why? Well, there have been thousands of movies made since the film industry began, so in addition to new releases I enjoy watching everything else made across the entire history of world cinema.


----------



## robert600

Just downloaded and watched 'Prey'. I was disappointed in both the movie and it's use of Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Just downloaded and watched 'Prey'. I was disappointed in both the movie and it's use of Atmos.


That's a shame if you're referring to the new Predator prequel. All the reviews I read were moderately to extremely positive, calling it the best Predator movie since the original. I loved Amber Midthunder in _The Ice Road_ so I was looking forward to seeing her in this. I have no desire to subscribe to Hulu or pirate download, so I'll have to wait until it's actually released for digital sales or better yet a BD or UHD BD to find out.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> That's a shame if you're referring to the new Predator prequel. All the reviews I read were moderately to extremely positive, calling it the best Predator movie since the original.


Yes, I read those reviews as well. Maybe they set me up with too high expectations ... that happens to me sometimes. I'm not suggesting it's not worth watching for anyone who is a fan of the whole Predator/Alien thing (as I am) ... just that I was a bit ... underwhelmed. Hollywood Wokeness ... what can you do?


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> Hollywood Wokeness ... what can you do?


So your view of the movie was biased by it having a native American cast?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> So your view of the movie was biased by it having a native American cast?


More than likely the "women can do it better than men" narrative. Hollywood has several narratives they pull out of their butts for their movies these days


----------



## Magiclakez

I thought prey was quite badass. Of course there was no atmos on the Hulu stream, but the picture was quite gorgeous with 4k, albeit no HDR. I would expect the physical media (if and when it gets an official release) to include a decent immersive mix.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> More than likely the "women can do it better than men" narrative. Hollywood has several narratives they pull out of their butts for their movies these days


It's not that "women can do it better than men". It's that women deserve to at least see themselves represented in movies in more roles than just those which are stereotypical or supporting.


----------



## Kain

Soulburner said:


> It's not that "women can do it better than men". It's that women deserve to at least see themselves represented in movies in more roles than just those which are stereotypical or supporting.


Then they should do it properly like in Annihilation which had pretty much an all women cast. I don't think anyone quested why it was "all women" in that movie. We can tell when it is "forced" vs. done "naturally" (i.e. letting the story make the characters instead of the other way around).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> It's not that "women can do it better than men". It's that women deserve to at least see themselves represented in movies in more roles than just those which are stereotypical or supporting.


Ripley, Sarah Conner, Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Red Sonja, Aeon Flux, Battle Angel Alita, Ghost in the Shell and bunch of other tittles absolutely destroys that narrative. It hasnt been true for going on 40 years at this point.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ripley, Sarah Conner, Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Red Sonja, Aeon Flux, Battle Angel Alita, Ghost in the Shell and bunch of other tittles absolutely destroys that narrative. It hasnt been true for going on 40 years at this point.


While you can pick plenty of examples, you didn't pick any men's roles. Taken as a whole, the ratio of men vs women roles is drastically skewed. That's all I'm saying. To get upset about women taking more lead roles in movies is absurd.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> More than likely the "women can do it better than men" narrative. Hollywood has several narratives they pull out of their butts for their movies these days


Amber Midthunder can do it better than men all day long as far as I'm concerned.  

I wanted to see a lot more of her in movies after watching _The Ice Road_ and so this part works for me.

What's that Burgess Meredith said in Grumpier Old Men to the 'I find you disgusting' response of Sophia Loren's mother? "Well, as long as you find me...."


----------



## Magiclakez

I decided to revisit “Man of Steel” last night on 4k UHD Blu-ray. I truly believe, this movie features one of the most impressive examples of Dolby atmos implementation of all time. There is also some generous amount of activity coming through the rear and wide channels, along with some gut crunching /visceral LFE. 

Very underrated movie as well. I cringe when folks fail to acknowledge this title, when showcasing their top ten atmos mixes/ demos.


----------



## petetherock

The new Netflix Sandman series has a very impressive Atmos track.. plot’s good too….


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> So your view of the movie was biased by it having a native American cast?


No ... that was probably the best part. Such a good premise for a tale ... and then they totally blew the narrative by needing to be so 'woke'. Also, the CGI seemed very lame ... I mean that bear! lol



Magiclakez said:


> I thought prey was quite badass.


I'm very surprised you would say this. Have you seen the original?


----------



## robert600

Maybe I'm not being fair ... it's just that the original 'Predator' was so good! I was expecting something more of that caliber ... based on the reviews I had read.


----------



## Magiclakez

robert600 said:


> I'm very surprised you would say this. Have you seen the original?


I have the predator 4k collection. I have watched all of them. Matter of fact, I watched the original (with Arnold) in the theater, when it came out in the late 80’s. 

Nothing surprising out here; tastes are always subjective anyways. If you feel it failed to meet your expectations, then you should stick with that. We wouldn’t be having a conversation if all views/opinions were congruent.


----------



## Rich 63

Soulburner said:


> It's not that "women can do it better than men". It's that women deserve to at least see themselves represented in movies in more roles than just those which are stereotypical or supporting.


 Like male actors?


----------



## petetherock

IMO the Adrian Brody one and the one that followed plus the first AVP were very enjoyable… lack of atmos notwithstanding


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> While you can pick plenty of examples, you didn't pick any men's roles. Taken as a whole, the ratio of men vs women roles is drastically skewed. That's all I'm saying. To get upset about women taking more lead roles in movies is absurd.


Few people are upset about women taking more action roles. Its about the presentation. About whether the film is about entertainment or proselytizing to the audience.

The ratio is skewed simply because traditionally, action roles are considered masculine in nature. In history, men performed the fighting because they are physically stronger and socially, men are expendable. Women are not. Women are the ones who bear children and thus it is mens duty to protect their women. If a nation falls, you only need a handfull of men to repopulate. The women are litterally your most prescious resource. You do not risk them by sending them into battle. This is common sense. Something the general populace seems to be lacking these days.

As for the idea that female representation in action films is lacking....thats complete hogwash. Women have been represented in action roles for decades and not just as support or damsels in distress. You've seen Michelle Yeoh in Everything, Everywhere, All at Once? She has been acting in action films since the 1980s. Dozens upon dozens of films. Oftentimes as the lead or co-lead. And not just Michelle Yeoh, but many Asian actresses have played lead roles in asian action films. I collected many of these throughout the 90s and early 2000s (the peak of Hong Kong cinema). So when people tell me women havent had enough representation in action movie roles, I litterally have no idea what the hell they are talking about. My own movie collection disproves their claims.

If you want to talk about Native American representation in major films, now that is another discussion entirely and there would be some merit to such a claim. But lack of female representation? Complete hogwash.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Few people are upset about women taking more action roles. Its about the presentation. About whether the film is about entertainment or proselytizing to the audience.
> 
> The ratio is skewed simply because traditionally, action roles are considered masculine in nature. In history, men performed the fighting because they are physically stronger and socially, men are expendable. Women are not. Women are the ones who bear children and thus it is mens duty to protect their women. If a nation falls, you only need a handfull of men to repopulate. The women are litterally your most prescious resource. You do not risk them by sending them into battle. This is common sense. Something the general populace seems to be lacking these days.
> 
> As for the idea that female representation in action films is lacking....thats complete hogwash. Women have been represented in action roles for decades and not just as support or damsels in distress. You've seen Michelle Yeoh in Everything, Everywhere, All at Once? She has been acting in action films since the 1980s. Dozens upon dozens of films. Oftentimes as the lead or co-lead. And not just Michelle Yeoh, but many Asian actresses have played lead roles in asian action films. I collected many of these throughout the 90s and early 2000s (the peak of Hong Kong cinema). So when people tell me women havent had enough representation in action movie roles, I litterally have no idea what the hell they are talking about. My own movie collection disproves their claims.
> 
> If you want to talk about Native American representation in major films, now that is another discussion entirely and there would be some merit to such a claim. But lack of female representation? Complete hogwash.


The Point of No Return was one of my favorites as a teenager, Bridget Fonda was perfect in my eyes. I might have to rewatch that sometime soon to see if it holds up as a movie. But I don't like pandering, the A-Force scene in Endgame gave me a big eye-roll and I've read they actually reshot that because the original version had too much pandering to begin with. Ana De Armas was great in No Time to Die, and I also had no problems with the other woman character in it either. I'm watching The Man who Fell to Earth and I have no problems with the woman scientist, who is a co-lead. No problems with Umbrella Academy, any season. No problems with Beth's character in Yellowstone, no problems with Wheel of Time. The Queen's Gambit was one of my favorite series I've ever watched. Come to think of it, I guess I don't have issues most of the time. But another one that comes to mind as pandering to me was For All Mankind, I almost stopped watching the first season but I slogged through it just to conclude the plot. The women astronaut thing wasn't a problem for me in itself, it was IMO how the show was simulatenously making the men come off of douchebags while the women were awesome that made me not like it. I wanted to like that show. Anyway I'm off to watch Prey, hoping for good Atmos with this one!


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> I decided to revisit “Man of Steel” last night on 4k UHD Blu-ray. I truly believe, this movie features one of the most impressive examples of Dolby atmos implementation of all time. There is also some generous amount of activity coming through the rear and wide channels, along with some gut crunching /visceral LFE.


Have you also heard Jupiter Ascending, Ready Player One, and Blade Runner 2049? I have heard those but have not heard Man of Steel.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> The Point of No Return was one of my favorites as a teenager, Bridget Fonda was perfect in my eyes. I might have to rewatch that sometime soon to see if it holds up as a movie. But I don't like pandering, the A-Force scene in Endgame gave me a big eye-roll and I've read they actually reshot that because the original version had too much pandering to begin with. Ana De Armas was great in No Time to Die, and I also had no problems with the other woman character in it either. I'm watching The Man who Fell to Earth and I have no problems with the woman scientist, who is a co-lead. No problems with Umbrella Academy, any season. No problems with Beth's character in Yellowstone, no problems with Wheel of Time. The Queen's Gambit was one of my favorite series I've ever watched. Come to think of it, I guess I don't have issues most of the time. But another one that comes to mind as pandering to me was For All Mankind, I almost stopped watching the first season but I slogged through it just to conclude the plot. The women astronaut thing wasn't a problem for me in itself, it was IMO how the show was simulatenously making the men come off of douchebags while the women were awesome that made me not like it. I wanted to like that show. Anyway I'm off to watch Prey, hoping for good Atmos with this one!


Ana de Armas was amazing in No Time to Die. I wanted to see more of her in that.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Have you also heard Jupiter Ascending, Ready Player One, and Blade Runner 2049? I have heard those but have not heard Man of Steel.


Jupiter Ascending is quite nice but imho, I feel that both BR2049 and ready player one (except for that particular race sequence) are pretty pedestrian with height activity (or the lack thereof). They both have some impactful LFE though. 

I actually prefer the native auro-3d version of BR2049. It is a Polish release but can be found online.


----------



## crutzulee

PREY is showing in DOLBYVISION and ATMOS up here in Canada in Disney+. 
Watched it last night with my kids who both felt it was better than the original while I would place it as a close 2nd in the franchise ranking....
While not reference quality, I enjoyed the presentation in terms of both audio and video... well definitely look out for a physical release when available..


----------



## regster

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ripley, Sarah Conner, Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Red Sonja, Aeon Flux, Battle Angel Alita, Ghost in the Shell and bunch of other tittles absolutely destroys that narrative. It hasnt been true for going on 40 years at this point.


adding Natasha Romanov, and the collective Oceans 8 and The 355 etc.


----------



## halcyon_888

Just finished watching Prey, I thought it was pretty good. Not great but not bad, and better than a streaming movie like this should be. Of course, it's not going to win an Oscar but I didn't expect that kind of movie going in. CGI was serviceable imo, I've seen worse. The sound mix was fine, the bass was good with BEQ but there was only one moment where the Atmos used the height speakers that I noticed. If there were more than that then I didn't catch it or wasn't paying attention to the mix itself. I wouldn't say this movie was better than the original Predator. IMO the original got the atmosphere perfect and had a mythos that hasn't been replicated since. Prey would come in 2nd place for me. I might actually rewatch the original for the hell of it. "If it bleeds, we can kill it" sounded better coming from Arnold's mouth. I didn't like them using that line in Prey, but I can understand why they would.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Few people are upset about women taking more action roles. Its about the presentation. About whether the film is about entertainment or proselytizing to the audience.


So you're saying Prey proselytizes?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> So you're saying Prey proselytizes?


Oh not necessarily talking about Prey. I havent seen it yet. Will watch it soon. Talking specifically about those movies where all the men are sexist douchebags and the women can do everything better than them, especially fight. And they fight the patriarchy etc, etc. (Like that awful Birds of Prey movie from a couple years back, or that dumb Ghostbusters 2016)

I have seen those accusations aimed at Prey but I wont label it until I see it. I have seen some promotional material that makes it seem a "fight the patriarchy" movie, but if its well done, no problem.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

regster said:


> adding Natasha Romanov, and the collective Oceans 8 and The 355 etc.


Natash herself, absolutely. Unfortunately her solo movie devolved into a poorly conceived "fight the patriarchy" movie where the main villain was based more on Harvey Weinstien than a cool Marvel villain and they gender swapped one of the most badass marvel villains (Taskmaster) for the sake of "girl power". So it goes in the trash pile. Which makes me sad because I really wanted that movie to be good as I absolutely love Natasha in the Avengers and ScarJo was perfect in that role.

In any case, I dont want to derail the thread any longer. We should stick to Atmos and immersive audio. Which brings me to this question: How are people seeing Prey in Atmos? In the U.S. Hulu doesnt have Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> I decided to revisit “Man of Steel” last night on 4k UHD Blu-ray. I truly believe, this movie features one of the most impressive examples of Dolby atmos implementation of all time. There is also some generous amount of activity coming through the rear and wide channels, along with some gut crunching /visceral LFE.
> 
> Very underrated movie as well. I cringe when folks fail to acknowledge this title, when showcasing their top ten atmos mixes/ demos.


Ouch on both the movie and the atmos recommendations 

are you sure you are talking about the right movie and that's not a typo? Cause that movie seriously was weak....like not even average


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> Jupiter Ascending is quite nice but imho, I feel that both BR2049 and ready player one (except for that particular race sequence) are pretty pedestrian with height activity (or the lack thereof). They both have some impactful LFE though.
> 
> I actually prefer the native auro-3d version of BR2049. It is a Polish release but can be found online.


It's hard to take you seriously, with both your taste in movies being good and your not understanding of good atmos titles that are "almost" universally agreed top 3-5 atmos discs


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> Ouch on both the movie and the atmos recommendations
> 
> are you sure you are talking about the right movie and that's not a typo? Cause that movie seriously was weak....like not even average


I recently rewatched Man of Steel, and I don't remember it having anything spectacular with Atmos...


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Oh not necessarily talking about Prey. I havent seen it yet. Will watch it soon. Talking specifically about those movies where all the men are sexist douchebags and the women can do everything better than them, especially fight. And they fight the patriarchy etc, etc. (Like that awful Birds of Prey movie from a couple years back, or that dumb Ghostbusters 2016)
> 
> I have seen those accusations aimed at Prey but I wont label it until I see it. I have seen some promotional material that makes it seem a "fight the patriarchy" movie, but if its well done, no problem.


You almost exactly summarized the first 30 minutes of Prey imo, but I stuck with it anyway and it was pretty good overall.


----------



## petetherock

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ana de Armas was amazing in No Time to Die. I wanted to see more of her in that.


With that dinner dress, she does let us see a whole lot of her already 
Sweet beauty, can't say much about her choice of boyfriends though..
I thought she's on a run with the Grey Man movie too, as the new woman of mystery, but much more involved than Julia Stiles was in Bourne..
But she shined in Knives Out.. thumbs up for that one, with or without Atmos.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> I recently rewatched Man of Steel, and I don't remember it having anything spectacular with Atmos...


I remember the Atmos being good but not necesarily standout.

For me the most impressive thing about Man of Steel was the HDR. Holy cow was it glorious.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> It's hard to take you seriously, with both your taste in movies being good and your not understanding of good atmos titles that are "almost" universally agreed top 3-5 atmos discs


It's hard to take _you_ seriously ,when his remarks are right on the mark. I love Blade Runner 2049 and the bass is top notch, but it's not a movie with heavy discrete overhead use at all. The original Blade Runner Atmos retrofit has more overhead sounds plainly up there. People put Mad Max Fury Road in their top 5 or top 10 too. It has like 11 minutes of overhead use period out of 2 hours and it's often blended with the rest so very little discrete (the opening buggy jumping scene goes from rear height/top to Top Middle and is at ear level by the front wides if not the side surrounds. It's a great "surround" movie, but it's not an overhead Atmos demo by any means. Ready Player One has exceptional Top Middle integration with bed layers, but I have to ding it for not using the other 8 possible overheads at all.

A good Atmos _overhead_ demo movie is something more like Kong Skull Island, The Edge of Tomorrow or better yet Monster Hunter (however B-movie it might be, the sound is 1st rate Atmos demo material). 

Better yet, load up DTS:X for the Harry Potter movies (nearly all are demo worthy) or Auro-3D for the admittedly somewhat b-movie _The Ice Road_ (unbelievable immersive soundtrack; one of the best I've ever heard and it has Prey actress Amber Midthunder in it as well).


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> It's hard to take you seriously, with both your taste in movies being good and your not understanding of good atmos titles that are "almost" universally agreed top 3-5 atmos discs


Go follow the “universal herd.” 

Secondly please learn to form your own personal opinions and try not to parrot what others have to say on the matter. It’s perfectly fine to disagree and have a difference of opinion on the subject matter. However you come across as a very rude /condescending individual.

Being a prisoner of second hand feedback invariably arrests individual creativity.


----------



## Soulburner

I think BR2049 was heavy on bass and light on Atmos. I've been demoing the opening scene for people, but then switch to Jupiter Ascending for overall Atmos demo material. It's over the top, as they say.


----------



## petetherock

Soulburner said:


> I think BR2049 was heavy on bass and light on Atmos. I've been demoing the opening scene for people, but then switch to Jupiter Ascending for overall Atmos demo material. It's over the top, as they say.


Moonfall is even more over the top... equally nasty plot, but it will put a smile on your face...


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> It's hard to take _you_ seriously ,when his remarks are right on the mark. I love Blade Runner 2049 and the bass is top notch, but it's not a movie with heavy discrete overhead use at all. The original Blade Runner Atmos retrofit has more overhead sounds plainly up there. People put Mad Max Fury Road in their top 5 or top 10 too. It has like 11 minutes of overhead use period out of 2 hours and it's often blended with the rest so very little discrete (the opening buggy jumping scene goes from rear height/top to Top Middle and is at ear level by the front wides if not the side surrounds. It's a great "surround" movie, but it's not an overhead Atmos demo by any means. Ready Player One has exceptional Top Middle integration with bed layers, but I have to ding it for not using the other 8 possible overheads at all.
> 
> A good Atmos _overhead_ demo movie is something more like Kong Skull Island, The Edge of Tomorrow or better yet Monster Hunter (however B-movie it might be, the sound is 1st rate Atmos demo material).
> 
> Better yet, load up DTS:X for the Harry Potter movies (nearly all are demo worthy) or Auro-3D for the admittedly somewhat b-movie _The Ice Road_ (unbelievable immersive soundtrack; one of the best I've ever heard and it has Prey actress Amber Midthunder in it as well).


I have literally invested in multiple listening sessions with those movies in question and they failed to steer me away from my initial observations. Fantastic lfe and surround activity but failing to rise to the occasion…pun intended. 

Edge of tomorrow is fantastic; I even enjoyed the digital stream on Vudu ( atmos enabled) before it came out on physical media. Moonfall, ambulance, starship troopers, Mission Impossible: fallout and even the original 1998 Godzilla are some good examples of well mixed atmos tracks. Personally I find the soundtrack of Hurricane Heist absolutely mind blowing. The movie is a bonafide slug fest and borderline B rated, however they went for the jugular with the soundtrack and atmos implementation.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I think BR2049 was heavy on bass and light on Atmos. I've been demoing the opening scene for people, but then switch to Jupiter Ascending for overall Atmos demo material. It's over the top, as they say.


Couldn’t agree more. I would take Jupiter ascending over BR2049 all day every day and even on a Sunday.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> Edge of tomorrow is fantastic; I even enjoyed the digital stream on Vudu ( atmos enabled) before it came out on physical media.


I also think Edge of Tomorrow (called Live, Die, Repeat on my disc) is great, however mine is DTS, like most/many Tom Cruise movies.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I also think Edge of Tomorrow (called Live, Die, Repeat on my disc) is great, however mine is DTS, like most/many Tom Cruise movies.


They recently came out with a 4k release which includes an insane atmos track. The previous Blu-ray was DTS 5.1. Must have 4k for your collection imho especially for the atmos track. I really love the movie as well, therefore the atmos mix is like gravy.

Edit: The Blu-ray version supports a 7.1 track, thanks to MagnumX for bringing this to my attention.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> They recently came out with a 4k release which includes an insane atmos track. The previous Blu-ray was DTS 5.1. Must have 4k for your collection imho especially for the atmos track. I really love the movie as well, therefore the atmos mix is like gravy.


That's unfortunate that they locked the Atmos track behind a 4k release. I use a PlayStation 4 for my movie playback to a 1080p plasma, and therefore can't play those discs.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> They recently came out with a 4k release which includes an insane atmos track. The previous Blu-ray was DTS 5.1. Must have 4k for your collection imho especially for the atmos track. I really love the movie as well, therefore the atmos mix is like gravy.


I don't know offhand about the original Blu-Ray offhand, but my original 3D Blu-Ray has DTS-HD MA 7.1 sound, not 5.1. The new 1080p disc in the 4K set is also DTS-HD MA 7.1. The 4K disc is, of course Atmos with a 7.1 TrueHD base track.



Soulburner said:


> That's unfortunate that they locked the Atmos track behind a 4k release. I use a PlayStation 4 for my movie playback to a 1080p plasma, and therefore can't play those discs.


If you have a digital copy, iTunes has a streaming Atmos track now and Apple TV (whether the device or the App on something else like the Nvidia Shield) does NOT require a 4K playback device to enable Atmos sound. 

Regardless, a $45 scalar device off Amazon will let you run 4K Vudu and most any other 4K source on a 1080p device (I'm using one with my 3D/1080p projector and it works great). My LP BD player ($80 on sale over 3 years ago) does a great job scaling and tone-mapping 4K discs and my Zidoo X9S also has pretty good tonemapping and scaling (although it turns out my projector can do BT2020 colors just fine with 4K scaled with some adjustments in dynamic color mode). I also bought a USB 3 BD drive that can rip UHD discs and I can even move the Atmos soundtrack to a 1080p video file (including 3D movies that didn't have Atmos with them) with MKVToolnix. 

In other words, there's no reason to forgo Atmos because of the lack of a 4K TV/Projector. In fact, 4K movies scaled to it are among the sharpest things I've ever seen in 1080p. Somehow 1080p discs usually aren't up to par compared to scaled 4K (which tends to look near perfect). Tremors in 4K is just freakishly good compared to the old 1080p Universal BDs, for example. Pitch Black 4K from Turbine has an awesome new Atmos track on it too (all those creatures flying overhead around the room).


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> If you have a digital copy


I do not, unless my ownership of the 1080p DTS disc somehow entities me to one.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> Go follow the “universal herd.”
> 
> Secondly please learn to form your own personal opinions and try not to parrot what others have to say on the matter. It’s perfectly fine to disagree and have a difference of opinion on the subject matter. However you come across as a very rude /condescending individual.
> 
> Being a prisoner of second hand feedback invariably arrests individual creativity.


Sorry if I came off rude-I actually thought you were joking. Let's try this again, shall we:
.
My personal opinion from watching then is-man of steel audio is mediocre at best and the movie itself is much less than mediocre


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> I also think Edge of Tomorrow (called Live, Die, Repeat on my disc) is great, however mine is DTS, like most/many Tom Cruise movies.


Edge if Tomorow, Doctor Sleep, It and Morher are also demo worthy atmos btw althoughMother isn't a great movie the others are pretty darn good!


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I don't know offhand about the original Blu-Ray offhand, but my original 3D Blu-Ray has DTS-HD MA 7.1 sound, not 5.1. The new 1080p disc in the 4K set is also DTS-HD MA 7.1. The 4K disc is, of course Atmos with a 7.1 TrueHD base track.


Yes you are absolutely correct. The Blu-ray does indeed support a very robust 7.1 track. I vividly recall not even bothering to upmix the original track, since it was so potent in its original form.


----------



## Magiclakez

halcyon_888 said:


> Just finished watching Prey, I thought it was pretty good. Not great but not bad, and better than a streaming movie like this should be. The sound mix was fine, the bass was good with BEQ but there was only one moment where the *Atmos used the height speakers that I noticed. *


Pardon my ignorance; but how were you able to get the atmos track in the US? 

I watched this film on Hulu and I believe they don’t even support a basic 5.1 track. I was essentially treated to a rollicking 2.0 experience, when I watched this film. I would definitely like to watch this movie again with a full complement of height channels engaged.


----------



## fatherom

Magiclakez said:


> Pardon my ignorance; but how were you able to get the atmos track in the US?
> 
> I watched this film on Hulu and I believe they don’t even support a basic 5.1 track. I was essentially treated to a rollicking 2.0 experience, when I watched this film. I would definitely like to watch this movie again with a full complement of height channels engaged.


Disney+ with your VPN pointed to a country like Canada.


----------



## crutzulee

I can't imagine judging the efficacy of an ATMOS track by the number of minutes that the height channels are engaged...

That just seems batshit crazy....


----------



## halcyon_888

I need to rewatch BR2049, the first time I watched it I didn't have height speakers or the subwoofer and HoverEze that I have now. Oh, and more Ana de Armas never hurts


----------



## Chirosamsung

crutzulee said:


> I can't imagine judging the efficacy of an ATMOS track by the number of minutes that the height channels are engaged...
> 
> That just seems batshit crazy....


Lol-tell me about it.

Good atmos means height activity x minutes lol.

not surprised abo it his comment tbh


----------



## niterida

crutzulee said:


> I can't imagine judging the efficacy of an ATMOS track by the number of minutes that the height channels are engaged...
> 
> That just seems batshit crazy....


When the movie is touted as one of the best for Atmos and it hardly uses the Atmos speakers I think it is a very relevant comment.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Its good to see Jupiter Ascending getting the recognition for its Atmos soundtrack. Its unfortunate that the movie is so heavily panned, which means a lot of people will just avoid it and never experience its Atmos implementation.

Jupiter Ascending was one of the first Atmos movies I played on my system after I set up height channels, and it immediately convinced me I made the right move, I was so impressed with it.

It was after experiencing movies like Jupiter Ascending and Mission Impossible: Fallout that I started running into the more lackluster implementations of the format. So I never went through the process of thinking Atmos might be a gimmick because I had already experienced some of its best examples.


----------



## crutzulee

niterida said:


> When the movie is touted as one of the best for Atmos and it hardly uses the Atmos speakers I think it is a very relevant comment.


This is at the root of most disagreements in this thread...
It does not matter how expensive your gear is, if you consider the height channels to be the "ATMOS" channels in your setup - YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG....
ALL the channels in your setup are ATMOS channels when properly assigned and calibrated by your processor...

I'm no fan of the movie FURY ROAD. I have no plans to upgrade my bluray as it already has the ATMOS track... the first 7 minutes of that film will tell you all you need to know about whether or not your rig measures up and can deliver what ATMOS has to offer...hint...it is more than sounds coming from above you...

BR2049 is an amazing ATMOS track because it constantly places you within the ATMOS bubble and then effectively jars you from above.... and below....and inside your head...


----------



## regster

Soulburner said:


> I do not, unless my ownership of the 1080p DTS disc somehow entities me to one.


I have the BD that had the digital copy redeemable on ultraviolet back then and was waiting that maybe iTunes would upgrade it to the 4k version like it did on my other HD titles like San Andreas, but never did…. fast forward - I upgraded to 4K on Vudu for Atmos, and now also have the UHD BD. If you’re in the US , and want to do the work around for the atmos track. PM me, I have the digital code I can’t use, since I already have it on my library.


----------



## crutzulee

I'm not an expert- just an enthusiast whose jaw still hits the floor when experiencing a movie in his cave, but to add to what I've written above, my 3 non negotiables when it comes to setting up ATMOS are....

1. Identical tweeters for every speaker in your setup... ideally Identical speakers if possible

2. The tweeters in your bed layer should be at identical height- ear height of the MLP.

3. When using your processor's setup procedure, abandon the attempt to maximize the experience over multiple rows or even a wide berth from the MLP.

Every theater, both commercial and home, has compromises to be made.... but I've found that the closer you can come to NOT compromising on these 3, the closer you come to ATMOS nirvana...


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> I can't imagine judging the efficacy of an ATMOS track by the number of minutes that the height channels are engaged...
> 
> That just seems batshit crazy....


You can't imagine much at all. If a movie barely uses the overheads, it's not much of an Atmos track, particularly for demos. Think about that. I know it's extremely difficult for you. 

It's one thing to not care whether a movie uses any speakers but the fronts, but it's another to call things batshit crazy, insulting EVERYONE who disagrees with you and don't think I don't know that comment was directed at me, personally when I mentioned Mad Max only uses 11 minutes and hardly ANY of it is discrete. That says NOTHING about the movie quality; it's talking about Atmos demo material that shows off the new speakers (overheads), but you have to insult me anyway. It's just the kind of person you are....


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> You can't imagine much at all. If a movie barely uses the overheads, it's not much of an Atmos track, particularly for demos. Think about that. I know it's extremely difficult for you.
> 
> It's one thing to not care whether a movie uses any speakers but the fronts, but it's another to call things batshit crazy, insulting EVERYONE who disagrees with you and don't think I don't know that comment was directed at me, personally when I mentioned Mad Max only uses 11 minutes and hardly ANY of it is discrete. That says NOTHING about the movie quality; it's talking about Atmos demo material that shows off the new speakers (overheads), but you have to insult me anyway. It's just the kind of person you are....


We've been over this before... we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what we think ATMOS should be... I'll continue to grin and be floored by presentations in my HT, while you continue to deride established reference tracks while standing next to individual speakers with a stopwatch.... we can then differ on which is batshit crazy..


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> We've been over this before... we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what we think ATMOS should be... I'll continue to grin and be floored by presentations in my HT, while you continue to deride established reference tracks while standing next to individual speakers with a stopwatch.... we can then differ on which is batshit crazy..


I never once measured it. Someone else did. I simply use it to make a point. Fury Road is not the best demo for overhead effects.

As for *batshit crazy*, that's your term of derision. I don't judge others because one person likes Brussel sprouts and another one hates them. Judging someone on a difference of opinion is bigotry. It's the cause of many of the world's conflicts. You clearly prefer to be part of the problem instead of the solution.


----------



## crutzulee

FURY ROAD is NOT the best track for measuring overhead effects... but it is the best track for evaluating ATMOS..


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its good to see Jupiter Ascending getting the recognition for its Atmos soundtrack. Its unfortunate that the movie is so heavily panned, which means a lot of people will just avoid it and never experience its Atmos implementation.
> 
> Jupiter Ascending was one of the first Atmos movies I played on my system after I set up height channels, and it immediately convinced me I made the right move, I was so impressed with it.


Yep. And it's not only the liberal use of audio swirling around you – and the camera work doing the same – but the very tight and well-timed LFE effects. It doesn't just drone on like some movies.

It is technically a very impressive movie.


----------



## Soulburner

regster said:


> I have the BD that had the digital copy redeemable on ultraviolet back then and was waiting that maybe iTunes would upgrade it to the 4k version like it did on my other HD titles like San Andreas, but never did…. fast forward - I upgraded to 4K on Vudu for Atmos, and now also have the UHD BD. If you’re in the US , and want to do the work around for the atmos track. PM me, I have the digital code I can’t use, since I already have it on my library.


Thanks. I also have the code slip in the case but I've never used one. I guess I could put it on the laptop since I already use that for the Dolby Atmos demo scenes.

My only potential issue is the 4k nature of the video (if it's even available to me). I wonder if I can tell the computer to downsample, or if my display will do it automatically. And it remains to be seen if the computer will struggle with that.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> FURY ROAD is NOT the best track for measuring overhead effects... but it is the best track for evaluating ATMOS..


The best Atmos demo? 

Without the overheads, it's really just 7.1 (or perhaps 9.1) unless you have a Trinnov or Storm. Any 24.1.x users on here? More to the point, droning car engines from every direction don't provide much variety. 

The reason someone measured it in the first place was they were shocked to find many highly touted Atmos movies actually had dead silent overhead speakers most of the time when they _thought_ they were hearing them. Real world sounds don't start/stop at some arbitrary point on the wall towards the ceiling, yet that is how many are mixed. 

Surrounding sounds don't only occur during "action scenes" in real life either. Yet the birds in Annihilation are strangely only in the front speakers in the forest, especially whole they're talking. I don't call that _immersion_ even if the movie sends weird electronic sounds all over the room in other scenes. 

Dolby released several very impressive demos (like Leaf, Amaze, Conductor, etc) to demonstrate how their "immersive" system was meant to be used. Instead, with _Knives Out_ we had all kinds of talking going on in a house, but no surround effects most of the time (the table falling on the floor upstairs overhead is the only standout effect I recall from the entire movie). It's literally quiet in the surround channels, but you can hear people talking in the front channels in the background during those scenes regardless if their relative position to the other actors (same as missing birds in surrounds in Annihilation). Apparently, they don't want you to be distracted by realistic believable immersive sound. Why use Atmos, then? They might as well use Pro Logic with mono surrounds. 

Compare that to _Mother_ where everyone keeps talking and sounds go spinning as the camera follows Jennifer Lawrence around. Now that is immersion! I want _that_ kind of Atmos sound in Knives Out! 

The first 5 minutes of Monster Hunter versus the first 5 minutes of Mad Max to demonstrate Atmos on a typical consumer 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system? No contest at all, IMO. Monster Hunter uses everything Atmos has. Fury Road sounds like I'm at a monster truck rally.... 

You could just play the 7.1 base track with DSU to get 95% of the same effect with Fury Road. No Atmos track even required. That's why I don't consider it good Atmos demo material. People moved to Atmos because they wanted shiny new overhead sounds. We already had 5.1 and 7.1.

Now play the first bit of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets where they rescue Harry by flying car in DTS:X. Now _that_ is immersion.


----------



## crutzulee

Once again, we differ in what ATMOS is meant to be... I'm convinced that you've never actually experienced it.


----------



## Magiclakez

crutzulee said:


> I'm not an expert- just an enthusiast whose jaw still hits the floor when experiencing a movie in his cave, but to add to what I've written above, my 3 non negotiables when it comes to setting up ATMOS are....
> 
> 1. Identical tweeters for every speaker in your setup... ideally Identical speakers if possible
> 
> 2. The tweeters in your bed layer should be at identical height- ear height of the MLP.
> 
> 3. When using your processor's setup procedure, abandon the attempt to maximize the experience over multiple rows or even a wide berth from the MLP.
> 
> Every theater, both commercial and home, has compromises to be made.... but I've found that the closer you can come to NOT compromising on these 3, the closer you come to ATMOS nirvana...


Very pertinent points and something which needs to be adhered to by all HT enthusiasts. However it gets tossed out of the window when the sound engineers/ mixers give you a blatantly lazy effort, which culminates in a poorly mixed track. 

I love fury road and I can understand how it has developed a cult following around the globe. But except for the first few mins of exceptional atmos, the rest of the movie relies exclusively on surround activity and some excellent low end bass. The movie has excellent energy throughout the entire duration of the film. I think we probably confuse all the ruckus(which this movie has in boatloads) for atmos. 

Imho..(emphasis on humble) It’s also blasphemous to go against the grain and disagree with the self proclaimed gurus and blind defenders of the faith, who have been touting this film as manna fallen from the heavens where atmos is concerned.


----------



## robert600

"Elvis" ... pretty close to a 'must see' movie. It's not the kind of movie that showcases Atmos per say but it's emmersive enough. I had no idea what a big deal Elvis was back in the day!


----------



## Magiclakez

crutzulee said:


> FURY ROAD is NOT the best track for measuring overhead effects... but it is the best track for evaluating ATMOS..


For evaluating atmos; imho that would be Gravity (Diamond luxe edition). That is an outlier compared to some of the travesty on display these days.


----------



## chi_guy50

crutzulee said:


> ALL the channels in your setup are ATMOS channels when properly assigned and calibrated by your processor...


That is a salient aspect of immersive audio that can not be repeated often enough IMHO.

And it is why I frequently feel the urge to interject in a discussion about speaker setup whenever a user refers to overhead speakers as "Atmos speakers." Not only are those overhead speakers NOT exclusively--let alone expressly--intended for Dolby Atmos playback (and, in fact, are likely to be employed more often via upmixers), but using such a misnomer implies a misunderstanding of the nature of immersive audio, as your comment above astutely emphasizes.


----------



## Josh Z

crutzulee said:


> It does not matter how expensive your gear is, if you consider the height channels to be the "ATMOS" channels in your setup - YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG....
> ALL the channels in your setup are ATMOS channels when properly assigned and calibrated by your processor...


At Atmos track that doesn't use the height speakers is effectively just a 5.1 or 7.1 mix. Without the height speakers, there is nothing an Atmos track can do that can't be accomplished just as well with a channel-based 7.1 mix. There is no technical reason or advantage to encoding as Atmos if you're not going to use the height speakers.

The whole point of the development of the Atmos format was to add overhead audio. If the mix isn't going to use overhead audio, there's no point to encoding it as Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> Once again, we differ in what ATMOS is meant to be... I'm convinced that you've never actually experienced it.


I'm convinced you're a troll.



Josh Z said:


> At Atmos track that doesn't use the height speakers is effectively just a 5.1 or 7.1 mix. Without the height speakers, there is nothing an Atmos track can do that can't be accomplished just as well with a channel-based 7.1 mix. There is no technical reason or advantage to encoding as Atmos if you're not going to use the height speakers.
> 
> The whole point of the development of the Atmos format was to add overhead audio. If the mix isn't going to use overhead audio, there's no point to encoding it as Atmos.


I would not say Atmos is _strictly_ for adding overhead channels as it adds the possibility of a whopping 17 more discrete rendered speakers at ear level (24 total) while the overhead layer tops out at 10 total. Still, given most consumers have 5.1.2 - > 7.1.4 with "some" at 9.1.6, only a few elite setups currently have that capability, but that does not erase their existence or potential value.

There are 24 speakers officially in the Atmos "ear level" layer and it is _possible_ to have a 24.1.0 system with Trinnov or Storm. It's certainly possible to create a 9.1.0 system with say a Denon 8500 even. 

Would you want to go without overheads? Probably not (the wife might prefer that), but still there is no doubt a proper Atmos soundtrack will be be improved using 9.1 or higher ear level speaker counts even without the overhead layer. 

My Marantz AVR uses Atmos decoding starting at 7.1 (because streaming Atmos 5.1 based soundtracks can be expanded to 7.1 with the Atmos renderer).


----------



## appelz

Josh Z said:


> At Atmos track that doesn't use the height speakers is effectively just a 5.1 or 7.1 mix. Without the height speakers, there is nothing an Atmos track can do that can't be accomplished just as well with a channel-based 7.1 mix. There is no technical reason or advantage to encoding as Atmos if you're not going to use the height speakers.
> 
> The whole point of the development of the Atmos format was to add overhead audio. If the mix isn't going to use overhead audio, there's no point to encoding it as Atmos.


Object based audio was core to the development of Dolby Atmos, and moving beyond 7 channels of audio plus LFE. Overhead speakers are certainly a big part of that, of course. 

On the professional side, one significant advantage of the Dolby renderer is the ability to create "one mix" for professional use, and then the renderer on playback outputs for the specific number of channels supported in the venue. Previous to that, multiple mixes were often required. Time and money savings for the studio. We are all aware here of the advantages on the creative side. 

Just for fun....3.0.2 is a valid Atmos configuration. And as mentioned, all the way up to 24.1.10.


----------



## crutzulee

Magiclakez said:


> For evaluating atmos; imho that would be Gravity (Diamond luxe edition). That is an outlier compared to some of the travesty on display these days.


I've heard good things about it's track. I saw it in 3D and ATMOS at the cinema.....unfortunately it contains the single greatest assault on intelligence ever committed to film so I'll never watch it again.


Josh Z said:


> At Atmos track that doesn't use the height speakers is effectively just a 5.1 or 7.1 mix. Without the height speakers, there is nothing an Atmos track can do that can't be accomplished just as well with a channel-based 7.1 mix. There is no technical reason or advantage to encoding as Atmos if you're not going to use the height speakers.
> 
> The whole point of the development of the Atmos format was to add overhead audio. If the mix isn't going to use overhead audio, there's no point to encoding it as Atmos.


While I respect your opinion above that of magnum, I completely disagree on this point. The whole point of ATMOS is that it's tracks contain meta data that your processor uses to place objects within your room. It takes into account the number of, and placement of ,speakers that you feed in to it's setup procedure. While the absence of physical height channels hamstrings the efficacy of this process, more recent iterations of the decoders allow for a virtualization of these channels from a standard base layer....and no, I'm not talking about upfiring modules that you place on top of your mains.

I have an old SONY STR-DG820 amp that I use to power two of my height channels. Recently, an identical second amp has fallen in to my lap. As I already have a 3rd pair of Paradigm Mini monitors kicking around, I read with great interest your series on SCATMOS. Ultimately, I decided not to attempt this as the complexity of trying to emulate the processors job of time and distance allignment left too much room for error. My Denon 4500 flawlessly processes 7.4.4 channels. I'll wait to upgrade to a receiver that can process 7.4.6 before I risk ruining the soundfield that I've achieved just to add the 2 more height speakers.

I believe that you have put in the work and have effectively achieved a result similar to what the dedicated processor can produce. I believe, that for all his bellyaching about tracks that are, by all other accounts reference, magnum has achieved something less with his frankentheater.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I see both sides here.

Quite obviously, the Atmos system is intended to be used with height or overhead speakers. You dont have to use it as such....Atmos engineers once said in a Home Theater Geeks episode that Atmos will "kick in" with any setup beyond 5.1. This means 6.1 setups or higher will engage the Atmos renderer. But the recommendation is to use at least 2 height/overhead channels with 4 or more suggested for the best effects. We all know this to be a fact.

But regardless of the ubiquitous nature of height channels in an Atmos system, sound mixers are under no obligation to use the height channels at all. They could simply put objects and beds on the ground layer and completely ignore the top layer. That doesnt make it no longer Atmos. It just makes it lacking in height content. It still has audio objects floating around the listeners and hopefully creating a wall of sound around the listeners which is potentially divorced of its channel count...with the sound objects emanating from 3D space.

However we also know the truth of the matter. That these soundtracks are often NOT mixed in realistic and oftentimes incredibly obvious ways. If the scene takes place in a forest and birds are chirping, they should be chirping ABOVE the audience, not at ear level. If characters are talking in a highly reverberent space like a large parking structure or a cavern, there should be reflections coming from all around the listeners including from above, not just from ear level. If a large semi truck or train zooms past the camera, the sound should fill that side of the room from top to bottom, not just at ear level. If a plane is flying overhead, then it should sound like its litterally flying above the audience, not just disappearing in the rear surround channels. And if there is a big epic space battle with ships and rockets and explosions and lasers flying all around the scene, then the sound mix should reflect that in all ways possible through Atmos.

If the soundmix doesnt do those things, then it is a FAIL. The entire point of Atmos is for the sound to be able to map to the action on the screen precisely to increase the immersion factor for the audience. If action is happening above the camera perspective, yet no sound emmantes from there, it breaks audience immersion and its a FAIL.

The mixers really need to get better with that. I know there are a lot of the old gaurd out there who dont even want to mix in Atmos (Chris Nolan, yes, I'm calling your ass out) and if they dont want to, they dont have to. Then we know their creative intent was a 2D surround mix and we can make a personal choice to upmix or not. But when the soundmix is produced in Atmos or DTSX or Auro, and they dont hit those obvious 3D moments, we cant help but wonder if that was on purpose or missed opportunity and boom...we are taken out of the movie.

And I know their intent is not to break the immersion. If it is, what the hell is the point then?


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I'm convinced you're a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say Atmos is _strictly_ for adding overhead channels as it adds the possibility of a whopping 17 more discrete rendered speakers at ear level (24 total) while the overhead layer tops out at 10 total. Still, given most consumers have 5.1.2 - > 7.1.4 with "some" at 9.1.6, only a few elite setups currently have that capability, but that does not erase their existence or potential value.
> 
> There are 24 speakers officially in the Atmos "ear level" layer and it is _possible_ to have a 24.1.0 system with Trinnov or Storm. It's certainly possible to create a 9.1.0 system with say a Denon 8500 even.
> 
> Would you want to go without overheads? Probably not (the wife might prefer that), but still there is no doubt a proper Atmos soundtrack will be be improved using 9.1 or higher ear level speaker counts even without the overhead layer.
> 
> My Marantz AVR uses Atmos decoding starting at 7.1 (because streaming Atmos 5.1 based soundtracks can be expanded to 7.1 with the Atmos renderer).


I was listening to Anthony Grimani’s master setup session the other day. He was alluding to the wides as an absolutely integral part of the immersive experience. I couldn’t agree more. Some of the well mixed tracks judiciously place objects on the wide channels, for a seamless height/ bed layer transition.


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> I believe that you have put in the work and have effectively achieved a result similar to what the dedicated processor can produce. I believe, that for all his bellyaching about tracks that are, by all other accounts reference, magnum has achieved something less with his frankentheater.


Given you're apparently too scared to even _try_ Scatmos (as if it can't be disabled or removed ever again), I'd say insulting me or my home theater by _ignorant_ proxy are the least of your problems. 

Maybe if you some day watch more than just Fury Road in Atmos, you'll realize there are much _much_ better Atmos soundtracks out there than a derivative rehash/reboot of a 1980s classic. Fury Road had _some_ Atmos significance in 2015-2017, but not 2022.

Unlike you, I _have_ watched Gravity in Atmos plus 3D. Mother, however, is FAR more impressive in Atmos usage, possibly one of the most immersive Atmos film ever made. Both movies fundamentally suck as entertainment, IMO, however. I don't enjoy either one as a movie, but they do have impressive soundtracks.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> I was listening to Anthony Grimani’s master setup session the other day. He was alluding to the wides as an absolutely integral part of the immersive experience. I couldn’t agree more. Some of the well mixed tracks judiciously place objects on the wide channels, for a seamless height/ bed layer transition.


I have been following Grimani's work for some time now (since his interviews with Scott on Home Theater Geeks nearly a decade ago) and yes, he has always been a huge proponent of the Wide channels, going so far as to say a 9.1.2 was better than a 7.1.4 setup. Unfortunately back then, not too many receivers supported Wide channels with Atmos.

Now that 13+ channel processors and receicers are available, he is recommending at least 13 channels for 9.1.4 setups and suggests 15.1 channels for 9.1.6 whenever possible. He wants the Wide channels because the gap between the fronts and surrounds is too big. Wides gives one a more fluid pan between the front and rear soundstages.

I personally feel that having front and rear height channels is more important. They expand the soundstage higher, giving a true 3 dimensional soundfield. Well placed and calibrated Surrounds and Fronts can image a Wide channel if necessary. However just 2 channels above you cannot properly extend the soundstage above the front channels if thats where Godzilla and King Gidorah's voices are supposed to be. So for me, I'm doing 7 on the ground and 6 channels above including Front Height and Rear Height directly above the front and rear soundstages and Top-Middle for sounds intended directly above the audience.

My Side surrounds will be practically equidistant from the front and rear speakers so in my case, Wides arent strictly necessary. Phantom Wides should be entirely possible.

Of course, upgrading to include Wides is something I am considering, in a perfect world, that would be my theater's final form.


----------



## Chirosamsung

crutzulee said:


> We've been over this before... we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what we think ATMOS should be... I'll continue to grin and be floored by presentations in my HT, while you continue to deride established reference tracks while standing next to individual speakers with a stopwatch.... we can then differ on which is batshit crazy..


Lmao-this post is gold Jerry, gold!


----------



## Chirosamsung

chi_guy50 said:


> That is a salient aspect of immersive audio that can not be repeated often enough IMHO.
> 
> And it is why I frequently feel the urge to interject in a discussion about speaker setup whenever a user refers to overhead speakers as "Atmos speakers." Not only are those overhead speakers NOT exclusively--let alone expressly--intended for Dolby Atmos playback (and, in fact, are likely to be employed more often via upmixers), but using such a misnomer implies a misunderstanding of the nature of immersive audio, as your comment above astutely emphasizes.


amen-amazing retort to the standard dribble non sense of overhead "atmos speakers" lol. Love the time watch comment too


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Given you're apparently too scared to even _try_ Scatmos (as if it can't be disabled or removed ever again), I'd say insulting me or my home theater by _ignorant_ proxy are the least of your problems.
> 
> Maybe if you some day watch more than just Fury Road in Atmos, you'll realize there are much _much_ better Atmos soundtracks out there than a derivative rehash/reboot of a 1980s classic. Fury Road had _some_ Atmos significance in 2015-2017, but not 2022.
> 
> Unlike you, I _have_ watched Gravity in Atmos plus 3D. Mother, however, is FAR more impressive in Atmos usage, possibly one of the most immersive Atmos film ever made. Both movies fundamentally suck as entertainment, IMO, however. I don't enjoy either one as a movie, but they do have impressive soundtracks.


I wouldn't say Gravity as a movie sucks-have to strongly disagree with you on that one. You can say you didn't care for it and it wasn't to your liking but the only real question about gravity would be whether it's a "good movie" or "a very good movie".

i do agree with you on mother

another point that's being made is that most people say a good atmos movie either has a lot of height usage and some say that those that only include 11 min of over head activity is not good atmos-in fact, real life contains 95% of the sounds in our base level plane and NOT overhead.

it's not like a "bad" atmos movie (according to some) has NO height activity-but rather people complain if the overheads are not running HOT and constantly, when in fact, real life/real world doesn't operate this way anyways-it's more subtle and less frequent

so let's get past the point of "X movie only has Y minutes of overhead speaker use, therefore it's not good atmos"

rubbish


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> I was listening to Anthony Grimani’s master setup session the other day. He was alluding to the wides as an absolutely integral part of the immersive experience. I couldn’t agree more. Some of the well mixed tracks judiciously place objects on the wide channels, for a seamless height/ bed layer transition.


It's to some degree layout related whether wides are "needed" to fill the gap between the mains and sides (some systems phantom image fine in that region), but certainly they should be making use of those locations. Some mixers seem to go out of their way to avoid them.



Chirosamsung said:


> I wouldn't say Gravity as a movie sucks-have to strongly disagree with you on that one. You can say you didn't care for it and it wasn't to your liking but the only real question about gravity would be whether it's a "good movie" or "a very good movie".
> 
> i do agree with you on mother
> 
> another point that's being made is that most people say a good atmos movie either has a lot of height usage and some say that those that only include 11 min of over head activity is not good atmos-in fact, real life contains 95% of the sounds in our base level plane and NOT overhead.
> 
> it's not like a "bad" atmos movie (according to some) has NO height activity-but rather people complain if the overheads are not running HOT and constantly, when in fact, real life/real world doesn't operate this way anyways-it's more subtle and less frequent
> 
> so let's get past the point of "X movie only has Y minutes of overhead speaker use, therefore it's not good atmos"
> 
> rubbish


You're making an over generalization about a very _specific_ example. The 11 minute thing only highlights the observations whereby people were surprised at just how little the overheads are used in many Atmos movies that they thought were using them a lot more. The brain is easily fooled.

I also specifically said it was not a great Atmos demo for OVERHEAD effects and isn't anywhere near the top Atmos demo movie in 2022 as there have been so many since 2015 (and many like Edge of Tomorrow that just got an Atmos soundtrack are far more entertaining movies, IMO). You just glossed right over that.

While it's probably true that sounds _directly overhead_ are less common than others in the real world, it's also true that sounds don't begin and end at ear level that aren't directly overhead. The overhead speakers are usually dead SILENT in most of these Atmos movies outside those scenes.

Any real life recording (Auro's dual quad microphone) has content coming from those directions even it's just ceiling reflections. If a double-decker bus passes me on the street, there may be nothing directly overhead, but there's certainly sound above my ear level.

But many Atmos movies simply don't bother or they're using cinema standards whereby "ear level" surrounds are 20 feet above your head! No wonder it doesn't occur to them to use the overheads as they may very well see them for ceiling only effects. So half the height of the walls at home often go unused.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I wouldn't say Gravity as a movie sucks-have to strongly disagree with you on that one. You can say you didn't care for it and it wasn't to your liking but the only real question about gravity would be whether it's a "good movie" or "a very good movie".
> 
> i do agree with you on mother
> 
> another point that's being made is that most people say a good atmos movie either has a lot of height usage and some say that those that only include 11 min of over head activity is not good atmos-in fact, real life contains 95% of the sounds in our base level plane and NOT overhead.
> 
> it's not like a "bad" atmos movie (according to some) has NO height activity-but rather people complain if the overheads are not running HOT and constantly, when in fact, real life/real world doesn't operate this way anyways-it's more subtle and less frequent
> 
> so let's get past the point of "X movie only has Y minutes of overhead speaker use, therefore it's not good atmos"
> 
> rubbish


I think for reasonable people out there, its less about how often the height channels are activated, but more like that the height channels are used when appropriate to the material on the screen. At current, there are a lot of movies that dont do that. And that is the real issue.


----------



## sdurani

appelz said:


> On the professional side, one significant advantage of the Dolby renderer is the ability to create "one mix" for professional use, and then the renderer on playback outputs for the specific number of channels supported in the venue. Previous to that, multiple mixes were often required. Time and money savings for the studio. We are all aware here of the advantages on the creative side.


Unfortunately, that much touted aspect of Atmos was never taken advantage of on the professional side. A decade after the format's introduction, movies are still delivered to theatres with multiple mixes (separate tracks for Atmos, 7.1 & 5.1). 

On the consumer side, where backwards compatibility is a priority, Atmos soundtracks are indeed delivered as a single encode that includes 7.1, 5.1 & 2.0. Most home Atmos set-ups don't use enough speakers to truly take advantage of the format's object-based nature (not many home set-ups include 5 across the front or S1/S2 pairs). The main difference most consumers will hear with Atmos is the addition of a height layer. Without that, delivering the soundtrack as an Atmos encode seems pointless, as Josh was alluding to. 

BTW, there was a similar "single encode" promise with the current 3D video formats that never materialized. The idea was to have a 3D track that was 2D compatible using sum & difference channels. If you didn't have a 3D display, the sum channel would give you a 2D version of the movie, saving the cost of separate encodes and multiple discs. Never happened. Home video still uses separate discs for the 3D and 2D versions.


----------



## halcyon_888

I just finished rewatching Blade Runner 2049, and although I didn't count how many minutes of Atmos usage (it's a long movie) it had a good mix of expanding the soundstage and a few discrete effects too. I did my own BEQ for the movie and the bass was great. About 1.5 hours into the movie I realized the movie I watched yesterday, Prey, was finishing up in the same amount of time but BR2049 had another hour to go! (Did they ever hear of the editing room?! As long as they wouldn't edit out Ana de Armas's scenes!) The Atmos still didn't top Ready Player One for me, which is still my favorite of the ones I've heard.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> Unlike you, I _have_ watched Gravity in Atmos plus 3D. Mother, however, is FAR more impressive in Atmos usage, possibly one of the most immersive Atmos film ever made. Both movies fundamentally suck as entertainment, IMO, however. I don't enjoy either one as a movie, but they do have impressive soundtracks.


Is this the movie featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem? I need to add this to my collection.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> Is this the movie featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem? I need to add this to my collection.


Yes. mother is stellar atmos demo-not a great movie IMO


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes. mother is stellar atmos demo-not a great movie IMO


Thanks. Just saw it on Amazon for $12. Can’t wait.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I just finished rewatching Blade Runner 2049, and although I didn't count how many minutes of Atmos usage (it's a long movie) it had a good mix of expanding the soundstage and a few discrete effects too. I did my own BEQ for the movie and the bass was great. About 1.5 hours into the movie I realized the movie I watched yesterday, Prey, was finishing up in the same amount of time but BR2049 had another hour to go! (Did they ever hear of the editing room?! As long as they wouldn't edit out Ana de Armas's scenes!) The Atmos still didn't top Ready Player One for me, which is still my favorite of the ones I've heard.


I actually like it exactly as it is and I usually despise when movies approach the 3 hour range (Harry Potter excepted; I'd like to see longer versions there).

Blade Runner 2049 is a near masterpiece, IMO that with a few minor faults eclipsed the original. I do take issue that the Earth wasn't represented in the original as the wasteland it appears to be in 2049, for example (LA appeared smoggy as the '80s probably viewed it but you clearly see a sunset and the cinema version shows forests outside of LA, which 2049 implies are all dead). I think the whole Climate Change agenda influenced that change, but it really doesn't change the plot all that much.

Many complained the original movie plodded along too. It was a big box office flop, originally, making only $27.5 million during its original run when it cost roughly $30 million to make.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Many complained the original movie plodded along too. It was a big box office flop, originally, making only $27.5 million during its original run when it cost roughly $30 million to make.


The original Bladerunner does drag quite a bit, but its a cerebral movie. Its not supposed to be a nail biter. A detective mystery rather than cop action movie.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Is this the movie featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem? I need to add this to my collection.


Yes. 



Spoiler



If I had I at least known "Mother" meant Mother Earth, I might have at least enjoyed it a bit more than I did. As it was, I couldn't wait for it to end, even with the great sound. It made literally no sense until you either figure out the symbolic premise or read about it and even then I'd call it shaky as to whether that makes any sense at all. Given it's really a commentary on religion by an atheist, you can't expect it to make total sense.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The original Bladerunner does drag quite a bit, but its a cerebral movie. Its not supposed to be a nail biter. A detective mystery rather than cop action movie.


And that's why I enjoyed both of them and I personally liked the Harrison Ford narrative that made it feel more so (like _Dead Reckoning_ with Bogart that I felt was always underrated). In fact, I just got done watching back-to-back viewings (two days) of _The Big Sleep_ with Bogart with the 1945 'unreleased' version (at the cinema; it was shown to the troops overseas) followed by the 1946 official version.

I've also got the 1978 remake with Robert Mitchum. I preferred him in _Farewell My Lovely _as the Bogart version of _The Big Sleep_ was hard to beat.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I actually like it exactly as it is and I usually despise when movies approach the 3 hour range (Harry Potter excepted; I'd like to see longer versions there).
> 
> Blade Runner 2049 is a near masterpiece, IMO that with a few minor faults eclipsed the original. I do take issue that the Earth wasn't represented in the original as the wasteland it appears to be in 2049, for example (LA appeared smoggy as the '80s probably viewed it but you clearly see a sunset and the cinema version shows forests outside of LA, which 2049 implies are all dead). I think the whole Climate Change agenda influenced that change, but it really doesn't change the plot all that much.
> 
> Many complained the original movie plodded along too. It was a big box office flop, originally, making only $27.5 million during its original run when it cost roughly $30 million to make.


I like Arrival and Dune better than BR2049, it's not that BR2049 was a bad movie it's just choosing among some good ones. There's one part in BR2049 when they take Deckard but leave K on the floor unconscious--it doesn't make sense to me why they didn't take them both. Most stories have a deus ex machina moment to whatever degree in the 2nd half of the 2nd act, and normally before the 3rd act, which serves to push the story forward. Them not taking K stands in for a deus ex machina moment (it's not exactly one, but it stands in for one) because it's a storytelling convienance he's left there which serves to push the story forward in that now he's free to regroup and come after them again. Also I believe that a big part of judging how "good" a story is (or not) depends on how well the storyteller pulls off the deus ex machina moment. I got a bit into the weeds there with some writing stuff, but I didn't actually set out to analyze BR2049 when I watched it. The moment just jumped out at me as something being amiss. I wish they would have pulled off the turn to the 3rd act better, but they kind of wrote themselves into to a corner at the end of the 2nd act. Still, I thought the movie was good, just a bit overlong imo


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think for reasonable people out there, its less about how often the height channels are activated, but more like that the height channels are used when appropriate to the material on the screen. At current, there are a lot of movies that dont do that. And that is the real issue.


The worst is when you hear a sudden blip out of no where and then not again for the whole movie. Like they needed to stick a token Atmos object in there just to put it on the label.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I do take issue that the Earth wasn't represented in the original as the wasteland it appears to be in 2049, for example (LA appeared smoggy as the '80s probably viewed it but you clearly see a sunset and the cinema version shows forests outside of LA, which 2049 implies are all dead).


The opening scene is green.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I like Arrival and Dune better than BR2049, it's not that BR2049 was a bad movie it's just choosing among some good ones. There's one part in BR2049 when they take Deckard but leave K on the floor unconscious--it doesn't make sense to me why they didn't take them both. Most stories have a deus ex machina moment to whatever degree in the 2nd half of the 2nd act, and normally before the 3rd act, which serves to push the story forward. Them not taking K stands in for a deus ex machina moment (it's not exactly one, but it stands in for one) because it's a storytelling convienance he's left there which serves to push the story forward in that now he's free to regroup and come after them again. Also I believe that a big part of judging how "good" a story is (or not) depends on how well the storyteller pulls off the deus ex machina moment. I got a bit into the weeds there with some writing stuff, but I didn't actually set out to analyze BR2049 when I watched it. The moment just jumped out at me as something being amiss. I wish they would have pulled off the turn to the 3rd act better, but they kind of wrote themselves into to a corner at the end of the 2nd act. Still, I thought the movie was good, just a bit overlong imo


Why would they take K? He's not able to reproduce or special in any way from their viewpoint. A better question is why they didn't kill him to be sure he doesn't bite them 8n the butt later, but then that's a common James Bond question too....

Harrison is either a human that impregnated a Replicant and thus may know information they need/want or he's one of those special Replicants himself (possibly even more valuable). Ridley Scott _now_ says Replicant, but I think that changed over time because Harrison Ford claimed he was supposed to be human and played him that way.

Villeneuve intentionally doesn't answer this question in the film, although you do wonder how Deckard could survive long term in an irradiated Las Vegas if he wasn't. Sure, they might have some new high tech antidote to radiation in that future, but if they did, why wouldn't they reclaim Vegas when clearly it contains a fortune in wood alone?


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Why would they take K? He's not able to reproduce or special in any way from their viewpoint. Harrison is either a human that impregnated a Replicant and thus may know information they need/want or he's one of those special Replicants himself (possibly even more valuable). Ridley Scott _now_ says Replicant, but I think that changed over time because Harrison Ford claimed he was supposed to be human and played him that way.
> 
> Villeneuve intentionally doesn't answer this question in the film, although you do wonder how Deckard could survive long term in an irradiated Las Vegas if he wasn't. Sure, they might have some new high tech antidote to radiation in that future, but if they did, why wouldn't they reclaim Vegas when clearly it contains a fortune in wood alone?


It seemed to me that by not taking K they are leaving a loose string. The woman hitman/assistant was efficient up to that point in killing people connected to knowing about the child (the mortuary/forensic scientist, the police chief), so it didn't make sense to me that #1 they didn't kill K, and #2 if they didn't kill him then they would take him.

I think that BR2049 is better than the original imo, but it's not something I'd argue over if someone thought the opposite. But I did get the impression like you did that Deckard was a replicant by living in the radiation for so long.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> I like Arrival and Dune better than BR2049, it's not that BR2049 was a bad movie it's just choosing among some good ones. There's one part in BR2049 when they take Deckard but leave K on the floor unconscious--it doesn't make sense to me why they didn't take them both. Most stories have a deus ex machina moment to whatever degree in the 2nd half of the 2nd act, and normally before the 3rd act, which serves to push the story forward. Them not taking K stands in for a deus ex machina moment (it's not exactly one, but it stands in for one) because it's a storytelling convienance he's left there which serves to push the story forward in that now he's free to regroup and come after them again. Also I believe that a big part of judging how "good" a story is (or not) depends on how well the storyteller pulls off the deus ex machina moment. I got a bit into the weeds there with some writing stuff, but I didn't actually set out to analyze BR2049 when I watched it. The moment just jumped out at me as something being amiss. I wish they would have pulled off the turn to the 3rd act better, but they kind of wrote themselves into to a corner at the end of the 2nd act. Still, I thought the movie was good, just a bit overlong imo


dune had great atmos and visually stunning but was a Disapointing movie IMO

Huge hype but I don't think lived up to it. I know very few that even understood the movie and know not a single person that's ever recommended to someone else to see it or themselves watched it a second time.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> dune had great atmos but was a TERRIBLE movie


You're joking, right? The new Dune was _excellent_, albeit only half finished.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> You're joking, right? The new Dune was _excellent_, albeit only half finished.


if the Second half is great then maybe the whole thing will be half good. This might be one that I just didn't like. Maybe I should give it another watch


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> You're joking, right? The new Dune was _excellent_, albeit only half finished.





Chirosamsung said:


> if the Second half is great then maybe the whole thing will be half good. This might be one that I just didn't like. Maybe I should give it another watch


The first one was so bad I won't be watching the second one


----------



## Soulburner

I did find it interesting that in the year 10,000, they are fighting with blades. Quite a different world than Star Wars.


----------



## dschulz

Soulburner said:


> I did find it interesting that in the year 10,000, they are fighting with blades. Quite a different world than Star Wars.


The "why" of this is explained in the novel (though not the film as far as I can recall). Frank Herbert was meticulous about his world building.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I did find it interesting that in the year 10,000, they are fighting with blades. Quite a different world than Star Wars.


They have lasers. They are just too dangerous to use.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I did find it interesting that in the year 10,000, they are fighting with blades. Quite a different world than Star Wars.


They had _blades_ in Star Wars. They were just made of plasma....  (Still based on Errol Flynn movies).

I seem to recall that the personal shields don't work against slow moving items in Dune and hence blades or other slow moving weapons (There was something similar in Stargate SG1).

Besides, lasers make terrible weapons. Even in Star Wars, they only _looked_ like lasers. They were actually plasma bolts (lasers wouldn't move across the screen that you could see it. They'd look like an instant line). Hence _blaster_ not laser gun. The Sith used swords in the past made out of lightsaber resistant metal. The Mandalorian's armor made as a weapon is similar (how he fought to get the Dark Saber).



niterida said:


> The first one was so bad I won't be watching the second one


There's no accounting for taste in this world.... Now excuse me, I have to go watch Super Fuzz followed by Doc Savage, The Man of Bronze....


----------



## Soulburner

dschulz said:


> The "why" of this is explained in the novel (though not the film as far as I can recall). Frank Herbert was meticulous about his world building.


I have only seen the movie, so it's never explained. Quite a fail. It would have only taken a quick mention to establish little details like that so people wouldn't be scratching their heads. Other movies do this.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> They have lasers. They are just too dangerous to use.


There is one used in the movie and indeed it goes though everything. But it wasn't used for battle, where it would have been devastating to an approaching army.


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> if the Second half is great then maybe the whole thing will be half good. This might be one that I just didn't like. Maybe I should give it another watch


The new Dune IIRC, was shot digitally and then transferred to 35mm film. It was subsequently scanned back to digital. The intent was to create the most accurate emulation possible by reducing the digital sharpness, while elevating cinematic softness.

This is a demo worthy disc; both for the audio quotient but especially for its groundbreaking video production. For movies like these, the plot becomes an afterthought. If you want critically acclaimed cinema, I can highly recommend “the lady vanishes” by Alfred Hitchcock, a film which invariably flies under the radar. A Classic AH film noir from 1938 (pre WWII), before he moved to the States.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> The first one was so bad I won't be watching the second one


Agreed. Maybe I just have bad taste but I didn't care for it at all

it was eye and ear candy though


----------



## mjwagner

Soulburner said:


> I did find it interesting that in the year 10,000, they are fighting with blades. Quite a different world than Star Wars.


Just for others reading this - Dune is set in *the year 10191*, which is actually about 20,000 years into our future; the year is roughly calculated from a time in which humanity overthrew and destroyed all human-made intelligent machines, like robots and computers.
...and the reason they fight with blades is because of shields which make typical projectile weapons like guns ineffective.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The entire point of Atmos is for the sound to be able to map to the action on the screen precisely to increase the immersion factor for the audience.


I think philosophically, that's where the difference is. Sound designers don't necessarily mix based on the POV and nothing about Atmos changes that. It's just another arrow in their quiver for telling the story with sound. The people who seem to be most disappointed with Atmos almost always express a belief that it should be mixed as if it were VR, putting the viewer in the scene. That's not what it was designed to achieve. That isn't to say that some sound designers won't mix that way, as each has their own unique style. But fundamentally, the point of Atmos is to allow sound designers to easily place sounds where they want in a theater space. And a lot of the stuff that people wish they did with it (for instance, reverb above the listener based on the scene) isn't as cut and dry as they seem to think. You have to take into account what parts of the mix are production audio, whether there was already reverb inherent in that production audio that the other sounds have to match to, whether moving some of that to the other channels could overwhelm the focus being where the designer wants it to be in the scene, how that balances with the music, etc. There are a lot of decisions being made in a mix, and while we may not all agree on all of them, it helps to understand what all goes into these mixes so you can appreciate how sound is used in these movies. I recommend a documentary called Making Waves: The Art Of Cinematic Sound, as well as Dolby's Sound & Image Lab podcast on Youtube where they interview the technical teams and talk about how these mixes are crafted. If this stuff interests you, it will give you a bit more context on why some of these choices are made.

I tend toward what crutzulee and chi_guy50 are expressing, which is (I think) that people are still thinking in terms of channels when well-configured layouts make the channels disappear. If it isn't a bubble of sound, irrespective of whether you think more sound should be above you, then I've found that there are usually setup issues (and I think that stems from the fact that while setting up Atmos is easy, setting it up well isn't as straight-forward as Dolby might have hoped). Of course, some people just have their expectations of what they think it should be, and there's no changing that. For my part, I'm happy with the overwhelming majority of Atmos content. Just binged The Sandman on Netflix and could not have been happier with the way that sounded.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I think philosophically, that's where the difference is. Sound designers don't necessarily mix based on the POV and nothing about Atmos changes that. It's just another arrow in their quiver for telling the story with sound. The people who seem to be most disappointed with Atmos almost always express a belief that it should be mixed as if it were VR, putting the viewer in the scene. That's not what it was designed to achieve. That isn't to say that some sound designers won't mix that way, as each has their own unique style. But fundamentally, the point of Atmos is to allow sound designers to easily place sounds where they want in a theater space. And a lot of the stuff that people wish they did with it (for instance, reverb above the listener based on the scene) isn't as cut and dry as they seem to think. You have to take into account what parts of the mix are production audio, whether there was already reverb inherent in that production audio that the other sounds have to match to, whether moving some of that to the other channels could overwhelm the focus being where the designer wants it to be in the scene, how that balances with the music, etc. There are a lot of decisions being made in a mix, and while we may not all agree on all of them, it helps to understand what all goes into these mixes so you can appreciate how sound is used in these movies. I recommend a documentary called Making Waves: The Art Of Cinematic Sound, as well as Dolby's Sound & Image Lab podcast on Youtube where they interview the technical teams and talk about how these mixes are crafted. If this stuff interests you, it will give you a bit more context on why some of these choices are made.
> 
> I tend toward what crutzulee and chi_guy50 are expressing, which is (I think) that people are still thinking in terms of channels when well-configured layouts make the channels disappear. If it isn't a bubble of sound, irrespective of whether you think more sound should be above you, then I've found that there are usually setup issues (and I think that stems from the fact that while setting up Atmos is easy, setting it up well isn't as straight-forward as Dolby might have hoped). Of course, some people just have their expectations of what they think it should be, and there's no changing that. For my part, I'm happy with the overwhelming majority of Atmos content. Just binged The Sandman on Netflix and could not have been happier with the way that sounded.


very good points

what would you rate the CONTENT/STORY of sandman 1-10/10?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> what would you rate the CONTENT/STORY of sandman 1-10/10?


If you have any knowledge of the comic or short stories (or Neil Gaiman's work in general), I think they hit it out of the park with maybe a few exceptions. It's a better adaptation than American Gods was by a long shot. But even for someone unfamiliar with the source material, if you're a fan of fantasy, I think you'll enjoy it. For me, it was a solid 8/10. And from an audio and visual standpoint, it's a treat.


----------



## chi_guy50

MagnumX said:


> I just got done watching back-to-back viewings (two days) of _The Big Sleep_ with Bogart with the 1945 'unreleased' version (at the cinema; it was shown to the troops overseas) followed by the 1946 official version.
> 
> I've also got the 1978 remake with Robert Mitchum. I preferred him in _Farewell My Lovely _as *the Bogart version of The Big Sleep was hard to beat*.


In all fairness, Howard Hawks' _The Big Sleep_ (screenplay by William Faulkner) is one of the greatest movies ever made and not a fair standard by which to judge other productions (akin to criticizing Kurt Vonnegut for not matching the genius of William Shakespeare). It is indeed a sad travesty that a remake was even attempted.

But on this score (NPI), I have been encouraged by the number of classic standout films that are being remastered in 4K/HDR and sometimes given an immersive audio mix, among them Hitchcock's _Vertigo_ (one of my all-time favorite movies) and _Psycho_, both featuring a DTS:X track, as well as _Singin' in the Rain_ (_only_ in DTS-HD MA 5.1). I look forward to more reissues of this nature.



niterida said:


> The first one was so bad I won't be watching the second one


Ditto. In fact, to this day I remember walking out of the movie theater in 1985 or so in disgust on that clunker. David Lynch's _Dune_ remains one of the very worst movies I have ever tried to watch (and that is quite an achievement considering the competition).



Magiclakez said:


> If you want critically acclaimed cinema, I can highly recommend “the lady vanishes” by Alfred Hitchcock, a film which invariably flies under the radar. A Classic AH film noir from 1938 (pre WWII), before he moved to the States.


I don't agree that _The Lady Vanishes_ flies under the radar; I have see it cited many times in the annals of moviemaking (e.g., here). But I could recommend almost any other title in Hitchcock's extensive catalog aside from a few missteps. (And let's not neglect to mention the wonderful _The 39 Steps_ from that same era before Hitch moved to the U.S.).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chi_guy50 said:


> Ditto. In fact, to this day I remember walking out of the movie theater in 1985 or so in disgust on that clunker. David Lynch's _Dune_ remains one of the very worst movies I have ever tried to watch (and that is quite an achievement considering the competition).


I think by "the first one" he meant the recently released one, since they're filming part two now... not the 1985 movie. I like Lynch's version for what it is (though it tries to cram too much content into too short a movie and Lynch was the wrong guy to handle it), but the recent one is leaps and bounds better. I can understand why it isn't for everyone though. And I think some people may be put off by Villeneuve's tendency to show implications of things rather than provide exposition, since that means some plot points may not be as obvious to those unfamiliar with the books.


----------



## niterida

chi_guy50 said:


> Ditto. In fact, to this day I remember walking out of the movie theater in 1985 or so in disgust on that clunker. David Lynch's _Dune_ remains one of the very worst movies I have ever tried to watch (and that is quite an achievement considering the competition).


@Jeremy Anderson is correct - I meant the first of the new 2 part one - I loved the original David Lynch one


----------



## chi_guy50

niterida said:


> @Jeremy Anderson is correct - I meant the first of the new 2 part one - I loved the original David Lynch one


Thanks, I stand corrected regarding what you meant to reference. But I also stand by my critique and have no interest in any further _Dune_ iterations, even if they bring Hawks back from the dead to direct it.


----------



## Soulburner

How often do you turn off a movie at the half way point? Must have had a really bad impression on you. I don't get that, but to each their own.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> How often do you turn off a movie at the half way point? Must have had a really bad impression on you. I don't get that, but to each their own.


Lately I think I have stopped watching more movies and shows before the end than I have watched all the way. I have even turned off a lot of them just a few minutes from the end !!


----------



## chi_guy50

Soulburner said:


> How often do you turn off a movie at the half way point? Must have had a really bad impression on you. I don't get that, but to each their own.


As I said, it was back in 1985 or so and I had purchased a ticket in a movie theater in Vienna, Austria, where I was living at the time. I remember walking out in disgust less than halfway through the showing.

I love movies and seeing an execrable one does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I try to avoid the experience; if I find I have made a poor choice I am not averse to bailing after as little as five minutes if I judge the effort sufficiently pedestrian.

OTOH, I also hold what I judge to be good filmmaking in high esteem along with other artistic endeavors. But life is too short to bother with bad art or bad wine!


----------



## Soulburner

I thought Dune was good. Slow, but good. I didn't see anything that would cause me to stop at the half way point (the end of the first installment, it's really a 2-part movie) and swear off the rest which hasn't even been seen yet.


----------



## dschulz

I can only think of two occasions on which I stopped watching a movie (both of them in cinemas, and I walked out) - Jet Li's first Hollywood movie, Romeo Must Die, and Tony Scott's Domino. In both cases I just decided I had other things I could be doing.

Sometimes I wonder if I should revisit one or both on the off chance that I was just having a bad day when I saw them and they weren't _that_ bad...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

chi_guy50 said:


> Thanks, I stand corrected regarding what you meant to reference. But I also stand by my critique and have no interest in any further _Dune_ iterations, even if they bring Hawks back from the dead to direct it.


That's a shame. I've watched Villeneuve's first chapter of Dune maybe 8 times now. And with a 2:35 runtime, that's not a small bit of time. That said, I'm a fan of his work and the book, so I can understand why someone who isn't into it would have less interest than I do. To bring things back around to Atmos, I loved that Villeneuve let the sound team start work during pre-production and keep working throughout the process. You can hear the care they gave it in the mix and just how much attention they gave to how everything in that world should sound. It's a stellar presentation. I can't wait for the next chapter (and the third if they're crazy enough to let him carry it all the way through to God Emperor Of Dune like he wants).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> I can only think of two occasions on which I stopped watching a movie (both of them in cinemas, and I walked out) - Jet Li's first Hollywood movie, Romeo Must Die, and Tony Scott's Domino. In both cases I just decided I had other things I could be doing.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if I should revisit one or both on the off chance that I was just having a bad day when I saw them and they weren't _that_ bad...


I think you're good. Romeo Must Die was only good for Li's stunts and Domino is a pretty average flick even among Tony Scott's films. Both good dumb actiony fun, but not necessary viewing.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> And I think some people may be put off by Villeneuve's tendency to show implications of things rather than provide exposition, since that means some plot points may not be as obvious to those unfamiliar with the books.


I'm not put off - the golden rule is "show, don't tell". If the characters have to explain the plot to each other out loud, you've failed as a director. So many movies do this!


----------



## MagnumX

The only time I truly wanted to walk out of a theater while it was still showing was when I saw _Zoolander_ (thinking it would be funny like Meet The Parents). Bar none the worst movie I've EVER seen. Unfortunately, I was not alone seeing it and I didn't want to be rude. Otherwise, I would have walked out.

I watched _Casablanca_ last night. It's not my favorite Bogart movie, but it's excellent. For the life of me, I can't comprehend why there's no 4K UHD of it when they already did the 4K remaster several years ago. 

But with Discovery Channel owning Warner Brothers now and turning HBOMax into part of Discovery+ "reality" show land, I think we can kiss WB movies goodbye (at least until they get sold again...if they get sold again. Disney might soon be the only game in town at which point I can never have to worry about buying movies ever again....)


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> How often do you turn off a movie at the half way point? Must have had a really bad impression on you. I don't get that, but to each their own.


Imho, It always boils down to matter of perspective and the fact that tastes are subjective. I have seen rave reviews online about everything, everywhere all at once; like it was greatest thing to come out since sliced bread. I like the movie, but I’m still wondering what the fuss was all about. I have never bailed out at the half way point. Different strokes for different folks.

If human tastes were aligned or congruent I would be extremely concerned. We ain’t robots who have been programmed to think alike or execute tasks with surgical precision.

I always welcome conversations that promote a healthy back and forth exchange/ debate. However, I’m also wary of those characters who end up taking it personally and subsequently go on a reckless tirade like juvenile vigilantes.

Au contraire, I’m the person who wants to try out everything (including every cheap and exotic liquor..🤣) since life is so short.

I would rather die trying…than live wondering.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> I watched _Casablanca_ last night. It's not my favorite Bogart movie, but it's excellent. For the life of me, I can't comprehend why there's no 4K UHD of it when they already did the 4K remaster several years ago.


There is a UHD Blu Ray slated for release later this year. I was going to schedule this as an employee screening at my company, but decided to wait until the UHD disc is available.


----------



## Magiclakez

Just received my copy of the Heat 4k steelbook. I was hoping that it would include an immersive track. However the original track they ported over from the Blu-ray is quite badass anyways.


----------



## mjwagner

mjwagner said:


> Just for others reading this - Dune is set in *the year 10191*, which is actually about 20,000 years into our future; the year is roughly calculated from a time in which humanity overthrew and destroyed all human-made intelligent machines, like robots and computers.





Jeremy Anderson said:


> I think by "the first one" he meant the recently released one, since they're filming part two now... not the 1985 movie. I like Lynch's version for what it is (though it tries to cram too much content into too short a movie and Lynch was the wrong guy to handle it), but the recent one is leaps and bounds better. I can understand why it isn't for everyone though. And I think some people may be put off by Villeneuve's tendency to show implications of things rather than provide exposition, since that means some plot points may not be as obvious to those unfamiliar with the books.


Right, he was referencing the most recent Dune movie not the David Lynch version, which really was a clunker!!...I mean Sting as Feyd-Rautha....LOL!


----------



## mjwagner

Soulburner said:


> I thought Dune was good. Slow, but good. I didn't see anything that would cause me to stop at the half way point (the end of the first installment, it's really a 2-part movie) and swear off the rest which hasn't even been seen yet.


I think chi_guy50 was confusing the 1984 David Lynch Dune movie, which was horrible, with the most recent Dune which was, IMO, very good...at least the first part was. We'll see what part two is like...


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dschulz said:


> I can only think of two occasions on which I stopped watching a movie (both of them in cinemas, and I walked out) - Jet Li's first Hollywood movie, Romeo Must Die, and Tony Scott's Domino. In both cases I just decided I had other things I could be doing.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if I should revisit one or both on the off chance that I was just having a bad day when I saw them and they weren't _that_ bad...


Romeo Must Die was pretty lame for Jet Li fare at the time. All the praise it was getting was making me think these were people who had never seen any of Jet Li's HK movies and were impressed with seeing his martial arts skills for the first time.

Very few of Li's Hollywood efforts were any good. Nothing to do with Li's fault. Western writers just didnt know what to do with him.

His best Hollywood film happened to be the one he did with Jackie chan which ironically enough, was itself a tribute to the history hong kong kung fu cinema, and I feel like hardly anyone saw it.


----------



## Magiclakez

Deleted


----------



## Chirosamsung

Is there anymore demo tracks from Dolby since the amaze and the leaf one? Those are getting old would be nice to have a few other quick demo tracks like those to show off to friends


----------



## Kevinmastah

@Chirosamsung
Check Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater
Or Reelwood 2019 Demo Clips Collection 4K Atmos dtsX and more


----------



## Chirosamsung

Holy Sh...t,

found a bass heavy synth scene that actually rivals or may surpass the crazy synth sound at the beginning of Blade Runner 2049

Logan-Chapter 20 at right about the 1 hour mark when Logan is getting out of his truck to go into the hotel in Vegas and Professor X is getting attacked so puts his mind meld over the city till Logan can get to the room through the casino and kill the guys in his room and give him his shot. It actually gets more intense the closer he gets...

holy f

have to check that out-it's been a while since I watched this movie and my house shoot and I felt almost headachy it was so intense!


----------



## cricket9998

crutzulee said:


> Like most threads on most forums this one has devolved into one with factions where people look at who is writing the post rather than it's contents before deciding how to respond.
> 
> As in real life life, I have neither friends nor enemies. While I often find myself on the other side of the argument from Technology or Magnum etc, I think the question of relative speaker placement in 7.x.4 setup is far more relevant than the point nitereda is trying to make about power conditioning... although I do think that most here would simply answer that query here without questioning its relevance ( were it not an obvious attempt at humour) based on WHO was asking...
> 
> At any rate, at the risk of going down the rabbit hole, there are many considerations that I've has to take when considering speaker placement..The DOLBY ATMOS page is the place to start. Most of us have to make compromises based on room shape and sizes. The speaker's placement in proximity to the wall can and will change it's sound in different ways depending on it's construction (rear or front ported etc. ). This can be ameliorated with treatments and room correction in the software of your amp...


Forums in general are very bad mediums of long form communication. It would make more sense to have a sub folder for atmos and everyone make new threads in there per question, but the site is not set up as such. Kind of like how Reddit is set up, but not an awful cesspool


----------



## AndreNewman

cricket9998 said:


> Forums in general are very bad mediums of long form communication. It would make more sense to have a sub folder for atmos and everyone make new threads in there per question, but the site is not set up as such. Kind of like how Reddit is set up, but not an awful cesspool


Threading is all that's needed, like Usenet has had since the year .
One of the reasons I prefer mailing lists to forums.


----------



## am2model3

halcyon_888 said:


> I recently rewatched Man of Steel, and I don't remember it having anything spectacular with Atmos...


There is some good Atmos in the final battle, when they are either in the partially constructed building, there is debris noise that comes from above and it is epic!


----------



## am2model3

I plan to watch Prey over Hulu this weekend; will be streaming 4k and dd 5.1 upmixed to DSU or NeuralX or Auro3D. Should sound spatially fun! Upmixers truly save the day when native spatial tracks fail by the sound engineers shortcomings in properly mixing the audio or just fail because you only have 5.1 or 7.1 as the source.


----------



## Magiclakez

am2model3 said:


> I plan to watch Prey over Hulu this weekend; will be streaming 4k and dd 5.1 upmixed to DSU or NeuralX or Auro3D. Should sound spatially fun! Upmixers truly save the day when native spatial tracks fail by the sound engineers shortcomings in properly mixing the audio or just fail because you only have 5.1 or 7.1 as the source.


I think the source audio is 2.0 stereo on Hulu. But you can still use the upmix function of your choice.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Magiclakez said:


> I think the source audio is 2.0 stereo on Hulu. But you can still use the upmix function of your choice.


Nah, it's 5.1 on Hulu. Or Atmos on Disney Plus if you use a VPN to make it think you're not in the U.S., apparently. Disappointing that they didn't have Atmos on both.


----------



## Magiclakez

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nah, it's 5.1 on Hulu. Or Atmos on Disney Plus if you use a VPN to make it think you're not in the U.S., apparently. Disappointing that they didn't have Atmos on both.


That’s strange I watched this in my living room and the center channel was inactive throughout the film. I don’t have any streamers in my living room so I watched it thru the internal app. I have seldom seen 5.1 on Hulu streaming. This is one of the reasons I never watch Hulu in my HT. Maybe I’m missing something. 

Yeah it’s a shame they didn’t stream this on Disney plus in the US. I believe they do have Dolby atmos (along with DoVi) for prey on Disney plus overseas.


----------



## chmorgan

Does Hulu have anything in Atmos?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

chmorgan said:


> Does Hulu have anything in Atmos?


Not that I have ever seen. I am watching on a TCL Roku TV. Same functionality as a Roku Ultra for the most part.

Frankly I was shocked they had Prey in 4k. Everything else I had ever seen on Hulu was 1080p


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Not that I have ever seen. I am watching on a TCL Roku TV. Same functionality as a Roku Ultra for the most part.
> 
> Frankly I was shocked they had Prey in 4k. Everything else I had ever seen on Hulu was 1080p


Are you getting a 5.1 track for prey on your roku? I have had to settle for 2.0 since the time I subscribed to Hulu 2 yrs ago. I regularly check the source audio on my receiver and it always indicates 2.0. Or probably I’m doing something wrong.


----------



## chi_guy50

Magiclakez said:


> Are you getting a 5.1 track for prey on your roku? I have had to settle for 2.0 since the time I subscribed to Hulu 2 yrs ago. I regularly check the source audio on my receiver and it always indicates 2.0. Or probably I’m doing something wrong.


I have my Hulu sub on hiatus at the moment, but as I recall the vast majority of the programming I watched was in DD+ 5.1. This was on both the Roku Ultra and AFTVS4K; on Android devices, however, the audio was crippled (PCM 2.0).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Are you getting a 5.1 track for prey on your roku? I have had to settle for 2.0 since the time I subscribed to Hulu 2 yrs ago. I regularly check the source audio on my receiver and it always indicates 2.0. Or probably I’m doing something wrong.


Yes I did get 5.1 audio


----------



## dschulz

I haven't watched Prey yet, but as a matter of course I get 5.1 on Hulu via my 3rd-gen Apple TV.


----------



## crutzulee

In Canada, PREY is available in DV and ATMOS. I had to watch it in regular HDR because my 2017 NVIDIA SHIELD does not do DV and my new ZIDOO z9x, which outputs LLDV, does not stream. 

Note that you have to revert to an older apk of the Disney+ app in order to get ATMOS as the latest update breaks it on the SHIELD.


----------



## MagnumX

Atmos isn't broken on my Shield for Disney+. In fact, in the past six months the update no longer even requires 4K to get Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

am2model3 said:


> There is some good Atmos in the final battle, when they are either in the partially constructed building, there is debris noise that comes from above and it is epic!


if you think that is good you should see the scene in Logan I mentioned up in this page


----------



## crutzulee

MagnumX said:


> Atmos isn't broken on my Shield for Disney+. In fact, in the past six months the update no longer even requires 4K to get Atmos.











Disney+ update breaks Dolby Atmos support on Android TV and Google TV for some


The latest update to Disney+ on Android TV and Google TV appears to have broken Dolby Atmos support for many users.




9to5google.com





...beginning to wonder if you know what ATMOS is?








.....Just Kidding....kinda....


----------



## MagnumX

crutzulee said:


> Disney+ update breaks Dolby Atmos support on Android TV and Google TV for some
> 
> 
> The latest update to Disney+ on Android TV and Google TV appears to have broken Dolby Atmos support for many users.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9to5google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...beginning to wonder if you know what ATMOS is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....Just Kidding....kinda....


I'll just note "for many users" rather than play your flame games. 

I've also not done the 9.1 update (It does have 9.0, but I don't use Plex so everything was fine). It's not worth the risk of something else breaking. Maybe Disney+ is one of them?


----------



## Magiclakez

chi_guy50 said:


> I have my Hulu sub on hiatus at the moment, but as I recall the vast majority of the programming I watched was in DD+ 5.1. This was on both the Roku Ultra and AFTVS4K; on Android devices, however, the audio was crippled (PCM 2.0).


I just checked out the prey stream again in my HT; both my atv-4k and shield pro are streaming in 5.1. Apparently the internal apps based on android (like you were alluding to), are restricted to PCM 2.0.


----------



## toddman36

What's a good DTS:X 4 k bluray?


----------



## Magiclakez

toddman36 said:


> What's a good DTS:X 4 k bluray?


I would say the entire Harry Potter collection. 

I also like the Gladiator, Battleship, Van Helsing and Gods of Egypt.


----------



## toddman36

Gladiator it is....👍 Amazon will have it here tomorrow


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

toddman36 said:


> What's a good DTS:X 4 k bluray?


Gladiator and Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings are the best DTSX movies I have currently.

I plan to get the 4k of Van Helsing soon. I just rewatched my blu ray of Van Helsing and the DTS HDMA soundtrack was absolutely outstanding so I am expecting good things from the DTSX version.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Magiclakez said:


> I just checked out the prey stream again in my HT; both my atv-4k and shield pro are streaming in 5.1. Apparently the internal apps based on android (like you were alluding to), are restricted to PCM 2.0.


I believe this is right. Afaik, many native apps(in the tv) are restricted, so I just don’t use them. 
I also received Prey in 5.1 via ATV4K. Not sure how to do the vpn thing on my ATV4k that @Jeremy Anderson mentioned above, but he should hopefully share soon!


----------



## MagnumX

toddman36 said:


> What's a good DTS:X 4 k bluray?


Harry Potter collection is superb, better than most Atmos titles by far, IMO. 

Crimson Peak has excellent haunted house type sounds coming from everywhere, but I don't think it ever got a 4K release. 

Jason Bourne 4K box set has pretty good X immersion, especially the first movie.


----------



## toddman36

MagnumX said:


> Harry Potter collection is superb, better than most Atmos titles by far, IMO.
> 
> Crimson Peak has excellent haunted house type sounds coming from everywhere, but I don't think it ever got a 4K release.
> 
> Jason Bourne 4K box set has pretty good X immersion, especially the first movie.


Yeah, I just can't stand Harry Potter movies. I have Gladiator on DVD, now coming on 4k bluray.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Gladiator and Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings are the best DTSX movies I have currently.
> 
> I plan to get the 4k of Van Helsing soon. I just rewatched my blu ray of Van Helsing and the DTS HDMA soundtrack was absolutely outstanding so I am expecting good things from the DTSX version.


Van Helsing is quite amazing. I liked a couple of flight sequences on American Made as well.


----------



## Soulburner

Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


----------



## petetherock

toddman36 said:


> What's a good DTS:X 4 k bluray?


The Expendables series - proves that mindless entertainment has the best sound..
Judge Dredd is another good track.


----------



## petetherock

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


I have Sonys, X700, 1100es, and I sold off a X800..


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


I have the Reavon X-100, Panasonic Ub-9000 and the Ub-820.


----------



## Magiclakez

petetherock said:


> The Expendables series - proves that mindless entertainment has the best sound..
> Judge Dredd is another good track.


I believe these are Dolby atmos centric titles.


----------



## petetherock

Magiclakez said:


> I believe these are Dolby atmos centric titles.


My bad, my BR had DTS Neo X.. 








Exclusive: The Expendables 2 - 11.1 Neo:X audio review


We check out the world's first Blu-ray to have its sonics 'optimised' for 11.1 Neo:X playback... Update: Click here for a full review of Lionsgate's The Expendables 2 Blu-ray




www.homecinemachoice.com


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


I've got an LG player, but I almost never use it. I dump to MKV and play using a Zidoo X9S.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Playstation 5 for now but planning to get a UB820 when I set up the dedicated theater.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Playstation 5 for now but planning to get a UB820 when I set up the dedicated theater.


I wish that was adequate, but Sony is insistent on witholding basic functions like CD-Audio and DVD-Audio from us in the PlayStations now.

So which 4k player will play those? Or are they dead, Jim?

Edit: Looks like the Sony X800 does.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I wish that was adequate, but Sony is insistent on witholding basic functions like CD-Audio and DVD-Audio from us in the PlayStations now.
> 
> So which 4k player will play those? Or are they dead, Jim?
> 
> Edit: Looks like the Sony X800 does.


Yeah its the Sony players. The X700, X800M2 and 1100ES.

Not sure about the Reavon


----------



## Chirosamsung

People still use disc players??

rip the disc to MKV and watch it on a shield (like I do) or a zidoo

same quality unless you like the discs and disc player taking up extra room and enjoy walking back and forth every time you change your mind on a disc


----------



## chi_guy50

Chirosamsung said:


> People still use disc players??


You betcha! 



Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?



I use my Oppo UDP-203 every chance I get (i.e., on the rare occasion when a new UHD disc appears that interests me); however, I seldom purchase discs, preferring to rent them by mail. Just last week I watched IMAX: National Parks Adventure 3D. (ETA: The 3D Blu-ray disc includes the same excellent Atmos track as the accompanying UHD disc.)

Which brings me to the question of the future of physical media and thus the future of Dolby TrueHD/Atmos and DTS:X for the HT. With the entertainment industry and the viewing public's ever increasing focus on streaming content, does anyone here have an informed opinion to offer (as opposed to scuttlebutt or conjecture) on the future of immersive audio on physical media and thus our access to the aforementioned formats?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


Panny UB820. I have a LG UBK90 sitting in my closet though. Should probably find it a home.


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> People still use disc players??


They do and nothing like the ol’ spinner cranking out your favorite titles.

Having said that, i have been eyeing the kaleidescape for some time now.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


X700


----------



## dschulz

Chirosamsung said:


> People still use disc players??
> 
> rip the disc to MKV and watch it on a shield (like I do) or a zidoo
> 
> same quality unless you like the discs and disc player taking up extra room and enjoy walking back and forth every time you change your mind on a disc


I do, for the simple reason that I still watch a _ton_ of movies that I get in the mail from Netflix.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yeah its the Sony players. The X700, X800M2 and 1100ES.


Looks like I can get an X800M2 on eBay for less than 1/2 off new. Worth it for an all-disc player? It will be years before I have an HDR display.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> They do and nothing like the ol’ spinner cranking out your favorite titles.
> 
> Having said that, i have been eyeing the kaleidescape for some time now.


I guess if you like getting up every time you want to change the disc and like storing it all close by for the same quality than disc players are awesome 

With the Shield there is nothing like being able to change between 3 or 4 UHD blu ray demo scenes in a matter of seconds with friends over or simply click to another "disc" from the comfort of my couch if I decide I don't like the movie.

to each is own


----------



## MagnumX

I couldn't even find most of movies on disc (like 1000 of them lying around in boxes at this point). It takes a few seconds on KODI or Xidoo.


----------



## fatherom

I have everything ripped to my NAS, but I also don’t have any problem finding and pulling a disc off the shelf when need be:


----------



## Soulburner

fatherom said:


> I have everything ripped to my NAS, but I also don’t have any problem finding and pulling a disc off the shelf when need be:
> 
> View attachment 3319852


How you do like your _Sony x800M2?_


----------



## fatherom

Soulburner said:


> How you do like your _Sony x800M2?_


It's OK. I don't use it a ton, to be honest. It can't auto-detect DV, although that's not an issue in my non-DV basement projector set up. It freezes on disc sometimes (mainly BD100 discs). I got it, mainly, as a disc spinner for when I'm casually watching something and don't want wear/tear on my Oppo 203.


----------



## am2model3

physical discs , movie collectors, you can always play it in the future when streaming services have signal issues, changes, take away titles, shut down, etc. you can still pop in your high quality disc so long as you have your functioning disc players as well. 

my ps5 running hulu shows prey movie as 5.1 for audio, so i will be upmixing that this weekend when i watch! looking fwd to it. 

if you are also looking for DTS:X content, DMC5se Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition on the XSX lists features as DolbyAtmos AND DTS:X for gaming audio output; one of the few titles listed officially for both formats.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Looks like I can get an X800M2 on eBay for less than 1/2 off new. Worth it for an all-disc player? It will be years before I have an HDR display.


Yes, as one of the few universal players remaining, I would say its worth it for the CD, DVD-A and SACD playback if you still use those discs.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

am2model3 said:


> physical discs , movie collectors, you can always play it in the future when streaming services have signal issues, changes, take away titles, shut down, etc. you can still pop in your high quality disc so long as you have your functioning disc players as well.
> 
> my ps5 running hulu shows prey movie as 5.1 for audio, so i will be upmixing that this weekend when i watch! looking fwd to it.
> 
> if you are also looking for DTS:X content, DMC5se Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition on the XSX lists features as DolbyAtmos AND DTS:X for gaming audio output; one of the few titles listed officially for both formats.


I plan to get DMC5SE when I am in the mood for a stylish action game. Though I would be getting the PS5 version so no Atmos or DTSX. Freakin Sony STILL hasnt added 3D audio for home theater speakers. They should have just paid the licensing fee for Atmos.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

am2model3 said:


> if you are also looking for DTS:X content, DMC5se Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition on the XSX lists features as DolbyAtmos AND DTS:X for gaming audio output; one of the few titles listed officially for both formats.


Technically, Xbox games are pretty much all done to output to Microsoft's immersive audio hooks in DirectSound, and then this can be ported out to Atmos or DTS:X by the system. They'll sound slightly different despite getting the same data because their Atmos output is based on a rectangular space whereas Windows Sonic and DTS:X are based on hemispherical panning. But basically, if a game says it supports Dolby Atmos, it should also support DTS:X output. They don't have to code support in specifically since pretty much all of the middleware solutions for audio output to DirectSound's 3-D audio hooks and THEN get translated to Atmos/DTS:X output.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


Panasonic UB200 here


----------



## MagnumX

am2model3 said:


> physical discs , movie collectors, you can always play it in the future when streaming services have signal issues, changes, take away titles, shut down, etc. you can still pop in your high quality disc so long as you have your functioning disc players as well.
> 
> my ps5 running hulu shows prey movie as 5.1 for audio, so i will be upmixing that this weekend when i watch! looking fwd to it.
> 
> if you are also looking for DTS:X content, DMC5se Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition on the XSX lists features as DolbyAtmos AND DTS:X for gaming audio output; one of the few titles listed officially for both formats.


Yeah, but you can dump them and have the best of both worlds. 

Most discs come with digital copies (in the US at least) so unless there's a massive price difference (iTunes does have $5 sales a lot) or one can't wait a few weeks, I see few reasons to buy streaming only


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, but you can dump them and have the best of both worlds.


Do you mean "dump" as in rip? or "dump" as in get rid of? I'm assuming you mean the former.


----------



## MagnumX

fatherom said:


> Do you mean "dump" as in rip? or "dump" as in get rid of? I'm assuming you mean the former.


Yes, rip.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> Most discs come with digital copies (in the US at least) so unless there's a massive price difference (iTunes does have $5 sales a lot) or one can't wait a few weeks, I see few reasons to buy streaming only


Aside: I've been striving to get every movie in my "official" collection with a companion iTunes digital copy. Of the ~650 films in my collection, I have iTunes digital copies for about all but ~30.

My favorite thing, lately, is watching iTunes copies that have Atmos with my Apple TV and Airpods Max using spatial audio. I'm even doing that in my basement theater, even though I have an Atmos setup. Mainly because I can crank the hell out of it on the headphones, while my family sleeps. The head tracking and spatial audio is very convincing - it does sound like the sound is coming from the screen (and all around you), not from headphones on your head.


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> I guess if you like getting up every time you want to change the disc and like storing it all close by for the same quality than disc players are awesome
> 
> With the Shield there is nothing like being able to change between 3 or 4 UHD blu ray demo scenes in a matter of seconds with friends over or simply click to another "disc" from the comfort of my couch if I decide I don't like the movie.
> 
> to each is own


I essentially use my Shield as a streamer. I’m looking to eventually integrate the Kaleidescape into my HT. Until then I will continue to enjoy the old school physical media.


----------



## Chirosamsung

am2model3 said:


> physical discs , movie collectors, you can always play it in the future when streaming services have signal issues, changes, take away titles, shut down, etc. you can still pop in your high quality disc so long as you have your functioning disc players as well.
> 
> my ps5 running hulu shows prey movie as 5.1 for audio, so i will be upmixing that this weekend when i watch! looking fwd to it.
> 
> if you are also looking for DTS:X content, DMC5se Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition on the XSX lists features as DolbyAtmos AND DTS:X for gaming audio output; one of the few titles listed officially for both formats.


Or you could just rip your discs to a hard drive....


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> Or you could just rip your discs to a hard drive....


What is the average size of a 4k Atmos movie?


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> What is the average size of a 4k Atmos movie?


I'd say 60-80GB based on typical rips .


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I'd say 60-80GB based on typical rips .


Really? So these always come on 4-layer 100 GB discs? That's a lot more than I would have thought.


----------



## mrvideo

Soulburner said:


> So which 4k player will play those? Or are they dead, Jim?
> 
> Edit: Looks like the Sony X800 does.


Yes the Sony X800M2 plays them all.


----------



## mrvideo

Soulburner said:


> Really? So these always come on 4-layer 100 GB discs? That's a lot more than I would have thought.


No. A lot of 4K movies are on UD66 discs.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Really? So these always come on 4-layer 100 GB discs? That's a lot more than I would have thought.


There might be some in the 35GB-50GB range (I'm going by memory; I'd have to check), but I'm pretty sure I've even seen some 3D movies in the 30GB range before. I think most 1080p BD movies are 18-35GB depending on length and compression and whether single of dual layer. If I recompress a 1080p BD with the default Handbrake setting and lossless audio, they usually come out in the 8-11GB range (6-9GB with lossy DTS audio only) give or tak a couple of gigabytes.


----------



## fatherom

Soulburner said:


> Really? So these always come on 4-layer 100 GB discs? That's a lot more than I would have thought.


For 4K movies, pretty much everything is on a BD-66 (double layer) or a BD-100 (actually, triple layer, not 4-layer). I've never seen any 4K movies less than 55GB (except for specialty things, like short films or documenataries). Most are definitely in the 55GB-80GB range. Some are very large...like Dune or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is closer to 91GB.

My NAS currently has 88TB of storage in it.


----------



## Soulburner

Well I was set to get a 4K / Atmos copy of Edge of Tomorrow to test the Sony player, until I started seeing complaints that the bass is not what it used to be on the original Blu-ray DTS track. Very disappointing. I guess I will start with Aquaman instead!


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Well I was set to get a 4K / Atmos copy of Edge of Tomorrow to test the Sony player, until I started seeing complaints that the bass is not what it used to be on the original Blu-ray DTS track. Very disappointing. I guess I will start with Aquaman instead!


i have both the Blu-ray and the 4k copy. Don’t let the online ruckus, deter you from owning this amazing disc. The LFE (or lack thereof) in question is basically a 10 sec clip during the opening credits. Of course the LFE on the Blu-ray has the propensity to reach infrasonic levels, but then that it is a short burst which essentially lasts for 10 secs.

The movie has some good, deep/ impactful bass through the course of the film and some reference quality atmos which truly makes it a very pleasing immersive experience. The picture quality gets a good hdr upgrade as well. Imho this is a very underrated film. Probably my thoughts might come across with a hint of pre-conceived bias, since this is one my favorite films.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> Looks like I can get an X800M2 on eBay for less than 1/2 off new. Worth it for an all-disc player? It will be years before I have an HDR display.


One thing maybe worth noting about Sony. Thinking of the media player built into the uhd players ... when playing from an external hard disk ... it will not passthrough lossless audio to your receiver. I can't quite remember if you can stream loseless audio from a plex server with them or not.

I believe some models of panasonic will passthrough loseless audio from hard disk files but I'm not 100% certain of the models ... certainly oppos do but you have to 'dig pretty deep' to get them.
Another arguably minor thing about Sony... it will not recognise a mouse plugged into it's usb port. Most others do. I think it 'sees a usb keyboard.

An aspect of uhd players that doesn't get mentioned a lot is that 2nd audio-only hdmi output that most of them have. That can be very handy from time to time. You'd think the shield would have that but ...no!


----------



## robert600

I do remember that the Sony did a nice job of upscaling standard blu rays to 4k.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Well I was set to get a 4K / Atmos copy of Edge of Tomorrow to test the Sony player, until I started seeing complaints that the bass is not what it used to be on the original Blu-ray DTS track. Very disappointing. I guess I will start with Aquaman instead!


dude, what are y out smoking? Aside from the opening 10 seconds-the test of the 4k Atmos release is a HUGE upgrade. It's one of my reference atmos discs!


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> i have both the Blu-ray and the 4k copy. Don’t let the online ruckus, deter you from owning this amazing disc. The LFE (or lack thereof) in question is basically a 10 sec clip during the opening credits. Of course the LFE on the Blu-ray has the propensity to reach infrasonic levels, but then that it a short burst which essentially lasts for 10 secs.
> 
> The movie has some good, deep bass through the course of the film and some reference quality atmos which truly makes it a very pleasing immersive experience. The picture quality gets a good hdr upgrade as well. Imho this is a very underrated film. Probably my thoughts might across with a hint of pre-conceived bias, since this is one my favorite films.


Aside from the intro (a parlor trick), what about the LFE in the rest of the movie? I'm reading comments that the LFE was curtailed. If it's still really good, I'll pick it up.

I'm seeing the same comments of the 4K / Atmos War of the Worlds release.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Well I was set to get a 4K / Atmos copy of Edge of Tomorrow to test the Sony player, until I started seeing complaints that the bass is not what it used to be on the original Blu-ray DTS track. Very disappointing. I guess I will start with Aquaman instead!


Aquaman? While Amber Heard looks great with red hair, that's the only thing I remember about it offhand. Edge of Tomorrow was much more fun, IMO.

As mentioned, the only bass discrepancy of any consequence is that opening droning note, which really served no purpose except perhaps to instill fear or something. 

I kept the original 7.1 track on my 3D copy, but added the Atmos track so I can quickly switch/compare. The 7.1 track is great and with Neural X it's not bad at all, but I think the Atmos track more than makes up for that deep bass drone.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Aside from the intro (a parlor trick), what about the LFE in the rest of the movie? I'm reading comments that the LFE was curtailed. If it's still really good, I'll pick it up.
> 
> I'm seeing the same comments of the 4K / Atmos War of the Worlds release.


Bass is quite impactful and judiciously employed wherever required. There is good energy which is omnipresent throughout the film. 

War of the worlds(Blu-ray) is my demo bass disc especially the scene where the pod emerges from beneath the surface. I also like fury, U-571 and Master and Commanders to give my subs a workout. 

Good news with most 4k discs; it also comes with the Blu-ray Disc, so you can satiate your bass needs if you feel the 4k version is neutered.


----------



## Soulburner

Better be...I'm -6 dB at 11 Hz and I ain't got time for neutered bass!


----------



## Gates

I use a OPPO 203 and a Panasonic 9000 in my AV rack and have a Panasonic 820 in the TV room. I looked into ripping my collection but I have 4500+ BD and 4k discs and would cost me an arm and a leg of hard drives.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Gates said:


> I use a OPPO 203 and a Panasonic 9000 in my AV rack and have a Panasonic 820 in the TV room. I looked into ripping my collection but I have 4500+ BD and 4k discs and would cost me an arm and a leg of hard drives.


Holy crap! I thought my 862 title collection was crazy, but yours is NUTS! I love it!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Magiclakez said:


> Good news with most 4k discs; it also comes with the Blu-ray Disc, so you can satiate your bass needs if you feel the 4k version is neutered.


This is. Good point, since you mentioned Master and Commander, as the BD version got neutered. Sometimes good ol dvd with a nice dts track can win the day! Lol


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Aquaman? While Amber Heard looks great with red hair, that's the only thing I remember about it offhand. Edge of Tomorrow was much more fun, IMO.
> 
> As mentioned, the only bass discrepancy of any consequence is that opening droning note, which really served no purpose except perhaps to instill fear or something.
> 
> I kept the original 7.1 track on my 3D copy, but added the Atmos track so I can quickly switch/compare. The 7.1 track is great and with Neural X it's not bad at all, but I think the Atmos track more than makes up for that deep bass drone.


Aquaman is a great looking HDR disc. And the Atmos soundtrack is pretty decent. Some good LFE. And the movie is very fun. I still like Edge of Tomorrow more though.


----------



## Soulburner

Alright, I have Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion 4K in the cart. I'm hesitant to buy them because I already own the 1080p Blu-rays, but they are DTS soundtracks and I want Atmos. Plus in the future an OLED display will instantly upgrade their picture quality, so there's that. I am skipping Aquaman for now.

One that I haven't seen but added to the cart is Kong: Skull Island.

Along with that I am going to give the Sony X800M2 a try. Price is really good on a customer return at World Wide Stereo Outlet.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Alright, I have Edge of Tomorrow and Oblivion 4K in the cart. I'm hesitant to buy them because I already own the 1080p Blu-rays, but they are DTS soundtracks and I want Atmos. Plus in the future an OLED display will instantly upgrade their picture quality, so there's that. I am skipping Aquaman for now.
> 
> One that I haven't seen but added to the cart is Kong: Skull Island.
> 
> Along with that I am going to give the Sony X800M2 a try. Price is really good on a customer return at World Wide Stereo Outlet.


I like Oblivion a lot. Great overall soundtrack along with a kickass movie theme. I don’t recall the atmos to be anything spectacular to write home about, but I do feel the 4k upgrade is warranted. Must have title..imho of course

Kong: Skull island and even Godzilla: King of monsters have great Atmos tracks. Any Godzilla/ Kong movie is guaranteed to include a good immersive mix.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> I like Oblivion a lot. Great overall soundtrack along with a kickass movie theme. I don’t recall the atmos to be anything spectacular to write home about, but I do feel the 4k upgrade is warranted. Must have title..imho of course


I agree. I just hope the Atmos isn't disappointing to where putting on Neural:X on the DTS soundtrack is actually better...we'll see.


----------



## petetherock

mrvideo said:


> Yes the Sony X800M2 plays them all.


The 800 and the 1100 offer Bluetooth too, so you can use a pair of cans for quiet nights...


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> I like Oblivion a lot. Great overall soundtrack along with a kickass movie theme. I don’t recall the atmos to be anything spectacular to write home about, but I do feel the 4k upgrade is warranted. Must have title..imho of course
> 
> Kong: Skull island and even Godzilla: King of monsters have great Atmos tracks. Any Godzilla/ Kong movie is guaranteed to include a good immersive mix.


If I'm not mistaken, kong vs Godzilla is the best atmos disc of that series/genre


----------



## petetherock

Tom Cruise can be one strange man sometimes, but his movies usually come with very impressive sound mixes. His version of Mummy is a pale shade of The Mummy (Brandon Fraser), but the sound is fabulous and I enjoy watching it.
Brandon has fared far worse and literally, he is twice the man he was when he made that movie... TC on the other hand still looks good..
Whether they are feeding him is working well...


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> If I'm not mistaken, kong vs Godzilla is the best atmos disc of that series/genre


Yeah that has a very active mix. Some great low end as well. I personally find the Godzilla 1998 (Matthew Broderick) to be the “sleeper” of the bunch. It includes an extremely dynamically mixed atmos soundtrack. Several chopper sequences towards the end which swirl across the height channels.


----------



## petetherock

Oh yeah, love that 1998 version... Jean Reno was a blast... giggled when he criticised American coffee...


----------



## Worf

Magiclakez said:


> Good news with most 4k discs; it also comes with the Blu-ray Disc, so you can satiate your bass needs if you feel the 4k version is neutered.


Provided the BD wasn't also remastered. For catalog titles, generally speaking the 4k version will be a separate new mastering and the BD will simply be the original release.

But you do come across versions where both the 4k and the BD are the new mastering.


----------



## MagnumX

petetherock said:


> Tom Cruise can be one strange man sometimes, but his movies usually come with very impressive sound mixes. His version of Mummy is a pale shade of The Mummy (Brandon Fraser), but the sound is fabulous and I enjoy watching it.
> Brandon has fared far worse and literally, he is twice the man he was when he made that movie... TC on the other hand still looks good..
> Whether they are feeding him is working well...


I wan't totally crazy about Tom Cruise's version of the The Mummy (It was just ok), but I always thought the Brendan Fraser movie was awfully cheesy. It seemed like a cheap attempt (with too far too many comical overtones) at an Indiana Jones wannabe movie, kind of like King Solomon's Mines in the '80s (although Sharon Stone made that somewhat bearable as Angelina Jolie made Lara Croft bearable, despite being just as cheesy). But maybe that's what some people liked about it? Romancing the Stone was the best Indy knockoff, IMO. I also loved Tales of the Gold Monkey, but it didn't last long. Those two were serious enough to be believable for the most part. 

I think that's where the knockoffs go wrong. There is too much supernatural activity to be believable (the ark was a stretch, but mainstream; compare that to the far goofier crystal skull concept in the last movie), far too much comedy (It's a light hearted adventure not a "comedy" so going overboard cheapens the adventure part and creates mounds of cheese). Cheap special effects and bad acting (Solomon's Mines) make it seem like b-movies as well. Brenden Fraser lacked the chops for Indy, IMO. He struck me as a comedian. Michael Douglas came off just right, although the movie wasn't exactly on the same scale, but had Indy elements.


----------



## billqs

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


I'm using the Panasonic UB 400.


----------



## mrtickleuk

petetherock said:


> Brandon has fared far worse and literally, he is twice the man he was when he made that movie... TC on the other hand still looks good..
> Whether they are feeding him is working well...


Indeed - it's incredible that he's 60!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I wan't totally crazy about Tom Cruise's version of the The Mummy (It was just ok), but I always thought the Brendan Fraser movie was awfully cheesy. It seemed like a cheap attempt (with too far too many comical overtones) at an Indiana Jones wannabe movie, kind of like King Solomon's Mines in the '80s (although Sharon Stone made that somewhat bearable as Angelina Jolie made Lara Croft bearable, despite being just as cheesy). But maybe that's what some people liked about it? Romancing the Stone was the best Indy knockoff, IMO. I also loved Tales of the Gold Monkey, but it didn't last long. Those two were serious enough to be believable for the most part.
> 
> I think that's where the knockoffs go wrong. There is too much supernatural activity to be believable (the ark was a stretch, but mainstream; compare that to the far goofier crystal skull concept in the last movie), far too much comedy (It's a light hearted adventure not a "comedy" so going overboard cheapens the adventure part and creates mounds of cheese). Cheap special effects and bad acting (Solomon's Mines) make it seem like b-movies as well. Brenden Fraser lacked the chops for Indy, IMO. He struck me as a comedian. Michael Douglas came off just right, although the movie wasn't exactly on the same scale, but had Indy elements.


Oh man, Brendan Frasier Mummy is one of my favorites. The fact that it didnt take itself so seriously is what I felt set it apart from Indy and other Pulp adventure franchises like King Solomon's Mines. (Alan Quartermaine is a franchise that could do with a reboot these days. The last one wasnt particularly good and the franchise has massive potential in the right hands) The presence of supernatural stuff doesnt bother me at all. In fact I rather enjoy when they inject that stuff in there. I feel we dont get enough Pulp adventure stories with a hint of the supernatural these days.

On a side note: You remember Tales of the Gold Monkey?!?! Color me shocked!


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> On a side note: You remember Tales of the Gold Monkey?!?! Color me shocked!


Remember? I have the DVD set (only 1 season, unfortunately, but over 20 episodes). I was not happy when it wasn't renewed as a kid.

I've got Knight Rider in HD on Blu-ray as well (So sharp compared to NTSC/SD days). I need to get Airwolf and Miami Vice in HD next.

I don't mind supernatural, but not cheesy CGI supernatural. Crystal Skull wasn't bad because of the skull, but the cheesy aliens come back to life from the skull that was ridiculous. Was that Russian lady killed or went to their homeworld? We have no idea. I think if they had a more reasonable explanation (even actual live aliens showing up to claim the skulls) I wouldn't have been half as put off by it. 

Look at Temple of Doom. The stones glowed near each other and it got hot when Indy said he betrayed Shiva, but it didn't turn into an alien butterfly or something bizarre nor did a blue body god show up to zap him.


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> Ok for all you folks enjoying 4k Blu-rays, what disc player are you using?


No discs just makemkv and Plex. Blu ray players are a poor value proposition and having a digital collection with Plex is so much more functional


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> No discs just makemkv and Plex. Blu ray players are a poor value proposition and having a digital collection with Plex is so much more functional


Yeah but I wouldn't want to play them from a PC though as I need them going through my AVR. If any part of the chain can't do Atmos, HDR, EQ, multi-sub, or any other aspect, it's broken to me.


----------



## pdalton

I recently moved into a new home and am setting up a 5.1.4 system. I've already purchased the speakers (see below). The 3 LCR units are freestanding. However, before I start cutting holes for the two "in-wall" rear speakers and the four "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers for this, I very much would appreciate some thoughts to help me decide on the height for my two "in-wall" Rear speakers vis-a-vis their proximity to the back two "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers. 

I've included a photo of that portion of the room, which I hope will help clarify my situation. 

The room is 11.5' wide x 17.5' long x 8' tall. 

The main seating position is 11.5' from the "viewing wall" (75"-85" flatscreen).

Initially, I wanted a 7.1.4 system, but from the photo, I believe you can see the huge opening in one wall that effectively precludes using any side speakers. So, there's going to be a bit more emphasis on "the rears" for surround than I'd originally hoped. 

[Also, you can see in the photo where I've taped on the right side of that back wall the cardboard cutout template for the Left Rear speaker, showing that the Rear speakers will effectively be at the remote corners of that back wall.] 

So with the horizontal positions of those Rear Speakers fixed, I'm trying to figure out the best height for them. 

Before Atmos, I would have measured the height of the tweeters of the L&R Fronts [here, these are @ 38", but slightly tilted up] & the height of the listener's ears [here, ~40", tho' the back of seat is 42"], then to that I'd add ~12"-18", meaning I'd locate the rear speakers so their tweeters would be between 52" & 58" above the floor level. As shown in the photo, the small circle on the template would have those tweeters located at 55" above the floor. That would have seemed correct to me before Atmos. 

With Atmos, however, I understand Dolby now recommends lowering those rear speakers to provide more distance from the rear Atmos speakers. 

I'm just not sure whether I should do that or, if I do, by how much. 

I've read that Dolby also says "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers should "lined up" with the L & R Fronts. Obviously, the distance between those Fronts is something I can pretty easily control, though it sounds like those positions will be "fairly locked-in" once the Atmos units are installed. 

That makes me think that, with the Rear units being "in the corners", if I move the Front L & R closer to each other, thereby moving the Atmos units closer together, that also will add more distance between the Rear speakers & the back Atmos speakers. 

So how do I balance all this? I don't want the (ported) Front L& R units to be too close to the Front or side walls, so having the Atmos units closer together might be good for that, but can doing that create enough additional distance from the Rears that I can keep those about the same height as shown in the photo or should they be lower still? 

To the extent helpful, the speakers are all Klipsch models, as follows:

RP-8000F (L & R fronts) 
RPC-450 (Center)
R-5800-WII (in wall, Rears)
CDT-5800-CII (in ceiling, Atmos) 

* Note: All of those in-wall & in-ceiling units can pivot or turn ~15° to help better direct the sound. 

Thanks


----------



## Soulburner

Wanting to finally pick up Interstellar. Since we don't get immersive audio, how is it on a 5.2.4 system with DSU or Neural:X?


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Wanting to finally pick up Interstellar. Since we don't get immersive audio, how is it on a 5.2.4 system with DSU or Neural:X?


I don't think any of Nolan's movies have particularly standout surround. I don't remember anything memorable about Interstellar's soundtrack and I only watched it for the first time a year or two ago. The man hates anything to distract you from the big screen. I'm surprised he doesn't demand stereo or even mono for his films.


----------



## Chirosamsung

cricket9998 said:


> No discs just makemkv and Plex. Blu ray players are a poor value proposition and having a digital collection with Plex is so much more functional


Couldn't agree more!


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Yeah but I wouldn't want to play them from a PC though as I need them going through my AVR. If any part of the chain can't do Atmos, HDR, EQ, multi-sub, or any other aspect, it's broken to me.


Nvidea Shield


----------



## niterida

pdalton said:


> With Atmos, however, I understand Dolby now recommends lowering those rear speakers to provide more distance from the rear Atmos speakers.
> 
> I'm just not sure whether I should do that or, if I do, by how much.


They should be at ear height, or as close to it as possible without being blocked by the seat backs.



pdalton said:


> I've read that Dolby also says "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers should "lined up" with the L & R Fronts


No they don't - it is just drawn that way and everybody assumes they should line up because of the drawing. There is nothing in any Dolby documentation to say they should line up.
It is all based on angles. Read this as it is exactly how you should set it up : Salesforce


----------



## cricket9998

MagnumX said:


> I don't think any of Nolan's movies have particularly standout surround. I don't remember anything memorable about Interstellar's soundtrack and I only watched it for the first time a year or two ago. The man hates anything to distract you from the big screen. I'm surprised he doesn't demand stereo or even mono for his films.


Tenet had some good surround with explosions and general atmosphere stuff. I don’t know how you watched it but the UHD version of interstellars music had me in tears


----------



## cricket9998

pdalton said:


> I recently moved into a new home and am setting up a 5.1.4 system. I've already purchased the speakers (see below). The 3 LCR units are freestanding. However, before I start cutting holes for the two "in-wall" rear speakers and the four "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers for this, I very much would appreciate some thoughts to help me decide on the height for my two "in-wall" Rear speakers vis-a-vis their proximity to the back two "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers.
> 
> I've included a photo of that portion of the room, which I hope will help clarify my situation.
> 
> The room is 11.5' wide x 17.5' long x 8' tall.
> 
> The main seating position is 11.5' from the "viewing wall" (75"-85" flatscreen).
> 
> Initially, I wanted a 7.1.4 system, but from the photo, I believe you can see the huge opening in one wall that effectively precludes using any side speakers. So, there's going to be a bit more emphasis on "the rears" for surround than I'd originally hoped.
> 
> [Also, you can see in the photo where I've taped on the right side of that back wall the cardboard cutout template for the Left Rear speaker, showing that the Rear speakers will effectively be at the remote corners of that back wall.]
> 
> So with the horizontal positions of those Rear Speakers fixed, I'm trying to figure out the best height for them.
> 
> Before Atmos, I would have measured the height of the tweeters of the L&R Fronts [here, these are @ 38", but slightly tilted up] & the height of the listener's ears [here, ~40", tho' the back of seat is 42"], then to that I'd add ~12"-18", meaning I'd locate the rear speakers so their tweeters would be between 52" & 58" above the floor level. As shown in the photo, the small circle on the template would have those tweeters located at 55" above the floor. That would have seemed correct to me before Atmos.
> 
> With Atmos, however, I understand Dolby now recommends lowering those rear speakers to provide more distance from the rear Atmos speakers.
> 
> I'm just not sure whether I should do that or, if I do, by how much.
> 
> I've read that Dolby also says "in-ceiling" Atmos speakers should "lined up" with the L & R Fronts. Obviously, the distance between those Fronts is something I can pretty easily control, though it sounds like those positions will be "fairly locked-in" once the Atmos units are installed.
> 
> That makes me think that, with the Rear units being "in the corners", if I move the Front L & R closer to each other, thereby moving the Atmos units closer together, that also will add more distance between the Rear speakers & the back Atmos speakers.
> 
> So how do I balance all this? I don't want the (ported) Front L& R units to be too close to the Front or side walls, so having the Atmos units closer together might be good for that, but can doing that create enough additional distance from the Rears that I can keep those about the same height as shown in the photo or should they be lower still?
> 
> To the extent helpful, the speakers are all Klipsch models, as follows:
> 
> RP-8000F (L & R fronts)
> RPC-450 (Center)
> R-5800-WII (in wall, Rears)
> CDT-5800-CII (in ceiling, Atmos)
> 
> * Note: All of those in-wall & in-ceiling units can pivot or turn ~15° to help better direct the sound.
> 
> Thanks


the Dolby diagram is poorly made. The text part is more clear their positions just depend on angles from your listening position. Depending on your size and ceiling height that might mean height speakers on the walls instead.


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> Yeah but I wouldn't want to play them from a PC though as I need them going through my AVR. If any part of the chain can't do Atmos, HDR, EQ, multi-sub, or any other aspect, it's broken to me.


Well pc can do atmos and hdr and all that jazz but I use a shield for plex and Apple TV for streaming. Many people use madenvy or whatever on their pc


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Wanting to finally pick up Interstellar. Since we don't get immersive audio, how is it on a 5.2.4 system with DSU or Neural:X?


Interstellar has some reference quality LFE. The shuttle separation sequence is an absolutely visceral experience. The movie theme is another masterpiece from Hans Zimmer. Speaking of Hans Zimmer, the “Live in Prague” Blu-ray (Atmos) is one of my most prized possessions. 

But I do agree with Magnum that surrounds are a bit weak, along with the patented Nolan dialogue clarity…or lack thereof.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> There is nothing in *any* Dolby documentation to say they should line up.


It's always been explicitly stated in the Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines from the time the format was introduced: _"The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees."_ 



https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> It's always been explicitly stated in the Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines from the time the format was introduced: _"The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees."_
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


And therein lies the confusion. I read that as they should line up ONLY if your L&R are at 30deg. 
And the more technically correct setup is at 45deg eleavtion which has no reference to L&R positioning.
Bloody Dolby doco is so badly written.......................


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I don't think any of Nolan's movies have particularly standout surround. I don't remember anything memorable about Interstellar's soundtrack and I only watched it for the first time a year or two ago. The man hates anything to distract you from the big screen. I'm surprised he doesn't demand stereo or even mono for his films.





cricket9998 said:


> Tenet had some good surround with explosions and general atmosphere stuff. I don’t know how you watched it but the UHD version of interstellars music had me in tears





Magiclakez said:


> Interstellar has some reference quality LFE. The shuttle separation sequence is an absolutely visceral experience. The movie theme is another masterpiece from Hans Zimmer.
> 
> But I do agree with Magnum that surrounds are a bit weak, along with the patented Nolan dialogue clarity…or lack thereof.


But I'm asking about using DSU or Neural:X to enhance it because I know it's a Nolan movie.

Guess I'm just going to have to try it. Definitely looking forward to the LFE


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> But I'm asking about using DSU or Neural:X to enhance it because I know it's a Nolan movie.
> 
> Guess I'm just going to have to try it. Definitely looking forward to the LFE


You can use neural-x. It will definitely create a slightly more expansive sound field. I usually prefer neural-x with any 5/7.1 track.


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched Uncharted again on 4k Blu-ray. I had watched the digital stream earlier. This has some really impressive atmos, especially towards the end.

There is a scene on the abandoned ship, wherein you can distinctly hear footsteps coming through the upper deck of the ship which felt quite realistic and well implemented. The helicopter chase scenes in the final chapter were very reminiscent of Mission impossible: fallout. I don’t understand why this movie doesn’t get much love. I found it quite entertaining and I think Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg compliment each other rather well.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> But I'm asking about using DSU or Neural:X to enhance it because I know it's a Nolan movie.
> 
> Guess I'm just going to have to try it. Definitely looking forward to the LFE


Yeah, I meant with Neural X. You can only stretch a thin slice of bread so much before it breaks.

...

On a different note, I just watched the first episode of season 3 of *The Orville* on Disney+ on my Nvidia Shield (wasn't going to get Hulu just for that) and it was DD+ 5.1. But then I started the 2nd episode and SHOCK, Atmos lit up. It appears the rest of the season is in Dolby Atmos! I don't think Hulu even does Dolby Atmos so I was a bit surprised. I'm not sure why S3E1 was only 5.1, but finding Atmos on the rest was a pleasant surprise.

@crutzulee ; Yeah Atmos is definitely still working on my NVidia Shield for Disney+ (I tested some other titles as well).


----------



## crutzulee

Chirosamsung said:


> Nvidea Shield


I've loved my NVIDEA SHIELDs for longer than most tech. My living room one still gets daily use and if someone is buying one box to do EVERYTHING moderately well, it's still the go to....

But if someone is looking for playback of 4K UHD rips with DV/HDR and full uncompressed ATMOS/DTS X , the RTD 1619DR boxes like the ZIDOO Z9X absolutely smoke the NVIDEA....If you have a projector, It's a no brainer upgrade now...


----------



## Worf

MagnumX said:


> I don't think any of Nolan's movies have particularly standout surround. I don't remember anything memorable about Interstellar's soundtrack and I only watched it for the first time a year or two ago. The man hates anything to distract you from the big screen. I'm surprised he doesn't demand stereo or even mono for his films.


Nolan prefers stereo but that's it. I believe the only reason he mixes 5.1 is because the studio requires it. So he mixes in stereo for everything and puts things like the score on the surrounds for ambience.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> It's always been explicitly stated in the Dolby Atmos® Home Theater Installation Guidelines from the time the format was introduced: _"The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of left and right speakers placed at ±30 degrees."_
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


But in practice, following every other available guideline, that ends up inherently not being true. It's an over-generalization. And didn't work well in any room I've done it in. It depends too much on seating distance, room size, etc. for it to be considered a hard fast rule.


----------



## Josh Z

Soulburner said:


> Wanting to finally pick up Interstellar. Since we don't get immersive audio, how is it on a 5.2.4 system with DSU or Neural:X?





Worf said:


> Nolan prefers stereo but that's it. I believe the only reason he mixes 5.1 is because the studio requires it. So he mixes in stereo for everything and puts things like the score on the surrounds for ambience.


Christopher Nolan is on record that he dislikes surround sound and prefers instead to have a wall of sound come from the screen.

He finds surround sound from the sides or behind viewers distracting. Yet strangely, he does not find it at all distracting to bury inaudible whispered dialogue beneath deafening music, sound effects, and droning bass that will shatter your ear drums.

Nolan is a strange guy in that respect. I wouldn't be surprised if he has an undiagnosed hearing disability.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Josh Z said:


> Christopher Nolan is on record that he dislikes surround sound and prefers instead to have a wall of sound come from the screen.
> 
> He finds surround sound from the sides or behind viewers distracting. Yet strangely, he does not find it at all distracting to bury inaudible whispered dialogue beneath deafening music, sound effects, and droning bass that will shatter your ear drums.


It's also on record that he uses hard-to-hear dialogue _as a story-telling device . _There's some such dialogue near the start of "Tenet". If it was absolutely clear what the characters said to each other, it would be a spoiler for later in the movie, which is the _whole point_ of mixing the audio this way. I fully support him using this technique which is by design (nothing to do with his own hearing, that's just silly). It's innovative and unusual, and life would be so boring if every director made movies the same way .


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> But I'm asking about using DSU or Neural:X to enhance it because I know it's a Nolan movie.
> 
> Guess I'm just going to have to try it. Definitely looking forward to the LFE


Oh I used the dts upmixer and it worked well for me


----------



## cricket9998

Josh Z said:


> Christopher Nolan is on record that he dislikes surround sound and prefers instead to have a wall of sound come from the screen.
> 
> He finds surround sound from the sides or behind viewers distracting. Yet strangely, he does not find it at all distracting to bury inaudible whispered dialogue beneath deafening music, sound effects, and droning bass that will shatter your ear drums.
> 
> Nolan is a strange guy in that respect. I wouldn't be surprised if he has an undiagnosed hearing disability.


I get his point with tenet dialogue but it’s easier to have his viewpoint when he wrote the story and knows what’s going on. I had to watch it twice with boosted center.


Magiclakez said:


> Interstellar has some reference quality LFE. The shuttle separation sequence is an absolutely visceral experience. The movie theme is another masterpiece from Hans Zimmer. Speaking of Hans Zimmer, the “Live in Prague” Blu-ray (Atmos) is one of my most prized possessions.
> 
> But I do agree with Magnum that surrounds are a bit weak, along with the patented Nolan dialogue clarity…or lack thereof.


Live in Prague is one of the best things I have ever watched and heard. I wish he would make another one. Having bass shakers in every seat made it a whole new experience


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But in practice, following every other available guideline, that ends up inherently not being true. It's an over-generalization. And didn't work well in any room I've done it in. It depends too much on seating distance, room size, etc. for it to be considered a hard fast rule.


Wasn't advocating for it, simply pointing out it exists in Dolby documentation. Dolby's recommendations vary enough that you can choose *a* recommendation that you prefer and then treat it as *the* correct recommendation. Subjective preference becomes objective superiority.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> And therein lies the confusion. I read that as they should line up ONLY if your L&R are at 30deg.
> And the more technically correct setup is at 45deg eleavtion which has no reference to L&R positioning.
> Bloody Dolby doco is so badly written.......................


Dolby has separate placement recommendations for home, studios and theatres. That's not unreasonable. Conflating those three docs can lead to confusion. Rather than trying to figure out what is technically correct, I tend to go with more general recommendations based on preference. If the height speaker placement gives the impression of sound coming from above with clear left/right & front/back separation, then it will serve all 3 immersive formats. I don't see the need to prove that one of the Dolby recommendations is more technically correct than their other recommendations. YMMV.


----------



## halcyon_888

mrtickleuk said:


> It's also on record that he uses hard-to-hear dialogue _as a story-telling device . _There's some such dialogue near the start of "Tenet". If it was absolutely clear what the characters said to each other, it would be a spoiler for later in the movie, which is the _whole point_ of mixing the audio this way. I fully support him using this technique which is by design (nothing to do with his own hearing, that's just silly). It's innovative and unusual, and life would be so boring if every director made movies the same way .


I had a problem with the entire movie, in the scene toward the beginning of the movie where the main character is in the lab with the woman character, I couldn't understand a word they were saying. That's unacceptable!


----------



## mrtickleuk

halcyon_888 said:


> I had a problem with the entire movie, in the scene toward the beginning of the movie where the main character is in the lab with the woman character, I couldn't understand a word they were saying. That's unacceptable!


Well, I can only say that I personally found it all understandable, except for the parts I described earlier where it would be a spoiler if I could have heard their speech. I can only suggest you try subtitles. But then you could get spoilers in certain scenes (unless the subs say "inaudible dialogue" or something similar - I can't remember). It's the sort of movie where you are not supposed to understand it on the first viewing anyway.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But in practice, following every other available guideline, that ends up inherently not being true. It's an over-generalization. And didn't work well in any room I've done it in. It depends too much on seating distance, room size, etc. for it to be considered a hard fast rule.


That's because you appear to only like sound directly overhead. 30 azimuth works fine. Even Auro's side heights work fine. Better than fine. Given your preference for direct overhead sound, I would assume you would much prefer using just Top Middle mounted nearly side-by-side overhead so every "overhead" sound appears directly above your head because it's obvious at this point that's what you enjoy. In other words, the problem isn't the 30 degree azimuth for overheads. The problem is your preferences for direct overhead sound.



niterida said:


> And therein lies the confusion. I read that as they should line up ONLY if your L&R are at 30deg.
> And the more technically correct setup is at 45deg eleavtion which has no reference to L&R positioning.
> Bloody Dolby doco is so badly written.......................


45 degree elevation isn't not more technically correct. It depends entirely on your layout. If you have 6 or more overheads, Dolby LOWERS the angles to an _ideal_ of 20-30 degrees for front/rear heights, not 45. That's because the Tops speakers are at 45. Those are _separate_ speakers (It's just that our cheaper AVS/AVPs don't support all 10 overheads). 

If you're going to do 4 overheads, I'd recommend 45, perhaps even 55 degrees (the latter keeps the angle separation between pairs under 70 degrees as per the Wendy Carlos Quad/Surround sound guideline site for the best phantom imaging). But if you use 6 or more overheads, 20-40 + 80-110 for Top Middle is the way to go for the largest overhead imaging area and it still keeps separation under 70 degrees.

Official Dolby guideline for 6 overheads:


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> That's because you appear to only like sound directly overhead. 30 azimuth works fine. Even Auro's side heights work fine. Better than fine. Given your preference for direct overhead sound, I would assume you would much prefer using just Top Middle mounted nearly side-by-side overhead so every "overhead" sound appears directly above your head because it's obvious at this point that's what you enjoy. In other words, the problem isn't the 30 degree azimuth for overheads.





MagnumX said:


> 45 degree elevation isn't not more technically correct. It depends entirely on your layout.


You answered yourself. The reason 45 is better is because 99% of us don't have top middle. If you use 30 degrees without top middle, you won't have good overhead panning. You'll have a hole.


----------



## Josh Z

mrtickleuk said:


> It's also on record that he uses hard-to-hear dialogue _as a story-telling device . _There's some such dialogue near the start of "Tenet". If it was absolutely clear what the characters said to each other, it would be a spoiler for later in the movie, which is the _whole point_ of mixing the audio this way. I fully support him using this technique which is by design (nothing to do with his own hearing, that's just silly). It's innovative and unusual, and life would be so boring if every director made movies the same way .


If he didn't want to tell the story through dialogue, perhaps he shouldn't stage so many scenes of characters standing around talking while a deafening BRAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHMMMMMMM!!!!! blares over them. That isn't innovative. It's just poor filmmaking.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> You answered yourself. The reason 45 is better is because 99% of us don't have top middle. If you use 30 degrees without top middle, you won't have good overhead panning. You'll have a hole.


I believe I said that. I'd even consider 55 instead for the reasons given. I'm putting things into context so newcomers understand what their options are and why. Six overheads are becoming far more common and regardless not that hard to fill that gap with a passive mixed speaker if one doesn't want to spend a lot for a 13+ channel AVR. 

Jeremy would have you put overheads closer together than your front mains in a smaller home theater setting. If one prefers almost no separation overhead, fine, but that's not a _normal_ home setting. Cinema specs are for much much larger spaces.


----------



## Soulburner

Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines:


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines:


That's a nice document, but you are aware that it's the guidelines for a *home mixing studio* not the home theater setup guidelines, right?

I find it interesting that their "preferred layout" for studios is 7.1.4 and not 9.1.6 or more, which are considered "extended layouts". No wonder front wides get so little love in home mixes.

I do see they fully support side, rear and top arrays for home mixing studios. That's odd since they disabled support in the home renderer for those speakers. This guide is from 2021, so perhaps they intend to rectify that in the V3 DSU/Atmos upmixer/renderer? The arrays overlap the Trinnov extended surround speakers for objects currently employed.

For _extended_ overheads (basically covers a 10 speaker overhead setup), I see they go even further than the home setup guidelines, allowing as low as 15 degrees for front heights and front tops to drop as low as 30 degrees (combined angle of 45 degrees between the two relative to 90 degrees ideal for Top Middle). This actually makes symmetrical sense (15+15+60-15-15). I doubt the regulars on here will like that given many already don't like _Heights_ speakers.

Bass is also interesting. They want all "wide-range" (Large?) speakers to have response to 40Hz and subwoofers to "at least" 31.5Hz. No wonder so many Atmos titles are deep bass shy these days when they only require home mix studios to have bass extension to 31.5Hz....

*Speaker tilt*... It says tilt should be applied if the speaker does not have 45 degree dispersion from 100Hz to 10kHz. Somehow, I don't think many on here will like Dolby recommendations given how most want to toe/tilt everything to the center of the speaker.

Overall, very interesting to see how the home mixing setup compared to the home theater setup guidelines as they do not match precisely.


----------



## mrvideo

crutzulee said:


> I've loved my NVIDEA SHIELDs for longer than most tech.


It is NVIDIA with an "I".


----------



## petetherock

mrtickleuk said:


> It's also on record that he uses hard-to-hear dialogue _as a story-telling device . _There's some such dialogue near the start of "Tenet". If it was absolutely clear what the characters said to each other, it would be a spoiler for later in the movie, which is the _whole point_ of mixing the audio this way. I fully support him using this technique which is by design (nothing to do with his own hearing, that's just silly). It's innovative and unusual, and life would be so boring if every director made movies the same way .


Interesting.. I’ve learnt something 
well, it could be worse… bad movies And poor sound.. 
at leas, his movies are fairly consistently good…
here I am thinking it’s just Batman mumbling all this time 😂


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I believe I said that. I'd even consider 55 instead for the reasons given. I'm putting things into context so newcomers understand what their options are and why. *Six overheads are becoming far more common* and regardless not that hard to fill that gap with a passive mixed speaker if one doesn't want to spend a lot for a 13+ channel AVR.


Yep. I am planning 6 overhead speakers precisely because it is becoming more standard and it has become clear to me that 6 height channels is optimal for creating the upper soundstage in a small theater environment.

And with the 6 overhead channels, front height at 30° elevation and rear heights at 150° elevation (facing the screen) would be optimal for expanding the front and rear soundstages all the way to the ceiling, then necessitating Top-Middles at 80° to 100° to bridge gap between the front and rear soundstage.



> Jeremy would have you put overheads closer together than your front mains in a smaller home theater setting. If one prefers almost no separation overhead, fine, but that's not a _normal_ home setting. Cinema specs are for much much larger spaces.


Anthony Grimani also recommends bringing the height/overhead in closer together specifically because its difficult to detect imaging overhead. So bringing them slightly closer together should create a better center image when both are playing the same material. I think this would be most important in the case that your front heights are trying to image a Center Front Height object or phantom channel. Or maybe trying to image a Top-Surround/VoG. Since I plan to use a Phantom VoG, I will be bringing my overheads closer together. I will likely experiment with two positions (one right above each channel similar to Auro3D positioning and one just inside each speaker as more of an Atmos positioning) and figure out which one gives the best imaging results.


----------



## Chirosamsung

mrvideo said:


> It is NVIDIA with an "I".


Seriously who cares


----------



## StevenC56

Chirosamsung said:


> Seriously who cares


The spelling and grammar police apparently.


----------



## petetherock

Ok, since we're on about "i"s... I had to post this:


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yep. I am planning 6 overhead speakers precisely because it is becoming more standard and it has become clear to me that 6 height channels is optimal for creating the upper soundstage in a small theater environment.
> 
> And with the 6 overhead channels, front height at 30° elevation and rear heights at 150° elevation (facing the screen) would be optimal for expanding the front and rear soundstages all the way to the ceiling, then necessitating Top-Middles at 80° to 100° to bridge gap between the front and rear soundstage.
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony Grimani also recommends bringing the height/overhead in closer together specifically because its difficult to detect imaging overhead. So bringing them slightly closer together should create a better center image when both are playing the same material. I think this would be most important in the case that your front heights are trying to image a Center Front Height object or phantom channel. Or maybe trying to image a Top-Surround/VoG. Since I plan to use a Phantom VoG, I will be bringing my overheads closer together. I will likely experiment with two positions (one right above each channel similar to Auro3D positioning and one just inside each speaker as more of an Atmos positioning) and figure out which one gives the best imaging results.


I don't have any trouble hearing imaging overhead anywhere on the ceiling. The Kraftwerk 3-D set in Atmos has sounds moving between Top Middle Left/Right on Trans-Europe Express and using side heights above the side surrounds it moves straight across the ceiling wall-to-wall. 

I've been thinking of adding four Top Middle on-ceiling speakers on either side of my steel beam box to get them at the same height as the front/rear heights and that would also put them all in line with the front/rear heights at 30 degrees (front heights are actually just outside screen and lower mains L/R, but that's so the combined dimmed front wides phantom image directly below the front heights (brought L/R into 26 degrees from 30, but they still phantom image at 30 with the combined array effect of summed front wides). 

I'm not sure I'd actually like the inward location, though as the overhead layer currently aligns directly with the lower layer in a vertical fashion and whatever outward pull at the sides is very slight, not really enough to be noticed from the MLP with the helicopter test, for example, but having the Top Middle speakers inward would probably improve overhead effects for the left/right off-axis seats (VOG would normally handle that for Auro-3D soundtracks). 

I'd probably leave the side heights arrayed as surround heights at a slightly lower level for Auro-3D and DTS:X soundtracks so I'd actually end up with a 11.1.10 layout. If I added CH (better dialog lift effect and with Scatmos processing, it would work for Atmos too), that'd technically be 11.1.11 layout. I'd only need 18.x channels to drive it discrete on any given mode, though. A Trinnov Altitude 16 (that now supports 20 discrete channels) would actually be perfect and still allow two subs. The price is still rather exorbitant, however. 

I was hoping the Monoprice HTP-1 would get DTS:X Pro (I'd only need Scatmos for SS#1 and CH), but they're hard to get a hold of period right now and there's no sign of DTS:X Pro.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I don't have any trouble hearing imaging overhead anywhere on the ceiling. The Kraftwerk 3-D set in Atmos has sounds moving between Top Middle Left/Right on Trans-Europe Express and using side heights above the side surrounds it moves straight across the ceiling wall-to-wall.
> 
> I've been thinking of adding four Top Middle on-ceiling speakers on either side of my steel beam box to get them at the same height as the front/rear heights and that would also put them all in line with the front/rear heights at 30 degrees (front heights are actually just outside screen and lower mains L/R, but that's so the combined dimmed front wides phantom image directly below the front heights (brought L/R into 26 degrees from 30, but they still phantom image at 30 with the combined array effect of summed front wides).
> 
> I'm not sure I'd actually like the inward location, though as the overhead layer currently aligns directly with the lower layer in a vertical fashion and whatever outward pull at the sides is very slight, not really enough to be noticed from the MLP with the helicopter test, for example, but having the Top Middle speakers inward would probably improve overhead effects for the left/right off-axis seats (VOG would normally handle that for Auro-3D soundtracks).
> 
> I'd probably leave the side heights arrayed as surround heights at a slightly lower level for Auro-3D and DTS:X soundtracks so I'd actually end up with a 11.1.10 layout. If I added CH (better dialog lift effect and with Scatmos processing, it would work for Atmos too), that'd technically be 11.1.11 layout. I'd only need 18.x channels to drive it discrete on any given mode, though. A Trinnov Altitude 16 (that now supports 20 discrete channels) would actually be perfect and still allow two subs. The price is still rather exorbitant, however.
> 
> I was hoping the Monoprice HTP-1 would get DTS:X Pro (I'd only need Scatmos for SS#1 and CH), but they're hard to get a hold of period right now and there's no sign of DTS:X Pro.


Looking at a diagram Grimani did, I do think his ceiling channel positioning is too close together.










As you can see, the Left and Right ceiling channels are *inside *the outer left and right seats. Thats too far inward as the seat furthest to the left will perceive the left height channel as comming from slightly to the right.

I would push those speakers further apart until the speakers are directly above the outermost seats, not inside them.

of course if I was dialing the room in only for the central seat then it wouldnt matter, but at the same time, then what is the point of having the other seats.

however, in that diagram, the fronts are pretty far apart. So lining the ceiling channels with the fronts I feel would be too wide. So I would split the difference and place my ceiling speakers in between these two extremes.


----------



## Soulburner

While I also think the tops should be in line with the seats, we would need to hear from Anthony what is reasoning is.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Anthony Grimani also recommends bringing the height/overhead in closer together specifically because its difficult to detect imaging overhead. So bringing them slightly closer together should create a better center image when both are playing the same material. I think this would be most important in the case that your front heights are trying to image a Center Front Height object or phantom channel. Or maybe trying to image a Top-Surround/VoG. Since I plan to use a Phantom VoG, I will be bringing my overheads closer together. I will likely experiment with two positions (one right above each channel similar to Auro3D positioning and one just inside each speaker as more of an Atmos positioning) and figure out which one gives the best imaging results.


Grimani had also said that they blended in with the sides too much, which is what I ran into in my room when I went too far to the 0.7x the layout width end of that 0.5-0.7x recommendation. There's a weird mindset that some have that you should have speakers at every hard boundary on the ceiling to represent every coordinate edge... but that's not what's done in theaters, so it's weird to apply that logic to the home. Dolby's interface differs from how it actually steers sound in practice, otherwise it would have a height layer that essentially mirrors the ear-level placements the way Auro's height layer does. Due to the way they handle range constraints, they basically have an orthogonal interface that functionally behaves largely like a hemispherical panner in practice with object movement between layers at the coordinate boundaries due to the different sizes of the boundaries of the two layers of speakers. That's why I say that they would have made things much simpler to just say that 0.5x the layout width is the ideal... since the expectations for the height rows on the lateral are 0.25 and 0.75 coordinates_ in the renderer_, and the renderer's logic doesn't differ between theater and home. For most spaces, that logic will work irrespective of the placement of the mains or the distance of the MLP into the room (and the interaction between those two is why you can't necessarily reference the height rows off the mains). But the home guidelines are intentionally overly generalized so as not to scare people off from doing what they can in their rooms. People forget that Dolby themselves had their height rows on movable trellises when developing Atmos and found that the wider placement of them didn't work as well, which is how they ended up with the rows essentially at the lateral position of the additional screen channels (barring angular adjustments for theaters who might have had their pre-existing surrounds higher or lower).

What Grimani does in his room skews closer to theatrical layouts, which makes sense, especially since he's usually working in a bit larger spaces than those of us doing living room setups. But even in a living room setup, checking things against those angular rules laid out in the theatrical and mix room guidelines goes a long way to making things work well and give good transitions across that lateral arc. By doing that, I still get front, rear and sidewall elevation as objects move between the layers, as well as overhead sound when objects move at max Z (or the too-often used static height objects at top mid). Grimani gets what a lot of people don't about Atmos - you don't move the speakers wider to cover seats, because it's room-centric. Instead, you aim the speakers to provide that coverage. Much in the same way the theatrical guideline shows the aiming done (which isn't strictly AT the RLP but to the sides of it to equalize coverage). 

Grimani's placement tends to line up pretty much with what you would see if you put those room dimensions into the Dolby's Audio Room Design Tool, so it isn't without precedent. I've asked him about it and I don't think he's specifically doing it based on the mix room/theatrical standards as much as just his experience from designing a LOT of rooms (and the experience of other installers who have come to similar conclusions after doing many rooms). Almost all of the CEDIA-winning designs trend toward that narrower placement. Having played around with the software for the theatrical cinema decoder and designing a room out to scale, its logic aligns pretty much with DARDT. So since the renderer's the same regardless, following that logic for the home space simply makes sense. I'm sure there are people who disagree (and who are likely still shouting at the sky about it), and that's fine. I've tried it it about every way you can over a series of rooms and placements (including Auro, two houses ago) and think that following Dolby's consistent logic based on how the renderer works gave me the best results for a 7.1.4 layout, especially given the unfortunate state of home mixes that use static height objects. YMMV.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Looking at a diagram Grimani did, I do think his ceiling channel positioning is too close together.
> 
> View attachment 3320884
> 
> 
> As you can see, the Left and Right ceiling channels are *inside *the outer left and right seats. Thats too far inward as the seat furthest to the left will perceive the left height channel as comming from slightly to the right.
> 
> I would push those speakers further apart until the speakers are directly above the outermost seats, not inside them.
> 
> of course if I was dialing the room in only for the central seat then it wouldnt matter, but at the same time, then what is the point of having the other seats.
> 
> however, in that diagram, the fronts are pretty far apart. So lining the ceiling channels with the fronts I feel would be too wide. So I would split the difference and place my ceiling speakers in between these two extremes.


The way he has it, the overhead sounds would only move left/right from about the left armrest to the right armrest of one chair??? That's utterly _ridiculous_, IMO. Why even _bother_ having left/right overhead channels if you're going to put them that close together? One might as well just have a VOG array and call it a day. And this guy is supposed to be an expert? That's hard to imagine based on that diagram. Maybe he's spent too much time on the theater side and not enough on the home side.

I'd say putting them over the left/right chairs is the _minimum_ I'd possibly go. That would at least put overhead sounds directly overhead for all three seats and would coincide with the Atmos 1/4 - 3/4 renderer expectations (he has them closer than 0.25/0.75 width of the room).

However, Atmos is not a precise aligned layer system as such and is meant to be somewhat flexible in that regard. It's rendering objects, not recording a real room with dual-quad microphone precision as true Auro-3D recordings do.

Thus, if you want full compatibility with Auro-3D and holographic precision with native Auro-3D recordings, you'd probably be better off keeping the alignment with the front mains and rear surround speakers as that's the way Auro is designed to align its layers for height speakers (above the front and rear-most surrounds with a VOG equivalent in the middle. Dual Top Middle works great for that, particularly with a Monoprice HTP-1 that's already set up for it).

Given Dolby recommends symmetrical alignment at home with the 30 degree front mains, I'd call that a win-win situation and no seat would have "left" overhead speakers to the _right_ of it. Yes, Dolby cinemas have that, but only for the extremely undesirable left & right 1/4 seats (no one wants to sit in those compromised seats if they don't have to).

This is what I was getting at before when comparing the wider overhead layouts to an imaginary larger room with unused seats (pretend the left/right walls don't exist and seating continues 1/4 further in each direction as I've attempted to show in the modified diagram). You'd basically have the Grimani layout "look" for the larger imagined room (only difference is side surrounds would probably be a bit further away in a real larger room), but the overhead speakers would be positioned in line with where the mains are now with the same size screen and angle expectations. The effective difference, however would be the equivalent of sitting in the central 1/2 width of a Dolby cinema (i.e.The "good seats"). Why on earth would you want to recreate undesirable seats in your home theater just to mimic the overall overhead top-down "look" of a miniature Dolby Cinema?


*DIAGRAM:*

Reddened Seats are "bad" seats in a Dolby Cinema (outside the center 1/2 of the movie screen and left of the left overhead speaker or right of the right overhead speaker). Seats inside that zone are the "good" seats (left is left and right is right and you're centered on the inner 1/2 of the screen). In your room, the screen doesn't extend wider, but the overhead speakers align as if they do and align for both Dolby's home recommendations and Auro-3D's dual-quad microphone recordings that expect vertical alignment of the speakers. Essentially, you're making all your seats "good seats" instead of bad ones (two speakers to the right of the left-most seat). Grimani's notion of "too close to the sides" is absurd as we all know you're not supposed to localize your speakers! A good bubble is utterly transparent and so why would he want you to notice the locations of any of the speakers? It makes no logical sense. Dolby's diagrams clearly show what I'm showing as perfectly in range of their official specifications. Grimani's recommendations are out of spec. Jeremy Anderson might enjoy the lack of the left/right overhead movement, but I doubt you would.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> The way he has it, the overhead sounds would only move left/right from about the left armrest to the right armrest of one chair??? That's utterly _ridiculous_, IMO. Why even _bother_ having left/right overhead channels if you're going to put them that close together? One might as well just have a VOG array and call it a day. And this guy is supposed to be an expert? That's hard to imagine based on that diagram. Maybe he's spent too much time on the theater side and not enough on the home side.
> 
> I'd say putting them over the left/right chairs is the _minimum_ I'd possibly go. That would at least put overhead sounds directly overhead for all three seats and would coincide with the Atmos 1/4 - 3/4 renderer expectations (he has them closer than 0.25/0.75 width of the room).
> 
> However, Atmos is not a precise aligned layer system as such and is meant to be somewhat flexible in that regard. It's rendering objects, not recording a real room with dual-quad microphone precision as true Auro-3D recordings do.
> 
> Thus, if you want full compatibility with Auro-3D and holographic precision with native Auro-3D recordings, you'd probably be better off keeping the alignment with the front mains and rear surround speakers as that's the way Auro is designed to align its layers for height speakers (above the front and rear-most surrounds with a VOG equivalent in the middle. Dual Top Middle works great for that, particularly with a Monoprice HTP-1 that's already set up for it).
> 
> Given Dolby recommends symmetrical alignment at home with the 30 degree front mains, I'd call that a win-win situation and no seat would have "left" overhead speakers to the _right_ of it. Yes, Dolby cinemas have that, but only for the extremely undesirable left & right 1/4 seats (no one wants to sit in those compromised seats if they don't have to).
> 
> This is what I was getting at before when comparing the wider overhead layouts to an imaginary larger room with unused seats (pretend the left/right walls don't exist and seating continues 1/4 further in each direction as I've attempted to show in the modified diagram). You'd basically have the Grimani layout "look" for the larger imagined room (only difference is side surrounds would probably be a bit further away in a real larger room), but the overhead speakers would be positioned in line with where the mains are now with the same size screen and angle expectations. The effective difference, however would be the equivalent of sitting in the central 1/2 width of a Dolby cinema (i.e.The "good seats"). Why on earth would you want to recreate undesirable seats in your home theater just to mimic the overall overhead top-down "look" of a miniature Dolby Cinema?
> 
> 
> *DIAGRAM:*
> 
> Reddened Seats are "bad" seats in a Dolby Cinema (outside the center 1/2 of the movie screen and left of the left overhead speaker or right of the right overhead speaker). Seats inside that zone are the "good" seats (left is left and right is right and you're centered on the inner 1/2 of the screen). In your room, the screen doesn't extend wider, but the overhead speakers align as if they do and align for both Dolby's home recommendations and Auro-3D's dual-quad microphone recordings that expect vertical alignment of the speakers. Essentially, you're making all your seats "good seats" instead of bad ones (two speakers to the right of the left-most seat). Grimani's notion of "too close to the sides" is absurd as we all know you're not supposed to localize your speakers! A good bubble is utterly transparent and so why would he want you to notice the locations of any of the speakers? It makes no logical sense. Dolby's diagrams clearly show what I'm showing as perfectly in range of their official specifications. Grimani's recommendations are out of spec. Jeremy Anderson might enjoy the lack of the left/right overhead movement, but I doubt you would.


I have said this before and I am sure I will say it again but putting your heights closer together and stating that it is better because sound is now more overhead is ridiculous and is the same as putting your L and R next to your Centre and saying it is better because the sound is more from the front.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> The way he has it, the overhead sounds would only move left/right from about the left armrest to the right armrest of one chair???


But the million dollar question is...

...do sounds using the tops really originate from the ceiling and stay there? Or, can they mix in with the sides if they want a wider effect? Aren't we creating a surround bubble from which all angles are covered so sound can be moved around without gaps?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> The way he has it, the overhead sounds would only move left/right from about the left armrest to the right armrest of one chair??? That's utterly _ridiculous_, IMO. Why even _bother_ having left/right overhead channels if you're going to put them that close together? One might as well just have a VOG array and call it a day. And this guy is supposed to be an expert? That's hard to imagine based on that diagram. Maybe he's spent too much time on the theater side and not enough on the home side.
> 
> I'd say putting them over the left/right chairs is the _minimum_ I'd possibly go. That would at least put overhead sounds directly overhead for all three seats and would coincide with the Atmos 1/4 - 3/4 renderer expectations (he has them closer than 0.25/0.75 width of the room).
> 
> However, Atmos is not a precise aligned layer system as such and is meant to be somewhat flexible in that regard. It's rendering objects, not recording a real room with dual-quad microphone precision as true Auro-3D recordings do.
> 
> Thus, if you want full compatibility with Auro-3D and holographic precision with native Auro-3D recordings, you'd probably be better off keeping the alignment with the front mains and rear surround speakers as that's the way Auro is designed to align its layers for height speakers (above the front and rear-most surrounds with a VOG equivalent in the middle. Dual Top Middle works great for that, particularly with a Monoprice HTP-1 that's already set up for it).
> 
> Given Dolby recommends symmetrical alignment at home with the 30 degree front mains, I'd call that a win-win situation and no seat would have "left" overhead speakers to the _right_ of it. Yes, Dolby cinemas have that, but only for the extremely undesirable left & right 1/4 seats (no one wants to sit in those compromised seats if they don't have to).
> 
> This is what I was getting at before when comparing the wider overhead layouts to an imaginary larger room with unused seats (pretend the left/right walls don't exist and seating continues 1/4 further in each direction as I've attempted to show in the modified diagram). You'd basically have the Grimani layout "look" for the larger imagined room (only difference is side surrounds would probably be a bit further away in a real larger room), but the overhead speakers would be positioned in line with where the mains are now with the same size screen and angle expectations. The effective difference, however would be the equivalent of sitting in the central 1/2 width of a Dolby cinema (i.e.The "good seats"). Why on earth would you want to recreate undesirable seats in your home theater just to mimic the overall overhead top-down "look" of a miniature Dolby Cinema?
> 
> 
> *DIAGRAM:*
> 
> Reddened Seats are "bad" seats in a Dolby Cinema (outside the center 1/2 of the movie screen and left of the left overhead speaker or right of the right overhead speaker). Seats inside that zone are the "good" seats (left is left and right is right and you're centered on the inner 1/2 of the screen). In your room, the screen doesn't extend wider, but the overhead speakers align as if they do and align for both Dolby's home recommendations and Auro-3D's dual-quad microphone recordings that expect vertical alignment of the speakers. Essentially, you're making all your seats "good seats" instead of bad ones (two speakers to the right of the left-most seat). Grimani's notion of "too close to the sides" is absurd as we all know you're not supposed to localize your speakers! A good bubble is utterly transparent and so why would he want you to notice the locations of any of the speakers? It makes no logical sense. Dolby's diagrams clearly show what I'm showing as perfectly in range of their official specifications. Grimani's recommendations are out of spec. Jeremy Anderson might enjoy the lack of the left/right overhead movement, but I doubt you would.
> 
> View attachment 3320901


If you look at either diagram, the front seats are large extended lounge seats, each one big enough for two people to snuggle in. The second row are regular sized theater seats.

If you look at Grimani's diagram, there are 5 seats in that second row. The three middle seats are within the left and right boundaries of the ceiling speakers with the outermost seats outside them.

So for me, as I am only setting up 3 seats across, this spacing would be good for me. But my front soundstage will be nowhere near as wide as this one as my theater is only 10 feet wide. The front mains will be at most 8 feet apart. So I may end up with the ceiling channels in line with the mains and rear surrounds anyway. I dont have a lot of space to work with.


----------



## pdalton

Wow! Amazing technical discussions & issues illustrating the complexity of surround with Atmos! 

The observations I've read above about Dolby preferring 7.x.4 over 5.x.4 are a bit disconcerting, as I believe I'm practically limited to only 5.x.4. But I became even more concerned as I looked at some of the posted illustrations (& comments?) to the effect that Dolby assumes that the "5" in "5.x.4" means Front LCR + Left Side & Right Side and no actual Rear speakers, because my "5" will be Front LCR + Left Rear & Right Rear and NO Side Speakers at all. 

Is that going to totally confuse the processing? 

If you can look back at the photo I posted, I hope you can see the large opening on the Left Wall (right side of the photo) that essentially prevents using "Side" speakers (atcleast at a proper height). That opening is the ONLY reason I'm doing 5.x.4 instead of 7.x.4. 

However, I've measured and it "might" be possible to fit an "in-wall" speaker (sideways) in that narrow wall above the opening in that Left wall (up next to the ceiling), then do the same using another "in-wall" speaker on the Right wall to "match", but I felt doing that would just make everything worse by having those Side Speakers so much higher than THE LCR & Rear units, but also so much closer to the Atmos units in the ceiling. 

But now I'm concerned a 5.x.4 system with Rears but NO Sides is going to mess up the processing, then perhaps also installing a couple of very highly positioned Side speakers would be the lesser of two evils. 

I guess another question will be how much is just having that big wall opening going to hurt overall? (Expecting it might affect using a "bounce" approach to Atmos was a big reason I originally decided on "in-ceiling" Atmos units).

Are any of these issues valid concerns? (I wish I had a better room to be dealing with, but I'm stuck with only this one.)

Thanks


----------



## niterida

pdalton said:


> Dolby assumes that the "5" in "5.x.4" means Front LCR + Left Side & Right Side and no actual Rear speakers, because my "5" will be Front LCR + Left Rear & Right Rear and NO Side Speakers at all.


I think you have read something wrong. With 5.1.4 the surrounds go at 110-120deg, so slightly behind you. I have a 5.1.4 setup and with mine at 120deg I can hardly tell the difference between 5.1 and 7.1.


----------



## anjunadeep

pdalton said:


> Wow! Amazing technical discussions & issues illustrating the complexity of surround with Atmos!
> 
> The observations I've read above about Dolby preferring 7.x.4 over 5.x.4 are a bit disconcerting, as I believe I'm practically limited to only 5.x.4. But I became even more concerned as I looked at some of the posted illustrations (& comments?) to the effect that Dolby assumes that the "5" in "5.x.4" means Front LCR + Left Side & Right Side and no actual Rear speakers, because my "5" will be Front LCR + Left Rear & Right Rear and NO Side Speakers at all.
> 
> Is that going to totally confuse the processing?
> 
> If you can look back at the photo I posted, I hope you can see the large opening on the Left Wall (right side of the photo) that essentially prevents using "Side" speakers (atcleast at a proper height). That opening is the ONLY reason I'm doing 5.x.4 instead of 7.x.4.
> 
> However, I've measured and it "might" be possible to fit an "in-wall" speaker (sideways) in that narrow wall above the opening in that Left wall (up next to the ceiling), then do the same using another "in-wall" speaker on the Right wall to "match", but I felt doing that would just make everything worse by having those Side Speakers so much higher than THE LCR & Rear units, but also so much closer to the Atmos units in the ceiling.
> 
> But now I'm concerned a 5.x.4 system with Rears but NO Sides is going to mess up the processing, then perhaps also installing a couple of very highly positioned Side speakers would be the lesser of two evils.
> 
> I guess another question will be how much is just having that big wall opening going to hurt overall? (Expecting it might affect using a "bounce" approach to Atmos was a big reason I originally decided on "in-ceiling" Atmos units).
> 
> Are any of these issues valid concerns? (I wish I had a better room to be dealing with, but I'm stuck with only this one.)
> 
> Thanks


You connect them as sides, not rears. Fact is when you have open plan concepts you have to make compromises (heck, with dedicated rooms you get compromises too!). I'd just put the sides on the rear wall, you're pretty close the wall anyways. Will it be perfect? No. Will it be a super cool setup that creates an enveloping experience for watching movies? Yup.

The open sidewall will create some lopsided acoustics. If you're really motivated you could close it in (then you can put those side surrounds up), otherwise you can put some treatments on the opposite wall of the opening and try to even things out a bit. 

There is one thing you absolutely have to do though... and that's get rid of that contractor boob light they put by your door and get a different light fixture. That will cause EXTREME diffraction issues, bass nulls, and time smearing. Your wife will also thank you.


----------



## Wardog555

pdalton said:


> Wow! Amazing technical discussions & issues illustrating the complexity of surround with Atmos!
> 
> The observations I've read above about Dolby preferring 7.x.4 over 5.x.4 are a bit disconcerting, as I believe I'm practically limited to only 5.x.4. But I became even more concerned as I looked at some of the posted illustrations (& comments?) to the effect that Dolby assumes that the "5" in "5.x.4" means Front LCR + Left Side & Right Side and no actual Rear speakers, because my "5" will be Front LCR + Left Rear & Right Rear and NO Side Speakers at all.
> 
> Is that going to totally confuse the processing?
> 
> If you can look back at the photo I posted, I hope you can see the large opening on the Left Wall (right side of the photo) that essentially prevents using "Side" speakers (atcleast at a proper height). That opening is the ONLY reason I'm doing 5.x.4 instead of 7.x.4.
> 
> However, I've measured and it "might" be possible to fit an "in-wall" speaker (sideways) in that narrow wall above the opening in that Left wall (up next to the ceiling), then do the same using another "in-wall" speaker on the Right wall to "match", but I felt doing that would just make everything worse by having those Side Speakers so much higher than THE LCR & Rear units, but also so much closer to the Atmos units in the ceiling.
> 
> But now I'm concerned a 5.x.4 system with Rears but NO Sides is going to mess up the processing, then perhaps also installing a couple of very highly positioned Side speakers would be the lesser of two evils.
> 
> I guess another question will be how much is just having that big wall opening going to hurt overall? (Expecting it might affect using a "bounce" approach to Atmos was a big reason I originally decided on "in-ceiling" Atmos units).
> 
> Are any of these issues valid concerns? (I wish I had a better room to be dealing with, but I'm stuck with only this one.)
> 
> Thanks


You have side surrounds not rears. Rears is only possible with 7 channel configuration as you already know. 

You also set your speakers to the surround speaker terminals not the rear ones.

You confused yourself by calling them rears when they are actually surrounds and/or side surrounds. 

Enjoy!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> I have said this before and I am sure I will say it again but putting your heights closer together and stating that it is better because sound is now more overhead is ridiculous and is the same as putting your L and R next to your Centre and saying it is better because the sound is more from the front.


I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that. There's a balance you have to maintain to keep both things, which is what you see with Dolby's adjustments for maintaining angular separation between the side surrounds and heights laterally. That's not to make sound "more overhead" but to ensure that lateral moves of objects between the layers or objects placed between the layers have enough separation to image accordingly. Dolby knows that closing the gap between the height rows is inherently less destructive than having too small a gap between the sides and heights on each side of the room. I think Grimani often errs a little bit too close with them depending on the room height in question, but on the diagrams here, it depends on if he's running the side surrounds elevated. If he is, then the closer placement makes sense... even if he isn't consciously following the theatrical/mix room angular adjustment.


Soulburner said:


> But the million dollar question is...
> 
> ...do sounds using the tops really originate from the ceiling and stay there? Or, can they mix in with the sides if they want a wider effect? Aren't we creating a surround bubble from which all angles are covered so sound can be moved around without gaps?


In a static object mix, the sounds are effectively pre-panned. So any movement of sound between the layers in the original mix is pre-mixed between those known object points for the printout. With dynamic objects, the Z-axis placement on the sides would determine placement beyond the boundary of the physical placement of the height rows. So for instance, if an object was at 0.8 on the Z-axis on the left side of the virtual room, you'd be getting roughly 80% of the sound from the corresponding height and 20% from the adjacent side surround (or a mix between side surround and main in a 5.x.x layout) so that it pulls the imaging over some. That's how it covers the angles. Play the Encounter demo and you should hear smooth arcs that move through. Place the heights too wide and you lose some sense of the arc as it goes overhead. Place them too narrow and you lose the imaging up and down between the layers as the pan happens. It's all about finding the balance where you satisfy both conditions. Dolby's math to confirm angular separation (45 degrees + 1/2 the elevation of the side surround) works great for this in my experience.


pdalton said:


> But now I'm concerned a 5.x.4 system with Rears but NO Sides is going to mess up the processing, then perhaps also installing a couple of very highly positioned Side speakers would be the lesser of two evils.


In a 5.x.x layout, the side surrounds are meant to be behind the MLP a little. When playing back an Atmos track, those "side surrounds" will actually play back the rear surround objects. The objects placed at side surround would then get imaged using both the side surround and the main speaker on that side so that they attempt to image to your sides. Whether they will coherently image there for static sounds depends, but what's more important is that you should still hear pans through the room as if you have side surrounds. So long as you're able to aim the speakers well, you should be able to get decent sidewall imaging. Just follow Dolby's angles for 5.x.x instead of 7.x.x and you're good.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Wardog555 said:


> You have side surrounds not rears. Rears is only possible with 7 channel configuration as you already know.
> 
> You also set your speakers to the surround speaker terminals not the rear ones.
> 
> You confused yourself by calling them rears when they are actually surrounds and/or side surrounds.
> 
> Enjoy!


I think it’s worth noting for clarity that we don’t have rear, or side surrounds until we have a 7ch bed. In a 5ch bed they’re just surrounds.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> But the million dollar question is...
> 
> ...do sounds using the tops really originate from the ceiling and stay there? Or, can they mix in with the sides if they want a wider effect? Aren't we creating a surround bubble from which all angles are covered so sound can be moved around without gaps?


If you put those speakers close enough together, they're one speaker. Do you think that will create a surround bubble with no gaps? If it renders Atmos objects that are set to be 100% on the ceiling (most overhead aircraft, thunder, etc), NO, they will not mix with the sides. Mixing with the sides would also pull them down in elevation. This is the argument I had with Jeremy Anderson and he insisted the renderer knows this and accounts for it as it's hyper-intelligent or something and can use out-of-phase tricks and the like to make up for it. Even Sanjay said that was _nonsense_. The renderer is _not_ intelligent and this has been proven with their own excellent demos where you can easily turn on/off overhead pairs and see what it does. You can listen to find out if it uses lower speakers. It does _not_. It expects a coordinate grid and it uses a grid. If you don't have the speakers at front heigh positions for objects assigned to render there, it renders them at the Tops position instead and moves the sounds into the room (or to Top Middle if it's all you have). The demos prove this is the case. Atmos is more concerned about keeping the sounds above than it is their x/y coordinates because no one wants an airplane at ear level!

Now DTS:X with Neural X attempts to fill in gaps for missing speakers by mixing with nearby speakers (and ironically moist people on here _hate_ that and use "Heights" with their "Tops" speakers because they don't want it doing that with overhead sounds). But Atmos does no such thing. If a sound is fully overhead, it's moved to the nearest set of speakers. It does _not_ mix with the lower bed speakers. The best height layer sounds are _fully_ overhead in Atmos. Do you really want a plane to only be able to fly through the center of your room and not turn more than a couple of feet simply because your room is narrow? Dolby Cinemas aren't narrow! NuSoardgraphite's room _is_ narrow. In other words, Atmos at home shouldn't be directly compared to Atmos at a cinema. Atmos at a cinema has surrounds 20+ feet above your head, not at ear level. Do you want to put your surround speakers at home over 1/2 the way up your side walls to match a Dolby Cinema??? Dolby says put them at ear level at home.

No one I know that cares about movies wants to sit on the left/right extremes of a real theater because of the off-center picture and poor imaging sounds. Putting overheads too narrow at home is the same as making your left/right seats _bad_ seats in terms of audio as my diagram attempts to show.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> In a static object mix, the sounds are effectively pre-panned. So any movement of sound between the layers in the original mix is pre-mixed between those known object points for the printout. With dynamic objects, the Z-axis placement on the sides would determine placement beyond the boundary of the physical placement of the height rows. So for instance, if an object was at 0.8 on the Z-axis on the left side of the virtual room, you'd be getting roughly 80% of the sound from the corresponding height and 20% from the adjacent side surround (or a mix between side surround and main in a 5.x.x layout) so that it pulls the imaging over some.


So you're going to compromise your home theater experience for the sake of Disney "locked" sound mixes? I could just as easily say with proper moving objects, having the speakers too close inward isn't going to align the images with the Atmos renderer expected positions (which expect 0.25x/0.75x the width of the room). Either way, the "real" effect is that the image is going to move inward or outward that distance, whether straight up and down or at a diagonal sloped angle to mixed sounds with the sides so the real question is whether you want "more narrow" overhead sounds in an already narrow room. Not every room is perfect for Atmos. Narrow rooms will have to choose between precision and more pleasurable experience. 

In either case, the solution is not to go "more narrow" with overheads for an already narrow room. Thus, I'm with Dolby on this. The best alignment is to either do 0.25/0.75 x the width of the room because it's the most accurate to the renderer OR align them with the front mains/rear surrounds as Dolby suggests for home systems. Moving them _further inward_ makes no sense at all to me. He plans to have Auro-3D compatibility as well and it expects a top/down alignment, which matches Dolby's alignment with the front mains and rear surrounds.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Polyrythm1k said:


> I think it’s worth noting for clarity that we don’t have rear, or side surrounds until we have a 7ch bed. In a 5ch bed they’re just surrounds.


Yes, that's true, but note that calling them "side surrounds" in 5.1 is a nice way of emphasising to people who often make this newbie mistake for 5.1: "do not connect anything to the 'rear surrounds' speaker terminals!". Repeated use of the term "side" is part of this strategy.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Dolby's math to confirm angular separation (45 degrees + 1/2 the elevation of the side surround) works great for this in my experience.


Where do you add the 1/2 elevation to?


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Where do you add the 1/2 elevation to?


You don't. I get the impression he has no idea what he's talking about. Dolby is the creator of Atmos and this the reference that should be used.

Quoting *Dolby's Home Atmos Installation Guide (page 7):*

(https://Dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf)


_The overhead speakers should be at a height between two and three times the vertical position of the listener-level speakers. _

...

_The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of the left and right speakers placed at +/-30 degrees. If this guidance is followed, the overhead side-to-side separation should be 0.5 to 0.7 the width of the overall layout, depending on the distance to the screen and the front three speakers, relative to the surrounds. _

Note how it says _nothing_ about the width of the room, but the overall layout and 30 degree angle to the MLP. If your mains are near the side walls to make 30 degrees and/or fit the screen width, the overhead layer should be aligned with them at 30 degrees, not screen-left or some other location.

In fact, on page 9 of the guide, it shows the overhead angular range for Tops overheads to be 30-60 degrees (not less than 30 degrees). A later section on Heights on pages 57 and 58 show 30 degrees azimuth relative to the listener.

In a cinema with a large 2.35:1 screen, those speakers may very well be at 30 degrees. In fact, if you use all 34 Atmos home speakers, your mains position will no longer be at 30 degrees, thus necessitating alignment with Left Center, which sits at 30 degrees when left-screen and right-screen speakers are used (15 degrees). Your mains end up at 45 degrees. THAT is why larger setups show alignment of overheads with Left Center instead of Left/Right mains (which align with a 2.35:1 screen edge at 45 degrees rather than a 16:9 one).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Where do you add the 1/2 elevation to?


This is from the mix room guide.







This math is the same theatrically, where side surround elevations are inherently higher due to them having to retro-fit Atmos into existing theaters.







Dolby pushes for ear level at home and I think ideally, you shoot for as close to ear level as possible. But then you also have to consider clearance of seatbacks, etc. Even in rooms where you can hit dead on ear level, it's often advantageous to elevate the rear surrounds for clearance, particularly if you're doing multiple rows of seating. They apply this same math longitudinally to adjust the top front/rear height placement inward to maintain angular separation (as well as top front if you have elevated screen channels, which some home theaters may have if you're doing an AT screen, etc.).







The way I've come to think of what Dolby's doing here is: Imagine you have a ball with a rubber band around the mid-section. That's your ear level speakers. Now above that, you have another rubber band that sits around the top 1/4 of the ball, which is the heights. You want the spacing between those two rubber bands to remain consistent. So say you raise your side surrounds slightly and your rear surrounds a bit more (typical of angled seating in theaters and actually helpful to help with occlusions such as seating in the home). That shifts the bottom rubber band upward at an angle. You then also want to shift the upper rubber band so that the spacing between them is consistent. Just an easy way to visualize it so that you can take a more holistic approach if you'd rather not get hung up on measurements.

Now, this primarily refers to x.x.4 layouts, where I think top front/rear is ideal for keeping good spacing between each adjacent speaker. Using front/rear height leaves an overhead gap, but provides great elevation (and obviously, support for Auro, if you're into that sorta' thing). Naturally, you can address this gap with additional channels or "Scatmos"... but if someone's answer to the best way to use two or four heights is always to keep adding more heights, that's never particularly helpful. 

If you run the numbers on a lot of common room sizes, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of the time, placing the height rows at 1/4 and 3/4 of the layout's width (or 0.5x the layout width apart) tends to put them at a good angular separation even if you've elevated your side surrounds a bit for clearance (because the margins are so small). That's why I keep saying that Dolby should have just used that in the home guideline as the "ideal" target from the jump, since it's simple enough for the average consumer to understand and implement. However, Dolby hasn't even been consistent with their own diagrams, which have actually changed multiple times since they started releasing the home guidelines. So if someone wants to stick with the home guidelines, I get it. Having done it multiple ways, I've had better results using Dolby's more specific guidelines to inform placement. Do it however you can in the space you have. It's all about maximizing what you have available to you.


----------



## appelz

Jeremy is pretty spot on there. The work being done on CEDIA/CTA RP22 should also make some design decisions easier. 

Also, getting all of these speakers properly aimed towards the RSP will matter much more than a speaker being a few degrees off.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> Jeremy is pretty spot on there. The work being done on CEDIA/CTA RP22 should also make some design decisions easier.
> 
> Also, getting all of these speakers properly aimed towards the RSP will matter much more than a speaker being a few degrees off.


No, he isn't. Atmos for the actual movie theaters with surrounds 20 feet above your head is not applicable to their home guidelines, which I've linked and quoted and are quite clear. The only thing he's doing on here is confusing people.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> This is from the mix room guide.


What I'm asking is where do you add the 1/2 E? If it's from the side wall, and my surrounds are at 4ft, then you add another 2ft in from the side wall? This isn't quite possible in my 11 ft wide room. 45° is in fact on the wall, and 55° is about 1.5 feet in from the wall. Doing 2 feet would exceed their max elevation angle, so mine are at 55°.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> What I'm asking is where do you add the 1/2 E? If it's from the side wall, and my surrounds are at 4ft, then you add another 2ft in from the side wall? This isn't quite possible in my 11 ft wide room. 45° is in fact on the wall, and 55° is about 1.5 feet in from the wall. Doing 2 feet would exceed their max elevation angle, so mine are at 55°.


Its degrees, not distance.
So if your surrounds are are 10deg elevation from your seated ears, then the heights should be at 50deg elevation (45 plus 1/2 of 10)


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> Its degrees, not distance.
> So if your surrounds are are 10deg elevation from your seated ears, then the heights should be at 50deg elevation (45 plus 1/2 of 10)


Ok, the surrounds are about 15°, which would be 45+7.5=52.5°.

A correction from my previous post, depending where I measure from my ceiling speakers are currently at 50-52°, so it looks like I nailed it.

I think this room is the minimum you can get away with. My 7.5' stereo triangle leaves about 18" to the sides of the front L&R speakers as well.


----------



## chmorgan

After reading about the Atmos implementation for the movie Mother in this thread I decided to order the disc and hear it for myself. 

I'm only half an hour into it and I am thoroughly impressed. The voice of a person talking and then moving to the side of you and then moving around to the back and then footsteps going up stairs and then more dialog coming from above and all around you because of the echos through the house... it's really fantastic. The LFE at the beginning of the movie was impressive as well. 

I don't have a lot of hope for the movie itself, but the Atmos piece is worth the price of admission.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

The way you all keep talking Mother! up is making me think I should pick it up on the cheap. I first watched it in 5.1, but left it thinking, "What the hell did I just watch?" It was weird even for an Aranofsky flick. But I feel like maybe it's worth a bargain bin pickup just to hear the Atmos track the way people have been talking it up.

I think that and the recent flick Men are the only times that I felt compelled to look up explanations of the movies just to wrap my head around the weirdness I had seen.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The way you all keep talking Mother! up is making me think I should pick it up on the cheap. I first watched it in 5.1, but left it thinking, "What the hell did I just watch?" It was weird even for an Aranofsky flick. But I feel like maybe it's worth a bargain bin pickup just to hear the Atmos track the way people have been talking it up.
> 
> I think that and the recent flick Men are the only times that I felt compelled to look up explanations of the movies just to wrap my head around the weirdness I had seen.


If its as weird as people are saying it will be in second hand bins soon enough and you should be able to get it for under $10


----------



## petetherock

Totally irrelevant, but I had to share this, lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The way you all keep talking Mother! up is making me think I should pick it up on the cheap. I first watched it in 5.1, but left it thinking, "What the hell did I just watch?" It was weird even for an Aranofsky flick. But I feel like maybe it's worth a bargain bin pickup just to hear the Atmos track the way people have been talking it up.
> 
> I think that and the recent flick Men are the only times that I felt compelled to look up explanations of the movies just to wrap my head around the weirdness I had seen.


One of the best atmos mixes. Period.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

X was solid! Felt like what Rob Zombie's throwback flicks should have been to me. Nothing special on the Atmos side, but didn't need to be for what it was. I'm totally down to see Pearl when it comes out.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I think the anti-woke crowd are simply avoiding MEN like the plague. They can easily see it would be a waste of money for them.


----------



## am2model3

watched PREY on hulu this past weekend, 5.1 dd upmixed to DSU Atmos. Wow, it looked and sounded amazing! enjoyable film, lead female actor does a great job. Beautiful scenery in the forest, outdoors, and the sound effects were great in DSU height channels. superb! it was late at night, made me feel like i was outside in the forest with them. = )


----------



## MagnumX

It seems only the 2nd episode of season 3 of *The Orville* is in Atmos so far (rest have been 5.1 DD+). That's both odd and disappointing, almost like someone forgot to set something to enable Atmos on all of them. I double checked with my Apple TV 4K. Both it and the Nvidia Shield had the same result.


----------



## Magiclakez

I’m planning to pull the trigger on Men. The digital version on Apple includes both Dolby vision/atmos. 

I’m wondering if the digital code included with the Blu-ray redeems in Dolby vision and atmos.


----------



## ppasteur

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think the anti-woke crowd are simply avoiding MEN like the plague. They can easily see it would be a waste of money for them.


It was a waste of money...


----------



## MagnumX

I've sent Turbine Media in Germany a contact license request for them to bring an Event Horizon Atmos (and/or Auro-3D) version to market. If anyone else was disappointed by the recent 25th Anniversary 4K release having the same old 5.1 soundtrack, I recommend doing the same. The reason I think there's at least a chance is Pitch Black got an Atmos 4K version a year after Anchor released a 4K 5.1 only version and the Atmos version is vastly superior, IMO. Of course, they may not be able to get a license as I think the 4K version here was from the original studio. I'd settle for a 1080p Atmos version. I could always remux the 4K version at that point.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I've sent Turbine Media in Germany a contact license request for them to bring an Event Horizon Atmos (and/or Auro-3D) version to market. If anyone else was disappointed by the recent 25th Anniversary 4K release having the same old 5.1 soundtrack, I recommend doing the same. The reason I think there's at least a chance is Pitch Black got an Atmos 4K version a year after Anchor released a 4K 5.1 only version and the Atmos version is vastly superior, IMO. Of course, they may not be able to get a license as I think the 4K version here was from the original studio. I'd settle for a 1080p Atmos version. I could always remux the 4K version at that point.


It would be amazing if they could release a dual Auro-3d/ Dolby Atmos version like they did with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Twister and Daylight. 

I picked up 2 copies (one with an alternate artwork) of the limited edition Pitch Black 4k from Turbine. The atmos (along with the 4k DoVi transfer) on Pitch Black is badass.


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched Okja 4k/ criterion last night. The 4k transfer is superb, but the atmos track is what blew me away. Plenty of ambient effects, especially nature sounds which create a wonderful sound bubble. I would place this on the same level as Roma (by Alfonso Cuaron) another criterion Blu-ray with great atmos.


----------



## mjwagner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think the anti-woke crowd are simply avoiding MEN like the plague. They can easily see it would be a waste of money for them.


Politics has no place in the discussion...


----------



## MagnumX

I received a reply from Turbine. They basically said they'd love to do a special edition of *Event Horizon*, but because it's owned by Paramount it will never happen as Paramount refuses to license content to 3rd parties so better luck with the 50th Anniversary edition....


----------



## Soulburner

I got my Sony X800M2 player and did a test using the 4K UHD release of Oblivion, a title I am familiar with.

Unfortunately I have 1 good comment, and 2 negative ones.

First, the bad.

Since these 4K releases are also done in HDR, tone mapping is needed to get them to look decent on a non-HDR display. I am using my Samsung 1080P plasma, which is excellent, but does not do HDR. You do get a warning before proceeding:










The first thing I noticed was the increased contrast and color in all scenes. These are not welcome changes because shadow detail was too dark and detail was hard to see. The colors look unnatural and go beyond the original intent of the film. Adjusting the HDR Conversion to its lightest setting solves much of it, however some extra contrast and color remains compared to the 1080p copy. More detail is visible in the original and it seems more balanced.










Looks like I'll need to get that QD-OLED sooner than I thought.

So what about the sound? After all, the intent of acquiring the Sony X800M2 and some 4K discs was because the Atmos tracks are increasingly being locked away behind the 4K releases. To hear them, this was my only option. I have more bad news here.

In Oblivion 4K UHD, the overall volume level was quieter. I had to increase my MV by 5 to get a similar loudness compared to the original Blu-ray. The worst part though is that the bass is substantially reduced. This Dolby Atmos track does not have nearly the same impact as the original DTS track. For example, when Jack "comes in hot" into the stadium, the room-rumbling effect of the ship is much less impressive. You'll notice this in other areas, too. This was one of my reference demo scenes, but I won't be able to use the Atmos version for this, which is a bummer.

Now, the good news is that the Atmos effects are very nicely done. There is noticeably better dimensionality to the Atmos soundtrack, thanks to placement of sounds. For example, before Jack first departs in the opening scene, his voice comes across an intercom of sorts into the control room. It is placed directly over your head and was a surprise to hear. Other effects are nicely moved about the scenes, better than the original DTS track.

So all in all, Atmos is really nice, but there's less bass impact, and while the video is watchable with the right settings, it isn't the same. The 1080p Blu-ray both looks better and sounds more impactful on my system.


----------



## petetherock

Soulburner said:


> I got my Sony X800M2 player and did a test using the 4K UHD release of Oblivion, a title I am familiar with.
> 
> Unfortunately I have 1 good comment, and 2 negative ones.
> 
> First, the bad.
> 
> Since these 4K releases are also done in HDR, tone mapping is needed to get them to look decent on a non-HDR display. I am using my Samsung 1080P plasma, which is excellent, but does not do HDR. You do get a warning before proceeding:
> 
> View attachment 3322423
> 
> 
> The first thing I noticed was the increased contrast and color in all scenes. These are not welcome changes because shadow detail was too dark and detail was hard to see. The colors look unnatural and go beyond the original intent of the film. Adjusting the HDR Conversion to its lightest setting solves much of it, however some extra contrast and color remains compared to the 1080p copy. More detail is visible in the original and it seems more balanced.
> 
> View attachment 3322424
> 
> 
> Looks like I'll need to get that QD-OLED sooner than I thought.
> 
> So what about the sound? After all, the intent of acquiring the Sony X800M2 and some 4K discs was because the Atmos tracks are increasingly being locked away behind the 4K releases. To hear them, this was my only option. I have more bad news here.
> 
> In Oblivion 4K UHD, the overall volume level was quieter. I had to increase my MV by 5 to get a similar loudness compared to the original Blu-ray. The worst part though is that the bass is substantially reduced. This Dolby Atmos track does not have nearly the same impact as the original DTS track. For example, when Jack "comes in hot" into the stadium, the room-rumbling effect of the ship is much less impressive. You'll notice this in other areas, too. This was one of my reference demo scenes, but I won't be able to use the Atmos version for this, which is a bummer.
> 
> Now, the good news is that the Atmos effects are very nicely done. There is noticeably better dimensionality to the Atmos soundtrack, thanks to placement of sounds. For example, before Jack first departs in the opening scene, his voice comes across an intercom of sorts into the control room. It is placed directly over your head and was a surprise to hear. Other effects are nicely moved about the scenes, better than the original DTS track.
> 
> So all in all, Atmos is really nice, but there's less bass impact, and while the video is watchable with the right settings, it isn't the same. The 1080p Blu-ray both looks better and sounds more impactful on my system.


I am confident you'll find that 4k OLED TV to be a wonderful improvement.. cheers


----------



## Soulburner

petetherock said:


> I am confident you'll find that 4k OLED TV to be a wonderful improvement.. cheers


I am sure of it as well. Unfortunately the only way to counter the bass reductions are 1) BEQ or 2) testing each movie ahead of time and remembering how much I should increase sub levels per movie before showing.

Why are studios doing this to Atmos re-releases?


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I am sure of it as well. Unfortunately the only way to counter the bass reductions are 1) BEQ or 2) testing each movie ahead of time and remembering how much I should increase sub levels per movie before showing.
> 
> Why are studios doing this to Atmos re-releases?


Imho, I feel the Atmos presentation is more balanced. You don’t want the subtle surround and ambient/height effects to get droned out with overpowering LFE. For reference I love the bass in Tron legacy, but I would welcome a 4k release with atmos, even if it means they tame the bass just a tad.


----------



## halcyon_888

Running them hot doesn't really fix the problem, the problem being they apply high pass filter(s) on the lower bass frequencies. Oblivion's Atmos release isn't as bad as some of the Atmos releases out there, but there is a difference between the DTS-MA and Atmos lower frequencies as Soulburner has unfortunately found out already. In the following link, the green dotted line on the graphs is the original response curve. And looking at the heatmap, the Atmos doesn't appear to be as strong as the DTS-MA, even with BEQ:





__





Oblivion - BEQCatalogue







beqcatalogue.readthedocs.io


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I am sure of it as well. Unfortunately the only way to counter the bass reductions are 1) BEQ or 2) testing each movie ahead of time and remembering how much I should increase sub levels per movie before showing.
> 
> Why are studios doing this to Atmos re-releases?


Sound bars don't like deep bass.... Sound bars are the #1 market target for movie studios because the represent the vast majority of the market. 

The High-End used to be the center of the so-called Halo effect they catered to, hoping to get people excited in home theater (THX baby!). But that was 10+ years ago. The whole world has changed drastically since then because of smart phones, streaming and new "viewpoints" on long standing issues that turn things on their head. 

NOW they see the high-end (most of which we used to call "mid-fi" in terms of cost at least, but now means anything beyond a sound bar or ear buds) as a bunch of extremist fanatics that are too small a market segment to care about. Not buying a blu-ray doesn't say, "Improve your quality" to them. It says, "Physical discs are dead!" to them. You can't win.

Let's face it. No one was interested in home theater before except us fanatics. TVs used to have larger speakers until flat screens came along and hence the invention of the sound bar. 1080p and 4K and cheap large screens and streaming have created a new larger market for movies, but it's not a home theater market per se. It's a movie at home market and Covid speed that up even more. It's not about the experience, just giant-arse TVs.

So who cares about bass? "Fanatics". They're probably less than 2% of the overall market. Maybe 0.2% if you look at all consumers with TVs over 57". And not all home theater enthusiasts can play deep/loud enough bass to notice either, so you're really talking about a sub-section of home theater at that.

I've argued for cinema/theatrical tracks as options with movies. There's plenty of space on both UHDs and streaming, but the sad fact is they just don't care about 0.2%. We need the equivalent of MasterSound for movies. But if the studios won't license the movies (See Paramount and Event Horizon), there's nothing we can do. We're too small for them to care period.


----------



## Soulburner

We don't want the theatrical soundtrack at home. We want the home entertainment mix, which is designed to be played at our levels so dialogue is intelligible and which doesn't include any kind of X curve for huge rooms.

The two sound engineers that are active at ASR have both said sound bars are not a consideration when they do their HE mixes. Sure that's only two studios, but it at least tells me that we can't easily make blanket statements.



Magiclakez said:


> Imho, I feel the Atmos presentation is more balanced. You don’t want the subtle surround and ambient/height effects to get droned out with overpowering LFE. For reference I love the bass in Tron legacy, but I would welcome a 4k release with atmos, even if it means they tame the bass just a tad.


Heresy.


----------



## fatherom

@Soulburner have you considered running BEQ (like the other poster alluded to)? That would restore the bass in most Atmos soundtracks.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> We don't want the theatrical soundtrack at home. We want the home entertainment mix, which is designed to be played at our levels so dialogue is intelligible and which doesn't include any kind of X curve for huge rooms.


The don't have to have the X-Curve in them; they just need to stop screwing with dynamic range and other things along the way. I find it ironic you're unhappy with what they do to bass at home, but apparently don't give a crap about dynamic range (traded for dialog intelligibility as you think of it). It doesn't have to be specifically sound bars, but the overall impression that people at home don't want theatrical presentations including theatrical levels, deep bass and dynamic range. Like I said, make it a high-end mix and prioritize it as a secondary soundtrack and then everyone can be happy. But apparently you'd rather defend the status quo even if it means screwing with bass extension. 

If you heard the Cinema DTS version of The Matrix in key scenes compared to the new Atmos mix, I guarantee you'd change your mind. It's night and day. 

Try the Auro-3D mix of Twister VS the Atmos mix. It's the same difference in dialog versus sound effect levels. The Auro-3D mix is using theatrical levels and the Atmos version has sound effects turned down 8dB in favor of dialog. The irony is that dialog is fine on the Auro-3D version. The sound effects are only loud during the action sequences. But it's the difference between "that's great" and "Holy Crap that's scary!" (matching dialog at a comfortable level). 80% louder sounding sheet metal being ripped off a barn is no _small_ difference. It's the same thing with The Matrix. The hovership backing into place to hide from the Squidees is amazing in theatrical DTS. It's just OK in the old DD and newer Atmos soundtracks. The X-Curve isn't present on either.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I find it ironic you're unhappy with what they do to bass at home


Non sequitur – that issue only exists with some of the newer Atmos soundtracks, seemingly not with the original mixes or so far it seems. They are obviously capable of putting out great soundtracks.



MagnumX said:


> but apparently don't give a crap about dynamic range (traded for dialog intelligibility as you think of it). It doesn't have to be specifically sound bars, but the overall impression that people at home don't want theatrical presentations including theatrical levels, deep bass and dynamic range.


The reason you don't want a theatrical mix is because it's made to be played at theater reference level. The sensitivity of our hearing is such that the way they set their levels, everything is intelligible (unless it's from Christopher Nolan). That changes when we play the same content at lower levels in our homes, because dialogue drops below where we want it to be. The curve is adjusted so that balance is maintained at what is usually (as far as I know) an 82-85 dB target, +/-.

Forget all of that if you plan on playing at 105 dB at home, and keep asking for the original mix. But don't expect your hearing to thank you. 

Now I'm not saying they can't botch one along the way. But you understand the reasons for the different mixes.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I got my Sony X800M2 player and did a test using the 4K UHD release of Oblivion, a title I am familiar with.
> 
> Unfortunately I have 1 good comment, and 2 negative ones.
> 
> First, the bad.
> 
> Since these 4K releases are also done in HDR, tone mapping is needed to get them to look decent on a non-HDR display. I am using my Samsung 1080P plasma, which is excellent, but does not do HDR. You do get a warning before proceeding:
> 
> View attachment 3322423
> 
> 
> The first thing I noticed was the increased contrast and color in all scenes. These are not welcome changes because shadow detail was too dark and detail was hard to see. The colors look unnatural and go beyond the original intent of the film. Adjusting the HDR Conversion to its lightest setting solves much of it, however some extra contrast and color remains compared to the 1080p copy. More detail is visible in the original and it seems more balanced.
> 
> View attachment 3322424
> 
> 
> Looks like I'll need to get that QD-OLED sooner than I thought.
> 
> So what about the sound? After all, the intent of acquiring the Sony X800M2 and some 4K discs was because the Atmos tracks are increasingly being locked away behind the 4K releases. To hear them, this was my only option. I have more bad news here.
> 
> In Oblivion 4K UHD, the overall volume level was quieter. I had to increase my MV by 5 to get a similar loudness compared to the original Blu-ray. The worst part though is that the bass is substantially reduced. This Dolby Atmos track does not have nearly the same impact as the original DTS track. For example, when Jack "comes in hot" into the stadium, the room-rumbling effect of the ship is much less impressive. You'll notice this in other areas, too. This was one of my reference demo scenes, but I won't be able to use the Atmos version for this, which is a bummer.
> 
> Now, the good news is that the Atmos effects are very nicely done. There is noticeably better dimensionality to the Atmos soundtrack, thanks to placement of sounds. For example, before Jack first departs in the opening scene, his voice comes across an intercom of sorts into the control room. It is placed directly over your head and was a surprise to hear. Other effects are nicely moved about the scenes, better than the original DTS track.
> 
> So all in all, Atmos is really nice, but there's less bass impact, and while the video is watchable with the right settings, it isn't the same. The 1080p Blu-ray both looks better and sounds more impactful on my system.


You'll find the bass impact all over the place. Some will have it. Others wont. And then there is Disney.

You will find that DTS:X consistently has more bass impact, but then again those soundtracks are few and far between.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> We don't want the theatrical soundtrack at home. We want the home entertainment mix, which is designed to be played at our levels so dialogue is intelligible and which doesn't include any kind of X curve for huge rooms.


 Well then check out an Imax Enhanced disc, which are supposed to have the theatrical IMAX mix on the disc and compare. Most of the reviews I have seen for IE discs, the sound almost always gets a 5/5.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well then check out an Imax Enhanced disc, which are supposed to have the theatrical IMAX mix on the disc and compare. Most of the reviews I have seen for IE discs, the sound almost always gets a 5/5.


I'm sure it's great as they have high standards.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Non sequitur – that issue only exists with some of the newer Atmos soundtracks, seemingly not with the original mixes or so far it seems. They are obviously capable of putting out great soundtracks.
> 
> 
> The reason you don't want a theatrical mix is because it's made to be played at theater reference level. The sensitivity of our hearing is such that the way they set their levels, everything is intelligible (unless it's from Christopher Nolan). That changes when we play the same content at lower levels in our homes, because dialogue drops below where we want it to be. The curve is adjusted so that balance is maintained at what is usually (as far as I know) an 82-85 dB target, +/-.
> 
> Forget all of that if you plan on playing at 105 dB at home, and keep asking for the original mix. But don't expect your hearing to thank you.
> 
> Now I'm not saying they can't botch one along the way. But you understand the reasons for the different mixes.


For someone that likes bass, I find it odd that you're apparently afraid of theatrical levels. Have you never watched movies at a real theater before? Did you go deaf? 

Theatrical mixes do _not_ play at 105dB. They average 85dB. 105dB is the maximum _peak_ level. That means a momentary explosion, not 2 hours of it. I typically watch between -8dB and -3dB at home depending on how much they altered the dialog/effect levels. I should be able to just set and forget since movies have an actual standard for levels, but these "home mixes" in the past 20 years (especially the past 10) have changed that. It's _almost_ as bad as music albums these days.

Besides, all AVRs since the 1990s have has a compression mode (sometimes called night mode). Audyssey offers dynamic EQ for reduced volume levels and there's typically a dialog enhancement and/or center adjustment mode as well.

Personally, I didn't install a 17.1 speaker surround system (soon to be 21.2 if everything goes well with the upgrades) because I think Disney 'AtMissing' soundtracks are good enough. Other than Marvel, I have very few Disney movies. While Disney may be the worst offender, that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the industry to higher standards.


----------



## MagnumX

It seems someone at Disney+ is paying attention. All the episodes of The Orville Season 3 are now playing with Dolby Atmos,not just one or two including all the episodes I already watched.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Soulburner said:


> The two sound engineers that are active at ASR have both said sound bars are not a consideration when they do their HE mixes.


That's excellent to hear. Made my day! Thanks


----------



## eaayoung

MagnumX said:


> It seems someone at Disney+ is paying attention. All the episodes of The Orville Season 3 are now playing with Dolby Atmos,not just one or two including all the episodes I already watched.


Odd, I’m not getting Atmos on my Sony A80J Disney+ app but do get it via my ATV4k. And Dolby Vision Dark on my A80J seems to be improved since a firmware update.


----------



## cricket9998

MagnumX said:


> For someone that likes bass, I find it odd that you're apparently afraid of theatrical levels. Have you never watched movies at a real theater before? Did you go deaf?
> 
> Theatrical mixes do _not_ play at 105dB. They average 85dB. 105dB is the maximum _peak_ level. That means a momentary explosion, not 2 hours of it. I typically watch between -8dB and -3dB at home depending on how much they altered the dialog/effect levels. I should be able to just set and forget since movies have an actual standard for levels, but these "home mixes" in the past 20 years (especially the past 10) have changed that. It's _almost_ as bad as music albums these days.
> 
> Besides, all AVRs since the 1990s have has a compression mode (sometimes called night mode). Audyssey offers dynamic EQ for reduced volume levels and there's typically a dialog enhancement and/or center adjustment mode as well.
> 
> Personally, I didn't install a 17.1 speaker surround system (soon to be 21.2 if everything goes well with the upgrades) because I think Disney 'AtMissing' soundtracks are good enough. Other than Marvel, I have very few Disney movies. While Disney may be the worst offender, that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the industry to higher standards.


Atmiss is a great way to describe Disney mixes! I do hope studios stop ruining home cinema releases but until then, we have beq. I avoided it for a while but ended up just getting a minidsp hd. There’s even a program here to completely automate it. I plan on writing a tool that can read what’s playing on Plex and automatically load the beq profile into my dsp so I don’t have to do anything manually.


----------



## bobbyhollywood

MagnumX said:


> I received a reply from Turbine. They basically said they'd love to do a special edition of *Event Horizon*, but because it's owned by Paramount it will never happen as Paramount refuses to license content to 3rd parties


That will be news to Kino, who have released several Paramount titles this year, with others upcoming.


----------



## MagnumX

bobbyhollywood said:


> That will be news to Kino, who have released several Paramount titles this year, with others upcoming.


Maybe you'd care to share that with Turbine.

Here's a copy of the reply:




> Many thanks for your email.
> 
> Great title that would definitely deserve a proper re-release but unfortunately this is a Paramount title, hence impossible to license. Sorry.
> 
> Best,
> Levko Kondratjuk
> Operations Manager


----------



## Chirosamsung

I'm just halfway through the first episode of Sandman on Netflix and so far I'm not impressed with the atmos sound (very quiet show-need to turn it up quite a lot) or the video (it's really really dark even on my A90J).

is it just me? Should I continue or does it not get any better?


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm just halfway through the first episode of Sandman on Netflix and so far I'm not impressed with the atmos sound (very quiet show-need to turn it up quite a lot) or the video (it's really really dark even on my A90J).
> 
> is it just me? Should I continue or does it not get any better?


I'm 3 episodes in and haven't noticed one Atmos effect. If it happened then I missed it. Yesterday when I began watching the 3rd episode I had the DTS:Neural:X upmixer on at the beginning titles and thought, "wow the titles have good Atmos...." Oops.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm just halfway through the first episode of Sandman on Netflix and so far I'm not impressed with the atmos sound (very quiet show-need to turn it up quite a lot) or the video (it's really really dark even on my A90J).
> 
> is it just me? Should I continue or does it not get any better?


The show itself is pretty good if you like esoteric supernatural stuff. I say watch it for the story. On my TCL 6 series, it didnt seem too dark but thats a 1000 nit tv with some pretty decent tone mapping so I dont usually have issues with low APL.


----------



## dschulz

Re: Sandman - anyone else bothered by the really obvious anamorphic distortion? Netflix claims it was deliberate, a choice to make the images look more dreamlike, but it genuinely looks to me like a mistake, a mismatch between the optical squeeze from the lens choice and the unsqueeze done in post.


----------



## MagnumX

By contrast, I've noticed a lot of overhead effects on The Orville Season 3. The ship intercom images partway between my Front Heights and Top Middle speakers, about where Top Front speakers would be if I had gone that way. Ship maneuvering and fight sequences are all over the place. It's pretty good for a TV show.


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm just halfway through the first episode of Sandman on Netflix and so far I'm not impressed with the atmos sound (very quiet show-need to turn it up quite a lot) or the video (it's really really dark even on my A90J).
> 
> is it just me? Should I continue or does it not get any better?


I watched the entire season in 3 days. The 1st episode is like an ice breaker, but it ramps up subsequently. Don’t expect “in your face” atmos. There is some good ambience and surround activity, especially when he visits other “realms.” This is a dialogue heavy /driven show, but the action scenes are well captured on all the height/surround channels. The dialogues seem more audible and clear thru the ATV, compared to the shield. I was forced to switch to the Shield for the last few episodes, as I couldn’t stand the frequent audio dropouts on the ATV. 

The LFE (whenever it kicks in) seems juiced up, quite like what they did with strangers things and Locke and keys. This is something of a new development on Netflix shows these days, but I’m not complaining.


----------



## halcyon_888

dschulz said:


> Re: Sandman - anyone else bothered by the really obvious anamorphic distortion? Netflix claims it was deliberate, a choice to make the images look more dreamlike, but it genuinely looks to me like a mistake, a mismatch between the optical squeeze from the lens choice and the unsqueeze done in post.


It bugged me during the first 2 episodes, and I did have to pause it at some point and research if there was something technically wrong with it but I found the same information by Netflix that you did. By the 3rd episode I was used to it being part of the aesthetic of the show.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> By contrast, I've noticed a lot of overhead effects on The Orville Season 3. The ship intercom images partway between my Front Heights and Top Middle speakers, about where Top Front speakers would be if I had gone that way. Ship maneuvering and fight sequences are all over the place. It's pretty good for a TV show.


I will have to check and see if the Orville on my platform has Atmos


----------



## Soulburner

This thread is starting to throw a lot of forum errors. Coincidentally, the post count is 65490, very close to the 65,536 limit in an Excel spreadsheet (old .xls format) and a limitation in some databases.


----------



## Mike Lang

Submitted for a look from the team.


----------



## Soulburner

Mike Lang said:


> Submitted for a look from the team.


Thanks.

Specifically, when clicking into it via the thread title, you get an Oops! message.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> This thread is starting to throw a lot of forum errors. Coincidentally, the post count is 65490, very close to the 65,536 limit in an Excel spreadsheet (old .xls format) and a limitation in some databases.


Time for Part 2


----------



## terzaghi

I am looking to expand my 5.1 setup. I plan to add Dolby atmos front height speakers. Is it possible to mount these on the wall near the ceiling, and use direct radiating speakers pointed toward the listening position? They would be on the front wall and in line with the main fronts. This would be instead of ceiling speakers or atmos enabled upward firing front speakers. My setup is in my living room and I have high 12 foot vaulted ceiling. Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

terzaghi said:


> I am looking to expand my 5.1 setup. I plan to add Dolby atmos front height speakers. Is it possible to mount these on the wall near the ceiling, and use direct radiating speakers pointed toward the listening position? They would be on the front wall and in line with the main fronts. This would be instead of ceiling speakers or atmos enabled upward firing front speakers. My setup is in my living room and I have high 12 foot vaulted ceiling. Thanks!


Yes, you can do that and with a tall ceiling, you should have plenty of separation between layers in the front.

However, overhead sounds will be more or less limited to the front of the room only. Most people seem to prefer Top Middle with only one pair as directly overhead is typically more impressive sounding , but that's difficult with a vaulted ceiling (you can mount them high on the side walls if the room isn't too wide) or eventually adding rear heights/tops will allow front to back panning. 

Regardless, some Atmos is still generally better than no Atmos.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> By contrast, I've noticed a lot of overhead effects on The Orville Season 3. The ship intercom images partway between my Front Heights and Top Middle speakers, about where Top Front speakers would be if I had gone that way. Ship maneuvering and fight sequences are all over the place. It's pretty good for a TV show.


Interestingly enough, The Orville is in Atmos on Disney+ on my RokuTV, but its not in HDR or Dolby Vision.

Weird.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Interestingly enough, The Orville is in Atmos on Disney+ on my RokuTV, but its not in HDR or Dolby Vision.
> 
> Weird.


I'm using a scaler for my older 1080p projector so I didn't notice one way or the other (in 4K mode it only shows 4K HDR at most here regardless), but I have Apple TV 4K as well, so if it is available in DV, I'm sure that would be the best one to try. I seem to recall some bugs reported awhile back, but then supposedly the July update to Disney+ on the Shield screwed Atmos for most. I checked the version numbers. I apparently never installed that update and have no plans to now.


----------



## Worf

MagnumX said:


> Maybe you'd care to share that with Turbine.
> 
> Here's a copy of the reply:


No reason both cannot be true. Paramount made a deal with Kino for catalog releases, but it also means as part if that deal Kino gets exclusivity to the catalog, or right to first refusal. To turbine either will be paramount not wanting to license to them.


----------



## petetherock

Just enjoyed a few episodes of "Midnight Mass" and not only does it have very good Atmos, the bass is something else too.
Horror movies have always been good demo material, far more than actioners with bass if you ask me. The genre isn't for everyone, but good horror/supernatural shows use bass to good effect to add tension and man, there is tension so thick here, you can cut it with a knife.
Recommended for those who don't mind a slower plot, but enjoy a good soundtrack.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> Just enjoyed a few episodes of "Midnight Mass" and not only does it have very good Atmos, the bass is something else too.
> Horror movies have always been good demo material, far more than actioners with bass if you ask me. The genre isn't for everyone, but good horror/supernatural shows use bass to good effect to add tension and man, there is tension so thick here, you can cut it with a knife.
> Recommended for those who don't mind a slower plot, but enjoy a good soundtrack.


Yeah, Netflix has been knocking it outta the park for a little while now. I wish Disney would implement something like what Netflix has.


----------



## dschulz

petetherock said:


> Just enjoyed a few episodes of "Midnight Mass" and not only does it have very good Atmos, the bass is something else too.
> Horror movies have always been good demo material, far more than actioners with bass if you ask me. The genre isn't for everyone, but good horror/supernatural shows use bass to good effect to add tension and man, there is tension so thick here, you can cut it with a knife.
> Recommended for those who don't mind a slower plot, but enjoy a good soundtrack.


All of the Mike Flanagan shows have had great sound design - The Haunting of Hill House, The Haunting of Bly Manor, Midnight Mass - and of course his feature film, Doctor Sleep. He has a new one dropping this October on Netflix, The Midnight Club.


----------



## MagnumX

Worf said:


> No reason both cannot be true. Paramount made a deal with Kino for catalog releases, but it also means as part if that deal Kino gets exclusivity to the catalog, or right to first refusal. To turbine either will be paramount not wanting to license to them.


That could be, but looking at Kino's website, I don't see many modern titles on there at all so it doesn't seem like there's much overlap (i.e. I doubt Kino will be doing a special edition of Pitch Black any time this century) so exclusivity seems like a very limiting thing for Paramount to do with a company that's not using their full catalog. Or perhaps Paramount wants to keep all the newer releases to themselves, to which the lack of Atmos on their new 4K Event Horizon is a major oversight for the type of film it is. I doubt it's Anderson refusing a newer soundtrack as his newer movies (e.g. Monster Hunter) as well as older titles (Resident Evil 4K box set in UK) got Atmos soundtracks.

Anchor got Pitch Black originally and a year later Turbine was able to get it. Only Turbine had an Atmos soundtrack. Oddly, with Candyman, Turbine's 4K release was 5.1, but Shout Factory's version was Atmos. I don't know if those involve separate licensing as it seems odd Turbine would forgo Atmos on such titles given a choice, but it's annoying to the consumer. I know sometimes they aren't allowed to do a new soundtrack, but clearly with these two titles something else was going on since each had an Atmos release the other didn't have. At least those studios don't limit their options for licensing.


----------



## terzaghi

MagnumX said:


> Yes, you can do that and with a tall ceiling, you should have plenty of separation between layers in the front.
> 
> However, overhead sounds will be more or less limited to the front of the room only. Most people seem to prefer Top Middle with only one pair as directly overhead is typically more impressive sounding , but that's difficult with a vaulted ceiling (you can mount them high on the side walls if the room isn't too wide) or eventually adding rear heights/tops will allow front to back panning.
> 
> Regardless, some Atmos is still generally better than no Atmos.


great, thank you for the thoughtful response. Let me try to ask this another way with a couple photos, advice from any is much appreciated! My setup and room is below, what would be best way to do an atmos setup here in your opinion, and is there room for the back upper atmos as well perhaps? My couch is a couple feet off the back wall currently. Rearranging the furniture or rotating the room layout is not really an option (WAF  )


----------



## Soulburner

You'll definitely want to sit on the end of that couch where you don't have any wall behind you, and if you can get some acoustic art absorption panels on the wall and in that corner they may be wife approved. Otherwise your system is in a good place, meaning you have open space around it. What about to the sides? Can you get equal surround speaker placement?


----------



## terzaghi

Reflective paneling on the back wall is probably no problem, especially if there is some that is somewhat artsy. Suggestions on where to look?

What exactly do you mean by equal surround speaker placement? my side surrounds for 5.1 are maybe 1 - 1.5 behind my listening position and maybe 6.5 feet off the ground. They are quad polar axiom qs8’s that have given good side surround but also some simulation of back/ overhead surround in a way in the traditional 5.1 setupover the years with them placed this way.

My first thought was to add some Dolby atmos front heights like I described and add a second sub and leave the rest as is. If there is a way to incorporate maybe another pair of Dolby speakers in here (moving side surrounds ok too) then I would be open to it.



Thanks again!


----------



## Soulburner

terzaghi said:


> Reflective paneling on the back wall is probably no problem, especially if there is some that is somewhat artsy. Suggestions on where to look?


Here's a reputable one: Acoustic Art Panels - GIK Acoustics - Canvas Art that Reduces Noise

There are also DIY approaches if you're handy and would like to save money.



terzaghi said:


> What exactly do you mean by equal surround speaker placement?


I mean we can't see to the sides in those pictures, so is there room for side surrounds on both sides at roughly the recommended placement?

And just so you know, Dolby doesn't recommend dipolar speakers in immersive audio. Ideally they would be monopolar or bipolar as those can still create a believable sound image as things move around the room.

For the overheads, the best you can do is two on the rear wall pointing down to you (rear height), and two about 45 degrees forward of your seat (top front).


----------



## Magiclakez

terzaghi said:


> great, thank you for the thoughtful response. Let me try to ask this another way with a couple photos, advice from any is much appreciated! My setup and room is below, what would be best way to do an atmos setup here in your opinion, and is there room for the back upper atmos as well perhaps? My couch is a couple feet off the back wall currently. Rearranging the furniture or rotating the room layout is not really an option (WAF  )
> 
> View attachment 3323353
> 
> 
> View attachment 3323354


You could have 2 front height (direct radiating speakers) on the front wall above the tv, and 2 on the sides where there is a slope, like soleburner was probably alluding to. 

On another note, seeing the ground clearance of the tv, did you ever consider placing an identical tower speaker as the center channel?


----------



## MagnumX

terzaghi said:


> great, thank you for the thoughtful response. Let me try to ask this another way with a couple photos, advice from any is much appreciated! My setup and room is below, what would be best way to do an atmos setup here in your opinion, and is there room for the back upper atmos as well perhaps?


Seeing as the overhead ceiling is flat in the central portion, you could actually do in-ceiling or on-ceiling speakers in that room, even six overhead with the right receiver. Hiding cables without going into the attic space could possibly be an issue (if you can get above there in such a space, it's more ideal to do a clean looking install), although they do make flat wire that is easily disguised. 

You could even do front heights high on the front wall and Top Middle mid-way across the room and rear heights or tops higher above the existing surrounds or on the ceiling. It all depends on what install work you're willing to do and how much you're willing to spend.

Your existing surround speakers can work. They could be lowered a bit, but with the high ceiling, it's not really an issue getting good separation between layers.


----------



## Wardog555

terzaghi said:


> great, thank you for the thoughtful response. Let me try to ask this another way with a couple photos, advice from any is much appreciated! My setup and room is below, what would be best way to do an atmos setup here in your opinion, and is there room for the back upper atmos as well perhaps? My couch is a couple feet off the back wall currently. Rearranging the furniture or rotating the room layout is not really an option (WAF  )
> 
> View attachment 3323353
> 
> 
> View attachment 3323354


Review all options carefully. Don't do front height as the first option. Keep it later in the list. On ceiling and in ceiling is first option always.
The only concern about front heights is the angle is potentially too low to achieve Dolby atmos properly. 

If you have 2 atmos the recommendation is just in front of seating position on the ceiling. 

If you have 4 it's in the 45-55 degrees angle front pair and 125-135 rear pair.

You may need to move the couch away from the wall to reach the right angle which often you would. Don't let waf interfere. 

Your side surrounds look a bit too high aswell. 
Closer to ear level is best.

Hope this helps.


----------



## MagnumX

Wardog555 said:


> Review all options carefully. Don't do front height as the first option. Keep it later in the list. *On ceiling and in ceiling is first option always*.
> The only concern about front heights is the angle is potentially too low to achieve Dolby atmos properly.


I would say Heights + Top Middle is better than Tops alone, but Tops are better with only 4 speakers overhead, but of course that's my _opinion_.



> If you have 2 atmos the recommendation is just in front of seating position on the ceiling.


*Dolby*'s recommendation is actually 90-110 degrees overhead. I'm using 110 (relative to the middle front row MLP) for Top Middle because I have a 3 row room based alignment and it's still excellent with Top Middle only material like Ready Player One from all three rows, actually. He can move his couch after the fact within Dolby's range, if need be.

In fact, with a room based alignment (Six overheads evenly spaced across the ceiling and floor speakers the same), he can place his couch or any other seats anywhere in the room and it will image properly.



> Don't let waf interfere.


That's actually funny.


----------



## GooberedUp

The last thing it is is funny.


----------



## petetherock

Midnight Mass is highly recommended:








Midnight Mass Netflix Series Review


Shows that involve religion can be very straight jacket affairs or the presence of a church is just a background setting for someone in it, ...




peteswrite.blogspot.com


----------



## petetherock

terzaghi said:


> Reflective paneling on the back wall is probably no problem, especially if there is some that is somewhat artsy. Suggestions on where to look?
> 
> What exactly do you mean by equal surround speaker placement? my side surrounds for 5.1 are maybe 1 - 1.5 behind my listening position and maybe 6.5 feet off the ground. They are quad polar axiom qs8’s that have given good side surround but also some simulation of back/ overhead surround in a way in the traditional 5.1 setupover the years with them placed this way.
> 
> My first thought was to add some Dolby atmos front heights like I described and add a second sub and leave the rest as is. If there is a way to incorporate maybe another pair of Dolby speakers in here (moving side surrounds ok too) then I would be open to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again!


Nice home, maybe you can try these suspended speakers for the Atmos channels:








Droplet - A'Diva | Gallo Acoustics


Droplet A’Diva pendant loudspeaker - single Stylish pendant version of our acclaimed A’Diva design. Featuring a 5” all-metal spherical enclosure, 3” custom-designed driver and redesigned terminal area. Supplied with 2m of speaker cable and ceiling rose kit (includes both black and white...




galloacoustics.com




Also if you can close off the passage to the kitchen or add some absorption - it will be good otherwise there's some imbalance between the left and right side.. cheers


----------



## niterida

sloped ceilings are perfect for Atmos.
Stick with 5.1.2 since you can't move your seating off the back wall.
Put your in ceiling (or mounted bookshelfs) in roughly these positions (just a foot or so in front of your ears) :


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> sloped ceilings are perfect for Atmos.
> Stick with 5.1.2 since you can't move your seating off the back wall.
> Put your in ceiling (or mounted bookshelfs) in roughly these positions (just a foot or so in front of your ears) :
> View attachment 3323513


Personally, I'd say it's too hard to mount to a sloped ceiling. I'd put them on the flat ceiling part above and I'd definitely go with at least 4 overheads (6 would be better yet). He could even mount the overheads above the couch high on the rear wall if that makes the install easier. It won't make any real functional difference with that high of a ceiling (losing a few inches). 

There's nothing wrong with having the couch near the back set of speakers in an overhead 4 or 6 speaker system. My 3rd row is in the back and the helicopter demo sounds pretty sweet with a 20 foot forward travel in the oval pattern. It actually sounds different from all three rows, but cool just the same. If he pulls the couch out from the wall a couple of feet, he can center 4 above the couch area on the ceiling for an all Tops setup. That ceiling actually gives a lot of mounting options since it's so high. The rear wall would be well above most people's in-ceiling locations. I'd also lower the existing surrounds about 2 feet or so, but given the massive ceiling height there, they'd work OK where they're at too.


----------



## anjunadeep

niterida said:


> sloped ceilings are perfect for Atmos.
> Stick with 5.1.2 since you can't move your seating off the back wall.
> Put your in ceiling (or mounted bookshelfs) in roughly these positions (just a foot or so in front of your ears) :
> View attachment 3323513


Seconding this suggestion. Just eye-ballin' it, it looks like the angles if in-ceiling speakers were used would be within Dolby spec also. I'd also drop the surrounds to about 1ft above the couch. If the wife will let you, adding some absorption behind the couch on that partial wall would be great too.


----------



## terzaghi

Wardog555 said:


> Review all options carefully. Don't do front height as the first option. Keep it later in the list. On ceiling and in ceiling is first option always.
> The only concern about front heights is the angle is potentially too low to achieve Dolby atmos properly.
> 
> If you have 2 atmos the recommendation is just in front of seating position on the ceiling.
> 
> If you have 4 it's in the 45-55 degrees angle front pair and 125-135 rear pair.
> 
> You may need to move the couch away from the wall to reach the right angle which often you would. Don't let waf interfere.
> 
> Your side surrounds look a bit too high aswell.
> Closer to ear level is best.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thanks all. I think 4 in ceiling speakers is an easy choice and lowering surrounds a bit and slightly more forward is no problem. Couch is a couple feet off the wall and can go up slightly. I’ll likely add a second sub to take full advantage of my onkyo rz 50


----------



## halcyon_888

niterida said:


> sloped ceilings are perfect for Atmos.
> Stick with 5.1.2 since you can't move your seating off the back wall.
> Put your in ceiling (or mounted bookshelfs) in roughly these positions (just a foot or so in front of your ears) :
> View attachment 3323513


Yup lower the surrounds and put the height speakers where the red circles are, his ceiling width and angle is perfect for placing the heights there. Nice idea!


----------



## Rich 63

terzaghi said:


> Thanks all. I think 4 in ceiling speakers is an easy choice and lowering surrounds a bit and slightly more forward is no problem. Couch is a couple feet off the wall and can go up slightly. I’ll likely add a second sub to take full advantage of my onkyo rz 50


Could you tell us how far from the front soundstage you sit? It looks like your quite far.


----------



## terzaghi

Rich 63 said:


> Could you tell us how far from the front soundstage you sit? It looks like your quite far.


about 12 feet from speaker fronts to ear. My fronts are about 10 feet apart. I used to have my sectional further up and coffee table, but we moved things back when kids came around for more room.


----------



## terzaghi

terzaghi said:


> about 12 feet from speaker fronts to ear. My fronts are about 10 feet apart. I used to have my sectional further up and coffee table, but we moved things back when kids came around for more room. Unfortunate downside of no dedicated theater room is there are other factors that determine “optimal” layout …


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Yup lower the surrounds and put the height speakers where the red circles are, his ceiling width and angle is perfect for placing the heights there. Nice idea!


After certain people arguing that @NuSoardGraphite should put his overhead speakers _inward_ further than the main speakers in his already narrow room, now people are arguing @terzaghi should put his overhead speakers _wider_ than the mains (which he has right inside the part where the ceiling is flat)? Has anyone seen Dolby's recommendation that they're inline with the main speakers at 30 degrees or are we just making up arbitrary locations for speakers now?


----------



## terzaghi

MagnumX said:


> After certain people arguing that @NuSoardGraphite should put his overhead speakers _inward_ further than the main speakers in his already narrow room, now people are arguing @terzaghi should put his overhead speakers _wider_ than the mains (which he has right inside the part where the ceiling is flat)? Has anyone seen Dolby's recommendation that they're inline with the main speakers at 30 degrees or are we just making up arbitrary locations for speakers now?


 Yes, I will plan to put them on flat ceiling as that is in line with the mains per the Sony atmos schematics I reviewed. I was hoping to get away with just mounting a set on front wall but after more researching and comments here it won’t be that bad to climb around in my attic and wire up and install on the ceiling


----------



## Soulburner

terzaghi said:


> Yes, I will plan to put them on flat ceiling as that is in line with the mains per the Sony atmos schematics I reviewed. I was hoping to get away with just mounting a set on front wall but after more researching and comments here it won’t be that bad to climb around in my attic and wire up and install on the ceiling


It very much depends on your setup. I would instead have a look at this document:


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched Star Trek: The motion picture (Director’s edition), on Paramount + last night. They did a really good job with the atmos implementation, for such an old film. The 4k/ DoVi transfer was a nice touch as well.

I look forward to seeing the director’s edition complete adventure, on physical media when it comes out next month.


----------



## anjunadeep

How does this look for an Atmos height configuration from a vertical perspective?

The rear heights I can adjust accordingly because it falls behind the false rear wall (I'm doing a front and rear false wall) so I can even mount it below the ceiling if needed. Looks like I need to drop the surrounds slightly...


----------



## Wardog555

MagnumX said:


> After certain people arguing that @NuSoardGraphite should put his overhead speakers _inward_ further than the main speakers in his already narrow room, now people are arguing @terzaghi should put his overhead speakers _wider_ than the mains (which he has right inside the part where the ceiling is flat)? Has anyone seen Dolby's recommendation that they're inline with the main speakers at 30 degrees or are we just making up arbitrary locations for speakers now?


it doesn't say its exactly the same as the front. so yeah there's that


----------



## galonzo

Looks great, @anjunadeep !

I'm in a 17.5' room, with seating beginning where the MLP is dead-center at half that distance, and 90° to the surrounds when in my reclined position (I ended up doing in-ceiling, 15° angled "heights" above the fronts and the rears, as I was able to fit one more row behind the front row); have you thought about moving the seating slightly forward, so that you're 90° to the surrounds? (especially if you plan to recline any?)


----------



## anjunadeep

galonzo said:


> Looks great, @anjunadeep !
> 
> I'm in a 17.5' room, with seating beginning where the MLP is dead-center at half that distance, and 90° to the surrounds when in my reclined position (I ended up doing in-ceiling, 15° angled "heights" above the fronts and the rears, as I was able to fit one more row behind the front row); have you thought about moving the seating slightly forward, so that you're 90° to the surrounds? (especially if you plan to recline any?)


I've gotten a number of recommendations to run the surrounds slightly forward of my seating. I've gone back and forth about it. I do know I don't want my surrounds firing directly into the left and right seats ears...so that leaves slightly forward or slightly back. Right now they're about 10-deg forward, before I had them 10-deg back.

I'm able to move my surrounds where ever reallly.. I may even do a clothe wall there and make it where I can decide after the fact by just sliding the speaker forward or back to whatever sounds best before putting the fabric up (i don't know if I'm that motivated though... front and rear fabric walls sound like work but doing the sidewalls seems like a TON of work lol). 

Is there a standard for how far back recliners recline? Like do they tend to move back 1-foot or so?


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> I watched Star Trek: The motion picture (Director’s edition), on Paramount + last night. They did a really good job with the atmos implementation, for such an old film. The 4k/ DoVi transfer was a nice touch as well.
> 
> I look forward to seeing the director’s edition complete adventure, on physical media when it comes out next month.


There's a certain irony it gets an Atmos upgrade when the 4K reissues of all the movies do not. Given I bought the entire movie collection long ago on blu-ray boxsets and was hoping to get free Atmos upgrades on iTunes to all the digital copies, it's been a disappointment to find they think 5.1 or 7.1 is "good enough" for Star Trek fans. I won't be buying the 4K discs as a result.

I'd be curious to see an improved cut of Star Trek The Motion Picture, but given I thought it was worse even than Star Trek V, I'd be curious to hear what you thought about the Directors Cut changes beyond just Atmos? 

What I'd like to see are Atmos versions of Star Trek 2, 4, 6 and First Contact. Those were the best movies, IMO.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> There's a certain irony it gets an Atmos upgrade when the 4K reissues of all the movies do not. Given I bought the entire movie collection long ago on blu-ray boxsets and was hoping to get free Atmos upgrades on iTunes to all the digital copies, it's been a disappointment to find they think 5.1 or 7.1 is "good enough" for Star Trek fans. I won't be buying the 4K discs as a result.
> 
> I'd be curious to see an improved cut of Star Trek The Motion Picture, but given I thought it was worse even than Star Trek V, I'd be curious to hear what you thought about the Directors Cut changes beyond just Atmos?
> 
> What I'd like to see are Atmos versions of Star Trek 2, 4, 6 and First Contact. Those were the best movies, IMO.


The director’s edition is a restored/ remastered 4k with HDR-10 and Dolby vision grading. It is 137 mins long (compared to 132 theatrical version). Features some deleted footage which was missing earlier. I really loved the upgrade, albeit on streaming and look forward to the physical disc.

I have preordered the complete adventure director’s edition (5 disc) set along with the other 5 parts. It’s quite unfortunate that they chose to omit an immersive track for the other titles.


----------



## Wardog555

anjunadeep said:


> I've gotten a number of recommendations to run the surrounds slightly forward of my seating. I've gone back and forth about it. I do know I don't want my surrounds firing directly into the left and right seats ears...so that leaves slightly forward or slightly back. Right now they're about 10-deg forward, before I had them 10-deg back.
> 
> I'm able to move my surrounds where ever reallly.. I may even do a clothe wall there and make it where I can decide after the fact by just sliding the speaker forward or back to whatever sounds best before putting the fabric up (i don't know if I'm that motivated though... front and rear fabric walls sound like work but doing the sidewalls seems like a TON of work lol).
> 
> Is there a standard for how far back recliners recline? Like do they tend to move back 1-foot or so?


i would recomend slightly back rather than forward as you dont get the surround sound when all speakers are in front of you. im actually doing this in my next home theater setup!

in my current system i have my left surround slightly forward and its not what i really want when it comes to the experince. i just dont get the sense that the sound is coming from the right angle or where it supposed to be.


----------



## galonzo

anjunadeep said:


> Is there a standard for how far back recliners recline? Like do they tend to move back 1-foot or so?


Agreed👆

I doubt there's a standard, but we're talking maybe a few inches on average, whereas I did measure about 1' with a full recline in my seats.


----------



## Disto

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm just halfway through the first episode of Sandman on Netflix and so far I'm not impressed with the atmos sound (very quiet show-need to turn it up quite a lot) or the video (it's really really dark even on my A90J).
> 
> is it just me? Should I continue or does it not get any better?





halcyon_888 said:


> I'm 3 episodes in and haven't noticed one Atmos effect. If it happened then I missed it. Yesterday when I began watching the 3rd episode I had the DTS:Neural:X upmixer on at the beginning titles and thought, "wow the titles have good Atmos...." Oops.


Here's the way I see it. Atmos is a mode of transportation. Like a city bus. It can transport 9 + 1 + 6 people, but that same bus can have just 1 person or 5 people on it.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> After certain people arguing that @NuSoardGraphite should put his overhead speakers _inward_ further than the main speakers in his already narrow room, now people are arguing @terzaghi should put his overhead speakers _wider_ than the mains (which he has right inside the part where the ceiling is flat)? Has anyone seen Dolby's recommendation that they're inline with the main speakers at 30 degrees or are we just making up arbitrary locations for speakers now?





terzaghi said:


> Yes, I will plan to put them on flat ceiling as that is in line with the mains per the Sony atmos schematics I reviewed. I was hoping to get away with just mounting a set on front wall but after more researching and comments here it won’t be that bad to climb around in my attic and wire up and install on the ceiling


The heights should be at 45deg elevation as viewed from the rear. There is one line in Dolby documentation that says "if your L&R are at 30deg and you put your heights at 0.5 width of the room then they should line up with L&R" it doesn't actually say "your heights should line up with L&R". Read and follow the doc linked by soulburner - that explains it exactly as it should be done by following angles only.
The flat part of the ceiling is too narrow for L&R separation judging from the pics and IMO.
The angled parts look like they are perfect for that 45deg elevation spec and they will be aimed almost directly at you (which is a very good thing). 
You should be sitting in the middle of the square fromed by 4 heights if you go for .4 - impossible to do with your seat against the back wall. Just stick to .2, again IMO.


----------



## niterida

anjunadeep said:


> I've gotten a number of recommendations to run the surrounds slightly forward of my seating.


Don't do it - I tried it and having sound meant to come from behind/to the side of you coming from in front just doesn't work IMO. 

Your drawing looks OK but you should have the front and rear heights at the same angle if you can - 50/130 or 58/122 - so that you are directly in the middle of them. 

Seats can have completely different recline mechanisms so there is no standard. I have had some that pivot from the base of the rea and don't go forward at all so you end up over a foot rearward, and I have had some that slide forward as the pivot so you end up no further back at all.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> The heights should be at 45deg elevation as viewed from the rear.


If you're going to quote Dolby then you need to talk about what they actually say, not just what you agree with.

"Heights" are 20-45 degrees in Dolby's home setup documents (30-45 without Top Middle) and 15-45 degrees in their Home Studio setup guide (with up to 10 overheads). Angles change in Atmos depending on the setup. For example, Mains are at 40 degrees instead of 30 degrees with a full 24.1.10 setup. You cannot count on angles _only_ in a general sense, especially when you don't know what his setup will be (2, 4 or 6 overheads for example) let alone his preferences, which is why I try to include multiple options, not just tell him what to do.



> There is one line in Dolby documentation that says "if your L&R are at 30deg and you put your heights at 0.5 width of the room then they should line up with L&R" it doesn't actually say "your heights should line up with L&R".


The exact words are, "The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of the left & right speakers placed at +/- 30 degrees."

To me that says the main speakers should ideally be +/- 30 degrees from the center point and the overhead speakers should be more or less in line with the same overall width. That sure sounds like in-line with them _when possible_ with some leeway. Dolby diagrams for 9.x.6 and less show 22-30 degrees for the mains. If anything, that implies inward placement, not outward. 

However, the diagram on page 8 shows 22-40 degrees, but I believe that's meant to encompass the entire standard (40 degrees is used with 24.x.x setups for the Mains and overheads then typically align with Center-Left and Center-Right at 30 degrees instead as I pointed out in a previous post here:









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Ok, since we're on about "i"s... I had to post this:




www.avsforum.com







> Read and follow the doc linked by soulburner - that explains it exactly as it should be done by following angles only.
> The flat part of the ceiling is too narrow for L&R separation judging from the pics and IMO.
> The angled parts look like they are perfect for that 45deg elevation spec and they will be aimed almost directly at you (which is a very good thing).
> You should be sitting in the middle of the square fromed by 4 heights if you go for .4 - impossible to do with your seat against the back wall. Just stick to .2, again IMO.


His speakers look pretty wide compared to the TV to me. Without knowing the final angles, I wouldn't make assumptions about being too narrow.

As I pointed out before with the proposed @NuSoardGraphite layout, that one had people suggesting overheads that were only one seat apart in the front row. This would at least be the entire couch width apart.

I don't agree in the slightest about two overheads. You can have 'Top Middle' (or Rear Heights if you prefer to call them that) directly overhead on the back wall and still have excellent front-to-back panning with Top Front/Front Heights (whatever the name).

Speaker distance settings eliminate the _Precedence Effect_ panning issues, so no you do not have to sit directly between four overhead speakers to get excellent panning front-to-back (how do you think things work in a real Atmos theater with seats everywhere?).

My 3rd row is just in front of Rear Heights and there's Top Middle and Front Heights in front of that row and the helicopter pans around my entire room just the same. Only the seating location changes the perspective.

That's the entire point of object panning in Atmos. It went from a user/seat-centric system using arrays where "left surround" always seems to be directly to your left no matter where you sit to one where everyone in the theater will point to the same place for a sound regardless of where they sit. It's a room centric or absolute perspective system.

For example, if a drone was flying around inside the theater for real, everyone would point to the drone sound location regardless of where they sit because it exists only at that point in space. With a 7.1 traditional system, they'd all point to a different location because the arrays make the sound relative to where they sit.

Thus, it shouldn't matter where you sit in an Atmos system. The sounds should come from the same overall locations. The more discrete speakers used, the more spatially accurate it becomes for all possible seating locations. It's why I'm planning to move to 22 speakers and more discrete decoding where possible at home.


----------



## Chirosamsung

anjunadeep said:


> I've gotten a number of recommendations to run the surrounds slightly forward of my seating. I've gone back and forth about it. I do know I don't want my surrounds firing directly into the left and right seats ears...so that leaves slightly forward or slightly back. Right now they're about 10-deg forward, before I had them 10-deg back.
> 
> I'm able to move my surrounds where ever reallly.. I may even do a clothe wall there and make it where I can decide after the fact by just sliding the speaker forward or back to whatever sounds best before putting the fabric up (i don't know if I'm that motivated though... front and rear fabric walls sound like work but doing the sidewalls seems like a TON of work lol).
> 
> Is there a standard for how far back recliners recline? Like do they tend to move back 1-foot or so?


my side surrounds are SLIGHTLY forward as have been recommended by some. I prefer that way as opposed to directly 90 and into the side seats ears. YMMV


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> "Heights" are 20-45 degrees in Dolby's home setup documents (30-45 without Top Middle) and 15-45 degrees in their Home Studio setup guide (with up to 10 overheads). Angles change in Atmos depending on the setup.


Thats longitudinal elevation - as seen from the side.
I am talking about lateral elevation - as seen from the rear. You definitely want them as close to 45deg as you can get them IMO.


MagnumX said:


> The exact words are, "The horizontal width should be about the same as the horizontal separation of the left & right speakers placed at +/- 30 degrees."


Yes - again IF the L&R are at 30deg - this is basically the only one setup where they end up in line - so I would just ignore that and go by the angles.
The Home Entertainment Studio guidelines linked by Soulburner is based just on angles and is the one to follow IMO.

I think you need to read more into the posters intentions and knowledge level and end game requirements. In this case I think it would be better and easier to go with 2 heights, at least to start with.
Sure he can do 4 but not all AVRs can do middles and fronts so he might be limited to fronts and rears. I have had fronts and rears in the setup with rears above and fronts way in front and yes it works but having them equidistant in front and behind is far batter.
If he decides to go with 4 then he really should pul the seats out from the back wall and I still recommend all 4 be on the sloped part.


----------



## sw5163

Sorry in advance if this shouldn't be posted here.
I would like to ask if there is a way to encode PCM/atmos or Dolby MAT into a file?

I have managed to play MEL DV + 7.1 lossless on Apple devices by far. But Apple won't passthrough TrueHD/atmos.

I learned ffmpeg/kodi/mpv can encode TrueHD to MAT. Then is it possible to encode this MAT thing into LPCM in a file?
If it is possible, maybe Apple will hand it to receiver since it's already LPCM. It seems Apple decodes everything into MAT.

Any suggestions or reference site would be very much appreciated, many thanks!


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I don't agree in the slightest about two overheads.


Couldn’t agree more.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Thats longitudinal elevation - as seen from the side.
> I am talking about lateral elevation - as seen from the rear. You definitely want them as close to 45deg as you can get them IMO.
> 
> Yes - again IF the L&R are at 30deg - this is basically the only one setup where they end up in line - so I would just ignore that and go by the angles.
> The Home Entertainment Studio guidelines linked by Soulburner is based just on angles and is the one to follow IMO.
> 
> I think you need to read more into the posters intentions and knowledge level and end game requirements. In this case I think it would be better and easier to go with 2 heights, at least to start with.
> Sure he can do 4 but not all AVRs can do middles and fronts so he might be limited to fronts and rears. I have had fronts and rears in the setup with rears above and fronts way in front and yes it works but having them equidistant in front and behind is far batter.
> If he decides to go with 4 then he really should pul the seats out from the back wall and I still recommend all 4 be on the sloped part.


Ah. No wonder one or both of us are confused.... Frankly, I have _no idea_ why you're quoting home studio mixing guidelines for a _home theater _(just as I had no idea why Soulburner was pointing to them in the first place). That would be more applicable to a site like GearSpace. It's a bit like quoting Atmos cinema guidelines for home theater setup. They're not the same guidelines. 

A mixing studio is NOT a home theater. Dolby has clear setup guidelines for a home theater. The last time I looked, this guy wasn't setting up a home mixing studio. 

Even _if_ one thought there was value in setting up a studio configuration at home to watch movies for some inexplicable reason, the mere fact he's got his couch on the rear wall completely and utterly disqualifies his setup in terms of those same studio guidelines where the one and only seat is centered at the mixing point. 

The lateral guidelines you're referring to are optimized for exactly ONE SEAT (for mixing Atmos movies and/or music) whereas the home theater guidelines are for setting up a theater at home for watching movies for multiple people. There is no setup for a home studio where one pair of overheads is acceptable. The minimum configuration for a home mixing studio is 4 overheads. It also discusses professional array options for side surrounds, rear surrounds and overhead surrounds that no home renderer (including Trinnov) supports, because again, it's NOT guidelines for home theater! 

As for overheads, he doesn't have to, in any way, use front-of-room mounted heights. He can potentially move the couch forward, but if he doesn't want to, one can still space the overheads on the ceiling in a 0 degree directly above elevation combined with a 30-45 degree in front of the MLP setup (equivalent of Top Middle + Front Heights). If the couch is in the back of the room, Front Heights will be probably be about 1/2 way across the ceiling. If he ever moved the couch to the mid-point of the room, he could add front wall based Heights and set up an AVR for 6 overheads, redesignating the old locations as Top Middle and Top Rear or Rear Heights. 

I personally see no value in starting with only two overheads if one has the space and money to do 4 or 6. Generally speaking, four or more overhead speakers are always going to be superior to just two. It's a waste of time and possibly a waste of money as a two channel overhead setup typically doesn't coincide in terms of speaker mounting locations with a typical 4 overhead speaker layout (Top Middle versus Top Front/Rear).

As for listening to info on his specific setup, the last time I checked, he was here asking for suggestions for the room, not telling us what he wanted. What would be helpful would be all available room dimensions, a side shot of the rooms for possible side surrounds (reusing the existing ones as rear surrounds), screen size and whether he'd be willing to move the couch to other locations closer to the screen, etc. Otherwise, one should assume he wants to use the existing seating and speaker setup or something close to it as part of the proposed Atmos layout.


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> Don't do it - I tried it and having sound meant to come from behind/to the side of you coming from in front just doesn't work IMO.


I agree if it's a 5.1 system. The side surrounds will be used to bring a car from the rear to the front. You can hear this in one of the Dolby Atmos demos. They should be placed per the Dolby recommendations.

If it's 7.1, you can get away with side surrounds a little more forward than with 5.1. That is also reflected in the recommendations. I don't know if forward of the seats will work, but if it does, I would only do it with a 7.1 system and only if I had 1 row of seats.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> I agree if it's a 5.1 system. The side surrounds will be used to bring a car from the rear to the front. You can hear this in one of the Dolby Atmos demos. They should be placed per the Dolby recommendations.
> 
> If it's 7.1, you can get away with side surrounds a little more forward than with 5.1. That is also reflected in the recommendations. I don't know if forward of the seats will work, but if it does, I would only do it with a 7.1 system and only if I had 1 row of seats. The thing is, I don't tend to go beyond 5.1 with a single row of seats, so...


I tried it in a 7.1 config and still stand by my observations that it just didn't sound right with them in front of me.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Ah. No wonder one or both of us are confused.... Frankly, I have _no idea_ why you're quoting home studio mixing guidelines for a _home theater _(just as I had no idea why Soulburner was pointing to them in the first place). That would be more applicable to a site like GearSpace. It's a bit like quoting Atmos cinema guidelines for home theater setup. They're not the same guidelines.


Because it is the guidelines for mixing for Home Entratianmnet mixes - therefore the conclusion a lot of us have come to is that if you set up the room the same as how it is mixed you will get the mix exactly as intended. All the angles are as per Dolby Home setups anyway - it just doesn't have extraneous info that has lead to a lot of confusion.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> I agree if it's a 5.1 system. The side surrounds will be used to bring a car from the rear to the front. You can hear this in one of the Dolby Atmos demos. They should be placed per the Dolby recommendations.
> 
> If it's 7.1, you can get away with side surrounds a little more forward than with 5.1. That is also reflected in the recommendations. I don't know if forward of the seats will work, but if it does, I would only do it with a 7.1 system and only if I had 1 row of seats.


I've found that rather than shift them forward to keep them from firing right into your ears, a bit of elevation goes a long way (and helps with coverage, to clear seatbacks). I don't think it's a cardinal sin to move them slightly forward by any means... but you have to keep in mind how it will affect imaging between the adjacent speakers. If you can push them slightly forward and still get good imaging between side surround and main and side surround and rear surround, it would be fine. If one or the other suffers, a touch of elevation is better. And I've found that maintaining that increasing elevation from main to side to rear works great, especially if you adjust the heights accordingly.


niterida said:


> Because it is the guidelines for mixing for Home Entratianmnet mixes - therefore the conclusion a lot of us have come to is that if you set up the room the same as how it is mixed you will get the mix exactly as intended. All the angles are as per Dolby Home setups anyway - it just doesn't have extraneous info that has lead to a lot of confusion.


This. The renderer doesn't know whether it's theater or mix room or home. The logic doesn't magically change between them. Dolby's home guideline is just trying to simplify it for the average consumer, which isn't necessarily "ideal" in practice because of how much variance there is in the LxW ratio. Slavishly following what is basically the Cliff's Notes version doesn't hold up as well in my experience, and I've had the benefit of doing it a few times. Others may have different experiences based on what they prefer.


----------



## halcyon_888

Disto said:


> Here's the way I see it. Atmos is a mode of transportation. Like a city bus. It can transport 9 + 1 + 6 people, but that same bus can have just 1 person or 5 people on it.


I have no idea what this means lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> I tried it in a 7.1 config and still stand by my observations that it just didn't sound right with them in front of me.


I tried it in a 7.1.4 config and stand by that it does sound better/right for me


----------



## Disto

halcyon_888 said:


> I have no idea what this means lol


Just because the Atmos is lit up on your AVR, it doesen't mean all the speakers will have content. The source could be just mono, stereo or 5.1 but using an Atmos carrier. Then someone might say, they didn't hear anything in the back or overhead. In my opinion, some streaming services have caught on that everyone seems to prefer Atmos so they switch on the Atmos carrier knowing that their content is only 5.1.


----------



## halcyon_888

Disto said:


> Just because the Atmos is lit up on your AVR, it doesen't mean all the speakers will have content. The source could be just mono, stereo or 5.1 but using an Atmos carrier. Then someone might say, they didn't hear anything in the back or overhead. In my opinion, some streaming services have caught on that everyone seems to prefer Atmos so they switch on the Atmos carrier knowing that their content is only 5.1.


So far the first 3 episodes of The Sandman sure sound like it's just 5.1


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Because it is the guidelines for mixing for Home Entratianmnet mixes - therefore the conclusion a lot of us have come to is that if you set up the room the same as how it is mixed you will get the mix exactly as intended. All the angles are as per Dolby Home setups anyway - it just doesn't have extraneous info that has lead to a lot of confusion.


Perhaps for ONE seat as I said above. The mixing guidelines are for an optimal setup for only one person (for MIXING) and as I said, his room already fails that (chair not centered in room) so there's no point in it nor is it proper, IMO to recommend a mixing room for a home theater, especially to amateurs. Optimizing a setup for one centered seat means less optimization for other seats.

Dolby wrote both sets of guidelines. If they wanted the studio specs for home theaters, they would have used them. They didn't for a reason. Home theaters are generally meant for more than one person and more than one perspective for that matter. 

The whole point of object based imaging is seating independence. 5.1 or 7.1 works optimally for one person in a studio mixing setup. Auro 11.1 would be optimal for a home studio. It's less so for a large auditorium and the reason theaters have 64 channels and maybe as many as 128 speakers while home theaters range from 9 to 34 channels for immersive formats.

The home theater guidelines are the proper ones to use for home theater for mutliple people and/or multiple rows of seating and the difference are the speaker alignments that are not optimal for wider and deeper dispersion for more than one seat width or more than one row deep.



Chirosamsung said:


> I tried it in a 7.1.4 config and stand by that it does sound better/right for me


I think it works well if like with your setup, you have rear surrounds behind you as well. If you only had surrounds in front of you, I think it might feel very much like it's missing something, although the room itself can sometimes lend a larger effect (I get nearly 100 degrees of surround just from the front 6 speakers).


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Disto said:


> Just because the Atmos is lit up on your AVR, it doesen't mean all the speakers will have content. The source could be just mono, stereo or 5.1 but using an Atmos carrier. Then someone might say, they didn't hear anything in the back or overhead. In my opinion, some streaming services have caught on that* everyone *seems to prefer Atmos so they switch on the Atmos carrier knowing that their content is only 5.1.


Everyone ?? 

I sincerely doubt that any streaming service has even 10% of their subscribers using home ATMOS systems.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I have just watched Alita Battle Angel for the first time since I upgraded to the HTP-1 a year ago. 

The Atmos track was even more extraordinary than I remembered it from the first few times, but then again the current setup is way better than what I used before.


----------



## Wardog555

Chirosamsung said:


> I tried it in a 7.1.4 config and stand by that it does sound better/right for me


What makes you think it's suitable to have it that way?


----------



## darrellh44

MagnumX said:


> Perhaps for ONE seat as I said above. The mixing guidelines are for an optimal setup for only one person (for MIXING) and as I said, his room already fails that (chair not centered in room) so there's no point in it nor is it proper, IMO to recommend a mixing room for a home theater, especially to amateurs. Optimizing a setup for one centered seat means less optimization for other seats.
> 
> Dolby wrote both sets of guidelines. If they wanted the studio specs for home theaters, they would have used them. They didn't for a reason. Home theaters are generally meant for more than one person and more than one perspective for that matter.
> 
> The whole point of object based imaging is seating independence. 5.1 or 7.1 works optimally for one person in a studio mixing setup. Auro 11.1 would be optimal for a home studio. It's less so for a large auditorium and the reason theaters have 64 channels and maybe as many as 128 speakers while home theaters range from 9 to 34 channels for immersive formats.
> 
> The home theater guidelines are the proper ones to use for home theater for mutliple people and/or multiple rows of seating and the difference are the speaker alignments that are not optimal for wider and deeper dispersion for more than one seat width or more than one row deep.
> 
> I think it works well if like with your setup, you have rear surrounds behind you as well. If you only had surrounds in front of you, I think it might feel very much like it's missing something, although the room itself can sometimes lend a larger effect (I get nearly 100 degrees of surround just from the front 6 speakers).


One important point you're missing in all this discussion on Atmos speaker placement is Dolby is more worried about widespread adoption of their product/standard than they are about telling us how to optimize the immersive experience. Their 2018 home guidelines are full of contradictions with some diagrams showing ceiling speakers inline with L/R mains and other diagrams showing other angles. From a marketing standpoint, Dolby doesn't care if you mount the overhead speakers somewhere in the ceiling or maybe just up high on the walls close to the ceiling just so long you buy what they're selling. Heck they don't even care if people mount Atmos speakers 5 feet below the ceiling pointing up so sound bounces off the ceiling if that's what they have to get more people to buy in. The 2021 studio spec is more specific (and correct), but still somewhat confusing in its own right because it has angled based specs (involves basic trig to find placement distances) instead of lining up speakers in a straight line. If Dolby had come out with the studio spec first and told all their customers to do that (like they probably should have), they may have lost a lot of customers who were turned off because it's just too hard to do it right.

I saw above in this thread where you disagreed with Adam Pelz concerning Atmos placement, and somewhere else where you dissed HT Guru's YT video on 'avoiding Dolby Atmos mistakes'. In HT Guru's video, he makes several references to Anthony Grimani's suggestion to place Atmos speakers much closer together (even closer than what the 2021 studio spec says) based on his own experience of what results in better immersion with 100s of professional Atmos installations he's done. Both Pelz and Grimani are pillars in the HT install and calibration profession, and both play prominent roles in CEDIA committees for Home Theater standards. I've personally talked to Grimani and have followed several other online discussions Pelz has had on proper Atmos placement. They both say they're trying to get Dolby to publish new 'home' guidelines on how to optimize placement for better immersion. It looks like Dolby marketing is the hold up to getting those better guidelines out.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

darrellh44 said:


> Their 2018 home guidelines are full of contradictions with some diagrams showing ceiling speakers inline with L/R mains and other diagrams showing other angles.


I'm glad I followed the 2015 guidelines and a bit of common sense when I built my HT in 2016-2017, it worked out great.

This poor thread is pretty much on a repeating cycle of people panicking and arguing about very loosely defined standards. Just get the speakers evenly spaced with no massive holes and things will be just fine.


----------



## darrellh44

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm glad I followed the 2015 guidelines and a bit of common sense when I built my HT in 2016-2017, it worked out great.
> 
> This poor thread is pretty much on a repeating cycle of people panicking and arguing about very loosely defined standards. Just get the speakers evenly spaced with no massive holes and things will be just fine.


Sorry, I've only read the last few pages in this thread so I don't know how much I'm beating a dead horse, but I do agree with your idea of trying to get angles between speakers (bed and ceiling) evenly spaced in every direction as best as possible. The problem with blindly following the main diagram in the 2018 guidelines showing ceiling speakers inline with the L/R mains is the angles of separation can be very uneven depending on how high your ceiling is and how far apart your L/R mains are. It's much better to focus on angles than straight dotted lines.


----------



## MagnumX

darrellh44 said:


> One important point you're missing in all this discussion on Atmos speaker placement is Dolby is more worried about widespread adoption of their product/standard than they are about telling us how to optimize the immersive experience. Their 2018 home guidelines are full of contradictions with some diagrams showing ceiling speakers inline with L/R mains and other diagrams showing other angles.


Please point out an example of these contradictions as I don't recall any _true_ contradictions. As I've indicated, their alignment is actually a range according to Dolby with the "ideal" angle aligned with the 30 degree point. That 30 degree point holds for most home configurations, but goes out the window with the full 34 speaker arrangement or ones that use most of the front speakers (Trinnov or Storm needed) as the 30 degree point is no longer occupied by the mains when screen-L/R and Center-L/R speaker are used. The mains end up at 40 degrees, which is almost to where front wides are in a 9.1.x configuration. So do the diagrams really contradict something if they show them aligned with center-left/right or screen-left/right when the position changes when those speakers are used? 

People keep talking about _angle-only_ alignments and seem to forget that Dolby Atmos is a coordinate based rectangular system, not an angle based system. The angles and placement of several speakers change when more speakers are added. The angles are there to make setup easier for people to do themselves at home. 



> The 2021 studio spec is more specific (and correct), but still somewhat confusing in its own right because it has angled based specs (involves basic trig to find placement distances) instead of lining up speakers in a straight line. If Dolby had come out with the studio spec first and told all their customers to do that (like they probably should have), they may have lost a lot of customers who were turned off because it's just too hard to do it right.


If your home theater contains only _one_ seat and you can arrange it so it's more or less centered in the room and meets all the other specs, have at it. But this isn't _Gear Space_ and most people have trouble meeting even ranges of specs in their rooms used for home theater (often living rooms with many openings and fireplaces and all kinds of horrible things that aren't ideal). In this particular case, the person has their couch in the back of the room so what good does it do to insist they follow studio specs they've already failed to meet? 

That makes no sense and it's why I'm arguing against a general trend on here to use the studio guidelines when they're inappropriate for most home setups, more "accurate" or not. If someone wants to reference them in some respects for their own more advanced alignment, that's fine, but I don't think we should be offering general advice on here based on a mixing studio as gospel given the constraints it imposes. It's hard enough for most rooms to meet home theater specs and agian, the studio alignment doesn't care about other rows of seating or off-axis seats because it expects one person (the mixing engineer) to be using it.



> I saw above in this thread where you disagreed with Adam Pelz concerning Atmos placement, and somewhere else where you dissed HT Guru's YT video on 'avoiding Dolby Atmos mistakes'. In HT Guru's video, he makes several references to Anthony Grimani's suggestion to place Atmos speakers much closer together (even closer than what the 2021 studio spec says) based on his own experience of what results in better immersion with 100s of professional Atmos installations he's done.


What does "more immersive" mean in regards to Pelz/Grimani? Obviously, it's because Adam Pelz and/or Anthony Grimani _PREFER_ the overhead sounds to be limited to a MUCH SMALLER area overhead (_*Made*_* it Ma! Top of the world!*). Some on here get upset when they hear height layer objects blend with the bed layer such that they can't tell where one begins and the other ends. That's the way it's supposed to be in a "bubble", however. You shouldn't be able to point to the transition point. But many people don't like that at all. They want overhead to stick out like a sore thumb and I suggest that's what these "professionals" want too. Is that really professional, though? Or is it ego-based in terms of having done so many home theater installs, I clearly know better than Dolby? Do they? Mixing engineers aren't making Dolby-Demo style mixes. Is it fair to blame Dolby because of mixing choices and personal preferences? That's like saying we should force people to use Bass and Treble Tone Controls even if they don't want to or vice versa. 

Auro Technologies studied human perception of sound and found that 30 degrees is optimum for detecting accurate height information while a single overhead is sufficient to produce "directly overhead" sounds (the TS/VOG). Most sounds in nature (other than thunder) are not directly overhead, just man-made sounds (in a house or planes flying overhead). But that's what many people enjoy. Sounds directly overhead are more noticeable and easier to point to. I'd say it's less realistic that sounds all seem to be coming from directly overhead or at eye level, but again, if someone enjoys that more, so be it.

But should we officially wipe out object placement options for the mixing engineer so that if he wants a sound further to the left, too bad, we've moved the speakers inward to thwart him! How dare he try to put sounds closer to the side walls. They should all be directly overhead! Frankly, I don't see why they need to be in stereo at that point. Just put one speaker (VOG) directly overhead and skip all other ceiling speakers and just have 7.1 + VOG. I honestly believe several people on here would like that the best even though they'll never admit it because it sounds ridiculous when you put it that way. Buy by limiting the helicopter demo to a small circle overhead instead of the larger nearly room sized space that's possible, isn't that essentially doing just that? 

It'd be far easier to show two different layout examples "wider coverage" versus "narrower overhead imaging" as is possible right now with limited 11-13 speaker count layouts and let the consumer decide rather than change something that's been around for about 8 years now. But what to do with 10 overhead installs? Should we put them closer together too, destroying the whole point of having them in the first place because Grimani prefers a narrower overhead image? 



> *Both Pelz and Grimani are pillars in the HT install and calibration profession*, and both play prominent roles in CEDIA committees for Home Theater standards. I've personally talked to Grimani and have followed several other online discussion Pelz has had on proper Atmos placement. They both say they're trying to get Dolby to publish new 'home' guidelines on how to optimize placement for better immersion. It looks like Dolby marketing is the hold up to getting those better guidelines out.


So putting their _personal preferences_ above larger coverage and human psychoacoustic studies is _professional_? Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people pointing to their job titles and implying that makes their *opinions* more important than everyone else on the planet. Some of us have been doing home theater for over 20 years and get tired of being dismissed by saying things like, "Steven Spielberg likes his coffee black so it's clearly superior to cream and sugar!" Like I give a flying coffee bean how Steven Spielberg _likes his coffee_. I'll drink coffee the way *I* like it, thank you very much. What about those guys that made Pluto a "dwarf planet" after all these year? They thought Pluto was just too small to be a 'planet'. As if their opinion should change reality for the rest of us. You can see how popular that's been too.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

darrellh44 said:


> Sorry, I've only read the last few pages in this thread so I don't know how much I'm beating a dead horse, but I do agree with your idea of trying to get angles between speakers (bed and ceiling) evenly spaced in every direction as best as possible. The problem with blindly following the main diagram in the 2018 guidelines showing ceiling speakers inline with the L/R mains is the angles of separation can be very uneven depending on how high your ceiling is and how far apart your L/R mains are. It's much better to focus on angles than straight dotted lines.


I based all my speaker locations on angles:

Fronts 30 degrees
Front Wides 60 degrees
Side Surrounds 100 degrees
Rear Surrounds 142.5 degrees

Top Front 45 degrees elevation
Top Middle 80 degrees elevation
Top Rear 125 degrees elevation

60 degree gap between Left Surround and Top Middle Left, 60 degrees between the Top Middles, and 60 degrees Top Middle Right and Right Surround.


----------



## MagnumX

Mashie Saldana said:


> I'm glad I followed the 2015 guidelines and a bit of common sense when I built my HT in 2016-2017, it worked out great.
> 
> This poor thread is pretty much on a repeating cycle of people panicking and arguing about very loosely defined standards. *Just get the speakers evenly spaced* with no massive holes and things will be just fine.


The Atmos renderer uses a coordinate system with pretty much evenly spaced speaker assumptions. The angles change when you keep adding more speakers to the total count and thus I think we can safely conclude Atmos is not an angle-based system, but rather one based on more or less evenly spaced speakers. It's hard to go wrong with that assumption.

I like to refer back to the Wendy Carlos QUAD surround site that refers to good solid phantom imaging needing 70 degrees or less between speaker pairs and rear surrounds need more pairs to achieve the same "width" of image as stereo can achieve in the front due to psychoacoustics. With limited speakers available, she places them in the front, but indicates that adding more rear pairs can widen the sound behind as well (Listen to stereo source and turn around; it gets more narrow. Real sounds don't, but stereo panning does due to psychoacoustics, but adding another pair like rear surround to side surround can help eliminate it).

It's one of the reasons I've added passive mixer-based extra pairs of speakers to gain a perfect circle of object motion around me. That requires six speakers minimum (7 with a center channel). To use Dolby placement specs for the discrete channels and still achieve the 70 degree mark and not limit the width behind you, I believe you need at least 9 speakers (front wides + rear surrounds).

QUAD Site:
(Wendy Carlos Surround1)



> 60 degree gap between Left Surround and Top Middle Left, 60 degrees between the Top Middles, and 60 degrees Top Middle Right and Right Surround.


60 degrees works great.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Honestly, I think people should just ignore the dolby guideline and adopt the Trinnov guidelines. They give you a range of positions and angles accounting for the possibility of architectural impediments and room sizes.

The general guideline being: if the channel is supposed to be coming from the left, then it should physically be to the left of all the seating position and vice versa for the right channel. If the sounds are supposed to be coming from the front, then the channels should be forward of all the seating positions and same for the rear channels being rearward of all the seating positions.

I see a lot of setups where the "Top-rear" speakers are actually right above or in some small cases, slightly forward of a back row of seats because they set up the ceiling channels based on the primary seat in the front row. Not a good idea. The Trinnov document would have you put then behind the back row as it should be. Not above it and definitely not forward of it.

That is why I am doing a *room focused *setup assuming the entire room is the soundstage. Both rows will be well inside the sound bubble if you will. I think the heavy focus on the angles in the dolby diagrams is distracting people from discovering the actual best setup for their particular situations. Slavishly adhering to diagrams that are obviously meant to be generalized for wide adoption is holding people back. It may work for some, or even most, but assuredly not everyone. And since a superior document/guide exists, why not default to that one instead?


----------



## appelz

darrellh44 said:


> One important point you're missing in all this discussion on Atmos speaker placement is Dolby is more worried about widespread adoption of their product/standard than they are about telling us how to optimize the immersive experience. Their 2018 home guidelines are full of contradictions with some diagrams showing ceiling speakers inline with L/R mains and other diagrams showing other angles. From a marketing standpoint, Dolby doesn't care if you mount the overhead speakers somewhere in the ceiling or maybe just up high on the walls close to the ceiling just so long you buy what they're selling. Heck they don't even care if people mount Atmos speakers 5 feet below the ceiling pointing up so sound bounces off the ceiling if that's what they have to get more people to buy in. The 2021 studio spec is more specific (and correct), but still somewhat confusing in its own right because it has angled based specs (involves basic trig to find placement distances) instead of lining up speakers in a straight line. If Dolby had come out with the studio spec first and told all their customers to do that (like they probably should have), they may have lost a lot of customers who were turned off because it's just too hard to do it right.
> 
> I saw above in this thread where you disagreed with Adam Pelz concerning Atmos placement, and somewhere else where you dissed HT Guru's YT video on 'avoiding Dolby Atmos mistakes'. In HT Guru's video, he makes several references to Anthony Grimani's suggestion to place Atmos speakers much closer together (even closer than what the 2021 studio spec says) based on his own experience of what results in better immersion with 100s of professional Atmos installations he's done. Both Pelz and Grimani are pillars in the HT install and calibration profession, and both play prominent roles in CEDIA committees for Home Theater standards. I've personally talked to Grimani and have followed several other online discussions Pelz has had on proper Atmos placement. They both say they're trying to get Dolby to publish new 'home' guidelines on how to optimize placement for better immersion. It looks like Dolby marketing is the hold up to getting those better guidelines out.


CEDIA/CTA has some work in progress. Workgroup participants include content creators, format developers Dolby and DTS), manufacturers, designers, engineers. A very very impressive list of people are contributing. And since CEDIA is an ANSI accredited standards body, the final body of work can be accepted as an excellent resource. We should have a draft available for stakeholders to comment on very soon. 





__





Consumer Technology Association: R10WG1 - CTA/CEDIA-CEB22-A - Multi-Channel Audio Room Design Recommended Practice






standards.cta.tech





Of course, the performance criteria in that document will require more information from manufacturers in regards to how their products perform, so there is also a workgroup identifying the minimum set of data we should accept from a manufacturer. 





__





Consumer Technology Association: R10WG1 - CEDIA-CTA - RP1 - Performance Facts






standards.cta.tech


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> The angles change when you keep adding more speakers to the total count and thus I think we can safely conclude Atmos is not an angle-based system, but rather one based on more or less evenly spaced speakers.


How do you think you arrive at evenly spaced speakers? Because it's based on angles.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> How do you think you arrive at evenly spaced speakers? Because it's based on angles.


You have it backwards. Atmos is a relativistic coordinate based system dependent on the total number of speakers utilized with a few tweaks for the center and some other psychoacoustic considerations. In other words, if it were _based on angles_, the angles would stay the same, but they don't. They vary with the total number of speakers used. It only seems man of Dolby's diagrams have no changes because nothing changes in the Dolby specs below the 7.1.4 configuration level. In Dolby's 9.1.6 guidelines, the Heights minimum level drops to 20 degrees (and in the home studio specs that talk about the full 10 overheads, it drops even further to 15 degrees). 

So with with a full x.1.10 layout, Dolby recommends 15/45/90/135/165 which is 15 degrees between mains, heights and tops, but 45 degrees between Tops and Top Middle. I would be fine with an evenly distributed overhead layout at 30/60/90/120/150/180 because it should represent that nice even distribution curve, but it's not in any of the Dolby specs I've seen. However, the human ear is less sensitive to overhead imaging that is directly above us so perhaps the 45 degree range is to give that area less resolution attention than the lower ranges at which we are more sensitive to. That does not fit with the opinions of those that prefer all their overhead imaging in a tight circle directly above them. Perhaps they'd be happier with it reversed with a 0/60/75/90/105/120 setup that forces imaging directly overhead for most of the image travel?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

appelz said:


> CEDIA/CTA has some work in progress. Workgroup participants include content creators, format developers Dolby and DTS), manufacturers, designers, engineers. A very very impressive list of people are contributing. And since CEDIA is an ANSI accredited standards body, the final body of work can be accepted as an excellent resource. We should have a draft available for stakeholders to comment on very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumer Technology Association: R10WG1 - CTA/CEDIA-CEB22-A - Multi-Channel Audio Room Design Recommended Practice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> standards.cta.tech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the performance criteria in that document will require more information from manufacturers in regards to how their products perform, so there is also a workgroup identifying the minimum set of data we should accept from a manufacturer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumer Technology Association: R10WG1 - CEDIA-CTA - RP1 - Performance Facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> standards.cta.tech


And this is sorely needed.

In the meantime, people should use this guide till the Cedia one comes out









Trinnov | Trinnov Speaker Layout Guide







www.trinnov.com


----------



## Mashie Saldana

NuSoardGraphite said:


> And this is sorely needed.
> 
> In the meantime, people should use this guide till the Cedia one comes out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnov | Trinnov Speaker Layout Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trinnov.com


If I ever get an Altitude 16 I don't have to move a single speaker, I'm pretty much spot on with that guide.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Mashie Saldana said:


> If I ever get an Altitude 16 I don't have to move a single speaker, I'm pretty much spot on with that guide.


Its a good guide for any processor and setup. Much of it is just about properly covering the seating area, which is something that applies to litterally everyone building a theater.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its a good guide for any processor and setup. Much of it is just about properly covering the seating area, which is something that applies to litterally everyone building a theater.


I like the Trinnov guide, though I think their 40 degree elevation rule laterally for the heights is a slight compromise to make it fit the other formats better. But even they include the caveat for angular adjustment like Dolby's theater/mix room guides do, just in slightly different terms:


> It is preferred that all upper left speakers should be at the left of the listening area. This rule ensures that none of the listeners can hear an upper left speaker as coming from the right. However, in the situation where the listening area is almost as wide as the screen, this rule could lead to an excessive distance between upper left and upper right speakers, resulting in a compromise at the main listening area. In this case, it is preferable to exclude the far left seats from the rule.


The end result is the same. They're just designing specific to screen size more than Dolby does for a home theater. And I can appreciate the logic in that. They're definitely going for more specificity than Dolby's home guidelines, which is a good thing for enthusiasts who are a little more picky than the consumer targeted by Dolby's simplified home guideline diagrams. Having done it several ways, I'd definitely lean more toward Trinnov's well laid out placement logic.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

So I have been messing around with Audio Advice's Theater Design Tool (seems to be down right now) and I see that they place the Top-channels based on your chosen listening position, rather than ensuring all the seats are within the listening window.

I set it up for two rows and 6 ceiling channels (they had no option for height positioning that I could find) with the middle front seat chosen as the MLP.

They placed the Top-Middle speakers directly above the front row, which is fine for the front row. This placed Top-Rear speakers slightly *forward *of the back row. And its not like the back row was right up against a wall....thwre was a good 4 or 5 feet between the 2nd row and the rear wall. They just chose spacing that pushed the Top-Rear channels forward of the rear seats.

That is unacceptible for a company that designs theaters. I would avoid using that tool as any kind of definitive guide to design a theater.

Speaking of which, does anyone know of any *good *theater design tools out there? Could be online, could be downloadable. Doesnt really matter. But looking for something better than that Audio Advice tool.


----------



## appelz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> And this is sorely needed.
> 
> In the meantime, people should use this guide till the Cedia one comes out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnov | Trinnov Speaker Layout Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trinnov.com


Arnaud Laborie of Trinnov contributed to RP22, and some of that document will likely be adopted.


----------



## appelz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Speaking of which, does anyone know of any *good *theater design tools out there? Could be online, could be downloadable. Doesnt really matter. But looking for something better than that Audio Advice tool.


The Cinema Designer | The Cinema Designer (TCD) | Home Theatre Design Software but not really priced for one-off designs.


----------



## Magiclakez

Just watched Maverick; atmos is wild on this one…albeit (iTunes) streaming. Worth the 20 bucks. Can’t wait for the 4k Blu-ray.


----------



## priitv8

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Speaking of which, does anyone know of any *good *theater design tools out there? Could be online, could be downloadable. Doesnt really matter. But looking for something better than that Audio Advice tool.


I wonder if Dolby’s own DARDT is worth a test drive?


https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/The-HE-DARDT-v539-Is-Now-Available?language=en_US


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> Just watched Maverick; atmos is absolutely wild on this one…albeit (iTunes) streaming. Worth the 20 bucks. Can’t wait for the 4k Blu-ray.


when is the disc released?


----------



## AndreNewman

Chirosamsung said:


> when is the disc released?


The rental place I use says 
Released on
31/10/2022


----------



## Chirosamsung

AndreNewman said:


> The rental place I use says
> Released on
> 31/10/2022


Soooo long lol


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> when is the disc released?


November 1 in North America I believe.


----------



## petetherock

Just saw Aliens.. again.... and I really wish they would make an Atmos track for this one..


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Bad news guys.

It looks like the 4k of Top Gun: Maverick has a static 7.1.2 bed channel mix. So if you have more than the typical 7.1.4 setup, your extra channels will go unused. If you have 6 or more height channels including Top-Middles, only the Top-Middles will get used.






When will they stop doing this?


----------



## Kevinmastah

_@NuSoardGraphite You can upmix if u want.
Like auro-3d or other upmixer if your receiver has it to utilize all your speakers_


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

priitv8 said:


> I wonder if Dolby’s own DARDT is worth a test drive?
> 
> 
> https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/The-HE-DARDT-v539-Is-Now-Available?language=en_US


The only caveat with DARDT is that you can't change the height of "ear level" and they have it slightly high since it's for mixing. You can kinda' offset it by modifying room height slightly. But as far as the placements go, it does a really good job. If you dig into it, you can manually input the elevations if you're doing elevated side/rear surrounds and see how it adjusts the heights a bit to keep separation. Other than my rear surrounds (which I can't get perfect because of a door on the back wall), my layout is pretty dead on with what DARDT shows. If you get super granular with it, it will even show you delay times. And if you manually plug in speaker and amp specs, it shows you where you may have weaknesses with hitting reference cleanly. Not too shabby.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Kevinmastah said:


> _@NuSoardGraphite You can upmix if u want.
> Like auro-3d or other upmixer if your receiver has it to utilize all your speakers_


I would rather not upmix a native Atmos mix if I dont have to. I would leave upmixing for non-immersive soundtracks or the rare cases where the Atmos mix is so bad that it needs help.

Just because its a static bed object mix doesnt necessarily mean its a bad mix. It could still be very good, like Ready Player One. What it does mean however, is that the Atmos mix is not being used to its full potential, which is unfortunate for a movie like Top Gun which should be the type of movie to make full use of the format.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Bad news guys.
> 
> It looks like the 4k of Top Gun: Maverick has a static 7.1.2 bed channel mix. So if you have more than the typical 7.1.4 setup, your extra channels will go unused. If you have 6 or more height channels including Top-Middles, only the Top-Middles will get used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will they stop doing this?


That's literally the most disapointing thing I've heard in a long time


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It looks like the 4k of Top Gun: Maverick has a *static 7.1.2* bed channel mix. So if you* have more than the typical 7.1.4 setup*, your extra channels will go unused.


What if you have x.1.4?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> What if you have x.1.4?


Then the static objects at top mid will be played back by both sets of height speakers equally so it tries to image them at top mid.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> What if you have x.1.4?


If you have a x.1.4 and the mix is a static 7.1.2, the x.x.2 height information will be spread across the x.x.4 ceiling speakers. You can see that happening in the Trinnov viewer video for Top Gun Maverick, the four heights light up equally.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Looking at it again, there are _some_ active sound objects going on. So maybe the action scenes have more active objects.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Looking at it again, there are _some_ active sound objects going on. So maybe the action scenes have more active objects.


The reviewer said that it is 7.1.2 around 98% of the time with some moving objects 2% of the time. That's been true of all pre-rendered Atmos tracks: other speakers do occasionally make sound, but it is for a negligible amount of time.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> The reviewer said that it is 7.1.2 around 98% of the time with some moving objects 2% of the time. That's been true of all pre-rendered Atmos tracks: other speakers do occasionally make sound, but it is for a negligible amount of time.


Yeah thats what I fear. Ready Player One had a few active objects in a couple of spots but 99% of the movie was a static 7.1.2 bed mix.

But RPO is still an awesome sound mix. Just not "active".


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yeah thats what I fear. Ready Player One had a few active objects in a couple of spots but 99% of the movie was a static 7.1.2 bed mix.
> 
> But RPO is still an awesome sound mix. Just not "active".


I hope it's more of a RP1 7.1.2 than a Disney Atmouse 7.1.2


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> But RPO is still an awesome sound mix.


Agreed. Same with _'Top Gun: Maverick'_. Just wish they would take better advantage of the format.


----------



## robert600

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Bad news guys.
> 
> It looks like the 4k of Top Gun: Maverick has a static 7.1.2 bed channel mix. So if you have more than the typical 7.1.4 setup, your extra channels will go unused. If you have 6 or more height channels including Top-Middles, only the Top-Middles will get used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will they stop doing this?


I'm curious to know how are you determining the bed channel mix? MediaInfo isn't all that helpful as far as I can see.


----------



## mrtickleuk

robert600 said:


> I'm curious to know how are you determining the bed channel mix? MediaInfo isn't all that helpful as far as I can see.


Watch the short video linked in the post you are replying to for the answer...


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Maverick has an just above average immersive mix which was disappointing. It didn't stand out as I was to believe from some of the comments I've seen. 

I can't think of any particular scene that was demo worthy.


----------



## am2model3

I finished watching via Netflix, Ghost in the Shell SAC 2045 season2, the 5.1dd upmixed to Atmos sounded super great!! fun stuff


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

robert600 said:


> I'm curious to know how are you determining the bed channel mix? MediaInfo isn't all that helpful as far as I can see.


When you see a mix represented via the Atmos Object Viewer that is available in Trinnov Altitude processors, it allows you to observe the behavior of the objects.

Check out this video of Ready Player One being shown via the Atmos Object Viewer. The Green boxes are the speakers. When they glow green, they are playing content. As they get louder they go to orange, then red.

The yellow balls are Sound Objects. Static Objects just stay in one place. Active objects move all around the soundfield.

In order to stay backwards compatible with legacy codecs, Dolby created what are known as "bed objects" which are static objects that are in the positions of the traditional 7 ground channels. Left, center, right, left side surround, right side surround, left back surround and right back surround. In addition to this, they added two "Height beds" to this: a left and right. Those height objects are placed in the Top-Middle position.

A lot of mixers will use traditional channel panning for their Atmos mixes, just using the 7.1.2 bed objects to mimick channels and call it a day. You can tell when they do that because there will be 7.1.2 objects that dont ever move.

Check out the behavior of the Yellow objects in Ready Player One. You will notice they never move.






Now compare to New Mutants which has quite a few active sound objects that move all over. You can see it has the 7.1 ground objects, but also a lot of active objects flying all over the soundfield. You can see Hulk Cinema's Front Height channels being used here, where in ready player one, they were completely silent the whole time.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> When you see a mix represented via the Atmos Object Viewer that is available in Trinnov Altitude processors, it allows you to observe the behavior of the objects.
> 
> Check out this video of Ready Player One being shown via the Atmos Object Viewer. The Green boxes are the speakers. When they glow green, they are playing content. As they get louder they go to orange, then red.
> 
> The yellow balls are Sound Objects. Static Objects just stay in one place. Active objects move all around the soundfield.
> 
> In order to stay backwards compatible with legacy codecs, Dolby created what are known as "bed objects" which are static objects that are in the positions of the traditional 7 ground channels. Left, center, right, left side surround, right side surround, left back surround and right back surround. In addition to this, they added two "Height beds" to this: a left and right. Those height objects are placed in the Top-Middle position.
> 
> A lot of mixers will use traditional channel panning for their Atmos mixes, just using the 7.1.2 bed objects to mimick channels and call it a day. You can tell when they do that because there will be 7.1.2 objects that dont ever move.
> 
> Check out the behavior of the Yellow objects in Ready Player One. You will notice they never move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now compare to New Mutants which has quite a few active sound objects that move all over. You can see it has the 7.1 ground objects, but also a lot of active objects flying all over the soundfield. You can see Hulk Cinema's Front Height channels being used here, where in ready player one, they were completely silent the whole time.


You know what's strange, if you slow down the RP1 video to 0.25x and play from 1:13-1:14 timestamp you can see the top front left stay lit longer than the other three top speakers and it dims out last. Also if you play back 1:48-1:50 at 0.25x and carefully look at the top rear left and top front left you can see the yellow intensity is different between those two speakers very briefly. If you play 2:33-2:34 and look carefully at the top rear right and top front right you can see the intensity between the two speakers is different very briefly as well. I didn't look beyond that in the video for more instances of this, so there might be more, there might not.

Since RP1 has two static height objects that would mean we get L/R panning but not Front/Rear, correct? It's strange to see these anomalies, almost like there are Front/Rear sound effects happening. But it could be just the Trinnov viewer not displaying the intensity in those channels perfectly during those timestamps.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> You know what's strange, if you slow down the RP1 video to 0.25x and play from 1:13-1:14 timestamp you can see the top front left stay lit longer than the other three top speakers and it dims out last. Also if you play back 1:48-1:50 at 0.25x and carefully look at the top rear left and top front left you can see the yellow intensity is different between those two speakers very briefly. If you play 2:33-2:34 and look carefully at the top rear right and top front right you can see the intensity between the two speakers is different very briefly as well. I didn't look beyond that in the video for more instances of this, so there might be more, there might not.
> 
> Since RP1 has two static height objects that would mean we get L/R panning but not Front/Rear, correct? It's strange to see these anomalies, almost like there are Front/Rear sound effects happening. But it could be just the Trinnov viewer not displaying the intensity in those channels perfectly during those timestamps.


I am unsure if front to rear panning would be available with the height beds. It would be interesting if it was something that Dolby put in there to better facilitate pans from front to back, especially in transition with the ground channels.

Also it could be the Trinnov using its channel remapping feature.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> You know what's strange, if you slow down the RP1 video to 0.25x and play from 1:13-1:14 timestamp you can see the top front left stay lit longer than the other three top speakers and it dims out last. Also if you play back 1:48-1:50 at 0.25x and carefully look at the top rear left and top front left you can see the yellow intensity is different between those two speakers very briefly. If you play 2:33-2:34 and look carefully at the top rear right and top front right you can see the intensity between the two speakers is different very briefly as well. I didn't look beyond that in the video for more instances of this, so there might be more, there might not.
> 
> Since RP1 has two static height objects that would mean we get L/R panning but not Front/Rear, correct? It's strange to see these anomalies, almost like there are Front/Rear sound effects happening. But it could be just the Trinnov viewer not displaying the intensity in those channels perfectly during those timestamps.


Could this be related to Trinnov's remapping feature? Like maybe he has his heights in a particular location where the top mid object would be closer to the actual top fronts, so it's compensating? I'm not clear on how that works.

I'd almost say that this could just be a bit of lag in the way that interface updates though.


----------



## sdurani

halcyon_888 said:


> Since RP1 has two static height objects that would mean we get L/R panning but not Front/Rear, correct?


Correct.


> It's strange to see these anomalies, almost like there are Front/Rear sound effects happening.


Not so strange. As I mentioned earlier...


sdurani said:


> That's been true of all pre-rendered Atmos tracks: other speakers do occasionally make sound, but it is for a negligible amount of time.


----------



## dschulz

I _think_ what's happening with all of these mostly-but-not-entirely 7.1.2 tracks is the theatrical Atmos overhead _bed_ channels are getting pinned to the Top Middles. What little other activity there is in the TF/TR is due to the occasional object movement.

It makes sense in a weird sort of way when you recall that home Atmos, unlike theatrical, doesn't support arrays. In the absence of arrays, how best to handle the overhead bed channels is a bit of a conundrum. I suppose they could always spread them across multiple objects.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> What little other activity there is in the TF/TR is due to the occasional object movement.


Objects can have size. So it's also possible that some of the momentary sounds from other speakers are large objects whose edges are grazing other speaker locations. Felt that way when watching _'American Sniper'_ with only the height layer speakers active.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

So I needed to redo my Audyssey calibration the other day because I'm fighting with the room acoustics of my new place. It just didnt sound right after I set it up a couple of months ago. The center image was being pulled to the right because of a highly reflective fireplace and the soundstage just wasnt very wide.

So after struggling with setup and rerunning Audyssey, I finally have it sounding the way I want. Center image is focused and the soundstage as wide as I can manage in this room.

So of course, after running room EQ, I had to test out some scenes to make sure immesive audio sounded good.

I put in the aerial battle over the city from Jupiter Ascending. This is easily still the best Atmos I have ever heard. And it was the first Atmos disc I ever purchased. At this point I have over 50 discs with Atmos and DTS:X and none have yet to surpass the first Atmos disc I bought. Thats kind of depressing.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> it was the first Atmos disc I ever purchased. At this point I have over 50 discs with Atmos and DTS:X and none have yet to surpass the first Atmos disc I bought. Thats kind of depressing.


Yes it is rather sad, especially considering it wasn't a huge budget movie and think of all the massive blockbusters since that have failed to better it 
I watched Invisible Man the other day and thought the sound was really good - not a massive use of heights for discrete effects but the ambience was superb and it was a low budget B grade movie that sounded better than a lot of big movies - which is also sad..........


----------



## am2model3

i tell you, the varying level of quality sound mixes by the sound engineers on these films, whether they use atmos to its fullest, medium, or low/lazy, or none; it's like so all over the place. 
its fun when you can find a truly impressive sound mix and really hear it. i've noticed it with a few of the full spatial audio atmos games as well at times.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Yes it is rather sad, especially considering it wasn't a huge budget movie and think of all the massive blockbusters since that have failed to better it
> I watched Invisible Man the other day and thought the sound was really good - not a massive use of heights for discrete effects but the ambience was superb and it was a low budget B grade movie that sounded better than a lot of big movies - which is also sad..........


Invisible Man was a pleasant surprise for me, because as you said, there's nothing in the movie that really seems like it would need overhead sound. But they do a really great job of the ambience. I particularly liked the scenes in the rain where they seemed to logically use the heights when people were standing under things that rain would hit. Pretty solid Atmos track for a fairly low budget flick!


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So I needed to redo my Audyssey calibration the other day because I'm fighting with the room acoustics of my new place. It just didnt sound right after I set it up a couple of months ago. The center image was being pulled to the right because of a highly reflective fireplace and the soundstage just wasnt very wide.
> 
> So after struggling with setup and rerunning Audyssey, I finally have it sounding the way I want. Center image is focused and the soundstage as wide as I can manage in this room.
> 
> So of course, after running room EQ, I had to test out some scenes to make sure immesive audio sounded good.
> 
> I put in the aerial battle over the city from Jupiter Ascending. This is easily still the best Atmos I have ever heard. And it was the first Atmos disc I ever purchased. At this point I have over 50 discs with Atmos and DTS:X and none have yet to surpass the first Atmos disc I bought. Thats kind of depressing.


can you tell me where in the movie this scene is? Ie chapter or rough idea of time stamp please


----------



## anjunadeep

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So I needed to redo my Audyssey calibration the other day because I'm fighting with the room acoustics of my new place. It just didnt sound right after I set it up a couple of months ago. The center image was being pulled to the right because of a highly reflective fireplace and the soundstage just wasnt very wide.
> 
> So after struggling with setup and rerunning Audyssey, I finally have it sounding the way I want. Center image is focused and the soundstage as wide as I can manage in this room.
> 
> So of course, after running room EQ, I had to test out some scenes to make sure immesive audio sounded good.
> 
> I put in the aerial battle over the city from Jupiter Ascending. This is easily still the best Atmos I have ever heard. And it was the first Atmos disc I ever purchased. At this point I have over 50 discs with Atmos and DTS:X and none have yet to surpass the first Atmos disc I bought. Thats kind of depressing.


I'll have to check out Jupiter Ascending. One of my favorites is Gravity and I'm pretty sure that was one of the first object oriented major mixes.


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> can you tell me where in the movie this scene is? Ie chapter or rough idea of time stamp please


It starts at the clinic.


----------



## Magiclakez

I have the 4k Blu-ray for Jupiter ascending, but Fwiw I believe the Blu-ray includes the atmos track as well.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

anjunadeep said:


> I'll have to check out Jupiter Ascending. One of my favorites is Gravity and I'm pretty sure that was one of the first object oriented major mixes.


I havent had the chance to see Gravity but I hear its superb as well. As one of the first movies mixed in Atmos, it was kind of like the test bed to show what the new format could do.

Jupiter Ascending is similar in that regard. It was an early Atmos movie in a genre that was perfect for showcasing the format (science fiction) and the filmakers were also known for utilizing new technologies in innovative ways.

I just wish that other filmaker would stop playing things so safe all the time. I understand for a lot of studios its a matter of the costs involved. But there's no excuse for a giant tentpole 200 million dollar SFX extravaganza to have a lackluster Atmos mix.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> I have the 4k Blu-ray for Jupiter ascending, but Fwiw I believe the Blu-ray includes the atmos track as well.


Yes the Blu Ray does. And the 4k is not a big jump. There really isnt a need to upgrade it.


----------



## Magiclakez

niterida said:


> Yes it is rather sad, especially considering it wasn't a huge budget movie and think of all the massive blockbusters since that have failed to better it
> I watched Invisible Man the other day and thought the sound was really good - not a massive use of heights for discrete effects but the ambience was superb and it was a low budget B grade movie that sounded better than a lot of big movies - which is also sad..........


Invisible man is good, I like quiet place as well (both 1&2).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> can you tell me where in the movie this scene is? Ie chapter or rough idea of time stamp please


Its the 3rd chapter which starts at the fertility clinic. The scene in question starts at 25 minutes into the film when they step out of the window.


----------



## anjunadeep

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The only caveat with DARDT is that you can't change the height of "ear level" and they have it slightly high since it's for mixing. You can kinda' offset it by modifying room height slightly. But as far as the placements go, it does a really good job. If you dig into it, you can manually input the elevations if you're doing elevated side/rear surrounds and see how it adjusts the heights a bit to keep separation. Other than my rear surrounds (which I can't get perfect because of a door on the back wall), my layout is pretty dead on with what DARDT shows. If you get super granular with it, it will even show you delay times. And if you manually plug in speaker and amp specs, it shows you where you may have weaknesses with hitting reference cleanly. Not too shabby.


Yeah they have ear height as like 1.2m right?


----------



## sdurani

anjunadeep said:


> One of my favorites is Gravity and I'm pretty sure that was one of the first object oriented major mixes.


Just as the first spread sheet program was the killer app for selling office PCs, _'Gravity'_ was the killer app that sold Atmos to much of the industry. Folks in the biz got all excited about this brand new format that they just heard (even though Atmos had already been in theatres for 14 months).


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> It starts at the clinic.


Is the clinic a chapter?


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> Is the clinic a chapter?


Yep.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Yep.


I'm sorry, what I mean is what chapter is that? I have a nvidea shield and it only names the chapters by numbers...


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm sorry, what I mean is what chapter is that? I have a nvidea shield and it only names the chapters by numbers...


Oh, you don't see the pictures. I think it's chapter 2.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Oh, you don't see the pictures. I think it's chapter 2.


Chapter 3


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I'm sorry, what I mean is what chapter is that? I have a nvidea shield and it only names the chapters by numbers...


Did you find it? Its 25 minutes into the movie.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

sdurani said:


> Just as the first spread sheet program was the killer app for selling office PCs, _'Gravity'_ was the killer app that sold Atmos to much of the industry. Folks in the biz got all excited about this brand new format that they just heard (even though Atmos had already been in theatres for 14 months).


Thanks for reminding me, last time I watched that one was as the premiere after completing the first Atmos setup 5 years ago.

This will be the movie of choice for tonight.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its the 3rd chapter which starts at the fertility clinic. The scene in question starts at 25 minutes into the film when they step out of the window.


Thank you. Will check it out tonight!

heard this was a bad movie but with good atmos so never really watched it but glad to hear where the demo scenes are


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> I got my Sony X800M2 player and did a test using the 4K UHD release of Oblivion, a title I am familiar with.
> 
> Unfortunately I have 1 good comment, and 2 negative ones.
> 
> First, the bad.
> 
> Since these 4K releases are also done in HDR, tone mapping is needed to get them to look decent on a non-HDR display. I am using my Samsung 1080P plasma, which is excellent, but does not do HDR. You do get a warning before proceeding:
> 
> View attachment 3322423
> 
> 
> The first thing I noticed was the increased contrast and color in all scenes. These are not welcome changes because shadow detail was too dark and detail was hard to see. The colors look unnatural and go beyond the original intent of the film. Adjusting the HDR Conversion to its lightest setting solves much of it, however some extra contrast and color remains compared to the 1080p copy. More detail is visible in the original and it seems more balanced.
> 
> View attachment 3322424
> 
> 
> Looks like I'll need to get that QD-OLED sooner than I thought.
> 
> So what about the sound? After all, the intent of acquiring the Sony X800M2 and some 4K discs was because the Atmos tracks are increasingly being locked away behind the 4K releases. To hear them, this was my only option. I have more bad news here.
> 
> In Oblivion 4K UHD, the overall volume level was quieter. I had to increase my MV by 5 to get a similar loudness compared to the original Blu-ray. The worst part though is that the bass is substantially reduced. This Dolby Atmos track does not have nearly the same impact as the original DTS track. For example, when Jack "comes in hot" into the stadium, the room-rumbling effect of the ship is much less impressive. You'll notice this in other areas, too. This was one of my reference demo scenes, but I won't be able to use the Atmos version for this, which is a bummer.
> 
> Now, the good news is that the Atmos effects are very nicely done. There is noticeably better dimensionality to the Atmos soundtrack, thanks to placement of sounds. For example, before Jack first departs in the opening scene, his voice comes across an intercom of sorts into the control room. It is placed directly over your head and was a surprise to hear. Other effects are nicely moved about the scenes, better than the original DTS track.
> 
> So all in all, Atmos is really nice, but there's less bass impact, and while the video is watchable with the right settings, it isn't the same. The 1080p Blu-ray both looks better and sounds more impactful on my system.


I watched Oblivion in Atmos based off of this review, and I have to agree that the Atmos was pretty good with the remaster. It's not Gravity or Ready Player One level, but it is pretty good and they used the heights appropriately in a few spots. It didn't make me wish I had used the DTS Neural:X upmixer. However, the surround sound and sound effects were very well done, it's a very nice bed layer soundtrack and made me appreciate my system. Dynamic range was wide, almost too hot compared to the dialogue level imo, but at least it didn't sound normalized and "flat" like most Disney soundtracks.

Now I'll veer off topic for a bit and talk about the bass. I don't have the DTS-MA soundtrack to audibly compare it to, but I did my own BEQ for this in which I tried to replicate the DTS-MA's peak response curve profile. Aron did a BEQ for the DTS-MA and Atmos soundtracks for this which is how I was able to compare the DTS-MA soundtrack to the Atmos. Upon further analysis of the heatmaps of the two soundtracks, it appears like they actually REDUCED the bass in SPECIFIC scenes! So not only was the peak bass curve profile different with the Atmos soundtrack, they reduced bass effects in parts of the movie as well! BEQ can only do so much but it can't help when they do that! I have included the BEQ I did for the Atmos track below in spoiler quotes if anyone wants to see or use it. Note that I had to turn the MV up +3dB on the receiver so the dialogue and sound effects of the main channels sounded correct so I ended up adjusting the sub bass trim -3dB to compensate. It's not necessarily dangerous to not use the -3dB sub trim like I did, it's just I'm not necessarily a "bass head", so a -3dB sub trim still has enough bass for me. Here is the BEQ I did (in spoiler quotes):


Spoiler






















Anyway, if ya'll have a chance to check out the Oblivion Atmos soundtrack I'd say it's worth a listen. It's not a bad movie either, imo, even though I thought it got confused several times throughout the movie whether it wanted to be sci-fi or action sci-fi. I can see that some people might not like how it ended, but I did and thought it improved the movie. I think the movie will work best if you don't know anything about it going in.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

An interesting video from technodad. Apparently he is now recording in dolby Atmos and making youtube videos in binaural so you get kind of an idea using headphones and has the actual Atmos file available for download. Link is in the description of the Youtube video. I will check it out to see if it works on my PS5 on my next day off.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

I don't get the love for "Ready Player One's" Atmos track. It's mostly a good channel based track rather than a quality demo of 3D immersive audio.

One film that made interesting use of the frontal overheads was the 4k Blu-ray of "Warm Bodies." The main zombie, R's, thoughts and story narrations solely came out of the Top Front Left and Right speakers in my six overhead speaker layout. Too bad they didn't use the platform for much more than that.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't get the love for "Ready Player One's" Atmos track. It's mostly a good channel based track rather than a quality demo of 3D immersive audio.
> 
> One film that made interesting use of the frontal overheads was the 4k Blu-ray of "Warm Bodies." The main zombie, R's, thoughts and story narrations solely came out of the Top Front Left and Right speakers in my six overhead speaker layout. Too bad they didn't use the platform for much more than that.


Yeah, many of us here have realized that Ready Player One isnt an "active" type of Atmos mix. Its a static mix that doesnt have many moving objects.

However, just listening to it, you cant really tell that its static because it is so well mixed (using traditional panning techniques) and there's so much going on sonically during the action scenes, your brain can barely keep up. It was only through the Trinnov Object Viewer where we could see how static the Atmos really was.

But even so, it still sounds amazing.


----------



## halcyon_888

Several posts back, and correct me if I'm wrong with the details here, someone theorized that just because the home mix for RP1 has static objects it doesn't mean that the theater Atmos mix didn't have objects and that perhaps in the way they converted RP1 for the home mix, they decided to use static objects for whatever reason. Again, I might be getting details wrong here, but it was something similar to this.


----------



## dschulz

halcyon_888 said:


> Several posts back, and correct me if I'm wrong with the details here, someone theorized that just because the home mix for RP1 has static objects it doesn't mean that the theater Atmos mix didn't have objects and that perhaps in the way they converted RP1 for the home mix, they decided to use static objects for whatever reason. Again, I might be getting details wrong here, but it was something similar to this.


Worth remembering that if you have, for example, a 7.1.4 system and an object-based mix is pre-rendered to 7.1.4, it will sound exactly the same as if the object mix had been delivered to you as objects, even though the Trinnov viewer shows no moving objects.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't get the love for "Ready Player One's" Atmos track. It's mostly a good channel based track rather than a quality demo of 3D immersive audio.
> 
> One film that made interesting use of the frontal overheads was the 4k Blu-ray of "Warm Bodies." The main zombie, R's, thoughts and story narrations solely came out of the Top Front Left and Right speakers in my six overhead speaker layout. Too bad they didn't use the platform for much more than that.


Dude-this again?? Active or static, it sounds great...nuff said


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dschulz said:


> Worth remembering that if you have, for example, a 7.1.4 system and an object-based mix is pre-rendered to 7.1.4, it will sound exactly the same as if the object mix had been delivered to you as objects, even though the Trinnov viewer shows no moving objects.


I think they are far more likely to be a 7.1.2 static bed mix rather than a true 7.1.4 mix. With the Top-Middle bed objects, they image between Top-Front and Top-Rear speakers so the mix *seems *like a 7.1.4 but really its not. When you play them back with 6 ceiling channels, only your top-middles will be active.

I wonder exactly how many mixes use the Top-Front and Top-Rear speakers leaving the Top-Middles silent.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Dude-this again?? Active or static, it sounds great...nuff said


Did you check out that Jupiter Ascending scene?


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Did you check out that Jupiter Ascending scene?


Yes-very good! Didn't watch the rest of the movie though


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes-very good! Didn't watch the rest of the movie though


Thats the best scene for Atmos in the movie but there are several other action scenes which makes excellent use of it and a few other scenes that are a lot more subtle but effective (one is a bunch of people floating in zero G and moans and giggles coming from everywhere. Another is a swarm of bees which sounds like its coming from everywhere)


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Dude-this again?? Active or static, it sounds great...nuff said


Most of the audio effects that were originally attributed to overhead activity were in the bed layer anyway. For a channel based mix it's good, for an _Atmos _3D immersive mix it's just average.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> Worth remembering that if you have, for example, a 7.1.4 system and an object-based mix is pre-rendered to 7.1.4, it will sound exactly the same as if the object mix had been delivered to you as objects, even though the Trinnov viewer shows no moving objects.


I have a 7.1.6 setup right now and would like to go higher when I can, so for a static mix that's bed layer heavy, RP1 (or those like it) really doesn't do it for those kinds of Atmos systems.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> I don't get the love for "Ready Player One's" Atmos track. It's mostly a good channel based track rather than a quality demo of 3D immersive audio.


I don’t get it either.


Dan Hitchman said:


> Most of the audio effects that were originally attributed to overhead activity were in the bed layer anyway. For a channel based mix it's good, for an _Atmos _3D immersive mix it's just average.


I had similar observations for RP1, but it appears that it has a borderline cult following (along with fury road and blade runner 2049).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> I don’t get it either.
> 
> I had similar observations for RP1, but it appears that it has a borderline cult following (along with fury road and blade runner 2049).


Most people with 5.1.2 or as high as 7.1.4 setups wouldnt know of RPO's shortcommings. To those people, it sounds like an incredibly active sound mix. Its only when you go above 11.1 channels that its weaknesses are exposed. If you have Wides, they stay silent. If you have 6 height/top channels, they only play from the Top-middles, leaving front and rear heights silent. There's no front to back object movement etc. Just channel panning. But 98% of Atmos users would never run into these limitations, so to them it just sounds awesome.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> I have a 7.1.6 setup right now and would like to go higher when I can, so for a static mix that's bed layer heavy, RP1 (or those like it) really doesn't do it for those kinds of Atmos systems.


the problem with atmos mixes in general-like 95% of them-they all suck and are mastered poorly or not at all.

This, IMO, makes going past 9.1.4 not very worthwhile at best and if anything it is extremely diminishing returns. Kinda a waste with the state of how many atmos tracks actually get made properly like atmos tracks were supposed to, and then from that little amount how many have good (true) atmos mixes that are actually watchable movies, let alone good?!?

that number is very very small and probably gonna stay small (doesn't look like it's getting much better over the last 5 years).

if that's worth getting extra speakers and tearing the room apart etc than knock yourself out, but with the Stretch of atmos mixing, I think it's sillier than complaining about RP1


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> the problem with atmos mixes in general-like 95% of them-they all suck and are mastered poorly or not at all.
> 
> This, IMO, makes going past 9.1.4 not very worthwhile at best and if anything it is extremely diminishing returns. Kinda a waste with the state of how many atmos tracks actually get made properly like atmos tracks were supposed to, and then from that little amount how many have good (true) atmos mixes that are actually watchable movies, let alone good?!?
> 
> that number is very very small and probably gonna stay small (doesn't look like it's getting much better over the last 5 years).
> 
> if that's worth getting extra speakers and tearing the room apart etc than knock yourself out, but with the Stretch of atmos mixing, I think it's sillier than complaining about RP1


I would agree with this sentiment *if * not for the presence of the upmixers. I end up using the upmixers on content vs native Atmos or DTS:X at a rate of about 5 to 1.

I have hundreds of Blu Rays and DVDs that have no Atmos soundtrack on them. I use upmixers on these. I also watch a lot of streaming shows which only have 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus with no Atmos. Upmixed. So I make use of the upmixers far more often than native Atmos.

With the latest version of Dolby Surround and especially Neural-X using most of your speaker compliment, you can still get use from setups beyond 7.1.4. With Auromatic upmixing, that will use up to 13.1 setups as well. (7.1.6 with VoG and center height)

With the prevalence of those locked bed channel mixes, they dont even make use of your wide channels. Ready Player One leaves them silent. So is it even worth using 9.1.4 with native Atmos mixes? May as well stay with 7.1.4 since thats what studios seem to assume thats all anyone can afford. 

But if you upmix, thats a different matter. Or have a Trinnov and give the sound mixers The Finger.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would agree with this sentiment *if * not for the presence of the upmixers. I end up using the upmixers on content vs native Atmos or DTS:X at a rate of about 5 to 1.
> 
> I have hundreds of Blu Rays and DVDs that have no Atmos soundtrack on them. I use upmixers on these. I also watch a lot of streaming shows which only have 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus with no Atmos. Upmixed. So I make use of the upmixers far more often than native Atmos.
> 
> With the latest version of Dolby Surround and especially Neural-X using most of your speaker compliment, you can still get use from setups beyond 7.1.4. With Auromatic upmixing, that will use up to 13.1 setups as well. (7.1.6 with VoG and center height)
> 
> With the prevalence of those locked bed channel mixes, they dont even make use of your wide channels. Ready Player One leaves them silent. So is it even worth using 9.1.4 with native Atmos mixes? May as well stay with 7.1.4 since thats what studios seem to assume thats all anyone can afford.
> 
> But if you upmix, thats a different matter. Or have a Trinnov and give the sound mixers The Finger.


I think DTS:X only goes to 7.1.4 and needs pro to be beyond that


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> I think DTS:X only goes to 7.1.4 and needs pro to be beyond that


Yes, you need Pro with any processor >7.1.4. The trouble is that so few units with 9.1.4/7.1.6 and above have added Pro and then Anthem and Monoprice have seemingly given up on including it after saying that would be a feature update. Maybe something is amiss at Xperi.


----------



## am2model3

i watched and listened to Star Wars 4,5,6, 4K UHD disc and Dolby Atmos, full bitrate video&audio, wow the Atmos sounded really good for all 3 films!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I think DTS:X only goes to 7.1.4 and needs pro to be beyond that


Yes. Thats why I am going with a Denon over an Arcam or JBL Synthesis. While the Arcam family have Auro3D (part of my plan) it doesnt have DTSX-Pro. I have at least 10, maybe more DTS:X movies and plan to buy quite a few more in the future (all of the 4k Jurassic Park/World movies and all 8 Harry Potter movies on 4k etc) so I want to make sure my setup has DTS:X-Pro to make use of the entire system with all of my discs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Auro3D (part of my plan)


Frankly, I wouldn't bother with Auro3D, at least in terms of speaker layout. It's down for the count unless you need it for the very, very few odd titles available and the handful of Pure Audio music discs out there in Europe. The Denon 4700 and above do include it as a bonus, however.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yes, you need Pro with any processor >7.1.4. The trouble is that so few units with 9.1.4/7.1.6 and above have added Pro and then Anthem and Monoprice have seemingly given up on including it after saying that would be a feature update. Maybe something is amiss at Xperi.


Exactly. So for only a handfull of receivers/processors have adopted Pro:

Denon (8500, X6700)
Marantz (8805, SR8015)
McIntosh (MX123, a fancy 8805)
Lyngdorf
Storm Audio
Trinnov
Maybe one or two others (mostly derivatives of Lyngdorf, Storm and Trinnov)

The only affordable ones on the list are Denon and Marantz with the McIntosh MX123 right in the middle.

Emotiva, Monoprice, Arcam, JBL Synthesis (the Arcam knockoff) Anthem, Tonewinner....none of these have adopted Pro even though they are all 13 channels or higher and all have DTS:X.

Its mind-boggling.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Frankly, I wouldn't bother with Auro3D. It's down for the count unless you need it for the very, very few odd titles available and the handful of Pure Audio music discs out there in Europe.


I made the mistake of listening to the Auromatic upmixer on a friends system. So now I must have it to upmix my non-Atmos and non-DTSX movies.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I made the mistake of listening to the Auromatic upmixer on a friends system. So now I must have it to upmix my non-Atmos and non-DTSX movies.


The Denon 4700 and above do include Auro3D and Auromatic.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Exactly. So for only a handfull of receivers/processors have adopted Pro:
> 
> Denon (8500, X6700)
> Marantz (8805, SR8015)
> McIntosh (MX123, a fancy 8805)
> Lyngdorf
> Storm Audio
> Trinnov
> Maybe one or two others (mostly derivatives of Lyngdorf, Storm and Trinnov)
> 
> The only affordable ones on the list are Denon and Marantz with the McIntosh MX123 right in the middle.
> 
> Emotiva, Monoprice, Arcam, JBL Synthesis (the Arcam knockoff) Anthem, Tonewinner....none of these have adopted Pro even though they are all 13 channels or higher and all have DTS:X.
> 
> Its mind-boggling.


Even the ToneWinner has the Analog Devices DSP chip that is compatible with DTS: X Pro, so I'm not sure what the hold up is.


----------



## halcyon_888

No idea how people can say RP1 doesn't have alot of overhead activity, it's the exact opposite. Even from the opening of the movie the audio has a sound effect in the top right middle, right as the movie begins! Let alone seeing height activity visually in the race scene in the Trinnov viewer (and there's more than just this in the movie).


Spoiler


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> The Denon 4700 and above do include Auro3D and Auromatic.


My friends system included the Denon X4700.

Thats why I am going with the X6700. Because I want 6 height channels.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> My friends system included the Denon X4700.
> 
> Thats why I am going with the X6700. Because I want 6 height channels.


So, you're doing a 7.1.6 layout.


----------



## sdrucker

halcyon_888 said:


> No idea how people can say RP1 doesn't have alot of overhead activity, it's the exact opposite. Even from the opening of the movie the audio has a sound effect in the top right middle, right as the movie begins! Let alone seeing height activity visually in the race scene in the Trinnov viewer (and there's more than just this in the movie).
> 
> 
> Spoiler


As you might remember, we discussed some of this back in January. See here and below:








The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Well there are the front wides that are quite nice when used. Totally agree. Objects can be used at ear level as well and that’s when the wides, extra fronts (Lc/Rc, Lsc/Rsc), and extra surrounds come into play. Most people don’t have these so they use heights as an indication of Atmos object...




www.avsforum.com





It's not dynamic objects, but at least fleeting use of static objects outside of 7.1.2. outside of the race scene (e.g. the scene I captured in Trinnov's Dolby Atmos Viewer). Although in the screen shot I posted, that location of static objects between mains and wides might be the 'grazing' effect where the wides are just playing what's in the L/R main at a reduced level to make that effect 'wider'. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> So, you're doing a 7.1.6 layout.


Exactly. Front Height and Rear Heights to facilitate the Auromatic upmixer for all my legacy content. Top-Middle speakers to bridge the front and rear heights (too big of a gap).

Also implementing the ability to utilize the Top-Middle speakers to create a phantom Voice of God channel. Using a Crown Drivecore 2 amp which has a Y-adaptor mode, I can send the signal from just the VoG channel and it will output a mono signal from both Top-Middles. I wish the Denon could do that natively, like the Monoprice HTP-1 can, but with the Crown amp, that makes it pretty easy. Maybe in the future I will add a Center Height channel. Not sure.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Exactly. Front Height and Rear Heights to facilitate the Auromatic upmixer for all my legacy content. Top-Middle speakers to bridge the front and rear heights (too big of a gap).
> 
> Also implementing the ability to utilize the Top-Middle speakers to create a phantom Voice of God channel. Using a Crown Drivecore 2 amp which has a Y-adaptor mode, I can send the signal from just the VoG channel and it will output a mono signal from both Top-Middles. I wish the Denon could do that natively, like the Monoprice HTP-1 can, but with the Crown amp, that makes it pretty easy. Maybe in the future I will add a Center Height channel. Not sure.
> 
> View attachment 3327618


If you have a standard 8 foot or lower ceiling, then the overhead/height left/right spread should be between 4-5 feet, measured inside edge of speaker to inside edge of speaker. Dolby's diagram of overheads tracking with the front left and right speakers may spread them too far apart. You're trying for a mix of decent stereo imaging and a sensation of sounds located above your head.

My 6 overheads in the basement theater followed Anthony Grimani's recommendations and it turned out great.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

halcyon_888 said:


> No idea how people can say RP1 doesn't have alot of overhead activity, it's the exact opposite. Even from the opening of the movie the audio has a sound effect in the top right middle, right as the movie begins! Let alone seeing height activity visually in the race scene in the Trinnov viewer (and there's more than just this in the movie).
> 
> 
> Spoiler


It looks like the Trinnov object viewer in your example is showing what the track is doing in THEIR setup. With 4 overheads a fixed 7.1.2 bed mix (as what this movie appears to be on disc from further analysis) spreads the Top Middle sound to Top Front and Top Rear equally. It also looks like, for the most part, the activity in the overheads is monaural too.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> It looks like the Trinnov object viewer in your example is showing what the track is doing in THEIR setup. With 4 overheads a fixed 7.1.2 bed mix (as what this movie appears to be on disc from further analysis) spreads the Top Middle sound to Top Front and Top Rear equally. It also looks like, for the most part, the activity in the overheads is monaural too.


Green cubes are speakers, yellow dots are objects. It doesn't matter how many speakers are in the setup, the object viewer still shows only 2 yellow dots in the height layer. It's accurate.


----------



## Magiclakez

We have folks vehemently defending poor Dolby atmos mixes and now they throw them under the bus…on a whim? Keep moving goal posts eh?

I don’t think going past 9.1.4 is a waste. There are quite a few well mixed titles out there e.g. mission impossible: fallout and matrix: resurrection etc. which takes advantage of the entire gamut. More and more studios are slowly (but surely) getting sensitized to the contemporary 9.1.6 (and beyond) landscape. This format is barely 6 yrs old and still evolving. We are still in the incubation phase of immersive audio. Let’s not forget dts-x pro which will service anything and everything you throw it’s way. Subscribing to a “atmos centric” only philosophy is being too myopic imho. Atmos is not the only player in the immersive sphere.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> Frankly, I wouldn't bother with Auro3D, at least in terms of speaker layout. It's down for the count unless you need it for the very, very few odd titles available and the handful of Pure Audio music discs out there in Europe. The Denon 4700 and above do include it as a bonus, however.


I sincerely hope you are speaking for yourself. I use auromatic for music and poorly mixed movie tracks along with neural-x of course.

I wonder if you are aware that the auro-3d layout is also utilized by Dts-x pro / imax enhanced titles. I have quite a significant chunk of dts-x and imax enhanced titles; and they both use the Voice of God and Center height speakers. The auro-3d specific speakers are not a one trick pony (or ponies).


----------



## Magiclakez

Lastly I would encourage folks to try out something 1st hand, before offering feedback cause this forum is also read by new members of the community, who are just starting off on their HT journey and pay attention to everything that’s being said. Being a prisoner or exclusively relying on second hand feedback severely stunts creativity and overall growth.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> My 6 overheads in the basement theater followed Anthony Grimani's recommendations and it turned out great.


My overhead speakers are also based on Grimani’s recommendations. I have actually been following his recommendations for the bed layer speakers as well, as it resonated with me and made sense for my space.


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> Frankly, I wouldn't bother with Auro3D, at least in terms of speaker layout. It's down for the count unless you need it for the very, very few odd titles available and the handful of Pure Audio music discs out there in Europe. The Denon 4700 and above do include it as a bonus, however.


Yeah, I've also determined that it's not worth sacrificing an ideal Atmos layout.

I just like Automatic for some music, and that does not require the Auro speaker layout. It doesn't work for me on complex music with vocals (metal, rock), but it works well for simpler music, soundtrack, and ambient.



Dan Hitchman said:


> The Denon 4700 and above do include Auro3D and Auromatic.


*4500


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> We have folks vehemently defending poor Dolby atmos mixes and now they throw them under the bus…on a whim? Keep moving goal posts eh?
> 
> I don’t think going past 9.1.4 is a waste. There are quite a few well mixed titles out there e.g. mission impossible: fallout and matrix: resurrection etc. which takes advantage of the entire gamut. More and more studios are slowly (but surely) getting sensitized to the contemporary 9.1.6 (and beyond) landscape. This format is barely 6 yrs old and still evolving. We are still in the incubation phase of immersive audio. Let’s not forget dts-x pro which will service anything and everything you throw it’s way. Subscribing to a “atmos centric” only philosophy is being too myopic imho. Atmos is not the only player in the immersive sphere.
> 
> I currently have 8 height speakers installed since I was running 7.1.6 (Dolby Atmos/ Dts-X pro/ IMAX enhanced) and 13.1 Auro-3d with the Top Surround aka Voice of God and Center Height speakers.
> 
> However in due course of time I integrated front wides into my system and I’m now running 9.1.4 (along with 13.1 Auro-3d). My top middles are currently inactive, but I do have the ability and the relevant infrastructure in place to go 9.1.6 (possibly even 11.1.8), when I upgrade to a 16+ channel processor in the near future. My current 7.1.6/ 9.1.4 setup is just a placeholder.


i think studios and mixers are getting more "sensitized" to Dolby atmos soundbars than they are with 9.1.6 etc setups..,


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I sincerely hope you are speaking for yourself. I have over 45 native auro-3d titles; movies and audio. I use auromatic for music and poorly mixed movie tracks along with neural-x of course.
> 
> I wonder if you are aware that the auro-3d layout is also utilized by Dts-x pro / imax enhanced titles. I have quite a significant chunk of dts-x and imax enhanced titles; and they both use the Voice of God and Center height speakers. The auro-3d specific speakers are not a one trick pony (or ponies).


Not a fan of most of the Auro3D titles that have come out yet. I have a few Auro3D music discs from Europe, but they also have an Atmos track as well.

I also don't like their choice of placement for the height speakers and a single, mono point source VOG. I have heard a number of big ticket Auro3D demos and the soundstage seems taller, but the overall bubble-like envelopment above and to the sides and the sound movement does not impress me as much as a well designed Atmos theater and quality Atmos soundtrack.


----------



## sdurani

Magiclakez said:


> I wonder if you are aware that the auro-3d layout is also utilized by Dts-x pro / imax enhanced titles. I have quite a significant chunk of dts-x and imax enhanced titles; and they both use the Voice of God and Center height speakers. The auro-3d specific speakers are not a one trick pony (or ponies).


The DTS:X format has VOG rendering assumption directly above the listener (90° elevation), just like Auro3D. However, the DTS:X Centre Height is at 45° elevation, firmly on the ceiling in most setups and higher than Auro3D would like it. 

IMAX Enhanced has a High Centre encoded at 25° elevation but the format has no VOG. The rest of the 11 channels in IMAX Enhanced soundtracks are mixed for the same speaker locations as typical DTS:X 7.1.4 locations.


----------



## Magiclakez

sdurani said:


> The DTS:X format has VOG rendering assumption directly above the listener (90° elevation), just like Auro3D. However, the DTS:X Centre Height is at 45° elevation, firmly on the ceiling in most setups and higher than Auro3D would like it.
> 
> IMAX Enhanced has a High Centre encoded at 25° elevation but the format has no VOG. The rest of the 11 channels in IMAX Enhanced soundtracks are mixed for the same speaker locations as typical DTS:X 7.1.4 locations.


I was responding to the poster who was implying that auro-3d speaker count is futile as It would be utilized by only a handful of auro-3d titles. 

My center height is congruent with dts-x spec of 45 degrees elevation and I have no issues using it with Auro-3d as well. Auro-3D might not like it (too bad for them) but it works for me.

IMAX enhanced does use vog with the recent DTS-X pro update. I watched Zombieland: double tap and Jumanji: the next level last week; the VOG was very much active. VOG does get usage with IMAX enhanced titles, if not natively.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Given all the options Dolby has strangely handed sound engineers to royally screw up a home Atmos soundtrack in their mixing and encoding suites, and given that so few utilize the 3D panner objects in said format, I have come to the conclusion that it would be far better to release a simpler, purely channel based immersive format for the home. No fussing around with objects (except for the mixing stage, if one so chooses) that can be encoded wrongly on export as so many tracks have been.

Fewer options and an easier software interface could lead to far less confusion, which could mean a better chance of all speaker positions being used, and a superior utilization of 3D audio as a whole.

The track could be folded down like any other channel based track from the beginning of multi-channel audio to the present for those with smaller theaters. Simple, effective.

Music and effects beds could then be arrayed across the Front Wides, Side Surrounds, and Overhead pairs, (even into the Rear Surrounds) like any commercial Atmos sound mix. Channel bed arraying is not possible with home Dolby Atmos as currently designed, leaving many speakers silent with less sonic envelopment.

It would be an 18-channel (11.1.6) format as that would probably encompass 99% of all home theaters on the market, from the smallest to those with dedicated rooms with the average two rows of seating. It would also allow for a very enveloping 3D experience as all the basic and most used speaker positions are covered.

Layout:

Ear Level:
Left, Center, Right
Front Wide - Left/Right
Side Surround 1 - Left/Right (Primary)
Side Surround 2 - Left/Right (Secondary)
Rear Surround - Left/Right

Overhead Level:
Top Front - Left/Right
Top Middle - Left/Right
Top Rear - Left/Right

LFE Channel

With advancements in efficient, variable bitrate, bit-for-bit lossless coding, a pro-consumer level version with options for 24/48 and 24/96 resolutions would more than likely be feasible.

A fixed bitrate lossy version for streaming or OTA could be made available too.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I was responding to the poster who was implying that auro-3d speaker count is futile as It would be utilized by only a handful of auro-3d titles.
> 
> My center height is congruent with dts-x spec of 45 degrees elevation and I have no issues using it with Auro-3d as well. Auro-3D might not like it (too bad for them) but it works for me.
> 
> IMAX enhanced does use vog with the recent DTS-X pro update. I watched Zombieland: double tap and Jumanji: the next level last week; the VOG was very much active. VOG does get usage with IMAX enhanced titles, if not natively.


It's only active because most speaker outputs above 7.1.4 on DTS: X tracks using Pro are derived from matrix upmixing, not from actual present channels in the mix.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's only active because most speaker outputs above 7.1.4 on DTS: X tracks using Pro are derived from matrix upmixing, not from actual present channels in the mix.


I would rather have the ability to do that, than being restricted to utilize my speakers.

Here is a nice, concise video which explains DTSx- pro:


----------



## mrtickleuk

Magiclakez said:


> I sincerely hope you are speaking for yourself. I have *over 45 native auro-3d* titles; movies and audio


That's nice, but I bet it'll take you years and _years _to find 45 more!


----------



## Dan Hitchman

d


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> Your YouTube link choked.


I just refreshed it, it works. You can try again if you like.


----------



## Magiclakez

mrtickleuk said:


> That's nice, but I bet it'll take you years and _years _to find 45 more!


I’ll keep trekking. 🤣


----------



## sdurani

Magiclakez said:


> My center height is congruent with dts-x spec of 45 degrees elevation and I have no issues using it with Auro-3d as well. Auro-3D might not like it (too bad for them) but it works for me.


That's different than claiming that _"the auro-3d layout is also utilized by Dts-x pro / imax enhanced titles"_. Like having an Atmos layout and saying you have "no issues" using it with Auro3D. Doesn't mean that the Auro3D layout is utilized by Atmos.


> IMAX enhanced does use vog with the recent DTS-X pro update. I watched Zombieland: double tap and Jumanji: the next level last week; the VOG was very much active. VOG does get usage with IMAX enhanced titles, if not natively.


The IMAX Enhanced program is based on their theatrical sound formats. IMAX 12-track theatrical mixes (no LFE) are for 7 base layer speakers, 4 overhead speakers and one speaker at the top of the tall IMAX screen. No VOG. IMAX Enhanced soundtracks are delivered using DTS:X, which allows for matrix extraction of additional outputs in order to scale DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtracks to up to 30 speakers. But that matrix upmixing is a DTS:X feature, not part of IMAX Enhanced. By your logic I could claim that VOG does get usage with 5.1 music mixes, if not natively. I have no issue with anyone's personal preference for Auro3D, but let's not pretend that their speaker layout is being utilized by their competitors.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> Given all the options Dolby has strangely handed sound engineers to royally screw up a home Atmos soundtrack in their mixing and encoding suites, and given that so few utilize the 3D panner objects in said format, I have come to the conclusion that it would be far better to release a simpler, purely channel based immersive format for the home. No fussing around with objects (except for the mixing stage, if one so chooses) that can be encoded wrongly on export as so many tracks have been.
> 
> Fewer options and an easier software interface could lead to far less confusion, which could mean a better chance of all speaker positions being used, and a superior utilization of 3D audio as a whole.
> 
> The track could be folded down like any other channel based track from the beginning of multi-channel audio to the present for those with smaller theaters. Simple, effective.
> 
> Music and effects beds could then be arrayed across the Front Wides, Side Surrounds, and Overhead pairs, like any commercial Atmos sound mix. Channel bed arraying is not possible with home Dolby Atmos as currently designed, leaving many speakers silent with less sonic envelopment.
> 
> It would be an 18-channel (11.1.6) format as that would probably encompass 99% of all home theaters on the market, from the smallest to those with dedicated rooms with the average two rows of seating. It would also allow for a very enveloping 3D experience as all the basic and most used speaker positions are covered.
> 
> Layout:
> 
> Ear Level:
> Left, Center, Right
> Front Wide - Left/Right
> Side Surround 1 - Left/Right (Primary)
> Side Surround 2 - Left/Right (Secondary)
> Rear Surround - Left/Right
> 
> Overhead Level:
> Top Front - Left/Right
> Top Middle - Left/Right
> Top Rear - Left/Right
> 
> LFE Channel
> 
> With advancements in efficient, variable bitrate, bit-for-bit lossless coding, a pro-consumer level version with options for 24/48 and 24/96 resolutions would more than likely be feasible.
> 
> A fixed bitrate lossy version for streaming or OTA could be made available too.


Couldn’t agree more.


----------



## Magiclakez

sdurani said:


> That's different than claiming that _"the auro-3d layout is also utilized by Dts-x pro / imax enhanced titles"_. Like having an Atmos layout and saying you have "no issues" using it with Auro3D. Doesn't mean that the Auro3D layout is utilized by Atmos. The IMAX Enhanced program is based on their theatrical sound formats. IMAX 12-track mixes (no LFE) are for 7 base layer speakers, 4 overhead speakers and one speaker at the top of the tall IMAX screen. No VOG. IMAX Enhanced soundtracks are delivered using DTS:X, which allows for matrix extraction of additional outputs in order to scale DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtracks to up to 30 speakers. But that upmixing is a DTS:X feature, not part of IMAX Enhanced. By your logic I could claim that VOG does get usage with 5.1 music mixes, if not natively. I have no issue with anyone's personal preference for Auro3D, but let's not pretend that their speaker layout is being utilized by their competitors.


Man you just love to bump heads. Your insights should be made available to the larger HT community and not just confined to a forum.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's only active because most speaker outputs above 7.1.4 on DTS: X tracks using Pro are derived from matrix upmixing, not from actual present channels in the mix.


I certainly wish Atmos had matrix upmixing so we can use the Wides and other height channels with locked Atmos mixes.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you have a standard 8 foot or lower ceiling, then the overhead/height left/right spread should be between 4-5 feet, measured inside edge of speaker to inside edge of speaker. Dolby's diagram of overheads tracking with the front left and right speakers may spread them too far apart. You're trying for a mix of decent stereo imaging and a sensation of sounds located above your head.


Ceiling is between 8 and 9 feet. Probably closer to 8 after some modification. The plan was to place height channels about 6 or 7 feet apart, depending upon the angles.



> My 6 overheads in the basement theater followed Anthony Grimani's recommendations and it turned out great.


I am kind of using Grimani's suggestion of putting them closer together, I am just not putting them as close together as he would. I intend for them to be right at the boundaries of the seating area. Following the instructions from the Trinnov white paper where it suggests that any speaker with a left or right designation should not come within the boundaries of the seating area to where listeners hear a left speaker coming from the right or vice versa.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Not a fan of most of the Auro3D titles that have come out yet. I have a few Auro3D music discs from Europe, but they also have an Atmos track as well.
> 
> I also don't like their choice of placement for the height speakers and a single, mono point source VOG. I have heard a number of big ticket Auro3D demos and the soundstage seems taller, but the overall bubble-like envelopment above and to the sides and the sound movement does not impress me as much as a well designed Atmos theater and quality Atmos soundtrack.


I'm considering getting Twister or maybe Dragonheart just to have one or two native Auro discs in my possession. Twister should be a perfect representative for the format in any case.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ceiling is between 8 and 9 feet. Probably closer to 8 after some modification. The plan was to place height channels about 6 or 7 feet apart, depending upon the angles.
> 
> 
> 
> I am kind of using Grimani's suggestion of putting them closer together, I am just not putting them as close together as he would. I intend for them to be right at the boundaries of the seating area. Following the instructions from the Trinnov white paper where it suggests that any speaker with a left or right designation should not come within the boundaries of the seating area to where listeners hear a left speaker coming from the right or vice versa.


my room is wide and my ceilings are low (8 feet) and I have my heights are about 7 feet apart and work well I think


----------



## cricket9998

Magiclakez said:


> My overhead speakers are also based on Grimani’s recommendations. I have actually been following his recommendations for the bed layer speakers as well, as it resonated with me and made sense for my space.


Do you have a link to his recommendations?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> That's different than claiming that _"the auro-3d layout is also utilized by Dts-x pro / imax enhanced titles"_. Like having an Atmos layout and saying you have "no issues" using it with Auro3D. Doesn't mean that the Auro3D layout is utilized by Atmos. The IMAX Enhanced program is based on their theatrical sound formats. IMAX 12-track theatrical mixes (no LFE) are for 7 base layer speakers, 4 overhead speakers and one speaker at the top of the tall IMAX screen. No VOG. IMAX Enhanced soundtracks are delivered using DTS:X, which allows for matrix extraction of additional outputs in order to scale DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtracks to up to 30 speakers. But that matrix upmixing is a DTS:X feature, not part of IMAX Enhanced. By your logic I could claim that VOG does get usage with 5.1 music mixes, if not natively. I have no issue with anyone's personal preference for Auro3D, but let's not pretend that their speaker layout is being utilized by their competitors.


I can understand people making that assumption considering DTS:X reps mentioned using the Voice of God along with Imax Enhanced during an interview on the Sound United Youtube channel. So blame DTS themselves for spreading that one. 

To be fair though, they did mention that using the Top-Surround with Imax Enhanced content required Neural-X to be toggled to the on position during Imax Enhanced playback.


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> my room is wide and my ceilings are low (8 feet) and I have my heights are about 7 feet apart and work well I think
> View attachment 3327756
> 
> View attachment 3327753
> 
> View attachment 3327754
> 
> View attachment 3327755


So when are you putting some nice looking absorptive panels on the back wall?


----------



## Magiclakez

cricket9998 said:


> Do you have a link to his recommendations?


Here you go:


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I'm considering getting Twister or maybe Dragonheart just to have one or two native Auro discs in my possession. Twister should be a perfect representative for the format in any case.


I have twister, dragonheart and daylight. They were mixed in dual Dolby atmos and Auro-3d and therefore come with separate discs. Twister is absolutely mind blowing in auro-3d and the LFE appears more pronounced than the atmos mix. These are some of the standout Turbine releases.

The only native Dolby atmos title which comes close to (auro-3d mixed twister) is Hurricane Heist 4k.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> I have twister, dragonheart and daylight. They were mixed in dual Dolby atmos and Auro-3d and therefore come with separate discs. Twister is absolutely mind blowing in auro-3d and the LFE appears more pronounced than the atmos mix. These are some of the standout Turbine releases.
> 
> The only native Dolby atmos title which comes close to (auro-3d mixed twister) is Hurricane Heist 4k.


People say that the LFE is hotter when using the upmixer as well. Some say very hot. One wonders if they are trying to do the same thing as BassEQ and restore the lost LFE found in the original cinema mix.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> So when are you putting some nice looking absorptive panels on the back wall?


should I do that? Will it make a difference? In what way? Where should I put them exactly?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> should I do that? Will it make a difference? In what way? Where should I put them exactly?
> 
> View attachment 3327818
> 
> View attachment 3327820
> 
> View attachment 3327819


By the gods, yes. It will make a huge difference. If you have REW run it and look at the waterfall for your speakers. You'll see how much they ring in your room.

All those bare walls are causing havoc on your frequencies. If you put sound absorption panels and a few diffusion panels. It will clean up the sound considerably. Tighten up the bass (if you have bass traps. Probably not in that room as bass traps are big) and significantly improve clarity.

Diffusion panels helps with the spaciousness of the presentation. 2D diffusion on the side walls. 3D diffusion on the back walls. 

Anthony Grimani is an expert acoustician who speaks at great length about room treatments (absorption and diffusion). Go find those videos and absorb as much as you can. Pun definitely intended.

Look for this series of videos:


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> By the gods, yes. It will make a huge difference. If you have REW run it and look at the waterfall for your speakers. You'll see how much they ring in your room.
> 
> All those bare walls are causing havoc on your frequencies. If you put sound absorption panels and a few diffusion panels. It will clean up the sound considerably. Tighten up the bass (if you have bass traps. Probably not in that room as bass traps are big) and significantly improve clarity.
> 
> Diffusion panels helps with the spaciousness of the presentation. 2D diffusion on the side walls. 3D diffusion on the back walls.
> 
> Anthony Grimani is an expert acoustician who speaks at great length about room treatments (absorption and diffusion). Go find those videos and absorb as much as you can. Pun definitely intended.
> 
> Look for this series of videos:


can anyone recommend some experts or places that can do acoustic /absorption panels in canada?

I'm kinda lost and clueless in what and where to put them but would be willing to get some if they help and given guidance from someone who knows or sells them


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> can anyone recommend some experts or places that can do acoustic /absorption panels in canada?
> 
> I'm kinda lost and clueless in what and where to put them but would be willing to get some if they help and given guidance from someone who knows or sells them


Well, start by checking out those Anthony Grimani videos. They are rife with absolutely invaluable information for us enthusiasts.

And I found this company in Canada. No idea how good they are but looking at the website, their panels look very standard. My job has some panels like that hanging all over and they seem to work. They also seem reasonably priced. Pre-made panels can be expensive, so a lot of people make their own. They seem easy enough to DIY. I am planning to make some myself once I get my garage set up as a workshop.






Acoustic Panels Canada | Sound Noise Solutions


Affordable, durable, and easy to install. For use in home theatres, listening rooms, quiet rooms, boardrooms, gymnasiums, classrooms, call centres, community centres, worship centres, home or professional recording studios, and any space with acoustic issues. Our panels improve the sound in a...




www.acousticpanelscanada.com


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Here is a video from That Home Theater Dude where he does before and after recordings of the reverberation in the room before treatments and after treatments. Its a STARK difference. This isnt a case where you cant hear the difference over a youtube video. Its painfully obvious.

And he even uses the least effective type of material for sound absorption (highly pourous foam) and it has a dramatic effect on his room. If you use properly built panels using fiberglass or rockwool insulation, you will gain even better results.






The cool thing about hanging up acoustic panels is that if you set it up well, it can help with the presentation of immersive audio in your room. Lots of reflections will interfere with your brains ability to properly place sounds in the room. A well treated room should improve the ability to precisely track object placement.


----------



## dschulz

Chirosamsung said:


> can anyone recommend some experts or places that can do acoustic /absorption panels in canada?
> 
> I'm kinda lost and clueless in what and where to put them but would be willing to get some if they help and given guidance from someone who knows or sells them


GIK Acoustics has a lot of great info on their website, and also a contact page to reach out to them for advice on your specific room. Acoustic Panels | Bass Traps | Sound Diffusers - GIK Acoustics


----------



## Chirosamsung

dschulz said:


> GIK Acoustics has a lot of great info on their website, and also a contact page to reach out to them for advice on your specific room. Acoustic Panels | Bass Traps | Sound Diffusers - GIK Acoustics


thanks guys-a lot of great info and advise. I think I'm sold on stepping up the acoustics in the room. I always thought just having DIRAC and DLBC was good enough to make the room sound great. But I guess I don't know what I'm missing if I don't have it.

I was also worried about having to put something on the wall with wife approved art without having to substitute it or move it on the side wall or on the back wall I wasn't sure how panels would work since I already have two mounted speakers behind the MLP. Didn't think there is any room for them to go

and the other wall to the side is completely open

Maybe I could put some behind the front speakers if that makes a difference also...


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> thanks guys-a lot of great info and advise. I think I'm sold on stepping up the acoustics in the room. I always thought just having DIRAC and DLBC was good enough to make the room sound great. But I guess I don't know what I'm missing if I don't have it.
> 
> I was also worried about having to put something on the wall with wife approved art without having to substitute it or move it on the side wall or on the back wall I wasn't sure how panels would work since I already have two mounted speakers behind the MLP. Didn't think there is any room for them to go
> 
> and the other wall to the side is completely open
> 
> Maybe I could put some behind the front speakers if that makes a difference also...


Your first objective should be the wall behind your head between and around the speakers. The rest will make a much smaller difference. You can get artsy with GIK art panels, or do an arrangement of shapes, whatever you prefer. Make it look cool and be functional at the same time. It will even take the focus off the surround speakers.


----------



## cricket9998

Chirosamsung said:


> thanks guys-a lot of great info and advise. I think I'm sold on stepping up the acoustics in the room. I always thought just having DIRAC and DLBC was good enough to make the room sound great. But I guess I don't know what I'm missing if I don't have it.
> 
> I was also worried about having to put something on the wall with wife approved art without having to substitute it or move it on the side wall or on the back wall I wasn't sure how panels would work since I already have two mounted speakers behind the MLP. Didn't think there is any room for them to go
> 
> and the other wall to the side is completely open
> 
> Maybe I could put some behind the front speakers if that makes a difference also...


Dont blindly put stuff on the wall and behind front speakers is the last place to add. Have someone move a mirror along each wall while you sit in MLP and whenever you see a woofer, that’s where you put panels. Make sure the panels cover the woofers and tweets all the waY. Do this for every speaker particularly the center. Kill your first reflections to start off. Just that will get 80% of the job done and you should also recalibrate after. It will make a tremendous difference. There are many threads on DIY panels Or you can buy from Gik or Anthony’s company starting with an S can’t remember the name


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> Dont blindly put stuff on the wall and behind front speakers is the last place to add. Have someone move a mirror along each wall while you sit in MLP and whenever you see a woofer, that’s where you put panels. Make sure the panels cover the woofers and tweets all the waY. Do this for every speaker particularly the center. Kill your first reflections to start off. Just that will get 80% of the job done and you should also recalibrate after. It will make a tremendous difference. There are many threads on DIY panels Or you can buy from Gik or Anthony’s company starting with an S can’t remember the name


Respectfully, I don't think this is the best advice. One shouldn't by default absorb all of their first reflection points. It depends on what speakers they have, and how the room is currently performing.

With that said, I would absorb one wall if the other side does not have one. But when I have both side walls and everything is symmetric, and I have controlled directivity speakers with very good off-axis sound, those walls are staying bare.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Respectfully, I don't think this is the best advice. One shouldn't by default absorb all of their first reflection points. It depends on what speakers they have, and how the room is currently performing.
> 
> With that said, I would absorb one wall if the other side does not have one. But when I have both side walls and everything is symmetric, and I have controlled directivity speakers with very good off-axis sound, those walls are staying bare.


ok. I will look into it but when you say it depends on what speakers they have, if I am all monitor audio gold with ribbon and MPD tweeters-you are saying that will change what type of panels I buy?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> ok. I will look into it but when you say it depends on what speakers they have, if I am all monitor audio gold with ribbon and MPD tweeters-you are saying that will change what type of panels I buy?


Many now recommend hybrid panels for the first reflection points, so that you don't kill off too much of the speaker's natural imaging. Anthony Grimani goes further and says you should not mirror your panel types on each wall, but instead alternate absorption and diffusion panels. He explains why in his various room setup videos.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

I finally rewatched Gravity for the first time in 5 years. The Atmos mix is still one of the better ones and probably the only one with excessive use of vocals in the surround and height layer. 

With a fully calibrated HTP-1 the voices are panning clearly from speaker to speaker around the room without timbre issues. The voice levels are a bit on the low side during the panning around segment. This explains why it was a bit underwhelming last time as the height were set a bit low and then extra noise thanks to scatmos.

I will enjoy watching this film again in 5 years.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Many now recommend hybrid panels for the first reflection points, so that you don't kill off too much of the speaker's natural imaging. Anthony Grimani goes further and says you should not mirror your panel types on each wall, but instead alternate absorption and diffusion panels. He explains why in his various room setup videos.


He calls it: "binaural dissimilarity".


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> should I do that? Will it make a difference? In what way? Where should I put them exactly?


I would start with 3 broadband absorber panels: one on the back wall, behind the main listening position, between the Rear speakers; two panels on the front wall, each one just inward of your L/R speakers (to prevent boundary cancellations). After that you can work on restoring symmetry to the front soundstage, since you have a wall on one side and no wall on the other side.


----------



## eaayoung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Here is a video from That Home Theater Dude where he does before and after recordings of the reverberation in the room before treatments and after treatments. Its a STARK difference. This isnt a case where you cant hear the difference over a youtube video. Its painfully obvious.
> 
> And he even uses the least effective type of material for sound absorption (highly pourous foam) and it has a dramatic effect on his room. If you use properly built panels using fiberglass or rockwool insulation, you will gain even better results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cool thing about hanging up acoustic panels is that if you set it up well, it can help with the presentation of immersive audio in your room. Lots of reflections will interfere with your brains ability to properly place sounds in the room. A well treated room should improve the ability to precisely track object placement.


Wow, that video is amazing. Everything sounded better. But the dialogue was so much clearer after the treatment.


----------



## cricket9998

eaayoung said:


> Wow, that video is amazing. Everything sounded better. But the dialogue was so much clearer after the treatment.


I need to caution you from thinking foam is good. Yes his vocal sounded better but that foam isn’t absorbing **** other than slap echo. Anyone who uses foam for acoustical treatment is a quack besides using it to augment very specific issues. And that guy is known to be a quack. Use proper acoustic panels.


----------



## appelz

I can highly recommend Quest Acoustical Interiors, as well. QuestAI.com


----------



## Soulburner

Chirosamsung said:


> ok. I will look into it but when you say it depends on what speakers they have, if I am all monitor audio gold with ribbon and MPD tweeters-you are saying that will change what type of panels I buy?


Yes. Because speaker designers pay much more attention to off-axis sound quality these days, and your speakers are pretty good, I would do some research. It was much more beneficial to absorb first reflection points when speakers with poor off-axis sound quality were placed in the room. Now, doing so can overdampen the room if you aren't careful.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

dschulz said:


> GIK Acoustics has a lot of great info on their website, and also a contact page to reach out to them for advice on your specific room. Acoustic Panels | Bass Traps | Sound Diffusers - GIK Acoustics


I have been reading that GIK doesn't have the best quality control anymore.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> I would start with 3 broadband absorber panels: one on the back wall, behind the main listening position, between the Rear speakers; two panels on the front wall, each one just inward of your L/R speakers (to prevent boundary cancellations). After that you can work on restoring symmetry to the front soundstage, since you have a wall on one side and no wall on the other side.


ok. I would have thought the panels on the front wall would be on the outside not inside of the two towers since that's the way the port shoots but guess I'm wrong.

Also, what do you mean correct the symmetry and how would one even go about that?

thanks


----------



## Chirosamsung

appelz said:


> I can highly recommend Quest Acoustical Interiors, as well. QuestAI.com


in Canada?


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Yes. Because speaker designers pay much more attention to off-axis sound quality these days, and your speakers are pretty good, I would do some research. It was much more beneficial to absorb first reflection points when speakers with poor off-axis sound quality were placed in the room. Now, doing so can overdampen the room if you aren't careful.


Ok, so if I understand you, you are saying that with my specific monitor audio gold speakers that have good on axis sound-I am LESS likely to need acoustic panels for these types of speakers or what kind of panels specifically would be best for these mostly ribbon (surrounds MPD) tweeter speakers?

those are the panels I will explore


----------



## appelz

Chirosamsung said:


> in Canada?


No, they aren't based in Canada, but they ship everywhere, and have excellent acoustical design services and products. I saw people suggesting GIK, which isn't in Canada either, so thought I'd toss out another option. 

Sanjay has solid general advice  on placement for generic fiberglass absorption.


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> I would have thought the panels on the front wall would be on the outside not inside of the two towers since that's the way the port shoots but guess I'm wrong.


Imagine the front wall is a mirror. Where will you see the reflections of your L/R speakers when you're sitting in the main listening position? The front wall reflections will be just inside of the speaker locations. Which is where the absorbers go. See red marks below. 









The front wall reflections will combine with the direct sound from the speakers on their way to your ears. At some frequency, the reflected sound will be out of phase with the direct sound, causing a cancellation notch (null) in the frequency response. These absorbers tame that problem.


> Also, what do you mean correct the symmetry and how would one even go about that?


Even in this day and age of surround sound, the front soundstage remains critical. That's where your attention will be focused, whether watching a movie or listening to music. As such, it helps to have a symmetrical sounding front soundstage. Side wall reflections contribute to perceived soundstage width. This can be a problem when you have a wall on one side but not the other. You'll have to experiment with treatments on the side wall to see what restores symmetry/balance to the front soundstage.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> I need to caution you from thinking foam is good. Yes his vocal sounded better but that foam isn’t absorbing **** other than slap echo. Anyone who uses foam for acoustical treatment is a quack besides using it to augment very specific issues. And that guy is known to be a quack. Use proper acoustic panels.


As crappy as foam is as an absorber, its clear that it helped to clean up the dialogue quite a lot. So at least its an option for those on a very tight budget but want clearer dialogue.

Just so long as they understand its not going to affect below 1khz very much and below 500hz not at all.

4" panels of rockwool absorbers will take you down to 250hz. May as well do it right. Unless you are on a very tight budget.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

So I checked out that Technodad video he did in Atmos. Very well done. Its good to use to test out your speaker positions and imaging between speaker pairs after a setup and calibration. It goes all around the room in a 7.1.4 configuration using front to back. Side to side and up and down movement. At several points he leaves the object (his voice) at mid-way points between speaker positions for a while and you can use it to check your imaging.

And the download went smooth. No problems. Didnt work in my PS5 but worked just fine using a flash drive connected to my TCL 6 series Roku TV.











Download & Access the newest Dolby Atmos Content






instrumentalplayground.aweb.page


----------



## sdurani

cricket9998 said:


> Yes his vocal sounded better but that foam isn’t absorbing **** other than slap echo.


The shapes on the surface of the foam make it look like those panels were made for scattering the sound more than absorbing it. Most absorbers I've seen have a flat surface. Absorption is not the only way to keep a reflection from reaching your ears. Scattering or diffusion can also take the sting out of a hard reflection. So it's not like those panels are completely useless, as the video clearly demonstrates.


----------



## Chirosamsung

sdurani said:


> Imagine the front wall is a mirror. Where will you see the reflections of your L/R speakers when you're sitting in the main listening position? The front wall reflections will be just inside of the speaker locations. Which is where the absorbers go. See red marks below.
> View attachment 3327994
> 
> 
> The front wall reflections will combine with the direct sound from the speakers on their way to your ears. At some frequency, the reflected sound will be out of phase with the direct sound, causing a cancellation notch (null) in the frequency response. These absorbers tame that problem.


would these red lines for placement hold true even if the speakers are toed in like mine?


----------



## sdurani

Chirosamsung said:


> would these red lines for placement hold true even if the speakers are toed in like mine?


The red lines were for illustrative purposes. Sit in your main listening position and have someone move a small hand mirror across the wall to find the reflection points for those speakers. Add a 2'x2' or 2'x4' broadband absorber at that location. Toe-in changes the intensity but not the location of reflections.


----------



## eaayoung

cricket9998 said:


> I need to caution you from thinking foam is good. Yes his vocal sounded better but that foam isn’t absorbing **** other than slap echo. Anyone who uses foam for acoustical treatment is a quack besides using it to augment very specific issues. And that guy is known to be a quack. Use proper acoustic panels.


I have zero knowledge of acoustical treatments. But after watching that video, I’d like to learn more in order to improve dialogue in movies. Other than installing curtains and a rug, not sure how far I’d go with the treatments since my HT is my family room and not a dedicated HT room in my home.


----------



## Soulburner

eaayoung said:


> I have zero knowledge of acoustical treatments. But after watching that video, I’d like to learn more in order to improve dialogue in movies. Other than installing curtains and a rug, not sure how far I’d go with the treatments since my HT is my family room and not a dedicated HT room in my home.


Depends how important clear sound is to you


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

eaayoung said:


> I have zero knowledge of acoustical treatments. But after watching that video, I’d like to learn more in order to improve dialogue in movies. Other than installing curtains and a rug, not sure how far I’d go with the treatments since my HT is my family room and not a dedicated HT room in my home.


Go to Youtube and search "Anthony Grimani". He's a well known acoustician who specializes in cinemas and upscale home theaters. There are tons of videos on youtube where he goes into great detail on how to fix the acoustics in your theater.


----------



## anjunadeep

In the Dolby spreadsheet, should level calibration be set at 79 or 85? I always thought it was 85, but it seems to use 85 for music mode and then switch to 79 for movie mode?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

anjunadeep said:


> In the Dolby spreadsheet, should level calibration be set at 79 or 85? I always thought it was 85, but it seems to use 85 for music mode and then switch to 79 for movie mode?


Changing it to 85 mostly informs you as to whether each particular speaker/sub could _theoretically_ hit reference level based solely on the specs. It has no effect on anything else. Change it to 85 and if all of the cells are in the green, you're good to go. 

It was of interest to me because it showed that I am riding pretty close to the edge with my rear speakers at their given distance. But keep in mind that this sheet also assumes full range, so if you're crossing your speakers over, none of this will need as much power. It's just an interesting metric.


----------



## anjunadeep

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Changing it to 85 mostly informs you as to whether each particular speaker/sub could _theoretically_ hit reference level based solely on the specs. It has no effect on anything else. Change it to 85 and if all of the cells are in the green, you're good to go.
> 
> It was of interest to me because it showed that I am riding pretty close to the edge with my rear speakers at their given distance. But keep in mind that this sheet also assumes full range, so if you're crossing your speakers over, none of this will need as much power. It's just an interesting metric.


Thanks. Yeah my front height speakers are the weak link according to this... there isn't really a great option that has more output though unless I get into using LCRs but those are MTM and likely would be bad for height speakers. I donno if I really ever listen this loud though. I'm going to guess not.

That's interesting that it is full range. I also notice I probably have something wrong in the subwoofer plugin, because the results don't make much sense. Trying to input 4x JTR RS1s... which, in a room that is 16'x12'x9' should have more headroom.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I'm pretty sure it's just assuming co-location of the subs and giving you what the boost for that would be in theory. The integration of 4 subs in the room is way more complicated, so don't take any of that stuff as gospel. Those columns are just so they can evaluate whether particular speaker/amp combos are suited to that particular size mix room in general. And as I said, if you're crossing everything over, your front heights are likely just fine too. I seriously doubt you're setting your MV to 0 much.


----------



## cricket9998

eaayoung said:


> I have zero knowledge of acoustical treatments. But after watching that video, I’d like to learn more in order to improve dialogue in movies. Other than installing curtains and a rug, not sure how far I’d go with the treatments since my HT is my family room and not a dedicated HT room in my home.


Acoustic treatments can look good. You can diy your own movie poster panels too


----------



## Chirosamsung

cricket9998 said:


> Acoustic treatments can look good. You can diy your own movie poster panels too


can a known company like GIK do movie posters and stuff too?


----------



## cricket9998

Chirosamsung said:


> can a known company like GIK do movie posters and stuff too?


They do but I don’t know what their policy is for copyright. I don’t see anything on their site about refusal


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> The shapes on the surface of the foam make it look like those panels were made for scattering the sound more than absorbing it. Most absorbers I've seen have a flat surface. Absorption is not the only way to keep a reflection from reaching your ears. Scattering or diffusion can also take the sting out of a hard reflection. So it's not like those panels are completely useless, as the video clearly demonstrates.


@Archaea uses these and said they made a difference in his room - and his room is apparently spectacular for sound. He noted that the shape, rather than diffuse, actually just doesn't absorb all the same frequency. Basically some of the frequency that would be absorbed by the 1" thick foam is still reflected where the foam is only 1/4" thick. 
They are limited to high frequencies so should at least tame the slap echo which I believe is high frequency ? 



anjunadeep said:


> In the Dolby spreadsheet, should level calibration be set at 79 or 85? I always thought it was 85, but it seems to use 85 for music mode and then switch to 79 for movie mode?





Jeremy Anderson said:


> Changing it to 85 mostly informs you as to whether each particular speaker/sub could _theoretically_ hit reference level based solely on the specs. It has no effect on anything else. Change it to 85 and if all of the cells are in the green, you're good to go.
> 
> It was of interest to me because it showed that I am riding pretty close to the edge with my rear speakers at their given distance. But keep in mind that this sheet also assumes full range, so if you're crossing your speakers over, none of this will need as much power. It's just an interesting metric.


Is it reduced to 79 because in multi channel playback (Atmos etc) there should be a 6db gain due to the number of speakers and therefore you still hit 85db ?


----------



## cricket9998

niterida said:


> @Archaea uses these and said they made a difference in his room - and his room is apparently spectacular for sound. He noted that the shape, rather than diffuse, actually just doesn't absorb all the same frequency. Basically some of the frequency that would be absorbed by the 1" thick foam is still reflected where the foam is only 1/4" thick.
> They are limited to high frequencies so should at least tame the slap echo which I believe is high frequency ?
> 
> 
> 
> Is it reduced to 79 because in multi channel playback (Atmos etc) there should be a 6db gain due to the number of speakers and therefore you still hit 85db ?


It will definitely make a difference. You will have no echo and a really boomy room. Friends don’t let friends use foam


----------



## Archaea

niterida said:


> @Archaea uses these and said they made a difference in his room - and his room is apparently spectacular for sound. He noted that the shape, rather than diffuse, actually just doesn't absorb all the same frequency. Basically some of the frequency that would be absorbed by the 1" thick foam is still reflected where the foam is only 1/4" thick.
> They are limited to high frequencies so should at least tame the slap echo which I believe is high frequency ?
> 
> 
> 
> Is it reduced to 79 because in multi channel playback (Atmos etc) there should be a 6db gain due to the number of speakers and therefore you still hit 85db ?


Timestamp 5:50 in this video and the next couple minutes I talk about the foam. I personally liked it more than 4’x2’ rockwool panels I tried. To each his own. Perhaps I’m a quack . 
@cricket9998 you sure have strong opinions on it. If you are ever in Kansas City area, send me a PM. I’ll let you hear my setup, and you can evaluate the foam in a situation where I've experimented with panels and foam and found the foam to be my preference. Now to be fair this is fairly dense foam, and and "3.5" thick. The lightweight .5" and 1" foam panels you see used too often don't do much of anything, and I suspect that's where foam gets a lot of its general negative association.


----------



## niterida

cricket9998 said:


> You will have no echo and a really boomy room


Only if you had a boomy room to start with, it won't make a room boomy.
As I stated it is only working on high frequencies but appears to work well on those frequencies.


----------



## cricket9998

Archaea said:


> Timestamp 5:50 in this video and the next couple minutes I talk about the foam. I personally liked it more than 4’x2’ rockwool panels I tried. To each his own. Perhaps I’m a quack .
> @cricket9998 you sure have strong opinions on it. If you are ever in Kansas City area, send me a PM. I’ll let you hear my setup, and you can evaluate the foam in a situation where I've experimented with panels and foam and found the foam to be my preference. Now to be fair this is fairly dense foam, and and "3.5" thick. The lightweight .5" and 1" foam panels you see used too often don't do much of anything, and I suspect that's where foam gets a lot of its general negative association.


Yes you are right perhaps I should be more granular. The typical “foam” is not that helpful. Extremely thick foam that’s a different story. Didn’t mean to offend just wanted to warn people that sticking your typical eggshell foam in a room and calling it a day isn’t a good idea unless you really know what you are doing, and you obviously know what you are doing 😁


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Is it reduced to 79 because in multi channel playback (Atmos etc) there should be a 6db gain due to the number of speakers and therefore you still hit 85db ?


That's a fair question. I'm not sure what the purpose of that setting is for actual mix room design, but what you suggest sounds plausible enough. But for our purposes, it's mostly just a point of interest. We were using DARDT mostly to get a sense of where the speaker placements would be based on the mix room standards, not for any deeper analysis.


----------



## Gates

Chirosamsung said:


> in Canada?


Acoustic Solutions | Acoustics Panels | Studio Room Kits | Primacoustic they even sell their kits through Amazon.ca


----------



## Chirosamsung

Gates said:


> Acoustic Solutions | Acoustics Panels | Studio Room Kits | Primacoustic they even sell their kits through Amazon.ca


I might just buy 3-4 2x2 or 2x4 and figure out where it goes once they come since I will for sure need them somewhere. Just wondering if I need to move the picture on the side wall if it's shown to be a first reflection point and also unsure of what to do with the pot lights and vent on ceiling if I need them there...
















how the heck do you even use the mirror trick on the ceiling lol


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Someone has started a new thread about upcoming new Marantz models and their possible upgraded features.

Yes, they are talking about 9.4.6 processing with options for Audyssey *OR *Dirac (your choice, Dirac is a paid upgrade it seems) for $7k, including Atmos, DTS:X-Pro and 13.1 Auro3D.

an absolute game changer if true.

heres the thread








Marantz "Cinema Series" "2022-2023"


.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## halcyon_888

Anyone watch The Rings of Power episodes 1 and 2 yet? I just finished them and yes, there is Atmos usage sprinkled throughout both episodes! Amazon spent enough money on this series, it would have been awful if they didn't make use of Atmos!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> Anyone watch The Rings of Power episodes 1 and 2 yet? I just finished them and yes, there is Atmos usage sprinkled throughout both episodes! Amazon spent enough money on this series, it would have been awful if they didn't make use of Atmos!


I watched it. The show is certainly pretty and my Denon control app showed Atmos audio. Nothing obvious but it did manage to drag you into the storytelling so its probably fairly well mixed.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Someone has started a new thread about upcoming new Marantz models and their possible upgraded features.
> 
> Yes, they are talking about 9.4.6 processing with options for Audyssey *OR *Dirac (your choice, Dirac is a paid upgrade it seems) for $7k, including Atmos, DTS:X-Pro and 13.1 Auro3D.
> 
> an absolute game changer if true.
> 
> heres the thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marantz "Cinema Series" "2022-2023"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thanks for the link. Maybe a game changer if you're shopping at the high end, but not really for anyone shopping under $2500.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Thanks for the link. Maybe a game changer if you're shopping at the high end, but not really for anyone shopping under $2500.


Its finally a 9.1.6 Processor with Atmos, Pro and Auro. Its what many have been waiting for. Ever other processor under $10k are limited to DTSX 7.1.4 and many dont have Auro3D at all.

People who wanted all three formats and to use all their speakers with DTSX movies were litterally forced buy a Storm or Lyngdorf model at $13k. Many of them would have purchased a less expensive model if one was available.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Someone has started a new thread about upcoming new Marantz models and their possible upgraded features.
> 
> Yes, they are talking about 9.4.6 processing with options for Audyssey *OR *Dirac (your choice, Dirac is a paid upgrade it seems) for $7k, including Atmos, DTS:X-Pro and 13.1 Auro3D.
> 
> an absolute game changer if true.
> 
> heres the thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marantz "Cinema Series" "2022-2023"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Too bad it's a Marantz because they often measure much worse than their Denon counterparts and those are receivers. At that price, it's really not a game changer. If the Monolith HTP-1 had received DTS: X Pro at the initial offered price, THAT would have been a game changer.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad it's a Marantz because they often measure much worse than their Denon counterparts and those are receivers. At that price, it's really not a game changer. If the Monolith HTP-1 had received DTS: X Pro at the initial offered price, THAT would have been a game changer.


You do know that Marantz and Denon models of the same year tend to share features right? If this is what Marantz is doing, you can almost gaurantee that Denon is doing the same thing or very close to it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You do know that Marantz and Denon models of the same year tend to share features right? If this is what Marantz is doing, you can almost gaurantee that Denon is doing the same thing or very close to it.


Except you will have to pay for amps that you probably won't ever use if you are trying to get a better sounding pre-pro.


----------



## dschulz

Dan Hitchman said:


> Except you will have to pay for amps that you probably won't ever use if you are trying to get a better sounding pre-pro.


I do wish, just for the sake of elegance, that Denon offered a flagship pre-pro without the HDAMs.


----------



## dschulz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Someone has started a new thread about upcoming new Marantz models and their possible upgraded features.
> 
> Yes, they are talking about 9.4.6 processing with options for Audyssey *OR *Dirac (your choice, Dirac is a paid upgrade it seems) for $7k, including Atmos, DTS:X-Pro and 13.1 Auro3D.
> 
> an absolute game changer if true.
> 
> heres the thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marantz "Cinema Series" "2022-2023"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


One great thing about the processor having both Audyssey and Dirac is that we can at long last have an apples-to-apples comparison of Audyssey vs Dirac. Same equipment, same room, careful calibrations of both systems, do some proper A/B testing.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> Except you will have to pay for amps that you probably won't ever use if you are trying to get a better sounding pre-pro.


Paying for the amps in the Denon receiver version usually ends up being cheaper than the equivalent Marantz processor due to economies of scale (e.g., compare the Denon 8500 to the Marantz 8805).


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> Paying for the amps in the Denon receiver version usually ends up being cheaper than the equivalent Marantz processor due to economies of scale (e.g., compare the Denon 8500 to the Marantz 8805).


Hopefully it stays that way, but with Sound United under new ownership... I wonder.


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> Paying for the amps in the Denon receiver version usually ends up being cheaper than the equivalent Marantz processor due to economies of scale (e.g., compare the Denon 8500 to the Marantz 8805).


Yeah and I'm fine having them powering (in my case) eight other speakers with just my own power amps helping up front. There is really no justification for separate power amps for all my surround speakers, even if they are 4 ohm, in a bass-managed, domestic bedroom-sized theater, IMO/IME. Levels just aren't that high, distances aren't that far, and the channels aren't demanding enough for that.

In an all-out theater with a lot more space and a lot more seats, sure.



dschulz said:


> I do wish, just for the sake of elegance, that Denon offered a flagship pre-pro without the HDAMs.


To me it looks like they are going to maintain Marantz as their premiere cinema line and even take it into the upscale. Denon will be for the rest of us mortals.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Soulburner said:


> Thanks for the link. Maybe a game changer if you're shopping at the high end, but not really for anyone shopping under $2500.


Yes. Definitely, definitely not a game changer in my budget or most people's budgets.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dschulz said:


> One great thing about the processor having both Audyssey and Dirac is that we can at long last have an apples-to-apples comparison of Audyssey vs Dirac. Same equipment, same room, careful calibrations of both systems, do some proper A/B testing.


I was thinking the same thing. We will finally be able to properly compare Dirac and XT-32


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Too bad it's a Marantz because they often measure much worse than their Denon counterparts and those are receivers. At that price, it's really not a game changer. If the Monolith HTP-1 had received DTS: X Pro at the initial offered price, THAT would have been a game changer.


Well the leak said something about improved sound quality. Perhaps they have managed to lower the distortion caused by the HDAM modules. We'll have to wait for ASR or Audioholics to post their numbers.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> Yeah and I'm fine having them powering (in my case) eight other speakers with just my own power amps helping up front. There is really no justification for separate power amps for all my surround speakers, even if they are 4 ohm, in a bass-managed, domestic bedroom-sized theater, IMO/IME. Levels just aren't that high, distances aren't that far, and the channels aren't demanding enough for that.
> 
> In an all-out theater with a lot more space and a lot more seats, sure.
> 
> 
> To me it looks like they are going to maintain Marantz as their premiere cinema line and even take it into the upscale. Denon will be for the rest of us mortals.


They better get rid of their HDAM op-amps if they want to hit the big leagues. Their products measure terribly with them.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Denon will be for the rest of us mortals.


What does that make me ? I can't even afford Denon


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> They better get rid of their HDAM op-amps if they want to hit the big leagues. Their products measure terribly with them.


The SR8015 measured the best of any recent Marantz (SINAD 98) in the same range as many of their Denon counterparts. So maybe they've figured out how to reduce that distortion.









Marantz SR8015 Review (Home Theater AVR)


This is a review and detailed measurements of the Marantz SR8015 11.2 channel 8K AV Receiver (AVR). It was kindly purchased by a member and drop shipped to me. It costs US $3,299 and is the flagship unit from Marantz. All Marantz AVRs look the same and the 8015 is no exception: I am not a...




www.audiosciencereview.com


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The SR8015 measured the best of any recent Marantz (SINAD 98) in the same range as many of their Denon counterparts. So maybe they've figured out how to reduce that distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marantz SR8015 Review (Home Theater AVR)
> 
> 
> This is a review and detailed measurements of the Marantz SR8015 11.2 channel 8K AV Receiver (AVR). It was kindly purchased by a member and drop shipped to me. It costs US $3,299 and is the flagship unit from Marantz. All Marantz AVRs look the same and the 8015 is no exception: I am not a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audiosciencereview.com


I hope so.


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> They better get rid of their HDAM op-amps if they want to hit the big leagues. Their products measure terribly with them.


I may be a minority in this forum, but I hope they never get rid of the HDAMs. I have owned more than 7 Marantz amps / CDs with the HDAM modules and it makes their sound distinctive. Want a Marantz sans HDAM? There's always Denon.
And I don't think measurements like these are the end all of sound quality.
That's my personal view, so YMMV, cheers


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its finally a 9.1.6 Processor with Atmos, Pro and Auro. Its what many have been waiting for. Ever other processor under $10k are limited to DTSX 7.1.4 and many dont have Auro3D at all.
> 
> People who wanted all three formats and to use all their speakers with DTSX movies were litterally forced buy a Storm or Lyngdorf model at $13k. Many of them would have purchased a less expensive model if one was available.


Denon 6700 will do dtsx up to 13.2 so 9.2.4. And it has auro3d. But the thing is nobody mixes anything in auro3d anymore. I am excited about having Dirac as an option though I don’t like how audyssey does things especially with their subpar microphone.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> Denon 6700 will do dtsx up to 13.2 so 9.2.4. And it has auro3d. But the thing is nobody mixes anything in auro3d anymore. I am excited about having Dirac as an option though I don’t like how audyssey does things especially with their subpar microphone.


The X6700H is what I am planning to get at the moment. Though mostly thats because of cost and lack of other options. I would like a 16 channel model, but all the reasonably priced ones lack Pro, so Denon/Marantz wins by default.

And at this point, anyone who wants Auro3D, wants it for the upmixer. Which is why I want an Auro processor. If I do end up getting a 13.2 channel receiver, I will be using it in a 7.2.6 config, not 9.2.4. Front height and Rear height position for Auro3D. With the addition of Top-Middle speakers to bridge the gap.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> And at this point, anyone who wants Auro3D, wants it for the upmixer. Which is why I want an Auro processor. If I do end up getting a 13.2 channel receiver, I will be using it in a 7.2.6 config, not 9.2.4. Front height and Rear height position for Auro3D. With the addition of Top-Middle speakers to bridge the gap.


I have mine set as height so Auro is enabled, but they're actually in Atmos top physical locations.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

petetherock said:


> I may be a minority in this forum, but I hope they never get rid of the HDAMs. I have owned more than 7 Marantz amps / CDs with the HDAM modules and it makes their sound distinctive. Want a Marantz sans HDAM? There's always Denon.
> And I don't think measurements like these are the end all of sound quality.
> That's my personal view, so YMMV, cheers


But if you look at what they do to the sound quality, it is indeed detrimental. They're basically putting a built-in notch filter into the equation that you cannot remove. EQ'ing your speakers to taste would be the better solution if you want a more veiled sound and practically less than 16 bits of dynamic range.


----------



## petetherock

I've not measured my amps in the same way, but to my ears, those Marantz amps were delightful, so perhaps there's something wrong with my ears...
I am very pleased with my Denon for HT, but for example, my Marantz PM 11 was sublime for music and I still have my SR 12... but yeah, YMMV and that's my personal opinion, cheers


----------



## halcyon_888

petetherock said:


> I've not measured my amps in the same way, but to my ears, those Marantz amps were delightful, so perhaps there's something wrong with my ears...
> I am very pleased with my Denon for HT, but for example, my Marantz PM 11 was sublime for music and I still have my SR 12... but yeah, YMMV and that's my personal opinion, cheers


Nothing wrong with your ears, I love my Marantz.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I have mine set as height so Auro is enabled, but they're actually in Atmos top physical locations.


I want to extend my front and rear heights all the way to the front and rear walls for 2 reasons:

First to extend the front and rear soundstages all the way to the ceiling, which is what Auro3D/Auromatic wants. 

And second, to extend the upper soundstage throughout the entire room, not jus a square or rectangular area above the seating position. This necessitates I mount Top-Middles to fill the hole directly above the seating position.

This also takes into consideration many Atmos bed-channel mixes (7.1.2) like Ready Player One, which will play from the Top-Middles discretely, vs a phantom image from Top-Front and Top-Rear speakers. Then if the sound mix includes some occasional sound objects like Top-Gun Maverick does, then all 6 height channels kick in when appropriate. I'm totally cool with this.

If you consider the ground layer setup, oftentimes the entire front wall is the soundstage. And going from front to back and vice versa, the entire side wall is your side soundstage. Why then do we not make the entire ceiling part of that sounstage? The room is rectangular and the soundstage is from wall to wall all around. I'm just including the whole ceiling in that calculation as well.

And I will be using external speakers. If I find that position doesnt work, I can always move them later.


----------



## ppasteur

Dan Hitchman said:


> They better get rid of their HDAM op-amps if they want to hit the big leagues. Their products measure terribly with them.


The reason they keep them is that there are lots of golden ears types that swear they "sound" better. In any case, the things that we measure, at the levels being measured, are often not audible.
Understand that I have been buying Denon for over 20 years. But HDAM is a marketing thing that lots of people buy into. So why get rid of them if their profit margins are better on the AVRs that have them?


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> If you consider the ground layer setup, oftentimes the entire front wall is the soundstage. And going from front to back and vice versa, the entire side wall is your side soundstage. Why then do we not make the entire ceiling part of that sounstage? The room is rectangular and the soundstage is from wall to wall all around. I'm just including the whole ceiling in that calculation as well.


The reason is because Dolby Atmos isn't really a rectangular system, but a round bubble around the listener. That was also true of of the previous home audio formats.

It has to fit into a rectangular theater room with the dimensions and the arrays and all that, but once it hits the home mixing stage that isn't how things are set up.

Of course using top middles will help a lot. Pretty much required in your case. It sounds more like an Auro-3D system with a .2 Atmos setup inside it.


----------



## halcyon_888

All this Marantz bashing is as bad as the review bombing The Rings of Power is getting on Rotten Tomatoes


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Another HTG video on height angles with Dolby Atmos.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

halcyon_888 said:


> All this Marantz bashing is as bad as the review bombing The Rings of Power is getting on Rotten Tomatoes


If they designed them better, there would be less "bashing."


----------



## dschulz

My issue with HDAM is philosophical. Marantz freely admits that they tune their products by ear to achieve a desired house sound. That's the point of the HDAM modules, and why they measure poorly. In their mind, it's a feature, not a bug! Which would be fine, except the same products with the hand-tuned house sound are sold with Audyssey, which will...EQ back out whatever custom frequency response the HDAM is designed to achieve. It just doesn't make sense at a sort of fundamental level.


----------



## DrDon

Take the bickering to PM or just stop.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dschulz said:


> My issue with HDAM is philosophical. Marantz freely admits that they tune their products by ear to achieve a desired house sound. That's the point of the HDAM modules, and why they measure poorly. In their mind, it's a feature, not a bug! Which would be fine, except the same products with the hand-tuned house sound are sold with Audyssey, which will...EQ back out whatever custom frequency response the HDAM is designed to achieve. It just doesn't make sense at a sort of fundamental level.


Thats why its important for the room EQ system to include a curve editor and the ability to apply a curtain.


----------



## halcyon_888

Dan Hitchman said:


> If they designed them better, there would be less "bashing."


There are thousands of extremely satisfied Marantz owners, and I'm one of them. My Marantz AV8802A improved my home theater in every way, including the bass response with clarity, impact, and detail which was something I didn't expect to happen. I don't listen to 2 channel audio but 1% of the time, but when I do I use the network play feature to directly play ripped CD WAV files from my computer so that there isn't a CD player in the chain. On one of the tracks *I literally got up and checked* to see if my surround speakers were playing because *the imaging was so good* I thought the wrong sound mode might have been selected! Nope it was on Pure Direct--I've _never_ had that happen before.

Movies were improved too, sounds seem to have airiness between them with extra clarity and imaging where before they were a bit clouded and less defined. I didn't even realize they were until I heard the Marantz. Panning was improved, likely due to the extra clarity. There was more detail with the Marantz too, including in the surround channels which is good to pick up subtleties and nuances. Before, I had a 14 year old Denon AVR-4806CI in which the Denon shared many of the same internal components of the flagship Denon for the same year--the Denon AVR-4806CI was no slouch. It was a 7.1 receiver so I couldn't compare Atmos to the Marantz, but Atmos with the Marantz had no degradation compared to the floor channels. And after I ran Audyssey it just improved upon everything, putting on a good Atmos mix like *Ready Player One* is audio nirvana  The sound is downright _holographic_ and locks you into a bubble of sound. I couldn't be happier. Of course there are other good Atmos mixes and the Marantz performs great with them too.

No idea how someone can say my Marantz isn't designed well, not with the actual *real-world experiences* that I've had with it. Especially when considering it was a step up from an already good Denon AVR-4806CI that I had. Perhaps I have "golden ears" and can hear all the things I've described, or perhaps the Marantz is just that good? Whatever it is I'm extremely satisfied with my Marantz (as are thousands of other people), and I'll be looking for another one in the future whenever the time comes to upgrade! Two thumbs up!


----------



## Chirosamsung

I think we've reached the quota on the word "marantz" or any subject matter on that for a week or so...


----------



## tojohnso

petetherock said:


> I may be a minority in this forum, but I hope they never get rid of the HDAMs. I have owned more than 7 Marantz amps / CDs with the HDAM modules and it makes their sound distinctive. Want a Marantz sans HDAM? There's always Denon.
> And I don't think measurements like these are the end all of sound quality.
> That's my personal view, so YMMV, cheers


I'm with you. I don't get all the hate. Love the sound of the Marantz. They do have higher quality components than the Denon, hence the higher cost. I've read the one review from a unit produced when these first came out and wasn't impressed. There's a problem when statements like the following are made "You won't hear these fortunately but technically it is is not nice to have them." It's the sound that matters. Perhaps the referenced harmonic distortions are actually good to have! 

But - even more bizarre is in his tests he makes the following statements. Which - are indicative of great performance for the HDAMs I keep seeing so much negativity about:

"Typical of other Denon and Marantz, overall control of distortion and noise is very good:" 
(Placed 4th highest in the graph)

"And well above average compared to 120 or so amplifiers of all kinds tested so far:"

"So the rest of the tests will be with analog input starting with frequency response:"
"Nice and flat in audible sound"
"bandwidth >150 kHz (Excellent)"
"Signal to Noise Ratio" - "That's decent result."

"Here is power into 4 ohm:"
"Good Noise and distortion for an AVR"

"And with allowance for higher distortion and burst power:"

"And 8 ohm:"
"Good Noise and distortion for an AVR"

"Testing for frequency sensitivity across full power spectrum we get:"
"Still, good for an AVR"
"No Power Loss at 20 Hz!" 

Come on already! He thinks it won't do well with hi-res audio based on the DAC. He thinks the DAC is an issue. Well.....guess what changed recently? The DAC - due to the original supplier fire at their factory.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> The reason is because Dolby Atmos isn't really a rectangular system, but a round bubble around the listener.


You're describing DTS:X, which is a round bubble with rendering assumptions keyed to the listener location (ego-centric rendering). DTS:X tags objects with polar (degrees of elevation, degrees of azimuth) coordinates. Atmos is two squares (base layer & height layer) with rendering assumptions keyed to other rendering assumptions (allo-centric rendering). Atmos tags objects with Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. You can see the difference in their studio panning tools.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> The reason is because Dolby Atmos isn't really a rectangular system, but a round bubble around the listener. That was also true of of the previous home audio formats.
> 
> It has to fit into a rectangular theater room with the dimensions and the arrays and all that, but once it hits the home mixing stage that isn't how things are set up.


Ehhhhh, yes and no. Where people get it twisted is with the mindset that you are actually "extend[ing] the front and rear soundstages all the way to the ceiling" by putting speakers at the front/rear boundaries of the ceiling. Yes, you're putting point sources there in those physical locations... but we hear in terms of azimuth/elevation. It's not about whether the speakers above you form a smaller square than the ear-level speakers, because you're hearing it based on the angle and the steering in between. A rectangle of speakers above you at the correct angles in an 8' high room would sound positionally the same as if they were at the front/rear walls but in a taller room. Given the higher ceilings of theatrical spaces and where that puts the heights, the angles used for top front/rear in the home actually end up more similar to where sounds would be placed within that space. But people have a bizarre notion that their placements have to comply with the room itself rather than the angles, when it doesn't make sense given the ratio of home spaces compared to the space the Atmos format is meant to steer in from a positional standpoint. After all, you're not inputting your room size into the AVR so it can account for the difference in the renderer's panning logic.

It's similar to how the only difference between an orthogonal layout and an equidistant layout of the ear-level speakers is in what delays you apply. The angles to the MLP would be the same. This same logic is why you don't need to put speakers all the way to the side wall/ceiling boundaries for lateral height placement (i.e. between the side surrounds and heights). An easier way to visualize this: Here is a side view of top front/rear placement in an 8' tall room, 45 degree elevation. For this example, I'm using my room's length of 23' and leaving all placements at Dolby's spec'd angles for 7.1.4 top front/rear.







And in a 16' tall room, same angles.







You would functionally hear the same exact "rectangle" of sound above the listener either way, so long as levels are matched and the delays adjusted. Now, let's compare to placements at the front/rear height positions in this same room (which is admittedly on the long side so won't be on the front/rear walls, but this is just for illustration of the concept). Here's that 8' tall room with the 30 degree elevations.







So if this were meant to sound like a taller room than it is, where would these speakers end up to hit the same angles? Here's the same 30 degree elevation in a 16' tall room.







This taller room would also sound functionally identical to the 8' tall room, all things considered. And have the same ill effects from the 120 angular separation of the heights above the listener that the 8' tall room would. 

Now, of course, this is all specific to Atmos and its steering methodology. But the point here is that practically, there's no reason to extend speakers to the physical front/rear boundaries for height use _for Atmos_. But if you want to support Auro, you can certainly make that compromise. But even then, do it more toward their angular requirements between the layers than based on putting the speakers at the front/rear boundaries of the ceiling.


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> You're describing DTS:X, which is a round bubble with rendering assumptions keyed to the listener location (ego-centric rendering). DTS:X tags objects with polar (degrees of elevation, degrees of azimuth) coordinates. Atmos is two squares (base layer & height layer) with rendering assumptions keyed to other rendering assumptions (allo-centric rendering). Atmos tags objects with Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinates. You can see the difference in their studio panning tools.
> View attachment 3329944
> 
> View attachment 3329941


Thanks. I was just referring to the HE studio technical guidelines on actual speaker placement. When you work out the angles, they are creating an Atmos bubble, however they get there with coordinates.


----------



## markus767

Jeremy Anderson said:


> the renderer's panning logic.


Anybody in here got detailed information about how the current renderer implementation works in regards to panning?


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Another HTG video on height angles with Dolby Atmos.


IMO this guy is just as misleading as the confusing Dolby docs. He doesn't even quote Dolby guidelines correctly. eg: he states elevation angles are 45deg plus half of the surround elevation angle and then puts heights at 60deg. Dolby state max surround elevation of 20deg and that would make max height angle 55deg (45 plus half of 20) and funnily enough Dolby also state a MAX angle of elevation of 55deg.
And don't get me started on his diatribe about heights being 'acoustically' aligned with mains if they are at 60deg elevation - what a load of rubbish. If a plane flies from the front to the back of the scene in a straight line to your left then in his setup it will actually sound like it is flying in an arc as it comes in closer when it is in the height speakers and then back out wider as it goes to the rear surrounds.
Just stick to Dolby Studio guidelines and you can't go wrong - again IMO


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> IMO this guy is just as misleading as the confusing Dolby docs. He doesn't even quote Dolby guidelines correctly. eg: he states elevation angles are 45deg plus half of the surround elevation angle and then puts heights at 60deg. Dolby state max surround elevation of 20deg and that would make max height angle 55deg (45 plus half of 20) and funnily enough Dolby also state a MAX angle of elevation of 55deg.
> And don't get me started on his diatribe about heights being 'acoustically' aligned with mains if they are at 60deg elevation - what a load of rubbish. If a plane flies from the front to the back of the scene in a straight line to your left then in his setup it will actually sound like it is flying in an arc as it comes in closer when it is in the height speakers and then back out wider as it goes to the rear surrounds.
> Just stick to Dolby Studio guidelines and you can't go wrong - again IMO


It's kinda' hilarious that he's on board with showing this in a video now, I made a detailed comment to him 6 months ago about using the home mix and theatrical guidelines and he got defensive with me for even mentioning this math as if I was disagreeing with his approach. Glad he's at least showing the work now. But 6 months ago, he was kind of a jerk about it.


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's kinda' hilarious that he's on board with showing this in a video now, I made a detailed comment to him 6 months ago about using the home mix and theatrical guidelines and he got defensive with me for even mentioning this math as if I was disagreeing with his approach. Glad he's at least showing the work now. But 6 months ago, he was kind of a jerk about it.


yes I found that quite amusing too after the "discussions" that were had


----------



## ted_b

Has anyone here (or anywhere, frankly) done an Atmos audio comparison of Dune 4k streaming (HBO Max?) vs the uncompressed 4k Bluray? HD-report dot com has some verbage but its' quite generic. I assume the physical copy winds, but if the 4k stream is very good I may hold off on a purchase (4k UHD bluray rentals are unavailable around here in the Denver area). A link will do. I am about to fire up my new Atmos-enabled theater room and I wanted a few demos, and my adult kids all said they'd head over for Dune.  I am going to Best Buy today to pick up the last piece, a Sony X800M2 UHD/Bluray player. I'll stream via Apple TV 4K (or local files via Zidoo). Thanks in advance...


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Now, of course, this is all specific to Atmos and its steering methodology. But the point here is that practically, there's no reason to extend speakers to the physical front/rear boundaries for height use _for Atmos_. But if you want to support Auro, you can certainly make that compromise. But even then, do it more toward their angular requirements between the layers than based on putting the speakers at the front/rear boundaries of the ceiling.


Exactly. Were I setting up my room specifically for Atmos I would likely be a lot closer to the Dolby guidelines, though I would probably still follow the Trinnov setup guide closer. However I am setting it up for all three formats, so compromises are required.

In addition to this, the room is relatively small, so soundstage is to extend all the way to the boundaries of the room. Especially when Auro3D is taken into consideration (speakers directly above the ground level speakers, which are directly against the front and rear walls)

Another glitch in the Matrix is this: when I have multiple rows, do I consider the angles from a specific seat and if so, which seat should I choose? Front row or back row? Or should I consider the acoustical center of the entire seating area and measure from there? If you have two rows, you would measure from in-between the rows and attempt to get as many seats in the "bubble" as possible.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ted_b said:


> Has anyone here (or anywhere, frankly) done an Atmos audio comparison of Dune 4k streaming (HBO Max?) vs the uncompressed 4k Bluray? HD-report dot com has some verbage but its' quite generic. I assume the physical copy winds, but if the 4k stream is very good I may hold off on a purchase (4k UHD bluray rentals are unavailable around here in the Denver area). A link will do. I am about to fire up my new Atmos-enabled theater room and I wanted a few demos, and my adult kids all said they'd head over for Dune.  I am going to Best Buy today to pick up the last piece, a Sony X800M2 UHD/Bluray player. I'll stream via Apple TV 4K (or local files via Zidoo). Thanks in advance...


Check out Shane Lee's review here. The short version is that the bass is better on the UHD and that you don't have to crank the master volume up as much. This one's considered by most to be a reference must-own disc. That said, if you adjust the volume up a bit, the 4K stream was still pretty impressive. But if Best Buy has it when you go to get a player, just buy it.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Exactly. Were I setting up my room specifically for Atmos I would likely be a lot closer to the Dolby guidelines, though I would probably still follow the Trinnov setup guide closer. However I am setting it up for all three formats, so compromises are required.
> 
> In addition to this, the room is relatively small, so soundstage is to extend all the way to the boundaries of the room. Especially when Auro3D is taken into consideration (speakers directly above the ground level speakers, which are directly against the front and rear walls)
> 
> Another glitch in the Matrix is this: when I have multiple rows, do I consider the angles from a specific seat and if so, which seat should I choose? Front row or back row? Or should I consider the acoustical center of the entire seating area and measure from there? If you have two rows, you would measure from in-between the rows and attempt to get as many seats in the "bubble" as possible.


Again, even with Auro, you don't inherently put the speaker on the front/rear walls just because your other speakers are. You're still trying to put the speaker at the prescribed elevation to the MLP. 







If it just so happens to work out that putting them all the way up to the ceiling gets you to the correct elevation angle, then great. But there's absolutely nothing in Auro's own guide that says it has to go on those walls. And if you follow it strictly and go for equidistant placement, it inherently wouldn't be on the those walls but on the ceiling just by virtue of geometry. Moreover, if placing them on the front/rear walls at the ceiling boundary doesn't get you a minimum of 22-25 degrees of separation, you definitely want to put them on the ceiling and bring them closer to the MLP a bit. Auro's rules, not mine.







More specifically, this is what Auro says:


> 1. Place the Lower speakers at ear height
> 2. Position the Height speakers above the Lower speakers, as high as possible to the ceiling and check the angle
> 3. If more than 22º, use this position.
> 4. If less than 22º, shift the Height speakers closer to the listening position, until an angle of 22º is achieved OR until the distance between the listening position and Height speakers (DH) is not less than 10% the distance from the Lower speakers (DL).


Both formats have their own logic for maintaining separation. Do what you gotta' do. As far as multiple rows, that tends to be a matter of optimal aiming to help include the compromised position. The good news is that you can usually re-aim speakers for coverage to see what works best across the seats you care most about. In my room, my second row is an afterthought that exists only because someone gave me a couch. And even there, it tends to sound pretty solid if I really nail things down at the MLP.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> I was just referring to the HE studio technical guidelines on actual speaker placement.


Speaker placement has always used angles, even when it had nothing to do with the audio technology involved. The recommendation for 2-speaker playback is 60° separation for the L/R speakers. But using that angle for speaker placement has nothing to do with the 2 channels being played back (they're not encoded to be 60° apart). Likewise, Atmos encoding and rendering does not use angles at all for objects. DTS:X does. 

When I said that DTS:X is a bubble and Atmos is not, I meant that literally. As you pan forward in the DTS:X height layer, you're also panning downward. Unavoidable when you're on the surface of a bubble. As you pan forward in the Atmos height layer, there is no change in height. You're panning on a flat plane. 

Describing all the immersive audio formats as a 3D bubble of sound is common, especially when differentiating them from the traditional 2D ring of sound created by older formats. But saying that _"Atmos isn't really a rectangular system, but a round bubble around the listener"_ is not correct. Your description perfectly fits DTS:X, but Atmos was conceived of and is implemented as a rectangular system.


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> Speaker placement has always used angles, even when it had nothing to do with the audio technology involved. The recommendation for 2-speaker playback is 60° separation for the L/R speakers. But using that angle for speaker placement has nothing to do with the 2 channels being played back (they're not encoded to be 60° apart). Likewise, Atmos encoding and rendering does not use angles at all for objects. DTS:X does.
> 
> When I said that DTS:X is a bubble and Atmos is not, I meant that literally. As you pan forward in the DTS:X height layer, you're also panning downward. Unavoidable when you're on the surface of a bubble. As you pan forward in the Atmos height layer, there is no change in height. You're panning on a flat plane.
> 
> Describing all the immersive audio formats as a 3D bubble of sound is common, especially when differentiating them from the traditional 2D ring of sound created by older formats. But saying that _"Atmos isn't really a rectangular system, but a round bubble around the listener"_ is not correct. Your description perfectly fits DTS:X, but Atmos was conceived of and is implemented as a rectangular system.


Understood, but I still see it as a bubble. Sure the mixing controls work differently but they can achieve the same thing. If someone working on an Atmos mix wants the sound to "pan down" as a sound moves overhead, they will simply pan into the front speakers through that process. Indeed many soundtracks do just that, including Dolby's own Horizon demo. The only thing that matters to the end user is where the speakers are.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> But there's absolutely nothing in Auro's own guide that says it has to go on those walls.


Also, there is absolutely nothing in Auro's format that has to do with angles. The priority was to maintain the 'vertical stereo' effect, which meant that the height speakers couldn't be too far away from the base layer speakers. Contrast this with Atmos and DTS:X, which emphasize the separation between the base layer & height layer. The Auro recommendation to place height speakers on the walls (directly above their base layer counterparts) wasn't based on angles but instead to keep those speaker pairs close enough to not lose vertical phantom imaging between them. But you can't say that in a speaker placement guide, hence resorting to angles, which everyone is used to.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> I still see it as a bubble.


You can see it as any shape you want. I have no issue with subjective views. I was simply describing what it is objectively. Especially since there is a competing format that really is a "round bubble".


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> You can see it as any shape you want. I have no issue with subjective views. I was simply describing what it is objectively. Especially since there is a competing format that really is a "round bubble".


Or, more precisely, a hemisphere.


----------



## Soulburner

chi_guy50 said:


> Or, more precisely, a hemisphere.


I can't wait for floor speakers 

7.1.4.3 here I come!


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> I can't wait for floor speakers
> 
> 7.1.4.3 here I come!


Oh no not this again lol 😅


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Also, there is absolutely nothing in Auro's format that has to do with angles. The priority was to maintain the 'vertical stereo' effect, which meant that the height speakers couldn't be too far away from the base layer speakers. Contrast this with Atmos and DTS:X, which emphasize the separation between the base layer & height layer. The Auro recommendation to place height speakers on the walls (directly above their base layer counterparts) wasn't based on angles but instead to keep those speaker pairs close enough to not lose vertical phantom imaging between them. But you can't say that in a speaker placement guide, hence resorting to angles, which everyone is used to.


I get what you're saying, but their guide definitely does focus on the angular ranges. "[T]he room should be high enough to position the Height speakers at the correct angle compared to the distance of the speakers to the main listening position." Inherently, that's not going to be on the wall even if your speakers are placed dead against the wall. Every diagram in their guide shows an equidistant arc, with a min/max of 25-40 and a nominal 30 degree placement, with at least a 22 degree angle at front height and at least a 25 degree angle at surround height. They just give a distance tolerance of 10% closer to hit those minimum angles of separation if you need to bring speakers into the room on the ceiling. What you don't see in there is any tolerance for setting them further back. As I was saying before, if he can put them on the front wall and hit the angle, great! But if not, they have tolerances for adjusting this with ceiling-mounted speakers (which some of their illustrations show in practice). All I was saying is that you want to make sure you're hitting the minimum angle if that's your plan. 

And it still goes without saying that while Auro may focus on that vertical coherence, that doesn't mean you have to have speakers at the ceiling boundaries to represent the height aspect of Atmos. Though we're definitely retreading old and much-discussed ground here. 

I still think setting your room up for an effectively dead format just 'cause you like their upmixer makes for a weird set of priorities. But if it's a compromise someone wants to make, I understand.


Soulburner said:


> I can't wait for floor speakers
> 
> 7.1.4.3 here I come!


We're gonna put bluetooth speakers in your shoes, like a PS5 controller. It'll all work out!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Again, even with Auro, you don't inherently put the speaker on the front/rear walls just because your other speakers are. You're still trying to put the speaker at the prescribed elevation to the MLP.
> View attachment 3330159


Not inherently. You start with them directly above the appropriate speaker (virtually, not literally) and if the appropriate angle is not achieved, you move them forward or rearward to achieve the desired angle.

Most people would start at the wall/ceiling boundry. If you sit close, you would have to move the speakers down the wall to achieve the appropriate angle. Sitting further away, you would have to move it rearward toward the listener. Starting your calculation from the wall/ceiling boundry seems the most intuitive starting point.



> If it just so happens to work out that putting them all the way up to the ceiling gets you to the correct elevation angle, then great. But there's absolutely nothing in Auro's own guide that says it has to go on those walls. And if you follow it strictly and go for equidistant placement, it inherently wouldn't be on the those walls but on the ceiling just by virtue of geometry. Moreover, if placing them on the front/rear walls at the ceiling boundary doesn't get you a minimum of 22-25 degrees of separation, you definitely want to put them on the ceiling and bring them closer to the MLP a bit. Auro's rules, not mine.
> View attachment 3330161


Auro states to move the height speakers forward on the ceiling if and only if the ceiling height is not tall enough to reach the minimum angle at the MLP














> Both formats have their own logic for maintaining separation. Do what you gotta' do. As far as multiple rows, that tends to be a matter of optimal aiming to help include the compromised position. The good news is that you can usually re-aim speakers for coverage to see what works best across the seats you care most about. In my room, my second row is an afterthought that exists only because someone gave me a couch. And even there, it tends to sound pretty solid if I really nail things down at the MLP.


Considering that front and rear height speaker placement in Atmos specifications lines up with what Auro recommends makes this a lot easier than for those who stick with 4 Top-Channel designations.










Frankly I dont understand why more people with 6 height channels dont simply default to this configuration. Possibly because DTS:X is limited to 4 top channels on all but D&M units and expensive preamp processors?

I suppose if your processor has neither Auro nor Pro, this isnt something you have to think about.


----------



## sdurani

chi_guy50 said:


> Or, more precisely, a hemisphere.


Or, for the tragically technical, slightly more than a hemisphere (DTS:X has 3 speakers up front that are 30° below ear height).

That's a total of 5 layers: -30°, 0°, 45°, 60°, 90°. Someone had wedding cake on the mind when conceiving DTS:X.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I get what you're saying, but their guide definitely does focus on the angular ranges.


Sure. Speaker placement guides use angles, for the reason I mentioned earlier: people are used to it. It would be confusing if the only placement advice they got from Auro was to maintain vertical coherence. So it's understandable that they use angles. But those numbers are arbitrary, to the extent that there is no rendering happening based on those locations. 

Below is a pic of Auro's own studio in Belgium, with the inventor himself in the bottom right corner. Lots of Auro content gets mixed here. How much angular separation do you think there is between the L/C/R speakers and the L/C/R heights when sitting at the sweet spot (console)?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I still think setting your room up for an effectively dead format just 'cause you like their upmixer makes for a weird set of priorities. But if it's a compromise someone wants to make, I understand.


I made the mistake of listening to the Auromatic upmixer at a friends house. It was so superior at upmixing standard surroundsound to an immersive soundfield, it absolutely put both Dolby Surround and Neural-X to shame. It wasnt even close. So of course I committed to making my next upgrade Auro capable. When I later broke down how often I listen to standard surround sound upmixed vs native Atmos or DTSX, its on something like a 4 to 1 basis at the very least. So that cemented my earlier decision.

In addtion to this, I often listen to 2.0 stereo sources via Multichannel stereo (Not music, older tv shows or movies in 2.0) as I find that Dolby Surround and Neural-X often collapses 90% of the material encoded in older 2.0 tv shows to the center channel, making them sound mono rather than creating a coherent stereo field which is expanded via upmixing.

I have found that Dolby Surround works okay on some 2.0 movies which have a lot of stereo effects, such as Clash of the Titans, but I would prefer something more enveloping if possible.

Honestly what started me on this thought process was the Arrow release of the 4k version of Flash Gordon. One of the favorites of my youth and its now available in 4k! I couldnt wait to get it home to check out the HDR and 3D audio.

Well the 4k and HDR were GLORIOUS, but the immersive audio?

Nothing.






It has the 2.0 theatrical stereo mix, which is cool for nostalgia purposes. And a 5.1 DTS HD mix.

This is a movie where flying is a major form of transportation and includes aerial battles and they dont include an immersive audio mix.

Thats when I started thinking about whether or not I should set up an Auro capable theater, then once I heard it at my buddies house, that made the decision a whole lot easier.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I made the mistake of listening to the Auromatic upmixer at a friends house. It was so superior at upmixing standard surroundsound to an immersive soundfield, it absolutely put both Dolby Surround and Neural-X to shame. It wasnt even close. So of course I committed to making my next upgrade Auro capable. When I later broke down how often I listen to standard surround sound upmixed vs native Atmos or DTSX, its on something like a 4 to 1 basis at the very least. So that cemented my earlier decision.
> 
> In addtion to this, I often listen to 2.0 stereo sources via Multichannel stereo (Not music, older tv shows or movies in 2.0) as I find that Dolby Surround and Neural-X often collapses 90% of the material encoded in older 2.0 tv shows to the center channel, making them sound mono rather than creating a coherent stereo field which is expanded via upmixing.
> 
> I have found that Dolby Surround works okay on some 2.0 movies which have a lot of stereo effects, such as Clash of the Titans, but I would prefer something more enveloping if possible.
> 
> Honestly what started me on this thought process was the Arrow release of the 4k version of Flash Gordon. One of the favorites of my youth and its now available in 4k! I couldnt wait to get it home to check out the HDR and 3D audio.
> 
> Well the 4k and HDR were GLORIOUS, but the immersive audio?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has the 2.0 theatrical stereo mix, which is cool for nostalgia purposes. And a 5.1 DTS HD mix.
> 
> This is a movie where flying is a major form of transportation and includes aerial battles and they dont include an immersive audio mix.
> 
> Thats when I started thinking about whether or not I should set up an Auro capable theater, then once I heard it at my buddies house, that made the decision a whole lot easier.


For 2.0 content I use the DSU, the DTS upmixer can place "th" and "ch" and "s" sounds when people are speaking into the heights. I've never had that happen with the DSU, however.

Speaking of upmixing, I watched the first episode of Black Sails last night and wow what a good sound mix! Reminded me of Master and Commander's great mixing, it had superb surround usage with great detail. The DTS Neural X upmixer made this sound like a very well done Atmos track, it was quite impressive!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Not inherently. You start with them directly above the appropriate speaker (virtually, not literally) and if the appropriate angle is not achieved, you move them forward or rearward to achieve the desired angle.


But how do you reconcile that with their guideline of keeping the corresponding speakers equidistant? I understand that we're being nitpicky (and if not here, then where better?), but any arc that starts with an ear-level speaker in front of a wall will inherently not place that speaker's corresponding height channel on the wall if you keep distance to MLP the same. Well, unless you had them in a recess behind a screen and could account for the arc.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> Auro states to move the height speakers forward on the ceiling if and only if the ceiling height is not tall enough to reach the minimum angle at the MLP


Which was exactly the point I was making. If putting it on the front wall gets you the correct angle, then that's what matters for Auro. But you wouldn't assume for Atmos purposes that you would necessarily need a point source at the boundary of the ceiling to play back audio mixed in an Atmos context. In your case, you're planning on doing x.x.6 anyway, so I understand your motivation to keep Auromatic as an option. And good on ya'.


sdurani said:


> Sure. Speaker placement guides use angles, for the reason I mentioned earlier: people are used to it. It would be confusing if the only placement advice they got from Auro was to maintain vertical coherence. So it's understandable that they use angles. But those numbers are arbitrary, to the extent that there is no rendering happening based on those locations.


I thought the whole underlying theory behind Auro was the 30 degree middle layer in the pic below. Even their mic array that was the source of Auromatic's logic relied on that set of angles for measuring acoustic spaces (and in turn, recreating them), at least from what I read in their patents. Again, not talking about native Auro here, since that isn't what most are opting into it for.







(Again, I know we're being really granular here. I'm genuinely interested.)


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I thought the whole underlying theory behind Auro was the 30 degree middle layer in the pic below. Even their mic array that was the source of Auromatic's logic relied on that set of angles for measuring acoustic spaces (and in turn, recreating them), at least from what I read in their patents. Again, not talking about native Auro here, since that isn't what most are opting into it for.


30° used to be the max elevation they originally recommended, but that number went up as Atmos gained popularity in the consumer market. The trade show demos done by Auro themselves that I've heard (which, BTW, always sounded great) used much less separation between the base layer and height layer: closer to 15°-20°. You can see that in the pic I posted of their movie mix room at Galaxy Studios. They firmly believe that most of the height info we hear in real life is below 30° elevation rather than overhead. 

Their microphone tree is for multi-channel capture of live events, intended for native Auro3D playback. Auro-Matic is a blind upmixer, like DSU and Neural:X, so AFAIK it's not based on their microphone tree. I know that Yamaha samples the reverb characteristics of real venues for their Cinema DSP upmixer, but I hadn't heard of Auro doing that.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> For 2.0 content I use the DSU, the DTS upmixer can place "th" and "ch" and "s" sounds when people are speaking into the heights. I've never had that happen with the DSU, however.


I have never liked how the Neural-X upmixer handled 2.0 content. It just never sounded right. Dolby Surround was better, but more often than not, sounds more like mono than any kind of surround sound.



> Speaking of upmixing, I watched the first episode of Black Sails last night and wow what a good sound mix! Reminded me of Master and Commander's great mixing, it had superb surround usage with great detail. The DTS Neural X upmixer made this sound like a very well done Atmos track, it was quite impressive!


Neural-X is quite good at upmixing multichannel content. I feel its better in some ways than Dolby Surround. In other ways, Dolby Surround is a lot more sophisticated. They are both good at extracting height material when appropriate, but Neural-X does it more often. Dolby Surround is somehow really good at not warping the original surround mix too much while still occasionally giving you a pretty obvious height effect.

But they both pale in comparison to Auromatic for creating an immersive 3D field. Maybe a 13.1 or 15.1 channel Neural-X upmix will rival the efficacy of Auromatic, but I have my doubts. If it does, I dont really have to concern myself with Auro3D going forward, but first I need a unit that has all three upmixers so I can do the testing personally and figure out which one I prefer the most.


----------



## petetherock

Too hot a discussion...
Just posting something irrelevant..

Three women go down to Mexico one night to celebrate college graduation.

They get drunk, and wake up in jail, only to discover that they are to be executed in the morning,
though none of them can remember what they did the night before.

The first one, a redhead, is strapped in the electric chair and is asked if she has any last words.
She says: "I just graduated from Trinity Bible College and believe in the almighty power of God to
intervene on the behalf of the innocent.." They throw the switch and nothing happens.
They all immediately fall to the floor on their knees, beg for forgiveness and release her.

The second one, a brunette, is strapped in and gives her last words. "I just graduated from the
University of Illinois School of Law, and I believe in the power of Justice to intervene on the
behalf of the innocent." They throw the switch and again, nothing happens.
Again, they all immediately fall to their knees, beg for forgiveness, and release her.

The last one, a blonde (you knew it), is strapped in and says: "Well, I'm from Ohio and just graduated
from Ohio State University with a degree in Electrical Engineering,
and I'll tell ya right now, y'all ain't gonna electrocute nobody if you don't plug this thing in."


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Their microphone tree is for multi-channel capture of live events, intended for native Auro3D playback. Auro-Matic is a blind upmixer, like DSU and Neural:X, so AFAIK it's not based on their microphone tree. I know that Yamaha samples the reverb characteristics of real venues for their Cinema DSP upmixer, but I hadn't heard of Auro doing that.


Dig into their patents. It's less of an "upmixer" in the traditional sense than you'd think. At its core, it's fundamentally an adaptive Hall DSP. Decorrelated versions of the adjacent channels, level-adjusted in realtime based on how wet or dry the source is from moment to moment. Which is a pretty clever trick though, if you think about it. They took the data from measuring rooms with their mic tree and used it not only to recreate the sound of a particular acoustic space, but to gauge how much of that should be applied to sources with lower channel counts based on the content to mimic larger spaces. But as far as any logic steering goes, there's almost none to be found in their documentation, at least that I've found. Still, what's there is a pretty creative solution. I hope that if/when Auro eventually gets dissolved, their angel investor sells the patents off to Dolby or DTS so they can incorporate some elements of it instead of letting it stagnate.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have never liked how the Neural-X upmixer handled 2.0 content. It just never sounded right. Dolby Surround was better, but more often than not, sounds more like mono than any kind of surround sound.


I may be alone in this, but I actually thought that the ambience extraction and steering in DPL-IIz was a bit better than what they're doing now in DSU. Neural-X has always had this faint almost metallic reverb to it with 2-channel stuff that I can't get past. It's like what I imagine music sounds like inside a shipping container. Not sure if that's just a weird artifact that I hear with it or what, but like you, I never thought it sounded right. Out of the current options, DSU has always seemed "truest to the source"... at least as much as any upmixer can be. It expands things but without going too crazy. And from a response standpoint, comparing straight 2-channel to each upmixer's overall sound, it seems to modify the character of the source the least.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> In addtion to this, I often listen to 2.0 stereo sources via Multichannel stereo (Not music, older tv shows or movies in 2.0) as I find that Dolby Surround and Neural-X often collapses 90% of the material encoded in older 2.0 tv shows to the center channel, making them sound mono rather than creating a coherent stereo field which is expanded via upmixing.


The trick I found is to reduce the center level and turn on Center Spread. I saved this as a preset. There, DSU is pretty good.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> The trick I found is to reduce the center level and turn on Center Spread. I saved this as a preset. There, DSU is pretty good.


Interesting. I've never reduced the center level, but I did find that with center spread on, you could bump the distance for the center up and down slightly and hear when it kinda' snapped into place compared to plain stereo. I'm talking maybe 0.1ft one way or the other, not a major change.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Neural-X is quite good at upmixing multichannel content. I feel its better in some ways than Dolby Surround. In other ways, Dolby Surround is a lot more sophisticated. They are both good at extracting height material when appropriate, but Neural-X does it more often. Dolby Surround is somehow really good at not warping the original surround mix too much while still occasionally giving you a pretty obvious height effect.
> 
> But they both pale in comparison to Auromatic for creating an immersive 3D field. Maybe a 13.1 or 15.1 channel Neural-X upmix will rival the efficacy of Auromatic, but I have my doubts. If it does, I dont really have to concern myself with Auro3D going forward, but first I need a unit that has all three upmixers so I can do the testing personally and figure out which one I prefer the most.


My Marantz has the Auro3D upgrade available via firmware, it was $500 $200 last I checked. I didn't get it because I would only use it for upmixing and I've read both very positive and negative reviews about it. That, and I already have two upmixers with the DSU and DTS Neural:X so I didn't want to spend $500 $200 on a gamble if I would prefer the Auro upmixer over the ones I already had. It sounds like you're firmly positive on the Auro upmixer so I get why it would be an easy choice. But I've come to like the DTS upmixer on multichannel content so that's what I've personally chose to stick with.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> My Marantz has the Auro3D upgrade available via firmware, it was $500 last I checked. I didn't get it because I would only use it for upmixing and I've read both very positive and negative reviews about it. That, and I already have two upmixers with the DSU and DTS Neural:X so I didn't want to spend $500 on a gamble if I would prefer the Auro upmixer over the ones I already had. It sounds like you're firmly positive on the Auro upmixer so I get why it would be an easy choice. But I've come to like the DTS upmixer on multichannel content so that's what I've personally chose to stick with.


$500? I thought it was only $200 for the Auro upgrade. That's what it was on my Denon 5200.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> $500? I thought it was only $200 for the Auro upgrade. That's what it was on my Denon 5200.


You're right it's $200 USD, same difference though I don't want to spend that money when I already have two upmixers that I like. I edited my original post

https://upgrade.marantz.com/en/upgradedetails?uid={414A0562-2671-4AEF-8D87-BE5CB221AA62}


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> My Marantz has the Auro3D upgrade available via firmware, it was $500 $200 last I checked. I didn't get it because I would only use it for upmixing and I've read both very positive and negative reviews about it. That, and I already have two upmixers with the DSU and DTS Neural:X so I didn't want to spend $500 $200 on a gamble if I would prefer the Auro upmixer over the ones I already had. It sounds like you're firmly positive on the Auro upmixer so I get why it would be an easy choice. But I've come to like the DTS upmixer on multichannel content so that's what I've personally chose to stick with.


For me it would be worth it because I upmix far more than I watch movies in native 3D.

Just last night I watched The Legend of Hercules (not the Rock) using Dolby Surround and it sounded awesome. I imagine Auromatic would have rocked that as well. Maybe on my day off I will check out some select scenes with Neural-X and compare.

Hmmm....the 4k of that movie has an Atmos soundtrack. I might be willing to check that out.


----------



## Golfa005

Hey all, I have a question and would love feedback from you on output & Bass From ATMOS Height channels.

In your experience, how and where is it noticeable to bigger speakers that go lower in your height channels vs. smaller satellites. Meaning, what movies, scenes, volume levels, etc. make it justifiable to spend more $ on larger height channels that can go to 80hz (or below), larger drivers, more output/volume, etc.

for example what is the biggest and noticeable differences from something like an SVS prime elevation to a full on 6.5" or larger bookshelf speaker as a height channel (top front and top rear)? What movie scenes would someone be able to tell the differences when using proper subs to handle bass below 80hz crossover?

I am currently going from 2 top middle polk in ceilings to 4 channels and shopping for speakers, looking to go for satellites or mountable bookshelves, not in-ceilings. I have two (old) SVS 10" subs to handle the bass. Curious on your collective input, thank you!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Golfa005 said:


> Hey all, I have a question and would love feedback from you on output & Bass From ATMOS Height channels.
> 
> In your experience, how and where is it noticeable to bigger speakers that go lower in your height channels vs. smaller satellites. Meaning, what movies, scenes, volume levels, etc. make it justifiable to spend more $ on larger height channels that can go to 80hz (or below), larger drivers, more output/volume, etc.
> 
> for example what is the biggest and noticeable differences from something like an SVS prime elevation to a full on 6.5" or larger bookshelf speaker as a height channel (top front and top rear)? What movie scenes would someone be able to tell the differences when using proper subs to handle bass below 80hz crossover?
> 
> I am currently going from 2 top middle polk in ceilings to 4 channels and shopping for speakers, looking to go for satellites or mountable bookshelves, not in-ceilings. I have two (old) SVS 10" subs to handle the bass. Curious on your collective input, thank you!


Like any other channel, Atmos heights get a full range signal. Whether you need speakers that could be crossed over at 80Hz or below is totally up to you. But in general, I would at least strive for something that gets you to 80Hz. 

(P.S. As much as I like my Prime Elevations on the ceiling, you're not getting to 80Hz with them unless you put them on articulating brackets to aim at the MLP better than their 20 degree baffle angle does, at which point you might as well have just gotten something else. But crossed at 100Hz, they still work pretty well with that unfortunate off-axis dropoff and they do look pretty good on the ceiling.)


----------



## Golfa005

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Like any other channel, Atmos heights get a full range signal. Whether you need speakers that could be crossed over at 80Hz or below is totally up to you. But in general, I would at least strive for something that gets you to 80Hz.
> 
> (P.S. As much as I like my Prime Elevations on the ceiling, you're not getting to 80Hz with them unless you put them on articulating brackets to aim at the MLP better than their 20 degree baffle angle does, at which point you might as well have just gotten something else. But crossed at 100Hz, they still work pretty well with that unfortunate off-axis dropoff and they do look pretty good on the ceiling.)


I appreciate that insight. I guess what I am also curious about is what do you think you're missing out on by those not hitting 80hz and what content/scenes would you notice it?


----------



## halcyon_888

Golfa005 said:


> I appreciate that insight. I guess what I am also curious about is what do you think you're missing out on by those not hitting 80hz and what content/scenes would you notice it?


I would personally notice it, but that said there are a lot of people who have their Atmos speakers crossed over at 100Hz-120Hz. It's probably up to you whether it's important or not, the frequencies will be sent to your subwoofer.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Golfa005 said:


> I appreciate that insight. I guess what I am also curious about is what do you think you're missing out on by those not hitting 80hz and what content/scenes would you notice it?


I don't think I'm missing out on anything, because I've integrated them pretty well with the subs. Would I prefer that they got down below 80Hz though? Absolutely. As for what content... anything loud and actiony. You'll notice a mismatch in anything moving from ear level to heights if there's an issue with response, but as long as you get things lined up across the crossover range, the odds are lower.


----------



## Soulburner

Golfa005 said:


> Hey all, I have a question and would love feedback from you on output & Bass From ATMOS Height channels.
> 
> In your experience, how and where is it noticeable to bigger speakers that go lower in your height channels vs. smaller satellites. Meaning, what movies, scenes, volume levels, etc. make it justifiable to spend more $ on larger height channels that can go to 80hz (or below), larger drivers, more output/volume, etc.
> 
> for example what is the biggest and noticeable differences from something like an SVS prime elevation to a full on 6.5" or larger bookshelf speaker as a height channel (top front and top rear)? What movie scenes would someone be able to tell the differences when using proper subs to handle bass below 80hz crossover?
> 
> I am currently going from 2 top middle polk in ceilings to 4 channels and shopping for speakers, looking to go for satellites or mountable bookshelves, not in-ceilings. I have two (old) SVS 10" subs to handle the bass. Curious on your collective input, thank you!


All of the channels can carry full range sound and be bass managed. That means if an 80 Hz crossover from your front L/R to your sub(s) tends to sound the best in your system, the same will be true of your surrounds. If you get speakers of similar tonal character and that can handle an 80 Hz crossover, they will blend into your system a lot better than something that can only manage 150 Hz.

It's probably not a big deal if this is a casual TV watching system, but if you do any serious movie watching or do multi-channel music, it will be more important.


----------



## ppasteur

I guess the answer is more about the content isn't it? I have never seen analysis of how much low frequency content is in the Atmos height channels. Is this bandwidth limited by design or common usage?
I have another question too. As lower frequencies, (normally considered to start around 80 hz and down) are pretty non directional, how much difference to sound localization would having speakers that reproduce these frequencies make (if they are even present)?


----------



## Soulburner

You could always swap your speaker wires and connect your front L/R as your height speakers and see.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ppasteur said:


> I guess the answer is more about the content isn't it? I have never seen analysis of how much low frequency content is in the Atmos height channels. Is this bandwidth limited by design or common usage?


There's no filtering done to the objects in Atmos that I know of. Other than the usual re-EQ for home done to the entire mix, there's no limitation. I don't even know of any filtering done to the static objects at top mid in 7.1.2 printouts. All of that can be handled by bass management, so why would they specifically filter an object that might move to non-height positions as it moves through the room?


ppasteur said:


> I have another question too. As lower frequencies, (normally considered to start around 80 hz and down) are pretty no directional, how much difference to sound localization would having speakers that reproduce these frequencies make (if they are even present)?


Everyone's hearing is different. I can say for my part that when I had bookshelf heights that were solid down to 50Hz or so, you could still hear a general direction of the bass in the room with them crossed to either 80Hz or 60Hz but 60Hz definitely sounded better in practice. So I don't know that you'd need to go with full range speakers necessarily... but I think I'd prefer to have something that at least gives me smooth integration with an 80Hz crossover or a little lower.


----------



## Magiclakez

Golfa005 said:


> I appreciate that insight. I guess what I am also curious about is what do you think you're missing out on by those not hitting 80hz and what content/scenes would you notice it?


I have all my height channels crossed at 80. I felt anything above that sounded too tinny for my personal liking. YMMV. The mission impossible: fallout helicopter chase scene around the cliffs is a fantastic showcase to demonstrate some heft coming through the height speakers. I have played the same scene several times, with speakers X’ed at 90/100. But I didn’t feel the same impact as I did with 80. The omnipresent thunderstorm in Hurricane Heist 4k is another example along with Pacific Rim 4k.


----------



## halcyon_888

My two heights are crossed over at 60Hz, and when I first installed them I was listening for bass response in the heights but to be honest I don't do that anymore I just enjoy. But if memory serves, Ghidorah's entrance in Godzilla: King of Monsters demonstrates some bass in the heights. I could be wrong though. And watch at your own risk, said movie's quality is subjective but I enjoyed it lol


----------



## petetherock

There’s a nice Scandinavian show called Burning Sea with some very nice ambient effects. 
check it out. 
oh do use the Norwegian track .. the English is very stiff …


----------



## chi_guy50

petetherock said:


> There’s a nice Scandinavian show called Burning Sea with some very nice ambient effects.
> check it out.
> oh do use the Norwegian track .. *the English is very stiff* …


That's what she said!


----------



## Magiclakez

petetherock said:


> There’s a nice *Scandinavian show* called Burning Sea with some very nice ambient effects.
> check it out.
> oh do use the Norwegian track .. the English is very stiff …


Isn’t this a feature film?

Anyways, I had picked up The Burning Sea 4k Blu-ray in May (on release day). I distinctly recall this movie making a very brief appearance on Netflix early this year, before it got pulled out abruptly. I had planned on watching this on Netflix before buying the physical copy. I agree the atmos is quite good, along with some nice impactful HDR (highlighting the flames), making this a good visual treat as well.

Fwiw, I watched the English dubbed version. I find the subs distracting at times especially while watching immersive content.


----------



## petetherock

chi_guy50 said:


> That's what she said!


😯 
God save the queen 😔


----------



## Magiclakez

It appears that Disney finally got the memo, considering the very impressive atmos implementation on Thor: Love & Thunder. This is a bonafide dynamic mix with moving objects, a pleasant departure from the (Disney) norm. PQ is top tier as well, on the Disney plus stream. Can’t wait for the physical media to drop.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> It appears that Disney finally got the memo, considering the very impressive atmos implementation on Thor: Love & Thunder. This is a bonafide dynamic mix with moving objects, a pleasant departure from the (Disney) norm. PQ is top tier as well, on the Disney plus stream. Can’t wait for the physical media to drop.


That's great news. I'm waiting on the 4K+3D set from Japan in October. I'll be able to remux the Atmos track to the 3D and even the1080p versions as well.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> That's great news. I'm waiting on the 4K+3D set from Japan in October. I'll be able to remux the Atmos track to the 3D and even the1080p versions as well.


Thinking of the remuxing. I've often found adding an Atmos track from a 4k to a 1080p problematic ... out of sync type issues. Do you have any tips for doing this ... my success rate is low.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> It appears that Disney finally got the memo, considering the very impressive atmos implementation on Thor: Love & Thunder. This is a bonafide dynamic mix with moving objects, a pleasant departure from the (Disney) norm. PQ is top tier as well, on the Disney plus stream. Can’t wait for the physical media to drop.


Apparently, they still haven't received the memo on filtering low bass frequencies. As in, there isn't much there.


----------



## Golfa005

Magiclakez said:


> It appears that Disney finally got the memo, considering the very impressive atmos implementation on Thor: Love & Thunder. This is a bonafide dynamic mix with moving objects, a pleasant departure from the (Disney) norm. PQ is top tier as well, on the Disney plus stream. Can’t wait for the physical media to drop.





Dan Hitchman said:


> Apparently, they still haven't received the memo on filtering low bass frequencies. As in, there isn't much there.


both great and disappointing news. I haven't seen THOR L&T but am looking forward to it. Love Marvel and Thor particularly. Hoping to have my 4 ATMOS heights installed by then also (monoprice THX satellite)


----------



## darrellh44

Dan Hitchman said:


> Apparently, they still haven't received the memo on filtering low bass frequencies. As in, there isn't much there.


BEQ is your friend.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

darrellh44 said:


> BEQ is your friend.


We shouldn't have to jump through hoops for poorly mixed soundtracks.


----------



## lax01

Magiclakez said:


> It appears that Disney finally got the memo, considering the very impressive atmos implementation on Thor: Love & Thunder. This is a bonafide dynamic mix with moving objects, a pleasant departure from the (Disney) norm. PQ is top tier as well, on the Disney plus stream. Can’t wait for the physical media to drop.


I was actually pretty shocked how good the mix was....not TOO much overhead but it was very solid. And I saw Thor L&T in a Dolby Cinema and thought the cinema mix was pretty standard Disney BS - will be curious to see how the TrueHD Atmos sounds


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Golfa005 said:


> both great and disappointing news. I haven't seen THOR L&T but am looking forward to it. Love Marvel and Thor particularly. Hoping to have my 4 ATMOS heights installed by then also (monoprice THX satellite)


Don't get too excited. It's clearly one of the worst MCU films in a while. Just a hot mess. From the outspokenness of the cast and production team, it appears there was potential studio interference and they couldn't keep their frustration quiet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

lax01 said:


> I was actually pretty shocked how good the mix was....not TOO much overhead but it was very solid. And I saw Thor L&T in a Dolby Cinema and thought the cinema mix was pretty standard Disney BS - will be curious to see how the TrueHD Atmos sounds


Your post seems a bit contradictory. You were shocked at how good it was and yet it was standard Disney BS. The home track appears to be one of the very rare Atmos encodes from The Mouse House with 3D object usage that utilize all the speakers, even though the bass is subdued. The foundation of the home mix on 4k Blu-ray and Kscape will be the same with the Dolby TrueHD lossless version even if it has the advantage of improved Atmos object encoding (the lossy version uses JOC object encoding which is less sophisticated in order to reduce the data rate) and no audio data loss.


----------



## lax01

Dan Hitchman said:


> Your post seems a bit contradictory. You were shocked at how good it was and yet it was standard Disney BS. The home track appears to be one of the very rare Atmos encodes from The Mouse House with 3D object usage that utilize all the speakers, even though the bass is subdued. The foundation of the home mix on 4k Blu-ray and Kscape will be the same with the Dolby TrueHD lossless version even if it has the advantage of improved Atmos object encoding (the lossy version uses JOC object encoding which is less sophisticated in order to reduce the data rate) and no audio data loss.


I saw Thor in theaters in a Dolby Cinema...and wasn't super impressed (it was my first time in a Dolby Cinema too). The bass was incredibly heavy-handed in theater

I'm more impressed with the Dolby Atmos home mix on Disney+


----------



## halcyon_888

Magiclakez said:


> It appears that Disney finally got the memo, considering the very impressive atmos implementation on Thor: Love & Thunder. This is a bonafide dynamic mix with moving objects, a pleasant departure from the (Disney) norm. PQ is top tier as well, on the Disney plus stream. Can’t wait for the physical media to drop.


I had the same experience, I was quite surprised Disney actually used Atmos for this movie. At first when the movie begins playing in the desert, there were wind effects going on and there was barely any height usage and that's when I began to think "yet another missed opportunity, what should I expect it's Disney Atmouse." But toward the end of the scene they used the heights for some wind effects and I had to eat crow. It was great to hear the heights engaging throughout the movie, maybe--just maybe--someone is listening to everyone complaining about Disney's lack of using the heights with their Atmos mixes? I hope so.


----------



## anjunadeep

lax01 said:


> I saw Thor in theaters in a Dolby Cinema...and wasn't super impressed (it was my first time in a Dolby Cinema too). The bass was incredibly heavy-handed in theater
> 
> I'm more impressed with the Dolby Atmos home mix on Disney+


The bass was too much? My local Dolby theater sometimes has some bad rattles in the room. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> Don't get too excited. It's clearly one of the worst MCU films in a while. Just a hot mess. From the outspokenness of the cast and production team, it appears there was potential studio interference and they couldn't keep their frustration quiet.


HUGE THOR fan!
HUGE BOMB! Totally disappointing movie


----------



## darrellh44

Dan Hitchman said:


> We shouldn't have to jump through hoops for poorly mixed soundtracks.


Complaining about lack of bass probably won't do much, but jumping through hoops certainly will.


----------



## am2model3

just FYI, the Vudu app on PS5 does output 4k, HDR, and DolbyAtmos if your setup supports it! Perhaps only way to hear Atmos on PS5 besides 4K UHD discs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

darrellh44 said:


> Complaining about lack of bass probably won't do much, but jumping through hoops certainly will.


That's not the point I was trying to make. Oh well...


----------



## halcyon_888

The studios aren't going to stop filtering the bass out of soundtracks, so if you want that bass back you have options. 1) BEQ. 2) Run a house curve to try and compensate for the bass that is filtered, but this is inaccurate and can be unsafe for your equipment depending on your setup (it's unsafe for most). 3) Turn the sub trim up, which again this is unsafe in practice.

I'm not a fan of the studios filtering bass, but they aren't going to stop. With bad Atmos usage we don't have a fix for that, but with bass filtering we do and that's #1 BEQ.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> The studios aren't going to stop filtering the bass out of soundtracks, so if you want that bass back you have options. 1) BEQ. 2) Run a house curve to try and compensate for the bass that is filtered, but this is inaccurate and can be unsafe for your equipment depending on your setup (it's unsafe for most). 3) Turn the sub trim up, which again this is unsafe in practice.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the studios filtering bass, but they aren't going to stop. With bad Atmos usage we don't have a fix for that, but with bass filtering we do and that's #1 BEQ.


Does BEQ do 100% of what's cut out or just a more custom house bass curve specific to the movie?

the reason I asked is because if I remember correctly, thor ragnarok and some other marvel movies had BEQ profiles that only raised it 1.5 dB which seems vastly insufficient for how neutered those Disney/marvel tracks were to sound great..,


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Thinking of the remuxing. I've often found adding an Atmos track from a 4k to a 1080p problematic ... out of sync type issues. Do you have any tips for doing this ... my success rate is low.


I use MKVToolnix and use the "delay" option for the Atmos soundtrack and get it in the neighborhood (it can take +/- numbers) if it's off from the 4K/Atmos version. I then often use KODI to fine tune it (audio option for delay forward or back) and then do it again. Sometimes, it takes several tries to get it right, but there isn't a movie I haven't successfully remuxed and a few have been off by over 20 seconds (due to new or missing intros on that version, etc.)



halcyon_888 said:


> The studios aren't going to stop filtering the bass out of soundtracks, so if you want that bass back you have options. 1) BEQ. 2) Run a house curve to try and compensate for the bass that is filtered, but this is inaccurate and can be unsafe for your equipment depending on your setup (it's unsafe for most). 3) Turn the sub trim up, which again this is unsafe in practice.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the studios filtering bass, but they aren't going to stop. With bad Atmos usage we don't have a fix for that, but with bass filtering we do and that's #1 BEQ.


3rd Option. Don't do any of that just for sensations (We don't hear well at 20Hz and lower) and be happy your sub isn't overly expensive/high-end for sub-20Hz frequencies as they're wasted (mine goes to 21Hz). In other words, all Hollywood has done is has made sure I won't bother getting a 20-inch subwoofer with 2000+ Watts any time soon. If anyone should be upset it's the subwoofer industry. They're making it moot to go any deeper. 

That BEQ stuff is WAY too much bother. I can't imagine having to do that for every movie unless it was automated in some way that you set once for a given movie and forget.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I use MKVToolnix and use the "delay" option for the Atmos soundtrack and get it in the neighborhood (it can take +/- numbers) if it's off from the 4K/Atmos version. I then often use KODI to fine tune it (audio option for delay forward or back) and then do it again. Sometimes, it takes several tries to get it right, but there isn't a movie I haven't successfully remuxed and a few have been off by over 20 seconds (due to new or missing intros on that version, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 3rd Option. Don't do any of that just for sensations (We don't hear well at 20Hz and lower) and be happy your sub isn't overly expensive/high-end for sub-20Hz frequencies as they're wasted (mine goes to 21Hz). In other words, all Hollywood has done is has made sure I won't bother getting a 20-inch subwoofer with 2000+ Watts any time soon. If anyone should be upset it's the subwoofer industry. They're making it moot to go any deeper.
> 
> That BEQ stuff is WAY too much bother. I can't imagine having to do that for every movie unless it was automated in some way that you set once for a given movie and forget.


It's automated on the HTP-1


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> It's automated on the HTP-1


Well, that's great if you own the HTP-1. Are those back in stock yet and have they added DTS:X Pro?


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> Does BEQ do 100% of what's cut out or just a more custom house bass curve specific to the movie?
> 
> the reason I asked is because if I remember correctly, thor ragnarok and some other marvel movies had BEQ profiles that only raised it 1.5 dB which seems vastly insufficient for how neutered those Disney/marvel tracks were to sound great..,


Taking Thor Ragnarok as an example:


Spoiler














The dotted line is the original curve and the solid line is with the BEQ filters applied. In the top right are the filters and this particular BEQ has a +15.3dB gain from a 21Hz LS. The MV adjustment is different than the filters, Aron gets the MV value using JRiver's analysis of the track and how much gain is recommended to be applied. The MV adjustment can either be the MV on your AVR, or a sub trim increase. There has been a discussion about dialnorm recently in relation to BEQ and volume adjustments, but that's a different conversation, long story short Thor Ragnarock might also need a MV adjustment due to dialnorm.

So to answer your other question, BEQ is pretty much a custom house curve applied to a particular movie. That's a great way to put it, actually. However, sometimes it can't correct everything the studio does like in the case of Oblivion's DTS track vs. the Atmos track--the studio actually filtered _individual scenes_ in the movie between these two versions! So BEQ can help bring back some of the bass like in the Thor Ragnarock example, but when the studio does something like Oblivion's Atmos track, BEQ can only help so much. Most of the time the studio filters the entire soundtrack at once, so BEQ is still extremely helpful.


----------



## cricket9998

halcyon_888 said:


> Taking Thor Ragnarok as an example:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3332409
> 
> 
> 
> The dotted line is the original curve and the solid line is with the BEQ filters applied. In the top right are the filters and this particular BEQ has a +15.3dB gain from a 21Hz LS. The MV adjustment is different than the filters, Aron gets the MV value using JRiver's analysis of the track and how much gain is recommended to be applied. The MV adjustment can either be the MV on your AVR, or a sub trim increase. There has been a discussion about dialnorm recently in relation to BEQ and volume adjustments, but that's a different conversation, long story short Thor Ragnarock might also need a MV adjustment due to dialnorm.
> 
> So to answer your other question, BEQ is pretty much a custom house curve applied to a particular movie. That's a great way to put it, actually. However, sometimes it can't correct everything the studio does like in the case of Oblivion's DTS track vs. the Atmos track--the studio actually filtered _individual scenes_ in the movie between these two versions! So BEQ can help bring back some of the bass like in the Thor Ragnarock example, but when the studio does something like Oblivion's Atmos track, BEQ can only help so much. Most of the time the studio filters the entire soundtrack at once so BEQ is still extremely helpful.


Sound engineers who filter bass should be disbarred.
Why should we suffer because soundbar crap can’t implement a high pass filter?


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> 3rd Option. Don't do any of that just for sensations (We don't hear well at 20Hz and lower) and be happy your sub isn't overly expensive/high-end for sub-20Hz frequencies as they're wasted (mine goes to 21Hz). In other words, all Hollywood has done is has made sure I won't bother getting a 20-inch subwoofer with 2000+ Watts any time soon. If anyone should be upset it's the subwoofer industry. They're making it moot to go any deeper.
> 
> That BEQ stuff is WAY too much bother. I can't imagine having to do that for every movie unless it was automated in some way that you set once for a given movie and forget.


I can easily hear 12Hz. Going lower than that to say 8Hz it becomes more like a "pulse" rather than a "tone" but I can still perceive it. When testing perception of sub 20Hz frequencies the dB level needs to increase because our hearing does begin to drop off in lower frequencies. So, when I did the test I increased the dB level as I went lower. There's nothing shady about the subwoofer industry, it just takes more dB level and woofer excursion to make up for how our hearing works. That's one of the reasons to use a house curve and/or BEQ.

BEQ couldn't be easier with ezBEQ. It's exactly how you described it, you easily set it once for a given movie and forget it. When you're done with the movie, just clear the BEQ. Sure it takes a little work to set it up originally but even that's not bad at all. People spend more time on the AVS Forums than they would getting a miniDSP and setting up ezBEQ:


Spoiler: How easy ezBEQ is


----------



## cricket9998

halcyon_888 said:


> I can easily hear 12Hz. Going lower than that to say 8Hz it becomes more like a "pulse" rather than a "tone" but I can still perceive it. When testing perception of sub 20Hz frequencies the dB level needs to increase because our hearing does begin to drop off in lower frequencies. So, when I did the test I increased the dB level as I went lower. There's nothing shady about the subwoofer industry, it just takes more dB level and woofer excursion to make up for how our hearing works. That's one of the reasons to use a house curve and/or BEQ.
> 
> BEQ couldn't be easier with ezBEQ. It's exactly how you described it, you easily set it once for a given movie and forget it. When you're done with the movie, just clear the BEQ. Sure it takes a little work to set it up originally but even that's not bad at all. People spend more time on the AVS Forums than they would getting a miniDSP and setting up ezBEQ:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: How easy ezBEQ is


Yeah agreed. First I’m making a plug-in for Plex that can load beq profiles automatically. I hope to release it soon. This will make BEQ literally zero click.
Second if you haven’t experienced a 20-0hz bass drop that explains why he has this opinion. there’s just nothing like really deep bass with good spl. It’s not about volume just the experience of the bass. You have to hear it to believe it. Even if it’s filtered, you still hear it. It could just be better which is what beq does. 
Maybe leave us with proper subs alone and you guys can implement a high pass filter.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> Taking Thor Ragnarok as an example:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3332409
> 
> 
> 
> The dotted line is the original curve and the solid line is with the BEQ filters applied. In the top right are the filters and this particular BEQ has a +15.3dB gain from a 21Hz LS. The MV adjustment is different than the filters, Aron gets the MV value using JRiver's analysis of the track and how much gain is recommended to be applied. The MV adjustment can either be the MV on your AVR, or a sub trim increase. There has been a discussion about dialnorm recently in relation to BEQ and volume adjustments, but that's a different conversation, long story short Thor Ragnarock might also need a MV adjustment due to dialnorm.
> 
> So to answer your other question, BEQ is pretty much a custom house curve applied to a particular movie. That's a great way to put it, actually. However, sometimes it can't correct everything the studio does like in the case of Oblivion's DTS track vs. the Atmos track--the studio actually filtered _individual scenes_ in the movie between these two versions! So BEQ can help bring back some of the bass like in the Thor Ragnarock example, but when the studio does something like Oblivion's Atmos track, BEQ can only help so much. Most of the time the studio filters the entire soundtrack at once, so BEQ is still extremely helpful.


Thanks that's so helpful


----------



## Chirosamsung

cricket9998 said:


> Yeah agreed. First I’m making a plug-in for Plex that can load beq profiles automatically. I hope to release it soon. This will make BEQ literally zero click.
> Second if you haven’t experienced a 20-0hz bass drop that explains why he has this opinion. there’s just nothing like really deep bass with good spl. It’s not about volume just the experience of the bass. You have to hear it to believe it. Even if it’s filtered, you still hear it. It could just be better which is what beq does.
> Maybe leave us with proper subs alone and you guys can implement a high pass filter.


I would pay for a PLEX fix that auto applies BEQ per movie....if that's possible!
I don't have a MiniDSP anymore but with the HTP-1 my only fear is not clearing the file at the end of viewing and putting on another movie and causing some damage.

I would love if I leave a 4k ripped movie in plex and then it auto deletes and loads the next movie when I start it


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> Apparently, they still haven't received the memo on filtering low bass frequencies. As in, there isn't much there.


It’s ok, I keep knocking them for subpar atmouse. I have no problems whatsoever giving someone(in this case Disney) their flowers when they deserve it. It’s not in my nature to keep exhibiting a negative disposition about everything


----------



## Magiclakez

Looks like Shane agrees with the impressive atmos implementation on the digital stream. And I have to agree with him, when he indicates that the bass might get addressed on the physical media.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I can easily hear 12Hz. Going lower than that to say 8Hz it becomes more like a "pulse" rather than a "tone" but I can still perceive it. When testing perception of sub 20Hz frequencies the dB level needs to increase because our hearing does begin to drop off in lower frequencies. So, when I did the test I increased the dB level as I went lower. There's nothing shady about the subwoofer industry, it just takes more dB level and woofer excursion to make up for how our hearing works. That's one of the reasons to use a house curve and/or BEQ.
> 
> BEQ couldn't be easier with ezBEQ. It's exactly how you described it, you easily set it once for a given movie and forget it. When you're done with the movie, just clear the BEQ. Sure it takes a little work to set it up originally but even that's not bad at all. People spend more time on the AVS Forums than they would getting a miniDSP and setting up ezBEQ:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: How easy ezBEQ is


If you're turning up bass below 20Hz to where you can actually hear it rather just feel it, you're probably destroying your hearing. I read an article on how some theaters back in the 1950s used to add sub-20Hz bass to horror movies using arrays of large woofer cones because while you really couldn't hear it, the brain interprets it as something wrong and generates a fight/flight response, making the movie seem scarier. The problem was they noticed people (probably the ones operating the theater) were slowly losing their hearing.

While we tolerate bass to much higher levels than higher frequencies, there is a limit before you start doing damage. One is probably better off using a seat shaker or other tactile system for the feel of really deep bass than a subwoofer array, let alone to get 12Hz to be _audible_. A quick search shows a lot of evidence you're harming your ears above not terribly high thresholds for infrasonics when you're talking about actual audibility. I'd be careful how loud you go below 20Hz. One study linked below show 140dB at those frequencies can definitely cause damage. I don't know how loud you'd have to go to actually "hear" 12 or 14 or even 16Hz, but I know some people tend to really push the limits.

*Infransonics: The Silent Enemy*






Infrasonic sound: the Silent Enemy | Learn more at hear-it.org - hear-it.org


We cannot hear infrasonic waves, as these frequencies are under that, which the human ear can pick up. Despite this, these sounds can pose a great risk to our hearing and our health.




www.hear-it.org





*Sounds You Can't Hear Can Still Hurt Your Ears*









Sounds you can't hear can still hurt your ears


Exposure to inaudible low-frequency pitches changes the functioning of the inner ear




www.science.org





This government study (PDF) suggests damage will definitely occur above 140dB in the Infrasonic range:



https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/infrasound_508.pdf


----------



## 3ll3d00d

MagnumX said:


> you generate sub-harmonic vibrations in the ear and these will damage your hearing.


none of those links work


----------



## MagnumX

3ll3d00d said:


> none of those links work


Yeah phone issue. Fixed.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

wrong thread for beq chat really but it's worth noting that beq itself is not aware of what reproduces that signal so you don't have to go full blast with a vast array of subs to make use of it


----------



## Gates

halcyon_888 said:


> *I can easily hear 12Hz. Going lower than that to say 8Hz it becomes more like a "pulse" rather than a "tone" but I can still perceive it.* When testing perception of sub 20Hz frequencies the dB level needs to increase because our hearing does begin to drop off in lower frequencies. So, when I did the test I increased the dB level as I went lower. There's nothing shady about the subwoofer industry, it just takes more dB level and woofer excursion to make up for how our hearing works. That's one of the reasons to use a house curve and/or BEQ.
> 
> BEQ couldn't be easier with ezBEQ. It's exactly how you described it, you easily set it once for a given movie and forget it. When you're done with the movie, just clear the BEQ. Sure it takes a little work to set it up originally but even that's not bad at all. People spend more time on the AVS Forums than they would getting a miniDSP and setting up ezBEQ:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: How easy ezBEQ is


Same here with my Funk Audio and it's great.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> If you're turning up bass below 20Hz to where you can actually hear it rather just feel it, you're probably destroying your hearing. I read an article on how some theaters back in the 1950s used to add sub-20Hz bass to horror movies using arrays of large woofer cones because while you really couldn't hear it, the brain interprets it as something wrong and generates a fight/flight response, making the movie seem scarier. The problem was they noticed people (probably the ones operating the theater) were slowly losing their hearing.
> 
> While we tolerate bass to much higher levels than higher frequencies, there is a limit before you start doing damage. One is probably better off using a seat shaker or other tactile system for the feel of really deep bass than a subwoofer array, let alone to get 12Hz to be _audible_. A quick search shows a lot of evidence you're harming your ears above not terribly high thresholds for infrasonics when you're talking about actual audibility. I'd be careful how loud you go below 20Hz. One study linked below show 140dB at those frequencies can definitely cause damage. I don't know how loud you'd have to go to actually "hear" 12 or 14 or even 16Hz, but I know some people tend to really push the limits.
> 
> *Infransonics: The Silent Enemy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infrasonic sound: the Silent Enemy | Learn more at hear-it.org - hear-it.org
> 
> 
> We cannot hear infrasonic waves, as these frequencies are under that, which the human ear can pick up. Despite this, these sounds can pose a great risk to our hearing and our health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hear-it.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sounds You Can't Hear Can Still Hurt Your Ears*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds you can't hear can still hurt your ears
> 
> 
> Exposure to inaudible low-frequency pitches changes the functioning of the inner ear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.science.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This government study (PDF) suggests damage will definitely occur above 140dB in the Infrasonic range:
> 
> 
> 
> https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/infrasound_508.pdf


No not really, you don't have to turn the bass up crazy loud to hear it under 20Hz. I was easily perceiving 12Hz at 75dB in my test, I created a log of the test and I am referencing my log for the dB level I was using. That's hardly anything at all and won't cause any damage. I was using 75dB for the test at each frequency--well until I began to run out of excursion at 5Hz and couldn't reach 75dB anymore without woofer damage. The conclusion of my perception test is that I can hear _lot_ better under 20Hz than a lot of sources would lead someone to believe. I knew that I could easily hear frequencies under 20Hz before I did the test, but I wanted to see just how good I could hear them, and how wrong a lot of the literature about it is out there. BEQ isn't about running a crazy SPL to damage hearing, it's about restoring the bass that studios filter on each soundtrack. Sub-20Hz frequencies are _awesome_ and add a new dimension to the home theater experience. Sure if someone wants to use BEQ and crank it then they can, but that's not why I use it. Besides, most of the time those lower frequencies are transient and only last a few seconds anyway and it's prolonged exposure that damages hearing. BEQ is safe if you use it properly.

That said, I have a 12Hz high pass filter on my subwoofer, it's there to limit excursion and protect my investment and time. (Of course when I was performing the perception test the filter was off) I have a tactile response device in my couch that will go lower than 12Hz. The TR device also vibrates at the higher frequencies which simulates loud SPL, so I get the couch shaking without having to blast the SPL. A decade or so ago at a house I lived in I had an infinite baffle subwoofer setup with eight 15" subwoofers that would shake the entire house, but when I moved I got rid of it and eventually sold the subwoofers except for two of them, which I'm using today in a ported enclosure. Back then BEQ didn't exist, but it would still put out some SPL with the right house curve. Today, when the SPL gets over 100dB I start perceiving things as being "loud". That's chump change compared to a lot of bass heads on AVS Forum who think the fun starts at 100dB and louder! Anyway, there's nothing concerning about my setup today. If you use BEQ responsibly it just adds to the fun of the home theater experience.

Again, I wish it were as easy to fix bad Atmos tracks as it is to fix bad bass in movies. The closest we have are the upmixers, but we all know that well done Atmos soundtrack is much better by comparison.


----------



## cricket9998

MagnumX said:


> If you're turning up bass below 20Hz to where you can actually hear it rather just feel it, you're probably destroying your hearing. I read an article on how some theaters back in the 1950s used to add sub-20Hz bass to horror movies using arrays of large woofer cones because while you really couldn't hear it, the brain interprets it as something wrong and generates a fight/flight response, making the movie seem scarier. The problem was they noticed people (probably the ones operating the theater) were slowly losing their hearing.
> 
> While we tolerate bass to much higher levels than higher frequencies, there is a limit before you start doing damage. One is probably better off using a seat shaker or other tactile system for the feel of really deep bass than a subwoofer array, let alone to get 12Hz to be _audible_. A quick search shows a lot of evidence you're harming your ears above not terribly high thresholds for infrasonics when you're talking about actual audibility. I'd be careful how loud you go below 20Hz. One study linked below show 140dB at those frequencies can definitely cause damage. I don't know how loud you'd have to go to actually "hear" 12 or 14 or even 16Hz, but I know some people tend to really push the limits.
> 
> *Infransonics: The Silent Enemy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infrasonic sound: the Silent Enemy | Learn more at hear-it.org - hear-it.org
> 
> 
> We cannot hear infrasonic waves, as these frequencies are under that, which the human ear can pick up. Despite this, these sounds can pose a great risk to our hearing and our health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hear-it.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sounds You Can't Hear Can Still Hurt Your Ears*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds you can't hear can still hurt your ears
> 
> 
> Exposure to inaudible low-frequency pitches changes the functioning of the inner ear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.science.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This government study (PDF) suggests damage will definitely occur above 140dB in the Infrasonic range:
> 
> 
> 
> https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/infrasound_508.pdf


Spl is spl though. Who is listening to 12hz at 140db let alone 115? My house almost collapsed when I played 12hz at 85db lmao. Just get a sub that goes meaningfully down to 12 and see for yourself. Or, if you don’t want to, stop ruining our fun


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> No not really, you don't have to turn the bass up crazy loud to hear it under 20Hz. I was easily perceiving 12Hz at 75dB in my test, I created a log of the test and I am referencing my log for the dB level I was using. That's hardly anything at all and won't cause any damage. I was using 75dB for the test at each frequency--well until I began to run out of excursion at 5Hz and couldn't reach 75dB anymore without woofer damage. The conclusion of my perception test is that I can hear _lot_ better under 20Hz than a lot of sources would lead someone to believe. I knew that I could easily hear frequencies under 20Hz before I did the test, but I wanted to see just how good I could hear them, and how wrong a lot of the literature about it is out there. BEQ isn't about running a crazy SPL to damage hearing, it's about restoring the bass that studios filter on each soundtrack. Sub-20Hz frequencies are _awesome_ and add a new dimension to the home theater experience. Sure if someone wants to use BEQ and crank it then they can, but that's not why I use it. Besides, most of the time those lower frequencies are transient and only last a few seconds anyway and it's prolonged exposure that damages hearing. BEQ is safe if you use it properly.
> 
> That said, I have a 12Hz high pass filter on my subwoofer, it's there to limit excursion and protect my investment and time. (Of course when I was performing the perception test the filter was off) I have a tactile response device in my couch that will go lower than 12Hz. The TR device also vibrates at the higher frequencies which simulates loud SPL, so I get the couch shaking without having to blast the SPL. A decade or so ago at a house I lived in I had an infinite baffle subwoofer setup with eight 15" subwoofers that would shake the entire house, but when I moved I got rid of it and eventually sold the subwoofers except for two of them, which I'm using today in a ported enclosure. Back then BEQ didn't exist, but it would still put out some SPL with the right house curve. Today, when the SPL gets over 100dB I start perceiving things as being "loud". That's chump change compared to a lot of bass heads on AVS Forum who think the fun starts at 100dB and louder! Anyway, there's nothing concerning about my setup today. If you use BEQ responsibly it just adds to the fun of the home theater experience.
> 
> Again, I wish it were as easy to fix bad Atmos tracks as it is to fix bad bass in movies. The closest we have are the upmixers, but we all know that well done Atmos soundtrack is much better by comparison.


I'm sorry, but I don't believe you heard 12Hz at 75dB. I cannot reliably hear 20Hz pure tones like with headphones (not something resonating to it) at 85dB let alone 12Hz at 75dB nor have I seen any convincing data that shows humans can hear 12Hz at those levels.

Thus, I think you're _far_ more likely to be hearing a resonant frequency generated by something in the room reacting to 12Hz.



cricket9998 said:


> Spl is spl though. Who is listening to 12hz at 140db let alone 115?


Anyone that actually wants to hear 12Hz. Dolby calibration is 115dB for LFE channels. 85dB is very low.




> *My house almost collapsed when I played 12hz at 85db lmao*. Just get a sub that goes meaningfully down to 12 and see for yourself. Or, if you don’t want to, stop ruining our fun


Was your house made of sticks and leaves?


----------



## cricket9998

MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't believe you heard 12Hz at 75dB. I cannot reliably hear 20Hz pure tones like with headphones (not something resonating to it) at 85dB let alone 12Hz at 75dB nor have I seen any convincing data that shows humans can hear 12Hz at those levels.
> 
> Thus, I think you're _far_ more likely to be hearing a resonant frequency generated by something in the room reacting to 12Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that actually wants to hear 12Hz. Dolby calibration is 115dB for LFE channels. 85dB is very low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was your house made of sticks and leaves?


Okay, +ignore lol. You are either really sour or hard of hearing


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't believe you heard 12Hz at 75dB.


I definitely heard it.



MagnumX said:


> I cannot reliably hear 20Hz pure tones like with headphones (not something resonating to it) at 85dB let alone 12Hz at 75dB nor have I seen any convincing data that shows humans can hear 12Hz at those levels.


Protip: Don't conduct a 20Hz listening test with _*headphones*_. Are you even sure the headphone's -F3 was 20Hz? Not likely.



MagnumX said:


> Thus, I think you're _far_ more likely to be hearing a resonant frequency generated by something in the room reacting to 12Hz.


I started at 15Hz at 75dB, then 14Hz, and and so on down to 12hz. The frequency stepped down like it should each time, no perception problems. No resonant frequency, nothing mistaken for vibration, nothing mistaken for the room reacting to 12Hz. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## MagnumX

cricket9998 said:


> Okay, +ignore lol. You are either really sour or hard of hearing


Unlike you, I provide PROOF of my assertions rather than do the *ignore* reality thing.

Hearing threshold chart for Infrasonic range by age (Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...esholds-for-different-age-groups_fig4_8436733)










_No_ _one_ is hearing 12Hz at 75dB on that chart. The best I'm seeing is closer to 95dB and that is the threshold of detection. Thus, I conclude that if you hear something at 12Hz at 75dB you are either one of a kind or you heard a resonance in the room.

~80-82dB appears to be the _minimum_ needed to hear 20Hz.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I definitely heard it.


What kind of tones were you using exactly? Pure sine waves?


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> What kind of tones were you using exactly? Pure sine waves?


I was using sine waves from RoomEQ Wizard's tone generator feature


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> I was using sine waves from RoomEQ Wizard's tone generator feature


I gotta' think you were hearing some kind of harmonic resonances in the room above the fundamental if you were "hearing" 12Hz tones. Or cone breakup. Or maybe even quantization distortion from REW if you were at 16bit. But if not, well.. congrats on your crazy hearing!


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I gotta' think you were hearing some kind of harmonic resonances in the room above the fundamental if you were "hearing" 12Hz tones. Or cone breakup. Or maybe even quantization distortion from REW if you were at 16bit. But if not, well.. congrats on your crazy hearing!


I have a dedicated PC to host mkv files and REW is also setup on that computer and to my subwoofer, so I just ran a quick test again. 17Hz sounds like a "tone", but under 17Hz it begins to sound more like a "pulse". The "pulse" changes character as I went down to 12Hz. Not sure how it can be a harmonic resonance when the pulse steps down as I lower the Hz. I ran the quick test at 16 bit at first, then 24 bit (the max I have) and no difference. Cone breakup? Idk I have no answer for that. Again it doesn't sound like a "tone" it sounds like a "pulse".


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> The studios aren't going to stop filtering the bass out of soundtracks, so if you want that bass back you have options. 1) BEQ. 2) Run a house curve to try and compensate for the bass that is filtered, but this is inaccurate and can be unsafe for your equipment depending on your setup (it's unsafe for most). 3) Turn the sub trim up, which again this is unsafe in practice.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the studios filtering bass, but they aren't going to stop. With bad Atmos usage we don't have a fix for that, but with bass filtering we do and that's #1 BEQ.


Who on AVS has connections to studios? We need to put bugs in their ears.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I gotta' think you were hearing some kind of harmonic resonances in the room above the fundamental if you were "hearing" 12Hz tones. Or cone breakup. Or maybe even quantization distortion from REW if you were at 16bit. But if not, well.. congrats on your crazy hearing!


Citation #7 here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#References



"*Under very favorable conditions most individuals can obtain tonal characteristics as low as 12 cycles.*"


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> Citation #7 here:
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range#References
> 
> 
> 
> "*Under very favorable conditions most individuals can obtain tonal characteristics as low as 12 cycles.*"


Yes, but not at 75dB. That chart say more like 98dB for 12Hz. Maybe you have super hearing, though.

*Edit*: Or you can just laugh at my post when it's based on actual scientifically published research as opposed to your assumption that you're actually hearing the 12Hz tone and not a resonance at a mere 75dB where most of us mere mortals cannot even hear 20Hz, let alone 12Hz.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> Yes, but not at 75dB. That chart say more like 98dB for 12Hz.


I'm hearing 12Hz at 75dB, get over it already. By the way, respond if you want to but I'm through engaging in this topic with you. PM me if you want but I won't respond


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> The dotted line is the original curve and the solid line is with the BEQ filters applied. In the top right are the filters and this particular BEQ has a +15.3dB gain from a 21Hz LS.


That cut is shameful for paying customers of these discs. That would hugely change how I perceive the impact of the movie.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm hearing 12Hz at 75dB, get over it already. By the way, respond if you want to but I'm through engaging in this topic with you. PM me if you want but I won't respond


Believe anything you want.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Not sure how it can be a harmonic resonance when the pulse steps down as I lower the Hz. I ran the quick test at 16 bit at first, then 24 bit (the max I have) and no difference. Cone breakup? Idk I have no answer for that. Again it doesn't sound like a "tone" it sounds like a "pulse".


Yeah, the "pulse" steps down... but if what you're hearing is really some form of harmonic distortion, then with a 15Hz tone, you might be mostly hearing its 2nd harmonic at 30Hz or a more diminished 3rd harmonic at 60Hz. The fundamental might be at 75dB but I would guess you'd still be getting 45+dB of 30Hz (and possibly a bit more considering the woofers in your sub appear to be fiber cone, which would break up a bit more). If it's the woofers you have listed in your sig, their resonance frequency is about 27Hz (for the V2 - I couldn't find the V1 specs, but I assume they're similar), so I would think that anything below that is gonna be subject to some harmonic distortion even with that enclosure tuned to 15Hz.

BTW That's a beautiful box you put together! But I don't think you're getting reproduction of a pure sine wave tone out of it at these frequencies, so I'm not sure it's fair to say that you are "hearing" those frequencies. I'm betting that if you paid attention to what the woofers are doing when playing those tones, you'd visibly see that they're no longer moving in a strictly linear fashion.

Not that any of this really matters. How did we get on this again?


----------



## niterida

Jeremy Anderson said:


> How did we get on this again?


Because INTERNET FORUM


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> That cut is shameful for paying customers of these discs. That would hugely change how I perceive the impact of the movie.


just to be clear, regarding BEQ on a movie like thor ragnarok or any other one that has a huge boost.

if I am to run the BEQ file that has a huge boost to correct for anemic bass, should I take off my house curve like a DIRAC roomfeel or pink sodas boost PRIOR to adding BEQ for fear the culmulitive boost might be too much and damage the subs? Is it best in this case to revert to the basic Dirac flat curve + BEQ track?
Btw I have 2 SVS PC 4000 if that helps


----------



## darrellh44

Chirosamsung said:


> just to be clear, regarding BEQ on a movie like thor ragnarok or any other one that has a huge boost.
> 
> if I am to run the BEQ file that has a huge boost to correct for anemic bass, should I take off my house curve like a DIRAC roomfeel or pink sodas boost PRIOR to adding BEQ for fear the culmulitive boost might be too much and damage the subs? Is it best in this case to revert to the basic Dirac flat curve + BEQ track?
> Btw I have 2 SVS PC 4000 if that helps


My understanding is both should be used together as long as you don’t have a radical room target curve. They are correcting for different things. The target curve should be restoring the natural room gain of your room which should sound balanced assuming the source material has an even response. BEQ on the other hand is intended to restore the low bass that recording engineers remove for whatever reason so that the source material once again has an even response curve.
Note that some movies have multiple versions with different bass responses, so you need to be sure you use the correct version of the BEQ file for a movie. Also if you do use a BEQ file that has a lot of bass boost for a particular movie, don’t forget to remove it before playing something else. 
All of this and much more is covered in the BEQ guides which all BEQ users need to read thoroughly, especially if using unprotected subs.


----------



## galonzo

Yes, you can potentially have a mild curve applied; a test case would be a title that doesn't need BEQ, say Incredible Hulk (the one with Tim Roth as the baddy), since BEQ brings filtered titles back up to the level of a movie like this. Another one that comes to mind that didn't need BEQ is Hurt Locker.

BEQ isn't necessarily needed to bring up the infrasonics, as there are severely filtered titles filtered at 30Hz, for example, First Man:


Spoiler: First Man graph















As it relates to Atmos, and for those non-believers, I have a test for you to try (I believe you will find that BEQ can add to the immersion factor). @aron7awol created some demo scenes that have two tracks, the normal track and the same track, but with BEQ "baked in," and *First Man happens to be one of them* (he attenuated these by the amount shown in the filename, to be on the safe side). Unfortunately, in creating these demo files with BEQ "baked in," you lose Atmos, but at least you can experience how much immersion is added without overheads, or you can apply an upmixer if so desired.

Let us know what you think!


----------



## petetherock

Continuing in the spirit that shows with low Rotten Tomato ratings have some of the best sound, Into The Storm acquires a Atmos track and it's mighty impressive...


----------



## cricket9998

I watched inception again with the DSU upmixer on and surprisingly it did a great job putting stuff above me. For example when the elevator fell, I heard it go from the bed layer to over my head realistically.
Also I don’t “hear” 12hz but I definitely feel it. It’s unsettling and weird but great for immersion. Infrasonic bass is super underrated.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Yeah, the "pulse" steps down... but if what you're hearing is really some form of harmonic distortion, then with a 15Hz tone, you might be mostly hearing its 2nd harmonic at 30Hz or a more diminished 3rd harmonic at 60Hz. The fundamental might be at 75dB but I would guess you'd still be getting 45+dB of 30Hz (and possibly a bit more considering the woofers in your sub appear to be fiber cone, which would break up a bit more). If it's the woofers you have listed in your sig, their resonance frequency is about 27Hz (for the V2 - I couldn't find the V1 specs, but I assume they're similar), so I would think that anything below that is gonna be subject to some harmonic distortion even with that enclosure tuned to 15Hz.


To quote the article that was posted earlier here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8436733_Hearing_at_low_and_infrasonic_frequencies
"It seems fair to conclude that the sense of hearing is the primary sense for detecting sound at low and infrasonic frequencies. However, it has often been proposed that we do not sense infrasound directly, but that we simply hear higher harmonics produced by distortion in the middle and the inner ear (see e.g. Johnson (1980)). If this were true, it would then be reasonable to assume that the subjective quality of a 15-Hz tone would be comparable to that of a tone or a combination of tones at higher harmonics like 30 and 45 Hz. However, to the authors’ knowledge such similarity has not been reported, and in an informal listening test with the authors and colleagues as listeners, such sounds were perceived as clearly different in timbre, pitch and general quality. Thus, the theory is not supported."

I agree with _this part_ of that article. But let's not complicate things, here's how it works: 1) Play a 15hz tone 2) hear a 15Hz tone. Again like I've said before, 17Hz still sounds like a "tone" to me, but under 17Hz it begins to sound more like a "pulse". That article also goes into different ways people describe hearing infrasonic sounds, but this is how I describe it. It's not unlike what's said in that article.

REW has the ability to introduce harmonic distortion in the test tone signal. I played with this setting today with 20Hz, 17Hz, 15Hz, and 12Hz tones and NO, I am _not_ hearing harmonic distortion. That sounds different. I am hearing the fundamental (like what was quoted above in the article).



Jeremy Anderson said:


> BTW That's a beautiful box you put together! But I don't think you're getting reproduction of a pure sine wave tone out of it at these frequencies, so I'm not sure it's fair to say that you are "hearing" those frequencies. I'm betting that if you paid attention to what the woofers are doing when playing those tones, you'd visibly see that they're no longer moving in a strictly linear fashion.


Thanks for the compliment about my subwoofer box, I am pleased how it turned out.

I am hearing those frequencies. I did _one final test_ today and I am _not_ going to do another, I'm wasting my time at this point and I'm finding every attempt to falsify what is actually going on absolutely ridiculous. To comment on the woofer movement, at the end of the test I was playing a 12Hz tone at 96dB and the woofers were extremely linear.

The purpose of the test today was to show that I could hear the same frequency below the threshold dB that is listed in the study chart 5 and chart 4. I used different frequencies and started at 75dB using a SPL meter then worked my way up to above the threshold dB to prove that the tone I am hearing at and above the threshold dB is the same tone I am hearing below the thresholds at 75dB. Further, the tests were conducted at near field, with my head under two feet from the front of the subwoofer enclosure.

20Hz: 75dB was clear. 80dB is about the threshold for chart 4, still clear and the same tone I was hearing at 75dB. 85dB the same tone is getting louder. 90dB is above the threshold for chart 5 and it's just the same tone louder. I reduced the dB down to 75dB, again same tone. This demonstrates I could hear 20Hz below the thresholds defined in the article with my setup in my environment, and that it is in fact the fundamental 20Hz tone I am hearing at these dB levels.
17Hz: 75dB was perceived. Same results as the previous test, at 90dB above chart 4's threshold it's the same tone as 75dB. 90dB is also a bit above chart 5's threshold. Reducing the volume again led to perception at lower dB levels down to 75dB.
15Hz: 75dB was perceived. Same thing as before, the same tone at 75dB was perceived above the 90dB threshold of chart 4 and chart 5. Reducing the volume again led to perception of the same tone all the way back down to 75dB.
12Hz: 75dB was perceived. This was the final test. Chart 4's threshold is about 92dB and it was the same tone I was hearing at 75dB except louder. Chart 5's threshold is about 95dB, I had it up to 96dB and it was the same tone I was hearing at 75dB except louder. This demonstrates I could hear 12Hz below the thresholds defined in the article with my setup in my environment, and that it is in fact the fundamental 12Hz tone I am hearing at these dB levels and not harmonics. Again I used the harmonics feature in REW to introduce them into the signal at various stages and it _is not_ what I am hearing, I am hearing the fundamental tone.



Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not that any of this really matters. How did we get on this again?


I am _finished_ talking about this subject, and it matters to me because of the attempts to discredit and falsify what I'm perceiving and saying. We got on this subject because someone mentioned a movie not having good bass, and I said that's what BEQ is for. Then there were posts made that essentially said BEQ is worthless because we can't hear well below 20Hz except at high dB levels that would ruin our hearing. That is false, and the reasons I made proceeded with attempts to discredit them and falsify them. I'm _more than happy _to get off of this subject and I _won't be responding_ to any further posts about it no matter what they are. People can read what I've posted and come to their own conclusions, but I know what I'm hearing is 100% valid. Jeremy if you find the need to PM me about it I'd PM you back, you've been professional about it.


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> I am hearing those frequencies.


Correction. You *think* you're hearing them. That is not the same as actual proof, particularly in light of rigerous published peer-reviewed scientific studies on the topic, one of which I quoted and linked to earlier with a graph showing the results of their threshold testing for Infrasonic sounds including age groups.

Your quote from a study that it's possible to hear 12 Hz in no way quantifies the levels needed to hear it and to utterly ignore provided proof that _does_ quantify it in favor of your unscientific observations and laugh at my post for providing it while announcing you're putting me on _ignore_ mode because you don't want the truth pointed out only demonstrates the real problem in society these days with people "canceling" things they don't _like_, whether true or not, which clearly doesn't matter one iota.



> We got on this subject because someone mentioned a movie not having good bass, and I said that's what BEQ is for. Then there were posts made that essentially said BEQ is worthless because we can't hear well below 20Hz except at high dB levels that would ruin our hearing.


Then you go and misrepresent what I actually said. When 98dB (as per chart) is needed to just barely hear 12Hz, there's a legitimate question as to whether the even higher levels needed to hear it more easily could *possibly* be causing hearing damage on some people's systems when some on here have 6 to as many as 12 or more subwoofers in their systems (in some cases in quest to play <10Hz tones at audible volumes). I linked several articles & studies on that topic to at least _consider_ given hearing may be at risk and there are clearly safe alternatives such as seat shakers to get the tactile feel without the extremely high volume levels needed to achieve "punch" you in the gut effects and the like.




> That is false, and the reasons I made proceeded with attempts to discredit them and falsify them.


The only thing you've proven here IMO is your character.



> I'm _more than happy _to get off of this subject and I _won't be responding_ to any further posts about it no matter what they are.


So you said several posts ago....

The problem is when someone makes an *incredible* claim (I can _easily_ hear 12Hz at a mere 75dB output level), the burden of proof is on them and yet I provided all the proof needed to show its not possible to hear it at that volume level and you accuse me and the scientists of lying (even Jeremy Anderson who doesn't like me questioned your claim)....


----------



## appelz

I'm looking through some AES journal publications, but I ran across some other papers. A study from 1990 seems to indicate 4Hz is audible, and study back in 1967 cites 1.5Hz for earphones. 



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610706000848#bib21



The lowest true pipe organ note is 8Hz I think, and there are a number of papers citing a significant amount of musical recordings with content down to 12Hz, including the famous Telarc recording of the 1812 Overture. I also came across some papers citing 12Hz as the lower limit for pitch perception. (AES papers, authors Fielder of Dolby Labs and Benjamin)

This is just fun https://www.classicfm.com/artists/tim-storms/lowest-vocal-note-world-record/


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> I'm looking through some AES journal publications, but I ran across some other papers. A study from 1990 seems to indicate 4Hz is audible, and study back in 1967 cites 1.5Hz for earphones.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610706000848#bib21
> 
> 
> 
> The lowest true pipe organ note is 8Hz I think, and there are a number of papers citing a significant amount of musical recordings with content down to 12Hz, including the famous Telarc recording of the 1812 Overture. I also came across some papers citing 12Hz as the lower limit for pitch perception. (AES papers, authors Fielder of Dolby Labs and Benjamin)
> 
> This is just fun https://www.classicfm.com/artists/tim-storms/lowest-vocal-note-world-record/


*No One* on here said bass below 20Hz cannot be heard at a high enough level or felt by humans at lower levels.


----------



## appelz

I'm simply adding information to the conversations. I didn't attack you or your position on the topic. I didn't even quote you...relax. If you've something positive to contribute regarding my post, please do so. If you simply wish to continue your bully tactics, I'll add you to my ignore list like many others here, although I'd probably miss the amusement I get from your rants. You wrote a 300+ word post attacking one person because they say that for them, perception of 12Hz starts at 75dB. I don't think they are "cancelling" you because of the content of your posts, but because of your overly aggressive style and personal attacks. There is just no need for it.


----------



## petetherock

Chill my friends...


----------



## anjunadeep

I thought for a moment I could hear 10Hz. Then I realized I paid an extra 4 grand to hear my hurricane glass rattle.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

anjunadeep said:


> I thought for a moment I could hear 10Hz. Then I realized I paid an extra 4 grand to hear my hurricane glass rattle.


I thought I could track down my window rattles by playing Blade Runner at near reference. Here's how that story ended.







1960s house + dried up glazing + dual subs = CRACK. And I was standing in front of it when it happened. But on a positive note, that window no longer rattles!


----------



## appelz

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0263-0923.28.2.79



Very good information there, on a wide range of subjects concerning low frequency sounds. The information of particular significance to this conversation is on the first two pages. TL;DR version is that the threshold of hearing (research appears to be from 1990 and 2008) can be as low as 85dB for perceptive adults, with some small percentage (16% I think) with a threshold 6dB lower. Still doesn't get us to the magical 75dB number, but SPL measurements below 20Hz on a UMIK aren't going to be super accurate. I wouldn't even trust my $1200 microphones beyond the shape of the frequency response.

I think Mythbusters would call it "Plausible".

I've an Ascendo 32" subwoofer in my Lab, and a calibration coming up soon with one as well. I'll see if I can find some victims to experiment on.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> I'm simply adding information to the conversations. I didn't attack you or your position on the topic. I didn't even quote you...relax. If you've something positive to contribute regarding my post, please do so. If you simply wish to continue your *bully tactics*, I'll add you to my ignore list like many others here, although I'd probably miss the amusement I get from your *rants*. You wrote a 300+ word post *attacking* one person because they say that for them, perception of 12Hz starts at 75dB. I don't think they are "cancelling" you because of the content of your posts, but because of your overly aggressive style and personal attacks. There is just no need for it.


My "rant" consisted of calmly quoted scientific studies, links and graphs to prove my assertions and you then somehow label that "_bullying_" (???) and "attacking" rather than trying to point out the actual Scientific Facts while stating you only read my posts for "amusement" (implying I'm a clown which is back-handed flaming) and then your buddies pile on with likes as if if I had just cussed you out or something for merely saying, "_No One on here said bass below 20Hz cannot be heard at a high enough level or felt by humans at lower levels,_" which is about as polite and inoffensive as a reply can be. You made no mention of Halcyon's 1000+ word reply so selective "ranting" must be a thing. Sorry, but _your_ reply with your buddies piling on with _likes_ looks closer to bullying to me.

... 

I read your PDF.

For 12.5Hz in table, I see 99dB/88dB for 50%/10% for unselected individuals and 92dB/85dB for selected population. It also shows a very similar graph to the one I posted. It mentioned a "few people" have been found with slightly lower thresholds and exactly _one_ person they found with 15dB lower thresholds for Infrasonic. 

So that may imply that _one_ person _could_ hear 12.5Hz at possibly as low as 70dB, which would be in Halcyon's range. But I did say he might be one of a kind in hearing capability in my reply, but it's a question of odds and while that _might_ be true, it's at least unlikely and certainly not applicable to _most_ people. 

Just being able to barely hear a tone also doesn't mean satisfaction from those levels. I can hear 30Hz at 50dB, which my main towers can reproduce just fine and even further, but is that satisfying for a movie compared to using a subwoofer that can play over 100dB at 30Hz? No, that's why we buy subwoofers. Typical stereo speakers are not great at subsonic, let alone Infrasonic frequencies at high volume.

What level would produce _satisfying_ audible bass at 12Hz? Is that level safe for your hearing? That's what I was trying to get at, not some argument about whether someone on the planet can _hear_ 12Hz at 75dB. Is BEQ a good idea in a safety sense? I don't know. But pointing out articles that suggest it _might_ be bad for your hearing shouldn't be met with such hostility. One sad I was trying to ruin their fun. Shooting guns is fun too, but I don't want to go deaf because of it. A little precaution might save someone's hearing.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> What level would produce _satisfying_ audible bass at 12Hz? Is that level safe for your hearing? That's what I was trying to get at, not some argument about whether someone on the planet can _hear_ 12Hz at 75dB. Is BEQ a good idea in a safety sense? I don't know. But pointing out articles that suggest it _might_ be bad for your hearing shouldn't be met with such hostility. One sad I was trying to ruin their fun. Shooting guns is fun too, but I don't want to go deaf because of it. A little precaution might save someone's hearing.


To be fair, both of your recent posts responding to myself and then Halcyon were definitely about only being able hear low frequencies and at what levels, and didn't mention any safety issues. I also never commented about any of that, and just did some research about what those audible levels might be. It turns out his claims aren't as "incredible" as you thought, and are indeed plausible. 75dB may be on the edge, but 80dB is certainly possible for some, with 85dB being a very reasonable threshold. 

The upcoming CEDIA/CTA RP22 Performance Criteria addresses some of the satisfying bass questions, but the current recommendation is -3dB at 15Hz I think. 

Hearing damage is definitely something that should be considered. I take great care to monitor my exposure during calibrations, and use software that helps me track that. I couldn't find anything that really had some research behind it, and some of the articles posted here sounded more like click-bait. Tune in at 10 ! 

The PDF I linked did have quite a bit to say about "nuisance" and "unpleasantness" levels of low frequency, but I'm unable to find any anything about permanent hearing loss/damage, aside from absurd levels like 165dB!


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> To be fair, both of your recent posts responding to myself and then Halcyon were definitely about only being able hear low frequencies and at what levels, and didn't mention any safety issues. I also never commented about any of that, and just did some research about what those audible levels might be. It turns out his claims aren't as "incredible" as you thought, and are indeed plausible. 75dB may be on the edge, but 80dB is certainly possible for some, with 85dB being a very reasonable threshold.
> 
> The upcoming CEDIA/CTA RP22 Performance Criteria addresses some of the satisfying bass questions, but the current recommendation is -3dB at 15Hz I think.
> 
> Hearing damage is definitely something that should be considered. I take great care to monitor my exposure during calibrations, and use software that helps me track that. I couldn't find anything that really had some research behind it, and some of the articles posted here sounded more like click-bait. Tune in at 10 !
> 
> The PDF I linked did have quite a bit to say about "nuisance" and "unpleasantness" levels of low frequency, but I'm unable to find any anything about permanent hearing loss/damage, aside from absurd levels like 165dB!


Turn back a couple of pages to my first responses about it. I provided three links on the possibility of Infrasonic causing "silent" hearing damage (including having the window down at freeway speeds). I'm not going to keep repeating posts.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> Turn back a couple of pages to my first responses about it. I provided three links on the possibility of Infrasonic causing "silent" hearing damage (including having the window down at freeway speeds). I'm not going to keep repeating posts.


Yeah, I saw those. First one defined infrasonics, said nothing else of any substance at all. No research, makes you feel bad, short term. 
Second one was about SOAE. Again, nothing permanent, 90 seconds, no further research. 
Third one...yeah, 140dB of anything is gonna hurt!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

What do people think about this topic?

Height speakers vs Ceiling speakers? I recently watched a youtube video where the videos creator claims that moving his front Atmos speakers from Top-Front to Front Height and as a result, he noticed a more open and precise vertical sound field. 

What are people's experiences with these positions? I want to know because I am planning to use height positioning coupled with Top-Middles and am wondering if people notice a difference in the front soundstage when doing so.

Here's the video in question for those who are curious.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> What do people think about this topic?
> 
> Height speakers vs Ceiling speakers? I recently watched a youtube video where the videos creator claims that moving his front Atmos speakers from Top-Front to Front Height and as a result, he noticed a more open and precise vertical sound field.
> 
> What are people's experiences with these positions? I want to know because I am planning to use height positioning coupled with Top-Middles and am wondering if people notice a difference in the front soundstage when doing so.
> 
> Here's the video in question for those who are curious.


IMO it is not a matter of which one is best, but more a matter of where do they end up if you follow the guidelines.
For .4 they should be at 45deg elevation - and depending on your room that could be on the ceiling or on the wall.
For .6 They should be at 30deg elevation F&R - and depending on your room that could be on the ceiling or on the wall. And 80deg for the Middle will pretty much guarantee they will be on the ceiling


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> What do people think about this topic?
> 
> Height speakers vs Ceiling speakers? I recently watched a youtube video where the videos creator claims that moving his front Atmos speakers from Top-Front to Front Height and as a result, he noticed a more open and precise vertical sound field.
> 
> What are people's experiences with these positions? I want to know because I am planning to use height positioning coupled with Top-Middles and am wondering if people notice a difference in the front soundstage when doing so.


There's a real difference even with Top Middle. Tops start further out into the room (narrower imaging range). It comes down to whether you prefer more directly overhead (sounds more impressive to some people) or a larger imaging range. Full Atmos 24.x.10 uses the larger range. To me, that indicates the way it's _supposed_ to image. I use Heights above Mains + Top Middle and I certainly have no complaints. Imaging can move straight vertical in the front and back if it calls for it (there was an Atmos demo someone on here did with a talking voice moving around the room and it's plainly obvious there).



appelz said:


> Yeah, I saw those. First one defined infrasonics, said nothing else of any substance at all. No research, makes you feel bad, short term.
> Second one was about SOAE. Again, nothing permanent, 90 seconds, no further research.
> Third one...yeah, 140dB of anything is gonna hurt!


Well, then you can blast your ears at 120dB day in and out with infrasonic bass and find out what happens first hand. You can then send the researchers the data to tell them the exact point where you went deaf.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> Well, then you can blast your ears at 120dB day in and out with infrasonic bass and find out what happens first hand. You can then send the researchers the data to tell them the exact point where you went deaf.


Luckily, that simply won't happen with movie content, even among the BEQ fans. Maybe if you listen to lots of EDM 🕺

There are definitely some movies where the extra octave down low makes its presence known audibly in big ways, but or the most part, the deep deep stuff seems to add a larger sense of space to movies. As one of your links pointed out, we are surrounded by infrasonics. Car window open, HVAC rumble, street traffic, foot falls from the floor above, car door slamming, etc. They may not always be audible, but I believe we sense them anyway, and in a private cinema, those sounds help immerse us, conveying a sense of realism.


----------



## robert600

All this talk of LFEs has sparked my interest in shakers. Does anyone have an opinion about these?:

Home

They'd be going in a 'lazy-boy' type recliner if that matters.


----------



## galonzo

MagnumX said:


> Well, then you can blast your ears at 120dB day in and out with infrasonic bass and find out what happens first hand. You can then send the researchers the data to tell them the exact point where you went deaf.





appelz said:


> There are definitely some movies where the extra octave down low makes its presence known audibly in big ways, but or the most part, the deep deep stuff seems to add a larger sense of space to movies. As one of your links pointed out, we are surrounded by infrasonics. Car window open, HVAC rumble, street traffic, foot falls from the floor above, car door slamming, etc. They may not always be audible, but I believe we sense them anyway, and in a private cinema, those sounds help immerse us, conveying a sense of realism.


Exactly my point in BEQ adding immersion that has been "filtered out" (and not even infrasonics, in the *example of First Man I gave in my post*, you can see in the graph I included that it was filtered below 40Hz 

The demo file I linked to in that post doesn't require any special setup to "experience" what immersion is being filtered out, simply play the file and toggle audio tracks.

@aron7awol , one of the main contributors providing per-title BEQs, goes to great lengths to ensure a consistent "maximum" level of "un-filtering" and takes great care in making sure his BEQs are "safe" and consistent. He posted a few more demo files with BEQ "baked-in" in *this post*.

Surely @MagnumX , being a man of science, you'll download the demo file and test it for yourself, right?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I really wish that at least on UHDs they would start offering an additional cinema mix track that doesn't do all the crap they do for home mixes. It wouldn't be that hard for them to have it default to the TV/soundbar-friendly track but also offer an enthusiast mix without all that nonsense. Wishful thinking, I know... but it would make a lot of the hoops people have to jump through unnecessary.


----------



## Chirosamsung

robert600 said:


> All this talk of LFEs has sparked my interest in shakers. Does anyone have an opinion about these?:
> 
> Home
> 
> They'd be going in a 'lazy-boy' type recliner if that matters.


Can shakers work in a multi seat attatched sectional like this that curves? Would only care about them in 2-3 of main seats... would that be a problem? Also they are recliners if that is an issue


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> IMO it is not a matter of which one is best, but more a matter of where do they end up if you follow the guidelines.
> For .4 they should be at 45deg elevation - and depending on your room that could be on the ceiling or on the wall.
> For .6 They should be at 30deg elevation F&R - and depending on your room that could be on the ceiling or on the wall. And 80deg for the Middle will pretty much guarantee they will be on the ceiling


Yeah I am laying it out similar to the dolby atmos 7.1.6 guidelines for front and rear heights which places them at 20° to 30° elevation. Which also works perfectly for Auro.

Why place the TM at 80°? Wouldnt 90° be optimal if the TM are at the acoustical center of the listening area. Where I was planning to place it would end up being 100° for the front row and 80° for the back row.




MagnumX said:


> There's a real difference even with Top Middle. Tops start further out into the room (narrower imaging range). It comes down to whether you prefer more directly overhead (sounds more impressive to some people) or a larger imaging range. Full Atmos 24.x.10 uses the larger range. To me, that indicates the way it's _supposed_ to image. I use Heights above Mains + Top Middle and I certainly have no complaints. Imaging can move straight vertical in the front and back if it calls for it (there was an Atmos demo someone on here did with a talking voice moving around the room and it's plainly obvious there)


Yes the demo that Technodad made. Thats a percect example. I would like that to image directly above the screen when his voice is coming from the Top-Front position.

In the video I linked, the guy claimed that with the front height speakers in play, that The Hulk's voice when he roared made him sound taller than the screen he was watching on. Thats exactly the kind of imaging I am looking for. Extend the front soundstage to the ceiling.


----------



## chi_guy50

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Why place the TM at 80°? Wouldnt 90° be optimal if the TM are at the acoustical center of the listening area. Where I was planning to place it would end up being 100° for the front row and 80° for the back row.


The recommendation for 80° (or thereabouts) is to avoid the hot-spotting that could result from having those speakers directly overhead. And, since we hear sounds in front of our ears better than behind us, I would suggest keeping those TM at less than 90° for any seats that you care about (e.g., the MLP) whenever possible.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> In the video I linked, the guy claimed that with the front height speakers in play, that The Hulk's voice when he roared made him sound taller than the screen he was watching on. Thats exactly the kind of imaging I am looking for. Extend the front soundstage to the ceiling.


As @niterida has pointed out, the video never even mentions elevation angles. That jumps out to me as a red flag regarding his analysis and recommendations.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

chi_guy50 said:


> The recommendation for 80° (or thereabouts) is to avoid the hot-spotting that could result from having those speakers directly overhead. And, since we hear sounds in front of our ears better than behind us, I would suggest keeping those TM at less than 90° for any seats that you care about (e.g., the MLP) whenever possible.


Hmmm. Putting them at 80° from the front row would put them way, way too far forward of the back row, and too far away to properly image with the rear height speakers.

Placing them 80° from the back row places them about 100° from the front row and right betwee the two rows in the acoustical center of the space (both the entire room as the listening positions)




> As @niterida has pointed out, the video never even mentions elevation angles. That jumps out to me as a red flag regarding his analysis and recommendations.


He had them at the wall/ceiling boundry of his room. Impossible to know the angle without knowing the distance of his seating position but his ceiling looked about 8 feet high, so if he was sitting at 9 to 10 feet away, thats about a 20° angle which fits within Dolby's recommended spec. Impossible to say for sure though.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Hmmm. Putting them at 80° from the front row would put them way, way too far forward of the back row, and too far away to properly image with the rear height speakers.


Place for the front row, and AIM for the back row. You still want the speakers to be at the dictated location for the MLP. You cover the back row by aiming so that you still get sound as evenly as possible across all of the seats. Anything other than the MLP will inherently be a compromise given the smaller room size, but any pans through will still have a sense of movement even in the back row. And mixes with static 7.1.2 should still be over the listeners in the back row enough to be fine.


----------



## chi_guy50

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Hmmm. Putting them at 80° from the front row would put them way, way too far forward of the back row, and too far away to properly image with the rear height speakers.
> 
> Placing them 80° from the back row places them about 100° from the front row and right betwee the two rows in the acoustical center of the space (both the entire room as the listening positions)


You have to prioritize or rationalize with multiple rows of seating. That is why I said that it is a question of how much you care about the MLP versus wider seating coverage. I was not addressing the RH, but if they are disproportionally far back then you should consider moving them up IF you want to prioritize the MLP; otherwise leave them as is. 



NuSoardGraphite said:


> He had them at the wall/ceiling boundry of his room. Impossible to know the angle without knowing the distance of his seating position but his ceiling looked about 8 feet high, so if he was sitting at 9 to 10 feet away, thats about a 20° angle which fits within Dolby's recommended spec. Impossible to say for sure though.


As I recall, he said the FH were 7.5' up. But my point is that he never so much as mentions elevation angles, which should be a primary factor in any placement calculation.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Why place the TM at 80°? Wouldnt 90° be optimal if the TM are at the acoustical center of the listening area. Where I was planning to place it would end up being 100° for the front row and 80° for the back row.


I prefer to use symmetry when possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean MLP-based symmetry. As the Trinnov setup documents indicate, the layout should be based around the total size of the room used. If you use the entire room then the layout should be room based like a movie theater, not user-centric based as the Dolby home setup documents show. That is exactly how I set my room up, room-centric. When in doubt, I recommend following the Trinnov document. I agree with everything in it. Whereas Dolby tends to waffle between theater/home setups, Trinnov addresses both room and other setup limitations and what do about them.

The front/rear heights are in the front/back on the ceiling above the front mains and rear surrounds (as best as I could fit for the room) and Top Middle is dead center in the room between them (using Auro side height location at the moment). That doesn't mean you have to sit directly under them, which skews the relative numbers accordingly. Relative to my front row, the side surrounds and Top Middle are ~110 degrees azimuth reclined and ~102 degrees sitting up. That is within both Trinnov & Dolby's guidelines for both 5.1 and 9.1.6.

Ready Player One is probably the definitive .2 overhead movie and it sounds fantastic with Top Middle at 102-110. I've also used relative levels to pull the phantom image in either direction and anywhere from around 80-120 degrees works great in that movie. And yes, 90 degrees directly overhead should be fine as long as the speakers over >3' away (distance usually recommended to avoid so-called "hot spotting"). It's also the Auro recommended position for VOG speakers (directly above).

I plan on adding on-ceiling based Atmos Top Middle speakers (only way to do it is put an array on either side of my steel beam box) and that will create dual mono VOG array while leaving both side heights and rear heights as a dual surround height array for Auro. I can place the Atmos Top Middle array forwards/backwards a few feet on either side, which due to the beam between might not sound dead center from either the 1st or 2nd row as it would sitting directly between them under the box so I've been debating whether to put the speakers relative to the front row directly overhead (90) or slightly behind (95). They'll be spaced between the MLP and L/R seats (in line with mains) so not directly above my head, but I was thinking a slight difference between VOG and surround height in both elevation and azimuth might be more interesting sounding than exact alignment (which it uses simulating VOG with the Top Middle/Surround Height speakers now), but I haven't actually heard a setup using VOG separate from the surround/rear heights.


----------



## niterida

robert600 said:


> All this talk of LFEs has sparked my interest in shakers. Does anyone have an opinion about these?:
> 
> Home
> 
> They'd be going in a 'lazy-boy' type recliner if that matters.





Chirosamsung said:


> Can shakers work in a multi seat attatched sectional like this that curves? Would only care about them in 2-3 of main seats... would that be a problem? Also they are recliners if that is an issue


You need to build one of these : The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> What do people think about this topic?
> 
> Height speakers vs Ceiling speakers? I recently watched a youtube video where the videos creator claims that moving his front Atmos speakers from Top-Front to Front Height and as a result, he noticed a more open and precise vertical sound field.
> 
> What are people's experiences with these positions? I want to know because I am planning to use height positioning coupled with Top-Middles and am wondering if people notice a difference in the front soundstage when doing so.
> 
> Here's the video in question for those who are curious.


I know that we should be, for the best imaging, using Top locations, but I will say this. If you want a WALL of SOUND - for example how the opening title of Oblivion hits on the Blu-ray DTS track with Neural:X enabled, you'll like the tops at a lower angle so they are a little closer to the fronts. It activates the entire front of the room like an IMAX movie can by using the LCR and front heights. I'm sure there are more examples.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

chi_guy50 said:


> You have to prioritize or rationalize with multiple rows of seating. That is why I said that it is a question of how much you care about the MLP versus wider seating coverage. I was not addressing the RH, but if they are
> disproportionally far back then you should consider moving them up IF you want to prioritize the MLP; otherwise leave them as is.



The room is exactly 10 feet wide by 20 feet in length. Not going to have a lot of wiggle room or open space.

The front row will be between 7 and 8 feet from the front wall. The back row should be about 6 feet from the back wall. Maybe 5 feet on the outside. A lot of this will depend on the size of the seating of course. I plan to use 3 seater couches rather than traditional home theater seating, as there is not much width to work with.

Both the acoustical center of the listening position and the room will be right in between the two rows. Side surrounds and Top-Middle speakers placed slightly behind the front row and slightly forward of the back row. Tolerances will be very tight.

I was thinking of mounting the front and rear heights about 25° from the center point making them equidistant from the Top-Middle speakers. That probably puts the front row at 30° or so from the front heights, but probably closer to 20° maybe slightly less from the rear heights. Pretty much vice versa for the back row. The difficulty with the back row is the riser, which will throw off the angles. But then again its the back row and by its nature, will be less optimized than the front row.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I prefer to use symmetry when possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean MLP-based symmetry. As the Trinnov setup documents indicate, the layout should be based around the total size of the room used. If you use the entire room then the layout should be room based like a movie theater, not user-centric based as the Dolby home setup documents show. That is exactly how I set my room up, room-centric. When in doubt, I recommend following the Trinnov document. I agree with everything in it. Whereas Dolby tends to waffle between theater/home setups, Trinnov addresses both room and other setup limitations and what do about them.
> 
> The front/rear heights are in the front/back on the ceiling above the front mains and rear surrounds (as best as I could fit for the room) and Top Middle is dead center in the room between them (using Auro side height location at the moment). That doesn't mean you have to sit directly under them, which skews the relative numbers accordingly. Relative to my front row, the side surrounds and Top Middle are ~110 degrees azimuth reclined and ~102 degrees sitting up. That is within both Trinnov & Dolby's guidelines for both 5.1 and 9.1.6.
> 
> Ready Player One is probably the definitive .2 overhead movie and it sounds fantastic with Top Middle at 102-110. I've also used relative levels to pull the phantom image in either direction and anywhere from around 80-120 degrees works great in that movie. And yes, 90 degrees directly overhead should be fine as long as the speakers over >3' away (distance usually recommended to avoid so-called "hot spotting"). It's also the Auro recommended position for VOG speakers (directly above).
> 
> I plan on adding on-ceiling based Atmos Top Middle speakers (only way to do it is put an array on either side of my steel beam box) and that will create dual mono VOG array while leaving both side heights and rear heights as a dual surround height array for Auro. I can place the Atmos Top Middle array forwards/backwards a few feet on either side, which due to the beam between might not sound dead center from either the 1st or 2nd row as it would sitting directly between them under the box so I've been debating whether to put the speakers relative to the front row directly overhead (90) or slightly behind (95). They'll be spaced between the MLP and L/R seats (in line with mains) so not directly above my head, but I was thinking a slight difference between VOG and surround height in both elevation and azimuth might be more interesting sounding than exact alignment (which it uses simulating VOG with the Top Middle/Surround Height speakers now), but I haven't actually heard a setup using VOG separate from the surround/rear heights.


I will likely be working from the Trinnov setup guide. Of all the setup guides I have seen, it seems to be the most comprehensive, accounting for a plethora of situations and setups based upon ones use case. The "One setup for all" guide from Holger Baier isnt bad either, but the Trinnov guide is more complete.

The main difficulty I am having is placement options. Place for overhead imaging or place for vertical stereofield coherence (Atmos vs Auro). What is the best compromise between the two philosphies that gets me close to both (doesnt have to be perfect, as I will settle for close)


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I know that we should be, for the best imaging, using Top locations, but I will say this. If you want a WALL of SOUND - for example how the opening title of Oblivion hits on the Blu-ray DTS track with Neural:X enabled, you'll like the tops at a lower angle so they are a little closer to the fronts. It activates the entire front of the room like an IMAX movie can by using the LCR and front heights. I'm sure there are more examples.


A Wall of Sound at the front soundstage is absolutely something I would like to achieve. When Godzilla steps forward and roars a challenge at Kong, I want that front soundstage to be all Godzilla from floor to ceiling. I want to practically smell that big ass lizard's bad breath.

But at the same time, I do want good imaging in the height/ceiling layer. I understand that there are two competing philosophies here and I am trying to find the best compromise that gets me as close to both without breaking either of the stereofields.

So front heights with the purpose if raising the front and rear soundstages all the way to the ceiling, but also being able to image with the Top-Middle speakers for coherent front to back imaging to facilitate the movement of sound objects and channel panning.

Yes, I am trying to have my cake and eat it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I will likely be working from the Trinnov setup guide. Of all the setup guides I have seen, it seems to be the most comprehensive, accounting for a plethora of situations and setups based upon ones use case. The "One setup for all" guide from Holger Baier isnt bad either, but the Trinnov guide is more complete.
> 
> The main difficulty I am having is placement options. Place for overhead imaging or place for vertical stereofield coherence (Atmos vs Auro). What is the best compromise between the two philosphies that gets me close to both (doesnt have to be perfect, as I will settle for close)


Since Auro3D is scarcely used I would optimize for Atmos.


----------



## darrellh44

chi_guy50 said:


> The recommendation for 80° (or thereabouts) is to avoid the hot-spotting that could result from having those speakers directly overhead. And, since we hear sounds in front of our ears better than behind us, I would suggest keeping those TM at less than 90° for any seats that you care about (e.g., the MLP) whenever possible.
> 
> As @niterida has pointed out, the video never even mentions elevation angles. That jumps out to me as a red flag regarding his analysis and recommendations.





NuSoardGraphite said:


> Hmmm. Putting them at 80° from the front row would put them way, way too far forward of the back row, and too far away to properly image with the rear height speakers.
> 
> Placing them 80° from the back row places them about 100° from the front row and right betwee the two rows in the acoustical center of the space (both the entire room as the listening positions)
> 
> He had them at the wall/ceiling boundry of his room. Impossible to know the angle without knowing the distance of his seating position but his ceiling looked about 8 feet high, so if he was sitting at 9 to 10 feet away, thats about a 20° angle which fits within Dolby's recommended spec. Impossible to say for sure though.


I think chi_guy is referencing angles from the horizontal plane (as in 0 deg is at ear-level straight ahead) which is how the Trinnov Guide references angles. I'm assuming you're talking about the angle from the vertical plane at the MLP listening point (0 deg is straight overhead). IOW, ya'll are only 10 deg apart from one another.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since Auro3D is scarcely used I would optimize for Atmos.


The problem is I will be using the Auromatic upmixer quite a lot. Probably more than Atmos. Considering I have about three times the number of Blu Rays than I have 4k discs. And only a handfull of the Blu Ray movies have Atmos soundtracks. So thats a couple of hundred of my movies that will be upmixed via Auromatic.

Plus there are a lot of 4ks that come with no 3D audio. Pretty much anything from Arrow Video has not Atmor or DTSX.

From the listening tests at a friends house, I found Auromatic to be the superior upmixer. I have noticed better height effects from Dolby Surround lately though, so I have made arrangements to go over to my buddy's house for more listening tests to make absolutely certain.

I watch a lot of stuff on streaming that doesnt come anywhere close to having Atmos or 3D audio. In those cases (which are quite frequent) Auromatic may be the solution.

And then there is Playstation. Refusing to add 3D audio to its games (requiring headphones.....I think not!). So that also requires upmixing. I have yet to try Auromatic with gaming, but Dolby Surround and Neural-X mostly leave me cold with maybe a few exceptions (the Tomb Raider games sounded okay in Dolby Surround)

So in my situation, there is a lot of upmixing in my future. As of right now, Auromatic seems to be the best of the three options.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Since Auro3D is scarcely used I would optimize for Atmos.


He's going to be using Top Middle and thus Heights + Top Middle *is* optimized for Atmos. In fact, it's the way Atmos is intended to sound. This "Tops" obsession on here is understandable because .6 overhead processors have been in short supply and expensive and using Heights by themselves without Top Middle (or the VOG in the case of Auro-3D) can result in a "gap" directly overhead. However, imaging is not really _supposed_ to start at 45 degrees into the room in Dolby Atmos.

A full .10 overhead setup uses 20 degree Heights, 45 degree Tops, 90 degree Top Middle and the same down the back (135/160). Objects in the room render to the closest speakers and that makes a .10 setup the most spatially accurate of all Atmos overhead setups. The distances also put the least angular separation where the human ear is the most sensitive to overhead sounds and less directly above but with Top Middle (or VOG with Auro-3D) anchoring direct overhead sounds in place. The one exception might be for a room with a really tall ceiling. That might have Tops at 45 directly above the mains and Heights, if used would be part-way up the front wall.

I think most people that think Tops are "optimal" for Dolby Atmos have never heard Heights + Top Middle. There is no spot on the ceiling it can't image crystal clear. If I used Tops + Top Middle, it would start almost 1/4 out into the room, wasting that space above the mains and rears and compressing the distance the sounds can travel.

When I watch Auro-3D only films, many use a "wall of sound" effect quite effectively. Atmos can do it too (e.g. Oblivion). The effect is more about how they panned the sound than a given layout (most Atmos films over my layout don't do "walls of sound" as they're not designed too, but you do need Heights to make it at least possible first.

I wouldn't totally count out Auro-3D just yet. The upmixer is quite popular and a new owner just purchased it. Movies are still being released in it by Dutch Filmworks, Turbine and Source1 Media (I think more native movies came out the past 2 years than the 6 years prior. I've got 28 native movies and a dozen native music albums. That's not far from my DTS:X movie collection total). 

The streaming version was pretty much finished when they filed for bankruptcy so if even a couple of streaming services start making it available, it _could_ spread. Even the lower model D&M units coming out now have Auro-3D support as does Yamaha. Neural X actually does a decent job upmixing Auro-3D native as well even on non-supported processors. Personally, I think more is better and competition is good for the industry. If you setup carefully for all three formats, you can just buy whatever you want regardless of the format.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

darrellh44 said:


> I think chi_guy is referencing angles from the horizontal plane (as in 0 deg is at ear-level straight ahead) which is how the Trinnov Guide references angles. I'm assuming you're talking about the angle from the vertical plane at the MLP listening point (0 deg is straight overhead). IOW, ya'll are only 10 deg apart from one another.


The 0° plane is the sightline when looking at the front display and center channel. 90° would be directly overhead. 80° slightly forward of that. 100° slightly behind.










As you can see here, the Top-Middle and VoG position is shown 90° directly above the listener.

I like this illustration as it shows the five Height/ceiling positions as they relate to one another. Its a little easier to visualize why I want 6 height channels when you look at this. The front and rear heights replacing the Top-Front and Top-Rear because the Top-Middle is present to bridge the gap. Proper height imaging and object placement should be possible due to the presence of the TM speakers.










This illustration here is what the end result should look like, though with Top-Middles slightly closer together so they can also double as a Voice of God.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The 0° plane is the sightline when looking at the front display and center channel. 90° would be directly overhead. 80° slightly forward of that. 100° slightly behind.
> 
> View attachment 3333696
> 
> 
> As you can see here, the Top-Middle and VoG position is shown 90° directly above the listener.
> 
> I like this illustration as it shows the five Height/ceiling positions as they relate to one another. Its a little easier to visualize why I want 6 height channels when you look at this. The front and rear heights replacing the Top-Front and Top-Rear because the Top-Middle is present to bridge the gap. Proper height imaging and object placement should be possible due to the presence of the TM speakers.
> 
> View attachment 3333708
> 
> 
> This illustration here is what the end result should look like, though with Top-Middles slightly closer together so they can also double as a Voice of God.
> 
> View attachment 3333709


Keep in mind the Trinnov guide is meant to be more ROOM Centric than MLP Centric (why should the MLP seat be the only one with good sound?) The MLP Dolby angles are for reference setup. They are not meant to indicate whether you'll get good imaging at a given seat other than the MLP. With a room setup using enough channels (or speaker arrays) to cover that room sufficiently, it doesn't matter the exact angles relative to a given seat, but rather the entire room with equidistant coverage. As long as the angles are below 70 degrees (or ideally 60 as Trinnov indicates), you'll get solid imaging between pairs no matter where you sit in the center line (off-axis L/R seats are more of and issue and that's where the Auro setup with a VOG centered overhead and CH directly over the center speaker work so much better than Atmos for off-axis seats!) 

In other words, with a room based setup, you don't obsess over the MLP angles. You obsess over equidistant speaker, making them as equidistant as the room shape/seating arrangement allows (e.g. I had to account for door openings, an outboard fireplace and a half bathroom here so they couldn't be precisely equidistant in all cases, but they could be under 60 degrees.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> A Wall of Sound at the front soundstage is absolutely something I would like to achieve. When Godzilla steps forward and roars a challenge at Kong, I want that front soundstage to be all Godzilla from floor to ceiling. I want to practically smell that big ass lizard's bad breath.


It's going to depend how it was mixed. We're at the mercy of hoping it was done that way, and there is no guarantee that it was for any particular content. I suppose you're more likely to end up with that when using Neural:X since it's so aggressive in its height usage.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> But at the same time, I do want good imaging in the height/ceiling layer. I understand that there are two competing philosophies here and I am trying to find the best compromise that gets me as close to both without breaking either of the stereofields.


Yeah. I think the best bet is to use top middle so that if you want to go further forward and back with the FH and RH, there's no hole in the middle. And don't go all the way to the walls with the heights - I think there is little benefit and you'll lose the overhead effects. All that does is push the FH back further than your fronts (unless you have in-walls) which makes little sense. You can still achieve what you want with something closer to the Atmos layout.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> The problem is I will be using the Auromatic upmixer quite a lot. Probably more than Atmos. Considering I have about three times the number of Blu Rays than I have 4k discs. And only a handfull of the Blu Ray movies have Atmos soundtracks. So thats a couple of hundred of my movies that will be upmixed via Auromatic.


I like Automatic for some music, but for movies I think you want something that actually moves sounds to various speakers based on the content, like NX or DSU. Though, I'm sure it works with some titles. It's nice to have the different options.

Games may be a different story. I'd have to experiment a lot more to find what works.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> This illustration here is what the end result should look like, though with Top-Middles slightly closer together so they can also double as a Voice of God.


It will still image in the middle. You don't want them too close or you'll get comb filtering.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> I like this illustration as it shows the five Height/ceiling positions as they relate to one another. Its a little easier to visualize why I want 6 height channels when you look at this. The front and rear heights replacing the Top-Front and Top-Rear because the Top-Middle is present to bridge the gap. Proper height imaging and object placement should be possible due to the presence of the TM speakers.


I think the top front position in that figure will be more effective. The FH position shown there just moves the speaker too far back IMO. You'll still get a vertical wall of sound if you bring them forward.


----------



## MagnumX

@NuSoardGraphite - Keep also in mind that even with a dedicated VOG the Front Heights also play the VOG signal so anywhere you put the VOG or Top Middle playing a VOG signal, you're going to get the phantom image forward of that. With my Surround Heights playing the VOG signal at 110 degrees, the VOG images just in front of me and above me. 

If I had them at 90 degrees, it might be further forward, although if you change the speaker distance settings you can change the apparent image location (Precedence Effect withstanding).

As for Soulburner's claim the front wall is too far forward, I say poppycock. My front heights are 2' in front of my mains due to being installed on the top of a bookshelf and it's great. That's why we have speaker delay settings so the signals all arrive at the same time regardless.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> It's going to depend how it was mixed. We're at the mercy of hoping it was done that way, and there is no guarantee that it was for any particular content. I suppose you're more likely to end up with that when using Neural:X since it's so aggressive in its height usage.


Of course its going to depend on how it was mixed. If the sound is intended to hang over the screen, then thats where I want it. Not 4 feet forward of the screen.



> Yeah. I think the best bet is to use top middle so that if you want to go further forward and back with the FH and RH, there's no hole in the middle. And don't go all the way to the walls with the heights - I think there is little benefit and you'll lose the overhead effects. All that does is push the FH back further than your fronts (unless you have in-walls) which makes little sense. You can still achieve what you want with something closer to the Atmos layout.


I will probably follow the Auro3D setup where you place the heights directly over the front speakers (maybe a little bit inside them, just a bit) which means if my fronts are 2 feet off the front wall, then so too will the height channels be suspended 2 feet from the front wall. Auro3D doesnt want the height channels to be more than 10% closer than its equivalent ground channel to maintain a stereo connection between the two so the soundfield remains vertically consistent.



> I like Automatic for some music, but for movies I think you want something that actually moves sounds to various speakers based on the content, like NX or DSU. Though, I'm sure it works with some titles. It's nice to have the different options.


I'm going to do some more testing of this soon. I plan to upmix Speed Racer which has some scenes of cars zipping between channels. And sometimes even overhead. I want to see how well Auro3D will handle the imaging in this situation. Also how it will handle height effects with the Hugh Jackman Van Helsing where there are lots of flying creatures and crossbow bolts zooming across the soundfield. Just in regular DTSHDMA it sounds amazing. In Neural-X its fantastic. I want to see how well Auromatic handles some scenes from that film.




> It will still image in the middle. You don't want them too close or you'll get comb filtering.


Not bringing them too far together. Just closer than the Atmos diagrams tend to show. Still fully to the left and right of the audience. At the most I'll bring them just over the shoulders of the outermost seats.


----------



## robert600

Chirosamsung said:


> Can shakers work in a multi seat attatched sectional like this that curves? Would only care about them in 2-3 of main seats... would that be a problem? Also they are recliners if that is an issue
> View attachment 3333498
> 
> View attachment 3333499
> 
> View attachment 3333496
> 
> View attachment 3333497
> 
> View attachment 3333495


I'm only just starting to 'get my head around' shaker set-ups. But, nothing I've read would indicate any problem. Every couch/chair is different ... the only way to tell is to opemthem upfrom theback and have a look. For my recliner, I'll have to add a strip of wood to mount the shaker to, but that seems quitestraightforward. Nothing will impede the chair's glide from fully upright to fully reclined. It looks to me from your room set-up ... your whole couch assembly can come forward to give you a couple of feet of access to the back. How hard it will be to open the back remains to be seen. My recliner is cloth so quite easy to open up. Leather may be attached more securely.
I'm not an electronics whiz, but is seems the ohms of all this is important ... 3 transducers may be awkward for this reason ... 4 is very straightforward.


----------



## halcyon_888

My experience on TR devices: Aura bass shakers felt like "buzzers" rather than "shakers". Buttkicker LFE felt somewhat more natural but still a bit like a "buzzer" at times; and I read that they have a good response if you use some form of isolation feet or a good platform but in hindsight I didn't have the best platform. HoverBoss/HoverEze is the best TR I've had so far, feels the most natural and it's setup correctly. I've had to reduce the gain on the HoverEze to blend in with my subwoofer's TR better, but some people like more TR and dial theirs up. It's been the best performer out of the ones I've tried. More TR than I need, feels the best, and has the lowest frequency response.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> @NuSoardGraphite - Keep also in mind that even with a dedicated VOG the Front Heights also play the VOG signal so anywhere you put the VOG or Top Middle playing a VOG signal, you're going to get the phantom image forward of that. With my Surround Heights playing the VOG signal at 110 degrees, the VOG images just in front of me and above me.
> 
> If I had them at 90 degrees, it might be further forward, although if you change the speaker distance settings you can change the apparent image location (Precedence Effect withstanding).


Mine will be around 100° or so (maybe 110°) as I am trying to split the difference between the front row and the back row (room-based setup)



> As for Soulburner's claim the front wall is too far forward, I say poppycock. My front heights are 2' in front of my mains due to being installed on the top of a bookshelf and it's great. That's why we have speaker delay settings so the signals all arrive at the same time regardless.


I think he means too far "forward" as in being on the front wall (screen wall) while the mains are 1 or 2 feet away from the screen wall. 

In my case, I plan to suspend them from the ceiling directly above the front speakers (maybe a little inward to keep them in line with the Top-Middles) so one or two feet from the screen wall.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think he means too far "forward" as in being on the front wall (screen wall) while the mains are 1 or 2 feet away from the screen wall.


Someone must have misread - I said FH as shown in those pictures doesn't make sense because it pushes them _too far back_ behind the LCR, unless you have in-walls.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Buttkicker LFE felt somewhat more natural but still a bit like a "buzzer" at times; and I read that they have a good response if you use some form of isolation feet or a good platform but in hindsight I didn't have the best platform.


I had a Buttkicker LFE with the couch kit using isolation feet to replace the feet on the couch. This was for a 3-seat couch with recliners on the ends and it actually worked pretty well. Because my couch had a metal frame, the Buttkicker on the platform underneath it transferred vibration well across all 3 seats.

Sadly, I have no use for it in my current room, so it lives in my closet.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I had a Buttkicker LFE with the couch kit using isolation feet to replace the feet on the couch. This was for a 3-seat couch with recliners on the ends and it actually worked pretty well. Because my couch had a metal frame, the Buttkicker on the platform underneath it transferred vibration well across all 3 seats.
> 
> Sadly, I have no use for it in my current room, so it lives in my closet.


I tested a plywood platform for the Buttkickers that had a bunch of isolation feet underneath it, but at the time I thought it was too "spongy" so I went a different route. A lot of people like the Buttkicker LFEs when the are properly setup, so in hindsight I probably should have went with the original plan.

To improve the Buttkicker LFEs frequency response someone did what is called a "bottomless mod", it looks like it'll void warranties for sure though 








The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))


If you saw my video a couple posts ago, i got Z and Y- axis pretty well covered ;) And i have said in the past that X-axis isn’t something i would chase. Sorry, I thought we were talking specifically about the 2.0 version of Aron's MMA where the BK uses an extension rod to exert force. The way...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Mine will be around 100° or so (maybe 110°) as I am trying to split the difference between the front row and the back row (room-based setup)
> 
> 
> 
> I think he means too far "forward" as in being on the front wall (screen wall) while the mains are 1 or 2 feet away from the screen wall.
> 
> In my case, I plan to suspend them from the ceiling directly above the front speakers (maybe a little inward to keep them in line with the Top-Middles) so one or two feet from the screen wall.


That's exactly what I'm saying as my setup mirrors that diagram EXACTLY (front heights sitting in front of L/C/R plane). See picture below (Note mains are offset from heights slightly due to summed front wides shifting the phantom image for L/R outward slightly; the images actually align audibly Top/Bottom). The heights are almost even with screen plane; L/CR are in front of it due to the cabinets. With speaker delays set, it blends just fine. We cannot detect depth of sound precisely without boundaries. The difference between a sound even with the screen and hovering a 2 feet in front of it is negligible (some might say it's better for 3D movies where the screen plane tends to hover a foot or two in front of the projection screen. Ceiling images start at the edge of the ceiling (or rather a few inches below it here) and move across it towards you. The point is If there were some issue with the heights being behind the plane of the L/C/R speakers, I think I would have noticed it by now.

Another example is the Monoprice HTP-1 with its "Wide" mode that engages the Front Wides with the signal from the L/R Mains for movies that aren't using Front Wides. Most people on that thread seem to love that mode. Most Front Wides are sitting closer to the MLP than the mains (50-65 degrees) or part way between the mains and the side surrounds. What happens to the arrayed signal? Nothing bad. 

I use summed front wides. They contain Mains + Sides. The old AVIA test disc has a moving pink noise track that travels around the "5.1" speaker setup in a circular/oval fashion. The setup instructions say it won't move as smoothly around the back part behind you due to limitations of the mixing method used, when in reality it's more like a limitation of the extreme angular distances used with 5.1. With 7.1 used in that same area (addition of summed front wides), that signal moves smooth as silk around my listening position (great for 360 gaming as there are no gaps whatsoever in the 360 rotating field). Thus, with my dialog/front stage lift effect, I have Front Wides + Mains + Front Heights all carrying the Mains signal at some amount and the Front Heights carrying the Center channel in dual mono as well to lift dialog onto the screen. I notice no weird dialog or bizarre things going on. If anything, there's a lot of layering of front effects that move offscreen as it moves around towards the side surrounds. 

A good demo example is the Dolby Atmos demo "Silent". It starts with the sounds of a little organ grinder thing moving from the rear of the room straight through the audience middle of the room to come to rest on the screen itself. That squeaking wheel sound should move smoothly through the room like someone's pushing a squeaky wagon through the middle of the room from the rear to the front and pass right through you like you're a ghost and onto the screen with no gaps or "jumps" in the soundfield. If you're not getting a completely butter smooth transition with no jumps, then you don't have enough speakers layered front-to-back for your size room to phantom image it properly. I have 5 sets of speakers along the length of the 24' long room at ear level (Mains -> Front Wides -> Side Surrounds -> Surround #2 -> Rear Surrounds) and that cart moves like a hologram rear-to-front through the room.

There's a front-to-back through the middle of the room track on Yello's Atmos album POINT called "Big Boys Blues" from 2:00-2:05 into the song. It sounds like a buzzy synth traveling from the center channel speaker to between the rear surround speakers (rear center if you have it). It should move like a 3D hologram of a buzzy "drone" flying at ear level (just above ear/head level here) from the center speaker to that rear center area without gaps or jumps. Again, if it does not do this, you don't have enough front-to-back coverage. Those are two of the most impressive demos I know of for Atmos ear level layering (that don't use any heights) because they pass right through you like you're a ghost. And it's something to address before you mount permanent speakers into walls, etc. (much easier to address with stand or even active mixers with summed extra speakers as you can alter the virtual phantom imaging points for the seating). You want as smooth panning effects as possible in every direction.

A good overhead layering test is the newer Flatliners (2017) movie (only in Atmos on streaming; there's also an Auro-3D blu-ray version available. I have both here) during the titles intro sequence at 1:46-3:08 into the movie. All these disembodied voices begin talking about near death experiences all over the ceiling of the room for 1:22 seconds from every imaginable direction. Panning should occur smoothly and voices should eventually appear almost everywhere on the entire ceiling right up to the screen. I would imagine with Tops or Tops + Top Middle you would get them only over 1/2 the ceiling 1/4 in to 3/4 back like a circle coming to a point rather than a spherical bubble.


----------



## darrellh44

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think he means too far "forward" as in being on the front wall (screen wall) while the mains are 1 or 2 feet away from the screen wall.
> 
> In my case, I plan to suspend them from the ceiling directly above the front speakers (maybe a little inward to keep them in line with the Top-Middles) so one or two feet from the screen wall.


In my case with 8' ceilings and 13' distance from MLP to front mains, my front tops (height) speakers have to be about 5' out from my mains in order to get a 30 deg elevation. Also the lateral angle to my front tops puts them in-line with the diagonal from MLP to front mains, so all the directional angles are correct to place them directly above the mains, just the distance to the front wall is the only thing different. My question is, can't the delay settings for front tops be adjusted so they are "virtually' pushed back to be directly above the mains? In any case this position seems to be the best compromise for my room between Auro positioning for heights vs front tops positioning for my 9.1.6 Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> You need to build one of these : The Tactile Response Thread for BASS :))


Yes but will that work for sectionals that curve and also only using it under some seats that


halcyon_888 said:


> My experience on TR devices: Aura bass shakers felt like "buzzers" rather than "shakers". Buttkicker LFE felt somewhat more natural but still a bit like a "buzzer" at times; and I read that they have a good response if you use some form of isolation feet or a good platform but in hindsight I didn't have the best platform. HoverBoss/HoverEze is the best TR I've had so far, feels the most natural and it's setup correctly. I've had to reduce the gain on the HoverEze to blend in with my subwoofer's TR better, but some people like more TR and dial theirs up. It's been the best performer out of the ones I've tried. More TR than I need, feels the best, and has the lowest frequency response.


can someone just order this hoverboss thing and would it be in Canada? Where would I buy them? Do they get installed ever by anyone?

Also, the issue about putting some hkverboss or any wood under some seats in a leather sectional is that the ones that don't have it underneith then will sit at a different height and may not attatched properly since they hook in tk one another (what makes it an expensive sectional lol)

wouldn't this be a problem?


----------



## darrellh44

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes but will that work for sectionals that curve and also only using it under some seats that
> 
> can someone just order this hoverboss thing and would it be in Canada? Where would I buy them? Do they get installed ever by anyone?
> 
> Also, the issue about putting some hkverboss or any wood under some seats in a leather sectional is that the ones that don't have it underneith then will sit at a different height and may not attatched properly since they hook in tk one another (what makes it an expensive sectional lol)
> 
> wouldn't this be a problem?


HoverBoss/HoverEze are strictly DIY options as far as I know.

You would have to add hover platforms (or one large platform) to cover the whole sectional if the sections are attached to one another. I would think you'd have to add off-shelf tactile devices to every attached section as well if you go that route. The HoverBosses are not that hard to assemble, but there are several components you'll have to buy which are listed towards the end of the second post of the Tactile Response Thread. If you need help cutting the platform piece(s), you should be able to find a local carpenter that can easily do this part for you. Well worth the effort, but it is a lot of effort. There are lots of friendly helpful guys that frequent that thread if you get stuck on anything.


----------



## MagnumX

darrellh44 said:


> In my case with 8' ceilings and 13' distance from MLP to front mains, my front tops (height) speakers have to be about 5' out from my mains in order to get a 30 deg elevation. Also the lateral angle to my front tops puts them in-line with the diagonal from MLP to front mains, so all the directional angles are correct to place them directly above the mains, just the distance to the front wall is the only thing different. My question is, can't the delay settings for front tops be adjusted so they are "virtually' pushed back to be directly above the mains? In any case this position seems to be the best compromise for my room between Auro positioning for heights vs front tops positioning for my 9.1.6 Atmos.


The speaker delays don't exactly "push back" the sounds. Delays are relative in nature. If the Tops are the only speakers playing, they're still going to come from their location on the ceiling because the delay is more like a slight pause just for those speakers when they're the only ones placing. That can't move the sound direction or distance by itself. There's no other wavefronts to combine with under those circumstances. But if another set of speakers are playing, the delays affect the correlated parts that are playing from both speakers, making the combined image move further forward or back, the same way a delay in left or right in stereo will pull an image in-between to one side or the other.

What something like Trinnov does with their Room remapping/correction system to adjust the layout is use other speakers to play the same signal with a delay on it so the two sets combine at the listening location which creates a phantom image from a different location than where either speaker is sitting, giving the illusion that the sound is coming from a different location entirely. But their system is a lot smarter than the Dolby Atmos Renderer in that it's first of all actually _trying_ to change the apparent speaker locations and that it knows exactly in a 3D plane where all your speakers are located (their 3D sensing microphone system). Atmos by itself simply isn't that intelligent.

So for those of us that can't really afford/justify the expense of Trinnov, using real locations for speakers is usually the best bet. You can rig a manual array with a mixer system (e.g. MiniDSP has level and delays while a regular mixer is usually just levels) and pull/push back combinations of speakers, though with either volume or delay controls. It still can't correct the actual angle of the speaker in a given plane by itself, but it can move it towards or away from the other speaker. I used this with a Top Middle/Rear Height array test using the movie Ready Player One in combination with the front heights to move the "apparent/phantom" location of the .2 overhead sounds forward or backward in the room to see how the movie sounded with overheads in various locations across the entire ceiling. I concluded Top Middle at 80-110 worked best (hard to pick which location sounded better if any across that range as they all provided a very similar effect as it combines with the bed layer to pull off the full effect) followed by Top Front and Front Heights. Top Rear and Rear Heights were the worst for the front row, but worked well for the 2nd and 3rd rows.


----------



## Stridulent

Hey, folks. I'm a bit new to Atmos but trying to determine the feasibility of an upgrade. I currently have a Marantz SR5007 7.2 system that I'd like to upgrade. I'd assume in order to add 4 speakers to the ceiling for Atmos, I'd need to find an 11.2 system? Or do I no longer need the rears and those could be ceiling speakers in a 9.2 system?

Either way, how much should I expect to pay for a new entry to mid-grade receiver that supports the above?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Stridulent said:


> Hey, folks. I'm a bit new to Atmos but trying to determine the feasibility of an upgrade. I currently have a Marantz SR5007 7.2 system that I'd like to upgrade. I'd assume in order to add 4 speakers to the ceiling for Atmos, I'd need to find an 11.2 system? Or do I no longer need the rears and those could be ceiling speakers in a 9.2 system?
> 
> Either way, how much should I expect to pay for a new entry to mid-grade receiver that supports the above?


The cheapest decent brand new model would be the upcoming *Denon AVR-X3800H 7.4.4 *receiver. It will have built-in amps for 9 speakers and you can add a cheap D-Class stereo amp for the Top Rear overheads. Pre-amp outs for all channels. Separate output and calibration software control for up to 4 subwoofers. A full slate of HDMI 2.1 inputs. Expected full retail before dealer discounts is $1,700. A potential Dirac Live calibration software update for the cost of a Dirac licensing fee is an optional bonus add-on. It will come with Audyssey by default.

If you don't need the latest features, there will more than likely be fire sales on the 3700H soon.

If your side and rear surrounds are up high on the wall, they will need to be lowered to at or slightly above seated head height. Then add your four overheads.


----------



## robert600

Stridulent said:


> Hey, folks. I'm a bit new to Atmos but trying to determine the feasibility of an upgrade. I currently have a Marantz SR5007 7.2 system that I'd like to upgrade. I'd assume in order to add 4 speakers to the ceiling for Atmos, I'd need to find an 11.2 system? Or do I no longer need the rears and those could be ceiling speakers in a 9.2 system?
> 
> Either way, how much should I expect to pay for a new entry to mid-grade receiver that supports the above?


I was faced with similar dilema when jumping to atmos. In the end,I couldn't bear the thought of losing the rear surrounds so I went for a 9.2 (actually I guess technically it's 11.4) with the pre-outs and processing for 11.4. I never ran it as 5.4.4 to test but I really think the rear surrounds add a lot. As Dan pointed out ... a cheap amp or 2 will give you 7.2.4 or 7.2.6 (if you scatmos).


----------



## Rich 63

robert600 said:


> . I never ran it as 5.4.4 to test but I really think the rear surrounds add a lot.


@Stridulent. robert600 above quote is slightly different then my experience. My room is 21x16. I had initially set up as 5.1.4. I then decided to use an older avr to realize 7.1.4. It was marginally better in my case. 
After a few months in that configuration, I came to the conclusion that the additional clutter was not worth the benifit so removed and went back to 5.1.4.
Depending on room layout, budget, and other factors 5.1.4 is a very good viable option. In fact I'll wager more run 5 then 7. No right or wrong answer but I wanted you to be aware. The nature of atmos is such that your very much surrounded by sound unlike you are with just bed layers.


----------



## eaayoung

Yep. 5.x.4 seems to be the best bang for the buck with Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> I was faced with similar dilema when jumping to atmos. In the end,I couldn't bear the thought of losing the rear surrounds so I went for a 9.2 (actually I guess technically it's 11.4) with the pre-outs and processing for 11.4. I never ran it as 5.4.4 to test but I really think the rear surrounds add a lot. As Dan pointed out ... a cheap amp or 2 will give you 7.2.4 or 7.2.6 (if you scatmos).


It really depends on on the content whether rears are noticeable from the MLP. Some titles (and a lot of Atmos music) uses them almost as much or even more (music) than the sides while others mostly use them as a copy of sides (array) which benefits multiple row home theaters greatly (surround info is to the sides for other rows instead of in front of them like multiple row traditional 5.1 theaters with surrounds all the way back), but isn't very noticeable for the MLP or front row because the Precedence Effect for multiple copies of the same thing means it images closer to the nearest pair. 

So surround items might shift backward slightly for such titles, but mostly sound the same as 5.1 in the front. Some titles might do both. It's better than having the rears silent, IMO, especially for multiple rows.

They may copy sides to rears in some cases because Home Atmos does not support bed arrays for multiple rows in the first place (Cinema Atmos does support it), leaving some mixing engineers to potentially do it manually for the rear channels. _Back To The Future_ in Atmos is an example that mostly copies much of the sides to rears, but also has _some_ discrete effects in key places.


----------



## robert600

Rich 63 said:


> @Stridulent. robert600 above quote is slightly different then my experience. My room is 21x16. I had initially set up as 5.1.4. I then decided to use an older avr to realize 7.1.4. It was marginally better in my case.
> After a few months in that configuration, I came to the conclusion that the additional clutter was not worth the benifit so removed and went back to 5.1.4.
> Depending on room layout, budget, and other factors 5.1.4 is a very good viable option. In fact I'll wager more run 5 then 7. No right or wrong answer but I wanted you to be aware. The nature of atmos is such that your very much surrounded by sound unlike you are with just bed layers.


I appeciate what you're saying and it's a good argument when thinking of newer releases or streaming. There's a bit of a 'wild card' in all this though: that being a user's existing media collection. That's important to me because, being in the backwoods of Canada, I can't stream in any kind of good quality. As a result, I watch from my collection a lot.

So ... just looking through my blu rays ... say the original Avengers ... dts master audio 7.1. I get a ton of audio from the rear surrounds ... dsu or not. I'm not sure what happens to those rear surround channels in a 5.1.4 system. Does it get fed to the rear heights or does it go to the surrounds? ... I just don't know ... In either case, to my way of thinking ... with audio tracks like these, my sense was ... nice to have rear surrounds. Like I said though, I never tried 5.1.4 so it may handle it just fine and sound terrific.

Whether any of that applies to the OP or not ...???


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert600 said:


> I appeciate what you're saying and it's a good argument when thinking of newer releases or streaming. There's a bit of a 'wild card' in all this though: that being a user's existing media collection. That's important to me because, being in the backwoods of Canada, I can't stream in any kind of good quality. As a result, I watch from my collection a lot.
> 
> So ... just looking through my blu rays ... say the original Avengers ... dts master audio 7.1. I get a ton of audio from the rear surrounds ... dsu or not. I'm not sure what happens to those rear surround channels in a 5.1.4 system. Does it get fed to the rear heights or does it go to the surrounds? ... I just don't know ... In either case, to my way of thinking ... with audio tracks like these, my sense was ... nice to have rear surrounds. Like I said though, I never tried 5.1.4 so it may handle it just fine and sound terrific.
> 
> Whether any of that applies to the OP or not ...???


The back bed surrounds are folded into the side bed surrounds with a -3dB compensation.


----------



## Rich 63

robert600 said:


> Does it get fed to the rear heights or does it go to the surrounds? .


Like @Dan Hitchman said.


----------



## Rich 63

Dan Hitchman said:


> The back bed surrounds are folded into the side bed surrounds with a -3dB compensation.


I did not know the minus - 3db. Why?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Rich 63 said:


> I did not know the minus - 3db. Why?


When you combine the content of separate channels together you can "overload" the audio signal chain if they are coming in too loud. 3 dB increments is an industry standard.


----------



## Rich 63

Dan Hitchman said:


> When you combine the content of separate channels together you can "overload" the audio signal chain if they are coming in too loud.


Kind of thought that after I posted. It makes sense really. Thanks Dan.


----------



## MagnumX

Rich 63 said:


> I did not know the minus - 3db. Why?


I've never heard any audible volume change. Atmos in particular moves objects to the nearest available speakers, but it doesn't change the levels that I'm aware of. Combining channels can result in +3dB where the correlate, however so perhaps that's where it's reduced.

If you have front wides + 5.1, most Atmos processors will copy the side content to the front wides while only playing the rears through the surround speakers. The net arrayed effect is a phantom side speaker image between front wides and your surround speakers, which if the surround speakers are correctly placed at 120 degrees behind you and front wides at 60 degrees results in a side phantom image at 90 degrees as if you had separate side surrounds. You will get nearly as much 7.1 separation as using 5.1 + rears with better panning in the front between mains and surrounds.

Going to 9.1 simply removes the copy from the front wides and sends rear information to the dedicated rear surrounds. Previous former "surrounds" that are now "side surrounds" should be moved to 90-110 degrees instead.


----------



## niterida

Rich 63 said:


> @Stridulent. robert600 above quote is slightly different then my experience. My room is 21x16. I had initially set up as 5.1.4. I then decided to use an older avr to realize 7.1.4. It was marginally better in my case.


This was my experience too - in a 20x14x9 room - but the surrounds have to be at 110-120deg. If they are directly to the sides then you will need rear surrounds. I ended up at the max 120deg.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> It really depends on on the content whether rears are noticeable from the MLP. Some titles (and a lot of Atmos music) uses them almost as much or even more (music) than the sides while others mostly use them as a copy of sides (array) which benefits multiple row home theaters greatly (surround info is to the sides for other rows instead of in front of them like multiple row traditional 5.1 theaters with surrounds all the way back), but isn't very noticeable for the MLP or front row because the Precedence Effect for multiple copies of the same thing means it images closer to the nearest pair.


There is no precedence when speakers are delayed and level-adjusted.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> There is no precedence when speakers are delayed and level-adjusted.


That's a good point and you're right, it's correct for the MLP, but delays only work for one seat save speakers in front of all seats which do benefit from from delays to keep one wavefront arriving to all seats simultaneously. But once you start delaying surround speakers across multiple rows, you're looking at a one trick pony since the distances to each seat vary considerably. 

My setup has a summed array that doesn't get its own delay, but still comes after the initial side surround and can be level controlled. It's surprisingly difficult to find very small delay boxes for just that purpose outside a relatively pricey for the function Mini-DSP and not really necessary for very small delays according to the sites discussing array use. 

Anything under 4m-5m or about 12-16 feet or thereabouts was listed as don't bother as you won't hear them as separate sources and arrays without Precedence at equal levels will still image halfway in-between so a slightly longer delay actually helps keep the sides from pulling further backwards in regards to the MLP). Having another arrayed set (e.g. Front Wides) can also potentially pull it back the other direction. Relative arrayed levels can also move the combined summed phantom image to where you want it to be.


----------



## porschedrifter

Can someone explain to me how lossless and lossy 5.1 Atmos from streaming works?

If full Atmos off disc is a 10-channel 7.1.1 or .2 bed, does that mean that streaming uses a 5.1.2 bed?
If there's no discrete bed of Atmos objects, and it uses metadata only, then isn't it really just glorified upmixing?

Today after reading from a few places, talking about the x.x.2 bed layer I got confused.
I figured there was a bed of discrete objects which Atmos then can scale from up to 118 max objects depending on your setup.

Here's what I found that started the initial confusion: https://gearspace.com/.../1345513-atmos-7-1-2-vs-7-1-4...
https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/.../What-is-a-bed...
And https://www.the-home-cinema-guide.com/dolby-atmos... states that: Each Atmos movie soundtrack will have a 10-channel 7.1.2 bed that will play on any standard 5.1 or 7.1 system.

Then, for systems that support Dolby Atmos, it can place a further 118 audio objects anywhere around the 3D sound field – overhead, to the side, front to back, back to front – whatever suits the action on the screen.

*Looking at the Hook Atmos Disc, it states there is a 1 channel bed layer for Atmos, on top of the regular discrete surround channels:*
Audio #2
ID/String : 3
Format/String : MLP FBA 16-ch
Format/Info : Meridian Lossless Packing FBA with 16-channel presentation
Format_Commercial_If Any : Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos
CodecID : A_TRUEHD
Duration/String : 2 h 21 min
BitRate_Mode/String : Variable
BitRate/String : 4 410 kb/s
BitRate_Maximum/String : 7 185 kb/s
Channel(s)/String : 8 channels
ChannelLayout : L R C LFE Ls Rs Lb Rb
SamplingRate/String : 48.0 kHz
FrameRate/String : 1 200.000 FPS (40 SPF)
Compression_Mode/String : Lossless
StreamSize/String : 4.37 GiB (32%)
Title : Surround 7.1
Language/String : English
Default/String : Yes
Forced/String : No
Number of dynamic objects : 11
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE
*_
And here for example is a lossy 5.1 streaming Atmos information:*
Audio
ID : 2
Format : E-AC-3 JOC
Format/Info : Enhanced AC-3 with Joint Object Coding
Commercial name : Dolby Digital Plus with Dolby Atmos
Codec ID : A_EAC3
Duration : 2 h 10 min
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 768 kb/s
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel layout : L R C LFE Ls Rs
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 31.250 FPS (1536 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 715 MiB (3%)
Title : DDP5.1 Atmos
Language : English
Service kind : Complete Main
Default : Yes
Forced : No
Complexity index : 16
Number of dynamic objects : 15
Bed channel count : 1 channel
Bed channel configuration : LFE

*Side note*: I notice it says "Bed channel config: LFE" so does that mean they are utilizing the LFE channel to contain the Atmos objects since the upper frequency range of LFE isn't used? Kind of smart actually.


----------



## dschulz

porschedrifter said:


> Can someone explain to me how lossless and lossy 5.1 Atmos from streaming works?


Love the username!

Short version:

_theatrical_ Atmos has 7.1.2 channels, the usual 7.1 that you expect plus 2 overhead channels. In addition to these channels an Atmos soundtrack can have up to 118 sound objects moving around the room, rendered in 3D space by the speakers in the cinema. The maximum independent speaker count is 64.

_home_ Atmos has the 7.1 channels you expect, plus some number of dynamic objects. The objects from the theatrical mix are clustered together in order to reduce the number of dynamic objects significantly, to between 5-8. The overhead channels from the theatrical mix, if used, are rendered as objects for the home theatre mix.

This home Atmos mix can be delivered via Dolby TrueHD on disc, which uses lossless compression for the audio, or via Dolby Digital Plus for streaming, which uses lossy, but very good, compression for the audio. The maximum speaker count for home Atmos is 24.1.10, but you'll find that by far the most common layouts, and those supported by mainstream consumer gear, range between 5.1.2 and 9.1.6. Any Atmos mix will properly scale to any of these layouts as intended by rendering the channels and objects, not via upmixing.

There are many additional weeds around how the channels get treated as static objects and different approaches to the consumer delivery if you wish to dig further, but that's the short version.



> I notice it says "Bed channel config: LFE" so does that mean they are utilizing the LFE channel to contain the Atmos objects since the upper frequency range of LFE isn't used? Kind of smart actually.


This is one of those weeds: in practice the only channel that shows up on a home Atmos mix is the LFE, the other channels are all considered objects, albeit static ones that don't move around. They are not using any frequency filtering to hide audio in other tracks.


----------



## halcyon_888

I watched Zero Dark Thirty just now and I'm happy to say that it has good Atmos. I'm getting tired of so many releases having sub-par Atmos so it's nice when a movie done in Atmos actually uses the technology. It's not top shelf imo, but it is good and has both discrete and ambiance effects and it was satisfying.

Someone asked a few pages ago about movies that have bass in the heights, in Zero Dark Thirty there is an airplane flyover that has some bass in the heights at around 36:40. At 54:50 there's another airplane flyover but it's not as deep as the previous.

It's a tough movie to watch, especially the first 30-45 minutes or so, but it changes into a military thriller and I thought it was a good movie. If you don't like Kathryne Bigelow movies like The Hurt Locker then you won't like this--it's definitely done in her style which isn't exactly "mainstream". Otherwise this might be a good one to watch and have a bit of Atmos too.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> Someone asked a few pages ago about movies that have bass in the heights, in Zero Dark Thirty there is an airplane flyover that has some bass in the heights at around 36:40. At 54:50 there's another airplane flyover but it's not as deep as the previous.


So I saw this comment and wanted to ask what kind of ceiling speakers you had in order for you to know this, so I checked the link in your signature and, damn. VERY nice.


----------



## petetherock

Another movie with a so so plot gets a tip top soundtrack - Infinite won't be remembered as Mark W's best work by any stretch, but the Atmos surround makes this worth it when the BR disc hits the discount bins..


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> So I saw this comment and wanted to ask what kind of ceiling speakers you had in order for you to know this, so I checked the link in your signature and, damn. VERY nice.


Thanks! They were a bear to hang, they are 48lbs a piece so it took some effort, planning, and a helper. They are secured to the wood rafters in the ceiling with several big bolts, I didn't want to walk underneath them for the first month or so but they are actually rock solid. 😅 I have them and my surrounds crossed at 60Hz, they are sealed but Audyssey still EQd them down in the bass region so I suspect it is due to boundary gain. No complaints!


----------



## Gates

I was surprised at the ATMOS in the new Star Trek TMP DE. It's quite a good soundtrack overall.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Gates said:


> I was surprised at the ATMOS in the new Star Trek TMP DE. It's quite a good soundtrack overall.


Thats good to hear. Hopefully The Wrath of Khan is just as good.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Thats good to hear. Hopefully The Wrath of Khan is just as good.


Unfortunately, there is no atmos track on the other 5 Star Trek titles. I have all 6 of them and only Star Trek: TMP includes an immersive track.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Unfortunately, there is no atmos track on the other 5 Star Trek titles. I have all 6 of them and only Star Trek: TMP includes an immersive track.


Of course there isnt. My decision to include Auromatic upmixing in my upcoming theater build is being validated nearly every day.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Of course there isnt. My decision to include Auromatic upmixing in my upcoming theater build is being validated nearly every day.


The problem with the AuroMatic upmixer is that it does not use matrix extraction and steering techniques like Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X. All it does is duplicate audio into the height speakers with added delay and reverb. I would liken it to a multi-channel stereo DSP mode.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem with the AuroMatic upmixer is that it does not use matrix extraction and steering techniques like Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X. All it does is duplicate audio into the height speakers with added delay and reverb. I would liken it to a multi-channel stereo DSP mode.


Yes I'm aware. It basically extends the soundstage upward. To me, it sounds amazing. And is superior to just regular 5.1/7.1 surround. I am not talking about upmixing native Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks like some people do. Just the upmixing of 2D surround formats like TrueHD and DTSHDMA. So the soundfield is more enveloping in presenation. But still discrete in the 7.1 surround format.


----------



## cricket9998

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem with the AuroMatic upmixer is that it does not use matrix extraction and steering techniques like Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X. All it does is duplicate audio into the height speakers with added delay and reverb. I would liken it to a multi-channel stereo DSP mode.


I blind tested Dolby, neural x, and auro upmixers and Dolby was the best by far. I think people don’t like it because they don’t read the manual and realize you NEED to turn on center spread. 

Neural added too much mid bass to everything and the center channel was too loud. Auro just didn’t sound that great. Dolby has this cool thing where louder elements seem physically bigger due to the way it uses the heights. Only downside is it tends to use the rears a bit too much depending on the frequency but still sounds the best.


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> I blind tested Dolby, neural x, and auro upmixers and Dolby was the best by far. I think people don’t like it because they don’t read the manual and realize you NEED to turn on center spread.


Is that really in a manual somewhere?

Remember, Dolby and D+M removed Center Spread from AVRs, and it was only restored after a lot of complaints from users.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem with the AuroMatic upmixer is that it does not use matrix extraction and steering techniques like Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X. All it does is duplicate audio into the height speakers with added delay and reverb. I would liken it to a multi-channel stereo DSP mode.


I prefer to engage Neural-X (or DSU) with movies which support a 5.1 or 7.1 base track. Most importantly, I lose the ability to use my wides with auromatic.


----------



## halcyon_888

Another vote for Neural-X for 5.1/7.1 content. I was watching Black Sails s1e3 last night and it sounded like an Atmos mix  Actually, _better_ than some Atmos mixes  Neural-X will expand the music into the heights, it does this more aggressively than the DSU.

When I first got my height speakers installed I liked the DSU better, but I gave Neural-X another shot several months later and I preferred it. On 2ch content I use the DSU because Neural-X can incorrectly place "th", "ch", and "s" sounds from dialogue into the heights.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem with the AuroMatic upmixer is that it does not use matrix extraction and steering techniques like Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X. All it does is duplicate audio into the height speakers with added delay and reverb. I would liken it to a multi-channel stereo DSP mode.





NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes I'm aware. It basically extends the soundstage upward. To me, it sounds amazing. And is superior to just regular 5.1/7.1 surround. I am not talking about upmixing native Atmos or DTS:X soundtracks like some people do. Just the upmixing of 2D surround formats like TrueHD and DTSHDMA. So the soundfield is more enveloping in presenation. But still discrete in the 7.1 surround format.


Allow me to qualify what I stated above. You said that it works a lot like Multichannel stereo. This is fine for me because I use multichannel stereo quite a lot. Not for listening to music, which I prefer to listen in 2.1 stereo, but for listening to legacy 2.0 content like older movies and TV shows that were never converted to multichannel surround.

I have tried on numerous occasions to upmix 2.0 TV shows to surround sound using the Dolby Surround or Neural-X upmixers and about 80% of the time it doesnt work. The way those shows were mixed, the upmixers dump nearly 100% of the audio to the center channel, effectively turning the whole thing into a mono-mix. Its absolutely horrible. Once Center Spread made a comeback, I tried to make use of that and it didnt really help at all. I'm not even trying to get height information from these shows, just a wider presentation than 20° in front of me. So I ended up using multichannel stereo in these cases. It no longer sounds flat and lifeless, but is now more enveloping and enjoyable. Not much in the way of directionality, but at least its enveloping.

Now, on occasion I will run into 2.0 material that sounds good with an upmixer. The other day I watched the original Clash of the Titans in 2.0 DD+ (HBOMax) and it sounded quite good with the Dolby Surround upmixer. It did NOT dump everything to the center channel. The score mostly stayed in the front main speakers. Dialogue was mostly centered with ambient sounds such as water or crowds shunted to the surround channels. And the effects were convincingly natural sounding. What impresses me the most was there were even a few moments where Dolby Surround extracted height content from the soundtrack, and it made sense when it did so (the scene with Bubo flying in the cave of the Stygian Witches) but situations like this are the exception, not the rule when it comes to 2.0 stereo in my system. Most of the time, multichannel stereo is the superior presentation.

There are many situations where I can see the same problem happening with 5.1/7.1 surround being upmixed. That the upmixers wont do a whole lot and the Auromatic upmixer will prove to be the superior presentation. There may on occasion where the Dolby Surround or Neural-X will be better, but I'll take that on a case by case basis.

At the very least I want the Auromatic upmixer as an option for those times I feel I want a little something extra from my content and the other two just aint cutting it.


----------



## halcyon_888

My experience, at least with the DSU and Neural-X upmixers, is that if it's mixed well in 5.1/7.1 then it'll upmix well.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

It's common for old TV shows that are "2.0" to actually be mono in a stereo container. All of those will get dumped to center with any upmixer that uses any logic steering. There would be nothing in the other channels because there's no ambience to extract (since the two channels are identical and the math for ambience extraction would essentially result in zero). So that makes sense.


----------



## Magiclakez

halcyon_888 said:


> My experience, at least with the DSU and Neural-X upmixers, is that if it's mixed well in 5.1/7.1 then it'll upmix well.


I have to agree with this. I have also observed that the base 5.1 or 7.1 track upmixes well with similar/ corresponding technology. For example; a dts 5.1 (or 7.1) track will work seamlessly with neural-x and conversely a 5.1/ 7.1 Dolby tru-hd track will mate well with DSU.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> I have to agree with this. I have also observed that the base 5.1 or 7.1 track upmixes well with similar/ corresponding technology. For example; a dts 5.1 (or 7.1) track will work seamlessly with neural-x and conversely a 5.1/ 7.1 Dolby tru-hd track will mate well with DSU.


I've wondered about that – do we have anything documented about this?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> My experience, at least with the DSU and Neural-X upmixers, is that if it's mixed well in 5.1/7.1 then it'll upmix well.


Absolutely, _if the programming is mixed well. _I watched my blu ray copy of Van Helsing a few months back in DTS HDMA, and it sounded outstanding upmixed with Neural-X. Just fantastic. Of course the default DTSHD mix is one of the best I have heard for dynamics and enveloping surround content, so it has a lot going on for the upmixers to work with. I'm curious how such a well-mixed movie will sound upmixed on Auromatic. I plan to test it on my buddy's system next time I go over there. (Gonna do some A/B/C between upmixers) of course I plan to get the 4k version of that movie which has a DTS:X soundtrack, so I wont have to worry about upmixing that one for very much longer.

Mainly its all about options. I want to make sure I have DTS:X-Pro too so I can use all my speakere with Neural-X as well as native DTS:X tracks, because I do like Neural-X does with *some *content. I'm sure the people in the Arcam, Anthem, JBL and Monoprice threads are tired of me bringing up the fact that their processors dont have Pro and are irrelevant to me until they get it. I'm not just on an Auromatic kick, but a DTS:X-Pro kick as well. I just want access to all the formats so my options are wide open. If I have issues with something, chances are at least one of these will be able to solve it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's common for old TV shows that are "2.0" to actually be mono in a stereo container. All of those will get dumped to center with any upmixer that uses any logic steering. There would be nothing in the other channels because there's no ambience to extract (since the two channels are identical and the math for ambience extraction would essentially result in zero). So that makes sense.


I figured it was something like this happening. Those old tv shows were made with old school tv speakers in mind, not robust stereo speakers, let alone full blown surround sound.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I've wondered about that – do we have anything documented about this?


I mean its nice to have documentation but there is no substitute for primary (1st hand) observation..imho of course.

Like we have Dolby’s documentation/ guide for home theater Dolby atmos speaker placements, but honestly I would rather make a paper rocket out of it, and subsequently toss it out of the window.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> I mean its nice to have documentation but there is no substitute for primary (1st hand) observation..imho of course.
> 
> Like we have Dolby’s documentation/ guide for home theater Dolby atmos speaker placements, but honestly I would rather make a paper rocket out of it, and subsequently toss it out of the window.


I'm asking if it was planned or if it's just a happy coincidence.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I'm asking if it was planned or if it's just a happy coincidence.


I’m not sure tbh. But I would think that it would be more organic if you upmix base DTS and Dolby 5.1/ 7.1 tracks with corresponding upmixers. But it is a happy coincidence as well, like you are alluding to.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> The problem with the AuroMatic upmixer is that it does not use matrix extraction and steering techniques like Dolby Surround or DTS Neural: X. All it does is duplicate audio into the height speakers with added delay and reverb. I would liken it to a multi-channel stereo DSP mode.


No, it doesn't _just_ use the heights speakers (2-channel uses the sides/rears as well). According to its creator, Wilfried Van Baelen, it also uses HRTF analysis to determine the amounts placed into the heights, which would explain why it works so much better than a mere Yamaha DSP mode for decoding Atmos base tracks. I tried it on _Ready Player One_. It's definitely not just a copy or overhead effects would have been mid-way up and not directly overhead and yet it worked pretty darn well with most of the overhead effects. (See Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen, creator of Auromatic and Auro-3D where he mentions HRTF in Auromatic here: Interview – Wilfried Van Baelen and Auro Technologies (Part 1) | Alec Wren ). Why would he _lie_ about Auromatic when he created it???

Sanjay was told about HRTF in Auromatic clear back in 2015. (The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version)). He simply refuses to believe it (instead of just trying it himself to find out, which is just a matter of measuring the outputs and doing a comparison. If they're always exactly the same difference, it's just a copy. If it varies in the overheads, it's doing something more) and continues to spread the, _it's just like a Yamaha DSP mode_ misinformation and now we see the same crap from Dan here....  

People seem to despise everything that's not Atmos around here for some reason and then they will suddenly turn around and attack Atmos too because it's not good enough either (locked channel based tracks. only .2 overhead used, etc.). Maybe we should just go back to 7.1. No one really complained about it except that they weren't including it on enough Blu-Rays at the time.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> No, it doesn't _just_ use the heights speakers (2-channel uses the sides/rears as well). According to its creator, Wilfried Van Baelen, it also uses HRTF analysis to determine the amounts placed into the heights, which would explain why it works so much better than a mere Yamaha DSP mode for decoding Atmos base tracks. I tried it on _Ready Player One_. It's definitely not just a copy or overhead effects would have been mid-way up and not directly overhead and yet it worked pretty darn well with most of the overhead effects. (See Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen, creator of Auromatic and Auro-3D where he mentions HRTF in Auromatic here: Interview – Wilfried Van Baelen and Auro Technologies (Part 1) | Alec Wren ). Why would he _lie_ about Auromatic when he created it???


I came to the same conclusion when I did an A/B comparison between native Atmos and Auromatic upmix with Ready Player One. I was shocked that Auromatic was able to keep up as well as it did and some of the height effects were positively discrete sounding. Some of them more precise than the Atmos version.

When I test Van Helsing on my friends system, I will know for certain if Auromatic can push the sound of the Brides of Dracula as they fly around during the fight in the city square.



> Sanjay was told about HRTF in Auromatic clear back in 2015. (The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version)). He simply refuses to believe it (instead of just trying it himself to find out, which is just a matter of measuring the outputs and doing a comparison. If they're always exactly the same difference, it's just a copy. If it varies in the overheads, it's doing something more) and continues to spread the, _it's just like a Yamaha DSP mode_ misinformation and now we see the same crap from Dan here....
> 
> People seem to despise everything that's not Atmos around here for some reason and then they will suddenly turn around and attack Atmos too because it's not good enough either (locked channel based tracks. only .2 overhead used, etc.). Maybe we should just go back to 7.1. No one really complained about it except that they weren't including it on enough Blu-Rays at the time.


People have cut holes in their ceiling and permanently mounted speakers for Atmos playback. *Then *they started hearing about how good Auro3D was, but by that point it was too late. It would require too much effort to move their speakers and most people dont want to go through that.

The more they hear about Auro being better for upmixing, cognitive dissonance sets in, then they feel the need to defend their own personal choices because at that point, every comment about how awesome Auromatic/Auro3D is feels like a personal attack.

not saying that the people in this thread exhibit this behavoir....the people in here seem a bit more informed than the average. Everybody in here is on a journey to get their theaters to sounding the best they can and there are many roads to that destination. But I have seen that behavior in many places around message boards and facebook groups. People really get all in their feels when they perceive that someone is challenging how they set their own systems up. It feels like they are being told they did it wrong.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> People have cut holes in their ceiling and permanently mounted speakers for Atmos playback. *Then *they started hearing about how good Auro3D was, but by that point it was too late. It would require too much effort to move their speakers and most people dont want to go through that.
> 
> The more they hear about Auro being better for upmixing, cognitive dissonance sets in, then they feel the need to defend their own personal choices because at that point, every comment about how awesome Auromatic/Auro3D is feels like a personal attack.


Couldn’t have stated that better even if I tried. It is not always a pleasant experience to abandon your (perceived) comfort zone.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> I'm asking if it was planned or if it's just a happy coincidence.


Dolby and DTS designed their upmixers to work well with as broad a range of source material as possible. They're both "blind" upmixers, not a matrix encode/decode scheme like old Pro Logic. The last thing they want is for their upmixers to get a reputation for working better with the same brand of codec. Dolby knows how that most BDs have DTS-HD MA soundtracks, not TrueHD, but they still want you to use their upmixer. 

Besides, it wouldn't really be possible to key an upmixer off a codec. You can't apply upmixing to a coded soundtrack any more than you can Photoshop a zipped file. So coded soundtracks have to be decoded back to PCM for upmixing (or ANY processing) to be applied. When it's in PCM form, the upmixer doesn't know what lossless packing codec the soundtrack _used_ to be.


----------



## MagnumX

I think Neural X works fine with Dolby base tracks and DSU, such as it is, works fine with DTS tracks. The compression algorithm and wrapper format have nothing to do with the content in the soundtracks themselves and whether they wlll upmix well or not. 

What I think happens is people are lazy and will sometimes watch the movie with whatever it defaults to, particularly if they're not paying attention or have the displays or OSD down/off and then they think on a good surround track after it's over and double check, hey that wasn't too shabby! Maybe DSU doesn't suck so much, after all! Well, it never did "suck" as such; it's just not as good at putting overhead items up there focused, sharp and able to move front-to-back instead of just left-to-right as DSU is limited to doing since it arrays all overheads as one giant Left/Right overhead channel.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> What I think happens is people are lazy and will sometimes watch the movie with whatever it defaults to, particularly if they're not paying attention or have the displays or OSD down/off


My godawful AVP (Tonewinner AT-300) sometimes decides to play in stereo even though the setting is Atmos and the OSD shows Atmos and it often takes me ages to realise its just stereo !!


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> My godawful AVP (Tonewinner AT-300) sometimes decides to play in stereo even though the setting is Atmos and the OSD shows Atmos and it often takes me ages to realise its just stereo !!


I never heard of that AVP until now. It certainly has a nice price for 13.3 outputs. I'm curious as to what's godawful about it other than that stereo issue? I looked at the thread on here and at least one guy in Canada seemed to love it. How does that Tonewinner room correction work compared to others?

If it had Auro-3D support, I'd be even more interested at that price (I've got enough amps here now to power 23 channels and now I've got 6 more PSB speakers ordered (be here in a few days), although one set is going to replace another pair (ss#2 with bipolar PSBs to face both front/back rows at the same time) and four (PSB CS500) will be used to create an on-ceiling _Top Middle_ ceiling array to get around my steel beam box issues blocking one set form working at full ceiling height. I will use my current bipolar PSBS50 side heights (that currently carry the Top Middle signal) as permanent Auro/X Surround Heights (as a copy of rear height -3db down). 

That will put me at 19.x powered speaker channels). I've got enough Pro Logic processors now to handle 4 "Scatmos" channels alternatively so a 13-channel AVP + 6 Scatmos would still get me to nearly full 19.x discrete (save surround height array that's supposed to be an array) with a 11.1.6 channel and 11.1.10 speaker configuration (2 arrays for Top Middle and Surround/Rear Height). So either way, I'm looking at going to at least 15-discrete or near-discrete channels + 4 height arrays and the Main+Side summed Front Wides (which could go discrete with a processor like the Monoprice HTP-1 that has a nice wide mode for non-front wide supported soundtracks). 

From there, I'm then looking at moving to 2-3 subs and/or seat shakers of some kind and getting a new tensioned screen, possibly a 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 ratio one preferably in a grey color to help the darker black colors (You can always get a brighter projector to illuminate a grey screen more, but it's hard to find a reasonably priced projector that has truly dark blacks). I need something to do this winter....


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I never heard of that AVP until now. It certainly has a nice price for 13.3 outputs. I'm curious as to what's godawful about it other than that stereo issue? I looked at the thread on here and at least one guy in Canada seemed to love it. How does that Tonewinner room correction work compared to others?
> 
> If it had Auro-3D support, I'd be even more interested at that price (I've got enough amps here now to power 23 channels and now I've got 6 more PSB speakers ordered (be here in a few days), although one set is going to replace another pair (ss#2 with bipolar PSBs to face both front/back rows at the same time) and four (PSB CS500) will be used to create an on-ceiling _Top Middle_ ceiling array to get around my steel beam box issues blocking one set form working at full ceiling height. I will use my current bipolar PSBS50 side heights (that currently carry the Top Middle signal) as permanent Auro/X Surround Heights (as a copy of rear height -3db down).
> 
> That will put me at 19.x powered speaker channels). I've got enough Pro Logic processors now to handle 4 "Scatmos" channels alternatively so a 13-channel AVP + 6 Scatmos would still get me to nearly full 19.x discrete (save surround height array that's supposed to be an array) with a 11.1.6 channel and 11.1.10 speaker configuration (2 arrays for Top Middle and Surround/Rear Height). So either way, I'm looking at going to at least 15-discrete or near-discrete channels + 4 height arrays and the Main+Side summed Front Wides (which could go discrete with a processor like the Monoprice HTP-1 that has a nice wide mode for non-front wide supported soundtracks).
> 
> From there, I'm then looking at moving to 2-3 subs and/or seat shakers of some kind and getting a new tensioned screen, possibly a 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 ratio one preferably in a grey color to help the darker black colors (You can always get a brighter projector to illuminate a grey screen more, but it's hard to find a reasonably priced projector that has truly dark blacks). I need something to do this winter....


It came out shortly before the 13 channel Emotiva BasX processor of a similar price point (which also does not have Auro3D or DTSX-Pro)

Just check out the AT-300 owners thread. Same story as all the other processors that do more than 11 channels. Glitch city. People were really excited to get it at first because of the price but soon enough people found out why it was so cheap.


----------



## niterida

Read the whole thread - I don't think there is one person on there that doesn't or hasn't had problems with it.
They keep sending out new FW updates but they just introduce new problems or re-introduce old problems.
I was following the thread and it seemed like they had got it stable, but as soon as I oredered one people starting having problems again.
The 2 biggest issues for me though are the functionality :
1. Can't set it for 5..x.x +FW. Can only do FW with 7.x.x and I don't have 7 setup.
2. Can't set Heights to Large


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> 2. Can't set Heights to Large


Is that really something you need? 

I mean, unless you're @halcyon_888...


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> Is that really something you need?
> 
> I mean, unless you're @halcyon_888...


Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to set heights/overheads to large, though it would be nice just to be as flexible as all the other speaker settings. None. Zip. Unless you have MASSIVE tower speakers on the ceiling, which I doubt the OP does.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Is that really something you need?


Yes


Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to set heights/overheads to large,


Yes there is 


Dan Hitchman said:


> Unless you have MASSIVE tower speakers on the ceiling


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> Is that really in a manual somewhere?
> 
> Remember, Dolby and D+M removed Center Spread from AVRs, and it was only restored after a lot of complaints from users.








Center Spread







manuals.denon.com


----------



## Dan Hitchman

niterida said:


> Yes
> 
> Yes there is


I gotta see photos of that. 🙂


----------



## niterida

Dan Hitchman said:


> I gotta see photos of that. 🙂


Don't hold your breath - its a work in progress and I work r-e-a-l slow


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

niterida said:


> Don't hold your breath - its a work in progress and I work r-e-a-l slow


I hear ya'. My room still has wires hanging everywhere and almost nothing finalized, and since I'm doing work to the rest of the house (getting rid of 60s wallpaper and carpet), somehow accumulates dust seemingly overnight. But it sounds fantastic and no one sees that stuff with the lights off! It's just not gonna' be picture-ready for a while.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I hear ya'. My room still has wires hanging everywhere and almost nothing finalized, and since I'm doing work to the rest of the house (getting rid of 60s wallpaper and carpet), somehow accumulates dust seemingly overnight. But it sounds fantastic and no one sees that stuff with the lights off! It's just not gonna' be picture-ready for a while.


Speaking of, some cable covers came in today that I ordered to hide my front left wire from hanging down from the speaker. I was going to run that in the attic but I changed my mind because my attic isn't exactly the best place to do work in. When I was having extra insulation blown in the attic one of the workers who does this for a living stepped wrong and fell partway through the ceiling, he caught himself but wasn't hurt. So the cable covers will suffice for me


----------



## Magiclakez

I find cordmate ii to be excellent for concealing overhead cables.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Speaking of, some cable covers came in today that I ordered to hide my front left wire from hanging down from the speaker. I was going to run that in the attic but I changed my mind because my attic isn't exactly the best place to do work in. When I was having extra insulation blown in the attic one of the workers who does this for a living stepped wrong and fell partway through the ceiling, he caught himself but wasn't hurt. So the cable covers will suffice for me


I got my 4 on-ceiling speakers up and wired all stealth-like through the attic... but this house only had about 1-2 inches of insulation in it when I bought it, which isn't ideal in the Alabama heat. I was trying to get my surround cables run before the insulators showed up, but now that the attic has 9+ inches of blown insulation in it, I think that ship has sailed. I have baseboards to stash those wires under, but the runs up the walls for the surrounds are probably going to get cable covers. (Though I was toying with the idea of getting custom acoustic panels to the right size to hang under each speaker, which would maybe not look quite as weird.)


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I got my 4 on-ceiling speakers up and wired all stealth-like through the attic... but this house only had about 1-2 inches of insulation in it when I bought it, which isn't ideal in the Alabama heat. I was trying to get my surround cables run before the insulators showed up, but now that the attic has 9+ inches of blown insulation in it, I think that ship has sailed. I have baseboards to stash those wires under, but the runs up the walls for the surrounds are probably going to get cable covers. (Though I was toying with the idea of getting custom acoustic panels to the right size to hang under each speaker, which would maybe not look quite as weird.)


How long ago was this? That's not even code-minimum these days. Though 10 inches may settle down to 9 over time I guess.


----------



## halcyon_888

Magiclakez said:


> I find cordmate ii to be excellent for concealing overhead cables.





Jeremy Anderson said:


> I got my 4 on-ceiling speakers up and wired all stealth-like through the attic... but this house only had about 1-2 inches of insulation in it when I bought it, which isn't ideal in the Alabama heat. I was trying to get my surround cables run before the insulators showed up, but now that the attic has 9+ inches of blown insulation in it, I think that ship has sailed. I have baseboards to stash those wires under, but the runs up the walls for the surrounds are probably going to get cable covers. (Though I was toying with the idea of getting custom acoustic panels to the right size to hang under each speaker, which would maybe not look quite as weird.)


It would have been awkward and unsafe for me to try to run the cable in the attic, maybe someone else could do it but I'm uncomfortable with the idea. I've ran power cables in the attic at my old place and that wasn't so bad, but at this place there is definitely over 9 inches of blown insulation in there now and I eventually decided against it.

I bought some cable covers from Amazon and they look pretty good in person, no complaints. The product is called "D-Line Cord Hider" and they have a few colored options instead of just plain white. The beige/tan color matches my wall color surprisingly well.

I've actually been researching room treatments too, if I were to do them I'm planning on DIY. From the preliminary research I've done I've seen back wall treatments frequently recommended but I'm still trying to learn more about it. Audioholics has a few webinars with Anthony Grimani on Youtube which are pretty good so perhaps check those out if you haven't seen them already.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> How long ago was this? That's not even code-minimum these days. Though 10 inches may settle down to 9 over time I guess.


9+ was a guesstimate. They mounted rulers and blew it to the required R value after foam-sealing all of the gaps, fixtures, vents, etc. But you can't see anything but insulation up there now, so no more crawling about to run speaker wires. The irony was that the insulation didn't even fix the actual problem... which turned out to be a 2" wide gap where the ductwork mounted to the A/C unit, blowing all the cold air into the closet, causing the unit to short cycle (and making one end of my house cool and the other hot). That took me cutting an access port in the wall behind it (which fortunately was in the bedroom closet) to properly attach the ducting to the air handler. And now between that and the insulation, the house stays the same temp end-to-end (and the drop in the power bill was pretty big).


halcyon_888 said:


> I've actually been researching room treatments too, if I were to do them I'm planning on DIY. From the preliminary research I've done I've seen back wall treatments frequently recommended but I'm still trying to learn more about it. Audioholics has a few webinars with Anthony Grimani on Youtube which are pretty good so perhaps check those out if you haven't seen them already.


I've seen all of Grimani's videos. My back wall issue is that I have an open doorway on one side (covered by a thick curtain), so my plan is to put a 4" thick panel on the opposite side so there's some symmetry there. The middle of that wall has my media rack with 700+ Blu-rays and UHDs, so maybe that provides some diffusion (though probably not much). I already have 2 4'x2'x2" panels on the left side wall, which helps counter the giant picture window on the right side wall that I covered with two layers of curtains (one blackout/thermal). I still want to do two panels on the ceiling (one which will fall just in the right place to cover the chandelier fixture this old lady used to have in the room), but other than that, I don't want to overdo it on absorption because I'm not hearing any obvious issues otherwise. This was a 60s "piano room" and actually has a pretty nice sound in there after a bit of EQ work. I'm afraid to over-dampen it.


----------



## mrvideo

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Those old tv shows were made with old school tv speakers in mind, not robust stereo speakers, let alone full blown surround sound.


At the time, the only available audio delivery was mono, no matter what kind of speaker setup the viewer had. I remember the early issue with stereo in that the networks didn't do stereo because AT&T long lines (which delivered the audio) was mono and wouldn't go stereo because the networks weren't doing stereo. Chicken and egg.

Also, the 2" Quad tape machines were mono. MTV actually modified the 2" Quad tape cart machines for stereo. Once the 1" C tape decks became popular, stereo could exist. But then again, undeliverable.

My local CBS affiliate was the first station in the state to go stereo. When CBS ordered the new _Twilight Zone_, it was done in stereo. But, again they couldn't deliver it in stereo. So they sent out a few 1" C tapes to select stations of the first episode. They only did this once. My local station wanted to get one of the tapes, but CBS refused to sent them one. They were not happy. I had one of those Radio Shack OTA audio tuners. Worked great.


----------



## anjunadeep

Dan Hitchman said:


> Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to set heights/overheads to large, though it would be nice just to be as flexible as all the other speaker settings. None. Zip. Unless you have MASSIVE tower speakers on the ceiling, which I doubt the OP does.


Yeah...my understanding is most Atmos height content is mixed above 180Hz, basically down to what would be the minimum transition frequency of a common room and then stopping, since otherwise it isn't all that directional anymore which defeats the point of a height speaker in the first place. This also might explain why some people with pretty high output bed layers can pair some fairly modest height speakers without issue.


----------



## niterida

anjunadeep said:


> Yeah...my understanding is most Atmos height content is mixed above 180Hz, basically down to what would be the minimum transition frequency of a common room and then stopping, since otherwise it isn't all that directional anymore which defeats the point of a height speaker in the first place. This also might explain why some people with pretty high output bed layers can pair some fairly modest height speakers without issue.


This is not true - height channels are mixed exactly the same as any other channel and some mixes have height signal down to 20hz - think helicopter overhead - why wouldn't they want that to be full range ??


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> This is not true - height channels are mixed exactly the same as any other channel and some mixes have height signal down to 20hz - think helicopter overhead - why wouldn't they want that to be full range ??


Correct. Atmos overhead content is typically mixed normally as the channels are expected to be full range. Bass management takes care of the subwoofer needs in systems with subpar overhead speakers so there is absolutely no need for them to manually remove bass from overhead locations nor would that be a normal procedure for objects that the renderer automatically renders as full range content until bass management filters it out and moves it to the subwoofer or full range mains (some processors like Storm can do a lot more than that, sending LFE to any large speaker desired, for example while maintaining independent EQ so it doesn't add "double bass"). 

Some believe bass is harder to detect at higher frequencies in the vertical axis as compared to left/right directionality, but it's a relative thing (i.e. test signals are easier to detect than say music and routing overhead bass to stereo mains (no sub) allows left/right stereo separation, removing that part of directionality from the equation. Multiple subwoofer installs that use many subs to even bass out around the room can make higher bass frequencies less directional because there are multiple sources of it in the room (a bit like all channel stereo for bass in a way), but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be directional with a single subwoofer handling the bass.

My worst PSB speaker for bass response here still goes flat to 63Hz (mains to 35Hz and other surrounds to 50Hz), so an 80Hz crossover works pretty well here (some say ideally your speakers should play somewhere between a half octave to even a full octave lower than the crossover point for the most even transition. I let the extra 3Hz slide and stick with 80Hz.


----------



## Magiclakez

Overhead speaker characteristics:

Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers.

Source:


https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


----------



## Chirosamsung

anjunadeep said:


> Yeah...my understanding is most Atmos height content is mixed above 180Hz, basically down to what would be the minimum transition frequency of a common room and then stopping, since otherwise it isn't all that directional anymore which defeats the point of a height speaker in the first place. This also might explain why some people with pretty high output bed layers can pair some fairly modest height speakers without issue.


Where do you get this stuff lol

wrong!


----------



## anjunadeep

niterida said:


> This is not true - height channels are mixed exactly the same as any other channel and some mixes have height signal down to 20hz - think helicopter overhead - why wouldn't they want that to be full range ??





MagnumX said:


> Correct. Atmos overhead content is typically mixed normally as the channels are expected to be full range. Bass management takes care of the subwoofer needs in systems with subpar overhead speakers so there is absolutely no need for them to manually remove bass from overhead locations nor would that be a normal procedure for objects that the renderer automatically renders as full range content until bass management filters it out and moves it to the subwoofer or full range mains (some processors like Storm can do a lot more than that, sending LFE to any large speaker desired, for example while maintaining independent EQ so it doesn't add "double bass").
> 
> Some believe bass is harder to detect at higher frequencies in the vertical axis as compared to left/right directionality, but it's a relative thing (i.e. test signals are easier to detect than say music and routing overhead bass to stereo mains (no sub) allows left/right stereo separation, removing that part of directionality from the equation. Multiple subwoofer installs that use many subs to even bass out around the room can make higher bass frequencies less directional because there are multiple sources of it in the room (a bit like all channel stereo for bass in a way), but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be directional with a single subwoofer handling the bass.
> 
> My worst PSB speaker for bass response here still goes flat to 63Hz (mains to 35Hz and other surrounds to 50Hz), so an 80Hz crossover works pretty well here (some say ideally your speakers should play somewhere between a half octave to even a full octave lower than the crossover point for the most even transition. I let the extra 3Hz slide and stick with 80Hz.





Magiclakez said:


> Overhead speaker characteristics:
> 
> Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as possible to the primary listener-level speakers.
> 
> Source:
> 
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


Noted! Thanks. It makes sense to me that at a certain point the sounds would become not directional enough to be up there though, no? I realize that's where bass management can take over but, even if my height speakers could handle 20Hz, that might be a bad spot to do so depending on the rooms modal characteristics no?




Chirosamsung said:


> Where do you get this stuff lol
> 
> wrong!


Everyone else was so thoughtful and you're so mean 😂

Googling around, it looks like it's some relic in my brain from Atmos enabled speakers having a 180Hz high pass applied to them via Audyssey or something. No telling how I got to 180Hz for most things though, probably from eating too many paint chips as a kid. Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers - Closer Look at the Patent


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

anjunadeep said:


> Googling around, it looks like it's some relic in my brain from Atmos enabled speakers having a 180Hz high pass applied to them via Audyssey or something. No telling how I got to 180Hz for most things though, probably from eating too many paint chips as a kid. Dolby Atmos Elevation Speakers - Closer Look at the Patent


That's obviously what you conflated. Atmos-enabled speakers either get crossed to the sub directly around 180Hz or in the case of built-ins, crossed internally to the speaker below which would then be bass managed (though I think some AVRs may do this too... unless I also enjoyed some paint chips, which is entirely possible).


----------



## sdurani

anjunadeep said:


> I realize that's where bass management can take over but, even if my height speakers could handle 20Hz, that might be a bad spot to do so depending on the rooms modal characteristics no?


Yup, the three most important things for addressing room modes: location, location, location.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I've seen all of Grimani's videos. My back wall issue is that I have an open doorway on one side (covered by a thick curtain), so my plan is to put a 4" thick panel on the opposite side so there's some symmetry there. The middle of that wall has my media rack with 700+ Blu-rays and UHDs, so maybe that provides some diffusion (though probably not much). I already have 2 4'x2'x2" panels on the left side wall, which helps counter the giant picture window on the right side wall that I covered with two layers of curtains (one blackout/thermal). I still want to do two panels on the ceiling (one which will fall just in the right place to cover the chandelier fixture this old lady used to have in the room), but other than that, I don't want to overdo it on absorption because I'm not hearing any obvious issues otherwise. This was a 60s "piano room" and actually has a pretty nice sound in there after a bit of EQ work. I'm afraid to over-dampen it.


I'm in a similar situation, my home theater is in my living room and the left side is partially open to the kitchen only separated by a half-wall. As I understand it, this is like having absorption on the left side since there isn't any immediate boundary to reflect the sound back into the room. The right wall has a sliding glass door between the front speakers and the main listening position, so I'm stuck with using heavy drapes there instead of absorption panels. I have some bookcases along the back wall but they are low enough so I can put absorption panels above them and reduce the reflections there. My ceiling is a half-cathedral ceiling and at this stage in what I've learned so far, I don't know how those angles affect the sound. Maybe just one row of absorption panels on the ceiling where the first reflections would be from the LCR speakers would suffice, but I want to wrap my head around the horizontal reflections first then see how it sounds from there.

I don't have a UMK-1 measurement mic, but I'm also considering perhaps buying one to take some measurements. Though my speakers have been level set by Audyssey and I verified them with Dolby Atmos test tones, I can play the test tones back through the speakers and the front right sounds brighter compared to the left front and center. This is an expected result because the sliding glass window would make the front right sound brighter. What wasn't expected was the left top and left rear both sound brighter than the right top and right rear--remember the left side of the room is open so I would expect the left-side speakers to sound less bright than the right-side where there is a wall. I intend to do more research before I go putting room treatments in, but right now I can't explain it.


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> I'm in a similar situation, my home theater is in my living room and the left side is partially open to the kitchen only separated by a half-wall. As I understand it, this is like having absorption on the left side since there isn't any immediate boundary to reflect the sound back into the room. The right wall has a sliding glass door between the front speakers and the main listening position, so I'm stuck with using heavy drapes there instead of absorption panels. I have some bookcases along the back wall but they are low enough so I can put absorption panels above them and reduce the reflections there. My ceiling is a half-cathedral ceiling and at this stage in what I've learned so far, I don't know how those angles affect the sound. Maybe just one row of absorption panels on the ceiling where the first reflections would be from the LCR speakers would suffice, but I want to wrap my head around the horizontal reflections first then see how it sounds from there.
> 
> I don't have a UMK-1 measurement mic, but I'm also considering perhaps buying one to take some measurements. Though my speakers have been level set by Audyssey and I verified them with Dolby Atmos test tones, I can play the test tones back through the speakers and the front right sounds brighter compared to the left front and center. This is an expected result because the sliding glass window would make the front right sound brighter. What wasn't expected was the left top and left rear both sound brighter than the right top and right rear--remember the left side of the room is open so I would expect the left-side speakers to sound less bright than the right-side where there is a wall. I intend to do more research before I go putting room treatments in, but right now I can't explain it.


I also am curious about absorption panels on a room with one side open

My question is, a lot of the guidelines for the mirror technique to find out where the reflection points are say that the panels should be in line with the speakers but because I have a sectional, the top of all of my couch is taller than the top of my front speakers,..does this matter?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Well the new Denon models have been officially announced. 

The new flagship AVR A1H being 15.4 channels is very tempting. But expensive (maybe $7000). The question now is: should I save up for this one or continue with the plan to buy the X6700H for now...


----------



## fatherom

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well the new Denon models have been officially announced.
> 
> The new flagship AVR A1H being 15.4 channels is very tempting. But expensive (maybe $7000). The question now is: should I save up for this one or continue with the plan to buy the X6700H for now...


I think it's just "15 channels of amplification", not 15.4 (which would be 19 channels).

Sorry, I just realized you prob meant 4 subs.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

fatherom said:


> I think it's just "15 channels of amplification", not 15.4 (which would be 19 channels).


No. Its 15.4, capable of 9.4.6 processing


















Denon updates its full line of 8K AV receivers | Digital Trends


Denon has released its 2022/2023 lineup of 8K AV receivers, including a new flagship that supports 15 channels and four dedicated subwoofers.




www.digitaltrends.com


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

The important thing is that we now have a 16 channel processor that can do 9.1.6 processing *with DTS:X-PRO* for well below the $10,000 pricepoint.

This is basically what I have been waiting for.


----------



## MagnumX

With a future software update... Where have we heard that tune before (unfinished firmware). I'm still waiting for the Monoprice HTP-1 to get DTS:X Pro....


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> I also am curious about absorption panels on a room with one side open
> 
> My question is, a lot of the guidelines for the mirror technique to find out where the reflection points are say that the panels should be in line with the speakers but because I have a sectional, the top of all of my couch is taller than the top of my front speakers,..does this matter?


I'm not exactly sure but sound radiates from speakers in all directions so it's possible the reflections from the LCR speakers are still reaching the back wall from ceiling/wall bounces and reflecting to you.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> With a future software update... Where have we heard that tune before (unfinished firmware). I'm still waiting for the Monoprice HTP-1 to get DTS:X Pro....


The future software update is for Dirac. Denon and Marantz receivers and processors above 11.1 channels get DTS:X-Pro outta the box. The AV8805 and Denon X8500H both got firmware updates that added Pro to their feature set.

D&M are the only ones who have fulfilled that promise so far.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The future software update is for Dirac. Denon and Marantz receivers and processors above 11.1 channels get DTS:X-Pro outta the box. The AV8805 and Denon X8500H both got firmware updates that added Pro to their feature set.
> 
> D&M are the only ones who have fulfilled that promise so far.


I'm talking about DIRAC being unavailable at launch on the D&M receivers. DTS:X Pro on the HTP-1 was just an example of never added firmware people are _still_ waiting for YEARS later.

In other words, I'll believe in DIRAC on these when I see it.

D&M have a reasonable track record, but they're also under new owners now.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The future software update is for Dirac. Denon and Marantz receivers and processors above 11.1 channels get DTS:X-Pro outta the box. The AV8805 and Denon X8500H both got firmware updates that added Pro to their feature set.
> 
> D&M are the only ones who have fulfilled that promise so far.


Also the older Marantz AV8802 didn't have DTS:X when it first came out and was sold saying it would support it via a firmware update. They followed through on that model, too.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I'm talking about DIRAC being unavailable at launch on the D&M receivers. DTS:X Pro on the HTP-1 was just an example of never added firmware people are _still_ waiting for YEARS later.
> 
> In other words, I'll believe in DIRAC on these when I see it.
> 
> D&M have a reasonable track record, but they're also under new owners now.


Ah ok. Well D&M has come through in the past. As have Dirac. So I think its a pretty good chance its coming out. Unless negotiations fall through or something.

I wouldnt buy one with the expectation of using it with Dirac, though we know a BUNCH of people will do exactly that.


----------



## Magiclakez

The only reasons I will upgrade to the A1H is for the 15 channel amplification/processing and 4 dedicated sub outputs. I’m fine with Audyssey until the Dirac live upgrade becomes available at some point. I’m also skeptical about future f/w promises, however it wouldn’t alter my use-case either way.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> The only reasons I will upgrade to the A1H is for the 15 channel amplification/processing and 4 dedicated sub ports. I’m fine with Audyssey until the Dirac live upgrade becomes available at some point. I’m also skeptical about future f/w promises, however it wouldn’t alter my use-case either way.


I'm fine with Audyssey just in general. I can get some pretty decent sound out of a mid-ranged Denon with Audyssey. I imagine I could do okay with a flagship model.

And I could upgrade to MultEQ-X if I needed more control. It will probably be quite a bit cheaper than the Dirac upgrade.


----------



## chi_guy50

Magiclakez said:


> The only reasons I will upgrade to the A1H is for the 15 channel amplification/processing and 4 dedicated sub ports. I’m fine with Audyssey until the Dirac live upgrade becomes available at some point. I’m also skeptical about future f/w promises, however it wouldn’t alter my use-case either way.


It is important to note that the FW update will be to enable Dirac Live upgradability only. You can expect that add-on feature to cost a pretty penny.


----------



## Magiclakez

chi_guy50 said:


> It is important to note that the FW update will be to enable Dirac Live upgradability only. You can expect that add-on feature to cost a pretty penny.


Yes I’m aware that it’s a paid upgrade. There is also a separate advanced bass management component in addition to Dirac live. The Dirac live upgrade is rumored to be around $350 and an additional $200-250 for the bass control package. I’m not sure I will opt for those upgrades immediately. Maybe at some point in the future.


----------



## petetherock

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The important thing is that we now have a 16 channel processor that can do 9.1.6 processing *with DTS:X-PRO* for well below the $10,000 pricepoint.
> 
> This is basically what I have been waiting for.


And ... more importantly, be reliable, be launched on time, get proper updates and actually work..
Makes those processors feel like they are an Alfa Romeo compared to a Toyota....


----------



## MagnumX

I'd prefer they leave the amplifiers out of the Denon A1H and sell a lower weight processor and knock another $2K off the price. But instead they'll slip a Marantz nameplate on it and raise the price instead....


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> And ... more importantly, be reliable, be launched on time, get proper updates and actually work..
> Makes those processors feel like they are an Alfa Romeo compared to a Toyota....


That remains to be seen, but hopefully thats the case.


----------



## priitv8

Magiclakez said:


> The only reasons I will upgrade to the A1H is for the 15 channel amplification/processing and 4 dedicated sub outputs.


What is the purpose of those 4 LFE ports? Or are they just 4 plugs, connected in parallel inside the AVR??


----------



## Dan Hitchman

priitv8 said:


> What is the purpose of those 4 LFE ports? Or are they just 4 plugs, connected in parallel inside the AVR??


Each output would have separate level trims, EQ, and delay to help blend multiple subs. No need for a MINIDSP or other external bass calibration unit.


----------



## dschulz

priitv8 said:


> What is the purpose of those 4 LFE ports? Or are they just 4 plugs, connected in parallel inside the AVR??


Audyssey XT32 supported two separate subwoofer outputs. I wonder if there is an extension to Audyssey that will support 4 separate sub outputs? 

Alternatively, Audyssey still only supports two individual sub outs, but the 4 are there anticipating Dirac Bass Control handling up to four individual sub outs.


----------



## Magiclakez

priitv8 said:


> What is the purpose of those 4 LFE ports? Or are they just 4 plugs, connected in parallel inside the AVR??


4 individual sub outputs allows for individual sub calibration and thus results in overall better bass management/control. Another key point to note is that on the A1H, you also have 4 balanced XLR sub outputs along with RCA of course.

Check out the vid after the 1:01:00 mark:


----------



## priitv8

Magiclakez said:


> 4 individual sub outputs allows individual sub calibration and results in overall better bass management/control. Another key point to note is that on the A1H, you also have 4 XLR sub outputs along with RCA of course.


I see. So there is basically a miniDSP feature inside the AVR.
I was hoping that maybe 4 LFE channels can be decoded.
But thinking of it again - I do not believe there is a codec available for that, yet.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

priitv8 said:


> I see. So there is basically a miniDSP feature inside the AVR.
> I was hoping that maybe 4 LFE channels can be decoded.
> But thinking of it again - I do not believe there is a codec available for that, yet.


Correct. There is only one mono LFE channel. Even commercial Atmos has one sub channel. The rest of the summed bass output comes from bass management of the other full range channels.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Correct. There is only one mono LFE channel. Even commercial Atmos has one sub channel. The rest of the summed bass output comes from bass management of the other full range channels.


Also keep in mind that DTS:X-pro can have 2 individual LFE tracks. I have no idea why, but it can have 2.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Also keep in mind that DTS:X-pro can have 2 individual LFE tracks. I have no idea why, but it can have 2.


I don't think it will happen. There appears to be no movement to go beyond the 7.1.4/7.1.5 locked versions we see now.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Audyssey XT32 supported two separate subwoofer outputs. I wonder if there is an extension to Audyssey that will support 4 separate sub outputs?


So far I haven't seen Audyssey support more than two separate subwoofer outputs. Theoretically, there's no reason their Sub EQ HT algorithm wouldn't be able to support more than two subwoofer outputs, since they don't do multi-sub optimization. Sub EQ HT sets levels & distances for each sub (bad idea) but EQs the interaction of all the subs together (good idea). This can be done for any number of subs.


> Alternatively, Audyssey still only supports two individual sub outs, but the 4 are there anticipating Dirac Bass Control handling up to four individual sub outs.


That would be my guess as well, and maybe future support for Dirac's upcoming active room treatment feature.


----------



## priitv8

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Also keep in mind that DTS:X-pro can have 2 individual LFE tracks. I have no idea why, but it can have 2.


I think I’ve seen LFE2 being also mentioned in Dolby TrueHD documentation. 
But not in any of the available content.


----------



## mrvideo

Magiclakez said:


> Check out the vid after the 1:01:00 mark:


The video is over an hour long?


----------



## mrtickleuk

mrvideo said:


> The video is over an hour long?


Yeah, personally I'll wait for Gene from Audioholics' videos, they come without the icky excitement and crowbarred-in religion, and they aren't excessively long either!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

dschulz said:


> Audyssey XT32 supported two separate subwoofer outputs. I wonder if there is an extension to Audyssey that will support 4 separate sub outputs?
> 
> Alternatively, Audyssey still only supports two individual sub outs, but the 4 are there anticipating Dirac Bass Control handling up to four individual sub outs.


Audyssey has always claimed to be able to "support" up to 4 sub outs. It just doesn't support them in the way we'd all like it to.  

But yeah, I'm sure this is mostly for people who are going to pony up money for Dirac Bass Control. D&M's new owners are all about monetization of add-on software.


----------



## dschulz

sdurani said:


> Sub EQ HT sets levels & distances for each sub (bad idea) but EQs the interaction of all the subs together (good idea).


Why is setting levels & distances for each sub a bad idea?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Audyssey has always claimed to be able to "support" up to 4 sub outs. It just doesn't support them in the way we'd all like it to.
> 
> But yeah, I'm sure this is mostly for people who are going to pony up money for Dirac Bass Control. D&M's new owners are all about monetization of add-on software.


I am planning to go 4 subs in my theater. I was just planning to use a MiniDSP with Audyssey.


----------



## sdurani

dschulz said:


> Why is setting levels & distances for each sub a bad idea?


More often than not, I've found that adjusting delays for listening distance ends up making the interaction between subs worse than not adding delays. I'll quote Toole: _"Some “room EQ” algorithms, and some DIY persons, time align the first arriving, direct sound, from each of multiple subwoofers. The goal is to ensure delivery of a synchronized direct sound. But: In small rooms the direct sound is swamped by reflected sound – it is not the dominant factor in what we hear."_ 

To that end, if you look at any of the subwoofer optimization programs (SFM, MSO, DLBC), you'll notice that the delays set to individual subs do not coincide with listening distance. The delays they arrive at insure that the interaction between multiple subs results in improved seat-to-seat consistency, not time alignment to the main listening position. Same with the levels. 

Also, if you're placing subs in optimum locations for mode cancelling, then they need to have identical output. Cancelling works best when the two items are opposite AND equal. Changing delays and/or levels for one sub relative to the other(s) will make the mode cancelling less effective.


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> More often than not, I've found that adjusting delays for listening distance ends up making the interaction between subs worse than not adding delays. I'll quote Toole: _"Some “room EQ” algorithms, and some DIY persons, time align the first arriving, direct sound, from each of multiple subwoofers. The goal is to ensure delivery of a synchronized direct sound. But: In small rooms the direct sound is swamped by reflected sound – it is not the dominant factor in what we hear."_
> 
> To that end, if you look at any of the subwoofer optimization programs (SFM, MSO, DLBC), you'll notice that the delays set to individual subs do not coincide with listening distance. The delays they arrive at insure that the interaction between multiple subs results in improved seat-to-seat consistency, not time alignment to the main listening position. Same with the levels.


But if you follow the logic, what the mic will hear is swamped by reflections, therefore it can't measure the direct "first arriving" sound from the subs. Because Audyssey pings the subs first to determine this, it would be using that result to set the delays.



sdurani said:


> Also, if you're placing subs in optimum locations for mode cancelling, then they need to have identical output. Cancelling works best when the two items are opposite AND equal. Changing delays and/or levels for one sub relative to the other(s) will make the mode cancelling less effective.


Not sure I follow. Many advanced systems work this way. This would be a dig at MSO, would it not? And Harman's SFM?


----------



## appelz

Soulburner said:


> But if you follow the logic, what the mic will hear is swamped by reflections, therefore it can't measure the direct "first arriving" sound from the subs. Because Audyssey pings the subs first to determine this, it would be using that result to set the delays.
> 
> Not sure I follow. Many advanced systems work this way. This would be a dig at MSO, would it not? And Harman's SFM?


I think you missed his point. He specifically mentioned both MSO and SFM in his post, commenting on how they are effective. No dig at all. 

The dig is when room correction systems set delay and EQ based on single sub measurements, setting delay to distance, when multiple subs in small rooms behave as a single sub, and so can't be treated as independent sources.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> But if you follow the logic, what the mic will hear is swamped by reflections, therefore it can't measure the direct "first arriving" sound from the subs. Because Audyssey pings the subs first to determine this, it would be using that result to set the delays.
> 
> 
> Not sure I follow. Many advanced systems work this way. This would be a dig at MSO, would it not? And Harman's SFM?


It feels like there's a logical fallacy in Sanjay's proposed methodology. How likely is one to find a spot for a 2nd subwoofer that is precisely the equal and opposite of the first one at all bass frequencies? If it were that simple to do in all rooms, one wouldn't need bass correction in the first place or you could get away with just two subs instead of 3 or 4 (or more). This sounds like purposely introducing what is essentially almost a form of artificial group delay (at the bass regions) as a "corrective method" rather than seeing it a form of distortion to minimize. 

DIRAC's new proposed system will theoretically use ALL available speakers to correct all other speakers and at more frequencies than just bass. There's no reason we should have to waste perfectly capable full range mains just because they're not "sub worthy" all by themselves. They could still be used to correct mid-bass below 80Hz within their limits if the system knows what it has to work with. But DIRAC is looking at correcting frequencies even higher than bass by utilizing all your speakers, not just subwoofers. 

In that respect, simple EQ is rather limited at how much it can correct, particularly when using limited output speakers combined with more capable speakers (bass drivers on towers plus subs), but a computer _could_ theoretically adjust output to work within the limits of the mains until they've reach their practical limits and then do the best it can above those levels. Most of the time, bass isn't maxed out and it could be improved by using 7 bed level speakers in addition to whatever subs are available. Current systems mostly throw that capability in the trash and say what Sanjay is saying. It's not _identical_ and opposite so trash it (or rather filter it).

Obviously, DIRAC is thinking the _Next Level_ is about utilizing what's available to its fullest potential with its new system. Imagine a 24-speaker bed level Atmos system with mostly full range towers and the amount of bass correction it could do if the system could use 20+ towers that are spaced out all around the room together for bass correction rather than just cross them at 80Hz and throw most of their woofer capabilities into the garbage bin. You could have pretty smooth bass with 24 woofers spaced all around the room working together and that space is being used already anyway so why waste it?



appelz said:


> I think you missed his point. He specifically mentioned both MSO and SFM in his post, commenting on how they are effective. No dig at all.
> 
> The dig is when room correction systems set delay and EQ based on single sub measurements, setting delay to distance, when multiple subs in small rooms behave as a single sub, and so can't be treated as independent sources.


They still have to have a basis to align their wavefronts with one another whether they're carrying the same signal or not.


----------



## jamin

I so want this wive‘s tale to just go away!

Today I am just too lazy so I’ll do it this way.



jamin said:


> This may come as surprise to some. As a general rule, time aligning subs to each other is folly in our rooms.
> 
> Our setup is not in an open field, we have walls. We respond to the steady state level of sub frequencies not impulse arrival. A check of the Welti-Devantier SFM paper will show delay times don’t correlate to sub-listener position. A check of MSO results will show same.
> 
> This does not mean that timing adjustments do not affect response, just that the effect will probably be not intuitive. We can thank the room modal response for that.
> 
> For designed spaces utilizing some aspect of mode-cancelling and non-automated multi-sub calibration (SFM, MSO, DLBC) all delays are set to zero. Subs are gain matched at the drivers, not level matched at seating.
> 
> The Trinnov optimizer via multi-driver crossover trick allows independent manual adjustment of parameters for up to 4 subs. It is a daunting task to optimize the response interaction manually given the millions of combinations.
> 
> The optimizer will of course do its thing to bend the combined response to the target curve.
> 
> On SPL matching vs matching utilizing spectral responses:
> Yes, for limited bandwidth total SPL matching can work but use near field gain matching. After all, the designed room seeking to use modal manipulation depends on it. Spectral response let’s you ‘see what is going on.
> 
> Anything else falls under the heading of random. Random positioning, random timing, random-ish gain setting. Certainly does not mean an acceptable outcome can not be obtained. Sure makes it tough when starting each room with the arcane function.
> 
> As an aside, gain matching multi-driver subs is easy, just pick a driver. If multiple same enclosures are deployed , use same driver selection in each. This assumes all assemblies have passed fully functional Testing
> 
> Arrgh, @appelz you Started it





jamin said:


> Indeed ! The term “alignment” is THE source of confusion. You know sorta like “Well, got ‘em all lined up now, we are done!” ADJUST is a much better term. Things get adjusted to meet the goal.
> Indeed.
> All of those fine researchers over the past many decades are neither slow nor stupid. Imagine the PHD candidate submitting the dissertation, all just a single line, stating “Problem solved, just time align all subs, ever how randomly placed, to a single arbitrary room position and “it works”!”
> 
> Er, ah, hey Al, show your work!
> What does that time align thing mean? (See choo-choo train example) and what about that “it works” bit? What does that mean?
> 
> Yes, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.
> 
> The reality is that modal behaviors have spatial and spectral coupling magnitudes and polarities. The “subs” and low pass filters have dispersive behaviors (means the lower the frequency the further away they appear). Arrgh!
> 
> Take a “DBA” and imagine adjusting, er ah, time aligning, all of the transducers to a single arbitrary room position! Short of physical positioning, You just undid almost ALL of the things that make the DBA — Fail !!
> 
> oops, sorry Adam, I know I’m preaching to the choir!
> 
> Hmm, is it time to go back to the Bolt amoeba, golden ratios, over absorption, RFZ, Eye of Newt, .......


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> They still have to have a basis to align their wavefronts with one another whether they're carrying the same signal or not.


Why? At what frequency? The highest frequencies your subwoofer plays can be several ms behind the lowest frequencies. In my concert hall days (technical director of a 2600 seat concert hall for 12 years), it would be 10-20ms. 

And again, "bed level" in no way refers to all of the speakers at ear level. There is your fallacy.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> But if you follow the logic, what the mic will hear is swamped by reflections, therefore it can't measure the direct "first arriving" sound from the subs. Because Audyssey pings the subs first to determine this, it would be using that result to set the delays.


As the old line goes: a microphone & pre-amp hears differently than two ears & a brain. You can measure the first arriving sound from each of multiple subs (reflections will be delayed by comparison) in order to time align them but that's usually not going to sound like an improvement to our human hearing.


> Not sure I follow. Many advanced systems work this way. This would be a dig at MSO, would it not? And Harman's SFM?


Cancelling anything works better when the two items are opposite and equal. If you want to cancel 4, you don't use -3 or -5, you use -4. Opposite and equal. Room modes have polarity, so it is not difficult to find locations where each sub is driving the mode in opposite polarity. Hence the popular suggestion to place subs at the ¼ and ¾ points of room width in order to cancel the first 3 width modes. The more equal the outputs from the subwoofers, the more efficient the mode cancellation.

This is a placement-only approach, which can be augmented with global EQ. But that doesn't mean it's the only approach to getting good bass in small rooms. Multi-sub optimizer programs use level, phase and sometimes EQ to improve seat-to-seat consistency. This allows for greater subwoofer placement flexibility than a placement-only approach. Whereas the placement-only approach tries to cancel the modes that create peaks & dips, a multi-sub optimization program like SFM tries to get the same peaks & dips in every seat. Once you do that, fixing the peaks & dips in one seat fixes them for all seats.

Describing how a placement-only approach works for mode cancelling is not a dig at multi-sub optimization programs.


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> Cancelling anything works better when the two items are opposite and equal. If you want to cancel 4, you don't use -3 or -5, you use -4. Opposite and equal. Room modes have polarity, so it is not difficult to find locations where each sub is driving the mode in opposite polarity. Hence the popular suggestion to place subs at the ¼ and ¾ points of room width in order to cancel the first 3 width modes. The more equal the outputs from the subwoofers, the more efficient the mode cancellation.
> 
> This is a placement-only approach, which can be augmented with global EQ. But that doesn't mean it's the only approach to getting good bass in small rooms. Multi-sub optimizer programs use level, phase and sometimes EQ to improve seat-to-seat consistency. This allows for greater subwoofer placement flexibility than a placement-only approach. Whereas the placement-only approach tries to cancel the modes that create peaks & dips, a multi-sub optimization program like SFM tries to get the same peaks & dips in every seat. Once you do that, fixing the peaks & dips in one seat fixes them for all seats.


Intuitively this sounds great. If you can get your response to that point, "all bases loaded", EQ will be a grand slam home run for multiple seats. But in practice, I bet it is not easy to get your stars to align like that.



sdurani said:


> Describing how a placement-only approach works for mode cancelling is not a dig at multi-sub optimization programs.


Before this post we were talking about delays, which is what I responded to, not placement.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> Why? At what frequency? The highest frequencies your subwoofer plays can be several ms behind the lowest frequencies. In my concert hall days (technical director of a 2600 seat concert hall for 12 years), it would be 10-20ms.


 I see no reason why the first arrival is any "worse" than any other in that regard (it has to align them together somehow; obviously several seconds later isn't going to work). If it doesn't matter and as frequencies rise, it's going to matter at some point. Do we just assume 80Hz and "subwoofer" and ignore it for everything else? What happens when DIRAC starts integrating other speakers into bass management? They don't arbitrarily end at 80Hz.



> And again, "bed level" in no way refers to all of the speakers at ear level. There is your fallacy.


There are no "bed channels" at home whatsoever, if you want to get technical about it and there are no "ear level" speakers at the cinema (they are all much higher up than anyone's ears). There are bed _objects_ at home and they all refer to the 7 most common "ear level" channels in the home version of Atmos and thus most people on here who aren't seriously anal retentive refer to ear level speakers as bed level. The problem with using the term "ear level" is that they aren't always at "ear" level, even at home. At the cinema, they are nowhere near ear level, in fact. So what term would you prefer that's truly accurate? "Non-height" ? That's not accurate either as the main and surround speakers are at height levels at the cinema (way above anyone's ears except perhaps with stadium seating and then only for the mains as the surrounds move upward with the seating). Non-ceiling mounted, perhaps?  (that won't work at home either since some "heights" speakers end up on the front or rear walls). Most people on here, however aren't that incredibly anal retentive about it and know what we mean by "bed" speakers for Home Atmos..... 

In terms of bass management, it doesn't matter whether a speaker is at ear level or on the ceiling either. It only matter whether they're capable of producing prodigious amounts of bass. Most people don't have full range speakers on the ceiling, however. But if they _did_ and all "ear level" ("non-height" whatever speakers that AREN'T on your ceiling) were bookshelf speakers, the new D&M AVRs, Storm's and DIRAC's upcoming system could use them to improve mode responses in the room instead of subwoofers. Hey, "subwoofer" isn't really accurate either since bass doesn't stop at 20Hz. Get the thought police out and force them to use the term "infrasonic woofer" or "Infrawoofer" for short and if they don't, be sure and give them 20 lashes with a wet noodle....


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> I see no reason why the first arrival is any "worse" than any other in that regard (it has to align them together somehow; obviously several seconds later isn't going to work). If it doesn't matter and as frequencies rise, it's going to matter at some point. Do we just assume 80Hz and "subwoofer" and ignore it for everything else? What happens when DIRAC starts integrating other speakers into bass management? They don't arbitrarily end at 80Hz.


I think you should come take some of the classes I teach. It would be fun.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> Intuitively this sounds great. If you can get your response to that point, "all bases loaded", EQ will be a grand slam home run for multiple seats. But in practice, I bet it is not easy to get your stars to align like that.


Align like what? Whichever of the approaches you use, or a combination thereof, the goal is to improve the response in the subwoofer region. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good. Improvement is a good thing.


> Before this post we were talking about delays, which is what I responded to, not placement.


I brought up placement to answer the question I was asked about why time aligning individual subs was not a good idea.


----------



## sdrucker

appelz said:


> I think you should come take some of the classes I teach. It would be fun.


HAA week (Level I is now online, with Levels II to III in person) is highly recommended for anyone serious about multi-sub integration. They took a so/so mid-fi 5.1 system with a few subs in a hotel room and got noticeably better sound through a methodical, systematic approach to evaluating changes in the room. Acoustic measurement, a bit of EQ, and acoustic treatment are just the start of what you learn to do. I did it back in 2018 and it was worth the time.

There's also quizzes you can do after the class if you want to get professional certification, but even if you don't go that far, there's great reference materials and more to the point, a list of music clips you can use to address the specific metrics for evaluating a room explained in the class. You too can learn to love Ricky Lee Jones


----------



## am2model3

disney plus claims to support 4k, dolby atmos, imax enhanced. on ps5 native app. 
Has anyone gotten this to work in their receiver setups? I can't get any of it to work, my receiver setup is HDMI 2.0 chain. does it require 2.1? 
i only get HD, 5.1 in disney plus; the marvel movies show "imax enhanced" but when i push play its regular widescreen. denon x4700h. 

disney plus on my xbox series x; i get HD video and am able to get Dolby Atmos sound; same setup. (dolby atmos sticker shows on the content supported in the disney app)


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

am2model3 said:


> disney plus claims to support 4k, dolby atmos, imax enhanced. on ps5 native app.
> Has anyone gotten this to work in their receiver setups? I can't get any of it to work, my receiver setup is HDMI 2.0 chain. does it require 2.1?
> i only get HD, 5.1 in disney plus; the marvel movies show "imax enhanced" but when i push play its regular widescreen. denon x4700h.
> 
> disney plus on my xbox series x; i get HD video and am able to get Dolby Atmos sound; same setup. (dolby atmos sticker shows on the content supported in the disney app)


Unless something has recently changed, the PS5 should not support Dolby Atmos on its streaming apps. Just in blu ray/4k disc playback.

The PS5 doesnt have Atmos built in, only supporting it through bitstream passthrough. If Disney+ found a way to bitstream through DD+ then I suppose its possible. I'll look when I get home but I doubt this is a possibility.

Atmos will work through HDMI 2.0 just fine.


----------



## mrtickleuk

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The PS5 doesnt have Atmos built in, only supporting it through bitstream passthrough. If Disney+ found a way to bitstream through DD+ then I suppose its possible. I'll look when I get home but I doubt this is a possibility.


I'm confused why you are doubting this. Every streaming video service in the whole world supporting Atmos does it through lossy Atmos in a DD+ container. The PS5 does not need to support Atmos, it's not doing the decoding. It just needs to send the DD+ stream to the AVR. It doesn't know whether that DD+ stream contains 2.0, 5.1, Atmos, whatever. It's just a stream.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mrtickleuk said:


> I'm confused why you are doubting this. Every streaming video service in the whole world supporting Atmos does it through lossy Atmos in a DD+ container. The PS5 does not need to support Atmos, it's not doing the decoding. It just needs to send the DD+ stream to the AVR. It doesn't know whether that DD+ stream contains 2.0, 5.1, Atmos, whatever. It's just a stream.


You would think so. But thats not how it has worked in practice. Many streaming devices have had issues playing Atmos with various services despite the fact that they bitstreamed DD+. Netflix was notorious for this. It took a long time for Netflix to get Atmos working through Roku Ultra and RokuTV OS despite the fact that Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, Vudu and HBOMax could all bitstream Atmos. Eventually they got it worked out.

So that tells us its not simply a case of bitstreaming when it comes to streaming services. There's something more going on here.

The PS5 is _notorious _for ignoring Atmos playback in its streaming services and games. Many felt that it was because they didnt want to pay the licensing fee to Dolby for every Atmos compatible console they manufacture, as that would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars over its life cycle.


----------



## MagnumX

It's not Sony's job to write the apps for the PS5. From what I've read, there's nothing stopping the apps from using Atmos via DD+. My Shield doesn't support Atmos in Netflix either (They were too lazy to bother without a certain feature the older Shields don't have and yet my Netflix plugin for KODI fully supports Atmos on the same NVidia Shield proving they are just lazy arses at Netflix who can't be bothered to do a little extra programming to support it). Dolby Vision is another story, however.


----------



## Magiclakez

am2model3 said:


> disney plus claims to support 4k, dolby atmos, imax enhanced. on ps5 native app.
> Has anyone gotten this to work in their receiver setups? I can't get any of it to work, my receiver setup is HDMI 2.0 chain. does it require 2.1?
> i only get HD, 5.1 in disney plus; the marvel movies show "imax enhanced" but when i push play its regular widescreen. denon x4700h.
> 
> disney plus on my xbox series x; i get HD video and am able to get Dolby Atmos sound; same setup. (dolby atmos sticker shows on the content supported in the disney app)


When you decide to watch a movie which supports imax enhanced, you need to go to the sub menu (located just below) and click on “versions.” Under versions there are multiple options to view the content; choose imax enhanced.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You would think so. But thats not how it has worked in practice. Many streaming devices have had issues playing Atmos with various services despite the fact that they bitstreamed DD+. Netflix was notorious for this. It took a long time for Netflix to get Atmos working through Roku Ultra and RokuTV OS despite the fact that Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, Vudu and HBOMax could all bitstream Atmos. Eventually they got it worked out.
> 
> So that tells us its not simply a case of bitstreaming when it comes to streaming services. There's something more going on here.
> 
> The PS5 is _notorious _for ignoring Atmos playback in its streaming services and games. Many felt that it was because they didnt want to pay the licensing fee to Dolby for every Atmos compatible console they manufacture, as that would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars over its life cycle.


Sony also requires the user of their Blu-ray players to go in and manually enable Dolby Vision rather than auto-detect per disc. I thought there might be a business reason. It's starting to make sense now.


----------



## robert600

A few 2nd hand uhd disks have come up for sale. Is the Atmos track for 'War of the Worlds' any good?


----------



## am2model3

for PS5 users: so far, besides 4K UHD discs and blu rays with Atmos; when i use Vudu on PS5, i am able to stream in 4k, HDR, and Atmos. neither netflix nor disney plus nor hulu seem to pass atmos in their apps currently on ps5. thanks!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

robert600 said:


> A few 2nd hand uhd disks have come up for sale. Is the Atmos track for 'War of the Worlds' any good?


Honestly, while the Atmos adds a bit of spaciousness, I don't recall any standout scenes where the heights are used incredibly well... and the bigger sin is that the Atmos track reduces that lovely deep bass that the flick is known for. I think you'd be just as happy upmixing the original. But the 4K does look nice, so if it's a cheap pickup, I'd still snag it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

am2model3 said:


> for PS5 users: so far, besides 4K UHD discs and blu rays with Atmos; when i use Vudu on PS5, i am able to stream in 4k, HDR, and Atmos. neither netflix nor disney plus nor hulu seem to pass atmos in their apps currently on ps5. thanks!


This was determined a while ago. On the PS4. VUDU had content that could bitstream Atmos. Its because VUDU bitstreams normally like a Blu Ray player. Netflix has always required that the device streaming it be able to process (not necessarily decode) Atmos to send it to a receiver for decoding. I figured many of the streaming services work similarly to Netflix in that regard. VUDU seems to be different.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

NuSoardGraphite said:


> This was determined a while ago. On the PS4. VUDU had content that could bitstream Atmos. Its because VUDU bitstreams normally like a Blu Ray player. Netflix has always required that the device streaming it be able to process (not necessarily decode) Atmos to send it to a receiver for decoding. I figured many of the streaming services work similarly to Netflix in that regard. VUDU seems to be different.


Hope I’m not talking out of turn! But unless they changed something, Vudu and Netflix both required that the display was 4K to unlock the Atmos stream, no matter what the source/player was. The way around that is to use an upscaler to trick the source device. 
Be nice if that’s been fixed.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Polyrythm1k said:


> Hope I’m not talking out of turn! But unless they changed something, Vudu and Netflix both required that the display was 4K to unlock the Atmos stream, no matter what the source/player was. The way around that is to use an upscaler to trick the source device.
> Be nice if that’s been fixed.


Thats correct. They did require a 4k stream to open up Atmos. With Netflix you had to be subscribed to their 4k service and on a 4k display.

With Vudu you just needed the display since the Atmos sound mix was only found on the 4k version of the movie.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Thats correct. They did require a 4k stream to open up Atmos. With Netflix you had to be subscribed to their 4k service and on a 4k display.
> 
> With Vudu you just needed the display since the Atmos sound mix was only found on the 4k version of the movie.


Roger that.


----------



## Magiclakez

I decided to revisit “The Guns of Navarone” last night. First up this is a must watch for any WWII fans but even if you’re are not into WW classics, this is an absolutely riveting action/drama flick with brilliant performances from Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn. I have watched this movie umpteen times since it first came out on VHS.

The Dolby Atmos track on this 4k Blu-ray is demo worthy material and has some really nice heft to it, especially during those warplane sequences. I found the height effects to be almost omnipresent during the film. Some fantastic LFE as well. It’s a pity that most studios cannot replicate the same production on current titles with superior source material. It’s a testament to Sony for bringing to life a film which is over 60 yrs old.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I decided to revisit “The Guns of Navarone” last night. First up this is a must watch for any WWII fans but even if you’re are not into WW classics, this is an absolutely riveting action/drama flick with brilliant performances from Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn. I have watched this movie umpteen times since it first came out on VHS.
> 
> The Dolby Atmos track on this 4k Blu-ray is demo worthy material and has some really nice heft to it, especially during those warplane sequences. I found the height effects to be almost omnipresent during the film. Some fantastic LFE as well. It’s pity that most studios cannot replicate the same production on current titles with superior source material. It’s a testament to Sony for bringing to life a film which is over 60 yrs old.


The storm at sea was especially effective in Atmos. It sounded like the waves were crashing over the top of you. I have 6 overheads and they were all active.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> The storm at sea was especially effective in Atmos. It sounded like the waves were crashing over the top of you. I have 6 overheads and they were all active.


The wides had plenty of activity, which was a pleasant surprise since most atmos tracks tend to ignore the wides. My wides sounded almost as full blooded like my front sound stage. Great atmos track.


----------



## MagnumX

Master & Commander sounded like that here including guys running across my ceiling at one point! The interesting thing was it was the Neural X upmixer that pulled it off from a 5.1 track no less.  

(Yes I have The Guns of Navarone too and The Bridge Over The River Kwai as well in Atmos). Now where's Force 10 From Navarone in Atmos?


----------



## Rich 63

sdurani said:


> Changing delays and/or levels for one sub relative to the other(s) will make the mode cancelling less effective.


Hence another reason to gain match over level matching.


----------



## petetherock

MagnumX said:


> Master & Commander sounded like that here including guys running across my ceiling at one point! The interesting thing was it was the Neural X upmixer that pulled it off from a 5.1 track no less.
> 
> (Yes I have The Guns of Navarone too and The Bridge Over The River Kwai as well in Atmos). Now where's Force 10 From Navarone in Atmos?


Yep, that show had a demo worthy soundtrack that sounded brilliant even on a DVD...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

That Netflix movie Blonde weirdly has a lot of outstanding Atmos use. Not something I was expecting given the subject matter, but there was a point toward the beginning where it sounded like a fly flew through the room right to left... and the wildfires at the beginning were very cool. The whole movie had some surprisingly well done use of every speaker. It was a pleasant surprise.


----------



## lax01

Entergalatic - Kid Cudi's new movie-thing on Netflix also used pretty effective Atmos...was pretty surprised


----------



## MBrown2020

Oops... Sorry wrong thread. Deleted.


----------



## imureh

MBrown2020 said:


> Received my 3 Captivator 2400's and 1 of the three have "rework" and "rework cap1400 CP" written on the plastic in black and red ink(See Pics). Should I be concerned? Anybody know what it means?
> 
> Thanks
> View attachment 3341909
> View attachment 3341910
> View attachment 3341911
> View attachment 3341913


Just ask JTR. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MBrown2020

imureh said:


> Just ask JTR.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry wrong thread... Edited OP


----------



## Magiclakez

petetherock said:


> Yep, that *show* had a demo worthy soundtrack that sounded brilliant even on a DVD...


I’m pretty sure Master and commanders is a naval themed/ period war-drama film featuring Russell Crowe. Unless they came out with a new series/show based on the original movie, in which case I stand corrected.

Masters and commanders dvd with the original dts track definitely has demo worthy LFE. They neutered the experience on the Blu-ray and I dare say it would get further molested if it ever came out on 4k. 🤪


----------



## halcyon_888

Anyone check out Bullet Train? It had a few discrete Atmos moments in there...


----------



## Magiclakez

I’m looking forward to watching bullet train on 4k Blu-ray when it comes out, however I don’t have very high expectations for the atmos track after seeing Shane’s review; I think there are couple of scenes which feature some decent height activity.


----------



## halcyon_888

Magiclakez said:


> I’m looking forward to watching bullet train on 4k Blu-ray when it comes out, however I don’t have very high expectations for the atmos track after seeing Shane’s review; I think there are couple of scenes which feature some decent height activity.


Yea two scenes come to mind, better than nothing perhaps?


----------



## Magiclakez

halcyon_888 said:


> Yea two scenes come to mind, better than nothing perhaps?


Yeah I’ll take that. The PQ looks quite stunning and very colorful/vibrant. Will make for an entertaining watch.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> Anyone check out Bullet Train? It had a few discrete Atmos moments in there...


It had it when it counted, but... I would have liked for Bullet Train to use the heights a bit more often for general ambient sound. I mean, the whole flick is on a train. There should have been plenty of opportunities.

That said, I still really enjoyed the flick.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It had it when it counted, but... I would have liked for Bullet Train to use the heights a bit more often for general ambient sound. I mean, the whole flick is on a train. There should have been plenty of opportunities.
> 
> That said, I still really enjoyed the flick.


Yea it could have used more ambiance in the heights for sure, and there were some missed opportunities that I was thinking about while watching the movie. When the heights were used I liked how they designed the effect.


----------



## Soulburner

imureh said:


> Just ask JTR.


I work in QC (not at JTR, unfortunately) and the term "rework" denotes something was caught by an inspection and sent back to be corrected. I wouldn't worry about it. That item probably received more scrutiny than normal, a good thing.


----------



## Gates

The new 4k for Fright Night has some great scenes, I was shocked.


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched “The Beer Run” on Appletv plus (Apple Original film) featuring Zac Efron/ Russell Crowe. A nice immersive presentation, especially the chopper scene with the prisoner on board.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Gates said:


> The new 4k for Fright Night has some great scenes, I was shocked.


I need to get that and Lost Boys.


----------



## appelz

MagnumX said:


> Master & Commander sounded like that here including guys running across my ceiling at one point! The interesting thing was it was the Neural X upmixer that pulled it off from a 5.1 track no less.
> 
> (Yes I have The Guns of Navarone too and The Bridge Over The River Kwai as well in Atmos). Now where's Force 10 From Navarone in Atmos?


Master and Commander is just a great sounding movie for sure. A great example of how to effectively use dynamics in a movie. Even with no upper layer speakers, a well-engineered and calibrated system can do a very convincing job of having the crew running overhead in that scene!

There was talk of a prequel in development. I wonder what happened to it?


----------



## jamin

appelz said:


> Even with no upper layer speakers, a well-engineered and calibrated system can do a very convincing job of having the crew running overhead in that scene!


100 % agree. True magic.


----------



## MagnumX

appelz said:


> Master and Commander is just a great sounding movie for sure. A great example of how to effectively use dynamics in a movie. Even with no upper layer speakers, a well-engineered and calibrated system can do a very convincing job of having the crew running overhead in that scene!
> 
> There was talk of a prequel in development. I wonder what happened to it?


Pre-Atmos systems typically had surrounds mounted well above ear level so I imagine many surround effects worked well overhead back then, but fewer sounds were at ear level. 

Even with my side surrounds at or even just below ear level, most surround effects at that level still seem to image just above my head for some reason (e.g. The buzzy synth about a minute and a half into the Atmos version of Yello's _Big Boy's Blues_ flies from center speaker just overhead into the back of the room in a straight line while the Grinder crank at the start of Dolby's "Silent" Atmos demo passes right through my chest instead back-to-front despite no overheads used in either sound. So clearly there's more to perceived height than just the absolute speaker height. Embedded HRTF, whether on purpose or accidental must also come into play. Both of those are also great demos for consistency in front to back imaging through the center of the room).


----------



## Soulburner

appelz said:


> Master and Commander is just a great sounding movie for sure. A great example of how to effectively use dynamics in a movie. Even with no upper layer speakers, a well-engineered and calibrated system can do a very convincing job of having the crew running overhead in that scene!
> 
> There was talk of a prequel in development. I wonder what happened to it?


DVD or Blu-ray?


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> DVD or Blu-ray?


Blu-ray here, but I've heard Infrasonic bass is better on the DVD (supposedly neutered to some degree on the Blu-ray). 

I suppose one could move the DVD DTS track over easy enough if they were so inclined and have better bass with HD visuals.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Soulburner said:


> DVD or Blu-ray?


Absolutely the dvd with dts. BD had a 30hz filter. IT SUCKS!!!


----------



## niterida

Polyrythm1k said:


> Absolutely the dvd with dts. BD had a 30hz filter. IT SUCKS!!!


Thats just crazy - why do they do that 😭


----------



## GMil

niterida said:


> Thats just crazy - why do they do that 😭


Sound bars, bookshelf speakers or 75% of most home audio systems that exist in the world today


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> Sound bars, bookshelf speakers or 75% of most home audio systems that exist in the world today


Maybe those systems should have their own filters instead of expecting Hollywood to do their jobs for them.

The best solution might be to copy the LFE track over in a wave editor rather remux the entire DVD if the DVD's DTS track is the typical lower bitrate version most DVDs used and then output FLAC instead.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

appelz said:


> Master and Commander is just a great sounding movie for sure. A great example of how to effectively use dynamics in a movie. Even with no upper layer speakers, a well-engineered and calibrated system can do a very convincing job of having the crew running overhead in that scene!


Back in the 5.1 days, didn't mixers use sounds placed out of phase in the surrounds to try to image them generally overhead or make them more ambient? I know that was a thing to some extent (because DPL-IIz used it) but was never sure if that was what we were hearing in Master And Commander or just incredibly well processed audio.


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> Maybe those systems should have their own filters instead of expecting Hollywood to do their jobs for them.
> 
> The best solution might be to copy the LFE track over in a wave editor rather remux the entire DVD if the DVD's DTS track is the typical lower bitrate version most DVDs used and then output FLAC instead.


I do not disagree one little bit. I am not defending it. I was just stating an observation to a question. Even though we are the minority, they have no right ruining our presentation


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> I do not disagree one little bit. I am not defending it. I was just stating an observation to a question. Even though we are the minority, they have no right ruining our presentation


They used to make DVDs and BDs for the home theater enthusaiast and everyone else had to deal with it good or bad. Now, they cater to deaf/old people and crapola sound bars, etc. The world has changed, but not for the better, but then I think I can say that about almost everything the past 10 years (save immersive sound, of course.  )


----------



## Soulburner

I don't even think it makes sense. Think about it: who's running a sound bar with Blu-rays?

The only people still buying the discs are the enthusiasts with $ systems. The sound bars are streaming and are clueless to this stuff.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Soulburner said:


> I don't even think it makes sense. Think about it: who's running a sound bar with Blu-rays?
> 
> The only people still buying the discs are the enthusiasts with $ systems. The sound bars are streaming and are clueless to this stuff.


The problem is that the studios only make ONE master home mix nowadays and then down convert to some other channel count or add a different language (if they are tasked with that too). So, they go with the lowest common denominator, which now are sound bars and maybe TV speakers. It used to be high end home theater systems.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> They used to make DVDs and BDs for the home theater enthusaiast and everyone else had to deal with it good or bad. Now, they cater to deaf/old people and crapola sound bars, etc. The world has changed, but not for the better, but then I think I can say that about almost everything the past 10 years (save immersive sound, of course.  )


Right or wrong according to you, they are simply being pragmatic and following overwhelming sales trends

What other company in the world would design and market thier product to 1% to 5% of thier audience instead of 95-99%?!?

Seriously


----------



## fatherom

Soulburner said:


> I don't even think it makes sense. Think about it: who's running a sound bar with Blu-rays?
> 
> The only people still buying the discs are the enthusiasts with $ systems. The sound bars are streaming and are clueless to this stuff.


I’m on a Facebook group for physical media collectors. It has about 20,000 members. The group is for 4k and 1080p disc collecting. I would say, based on the posts I read every day, 75% of the members have soundbars and a flat panel display and that’s it. But they have huge disc collections.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Right or wrong according to you, they are simply being pragmatic and following overwhelming sales trends
> 
> What other company in the world would design and market thier product to 1% to 5% of thier audience instead of 95-99%?!?
> 
> Seriously


By that logic, if Michelangelo were a modern artist he should have painted the mural in the Sistine Chapel in the style of the Rick and Morty cartoon... because it's popular and would make more tourist money for the Catholic Church. Dumb art and craftsmanship down because that's what the masses want. That's what many studios are doing with the craft of audio engineering.

It reminds me of a Jeff Goldblum quote from Jurassic Park...
“YEAH, BUT YOUR SCIENTISTS WERE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD THAT THEY DIDN’T STOP TO THINK IF THEY SHOULD.”


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> By that logic, if Michelangelo were a modern artist he should have painted the mural in the Sistine Chapel in the style of the Rick and Morty cartoon... because it's popular and would make more tourist money for the Catholic Church. Dumb art and craftsmanship down because that's what the masses want. That's what many studios are doing with the craft of audio engineering.
> 
> It reminds me of a Jeff Goldblum quote from Jurassic Park...
> “YEAH, BUT YOUR SCIENTISTS WERE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD THAT THEY DIDN’T STOP TO THINK IF THEY SHOULD.”


you are comparing an artist making specific unique and finite quantities works of art to studio companies that make thousands and thousands of the same product for thousands and thousands of end users...don't quite find the analogy even remotely close to be applicable 

I don't think you are following basic business practices...but the media companies (unfortunately are)

A quote by Don Ohlmeyer that will sum up why blu rays are like this is:

"The answer to all your questions is money"

simple as that


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Thats just crazy - why do they do that 😭


In this particular case it was completely unintended. Mastering engineer came in to do the lossless version of the soundtrack for BD and didn't notice that a 25Hz filter was in place from the previous session when the same room was being used for a music mix.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Right or wrong according to you, they are simply being pragmatic and following overwhelming sales trends
> 
> What other company in the world would design and market thier product to 1% to 5% of thier audience instead of 95-99%?!?
> 
> Seriously


What you say makes ZERO sense. That's because I thought the ONLY people buying actual physical discs were true home theater fans? Don't the "masses" go with streaming instead??? So if only the 1% or 5% are buying blu-rays, then shouldn't the studios be catering to the people actually BUYING the blu-rays instead of the people that aren't? 

You see, what I've noticed is people will defend the status quo on almost everything in life for reasons that never make any sense to me. They claim they want better, but instead of agreeing, they jump in and defend Hollywood by saying that's what everyone is buying and what everyone "wants" and yet I've never seen ONE PERSON say they "want" crappy dynamic range reduced blu-rays or home mixes or dream of sound bars. The people that buy those things don't care about quality or they're ignorant of quality and yet I bet not one has ever written the movie studios and told them they want dynamic range reduced on blu-rays. That's something the studio dreamed up as a solution to polling about dialog intelligibility. 

But instead of fixing it at the source (sound bar, TV, whatever), they destroy movie soundtracks integrity instead? How is it videophiles can defend "Director's Intent" to the bitter end, but no one seems to give a flying rat's hind quarter about the "intent" for the soundtrack? They _intended_ it to be crappy sounding at home??? Gee, what high expectations for home theater....


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> What you say makes ZERO sense. That's because I thought the ONLY people buying actual physical discs were true home theater fans? Don't the "masses" go with streaming instead??? So if only the 1% or 5% are buying blu-rays, then shouldn't the studios be catering to the people actually BUYING the blu-rays instead of the people that aren't?
> 
> You see, what I've noticed is people will defend the status quo on almost everything in life for reasons that never make any sense to me. They claim they want better, but instead of agreeing, they jump in and defend Hollywood by saying that's what everyone is buying and what everyone "wants" and yet I've never seen ONE PERSON say they "want" crappy dynamic range reduced blu-rays or home mixes or dream of sound bars. The people that buy those things don't care about quality or they're ignorant of quality and yet I bet not one has ever written the movie studios and told them they want dynamic range reduced on blu-rays. That's something the studio dreamed up as a solution to polling about dialog intelligibility.
> 
> But instead of fixing it at the source (sound bar, TV, whatever), they destroy movie soundtracks integrity instead? How is it videophiles can defend "Director's Intent" to the bitter end, but no one seems to give a flying rat's hind quarter about the "intent" for the soundtrack? They _intended_ it to be crappy sounding at home??? Gee, what high expectations for home theater....


1. I am a fan of physical discs and home theatre sound.

2. I want more discs over time not less

3. the answer to all your questions...is money.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I don't even think it makes sense. Think about it: who's running a sound bar with Blu-rays?
> 
> The only people still buying the discs are the enthusiasts with $ systems. The sound bars are streaming and are clueless to this stuff.


I watch (and follow) several 4k Blu-ray reviewers on YouTube, since 4k /physical media collecting is one of my several vices. I was particularly amused at this European reviewer who was getting really quite animated while explaining the Atmos bubble on the “edge of tomorrow” 4k Blu-ray.

He kept insisting that he could sense the aircraft circling over his head which took him away from the on screen action and forced him to keep looking towards the ceiling. The problem is that he has stuffed an El Grande Burrito under his display along with 2 street tacos on his sides with Upfiring speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> 1. I am a fan of physical discs and home theatre sound.
> 
> 2. I want more discs over time not less
> 
> 3. the answer to all your questions...is money.


So, in other words you have no actual explanation to what I said since the people buying discs these days aren't the ones that want reduced dynamic range sound. They are already using streaming unless they live in a rural area with no decent Internet. But even 5Mbps will play on an Apple TV 4K as it will download or buffer first. 

The irony is, of course that streaming digital could easily have a compressor mode for sound bars or TV speakers without resorting to destroying the artistic integrity of the theatrical mix by irrevocably altering the soundtrack itself in such a fashion.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Magiclakez said:


> I watch (and follow) several 4k Blu-ray reviewers on YouTube, since 4k /physical media collecting is one of my several vices. I was particularly amused at this European reviewer who was getting really quite animated while explaining the Atmos bubble on the “edge of tomorrow” 4k Blu-ray.
> 
> He kept insisting that he could sense the aircraft circling over his head which took him away from the on screen action and forced him to keep looking towards the ceiling. The problem is that he had stuffed an El Grande Burrito under his display along with 2 street tacos on his sides with Upfiring speakers.


Please tell me you can find a link to this. Because that last sentence has my attention.


----------



## Magiclakez

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Please tell me you can find a link to this. Because that last sentence has my attention.


His channel is called euphoria pictures. He’s based in Ireland I believe. He has done several movie reviews, but be sure to check out the ones with atmos.


----------



## halcyon_888

I know that if I haven't watched alot of content using the heights in a while then I will more notice a soundtrack that decides to use them. This happened most recently with Bullet Train, the first discrete height effect in the movie caused me to look at my left height speaker. However, if I'm listening to a soundtrack that is making good use of the heights it is more immersive for me and draws me into the total experience more.


----------



## dschulz

Magiclakez said:


> I watch (and follow) several 4k Blu-ray reviewers on YouTube, since 4k /physical media collecting is one of my several vices. I was particularly amused at this European reviewer who was getting really quite animated while explaining the Atmos bubble on the “edge of tomorrow” 4k Blu-ray.
> 
> He kept insisting that he could sense the aircraft circling over his head which took him away from the on screen action and forced him to keep looking towards the ceiling. The problem is that he has stuffed an El Grande Burrito under his display along with 2 street tacos on his sides with Upfiring speakers.


This is an unintentionally good metaphor, as people who have never heard a good room with upfiring speakers insist they cannot work, much like people who would never touch street food insist a street taco cannot be good. Those who've experimented more know that upfiring speakers, much like street tacos, can be a surprisingly good experience!


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Please tell me you can find a link to this. Because that last sentence has my attention.


I think he just means a big horizontal sound bar with very average or even poor side surrounds with upfiring drivers and calls it an Atmos system.

Oh yeah, you can't see this either (shrug).



dschulz said:


> This is an unintentionally good metaphor, as people who have never heard a good room with upfiring speakers insist they cannot work, much like people who would never touch street food insist a street taco cannot be good. Those who've experimented more know that upfiring speakers, much like street tacos, can be a surprisingly good experience!


So do you use a sound bar and upfiring speakers?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

fatherom said:


> I’m on a Facebook group for physical media collectors. It has about 20,000 members. The group is for 4k and 1080p disc collecting. I would say, based on the posts I read every day, 75% of the members have soundbars and a flat panel display and that’s it. But they have huge disc collections.


My sister has a pretty decent sized disc collection and she is watching with just a DVD player and an old 480i TV.

She doesnt even have a 1080p flat panel, let alone a soundbar.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> I know that if I haven't watched alot of content using the heights in a while then I will more notice a soundtrack that decides to use them. This happened most recently with Bullet Train, the first discrete height effect in the movie caused me to look at my left height speaker. However, if I'm listening to a soundtrack that is making good use of the heights it is more immersive for me and draws me into the total experience more.


When I hear obvious effects, it just makes me smile. I dont normally look at the speakers as I knew where the sound came from.

I smile even bigger when the effect happens from upmixing.


----------



## dschulz

MagnumX said:


> I think he just means a big horizontal sound bar with very average or even poor side surrounds with upfiring drivers and calls it an Atmos system.
> 
> Oh yeah, you can't see this either (shrug).
> 
> 
> So do you use a sound bar and upfiring speakers?


I do not, I have a reasonably good (great by normal standards, mediocre by the lofty standards of AVSForum members) 5.1 system. My planned-for upgrade to Atmos will by necessity be using upfiring speakers. Although in-or-on-ceiling speakers are unquestionably better, I have heard very good setups using upfiring speakers and they are perfectly fine in the right circumstances if placed correctly and calibrated properly.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dschulz said:


> This is an unintentionally good metaphor, as people who have never heard a good room with upfiring speakers insist they cannot work, much like people who would never touch street food insist a street taco cannot be good. Those who've experimented more know that upfiring speakers, much like street tacos, can be a surprisingly good experience!


The upfiring speakers I have heard simply did not work well. But I figured its because I have only ever heard them in small rooms where you sit much too close to the upfiring speakers and can thus localize the source of the speakers moreso than the reflected sound.

In that case, mounting speakers in the front and rear height positions provided an exponentially improved experience.

I can see upfiring speakers working in a situation where you sit much further away from the speakers, but when you are a mere six feet away, it doesnt function.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> So, in other words you have no actual explanation to what I said since the people buying discs these days aren't the ones that want reduced dynamic range sound. They are already using streaming unless they live in a rural area with no decent Internet. But even 5Mbps will play on an Apple TV 4K as it will download or buffer first.
> 
> The irony is, of course that streaming digital could easily have a compressor mode for sound bars or TV speakers without resorting to destroying the artistic integrity of the theatrical mix by irrevocably altering the soundtrack itself in such a fashion.


Like plasma and 3D discs...the answer to all your questions: is money. You can not LIKE it..but that's as simple as I can lay it out for you


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Like plasma and 3D discs...the answer to all your questions: is money. You can not LIKE it..but that's as simple as I can lay it out for you


You don't think they'd make more money by differentiating discs from streaming further by offering bonus cinematic soundtracks with all that extra space most UHDs have? 

It can still default to the crap soundtrack if they want. It wouldn't hurt soundbars and would _encourage_ more 4K upgrade sales instead of _discouraging_ them with filtered deep bass.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> You don't think they'd make more money by differentiating discs from streaming further by offering bonus cinematic soundtracks with all that extra space most UHDs have?


I think you're potentially giving the people who make the big decisions way too much credit. Most people way up the chain, that can make such big decisions, are clueless about most things.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

fatherom said:


> I think you're potentially giving the people who make the big decisions way too much credit. Most people way up the chain, that can make such big decisions, are clueless about most things.


It's the heads of whatever is left of the home video departments (that even includes prepping content for streaming). They tend to set the general philosophy of the department. The heads at Sony and Warner Bros Home Video, for the most part, have resisted lowering the quality of their audio tracks for soundbar optimization.


----------



## Magiclakez

dschulz said:


> This is an unintentionally good metaphor, as people who have never heard a good room with upfiring speakers insist they cannot work, much like people who would never touch street food insist a street taco cannot be good. Those who've experimented more know that upfiring speakers, much like street tacos, can be a surprisingly good experience!


I love street tacos; it’s my go-to indulgence on weekends out here in LA. However I would never place them besides me in my HT. Those who support what you posted about up-firing gizmos are probably huge proponents of this concept themselves. I have a JBL 9.1 bar/ soundbar (with detachable satellites and those bouncy thingies) placed in my guest room, so I am “somewhat” aware of its potential…or lack thereof. However if am being sincere to my close buddies/relatives, I would strive to steer them in the right direction.

I see that you have certain constraints in your situation, so in that case I would have to appreciate your concerns and I really hope you are able to put together a system which meets or perhaps even exceeds your expectations.


----------



## MagnumX

I just ordered the Master & Commander DVD to strip its LFE track for my blu-ray dump (dump both to PCM and output to FLAC).  

I'm going to try moving the LFE track from Hellboy 2's original blu-ray to the DTS:X version as well (remux with ffmpeg command line). Who says this isn't an experimental hobby.... 

I plan to install 4 more on-ceiling speakers on either side of my steel beam box this month as a Top Middle array for a true Atmos alignment with the front/rear heights and use same said speakers in Auro-3D for a 4 speaker mono VOG array while retaining the side heights as a surround height array for DTS:X and Auro-3D. It should be fully compliant with the specs for all three formats at that point. No more doing Atmos "Top Middle" over Auro-3D surround height speakers.

I'd like to use a new 15-channel or higher processor to go fully discrete as the next audio step (other than new subwoofers). A Trinnov Altitude-16 would be perfect with 20-channel support and no restrictions on which Dolby speakers you can use (No Denon or Marantz AVR/AVP has support for ss#2, for example), but it's extremely expensive. 

15-channel plus Scatmos extraction just for ss#2 would be a more reasonable alternative. I was really rooting for the Monoprice HTP-1, but they still have supply problems and no DTS:X Pro. D&M's new top models would work, but they're $2500 and $3000 more than the HTP-1. That'd pay for a nice new projector and Silver Ticket screen. I might just wait awhile longer and see what comes next.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Magiclakez said:


> He kept insisting that he could sense the aircraft circling over his head which took him away from the on screen action and forced him to keep looking towards the ceiling. The problem is that he has stuffed an El Grande Burrito under his display along with 2 street tacos on his sides with Upfiring speakers.


Man, he has quite a small room. And with a lot of stuff in it. But yeah, that big boy sitting under his display...


----------



## mrtickleuk

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Man, he has quite a small room. And with a lot of stuff in it. But yeah, that big boy sitting under his display...


Links to save others searching


----------



## MagnumX

Imagine if he spent all that money on home theater instead of JUNK "collectables". 

I mean if you're going to do movie "collectibles" then do it right. PROPS! It's got to be classy, though, like say a nice bookshelf diorama that lights up from a remote control:



















Or the ARK shown in the kind of lighting it deserves.....










A Blade Runner 2049 display with some real classy drinks to go with all those lovely whiskey glasses from the movie.....










Maybe you just want to recreate the feel of the office of Dr. Channard from Hellraiser II? Oh wait! That middle box is OPEN!!!! 










Or maybe recreating the lit (open the door "key") mode of the Ahriman jewel in Conan The Destroyer.... 

















Or maybe a home theater bathroom with scented candles with a Fifth Element theme.....












The key is _classy displays_ not boxes full of _kitsch_.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Love the jewel from Conan the Destroyer!


----------



## petetherock

mrtickleuk said:


> Links to save others searching


Man after my own heart... and nope, I don't have props either... just an original 1979 poster framed, the rest are just 'junk' and I'm ok with it.
The room is filled with Billy bookcases stuffed with discs...


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I'm only planning a few props for my room. Its going to be themed though so everything needs to be at least somewhat connected to the theme.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Ugh. This is disappointing to hear


----------



## Magiclakez

Just finished watching Beast (Idris Elba) on Peacock. This is the 1st title on peacock to get a 4K/ Dolby vision grading. They had earlier launched Brian and Charles (a BFI production) in 4K/HDR10. Anyways it sounded quite awesome with neural -x engaged. The height effects and general ambience in the jungles were nicely represented.


----------



## hemiutut

Edit
The people at Creative have answered my query and no, the X3 and X4 do not process Atmos.

We will keep an eye on future releases.


Hi
I use the source pc and my query is to use a Creative X4 card as a processor and remove the Avr.

Can I use the X4 for a 5.1.2 setup?
If the X4 does not process Atmos, do you know of any that will work?

written with translator

Greetings


----------



## Gates

Well I love the junk in my theater room...


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Gates said:


> Well I love the junk in my theater room...
> 
> 
> View attachment 3346800
> 
> View attachment 3346801
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3346794
> 
> View attachment 3346793


I would consider all of that to be tastefully arranged.


----------



## eaayoung

What junk LOL? Hopefully your better half approves of those action figures.


----------



## niterida

How to improve your Atmos experience :










This was just a test with a little 12" car sub and sending just the LFE signal to it. It is directly above MLP so in the middle of all 4 Atmos speakers.
And it was amazing - I watched the basement scene from A Quiet Place and could still hear the directional cues of the footsteps but the overall effect of sounds from overhead was much improved
Plan is to upgrade it to a 20hz capable 15" sub and send just the mixed LF (below 80 or 100hz) from the 4 Atmos heights speakers.


----------



## squared80

niterida said:


> How to improve your Atmos experience :
> 
> This was just a test with a little 12" car sub and sending just the LFE signal to it. It is directly above MLP so in the middle of all 4 Atmos speakers.
> And it was amazing - I watched the basement scene from A Quiet Place and could still hear the directional cues of the footsteps but the overall effect of sounds from overhead was much improved
> Plan is to upgrade it to a 20hz capable 15" sub and send just the mixed LF (below 80 or 100hz) from the 4 Atmos heights speakers.


Don't know that I've seen that done before. Interesting to say the least...


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Imagine if he spent all that money on home theater instead of JUNK "collectables".
> 
> I mean if you're going to do movie "collectibles" then do it right. PROPS! It's got to be classy, though, like say a nice bookshelf diorama that lights up from a remote control:
> 
> The key is _classy displays_ not boxes full of _kitsch_.


You would hate my room then 😉


----------



## niterida

squared80 said:


> Don't know that I've seen that done before. Interesting to say the least...


i don't know of anyone else running a sub in their ceiling, at least not that I have seen on here.
I was planning on running 4 subs, one for each height. But then I realised I already had a hole in the ceiling for my failed Auro 3D VOG speaker setup and thought one sub directly overhead might be a better solution and i think i was right. 
So basically the 4 height speakers will go through 4 Minidsp inputs with a 80-100hz crossover. The 4 height speaker outputs will then go to the amp as normal, but the 4 LF outputs will be sent to a mixer and combined into one output for the sub.
Can't wait to get it setup properly


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> You would hate my room then 😉
> View attachment 3346909


Nah. It's symmetrically laid out, not just bookshelves of boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes of stuff. But that's a coincidence since I just got a helmet myself today. I have nowhere to display it at the moment in the home theater, though (thinking of on top of 2nd sub when I add it. It's sitting on my record player upstairs for now.... (obvious pain to move to use the turntable, but I've transferred my LPs so I don't use it that much directly anymore).

Click for larger photos:


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> i don't know of anyone else running a sub in their ceiling, at least not that I have seen on here.
> I was planning on running 4 subs, one for each height. But then I realised I already had a hole in the ceiling for my failed Auro 3D VOG speaker setup and thought one sub directly overhead might be a better solution and i think i was right.
> So basically the 4 height speakers will go through 4 Minidsp inputs with a 80-100hz crossover. The 4 height speaker outputs will then go to the amp as normal, but the 4 LF outputs will be sent to a mixer and combined into one output for the sub.
> Can't wait to get it setup properly


So the "cabinet" is the interior ceiling volume?


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> So the "cabinet" is the interior ceiling volume?


No - the driver is in an enclosure.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> i don't know of anyone else running a sub in their ceiling, at least not that I have seen on here.
> I was planning on running 4 subs, one for each height. But then I realised I already had a hole in the ceiling for my failed Auro 3D VOG speaker setup and thought one sub directly overhead might be a better solution and i think i was right.
> So basically the 4 height speakers will go through 4 Minidsp inputs with a 80-100hz crossover. The 4 height speaker outputs will then go to the amp as normal, but the 4 LF outputs will be sent to a mixer and combined into one output for the sub.
> Can't wait to get it setup properly


There is a theater tour Youthman did recently where they had a sub in their ceiling. But yeah, it seems to be super rare.

Have you done measurements yet to see how it affected the rooms sub reaponse? I wonder if a ceiling placement will be able to fix normally difficult problems.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> There is a theater tour Youthman did recently where they had a sub in their ceiling. But yeah, it seems to be super rare.
> 
> Have you done measurements yet to see how it affected the rooms sub reaponse? I wonder if a ceiling placement will be able to fix normally difficult problems.


Was that just an LFE sub ?
Mine is only being fed LF from the Height speakers.
No measurements done and won't be for ages since the setup is not yet complete.


----------



## squared80

NuSoardGraphite said:


> There is a theater tour Youthman did recently where they had a sub in their ceiling. But yeah, it seems to be super rare.


Yeah, I mean I've seen it done a few times. But to be used kind of like an overhead Atmos speaker is what I found interesting.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Was that just an LFE sub ?
> Mine is only being fed LF from the Height speakers.
> No measurements done and won't be for ages since the setup is not yet complete.


Are you planning on a VOG output too at some point or just 4 overheads? Or 6 overheads with dual mono Top Middle and the sub in-between?


----------



## mrtickleuk

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would consider all of that to be tastefully arranged.


Yes, it's not junk it's immaculate!


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Are you planning on a VOG output too at some point or just 4 overheads? Or 6 overheads with dual mono Top Middle and the sub in-between?


Just 4 heights with the central sub.


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> i don't know of anyone else running a sub in their ceiling, at least not that I have seen on here.
> I was planning on running 4 subs, one for each height. But then I realised I already had a hole in the ceiling for my failed Auro 3D VOG speaker setup and thought one sub directly overhead might be a better solution and i think i was right.
> So basically the 4 height speakers will go through 4 Minidsp inputs with a 80-100hz crossover. The 4 height speaker outputs will then go to the amp as normal, but the 4 LF outputs will be sent to a mixer and combined into one output for the sub.
> Can't wait to get it setup properly


I don't think any of the projects are documented here, but I've worked on several, and my Lab will have 2 ceiling mounted subs to test with.


----------



## Apgood

appelz said:


> I don't think any of the projects are documented here, but I've worked on several, and my Lab will have 2 ceiling mounted subs to test with.


To me "zone" subs, unless talking really large room are more about getting less capable speakers down to the main bass management crossover point. From that point I'd let the main sub / LFE drivers takeover.

Is that the type of thing you will test with or do you normally let then run as far down as they will go?

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

appelz said:


> I don't think any of the projects are documented here, but I've worked on several, and my Lab will have 2 ceiling mounted subs to test with.


But they will be playing the LE channel and crossed over signals from all speakers ?
Mine will be playing signal from just the height speakers.


Apgood said:


> To me "zone" subs, unless talking really large room are more about getting less capable speakers down to the main bass management crossover point. From that point I'd let the main sub / LFE drivers takeover.
> 
> Is that the type of thing you will test with or do you normally let then run as far down as they will go?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


Nope won't be doing that - no bass management in my room. 
All speakers will have a dedicated sub and LFE will only be sent to a separate dedicated LFE sub.


----------



## Apgood

niterida said:


> Nope won't be doing that - no bass management in my room.
> All speakers will have a dedicated sub and LFE will only be sent to a separate dedicated LFE sub.


Do you have a very large open space which results in the Schroeder Frequency being a lot lower than in your average 4 wall ht room?

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

Apgood said:


> Do you have a very large open space which results in the Schroeder Frequency being a lot lower than in your average 4 wall ht room?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


Nope - just a normal sized room - 6.25x4.3x2.7 (20x14x9 for the heathens  )


----------



## Apgood

niterida said:


> Nope - just a normal sized room - 6.25x4.3x2.7 (20x14x9 for the heathens  )


That case you'll probably want to how the LF from the different zones interacts to make sure you don't have any particularly nasty cancellations or peaks.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

I agree – because the physics of low frequencies are such that they combine and cancel (all frequencies do, it's just when they are 30 feet long, it's inevitable), we must work within that regime. The exception is if you don't have reflections, and I doubt any of us fall under that.


----------



## johnnyboy632

niterida said:


> How to improve your Atmos experience :
> 
> View attachment 3346900
> 
> 
> This was just a test with a little 12" car sub and sending just the LFE signal to it. It is directly above MLP so in the middle of all 4 Atmos speakers.
> And it was amazing - I watched the basement scene from A Quiet Place and could still hear the directional cues of the footsteps but the overall effect of sounds from overhead was much improved
> Plan is to upgrade it to a 20hz capable 15" sub and send just the mixed LF (below 80 or 100hz) from the 4 Atmos heights speakers.


I am seriously thinking about adding one also but on the fence whether to go through all the setting up stuffing around, extra equipment and the significant extra cost. Just worried about diminishing returns but I will if it’s going to give heights extra dimension and envelopement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## niterida

Apgood said:


> That case you'll probably want to how the LF from the different zones interacts to make sure you don't have any particularly nasty cancellations or peaks.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk





Soulburner said:


> I agree – because the physics of low frequencies are such that they combine and cancel (all frequencies do, it's just when they are 30 feet long, it's inevitable), we must work within that regime. The exception is if you don't have reflections, and I doubt any of us fall under that.


8 subs for the speaker outputs and 1 LFE sub (with 6 x 15" drivers) plus massive bass traps (6' across the corner, 3' deep and 9' tall) in the rear corners and large amount of absorption on the screen wall (almost full width of the room, 6" deep and 6" air gap) so I think I have the bass tamed. Its still a work in progress so no measurements yet but as soon as its completed I will measure it and report back


----------



## niterida

johnnyboy632 said:


> I am seriously thinking about adding one also but on the fence whether to go through all the setting up stuffing around, extra equipment and the significant extra cost. Just worried about diminishing returns but I will if it’s going to give heights extra dimension and envelopement
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Extra cost was for 8 short RCA cables, 4 RCA splitters, a mixer (I tried a passive one but you lose too much gain so have gone to a powered one), the sub and amp channel.
So not really expensive in the overall cost of a theatre. 
I am undecided whether to use an older powered sub I have that is only 30hz capable (which actually cost me nothing) or forge ahead with my 15" and DIY enclosure and external amp.
I will probably try the powered sub first just because I am a lazy cheapskate 

You can pick up a decent 12" sub for a hundred or two 2nd hand, $40 for RCA stuff and $60 for a mixer - could do it all for $200 ??


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> 8 subs for the speaker outputs and 1 LFE sub (with 6 x 15" drivers) plus massive bass traps (6' across the corner, 3' deep and 9' tall) in the rear corners and large amount of absorption on the screen wall (almost full width of the room, 6" deep and 6" air gap) so I think I have the bass tamed. Its still a work in progress so no measurements yet but as soon as its completed I will measure it and report back


Only one sub location for LFE? I would suggest spreading those out to get better bass quality.

I just don't like the idea of different subs for LFE and redirected bass. The frequencies are the same, but you can't calibrate them the same. The bass quality will vary depending on which path the signal took.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Only one sub location for LFE?


yes - its actually a HoverEZE so doesn't output much SPL and is right under me so no chance of having nulls anyway.


----------



## Soulburner

Ok, you are using the LFE signal only to activate the TR device. It makes more sense now. You are probably planning on running all speakers as Large, with LFE+Main. However, how will you connect the subs? The REL way?


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> But they will be playing the LE channel and crossed over signals from all speakers ?
> Mine will be playing signal from just the height speakers.
> 
> Nope won't be doing that - no bass management in my room.
> All speakers will have a dedicated sub and LFE will only be sent to a separate dedicated LFE sub.


I love the concept, but having only one sub potentially playing for any given signal will mean you aren't squashing any room modes whatsoever with the other subs under those conditions. 

With the new bass management coming out in the new D&M products (and some like Storm allow complete customization), you could at least have zones of multiple subs to hopefully deal with room modes while maintaining some locality (or "stereo" bass as it were). 

You might not have to worry about modes with the height overhead sub since it's going to be nearfield for the MLP, at least, but it's hard to imagine not getting superior results with multiple subs instead of individual ones.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Ok, you are using the LFE signal only to activate the TR device. It makes more sense now. You are probably planning on running all speakers as Large, with LFE+Main. However, how will you connect the subs? The REL way?


All speakers as large but not LFE +Main.
The subs will be connected via minidsp as a crossover to create a 3 way speaker at each location.


MagnumX said:


> I love the concept, but having only one sub potentially playing for any given signal will mean you aren't squashing any room modes whatsoever with the other subs under those conditions.
> 
> With the new bass management coming out in the new D&M products (and some like Storm allow complete customization), you could at least have zones of multiple subs to hopefully deal with room modes while maintaining some locality (or "stereo" bass as it were).
> 
> You might not have to worry about modes with the height overhead sub since it's going to be nearfield for the MLP, at least, but it's hard to imagine not getting superior results with multiple subs instead of individual ones.


Can't afford any new AVR, especially not one with DLBC.
Hopefully with multitude of LF sources (even if not playing exactly the same) and bass traps and my LFE sub almost in the middle of the room it should be ok. 
Will only really know once it is setup fully.
Currently only have LCR with connected subs but they only play to 30hz, and the LFE playing through 3 x15" open baffle drivers, all other speakers still set to large (except the heights as my AVP won't let me ) and no bass traps and my ears tell me it is pretty smooth bass. Time (and eventual measurements) will tell .......


----------



## petetherock

8 subs... wow
It's our male equivalent when asked if the bass is enough, the female answer for do they have enough shoes/bags/clothes...


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> All speakers as large but not LFE +Main.
> The subs will be connected via minidsp as a crossover to create a 3 way speaker at each location.


You have no way to get the LFE channel to your subs, and you won't play it from the speakers? What the heck am I missing about this franken setup?


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> Can't afford any new AVR


I find this curious considering a full set of towers large enough to replace subs, plus the thousands of watts of amplification needed to power them, likely costs more (potentially a *lot* more) than a normal setup.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> I find this curious considering a full set of towers large enough to replace subs, plus the thousands of watts of amplification needed to power them, likely costs more (potentially a *lot* more) than a normal setup.


Ya, talk about putting the cart before the horse lol


----------



## MagnumX

I'd be curious to hear the end result, personally. People use "Franken" around here too much. Having full range speakers used to be normal. DefTech has had towers with built-in subs for years and DIRAC's new system coming out would take full advantage of this arrangement. In fact, it's ideal for it.


----------



## appelz

Apgood said:


> To me "zone" subs, unless talking really large room are more about getting less capable speakers down to the main bass management crossover point. From that point I'd let the main sub / LFE drivers takeover.
> 
> Is that the type of thing you will test with or do you normally let then run as far down as they will go?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


You have the idea correct. Often, especially in rooms that are being updated and we want to avoid penetrating the acoustical isolation shell, the upper layer speakers end up being smaller than I would prefer. I want to thoroughly investigate a "best practice", what is critical, where the diminishing returns start, etc. 40Hz, 60Hz, the typical 80Hz, up to 150Hz even?? I have lots of anecdotal experience, having calibrated so many different rooms, but this will be set up in a way that some actual real data and preferences can be determined. I have my own expectations, so I will definitely be inviting others to participate. 

I also have a 32" sub to do the same with infrasonics, four 18" subs to keep the listening area smooth and consistent, and then a mess of EAW dual 8" cabinets so I can investigate the same interests for surrounds.


----------



## Gates

eaayoung said:


> What junk LOL? Hopefully your better half approves of those action figures.


She does, even though she said do whatever with your space.


----------



## Gates

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would consider all of that to be tastefully arranged.


Thank you!


----------



## Gates

niterida said:


> You would hate my room then 😉
> View attachment 3346909


Nice!


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> I find this curious considering a full set of towers large enough to replace subs, plus the thousands of watts of amplification needed to power them, likely costs more (potentially a *lot* more) than a normal setup.


I don't have towers - I have PA speakers that cost less than $100 ea (3 x powered), 8 x DIY subs for about $200 ea ($100 driver and $100 MDF) and secondhand amps to power them all for $800.
Thats $3500 plus the new Tonewinner processor at $1500 - so $5000 all up.
A new AVR here in Australia is about $4000 for 11 channels - $8-10000 for one with 13 channels and Dirac.


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> I don't have towers - I have PA speakers that cost less than $100 ea (3 x powered), 8 x DIY subs for about $200 ea ($100 driver and $100 MDF) and secondhand amps to power them all for $800.
> Thats $3500 plus the new Tonewinner processor at $1500 - so $5000 all up.
> A new AVR here in Australia is about $4000 for 11 channels - $8-10000 for one with 13 channels and Dirac.


True, but you get what you pay for...


----------



## tojohnso

Chirosamsung said:


> True, but you get what you pay for...


Eh - generally true of many things. But Audio - there are diminishing returns.


----------



## Gates

tojohnso said:


> Eh - generally true of many things. But Audio - there are diminishing returns.


To a certain extent...I have all towers in my 9.1.6 setup except for the rears because they have to be up higher in my setup. I had all bookshelf speakers before and there's no comparison at all. If you're talking going from your $100 speakers to $200 towers, then probably diminishing returns apply. But there wouldn't be any "diminishing returns" if you went to higher end tower speakers all around.


----------



## MagnumX

Gates said:


> To a certain extent...I have all towers in my 9.1.6 setup except for the rears because they have to be up higher in my setup. I had all bookshelf speakers before and there's no comparison at all. If you're talking going from your $100 speakers to $200 towers, then probably diminishing returns apply. But there wouldn't be any "diminishing returns" if you went to higher end tower speakers all around.


That's a bit like saying if you bought higher end bookshelves for $1000 each instead of $100 the law of diminishing returns might not apply. The problem is it literally has nothing to do with towers versus bookshelves, just higher quality speakers in general.

If your new towers are just deeper bass extension versions of high quality bookshelf speakers and if your bookshelves are already doing 50Hz and your towers do 30Hz and your crossover is 80Hz to your subs, there is going to be hardly any difference whatsoever if that's the only real difference in the design. That is why the new DIRAC that utilizes the deeper bass capability of towers is going to be monumentally better because right now, towers that only extend bass are only good for smoother crossovers to subs (they don't drop off a cliff like some bookshelf speakers, but bookshelf speakers that can play to 50Hz do much better than ones that only play to 70Hz or 80Hz).



Chirosamsung said:


> True, but you get what you pay for...


A higher bill? 

I mean seriously, do we need to start bashing DIY projects now around here to feel better about spending a lot of money? Some people are quite talented with DIY subwoofers in particular. What costs us $800-1000 to buy from a company might cost $200-300 to make ourselves. I bet there's a lot more satisfaction in doing it yourself too. 

Anyone can pay a pro $150k to built them a home theater and then come on here and become the next "home theater of the month" with tons of pictures and bragging all over the place when all they did was supply some money and someone else did all the work. I'm far more impressed with the builds people do themselves here. It's the difference between the record company picking out a pretty girl like Britney Spears and handing her songs to sing and a someone like Tori Amos that writes all her own music and plays piano at a professional level. One is a singer/dancer and the other is an artist.


----------



## robert600

I (finally) got a copy of Gravity with the Atmos soundtrack. You guys were sure right ... very nice use of Atmos.


----------



## Magiclakez

Yeah gravity (Diamond luxe Ed.) is on another level for showcasing what atmos can do if implemented properly. I have 2 copies of Gravity; one still sealed inside the shrink wrapping. Essentially a backup to the one which I watch quite frequently.

On another note, I watched Curse of bridge hollow on Netflix. The amount of overhead activity on this film is quite mind boggling. There is a particular scene featuring a giant spider crawling upside down on the ceiling, which literally sounded like a group of kids jumping on my roof. Wish other studios (with lavish budgets) would take a cue from this production. And yes, this Halloween themed film was quite enjoyable as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

robert600 said:


> I (finally) got a copy of Gravity with the Atmos soundtrack. You guys were sure right ... very nice use of Atmos.


If the 4k version doesn't show up soon, I'll have to track down the Diamond Luxe Edition. IMHO... it's an average film at best with dubious physics with an outstanding Atmos mix. That seems to be the case... great film, mediocre audio. Stupid film... awesome sound.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the 4k version doesn't show up soon, I'll have to track down the Diamond Luxe Edition. IMHO... it's an average film at best with dubious physics with an outstanding Atmos mix. That seems to be the case... great film, mediocre audio. Stupid film... awesome sound.


Though its not the physical disc, but the iTunes stream is available for around $7.99; at least that’s what I saw it listed at last month. The stream includes Dolby atmos. Of course the physical version is the definitive way to watch this, but I found the streamed version to be quite decent as well and almost gives you a similar experience.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Though its not the physical disc, but the iTunes stream is available for around $7.99; at least that’s what I saw it listed at last month. The stream includes Dolby atmos. Of course the physical version is the definitive way to watch this, but I found the streamed version to be quite decent as well and almost gives you a similar experience.


I wouldn't say _almost_. It's identical sounding. The definitive way, however is Atmos added/remuxed to the 3D version of the film. It's almost like an amusement park ride at that point. 

Of course, you need the discs for both to make it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Though its not the physical disc, but the iTunes stream is available for around $7.99; at least that’s what I saw it listed at last month. The stream includes Dolby atmos. Of course the physical version is the definitive way to watch this, but I found the streamed version to be quite decent as well and almost gives you a similar experience.


Thanks for the info. I would rather get the lossless track. The DD+ lossy version is JOC encoded, which is a lesser form of home Atmos.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I wouldn't say _almost_. It's identical sounding. The definitive way, however is Atmos added/remuxed to the 3D version of the film. It's almost like an amusement park ride at that point.
> 
> Of course, you need the discs for both to make it.


Yes it’s close, but I would still prefer to watch it via the physical disc (I have the digital version as well) as I feel there is more information available on the disc. YMMV.

Yes the 3D version (remuxed) would be amazing. Unfortunately I rarely watch 3D these days. I have over 55 3D titles. I still have the 65” Panasonic plasma (VT25 with 3D). My Plasma came with a special promotion; AVATAR on Blu-ray 3D Disc, two pairs of Panasonic 3D Eyewear and a Panasonic 3D Blu-ray Disc Player. I bought 2 additional pairs of eyewear later on, so I have a total of 4 pairs. 

I just wish Gravity gets a 4k release in the future.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> Thanks for the info. I would rather get the lossless track. The DD+ lossy version is JOC encoded, which is a lesser form of home Atmos.


I couldn’t agree more. Just keep looking, there are some good deals which appear every now and then.


----------



## niterida

robert600 said:


> I (finally) got a copy of Gravity with the Atmos soundtrack. You guys were sure right ... very nice use of Atmos.


how many hundreds did it cost you - can't believe how much they are selling for nowadays


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> how many hundreds did it cost you - can't believe how much they are selling for nowadays


Amazon Germany has the Atmos Deluxe version for as low as €59 used. They don't ship to the US on those used ones, though. I bought the UK Deluxe version when the US one was sold out for like $41 US a few years ago. I remuxed it with the 3D version as well as a 2D MKV and I simply don't need the 2D disc any longer. I'm almost tempted to sell it on eBay to fund more actually good movies. If it didn't have that Atmos soundtrack, I'd probably never watch it again (yes, it's _that_ bad. although the 3D video version helps make up for it further to some extent. Honestly, I'd probably rather watch Bruce Willis sing in Hudson Hawk....  ).

OTOH, if someone wants to watch a crappy god-awful movie with *unbelievable* *Atmos*, they should be watching "*Mother*". It blows Gravity's Atmos soundtrack away by a factor of about 100. Gravity has several inconsistencies in some of the panning bits (jump to a location and then pan, for example despite the film showing smooth video, but then I think Gravity uses the "snap to location" Atmos function in a few places so it may do better with actual front wide decoding or something). I think it's made out to be the be-all Atmos soundtrack and it's just a very good one. Quite frankly, even "Turbo" (animated snail movie) in 7.1 with Neural X is probably just as impressive sounding and more fun to watch (I wish the Auro-3D soundtrack version was available as the demo disc sample is very impressive, but Neural X does an incredible job with the 7.1 version).

I think one of the most impressive soundtracks I've heard in the past two years has to be _The Ice Road_ in Auro-3D. It has mind blowing ice breaking effects in the middle of the room (like all around you the audience member) and still has things like explosions directly overhead. Grab that and _Twister_ in Auro-3D (or Atmos if you can't decode Auro, but you lose 8dB dynamic range as the Atmos version is a "sound bar friendly" home mix while the Auro version is at theatrical dynamic range levels) and you're all set for an evening of mind blowing immersive audio.


----------



## petetherock

niterida said:


> how many hundreds did it cost you - can't believe how much they are selling for nowadays


Try looking for a 3D version of Avatar... ouch..
Or True Lies on Blu Ray..


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the 4k version doesn't show up soon, I'll have to track down the Diamond Luxe Edition. IMHO... it's an average film at best with dubious physics with an outstanding Atmos mix. That seems to be the case... great film, mediocre audio. Stupid film... awesome sound.


I would say Gravity is one of the few movies that would be classified as "above average" story and "excellent" atmos use


----------



## flyers10

petetherock said:


> Try looking for a 3D version of Avatar... ouch..
> Or True Lies on Blu Ray..


Avatar 3D is easy to find. I see it all the time in used movie stores and normal pricing around $15 to $20. Just saw 2 on Saturday.


----------



## Chirosamsung

How much can one expect to pay with shipping to get this Aura 3D version of twister including shipping to Canada and US??

plus read there is a twister sequel coming out-maybe that will have native atmos sound


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> How much can one expect to pay with shipping to get this Aura 3D version of twister including shipping to Canada and US??
> 
> plus read there is a twister sequel coming out-maybe that will have native atmos sound


Twister 2: Twisting The Night Away


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Chirosamsung said:


> I would say Gravity is one of the few movies that would be classified as "above average" story and "excellent" atmos use


Not that awards mean everything, but... Gravity was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, Best screenplay and best picture at the BAFTAs, won Motion Picture of the Year at the AFIs, etc. Cuaron won the best director Oscar for it. I'd say it was definitely not "average".


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> How much can one expect to pay with shipping to get this Aura 3D version of twister including shipping to Canada and US??
> 
> plus read there is a twister sequel coming out-maybe that will have native atmos sound


Turbine usually costs me around €35 shipped (less if I can combine shipping which is usually around €11 to the US. It looks like they have a slightly cheaper non-media book version for €22 right now. The Euro (and pound) is low against the dollar so it's a great time to import in the US, at least.

Link to both versions of Twister (Mediabook and Non-Media Book). Both have both Atmos and Auro-3D versions included in English:









Turbine-Shop







turbine-shop.de


----------



## Magiclakez

I don’t think gravity is an average movie either. There is a reason that aforementioned Blu-ray has an asking price of over $250 on the bay. Speaking of Twister; I have the dual Auro-3D/ Dolby atmos Blu-ray as well. However after watching Hurricane Heist 4k (Dolby atmos), I would have to say that it was a tad more impactful than twister. IMHO, this is what I would define as a bonafide crappy flick with reference level audio. But like with everything else in life…ymmv.


----------



## MagnumX

I'd say_ Gravity_ was a Gee Whiz, Walley!, we've never seen that technical feat before that is a bit of a snooze fest save a few action points on a 2nd watch (I can't imagine watching it a 3rd time). It's mostly Sandra Bullock whining, crying, screaming and breathing hard, which is not as much fun as it sounds.... It has utterly made up plot points that particularly ruined it for me for a "realistic" portrayal (like there being a Chinese Space Station to steal a ride home in a capsule on it in the shuttle era no less, but without it, she just dies in space so hey, making up nonsense in a "realistic" Sci-Fi film is A-OK!) and long periods of nothing going on, but said breathing. Watch the debris hit at 22 minutes in and I'm good to shut it back off again ten minutes later.

Personally, I'll take _The Maltese Falcon _or _Casablanca,_ despite the monophonic sound compared to sweet _sweet_ Atmos, any day of the week over it. But yes, YMMV as with most art it's utterly subjective.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Technodad's journey continues. He has now become convinced that you need 6 ceiling channels, Front Height, Top-Middles and Rear Height, to hear a proper upper soundstage in an atmos mix.






I came to this conclusion a couple of years back, which is why my dedicated room plans are for this exact setup (and to be able to use all three formats)


----------



## squared80

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Technodad's journey continues. He has now become convinced that you need 6 ceiling channels, Front Height, Top-Middles and Rear Height, to hear a proper upper soundstage in an atmos mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came to this conclusion a couple of years back, which is why my dedicated room plans are for this exact setup (and to be able to use all three formats)


Well... yeah. More speakers can give you a more immersive Atmos experience, also based on your room, equipment, and sound mixes. Not sure what his revelation was here? Pretty obvious.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

squared80 said:


> Well... yeah. More speakers can give you a more immersive Atmos experience, also based on your room, equipment, and sound mixes. Not sure what his revelation was here? Pretty obvious.


He, like a LOT of people, were just blindly trusting the dolby recommendations rather than experimenting and figuring out what works best in their room for their seating situation. It wasnt until he started mixing music in Atmos and playing the songs back on his two Atmos setups did he notice that they werent resolving in his system the way he intended when he mixed them. That started him down this rabbit hole.

How many people out there do you think will defend the default Atmos diagrams to the death because they cut holes in their ceiling to those spefications and its too much of a pain in the ass to change them?


----------



## MagnumX

squared80 said:


> Well... yeah. More speakers can give you a more immersive Atmos experience, also based on your room, equipment, and sound mixes. Not sure what his revelation was here? Pretty obvious.


That wasn't Sdurani (Sanjay)'s recommendation and many on here follow his advice like it's a law. He appears to hate 6 overhead speakers with a passion (all because RP1 will only use TM when that's exactly all it's supposed to use at home). Using 4 is an array, something most on here seem to despise (personally I've found arrays to be fantastic for spreading even distribution while increasing out-of-phase ambient sound, particularly with Auro-3D music recordings. I feel like I'm really there now using my extra Atmos speakers as arrayed sides/rears and Surround Height + Rear Height) in Auro mode.

I've been using six. If I'd just stop being lazy this week, I intended to move to 8 overhead (10 with Auro using Surround Height and 4 mono VOG array which is a 2-array TM to get around my steel beam box limitation blocking sound from only one set in either direction). I've got all the equipment now except for the wire molds to hide the wiring on the steel beam box (need to pick up 4 of those). I just need to install it. I keep thinking I'd like to hear Height + Tops instead, though (only way to get those to image truly correctly as it otherwise moves objects from one location to the other if not present), but that would mean I'd need a Trinnov or Storm level processor (or 6 Pro Logic processors for a Scatmos 10-speaker implementation, but I'd be concerned about noise adding up with so many divides, which is why Neural X does it digitally on DTS:X Pro). 

Really, the only way to get 70 (or better yet 60) degrees separation between all overhead pairs for the best phantom imaging requires a minimum of 6 overheads (30/90/150). 8 or 10 is better yet. In fact, with a full complement of ear-level speakers, you can get that layer down to 15 degrees between pairs and overheads (12 total including front/rear center over 180 degrees). That's some primo imaging possibilities there.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> That wasn't Sdurani (Sanjay)'s recommendation and many on here follow his advice like it's a law. He appears to hate 6 overhead speakers with a passion (all because RP1 will only use TM when that's exactly all it's supposed to use at home). Using 4 is an array, something most on here seem to despise (personally I've found arrays to be fantastic for spreading even distribution while increasing out-of-phase ambient sound, particularly with Auro-3D music recordings. I feel like I'm really there now using my extra Atmos speakers as arrayed sides/rears and Surround Height + Rear Height) in Auro mode.
> 
> I've been using six. If I'd just stop being lazy this week, I intended to move to 8 overhead (10 with Auro using Surround Height and 4 mono VOG array which is a 2-array TM to get around my steel beam box limitation blocking sound from only one set in either direction). I've got all the equipment now except for the wire molds to hide the wiring on the steel beam box (need to pick up 4 of those). I just need to install it. I keep thinking I'd like to hear Height + Tops instead, though (only way to get those to image truly correctly as it otherwise moves objects from one location to the other if not present), but that would mean I'd need a Trinnov or Storm level processor (or 6 Pro Logic processors for a Scatmos 10-speaker implementation, but I'd be concerned about noise adding up with so many divides, which is why Neural X does it digitally on DTS:X Pro).
> 
> Really, the only way to get 70 (or better yet 60) degrees separation between all overhead pairs for the best phantom imaging requires a minimum of 6 overheads (30/90/150). 8 or 10 is better yet. In fact, with a full complement of ear-level speakers, you can get that layer down to 15 degrees between pairs and overheads (12 total including front/rear center over 180 degrees). That's some primo imaging possibilities there.


8 height channels with 40° separation between them (30/70/110/150) would be plenty. And the Top-Front and Top-Rears would be close enough the phantom Top-Middles would work great.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Not that awards mean everything, but... Gravity was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, Best screenplay and best picture at the BAFTAs, won Motion Picture of the Year at the AFIs, etc. Cuaron won the best director Oscar for it. I'd say it was definitely not "average".


My point was it was a good movie, with great atmos. Some other dude said it wasn't even a good movie or it was average. I don't know what Gravity he watched lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Turbine usually costs me around €35 shipped (less if I can combine shipping which is usually around €11 to the US. It looks like they have a slightly cheaper non-media book version for €22 right now. The Euro (and pound) is low against the dollar so it's a great time to import in the US, at least.
> 
> Link to both versions of Twister (Mediabook and Non-Media Book). Both have both Atmos and Auro-3D versions included in English:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turbine-Shop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turbine-shop.de





MagnumX said:


> I'd say_ Gravity_ was a Gee Whiz, Walley!, we've never seen that technical feat before that is a bit of a snooze fest save a few action points on a 2nd watch (I can't imagine watching it a 3rd time). It's mostly Sandra Bullock whining, crying, screaming and breathing hard, which is not as much fun as it sounds.... It has utterly made up plot points that particularly ruined it for me for a "realistic" portrayal (like there being a Chinese Space Station to steal a ride home in a capsule on it in the shuttle era no less, but without it, she just dies in space so hey, making up nonsense in a "realistic" Sci-Fi film is A-OK!) and long periods of nothing going on, but said breathing. Watch the debris hit at 22 minutes in and I'm good to shut it back off again ten minutes later.
> 
> Personally, I'll take _The Maltese Falcon _or _Casablanca,_ despite the monophonic sound compared to sweet _sweet_ Atmos, any day of the week over it. But yes, YMMV as with most art it's utterly subjective.


Well, I guess everyone has opinions. Just think yours is in the vast minority regarding Gravity.









Gravity


Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first shuttle mission. Her commander is veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney), helming his last flight before retirement. Then, during a routine space walk by the pair, disaster strikes: The shuttle is destroyed, leaving...




www.rottentomatoes.com





if you aren't the type that thinks awards matter than maybe you are the type to think that the OVERWHELMING majority of BOTH
Critics AND average viewers.

you, my friend, are not the average viewer-you are in the vast minority on this one


----------



## mrvideo

petetherock said:


> Try looking for a 3D version of Avatar... ouch..


E-bay has copies for sale.


----------



## squared80

NuSoardGraphite said:


> How many people out there do you think will defend the default Atmos diagrams to the death because they cut holes in their ceiling to those spefications and its too much of a pain in the ass to change them?


Too many. But nobody who frequents these forums.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> How many people out there do you think will defend the default Atmos diagrams to the death


Which ones?


----------



## niterida

Chirosamsung said:


> Well, I guess everyone has opinions. Just think yours is in the vast minority regarding Gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity
> 
> 
> Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first shuttle mission. Her commander is veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney), helming his last flight before retirement. Then, during a routine space walk by the pair, disaster strikes: The shuttle is destroyed, leaving...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rottentomatoes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you aren't the type that thinks awards matter than maybe you are the type to think that the OVERWHELMING majority of BOTH
> Critics AND average viewers.
> 
> you, my friend, are not the average viewer-you are in the vast minority on this one


Minority yes, alone ? No - I too think it is an average movie at best.


----------



## petetherock

niterida said:


> Minority yes, alone ? No - I too think it is an average movie at best.


+1
Love the effects, some parts were exciting eg the initial accident, but it wasn't awesome.. just my personal opinion..


----------



## flyers10

niterida said:


> Minority yes, alone ? No - I too think it is an average movie at best.


Agree. I had the Diamond Luxe. I bought it for doing Atmos demos. Not a terrible movie, it just had no replay value for me. After I while I sold it and cashed out.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Well, I guess everyone has opinions. Just think yours is in the vast minority regarding Gravity.


Yes, yes, I know. My IQ is in the _vast minority_ as well, the 0.4 percentile to be precise. I had to learn to live with that. 

Seriously, think anything you want. Here's some more ammunition. I _hated_ Citizen Kane. It was a god-awful pretentious BORING movie that critics massively overrate due to it creating new technical standards for camera angles and the like. I appreciate what it did for cinematography, but that doesn't make the movie interesting to watch in the modern era. The actual _story_ was boring as watching paint dry and I don't know anyone that actually enjoys watching it yet we all keep _pretending_ it's the best movie ever made. Ridiculous. Rosebud.....!!!!! It's a sled. My god. Show us the answer and then spend an entire movie trying to figure out what the audience already knows. That destroyed any story it might have had. It's why Columbo didn't work. We already know who the killer is! Why even bother telling it? I liked the TV show Monk better. Even so, I could guess the killer faster than him half the time because the writers are predictable, just like most humans.

So what's actually "great" about Gravity beyond the special effects and Atmos soundtrack? It's essentially a 2-person version of _The Poseidon Adventure_ where not one, except _both_ people in the group are idiots. Clooney ends up dead because he _insists_ on collecting a dead body (using unbelievably precious fuel to do so) that he ends up just freaking dumping back at the space station anyway! It cost him his life in the movie. That's what you call a _moron_, folks. It would NEVER happen in real life. Astronauts aren't that stupid and are trained like military personal for emergency situations and not letting things like feelings get in the way. Sandra ignores the life/death warning at the beginning of the movie to stop working immediately. That would also would _never_ happen in real life. Professionals actually learn to follow directions, particularly when their lives are in danger. This wasn't about space tourism. There is also no Chinese Space Station (there is one on the drawing board, but it certainly didn't happen during the shuttle years). That means in real life Sandra was DEAD with no ifs, ands or buts about it. In short, I felt incredulous the entire movie. 

The sound was great. Of course, in reality there is no sound in space. They _sort of_ address that (you don't hear the collisions of space junk, for example) and yet we still have an Atmos soundtrack whipping around us with Sandra spinning on that shuttle arm around the audience as if there is sound in space (she'd hear her own sounds, but they wouldn't go around her, but _with_ her), while other things make no noise whatsoever. Artistic license? That's what they always say about inaccurate portrayals of sound in space, but it still makes me go "hmmmmm" every time I see it. 

The story? What story? Space debris takes out space station and strands two people in space. They waste precious fuel and time arguing and doing stupid things until one is dead and the other almost dies and then hallucinates and then arrives on a space station that doesn't exist and somehow escapes and lands in a puddle. No one shows to rescue her on the beach. Nothing is tied up despite talking about her family for an hour and half to the audience and her imaginary dead astronaut friend. Oh boy. 

Dialog? Sandra whining and crying like a baby for an hour and a half. Superlative! Très fantastique! Wunderbar!

You see an _awesome_ movie. I see one-view _spectacle_. It is somewhat entertaining the first time due to that spectacle...mostly. 

A much better version of this kind of spectacle that is believable (being based on a true story) is called Apollo 13 and it's available in DTS:X.



> if you aren't the type that thinks awards matter than maybe you are the type to think that the OVERWHELMING majority of BOTH
> Critics AND average viewers.


Marvel movies are really _really_ popular, but you're never going to convince me that any of the _Thor_ movies (serious or comical) are better than _Casablanca_ in the grand scheme of things. Most people think the "box" that people need to think "out of" is actually a box or perhaps even a dark cave (Plato), when it's actually a big grocery bag labeled, "How to Serve Man" or something like that according to a Twilight Zone episode I once saw. 

I don't really pay attention to critics or awards anymore. How _do_ they determine _critical_ awards lately? Is it still purely merit based or has it, like everything else, been changed to be more _equity_ based? Like golf and bowling, do we award handicap points if a person or group hasn't won anything in a long time?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> My point was it was a good movie, with great atmos. Some other dude said it wasn't even a good movie or it was average. I don't know what Gravity he watched lol


I did not get into the film. It really didn't do anything for me and I usually like Cuaron's work and kinetic visual style. Not everyone enjoys the movies you do and vice versa.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Which ones?


The typical 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 diagram most people seem to default to.









They see that diagram, think thats how it has to be done and cut holes in their ceiling without investigating their options. 

Whats worse is that this is what *custom installers* default to and they dont seem to ever inform their customers of their options. Only if the room has limitations and they have to deviate from this default.

That aint good.


----------



## MagnumX

I recently bought the DVD version of *Master & Commander* (ended up being an unopened limited edition "Collector's Edition" with a map and other goodies inside including a track name listing so I could give the chapter titles names on the final file) and extracted the DTS LFE track, converted to PCM and extracted all the tracks from the Blu-Ray DTS-HD MA tracks to PCM. I then deleted the LFE track from the BD in Audacity and substituted the LFE track from the DVD version with much deeper bass extensions (These two DTS tracks are different bitrates so you can't just recombine). Unbelievably, for being far apart in release, they were already lined up (no delays needed). I then output to multi-track 5.1 FLAC and remuxed it into the Blu-Ray video with options for DVD DTS or BD DTS as alternative for comparison. BINGO! 

I now have the lossless Master & Commander soundtrack with the DVD DTS extended deep bass LFE track instead (NO BEQ needed). It's the best _possible_ version of the soundtrack you can have right now and pretty simple to do. I play it off my Nvidia Shield with KODI in my home theater in Neural X.

If I can find out how to manually remux just the LFE track with FFMPEG, I think I can just substitute the LFE track from the original BD version of Hellboy 2 to the DTS:X version of the soundtrack. Since the meta data for other channels has nothing to do with the LFE track itself, it should work to restore the deep bass on that one without using BEQ.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The typical 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 diagram most people seem to default to.
> ...
> 
> *That aint good.*


It's not? That looks like a LOT of options baked into that diagram. 30-55 degrees is a lot of range overhead (30 may or may not be on the ceiling in a given room). If you're going to do 6 overheads, you can lower 30 to 20 or even 15 degrees if you want/need to for some reason or the other. 

90-110 for sides, 135-150 for rears. I agree 100% with all of those numbers. I don't see the issue here for a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 setup. You can add TM to it without any issues as well and FW as well. The numbers for angles only really start to change when you add a lot more speakers, which most people aren't going to do. True, I vastly prefer the Trinnov layout guide, particularly for making adjustments for the room and off-axis seating and overall for doing a "room based" alignment instead of an MLP one, but they still agree on most of the basics.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The typical 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 diagram most people seem to default to.
> View attachment 3348426
> 
> 
> They see that diagram, think thats how it has to be done and cut holes in their ceiling without investigating their options.
> 
> Whats worse is that this is what *custom installers* default to and they dont seem to ever inform their customers of their options. Only if the room has limitations and they have to deviate from this default.
> 
> That aint good.


Did you miss all the discussion recently about why not to follow the home diagram?

You were referring to people defending it "to the death", which would refer to people on forums here (because suburbia really doesn't care about this stuff).

I'm sure there are a few, but many seem to be understanding the angle-based layout of "don't leave gaping holes in your surround sound".


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Did you miss all the discussion recently about why not to follow the home diagram?
> 
> You were referring to people defending it "to the death", which would refer to people on forums here (because suburbia really doesn't care about this stuff).
> 
> I'm sure there are a few, but many seem to be understanding the angle-based layout of "don't leave gaping holes in your surround sound".


Yes, here on AVS Forums there's more discussion of this type. But even here there's a lot of resistance against deviating from.the standard diagrams. And woe to those who dare choose heights over tops for Atmos.

In other places, there's a lot more resistance. I see it a lot in the Facebook groups and in the comments on Youtube.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> It's not? That looks like a LOT of options baked into that diagram. 30-55 degrees is a lot of range overhead (30 may or may not be on the ceiling in a given room). If you're going to do 6 overheads, you can lower 30 to 20 or even 15 degrees if you want/need to for some reason or the other.


Thats the maddening part. There *are *multiple options built into that diagram, but most people default to the 45°/135° because thats where the boxes are in the diagram and its *bolded*. Obviously that means its what you are supposed to do, duh!



> 90-110 for sides, 135-150 for rears. I agree 100% with all of those numbers. I don't see the issue here for a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 setup. You can add TM to it without any issues as well and FW as well. The numbers for angles only really start to change when you add a lot more speakers, which most people aren't going to do. True, I vastly prefer the Trinnov layout guide, particularly for making adjustments for the room and off-axis seating and overall for doing a "room based" alignment instead of an MLP one, but they still agree on most of the basics.


Oh no! 90° isnt right! Those are *REARS*, they are supposed to be behind you. Everyone knows that! Its weird though because I was setting my living room up for 5.1 and I plugged my speakers into the Rear Surround posts on my receiver, yet wasnt getting any sound out. I think my receiver is broken! (That was a real conversation I had with someone in a Facebook group)

the angles are important, but so is the angular separation as well as the position relative to the seating area (not just the sweet spot). We want as evenly spaced and equidistant speaker placement as reasonably possible for our room and seating arrangement.

The diagrams almost always show the seating position further from the front soundstage than from the rear soundstage. Because of this, people are coming to the conclusion that you need Wide channels to bridge the gap between the front and rear soundstages moreso than you need 6 height channels. They set it up and then get mad when they find out half the soundtracks ignore the Wides completely. The point here is that they wouldnt *need* the Wides if they set up their seating area in a space where the side surrounds can be placed *equidistant *from both the front and rear soundstages. No more gap that requires Wide channels to fill. How many people who are limited to 13 channels, think of that solution so they can use 6 height channels over 9 ground channels? Not many. (Understandable if mounting a bigger screen so you need to sit further back. That is a common scenario which necessitates Wide channels over extra Heights.

another common scenario that people dont often think about is the combination of Front Height + Top-Middle channels. A good solution for those who want 4 ceiling channels but whose theater is small enough that their seating is against or near a back wall, preventing the use of both rear surrounds and rear height/top channels. A lot of times, people will suggest that they stick to using Top-Middle only. Some even say they tried doing Top-Front and Top-Middle together but their receiver wouldnt let them. You suggest Front Height + Top-Middle (which the receiver *will *do) but for some reason these people think Front Height speakers are "out of spec" for Atmos. When a cursory search through Dolby material will prove otherwise.


----------



## priitv8

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Technodad's journey continues. He has now become convinced that you need 6 ceiling channels, Front Height, Top-Middles and Rear Height, to hear a proper upper soundstage in an atmos mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came to this conclusion a couple of years back, which is why my dedicated room plans are for this exact setup (and to be able to use all three formats)


I also watched his other video on the same topic. I find it quite interesting question and keep wondering if/how is Atmos renderer imaging behind the top speakers (marked with crosses on TechnoDad's video?
It may have relationship on how does Atmos renderer image objects at infinity?
Or does this image have a flaw in the logic?



  





Dolby Atmos: In-Ceiling vs Height Speaker! Which is better for your setup? Let's test it out!


----------



## Chirosamsung

niterida said:


> Minority yes, alone ? No - I too think it is an average movie at best.


Great well 80-96% of Critics and average viewers find it a very good movie.
Not every movie will be unanimously acclaimed-but by and large-Gravity was

and to our bonus: it has an excellent atmos track too

that combination is pretty rare as far as atmos discs go


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Yes, yes, I know. My IQ is in the _vast minority_ as well, the 0.4 percentile to be precise. I had to learn to live with that.
> 
> Seriously, think anything you want. Here's some more ammunition. I _hated_ Citizen Kane. It was a god-awful pretentious BORING movie that critics massively overrate due to it creating new technical standards for camera angles and the like. I appreciate what it did for cinematography, but that doesn't make the movie interesting to watch in the modern era. The actual _story_ was boring as watching paint dry and I don't know anyone that actually enjoys watching it yet we all keep _pretending_ it's the best movie ever made. Ridiculous. Rosebud.....!!!!! It's a sled. My god. Show us the answer and then spend an entire movie trying to figure out what the audience already knows. That destroyed any story it might have had. It's why Columbo didn't work. We already know who the killer is! Why even bother telling it? I liked the TV show Monk better. Even so, I could guess the killer faster than him half the time because the writers are predictable, just like most humans.
> 
> So what's actually "great" about Gravity beyond the special effects and Atmos soundtrack? It's essentially a 2-person version of _The Poseidon Adventure_ where not one, except _both_ people in the group are idiots. Clooney ends up dead because he _insists_ on collecting a dead body (using unbelievably precious fuel to do so) that he ends up just freaking dumping back at the space station anyway! It cost him his life in the movie. That's what you call a _moron_, folks. It would NEVER happen in real life. Astronauts aren't that stupid and are trained like military personal for emergency situations and not letting things like feelings get in the way. Sandra ignores the life/death warning at the beginning of the movie to stop working immediately. That would also would _never_ happen in real life. Professionals actually learn to follow directions, particularly when their lives are in danger. This wasn't about space tourism. There is also no Chinese Space Station (there is one on the drawing board, but it certainly didn't happen during the shuttle years). That means in real life Sandra was DEAD with no ifs, ands or buts about it. In short, I felt incredulous the entire movie.
> 
> The sound was great. Of course, in reality there is no sound in space. They _sort of_ address that (you don't hear the collisions of space junk, for example) and yet we still have an Atmos soundtrack whipping around us with Sandra spinning on that shuttle arm around the audience as if there is sound in space (she'd hear her own sounds, but they wouldn't go around her, but _with_ her), while other things make no noise whatsoever. Artistic license? That's what they always say about inaccurate portrayals of sound in space, but it still makes me go "hmmmmm" every time I see it.
> 
> The story? What story? Space debris takes out space station and strands two people in space. They waste precious fuel and time arguing and doing stupid things until one is dead and the other almost dies and then hallucinates and then arrives on a space station that doesn't exist and somehow escapes and lands in a puddle. No one shows to rescue her on the beach. Nothing is tied up despite talking about her family for an hour and half to the audience and her imaginary dead astronaut friend. Oh boy.
> 
> Dialog? Sandra whining and crying like a baby for an hour and a half. Superlative! Très fantastique! Wunderbar!
> 
> You see an _awesome_ movie. I see one-view _spectacle_. It is somewhat entertaining the first time due to that spectacle...mostly.
> 
> A much better version of this kind of spectacle that is believable (being based on a true story) is called Apollo 13 and it's available in DTS:X.
> 
> 
> 
> Marvel movies are really _really_ popular, but you're never going to convince me that any of the _Thor_ movies (serious or comical) are better than _Casablanca_ in the grand scheme of things. Most people think the "box" that people need to think "out of" is actually a box or perhaps even a dark cave (Plato), when it's actually a big grocery bag labeled, "How to Serve Man" or something like that according to a Twilight Zone episode I once saw.
> 
> I don't really pay attention to critics or awards anymore. How _do_ they determine _critical_ awards lately? Is it still purely merit based or has it, like everything else, been changed to be more _equity_ based? Like golf and bowling, do we award handicap points if a person or group hasn't won anything in a long time?


I agree-it's not about awards alone or consensus alone

HT when a movie has BOTH awards AND critics and user consensus, it's USUALLY a pretty good movie

Regarding your Marvel analogy:

I like marvel-but they ain't winning awards!
And thor: Ragnarok was really good. But as a HUGE Thor fan, I'll admit 3/4 thor movies were not good at all. I can be objective too 

The take home is: if someone is looking for atmos movies to demo that are also widely considered good then Gravity fits that bills. Obviously we have different tastes.

unfortunatly MOST (not all) atmos recommendations for demo have neither awards nor rotten tomatoes above 50 (which means it's not considered any good by MOST of the people viewing it).

in that case I'd rather just recommend watching the Dolby amaze demo on loop to show off than suffer through a terrible movie just to hear my ceiling speakers howl for more than 5-10 min of a movie


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

priitv8 said:


> I also watched his other video on the same topic. I find it quite interesting question and keep wondering if/how is Atmos renderer imaging behind the top speakers (marked with crosses on TechnoDad's video?
> It may have relationship on how does Atmos renderer image objects at infinity?
> Or does this image have a flaw in the logic?


The areas marked with X become the angular area where sounds are steered when between layers. The Atmos renderer in home AVRs (barring something like a Trinnov) doesn't map based on the room, and this was Dolby's general solution to match sounds steered for a larger space to a smaller home space, from a ceiling height perspective. It also keeps the angles generally optimal for cross-channel steering on the vertical based on our hearing (since vertical imaging between two speakers tends to fall apart as you near 60 degrees of separation) so that you still get good overhead steering within the bounds of the spatial resolution we perceive in that region. At least when only using 4 speakers for height.


----------



## sdurani

priitv8 said:


> I find it quite interesting question and keep wondering if/how is Atmos renderer imaging behind the top speakers (marked with crosses on TechnoDad's video?


The renderer cannot image beyond the speaker. If you want height info to be heard from the back edge of the ceiling, you need to put speakers there.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Another video from Technodad where he explains his conclusion that 6 height channels is optimal.


----------



## robert600

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Another video from Technodad where he explains his conclusion that 6 height channels is optimal.


Difficult to watch. ADHD or what?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

robert600 said:


> Difficult to watch. ADHD or what?


He is definitely a bit animated.


----------



## tojohnso

This negative talk about Sandra Bullock and Gravity.....they are just fightin' words right there. Sandy's my girl, man!!! My girl!  

I thought the movie was good and sound good as well. My setup is a 5.1.2 with the .2 set as top middle. And not just because Sandy in it. 

Hey - Passengers was on cable the other day. Came in to it about 30 minutes in. Jennifer Lawrence.....damn good movie. Nice sound, but Jennifer looked very nice in that one.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Thats the maddening part. There *are *multiple options built into that diagram, but most people default to the 45°/135° because thats where the boxes are in the diagram and its *bolded*. Obviously that means its what you are supposed to do, duh!


Did you take a poll to find this out? I think most people who aren't building rooms from scratch probably fit the speakers as best they can with the room limitations and layout. My front height speakers are 23 degrees sitting up and 26 degrees reclined. They were 30 degrees originally, but I moved my chair back a little bit. And therein lies an issue. If you move, change or even recline your seats, the numbers will change again relative to the seating. That's why I recommend the Trinnov alignment guide as it's ROOM BASED (which I did anyway based on the cinema version before I even saw it). 

My front/rear heights are at the front/rear of the room above the mains/rears. The Surround Heights are above the surrounds (Auro layout) and my new Top Middle Array will be on either side of the steel beam box (arrayed center in line with surround height, but individual alignment might be 100 degrees or 95; I haven't decided yet). The alignment will then be in front of and above for the 2nd row for Top Middle (giving it an effective 80-85 degrees in all likelihood for those seats). Surround Heights will remain where they are for Auro-3D and/or DTS:X set to be a copy of the rear heights at -3dB, which simulates Top Middle quite effectively even without it and with VOG using 4-mono array with the Top Middle speakers, that will give a nice booming central region as well as being above surround height and forward/backward of it for the 1st/2nd row. I'll be curious to hear it. I've been busy/lazy doing other things this week, though, but I've got everything now but the wire molds to proceed (4 speakers, rolls of wire and banana connectors along with a Monoprice impedance matching box to play 2 sets as an array with two inputs (Top Middle or VOG).



> Oh no! 90° isnt right! Those are *REARS*, they are supposed to be behind you. Everyone knows that!


Um. Dolby says quite plainly 90-110 for a 7.1 layout. 90 is to your side. They're only recommended to absolutely be behind you in a 5.1 setup. I'd even put them slightly in front of me if it improved separation with the rears or combatted some other issue (I've got front wides to do that; as an array I can move the "phantom side" anywhere between front wide and 110 degrees just by changing the relative mix of side level.



> Its weird though because I was setting my living room up for 5.1 and I plugged my speakers into the Rear Surround posts on my receiver, yet wasnt getting any sound out. I think my receiver is broken! (That was a real conversation I had with someone in a Facebook group)


The manual is pretty clear if you read it.



> the angles are important, but so is the angular separation as well as the position relative to the seating area (not just the sweet spot). We want as evenly spaced and equidistant speaker placement as reasonably possible for our room and seating arrangement.


Trinnov recommends that sort of thing if the angles don't work out, particularly for multi-row. Even Dolby implies it in their directions for a 34-speaker layout. You end up with 15 degrees between all speakers save Tops to Top Middle (diagram still implies 20-45 and 45-55 when 30/60/90/120/160 would be more symmetrical). 



> The diagrams almost always show the seating position further from the front soundstage than from the rear soundstage. Because of this, people are coming to the conclusion that you need Wide channels to bridge the gap between the front and rear soundstages moreso than you need 6 height channels. They set it up and then get mad when they find out half the soundtracks ignore the Wides completely. The point here is that they wouldnt *need* the Wides if they set up their seating area in a space where the side surrounds can be placed *equidistant *from both the front and rear soundstages. No more gap that requires Wide channels to fill. How many people who are limited to 13 channels, think of that solution so they can use 6 height channels over 9 ground channels? Not many. (Understandable if mounting a bigger screen so you need to sit further back. That is a common scenario which necessitates Wide channels over extra Heights.


That's why I recommend people read the Wendy Carlos QUAD/SURROUND site. It gives excellent information into how surround sound actually works and how front/rear do not image the same to the human brain. She recommends no more than 70 degrees between any set of speakers (at least in the azimuth direction; I'm not sure overhead elevation behaves quite the same). Trinnov recommends 60 degrees maximum when possible. PotaTOE/PoTOTo.... 



> another common scenario that people dont often think about is the combination of Front Height + Top-Middle channels. A good solution for those who want 4 ceiling channels but whose theater is small enough that their seating is against or near a back wall, preventing the use of both rear surrounds and rear height/top channels. A lot of times, people will suggest that they stick to using Top-Middle only. Some even say they tried doing Top-Front and Top-Middle together but their receiver wouldnt let them. You suggest Front Height + Top-Middle (which the receiver *will *do) but for some reason these people think Front Height speakers are "out of spec" for Atmos. When a cursory search through Dolby material will prove otherwise.


Hey, I've been preaching that since I got here. I agree. People are biased against Heights here, but back then 6 overheads were uncommon. 6 with Tops is almost a waste in some respects (still anchors center point, though). Personally, I'd prefer a full *TEN* rendered overheads (with Tops + TM used as VOG for Auro), but it's pretty pricey and that's a lot of overhead speakers to mount (especially with my steel beam box need 4 Top Middle speakers to put them in the correct location relative to height/width placement for the MLP). 

The thing is overall, I think we don't necessarily have to worry about what "other" people do with their home theaters. You put the information out for them to consider and if they go with 45/-45 Tops, so be it. It does have the advantage of having more sounds directly overhead, which frankly is more impressive to newbies (whereas I find wall-to-wall/ceiling edge-to-ceiling edge more impressive sounding with no "gaps" in the 180 degree *dome* (tired of people calling it a bubble when a bubble would have floor speakers too).


----------



## MagnumX

Meanwhile, Darth has found a new body and is now:

* DARTH SUBWOOFER! *​
(black cushion to absorb vibration and anchor it from moving plus light puck to change its eyes and mouth visor in the dark). Of course it can all be turned off with a push of a single remote button (all the prop lights).

Now if I could just get a little voice box / speaker combo and then I'll get him to say:

Your Bass is weak old man! You don't know the full power of the Deep Side!​


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> 180 degree *dome*


That would be a hemisphere


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> That would be a hemisphere


Or a half a grapefruit. 😋


----------



## MagnumX

Actually, I just found a nice little proximity sensor with speaker and playback to add to Darth Subwoofer (above post). I plan to have it say one of these things if you walk too close:










*Your bass is weak old man! 
I find your lack of bass disturbing!
You don't know the power of the Deep Side!
When I left you, I was just the Vader. Now I am the subwoofer!
No Luke. I am your subwoofer!
I am altering the bass. Pray I do not alter it further!
Don't be too proud of this home theater you've constructed. It is no match for the power of the Deep Side!
What is thy movie, my master?
From my point of view, soundbars are my enemy!
The Atmos circle is now complete.
The bass is with you, but you are not a subwoofer yet!

*


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Actually, I just found a nice little proximity sensor with speaker and playback to add to Darth Subwoofer (above post). I plan to have it say one of these things if you walk too close:
> 
> View attachment 3348855
> 
> 
> *Your bass is weak old man!
> I find your lack of bass disturbing!
> You don't know the power of the Deep Side!
> When I left you, I was just the Vader. Now I am the subwoofer!
> No Luke. I am your subwoofer!
> I am altering the bass. Pray I do not alter it further!
> Don't be too proud of this home theater you've constructed. It is no match for the power of the Deep Side!
> What is thy movie, my master?
> From my point of view, soundbars are my enemy!
> The Atmos circle is now complete.
> The bass is with you, but you are not a subwoofer yet!
> 
> *


May the Farce Be With You


----------



## squared80

MagnumX said:


> Actually, I just found a nice little proximity sensor with speaker and playback to add to Darth Subwoofer (above post). I plan to have it say one of these things if you walk too close:
> 
> View attachment 3348855
> 
> 
> *Your bass is weak old man!
> I find your lack of bass disturbing!
> You don't know the power of the Deep Side!
> When I left you, I was just the Vader. Now I am the subwoofer!
> No Luke. I am your subwoofer!
> I am altering the bass. Pray I do not alter it further!
> Don't be too proud of this home theater you've constructed. It is no match for the power of the Deep Side!
> What is thy movie, my master?
> From my point of view, soundbars are my enemy!
> The Atmos circle is now complete.
> The bass is with you, but you are not a subwoofer yet!
> 
> *


Please add 'May the Schwartz be with you."


----------



## MagnumX

squared80 said:


> Please add 'May the Schwartz be with you."


That was Yogurt, but it might be funny to hear a Darth Vader voice say it. Dark Helmet has some funny quotes too.


----------



## nitz369

Just upgraded to an Atmos AVR finally. Been running a 5.1 system forever, but it is time to add more speakers. The Surround R and Surround L are B&W bookshelf speakers hanging from the ceiling about 3 ft behind MLP angled toward MLP. Reading a lot of Atmos stuff and the easiest thing I can do to add more would be Front Heights.

Do the way my Surround R&L speakers hang from the ceiling affect what I should be considering for Atmos speaker placement? Will I gain some object based imaging with front heights? My surrounds are essentially in the same place and rear heights would be.


----------



## niterida

nitz369 said:


> Just upgraded to an Atmos AVR finally. Been running a 5.1 system forever, but it is time to add more speakers. The Surround R and Surround L are B&W bookshelf speakers hanging from the ceiling about 3 ft behind MLP angled toward MLP. Reading a lot of Atmos stuff and the easiest thing I can do to add more would be Front Heights.
> 
> Do the way my Surround R&L speakers hang from the ceiling affect what I should be considering for Atmos speaker placement? Will I gain some object based imaging with front heights? My surrounds are essentially in the same place and rear heights would be.


Well the first thing you have to do is either move your surrounds down to ear level or repurpose them as Top Rear Atmos speakers.
For Atmos to work properly you need your 5 ear level speakers to be at ear level and separated from your height speakers.
Read this : The Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical...


----------



## MagnumX

How many people over the years have asked about Atmos using existing ceiling surround speakers? It's almost like the entire concept of Atmos adding overhead speakers doesn't register.

OTOH, given Dolby themselves for decades, no less, told everyone to put surround speakers 6' off the floor (i.e. Overhead) or on/in the ceiling if necessary, can you really blame them? Who creates a standard and then craps all over it themselves?

This (see attached picture below) doesn't help either as it makes no sense in that regard either, but it's what Dolby still pushes and every last "expert" on here agrees with 100% on one hand (to not look stupid because that's Dolby's own cinema recommendations), yet attacks every newb on here who asks if they can essentially do the same thing at home.

Let's face it, Dolby has a few screws loose. Their cinema Atmos standard is GARBAGE. Almost ZERO separation between "ear level" and ceiling!!!










So yes, yes you can have ceiling speakers and old overhead surround speakers combined with Atmos. Why not? That's _exactly_ what Dolby does at their movie theaters. No wonder Atmos sounds better at home.... 

And Auro-3D couldn't beat the pants off this at the theater level? 










Just like Atmos except there are lower surround speakers on top of those higher ones just below the ceiling.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> How many people over the years have asked about Atmos using existing ceiling surround speakers? It's almost like the entire concept of Atmos adding overhead speakers doesn't register.
> 
> OTOH, given Dolby themselves for decades, no less, told everyone to put surround speakers 6' off the floor (i.e. Overhead) or on/in the ceiling if necessary, can you really blame them? Who creates a standard and then craps all over it themselves?
> 
> This (see attached picture below) doesn't help either as it makes no sense in that regard either, but it's what Dolby still pushes and every last "expert" on here agrees with 100% on one hand (to not look stupid because that's Dolby's own cinema recommendations), yet attacks every newb on here who asks if they can essentially do the same thing at home.
> 
> Let's face it, Dolby has a few screws loose. Their cinema Atmos standard is GARBAGE. Almost ZERO separation between "ear level" and ceiling!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, yes you can have ceiling speakers and old overhead surround speakers combined with Atmos. Why not? That's _exactly_ what Dolby does at their movie theaters. No wonder Atmos sounds better at home....
> 
> And Auro-3D couldn't beat the pants off this at the theater level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Atmos except there are lower surround speakers on top of those higher ones just below the ceiling.


It almost seems to me as if Dolby originally designed the Atmos cinema standard less for "height effects" and more simply to fill in the space between the side and rear surrounds so sounds can move _seamlessly _across the theater.

earlier tonight, I went to go see Black Adam, and there were a lot of flying scenes in the film. At several points in the movie, characters or vehicles fly across the room diagonally, and the sound starts in the front left and ends in the back right but it doesnt travel around the audience, it travels *across *the audience above our heads. Thing is, this theater didnt have Atmos, but still did a decent job of sounding like the sound travelled above us. In this theater, the surrounds actually werent super high up on the wall. Maybe 7 or 8 feet above the audiences head. Plenty to simulate height when appropriate.

With that in mind, placing speakers on the ceiling would improve the systems ability to reproduce sounds crossing the space between the side speakers. Used in that way, the separation isnt required. They _should _be closer together to facility smoother pans across rather than around.


----------



## Wardog555

nitz369 said:


> Just upgraded to an Atmos AVR finally. Been running a 5.1 system forever, but it is time to add more speakers. The Surround R and Surround L are B&W bookshelf speakers hanging from the ceiling about 3 ft behind MLP angled toward MLP. Reading a lot of Atmos stuff and the easiest thing I can do to add more would be Front Heights.
> 
> Do the way my Surround R&L speakers hang from the ceiling affect what I should be considering for Atmos speaker placement? Will I gain some object based imaging with front heights? My surrounds are essentially in the same place and rear heights would be.


Yes it will interfere as there's not enough seperation between the base layer surrounds and the atmos overhead channels. They need to be near ear level.

After all Dolby atmos adds overhead speakers in addition to the base layer. And if the base layer is too high you won't get the benifit of such.

It's why I have my surrounds almost at ear level and it gives full atmos as intended! Even before when I had 5.1 they still at the same place as intended.

Do you find them too high already or does the sound come from around ear level?


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It almost seems to me as if Dolby originally designed the Atmos cinema standard less for "height effects" and more simply to fill in the space between the side and rear surrounds so sounds can move _seamlessly _across the theater.


I think you may be onto something there. One of the biggest limitations in a large theater is just one wall of left/right and maybe behind. That's a huge area to try to image smaller objects. That's where 24 ear level objects at home seems excessive, but having that many or more makes sense in a large theater with over a dozen rows of seats. 

Overhead sound may almost be an afterthought by comparison since surround speakers were always overhead and regular surrounds are nowhere near "ear level" at an Atmos theater.

How many reviews of Atmos cinema systems have we seen where all they talk about is LOUD rather than height separation? That's because there is no real height separation at most Atmos cinemas. At least on 'famous' home builder does home Atmos that way and no one, not even Sanjay questions that, yet one post above we have Wardog going off about "ear level" separation when there is _no such thing_ at an Atmos cinema.



> earlier tonight, I went to go see Black Adam, and there were a lot of flying scenes in the film. At several points in the movie, characters or vehicles fly across the room diagonally, and the sound starts in the front left and ends in the back right but it doesnt travel around the audience, it travels *across *the audience above our heads. Thing is, this theater didnt have Atmos, but still did a decent job of sounding like the sound travelled above us.


I think there's a good observation there. The one consistent improvement I've noticed is that Atmos has changed the ways even 5.1 and 7.1 are PANNED. 

They used to avoid the area between the speakers (where the audience is) as almost taboo (probably thought that would be too distracting) and only engaged correlated in-between effects in the back of the room (6.1 EX/ES or 7.1). Now you often hear some effects in that area even with the regular surrounds, but much more so with overhead surrounds. In 5.1/7.1 those will still image out in the middle where they rarely imaged before. This makes even 5.1 sound much more immersive as the sounds not only "surround" you, but _inundate_ you. 



> In this theater, the surrounds actually werent super high up on the wall. Maybe 7 or 8 feet above the audiences head. Plenty to simulate height when appropriate.
> 
> With that in mind, placing speakers on the ceiling would improve the systems ability to reproduce sounds crossing the space between the side speakers.


But the objects don't generally move between surround and ceiling to "cross" the room. They just image between left/right ceiling, which begs the question why they have them so close together. 

I actually think AuroMax has the best layout. Surrounds only a few feet above the audience heads with another layer a few feet below the ceiling and a 3rd layer on the ceiling. That's some serious layering and allows sounds to pass almost anywhere in the theater. I don't think the total speaker count is as high, though, probably half of Cinema Atmos' 64 count so speaker to speaker resolution may not be as great, but I think that's the right idea for a massive cinema room. Three layers is probably overkill at home, but just right at a large cinema.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It almost seems to me as if Dolby originally designed the Atmos cinema standard less for "height effects" and more simply to fill in the space between the side and rear surrounds so sounds can move _seamlessly _across the theater.


Dolby designed the cinema version of Atmos for height effects, which is why they put the height speakers towards the middle of the ceiling rather than high up on the side walls, with good separation between the base layer and height layer. See drawing from their cinema install guide: 









Then reality bit. At the time Atmos was introduced, movie theatres had the surrounds roughly mid-way up the walls, like in the drawing above. This worked fine when all the speakers on one of the side walls was playing the same signal, resulting in diffuse (non-distracting) sound. The object-based nature of Atmos meant that individual surround speakers could be producing sound, which ended up being fine for far away listeners but distracting for nearby listeners. 

How to even out the SPL difference between far and near listeners? Surround speakers were already aimed at listeners at the opposite end of the auditorium, but that wasn't enough. The solution that theatres and/or Dolby chose was to raise the surrounds (in some cases, almost to the ceiling), which resulted in less of a difference in distance (percentage wise) between far and near listeners. 

I noticed this change happening over the course of a couple of years at my local Atmos theatres. Even the local Dolby Cinemas moved the surrounds way up. This really minimized the around-you vs above-you effect of Atmos. Talking to cinema owners, I understood why they were doing it, but I personally didn't like it. Thank goodness for the home version of Atmos.


----------



## nitz369

niterida said:


> Well the first thing you have to do is either move your surrounds down to ear level or repurpose them as Top Rear Atmos speakers.


That is my issue, I cannot find a way to put them at ear level that would not be in the way. Also seating is a sectional up against one side wall so would have to be placed behind instead of on the side, which might be better than up high pointed down but wiring would be a huge pain and they would be in the way of a walk-way. 

Question is really if rear surrounds could not be moved or repurposed, would I gain benefit from just adding front heights in a 5.1.2 setup?


----------



## niterida

nitz369 said:


> Question is really if rear surrounds could not be moved or repurposed, would I gain benefit from just adding front heights in a 5.1.2 setup?


You will get Atmos height signal sent to your height speakers and surround signal sent to your high up surrounds. So it will be an Atmos setup but will not be, or sound like, a correct Atmos setup.
So there would be a change - whether you would call it a benefit or not is up to you. A few have had this sort of setup and said it sounds good to them.


----------



## am2model3

on ps5, the disney plus app got updated for 4k and hdr. but for some reason, Atmos will not show up, its still only 5.1 








Disney Plus Has Finally Launched a PS5 App With 4K HDR Support - IGN


A new Disney Plus app is now available for Sony's PlayStation 5 that allows users to stream their favourite movies, TV shows, originals, and more in 4K HDR quality.




www.ign.com





any tips to get atmos? its odd. I get atmos on xsx from disney plus.


----------



## Wardog555

am2model3 said:


> on ps5, the disney plus app got updated for 4k and hdr. but for some reason, Atmos will not show up, its still only 5.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disney Plus Has Finally Launched a PS5 App With 4K HDR Support - IGN
> 
> 
> A new Disney Plus app is now available for Sony's PlayStation 5 that allows users to stream their favourite movies, TV shows, originals, and more in 4K HDR quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ign.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any tips to get atmos? its odd. I get atmos on xsx from disney plus.


wait for disney themselves to fix it. its an issue reported from multiple people with various devices.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

am2model3 said:


> on ps5, the disney plus app got updated for 4k and hdr. but for some reason, Atmos will not show up, its still only 5.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disney Plus Has Finally Launched a PS5 App With 4K HDR Support - IGN
> 
> 
> A new Disney Plus app is now available for Sony's PlayStation 5 that allows users to stream their favourite movies, TV shows, originals, and more in 4K HDR quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ign.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any tips to get atmos? its odd. I get atmos on xsx from disney plus.


Disney Plus on the Firestick is only putting out stereo since the last update. Last two eps of Andor I watched were not in Atmos and I checked other things known to be in Atmos that were playing in stereo.


----------



## robert600

This may have been mentioned but I thought the Atmos on the uhd of the original Top Gun (1986) was pretty good. Not spectacularly so but pretty good.


----------



## robert600

Magnum X ... question. Do you recall helping me with Scatmos setup? This recent talk of overhead subs has me wondering ... if I added subs to each of the secondary receivers (one doing each side of the heights) ... would those subs receive any LF from the height preouts? Or ... has all the height LF been stripped out of those channels by the primary receiver and sent to its sub output before feeding the height pre-outs? Do you know what I'm asking? I'm not exactly a word smith.


----------



## niterida

Disney+ is only stereo on my Shield since god knows when (I didn't notice it at first as I thought the issue was with my processor and went troubleshooting elsewhere)
I sideloaded an older version and got Atmos back 
But then it must have done an automatic update and now back to new version, but the GUI doesn't work - I don't have the side menus and can only scroll down and not up


----------



## johnnyboy632

am2model3 said:


> on ps5, the disney plus app got updated for 4k and hdr. but for some reason, Atmos will not show up, its still only 5.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disney Plus Has Finally Launched a PS5 App With 4K HDR Support - IGN
> 
> 
> A new Disney Plus app is now available for Sony's PlayStation 5 that allows users to stream their favourite movies, TV shows, originals, and more in 4K HDR quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ign.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any tips to get atmos? its odd. I get atmos on xsx from disney plus.


A really cheap fix and works pretty damn well….Apple TV 4k and you have Dolby vision/atmos for every app possible that you want to use. Save all the stress and piss farting around and just enjoy  I have learnt in my journey in home cinema over the last 20 years is to keep everything as simple as possible…tv just to display a source, game consoles to play games, blu ray to play disc and Apple TV to stream lol Everything works as intended and minimises most bugs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## galonzo

johnnyboy632 said:


> A really cheap fix and works pretty damn well….Apple TV 4k and you have Dolby vision/atmos for every app possible that you want to use. Save all the stress and piss farting around and just enjoy  I have learnt in my journey in home cinema over the last 20 years is to keep everything as simple as possible…tv just to display a source, game consoles to play games, blu ray to play disc and Apple TV to stream lol Everything works as intended and minimises most bugs
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except for two of the biggest streaming players, *Hulu and Prime Video are both not Dolby Vision on the ATV4*K (I break down where/how to get the highest quality for these and other big streaming services in the linked post).


----------



## johnnyboy632

galonzo said:


> Except for two of the biggest streaming players, *Hulu and Prime Video are both not Dolby Vision on the ATV4*K (I break down where/how to get the highest quality for these and other big streaming services in the linked post).


Does any other device support Dolby vision for those services?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Magnum X ... question. Do you recall helping me with Scatmos setup? This recent talk of overhead subs has me wondering ... if I added subs to each of the secondary receivers (one doing each side of the heights) ... would those subs receive any LF from the height preouts? Or ... has all the height LF been stripped out of those channels by the primary receiver and sent to its sub output before feeding the height pre-outs? Do you know what I'm asking? I'm not exactly a word smith.


It depends on what you set the original AVR to do. If you set your Height speakers to "Large" then the Scatmos AVRs will receive full bandwidth signals from the pre-outs (you can even connect subwoofers to its bass outputs if you set those AVRs up that way). If you set them to "Small" then it only gets bass down to the crossover you set on the original AVR (D&M can go from like 200Hz down to 30Hz for crossover points).


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Dolby designed the cinema version of Atmos for height effects, which is why they put the height speakers towards the middle of the ceiling rather than high up on the side walls, with good separation between the base layer and height layer.
> 
> See drawing from their cinema install guide:
> View attachment 3349317


Humans don't distinguish height information very well compared to lower angles. Even with the original configuration, the surrounds were WAY above the audience' head (6-12 feet on average), making it hard to tell "surround overhead" from "height/ceiling overhead". Moving them up even further has now made Cinema Atmos a total JOKE in regards to any kind of separation between layers now. It almost defeats the entire height aspect of Atmos, leaving only the pin-point speaker-to-speaker improvements that @NuSoardGraphite mentioned. 

One can't help but wonder about mixes designed around those changes (home mixes are usually just tweaked for dynamic range, volume and filtering out bass for sound bars) as it would be hard to mix with no audible separation. People often wonder as it is why there's so little information up top at home when everything is up top at the cinema no matter what they do with speakers set up like that. I can only hope that most of the mixing rooms aren't mixing with the speakers up that high. It's bad enough they mix with them 2/3 up the wall. They should mix them with the *Trinnov* setup guide home setup. It's the only Atmos configuration that actually works exceptionally well for nearly every setup, IMO.


----------



## Magiclakez

johnnyboy632 said:


> Does any other device support Dolby vision for those services?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have both the ATV-4K and the Shield pro. I am able to get Dolby Vision on my Shield Pro for Amazon. No such luck with Hulu.


----------



## mrtickleuk

johnnyboy632 said:


> A really cheap fix and works pretty damn well….Apple TV 4k and you have Dolby vision/atmos for every app possible that you want to use.


You clearly have a very, _very _different idea of what "really cheap" is to me! The Apple TV 4K is one of the most expensive streaming boxes of all the ones you could have suggested.

I don't know of any Dolby Vision-capable TV now which doesn't have an internal Dolby Vision-capable Disney+ app (unless you're including a 2015 or 2016-era DV TV). I appreciate that the PS5 can't do Dolby Vision output at all, but if you don't have a Dolby Vision-capable TV and you use the PS5 apps for streaming, I can't see any pressing reason to buy another device.


----------



## johnnyboy632

mrtickleuk said:


> You clearly have a very, _very _different idea of what "really cheap" is to me! The Apple TV 4K is one of the most expensive streaming boxes of all the ones you could have suggested.
> 
> I don't know of any Dolby Vision-capable TV now which doesn't have an internal Dolby Vision-capable Disney+ app (unless you're including a 2015 or 2016-era DV TV). I appreciate that the PS5 can't do Dolby Vision output at all, but if you don't have a Dolby Vision-capable TV and you use the PS5 apps for streaming, I can't see any pressing reason to buy another device.


I was merely giving an opinion regarding all the issues people have with tv and gaming console apps not doing what they want it to with the streaming services and the Apple TV does great job of providing that and with very little operational bugs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> It depends on what you set the original AVR to do. If you set your Height speakers to "Large" then the Scatmos AVRs will receive full bandwidth signals from the pre-outs (you can even connect subwoofers to its bass outputs if you set those AVRs up that way). If you set them to "Small" then it only gets bass down to the crossover you set on the original AVR (D&M can go from like 200Hz down to 30Hz for crossover points).


Ok ... thanks for quick response! I have a bit of time this weekend and may give this a go just for something to do. I'm about ready for a rewatch of Blade Runner 2049 ... if memory serves, it has some bassy height action in spots.

So ... in primary ... set front and rear heights to large
in secondaries ... set left,right, center to small ... enable sub ... and that's it?


----------



## mrtickleuk

robert600 said:


> Ok ... thanks for quick response! I have a bit of time this weekend and may give this a go just for something to do. I'm about ready for a rewatch of Blade Runner 2049 ... if memory serves, it has some *bassy height action in spots.*


It certainly does!


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> Ok ... thanks for quick response! I have a bit of time this weekend and may give this a go just for something to do. I'm about ready for a rewatch of Blade Runner 2049 ... if memory serves, it has some bassy height action in spots.
> 
> So ... in primary ... set front and rear heights to large
> in secondaries ... set left,right, center to small ... enable sub ... and that's it?


That sounds about right.


----------



## Josh Z

Regarding the Disney+ app, 5.1 and Atmos are currently broken on Android based devices and apparently also the PS5. However, they still work on Roku devices.

I keep both an NVIDIA Shield and a Roku in service in my home theater. In most cases, when some app feature gets broken on one, it will likely still work on the other - sometimes in the Shield's favor but sometimes (like this) in the Roku's.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Josh Z said:


> Regarding the Disney+ app, 5.1 and Atmos are currently broken on Android based devices and apparently also the PS5. However, they still work on Roku devices.
> 
> I keep both an NVIDIA Shield and a Roku in service in my home theater. In most cases, when some app feature gets broken on one, it will likely still work on the other - sometimes in the Shield's favor but sometimes (like this) in the Roku's.


This is one more reason why people need to continue and even start (if they haven't already) supporting physical Blu-ray and 4k Blu-ray discs.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> Regarding the Disney+ app, 5.1 and Atmos are currently broken on Android based devices and apparently also the PS5. However, they still work on Roku devices.
> 
> I keep both an NVIDIA Shield and a Roku in service in my home theater. In most cases, when some app feature gets broken on one, it will likely still work on the other - sometimes in the Shield's favor but sometimes (like this) in the Roku's.


Someone told me it was finally fixed on Android so I updated to a newer beta about a month ago and it seemed to work...until it didn't. It's hit and miss. Literally one day The Orville was available in Atmos all around and the next none of it was (but it was on Apple still which wasn't the case the last time it did that). That almost sounded like a server side issue related to the Android version, though since the app was working the day before and it's the same version (no auto-updates here).


----------



## berniesidney

robert600 said:


> Ok ... thanks for quick response! I have a bit of time this weekend and may give this a go just for something to do. I'm about ready for a rewatch of *Blade Runner 2049 ... if memory serves, it has some bassy height action in spots*.
> 
> So ... in primary ... set front and rear heights to large
> in secondaries ... set left,right, center to small ... enable sub ... and that's it?


Would you mind sharing the bassy height action scenes. I just recalibrated with MultQEX and need some test material.
Thanks


----------



## galonzo

galonzo said:


> Except for two of the biggest streaming players, *Hulu and Prime Video are both not Dolby Vision on the ATV4*K (I break down where/how to get the highest quality for these and other big streaming services in the linked post).





johnnyboy632 said:


> Does any other device support Dolby vision for those services?



Prime Video is Dolby Vision & Atmos on the Nvidia Shield, the latest FireTV devices, and most internal TV apps (I confirmed on my 2018+ Sony and LG TVs and my 2019 "tube" & Pro, but only HDR-10 and Atmos on the ATV4K; and some content that is HDR on other devices, isn't on the ATV4K, for example Reacher), and 
Hulu is Dolby Vision (but no Atmos at all) on certain LG TVs and Roku devices that support Dolby Vision (I confirmed on my 2021 Roku 4k stick and my LG C1 OLED).


----------



## Magiclakez

The ATV-4k does not deliver atmos for certain shows on Paramount+ like Halo. In fact I just finished watching “The significant other” (a paramount+ original film) through my shield pro, as I wasn’t able to get Dolby Vision on the ATV.

I don’t mind paying extra for a streamer, be it any technology/ brand, as long as I could centralize all my streaming content on a single platform. At the moment all these streamers have certain unique quirks associated with them.


----------



## Josh Z

Magiclakez said:


> The ATV-4k does not deliver atmos for certain shows on Paramount+ like Halo.


I don't have an Apple TV. However, it may be worth pointing out that Halo does not automatically default to Atmos in the Paramount+ app on my other devices. It defaults to 5.1, and I had to manually pull up the audio options menu to select Atmos. 

Having done that, I found that the Atmos track had much weaker dynamics than the 5.1 and I wound up switching back. I think Paramount really screwed up the Atmos on that show in a number of ways.


----------



## Magiclakez

Josh Z said:


> I don't have an Apple TV. However, it may be worth pointing out that Halo does not automatically default to Atmos in the Paramount+ app on my other devices. It defaults to 5.1, and I had to manually pull up the audio options menu to select Atmos.
> 
> Having done that, I found that the Atmos track had much weaker dynamics than the 5.1 and I wound up switching back. I think Paramount really screwed up the Atmos on that show in a number of ways.


Yes I had to manually enable atmos on my Shield Pro. 

I was able to get atmos on my ATV; the problem is that I was watching it through the appletv+ app (which is linked with paramount+). But if you watch the show through the paramount+ app, you get full atmos support for Halo. One nice thing about subscribing for paramount+ through Apple, is that you can log into both the appletv+ and paramount+ apps.

Can’t wait for the 4k Blu-ray of Halo. I have the 4k steelbook on Pre-order. I’m sure the lossless atmos would be a completely different animal.


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Technodad's journey continues. He has now become convinced that you need 6 ceiling channels, Front Height, Top-Middles and Rear Height, to hear a proper upper soundstage in an atmos mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came to this conclusion a couple of years back, which is why my dedicated room plans are for this exact setup (and to be able to use all three formats)


I don’t think he is technically knowledgeable enough to give out home theater advice, sorry. Heights vs tops is not a preference thing it’s specifically and only about angles. If you front angle happens to intersect with your wall, you need front heights. Otherwise, you need tops. And yeah of course more speakers will be more immersive however I disagree it’s necessary because ****ty prebaked mixes like every Disney release can have hot spotting in the middle. But I don’t watch anything from Disney so I would personally go for it and will when I upgrade from 13 to 16 channel processors.


----------



## robert600

berniesidney said:


> Would you mind sharing the bassy height action scenes. I just recalibrated with MultQEX and need some test material.
> Thanks


Yes no problem ... I'll be watching tonight and I'll make a note of times when height subs kick in.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t think he is technically knowledgeable enough to give out home theater advice, sorry. Heights vs tops is not a preference thing it’s specifically and only about angles. If you front angle happens to intersect with your wall, you need front heights. Otherwise, you need tops. And yeah of course more speakers will be more immersive however I disagree it’s necessary because ****ty prebaked mixes like every Disney release can have hot spotting in the middle. But I don’t watch anything from Disney so I would personally go for it and will when I upgrade from 13 to 16 channel processors.


He's not talking about static bed channel mixes. He does his own Atmos mixing of music. And when he is playing music back on his own systems, he is noticing that what he intended to happen when he mixed it, is not happening when he plays it back.


----------



## mrtickleuk

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t think he is technically knowledgeable enough to give out home theater advice, sorry


Agree 100%.


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> Heights vs tops is not a preference thing it’s specifically and only about angles. If you front angle happens to intersect with your wall, you need front heights. Otherwise, you need tops.


Can you explain what technically happens in the processing when you make the change? I have so far not been able to find anything.

Also, tops disables Auro, even the upmixer for music.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Can you explain what technically happens in the processing when you make the change? I have so far not been able to find anything.
> 
> Also, tops disables Auro, even the upmixer for music.


It depends on the specific codec used.

With Atmos, there seems to be no functional difference. Its the angle the speaker is mounted at which determines how it images in your room based on how the sound object was mixed. So you can hang a speaker on the ceiling at 45° and call it Front Height in your system and it will sound the same as a speaket at 45° that is labelled Top-Front. I think the behavior would change if you have both Front Height and Top-Front in your system. Front Height would play when the objects are in the front most part of the renderer, with Top-Front taking over after moving a quarter or so into the room. I wonder if anyone in this thread has 8 height/ceiling channels who could verify this.

With DTS:X, apparently if you set it up for Top-Front/Top-Rear, DTS:X will try to image the sounds between the ear level front speaker and the top-front in order to try and image the sounds at the Front Height (30°) position. If your speakers are labelled as Front Height, it doesnt do that. So with DTS:X, we have a clear preference for Height positioning and labelling.

With Auro3D, as you already know, it wont even work with Top-Front/Top-Rear labelling. It only works with Height labelling. And it is specifically designed to be played back at a 30° angle or there abouts (between 20° and 40° with 30° being optimal)

Those individuals (even the experts like Anthony Grimani) who are recommending Top-Front positioning at 55° to 60° and Top-Rear at 125° to 120°, are optimizing specifically for Atmos with absolutely no consideration at all for DTS:X and Auro3D. They just dont tell you this. If you ask them, they will generally tell you that Atmos dominates the market at you should optimize for the majority content. While there is *some* wisdom in this approach, the majority content is actually non-Immersive. Dolby True HD, DTS HDMA and Dolby Digital+ (on streaming) with only a small percentage actually being Atmos, DTSX or Auro3D. So in my opinion, your decision should be made based on which *upmixer *you intend to use, since the chances are you will be using your upmixer far more often than you will be playing native immersive formats.


----------



## MagnumX

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t think he is technically knowledgeable enough to give out home theater advice, sorry. Heights vs tops is not a preference thing it’s specifically and only about angles. If you front angle happens to intersect with your wall, you need front heights. Otherwise, you need tops. And yeah of course more speakers will be more immersive however I disagree it’s necessary because ****ty prebaked mixes like every Disney release can have hot spotting in the middle. But I don’t watch anything from Disney so I would personally go for it and will when I upgrade from 13 to 16 channel processors.


You say it's all about angles but then you say something that 100% contradicts that. "Heights" are defined by Dolby as 30-45 degrees with 4 overheads, 20-45 degrees with 6 overheads and 15-45 degrees in a studio. Whether they are on the front wall or the ceiling has _NOTHING_ to do with ANYTHING, let alone to say the user has no "preference" which is absurd. They are 4 (front/rear left & right) of 10 possible speaker locations in Dolby Atmos and not a "one or the other" thing except in limited AVRs that won't allow both at the same time.

The ONLY thing that matters in choosing settings is that angle. If you're right at 45 degrees you can choose either. The only real difference when both aren't used (because Atmos moves the objects to the nearest available speakers in the height layer) is how fast panning occurs front-to-back. Everything else sounds identical with either setting in a one or the other environment. When both are used together with say a Storm or Trinnov processor, objects are mapped correctly to the nearest grid location using both sets of speakers. 

DTS:X will mix other height layers to try and image in the expected location, which doesn't always work well when they're far apart in particular, so the "Height" setting is usually preferred over "Tops" for 45 degrees or when using DTS:X. Auro-3D typically only works with a HEIGHT setting as it was designed for 30-40 degree speakers plus a VOG in the Top Middle region (dual mono Top Middle used on some processors for it).

There is really no such thing as "hot spotting" as all arrays combine to appear in the middle with proper speaker delays. They only appear in other locations when sitting off-axis (Precedence starts pulling towards nearest speaker). That's an ERROR. A movie like Ready Player One is supposed to image only in the middle and Top Middle is the correct speaker set for it to image at.

With 4 speakers overhead, and sitting off-center where the speaker delay is not accounted for, it will pull towards the closer speakers when it's supposed to be in the middle. If the mixer had wanted it all across the entire ceiling, they would have made one oversized object that engages all overhead speakers, not one that only uses Top Middle. If they wanted something else, but can't be bothered to implement it properly, then that's an error on their part too.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> With DTS:X, apparently if you set it up for Top-Front/Top-Rear, DTS:X will try to image the sounds between the ear level front speaker and the top-front in order to try and image the sounds at the Front Height (30°) position. If your speakers are labelled as Front Height, it doesnt do that.


DTS:X Heights are at 45° elevation and their Tops are at 60° elevation. You are correct about their remapping feature: if you label the speakers as Tops and play a test tone for Heights, it will think the speakers are at 60° elevation and will leak some of the signal to the base layer speakers in order to remap the sound downwards to 45° elevation.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> Can you explain what technically happens in the processing when you make the change?


The home Atmos renderer assumes that the Heights at the very front & back of the speaker layout and the Tops are 25% of the way inward from those locations, irrespective of where you've physically placed those speakers in your room. If you label those speakers as Tops and play a Tops test tone, they'll come from the speakers. But if you label those speakers as Heights and play a Tops test tone, the renderer will try to phantom image those sounds 25% of the way inward by leaking some of the signal to the opposite speaker (people used to complain about this leakage in early Atmos threads back in 2014/2015, but the renderer was working as intended).


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> The home Atmos renderer assumes that the Heights at the very front & back of the speaker layout and the Tops are 25% of the way inward from those locations, irrespective of where you've physically placed those speakers in your room. If you label those speakers as Tops and play a Tops test tone, they'll come from the speakers. But if you label those speakers as Heights and play a Tops test tone, the renderer will try to phantom image those sounds 25% of the way inward by leaking some of the signal to the opposite speaker (people used to complain about this leakage in early Atmos threads back in 2014/2015, but the renderer was working as intended).


Ok. Does it work that way in actual content? As in, not trying to trick the system, just playing an Atmos movie?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> DTS:X Heights are at 45° elevation and their Tops are at 60° elevation. You are correct about their remapping feature: if you label the speakers as Tops and play a test tone for Heights, it will think the speakers are at 60° elevation and will leak some of the signal to the base layer speakers in order to remap the sound downwards to 45° elevation.


Ah, 45° instead of 30°. Gotcha. So then it seems to me that height channels mounted around 40°, that being the top end of Auro's supported format and very near the expected DTS:X layout, is the best compromise for a system intended to make use of all three formats.



sdurani said:


> The home Atmos renderer assumes that the Heights at the very front & back of the speaker layout and the Tops are 25% of the way inward from those locations, irrespective of where you've physically placed those speakers in your room. If you label those speakers as Tops and play a Tops test tone, they'll come from the speakers. But if you label those speakers as Heights and play a Tops test tone, the renderer will try to phantom image those sounds 25% of the way inward by leaking some of the signal to the opposite speaker (people used to complain about this leakage in early Atmos threads back in 2014/2015, but the renderer was working as intended).


With only 4 height channels (front and rear), does Atmos still try to image height channels between front and rear positions?

What you've said here absoluty reinforces my decision to go with a minimum of 13 channels to be able to implement 6 height channels in my room. Front Height, Top-Middle and Rear Height.

Both Auro and DTS:X want the front/rear height positioning and will play properly from those locations. Atmos may occasionally want to image between the height channel and the next speaker in the chain, in this case being a Top-Middle, which would place the image in the Top position around the 65° position or so (not accounting for the precedent effect) which is just about where you want front and rear "tops" to image.

As an added level of accuracy, within Atmos, sound objects intended to be placed directly above the front or rear soundstages (Godzilla's roar for example, or Optimus Prime talking to puny humans) can be so without seeming "warped" by emitting from 25% into the room from a Top-Front speaker position.

Then with Top-Middles in the mix, static object mixes like Ready Player One will play discretely from the Top-Middle position, anchoring the sounds where they are intended to come from rather than an imaged Top-Middle which drifts depending on ones seating position.

Awesome.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> DTS:X Heights are at 45° elevation and their Tops are at 60° elevation. You are correct about their remapping feature: if you label the speakers as Tops and play a test tone for Heights, it will think the speakers are at 60° elevation and will leak some of the signal to the base layer speakers in order to remap the sound downwards to 45° elevation.


DTS has NEVER said their Heights are only exactly 45 degrees and their Tops are only 60 degrees. In fact, what they have repeatedly said is that they support both Atmos and Auro-3D layouts including their angles. 

In fact, their layout would not be compatible with Auro-3D only speakers (Center Height, Top Surround and Surround Height) if what you keep repeating over and over and over again were actually true and yet DTS supports all three of those speakers. Apparently, they're supposed to only be used at higher angles for just their format alone and yet also support Top Middle too, apparently just for the hell of it?

You apparently get that idea from their studio setup, but that is not the only DTS recording studio/stage and others use Atmos angles. Dolby themselves accept a range of angles for their various setups and you accept that, but for some absolute bizarre reason unknown keep repeating this staunch business about DTS only supporting 45 and 60 degrees for Heights/Tops. 

Having used DTS:X with 25 degrees + Top Middle, I can confirm Harry Potter in X images perfectly here, the flying car flying overhead right into the screen on queue, for example.



sdurani said:


> The home Atmos renderer assumes that the Heights at the very front & back of the speaker layout and the Tops are 25% of the way inward from those locations, irrespective of where you've physically placed those speakers in your room. If you label those speakers as Tops and play a Tops test tone, they'll come from the speakers. But if you label those speakers as Heights and play a Tops test tone, the renderer will try to phantom image those sounds 25% of the way inward by leaking some of the signal to the opposite speaker (people used to complain about this leakage in early Atmos threads back in 2014/2015, but the renderer was working as intended).


Dolby only phantom images with the object "snap" option turned off and even then it prioritizes the height layer over the base layer even when the base layer speakers are closer or more complete. That is 100% easily testable. 

Anyone on here can verify this with Dolby's own test tones and demos, not to mention a TM only movie like Ready Player One. RP1 will not play overhead information in the base layer until all overheads are removed and neither will the Dolby Helicopter demo, despite it supporting all 10 overhead speakers. It will move onle left/right in place in any single location over using a full circle in the base layer. 

Playing the TM Dolby test tone will play 100% (no leakage to lower speakers) in either the combined Height or Tops speakers or just Front Height or Top Front alone if they are the only ones available (same for rear variants). It will not use lower speakers to get closer to the middle like DTS will. 

With the Atmos "snap" option turned on, it won't phantom image at all, but move to the nearest available speaker set and stay there, very much _unlike_ DTS.


You've had me on ignore for years so you can't see any of this and it appears don't ever want to see when someone doesn't just kowtow to your position. I firmly believe you'd put @NuSoardGraphite on ignore also if he persisted in challenging what you say. I don't need to put anyone one on ignore by comparison as I'm not afraid of hearing what someone else has to say, even if I disagree. 

Frankly, it amazes me so many here don't question _anything_ you say when several things you've said over the years are questionable at best, like for example, don't use 6 overheads, but in 4/8 pairs only (despite very few processors supporting 8, but many supporting 6) because you apparently prefer array leakage with 4 overheads for RP1 than discrete TM rendering despite the fact that's what it's set to use and despite the fact that's just one movie, compared to all the correct object using movies that would benefit, especially when people can turn TM off temporarily if that's what they prefer, but can't turn on TM speakers that aren't there because you told people not to use them and sadly they listened to your ill conceived advice! )


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> Does it work that way in actual content?


The renderer doesn't know the difference between test tones on the Dolby demo disc and actual content. Having said that, I find it easier to hear the difference with test tones than with Atmos program material.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ah, 45° instead of 30°.


The Chinese website Post76 uploaded the slide deck (that DTS sent to licensees in 2016) with placement maps for setting up DTS:X demos at trade shows. Worth saving the link: 









【dts:X 喇叭擺位全球搶先公開發佈】【一機 5.1.4 玩盡 Atmos、Auro-3D、dts: X】 | Post76玩樂網


大家等左咁耐嘅 dts:X 一等再等都未有消息，好彩最終我地【76 台慶活動呈獻】與 D&M 搶先齊試全港獨家 dts:X 測試版 Firmware，令大家除左了感受到 dts:X 聲效感覺、明白喇叭擺位要求、仲了解埋可以一機 (Denon AVR-7200WA、AVR-6200W 或




post76.com





DTS:X Heights:









DTS:X Tops: 









The only difference is elevation: 45° vs 60°.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Is the consensus still there that we should set our immersive decoders to Height even if the speakers are in the Top angle range as that designation works for both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X without bed layer speaker bleed through?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Is the consensus still there that we should set our immersive decoders to Height even if the speakers are in the Top angle range as that designation works for both Dolby Atmos and DTS: X without bed layer speaker bleed through?


I would say thats a personal choice. But a good bet if you dont want the height information playing in the bed layer as well.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> The Chinese website Post76 uploaded the slide deck (that DTS sent to licensees in 2016) with placement maps for setting up DTS:X demos at trade shows. Worth saving the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 【dts:X 喇叭擺位全球搶先公開發佈】【一機 5.1.4 玩盡 Atmos、Auro-3D、dts: X】 | Post76玩樂網
> 
> 
> 大家等左咁耐嘅 dts:X 一等再等都未有消息，好彩最終我地【76 台慶活動呈獻】與 D&M 搶先齊試全港獨家 dts:X 測試版 Firmware，令大家除左了感受到 dts:X 聲效感覺、明白喇叭擺位要求、仲了解埋可以一機 (Denon AVR-7200WA、AVR-6200W 或
> 
> 
> 
> 
> post76.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DTS:X Heights:
> View attachment 3350433
> 
> 
> DTS:X Tops:
> View attachment 3350434
> 
> 
> The only difference is elevation: 45° vs 60°.


Ah this makes things more clear that DTS:X considers heights 45° and tops 60°. That does make sense.

However, that doeant seem to take into consideration for architectural elements of a room that might get in the way or the possibility of multiple rows of seating.

Additionally, do these guides apply to DTS:X-Pro? Thats what I'm going to be working with.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ah this makes things more clear that DTS:X considers heights 45° and tops 60°. That does make sense.
> 
> However, that doeant seem to take into consideration for architectural elements of a room that might get in the way or the possibility of multiple rows of seating.
> 
> Additionally, do these guides apply to DTS:X-Pro? Thats what I'm going to be working with.


DTS has NEVER made any such claims to consumers. Look where he's getting his information from. A trade show demo from 2016. What does that have to do with CONSUMERS? Dolby has separate studio guidelines that list their Heights as low as 15 degrees above vertical (15-45). That's NOT in the home guidelines! But with 6 or more overheads, they do list 20 degrees to 45 degrees on their site now that they didn't specifically list before (despite no changes in the renderer). That's a *RANGE* of values. So DTS doesn't have _ranges_ too? They haven't listed them so they don't exist? Could that be perhaps because DTS' official position is that they work with *everything *so they don't list requirements they don't push?

DTS has said precisely that since day one on the consumer side. They use what you have. Whether an off-screen sound appears 2 feet closer or further from the screen is absolutely 100% IRRELEVANT as there is no way to visually place it either way. So why the hang-ups on here about DTS "consumer guidelines" that DON'T EXIST??? Write DTS themselves and they'll tell you that you can use either Atmos or Auro-3D angles and they support speakers from both formats including Top Middle and VOG (your choice), Surround Heights, Front/Rear Heights and Tops. 

In practice, DTS:X is really a channel-based format in practice since almost no movies (other than IMAX for their version of CH) uses any objects. Auro is channel based too and they also have ranges listed for speakers (25-40 with variance upward if you have L/C/R above vertical. So L/C/R at 5 degrees means your "Heights" can be at 45 degrees. 10 degres they can be at 50 degrees. So what a surprise they're now allowing "Tops" to be used under the new company. What's changed? Nothing. They're arbitrary and they're "guidelines" not "laws" of nature. 

Saying you can't use 30 degrees with DTS:X is like saying you can't place your side-channel speakers at 70-90 degrees in front of the MLP with Atmos, something Sanjay has stated not only doing, but apparently _prefers_. But heaven forbid someone use 30 degree Heights with DTS:X. OMG! NO! Imagine someone using Tops in Atmos at 60 degrees! The horror! 60 degrees makes more sense since you can then evenly space all the speakers from the center channel to rear center at perfectly even 30 degree intervals (0/30/60/90/120/150/180). You don't get anymore symmetrical than that. But Dolby doesn't list 60 degrees so you'd be breaking the law and should be arrested!


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> However, that doeant seem to take into consideration for architectural elements of a room that might get in the way or the possibility of multiple rows of seating.


None of the formats do that. The angles posted are the DTS:X rendering assumptions (i.e., where the renderer assumes the speakers are). Knowing the rendering assumptions doesn't mean you're obligated to adhere to them exactly, especially when trying to place height speakers to satisfy all 3 immersive audio formats and/or if architectural elements of a room get in the way.


> Additionally, do these guides apply to DTS:X-Pro?


The "Pro" designation just means more than 11.1 outputs. Until recently, ALL technologies from DTS (decoders, upmixers, etc) were limited to 11.1 outputs. Pro simply lifts that limitation. It's not a separate format nor does it change the locations of the original DTS:X speaker map.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> None of the formats do that. The angles posted are the DTS:X rendering assumptions (i.e., where the renderer assumes the speakers are).


There are no "rendering assumptions" because DTS:X as it's actually being used in nearly every movie released in it is as a CHANNEL BASED FORMAT. There is no "rendering" to speak of when objects aren't actually used. 

More to the point, placing even an object slightly forward or behind a default assumption, makes almost no functional difference whatsoever. It's why Dolby posts very large RANGES of values. If Dolby allows front heights from 15-45 in a studio, WTF difference does it make to stick to exactly 30 degrees? You can't assume every studio is using exactly 30 degrees or 45 degrees for that matter. These are off-screen effects and so it makes no difference whatsoever whether they're a few feet this way or that way. Dolby moves entire overhead sounds from the rear of the room to the front of the room and vice versa if the speakers aren't available. That's a massive difference by comparison. Where it really could matter is on-screen panned dialog, but no one cares about that and yet that's the only real visual reference in the format to compare!

What DOES matter is the angles between adjacent speaker pairs for smooth image panning. Everything else is negotiable.


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> Can you explain what technically happens in the processing when you make the change? I have so far not been able to find anything.
> 
> Also, tops disables Auro, even the upmixer for music.


Nothing because top vs height is only a semantic thing (for atmos). The confusion is because people use down firing ceiling speakers which is not correct. They are supposed to fire towards you like any other speaker. Therefore, height vs top is only a name. It is not intended to change processing. I wouldn’t be surprised if AVRs do something to account for people doing wrong stuff though. And that’s okay, I don’t use Auro. I don’t like the upmixer and no one releases auro3d anyway.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> None of the formats do that. The angles posted are the DTS:X rendering assumptions (i.e., where the renderer assumes the speakers are).





cricket9998 said:


> Nothing because top vs height is only a semantic thing (for atmos). The confusion is because people use down firing ceiling speakers which is not correct. They are supposed to fire towards you like any other speaker. Therefore, height vs top is only a name. It is not intended to change processing. I wouldn’t be surprised if AVRs do something to account for people doing wrong stuff though. And that’s okay, I don’t use Auro. I don’t like the upmixer and no one releases auro3d anyway.


That's only really true for mass consumer Atmos processors that can only do Heights OR Tops, not both as they truly are separate rendering locations. When both are used together (e.g. Storm or Trinnov), objects placed on the grid closer to the screen on the ceiling will render from the Front Heights and move to the Tops as the object moves out into the room and then to Top Middle (if available) and then Rear Tops and finally Rear Heights. It's just that most 11.1 AVRs can only do 4 overheads period and 13.1 models can do 6 overhead at most so they can't handle Heights & Tops together. 

Something like the 20-channel Trinnov Altitude-16 CAN handle it (up to the full 10 overheads if desired). But even with only Tops or Heights there are still some timing differences in panning between the two (demonstrated by selecting Tops instead of Heights with the Dolby Helicopter Atmos Demo) so it's not like the setting selected does nothing at all on those models, just very little (other than disabling Auro-3D on models that have it and causing DTS:X to use lower speakers to pull the sound forward with Tops). 

Thus, both locations are perfectly valid choices. Heights alone often have a gap in the middle because they're further apart, but with 6 or more overheads that's no longer an issue and you get ceiling-to-ceiling edge coverage.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> DTS has NEVER made any such claims to consumers. Look where he's getting his information from. A trade show demo from 2016. What does that have to do with CONSUMERS? Dolby has separate studio guidelines that list their Heights as low as 15 degrees above vertical (15-45). That's NOT in the home guidelines! But with 6 or more overheads, they do list 20 degrees to 45 degrees on their site now that they didn't specifically list before (despite no changes in the renderer). That's a *RANGE* of values. So DTS doesn't have _ranges_ too? They haven't listed them so they don't exist? Could that be perhaps because DTS' official position is that they work with *everything *so they don't list requirements they don't push?


They havent said *much at all *to consumers about anything, let alone setup and placement guidelines. I guess since DTS:X and Neural-X have channel remapping technology built in, they let consumers choose between Dolby or Auro configurations then DTS:X will adjust accordingly. Which is a fine way to go. Makes it a bit easier on the consumer.



> DTS has said precisely that since day one on the consumer side. They use what you have. Whether an off-screen sound appears 2 feet closer or further from the screen is absolutely 100% IRRELEVANT as there is no way to visually place it either way. So why the hang-ups on here about DTS "consumer guidelines" that DON'T EXIST??? Write DTS themselves and they'll tell you that you can use either Atmos or Auro-3D angles and they support speakers from both formats including Top Middle and VOG (your choice), Surround Heights, Front/Rear Heights and Tops.


Which is quite smart on the part of DTS. Let Dolby and Auro battle it out and just ride the coattails of the format war victor. They've essentially already done that considering that DTS:X is in nearly ever receiver and processor released today, same as Atmos where Auro3D is struggling to hit 60% market penetration.



> In practice, DTS:X is really a channel-based format in practice since almost no movies (other than IMAX for their version of CH) uses any objects. Auro is channel based too and they also have ranges listed for speakers (25-40 with variance upward if you have L/C/R above vertical. So L/C/R at 5 degrees means your "Heights" can be at 45 degrees. 10 degres they can be at 50 degrees. So what a surprise they're now allowing "Tops" to be used under the new company. What's changed? Nothing. They're arbitrary and they're "guidelines" not "laws" of nature.


Wait. When did Auro start allowing Tops to be used? Do the new D&M units allow that (its definitely in their best interest to do so)



> Saying you can't use 30 degrees with DTS:X is like saying you can't place your side-channel speakers at 70-90 degrees in front of the MLP with Atmos, something Sanjay has stated not only doing, but apparently _prefers_. But heaven forbid someone use 30 degree Heights with DTS:X. OMG! NO! Imagine someone using Tops in Atmos at 60 degrees! The horror! 60 degrees makes more sense since you can then evenly space all the speakers from the center channel to rear center at perfectly even 30 degree intervals (0/30/60/90/120/150/180). You don't get anymore symmetrical than that. But Dolby doesn't list 60 degrees so you'd be breaking the law and should be arrested!


Well, obviously its not a case that you *cant* use 30° with DTS:X because there certainly are plenty of people doing exactly that. I think its a case of people quoting the angles they believe to be or were told was *optimal *for the format in question.

But whats optimal isnt a one-size-fits-all proposition, though many here act like it is. These optimal angles only really apply to optimal room situations. How many of us have perfect rooms? Not many I'd wager. My own room has a lot of issues. Made of brick so the acoustics are jacked. Sound bounces everywhere and takes forever ro decay. The room is 20 feet long so I can do 2 rows, but only 10 feet wide. So I cant get three theater seats across. So I am going to have to use a 3-seater couch to fit three across. And even with that, it puts the outer listeners too close to the side surrounds. So that means pushing the side surrounds back a little bit to 100° of the front row and maybe 80° forward of the back row.

I want the option of being able to use Auro3D in this system for the upmixing (legacy blu rays with no Atmos soundtrack, of which I have many) so that means I need height channel positioning. But with a 20 foot room and two rows of seating, that puts my front and rear heights too far back, necessitating Top-Middle or VoG speakers. So now how does the inclusion of a Top-Middle affect the imaging of sounds, especially with DTS:X/Neural-X and their remapping feature? 

With all of these considerations in play, the word "optimal" flies out the window at mach 5 with no intention to come back. Ever.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> There are no "rendering assumptions" because DTS:X as it's actually being used in nearly every movie released in it is as a CHANNEL BASED FORMAT. There is no "rendering" to speak of when objects aren't actually used.
> 
> More to the point, placing even an object slightly forward or behind a default assumption, makes almost no functional difference whatsoever. It's why Dolby posts very large RANGES of values. If Dolby allows front heights from 15-45 in a studio, WTF difference does it make to stick to exactly 30 degrees? You can't assume every studio is using exactly 30 degrees or 45 degrees for that matter.


I have often wondered myself why folks keep alluding to “rendering” while offering their rationale/ arguments for DTS-X, when the rendering doesn’t really apply to a channel based format. Dts-x is the most flexible technology as it was conceptualized to blend in seamlessly with other competing technologies. There are no boundaries.

Similar assumptions run rampant for Auro-3D as well, by certain “illuminati” out here and across other forums/boards. Most of them have 0 hands-on experience with that particular technology. Zilch. It’s one thing if you have the relevant setup in your HT, which subsequently allows you to observe/establish certain unique quirks associated with it. But we continue to see multiple guidelines & theories floating around (without giving due credit to the original author 🤦‍♂️ ), and being consumed blindly. I can read the flight operations manual of the A-380 and then come out here to instruct you on how to fly one. 🤣.

Feedback is helpful for the community when it is obtained through sources, who have got their “hands dirty” with the relevant subject matter.


----------



## robert600

berniesidney said:


> Would you mind sharing the bassy height action scenes. I just recalibrated with MultQEX and need some test material.
> Thanks


Sorry forgot how long BR 2049 is. It took me till tonight to finsh it. Anyway ...

Just to be clear what I’m reporting. I only had one extra sub to work with so … I hooked it to the 2ndary amp that powers the left heights. The settings where such that any signal below 100 from the pres for front height left or rear height left would be diverted to this sub. The sub was jury rigged at about 12 inches above my head … unmistakable when it fired. The source was a standard blu-ray and Mediainfo tells me the audio is Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos (8 channels).

Bassy bits ... reporting the height subfiring …. Lots right from the get go … before the movie proper starts

Once the movie starts … brief pulses here and there throughout with the following longer stretches:

At 59:00 – 59:45 (where he takes girlfriend for her first ride, along the dam) continuously firing

At 1:14:10 (where he finds the horse) 30 secs or so of firing

1:22:50 – 1:2335 (leaving the memory place)

1:41:?? (vegas bees) A couple of good short abrupt LFEs

1:58:40 – 2:03:20 … when the ***** shows up

2:20:30 – ship in water

2:24:00 – 2:27:15 (underwater fight) … long stretch of sub activity

Music during the end credits

I think for me the best bit was the ‘ride scene’ at 59 minutes. I think I’ll make a file with a triple loop of this bit for testing purposes. I can make that available for download if you’d like … each loop is only 45 secs so it shouldn’t be a very large file.


----------



## berniesidney

robert600 said:


> Sorry forgot how long BR 2049 is. It took me till tonight to finsh it. Anyway ...
> 
> Just to be clear what I’m reporting. I only had one extra sub to work with so … I hooked it to the 2ndary amp that powers the left heights. The settings where such that any signal below 100 from the pres for front height left or rear height left would be diverted to this sub. The sub was jury rigged at about 12 inches above my head … unmistakable when it fired. The source was a standard blu-ray and Mediainfo tells me the audio is Dolby TrueHD with Dolby Atmos (8 channels).
> 
> Bassy bits ... reporting the height subfiring …. Lots right from the get go … before the movie proper starts
> 
> Once the movie starts … brief pulses here and there throughout with the following longer stretches:
> 
> At 59:00 – 59:45 (where he takes girlfriend for her first ride, along the dam) continuously firing
> 
> At 1:14:10 (where he finds the horse) 30 secs or so of firing
> 
> 1:22:50 – 1:2335 (leaving the memory place)
> 
> 1:41:?? (vegas bees) A couple of good short abrupt LFEs
> 
> 1:58:40 – 2:03:20 … when the *** shows up
> 
> 2:20:30 – ship in water
> 
> 2:24:00 – 2:27:15 (underwater fight) … long stretch of sub activity
> 
> Music during the end credits
> 
> I think for me the best bit was the ‘ride scene’ at 59 minutes. I think I’ll make a file with a triple loop of this bit for testing purposes. I can make that available for download if you’d like … each loop is only 45 secs so it shouldn’t be a very large file.


Thank you for providing the scene info... much appreciated!


----------



## petetherock

How many real home owners will change their Atmos speaker positions after the various discussions on which suggested positions are accurate I wonder..
I'm actually pretty satisfied with how mine sound and I spend a lot more time enjoying them, haha


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Where it really could matter is on-screen panned dialog, but no one cares about that and yet that's the only real visual reference in the format to compare!


I put on Speed Racer the other day to see how well the upmixers handled that movie and that was the first time I really noticed the panned dialogue across the screen. 

It was really well done. It happens several times during the initial race where racing announcers were speaking as their profile went from left to right and right to left and the dialogue matched their on screen positions nearly perfectly. Both Dolby Surround and Neural-X handled the panning with equal efficacy, matching the native DD5.1 track. So once my new system is set up, I want to do this test again and see how Auro3D stacks up with that scene. As the sound pans from front to center to front, will the height speaker above the front, but not above the center, mess up the effect? I will have one more processing channel available to Auro.....maybe I will try it with a Center Height as well.


----------



## priitv8

robert600 said:


> I think I’ll make a file with a triple loop of this bit for testing purposes. I can make that available for download if you’d like … each loop is only 45 secs so it shouldn’t be a very large file.


Yes, please.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> How many real home owners will change their Atmos speaker positions after the various discussions on which suggested positions are accurate I wonder..
> I'm actually pretty satisfied with how mine sound and I spend a lot more time enjoying them, haha


I would wager not many.

It is my supposition that the reason this subject matter is so contentious, is because many have cut holes in their ceiling and _permanently _mounted speakers to their ceiling. Most likely in the suggested Atmos positioning using 4 speakers. This makes it potentially costly and difficult to move the speakers. And most enthusiasts would lack the motivation to go through that process again.

Thus, any suggestions that perhaps their decision making was flawed (or at least, hasty) is met with extreme resistance. In their own minds, they must view their setups as "perfect" or they may find their enjoyment to be diminished.


----------



## petetherock

I reckon that if it sounds fine, it's fine.. but hey this is AVS, so fine is not perfect, haha


----------



## MagnumX

*Darth Subwoofer* Talks Now.....









*Link to "No Luke...I Am Your Subwoofer!"

Link to "The Bass Is With You, But You Are Not A Subwoofer Yet!"*


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> I reckon that if it sounds fine, it's fine.. but hey this is AVS, so fine is not perfect, haha


I resigned myself long ago to the fact that I will never be able to have a "perfect" system. I just dont have that kind of money. So I concentrate on getting the most out of what I do have and make what upgrades I can afford and have plenty of fun with that. Perfection is unattainable, and I am at peace with that.


----------



## tojohnso

Good god people are really full of themselves here. I recently went from my 5.1 setup to 5.1.2 with speakers in the ceiling firing down as top middles. I did that after reading a lot and figuring it was the best for my room. Eventually, I'll convert two satellites to front height. With that said, my sound has improved immensely. it's more enveloping than before. The surprising thing to me is how much better music sounds (don't have good floor standing speakers - yet). Point is - what i've done works great for me. I'm sure, though, based on what I've read here the past couple days, a few will have plenty to say.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

tojohnso said:


> Good god people are really full of themselves here. I recently went from my 5.1 setup to 5.1.2 with speakers in the ceiling firing down as top middles. I did that after reading a lot and figuring it was the best for my room. Eventually, I'll convert two satellites to front height. With that said, my sound has improved immensely. it's more enveloping than before. The surprising thing to me is how much better music sounds (don't have good floor standing speakers - yet). Point is - what i've done works great for me. I'm sure, though, based on what I've read here the past couple days, a few will have plenty to say.


Everybody starts somewhere. I have nice sounding floorstanders that I bought used off craigslist for $100 for the pair. It doesnt have to cost a lot. Just be patient, look around and shop smart.

And having Top-Middles already installed, Front Heights are a good addition. Especially if you are up against a wall and cant put rear heights behind you. Not a lot of people would consider the combo of Front Height + Top-Middle. Its a pretty good compromise for a smaller room. If I wasnt upgrading to a dedicated room, thats probably where I would have taken my current system.


----------



## tojohnso

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Everybody starts somewhere. I have nice sounding floorstanders that I bought used off craigslist for $100 for the pair. It doesnt have to cost a lot. Just be patient, look around and shop smart.
> 
> And having Top-Middles already installed, Front Heights are a good addition. Especially if you are up against a wall and cant put rear heights behind you. Not a lot of people would consider the combo of Front Height + Top-Middle. Its a pretty good compromise for a smaller room. If I wasnt upgrading to a dedicated room, thats probably where I would have taken my current system.


Sounds great! I've been looking around Craigslist and other used speaker sites for floor standing speakers. When i do that, I'll probably update the middle as well. Looking at sales too. One of the tougher things in this day and age is having a place where you can go hear different brands with the AVR line one has at home. Gone are the days of private companies or even Best Buy / Circuit City demo rooms. Have a Best Buy Magnolia location but no one is ever there and the rooms are a mess.

I do have a living room with couch up against the wall with three windows behind it. One of the reasons I didn't do 7.1 in the past.

Thanks!


----------



## galonzo

FWIW, Atmos has been fixed for Disney+ (v2.13.0-rc3) for Android TV (i.e. Nvidia Shield, Chromecast, Sony TVs, etc.).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

galonzo said:


> FWIW, Atmos has been fixed for Disney+ (v2.13.0-rc3) for Android TV (i.e. Nvidia Shield, Chromecast, Sony TVs, etc.).


Crap. Firestick 4K Max is still on 2.12.0-rc3 and not showing an update available yet. Fingers crossed it drops soon.


----------



## joeyvans

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Crap. Firestick 4K Max is still on 2.12.0-rc3 and not showing an update available yet. Fingers crossed it drops soon.


Yeah, super annoying. I've sideloaded a couple previous versions... 2.8, 2.11 as well as 2.13. Doing so has restored 5.1 for me, but Atmos is not available. So, I guess I will wait until 2.13 finally gets pushed to the 4K Max.


----------



## cricket9998

petetherock said:


> How many real home owners will change their Atmos speaker positions after the various discussions on which suggested positions are accurate I wonder..
> I'm actually pretty satisfied with how mine sound and I spend a lot more time enjoying them, haha


Me. Benefits of an acoustic drop ceiling changes are easy. Any theater I do will have a drop ceiling. I’m moving mine inward to be inline with the 50-55 degree optimal spec based on front and rear configurations.


----------



## robert600

I'm hosting a Halloween themed small party tonight and a vampire movie has been requested. Would 'Brahm Stocker's Dracula (1992)" be a good choice? Is the Atmos track on the UHD well mixed?


----------



## Soulburner

Not sure, but there is also Dracula Untold.


----------



## Chirosamsung

robert600 said:


> I'm hosting a Halloween themed small party tonight and a vampire movie has been requested. Would 'Brahm Stocker's Dracula (1992)" be a good choice? Is the Atmos track on the UHD well mixed?


go big or go home. Exorcist or bust


----------



## dschulz

robert600 said:


> I'm hosting a Halloween themed small party tonight and a vampire movie has been requested. Would 'Brahm Stocker's Dracula (1992)" be a good choice? Is the Atmos track on the UHD well mixed?


I have not heard the Atmos mix, but as a movie Bram Stoker's Dracula is phenomenal. Definitely would be high up on a list of Halloween movie screenings for me.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> Not sure, but there is also Dracula Untold.


Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that one!


----------



## robert600

Chirosamsung said:


> go big or go home. Exorcist or bust


No, it needs to be vampire based ... guest request and theme of the party. I was thinking I could maybe stretch it a bit and do Doctor Sleep. It's kinda/sorta almost vampirey. I distincly remember liking the atmos track.


----------



## robert600

dschulz said:


> I have not heard the Atmos mix, but as a movie Bram Stoker's Dracula is phenomenal. Definitely would be high up on a list of Halloween movie screenings for me.


ok... good to know ... thanks.


----------



## Chirosamsung

robert600 said:


> No, it needs to be vampire based ... guest request and theme of the party. I was thinking I could maybe stretch it a bit and do Doctor Sleep. It's kinda/sorta almost vampirey. I distincly remember liking the atmos track.


Doctor sleep has an absolute REFERENCE atmos track-and is a great movie


----------



## halcyon_888

Why not the Lost Boys? I heard it got a new 4k transfer that looks great. No idea about its Atmos.


----------



## halcyon_888

halcyon_888 said:


> Why not the Lost Boys? I heard it got a new 4k transfer that looks great. No idea about its Atmos.


No Atmos track, just DTS-MA:








The Lost Boys 4K Blu-ray (35th Anniversary Edition)


The Lost Boys 4K Blu-ray Release Date September 20, 2022 (35th Anniversary Edition). Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.




www.blu-ray.com


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> No, it needs to be vampire based ... guest request and theme of the party. I was thinking I could maybe stretch it a bit and do Doctor Sleep. It's kinda/sorta almost vampirey. I distincly remember liking the atmos track.


Interview with the Vampire and The Lost Boys series is the only ones I ever liked beyond Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Neural X often does as well as Atmos.


----------



## Magiclakez

I have Stoker’s Dracula, Fright night (both include an atmos track), Dracula untold and Van Helsing (both are in DTS-X). I would personally choose between Stoker’s Dracula and Van Helsing for a “Vampire” themed party.


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> No, it needs to be vampire based ... guest request and theme of the party. I was thinking I could maybe stretch it a bit and do Doctor Sleep. It's kinda/sorta almost vampirey. I distincly remember liking the atmos track.


Underworld


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Underworld


Resident evil


----------



## MagnumX

I like the Resident Evil (original) Atmos upgrade (I had to import the UK boxset which puts the entire series in 4K Atmos) and the 4K picture is much better than the old blu-ray.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> Why not the Lost Boys? I heard it got a new 4k transfer that looks great. No idea about its Atmos.


Lost Boys has no Atmos but the new Fright Night 4k has Atmos.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Lost Boys has no Atmos but the new Fright Night 4k has Atmos.


What's more important to OP-having atmos or watching a good movie? Sometimes you can't have both lol


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> What's more important to OP-having atmos or watching a good movie? Sometimes you can't have both lol


You can often come close with Neural X (or to a lesser degree depending on tastes, Auromatic). For example, I can hardly tell the difference between The Meg in Neural X upmixed 5.1 and the Atmos track. Neural X is the best thing about DTS:X support, IMO. Many old movies sound much better, some even better than their poor Atmos renderings (e.g. TOP GUN: Maverick, which has only two channel overhead with sporadic use in Atmos, but up to 10 with Neural X).


----------



## sdurani

robert600 said:


> Would 'Brahm Stocker's Dracula (1992)" be a good choice? Is the Atmos track on the UHD well mixed?


Very well mixed. Was the first catalogue title to be re-mixed in Atmos and sounded better than most of the new Atmos movies that were coming out at the time. Sony followed this up with another catalogue title, Fifth Element, which also had a terrific Atmos re-mix. Really demonstrated how much untapped possibility there was in older mixes.


----------



## MagnumX

I didn't think The Fifth Element Atmos mix was all that stand-out. It had somewhat weak overhead sounds, IMO compared to say Harry Potter in DTS:X, which had all new overhead sounds specifically designed for X in many places (compare flying car scene in 5.1 with Neural X to actual DTS:X version in the Chamber of Secrets). Neural X would probably have sufficed for The Fifth Element, IMO.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> What's more important to OP-having atmos or watching a good movie? Sometimes you can't have both lol


If you have Auro3D, you dont even have to worry about it.

In any case it seemed like they were looking for something that could serve as a sound demo as well to show off the systems capabilities.

Also Fright Night happens to be my favorite vampire movie. Lost Boys occupies the #2 spot.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

Soulburner said:


> Underworld


This, one of the best Atmos tracks out there and a great movie.

Bam Stoker's Dracula has not aged well, the specific effects are extremely bad by modern standards.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Mashie Saldana said:


> This, one of the best Atmos tracks out there and a great movie.
> 
> Bam Stoker's Dracula has not aged well, the specific effects are extremely bad by modern standards.


If you are talking visual effects, the film was very purposeful in its use of old school visual techniques... hand drawn matte paintings, models and miniature sets, rear projection, forced perspective, running film backwards, lighting scrims, shadow puppetry, stop motion animation, etc. It's a retro film and I find the aesthetic all very atmospheric.


----------



## Josh Z

Chirosamsung said:


> What's more important to OP-having atmos or watching a good movie? Sometimes you can't have both lol


And with The Lost Boys, you get neither!


----------



## robert600

Well, after a lively dinner discussion … with everyone madly searching imdb etc. on their phones, Stoker’s Dracula won the vote. The choices were a bit limited because my antiquated Onkyo TX NR1030 can only do Atmos … no DTS:X or Auro3D and yes … wanted to demo the benefits of overhead sound … hoping to make some converts.

Anyway, I thought the Atmos in it was quite well done. Mostly, atmospheric so to speak with background music, wolf howls, thunder during the frequent lightning storms etc. At about 2:05:00, during the final conflict back at the castle … some nice sustained overhead sound.

A good time was had by all! Thanks for all the input!



Mashie Saldana said:


> Bam Stoker's Dracula has not aged well,


Perv that I am ... this got me wondering about how well Sadie Frost's (Lucy) breasts have aged? Back in1992, when filmed ... they're really quite spectacular ... if you like such things and ... I do! ha ha.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> Underworld


I'll make a point of finding this. I remember liking it and would like to hear the Atmos track! The upmixer can only do so much. Maybe for next Halloween!


----------



## niterida

robert600 said:


> Mostly, atmospheric so to speak with background music, wolf howls, thunder during the frequent lightning storms etc


and thats what a lot of people don't realise that Atmos is all about 
they want to be bombarded with discrete and loud sounds up above but in real life there isn't that much that comes from above
the subtle atmospheric sounds really adds to the immersion and would be sorely missed if it wasn't there


----------



## robert600

niterida said:


> and thats what a lot of people don't realise that Atmos is all about
> they want to be bombarded with discrete and loud sounds up above but in real life there isn't that much that comes from above
> the subtle atmospheric sounds really adds to the immersion and would be sorely missed if it wasn't there


Agreed ... I have to admit it took me some time to realize this. In the early days, I wanted to be continuously bombarded with strong, obvious overhead and was somehow disappointed when I wasn't. I still enjoy discreet powerful overhead but I"ve come to appreciate the ... not so obvious ... general ambience type effects more and more. So much so that I wonder if somehow the auditory system 'learns' to process overhead sounds more and more. It seems, the more I use it, the more I hear up there. So movies I rewatch from the early days ... that I remember thinking ... not much atmos in that one ... now sound entirely different and I then think ... pretty nice job on the Atmos! Strange but true for me.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> but in real life there isn't that much that comes from above


Tell that to my friend who lives in an apartment building. All he hears is are sounds from his upstairs neighbors on the ceiling.... 

I think indoor overhead sounds (particularly in a horror/haunted/thriller/action) movie are some of the most under-utilized effects in Atmos (or Auro or X). The best one I can think of for consistent sounds in that regard is probably "Mother" in Atmos (miserable movie, IMO despite the unbelievably good soundtrack) and maybe Crimson Peak (DTS:X), but that one is not really a haunted house kind of movie. Overlord has a nice effect overhead with a baseball rolling on the ceiling in the attic above and the newer Flatliners has voices floating on the ceiling during the intro that's impressive as heck, but it's short-lived. The newest Candyman movie has a great scare from above in the elevator sequence, but it's short-lived too.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you are talking visual effects, the film was very purposeful in its use of old school visual techniques... hand drawn matte paintings, models and miniature sets, rear projection, forced perspective, running film backwards, lighting scrims, shadow puppetry, stop motion animation, etc. It's a retro film and I find the aesthetic all very atmospheric.


I decided to re-visit this film again last night. After giving suggestions to Robert600, it kinda sparked my interest as well. Lol. It also gave me chance to check out the new transfer on the recently released (30th anniversary) steelbook. I found the new DoVi transfer to be a slight upgrade over the previous (25th anniversary) release. The audio track is the same atmos track ported over from the older 2017 release.

Anyways the Atmos track on this movie would put any contemporary release to shame. There are plenty of ambient/ discrete heights effects throughout the film. However there are also moments wherein the heights effects are downright violent and congruent (or corresponding) with the action sequences in the movie. I don’t think anyone else, other than Gary Oldman could pull off such a spectacular performance as Count Dracula. Anthony Hopkins is amazing as Van Helsing. I think just like Dracula himself, this film is a timeless wonder.


----------



## Magiclakez

Btw, I watched “Interview with the Vampire” as well on Tubi. It’s a free stream on Tubi and in case anyone else wants to check it out, today is the last day before it expires. What a wonderful film and stellar performances by both Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt along with a fine cameo by (child artist) Kirsten Dunst. Can’t believe this doesn’t have a 4k release. It should look and sound amazing on 4k.


----------



## robert600

Magiclakez said:


> I decided to re-visit this film again last night. After giving suggestions to Robert600, it kinda sparked my interest as well. Lol. It also gave me chance to check out the new transfer on the recently released (30th anniversary) steelbook. I found the new DoVi transfer to be a slight upgrade over the previous (25th anniversary) release. The audio track is the same atmos track ported over from the older 2017 release.


Yes, fun for sure. My projector displays 11' 8" (140") wide ... keeps the movie's AR so the height varies. This one's AR is 1.85 so my meager math skills tell me ... 160" on the diagonal. It was clear as a bell ... and I was in the front row! ... When I see movies done like this ... it really makes me wonder about the impetus behind the push for 8 K! Seems like overkill to me.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Tell that to my friend who lives in an apartment building. All he hears is are sounds from his upstairs neighbors on the ceiling....
> 
> I think indoor overhead sounds (particularly in a horror/haunted/thriller/action) movie are some of the most under-utilized effects in Atmos (or Auro or X). The best one I can think of for consistent sounds in that regard is probably "Mother" in Atmos (miserable movie, IMO despite the unbelievably good soundtrack) and maybe Crimson Peak (DTS:X), but that one is not really a haunted house kind of movie. Overlord has a nice effect overhead with a baseball rolling on the ceiling in the attic above and the newer Flatliners has voices floating on the ceiling during the intro that's impressive as heck, but it's short-lived. The newest Candyman movie has a great scare from above in the elevator sequence, but it's short-lived too.


That's what I want to see-a movie about neighbors walking and talking above them in an apartment building! Lol. Terrible plot but GREAT atmos...kinda like most of the movies


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> That's what I want to see-a movie about neighbors walking and talking above them in an apartment building! Lol. Terrible plot but GREAT atmos...kinda like most of the movies


Depends on what they're doing upstairs.... A Two And A Half Men episode with Japanese rain goggles comes to mind.... ARAGATO!


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> and thats what a lot of people don't realise that Atmos is all about
> they want to be bombarded with discrete and loud sounds up above but in real life there isn't that much that comes from above
> the subtle atmospheric sounds really adds to the immersion and would be sorely missed if it wasn't there


In your daily life you also aren't likely to encounter gunships and robots overhead, either, unless your name is Shia LaBeouf. Nature is amazing, but we also watch sci-fi, fantasy, etc.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> and thats what a lot of people don't realise that Atmos is all about
> they want to be bombarded with discrete and loud sounds up above but in real life there isn't that much that comes from above
> the subtle atmospheric sounds really adds to the immersion and would be sorely missed if it wasn't there


Continuously bombarded, no. Not exactly.

When the action on the screen dictates there should be sound above, (think the opening of Bumblebee on Cybertron where there are Decepticons flying everywhere and laser and cannon fire all over the place, but the only thing in the height channels is music) then by god it SHOULD be there.

Those moments might be rare depending on the genre and type of movie. But yes, ambiance, atmospherics and reflections should be present far more often than we actually get.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> In your daily life you also aren't likely to encounter gunships and robots overhead, either, unless your name is Shia LaBeouf. Nature is amazing, but we also watch sci-fi, fantasy, etc.


I work with helicopters a lot so thats not so different. Plus working out in the wilderness, I get a lot of ambient sounds overhead when I'm in the brush.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Speaking of Atmospherics, if you havent seen Werewolf By Night on Disney Plus, check it out. Its only an hour long, but its pretty fun. It has some interesting uses of Atmos. Nothing super bombastic and quite atmospheric.

Here is an interview with the post production team on the Dolby channel, and much of the conversation surrounds the Atmos mix.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Those Sound & Image Lab podcasts have a wealth of knowledge in them. The one with the team that did Dune is outstanding.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Those Sound & Image Lab podcasts have a wealth of knowledge in them. The one with the team that did Dune is outstanding.


I'll have to check that out on my way home tonight.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Awesome episode about the sound design in Stranger Things season 4. After watching this, you understand why the sound design in season 4 was so amazing


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Continuously bombarded, no. Not exactly.
> 
> When the action on the screen dictates there should be sound above, (think the opening of Bumblebee on Cybertron where there are Decepticons flying everywhere and laser and cannon fire all over the place, but the only thing in the height channels is music) then by god it SHOULD be there.
> 
> Those moments might be rare depending on the genre and type of movie. But yes, ambiance, atmospherics and reflections should be present far more often than we actually get.


Exactly. I don’t want the drunk, reckless Brontosaurus to sound like a friggin grasshopper. That’s called pathetic mixing. We see plenty of those cringe-worthy examples anyways. 

After all these are full range channels, quite capable of receiving full range signals like all other channels. Why short change them? If I only wanted to settle for subtle ambient effects, I would probably jerry rig some Christmas decorative bulbs and slap them on the ceiling.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Exactly. I don’t want the drunk, reckless Brontosaurus to sound like a friggin grasshopper. That’s called pathetic mixing. We see plenty of those cringe-worthy examples anyways.
> 
> After all these are full range channels, quite capable of receiving full range signals like all other channels. Why short change them? If I only wanted to settle for subtle ambient effects, I would probably jerry rig some Christmas decorative bulbs and slap them on the ceiling.


If you watch the dolby video about Stranger Things they talk about this very thing. How the Atmos processing allows them to make all the sounds as big and grandiose as they want them to be and how they utilized it to create sweeping and overwhelming effects like Vecna's voice which kind of just bowls over you as it rolls out of the front soundstage and reverberates throughout the room.


----------



## halcyon_888

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Speaking of Atmospherics, if you havent seen Werewolf By Night on Disney Plus, check it out. Its only an hour long, but its pretty fun. It has some interesting uses of Atmos. Nothing super bombastic and quite atmospheric.
> 
> Here is an interview with the post production team on the Dolby channel, and much of the conversation surrounds the Atmos mix.


You mean Disney/Marvel actually put some effort into their Atmos mix? Color me shocked, but hopefully this is a sign of good things to come.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> You mean Disney/Marvel actually put some effort into their Atmos mix? Color me shocked, but hopefully this is a sign of good things to come.


They put in some effort but still not quite up to Sony, Warner Bros or Netflix.


----------



## Magiclakez

Thor: love and thunder, has a very impressive atmos mix. I had mentioned earlier that Disney probably got the memo, as they really stepped up their game with this track. We need to appreciate that and hope this becomes the norm and not an outlier/ anomaly.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Thor: love and thunder, has a very impressive atmos mix. I had mentioned earlier that Disney probably got the memo, as they really stepped up their game with this track. We need to appreciate that and hope this becomes the norm and not an anomaly.


They got to the level of an average quality mix. I guess for The Mouse that's a small step in the right direction. Now, where's the appropriate low bass response?


----------



## squared80

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Speaking of Atmospherics, if you havent seen Werewolf By Night on Disney Plus, check it out. Its only an hour long, but its pretty fun. It has some interesting uses of Atmos. Nothing super bombastic and quite atmospheric.
> 
> Here is an interview with the post production team on the Dolby channel, and much of the conversation surrounds the Atmos mix.


Something on Disney has decent Atmos? Hmm...


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> They got to the level of an average quality mix. I guess for The Mouse that's a small step in the right direction. Now, where's the appropriate low bass response?


Nah I think the atmos mix (and picture quality) on the latest Thor was above average, or even borderline demo material. But then again YMMV.

I have abused the Mouse countless times in the past. Lol. However you gotta give credit when it’s due. But i do agree with the low bass comment. And I doubt that will change.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Nah I think the atmos mix (and picture quality) on the latest Thor was above average, or even borderline demo material. But then again YMMV.
> 
> I have abused the Mouse countless times in the past. Lol. However you gotta give credit when it’s due. But i do agree with the low bass comment. And I doubt that will change.


The missing bass is one of the reasons I knocked it down into the range of average mixes. It has no weight when a scene calls for it.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Nah I think the atmos mix (and picture quality) on the latest Thor was above average, or even borderline demo material. But then again YMMV.
> 
> I have abused the Mouse countless times in the past. Lol. However you gotta give credit when it’s due. But i do agree with the low bass comment. And I doubt that will change.


Speaking of *Thor: Love & Thunder*, my *3D*+*4K* MovieNEX version from Japan has just arrived. I'll have to move the Atmos track to a dump of the 3D disc before I watch it.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> Speaking of *Thor: Love & Thunder*, my *3D*+*4K* MovieNEX version from Japan has just arrived. I'll have to move the Atmos track to a dump of the 3D disc before I watch it.


This movie should look amazing on 3d/4k.

I just received my Australian release kickass 4k and the French release for La La land. Both these releases feature a DTS-X track, as opposed to the atmos track on the US version. It will be interesting to compare both tracks.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> This movie should look amazing on 3d/4k.
> 
> I just received my Australian release kickass 4k and the French release for La La land. Both these releases feature a DTS-X track, as opposed to the atmos track on the US version. It will be interesting to compare both tracks.


Let us know if there's any audible differences. The few DTS:X I've compared to Atmos were lossy iTunes Atmos to UHD DTS:X Blu-Ray. I still couldn't hear anything noticeably different once levels were matched, not even the usual subwoofer differences of Dolby & DTS. I assumed they rigged the same master somehow (not sure what software they're using; I haven't seen anything but music software that will generate both from the same master, but there must be something because they're too nearly identical sounding to not be the same basic mix as compared to say the separate Auro and Atmos mixes for things like Twister, Daylight and Dragonheart which sound very difference from each other, although which one is superior varies, sometimes scene by scene even on those).


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> Let us know if there's any audible differences. The few DTS:X I've compared to Atmos were lossy iTunes Atmos to UHD DTS:X Blu-Ray. I still couldn't hear anything noticeably different once levels were matched, not even the usual subwoofer differences of Dolby & DTS. I assumed they rigged the same master somehow (not sure what software they're using; I haven't seen anything but music software that will generate both from the same master, but there must be something because they're too nearly identical sounding to not be the same basic mix as compared to say the separate Auro and Atmos mixes for things like Twister, Daylight and Dragonheart which sound very difference from each other, although which one is superior varies, sometimes scene by scene even on those).


Will do. 

The Australian version Kick Ass is a Universal release while the US version is lionsgate. I believe the US version has a Dolby Vision grading, whereas the Universal release is HDR10 along with a different immersive track (DTS-X.) IIRC, someone on Blu-ray.com recently did a very exhaustive comparison for the various releases.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Will do.
> 
> The Australian version Kick Ass is a Universal release while the US version is lionsgate. I believe the US version has a Dolby Vision grading, whereas the Universal release is HDR10 along with a different immersive track (DTS-X.) IIRC, someone on Blu-ray.com recently did a very exhaustive comparison for the various releases.


It's getting trickier and trickier all the time. New releases months later in other countries with very different features (e.g. Pitch Black 4K with 5.1 by Anchor followed a mere six months later by Turbine's 4K Atmos version. Some of these titles aren't cheap either. 

A new 4K version of The Running Man (Arnold) is about to be released, but it turns out it's inferior (5.1 sound with no original stereo track included) to the version released last year in Germany in 4K (7.1 English soundtrack plus original theatrical stereo soundtrack included). I just ordered the German 4K version.... 

Two more brand new archive older 3D movies on the way too (Thor: Love & Thunder arrived today with the 4K Atmos version as well). The Diamond Wizard and I, The Jury are on the way (latter includes 4K black & white version as well). 12 more 3D titles added this year...not bad for a "dead format" (My 3D total will move to 285 or so, more than my Atmos, X and Auro-3D Blu-rays combined).


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> It's getting trickier and trickier all the time. New releases months later in other countries with very different features (e.g. Pitch Black 4K with 5.1 by Anchor followed a mere six months later by Turbine's 4K Atmos version. Some of these titles aren't cheap either.
> 
> A new 4K version of The Running Man (Arnold) is about to be released, but it turns out it's inferior (5.1 sound with no original stereo track included) to the version released last year in Germany in 4K (7.1 English soundtrack plus original theatrical stereo soundtrack included). I just ordered the German 4K version....


I have that German release for Running man 4k (mediabook). I think I ordered it thru Amazon Germany. I have Pitch Black 4k (Turbine). The atmos track on Pitch Black is fantastic. Wish they would work on more titles.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Here is a video from Audioholics where they talk to a mixing engineer about Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

Comments made as I watch this 2 hour video.... (long because the video is long; I'll group by video section with extra spacing for different things brought up), but it IS a massive wall of text to talk about 2 hours of commentary.

Just looking at that sound board I wonder how much older style controls from an older way of doing things impacts something more modern like Atmos objects. I mean imagine trying to play a video game with 1001 knobs and sliders (e.g. Try to play Defender or Stargate arcade games withe the arcade controls; it can be done, but it's much harder, especially at first). Where's the joysticks for object placement? Where's the computer grid display to show and set object placement? Some other room? (That appears to be setup for music soundtrack mixing) Do mixing consoles need to be modernized for 3D object creation and ease of setting them up or is that the Cadillac of consoles and it is way more awesome to play with 1000 knobs than I think? I'm pretty sure he's not actually there either. I think it's a green screen type backdrop based on later comments about it being a "picture".


Upmixers. It's clear John Traunwieser doesn't like them. (e.g. "It's anyone's guess what's going on....") The problem is, of course that Dolby changed the layout specs in Atmos from the 5.1/7.1 layouts they used to use. It's a significant change in that speakers that used to be 6 feet off the ground in an 8-10' room are now 2.5'-4' off the ground (ear level). If you watch Top Gun in 6.1 (old blu-ray) straight, you will not have any jet surround sounds above your head, really. But you certainly would have had them above your head in a true calibrated 5.1/6.1/7.1 home theater because that's where the speakers were supposed to be. However, if you use Neural X, it moves the soundstage upward where appropriate and you not only get that surround height back, but some separation between many effects as well. In fact, the 6.1 mix with Neural X sounds very similar to the Atmos mix (I've compared them head-to-head here) only with 8dB more LFE bass in the DTS 6.1 mix (Dolby Atmos version sounds anemic by comparison here). 


John doesn't use wides... what a shock. WTF is the point of a 360 degree "bubble" when they just IGNORE entire sections of it?


_Streaming_....the bane of Atmos according to John. Lower bitrates means they ignore all those extra channels because they're bit-starved. So they should be making UHDs separate from streaming or having a process manage that automatically. As Internet speeds increase, audio bitrates usually don't....


John says the auto-calibration on AVR/AVPs is _TERRIBLE_. He's never used them. Sorry, D&M, Trinnov, etc. Your systems SUCK according to John.... (who doesn't use front wides at all, but is worried about "intent" as it drives him nuts). Yeah, I don't really _care_ what he wants. If he cannot mix Atmos properly then he should not worry about others FIXING what he's possibly already screwed up by default. I'm sure I'll take a massive amount of flak for that, but it's true. A 360 Atmos system should operate 360, not jump from 30 to 120 degrees because they didn't utilize anything in-between the mains and surrounds and he's making it clear that's the "effect" he wanted and so we should hear it that way. 

Yet we cannot normally get direct home conversion of the Theatrical Mix at home when John flat out pretty much says it's much better and doesn't have the constraints about worrying about blowing up consumers speakers. But we have to listen to his "streaming crap mix" instead, even though he admits he hates streaming after hearing Kaleidiscape's lossless mixes. He's apparently blown away by Kaleidiscape. Yeah, that's why we have UHD discs. People seemingly don't want quality anymore. They want crap. Apple and others COULD increase the audio bitrates possible since we have ever-faster broadband in most populated areas (mine is up to 250Gbps at the 2nd lowest tier now), but won't because that means "less" profits. He likes theatrical content the best because it's a higher stricter standard. And THAT is why I want the damn theatrical mix on UHD discs!!!! 

We have Mobile Fidelity for music for higher quality versions of music albums, so why can't we get the basic "guts" of the theatrical mix on higher quality UHD discs by Arrow, Turbine, etc. ? UHD discs certainly have plenty of space for it. I'll take a straight Dolby auto-conversion of the theatrical mix, even. No work required on their part but to copy it over to the UHD master as an extra track. I'd bet my bottom dollar it sounds better every single time than ANY "home mix" included on any movie on any disc. I have a couple of DTS 5.1 theatrical mixes converted to home DTS and it's mind-blowing how much more dynamic the soundtracks were (typically 8dB louder for sound effects relative to the average dialog; that's about 80% louder to the ear).


Then John goes on about how he has to use a different "calibration" for Apple TV. He's not entirely sure, it seems what's going on, but those of us using it probably have a better idea. The primary difference are overall levels for the same movie in streaming versus the Blu-Ray disc (or lossless Kaleidiscape version). It shouldn't take an overall calibration change, just a level tweak for that device (many AVRs can set their default level different for different devices and thus one would expect Apple TV to need a 6db-8dB boost on average...except that the problem is that it's not the device, it's the files. 

How do I know this? Because I have the Apple TV app on my Shield and the MKV dump from many UHDs are different than the AppleTV version played back through KODI). However, once they are level matched, the overall difference (save if you turn off the "bed" layer and listen _only_ to those bit-starved overheads) mostly disappears.


To his credit, Shane (who sadly doesn't get to talk much at all in the video) actually brings up the 30Hz bass filtering issue many recent movies have been getting. John works for Disney at times, at least and so you think he'd be aware of what is going on. He acts like he's never heard of such a thing. So who is making this adjustment to the streaming and disc releases at the last minute to filter that bass if it's not the mixing engineer because the spectrograms don't lie. What irks me in the video is that Gene and Matthew then try to cover this up with, "It may not actually be happening" type of line (like Shane's full of it or something) when clearly Shane is dead on accurate. 


Gene says the Dolby Atmos "Amaze" demo will take those subwoofers out! You don't want to play that! That's odd. I've played that demo probably 250 times over the past 4 years. It has yet to take my mere 2005 Def Tech 15" subwoofer out. In fact, that's one of my favorite demos and shakes the whole darn room. I imagine it does even more shaking on multi-sub systems that can play below 20Hz. But if they're designed to play that low and you're not overdriving your subs beyond their limits, it shouldn't be blowing them up either.

However, earlier in the video, John clearly says for the home mix, he has to adjust it so it doesn't blow out cheap home speakers. John then brings that up again. We don't want to blow people's speakers out (as if they can't set their own crossover or limit their own levels on their own equipment instead. What are those same people going to do when they watch Blade Runner 2049 or Dune which does NOT do that and are some of the few films that actually had me worrying about my own speakers)? The key here should be CONSISTENCY. And that's why THX created STANDARDS in the first place. Now they're making independent decisions at studios to screw up the sound based on "feelings" (seems to be a world-wide thing at the moment) instead of facts and standard practices. 

John keeps talking about people's subwoofers or woofers in general "exploding" so that's why they make the home mixes weaker with less bass and less dynamic range, etc. The problem is Dolby and THX have specifications for playback and that previously included home playback. So, instead of ripping the public off with these tainted "home mixes" why didn't they bake more controls for limiting dynamics and bass for "wimpier" systems? They could even have the default base mix set to be wimpy and use the equivalent of BEQ automatically (using flags) to "restore" the theatrical mix for those that have better systems? 

It's pretty obvious for all the technology that Dolby engineered, it seemingly never occurred to them that the guys mixing the films could just override anything and everything they don't feel like using for home mixes. But that's precisely why I think the push into the future (which will sell studios more copies again and again) is to get a higher standard mix at home for a premium client, whether that is UHD discs or some higher-end streaming format like Kaleidiscape or even just a secondary soundtrack to choose on iTunes streaming ("theatrical mix"). 


Gene commenting on Auro-3D.... It's obvious he's clueless about the system and hasn't tried it properly at all. "Those Dolby Height formats didnt' work!" LOL. Does he know anything about the VOG speaker to bridge front/rear heights?


The bottom line is YES, Atmos mixes probably do suck for very real reasons. That reason is largely HOME MIXES (missing bass, lowered dynamic range) as well as mixing guys who don't even use all the Atmos speakers even when they're in a real theater mixing stage, apparently.... (John says "I don't use them...." ). Maybe having a full 64 speaker mixing stage should be a requirement for any Atmos film mixing engineer. This notion that we can just skip right over the standard and just go back to 5.1 or 7.1 for most things (John goes on at length how confusing it is to go from 5.1 to 7.1 and how mixing guys still argue about WTF to do with 7.1...should the surrounds be moved to the sides or left alone with rears simply further back....) plus hey, for Atmos a few objects here and there added to that 7.1.2 base appears to be a very real thing, which is probably THE reason Disney ALmos(t) pretty much seems to be 7.1.2 with the rare panning object. John works for Fox (Star Wars/Disney), so I shouldn't really be surprised that is the prevailing attitude there.

But hey, time is a major constraint and the studios don't give us any, so just be glad there's any sound at all!  

At least they agreed on how limited Atmos "headphones" and "bouncy" speakers are.


----------



## squared80

MagnumX said:


> Comments made as I watch this 2 hour video.... (long because the video is long; I'll group by video section with extra spacing for different things brought up), but it IS a massive wall of text to talk about 2 hours of commentary.
> 
> Just looking at that sound board I wonder how much older style controls from an older way of doing things impacts something more modern like Atmos objects. I mean imagine trying to play a video game with 1001 knobs and sliders (e.g. Try to play Defender or Stargate arcade games withe the arcade controls; it can be done, but it's much harder, especially at first). Where's the joysticks for object placement? Where's the computer grid display to show and set object placement? Some other room? (That appears to be setup for music soundtrack mixing) Do mixing consoles need to be modernized for 3D object creation and ease of setting them up or is that the Cadillac of consoles and it is way more awesome to play with 1000 knobs than I think? I'm pretty sure he's not actually there either. I think it's a green screen type backdrop based on later comments about it being a "picture".
> 
> 
> Upmixers. It's clear John Traunwieser doesn't like them. (e.g. "It's anyone's guess what's going on....") The problem is, of course that Dolby changed the layout specs in Atmos from the 5.1/7.1 layouts they used to use. It's a significant change in that speakers that used to be 6 feet off the ground in an 8-10' room are now 2.5'-4' off the ground (ear level). If you watch Top Gun in 6.1 (old blu-ray) straight, you will not have any jet surround sounds above your head, really. But you certainly would have had them above your head in a true calibrated 5.1/6.1/7.1 home theater because that's where the speakers were supposed to be. However, if you use Neural X, it moves the soundstage upward where appropriate and you not only get that surround height back, but some separation between many effects as well. In fact, the 6.1 mix with Neural X sounds very similar to the Atmos mix (I've compared them head-to-head here) only with 8dB more LFE bass in the DTS 6.1 mix (Dolby Atmos version sounds anemic by comparison here).
> 
> 
> John doesn't use wides... what a shock. WTF is the point of a 360 degree "bubble" when they just IGNORE entire sections of it?
> 
> 
> _Streaming_....the bane of Atmos according to John. Lower bitrates means they ignore all those extra channels because they're bit-starved. So they should be making UHDs separate from streaming or having a process manage that automatically. As Internet speeds increase, audio bitrates usually don't....
> 
> 
> John says the auto-calibration on AVR/AVPs is _TERRIBLE_. He's never used them. Sorry, D&M, Trinnov, etc. Your systems SUCK according to John.... (who doesn't use front wides at all, but is worried about "intent" as it drives him nuts). Yeah, I don't really _care_ what he wants. If he cannot mix Atmos properly then he should not worry about others FIXING what he's possibly already screwed up by default. I'm sure I'll take a massive amount of flak for that, but it's true. A 360 Atmos system should operate 360, not jump from 30 to 120 degrees because they didn't utilize anything in-between the mains and surrounds and he's making it clear that's the "effect" he wanted and so we should hear it that way.
> 
> Yet we cannot normally get direct home conversion of the Theatrical Mix at home when John flat out pretty much says it's much better and doesn't have the constraints about worrying about blowing up consumers speakers. But we have to listen to his "streaming crap mix" instead, even though he admits he hates streaming after hearing Kaleidiscape's lossless mixes. He's apparently blown away by Kaleidiscape. Yeah, that's why we have UHD discs. People seemingly don't want quality anymore. They want crap. Apple and others COULD increase the audio bitrates possible since we have ever-faster broadband in most populated areas (mine is up to 250Gbps at the 2nd lowest tier now), but won't because that means "less" profits. He likes theatrical content the best because it's a higher stricter standard. And THAT is why I want the damn theatrical mix on UHD discs!!!!
> 
> We have Mobile Fidelity for music for higher quality versions of music albums, so why can't we get the basic "guts" of the theatrical mix on higher quality UHD discs by Arrow, Turbine, etc. ? UHD discs certainly have plenty of space for it. I'll take a straight Dolby auto-conversion of the theatrical mix, even. No work required on their part but to copy it over to the UHD master as an extra track. I'd bet my bottom dollar it sounds better every single time than ANY "home mix" included on any movie on any disc. I have a couple of DTS 5.1 theatrical mixes converted to home DTS and it's mind-blowing how much more dynamic the soundtracks were (typically 8dB louder for sound effects relative to the average dialog; that's about 80% louder to the ear).
> 
> 
> Then John goes on about how he has to use a different "calibration" for Apple TV. He's not entirely sure, it seems what's going on, but those of us using it probably have a better idea. The primary difference are overall levels for the same movie in streaming versus the Blu-Ray disc (or lossless Kaleidiscape version). It shouldn't take an overall calibration change, just a level tweak for that device (many AVRs can set their default level different for different devices and thus one would expect Apple TV to need a 6db-8dB boost on average...except that the problem is that it's not the device, it's the files.
> 
> How do I know this? Because I have the Apple TV app on my Shield and the MKV dump from many UHDs are different than the AppleTV version played back through KODI). However, once they are level matched, the overall difference (save if you turn off the "bed" layer and listen _only_ to those bit-starved overheads) mostly disappears.
> 
> 
> To his credit, Shane (who sadly doesn't get to talk much at all in the video) actually brings up the 30Hz bass filtering issue many recent movies have been getting. John works for Disney at times, at least and so you think he'd be aware of what is going on. He acts like he's never heard of such a thing. So who is making this adjustment to the streaming and disc releases at the last minute to filter that bass if it's not the mixing engineer because the spectrograms don't lie. What irks me in the video is that Gene and Matthew then try to cover this up with, "It may not actually be happening" type of line (like Shane's full of it or something) when clearly Shane is dead on accurate.
> 
> 
> Gene says the Dolby Atmos "Amaze" demo will take those subwoofers out! You don't want to play that! That's odd. I've played that demo probably 250 times over the past 4 years. It has yet to take my mere 2005 Def Tech 15" subwoofer out. In fact, that's one of my favorite demos and shakes the whole darn room. I imagine it does even more shaking on multi-sub systems that can play below 20Hz. But if they're designed to play that low and you're not overdriving your subs beyond their limits, it shouldn't be blowing them up either.
> 
> However, earlier in the video, John clearly says for the home mix, he has to adjust it so it doesn't blow out cheap home speakers. John then brings that up again. We don't want to blow people's speakers out (as if they can't set their own crossover or limit their own levels on their own equipment instead. What are those same people going to do when they watch Blade Runner 2049 or Dune which does NOT do that and are some of the few films that actually had me worrying about my own speakers)? The key here should be CONSISTENCY. And that's why THX created STANDARDS in the first place. Now they're making independent decisions at studios to screw up the sound based on "feelings" (seems to be a world-wide thing at the moment) instead of facts and standard practices.
> 
> John keeps talking about people's subwoofers or woofers in general "exploding" so that's why they make the home mixes weaker with less bass and less dynamic range, etc. The problem is Dolby and THX have specifications for playback and that previously included home playback. So, instead of ripping the public off with these tainted "home mixes" why didn't they bake more controls for limiting dynamics and bass for "wimpier" systems? They could even have the default base mix set to be wimpy and use the equivalent of BEQ automatically (using flags) to "restore" the theatrical mix for those that have better systems?
> 
> It's pretty obvious for all the technology that Dolby engineered, it seemingly never occurred to them that the guys mixing the films could just override anything and everything they don't feel like using for home mixes. But that's precisely why I think the push into the future (which will sell studios more copies again and again) is to get a higher standard mix at home for a premium client, whether that is UHD discs or some higher-end streaming format like Kaleidiscape or even just a secondary soundtrack to choose on iTunes streaming ("theatrical mix").
> 
> 
> Gene commenting on Auro-3D.... It's obvious he's clueless about the system and hasn't tried it properly at all. "Those Dolby Height formats didnt' work!" LOL. Does he know anything about the VOG speaker to bridge front/rear heights?
> 
> 
> The bottom line is YES, Atmos mixes probably do suck for very real reasons. That reason is largely HOME MIXES (missing bass, lowered dynamic range) as well as mixing guys who don't even use all the Atmos speakers even when they're in a real theater mixing stage, apparently.... (John says "I don't use them...." ). Maybe having a full 64 speaker mixing stage should be a requirement for any Atmos film mixing engineer. This notion that we can just skip right over the standard and just go back to 5.1 or 7.1 for most things (John goes on at length how confusing it is to go from 5.1 to 7.1 and how mixing guys still argue about WTF to do with 7.1...should the surrounds be moved to the sides or left alone with rears simply further back....) plus hey, for Atmos a few objects here and there added to that 7.1.2 base appears to be a very real thing, which is probably THE reason Disney ALmos(t) pretty much seems to be 7.1.2 with the rare panning object. John works for Fox (Star Wars/Disney), so I shouldn't really be surprised that is the prevailing attitude there.
> 
> But hey, time is a major constraint and the studios don't give us any, so just be glad there's any sound at all!
> 
> At least they agreed on how limited Atmos "headphones" and "bouncy" speakers are.


I really appreciate your comments and I share much of the same frustration as you. It's the Wild West with these sound mixes, and it is disheartening to hear some of the things that John mentioned here. I'm a big fan of Gene, but he throws a lot of softballs in these discussions, as well.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Comments made as I watch this 2 hour video.... (long because the video is long; I'll group by video section with extra spacing for different things brought up), but it IS a massive wall of text to talk about 2 hours of commentary.
> 
> Just looking at that sound board I wonder how much older style controls from an older way of doing things impacts something more modern like Atmos objects. I mean imagine trying to play a video game with 1001 knobs and sliders (e.g. Try to play Defender or Stargate arcade games withe the arcade controls; it can be done, but it's much harder, especially at first). Where's the joysticks for object placement? Where's the computer grid display to show and set object placement? Some other room? (That appears to be setup for music soundtrack mixing) Do mixing consoles need to be modernized for 3D object creation and ease of setting them up or is that the Cadillac of consoles and it is way more awesome to play with 1000 knobs than I think? I'm pretty sure he's not actually there either. I think it's a green screen type backdrop based on later comments about it being a "picture".
> 
> 
> Upmixers. It's clear John Traunwieser doesn't like them. (e.g. "It's anyone's guess what's going on....") The problem is, of course that Dolby changed the layout specs in Atmos from the 5.1/7.1 layouts they used to use. It's a significant change in that speakers that used to be 6 feet off the ground in an 8-10' room are now 2.5'-4' off the ground (ear level). If you watch Top Gun in 6.1 (old blu-ray) straight, you will not have any jet surround sounds above your head, really. But you certainly would have had them above your head in a true calibrated 5.1/6.1/7.1 home theater because that's where the speakers were supposed to be. However, if you use Neural X, it moves the soundstage upward where appropriate and you not only get that surround height back, but some separation between many effects as well. In fact, the 6.1 mix with Neural X sounds very similar to the Atmos mix (I've compared them head-to-head here) only with 8dB more LFE bass in the DTS 6.1 mix (Dolby Atmos version sounds anemic by comparison here).
> 
> 
> John doesn't use wides... what a shock. WTF is the point of a 360 degree "bubble" when they just IGNORE entire sections of it?
> 
> 
> _Streaming_....the bane of Atmos according to John. Lower bitrates means they ignore all those extra channels because they're bit-starved. So they should be making UHDs separate from streaming or having a process manage that automatically. As Internet speeds increase, audio bitrates usually don't....
> 
> 
> John says the auto-calibration on AVR/AVPs is _TERRIBLE_. He's never used them. Sorry, D&M, Trinnov, etc. Your systems SUCK according to John.... (who doesn't use front wides at all, but is worried about "intent" as it drives him nuts). Yeah, I don't really _care_ what he wants. If he cannot mix Atmos properly then he should not worry about others FIXING what he's possibly already screwed up by default. I'm sure I'll take a massive amount of flak for that, but it's true. A 360 Atmos system should operate 360, not jump from 30 to 120 degrees because they didn't utilize anything in-between the mains and surrounds and he's making it clear that's the "effect" he wanted and so we should hear it that way.
> 
> Yet we cannot normally get direct home conversion of the Theatrical Mix at home when John flat out pretty much says it's much better and doesn't have the constraints about worrying about blowing up consumers speakers. But we have to listen to his "streaming crap mix" instead, even though he admits he hates streaming after hearing Kaleidiscape's lossless mixes. He's apparently blown away by Kaleidiscape. Yeah, that's why we have UHD discs. People seemingly don't want quality anymore. They want crap. Apple and others COULD increase the audio bitrates possible since we have ever-faster broadband in most populated areas (mine is up to 250Gbps at the 2nd lowest tier now), but won't because that means "less" profits. He likes theatrical content the best because it's a higher stricter standard. And THAT is why I want the damn theatrical mix on UHD discs!!!!
> 
> We have Mobile Fidelity for music for higher quality versions of music albums, so why can't we get the basic "guts" of the theatrical mix on higher quality UHD discs by Arrow, Turbine, etc. ? UHD discs certainly have plenty of space for it. I'll take a straight Dolby auto-conversion of the theatrical mix, even. No work required on their part but to copy it over to the UHD master as an extra track. I'd bet my bottom dollar it sounds better every single time than ANY "home mix" included on any movie on any disc. I have a couple of DTS 5.1 theatrical mixes converted to home DTS and it's mind-blowing how much more dynamic the soundtracks were (typically 8dB louder for sound effects relative to the average dialog; that's about 80% louder to the ear).
> 
> 
> Then John goes on about how he has to use a different "calibration" for Apple TV. He's not entirely sure, it seems what's going on, but those of us using it probably have a better idea. The primary difference are overall levels for the same movie in streaming versus the Blu-Ray disc (or lossless Kaleidiscape version). It shouldn't take an overall calibration change, just a level tweak for that device (many AVRs can set their default level different for different devices and thus one would expect Apple TV to need a 6db-8dB boost on average...except that the problem is that it's not the device, it's the files.
> 
> How do I know this? Because I have the Apple TV app on my Shield and the MKV dump from many UHDs are different than the AppleTV version played back through KODI). However, once they are level matched, the overall difference (save if you turn off the "bed" layer and listen _only_ to those bit-starved overheads) mostly disappears.
> 
> 
> To his credit, Shane (who sadly doesn't get to talk much at all in the video) actually brings up the 30Hz bass filtering issue many recent movies have been getting. John works for Disney at times, at least and so you think he'd be aware of what is going on. He acts like he's never heard of such a thing. So who is making this adjustment to the streaming and disc releases at the last minute to filter that bass if it's not the mixing engineer because the spectrograms don't lie. What irks me in the video is that Gene and Matthew then try to cover this up with, "It may not actually be happening" type of line (like Shane's full of it or something) when clearly Shane is dead on accurate.
> 
> 
> Gene says the Dolby Atmos "Amaze" demo will take those subwoofers out! You don't want to play that! That's odd. I've played that demo probably 250 times over the past 4 years. It has yet to take my mere 2005 Def Tech 15" subwoofer out. In fact, that's one of my favorite demos and shakes the whole darn room. I imagine it does even more shaking on multi-sub systems that can play below 20Hz. But if they're designed to play that low and you're not overdriving your subs beyond their limits, it shouldn't be blowing them up either.
> 
> However, earlier in the video, John clearly says for the home mix, he has to adjust it so it doesn't blow out cheap home speakers. John then brings that up again. We don't want to blow people's speakers out (as if they can't set their own crossover or limit their own levels on their own equipment instead. What are those same people going to do when they watch Blade Runner 2049 or Dune which does NOT do that and are some of the few films that actually had me worrying about my own speakers)? The key here should be CONSISTENCY. And that's why THX created STANDARDS in the first place. Now they're making independent decisions at studios to screw up the sound based on "feelings" (seems to be a world-wide thing at the moment) instead of facts and standard practices.
> 
> John keeps talking about people's subwoofers or woofers in general "exploding" so that's why they make the home mixes weaker with less bass and less dynamic range, etc. The problem is Dolby and THX have specifications for playback and that previously included home playback. So, instead of ripping the public off with these tainted "home mixes" why didn't they bake more controls for limiting dynamics and bass for "wimpier" systems? They could even have the default base mix set to be wimpy and use the equivalent of BEQ automatically (using flags) to "restore" the theatrical mix for those that have better systems?
> 
> It's pretty obvious for all the technology that Dolby engineered, it seemingly never occurred to them that the guys mixing the films could just override anything and everything they don't feel like using for home mixes. But that's precisely why I think the push into the future (which will sell studios more copies again and again) is to get a higher standard mix at home for a premium client, whether that is UHD discs or some higher-end streaming format like Kaleidiscape or even just a secondary soundtrack to choose on iTunes streaming ("theatrical mix").
> 
> 
> Gene commenting on Auro-3D.... It's obvious he's clueless about the system and hasn't tried it properly at all. "Those Dolby Height formats didnt' work!" LOL. Does he know anything about the VOG speaker to bridge front/rear heights?
> 
> 
> The bottom line is YES, Atmos mixes probably do suck for very real reasons. That reason is largely HOME MIXES (missing bass, lowered dynamic range) as well as mixing guys who don't even use all the Atmos speakers even when they're in a real theater mixing stage, apparently.... (John says "I don't use them...." ). Maybe having a full 64 speaker mixing stage should be a requirement for any Atmos film mixing engineer. This notion that we can just skip right over the standard and just go back to 5.1 or 7.1 for most things (John goes on at length how confusing it is to go from 5.1 to 7.1 and how mixing guys still argue about WTF to do with 7.1...should the surrounds be moved to the sides or left alone with rears simply further back....) plus hey, for Atmos a few objects here and there added to that 7.1.2 base appears to be a very real thing, which is probably THE reason Disney ALmos(t) pretty much seems to be 7.1.2 with the rare panning object. John works for Fox (Star Wars/Disney), so I shouldn't really be surprised that is the prevailing attitude there.
> 
> But hey, time is a major constraint and the studios don't give us any, so just be glad there's any sound at all!
> 
> At least they agreed on how limited Atmos "headphones" and "bouncy" speakers are.


This guy actually backed up something some of us here say which is the opposite of what a lot of installers do.

He said that the placement of the speakers should be such that as many seats as possible get a good experience. This is what the Trinnov speaker placement white paper encourages. Yet there are those going around suggesting (and outright designing rooms) that you optimize for a single row and in some extreme cases, a single seat. To me, thats counter productive to setting up a theater with multiple rows.

I was shocked he just outright claimed that he didnt ever use Wide channels. Okay not really. I wouldnt be at all surprised if he were one of those mixers just mixing in the 7.1.2 bed channels and throwing in the occasional active sound object and calling it a day. I'm pretty sure he meant that he didnt use wides in his studio, not necessarily that he didnt mix to them (considering any active objects moving from the front to the side stages will pass through the wides) but in my opinion, all these home mix studios should mix to *at least *9.1.6. This is what Sony and Netflix mix to and we all know how good their mixes sound.

i just wish Shane was the one conducting the interview. He's like us. Just an enthusiast trying to get the most from his expensive equipment. He would have extracted a lot more useful information from this interviewee.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> This guy actually backed up something some of us here say which is the opposite of what a lot of installers do.
> 
> He said that the placement of the speakers should be such that as many seats as possible get a good experience. This is what the Trinnov speaker placement white paper encourages. Yet there are those going around suggesting (and outright designing rooms) that you optimize for a single row and in some extreme cases, a single seat. To me, thats counter productive to setting up a theater with multiple rows.
> 
> I was shocked he just outright claimed that he didnt ever use Wide channels. Okay not really. I wouldnt be at all surprised if he were one of those mixers just mixing in the 7.1.2 bed channels and throwing in the occasional active sound object and calling it a day. I'm pretty sure he meant that he didnt use wides in his studio, not necessarily that he didnt mix to them (considering any active objects moving from the front to the side stages will pass through the wides) but in my opinion, all these home mix studios should mix to *at least *9.1.6. This is what Sony and Netflix mix to and we all know how good their mixes sound.
> 
> i just wish Shane was the one conducting the interview. He's like us. Just an enthusiast trying to get the most from his expensive equipment. He would have extracted a lot more useful information from this interviewee.


Shane lobs a lot of softballs as well. He seems to be more of a promoter of sponsored gear than a totally objective player. I don't think he would actually know enough about the technology in any great detail to ask pointed questions.


----------



## cricket9998

It annoys me that Dolby allowed non-object based atmos. Why can’t my AVR decide when to use wides or not? It’s so annoying. Of all things, Long Way Up uses wides! But few mixes do. I actually need to double check if my DSU for games does too


----------



## Dan Hitchman

cricket9998 said:


> It annoys me that Dolby allowed non-object based atmos. Why can’t my AVR decide when to use wides or not? It’s so annoying. Of all things, Long Way Up uses wides! But few mixes do. I actually need to double check if my DSU for games does too


I believe there are settings in the initial setup of an Atmos project in Pro Tools and other DAW engineering software (DaVinci Resolve Studio, Apple Logic Pro, etc.) that tell the encoder which speaker groupings will be engaged within an outputted mix deliverable. That tells the object renderer which coordinates are viable panning positions and create object metadata to match those settings. Since many smaller near-field mixing houses seem to not have Front Wide monitors (probably due to lack of knowledge of the format and/or budgetary considerations), they probably don't think to turn them on in the mixing project. As you mentioned, they can still be used as object pass through locations, even if you don't anchor any sound there. The same goes for the overheads.

This lack of understanding between the engineer's studio monitoring layout and what home Atmos is actually capable of (scalability from 5.1.2 up to 24.1.10 all in one mix as long as the objects know where to go and are not static) in the real world may be a reason why we get so many encodings that are just fixed beds or don't have Front Wides engaged.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> Shane lobs a lot of softballs as well. He seems to be more of a promoter of sponsored gear than a totally objective player. I don't think he would actually know enough about the technology in any great detail to ask pointed questions.


Not as bad as Gene. I really liked the Interview that Shane did with the Trinnov promoter. But to be fair, it may have been that the Trinnov guy just offers up good, detailed information. He doesnt really hold back and mostly tells it like it is.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Not as bad as Gene. I really liked the Interview that Shane did with the Trinnov promoter. But to be fair, it may have been that the Trinnov guy just offers up good, detailed information. He doesnt really hold back and mostly tells it like it is.


Having been to trade expos where Trinnov has a presence, I'll say that it's their enthusiasm for their products and the formats they include and that it has little to do with Shane's skill or lack of skill as an interviewer and more to do with the candidness of the engineers at Trinnov.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I was shocked he just outright claimed that he didnt ever use Wide channels. Okay not really. I wouldnt be at all surprised if he were one of those mixers just mixing in the 7.1.2 bed channels and throwing in the occasional active sound object and calling it a day. I'm pretty sure he meant that he didnt use wides in his studio, not necessarily that he didnt mix to them (considering any active objects moving from the front to the side stages will pass through the wides) but in my opinion, all these home mix studios should mix to *at least *9.1.6. This is what Sony and Netflix mix to and we all know how good their mixes sound.


The Rings of power and Wheels of time on Amazon both showcase the wides in a very appreciable manner. I was pleasantly surprised at how active the wides were during certain high octane scenes. Both of them have an excellent atmos track.


----------



## dschulz

Magiclakez said:


> The Rings of power and Wheels of time on Amazon both showcase the wides in a very appreciable manner. I was pleasantly surprised at how active the wides were during certain high octane scenes. Both of them have an excellent atmos track.


Carnival Row (another fantasy series, also on Amazon) also uses the wides, and the mixer has expressed his happiness at having the wides available as a creative tool.


----------



## Magiclakez

dschulz said:


> Carnival Row (another fantasy series, also on Amazon) also uses the wides, and the mixer has expressed his happiness at having the wides available as a creative tool.


I must check this out. The preview did seem quite intriguing.


----------



## Erod

I was glad to hear them trash the constant misinformation from Techno Dad and Joe and Tell. 

Auro does not have a patent on wall height channel layouts. It's just a vastly inferior approach in most rooms, and Atmos doesn't use it. Those guys constantly spew that lie, and others.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Erod said:


> I was glad to hear them trash the constant misinformation from Techno Dad and Joe and Tell.
> 
> Auro does not have a patent on wall height channel layouts. It's just a vastly inferior approach in most rooms, and Atmos doesn't use it. Those guys constantly spew that lie, and others.


Atmos most certainly DOES use it. This is directly from the Atmos home guide










Not only that, but in the Atmos studio setup guide, they even mention that while 45° Top speakers are prefered, that the range goes from 30° (the same as Auro3D front height position) to 55° 

From the _Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Guide: _page 21.
_















_

So yes, Atmos allows for Front Height and Rear Height positioning, even in a dubbing studio.


----------



## MagnumX

Erod said:


> I was glad to hear them trash the constant misinformation from Techno Dad and Joe and Tell.
> 
> Auro does not have a patent on wall height channel layouts. It's just a vastly inferior approach in most rooms, and Atmos doesn't use it. Those guys constantly spew that lie, and others.


They never said it did from what I remember; they were just repeating some nonsense that went around awhile back.

Regardless, *Heights* are not _inferior_ in the slightest. Atmos has front and rear heights in the same locations. They were not really meant to be either/or, but are part of 10 overall completely separate overhead pairs that Atmos supports. The fact that most consumer AVRs make you choose one or the other is neither here nor there.

What matters are the distances between pairs. Ideally, you should not have more than 70 degrees azimuth between stereo (some recommend 60 even) pairs to ensure smooth phantom imaging. Overheads usually quote elevation not azimuth, which may vary in angles in phantom terms a bit. 45/135 (most people's favorite on here, which Dolby says can be set to Heights or Tops) is 90 degrees apart, which is still a bit too far, but not as bad as 30/150, which can create noticeable direct overhead gaps when used alone, at least in larger rooms.

However, with Top Middle added, 30/90/150 only has 60 degrees between pairs and images perfectly smooth across the entire ceiling. In fact, Dolby lowers the Height elevation recommendations to 20-45 for home systems and a mere 15-45 for studio setups when 6 or more overheads are used (including allowances for arrayed extra speakers in the studio specs). They do this for a reason. Adding more overhead speakers lowers the angles between pairs and allows a larger overhead range to function in the room. Back to Auro-3D....

Auro 11.1 is designed to work in conjunction with a 5.1 channel layout in smaller rooms using surround height, not necessarily rear heights, but oddly enough in a 5.1 system they are one and the same regardless of what an AVR menu might lead you to believe. Arrays are shown for larger rooms with speakers in both positions as well as the VOG speaker, which like Top Middle in Atmos, functions to bridge front/rear heights in either 5.1 or 7.1 (Auro 13.1) layouts.

Thus, used correctly for your room, there are no "issues" with Heights locations with either Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D and I would like the spread of misinformation in this regard to stop. Hence, I'm once again providing the correct information here for all to see.


----------



## Magiclakez

A key observation from the video posted earlier:

John was alluding to having preference for the height speakers to be placed closer to the center of the room, as it produces better height localization and separation (Around 17:00 min mark). He further mentions that this is the typical theatrical/studio spec. / layout as well. And this is congruent to Grimani’s philosophy with regards to height speakers placements, which btw I’m (along with a few others) are following as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> A key observation from the video posted earlier:
> 
> John was alluding to having preference for the height speakers to be placed closer to the center of the room, as it producers better height localization and separation (Around 17:00 min mark). He further mentions that this is the typical theatrical/studio spec. / layout as well. And this is congruent to Grimani’s philosophy with regards to height speakers placements, which btw I’m (along with a few others) are following as well.


It makes sense to follow the theatrical Atmos concepts. Obviously, you can't have side and rear arrays high up on the walls, but everything else is logical. Plus, the objects track in the home version like the theatrical version, there are just fewer available to use at one time.


----------



## appelz

NuSoardGraphite said:


> He said that the placement of the speakers should be such that as many seats as possible get a good experience. This is what the Trinnov speaker placement white paper encourages. Yet there are those going around suggesting (and outright designing rooms) that you optimize for a single row and in some extreme cases, a single seat. To me, thats counter productive to setting up a theater with multiple rows.


You should be pleased with the CEDIA/CTA RP22 once released.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Erod said:


> I was glad to hear them trash the constant misinformation from Techno Dad and Joe and Tell.
> 
> Auro does not have a patent on wall height channel layouts. It's just a vastly inferior approach in most rooms, and Atmos doesn't use it. Those guys constantly spew that lie, and others.


Haha! Techno-doosh is one of the most annoying voices on the internet.


----------



## Erod

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Atmos most certainly DOES use it. This is directly from the Atmos home guide
> 
> View attachment 3354683
> 
> 
> Not only that, but in the Atmos studio setup guide, they even mention that while 45° Top speakers are prefered, that the range goes from 30° (the same as Auro3D front height position) to 55°
> 
> From the _Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Guide: _page 21.
> _
> View attachment 3354686
> 
> View attachment 3354685
> _
> 
> So yes, Atmos allows for Front Height and Rear Height positioning, even in a dubbing studio.


I know, that's what I'm saying. It's about angles, not speaker location. That could be ceiling or wall heights, depending on ceiling height and room size. 

Those guys I mentioned claim Dolby uses ceiling speaker layouts because Auro has a patent on the height layout approach.


----------



## Erod

MagnumX said:


> They never said it did from what I remember; they were just repeating some nonsense that went around awhile back.
> 
> Regardless, *Heights* are not _inferior_ in the slightest. Atmos has front and rear heights in the same locations. They were not really meant to be either/or, but are part of 10 overall completely separate overhead pairs that Atmos supports. The fact that most consumer AVRs make you choose one or the other is neither here nor there.
> 
> What matters are the distances between pairs. Ideally, you should not have more than 70 degrees azimuth between stereo (some recommend 60 even) pairs to ensure smooth phantom imaging. Overheads usually quote elevation not azimuth, which may vary in angles in phantom terms a bit. 45/135 (most people's favorite on here, which Dolby says can be set to Heights or Tops) is 90 degrees apart, which is still a bit too far, but not as bad as 30/150, which can create noticeable direct overhead gaps when used alone, at least in larger rooms.
> 
> However, with Top Middle added, 30/90/150 only has 60 degrees between pairs and images perfectly smooth across the entire ceiling. In fact, Dolby lowers the Height elevation recommendations to 20-45 for home systems and a mere 15-45 for studio setups when 6 or more overheads are used (including allowances for arrayed extra speakers in the studio specs). They do this for a reason. Adding more overhead speakers lowers the angles between pairs and allows a larger overhead range to function in the room. Back to Auro-3D....
> 
> Auro 11.1 is designed to work in conjunction with a 5.1 channel layout in smaller rooms using surround height, not necessarily rear heights, but oddly enough in a 5.1 system they are one and the same regardless of what an AVR menu might lead you to believe. Arrays are shown for larger rooms with speakers in both positions as well as the VOG speaker, which like Top Middle in Atmos, functions to bridge front/rear heights in either 5.1 or 7.1 (Auro 13.1) layouts.
> 
> Thus, used correctly for your room, there are no "issues" with Heights locations with either Dolby Atmos or Auro-3D and I would like the spread of misinformation in this regard to stop. Hence, I'm once again providing the correct information here for all to see.


Which is my point. It's about angles. It has nothing to do with fictitious patents.

I have 12-foot ceilings in my dedicated symmetrical room. So it's ceiling for me. If I had 8-foot ceilings in a small room, heights might be needed to get that same angle.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> It makes sense to follow the theatrical Atmos concepts. Obviously, you can't have side and rear arrays high up on the walls, but everything else is logical. Plus, the objects track in the home version like the theatrical version, there are just fewer available to use at one time.


Only if you are focusing on Atmos specifically. Any desire to use the other immersive formats requires an alteration to the setup. Obviously DTS:X requires minimal adjustment from an Atmos layout (though one should consider it) but Auro3D requires quite a different approach.

The problem with all of this Technodad vs HTGurus is that they are both approaching the problem using completely different setup philosophies and both are correct *depending on your specific use case.*


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> A key observation from the video posted earlier:
> 
> John was alluding to having preference for the speakers to be closer to the center of the room as it producers better height localization and separation (Around 17:00 min mark). He further mentions that this is the typical theatrical/studio spec./ layout as well. And this is congruent to Grimani’s philosophy with regards to height speakers placements, which btw I’m (along with a few others) are following as well.


All that flies directly in the face of the psycho-acoustic studies done by Auro Technologies and others. The truth is we don't localize sounds as well at higher angles, which is why Auro-3D put one channel directly overhead and 4 channels at lower height angles where we do hear them exceptionally well (the stereo imaging that is). A VOG center height speaker takes care of direct overhead sounds and the lower heights steer things precisely at lower angles. 

What is Atmos using the narrower overhead speakers to actually do in the cinema environment? The Precedence Effect becomes an issue in such a large theater and so imaging directly overhead only really works for the center seats if surrounds of heights are spread wide on the side walls! Thus, Dolby has basically turned their overheads into "stereo" (with very little separation compared to the surround layer) center height speakers or a stereo version of the Voice of God speakers! 

You have virtually zero separation between the surround layer and height layer in an Atmos cinema because they're using the surround layer at height levels. If you imaged in-phase (correlated) sounds between the surround speakers, they would image almost identically to the ceiling speakers for the center seats. So they almost never image there. In fact, in times past they purposely decorrelated the surround speakers so sounds would always image outside the speakers and not directly over the audience. They mostly continue that today, but some "objects" do occasionally appear in some mixes at ear level at home, but it's rare because of the theatrical use of surrounds at heights, but outside the central area.

You'll note many Auro-3D only soundtracks tend to have "walls of sound" without gaps whereas Atmos seems to push the big gap spread far more often (so I can localize those speakers in the ceiling I paid for dammit!) and yet you keep seeing people on here say they _don't_ want to localize the speakers. It should be a continuous "bubble" they say. But then they turn around and say they can't tell where the base layer ends and the height layer begins and want to move them to higher angles so they can tell.... (rolling eyes at the sheer irony of the two disparate notions).

They actually talk about *proximity* imaging and claim it doesn't work, but I've heard it work even in plain 5.1 with the Disney castle fly-by intro in Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides! That flag-wave sound they used there is in-phase and imaged just above my head! It was startling the first time I heard it and that was before my Atmos upgrade! 

The movie The Ice Road with Liam Neeson in Auro-3D images all kinds of ice cracking sounds out in the middle of the room in-phase. It was so cool to hear effects there where they rarely appear in soundtracks! 

But what's the point in merely shifting sounds to the overhead speakers in an Atmos theater when the regular surrounds can already do the same damn thing at that height? It's ridiculous in a way until you realize how seats outside the center are affected if they do. They would image at the closer speaker instead of the middle ceiling where intended (delays only work for central seats to correct the left/right Precedence Effect). The problem then is there is almost no separation between surrounds and heights in an Atmos cinema! 

At home, you have separation, but placing overheads outside all the seats can still fall victim to the Precedence Effect and narrower overheads can put more sounds closer to the center, but at the cost of the full range of the ceiling. Ironically, this once again simply means a centered overhead to lock sounds in place just like a center screen or rear center speaker (that Atmos does support) would have been a good idea! But then they'd be copying Auro-3D's layout. 

But that's why AuroMax (Auro-3D plus objects) is superior at the cinema. It has surrounds just above ear level, high on the side walls (where Atmos has its regular surrounds) and the central ceiling VOG speakers. In effect, it's more or less Atmos with an additional "almost ear level" set of speakers!


----------



## MagnumX

Erod said:


> Which is my point. It's about angles. It has nothing to do with fictitious patents.
> 
> I have 12-foot ceilings in my dedicated symmetrical room. So it's ceiling for me. If I had 8-foot ceilings in a small room, heights might be needed to get that same angle.


I think it's the other way around. Higher ceilings mean it's more likely (not less) that "Heights" will end up on the front and possibly rear walls instead of the ceiling. With a high enough ceiling in wide, but not long room, Tops could end up on the front wall too ABOVE the Heights!


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Only if you are focusing on Atmos specifically. Any desire to use the other immersive formats requires an alteration to the setup. Obviously DTS:X requires minimal adjustment from an Atmos layout (though one should consider it) but Auro3D requires quite a different approach.
> 
> The problem with all of this Technodad vs HTGurus is that they are both approaching the problem using completely different setup philosophies and both are correct *depending on your specific use case.*


If people would just read the Trinnov guidelines, instead of arguing about it, they state it best. But then I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that people understand how imaging actually works. Reading comments over the years and even what Gene was saying in that video, it's obvious to me people do not entirely understand the nuances of both psycho-acoustic human perception (including the Precedence Effect and how it screws up stereo panning when you're not sitting in the middle, even with set speaker delays because that delay doesn't help off-axis left/right movement). 

That's precisely why we have a center speaker! And that's precisely why we need a VOG speaker (essentially a center height) to anchor sounds in the middle for all seats not just the MLP. Atmos doesn't have it. Auro does and X supports it too. 

That's why I'm hoping rumors of Atmos supporting VOG in the future are true. It could fix their cinema layout in particular which currently has almost no height separation between surrounds and heights. That would let them lower their surrounds again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Well,


NuSoardGraphite said:


> Only if you are focusing on Atmos specifically. Any desire to use the other immersive formats requires an alteration to the setup. Obviously DTS:X requires minimal adjustment from an Atmos layout (though one should consider it) but Auro3D requires quite a different approach.
> 
> The problem with all of this Technodad vs HTGurus is that they are both approaching the problem using completely different setup philosophies and both are correct *depending on your specific use case.*


Well, sure... if you are absolutely gung-ho on more than one format, then speaker location compromise needs to occur. DTS: X can pretty much work using the Atmos locations. Auro3D, not so much.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> If people would just read the Trinnov guidelines, instead of arguing about it, they state it best. But then I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that people understand how imaging actually works. Reading comments over the years and even what Gene was saying in that video, it's obvious to me people do not entirely understand the nuances of both psycho-acoustic human perception (including the Precedence Effect and how it screws up stereo panning when you're not sitting in the middle, even with set speaker delays because that delay doesn't help off-axis left/right movement).
> 
> That's precisely why we have a center speaker! And that's precisely why we need a VOG speaker (essentially a center height) to anchor sounds in the middle for all seats not just the MLP. Atmos doesn't have it. Auro does and X supports it too.
> 
> That's why I'm hoping rumors of Atmos supporting VOG in the future are true. It could fix their cinema layout in particular which currently has almost no height separation between surrounds and heights. That would let them lower their surrounds again.


That would definitely make things more uniform from platform to platform.

At this juncture the closest thing to a VoG that Atmos has is the Top-Middle. I think its implementation should be much more common than it is.


----------



## Erod

MagnumX said:


> I think it's the other way around. Higher ceilings mean it's more likely (not less) that "Heights" will end up on the front and possibly rear walls instead of the ceiling. With a high enough ceiling in wide, but not long room, Tops could end up on the front wall too ABOVE the Heights!


True. It's dependent on how close you are to the front wall, too.

Again, the point is, is about angles. 

And Auro is dead anyway. I use it sometimes for music upmixing. That's it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Erod said:


> True. It's dependent on how close you are to the front wall, too.
> 
> Again, the point is, is about angles.
> 
> And Auro is dead anyway. I use it sometimes for music upmixing. That's it.


Most people who want to use Auro (such as myself) wish to do so for the upmixer. There are thousands upon thoudands of legacy blu rays unlikely ever to receive 4k upgrades or remasters which include immersive audio, so in those cases, Auromatic upmixing is a major consideration for some.


----------



## MagnumX

Erod said:


> True. It's dependent on how close you are to the front wall, too.
> 
> Again, the point is, is about angles.
> 
> And Auro is dead anyway. I use it sometimes for music upmixing. That's it.


For it being dead, I bought a half dozen new exclusive movies in it this year. It also has new owners so it remains to be seen what will happen. They also still release Auro tracks for the theaters for most major movies that use it from what I've read.


----------



## Soulburner

Music is 50% of my usage, so I maintain a Quick Select with Auro3D and a -5 dB subwoofer level for types of music which work with it.


----------



## Erod

MagnumX said:


> For it being dead, I bought a half dozen new exclusive movies in it this year. It also has new owners so it remains to be seen what will happen. They also still release Auro tracks for the theaters for most major movies that use it from what I've read.


No, it's dead.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Erod said:


> No, it's dead.


You know its still active in Europe, right?

Doesnt matter anyway as long as the upmixer still works.


----------



## MagnumX

Erod said:


> No, it's dead.


Of course! That's why Yamaha just added it to their AVRs after all these years. Let's add _dead_ things to our new model! 

It never ceases to amaze me that just because someone can't buy an Auro-3D blu-ray at Best Buy (do they even still sell blu-rays? They got rid of everything else I might have stopped by to look at before) that somehow apparently means there are no Auro-3D movies or albums (There's actually over 100 music albums and over 3 dozen movies). It's actually not that hard to buy things online these days. Perhaps some people should give it a try some time.

We've got many saying DTS:X is dead too because Atmos owns streaming and discs are "dead" as well. Funny how they keep arriving here those pesky discs. THOR: Love & Thunder just arrived on 3D blu-ray here two days ago. I know that's supposed to be _impossible_ because 3D is also _dead_....


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Of course! That's why Yamaha just added it to their AVRs after all these years. Let's add _dead_ things to our new model!
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that just because someone can't buy an Auro-3D blu-ray at Best Buy (do they even still sell blu-rays? They got rid of everything else I might have stopped by to look at before) that somehow apparently means there are no Auro-3D movies or albums (There's actually over 100 music albums and over 3 dozen movies). It's actually not that hard to buy things online these days. Perhaps some people should give it a try some time.
> 
> We've got many saying DTS:X is dead too because Atmos owns streaming and discs are "dead" as well. Funny how they keep arriving here those pesky discs. THOR: Love & Thunder just arrived on 3D blu-ray here two days ago. I know that's supposed to be _impossible_ because 3D is also _dead_....


yes, Best Buy Definetly sells blu rays. If fact, besides Amazon, they have the biggest selection of blu rays out right now

Best Buy also sold 3D movies and devices a couple years before 3D was officially dead but when everyone knew it was on its death bed...probably like that at the few places that sell Auro

I can remember when people said 3D ISNT dead years after everyone knew it was lol

I guess as long as one vendor somewhere in the world sells 3D discs then we can all say 3D ISNT DEAD! I'm sure Auro is the same


----------



## cricket9998

I don’t get the hype for auro at all. The upmixer for music is almost the same as multi channel surround. I compared it directly to neural x and DSU and Dolby won by miles. Maybe people forget to turn on center spread. Dolby actually makes the music sound wide. Listen to rhapsody in blue for example with DSU on its great. Auro is a dead format and it would be crazy to set your speakers up for it instead of Atmos


----------



## mrtickleuk

Polyrythm1k said:


> Haha! Techno-doosh is one of the *most annoying* voices on the internet.


Surely that dubious prize goes to Linus Tech Tips...


----------



## cricket9998

mrtickleuk said:


> Surely that dubious prize goes to Linus Tech Tips...


I went through a period of being annoyed by him but I like him again. He mostly stays in his own domain. I was YELLING at the screen when he did his home theater series though. Like bro SVS, round subwoofers, and improper speaker placement? There’s so much I wish I could tell him. But his theater is decent much better than what most would call “home theater”









lol


----------



## Josh Z

Forgive this interruption of all the arguing about speaker angles and Auro upmixing, but I thought it worth noting that the final episode of Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities on Netflix (episode The Murmuring) has some really fantastic use of Atmos. It's a creepy, atmospheric ghost story with tons of pinpoint directional effects - especially in the scene where a bird gets trapped in the house and flutters all around the room.

(The show is an anthology, so you can watch any episode in isolation without seeing the others.)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Josh Z said:


> Forgive this interruption of all the arguing about speaker angles and Auro upmixing, but I thought it worth noting that the final episode of Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities on Netflix (episode The Murmuring) has some really fantastic use of Atmos. It's a creepy, atmospheric ghost story with tons of pinpoint directional effects - especially in the scene where a bird gets trapped in the house and flutters all around the room.
> 
> (The show is an anthology, so you can watch any episode in isolation without seeing the others.)


I've watched the first 4 episodes and so far they've all used Atmos really well. Looking forward to The Murmuring!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t get the hype for auro at all. The upmixer for music is almost the same as multi channel surround. I compared it directly to neural x and DSU and Dolby won by miles. Maybe people forget to turn on center spread. Dolby actually makes the music sound wide. Listen to rhapsody in blue for example with DSU on its great. Auro is a dead format and it would be crazy to set your speakers up for it instead of Atmos


I am not at all concerned with the upmixer for music. I am actually quite happy to listen to music in stereo.

For me, the Auromatic upmixer is great for upmixing legacy blu rays and also streaming material thats not in Atmos. It is somewhat like the multichannel stereo mode, but more discrete. You still get discrete 5.1 mixing going on, just extended up to your ceiling. It doesnt mix center channel information into the heights unless you use a center height. The overall effect is awesome for movies. If I'm playing a movie in regular 5.1 or 7.1, may as well upmix it in Auro as long as its available to me.


----------



## Erod

MagnumX said:


> Of course! That's why Yamaha just added it to their AVRs after all these years. Let's add _dead_ things to our new model!
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that just because someone can't buy an Auro-3D blu-ray at Best Buy (do they even still sell blu-rays? They got rid of everything else I might have stopped by to look at before) that somehow apparently means there are no Auro-3D movies or albums (There's actually over 100 music albums and over 3 dozen movies). It's actually not that hard to buy things online these days. Perhaps some people should give it a try some time.
> 
> We've got many saying DTS:X is dead too because Atmos owns streaming and discs are "dead" as well. Funny how they keep arriving here those pesky discs. THOR: Love & Thunder just arrived on 3D blu-ray here two days ago. I know that's supposed to be _impossible_ because 3D is also _dead_....


Of course Yamaha added it. It's basically free right now, so why not? I have it on my HTP-1, and I use it for two-channel music upmixing. Sounds great. At least it's better than that Neural X upmixing disaster, which I'd gladly eliminate in favor of Auro.

But it's a dead format. They filed bankruptcy, and the owner is trying to keep it on life support, probably so he can flip it for some spare change. 

I don't happily say that. I wish we had an even mix of Dolby Atmos, DTS:X Pro, and Auro in titles to keep the envelope pushed. But after dominating in the 7.1 realm, DTS is now spiraling into oblivion behind Auro unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat.

One choice is not a good thing, but that's basically where we are right now.


----------



## cricket9998

Erod said:


> Of course Yamaha added it. It's basically free right now, so why not? I have it on my HTP-1, and I use it for two-channel music upmixing. Sounds great. At least it's better than that Neural X upmixing disaster, which I'd gladly eliminate in favor of Auro.
> 
> But it's a dead format. They filed bankruptcy, and the owner is trying to keep it on life support, probably so he can flip it for some spare change.
> 
> I don't happily say that. I wish we had an even mix of Dolby Atmos, DTS:X Pro, and Auro in titles to keep the envelope pushed. But after dominating in the 7.1 realm, DTS is now spiraling into oblivion behind Auro unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat.
> 
> One choice is not a good thing, but that's basically where we are right now.


i agree in principle but the formats also require different speaker placements which isn’t easy. Would you want a world where 1/3 of movies are in a format that won’t match your setup? It’s nice that almost every movie is going to sound good because of atmos. It also brought us atmos music which is an absolute game changer.


----------



## Erod

cricket9998 said:


> i agree in principle but the formats also require different speaker placements which isn’t easy. Would you want a world where 1/3 of movies are in a format that won’t match your setup? It’s nice that almost every movie is going to sound good because of atmos. It also brought us atmos music which is an absolute game changer.


Eventually, I think the Trinnov concepts will become mainstream so that speaker placement won't be as critical. I also HOPE that the cheaper Sonos type of speakers that work in most any space will lead to more care and consideration for sound mixing (more people using surround). That's where the real weakness lies.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Erod said:


> Eventually, I think the Trinnov concepts will become mainstream so that speaker placement won't be as critical.


I'd like to see more AVRs move to the 4 capsule mics like I think Yamaha (or was it Pioneer?) did recently for measuring angles as part of auto-cal, with at least some cursory remapping to solve some of these issues. But I think for it to adopted by more AVR makers, you would have to get Audyssey to actually step back into the arena with an updated product and other than MultEQ-X, I don't know that they're all that motivated. But now that we're seeing D&M move toward DIRAC as an option, maybe Audyssey will gradually phase out and they could move to a more updated mic.


----------



## Erod

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'd like to see more AVRs move to the 4 capsule mics like I think Yamaha (or was it Pioneer?) did recently for measuring angles as part of auto-cal, with at least some cursory remapping to solve some of these issues. But I think for it to adopted by more AVR makers, you would have to get Audyssey to actually step back into the arena with an updated product and other than MultEQ-X, I don't know that they're all that motivated. But now that we're seeing D&M move toward DIRAC as an option, maybe Audyssey will gradually phase out and they could move to a more updated mic.


I quit Audyssey a long time ago. I'm Dirac all the way now.

I know Dirac is coming out with a spatial audio approach soon that handles room correction with actual phase cancellations from speakers, which is wild. I'd also love to see them have the matrixing capability that Trinnov has to determine room correction filters based on wherever speakers are located.

Again, in time, this will probably be mainstream to room correction formats.


----------



## cricket9998

Erod said:


> I quit Audyssey a long time ago. I'm Dirac all the way now.
> 
> I know Dirac is coming out with a spatial audio approach soon that handles room correction with actual phase cancellations from speakers, which is wild. I'd also love to see them have the matrixing capability that Trinnov has to determine room correction filters based on wherever speakers are located.
> 
> Again, in time, this will probably be mainstream to room correction formats.


I’m going to dump audy as soon as I can. It feels like Stone Age tech. Even their flagship app looks like it’s made in 2007 just like their licensing agreement. But regardless my next processor will be a trinnov.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Just got my Blu ray copy of maverick and haven't even seen it yet and looking forward to a big movie night Saturday.

I know it's got a .2 type heights like RP1 but anyone know if they actually use wides in this or will I have to enable wide synth from my HtP-1?


----------



## MagnumX

Erod said:


> Of course Yamaha added it. It's basically free right now, so why not? I have it on my HTP-1, and I use it for two-channel music upmixing. Sounds great. At least it's better than that Neural X upmixing disaster, which I'd gladly eliminate in favor of Auro.
> 
> But it's a dead format. They filed bankruptcy, and the owner is trying to keep it on life support, probably so he can flip it for some spare change.
> 
> I don't happily say that. I wish we had an even mix of Dolby Atmos, DTS:X Pro, and Auro in titles to keep the envelope pushed. But after dominating in the 7.1 realm, DTS is now spiraling into oblivion behind Auro unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat.
> 
> One choice is not a good thing, but that's basically where we are right now.


Auro-3D was already purchased (new web site is up, but not finished). They are not in bankruptcy anymore or dead. The new streaming version was finished just before they filed. Assuming they're _dead_ would be similar to assuming Apple was dead in the late 1990s.

To me, dead technology doesn't mean hard to find but actually out of business. The number of native titles in Auro-3D actually increased greatly the past two years, not fading out like 3D. Many like _The Ice Road_ and _Boss Level_ have no Atmos or X equivalent. Those two titles have exceptional immersive sound (makes The Ice Road worth watching, IMO) and I'd take 13.1 over 5.1 any day of the week.

So why wouldn't one want the Auro-3D version over a plain 5.1 blu-ray if they had a remotely compatible setup (45/135 works fine for Auro movies and acceptable for music and still better than 5.1 equivalents either way)? These titles still have either 5.1 or 7.1 base tracks so it's fully backwards compatible and they usually also include the separate studio 5.1 tracks as well. Isn't 11.1 or 13.1 better than 5.1?


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> I don’t get the hype for auro at all. The upmixer for music is almost the same as multi channel surround. I compared it directly to neural x and DSU and Dolby won by miles. Maybe people forget to turn on center spread. Dolby actually makes the music sound wide. Listen to rhapsody in blue for example with DSU on its great. Auro is a dead format and it would be crazy to set your speakers up for it instead of Atmos


It depends. Some things sound best with DSU (with Center Spread on and a reduction to center level), while other content works better with A3D (with a -5 sub adjustment). An example of the latter is acoustic recordings where you want to keep the majority of the weight of the music up front like Nils Lofgren's _Keith Don't Go_ on Acoustic Live. It also works best (for me) with soundtrack music like Hans Zimmer's _Blade Runner_ or John Williams' _Memoirs of a Geisha_, or many others from him.

At other times, it's up to your preference which you will enjoy more. Sometimes you're in the mood for discrete surround sound with your music, and sometimes you aren't. It's great to have the option.

In my experience, none of them work well with busy music like modern popular rock. For that it sounds much better to just have a really good front stage in stereo.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> Auro-3D was already purchased (new web site is up, but not finished). They are not in bankruptcy anymore or dead. The new streaming version was finished just before they filed. Assuming they're _dead_ would be similar to assuming Apple was dead in the late 1990s.
> 
> To me, dead technology doesn't mean hard to find but actually out of business. The number of native titles in Auro-3D actually increased greatly the past two years, not fading out like 3D. Many like _The Ice Road_ and _Boss Level_ have no Atmos or X equivalent. Those two titles have exceptional immersive sound (makes The Ice Road worth watching, IMO) and I'd take 13.1 over 5.1 any day of the week.
> 
> So why wouldn't one want the Auro-3D version over a plain 5.1 blu-ray if they had a remotely compatible setup (45/135 works fine for Auro movies and acceptable for music and still better than 5.1 equivalents either way)? These titles still have either 5.1 or 7.1 base tracks so it's fully backwards compatible and they usually also include the separate studio 5.1 tracks as well. Isn't 11.1 or 13.1 better than 5.1?


Auro-3D is not dead. As a home theater enthusiast you should hope that all these (immersive) technologies are available for HT consumption. I recently picked up escape from absolom AKA no escape from Turbine Germany in 4k (mixed in dual Auro-3d and Dolby atmos). I’m so glad someone infused a fresh lease of life into this classic title and gave it the treatment it deserved.

I enjoy all immersive formats; be it atmos, auro-3d, dts-x and imax enhanced. I would sincerely hope that they all flourish as I don’t want immersive technology to be monopolized by a single entity. More is always better for the end user.

Then you have those who still swear by their SACD/ DVD-A and Laser discs….try convincing them that they are dead or from the Jurassic era. 🤣

Lastly, It’s a by-product of cognitive dissonance. You tend to bash something which you don’t have (in this case Auro-3D) or if it’s out of reach. It’s a common human tendency.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Erod said:


> Of course Yamaha added it. It's basically free right now, so why not? I have it on my HTP-1, and I use it for two-channel music upmixing. Sounds great. At least it's better than that Neural X upmixing disaster, which I'd gladly eliminate in favor of Auro.
> 
> But it's a dead format. They filed bankruptcy, and the owner is trying to keep it on life support, probably so he can flip it for some spare change.
> 
> I don't happily say that. I wish we had an even mix of Dolby Atmos, DTS:X Pro, and Auro in titles to keep the envelope pushed. But after dominating in the 7.1 realm, DTS is now spiraling into oblivion behind Auro unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat.
> 
> One choice is not a good thing, but that's basically where we are right now.


It was purchased and has new owners. As far as I know, they are working on a "relaunch" and are about to announce some Auro enabled soundbars 😅


----------



## Chirosamsung

Magiclakez said:


> Auro-3D is not dead. As a home theater enthusiast you should hope that all these (immersive) technologies are available for HT consumption. I recently picked up escape from absolom AKA no escape from Turbine Germany in 4k (mixed in dual Auro-3d and Dolby atmos). I’m so glad someone infused a fresh lease of life into this classic title and gave it the treatment it deserved.
> 
> I enjoy all immersive formats; be it atmos, auro-3d, dts-x and imax enhanced. I would sincerely hope that they all flourish as I don’t want immersive technology to be monopolized by a single entity. More is always better for the end user.
> 
> Then you have those who still swear by their SACD/ DVD-A and Laser discs….try convincing them that they are dead or from the Jurassic era. 🤣
> 
> Lastly, It’s a by-product of cognitive dissonance. You tend to bash something which you don’t have (in this case Auro-3D) or if it’s out of reach. It’s a common human tendency.


Blockbuster video isn't dead yet either...there is still one left...somewhere


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It was purchased and has new owners. As far as I know, they are working on a "relaunch" and are about to announce some Auro enabled soundbars 😅


Don’t forget their recent partnership with Porsche. The new Porsche’s will apparently be equipped with Auro-3d enabled car audio systems. 🔥


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Just got my Blu ray copy of maverick and haven't even seen it yet and looking forward to a big movie night Saturday.
> 
> I know it's got a .2 type heights like RP1 but anyone know if they actually use wides in this or will I have to enable wide synth from my HtP-1?


As far as I know, its a 7.1.2 bed channel mix with the occasional active sound object passing through. So whenever the active sound objects are in the mix, it should use all the other channels. How frequently that happens, I have no idea. According to Shane Lee's review, not that frequently (but much more often than RP1)


----------



## Magiclakez

Chirosamsung said:


> Blockbuster video isn't dead yet either...there is still one left...somewhere


Everything is dead if you believe it’s dead.


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> Blockbuster video isn't dead yet either...there is still one left...somewhere





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(Bend,_Oregon)



😅


----------



## Magiclakez

In other news, 4k release for “Das Boot” just got announced. Wishful thinking, but I really hope they don’t neuter the bass for this one. Now I’m hoping they give us a 4k release for U-571 as well.


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> It depends. Some things sound best with DSU (with Center Spread on and a reduction to center level), while other content works better with A3D (with a -5 sub adjustment). An example of the latter is acoustic recordings where you want to keep the majority of the weight of the music up front like Nils Lofgren's _Keith Don't Go_ on Acoustic Live. It also works best (for me) with soundtrack music like Hans Zimmer's _Blade Runner_ or John Williams' _Memoirs of a Geisha_, or many others from him.
> 
> At other times, it's up to your preference which you will enjoy more. Sometimes you're in the mood for discrete surround sound with your music, and sometimes you aren't. It's great to have the option.
> 
> In my experience, none of them work well with busy music like modern popular rock. For that it sounds much better to just have a really good front stage in stereo.


I normally listen to metal and DSU does a great job as long as you sit in MLP. It’s going to sound like crap if you aren’t because of how it sends things to all the speakers. I have compared it side by side with stereo and DSU and up mixing sounds way bigger, fuller, and detailed. You simply cannot push all that detail with two speakers.


----------



## PeterTHX

Magiclakez said:


> In other news, 4k release for “Das Boot” just got announced. Wishful thinking, but I really hope they don’t neuter the bass for this one. Now I’m hoping they give us a 4k release for U-571 as well.


Interested - where did it get announced?


----------



## Magiclakez

PeterTHX said:


> Interested - where did it get announced?


The Discfather on Instagram. Apparently a Sony release.


----------



## Magiclakez

Im also thrilled to see Superman 2,3,4 getting a proposed 2023 release. About time they rounded up one of my favorite franchises.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> In other news, 4k release for “Das Boot” just got announced. Wishful thinking, but I really hope they don’t neuter the bass for this one. Now I’m hoping they give us a 4k release for U-571 as well.


I bought the German soundtrack for that movie I liked the soundtrack so well. The soundtrack is actually encoded in Pro Logic (says so right on the CD cover).


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> I normally listen to metal and DSU does a great job as long as you sit in MLP. It’s going to sound like crap if you aren’t because of how it sends things to all the speakers.


Which is another advantage of Auromatic 3D.


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> Which is another advantage of Auromatic 3D.


True, but that’s because it’s mostly like multi channel stereo


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Im also thrilled to see Superman 2,3,4 getting a proposed 2023 release. About time they rounded up one of my favorite franchises.


I dont know about 3 or 4, but Superman 2 for sure.


----------



## robert600

I finally got a receiver that will process DTS:X. I think I've got it configured reasonably well ... at least for atmos. Now, I want to see what X and neural can do. A couple of quick questions about this new-to-me format.

Would the UHD of Gladiator (extended) with X be a good one to test with? Any suggestions for movies with good X? Near as I can tell, I only have 2 standard blu rays with it ... Fallen Kingdom and Last Witch Hunter.

Thinking of upmixers ... is a good 'rule of thumb' ... use DSU for dolby tracks and Neural for DTS tracks? Can someone recommend a movie that Neural upmixes extreemly well?


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> True, but that’s because it’s mostly like multi channel stereo


Kind of, but not really. Use it on strength 10, medium, and the surrounds add but do not distract, unlike multi-channel stereo.


----------



## Magiclakez

robert600 said:


> I finally got a receiver that will process DTS:X. I think I've got it configured reasonably well ... at least for atmos. Now, I want to see what X and neural can do. A couple of quick questions about this new-to-me format.
> 
> Would the UHD of Gladiator (extended) with X be a good one to test with? Any suggestions for movies with good X? Near as I can tell, I only have 2 standard blu rays with it ... Fallen Kingdom and Last Witch Hunter.
> 
> Thinking of upmixers ... is a good 'rule of thumb' ... use DSU for dolby tracks and Neural for DTS tracks? Can someone recommend a movie that Neural upmixes extreemly well?


Apollo 13 and Battleship are standout DTS-X titles. I also liked Dracula untold. Hart’s war is a good candidate for neural-x.

Turbo 7.1 mixes well with both Neural-x and auro-3d. In fact I predominantly use neural-x with almost every 5.1/ 7.1 track.

addendum: the Harry Potter series and backdraft comes with a killer dts-x track along with the 1st purge and hellfest.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

robert600 said:


> I finally got a receiver that will process DTS:X. I think I've got it configured reasonably well ... at least for atmos. Now, I want to see what X and neural can do. A couple of quick questions about this new-to-me format.
> 
> Would the UHD of Gladiator (extended) with X be a good one to test with? Any suggestions for movies with good X? Near as I can tell, I only have 2 standard blu rays with it ... Fallen Kingdom and Last Witch Hunter.
> 
> Thinking of upmixers ... is a good 'rule of thumb' ... use DSU for dolby tracks and Neural for DTS tracks? Can someone recommend a movie that Neural upmixes extreemly well?


Gladiator is okay. Not super bombastic but the beginning is great because of the battle against the German barbarians. All the catapult loads and flights of arrows are up in the height channels.

As far as the upmixers are concerned. DSU is subtle but sophisticated. Neural-X is more active and bombastic. Both are equally capable but DSU is laid back where Neural-X is in your face.

So I tend to use DSU when I want something closer to the directors intent as it wont warp the original mix too much and I use Neural-X on action/fantasy/Sci-Fi fare where you want sound effects fly all around then come right at you and punch you in the face.


----------



## MagnumX

cricket9998 said:


> True, but that’s because it’s mostly like multi channel stereo


 

It may seem similar with stereo inputs at a raw glance, but it's really pretty different from multichannel stereo. It doesn't blast you with equal volume surround output, but is balanced with reverb added and according to an Auro Technologies interview, it also uses some HRTF processing to determine how to weight how much of the sound goes to the height speakers (probably why it appears to decode Ready Player One's 7.1 base track rather well as several people have noted on here). 

More to the point, Auromatic upmixes multichannel recordings like 5.1 and 7.1 correctly without removing their channel orientation (multichannel stereo only works with stereo signals and duplicates them everywhere with few or little changes). 

In other words, it won't move front sounds to the surround speakers in a way that changes the basic imaging locations and likewise leaves surround channels in the surround and rear/surround height channels. 

So you can upmix something like 5.1 DTS music albums (or even base 7.1 Atmos tracks for that matter if desired) to have a taller/larger height and room effect without changing their basic soundstage imaging locations front-to-back. This makes it the _only_ acceptable multichannel upmixer, IMO. 

I use it with 5.1 music albums all the time, particularly because Atmos layouts have changed the basic height of the traditional 5.1 surround speakers. Auro both restores the intended height of such albums and expands the soundstage somewhat vertically. 

Without it, straight 5.1 will image lower than intended with ear level speakers not meant to be used with 5.1 when they were mixed. DSU and Neural X also expand the vertical soundstage, but also move sounds to new locations, destroying (or enhancing depending on how you view it or like the effect with a particular song or movie) the original intended soundstage. 

With 2.0 (stereo) inputs, I find Auromatic largely preserves the original stereo presentation, but adds some room ambience and improves the overall effect for multiple rows of seating (doesn't sound so far away up front for 2nd or 3rd rows).


----------



## Chirosamsung

What does anyone that's actually watched the top gun maverick 4k blu ray think of the wide usage? Is it worth using wide synth?


----------



## GMil

Dan Hitchman said:


> I believe there are settings in the initial setup of an Atmos project in Pro Tools and other DAW engineering software (DaVinci Resolve Studio, Apple Logic Pro, etc.) that tell the encoder which speaker groupings will be engaged within an outputted mix deliverable. That tells the object renderer which coordinates are viable panning positions and create object metadata to match those settings. Since many smaller near-field mixing houses seem to not have Front Wide monitors (probably due to lack of knowledge of the format and/or budgetary considerations), they probably don't think to turn them on in the mixing project. As you mentioned, they can still be used as object pass through locations, even if you don't anchor any sound there. The same goes for the overheads.
> 
> This lack of understanding between the engineer's studio monitoring layout and what home Atmos is actually capable of (scalability from 5.1.2 up to 24.1.10 all in one mix as long as the objects know where to go and are not static) in the real world may be a reason why we get so many encodings that are just fixed beds or don't have Front Wides engaged.


For a frame of reference for us lurkers on here. Who on here has mixed ANYTHING professionally in thier life?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> For a frame of reference for us lurkers on here. Who on here has mixed ANYTHING professionally in thier life?


I would wager very few, but even a novice enthusiast should know that one of the most basic elements of Atmos is scalability. And any mixer should keep that in mind. The way many of them mix their soundtracks, they are bypassing that scalability altogether.

Imagine spending $100,000 on a Trinnov and 24 expensive speakers expecting Atmos to give you an amazing soundstage only to find out half the movies or more you purchase only use less than half your speakers.


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> For a frame of reference for us lurkers on here. Who on here has mixed ANYTHING professionally in thier life?


I've mixed and mastered a rock album. But then I wrote all the songs and recorded it too including vocals (I play multiple instruments including piano/synth, saxophone and guitar). Ask @niterida. He's heard it. Niterida, how was the sound quality and was it well mixed?


----------



## Magiclakez

Josh Z said:


> Forgive this interruption of all the arguing about speaker angles and Auro upmixing, but I thought it worth noting that the final episode of Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities on Netflix (episode The Murmuring) has some really fantastic use of Atmos. It's a creepy, atmospheric ghost story with tons of pinpoint directional effects - especially in the scene where a bird gets trapped in the house and flutters all around the room.
> 
> (The show is an anthology, so you can watch any episode in isolation without seeing the others.)


I love his films as they invariably showcase immersive audio brilliantly; Pacific Rim and Crimson Peak come to mind. He and Alfonso Cuaron have somewhat of a similar philosophy for immersive audio…imho of course. Gravity and Roma (criterion) are some prime examples of Alfonso’s works.

Anyways, I watched that episode last night and you are right on point with your assessment regarding atmos implementation. I just found that bland/ insipid woman too irritating and unreasonable for my liking. Lol. I started with episode 8 and will probably end up watching the rest.


----------



## Josh Z

Magiclakez said:


> I love his films as they invariably showcase immersive audio brilliantly; Pacific Rim and Crimson Peak come to mind. He and Alfonso Cuaron have somewhat of a similar philosophy for immersive audio…imho of course. Gravity and Roma (criterion) are some prime examples of Alfonso’s works.


FWIW, Del Toro is producer and host of the show, but he didn't actually direct any of the episodes.



> Anyways, I watched that episode last night and you are right on point with your assessment regarding atmos implementation. I just found that bland/ insipid woman too irritating and unreasonable for my liking. Lol. I started with episode 8 and will probably end up watching the rest.


IMO, the best episodes were #3 (The Autopsy) and #7 (The Viewing). Spare yourself the misery of watching #6 (Dreams in the Witch House), as that one is flat-out terrible.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Magiclakez said:


> Auro-3D is not dead.


Ok maybe not dead, but it *is* moribund.



Magiclakez said:


> As a home theater enthusiast you should *hope *that all these (immersive) technologies are available for HT consumption.


Of course, we do (at least I do). But that's not related to the above.


----------



## Magiclakez

mrtickleuk said:


> Ok maybe not dead, but it *is* moribund.


Matter of perspective I would reckon; I feel it’s at the point of resuscitation, which would lead to an inevitable renaissance down the line. And kudos to the torch bearers (of this format) as well, for preventing it from going extinct. 

Imho, Auro was dead anyways for those who never got an opportunity (or dared) to flirt with it.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Matter of perspective I would reckon; I feel it’s at the point of resuscitation, which would lead to an inevitable renaissance down the line. And kudos to the torch bearers (of this format) as well, for preventing it from going extinct.
> 
> Imho, Auro was dead anyways for those who never got an opportunity (or dared) to flirt with it.


There's nothing particularly amazing or bold about Auro3D. We already have a totally channel based format in DTS: X.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> There's nothing particularly amazing or bold about Auro3D. We already have a totally channel based format in DTS: X.


Well as I see it, there is virtually no point of reference if you haven’t experienced something 1st hand. I’m just glad I have an option. I love all the immersive formats equally.

Speaking of Dts-x, I recently watched 47 Ronin 4k (dts-x track) and it had some good height effects during the course of the movie. What a fantastic/ underrated film. I even watched the sequel (blade of the 47 Ronin) on Netflix, really enjoyed that as well.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Well as I see it, there is virtually no point of reference if you haven’t experienced something 1st hand. I’m just glad I have an option. I love all the immersive formats equally.
> 
> Speaking of Dts-x, I recently watched 47 Ronin 4k (dts-x track) and it had some good height effects during the course of the movie. What a fantastic/ underrated film. I even watched the sequel (blade of the 47 Ronin) on Netflix, really enjoyed that as well.


Oh, but I have heard Auro3D before. If it were to continue to flounder, it's not like the audio industry would crumble because of it. If it were amazing tech that was actually better than Atmos, then yes, I would be annoyed.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> If it were amazing tech that was actually better than Atmos, then yes, I would be annoyed.


I think no singular tech is the best or amazing; it’s all contingent upon those sound mixing Goofies. I have quite a few crappy native Auro-3d titles, just like I have a plethora of subpar DTS-X and atmos tracks.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I think no singular tech is the best or amazing; it’s all contingent upon those sound mixing Goofies. I have quite a few crappy native Auro-3d titles, just like I have a plethora of subpar DTS-X and atmos tracks.


But I'm not talking about mixing quality, I'm talking about it purely from a technical standpoint. Correct, all three can sound like complete crap with incompetent mixing and encoding. Sadly, there's a lot of that going around this industry.


----------



## MagnumX

Purely from a technical standpoint, AuroMax is vastly superior to Cinema Atmos because it actually has speakers just above ear level while Cinema Atmos had zero separation these days. Cinema Atmos is now *PURE GARBAGE* for that reason alone. What's the point of a height layer if your surrounds are sitting just below them??? 

They could bring AuroMax to the home market, but so few home theaters use more than 15 speakers, there's not much point. Half the Atmos soundtracks aren't doing objects properly as it is. Only DTS:X Pro supports all its 30 speakers with everything, objects or not. 

Thus, claiming Atmos has technical superiority is rather specious at best. 

Ah, but you won't even see this post because you like a few others *ignore* anything you don't agree with.


----------



## GMil

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would wager very few, but even a novice enthusiast should know that one of the most basic elements of Atmos is scalability. And any mixer should keep that in mind. The way many of them mix their soundtracks, they are bypassing that scalability altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine spending $100,000 on a Trinnov and 24 expensive speakers expecting Atmos to give you an amazing soundstage only to find out half the movies or more you purchase only use less than half your


If that's the case, it would seem ťo me that hollywood is putting the brakes on. They're sending the message that if you want scalability you have to get out of the house and into the cinema. There's only so far they're willing to let you go in home atmos. I don't know how much this falls on the mixer if they're being handcuffed by the studios. They do still have to sell movie theater tickets. It's all about market manipulation. Again, not defending it. Just making a humble observation.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

GMil said:


> If that's the case, it would seem ťo me that hollywood is putting the brakes on. They're sending the message that if you want scalability [you can't have it.]


I just think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Dolby Atmos. Dolby Labs made it too easy to futz up when creating an Atmos project, especially a near-field home Atmos project. You can even make a wonderfully awesome mix with lots of 3D objects, but due to improper initial settings, you can cause the final encoding to be a bed channels only soundtrack or not have certain pairs of speakers activate when decoded even if you didn't intend for it to happen that way.

If you engineered a track in a studio that didn't happen to have particular speaker locations like Front Wides to monitor the finalized soundtrack, you would have no easy way of knowing there was a screw up until the disc ended up in a customer's home. Only the most seasoned of audio engineers who knew the programs and features of Atmos inside and out would know every little step in the chain.


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> If that's the case, it would seem ťo me that hollywood is putting the brakes on. They're sending the message that if you want scalability you have to get out of the house and into the cinema. There's only so far they're willing to let you go in home atmos. I don't know how much this falls on the mixer if they're being handcuffed by the studios. They do still have to sell movie theater tickets. It's all about market manipulation. Again, not defending it. Just making a humble observation.


I'm sorry, but Cinema Atmos is 100% GARBAGE so it makes zero sense to suggest you have to go there to hear something superior. Have you seen the layout of an Atmos cinema? Have you noticed there is nearly ZERO separation between surround and ceiling speakers there??? 

If someone here showed their home theater like that, they would get a lot of flak and suggestions to lower their surround speakers to or just above ear level (except from Grimaldi who makes home theaters just like that) . Bigger isn't always better. 

Grimaldi home theater example. Note how there is NO separation between height and surround speakers. This completely and utterly destroys any ear/height effects. I can't imagine anyone who would even attempt to justify this layout at home where distances allow surrounds to image in the middle much better (few movies utilize it, however probably for the very reason it doesn't work well in commercial theaters). Instead, they move those effects to the ceiling speakers which are much closer together.










The reason Dolby moved their surrounds so high is the Precedence Effect. You can't image precisely between two speakers left & right when they are massively far apart (30'-60' for example). The reason ceiling speakers are so close together in Atmos Cinema is to function as center stabilization speakers for central overhead effects, essentially center height speakers. 

Ironically, Auro-3D solved the problem with AuroMax, which has the same basic layout except it adds a lower just above ear level surround layer and uses the upper one as "Heights" and the ceiling one as the VOG array (multiple channel version instead of mono). 

Dolby Atmos Cinema Example (notice how surround speakers are almost as high as the ceiling speakers)










AuroMax theater example (Notice how there are surround speakers (blue rectangles) just above ear level, another set near the ceiling (similar to Atmos Cinema Surrounds) and another set inward on the ceiling (similar to Atmos ceiling heights). The difference is the extra height layer allowing lower surrounds to be used without sacrificing ceiling precision.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> I've mixed and mastered a rock album. But then I wrote all the songs and recorded it too including vocals (I play multiple instruments including piano/synth, saxophone and guitar). Ask @niterida. He's heard it. Niterida, how was the sound quality and was it well mixed?


Awesome sound and mixing 
Just don't ask me about the singing 😋


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> If that's the case, it would seem ťo me that hollywood is putting the brakes on. They're sending the message that if you want scalability you have to get out of the house and into the cinema. There's only so far they're willing to let you go in home atmos. I don't know how much this falls on the mixer if they're being handcuffed by the studios. They do still have to sell movie theater tickets. It's all about market manipulation. Again, not defending it. Just making a humble observation.


If Hollywood is the limiting factor, they are going about it the absolute wrong way. Atmos adoption in theaters has been painfully slow.

I live in the second largest metropolitan area in my state, and we didnt get a single Atmos/DTSX/Auro enabled theater until just about a year ago. We have ONE Liemax with their vaunted sound system (2 theaters in that complex with the IMAX sound). Only recently have I even been able to watch immersive audio at the cinema. The only way for me to get it, was in my own home, which I have had Atmos at home for nearly 5 years at this point.

If Hollywood is the issue, theaters need to catch up and fast.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Purely from a technical standpoint, AuroMax is vastly superior to Cinema Atmos because it actually has speakers just above ear level while Cinema Atmos had zero separation these days. Cinema Atmos is now *PURE GARBAGE* for that reason alone. What's the point of a height layer if your surrounds are sitting just below them???
> 
> They could bring AuroMax to the home market, but so few home theaters use more than 15 speakers, there's not much point. Half the Atmos soundtracks aren't doing objects properly as it is. Only DTS:X Pro supports all its 30 speakers with everything, objects or not.
> 
> Thus, claiming Atmos has technical superiority is rather specious at best.
> 
> Ah, but you won't even see this post because you like a few others *ignore* anything you don't agree with.


It would be interesting if Auro did release AuroMax for the home. Up to 26.1 channels of processing with the option for sound objects to be added to the mix.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It would be interesting if Auro did release AuroMax for the home. Up to 26.1 channels of processing with the option for sound objects to be added to the mix.


The only issue is that AuroMAX's objects don't address individual speakers. They address zoned clusters of speakers.

MPEG-H actually looks intriguing, but I can't find technical white papers stating that it offers a lossless encoding mode. It even has a setting for a 100% object data stream... no channels.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I live in the second largest metropolitan area in my state, and we didnt get a single Atmos/DTSX/Auro enabled theater until just about a year ago.


I live in the third largest city in Alabama and we have one theater with Atmos. That said, it is a beautiful from-scratch implementation of it (not a retrofit), with the surrounds lower down and the heights placed perfectly per spec. The only problem is... It's also one of those dinner and drinks type theaters, so they never turn the lights all the way down so that the servers can find you and over time, they've gradually turned the master volume down so you're almost struggling to hear dialogue. You'll also easily blow over $100 for two people to watch a flick there.

This is why most of my friends just wait to come watch stuff at my house.


----------



## otismojo

I’ve been trying to find a copy of Ice Road in Auro3D, but have had no luck. I can only find it in the Netherlands and they won’t ship to USA. Any help? This is harder to find than when Twister was first released.


----------



## GMil

Dan Hitchman said:


> If you engineered a track in a studio that didn't happen to have particular speaker locations like Front Wides to monitor the finalized soundtrack, you would have no easy way of knowing there was a screw up until the disc ended up in a customer's home. Only the most seasoned of audio engineers who knew the programs and features of Atmos inside and out would know every little step in the chain.


That's my whole point. I would think, based on my limited experience of sound mixing(not atmos), most mixers WON'T mix to a speaker location that is not there. I know I wouldn't and I would be willing to bet a large majority of mixing studios do not deploy front wides in thier set ups. Hence, it not being on a majority of sound tracks and this is what a lot of you are experiencing. I am new to this whole atmos thing so my opinions expressed are pure speculation.


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> I'm sorry, but Cinema Atmos is 100% GARBAGE so it makes zero sense to suggest you have to go there to hear something superior. Have you seen the layout of an Atmos cinema? Have you noticed there is nearly ZERO separation between surround and ceiling speakers there???


 I never said it was superior and I am not suggesting to go there. I used the term "scalability" meaning larger. Hollywood is telling you if you want larger than 7.1.4, go to the movie theater. I guess it's easy for me to say with my small meager room I do not need more than that but if you think about it objectively from a marketing standpoint. It makes perfect sense. The people that get hurt are the guys like you who have larger rooms and installed larger systems only to have half of it functioning a majority of the time. 

I 100% agree with you. I do not care for Cinema sound. The last time I went to the theater was to see Rise of Skywalker. I don't know if this before the changes you point out because I do not recall the surrounds being that high up but I was largely unimpressed with the sound. As we were walking out of the theater, my wife turned to me and said " I don't want to make your head any bigger than it already is but it sounds better at home".
🤩


----------



## Josh Z

GMil said:


> I 100% agree with you. I do not care for Cinema sound. The last time I went to the theater was to see Rise of Skywalker. I don't know if this before the changes you point out because I do not recall the surrounds being that high up but I was largely unimpressed with the sound. As we were walking out of the theater, my wife turned to me and said " I don't want to make your head any bigger than it already is but it sounds better at home".
> 🤩


Rise of Skywalker sounds like crap at home too. The movie just has an awful sound mix with no dynamic range.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> We already have a *totally channel based format* in DTS: X.





Dan Hitchman said:


> I'm not talking about mixing quality, I'm talking about it purely from a technical standpoint.


In the past you have mentioned DTS:X tracks with objects, so you already know that it is not a _"totally channel based format"_ but a hybrid format (channels + objects). From a purely technical standpoint, it is the majority of the mixes, not the DTS:X format itself, that is channel based.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> In the past you have mentioned DTS:X tracks with objects, so you already know that it is not a _"totally channel based format"_ but a hybrid format (channels + objects). From a purely technical standpoint, it is the majority of the mixes, not the DTS:X format itself, that is channel based.


As I also mentioned in the past, the DTS: X production software only allows for a fixed 11.1 or 12.1 home audio export. Sure, you can MIX with objects and you can use them when exporting a Cinema MDA track, but not with the home version of DTS: X. 

This also squares with FilmMixer's past comment that DTS internally said to those using that format to mix tracks, if you were wanting to expand a track past that speaker count, they would instead use upmixing, which apparently is what DTS: X Pro entails.

What made them drop objects from when Well Go had a handful of DTS:X Blu-ray releases (7.1.4 + 5 objects), is still a mystery.


----------



## Gates

Magiclakez said:


> The Discfather on Instagram. Apparently a Sony release.


He's not a source. He spews **** and misinformation all the time. So much so that he's had to change his name a few times.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Gates said:


> He's not a source. He spews **** and misinformation all the time. So much so that he's had to change his name a few times.


Yup.


----------



## Magiclakez

Gates said:


> He's not a source. He spews **** and misinformation all the time. So much so that he's had to change his name a few times.


Well, I don’t know if he’s a source but I find him accurate enough and invariably those initials rumors translate into official releases on Blu-ray.com.

Anyways I would advice members to keep checking on Blu-ray.com for final confirmation/ actual release dates.


----------



## Magiclakez

otismojo said:


> I’ve been trying to find a copy of Ice Road in Auro3D, but have had no luck. I can only find it in the Netherlands and they won’t ship to USA. Any help? This is harder to find than when Twister was first released.


If you tried ordering it from Bol (Netherlands) they don’t ship to the US. You can try Dvdoutlet Netherlands. They ship to the US, unfortunately they have a very haphazard website. I had to run through hoops to get my copy. Best of luck that’s an amazing disc, one of the best native Auro-3D titles imho.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> That's my whole point. I would think, based on my limited experience of sound mixing(not atmos), most mixers WON'T mix to a speaker location that is not there. I know I wouldn't and I would be willing to bet a large majority of mixing studios do not deploy front wides in thier set ups. Hence, it not being on a majority of sound tracks and this is what a lot of you are experiencing. I am new to this whole atmos thing so my opinions expressed are pure speculation.


Thats the thing: they dont have to mix to Wides specifically. If they put in active objects as opposed to static bed objects, the Atmos renderer will have those Objects use the Wides, even if the mixer didnt have them.

The Atmos system scales it up for them. Thats litterally its job. But the way some of these mixers are defaulting to static bed objects and treating them like traditional channels, they are bypassing the scalability factor. Whether on purpose or not. And to many of us, it just seems like a bad mixing job.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I also mentioned in the past, the DTS: X production software only allows for a fixed 11.1 or 12.1 home audio export. Sure, you can MIX with objects and you can use them when exporting a Cinema MDA track, but not with the home version of DTS: X.
> 
> This also squares with FilmMixer's past comment that DTS internally said to those using that format to mix tracks, if you were wanting to expand a track past that speaker count, they would instead use upmixing, which apparently is what DTS: X Pro entails.
> 
> What made them drop objects from when Well Go had a handful of DTS:X Blu-ray releases (7.1.4 + 5 objects), is still a mystery.


I happen to have Detective Dee: and the Four Heavenly Kings from WellGo USA, and I believe its one of the handfull of tittles that has a DTS:X mix with Sound Objects. The end result is pretty spectacular, but I havent heard it on a system larger than 5.1.4 channels yet. Perhaps once you get above 7.1.4, it starts to act weird. Who knows?

I am also on the lookout for the other WellGo USA DTSX discs with objects. I suspect "The Swordsman" may also be one of those. I've seen the movie and I liked it well enough to add it to my collection, so I'll be pulling the trigger on that one sooner or later.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I happen to have Detective Dee: and the Four Heavenly Kings from WellGo USA, and I believe its one of the handfull of tittles that has a DTS:X mix with Sound Objects. The end result is pretty spectacular, but I havent heard it on a system larger than 5.1.4 channels yet. Perhaps once you get above 7.1.4, it starts to act weird. Who knows?
> 
> I am also on the lookout for the other WellGo USA DTSX discs with objects. I suspect "The Swordsman" may also be one of those. I've seen the movie and I liked it well enough to add it to my collection, so I'll be pulling the trigger on that one sooner or later.


I have both those titles. The WellGo USA title, is actually called “The swordmaster” and it indeed has an impressive dts-x track.

I just received my copies of Mary and the Witch’s flower and Innocence (ghost shell 2) both in 4k. Both Japanese Anime titles with dts-x only on the Japanese editions. I had to get them shipped over from Japan.

I actually have all the dts-x titles (Blu-ray and 4k) released till date, except for Villainess (Blu-ray-Korean title) and Shock Wave 4k (Andy Lau). The Cantonese version for shock wave is in atmos, whereas the mandarin version supports DTS-X. (Of course everything has English subtitles).
Those titles are extremely elusive and next to impossible to find.

PS. If anyone has a lead for those 2 titles please hit me up.😀


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> I have both those titles. The WellGo USA title, is actually called “The swordmaster” and it indeed has an impressive dts-x track.
> 
> I just received my copies of Mary and the Witch’s flower and Innocence (ghost shell 2) both in 4k. Both Japanese Anime titles with dts-x only on the Japanese editions. I had to get them shipped over from Japan.
> 
> I actually have all the dts-x titles (Blu-ray and 4k) released till date, except for Villainess (Blu-ray-Korean title) and Shock Wave 4k (Andy Lau) Those titles are extremely elusive and next to impossible to find.
> 
> PS. If anyone has a lead for those 2 titles please hit me up.😀


Yes, The Swordmaster. Thats the one.


----------



## otismojo

Magiclakez said:


> If you tried ordering it from Bol (Netherlands) they don’t ship to the US. You can try Dvdoutlet Netherlands. They ship to the US, unfortunately they have a very haphazard website. I had to run through hoops to get my copy. Best of luck that’s an amazing disc, one of the best native Auro-3D titles imho.


Thanks! Tried Bol and they won’t ship to US. DVDoutlet.nl worked! Will see if they ship it. Was only 18 euro shipped! Terrible website. No idea if I will get a French, German, or UK disc.


----------



## Magiclakez

otismojo said:


> Thanks! Tried Bol and they won’t ship to US. DVDoutlet.nl worked! Will see if they ship it. Was only 18 euro shipped! Terrible website. No idea if I will get a French, German, or UK disc.


What you should do when ordering from Dvdoutlet, is check the usn# of the title and make sure you are ordering the correct version. I usually get the number from Bol and then check it with the multiple search results on Dvdoutlet.

Dvdoutlet has a huge library of auro-3d titles, however they are very poorly indexed. Their shipping costs are very reasonable, unfortunately their shipping speed is slow, but they do arrive eventually. So just be patient it will show up.


----------



## otismojo

Magiclakez said:


> What you should do when ordering from Dvdoutlet, is check the usn# of the title and make sure you are ordering the correct version. I usually get the number from Bol and then check it with the multiple search results on Dvdoutlet.
> 
> Dvdoutlet has a huge library of auro-3d titles, however they are very poorly indexed. Their shipping costs are very reasonable, unfortunately their shipping speed is slow, but they do eventually arrive. So just be patient it will show up.


Thanks! I confirmed the barcode and it’s the correct one!


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> As I also mentioned in the past, the DTS: X production software only allows for a fixed 11.1 or 12.1 home audio export.
> 
> What made them drop objects from when Well Go had a handful of DTS:X Blu-ray releases (7.1.4 + 5 objects), is still a mystery.


If DTS:X production software only allows for a fixed 11.1 or 12.1 home audio export, how did Well Go USA get all 16 elements (11.1 channels + 5 objects) that the home DTS:X format is capable of onto their Blu-ray releases?


----------



## Dan Hitchman

sdurani said:


> If DTS:X production software only allows for a fixed 11.1 or 12.1 home audio export, how did Well Go USA get all 16 elements (11.1 channels + 5 objects) that the home DTS:X format is capable of onto their Blu-ray releases?


I cannot answer that. All I can tell you is that this is the status of the latest available version of the DTS: X production software. 11.1 (7.1.4) or 12.1 (7.1.5) export. There appears to be no object encoding for the home version, just the pro cinema version which is a different animal, though you can mix with objects for both.


----------



## GMil

Josh Z said:


> Rise of Skywalker sounds like crap at home too. The movie just has an awful sound mix with no dynamic range.


It was not my intention to give the impression I was promoting it as an outstanding atmos mix. It was mediocre at best. It just happens to be the last time we were at the theater and she wasn't comparing the same soundtracks. Skywalker wasn't available for home yet. She was comparing it to titles like Dr. Sleep, game of thrones and other above average mixes we had already listened to at home. So I guess, in all honesty, I had that going in my favor. I hope this helps.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Here is an interesting video where they test the audio bitrate of a few Netflix shows. Pay attention when they read out the technical specs of Stranger Things season 4


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Here is an interesting video where they test the audio bitrate of a few Netflix shows. Pay attention when they read out the technical specs of Stranger Things season 4


It's still amazing what is considered top quality AV on streaming. It's paltry and, sadly, our future.

I'm currently watching "Ted Lasso" on Apple and the Atmos track actually sounds compressed. You can especially hear the problem of too much missing data in the dialog. There is a kind of unnaturalness to the high frequencies, especially, like the life was squeezed out and there is a kind of metallic quality. The last time I heard that kind of audio compression anomaly was Dolby Digital in the theater as that codec was definitely over compressed.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's still amazing what is considered top quality AV on streaming. It's paltry and, sadly, our future.
> 
> I'm currently watching "Ted Lasso" on Apple and the Atmos track actually sounds compressed. You can especially hear the problem of too much missing data in the dialog. There is a kind of unnaturalness to the high frequencies, especially, like the life was squeezed out and there is a kind of metallic quality. The last time I heard that kind of audio compression anomaly was Dolby Digital in the theater as that codec was definitely over compressed.


Yes the audio quality with streaming is atrocious, and sadly enough, Netflix seems to be the best of them.

Stranger Things season 4 really did sound amazing and it was tested at 734kb/s. And with 16 channel Atmos no less (confirming reports that some Atmos dubbing stages have upgraded to 9.1.6 capability)

On the other hand, one of the other programs (maybe the Cyberpunk anime) was tested at 192kb/s, so about on par with Pandora music. So it seems to be all over the place.

But its good to know that some people in the industry are looking to break the 11.1 channel Atmos paradigm.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> It's still amazing what is considered top quality AV on streaming. It's paltry and, sadly, our future.
> 
> I'm currently watching "Ted Lasso" on Apple and the Atmos track actually sounds compressed. You can especially hear the problem of too much missing data in the dialog. There is a kind of unnaturalness to the high frequencies, especially, like the life was squeezed out and there is a kind of metallic quality. The last time I heard that kind of audio compression anomaly was Dolby Digital in the theater as that codec was definitely over compressed.


Au contraire, I think the current quality of streaming has significantly improved compared to the earlier days. The pq/ sound track on stranger things, rings of power, sandman etc was quite impressive. iTunes/ Apple TV+ and Netflix consistently average 25 mbps 4k video streams and 771 kbps audio (for immersive audio) which is the highest among streaming platforms. It’s only going to get better down the line. But as always ymmv.

Of course physical media/ kaleidescape are the definitive ways for viewing content, but I also cannot live without streaming. I need both in my life.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Au contraire, I think the current quality of streaming has significantly improved compared to the earlier days. The pq/ sound track on stranger things, rings of power, sandman etc was quite impressive. iTunes/ Apple TV+ and Netflix consistently average 25 mbps 4k video streams and 771 kbps audio streams (for immersive audio) which is the highest among streaming platforms. It’s only going to get better down the line. But as always ymmv.
> 
> Of course physical media/ kaleidescape are the definitive ways for viewing content, but I also cannot live without streaming. I need both in my life.


It's better than it was, but there is certainly no incentive to keep improving. These companies don't exactly want to invest in lots of storage space for high bitrate AV files, especially since the streaming business model is actually quite flaky right now. Netflix, for one, is losing subscribers hand over fist, but it's not due to quality as most folk don't really give a crap about that. We are an anomaly and the industry tends to bend towards the lowest common denominator.


----------



## sdurani

Dan Hitchman said:


> There appears to be no object encoding for the home version...


If there is no object encoding for the home version, how do IMAX Enhanced DTS:X tracks encode the IMAX High Centre channel to 25° elevation?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> If there is no object encoding for the home version, how do IMAX Enhanced DTS:X tracks encode the IMAX High Centre channel to 25° elevation?


Its a sound object. But from what I understand it doesnt move.

Here is a clip from a Sound United video where they talk about Imax Enhanced and mention the Center Heght Object. It will render between the Front Heights if you dont have a Center Height, but with a Center Height, it renders discretely.









✂️ Center Height Object


53 seconds · Clipped by FURognar · Original video "Summer Technical Series | DTS:X Pro and IMAX Enhanced: Maximizing An Immersive 3D Audio Experience" by Sou...




youtube.com


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its a sound object. But from what I understand it doesnt move.


It still has to be encoded. Didn't he suggest there are no such options?

What I've been wondering is how is it various titles available in Atmos and X sound identical. The implication is that there's a master encode and some kind of software that will output both X and Atmos files. 

This is even more true when it comes to cinema soundtracks. For example, I've seen a site that says Top Gun: Maverick was available in Auro-3D, X and Atmos. I doubt they did three entirely different soundtracks. 

I've seen some music software that can do that sort of thing (you make one album and can export immersive tracks to more than one format so I expected to find something similar with movies, but looking over the pro software I'm aware of, I haven't seen any mention that as an option. Dolby wants you using Atmos, not X, but movie theaters just want content on whatever format they're set up to use.


----------



## dj7675

Chirosamsung said:


> Blockbuster video isn't dead yet either...there is still one left...somewhere


Bend, Oregon. We have a vacation home house in the area and went by to look at the store and there were many others checking out the last blockbuster as well.


----------



## PeterTHX

sdurani said:


> If there is no object encoding for the home version, how do IMAX Enhanced DTS:X tracks encode the IMAX High Centre channel to 25° elevation?


IMAX Enhanced for disc appears all but dead. Sony has gone all-in with Vision/Atmos on all their new releases now. Even catalogs are usually Vision at minimum now.


----------



## niterida

I finally got hold of Gravity Luxe Edition


----------



## petetherock

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I happen to have Detective Dee: and the Four Heavenly Kings from WellGo USA, and I believe its one of the handfull of tittles that has a DTS:X mix with Sound Objects. The end result is pretty spectacular, but I havent heard it on a system larger than 5.1.4 channels yet. Perhaps once you get above 7.1.4, it starts to act weird. Who knows?
> 
> I am also on the lookout for the other WellGo USA DTSX discs with objects. I suspect "The Swordsman" may also be one of those. I've seen the movie and I liked it well enough to add it to my collection, so I'll be pulling the trigger on that one sooner or later.


Personal taste I guess, but "Dee" 1 was great, the latter two less so, and "Swordsman" was really nasty for me, look for a much older "Swordsman", Tsui Hark was the director, and it was groundbreaking when it first came out and even now, it's a good movie with a nice plot.
Watch it in the original language if possible...


----------



## mrtickleuk

dj7675 said:


> Bend, Oregon. We have a vacation home house in the area and went by to look at the store and there were many others checking out the last blockbuster as well.


A featured in the recent episode of Family Guy! 

s21e2 "Bend or Blockbuster" 
"Jealous after seeing the Tubbs-Brown family enjoying each other's company, Lois tries to get her family to spend the day together, but all her attempts fail. Peter suggests watching a movie from Blockbuster together, but with the local branch closed, he decides to visit the last one in existence, bringing his reluctant family along for the road trip"


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> Personal taste I guess, but "Dee" 1 was great, the latter two less so, and "Swordsman" was really nasty for me, look for a much older "Swordsman", Tsui Hark was the director, and it was groundbreaking when it first came out and even now, it's a good movie with a nice plot.
> Watch it in the original language if possible...


I meant The Swordmaster. Yeah I also have Tsui Hark's Swordsman movies including The East is Red. Those are on VHS though. Gotta figure out some way to upgrade those.

As far as Detective Dee goes. I didnt like the "2nd" one all that much but the Four Heavenly Kings I enjoyed quite a bit. Huge bonus that its a DTSX disc as well.


----------



## robert600

niterida said:


> I finally got hold of Gravity Luxe Edition


Nice ... I quite enjoyed it!


----------



## Chirosamsung

Speaking of nice-just had a movie night last night with Maverick----SICK demo disk

Locked atmos or not, I agree with the 100 video and 100 audio rating on AVforums


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> Speaking of nice-just had a movie night last night with Maverick----SICK demo disk
> 
> Locked atmos or not, I agree with the 100 video and 100 audio rating on AVforums


What was frustrating was that only a very few moments in the movie used 3D pannable objects that could address more than the bed speakers. For all that was going on on screen, it seemed like such a lazy mix. I felt the same way with the Atmos remix of the first Top Gun. It's like... this is all you could come up with?? Really?? 

Plus both had been bass neutered.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> What was frustrating was that only a very few moments in the movie used 3D pannable objects that could address more than the bed speakers. For all that was going on on screen, it seemed like such a lazy mix. I felt the same way with the Atmos remix of the first Top Gun. It's like... this is all you could come up with?? Really??
> 
> Plus both had been bass neutered.


I guess I disagree-myself and the 5 friends that watched it were pretty blown away...compared to a lot of other atmos mixes

btw, used BEQ which is pretty much mandatory for almost every single release these days-not unique to Top Gun in any way


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Chirosamsung said:


> I guess I disagree-myself and the 5 friends that watched it were pretty blown away...compared to a lot of other Atmos mixes


I think it's a case of the fact that so few 5.1/7.1 or immersive mixes are any good these days, that even a moderately successful mix like "Maverick" seems like a standout. The best Atmos mix I've heard in a while happens to be Sony's remix of "The Guns of Navarone." What's great about it is that it utilizes any number of speakers depending on the size of your Atmos system and it has really good steering of individual object sounds so that the overall mix during any one scene isn't so busy that you cannot feel the audio swirl around you and above you. What I found with Atmos mixes like "Dune" is that it's more like a big blob of sound rather than having the best tracking of sounds within the cacophony. I wish that native Atmos mix engineers could learn a bit from Sony Atmos remixers.


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it's a case of the fact that so few 5.1/7.1 or immersive mixes are any good these days, that even a moderately successful mix like "Maverick" seems like a standout. The best Atmos mix I've heard in a while happens to be Sony's remix of "The Guns of Navarone." What's great about it is that it utilizes any number of speakers depending on the size of your Atmos system and it has really good steering of individual object sounds so that the overall mix during any one scene isn't so busy that you cannot feel the audio swirl around you and above you. What I found with Atmos mixes like "Dune" is that it's more like a big blob of sound rather than having the best tracking of sounds within the cacophony. I wish that native Atmos mix engineers could learn a bit from Sony Atmos remixers.


That "WALL OF SOUND" could be the director's intent. Like with Nolan movies.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it's a case of the fact that so few 5.1/7.1 or immersive mixes are any good these days, that even a moderately successful mix like "Maverick" seems like a standout. The best Atmos mix I've heard in a while happens to be Sony's remix of "The Guns of Navarone." What's great about it is that it utilizes any number of speakers depending on the size of your Atmos system and it has really good steering of individual object sounds so that the overall mix during any one scene isn't so busy that you cannot feel the audio swirl around you and above you. What I found with Atmos mixes like "Dune" is that it's more like a big blob of sound rather than having the best tracking of sounds within the cacophony. I wish that native Atmos mix engineers could learn a bit from Sony Atmos remixers.


So do I...but I guess we will all have to keep our expectations in check.

there is what atmos SHOULD sound like and what atmos WILL sound like for the foreseeable future (for 99.9% of mixes)


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I think the method of using a base 7.1.2 bed channel mix but also using frequent active sound objects _when appropriate _is a good compromise. If the studio refuses to give the mixers the time and money necessary to do a proper immersive mix, then a hybrid approach will at least leverage high-end systems on a regular basis, rather than ignoring most of your speakers for the entire runtime.

which brings me to another related topic.

Shane Lee uploaded a video earlier today that shows that Disney are doing different mixes for Blu Ray disc and Disney plus. He revisited the original Black Panther in preparation for the sequel coming out and he found out that while the Black Panther disc is a static 7.1.4 mix (actually using 4 static height channels, so if you have 6 height speakers with Top-Middles, Your middle speakers will remain silent and absolutely no Wide content at all) but the mix on Disney+ is an active mix where the objects move. It should make full use of a high end 16+ channel system, where the 4k blu ray will not.






What the hell is Disney thinking?

Maybe they recently changed how they mixed their atmos content, remixed them for Disney+ and the discs going forward, but the legacy discs wont change.

The Mouse strikes again.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think the method of using a base 7.1.2 bed channel mix but also using frequent active sound objects _when appropriate _is a good compromise. If the studio refuses to give the mixers the time and money necessary to do a proper immersive mix, then a hybrid approach will at least leverage high-end systems on a regular basis, rather than ignoring most of your speakers for the entire runtime.
> 
> which brings me to another related topic.
> 
> Shane Lee uploaded a video earlier today that shows that Disney are doing different mixes for Blu Ray disc and Disney plus. He revisited the original Black Panther in preparation for the sequel coming out and he found out that while the Black Panther disc is a static 7.1.4 mix (actually using 4 static height channels, so if you have 6 height speakers with Top-Middles, Your middle speakers will remain silent and absolutely no Wide content at all) but the mix on Disney+ is an active mix where the objects move. It should make full use of a high end 16+ channel system, where the 4k blu ray will not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is Disney thinking?
> 
> Maybe they recently changed how they mixed their atmos content, remixed them for Disney+ and the discs going forward, but the legacy discs wont change.
> 
> The Mouse strikes again.


I REALLY think that The Mouse's left paw has absolutely no frickin' clue what the right paw is doing. The problem seems to be one of Atmos project setups with object encoding more than anything with these static mixes.

I truly believe that if Dolby Labs had just come out with about an 11.1.6 (9.1.6 with one extra pair of side surrounds) channel based lossless format for the home with objects utilized in the mix project or cinema package being able to be translated to this one speaker layout (with a bonus feature: if you placed an object somewhere between speakers then quality psychoacoustic panning and phasing based on the latest head transfer research would come into play to help position them in aural space and help pull them into the room rather than just having sounds radiate from hard speaker locations, more than what Atmos can do so now), then you would hit 99.99% of home theater systems (including those with at least two rows of seating). Plus, you would gain the ability to array bed channel sounds that you cannot do with home Atmos now as both channels and objects become part of the object count within the renderer. Speaker Arraying is very much apart of the cinema version of Atmos and integral in spreading certain atmospherics and music throughout the room. Since there is no arraying, only one speaker in a location can convey the bed information, leaving all the others silent except for object flybys.

A simpler system that removed the possibility of static object encodings (turning objects into pass-through channels) would have probably fixed most of the problems we are noticing now.

Given what we are dealing with currently and given the possibility that Dolby would not come out with a new immersive format any time soon, even a static 9.1.6 channel encoding would be better than what we are faced with most of the time and you can do that with home Atmos *RIGHT NOW*. Look at the data stream... the carrier for TrueHD lossless Atmos is a 16 channel Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) encoding.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> What the hell is Disney thinking?
> 
> Maybe they recently changed how they mixed their atmos content, remixed them for Disney+ and the discs going forward, but the legacy discs wont change.
> 
> The Mouse strikes again.


Of Course they would pay more attention for Disney+ and neglect legacy discs. It’s all about increasing their subscriber base on Disney plus. The mouse is a freakin wile-e-coyote…🤣. 

They have never been gung-ho about physical media anyways. Look at the all the languishing Fox catalog/ backlog. Honestly if you ask me I would rather watch all the Marvel movies on IMAX, which incidentally is only available on Disney+ and not on physical media. I have gone back and watched all the Marvel movies which support the IMAX function on Disney plus. It’s an entirely different experience. 

I’m glad that they are (at the least) remixing the Disney+ titles. These bastids have the capabilities/technology in place (case in point Thor: love/thunder) but they don’t want to cannibalize their digital platform.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I guess I disagree-myself and the 5 friends that watched it were pretty blown away...compared to a lot of other atmos mixes
> 
> btw, used BEQ which is pretty much mandatory for almost every single release these days-not unique to Top Gun in any way


I think the base 7.1 mix is excellent (minus the bass filtering, which the original Top Gun 6.1 release did NOT have, but the Atmos version did, sadly). If it weren't for bass filtering, I'd probably give the 7.1 mix a 100, but the Atmos height effects do very little. I'm going to try watching it with Neural X the next time. The original 6.1 DTS-HD MA Top Gun with Neural X blows away the Atmos version in almost every respect. Deep loud bass. Stereo panning overhead. More dynamic range. 

Atmos should not make things worse than prior 5.1/6.1/7.1 releases, but unfortunately this atmosphere of home mix heaven (more like sound bar HELL) gets joined to the hip of most Atmos mixes. It's a minor miracle we got Blade Runner 2049 and Dune largely unscathed, probably because the director insisted.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> I think it's a case of the fact that so few 5.1/7.1 or immersive mixes are any good these days, that even a moderately successful mix like "Maverick" seems like a standout. The best Atmos mix I've heard in a while happens to be Sony's remix of "The Guns of Navarone." What's great about it is that it utilizes any number of speakers depending on the size of your Atmos system and it has really good steering of individual object sounds so that the overall mix during any one scene isn't so busy that you cannot feel the audio swirl around you and above you. What I found with Atmos mixes like "Dune" is that it's more like a big blob of sound rather than having the best tracking of sounds within the cacophony. I wish that native Atmos mix engineers could learn a bit from Sony Atmos remixers.


Guns of navarone and even Godzilla. Godzilla1998 that is (the old one). That title had my wides singing as well throughout the film.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> Guns of navarone and even Godzilla. Godzilla1998 that is (the old one). That title had my wides singing as well throughout the film.


Godzilla 1998 is definitely better than many native Atmos mixes and I own it on 4k Blu-ray. If only native Atmos Disney mixes were as good. Could it have been even better? Of course. There is always room for improvement as sometimes you run across scenes that one would think would make excellent use of the 3D immersive pallet and yet there is very little Atmos activity.


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched “All quiet on the Western front” last night on Netflix. Amazing track and film, has some distinct 1917 vibes. Be sure to engage the original German track (with English subs) to enable the impressive atmos track. The default English (dubbed) version is quite lackluster. Imho, one of the best movies on Netflix this year.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> I REALLY think that The Mouse's left paw has absolutely no frickin' clue what the right paw is doing. The problem seems to be one of Atmos project setups with object encoding more than anything with these static mixes.
> 
> I truly believe that if Dolby Labs had just come out with about an 11.1.6 (9.1.6 with one extra pair of side surrounds) channel based lossless format for the home with objects utilized in the mix project or cinema package being able to be translated to this one speaker layout (with a bonus feature: if you placed an object somewhere between speakers then quality psychoacoustic panning and phasing based on the latest head transfer research would come into play to help position them in aural space and help pull them into the room rather than just having sounds radiate from hard speaker locations, more than what Atmos can do so now), then you would hit 99.99% of home theater systems (including those with at least two rows of seating). Plus, you would gain the ability to array bed channel sounds that you cannot do with home Atmos now as both channels and objects become part of the object count within the renderer. Speaker Arraying is very much apart of the cinema version of Atmos and integral in spreading certain atmospherics and music throughout the room. Since there is no arraying, only one speaker in a location can convey the bed information, leaving all the others silent except for object flybys.
> 
> A simpler system that removed the possibility of static object encodings (turning objects into pass-through channels) would have probably fixed most of the problems we are noticing now.
> 
> Given what we are dealing with currently and given the possibility that Dolby would not come out with a new immersive format any time soon, even a static 9.1.6 channel encoding would be better than what we are faced with most of the time and you can do that with home Atmos *RIGHT NOW*. Look at the data stream... the carrier for TrueHD lossless Atmos is a 16 channel Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) encoding.


We already have 13.1 (Auro-3D) and 30.2 upmixed DTS:X that functions quite close to 30-channel discrete in practice and works with EVERY SINGLE TITLE.

Maybe instead of getting an intractable Disney or Dolby to do something different, what we should be doing is encouraging the studios with DTS-HD MA based X and streaming sites to adopt DTS:X HR (high resolution; aka their streaming capable version) and then enjoy 30.2 sound on _everything_.

Auro-3D had just finished their streaming version when they filed for bankruptcy protection. But we have our own brigade of *everything but Atmos haters* on here that want Atmos and Atmos only and attack Auro and X every chance they get.... So accept the _nothing burger_ you guys all begged for and enjoy it exactly as it is because that's all you get in a near-monopoly situation.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I have a strong feeling (and from experience over the last 3-5 years) this Dolby atmos thread is just constant complaining about what Dolby atmos releases SHOULD BE and referencing to the half dozen or dozen (over a half decade) blu ray mixes that were actually done well. Sadly, I see this like 3D...less and less good mixes over time instead of more good mixes.

we should just put a disclaimer sticky on the first post listing the 5-10 good mixes and then tampering new users expectations that most all other atmos mixes are woefully inadequate and underwhelming.

then just recommend using an up mixer and BEQ and call it a day


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> We already have 13.1 (Auro-3D) and 30.2 upmixed DTS:X that functions quite close to 30-channel discrete in practice and works with EVERY SINGLE TITLE.
> 
> Maybe instead of getting an intractable Disney or Dolby to do something different, what we should be doing is encouraging the studios with DTS-HD MA based X and streaming sites to adopt DTS:X HR (high resolution; aka their streaming capable version) and then enjoy 30.2 sound on _everything_.
> 
> Auro-3D had just finished their streaming version when they filed for bankruptcy protection. But we have our own brigade of *everything but Atmos haters* on here that want Atmos and Atmos only and attack Auro and X every chance they get.... So accept the _nothing burger_ you guys all begged for and enjoy it exactly as it is because that's all you get in a near-monopoly situation.


Yep. The other guys gotta bring the competition if we expect this to get any better. Otherwise what incentive will there be for anyone to improve the status quo.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a strong feeling (and from experience over the last 3-5 years) this Dolby atmos thread is just constant complaining about what Dolby atmos releases SHOULD BE and referencing to the half dozen or dozen (over a half decade) blu ray mixes that were actually done well. Sadly, I see this like 3D...less and less good mixes over time instead of more good mixes.
> 
> we should just put a disclaimer sticky on the first post listing the 5-10 good mixes and then tampering new users expectations that most all other atmos mixes are woefully inadequate and underwhelming.
> 
> then just recommend using an up mixer and BEQ and call it a day


Well, stuff like Stranger Things 4 and many of Sony's disc efforts gives me hope. But its clear that outstanding mixes are the exception. There's no excuse for something like Top Gun Maveric to make little use of the height channels. Its a damn movie about dog fighting and fighter pilots. If any movie should have near constant activity in the heights during action scenes, its that one. Same issue as Bumble Bee Transformers film. No activity in the height channels even when there are giant flying robots flying all over the sky in the scene.

It doesnt make any sense.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well, stuff like Stranger Things 4 and many of Sony's disc efforts gives me hope. But its clear that outstanding mixes are the exception. There's no excuse for something like Top Gun Maveric to make little use of the height channels. Its a damn movie about dog fighting and fighter pilots. If any movie should have near constant activity in the heights during action scenes, its that one. Same issue as Bumble Bee Transformers film. No activity in the height channels even when there are giant flying robots flying all over the sky in the scene.
> 
> It doesnt make any sense.


The problem is some of these movies like Maverick, Bumble bee, Blade Runner 2049 and even Mad Max Fury road have acquired a cult following. Preconceived bias prevents objectivity in that scenario. You don’t want any negativity, gate crashing your utopian experience.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> The problem is some of these movies like Maverick, Bumble bee, Blade Runner 2049 and even Mad Max Fury road have acquired a cult following. Preconceived bias prevents objectivity in that scenario. You don’t want any negativity, gate crashing your utopian experience.


Yeah, I had a hard time telling discrete overhead activity in Mad Max Fury Road. It had great almost constant base (ear level) surround, but it was mostly car noises, yelling, explosions and guns (sounds less likely to be overhead). 

The intro bit with the car flying overhead onto the ground was overhead the most in the rear height channels farthest away from the MLP in the front row (so having the lowest perceived angle from that seat) and had already dived onto the ground by Top Middle/Side Surround (110 degrees behind that seat). 

The net result was it didn't sound like much of an overhead event from that seat. It was much more impressive from the 2nd row and the most impressive from the 3rd row just under and in front of the rear height speakers on the ceiling).

If it had jumped front-to-back the results would have been reversed. So I suppose there's something to be said for having narrow overhead Tops instead as it would have likely dove from above right into my head instead and that might sound more impressive. 

Of course, if they kept it overhead up to Top Middle and then dove down to the front wides and mains, it would have been incredible sounding no matter where you sat (overhead in the back and diving down overhead in 2nd and front rows).

I'm reminded of Jupiter Ascending where someone said it had the best Atmos effect ever, but the effect he described depended on having the speakers just so relative to the seating location to give the "proximity" shock of just missing your head. Atmos is room based, not listener based so the effect is relative to where you sit, not a consistent effect for every seat.

That may explain overall why some people think certain Atmos titles are wonderful others just go, "Meh" at because a proximity effect of something almost hitting you in the head is powerful indeed and if your arrangement/layout doesn't give that effect right next to your head it's just not the same. 

I've found in Ready Player One where the DeLorean hits some boxes under the overpass in the opening race (right before the semi-truck passes overhead) that depending on where I sat and how "discrete" I made my Top Middle "Scatmos" derived channels delivered a near miss of a box overhead to hitting me in the head, but if I moved the effect forward or backward or sat somewhere else or reduced discreteness in favor of blending the height differences of my side heights closer to the preferred Atmos positions, the effect just wasn't the same when it didn't almost hit me in the head (the urge to duck and all). 

So, some effects are going to vary because some are closer to some seating locations than others. Old 5.1/7.1 was more consistent in that regard because every surround speaker in the theater was the direct "left" or "right" speaker for every row so everyone seated in the middle more or less heard the effect in the same place.


But by making effects room-placed (in Atmos the bird is somewhere everyone can more or less point to), the bird is going to be closer to some and far away for others, creating a different experience and perspective for each listener in the audience (or section at least). That is both good and bad depending on how you perceive a sound effect (more exciting for some than others).

Here, our layouts and speaker choices and rooms vary a lot so getting consistent agreement on Atmos soundtracks is probably impossible for that reason. With multiple seats and rows and more speakers, you can at least sample the effects from different perspectives. But if you have a one row setup, you're probably locked innto one perspective and that may shape your opinions of done Atmos tracks greatly.


----------



## PeterTHX

MagnumX said:


> The original 6.1 DTS-HD MA Top Gun with Neural X blows away the Atmos version in almost every respect. Deep loud bass. Stereo panning overhead. More dynamic range.


Yeesh. The DTS-ES a remix from the original 5.1 that turns everything up to "11" - into distortion. More dynamic range? It's just LOUD. It's terrible and I turned it off after one viewing and went back to the original 70MM mix - which is the TrueHD 5.1. 
The Atmos is pretty faithful to that mix.


----------



## MagnumX

PeterTHX said:


> Yeesh. The DTS-ES a remix from the original 5.1 that turns everything up to "11" - into distortion. More dynamic range? It's just LOUD. It's terrible and I turned it off after one viewing and went back to the original 70MM mix - which is the TrueHD 5.1.
> The Atmos is pretty faithful to that mix.


There must be something wrong with your system. 😟

There is no distortion here whatsoever that I noticed, mostly a massive level difference in overall volume and LFE. Frankly, the two soundtracks (Atmos and 6.1 Neural X upmix) sound almost identical at a glance once levels are matched save the LFE track which needs an 8dB boost on the Atmos to sound right (plus probably BEQ for Infrasonic).

If it were seriously distorted, I think the reviews would have mentioned it as it's the blu-ray soundtrack that gets most of the reviews on the previous release. It got nearly the same rating 4.5/5 that the new Atmos version received on blu-ray.com.

SoundAndVision.com also gave it 4.5/5 and stated how the 5.1 mix defaults and how much better the 6.1 version sounded ("I watched both versions, and the DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1 is the clear winner and incidentally is the audio mix I'll be rating in this review"). Distorted? No mention. 

At least one person claimed even level matched, the TrueHD version lacked punch and bass extension. I haven't compared the 5.1 and 6.1 versions directly for some time, just 6.1 upmixed versus Atmos so I'll have to try them out when I get home.

I don't think DTS-HD MA 6.1 is referred to "ES" either. That was the DTS lossy version (sometimes still found in 6.1 MA and X cores, but not as often as 5.1 passive "EX" Dolby Digital is found in Atmos cores (all I've seen).


----------



## MagnumX

Never fear! 8K Blu-ray despite all the poo-pooing it would never happen may almost be here....









Is 8K Blu-ray now possible thanks to 1TB discs? - Son-Vidéo.com: blog


Find out how Folio Photonics could finally launch 8K Blu-ray thanks to 1TB discs.




blog.son-video.com





The article surmise advantages to such a format even for 4K and 3D as you could have both on one disc (or even 4K 3D plus both and still have tons of space left over because it's 10x the storage!) OR an entire TV Season or series on 1 disc. Or how about Atmos + X + Auro + Sony 360 in multiple languages (sheer space). Or how about reduced video compression in 4K to near undetectable levels for the picture?

Sounds good to me on one hand, but bad on the other. I prefer dumped MKV files (no commercials, no animated menus, no previews, just the movie please plus no discs to search for or get fingerprints on). Ideally, Kaleidescape would/could be ideal, but the insane cost of 5h3 system keeps me away. I might pay $1K for 12TB, but no way in hell am I paying $3K for 6TB when that includes no movies or any guarantee if they go bankrupt again you might not lose your entire collection.)

Going back to actually playing off discs (rather than dump to hard drive and keep as a backup) is a step backwards. I can currently remux movies to Atmos or Auro for 3D and what not. You'd probably be stuck with whatever they give you or you'd need massive storage to dump the discs.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

The technology may be here or soon be here, but the BDA has already signed physical media's death warrant after 4k Blu-ray.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> The technology may be here or soon be here, but the BDA has already signed physical media's death warrant after 4k Blu-ray.


Ah, I thought you had me on ignore. I'm touched.

The problem of doing 8K movies that are actually higher quality and not compressed to death without a disc are numerous.

It doesn't have to be called blu-ray. MEGA-DVD would do. Get Toshiba back...Sony doesn't want the money.... 

I'd be happy with a Kaleidescape competitor that didn't rip me off for the hardware, personally and let me add my existing dumped libraries to the database as well.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I'm reminded of Jupiter Ascending where someone said it had the best Atmos effect ever, but the effect he described depended on having the speakers just so relative to the seating location to give the "proximity" shock of just missing your head. Atmos is room based, not listener based so the effect is relative to where you sit, not a consistent effect for every seat.


Confirmed because when I moved my speakers down off the wall, due to them portruding too far into the walkway, I completely lost the effect. So that particular immersive effect is dependant upon the position of the surround channels relative to the listener.

I had my surrounds mounted on the wall at 90°/180° to the MLP and had to raise them slightly to avoid head occlusion, so tweeters were about 10" above head height. At that position, the effect was as if an object was passing between the speakers with the sound anchored in empty air. It didnt sound as if it was emanating from two speakers, it sounded like it passed just above my head. When the speakers came down. The effect was broken and now sounded like it passed from the right speaker to the left speaker. Still a cool effect, but nowhere near as immersive as it once was.



> That may explain overall why some people think certain Atmos titles are wonderful others just go, "Meh" at because a proximity effect of something almost hitting you in the head is powerful indeed and if your arrangement/layout doesn't give that effect right next to your head it's just not the same.


Exactly. Had I never heard the initial effect, the lesser effect would be just fine. It maps to whats happening on the screen perfectly. Its just that the better effect is what I would call an "elevated experience" and thats what I feel Atmos should be about. An improved method of making the audience feel as if they are litterally in the middle of the action. That moment in Jupiter Ascending is one of the most effective I have ever experienced and its completely dependant upon speaker and listener location lining up precisely.



> I've found in Ready Player One where the DeLorean hits some boxes under the overpass in the opening race (right before the semi-truck passes overhead) that depending on where I sat and how "discrete" I made my Top Middle "Scatmos" derived channels delivered a near miss of a box overhead to hitting me in the head, but if I moved the effect forward or backward or sat somewhere else or reduced discreteness in favor of blending the height differences of my side heights closer to the preferred Atmos positions, the effect just wasn't the same when it didn't almost hit me in the head (the urge to duck and all).


This is one of the reasons why I want a discrete set of Top-Middle speakers over the Phantom TM you get from 4 height channels. I feel the immersive effects from a physical TM are improved over the Phantom version. But at the same time, the ability to pan sounds back and forth or spread them out across the ceiling is lost with only 2 height channels, so this necessitates 6 height channels for maximum effect.



> So, some effects are going to vary because some are closer to some seating locations than others. Old 5.1/7.1 was more consistent in that regard because every surround speaker in the theater was the direct "left" or "right" speaker for every row so everyone seated in the middle more or less heard the effect in the same place.


I am doing a lot of thinking about this issue. With one row, its not too much of a problem, but with multiple rows, you run into the issue of rows being too far or positionally different from your chosen "MLP" and any immersiveness you gain at the MLP will be lost in the additional rows. Heck in many cases, they will be lost in other seats on the same row. I plan some experimemts in this direction once I get my dedicated theater up and running.



> But by making effects room-placed (in Atmos the bird is somewhere everyone can more or less point to), the bird is going to be closer to some and far away for others, creating a different experience and perspective for each listener in the audience (or section at least). That is both good and bad depending on how you perceive a sound effect (more exciting for some than others).
> 
> Here, our layouts and speaker choices and rooms vary a lot so getting consistent agreement on Atmos soundtracks is probably impossible for that reason. With multiple seats and rows and more speakers, you can at least sample the effects from different perspectives. But if you have a one row setup, you're probably locked innto one perspective and that may shape your opinions of done Atmos tracks greatly.


I absolutely think this has shaped the opinions of a great number of people, including those who should be far more flexible and thinking about these thing at a much higher level. They seemed loathed to think beyond the 11 channel paradigm and even when you give them to tools to go beyond 11 channels, they want to add more ground channels rather than improving the overhead resolution, which is where it is needed more.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I am doing a lot of thinking about this issue. With one row, its not too much of a problem, but with multiple rows, you run into the issue of rows being too far or positionally different from your chosen "MLP" and any immersiveness you gain at the MLP will be lost in the additional rows. Heck in many cases, they will be lost in other seats on the same row. I plan some experimemts in this direction once I get my dedicated theater up and running.


I actually think it's unpredictable in regards to any given soundtrack. Even moving forward or backwards, I could not duplicate the effect you got to the same extent on Jupiter Ascending (couldn't move speakers up/down for example) and somehow it just never felt like a proximity effect even with a folding chair to try and find the spot. There may be more factors involved like the dispersion pattern. Or perhaps proximity works overhead, but not right at ear level (that YouTube video talked about how proximity doesn't work in surround; a blow dryer never sounds like it's right behind your head with surround, but it can/does with binaural recordings. But perhaps right over your head to some extent. I've heard plenty of sounds right above me that are close in proximity. 

In any case, you probably can't predict whether any given effect will be improved or amazing or whatever for any given seat because the sounds/objects are placed in 3D space in the renderer and may come closer to some seats than others. But that's kind of what makes having multiple rows interesting because you can get very different perspectives. The 3rd row in the back often sounds crazy in terms of depth effects here because there's 4 sets of ear level speakers layered in front of it (SS#2, Sides, FW and Mains) plus the rear surrounds behind it and then two sets of overheads in front of it (plus one behind). 

From the 2nd row or 1st row there's only two sets in front. If you only have one row, you won't get to try other perspectives at all except left/right which don't work so well because the Precedence Effect destroys the stereo imaging for off-center seats to a large degree (even with a center channel it's not the same and the speaker delays only correct for ONE seat left-to-right, usually the MLP). Delays help with front-to-back for an entire row, but not left-to-right, which is why we have the center channel speaker. Unfortunately, Atmos only has center front and center rear. There are no center heights or VOG speakers to lock the center-line effects in place whereas Auro-3D does and DTS:X Pro can use them with Neural X.




> I absolutely think this has shaped the opinions of a great number of people, including those who should be far more flexible and thinking about these thing at a much higher level. They seemed loathed to think beyond the 11 channel paradigm and even when you give them to tools to go beyond 11 channels, they want to add more ground channels rather than improving the overhead resolution, which is where it is needed more.


I'm often amazed at how fixed some viewpoints are on here and there's a lot of talking about things without actually trying them. How can you know Auro-3D sucks if you haven't heard any native material, for example? It's dead. It doesn't matter. I'm not sure they'd think that way if they heard The Ice Road or the Himmelborgan/Himmelrand music album that transports you into another room entirely (although even there having too lively a room can damage the effect and a lot of old advice about not make your room too dead is still going around and around when that applied to STEREO, not multi-channel (where the surround speakers simulate the room you're listening to rather than the room you're in).


----------



## petetherock

Dan Hitchman said:


> Godzilla 1998 is definitely better than many native Atmos mixes and I own it on 4k Blu-ray. If only native Atmos Disney mixes were as good. Could it have been even better? Of course. There is always room for improvement as sometimes you run across scenes that one would think would make excellent use of the 3D immersive pallet and yet there is very little Atmos activity.


Yeah, I enjoyed that one much much more than the newer ones... campier perhaps, but Jean Reno was wonderful and each actor added so much fun..
Even the soundfield was wonderful on the old BR disc.. I reckon I've seen it more than 10 times, and did not feel a need to skip and let the whole movie play...


----------



## chi_guy50

Magiclakez said:


> I watched “All quiet on the Western front” last night on Netflix. Amazing track and film, has some distinct 1917 vibes. Be sure to engage the original German track (with English subs) to enable the impressive atmos track. The default English (dubbed) version is quite lackluster. Imho, one of the best movies on Netflix this year.


I also watched "All Quiet on the Western Front" last night but had the opposite impression. The action scenes presented so many opportunities for immersive effects, but I did not perceive any. As a German speaker, I of course engaged the original sound track.

Also, while I thought this remake was well done, it took a lot of liberties with Erich Maria Remarque's text which detracted from the novel's message. IMHO, Lewis Milestone's 1930 version starring Lew Ayres is far more impactful even to this day. It was very faithful to Remarque's great storytelling and received high critical acclaim (as well as Oscars for both the film and director).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I actually think it's unpredictable in regards to any given soundtrack. Even moving forward or backwards, I could not duplicate the effect you got to the same extent on Jupiter Ascending (couldn't move speakers up/down for example) and somehow it just never felt like a proximity effect even with a folding chair to try and find the spot. There may be more factors involved like the dispersion pattern. Or perhaps proximity works overhead, but not right at ear level (that YouTube video talked about how proximity doesn't work in surround; a blow dryer never sounds like it's right behind your head with surround, but it can/does with binaural recordings. But perhaps right over your head to some extent. I've heard plenty of sounds right above me that are close in proximity.
> 
> In any case, you probably can't predict whether any given effect will be improved or amazing or whatever for any given seat because the sounds/objects are placed in 3D space in the renderer and may come closer to some seats than others. But that's kind of what makes having multiple rows interesting because you can get very different perspectives. The 3rd row in the back often sounds crazy in terms of depth effects here because there's 4 sets of ear level speakers layered in front of it (SS#2, Sides, FW and Mains) plus the rear surrounds behind it and then two sets of overheads in front of it (plus one behind).
> 
> From the 2nd row or 1st row there's only two sets in front. If you only have one row, you won't get to try other perspectives at all except left/right which don't work so well because the Precedence Effect destroys the stereo imaging for off-center seats to a large degree (even with a center channel it's not the same and the speaker delays only correct for ONE seat left-to-right, usually the MLP). Delays help with front-to-back for an entire row, but not left-to-right, which is why we have the center channel speaker. Unfortunately, Atmos only has center front and center rear. There are no center heights or VOG speakers to lock the center-line effects in place whereas Auro-3D does and DTS:X Pro can use them with Neural X.


Since my entire room is the theater, for now I am planning the placement of the speakers based on the acoustical center of the room, which is 10 feet in right at the halfway point. No one will be sitting there as that spot is right between the two rows.

The plan is to place the front heights at 30° and 150° from that spot. To the front row, the front heights will probably be between 35° and 40° and the rear heights will be around 160° from the back row, its the opposite: front heights at 20° to 25° and the rear heights at 140° or so.

The Top-Middles will be right between the front and back rows. Maybe 100° from the front row and about 80° compared to the back row. A little rearward or forward of the seating position, but still far more directly above than what you would normally get from standard Atmos positioning for Top-Front and Top-Rear.

As for the ground channels, I plan to put the side and rear surrounds on stands that I can raise to just above head height. Where the tweeters clear the listeners heads to avoid head occlusion, but only just so to maximize separation with the height channels.

The front and rear speakers should be about 8 feet apart (in a 10 foot wide room) with the height channels at 7 feet apart, which places them right above the outer arms of the seats, as suggested by the Trinnov speaker placement white paper.

My biggest difficulty will be with the room only being 10 feet in width, the side surrounds will only be 18" (less due to the speaker box) from the outer edge of the seating position. Hopefully placing the side surrounds right in between the rows will help mitigate that a bit, but there's only so much I am going to be able to do about side surround hot spotting at that position.



> I'm often amazed at how fixed some viewpoints are on here and there's a lot of talking about things without actually trying them. How can you know Auro-3D sucks if you haven't heard any native material, for example? It's dead. It doesn't matter. I'm not sure they'd think that way if they heard The Ice Road or the Himmelborgan/Himmelrand music album that transports you into another room entirely (although even there having too lively a room can damage the effect and a lot of old advice about not make your room too dead is still going around and around when that applied to STEREO, not multi-channel (where the surround speakers simulate the room you're listening to rather than the room you're in).


I think a lot of times its a case of people hearing that something sucks or something is good and they simply take up the mantra without having any experience with it personally.

In my case I wanted to hear it and I had an opportunity to do so and I took that opportunity. After hearing it, made the decision that I wanted it as part of my next upgrade, no second opinion necessary.

The issue of room treatments is of course, like nearly everything in this hobby, a matter of specific use case. I think the *general *advice of not overtreating a room is for a multi-use room like what I am building. I fully intend to use it for stereo music as well as multichannel movies and gaming. So in my case, I do want some natural reverberation. I intend to treat my room with both absorption and diffusion until the RT60 is in the 200ms to 300ms range. 2D diffusion on the side walls and 3D diffusion on the back walls, which is supposed to give your overall presentation more spaciousness. Quite obviously, someone doing multichannel content exclusively might want a deader room below 200ms, but not less than 100ms decay time, since most of the reverberation of the presentation has been captured within the source content.

I personally like a very expansive front soundstage and the width of the stereo presentation has a lot to do with that and thus, I need some reverberation to facilitate this.


----------



## Magiclakez

chi_guy50 said:


> I also watched "All Quiet on the Western Front" last night but had the opposite impression. The action scenes presented so many opportunities for immersive effects, but I did not perceive any. As a German speaker, I of course engaged the original sound track.
> 
> Also, while I thought this remake was well done, it took a lot of liberties with Erich Maria Remarque's text which detracted from the novel's message. IMHO, Lewis Milestone's 1930 version starring Lew Ayres is far more impactful even to this day. It was very faithful to Remarque's great storytelling and received high critical acclaim (as well as Oscars for both the film and director).


I actually really enjoyed this version. I have watched the original version as well, but I guess I took this version for what it is, without comparing it to the original masterpiece. I dare say I preferred this version. I usually find German/ European films slightly bland/Insipid for my liking, but I found that this one resonated with me. I loved the subtle depiction of human emotions and character building during the course of the film. The cinematography was brilliant imho. I wouldn’t be surprised if this film gets multiple nominations at various award shows. For me personally, this is one of the best international films I have ever experienced. I’m planning on giving it another watch, and I’m hoping we get a physical 4k release in the future.

The action sequences are sporadic, since the film is predominantly dialog driven, borderline slow burn. But when called for, I felt the height channels were fully engaged and even had some pleasant heft during the various skirmishes. I could distinctly feel bullets / gun shots raining over me and it was almost a visceral experience at times. I actually found the atmos on this film (along with curse of bridge hollow) to be one of the best on Netflix this year.

Anyways it is always nice to have another perspective and I appreciate (and respect) that. Life would be too boring and mundane, if all views/opinions were congruent.


----------



## PeterTHX

PeterTHX said:


> Yeesh. The DTS-ES a remix from the original 5.1 that turns everything up to "11" - into distortion. It's terrible and I turned it off after one viewing and went back to the original 70MM mix - which is the TrueHD 5.1
> The Atmos is pretty faithful to that mix.





MagnumX said:


> There must be something wrong with your system. 😟
> 
> There is no distortion here whatsoever that I noticed, mostly a massive level difference in overall volume and LFE. Frankly, the two soundtracks (Atmos and 6.1 Neural X upmix) sound almost identical at a glance once levels are matched save the LFE track which needs an 8dB boost on the Atmos to sound right (plus probably BEQ for Infrasonic).
> 
> If it were seriously distorted, I think the reviews would have mentioned it as it's the blu-ray soundtrack that gets most of the reviews on the previous release. It got nearly the same rating 4.5/5 that the new Atmos version received on blu-ray.com.
> 
> SoundAndVision.com also gave it 4.5/5 and stated how the 5.1 mix defaults and how much better the 6.1 version sounded ("I watched both versions, and the DTS-HD Master Audio 6.1 is the clear winner and incidentally is the audio mix I'll be rating in this review"). Distorted? No mention.
> 
> At least one person claimed even level matched, the TrueHD version lacked punch and bass extension. I haven't compared the 5.1 and 6.1 versions directly for some time, just 6.1 upmixed versus Atmos so I'll have to try them out when I get home.
> 
> I don't think DTS-HD MA 6.1 is referred to "ES" either. That was the DTS lossy version (sometimes still found in 6.1 MA and X cores, but not as often as 5.1 passive "EX" Dolby Digital is found in Atmos cores (all I've seen).


Someone in this forum published the levels. The DTS is literally into distortion and squashed dynamics, just like music remixed in the "loudness wars". I can hear it on my setup. I don't go by S&V's A/V disc reviews since they're half-baked most of the time - and I say this as a long time subscriber. I'm there for the equipment.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Since my entire room is the theater, for now I am planning the placement of the speakers based on the acoustical center of the room, which is 10 feet in right at the halfway point. No one will be sitting there as that spot is right between the two rows.
> 
> The plan is to place the front heights at 30° and 150° from that spot. To the front row, the front heights will probably be between 35° and 40° and the rear heights will be around 160° from the back row, its the opposite: front heights at 20° to 25° and the rear heights at 140° or so.
> 
> The Top-Middles will be right between the front and back rows. Maybe 100° from the front row and about 80° compared to the back row. A little rearward or forward of the seating position, but still far more directly above than what you would normally get from standard Atmos positioning for Top-Front and Top-Rear.
> 
> As for the ground channels, I plan to put the side and rear surrounds on stands that I can raise to just above head height. Where the tweeters clear the listeners heads to avoid head occlusion, but only just so to maximize separation with the height channels.
> 
> The front and rear speakers should be about 8 feet apart (in a 10 foot wide room) with the height channels at 7 feet apart, which places them right above the outer arms of the seats, as suggested by the Trinnov speaker placement white paper.
> 
> My biggest difficulty will be with the room only being 10 feet in width, the side surrounds will only be 18" (less due to the speaker box) from the outer edge of the seating position. Hopefully placing the side surrounds right in between the rows will help mitigate that a bit, but there's only so much I am going to be able to do about side surround hot spotting at that position.
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of times its a case of people hearing that something sucks or something is good and they simply take up the mantra without having any experience with it personally.
> 
> In my case I wanted to hear it and I had an opportunity to do so and I took that opportunity. After hearing it, made the decision that I wanted it as part of my next upgrade, no second opinion necessary.
> 
> The issue of room treatments is of course, like nearly everything in this hobby, a matter of specific use case. I think the *general *advice of not overtreating a room is for a multi-use room like what I am building. I fully intend to use it for stereo music as well as multichannel movies and gaming. So in my case, I do want some natural reverberation. I intend to treat my room with both absorption and diffusion until the RT60 is in the 200ms to 300ms range. 2D diffusion on the side walls and 3D diffusion on the back walls, which is supposed to give your overall presentation more spaciousness. Quite obviously, someone doing multichannel content exclusively might want a deader room below 200ms, but not less than 100ms decay time, since most of the reverberation of the presentation has been captured within the source content.
> 
> I personally like a very expansive front soundstage and the width of the stereo presentation has a lot to do with that and thus, I need some reverberation to facilitate this.


I recommend bipole surrounds because of your closeness. I have the same distance from my rears and it avoids the hot spotting you are worried about.

























Ps I also do stands for side surrounds and that let's me barely clear head level like you want in yours


----------



## Magiclakez

Superman 2,3,4 (4k) are now listed on Blu-ray.com and Amazon (UK). However no release dates have been determined. I’m just so glad that this is a go…


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The issue of room treatments is of course, like nearly everything in this hobby, a matter of specific use case. I think the *general *advice of not overtreating a room is for a multi-use room like what I am building.


I've never listened to so much stereo as in my home theater room since the 6.1 to Atmos/Auro/X conversion. It used to sound vastly inferior to my Carver ribbon dipole system upstairs for stereo, but no longer despite increasing dampening much further since then. 

The key is additional simulated reflections from the recording itself rather than a small enclosed room that quite frankly will never sound great compared to a larger room, let alone a great concert hall. For stereo, I use - 3dB copies of my mains to my Front Wides (like Wide mode on the Monoprice HTP-1 except I do it with an active mixer that also adds sides in for multichannel sources) plus some goes to my front heights as well as part of my homemade "dialog lift" system that elevates the front soundstage to 1/3 screen height. 

The net result is stereo recordings play in a 6-channel array. I can turn it on/off with a single remote button (receiver being used as an amp). You'd think it would sound less focused, etc, but quite the opposite is true. It's more clear, focused and has a lot more decorrelated spaciousness. I get decorrelated sounds up to 120 degrees behind me with no surround speakers to the sides or behind me in use. They also act as a partial line array below about 200Hz so lower frequency side and ceiling reflections are reduced. 

I think the extra sources act similar to a dipole or bipoles rear wall reflection because my PSB speakers now sound a lot more like my Carver ribbons. I can also further increase spaciousnessby engaging Auromatic to simulate 9-11 additional points of simulated reflections using the recording rather than my room. Stereo has never sounded so good! 

I even added an old school Carver Sonic Hologram generator to see how it would compare, but I think it's largely unnecessary and changes some of the sound tones. It is interesting to play with in multichannel stereo mode, however.

Having a lively room is vastly overrated when you remove the issues (two points of source sound only) and it sounds more like the original room in the recording and a lot less like mine. Of course, multichannel recordings benefit as well as the extra speakers really bring the recorded room here.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I recommend bipole surrounds because of your closeness. I have the same distance from my rears and it avoids the hot spotting you are worried about.
> View attachment 3356703
> 
> View attachment 3356702
> 
> View attachment 3356704
> 
> 
> Ps I also do stands for side surrounds and that let's me barely clear head level like you want in yours


I want to try with all the same speaker (series) at first. If the hotspotting is too strong, then I might grab a pair of Bipoles to try out. I want to start as timbre matched as possible


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I've never listened to so much stereo as in my home theater room since the 6.1 to Atmos/Auro/X conversion. It used to sound vastly inferior to my Carver ribbon dipole system upstairs for stereo, but no longer despite increasing dampening much further since then.
> 
> The key is additional simulated reflections from the recording itself rather than a small enclosed room that quite frankly will never sound great compared to a larger room, let alone a great concert hall. For stereo, I use - 3dB copies of my mains to my Front Wides (like Wide mode on the Monoprice HTP-1 except I do it with an active mixer that also adds sides in for multichannel sources) plus some goes to my front heights as well as part of my homemade "dialog lift" system that elevates the front soundstage to 1/3 screen height.
> 
> The net result is stereo recordings play in a 6-channel array. I can turn it on/off with a single remote button (receiver being used as an amp). You'd think it would sound less focused, etc, but quite the opposite is true. It's more clear, focused and has a lot more decorrelated spaciousness. I get decorrelated sounds up to 120 degrees behind me with no surround speakers to the sides or behind me in use. They also act as a partial line array below about 200Hz so lower frequency side and ceiling reflections are reduced.
> 
> I think the extra sources act similar to a dipole or bipoles rear wall reflection because my PSB speakers now sound a lot more like my Carver ribbons. I can also further increase spaciousnessby engaging Auromatic to simulate 9-11 additional points of simulated reflections using the recording rather than my room. Stereo has never sounded so good!
> 
> I even added an old school Carver Sonic Hologram generator to see how it would compare, but I think it's largely unnecessary and changes some of the sound tones. It is interesting to play with in multichannel stereo mode, however.
> 
> Having a lively room is vastly overrated when you remove the issues (two points of source sound only) and it sounds more like the original room in the recording and a lot less like mine. Of course, multichannel recordings benefit as well as the extra speakers really bring the recorded room here.


Well the diffusion is supposed to fool your brain into thinking the room is bigger than it really is. We'll see. If it doesnt work out as intended, its not an issue to replace the diffusion with additional absorption. I'm planning to use magnets to wall mount them so changing the configuration will be quick and painless.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well the diffusion is supposed to fool your brain into thinking the room is bigger than it really is. We'll see. If it doesnt work out as intended, its not an issue to replace the diffusion with additional absorption. I'm planning to use magnets to wall mount them so changing the configuration will be quick and painless.


I use diffusion (natural with bricks and bookcases in the room) opposite absorption (heavy drape opposite fireplace and heavy drape opposite wall from screen and behind the screen with bookshelves on the sides (drapes also serve dual/tri function to block light and even keep heat from going straight up the doorway and steps in the winter) and then I put heavy tapestries (with Thomas Kinkade art that someone gifted me for Christmas) on the side walls at the first reflection point. That also killed the only remaining slap echo in the room.

You can yell in the room now and it just dies, but music playback is wonderful. RT60 times here are in the 150-300ms range most of it almost right at 200ms down to 70Hz (graph ends there). From what I've read, 300ms or less is considered a "dead" sounding room. I'm not sure it's necessary to go much below that point. I can clap my hands and it just dies (200ms or less in that range). But with 17+ speakers playing, it's not "dead" at all because most of the sound is coming from the speakers.

As you can see my Carver AL-III ribbon speaker dipoles are in a more active room (some draping by window; open on right side; bass response is magnificent in that room without any correction still gets +/- 2dB from 24Hz to 90Hz where it slopes down to meet the average +/- 4.5dB overall response without a bit of room correction). According to my good _friend_ Amir at Audio Science Review, target ranges are usually 0.2s to 0.5s with 200ms being Home Theater and 500ms for stereo playback live rooms. So, averaging around 200ms for home theater and 400ms for my more active dipole reflective room are right in those ranges.

My "MagnaTron" PSB based Home theater RT60 for transporting more to the room in the recording.









My Carver AL-III Dipole Stereo playback room using room reflections for "presence" of artist in the room.


----------



## niterida

I started a thread about this very subject awhile back but only got one responder who said you don't want a dead room. Basically stated all the arguments that you guys have already "debunked" :








Absorption vs Diffusion with immersive sound formats


I have seen a general rule of thumb to have 15% absorption and 25% diffusion in a listening room to prevent it being too lively or too dead. But I was thinking about the new 3d Immersive audio formats and since they work on direct sound being placed all around in the entire 3d space of a room...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Also keep in mind that the room is almost totally made of brick with a concrete floor. It is an incredibly reverberant space to begin with so I am probably going to need more acoustical treatments than usual for a room made of drywall.

Of course I will be covering the entire floor with a carpet and pad so that partially treats 25% of the surface area. Absorption for the walls and ceiling but I feel some diffusion may be necessary to return some high frequency energy potentially lost from carpeting the entire floor. I'll be measuring this all as I go anyway so I wont exactly be going in blind.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Also keep in mind that the room is almost totally made of brick with a concrete floor. It is an incredibly reverberant space to begin with so I am probably going to need more acoustical treatments than usual for a room made of drywall.
> 
> Of course I will be covering the entire floor with a carpet and pad so that partially treats 25% of the surface area. Absorption for the walls and ceiling but I feel some diffusion may be necessary to return some high frequency energy potentially lost from carpeting the entire floor. I'll be measuring this all as I go anyway so I wont exactly be going in blind.


Wall-to-wall shag carpeting is the ticket to tame that shrew!

Put on the Scooby-Doo movie and let your inner Shaggy take over; He'll know what to do!

A black carpet top with blue walls on the side and you'll be ready for a magic carpet ride!

Now put on Aladdin and let that genie fly!
When people come over they're gonna think, "My oh my!"

You can call it *The Black Hole Theatre* and put a Maximilian robot by the door,

and then I can virtually guarantee you won't have a reverberent room anymore!

Can you dig it daddy? 


Thank you, thank you very much! Me and my blue suede shoes have left the building!


----------



## Hazefrog

Hey everyone. Duplicating my post from the Theory and Setup form, because I'm not sure where the best place to post my question: 

Longtime lurker, very occasional poster here. Looking for some feedback and advice in regard to Denon AVR-X4700H "amp assignment" settings:
Based on my physical configuration, what is the ideal Denon "amp assignment" for the overhead speakers in my 5.2.4 seutp? I am trialing various settings, but would appreciate your experience and informed opinions.
Room setup is shown in the attached image, but in essence it is a room where the listening position(s) are effectively positioned against the rear wall. I have in-ceiling speakers mounted at basically 90 degrees to the listener, slightly wider that the L/R mains, and bipolar surrounds a few inches above ear level in an asymmetric arrangement. Front heights/tops are physically front bookshelf heights, currently configured as such in the settings.
It looks like I can specify the rear in-ceiling speakers as either top rears, or top middles. I've been running as to rears, but am wondering if they are more appropriately middles. Yes I will try it, but it would be nice to get some feedback here. What say ye?

























Thanks for your time.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Hazefrog said:


> Hey everyone. Duplicating my post from the Theory and Setup form, because I'm not sure where the best place to post my question:
> 
> Longtime lurker, very occasional poster here. Looking for some feedback and advice in regard to Denon AVR-X4700H "amp assignment" settings:
> Based on my physical configuration, what is the ideal Denon "amp assignment" for the overhead speakers in my 5.2.4 seutp? I am trialing various settings, but would appreciate your experience and informed opinions.
> Room setup is shown in the attached image, but in essence it is a room where the listening position(s) are effectively positioned against the rear wall. I have in-ceiling speakers mounted at basically 90 degrees to the listener, slightly wider that the L/R mains, and bipolar surrounds a few inches above ear level in an asymmetric arrangement. Front heights/tops are physically front bookshelf heights, currently configured as such in the settings.
> It looks like I can specify the rear in-ceiling speakers as either top rears, or top middles. I've been running as to rears, but am wondering if they are more appropriately middles. Yes I will try it, but it would be nice to get some feedback here. What say ye?
> View attachment 3356965
> 
> View attachment 3356966
> 
> View attachment 3356968
> 
> 
> Thanks for your time.


You have a few choices here.

Set them up as:

Front Height, Rear Height
Front Height, Top-Rear
Front Height, Top-Middle
Front Height, Surround Height
Top-Front, Top-Rear
Top-Front, Rear Height.

Those combinations should be compatible in the Denon amp assign.

Positionally, these work as Front Height + Top-Middle, or as Front Height + Surround Height.

Front Height + Top-Middle will work for Atmos and DTS:X. It will not work for Auro3d.

Front Height + Surround Height is specifically for Auro3D. It works fine for DTS:X, but with Atmos, only the Front Height speakers will work. It will NOT recognize Surround Height position.

You can set them up as Front Height + Rear Height. While this is not positionally correct, it will work and work for all three formats.

If you set them up as Top-Front and Top-Rear, that works for Atmos and DTS:X, but locks Auro3D as it only recognizes "Height" positioning.

The good news is that the X4700 can be set up with TWO different calibration profiles. So if this were my theater, I would do this:

Set *PROFILE 1 *as: Front Height + Top-Middle for Atmos

Set *PROFILE 2 *as: Front Height + Surround Height for Auro3D and DTS:X/Imax Enhanced 

then switch profiles depending on what my source dictates.


----------



## Hazefrog

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Front Height + Top-Middle will work for Atmos and DTS:X. It will not work for Auro3d.


Thanks for your thorough feedback. I am not sure I understand the implications of setting them as top middle as opposed to top back (other than top middle is positionally correct as you say). Will this generate a more coherent overhead image, or will it remove back information, or both, or neither?

Also, 
Will I need to run another calibration if I change the amp assignment? 

Thanks for you help.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Hazefrog said:


> Thanks for your thorough feedback. I am not sure I understand the implications of setting them as top middle as opposed to top back (other than top middle is positionally correct as you say). Will this generate a more coherent overhead image, or will it remove back information, or both, or neither?


It will have a fairly significant effect on how its rendered.

With Atmos, nothing is lost or dropped, the upper channel sounds just get moved to the next speaker. So sounds that are supposed to be in the upper-rear channels, they'll get moved to the Top-Middle so you wont really lose anything there. Active Sound objects will perform normally for you. They'll move back and forth, side to side as normal. Static objects will be a little different. 7.1.2 bed object mixes like Ready Player One will render the 2 "height beds" through the Top-Middle speakers and skip all the other height channels. This actually isnt a problem because they are supposed to be in the Top-Middle position and the presence of discrete speakers to render that position produces better sound for the most part.

With DTS:X soundtracks, DTS:X and Neural-X uses channel remapping. So depending on how your speakers are labelled, it will rerout the sounds into additional speakers in an attempt to image the channels and objects in the correct location. DTS:X actually prefers Height channels, so the Front Heights will render things normally. Fully discrete in that channel. The Top-Middle however, will play from both the Top-Middle and the rear/surround speakers to try and achieve a 45° angle for the Rear Height content. If you were to play DTS:X from the Auro3D profile with Surround Heights instead of Top-Middle, I believe they would play normally (fully discrete from the heights) but I'm not 100% about that.



> Also,
> Will I need to run another calibration if I change the amp assignment?


Yes, you will need to run a seperate calibration for each profile. Once its run you can save it in profile 1 or profile 2.

Alternately, you can create additional calibrations with different Amp Assigns and save them if you have the app. The mobile app can save any number of calibrations (I have had as many as 5 saved at one time) so you are not limited to only two. You simply have to load the ones saved in the mobile app to one of the profiles in the X4700.



> Thanks for you help.


No problem!


----------



## frankrizzo1

Do you think that my Front Presence speakers would work if I go Atmos? No my TV doesn’t go there. Lol.
Also my rears are directly left and right and pointed at my seat from ceiling? Not sure if I should go Atmos or not as I’m done installing speakers lol. I took these from my seating position. Any suggestions be appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Soulburner

First of all, those Paradigm towers are behind your screen...

Second, no, the front presence speaker locations will not work for Atmos.


----------



## frankrizzo1

Soulburner said:


> First of all, those Paradigm towers are behind your screen...
> 
> Second, no, the front presence speaker locations will not work for Atmos.


I know I just got tv that’s why they are behind. Just setting up and realizing limitations of my beloved Yamaha receiver from 12 years ago. There Klipsch Towers by way😄

So even with em laser aimed at my ears that won’t work? Guess I’ll be staying non object based then as this sounds great/ thought I try earc and Atmos but I’ll make this work!

thanks


----------



## Soulburner

Well the ones you have ceiling mounted would work for 5.1.2.


----------



## Wardog555

frankrizzo1 said:


> Do you think that my Front Presence speakers would work if I go Atmos? No my TV doesn’t go there. Lol.
> Also my rears are directly left and right and pointed at my seat from ceiling? Not sure if I should go Atmos or not as I’m done installing speakers lol. I took these from my seating position. Any suggestions be appreciated. Thanks
> View attachment 3357194
> 
> View attachment 3357193


Two things. The existing speakers above you are in the correct location to be used as the two atmos speakers.
And then bring those front height speakers either side of the seating position just above ear level.

Hope this helps!


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> First of all, those Paradigm towers are behind your screen...
> 
> Second, no, the front presence speaker locations will not work for Atmos.


Of course they will work. They're almost a the ceiling and almost directly above the mains. My god. It's getting ridiculous on here with the front height haters....


----------



## frankrizzo1

MagnumX said:


> Of course they will work. They're almost a the ceiling and almost directly above the mains. My god. It's getting ridiculous on here with the front height haters....
> 
> Sorry I been researching TV so long I kinda didn’t know this was an argument. I think I’ll wait till after thanksgiving when my family leaves as right now I have every video and audio codec covered by the 2 HDMI on my Panasonic UHD player. But i am going to switch to something after the holiday as I’d like to be able to stream plex with all the audio codecs and 4k thru a receiver which I cannot do now.
> Oh yeah. Missing 1 codec lol. Atmos!


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Of course they will work. They're almost a the ceiling and almost directly above the mains. My god. It's getting ridiculous on here with the front height haters....


Those speakers are 4-6 feet _behind _the screen and not close to where they need to be to image with the current overheads.


----------



## frankrizzo1

Soulburner said:


> Those speakers are 4-6 feet _behind _the screen and not close to where they need to be to image with the current overheads.


I know I know. I said I just got tv and been wiring it. The towers are 4 foot ish. Ceiling is 10 foot. The bookshelves are exactly at 8 and exactly in line with mains. Tv goes in middle against wall.😄


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Those speakers are 4-6 feet _behind _the screen and not close to where they need to be to image with the current overheads.


So what? My main speakers sit in front of the screen (back of speaker is even with screen but the speaker is two feet long in depth. Most people who have Tops at 45-55 are WAY in front of the screen. 

They don't seem to notice or care and that's because we hear depth of sound so poorly straight ahead without a visual reference compared to sheer angle. In fact, changing time delays relative to other speakers pulls the phantom image forward and backwards. 

In other words, it's not a big deal (referring to those heights, not having mains blocked by the TV itself). 

The only thing that matters is the relative angle (15-45 if TM is used by Dolby Studio standards, 20-45 by home standards and 30-45 with only 2 or 4 overhead). That's relative to the seating location. Using Trinnov's guide, it's more room based, not some angle for just one seat). Since I can't see the seat, I can't be sure, but given the proximity to the ceiling and my own front heights at 26 degrees 9 feet away, it's a fair guess they're usable. 

Look how high they are above the screen. That's loads of separation compared to Dolby's own cinemas.... They place their bed surrounds that high.... LOL. Dolby is a joke these days at the theater. They painted themselves into a corner. Even bouncy speakers probably have more surround/height separation than Dolby Atmos Cinemas.


----------



## Soulburner

I don't think they are high enough to give overhead effects, and they won't image well with the others over the couch. You're free to disagree with that, but don't pretend it's all a-ok because of x, y, z reason based on your system. Guess what? He doesn't have 6 or more overheads, speaker arrays, or anything like that.

They will work as front heights. But it's not ideal for Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I don't think they are high enough to give overhead effects, and they won't image well with the others over the couch. You're free to disagree with that, but don't pretend it's all a-ok because of x, y, z reason based on your system. Guess what? He doesn't have 6 or more overheads, speaker arrays, or anything like that.
> 
> They will work as front heights. But it's not ideal for Atmos.


What is _ideal_, then? What _your_ setup uses? You don't see the hypocrisy in that? I'm giving official Dolby numbers here. It's, not like I'm just pulling them out of my butt for god's sake.

Besides, I never said it was "ideal". I said that location would work. However, having speakers directly over the couch area work the same as Top Middle so yes indeed they will combine with Front Heights just fine! The ONLY thing that matters is the angles between the two sets of speakers. If they are 70 degrees or less, the should image perfectly smooth together (90-30=60 degrees, for example so he could do 20/90 or 30/100. Tops at 45/135 are actually 90 degrees apart so it should image better than that). But elevation seems to have more leeway than traditional azimuth panning numbers (60 according to Trinnov, 70 according to Wendy Carlos who has a website devoted to conventional surround sound configurations that's very interesting). Do let's assume 90 is the most you can go between speakers using elevation before it starts getting thinner directly overhead.

If I cut my system in half using a switchbox and setup change, my system essentially becomes 26/110 reclined (84 degrees apart) and it still images perfectly fine across the front ceiling. That's straight AVR processing, no "Scatmos" trickery. Given 90 apart works for most with 45/135, I should say it shouldn't be surprising 84 works fine when it's less than 90.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Nevermind.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Of course they'll work. They are Front Heights. Why would you think they wouldnt work?


He said Atmos. Already explained why.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> He said Atmos. Already explained why.


Front Heights work with Atmos. But I saw it was answered already. I dont necessarily agree. It looks to me like there's plenty of clearance and a clear path to the listeners. And looking at the rear speakers, they look as if they should be set in the Front Height + Top-Middle amp assign. Thus, Top-Middle objects wont need the Front Heights to image at all. They'll play discretely from the Top-Middles, then the only thing they'll have to worry about would be active objects passing between the front and the back. No need to image a Top-Middle object for an entire runtime.


----------



## frankrizzo1

Thank you. They are way the hell up there. I just measured and they are 31 degrees from my ear to them. I’ve always known that not having true rears is a problem with Atmos. What receivers do you think would work best for matrixing the rears into top middle and top front best? Within reason😄


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

frankrizzo1 said:


> Thank you. They are way the hell up there. I just measured and they are 31 degrees from my ear to them. I’ve always known that not having true rears is a problem with Atmos. What receivers do you think would work best for matrixing the rears into top middle and top front best? Within reason😄


31° is within the Atmos spec for Front Height. You should be fine.

No worry about the rear height content if you set it to Top-Middle. The Atmos renderer will automatically fold rear height content to the Top-Middle speakers so they should render properly for your room limitations.


----------



## frankrizzo1

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 31° is within the Atmos spec for Front Height. You should be fine.
> 
> No worry about the rear height content if you set it to Top-Middle. The Atmos renderer will automatically fold rear height content to the Top-Middle speakers so they should render properly for your room limitations.


Thanks again. Any suggestions. I don’t really care about 4k/120. Just sound Quality and I need to power 7 and maybe some day 9 speakers. AgAin thx for taking the time to help out. Is Atmos a huge difference over like TrueHD and dtx-Hd MA non Atmos to u? And can you turn Atmos off?🤷


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 31° is within the Atmos spec for Front Height. You should be fine.


But that skips around the issue. Dolby recommends a higher angle for Atmos speakers. You want to be closer to 45°.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

frankrizzo1 said:


> Thanks again. Any suggestions. I don’t really care about 4k/120. Just sound Quality and I need to power 7 and maybe some day 9 speakers. AgAin thx for taking the time to help out. Is Atmos a huge difference over like TrueHD and dtx-Hd MA non Atmos to u? And can you turn Atmos off?🤷


Yes. Atmos is the next evolution of audio. It is noticeably superior to 5.1/7.1 if one's theater is correctly configured. At least in terms of spacial resolution. Some people are disappointed in lackluster LFE in some Atmos content, but thats an issue with the specific sound mix as opposed to a problem with the format itself.


----------



## sdurani

frankrizzo1 said:


> Do you think that my Front Presence speakers would work if I go Atmos?


At that location they will give you a taller front soundstage but not the overhead effect intended by Atmos.


----------



## Hazefrog

I will certainly be spending more time in the new configuration, but after a quick listen my ears agree with the having my overheads correctly assigned to middle. Better image. Particularly in Ready Player One as you suggested (I had already been using that one to evaluate). Thanks again for explaining what in retrospect should have been the obvious choice for my amp assignments. I think as my system has evolved--in a fundamentally imperfect and flawed space--I have mentally trapped myself into trying to cobble together rear effects, while the top middle setting for my overheads is 100% fit for purpose. 

It's good to see support for people trying to get what they can out of their unique and flawed theater spaces. Thanks for saying "yes that can work." 




NuSoardGraphite said:


> It will have a fairly significant effect on how its rendered.
> 
> With Atmos, nothing is lost or dropped, the upper channel sounds just get moved to the next speaker. So sounds that are supposed to be in the upper-rear channels, they'll get moved to the Top-Middle so you wont really lose anything there. Active Sound objects will perform normally for you. They'll move back and forth, side to side as normal. Static objects will be a little different. 7.1.2 bed object mixes like Ready Player One will render the 2 "height beds" through the Top-Middle speakers and skip all the other height channels. This actually isnt a problem because they are supposed to be in the Top-Middle position and the presence of discrete speakers to render that position produces better sound for the most part.
> 
> No problem!


----------



## sjm817

frankrizzo1 said:


> Thanks again. Any suggestions. I don’t really care about 4k/120. Just sound Quality and I need to power 7 and maybe some day 9 speakers. AgAin thx for taking the time to help out. Is Atmos a huge difference over like TrueHD and dtx-Hd MA non Atmos to u? And can you turn Atmos off?🤷


Denon X3800 was just released with some nice additions. You should be able to find X3700 easily too. Both have 9 channels with amplification.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> But that skips around the issue. Dolby recommends a higher angle for Atmos speakers. You want to be closer to 45°.


I would agree *if *his "rear" speakers were closer to 135° instead of 90°. But since they are in the Top-Middle position, then °30 Front Heights will work for him just fine. 60° of separation will image just fine. The standard 45° and 135° is 90° of separation. If that can image together, then his 31°/90° spread is fine.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would agree *if *his "rear" speakers were closer to 135° instead of 90°. But since they are in the Top-Middle position, then °30 Front Heights will work for him just fine. 60° of separation will image just fine. The standard 45° and 135° is 90° of separation. If that can image together, then his 31°/90° spread is fine.


You may be right. He's right on the cusp of 60 degrees.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> But that skips around the issue. Dolby recommends a higher angle for Atmos speakers. You want to be closer to 45°.


They recommend *NO SUCH THING*. They show both options (range of 30-55 for 4 overheads and 20-55 for 6 or more overheads (15-55 for studios).

You need to stop posting verifiably false information on here. You can have your opinion you prefer higher angles without posting false claims about the other options.



sdurani said:


> At that location they will give you a taller front soundstage but not the overhead effect intended by Atmos.


This is simply not true. He has ~60 degrees between speakers (Front Height + Top Middle) and is well within Dolby specs at 31 degrees for the front heights. 

For someone that people practically worship on here, I'm amazed at the strange things you've been posting lately, the other being saying 6 overheads don't work because of locked single channel overhead mixes only use Top Middle when that's exactly what they're supposed to use with one channel only overhead like in Ready Player One.

I've tested Ready Player One extensively and found certain proximity effects only work well with Top Middle (like the DeLorean hitting the boxes under the overpass in the opening race). A simulated overhead phantom issue just isn't the same for near misses to the head that the effect achieves with Top Middle at 90-110. So how is using discrete Top Middle inferior to phantom imaging between 4 overheads?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Hazefrog said:


> I will certainly be spending more time in the new configuration, but after a quick listen my ears agree with the having my overheads correctly assigned to middle. Better image. Particularly in Ready Player One as you suggested (I had already been using that one to evaluate). Thanks again for explaining what in retrospect should have been the obvious choice for my amp assignments. I think as my system has evolved--in a fundamentally imperfect and flawed space--I have mentally trapped myself into trying to cobble together rear effects, while the top middle setting for my overheads is 100% fit for purpose.
> 
> It's good to see support for people trying to get what they can out of their unique and flawed theater spaces. Thanks for saying "yes that can work."


Glad to hear it seems to be working out for you. Have you had a chance to check out a DTS:X movie on it yet? With its channel remapping tech, it is going to be the one that moves sounds around to try and fit your specific amp assignments.


----------



## Magiclakez

I finally got a chance to check out Kick Ass 4k (Australian/ Universal release) with the DTS-X track. I always felt that the heights were sparingly used on this film, when I watched the US 4k Blu-ray with atmos (lionsgate). Same is the case here, however I felt the height effects had more presence and some surprising low end to them. It definitely sounded more impactful, whenever there was some activity in the height channels. I also felt there was more hard hitting LFE on this track. I would have to give the nod to the Dts-x track in this instance.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I finally got a chance to check out Kick Ass 4k (Australian/ Universal release) with the DTS-X track. I always felt that the heights were sparingly used on this film, when I watched the US 4k Blu-ray with atmos (lionsgate). Same is the case here, however I felt the height effects had more presence and some surprising low end to them. It definitely sounded more impactful, whenever there was some activity in the height channels. I also felt there was more hard hitting LFE on this track. I would have to give the nod to the Dts-x track in this instance.


Give a shout out to the mixers, not the format. These tracks were made by separate engineering groups.


----------



## robert600

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 31° is within the Atmos spec for Front Height. You should be fine.
> 
> No worry about the rear height content if you set it to Top-Middle. The Atmos renderer will automatically fold rear height content to the Top-Middle speakers so they should render properly for your room limitations.


I may be missing something and therefore way off track here but ... are those speakers not his current surrounds Wouldn't setting them to Top-Middle result in folding not just from height but from surround as well (not even thinking about rear surround)? I have no idea how that would sound but ... I would think adding close to ear level surrounds should be a high priority ... then I'm totally on board with what you suggest.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> Give a shout out to the mixers, not the format. These tracks were made by separate engineering groups.


I will give a shout out to the format as well for providing the mixers (along with the consumers) a badass platform to showcase their work.

Fwiw, i was praising the particular track, not necessarily the format.


----------



## MagnumX

Dan Hitchman said:


> Give a shout out to the mixers, not the format. These tracks were made by separate engineering groups.


Is there evidence of this somewhere or is it mere conjecture? The only time I recall reading about separate mixes was by Turbine, who made it clear they were separate. I actually hope they are. That would at least give us a chance of getting a better version somewhere.

I personally wouldn't call a mixing "engineer" part of an "engineering group" as they aren't actually engineers anymore than a sanitary "engineer" is more than just a garbage man or a bartender is a "mixologist."


----------



## frankrizzo1

robert600 said:


> I may be missing something and therefore way off track here but ... are those speakers not his current surrounds Wouldn't setting them to Top-Middle result in folding not just from height but from surround as well (not even thinking about rear surround)? I have no idea how that would sound but ... I would think adding close to ear level surrounds should be a high priority ... then I'm totally on board with what you suggest.


I have no idea but damn these guys are smart. LoL. I’m learning allot.


----------



## Wardog555

robert600 said:


> I may be missing something and therefore way off track here but ... are those speakers not his current surrounds Wouldn't setting them to Top-Middle result in folding not just from height but from surround as well (not even thinking about rear surround)? I have no idea how that would sound but ... I would think adding close to ear level surrounds should be a high priority ... then I'm totally on board with what you suggest.


Ironically ear level surrounds was already suggested and completely ignored 🙁


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I will give a shout out to the format as well for providing the mixers (along with the consumers) a badass platform to showcase their work.
> 
> Fwiw, i was praising the particular track, not necessarily the format.


If the format was "badass," it wouldn't need upmixing to get it past its fixed speaker pattern and would have working 3D objects. Many industry people think it takes longer to mix with DTS:X... and time is money.

Dolby Atmos for the home would have been even better if Dolby hadn't added the locked object feature that too many mixers are using, mistakenly or not.


----------



## Soulburner

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the format was "badass," it wouldn't need upmixing to get it past its fixed speaker pattern and would have working 3D objects. Many industry people think it takes longer to mix with DTS:X... and time is money.
> 
> Dolby Atmos for the home would have been even better if Dolby hadn't added the locked object feature that too many mixers are using, mistakenly or not.


The last one is likely why it is succeeding. Time is money.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

From the distributor, Westlake, of the DTS Creator Suite... "Providing support for up to 11.1 channel-based and object-based encodes."

Unless something was stealthily changed in an unadvertised fashion, your choice on file export is up to 11.1 or 12.1. You cannot do 7.1.4 plus 3D objects (as you used to be able to do at the beginning of the format's rollout). You cannot do 7.1.5 (IMAX Enhanced usage) plus 3D objects. You are limited to 11.1 or 12.1 (or less, but I have never seen a DTS: X track less than 11.1).

They do, however, tout a plug-in Neural: X matrix upmix set for soundracks quite a bit when creating a DTS: X track or converting a legacy track. Take that for what it's worth. 

And yes, again, because it also includes MDA Tools, objects can be utilized for both mixing and rendering cinema MDA tracks.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> If the format was "badass," it wouldn't need upmixing to get it past its fixed speaker pattern and would have working 3D objects. Many industry people think it takes longer to mix with DTS:X... and time is money.
> 
> Dolby Atmos for the home would have been even better if Dolby hadn't added the locked object feature that too many mixers are using, mistakenly or not.


I think (IMHO…of course) most folks who don’t have e DTX-pro capable receiver / processor, invariably end up Pooh poohing dts-x. They are not aware of the potential DTS-X pro unleashes, since they are only limited to locked channels on their receivers or processors. Trying to trivialize it as a simple neural-x plug, is nothing but semantics.


----------



## Dan Hitchman

Magiclakez said:


> I think (IMHO…of course) most folks who don’t have e DTX-pro capable receiver / processor, invariably end up Pooh poohing dts-x. They are not aware of the potential DTS-X pro unleashes, since they are only limited to locked channels on their receivers


I've heard Trinnov's implementation of DTS: X Pro in 2019 with a larger speaker setup than most have at home, as they were the first out of the gates with it. It is definitely not as defined a 3D bubble as a good unlocked Atmos track. That was easy enough to check because some of the same movie clips were also being shown in other booths with Dolby Atmos tracks.

DTS: X Pro, while a welcome improvement in getting more speakers activated, is little more than the Neural: X upmixer on steroids. Matrix encode/decode is never as good as discrete audio for sound separation. 

I was asking at the Trinnov booth which immersive format sounded better to them. To my surprise they usually said Atmos. Good thing the Xperi rep wasn't around to hear that.


----------



## Magiclakez

Dan Hitchman said:


> I've heard Trinnov's implementation of DTS: X Pro in 2019 with a larger speaker setup than most have at home, as they were the first out of the gates with it. It is definitely not as defined a 3D bubble as a good unlocked Atmos track. That was easy enough to check because some of the same movie clips were also being shown in other booths with Dolby Atmos tracks.
> 
> DTS: X Pro, while a welcome improvement in getting more speakers activated, is little more than the Neural: X upmixer on steroids. Matrix encode/decode is never as good as discrete audio for sound separation.
> 
> I was asking at the Trinnov booth which immersive format sounded better to them. To my surprise they usually said Atmos. Good thing the Xperi rep wasn't around to hear that.


Demoing something at a booth for 15 mins is vastly different from living with a particular tech on a daily basis. There is a huge disparity in the observations (and wisdom) which is accumulated. At this point it is getting hard to take someone seriously when they don’t have a horse in the race, but all they do is take shots at something they don’t have.

Ok even I spoke with Papa Shango from trinnov at the Cedia booth in 2022 and he said that he and his colleagues preferred DTS-X. There you go….🤣


----------



## MagnumX

My god, Dan _really_ hates DTS:X....  

Talk about absolutely over-the-top ridiculous complaints about something he's only heard briefly. If it's like Neural X on steroids, then it's _awesome_ because Neural X is _awesome_. All Neural X is doing with DTS:X native soundtracks is restoring the original 30-channel mix capability (the master can use virtually unlimited objects and place it for 30.2 playback all it desires) and that's because it encodes all the cues to do it perfectly (unlike the guessing it has to do with some soundtracks). Object rendering is STILL a "render". In other words, it's just automatic panning for a given layout instead of pre-panning for a channel layout. What's so "magical" about it? 

Given Neural X in DTS:X Pro for expanding to 30.2 is essentially a digital version of Dolby's Pro Logic center-channel extraction and knowing first hand how well that works in a 12'x24' room here for Top Middle (99% discrete; I can barely hear a damn thing out of the original speakers with Audyssey turned off and only a tiny bit with it turned on and nothing from the seats and Neural X suffers NONE of those analog issues), I'd have to say his comparisons to an Atmos soundtrack sound a bit absurd, especially given how many won't use ANY of those speakers beyond 7.1.4 in the first place.

Frankly, I'd gladly take DTS:X 11.1 channel mixes all day long over Atmos just because I'm ASSURED 30-channel playback on capable systems EVERY SINGLE TIME whereas Atmos may not use half your speakers. There's nothing quite like spending more than everyone else on the planet to get a top-of-the-line Trinnov based 34-channel playback system only to find out that you're only getting 9-channel or 11-channel playback.... That's disgusting and it's 100% Dolby's fault because they _allow_ it and offer no alternative channel-mode mixer like DTS:X Pro has for X. 

No I've read rumors that the "next" big version of DSU is going to be far closer to Neural X in that regard that it will finally upmix to all 34 speakers (and a rumor in the UK that it will support at last VOG, if not CH as well) and maybe, just maybe Dolby will have it work with these channel-locked soundtracks to expand them to 34 speakers too. All it would require is a neighboring signal check for correlated sound between pairs to override when none is present. It's not rocket science. It could be done and I'm betting Dolby is smarter than some give them credit.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> My god, Dan _really_ hates DTS:X....


Don’t forget Auro-3D. 🤣

It’s getting ridiculous how the trivialization takes place. As HT enthusiasts we must appreciate ground breaking developments. It appears to me that all some people want (or settle for) is a one trick pony aka atmos, by hating on other technologies/ formats.

Speaking of Trinnov, the founding fathers were probably smoking the exotics, when they decided to adopt DTS-X pro on their processors. 🤣. Denon and marantz were probably hanging around with Snoop Dogg for that extra potent blunt.


----------



## GMil

Magiclakez said:


> I think (IMHO…of course) most folks who don’t have e DTX-pro capable receiver / processor, invariably end up Pooh poohing dts-x. They are not aware of the potential DTS-X pro unleashes, since they are only limited to locked channels on their receivers or processors. Trying to trivialize it as a simple neural-x plug, is nothing but semantics.


Hi,
I'm Gary. I'm new here. I've been sober for 
..... oh ****. Wrong group. 


Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is like saying nobody has ever heard Atmos 2.0 on thier receivers ( SPOILER ALERT: because it doesn't exist). It had taken DTS 2 generations to achieve what Atmos has done in 1. I hope this helps.


----------



## priitv8

GMil said:


> ..... like saying nobody has ever heard Atmos 2.0 on thier receivers ( SPOILER ALERT: because it doesn't exist).


Hi. 
isn’t the Atmos Binaural exactly that?


----------



## Magiclakez

GMil said:


> Hi,
> I'm Gary. I'm new here. I've been sober for
> ..... oh ****. Wrong group.
> 
> 
> Anyways, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is like saying nobody has ever heard Atmos 2.0 on thier receivers ( SPOILER ALERT: because it doesn't exist). It had taken DTS 2 generations to achieve what Atmos has done in 1. I hope this helps.


No clue what you are trying to articulate. Perhaps you aren’t really sober. 😂


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> No clue what you are trying to articulate. Perhaps you aren’t really sober. 😂


Are these stock owners in Dolby or something? 🧐

I really don't get the hatred. My AVR decodes all three immersive formats and I'm set up for all three so why would I care which format a movie is in? If anything, it's fun to compare and if more movie studios or production houses would offer separate mixes like Turbine has done with Auro-3D & Atmos (e.g. Twister, Daylight, Dragonheart, Johnny Mnemonic, etc), I think we'd have more consumer choice as to the experience we prefer. Having only one immersive soundtrack to pick from kind of sucks, particularly when it's poorly done like many Atmos soundtracks have turned out to be.

You know what would be cool is we could get (and thus also preserve for posterity) older format mixes including ones never released at home like SDDS soundtrack mixes translated into Atmos or DTS:X format exactly as they were at the theater! With objects or speaker rendering it would be easy to do, just like some older movies have presented and preserved 3-track magnetic stereo soundtracks from back then! I'd buy another copy of many such movies just to hear what SDDS was all about, particularly the 8-channel varieties (5 speakers across the front would come close while @sdrucker with his extra screen speakers could probably duplicate it precisely, particularly with Trinnov's speaker remapping). 

I mean how cool would that be for nerdy home theater enthusiasts who revel in surround sound formats?

Why should the consumer have only one choice? In the age of streaming and Kaleidescape, you should be able to pick the soundtrack you want to hear and it should play it (or download it to play it for Kaleidescape).

Some classic movies offer the original mono, stereo and/or 5.1 mixes so why shouldn't that be standard? The new Atmos release of Top Gun on UHD should have come with the original stereo soundtrack, the Dolby 5.1 mix, the DTS 6.1 mix and the new Atmos mix all on the same disc!!! It would have been no trouble to include them all so what gives? 

Movies aren't treated like history, but like a testing ground for human cyan/blue push studies (WTF is up with studios changing incandescent lighting into blue-bias LED??? Shouldn't it look like it originally did at the theater?) It's almost unbelievable the way they treat movies and consumers and you just pray the original negatives haven't been obliterated before they get it right some day. 

I'd love to see Disney's Magic Jouneys 3D short at home. Not gonna happen. It'll stay locked in some vault somewhere until the day I die. You cannot convince someone at Disney to release it or license it for release. Maybe Elon Musk could, I don't know.... I do know it's a God damned waste! 

I know Johnny Depp couldn't get Nestlé to re-release the Willy Wonka Scrunch candy bar for when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out and I read he really tried too as it was his favorite candy bar (him and me both) back in the early 1980s do what hope would an ordinary person have?

If I'd ever get my new 4-array ceiling speakers installed instead of sitting in boxes on the floor I'll have fully Atmos, X and Auro-3D compliant speaker setups in the same room (with a 4-speaker VOG array no less). And yet that leaves Sony 360.... Time for another processor? 

You just know Trinnov will get an update eventually. Maybe I should just buy an Altitude 16 and be done with it. 20-channels should about do it here. I've already got 23 amplifier channels just waiting (17 + 2 extra arrays for Top Middle and adding CH would only need 20, although I could power surround height separately instead of in parallel and use 22). Maybe add rear center for 23? The arrays don't use any extra channels so that would be 19.1 or 20-channels total. I could add a mini-dsp for multiple subs or ditch rear center and have Trinnov do two


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> Are these stock owners in Dolby or something? 🧐
> 
> I really don't get the hatred. My AVR decodes all three immersive formats and I'm set up for all three so why would I care which format a movie is in? If anything, it's fun to compare and if more movie studios or production houses would offer separate mixes like Turbine has done with Auro-3D & Atmos (e.g. Twister, Daylight, Dragonheart, Johnny Mnemonic, etc), I think we'd have more consumer choice as to the experience we prefer. Having only one immersive soundtrack to pick from kind of sucks, particularly when it's poorly done like many Atmos soundtracks have turned out to be.
> 
> You know what would be cool is we could get (and thus also preserve for posterity) older format mixes including ones never released at home like SDDS soundtrack mixes translated into Atmos or DTS:X format exactly as they were at the theater! With objects or speaker rendering it would be easy to do, just like some older movies have presented and preserved 3-track magnetic stereo soundtracks from back then! I'd buy another copy of many such movies just to hear what SDDS was all about, particularly the 8-channel varieties (5 speakers across the front would come close while @sdrucker with his extra screen speakers could probably duplicate it precisely, particularly with Trinnov's speaker remapping).
> 
> I mean how cool would that be for nerdy home theater enthusiasts who revel in surround sound formats?
> 
> Why should the consumer have only one choice? In the age of streaming and Kaleidescape, you should be able to pick the soundtrack you want to hear and it should play it (or download it to play it for Kaleidescape).
> 
> Some classic movies offer the original mono, stereo and/or 5.1 mixes so why shouldn't that be standard? The new Atmos release of Top Gun on UHD should have come with the original stereo soundtrack, the Dolby 5.1 mix, the DTS 6.1 mix and the new Atmos mix all on the same disc!!! It would have been no trouble to include them all so what gives?
> 
> Movies aren't treated like history, but like a testing ground for human cyan/blue push studies (WTF is up with studios changing incandescent lighting into blue-bias LED??? Shouldn't it look like it originally did at the theater?) It's almost unbelievable the way they treat movies and consumers and you just pray the original negatives haven't been obliterated before they get it right some day.
> 
> I'd love to see Disney's Magic Jouneys 3D short at home. Not gonna happen. It'll stay locked in some vault somewhere until the day I die. You cannot convince someone at Disney to release it or license it for release. Maybe Elon Musk could, I don't know.... I do know it's a God damned waste!
> 
> I know Johnny Depp couldn't get Nestlé to re-release the Willy Wonka Scrunch candy bar for when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out and I read he really tried too as it was his favorite candy bar (him and me both) back in the early 1980s do what hope would an ordinary person have?
> 
> If I'd ever get my new 4-array ceiling speakers installed instead of sitting in boxes on the floor I'll have fully Atmos, X and Auro-3D compliant speaker setups in the same room (with a 4-speaker VOG array no less). And yet that leaves Sony 360.... Time for another processor?
> 
> You just know Trinnov will get an update eventually. Maybe I should just buy an Altitude 16 and be done with it. 20-channels should about do it here. I've already got 23 amplifier channels just waiting (17 + 2 extra arrays for Top Middle and adding CH would only need 20, although I could power surround height separately instead of in parallel and use 22). Maybe add rear center for 23? The arrays don't use any extra channels so that would be 19.1 or 20-channels total. I could add a mini-dsp for multiple subs or ditch rear center and have Trinnov do two


Yeah, this particular individual (with 27 posts laboriously garnered over a period of 8 yrs) decides to “jump back on the wagon” (not quite sure if the pun is unintended) and responds to a relatively innocuous post. This clearly reeks of an involuntary defensive mechanism.

All this nonsense started when I compared 2 separate tracks for the same movie (Kick Ass 4k). Not once did I attempt to insinuate, that one format was better or try to glorify one over the other. It was a harmless observation. It’s just that some folks get too wrapped up into their feelings (or for some inexplicable reason feel threatened), when they think that another player (in this case a particular technology) is trying to trespass or infringes on their core ideological beliefs, centered around a singular format.

Like you were alluding to earlier, it would be absolutely criminal if you go all in on an expensive piece of equipment and then get restricted to only 11 channels. Fortunately with the advent of dts-x pro, it would absorb all that you can throw at it, Including the kitchen sink.


----------



## robert600

Anyone out there with a good understanding of audio formats ... codecs etc?

Here's my problem. I have a bunch of older ripped movies ... where the audio has been transcoded to AAC ... 5.1 or 7.1. Near as I can figure ... the shield I use to play them passes them to the AVR as PCM (based on the display on the AVR. They sound ok flat but ... neither DSU or Nueral does very much upmixing with them. In some cases ... I have the blu-ray with the original DTS or whatever soundtrack ... that upmixes much better.

My question is ... is there any way to have AAC encoded sound upmix better or do i just have to live with it?


----------



## sdurani

Magiclakez said:


> Trying to trivialize it as a simple neural-x plug, is nothing but semantics.


But that's exactly what it does: DTS:X can upmix 11 discrete channels to 30 matrix derived channels using their Neural:X upmixer. That's not semantics, it's just how the format operates. Matrix upmixing has been built into the format since the beginning. Even on the earliest DTS:X receivers, if you played a DTS:X 7.1.4 track on a 9.1.2 speaker layout, it would matrix extract Wides.


----------



## GMil

Oh....my aching head 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣



MagnumX said:


> Are these stock owners in Dolby or something? 🧐


No, I do not own stock in Dolby. Nor do I work for or am affiliated with them. I was simply pointing out a FACT that DTS:X is second gen technology. 



MagnumX said:


> I really don't get the hatred.


I wasn't hating. I was simply stating what I felt was an apples to oranges comparison. You guys read into some of this stuff way too much and need to unwind. I just do not have a lot of time to dedicate to home audio or it's applicable forums, as Magiclakez so graciously pointed out, to do due diligence on the matter but from my limited experience DTS:X may ,in fact, be superior to Dolby Atmos. I am *ALL* in favor of competition in this marketplace. I just feel that if that "next" big version of DSU that you speak of was rolled out and available that may be a more fair comparison.




MagnumX said:


> You know what would be cool if we could get (and thus also preserve for posterity) older format mixes including ones never released at home like SDDS soundtrack mixes translated into Atmos or DTS:X format exactly as they were at the theater! With objects or speaker rendering it would be easy to do, just like some older movies have presented and preserved 3-track magnetic stereo soundtracks from back then! I'd buy another copy of many such movies just to hear what SDDS was all about, particularly the 8-channel varieties (5 speakers across the front would come close while @sdrucker with his extra screen speakers could probably duplicate it precisely, particularly with Trinnov's speaker remapping).


I remember when the Star Wars: Special Edition trilogy was released in the theater. It was showing on two screens at my local theater. One was in DTS and one was in SDDS. I paid extra to watch it in SDDS. I hope this helps.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I wish I could get a Trinnov or Storm Audio. Those are way out of my price range. I'm gonna have to set my sights on something like th 15.4 channel Marantz AV-10 for $7000 or one of its successors at some distant point in the future.

I would like to set my sights on an Anthem or JBL Synthesis processor but since they refuse to go all in, Marantz and Denon are my choices at this point.


----------



## Hazefrog

I haven't yet. 
Looking at my collection the only DTS:X discs I have are Hellboy II and Gladiator. Any recommendations between the two for testing out the new configuration? 
Got a handful of DTS blurays that I will eventually upgrade to UHD (with DTS:X), but in the meantime those are all I have. 




NuSoardGraphite said:


> Glad to hear it seems to be working out for you. Have you had a chance to check out a DTS:X movie on it yet? With its channel remapping tech, it is going to be the one that moves sounds around to try and fit your specific amp assignments.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Hazefrog said:


> I haven't yet.
> Looking at my collection the only DTS:X discs I have are Hellboy II and Gladiator. Any recommendations between the two for testing out the new configuration?
> Got a handful of DTS blurays that I will eventually upgrade to UHD (with DTS:X), but in the meantime those are all I have.


I dont yet have Hellboy II (plan to buy) but I do have Gladiator. The battle scene at the beginning of the film where they fight the German barbarians is a standout for audio. Pay attention to the arrows and catapults in that scene.


----------



## Magiclakez

sdurani said:


> But that's exactly what it does: DTS:X can upmix 11 discrete channels to 30 matrix derived channels using their Neural:X upmixer. That's not semantics, it's just how the format operates. Matrix upmixing has been built into the format since the beginning. Even on the earliest DTS:X receivers, if you played a DTS:X 7.1.4 track on a 9.1.2 speaker layout, it would matrix extract Wides.


Yes that’s true even a google search can yield similar results. I can cut copy paste same info and post it here. You still need a dts-x pro capable equipment to feed 30 channels. It’s not a simple “neural-x on steroids” like one gentleman was alluding to. In that case it would be baked into every HT receiver/processor. Right? That’s similar tech used in pro cinemas where you have matrixed arrays. The fact that similar tech is trickling down to home theaters should be commended and not just glossed over like something inconsequential.

When I hear folks like Anthony Grimani and Jon Herron from Trinnov speak about DTX-pro; they keep insisting that it’s not a mere neural-x plug-in, but one of the greatest developments which has happened to Home theater. No offense, but I think I tend to agree and gravitate more towards their philosophy when it comes to describing this technology.


----------



## MagnumX

Hazefrog said:


> I haven't yet.
> Looking at my collection the only DTS:X discs I have are Hellboy II and Gladiator. Any recommendations between the two for testing out the new configuration?
> Got a handful of DTS blurays that I will eventually upgrade to UHD (with DTS:X), but in the meantime those are all I have.


Hellboy 2 is excellent in DTS:X except for the filtered deep bass that wasn't filtered on the previous 7.1 blu-ray. 

I think the LFE tack could be transferred with ffmpeg with the right command. I've already made a new Master & Commander MKV using the LFE from the DVD and the lossless 5.1 track and video from the Blu-ray, but I used Audacity to combine them as PCM and save as FLAC. That works for 7.1 or less, but not a meta-based immersion format.


----------



## dschulz

Magiclakez said:


> Yes that’s true even a google search can yield similar results. I can cut copy paste same info and post it here. You still need a dts-x pro capable equipment to feed 30 channels. It’s not a simple “neural-x on steroids” like one gentleman was alluding to. In that case it would be baked into every HT receiver/processor. Right? That’s similar tech used in pro cinemas where you have matrixed arrays. The fact that similar tech is trickling down to home theaters should be commended and not just glossed over like something inconsequential.
> 
> Btw, do you have a DTX-pro set up in your HT or are you just theorizing? When I hear folks like Anthony Grimani and Jon Herron from Trinnov speak about DTX-pro; they keep insisting that it’s not a mere neural-x plug-in, but one of the greatest developments which has happened to Home theater. No offense, but I think I tend to agree and gravitate more towards their philosophy when it comes to describing this technology.


DTS:X the format always supported matrixing to a higher number of speakers than the number of fixed channels in the mix, but in the rush to get DTS:X into AVRs they had to limit the functionality for the first go-round. DTS:X Pro is just the realization of what was originally promised. 

Cinemas do not have matrixed arrays; surround channels have _always_ been intended to be played through arrays in cinemas, but there's no matrixing involved, just multiple speakers all getting the same signal, with the levels calibrated such that the summed total of the speakers hits the calibrated level. Obviously the introduction of object-based formats (theatrical Atmos, theatrical DTS:X and theatrical AuroMax) has complicated things, as those arrays are now called upon to play back channels as well as using individual speaker feeds to render objects, but nothing like matrixing has happened since discrete digital audio replaced Dolby Stereo and Dolby Surround EX / DTS-ES.


----------



## robert600

Hazefrog said:


> I haven't yet.
> Looking at my collection the only DTS:X discs I have are Hellboy II and Gladiator. Any recommendations between the two for testing out the new configuration?
> Got a handful of DTS blurays that I will eventually upgrade to UHD (with DTS:X), but in the meantime those are all I have.


I very recently aquired an avr able to decode DTS:X and coincidentaly the first I watched was Gladiator. I was quite impressed ... apart from the scene already mentioned, the fight scene in the Colessium ...with the tigers...was very good. I'd actually forgotten how good a movie it is ... so that's an added bonus ... i think there were extra scenes as well ... at least there was stuff I hadn't remembered seeing before. I haven't heard the Hellboy II dts:x track.

A standard blu-ray with dts:x that you might want to look for is Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom ... easily obtained for a couple of bucks at any pawn shop. I haven't played it yet but I'm assuming it'll be reasonably good ... again it's a not a half bad movie so there's that.


----------



## Magiclakez

Hazefrog said:


> I haven't yet.
> Looking at my collection the only DTS:X discs I have are Hellboy II and Gladiator. Any recommendations between the two for testing out the new configuration?
> Got a handful of DTS blurays that I will eventually upgrade to UHD (with DTS:X), but in the meantime those are all I have.


You must try to add Apollo 13 and the Harry Potter (4k) series in the future. These are some of the finer examples of dts-x.


----------



## sdurani

Magiclakez said:


> In that case it would be baked into every HT receiver/processor. Right?


The matrixing part *is* baked into every DTS:X capable receiver & pre-pro, because it's always been part of the home DTS:X format. Until recently, ALL technologies from DTS (formats, upmixers, etc) were limited to 11.1 outputs. The "Pro" designation just means that the receiver or pre-pro can do DTS (decoding or upmixing) to more than 11.1 outputs. But the matrixing part is not something new (i.e., didn't show up with DTS:X Pro).


> That’s similar tech used in pro cinemas where you have matrixed arrays.


Surround arrays are never matrixed in commercial cinemas. Surround channels can be matrix derived (like with Surround EX). But each of those channels is simply copied to an array of speakers.


> When I hear folks like Anthony Grimani and Jon Herron from Trinnov speak about DTX-pro; they keep insisting that it’s not a mere neural-x plug-in...


Ask them what technology is used to scale an 11.1 DTS:X soundtrack to 30 speakers. If they tell you that it's matrix upmixing, then ask them which particular matrix upmixer: i.e., does DTS use it's own upmixer (Neural:X) or someone else's upmixer?


----------



## Magiclakez

sdurani said:


> Ask them what technology is used to scale an 11.1 DTS:X soundtrack to 30 speakers. If they tell you that it's matrix upmixing, then ask them which particular matrix upmixer: i.e., does DTS use it's own upmixer (Neural:X) or someone else's upmixer?


Why don’t you ask them, since you appear to be more invested in this.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Why don’t you ask them, since you appear to be more invested in this.


He seems to enjoy lecturing people about how _wrong_ they are on nit-picking type things to put them in their place. Careful, or you'll be added to his permanent ignore list and all his congregation will also shun you (not necessarily a bad thing). The irony is what he's saying isn't really relevant and is not telling the whole story.

Technically, "matrixing" just means many channels are encoded into fewer channels and then decoded back into the original channels or something close to it.

That's technically true of DTS:X soundtracks that were 30 channels and encoded down to 11 channels and then brought back (up to) 30 channels again so you _could_ call that matrixing in a sense, but it's not really "encoding" them like say Dolby Surround does using phase to fit the channels into fewer channels. X just pans them across fewer channels like any other 7.1 + 4 soundtrack would. There's no real "encoding" going on in that sense, just downmixing. That can be proven by the fact it works just as well with signals that were never 30 channels to begin with like stereo or 5.1 sent to it. How can it be decoding something that was never there?

What Neural X is _actually_ doing is "logic steering" (like center-channel steering in Pro Logic... Hence the name Pro Logic) to create mid-points between panning stretches. That's not "decoding" anything and it works with ALL signals including stereo because you're just digitally dividing the signal into "cut" points and putting an actual speaker there instead of just continuing the phantom pan.

So I'd argue that Neural X isn't _true_ matrixing in the classical sense because there's no actual signal encoding/decoding going on, at least for the ear level channels (overheads likely contain the clues needed to tell Neural X they belong overhead). However, it is technically _matrixing_ for X soundtracks in the sense it's restoring an original larger multichannel signal (master soundtrack) back to 30 channels from 11. But it's most certainly NOT _matrixing_ with stereo or 5.1/6.1/7.1 inputs because they never had 30 channels to begin with! That's then called _upmixing_, but it's really a tool used by up mixing and matrixing in a sense and not really a part of either one since it can be used with either process.

Neural X also does more complex waveform analysis with lookup tables on time impulse and phase to try to determine what sounds belong overhead, which is why most of the time it eerily gets it right again and again while DSU puts the sounds at ear level. DTS has a patent on this method (Sanjay has wrongly implied before it's just putting decorrelated sounds overhead which is easily disproven as all out-of-phase sounds would be on the ceiling and they clearly are not).

Just lumping the entire Neural X upmixer into a categorical "matrixing" category belittles the technology being used and simplifies it down to just simple phase tricks like Dolby Surround used. It uses several tools to both restore and expand soundtracks to more channels than the input signal provides.


----------



## am2model3

Ps5 dolby atmos disney plus: Sorry i thought it worked but glitched its actually this: system settings you need to pick “dolby” for atmos to show in disney plus. I had lpcm and it defaults to 5.1 that way. I picked dolby and get dd+atmos coming from disney app! Cool


----------



## mjwagner

More and more I just pop into this thread for the entertainment value …🤣


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> He seems to enjoy lecturing people about how _wrong_ they are on nit-picking type things to put them in their place. Careful, or you'll be added to his permanent ignore list and all his congregation will also shun you (not necessarily a bad thing). The irony is what he's saying isn't really relevant and is not telling the whole story.
> 
> Technically, "matrixing" just means many channels are encoded into fewer channels and then decoded back into the original channels or something close to it.
> 
> That's technically true of DTS:X soundtracks that were 30 channels and encoded down to 11 channels and then brought back (up to) 30 channels again so you _could_ call that matrixing in a sense, but it's not really "encoding" them like say Dolby Surround does using phase to fit the channels into fewer channels. X just pans them across fewer channels like any other 7.1 + 4 soundtrack would. There's no real "encoding" going on in that sense, just downmixing. That can be proven by the fact it works just as well with signals that were never 30 channels to begin with like stereo or 5.1 sent to it. How can it be decoding something that was never there?
> 
> What Neural X is _actually_ doing is "logic steering" (like center-channel steering in Pro Logic... Hence the name Pro Logic) to create mid-points between panning stretches. That's not "decoding" anything and it works with ALL signals including stereo because you're just digitally dividing the signal into "cut" points and putting an actual speaker there instead of just continuing the phantom pan.
> 
> So I'd argue that Neural X isn't _true_ matrixing in the classical sense because there's no actual signal encoding/decoding going on, at least for the ear level channels (overheads likely contain the clues needed to tell Neural X they belong overhead). However, it is technically _matrixing_ for X soundtracks in the sense it's restoring an original larger multichannel signal (master soundtrack) back to 30 channels from 11. But it's most certainly NOT _matrixing_ with stereo or 5.1/6.1/7.1 inputs because they never had 30 channels to begin with! That's then called _upmixing_, but it's really a tool used by up mixing and matrixing in a sense and not really a part of either one since it can be used with either process.
> 
> Neural X also does more complex waveform analysis with lookup tables on time impulse and phase to try to determine what sounds belong overhead, which is why most of the time it eerily gets it right again and again while DSU puts the sounds at ear level. DTS has a patent on this method (Sanjay has wrongly implied before it's just putting decor relatedness sound overhead which is easily disproven as all out-of-phase sounds would be on the ceiling and they clearly are not).
> 
> Just lumping the entire Neural X upmixer into a categorical "matrixing" category belittles the technology being used and simplifies it down to just simple phase tricks like Dolby Surround used. It uses several tools to both restore and expand soundtracks to more channels than the input signal provides.


That’s actually a fantastic breakdown. Honestly this has managed to dispel some of the ambiguities which has been associated with this technology. I value/ appreciate this technology even more, after reading your post. I’m sure Dolby will catch up with their next implementation of DSU.


----------



## sdurani

Magiclakez said:


> Why don’t you ask them, since you appear to be more invested in this.


Other way 'round. You were citing Grimani and Herron in order to counter the Neural:X claim. If not Neural:X, then what does DTS use to scale 11.1 channels to 30 speaker locations?


----------



## Magiclakez




----------



## Chirosamsung

Honestly-remember when this thread used to be useful??!? Seems like more drama these days..,


----------



## robert600

Magiclakez said:


> Apollo 13 and Battleship are standout DTS-X titles. I also liked Dracula untold. Hart’s war is a good candidate for neural-x.
> 
> Turbo 7.1 mixes well with both Neural-x and auro-3d. In fact I predominantly use neural-x with almost every 5.1/ 7.1 track.
> 
> addendum: the Harry Potter series and backdraft comes with a killer dts-x track along with the 1st purge and hellfest.


I managed to borrow the 1st of the Harry Potter UHDs ... nice dts-x indeed. Thanks for the suggestions!


----------



## Magiclakez

robert600 said:


> I managed to borrow the 1st of the Harry Potter UHDs ... nice dts-x indeed. Thanks for the suggestions!


You’re most welcome. All the HP UHD’s have excellent Dts-x tracks. You can probably pick up the entire collection during the Black Friday sales. I have seen them going for as low as $50.


----------



## dormie1360

Chirosamsung said:


> Honestly-remember when this thread used to be useful??!? Seems like more drama these days..,


Keyboards do have a knack of showcasing some "interesting" personalities.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Honestly-remember when this thread used to be useful??!? Seems like more drama these days..,


Says the drama king himself from the Monoprice HTP-1 thread.... Don't they just love you there? I mean you at least have to appreciate the shameless hypocrisy around here.  

Some of us simply want the correct facts, but that's hard to do when several people use the_ ignore feature_ to ignore anyone that might tell them they're WRONG (even when they are).


----------



## dschulz

To steer this thread back to Atmos rather than talking incessantly about its competitors:

Look, it's fun to take the side of David vs Goliath. I get that. But the simple reality is this: new movies are mixed for theatrical Atmos. Essentially all of them, in all markets. Even art house movies now get Atmos mixes. The upcoming standard for digital cinema immersive audio, IAB, essentially concedes the point, using the Atmos bitstream as the carrier and allowing Dolby's competitors to develop their own renderers to render the (now-labeled IAB) track to their own layouts. But those mixes will be done on mixing stages built to Dolby's specs and the filmmakers will approve the mixes in Atmos theatres.

Meanwhile, for home video: most new content releases with Dolby Atmos home mixes, for the simple reason that the original mix was done in Atmos and it makes sense to do a nearfield Atmos remix. Meanwhile, content being mixed for the first time for home, for broadcast television and for streaming platforms, is all being mixed in Atmos. There are no other players in this space on the content creation side (at least until Google's Atmos competitor comes online, which will definitely make things interesting). 

Competition is good, and I'm glad both Auro and DTS are around to keep things sporting. I love native Auro-3D as a music format when used as intended with surround height (not rear height) speakers, and although DTS Neural:X is too aggressive for my taste I appreciate that it is that very aggressiveness that makes it appealing to many. 

But I mention the content creation just to point out that it is not at all crazy, if designing a new home theatre, to sort of keep Atmos specs at top of mind and design around Dolby's recommendations. It's swell that there are 50 movies on Blu Ray with Auro-3D and a few dozen with DTS:X; there are new series and movies dropping every single week on Netflix and Amazon and Apple with Atmos mixes, and an endless stream of new theatrical features with Atmos mixes that will surface as such for home video, either on physical media or streaming platforms. If you are interested in researching and supporting your favorite format, please do; if you just want to watch the films and episodics being created by today's storytellers, in the format in which they were mixed, then a primarily Atmos-oriented room is a great place to start.


----------



## Magiclakez

dschulz said:


> It's swell that there are 50 movies on Blu Ray with Auro-3D and a *few dozen with DTS:X*;


While you may be right with regards to Auro-3D having only 50+ titles, there are currently 127 4k Blu-ray titles with DTS-X and 68 titles in Blu-ray. I’m also looking forward to the 3 titles releasing this year with DTS-X; Shrek 2, R.I.P.D and Puss in boots.

But you are right, that it still pales in comparison to the volume of atmos oriented titles.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> While you may be right with regards to Auro-3D having only 50+ titles, there are currently 127 4k Blu-ray titles with DTS-X and 68 titles in Blu-ray. I’m also looking forward to the 3 titles releasing this year with DTS-X; Shriek 2, R.I.P.D and Puss in boots.
> 
> But you are right, that it still pales in comparison to the volume of atmos oriented titles.


If you count movies _plus_ music, there's over 100 Auro-3D titles and I'm pretty sure there's over 100 DTS:X titles now as well. Netflix Atmos is ok, but the argument that means DTS:X and Auro-3D are worthless when designing a room is a bit like saying, well there's millions of songs in stereo, so why would I want to set up for 5.1!?!? I mean who cares about 5.1 when you're set up for stereo?!!? 

Setting up for DTS:X is EASY. If you want to "optimize" for the studio layout (45 or 55 instead of 30-55) go ahead, but DTS:X works fine with both Auro-3D and Atmos layouts, not just OK, but GREAT. Harry Potter in DTS:X blows away 95% of the Atmos titles out there, IMO for sheer immersiveness, particularly the 2nd and 3rd movies. But the great thing about DTS:X is if you do have some Auro-only speaker locations like Center Height and VOG, DTS:X Pro will use them to increase the accuracy of the soundfield for the entire room! Nothing beats a real speaker right over your head instead of hoping it phantom images well.

Setting up for Auro-3D is easier than some people think. For movies in particular, calling anything from 25-45 "Heights" in the setup works fine (officially it's 25-40, but if you're allowed higher locations if you're fronts are slightly above ear level, I think 45 will still function just fine even at zero, certainly well enough to enjoy 11.1 and 13.1 movies instead of 5.1). VOG or Top Middle playing VOG will bridge even large rooms with actual front/rear heights that then also bridge fine with Atmos too (i.e. Front/Rear Heights + Top Middle works for everything). 

No crazy new locations are required. A few degrees on the upper limit aren't going to kill an Auro movie. So optimize for Atmos and use Tops if you want. Auro will still work if you call them Heights in the setup menu. Most of the Sony Auro movies sound similar in Atmos and Auro anyway. It's the Auro only titles from Source1, Turbine and Dutch FilmWorks that are the ones to get. Music probably does work better with Surround Height if that's where the microphone was placed in their rig, but that doesn't mean it doesn't sound better than 5.1 using Rear Heights and Rear Heights + VOG works GREAT together (Surround Height + VOG kind of duplicates the same speaker locations in a home environment). 

If you look at the Auro diagrams that showed array speakers, you'll see that 'surround height' in Barco 11.1 is BOTH side heights and rear heights. They're actually an array so this notion that you need side heights instead of rear heights is questionable, IMO. You can array them together with a Monoprice impedance matching speaker switch and have both like a real Barco theater if you want (I can do it here; I recommend -3dB for the surround height speakers to simulate a better front-to-back mix; otherwise, it just tends to pull towards the Surround Heights speakers).


----------



## mrtickleuk

Magiclakez said:


> While you may be right with regards to Auro-3D having only 50+ titles, there are currently 127 4k Blu-ray titles with DTS-X


No idea why you keep doing this, even when you're quoting people who are getting the name correct. Perhaps you don't realise you're even doing it.

It's called "DTS:X" with a colon. It's *not *called "DTS-X" with a hyphen. They aren't interchangeable. The only _possible _excuse for ever wrongly using a hyphen on purpose, would be if it's in a filename on a disc.

Since you go on about it so much in this thread (which is the wrong thread for it, long after this has been pointed out), it's disappointing but not surprising you can't even get its name correct.

@dschulz - excellent post, and I agree


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> If you count movies _plus_ music, there's over 100 Auro-3D titles and I'm pretty sure there's over 100 DTS:X titles now as well. Netflix Atmos is ok, but the argument that means DTS:X and Auro-3D are worthless when designing a room is a bit like saying, well there's millions of songs in stereo, so why would I want to set up for 5.1!?!? I mean who cares about 5.1 when you're set up for stereo?!!?
> 
> Setting up for DTS:X is EASY. If you want to "optimize" for the studio layout (45 or 55 instead of 30-55) go ahead, but DTS:X works fine with both Auro-3D and Atmos layouts, not just OK, but GREAT. Harry Potter in DTS:X blows away 95% of the Atmos titles out there, IMO for sheer immersiveness, particularly the 2nd and 3rd movies. But the great thing about DTS:X is if you do have some Auro-only speaker locations like Center Height and VOG, DTS:X Pro will use them to increase the accuracy of the soundfield for the entire room! Nothing beats a real speaker right over your head instead of hoping it phantom images well.
> 
> Setting up for Auro-3D is easier than some people think. For movies in particular, calling anything from 25-45 "Heights" in the setup works fine (officially it's 25-40, but if you're allowed higher locations if you're fronts are slightly above ear level, I think 45 will still function just fine even at zero, certainly well enough to enjoy 11.1 and 13.1 movies instead of 5.1). VOG or Top Middle playing VOG will bridge even large rooms with actual front/rear heights that then also bridge fine with Atmos too (i.e. Front/Rear Heights + Top Middle works for everything).
> 
> No crazy new locations are required. A few degrees on the upper limit aren't going to kill an Auro movie. So optimize for Atmos and use Tops if you want. Auro will still work if you call them Heights in the setup menu. Most of the Sony Auro movies sound similar in Atmos and Auro anyway. It's the Auro only titles from Source1, Turbine and Dutch FilmWorks that are the ones to get. Music probably does work better with Surround Height if that's where the microphone was placed in their rig, but that doesn't mean it doesn't sound better than 5.1 using Rear Heights and Rear Heights + VOG works GREAT together (Surround Height + VOG kind of duplicates the same speaker locations in a home environment).
> 
> If you look at the Auro diagrams that showed array speakers, you'll see that 'surround height' in Barco 11.1 is BOTH side heights and rear heights. They're actually an array so this notion that you need side heights instead of rear heights is questionable, IMO. You can array them together with a Monoprice impedance matching speaker switch and have both like a real Barco theater if you want (I can do it here; I recommend -3dB for the surround height speakers to simulate a better front-to-back mix; otherwise, it just tends to pull towards the Surround Heights speakers).


if only we could just keep watching the Harry Potter franchise on a loop then we would come around on DTS:X and if the vast majority of home theatre fans who love movies in thier theatre just started listening to music instead because Auro 3D has some good mixes we could get off the atmos does 99% of the overall content nowdays train of thought lol


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> If you count movies _plus_ music, there's over 100 Auro-3D titles and I'm pretty sure there's over 100 DTS:X titles now as well. Netflix Atmos is ok, but the argument that means DTS:X and Auro-3D are worthless when designing a room is a bit like saying, well there's millions of songs in stereo, so why would I want to set up for 5.1!?!? I mean who cares about 5.1 when you're set up for stereo?!!?
> 
> Setting up for DTS:X is EASY. If you want to "optimize" for the studio layout (45 or 55 instead of 30-55) go ahead, but DTS:X works fine with both Auro-3D and Atmos layouts, not just OK, but GREAT. Harry Potter in DTS:X blows away 95% of the Atmos titles out there, IMO for sheer immersiveness, particularly the 2nd and 3rd movies. But the great thing about DTS:X is if you do have some Auro-only speaker locations like Center Height and VOG, DTS:X Pro will use them to increase the accuracy of the soundfield for the entire room! Nothing beats a real speaker right over your head instead of hoping it phantom images well.
> 
> Setting up for Auro-3D is easier than some people think. For movies in particular, calling anything from 25-45 "Heights" in the setup works fine (officially it's 25-40, but if you're allowed higher locations if you're fronts are slightly above ear level, I think 45 will still function just fine even at zero, certainly well enough to enjoy 11.1 and 13.1 movies instead of 5.1). VOG or Top Middle playing VOG will bridge even large rooms with actual front/rear heights that then also bridge fine with Atmos too (i.e. Front/Rear Heights + Top Middle works for everything).
> 
> No crazy new locations are required. A few degrees on the upper limit aren't going to kill an Auro movie. So optimize for Atmos and use Tops if you want. Auro will still work if you call them Heights in the setup menu. Most of the Sony Auro movies sound similar in Atmos and Auro anyway. It's the Auro only titles from Source1, Turbine and Dutch FilmWorks that are the ones to get. Music probably does work better with Surround Height if that's where the microphone was placed in their rig, but that doesn't mean it doesn't sound better than 5.1 using Rear Heights and Rear Heights + VOG works GREAT together (Surround Height + VOG kind of duplicates the same speaker locations in a home environment).
> 
> If you look at the Auro diagrams that showed array speakers, you'll see that 'surround height' in Barco 11.1 is BOTH side heights and rear heights. They're actually an array so this notion that you need side heights instead of rear heights is questionable, IMO. You can array them together with a Monoprice impedance matching speaker switch and have both like a real Barco theater if you want (I can do it here; I recommend -3dB for the surround height speakers to simulate a better front-to-back mix; otherwise, it just tends to pull towards the Surround Heights speakers).


if only we could just keep watching the Harry Potter franchise on a loop then we would come around on DTS:X and if the vast majority of home theatre fans who love movies in thier theatre just started listening to music instead because Auro 3D has some good mixes we could get off the atmos does 99% of the overall content nowdays train of thought lol


----------



## Magiclakez

mrtickleuk said:


> No idea why you keep doing this, even when you're quoting people who are getting the name correct. Perhaps you don't realise you're even doing it.
> 
> It's called "DTS:X" with a colon. It's *not *called "DTS-X" with a hyphen. They aren't interchangeable.
> 
> @dschulz - excellent post, and I agree


I don’t give a rat’s azz if it includes a colon or a hyphen. No need to get so “tickled” about it.


----------



## Magiclakez

The congregation is strong indeed. 🙄


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> You’re most welcome. All the HP UHD’s have excellent Dts-x tracks. You can probably pick up the entire collection during the Black Friday sales. I have seen them going for as low as $50.


Is the bass filtering an Atmos phenomenon or has it hit DTS:X too?


----------



## robert600

Magiclakez said:


> You’re most welcome. All the HP UHD’s have excellent Dts-x tracks. You can probably pick up the entire collection during the Black Friday sales. I have seen them going for as low as $50.


I will definitely keep an eye out for that!


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Is the bass filtering an Atmos phenomenon or has it hit DTS:X too?


afaik it's a property of DTS:X tracks too, ie:





Bad Boys for Life - BEQCatalogue







beqcatalogue.readthedocs.io


----------



## MagnumX

halcyon_888 said:


> afaik it's a property of DTS:X tracks too, ie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad Boys for Life - BEQCatalogue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beqcatalogue.readthedocs.io


It's determined by the mixing guy who blames it on his boss or says subs don't need to play below 20Hz (John in that YouTube interview) and they simply *must* protect sound bars and cheap woofers from "blowing up" as if that's a thing. When's the last time someone played a sound bar at Dolby reference levels? 

If I can find out what the ffmpeg "insert track here" command is, we should be able to edit the LFE track (or swap with an earlier version like on Hellboy 2) so that the BEQ treatment is permanent for that title. I did a FLAC combine with Master & Commander from the DVD DTS track while keeping the superior lossless other tracks. Fantastic.



Chirosamsung said:


> if only we could just keep watching the Harry Potter franchise on a loop then we would come around on DTS:X and if the vast majority of home theatre fans who love movies in thier theatre just started listening to music instead because Auro 3D has some good mixes we could get off the atmos does 99% of the overall content nowdays train of thought lol


Maybe it would help if you actually bought some other DTS:X titles? I've got 50 more DTS:X titles to pick from other than the Harry Potter series. The Fast and the Furious titles are all superb as are the Jurassic Park series, Jason Bourne series, Crimson Peak, 47 Ronin, Apollo 13, Divergent, Hellboy 2, Jumanji: The Next Level, King Kong, London Has Fallen, etc)


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Is the bass filtering an Atmos phenomenon or has it hit DTS:X too?


When comparing kickass 4k on both formats, I found that they sounded almost the same, although I felt the height channels had more low end on the dtsx track. I have noticed that most 4k titles which include an immersive track, have neutered bass. I don’t understand why this is happening. Maybe to enhance the perceptible heights effects by lowering the most dominant/ distracting component?

Auro-3D is a slight outlier to this because I felt that Twister and No escape/ escape from absolom (and few other titles released with dual atmos and auro-3d tracks) had significant amount of low end and sounded a few db’s hot, compared to their atmos counterparts.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> When comparing kickass 4k on both formats, I found that they sounded almost the same, although I felt the height channels had more low end on the dtsx track. I have noticed that most 4k titles which include an immersive track, have neutered bass. I don’t understand why this is happening. Maybe to enhance the perceptible heights effects by lowering the most dominant/ distracting component?


They are concerned with bass becoming too strong on bass managed systems as the channel count increases, however, when I presented a couple of them with the issue, they denied it was related. Indeed, the issue they are concerned with is when bass is in all channels, not just the LFE track.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> When comparing kickass 4k on both formats, I found that they sounded almost the same, although I felt the height channels had more low end on the dtsx track. I have noticed that most 4k titles which include an immersive track, have neutered bass. I don’t understand why this is happening. Maybe to enhance the perceptible heights effects by lowering the most dominant/ distracting component?
> 
> Auro-3D is slight outlier to this because I felt that Twister and No escape/ escape from absolom (and few other titles released with dual atmos and auro-3d tracks) had significant amount of low end and sounded a few db’s hot, compared to their atmos counterparts.


Twister has 8dB more dynamic range (80% louder sound effects with dialog matched) as well as unfiltered bass. It's using the theatrical levels and that's why it blows away the Atmos version, IMO. Many people have adjusted their default levels to compensate for weak home mix bass levels and so it might sound a bit heavy there I suppose. I just set it to flat and it was awesome. 



Soulburner said:


> They are concerned with bass becoming too strong on bass managed systems as the channel count increases, however, when I presented a couple of them with the issue, they denied it was related. Indeed, the issue they are concerned with is when bass is in all channels, not just the LFE track.


Bass management should handle level issues, not mixing engineers, IMO. Levels are easy to compensate for, however. It's a purposely filtered low-end that's a PITA to deal with (BEQ) and that's become an unfortunate "thing" in the industry.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Bass management should handle level issues, not mixing engineers, IMO. Levels are easy to compensate for


Not if you don't know how many speakers the user has connected. More speakers = more bass to be redirected to the sub. There is not currently any technology built into AVRs to automatically handle this.

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but this WAS posted about on ASR.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Not if you don't know how many speakers the user has connected. More speakers = more bass to be redirected to the sub. There is not currently any technology built into AVRs to automatically handle this.
> 
> I'm not saying it's the only reason, but this WAS posted about on ASR.


The AVR should know how many speakers are connected and that's precisely why the mixing guy shouldn't be doing it as he has no idea what consumers are using as varies wildly.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> The AVR should know how many speakers are connected and that's precisely why the mixing guy shouldn't be doing it as he has no idea what consumers are using as varies wildly.


Wishful thinking but It would be great if they would include an undiluted theatrical mix, along with the toned down (soundbar centric) version. I don’t care if they even put a disclaimer that consumers would be responsible for any potential equipment (or hearing) damage. 😄


----------



## robert600

25 anniversary of Starship Troopers UHD ... atmos is quite good!


----------



## Magiclakez

robert600 said:


> 25 anniversary of Starship Troopers UHD ... atmos is quite good!


Yes the atmos on this title is top tier. Very dynamic mix. I have the older 2017 UHD disc as well with HDR10, however the 25th anniversary release features a new Dolby Vision encoding. The same atmos track has been ported over to the new release. A must have atmos track, imho.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> The AVR should know how many speakers are connected and that's precisely why the mixing guy shouldn't be doing it as he has no idea what consumers are using as varies wildly.


You are talking theory. There is no mechanism in the AVR to reduce redirected bass based on the number of speakers. That is probably one of the reasons they are doing it.


----------



## dschulz

The redirected bass issue reminds me of a problem that came up in the early years of the DTS theatrical system. Movie mixes at the time had no bass management at all: all 5 screen and surround channels were nominally full range, with the dedicated LFE channel handling Low Frequency Effects only. Savvier mixers understood that surround arrays were rarely capable of digging particularly deep and mixed accordingly, but on the other hand if you mixed some lower frequencies into the surrounds, but those were just simply not audible in either your monitors or the real world, then no harm, no foul.

The DTS system "hid" the LFE channel in the surrounds; on encoding the DTS track the LFE was added to the surround channels, and on playback a low-pass filter sent everything in the surrounds below 80Hz to the subwoofer array. Mixers were then dismayed to hear there was too much bass in their mix, because stuff that had been mixed into the surrounds below 80Hz (whether intentionally or un-intentionally) was now getting sent to the subs along with the LFE channel! Stages and mixing teams that did a lot of DTS deliveries simply kept this in mind and mixed accordingly, but a not-uncommon request was to ask DTS to filter off the surrounds at 80Hz prior to encoding!

None of this has anything to do with consumer DTS encodes, mind you, just an interesting anecdote from the early days of film sound's transition from analog to digital.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> You are talking theory. There is no mechanism in the AVR to reduce redirected bass based on the number of speakers. That is probably one of the reasons they are doing it.


How do you know that? Do you have proof of this? My AVR absolutely knows how many speakers I've connected (not counting outside arrays). If they're all crossed at 120Hz or below, how is this bass going to add up? Even if all the speakers connected were full range, they will add and subtract randomly, theoretically evening out the bass response, not just adding bass higher and higher. The entire premise is reductio ad absurdum.

Besides, bass management can vary quite a bit in some AVPs like Storm that let you send LFE to "Large" speakers if desired (no need to waste those $20k each Revel speakers in the front that are perfectly capable in the bass department, for example).

The point is I've seen zero evidence of such a thing in the most common upmixers. For example, my bass does _not_ increase when playing stereo music in DSU or Neural X despite all the extra speakers running and their supposed contributions to bass management, but according to what you're saying, it absolutely does.

Now Auromatic _does_ increase bass above certain settings (above ~8), but either it has an issue in its code or it's meant to do that (LFE/Sub or not, bass goes up).

Given how freaking weak bass is on movies these days, I'd say some of these so-called mixing engineers ought to get some actual subs in their mixing rooms.

The problem is some like John actually believe in Santa Claus....ahem...believe that cinema bass will "destroy their woofers" (meaning consumers). My god, how does someone like that get a mixing job?


----------



## Soulburner

So much typing and we aren't even talking about the same thing:









Why bass management makes my life tedious


I'd like to talk a bit about one problem (amongst many) I find when mixing films in surround sound: Bass summing. It's not a new problem, but as speaker counts have gone up, it's definitely been exacerbated. While the issue is kinda multidimensional, discrepancies in bass level at the point of...




www.audiosciencereview.com







> Because low frequency content is generally quite coherent across channels (unless the mixer has done something deliberately that isn't, or it's music recorded on a large stage with mics a great distance apart) using bass management therefore in general gives more bass push to a mix as a whole than allowing the main speakers to run full range.





> Assuming the consumer is using "speaker based" bass management, the more speakers they have, the bigger the LF push compared to the unmanaged version UNLESS there's only ever "bass" in one speaker at a time in the mix.





> Now, I'm not against bass management. It probably does more good than it does harm. It's just that it's implementation is so unpredictable right now all I can do is try my Home Entertainment mixes without bass management, and bass managed at a random frequency on an random number of speakers (probably 7.1.4 since that's what the clients usually wants it mixed on) and then make compromises to the mix such that neither experience sounds terrible. Generally this means if the bass managed replay gets too LF prominent anywhere, my options are (a) finding some way of de-correlating the offending signal, (b) re-distributing the LF content to a smaller number of speakers or (c) reducing the LF content to bring it back in to the realm of acceptability. The last option (c) being either as a whole sound element if it's an object in Atmos, or by dipping the LF content in some of the speakers if it's a channel-based surround recording.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Wishful thinking but It would be great if they would include an undiluted theatrical mix, along with the toned down (soundbar centric) version. I don’t care if they even put a disclaimer that consumers would be responsible for any potential equipment (or hearing) damage. 😄


This is why I was hoping that IMAX Enhanced would take off. The theatrical mix on the disc.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> So much typing and we aren't even talking about the same thing



So it seems like it's the inconsistentcy of the mixers that either put most bass in the LFE or most in the speakers or some combo of both that create the problem in the first place? 

If all soundtracks had this additive bass, you could adjust your system for it to some satisfactory setting. But then comes a soundtrack that only puts major bass in the LFE and you're suddenly bass weak. And isn't it because we have bass in the speakers PLUS LFE that makes it an issue in the first place?

Perhaps the real problem is all large scale bass should go to the LFE channel instead of these mixes that put it in both for some inexplicable reason.

Meanwhile, the entire point of having LFE at home makes little sense to begin with. It's a theater feature for well defined reasons. Yet we have everyone on here pushing for "small" speakers when the answer according to your complaint above is to use Large speakers and use subs only for LFE, which is where the really loud deep bass should go.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Meanwhile, the entire point of having LFE at home makes little sense to begin with. It's a theater feature for well defined reasons. Yet we have everyone on here pushing for "small" speakers when the answer according to your complaint above is to use Large speakers and use subs only for LFE, which is where the really loud deep bass should go.


Full-range speakers introduce more problems than they solve. That would only work if mixers avoided putting bass below ~50 Hz into more than one speaker at a time, and we know that's not how movies are made.



MagnumX said:


> Perhaps the real problem is all large scale bass should go to the LFE channel instead of these mixes that put it in both for some inexplicable reason.


Right, the LFE channel is the one variable that is always under control and doesn't change from home to home.

If movies were naturally filtered below 80 Hz in the speaker channels so you didn't even need a low pass on the speakers, we wouldn't have this problem. But! Then what would home users do without a sub? They'd be SOL. Maybe that's for the better. If you want the theater experience, you need to buy a sub instead of contributing to these compromised mixes.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> use Large speakers and use subs only for LFE


Thats what I do and it sounds great and I haven't even done any EQ'ing whatsoever


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Full-range speakers introduce more problems than they solve. That would only work if mixers avoided putting bass below ~50 Hz into more than one speaker at a time, and we know that's not how movies are made.
> 
> 
> Right, the LFE channel is the one variable that is always under control and doesn't change from home to home.
> 
> If movies were naturally filtered below 80 Hz in the speaker channels so you didn't even need a low pass on the speakers, we wouldn't have this problem. But! Then what would home users do without a sub? They'd be SOL. Maybe that's for the better. If you want the theater experience, you need to buy a sub instead of contributing to these compromised mixes.


Two things. One, if you don't have a sub, it puts the LFE channel into the main speakers so sure it would work.

Two, I've NEVER heard a movie yet that had "too much bass" in it. Blade Runner 2049 came closer than most, but other than the opening note, it was just right. So, despite the claims this is actually an issue, I just don't buy it.

Maybe what it really is that Amir doesn't like a couple of extra decibels in his measurements (because he's anal retentive as hell over measurements, but doesn't actually listen one damn bit) so it seems like it's actually a minor measurement problem that's not really an issue in practice to people that actually listen to sound with their actual ears.

Unless you can provide an example I missed because I'd love to hear a movie with too much bass in my LFE track. Sure, the original Jurassic Park DTS laserdisc had more bass than the Dolby DVD, but given I used to turn the sub up +8dB over reference level and it sounded awesome while the Dolby DVD sounded pathetic beyond words despite the 8dB boost (It sure as heck didn't sound like that in the theater and I saw it in DTS at the theater), I'd have to say it's not a good example either. The DTS:X version of Jurassic Park has the same average LFE levels within 2dB (I directly compared them here before), but sadly I think the bottom end was filtered on the X version.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Maybe what it really is that Amir doesn't like a couple of extra decibels in his measurements (because he's anal retentive as hell over measurements, but doesn't actually listen one damn bit) so it seems like it's actually a minor measurement problem that's not really an issue in practice to people that actually listen to sound with their actual ears.


Did you read the link? Amir was not involved in that discussion.

I actually think BR2049 overdid the bass. When my system is dialed in so that other movies sound perfect, BR2049 sounds a bit bloated.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Did you read the link? Amir was not involved in that discussion.
> 
> I actually think BR2049 overdid the bass. When my system is dialed in so that other movies sound perfect, BR2049 sounds a bit bloated.


No, I'm tired of his site and didn't feel like looking. Sorry. 

To be fair, how much above reference do you have your subs that BR2049 felt bloated? Because to dial in "most" movies, I need at least +4dB to sound satisfying.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> No, I'm tired of his site and didn't feel like looking. Sorry.
> 
> To be fair, how much above reference do you have your subs that BR2049 felt bloated? Because to dial in "most" movies, I need at least +4dB to sound satisfying.


I'm not sure. Post-Audyssey I'm only raising the levels by 1-3, so not much at all. They just don't seem to need it, but I get massive bass in movies. 120+ dB worth in that movie if I run it up to -10 MV. I do use Dynamic EQ with no offset.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I'm not sure. Post-Audyssey I'm only raising the levels by 1-3, so not much at all. They just don't seem to need it, but I get massive bass in movies. 120+ dB worth in that movie if I run it up to -10 MV. I do use Dynamic EQ with no offset.


No movie should be doing 120dB at -10dB or even at 0dB if set to reference levels. 115dB peaks are the limit at reference (full signal). Dynamic EQ increases bass below offset, but not at offset or zero offset where it should be reference max. 

Perhaps you're using a custom Audyssey curve?


----------



## Josh Z

Bass filtering is not just an immersive audio problem. Despite what some people will argue, it has nothing to do with the number of channels. It's an industry-wide trend that affects soundtracks of all types, including regular 5.1. It's becoming increasingly rare to find any movie or TV soundtrack with real dynamic range anymore.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> No movie should be doing 120dB at -10dB or even at 0dB if set to reference levels. 115dB peaks are the limit at reference (full signal). Dynamic EQ increases bass below offset, but not at offset or zero offset where it should be reference max.
> 
> Perhaps you're using a custom Audyssey curve?


No custom curve. I chalked it up to a hot mix and room gain. Also keep in mind that an RTA shows the entire system's output, not just the subs.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Did you read the link? Amir was not involved in that discussion.
> 
> I actually think BR2049 overdid the bass. When my system is dialed in so that other movies sound perfect, BR2049 sounds a bit bloated.


The Incredible Hulk might have overdone the bass, it sounds a bit bloated to me imo


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> Did you read the link? Amir was not involved in that discussion.
> 
> I actually think BR2049 overdid the bass. When my system is dialed in so that other movies sound perfect, BR2049 sounds a bit bloated.


BR2049 sounds ok to me. The title which makes me sweat (neighbors freaking out etc) is Tron Legacy. That title has some amazing low/ mid bass during the entire duration of the film. Another title which makes me slightly nervous is U-571, especially when the torpedoes are raining down from above.

There is a particular scene from War of the worlds (Tom Cruise- Bluray), where the alien pod emerges from beneath the surface. I absolutely refuse to demo that scene at night. 😀


----------



## Gates

halcyon_888 said:


> The Incredible Hulk might have overdone the bass, it sounds a bit bloated to me imo


Interstellar runs hot too.


----------



## halcyon_888

Magiclakez said:


> There is a particular scene from War of the worlds (Tom Cruise- Bluray), where the alien pod emerges from beneath the surface. I absolutely refuse to demo that scene at night. 😀


I like that scene, and the bridge collapse scene is one of my go-to demos, it always makes me giddy when I crank that


----------



## mrvideo

Magiclakez said:


> There is a particular scene from War of the worlds (Tom Cruise- Bluray), where the alien pod emerges from beneath the surface. I absolutely refuse to demo that scene at night.


Don't you live in a single dwelling house with an air gap?


----------



## Magiclakez

mrvideo said:


> Don't you live in a single dwelling house with an air gap?


I’m still slightly wary at night with movies capable of reaching borderline infrasonic levels.


----------



## MagnumX

TRON Legacy is the best soundtrack. Most of the really deep stuff is in the LFE track, though so you can largely neuter it for whatever reason by turning the LFE track down separately or using full range towers in the front and ditching the sub entirely.

I'm afraid if they do an Atmos track at some point, they will destroy the bass. All the more reason to have a quick way to swap LFE tracks.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> TRON Legacy is the best soundtrack. Most of the really deep stuff is in the LFE track, though so you can largely neuter it for whatever reason by turning the LFE track down separately or using full range towers in the front and ditching the sub entirely.
> 
> I'm afraid if they do an Atmos track at some point, they will destroy the bass. All the more reason to have a quick way to swap LFE tracks.


I have the 3D version of Tron as well. The lenticular on the slip is as amazing, as the 3D picture itself.


----------



## halcyon_888

"Full range" tower speakers are _not_ subwoofers and they are unfit for LFE duty. My dual 8" towers are only -1.5dB at 20Hz measured in-room, I'm sure people would classify them as "full range", yet they are completely unfit for LFE--I have a dual 15" subwoofer each with 32mm of excursion and powered by a 3,000 watt amp, _big_ difference (and there are people on this board with bigger setups than mine). Wanna guess what the excursion is on my 8" towers? It's not alot. I cross them over at 60hz. If people want to put subwoofers on every channel then go for it, but 99% of tower speakers are not fit for low frequency reproduction at decent SPL levels even if they can measure flat or near flat to 20Hz in room. I don't get this idea floating around that you can task tower speakers with LFE duties, sure if someone wants to do that then it's their system so go for it, but spreading it in a forum like it's a viable option is flawed. Subwoofers are fit for the LFE channel and low frequencies, not tower speakers. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Polyrythm1k

halcyon_888 said:


> "Full range" tower speakers are _not_ subwoofers and they are unfit for LFE duty. My dual 8" towers are only -1.5dB at 20Hz measured in-room, I'm sure people would classify them as "full range", yet they are completely unfit for LFE--I have a dual 15" subwoofer each with 32mm of excursion and powered by a 3,000 watt amp, _big_ difference (and there are people on this board with bigger setups than mine). Wanna guess what the excursion is on my 8" towers? It's not alot. I cross them over at 60hz. If people want to put subwoofers on every channel then go for it, but 99% of tower speakers are not fit for low frequency reproduction at decent SPL levels even if they can measure flat or near flat to 20Hz in room. I don't get this idea floating around that you can task tower speakers with LFE duties, sure if someone wants to do that then it's their system so go for it, but spreading it in a forum like it's a viable option is flawed. Subwoofers are fit for the LFE channel and low frequencies, not tower speakers.


Agreed 100%.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Gates said:


> Interstellar runs hot too.


out of all those I still think that scene in Logan (100 min in-chapter 20) where Charles Xavier is having a mental beam moment and it's a crazy increasing bass synth that gets stronger and stronger.
Bigger than those other examples IMO (have all those also)

Would recommend some people AB that scene


----------



## MagnumX

If you think about it, the LFE is meant for subwoofers at a real cinema. The main channels are meant to be played by full range speakers, not bass managed. But I'm glad we have the bass heads here to tell us that just isn't acceptable! 

I think it's a good thing some people never had to go to a typical movie theater to watch a movie as I think they'd be bitterly disappointed in what Hollywood considers bass and what they consider bass. 

I'm somewhat reminded of the youths that used to drive what we called a "trunk flapper, " which is what we used to call the _considerate fellas_ who would go down a street a mile away and still wake up the entire neighborhood playing rap at over 120dB back in the 1990s and early 2000s in their cars with the trunk flapping all over the place. It's pretty rare these days, possibly because karma called and they're all mostly deaf now.


----------



## mrvideo

I have the Paradigm PW-2200 (12" - 400W) sub-woofer and for the size of my room (relatively small), it can rattle the place. There is no way the towers can provide the sound that the sub-woofer does.


----------



## markus767

MagnumX said:


> If you think about it, the LFE is meant for subwoofers at a real cinema. The main channels are meant to be played by full range speakers, not bass managed. But I'm glad we have the bass heads here to tell us that just isn't acceptable!
> 
> I think it's a good thing some people never had to go to a typical movie theater to watch a movie as I think they'd be bitterly disappointed in what Hollywood considers bass and what they consider bass.
> 
> I'm somewhat reminded of the youths that used to drive what we called a "trunk flapper, " which is what we used to call the _considerate fellas_ who would go down a street a mile away and still wake up the entire neighborhood playing rap at over 120dB back in the 1990s and early 2000s in their cars with the trunk flapping all over the place. It's pretty rare these days, possibly because karma called and they're all mostly deaf now.


Guess for enthusiasts it's not about "acceptable" performance but about "better" and/or "predictable" performance. At home you don't have to compromise nor make the same mistakes that have been made in thousands of commercial cinemas (and dubbing stages) around the world. You probably have seen the data gathered in "TC-25CSS B-Chain Frequency and Temporal Response Analysis of Theatres and Dubbing Stages"?

Furthermore desirable bass management implementations for "full range with no sub" just don't exist (yet). Some of it is discussed at Bass Management


----------



## petetherock

Just watched Dr Strange II... a confused plot, but the action was good and the Atmos was quite decent..


----------



## GMil

Magiclakez said:


> I’m still slightly wary at night with movies capable of reaching borderline infrasonic levels.


Why? Not like they will able to locate the source. Just blame it on the guy across the street


----------



## squared80

Chirosamsung said:


> I have a strong feeling (and from experience over the last 3-5 years) this Dolby atmos thread is just constant complaining about what Dolby atmos releases SHOULD BE and referencing to the half dozen or dozen (over a half decade) blu ray mixes that were actually done well. Sadly, I see this like 3D...less and less good mixes over time instead of more good mixes.
> 
> we should just put a disclaimer sticky on the first post listing the 5-10 good mixes and then tampering new users expectations that most all other atmos mixes are woefully inadequate and underwhelming.
> 
> then just recommend using an up mixer and BEQ and call it a day


That's why I think @Ralph Potts needs to sticky a thread/link that shares all of his reviews with audio/video scores in *a sortable table* for us. He's done all the work - it would just be nice to see it consolidated.


----------



## Magiclakez

I have a new favorite atmos release for the year; and it is the “three thousand years of longing.” Absolutely dynamic and engaging atmos track. Some really innovative use of the format along with a generous amount of LFE, which shakes the foundations.

This track spanks the Maverick release into Oblivion. no (Tom Cruise) pun intended. I would place this alongside Ambulance, Moonfall and Edge of Tomorrow. IMHO this is a touch better.


----------



## MagnumX

squared80 said:


> That's why I think @Ralph Potts needs to sticky a thread/link that shares all of his reviews with audio/video scores in *a sortable table* for us. He's done all the work - it would just be nice to see it consolidated.


I don't think I would trust those reviews in terms of the _Atmos_ scoring, though and that's what I'd be interested in having a rated list of, Atmos soundtracks. He clearly has a very different idea of what constitutes a good Atmos mix compared to some of us. I don't mean _overall_ audio sound, just Atmos scoring. For instance, _Top Gun: Maverick_ got 100/100 for a barely used 2-channel overhead track. If that's Atmos "perfection" (100/100) then what does something like "_Mother_" score that has sounds tracking perfectly in 3D space in every direction? A 100 has no room for improvement. Are they all 100s if one likes the movie? 

I've seen that kind of rating style before in Stereophile magazine, for example (or any HiFi magazine really) where advertising dollars count and so everyone gets an award. Everyone gets a participation trophy unless they don't advertise in their magazine (e.g. They were rather harsh on Bob Carver, but his whole schtick was proving that $20k amps sound no different from $800 amps as long as they have clean power. That's probably true, but it's bad for advertising revenue). How can _every_ movie be between 85 and 100? No one ever made a bad soundtrack or poorly mixed an Atmos soundtrack? What about all the threads indicating disappointment in Atmos? Did all their setups sucks or are some Atmos movies actually disappointing? 

I can give several examples of Atmos soundtracks I'd give failing grades to or at least not much above that. _Phantasm_ is one. I love the movie, but that Atmos special edition SUCKED. Thunder should be overhead, not on the ground. The only thing I noticed overhead on that was some music cues. _Murder On The Orient Express_. Crazy good visuals (including Daisy Ridley). Terrible adaption of the story (1970s version was far better) and I didn't notice nary a thing overhead in that entire movie...and barely anything in surround in general! 

Most of the soundtracks by Disney are average at best (R2D2 actually almost disappears as he's thrown through the air in the Atmos version of The Empire Strikes Back. It's like they did an object version and then removed the objects without converting them to any other layer. If I take the 6.1 version and use Neural X, R2D2 flies from the left front speaker overhead to just behind my right shoulder across the ceiling and never changes in volume significantly, let alone almost fade out and then fade back in). 

Despite also using only 2-channel overheads, _Ready Player One_ does a lot more with the overheads throughout and meshes in a rather clever way with the ear level sound field so it's certainly effective, even if not used properly. Many gave it top marks, but I couldn't give it 100 because 8 speakers out of 10 sit silent overhead. Now admittedly, I don't like the movie _Mother_, but you can't deny its Atmos is almost unbelievable compared to...most of the Atmos movies out there. It's quite possibly #1 for sheer immersion, IMO. It's not just panned dialog. It's spiral-panned (as she climbs the spiral staircase all the sounds around here go in full circles around the room and slowly change height). Too bad the movie wasn't better....

The point is soundtracks are subjective so you have to agree with the reviews or they won't be much help finding other of similar quality. I wouldn't give _Mad Max Fury Road_ a 100 and clearly some on here would the way they rave about it. Maybe for surround use in general, but not for Atmos above 7.1. There's just too little overhead use and it blends so much with the ear level engine noise, it's hard to tell one from another. That's good for general immersion, but not what I'd show off to demonstrate height layers, but it's still miles better than Toy Story 4....


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> I have a new favorite atmos release for the year; and it is the “three thousand years of longing.” Absolutely dynamic and engaging atmos track. Some really innovative use of the format along with a generous amount of LFE, which shakes the foundations.
> 
> This track spanks the Maverick release into Oblivion. no (Tom Cruise) pun intended. I would place this alongside ambulance and Edge of Tomorrow. IMHO this a touch better.


How's the movie itself, though? I'm reading some mixed reviews, although a movie with a Djinn in it (that's not a horror story) does have some appeal (used to play a lot of D&D when I was a kid). I'm wondering if I should wait until the price drops a bit. It's still at $25 for the disc as its new.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> How's the movie itself, though? I'm reading some mixed reviews, although a movie with a Djinn in it (that's not a horror story) does have some appeal (used to play a lot of D&D when I was a kid). I'm wondering if I should wait until the price drops a bit. It's still at $25 for the disc as its new.


I quite liked the movie. It’s a fantasy themed storytelling by a rather compassionate Djinn; comes across as slightly absurd initially, but it really grips you as it evolves. Imho, it’s one of the best releases this year. I think the mixed reviews come from folks who only use Maverick or Godzilla as a yardstick. 🤣


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I don't think I would trust those reviews in terms of the _Atmos_ scoring, though and that's what I'd be interested in having a rated list of, Atmos soundtracks. He clearly has a very different idea of what constitutes a good Atmos mix compared to some of us. I don't mean _overall_ audio sound, just Atmos scoring. For instance, _Top Gun: Maverick_ got 100/100 for a barely used 2-channel overhead track. If that's Atmos "perfection" (100/100) then what does something like "_Mother_" score that has sounds tracking perfectly in 3D space in every direction? A 100 has no room for improvement. Are they all 100s if one likes the movie?
> 
> I've seen that kind of rating style before in Stereophile magazine, for example (or any HiFi magazine really) where advertising dollars count and so everyone gets an award. Everyone gets a participation trophy unless they don't advertise in their magazine (e.g. They were rather harsh on Bob Carver, but his whole schtick was proving that $20k amps sound no different from $800 amps as long as they have clean power. That's probably true, but it's bad for advertising revenue). How can _every_ movie be between 85 and 100? No one ever made a bad soundtrack or poorly mixed an Atmos soundtrack? What about all the threads indicating disappointment in Atmos? Did all their setups sucks or are some Atmos movies actually disappointing?
> 
> I can give several examples of Atmos soundtracks I'd give failing grades to or at least not much above that. _Phantasm_ is one. I love the movie, but that Atmos special edition SUCKED. Thunder should be overhead, not on the ground. The only thing I noticed overhead on that was some music cues. _Murder On The Orient Express_. Crazy good visuals (including Daisy Ridley). Terrible adaption of the story (1970s version was far better) and I didn't notice nary a thing overhead in that entire movie...and barely anything in surround in general!
> 
> Most of the soundtracks by Disney are average at best (R2D2 actually almost disappears as he's thrown through the air in the Atmos version of The Empire Strikes Back. It's like they did an object version and then removed the objects without converting them to any other layer. If I take the 6.1 version and use Neural X, R2D2 flies from the left front speaker overhead to just behind my right shoulder across the ceiling and never changes in volume significantly, let alone almost fade out and then fade back in).
> 
> Despite also using only 2-channel overheads, _Ready Player One_ does a lot more with the overheads throughout and meshes in a rather clever way with the ear level sound field so it's certainly effective, even if not used properly. Many gave it top marks, but I couldn't give it 100 because 8 speakers out of 10 sit silent overhead. Now admittedly, I don't like the movie _Mother_, but you can't deny its Atmos is almost unbelievable compared to...most of the Atmos movies out there. It's quite possibly #1 for sheer immersion, IMO. It's not just panned dialog. It's spiral-panned (as she climbs the spiral staircase all the sounds around here go in full circles around the room and slowly change height). Too bad the movie wasn't better....
> 
> The point is soundtracks are subjective so you have to agree with the reviews or they won't be much help finding other of similar quality. I wouldn't give _Mad Max Fury Road_ a 100 and clearly some on here would the way they rave about it. Maybe for surround use in general, but not for Atmos above 7.1. There's just too little overhead use and it blends so much with the ear level engine noise, it's hard to tell one from another. That's good for general immersion, but not what I'd show off to demonstrate height layers, but it's still miles better than Toy Story 4....


I Definetly agree that "Mother" is the best done atmos movie for demoing the atmos use


----------



## petetherock

The Bullet Train is a non stop action comedy movie.... whilst it's Atmos isn't it's strong point, the plot and the fun it doles out certainly is..








Bullet Train Movie Review


Brad Pitt once acted in a Guy Ritchie movie which had a multi-threaded plot, that all tied up in a climax, and this action comedy effort fro...




peteswrite.blogspot.com


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

petetherock said:


> The Bullet Train is a non stop action comedy movie.... whilst it's Atmos isn't it's strong point, the plot and the fun it doles out certainly is..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullet Train Movie Review
> 
> 
> Brad Pitt once acted in a Guy Ritchie movie which had a multi-threaded plot, that all tied up in a climax, and this action comedy effort fro...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peteswrite.blogspot.com


Yeah I rented this the other day. The version I rented didnt have Atmos so I cant comment on the audio, the movie was fun as hell. I probably will get this on disc to add to my collection.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Saw this in the Marantz 2022-2023 thread










Note the part in red.

I looks like after an update in March, it will allow you to use the Top-Middle speakers to create a phantom Voice of God channel.

This is pushing me toward waiting for the X6800 to release or perhaps just biting the bullet and going for the A1H.


----------



## MagnumX

Turbine has just announced a new 6-disc Ultimate Edition of *THE FRIGHTENERS* with both the Director's Cut and Theatrical Versions in 4K and 1080p including a new Dolby Atmos soundtrack. They're taking pre-orders now. I just pre-ordered a copy of the new artwork cover version.









The Frighteners | Ultimate Editions | Englisch Newsletter - Turbine


THE FRIGHTENERS The time has come! On December 2nd 2022 we’ll release the 4k Ultra HD world premiere 6-disc Ultimate Edition of THE FRIGHTENERS by master director Peter Jackson with Michael J. Fox. Below you will find the most important info. Restoration THE FRIGHTENERS has been exclusively...




turbine.de


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Saw this in the Marantz 2022-2023 thread
> 
> View attachment 3360922
> 
> 
> Note the part in red.
> 
> I looks like after an update in March, it will allow you to use the Top-Middle speakers to create a phantom Voice of God channel.
> 
> This is pushing me toward waiting for the X6800 to release or perhaps just biting the bullrt and going for the A1H.


It seems they're removing some the barriers that people complain about Auro-3D not being compatible with Atmos layouts. That one supports "Tops" directly for Auro-3D as well as using Top Middle for the VOG (like the Monoprice HTP-1 does). It seems odd it needs TM to use Tops overheads, though. They're already pretty close together. Maybe they left that one out of the table by mistake?

What's a bit confusing is the apparent use of SB (Surround Back?) for TS/CH and/or TM. Is that for an 11-channel AVR??? It doesn't make sense otherwise why they'd compromise the rear surround speakers. Auro 13.1 uses 7.1.6. There you'd have to give up any option of CH to use TM, for example. On the A1H and Cinema 10, it should be able to do 7.4.7 (FH/RH/TM/CH) or even potentially 7.4.8 (FH/RH/TM/TS/CH) (this would allow 3 overhead mono speakers used for the VOG).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> It seems they're removing some the barriers that people complain about Auro-3D not being compatible with Atmos layouts. That one supports "Tops" directly for Auro-3D as well as using Top Middle for the VOG (like the Monoprice HTP-1 does). It seems odd it needs TM to use Tops overheads, though. They're already pretty close together. Maybe they left that one out of the table by mistake?
> 
> What's a bit confusing is the apparent use of SB (Surround Back?) for TS/CH and/or TM. Is that for an 11-channel AVR??? It doesn't make sense otherwise why they'd compromise the rear surround speakers. Auro 13.1 uses 7.1.6. There you'd have to give up any option of CH to use TM, for example. On the A1H and Cinema 10, it should be able to do 7.4.7 (FH/RH/TM/CH) or even potentially 7.4.8 (FH/RH/TM/TS/CH) (this would allow 3 overhead mono speakers used for the VOG).


Yes, this is in regards to an 11.1 channel model such as the Denon X3800 and X4800. They are allowing for 5.1.6 configurations now. You no longer have to opt for a 13 channel or higher model to process 6 height channels.


----------



## robert600

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes, this is in regards to an 11.1 channel model such as the Denon X3800 and X4800. They are allowing for 5.1.6 configurations now. You no longer have to opt for a 13 channel or higher model to process 6 height channels.


I wonder if they would make this update available to their 9.1s that have 11.1 processing (X4700 etc)? Presumably the preouts for SB would go to an external amp and it would drive the TMs.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

robert600 said:


> I wonder if they would make this update available to their 9.1s that have 11.1 processing (X4700 etc)? Presumably the preouts for SB would go to an external amp and it would drive the TMs.


As far as I know its just the 2022 models and going forward. Havent heard anything about it being given to the older models.


----------



## MagnumX

robert600 said:


> I wonder if they would make this update available to their 9.1s that have 11.1 processing (X4700 etc)? Presumably the preouts for SB would go to an external amp and it would drive the TMs.


Not a chance. D&M philosophy has always been software updates are for bugs only unless previously promised. If you want new features, start shelling out for a new AVR, no matter how small the improvements. They could charge for firmware feature updates, but that apparently enrages people more than simply withholding features. 

The only companies that give "free" new features are ones like Trinnov that build their entire reputation on things like that. But at $17k for the Altitude-16 and over $30k for the Altitude-32, I'd say there's nothing "free" about any of it. You paid for 50 years of updates up front, but will be lucky to get 12-15 in reality and whoa to those buying now as you're likely to get far less than those that came before you as sooner or later even the Altitude processors will need newer hardware and I don't mean just an HDMI board.


----------



## sdrucker

MagnumX said:


> Not a chance. D&M philosophy has always been software updates are for bugs only unless previously promised. If you want new features, start shelling out for a new AVR, no matter how small the improvements. They could charge for firmware feature updates, but that apparently enrages people more than simply withholding features.
> 
> The only companies that give "free" new features are ones like Trinnov that build their entire reputation on things like that. But at $17k for the Altitude-16 and over $30k for the Altitude-32, I'd say there's nothing "free" about any of it. You paid for 50 years of updates up front, but will be lucky to get 12-15 in reality and whoa to those buying now as you're likely to get far less than those that came before you as sooner or later even the Altitude processors will need newer hardware and I don't mean just an HDMI board.


Actually, Trinnov announced a plan over a year ago for a hardware "refresh" program for the Altitude 32. If I remember correctly, you'd send your pre/pro into a service center (there's one in Connecticut stateside), and you'd get the unit updated to "new" condition with the current components, as well as an overall checkup. Not sure if that actually got launched, but that was the idea. Naturally, it was for a fee, but that depended on how current your hardware was when you bought the Altitude.

Agreed that the Altitude was a best buy for those of us at the beginning who bought ours before DTS:X came out, but there's other software updates we get for free, such as their multi-way bass management flexibility, support for unlimited PEQ filters, improvements to the acoustic correction, and things like Roon support. Not to mention the new software option to have four more channels available for free, or not so free since you'd need external DAC hardware.

Trinnov’s New Altitude32 Warranty Extension Includes a Factory Tune-up - HomeTheaterReview


----------



## Josh Z

MagnumX said:


> Not a chance. D&M philosophy has always been software updates are for bugs only unless previously promised. If you want new features, start shelling out for a new AVR, no matter how small the improvements. They could charge for firmware feature updates, but that apparently enrages people more than simply withholding features.


D&M issued firmware to give the X8500 DTS:X Pro when that became available. It also got an update for "IMAX Enhanced" decoding.


----------



## MagnumX

Josh Z said:


> D&M issued firmware to give the X8500 DTS:X Pro when that became available. It also got an update for "IMAX Enhanced" decoding.


It's the ONLY model that got an update that was over a year old and it was barely older and the flagship of the line that isn't being replaced until it's over 5 years old.

My point is that unlike Trinnov, you cannot count on or expect feature or driver updates in firmware from D&M.

They still charge for the Auro-3D addition long after they made it free on everything else. They never updated DSU for older models (might be a good thing given the leakage issues), never updated older models Auro to handle 7+4 mode, making 13.1 titles ignore rear channels at the cost of TS, even when it's not being used. 

My 7012 shows a "Neural X" option for DTS:X, but it does literally nothing. For example, putiing the AVR into 5.1.5 mode so it has TS/VOG instead of rear surrounds does not engage the VOG at all for X regardless of the Neural X setting, unlike newer models that use it with that option. 

No updates for that, just constant unending generic updates that if you bother to look them up are usually HEOS fixes for some app that uses it or similar (It says bug or stability improvements on the screen, but given I've never had a single stability issue, it seems unlikely. I don't use HEOS either (have had Airplay via iTunes server since 2008 that can sync any sound and TVs have AppleTV 4K with Airplay 2) so it's an annoyance (lot of updates lately that have zero effect on anything noticeable for non-HEOS use.

D&M have new owners so maybe things will change in that regard. You ought to get _something_ for those higher retail prices....


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Well the new owners are having the Denon and Marantz flagships compete with other brands like Arcam and Anthem with Dirac and 15.1 channel processing now. And they still lead in features. So I'm giving those new guys the benefit of the doubt for now.


----------



## chucklee

petetherock said:


> Just watched Dr Strange II... a confused plot, but the action was good and the Atmos was quite decent..


How was the plot “confused”? (I’m assuming you meant confusing)… have you not seen the material from the MCU that sets everything up - including Spider-Man: No Way Home, the Disney+ series WandaVision, and possibly even the Dr. Strange ep of the animated “What If?”
The MCU is at a point where, even if you’ve casually viewed all of the films, immersion in and enthusiasm for the stories is requisite for catching all of the references, and sometimes even major plot threads. I tend not to notice or be confused, because I fall squarely in the middle of the fanbase to whom they cater.
For example, the casting of John Krasinski as Mr. Fantastic was significant, but only if you’re in, or aware of, the hardcore fans who have been pushing for him in that role ever since the characters were acquired from 20th Century Fox.


----------



## dj7675

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well the new owners are having the Denon and Marantz flagships compete with other brands like Arcam and Anthem with Dirac and 15.1 channel processing now. And they still lead in features. So I'm giving those new guys the benefit of the doubt for now.


Until they deliver on Dirac and DLBC they aren't a thing...


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dj7675 said:


> Until they deliver on Dirac and DLBC they aren't a thing...


As far as I'm concerned, since they are the only ones less than $10,000 that have Atmos and DTSX-Pro and Auro3D 13.1, they are the only ones worth considering.


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> As far as I'm concerned, since they are the only ones less than $10,000 that have Atmos and DTSX-Pro and Auro3D 13.1, they are the only ones worth considering.


Doesn’t the denon 6700 do all that? You just need an external 2ch amp but it will process 13 channels for all those codecs I believe. Don’t really care about auro


----------



## dj7675

NuSoardGraphite said:


> As far as I'm concerned, since they are the only ones less than $10,000 that have Atmos and DTSX-Pro and Auro3D 13.1, they are the only ones worth considering.


Also a valid point of view. Each person has their "must haves". And all of the above you mentioned are a must have for me too in addition to Dirac and DLBC. My needed number of channels is 20 which lead me to StormAudio. If/When Denon/Marants get Dirac and DLBC it will be a great option for those wanting/needing dirac. I think the Marantz AV10 is 19 channels.


----------



## am2model3

last night i compared both apps running on PS5: Vudu 4K HDR atmos vs Disney+ 4K HDR atmos in this movie: Capt. America 3: Civil War. the opening action scene. 
Vudu just annihilated Disney plus. Vudu had faster stream cache; disney plus took 20 seconds or more to go from 480,720,1080, then finally 4k.  Vudu was 4k within <5sec. The Atmos on Vudu was higher quality; the Dplus was weak and not good. Vudu FTW. Vudu I could hear subtle sounds in the audio besides overall better quality; hands down it made Disney look terrible. 
Of course the 4K UHD disc is best for video & audio quality.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> Doesn’t the denon 6700 do all that? You just need an external 2ch amp but it will process 13 channels for all those codecs I believe. Don’t really care about auro


Yes. Thats what I'm planning to get unless they announce a 6800 before I pull the trigger (which is still a ways off)

The X6700, X8500, A110, A1H. Marantz 8805, SR-8015 and the AV-10 can all do what I detailed above. Also the McIntosh MX-123 but its basically a fancy 8805.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Shane Lee has dropped his 4k UHD review of Black Adam. The 4k disc isnt out yet but he watched it via Kalaidescape. Should be very similar to the UHD disc.

Sounds like the Atmos mix on this one is demo worthy.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Shane Lee has dropped his 4k UHD review of Black Adam. The 4k disc isnt out yet but he watched it via Kalaidescape. Should be very similar to the UHD disc.
> 
> Sounds like the Atmos mix on this one is demo worthy.


Yes, and the plot is not attention worthy though


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Yes, and the plot is not attention worthy though


Yeah its just dumb fun with a barely there plot. I dont mind movies like that. As long as the plot isnt so stupid it beggars belief.


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched Smile on Paramount+ and must say that this features an excellent sound design. The atmos (and LFE) was quite amazing, especially for a 4k/DoVi stream. I can’t wait for the 4k Blu-ray to drop.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

dj7675 said:


> Also a valid point of view. Each person has their "must haves". And all of the above you mentioned are a must have for me too in addition to Dirac and DLBC. My needed number of channels is 20 which lead me to StormAudio. If/When Denon/Marants get Dirac and DLBC it will be a great option for those wanting/needing dirac. I think the Marantz AV10 is 19 channels.


The Trinnov Altitude 16 also has 20 channels enabled now, you just need 4 external DACs added to use the extra channels.

It won't give you Dirac but you'll get the Trinnov Optimizer instead which I would say is an upgrade.


----------



## sdrucker

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Shane Lee has dropped his 4k UHD review of Black Adam. The 4k disc isnt out yet but he watched it via Kalaidescape. Should be very similar to the UHD disc.
> 
> Sounds like the Atmos mix on this one is demo worthy.


We watched it last night. The plot is an incoherent hot mess that's an excuse for the action scenes, although it does have Sarah Shahi (Sex/Life) as a co-star in a smart mom (archaeologist/resistance fighter) role. The Rock is the Rock; meaning that he sounds like a slightly more articulate version of Groot until he lightens up a bit as the movie gets to the conclusion.

I agree about the Atmos mix: from my monitoring on the Trinnov Dolby Atmos Viewer, it seems that the floor speakers are pretty active (albeit mostly fixed objects) in the entire movie, which in my case means the front wides and front side surrounds (SS1) getting lit up from fixed objects assigned to them, but also some dynamic objects occasionally, to create some nice ambience. Less so for the left/right centers, but they do get pulled in occasionally at times with some dynamic object use. And plenty of sound coming from the heights, particularly the top front and middles in my setup.

Not sure which action scene I'd pick - probably an earlier one where Teth-Adam comes out of his cave, and is fending off helicopters and a tank and blowing up stuff for several minutes.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdrucker said:


> We watched it last night. The plot is an incoherent hot mess that's an excuse for the action scenes, although it does have Sarah Shahi (Sex/Life) as a co-star in a smart mom (archaeologist/resistance fighter) role. The Rock is the Rock; meaning that he sounds like a slightly more articulate version of Groot until he lightens up a bit as the movie gets to the conclusion.


That actress may have a bigger part to play in the DC universe movies as her character is a lesser known character from our youth assuming you are GenX or a younger Boomer.



> I agree about the Atmos mix: from my monitoring on the Trinnov Dolby Atmos Viewer, it seems that the floor speakers are pretty active (albeit mostly fixed objects) in the entire movie, which in my case means the front wides and front side surrounds (SS1) getting lit up from fixed objects assigned to them, but also some dynamic objects occasionally, to create some nice ambience. Less so for the left/right centers, but they do get pulled in occasionally at times with some dynamic object use. And plenty of sound coming from the heights, particularly the top front and middles in my setup.
> 
> Not sure which action scene I'd pick - probably an earlier one where Teth-Adam comes out of his cave, and is fending off helicopters and a tank and blowing up stuff for several minutes.


Thats great to hear that its so active. I am planning 6 height channels for my dedicated theater and I am a big fan of superhero movies. I want to see more of them make full use of these bigger immersive theaters.


----------



## petetherock

chucklee said:


> How was the plot “confused”? (I’m assuming you meant confusing)… have you not seen the material from the MCU that sets everything up - including Spider-Man: No Way Home, the Disney+ series WandaVision, and possibly even the Dr. Strange ep of the animated “What If?”
> The MCU is at a point where, even if you’ve casually viewed all of the films, immersion in and enthusiasm for the stories is requisite for catching all of the references, and sometimes even major plot threads. I tend not to notice or be confused, because I fall squarely in the middle of the fanbase to whom they cater.
> For example, the casting of John Krasinski as Mr. Fantastic was significant, but only if you’re in, or aware of, the hardcore fans who have been pushing for him in that role ever since the characters were acquired from 20th Century Fox.


I've watched all the movies cumulating in this one, and whilst the End Game also have many actors in play with a frenetic pace and energy, and a certain expectation that you've been following the series, this one introduced many elements just to make the plot move and it felt more disjointed despite having less actors in play.
But that is my personal opinion and you don't have to agree with me.
For more casual viewers, the pacing and even the references was not helping. Even for someone who follows the comics and the whole franchise thus far, it did not have the same magic seen in the Spiderman or Avengers series of movies.
As for who plays Mr Fantastic, that side of the movie was rather forgettable, and I'm a Silver Surfer fan. I hope they do a better job in future, but the past outings were hardly inspiring.. (I own all of them, but I've not rewatched them)

He was good in the Amazon series as the new Ryan or in 13 hours.


----------



## petetherock

For a better sequel with references to the previous movie, Top Gun Maverick faired better for me. 
Yes, fans will love the various Easter Eggs, but you can come and watch it and still enjoy it without knowing any past history.
Fabulous story, great Atmos and picture quality.


----------



## MagnumX

I can't help but root for the demise of super hero movies. I'm totally worn out trying to keep UP (Marvel and DC fatigue) and Tarantino is right. We've displaced true action movie stars with super heroes where you go to see the comic book movie rather than the movie star. 

When Arnold had a new movie out in the 80s or 90s you went to see it because it was Arnold, not necessarily because you thought a "Kindergarten Cop" was a particularly great idea and he rarely disappointed.

True giants like Willis, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bogart, Cagney, Newman, Reynolds, etc are dinosaurs now and going extinct and that's a shame because dinosaurs are cool.

If Hollywood went back to making great movies instead of the next mega Marvel or Star Wars flick, we'd all be better off in the long run, IMO.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I can't help but root for the demise of super hero movies. I'm totally worn out trying to keep UP (Marvel and DC fatigue) and Tarantino is right. We've displaced true action movie stars with super heroes where you go to see the comic book movie rather than the movie star.
> 
> When Arnold had a new movie out in the 80s or 90s you went to see it because it was Arnold, not necessarily because you thought a "Kindergarten Cop" was a particularly great idea and he rarely disappointed.
> 
> True giants like Willis, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bogart, Cagney, Newman, Reynolds, etc are dinosaurs now and going extinct and that's a shame because dinosaurs are cool.
> 
> If Hollywood went back to making great movies instead of the next mega Marvel or Star Wars flick, we'd all be better off in the long run, IMO.


Sorry buddy-couldn't disagree with you more.

I think superhero movies are a victim of their own success and have much more in the tank and are mostly still what people want right now. Unfortunatly because they were (marvel not DC) SO SO popular over a 12 year stretch, they made more of them and it's a bit too saturated at the moment.

also, don't confuse marvel with DC. Marvel did something TRULY EPIC and never done before in cinimatic history, in that they made a story arc over 22 films over 11 years that were great on their own but built to an epic conclusion

let me repeat that-it's never been done before-and probably won't ever again by another franchise

DC has always produced stinkers.

It is true, Marvel has too many movies and shows combined now over the last 2.5 years have had more fails than hits. Their bar is out of this world ; super high standards-again, victim of their own success

despite your arm chair quarterback analysis, the report of marvels demise is greatly exaggerated. There will be another hay day for marvel very soon (can you say absolute gangbusters when xmen and fantastic 4 reboot and enter the MCU as well as secret wars).

sorry, but we will seeing more-much more. I just hope it's quality AND quantity-like it was from 2008-2019


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I can't help but root for the demise of super hero movies. I'm totally worn out trying to keep UP (Marvel and DC fatigue) and Tarantino is right. We've displaced true action movie stars with super heroes where you go to see the comic book movie rather than the movie star.
> 
> When Arnold had a new movie out in the 80s or 90s you went to see it because it was Arnold, not necessarily because you thought a "Kindergarten Cop" was a particularly great idea and he rarely disappointed.
> 
> True giants like Willis, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bogart, Cagney, Newman, Reynolds, etc are dinosaurs now and going extinct and that's a shame because dinosaurs are cool.
> 
> If Hollywood went back to making great movies instead of the next mega Marvel or Star Wars flick, we'd all be better off in the long run, IMO.


I personally do not lament the demise of the movie star because I never gave two ****s about them to begin with. For me it was never about Arnold, or Stallone or Lundgren or Van Damme. It was about the Terminator or Conan or Rocky or the Demolition Man or the Universal Soldiers. I dont care who is playing them, as long as it was well written and well directed with great action.

Now of course, certain actors excelled in certain roles to the point its hard to imagine anyone else playing that part. Its hard to imagine anyone else besides Bruce Willis playing John McClain. Or anyone other than. Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones. But I never watched the movies for the actors. I always watched them for the story and the spectacle.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Sorry buddy-couldn't disagree with you more.


C'est la vie.



> I think superhero movies are a victim of their own success and have much more in the tank and are mostly still what people want right now. Unfortunatly because they were (marvel not DC) SO SO popular over a 12 year stretch, they made more of them and it's a bit too saturated at the moment.


Yeah, that money factor in the billion range has them cranking them out as fast as they can. I'm not saying those movies stink. I'm saying other movies are suffering for it. I wanted a TRON 3 and they were going to make it and then they bought Star Wars and decided to spend their money there instead.... How many Casablancas or Maltese Falcon movies do we get today? How many take chances movies like Goonies or Gremlins or even Uncle Buck do we get? Almost ZERO. Hollywood makes sequels, reboots, and Marvel movies. Oh joy!  

Top Gun Maverick is one of the few "old school" style movies with a bona fide movie star we've seen in a very long time and small wonder it burned through the box office, beating Titanic. How many Titanic movies are we likely to see in the future? Avatar 2-4? Not Cameron's finest work. He could have made True Lies 2 twenty years ago and it would likely be 100 times better than blue people screwing in the ocean (The Smurfs!)



> also, don't confuse marvel with DC. Marvel did something TRULY EPIC and never done before in cinimatic history, in that they made a story arc over 22 films over 11 years that were great on their own but built to an epic conclusion


I think you massively exaggerate in how they connected. Throwing a bunch of different comic book characters together and calling it a "story arc" is wishful thinking. Besides, End Game SUCKED TO HIGH HEAVEN. The worst Marvel movie ever made. They should have ended with Infinity War. It was SO much better. But for god's sake, how many more flipping Spiderman movies are we going to get??? They used to reboot franchises every 20-30 years or more back in the old days. Now they can't even make 10. It's all about MONEY. Yeah, well I'm burnt out of Spiderman. I bought the last 3 in 3D while I could get them, but I haven't watched them yet because I'm sick of freaking Spiderman. 

As for DC, ever hear of BATMAN!? My god, the Jack Nicholson/Michael Keaton film along with the original Superman movie from 1978 before it are what jumpstarted the modern superhero craze in the first place. Now we've got Batman Begins, Batman Vs. Superman & Justice League, Batman Lego and The Batman. Batman has had over 1/2 dozen actors play it in the past 30 years. DC may suck, but people love Batman. I was partial to the Flash Gordon movie, personally. Of course, I was a kid when I saw it.



> let me repeat that-it's never been done before-and probably won't ever again by another franchise


So what??!?! Money defines what's good and what's not? Low brow tastes for The Three Stooges defines the intelligence of a generation? I hated End Game. It was boring as hell and just had to undo what was far more serious in the previous movie. Sorry, the real world doesn't have an UNDO button or time travel. Besides, comparing Spiderman to Little Caesar is like comparing Fred Flintstone to Fred Astaire. 



> DC has always produced stinkers.


Batman is a stinker? 



> despite your arm chair quarterback analysis, the report of marvels demise is greatly exaggerated. There will be another hay day for marvel very soon (can you say absolute gangbusters when xmen and fantastic 4 reboot and enter the MCU as well as secret wars).
> 
> sorry, but we will seeing more-much more. I just hope it's quality AND quantity-like it was from 2008-2019


Armchair quarterback analysis? I was simply agreeing with the opinion of Mr. Tarantino that Marvel has largely destroyed the Hollywood movie star. I'm not allowed to have my opinion because you're a comic book junkie? Hey, I hope you enjoy your kiddy cartoon comic book flicks. I, for one, have become sick of them non-stop for over a decade. They need to give some of these movies a rest for a bit. Disney should have more range than just Marvel and Star Wars. 

I'd simply like more variety of movies than just comic books, but why would Chris Pine want to make another Star Trek movie (such as they are) for pennies compared to what Marvel or WB will pay him to be in Wonder Woman or whatever? Now they all want ridiculous amounts of money. And then there's the "China Effect" on these movies. They have to limit dialog, not touch certain topics, etc. or China won't play them and they'll lose tons of money. Kudos to Paramount for giving China the middle finger and making Top Gun Maverick the way it needed to be made rather than kow tow to nation run by Commies.

I just watched The RUNNING MAN in 4K with 7.1 upmixed with Neural X and it was AWESOME. It was Arnold action, not exactly To Have and To Have Not, but Arnold was great at what he did. We went to see Arnold movies, regardless of whether he was the Terminator, a dude who got a memory implant and thinks he's an agent from Mars, a Barbarian seeking revenge for the death of his father, a cop posing as a kindergarten teacher, Danny Devito's brother or a Rambo clone kicking butt to save his daughter. Was he just lucky or did he have actual GRAVITAS? That's what Tarantino was getting at. *Gravitas*.


----------



## chucklee

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I personally do not lament the demise of the movie star because I never gave two ****s about them to begin with. For me it was never about Arnold, or Stallone or Lundgren or Van Damme. It was about the Terminator or Conan or Rocky or the Demolition Man or the Universal Soldiers. I dont care who is playing them, as long as it was well written and well directed with great action.
> 
> Now of course, certain actors excelled in certain roles to the point its hard to imagine anyone else playing that part. Its hard to imagine anyone else besides Bruce Willis playing John McClain. Or anyone other than. Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones. But I never watched the movies for the actors. I always watched them for the story and the spectacle.


This. I don’t watch (and re-watch) a film because of who’s in it, but rather the story and characters. This was one of the reasons Peter Jackson’s LOTR was so amazing - if he had dropped in Sean Connery as Gandalf, or Kevin Costner as Boromir, it would have been about those actors, NOT the incredible world of Tolkien.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> C'est la vie.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that money factor in the billion range has them cranking them out as fast as they can. I'm not saying those movies stink. I'm saying other movies are suffering for it. I wanted a TRON 3 and they were going to make it and then they bought Star Wars and decided to spend their money there instead.... How many Casablancas or Maltese Falcon movies do we get today? How many take chances movies like Goonies or Gremlins or even Uncle Buck do we get? Almost ZERO. Hollywood makes sequels, reboots, and Marvel movies. Oh joy!
> 
> Top Gun Maverick is one of the few "old school" style movies with a bona fide movie star we've seen in a very long time and small wonder it burned through the box office, beating Titanic. How many Titanic movies are we likely to see in the future? Avatar 2-4? Not Cameron's finest work. He could have made True Lies 2 twenty years ago and it would likely be 100 times better than blue people screwing in the ocean (The Smurfs!)
> 
> 
> 
> I think you massively exaggerate in how they connected. Throwing a bunch of different comic book characters together and calling it a "story arc" is wishful thinking. Besides, End Game SUCKED TO HIGH HEAVEN. The worst Marvel movie ever made. They should have ended with Infinity War. It was SO much better. But for god's sake, how many more flipping Spiderman movies are we going to get??? They used to reboot franchises every 20-30 years or more back in the old days. Now they can't even make 10. It's all about MONEY. Yeah, well I'm burnt out of Spiderman. I bought the last 3 in 3D while I could get them, but I haven't watched them yet because I'm sick of freaking Spiderman.
> 
> As for DC, ever hear of BATMAN!? My god, the Jack Nicholson/Michael Keaton film along with the original Superman movie from 1978 before it are what jumpstarted the modern superhero craze in the first place. Now we've got Batman Begins, Batman Vs. Superman & Justice League, Batman Lego and The Batman. Batman has had over 1/2 dozen actors play it in the past 30 years. DC may suck, but people love Batman. I was partial to the Flash Gordon movie, personally. Of course, I was a kid when I saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> So what??!?! Money defines what's good and what's not? Low brow tastes for The Three Stooges defines the intelligence of a generation? I hated End Game. It was boring as hell and just had to undo what was far more serious in the previous movie. Sorry, the real world doesn't have an UNDO button or time travel. Besides, comparing Spiderman to Little Caesar is like comparing Fred Flintstone to Fred Astaire.
> 
> 
> Batman is a stinker?
> 
> 
> 
> Armchair quarterback analysis? I was simply agreeing with the opinion of Mr. Tarantino that Marvel has largely destroyed the Hollywood movie star. I'm not allowed to have my opinion because you're a comic book junkie? Hey, I hope you enjoy your kiddy cartoon comic book flicks. I, for one, have become sick of them non-stop for over a decade. They need to give some of these movies a rest for a bit. Disney should have more range than just Marvel and Star Wars.
> 
> I'd simply like more variety of movies than just comic books, but why would Chris Pine want to make another Star Trek movie (such as they are) for pennies compared to what Marvel or WB will pay him to be in Wonder Woman or whatever? Now they all want ridiculous amounts of money. And then there's the "China Effect" on these movies. They have to limit dialog, not touch certain topics, etc. or China won't play them and they'll lose tons of money. Kudos to Paramount for giving China the middle finger and making Top Gun Maverick the way it needed to be made rather than kow tow to nation run by Commies.
> 
> I just watched The RUNNING MAN in 4K with 7.1 upmixed with Neural X and it was AWESOME. It was Arnold action, not exactly To Have and To Have Not, but Arnold was great at what he did. We went to see Arnold movies, regardless of whether he was the Terminator, a dude who got a memory implant and thinks he's an agent from Mars, a Barbarian seeking revenge for the death of his father, a cop posing as a kindergarten teacher, Danny Devito's brother or a Rambo clone kicking butt to save his daughter. Was he just lucky or did he have actual GRAVITAS? That's what Tarantino was getting at. *Gravitas*.


the answer to all your questions, is money. And butts in seats. That leads to decisions on what movies get written, green lit and released to a successful audience.

also, every week there are 5 or so non superhero new movies released-they are just not to YOUR liking or taste (or quintons).

I should have said-every DC movie since Nolan's Batman trilogy. So let's say the last 15-20 years. Maybe 95% MISS rate for DC. Sure they release them, but most aren't very good not just based on fans/viewers but also critics. Marvel movies are MOSTLY the opposite over that span (although less so in the last 2-2.5 years).

and I'm gonna say it again, cause you don't really seem to understand what they did-It's NEVER been done before.22 movies all tied together with a common theme and direction and at times directly overlapping during and before the movie. It is truly impressive whether you "get it" or not. It's a true marvel what they did over 12 years...no pun intended!


----------



## Chirosamsung

chucklee said:


> This. I don’t watch (and re-watch) a film because of who’s in it, but rather the story and characters. This was one of the reasons Peter Jackson’s LOTR was so amazing - if he had dropped in Sean Connery as Gandalf, or Kevin Costner as Boromir, it would have been about those actors, NOT the incredible world of Tolkien.


I agree. I don't think his analysis was accurate either


----------



## dj7675

Mashie Saldana said:


> The Trinnov Altitude 16 also has 20 channels enabled now, you just need 4 external DACs added to use the extra channels.
> 
> It won't give you Dirac but you'll get the Trinnov Optimizer instead which I would say is an upgrade.


Yes it does. I actually had it on order and then changed to the StormAudio instead. IMO the Storm is a much more user friendly unit if you don't plan on hiring someone to install it. It particular with properly configuring subwoofers DLBC is very good and very easy to use.


----------



## Chirosamsung

dj7675 said:


> Yes it does. I actually had it on order and then changed to the StormAudio instead. IMO the Storm is a much more user friendly unit if you don't plan on hiring someone to install it. It particular with properly configuring subwoofers DLBC is very good and very easy to use.


The only thing that puts me off with storm audio vs trinnov is that trinnov has figured out how to do seperate channels calibrated for actuators...Dirac processors are either unable or unwilling to


----------



## cricket9998

Chirosamsung said:


> the answer to all your questions, is money. And butts in seats. That leads to decisions on what movies get written, green lit and released to a successful audience.
> 
> also, every week there are 5 or so non superhero new movies released-they are just not to YOUR liking or taste (or quintons).
> 
> I should have said-every DC movie since Nolan's Batman trilogy. So let's say the last 15-20 years. Maybe 95% MISS rate for DC. Sure they release them, but most aren't very good not just based on fans/viewers but also critics. Marvel movies are MOSTLY the opposite over that span (although less so in the last 2-2.5 years).
> 
> and I'm gonna say it again, cause you don't really seem to understand what they did-It's NEVER been done before.22 movies all tied together with a common theme and direction and at times directly overlapping during and before the movie. It is truly impressive whether you "get it" or not. It's a true marvel what they did over 12 years...no pun intended!


I agree. I’m not a giant marvel fan, it’s surface level entertainment, but endgame was crazy. They had a **** ton of A list actors and like 50 major marvel characters in one movie all tying together a major story element. I’m sure it will be a delight to watch in my theater when I get to it


----------



## Chirosamsung

cricket9998 said:


> I agree. I’m not a giant marvel fan, it’s surface level entertainment, but endgame was crazy. They had a **** ton of A list actors and like 50 major marvel characters in one movie all tying together a major story element. I’m sure it will be a delight to watch in my theater when I get to it


You will not be disappointed. A great way to cap off the journey and eye candy for sure. I am not a huge Star Wars fan but appreciate what they do. One does not have to be a huge marvel or super hero fan to appreciate the grandness and the vision and execution of what they were able to accomplish and sustain for 11 years and 22 films.


----------



## halcyon_888

Chirosamsung said:


> You will not be disappointed. A great way to cap off the journey and eye candy for sure. I am not a huge Star Wars fan but appreciate what they do. One does not have to be a huge marvel or super hero fan to appreciate the grandness and the vision and execution of what they were able to accomplish and sustain for 11 years and 22 films.


From a storytelling standpoint, Infinity War is pretty incredible. Endgame is more "whiz bang" and essentially has three parts: Gathering the heroes, the heist, the final battle(s). There are people that think Infinity War is the better movie, but I don't view either of them as being better than the other, I see them as different movies. Both are incredible achievements.


----------



## MagnumX

chucklee said:


> This. I don’t watch (and re-watch) a film because of who’s in it, but rather the story and characters. This was one of the reasons Peter Jackson’s LOTR was so amazing - if he had dropped in Sean Connery as Gandalf, or Kevin Costner as Boromir, it would have been about those actors, NOT the incredible world of Tolkien.


Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. A great actor can play any part. You're telling me if a "nobody" played Conan it would have been better? One of your superhero actors (Jason Momoa) tried it and it was garbage. So much for that theory.... 

Now we have the new diverse Tolkien on Prime with every unknown nobody actor from every part of the globe all living in a world based on Britain for PC reasons. It's got like a 30% user rating while the left media loves it, of course. No compare that to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It wasn't perfect and took a lot of liberties, but it used quality actors Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett etc. Which is better? The "incredible world of Tolkien" needs incredible actors and an incredible story to work. It has neither.



Chirosamsung said:


> the answer to all your questions, is money. And butts in seats. That leads to decisions on what movies get written, green lit and released to a successful audience.


And true art suffers for it. Garbage In = Garbage Out.



> also, every week there are 5 or so non superhero new movies released-they are just not to YOUR liking or taste (or quintons).


You seem to take this personally and are having a literal fit about the fact I don't care about comic book movies anymore and never did care about kiddie comic books themselves. But then I was reading the Prydain Chronicles in 2nd grade, not looking at Richie Rich comics with all of 20 words in the whole "book". 



> and I'm gonna say it again, cause you don't really seem to understand what they did-It's NEVER been done before.22 movies all tied together with a common theme and direction and at times directly overlapping during and before the movie. It is truly impressive whether you "get it" or not. It's a true marvel what they did over 12 years...no pun intended!


Keep saying it. You sound utterly ridiculous every single time you do. Comic Books!!! Comic Books! Comic Books! I want Comic Books!


----------



## Chirosamsung

halcyon_888 said:


> From a storytelling standpoint, Infinity War is pretty incredible. Endgame is more "whiz bang" and essentially has three parts: Gathering the heroes, the heist, the final battle(s). There are people that think Infinity War is the better movie, but I don't view either of them as being better than the other, I see them as different movies. Both are incredible achievements.


I agree. If I had to pick which one was better my fav was infinite war but it is stupid for someone to say that they should have stopped there as they are obviously part one and part two of the epic conclusion. Can't have one without the other. All said, it was perfect closure to a 11 year event that will likely never be done again (bu any standard of success or at all) by a non marvel studio


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. A great actor can play any part. You're telling me if a "nobody" played Conan it would have been better? One of your superhero actors (Jason Momoa) tried it and it was garbage. So much for that theory....
> 
> Now we have the new diverse Tolkien on Prime with every unknown nobody actor from every part of the globe all living in a world based on Britain for PC reasons. It's got like a 30% user rating while the left media loves it, of course. No compare that to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It wasn't perfect and took a lot of liberties, but it used quality actors Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett etc. Which is better? The "incredible world of Tolkien" needs incredible actors and an incredible story to work. It has neither.
> 
> 
> 
> And true art suffers for it. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to take this personally and are having a literal fit about the fact I don't care about comic book movies anymore and never did care about kiddie comic books themselves. But then I was reading the Prydain Chronicles in 2nd grade, not looking at Richie Rich comics with all of 20 words in the whole "book".
> 
> 
> 
> Keep saying it. You sound utterly ridiculous every single time you do. Comic Books!!! Comic Books! Comic Books! I want Comic Books!


Lol. Your comment is ridiculous. His was actually quite sensible and likely more agree with him than your world view on the matter(s)


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I agree. If I had to pick which one was better my fav was infinite war but it is stupid *for someone to say that they should have stopped there as they are obviously part one and part two of the epic conclusion. Can't have one without the other. *All said, it was perfect closure to a 11 year event that will likely never be done again (bu any standard of success or at all) by a non marvel studio


What's absurd is how you can't accept opinions other than your own. Of course they planned a 2nd part, but that part SUCKED, boring, slow and undoing everything that made Infinity War great. I believe the ending of the first part was vastly superior. YMMV and clearly does.... The difference is I don't care if you like it and don't start throwing the word "stupid" around, clearly meant as an insult. Some people never grow up, it seems.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

halcyon_888 said:


> From a storytelling standpoint, Infinity War is pretty incredible. Endgame is more "whiz bang" and essentially has three parts: Gathering the heroes, the heist, the final battle(s). There are people that think Infinity War is the better movie, but I don't view either of them as being better than the other, I see them as different movies. Both are incredible achievements.


I'm in the Infinity War camp.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Why are people so resistant to the idea of 6 (or more) ceiling channels for Atmos?


----------



## mrvideo

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Why are people so resistant to the idea of 6 (or more) ceiling channels for Atmos?


What people: producers or viewers or both?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mrvideo said:


> What people: producers or viewers or both?


Well both. But I'm talking about viewers mostly. I talk to people all the time in various groups and message boards who claim that 4 ceiling channels is "maximum Atmos". When you bring up 6 channels, they immediately become aggressive and insist you dont need more than four unless you have commercial sized theater or something. I just find it rather curious.


----------



## Magiclakez

On another note the criterion/ Disney Wall-e is a nice/subtle upgrade over the Disney version. The criterion version includes Dolby Vision and HDR10+ (along with tons of special features) and looks like there is a slight boost in the audio track as well. The bass seemed more pronounced and I didn’t feel the need to bump up the volume, as was the case with the Disney disc.

Hopefully Criterion and other major boutique labels get more exclusive disney licensing. Tired of getting lowballed by the mouse.


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well both. But I'm talking about viewers mostly. I talk to people all the time in various groups and message boards who claim that 4 ceiling channels is "maximum Atmos". When you bring up 6 channels, they immediately become aggressive and insist you dont need more than four unless you have commercial sized theater or something. I just find it rather curious.


Idk why people are aggressive but 6 is optimal on paper but it can have hot spotting with ****ty static mixes like everything Disney. 4 just works out well and as far as I know nothing except maybe trinnov level processors will be able to take advantage of more than 6 discrete height channels


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> Idk why people are aggressive but 6 is optimal on paper but it can have hot spotting with ****ty static mixes like everything Disney. 4 just works out well and as far as I know nothing except maybe trinnov level processors will be able to take advantage of more than 6 discrete height channels


Well static mixes are already compromised. If you have 4 height channels, they'll image between them. Or if you have top-middles, they'll play discretely from those. Otherwise its effectively the same effect for the audience. I would rather such mixes be discretely rendered by Top-Middles. I have had more immersive experiences with discrete Top-Middles over a phantom image. The phantom image does present wider though and I understand some people enjoy that effect.

Its patently obvious however, that when it comes to active sound objects, 6 height channels will give you a superior presentation to only 4 heights. I cant think of any situation where 4 height channels will out perform 6 unless you simply dont physically have the room for 6.

As far as number of processors that can do more than 6, there's Trinnov of course, Storm has a 24 channel variant and Emotiva has the add on for its RMC-1 that expands it to 28 channels. So all of those should be capable of doing more than 6 height channels.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I'm in the Infinity War camp.


Me too!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Me too!


It was simply the most comic book like movie out of the entire MCU. Of course, the original Infinity Gauntlet storyline is my favorite superhero storyline of all time, so I'm heavily biased. The confrontation with Thanos on Titan was something I had been waiting to see since I read that storyline way back in 1989. 

Endgame I didnt like nearly as much. It was absolutely nothing like the comics. I felt the time travel story was pretty weak, but the end battle with everyone involved was pretty epic, it still couldnt hold a candle to both the Titan sequence and the Wakanda battle in Infinity War.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It was simply the most comic book like movie out of the entire MCU. Of course, the original Infinity Gauntlet storyline is my favorite superhero storyline of all time, so I'm heavily biased. The confrontation with Thanos on Titan was something I had been waiting to see since I read that storyline way back in 1989.
> 
> Endgame I didnt like nearly as much. It was absolutely nothing like the comics. I felt the time travel story was pretty weak, but the end battle with everyone involved was pretty epic, it still couldnt hold a candle to both the Titan sequence and the Wakanda battle in Infinity War.


Loved the infinity gauntlet comics-best story ever IMO.

just wished they figured out a way to get Adam Warlock and Silver surfer in the story somehow


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Loved the infinity gauntlet comics-best story ever IMO.
> 
> just wished they figured out a way to get Adam Warlock and Silver surfer in the story somehow


Yes, it was definitely missing Adam Warlock. A bunch of people to be fair, but they did what they could.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The phantom image does present wider though and I understand some people enjoy that effect.


Yup, comes down to preference. 2 height channels played back over 2 height speakers can be a bit hot spotty and distracting for some people (like me) while those same 2 height channels played back over 4 height speakers can sound a little more diffuse and enveloping by comparison. The phantom image presenting wider can be an enjoyable effect for sounds coming from outside the front soundstage.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Well static mixes are already compromised. If you have 4 height channels, they'll image between them. Or if you have top-middles, they'll play discretely from those. Otherwise its effectively the same effect for the audience. I would rather such mixes be discretely rendered by Top-Middles. I have had more immersive experiences with discrete Top-Middles over a phantom image. The phantom image does present wider though and I understand some people enjoy that effect.
> 
> Its patently obvious however, that when it comes to active sound objects, 6 height channels will give you a superior presentation to only 4 heights. I cant think of any situation where 4 height channels will out perform 6 unless you simply dont physically have the room for 6.
> 
> As far as number of processors that can do more than 6, there's Trinnov of course, Storm has a 24 channel variant and Emotiva has the add on for its RMC-1 that expands it to 28 channels. So all of those should be capable of doing more than 6 height channels.


The way I'd put succinctly is that, "It's SUPPOSED to _hotspot_." That's what DISCRETE is. The object is set to Top Middle so that's where it images. Using Front/Rear Tops or Heights would make it less precise. If that's what they _wanted/intended_, they could have set it to do that easily enough, but they chose Top Middle. 

Phantom imaging between 4 speakers is essentially an ARRAY. I've thought it strange that people on here HATE arrays in Atmos for doing it on purpose yet they all seem to love this notion of having _Ready Player One_ image through 4 speakers instead of just 2 when it's set to use Top Middle which is why it does NOT use Front/Rear Height or Top Front/Rear when you have Top Middle in the mix. Isn't discrete center better than phantom center? It's the exact same thing only overhead and yet people like Sanjay have been telling people that Top Middle sucks because he wants to use four overheads to phantom image Top Middle instead of the more precise 2 speakers for which it's actually intended to be used. That's like saying he prefers a phantom center to a discrete one. Why?!? 

I've tried _Ready Player One_ both ways (easy to do here) and it's far more aggressive and "scary" sounding with Top Middle only discrete. When that DeLorean hits that box under the bridge in the opening race, it sounds like it almost misses my head by about a couple of feet. When I use Front/Rear Heights or Front/Rear Heights with an arrayed Top Middle (so all 6 play), it doesn't sound like that box is anywhere near my head, but spread out above me. It's way better with just Top Middle, even from row 2 (that's just behind Top Middle instead of just in front of it as Row 1 is). There's no way I'd trade 6 overheads for just 4. 

In fact, I'm planning to add two more pairs and have 10 overhead (11.1.10), although it will be 4-speaker array Atmos Top Middle (4 speaker VOG array in Auro-3D) with the current side heights used full time as Surround Heights for Auro and X (can be turned off for Atmos). I have to use a 4-speaker array because the steel beam box is in the way of any Top Middle speakers being put in the ceiling there, so by putting a pair on either side (front side pointing to row 1 and back side pointing to rows 2 & 3), it should sound like the steel beam box doesn't exist. With the side heights directly between under the box, that should give a height difference between Surround Height and VOG as well as some offset (both rows 1 & 2 will seem like Top Middle is at about 95 and 85 relative to them respectively. If you sat directly under the steel beam, it would seem to come from directly overhead). 

The more speakers, the more precision the imaging will be for all seats and let's face it, nothing is cooler than overhead sounds in Atmos contrasted to ear level ones. I've already got all the speakers and two more AVRs for 15-channel discrete "Scatmos" (front wides will still be summed passive, but SS#2 will become discrete. Surround Height will be a -3dB copy of Rear Height for maximum effect (they are the same channel in Auro-3D and arrayed in Auro-3D movie theaters and thus will be similar to a Barco Auro-3D theater in that regard). I just need to waste a day off putting them up and connecting it all. I've been busy doing other things thus far.


----------



## tbaucom

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Why are people so resistant to the idea of 6 (or more) ceiling channels for Atmos?


From what I understand, Atmos home releases are typically mixed and monitored on 7.1.4 setups. The mixer is not hearing their work through 6 overhead speakers or pinned to 2 top middle speakers. 

For me personally, i don't think the gains of moving beyond 7.1.4 would be worth the expense.


----------



## cricket9998

tbaucom said:


> From what I understand, Atmos home releases are typically mixed and monitored on 7.1.4 setups. The mixer is not hearing their work through 6 overhead speakers or pinned to 2 top middle speakers.
> 
> For me personally, i don't think the gains of moving beyond 7.1.4 would be worth the expense.


Well real atmos is object based. If they mix it as objects, the processor will be able to use up to 32 channels I think maybe more. But the point is object based mixes don’t care about how many speakers it was mixed on. The problem is how many incompetent engineers release static scatmos mixes.


----------



## tbaucom

cricket9998 said:


> Well real atmos is object based. If they mix it as objects, the processor will be able to use up to 32 channels I think maybe more. But the point is object based mixes don’t care about how many speakers it was mixed on. The problem is how many incompetent engineers release static scatmos mixes.


Sure. It will play through all your speakers but a phantom image between 4 over head speakers will sound different than 2 top middle speakers playing. I tend to think mixers are doing this for some reason rather than being incompetent.

DTS:X is typically 7.1.4 channels and then they use Neural:X to expand beyond that.

I am just explaining my personal reason for not going beyond 7.1.4. I have a processor that could do up to 15 channels. I have decent equipment. I just don't think it would make enough of a difference to be worth the investment in my room. i think i would get more audible improvement by upgrading subwoofers/speakers rather than putting as many as possible in my room. Franky, if i was going to go beyond 7.1.4 it would be to 9.1.4 rather than adding more overhead speakers.


----------



## cricket9998

tbaucom said:


> Sure. It will play through all your speakers but a phantom image between 4 over head speakers will sound different than 2 top middle speakers playing. I tend to think mixers are doing this for some reason rather than being incompetent.
> 
> DTS:X is typically 7.1.4 channels and then they use Neural:X to expand beyond that.
> 
> I am just explaining my personal reason for not going beyond 7.1.4. I have a processor that could do up to 15 channels. I have decent equipment. I just don't think it would make enough of a difference to be worth the investment in my room. i think i would get more audible improvement by upgrading subwoofers/speakers rather than putting as many as possible in my room. Franky, if i was going to go beyond 7.1.4 it would be to 9.1.4 rather than adding more overhead speakers.


Yep which is why I run front wides instead of top center. In my next theater I’m going to think about going nuts with heights since I will get a trinnov but I’m sure it has processing where even static mixes will sound good.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

cricket9998 said:


> Well real atmos is object based. If they mix it as objects, the processor will be able to use up to 32 channels I think maybe more. But the point is object based mixes don’t care about how many speakers it was mixed on. The problem is how many incompetent engineers release static scatmos mixes.


Yes, it's object-based... but the beds are still 7.1.2, and those height beds are what we're talking about. They're static objects at the top mid position that are there in all Atmos mixes. Theatrically, those beds would essentially be each height zone (all speakers in the array in that region), and part of the issue is the lack of consistency between how some things are handled between theatrical and home. Some of it is minor, like decorrelation and timbral shift being handled via metadata theatrically but pre-baked into printouts for home versions. But whereas those height beds in the theater typically use all of the speakers in that region, with amplitude adjustment based on the number of speakers available, the home version just uses them as a static top mid for simplicity. If the mixers were handling it correctly, they'd limit those height beds to static ambience and use dynamic objects for everything else... but here we are. And I think a lot of it comes down to the people doing the mixes maybe not being fully aware of just how differently some of this stuff works between theatrical and home.

That's why there's logic to what tbaucom is saying. They're typically monitoring home mixes for movies in 7.1.4, so in a lot of ways, that's the point of diminishing returns because of the way anything more than that gets handled by the home version of the renderer. Too many home mixes are using those height beds as static channels and letting the software pre-pan through them (using a variation of VBAP that takes distance into account) instead of translating them out to use more dynamic objects. But then you also have to consider Netflix, who are doing a lot of monitoring in 9.1.6 and are arguably producing better home mixes than anything carried over from theatrical release. In that case, adding more heights is absolutely going to improve the experience. So why wouldn't you do it if you can? It lets you adapt to future content, maybe support some other formats better in the process, and still get solid performance from the mixes that lean too much on the beds.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

tbaucom said:


> From what I understand, Atmos home releases are typically mixed and monitored on 7.1.4 setups. The mixer is not hearing their work through 6 overhead speakers or pinned to 2 top middle speakers.
> 
> For me personally, i don't think the gains of moving beyond 7.1.4 would be worth the expense.


Studios are starting to upgrade to 9.1.6 dubbing stages. Netflix and Sony have upgraded their studios to 9.1.6 (Stranger Things season 4 was mixed this way)

And even The Mouse is starting to use active sound objects in its Atmos mixing. They are moving away from their weird 7.1.4 locked mixes.


----------



## Chirosamsung

cricket9998 said:


> Well real atmos is object based. If they mix it as objects, the processor will be able to use up to 32 channels I think maybe more. But the point is object based mixes don’t care about how many speakers it was mixed on. The problem is how many incompetent engineers release static scatmos mixes.


exactly right.

so are you designing your system for what atmos SHOULD in theory be capable of doing or are you being pragmatic and designing the system for what sound engineers ARE doing and have done for the vast vast majority of cases in most atmos movies

I would argue you should do your system for the REALITY of what atmos mixes are actually in circulation and what's likely to be the majority of experiences with atmos movies-not what you HOPE atmos discs would be


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Studios are starting to upgrade to 9.1.6 dubbing stages. Netflix and Sony have upgraded their studios to 9.1.6 (Stranger Things season 4 was mixed this way)
> 
> And even The Mouse is starting to use active sound objects in its Atmos mixing. They are moving away from their weird 7.1.4 locked mixes.


On a related note, I recommend following this guy's channel if you want to see the kind of work Netflix is doing with their Atmos mixes. Gives you a bit more context than the Trinnov viewer does.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Studios are starting to upgrade to 9.1.6 dubbing stages. Netflix and Sony have upgraded their studios to 9.1.6 (Stranger Things season 4 was mixed this way)
> 
> And even The Mouse is starting to use active sound objects in its Atmos mixing. They are moving away from their weird 7.1.4 locked mixes.


thats good to hear and very encouraging. Hopefully it's not a temporary aberration.


----------



## cricket9998

Chirosamsung said:


> exactly right.
> 
> so are you designing your system for what atmos SHOULD in theory be capable of doing or are you being pragmatic and designing the system for what sound engineers ARE doing and have done for the vast vast majority of cases in most atmos movies
> 
> I would argue you should do your system for the REALITY of what atmos mixes are actually in circulation and what's likely to be the majority of experiences with atmos movies-not what you HOPE atmos discs would be


Always future proof if you can. No reason to have four heights just because that’s what many mixes are. Absolute worst case it’s trivial to automate changing the speaker config based on the title from a source like Plex.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I wouldn't say it's best to always future proof at the expense of using content that's available and has been. Turning off one set of heights doesn't make the remaining 4 speakers in the same position as they would be if they were ONLY 4 to begin with and not 6. If the vast vast majority of discs and mixes sound better with 4 than I would rather have the 4 in the place where 4 works best not just turn off a middle pair and have a different layout of the remaining 4 then ideal (because of the middle pair).

IMO it's best to use ones system for what is actually availible over the last 5 years and will be availible for the next few instead of "hoping" it will make my layout ideal if they mix better gradually down the road, meanwhile 10 years of mixes are 95% the other way of my optimal system layout

just my 2 cents


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> thats good to hear and very encouraging. Hopefully it's not a temporary aberration.


Even Warner bros is upgrading some of their dubbing stages. In Burbank, they have twenty something dubbing stages. Most are 7 1.4, several are legacy 7.1 but quite a few are 9.1.4 and at least one is 7.1.6 (why not 9.1.6? Weird)

So Wides are being factored in at Warner bros as well. 









Burbank: Re-recording Stages ‣ Warner Bros. Post Production Creative Services


Re-Recording Stages




www.wbppcs.com


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> I wouldn't say it's best to always future proof at the expense of using content that's available and has been. Turning off one set of heights doesn't make the remaining 4 speakers in the same position as they would be if they were ONLY 4 to begin with and not 6. If the vast vast majority of discs and mixes sound better with 4 than I would rather have the 4 in the place where 4 works best not just turn off a middle pair and have a different layout of the remaining 4 then ideal (because of the middle pair).
> 
> IMO it's best to use ones system for what is actually availible over the last 5 years and will be availible for the next few instead of "hoping" it will make my layout ideal if they mix better gradually down the road, meanwhile 10 years of mixes are 95% the other way of my optimal system layout
> 
> just my 2 cents


You would be setting up for the way Atmos is intended to work. And if sound mixers use Atmos in the way Dolby intended, then their mix will be scaleable, and *any *configuration you decide to set up will work as advertised. Its when soundmixers go outside the intention of the technology as designed where the problems begin.

So as far as I am concerned, locked mixes and bed-channel mixes dont warrant consideration. I am setting up my atmos for active mixes as Dolby intended. And looking at the behavior of locked mixes, I determined that 6 height channels to be the best compromise to play locked mixes how they are intended to present while making full use of active sound objects when those are present.

using 6 heights, you litterally give up nothing.


----------



## mrtickleuk

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Why are people so resistant to the idea of 6 (or more) ceiling channels for Atmos?


I'm not _resistant _to the idea _- _if you're offering to buy me a house big enough for them and to fit them, I would be forever grateful


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> On a related note, I recommend following this guy's channel if you want to see the kind of work Netflix is doing with their Atmos mixes. Gives you a bit more context than the Trinnov viewer does.


Thanks for the heads up. Instant subscribe. Amazing channel.

This video showing the behavior of the sound objects here in Spiderman: No Way Home reinforces my opinion that with 6 height/ceiling channels, you want to put the front and rear heights directly above the front and rear soundstages, as in this mix, thats exactly where the sound objects are placed.

No way home appears to use 7.1.2 bed objects with the use of occasional active objects, which is totally fine in my opinion. There are moments here when 6 height objects are exactly where the speakers would be in a 6 height speaker config and playing discretely from all 6 speakers. I assume here that the intention is to have the entire ceiling in your theater to be filled with sound.

I am specifically designing my theater to take full advantage of this kind of effect.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I wouldn't say it's best to always future proof at the expense of using content that's available and has been. Turning off one set of heights doesn't make the remaining 4 speakers in the same position as they would be if they were ONLY 4 to begin with and not 6. If the vast vast majority of discs and mixes sound better with 4 than I would rather have the 4 in the place where 4 works best not just turn off a middle pair and have a different layout of the remaining 4 then ideal (because of the middle pair).
> 
> IMO it's best to use ones system for what is actually availible over the last 5 years and will be availible for the next few instead of "hoping" it will make my layout ideal if they mix better gradually down the road, meanwhile 10 years of mixes are 95% the other way of my optimal system layout
> 
> just my 2 cents


The "Tops" positions don't change one iota if you use 6 overheads. They have the exact same angles regardless so what you say it nonsense for Tops. Heights below 45 degrees need Top Middle so it doesn't matter because except in small rooms, they should already have it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mrtickleuk said:


> I'm not _resistant _to the idea _- _if you're offering to buy me a house big enough for them and to fit them, I would be forever grateful


Space limitations are of course understandable. Anyway, I just bought my own home and still have to set up my own dedicated room. My finances have to recover before I could ever even think of being such a generous benefactor for someone else.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Looking at Thor Love and Thunder, it looks like "Atmouse" might be a thing of the past (at least in regard to Atmos mixes. Dynamics and LFE notwithstanding)


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You would be setting up for the way Atmos is intended to work. And if sound mixers use Atmos in the way Dolby intended, then their mix will be scaleable, and *any *configuration you decide to set up will work as advertised. Its when soundmixers go outside the intention of the technology as designed where the problems begin.
> 
> So as far as I am concerned, locked mixes and bed-channel mixes dont warrant consideration. I am setting up my atmos for active mixes as Dolby intended. And looking at the behavior of locked mixes, I determined that 6 height channels to be the best compromise to play locked mixes how they are intended to present while making full use of active sound objects when those are present.
> 
> using 6 heights, you litterally give up nothing.


again, setting up for wishful thinking vs. reality...


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> again, setting up for wishful thinking vs. reality...


The _reality_ is almost everything not by Disney doesn't use static mixes and even they have started using objects. They may not use them to the extent Dolby does in their demos, but they function. But I forget you mostly only watch Marvel movies so you probably would think that Marvel = Reality.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> again, setting up for wishful thinking vs. reality...


There are a lot of movies that use active sound objects which would benefit from a 6 height channel configuration. I would estimate that maybe half of the Atmos mixes out there are static. That would mean the other half have active sound objects, which also means there are thousands of titles out now that would make full use of such a system and thousands more coming in the future that will continue to make use of it.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> There are a lot of movies that use active sound objects which would benefit from a 6 height channel configuration. I would estimate that maybe half of the Atmos mixes out there are static. That would mean the other half have active sound objects, which also means there are thousands of titles out now that would make full use of such a system and thousands more coming in the future that will continue to make use of it.


Some "static" mixes use larger objects that will overlap and engage nearby speakers Iike front wides. I'd say it's more like 1/3, maybe less that are locked and many of those correctly use Top Middle, not front/rear Heights or Tops. I've only heard of a few verified movies that don't use Top Middle at all. Most Disney soundtracks use Top Middle plus occasional objects. All the Star Wars movies are like that and some glitch with front/rear usage (like R2 fading out and then appearing loudly in Top Middle when he's spit out of the swamp creature's mouth. With Neural X, he flies across the ceiling and lands behind my right shoulder. Thus, I prefer 6.1 upmixed with Neural X anyway and absolutely uses everything above your head. 

That brings up upmixers. Most movies aren't Atmos, but 5.1. Upmixed with Neural X, they use everything if you have DTS:X Pro (or "Scatmos") so that vastly outweighs any argument for four speakers. The Tops positions don't change when you add Top Middle so that's not a valid argument. Better to have it and shut it off if you don't want Top Middle for a particular movie than want Top Middle and not have it.


----------



## chucklee

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. A great actor can play any part. You're telling me if a "nobody" played Conan it would have been better? One of your superhero actors (Jason Momoa) tried it and it was garbage. So much for that theory....
> 
> Now we have the new diverse Tolkien on Prime with every unknown nobody actor from every part of the globe all living in a world based on Britain for PC reasons. It's got like a 30% user rating while the left media loves it, of course. No compare that to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It wasn't perfect and took a lot of liberties, but it used quality actors Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett etc. Which is better? The "incredible world of Tolkien" needs incredible actors and an incredible story to work. It has neither.
> 
> 
> 
> And true art suffers for it. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to take this personally and are having a literal fit about the fact I don't care about comic book movies anymore and never did care about kiddie comic books themselves. But then I was reading the Prydain Chronicles in 2nd grade, not looking at Richie Rich comics with all of 20 words in the whole "book".
> 
> 
> 
> Keep saying it. You sound utterly ridiculous every single time you do. Comic Books!!! Comic Books! Comic Books! I want Comic Books!


There's a huge difference between a Stallone/Connery/Costner level star, and a great actor like McKellen, Mortensen, and Blanchett - they are better able to disappear into their roles, and - at the time - were not of the level of Stallone/Connery/Costner - any of whom would not be suitable for LOTR at the time it was released.
Also, you don't have me pegged, not by a long shot, and your diatribe might have been worth YOUR time, but def not my time to read it (or even to respond to it).
Fit? LOL


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Some "static" mixes use larger objects that will overlap and engage nearby speakers Iike front wides. I'd say it's more like 1/3, maybe less that are locked and many of those correctly use Top Middle, not front/rear Heights or Tops. I've only heard of a few verified movies that don't use Top Middle at all. Most Disney soundtracks use Top Middle plus occasional objects. All the Star Wars movies are like that and some glitch with front/rear usage (like R2 fading out and then appearing loudly in Top Middle when he's spit out of the swamp creature's mouth. With Neural X, he flies across the ceiling and lands behind my right shoulder. Thus, I prefer 6.1 upmixed with Neural X anyway and absolutely uses everything above your head.


Hopefully its less than half of mixes that are static. I was accounting for a worst case scenario. But even in that worst case scenario (50/50) you have an embarrassment of riches concerning mixes that will make use of as many speakers as you can afford to put in your room.



> That brings up upmixers. Most movies aren't Atmos, but 5.1. Upmixed with Neural X, they use everything if you have DTS:X Pro (or "Scatmos") so that vastly outweighs any argument for four speakers. The Tops positions don't change when you add Top Middle so that's not a valid argument. Better to have it and shut it off if you don't want Top Middle for a particular movie than want Top Middle and not have it.


Indeed. Upmixers are the other reason why I am planning my theater the way I am. Atmos and DTS:X account for but a small fraction of sound design available in the market. Most are stereo to 7.1 and thus, upmixers are of the utmost importance here. Thus my need for DTS:X-Pro and Auro3D 13.1. I will be using upmixers more often than using native Atmos or DTS:X.

For example, we still have no word on a 4k version of Wolfgang Peterson's Troy, which is one of my favorites. I own it on DVD and was holding off on picking up the blu ray because I was hoping the 4k would be announced. But thus far nothing. So I am running low on patience and about to pull the trigger on the Blu Ray. So that means upmixers. And I want that to be presented in the best way possible. 

The chaotic sounds of battle. Flights of arrows and thrown spears should use all your speakers.


----------



## sdrucker

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Even Warner bros is upgrading some of their dubbing stages. In Burbank, they have twenty something dubbing stages. Most are 7 1.4, several are legacy 7.1 but quite a few are 9.1.4 and at least one is 7.1.6 (why not 9.1.6? Weird)
> 
> So Wides are being factored in at Warner bros as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burbank: Re-recording Stages ‣ Warner Bros. Post Production Creative Services
> 
> 
> Re-Recording Stages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wbppcs.com


Check out just how active Black Adam is, which I think is Warner Bros. Tthere's four objects on each side (i.e. L, Left Wide, Front Surround 1, Side Surround), as well as separate clusters of a pair of objects on both the left/top front or top front/top middle. Not saying all are getting constant use, but look at how all these speakers in my room are lit up.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdrucker said:


> Check out just how active Black Adam is, which I think is Warner Bros. Tthere's four objects on each side (i.e. L, Left Wide, Front Surround 1, Side Surround), as well as separate clusters of a pair of objects on both the left/top front or top front/top middle. Not saying all are getting constant use, but look at how all these speakers in my room are lit up.


Yeah, thats great to hear. Shane Lee covered this recently and gives the movie 9.7 for the audio. The moments he shows on the Object Analyzer show a fairly active mix.

And yes, thats Warner brothers. All DC movies and animation are. Warner Bros bought DC back when the Tim Burton batman movies made gobs of money so Warner locked DC down and then promptly did nothing with them for almost 20 years 😆


----------



## MagnumX

chucklee said:


> There's a huge difference between a Stallone/Connery/Costner level star, and a great actor like McKellen, Mortensen, and Blanchett - they are better able to disappear into their roles, and - at the time - were not of the level of Stallone/Connery/Costner - any of whom would not be suitable for LOTR at the time it was released.
> Also, you don't have me pegged, not by a long shot, and your diatribe might have been worth YOUR time, but def not my time to read it (or even to respond to it).
> Fit? LOL


I think that was directed at Chirosamsung's comments, not yours, but if you want to get personal, well...

There's always been two types of actors in Hollywood. Those that "disappear" into their parts and those who mere presence commands an almost Greek god like aura that exists regardless of whom they're supposed to be. Some may say the disappear type are better actors, but it's hard to argue Sean Connery is an inferior actor, IMO. Stallone or Schwarzenegger, you might have a point, but for the parts they're appropriate for, they're hard to beat. In other words, don't confuse acting range with acting gravitas.

Tom Cruise commands attention in everything he does. Love him or hate him, it's hard to argue it's the movie itself you want to see over seeing what great project Tom does next. Compare that to Batman. People argue who the best Batman is, but overall they want a Batman movie regardless. But try to remake Casablanca without Bogart. Good luck. As they say, only Nixon could go to China.

Thus, I don't think Tarantino was saying we have bad actors today, but bemoaning the loss of the Greek gods we used to have. Cagney was Cagney playing so and so not so and so played by Cagney. That doesn't mean Cagney sucked. It means his own confident persona towers (for a short guy) over everything he does. That's *gravitas*. And it's becoming extinct in Hollywood and some of us mourn it's loss while others just want Thor or Spiderman regardless of who plays him.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

NuSoardGraphite said:


> As far as number of processors that can do more than 6, there's Trinnov of course, Storm has a 24 channel variant and Emotiva has the add on for its RMC-1 that expands it to 28 channels. So all of those should be capable of doing more than 6 height channels.


The RMC-1 never got that upgrade beyond 9.1.6.

The new D&M flagships can do 8 heights according to the labels on the outputs.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I think that was directed at Chirosamsung's comments, not yours, but if you want to get personal, well...
> 
> There's always been two types of actors in Hollywood. Those that "disappear" into their parts and those who mere presence commands an almost Greek god like aura that exists regardless of whom they're supposed to be. Some may say the disappear type are better actors, but it's hard to argue Sean Connery is an inferior actor, IMO. Stallone or Schwarzenegger, you might have a point, but for the parts they're appropriate for, they're hard to beat. In other words, don't confuse acting range with acting gravitas.
> 
> Tom Cruise commands attention in everything he does. Love him or hate him, it's hard to argue it's the movie itself you want to see over seeing what great project Tom does next. Compare that to Batman. People argue who the best Batman is, but overall they want a Batman movie regardless. But try to remake Casablanca without Bogart. Good luck. As they say, only Nixon could go to China.
> 
> Thus, I don't think Tarantino was saying we have bad actors today, but bemoaning the loss of the Greek gods we used to have. Cagney was Cagney playing so and so not so and so played by Cagney. That doesn't mean Cagney sucked. It means his own confident persona towers (for a short guy) over everything he does. That's *gravitas*. And it's becoming extinct in Hollywood and some of us mourn it's loss while others just want Thor or Spiderman regardless of who plays him.


Another example which comes to mind is 007; If content was the primary consideration, then “The living daylights” and “License to kill” (Timothy Dalton) should have been massive hits. But the fact remains that Sean Connery/ Roger Moore and later Daniel Craig reign supreme and are almost synonymous with the character.

Honorable mention: Christopher Reeve AKA Superman. You might have ten new iterations of the Son of Krypton, but it would invariably lack that mystique and eventually fall short.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Mashie Saldana said:


> The RMC-1 never got that upgrade beyond 9.1.6.
> 
> The new D&M flagships can do 8 heights according to the labels on the outputs.


I thought I saw someone on Youtube that had it. Maybe they were planning for it but it never came out. 

So the new D&M flagships can do 7.4.8? That would be interesting to see if people go for 8 height channels.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Another example which comes to mind is 007; If content was the primary consideration, then “The living daylights” and “License to kill” (Timothy Dalton) should have been massive hits. But the fact remains that Sean Connery/ Roger Moore and later Daniel Craig reign supreme and are almost synonymous with the character.
> 
> Honorable mention: Christopher Reeve AKA Superman. You might have ten new iterations of the Son of Krypton, but it would invariably lack that mystique and eventually fall short.


Ironically, I liked Timothy Dalton's Bond best. Goldeneye was written for him and he intended to be in 3-4 Bond films originally, but the sale of United Artists held up Bond for several years and Dalton chose The Rocketeer over Goldeneye. Goldeneye was my favorite Bond film, but I can't help but think it might have been even better with Dalton. I would have liked Sean Bean as Bond too. He was fantastic as 006.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> I thought I saw someone on Youtube that had it. Maybe they were planning for it but it never came out.
> 
> So the new D&M flagships can do 7.4.8? That would be interesting to see if people go for 8 height channels.


I've always wanted to do some tests with Heights + Tops. I'm half tempted to put up Tops with my additional 4 PSB CS500 speakers instead of an arrayed Top Middle to get around my steel beam box interference, but I'd need more than 7.1.8. I'd need 11.1.8, requiring at least an Altitude 16 type configuration. Plus I really think movies like Ready Player One sounds best with Top Middle discrete.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Even Warner bros is upgrading some of their dubbing stages. In Burbank, they have twenty something dubbing stages. Most are 7 1.4, several are legacy 7.1 but quite a few are 9.1.4 and at least one is 7.1.6 (why not 9.1.6? Weird)
> 
> So Wides are being factored in at Warner bros as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burbank: Re-recording Stages ‣ Warner Bros. Post Production Creative Services
> 
> 
> Re-Recording Stages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wbppcs.com


Sweet. All of a sudden I want to work at Warner Bros.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Sweet. All of a sudden I want to work at Warner Bros.


We want you to work at WB so we can be guaranteed an awesome Atmos mix


----------



## Mashie Saldana

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I thought I saw someone on Youtube that had it. Maybe they were planning for it but it never came out.
> 
> So the new D&M flagships can do 7.4.8? That would be interesting to see if people go for 8 height channels.


Well Emotiva did talk about channel expansion during the pre-release talk of the RMC-1. There are no traces of that discussion to be found now. The only expansion delivered was 2ch input.

As for the D&M 8 heights, until the manuals are released it is anyones guess if that is 4 Atmos pairs or the usual 6 heights plus VOG/CH for Auro3D/DTS:X Pro. I hope 4 pairs will be an option, not that I would pick 7.4.8 over 9.4.6.


----------



## robert600

This may have been mentioned earlier but ... the UHD of Pitch Black ... quite nice use of atmos. I liked the movie too.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

robert600 said:


> This may have been mentioned earlier but ... the UHD of Pitch Black ... quite nice use of atmos. I liked the movie too.


Hopefully at some point they will announce the full collection in 4k. I have the blu ray collection but thats definitely one I would upgrade.


----------



## Magiclakez

robert600 said:


> This may have been mentioned earlier but ... the UHD of Pitch Black ... quite nice use of atmos. I liked the movie too.


Do you have the arrow version? I believe that only includes a dts-5.1 track. However I ordered an exclusive limited edition box set which was released by Turbine media Germany earlier this year, and it includes a badass atmos track.


----------



## robert600

Magiclakez said:


> Do you have the arrow version? I believe that only includes a dts-5.1 track. However I ordered an exclusive limited edition box set which was released by Turbine media Germany earlier this year, and it includes a badass atmos track.


Yes the turbine ... PQ is very good too ... the only DTS it has is stereo ... specs as follows:

Video
Codec: HEVC / H.265 (56.46 Mbps)
Resolution: Native 4K (2160p)
HDR: Dolby Vision, HDR10
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Original aspect ratio: 2.35:1

Audio
German: Dolby Atmos
German: Dolby TrueHD 7.1
German: DTS 2.0
English: Dolby Atmos
English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1
English: DTS 2.0


----------



## robert600

Gotta be the best line ever after ghosting:
"He did not know who he was f*cking with" ha ha


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Do you have the arrow version? I believe that only includes a dts-5.1 track. However I ordered an exclusive limited edition box set which was released by Turbine media Germany earlier this year, and it includes a badass atmos track.


I've got both as I already bought the Arrow version, sadly. The Turbine version has the same video, but that Atmos track really takes off after it gets dark. It's a bit mild save a few spots until then. It's like a whole different movie after it gets dark, almost. Creatures flying everywhere in the room and right past my head.


----------



## robert600

MagnumX said:


> Creatures flying everywhere in the room and right past my head.


Yes, the Scatmos Middle Tops got a good workout for sure. lol


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I've got both as I already bought the Arrow version, sadly. The Turbine version has the same video, but that Atmos track really takes off after it gets dark. It's a bit mild save a few spots until then. It's like a whole different movie after it gets dark, almost. Creatures flying everywhere in the room and right past my head.


I have the arrow version as well, but the turbine version was well worth it for the atmos track. The box set is so huge that it cannot sit on the media shelves. Turbine goes all out for their limited edition collections. I don’t understand why the studios out here cannot offer something of the same caliber. Shout/Scream factory is an exception and they do have some nice sets, but their prices are astronomical for what you get. I recently picked up the Child’s play 4k set through them, with the alternative slipcovers/ posters/pins etc.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> I have the arrow version as well, but the turbine version was well worth it for the atmos track. The box set is so huge that it cannot sit on the media shelves. Turbine goes all out for their limited edition collections. I don’t understand why the studios out here cannot offer something of the same caliber. Shout factory is an exception and they do have some nice sets, but their prices are astronomical for what you get. I recently picked up the Child’s play 4k set through them, with the alternative slipcovers/ posters/pins etc.


Did you pre-order _The Frighteners_ 4K Atmos box set before it sells out?


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> Did you pre-order _The Frighteners_ 4K Atmos box set before it sells out?


Yes I ordered it. I opted for the classic artwork, although I was really digging the new artwork as well.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> Yes I ordered it. I opted for the classic artwork, although I was really digging the new artwork as well.


I thought I'd try something different and go with the new as it's more limited. The Frighteners is a grossly underrated film, IMO.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I thought I'd try something different and go with the new as it's more limited. The Frighteners is a grossly underrated film, IMO.


Absolutely underrated film, so glad somebody decided to give it the full treatment.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

The Frighteners is definitely another one I need to pick up.


----------



## amdar

Due to the back wall/space limitations, I had to place the rear speakers behind the Left and right top rear overhead speakers in my 7.1.4 setup. But as per Dolby recommendations for 7.1.4 setup, the below diagram shows Left and right top rear overhead speakers MUST be behind the rear speakers. Is my Atmos setup compromised with loss of Atmos sounds? 






7.1.4 Overhead Speaker Setup


Follow these simple steps to optimize your home theater with 7.1.4 overhead speakers enabled with Dolby Atmos. Experience your favorite entertainment in Dolby.




www.dolby.com





Apologize if I posted this question in the wrong thread. Thank You.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

amdar said:


> Due to the back wall/space limitations, I had to place the rear speakers behind the Left and right top rear overhead speakers in my 7.1.4 setup. But as per Dolby recommendations for 7.1.4 setup, the below diagram shows Left and right top rear overhead speakers MUST be behind the rear speakers. Is my Atmos setup compromised with loss of Atmos sounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.1.4 Overhead Speaker Setup
> 
> 
> Follow these simple steps to optimize your home theater with 7.1.4 overhead speakers enabled with Dolby Atmos. Experience your favorite entertainment in Dolby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dolby.com


No, they dont have to be behind the rear speakers. In most setups they wont be behind them. This is based on the design of the room.

The important thing with 4 height/ceiling channels is their position *in relation to the listening position. *As long as they are behind all the listeners, you will be fine. Pay attention to the angles of the ceiling speakers in relation to the main listening position.


----------



## amdar

NuSoardGraphite said:


> No, they dont have to be behind the rear speakers. In most setups they wont be behind them. This is based on the design of the room.
> 
> The important thing with 4 height/ceiling channels is their position *in relation to the listening position. *As long as they are behind all the listeners, you will be fine. Pay attention to the angles of the ceiling speakers in relation to the main listening position.
> 
> View attachment 3364620


 My setup is similar to the diagram which you have shared here. So my setup should be fine then. Thank you for the quick response


----------



## MagnumX

After someone pointed me to some dude's setup on ASR forums using real cinema equipment and a lot of laserdiscs where he talks about the superiority of various "theatrical" mixes over blu-rays (whether stereo or 5.1/6.1), which included things like panned dialog in key places on the laserdisc theatrical mix that they've since anchored to center channel only on Atmos or blu-ray 5.1/7.1, I can't help but wonder if it'd be worth capturing 2-channel soundtracks off my 100+ laserdiscs and remuxing them as options on my digital dumps I play over the network. 

Given the massive drop in video quality and PITA switching discs, I haven't tried many laserdiscs on my current system to compare (I did watch Jurassic Park DTS off laserdisc to compare to the DTS:X mix, but now I'm curious about other soundtracks. I never had an RF AC3 converter installed on my player so I can't rip Dolby Digital to compare and obviously choosing stereo surround over 5.1 or Atmos would have obvious downsides, but then The Running Man sounded great in Stereo Surround upmixed with Neural X off my recent German 4K BD purchase (The 7.1 track upmixed sounded even better, very Atmos-like). 

I don't know if it'd be worth the bother. I'd have to play the whole thing in real time, edit together the disc switches to ensure screen alignment, etc. Maybe for titles where they really screwed the "home mix" up? 

I can say Master & Commander with the LFE track taken from the DVD (changed to PCM) and remuxed with the lossless Blu-ray as FLAC 5.1 worked great (no BEQ needed on that one now).


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> After someone pointed me to some dude's setup on ASR forums using real cinema equipment and a lot of laserdiscs where he talks about the superiority of various "theatrical" mixes over blu-rays (whether stereo or 5.1/6.1), which included things like panned dialog in key places on the laserdisc theatrical mix that they've since anchored to center channel only on Atmos or blu-ray 5.1/7.1, I can't help but wonder if it'd be worth capturing 2-channel soundtracks off my 100+ laserdiscs and remuxing them as options on my digital dumps I play over the network.
> 
> Given the massive drop in video quality and PITA switching discs, I haven't tried many laserdiscs on my current system to compare (I did watch Jurassic Park DTS off laserdisc to compare to the DTS:X mix, but now I'm curious about other soundtracks. I never had an RF AC3 converter installed on my player so I can't rip Dolby Digital to compare and obviously choosing stereo surround over 5.1 or Atmos would have obvious downsides, but then The Running Man sounded great in Stereo Surround upmixed with Neural X off my recent German 4K BD purchase (The 7.1 track upmixed sounded even better, very Atmos-like).
> 
> I don't know if it'd be worth the bother. I'd have to play the whole thing in real time, edit together the disc switches to ensure screen alignment, etc. Maybe for titles where they really screwed the "home mix" up?
> 
> I can say Master & Commander with the LFE track taken from the DVD (changed to PCM) and remuxed with the lossless Blu-ray as FLAC 5.1 worked great (no BEQ needed on that one now).


Do you have graphs of the DVD's response plot and heatmap for the Master & Commander DVD? That's what is needed to compare the DVD track to the DTS-MA lossless track. I'd be _very_ surprised if the response has changed from the DVD to the DTS-MA BR soundtrack. Again, we need graphs to analyze. Oh, and BEQ talk is likely best to be discussed in the BEQ thread, not the ATMOS thread. I'm sure the folks over there would be inquisitive to know the differences between the tracks, and the claim that the Master & Commander DVD couldn't benefit from a BEQ.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Yep believe it or not!








I got burned when I tried to demo the BD version not knowing it was filtered. Watched chapter 4 and thought something was broken! I gave that disk away then and there.


----------



## MagnumX

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yep believe it or not! I got burned when I tried to demo the BD version not knowing it was filtered. Watched chapter 4 and thought something was broken! I gave that disk away then and there.


 That's just it. You don't have to give the disc away (who wants DVD video?). It's what remuxing can do for you. I mixed the LFE from the DVD with the lossless audio and HD video from the BD. The DTS streams were at different rates, however, so I converted to PCM and resaved as FLAC. You could burn a BD-R from there, though.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yep believe it or not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got burned when I tried to demo the BD version not knowing it was filtered. Watched chapter 4 and thought something was broken! I gave that disk away then and there.


Need BEQ!


----------



## MagnumX

From what I've been reading, most DVDs made before 2010 have the unfiltered LFE tracks on them. A little remuxing and permanent correct bass and not just an educated guess or a total PITA manually having to load filters into MiniDSP units or whatever. One time and done forever. Frankly, I think BEQ filtering should be editing LFE tracks so it's permanent, not having to look it up, have a laptop available and load it into hardware not everyone uses.


----------



## halcyon_888

MagnumX said:


> From what I've been reading, most DVDs made before 2010 have the unfiltered LFE tracks on them. A little remuxing and permanent correct bass and not just an educated guess or a total PITA manually having to load filters into MiniDSP units or whatever. One time and done forever. Frankly, I think BEQ filtering should be editing LFE tracks so it's permanent, not having to look it up, have a laptop available and load it into hardware not everyone uses.


You don't have to have a laptop available, and you don't have to manually load them into the miniDSP if you don't want to use that method. You can get a Raspberry pi, which is cheap, spend time setting it up, and after that it's literally seconds to load BEQs on the fly. Again, I believe BEQ complaints, concerns, misunderstandings should be addressed in the BEQ thread. The only reason I keep replying to your comments about it is so you don't keep spreading misinformation.


----------



## halcyon_888

Polyrythm1k said:


> Yep believe it or not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got burned when I tried to demo the BD version not knowing it was filtered. Watched chapter 4 and thought something was broken! I gave that disk away then and there.


Thanks! I wasn't aware of that, more often a DTS track from a DVD is merely the same track in the higher quality codec DTS-MA. Shame they neutered it!


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Decided to watch 1899 on Netflix over the weekend. Holy hell, the Atmos is fantastic on that show! Nice usage of it for ambience, discrete effects, music, etc. throughout, but especially episode 7 - The Storm. Netflix keeps killin' it with their Atmos content. Worth a watch!


----------



## galonzo

MagnumX said:


> Frankly, I think BEQ filtering should be editing LFE tracks so it's permanent, not having to look it up, have a laptop available and load it into hardware not everyone uses.


It's literally seconds to load a BEQ filter after you spend an afternoon setting up an Rpi and minidsp (quicker if you're experienced, I had zero and it took me an afternoon); here's a quick animated GIF, starting from unlocking my phone, opening the shortcut to ezbeq on my desktop and loading the Master and Commander BEQ file:


----------



## Chirosamsung

galonzo said:


> It's literally seconds to load a BEQ filter after you spend an afternoon setting up an Rpi and minidsp (quicker if you're experienced, I had zero and it took me an afternoon); here's a quick animated GIF, starting from unlocking my phone, opening the shortcut to ezbeq on my desktop and loading the Master and Commander BEQ file:
> View attachment 3365202


Five seconds is way too long goddamnit!. I'd rather buy the original DVD and then remux the soundtrack however long that takes lol.


----------



## cricket9998

amdar said:


> Due to the back wall/space limitations, I had to place the rear speakers behind the Left and right top rear overhead speakers in my 7.1.4 setup. But as per Dolby recommendations for 7.1.4 setup, the below diagram shows Left and right top rear overhead speakers MUST be behind the rear speakers. Is my Atmos setup compromised with loss of Atmos sounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.1.4 Overhead Speaker Setup
> 
> 
> Follow these simple steps to optimize your home theater with 7.1.4 overhead speakers enabled with Dolby Atmos. Experience your favorite entertainment in Dolby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dolby.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologize if I posted this question in the wrong thread. Thank You.


No and don’t even bother looking at the pictures they are inconsistent with what Dolby recommends. Look up the actual angles they publish and only go by that. The pictures are not to scale or even correct.


----------



## cricket9998

Chirosamsung said:


> Five seconds is way too long goddamnit!. I'd rather buy the original DVD and then remux the soundtrack however long that takes lol.


Well you are in luck because I’m about to release my tool which will automate loading beq based on Plex webhooks so you don’t even need to do anything but press play


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> Five seconds is way too long goddamnit!. I'd rather buy the original DVD and then remux the soundtrack however long that takes lol.


No seconds (permanent file fix) beats 5 seconds every time with _zero_ extra hardware needed. I'm constantly amazed how people think arguing and laughing like total hyenas against a clearly permanent and therefore better solution is just plain flipping social justice or some other garbage nonsense. Fix the damn soundtrack and _*never*_ deal with it again. But why should we use that electric motor on the boat when it only takes a few minutes to row to shore!??.


----------



## ted_b

I just finished my home theater/music room on our lower level in our new place here in Colorado (see link in signature). It sounds great, with Aerial Acoustic speakers, etc etc. However, I am using two pairs of SVS Prime Elevation speakers on the ceiling (9.5ft) for front and rear height Atmos (and Auro3D) and they are somewhat small compared to the rest of the system. A clear first world problem. 

Question: anyone out there formerly use these and find their upgrade path to something larger with more overall presentation? I like their ease of install, and will live with them fine...but upgraditis has already hit. 

Thx
Ted


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> No seconds (permanent file fix) beats 5 seconds every time with _zero_ extra hardware needed. I'm constantly amazed how people think arguing and laughing like total hyenas against a clearly permanent and therefore better solution is just plain flipping social justice or some other garbage nonsense. Fix the damn soundtrack and _*never*_ deal with it again. But why should we use that electric motor on the boat when it only takes a few minutes to row to shore!??.


Remuxing and BEQ both have pros/cons. I've done both. BEQ doesn't necessitate me having the ability to rip discs, and remux content using a computer/software. I can put a 4K disc from my shelf in my Oppo, and still utilize BEQ.


----------



## dschulz

fatherom said:


> Remuxing and BEQ both have pros/cons. I've done both. BEQ doesn't necessitate me having the ability to rip discs, and remux content using a computer/software. I can put a 4K disc from my shelf in my Oppo, and still utilize BEQ.


BEQ also handy for those titles that you don't necessarily plan on watching more than once, movies rented via Netflix disc-by-mail or SVOD.


----------



## niterida

ted_b said:


> I just finished my home theater/music room on our lower level in our new place here in Colorado (see link in signature). It sounds great, with Aerial Acoustic speakers, etc etc. However, I am using two pairs of SVS Prime Elevation speakers on the ceiling (9.5ft) for front and rear height Atmos (and Auro3D) and they are somewhat small compared to the rest of the system. A clear first world problem.
> 
> Question: anyone out there formerly use these and find their upgrade path to something larger with more overall presentation? I like their ease of install, and will live with them fine...but upgraditis has already hit.
> 
> Thx
> Ted


I have 8" Wharfedale Pro PA speakers for all my ear level speakers.
I had 30yr old 4" Mordaunt Short bookshelf speakers for my 4 heights.
I upgrade the heights to identical Wharfedale PAs
I hardly noticed any difference and I am a huge proponent of having all identical speakers.
Sure it was an improvement but nowhere near as big as Iwas expecting - maybe only 5-10% at best, and some of that may have come from repositioning them to the correct 45deg elevation and bringing them a lot closer to MLP from the Auro 3D layout they were in.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> No seconds (permanent file fix) beats 5 seconds every time with _zero_ extra hardware needed. I'm constantly amazed how people think arguing and laughing like total hyenas against a clearly permanent and therefore better solution is just plain flipping social justice or some other garbage nonsense. Fix the damn soundtrack and _*never*_ deal with it again. But why should we use that electric motor on the boat when it only takes a few minutes to row to shore!??.


No hardware huh. Terabytes of storage and a media PC...


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> No, they dont have to be behind the rear speakers. In most setups they wont be behind them. This is based on the design of the room.
> 
> The important thing with 4 height/ceiling channels is their position *in relation to the listening position. *As long as they are behind all the listeners, you will be fine. Pay attention to the angles of the ceiling speakers in relation to the main listening position.
> 
> View attachment 3364620


This is probably easier to interpret. This is assuming orthogonal. I do a stereo triangle, so I'm more equidistant, which is also covered in the guidelines.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> No hardware huh. Terabytes of storage and a media PC...


I already had the Macintosh since 2012 and it had nothing to do with home theater at the time so no, it's not extra. You could call the 4K capable disc drive extra, but I needed it for Atmos soundtrack ripping as well as 4K. BEQ won't do either of those functions so again, there's not a real comparison. What do hard drives have to do with anything for that matter? I rip because I like convenience. Searching through 1200+ Blu-Rays/DVDs to find a movie is a royal PITA, especially if you have more than one viewing room in the house. Then there's the VHS and Laserdiscs rips I did anyway (not playing VHS directly in 2022; I captured those using professional VCRs and time base correctors and then sold the equipment after I was all done to someone else that needed it). Having to get MiniDSP and worse yet carry a phone or whatever on me at all times (I like to hang out in my PJs on my day off sometimes) to load up a movie is not terribly convenient. Just pressing a play button on KODI or a Zidoo is a preferable experience to me.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone cares what I do. I volunteered the information in case others are interested in using the DVD LFE track as it was pretty easy to do (they line right up without any time changes). But if you like BEQ, have at it. I'm not the least bit bothered by people using things different from me unlike some of you that seem to just seethe when someone doesn't use the same equipment or software you do. It seems to me those BEQ curves could potentially be used to quickly alter a LFE track and remux it (extract track and remux back, if preferred. You don't have to dump anything again if your library is already dumped and stored). To each their own. 

I just watched _Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World _again. A friend came over and had never seen it. My MKV file has the original Blu-Ray DTS track, the DVD DTS track and the Combined lossless FLAC Blu-Ray + DVD LFE track and I can quickly cycle between them and compare. Believe it or not, there are more differences between some DVD (and Laserdiscs for that matter) soundtracks and the Blu-Rays than just the LFE or overall bass levels. Many older releases are the true Theatrical soundtracks rather than the "Home Mix" or "Near-Field Mixes" all too many use today. Just remuxing an additional soundtrack to compare in DTS or DD could be interesting to hear what the differences are and report back as I find out. But why I should bother when people just want to behave so poorly on here all the time is beyond me.

I also watched _The Running Man_ 4K from Germany with the original Theatrical 4.2.4 Soundtrack and a newer 7.1 mix upmixed with Neural X (US 4K version only has 5.1 sound). Both sounded great, but the 7.1 mix upmixed with Neural X sounded better than probably 85-90% of all Atmos mixes I've ever heard. That is one heavy surround use mix on there and the picture even scaled down to 1080p is sharp as a tack now.


----------



## Chirosamsung

MagnumX said:


> I already had the Macintosh since 2012 and it had nothing to do with home theater at the time so no, it's not extra. You could call the 4K capable disc drive extra, but I needed it for Atmos soundtrack ripping as well as 4K. BEQ won't do either of those functions so again, there's not a real comparison. What do hard drives have to do with anything for that matter? I rip because I like convenience. Searching through 1200+ Blu-Rays/DVDs to find a movie is a royal PITA, especially if you have more than one viewing room in the house. Then there's the VHS and Laserdiscs rips I did anyway (not playing VHS directly in 2022; I captured those using professional VCRs and time base correctors and then sold the equipment after I was all done to someone else that needed it). Having to get MiniDSP and worse yet carry a phone or whatever on me at all times (I like to hang out in my PJs on my day off sometimes) to load up a movie is not terribly convenient. Just pressing a play button on KODI or a Zidoo is a preferable experience to me.
> 
> Frankly, I don't know why anyone cares what I do. I volunteered the information in case others are interested in using the DVD LFE track as it was pretty easy to do (they line right up without any time changes). But if you like BEQ, have at it. I'm not the least bit bothered by people using things different from me unlike some of you that seem to just seethe when someone doesn't use the same equipment or software you do. It seems to me those BEQ curves could potentially be used to quickly alter a LFE track and remux it (extract track and remux back, if preferred. You don't have to dump anything again if your library is already dumped and stored). To each their own.
> 
> I just watched _Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World _again. A friend came over and had never seen it. My MKV file has the original Blu-Ray DTS track, the DVD DTS track and the Combined lossless FLAC Blu-Ray + DVD LFE track and I can quickly cycle between them and compare. Believe it or not, there are more differences between some DVD (and Laserdiscs for that matter) soundtracks and the Blu-Rays than just the LFE or overall bass levels. Many older releases are the true Theatrical soundtracks rather than the "Home Mix" or "Near-Field Mixes" all too many use today. Just remuxing an additional soundtrack to compare in DTS or DD could be interesting to hear what the differences are and report back as I find out. But why I should bother when people just want to behave so poorly on here all the time is beyond me.
> 
> I also watched _The Running Man_ 4K from Germany with the original Theatrical 4.2.4 Soundtrack and a newer 7.1 mix upmixed with Neural X (US 4K version only has 5.1 sound). Both sounded great, but the 7.1 mix upmixed with Neural X sounded better than probably 85-90% of all Atmos mixes I've ever heard. That is one heavy surround use mix on there and the picture even scaled down to 1080p is sharp as a tack now.


In the same way that you had a PC and a disc burner and old laser discs, many others already had a MiniDSP 2x4 (or a processor that was capable) for multiple sub leveling as well as a cell phone (that is usually with us anyway). Still faster and cheaper for those with the existing "BEQ hardware"

i don't think you are gonna win the BEQ vs remuxing convenience arguement.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

MagnumX said:


> No seconds (permanent file fix) beats 5 seconds every time with _zero_ extra hardware needed. I'm constantly amazed how people think arguing and laughing like total hyenas against a clearly permanent and therefore better solution is just plain flipping social justice or some other garbage nonsense. Fix the damn soundtrack and _*never*_ deal with it again. But why should we use that electric motor on the boat when it only takes a few minutes to row to shore!??.


Remux has many downsides (e.g. potentially severe impact on levels which you really want to recover at downstream analogue stages, removal of atmos, no streaming content support) even if you leave the time/storage cost of actually remuxing to one side. It's certainly a valid option for some very specific scenarios (e.g. portability of the content is a priority, you really really want to beq to be totally accurate <10Hz and only have access to an inferior, e.g. fixed point, dsp device, you want to mix audio from one track with video from another release) but, for the vast majority of people and situations, it's an objectively inferior solution. The last example in that "very specific scenarios" list is obviously the specific example under discussion but this is a pretty small niche to say the least.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> In the same way that you had a PC and a disc burner and old laser discs, many others already had a MiniDSP 2x4 (or a processor that was capable) for multiple sub leveling as well as a cell phone (that is usually with us anyway). Still faster and cheaper for those with the existing "BEQ hardware"
> 
> i don't think you are gonna win the BEQ vs remuxing convenience arguement.


You don't get it. THERE IS NO _ARGUMENT_! You're the one arguing. I'm simply sick of people attacking me or my posts because I chose a different _option_ than them. It's immature and irritating.

Look at all the whining, bitching and posturing over the years on Heights VS Tops based on absolutely nothing but what people chose to use in their own system, most without having heard the other option at all. KODI versus Plex. Either versus OPPO disc playing. UHD discs versus Kaleidescape, etc.

It's like being in grade school. My bike is better than your bike! Nut uh! Oh yes it is! Your bike sucks compared to the Dirt Master 3000! No way! The Dirt Devil 3000 is way better! It has the racing stripes. So what! Mine has the extra long handbrake lever! Handbrakes are for wussies! Nuh uh! Uh huh!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

For my use case BEQ makes a lot more sense. I already have a minidsp to run three subs and my hover couch. And only about 5 movies stored on a torturously slow old pc that I mostly use for rew. Someday I’ll add an HTPC but not now.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

halcyon_888 said:


> Thanks! I wasn't aware of that, more often a DTS track from a DVD is merely the same track in the higher quality codec DTS-MA. Shame they neutered it!


Agreed. Those cannon shots were what made this a standout track. It is really good besides, but those guttural hits are just too good. This is the first track I recall being different on BD vs DVD. Sad.


----------



## cricket9998

[


Polyrythm1k said:


> Yep believe it or not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got burned when I tried to demo the BD version not knowing it was filtered. Watched chapter 4 and thought something was broken! I gave that disk away then and there.


doing this should be illegal


----------



## Magiclakez

I have started watching 1889 on Netflix based on several recommendations out here and across various other boards. The atmos is freaking amazing and there is some unbelievable LFE as well. Some of the sequences, would put most atmos discs to shame. Nice international cast/ presence which further enhances the viewing experience, along with the killer storyline of course.


----------



## Josh Z

Magiclakez said:


> I have started watching 1889 on Netflix based on several recommendations out here and across various other boards. The atmos is freaking amazing and there is some unbelievable LFE as well. Some of the sequences, would put most atmos discs to shame. Nice international cast/ presence which further enhances the viewing experience, along with the killer storyline of course.


The Atmos is pretty good for the most part, but that super-distorted cover of "White Rabbit" used as the theme song is completely unintelligible.


----------



## confinoj

This may have been mentioned in the past but the Atmos track on the 2012 4K disc (released 1/2021) is incredible. While the movie itself is way over the top the Atmos track is reference. There is non-stop excellent use of height layer and base layer surrounds with terrific panning and precise object placement. I totally got engrossed in the sound bubble while watching this in our new theater.


----------



## Magiclakez

confinoj said:


> This may have been mentioned in the past but the Atmos track on the 2012 4K disc (released 1/2021) is incredible. While the movie itself is way over the top the Atmos track is reference. There is non-stop excellent use of height layer and base layer surrounds with terrific panning and precise object placement. I totally got engrossed in the sound bubble while watching this in our new theater.


Yes I have that disc. This is quite an active atmos mix. I had posted my observations on a couple of boards (including this thread), over a year ago but it got a lukewarm reception. Lol. Along with the atmos, the surround activity is amazing as well. The rear/ surround back speakers also receives a good workout, especially during the scene when the family is planning an escape on that chartered plane.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

On the Object Demo youtube channel, there are some good visual aids in showing how active an Atmos mix is.

This video demonstrates that Netflix is indeed mixing some of its shows in 9.1.6. Very interesting indeed.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Here's the download for the cavern software. Looking for the required specs.



Cavern


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

All Quiet on the Western Front


----------



## Magiclakez

Yes “All quiet on the Western front” is terrific; I had posted some of my observations last month:



Magiclakez said:


> I watched “All quiet on the Western front” last night on Netflix. Amazing track and film, has some distinct 1917 vibes. Be sure to engage the original German track (with English subs) to enable the impressive atmos track. The default English (dubbed) version is quite lackluster. Imho, one of the best movies on Netflix this year.


----------



## ted_b

Stupid question but: are these Atmos demo/instructive YouTube videos actually in Atmos on certain platforms


----------



## johnnyboy632

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Here's the download for the cavern software. Looking for the required specs.
> 
> 
> 
> Cavern


Just had a quick look and it looks very interesting. Does it’s visualisation feature work in the same way as trinnovs object viewer? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

ted_b said:


> Stupid question but: are these Atmos demo/instructive YouTube videos actually in Atmos on certain platforms


Likely not. You can use headphones and get an idea of the movement. If you have really good headphones with a nice soundstage, you'll get a lot of pin point movement. But it wont give you a true indication of how it will sound on an Atmos system.

Maybe they work with that Cavern driver but I have yet to test it myself. I wouldnt expect it to because Youtube.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

johnnyboy632 said:


> Just had a quick look and it looks very interesting. Does it’s visualisation feature work in the same way as trinnovs object viewer?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure. I have yet to try it myself. I will investigate it further to see if its something I can implement myself.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

johnnyboy632 said:


> Just had a quick look and it looks very interesting. Does it’s visualisation feature work in the same way as trinnovs object viewer?


Essentially, but it seems to show objects much better in realtime. The down side is that it doesn't support lossless Atmos and the only way I've gotten it to work is from lossy Atmos in an MKV container. But it's pretty interesting to see what's going on in some of this stuff, even as a passing fancy.


----------



## Magiclakez

Troll on Netflix is another Atmos showcase. Some good bass as well. Found this Norwegian feature rather entertaining. Roar Uthaug (director) also directed Tomb Raider (Lara Croft- 2018).


----------



## asharma

Hi folks…I was running Atmos ceiling fronts (a foot in front Of my seating) and rears (6 feet behind my seating)…

I recently upgraded my AVR which now supports 6 ceiling Atmos channels…I installed 2 front ceiling Atmos channels and changed the former front ceiling to be my middle ceiling, still a foot in front of my seating position and changed nothing with my rear ceilings…

I‘m now hearing far more come out of my middle ceiling vs when they were my front ceiling…

Am I imagining this or could this be actually be happening…? I always “thought” in the absence of middle ceiling that information would just get sent to the front or rear ceiling…

What’s actually happening here? Thanks folks…


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> Hi folks…I was running Atmos ceiling fronts (a foot in front Of my seating) and rears (6 feet behind my seating)…
> 
> I recently upgraded my AVR which now supports 6 ceiling Atmos channels…I installed 2 front ceiling Atmos channels and changed the former front ceiling to be my middle ceiling, still a foot in front of my seating position and changed nothing with my rear ceilings…
> 
> I‘m now hearing far more come out of my middle ceiling vs when they were my front ceiling…
> 
> Am I imagining this or could this be actually be happening…? I always “thought” in the absence of middle ceiling that information would just get sent to the front or rear ceiling…
> 
> What’s actually happening here? Thanks folks…


With 4 overhead speakers, Atmos sends any information meant for Top Middle to image between the front and rear overhead speakers (similar to a phantom center channel) unless "snap to" is set when they mixed it (where it will then move as you thought, but this seems to be rare compared to say front wides using it. I think most Top Middle material phantom images with 4 overheads). With Top Middle in place, it sends it directly and discretely to Top Middle. Theoretically, there should be little difference, but in reality the angular separation can weaken the "phantom top middle" image (particularly with >70 degrees between the front & rear) or if the delays and/or levels aren't set properly and even then it might only work properly for the MLP. Even with 45/135 "Tops" speakers, that's still 90 degrees between the two sets of speakers and so the Top Middle fill may not sound as striking as with a true Top Middle speaker, especially in cases where Top Middle is the only active overhead speakers (e.g. Ready Player One). 

You should be able to tell if it's set up correctly and working properly with one of the better Dolby Atmos demos (e.g. The speaker test that plays pink noise individually in each overhead speaker or the Helicopter Demo where the helicopter flies around in a circle/rectangle around all overhead speakers).


----------



## johnnyboy632

asharma said:


> Hi folks…I was running Atmos ceiling fronts (a foot in front Of my seating) and rears (6 feet behind my seating)…
> 
> I recently upgraded my AVR which now supports 6 ceiling Atmos channels…I installed 2 front ceiling Atmos channels and changed the former front ceiling to be my middle ceiling, still a foot in front of my seating position and changed nothing with my rear ceilings…
> 
> I‘m now hearing far more come out of my middle ceiling vs when they were my front ceiling…
> 
> Am I imagining this or could this be actually be happening…? I always “thought” in the absence of middle ceiling that information would just get sent to the front or rear ceiling…
> 
> What’s actually happening here? Thanks folks…


A lot of atmos content is only 7.1.2 so all the height info will go to your middles, as opposed to how you had it setup with 4 the renderer would output to all 4 and create a phantom image in the middle so everything is working as it should be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> With 4 overhead speakers, Atmos sends any information meant for Top Middle to image between the front and rear overhead speakers (similar to a phantom center channel) unless "snap to" is set when they mixed it (where it will then move as you thought, but this seems to be rare compared to say front wides using it. I think most Top Middle material phantom images with 4 overheads). With Top Middle in place, it sends it directly and discretely to Top Middle. Theoretically, there should be little difference, but in reality the angular separation can weaken the "phantom top middle" image (particularly with >70 degrees between the front & rear) or if the delays and/or levels aren't set properly and even then it might only work properly for the MLP. Even with 45/135 "Tops" speakers, that's still 90 degrees between the two sets of speakers and so the Top Middle fill may not sound as striking as with a true Top Middle speaker, especially in cases where Top Middle is the only active overhead speakers (e.g. Ready Player One).
> 
> You should be able to tell if it's set up correctly and working properly with one of the better Dolby Atmos demos (e.g. The speaker test that plays pink noise individually in each overhead speaker or the Helicopter Demo where the helicopter flies around in a circle/rectangle around all overhead speakers).


Ok, thanks for that…I’m not imagining it then…I’m not an angles expert but I’m definitely hearing more discrete activity out of my top middle (former ceiling fronts) then when the middle was “blended” between fronts and rears…


----------



## asharma

johnnyboy632 said:


> A lot of atmos content is only 7.1.2 so all the height info will go to your middles, as opposed to how you had it setup with 4 the renderer would output to all 4 and create a phantom image in the middle so everything is working as it should be
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you…Good to know…I was watching the worm hole scene in Star Trek The Motion Picture Directors Cut last night which I’m very familiar with and it seemed to me there was far more top middle present vs phantom top middle…


----------



## johnnyboy632

asharma said:


> Thank you…Good to know…I was watching the worm hole scene in Star Trek The Motion Picture Directors Cut last night which I’m very familiar with and it seemed to me there was far more top middle present vs phantom top middle…


Very true like magnumX eluded to regarding the separation of the height channels will determine how well it will phantom. 
Hopefully more studios follow Netflix and mix at 9.1.6 and beyond

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## petetherock

Top Gun 2 was a fun ride, with some stirring scenes, and I enjoyed the quiet moments when he hit Mach 10, as much as the Atmos filled dogfights later on








Top Gun 2: Maverick Movie Review


It was 1986 when Top Gun hit the big screens and led to a frenzy of people who joined the US Navy as "aviators", it also sealed megastar sta...




peteswrite.blogspot.com


----------



## priitv8

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Likely not. You can use headphones and get an idea of the movement. If you have really good headphones with a nice soundstage, you'll get a lot of pin point movement. But it wont give you a true indication of how it will sound on an Atmos system.
> 
> Maybe they work with that Cavern driver but I have yet to test it myself. I wouldnt expect it to because Youtube.


On YouTube you can only use the Atmos Binaural rendering output.


https://www.youtube.com/@Listento360/search?query=Dolby%20Atmos%20Object%20Demo%20-%20Binaural




Jeremy Anderson said:


> Essentially, but it seems to show objects much better in realtime. The down side is that it doesn't support lossless Atmos and the only way I've gotten it to work is from lossy Atmos in an MKV container. But it's pretty interesting to see what's going on in some of this stuff, even as a passing fancy.


I think this is only because DD+ Atmos encoding is the only one, with specs publicly accessible.


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> With 4 overhead speakers, Atmos sends any information meant for Top Middle to image between the front and rear overhead speakers (similar to a phantom center channel) unless "snap to" is set when they mixed it (where it will then move as you thought, but this seems to be rare compared to say front wides using it. I think most Top Middle material phantom images with 4 overheads). With Top Middle in place, it sends it directly and discretely to Top Middle. Theoretically, there should be little difference, but in reality the angular separation can weaken the "phantom top middle" image (particularly with >70 degrees between the front & rear) or if the delays and/or levels aren't set properly and even then it might only work properly for the MLP. Even with 45/135 "Tops" speakers, that's still 90 degrees between the two sets of speakers and so the Top Middle fill may not sound as striking as with a true Top Middle speaker, especially in cases where Top Middle is the only active overhead speakers (e.g. Ready Player One).
> 
> You should be able to tell if it's set up correctly and working properly with one of the better Dolby Atmos demos (e.g. The speaker test that plays pink noise individually in each overhead speaker or the Helicopter Demo where the helicopter flies around in a circle/rectangle around all overhead speakers).


Just trying a helicopter demo from YouTube on my Zidoo Z9X streamer…Readout shows Dolby Surround not Dolby Atmos…Is there something special I need to do with YouTube output for Atmos? Checked all my AVR settings but obviously missing something…thanks


----------



## cricket9998

asharma said:


> Just trying a helicopter demo from YouTube on my Zidoo Z9X streamer…Readout shows Dolby Surround not Dolby Atmos…Is there something special I need to do with YouTube output for Atmos? Checked all my AVR settings but obviously missing something…thanks


YouTube does not output atmos. They recently rolled out 5.1 support which I haven’t seen anything. Any video that says atmos is a click farm for people who have no idea what home theater is


----------



## asharma

Thanks, where would one find good Atmos demo material that the person who replied to me above refers to?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

asharma said:


> Thanks, where would one find good Atmos demo material that the person who replied to me above refers to?











Demolandia -Files for testing home theater systems-


l➤ ⭐ Demolandia the ultimate experience with ➨➨ THX, DTS or Dolby demo trailers for testing【 Home Theater surround system and 3D screens 】




www.demolandia.net




Here’s some to start.


----------



## Magiclakez

asharma said:


> Thanks, where would one find good Atmos demo material that the person who replied to me above refers to?


I think he was alluding to the Dolby atmos demo disc which contains that famous helicopter demo. It is often used as a point of reference to test out height speakers. You can find that on eBay, but be sure to conduct appropriate due diligence, as there are several pirated/spurious examples out there.

I have that disc as well, but I also tend to favor the helicopter chase sequence, featured towards the end on Mission impossible: fallout (4k Blu-ray).


----------



## fatherom

asharma said:


> Thanks, where would one find good Atmos demo material that the person who replied to me above refers to?





Magiclakez said:


> I think he was alluding to the Dolby atmos demo disc which contains that famous helicopter demo. It is often used as a point of reference to test out height speakers. You can find that on eBay, but be sure to conduct appropriate due diligence, as there are several pirated/spurious examples out there.
> 
> I have that disc as well, but I also tend to favor the helicopter chase sequence, featured towards the end on Mission impossible: fallout (4k Blu-ray).


FWIW:









Dolby Trailers - The Digital Theater


This Dolby Trailers page lists all the Dolby trailers we have at thedigitaltheater.com. To playback the MKV files in Dolby TrueHD you will need a media player such as Media Player Classic Home Cinema (MPC-HC) or a Media Server such as Plex that can output the Lossless stream via HDMI to an AV...




thedigitaltheater.com


----------



## Magiclakez

Just received my 4k Blu-ray for “the train to busan” with a new Dolby atmos track. Will be interesting to see how this stacks up with my existing Blu-ray, which has a DTSX track.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Just received my 4k Blu-ray for “the train to busan” with a new Dolby atmos track. Will be interesting to see how this stacks up with my existing Blu-ray, which has a DTSX track.


Thats an interesting head to head. Let us know what the differences are.


----------



## Magiclakez

I have started watching Echo 3 on Appletv+ and the atmos (along with the LFE) is on a par, or dare i say even surpasses 1899. The chopper featured in the 1st episode literally utilizes every bed layer/ height speaker. Great storyline as well, essentially centered around a hostage rescue operation/ theme, spearheaded by members of the special forces team. Another (low-key) gem.


----------



## MagnumX

I finally finished _The Orville_ Season 3 in Atmos. Oddly, I think the earlier seasons upmixed with Neural X had stronger surround effects, but it's still the Bees Knees, Captain....

_The Running Man_ 4K (German Edition) with 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio upmixed with Neural X blows it away, though. If I didn't know, I'd swear that movie was in Atmos or DTS:X. (Helicopters everywhere overhead including a straight fly-by Center Height to Rear Center Height area through the middle of the room right at the start). _Strong_ surround effects (not that piddly turned down stuff).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I finally finished _The Orville_ Season 3 in Atmos. Oddly, I think the earlier seasons upmixed with Neural X had stronger surround effects, but it's still the Bees Knees, Captain....
> 
> _The Running Man_ 4K (German Edition) with 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio upmixed with Neural X blows it away, though. If I didn't know, I'd swear that movie was in Atmos or DTS:X. (Helicopters everywhere overhead including a straight fly-by Center Height to Rear Center Height area through the middle of the room right at the start). _Strong_ surround effects (not that piddly turned down stuff).


In The Orville season 3,I remember there being some standout scenes. One in particular was a pretty epic space battle, so there were sounds litterally everywhere at some points.

Also the PQ and colors were so good, I thought it was playing in HDR, but it was in SDR the whole time 🤣 The colors were just off the charts. SDR can still impress.


----------



## i007spectre

Where was the Orville in Atmos? Hulu and D+ only offered 5.1 on Roku.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

i007spectre said:


> Where was the Orville in Atmos? Hulu and D+ only offered 5.1 on Roku.


Season 3 on Disney+ is in Atmos. Go specifically into seaso. 3.

I have Roku TV, which is pretty much the same as a Roku Ultra and I watched it in Atmos. It is not in HDR though.


----------



## MagnumX

i007spectre said:


> Where was the Orville in Atmos? Hulu and D+ only offered 5.1 on Roku.


Season 3 was in Atmos on both my NVidia Shield Pro and my Apple TV 4K on Disney+.


----------



## asharma

Hi folks…quick question…for a 7.2.6 setup are the rear ceiling speakers supposed to be in front of the rear surrounds or behind the rear surrounds? I swear I’ve seen both configs straight from Dolby so now I’m just confused…I’m running room correction as we speak with the rear ceilings behind the rear surrounds…Any help would be appreciated…Thanks


----------



## cricket9998

asharma said:


> Hi folks…quick question…for a 7.2.6 setup are the rear ceiling speakers supposed to be in front of the rear surrounds or behind the rear surrounds? I swear I’ve seen both configs straight from Dolby so now I’m just confused…I’m running room correction as we speak with the rear ceilings behind the rear surrounds…Any help would be appreciated…Thanks


It doesn’t matter where the rear surrounds are. They should be about 55 degrees from MLP or so. Don’t look at the diagrams they post only read the dimensions they say for each setup. 6 ceiling speakers can have more separation


----------



## asharma

cricket9998 said:


> It doesn’t matter where the rear surrounds are. They should be about 55 degrees from MLP or so. Don’t look at the diagrams they post only read the dimensions they say for each setup. 6 ceiling speakers can have more separation


Thank you…I’m not trying to ignore your advice…This is the diagram I went by…Is it wrong? I tilted my rear surrounds inward as per the pic and my rear ceilings are slightly behind my rear surrounds…


----------



## MagnumX

The diagram is just a basic example. What matters are the angles. Either could be correct depending on your layout. Most setups using Tops would find the surrounds behind the overheads. Perhaps not with Heights.

There's a range allowed as well. Auro prefers them one above another to align the soundfields for certain fixed microphone recordings so that's what I've tried to follow while keeping the numbers in range for Atmos Heights + Top Middle here.


----------



## cricket9998

asharma said:


> Thank you…I’m not trying to ignore your advice…This is the diagram I went by…Is it wrong? I tilted my rear surrounds inward as per the pic and my rear ceilings are slightly behind my rear surrounds…
> 
> View attachment 3370303


Yeah that pdf is not great. They have better resources but that’s their marketing stuff which is simplified and inaccurate at best. Speaker positions are determined based on angles. Watch this guys video series to understand why


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> The diagram is just a basic example. What matters are the angles. Either could be correct depending on your layout. Most setups using Tops would find the surrounds behind the overheads. Perhaps not with Heights.
> 
> There's a range allowed as well. Auro prefers them one above another to align the soundfields for certain fixed microphone recordings so that's what I've tried to follow while keeping the numbers in range for Atmos Heights + Top Middle here.


Thanks…uggggg…just spent the evening rewiring as I thought the Dolby diagrams were gospel…

My rear surrounds are angled similarity to the pic in regards to MLP and as mentioned the rear ceilings are slightly behind the rear surrounds but by only about 4 inches…

my rear surrounds are on stands so I can have em behind the rear ceilings or slightly in front (as they are now),,,What would you recommend? Thanks


----------



## asharma

cricket9998 said:


> Yeah that pdf is not great. They have better resources but that’s their marketing stuff which is simplified and inaccurate at best. Speaker positions are determined based on angles. Watch this guys video series to understand why


Ugggggg…but thanks 😉 ok, will do…thanks again


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> Thanks…uggggg…just spent the evening rewiring as I thought the Dolby diagrams were gospel…
> 
> My rear surrounds are angled similarity to the pic in regards to MLP and as mentioned the rear ceilings are slightly behind the rear surrounds but by only about 4 inches…
> 
> my rear surrounds are on stands so I can have em behind the rear ceilings or slightly in front (as they are now),,,What would you recommend? Thanks


Obviously, I like directly under, although technically my rear heights are slightly behind due to the cabinet of the speakers limiting how far back I can go with towers. But as long as they are in range, why not test them out with an Atmos demo or two and see what you prefer if it's easy to move the rear surrounds around?


----------



## asharma

MagnumX said:


> Obviously, I like directly under, although technically my rear heights are slightly behind due to the cabinet of the speakers limiting how far back I can go with towers. But as long as they are in range, why not test them out with an Atmos demo or two and see what you prefer if it's easy to move the rear surrounds around?


Thanks, yes very easy to move the rear surrounds a foot behind the rear ceilings or 4-5” in front of the rear ceilings or directly underneath the rear ceilings as you suggest…


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Hi folks…quick question…for a 7.2.6 setup are the rear ceiling speakers supposed to be in front of the rear surrounds or behind the rear surrounds? I swear I’ve seen both configs straight from Dolby so now I’m just confused…I’m running room correction as we speak with the rear ceilings behind the rear surrounds…Any help would be appreciated…Thanks


I would place them inside the rear surrounds or directly above the rear surrounds.

Like this









Or like this:


----------



## Soulburner

To confuse matters further, here are the studio guidelines


----------



## MagnumX

My copies of NO ESCAPE and THE FRIGHTENERS have arrived from Germany (former in Auro-3D 13.1 and Atmos and the latter only in Atmos). I'll be curious to hear how they stack up to other movies as _Turbine_ usually does a great job.


----------



## Wardog555

Soulburner said:


> To confuse matters further, here are the studio guidelines


you want page 35


----------



## asharma

Gotta say, watching YouTube video etc, 7.2.6 placement seems to be all over the place…As folks say tho, it’s about the angles not necessarily whether the rear ceilings are in front or behind the rear surrounds…

I “think” I’ll position my base 7 speakers so they flow in a “circle” with the rear surrounds toed in towards the MLP, in line with the front L&R. The 6 ceiling speakers sit “inside” the base 7 speaker circle…I cannot change the location of the 6 ceiling speakers.

I’ll need to test whether I prefer the rear surrounds in front, right beneath or behind the rear ceilings…Im not sure that placement makes a big difference, correct me if I’m wrong…

Does this sound reasonable as an approach?

To complicate things, I only have 2 recliners in my 12x17 room so there is no single sweet spot seat for seating in the center of the room as this occurs with only 2 seats…I sit in my left recliner, which again is not centered in the room…


----------



## Soulburner

The speakers can be made to be "closer" or "further" away with distance and level settings, so choose based on the dispersion of the speaker (most speakers are usually better if more than 6 feet from listeners) and the room layout.


----------



## asharma

Soulburner said:


> The speakers can be made to be "closer" or "further" away with distance and level settings, so choose based on the dispersion of the speaker (most speakers are usually better if more than 6 feet from listeners) and the room layout.


Thanks, I’m really only “fussing“ between the rear surrounds and rear ceilings…im not sure why as hardly any sound comes out of the rear surrounds anyway…Craaaaaazy hobby on the brain…😉


----------



## mrtickleuk

asharma said:


> Thanks…uggggg…just spent the evening rewiring as I thought the Dolby diagrams were gospel…


The numbers next to the angles in the diagram are correct, but that is all.


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> Hi folks…quick question…for a 7.2.6 setup are the rear ceiling speakers supposed to be in front of the rear surrounds or behind the rear surrounds?


Small differences in physical distance don't matter much since both pairs of speakers (rear heights and rear surrounds) will appear to be the same distance away once your receiver does time alignment (delays).


----------



## robert600

asharma said:


> Thanks, I’m really only “fussing“ between the rear surrounds and rear ceilings…im not sure why as hardly any sound comes out of the rear surrounds anyway…Craaaaaazy hobby on the brain…😉


Hmmm ... I find I get quite a bit of sound from the rear surrounds ... depending on the track of course. I'm wondering if yours might be a little low and are in the sound shadow of your recliners? I know I had to raise mine a little to avoid that problem. Ideally you want line-of-sight from the speaker to the listeners ears with no seat cushion/headrest in between.


----------



## asharma

robert600 said:


> Hmmm ... I find I get quite a bit of sound from the rear surrounds ... depending on the track of course. I'm wondering if yours might be a little low and are in the sound shadow of your recliners? I know I had to raise mine a little to avoid that problem. Ideally you want line-of-sight from the speaker to the listeners ears with no seat cushion/headrest in between.


Thanks, Absolutely valid point about my head rests but even if I put my ear right up to the speaker I usually just find ambience music from the score of the movie…I watched a John Wick shootout scene last night, no bullets in the rear surrounds with my ear up to them…

Would you have a couple examples of movies that have active rear surrounds? If I have them, I could test accordingly…Thanks again


----------



## joeyvans

asharma said:


> Thanks, Absolutely valid point about my head rests but even if I put my ear right up to the speaker I usually just find ambience music from the score of the movie…I watched a John Wick shootout scene last night, no bullets in the rear surrounds with my ear up to them…
> 
> Would you have a couple examples of movies that have active rear surrounds? If I have them, I could test accordingly…Thanks again


Forgive my potential ignorance, as I only have 5.2.4 channels. But, if something is only mixed in 5.1, will AVR's upmix to 7.1 to produce sounds from the rear surrounds? Or, is it dependent on what upmix sound mode you are using?


----------



## asharma

joeyvans said:


> Forgive my potential ignorance, as I only have 5.2.4 channels. But, if something is only mixed in 5.1, will AVR's upmix to 7.1 to produce sounds from the rear surrounds? Or, is it dependent on what upmix sound mode you are using?


That’s a good question…I have a Dolby Surround up mixer on my Anthem 1140 but I’m unsure if it will take a 5 Channel offering and upmix it to 7…


----------



## sdurani

joeyvans said:


> But, if something is only mixed in 5.1, will AVR's upmix to 7.1 to produce sounds from the rear surrounds?


Sure. You must have noticed with your 5.1 base layer that you sometimes hear sounds directly behind you, as though you had Rear speakers. Upmixers extract the info in the 2 surround channels that is mono-ish (similar in both surround channels) and steer it to the Rear speakers behind you. That's where those sounds would have phantom imaged anyway. Sounds in the 2 surround channels that are more stereo-ish (different in both surround channels) are steered to the Side speakers at your sides. That's how 2 surround channels are upmixed to 4 surround speakers.


----------



## cricket9998

joeyvans said:


> Forgive my potential ignorance, as I only have 5.2.4 channels. But, if something is only mixed in 5.1, will AVR's upmix to 7.1 to produce sounds from the rear surrounds? Or, is it dependent on what upmix sound mode you are using?


5.x doesn’t have rear surrounds, only “surrounds”. They do not go in the rear. You don’t have 7 bed layers, so there’s no upmixing. If you did though, it would if your processor has something like Dolby surround upmixer, neural x, etc. for example something in dts-hd ma 5.1 can use the neural x upmixer so it will upmix to both rear and height channels.


----------



## joeyvans

cricket9998 said:


> 5.x doesn’t have rear surrounds, only “surrounds”. They do not go in the rear. You don’t have 7 bed layers, so there’s no upmixing. If you did though, it would if your processor has something like Dolby surround upmixer, neural x, etc. for example something in dts-hd ma 5.1 can use the neural x upmixer so it will upmix to both rear and height channels.


Right... I wasn't asking for me, as I don't have rear surrounds. I was just asking the question for asharma in case that could be the issue with lack of output from the rear surrounds. Thanks for the info!


----------



## mjwagner

robert600 said:


> Hmmm ... I find I get quite a bit of sound from the rear surrounds ... depending on the track of course. I'm wondering if yours might be a little low and are in the sound shadow of your recliners? I know I had to raise mine a little to avoid that problem. Ideally you want line-of-sight from the speaker to the listeners ears with no seat cushion/headrest in between.


I agree with this. I spent a few years with my HT system as 5.2 before I added the 2 rear surrounds to go to 7.2, and then I added 4 down firing speakers to go to my current 7.2.4, and IMO adding the 2 rear surrounds made a HUGE difference. Honestly I was surprised at how much of a difference it made.


----------



## MagnumX

There seems to be some misconceptions about the effect delays have on apparent distance here. It's not magic. It _cannot_ and _will not_ make a single discrete speaker playing by itself sound closer or farther away from you. That's impossible. It can only change the apparent distance when playing in combination with one or more additional speakers (array). 

For example, a center channel playing a sound that is also coming from the mains will appear to move forward/backward relative to the mains if you change its delay times, but play it by itself and you can play with delays all day long and it won't do a thing for distance perception. All you're doing is delaying the wave arrival time. 

So while delays can correct stereo ALIGNMENT issues (one is a foot or two behind the other) as it times their arrival together, it cannot make rear surrounds sound overall like they're 20 feet away when they're actually only 5 feet away and people should take that into account when designing their home theaters. A speaker in front of you will not suddenly sound like it's behind you with correlated sounds just because you changed the delay time. 

Delays are first and foremost used to counter the Precedence Effect, but that generally only works for one seat. That's why Dolby moved their surrounds near the ceiling in their Atmos theaters. The Precedence Effect wouldn't let the surrounds image in-between properly for off-center seats, but by using those narrow ceiling speakers to image in-between while letting the surrounds image the outside area on the walls, the have fairly precise overhead imaging now, but at the expense of the height layer perception. 

They have essentially killed ear level effects to get a large room to image precisely overhead for a large room full of people. They would need an additional surround layer just above ear level to restore height differences for effects outside the mains (like AuroMax uses). Unfortunately, this may in turn affect home mixes that could image in the middle at different heights, but won't because it doesn't work well in large theaters. 

It's why you rarely, if ever heard sounds image between surround speakers out in the middle of your room with 5.1. They moved that effect purely to the rear of the room with Dolby Surround EX. Atmos, however can theoretically image anywhere in the room at either height level or anywhere in between and music albums in Atmos (and some movies occasionally) now do this, but because it won't work well for everyone at the theater and the surrounds have been moved to just below the ceiling, they are less likely to mix it that way for movies, which is yet another reason why many Atmos mixes keep failing to live up to their true potential at home. 

I watched the movie _The Ice Road_ with Liam Neeson recently in Auro-3D 13.1 and it had sounds imaging at ear level all inside the middle of the room all around me. It was incredible sounding, in part, because you almost never hear that done with Atmos.

In a perfect world, Dolby would add a 2nd layer of surrounds like Auro uses for their theaters and simply downmix the lower set into the regular surrounds and the upper set into the ceiling/height layer and use a wider layout like Auro to handle it since it's not the same issue at home as it is in the theater. A single VOG speaker at home would anchor any ceiling effects for all listeners. 

In essence, the AuroMax layout at theaters with the Auro 13.1 layout modified for up to 34 speakers at home would provide the best possible experience for both locations and could easily fold down to smaller home theater rooms. But pride and competition will probably not allow that to happen. 

Ironically, DTS:X has adopted that precise functionality and options for both, yet they trail Atmos anyway because of the streaming market. The best solution to get around it at home would be something like Storm XT offers to make Atmos work with Auro-3D layouts, but that still won't fix the way things are mixed for Atmos theaters, which in turn trickle down to the home mixes, unfortunately as they don't often optimize for home mixes in that regard so most of the capability would be wasted.


----------



## ted_b

As a long-time 5.1 surround listener, and now somewhat in the biz (founding member of NativeDSD) you would think I have learned my lessons....but no.  I have recently finally finished my 7.3.4 Atmos home theater/music room (see link below) and for whatever god-foresaken reason (mostly budget, I guess) I have strayed from the "identical drivers all around" concept and gone ahead and put good-but-not-great SVS Prime Elevations as my height speakers. For most movies and many Atmos music releases (Apple Music or Bluray) the Prime Elevations do just fine. BUT.....when the mix is done right (all of my 2L Auro or Atmos files, most of our other partner label Auro-3D or Atmos files, most of my Bluray Atmos music files, etc etc) I gave WAYYY too little thought to the timbre and tonality of the heights. Cuz, wow, when done right the sphere of music (or some effects in movies) is palpable, and the mismatch of my Aerial Acoustic bed layer and the SVS Prime Elevations is pretty dramatic (even room corrected for phase, timing, etc).

I reached out to a great label partner, Morten Lyndberg of 2L, and he chatted with me about the importance of his height channels during mastering/mixing. It's what I feared. 

So...has anyone out there upgraded his or her height speakers to match or to somewhat match the drivers in the bed layer? I could go Aerial 5T (Michael Kelly, Aerial founder, gave me a tip on hanging them from the ceiling) but would need a divorce lawyer or a set of great used pairs. I may ping a dealer I found that carries Aerials, SVS and other manufacturers to see if they have a middle ground where product XYZ has similar timbre but won't kill my budget. 

I am now convinced that immersive audio is here to stay, or at least justify more investment, I just don't know how much more  
Thanks in advance
Ted


----------



## MagnumX

ted_b said:


> As a long-time 5.1 surround listener, and now somewhat in the biz (founding member of NativeDSD) you would think I have learned my lessons....but no.  I have recently finally finished my 7.3.4 Atmos home theater/music room (see link below) and for whatever god-foresaken reason (mostly budget, I guess) I have strayed from the "identical drivers all around" concept and gone ahead and put good-but-not-great SVS Prime Elevations as my height speakers. For most movies and many Atmos music releases (Apple Music or Bluray) the Prime Elevations do just fine. BUT.....when the mix is done right (all of my 2L Auro or Atmos files, most of our other partner label Auro-3D or Atmos files, most of my Bluray Atmos music files, etc etc) I gave WAYYY too little thought to the timbre and tonality of the heights. Cuz, wow, when done right the sphere of music (or some effects in movies) is palpable, and the mismatch of my Aerial Acoustic bed layer and the SVS Prime Elevations is pretty dramatic (even room corrected for phase, timing, etc).
> 
> I reached out to a great label partner, Morten Lyndberg of 2L, and he chatted with me about the importance of his height channels during mastering/mixing. It's what I feared.
> 
> So...has anyone out there upgraded his or her height speakers to match or to somewhat match the drivers in the bed layer? I could go Aerial 5T (Michael Kelly, Aerial founder, gave me a tip on hanging them from the ceiling) but would need a divorce lawyer or a set of great used pairs. I may ping a dealer I found that carries Aerials, SVS and other manufacturers to see if they have a middle ground where product XYZ has similar timbre but won't kill my budget.
> 
> I am now convinced that immersive audio is here to stay, or at least justify more investment, I just don't know how much more  )
> Thanks in advance
> Ted


I use identical drivers in 13 of 17 PSB speakers, not necessarily the same model speaker (bookshelf versus tower, for example) and the other 4 (rear surrounds and rear heights are updated versions of the same drivers. I couldn't tell the X1T from the T45 when I tried them side-by-side, but the X1T fit in a spot the T45 was slightly too wide for (blocked sliding door), but they sound great all around).


----------



## niterida

ted_b said:


> As a long-time 5.1 surround listener, and now somewhat in the biz (founding member of NativeDSD) you would think I have learned my lessons....but no.  I have recently finally finished my 7.3.4 Atmos home theater/music room (see link below) and for whatever god-foresaken reason (mostly budget, I guess) I have strayed from the "identical drivers all around" concept and gone ahead and put good-but-not-great SVS Prime Elevations as my height speakers. For most movies and many Atmos music releases (Apple Music or Bluray) the Prime Elevations do just fine. BUT.....when the mix is done right (all of my 2L Auro or Atmos files, most of our other partner label Auro-3D or Atmos files, most of my Bluray Atmos music files, etc etc) I gave WAYYY too little thought to the timbre and tonality of the heights. Cuz, wow, when done right the sphere of music (or some effects in movies) is palpable, and the mismatch of my Aerial Acoustic bed layer and the SVS Prime Elevations is pretty dramatic (even room corrected for phase, timing, etc).
> 
> I reached out to a great label partner, Morten Lyndberg of 2L, and he chatted with me about the importance of his height channels during mastering/mixing. It's what I feared.
> 
> So...has anyone out there upgraded his or her height speakers to match or to somewhat match the drivers in the bed layer? I could go Aerial 5T (Michael Kelly, Aerial founder, gave me a tip on hanging them from the ceiling) but would need a divorce lawyer or a set of great used pairs. I may ping a dealer I found that carries Aerials, SVS and other manufacturers to see if they have a middle ground where product XYZ has similar timbre but won't kill my budget.
> 
> I am now convinced that immersive audio is here to stay, or at least justify more investment, I just don't know how much more  )
> Thanks in advance
> Ted


I have 11 identical 8" Wharfedale Pro PA speakers in my 7.1.4 setup.
It was an improvement once I replaced the 4 bookshelf heights with the PA speakers 
However it wasn't as big an improvement as I expected


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> I “think” I’ll position my base 7 speakers so they flow in a “circle” with the rear surrounds toed in towards the MLP, in line with the front L&R. The 6 ceiling speakers sit “inside” the base 7 speaker circle…I cannot change the location of the 6 ceiling speakers.


That is basically the optimal setup for an Atmos focused system.



> I’ll need to test whether I prefer the rear surrounds in front, right beneath or behind the rear ceilings…Im not sure that placement makes a big difference, correct me if I’m wrong…


This is what I suggest to people. Always test it if possible. Make slight adjustments to the speaker positioning and toe-in until you get them to sound their best.



> Does this sound reasonable as an approach?


quite reasonable



> To complicate things, I only have 2 recliners in my 12x17 room so there is no single sweet spot seat for seating in the center of the room as this occurs with only 2 seats…I sit in my left recliner, which again is not centered in the room…


With only 2 seats, you should be able to make the sweet spot wide enough that both seats are in the optimal zone of sound.


----------



## niterida

Aim the L speakers at the R seat and you will be sweet 
And also the R speakers to the L seats of course


----------



## piticli

I just found some weird guys at the soundbar section, saying that ddp atmos is as good as true hd atmos. All of them of course using little streaming boxes...


----------



## MagnumX

piticli said:


> I just found some weird guys at the soundbar section, saying that ddp atmos is as good as true hd atmos. All of them of course using little streaming boxes...


Yeah, have you ever done a double blind test with DD+ vs TrueHD?


----------



## mrtickleuk

piticli said:


> I just found some weird guys at the soundbar section, saying that ddp atmos is as good as true hd atmos. All of them of course using little streaming boxes...


Do you think that @FilmMixer is a "weird guy" too? (Hint: he *has *done the side by side level matched AB to the master he refers to here



FilmMixer said:


> DD+ is nothing like lossy DD from DVD.
> 
> *Unless you’ve done a side by side level matched AB to the master your comment is only an opinion, nothing more.*


Specifically about DD+ Atmos, here: Sony HT-A9 Home Theater System

Of course, streaming/broadcasting does not use, and never will use, True HD Atmos, see >here<  and >here<  for why, so it's somewhat a moot point.


----------



## joeyvans

mrtickleuk said:


> Do you think that @FilmMixer is a "weird guy" too? (Hint: he *has *done the side by side level matched AB to the master he refers to here
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically about DD+ Atmos, here: Sony HT-A9 Home Theater System
> 
> Of course, streaming/broadcasting does not use, and never will use, True HD Atmos, see >here<  and >here<  for why, so it's somewhat a moot point.


Thanks for sharing these links. Extremely helpful for a noob like me.


----------



## Soulburner

ted_b said:


> As a long-time 5.1 surround listener, and now somewhat in the biz (founding member of NativeDSD) you would think I have learned my lessons....but no.  I have recently finally finished my 7.3.4 Atmos home theater/music room (see link below) and for whatever god-foresaken reason (mostly budget, I guess) I have strayed from the "identical drivers all around" concept and gone ahead and put good-but-not-great SVS Prime Elevations as my height speakers. For most movies and many Atmos music releases (Apple Music or Bluray) the Prime Elevations do just fine. BUT.....when the mix is done right (all of my 2L Auro or Atmos files, most of our other partner label Auro-3D or Atmos files, most of my Bluray Atmos music files, etc etc) I gave WAYYY too little thought to the timbre and tonality of the heights. Cuz, wow, when done right the sphere of music (or some effects in movies) is palpable, and the mismatch of my Aerial Acoustic bed layer and the SVS Prime Elevations is pretty dramatic (even room corrected for phase, timing, etc).
> 
> I reached out to a great label partner, Morten Lyndberg of 2L, and he chatted with me about the importance of his height channels during mastering/mixing. It's what I feared.
> 
> So...has anyone out there upgraded his or her height speakers to match or to somewhat match the drivers in the bed layer? I could go Aerial 5T (Michael Kelly, Aerial founder, gave me a tip on hanging them from the ceiling) but would need a divorce lawyer or a set of great used pairs. I may ping a dealer I found that carries Aerials, SVS and other manufacturers to see if they have a middle ground where product XYZ has similar timbre but won't kill my budget.
> 
> I am now convinced that immersive audio is here to stay, or at least justify more investment, I just don't know how much more
> Thanks in advance
> Ted


What I did: buy outdoor, ready-to-mount speakers from Focal or Revel.


----------



## ted_b

Soulburner said:


> What I did: buy outdoor, ready-to-mount speakers from Focal or Revel.


How did you know that the timbre-matching would work with your Buchardts?


----------



## Soulburner

ted_b said:


> How did you know that the timbre-matching would work with your Buchardts?


I've seen enough measurements to know they would be in the ballpark. They don't sound the same, but they are close enough. Revel would maybe have been better, but their sticker price was far higher. I put the speakers up as FL and FR and listen to music. If they pass my high standards, they get the green light. I do that with all of my surrounds.


----------



## priitv8

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, have you ever done a double blind test with DD+ vs TrueHD?


It remains mysterious to me, why do the streaming platforms prefer lower
DIALNORM values, than the Bluray versions?
Case in point - appleTV streaming version (DD+) of TG:Maverick is 12dB quieter than the bluray version (TrueHD). 
Quick inspection showed - former had DN=19 the latter DN=31.
This makes Dolby decoder to attenuate the DD+ version by -12dB before sending out. 
That indeed means, that any test should be level matched to begin with.


----------



## piticli

MagnumX said:


> Yeah, have you ever done a double blind test with DD+ vs TrueHD?


seriously? It is night and day... I guess you're one of those deaf people


----------



## piticli

mrtickleuk said:


> Do you think that @FilmMixer is a "weird guy" too? (Hint: he *has *done the side by side level matched AB to the master he refers to here
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically about DD+ Atmos, here: Sony HT-A9 Home Theater System
> 
> Of course, streaming/broadcasting does not use, and never will use, True HD Atmos, see >here<  and >here<  for why, so it's somewhat a moot point.


If he thinks there's no difference surely is, either that or deaf.


----------



## mrtickleuk

joeyvans said:


> Thanks for sharing these links. Extremely helpful for a noob like me.


You're welcome! The user who posted them is a professional sound mixer and it's very likely you've heard his work. I'll side with his professional opinion on these matters, over a very obvious troll with drive-by posts calling people deaf, _any_ day of the week.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I have always felt that there was greater dynamics between DD+ streaming and the lossless codecs on blu ray. Not too dissimilar from the difference between legacy Dolby Digital and DTS formats in the DVD era.

I have watched multiple films in both formats. I oftentimes watch a movie in theaters or on streaming before I decide if I want to purchase a physical copy.

I find that oftentimes with streaming content, I find that I have to turn it up in comparison to to the physical disc to get the same impact and even then the dynamics dont quite seem as wide.

Other than the dynamic differences, I dont have any issues with DD+. The resolution seems comparable to my ears. I'm sure there are differences due to compression, but I cant really hear them well.


----------



## MagnumX

piticli said:


> seriously? It is night and day... I guess you're one of those deaf people


I take it, then that your answer is NO, you have NOT compared them level matched and therefore are talking out your back side like all golden ears that rarely if ever can tell a certain organic waste material from Shinola the moment they don't know which one they're listening to. Most confuse volume differences with quality as any number of tests have shown. I'd bet my last dollar you never even matched levels within 0.1dB to compare, let alone did it with a proper double blind test and then come on here denigrating everyone that has and knows better.

The mere fact you have to resort to pathetic childish insults the moment someone asks you a simple question. I gave no opinion whatsoever in my question and yet I'm not only accused of being deaf, but one of the guys that makes Atmos soundtracks as well and that proves what kind of person you are. Please do us all a favor and go back to your Stereophile snake oil den of perpetual golden ear nonsense. You'll be much happier there buying $1500 a meter speaker wire from Audio quest (and they'll be happy to sell it to you).


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have always felt that there was greater dynamics between DD+ streaming and the lossless codecs on blu ray. Not too dissimilar from the difference between legacy Dolby Digital and DTS formats in the DVD era.
> 
> I have watched multiple films in both formats. I oftentimes watch a movie in theaters or on streaming before I decide if I want to purchase a physical copy.
> 
> I find that oftentimes with streaming content, I find that I have to turn it up in comparison to to the physical disc to get the same impact and even then the dynamics dont quite seem as wide.
> 
> Other than the dynamic differences, I dont have any issues with DD+. The resolution seems comparable to my ears. I'm sure there are differences due to compression, but I cant really hear them well.


Lossy compression in no way affects dynamic range whatsoever. If a certain streaming site has reduced dynamics, they've altered the signal on purpose just like dial norm. You'd have to ask them why. 

If the bitrate is too low, it sounds more like low quality MP3s with swirly sounds in the treble, which I have yet to hear at the 640kbps streaming rate for 5.1 that is used on core blurays and Apple streaming. 

The heights can become bit starved at 768kbps with Atmos, however and do show differences sometimes when isolated during busy sections, but aren't really meant to be isolated when other channels are playing. Still, it would be better if Apple upped their streaming rate to 1.5Mbps, which should eliminate the problem entirely. DD+ is capable of using any number of bitrates in streaming. Many streaming sites are just trying to save money.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> Lossy compression in no way affects dynamic range whatsoever. If a certain streaming site has reduced dynamics, they've altered the signal on purpose just like dial norm. You'd have to ask them why.
> 
> If the bitrate is too low, it sounds more like low quality MP3s with swirly sounds in the treble, which I have yet to hear at the 640kbps streaming rate for 5.1 that is used on core blurays and Apple streaming.
> 
> The heights can become bit starved at 768kbps with Atmos, however and do show differences sometimes when isolated during busy sections, but aren't really meant to be isolated when other channels are playing. Still, it would be better if Apple upped their streaming rate to 1.5Mbps, which should eliminate the problem entirely. DD+ is capable of using any number of bitrates in streaming. Many streaming sites are just trying to save money.


I think in most cases the dynamic differences exist between the different devices. A streaming device vs a blu ray player. Many people have claimed that they have to turn up the source volume from their streaming boxes to match the same impact they get from their physical disc players.

And then there are the differences between the various streaming services. Netflix being on the higher end of the scale with some of their programming matching physical disc for impact (Stranger Things for example)

I think the best comparison would be to use an Xbox or Playstation console and compare the same program through the streaming service and a physical disc. Maybe I will do that and claim the digital code in my Edge of Tomorrow set I just bought and do an A/B comparison.


----------



## Soulburner

The dynamic range compression comes from the source material; not the player or electronics.


----------



## dschulz

Expectation bias plays a huge role here. Over on the Kaleidescape subforum there are many Kaleidescape owners who have convinced themselves that their audio sounds better than the physical disc, despite the disc having a lossless soundtrack...


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I have always felt that there was greater dynamics between DD+ streaming and the lossless codecs on blu ray. Not too dissimilar from the difference between legacy Dolby Digital and DTS formats in the DVD era.
> 
> I have watched multiple films in both formats. I oftentimes watch a movie in theaters or on streaming before I decide if I want to purchase a physical copy.
> 
> I find that oftentimes with streaming content, I find that I have to turn it up in comparison to to the physical disc to get the same impact and even then the dynamics dont quite seem as wide.
> 
> Other than the dynamic differences, I dont have any issues with DD+. The resolution seems comparable to my ears. I'm sure there are differences due to compression, but I cant really hear them well.


It’s one example but I watched the matrix 1 and 4 on HBO max and compared line by line to the 4k uhd and I could hear the difference. HBO was more compressed and less treble. Vocal clarity was bad. Music didn’t sound as impressive. It’s good enough for a soundbar but so is a 64kbps mp3


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> Lossy compression in no way affects dynamic range whatsoever. If a certain streaming site has reduced dynamics, they've altered the signal on purpose just like dial norm. You'd have to ask them why.


All compression reduces dynamic range. That is exactly how it works. I think you are confusing it with limiting or signal reduction.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think in most cases the dynamic differences exist between the different devices. A streaming device vs a blu ray player. Many people have claimed that they have to turn up the source volume from their streaming boxes to match the same impact they get from their physical disc players.
> 
> And then there are the differences between the various streaming services. Netflix being on the higher end of the scale with some of their programming matching physical disc for impact (Stranger Things for example)
> 
> I think the best comparison would be to use an Xbox or Playstation console and compare the same program through the streaming service and a physical disc. Maybe I will do that and claim the digital code in my Edge of Tomorrow set I just bought and do an A/B comparison.


That's a volume level difference (Dial Norm often screws that up in disc versus streaming as well as some devices having different output level voltages). It's not an indication of a dynamic range difference. 

You would need to match levels with some dialog or something with a sound level meter and then measure a quiet sound and a loud sound to see if the range is the same. If the quiet sound measures louder or the loud sound is more quiet, it's been compressed. If the opposite is true, it's got more dynamic range. If they are the same there's no difference. 

If I compare _The Matrix_ in Atmos to my converted DTS Cinema soundtrack (Cinema DTS was actually using AptX) and match dialog levels, the loud explosions and things like gunshots and the hovercraft motor backing into that spot to hide are 6-8dB louder (sounds 60%-80% louder to the human ear and I do NOT mean the bass LFE either, but the overall levels) on the Cinema DTS theatrical soundtrack than the "home" Atmos soundtrack. 

It's night and day more visceral with Cinema DTS despite being "lossy" because they essentially neutered the dynamic range for home playback on sound bars and the like. Yet it routinely gets 10/10 ratings. If these people heard the theatrical mix at home with Neural X, they'd never listen to the Atmos track again! It's _that_ much better! There is no filtering of bass either on the cinema track (I didn't compare bass levels, however).


----------



## MagnumX

GMil said:


> All compression reduces dynamic range. That is exactly how it works. I think you are confusing it with limiting or signal reduction.


On the contrary, YOU are confusing sound compression (like for guitars and reducing dynamic range) with lossy/lossless compression which literally has NOTHING to do with dynamic compression. It's more like JPEG or "Zip" file size compression than anything else. Reducing dynamic range with "compression" by comparison does not reduce file sizes. They are not related to each other despite the common word _compression_.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> The dynamic range compression comes from the source material; not the player or electronics.


Absolutely. 

I was simply accounting for possible output differences between devices which could be perceived as differences in dynamic output.

As others have already stated, output levels would need to be equalized before determining if dynamics are being adversely effected.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> That's a volume level difference (Dial Norm often screws that up in disc versus streaming as well as some devices having different output level voltages). It's not an indication of a dynamic range difference.


Right. I was simply acknowledging that it very well could be differences in device output levels rather than dynamic range issues. In my setup, I have my RokuTV +3db boosted over what my physical player is and discs still sound more dynamic. Only slightly more, but still there (mainly dynamic passages on the low end but some high end stuff too)



> You would need to match levels with some dialog or something with a sound level meter and then measure a quiet sound and a loud sound to see if the range is the same. If the quiet sound measures louder or the loud sound is more quiet, it's been compressed. If the opposite is true, it's got more dynamic range. If they are the same there's no difference.


thats how I would handle it. I would pull out my Umik-1 and my laptop and use the RTA in REW to measure the levels. Between 20hz and 20khz. That would absolutely show if there was any difference between the two.


----------



## GMil

MagnumX said:


> On the contrary, YOU are confusing sound compression (like for guitars and reducing dynamic range) with lossy/lossless compression which literally has NOTHING to do with dynamic compression. It's more like JPEG or "Zip" file size compression than anything else. Reducing dynamic range with "compression" by comparison does not reduce file sizes. They are not related to each other despite the common word _compression_.


Right. Audio codec compression uses "clever algorithms" to remove "non-essential" details. My bad.


----------



## cricket9998

GMil said:


> All compression reduces dynamic range. That is exactly how it works. I think you are confusing it with limiting or signal reduction.


There is signal compression which is dynamic range and codec compression which reduces audio quality. The sound was muffled, and low quality.


----------



## MagnumX

cricket9998 said:


> It’s one example but I watched the matrix 1 and 4 on HBO max and compared line by line to the 4k uhd and I could hear the difference. HBO was more compressed and less treble. Vocal clarity was bad. Music didn’t sound as impressive. It’s good enough for a soundbar but so is a 64kbps mp3


The problem is some streamers use too low of bitrates. Dolby rated DD+ 640kbps for 5.1 as transparent (meaning most circumstances) so anything below that will be trouble. I'm not sure where Atmos would be fully transparent, but I suspect 768kbps isn't enough. I would expect something closer to 1.5Mbps to ensure transparency for 11 objects or channels.


----------



## Chirosamsung

I would say disc is better. Period


----------



## asharma

Hi folks…quick question…is there a snowballs chance in hell that my Paradigm Prestige 25s bipoles could function “effectively“ as front wides, mounted to each side wall or should I just give it up? Thanks


----------



## Soulburner

Sure they could, as they match your fronts. How do they sound when you wire them as front L&R?


----------



## asharma

Soulburner said:


> Sure they could, as they match your fronts. How do they sound when you wire them as front L&R?


Thanks…I was testing some 2 ch music thru them the other day and man they sounded nice and full…Used as FW’s however, given tweeters are then firing towards the front of the room AND towards the back of the room, isn’t that “not to Atmos code”? The reason I ask is I have the matching bookshelves used as rear surrounds and I could swap their location and use the bookshelves as the FW’s and the bipoles as my rear surrounds but I would have to build some shelves for the bipoles then so I could angle them towards the MLP in the rear…It’s “easier” if I just bolted the bipoles to the side wall(s) and used them as FW’s…What would you recommend?


----------



## niterida

asharma said:


> Hi folks…quick question…is there a snowballs chance in hell that my Paradigm Prestige 25s bipoles could function “effectively“ as front wides, mounted to each side wall or should I just give it up? Thanks


Just open them up and disconnect one set of mids/tweeters and they will be perfect for wides.


----------



## asharma

Now THERE’s an idea! Disconnect the side facing the front?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Hi folks…quick question…is there a snowballs chance in hell that my Paradigm Prestige 25s bipoles could function “effectively“ as front wides, mounted to each side wall or should I just give it up? Thanks
> 
> View attachment 3371210


Bipoles can be fine if the tweeters are pointing at you and you have sufficient room treatments to absorb the other frequencies being shot at the wall.

Home Theater Gurus made a video on this recently and made some *very *good points in it.


----------



## MagnumX

Chirosamsung said:


> I would say disc is better. Period


Gross simplification. It's all subject to bitrates. 

Discs aren't lossless video either. Kaleidescape has the potential to be superior to disc, for example, particularly if they upgrade rates as Internet speeds continue to increase. Discs are stuck and likely will never do 8K either. It's only a matter of time before discs are utterly irrelevant. 

I haven't played a movie directly off a disc in years. I dump and play the MKV and remux if need be. 1200 movies all fit on three small hard drives. Just trying to locate a movie with 1200+ discs is ridiculous.


----------



## MagnumX

asharma said:


> Hi folks…quick question…is there a snowballs chance in hell that my Paradigm Prestige 25s bipoles could function “effectively“ as front wides, mounted to each side wall or should I just give it up? Thanks
> 
> View attachment 3371210


They can, but the front facing drivers create needless reflections. I'd probably disconnect them and use the middle and back facing drivers only. If that changes the impedance too low (depending on how they're connected internally), you could always connect a properly rated resistor instead of the drivers. Or you could just live with the added reflections off the front wall/screen.


----------



## fatherom

MagnumX said:


> Gross simplification. It's all subject to bitrates.
> 
> Discs aren't lossless video either. Kaleidescape has the potential to be superior to disc, for example, particularly if they upgrade rates as Internet speeds continue to increase. Discs are stuck and likely will never do 8K either. It's only a matter of time before discs are utterly irrelevant.
> 
> I haven't played a movie directly off a disc in years. I dump and play the MKV and remux if need be. 1200 movies all fit on three small hard drives. Just trying to locate a movie with 1200+ discs is ridiculous.


All my discs are on a shelf, alphabetized. I can usually find a title within about 5 seconds.

I also rip to my NAS. Curious, you mentioned three small hard drives...what's your total storage space holding the 1200 movies? What's the average size of your MKVs?


----------



## piticli

MagnumX said:


> I take it, then that your answer is NO, you have NOT compared them level matched and therefore are talking out your back side like all golden ears that rarely if ever can tell a certain organic waste material from Shinola the moment they don't know which one they're listening to. Most confuse volume differences with quality as any number of tests have shown. I'd bet my last dollar you never even matched levels within 0.1dB to compare, let alone did it with a proper double blind test and then come on here denigrating everyone that has and knows better.
> 
> The mere fact you have to resort to pathetic childish insults the moment someone asks you a simple question. I gave no opinion whatsoever in my question and yet I'm not only accused of being deaf, but one of the guys that makes Atmos soundtracks as well and that proves what kind of person you are. Please do us all a favor and go back to your Stereophile snake oil den of perpetual golden ear nonsense. You'll be much happier there buying $1500 a meter speaker wire from Audio quest (and they'll be happy to sell it to you).


I compared a trillion and a half times. I always have a bunch of web movies with ddp atmos, and always wait until they come in bluray 4k to see them, for good reason. Day and night. I guess you're one of those who sided at the time with Jobs about the human eye and the 300 pixels lol. You can't put a number to anything, and then claim that based on that number you can't tell the difference. Seriously man.
If no difference exist, they wouldn't have spent years and millions in developing true hd for no reason... Not to mention why would they release movies in true hd atmos, what a waste of time then... 
Most audio advancements always come from the source, not even the freaking speakers which have the same basic design for freaking ages... If it was up to you guys we will still stuck with records lol


----------



## jsgrise

I was doing home renovations and I had to tear down my theatre. I took the opportunity to move my top channels closer to the middle from side to side to a total of about 3 feet and it made a significant difference. Still fine tuning acoustic of the room but all in all I recommend this layout instead of the Dolby Home PDF.


----------



## piticli

Soulburner said:


> The dynamic range compression comes from the source material; not the player or electronics.


Obviously true, but you also need a compatible device...


----------



## sdurani

asharma said:


> I have the matching bookshelves used as rear surrounds and I could swap their location and use the bookshelves as the FW’s and the bipoles as my rear surrounds...


Better than doing surgery on the bipoles.


----------



## DrDon

Condescending remarks removed. Discuss the topic and not each other. If I have to edit another post, the poster will lose posting privileges. 

Questions or comments? PM me. Don't post those here.

Doc


----------



## asharma

sdurani said:


> Better than doing surgery on the bipoles.


Thanks, well that “depends”…For me, surgery may be easier than carpentry having to build rear corner shelves so I can get the bipoles angled correctly towards the MLP and then still have a side of the bipole firing into the rear wall, ideally requiring surgery…


----------



## Soulburner

I'm about to mount surrounds in a new room and I'm looking at what 20° of height would imply - it's noticeably higher than the standard "no more than half the wall height". 20 degrees would end up with a surround speaker about 5.4 feet high with a 7.6 foot ceiling. Seated ear height for us is 36" so they would be 2 feet over our heads.

I would be considerably below-axis of my Revel S16's, and front-to-back panning would probably not work too well.

Should I install them there or bring them down?

Once those are installed I'll make sure my overheads are placed accordingly.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I'm about to mount surrounds in a new room and I'm looking at what 20° of height would imply - it's noticeably higher than the standard "no more than half the wall height". 20 degrees would end up with a surround speaker about 5.4 feet high with a 7.6 foot ceiling. Seated ear height for us is 36" so they would be 2 feet over our heads.
> 
> I would be considerably below-axis of my Revel S16's, and front-to-back panning would probably not work too well.
> 
> Should I install them there or bring them down?
> 
> Once those are installed I'll make sure my overheads are placed accordingly.


Is there any reason you couldnt lower that to 10° of elevation? Then all you would need to to is add 10° to your height/ceiling channels to maintain proper separation.

How far apart are your ceiling speaker at this point (side to side)?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Here's a Cavern driver analysis of a flying scene from Top Gun: Maverick.

Definitely a 7.1.2 static mix with some active objects thrown in for good measure. Not as bad as Ready Player One but certainly not as active as it could be.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I'm about to mount surrounds in a new room and I'm looking at what 20° of height would imply - it's noticeably higher than the standard "no more than half the wall height". 20 degrees would end up with a surround speaker about 5.4 feet high with a 7.6 foot ceiling. Seated ear height for us is 36" so they would be 2 feet over our heads.
> 
> I would be considerably below-axis of my Revel S16's, and front-to-back panning would probably not work too well.
> 
> Should I install them there or bring them down?
> 
> Once those are installed I'll make sure my overheads are placed accordingly.


Where are you getting the 20 degree number from, exactly? 20 degrees is a "height" speaker according to Dolby for six plus overheads. I'd worry about clearing seat backs/heads, not a specific number in terms of elevation for an "ear level" surround speaker. ~5 to 7 degrees would probably be enough to clear any seat backs here.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Is there any reason you couldnt lower that to 10° of elevation? Then all you would need to to is add 10° to your height/ceiling channels to maintain proper separation.


10° looks much better for surrounds to me, and close to what I've done in the past.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> How far apart are your ceiling speaker at this point (side to side)?


They are not mounted yet, so their locations will be determined by the surrounds.


MagnumX said:


> Where are you getting the 20 degree number from, exactly? 20 degrees is a "height" speaker according to Dolby for six plus overheads. I'd worry about clearing seat backs/heads, not a specific number in terms of elevation for an "ear level" surround speaker. ~5 to 7 degrees would probably be enough to clear any seat backs here.


It seems we need to read the text and not just the pictures: 20° is the _maximum_ Dolby Home Entertainment Studio recommendation for surrounds. On page 16 it says: "the angle of elevation of the side surround speakers should be no greater than 20°."

"We recommend that the standard-plane surround speakers be positioned at seated ear height, around 1.2 m, matching the ideal height of the screen speakers. It might be necessary, however, to elevate them due to room use, geometry, and architectural features."

False alarm.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> 10° looks much better for surrounds to me, and close to what I've done in the past.
> 
> They are not mounted yet, so their locations will be determined by the surrounds.
> 
> It seems we need to read the text and not just the pictures: 20° is the _maximum_ Dolby Home Entertainment Studio recommendation for surrounds. On page 16 it says: "the angle of elevation of the side surround speakers should be no greater than 20°."
> 
> "We recommend that the standard-plane surround speakers be positioned at seated ear height, around 1.2 m, matching the ideal height of the screen speakers. It might be necessary, however, to elevate them due to room use, geometry, and architectural features."
> 
> False alarm.


Yeah, you only need to raise them to avoid head occlusion or clear objects in the way such as the headrest of the seats.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> It seems we need to read the text and not just the pictures: 20° is the _maximum_ *Dolby Home Entertainment Studio* recommendation for surrounds. On page 16 it says: "the angle of elevation of the side surround speakers should be no greater than 20°."
> 
> "We recommend that the standard-plane surround speakers be positioned at seated ear height, around 1.2 m, matching the ideal height of the screen speakers. It might be necessary, however, to elevate them due to room use, geometry, and architectural features."
> 
> False alarm.


I'm not sure what guidelines you are reading, certainly not the Dolby Atmos HOME THEATER Guidelines on page 16, which say nothing of the sort. They say on page 8 that front speakers" H1" should be ear level (~1.2m) and rear surrounds no more than H1 x 1.25 and only if "impractical or impossible" (page 6).

I looked again and see you are quoting the *home studio guidelines*, which are meant to record with cinemas in mind (where there is almost no separation between height and ear level as there are NO ear level speakers in Atmos theaters or anything close to it these days. They're almost to the ceiling. Why would I even read that unless I was building a HOME recording studio???

So are you building a _home recording studio_? If so, you may be in the wrong thread as the 20 degree quote is quite literally meaningless to the discussion in this thread, which is *HOME THEATER* Atmos, *not* *HOME* *STUDIO* Atmos.


----------



## Magiclakez

“Wednesday” on Netflix is another demo worthy candidate for both audio and video. A dark/ twisted take on Wednesday’s character from Addams family.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I'm not sure what guidelines you are reading, certainly not the Dolby Atmos HOME THEATER Guidelines on page 16, which say nothing of the sort. They say on page 8 that front speakers" H1" should be ear level (~1.2m) and rear surrounds no more than H1 x 1.25 and only if "impractical or impossible" (page 6).
> 
> I looked again and see you are quoting the *home studio guidelines*, which are meant to record with cinemas in mind (where there is almost no separation between height and ear level as there are NO ear level speakers in Atmos theaters or anything close to it these days. They're almost to the ceiling. Why would I even read that unless I was building a HOME recording studio???
> 
> So are you building a _home recording studio_? If so, you may be in the wrong thread as the 20 degree quote is quite literally meaningless to the discussion in this thread, which is *HOME THEATER* Atmos, *not* *HOME* *STUDIO* Atmos.


Right. The Home Entertainment Studio guidelines, which only gets into cinemas starting on page 27 with arrays. Before that, it's all applicable to the home.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Right. The Home Entertainment Studio guidelines, which only gets into cinemas starting on page 27 with arrays. Before that, it's all applicable to the home.


Yep its the studio guidelines for home entertainment, not the guidelines for a home entertainment studio.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Right. The Home Entertainment Studio guidelines, which only gets into cinemas starting on page 27 with arrays. Before that, it's all applicable to the home.


Home *STUDIO*, not just "Home" or "Home Theater". It's all meant for recording for BOTH at home. You can also do flat arrays of single channel sets at home too if your room is big enough or has a need for it. 

I'm arraying my new Top Middle speaker set because of a steel beam box in the way so it makes sense to do so to get the correct height and width for Top Middle for Atmos instead of using Surround Height 8 inches below the front/rear heights for the same reason. Plus they will be main/rear aligned (surround heights set to copy rear heights at -3dB will still be used for Auro-3D and possibly DTS:X while Auro-3D will use the Top Middle Array as Quad Mono VOG).

You can set your home theater up any way you want, of course, but don't pretend Dolby told you to set up your home theater that way as they have separate guidelines for home theater playback. 

Then again, Grimaldi likes to follow the Cinema Guidelines at home. There can't possibly be any real separation of height layers, but hey, it looks like a mini Dolby Cinema. Why? I have no clue. That's a massive detriment of their cinemas, not something to bring home, IMO.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Yep its the studio guidelines for home entertainment, not the guidelines for a home entertainment studio.


It says, "Dolby Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines" right on it and one of the the first things it says is, "These should be adhered to as closely as possible when designing a new studio to use as a Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment mixing room."

That doesn't sound like home theater to me. It's organized around exactly ONE listener for that matter, not one row.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Home *STUDIO*, not just "Home" or "Home Theater". It's all meant for recording for BOTH at home.


Not the way I read it :


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> "These should be adhered to as closely as possible when designing a new studio to use as a Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment mixing room."


Aagain that reads to me as a "mixing room for Home Entertainment"


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Not the way I read it :
> View attachment 3371650





https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/Dolby-Atmos-Home-Entertainment-Studio-Technical-Guidelines?language=en_US



PDF as you quoted says, "For STUDIOS wishing to employ.... "










I'm not sure what part of the word studio isn't clear.

Studio definition (as per Google lookup):

A room where an artist, photographer, sculptor, etc. works.

Does that sound like a home theater room where you watch movies made by artists?



> Aagain that reads to me as a "mixing room for Home Entertainment"


Yes, a mixing room, not a home theater room.


----------



## niterida

MagnumX said:


> Yes, a mixing room, not a home theater room.


Ahh I see your point now - I thought you meant a studio at home.

It's all based on angles - so if you employ those same angles you will be listening to it exactly as it was mixed.


----------



## MagnumX

niterida said:


> Ahh I see your point now - I thought you meant a studio at home.
> 
> It's all based on angles - so if you employ those same angles you will be listening to it exactly as it was mixed.


It may or may not be at someone's home (many artists, especially musicians have studios in their homes. John from that YouTube video had one built for his home because of the pandemic, for example). 

There's a range of angles and speakers allowed in those documents so I wouldn't count on it being "exact" either way, but there are some huge differences in some areas. 

Normal "Heights" are 30-45 degrees for 4 overhead home theater and 20-45 for 6+ overheads from Dolby for Home Theater. For a studio, they allow 15-45 for Heights and up to 20 for surrounds. Talk about a cross-circuit layer disaster! No wonder overhead activity is so inconsistent between titles with those kind of overlapping ranges.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Quite obviously one has to apply old fashioned common sense to their plans when deciding how things are going to be setup, based around the limitations of their room.

For example, in my case, my room is very narrow...only 10 feet wide. Barely enough room for a 3-seater couch. (No way three individual theater seats will fit)

My side surrounds will be mounted at the mid-point of the room. The Top-Middles will be directly above them. Head occlusion may be a problem for me, so I am thinking of mounting them with 10 degrees of elevation. Additionally, the back row will be on a small riser (maybe 8") so they might be raised a bit higher to match the height of the Rear Surrounds. I would go no higher.

As a result of this, my Top-Middles will need to be brought closer together to maintain a reasonable angle from the Side Surrounds to acheive good separation. They will be mounted 18" in from the wall, which puts them just over the outer edges of the couch. Still definitively to the left and right of the listeners (as per the Trinnov guide) but as far in as they can go before crossing that boundry.

So my suggestion would be to look at your room. Look at the seating positions. Look at the length and width. Look at the position of the screen and its channels. Look at the architectural elements of the room you are in and formulate a plan around those. Just use the guidelines as exactly that... just a guideline to follow to make sure the angles are in spec, but ultimately the finalized design configuration is dictated by your room.....and what you want to do with your system. Both of which trump the guidelines if necessary. I think a lot of people follow those guidelines verbatum, often to the possible detriment of their listening experience.


----------



## ted_b

Not sure where the "double blind testing will show that lossy and lossless are difficult or indistinguishable" comments are coming from, but all I have to say is that Apple Music lossy Atmos music streams are nice...but Bluray lossless is the next level. It's not really close, and I could distnguish them over the phone!  Maybe movies are different, but with good Atmos mixes (2L catalog, Booka Shade, Air, xPropaganda, Brian Eno, etc) it ain't close.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

A new video of sound objects visualization dropped today. This one is interesting.

Look at the behavior of the sound objects clustered at the front soundstage as the rocket launches.

Then later as the elevator chair is bouncing up and down, look at the sound objects during that moment. 

What speaker configuration would be most likely to play those back accurately I wonder.


----------



## jsgrise

NuSoardGraphite said:


> A new video of sound objects visualization dropped today. This one is interesting.
> 
> Look at the behavior of the sound objects clustered at the front soundstage as the rocket launches.
> 
> Then later as the elevator chair is bouncing up and down, look at the sound objects during that moment.
> 
> What speaker configuration would be most likely to play those back accurately I wonder.


Whew can we get the original Atmos track?


----------



## jsgrise

Newly rebuilt 7.2.4 Atmos setup with front wide finally completed. Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## MagnumX

ted_b said:


> Not sure where the "double blind testing will show that lossy and lossless are difficult or indistinguishable" comments are coming from


It's _coming from_ the indisputable fact that most people cannot hear _any_ differences whatsoever between lossy and lossless at a sufficiently high enough bitrates (the transparency point) and most radical claims to the contrary have been easily disproven with a double blind test like ABX where these night & day differences magically seem to disappear. Telling them apart by mismatched volume levels, for example isn't valid proof. 



> but all I have to say is that Apple Music lossy Atmos music streams are nice...but Bluray lossless is the next level. It's not really close, and* I could distnguish them over the phone! *


Over the phone? Level matched? (dial norm settings are brutal on some streaming sites leaving huge disparities in volume settings) Really? 

I've said already that 768kbps probably isn't sufficient for transparent Atmos streaming with a lot of activity in the height channels and I don't *rent* music (Apple Music) so I haven't heard them on there to compare (I have all Blu-ray music), but 640kbps 5.1 that hasn't been purposely altered is another matter entirely and my old DTS 5.1 music CDs still sound great to my ears (~1.5kbps DTS)


----------



## ted_b

Geez, Magnum, lighten up. The phone thing was a joke, meant to explain crudely how big the differences are in my system!

We are arguing different points. Since you haven't heard Apple Music Atmos vs BluRay TrueHD Atmos then I'll leave it that your comparisions with 640kbps DTS 5.1 music is valid (and yes, the DTS cd of Joshua Judge Ruth is sublime). 

And taken to an even greater next level are the DXD master discrete files (10 and 12 channel wav files at 24/352.8k) but you’ll need a Hapi or another 12 channel dac and daw to play them. Amazing. It’s a very small niche but we have some of our partner labels like Morten’s 2L who have made them available. State of the art 👍


----------



## Polyrythm1k

jsgrise said:


> Newly rebuilt 7.2.4 Atmos setup with front wide finally completed. Let me know what you guys think!
> 
> View attachment 3372443


Room looks excellent! Seems like maybe bigger LCR to keep up with the screen size and subs? Otherwise great.


----------



## dschulz

jsgrise said:


> Newly rebuilt 7.2.4 Atmos setup with front wide finally completed. Let me know what you guys think!


Nice! I would watch a movie there, 100%.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> Whew can we get the original Atmos track?


The movie Moonshot on HBOMax.

I find it fascinating how the objects are transitioning up and down attempting to image between the ground layer and the height/top layer. According to Wilfread von Balen, this shouldnt work so well with Atmos tops, but should be better with Auro style Heights. 

I'm gonna check this scene out on my next day off to see if I can hear a smooth transition.


----------



## Soulburner

Playing around with the Dolby Audio Room Design Tool (HE) and thought I'd post these.


----------



## Soulburner

These diagrams seemingly make rear surround placement easy: according to them, once you have your top speakers in place, the rear surrounds are installed in-line with them, at the same height as the side surrounds. But that would mean 90° between the rear surrounds, which seems too much. If you follow the ≥ 30° as a _minimum_, logically moving them to 45° from the side surrounds makes more sense, which puts them 70° from each other.

It's also assuming 90° between the top speakers. Again this probably won't give the best imaging – not even our front speakers are recommended to be that far apart (usually 60°). It would seem 50-55° elevation for the tops would give better imaging, putting them 70° from each other.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> These diagrams seemingly make rear surround placement easy: according to them, once you have your top speakers in place, the rear surrounds are installed in-line with them, at the same height as the side surrounds. But that would mean 90° between the rear surrounds, which seems too much. If you follow the ≥ 30° as a _minimum_, logically moving them to 45° from the side surrounds makes more sense, which puts them 70° from each other.
> 
> It's also assuming 90° between the top speakers. Again this probably won't give the best imaging – not even our front speakers are recommended to be that far apart (usually 60°). It would seem 50-55° elevation for the tops would give better imaging, putting them 70° from each other.


Whenever possible, I would mimic the same spread as the front mains with the rear surrounds. If the mains are 60° of spread, thats what I would make the rear surrounds. Then placing the side surrounds at 90/180 (unless the distance is too close)

I think the goal would try to be to make the distance between speakers to be as equidistant as possible. If your side surrounds are the same distance from your rear surrounds as they are from your front stage, then you remove the need for Wide channels. However, if the seating distance is much further from the front stage than it is from the rear soundstage, then the gap between the front and side stages is too wide, necessitating Wide channels.

But yeah, 90° is way to far to spread your rear surrounds apart. Imaging to the rear being very nebulous to begin with, which means you need the speakers directly behind you rather than to the side and rear. Especially with multiple rows and your back row is closer to the rear surrounds. They will no longer sound like they are behind you.

This is how I would set up 7 ground channels. Front, side and rear speakers as equidistant (from each other) as possible.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> These diagrams seemingly make rear surround placement easy: according to them, once you have your top speakers in place, the rear surrounds are installed in-line with them, at the same height as the side surrounds. But that would mean 90° between the rear surrounds, which seems too much. If you follow the ≥ 30° as a _minimum_, logically moving them to 45° from the side surrounds makes more sense, which puts them 70° from each other.
> 
> It's also assuming 90° between the top speakers. Again this probably won't give the best imaging – not even our front speakers are recommended to be that far apart (usually 60°). It would seem 50-55° elevation for the tops would give better imaging, putting them 70° from each other.


So _don't do_ 90 degrees between rear surrounds. _Equidistant_ should _not_ mean having 30 degrees between sides and rears and leaving 90 between rears.... 

30/90/150/210/270/330* Gives you 60 degrees between ALL ear-level speakers (excluding the Center Channel) for 7.1 sound. 70 degrees (Wendy Carlos) or 60 degrees (Trinnov) should guarantee smooth phantom imaging between all ear-level pairs. If you don't want 90 degrees for sides, bump to 100 for 70 degrees or add front wides and don't worry about it.

Tops. I hate to break it to some people, but 45/135 is 90 degrees between pairs too. That is why 4 overheads are not truly sufficient for a _proper_ Atmos home theater, IMO, but most people seem happy with it anyway. With Top Middle added, you get 45/90/135 and only 45 degrees between pairs and that allows you to move the 45 degrees outward to 30 degrees for "Heights" if one finds more ceiling coverage desirable and you'll still have 60 degrees between pairs (30/90/150) and only 30 between the more critical L/C/R and Heights (whereas 0/45/90/135/(180 elevation) nets you 45-45-45-45 straight through. Decisions. Decisions. 

**No software used or needed*


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> These diagrams seemingly make rear surround placement easy: according to them, once you have your top speakers in place, the rear surrounds are installed in-line with them, at the same height as the side surrounds. But that would mean 90° between the rear surrounds, which seems too much. If you follow the ≥ 30° as a _minimum_, logically moving them to 45° from the side surrounds makes more sense, which puts them 70° from each other.
> 
> It's also assuming 90° between the top speakers. Again this probably won't give the best imaging – not even our front speakers are recommended to be that far apart (usually 60°). It would seem 50-55° elevation for the tops would give better imaging, putting them 70° from each other.


They don't necessarily dictate that the rear surrounds be in-line with the top rear angularly, but... in practice, doing so can help with pans because of how the renderer works. The same is generally true from L/R to the top fronts, which is why HTG pushes for lining up the acoustic centers there. As far as the 90 degrees between the rear surrounds, I agree with that being a bit much but realistically, we lose spatial resolution behind us anyway, so that's the least important region of the room to optimize spacing. So long as you get general "behind left" and "behind right", you're usually doing good. Grimani and a lot of pro installers espouse a tighter placement on the back wall with the rear surrounds only maybe 60 degrees apart. In my room, I have a doorway on my back wall that makes it so you would basically walk into a speaker if I put at the bone-stock Dolby recommendation... but for fun, I put mounts there anyway and tried them at Dolby's recommended angle and then on the back wall as Grimani recommends. I found that I greatly preferred them on the back wall, with a bit of elevation so they're firing over my seating, and with my top rears brought forward slightly per Dolby's angular math (45 + half the elevation of the rear surrounds). Circular pans around the room were surprisingly more stable with the back wall placement, which I did not expect to be the case. So maybe Grimani and other installers are onto something there.

The same spatial resolution issue exists above you. 90 degrees seems like a lot between overhead speakers, but the 60 degree rule for stereo imaging horizontally doesn't hold up on the vertical. The research shows that once you get above about 45 degrees between two vertical point sources, imaging starts to become less precise and by 60 degrees, most listeners couldn't point to the exact location of an image when compared to its expected location using amplitude panning. So you want to focus your spacing where the precision matters most. If you're just doing x.x.4, focus on the spacing between the ear-level speakers and the heights, since the overhead imaging is inherently going to lack specificity anyway (and fast pans don't require it to work because your brain naturally fills in the gaps). Ideally, you do x.x.6 and have less of a compromise overhead.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> They don't necessarily dictate that the rear surrounds be in-line with the top rear angularly, but... in practice, doing so can help with pans because of how the renderer works. The same is generally true from L/R to the top fronts, which is why HTG pushes for lining up the acoustic centers there. As far as the 90 degrees between the rear surrounds, I agree with that being a bit much but realistically, we lose spatial resolution behind us anyway, so that's the least important region of the room to optimize spacing. So long as you get general "behind left" and "behind right", you're usually doing good. Grimani and a lot of pro installers espouse a tighter placement on the back wall with the rear surrounds only maybe 60 degrees apart. In my room, I have a doorway on my back wall that makes it so you would basically walk into a speaker if I put at the bone-stock Dolby recommendation... but for fun, I put mounts there anyway and tried them at Dolby's recommended angle and then on the back wall as Grimani recommends. I found that I greatly preferred them on the back wall, with a bit of elevation so they're firing over my seating, and with my top rears brought forward slightly per Dolby's angular math (45 + half the elevation of the rear surrounds). Circular pans around the room were surprisingly more stable with the back wall placement, which I did not expect to be the case. So maybe Grimani and other installers are onto something there.
> 
> The same spatial resolution issue exists above you. 90 degrees seems like a lot between overhead speakers, but the 60 degree rule for stereo imaging horizontally doesn't hold up on the vertical. The research shows that once you get above about 45 degrees between two vertical point sources, imaging starts to become less precise and by 60 degrees, most listeners couldn't point to the exact location of an image when compared to its expected location using amplitude panning. So you want to focus your spacing where the precision matters most. If you're just doing x.x.4, focus on the spacing between the ear-level speakers and the heights, since the overhead imaging is inherently going to lack specificity anyway (and fast pans don't require it to work because your brain naturally fills in the gaps). Ideally, you do x.x.6 and have less of a compromise overhead.


Thanks. Interesting and helpful.

So priority should be speakers in line, ensure imaging is best between tops and ear level speakers over imaging between top speakers.

I am doing 7.1.4.

I guess what matters is how studios and content creators use the speakers. Because which one of these priorities you decide to lean towards should depend on the content.

The other side of the coin is, people making the adjustments I noted above have made a lot of positive comments on forums. The most common comment is better separation between the layers.


----------



## robert600

[QUOTE="MagnumX, post: 62181142, member: 7688266"

Tops. I hate to break it to some people, but 45/135 is 90 degrees between pairs too. That is why 4 overheads are not truly sufficient for a _proper_ Atmos home theater, IMO, but most people seem happy with it anyway. With Top Middle added, you get 45/90/135 and only 45 degrees between pairs and that allows you to move the 45 degrees outward to 30 degrees for "Heights" if one finds more ceiling coverage desirable and you'll still have 60 degrees between pairs (30/90/150) and only 30 between the more critical L/C/R and Heights (whereas 0/45/90/135/(180 elevation) nets you 45-45-45-45 straight through. Decisions. Decisions. 

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree ... 100%. And to anyone thinking yes would be nice but I'd have to take out a 2nd mortgage to get this, that is not the case. You don't need to spring for a 13.2 AVR, a 9.2 AVR with preouts that does 11.2 processing allows for scatmosing to 7.2.6 for very little additional cost. I mean, there's still the extra speakers to budget for but still ...


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Thanks. Interesting and helpful.
> 
> So priority should be speakers in line, ensure imaging is best between tops and ear level speakers over imaging between top speakers.
> 
> I am doing 7.1.4.
> 
> I guess what matters is how studios and content creators use the speakers. Because which one of these priorities you decide to lean towards should depend on the content.
> 
> The other side of the coin is, people making the adjustments I noted above have made a lot of positive comments on forums. The most common comment is better separation between the layers.


It's a balance, and which you prefer will be totally up to you. What you generally need to keep in mind is this: Objects at 0.0 Z are constrained to the ear-level channels and at 1.0 Z constrained to the height channels (no matter their designation) by design. Where the angles matter is with objects between 0.0 and 1.0. Your front heights will effectively represent the front corners of the Atmos interface's "ceiling" at max Z and the rear heights the back corners. This is distinct from your actual physical ceiling, which is not strictly what that interface is meant to represent. Likewise, the L/R effectively represents the front corners of the Atmos interface's front wall and the rear surrounds the rear corners of the back wall. This disconnect between the interface, its steering method and the physical placement is cause of a lot of confusion, since some take it to mean that you need to have speakers at those physical boundaries. And I suppose if you were trying to make your room 1:1 with the interface, you could actually put the speakers in the corners, side surrounds at half the room length, etc... but mixers are aware that this isn't the case and tend to consciously steer accordingly. The interface is an abstraction layer, not necessarily meant to be 1:1 with any home space (though it would effectively be 1:1 with a theatrical space and a properly configured cinema processor).

The other thing to consider is that while the interface and the theatrical version are allocentric, compromises made in the home version make it so you have to take egocentric placement into consideration. Theatrically, the cinema processor knows the room's dimensions, the locations of every speaker, any shifts made due to obstructions, etc. It can place sounds strictly based on the orthogonal interface and adapt its steering to spaces of differing room sizes (the LWH ratio), and aiming is done to maximize coverage so that it works generally well for all listeners. The home version is more generalized to represent a "space" more than the actual constraints of your room, which barring the better processors, it doesn't know. So you're inherently optimizing for the MLP within the parameters of the renderer and a set of pre-defined speaker locations (which is why we end up leaning on the angles). Even compared to something like the Trinnov, which does have more data about the room so it can do a better job of matching things up, the software to set up the cinema processors is WAY more in-depth as far as defining the room for purposes of steering.

So knowing all that, it makes sense to line up the acoustic center of, for instance, the left main and the front left height (regardless of designation) so that objects moving straight up in the interface retain a consistent movement on the azimuth. It may only be strictly precise at your MLP... but the side seats will still generally benefit and even differing rows will retain the perception of placement in the general region of the room the sounds are meant to be placed. As far as when you move the heights a bit closer in, yes you are solidifying placement above the listener... but beyond 45 degrees of separation, you're also diminishing placement between the ear-level and height layers. As mentioned before, pans between the layers will still generally sound good either way, because your brain fills in the gap. But static object placements between the layers will lose precision. And I think keeping that precision - in the region where our hearing fundamentally has more precision than sounds overhead - is why Dolby makes those adjustments to the height placements based on the elevation of surrounds in the mix room standards (and why it's worth taking into consideration in your home).

Short version: 45 degrees vertically strikes a relative balance between ear-to-height and height-to-height placement. Shifting one way or the other pushes that balance toward either precision of elevation or precision of overhead imaging, within the limitations of a x.x.4 context. For everything else, there's x.x.6.


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> Tops. I hate to break it to some people, but 45/135 is 90 degrees between pairs too. That is why 4 overheads are not truly sufficient for a _proper_ Atmos home theater, IMO, but most people seem happy with it anyway. With Top Middle added, you get 45/90/135 and only 45 degrees between pairs and that allows you to move the 45 degrees outward to 30 degrees for "Heights" if one finds more ceiling coverage desirable and you'll still have 60 degrees between pairs (30/90/150) and only 30 between the more critical L/C/R and Heights (whereas 0/45/90/135/(180 elevation) nets you 45-45-45-45 straight through. Decisions. Decisions.


Ideal in theory but I read a lot of comments on these forums that not many movies/shows use the top middle speakers. If that's the case you either have a .4 "height" speaker setup or just .2 overhead.


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> It's a balance, and which you prefer will be totally up to you. What you generally need to keep in mind is this: Objects at 0.0 Z are constrained to the ear-level channels and at 1.0 Z constrained to the height channels (no matter their designation) by design. Where the angles matter is with objects between 0.0 and 1.0. Your front heights will effectively represent the front corners of the Atmos interface's "ceiling" at max Z and the rear heights the back corners. This is distinct from your actual physical ceiling, which is not strictly what that interface is meant to represent. Likewise, the L/R effectively represents the front corners of the Atmos interface's front wall and the rear surrounds the rear corners of the back wall. This disconnect between the interface, its steering method and the physical placement is cause of a lot of confusion, since some take it to mean that you need to have speakers at those physical boundaries. And I suppose if you were trying to make your room 1:1 with the interface, you could actually put the speakers in the corners, side surrounds at half the room length, etc... but mixers are aware that this isn't the case and tend to consciously steer accordingly. The interface is an abstraction layer, not necessarily meant to be 1:1 with any home space (though it would effectively be 1:1 with a theatrical space and a properly configured cinema processor).
> 
> The other thing to consider is that while the interface and the theatrical version are allocentric, compromises made in the home version make it so you have to take egocentric placement into consideration. Theatrically, the cinema processor knows the room's dimensions, the locations of every speaker, any shifts made due to obstructions, etc. It can place sounds strictly based on the orthogonal interface and adapt its steering to spaces of differing room sizes (the LWH ratio), and aiming is done to maximize coverage so that it works generally well for all listeners. The home version is more generalized to represent a "space" more than the actual constraints of your room, which barring the better processors, it doesn't know. So you're inherently optimizing for the MLP within the parameters of the renderer and a set of pre-defined speaker locations (which is why we end up leaning on the angles). Even compared to something like the Trinnov, which does have more data about the room so it can do a better job of matching things up, the software to set up the cinema processors is WAY more in-depth as far as defining the room for purposes of steering.
> 
> So knowing all that, it makes sense to line up the acoustic center of, for instance, the left main and the front left height (regardless of designation) so that objects moving straight up in the interface retain a consistent movement on the azimuth. It may only be strictly precise at your MLP... but the side seats will still generally benefit and even differing rows will retain the perception of placement in the general region of the room the sounds are meant to be placed. As far as when you move the heights a bit closer in, yes you are solidifying placement above the listener... but beyond 45 degrees of separation, you're also diminishing placement between the ear-level and height layers. As mentioned before, pans between the layers will still generally sound good either way, because your brain fills in the gap. But static object placements between the layers will lose precision. And I think keeping that precision - in the region where our hearing fundamentally has more precision than sounds overhead - is why Dolby makes those adjustments to the height placements based on the elevation of surrounds in the mix room standards (and why it's worth taking into consideration in your home).
> 
> Short version: 45 degrees vertically strikes a relative balance between ear-to-height and height-to-height placement. Shifting one way or the other pushes that balance toward either precision of elevation or precision of overhead imaging, within the limitations of a x.x.4 context. For everything else, there's x.x.6.


The in-line placements make logical sense to me, but it doesn't seem you can optimize that in all directions of sound movement. For example, a sound moving from the front to the back overhead on one side, would sound like it's coming toward you overhead, then away, rather than staying on the side of you. Maybe I shouldn't nitpick about these differences because I can't make it perfect and it's unlikely I'll even know what it was supposed to sound like.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> The in-line placements make logical sense to me, but it doesn't seem you can optimize that in all directions of sound movement. For example, a sound moving from the front to the back overhead on one side, would sound like it's coming toward you overhead, then away, rather than staying on the side of you. Maybe I shouldn't nitpick about these differences because I can't make it perfect and it's unlikely I'll even know what it was supposed to sound like.


Pretty much. That's why I say place them per the mix room guideline, aim them for best coverage, and then just go enjoy it. It's likely going to sound great either way and within the spatial resolution we're talking about in our smaller spaces, we really are getting pretty nitpicky. Overthinking it too much ends up being death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## ted_b

Jeremy's comments are, as always, very informative and worthwhile. Moreover, I am finding that, as important as placement of the heights is the selection of the actual height speakers, especially for Atmos music. I have a very nice sounding theater, built with painstaking effort to include acoustic sandwiched walls and ceiling, identical drivers in the bed, etc. However, I underthought the heights and now realize that timbre-matching, phase coherence, and overall matched driver choices is a BIG deal in the heights. I chose SVS Prime Elevations, while my bed layer is all Aerial Acoustics. The seamlessness that great Atmos music mixes bring to the table underperforms when the heights kick in. For movies the differences are almost unnoticeable, and neighbors/friends have been duly wow'd...but to my ears the sphere of sound that great Atmos music mixes create could be (I think) so much better if your heights match (say, baby versions of) the bed layer.

This might be obvious to some; as a long time audiophile to wasn't obvious to me. I am now saving up $$ to put Aerials up top.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> They don't necessarily dictate that the rear surrounds be in-line with the top rear angularly, but... in practice, doing so can help with pans because of how the renderer works. The same is generally true from L/R to the top fronts, which is why HTG pushes for lining up the acoustic centers there. As far as the 90 degrees between the rear surrounds, I agree with that being a bit much but realistically, we lose spatial resolution behind us anyway, so that's the least important region of the room to optimize spacing. So long as you get general "behind left" and "behind right", you're usually doing good. Grimani and a lot of pro installers espouse a tighter placement on the back wall with the rear surrounds only maybe 60 degrees apart. In my room, I have a doorway on my back wall that makes it so you would basically walk into a speaker if I put at the bone-stock Dolby recommendation... but for fun, I put mounts there anyway and tried them at Dolby's recommended angle and then on the back wall as Grimani recommends. I found that I greatly preferred them on the back wall, with a bit of elevation so they're firing over my seating, and with my top rears brought forward slightly per Dolby's angular math (45 + half the elevation of the rear surrounds). Circular pans around the room were surprisingly more stable with the back wall placement, which I did not expect to be the case. So maybe Grimani and other installers are onto something there.


Grimani has a lot of good information. Quite obviously because he's been doing this for a very long time. I dont agree with everything he says (such as one should choose Wides over extra heights. I think the extra coverage is greatly needed overhead) but I will be implementing his acoustic treatment pattern in my theater. Gonna start DIY on the panels very soon now that I finally got my garage in a functional state.



> The same spatial resolution issue exists above you. 90 degrees seems like a lot between overhead speakers, but the 60 degree rule for stereo imaging horizontally doesn't hold up on the vertical. The research shows that once you get above about 45 degrees between two vertical point sources, imaging starts to become less precise and by 60 degrees, most listeners couldn't point to the exact location of an image when compared to its expected location using amplitude panning. So you want to focus your spacing where the precision matters most. If you're just doing x.x.4, focus on the spacing between the ear-level speakers and the heights, since the overhead imaging is inherently going to lack specificity anyway (and fast pans don't require it to work because your brain naturally fills in the gaps). Ideally, you do x.x.6 and have less of a compromise overhead.


Its this exact reason I am doing 7.4.6. Aside from wanting to use Auro3D and DTS:X having a preference for height positioning (if you want to avoid its speaker remapping kicking in) I want Top-Middle speakers in place to anchor sounds directly above the seating position (when they are supposed to be) and to fill in the obvious hole left when you have front and rear heights which are 120° in separation.

This leaves your three speaker pairs (assuming 30/90/150) 60° apart. This gives you excellent resolution above the front soundstafe, above the audience and above the rear soundstage with nebulous, less precise imaging in the transition zones between the three speaker pairs. In my opinion, this is a best case scenario for being able to accurately playback sound objects as intended by the sound designer. You only need 8 or 10 heights in the case of a really large theater space or simply to fulfill a desire for greater resolution. And processors supporting those configurations being prohibitively expensive, 6 height channels should be viewed as the less compromised default as opposed to 4 ceiling speakers which is compromised from the start (but people being given the impression that 4 heights is "full atmos" is downright criminal negligence in my opinion)


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> And processors supporting those configurations being prohibitively expensive, 6 height channels should be viewed as the less compromised default as opposed to 4 ceiling speakers which is compromised from the start (but people being given the impression that 4 heights is "full atmos" is downright criminal negligence in my opinion)


I don't know that I'd go that far. 4 well-placed and aimed ceiling speakers absolutely would give you "full Atmos". It's what most home mixes are checked on. And in some ways, having the height beds spread between those 4 speakers might sound more like the theater with bed-only mixes since the height beds would generalize more between the speakers like they would in the theater, where the height beds get played back by the entire row. Each approach has its peculiar issues. Ideally, Dolby would have made it so height bed objects would still get spread between all available heights rather than locked to top mids in a x.x.6 home layout. Or for the bed-only mixes, they could use the object size parameter to give those beds more spread across the available speakers (while still being zone constrained by being at max Z). Of course, a little post-rendering upmixing would have gone a long way to address some of these issues. There's a lot about home Atmos that Dolby didn't fully think through, whereas DTS (and Auro, to some extent) put more thought into how things would translate between theatrical and home. If you could cram together the best aspects of all three, I think you'd have the ideal format.


----------



## halcyon_888

x.x.2 is still Atmos ya'll, just sayin'


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

halcyon_888 said:


> x.x.2 is still Atmos ya'll, just sayin'


Well, yeah... just with no longitudinal movement of objects at max Z. But still better than no Atmos, for sure.


----------



## halcyon_888

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Well, yeah... just with no longitudinal movement of objects at max Z. But still better than no Atmos, for sure.


Yes, 360 swirl effects only on the ceiling are just left to right with x.x.2 but if a soundtrack has a front to back sound effect that starts in the fronts, then moves to the heights, then moves to the rears (which happens alot) then there is front to back panning happening in the theater, just not on the ceiling specifically. I'm satisfied with my x.x.2, but if the sound engineers used Atmos more then maybe I'd have an itch to upgrade. Until then, x.x.2 it is and I don't regret only having 2 heights. It's still Atmos and provides a hemisphere of sound when it's called upon to do so.


----------



## Magiclakez

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Grimani and a lot of pro installers espouse a tighter placement on the back wall with the rear surrounds only maybe 60 degrees apart.


I believe Grimani recommends the rears to be even tighter; 165 degrees at the back (so as to form a 30 degree angle), essentially to combat psycho-acoustic inversion.


----------



## MagnumX

Jeremy Anderson said:


> As far as the 90 degrees between the rear surrounds, I agree with that being a bit much but realistically, we lose spatial resolution behind us anyway, so that's the least important region of the room to optimize spacing. So long as you get general "behind left" and "behind right", you're usually doing good.


Who told you that bad advice? Read the Wendy Carlos site on Quad/Surround and it's clear that stereo imaging behind us narrows in our perception (unlike real sounds) so you actually need MORE speakers and closer angles to get the same perceived imaging width behind you. 

That's why I use SS#2 and have Top Middle and the sides behind me as well (110) for the MLP as well as front wides so everything images in a perfect oval front to back on both height layers.

In other words, you need smaller angles between pairs in the back than the front to perceive the same width of imaging. 

You can test this quite easily. Play something in stereo with wide imaging and then turn around and hear the width collapse behind you. Try it again with front wides playing arrayed with stereo and it doesn't collapse. This is why summed extra speakers can be helpful even if they aren't discrete. It still fills in the perceived imaging gaps.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Ideal in theory but I read a lot of comments on these forums that not many movies/shows use the top middle speakers. If that's the case you either have a .4 "height" speaker setup or just .2 overhead.


Just as a "rough" estimate. I would say that 2/3 of Atmos material uses all of your speakers (utilize active sound objects). The situation improves slightly when you consider streaming content into the equation with the proliferation of absolutely standout Atmos mixes like Stranger Things and All is Quiet on the Western Front along with many others.


----------



## MagnumX

Magiclakez said:


> I believe Grimani recommends the rears to be even tighter; 165 degrees at the back (so as to form a 30 degree angle), essentially to combat psycho-acoustic inversion.
> 
> View attachment 3372849


I use the 22.5 degrees in the front (for 16:9 panned dialog) and used to have 45 degrees for wides, but I'm trying Dolby's 50 degrees out now (either way it widens the overall stereo image when used as an array for decorrelated material) . I think you _do_ need to worry about Psychoacoustical imaging behind, but I'm not sure 30 degrees between rears is the answer. 

Phantom stereo imaging "shrinks to almost half width behind us. If anything, you would want wider spaced rears. I'm if the opinion it should still be aligned with the front mains to ensure straight line front to back imaging. I add the ss#2 to reduce the angles in the back between sides and rears (110-135-158) and I get a huge wide rear image, the same as the front.


----------



## Magiclakez

MagnumX said:


> I use the 22.5 degrees in the front (for 16:9 panned dialog) and used to have 45 degrees for wides, but I'm trying Dolby's 50 degrees out now (either way it widens the overall stereo image when used as an array for decorrelated material) . I think you _do_ need to worry about Psychoacoustical imaging behind, but I'm not sure 30 degrees between rears is the answer.
> 
> Phantom stereo imaging "shrinks to almost half width behind us. If anything, you would want wider spaced rears. I'm if the opinion it should still be aligned with the front mains to ensure straight line front to back imaging. I add the ss#2 to reduce the angles in the back between sides and rears (110-135-158) and I get a huge wide rear image, the same as the front.


22.5 in the front is perfect imho, especially if you have wides. I can understand a slightly more spaced out front layout if you don’t have wides. Another key area of contention, and something which is often glossed over (3rd point in that chart posted earlier); the C needs to be at the same height (and preferably identical) as the L/R


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Grimani and a lot of pro installers espouse a tighter placement on the back wall with the rear surrounds only maybe 60 degrees apart.


Research from back in the 1970s demonstrated that back-to-front imaging reversals could be induced in listeners when speakers were within ±30° of the listener's centerline. Most speaker placement guides (including Dolby's) show the Rear speakers at least 60° apart. Grimani has them much closer together than that. I've tried his placement and it was difficult to clearly hear stereo separation behind me. I'll stick to 60° (or wider) spread. Minimizes imaging reversals AND makes it easier to hear left-vs-right separation behind me.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I don't know that I'd go that far. 4 well-placed and aimed ceiling speakers absolutely would give you "full Atmos". It's what most home mixes are checked on. And in some ways, having the height beds spread between those 4 speakers might sound more like the theater with bed-only mixes since the height beds would generalize more between the speakers like they would in the theater, where the height beds get played back by the entire row. Each approach has its peculiar issues. Ideally, Dolby would have made it so height bed objects would still get spread between all available heights rather than locked to top mids in a x.x.6 home layout. Or for the bed-only mixes, they could use the object size parameter to give those beds more spread across the available speakers (while still being zone constrained by being at max Z). Of course, a little post-rendering upmixing would have gone a long way to address some of these issues. There's a lot about home Atmos that Dolby didn't fully think through, whereas DTS (and Auro, to some extent) put more thought into how things would translate between theatrical and home. If you could cram together the best aspects of all three, I think you'd have the ideal format.


Honestly, I think DTS:X embodies the best qualities of both Atmos and Auro3D into one format.

It uses both Top and Height positioning. Is both Channel based and uses Sound Objects. Uses both Top-Middle and Voice of God channels. Can use Center Height where Atmos cannot. Is capable of using all the other "in-between" speakers that Atmos can use such as Wide channels or Back Surround (center rear) which Auro3D does NOT use. And it includes speaker remapping technology in both native format and its upmixer. And allows the upmixer to be used natively to expand a DTS:X mix to a theater's specific layout. No "locked" mixes with DTS:X.

Its just a shame its not as popular as Atmos. And that Pro is missing from so many high channel count processors. And its a shame that hardly any DTS:X mixes use sound objects. I'm pretty sure I have one that does (from WellGo USA) and its an absolute standout of a sound mix when it comes to immersive effects.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Research from back in the 1970s demonstrated that back-to-front imaging reversals could be induced in listeners when speakers were within ±30° of the listener's centerline. Most speaker placement guides (including Dolby's) show the Rear speakers at least 60° apart. Grimani has them much closer together than that. I've tried his placement and it was difficult to clearly hear stereo separation behind me. I'll stick to 60° (or wider) spread. Minimizes imaging reversals AND makes it easier to hear left-vs-right separation behind me.


Yeah, I remember all that from the Dolby EX/DTS-ES days too. And THX's weird placement. But in those cases, that was for single point sources in that region. Mine are on the back wall but not quite as tight together as Grimani pushes. They ended up basically being in line with my height rows, and I haven't had any psychoacoustic reversal with rear-centered objects. But again, my only other option puts one in front of a doorway, so that's the one placement I can't do much about. But as I said, even when I had them in the "proper" place, I preferred the sound of the back wall placement, which surprised me.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> Honestly, I think DTS:X embodies the best qualities of both Atmos and Auro3D into one format.


I'd take the interface for Atmos and its ability to move objects through the room (unstable as that is), the upmixing of DTS:X to adapt to other layouts and the natural soundfield generation of Auro. Each of them have tech that together would create a great sound format.


----------



## asharma

Hi folks…We’ll I decided to place my bipoles as rear surrounds (angled properly more or less) and use my bookshelves as front wides running 9.2.6.

gotta say the front wides are fairly silent…Can anyone suggest any movies I could test that use front wides? I have about 300 4K titles so hopefully I’ll have what you recommend…

I also “thought” upmixing would utilize the wides but I may be wrong…

Thanks folks


----------



## niterida

asharma said:


> Hi folks…We’ll I decided to place my bipoles as rear surrounds (angled properly more or less) and use my bookshelves as front wides running 9.2.6.
> 
> gotta say the front wides are fairly silent…Can anyone suggest any movies I could test that use front wides? I have about 300 4K titles so hopefully I’ll have what you recommend…
> 
> I also “thought” upmixing would utilize the wides but I may be wrong…
> 
> Thanks folks


The new version of DSU uses wides, the old one doesn't.
DTS:X Pro will use wides, but DTS:X is limited to 11 channels, so if you already have 7.1.4 then wides will not be used


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Hi folks…We’ll I decided to place my bipoles as rear surrounds (angled properly more or less) and use my bookshelves as front wides running 9.2.6.
> 
> gotta say the front wides are fairly silent…Can anyone suggest any movies I could test that use front wides? I have about 300 4K titles so hopefully I’ll have what you recommend…
> 
> I also “thought” upmixing would utilize the wides but I may be wrong…
> 
> Thanks folks


Which processor are you using?

300
The New Mutants
Spiderman: No Way Home
Stranger Things: season 4 (netflix)
All is quiet on the western front (netflix)
Top Gun: Maverick (during the flying scenes)
Morbius
Ambulance
Godzilla v Kong
King of the Monsters
A Quiet Place 1 and 2

The Youtuber Shane Lee (formerly Spare Change) does blu ray and 4k reviews and he has a Trinnov so can show you how active the sound objects are. Link to the playlist with movie reviews below



https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLebwdQgy9ryfDVkmqtmzD4kKKeHGDmy0l


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Which processor are you using?
> 
> 300
> The New Mutants
> Spiderman: No Way Home
> Stranger Things: season 4 (netflix)
> All is quiet on the western front (netflix)
> Top Gun: Maverick (during the flying scenes)
> Morbius
> Ambulance
> Godzilla v Kong
> King of the Monsters
> A Quiet Place 1 and 2
> 
> The Youtuber Shane Lee (formerly Spare Change) does blu ray and 4k reviews and he has a Trinnov so can show you how active the sound objects are. Link to the playlist with movie reviews below
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLebwdQgy9ryfDVkmqtmzD4kKKeHGDmy0l


Thank you…Using the new Anthem 8k 1140…Does that allow for FW’s?


----------



## asharma

niterida said:


> The new version of DSU uses wides, the old one doesn't.
> DTS:X Pro will use wides, but DTS:X is limited to 11 channels, so if you already have 7.1.4 then wides will not be used


thanks…How does a person know if they have the new version of DSU


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Thank you…Using the new Anthem 8k 1140…Does that allow for FW’s?


It will allow for Front Wides with native Atmos discs that have it.

As far as the Dolby Surround upmixer is concerned, it might not have the latest upmixer. Might want to look that up.

The bad news is that the Anthem does *NOT *have *DTS:X-Pro*, which means that both native DTS:X movies and the Neural-X upmixer is limited to 11.1 (7.1.4) rendering. So it wont use your Wide channels or your Top-Middles.


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It will allow for Front Wides with native Atmos discs that have it.
> 
> As far as the Dolby Surround upmixer is concerned, it might not have the latest upmixer. Might want to look that up.
> 
> The bad news is that the Anthem does *NOT *have *DTS:X-Pro*, which means that both native DTS:X movies and the Neural-X upmixer is limited to 11.1 (7.1.4) rendering. So it wont use your Wide channels or your Top-Middles.


Thank you…I’ll call Anthem tomorrow and ask them about plans for DSU and DTS:X-Pro


----------



## Magiclakez

asharma said:


> Hi folks…We’ll I decided to place my bipoles as rear surrounds (angled properly more or less) and use my bookshelves as front wides running 9.2.6.
> 
> gotta say the front wides are fairly silent…Can anyone suggest any movies I could test that use front wides? I have about 300 4K titles so hopefully I’ll have what you recommend…
> 
> I also “thought” upmixing would utilize the wides but I may be wrong…
> 
> Thanks folks


District 9, Man of Steel, Godzilla (1998), Guns of Navaronne and many others use wides natively. I had made it a point to mention the atmos titles which cater to wides, on the Denon 8500 thread but unfortunately did not follow through. Some of the older 4k titles actually have better mixed tracks compared to the recent ones. Sony invariably leads in that department.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Thank you…I’ll call Anthem tomorrow and ask them about plans for DSU and DTS:X-Pro


The lack of DTS:X-Pro (and Auro3D) is one of the reasons I am staying in the Denon/Marantz ecosystem.

And its not just Anthem with this issue. Arcam, JBL Synthesis, Monoprice, Emotiva, Tonewinner and pretty much everyone except D&M, Trinnov, Storm and Lyngdorf are missing Pro. Dont know what the problem is, but its a major oversight on someones part. Dont know if its the processor manufacturers or DTS themselves that dropped the ball here. But since D&M and all the high end processors have it, its probably not DTS at fault.

In any case, Atmos is 95% of the market so I wouldnt worry about it too much. Its just that the Neural-X upmixer is really good if you dont have access to the Auro upmixer.


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The lack of DTS:X-Pro (and Auro3D) is one of the reasons I am staying in the Denon/Marantz ecosystem.
> 
> And its not just Anthem with this issue. Arcam, JBL Synthesis, Monoprice, Emotiva, Tonewinner and pretty much everyone except D&M, Trinnov, Storm and Lyngdorf are missing Pro. Dont know what the problem is, but its a major oversight on someones part. Dont know if its the processor manufacturers or DTS themselves that dropped the ball here. But since D&M and all the high end processors have it, its probably not DTS at fault.
> 
> In any case, Atmos is 95% of the market so I wouldnt worry about it too much. Its just that the Neural-X upmixer is really good if you dont have access to the Auro upmixer.


I know in the past Anthem was pretty good in regards to adding features via FW updates so I will enquire…That would be disappointing that they release a 15 ch AVR but can’t enable it with the latest and greatest…


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The lack of DTS:X-Pro (and Auro3D) is one of the reasons I am staying in the Denon/Marantz ecosystem.
> 
> And its not just Anthem with this issue. Arcam, JBL Synthesis, Monoprice, Emotiva, Tonewinner and pretty much everyone except D&M, Trinnov, Storm and Lyngdorf are missing Pro. Dont know what the problem is, but its a major oversight on someones part. Dont know if its the processor manufacturers or DTS themselves that dropped the ball here. But since D&M and all the high end processors have it, its probably not DTS at fault.


That’s why I love D&M’s philosophy of providing the latest (most relevant) technologies to everyone without going bonkers. No frills/fancies, but covers all the bases and gets the job done.


----------



## MagnumX

sdurani said:


> Research from back in the 1970s demonstrated that back-to-front imaging reversals could be induced in listeners when speakers were within ±30° of the listener's centerline. Most speaker placement guides (including Dolby's) show the Rear speakers at least 60° apart. Grimani has them much closer together than that. I've tried his placement and it was difficult to clearly hear stereo separation behind me. I'll stick to 60° (or wider) spread. Minimizes imaging reversals AND makes it easier to hear left-vs-right separation behind me.


60 degrees is approaching the imaging limit of stereo phantom imaging. Dolby most certainly does offer rear surrounds less than 60 degrees apart. With all 24 ear level Atmos speakers, speakers tend to be 15 degrees apart evenly spaced. 

Imaging reversals can a problem with one centered rear speaker, which is why even DTS:ES/Dolby EX only receivers (before TrueHDand DTS-HD MA were available) still had 7.1 speaker options. This is the first I'm hearing of a 60 degree angle needed to combat it. Just turning a single speaker around backwards cured the imaging issue (possibly at the expense of frequency response accuracy) as did using a bipolar style single speaker or two or more arrayed mono speakers. 

The reason the issue was missed at first was because theaters typically had a 3-6+ rear channel array so a single channel played over them has no issues like at home with one rear center speaker and even then typically only in certain frequency ranges (i.e. Not all sounds reversed).


----------



## Soulburner

I found that DolbyAudioRoomDesignTool_v5_3_10_HE.xlsb sets a 1.2m ear height and no option is given to the user to change it.

However after some sleuthing I found the value in cell CG17. I changed it to 0.92 to reflect my 36" seated height, and it redrew my layout. The top speakers expanded outward, away from the middle seat:

Before, at 1.2m ear height:









After, at 0.92m ear height:









This is with 55 degree top locations.

45 degrees is actually not right for this room:








The top fronts would be wider than my bottom fronts (which won't be placed per the LCR here), and the top rears would be outside!

So, 55 degree tops has to be the right answer for a 36" ear height in a 90" high room. The room is 131" W and 146" L. Technically the room is too small in all directions to make all speakers ideal for Atmos.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> I found that DolbyAudioRoomDesignTool_v5_3_10_HE.xlsb sets a 1.2m ear height and no option is given to the user to change it.


You really do like those tools for some reason. 2 minutes with some basic Geometry and a sheet of paper is all you should need.



> 45 degrees is actually not right for this room:


Says who? Some craptastic software? 

What you _actually_ should use is a ROOM BASED setup like *Trinnov* recommends. It's pretty basic. You set it up like the renderer sees it, evenly spaced geometry relative to the room, NOT your listening location. Your rears are way too close together in those diagrams as well. They should be in direct line with the front mains. Period. That's why your rear tops are outside of them. You could place the sides slightly in front of the listening position if you can't sit any closer. It's preferable to putting the rears right behind your head to meet some artificial angle that doesn't work well for a small room. 



> So, 55 degree tops has to be the right answer for a 36" ear height in a 90" high room. The room is 131" W and 146" L. Technically the room is too small in all directions to make all speakers ideal for Atmos.


What does "ideal" mean? What that program draws? A _*real*_ Atmos theater has more than one seat in it, believe it or not. Atmos should ideally work for ALL seats. The lack of a center line lock overhead makes that less than ideal compared to Auro-3D, but even so any point on the line in the middle below should provide a PERFECT rendering experience for Atmos. ALL of it. That's because the speaker delays correct for time arrivals and thus you don't have to sit in the middle to get smooth overhead imaging. The overheads can be moved outward as far as the front mains as well. Some say sides should never be in front of you, but that would limit you to the mid-point back for seating.

*Room Based Alignment* (7.x.4) for _perfect_ Atmos imaging no matter where you sit along that line (Speakers/Lines aren't necessarily the side walls, just showing the speaker alignments relative to each other)


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> *Room Based Alignment* (7.x.4) for _perfect_ Atmos imaging no matter where you sit along that line (Speakers/Lines aren't necessarily the side walls, just showing the speaker alignments relative to each other)


Lol, what? That does not look like an Atmos layout that would work for me.


MagnumX said:


> Says who? Some craptastic software?


Sure, from Dolby themselves. Who should I trust, the makers of the format, or some guy on a forum? 



MagnumX said:


> What you _actually_ should use is a ROOM BASED setup like *Trinnov* recommends. It's pretty basic. You set it up like the renderer sees it, evenly spaced geometry relative to the room, NOT your listening location. Your rears are way too close together in those diagrams as well. They should be in direct line with the front mains. Period. That's why your rear tops are outside of them. You could place the sides slightly in front of the listening position if you can't sit any closer. It's preferable to putting the rears right behind your head to meet some artificial angle that doesn't work well for a small room.


If you had taken a moment to look at my measurements and read what I wrote, you wouldn't have written this. It makes no sense.


----------



## fnana

Soulburner said:


> Sure, from Dolby themselves. Who should I trust, the makers of the format, or some guy on a forum?


Thank you! This forum is great to learn people's personal experiences but a lot of people don't realize at the end of the day, they're just some strangers on the internet and expect their word to be taken as gospel.


----------



## Chirosamsung

asharma said:


> Hi folks…We’ll I decided to place my bipoles as rear surrounds (angled properly more or less) and use my bookshelves as front wides running 9.2.6.
> 
> gotta say the front wides are fairly silent…Can anyone suggest any movies I could test that use front wides? I have about 300 4K titles so hopefully I’ll have what you recommend…
> 
> I also “thought” upmixing would utilize the wides but I may be wrong…
> 
> Thanks folks


Very little movies use front wides natively unfortunatly without upmixing. Yes, sometimes they are "on" but rarely does anything at all come out of them for 95% of movies.

this is coming from someone, like yourself, that installed discreet front wide towers and also have bipole rears fairly close together


----------



## cricket9998

A lot of atmos mixes unfortunately skip wides. I think that should be illegal. Of all things, Long Way Up used wides

I also use about 55 degrees for my 4 heights and found the imaging to be SIGNIFICANTLY better. 45 degrees is better if you have 6 speakers


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It will allow for Front Wides with native Atmos discs that have it.
> 
> As far as the Dolby Surround upmixer is concerned, it might not have the latest upmixer. Might want to look that up.
> 
> The bad news is that the Anthem does *NOT *have *DTS:X-Pro*, which means that both native DTS:X movies and the Neural-X upmixer is limited to 11.1 (7.1.4) rendering. So it wont use your Wide channels or your Top-Middles.


Spoke to Anthem…Right now the plan is for DTS:X Pro for “probably” the 2nd half of 2023…In regards to Dolby Surround Upmixing, I’m told only the 8k 1140 units can upmix to 15 channels as the 8k units have the HDMI 2.1 board…


----------



## joeyvans

Soulburner said:


> Lol, what? That does not look like an Atmos layout that would work for me.
> 
> Sure, from Dolby themselves. Who should I trust, the makers of the format, or some guy on a forum?
> 
> 
> If you had taken a moment to look at my measurements and read what I wrote, you wouldn't have written this. It makes no sense.


Man.... planning a room is stressful enough WITHOUT someone telling you that your way to "skin a cat" is wrong. You are using the resources available to you to make the best decisions for your space. Keep it rolling!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Spoke to Anthem…Right now the plan is for DTS:X Pro for “probably” the 2nd half of 2023…In regards to Dolby Surround Upmixing, I’m told only the 8k 1140 units can upmix to 15 channels as the 8k units have the HDMI 2.1 board…


Thats good news about Pro. Hopefully the Arcam/JBL processors get that as well.

As for the Dolby Surround Upmixer, I dont understand what that has to do with HDMI 2.1. Its dependant upon whichever update the processor has received. If it has the latest update, it should be able to upmix to all 15 speaker locations including the wides. The older version of the upmixer didnt take wides into consideration. Nothing to do with HDMI.

Weird.


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Thats good news about Pro. Hopefully the Arcam/JBL processors get that as well.
> 
> As for the Dolby Surround Upmixer, I dont understand what that has to do with HDMI 2.1. Its dependant upon whichever update the processor has received. If it has the latest update, it should be able to upmix to all 15 speaker locations including the wides. The older version of the upmixer didnt take wides into consideration. Nothing to do with HDMI.
> 
> Weird.


Thanks, I agree with you…Perhaps they just included it as part of the HDMI 2.1 upgrade but actually nothing to do with HDMI 2.1 as I believe there were a few other benefits included in that upgrade but nothing to do with HDMI 2.1.

I just tested DSU on a DTS MA HD track…Sound from every speaker except the wides…I’m assuming it was just the timestamp I sampled or my ceilings etc would not have been upmixed?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> Very little movies use front wides natively unfortunatly without upmixing. Yes, sometimes they are "on" but rarely does anything at all come out of them for 95% of movies.


any movie with active sound objects will use the Wides. But yeah, they might be silent for 80% to 95% of the movie. In most cases they will only play active sound objects that move through the area that the Wide channel influences.

It might _seem _like the Wides arent being used, but its much better than being silent 95% of the time. Its just that most of the time their activation will be very brief. If you unplugged everything except the wides and played movies that used them, you would hear "zip". "Vroom". "Swish". Going through them, but likely very few persistent sounds.

However in studios where they are monitoring with 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 (Sony, Netflix and WB have dubbing studios for this) then you'll get some mixes that might use the Wides in a greater capacity other than a mere transitional speaker.

Just to be safe, assume that any mix you are listening to has a 7.1.2 base mix with sound objects thrown in, which makes all the other speakers beyond 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 to be transitional for greater spacial resolution.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Thanks, I agree with you…Perhaps they just included it as part of the HDMI 2.1 upgrade but actually nothing to do with HDMI 2.1 as I believe there were a few other benefits included in that upgrade but nothing to do with HDMI 2.1.


Yeah this seems likely.



> I just tested DSU on a DTS MA HD track…Sound from every speaker except the wides…I’m assuming it was just the timestamp I sampled or my ceilings etc would not have been upmixed?


From what I understand, the previous version of DSU was able to upmix to 6 ceiling speakers including the Top-Middles. But didnt activate Wides or other non-standard channel positions like the Center Surround (or Center Rear)

Shane Lee did a video talking about Wide channels and the Center Surround using his Trinnov. He recorded this video before the Dolby Surround Upmixer got the big update. You can see here which movies the Wides work with: movies with active sound objects. They didnt work at all with Dolby Surround, but they did work with Neural-X (the Trinnov has DTS:X-Pro of course). He tried them with a native DTS:X disc and they remained silent. Thats because he didnt activate Neural-X. With a DTS:X-Pro receiver or processor, you have to turn on the Neural-X toggle which then uses the native DTS:X sound mix with Neural-X upmixing to expand the 7.1.4 mix to all your available channels. Shane didnt realize that, so his Wide channels remained silent.






And in this brief video, Shane is talking to Jon from Trinnov where he specifically mentions that the older version of DSU didnt upmix to Wides, but the newer version should. If Trinnov couldnt do it, then no one can.


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yeah this seems likely.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the previous version of DSU was able to upmix to 6 ceiling speakers including the Top-Middles. But didnt activate Wides or other non-standard channel positions like the Center Surround (or Center Rear)
> 
> Shane Lee did a video talking about Wide channels and the Center Surround using his Trinnov. He recorded this video before the Dolby Surround Upmixer got the big update. You can see here which movies the Wides work with: movies with active sound objects. They didnt work at all with Dolby Surround, but they did work with Neural-X (the Trinnov has DTS:X-Pro of course). He tried them with a native DTS:X disc and they remained silent. Thats because he didnt activate Neural-X. With a DTS:X-Pro receiver or processor, you have to turn on the Neural-X toggle which then uses the native DTS:X sound mix with Neural-X upmixing to expand the 7.1.4 mix to all your available channels. Shane didnt realize that, so his Wide channels remained silent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in this brief video, Shane is talking to Jon from Trinnov where he specifically mentions that the older version of DSU didnt upmix to Wides, but the newer version should. If Trinnov couldnt do it, then no one can.


Thanks for this…I’ll will watch what you posted…I was just testing Maverick IMAX flight scenes and even in those scenes the FW’s get a brief whoosh but practically nothing…Not sure the FW’s are even worth worrying about TBH…I have a pair of bipoles I’m using as rear surrounds…I will disconnect the forward firing array on those and use those for FW’s and redeploy my current FW bookshelves to rear surrounds as there is far more info using rear surrounds…Do you really thing FW’s are even worth pursuing?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

asharma said:


> Thanks for this…I’ll will watch what you posted…I was just testing Maverick IMAX flight scenes and even in those scenes the FW’s get a brief whoosh but practically nothing…Not sure the FW’s are even worth worrying about TBH…I have a pair of bipoles I’m using as rear surrounds…I will disconnect the forward firing array on those and use those for FW’s and redeploy my current FW bookshelves to rear surrounds as there is far more info using rear surrounds…Do you really thing FW’s are even worth pursuing?


Yes. I wholeheartedly believe that Wides and every other channel is worth pursuing.

Lets not forget that Atmos is about *spacial resolution*. Its specifically emphasizes the motion of sound throughout the space. The more speakers you have to facilitate this, the better your system is able to render the sounds in your room. 

Wide channels are considered essential by many audio experts for dedicated theaters becsuse typically the MLP is rearward of the center of the room, leaving a fairly wide gap between the front soundstage and the side surrounds. As sound transitions from the front speakers to the side speakers, there may be a gap in the sound field experienced when this distance is too great. 

Imagine a car zooming by on the left side of the room. It starts in the center speaker, then to the left speaker to left surround to left rear where it fades away. As the sound goes from the left main speaker to the left surround, it may lose energy in between, get softer then suddenly jump up in SPL as the side surround takes over more of the sound object. The transition is not smooth. However, if you put the Wide speaker in that gap, filling out that space, then the sound object wont lose energy as it travels through. The SPL remains consistent with the sound mix and the transition from speaker to speaker is perceived as much smoother.

So whether or not you feel as if you need a Wide speaker will depend on the nature of that gap between the front soundstage and the side surrounds. I myself will NOT be using Wides in my upcoming theater build, at least not at first, because I plan to place my seating in such a way that the distance between the front soundstage and the side surrounds is not that wide. The sounds should be able to transition smoothly from front to back. My side surrounds will be equidistant from the front and back speakers. Also the main reason is because as of right now, I am planning to use a 13.1 channel receiver and I need the 12th and 13th speakers on the ceiling, so the Wides are out for now. However, if I do end up getting a 15.1 channel receiver or processor (which is now possible with the upcoming Denon A1H) then I would definitely add Wide channels to my setup.


----------



## Soulburner

Also consider that the best sound comes from a stereo triangle and not speakers in the corners, which means FL and FR are at 30 degrees. That leaves 60-70 to the side surrounds, which is doable.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Also consider that the best sound comes from a stereo triangle and not speakers in the corners, which means FL and FR are at 30 degrees. That leaves 60-70 to the side surrounds, which is doable.


I would say to try to avoid gaps bigger than 60° between any speaker pair.


----------



## asharma

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes. I wholeheartedly believe that Wides and every other channel is worth pursuing.
> 
> Lets not forget that Atmos is about *spacial resolution*. Its specifically emphasizes the motion of sound throughout the space. The more speakers you have to facilitate this, the better your system is able to render the sounds in your room.
> 
> Wide channels are considered essential by many audio experts for dedicated theaters becsuse typically the MLP is rearward of the center of the room, leaving a fairly wide gap between the front soundstage and the side surrounds. As sound transitions from the front speakers to the side speakers, there may be a gap in the sound field experienced when this distance is too great.
> 
> Imagine a car zooming by on the left side of the room. It starts in the center speaker, then to the left speaker to left surround to left rear where it fades away. As the sound goes from the left main speaker to the left surround, it may lose energy in between, get softer then suddenly jump up in SPL as the side surround takes over more of the sound object. The transition is not smooth. However, if you put the Wide speaker in that gap, filling out that space, then the sound object wont lose energy as it travels through. The SPL remains consistent with the sound mix and the transition from speaker to speaker is perceived as much smoother.
> 
> So whether or not you feel as if you need a Wide speaker will depend on the nature of that gap between the front soundstage and the side surrounds. I myself will NOT be using Wides in my upcoming theater build, at least not at first, because I plan to place my seating in such a way that the distance between the front soundstage and the side surrounds is not that wide. The sounds should be able to transition smoothly from front to back. My side surrounds will be equidistant from the front and back speakers. Also the main reason is because as of right now, I am planning to use a 13.1 channel receiver and I need the 12th and 13th speakers on the ceiling, so the Wides are out for now. However, if I do end up getting a 15.1 channel receiver or processor (which is now possible with the upcoming Denon A1H) then I would definitely add Wide channels to my setup.


Makes sense…the only reason I tried the wides was my AVR supports 15 channels and I had a pair of matching speakers just sitting idle in my tickle trunk…


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

This is interesting.

Technodad and Joe'N Tell announced today they are releasing a Spacial Audio calibration kit including a blu ray designed to assist in calibrating up to 9.1.6 Atmos systems.

This is something that is sorely needed and frankly, REW, Spears and Munsil among other have dropped the ball in this area.

Its a two hour livestream but they get to the announcement about 10 minutes into the stream.


----------



## priitv8

NuSoardGraphite said:


> This is something that is sorely needed and frankly, REW, Spears and Munsil among other have dropped the ball in this area.


Lets see what will they come up with. 
With REW one needs to use external sweep files at the moment to address the Atmos speakers. 
Someone has also posted them on google drive.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

priitv8 said:


> Lets see what will they come up with.
> With REW one needs to use external sweep files at the moment to address the Atmos speakers.
> Someone has also posted them on google drive.


Yes. I figure people will use a disc like this to generate the test tones in the height channels and get the measurements and impulse responses that way.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Lol, what? That does not look like an Atmos layout that would work for me.
> 
> Sure, from Dolby themselves. Who should I trust, the makers of the format, or some guy on a forum?
> 
> 
> If you had taken a moment to look at my measurements and read what I wrote, you wouldn't have written this. It makes no sense.


I'm sorry, but if you read the damn Trinnov setup guidelines or even the Dolby cinema guidelines (that use a room boundary assumption), you'd never have said what you said. Hell, you keep quoting the flipping *mixing studio* guidelines for god's sake! 

Room-centric means you place the speakers according to the room and renderer layout and then sit anywhere you want because it should work for all seats, especially the MLP. But no, you keep showing RIDICULOUS looking room layouts that make no sense and you're saying Dolby told you to do THAT while insulting my advice!?!? .... I'm done talking to you.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

I agree with the idea of a room-centric theater design. Its not always possible, but if your theater is its own enclosed room, not open to other parts of the house, then you can take the entire room into consideration as the acoustical space rather than limiting the design and placement to just around the main listening position. 

Instead of placing the seating and arranging all the speakers around those, place the speakers equidistant around the room, then place the seating in the middle of that, as best you can. Accounting for architectural elements and standing waves. Of course if you use 4 subwoofers, standing waves are far less of an issuse.

This is what I'm doing with my room design here:










Of course not everyone can do that if the shape of the room and architectural elements get in the way, but if you can do that, its what I would recommend.


----------



## sdrucker

NuSoardGraphite said:


> any movie with active sound objects will use the Wides. But yeah, they might be silent for 80% to 95% of the movie. In most cases they will only play active sound objects that move through the area that the Wide channel influences.
> 
> It might _seem _like the Wides arent being used, but its much better than being silent 95% of the time. Its just that most of the time their activation will be very brief. If you unplugged everything except the wides and played movies that used them, you would hear "zip". "Vroom". "Swish". Going through them, but likely very few persistent sounds.
> 
> However in studios where they are monitoring with 9.1.4 or 9.1.6 (Sony, Netflix and WB have dubbing studios for this) then you'll get some mixes that might use the Wides in a greater capacity other than a mere transitional speaker.
> 
> Just to be safe, assume that any mix you are listening to has a 7.1.2 base mix with sound objects thrown in, which makes all the other speakers beyond 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 to be transitional for greater spacial resolution.


Don't forget music mixed in Dolby Atmos, especially some of the content on Apple's Spatial Audio. Plenty of music being used that makes use of wides, although it's often just for bringing out more ambience from what's being played by the front L/R rather than active objects. Think something like Yello's Point album as an example of active objects using the wides.


----------



## Soulburner

Here's my room with a 7.1.4 system and a row of 3 recliners. Stereo triangle for optimal music use, plus what I understand to be the best angles I can do for Atmos in this room with 7.1.4.

Room facts:
L×W×H = 146×131×91 inches
Head height: 36 inches
Screen: 77 inches diagonal
Screen to seat distance: 8.5 feet, 9.5 when fully reclined

Speaker angles from middle seat:


Speaker​Horizontal Angle​Longitudinal Elevation Angle​Lateral Elevation Angle​Center​0°​-10°​​Front L/R​34°​0°​​LFE×2​0°/180°​​​Ls/Rs​94°​​11°​Lrs/Rrs​150°​14°​​Ltf/Rtf​45°​55°​55°​Ltr/Rtr​135°​55°​55°​


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

⁹


sdrucker said:


> Don't forget music mixed in Dolby Atmos, especially some of the content on Apple's Spatial Audio. Plenty of music being used that makes use of wides, although it's often just for bringing out more ambience from what's being played by the front L/R rather than active objects. Think something like Yello's Point album as an example of active objects using the wides.


Thats an excellent point. I can see the Wides being used quite often to widen the front soundstage. Make it actually sound like an orchestra or a rock band on the stage in front of (and above) you.

While Atmos music isnt quite as mainstream as movies yet, once it becones more ubiquitous, I can see Wides becoming a more essential factor in theater setups than they are now.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Here's my room with a 7.1.4 system and a row of 3 recliners. Stereo triangle for optimal music use, plus what I understand to be the best angles I can do for Atmos in this room with 7.1.4.
> 
> Room facts:
> L×W×H = 146×131×91 inches
> Head height: 36 inches
> Screen: 77 inches diagonal
> Screen to seat distance: 8.5 feet, 9.5 when fully reclined
> 
> Speaker angles from middle seat:
> 
> 
> Speaker​Horizontal Angle​Longitudinal Elevation Angle​Lateral Elevation Angle​Center​0°​-10°​​Front L/R​34°​0°​​LFE×2​0°/180°​​​Ls/Rs​94°​​11°​Lrs/Rrs​150°​14°​​Ltf/Rtf​45°​55°​55°​Ltr/Rtr​135°​55°​55°​
> 
> View attachment 3373446
> 
> View attachment 3373448
> 
> View attachment 3373449


So it seems your room is fairly small. Basically 12 feet by 11 feet with 8.5 foot ceiling.

7.1.4 seems reasonable for that size room. Being 8 feet fron the screen 2/3 in the room (from the screen wall)

What processor are you using? Can you consider Auro3D positioning as well? If your processor is capable of it, dont dismiss it as DTS:X is highly compatible with an Auro3D setup. Moreso than an Atmos setup.

But of course, Atmos is 95% of the market so an Atmos-centric design is a smart bet.

Going with two or four subwoofers?


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So it seems your room is fairly small. Basically 12 feet by 11 feet with 8.5 foot ceiling.
> 
> 7.1.4 seems reasonable for that size room. Being 8 feet fron the screen 2/3 in the room (from the screen wall)


Yep, pretty small, but I think I have it figured out. The reason the Top speakers still look rather "spread out" is an illusion – it is in fact the walls that are closer! If I brought the Tops in closer to be "in line" with the fronts and MLP, the vertical angles from the MLP would exceed 60 degrees which isn't recommended. The stereo triangle is like 8.5 feet on each side. The fronts may only be 7.5 feet apart but it's the best I can do.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> What processor are you using? Can you consider Auro3D positioning as well? If your processor is capable of it, dont dismiss it as DTS:X is highly compatible with an Auro3D setup. Moreso than an Atmos setup.
> 
> But of course, Atmos is 95% of the market so an Atmos-centric design is a smart bet.


I use the Auro3D upmixer sometimes for music with my X4500H.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> Going with two or four subwoofers?


Two good ones.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I use the Auro3D upmixer sometimes for music with my X4500H.


Ah, a solid unit.

Yeah with your ceiling speakers set as Front Height and Rear Height, that might improve DTS:X sountracks a bit.



> Two good ones.


Should be plenty for that room. I'm going with four subs so I'm going to do 4 medium sized 12" subs.


----------



## sdrucker

NuSoardGraphite said:


> ⁹
> 
> Thats an excellent point. I can see the Wides being used quite often to widen the front soundstage. Make it actually sound like an orchestra or a rock band on the stage in front of (and above) you.
> 
> While Atmos music isnt quite as mainstream as movies yet, once it becones more ubiquitous, I can see Wides becoming a more essential factor in theater setups than they are now.


There's many artists that don't have anything on Spatial Audio on the Apple TV platform, but they come up with new content every week. I wouldn't have guessed that something as ancient as Neil Young's Harvest or the Grateful Dead's American Beauty would have music remixed to a Dolby Atmos format, along with contemporary stuff like Glass Animals or Maneskin or Tiesto. How much wides are used or not used is considerably less frustrating if you listen to music in your HT in a 9.x.x format (or greater, for that matter).

Still wondering why only the most recent Springsteen album is available in Spatial Audio to date, and none of his classic albums from his peak creativity with the E Street band. I'd kill for Darkness on the Edge of Town or The River to be released in Atmos.


----------



## priitv8

sdrucker said:


> I wouldn't have guessed that something as ancient as Neil Young's Harvest or the Grateful Dead's American Beauty would have music remixed to a Dolby Atmos format…


I am not sure everything has been remixed to Atmos. 
To my ears, Queen The Game sounds exactly like the 5.1 mix on their DVD-A. 
As Atmos is the only multichannel codec supported on Apple Music, they probably just re-exported the 5.1 mix to DD+ Atmos.


----------



## sdrucker

priitv8 said:


> I am not sure everything has been remixed to Atmos.
> To my ears, Queen The Game sounds exactly like the 5.1 mix on their DVD-A.
> As Atmos is the only multichannel codec supported on Apple Music, they probably just re-exported the 5.1 mix to DD+ Atmos.


Yes, but the only way to know for sure is looking at the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer on my Trinnov. Any song in particular? I'll take a look later this afternoon when I'm home.

I have a 13.x.6 setup (7 floor level speakers + wides + side surround 1 + left/right centers, and top front/middle/rears) so that would give us a pretty good idea not what object locations show up, but what actually gets played when I look at the input and output meters and maybe solo those wides.


----------



## priitv8

sdrucker said:


> Yes, but the only way to know for sure is looking at the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer on my Trinnov. Any song in particular? I'll take a look later this afternoon when I'm home.


Let”s try with the lovely “Another One Bites the Dust”.


----------



## robert600

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So it seems your room is fairly small. Basically 12 feet by 11 feet with 8.5 foot ceiling.


This doesn't change anything about your saying ... just feel I should point out that 91 inches is to all intents and purposes 7.5 feet NOT 8.5 feet.



Soulburner said:


> Here's my room with a 7.1.4 system and a row of 3 recliners. Stereo triangle for optimal music use, plus what I understand to be the best angles I can do for Atmos in this room with 7.1.4.


It seems to me that you're in an enviable position for a scatmos 7.2.6 set up. Just push the top fronts (or call them heights if you like) forward a bit and the top (heights) rear back a bit ... add some top top middle speakers. You're already using a separate something(?) to get you to 7.2.4 so ... another one of those somethings and a pair of speakers and you've got 7.2.6. Minimal cost and would help a lot with some of the angle separation between speakers. Just saying.


----------



## ted_b

priitv8 said:


> I am not sure everything has been remixed to Atmos.
> To my ears, Queen The Game sounds exactly like the 5.1 mix on their DVD-A.
> As Atmos is the only multichannel codec supported on Apple Music, they probably just re-exported the 5.1 mix to DD+ Atmos.


Not true at all; there is plenty of 5.1 on Apple Music and Tidal.




sdrucker said:


> Yes, but the only way to know for sure is looking at the Dolby Atmos Object Viewer on my Trinnov.


Also not true. In Apple Music (easiest when using iPhone as remote) The Dolby Atmos and logo are prominent below the album title.










BTW, the Neil Young Harvest is , once again, no great shakes (pun not intended) in Atmos (although better than the mess it was in DVD-Audio) BUT.....American Beauty (and Eurpoe '72) are state of the art!! Steve Wilson has done a fabulous job. Listen to the heights harmonies in Attics Of My Life, for example.


----------



## priitv8

ted_b said:


> Not true at all; there is plenty of 5.1 on Apple Music and Tidal.


Tidal is not the topic here. 
What music is/was on Apple Music in 5.1 before they introduced Atmos/Spatial Audio?
And we are not talking about video clips. Audio-only clips.


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> It seems to me that you're in an enviable position for a scatmos 7.2.6 set up. Just push the top fronts (or call them heights if you like) forward a bit and the top (heights) rear back a bit ... add some top top middle speakers. You're already using a separate something(?) to get you to 7.2.4 so ... another one of those somethings and a pair of speakers and you've got 7.2.6. Minimal cost and would help a lot with some of the angle separation between speakers. Just saying.


I'm just using an X4500H with a 2-channel amp up front (soon to add another NCore to include the center speaker). I'm interested to know what it would take to add those top middle speakers. If the consensus is that it would be a significant benefit and it could be done at little cost, I will consider it. I thought I would have to upgrade to the X6700H, is that right?


----------



## ted_b

priitv8 said:


> Tidal is not the topic here.
> What music is/was on Apple Music in 5.1 before they introduced Atmos/Spatial Audio?
> And we are not talking about video clips. Audio-only clips.


?? What is your issue? Both Apple Music and Tidal are streaming Atmos mixes, so I included them in my response. And you said that Atmos is the only multichannel codec on Apple, and I pointed out that info is incorrect. Go listen to The Youngbloods Greatest Hits. It's in 5.1 and not in Atmos, never was. There are threads about streaming 5.1 (not Atmos) in the quad forum, for example (and a very large on about streaming Atmos music). Not sure what you are pushing back on. Who cares when 5.1 was introduced on Apple Music; my point was that Atmos isn't the only multichannel codec on Apple Music. If you are solely into 5.1 (likley not, or you wouldn't be reading this thread) or just ALSO like 5.1 then you have streaming content to go find (finding this stuff is a whole 'nother can of worms).

And no, were are not talking about video.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

priitv8 said:


> Tidal is not the topic here.
> What music is/was on Apple Music in 5.1 before they introduced Atmos/Spatial Audio?
> And we are not talking about video clips. Audio-only clips.


I can't give you a comprehensive list, but a lot of Pink Floyd stuff is currently listed under the Spatial Audio category on Apple Music but plays back in 5.1. Even stuff included in their "made for Spatial Audio" playlist. And yes, audio only, not video clips.


----------



## ted_b

Yes, none of the PF stuff is Atmos. And Apple Music certainly likes to broaden the Spatial term. Immersive is what we've been calling Atmos/Auro-3D/Sony 360RA stuff. Spatial seems to be a bigger but more vague tent.

I have my own personal top ten (in my opinion) Atmos mixes on Apple Music if anyone cares. And I'm sure I'd miss more than 75% of the good ones, as I tend to overlook the late model popular stuff that are not my taste and wouldn't ever listen to in 2 channel...Celine Dion, Beyonce etc etc.. But, I've really found a bunch of new stuff when searching for Atmos. So maybe the Beyonce-like releases are that good in Atmos...I probably will never know.


----------



## sdrucker

ted_b said:


> Also not true. In Apple Music (easiest when using iPhone as remote) The Dolby Atmos and logo are prominent below the album title.


Hi, of course I know that about the Dolby Atmos logo on the album title  . What I was referring to with Trinnov's Dolby Atmos Object Viewer was a way to tell if that album which priitv8 had suspected of being just a 5.1 DVD audio mix ported to Spatial Audio as Dolby Atmos. Going to check it out shortly and see if it's just 5.1 in an MAT (Dobly Atmos) wrapper or something more immersive but subtle.



> BTW, the Neil Young Harvest is , once again, no great shakes (pun not intended) in Atmos (although better than the mess it was in DVD-Audio) BUT.....American Beauty (and Eurpoe '72) are state of the art!! Steve Wilson has done a fabulous job. Listen to the heights harmonies in Attics Of My Life, for example.


Agreed. Wilson is the master there.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> I'm just using an X4500H with a 2-channel amp up front (soon to add another NCore to include the center speaker). I'm interested to know what it would take to add those top middle speakers. If the consensus is that it would be a significant benefit and it could be done at little cost, I will consider it. I thought I would have to upgrade to the X6700H, is that right?


Personally I wouldn't put just in front of that X4500H ... it's a very nice 'piece of kit' as they say in the UK. It's 100% fine for 7.2.6 atmos setup. I'm not completely sure what you're using for a 2 channel amp but that 4500 is totally solid. Just let me check what is required for what I think of as 2ndary receivers and get back to you. I don't want to talk off the top of my head and give bad advice. Not much at all is required though I can tell you that ... the 4500 will be doing the heavy lifting so to speak. The only thing that's going to hurt a little is the pair of speakers. If possible, you'll want them to match your current front and rear tops (heights) for smooth transitioning.


----------



## robert600

robert600 said:


> It's 100% fine for 7.2.6 atmos setup


that should read ... for a 7.2.6 scatmos setup


----------



## robert600

Here's a quote from below:

"Although your primary A/V receiver must be a Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X) model capable of decoding 7.1.4 channels of sound from a Blu-ray or UHD immersive audio soundtrack, the secondary receivers don’t need to be nearly as fancy. Any receiver that has, at a minimum, Dolby ProLogic II processing will do. (If using multiple secondary receivers, I recommend that they be identical to each other.)

With a little patience while monitoring For Sale ads on my local Craigslist, I managed to pick up a pair of used Marantz SR4400s for well below $100 each. This is a no-frills, entry-level (or close to it) Dolby Digital/DTS model from 2003. It’s so basic that it doesn’t even have an on-screen menu system. I have to set it up using only the front panel display. The receiver doesn’t have HDMI and cannot handle lossless Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio signals, but it doesn’t need to. All it needs is a pair of analog stereo inputs (which any receiver will have) and ProLogic II."

It's from:









Dolby Atmos Beyond 7.1.4 – Part 1


A little over a year ago, I began experimenting with ways to expand my Dolby Atmos surround sound system to beyond the 7.1.4 limitation of current con...



www.highdefdigest.com


----------



## priitv8

ted_b said:


> ?? What is your issue? Both Apple Music and Tidal are streaming Atmos mixes, so I included them in my response. And you said that Atmos is the only multichannel codec on Apple, and I pointed out that info is incorrect.


I have no issue, really. Just as a long-time AM subscriber (and never subscribed to Tidal), that is the only reference I have. I do not recall any multichannel audio from Apple before the Atmos was launched on the platform. Before that, they were only streaming in AAC Stereo. So I am really puzzled to understand, how could they offer music in 5.1 before Atmos-era? I've never encountered any AAC5.1 content on AM. Some particular reference to such a song (AM link) would be good to teach me otherwise.
I do not see Greatest Hits album by The Youngbloods on my AM, and all albums on the picture are only stereo:









Jeremy Anderson said:


> I can't give you a comprehensive list, but a lot of Pink Floyd stuff is currently listed under the Spatial Audio category on Apple Music but plays back in 5.1. Even stuff included in their "made for Spatial Audio" playlist. And yes, audio only, not video clips.


That is exactly what I meant - to my ears, it seems they just deliver old 5.1 mixes in Atmos container, without much remastering/remixing. As I say - EC-3+Atmos is the only multichannel codec available on AM platform. Would love to be taught otherwise.


ted_b said:


> Yes, none of the PF stuff is Atmos. And Apple Music certainly likes to broaden the Spatial term. Immersive is what we've been calling Atmos/Auro-3D/Sony 360RA stuff. Spatial seems to be a bigger but more vague tent.


Which is unfortunate, as DSotM and WYWH have been mixed in 5.1 long time ago. Endless River came 2017. This year Animals 2018 remix was added to the pot, also appeared in Atmos on blu-ray.


sdrucker said:


> Hi, of course I know that about the Dolby Atmos logo on the album title  . What I was referring to with Trinnov's Dolby Atmos Object Viewer was a way to tell if that album which priitv8 had suspected of being just a 5.1 DVD audio mix ported to Spatial Audio as Dolby Atmos. Going to check it out shortly and see if it's just 5.1 in an MAT (Dobly Atmos) wrapper or something more immersive but subtle.


Yes, please check how these are published now. As remixes, involving also height-layer, or just rewrap of old 5.1 bed-level mixes into Atmos container?


----------



## sdrucker

Goo


priitv8 said:


> I have no issue, really. Just as a long-time AM subscriber (and never subscribed to Tidal), that is the only reference I have. I do not recall any multichannel audio from Apple before the Atmos was launched on the platform. Before that, they were only streaming in AAC Stereo. So I am really puzzled to understand, how could they offer music in 5.1 before Atmos-era? I've never encountered any AAC5.1 content on AM. Some particular reference to such a song (AM link) would be good to teach me otherwise.
> I do not see Greatest Hits album by The Youngbloods on my AM, and all albums on the picture are only stereo:
> View attachment 3373820
> 
> That is exactly what I meant - to my ears, it seems they just deliver old 5.1 mixes in Atmos container, without much remastering/remixing. As I say - EC-3+Atmos is the only multichannel codec available on AM platform. Would love to be taught otherwise.
> Which is unfortunate, as DSotM and WYWH have been mixed in 5.1 long time ago. Endless River came 2017. This year Animals 2018 remix was added to the pot, also appeared in Atmos on blu-ray.
> 
> Yes, please check how these are published now. As remixes, involving also height-layer, or just rewrap of old 5.1 bed-level mixes into Atmos container?


Good news and bad news, based on Another One Bites the Dust from the Game.

This isn’t just 5.1 in an Atmos container. I see static objects for top front and top rears separately, also top rears and wides too.

However, the rears are silent, and the wides are effectively a reduced level copy of the L/R mains, as are the top fronts. The same for my front side surrounds and top middles being a low level copy of the side surround, which is directly copied to the rear surrounds.

You’d have to crank the wides to hear them much, by the way.


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> Here's a quote from below:
> 
> "Although your primary A/V receiver must be a Dolby Atmos (or DTS:X) model capable of decoding 7.1.4 channels of sound from a Blu-ray or UHD immersive audio soundtrack, the secondary receivers don’t need to be nearly as fancy. Any receiver that has, at a minimum, Dolby ProLogic II processing will do. (If using multiple secondary receivers, I recommend that they be identical to each other.)
> 
> With a little patience while monitoring For Sale ads on my local Craigslist, I managed to pick up a pair of used Marantz SR4400s for well below $100 each. This is a no-frills, entry-level (or close to it) Dolby Digital/DTS model from 2003. It’s so basic that it doesn’t even have an on-screen menu system. I have to set it up using only the front panel display. The receiver doesn’t have HDMI and cannot handle lossless Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio signals, but it doesn’t need to. All it needs is a pair of analog stereo inputs (which any receiver will have) and ProLogic II."
> 
> It's from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dolby Atmos Beyond 7.1.4 – Part 1
> 
> 
> A little over a year ago, I began experimenting with ways to expand my Dolby Atmos surround sound system to beyond the 7.1.4 limitation of current con...
> 
> 
> 
> www.highdefdigest.com


I think if I ran 3 AVRs in here I would be a roasted chicken.

Ok, so the benefit is all TF/TR material would give a matrixed "Top Middle". Downsides, no discrete TM content. Anything else?


----------



## Josh Z

robert600 said:


> Here's a quote from below:
> 
> It's from:


Hmm, that does sound awfully familiar.


----------



## sdrucker

I just found something REALLY unusual in Apple TV's Spatial Audio in Dolby Atmos: songs that don't use any heights, but use wides and the L/R screen centers (those Atmos locations between left and center, and center and right speakers).

That's off of Neil Diamond's Greatest Hits, which I checked out from curiosity. "I'm a Believer" and "Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon" have the instruments (guitar, bass, some drums) in the left and right speakers, and a little bit of apparently decorrelated content in center speaker. However, you have Neil's vocals in isolation in the left and right wides, and in the left and right centers, and there's no height content at all. In a normal 5.1 or 7.1 layout, almost all of that winds up in the left and right speakers, but there's objects in those Atmos speaker locations. The sides and rears just have ambience and a little bit of percussion. Pretty cool, I'd say.


----------



## ted_b

priitv8 said:


> I have no issue, really. Just as a long-time AM subscriber (and never subscribed to Tidal), that is the only reference I have. I do not recall any multichannel audio from Apple before the Atmos was launched on the platform. Before that, they were only streaming in AAC Stereo. So I am really puzzled to understand, how could they offer music in 5.1 before Atmos-era? I've never encountered any AAC5.1 content on AM. Some particular reference to such a song (AM link) would be good to teach me otherwise.
> I do not see Greatest Hits album by The Youngbloods on my AM, and all albums on the picture are only stereo:
> View attachment 3373820
> 
> That is exactly what I meant - to my ears, it seems they just deliver old 5.1 mixes in Atmos container, without much remastering/remixing. As I say - EC-3+Atmos is the only multichannel codec available on AM platform. Would love to be taught otherwise.
> Which is unfortunate, as DSotM and WYWH have been mixed in 5.1 long time ago. Endless River came 2017. This year Animals 2018 remix was added to the pot, also appeared in Atmos on blu-ray.


I think we have a language or communication problem here. 

First: There is no argument about WHEN 5.1 appeared on Apple Music, simply that it DOES appear, and they are in no way labeled as Atmos, contained in Atmos containers or considered fake Atmos upmixes. 

Second: Not everything multichannel on Apple Music is in Atmos, or even in an Atmos container!! 

Third: And NONE of the Pink Floyd have ever been in Atmos, whether on Apple or on physical Bluray (no, sir, Animals is not in Atmos on Bluray!!). And none of the Pink Floyds on AM are categorized as Atmos either. No one except you have said they were. Yes, many PF albums are 5.1 (Division Bell, for example) and come across as 5.1 on AM. 

Why accuse AM of putting them in Atmos containers? They are not!

Finally: The Best of The Youngbloods (bottom album on your pic) is in 5.1 on Apple Music; just listened to it tonight in fact. It's not labeled Atmos, just Dolby Audio (and if you highlight Dolby Audio there is a pop up that states "Dolby Audio is a surround sound format that includes Dolby 5.1 and 7.1" )


----------



## Apgood

sdrucker said:


> I just found something REALLY unusual in Apple TV's Spatial Audio in Dolby Atmos: songs that don't use any heights, but use wides and the L/R screen centers (those Atmos locations between left and center, and center and right speakers).
> 
> That's off of Neil Diamond's Greatest Hits, which I checked out from curiosity. "I'm a Believer" and "Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon" have the instruments (guitar, bass, some drums) in the left and right speakers, and a little bit of apparently decorrelated content in center speaker. However, you have Neil's vocals in isolation in the left and right wides, and in the left and right centers, and there's no height content at all. In a normal 5.1 or 7.1 layout, almost all of that winds up in the left and right speakers, but there's objects in those Atmos speaker locations. The sides and rears just have ambience and a little bit of percussion. Pretty cool, I'd say.


Interesting might be a reason to add those speaker positions in my StormAudio. That's on of the great things about high channel count processors like StormAudio and Trinnov, you can these extra speaker positions if you want.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

Soulburner said:


> I think if I ran 3 AVRs in here I would be a roasted chicken.
> 
> Ok, so the benefit is all TF/TR material would give a matrixed "Top Middle". Downsides, no discrete TM content. Anything else?


I think I will put a pin in this for a future, larger room. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that I want to add more gear to the room. I'm doing my best to keep it feeling "open" despite the size constraints. Extra AVRs means more rack space.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> I think if I ran 3 AVRs in here I would be a roasted chicken.


Well, you're already running 2 so would 1 more be a crtical difference?... the secondaries don't really need to be high powered, high heat producing components. Admittedly easy for me to say ... my theater is in the basement so heat is most welcome.



Soulburner said:


> Ok, so the benefit is all TF/TR material would give a matrixed "Top Middle". Downsides, no discrete TM content. Anything else?


Well, yes but first ... I'm not all that up on technical lingo/jargon etc so ... I'm not sure what "no discrete TM content" means exactly but, if it means what I think it might, I don't think that statement is correct. What I can say for sure is ... set up scatmos ... play the official Atmos 9.1.6 test file (I think it's that one off the top of my head) ... series of beeps through each of the speakers in turn ... when it gets to Top Middle .... sound comes from Top Middle and Top Middle only! Is that discrete TM content? I have no clue how it does that but I can absolutely assure you it does. Someone tried to explain the how to me but ... my poor brain couldn't process the information! lol

Anything else ... you haven't mentioned the benefit of moving your front tops/heights forward and your rear tops/height back. As things stand now ... you have a (too) large angle between both your fronts & top/height fronts and your rear surrounds & Top/heights rears. Don't discount the benefit of closing that angular gap a little ... many movies have sound moving front to back ... these sounds will transition along much more smoothly,.It will be immediately noticeable.

There's another (slight) benefit that I'm toying with at the moment. I won't mention it though cause you'll think I'm nuts lol.

Anyway ... the older I get the more I realise that I don't know much of anything. I do know however that you will enjoy the difference those 2 extra channels and speakers make. One listen and you'll say ... yup, glad I did that!


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> Well, you're already running 2 so would 1 more be a crtical difference?


I only have 1 AVR. The NCore stereo amp doesn't produce much heat.


robert600 said:


> Well, yes but first ... I'm not all that up on technical lingo/jargon etc so ... I'm not sure what "no discrete TM content" means exactly but, if it means what I think it might, I don't think that statement is correct. What I can say for sure is ... set up scatmos ... play the official Atmos 9.1.6 test file (I think it's that one off the top of my head) ... series of beeps through each of the speakers in turn ... when it gets to Top Middle .... sound comes from Top Middle and Top Middle only! Is that discrete TM content?


I thought about this more and I think you're right. If a movie had Top Middle content, a .4 AVR would mix it equally to TF and TR. However Pro Logic in the connected AVRs would mix that back to TM. Clever. But how does it sound? Is there any corruption to the sound after all of this processing?

Another thing to think about is the difference between TM and a phantom TM using TF and TR, as you would normally get. One may be more immersive than the other.

I would need to buy another rack for the 2 additional AVRs, and think about the floor space and heating issues in a 1,000 ft³ room (and it's not a basement).


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> I only have 1 AVR. The NCore stereo amp doesn't produce much heat.
> 
> I thought about this more and I think you're right. If a movie had Top Middle content, a .4 AVR would mix it equally to TF and TR. However Pro Logic in the connected AVRs would mix that back to TM. Clever. But how does it sound? Is there any corruption to the sound after all of this processing?
> 
> Another thing to think about is the difference between TM and a phantom TM using TF and TR, as you would normally get. One may be more immersive than the other.
> 
> I would need to buy another rack for the 2 additional AVRs, and think about the floor space and heating issues in a 1,000 ft³ room (and it's not a basement).


If a track is mixed to x.x.2 and played through a x.x.4 setup then the TM middle output is sent to both sets of speakers equally and should stereo / phantom image directly in the middle of the 2 rows of Atmos speakers, just like a phantom Centre in your front soundstage.
If you use PLII decoders and extract a discrete Top Middle in a x.x.6 setup, then you will (or should depending on the quality of the PLII decoder I guess) just get output from the Top Middle speakers when it is a x.x.2 track. So it should be identical no matter which way you do it.
The benefit comes from taking a x.x.4 track and extracting the Top Middle info and allowing you to place the Fronts and Rears further apart to cover more rows or to enlarge the overhead soundstage.

You can buy 2 x PLII decoders instead of using 2 x AVR and feed the result into a stereo amp - use Class D amp and there is minimal heat and small form factor.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> I think I will put a pin in this for a future, larger room. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that I want to add more gear to the room. I'm doing my best to keep it feeling "open" despite the size constraints. Extra AVRs means more rack space.


Why not just get the 6700H and call it a day? If you are not planning to add wides, the 6700H will give you the ability to run 7.1.6 without breaking the bank/ investing in additional units. 6700h is a great piece of equipment.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> I only have 1 AVR. The NCore stereo amp doesn't produce much heat.
> 
> I thought about this more and I think you're right. If a movie had Top Middle content, a .4 AVR would mix it equally to TF and TR. However Pro Logic in the connected AVRs would mix that back to TM. Clever. But how does it sound? Is there any corruption to the sound after all of this processing?
> 
> Another thing to think about is the difference between TM and a phantom TM using TF and TR, as you would normally get. One may be more immersive than the other.
> 
> I would need to buy another rack for the 2 additional AVRs, and think about the floor space and heating issues in a 1,000 ft³ room (and it's not a basement).


Thinking about heat as an issue is new to me. How much heat do those old 5.1 receivers put out? I use older onkyos, I'm working my way through the Harry Potter series with dtx:x, I"ll check those receivers for heat after watching for an hour or so tonight. It stands to reason though, all things being equal, the fewer channels of amplification ... the less heat. That suggests a triamp with Pro Logic would be best. I'm not really up on that kind of thing ... did they make such things? ...have vague memories of a PPL777? The huge advantage of an old 5.1 receiver is ... they're everywhere and a dime a dozen.

Sound Quality? ... I only have my ears to judge ... no difference to me between top middle and top front/back (most certainly no time delay so that Pro Logic processing must be done at near light speed). Thinking back to the days of Pro Logic .... I don't recall any complaints about the quality of sound from the middle speaker. There are probably folks out there with more knowledge ...maybe they'll chime in?

Phantoming vrs Speakers for immersion?: At the simplisic level ... how could 13 well placed speakers not be more immersive than 11 well placed speakers? Scatmosing would actual benefit your phantoming ... right now ... the angluar jump is too big from L/R to TOP fronts for optimal phantoming. Same can be said for the jump from TOP rears to rear surrounds (not as noticeable probably because they're behind you). Thinking of the tops alone ... you will get nice phantoming up there too ... between top front & top middle and between top middle and top rear. Play an atmos demo like takeoff ... you will hear lol or for tops only helicopter. Many, many movies have sounds/objects starting at L/R and moving overhead to the rear ...nice to get that sound pattern as smooth as possible.

Rack?: one thing that might help a little ... you won't need the stereo amp any more.


----------



## Soulburner

The current angles in my diagram plan are 55 degrees from the front floor speakers to the top fronts. From the surround rears to the top rears is around 48° give or take since the surrounds are slightly elevated to clear seats. Between tops it is 70°. That's not extreme, but I get what you're saying, it could be better. At least it's better than the standard 45/45 Dolby tops which puts 90° between them. From the fronts to the side surrounds there is about 65-70 degrees, which is about the same all around the bed layer.

I recently replaced a plasma with an OLED which will help with room heating since it uses about 1/3 less energy, but the Denon AVR still puts out a noticeable amount of heat. You'd never notice it in a larger space, but it's just one part of the equation when using a spare bedroom.


----------



## robert600

Magiclakez said:


> Why not just get the 6700H and call it a day? If you are not planning to add wides, the 6700H will give you the ability to run 7.1.6 without breaking the bank/ investing in additional units. 6700h is a great piece of equipment.


Well magic ... I can think of 4300 reasons lol.

I'm really enjoying the H Ps you recommended by the way. I really don't understand why dts:x didn't catch on? There's probably an interesting story there.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> Why not just get the 6700H and call it a day? If you are not planning to add wides, the 6700H will give you the ability to run 7.1.6 without breaking the bank/ investing in additional units. 6700h is a great piece of equipment.


I had the same thought. It is significantly more expensive than what I paid for my X4500H though and quite a bit more than the method being discussed.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> The current angles in my diagram plan are 55 degrees from the front floor speakers to the top fronts. From the surround rears to the top rears is around 48° give or take since the surrounds are slightly elevated to clear seats. Between tops it is 70°. That's not extreme, but I get what you're saying, it could be better. At least it's better than the standard 45/45 Dolby tops which puts 90° between them.
> 
> I recently replaced a plasma with an OLED which will help with room heating since it uses about 1/3 less energy, but the Denon AVR still puts out a noticeable amount of heat. You'd never notice it in a larger space, but it's just one part of the equation when using a spare bedroom.


Yes,your current speaker layout is very good in my opinion. I agree, the 90 degree thing between tops is too much ... you were smart to shave that down!

Funny you mention that heat with the AVR ... i recently replaced my primary (older Onkyo) with a Denon very similar to yours .. it really puts out the heat for sure!


----------



## Magiclakez

Here a nice short vid by Gene (Audioholics) for those just venturing into the immersive sphere. I have been watching some of his recent videos and it appears that he is following Grimani’s recommended tighter height (and rear) speaker topology. Fwiw Grimani has been featured as a special guest speaker with Audioholics, on several occasions.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> If you use PLII decoders and extract a discrete Top Middle in a x.x.6 setup, then you will (or should depending on the quality of the PLII decoder I guess) just get output from the Top Middle speakers when it is a x.x.2 track.


One variation is to use PLII Music mode for overhead extraction because it will allow adjustment of the Centre Width parameter to have equal sound from all 3 height pairs for more envelopment.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> Here a nice short vid by Gene (Audioholics) for those just venturing into the immersive sphere. I have been watching some of his recent videos and it appears that he is following Grimani’s recommended tighter height (and rear) speaker topology. Fwiw Grimani has been featured as a special guest speaker with Audioholics, on several occasions.


I am not at all impressed with Gene's knowledge of immersive audio. He has very, very deep knowledge of audio in general, especially 2-channel music setups and old school channel based setups. But from my observations, his knowledge of immersive audio is considerably less than those of us in discussion forums like these.

Audioholics did indeed connect with Anthony Grimani, and as a result he seems to be learning more, but in my opinion, he focuses far too much on music reproduction than on immersive cinema and as a result, much of his experiments in the field dont apply to me really at all.


----------



## Magiclakez

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I am not at all impressed with Gene's knowledge of immersive audio. He has very, very deep knowledge of audio in general, especially 2-channel music setups and old school channel based setups. But from my observations, his knowledge of immersive audio is considerably less than those of us in discussion forums like these.
> 
> Audioholics did indeed connect with Anthony Grimani, and as a result he seems to be learning more, but in my opinion, he focuses far too much on music reproduction than on immersive cinema and as a result, much of his experiments in the field dont apply to me really at all.


If it doesn’t apply to you then you probably shouldn’t bother checking out this video. Maybe it could help out someone else. It’s just a short trivial vid anyways, without getting too deep into the rabbit hole. Theoretical knowledge is important, but so is practical experience and eventual implementation…imho. 

Fwiw, I would rather roll with Gene than some random DJ who claims that he produces better immersive material, than actual sound engineers working in professional recording studios.


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched Black Adam on HBO-Max (Atmos/ 4k DoVi stream). First up the HDR/PQ was simply outstanding. However, I wasn’t really impressed with the overhead effects. They were active, but I felt the sound design was a touch too busy (borderline chaotic) for my liking. I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of activity on the wides; they sounded almost as potent as the front sound stage. LFE/ Mid bass was phenomenal, streaming notwithstanding. Can’t wait for the physical release to drop.


----------



## chi_guy50

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I am not at all impressed with Gene's knowledge of immersive audio. He has very, very deep knowledge of audio in general, especially 2-channel music setups and old school channel based setups. But from my observations, his knowledge of immersive audio is considerably less than those of us in discussion forums like these.
> 
> Audioholics did indeed connect with Anthony Grimani, and as a result he seems to be learning more, but in my opinion, he focuses far too much on music reproduction than on immersive cinema and as a result, much of his experiments in the field dont apply to me really at all.


DAE speakers (Gene derisively refers to them as "bouncy-house speakers") are "_sometimes better than nothing_"? That is hyperbolic and grossly misleading.


----------



## tojohnso

chi_guy50 said:


> DAE speakers (Gene derisively refers to them as "bouncy-house speakers") are "_sometimes better than nothing_"? That is hyperbolic and grossly misleading.


I thought that was interesting as well. From what I've read - some actually prefer and believe the "bouncy-house" speakers sound better than in-ceiling speakers. And by some I mean audio engineers who have written about it.


----------



## Chirosamsung

tojohnso said:


> I thought that was interesting as well. From what I've read - some actually prefer and believe the "bouncy-house" speakers sound better than in-ceiling speakers. And by some I mean audio engineers who have written about it.


Saying bouncy speakers sound terrible is one thing but saying they saying as good or better than in ceiling speakers is completely hyperbole and quite laughable


----------



## chi_guy50

tojohnso said:


> I thought that was interesting as well. From what I've read - some actually prefer and believe the "bouncy-house" speakers sound better than in-ceiling speakers. And by some I mean audio engineers who have written about it.


I believe Sanjay attended a Dolby trade show demo many years ago in which he reported that many attendees found that they preferred the DAE demo over the discrete overhead setup.



Chirosamsung said:


> Saying bouncy speakers sound terrible is one thing but saying they saying as good or better than in ceiling speakers is completely hyperbole and quite laughable


The effectiveness of DAE speakers _can_ in fact be as good as or better than discrete overhead speakers (see my comment above, which is based on a professionally installed and calibrated setup designed to showcase the technology). But Gene is implying that they are a cheap knock-off and might be worse than nothing at all, which is an inexcusably desultory assessment for a professional to make.


----------



## fatherom

chi_guy50 said:


> are "_sometimes better than nothing_"





chi_guy50 said:


> might be worse than nothing at all


These are 2 completely different statements, just FYI.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Magiclakez said:


> If it doesn’t apply to you then you probably shouldn’t bother checking out this video. Maybe it could help out someone else. It’s just a short trivial vid anyways, without getting too deep into the rabbit hole. Theoretical knowledge is important, but so is practical experience and eventual implementation…imho.


Oh I've seen the video. I watch everything I can about immersive audio in case there is something I can glean from it.



> Fwiw, I would rather roll with Gene than some random DJ who claims that he produces better immersive material, than actual sound engineers working in professional recording studios.


That DJ and I are on the same page, even if he's a few paragraphs behind me.

I dont recall any claims that he produces better material than anyone else. Just that the standard setup practices (tops over heights) is inadequate for reproducing some Atmos mixes accurately and with that, I agree. I told him for weeks to look at 6 height/top channel setups and he finally got there. Curious what his experience is when he implements it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

chi_guy50 said:


> DAE speakers (Gene derisively refers to them as "bouncy-house speakers") are "_sometimes better than nothing_"? That is hyperbolic and grossly misleading.


I kind of agree with Gene on this one though I would probably replace _sometimes _with _almost always _and add the caveat _"when properly integrated with the system"_


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Just that the standard setup practices (tops over heights) is inadequate for reproducing some Atmos mixes accurately


If _Atmos mixes _are mixed on _Atmos layouts using Dolby Studio guidelines_, how can this be possible? It sounds like you're expressing preference over reference.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

tojohnso said:


> I thought that was interesting as well. From what I've read - some actually prefer and believe the "bouncy-house" speakers sound better than in-ceiling speakers. And by some I mean audio engineers who have written about it.


I would imagine those would be the people who are still mired in the old paradigm of *effects speakers should be diffuse and not draw attention to themselves*.

That old paradigm went out the window years ago. If the effect is supposed to be diffuse, the mixer will make if so. If its supposed to draw attention to itself, then you want strong, direct sound from the speakers drivers. Especially for effects you are meant to audibly track across the soundfield.


----------



## priitv8

sdrucker said:


> Good news and bad news, based on Another One Bites the Dust from the Game.
> 
> This isn’t just 5.1 in an Atmos container. I see static objects for top front and top rears separately, also top rears and wides too.


Thank you so much for looking into it!
Seems as if they have attempted to expand the front soundstage both horizontally and vertically.


ted_b said:


> I think we have a language or communication problem here.
> 
> First: There is no argument about WHEN 5.1 appeared on Apple Music, simply that it DOES appear, and they are in no way labeled as Atmos, contained in Atmos containers or considered fake Atmos upmixes.
> 
> Second: Not everything multichannel on Apple Music is in Atmos, or even in an Atmos container!!
> 
> Third: And NONE of the Pink Floyd have ever been in Atmos, whether on Apple or on physical Bluray (no, sir, Animals is not in Atmos on Bluray!!). And none of the Pink Floyds on AM are categorized as Atmos either. No one except you have said they were. Yes, many PF albums are 5.1 (Division Bell, for example) and come across as 5.1 on AM.
> 
> Why accuse AM of putting them in Atmos containers? They are not!
> 
> Finally: The Best of The Youngbloods (bottom album on your pic) is in 5.1 on Apple Music; just listened to it tonight in fact. It's not labeled Atmos, just Dolby Audio (and if you highlight Dolby Audio there is a pop up that states "Dolby Audio is a surround sound format that includes Dolby 5.1 and 7.1" )


Actually, we were talking about the exact same subject. I was just so preoccupied with my lacking experience.
And I stand corrected - I had never noticed Dolby Audio logo anywhere in AM.
Indeed, the Youngbloods' collection is presented just in Dolby Audio 5.1 and my AVR displays PCM 5.1 when playing it back.
If Reddit is to be believed, then the discussion about Dolby Audio on AM appeared around a year ago.
I have learned something today. Thank you for that!

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleMusic/comments/oa0x0w


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> If _Atmos mixes _are mixed on _Atmos layouts using Dolby Studio guidelines_, how can this be possible? It sounds like you're expressing preference over reference.


It depends on the mix and how the sound objects are implemented. Which in the playback environment will depend on how the system as a whole is setup and the listeners position in that space.

When people are arguing about this subject matter, they fixate on the position of the speakers, which is only half the equation. A lot depends on their position in the space in relation to the speaker as well as the height of the ceiling in relation to the listeners.

If its a taller ceiling, the angle may be less of an issue because the dispersion will cover a wider area by the time it hits the listeners and the exact position of the object in space may be just a tad more nebulous. With lower ceilings, the precedence effect kicks in and the exact position of the speaker is more easily pin pointed.

If the sound mixer intended for the sound objects to be directly above the front soundstage, in a situation with lower ceilings, those sound objects are not going to render above the front soundstage with only 4 ceiling channels at 45/135 (let alone 55/125 or 60/120). They are going to sound more like they are directly above the audience, rather than in front and above them.

The discussion needs to turn to the question of *spacial resolution* which is litterally the point of Atmos and immersive audio in general. In order to get more spacial resolution, you need to add more speakers.

So to more accurately render that sound object above the front soundstage, you need speakers above the front soundstage. Same for the rear soundstate. But then in order for sound objects to be rendered directly above the audience, you need speakers on the ceiling at between 80 and 100 degrees. 

With 6 height channels, that covers the entire ceiling, from directly above the front soundstage, to directly above the rear soundstage, and the Top-Middle works with the front and rear to render sound objects anywhere between them, assuming the angle of separation is not too great (generally speaking, it shouldnt be) just using 4 top channels at 45/135 or closer to the audience simply cant do that unless your room/listening area is very small (bedroom sized or something like that)

If you want greater accuracy in object placement with Atmos, you add more speakers. And thats it. Many of the people arguing these points arent taking this into consideration and I suspect its because their theaters are already set for 4 ceiling speakers and they dont want to change it.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> If the sound mixer intended for the sound objects to be directly above the front soundstage


There are no speakers directly above the front stage in a home Atmos layout, so they probably wouldn't exactly do this in the studio. They don't even have them in the studio to monitor on. However, they can image between the top front and floor front to get that effect.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> in a situation with lower ceilings, those sound objects are not going to render above the front soundstage with only 4 ceiling channels at 45/135 (let alone 55/125 or 60/120). They are going to sound more like they are directly above the audience, rather than in front and above them.


Other way around. In a small room, 45° actually spreads out really far relative to the floor speakers. That's because the walls constrain the width of the layout, and the floor speakers get closer. In my case, 45° doesn't even fit in the room. Even after bringing the rears forward to fit, you still have the problem of the top fronts being too far out to allow a sound to travel from floor front, up to the ceiling, and to the back seamlessly. That is why 55° is much better for a small room with 4 top speakers.


45°









55°










I agree 6 would be better if you can add the necessary equipment. I don't see a way to change to 7.1.6 in the Room Design Tool. If I can find a way to simulate that I'll post it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> There are no speakers directly above the front stage in a home Atmos layout, so they probably wouldn't exactly do this in the studio. They don't even have them in the studio to monitor on. However, they can image between the top front and floor front to get that effect.


That would be incorrect. The studio guidelines quote a *range *between 30° and 55°. 30° would be directly above the front soundstage














> Other way around. In a small room, 45° actually spreads out really far relative to the floor speakers. That's because the walls constrain the width of the layout, and the floor speakers get closer. In my case, 45° doesn't even fit in the room. Even after bringing the rears forward to fit, you still have the problem of the top fronts being too far out to allow a sound to travel from floor front, up to the ceiling, and to the back seamlessly. That is why 55° is much better for a small room with 4 top speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 45°
> View attachment 3374620
> 
> 
> 55°
> View attachment 3374622


For smaller rooms, yes. You do what you can, and I would add that the front and back dont necessarily have to be equidistant from the MLP, as long as the stereo pairs are themselves uniform in their implementation. That is simply a case of working within ones room's limitations.

In regards to those with plenty of space forwards and rearward, a taller ceiling at the same angle (lets assume 45°) will get you closer to the front soundstage. If the top of ones head is 4 feet from head to ceiling, in order to reah a 45° angle with the Top-Fronts, they need to be mounted 4 feet forward of the MLP. If our front soundstage is 8 feet away. The Top-Front resides right in between the front speakers and the listener.

Lets extend the ceiling to 10 feet. Now you have 6 feet between the top of your head and the ceiling. This means to hit that 45° angle, you need to put the Top-Front speakers 6 feet forward of the MLP. This puts them at only 2 feet away from the front soundstage. Those front oriented sound objects will be better rendered under these circumstances.



> I agree 6 would be better if you can add the necessary equipment. I don't see a way to change to 7.1.6 in the Room Design Tool. If I can find a way to simulate that I'll post it.


I wouldnt think you would need 6 in your sized room. Its small enough that 4 should be able to handle it. Of course if you can reasonably fit 6 height channels without it turning into an audio mess, you should absolutely consider it.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> There are no speakers directly above the front stage in a home Atmos layout, so they probably wouldn't exactly do this in the studio.


Front Heights are directly above the front soundstage:











Soulburner said:


> However, they can image between the top front and floor front to get that effect.


DTS:X can do that but Atmos cannot. Sounds intended for the Front Height location do not phantom image between the Front speakers and Top Front speakers, they just come out of the Top Front speakers (their object location in the height layer doesn't allow the sound to bleed down into the base layer).


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> Front Heights are directly above the front soundstage:


Ok, but home AVR's make you choose between height or top, we can't have both, and height only compromises overhead panning in .4 installations.



sdurani said:


> DTS:X can do that but Atmos cannot. Sounds intended for the Front Height location do not phantom image between the Front speakers and Top Front speakers, they just come out of the Top Front speakers (their object location in the height layer doesn't allow the sound to bleed down into the base layer).


That is bizzarre. There has been a lot of discussion about lining up the top speakers with the bed layer speakers so sound can travel from front back. If what you're saying is true, that isn't even possible. I don't think that's what you mean.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> Ok, but home AVR's make you choose between height or top, we can't have both, and height only compromises overhead panning in .4 installations.


Depends on room length and listener location. If Tops are your subjective preference, then I doubt folks will try to talk you out of using them. But if you're claiming Heights are objectively compromised compared to Tops, then I haven't seen anything proving that.


> That is bizzarre. There has been a lot of discussion about lining up the top speakers with the bed layer speakers so sound can travel from front back. If what you're saying is true, that isn't even possible.


The DTS:X height layer is a dome, with 3 elevations: 8 Heights at 45°, 4 Tops at 60°, 1 Oh (VOG) at 90°. When sounds move forward & rearward from the Tops to the Heights, they also move downward. So if DTS:X has to phantom image a sound where the Height speakers would have been, it can split that audio signal between the Top speakers and floor speakers.

The Atmos height layer is a flat plane, where the Heights are forward & rearward of the Tops, but not lower (see the diagram I posted). Atmos uses x,y,z coordinates, with the base layer being 0 and the height layer being 1. If an object has a z coordinate of 1, its audio signal is not going to be shared with speakers in the base layer. It stays in the height layer, moving only as far forward & rearward as your speaker placement allows.

BTW, the descriptions of the height layers are abstractions; they don't exist in reality but are only used to inform DTS:X and Atmos decoders on rendering limitations (you can do this but you can't do that). That's just how the formats were conceived.


----------



## Soulburner

I suppose a studio mixer worth their salary knows how to work with the format to create proper panning effects, such as blending two sounds moving together through different layers and fading in/out.

So the challenge is this...if I went 7.1.6 I would need to find a used X6700H and another pair of speakers. Cost, probably $2000 or so. That is 20% of the current total cost of my theater, not counting the resale of my X4500H. Worth it? I'm not sure.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

This is the DTS:X (Pro) dome









The "dome" as applied to a rectangular room. This is a much more practical illustration.









As you can see here, the "overhead speakers", the Top-Fronts, Top-Rear and Voice of God speakers are all directly above the MLP. Their job is to anchor sounds which are intended to be directly above the listeners to that location. The 5 speakers in the locations allows for object movement or channel panning without the need to engage height channels which are much further away. Auro3D mounts only a single Overhead speaker (Top-Surround or Voice of God) and so relies on imaging with the height channels to implement movement directly overhead.

This is the DTS:X diagram applied to the basic 7.1.4 version. The four channels overhead are actually not the Top-Front and Top-Rear channels, but the Front Height and Rear Heights in DTS:X. They are assumed by the DTS:X renderer to be at 45°, which corresponds to the Atmos Top-Front and Rear at 45/135.










When you label your height speakers as Front Height and Rear Height in your processor, it tells DTS:X that they are at 45° (whether or not they actually are is irrelevant) and DTS:X will then fully render the base height channel material in those speakers. However if you label them as Top-Front and Top-Rear, then DTS:X assumes they are mounted at 60/120 (whether they really are or not) and will then try to image the base channel information between the ear-level speakers and the Top speakers to get them to render at 45°. Keep in mind that labelling your front and rear ceiling speakers as Heights over Tops has NO deliterious effects on Atmos rendering. Atmos rendering changes based on the number of height speakers you have mounted. Much less on their actual positions. (2 vs 4 vs 6 etc). Thus it is actually far more beneficial to label your front and rear ceiling speakers as Heights for better DTS:X rendering and in addition to this, it has the added benefit of compatibility with Auro3D processing.


----------



## squared80

tojohnso said:


> I thought that was interesting as well. From what I've read - some actually prefer and believe the "bouncy-house" speakers sound better than in-ceiling speakers. And by some I mean audio engineers who have written about it.


I agree with Gene. And I wouldn't trust a single person, self-proclaimed audio engineer or not, who said they preferred bouncy speakers to in-ceiling speakers. That's just nonsense, or ignorance at best.


----------



## tojohnso

squared80 said:


> I agree with Gene. And I wouldn't trust a single person, self-proclaimed audio engineer or not, who said they preferred bouncy speakers to in-ceiling speakers. That's just nonsense, or ignorance at best.


You are definitely entitled to your opinion. For me, when more than one person has made the statement - I was just placing more credence on a person - or persons really - who state they have the resume´s / schooling to back it up. There's also the massive amount of discussion around sounds bouncing around the room - treating to limit or disperse them, and the "bouncy" speaker seems more feasible than not. In fact - aren't all speakers bouncy? 

With systems like Audyssey, Dirac, etc. tuning the timing of audio and the other things they do, improves the reality that a "bouncy" speaker may work well. But there's more! You have to install ceiling mounted speakers properly to get the sound right. If you are not able to do that for various reasons, then a "bouncy" speaker is better. Use the best tool for your job.

I don't have "bouncy Atmos" speakers myself. My .4 is two ceiling speakers (as top middle) and two front height speakers. But before I made those choices, I read everything I could find out there to help me determine what may work the best in the room I have to work with. 

Funny, though, how you say you "wouldn't trust a single person" but you are trusting a single person in Gene.


----------



## jsgrise

I believe that it is the consensus that Atmos ceiling speakers angled closer to 30 (60) degrees is better over the Dolby Home suggested "in line with mains" placement for Atmos content. What about the Dolby Surround Upmixer? Do you guys come to a similar conclusion?


----------



## chi_guy50

fatherom said:


> These are 2 completely different statements, just FYI.


OK, I'll take the bait, if only for pedantry's sake.

Logically speaking, Gene's statement that DAE speakers are "_sometimes_ better than nothing" implies that sometimes they are _not_ better than nothing, which implies that sometimes nothing at all is better than--or at least as good as--using the DAE speakers.

Perhaps that is not what he meant, and I wager that he would use a different locution if he were to do the video over again. However, it remains that his decidedly biased pronouncement should have been labelled as strictly a personal opinion rather than being couched as a professional assessment.

But to put the source into context--and of particular relevance to this thread--let's not forget that Audioholics pooh-poohed Dolby Atmos for the Home Theater when it first came out in 2014, all the while touting Auro3D as the next great thing. Now, as it happens, I am not a particular fan of the DAE speakers and I do like Auro3D/Auro-Matic, but I am a stickler for accuracy in reporting and I would rate Audoholics rather low on the credibility scale.


----------



## fatherom

chi_guy50 said:


> Logically speaking, Gene's statement that DAE speakers are "_sometimes_ better than nothing" implies that sometimes they are _not_ better than nothing,


No, to me, "sometimes better than nothing", implies that the rest of the time, they are equal to nothing. But it doesn't imply that they're worse than nothing (i.e. causing harm).


----------



## rkrebs11

Looking for opinions. Which is better as an ATMOS setup? 7.2.2 or 5.2.4?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> I believe that it is the consensus that Atmos ceiling speakers angled closer to 30 (60) degrees is better over the Dolby Home suggested "in line with mains" placement for Atmos content. What about the Dolby Surround Upmixer? Do you guys come to a similar conclusion?


Too many variables to say definitively that 60 degrees will work best for everyone. Its gonna depend on the speakers and their dispersion capability, the height of the ceiling and the room acoustics.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

rkrebs11 said:


> Looking for opinions. Which is better as an ATMOS setup? 7.2.2 or 5.2.4?


Generally speaking 5.1.4 for overhead effects because sound objects will be able to move forward and back as well as left and right.

However there will be far more content down on the ground layer in the back channels.


----------



## rkrebs11

I should have reported my current speaker setup. I have a very large room(625 sq ft) with an awkward ceiling. It is what they call a "Saltbox" design where the front ceiling is pitched around 45 degrees and the back of the ceiling is only pitched only maybe 15 degrees. On top of this, the ceiling is open-beam. Two front towers about 10 ft apart on either side of a wide entertainment cabinet. Two subs on each outside position of the towers. Surrounds are on each side of the main listening area and 25 feet apart from each other but are mounted on the walls with a slight toe-in to the ear level positions. Lastly, there are two satellites (same as surrounds) on the back wall about 8 ft up the wall and again, toe-in to the main listening position. I thought these last two could be the Rear Height as I have two "reflector" speakers sitting directly on top of either front tower which could be used as the Front Heights albeit with a different type of delivery than the Rear heights.


----------



## robert600

rkrebs11 said:


> Looking for opinions. Which is better as an ATMOS setup? 7.2.2 or 5.2.4?


Since you're specifying "Atmos setup" there's little doubt in my mind that 5.2.4 is better. Personally, if I were forced into such a setup, I would spend some time fiddling about with the location of the surround speakers and thus would not be in a hurry to permanently mount them. Clearly, you'd want them back from dead left and right but how far? I'd start with maybe 115, play the takeoff demo, move them back another 10, replay takeoff, etc. etc. fine tune position to get the front to back movement as smooth as possible. Yep, you'd have to recalibrate for every run but in my opinion that would be time well spent. Bear in mind, depending on your seat/headrest ... the further back you go, the more the sound shadow issue comes into play.


----------



## Soulburner

Once you factor in reclining, I put my side surrounds at about 95° with 7.1.4. But, now looking at my rear speakers, they are somewhat close together because the back wall is only a few feet away. The angles check out but I wonder if it would sound better if I moved the side surrounds up a little. It's not in Dolby's recommendations, but does anyone use side surrounds slightly forward of 90° by choice? My rear surrounds are at 150°. I can hear each speaker distinctly with pink noise.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> It's not in Dolby's recommendations, but does anyone use side surrounds slightly forward of 90° by choice?


Yes, between 75°-80°, for greater wrap-around envelopment and more side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. Imagine the surround field as a semi-circle, described by your Side and Rear speakers. You can sit outside the surround field (Sides slightly rearward of you), at the edge of the surround field (Sides directly at your sides) or inside the surround field (Sides slightly forward of you). My preference is for the latter.


----------



## srw1000

sdurani said:


> Yes, between 75°-80°, for greater wrap-around envelopment and more side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. Imagine the surround field as a semi-circle, described by your Side and Rear speakers. You can sit outside the surround field (Sides slightly rearward of you), at the edge of the surround field (Sides directly at your sides) or inside the surround field (Sides slightly forward of you). My preference is for the latter.


Do you find this less effective if one is also using wides?


----------



## sdurani

srw1000 said:


> Do you find this less effective if one is also using wides?


Yes, I'd move them closer to 85° if using Wides. But it really comes down to personal preference. The only way I found out what placement I liked is by experimenting.


----------



## jsgrise

sdurani said:


> Yes, between 75°-80°, for greater wrap-around envelopment and more side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. Imagine the surround field as a semi-circle, described by your Side and Rear speakers. You can sit outside the surround field (Sides slightly rearward of you), at the edge of the surround field (Sides directly at your sides) or inside the surround field (Sides slightly forward of you). My preference is for the latter.


I use the Wides in a 7.2.4 system. It allows me to have a proper setup for legacy 5.1 mix with surrounds behind me. In 7.1+ the wides will phantom the sides with the help of the rears. Rears will play in rears. I found it was the best all around setup with the least inconvenient.


----------



## squared80

tojohnso said:


> Funny, though, how you say you "wouldn't trust a single person" but you are trusting a single person in Gene.


Oh? You find that funny? I find it funny you take quotes out of context. Maybe it's time to grow up.

_"I agree_ _with Gene ... And I wouldn't trust a single person ... who said they preferred bouncy speakers to in-ceiling speakers."_


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> Yes, between 75°-80°, for greater wrap-around envelopment and more side-vs-rear separation in the surround field. Imagine the surround field as a semi-circle, described by your Side and Rear speakers. You can sit outside the surround field (Sides slightly rearward of you), at the edge of the surround field (Sides directly at your sides) or inside the surround field (Sides slightly forward of you). My preference is for the latter.


Are your surround backs spread wider then, like Dolby calls for? I really like them on the back wall, so I'll probably limit side movement to keep them within 60-65° of the sides.


----------



## sdurani

Soulburner said:


> Are your surround backs spread wider then, like Dolby calls for?


Yes. I used to have my Rear speakers spread 60° apart but I discovered I liked them spread a little wider apart than that. Did it by ear and never got around to measuring the resulting spread.


----------



## niterida

jsgrise said:


> I believe that it is the consensus that Atmos ceiling speakers angled closer to 30 (60) degrees is better over the Dolby Home suggested "in line with mains" placement for Atmos content. What about the Dolby Surround Upmixer? Do you guys come to a similar conclusion?


Dolby don't suggest "in line with mains". They unfortunately just happened to draw a line on their diagrams and everyone assumed that is what they meant.
Place them according to the angles they specify and ignore the drawings.


fatherom said:


> times better than nothing", implies that the rest of the time, they are equal to nothing.


No - it means the rest of the time they are equal to OR LESS (worse) than nothing


rkrebs11 said:


> Looking for opinions. Which is better as an ATMOS setup? 7.2.2 or 5.2.4?


5.2.4 IMO


Soulburner said:


> Once you factor in reclining, I put my side surrounds at about 95° with 7.1.4. But, now looking at my rear speakers, they are somewhat close together because the back wall is only a few feet away. The angles check out but I wonder if it would sound better if I moved the side surrounds up a little. It's not in Dolby's recommendations, but does anyone use side surrounds slightly forward of 90° by choice? My rear surrounds are at 150°. I can hear each speaker distinctly with pink noise.


I tried surrounds slightly in front of me and hated it - having sounds meant to come from behind actually coming from in front was one of the worse experiences in all my testing in my room.


----------



## Soulburner

Here's what I have now.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Yes. I used to have my Rear speakers spread 60° apart but I discovered I liked them spread a little wider apart than that. Did it by ear and never got around to measuring the resulting spread.


With 7 speakers I would spread them like this:

Center: 0°

Left Front: 30°

Left Surround: 90°

Left Rear: 150°

Right Rear: 210°

Right Surround: 270°

Right Front: 330°


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Here's what I have now.
> 
> The seats will move back another 6-10 in when I'm done working back there.


Are you planning any sort of acoustic treatments? You are going to be inundated with reflections.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Are you planning any sort of acoustic treatments? You are going to be inundated with reflections.


The front has a lot of absorption, as do the seats themselves. The room is carpeted. You don't hear much echo in here, but I do plan on putting something on the back wall between the speakers.

How are my angles? The layout is basically 30/95/150 like your graphic. It's just that since the back wall is close, it doesn't look like there's a lot of separation between the side and rear surrounds.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> With 7 speakers I would spread them like this:
> 
> Left Surround: 90°


Only if you have at least 4' and preferably 6' between your outside listeneres ears and the surrounds, otherwise move them back to 110deg to avoid the outside listeners being overwhelmed by just one speaker. This opinion is derived from extensive testing I did in my room with 4' clearance at 90deg. I ended up with them at 120deg before they stopped hotspotting, but this leaves a bit of a gap to the fronts which could be fixed with front wides, with is why 110deg is max recommendation from Dolby.
I would almost recommend 5.1 +FW over 7.1 for most HT rooms (due to most being too narrow), but I have not tested FW yet.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> The front has a lot of absorption, as do the seats themselves. The room is carpeted. You don't hear much echo in here, but I do plan on putting something on the back wall between the speakers.


According to Anthony Grimani, you want to alternate absorption and diffusion in the side walls and back walls. Its okay to be mostly absorption on the front.

On the side walls you want 2D diffusion. On the back wall, you want 3D diffusion. It might be different since your MLP is so close to the back wall. Probably just go with 3D diffusion.



> How are my angles? The layout is basically the 30/90/150 in your graphic. It's just that since the back wall is close, it doesn't look like there's a lot of separation between the side and rear surrounds.


The angles look fine to me. Just very close. Similar to how far my Side Surrounds are from my seating position (my back wall is quite far away though)


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> Only if you have at least 4' and preferably 6' between your outside listeneres ears and the surrounds, otherwise move them back to 110deg to avoid the outside listeners being overwhelmed by just one speaker. This opinion is derived from extensive testing I did in my room with 4' clearance at 90deg. I ended up with them at 120deg before they stopped hotspotting, but this leaves a bit of a gap to the fronts which could be fixed with front wides, with is why 110deg is max recommendation from Dolby.
> I would almost recommend 5.1 +FW over 7.1 for most HT rooms (due to most being too narrow), but I have not tested FW yet.


My side surrounds are very close because the room is only 10 feet wide. The sides of the couch will be around 18" from the wall. I will be using two rows and as a result, am planning to place the side surrounds smack dab in-between the rows, so it will end up about 100° from the front row and 80° from the back row. That should add a bit more distance so the distance from the side surround to the outside listener is probably going to be around 3 feet. 5 to 6 feet from the central listening position


----------



## tojohnso

squared80 said:


> Oh? You find that funny? I find it funny you take quotes out of context. Maybe it's time to grow up.
> 
> _"I agree_ _with Gene ... And I wouldn't trust a single person ... who said they preferred bouncy speakers to in-ceiling speakers."_


Think you went a little overboard on that one, cowboy,


----------



## Magiclakez

srw1000 said:


> Do you find this less effective if one is also using wides?


I moved the surrounds slightly in front briefly, but I felt having them slightly back was the sweet spot for me personally. Especially since I have wides as well.

I tend to gravitate towards Grimani’s recommended speaker placements, wherein he prefers them slightly behind.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> I moved the surrounds slightly in front briefly, but I felt having them slightly back was the sweet spot for me personally. Especially since I have wides as well. Of course experimenting is critical and ymmv.


With 5.1 or 7.1?



niterida said:


> I tried surrounds slightly in front of me and hated it - having sounds meant to come from behind actually coming from in front was one of the worse experiences in all my testing in my room.


5.1 or 7.1? If 7, there shouldn't be sounds meant to come from behind you coming from the side surrounds. That should only happen when you don't have rears and your processor moves those sounds to the sides.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> On the side walls you want 2D diffusion. On the back wall, you want 3D diffusion. It might be different since your MLP is so close to the back wall. Probably just go with 3D diffusion.





NuSoardGraphite said:


> The angles look fine to me. Just very close. Similar to how far my Side Surrounds are from my seating position (my back wall is quite far away though)


I plan on addressing that to make that wall disappear better. Thanks for the reminder on the different types of diffusors. 1D can also work very well.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> With 5.1 or 7.1?


With 9.1


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> With 7 speakers I would spread them like this:


That is the exact placement I started out with when I went from 5 speakers to 7 speakers (back in 1991). Experimentation over the years made me discover that front to back symmetry wasn't my preference (maybe because my hearing isn't symmetrical front to back?). YMMV.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> 5.1 or 7.1? If 7, there shouldn't be sounds meant to come from behind you coming from the side surrounds. That should only happen when you don't have rears and your processor moves those sounds to the sides.


7.1 only - you would never move your surrounds in front of you for 5.1
Even in 7.1 there is still sounds from behind coming from the surrounds. sure it is not discrete sounds but the phantom image is still moved forward and sounds that were slightly behind now come from in front. Of course this varies depending on how far in front you place the surrounds.
All I can say is that it just didn't sound right IME


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I agree with the idea of a room-centric theater design. Its not always possible, but if your theater is its own enclosed room, not open to other parts of the house, then you can take the entire room into consideration as the acoustical space rather than limiting the design and placement to just around the main listening position.
> 
> Instead of placing the seating and arranging all the speakers around those, place the speakers equidistant around the room, then place the seating in the middle of that, as best you can. Accounting for architectural elements and standing waves. Of course if you use 4 subwoofers, standing waves are far less of an issuse.
> 
> This is what I'm doing with my room design here:
> 
> View attachment 3373405
> 
> 
> Of course not everyone can do that if the shape of the room and architectural elements get in the way, but if you can do that, its what I would recommend.


You are going to have large nulls sitting in the middle of the room like that. I get you are constrained so you can try to fix it with two subs in the rear signal inverted and delayed to try and kill the nulls


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> You are going to have large nulls sitting in the middle of the room like that. I get you are constrained so you can try to fix it with two subs in the rear signal inverted and delayed to try and kill the nulls


Both my couches wont be in the middle. The front couch will be a couple of feet forward of the center of the room. The back row will be a couple of feet rearward of the center point.

I will be using 4 subs to minimize the nulls from the room modes and will be using a MiniDSP for this unless I get one of the newer Denon's that can independantly EQ 4 subs.


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> You are going to have large nulls sitting in the middle of the room like that. I get you are constrained so you can try to fix it with two subs in the rear signal inverted and delayed to try and kill the nulls


Not only that, but the argument is mostly academic because his room is so narrow that it barely even matters. A "room-centric design" in a 10 ft wide room will constrain the top speakers just as much as a seat-centric design in a wider room following an Atmos top layout. You can see this in my diagrams - my room is 11 ft wide and the ceiling speakers can't go any wider than 45° because they are already at the wall boundaries. He's correctly planning for .6 due to the length of the room with 2 rows of seating though.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Dolby don't suggest "in line with mains".


Indeed, they say it explicitly in their HT Install Guide: _"The left front height and right front height speakers should be mounted on the front wall (instead of on the ceiling) in line with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference. This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers."_ 

Since the height arrays are a straight line from front to back, that means all the height speakers are in line with the mains. Don't have to agree with their recommendation, but it is their recommendation (shown in diagrams and said in text).



https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Indeed, they say it explicitly in their HT Install Guide: _"The left front height and right front height speakers should be mounted on the front wall (instead of on the ceiling) in line with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference. This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers."_
> 
> Since the height arrays are a straight line from front to back, that means all the height speakers are in line with the mains. Don't have to agree with their recommendation, but it is their recommendation (shown in diagrams and said in text).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf


Well that quote is in Section 4 : Additional Speaker Placement Guidelines
which says " In _*addition*_ to the typical configurations in the previous section, Dolby Atmos can support more speaker positions, up to a maximum of 34 total (for example, 24.1.10) "
so is for the height speakers when you already have 4 existing Atmos speakers and AFAIK we are discussing 4 top speakers, not front or rear heights.
Nowhere does it say your 4 tops should be in line. It says 30-55 deg elevation L-R, with 45deg recommended, and that may or may not be in line depending on your room,


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Nowhere does it say your 4 tops should be in line.


No need. They clearly state where the Front Heights go as well as the Rear Heights: _"We recommend that the left rear height and right rear height speakers be mounted on the rear wall (instead of on the ceiling) in line with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the *center-front* reference."_ Same description as the Front Height placement. 

Having clearly stated the locations of the Front Heights & Rear Heights, it is easy to draw straight lines connecting those pairs. EVERY diagram they've ever posted, even the earliest ones (see below), shows the height arrays in a straight line front to back. There is no version of this where the Tops are not on these lines. 









I don't have to agree with Dolby's recommendations to acknowledge that they're Dolby's recommendations. YMMV.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Not only that, but the argument is mostly academic because his room is so narrow that it barely even matters. A "room-centric design" in a 10 ft wide room will constrain the top speakers just as much as a seat-centric design in a wider room following an Atmos top layout. You can see this in my diagrams - my room is 11 ft wide and the ceiling speakers can't go any wider than 45° because they are already at the wall boundaries. He's correctly planning for .6 due to the length of the room with 2 rows of seating though.


We all have to work within the limitations of our rooms.

In my case, one of the most important things for me to do would be to use room treatments because the walls are so close, the reflections will be very strong.

Also one of the things I will be doing is cross-firing instead of aiming directly at the MLP. I plan to use JBL Stage speakers which have around a 60° dispersion pattern. I should be able to hit the entire seating area with on-axis sound from every speaker except maybe the Side Surrounds and Top-Middle. And even with those, they should only be slightly off axis.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Another solution for me might be Line Array or Line Source speakers which are very appropriate for near-field placement. Since you only receive SPL from the drivers you are closest to, they wont blow out your eardrums when you sit only 1 or 2 feet away.

In addition to this, line source/array speaker throw an absolutely massive soundstage and as a result, sound incredibly immersive with Atmos.

I was considering Line Array speakers for my room, but at over $1200 per speaker, and the need for at least 13 of these suckers, the price is just too high. This might be my future upgrade I do down the road.

I was considering the JBL CBT 70J pictured here:









The CBT-70J with the bass extension:









Archaea has these in his theater which was featured on Youthman's channel where they talk about the characteristics of Line Array speakers (@ about 20 minutes in)

Youthman also has another video featuring Wisdom Audio Line Source speakers, but those are way outta my price range


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Also one of the things I will be doing is cross-firing instead of aiming directly at the MLP.


Let us know how it goes. I did not like the sound in my system.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Let us know how it goes. I did not like the sound in my system.


You talking about cross-firing?


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You talking about cross-firing?


Yeah. I lost a lot of soundstage at MLP and the sound was less pleasing.


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Having clearly stated the locations of the Front Heights & Rear Heights,


I reread the Dolby section you are referencing and you are right, it does clearly state the locations of front heights.
But it doesn't state they are above the Front L&R - it actually states 30deg azimuth from MLP. So they will only be in line with L&R IF your L&R are also at 30deg.
I still can't find anywhere that it states that tops should be anywhere but at an elevation angle of 45deg (30-55 range) elevation angle, no mention (except the lines in drawings) of them being in line.
Yet another example of confusing Dolby documentation.


----------



## squared80

NuSoardGraphite said:


> We all have to work within the limitations of our rooms.
> 
> In my case, one of the most important things for me to do would be to use room treatments because the walls are so close, the reflections will be very strong.
> 
> Also one of the things I will be doing is cross-firing instead of aiming directly at the MLP. I plan to use JBL Stage speakers which have around a 60° dispersion pattern. I should be able to hit the entire seating area with on-axis sound from every speaker except maybe the Side Surrounds and Top-Middle. And even with those, they should only be slightly off axis.
> View attachment 3375839
> 
> View attachment 3375838


Is crossfiring as effective in multi-row seating arrangements, though? Or would you aim the L speaker at the right *rear *seat instead of the right *front *seat to get the same effect.


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Once you factor in reclining, I put my side surrounds at about 95° with 7.1.4. But, now looking at my rear speakers, they are somewhat close together because the back wall is only a few feet away. The angles check out but I wonder if it would sound better if I moved the side surrounds up a little. It's not in Dolby's recommendations, but does anyone use side surrounds slightly forward of 90° by choice? My rear surrounds are at 150°. I can hear each speaker distinctly with pink noise.


I do and prefer it-less hot spotting


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

squared80 said:


> Is crossfiring as effective in multi-row seating arrangements, though? Or would you aim the L speaker at the right *rear *seat instead of the right *front *seat to get the same effect.


Precisely. You would aim the front right speaker at rear left seat and vice versa. The idea being that you ensure that all the seats fall within the dispersion pattern of your speakers as much as possible.

In my case, the crossover point is actually behind the front row. So the front row should sound like a classic setup. Every seat is on axis so should get great sound. The rear seat, which is much further away, gets crossed in front of it, and enjoys the benefits (and disadvantages) of cross firing which is a locked image for all seats, but slightly less soundstage for the middle seat.

Should look something like this with two rows.










So will this place the "sweet spot" behind the front row?

If so, imagine what happens when you recline the front seats? The listeners heads should fall right into the sweet spot.


----------



## Wardog555

Soulburner said:


> but does anyone use side surrounds slightly forward of 90° by choice?


I tried it with one speaker and it wasn't good at all. Its now at 90 degrees and I'm far happier as the sounds are more accurately placed and having them in front just defeats the purpose of surround sound! It's not in front of you sound is it?

And the above comment that also replied clearly doesn't like the true and accurate surround sound and goes against all proper placement stipulations by Dolby themselves!


----------



## Soulburner

Wardog555 said:


> I tried it with one speaker and it wasn't good at all. Its now at 90 degrees and I'm far happier as the sounds are more accurately placed and having them in front just defeats the purpose of surround sound! It's not in front of you sound is it?


Thanks. Was that with rears also or just 5.1?



Chirosamsung said:


> I do and prefer it-less hot spotting


You mean yours are forward of 90°? Normally when people speak of "hot spots" I think they mean speaker-in-your-ear.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> In my case, the crossover point is actually behind the front row. So the front row should sound like a classic setup.


That is definitely preferred. My case is different, where 1 row means aiming the speaker at the opposite seat in the front row – quite a bit more toe-in.


----------



## Wardog555

Mine is with 5.1.2 currently and was 7.1 previously prior. Still same opinion.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Wardog555 said:


> And the above comment that also replied clearly doesn't like the true and accurate surround sound and goes against all proper placement stipulations by Dolby themselves!


are you referring to the setup diagram I posted? Its set up the way it is mainly due to distance from the display. The front row will be 8 feet from an 85" display.

Most setups you see are using much larger screens....120" or larger, necessitating that the front row be further back. Unless your room is very large, this compresses the layout of the surround channels as normally seen in Dolby diagrams










If you were to push that couch toward the middle of the room, it looks a lot closer to what I posted. In fact, lets look at DTS:X










Which shows the seating position in the middle of the speaker layout. If you center the couch in the Dolby diagram, it matches this one precisely.

Of course you dont want to put a seating position right in the middle of the room. With two rows, this allows me to put the front row forward of the center point and the back row behind it, thus avoiding that central null, yet still maintaining seating placement allowing for an equidistant arrangement of the speakers.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> ...it does clearly state the locations of front heights. But it doesn't state they are above the Front L&R...


_"This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers."_


> I still can't find anywhere that it states that tops should be anywhere but at an elevation angle of 45deg (30-55 range) elevation angle, no mention (except the lines in drawings) of them being in line.


If not on the line extending from the Front Heights to the Rear Heights, then where do you believe Dolby is recommending the Tops be placed?


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> "This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers."


The full text says :
_The left front height and right front height speakers should be mounted on the front wall (instead of on the ceiling) in line with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the
center-front reference._
Which means put them at 30deg azimuth.
It then says :
_This places the left front height and right front height speakers directly above the left and right speakers._
Which means they will be above the L&R *IF *your L&R are also at the recommended 30deg.
It does not say anywhere to actually place them above or in line with the L&R.
It even goes on to say : 
_This guidance represents a slight change from the original Dolby Pro Logic IIz documentation, which mandated that front height speakers not be placed inside the left
and right main speakers (for example, closer to the center speaker)._
Which to me means that if you follow the above (30deg azimuth) your heights may end up INSIDE your L&R if your L&R are wider than 30deg.



sdurani said:


> If not on the line extending from the Front Heights to the Rear Heights, then where do you believe Dolby is recommending the Tops be placed?


Between 30-55deg but ideally at 45deg, as is written in every single piece of text I can find from Dolby about top speaker placement, including the side view diagrams with written angles.

I agree that the heights and tops should probably be placed in a line with each other, but not necessarily with L&R. Ideally Dolby should have stuck with 30-55(45)deg elevation (from the rear view) for the heights (rtather than 30deg azimuth on the front wall), and stated the angle should match the whatever tops angle you chose.

At the end of the day anyone can put them anywhere they like (within common sense reasoning) and they should still have a reasonable Atmos experience. But when people ask I tell them what Dolby specs are. Its up to them if they follow them or not. 
I also do not state my preference is what they should do, which a lot of other users seem to be doing. 
You can say "I put mine at 60deg and it is awesome" but should not continue with "so that is what you should do". (although I have probably been guilty of this myself previously, I now try to explicitly state it is just my opinion or my experience)


----------



## Wardog555

NuSoardGraphite said:


> are you referring to the setup diagram I posted? Its set up the way it is mainly due to distance from the display. The front row will be 8 feet from an 85" display.
> 
> Most setups you see are using much larger screens....120" or larger, necessitating that the front row be further back. Unless your room is very large, this compresses the layout of the surround channels as normally seen in Dolby diagrams
> 
> View attachment 3376062
> 
> 
> If you were to push that couch toward the middle of the room, it looks a lot closer to what I posted. In fact, lets look at DTS:X
> 
> View attachment 3376063
> 
> 
> Which shows the seating position in the middle of the speaker layout. If you center the couch in the Dolby diagram, it matches this one precisely.
> 
> Of course you dont want to put a seating position right in the middle of the room. With two rows, this allows me to put the front row forward of the center point and the back row behind it, thus avoiding that central null, yet still maintaining seating placement allowing for an equidistant arrangement of the speakers.


Actually my comment wasn't related to yours but the one that was posted before you.
I was discussing the experience with speakers in front of 90 degrees. And that individual doesn't follow the guidelines. I hoped I was clear enough but guess not enough clarification.


----------



## sdurani

niterida said:


> Which means put them at 30deg azimuth.
> Which means they will be above the L&R *IF *your L&R are also at the recommended 30deg.


Both can't be true at the same time. The Front Heights are farther away than the L&R, so putting the Heights at 30° azimuth in reference to the listener would mean they end up placed physically wider apart than the Fronts at 30°. The only way the Heights end up above the L&R is if you do not put them at 30° azimuth but instead put them _"*in line* with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference"_ (i.e., line them up above 30° from the Centre Front, which is where they recommend the L&R speakers go).


> It does not say anywhere to actually place them above or in line with the L&R.


It explicitly says that the Front Heights will end up _"directly above"_ the L&R if you follow their recommendations. Not somewhere above, but directly above. How do the Front Heights end up directly above the L&R without placing the Front Heights directly above the L&R?


> I agree that the heights and tops should probably be placed in a line with each other, but not necessarily with L&R.


How far apart is Dolby recommending that the height array lines be?


> Ideally Dolby should have stuck with 30-55(45)deg elevation (from the rear view) for the heights (rtather than 30deg azimuth on the front wall), and stated the angle should match the whatever tops angle you chose.


We're not discussing what Dolby should have recommended but what they actually recommended, which is clear from the text and diagrams. That's the reason why people believe Dolby recommends lining up the height arrays with the L&R speakers. Even people disagreeing with that placement, like Grimani, tell people not to follow Dolby's recommendation of lining up the heights with the mains. Where are they getting the idea that Dolby recommended that?


----------



## chi_guy50

sdurani said:


> Both can't be true at the same time. The Front Heights are farther away than the L&R, so putting the Heights at 30° azimuth in reference to the listener would mean they end up placed physically wider apart than the Fronts at 30°. The only way the Heights end up above the L&R is if you do not put them at 30° azimuth but instead put them _"*in line* with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference"_ (i.e., line them up above 30° from the Centre Front, which is where they recommend the L&R speakers go). It explicitly says that the Front Heights will end up _"directly above"_ the L&R if you follow their recommendations. Not somewhere above, but directly above. How do the Front Heights end up directly above the L&R without placing the Front Heights directly above the L&R? How far apart is Dolby recommending that the height array lines be? We're not discussing what Dolby should have recommended but what they actually recommended, which is clear from the text and diagrams. That's the reason why people believe Dolby recommends lining up the height arrays with the L&R speakers. Even people disagreeing with that placement, like Grimani, tell people not to follow Dolby's recommendation of lining up the heights with the mains. Where are they getting the idea that Dolby recommended that?


Here endeth the symposium on logical deduction!


----------



## niterida

sdurani said:


> Both can't be true at the same time. The Front Heights are farther away than the L&R, so putting the Heights at 30° azimuth in reference to the listener would mean they end up placed physically wider apart than the Fronts at 30°. The only way the Heights end up above the L&R is if you do not put them at 30° azimuth but instead put them _"*in line* with an approximately 30 degrees horizontal from the center-front reference"_ (i.e., line them up above 30° from the Centre Front, which is where they recommend the L&R speakers go). It explicitly says that the Front Heights will end up _"directly above"_ the L&R if you follow their recommendations. Not somewhere above, but directly above. How do the Front Heights end up directly above the L&R without placing the Front Heights directly above the L&R? How far apart is Dolby recommending that the height array lines be? We're not discussing what Dolby should have recommended but what they actually recommended, which is clear from the text and diagrams. That's the reason why people believe Dolby recommends lining up the height arrays with the L&R speakers. Even people disagreeing with that placement, like Grimani, tell people not to follow Dolby's recommendation of lining up the heights with the mains. Where are they getting the idea that Dolby recommended that?


I normally respect everything you say but after this response I am out - you obviously have a different grasp of the english language than me.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Why go 6 height channels over 4?


----------



## chi_guy50

niterida said:


> I normally respect everything you say but after this response I am out - you obviously have a different grasp of the english language than me.



Fair dinkum, mate!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Audioholics posted a fantasically detailed article about Atmos mixing and some of its controversies.

Apparently they are still a bit butthurt about what Technodad's been saying and still trying to debunk him (not succeeding either) but at least it lead to one heck of an article.









The Truth About Dolby Atmos & Best Set Up Practices In the Home


The inner workings of Dolby Atmos and how best to set up your home theater with the right number of speakers for a successful Atmos experience, common mistakes and misconceptions are all revealed.




www.audioholics.com


----------



## Soulburner

Man, small rooms really do have challenges with Atmos. Here's one I didn't think about.

My ceiling speakers have to come in to 55° elevation due to an 11 ft room width constraining the layout width. The issue now is that these speakers must be wider in dispersion to hit all 3 seats. That means they _must _be hung vertically so that their dispersion pattern can sweep across the seats. Doing so gives me 65° of dispersion which equates to a 6.5ft wide sweet spot. The problem is they hang down really low in a 7.6' high room. Mounting them horizontally gets them up closer to the ceiling, but gives only a 2.5ft sweet spot due to cancellation notches that occur to the sides of all 2-driver non-coaxial speakers. The reason I don't have coaxial speakers is because there are none that perform as well as these and are also easy to mount...


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Man, small rooms really do have challenges with Atmos. Here's one I didn't think about.
> 
> My ceiling speakers have to come in to 55° elevation due to an 11 ft room width constraining the layout width. The issue now is that these speakers must be wider in dispersion to hit all 3 seats. That means they _must _be hung vertically so that their dispersion pattern can sweep across the seats. Doing so gives me 65° of dispersion which equates to a 6.5ft wide sweet spot. The problem is they hang down really low in a 7.6' high room. Mounting them horizontally gets them up closer to the ceiling, but gives only a 2.5ft sweet spot due to cancellation notches that occur to the sides of all 2-driver non-coaxial speakers. The reason I don't have coaxial speakers is because there are none that perform as well as these and are also easy to mount...


Which speakers are you using?


----------



## niterida

OK no more arguing over speaker placement as I have come up with the definitive guide and henceforth this shall be gospel :

Put your Right Top Front on the ceiling to the front and to the right of you.
Put your Right top Middle on the ceiling above and to the right of you
etc etc etc

Enjoy


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Audioholics posted a fantasically detailed article about Atmos mixing and some of its controversies.
> 
> Apparently they are still a bit butthurt about what Technodad's been saying and still trying to debunk him (not succeeding either) but at least it lead to one heck of an article.


I have a lot of respect for Gene, but it was pretty petty of them to go after TD that way. And I say that having vociferously disagreed with Channa on setup practices and still being an advocate for the mix room guidelines as a solid starting point. Professionals going after enthusiast channels is just tacky. But the fact of the matter is that some of the peculiarities of how the Atmos panner works with the home renderer do raise some interesting questions about what aspects to prioritize, and Channa was just experimenting and reporting his findings. And the results of that experimentation created the calibration and testing disc he and Joe are releasing, which does have a lot of helpful material for testing on it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I have a lot of respect for Gene, but it was pretty petty of them to go after TD that way. And I say that having vociferously disagreed with Channa on setup practices and still being an advocate for the mix room guidelines as a solid starting point. Professionals going after enthusiast channels is just tacky.


agreed. There was no need for them to do that. All they needed to do was agree to disagree. But I suspect many of them were seeking validation for their own setups. Because if TD was right, that would mean their setups were compromised and it would drive them crazy knowing that.



> But the fact of the matter is that some of the peculiarities of how the Atmos panner works with the home renderer do raise some interesting questions about what aspects to prioritize, and Channa was just experimenting and reporting his findings. And the results of that experimentation created the calibration and testing disc he and Joe are releasing, which does have a lot of helpful material for testing on it.


Agreed. I wish more content creators actually did stuff like experiment with different setups and compared codecs and tried things to improve their experiences, then pass that information along. Unfortunately, most of them just get caught up in upgrading components and spending more money.

The Spacial Audio calibration disc is something we sorely need. We have needed something like this since 2015, but no one has done it and frankly its the biggest disservice that has been done to the home theater community. The fact that it took youtubers to get this done rather than professionals doing it years ago should be a source of shame for all involved.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Which speakers are you using?


They are Focal outdoor speakers, a 6.5" cone / 1" dome sealed speaker. I had them measured on the NFS by Amir which confirmed they are good speakers but like any other speaker, they need to remain vertically-oriented.

By the numbers, it is about 6 feet from my ears to each ceiling speaker. Given that, I can calculate the sweet spot, or width of side c of the triangle:

For a 120° spread (vertical orientation):
Side a = 6
Side b = 6
Side c = 10.3923 

For a 25° spread (horizontal orientation):
Side a = 6
Side b = 6
Side c = 2.59728


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> They are Focal outdoor speakers, a 6.5" cone / 1" dome sealed speaker. I had them measured on the NFS by Amir which confirmed they are good speakers but like any other speaker, they need to remain vertically-oriented.
> 
> By the numbers, it is about 6 feet from my ears to each ceiling speaker. Given that, I can calculate the sweet spot, or width of side c of the triangle:
> 
> For a 120° spread (vertical orientation):
> Side a = 6
> Side b = 6
> Side c = 10.64413
> I
> For a 25° spread (horizontal orientation):
> Side a = 6
> Side b = 6
> Side c = 2.59728


Ah yes. Vertical orientation would probably be best under those circumstances. I think you have a few different mounting options depending on how universal the screw holes on the sides are.

A friend of mine used these with his Def Tech satellite speakers. They worked pretty well. If the screws fit it should work. Or a mount similar to that.


----------



## Soulburner

I can handle the mounting...I just wanted to point out that the small room dictates wide dispersion speakers because they don't have the luxury of spreading out over distance. And to achieve that they need to hang vertically, which a tall person could run into (and the other half isn't fond of the look).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> I can handle the mounting...I just wanted to point out that the small room dictates wide dispersion speakers because they don't have the luxury of spreading out over distance. And to achieve that they need to hang vertically, which a tall person could run into (and the other half isn't fond of the look).


Yeah another reason to go with front heights. Helps with the dispersion. But it sounds like the speakers you chose can handle it just fine.


----------



## mjwagner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Ah yes. Vertical orientation would probably be best under those circumstances. I think you have a few different mounting options depending on how universal the screw holes on the sides are.
> 
> A friend of mine used these with his Def Tech satellite speakers. They worked pretty well. If the screws fit it should work. Or a mount similar to that.
> View attachment 3376607


Those work really well and come with two different screw shape choices including a 90 degree one. I mounted all my def tech surround (side and rear) as well as down firing ceiling speakers with them. They are solid and they are not expensive - Speaker Mount Bracket


----------



## Chirosamsung

Soulburner said:


> Thanks. Was that with rears also or just 5.1?
> 
> 
> You mean yours are forward of 90°? Normally when people speak of "hot spots" I think they mean speaker-in-your-ear.


yes. 90 degrees means the speakers shoot directly into the side seats ears. And how is it supposed to get to the MLP when people are sitting to either side of the MLP when side surround is at 90 anyways? Clearly it doesn't. That's why 80-85 degrees pointed at the MLP is preferred. Still comes from sides and still have read for rear heights. Sounds great on any Dolby demo files and actual content


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Chirosamsung said:


> yes. 90 degrees means the speakers shoot directly into the side seats ears. And how is it supposed to get to the MLP when people are sitting to either side of the MLP when side surround is at 90 anyways? Clearly it doesn't. That's why 80-85 degrees pointed at the MLP is preferred


I had my 90° surrounds slightly elevated and aimed down just a hair. That works very well and sounds a bit more immersive than right at ear level too.


----------



## Chirosamsung

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I had my 90° surrounds slightly elevated and aimed down just a hair. That works very well and sounds a bit more immersive than right at ear level too.


My tweeter is above ear level for sure but bass driver still sits somewhat at ear level without the whole speaker being very high


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> OK no more arguing over speaker placement as I have come up with the definitive guide and henceforth this shall be gospel :
> 
> Put your Right Top Front on the ceiling to the front and to the right of you.
> Put your Right top Middle on the ceiling above and to the right of you
> etc etc etc
> 
> Enjoy


How about the Top-Front in front of you and the Top-Rear behind you.

Problem is, I see a lot of *professionally *designed theaters that fail at even that simple metric 🤣

Are these supposed to be Top-Rears or Top-Middles? And it even fails at the Left/Right rule!









And here we have a properly designed upper soundstage. But of course all the Atmos zombies would say this is wrong but:

The front height speakers are *forward *of all the seats
The rear height speakers are *behind *all the seats
The left speakers are left of all seats
The right speakers are to the right of all seats.
all speakers are angled to ensure *maximum *dispersion to all seats in the seats in the theater.








But this is wrong?

The only thing I would change here is I would add a Top-Middle to fill in that gap above the MLP.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> But this is wrong?


No. Sweet spot for me would be the middle row, but ALL listeners would be able to hear left-vs-right and front-vs-back above them. Only thing I would change is maybe add Wides.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> No. Sweet spot for me would be the middle row, but ALL listeners would be able to hear left-vs-right and front-vs-back above them. Only thing I would change is maybe add Wides.


Pretty much.

Overall in the theater, I would remove that 3rd row. The theater isnt big enough for three rows. The owner is trying to force it. It puts the middle row very close to the central room mode. And only two subs so unlikely to minimize that null.

But for me I would add Top-Middles over Wides, but if I had a 16 channel processor, why not both?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> Overall in the theater, I would remove that 3rd row. The theater isnt big enough for three rows. The owner is trying to force it. It puts the middle row very close to the central room mode. And only two subs so unlikely to minimize that null.
> 
> But for me I would add Top-Middles over Wides, but if I had a 16 channel processor, why not both?


Yeah, 3 rows is pushing it in that room. And the rear height placement will blend with rear surround too much for _every_ seat IMO. My room is 23'x12'x8' so not too far off from that room's dimensions, and this guy's trying to cram a lot in there that just won't work well, speaking from experience. 2 rows with better height placement would have been ideal. But if they were sticking with 3 rows and only 4 heights, I would have moved the heights so they were more over the first and last rows and then cross-aimed them toward the sides of the MLP in the second row to maximize coverage. Height pans would still work across all the seats and you'd get more "overhead" sound across the board. If they could add top mid, I would still place it a bit in front of the second row so I could move the rear heights forward a bit so there's separation between the rear surrounds and rear heights. And with that limited ceiling height and the use of a riser, I'd either use a bipole at top mid or a wide dispersion in-ceiling. 

There's a logical way to make any room work. That first example could still work if you moved the heights out laterally to about where the armrests of the front row are and then pushed all 4 heights toward the back of the room a bit, with some creative aiming.


----------



## i007spectre

Some really good Atmos use in Star Trek: TMP Directors Edition.


----------



## StephenMSmith

What is the general frequency range for Atmos speakers, specifically those assigned to Front Height and Rear Height? Is there any low bass content ever? Like below 80hz?


----------



## sdurani

StephenMSmith said:


> What is the general frequency range for Atmos speakers, specifically those assigned to Front Height and Rear Height? Is there any low bass content ever? Like below 80hz?


Height info is full range, just like all the other outputs (except LFE). Up to you to decide what size speakers you can accommodate in the height layer.


----------



## appelz

sdurani said:


> Height info is full range, just like all the other outputs (except LFE). Up to you to decide what size speakers you can accommodate in the height layer.


_Especially_ with Atmos/Spatial Audio music content. When instruments and vocals are placed around and above you, it becomes even more important to have those speakers behave more similar to the screen channels.


----------



## StephenMSmith

sdurani said:


> Height info is full range, just like all the other outputs (except LFE). Up to you to decide what size speakers you can accommodate in the height layer.


Interesting. Does that apply if configured as Top Middle and Top Rear too? And is there much Atmos content below 80hz for height and/or top speakers?


----------



## niterida

StephenMSmith said:


> Interesting. Does that apply if configured as Top Middle and Top Rear too? And is there much Atmos content below 80hz for height and/or top speakers?


Yes and Yes
Well probably not a lot of LF sent to Atmos speakers in most movies, but some do get down to 20hz signal - think scenes with helicopters, thunder etc overhead.


----------



## sdurani

StephenMSmith said:


> Does that apply if configured as Top Middle and Top Rear too? And is there much Atmos content below 80hz for height and/or top speakers?


ALL speaker feeds are full range. If a sound is panning from a Front speaker to a Top Middle speaker, the mixer doesn't filter out the content below 80Hz. The sound remains full range. That goes for all 34 potential speaker locations for the home Atmos format.

Separating content into speaker feeds and subwoofer feeds (bass management) happens during playback at home. Just because all the content is full range doesn't mean all the speakers need to be full range. Use whatever speakers work for you in the height layer. Any bass they cannot reproduce can instead be played back from your subwoofers. Just like all your other speakers. Content in the height layer is no different than content in the base layer.


----------



## galonzo

I was able to check out the newly-released/"upgraded" ParaNorman (2012) Dolby TrueHD Atmos *(on new UHD Blu)*, and the title sequence where the title "floats" over/towards the audience on the old 3D Blu sounds like it flows right through you; it would be interesting to see if objects were used, or just a simple "static" pan 🤔


----------



## Magiclakez

galonzo said:


> I was able to check out the newly-released/"upgraded" ParaNorman (2012) Dolby TrueHD Atmos *(on new UHD Blu)*, and the title sequence where the title "floats" over/towards the audience on the old 3D Blu sounds like it flows right through you; it would be interesting to see if objects were used, or just a simple "static" pan 🤔


I picked up ParaNorman as well as Coraline (both 4k), which came out simultaneously. I haven’t got a chance to check out ParaNorman, but Coraline had a really active/dynamic atmos track. Loved the beautiful PQ as well. Great 4k transfer. Can’t wait to complete the collection with Kubo and BoxTrolls, slated to come out in Feb.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> No. Sweet spot for me would be the middle row, but ALL listeners would be able to hear left-vs-right and front-vs-back above them. Only thing I would change is maybe add Wides.


Are you suggesting that you do not have this in the first diagram?


----------



## GMil

StephenMSmith said:


> Interesting. Does that apply if configured as Top Middle and Top Rear too? And is there much Atmos content below 80hz for height and/or top speakers?


My In-ceiling tops range from 38Hz-21kHz+/-3 dB on axis. There is only one instance that I can recall where I experienced a "sonic boom" so-to-speak out them but I cannot recall what movie or scene it was from. I do recall it scaring the daylights out of me though as it is highly unusual but was really, really cool. I would not waste too much time or energy hunting down tops that play that low as I did, if that is what you are asking. I hope this helps.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> Are you suggesting that you do not have this in the first diagram?


I don't see Wides in the diagram I was posting about:


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> Are you suggesting that you do not have this in the first diagram?


You do not because the back seats are directly under the "Top-Rears", not forward of them. In addition to that, the outermost rear seats are outside the boundry created by the Top channels. So to those seats, everything will be coming from one side instead of proper left/right separation.

The sound from the entire rear row is warped as a result of this setup decision.


----------



## StephenMSmith

GMil said:


> My In-ceiling tops range from 38Hz-21kHz+/-3 dB on axis. There is only one instance that I can recall where I experienced a "sonic boom" so-to-speak out them but I cannot recall what movie or scene it was from. I do recall it scaring the daylights out of me though as it is highly unusual but was really, really cool. I would not waste too much time or energy hunting down tops that play that low as I did, if that is what you are asking. I hope this helps.


Well mine play pretty low. What I'm trying to figure out is how much I should obsess about awful wall resonances that occur at 90hz and below. These are in-ceilings in a soffit that I built specifically for them. The vibrate the whole back wall w/content 90hz and below which is very distracting. 

BUT... I'm testing this using 20hz to 80hz frequency sweeps. I do have a sub for low-end but even w/a 90hz crossover, there is still a lot of vibration resonances heard during the 20-80hz sweeps. Hopwever, it's not super obvious during normal content. But being a dork, I still would love to resolve, so first question was is there any content below 80hz for Atmos and now I know the answer is yes.


----------



## GMil

NuSoardGraphite said:


> You do not because the back seats are directly under the "Top-Rears", not forward of them. In addition to that, the outermost rear seats are outside the boundry created by the Top channels. So to those seats, everything will be coming from one side instead of proper left/right separation.
> 
> The sound from the entire rear row is warped as a result of this setup decision.
> 
> View attachment 3376963


 You do. This room has 98% coverage from the tops. The 2% that is not covered is only in the front of the room near the front soundstage where you would not want a cacophony of crashing waves anyways. The placement of the top rears, _*as it pertains to this diagram*_ [for atmos] is inconsequential as atmos can place objects anywhere in the 3D sound field without perfect speaker placement, for the most part. What *is* imperative in an atmos system is angular separation of speakers which has been discussed at length here for those who are following along. 

This is almost my room to a 'T' without the front row due to a couch being up against the back wall and I can attest, for a fact, that I get superb atmos. As I posted previously, I go to the theater to validate this and I believe my home atmos out performs. This diagram is, by far, the superior design mostly for the reasons I and others have already posted above. I hope this helps.


----------



## GMil

StephenMSmith said:


> Well mine play pretty low. What I'm trying to figure out is how much I should obsess about awful wall resonances that occur at 90hz and below. These are in-ceilings in a soffit that I built specifically for them. The vibrate the whole back wall w/content 90hz and below which is very distracting.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT... I'm testing this using 20hz to 80hz frequency sweeps. I do have a sub for low-end but even w/a 90hz crossover, there is still a lot of vibration resonances heard during the 20-80hz sweeps. Hopwever, it's not super obvious during normal content. But being a dork, I still would love to resolve, so first question was is there any content below 80hz for Atmos and now I know the answer is yes.




I would check to make sure you do not have the phase(polarity) inverted on them somehow. It sounds like the speaker is playing in reverse.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> ...atmos can place objects anywhere in the 3D sound field without perfect speaker placement, for the most part.


Atmos cannot defy the physics of sound reproduction. If you're sitting in the back row, the rear pair of heights is forward of you and cannot image sound behind you. Worse, if you're sitting in the outer seats in the back row, then the left height speaker is to the right of you and the right height speaker is to the left of you, resulting in sound imaging at the opposite direction it was intended. Audio objects can be tagged with any location in the height layer but their sound cannot image outside the bounds of the height speakers.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> You do. This room has 98% coverage from the tops. The 2% that is not covered is only in the front of the room near the front soundstage where you would not want a cacophony of crashing waves anyways. The placement of the top rears, _*as it pertains to this diagram*_ [for atmos] is inconsequential as atmos can place objects anywhere in the 3D sound field without perfect speaker placement, for the most part. What *is* imperative in an atmos system is angular separation of speakers which has been discussed at length here for those who are following along.
> 
> This is almost my room to a 'T' without the front row due to a couch being up against the back wall and I can attest, for a fact, that I get superb atmos. As I posted previously, I go to the theater to validate this and I believe my home atmos out performs. This diagram is, by far, the superior design mostly for the reasons I and others have already posted above. I hope this helps.


Do you always sit in your theater's sweet spot?

If you sit outside that sweet spot your experience will be considerably lessened. These types of theaters are dialing in for a singular location, which is perfectly fine if one wants a perfect experience in one spot.

I just question the entire point of having the additional seats at all if they are not factored into the equation.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Atmos cannot defy the physics of sound reproduction. If you're sitting in the back row, the rear pair of heights is forward of you and cannot image sound behind you. Worse, if you're sitting in the outer seats in the back row, then the left height speaker is to the right of you and the right height speaker is to the left of you, resulting in sound imaging at the opposite direction it was intended. Audio objects can be tagged with any location in the height layer but their sound cannot image outside the bounds of the height speakers.
> View attachment 3376989


It boggles my mind how this basic element is not understood.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> Atmos cannot defy the physics of sound reproduction. If you're sitting in the back row, the rear pair of heights is forward of you and cannot image sound behind you. Worse, if you're sitting in the outer seats in the back row, then the left height speaker is to the right of you and the right height speaker is to the left of you, resulting in sound imaging at the opposite direction it was intended. Audio objects can be tagged with any location in the height layer but their sound cannot image outside the bounds of the height speakers.
> View attachment 3376989


 I love the drawing. For the record, my ears are not that big.

It is not defying the physics of sound reproduction. It is the fundamental basis of the audio format.

You can not image sounds behind you through a wall. That would be defying the physics of sound reproduction. 

I will bet you $1000 that I could blind test you and you would not be able to tell whether the height speakers are inside or outside of your left or right ear.

What are the bounds of the height speakers? See line 3. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## GMil

NuSoardGraphite said:


> It boggles my mind how this basic element is not understood.


Is that diagram from a professional install as you purported? If so, I am not the only one who thinks this way. So there's that.


----------



## Soulburner

Soulburner said:


> They are Focal outdoor speakers, a 6.5" cone / 1" dome sealed speaker. I had them measured on the NFS by Amir which confirmed they are good speakers but like any other speaker, they need to remain vertically-oriented.
> 
> By the numbers, it is about 6 feet from my ears to each ceiling speaker. Given that, I can calculate the sweet spot, or width of side c of the triangle:
> 
> For a 120° spread (vertical orientation):
> Side a = 6
> Side b = 6
> Side c = 10.3923
> 
> For a 25° spread (horizontal orientation):
> Side a = 6
> Side b = 6
> Side c = 2.59728


Here's what that looks like. Imagine your seat is the bottom edge of the triangle and the top point is the speaker.

Radiation width with drivers vertical:










All seats get quality sound.

Radiation width with drivers horizontal:










Only one seat gets quality sound.

One must take this into consideration when mounting ceiling channels just as they would any other channel.

Yes, this is an oversimplification. Obviously polar radiation patterns are complex. I am only using the central, most consistent beam of sound. In reality, the spread is wider, but quality seriously deteriorates outside that beam. The same thing happens with horizontal center channel speakers.


----------



## GMil

Soulburner said:


> Here's what that looks like. Imagine your seat is the bottom edge of the triangle and the top point is the speaker.
> 
> Radiation width with drivers vertical:
> 
> View attachment 3377013
> 
> 
> All seats get quality sound.
> 
> Radiation width with drivers horizontal:
> 
> View attachment 3377014
> 
> 
> Only one seat gets quality sound.
> 
> One must take this into consideration when mounting ceiling channels just as they would any other channel.
> 
> Yes, this is an oversimplification. Obviously polar radiation patterns are complex. I am only using the central, most consistent beam of sound. In reality, the spread is wider, but quality seriously deteriorates outside that beam. The same thing happens with horizontal center channel speakers.


I know this is outside the scope/budget of your project but , out of curiosity, does your room have the capability to accommodate in-ceiling speakers?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> Is that diagram from a professional install as you purported? If so, I am not the only one who thinks this way. So there's that.


Oh its quite common. 

You have to ask yourself: How are sound objects placed in the room during the playback process?

Its through stereo imaging of course. How does stereo imaging work? You have to be placed in between two sound sources for stereo imaging to properly function. A better phantom image is generated when the listener is positioned equidistantly between the loudspeakers. If you sit off angle, the image is pulled to one side or the other and thus the presentation is warped. Sit too far to one side or the other and the phantom image is broken. It no longer works. Regarding a pair of front main speakers, if the listener sits outside the bounds of the speaker, the soundstage collapses and the image is broken.

Height channels also follow this rule. In order for the phantom image to be properly presented, the listers must be within the boundries of all the speakers involved. The closer to the centralized, optimal position, the better rendered the entire soundstage will seem. This is the reason why professionals design and calibrate many theaters for a single seat.

However there are ways to ensure that more of the seating area is within the speaker boundries and thus can be engaged with the soundstage. Push the speakers further out (both front to back and to the sides) and if necessary, add more speakers. Many designers are loathed to do this because there is the possibility to pushing the speakers too far out has them blending with their ground level equivalents, which in the Atmos ecosystem is considered a negative, but in other ecosystems, is considered essential. Both Auro3D and DTS:X rely heavily on proper interaction between the ground layer and the height layer, where Atmos separates them far more than the other two formats. There is a problem with this: when the angle of separation between a ground layer speaker and a height layer speaker is too great (beyond 45°), stereo imaging can break and transitions back and forth are no longer smooth, but jagged as the sound suddely jumps from ear level to above you with no proper transition.

Auro3D solves this by placing speakers at 30° (no higher than 45°) which help the transition of sounds from ear level, to height level, then finally to the Top/overhead layer. Sounds no longer "leap" from ear level to overhead, but transition smoothly because the height layer bridges them.

You can do this with Atmos as well with 6 ceiling speakers with Front Height (at 30°, but no higher than 45°) and Rear Height, and by adding a Top-Middle to bridge the front and rear. Now your sound objects can transition smoothly from ground to above you. And the top-middle handles all the sounds directly overhead. And all the listeners fall within the dispersion pattern of your speakers. No listeners perceptions will be warped or confused as to what sounds are from the front, what sounds are from the rear and which are comimg from above.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> It is the fundamental basis of the audio format.


The format has the ability to encode sounds with coordinates for any location in 3D space. The decoder cannot place those sounds anywhere because it is limited by speaker placement. Height speakers that are forward a listener cannot sound like they are behind the listener.


> You can not image sounds behind you through a wall.


Indeed, which is why the 2nd diagram has one pair of heights rearward of all the listeners and another pair of heights forward of all the listeners. If a height effect is intended to be behind the listener, then that is what is heard by ALL the listeners. The 1st diagram cannot do that.


----------



## Soulburner

GMil said:


> I know this is outside the scope/budget of your project but , out of curiosity, does your room have the capability to accommodate in-ceiling speakers?


I have given it some thought. It would be nice to keep the ceiling more open since it's only 91" high. However, am I wrong in thinking that those types of speakers generally are not capable of an 80 Hz crossover? I think ones which meet my criteria would cost significantly more than the $200/ea of my current speakers and probably not perform as well. The other issue is the kitchen is above this room and making holes would increase the already higher level of kitchen noise, when someone is up there.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> I have given it some thought. It would be nice to keep the ceiling more open since it's only 91" high. However, am I wrong in thinking that those types of speakers generally are not capable of an 80 Hz crossover? I think ones which meet my criteria would cost significantly more than the $200/ea of my current speakers and probably not perform as well. The other issue is the kitchen is above this room and making holes would increase the already higher level of kitchen noise, when someone is up there.


Have you seen the list : List of angled in-ceiling speakers (and why you need...


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Auro3D solves this by placing speakers at 30° (no higher than 45°) which help the transition of sounds from ear level, to height level, then finally to the Top/overhead layer. Sounds no longer "leap" from ear level to overhead, but transition smoothly because the height layer bridges them.


It's all about compromises and prioritizing what is most important to you. If you go for better imaging from floor to height, you give up the best imaging overhead. If you watch a lot of Atmos movies (which is most movies) it would not serve you well because you will have both too little separation between the layers, and a lack of resolution overhead. I think a FH/RH setup needs 8 total speakers to work without compromise, where the inner 4 are the ideal Atmos top speakers.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> It's all about compromises and prioritizing what is most important to you. If you go for better imaging from floor to height, you give up the best imaging overhead. If you watch a lot of Atmos movies (which is most movies) it would not serve you well because you will have both too little separation between the layers, and a lack of resolution overhead. I think a FH/RH setup needs 8 total speakers to work without compromise, where the inner 4 are the ideal Atmos top speakers.


I recently reread the Dolby guide and they actually state that Heights are ADDITIONAL speakers, so my inference is that they should only be used in ADDITION to the Tops, not instead of.


----------



## Soulburner

niterida said:


> Have you seen the list : List of angled in-ceiling speakers (and why you need...


It's a great list that you've compiled. The ones in the 45° group look great and I'd probably spring for the Focals, but those can't be installed between 2 floors and it's more money than I'm willing to invest now. Perhaps in the future if I ever have a bonus room.


----------



## GMil

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Oh its quite common.
> 
> You have to ask yourself: How are sound objects placed in the room during the playback process?


Brother, the only question I ask myself is "how objects are placed in *MY *system during the playback process and I can confidently report that they are perfect.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its through stereo imaging of course. How does stereo imaging work? You have to be placed in between two sound sources for stereo imaging to properly function. A better phantom image is generated when the listener is positioned equidistantly between the loudspeakers. If you sit off angle, the image is pulled to one side or the other and thus the presentation is warped. Sit too far to one side or the other and the phantom image is broken. It no longer works. Regarding a pair of front main speakers, if the listener sits outside the bounds of the speaker, the soundstage collapses and the image is broken .


Back to the subject at hand, there is *NOWHERE *in that room diagram that a listener is outside a position to have a "good" stereo image. As a matter of fact, those back outside seats that you guys seem to want to pick on have, between the side surround, surround back and Top rear, the potential to be *EXCELLENT *spots for stereo images.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> Height channels also follow this rule. In order for the phantom image to be properly presented, the listers must be within the boundries of all the speakers involved. The closer to the centralized, optimal position, the better rendered the entire soundstage will seem.


Please point out to me exactly where listeners would be sitting that is outside these boundaries in that design.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> This is the reason why professionals design and calibrate many theaters for a single seat.


This is false. They would go out of business doing this.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> However there are ways to ensure that more of the seating area is within the speaker boundries and thus can be engaged with the soundstage. Push the speakers further out (both front to back and to the sides) and if necessary, add more speakers.


Thank you for making my point. By my calculations, 98% of the room is covered by the tops. I am failing to see the problem here. The *only* design that needs extra speakers is the second one you posted.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> Many designers are loathed to do this because there is the possibility to pushing the speakers too far out has them blending with their ground level equivalents, which in the Atmos ecosystem is considered a negative, but in other ecosystems, is considered essential.


This is completely and utterly unnecessary for the design in question. See my comment above.


NuSoardGraphite said:


> Both Auro3D and DTS:X rely heavily on proper interaction between the ground layer and the height layer, where Atmos separates them far more than the other two formats. There is a problem with this: when the angle of separation between a ground layer speaker and a height layer speaker is too great (beyond 45°), stereo imaging can break and transitions back and forth are no longer smooth, but jagged as the sound suddely jumps from ear level to above you with no proper transition.


I experience *NONE *of this in my *ATMOS *system. Perhaps, yours is installed and/or calibrated incorrectly. 


NuSoardGraphite said:


> You can do this with Atmos as well with 6 ceiling speakers with Front Height (at 30°, but no higher than 45°) and Rear Height, and by adding a Top-Middle to bridge the front and rear. Now your sound objects can transition smoothly from ground to above you. And the top-middle handles all the sounds directly overhead. And all the listeners fall within the dispersion pattern of your speakers. No listeners perceptions will be warped or confused as to what sounds are from the front, what sounds are from the rear and which are comimg from above.


I do this with four ceiling speakers installed in an unorthodox manner that would probably make a guy like you pass out. I am a true testament to how flexible Atmos truly is contrary to a lot of misinformation that likes to be flung around here. Like I said, Atmos is primarily about angles of separation. If you check those boxes and calibrate effectively you will have a product that makes you smile from ear to ear. I hope this helps.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> If a height effect is intended to be behind the listener, then that is what is heard by ALL the listeners. The 1st diagram cannot do that.


That is because there is a wall there. You need to just stop.


----------



## GMil

Soulburner said:


> I have given it some thought. It would be nice to keep the ceiling more open since it's only 91" high. However, am I wrong in thinking that those types of speakers generally are not capable of an 80 Hz crossover? I think ones which meet my criteria would cost significantly more than the $200/ea of my current speakers and probably not perform as well. The other issue is the kitchen is above this room and making holes would increase the already higher level of kitchen noise, when someone is up there.


Audyssey set mine @ 80 Hz. I think I could take them lower, honestly. I have a pair of Noble Fidelity LK 65 MK II (they may be discontinued) in TM and ML Electromotion IC installed as FH. These are expensive but I am a self-confessed gear snob. I think you could achieve your goals for a lot less. I see crutchfield had some new as low as $199/each and I'm sure you could find decent used as well for considerably less. I just think you(and the wife) will be happier in the long run. Even if you have to save up, buy one speaker at a time and do it over time. When I cut the holes I went and bought a roll of owens-corning R16. I cut pieces to length and rolled them up cross-wise. I then stuffed them up through the holes down the joist cavity to the front and back(my son's bedroom is above) and that helped considerably.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> Atmos cannot defy the physics of sound reproduction. If you're sitting in the back row, the rear pair of heights is forward of you and cannot image sound behind you. Worse, if you're sitting in the outer seats in the back row, then the left height speaker is to the right of you and the right height speaker is to the left of you, resulting in sound imaging at the opposite direction it was intended. Audio objects can be tagged with any location in the height layer but their sound cannot image outside the bounds of the height speakers.


Ah, but... to play Devil's advocate here, if Atmos is truly allocentric and not egocentric, trying to conform the speaker layout based on a back row so close to the back wall is an exercise in futility. Those sitting in the back row would still generally hear pans that go ear-level to height and back down, which is pretty common. It would basically be like sitting in the very back row of a theater.

I would agree that the heights need to be spaced out a bit more laterally and that the top rears could be moved so they are at least OVER those in the back row... but at some point, compromising placement to cater to a back row that's in a bad position is basically the proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bath water". My general rule has always been to place speakers based on the MLP but aim based on covering the other seats the best you can, compromised as they may be in such a small space.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> That is because there is a wall there.


There is a back wall in both rooms. The second one doesn't let that prevent it from placing the rear height speakers behind all the listeners.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> ...if Atmos is truly allocentric and not egocentric, trying to conform the speaker layout based on a back row so close to the back wall is an exercise in futility.


Rendering method (allocentric or egocentric) is unrelated to the problem, which is the decision to put seating against the back wall. The second room has 3 rows and still manages to have the rear height speakers behind of all listeners. Compare that to where the rear pair of heights is in the first room. Couldn't those speakers have been moved further back?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

GMil said:


> Brother, the only question I ask myself is "how objects are placed in *MY *system during the playback process and I can confidently report that they are perfect.


Your system vs my system is irrelevant. The physics behind stereo imaging doesnt change.



> Back to the subject at hand, there is *NOWHERE *in that room diagram that a listener is outside a position to have a "good" stereo image. As a matter of fact, those back outside seats that you guys seem to want to pick on have, between the side surround, surround back and Top rear, the potential to be *EXCELLENT *spots for stereo images.
> 
> Please point out to me exactly where listeners would be sitting that is outside these boundaries in that design.


Both Sdurani and myself pointed them out to you earlier. You might not believe us, but that doesnt make it not true.



> This is false. They would go out of business doing this.


I have spoken with custom designers who do exactly that. Their reasoning was that 90% of the time, it will be only one or two people using the theater, so they calibrate for a narrow seating area to get the best results possible, but this can compromise the other seats. Some may also provide secondary calibrations for a wider sweet spot in case the customer has a lot of people over.



> Thank you for making my point. By my calculations, 98% of the room is covered by the tops. I am failing to see the problem here. The *only* design that needs extra speakers is the second one you posted.


According to the Trinnov Speaker Placement Guide, the first diagram is incorrectly set up based on the seating arrangements. It is quite clear and specific that no speaker should be placed in a way that it is percieved as coming from the wrong direction. This is accomplished by ensuring that all speakers are directionally correct compared to all the seating locations.




































> This is completely and utterly unnecessary for the design in question. See my comment above.


I disagree wholeheartedly.



> I experience *NONE *of this in my *ATMOS *system. Perhaps, yours is installed and/or calibrated incorrectly.


Yes. I believe you dont experience this from the central listening position and likely because many Atmos mixes dont use a lot of objects that way in an obvious manner. So you've never noticed.



> I do this with four ceiling speakers installed in an unorthodox manner that would probably make a guy like you pass out. I am a true testament to how flexible Atmos truly is contrary to a lot of misinformation that likes to be flung around here. Like I said, Atmos is primarily about angles of separation. If you check those boxes and calibrate effectively you will have a product that makes you smile from ear to ear. I hope this helps.


Atmos is incredibly flexible. Its just not magic.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> I recently reread the Dolby guide and they actually state that Heights are ADDITIONAL speakers, so my inference is that they should only be used in ADDITION to the Tops, not instead of.


Generally speaking, yes. Atmos prefers Tops over Height positioning.

However, the Atmos renderer doesnt seem to change its behavior based on the stated speaker position as DTS:X does (which engages Speaker Remapping if you name your speakers Tops instead of heights) or Auro3D does (outight disabling Auro3D processing if you speakers are labelled as Tops instead of heights). The Atmos renderer changes its behavior depending mostly on the number of speaker pairs you tell it you have, which is then modified by their location.

So if you have 4 ceiling speakers, two in the front and two in the rear, Atmos doesnt care at all if you name them Top-Front/Top-Rear or ,Front Height/Rear Height. The renderer doesnt change how it attempts to render the sound objects. You could set up ceiling speakers at 45° and 135° and name them Front and Rear Tops. Then later, label them as Front and Rear Heights, without moving the speakers and Atmos will render them the same. A lot of people do this to gain compatibility with Auro3D.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Generally speaking, yes. Atmos prefers Tops over Height positioning.
> 
> However, the Atmos renderer doesnt seem to change its behavior based on the stated speaker position as DTS:X does (which engages Speaker Remapping if you name your speakers Tops instead of heights) or Auro3D does (outight disabling Auro3D processing if you speakers are labelled as Tops instead of heights). The Atmos renderer changes its behavior depending mostly on the number of speaker pairs you tell it you have, which is then modified by their location.
> 
> So if you have 4 ceiling speakers, two in the front and two in the rear, Atmos doesnt care at all if you name them Top-Front/Top-Rear or ,Front Height/Rear Height. The renderer doesnt change how it attempts to render the sound objects. You could set up ceiling speakers at 45° and 135° and name them Front and Rear Tops. Then later, label them as Front and Rear Heights, without moving the speakers and Atmos will render them the same. A lot of people do this to gain compatibility with Auro3D.


I was talking about actual physical speakers, not their settings in the AVR, 
What I meant was that in an ideal setup you shouldn't have heights on the front/rear walls unless you already have tops.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> I was talking about actual physical speakers, not their settings in the AVR,
> What I meant was that in an ideal setup you shouldn't have heights on the front/rear walls unless you already have tops.


Yes. Unless your room is very small. A friend of mine has his 4 ceiling speakers at the wall ceiling boundry in his theater, which is in a bedroom, but at only about 10 x 12, his height speakers ended up at about 50° even though they are mounted to the walls. So its all relative to the room size.

If someone is in a room that is longer than 15 feet and they mounted their ceiling speakers on the wall or directly above the front and rear soundstages, I would recommend they put Top-Middles in between them for optimal imaging along the ceiling. If they couldnt do that, I would recommend they do 45/135 mounting.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Generally speaking, yes. Atmos prefers Tops over Height positioning.
> 
> However, the Atmos renderer doesnt seem to change its behavior based on the stated speaker position as DTS:X does (which engages Speaker Remapping if you name your speakers Tops instead of heights) or Auro3D does (outight disabling Auro3D processing if you speakers are labelled as Tops instead of heights). The Atmos renderer changes its behavior depending mostly on the number of speaker pairs you tell it you have, which is then modified by their location.
> 
> So if you have 4 ceiling speakers, two in the front and two in the rear, Atmos doesnt care at all if you name them Top-Front/Top-Rear or ,Front Height/Rear Height. The renderer doesnt change how it attempts to render the sound objects. You could set up ceiling speakers at 45° and 135° and name them Front and Rear Tops. Then later, label them as Front and Rear Heights, without moving the speakers and Atmos will render them the same. A lot of people do this to gain compatibility with Auro3D.


That's not _completely_ true. Yes, as far as what happens strictly on the height plane, Atmos doesn't care because your forwardmost heights will be 0.0 and your rearmost heights will be 1.0, regardless of their designation, and objects at max Z are constrained to the height speakers only (just as objects at min Z are constrained to ear level). However, steering does change slightly between the two designations for pans between the layers based on the positional expectation of those designations in the renderer. It would mostly be heard as a change in the pan rate though. I would hazard that almost no one would hear the difference unless they knew exactly what they were listening for, and in practice, it's a pretty minor change - something you could hear with the right test track but likely never notice with actual content. The only other way you would hear it is with objects using the size parameter to bleed across more speakers, though it doesn't seem like that gets used much in actual home mixes anyway.

So there's a difference... but if you're wanting to support Auro, it's a difference you probably wouldn't notice anyway. The bigger issue you'd have for strict Auro support in that case would be the likelihood of tops being outside of the 10% distance limitation Auro uses to maintain coherence between the layers. Delays can work around perceived equidistance for cross-channel pans, but precedence is precedence. Everything's a compromise!


----------



## snash22

For ATMOS, how important is the separation between the Front (height/top) speakers and the Rear (height/top) speakers? Would there really be a perceptual gap between them if they are at about 45 degrees and 135 degrees?

Also, would there be a perceptual issue if the rears were wider apart than the front? I am trying to accommodate 2 rows of seating, the rear row is a bit wider than the front.

The two questions are related in my mind from the viewpoint that I imagine that sound localization diminishes as sounds start getting behind your ears.

(In case you have seen a variation of this layout before - yes, I am going completely insane with analysis paralysis.)


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

snash22 said:


> For ATMOS, how important is the separation between the Front (height/top) speakers and the Rear (height/top) speakers? Would there really be a perceptual gap between them if they are at about 45 degrees and 135 degrees?


There is a lot of conversation surrounding this subject and opinions vary greatly. Keep this in mind:

Our ability to perceive and image sounds above our heads is greatly diminished compared to our ability to perceive sounds in front of us on the horizontal plane.

45/135 mounting of Top channels creates a 90° separation angle between the front and rear pairs. Most recognize that this is too far for proper stereo imaging in the height plane. There are a few different approaches to this problem.

1 approach is just to acknowledge that our ability to perceive sounds above us isnt that great and basically just deal with it. As long as the speakers are close enough that movement of the sound objects can be detected, thats fine.

Another approach is to bring the pairs closer together. Instead of 45/135, they narrow the spread to 55/125 or even 60/120. This does improve the ability to distinguish detail directly overhead and sounds imaged directly overhead are improved here. This is important when a great number of Atmos mixes use fixed 7.1.2 channels and all height content is rendered in the Top-Middle position. This has the disadvantage of bringing every height oriented sound object close to the listeners, even when they are supposed to render further into the room such as directly over the front soundstage.

The 3rd approach is to add more speakers. This is actually the biggest benefit of Atmos. It was designed around the concept of extremely high spacial resolution and if you want better spacial resolution, you add more speakers. So if 45/135 mounting does not provide adequate spacial resolution overhead, you put a Top-middle speaker between them for 45/90/135 positioning, which will solve the problem. Some people think thats too close for 3 speaker pairs so it would be okay to spread then out to 30/90/150 positioning, giving a 60° angle of separation between speaker pairs which is a much better situation than the 90° between 45/135. Object panning is much smoother. Objects can be rendered directly above the front and rear soundstages and locked 7.1.2 mixes are correctly rendered *discretely *by the Top-Middle speakers, no longer relying on nebulous phantom imaging between the front and rear top channels. The disadvantages are the front and rear height channels may end up too close to the ear level speakers and blend with then causing confusion (this will obviously be mix dependant) and 6 height channel processing usually necessitates a high channel count processor which are not particularly cheap. Fortunately they are becomming more common and less expensive in general.



> Also, would there be a perceptual issue if the rears were wider apart than the front? I am trying to accommodate 2 rows of seating, the rear row is a bit wider than the front.


There may be some slight issues depending on how much of a difference there is between the pairs. If your schematic is representative of what the difference would be in your room, I dont think you would have an issue with that small amount of variation.



> The two questions are related in my mind from the viewpoint that I imagine that sound localization diminishes as sounds start getting behind your ears.


correct. It diminishes behind you, beyond 180°. And it diminishes above you, beyond 45° of elevation.



> (In case you have seen a variation of this layout before - yes, I am going completely insane with analysis paralysis.)
> View attachment 3377206


Hey we all have things holding us up. For me, it was that I needed to buy a home first (was renting) but I bought that home this past summer. Now the hold up is that my finances need to recover from the home purchase and there's someone staying in the room that will become my theater.

Its always something.


----------



## Soulburner

snash22 said:


> For ATMOS, how important is the separation between the Front (height/top) speakers and the Rear (height/top) speakers? Would there really be a perceptual gap between them if they are at about 45 degrees and 135 degrees?


You will still get imaging between them, but it weakens compared to putting them at 55° elevation.

Source: myself, I had them at about 40 degrees after counting the speaker drop from the ceiling, and I had imaging overhead with an 8' ceiling. I only expect that to improve at 50° in my new room with a 7.5' ceiling.


----------



## niterida

I have mine at 45deg and have no issue with stereo imaging and get clear sounds directly overhead.


----------



## sdurani

Every so often it is worth repeating the research done by NHK Japan for their 22.2 format. The main point of their research was to test our ability to perceive differences in height. They constructed a rig of 7 speakers, spread evenly (every 15°) along a 90° arc, hidden behind acoustically transparent cloth.









Listeners were tested with the rig in front of them, behind them and at their sides. Stimulus was 2 seconds of pink noise.









Their conclusion: _"When the head is facing to the front or rear, the changes in subjective rating become small after the range of approximately 45° to 60°. Particularly, when the head is facing backward, there is no significant difference in subjective rating within 45° to 90°. On the other hand, when the head is facing sideways, the subjective rating increases more or less
constantly right up to 90° (directly above)."_ 









The research helped them decide where to set the height layer for their format: _"Based on these findings, we decided to set the angle of elevation of the upper layer loudspeakers in the 22.2 multichannel sound system at approximately 45°, relative to the center of the audience seats, with loudspeaker*s* set directly above the audience."_ 

When Audyssey came out with their DSX upmixing for Wides and Front Heights, they recommended the Front Heights be placed at 45° elevation, because that's where they found that listeners started to get the sense of sound overhead instead of just a taller front soundstage. DTS likewise recommended their Height speakers be at 45° elevation for their Neo:X upmixer.

Just pointing out possible sources for the popularity of that number (45°) when it comes to height speaker placement.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 45/135 mounting of Top channels creates a 90° separation angle between the front and rear pairs. Most recognize that this is too far for proper stereo imaging in the height plane. There are a few different approaches to this problem.
> 
> 1 approach is just to acknowledge that our ability to perceive sounds above us isnt that great and basically just deal with it. As long as the speakers are close enough that movement of the sound objects can be detected, thats fine.
> 
> Another approach is to bring the pairs closer together. Instead of 45/135, they narrow the spread to 55/125 or even 60/120. This does improve the ability to distinguish detail directly overhead and sounds imaged directly overhead are improved here. This is important when a great number of Atmos mixes use fixed 7.1.2 channels and all height content is rendered in the Top-Middle position. This has the disadvantage of bringing every height oriented sound object close to the listeners, even when they are supposed to render further into the room such as directly over the front soundstage.


You're mostly spot on here, but I just wanted to clarify: Because our overhead hearing becomes more of a function of pinna effects, etc. rather than just the stereo imaging the way we hear it horizontally, 90 degrees really isn't "too far" for imaging above us because we don't hear point sources above us in the same way. Even with straight amplitude panning, you would still get a general image above the listener at a 90 degree separation. It would just lack spatial precision. But realistically, that's precision you just don't need for overhead sound, whereas you do need it more for elevation. And as you touched on, pans through the heights are a completely different story since our brains kinda' fill in the gaps there anyway, even with more widely spaced heights than 90 degrees.

There's a very real truth here too that some people are more sensitive to the perception of elevation and some more to overhead, so one approach may work better for you than the other when trying to balance the two aspects. And you wouldn't know which until you heard it in practice (as Soulburner did). You just need to be aware that you're trading one demon for the other with the spacing of 4 overheads. Moving them closer in can improve overhead perception, but at the expense of imaging at elevation because beyond about 45-50 degrees vertically, you lose precise perception of elevation between two points sources FAST. Dolby's 45/90/45 approach is effectively splitting the baby to balance both aspects. A 60/60/60 approach, while it might make sense based on how we place speakers horizontally, actually degrades elevation significantly in favor of a tighter overhead image - to the extent that most listeners would no longer be able to point to the location of a static sound panned between the two layers. The same ends up being true on the lateral as well, where height rows placed too widely can weaken overhead imaging but too narrowly can weaken elevation from the side surrounds. 

I might argue that the best approach perceptually for rooms with multiple rows would be to maintain 45 degrees for the top front (since that's where we would need the spatial resolution most - elevation from the front soundstage), elevate the rear surrounds some for clearance of the additional rows, then bring the top rears forward a bit to both get separation from the rear surrounds and close the angular spacing of the heights up for tighter overhead. This would end up with the heights at about 45/125, so the center image for the height beds might image just a hair forward of the MLP (though level-matching and delay can balance that out a little). This has been what worked best for me in my room and I don't feel like I'm losing anything between elevation and overhead imaging. But again... this is the most balanced approach I've found for x.x.4 over doing several rooms and various different layouts, and someone else might prefer to prioritize overhead imaging more than elevation for their own individual hearing.

One of the things that's interesting on that Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit is that in the torture tests, it has an object with a noise tone playing that moves from ear-level to height in succession between adjacent speakers, letting you clearly hear imaging of elevation at each point in the room. They also have slow pans that move ear to height and then across the room so you can assess overhead pans. Also, based on a long nerd-level conversation I had with Joe one night, they included around-the-room pans of noise tones at 50% elevation so you can hear whether you have good between-layer imaging.


----------



## snash22

sdurani said:


> Every so often it is worth repeating the research done by NHK Japan for their 22.2 format. The main point of their research was to test our ability to perceive differences in height. They constructed a rig of 7 speakers, spread evenly (every 15°) along a 90° arc, hidden behind acoustically transparent cloth.
> View attachment 3377236
> 
> 
> Listeners were tested with the rig in front of them, behind them and at their sides. Stimulus was 2 seconds of pink noise.
> View attachment 3377238
> 
> 
> Their conclusion: _"When the head is facing to the front or rear, the changes in subjective rating become small after the range of approximately 45° to 60°. Particularly, when the head is facing backward, there is no significant difference in subjective rating within 45° to 90°. On the other hand, when the head is facing sideways, the subjective rating increases more or less
> constantly right up to 90° (directly above)."_
> View attachment 3377239
> 
> 
> The research helped them decide where to set the height layer for their format: _"Based on these findings, we decided to set the angle of elevation of the upper layer loudspeakers in the 22.2 multichannel sound system at approximately 45°, relative to the center of the audience seats, with loudspeaker*s* set directly above the audience."_
> 
> When Audyssey came out with their DSX upmixing for Wides and Front Heights, they recommended the Front Heights be placed at 45° elevation, because that's where they found that listeners started to get the sense of sound overhead instead of just a taller front soundstage. DTS likewise recommended their Height speakers be at 45° elevation for their Neo:X upmixer.
> 
> Just pointing out possible sources for the popularity of that number (45°) when it comes to height speaker placement.


This is very interesting. What is the “subjective rating” they were measuring? Which speaker is highest? Is this coming from above?

I ask since the 90 degrees should sound Identical in all three cases. But previous tests on a listener would prime them with an expectation.


----------



## sdurani

snash22 said:


> Would there really be a perceptual gap between them if they are at about 45 degrees and 135 degrees?


Not in my experience. I've heard speakers at those locations create a phantom image directly above me (no gap).


> Also, would there be a perceptual issue if the rears were wider apart than the front?


Doubt you'd notice the difference. Looking at your diagram, I think both pairs can be spread wider apart with no problem.


----------



## snash22

Screw it. Where can I rent a bulldozer?


----------



## sdurani

snash22 said:


> What is the “subjective rating” they were measuring?


Amount of difference heard.











> I ask since the 90 degrees should sound Identical in all three cases.


It wasn't so much a test of localization as it was test of vertical movement. Sound was sent to one speaker and then randomly to another speaker. Listeners were asked to describe the difference they heard using the table above. I found it interesting that differences behind us flatlined above 45°.

Full paper here: Development of a 22.2 Multichannel Sound System - PDF Free Download


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

You can also check out Elevation Perception: Phantom Images In The Vertical Hemisphere by James Barbour here. Similar methodology of testing but they polled listeners to point toward phantom images placed between speakers up to 60 degrees to see how accurately they could perceive elevation (and at what point in the amplitude pan it was perceived as "elevated"). As sdurani was saying earlier, there's a scientific basis for that 45 degree angle across multiple studies. It wasn't just snatched out of thin air. There's a lot being balanced here to be able to pull off spatial audio with the least amount of speakers possible... versus cramming 22 speakers in your house.


----------



## snash22

snash22 said:


> Screw it. Where can I rent a bulldozer?


Joking aside, these were very informative replies. Thank you so much!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Just pointing out possible sources for the popularity of that number (45°) when it comes to height speaker placement.


it makes sense because both Atmos and DTS:X are more about putting sounds overhead and both suggest 45° (though they seem to prefer different labelling) where Auro3D is more about creating a taller soundstage and it suggests 30°, so it all lines up.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> I have mine at 45deg and have no issue with stereo imaging and get clear sounds directly overhead.


Room acoustics plays a big factor here as well (something we dont discuss that often in regards to immersive audio, but frankly its one of the most important factors) so if your room is well treated, it wouldnt be surprising you get good imaging at 45°


----------



## Soulburner

sdurani said:


> Every so often it is worth repeating the research done by NHK Japan for their 22.2 format. The main point of their research was to test our ability to perceive differences in height. They constructed a rig of 7 speakers, spread evenly (every 15°) along a 90° arc, hidden behind acoustically transparent cloth.
> View attachment 3377236
> 
> 
> Listeners were tested with the rig in front of them, behind them and at their sides. Stimulus was 2 seconds of pink noise.
> View attachment 3377238
> 
> 
> Their conclusion: _"When the head is facing to the front or rear, the changes in subjective rating become small after the range of approximately 45° to 60°. Particularly, when the head is facing backward, there is no significant difference in subjective rating within 45° to 90°. On the other hand, when the head is facing sideways, the subjective rating increases more or less
> constantly right up to 90° (directly above)."_
> View attachment 3377239
> 
> 
> The research helped them decide where to set the height layer for their format: _"Based on these findings, we decided to set the angle of elevation of the upper layer loudspeakers in the 22.2 multichannel sound system at approximately 45°, relative to the center of the audience seats, with loudspeaker*s* set directly above the audience."_
> 
> When Audyssey came out with their DSX upmixing for Wides and Front Heights, they recommended the Front Heights be placed at 45° elevation, because that's where they found that listeners started to get the sense of sound overhead instead of just a taller front soundstage. DTS likewise recommended their Height speakers be at 45° elevation for their Neo:X upmixer.
> 
> Just pointing out possible sources for the popularity of that number (45°) when it comes to height speaker placement.


Thanks, and for clarity, the research has implications on top rear speaker placement, but not top front or side elevation angles, which remain sensitive to changes in height.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Room acoustics plays a big factor here as well (something we dont discuss that often in regards to immersive audio, but frankly its one of the most important factors) so if your room is well treated, it wouldnt be surprising you get good imaging at 45°


1st reflection points on L&R walls for LCR and currently 1st reflection point for C only on ceiling is all I have.
It is a rectangular dedicated room at 20x14x9 with no (major) compromises, so I guess that helps


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> 1st reflection points on L&R walls for LCR and currently 1st reflection point for C only on ceiling is all I have.
> It is a rectangular dedicated room at 20x14x9 with no (major) compromises, so I guess that helps


Those are practically ideal dimensions.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Those are practically ideal dimensions.


Yeah they are Sepmeyer ratios and the room does sound good


----------



## Magiclakez

I watched Violent Night (iTunes purchase - with 4k DoVi/ Atmos) and thoroughly enjoyed the film. Imho one of the best releases this year. Both the PQ and atmos are amazing. Hope they release the 4k disc at some point, as I only see a preorder for a standard Bluray release on Blu-ray.com.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> The format has the ability to encode sounds with coordinates for any location in 3D space. The decoder cannot place those sounds anywhere because it is limited by speaker placement. Height speakers that are forward a listener cannot sound like they are behind the listener. Indeed, which is why the 2nd diagram has one pair of heights rearward of all the listeners and another pair of heights forward of all the listeners. If a height effect is intended to be behind the listener, then that is what is heard by ALL the listeners. The 1st diagram cannot do that.


In the 2nd diagram, the Rear heights have ZERO coverage to the front row and the Front heights have ZERO coverage to the back row. How do you think that imaging is going to sound? This does not even take into account the degrees of separation between the two pairs. As Jeremy stated, the only way to fix this is to add TM. The first design needs nothing. Those lines drawn on the additional diagram are just that. Graffiti. They do not mathematically check out. I would be embarrassed to install that system in a clients home as designed. The speakers in the first diagram are Tops. As in circular, in-ceiling speakers with a uniform dispersion pattern vs. heights. As in, speaker boxes with a horizontal and vertical dispersion in the 2nd design. Perhaps, this is where the confusion is coming from?


----------



## Soulburner

Making sure my 55° speakers are angled properly at my seats. In reality it will be slightly less because the speaker hangs down a bit; maybe 50°.

The correct way to ensure your seats are within the horizontal dispersion pattern of your speakers is to mount them square to the room and swivel them to the side. The wrong way would be to turn the mount itself, which would cause the speaker to spray diagonally across your seats, marking the middle seat with an X and putting your side seats in cold spots.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> View attachment 3377450
> 
> 
> Making sure my 55° speakers are angled properly at my seats. In reality it will be slightly less because the speaker hangs down a bit; maybe 50°.
> 
> The correct way to ensure your seats are within the horizontal dispersion pattern of your speakers is to mount them square to the room and swivel them to the side. The wrong way would be to turn the mount itself, which would cause the speaker to spray diagonally across your seats, marking the middle seat with an X and putting your side seats in cold spots.


This is precisely why I love the SVS elevations since they have the angled baffle along with an ingenious bracket design implementation, thus ensuring that you get a flush fit on the ceiling (mitigating any hanging) with various orientations. Plus they can be effortlessly crossed at 80hz (which is my ideal/ desired target for height speakers).


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> This is precisely why I love the SVS elevations since they have the angled baffle along with an ingenious bracket design implementation, thus ensuring that you get a flush fit on the ceiling (mitigating any hanging) with various orientations. Plus they can be effortlessly crossed at 80hz (which is my ideal/ desired target for height speakers).


The SVS elevations can not be swiveled, though, compromising on the dispersion pattern.


----------



## galonzo

Soulburner said:


> I think ones which meet my criteria would cost significantly more than the $200/ea of my current speakers and probably not perform as well.


Precisely the same predicament I was/still am in, as all of my 7.1 "floor" speakers are Klipsch Reference Premier, *the 45° RP ceiling option* will need to a future upgrade, unfortunately.

In the meantime, I decided to "temporarily" go with a less-expensive option from the list:



niterida said:


> Have you seen the list : List of angled in-ceiling speakers (and why you need...


And so I ended up with *the Monoprice 15° Alphas.*



Soulburner said:


> However, am I wrong in thinking that those types of speakers generally are not capable of an 80 Hz crossover? ...The other issue is the kitchen is above this room and making holes would increase the already higher level of kitchen noise, when someone is up there.


I used *the DynaBox 6 inch Ceiling kit*, and after running Audy (numerous times), they are assigned 80Hz XOs:








Happy camper...for now...:


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> The SVS elevations can not be swiveled, though, compromising on the dispersion pattern.


Mine swivel a bit, though not much. I have a tighter/narrower configuration (Grimani centric) than most folks anyways, so i really don’t need them to swivel. They were (optimally) aimed at the listener during installation phase.

But, I can appreciate why you would need the swiveling feature for your specific use-case. Use-case invariably trumps everything else.


----------



## Soulburner

Magiclakez said:


> Mine swivel a bit, though not much. I have a tighter/narrower configuration (Grimani centric) than most folks anyways, so i really don’t need them to swivel. They were (optimally) aimed at the listener during installation phase.
> 
> But, I can appreciate why you would need the swiveling feature for your specific use-case. Use-case invariably trumps everything else.


How many seats do you have? I have a row of 3 so I need the horizontal "beamwidth" to sweep across all 3 of them, just like how our floor speakers are vertical and kept at ear level.


----------



## sdurani

GMil said:


> In the 2nd diagram, the Rear heights have ZERO coverage to the front row and the Front heights have ZERO coverage to the back row.


Rear Heights are 15' behind the listeners in the front row, so they'll have no problem hearing them. Front Heights are a similar distance away from the listeners in the back row. No problem with coverage and imaging when ALL listeners can hear both pairs of height speakers from their intended direction.


> The speakers in the first diagram are Tops. As in circular, in-ceiling speakers with a uniform dispersion pattern vs. heights. As in, speaker boxes with a horizontal and vertical dispersion in the 2nd design.


Tops are speaker locations (rendering assumptions), not a type of speaker. Nothing prevents speakers at the Heights locations from likewise having uniform horizontal & vertical dispersion.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Rear Heights are 15' behind the listeners in the front row, so they'll have no problem hearing them. Front Heights are a similar distance away from the listeners in the back row. No problem with coverage and imaging when ALL listeners can hear both pairs of height speakers from their intended direction. Tops are speaker locations (rendering assumptions), not a type of speaker. Nothing prevents speakers at the Heights locations from likewise having uniform horizontal & vertical dispersion.


One thing people dont take into consideration is that a longer distance from the speaker to the seating area allows for a wider area of direct sound from the speakers. So a height speaker thats 10 feet away from the seating area will cover a wider area than a ceiling speaker that is 5 feet away (assuming the same dispersion angle)

Additionally its easier to mount a bookshelf speaker on a swivel mount and precisely aim it so the dispersion covers all seats, then it is to find in-ceiling speakers with enough driver angle to hit all the seats.


----------



## Magiclakez

Soulburner said:


> How many seats do you have? I have a row of 3 so I need the horizontal "beamwidth" to sweep across all 3 of them, just like how our floor speakers are vertical and kept at ear level.


I have 2 rows of 3. My floor speakers are vertical/ ear level as well; I’m glad you brought this up, some folks on this (and other forums) get too wrapped up with articles/ fantasy theories essentially centered around height speakers, whereas the most important aspect in a HT is an identical/ vertical LCR kept at ear level….IMHO of course, YMMV.


----------



## GMil

sdurani said:


> Rear Heights are 15' behind the listeners in the front row, so they'll have no problem hearing them. Front Heights are a similar distance away from the listeners in the back row. No problem with coverage and imaging when ALL listeners can hear both pairs of height speakers from their intended direction. Tops are speaker locations (rendering assumptions), not a type of speaker. Nothing prevents speakers at the Heights locations from likewise having uniform horizontal & vertical dispersion.


Ah. I see. My bad. I was using the wrong calculator. Apologies for *MY* confusion. Using Soulburner's Focal specs which, as I recall the OP was in regards to, we have 13.3' of coverage across the room in a horizontal mount , 51.96' of coverage across the room in a vertical mount with approx. 94 dB @ the seats. Sorry, it's been awhile. Maybe a little low on SPL but definitely doable. Now what about angle of separation from front to back? How would I calculate that?


----------



## GMil

NuSoardGraphite said:


> One thing people dont take into consideration is that a longer distance from the speaker to the seating area allows for a wider area of direct sound from the speakers. So a height speaker thats 10 feet away from the seating area will cover a wider area than a ceiling speaker that is 5 feet away (assuming the same dispersion angle)


Agreed. Something just wasn't making sense. That's why I went back and double and triple checked my work.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Magiclakez said:


> This is precisely why I love the SVS elevations since they have the angled baffle along with an ingenious bracket design implementation, thus ensuring that you get a flush fit on the ceiling (mitigating any hanging) with various orientations. Plus they can be effortlessly crossed at 80hz (which is my ideal/ desired target for height speakers).


The problem is that the baffle angle on the Elevations is only 20 degrees. So it's a great speaker for front/rear height from an aiming perspective, and even for heights placed high on the sidewalls if you have no other option. For ceiling use, that 20 degree baffle angle is problematic if you're orienting them straight forward and back, since the tweeter used on the Prime line (in conjunction with its distance from the midrange driver) causes a directionality issue at about 15 degrees off-axis vertically above the tweeter. So if you mount Elevations at 45/135, you're about 10 degrees beyond its vertical dispersion pattern and any auto-cal will be trying to flatten that directionality issue out by boosting it in the speaker's crossover region (around 2.5kHz) where it won't take EQ well. It means that all level matching aside, you're likely going to have to boost the Elevations 0.5-1.0dB to actually line them up with your other speakers. Unless, in something like Audyssey MultEQ-X, you put a MRC-like filter in around 2.5kHz to prevent it from trying to correct the issue and allow its filters to compensate for the reduced energy in that region, which will then make it line up with the other channels. Otherwise, for top front/rear use, you would need to get an articulating bracket instead of their bracket so you can tilt the cabinet a bit more toward the MLP. Or...


Soulburner said:


> The SVS elevations can not be swiveled, though, compromising on the dispersion pattern.


You can, however, rotate the mounting bracket 45 degrees so they aim toward the center of the room. This may be preferable because the Prime line's horizontal dispersion is better (around 40-50 degrees off-axis before mids fall off at all). In some ways, you would almost be better off pointing them toward each other so that your seats are mostly in the horizontal dispersion pattern. SVS really should have gone with a 30 degree baffle angle and moved the tweeter closer to the mid to mitigate the directionality issues (though that last part could be said about the entire Prime line, from the measurements I've seen). This would have given them better dispersion for ceiling use and dead on-axis aiming for front/rear heights at 30 degrees. 

And as far as that "effortlessly crossed at 80Hz" thing, not quite. Their spec'd F3 of 55Hz is wildly optimistic and in practice is closer to about 90-100Hz. You can certainly cross them that low if you want, but their natural measured rolloff is too steep to work smoothly with the filtering in your AVR's crossover at 80Hz. In-room response isn't much better because of the port on the back being so close to the ceiling. With an 80Hz crossover, they drop off well before the energy has transitioned significantly to the sub, which can leave a gap in response. From the measurements, you're far more likely to end up with an ideal crossover around 100Hz, which should complement the filter slopes used in your AVR's crossovers. Even if Audyssey detects them at 80Hz, one look at the slope of their measured rolloff will illustrate the problem. The only speaker in the Prime series that rolls off faster is the Prime Satellite.

And lest you think any of this is speculation, I have 4 of them on my ceiling and my in-room measurements tell the same tale as the spinorama data from other speakers in the Prime series that use that tweeter. I'm overriding the slope for mine in MultEQ-X and crossing them at 110Hz. I'll be rotating my brackets 45 degrees in the near future. They're a solid and versatile speaker, but not without their issues... and if you're mounting on the ceiling, it's likely better to get something that aims directly where you need it. But boy do they look slick on the ceiling! (And I'm pretty OCD about all of this, so none of this stuff may matter to you.)


----------



## Soulburner

Jeremy Anderson said:


> You can, however, rotate the mounting bracket 45 degrees so they aim toward the center of the room.


Right, but my point is that is not good if you want all seats within the horizontal dispersion of the speakers. You'll make an X across the room. That is perfectly fine for myself, but I also want them hitting seats 1 and 3.


----------



## Magiclakez

Jeremy Anderson said:


> The problem is that the baffle angle on the Elevations is only 20 degrees. So it's a great speaker for front/rear height from an aiming perspective, and even for heights placed high on the sidewalls if you have no other option. For ceiling use, that 20 degree baffle angle is problematic if you're orienting them straight forward and back, since the tweeter used on the Prime line (in conjunction with its distance from the midrange driver) causes a directionality issue at about 15 degrees off-axis vertically above the tweeter. So if you mount Elevations at 45/135, you're about 10 degrees beyond its vertical dispersion pattern and any auto-cal will be trying to flatten that directionality issue out by boosting it in the speaker's crossover region (around 2.5kHz) where it won't take EQ well. It means that all level matching aside, you're likely going to have to boost the Elevations 0.5-1.0dB to actually line them up with your other speakers. Unless, in something like Audyssey MultEQ-X, you put a MRC-like filter in around 2.5kHz to prevent it from trying to correct the issue and allow its filters to compensate for the reduced energy in that region, which will then make it line up with the other channels. Otherwise, for top front/rear use, you would need to get an articulating bracket instead of their bracket so you can tilt the cabinet a bit more toward the MLP. Or...
> 
> You can, however, rotate the mounting bracket 45 degrees so they aim toward the center of the room. This may be preferable because the Prime line's horizontal dispersion is better (around 40-50 degrees off-axis before mids fall off at all). In some ways, you would almost be better off pointing them toward each other so that your seats are mostly in the horizontal dispersion pattern. SVS really should have gone with a 30 degree baffle angle and moved the tweeter closer to the mid to mitigate the directionality issues (though that last part could be said about the entire Prime line, from the measurements I've seen). This would have given them better dispersion for ceiling use and dead on-axis aiming for front/rear heights at 30 degrees.
> 
> And as far as that "effortlessly crossed at 80Hz" thing, not quite. Their spec'd F3 of 55Hz is wildly optimistic and in practice is closer to about 90-100Hz. You can certainly cross them that low if you want, but their natural measured rolloff is too steep to work smoothly with the filtering in your AVR's crossover at 80Hz. In-room response isn't much better because of the port on the back being so close to the ceiling. With an 80Hz crossover, they drop off well before the energy has transitioned significantly to the sub, which can leave a gap in response. From the measurements, you're far more likely to end up with an ideal crossover around 100Hz, which should complement the filter slopes used in your AVR's crossovers. Even if Audyssey detects them at 80Hz, one look at the slope of their measured rolloff will illustrate the problem. The only speaker in the Prime series that rolls off faster is the Prime Satellite.
> 
> And lest you think any of this is speculation, I have 4 of them on my ceiling and my in-room measurements tell the same tale as the spinorama data from other speakers in the Prime series that use that tweeter. I'm overriding the slope for mine in MultEQ-X and crossing them at 110Hz. I'll be rotating my brackets 45 degrees in the near future. They're a solid and versatile speaker, but not without their issues... and if you're mounting on the ceiling, it's likely better to get something that aims directly where you need it. But boy do they look slick on the ceiling! (And I'm pretty OCD about all of this, so none of this stuff may matter to you.)


I don’t use 45/135 for my elevations like you are alluding to; more closer to 55-60. I don’t have any issues mounting them on the ceiling with their oem bracket. Yes you would definitely get more versatility with articulating brackets, but in my situation I’m quite content the way they turned out. I would also be slightly wary about them hanging low with the brackets, especially if your ceiling is just a touch over 8 feet. There are trade offs everywhere. I cross my heights at 80hz. I have had no issues whatsoever. I tried them at 90 and even at 100, but I found them too “tinny” for my liking. I don’t want the reckless brontosaurus to sound like a friggin mosquito floating over my head. I find 80 to be the sweet spot for me. Ymmv. No drop off/ roll off issues and the transition is smooth and seamless to the subs. In fact most folks I have come across (with these elevations) have them crossed at 80-90. You are the probably the only exception that I can think of, who crosses these so high at 110.

Iirc Channa (technodad) use to own these speakers and he used to cross them at 80, Joe still owns these and if I’m not mistaken he crosses them at 80 as well. Anyways I’m really glad I have these and they operate just as intended for my specific situation.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Soulburner said:


> Right, but my point is that is not good if you want all seats within the horizontal dispersion of the speakers. You'll make an X across the room. That is perfectly fine for myself, but I also want them hitting seats 1 and 3.


Actually, it's better for seats 1 and 3 because that's where you're putting more of that dispersion pattern by rotating them. You're also trading intensity so the side seats get more of the opposite speaker. Walk around them with an analyzer, even on your phone, with one playing a noise tone and you can actually see where the problem starts above the tweeter. Now, if you're putting them closer than 45/135, it's less of an issue because you'll end up closer to the off-axis angle where they start to fall off. Likewise, for front/rear wall or side wall use, you're below the tweeter and they have a bit better response there.


Magiclakez said:


> I don’t use 45/135 for my elevations like you are alluding to; more closer to 55-60. I don’t have any issues mounting them on the ceiling with their oem bracket. Yes you would definitely get more versatility with articulating brackets, but in my situation I’m quite content the way they turned out. I would also be slightly wary about them hanging low with the brackets, especially if your ceiling is just a touch over 8 feet. There are trade offs everywhere. I cross my heights at 80hz. I have had no issues whatsoever. I tried them at 90 and even at 100, but I found them too “tinny” for my liking. I don’t want the reckless brontosaurus to sound like a friggin mosquito floating over my head. I find 80 to be the sweet spot for me. Ymmv. No drop off/ roll off issues and the transition is smooth and seamless to the subs. In fact most folks I have come across (with these elevations) have them crossed at 80-90. You are the probably the only exception that I can think of, who crosses these so high at 110.
> 
> Iirc Channa (technodad) use to own these speakers and he used to cross them at 80, Joe still owns these and if I’m not mistaken he crosses them at 80 as well. Anyways I’m really glad I have these and they operate just as intended for my specific situation.


Closer to 55-60 definitely works better with the Elevations because of how they perform off-axis vertically, so you're good. And like I said, you can definitely cross them at 80Hz if you want to... but what does your auto-cal detect them as? Because AVS' review here has the F3 at 116Hz. Sound And Vision measured them about the same. Unless you somehow get some reinforcement from the rear port, 80Hz is a bit of a stretch. I'll ask Joe where he has his, but he keeps trying to talk me into swapping mine out for those Monolith concentric sats.

And please don't think I'm poo-pooing the Elevations. I mean... they're on my ceiling and they're a fantastic speaker for the use case. I'm just pointing out that they're not quite as good as they could have been for ceiling use, but ceiling use was a bit of an afterthought when SVS originally released them. You just have to be aware of their inherent limitations to get the most out of them.


----------



## snash22

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Actually, it's better for seats 1 and 3 because that's where you're putting more of that dispersion pattern by rotating them. You're also trading intensity so the side seats get more of the opposite speaker. Walk around them with an analyzer, even on your phone, with one playing a noise tone and you can actually see where the problem starts above the tweeter. Now, if you're putting them closer than 45/135, it's less of an issue because you'll end up closer to the off-axis angle where they start to fall off. Likewise, for front/rear wall or side wall use, you're below the tweeter and they have a bit better response there.
> 
> Closer to 55-60 definitely works better with the Elevations because of how they perform off-axis vertically, so you're good. And like I said, you can definitely cross them at 80Hz if you want to... but what does your auto-cal detect them as? Because AVS' review here has the F3 at 116Hz. Sound And Vision measured them about the same. Unless you somehow get some reinforcement from the rear port, 80Hz is a bit of a stretch. I'll ask Joe where he has his, but he keeps trying to talk me into swapping mine out for those Monolith concentric sats.
> 
> And please don't think I'm poo-pooing the Elevations. I mean... they're on my ceiling and they're a fantastic speaker for the use case. I'm just pointing out that they're not quite as good as they could have been for ceiling use, but ceiling use was a bit of an afterthought when SVS originally released them. You just have to be aware of their inherent limitations to get the most out of them.


Who is Joe?


----------



## jsgrise

snash22 said:


> Who is Joe?


Joe N’Tell I believe. To be honest I love him and Chana but my experiences over the time on this topic came to similar conclusions as Gene’s and Grimani’s… YMMV


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> Joe N’Tell I believe. To be honest I love him and Chana but my experiences over the time on this topic came to similar conclusions as Gene’s and Grimani’s… YMMV


I'm with Joe and Channa on this subject, but I am also looking to integrate Auro3D into my system the same as they have, so adopting a different approach is born of necessity. In the process it simply makes you wonder which method sounds better.

The answer, as usual, is: "It depends"


----------



## Magiclakez

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Actually, it's better for seats 1 and 3 because that's where you're putting more of that dispersion pattern by rotating them. You're also trading intensity so the side seats get more of the opposite speaker. Walk around them with an analyzer, even on your phone, with one playing a noise tone and you can actually see where the problem starts above the tweeter. Now, if you're putting them closer than 45/135, it's less of an issue because you'll end up closer to the off-axis angle where they start to fall off. Likewise, for front/rear wall or side wall use, you're below the tweeter and they have a bit better response there.
> 
> Closer to 55-60 definitely works better with the Elevations because of how they perform off-axis vertically, so you're good. And like I said, you can definitely cross them at 80Hz if you want to... but what does your auto-cal detect them as? Because AVS' review here has the F3 at 116Hz. Sound And Vision measured them about the same. Unless you somehow get some reinforcement from the rear port, 80Hz is a bit of a stretch. I'll ask Joe where he has his, but he keeps trying to talk me into swapping mine out for those Monolith concentric sats.
> 
> And please don't think I'm poo-pooing the Elevations. I mean... they're on my ceiling and they're a fantastic speaker for the use case. I'm just pointing out that they're not quite as good as they could have been for ceiling use, but ceiling use was a bit of an afterthought when SVS originally released them. You just have to be aware of their inherent limitations to get the most out of them.


It’s all good. Yes, you do have to navigate through those distinct idiosyncrasies (associated with these elevations) to get the most out of them. They were detected at 80hz anyways. 80hz was also recommended to me by Ed Mullen of SVS. I would really hope you don’t consider those concentric sats. To be fair, I don’t know much about them, however they have very unpleasant aesthetics to them. 🤣


----------



## jsgrise

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I'm with Joe and Channa on this subject, but I am also looking to integrate Auro3D into my system the same as they have, so adopting a different approach is born of necessity. In the process it simply makes you wonder which method sounds better.
> 
> The answer, as usual, is: "It depends"


For instance, in the "Amaze" Dolby Atmos, I now hear the rain almost lifelike. Before, I could hear the rain but it was not as immersive. Same thing with the "Shattered" demo. Lastly, the Dolby "Audiosphere" demo, one of my favorite, now have me reaching with my hands in the air trying to get a hold of the key notes.

I guess the increased more even separation between speakers makes it better to render the objects in a 3D space (listening room). Then again, just sharing my experience with my setup... YMMV.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> For instance, in the "Amaze" Dolby Atmos, I now hear the rain almost lifelike. Before, I could hear the rain but it was not as immersive. Same thing with the "Shattered" demo. Lastly, the Dolby "Audiosphere" demo, one of my favorite, now have me reaching with my hands in the air trying to get a hold of the key notes.
> 
> I guess the increased more even separation between speakers makes it better to render the objects in a 3D space (listening room). Then again, just sharing my experience with my setup... YMMV.


Its not just the separation (though that helps greatly), its also the speakers positions.

Speakers directly overhead help a lot with the placement of 3D objects at times. Like the coins in Ready Player One. And rain absolutely sounds immersive....absolutely *real *with overhead speakers in the mix. 

My living room system is a 5.2.2 setup, and I get some incredible immersive effects with just two overheads. Once I was watching Godzilla, King of the Monsters. In that movie, a giant thunderstorm always surrounds King Gidorah. So most of the movie, its raining and the sounds of the thunderstorm are continuously in the background.

Well when I was watching it, at some point, mid-way through the movie, it started raining for real outside, and I couldnt tell, because the rain in the movie and the rain outside, *sounded exactly the same.* The only reason I realized it was raining was because the credits started rolling, but the sound of the rain didnt stop.

Which is why I am planning to mount 6 height channels. Front Height and Rear Height for Auro3D compatibility and coherence with the front and rear soundstages, and then also a pair of Top-Middle so I dont lose that discrete overhead effect which gives me that feeling of immersive sound right next to me.

Call me selfish, but I want *both*.


----------



## niterida

jsgrise said:


> For instance, in the "Amaze" Dolby Atmos, I now hear the rain almost lifelike.





NuSoardGraphite said:


> And rain absolutely sounds immersive....absolutely *real *with overhead speakers in the mix.


You guys do know that rain only makes a sound once it hits something like the ground and should mostly come out of ear level speakers if you want realism, unless you are under a roof of course.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> You guys do know that rain only makes a sound once it hits something like the ground and should mostly come out of ear level speakers if you want realism, unless you are under a roof of course.


Yes, of course, when one is outside in the open. But if there are buildings all around you, or you are standing under trees or you are inside, the rain is impacting surfaces above you and all around you as well as the ground. So the sounds of the rain impacting a surface should come from everywhere.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

Magiclakez said:


> It’s all good. Yes, you do have to navigate through those distinct idiosyncrasies (associated with these elevations) to get the most out of them. They were detected at 80hz anyways. 80hz was also recommended to me by Ed Mullen of SVS. I would really hope you don’t consider those concentric sats. To be fair, I don’t know much about them, however they have very unpleasant aesthetics to them. 🤣


Nah. My ear-level speakers are Prime Towers, Prime Center and 4 Prime Bookshelf. I'm all about keeping it matched. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna' fiddle with things until they're as good as I can get them. If I could figure out a way to hang Prime Bookshelf speakers up there, I would.


----------



## Magiclakez

Jeremy Anderson said:


> Nah. My ear-level speakers are Prime Towers, Prime Center and 4 Prime Bookshelf. I'm all about keeping it matched. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna' fiddle with things until they're as good as I can get them. If I could figure out a way to hang Prime Bookshelf speakers up there, I would.


I would actually love to mount those prime/ultra bookshelves or just go full Monty and put towers up there. If only I had 12+ feet ceilings, I could have probably pulled it off. 😫


----------



## Soulburner

Speakers are up, now working on the aiming.

For those with lots of Atmos movie experience, are there a lot of movies with sounds that use the ceiling speakers in stereo pairs? I want to know how much time I should put into optimizing SS&I with my fronts and rears.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Speakers are up, now working on the aiming.
> 
> For those with lots of Atmos movie experience, are there a lot of movies with sounds that use the ceiling speakers in stereo pairs? I want to know how much time I should put into optimizing SS&I with my fronts and rears.


That looks like perfect mounting.

As far as soundstage and imaging, they are paramount for immersive Atmos effects. Spend as much time as you need dialing it in. When you nail it, it will completely transform your experience.


----------



## dj7675

Anyone going to be in Las Vegas for the demo of Dirac SRC?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

dj7675 said:


> Anyone going to be in Las Vegas for the demo of Dirac SRC?


No such luck.

I'm sure there will be two dozen youtube videos covering it.


----------



## appelz

niterida said:


> You guys do know that rain only makes a sound once it hits something like the ground and should mostly come out of ear level speakers if you want realism, unless you are under a roof of course.


I'm very rarely standing in an open field during a rain storm. Almost always, there is something around me significantly taller in height than I am. Trees, buildings, awnings, roof over my head, even an umbrella or hood. Personally, I've vastly more experience knowing what that sounds like.


----------



## Soulburner

Parking lots...

It just depends on the scene.


----------



## robert600

Soulburner said:


> Speakers are up, now working on the aiming.
> 
> For those with lots of Atmos movie experience, are there a lot of movies with sounds that use the ceiling speakers in stereo pairs? I want to know how much time I should put into optimizing SS&I with my fronts and rears.


I keep forgetting to ask ... what pair is your Ncore driving?


----------



## Soulburner

robert600 said:


> I keep forgetting to ask ... what pair is your Ncore driving?


The front L and R.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Has anyone here ever set up acoustical treatments designed to enhance the spaciousness of their room?

What would be the best combination of absorption and diffusion panels to implement this? 

Basically making the walls disappear and tge soundscape on the disc is what your brain recognizes.

Anthony Grimani talks about this and has put up some diagrams as to the arrangements of the panels to make it happen, but has anyone around these parts actually implemented this in their room?


----------



## jsgrise

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Has anyone here ever set up acoustical treatments designed to enhance the spaciousness of their room?
> 
> What would be the best combination of absorption and diffusion panels to implement this?
> 
> Basically making the walls disappear and tge soundscape on the disc is what your brain recognizes.
> 
> Anthony Grimani talks about this and has put up some diagrams as to the arrangements of the panels to make it happen, but has anyone around these parts actually implemented this in their room?
> 
> View attachment 3378526
> View attachment 3378530


I only did absorption following his advice of spreading it across the room and it works pretty well at clearing sound while keeping the spaciousness. As opposed to treating heavily one section (usually the front) with absorption.

I guess implementing diffusion on top of that would be even better.


----------



## niterida

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Has anyone here ever set up acoustical treatments designed to enhance the spaciousness of their room?
> 
> What would be the best combination of absorption and diffusion panels to implement this?
> 
> Basically making the walls disappear and tge soundscape on the disc is what your brain recognizes.
> 
> Anthony Grimani talks about this and has put up some diagrams as to the arrangements of the panels to make it happen, but has anyone around these parts actually implemented this in their room?


There is some conjecture that the Grimani model is outdated for immersive sound. You want to hear discrete effects from each speaker so the stereo imaging is at its best and this would require little to no diffusion and lots of absorption. It is the multitude of speakers is that gives you the full soundfield now, rather than the reflections of a small number of speakers.

I believe it is the sidewall reflections that give you a large soundstage - but don't quote me on that


----------



## ted_b

I have my new theater/audio room full of treatment, but a lot of it can't be seen (see link in signature) cuz we built it into the walls and ceiling (pegboard acoustic sandwich with 2 inch board insuation in between a pegboard sandwich, all painted prior to install, so pores would not get clogged). All this floating in front of air space behind studs. Then I use HAR slats (diffusors) on the front wall, the ceiling (between mlp and front speakers), and the rear wall. First refection point hf absorbers and some general absorption on each side wall. I find the diffusion is a must with so many tweeters firing.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> There is some conjecture that the Grimani model is outdated for immersive sound. You want to hear discrete effects from each speaker so the stereo imaging is at its best and this would require little to no diffusion and lots of absorption. It is the multitude of speakers is that gives you the full soundfield now, rather than the reflections of a small number of speakers.
> 
> I believe it is the sidewall reflections that give you a large soundstage - but don't quote me on that


In some respects I could see that being the case. I think the main thing is to measure the RT60 in the room and try to get it down between 200ms and 300ms. I think the diffusion is to prevent it from being below 200ms.

As long as you get the ring time down low enough that clarity and channel separation is improved, object imaging should be enhanced as a result.

At least thats the goal.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

ted_b said:


> I have my new theater/audio room full of treatment, but a lot of it can't be seen (see link in signature) cuz we built it into the walls and ceiling (pegboard acoustic sandwich with 2 inch board insuation in between a pegboard sandwich, all painted prior to install, so pores would not get clogged). All this floating in front of air space behind studs. Then I use HAR slats (diffusors) on the front wall, the ceiling (between mlp and front speakers), and the rear wall. First refection point hf absorbers and some general absorption on each side wall. I find the diffusion is a must with so many tweeters firing.


Unfortunately your link wasnt working for me. Do you maybe have some RT60 measurements of your room you could share? So we can see how much of an improvement was made.


----------



## ted_b

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Unfortunately your link wasnt working for me. Do you maybe have some RT60 measurements of your room you could share? So we can see how much of an improvement was made.


Sorry I had privacy settings on. I'll get you RT60 results.

Edit: Here is a full spectrum and a waterfall.

















We're getting a bit OT here...sorry.

These last ones were just after we made the huge decision to entirely change/swivel the orientation of the room 90 degrees (Yikes!) and we re-measured, but before the ceiling and wall treatments were also repositioned (as they are in the gallery photos). Net/net, the room sounds great.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

ted_b said:


> Sorry I had privacy settings on. I'll get you RT60 results.
> 
> Edit: Here is a full spectrum and a waterfall.
> View attachment 3378725
> 
> View attachment 3378724
> 
> 
> We're getting a bit OT here...sorry.
> 
> These last ones were just after we made the huge decision to entirely change/swivel the orientation of the room 90 degrees (Yikes!) and we re-measured, but before the ceiling and wall treatments were also repositioned (as they are in the gallery photos). Net/net, the room sounds great.
> 
> View attachment 3378752
> View attachment 3378753


That looks like a pretty good result. Most below 300ms. A lot of it below 200ms.

Why did the high frequencies jump back up?

Damned near down to 100ms at the mid-frequencies. Do you find that cleaned up the vocals/dialogue a lot?


----------



## jsgrise

NuSoardGraphite said:


> That looks like a pretty good result. Most below 300ms. A lot of it below 200ms.
> 
> Why did the high frequencies jump back up?
> 
> Damned near down to 100ms at the mid-frequencies. Do you find that cleaned up the vocals/dialogue a lot?


Could <200ms sound too “dead”?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> Could <200ms sound too “dead”?


Thats what acousticians say. Too much below 200ms starts to make the room sound too dead. For movies its not as big of a deal but apparently detrimental for music. Especially 2-channel which relies a lot on reflections.


----------



## jsgrise

For those interested in room acoustic, Tony Grimani is live with Scott:


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> For those interested in room acoustic, Tony Grimani is live with Scott:


Nice. 

The first time I was introduced to Grimani was from an old Home Theater Geeks episode. The most informative episode of that entire series.


----------



## ted_b

NuSoardGraphite said:


> That looks like a pretty good result. Most below 300ms. A lot of it below 200ms.
> 
> Why did the high frequencies jump back up?
> 
> Damned near down to 100ms at the mid-frequencies. Do you find that cleaned up the vocals/dialogue a lot?


Under 200-something gets pretty dead sounding, but also realize that this measurement is before we moved the ceiling and front soundstage HAR slats to their current position. My use was initially thought to be 50% 2 channel, 25% multichannel, 25% movies. Since listening to good immersive stuff (atmos music, Auro-3D music, etc) I am currently at 10% 2 channel, 60% multichannel, 30% movies. 

Moreover, based on a couple of your posts, among other things, and the fact that I really enjoy Auro-3D, I have decided to invest heavily in the heights layers and have pulled the trigger on Aerial 5Ts (the bed's little brothers) and will put them at 30 degrees (see green box in pic) at front and rear...they will still be within 3% of the listener distance to preserve a "cohesive vertical image"...then move one set of my SVS Prime Elevations from 45 to 90 degree tops (the second set will be sold).


----------



## jsgrise

FYI, I readjusted my speaker distances to the best I could and what a difference it made for Atmos immersion. I can now feel the sound around me, not just hear it. I don't know how to describe it, it's a weird feeling.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> FYI, I readjusted my speaker distances to the best I could and what a difference it made for Atmos immersion. I can now feel the sound around me, not just hear it. I don't know how to describe it, it's a weird feeling.


Sounds like you dialed in the time-alignment. When you get that dialed in properly, its a whole new level of experience.

Its like you can "feel" the sound objects pass through three-dimensional space. The sound is so realistic that it fools your brain into thinking a physical object just passed by you and it reacts accordingly (gives you the "feeling" of displaced air, or the closeness of an object etc)


----------



## jsgrise

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its like you can "feel" the sound objects pass through three-dimensional space. The sound is so realistic that it fools your brain into thinking a physical object just passed by you and it reacts accordingly (gives you the "feeling" of displaced air, or the closeness of an object etc)


Exactly, it's so exciting and realistic. We talk so much about speaker placement, gear, acoustic treatment etc that I forgot that a basic setting could have so much impact, especially with you have 13 speakers in the same room. It's crucial.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> Exactly, it's so exciting and realistic. We talk so much about speaker placement, gear, acoustic treatment etc that I forgot that a basic setting could have so much impact, especially with you have 13 speakers in the same room. It's crucial.


People just have to keep in mind that all the other stuff is* in service *to reaching the point you just reached. When everything else lines up (speaker placement, speaker quality, room acoustics, Equalization DSP etc) it just makes it easier to reach that point. You still have to do the work to get there.

Sometimes the auto-EQ system will reach that point for you, but more often than not, you gotta do it yourself.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

jsgrise said:


> FYI, I readjusted my speaker distances to the best I could and what a difference it made for Atmos immersion. I can now feel the sound around me, not just hear it. I don't know how to describe it, it's a weird feeling.


Now what you need to do is revisit some of your favorite Atmos and DTS:X scenes and tell us how well implemented they are now. Like the race scene from Ready Player One or the action scenes in Mission Impossible Fallout.


----------



## jsgrise

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Now what you need to do is revisit some of your favorite Atmos and DTS:X scenes and tell us how well implemented they are now. Like the race scene from Ready Player One or the action scenes in Mission Impossible Fallout.


Last night I revisited the Tunel Raid from Sicario and it felt like the dirt from the bullets hitting the walls was coming through my body. I plan on revisiting a few of my favorite scenes


Saving Private Ryan - D-Day and the Caparzo scene with the sniper
John Wick 2 - tunnel shooting
La La Land - the JK Simmons scene

Your suggestions are welcome!


----------



## cricket9998

I hope in the next Dolby format they implement floor level speakers or some way to separate things even more. Bed layer speakers are usually at least 3 feet up. Would be pretty cool to have more height separation.


----------



## priitv8

jsgrise said:


> FYI, I readjusted my speaker distances to the best I could and what a difference it made for Atmos immersion. I can now feel the sound around me, not just hear it. I don't know how to describe it, it's a weird feeling.


What method/tools did you use to time-align your speakers?


----------



## cricket9998

priitv8 said:


> What method/tools did you use to time-align your speakers?


Your best bet is using room correction FULL RANGE like audyssey. You can’t get proper phase correction unless you do full range correction. You also need to have your speakers laid out according to the Dolby specs. Those two things make all the difference.


----------



## jsgrise

priitv8 said:


> What method/tools did you use to time-align your speakers?


For the speakers I used the physical distance from MLP to the front baffle as a starting point, and use the L/R distance as a reference point. My AVM70 allows me to disable desired speakers pretty easily so I then toggled off all speakers other than the L/C/R and used Anthem Logic Cinema and Dolby Surround on a dialogue 2.0 track. I used my ear the fine tune the distance (delay) of the Centre where the imaging was the best and stayed even when moving my head side to side. Sometimes all you need is a little 2" adjustment (the smallest increment my AVM70 will allow me). I than turned off the center and toggled on the Surrounds, then the Wides, then the Tops, etc.

I finally used the Atmos demos (Amaze, Shattered, Audiosphere, Horizon etc) and comfirmed the distances (delays) where right by adjusting them + and - 2".

It made an noticable improvement for me. Maybe your delays are already dialed in, but one thing for sure is I would not trust an automatic system without double checking the results.

As for subs, I used the Home Theater Gurus technique with REW from his YouTube channel.


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> I hope in the next Dolby format they implement floor level speakers or some way to separate things even more. Bed layer speakers are usually at least 3 feet up. Would be pretty cool to have more height separation.


DTS:X already has that. I can see tons of applications for sounds there, even more than overhead. However placement is tricky if you want any kind of fidelity.


----------



## cricket9998

Soulburner said:


> DTS:X already has that. I can see tons of applications for sounds there, even more than overhead. However placement is tricky if you want any kind of fidelity.


Ah nice. Well then I hope it’s used more so there’s competition. Atmos is dominating too much which will cause stagnation


----------



## jsgrise

cricket9998 said:


> I hope in the next Dolby format they implement floor level speakers or some way to separate things even more. Bed layer speakers are usually at least 3 feet up. Would be pretty cool to have more height separation.





Soulburner said:


> DTS:X already has that. I can see tons of applications for sounds there, even more than overhead. However placement is tricky if you want any kind of fidelity.


It would be hard to implement in real life IMHO. The furniture would be in the way of direct sound.


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> Your best bet is using room correction FULL RANGE like audyssey. You can’t get proper phase correction unless you do full range correction. You also need to have your speakers laid out according to the Dolby specs. Those two things make all the difference.


Placement makes a huge difference and so does room correction - but correcting phase in the kHz range is a fool's errand. It's just broad level EQ up there.


----------



## sdurani

jsgrise said:


> It would be hard to implement in real life IMHO. The furniture would be in the way of direct sound.


The 3 floor speakers in the DTS:X layout are at -30°. To see if there is furniture in the way in your room, measure from your ears to the floor and multiply by 1.7 to see how far in front of you the floor speakers would go.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

What about the types of speakers to use with immersive audio?

Horn loaded? Dome tweeters? Compression drivers? Ribbon tweeters? Planar Magnetic or Electrostat? What about Line Array or Line Source speakers?

Obviously you want to choose speakers with a wide dispersion of the high frequencies. Something with enough dispersion to cover all the seating in your theater. What would be considered the minimal amount of dispersion for a speaker to have? 40°? 50°? 60° or more?

Most of my experience is with dome tweeters. I've had both soft and hard domes. My current system has Infinity Primus towers as the fronts and surrounds and they throw a huge soundstage which is very beneficial for immersive audio.

It looks like some of the ribbon tweeters have pretty good dispersion characteristics. Both Emotiva airmotive speakers and Goldenear are known for their wide dispersion.

The ones that intrigue me the most though are Line Array and Line Source speakers. The ones I was looking at were the JBL CBT-70J. CBT stands for Constant Beam Transducer as it uses an array of tweeters arranged in front of a smaller array of bass drivers. The end result will fill a room with sound like nothing before.

They have extremely wide dispersion. Audio Science Review showed them as having a solid 70° of dispersion. But they have very little verticle dispersion, being as low as 10° or 20°. This is by design though as they are supposed to "beam" their sound across great distances. Apparently with a Line Array (or Line Source)setup, you can move nearly anywhere in the room and still get the same quality of sound. Sounds perfect for immersive audio.

Unfortunately, Line Array/Source speakers are quite expensive. The JBL CBT-70J are about $1200 each. Having to buy 11, 13 or 15 of these would be prohibitively expensive, costing $15k. Other brands are *considerably *more expensive like the Wisdom Audio Line 4 series which is about $25k!

What have the readers in this forum found to work the best for them for immersive audio, or conversely, what *didnt *work?


----------



## priitv8

jsgrise said:


> For the speakers I used the physical distance from MLP to the front baffle as a starting point, and use the L/R distance as a reference point. My AVM70 allows me to disable desired speakers pretty easily so I then toggled off all speakers other than the L/C/R and used Anthem Logic Cinema and Dolby Surround on a dialogue 2.0 track. I used my ear the fine tune the distance (delay) of the Centre where the imaging was the best and stayed even when moving my head side to side. Sometimes all you need is a little 2" adjustment (the smallest increment my AVM70 will allow me). I than turned off the center and toggled on the Surrounds, then the Wides, then the Tops, etc.
> 
> I finally used the Atmos demos (Amaze, Shattered, Audiosphere, Horizon etc) and comfirmed the distances (delays) where right by adjusting them + and - 2".
> 
> It made an noticable improvement for me. Maybe your delays are already dialed in, but one thing for sure is I would not trust an automatic system without double checking the results.
> 
> As for subs, I used the Home Theater Gurus technique with REW from his YouTube channel.


Thank you for sharing your technique.
I used the automatic calibration as a starting point, then confirmed with tape measure the actual distances. Finally fine-tuned with REW.
So I think I am not badly off-balance.


----------



## Duc Vu

I have a 5.1.4 dolby atmos system. The surround speakers are jbl stage a130. In the manual, they say for the jbl stage a120 (which I believe is not much different from the a130), if used as surround speakers in a 5.1 system, they should face each other. This goes against the recommendations from Dolby where all speakers should face toward the listener. So which one should I follow?


----------



## Soulburner

Just got everything set up with my 50° (55 minus the drop) ceiling-mounted bookshelf speakers. Ran Audyssey, did speaker level adjustment for surrounds with Dolby Atmos test tones with DEQ on, then played a bunch of test clips.

My first and immediate impression is that overhead sounds are much more distinct than my previous 40° setup. Imaging is clearer which gives a perceived increase in volume overhead. Sounds move around nicely. They did before too but this sounds more distinct in the middle, like the glass in Shattered is louder and clearer over my head. And the back to front spaceship in Horizon no longer has a spot overhead where it seemed to dwell before.

I also am fully configured now with 7.1.4. This is the first time I've had surround backs and they are already making a big difference in the test clips.


----------



## niterida

Duc Vu said:


> I have a 5.1.4 dolby atmos system. The surround speakers are jbl stage a130. In the manual, they say for the jbl stage a120 (which I believe is not much different from the a130), if used as surround speakers in a 5.1 system, they should face each other. This goes against the recommendations from Dolby where all speakers should face toward the listener. So which one should I follow?


Ideally pointed at Main Listening Position.
But there is also a method called Time Intensity Trading (TIT) where you point the L speaker at the R listener and vice versa. Ths is how I have mine and works really well. Basically it puts the closest listener off-axis and therefore slightly lower SPL and avoids "hotspotting".
Having them facing directly at each other is the older way of doing 5.1, but can still be effective as it is an extreme version of TIT basically.
Whichever way you deicde make sure they are at, or just above (to clear seatbacks or other listeners heads) ear level.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Duc Vu said:


> I have a 5.1.4 dolby atmos system. The surround speakers are jbl stage a130. In the manual, they say for the jbl stage a120 (which I believe is not much different from the a130), if used as surround speakers in a 5.1 system, they should face each other. This goes against the recommendations from Dolby where all speakers should face toward the listener. So which one should I follow?
> 
> View attachment 3380161


Those are very old guidelines, from the days before Atmos; therefore I would ignore the whole thing. The proof is that they tell you to put the Surround speakers so high up. With Atmos, you want the "bed" layer to be all at ear height, or only just high enough to clear the backs of chairs. Definitely not 5-6ft up in the air! It's very important to have a clear separation between the "bed" layer and the height/top speakers.

But it's *great *to see those diagrams, because it reminds us that Dolby used to recommend that Surround speakers should be high up in the air. They have re-written history and pretended that they didn't used to recommend this. It's been very difficult to find evidence of them doing this.

EDIT: Ah, perhaps I've misunderstood and those are not Dolby's diagrams? Surely they are not being put out in 2022?


----------



## Soulburner

It looks like that is from JBL.


----------



## Duc Vu

mrtickleuk said:


> Those are very old guidelines, from the days before Atmos; therefore I would ignore the whole thing. The proof is that they tell you to put the Surround speakers so high up. With Atmos, you want the "bed" layer to be all at ear height, or only just high enough to clear the backs of chairs. Definitely not 5-6ft up in the air! It's very important to have a clear separation between the "bed" layer and the height/top speakers.
> 
> But it's *great *to see those diagrams, because it reminds us that Dolby used to recommend that Surround speakers should be high up in the air. They have re-written history and pretended that they didn't used to recommend this. It's been very difficult to find evidence of them doing this.
> 
> EDIT: Ah, perhaps I've misunderstood and those are not Dolby's diagrams? Surely they are not being put out in 2022?


Those diagrams are in the jbl speakers' manual.


----------



## jsgrise

priitv8 said:


> Thank you for sharing your technique.
> I used the automatic calibration as a starting point, then confirmed with tape measure the actual distances. Finally fine-tuned with REW.
> So I think I am not badly off-balance.


Please shape your REW technique, I’ll give it a try.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Duc Vu said:


> Those diagrams are in the jbl speakers' manual.


Thanks. That's quite embarrassing for them, then.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Duc Vu said:


> I have a 5.1.4 dolby atmos system. The surround speakers are jbl stage a130. In the manual, they say for the jbl stage a120 (which I believe is not much different from the a130), if used as surround speakers in a 5.1 system, they should face each other. This goes against the recommendations from Dolby where all speakers should face toward the listener. So which one should I follow?
> 
> View attachment 3380161


The JBL Stage speakers are the ones I am considering for my theater upgrade, so I have done a lot of research on them.

The reason they tell you not to point them directly at the MLP when used as surrounds is because there is a cabinet resonance in the entire Stage series at around 8khz to 10khz which causes the high frequencies to spike dramatically. And the assumption is that surrounds will be a whole lot closer to the listeners than the front speakers so they could sound quite harsh because of that resonance.










The good news is that resonance can be EQ'd out if you use Audyssey or Dirac or YPAO or whatever. So its not a big deal. But without EQ, you might not want to aim them straight at you.

Also the entire Stage series has a very good dispersion pattern (which is why I'm considering them) and throw a wide soundstage, so you dont have to point them right at you to get good sound from them. So if you sit slightly off axis, you still get good sound but that resonance wont be quite so bad.

But again, if you use EQ, you can point them straight at you without any issue.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> What about the types of speakers to use with immersive audio?
> 
> Obviously you want to choose speakers with a wide dispersion of the high frequencies. Something with enough dispersion to cover all the seating in your theater.


Weren't all these considerations important prior to immersive audio? Even with 2 speakers or 5.1 speakers, shouldn't they still have consistent off-axis response and wide enough dispersion to cover the listeners?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Weren't all these considerations important prior to immersive audio? Even with 2 speakers or 5.1 speakers, shouldn't they still have consistent off-axis response and wide enough dispersion to cover the listeners?


Yes, they have always been important. Now I would say they are paramount, and even moreso for the height channels than the others. 
How many setups do we see where people get in-ceiling speakers installed with no consideration as to the dispersion or the on-axis sound of the speakers. But hey, they are at Dolby spec!

Then they complain their Atmos experience is lackluster so declare immersive audio to be a gimmick.

So its something that really needs to be paid attention to, especially for the height channels. And also so many people with in-wall speakers behind their screen pointing straight ahead. In-wall surrounds where the dispersion doesnt hit all the rows. Its all over the place.


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Yes, they have always been important. Now I would say they are paramount, and even moreso for the height channels than the others.


Even on immersive audio mixes, the least amount of info is in the height layer. When it comes to good dispersion and off-axis response, my first priority would be the front soundstage, followed by the surround field, and then finally the height layer (lowest priority). YMMV.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> Even on immersive audio mixes, the least amount of info is in the height layer. When it comes to good dispersion and off-axis response, my first priority would be the front soundstage, followed by the surround field, and then finally the height layer (lowest priority). YMMV.


I would consider them equal priority for my theater. The front stage obviously needs to be dialed in, especially if you listen to 2-channel music and you want that front soundstage to be as close to perfect as you can reasonably manage.

If you want to consider the front soundstage to be the #1 priority, thats very reasonable, but for immersive audio, the heights need to be considered at the same priority level as the surrounds as they all work together to create the immersion. While some movies barely use the height channels at all, some movies use them extensively and in combination with the ground channels to give effects a more 3D presentation. So they need to be just as dialed in as all the other channels. Couple that with the fact that our hearing above us isnt as sensitive, we have to make sure everything coming from the height channels is loud and clear. For that reason, I think they need a little more TLC than the other channels.


----------



## Duc Vu

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The JBL Stage speakers are the ones I am considering for my theater upgrade, so I have done a lot of research on them.
> 
> The reason they tell you not to point them directly at the MLP when used as surrounds is because there is a cabinet resonance in the entire Stage series at around 8khz to 10khz which causes the high frequencies to spike dramatically. And the assumption is that surrounds will be a whole lot closer to the listeners than the front speakers so they could sound quite harsh because of that resonance.
> 
> View attachment 3380345
> 
> 
> The good news is that resonance can be EQ'd out if you use Audyssey or Dirac or YPAO or whatever. So its not a big deal. But without EQ, you might not want to aim them straight at you.
> 
> Also the entire Stage series has a very good dispersion pattern (which is why I'm considering them) and throw a wide soundstage, so you dont have to point them right at you to get good sound from them. So if you sit slightly off axis, you still get good sound but that resonance wont be quite so bad.
> 
> But again, if you use EQ, you can point them straight at you without any issue.


Thanks. My avr has audyssey so I will point them straight at the listening position.

By the way, I recently put up some absorption panels on the back wall wardrobe to combat 1st reflections from front and surround speakers (all are jbl stage a130). I wonder what is the max dispersion angle from the tweeter of these speakers so I can make sure the sides of the two absorption panels in the middle (which are quite thick) do not block the sound coming from the surround speakers, affecting the rear soundstage.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Duc Vu said:


> Thanks. My avr has audyssey so I will point them straight at the listening position.
> 
> By the way, I recently put up some absorption panels on the back wall wardrobe to combat 1st reflections from front and surround speakers (all are jbl stage a130). I wonder what is the max dispersion angle from the tweeter of these speakers so I can make sure the sides of the two absorption panels in the middle (which are quite thick) do not block the sound coming from the surround speakers, affecting the rear soundstage.
> 
> View attachment 3380584


According to the Audio Science Review, they throw about a 60° dispersion pattern:


















Those acoustic treatments should work fine. Heck you are probably getting some diffusion in the high frequencies from that wardrobe with the slatted doors.


----------



## Duc Vu

NuSoardGraphite said:


> According to the Audio Science Review, they throw about a 60° dispersion pattern:
> 
> View attachment 3380587
> 
> View attachment 3380586
> 
> 
> Those acoustic treatments should work fine. Heck you are probably getting some diffusion in the high frequencies from that wardrobe with the slatted doors.


Hmm 60 degrees on each side, so 120 degrees spreaded out from the center? Then the panels may block some of that...
I just wonder why the rear soundstage doesn't seem as big as I expected, like a lot of times it feels like the sound is right behind my ears. Will have to rerun Audyssey now with the panels up. Maybe lower the volume on the surrounds a bit.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Duc Vu said:


> Hmm 60 degrees on each side, so 120 degrees spreaded out from the center? Then the panels may block some of that...
> I just wonder why the rear soundstage doesn't seem as big as I expected, like a lot of times it feels like the sound is right behind my ears. Will have to rerun Audyssey now with the panels up. Maybe lower the volume on the surrounds a bit.


I think 30° on each side for 60° total


----------



## Duc Vu

NuSoardGraphite said:


> I think 30° on each side for 60° total


It says +-60 degrees with the graphs showing 60 degrees above and below the 0 line so it looks to me it's 120 degrees total

EDIT: Just read avnirvana review and they say: "There was solid off-axis output up to about 30˚ off to either side (60˚spread). Beyond that mark, the speaker's high frequencies and mid-range were noticeably diminished.". So it seems like it is indeed 60 degrees total. Not sure why in the photos above it is +-60 degrees.


----------



## Soulburner

Duc Vu said:


> It says +-60 degrees with the graphs showing 60 degrees above and below the 0 line so it looks to me it's 120 degrees total
> 
> EDIT: Just read avnirvana review and they say: "There was solid off-axis output up to about 30˚ off to either side (60˚spread). Beyond that mark, the speaker's high frequencies and mid-range were noticeably diminished.". So it seems like it is indeed 60 degrees total. Not sure why in the photos above it is +-60 degrees.


We're talking about the difference between subjective and objective. The measurements don't lie and show 60° to each side. However where you define the cutoff depends on how the colored areas are defined. Look to the legend on the right to see how much of a drop off is acceptable to you.


----------



## Soulburner

Watched Maverick on 4K Blu-ray last night. While there wasn't as much overhead sound as some other movies, the sound quality overall was _excellent_, providing a cohesive and enjoyable experience that had me forgetting about my system.


----------



## eaayoung

I currently have a 5.1.4 Atmos system that I really like. Had a 7.1 system before but find my 5.1.4 system to be much more immersive than my old 7.1 system.

I’ve been considering adding rear speakers to upgrade to a 7.1.4 Atmos system. Is going from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4 worth the added expense? And more importantly, would it be a major upgrade in sound?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

eaayoung said:


> I currently have a 5.1.4 Atmos system that I really like. Had a 7.1 system before but find my 5.1.4 system to be much more immersive than my old 7.1 system.
> 
> I’ve been considering adding rear speakers to upgrade to a 7.1.4 Atmos system. Is going from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4 worth the added expense? And more importantly, would it be a major upgrade in sound?


You will get just as much, if not more, content from the rear channels than from the heights.

The interesting thing about Atmos is that a 7.1 bed is the basis for it. So having rear surround channels in the mix is the default assumption for both Atmos and DTS:X.


----------



## Soulburner

eaayoung said:


> I currently have a 5.1.4 Atmos system that I really like. Had a 7.1 system before but find my 5.1.4 system to be much more immersive than my old 7.1 system.
> 
> I’ve been considering adding rear speakers to upgrade to a 7.1.4 Atmos system. Is going from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4 worth the added expense? And more importantly, would it be a major upgrade in sound?


I just did this and it was worth it. Previously all the research I did revealed I wasn't missing much, but that may have been more relevant pre-Atmos. It's nice to have that hole in the back filled in. Things can move from side to side now without feeling like they're going through my body in the middle, and it is more distinct and easy to follow.


----------



## niterida

eaayoung said:


> Is going from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4 worth the added expense? And more importantly, would it be a major upgrade in sound?


Not worth it IMO If you are budget or room constrained. 
Yes 7.1 is better but not by much - I found in testing different configs and speaker placement in my room that most of the time I could hardly tell any difference.
7.1 added a fuller soundfield but I found discrete effects virtually identical.
So if you have room to add rear surrounds in the proper location and far enough away to avoid hotspots, and you have the budget for 11 channel AVR and amps and speakers (or already have them) and can install said equipment easily, then it would be worth it.
But a well setup 5.1.4 is better than a compromised 7.1.4, again IMO.


----------



## mjwagner

eaayoung said:


> I currently have a 5.1.4 Atmos system that I really like. Had a 7.1 system before but find my 5.1.4 system to be much more immersive than my old 7.1 system.
> 
> I’ve been considering adding rear speakers to upgrade to a 7.1.4 Atmos system. Is going from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4 worth the added expense? And more importantly, would it be a major upgrade in sound?


For several years I ran a 5.2 setup in my HT. I then installed rears to go to a 7.2 setup. I thought the jump from 5.2 to 7.2 was very significant and well worth it. I eventual installed 4 down firing ATMOS speakers to go to a full 7.2.4 setup which I run now. Of course that is JMO.


----------



## eaayoung

niterida said:


> Not worth it IMO If you are budget or room constrained.
> Yes 7.1 is better but not by much - I found in testing different configs and speaker placement in my room that most of the time I could hardly tell any difference.
> 7.1 added a fuller soundfield but I found discrete effects virtually identical.
> So if you have room to add rear surrounds in the proper location and far enough away to avoid hotspots, and you have the budget for 11 channel AVR and amps and speakers (or already have them) and can install said equipment easily, then it would be worth it.
> But a well setup 5.1.4 is better than a compromised 7.1.4, again IMO.


Ending up with a compromised rear channel is my biggest concern. The right rear speaker would be inline with the right front speaker, at either ear level or attached on the ceiling but angled toward the MLP. The left rear speaker would need to be much further left, basically a 45 degree angle from the left speaker if placed at ear level. But it could be inline with the left front if placed at the ceiling and angled toward the MLP. I’d also need to upgrade my receiver to one capable of 11 channels.


----------



## niterida

eaayoung said:


> Ending up with a compromised rear channel is my biggest concern. The right rear speaker would be inline with the right front speaker, at either ear level or attached on the ceiling but angled toward the MLP. The left rear speaker would need to be much further left, basically a 45 degree angle from the left speaker if placed at ear level. But it could be inline with the left front if placed at the ceiling and angled toward the MLP. I’d also need to upgrade my receiver to one capable of 11 channels.


ear level speakers need to be at ear level not up high with the height speakers.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

eaayoung said:


> Ending up with a compromised rear channel is my biggest concern. The right rear speaker would be inline with the right front speaker, at either ear level or attached on the ceiling but angled toward the MLP. The left rear speaker would need to be much further left, basically a 45 degree angle from the left speaker if placed at ear level. But it could be inline with the left front if placed at the ceiling and angled toward the MLP. I’d also need to upgrade my receiver to one capable of 11 channels.


I would leave it on the ground level and place both speakers at 45° if that were possible. Just make sure the side surrounds were at 90° and 270°


----------



## Wardog555

eaayoung said:


> Ending up with a compromised rear channel is my biggest concern. The right rear speaker would be inline with the right front speaker, at either ear level or attached on the ceiling but angled toward the MLP. The left rear speaker would need to be much further left, basically a 45 degree angle from the left speaker if placed at ear level. But it could be inline with the left front if placed at the ceiling and angled toward the MLP. I’d also need to upgrade my receiver to one capable of 11 channels.


Not worth it to have rear surrounds anywhere near the ceiling IMO


----------



## halcyon_888

eaayoung said:


> I currently have a 5.1.4 Atmos system that I really like. Had a 7.1 system before but find my 5.1.4 system to be much more immersive than my old 7.1 system.
> 
> I’ve been considering adding rear speakers to upgrade to a 7.1.4 Atmos system. Is going from 5.x.4 to 7.x.4 worth the added expense? And more importantly, would it be a major upgrade in sound?


imo, depends on the room. In my old house I had 7.1 but when I moved I had a smaller room and only had room for 5.1--the smaller room sounded better. ymmv, ofc My point is, if your room is small then maybe 5.1.x is fine.


----------



## Soulburner

halcyon_888 said:


> imo, depends on the room. In my old house I had 7.1 but when I moved I had a smaller room and only had room for 5.1--the smaller room sounded better. ymmv, ofc My point is, if your room is small then maybe 5.1.x is fine.


Did you have to change placement of surrounds?

I'm liking my move to 7.1. In fact the smaller room I'm in now made it possible because I now have a back wall to place the surround backs on. In the previous longer room, the back half was used for another purpose so I had no surround backs, and the side surrounds had to be back a few more degrees.


----------



## halcyon_888

Soulburner said:


> Did you have to change placement of surrounds?
> 
> I'm liking my move to 7.1. In fact the smaller room I'm in now made it possible because I now have a back wall to place the surround backs on. In the previous longer room, the back half was used for another purpose so I had no surround backs, and the side surrounds had to be back a few more degrees.


Well tbh I placed the surrounds in the 5.1 setup the best I could, so it's not a near-perfect setup by any stretch. Even with that, I'm getting more detail in the smaller room, the larger one seemed to "lose" some of the accuracy even with 7.1


----------



## niterida

I think I have found the perfect, affordable Atmos height speakers.
I have 8" Wharfedale PA speakers all round in my 7.1.4 setup, but I wanted to add front wides and 2 more heights, but the Wharfedales are too expensive new ($300AUD each) and none have come up recently secondhand. So I started looking for something comparable with a compression driver tweeter and the only things I could find was Behringer PK108 PA speakers or no-name brand PAs, but even they are expensive here.
Then I came across Kicker KB6 / KB6000 outdoor / marine speakers with CD tweeters and 6.5" woofers. They retail here for $150AUD ($150USD a pair in the States) but I scored 4 from a pawn broker for $150.
Just finished testing them and they sound great, and as expected with a CD they have no trouble playing loud.
Being an outdoor speaker they are compact(ish) and come with a bracket for easy fixing to the ceiling and easy aiming to perfect spot.
I am a big fan of having all identical speakers but after replacing my 4 4" bookshelf height speakers with the 8" Wharfedale PAs, I didn't notice as much of an improvement as I expected so I am prepared to run non-identical heights, and these mean I can afford to get another 2 to make it 6


----------



## Soulburner

Outdoor speakers are the way to go if you want something mountable, aimable, and easy to take down if you move. We first started discussing the idea here a couple of years ago but I have yet to see anyone else go through with it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

niterida said:


> I think I have found the perfect, affordable Atmos height speakers.
> I have 8" Wharfedale PA speakers all round in my 7.1.4 setup, but I wanted to add front wides and 2 more heights, but the Wharfedales are too expensive new ($300AUD each) and none have come up recently secondhand. So I started looking for something comparable with a compression driver tweeter and the only things I could find was Behringer PK108 PA speakers or no-name brand PAs, but even they are expensive here.
> Then I came across Kicker KB6 / KB6000 outdoor / marine speakers with CD tweeters and 6.5" woofers. They retail here for $150AUD ($150USD a pair in the States) but I scored 4 from a pawn broker for $150.
> Just finished testing them and they sound great, and as expected with a CD they have no trouble playing loud.
> Being an outdoor speaker they are compact(ish) and come with a bracket for easy fixing to the ceiling and easy aiming to perfect spot.
> I am a big fan of having all identical speakers but after replacing my 4 4" bookshelf height speakers with the 8" Wharfedale PAs, I didn't notice as much of an improvement as I expected so I am prepared to run non-identical heights, and these mean I can afford to get another 2 to make it 6


I would audition them a bit. If you like how music sounds coming out of them then they'll work for atmos.

I have always used all weather/outdoor speakers for my Atmos. The first set were very cheap and not very good but they were just for proof of concept when I first installed Atmos. Eventually I replaced them with a set of Def Tech all weather speakers and those did the trick. Had the benefit of the same drivers that were in my Def Tech center. So as long as they are a well designed speaker, they should work just fine.


----------



## niterida

Soulburner said:


> Outdoor speakers are the way to go if you want something mountable, aimable, and easy to take down if you move. We first started discussing the idea here a couple of years ago but I have yet to see anyone else go through with it.


Yeah I have been recommending outdoors for a while but also don't know of many that have actually used them. 



NuSoardGraphite said:


> I would audition them a bit. If you like how music sounds coming out of them then they'll work for atmos.
> 
> I have always used all weather/outdoor speakers for my Atmos. The first set were very cheap and not very good but they were just for proof of concept when I first installed Atmos. Eventually I replaced them with a set of Def Tech all weather speakers and those did the trick. Had the benefit of the same drivers that were in my Def Tech center. So as long as they are a well designed speaker, they should work just fine.


Just finished a session listening to them with lots of different music and they (well it really as i had just one as the centre channel) sound pretty damn good to me and seem to match well with my Wharfedales, probably due to the CD tweeters.


----------



## Rich 63

Soulburner said:


> Watched Maverick on 4K Blu-ray last night. While there wasn't as much overhead sound as some other movies, the sound quality overall was _excellent_, providing a cohesive and enjoyable experience that had me forgetting about my system.


Then it did its job well. We just finished watching it. The sound was stunning and I was totally lost in the whole experience. This and Dune at the top of the list for me this year. Jurassic Dominion tomorrow.


----------



## i007spectre

My atmos setup uses outdoor speakers.


----------



## Mashie Saldana

i007spectre said:


> My atmos setup uses outdoor speakers.


Read the first 100 pages in this thread and you will see that most of the early Atmos adopters used outdoor speakers.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

So I'm wondering if anyone notices a difference when they change the amp assign for their Atmos speakers from Tops to Heights and vice versa.

I have done it and didnt notice a difference, but the system I was using had its speakers at about 45° to 50° but it was mounted on the wall. It was a small bedroom with maybe 9 foot ceilings. So the fact that I didnt notice a difference may have come from their position compared to the MLP.


----------



## Kevinmastah

@NuSoardGraphite 

No sound change.
With tops you lose Auro-3d sound format if your receiver has that option.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Kevinmastah said:


> @NuSoardGraphite
> 
> No sound change.
> With tops you lose Auro-3d sound format if your receiver has that option.


Yes of course. Which is why I am planning to use height channels. I want access to Auro3D

However, I will be using a Denon X6700 or a newer equivalent for this. And they can hold two calibration profiles in its memory. That means I could set up one profile as heights in the amp assign for Auro3D and DTS:X and then set the other one for Atmos as Top-Front and Top-Rear. But that would only be necessary if there was a significant difference in how those channels were processed and Tops proved superior to Heights in presentation.

I am skeptical that this would be the case. As it is now, I am planning two profiles anyway...one to include Top-Middles and the other to convert the Top-Middles into a voice of god array.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So I'm wondering if anyone notices a difference when they change the amp assign for their Atmos speakers from Tops to Heights and vice versa.
> 
> I have done it and didnt notice a difference, but the system I was using had its speakers at about 45° to 50° but it was mounted on the wall. It was a small bedroom with maybe 9 foot ceilings. So the fact that I didnt notice a difference may have come from their position compared to the MLP.


There is a difference in how it steers between the two layers, but you'll likely never notice it in practice. It's a relatively minor change to the pan rate and which speakers get used to image in particular areas of the room based on the positional expectations. Objects at max Z are constrained to the height speakers and panned solely between their ranges (0.0-1.0 regardless of the designation). The way objects are used in mixing (i.e. moving pans rather than precise static locations) and the spatial resolution we're dealing with in small rooms makes it almost irrelevant. You would have to know exactly what to listen for and have a test track to hear the difference.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There is a difference in how it steers between the two layers, but you'll likely never notice it in practice. It's a relatively minor change to the pan rate and which speakers get used to image in particular areas of the room based on the positional expectations. Objects at max Z are constrained to the height speakers and panned solely between their ranges (0.0-1.0 regardless of the designation). The way objects are used in mixing (i.e. moving pans rather than precise static locations) and the spatial resolution we're dealing with in small rooms makes it almost irrelevant. You would have to know exactly what to listen for and have a test track to hear the difference.


Just trying to figure out what to do with my Atmos. The front and rear ceiling speakers will be mounted as "Heights" near the 30° range (though the rear may be closer to 25°) and since I want to use Auro3D and DTS:X-Pro, I need to label them as height channels. But since I will be using a Denon, they have two profiles, so I *can *Set up two profiles (which I plan to do anyway) and set one for Auro as front/rear heights and the other for Atmos as front/rear tops. If the processing is worse with Atmos configured as heights. If heights work fine for Atmos, I would much rather leave then as heights in the amp assign, and just use the profiles to switch between Top-Middle and Voice of God processing.


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Just trying to figure out what to do with my Atmos. The front and rear ceiling speakers will be mounted as "Heights" near the 30° range (though the rear may be closer to 25°) and since I want to use Auro3D and DTS:X-Pro, I need to label them as height channels. But since I will be using a Denon, they have two profiles, so I *can *Set up two profiles (which I plan to do anyway) and set one for Auro as front/rear heights and the other for Atmos as front/rear tops. If the processing is worse with Atmos configured as heights. If heights work fine for Atmos, I would much rather leave then as heights in the amp assign, and just use the profiles to switch between Top-Middle and Voice of God processing.


You can try for yourself when you get it set up, but I doubt you'll hear much difference. Your plan to swap between top mid and VOG makes sense if you're into Auro.


----------



## confinoj

Jeremy Anderson said:


> There is a difference in how it steers between the two layers, but you'll likely never notice it in practice. It's a relatively minor change to the pan rate and which speakers get used to image in particular areas of the room based on the positional expectations. Objects at max Z are constrained to the height speakers and panned solely between their ranges (0.0-1.0 regardless of the designation). The way objects are used in mixing (i.e. moving pans rather than precise static locations) and the spatial resolution we're dealing with in small rooms makes it almost irrelevant. You would have to know exactly what to listen for and have a test track to hear the difference.


I thought I had heard that DTS:X is better if they are labelled as heights (don't know how accurate that is) but as you note makes little difference for Atmos. I have 4 ceiling speakers and have been labelling them as Tops but wondering if I should change label to heights to take better advantage of DTS:X. I don't use Auro.


----------



## ted_b

I followed the post, a few pages back, by @NuSoardGraphite, to re-categorize my 45 degree tops as heights, since I listen to all three (Auro-3D, Atmos, DTS-X) and it seemed to be a bit more seamless, especially in Auro-3D music (and Morten at 2L agreed). Atmos seems no less immersive btw. Note: remember to dial them in, as my speaker distances in my Lyngdorf, for the new height category, was blank, for example.

However, I am now undertaking the somewhat expensive and yet quite exciting process of getting little brothers (5T) to my great Aerial bed speakers and putting them at 30 degrees, and relegating the SVS Prime Elevations to an overhead pair (90 degrees) of tops, selling the other pair (I guess). Stay tuned.


----------



## sdurani

confinoj said:


> I thought I had heard that DTS:X is better if they are labelled as heights (don't know how accurate that is) but as you note makes little difference for Atmos. I have 4 ceiling speakers and have been labelling them as Tops but wondering if I should change label to heights to take better advantage of DTS:X. I don't use Auro.


DTS:X Heights are at 45° elevation while their Tops are at 60° elevation. ALL DTS:X soundtracks encode the 4 height channels as Heights (intended for the Heights locations).

If your height speakers are labelled as Tops, then the DTS:X decoder will assume they are at 60° elevation and will leak some of their audio signal down to the listener level speakers in order to phantom image those sounds down to the intended Height elevation of 45°. Sometimes the leakage is audible but most of the time it is not. The decoder is basically remapping those sounds to a slightly lower elevation based on how you labelled those speakers.

However, if you label your height speakers as Heights, then the DTS:X decoder will assume they are at the intended 45° elevation and simply route each Height channel to its respective Height speaker (no leaking).


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

sdurani said:


> DTS:X Heights are at 45° elevation while their Tops are at 60° elevation. ALL DTS:X soundtracks encode the 4 height channels as Heights (intended for the Heights locations).
> 
> If your height speakers are labelled as Tops, then the DTS:X decoder will assume they are at 60° elevation and will leak some of their audio signal down to the listener level speakers in order to phantom image those sounds down to the intended Height elevation of 45°. Sometimes the leakage is audible but most of the time it is not. The decoder is basically remapping those sounds to a slightly lower elevation based on how you labelled those speakers.
> 
> However, if you label your height speakers as Heights, then the DTS:X decoder will assume they are at the intended 45° elevation and simply route each Height channel to its respective Height speaker (no leaking).


So would turning off Neural:X processing when a DTS:X track is playing disable that change? I've always wondered what the purpose of that parameter is on D&M receivers.


----------



## confinoj

sdurani said:


> DTS:X Heights are at 45° elevation while their Tops are at 60° elevation. ALL DTS:X soundtracks encode the 4 height channels as Heights (intended for the Heights locations).
> 
> If your height speakers are labelled as Tops, then the DTS:X decoder will assume they are at 60° elevation and will leak some of their audio signal down to the listener level speakers in order to phantom image those sounds down to the intended Height elevation of 45°. Sometimes the leakage is audible but most of the time it is not. The decoder is basically remapping those sounds to a slightly lower elevation based on how you labelled those speakers.
> 
> However, if you label your height speakers as Heights, then the DTS:X decoder will assume they are at the intended 45° elevation and simply route each Height channel to its respective Height speaker (no leaking).


Thanks for the detailed info - very helpful. My in ceilings are a little over 45deg elevation (I think 47 front, 49 rear). On my next calibration I'll consider switching to heights. Overall it doesn't seem like too big of a deal though. I only have a handful of DTS:X discs but if there will be no audible impact for Atmos I might as well switch.


----------



## sdurani

Jeremy Anderson said:


> So would turning off Neural:X processing when a DTS:X track is playing disable that change? I've always wondered what the purpose of that parameter is on D&M receivers.


I don't think so because Neural:X doesn't participate in the re-mapping process, which moves whole channels of sound rather than doing any matrix extraction.

The only experience I've had with the Neural:X parameter (as opposed to the Neural:X upmix mode) was with Wides in a 9.1.2 layout. With the parameter turned on, Neural:X extracted a centre output between Fronts & Sides to feed the Wides. With the parameter off, the Wides simply got a copy of the Sides.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Nevermind. Sanjay took care of it.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

sdurani said:


> I don't think so because Neural:X doesn't participate in the re-mapping process, which moves whole channels of sound rather than doing any matrix extraction.
> 
> The only experience I've had with the Neural:X parameter (as opposed to the Neural:X upmix mode) was with Wides in a 9.1.2 layout. With the parameter turned on, Neural:X extracted a centre output between Fronts & Sides to feed the Wides. With the parameter off, the Wides simply got a copy of the Sides.


So with 6 height channels including Top-Middle (or VoG), would Neural-X in a DTS:X-Pro application, extract a center effect from the front and rear heights then? Or would it just be responsible for steering pans through the TM when that occurs between the height?


----------



## sdurani

NuSoardGraphite said:


> So with 6 height channels including Top-Middle (or VoG), would Neural-X in a DTS:X-Pro application, extract a center effect from the front and rear heights then?


Yes, it will scale 4 height channels to 6 height speakers. Channel scaling has always been built into the consumer version of DTS:X from the very beginning.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Watching the livestream from Joe n Tell and Technodad about updates to the Spacial Audio CD


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

I'm excited to play with the update tonight. They graciously added some stuff that I wanted in there to assess imaging between adjacent speakers so you can tweak delays. Even if no one else gets any use out of that section, I'm stoked to have it!


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm excited to play with the update tonight. They graciously added some stuff that I wanted in there to assess imaging between adjacent speakers so you can tweak delays. Even if no one else gets any use out of that section, I'm stoked to have it!


I'm about to buy it. I want to get in before the discount ends.

Good job getting them to add that section. Actually being able to assess the quality of the imaging between each speaker pair is probably the most important metric we need to test for Immersive Audio.

You sir are a scholar and a gentleman.


----------



## ted_b

Jeremy Anderson said:


> I'm excited to play with the update tonight. They graciously added some stuff that I wanted in there to assess imaging between adjacent speakers so you can tweak delays. Even if no one else gets any use out of that section, I'm stoked to have it!


I am going to buy, but does the disc/download package have good documentation? Their comments and tips on the video (for example, time aligning subs) are important, but if all we get are a list of .m2ts files it's problematic. 
Thx


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

ted_b said:


> I am going to buy, but does the disc/download package have good documentation? Their comments and tips on the video (for example, time aligning subs) are important, but if all we get are a list of .m2ts files it's problematic.
> Thx


From what I understand, they are working on a document for that.


----------



## ted_b

I'm sorry, I misspoke (mistyped). The video shows that Joe is writing (not done) a calibration guide, but I meant to ask: is there documentation for the digital (files only, not disc) currently, or if there is, does it get updated as Joe continues his work? 

One addtl question: I know Channa likes Auro-3D (as I do), are there Auro-3D tests or examples? Or is it all Atmos?


----------



## Jeremy Anderson

ted_b said:


> I'm sorry, I misspoke (mistyped). The video shows that Joe is writing (not done) a calibration guide, but I meant to ask: is there documentation for the digital (files only, not disc) currently, or if there is, does it get updated as Joe continues his work?
> 
> One addtl question: I know Channa likes Auro-3D (as I do), are there Auro-3D tests or examples? Or is it all Atmos?


Yes, there is a document that you get a link to when you buy that gets updated over time. The general info is there, but they're trying to make it more robust.

They explained in the livestream today that there are no Auro tests on there. This is specifically for Atmos (though would obviously benefit you for Auro and DTS:X as well).


----------



## Soulburner

After playing with these:










I would not upgrade my AVR for front wides. I get great imaging between side surround and the fronts. Sounds like his voice is coming from a speaker there. In fact I'm not even all that thrilled with my center speaker, as good (and identical) as it is. I just really like the imaging between speaker pairs.


----------



## Thackery Earwicket

Mashie Saldana said:


> Read the first 100 pages in this thread and you will see that most of the early Atmos adopters used outdoor speakers.


I'm trying to up my game to a decent Atmos set-up in my TV area (not a spiff dedicated HT) and request a little advice on height/ceiling speakers from the experts here.

My mods consist of converting a former 7.2 set-up to 5.2.4. Currently up there are L/R 6" in-ceiling "surrounds" basically right overhead of MLP (but ~8ft apart) and L/R 6" in-ceiling "rear surrounds" about 4 ft in the rear ( and ~4ft apart). This was set up by some AV chaps in 2005 when we built our house - that was the thing for 7.2 then i believe. Time to move forward and I want to keep it simple - DIY.

Scored the Onkyo RZ50 so i have the 9-channel amp with Dirac - but haven't done that correction yet
Using existing Atlantic Technology System 4200e for LCR and will keep those. They're in bookshelfs and technically speaking, not at all ideally positioned. But they're staying put. I think they're fine though perhaps some may scoff.

Set up L/R rear surrounds for 5-channel base layer - decent set of older bookshelf speakers on stands (PSB 300 - but may swap those out to Monitor Audio Monitor 100's i have upstairs) - positioning on those no problem - a little behind and elevated to just above ear-level.

Here's my issue - what to do with ceiling (9ft - cove layout)... From my studies, the current speakers are quite in the wrong spots and I am going to fix that.

Current overhead surrounds are Atlantic Technology IWTS-6 CMS Tri-mode - they're not bad IMO:

55-20kHz
89 dB sensitivity
But they're in the wrong spot, I have only two of them, and I do not want to move them to the proper position forward (30-degrees!) of the MLP and re-patch the gaping hole overhead. And i can't get another set to match.
The other rear surrounds are also Atlantic Tech but they are down-spec from the others and are crap - not to be used going forward.

So my bright idea was to mount (in the right positions) 4 small-ish direct firing speakers on the ceiling and toe them in to beam at MLP. Leave the other existing speakers as is, disconnected.

Thus, based on largely favourable reviews and the tidy small form, I bought 4x *Polk ES10*'s and am now second guessing myself after a listening test (prior to mounting). The ES10s:

75-40kHz
87 dB sensitivity
To compare, I first turned off all the existing correction and EQ, level-matched and toggled stereo assign mode between only (no sub) the ES10s and the decent speakers in the ceiling. Result: I am disappointed that the ES10s don't measure up as well. They definitely sound crisp and detailed (sunny day) but not as "fulsome" as the ATs (more like a warm blanket). This is owing to (I think) better bass response in the current AtlTech and the fact that the ES10 drivers are 2" smaller. I hoped for more and want to upgrade the system (not downgrade from the decent existing in-ceiling speakers). I want these to work and maybe it is a non-issue - see Q2 below for correction.

*Question 1*: Does one need to strive for bigger speakers, bigger range, bigger sound from the overheads? Effective use of outdoor cans suggests perhaps not but I'm not sure about that.
*Question 2*: Can I rely on the deployment of my two decent AtlTech Subs PLUS Dirac corrections and curve-tweaking to make up for the lack of lower end on the ES10s? Will this be satisfactory? Crossovers probably set around 90 or 100Hz I'm guessing for these. I can play with that.

I'm not necessarily after the _perfect_ set-up (is there such a unicorn?) as there are other elements of the mixed use room that would need to be addressed (like moving my bike trainer from in front of TV) but I want the new speakers to do what they're supposed to do. Polk ES15 would be an obvious step-up but are too big and twice the weight.

If you've got this far, my apologies for being overly wordy - I wanted to be clear.

Thank you for considering and offering suggestions as you wish. All appreciated.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> After playing with these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not upgrade my AVR for front wides. I get great imaging between side surround and the fronts. Sounds like his voice is coming from a speaker there. In fact I'm not even all that thrilled with my center speaker, as good (and identical) as it is. I just really like the imaging between speaker pairs.


Thats one of the reasons I like to spread my front speakers out. I want decent separation between them and my center channel. I tow them in to improve the center image for stereo effects, but distance wise, I get definite movement between the mains and the center.

A good movie to test this with is Speed Racer from the Wachowskis. During the first race scene, the racing announcers heads pan across the screen from left to right and then right to left. When they do this, their voices map perfectly to the position of the character as they move across the screen (if they dont you have time alignment issues)

In fact, one of the cool effects of this moment in the film, is that the announcers voice will start in the far right or far left of the main speaker, before the announcer even appears on the screen, and as the announcer slides into the picture, the voice hits the position of the screen at the same time.

Its the perfect scene to test the imaging of your LCR.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Thackery Earwicket said:


> *Question 1*: Does one need to strive for bigger speakers, bigger range, bigger sound from the overheads as compared to base layer? Effective use of outdoor cans suggests perhaps not but I'm not sure about that.


Not necessarily, no. Its *always *beneficial to go with a speaker as close as possible to the ones on the ground layer. If thats not possible, go for a smaller speaker in the same series. The idea is to use speakers with the exact same kind of tweeter and driver material. That can get you closer to a timbre match. Even if its not exact, it can get you close enough that the EQ system can do the rest. 

If your speakers are older and their companions are difficult to impossible to find, at least try and match tweeter size and type. Metal dome to metal dome. Horn to horn. Ribbon to ribbon. Etc. It wont be exact but it will probably be closer than mixed tweeter types.

As far as speaker capability goes, just make sure that the ground speakers arent significantly easier to drive than the height channels. Otherwise the ground channels might over power them. Just make sure the sensitivity is close (within 2 or 3 db) and the impedance is the same or at least within 2 (try not to match 8 ohms and 4 ohms). Its actually a good idea to have high sensitivity speaker on the ceiling just to make sure they can keep up with the ground channels with minimal power draw. My ceiling speakers have a sensitivity of 92db, same as my front mains and center channel.



> *Question 2*: Can I rely on the deployment of my two decent AtlTech Subs PLUS Dirac corrections and curve-tweaking to make up for the lack of lower end on the ES10s? Will this be satisfactory? Crossovers probably set around 90 or 100Hz I'm guessing for these. I can play with that.


yeah, the subs will help quite a lot. As long as your ceiling channels can play down to 120hz, should be okay. If they are good down to 80hz, set them for that, but dont be afraid to up the crossover to 90hz or 100hz if the speaker isnt sounding full enough.



> I'm not necessarily after the _perfect_ set-up (is there such a unicorn?) as there are other elements of the mixed use room that would need to be addressed (like moving my bike trainer from in front of TV) but I want the new speakers to do what they're supposed to do. Polk ES15 would be an obvious step-up but are too big and twice the weight.
> 
> If you've got this far, my apologies for being overly wordy - I wanted to be clear.
> 
> Thank you for considering and offering suggestions as you wish. All appreciated.


Oh the perfect setup can definitely be had.....for about $100,000 or more.


----------

